CHAPTER I

Introduction
A. Background of the Study
Poultry and livestock farm production are among of the most common agricultural
enterprises here in the Philippines, accounting for approximately 87% of the value of farm
products produced. Around 27% comes from poultry and 60% from livestock production based
from Philippines animal production system.
Thus under Philippine conditions, foul odour is very common in chicken poultry and pig
farms, especially on their manures. The unpleasant odour is common associated with unsanitary
environments. Unfortunately objections have been raised from the people living near these areas
because of the malodorous odour of the manures. In addition to, residents of communities living
near pig and poultry farms have increased respiratory problems. A number of studies have
demonstrated that fatigue, depression, and mood disturbances occur in high proportions in people
living near such facilities. Furthermore, air pollution from farms directly affects the environment
through the production of gaseous nitrogen and some greenhouse gases responsible for global
warming. Although a healthy environment is never ensured with air pollution, the chicken
poultries and pig farms cannot be closed as these are important agricultural industries
contributing to our economic. Hence a solution needs to be developed to eradicate the foul
odour. The introduction of Carbonized Rice Hull, Minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon
grass as Foul Odour Eliminator on Chicken and Pig manures might be a timely response to this
problem.
Carbonized Rice hull cleanses and deodorizes bad air smell through activated carbon
that absorbs fetid odours in the air. It is also used as mulch bed in animal pen and poultry houses to
reduce foul smell from urine and faeces.

At the same time, paper is a highly absorbent material. Old newspapers are made from
paper and we used it as a daily news material. After we are done reading the newspaper, we just
throw it or sometimes we used it as a material for burning. Most people know that newspapers
are only used as a reading, burning, covering or designing materials, but since it is an absorbent
material we can used it as an odour eliminator.
Lemon grass (Andropogan citrates DC.) is a tropical fragrant grass with an aromatic
citrus flavour and a tinge of ginger. Its pleasant aroma acts as natural air freshener. A lemon
grass is one of the wondrous herbs; it is very useful as medicinal plant and a delicious food
flavouring. Citronella is known for its calming effect that relieves insomnia or stress. It is also
popular as a mild insect repellent.
Because of the effect of manure odours to health of people, environment and
impracticality of people in eliminating the chicken and pig manures foul odour, the researcher
was prompted to venture on making of an environmental friendly foul odour eliminator for pig
and chicken manures from materials that are easily found in every community, hence the study
of Carbonized Rice Hull, Minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon grass (Andropogan
citrates DC.) as a Foul Odour Eliminator on Chicken and Pig Manures was conceived.

B. Objectives of the Study

2

This study aims to determine the Effectiveness of Carbonized Rice hull, minced Old
Newspapers and Decocted Lemon grass (Andropogan citrates DC) as a Foul Odour Eliminator
on Chicken and Pig manures and it sought to answer the following:
1 .Are the experimental foul odours effective in lessening the foul odour from pig and
chicken manure?
2. Which among the treatments yield the best performance as pig and chicken manure
foul odour eliminator in terms of odour level?
3. Is there a significant difference among the treatments in terms of eliminating the foul
odours of chicken and pig manures?

C. Hypothesis
1. The experimental foul odour eliminator are not effective in lessening the foul odour
of pig and chicken manures.
2. None of the treatments yield the best performance as pig and chicken manure foul
odour eliminator in terms of odour level.
3. There is no significant difference among the treatments in terms of eliminating the
foul odour of pig and chicken manures.

D. Significance of the Study

3

This study is a great importance and help in agricultural industry.

Odour emission is a major issue for chicken poultry production as well as to pig
production. Odorants and noxious gases produced in livestock may harm the animals, the
workers and the people living nearby as well as the ecosystem.
Odour from manures of factory farms including poultries and pig pens is one of the
biggest contributors to air pollution which is one of the worlds environmental battles that
destroys ecosystem and causes health problems to millions of people.
This study also promotes the use of eco friendly products.
Since the materials that were used are commonly found in the locality, it will be practical
and helpful, especially for hog and chicken poultry raisers in order to eliminate the foul odour
from pig and chicken manure produced.

E. Scope and Delimitation

This study was conducted at Alzate, Bangar, La Union in duration of June 15, 2012August 2012 and was continued on January 2013 SY: 2012-2013. It limited on the use of
Carbonized Rice hull, minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon grass (Andropogan citrates
DC) as a Foul Odour Eliminator on Chicken and Pig manures. It also limited in the used of
newly gathered manures of Pigs and Chickens and likewise delimited with this treatments
namely:
To- Untreated manure
T1-5og Carbonized rice hull+15g minced Old Newspapers +5ml Decocted lemon grass
T2- 50g Carbonized rice hull+15g minced Old Newspapers
T3-10 ml Decocted Lemon grass

F. Review of Related Literature

Manure management
4

One of the main contributors of air, soil and water pollution is animal waste. According
to a 2005 report by the USDA, more than 335 million tons of "dry matter" waste (the waste after
water is removed) is produced annually on farms in the United States. Animal feeding operations
produce about 100 times more manure than the amount of human sewage sludge processed in US
municipal waste water plants each year. Diffuse source pollution from agricultural fertilizers is
more difficult to trace, monitor and control. High nitrate concentrations are found in groundwater
and may reach 50 mg/litre (the EU Directive limit). In ditches and river courses, nutrient
pollution from fertilizers causes eutrophication. This is worse in winter, after autumn ploughing
has released a surge of nitrates; winter rainfall is heavier increasing runoff and leaching, and
there is lower plant uptake. The EPA suggests that one dairy farm with 2,500 cows produces as
much waste as a city with around 411,000 residents. The National Research Council has
identified odours as the most significant animal emission problem at the local level. Different
animal systems have adopted several waste management procedures to deal with the large
amount of waste produced annually.

Pig manure
5

It is a very concentrated organic material with 10-100 times the pollution potential of
typical untreated city sewage. Decomposition begins immediately after the animal voids it, as
bacteria break the complex organic matter down to form simpler compounds. Decomposition
with oxygen continuously available is called 'aerobic'; without oxygen it is called 'anaerobic'.
Most collection gutters, holding tanks and storage structures are anaerobic. Aerobic
decomposition produces minimal odours.
Anaerobic decomposition, on the other hand, produces very bad odours, including some
gases that are hazardous to humans and animals. These include carbon dioxide (C02),
methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Plan M-8710, Manure Gas, gives
a full description of these hazardous gases and related safety procedures. Manure gas
concentrations in and above the storage depend on the length of time the manure is stored and
the degree of disturbance. Highest concentrations (particularly H2S) occur during mixing or
emptying of tanks and gutters.
Chicken manure
The odour that is detected from a poultry operation is a complex mixture of gases. Most
often the odour is a result of the uncontrolled anaerobic decomposition of manure. However,
feed spoilage can also contribute to the odour. The odour that our noses detect can be a
combination of 60 to 150 different compounds. Some of the most important types of odour
causing compounds are: volatile fatty acids, mercaptans, esters, carbonyls, aldehydes, alcohols,
ammonia, and amines. The odour strength of these compounds do not combine in an additive
manner. That is, sometimes mixing several of these compounds can result in reduced odor by
dilution of the strongest smelling compounds. In other instances, the mixture is worse than any
of the individual compounds. Ammonia can create strong odours near the manure storage or

building, but is not a significant component of odour downwind from a poultry facility. Ammonia is
6

highly volatile and moves upward in the atmosphere quickly where it is diluted.

Odours
An odorant is a substance capable of eliciting an olfactory response whereas odor is the sensation
resulting from stimulation of the olfactory organs. Odor threshold is a term used to identify the
concentration at which animals respond 50 percent of the time to repeated presentations of an
odorant being tested. Most often, however, odor threshold is used to describe the detection
threshold, which identies the concentration at which 50 percent of a human panel can identify
the presence of an odor or odorant without characterizing the stimulus. The recognition threshold
is the concentration at which 50 percent of the panel can identify the odorant or odor. Although
the detection threshold concentrations of substances that evoke a smell are low, often times in the
parts per billion (ppb) or parts per trillion (ppt) range, a concentration only 10 to 50 times above
the detection threshold value often is the maximum intensity that can be detected by humans.
This is in contrast to other sensory systems where maximum intensities are many more multiples
of threshold intensities. For example, the maximum intensity of sight is about 500,000 times that
of the threshold intensity and a factor of 1 trillion is observed for hearing. For this reason, smell
is often concerned with identifying the presence or absence of odor rather than with quantifying
intensity or concentration. Perception of a mixture of odorants, such as those in livestock odor, is
very different from how each chemical would be perceived independently. Odorants can act as
additive agents, counteractants, masking agents, or be synergistic in nature. The combination of
two odorants can have an odor equal to that of either one of the components, have an odor less
than that of one of the components, have an odor equal to the sum of the components, or even
have an odor greater than the sum of the components. This makes odor quantication and
characterization a challenging process. Odor can be evaluated subjectively in terms of intensity

(strength) or in terms of quality (i.e., offensiveness). Odor quality is evaluated by describing the
7

odor or comparing the sample odor to familiar odors. Evaluation of odor quality is difficult
because of the challenges that come with trying to describe odors.
Odour measurement
Unfortunately, there are no instrument-based methods that can measure an odour response in the
same way as the human nose. Dynamic olfactometry, as it is known, is the basis of odour
management and is the method approved by the EPA. Dynamic olfactometry is the measurement
of odour by presenting a sample of odorous air to an independent panel, in a range of dilutions,
and seeking responses from the panelists on whether they can detect the odour. The correlations
between the known dilution ratios and the panelists responses are then used to calculate the
number of dilutions of the original sample required to achieve the odour threshold. The units for
odour measurement using dynamic olfactometry are odour units (OU), which are dimensionless
and are effectively dilutions to threshold.
The EPA has updated its criterion for measurement of odour to the Australian Standard
Stationary Source EmissionsDetermination of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry,
AS4323.3:2001,Standards Australia.
Hazardous Gases on Farms
Hydrogen Sulphide
Hydrogen sulphide, H2S, is the most dangerous manure gas. It is classified as a
chemical asphyxiant because it immediately chemically interacts with the blood's
hemoglobin to block oxygen from being carried to the body's vital organs and tissues. It
is produced from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials such as manure. Its
characteristic rotten egg smell is easy to detect at low concentrations, but at higher
concentrations it paralyses the sense of smell. This can give someone a false sense of
security when exposed to hydrogen sulphide. In high concentrations, hydrogen sulphide
8

causes instant paralysis and death.

Methane

Methane, CH4, is a colourless and odourless gas. This combustible gas is generated by

anaerobic digestion of organic material and if stored can be used as a fuel source for internal

combustion engines. It is lighter than air, therefore, tends to rise from the manure storage.

Methane is non-toxic and is unlikely to be a concern in well-ventilated livestock buildings.

In covered and in-barn storages, methane can become trapped and the concentration can

reach dangerously explosive levels.

Ammonia
Ammonia, NH3, is a colourless gas and has a characteristically pungent odour. It is
produced by the decomposition of animal manures. This gas is classified as an irritant. It is
lighter than air and can pre-dispose livestock to various respiratory diseases if exposed to a
significant gas level for an extended period of time. Ammonia irritates the eyes at levels in the
range of 20-50 PPM depending on the sensitivity of the person or animal. This gas tends to be a
concern mainly in swine and poultry buildings however, it can also be a problem in manure
composting operations. As a guideline, if eye irritation occurs, the ventilation in the building
should be improved.

Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide, CO2, is colourless and odourless. It is, in part, the product of respiration
of both plant material and animals, and is found naturally in the atmosphere. All open flame,
non-vented, space heaters will also contribute carbon dioxide to the surrounding air space as
one of the products of combustion. It is heavier than air and, like hydrogen sulphide, will

tend to accumulate just above the animal pen floor, surface of manure in a manure tank, or
silage surface in a silo. The main danger with carbon dioxide is that it can create an oxygen
deficiency and can result in asphyxiation or suffocation. Well-ventilated livestock buildings
do not generally contain dangerous levels of CO2, however, lethal concentrations can be
found in sealed silos, liquid manure storages, and grain storages.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Nitrogen dioxide is a dangerous chemical asphyxiant and is produced as a result of
chemical reactions that take place almost immediately after plant material is placed into a silo.
Even short-term exposure can result in sudden death. It has a characteristic bleach-like odour and
may be visible as a reddish-brown haze. It is heavier than air; therefore, it will tend to be
located just above the silage surface. It may also flow down silo chutes and into feed rooms.
Odor Formation Prevention Methods
Storage System Type
The type of manure storage system used can influence odor production and release. Systems that
store high solids manure slurries typically produce more odor than systems that store more dilute
manure. Additionally, systems that are protected from the wind will release less odor than those
that are exposed to airflow across the manures surface. For example, a high-solids manure slurry
stored under a cover would be expected to release less odor than a similar manure slurry stored
in an open top outdoor structure exposed to wind. Solid manures that are stacked will quickly
10

generate and release odors unless covered or composted.

Anaerobic Treatment
Complete anaerobic treatment of manure is very effective at controlling odor. Two types of
anaerobic manure treatment systems are used with swine manure; anaerobic digesters and
anaerobic lagoons. Of the two systems, anaerobic digesters are by far the most effective. Because

anaerobic digesters use biogas collection systems that require a cover, odors are collected with
the biogas. A properly designed and operated anaerobic digester will produce very little odor. To
date, the sale of electricity from anaerobic manure digesters has not proven to be profitable
unless the electrical power produced can be sold to a utility at a subsidized electrical rate far in
excess of the wholesale electricity price. Since the cost of manure anaerobic digesters is typically
greater than any revenue generated from the system, producers who choose to operate digesters
often do so primarily for the excellent odor control that they provide. Some swine producers
operating anaerobic digesters use the biogas directly to heat water used to heat the floors in
furrowing units rather than to produce electricity.
Anaerobic lagoons are designed to reduce odor by storing manure with additional dilution water.
If designed and operated correctly, anaerobic lagoons will reduce odor generation; however,
anaerobic lagoons that are improperly designed and managed can become very odorous.
Anaerobic lagoons also have some disadvantages from a nutrient management standpoint. If
lagoons are not covered, large amounts of manure nitrogen will be lost from these systems in the
form of ammonia gas. Because correctly designed anaerobic lagoons require diluting manure in
very large volumes of water, manure solids and associated nutrients settle to the bottom of the
lagoon and can be difficult to remove.
Aeration
The complete aerobic treatment of manure is very effective at eliminating odor. Unfortunately,
because of the high organic content of manure, complete aerobic treatment of manure is not
currently economically feasible. It is difficult to predict if partial aeration will provide
11

meaningful odor control because there are several variables involved. The first is the manure
organic content. The more dilute a manure is a greater benefit can be expected from aeration. For
very thick slurries, the air addition requirement is so large that this approach is not economically
feasible. The use of aeration, however, may provide benefit in a dilute system, such as an
anaerobic lagoon that is not functioning correctly. The second variable is the amount of oxygen
introduced by the aeration system. The more oxygen introduced, the better the odor control and
the greater the cost to operate the aeration system. There has been research on using sequencing
of aeration on for a period of time, then off for a period of time to affect the forms of
nitrogen and phosphorus, called intermittent aeration or the sequencing batch reactor (SBR). This
system has a potential to reduce odor. However, more research is needed on the impact of odor
reduction with these types of systems.
Composting
Composting is the most commonly used treatment method for solid manure. Composting
systems that are correctly designed and operated provide excellent odor reduction compared to
solid manure that is simply stacked. When considering a composting system give careful thought
as to where and how the materials to be composted will be stored prior to composting. Many
odor complaints associated with compost systems are based on odors generated by stockpiles of
materials waiting to be composted.
Additives
Manure additives can be broken down into three functions: biological, chemical or masking.
Biological additives include enzymes or bacteria intended to increase the performance of either
aerobic or anaerobic bacteria and thereby reduce odor. Chemical additives are typically oxidizing
compounds intended to reduce the organic content of the manure by chemical oxidation.Masking
agents are typically chemical agents designed to mask or cover manure odor. Unfortunately
independent scientific research to date has not identified manure additives that can effectively,
reliably and economically reduce odors from swine manure. A recent research study completed
in 2001, tested 35 manure additives and found that none decreased odors.
12

Carbonized Rice hull

Rice husk is becoming increasingly useful as new uses are being popularized. One
product that is becoming increasingly popular is the carbonized rice hull, CRH for short. To
produce CRH, raw rice hull is burned without air so that it will not turn into ash. CRH is sterile

and is free from disease organisms. And that is the reason why Dr. Rene Sumaoang, a
microbiologist, has been promoting CRH as an ideal litter for brooding chicks.

There are a number of benefits from using CRH for brooding chicks instead of the usual
raw rice hull. Being sterile, CRH minimizes disease contamination. CRH readily absorbs the
moisture in the manure so the litter does not get moist and not attractive to flies. When the litter
is treated with an enzyme (Biosec) formulated by Dr. Sumaoang, the usual odor from the manure
is eliminated. At the same time, the enzymes break down the nutrients found in the manure so
that when brooding is over, the litter would have become an organic fertilizer that is ready to use
on crops.
Dr. Sumaoang explains that Biosec is a combination of live but immobilized beneficial
microorganisms and digestive enzymes. Once applied the beneficial microorganisms multiply
very rapidly, inhibiting the growth of disease-causing organisms like E. coli, salmonella and
others. The enzymes, on the other hand, break down the food nutrients in the manure into
simpler forms that could be readily absorbed by plants.

Dr. Sumaoang observes that chicks grown on CRH litter grow faster and are more
13

uniform in size. They are healthier because CRH does not allow the proliferation of harmful
organisms that often cause respiratory diseases and diarrhea.

CRH is also very useful in rice farming. Twenty bags of CRH combined with organic
fertilizer or compost may be applied in one hectare. It could be plowed in during land
preparation. This will make the land not only more porous for better plant growth, it will also
enable the soil to retain the moisture much longer. Thus, when there is a prolonged dry spell, the
rice plants will be able to survive the rainless period longer. Rice grown in fields enriched with
CRH also produce more profuse tillers. This will mean higher yield because there are more stems
that will bear fruit.
CRH is also useful in seedbeds for producing rice seedlings. Seedlings grown in beds of
CRH are much easier to pull out come transplanting time. The roots dont get damaged, hence
the seedlings get established in the field more readily.

CRH can also be very useful in growing high-value vegetables, including those grown in
containers. Combined with compost or topsoil, the resulting growing medium is ideal for
producing healthy crops. Radish grown in containers by Dr. Sumaoangs company produced
sizeable roots.

Old Papers/Newspapers

Paper is a thin material mainly used for writing upon, printing upon, drawing or
14

for packaging. It is produced by pressing together moist fibers, typically cellulose pulp derived
from wood, rags or grasses, and drying them into flexible sheets.

Paper is a versatile material with many uses. Whilst the most common is for writing and
printing upon, it is also widely used as a packaging material, in many cleaning products, in a
number of industrial and construction processes, and even as a food ingredient particularly in
Asian cultures.

Paper, and the pulp papermaking process, was said to be developed in China during the
early 2nd century AD by the Han court eunuch Cai Lun, although the earliest archaeological
fragments of paper derive from the 2nd century BC in China.

Lemon grass

Lemon grass or also known in its tagalong term Tanglad is a grass and is cultivated
throughout the Philippines. It is a popular ingredient in herbal teas and herbal soaps. It is used to
aid digestion, for stomach problems and to reduce fevers.
Lemon Grass, common name for several species of grasses originating in Africa and
Asia, used for culinary, medicinal, and cosmetic purposes. Although traditionally used in India
and South East Asia, Lemon Grass is now widely cultivated in tropical America, Africa,
Australia, and the Caribbean. The leaves and base of this tender perennial are used as a food
flavouring, particularly in fish and poultry dishes, and its essential oils are used medicinally. Its
distinctive flavour balances hot chillies and contributes to the elaborate, multi-layered flavours of
many dishes in South East Asian cuisine.
15

As the long, thin, grey-green leaves are tough and fibrous, the outside leaves and the tips
are usually chopped very finely or discarded from the dish before it is served. The base is often
ground. Citral, an essential oil also found in lemon peel, is the constituent responsible for its taste
and aroma. Citronella grass (Cymbopogon nardus), which is native to South East Asia, yields
citronella oil, which is used in perfume, cosmetics, and insect repellents. Its repellent properties
are also utilized in preparations used in dog and cat control. Fractional distillation of the oil may
be used to produce menthol, which has medicinal uses.

LEMON GRASS CLASSIFICATION

16

Lemon grass plant

Scientific classification
Kingdom:

Plantae

(unranked): Angiosperms
(unranked): Monocots
(unranked): Commelinids
Order:

Poales

Family:

Poaceae

Subfamily:

Panicoideae

Tribe:

Andropogoneae

Subtribe:

Andropogonina
e

Genus:

Cymbopogon
Spreng.

Related Studies

At the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) in Nueva Ecija, theres a showcase of
a pigpen where carbonized rice hull, about one foot deep, serves as flooring instead of the usual
cement floor. The pigpen does not have to be washed with water everyday. In fact, it does not get
washed for the entire growing period of four months. The manure and urine of the pigs get
buried in the carbonized rice hull. The usual foul smell is practically eliminated. And when the
pigs attain market size and are sold, the litter is collected and used as organic fertilizer for
vegetables, rice and other crops
17

. (http://www.agribusinessweek.com/carbonized -rice-hull-has-important-use/)
A three-year research project was conducted to encompass four studies where EM was
evaluated. These were the effects of EM on (1) Eliminating foul odor in poultry and pig farms,
(2) The weight gain of broilers, (3) The growth and yield of some vegetables and (4) Plants
and animals in terms of pathogenicity
The application of EM technology in swine was evaluated after one year of study.
Evaluation was done on urine and faeces, pigpens, drain canals and septic tanks. Initial results
showed that foul odor in pigpens was greatly reduced by EM application. Using the hedonic
scale,67% of the evaluators rated the treated test sites as odorless, 23 % said that these were
slightly odorous, and 10% evaluated as moderately odorous. In poultry, the effects of EM as a
foul odor eliminator after one growing cycle of broilers was not very favourable. With the same
scale used in swine, 73 % of the evaluators rated moderately odorous, 20% rated slightly
odorous, and 7% rated strongly odorous.
(Evaluation of Effective Microorganisms (EM) as Foul Odor Eliminator in Pig and Poultry
Farms, Growth Stimulant in Broilers, and as an Organic Fertilizer Eduardo Z. Alama1
Department of Agriculture, Cebu, Philippines)

CHAPTER II
Methodology
Title: Carbonized Rice hull, minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon grass
( Andropogan citrates DC.) as Foul Odour eliminator on Chicken and Pig manures

18

Hypotheses:
1. The experimental foul odour eliminator are not effective in lessening the foul odour
of pig or chicken manures.
2. None of the treatments yield the best performance as pig or chicken manures foul
odour eliminator in terms of odour level.
3. There is no significant difference among the treatments in terms of eliminating the
foul odour of pig or chicken manures.

Independent Variable: amount of Carbonized rice hull, amount of minced Old Newspapers ,
amount of decocted lemon grass
Dependent Variable: Odour level
Extraneous Variable: amount of manure

Control Variable: Untreated manure

Treatments:
T0
Untreated
manure
No. of trials
for chicken
manure
No. of trials
for pig
manure

T1
5og Rice hull+15g
minced Newspapers
+5ml Decocted Lemon
grass

T2
T3
5og Rice hull+15g 10ml Decocted
minced
lemon grass
Newspapers

This chapter presents the experimental design diagram, the materials used in the experiment,
the preparation of the different treatments, and the procedures used in the experiment

A. Experimental design Diagram

B. Materials
The researcher used Carbonized rice hull, Old newspapers, and Lemon grass as the main
components in eliminating the foul odour of chicken and pig manures. Carbonized rice hull was
19

placed in a container after gathering. Using a scissor the old newspapers were cut into small
pieces and then it were placed in a box. A knife was also used in gathering of the Lemon grass.
On the decoction of Lemon grass, a small casserole with 100 ml of water was used. It
was placed on a stove and waited until it boils. After it boiled, it was cooled down. Desired
amount of the Lemon was measured using a graduated cylinder. The measured decocted Lemon
grass was placed in 2 identical containers.
A triple beam balance was used in measuring the weight of the main components
including the chicken and pig manures. The measured chicken manures were placed in four
identical bags similarly, the pig manures where also placed in four identical plastic bags.
C. General Procedures
Gathering of Materials
The carbonized rice hull was gathered in Consuegra, Bangar, La Union. It was placed in a
container afterwards. In a vegetable farm of the researcher, 200g of Lemon grass was collected.
On the other hand old newspapers were collected on the researchers house and
neighbourhoods.
Chicken manures were gathered from the researchers chicken poultry. Before
gathering of materials the researcher placed a sack below the chicken cages that collected the
manure. So the researcher gathered the manures in the she got the sack. In the same manner, the
researcher gathered the pig manures in a sack to where the manures were placed.

Decoction of the Lemon grass

The gathered 200g of Lemon grasses were placed in a container and first washed. The
researcher tied the lemon grasses and placed it on a small casserole. Using the graduated cylinder
20

the researcher measured 100 ml of water and then placed it on the casserole where inside is the
lemon grass. The researcher placed it on a stove and waited until it boils. After boiling, the
researcher cooled down the decocted lemon grass then measured and placed it on identical
sprayers.

Preparing the Treatments

In preparing T0 no formulations was prepared. In T1, 15g of minced old newspapers was
placed first on the plastic bag. Pouring 50g of carbonized rice hull followed. Lastly 5ml of
decocted lemon grass was placed in a sprayer . In preparing for T2, 15g of minced old
newspapers was placed first on the plastic bag. Pouring 50g of carbonized rice hull followed.
For T3 10ml of decocted lemon grass was placed in a sprayer.

Preparing the Experimental Set-up

In preparing the set-up, 200g of pig manure was put in each of the four identical plastic
bags levelled as T0, T1, T2, T3. Similarly 100g of chicken manure was put in each of the four
identical plastic bags and was levelled as T0, T1, T2,T3.

D. Testing the Treatments and Gathering of Data

The formulations were applied and sprayed on the set-up at the same time and placed.
The treatments was applied thrice.
The selected panellists for chicken and pig manure were asked to rate the treatments in
terms of their odour level. The objective was to prove the effectiveness of Carbonized rice hull,
minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon grass as a Foul Odour Eliminator on Pig and
21

Chicken Manures.
Odourless - 5
Slightly odorous -3
Moderately odorous -2
Strongly odorous -1

22

Gathering
and
Preparing
the
Materials

Preparing the
Treatments

Preparing the
Set- up

Testing the
Treatments

Gathering of
Data

Interpreting
and
Discussing
Results

Deriving
Conclusion
Figure 1. Flowchart of Data Gathering
23

CHAPTER III
Results and Discussions
This chapter showed the data gathered that was statistically analyzed with
consequent findings, interpretations and discussions.
The four treatments were tested to determine if there is a significant
difference among these treatments in terms of eliminating the pig and chicken
odour. Below are Table 1.1 and 1.2 showing the respondents related to the study.
Table 1.1 Respondents for the study of Pig manure
Respondents

Number

Hog Raisers

10

People near Piggeries

15

Total

25

Table 1.2 Respondents for the study of Chicken manure

Respondents

Number

Chicken Poultry Raisers

10

People Near Poultries

15

Total

25
Twenty five respondents were selected to access the treatments in terms of

Odour level for the pig manure, at the same time there were also Twenty five
respondents to access the treatments in terms of odour level for the chicken
manure.

24

Table 1.3 Results of the Odour Level Test for Chicken manures
Panellis
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
x

T0

T1

T2

T3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
4
4
3.5
4
4
92.5
3.7

1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
32
1.28

1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
43
1.72

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
3
3.5
3
3.5
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
3.5
3
3.5
3.5
3
3
3.5
3
3
82.5
3.3

25

Table 1.3 shows that the four treatments have a significant difference in terms of
their effectiveness in eliminating the foul odour of both chicken and pig manure. It
revealed that T1 the highest mean for ranking with 1.3 followed by T2 with 1.7, T3
has a mean of 3. 3and T0 with 3.7.
The Carbonized rice hull and minced newspapers serves as the odour
absorber keeping the stench-producing compounds in the chicken manure on its
high surface area. By this the odour is control in entering of our sense of smell.
The decocted lemon grass serves as the air freshener which enters our nostrils.
Studies have shown that lemon grass also contains a antibacterial property that
may kill the bacteria causing the bad odours of the chicken manures.

Table 1.4 Results of the Odour Level Test for Pig manure
26

Panellis
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
x

T0

T1

T2

T3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
3

1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2

3.5
4
3.5
4
4
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
4
4
4
3.5
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
4
3.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
4
94.5
3.78

1
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
31
1.24

2
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
44
1.76

3.5
3
3.5
3
3
3
3
3.5
3
3.5
3
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
3.5
3.5
3
3.5
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
80.5
3.22

27

Table 1.4 shows that the four treatment has a significant difference in terms of
their effectiveness in eliminating the foul odour of both chicken and pig manure. It
revealed that T1 the highest mean for ranking with 1.2, followed by T2 with 1.8 . It
shows that T3 is not effective.
The Carbonized rice hull and minced newspapers serves as the odour
absorber keeping the stench-producing compounds in the chicken manure on its
high surface area. By this the odour is control in entering of our sense of smell.
The decocted lemon grass serves as the air freshener which enters our nostrils.
Studies have shown that lemon grass also contains a antibacterial property that
may kill the bacteria causing the bad odours of the chicken manures

28

CHAPTER IV
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions:
It was found out that the experimental foul odour eliminator is effective in lessening the
foul odour of pig and chicken manures. Of the four treatments, T1, showed to yield the best
performance in eliminating the foul odours of both chicken and pig manures. Furthermore, it was
found that there is a significant difference among the treatments in terms odour level in
eliminating the foul odour of chicken and pig manures

Recommendations:
The researcher was recommended to try other formulations. Further study should be
made in applying the odour eliminator. They suggest to try other natural air freshener. They also
suggest to have an experiment on other natural odour remover and likewise have further study on
this odour eliminator.

APPENDICES
29

Appendix Table 1. The Odour Level Test of Chicken manures

Panellis
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
x

T0

T1

T2

T3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
4
4
3.5
4
4
92.5
3.7

1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
32
1.28

1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
43
1.72

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
3
3.5
3
3.5
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3
3.5
3
3.5
3.5
3
3
3.5
3
3
82.5
3.3

Friedmans Test
30

STEPS:
1. H0 : mdA=mdB=mdC
(There is no significant difference among the treatments in terms of the panellist rate on
four treatments in eliminating the foul odour of chicken manures)
H1: : mdAmdBmdC
(There is significant difference among the treatments in terms of the panellist rate on four
treatments in eliminating the foul odour of chicken manures)
2. = 0.05
a. Scrit t=100
3. Computation:
Scalc=nRT2-R2
= (92.5)2 + (32)2 + (43)2+ (82.5)2 -2502/4
= 8556.25+1024+ 1849 +6806.25-15625
= 18235.5-15625
Scalc = 2611
4. Decision:
Since Scalc=2611>Scrit= 100 , Accept H0. There is no significant difference among the
treatments in terms of the and the panellist rate on four treatments in eliminating the foul
odour of both chicken and pig manures.

Appendix Table 2. The Odour Level Test of Pig manures

31

Panellis
t
1
2

T0

T1

T2

T3

1
1

5
5

3
5

1
2

3.5
4

1
1.5

2
1.5

3.5
3

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
x

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
3
3
3
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
3

1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2

3.5
4
4
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
4
4
4
3.5
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
4
3.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
4
94.5
3.78

1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
31
1.24

1.5
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
44
1.76

3.5
3
3
3
3
3.5
3
3.5
3
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
3.5
3.5
3
3.5
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
80.5
3.22

32

Friedmans Test
STEPS:
1. H0 : mdA=mdB=mdC
(There is no significant difference among the treatments in terms of the panellist rate on
four treatments in eliminating the foul odour of pig manures)
H1: : mdAmdBmdC
(There is a significant difference among the treatments in terms of the panellist rate on
four treatments in eliminating the foul odour of pig manures)
2. = 0.05
a. Scrit t=100
3. Computation:
Scalc=nRT2-R2
= (94.5)2 + (31)2 + (44)2+ (34)2 -2502/4
= 8930.25+1024+1936 +1156-15625
= 26735.25-15625
Scalc = 11110
4. Decision:
Since Scalc=11110> Scrit= 100 ,Accept H0. There is no significant difference among the
treatments in terms of the panellist rate on four treatments in eliminating the foul odour
of pig manures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

33

1. Doorn, Michael R.J., et al. Review of Emissions Factors and Methodologies to Estimate
Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste Handling, Research Triangle Park (NC):
Environmental Protection Agency, 2002: ii.
2. Schlesinger, William H. and Viney P. Aneja. "N.C.'s country air isn't what it should be,"
News & Observer (Raleigh, NC), 3 July 2006, Opinion Section
3. Hoff, Stephen J., et al. "Emissions and Community Exposures from CAFOs," in Iowa
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study: Final Report.
4. USDA Agricultural Research Service. FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct
Utilization, 31 May 2006 (accessed August 10, 2006).
5. Hagenstein, Perry R., et al. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs,Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2003: 56.
6. Farm Safety Association. Manure Gas Dangers. Guelph, Ontario (Canada): Farm Safety
Association, Inc., 2002: 1.
7. Ibid.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Agriculture," in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2006): 7.
9. Schlesinger, William H. and Viney P. Aneja. "N.C.'s country air isn't what it should be,"
News & Observer (Raleigh, NC), 3 July 2006, Opinion Section.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Agriculture," in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2006):
11. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Medical Management Guidelines
(MMGs) for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). (accessed August 9, 2006).
12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ToxFAQs(TM): Ammonia,
September 2004 (accessed August 12, 2006).
13. U.S. EPA. Particulate Matter, 2 March 2006 (accessed 10 August 2006).
14. Brigham, KL and DK Meyrick, " Endotoxin and Lung Injury. " Medline, May 1986.
15. Farm Safety Association. Manure Gas Dangers. Guelph, Ontario (Canada): Farm Safety
Association, Inc., 2002: 1-2.
16. Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, et al. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues
and Options. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
17. Kirkhorn, Stephen, and Mark B. Schenker. Human Health Effects of Agriculture:
Physical Diseases and Illnesses2001 (accessed 10 August 2006).
18. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor for
Changes to Hazardous Orders. 2002: 88.
19. McBride, A. Dennis., M.D. M.P.H., North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services. Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment: The Association of Health Effects
34

with Exposure to Odors from Hog Farm Operations, December 1998; last updated
November 2003 (accessed 11 August 2006).
20. Melvin, Stuart. Executive Summary: Understanding the Impacts of Large-Scale Swine
Production, Proceedings from an Interdisciplinary Scientific Workshop, 1995 (accessed
10 August 2006): 13.
21. Thu, Kendall M. Neighbor Health and Large-scale Swine Production, September 2004
(accessed August 17, 2006).
22. Author: Robert Burns, Iowa State University
23. Reviewers: Phil Westerman, North Carolina State University; Don Jones, Purdue
University
24. Sigurdarson, Sigurdar T., et al. School Proximity to Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations and Prevalence of Asthma in Students*, Chest Journal, 2006: 129.
25. Doorn, Michael R.J., et al. Review of Emissions Factors and Methodologies to Estimate
Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste Handling, Research Triangle Park (NC):
Environmental Protection Agency, 2002: ii.
26. Hagenstein, Perry R., et al. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs, Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2003: 52.
27. Hagenstein, Perry R., et al. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs, Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2003: 71.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Agriculture," in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2006): 1.
29. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Animal Feeding Operations Technical
Workgroup. Animal Feeding Operations Technical Workgroup Report on Air Emissions
Characterization, Dispersion Modeling, and Best Management Practices. December 2004
(accessed August 11, 2006): 7.
30. Clancy, Kate. Greener Pastures: How Grass-fed Beef and Milk Contribute to Healthy
Eating. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists, 2006: 12.
31. Ribaudo, Mark, and Marca Weinberg. "Improving Air and Water Quality Can Be Two
Sides of the Same Coin," Amber Waves 3:4 (2005), pp. 39-45: 40-42.
32. Ibid.
33. Thorne, Peter S., Ph.D., "Air Quality Issues," in Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation Air Quality Study. Environmental Health Sciences Research Center, University
of Iowa, 2003.
34. Food & Water Watch, "Bush Administration Exempts Factory Farms From Regulation,"
December 18, 2008.
35. Center for Emerging Issues, Animal and Plant Health Information Service,
USDA. Changing Times in Animal Agriculture: Overseas Investments by U.S. Meat
Corporations, What's the Future for U.S. Exports?, July 2000 (accessed 11 August 2006).

35

36. Hagenstein, Perry R., et al. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current
Knowledge, Future Needs, Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2003: 56.
37. Cook, Christopher D. "New Rules to Stem Pollution on Factory Farms Draw Fire,"
Christian Science Monitor, 15 February 2005, USA--Domestic Politics.
38. Herriges, Joseph A., et al. "Living with Hogs in Iowa: The Impact of Livestock Facilities
on Rural Residential Property Values," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development,
Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa: 2003: 1-2.
39. Natural Resources Defense Council, "America's Animal Factories." NRDC, (accessed
January 5, 2007).
40. LPES Lesson 43 Emission Control Strategies for Manure Storage
Facilities.http://www.extension.org/pages/Livestock_and_Poultry_Environmental_Stewar
dship_Curriculum
41. Powers, W. J. and R. T. Burns. 2006. Energy and Nutrient Recovery from Swine
Manures. PIG 10-10-01 http://www.porkgateway.org/c/document_library/get_file?
folderId=5&name=10-02-01g_c052006.pdf
42. Powers, W., Rieck-Hinz, A and K. Stalder. 2007. Use of a Air Management Practices
Assessment Tool for Decision-Making. PIG 10-0104http://www.porkgateway.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=5&name=PIG 1002-04.pdf
43. Nicolai, R. and S. Pohl. 2004. Covers for Manure Storage Units. FS 925-D, South Dakota
State University. Html version: http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/FS925-D.pdf
44. Bicudo, J. R., D. R. Schmidt and L. D. Jacobson. 2004. Using covers to minimize odor
and gas emissions from manure storages. AEN-84, UK Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Available
at:http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/aen/aen84/aen84.pdf
45. Shah, S., P. Westerman and G. Grabow. 2007. Additives for improving hog farm air
quality. AG-686W. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. NC State University,
Raleigh, NC. Available
at:http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/AG-686w.pdf
46. Shadab, Q., Hanif, M. & Chaudhary, F.M. (1992) Antifungal activity by lemongrass essential
oils. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 35, 246-249.

47. ^ "Beekeeping/Guide to Essential Oils". Wiki Books. Retrieved 7/8/12.\

48. ^ Blanco MM, Costa CA, Freire AO, Santos JG, Costa M (March 2009).
"Neurobehavioral effect of essential oil of Cymbopogon citratus in
mice". Phytomedicine 16 (23): 265
70.doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2007.04.007. PMID 17561386.
49. ^ Leite JR, Seabra Mde L, Maluf E, et al. (July 1986).
50. "Pharmacology of lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus Stapf). III. Assessment of eventual
toxic, hypnotic and anxiolytic effects on humans". J Ethnopharmacol 17 (1): 75
83. doi:10.1016/0378-8741(86)90074-7. PMID 2429120.

36

51. ^ Bleasel N, Tate B, Rademaker M (August 2002). "Allergic contact dermatitis following
exposure to essential oils". Australas. J. Dermatol. 43 (3): 2113. doi:10.1046/j.14400960.2002.00598.x. PMID 12121401.
52. ^ a b c Tsien 1985, p. 38
53. ^ Burns 1996, pp. 417f.
54. ^ Burger, Peter. Charles Fenerty and his Paper Invention. Toronto: Peter Burger,
2007. ISBN 978-0-9783318-1-8 pp.25-30
55. ^ , Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus
56. ^ papyrus, on Oxford Dictionaries
57. Luc Brunet - Rural Environment Engineer/OMAFRA
58. OMAFRA Factsheet, Farm Workers Health Problems Related to Air Quality inside
Livestock Barns, Order No. 93-003
59. OMAFRA Factsheet, Constructing Hydraulically Secure Liquid Nutrient Storage
Facilities, Order No.06-035
60. Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (NMA), Ontario Regulation 267/03 as amended
61. Canada Plan Service Leaflet M-8710 Manure Gas
62. PM 1990 Instruments for Measuring Concentrations and Emission Rates of Aerial
Pollutants from AFOs available on the Air Quality and Animal
63. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/airquality
64. This publication along with PM 1963a, Science of Smell
65. Part 1: Odor perception and physiological response; PM 1963b, Science of Smell Part 2
Odor Chemistry; and PM 1963d, Science of Smell Part 4 Principles of Odor Control can
be found on the Air Quality and Animal
66. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/airquality
67. Prepared by Wendy Powers, extension environmental specialist, Department of Animal
Science. Edited by Jean McGuire, extension communications specialist, and Matt
37

Carlson, extension communications intern, Communication Services, Iowa State

University.

38

Plate 1. The materials

Gathering of unused papers

Gathering of carbonized rice hull

39

Gathering of
Lemon Grass

Plate 2. Gathering of the main components

40

Plate 3.Gathering of Chicken manures

41

Plate 4. Gathering of Pig manures

42

Materials for Decoction

Plate 5. Decoction Process of Lemon Grass

43

Plate 6. Weighing the Components

44

Plate 7. Applying the Treatments for Chicken manure

45

T0

T1

T2

T3

Plate 8. The Treatments for Chicken manures

46

Plate 9. Applying the Treatments on Pig manures

47

Plate 10. Treatments on Pig manures

48

Plate 12. Testing the Treatments for Pig manures

49

Plate 11. Testing the treatments on Chicken Manures

50

Plate 13. Gathering of Data for Chicken manures

51

Plate 14.
Gathering of Pig manures

52

Plate 13. Gathering of Data for Pig manures

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name

Kestrelle Vienne Opinaldo

Address

Alzate, Bangar, La Union

Age

15

Date of Birth

June 16,1997

Religion

Roman Catholic

Citizenship

Filipino

Educational Background

Elementary

Caggao, Elementary, School

High School

Regional Science High School For

Region I

53

Panellist rate for Chicken manures

Name:
Age:
Address:
Sex:
Objective:
To be able to rate the four treatments of the study, Carbonized Rice hull,
Minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon Grass (Adropogan citratus DC.) as
Foul Odour Eliminator on Chicken and Pig manures, in terms of odour level.
Odourless - 5
Slightly odorous -3
Moderately odorous -2
Strongly odorous -1

Treatments

T0

T1

Rate

Panellist rate for Pig manures

54

T2

T3

Name:
Age:
Address:
Sex:
Objective:
To be able to rate the four treatments of the study, Carbonized Rice hull,
Minced Old Newspapers and Decocted Lemon Grass (Adropogan citratus DC.) as
Foul Odour Eliminator on Chicken and Pig manures, in terms of odour level.
Odourless - 5
Slightly odorous -3
Moderately odorous -2
Strongly odorous -1

Treatments

T0

T1

Rate

55

T2

T3