Annual Variations of Odor Concentrations and Emissions from Swine Gestation, Farrowing, and Nursery Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain annual odor emission profiles from intensive swine operations, odor concentrations and emission rates were measured monthly from swine nursery, farrowing, and gestation rooms for a year. Large annual variations in odor concentrations and emissions were found in all the rooms and the impact of the seasonal factor (month) was significant (P < 0.05). Odor concentration was low in summer when ventilation rate was high but high in winter when ventilation rate was low, ranging from 362 (farrowing room in July) to 8934 (nursery room in December) olfactory unit (OU) m(-3). This indicates that the air quality regarding odor was significantly better in summer than that in winter. Odor emission rate did not show obvious seasonal pattern as odor concentration did, ranging from 2 (gestation room in November) to 90 (nursery room in April) OU m(-2) sec(-1); this explains why the odor complaints for swine barns have occurred all year round. The annual geometric mean odor concentration and emission rate of the nursery room was significantly higher than the other rooms (P < 0.05). In order to obtain the representative annual emission rate, measurements have to be taken at least monthly, and then the geometric mean of the monthly values will represent the annual emission rate. Incorporating odor control technologies in the nursery area will be the most efficient in reducing odor emission from the farm considering its emission rate was 2 to 3 times of the other areas. The swine grower-finisher area was the major odor source contributing 53% of odor emission of the farm and should also be targeted for odor control. Relatively positive correlations between odor concentration and both H2S and CO2 concentrations (R(2) = 0.58) means that high level of these two gases might likely indicate high odor concentration in swine barns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".