Table 4. Effect of spraying anti-microbial agent on growing pig slurry pit
Items | CON1) | TRT | SEM | p-value |
Initial (ppm) |
NH3 | 3.75 | 4.00 | 0.34 | 0.620 |
H2S | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.14 | 0.874 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.00 | 6.00 | 0.29 | 1 |
Acetic acid | 4.00 | 3.50 | 0.94 | 0.670 |
CO2 | 3,400 | 3,425 | 217.00 | 0.913 |
Day 7 (ppm) |
NH3 | 4.25a | 2.50b | 0.41 | 0.003 |
H2S | 0.53a | 0.35b | 0.07 | 0.044 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.50a | 4.00b | 0.58 | 0.002 |
Acetic acid | 4.25a | 3.50b | 0.53 | 0.046 |
CO2 | 3,550a | 2,775b | 137.00 | 0.001 |
Day 14 (ppm) |
NH3 | 4.75a | 2.50b | 0.18 | 0.006 |
H2S | 0.53a | 0.35b | 0.02 | 0.003 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.75a | 3.75b | 0.58 | 0.004 |
Acetic acid | 4.50a | 3.25b | 0.18 | 0.017 |
CO2 | 3,575a | 2,650b | 88 | 0.000 |
Day 21 (ppm) |
NH3 | 4.75a | 2.75b | 0.29 | 0.011 |
H2S | 0.60a | 0.40b | 0.03 | 0.032 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.75a | 3.50b | 0.34 | 0.016 |
Acetic acid | 4.75a | 3.00b | 0.34 | 0.026 |
CO2 | 3,750a | 2,775b | 34.00 | < 0.001 |
Day 28 (ppm) |
NH3 | 5.25a | 2.75b | 0.35 | 0.010 |
H2S | 0.63a | 0.40b | 0.04 | 0.003 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.25a | 3.25b | 0.50 | 0.001 |
Acetic acid | 5.00a | 2.75b | 0.34 | 0.003 |
CO2 | 3,800a | 2,700b | 129.00 | 0.001 |
Day 35 (ppm) |
NH3 | 5.00a | 3.25b | 0.18 | < 0.001 |
H2S | 0.68a | 0.43b | 0.05 | 0.003 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.50a | 3.50b | 0.29 | 0.005 |
Acetic acid | 5.00a | 2.75b | 0.34 | 0.011 |
CO2 | 3,950a | 2,800b | 110 | 0.001 |
Day 42 (ppm) |
NH3 | 5.50a | 3.50b | 0.29 | 0.003 |
H2S | 0.73a | 0.50b | 0.03 | 0.003 |
Methyl mercaptans | 6.75a | 3.50b | 0.34 | 0.001 |
Acetic acid | 5.25a | 2.50b | 0.34 | < 0.001 |
CO2 | 4,075a | 3,050b | 109.00 | 0.009 |
CON and TRT pen of growing pig’s slurry pit were sprayed: Non-anti-microbial agent (NAMA, saline water) and anti-microbial agent (G-Fresh, 100 heads/1 kg mixed probiotics), respectively.
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05).