Results from a California Dairy Study:

A Research Lesson
Donald Blake
Professor of Chemistry
University of California, Irvine
 Sampling Campaign
• Collaboration with CSU Fresno

• Consisted of both ambient and flux chamber

source samples
– 6 dairies were sampled
– Samples were collected at various locations and
processes at the dairies
0.5 km
Open lot Feed lane

Silage Pile Bedding/Flush lane

 End of flush lane

Solids Separator Lagoon

Ambient sampling at source
locations
Ambient sampling at source
locations
Flux Chamber samples

Total surface area = 0.13 m2

Silage Piles
Significance of Urban tracers

Ethyne/propane ratio
Ethanol

Mixing ratio (pptv)

 Stanislaus county Merced county

39.2

38.7
38.2 Ethanol, pptv
4000+
37.7 3611 to 4000
3222 to 3611
2833 to 3222
latitude

37.2
2444 to 2833
36.7 2055 to 2444
1666 to 2055
36.2 1277 to 1666
888 to 1277
35.7 500 to 888

35.2
34.7
-122.0 -121.5 -121.0 -120.5 -120.0 -119.5 -119.0 -118.5
longitude Tulare county

Harris Ranch
 Grid, ARCTAS T1 and T2
-sampling campaigns conducted within one week of one another
T1 & T2 flight paths as a function
of altitude

Altitude (feet)
 Accumulation rate in the SJV
• Total emissions from feed in one day
Ethanol Methanol Acetone Acetaldehyde Methane
(kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day)

2007 40.2 10.5 0.30 0.40 276

Assuming 1500 dairies in SJV

Ethanol Methanol Acetone Acetaldehyde Methane

(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day)

2007 60 16 0.45 0.60 4140