DOCSLIB.ORG

Livestock's Role in Water Depletion and Pollution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Livestock's Role in Water Depletion and Pollution 04 Livestock’s role in water depletion and pollution 4.1 Issues and trends such as power for hydroelectricity generation Water represents at least 50 percent of most and support of recreational activities to a highly living organisms and plays a key role in the diverse set of user groups. Freshwater resourc- functioning of the ecosystem. It is also a criti- es are the pillar sustaining development and cal natural resource mobilized by most human maintaining food security, livelihoods, indus- activities. trial growth, and environmental sustainability It is replenished through the natural water throughout the world (Turner et al., 2004). cycle. The evaporation process, mainly from the Nevertheless, freshwater resources are oceans, is the primary mechanism supporting scarce. Only 2.5 percent of all water resources the surface-to-atmosphere portion of the cycle. are fresh water. The oceans account for 96.5 per- Evaporation returns to ocean and water bodies cent, brackish water for around 1 percent. Fur- as precipitation (US Geological Survey, 2005a; thermore, 70 percent of all freshwater resources Xercavins and Valls, 1999). are locked up in glaciers, and permanent snow Freshwater resources provide a wide range of (polar caps for example) and the atmosphere goods such as drinking water, irrigation water, (Dompka, Krchnak and Thorne, 2002; UNES- or water for industrial purposes, and services CO, 2005). 110 000 km3 of freshwater fall on Livestock’s long shadow earth in the form of precipitation annually, of 93 percent of water depletion worldwide (see which 70 000 km3 evaporate immediately into Table 4.1) (Turner et al., 2004). The irrigated the atmosphere. Out of the remaining 40 000 area has multiplied nearly five times over the km3 only 12 500 km3 is accessible for human use last century and in 2003 amounted to 277 million (Postel, 1996). hectares (FAO, 2006b). Nevertheless, in recent Freshwater resources are unequally distrib- decades, growth in the use of water resources uted at the global level. More than 2.3 billion for domestic and industrial purposes has been people in 21 countries live in water-stressed faster than for agriculture. Indeed, between 1950 basins (having between 1 000 and 1 700 m3 per and 1995, withdrawals for domestic and industri- person per year). Some 1.7 billion people live al uses quadrupled, while they only doubled for in basins under scarcity conditions (with less agricultural purposes (Rosegrant, Cai and Cline, than 1 000 m3 per person per year) see Map 28, 2002). Today people consume 30–300 litres per Annex 1 (Rosegrant, Cai and Cline, 2002; Kinje, person a day for domestic purposes, while 3 000 2001; Bernstein, 2002; Brown, 2002). More than litres per day are needed to grow their daily food one billion people do not have sufficient access (Turner et al., 2004). to clean water. Much of the world’s human popu- One of the major challenges in agricultural lation growth and agricultural expansion is tak- development today is to maintain food secu- ing place in water stressed regions. rity and alleviate poverty without further deplet- The availability of water has always been a ing water resources and damaging ecosystems limiting factor to human activities, in particular (Rosegrant, Cai and Cline, 2002). agriculture, and the increasing level of demand for water is a growing concern. Excessive with- The threat of increasing scarcity drawals, and poor water management, have Projections suggest that the situation will worsen resulted in lowered groundwater tables, dam- in the next decades, possibly leading to increas- aged soils and reduced water quality worldwide. ing conflicts among usages and users. Under As a direct consequence of a lack of appropriate a “Business as usual scenario” (Rosegrant et water resources management, a number of al., 2002), global water withdrawal is projected countries and regions are faced with ongoing to increase by 22 percent to 4 772 km3 in 2025. depletion of water resources (Rosegrant, Cai and This increase will be driven mainly by domestic, Cline, 2002). industrial and livestock uses; the latter show- Withdrawal of freshwater diverted from rivers ing a growth of more than 50 percent. Water and pumped from aquifers has been estimated consumption for non-agricultural uses is pro- at 3 906 km3 for 1995 (Rosegrant, Cai and Cline, jected to increase by 62 percent between 1995 2002). Part of this water returns to the eco- system, though pollution of water resources is accelerated by the increasing discharge of Table 4.1 wastewater into water courses. Indeed, in devel- Water use and depletion by sector oping countries, 90–95 percent of public waste- Sector Water use Water depletion water and 70 percent of industrial wastes are (.......... Percentages of total ..........) discharged into surface water without treatment (Bernstein, 2002). Agriculture 70 93 The agricultural sector is the largest user Domestic 10 3 of freshwater resources. In 2000, agriculture Industrial 20 4 accounted for 70 percent of water use and Source: Brown (2002); FAO-AQUASTAT (2004). 126 Livestock’s role in water depletion and pollution and 2025. The use of irrigation water, however, of adequate stream flows, especially during dry will rise by only 4 percent over that period. The seasons. Improper land use can severely con- highest increase in demand for irrigation water strain future access to water resources and may is expected for sub-Saharan Africa and Latin threaten the proper functioning of ecosystems. America with 27 and 21 percent, respectively; Water cycles are further affected by deforesta- both regions have only limited use of irrigation tion, an ongoing process at the pace of 9.4 mil- today (Rosegrant, Cai and Cline, 2002). lion hectares per year according to FAO’s latest As a direct consequence of the expected assessment (FAO, 2005a). increase in demand for water, Rosegrant, Cai Water also plays a key role in ecosystem and Cline (2002) projected that by 2025, 64 per- functioning, acting as a medium and/or reactant cent of the world’s population will live in water- of biochemical processes. Depletion will affect stressed basins (against 38 percent today). A ecosystems by reducing water availability to recent International Water Management Insti- plant and animal species, inducing a shift toward tute (IWMI) assessment projects that by 2023, dryer ecosystems. Pollution will also harm eco- 33 percent of the world’s population (1.8 billion systems, as water is a vehicle for numerous people) will live in areas of absolute water scar- pollution agents. As a result, pollutants have an city including Pakistan, South Africa, and large impact not only locally but on various ecosys- parts of India and China (IWMI, 2000). tems along the water cycle, sometimes far from Increasing water scarcity is likely to compro- the initial sources. mise food production, as water will have to be Among the various ecosystems affected by diverted from agricultural use to environmental, trends in water depletion, wetlands ecosystems industrial and domestic purposes (IWMI, 2000). are especially at risk. Wetlands ecosystems are Under the “business as usual scenario” men- the most species-diverse habitats on earth and tioned above, water scarcity may cause a loss include lakes, floodplains, marshes and deltas. of potential production of 350 million tonnes of Ecosystems provide a wide range of environmen- food, almost equal to the current total United tal services and goods, valued globally at US$33 States grain crop production (364 million tonnes trillion of which US$14.9 trillion are provided by in 2005) (Rosegrant, Cai and Cline, 2002; FAO, wetlands (Ramsar, 2005). These include flood 2006b). The countries under absolute water control, groundwater replenishment, shoreline scarcity will have to import a substantial propor- stabilization and storm protection, sediment and tion of their cereal consumption, while those nutrient regulation, climate change mitigation, unable to finance these imports will be threat- water purification, biodiversity conservation, ened by famine and malnutrition (IWMI, 2000). recreation, tourism and cultural opportunities. Even countries with sufficient water resources Nevertheless, wetlands ecosystems are under will have to expand their water supplies to make great threat and are suffering from over-extrac- up for the increasing demand. There is wide- tion, pollution and diversion of water resources. spread concern that many countries, especially An estimated 50 percent of world wetlands have in sub-Saharan Africa, will not have the required disappeared over the last century (IUCN, 2005; financial and technical capacity (IWMI, 2000). Ramsar, 2005). Water resources are threatened in other ways. The impacts of the livestock sector on water Inappropriate land use can reduce water sup- resources are often not well understood by plies by reducing infiltration, increasing run- decision-makers. The primary focus is usu- off and limiting the natural replenishment of ally the most obvious segment of the livestock groundwater resources and the maintenance commodity chain: production at farm level. But 127 Livestock’s long shadow the overall water use1 directly or indirectly by the livestock sector is often ignored. Similarly, the contribution of the livestock sector to water depletion2 focuses mainly on water contamina- tion by manure and waste. This chapter attempts to provide a compre- hensive overview of the livestock sector’s role in the water resources depletion issue. More spe- cifically, we will provide quantitative estimates of water use and pollution associated with the main © FAO/9286/H.D. NAM segments of the animal food commodity chain. A worker gives water to pigs raised near chicken cage We will successively also analyse livestock’s on farm at Long An province – Viet Nam 2005 contribution to the water pollution and evapo- transpiration phenomenon and its impact on the sents 60 to 70 percent of the body weight and is water resource replenishment process through essential for animals in maintaining their vital improper land use.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sludge Management for Anaerobic Lagoons and Runoff Holding Ponds Amy Millmier Schmidt, Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ® ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Know how. Know now. G1371 (Revised April 2013) Sludge Management for Anaerobic Lagoons and Runoff Holding Ponds Amy Millmier Schmidt, Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer Annual sludge accumulation volume in an anaerobic This NebGuide defines critical issues to be addressed­ lagoon is estimated by the following equation (Natural by a sludge and sediment management plan for anaerobic Resources Conservation Service, 1992): lagoons and outdoor lot holding ponds. SV = 365 x AU x TS x SAR x T (Equation 1) Nebraska’s permit process for a Livestock Waste Control where: Facility (LWCF) requires a sludge and sediment management plan. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality AU = Number of 1,000 pound animal units (NDEQ) must approve this plan prior to issuing an NDEQ SV = Sludge volume in cubic feet operating permit to a livestock operation. T = Sludge accumulation time (years) TS = Total solids production per animal unit per Current Knowledge day (lb/AU/day) SAR = Sludge accumulation ratio (ft3/lb TS). See Preparing a sludge management plan should include Table I. recognizing our current knowledge of earthen structures. In this publication, an anaerobic lagoon refers to an impound- Table I. Sludge accumulation ratio (anaerobic lagoons only) and total ment with a permanent liquid pool for encouraging biological solids production for livestock. breakdown of manure and a storage volume. A runoff holding Total Solids Production (pounds/day/1,000 pond refers to an impoundment with a storage volume only pounds live weight) SAR for collecting storm water runoff from an outdoor lot such as Dairy 0.0728 a cattle feedlot.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study
    Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study A Research Report by Kansas State University June 23, 1999 Principal Investigators J.M. Ham, Department of Agronomy L.N. Reddi, Department of Civil Engineering C.W. Rice, Department of Agronomy Submitted in partial fulfillment of a contract between Kansas State University and the Kansas Water Office, Topeka, KS. Executive Summary Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study J.M. Ham, L.M. Reddi, and C.W. Rice Kansas State University Report Period: May, 1998 to June, 1999 Anaerobic lagoons are used to collect, treat, and store waste at many concentrated animal operations (CAOs) in Kansas. Lagoons contain nutrients, salts, and other soluble chemicals that, in many cases, are eventually applied to crops as fertilizer. While waste is stored and treated in the lagoons, seepage losses from the sides and bottom of the containment could potentially affect soil and ground water quality. Of primary concern, is possible movement of nitrate-nitrogen into aquifers used to supply drinking water. Bacteria, which also are present in the waste, are another potential source for contamination. A comprehensive environmental assessment of lagoons requires three focus areas: (a) toxicity – what are the constituents in the lagoon waste that pose a threat to water quality and public health? (b) input loading – at what rate does waste seep from a lagoon under field conditions? and (c) aquifer vulnerability – how do soil properties, geology, and water table depth affect the risk of waste movement from the lagoon to the ground water? Researchers at Kansas State University (KSU), in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office, are conducting research to examine these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
    CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.0 INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act requires EPA to consider a number of different factors when developing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for a particular industry category. These factors include the cost of achieving the effluent reduction, the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process changes, nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and factors the Administrator deems appropriate. One way EPA takes these factors into account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate classes of similar characteristics. The division of a point source category into groups called “subcategories” provides a mechanism for addressing variations among products, raw materials, processes, and other parameters that result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of a category by subcategory ensures that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations that take into account technology achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory. The factors that EPA considered in the subcategorization of the CAFO point source category include: • Animal production processes • Waste management and handling practices • Wastes and wastewater characteristics • Waste use practices • Age of equipment and facilities • Facility size • Facility location EPA evaluated these factors and determined that
    [Show full text]
  • Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment
    Spring 1997 Vol. 8, No. 2 L SMALL A F N L O O I W T A S N C L E E S A U Pipeline R I N G H O Small Community Wastewater Issues Explained to the Public Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment t is no wonder that one of the for homes on large lots in areas where other treatment more efficient, so that less land most popular methods for onsite systems or sewers are too costly or area is necessary, and aerators can be used to I wastewater treatment around the otherwise impractical. Lagoons also work upgrade some existing systems to treat more world is also one of the simplest well for many seasonal rental properties and wastewater. and least expensive. Lagoon systems use recreational areas, because they are able to Every lagoon system must be individually natural and energy-efficient processes to handle intermittent periods of both light and designed to fit its specific site and use. provide low-cost wastewater treatment. heavy use. Designs are based on such factors as the They are one of the most cost-effective type of soil, the amount of land area wastewater treatment options for many What are lagoon systems? available, the climate, and the amount of homes and communities. There are several different types and sunlight and wind in an area. In the U.S., most wastewater treatment names for lagoons and many possible Other important design considerations for lagoons are found in small and rural system designs. Lagoon systems include lagoon systems include the amount and type communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure
    Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure for Pollution ControlAnaerobic and Digestion Energy Production:of Livestock A Manure: Feasibility A Feasibility Assessment Assessment By Peter Ciborowski Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 2001 Report prepared in completion of USEPA Grant CX 825639-01-0 Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement (CX 825639-01-0) to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, it may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. 2 Conversion Factors Volume and Weight 1 cubic meter (m3) equals 35.315 cubic feet (ft3) 1ft3 equals 0.0283 m3 1 liter (l) equals 0.035 ft3 1 l equals 0.001 m3 1 m3 equals 1000 l 1 ft3 equals 28.317 l 1 kilogram (kg) equals 2.2046 lb. 1 lb. /ft3 equals 16 kg/m3 1 ft3/lb equals 0.062 m3/kg Manure 1 ft3 manure equals 62 lb. 1 kg solids/m3 equals 0.1% manure solids content Biogas 1 ft3 biogas equals 0.0716 lb. biogas 3 3 1 ft biogas equals 0.55 to 0.7 ft CH4 3 1 ft CH4 equals 0.04235 lb. CH4 3 1 ft CO2 equals 0.1154 lb. CO2 1 ft3 biogas equals 560 to 713 Btu 3 1 ft CH4 equals 1018 Btu Energy 1 kWh equals 3412 Btu 1 kWh equals 0.03412 mmbtu 1 mmbtu equals 293 kWh (thermal) 1 mmbtu equals 61.5 kWh (electric-diesel generation) 1 kWh (electric-diesel generation) equals 0.016 mmbtu or 26.67 ft3 biogas 3 Table of Contents Part 1.
    [Show full text]
  • (Biogas) Lagoons
    (Biogas) lagoons H.-P. Mang Laggon - Pond 1. Artificial pool for storage and treatment of polluted or excessively hot sewage, liquid waste, etc. 2. Wastewater treatment lagoons are earthen impoundments that are engineered and constructed to treat as well as temporarily store wastewater. 3. In practice, the terms lagoons and ponds are used interchangeably. Treatment ./. Storage (1/2) 1. Wastewater treatment lagoons are different from wastewater storage or holding lagoons in that they are designed to function as biological reactors that allow effective degradation of organic compounds contained in the wastewater by various microorganisms. 2. Therefore, the physical, chemical, and biological environments in the treatment lagoons are controlled to achieve the intended purposes of wastewater treatment. Treatment ./. Storage (2/2) 3.Treatment lagoons are not pumped down below their treatment volume elevation except for maintenance purposes. 4.Storage lagoons are emptied regularly when the wastewater is pumped out for irrigation. Animal wastewater lagoons (1/2) 1. Animal wastewater lagoons have about 50 years of history. 2. Specific engineering design standards have been developed for animal wastewater lagoons. 3. Due to the high contents of nutrients and organics in the animal wastewater, the treatment capacity of wastewater lagoons is often limited, and effluent from the lagoons is not suitable for direct discharge into surface waters. Animal wastewater lagoons (2/2) 4. Due to the high organic content of animal wastewater, all the primary lagoons used for animal wastewater treatment are essentially anaerobic lagoons. 5. Vary in depth from 2.5 to 9 meter and are built as deep as the local geography allows to minimize the surface area and reduce odour emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Lagoons and Storage Structures for Dairy Manure
    CHAPTER 4 Management of Lagoons and Storage Structures For Dairy Manure John P. Chastain and Stephen Henry INTRODUCTION Most dairy buildings in South Carolina are designed to collect and transfer manure to an anaerobic lagoon or storage pond as a liquid or slurry. The two most popular collection and transfer systems are tractor scrape and flush. The floors of many milking centers are cleaned by scraping, with a high-pressure hose, or by flushing. The objectives of this chapter are to: (1) describe the concepts used to size treatment lagoons and manure storages, and (2) describe the management requirements for lagoons and storage structures. TYPES OF BACTERIA IN MANURE Selection of a type of storage structure and proper management requires an understanding of the basic types of bacteria that are present in manure. Bacteria growth can reduce the strength of some pollutants in manure (called treatment). Uncontrolled growth of certain bacteria will provide some treatment, but will greatly increase the frequency and amount of odor. Animal manure contains three types of bacteria: anaerobic, aerobic, and facultative. Anaerobic bacteria will only grow in manure that contains no oxygen. Aerobic bacteria can only thrive in manure with a sufficient level of dissolved oxygen. Facultative bacteria can live with or without oxygen. Most manure storage structures and treatment lagoons maintain the manure in an oxygen-free or anaerobic condition. Natural or mechanical aeration (addition of oxygen to manure) is required to promote the growth of aerobic bacteria. Aeration will suppress the growth of anaerobic bacteria. The organic matter in manure can be decomposed by all three types of bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Dairy Waste Treatment CIRCULAR ANR-963
    ALABAMA A&M AND AUBURN UNIVERSITIES ALA 'BAMA ,......>~ C OOJ>IlRATTVE Planning And Managing Lagoons For ExtenSIOn SYSTEM Dairy Waste Treatment CIRCULAR ANR-963 airy waste lagoons are sign and management the anaer­ flush system lagoons do not Dearthen structures designed obic lagoon can function for need to be located quite so close for biological treatment and years. Odor from a well-designed to the dairy waste source. long-term storage of dairy waste. and well-managed lagoon will be Good engineering practice, L'flgoons are specially construct­ only slightly musty; foul odor in­ as recommended in ASAE ed to prevent leakage of dairy dicates a malfunction requiring EP403.3, calls for lagoons to be waste to ground water. The la­ corrective action. no less than 300 feet from any goon system allows manure to Advantages of anaerobic la­ water supply used for human be handled with water-flushing goon systems are: consumption. Natural Resources systems, sewer lines, pumps, • Manure can be handled Conservation Service (NRCS) rec­ and irrigation equipment. The with water flushing systems, ommends 500 feet but will ac­ natural biological action on the sewer lines, pumps, and irriga­ cept 150 feet from an upslope waste results in less odor during tion equipment. well. Alabama Public Health De­ land application. Nitrogen con­ • The high degree of stabi­ partment, Division of Environ­ tent of the waste is reduced in lization reduces odors during mental Programs Management lagoons by as much as 80 per­ land application. (Milk Inspection), will not permit cent. This reduction minimizes lagoons to be closer than 100 • High nitrogen reduction land area needed for land appli­ feet from the water supply on a minimizes the land area required cation and enhances long-term grade A dairy.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing and Managing Livestock Waste Lagoons in Illinois
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository 11 1 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN ACES * ^Ml <"'' ^ '^ ^ - - ' no. /5^<^ Designing and Managing Livestock Waste Lagoons in Illinois I US^A^f # ,y <- 'J u V.J -i^STTQF^li'n--":-'^' by Ted Funk, Georgios Bartzis, and Jonathan Treagust University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Circular 1326 Designing and Managing Livestock Waste Lagoons in Illinois This circular was prepared by T. L. Funk, Extension Educator, Farm Systems, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Jonathan Treagust, and Georgios Bartzis, visiting scholars, Silsoe College, Silsoe, England. Introduction 1 Types of Lagoons 2 Aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative lagoons Anaerobic single-stage versus anaerobic multiple-stage lagoons Design Constraints for Proper Operation 4 Federal, state, and local regulations Loading and sludge accumulation rates Frequency of dewatering Water supply and drainage Species and expected values of manure production Soil and location Finding the Recommended Volume 6 Minimum design volume Livestock waste volume Dilution volume Determining the volume Finding the Right Dimensions 10 Depth Length-to-width ratio Side slopes Other Construction Constraints 12 Designing the earth embankment Designing the inlet and outlet Open channel versus pipe Outlet to next lagoon Designing the pumping system Placement Selecting equipment Operation and Maintenance 13 Starting up Breaking a crust Inspecting the lagoon Removing sludge Testing fertility Controlling odor Dewatering the lagoon Guaranteeing safety Worksheet Examples 15 Bibliography 17 Q(,3o 7 Introduction "^C^^ ^-fe \Vfy Growing environmental concerns and Pit systems store manure until it is returned to the land.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Environmental Quality Improvement from Implementation of Aerobic Waste Treatment Systems in Swine Farms
    Author's personal copy Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Waste Management 28 (2008) 759–766 www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman Greenhouse gas emission reduction and environmental quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste treatment systems in swine farms M.B. Vanotti a,*, A.A. Szogi a, C.A. Vives b a United States Department of Agriculture, ARS, Coastal Plains Research Center, 2611 W. Lucas St., Florence, SC 29501, USA b Agrosuper, Agricola SuperLimitada, Rancagua c.c. 333, Chile Accepted 6 September 2007 Available online 3 December 2007 Abstract Trading of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions is an attractive approach to help producers implement cleaner treatment tech- nologies to replace current anaerobic lagoons. Our objectives were to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from imple- mentation of aerobic technology in USA swine farms. Emission reductions were calculated using the approved United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) methodology in conjunction with monitoring information collected during full- scale demonstration of the new treatment system in a 4360-head swine operation in North Carolina (USA). Emission sources for the project and baseline manure management system were methane (CH4) emissions from the decomposition of manure under anaerobic conditions and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions during storage and handling of manure in the manure management system. Emission reductions resulted from the difference between total project and baseline emissions. The project activity included an on-farm wastewater treatment system consisting of liquid–solid separation, treatment of the separated liquid using aerobic biological N removal, chemical disinfection and soluble P removal using lime. The project activity was completed with a centralized facility that used aerobic composting to process the separated solids.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercialization of Anaerobic Contact Process for Anaerobic Digestion of Algae Gunjan Andlay
    COMMERCIALIZATION OF ANAEROBIC CONTACT PROCESS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF ALGAE by GUNJAN ANDLAY Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May 2010 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of _____________________________________________________Gunjan Andlay Master of Science candidate for the ______________________degree *. Claudia M. Mizutani, Ph.D. (signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee) Christopher A. Cullis, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ Andrew K. Swanson, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ David J. Burke, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ April 2, 2010 (date) _______________________ *We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein. Dedicated to my parents, and family 2 Table of Contents List of tables ................................................................................................................................... 5 List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 7 List of abbreviations
    [Show full text]
  • Cost-Effective Treatment Using Lagoons PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION
    Cost-Effective Treatment Using Lagoons PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION DECEMBER 2013 Across the US, most wastewater treatment lagoons are found in small and rural communities. Lagoons are well suited for small cities and towns because they can cost less to construct, operate, and maintain than other systems. Lagoons come in many varieties and historically have played an important role as natural wastewater treatment systems. Lagoons operate by degrading wastes through various microbiological populations, and technology is becoming advanced with the development of innovative and alternative enhancements. This white paper provides general information on typical lagoon systems and offers some performance optimization techniques to help communities meet regulatory compliance. Types of Lagoon Systems Lagoon systems are generally classified into three types: anaerobic, facultative, and aerated. Multiple cell lagoon systems often use two or more of these types to provide for adequate treatment. Each type is described as follows: Anaerobic The word anaerobic means “without oxygen” and describes the conditions in- side this lagoon. These lagoon systems are typically used to treat high strength wastes, such as animal wastes from dairy and swine farms, and are often the first stage in a multiple stage treatment system. They are typically designed to hold the wastewater for 20 to 50 days and are deeper than other lagoons (i.e., 8 to 20 feet deep). Lagoons are well suited Inside an anaerobic lagoon, solids in the wastewater separate and settle into layers. The top layer consists of grease, scum, and floatables; this layer keeps for small cities and the oxygen out and a majority of the odors in.
    [Show full text]