A Two-Airspace Building Design to Reduce Odor and Ammonia Emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emissions from the barn ventilation system and manure storage facilities constitute two continuous sources of gas and odor emissions from pig facilities. In Canada, swine manure is generally stored outside the barn to minimize the risk of worker and animal exposure to hydrogen sulfide during manure agitation and to reduce construction costs. However, storing swine manure in the barn would decrease the number of continuous emission sources from two to one. By having two separate airspaces in the building consisting of a main airspace and an enclosed dunging area (EDA), swine manure can be stored within the barn with reduced risk. Gas transfer from the manure storage to the EDA and the building emissions would be reduced if the EDA exhaust air is treated. Preliminary experiments were conducted to determine a basic design for a functioning EDA: type and width of doorway and equipment necessary to minimize the time spent by the pigs in the EDA. The EDA design was incorporated into existing grower-finisher rooms and tested over three trials. Problems with dunging patterns necessitated the modification of the EDA as the study progressed. A 0.4-m rubber strip curtain doorway evolved into a full pen width curtain doorway. During the last trial, when the pigs properly used the EDA as a dunging location, the experimental room equipped with a full width curtain drawing across the EDA tended to reduce odor emissions and provided a 43% reduction in NH3 emissions. Considering the EDA concept and the modifications incorporated to address the experimental challenges over the trials, a full width curtain EDA is the most promising option for separating the main airspace of a barn from the dunging area. More research is required to further develop this concept.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".