Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 150 of the 150 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review: Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots

Hristov, A. N., Hanigan, M., Cole, A., Todd, R., McAllister, T. A., Ndegwa, P. M., Rotz, A.·2011·Canadian Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Hristov, A. N., Hanigan, M., Cole, A., Todd, R., McAllister T. A., Ndegwa, P. and Rotz, A. 2011. Review: Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 1–35. Ammonia emitted from animal feeding operations is an environmental and human health hazard, contributing to eutrophication of surface waters and nitrate contamination of ground waters, soil acidity, and fine particulate matter formation. It may also contribute to global warming through nitrous oxide formation. Along with these societal concerns, ammonia emission is a net loss of manure fertilizer value to the producer. A significant portion of cattle manure nitrogen, primarily from urinary urea, is converted to ammonium and eventually lost to the atmosphere as ammonia. Determining ammonia emissions from cattle operations is complicated by the multifaceted nature of the factors regulating ammonia volatilization, such as manure management, ambient temperature, wind speed, and manure composition and pH. Approaches to quantify ammonia emissions include micrometeorological methods, mass balance accounting and enclosures. Each method has its advantages, disadvantages and appropriate application. It is also of interest to determine the ammonia emitting potential of manure (AEP) independent of environmental factors. The ratio of nitrogen to non-volatile minerals (phosphorus, potassium, ash) or nitrogen isotopes ratio in manure has been suggested as a useful indicator of AEP. Existing data on ammonia emission factors and flux rates are extremely variable. For dairy farms, emission factors from 0.82 to 250 g ammonia per cow per day have been reported, with an average of 59 g per cow per day (n=31). Ammonia flux rates for dairy farms averaged 1.03 g m−2 h−1(n=24). Ammonia losses are significantly greater from beef feedlots, where emission factors average 119 g per animal per day (n=9) with values as high as 280 g per animal per day. Ammonia flux rate for beef feedlots averaged 0.174 g m−2 h−1(n=12). Using nitrogen mass balance approaches, daily ammonia nitrogen losses of 25 to 50% of the nitrogen excreted in manure have been estimated for dairy cows and feedlot cattle. Practices to mitigate ammonia emissions include reducing excreted N (particularly urinary N), acidifying ammonia sources, or binding ammonium to a substrate. Reducing crude protein concentration in cattle diets and ruminal protein degradability are powerful tools for reducing N excretion, AEP, and whole-farm ammonia emissions. Reducing dietary protein can also benefit the producer by reducing feed cost. These interventions, however, have to be balanced with the risk of lost production. Manure treatment techniques that reduce volatile N species (e.g., urease inhibition, pH reduction, nitrification-denitrification) are also effective for mitigating ammonia emissions. Another option for reducing ammonia emissions is capture and treatment of released ammonia. Examples in the latter category include biofilters, permeable and impermeable covers, and manure incorporation into the soil for crop or pasture production. Process-level simulation of ammonia formation and emission provides a useful tool for estimating emissions over a wide range of production practices and evaluating the potential benefits of mitigation strategies. Reducing ammonia emissions from dairy and beef cattle operations is critical to achieving environmentally sustainable animal production that will benefit producers and society at large.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4141/cjas10034

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 150 references

Cited by

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Hristov, A. N., Hanigan, M., Cole, A., Todd, R., McAllister, T. A., Ndegwa, P. M., & Rotz, A.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Animal Science
Published
2011-03
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 0008-3984 (ISSN-L)
  • 1918-1825
OpenAlex
W2126222557
Cited by
431
References
150
FWCI
12.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review: Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4141/cjas10034
The paper
Hristov, A. N., Hanigan, M., Cole, A., Todd, R., McAllister, T. A., Ndegwa, P. M., & Rotz, A. (2011). Review: Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas10034

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.