Influence of the physiological status of sows on ammonia and hydrogen sulfide levels in the air of pig housing facilities

Relevance. Toxic gases, NH₃ and H₂S, play an important role in the formation of the sanitary state of the air environment in pig breeding premises. Their emission is determined by a complex of interrelated technological and biological factors. At the same time, the role of animals as a potential source of gas production remains insufficiently studied.

Methods. The object of the study was the production facilities of the technological module for keeping sows. The concentrations of NH₃ and H₂S were determined by gas chromatography in the air of the farrowing, insemination and waiting rooms during the sanitary break (control period) and during the housing of a technological group of animals (experimental period). The variability of the parameters was assessed using a set of statistical methods.

Results. The concentration of gases in the indoor air depends on the room type and its production load. During the sanitary break, the concentration of NH₃ and H₂S is 2.27–3.21 times lower than during the housing of the technological group of sows. The levels of NH₃ and H₂S increase in the sequence “farrowing room – insemination room – waiting room” by 2.90–3.10 times for ammonia and by 2.81–3.86 times for hydrogen sulfide in both control and experimental periods. The concentration of NH₃ exceeds that of H₂S by 2.47–3.86 times. During all periods of facility operation, gas concentrations do not exceed the maximum permissible concentrations (MPC). One-way ANOVA confirmed a significant influence of the factor “room type” (equivalent to the physiological status of sows) on the formation of the gas air environment and on the correlation between hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations.

1. Philippe F.-X., Nicks B. Review on greenhouse gas emissions from pig houses: Production of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide by animals and manure. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2015; 199: 10–25.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.015

2. Komyakova Ye.M., Antonova O.I. The composition of cattle and swine manure, features of use and prospects for recycling. Bulletin of Altai State Agricultural University. 2020; (6): 63–68 (in Russian).EDN OOSGQZ

3. Hanum F., Atsuta Y., Daimon H. Methane Production Characteristics of an Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Pig Manure and Fermented Liquid Feed. Molecules. 2022; 27(19): 6509.https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27196509

4. Ciganek M., Neca J. Chemical characterization of volatile organic compounds on animal farms. Veterinární medicína. 2008; 53(12): 641–651.https://doi.org/10.17221/1969-VETMED

5. Pilip L.V. Method of air cleaning from odor-forming substances originating from pig complexes. Tekhnologii i tekhnicheskiye sredstva mekhanizirovannogo proizvodstva produktsii rasteniyevodstva i zhivotnovodstva. 2019; (4): 137–146 (in Russian).EDN UCGZAY

6. Hasan M.K. et al. Revolutionizing pig farming: Japan’s technological innovations and environmental strategies for sustainability. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research. 2025; 12(2): 454–476.https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2025.l912

7. Pirlo G. et al. Environmental impact of heavy pig production in a sample of Italian farms. A cradle to farm-gate analysis. Science of The Total Environment. 2016; 565: 576–585.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.174

8. Wang L., Li D. Current status, challenges and prospects for pig production in Asia. Animal Bioscience. 2024; 37(4): 742–754.https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0303

9. Lv G. et al. Mitigation of odor emissions by replacing soybean meal with unconventional protein ingredients: Assessment via in vitro simulated fermentation. Environmental Technology & Innovation. 2026; 41: 104749.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2026.104749

10. Wu H., Liu Y., Dai C., Ye Y., Zhu H., Fang W. Life-cycle comparisons of economic and environmental consequences for pig production with four different models in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2024; 31(14): 21668–21686.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32541-5

11. Ni J.-Q., Erasmus M.A., Croney C.C., Li C., Li Y. A critical review of advancement in scientific research on food animal welfare-related air pollution. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2021; 408: 124468.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124468

12. Andretta I. et al. Environmental Impacts of Pig and Poultry Production: Insights From a Systematic Review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021; 8: 750733.https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.750733

13. Kim K.Y. et al. Quantification of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emitted from pig buildings in Korea. Journal of Environmental Management. 2008; 88(2): 195–202.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.02.003

14. Shi Z., Xi L., Wang Y., Zhao X. Chronic Exposure to Environmental Pollutant Ammonia Causes Damage to the Olfactory System and Behavioral Abnormalities in Mice. Environmental Science & Technology. 2023; 57(41): 15412–15421.https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04875

15. Connolly S., Krol D.J., Kelleghan D., O’Flaherty V. Hydrogen sulphide inhibition in cattle slurry by use of an oxygen based slurry amendment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2025; 193: 125–131.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2024.11.022

16. Hu X., Chi Q., Liu Q., Wang D., Zhang Y., Li S. Atmospheric H2S triggers immune damage by activating the TLR-7/MyD88/NF-κB pathway and NLRP3 inflammasome in broiler thymus. Chemosphere. 2019; 237: 124427.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124427

17. Yang L.-L. et al. Toxic effects and possible mechanisms of hydrogen sulfide and/or ammonia on porcine oocyte maturation in vitro. Toxicology Letters. 2018; 285: 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.12.019

18. Buoio E., Cialini C., Costa A. Air Quality Assessment in Pig Farming: The Italian Classyfarm. Animals. 2023; 13(14): 2297.https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142297

19. Yang J. et al. Translocation of probiotics via gut–lung axis enhanced pulmonary immunity of weaned piglets exposed to low concentrations of ammonia. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2024; 284: 116821.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116821

20. Wang Q. et al. Ammonia Exposure Induced Cilia Dysfunction of Nasal Mucosa in the Piglets. BioMed Research International. 2020; 2020: 1705387.https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1705387

21. Stein A. et al. Metabolic and cardiac signaling effects of inhaled hydrogen sulfide and low oxygen in male rats. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2012; 112(10): 1659–1669.https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01598.2011

22. Kotseva K. Occupational exposure to low concentrations of carbon disulfide as a risk factor for hypercholesterolaemia. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2000; 74(1): 38–42.https://doi.org/10.1007/s004200000186.

23. Barzanova E.N., Shcherbakov P.N., Derkho M.A. The influence of the drug microsim on protein metabolism parameters of growing pigs against the background of a decrease in the level of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in the gas-air environment of industrial premises. Agro-industrial complex of Russia. 2023; 30(1): 59–66 (in Russian).EDN RDBTES

24. Barzanova E.N. The influence of the gas-air environment of the production premises of a pig-breeding complex on the natural resistance of pigs. Izvestia Orenburg State Agrarian University. 2025; (1): 183–188 (in Russian).https://doi.org/10.37670/2073-0853-2025-111-1-183-188

25. van Riet M.M.J., Millet S., Langendries K.C.M., van Zelst B.D., Janssens G.P.J. Association between methylation potential and nutrient metabolism throughout the reproductive cycle of sows. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2019; 103(3): 858–867.https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13078

26. Liu H. et al. Microbial and metabolic alterations in gut microbiota of sows during pregnancy and lactation. The FASEB Journal. 2019; 33(3): 4490–4501.https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201801221RR

27. Voloshchuk V.M., Gerasimchuk V.N. Seasonal dependence of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide content in a piglet rearing room on the air supply method. Current problems of intensive development of animal husbandry. 2017; 20(2): 211–217 (in Russian).EDN HINVWB

28. Sysa L.V., Sysa S.A. The main factors negatively influencing the state of animals in the conditions of a series of pig farms. Animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. 2022; (3): 26–29 (in Russian).EDN TJGZMZ

29. Liu Z., Powers W., Murphy J., Maghirang R. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine production facilities in North America: A meta-analysis. Journal of Animal Science. 2014; 92(4): 1656–1665.https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7160

30. Raynor P.C., Engelman S., Murphy D., Ramachandran G. Bender J.B., Alexander B.H. Effects of Gestation Pens Versus Stalls and Wet Versus Dry Feed on Air Contaminants in Swine Production. Journal of Agromedicine. 2018; 23(1): 40–51.https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2017.1387633

31. Hou Y., Velthof G.L., Oenema O. Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment. Global Change Biology. 2015; 21(3): 1293–1312.https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12767

32. Petersen S.O. Greenhouse gas emissions from liquid dairy manure: Prediction and mitigation. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018; 101(7): 6642–6654.https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13301

33. Sun Y. et al. Unveiling the intrinsic relationship between ammonia and hydrogen sulfide generation during composting. Environmental Technology & Innovation. 2025; 39: 104298.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2025.104298

34. Zhang Z. et al. Effective role and mechanism of scrap iron filings in controlling hydrogen sulfide production in septic tanks. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2025; 492: 138114.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138114

35. Leeb C. et al. Effects of three husbandry systems on health, welfare and productivity of organic pigs. Animal. 2019; 13(9): 2025–2033.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119000041

36. Ludwiczak A., Skrzypczak E., Składanowska-Baryza J., Stanisz M., Ślósarz P., Racewicz P. How Housing Conditions Determine the Welfare of Pigs. Animals. 2021; 11(12): 3484.https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123484

37. Einarsson S. et al. A 25 years experience of group-housed sowsreproduction in animal welfare-friendly systems. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 2014; 56: 37.https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-56-37

38. Yao R., Cools A., Matthijs A., Deyn P.P.D., Maes D., Janssens G.P.J. Peculiarities in the Amino Acid Composition of Sow Colostrum and Milk, and Their Potential Relevance to Piglet Development. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(4): 298.https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10040298

39. Wallgren P., Johansson S.-E., Kirk M., Mattsson P., Lindahl L., Zoric M. Varied residential options for gestating sows ensured welfare and productivity. Porcine Health Management. 2025; 11: 63.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-025-00477-y