Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 54855489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Advanced swine manure treatment and utilization in Brazil

A. Kunz *, M. Miele, R.L.R. Steinmetz
Embrapa Swine and Poultry, C.P. 21, 89700-000, Concrdia, SC, Brazil

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 July 2008
Received in revised form 28 October 2008
Accepted 29 October 2008
Available online 6 January 2009
Keywords:
Environmental impact
Management
Swine efuents
Treatment strategies

a b s t r a c t
Animal production has changed from subsistence to an industrial model, lowering production costs but
giving rise to higher potential environmental impact. When the efuents are not correctly managed, serious pollution events can occur. In Brazil liquid manure is commonly stored in reception pits or covered
lagoons (biodigestors), followed by land application as a biofertilizer. In some regions there is an excess of
manure due to low soil support capacities, and in these cases new technologies have to be adopted to
export or treat the excess efuent. Manure storage time in pits/covered lagoons and new polymers to
separate the solid fraction have been studied in Brazil. Treatment technologies, like swine manure treatment systems (SMTS), have been developed from a technical and economical point of view to optimize
the processes and give a technological alternative to pork producers increasing production while reducing environmental impact.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Production has dramatically changed in the last three decades,
from a small, subsistence model to larger concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs). This trend towards big industrial feeding operations is promoted by the reduction in costs of production
and logistics for both farmers and meat processors (FAO, 2006). An
additional trend in meat production is the migration of production
operations from developed to developing countries due to lower
operating costs, availability of feed, land, and water, as well as
the less restrictive environmental policies as those of Europe
(EU-nitrate directive), or USA (EPACAFO rules) (FAO, 2005). In
Brazil, the regulation for efuents disposal in supercial waters is
in the federal sphere (Conama, 2005), and is very restrictive for
animal wastewater. The regulation for land application is more
exible and has a great regional diversity and there is no regulation
for water reuse.
Brazilian swine production is an important activity, with a herd
of 35 million heads, representing the fourth largest producer (3
millions ton/year), fourth largest exporter (600 thousand ton/year)
and the sixth largest consumer (1113 kg/inhabitant/year). Swine
production in Brazil is concentrated in the southern part of the
country, but in the last decade has rapidly expanded into the Central-West region (IBGE, 2006; Miele and Waquil, 2007). There is a
set of potential environmental impacts involved in the production
of pork meat due to this rapid expansion. These impacts, including
an increase in atmospheric ammonia emissions and decrease in
water quality, can be seen in all segments of the supply chain, from
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 49 3441 0400; fax: +55 49 3442 8559.
E-mail address: airton@cnpsa.embrapa.br (A. Kunz).
0960-8524/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.039

grain and animal production, to the processing, distribution and

consumption links. However, it is the animal production that has
been central to public discussions because of the large amount of
waste generated by swine operations and its potential impact on
air, soil, and water resources (Zhu, 2000; Sharpley et al., 2002;
Pereira et al., 2008).
The aim of this paper is to present some recent advances in
swine manure management research and practices in Brazil, and
assessing their technical and economic performances.
2. Swine manure management strategies in Brazil
Liquid manure storage and land application is the predominate
manure management practice in Brazil and other parts of the
world due to its simplicity, low cost, and the possible reduction
in crop production costs through the replacement of chemical fertilizers by manure nutrients (Kunz et al., 2005). The main disadvantage of land application is the fact that the manure
transportation is not economically viable for distances beyond
kilometers (Seganfredo and Girotto, 2004). This is a limiting factor
for the scaling up of animal production facilities. Additionally, due
to the great variety of soils, plant fertilizer requirements, agronomic practices, and manure composition, land application of
manure has the potential to promote an unbalance in the soil/plant
nutrient absorption capacity (Seganfredo, 1999; Bauer et al., 2007).
Swine manure treatment strategies are based on several types
of physical, chemical, and biologic processes that are able to reduce
the manures pollution potential and convert them into usable byproducts including biogas (heat and electricity), organic fertilizers
and carbon credits (Certied Emissions Reductions CERs) (Burton
and Turner, 2003; Kunz and Encarnao, 2007; Vanotti et al., 2008).

5486

A. Kunz et al. / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 54855489

These by-products can be used either on the farm (to reduce operating costs), or can be sold (increasing farm revenue). The manure
treatment technology most widely used in Brazilians swine production is the biodigestor. The biogas generated can be used to
produce energy in form of heat or electricity (Angonese et al.,
2006; Murphy et al., 2004; Cantrell et al., 2008). Swine producers
can obtain additional benets by using digested efuents and
sludge as soil fertilizers, as well as the gaining carbon credit, which
can be managed through certied broker companies and nancial
institutions. However, the biodigestors and other anaerobic systems present some limitations. Biodigestors are a partial solution
to manure disposal problem, considering that they do not remove
N and P from the treated efuents; nor do they reduce crop area
needed to absorb these nutrients. In addition, technological innovations are necessary to allow for greater process control and stable biogas production (in quantity and quality), with higher energy
availability for heating during the winter in southern Brazil. These
improvements in biogas production technology will make the
implementation of trading programs for carbon credits more
attractive to producers (Kashyap et al., 2003; Kunz and Oliveira,
2006).
Composting of swine manure is another alternative that has
been promoted in Brazil to manage swine manure (Oliveira and
Higarashi, 2006). Composting allows water evaporation and transforms liquid manure into a solid material (Golouke, 1991; Zhu,
2007; Kim et al., 2008). This technology does not reduce the crop
area needed for manure application, but it reduces manure volume
while increasing nutrients concentration. Thus, composting makes
the handling of manure easier by reducing manure transportation
costs. Manure composting can also potentially increase farm income through the sale of an organic compound with high agronomic value. Swine manure compost commercialization is still
limited by the competition with other animal residues with high
fertilizer value such as poultry manure and poultry litter. This
competition was even more stressed after 2001 with the forbiddance to feed ruminants with poultry litter and by the recent environmental rules from the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture that
establishes a biofertilizer classication (Brasil, 2005).

3. Advanced manure management strategies

3.1. Pits storage time and solidliquid separation
For effective manure treatment in multi-step advanced treatments systems, solidliquid separation is a necessary rst-step to
prevent manure particles from overloading subsequent chemical
or biological treatment steps (Kunz and Encarnao, 2007; Cantrell
et al., 2008). Therefore, solid separation by screening has been used
due to its benets, including the high agronomic value of the solid
fraction (Burton, 2006; Steinmetz et al., 2007).
Manure quality, temperature, and storage time in swine houses
and pits can signicantly affect the solidliquid separation efciency due to changes in manure composition caused by biological
activity during manure storage (Zhu, 2000; Ndegwa et al., 2002).
Moreover, a long storage time has been associated with generation
and volatilization of malodorous compounds (Lo et al., 1994).
Therefore, determining manure degradation potential in tropical
climate conditions is important to estimate the maximum storage
time that will have the lowest impact on solidliquid separation
efciency. Kunz et al. (2008) studied different screen mesh sizes
and pit disposal times under Brazilian conditions, found a strong
correlation between ammonium solubilization and manure age
(r2 = 0.98). In the interaction between manure age and solid retention efciency, their evaluation showed that manure solids stored
for one day were signicantly (p < 0.05) and more efciently sepa-

rated than those solids from manure sampled in subsequent days.

There was a decrease in solid retention capacity from the rst to
the eighth day, with separation efciencies remaining lower and
stable after the eight days of storage. Therefore, efcient manure
solidliquid separation under Brazilian production conditions can
be attained with liquid manure pit storage of a few days (<8 d).
3.2. Natural polymers for manure solidliquid separation
The recent developments on manure treatment systems resulted in new technologies to improve solid removal efciency
by the addition of occulants and coagulants. Inorganic salts, such
as aluminum sulfate or ferric chloride are usually added as a coagulant in solidliquid separation processes (Westerman and Bicudo,
2000). However, the problem of metal salts for manure treatment
is that the concentration of metal species in the sludge can restrict
its use (Steinmetz, 2007). Therefore, there is an increasing interest
in the use of organic coagulants, synthetic or natural, that are biodegradable and environmentally safe. The fact that it is not necessary to adjust the pH using organic occulants makes this process
more practical than the use of inorganic salts (Zhang and Lei, 1998;
Sievers et al., 1994).
Synthetic organic polymers have been used for animal manure
solidliquid separation. The most representative product is polyacrylamide (PAM), which has been reported to remove between
80% and 95% of total suspended solids in swine manure (Vanotti
et al., 2002; Szogi and Vanotti, 2007; Campos et al., 2008;
Gonzalez-Fernandez et al., 2008). As for the use of natural organic
oculants, Garcia et al. (2007) tested the use of chitosan extracted
from crab shell in dairy manure solidliquid separation, obtaining
a total suspended solids removal efciency of 99% of the ushed
manure. In another study, Steinmetz et al. (2007) studied the efciency of solidliquid separation using modied natural extracts
from black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) in swine manure, and obtained
a removal efciency of 90% for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and
98% for efuent turbidity. The modied natural extracts from black
wattle were also efcient in removing soluble metals from the
liquid fraction reaching removal efciency higher than 99%. This
high removal efciency was probably due to adsorption between
the tannins in the extract and the soluble metal (Monteiro et al.,
2005; Steinmetz, 2007). The high efciency and low environmental
impact of natural polymers enlarge the market for these kinds of
products in Brazil.
3.3. Technical and economical performance of a swine manure
treatment system
When land area for manure disposal is limiting, there is not enough soilplant support capacity to recycle the manure nutrients
or manure transportation is not economically viable. Thus, it is
necessary to treat the manure efuents using treatment systems.
The swine manure treatment system (SMTS) (Fig. 1) is an alternative to land application or manure transportation that allows for
better process control and efuent quality with the possibility of
water reuse (Schierholt Neto, 2007). On the other hand, SMTS demand larger capital investments and labor skills with higher operational costs when compared with more simple technologies like
lagoon disposal or composting.
Economic and technical indicators of a SMTS were obtained
from a prototype operating at Embrapa, Concrdia, state of Santa
Catarina, southern Brazil. The treatment system treated liquid
manure generated by a piglet production unit with 594 sows and
a manure production of 24.4 m3/d (Tables 1 and 2). The SMTS produces an efuent with a reduced environmental impact compared
to other treatment technologies being used in Brazil (Table 1)
(Higarashi et al., 2007). In fact, it decreases the environmental im-

5487

A. Kunz et al. / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 54855489

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of swine manure treatment system (SMTS).

Table 1
Removal of settled solids (SeS), BOD5, COD, TKN, total phosporus (TP) and pH for SMTP at Embrapaa,b.
Parameter

Year

After
homogenization
tank (S.D.)

After solidliquid
separation unit (S.D.)

After anaerobic
treatment (S.D.)

After aerobic treatment

(treated efuent) (S.D.)

Global removal
efciency (%)

After aerobic treatment

(treated efuent) (S.D.)

SeSc
(ml/l)
BOD5
(mg/l)
COD
(mg/l)
TKN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
pHc

2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006

133 (54)
172 (55)
6075 (2787)
9153 (2800)
11605 (4408)
17567 (6301)
1203 (232)
1845 (392)
431 (152)
499 (110)

28 (32)
18 (24)
3053 (2112)
5748 (2604)
5771 (2089)
9617 (4692)
939 (202)
1415 (246)
187 (84)
167 (141)

22 (38)
36 (38)
1203 (411)
3235 (2155)
2076 (560)
5655 (3198)
905 (274)
1327 (321)
132 (50)
138 (55)
7.10 (0.25)
7.39 (0.12)

1 (2)
1 (2)
127 (40)
247 (304)
832 (418)
545 (717)
178 (101)
440 (286)
79 (17)
71 (30)
6.51 (0.59)
7.16 (0.49)

99
99
98
98
93
97
85
77
82
86

1
2
127 (40)
247 (304)
696
545
178 (101)
440 (286)
79 (17)
71 (30)
6.51 (0.59)
7.16 (0.49)

a
b
c

Adapted from Kunz et al. (2006).

Values are mean (standard deviation) for 24 sampling dates.
Values are mean (standard deviation) for 235 sampling dates.

Table 2
Technical indices (unity/m3 of treated manure) and market prices (U$/unity).
Item

Measure (unity/m3
of treated manure)

Technical
indicesa

Market price (US$/unity,

base = July/07)b

Manure
Sludge
Biogas
Labor
Electric energy
Tannins
Polymers
Sludge disposal
(2.100 m)
LPG substitution
Sludge fertilization
(NPK)
Carbon credits

l/day/sow
m3
m3
h
kWh
l
g
m3

41.00
0.22
0.80
0.240.16
10.668.53
2.00
1.61
0.22

2.90
0.08
0.85
0.013
2.64

kg
m3

0.26
0.22

1.38
1.19

ton

0.340.36

17.33c

a
Differences occur due to real measures and conservative and optimistic
estimations.
b
Considering an exchange rate of 1.882 R$/US$.
c
Considering 12.70 /equivalent ton. CO2, and 1.365 US$/ as exchange rate.

pact of treated efuent on water resources through efcient reductions of organic carbon (99% for biological oxygen demand and 95%
for chemical oxygen demand), total Kjedhal Nitrogen (81%), total
phosphorous (84%), Comparing SMTS to a biodigestor, there is a
sharp decrease in crop area needs (between 73% and 93%). Considering N balance and a corn crop (yield of 9000 kg/ha), it is possible
to apply 496 m3/ha of the SMTS efuent and 399 m3/ha of the
SMTS sludge, while the biodigestor efuent quantity is 36 m3/ha
and sludge quantity is 82 m3/ha. This is particularly important
for producers and regions with limited crop area and growing CAFOs scales.
The main SMTS costs (Table 3) are chemical products (tannins),
xed costs (capital and depreciation), and electricity. The monthly
total cost per sow (US$5.91US$7.21) indicates the need of additional revenues from manure by-products produced by the SMTS
(Table 3). In fact, considering that the cost of production of a piglet
was US$1.60 per kg, equivalent to a monthly cost of US$67.33 per
sow, the SMTS treatment costs represent approximately 11% of
piglet production costs.

5488

A. Kunz et al. / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 54855489

Table 3
Initial investment, costs, revenues, and results (US$/sow/month).a
Item

Prototype performance
(measured)b
Value

Share in total
cost

Acknowledgements
Scale
economies
(estimation)c
(%)

Initial investment (US$/sow)

179.08

Fixed cost (depreciation and

capital)

2.24

31%

18 to

25

27 to

33

Operational cost (A)

Labor
Electric energy
Chemical products
Maintenance
Sludge disposal (2.100 m)

4.97
0.86
1.05
2.11
0.22
0.72

69%
12%
15%
29%
3%
10%

Total cost (B)

7.21

100%

Potential revenue (C)

Energy (LPG substitution)
Sludge fertilization (NPK)
Carbon credits

7.96
0.44
0.33
7.19

111%
6%
5%
100%

0.15
0
0
0.26

Margin of contribution (C A)

2.99

41%

1532

Prot (C B)

0.75

10%

140226

9 to 11
34%
10 to 20
0%
18 to 25
0
14 to

18

Considers a currency exchange rate of 1.882 R$/US$.

b
With a scale to attend a piglet production unit with 594 sows and a monthly
manure volume of 731 m.
c
This column shows estimations to scale economies. Applying the percentages to
the prototype costs and revenues it is possible to calculate estimated results for
scaling up to 1800 sows. Differences occur due to conservative and optimistic
estimations.

The carbon credit market is the only revenue which can pay the
SMTS treatment cost considering that energy substitution by biogas and the use of sludge as a fertilizer are complementary revenues (Table 3). Another evidence is the importance to reach scale
economies (estimated between 14% and 18% on total costs), by a
reduction in capital and maintenance needs, as well in labor and
energy consumption (Table 3). This factor matches with this technology characteristic, which focuses on high scale CAFOs with limited crop areas for manure disposal. The SMTS can be a signicant
portion of the investment on a swine production facility, but SMTS
has the potential to provide additional farm revenues through its
by-products (carbon credits, fertilizer and biogas). A SMTS project
with these additional revenues can represent a positive net present
value (NPV) with an internal rate return (IRR) ranging from 6.4% to
28.4% per year depending on the projects environmental goals and
scale.
4. Conclusion
Because of environmental concerns for the disposal of large
amounts of swine manure generated under animal connement,
Brazilian swine producers have several technological challenges.
These challenges depend on several factors, like soil/plant support
capacity, land availability, and producers investment capacity for
adoption of advanced manure treatment technologies. The development of new advanced manure treatment technologies that
can solve several environmental problems linked to manure disposal, are compatible with the new reality of Brazilians industrial
swine production, which has emerged as a major competitor in the
international market. With the adoption of advanced technologies
like enhancement of solidliquid separation using occulants and
treatment processes (SMTS), economical considerations need to
be done, particularly in Brazil and other developing countries that
do not have government subsidies like the Europe Union or United
States.

The authors thanks to MSc. Milton Seganfredo, from Embrapa

Swine and Poultry, for his contribution to the calculation of crop
area needs considering N balance.
References
Angonese, A.R., Campos, A.T., Zacarkim, C.E., Matsuo, M.S., Cunha, F., 2006. Energy
efciency of swine production system with biodigestor waste treatment.
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrcola e Ambiental 10 (3), 745750.
Bauer, P.J., Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., 2007. Agronomic effectiveness of calcium
phosphate recovered from liquid swine manure. Agronomy Journal 99, 1352
1356.
Brasil, 2005 Ministrio da Pecuria e Abastecimento. Secretaria de Defesa
Agropecuria. Portaria 23. 31 de agosto de. Dirio Ocial da Repblica
Federativa do Brasil, poder Executivo, Braslia, seo 1, 12.
Burton, C.H., Turner, C., 2003. Manure Management, Treatment Strategies for
Sustainable Agriculture, second ed. Lister and Durling Printers, Betford, UK.
Burton, C.H., 2006. The contribution of separation technologies to the
management of livestock manure. DIAS Report. In: Proceedings of 12th
Ramiran International Conference, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences,
Aarhus, Denmark.
Campos, E., Almirall, M., Mtnetz-Almela, J., 2008. Feasebility study of the anaerobic
digestion of dewatered pig slurry by means of polyacrilymide. Bioresource
Technology 99 (2), 387395.
Cantrell, K.B., Ducey, T., Ro, K.S., Hunt, P.G., 2008. Livestock waste-to-bioenergy
generation opportunities. Bioresource Technology 99, 79417953.
CONAMA (Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente), 2005. Resoluo 357, Ministrio
do Meio Ambiente, Brasil.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2005. Livestock Policy Brief. Responding
the livestock revolution, Rome, p. 8.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2006. Livestocks Long Shadow
Environmental Issues and Options, Rome, p. 377.
Garcia, M.C., Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., Chastain, J.B., 2007. Solidliquid separation of
dairy manure with PAM and chitosan polymers. In: Proceedings of International
Symposium on Air Quality and Waste Management for Agriculture, 1619
September, Bromeld, Colorado, USA.
Golouke, C.G., 1991. Principles of composting. In: Biocycle Guide to the Art and
Science of Composting, pp. 1437.
Gonzalez-Fernandez, C., Nieto-Diez, P.P., Leon-Cofreces, C., 2008. Solids and
nutrients removals from the liquid fraction of swine slurry through screening
and oculation treatment and inuence of these processes on anaerobic
biodegradability. Bioresource Technology 99 (14), 62336239.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa e Estatstica), 2006. Pesquisa Pecuria
Municipal. Available on: <http://www.ibge.gov.br/>.
Higarashi, M.M., Kunz, A., Oliveira, P.A.V., 2007. Reduo da carga poluente:
sistemas de tratamento. In: Seganfredo, M. (Ed.), Gesto Ambiental na
Suinocultura. Embrapa Informao tenolgica, Braslia, pp. 119148.
Kashyap, D.R., Dadhich, K.S., Sharma, S.K., 2003. Biomethanation under
psychrophilic conditions: a review. Bioresource Technology 87, 147153.
Kim, H.-Y., Kim, H.-W., Han, S.-K., Hwuang, E.-J., Lee, C.-Y., Shin, H.-S., 2008. Effect of
granular porous media on the composting of swine manure. Waste
Management 28 (11), 23362343.
Kunz, A., Higarashi, M.M., Oliveira, P.A., 2005. Technologies for management and
treatment of hog manure assessed by research institutions in Brazil. Cadernos
de Cincias e Tecnologia 22, 651665.
Kunz, A., Schierholt, G., Menozzo, G.F., Bortoli, M., Ramme, M., Costa, R., 2006.
Estao de tratamento de dejetos de sunos (ETDS) como alternativa na reduo
do impacto ambiental da suinocultura. Comunicado Tcnico, Embrapa Sunos e
Aves 452, 16.
Kunz, A., Oliveira, P.A.V., 2006. Aproveitamento de dejetos de animais para gerao
de biogs. Revista de Poltica Agrcola 15 (3), 2835.
Kunz, A., Encarnao, R., 2007. Tratamento de dejetos animais. In: Gebler, L.,
Palhares, J.C.P. (Eds.), Gesto Ambiental na Agropecuria. Embrapa Informao
Tecnolgica, Braslia, DF, pp. 169191.
Kunz, A., Steinmetz, R.L.R., Ramme, M.M., Coldebella, A., 2008. Effect of storage time
on swine manure solid separation efciency by screening. Bioresource
Technology.
Lo, K.V., Chen, A., Liao, P.H., 1994. Concentration of malodorous compounds in swine
wastes during storage. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A
Environmental Science and Engineering and Toxic and Hazardous Substance
Control 29 (1), 8398.
Miele, M., Waquil, P.D., 2007. Cadeia produtiva da carne suna. Revista de Poltica
Agrcola v. XVI, n. 1.
Monteiro, J.M., Albuquerque, U.P., Arajo, E.L., Amorim, E.L.C., 2005. Tannins: from
chemistry to ecology. Qumica Nova 28, 892896.
Murphy, J.D., Mckeogh, E., Kiely, G., 2004. Technical/economical/environmental
analysis of biogas utilisation. Applied Energy 77, 407427.
Ndegwa, P.M., Zhu, J., Luo, A., 2002. Effects of solids separation and time on the
production of odorous compounds in stored pig slurry. Biosystems Engineering
81 (1), 127133.
Oliveira, P.A.V., Higarashi, M.M., 2006. Unidade de compostagem para o tratamento
dos dejetos de sunos. Embrapa Sunos e Aves, documento 114, p. 39.

A. Kunz et al. / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 54855489

Pereira, B.D., Maia, J.C.S., Camilot, R., 2008. Technical efciency in swine breeding:
effect of the expenses with the environment and scal renunciation. Revista
Brasileira de Engenharia Agrcola e Ambiental 12 (2), 200204.
Sharpley, A., Meisinger, J.J., Breeeuwsma, A., Sims, J.T., Daniel, T.C., Schepers, J.S.,
2002. Impacts of animal manure management on ground and surface water
quality. In: Hateld, J.L., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Animal Waste Utilization: Effective
Use of Manure as a Soil Resource. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 173243.
Schierholt Neto, G.F. 2007. Desenvolvimento de uma ora de microorganismos
oxidadores anaerbios de amnia utilizando inculos provenientes de dejeto
suno. Master Thesis, Chemistry Engineering Department, UFSC, p. 91.
Seganfredo, M.A., Girotto, A.F., 2004. Custos de armazenagem e transporte de
dejetos de sunos usados como fertilizantes de solo. Embrapa Sunos e Aves,
Comunicado Tcnico 474, 13.
Seganfredo, M.A., 1999. Os dejetos de sunos so um fertilizante ou um poluente do
solo? Cadernos de Cincia e Tecnologia 16, 129141.
Sievers, D.M., Jenner, M.W., Hanna, M., 1994. Treatment of dilute manure
wastewaters by chemical coagulation. Transactions of ASAE 37, 597601.
Steinmetz, R.L.R. 2007. Polyelectrolytes application on metal separation in efuents
from swine production. Master Thesis, Chemistry Department, UFSM, p. 55.
Steinmetz, R.L.R., Kunz, A., Ramme, M.A., Dressler, V.L., Flores, E.M.M., 2007.
Separao slidolquido em euentes da suinocultura com uso de extratos

5489

tanantes modicados e aplicao de modelos de otimizao multivariada.

Revista AIDIS de Ingeniera y Cincias Ambientales 2, 18.
Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., 2007. Abatement of ammonia emissions from swine
lagoons using polymer-enhanced solidliquid separation. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture 23 (6), 837845.
Vanotti, M.B., Rashash, D.M.C., Hunt, P.G., 2002. Solidliquid separation of ushed
swine manure with PAM: effect of wastewater strength. Transactions of ASAE
45, 19591969.
Vanotti, M.B., Szogi, A.A., Vives, C.A., 2008. Greenhouse gas emission reduction and
environmental quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste
treatment systems in swine farms. Waste Management 28, 759766.
Westerman, P.W., Bicudo, J.R., 2000. Tangential ow separation and chemical
enhancement to recover swine manure solids, nutrients and metals.
Bioresource Technology 73, 111.
Zhang, R.H., Lei, F., 1998. Chemical treatment of animal manure for solidliquid
separation. Transactions of ASAE 41, 11031108.
Zhu, J., 2000. A review of microbiology in swine manure odor control. Agricultural
System and Environmental 78, 93106.
Zhu, N., 2007. Effect of low initial C/N ratio on aerobic composting of swine manure
with rice straw. Bioresource Technology 98 (1), 913.