Differences in biodegradability can affect the treatment of slurry before its use in spraying. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the generation and physical–chemical characterization of swine and dairy cattle slurries on different biological treatment technologies. This research involved monthly sampling (number/composition) for 1 year of 24 swine farms (16%), cattle farms (38%), and mixed swine and cattle farms (46%). The results obtained showed differences in feeding (3 l water kg−1 food for cattle and 5 l water kg−1 food for swine) and assimilation (0.6 kg food kg −1 milk produced and 3 kg kg−1 weight gain), which may influence the generation of slurry (57 l animal−1d−1 in cattle and 31 l animal−1 d−1 in swine) and its composition. In addition, the composition of swine slurry [23 g chemical oxygen demand (COD) l−1, 3 g total nitrogen (TN) l−1] is significantly different (P < 0.01) to cattle slurry (4 g COD l−1, 0.3 g TN l−1). Finally, the composition and the S index applied to swine slurry [COD N−1 = 8, biological oxygen demand (BOD)5 COD−1 = 0.3, S index > 0] and cattle slurry (COD N−1 = 16, BOD5 COD−1 = 0.6, S index < 0) show a difference on the biodegradability of both slurries. Suitability of anaerobic and aerobic treatment was assessed based on the findings.
AhnYH (2006) Sustainable nitrogen elimination biotechnologies: A review. Process Biochemistry41: 1709–1721.
2.
AkkarawongsaRWeimerPJ (2001). Initial pH as a determinant of cellulose digestion rate by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro 1. Cellulose84: 848–859.
3.
AkunnaJCBizeauCMolettaR (1992). Denitrification in anaerobic digesters: Possibilities and influence of wastewater COD/N-NOx ratio. Environmental Technology13: 825–836.
4.
APHA (American Public Health Association), (AWWA) American Water Works Association, (WPCF) Pollution Control Federation (2005). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 16th ed.Washington, DC: APHA, AWWA, WPCF.
5.
AustMOThiele-BruhnSEckardtK-ULeinweberP (2009) Composition of organic matter in particle size fractionated pig slurry. Bioresource Technology100: 5736–5743.
6.
Basset-MensCvan der WerfHMG (2005) Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment105: 127–144.
7.
BernetNBélineF (2009) Challenges and innovations on biological treatment of livestock effluents. Bioresource Technology100: 5431–5436.
8.
BolanNSLaurensonSLuoJSukiasJ (2009) Integrated treatment of farm effluents in New Zealand’s dairy operations. Bioresource Technology100: 5490–5497.
BoursierHBélineFPaulE (2005) Piggery wastewater characterization for biological nitrogen removal process design. Bioresource Technology96: 351–358.
11.
BuelnaGDubéRTurgeonN (2008) Pig manure treatment by organic bed biofiltration. Desalination231: 297–304.
12.
ClemensJTrimornMWeilandPAmonB (2006) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment112: 171–177.
13.
Di RienzoJACasanovesFBalzariniMGGonzálezLTabladaMRobledoCW (2009) InfoStat versión 2009. Córdoba, Argentina: Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
14.
DijkstraJOenemaOBanninkA (2011) Dietary strategies to reducing N excretion from cattle: implications for methane emissions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability3: 1–9.
15.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2010) Mundial database of livestock production. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx (accessed 11 June 2012).
16.
FlotatsXBonmatíAFernándezBMagríA (2009) Manure treatment technologies: On-farm versus centralized strategies. NE Spain. Bioresource Technology100: 5519–5526.
17.
GalassiGColombiniSMalaguttiLCrovettoGMRapettiL (2010).Effects of high fibre and low protein diets on performance, digestibility, nitrogen excretion and ammonia emission in the heavy pig. Animal Feed Science and Technology161: 140–148.
18.
GehmanAMKononoffPJ (2010) Nitrogen utilization, nutrient digestibility, and excretion of purine derivatives in dairy cattle consuming rations containing corn milling co-products. Journal of Dairy Science93: 3641–3651.
19.
GressleyTFArmentanoLE (2007) Effects of low rumen-degradable protein or abomasal fructan infusion on diet digestibility and urinary nitrogen excretion in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science90: 1340–1353.
20.
HansenKHAngelidakiIAhringBK (1998) Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water Research32: 5–12.
21.
HernándezFMartínezSLópezCMegíasMDLópezMMadridJ (2011) Effect of dietary crude protein levels in a commercial range, on the nitrogen balance, ammonia emission and pollutant characteristics of slurry in fattening pigs. Animal International Journal Animal Bioscience5: 1290–1298.
22.
KruseSTraulsenIKrieterJ (2011) Analysis of water, feed intake and performance of lactating sows. Livestock Science135: 177–183.
23.
KumeSNonakaKOshitaTKozakaiT (2010) Evaluation of drinking water intake, feed water intake and total water intake in dry and lactating cows fed silages. Livestock Science128: 46–51.
24.
KunzASteinmetzRLR (2009) Advanced swine manure treatment and utilization in Brazil. Bioresource Technology100: 5485–5489.
25.
LePDAarninkAJAJongbloedAWVan der Peet-ScheweringCMCOginkNWMVertegenMWA (2007) Effects of dietary crude protein level on odour from pig manure. Animal1: 734–744.
26.
MarañónESalterAMCastillónLHeavenSFernández-NavaY (2011) Reducing the environmental impact of methane emissions from dairy farms by anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. Waste Management31: 1745–1751.
27.
MartinezJDabertPBarringtonSBurtonC (2009) Livestock waste treatment systems for environmental quality, food safety, and sustainability. Bioresource Technology100: 5527–5536.
MelseRWVerdoesN (2005) Evaluation of four farm-scale systems for the treatment of liquid pig manure. Biosystems Engineering92: 47–57.
30.
MeyerUEveringhoffMGädekenDFlachowskyG (2004) Investigations on the water intake of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Production Science90: 117–121.
31.
MolinuevoBGarcíaMCKarakashevDAngelidakiI (2009) Anammox for ammonia removal from pig manure effluents: Effect of organic matter content on process performance. Bioresource Technology100: 2171–2175.
32.
MoralRPerez-MurciaMDPerez-EspinozaAMoreno-CasellesJParedesC (2005) Estimation of nutrient values of pig slurries in Southeast Spain using easily determined properties. Waste Management25: 719–725.
33.
MoralRPerez-MurciaMPerez-EspinosaAMoreno-CasellesJParedesCRufeteB (2008) Salinity, organic content, micronutrients and heavy metals in pig slurries from South-eastern Spain. Waste Management28: 367–371.
34.
NeubauerMEPlaza de los ReyesCPozoGVillamarCAVidalG (2012) Growth and uptake nutrients of Schoenoplectus californicus (C.A. Méyer) Sójak in a constructed wetland fed with swine slurry. Soil Science Plant Nutrition12: 421–430.
35.
OenemaO (2006) Nitrogen budgets and losses in livestock systems. International Congress Series1293: 262–271.
36.
PatniNKJuiPY (1991) Nitrogen concentration variability in dairy-cattle slurry stored in farms tanks. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 34: 609–615.
37.
PortejoieSDourmadJYMartínezJLebretonY (2004) Effect of lowering dietary crude protein on nitrogen excretion, manure composition and ammonia emission from fattening pigs. Livestock Production Science91: 45–55.
38.
PuyueloBPonsáSGeaTSánchezA (2011) Determining C/N ratios for typical organic wastes using biodegradable fractions. Chemosphere85: 653–659.
39.
RicoJLGarcíaHRicoCTejeroI (2007) Characterization of solid and liquid fractions of dairy manure with regard to their component distribution and methane production. Bioresource Technology98: 971–979.
40.
RipleyLEBoyleWConverseJ (1986) Improved alkalimetric monitoring for anaerobic digestion of high strength wastes. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation58: 406–411.
41.
RodríguezDCBelmonteMPeñuelaGCamposJLVidalG (2011) Behaviour of molecular weight distribution for the liquid fraction of pig slurry treated by anaerobic digestion. Environmental Technology32: 419–425.
42.
RodríguezDCPinoNPeñuelaG (2012) Microbiological quality indicators in waters of dairy farms: Detection of pathogens by PCR in real time. Science of the Total Environment427–428: 314–318.
43.
SEA (Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental) (2012) Chile database of livestock production with Environmental Impact Declaration. Available at: http://www.sea.gob.cl/ (accessed 5 June 2012).
44.
SilveiraCObaMYangWZBeaucheminKA (2007) Selection of barley grain affects ruminal fermentation, starch digestibility, and productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science90: 2860–2869.
45.
SotoMMéndezRLemaJM (1990) Efluentes residuales en la industria de procesado de productos marinos. Efluentes residuales en la industria de procesado de productos marinos. Ingeniería Química22: 203–209.
46.
VanottiMBSzogiAAMillnerPDLoughrinJH (2009) Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Bioresource Technology100: 5406–5416.
47.
WPCF (Water Pollution Control Federation) (1966) Anaerobic sludge digestion-mop 16. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation38: 1683–1702.
48.
YangXWangSZhouL (2012) Effect of carbon source, C/N ratio, nitrate and dissolved oxygen concentration on nitrate and ammonium production from denitrification on process by Pseudomonas stutzeri D6. Bioresource Technology104: 65–72.
