Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Dietary Modification for Reducing Electrical Conductivity of Piggery Wastewater
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Dietary Modification for Reducing Electrical Conductivity of Piggery Wastewater
Yu, I.T.; Su, J.J.; Wu, J.F.; Lee, S.L.; Ju, C.C.; Yen, H.T.;
  PDF(new window)
A total of 108 pigs (including 36 starters, 36 growers, and 36 finishers) were randomly allocated to six treatments, which involved a 2 (Crude Protein (CP): 100 and 80% of control diet)3 (Ca, P, Salt (CPS): 100, 80 and 60% of control diet) factorial design to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing CP and CPS in reducing wastewater EC in different stages. Another 72 starters were adopted to examine the effect of the six treatment diets (as mentioned above) on the growth performance of pigs. Activated carbon and Reverse Osmosis System (RO) were adopted to examine the reducing efficiency of wastewater EC, and ion analysis was also applied to compare with the wastewater EC in different stages of the metabolism trial. The results of wastewater EC of the six treatment diets in different stages of metabolism trial demonstrated that diminishing dietary CP or CPS decreased wastewater EC. The largest decrease of EC was approximately 30%, and was achieved with 20 and 40% reduced dietary CP and CPS, respectively. Pig growth performance deteriorated somewhat when dietary CP or CPS was diminished. Wastewater ion concentration was not always consistent with dietary CP or CPS content, except for , and , which were positively correlated with dietary CP or CPS in different stages. Activated carbon is not effective for reducing wastewater EC, while, RO system is effective (90% elimination rate) in reducing wastewater EC, but the EC of concentrated (excreted) water is around 10% higher than that of intact wastewater, representing an additional problem besides the high cost of RO system treatment.
Electrical Conductivity;Dietary Modification;Piggery Wastewater;
 Cited by
Effect of Nipple Angle on Water Disappearance by Pigs,;;;;;;;

아세아태평양축산학회지, 2008. vol.21. 1, pp.120-123 crossref(new window)
Goopy, J. P., P. J. Murray, A. T. Lisle and R. A. M. Al Jassium. 2004. Use of chemical and biological agents to improve water guality of effluent aischarge from abattoirs. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 17(1):137-145.

Hounslow, A. W. 1995. Water quality data. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Kenneth, L. W. 2003. Ground Water-water for irrigation. Kansas Geolog. Survey. Sumer Country Geohyd. pp. 1-7.

Lin, C. J. 1991. Effect of high electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio irrigation water on soil salinity and rice yields. Master thesis, National Taiwan University.

Lu, J. E., Y. H. Lee, Y. C. Su and K. L. Chen. 1994. Wastewater composition analysis of hog operations. J. Biom. Soc. China. 13(1-2):141-146.

Maasdam, R. and D. G. Smith. 1994. New Zealand’s national river water quality network. 2. Relationships between physicochemical data and environmental factors. New Zealand J. Marine Freshw. Res. 28:37-54.

Masters, D. G., H. C. Novman and E. G. Barrett-Lennard. 2005. Agricultral systems for saliue soil: the potential role of livestocks. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18(2):296-300.

McCutcheon, S. C. J. Martin and T. O. Bamwell, Jr. 1993. Water quality. In: (Ed. D. Maidment). Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

Prygiel, J. and M. Coste. 1993. The assessment of water quality in the Artois-Picardie water (France) by the use of diatom indices. Hydrobiologia 269-270: 343-349.

Rios, R. R. V. A., D. O. Alves, I. Dalmazio, S. F. A. Bento, C. L. Donnici and R. M. Lago. 2003. Tailoring activated carbon by surface chemical modification with O, S, and N containing molecules. Materi. Res. 6(2):1-9.

SAS. 1992. SAS/STAT User’s Guide (Version 6). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.

Wang, X. and Z. Y. Yin. 1997. Using gis to assess the relationship between land use and water quality at a watershed level. Environ. Intern. 23(1):103-114.