IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v45y2005i4p356-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concentrations of additive arsenic in Beijing pig feeds and the residues in pig manure

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Yan-xia
  • Chen, Tong-bin

Abstract

The swine industry in China has grown rapidly over last two decades. Great amount of pig manure is generated in China, which can be used as organic fertilizers on agricultural lands. Meanwhile, the organic arsenic compounds have been used as feed additives for swine disease control and weight improvement. Once the excessive additives are released in the environment, arsenic may compromise food safety and environmental quality. There is a growing public concern about the arsenic residues accumulation in pig manure, however, little work has been done to investigate the exact arsenic content in pig feed and the residues in manure in China This study investigates the concentrations of arsenic in 29 pig feed samples and 29 manure samples collected from eight pig farms in the Chaoyang district, Beijing city. The detected rate of arsenic in 29 couples of samples was 100%. The concentrations of arsenic in pig feeds and manures ranged from 0.15 to 37.8mg/kg and 0.42 to 119.0mg/kg, respectively. The result showed that arsenic concentration in pig manure will be greatly elevated when the arsenic in pig feed was largely increased. The loading rates of pig manure in fourteen Beijing counties and districts were in the range of 2.7–57.2t/hayr. Accordingly, the potential soil arsenic increase rates resulting from land application of pig manure might range between 11.8 and 78.9μg/kgyr. Despite these findings, it is too early to draw the conclusion that arsenic pollution from pig manure is serious in Beijing farmland; therefore, longitudinal studies about the chemical form transformation and the environmental behaviors of pig manure arsenic are required in order to come up with more definitive conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Yan-xia & Chen, Tong-bin, 2005. "Concentrations of additive arsenic in Beijing pig feeds and the residues in pig manure," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 356-367.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:45:y:2005:i:4:p:356-367
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344905000686
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muhammad Qaswar & Liu Yiren & Kailou Liu & Lv Zhenzhen & Hou Hongqian & Xianjin Lan & Ji Jianhua & Waqas Ahmed & Liu Lisheng & Abdul M. Mouazen & Zhang Huimin, 2022. "Interaction of Soil Nutrients and Arsenic (As) in Paddy Soil in a Long-Term Fertility Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Shengfa F. Liao & M. Shamimul Hasan & Zhongyue Yang & Andrew W. Stevens & James Brett & Zhaohua Peng, 2020. "Feeding Arsenic-Containing Rice Bran to Growing Pigs: Growth Performance, Arsenic Tissue Distribution, and Arsenic Excretion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Fengsong Zhang & Yanxia Li & Ming Yang & Wei Li, 2012. "Content of Heavy Metals in Animal Feeds and Manures from Farms of Different Scales in Northeast China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-11, July.
    4. Qiong Gong & Peizhen Chen & Rongguang Shi & Yi Gao & Shun-An Zheng & Yan Xu & Chaofeng Shao & Xiangqun Zheng, 2019. "Health Assessment of Trace Metal Concentrations in Organic Fertilizer in Northern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:45:y:2005:i:4:p:356-367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.