Project: MLMMI 98-01-31
To test and verify the effectiveness of an already constructed facility designed to treat hog manure through solid separation, anaerobic and aerobic digestion. It is anticipated that the treated effluent can be returned to the environment or re-cycled as barn wash.
DGH Engineering Ltd.
Funding Partners: who have contributed to MLMMI in support of this project:
SDIF - $39,300
MRAC - $30,000
Triple S - $30,000
Manitoba Pork Council and industry groups - $700
Amount Funded: $100,000.00
Performer Funded: $0.00
Total Cost: $100,000.00
Interim Reports received March 24/99, June 4/99 & October 8/99.
Request for extension to March 31/00 granted & subsequently extended to April 30/00.
Final Report received June 9/00.
DGH wanted to do a financial analysis of the processes. This is beyond the scope of the original proposal. The results to be provided as an addendum to the Final Report by July 31/00.
Final report amended to include financial analysis of the processes on August 4, 2000.
Aug. 4/00 Final Report amended to include financial analysis of the processes.
The project involved evaluation of a Taiwanese three-stage hog manure treatment technology under Canadian conditions. To do so, a pilot plant treatment system was designed and built.
The process involves passing the manure through a solid-liquid separator to remove the larger solids; anaerobic digestion of the liquid fraction; followed by aerobic treatment.
The plant did not achieve treatment levels that would permit discharge to surface waters, as is the case in Taiwan. But was very effective for flushing the barn and produced a noticeable improvement in barn air quality. This was likely due to the differences in operational temperature between Taiwan (greater than 25°C) and the pilot plant (15 to 21°C).
The greatest amount of treatment occurred in the anaerobic section of the system.
The anaerobic basins were very stable and changes in operational conditions did not upset their performance. In comparison, the aerobic basins were much more sensitive to changes in operational conditions.
The treatment efficiency in the aerobic section was low. This may have been due to low dissolved oxygen levels or the biomass activity was lower than expected.
Both the anaerobic and aerobic sections appeared to be over-designed in terms of volume and hydraulic retention time.