Login | Request Account (DAF staff only)

The big pond debate.

Skerman, A.G. (2007) The big pond debate. In: Manipulating pig production XI. Proceedings of the Eleventh Biennial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association (APSA)., 25 - 28 November 2007, Brisbane.

Full text not currently attached. Access may be available via the Publisher's website or OpenAccess link.

Publisher URL: http://www.apsa.asn.au/publications/proceeding_tblcontent.asp?pyr=2007


Over recent decades, Australian piggeries have commonly employed anaerobic ponds to treat effluent to a standard suitable for recycling for shed flushing purposes and for irrigation onto nearby agricultural land. Anaerobic ponds are generally sized according to the Rational Design Standard (RDS) developed by Barth (1985), resulting in large ponds, which can be expensive to construct, occupy large land areas, and are difficult and expensive to desludge, potentially disrupting the whole piggery operation. Limited anecdotal and scientific evidence suggests that anaerobic ponds that are undersized according to the RDS, operate satisfactorily, without excessive odour emission, impaired biological function or high rates of solids accumulation. Based on these observations, this paper questions the validity of rigidly applying the principles of the RDS and presents a number of alternate design approaches resulting in smaller, more highly loaded ponds that are easier and cheaper to construct and manage. Based on limited data of pond odour emission, it is suggested that higher pond loading rates may reduce overall odour emission by decreasing the pond volume and surface area. Other management options that could be implemented to reduce pond volumes include permeable pond covers, various solids separation methods, and bio-digesters with impermeable covers, used in conjunction with biofilters and/or systems designed for biogas recovery. To ensure that new effluent management options are accepted by regulatory authorities, it is important for researchers to address both industry and regulator concerns and uncertainties regarding new technology, and to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that new technologies do not increase the risk of adverse impacts on the environment or community amenity. Further development of raw research outcomes to produce relatively simple, practical guidelines and implementation tools also increases the potential for acceptance and implementation of new technology by regulators and industry.

Item Type:Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
Corporate Creators:QPIF
Additional Information:© The Australasian Pig Science Association.
Keywords:Agricultural land; anaerobic conditions; emission; odours; pig housing; piggery effluent; ponds; recycling; waste management; waste water treatment.
Subjects:Science > Science (General)
Animal culture > Swine
Agriculture > Agriculture (General) > Agriculture and the environment
Live Archive:04 Jan 2010 06:51
Last Modified:03 Sep 2021 16:48

Repository Staff Only: item control page