Smith, K.Drysdale, A.Saville, D.2024-10-302024-10-301980-12https://hdl.handle.net/10182/17794A study was conducted comparing four methods of treating livestock waste. Two commercial formulations were included. These were Alamask M-X, a masking agent designed for odour control, and Actizyme, a digestive product intended for odour control and solids liquefaction. The other two methods were treatment by aeration and treatment with finely divided iron, which was thought to have an application in controlling hydrogen sulphide emission from piggery wastes in enclosed environment housing. Effluent was collected from six Canterbury piggeries and stored in 150 litre plastic drums. Treatments were applied to the effluent shortly after collection and the effects on odour level and solids liquefaction were observed over a 6 week period. Odour level was assessed by means of a panel consisting of Lincoln College students and solids liquefaction by a relative viscosity technique. The results showed that aeration, and initially Alamask M-X were the most effective treatments. Actizyme and finely divided iron were disappointing. The results also indicated that the odour panel technique used was capable of detecting real treatment effects and that there appeared to be no problem of odour fatigue during the assessments. There was no evidence that Actizyrne had a significant effect on the viscosity of the effluent.29 pages© New Zealand Agricultural Engineering Instituteodour contolpig farminglivestock wasteReportANZSRC::300302 Animal management