Air Quality Workshop An Introduction to the BC Poultry Industry Air - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Air Quality Workshop

An Introduction to the BC Poultry Industry Air Quality Research Program

BC Sustainable Poultry Farming Group, Abbotsford, BC

Kevin Chipperfield, P.Ag.

Funding Acknowledgements

Industry and Government Contributions

Agriculture Environment Initiatives BC Chicken Growers’ Assn. BC Agriculture Council BC Turkey Assn. BC Sustainable Poultry Farming Group Fraser Valley Egg Producers’ Assn. BC Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Assn. BC Investment Agriculture Foundation Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada United Agri Services BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

BC SPFG Directorship

• Ralph Volkmann, BC Turkey Assn.
• Dave Siemens, FV Egg Producers’ Assn.
• Hester Mulder, BC Broiler Hatching Egg

Producers’ Assn.

• Frank Flokstra, BC Chicken Growers’ Assn.

Advisory Capacity

• Stewart Paulson, BC Ministry of Agriculture

and Lands Poultry Specialist

Presentation Overview ....

• Brief background on the issues
• Technology evaluated by the AQ partnership
• Summarize production benefits from ESCS
• Specific project results in presentations to

follow

Project Partners & Agencies

Scientific & Technical Expertise

• BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands – Gustav Rogstrand, David Poon,

Jacquay Foyle

• Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada – Dr. Shabtai Bittman
• UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene – Dr. Karen

Bartlett

• BC Sustainable Poultry Farming Group – Kevin Chipperfield

Dust Issues ‐ Intensive Agriculture Facing Changing Land Use

Dust Control ‐ Simple Efforts … …. Some more useful than others

Fan airflow & dust barrier

Permeable dust barrier

Conventional Tree Windbreak or Hedgerow

AQ Solutions ‐ Poultry Farmer Objectives

• Treatment not intrusive to production system
• Treatment enhances production i.e. positive

effect on bird performance – better bird health, good ROI

• Simple to use and maintain
• Public Relations Benefits i.e. neighbors

SPFG AQ Program Objectives

• To monitor and better understand the relationship between

poultry farming practices and ambient AQ

• To reduce Fraser Valley poultry farm particulate emissions
• To increase in‐barn air quality through dust reduction and

microbial composition changes

• To work cooperatively to seek AQ solutions while respecting

farmer objectives

AQ Project Objectives

• To measure in‐barn air quality on a turkey and broiler farm for

PM, microbial composition changes in PM, and bird production performance effects

• To measure out‐of‐barn PM and microbial levels at various

locations from the barn (incl. ambient) and in relation to Vegetative Filters (trees)

• To evaluate PM emission rates from a turkey and broiler farm
• To evaluate changes in the above parameters due to use of

the ESCS and Vegetative Filters

Vegetative Filter Concept

• Good visual appearance
• Successful at capturing dust particles

– perhaps better at filtering larger particles than smaller ones

VF ‐ Tree Species Used

Hybrid Poplar Excelsa Cedar Red Maple

VF – visual evidence ….

… indicates they are effective!!

Vegetative Filter Layout

Tree Spacing – about 8’x8’ Mulch used to evaluate as nutrient absorbent

ESCS Concept

• Reduces in‐barn dust so less dust leaving barn

through exhaust fans

• Dust precipitates on walls, ceiling, and floor
• Low energy usage (16,000 ft2 barn uses about

200 watts)

Electrostatic Space Charge System

ESCS in Poultry Barn Power Generator

Corona Points

Each unit 100 Watts powering 600’ line (8,000 ft2)

Prelim results: increased visibility

Control barn – Day 26 (Feb 11, 2008) ESCS barn – Day 26 (Feb 11, 2008)

Dust precipitates onto an electrical cable

Sampling Equipment

Harvard Impactors (PM10 and PM2.5)

GRIMM laser-based spectrometer

ESCS Operational Observations ...

• Important to operate the 2 mA system at 2 mA –

monitor to keep system functioning optimally

• Keep an eye on gauges to monitor for proper

amperage supply to corona lines

• Corona lines must be cleaned at end of cycle as

part of normal barn cleaning operations – pressure washing likely required??

ESCS 1.94 ESCS 1.69 ESCS 1.55 ESCS 1.77 ESCS 1.69 ESCS 1.69 ESCS 1.82 ESCS 1.55 ESCS 1.83 ESCS 1.64 ESCS 1.72 Control 2 Control 1.73 Control 1.59 Control 1.69 Control 1.76 Control 1.75 Control 1.82 Control 1.61 Control 1.85 Control 1.65 Control 1.75

1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6 Cycle 7 Cycle 8 Cycle 9 Cycle 10 Mean F e e d C

• n

v e r s i

• n

ESCS Production Performance Evaluation on a Fraser Valley Broiler Farm ‐ Affect on Feed Conversion ‐ 10 Cycle Analysis

ESCS Control

Note: ‐ Feed Conversion is based on payable bird weight ‐ Control treatment is average of 2 barns, ESCS is 1 barn ‐ $/bird value based on 21,000 bird flock ‐ Feed cost = $371/MT, Bird Market Value = $1.36/kg

Is this real?? FC Improvement Value = $0.045/bird/cycle

$/ft2 $/bird Total Value from ESCS – FC improvements $0.059 $0.045/cycle*

(Range of $0 ‐ $0.11)

$945/cycle ESCS System Cost (Installed) $0.85 $0.65 $13,650 Production Cycles Required to Cover Initial Cost

14.4 cycles

• r

2.2 years

* based on 21,000 bird flock in 16,000 ft2 barn

ESCS – Simple Financial Analysis

Microbiological Project Component

• 2007 Pilot Study suggested that there was

significantly lower levels of poultry pathogens in the ESCS treatment

• In fall of 2008 a joint research study between

SPFG, UBC, and AAFC was initiated

• Funding from BC IAF and SPFG
• To study the microbi0logical aspects of in‐barn

PM including the ESCS, and out–of‐barn PM and its effect on poultry farm bio‐security

Poultry Farm PM and Microbial Sampling Location Protocol

In Summary

Results indicate...

ESCS reduced in‐barn PM and PM emissions ESCS resulted in productivity improvement for the studied

broiler barn ($0.045/bd)‐2‐3 yr payoff?

Next Steps...

Enhance ESCS productivity improvement analysis by

adding 2‐3 farms to the study if funds permit

Continue microbial study (1 year remaining with present

proposal)

Continue Vegetative Filter study as funds permit

Air Quality Workshop

BC Poultry Industry Air Quality Research Program

Presentation Not Available for distribution

Dr Shabtai Bittman, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Effects of ESCS on bio‐aerosol generated from broiler production

Karen Bartlett PhD School of Environmental Health University of British Columbia

Study locations

• Producer A = one story broiler barns

– Barn 1 ESCS on or off – Barn 2 ESCS on or off

• Producer B = two story broiler barns

– Upstairs ESCS on or off – Downstairs ESCS on or off

Barn A – one story, #5 = ESCS #6 = control 15 14 13 12 11 10 20 22 21 16 1 2 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 19 18 17 trees

Barn B – 2 story: ESCS on upper floor 9 3 1 2 4 8 7 6 5 13, 12 up 11, 10 dn

Bioaerosols

• 1) Selective sampling

– Baird Parker media for Gram positive cocci (single cells ~ 1‐2 µm) – MacConkey media for Gram negative bacteria (Enterobactericeae)

BP Agar MacConkey Agar

Bioaerosols

• 1) Size selective sampling

– Size selection

• Stage 1 > 7 µm
• Stage 2 = 4.7 – 7.0 µm
• Stage 3 = 3.3 – 4.7 µm
• Stage 4 = 2.1 – 3.3 µm
• Stage 5 = 1.1 – 2.1 µm
• Stage 6 = 0.65 – 1.1 µm

Bioaerosols

• Biosampler – advantage

= no upper limit at high concentrations

• Disadvantage = lower

limit of detection is relatively high

• Andersen – advantage = size

selection

• Disadvantage = easily
• verloaded at high

concentrations

• Use most conservative

number = stage 6

Biosampler Biosampler & Andersen

Study design

• Samples:
• Assess effect of environmental conditions on

biologic particulate (season, meteorology, age

• f flock)
• Assess distribution of biologic particuate.

Study design

• Sample locations coincide with GRIMM

samples:

– Perimeter locations, upwind and downwind – Far and near side of vegetative filter (if present) – Assess exhaust stream – Barns clean = baseline – Birds in (age) – Birds out, cleaning

Results

trees

Total Andersen count: background Gram positive bacteria

Site 12: Range 0 – 318 CFU/m3 GM = 12.9 GSD 5.98 n = 15

trees

Total Andersen count: background Gram negative bacteria

Site 12: Range 0 – 2 CFU/m3 n = 15

trees

Total Andersen count: background Gram positive bacteria

Site 12: Range 0 – 318 CFU/m3 GM = 12.9 GSD 5.98 n = 15 Site 22: Range 7 – 229 CFU/m3 GM 35 GSD 3.31 n = 15

trees

Total Andersen count: background Gram negative bacteria

Site 12: Range 0 – 2 CFU/m3 n = 15 Site 22: Range 0 – 1 CFU/m3 N = 15

trees Site 19: Far side Range 28 – 607 GM = 109 GSD 4.8 Site 18: Near side Range 4 – 4046 GM = 162 GSD 7.7

Total Andersen count (Gram +ve): vegetative filter

trees Site 19: Far side Range 0 – 2 Site 18: Near side Range 0 - 13

Total Andersen count (Gram -ve): vegetative filter

trees

Total Andersen count: Gram +ve bacteria (double exhaust)

Site 21 (double exhaust): Range 2 – 54806 CFU/m3 GM = 843 CFU/m3 GSD 34.8

trees

Total Andersen count: Gram +ve bacteria (empty barns)

Empty barns (#5 & #6): Range 0 – 94 CFU/m3 GM = 3.7 CFU/m3 GSD 7.0

BioSampler: Total bacterial count

Effect of ESCS on Total Bacterial count in broiler barn

Production week

1 2 3 4 5

CFU/m3 (exponential scale, log10)

1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7 ESCS on - total bacterial count ESCS not on - total bacterial count 5

Effect of ESCS inside broiler barn

Stage of production (weeks in barn)

1 2 3 4 5

CFU/m3

200 400 600 800 1000 ESCS on (stage 6 only) ESCS not on (stage 6 only)

5

Andersen stage 6: selective Gram positive

Conclusions:

• Gram positive cocci are majority of airborne

bioaerosol due to longer survival in air.

• Bioaerosol data is highly variable due to

multiple factors including:

– Environmental – Equipment – Meteorological – Production cycle

Conclusions:

• There seems to be a trend re: reduction of

viable bacteria in ESCS barns – but need more samples due to high variation in data.

• High outdoor dilution factor once bacteria

leave barn.

• Viability of bioaerosol highly dependent on

species composition.