Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure...
Transcript of Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure...
1
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment
- for intensive reAring of Pigs in BAltic seA region eu memBer stAtes
2
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
3
Front page pictures: a farm-scale nitrification-denitrification plant (upper left),
screw pressers (upper right), a conveyor transporting the solid fraction from a
drum filter press with flocculation to a store (lower left), and a propeller mixer
mounted on an anaerobic digestion tank (lower right). All pictures are taken by
Henning L. Foged in Holland.
The reference for this report is “Foged, Henning Lyngsø. 2010, Best Available
Technologies for Manure Treatment – for Intensive Rearing of Pigs in Baltic Sea
Region EU Member States. Published by Baltic Sea 2020, Stockholm. 102 pp
AcknowledgementsThis report was produced between August 2009 and January 2010, thanks to the skilled and professional work done by Henning Lyngsø Foged and his colleagues at CBMI, and with recognition to the expe-rienced input from experts and authorities regarding manure treat-ment in the Baltic Sea Region. We’ve had valuable input from participants in the digital survey and the workshop in Stockholm in October (see Annex I) as well as during meetings and interviews in Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Poland, Sweden and USA. We appreciate the time devoted and comments given by authori-ties and expert in the review of the final draft of this report; including the European IPPC Bureau, the Lithuanian Environmental Protec-tion Agency, the Department of Agricultural Engineering at Aarhus University, the Danish Society for Nature Protection, MTT Agrifood Research in Finland, the Federation of Swedish Farmers, the Danish Plant Directorate, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, the Estonian Environmental Department and the Finnish Environment Institute. Their specific comments and our considerations can be viewed at the Baltic Sea 2020 webpage. The project was funded by the Baltic Sea 2020 foundation.
2 3
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
forewordOne main objective for Baltic Sea 2020 is to reduce the eutrophica-tion of the Baltic Sea. The reduction of nutrient leakage from inten-sive livestock farms to the Baltic Sea, through technical development and spreading information on “Best Available Technologies” is one important activity to reach this objective. This report with findings and recommendations concerning “Best Available Technologies for Manure Treatment” is produced by Hen-ning Lyngsø Foged and his colleagues at the Innovation Centre for Bioenergy and Environmental Technology (CBMI), commissioned by Baltic Sea 2020. The report focuses on leaching of nutrients from the huge amounts of manure produced by intensive rearing of pigs in the EU Member States of the Baltic Sea catchment area, and evaluates the technological solutions to reduce this leaching. The report does not evaluate the leaching reduction potential of agricultural practi-ces, such as spreading techniques, timing of spreading, buffer areas, wetlands etc. These important measures are discussed by many other actors involved in reducing eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea 2020 will promote the recommended technologies within the Baltic Sea catchment area. We hope that other organisa-tions, institutes and authorities will find the report useful and apply its findings, for example in the review process of the IPPC Directive and its reference documents, in agricultural advisory services, within the Baltic Sea Strategy and within the multiple ongoing projects aiming to develop intensive animal production within the Baltic Sea region in an environmentally sustainable way.
Stockholm January 2010
Conrad StralkaExecutive Director Baltic Sea 2020
Lotta SamuelsonProject Manager Baltic Sea 2020
FOREWORD
4
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
5
tABle of content
FOREWORD 3
TABLE OF CONTENT 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
Introduction and background description 6
Methodologies and organisation 6
Information gathered 7
Overall recommendations 7
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION 10
1.1: Background for the project 10
1.2: Turnover of N and P in the agricultural environment 10
1.3: Relation between cultivated land and livestock production in Baltic Sea Area 12
1.4: EU legislation in relation to the project 16
1.5: Other projects in the area of manure processing/treatment 16
2: METHODOLOGIES AND ORGANISATION 20
2.1: Methodology 20
2.2: Organisation 23
3: INFORMATION GATHERED 24
3.1: Full list of livestock manure handling technologies 24
3.2: Combination of technologies 24
3.3: Community plants for livestock manure treatment 27
3.4: Efficiency of BAT dissemination in relation to the IPPC Directive 27
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS 30
4.1: Reduced list of livestock manure handling technologies 30
4.2: Efficiency of the IPPC Directive to promote best available
technology for manure treatment 35
ANNEX A: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 37
ANNEX B: REFERENCES 38
4 5
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX C: LIST OF PEOPLE MET 41
List of persons met during study tour to Holland 41
List of persons met during study tour to USA 41
List of persons met at roundtable discussion 41
List of persons interviewed regarding efficiency of the IPPC Directive 42
ANNEX D: CHARTS OF MANURE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 43
ANNEX E: TABLES WITH SHORT DESPRIPTION OF LIVESTOCK MANURE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 49
ANNEX F: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EU INTEGRATED
POLLUTION AND PREVENTION CONTROL DIRECTIVE (2008/1/EEC) 84
ANNEX G: MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP FOR INTENSIVE
LIVESTOCK FARMING, BALTIC SEA REGION 88
ANNEX H: INFORMATION EXCHANGE GROUP REPRESENTATIVES, BALTIC SEA REGION 89
ANNEX I: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 90
Background 90
Participants 90
Agenda 91
Discussed 91
ANNEX J: KEY ELEMENTS OF POLISH LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO N AND P LEACHING 94
ANNEX K: KEY ELEMENTS OF DANISH LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO N AND P LEACHING 96
Policies 96
Concrete legislation 97
ANNEX L: STRUCTURAL STATISTICS AND MAP OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE
INTENSIVE REARING OF PIGS IN DENMARK, SWEDEN AND POLAND 98
Statistics 98
Maps 101
6
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
7
introduction And BAckground descriPtionLeaching of nutrients from sites with intensive rearing of livestock, also known as agricultural hot spots, has been identified by the Helsinki Commis-sion as a prioritized area. Data shows that the amount of Phosphorous (P) and Nitrogen (N) in livestock manure spread on agricultural land by EU Member States in the Baltic Sea catchment area is 3–4 times higher than the amounts discharged from all hous-eholds in the same area. The objective of this report is to identify the most effective technologies to reduce leaching of nutrients from farms with intensive rearing of pigs. Technolo-gies which reduce airborne emissions or for storage and spreading of livestock manure are not consi-dered. Technologies have been evaluated based on their potential to reduce nutrient leaching in a cost effective way. Nitrogen (N) leaching from livestock manures happens especially as percolation through soil layers when it is applied on fields in an imprecise way, not being based on norms and fertiliser planning, or when it is distributed to bare soils or in any case at periods, ways and situations where the nutrients are not taken up by the crops. Phosphorus (P) is lost to the environment via run-off and leaching, largely for the same reasons as mentioned for N, but closely connected to soil erosion mechanisms and the P content of the soils. It is on basis of data in Table 1 and Table 2 (Chapter 1), concerning fertiliser norms (norms have a certain correlation to the removal by the crops) and the livestock density in the target countries, suggested that the minimising of P leaching from livestock manure first of all is ensured via distribution on a sufficiently large agricultural area. There is in the BSR averagely 37 kg N and 9 kg P per ha in the produced livestock manure (Table 2) – it would in relation to the Nitrates Directive and the HELCOM Conven-tion be possible to expand the livestock production (170 kg N/ha / 37 kg N/ha =) 4,6 times, and in relation to the need of P as nutrient for typical crop
rotations (Table 1) be possible to expand the livestock production (25 kg P/ha / 9 kg P/ha = ) 2,8 times The listed EU legislation would, if fully imple-mented and enforced, hinder point source hot spot pollution from installations for intensive rearing of pigs, caused by leaching of N and P from the pro-duction site – hotspot pollution is especially related to lack of or insufficient livestock manure storages and/or keeping livestock in stables without floors or without watertight floors. However, only four of the eight target EU Member State countries have desig-nated the whole territory as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ’s), despite being part of the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Farms that are not under the IPPC regulation in the non-NVZ parts of those Member States may escape requirements for manure storages and other leaching prevention measures. The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) Directive is identified as having potential to promote the most efficient technologies for manure treatment, for the intensive rearing of poultry and pigs.
methodologies And orgAnisAtionIt is anticipated in this report that there is a correla-tion between leaching and field effect (also called bio / plant availability) for N, except in cases where the N is converted to free N – N2 or other airborne N. The word “technologies” shall in this report be understood in a broad sense, for instance according this definition: “Technologies is the application of scientific or other organized knowledge - including any tool, technique, product, process, method or system - to practical tasks”. It is also emphasized, that this report does not consider various trade marks, brands, solutions or concepts offered by individual producers – behind those are typically a clone of the technologies men-tioned in this report, or/and one or more technolo-gies that are optimised for specific purposes. The term “leaching” is consistently used to describe all N and P reaching the Baltic Sea, either through leaching or run-off. The complete list of manure treatment techno-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
eXecutive summArY And recommendAtions
6 7
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
logies requires an estimation of the cost efficiency of the leaching reduction. It is for this purpose necessa-ry to make a few assumptions. In order to rationalise this as well as to make the comparison and compe-titiveness of the various technologies more clear, we have developed five farm scenarios. A questionnaire was elaborated and transformed into a digital survey, see Annex F. Members of the IPPC Technical Working group (Annex G) and IPPC Information Exchange Group (Annex H) were invited to participate in the survey. Ten persons re-sponded, most of them from the Technical Working Group. Interviews were performed with staff at the IPPC Department at DG Environment, the European IPPC Bureau and with national responsible autho-rities for implementation of the IPPC Directive in Denmark, Poland and Sweden (list of people met in Annex C). Additional information has been sought at DG Environment and IPPC Bureau web pages.
informAtion gAthered We have established a list of more than 40 technolo-gies for livestock manure treatment. The list of livestock manure treatment techno-logies indicates whether the technologies can stand alone or they can be pre- or post-treatments to other treatments. For livestock manure treatment, several technologies are often built together to improve the technical and economic efficiency of the treatment. The total number of ”IPPC farms” (pigs; sows and poultry) in the EU-25 is around 16.000. This is less than 0,1% of the total number of farms in the EU-25. On these farms, 16% of the total number of production pigs, 22% of the total number of sows, and around 60% of the total number of poultry are kept (2008). There are 1.328 IPPC installations for the intensive rearing of pigs in the Member States surrounding the Baltic Sea (Table 7). The IPPC directive sets no limits regarding emis-sions of nutrients from installations for the intensive rearing of pigs, but refers to other Community legis-lation to be applied as maximum emission limit vales. The Nitrate Directive limits the annual amount of N from livestock manure in designated N vulnerable zones to be maximum 170 kg/ha.
overAll recommendAtions The complete list of identified livestock manure treat-ment technologies has been reduced in different ways in relation to the specific needs and purposes of this project. Priority was given to technologies with pro-ven leaching reduction effect that are commercially implemented, with no apparent negative impacts on the environment or ethical considerations and with proven and acceptable economic performance. The Project Leader has on basis of reviews, study tours meetings and discussions formulated the fol-lowing recommendations:
recommended best available technology for manure treatment for intensive rearing of pigs, to reduce leaching of nutrients cost effectivelyAnaerobic digestion is the best technology for the reduction of N leaching. Digested pig slurry has a well validated higher field effect, whereby more N is re-circulated in the agricultural production, and less is leaching, ultimately to the Baltic Sea. Each cubic metre of pig slurry that is anaerobic digested would result in around ½ kg less leached N, provided the digestate is used according a fertiliser plan. The esti-mate of ½ kg less leaching is based on a field effect of digested slurry, which is reported to be 17–30% hig-her than non-digested slurry (Birkmose et al., 2007), but considering as well that the increase in field effect is in the lower range for pig slurry, a conservative estimate of 10% increase in field effect is used (10% x 5 kg N per m3 slurry = ½ kg N/m3). Digested slurry is furthermore much more homogenous and can be spread on the fields with higher accuracy as fertiliser, and it better incorporates and binds to the soil. Break-even for the economic performance of an anaerobic digestion plant is calculated to be around € 0,1 per kWh electricity that can be sold, with a reasonable use of the heat. Anaerobic diges-tion plants are found in all target countries, except Latvia (Birkmose et al., 2007), although two third of the around 100 plants in the target countries are found in Denmark. On EU level the target countries are currently only holding around 2% of the total number of anaerobic digestion plants. Anaerobic digestion is internationally a well known technology,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
9
which is seen as a way to meet waste, environmental, climate and renewable energy targets. The main pro-moters to spread the use of anaerobic digestion are financial support for their installation and running costs, ensuring the market (sale of electricity, biogas and/or heat, grid connection, guaranteed prices for a number of years), designation of places to situate the plants, and incentives for the cooperation to establish and run the plants.
The mandatory use of official P fertiliser norms is a way to ensure that livestock manure is not overdosed, as it easily happen when only the limits for N fertilisa-tion is respected (Scenarios II and III). The HELCOM Convention decides that official P norms should be taken into use in all target countries, but this has so far only happened in four of the target countries.
P-index is a technology that supplements the P norms in the way that it further indicates, where there are high risks of P leaching despite the dosing is kept under the P norms. P-indexes are compulsory for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs in Iowa, USA, and have in Denmark been tested on pilot basis in a restricted area in connection to a LIFE project. Heckrath et al. (2007) made a review on P indexing tools for the Nordic countries, and conclu-des e.g. that:
• “Without addressing the role of critical source areas for P loss, policy measures to abate diffuse P losses are likely to be ineffective”; • “A common feature is that they are empirical, risk-based, user-friendly decision tools with low data requirements.”; and • “Phosphorus indices vary between the four Nordic countries in response to different agriculture, soil and climate.”
Development of both P norms and a P-index would largely require cooperation among the relevant stra-tegic and development research institutes around the Baltic Sea, as well as policy decisions, information campaigns and other measures for the implementation.
Separation technologies can for many installations
for the intensive rearing of pigs (Scenarios II to V) be a really good technology for ensuring a balanced fer-tilisation on own agricultural lands and export of the P rich fibre fraction to regions where it can be used in an environmentally safe way. Storage and transport of the fibre fraction must happen in a way that avoids seepage and evaporation of ammonia and laughter gas. Alternatives to export of the fibre fraction might be to combust or thermally gasify it, possibly after further drying and maybe pelletizing, in which case the charcoal or ash can be used as fertilisers at other farms – however, these technologies needs further research to verify their environmental and economic performance when used for fibre fraction from pig slurry. Separation would typically be an integrated part of an anaerobic digestion plant, but it can also be a stand-alone technology. It is relatively easy to implement on a farm basis, but solutions have been seen with mobile separators, that can go from farm to farm and separate a batch of slurry, and in this way ensure a high utilisation of the investment. Sepa-ration technologies are well known in the BSR and internationally, and 3% of slurries in Denmark were separated in 2007 (Hjorth, 2009).
Certification of persons that transport and/or spread slurry would be a precaution against accidental spills, leading to both N and P leaching. The certification would be a very cost-efficient way to ensure that persons who deal with slurry are aware of its poten-tial harmful effect on the environment, and of all regulations related with the transport and disposal of slurry. Certification requirements are compulsory in Iowa, USA, and are internationally comparable with the required certification of personnel that deal with pesticides.
Evaluation of the IPPC directive efficiency to promote the recommended technologiesThe Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) directive regulates that Best Available Techniques shall be used to minimize pollution of nutrients to water from farms with intensive rearing of pigs. It has therefore the potential to promote the techno-logies recommended above. The Directive has been in force since 1996, and has functional procedures
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8 9
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
for communication, implementation and evaluation of Best Available Techniques. Manure treatment is used more and more as a response to legislation and policies related with waste handling, environmental loads, climate gas emissions and renewable energy production. Livestock manure treatment technologies have impacts on the leaching of N and P, and they should have high priority in the coming revision of the BREF document. Regarding BATs to prevent leaching of nutrients from intensive rearing of pigs to water, the report identifies the following areas for improvements:
1. The Technical Working group members should in the ongoing review of the BREF document consider to
• update the current BREF document with the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
latest technologies for manure treatment and expand their presentation, especially with information about their cost-efficiency in relation to minimizing leaching of nitrogen and phosphorous to water• specify criteria for what is to be considered as a BAT in the revision process, and communicate them in the guiding documents to prepare the BREF documents.
2. Off farm treatment of manure is currently not regulated by the IPPC directive. As off farm treat-ment is likely to be more and more widespread, these installations should be considered during the revision of the IPPC Directive to be listed in Annex 1, to ensure that cost effective treatment of large amounts of manure off farm does not pollute water and air.
10
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
11
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
1.1: BAckgroundLeaching of nutrients from sites with intensive rearing of livestock, also known as agricultural hot spots, has been identified by the Helsinki Commis-sion as a prioritized area. Data shows that the amount of Phosphorous (P) and Nitrogen (N) in livestock manure spread on agricultural land by EU Member States in the Baltic Sea catchment area is 3–4 times higher than the amounts discharged from all hous-eholds in the same area. Consultations have been done on the value and potential for Baltic Sea 2020 to address manure handling at intensive livestock farming with e.g. HELCOM, Swedish Institute of Agricultural and En-vironmental Engineering (JTI), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Swedish Environme-ntal Research Institute (IVL) and the Federation for Swedish Farmers (LRF). There is concordance on the importance to reduce nutrient leakage from intensive livestock farms to the Baltic Sea, through technical development and spreading of “Best Practices”. Baltic Sea 2020 has initiated a project to identify Best Available Technologies to reduce leaching of nu-trients from farms with intensive rearing of pigs. The target area of the project is EU Member States of the Baltic Sea area: Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Based on analyses of current projects and activi-ties, existing EU legislation and with consideration to the sources of origin of N and P leaching to the Baltic Sea, the report focuses on:
1: introduction And BAckground descriPtion
• Pig production in herds of more than 2.000 pigs• Technologies for manure treatment rather than practices for manure storage and spreading• Denmark and Poland’s parts of the Baltic Sea river basin area
1.2: turnover of n And P in the AgriculturAl environmentWhen focusing on the N and P in livestock manure it is important to clarify the process stage from animal to final disposal. Figure 1 indicates via indexes the ty-pical retention of N and P in agricultural production systems that respect good agricultural practices – the rest is generally lost to the environment. N is lost to the environment both via emissions, leaching and run-off. Typically the emissions are relatively high in pig stables, but emissions can also happen from manure storages and in connection with spreading. Run-off happens if manure is spilled on the ground, if the floors in stables and the walls and floors of the manures stores are not water tight, if there is a long time span between spreading of manure on the fields and the incorporation into the soil, or if livestock manure is spread on steep, frozen or water saturated soils. Nitrogen (N) leaching from livestock manures hap-pens especially as percolation through soil layers when it is applied on fields in an imprecise way, not being based on norms and fertiliser planning, or when it is distributed to bare soils or in any case at periods, ways and situations where the nutrients are
Figure 1: Recirculation of N and P in the agricultural production, based on Poulsen & Kristensen (1998) and Birk-mose et al. (2007) as concerns manure leaving animal, stable and storage, while indications for P as well as amounts re-circulated in the crop largely are own estimates in situations, where good agricultural practices are applied.
Index of N amount: 100 80 75 50
Phase:Manure leaving
animalManure leaving
stable Manure leaving
storageRe-circulated in the
crop
Index of P amount: 100 95 90 85
10 11
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
Figure 2: The agricultural N air/soil/water exchanges and possible impacts (European Communities, 2002: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/pdf/91_676_eec_en.pdf).
Figure 3: The agricultural P soil/water exchanges and possible impacts (after Parton et al., 1988).
HARVESTREMOVAL
P
STANDINGDEAD
P
ABOUVEGROUND
LIVE P
BELOWGROUND
LIVE P
SURFACESTRUCTURAL
P
SURFACEMETABOLIC
P
BELOW GROUNDSTRUCTURAL
P
BELOW GROUNDMETABOLIC
PFERTILISER
P
ACTIVEOrganic P
PARENTPSURFACE
MICROBEP
LABILEP
SORBEDPSLOW
Organic P
PASSIVEOrganic P
LEACHEDOrganic P
LEACHEDP
STRONGLYSORBED
P
OCCLUDEDP
Lignin to N ratio Lignin to N ratio
Tillage
M C/P
C/P
C/P
C/P MM
M
M
MLignin MM
M
M
M
ClayLeaching
Leaching
M
MLignin
Clay
M=multiplier for effects of moisture, temperature, cultivation
NPR
Ammonia & Nitrate leaching Ammonia & Nitrate leaching
Groundwaterspollution
Eutrophication
Nutrient overload
Run off
Deposition Greenhousegas effect
Ammonia
Aciddification
Drainage
Ammonia &Nitrous oxideAmmonia &
Nitrous oxide
Greenhouse gas effectDeposition
Acidification
Drainage
Eutrophication
Ammonia & Nitrate leachingAm
Groundwaterspollution
Ammonia & Nitrate leaching
Ammonia
Run off
NPK
Nutrient overload
12
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
13
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
Table 1: Extracts from Danish fertiliser norms (2008). Figures per 1 ha of the best soil quality (clay soils)
not taken up by the crops. Phosphorus (P) is lost to the environment via run-off and leaching, largely for the same reasons as mentioned for N, but closely connected to soil erosion mechanisms. N and P have completely different turnover in the agricultural environment, as seen from figure 2 and 3. Excess fertilisation with P is not necessarily leached like the case is for nitrogen, but can go into the turnover of the various phosphorus types/compounds in the soil layers, whereof some are pas-sive and/or only slowly converted to other forms. Agricultural soils can bind varying amounts of P but accumulation increases the amount of labile P and the risk for P leaching.
1.3: relAtion Between cultivAted lAnd And livestock Production in BAltic seA AreAManure is according to EU policies considered as a waste, which must be accounted for by the owner of the livestock production, and disposed of as crop fertiliser in a sustainable way. In order to implement these policies the Member States must basically
• introduce official N fertilisation norms;
• introduce official manure standards; and• set requirements to the field effect1 of the livestock manures.
Table 1 shows examples of fertiliser norms in Den-mark. The norms are largely correlated to the amount of N, P and K that is removed with the crop. They are determined according fertiliser trials. The N norms are in Denmark re-calculated into economic optimal norms (typically 15–20% lower than abso-lute optimums), and politically reduced further with 10% - see Figure 4. The Danish N fertiliser norms are therefore low in comparison to countries without a politically de-termined maximal use of N fertiliser. It is often seen in the new EU Member States, where farm advisory services are relatively weak and farmers generally poor, that farmers either do not use economic opti-mal fertiliser amounts, or - if they can afford to buy fertilisers - fertilise after optimal productivity levels. The Danish authorities have in an app. 100 pages publication informed about the official N fertiliser norms, manure standards and field effects, which all farms have to respect and use, and there is a new and updated publication every year (Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 2008).
1 The field effect, also called bio-availability, express the amount of N in mineral fertiliser that gives the same crop
yield as 100 kg N in livestock manure.
Yield N P K
Winter wheat 8,6 t 175 20 70
Clover grass with
less than 50%
clover, in rotation
43,4 t 238 29 210
Winter rape seed 3,8 t 181 27 90
12 13
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
Figure 4: Typical s-formed fertiliser response-curve, indicating the productivity optimum (PO), the produc-tion economy optimum (EO), determined by the price vector (N and crop), and the legislative maximum (LM).
Table 2: Estimates of N and P in produced livestock manure in relation to the agricultural land in the Baltic Sea catchment area of the target countries. The agricultural land is according to Granstedt et al. (2004), and the production of N and P is according EU’s Joint Research Centre.
2 It is emphasized, that the figures are for the BSR part of Denmark, only. The average N amount in livestock density for the
entire Denmark is around 110 kg.
Best Available Techniques for manure treatment - for intensive rearing of pigs in Baltic Sea Region EU Member
States
Page 15
Approximately 30% of the Baltic population lives in the countryside. The Baltic Sea
covers an area of around one fourth of the total catchment area.
Table 2 shows a calculation of the load of N and P in livestock manure in all the target
countries.
Table 2: Estimates of N and P in produced livestock manure in relation to the agricultural land in the Baltic Sea catchment area of the target countries. The agricultural land is according to Granstedt et al. (2004), and the production of N and P is according EU’s Joint Research Centre.
From livestock manure, 1.000
tonnes
In livestock manure, kg per ha
agricultural land Country
N P
Agricultural
land, 1.000 ha
N P
DE 89.445 15.787 2.051 44 8
DK 166.063 34.758 2.077 802 17
EE 23.514 7.634 1.160 20 7
FI 84.685 22.076 2.387 35 9
LT 72.255 27.332 3.527 20 8
LV 60.956 21.960 2.826 22 8
PL 347.278 128.938 14.247 24 9
SE 136.585 22.389 2.698 51 8
SUM /AVERAGE 980.781 280.874 30.973 37 9
It is by comparison of Table 1 and Table 2 seen, that the average level of N and P in the
produced livestock manure is far below the needs of the crops, as defined by the Danish
fertiliser norms in Table 1 (economic optimal norms, politically reduced with 10% in case
of N) as well indicated by the Nitrates Directive, setting a limit of 170 kg N in livestock
manure per ha. The highest production of plant nutrients in livestock manure, i.e. the
livestock density, is seen in the Danish part of the Baltic Sea catchment area, followed by
Sweden.
It is on basis of data in Table 1 and Table 2 concerning fertiliser norms (norms have a
certain correlation to the removal by the crops) and the livestock density in the target
countries, suggested that the minimising of P leaching from livestock manure first of all is
ensured via distribution on a sufficiently large agricultural area. There is in the BSR
averagely 37 kg N and 9 kg P per ha in the produced livestock manure (Table 2) – it
would in relation to the Nitrates Directive be possible to expand the livestock production
(170 kg N/ha / 37 kg N/ha =) 4.6 times, and in relation to the need of P as nutrient for
2 It is emphasized, that the figures are for the BSR part of Denmark, only. The average N amount in livestock
density for the entire Denmark is around 110 kg.
14
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
15
Table 3: Examples of content of N and P in pig slurry (Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2008).
The Baltic Sea area covers 2.3 million square kilo-metres, with a population of 90 million. The land use of the area is unique, with 50% afforested and 20% arable land. Approximately 30% of the Baltic popula-tion lives in the countryside. The Baltic Sea covers an area of around one fourth of the total catchment area. Table 2 shows a calculation of the load of N and P in livestock manure in all the target countries. It is by comparison of Table 1 and Table 2 seen, that the average level of N and P in the produced livestock manure is far below the needs of the crops, as defined by the Danish fertiliser norms in Table 1 (economic optimal norms, politically reduced with 10% in case of N) as well indicated by the Nitrates Directive, setting a limit of 170 kg N in livestock manure per ha. The highest production of plant nu-trients in livestock manure, i.e. the livestock density, is seen in the Danish part of the Baltic Sea catchment area, followed by Sweden.
It is on basis of data in Table 1 and Table 2 concerning fertiliser norms (norms have a certain correlation to the removal by the crops) and the live-stock density in the target countries, suggested that the minimising of P leaching from livestock manure first of all is ensured via distribution on a suffi-ciently large agricultural area. There is in the BSR averagely 37 kg N and 9 kg P per ha in the produced livestock manure (Table 2) – it would in relation to the Nitrates Directive be possible to expand the live-stock production (170 kg N/ha / 37 kg N/ha =) 4,6 times, and in relation to the need of P as nutrient for typical crop rotations (Table 1) be possible to expand the livestock production (25 kg P/ha / 9 kg P/ha = ) 2,8 times3. By comparing Table 1 and Table 3 is seen, that P typically would be the most limiting factor in a ba-lanced fertilising with livestock manure according the needs of the crops - see Table 4. It is seen, that the
3 25 kg P/ha is recommended by HELCOM as fertilising norm.
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
Kg plant nutrients in the
livestock manure # Animal type
N P
1 1 sow in one year, with a production of 26 piglets till 7.3 kg, contribution
from mating and farrowing stable, fully slotted floors 15,6 4
2 Same as above, contribution from farrowing stable 6,3 1,7
3 10 piglets produced, 7.3 to 32 kg, fully slotted floors 4,5 1,4
4 Total for a sow in one year with production of 26 piglets of 32 kg (1 + 2 +
2.6 x 3) 33,6 9,3
5 10 production pigs produced, 32 to 107 kg, drained floor + slots (33/67) 26,4 5,3
6 Total for a pig production, per 1 sows and 26 pigs produced (4 + 2.6 x 5) 102,2 23,1
14 15
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
plant nutrients in slurry from production pigs is a bit better in balance with the needs of the crops than the case is for slurry from sow production. However, in all cases, whether a limit of 170 or 140 kg N per ha is used as a limit for fertilising with livestock manure, the spreading of P on the fields is above the P norms for a typical crop rotation on a pig farm. It should be noted in connection to the Table 1 and Table 4 that winter wheat is the most commonly grown crop on pig production farms in Denmark (Weznæs et al., 2009) and probably in the entire Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Fertiliser norms for grass is also shown in Table 1, although this is not a com-mon crop on pig production farms – however, grass is basically a protein crop, therefore requiring a high N fertilisation, and being the reason for derogations admitted cattle farms in Denmark and Holland to the general rule of maximally 170 kg N per ha from livestock manure. According HELCOM Convention, Annex III section 2.1, “The maximum number of animals should be determined with consideration taken to the need to balance between the amount of P and N in manure and the crops’ requirements for plant nutrients.” It decides for Contracting Parties that “The amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year including by the animals themselves should
Table 4: Number of sows or production pigs that produces N and P equivalent to the consumption of one ha winter wheat – by comparison of Table 1 and Table 3, and amount of P spread if the allowed spreading of N is the limiting factor.
not exceed the amount of manure containing 170 kg/ha nitrogen and 25 kg/ha phosphorus with a view to avoiding nutrient surplus, taking soil characteristics, agricultural practices and crop types into account.” Four of the eight target countries have conse-quently introduced official P norms for fertilising: In Sweden and in Lithuania the norms have been set as a general limit without respect to the actual crop grown. The limit in Sweden is 22 kg P per ha, and similarly 40 kg P2O5 in Lithuania. German farmers are restricted by a P balance of 20 kg P2O5 per ha (Foged, 2008). Denmark has introduced a maximal allowed spreading of 140 kg N in livestock manure per ha, but as seen from Table 4, this is not a suf-ficiently low rate to avoid over-fertilisation with P; Danish installations for the intensive rearing of pigs typically maximise their production up to the 140 kg N per ha limit. In Finland the P limits are based on crops grown and the soil P content. If only manure is used as P-fertilizer about 18 kg of manure total P can be spread for grain crops (if the soil P content is not very high). Annex L includes statistics about the pig pro-duction in Denmark, Poland and Sweden, as well as maps with the geographical placement of pig farms in Denmark and the installations for the intensive rearing of pigs in Poland.
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
Number of animals that can be
contained within 1 ha of winter
wheat according norms in Table 1
Kg P spread per ha per year, if the
limit for N fertilisation in livestock
manure is fully utilised Animal type
N P 170 kg N per as
limit
140 kg N per ha
as limit
Total for a sow in one year
with production of 26
piglets of 32 kg
5,1 2,2 47,43 38,75
10 production pigs
produced, 32 to 107 kg,
fully slotted floors
64,4 37,7 34,12 28,11
16
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
17
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
1.4: eu legislAtion in relAtion to the ProjectEU has already taken steps to generally reduce the pollution with N and P from livestock production, especially addressing the hot spot point sources and the pollution from intensive installations for the intensive rearing of pigs, via the following legislation: • EU’s Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) introduce the voluntary Codes of Good Agricultural Practices, the designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ’s) for areas with high nitrate levels in the waters or risks of this, and a mandatory Action Programme for farms within the NVZ’s. The Action Programme require farms to fertilise according the needs of the crops and not spread livestock manure in periods where lands are water saturated or frozen – indirectly this is a requirement for sufficient manure storage capacity.• Council Regulation 1257/1999 on rural develop- ment support requires Member States to set up Rural Development Programmes, which shall “provide for agri-environment measures through- out their territories, and in accordance with their specific needs”. These programmes shall be approved by the EU Commission.• Regulation 1698/2005 provides the basis for Member States’ support to farms’ investments in manure storages etc. • Regulation 1782/2003 sets the frames and conditions for farms’ receive of financial support, the so-called Cross Compliance (CC). The Nitrates Directive as well as other environmental EU legislation is part of the CC criteria. This means that the sanction for violating the Nitrates Directive is strengthened. • The IPPC Directive (2008/1) determines that intensive pig and poultry farms must have an environmental approval. The installations for the intensive rearing of pigs are defined as those having more than 750 sows or 2.000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg). The environmental approval is conditioned compliance with all agro-environmental legislation, use of Best Available Techniques (BAT’s) to minimise pollution of water, air and land, and compliance
with specified emission limits. • The Animal By-products Regulation (1774/2002) regulates the disposal of fallen stock (dead live- stock) and other animal by-products.
Annex J gives, as an example from a Member State, Poland, a more detailed description of the way the Nitrates Directive is implemented in Polish legisla-tion and Annex K the same for Denmark. The listed EU legislation would, if fully implemented and enforced, hinder point source hot spot pollution from installations for intensive rearing of pigs, caused by leaching of N and P from the production site – hotspot pollution is especially related to lack of or insufficient livestock manure storages and/or keeping livestock in stables without floors or without watertight floors. However, only four of the eight target EU Member State countries have designated the whole territory as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ’s), despite being part of the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Farms that are not under the IPPC regulation in the non-NVZ parts of those Member States may escape requirements for manure storages and other leaching prevention measures. The EU legislation had to be enforced in the new EU Member States by year 2008 as concerns the Nitrates Directive, by year 2009 concerning the Cross Compliance and by October 2008 concerning the IPPC Directive. The European Commission’s monitoring of the implementation process, combined with the duration of the infringement procedures makes it unclear whether the legislation in fact is enforced. However, the general impression is that the enforcement lacks behind the schedule in the new EU Member States.
1.5: other Projects in the AreA of mAnure Processing/treAtmentThe projects listed in sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.5 below have related objectives with “Best Practise Manure Handling”. The results in this report will be essen-tial knowledge for projects in the area of manure processing/treatment in order for them to proceed effectively.
16 17
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
1.5.1: helcom agricultural hotspots projectAccording to Helsinki Convention, and the revised Annex III, special measures and Best Environment Practice and Best Available Techniques in agriculture should be applied by the contracting states in the entire territory of the catchment area of the Baltic Sea. Unlike the IPPC directive, environmental per-mits should also be applied also to cattle farms >400 units. There are three ongoing processes dealing with agricultural hot spots:
1) To develop a prioritized list of single installations of intensive rearing of poultry, pigs and cattle. This list will be bases for decision on inter- nationally financed investment projects for farm infrastructure improvements. The objective is to collect information on nutrient load potential, taking into account simple production criteria and manure handling measures, as stipulated in the convention. This should be done by collecting existing information readily available (statistics, IPPC permits, EU EPER/PRTR, etc) and rely on voluntary reporting by countries for additional, more specific information on individual agricul- tural installations. The easily accessible background information has been gathered and summarized. Specific information on pollution potential and pollution loads for individual installations is being collected.2) Development of criteria for agricultural point source hot spots. This is an ongoing process within HELCOM to revise the HELCOM Hot Spot system to be more precise and to show specific information per each installation. The exact criteria for designation as an agricultural point source hot spot will be discussed among the contracting states in the upcoming HELCOM LAND workshops and meetings in November 2009 and January 2010.3) BALTHAZAR -project, financed by EU. The objective is to facilitate the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan in Russia, with respect to the objectives of the eutrophication and hazardous substances segments of the BSAP. The specific goal of the project in the agricultural sector is to develop pilot projects on the priori-
tized installations of intensive animal rearing, with a focus on mitigating the environmental risk posed by these installations to the Baltic Sea. A final report with a prioritized list of the selected installations and proposals for pilot projects is expected to be finalized in February 2010.
1.5.2: manual for start of new biogas plants in denmarkThe Danish government has launched a ‘Green Growth’ plan to increase the biogas treatment (and other treatment for energy purposes) of slurry from presently 5% to 50% before 2020. Today Denmark has 22 larger centralised biogas plants in addition to some 50 farm scale plants. The new plan will require 40–50 new larger centralised plants, seriously challenging the planning system in Denmark. The coming biogas plants should be located where animal husbandry is dense to reduce transportation costs, and they should be located where the produced heat and power can be sold. Alternative locations could be where the natural gas-grid is for upgrading of the biogas and selling to the gas-grid. The system for environmental approval of new biogas plants is complicated, and the newly formed municipalities have few experiences. In addition, there is a classic ‘Not in My Back Yard’ challenge (the so-called NIMB syndrome) and numerous neighbour complaints can be expected. Therefore, a group of experts, led by CBMI, has been given the task to develop a detailed manual on how to start new biogas plants. The manual is aimed at farmers, authorities, neighbours and energy companies, thereby trying to encompass all aspects (positive and negative) of biogas. The working group is followed by a group of stakeholders, ensuring the right balance of the manual. The manual will be pu-blished in a light version, a thorough reading version and numerous very detailed fact sheets on cbmi.dk. The work is to be coordinated and adapted to the initiatives in ‘Green Growth’ as they become approved and in place during 2009–2010, including legislative changes, new expert panels being establis-hed etc. The work is financed partly by Central Denmark Region, The Rural Development Programme and the
18
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
19
Biogas Branch Association. It is planned to publish a version ultimo 2009, and a ‘final’ version October 2010.
1.5.3: balticcomPAssbalticCOMPASS is a new project with a budget of M€ 6.5 that recently was approved for financing by the EU Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007–2013 / Interreg IIIB. The project is led by Swedish Agri-cultural University and has some 25 partners in the countries around the Baltic Sea. The overall objective is defined as “To contribute to securing a good ecolo-gical status of the Baltic Sea as a means to contribute to economic growth and integration in the Baltic Sea Region”, and livestock manure treatment technologi-es are a key focus of the project. The project inclu-des the following six work packages (work package leaders in brackets):
i. Management and Administration (SLU)ii. Communication and information (BSAG)iii. Best Practice - utilisation and transfer (JTI)iv. Investment preparation (ABP/CBMI)v. Comprehensive assessment and scenarios (SYKE)vi. Governance and policy adaptation (SEI)
The work packages contains measures to reach the overall objective, here under information and dis-semination measures, development on utilisation and transfer of best practices, support to speed up investments in the best manure treatment technolo-gies, monitoring and modelling measures, and policy adaptation. The project will run for 4 years.
1.5.4: forum for inventive and sustainable manure Processing, a Baltic sea strategy flagship ProjectThere is a long term need to co-ordinate basic and applied research, model development, develop and discuss scenarios, transfer of knowledge, and business innovation and development initiatives within the field of Sustainable Manure Processing. The Baltic Forum for Inventive and Sustainable
Manure Processing will contribute to rural deve-lopment by reinforcing sustainability of agriculture in the Baltic region. This will be done through an improved exchange of information on how to process manure (pig, cattle, poultry) in sustainable ways in the Baltic Sea Region to minimize the environmen-tal impact, and to reach benefits such as renewable energy, job creation and business development. The forum considers manure a serious problem, but also a part of the solution. Manure should become an attractive and profitable resource in the future. Processing manure can and should lead to production of ‘designer fertilisers’ (pellets, liquid, etc.) improving agricultural production and bio-ener-gy (biogas, fibre combustion, etc.) reducing the CO2 emissions in the region. The Forum is included as a ‘Fast track Flagship project’ (i.e. highly prioritised) in the EU Baltic Sea Action Plan. CBMI (Denmark) and Agrifood Research, MTT (Finland) are nominated as lead partners. The process of project establishment is ongoing and specific objectives of the project are to be defi-ned. So far there has been held consultations between the key actors; MTT and CBMI as well as a contact committee under the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a coordination meeting organised by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture.
1.5.5: Baltic deAl – Putting Best Practices in agriculture into work, a Baltic sea strategy flagship ProjectThe overall aim of Baltic DEAL is to improve the environmental status of the Baltic Sea through reductions in nutrient losses from the agricultural sector without impairing competitiveness or produc-tion. The project aims to create a sector-driven and voluntary approach to raise awareness and increase expertise among farmers in order to reduce negative environmental impact while at the same time main-taining or increasing competitiveness, thus creating a win-win situation. The specific objective of the project is to develop a nationally adapted, yet common, Baltic Sea region approach to advance and strengthen agricultural advisory services and related demonstration and
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
18 19
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
information activities using practices that focus upon good and improved environmental and agricultural practices. The project is included as a “Flagship project” in the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The Federation of Swedish Farmers, Danish Agricultural Advisory Ser-
1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
vice, Central Union for Farmers and Forest Owners, Central Union of Swedish-speaking Agricultural Producers in Finland, Agricultural Organisations of Finland, and Deutscher Bauernverband are nomina-ted as lead partners. The process of project establish-ment is ongoing and finance is not yet secured.
20
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
21
2: METHODOLOGIES AND ORGANISATION
2: methodologies And orgAnisAtion
2.1: methodologY
2.1.1: general approachThe project, here under the data compilation and creation of a complete list of manure treatment technologies from source to disposal of the livestock manures, and a reduced list, i.e. the recommended technologies in relation to the objectives of this pro-ject, has been done via
• Compiling and structuring already known knowledge and searches for newest scientific literature, relevant reports and document etc. – see list of references in Annex B.• Performing a survey among network partners in the project target area and in other relevant countries – the content of the survey was largely formulated by the Baltic Sea 2020 secretariat, while the Project Leader organised the program- ming of an Internet based version of it. • Study visits to Holland and USA, especially to get on-hands impressions, to be acquainted with on-going and not yet published research, and for reviewing current manure management techno- logy practices.• The identified technologies are on basis of well documented effects (in some cases on basis of researchers personal information or qualified estimates), concrete prices and other facts analy- sed/evaluated with respect to environmental effects (total/ammonia/nitrate N and P, other environmental effects), economy/profitability (income/savings – for instance from improved fertilising value of the livestock manure, invest- ment price, running/operational costs, pre-requi- sites/enablers (herd size/scale of economy, avai- lable land, distance to available land, price of energy, available subsidies, etc.)• Stakeholder consultations via a roundtable discus- sion in Stockholm on 29 September 2009.• Consultations with Researchers/experts, who represent the countries in the target area in the Technical Working Group connected to the
European IPPC Bureau. Some of those, who could not participate in the Roundtable discus- sion, have been consulted at individual meetings about for instance the efficiency of the implemen- tation of the IPPC Directive.• Data analysis to make a reduced list of most inte- resting technologies. • Formulation of recommendations for Best Avai- lable Technology for manure treatment to reduce leaching of N and P.• Policy recommendations, here under formulation of final recommendations on basis of analyses and evaluations.
2.1.2: Principle concerning leaching, and its connection to the field effectIt is anticipated in this report that there is a correla-tion between leaching and field effect (also called bio / plant availability) for N, except in cases where the N is converted to free N – N2 or other airborne N. The field effect is in Denmark defined as the amount of N in mineral fertiliser that gives the same yield as 100 kg N in livestock manure in field trials. If the field effect is 60%, for instance, then we an-ticipate that 40% is lost to the environment, mainly via percolation to the soil layers, whereof a big part is further leached to the aquatic environment, while some is immobilised in the soils. This report will thus use the field effect as one of the evaluation parameters for the leaching reduction effect of livestock manure treatment technologies.
2.1.3: Broad meaning of technologiesThis report deals with livestock manure treatment technologies for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs. The word “technologies” shall be understood in a broad sense, for instance according this defini-tion: “Technologies is the application of scientific or other organized knowledge - including any tool, technique, product, process, method or system - to practical tasks”. The following few words are further creating the
20 21
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
2: METHODOLOGIES AND ORGANISATION
basis for a common understanding of the type of technologies the project focuses on:
• Dealing widely with manure handling, processing and treating, comprising mechanical, thermal, chemical, biological and probably other• Focusing on technologies that are relevant for industrial pig farming in the Baltic Sea Region• Focusing on technologies, which in a cost efficient way minimize N and P leaching from manure• Excluding conventional technologies for manure storing and spreading, which have (or should have) been enforced several years ago according existing legislation• Excluding technologies focused on reduction of smell and airborne emissions• Focusing on technologies which have become more widespread since the introduction of the IPPC directive, for instance separation, aerobic treatment, anaerobic treatment, incineration, flocculation, flotation, reverse osmosis, etc.
It is also emphasized, that this report does not con-sider various trademarks, brands, solutions or con-cepts offered by individual producers – behind those are typically a clone of the technologies mentioned, and/or one or more technologies that are optimised for specific purposes.
2.1.4: Definition of leachingUnderstanding of the word “leaching” varies in dif-ferent countries. Native English speaking countries normally un-derstand
• leaching as percolation to the soil layers; and• run-off as washing away along the soil surface, closely associated with erosion.
There are in the native languages in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) countries normally no linguistic distinguishing between leaching and run-off. The term “leaching” is consistently used to describe all N and P reaching the Baltic Sea, either through leaching or run-off.
2.1.5: Building on the reference document on Best Available techniques for intensive rearing of Poultry and Pigs (Bref) concerning pigs The current BREF document (European Commis-sion, 2003) contains about 1 page summary (page xvi and xvii) and 5 pages detailed description (from page 77 to 82) about “on-farm manure treatment” of ma-nure from pigs and poultry, and lists up technologies, which can be used of the following reasons - citation:
1. To recover the residual energy (biogas) in the manure;2. To reduce odour emissions during storage and/or land spreading;3. To decrease the N content of the manure, with the aim of preventing possible ground and surface water pollution as a result of land spreading and to reduce odour; and4. To allow easy and safe transportation.
The listing of technologies in this report comprises the listing in the BREF document, excluding tech-nologies that are not in focus for this project, such as those related with chicken manure or odour emis-sions. We furthermore find it relevant to structure the technologies according their logistic route from the source (pigs) to the end disposal (mainly field application), and to estimate the leaching reduction potential conditional in relation to a given situation on the farm.
2.1.6: model farm for scenario calculationsThe complete list of manure treatment technologies requires an estimation of the cost efficiency of the leaching reduction. It is for this purpose necessary to make a few assumptions. In order to rationalise this as well as to make the comparison and competitive-ness of the various technologies more clear, we have developed five farm scenarios.
• Scenario I describe a model farm, where spreading of N and P is done in an environmentally safe way, meaning according to the EU and HELCOM regulations on the agricultural land of the farm.
22
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
23
2: METHODOLOGIES AND ORGANISATION
Table 5: Five scenarios for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs, all with a size equal to an annual production of 25.0003 ton of slurry, containing 5% dry matter, and 5 kg total N and 1,15 kg P per ton, but with different availability of land / livestock density.
• Scenario II is much comparable to the Danish situation, allowing pig farm to produce 140 kg N in livestock manure per ha. • Scenario III is equal to the maximally livestock density according the Nitrates Directive.• Scenario IV and V describe situations, where livestock farms have insufficient or no land for spreading livestock manure, and where there is a possibility to dispose of it within the region, or outside the region, respectively. These scenarios are often seen at the large livestock farms in the new EU Member States.
2.1.7: data analysisThe complete list of livestock manure treatment technologies was analysed and reduced on basis of the following criteria:
1. Non-project relevant technologies2. Technologies that are not commercially implemented3. Technologies without leaching reduction effect
4. Technologies with apparent negative environment or climate impacts5. Technologies without proven or unacceptable economic performance for general use6. Technologies with ethical considerations We have for the livestock manure treatment techno-logies especially focused on the following parameters:
• Total leaching reduction capability (N & P)• Kg saved N or P per € • Implementation and maintenance complexity assessment• Cost of implementation• Cost of maintenance• Legal, structural, cultural and ethical obstacles for implementation of proposed technologies
2.1.8: Efficiency of the IPPC directive The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) directive was identified during background research
4 25.000 ton of pig slurry equals for instance the production from 1.075 sows + production of the piglets and production pigs
from them (around 29.000 production pigs produced per year)
Scenario I II III IV V
Ha land on the farm 1.150 893 735 625 0
Kg N per ha on the farm 109 140 170 200 -
Kg P per ha on the farm 25 32 39 46 -
Land for spreading available in the region No No No Yes Yes
Average distance to sustainable disposal of the slurry or its plant nutrients
4 km 4 km 4 km 24 km 144 km
22 23
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
2: METHODOLOGIES AND ORGANISATION
of the project to be a potential tool to implement best practices for manure treatment in the Baltic Sea catchment area. Hence, one objective of this report is to evaluate the efficiency of the directive to commu-nicate and implement “Best Available Techniques” (BATs) to reduce leaching of nutrients from installa-tions for the intensive rearing of pigs. A questionnaire was elaborated and transformed into a digital survey, se Annex F. Members of the IPPC Technical Working group (Annex G) and IPPC Infor-mation Exchange Group (Annex H) were invited to participate in the survey. Ten persons responded, most of them from the Technical Working Group. Interviews were performed with staff at the IPPC Department at DG Environment, the IPPC Bureau and with national responsible authorities for imple-mentation of the IPPC Directive in Denmark, Poland and Sweden (list of people met in Annex C). Additio-nal information has been sought at DG Environment and IPPC Bureau web pages.
2.2: orgAnisAtionThe project is executed by Project Manager Henning Lyngsø Foged at the Danish Innovative Centre for Bioenergy and Environmental Technologies, (CBMI), being sparred and assisted by several of his colleagues, first of all Michael Støckler and Karl Martin Schelde. The project has been implemented according to the time schedule, which was developed in connec-tion to the initial kick-off meeting at Agro Business Park on 17 August 2009. A close, effective, transparent and open coope-ration has taken place between the Project Leader and Researcher Lotta Samuelson of the Baltic Sea 2020 secretariat, with who weekly scheduled telep-hone meetings took place. Lotta Samuelson took the lead on the formulation of the questionnaire for the survey as well as for the inviting of people to the roundtable discussion, and also took the lead in several meetings with stakeholders in Brussels, Poland and Denmark.
24
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
25
3: INFORMATION GATHERED
3: informAtion gAthered
3.1: full list of livestock mAnure hAndling technologiesMore than 40 technologies for livestock manure tre-atment have been identified with in the project. The technologies are grouped and numbered. The groups are inspired by the BREF document (2003), and extended with other technologies we have identified. The code numbers are incidental, but made with the purpose of linking the Table 6 with Annex D, Annex E and the reduced list in chapter 4 (Table 8). Table 6 includes information about the way the technologies can be deployed, meaning whether they are stand alone, pre treatment or post treatment tech-nologies:
• Stand alone technologies can be deployed as the sole treatment technology, and the manure does not have to be pre treated. We assume here that pig manure alone is on slurry form.• Pre treatment technologies are marked as such because they typically are followed by other treatments. Several pre treatment technologies cannot stand alone. • Post treatment technologies are typically found in the end of the logistically way of the livestock manure treatment route. These technologies can typically not stand alone, and they would nor- mally have the purpose to refine the products for further use as fertilisers or other.
However, the marking of technologies as being stand alone, pre or post treatments shall only be seen as an indication. We see in practice that technologies are combined in many different ways on concrete livestock manure treatment plants.
The information provided in the complete list of technologies is provided with the intention to be objective, and refers to validated information where possible, both for Table 6 and the Annex D and An-nex E. There is not complete overlap between the tech-nologies presented in Table 6, the figures in Annex
D and the tables with description of the technolo-gies in Annex E. Emphasis has been given to collect information in Annex E about technologies where validated data exist. The work with development of a knowledge base on livestock manure treatment technologies will continue in Work Package IV of the balticCOMPASS project under auspices of CBMI.
3.2: comBinAtion of technologiesThe list of livestock manure treatment technologies indicates whether the technologies can stand alone or they can be pre or post-treatments to other treat-ments. Speaking about livestock manure treatment, it is in fact typical that several technologies are built together to improve the technical and economic ef-ficiency of the treatment.
Examples of this are:
• Logically, adding a mechanically separated fibre fraction from pig slurry with a dry matter content of 32% would make an anaerobic digestion of pig slurry with a dry matter content of 6,1% (Lands- centret, 2005) more cost efficient (anaerobic digestion can typically happen with dry matter contents up to 12,5%). • Composting of a mechanically separated fibre fraction before thermal gasification or combustion would save other needed heating, as the fibre fraction typically reach temperatures of more than 70°C whereby considerable amounts of water evaporates. Patni and Kinsman (1997) report a composting trial, where “75% of the water initially present was lost during 60 days of composting”.• Powers and Flatow (2002) reports a study which for instance for one type of diet improves the mechanical separation of total solids from 48,6% up to 82,9% by use of flocculants. • There is obtained synergy in combining tempera- ture and pressure treatment with anaerobic diges- tion, because the substrates for anaerobic diges- tion anyway have to be heated up to around 35°C (mesophile process) or 55°C (thermophile process).
24 25
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
3: INFORMATION GATHERED
Table 6: Complete list of livestock manure treatment technologies
# Livestock Manure Treatment Technology
Stand
alone technology
Pre-
treatment
Post-
treatment
00: Pre-storage and storage
01 Source separation
02 Pre-storage and temporary storage
03 Storage of deep litter
04 Storage of solid manure
05 Storage of urine
06 Storage of slurry
10: Separation
10A Flocculation
11 Separation by grate
12 Separation by screw pressing
13 Separation by sieves
14 Separation by filter pressing
15 Separation by centrifuge
16 Flotation
17 Separation by drum filters
18 Sedimentation
20: Additives and other pre/1st treatments
21 Acidification of liquid livestock manures
22 pH increasing, liming
23 Temperature and pressure treatment
24 Applying other additives to manure, here under enzymes
30: Anaerobic treatment
31 Anaerobic digestion
40: Treatment of the fibre fraction
41Composting of solid livestock manure or fibre fractions of
liquid livestock manure
41A Composting of liquid livestock manure
42 Drying, possibly followed by pelletizing
43 Combustion
26
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
27
# Livestock Manure Treatment Technology
Stand
alone technology
Pre-
treatment
Post-
treatment
44 Thermal gasification
46 Composting of manure with larvae of the housefly
46 BtL (biomass to liquid)
50: Treatment of the liquid fraction
51 Ultra filtration
52 Ammonia stripping
54 Reverse osmosis
55A Electrolysis
55B De-mineralisation
56 Aeration
56A Ozonizing
57 Nitrification-denitrification
58 Struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate) precipitation
59 Algae production on liquid manure substrates
90: Transport and disposal
91 Truck transport
92 Pipeline transport
93 Field application
94 Constructed wetlands
95 Other disposal
100: Air cleaning
101 Air washing
110: Management
111 Official P norms
112 P index
113Certification of persons, who transport or spread livestock
manure
3: INFORMATION GATHERED
Table 6 continued.
26 27
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
3.3: communitY PlAnts for livestock mAnure treAtment Technologies that are not stand-alone technologies and/or have clear economies of scale would typically have an advantage of being implemented via farmer cooperations or a service provider as off-farm manure treatment plants.
• Technologies that cannot stand alone would often be part of rather complex and high-tech solutions that would be complicated for farmers to handle along with their key production. • Technologies with a clear economy of scale, i.e. where treatment of a small amount per year is more costly than treatment of a large amount per year, see for instance Birkmose (2006), would often be too costly for farms of average sizes to invest in and to operate.
Examples of these cases are livestock manure treat-ment plants, where pig slurry is converted to purified water and different commercial/mineral fertilisers, for instance nitrification-denitrification plants as seen in Spain, Holland and Belgium, purification plants as seen in Holland, or centralised biogas plants as seen in Denmark. Further, it is important for farms to handle risks associated with their business, and the larger invest-ments they make in relation to their turnover, the more vulnerable are they to changes in the markets, regulations and other external factors. Remarks given by participants at the Roundtable discussion on 29 September generally expressed the opinion, that the project could promote larger com-munity livestock manure treatment plants for combi-ned technologies. This would take away the structural development pressure on pig producers, which would be a result in itself in relation to the environmental load of pig production. The rationale behind the remarks is that the structural development in the livestock production is forced by the legislative burden on the producers, which more rationally can be dealt with by the large production units than the smaller ones. Furthermore, if the legislative burden enforces use of specific technologies, then the economy of scale of the technology would force the smallest producers
to go out of the market. It is also of importance for many pig producers to develop their competences on animal husbandry, and to source out other activities, as for instance livestock manure treatment. Therefore, by encouraging the livestock manure treatment techno-logies as community plant solutions, would avoid an extra pressure for livestock farms for growing bigger in order to survive. The extra transport of slurry to and from a community plant would typically be balanced by advantages of a more rational slurry handling, increased value of the slurry etc. within a certain radius from the community plant. Additionally it should also be kept in mind that a major challenge with an environmentally sound disposal of the livestock manure is to distribute it at sufficiently large areas of agricultural land, as visua-lised in tables 1 to 4. Therefore, a major advantage of community plants are actually, that they in reality functions as centres for regional re-distribution of livestock manures, meaning that the logistics around the collection of pig slurry and distribution of treated manure ensures the distribution to for instance spe-cialised plant producers without livestock production in the region. See also www.biovakka.fi. However, the off-farm livestock manure treatment plants are actually moving the livestock manure treat-ment from being a regulated issue to a non-regulated issue, at least in some cases. The IPPC directive does not, via the Annex 1 list of installations that needs environmental approvals, comprise off-farm livestock manure treatment. Off-farm livestock manure treatment plants should be listed in Annex 1 of the IPPC Directive as instal-lations that require environmental approval because the deployed technologies have environmental impacts in general, and on N and P leaching in specific.
3.4: efficiencY of BAt disseminAtion in relAtion to the iPPc directiveThe following sections give a presentation of the information gathered about the IPPC Directive, how the administration of it is organised, and of the BREF document. Additionally, reference is given to the annexes C and J with lists of people met and memorandum from roundtable discussion.
3: INFORMATION GATHERED
28
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
29
3.4.1: the iPPc directiveThe purpose of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive is to achieve integra-ted prevention and control of pollution arising from industrial activities. It lays down measures designed to prevent or, when that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the air, water and land. It came into force in 1996, requiring full compliance by 30 Octo-ber 2007. Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with > 2.000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg) or >750 places for sows are specified as industrial instal-lations under regulation of the directive. The total number of ”IPPC farms” (pigs; sows and poultry) in the EU-25 is around 16.000. This is less than 0,1% of the total number of farms in the EU-25. On these farms, 16% of the total number of production pigs, 22% of the total number of sows, and around 60% of the total number of poultry are kept (2008). There are 1.328 IPPC installations for the intensive rearing of pigs in the Member States surrounding the Baltic Sea (Table 7). The directive requires installations to operate ac-cording to permit conditions based on best available techniques (BAT), without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology and taking into ac-count the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions. The IPPC directive sets no limits regarding emis-sions of nutrients from installations for the intensive rearing of pigs, but refers to other Community legis-
lation to be applied as maximum emission limit vales. The Nitrate Directive limits the annual amount of N from livestock manure in designated N vulnerable zones to be maximum 170 kg/ha. Member States are obliged to ensure that permits are issued, that they are properly determined and that operators comply with the conditions in those per-mits in order to comply with the legal requirements of the Directive.
3.4.2: organisationThe Directorate General in charge of the Environment within the European Commission (DG ENV) is re-sponsible for the IPPC Directive and its development. The Information Exchange Group (IEG) is the DG ENV advisory group on legal issues related with the implementation of the IPPC Directive in the Member States. The Information Exchange Forum (IEF) is the Consultative Committee established by the IPPC Di-rective to generally oversee the elaboration of BREFs and the information exchange process. It gives a final indication to the Commission of its degree of support for final draft BREFs. The European Member States are responsible for implementing the Directive and for issuing operating permits to the installations concerned. The Technical Working Group (TWG) is com-posed of European experts from industry, represen-tatives from Member States authorities and environ-mental non-governmental organizations established for the purpose of elaborating or reviewing reference
Table 7: Number of IPPC permitted installations for the intensive rearing of pigs in Baltic Sea Members States 2008 (European Commission, DG Environment, Monitoring of Permitting Progress for Existing IPPC Installations, Final Report, March 2009, Danmarks Statistiks Bibliotek og Information (personal communication)
3: INFORMATION GATHERED
Sweden Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Germany Denmark Total
Production
pigs 102 14 34 22 24 116 395 378 1.085
Sows 15 10 - 2 4 6 206 - 243
Total 117 24 34 24 28 122 601 378 1.328
28 29
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
documents on best available techniques. A TWG ge-nerally consists of between 40 to 100 experts. TWG members are either nominated by their Member State, by a European industrial association (Business Europe) or by the environmental NGO EEB.
3.4.3 : reference documents on Best Available techniques (Brefs)The IPPC Bureau was set up by DG ENV to organize exchange of information between Member States and industry on Best Available Techniques (BAT), as well as associated monitoring and developments in them. The European IPPC Bureau produces reference documents on Best Available Techniques, called BREFs. BREFs are the main reference documents
3: INFORMATION GATHERED
used by competent authorities in Member States when issuing operating permits for IPPC installations. The European IPPC Bureau acts as a neutral, techni-cally competent and permanent body to all TWGs. The procedure used to elaborate or review a BREF includes a few plenary meetings of the TWG, sub-group meetings, visits to installations, and submission of draft BREFs for comments.Once it has been finalized, each BREF is presented by the European IPPC Bureau to DG Environment at the Consultative Committee (Information Exchange Forum, IEF). The BREFs are then formally adopted by the college of commissioners and a notice of their adoption is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
30
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
31
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
4: result of dAtA AnAlYsis
4.1: reduced list of livestock mAnure hAndling technologiesThe complete list of identified livestock manure treatment technologies has been reduced in different ways in relation to the specific needs and purposes of this project. Technologies that are without leaching reduction effect, that are not commercially imple-mented, that are not in focus in this project, that have apparent other negative impacts on the environ-ment, that have no proven or unacceptable economic performance, or have ethical considerations have been removed.
4.1.1: non–project relevant technologiesIt is for this project given on beforehand, that focus is not on technologies in relation to evaporation (emis-sions), storage or spreading of livestock manures. 4.1.2: technologies that are not commercially implemented A number of the technologies we have identified are still being researched or piloted, and we can of this reason not recommend them to be put into operation on a broad scale in the BSR.
4.1.3: technologies without leaching reduction effect Some of the technologies have neither directly or indirectly any leaching reduction effect.
4.1.4: technologies with apparent negative environment or climate impacts Especially the aeration technologies are reported to lead to smaller or larger evaporation of laughter gases and ammonia. Seepage is also seen in connection to composting, when material for composting with less than 30% dry matter is placed on the bare soil. Therefore, of the aeration technologies we do alone recommend that the fibre fraction from separa-tion is composted in order to make it
• stable in the storage, i.e. it will not start fermen- ting, moulding, leaching, evaporating or other
during storage and transport; and • with a high dry matter percentage, as we acknow- ledge that composting is an effective and cheap way to remove water from a substrate without consumption of external energy, because the temperatures normally raises to above 70°C during the composting process – a high dry matter percent is especially important if the fibre fraction shall be used in a later thermal gasifica- tion or combustion process.
If composting of the fibre fraction is done, then we recommend it happens in a way so that neither emis-sions of harmful gases nor seepage is possible, i.e. it should be in closed containers.
4.1.5: no proven or unacceptable economic performance for general useDespite having been implemented in practice, mea-ning that we could not consider the technologies as being research or piloted, we are in doubt about their viability in commercial use without subsidisation. These technologies counts for instance those that are related with total purification of the liquid fraction, as well as the temperature and pressure treatment, which seems mainly to be relevant in case of a need to treat animal by-products.
4.1.6: technologies with ethical considerationsWe do not see any ethical considerations for any of the listed technologies in Table 6. However, we remind that N is an expensive and limiting resource in the agricultural production, wherefore it seems uneconomic to convert it to free N (N2), rather than using it for fertilising of crops instead of buying N fertilisers, that have been produ-ced with high consumption of fossil fuels. We also remind that P is a scarce resource, and that there is a risk that the P in the ash after combus-tion of livestock manure is converted to forms with low plant availability.
30 31
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
Table 8: Relation between technologies and selection criteria (4.1.1–4.1.6). Dots indicate technologies that are deselected in this project – open dots indicate technologies, that are indeed interesting, but which would require additional research and policy adaptation. Technologies without dots are the technologies recommended in the report.
# Livestock Manure
Treatment Technology
Not
project
relevant
Not
commercially
proven
No
leaching
effect
High risk
for negative
impacts on
environment
and climate
No proven
economic
performance
for general
use
00: Pre-storage and storage
01 Source separation
02 Pre-storage and temporary
storage
03 Storage of deep litter
04 Storage of solid manure
05 Storage of urine
06 Storage of slurry
10: Separation
10A Flocculation
11 Separation by grate
12 Separation by screw
pressing
13 Separation by sieves
14 Separation by filter pressing
15 Separation by centrifuge
16 Flotation
17 Separation by drum filters
18 Sedimentation
20: Additives and other
pre/1st treatments
21 Acidification of liquid
livestock manures
22 pH increasing, liming
23 Temperature and pressure
treatment
24
Applying other additives to
manure, here under
enzymes
32
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
33
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
Table 8 continued.
# Livestock Manure
Treatment Technology
Not
project
relevant
Not
commercially
proven
No
leaching
effect
High risk
for negative
impacts on
environment
and climate
No proven
economic
performance
for general
use
30: Anaerobic treatment
31 Anaerobic digestion
40: Treatment of the fibre
fraction
41
Composting of solid
livestock manure or fibre
fractions of liquid livestock
manure
41A Composting of liquid
livestock manure
42 Drying, possibly followed
by pelletizing
43 Combustion
44 Thermal gasification
46 Composting of manure with
larvae of the housefly
46 BT (biomass to liquid)
50: Treatment of the liquid
fraction
51 Ultra filtration
52 Ammonia stripping
54 Reverse osmosis
55A Electrolysis
55B De-mineralisation
56 Aeration
56A Ozonizing
57 Nitrification-denitrification
58
Struvite (magnesium
ammonium phosphate)
precipitation
59 Algae production on liquid
manure substrates
32 33
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
4.1.7: reduced list with the most cost–efficient livestock manure treatment technologiesTable 8 shows the relation between technologies and the above mentioned selection criteria.
4.1.8: Presentation and further justification of the preferred livestock manure treatment technologiesThe recommended livestock manure treatment tech-nologies in relation to the objectives of the project are the following:
• Separation technologies (ref. group no. 10) – the concrete principle is chosen according local prices and circumstances, both with respect to the type
of mechanical separation technology, and whether it would be cost-efficient to enhance the separa- tion with flocculation and/or flotation. The sepa- ration technologies are justified through their ability to provide the basis for an easy and cheap removal of excess P to areas with less intensive livestock productions, where the P can be used in an environmentally safe way, for instance as fertiliser for crops. Separation in a P rich fibre fraction and an N rich liquid fraction is a pre- condition for fertilising crops in a balanced way at farms with high livestock densities (Scenarios II to V). Mechanical separation can both be a pre-treatment and a post treatment. The tech- nology should be a BAT for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs which have more P in
Table 8 continued.
# Livestock Manure
Treatment Technology
Not
project
relevant
Not
commercially
proven
No
leaching
effect
High risk
for negative
impacts on
environment
and climate
No proven
economic
performance
for general
use
90: Transport and disposal
91 Truck transport
92 Pipeline transport
93 Field application
94 Constructed wetlands
95 Other disposal
100: Air cleaning
101 Air washing
110: Management
111 Official P norms
112 P index
113
Certification of persons,
who transport or spread
livestock manure
34
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
35
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
the produced livestock manure than can be contained within the P norms and P-index at the fields, where they spread their livestock manure – see Table 8 It is important that both the liquid and the solid fractions are collected in ways that efficiently hinder seepage of effluents and evaporation of N compounds. It is likewise important to ensure, that possible use of floculation agents are made in compliance with EU legislation, and that used flocculation agents would not threaten human or animal health.• Anaerobic digestion (ref. no. 31) is justified through its positive effect on the field effect (re- circulation of N in the agricultural production), the positive physical properties of the digestate being more homogenous and easier to apply precisely on the fields and bound to the soil, and its overall economy influenced by a smaller or larger income/value of the biogas itself, as well as positive side effects such as minimised need for the farms to purchase N fertiliser, and positive effect on the climate accounts. Anaerobic di- gestion plants will, in case they are established as community plants, further serve as regional centres for an environmentally safe redistribution of livestock manure, so that the digestate can be used in a balanced way as fertiliser of crops. The technology is a stand-alone technology, but can be combined with any of the other selected technologies on the reduced list. The technology can be implemented as an on-farm as well as an off-farm technology. Due to the considerable positive effects of anaerobic digestion for the entire society, as well as due to the scale of economy in anaerobic digestion, society should be encouraged to take steps to establish community plants for anaerobic digestion of livestock manures. • Management measures (ref. group no. 110), including introduction (in all target countries) of official norms for P fertilisation, of a P-index, and of a demand for certification of persons dealing with transport and/or spreading of live- stock manures. P fertiliser norms and the P-index will in combination directly avoid over-fertilisa- tion with P in relation to the capacity of the field and the crop to consume the applied P. The
certification of persons will ensure their familia- rity with good practices as well as standards, norms and rules in relation to their work, and is expected to give less risk for spill of livestock manures in the environment due to un-awareness or accidents, as well as a more precise application on the fields according to plans. The relevance of certification is among other emphasized by the fact that a simple search of the Danish word “gylleudslip” (In English: slurry spill) on Google gives 32.800 hits.
It is emphasized,1. that the list of the most relevant and cost- efficient livestock manure handling technologies well could change if other criteria were used for the drawing up of the reduced list of technologies, or if more information became available to vali- date their environmental impacts and cost- efficiency in relation to leaching reduction. It is also important, that the selection of technology principally shall be made on basis of the situation for the individual farm. 2. that the impact of manure treatment techno- logies on leaching often is dependent on the management of the technologies and on the way different technologies are combined. The leaching reduction effect of a technology should therefore not be seen in isolation – for instance the potential positive effects of separation should not be outweighed by run-off and evaporation due to in-responsible storing and transporting of the fibre fraction.”
4.1.9: interesting technologies that needs further research and policy adaptationThere are three technologies for treating of the separated fibre fraction that is suggested to be further researched and politically considered, namely drying, possibly followed by pelletizing, combustion and thermal gasification (technology reference numbers 42, 43 and 44). The technologies are to some extent proven, also on commercial scale, but it is with reference to Annex E suggested that their environ-mental and economic performances especially are researched in case of fibre fractions from pig slurry.
34 35
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
Such research would also clarify whether it politically could be made more feasible to implement thermal gasification and combustion.
4.1.10: Possible difficulties for the deployment of the recommended technologiesConsidering the recommended technologies there are especially the following difficulties for their deployment:
• There is at policy level a need to spread informa- tion about the livestock manure treatment tech- nologies and their beneficial influence on the leaching and other environmental parameters. Secondly it is a challenge to promote the required policy actions in form of legislation, standards, and support schemes.• On the administrative level, the challenges are in relation to the administration of the IPPC Direc- tive as well as the BREF document, both being in the beginning of a revision process, to - re-consider the Annex 1 list of installations to ensure as well that off-farm treatments of livestock manures are carried out in a regulated way; - give more emphasis to livestock manure treatment technologies in the BREF docu- ment, including being more specific about the condition for their deployment, to expand the description of them, and to add technologies that have emerged since the last revision of the BREF document; - introduce the use of N and P leaching as objective criteria for the inclusion of BAT’s in the BREF document, both generally, but also specifically concerning livestock manure treatment technologies. • Thermal gasification and combustion are techno- logies that are regulated under both waste hand- ling and heating regulations. It is especially troublesome and expensive to deal with the waste combustion regulations for farm-scale plants, because they must be commissioned, registered, monitored, and have systems for cleaning of the flue gas. Changes in excise taxation of the heat
produced at such plants could be implemented, or via spatial planning it could be forbidden to establish own heating plants or heating plants that do not use a prescribed fuel.• Both plants for anaerobic digestion, thermal gasification, and combustion would, dependent on the specific target country as well as national definitions, require environmental permits, and it can be difficult and time consuming to find suitable locations for such a plants. • Anaerobic digestion plants, and in general all “hardware” technologies, are expensive and require extra binding of capital in the production system of resources with a negative or a doubtful return. The binding of capital in the livestock manure treatment technologies poses an extra risk for a farm, because the alternative use of the invest- ment might be low in case the farmer stops live- stock production.• Any technologies that result in products that are intended for sale/export out of the farm/region have the drawbacks that the markets do not exist or are not developed for the products. Marketing of such products requires, as enforced by the legislation, that the producers are registered, follow some Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) schemes, label their products, and guarantee the content of plant nutrients of them. These requirements are in themselves difficult and expensive to deal with, and are almost unrealistic for farm-scale installations.
4.2: efficiencY of the iPPc directive to Promote Best AvAilABle technologY for mAnure treAtmentThe questionnaire and interviews give a homogenous indication on stakeholders view on the efficiency of the IPPC Directive to promote best available treat-ment of manure. Generally, the respondents consider the implementation of the IPPC legislation to be effective, but that leaching of N and P to water and effective manure treatment technologies is not given high attention in the legislation. The current Reference Document on Best Avai-lable Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (BREF) was adopted in June 2003. It is a
36
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
37
4: RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS
338 page long document, describing several aspects of pollution from pig and poultry farming. Energy issues and emissions to the atmosphere are in focus of the document. The lower focus on manure treatment reflects the development in industrial pig farming since the document was adopted. At that time, the average Danish pig farm for example, had 550 pigs (including piglets, sows and production pigs) while the average herd size is 2.250 pigs today. The need to treat/process manure has vastly increased, and will most probably continue to increase as national economies in the new EU Member States increases. Livestock manure treatment technologies have impacts on the leaching of N and P, and they need to be considered within the BREF. Criteria for what is to be considered as a BAT for manure treatment in intensive rearing of poultry and pigs are not specified within the legislation or in the BREF.
A review process of the current BREF for inten-sive rearing of poultry and pigs was initiated in June 2008. The Technical Working Group members are asked to communicate recommended best available techniques to the IPPC Bureau by February 2010. The official guiding documents for the revision pro-cess of the BREF on the IPPC webpage (http://eipp-cb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.html), do not so far give special attention to leaching of nutrients to water. Several respondents have shown interest in the “Best Practice Manure” project objectives and activi-ties, especially the list of cost effective technologies to reduce leaching of nutrients from pig manure. There seems to be a window of opportunity to develop a BREF who gives better attention to leaching of nu-trients to water, and promote cost efficient manure treatment technologies that reduce this problem. It is important to take this opportunity, as it will take several years before the next review.
36 37
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX A: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AnneX A: ABBreviAtions And AcronYms
ABP Agro Business ParkBAT Best Available Technique, as defined in Directive 2008/1/EECBREF Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and PigsBSAG Baltic Sea Action GroupBSR Baltic Sea RegionCBMI Innovation Centre for Bioenergy and Environmental TechnologyCC Cross ComplianceCO2 Carbon DioxideDG ENV The Directorate General in charge of the Environment within the European Commission DM Dry matterEEB European Environmental BureauEEC European Economic CommunityEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEU European UnionHACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control PointHELCOM Helsinki CommissionIEF The Information Exchange ForumIEG The Information Exchange GroupIPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, as defined in Directive 2008/1/EECIVL Swedish Environmental Research InstituteJTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental EngineeringK PotassiumLCA Life Cycle AnalysisLIFE the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EULRF the Federation of Swedish FarmersMTT Agrifood Research FinlandN NitrogenNGO Non-governmental organisationNVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone, as defined in Directive 676/91/EECP PhosphorusSEI Swedish Environmental InstituteSLU Swedish Agricultural UniversitySYKE Finnish Environment InstituteTS Total SolidsTWG Technical Working Group, in relation to Directive 2008/1/EEC
38
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
39
ANNEX B: REFERENCES
AnneX B: references
Annex 1 and Annex 5 to the Dutch derogation re-quest. Third Dutch Action Programme (2004–2009) Concerning the Nitrates Directive; 91/676/EEC. The Netherlands, 6 April 2005.
Barrington, Suzelle, Denis Choinière, Maher Trigui and William Knight. 2002. Effect of carbon source on compost N and carbon losses. Bioresource Technology Volume 83, Issue 3, July 2002, Pages 189–194. Birkmose, Thorkild. 2006. Biogas og gylleseparering – en god kombination. Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning, Landscentret. Pjece.
Birkmose, T., Henning Lyngsø Foged & Jørgen Hinge. 2007. State of Biogas Plants in European Agriculture. Prepared for EUROPEAN PARLIA-MENT Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union Directorate B – Structural and Cohesion Policies. 70 p.p.
Burton, C. H. and C. Turner. 2003 Manure manage-ment, treatment strategies for sustainable utilisation. 2nd edition.
CBMI. 2009. Market Description. The environmen-tal technology and bioenergy sector in Spain. Publis-hed at http://www.cbmi.dk/document/CBMI_Mar-ket_Description_Spain_06102009.pdf
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Envi-ronment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992.
Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pol-lution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations.
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Deve-lopment (EAFRD).
Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning, Landscentret. 2005. Håndbog for Driftsplanlægning. Landbrugsforlaget. 184 pp.
Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control.
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Commu-nity action in the field of water policy.
European Commission. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs. July 2003. 383 pp.
European Communities. 2002. Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the pro-tection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources Synthesis from year 2000 Member States reports.
European Commission, DG Environment, Monito-ring of Permitting Progress for Existing IPPC Instal-lations, Final Report, March 2009.
Foged, Henning Lyngsø. 2008. Biogasproduktion i Tyskland. http://www.cbmi.dk/index.php?menuid=90&submenuid=101&pageid=1631
Foged, Henning Lyngsø. 2009. Memorandum from visit to Holland 31 August to 4 September 2009. Not published.
Foged, Henning Lyngsø. 2009. Memorandum from visit to Iowa, USA, 12 – 20 September 2009. Not published.
38 39
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
Granstedt, Artur; Seuri, Pentti and Thomsson, Olof (2004) Effective recycling agriculture around the Baltic Sea: background report. Ekologiskt lantbruk, 41.http://orgprints.org/4212/
Heckrath G., M. Bechmann, P. Ekholm, B. Ulén, F. Djodjic and H.E. Andersen. 2007. Review of index-ing tools for identifying high risk areas of phosphorus loss in Nordic catchments. Journal of Hydrology (2008) 349, 68– 87.
Hjorth, Maibritt. 2009. Flocculation and solid-liquid separation of Animal Slurry; Fundamentals, control and application. Ph.D. Thesis. Aarhus University and University of Southern Denmark. No published.
Hovland, Knut. LIVESTOCK MANURE PRO-CESSING TO LIME – ORGANIC FERTILISERS WITH GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSION ABA-TEMENT. Give chance to the Nature! Do not burn fertilisers! Jacobsen, Anja. 2009. Forsuret gylle forbedrer kli-maet. Bovilogisk. September 2009.
Jensen, Jørgen Evald. 2006. Virkning af forsuret gylle i marken i praksis (In English: Effect of acidi-fied slurry in the field in practice). In: Plantekongres 2006, p. 104–105.
Jørgensen, Uffe, Peter Sørensen, Anders Peter Adam-sen & Inge T. Kristensen. 2008. Energi fra biomasse -Ressourcer og teknologier vurderet i et regionalt perspektiv. Det Jordbrugsvidenskabelige Fakultet. Rapport. DJF Markbrug Nr. 134. Lehtinen, Karl-Johan. 2008. How concurrent deve-lopmental trends save the Baltic Sea by 2020 - Vi-sions from the future. NEFCO. Mallarino, Antonio P., Barbara M. Stewart, James L. Baker, John A. Downing and John E. Sawyer. 2005. Background and basic concepts of the Iowa P Index. Massea L., D.I. Masséa and Y. Pellerin. 2007. The use of membranes for the treatment of manure: a
critical literature review. Biosystems engineering 98, 371–380. Melse, Roland W., Nico Verdoes. 2005. Evaluation of four systems for the treatment of liquid pig manure. Available online at sciencedirect.com.
Miljøministeriet, Miljøstyrelsen. Luftvasker med syre. Svin – slagtesvin. Miljøstyrelsens BAT-blade. 2. udgave. 8 pp. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 1996. Economics of Composting. Factsheet. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. Plantedirektoratet. Vejledning om gødsknings- og harmoniregler. Planperioden 1. august 2007 til 31. juli 2008. Revideret udgave april 2008. Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). 2004. Iowa P Index. Iowa technical Note No. 25. Unites States Department of Agriculture. Nielsen, K.J. 2008. Plantekongres 2008. Session G2. Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning, Landscentret.
Oenema, Oene, Oudendag, D. & Gerard L. Velthof. 2007. Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XNX-4PXG7T5-1&_user=6461223&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_sear-chStrId=997282380&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000034578&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6461223&md5=5dac6835cb257e3ce31dbc1e2e40e69e OENEMA O., BOERS P. C. M., VAN EERDT M. M., FRATERS B., VAN DER MEER H. G., ROEST C. W. J., SCHRÖDER J. J., WILLEMS W. J. Leach-ing of nitrate from agriculture to groundwater : the effect of policies and measures in the Netherlands. Patni N. K. and R.G. Kinsman. 1997 COM-POSTING OF SWINE MANURE SLURRY TO CONTROL ODOUR, REMOVE WATER, AND
ANNEX B: REFERENCES
40
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
41
REDUCE POLLUTION POTENTIAL. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. A report prepared for the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board.
Poulsen, Hanne Damgaard and Verner Friis Kristen-sen (eds.). 1998. Standard Values for Farm Manure - A Revaluation of the Danish Standard Values con-cerning the N, P and Potassium Content of Manure. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences. DIAS report Ani-mal Husbandry no. 7 • December 1998 • 1st volume.
Powers, W. J. and L. A. Flatow. 2002. FLOCCULA-TION OF SWINE MANURE: INFLUENCE OF FLOCCULANT, RATE OF ADDITION, AND DIET. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. Vol. 18(5): 609–614.
ANNEX B: REFERENCES
Rulkens, W. H., A. Klapwijk, H. C. Wilelrs. 1998. Recovery of valuable N compounds from agricultural liquid wastes: potential possibilities, bottlenecks and future technological challenges. Environmental pol-lution 102, s1 (1998) 727–735. Sørensen, Peter. 2006. Hvordan påvirker forsuring kvælstofvirkningen i marken? (In English: How does acidification influence the nitrogen effect in the field?). In: Plantekongres 2006, p. 106–107.
Timmerman, Maikel. 2009. Pig manure treatment in the Netherlands. PowerPoint presentation. Wesnæs, Marianne, Henrik Wenzel & Bjørn Molt Petersen. 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of Slurry Management Technologies. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Environmental Protection Agency.
40 41
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX C: LIST OF PEOPLE MET
AnneX c: list of PeoPle met
list of Persons met during studY tour to hollAnd
Bas Knuttel, Ministry of Environment, Spatial Plan-ning and the Environment, [email protected] Henri Bos, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, [email protected]
Kaj Sanders, Ministry of Environment, Spatial Plan-ning and the Environment, [email protected]
Kaj Locher, Ministry of Environment, Spatial Plan-ning and the Environment, [email protected] Martijn Tak, Ministry of Environment, Spatial Plan-ning and the Environment, [email protected] Henk Houing, Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and the Environment, [email protected] Maikel Timmerman, Research Scientist Anaerobic Digestion and Manure Treatment Systems, Animal Sciences Group, [email protected]
Pieter Hoogendonk, director & owner, Hoogendonk Industrial Services BV (HIS) and Hoogendonk BV, [email protected] Ricus Kuunders, director and owner, Kumac BV, [email protected]
Henri van Kaathooen, engineer, Kumac BV
Jan Skokker, chairman, Coöperatie van Veehouders Biogreen UA, [email protected] (per telep-hone)
list of Persons met during studY tour to usATyler Bettin, Producer Education Director, with Iowa Pork Producers Association, [email protected]
Angela Rieck-Hinz, Head of Iowa Manure Manage-ment Action Group, Iowa State University, [email protected] Gene Tinker, Animal Feeding Operations Coordina-tor, Department of Natural Resources, [email protected] Jessica Bloomberg, Industry Relations Manager, Iowa State Dairy Association, [email protected] John E. Sawyer, Soil Fertility Specialist, Iowa State University, [email protected] Joe Lally, Program Coordinator Animal Manure Ma-nagement, Iowa State University, [email protected] Eric Hurley, Nutrient Management Specialist, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services, [email protected] Rachel Klein, Extension Program Specialist, Iowa State University, [email protected] Lara Beal Moody, Extension Programme Specialist, Iowa State University, [email protected] Professor and Department Chair, Dr. Ramesh Kan-war, [email protected] Soybean Extension Agronomist Palle Pedersen, [email protected] Extension Program Specialist Colin Johnson, Iowa Pork Industry Centre, [email protected] Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Tony Sents, Iowa Select Farms, [email protected] list of Persons met At roundtABle discussionThyge Nygaard, Danmarks Naturfredningförening, [email protected]
42
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
43
Ilkka Sipilä, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, [email protected]
Aivars Kokts, Ulbroka, [email protected]
Dr. Valerijus Gasiūnas, Lithuanian Water Manage-ment Institute, [email protected]
Vaclovas Beržinskas, Lithuanian Environment Protection Agency, Head of Division for pollution, [email protected]
Lena Rodhe, Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, [email protected]
Ulla-Britta Fallenius, Swedish Environmental Protec-tion Agency, [email protected] Fredrik Wulff, Baltic Sea 2020, [email protected] list of Persons interviewed regArding efficiencY of the iPPc directive.Kier-John Andrews, DG Environment, European Commission, Unit ENV.C.4 - Industrial Emissions & Protection of the ozone layer.
Paolo Montobbio, European Commission, Institute
ANNEX C: LIST OF PEOPLE MET
for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Com-petitiveness and Sustainability Unit, European IPPC Bureau.
Malgorzata Typko, Deputy Director, Department of Environmental Instruments, Ministry of the Environ-ment, Poland.
Anna Poklewska-Koziell, Polish Institute for Buil-ding, Mechanization and Electrification of Agricul-ture (IBMAR), Branch in Poznan.
Mona Strandmark, Plant Nutrient Division, Swedish Board of Agriculture.
Poul Arne Iversen, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark.
Poul Pedersen, Danish Pig Housing & Production Systems, Denmark.
Karen-Marie Mortensen, Department of Environ-ment, The Danish Plant Directorate, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries.
Mr. Kristian Snorre Andersen, Title/Division Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
42 43
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX D: CHARTS OF MANURE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
An
neX
d: c
hA
rts
of
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t te
chn
olo
gie
s
Fig
ure
5: O
verv
iew
of
livest
ock
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t te
chn
olo
gie
s b
etw
een
sou
rce a
nd
fin
al d
isp
osa
l. T
he r
ed
boxes
ind
icate
s th
e g
rou
p o
f livest
ock
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t te
chn
olo
gie
s, a
nd
th
e n
um
ber
as
well a
s th
e n
am
e o
f th
e t
ech
nolo
gy
gro
up
in
th
e b
ox r
efe
r to
more
sp
eci
fied
fig
ure
s an
d t
ab
les
wit
h d
esc
rip
tion
s b
elo
w. T
he g
reen
boxes
ind
icate
s livest
ock
m
an
ure
an
d o
ther
bio
mass
th
at
goes
into
th
e t
reatm
en
t p
roce
sses,
th
e b
lue b
oxes
the in
term
ed
iary
or
en
d p
rod
uct
s, a
nd
th
e y
ellow
box t
he m
an
ag
em
en
t te
chn
olo
gie
s, r
ela
ted
wit
h t
he t
ran
sport
, fie
ld s
pre
ad
ing
an
d o
ther
dis
posa
l.
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
D: C
HA
RT
S O
F M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
43
44
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
45
Fig
ure
6: T
ech
nolo
gie
s 02, 0
3 a
nd
90. T
he f
igu
re illu
stra
tes
the b
asi
c ro
ute
fro
m s
ou
rce t
o f
ield
for
livest
ock
man
ure
. In
volv
ed
tech
nolo
gie
s fo
r st
ora
ge a
nd
sp
read
ing
of
livest
ock
man
ure
on
th
e f
ield
s are
not
in f
ocu
s in
th
is p
roje
ct.
ANNEX D: CHARTS OF MANURE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIESBe
st A
vAil
ABl
e te
chn
olo
gie
s fo
r m
An
ure
tre
Atm
ent
BA
ltic
seA
202
0
AN
NEX
D: C
HA
RT
S O
F M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
44
44 45
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX D: CHARTS OF MANURE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Fig
ure
7: G
rou
p 1
0 is
tech
nolo
gie
s co
nce
rnin
g s
ep
ara
tion
. Th
e s
ep
ara
tion
can
hap
pen
wit
h o
r w
ith
ou
t an
in
itia
l fl
occ
ula
tion
. Th
ere
are
man
y s
ep
ara
tion
meth
od
olo
gie
s, s
om
e o
f th
em
more
com
mon
ly u
sed
th
an
oth
ers
, wh
ich
are
pre
sen
ted
in
deta
ils
belo
w. S
ep
ara
tion
tech
nolo
gie
s ca
n in
som
e c
ase
s b
e d
on
e a
fter
a m
ain
tre
atm
en
t.
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
D: C
HA
RT
S O
F M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
45
46
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
47
Fig
ure
8: G
rou
p 4
0 c
om
pri
ses
the m
ain
liv
est
ock
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t te
chn
olo
gie
s co
nce
rnin
g t
he s
ep
ara
ted
fi
bre
fra
ctio
n. O
ften
th
e t
reatm
en
ts h
ave t
he p
urp
ose
to p
rod
uce
en
erg
y o
r fe
rtilis
er
pro
du
cts
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
D: C
HA
RT
S O
F M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
46
46 47
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
Fig
ure
9: G
rou
p 5
0 c
om
pri
ses
the m
ain
liv
est
ock
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t te
chn
olo
gie
s co
nce
rnin
g
the s
ep
ara
ted
liq
uid
fra
ctio
n.
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
D: C
HA
RT
S O
F M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
47
48
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
49
Fig
ure
10: T
he f
igu
re illu
stra
tes
air
tre
atm
en
t te
chn
olo
gie
s, w
hic
h m
ain
ly h
ave t
he p
urp
ose
to c
atc
h
evap
ora
ted
am
mon
ia f
rom
th
e v
en
tila
tion
air
, an
d a
s w
ell t
o r
ed
uce
th
e s
mell f
rom
th
e liv
est
ock
p
rod
uct
ion
. Th
ose
tech
nolo
gie
s are
not
in f
ocu
s in
th
is p
roje
ct.
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
D: C
HA
RT
S O
F M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
48
48 49
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
An
neX
e: t
ABl
es w
ith
sh
ort
des
PriP
tio
n o
f li
vest
ock
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t te
chn
olo
gie
s
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
49
5
If t
he
effe
ct is
valid
ated
, th
en a
ref
eren
ce is
mad
e –
else
bas
ed o
n o
wn e
stim
ates
. In
cludes
quan
tifi
cati
on o
f th
e le
achin
g e
ffec
t.6
Rough e
stim
ate
of
the
inve
stm
ent
pri
ce f
or
the
tech
nolo
gy,
expre
ssed
as
1) a
bas
ic p
rice
(ty
pic
ally
the
pri
ce f
or
the
smal
lest
unit
s) +
a v
aria
ble
pri
ce p
er e
xtr
a in
stal
led
m
anure
tre
atm
ent
capac
ity.
All
pri
ces
are
in €
, an
d incl
udin
g a
ll co
sts,
as
wel
l fo
r pro
ject
ing, pla
nnin
g, ap
pro
vals
, occ
upie
d lan
d o
r build
ings,
etc
. Ther
e is
oft
en a
n
ec
onom
y of
scal
e in
the
inve
stm
ent
pri
ce o
f en
viro
nm
enta
l te
chnolo
gie
s. A
n a
ppro
ached
form
ula
to e
xpla
in t
his
eco
nom
y of
scal
e w
ould
oft
en b
e w
ith t
he
follo
win
g
sy
nta
x: Y=aX
+ b
, w
her
e b is
the
bas
ic inve
stm
ent
pri
ce a
nd a
is
the
vari
able
pri
ce, w
hile
X is
the
capac
ity
in t
onnes
and Y
is
the
inve
stm
ent
pri
ce.”
7
Incl
udin
g c
onsu
med
ele
ctri
city
, hea
t, w
ater
, ch
emic
als,
lab
our,
and o
ther
inputs
.8
Per
tonnes
annual
cap
acit
y, u
nle
ss o
ther
wis
e in
dic
ated
. Fo
r st
ora
ge
capac
ity
the
vari
able
inve
stm
ent
pri
ce is
per
tonnes
siz
e ca
pac
ity.
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
51
Ref
No. 0
2 - 0
6Sto
rag
e f
aci
liti
es
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e)
of
N a
nd P
5
One o
f th
e cr
uci
al fa
ctors
in t
he
man
agem
ent
of
live
stock
man
ure
is
the
cap
abilit
y to
sto
rag
e t
he
man
ure
duri
ng t
he
year
to a
chie
ve t
he p
oss
ibilit
y to
supp
ly t
he
crops
wh
en it
is m
ost
needed. Exam
ple
s of
stora
ge
faci
liti
es a
re p
rim
ari
ly b
ig c
oncr
ete
tan
ks,
wh
ere
man
ure
can b
e s
tore
d (ty
pic
ally
cap
acit
y of
5oo t
o 5
.000
m3). T
hes
e st
ora
ge
tan
ks
are
very
sim
ple
, but
the
leve
l of
inve
stm
ent
is f
airl
y hig
h.
It is
poss
ible
to in
stall a
tig
ht
fitt
ing
cove
r on m
ost
tan
ks,
pri
mari
ly t
o p
reve
nt
emis
sion o
f am
monia
and
od
our.
For
solid m
anu
re, th
e st
ora
ge
faci
liti
es w
ill be m
anu
re p
its.
By b
ein
g a
ble
to s
tore
liv
esto
ck m
anure
saf
e duri
ng
per
iod
s of
the
year
where
it
is n
ot
appro
pri
ate
to s
pre
ad m
anure
in
re
lati
on t
o t
he
need o
f th
e cr
ops,
as
would
ach
ieve
a
signif
ican
t re
duct
ion in
leac
hin
g o
f nutr
ients
to t
he
reci
pie
nts
. It
is
very
unfo
rtun
ate
to s
pre
ad m
anure
es
pec
ially
in w
inte
r, s
ince
at
this
poin
t n
o c
rops
are
gro
win
g t
o a
bso
rb n
utr
ients
, an
d n
utr
ients
may
pote
nti
ally
be
leac
hed
.
Als
o d
uri
ng t
he
sum
mer
, it
is
not
appro
pri
ate
to s
pre
ad
man
ure
, if
th
e so
le p
urp
ose
is
get
ting s
pac
e in
a s
tora
ge
tan
k w
hic
h d
oes
not
hav
e su
ffic
ient
cap
acit
y an
d a
t th
e
sam
e ti
me n
o c
rop w
ith f
ert
ilis
er n
eed
s.
A p
rop
er
stora
ge m
anag
emen
t of
man
ure
will in
its
elf
have
a
gre
at
effe
ct in
pre
ven
ting p
oin
t so
urc
e h
ot
spot
pollu
tion
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce6,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
8
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s7,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
10
.00
0 (
small t
ank
for
88
3 m
3)
2
3
0,0
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
EU
Com
mis
sion
, 2003
Landsc
entr
et,
2005
Sce
nari
os I
- V
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effect
on lea
chin
g H
igh
No d
ata
Lo
w, th
e co
mp
lexit
y of
stora
ge
tan
ks
is v
ery
low
, th
ere
is
no n
eed
for
trai
ned s
taff
, n
o s
pec
ial d
eman
ds
of
and t
her
e ar
e ple
nty
of
com
pan
ies
on t
he
mar
ket
.
5 I
f th
e e
ffect
is
valid
ate
d,
then a
ref
ere
nce
is
made –
els
e b
ased o
n o
wn e
stim
ate
s. I
ncl
udes
quantifica
tion o
f th
e leach
ing e
ffect
. 6 R
ough e
stim
ate
of
the i
nve
stm
ent
pri
ce f
or
the t
ech
nolo
gy,
exp
ress
ed a
s 1)
a b
asi
c pri
ce (
typic
ally
the p
rice
for
the s
malle
st u
nits)
+ a
variable
price
per
extr
a i
nst
alle
d
manure
tre
atm
ent
capaci
ty.
All
price
s are
in
, and incl
udin
g a
ll co
sts,
as
well
for
pro
ject
ing,
pla
nnin
g,
appro
vals
, occ
upie
d land o
r bui
ldin
gs,
etc
. There
is
oft
en a
n e
conom
y o
f sc
ale
in t
he inve
stm
ent
pri
ce o
f envi
ronm
enta
l te
chnolo
gie
s. A
n a
ppro
ach
ed f
orm
ula
to e
xpla
in t
his
eco
nom
y of
scale
would
oft
en b
e w
ith t
he f
ollo
win
g s
ynta
x:
Y=
aX +
b,
where
b is
the b
asi
c in
vest
ment
price
and a
is
the v
ariable
price
, w
hile
X is
the c
apaci
ty in t
onnes
and Y
is
the invest
ment
price
.”
7 I
ncl
udin
g c
onsu
med e
lect
rici
ty,
heat
, w
ate
r, c
hem
icals
, la
bour,
and o
ther
inputs
. 8 “
Per
tonnes
annual
capaci
ty o
r per
tonnes
size
capaci
ty (
for
stora
ge f
aci
litie
s only
), u
nle
ss o
therw
ise indic
ate
d.”
50
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
51
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
50
Ref
No. 1
0A
Flo
ccu
latio
n
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
Flo
ccula
tion
is o
ften u
sed
as a
pre
-tre
atm
ent
techn
olo
gy t
o m
ech
anic
al sep
ara
tion s
yste
ms. In
th
e
floccula
tion p
rocess,
ag
ents
/ f
loccu
lan
ts a
ggre
gate
org
anic
part
icle
s /
fib
res in t
he liq
uid
manure
into
big
ger
part
icle
s, w
hose s
ize a
nd o
ther
physic
al
pro
pert
ies m
akes t
hem
easie
r to
sep
ara
te f
rom
th
e
rest.
As f
loccula
nts
are
used f
or
insta
nce c
lay m
inera
l beto
nit
e (H
en
riksen a
t al.,
19
98
). M
ore
conventi
on
ally
used f
loccu
lan
ts a
re p
oly
mers
lik
e p
ropri
eta
ry c
ati
onic
poly
acry
lam
ide (
PA
M).
Poly
mers
are
oft
en m
inera
l oil
deri
vate
s,
whic
h a
ccord
ing E
U legis
lati
on is p
rohib
ited
to s
pre
ad o
n f
ield
s. A
ttenti
on s
hould
als
o b
e g
iven t
o
the f
act
that
poly
mers
in t
he n
atu
re a
re b
roken d
ow
n t
o m
on
om
ers
, w
hic
h c
an h
ave c
arc
inog
en e
ffect.
Genera
lly, fl
occula
tion is t
hus a
technolo
gy t
hat
makes t
echnolo
gie
s f
or
mech
anic
al sep
ara
tion m
ore
eff
icie
nt.
H
jort
h (
200
9)
rep
ort
s t
rials
, w
hic
h s
how
s t
hat
poly
mer
floccula
tion a
nd
dra
inag
e o
f p
ig s
lurr
y leads t
o a
fib
re
fracti
on
wit
h 2
9%
of
the d
ry m
att
er,
40
% o
f th
e N
, an
d 9
0%
of
the P
, as c
om
pare
d t
o f
or
insta
nce p
ressu
rised
fi
ltra
tion,
whic
h m
akes t
he f
ibre
fra
cti
on h
old
only
14
% o
f th
e d
ry m
att
er,
3%
of
the N
an
d 1
5%
of
the P
.
Flo
ccula
tion
can
incre
ase t
he a
mount
of
nu
trie
nts
in t
he f
ibre
fra
cti
on,
com
pare
d t
o m
ore
sim
ple
sep
ara
tion
as s
cre
w p
ressin
g.
In c
ases w
here
it
is n
ecessary
to r
ed
uce t
he a
pp
licati
on o
f P t
o t
he f
ield
s,
the u
se o
f fl
occula
tion a
s a
techn
olo
gy w
ould
be w
ort
h c
onsid
eri
ng
. See f
urt
her
expla
nati
on a
t fo
r in
sta
nce R
ef
No. 1
4:
Filte
r pre
ssin
g.
In c
ase t
he liv
esto
ck d
ensit
y in a
n a
rea is t
he m
axim
ally
allow
ed
accord
ing
th
e N
itra
tes D
irecti
ve,
the a
pplicati
on o
f livesto
ck m
anure
would
typic
ally m
ean t
he d
oub
le o
f th
e
needs o
f th
e c
rops c
oncern
ing P
.
By e
xp
ort
ing t
he p
hosphoru
s r
ich f
ibre
fra
cti
on
to a
reas
wit
h a
low
liv
esto
ck d
ensit
y,
an o
ver-
fert
ilis
ati
on a
nd
leachin
g o
f excess P
can
be a
void
ed
.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
In
novati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N
or
P
leachin
g
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
~ 5
0.0
00
No d
ata
~
0,8
0
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g r
educti
on e
ffect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
1: N
iels
en
, 2
008
2: Euro
pean
Com
mis
sio
n, 2
00
3
Scen
ari
os II – V
Pri
ces
Mediu
m
Eff
ect
on
leachin
g
Hig
h
Vary
ing
wit
h t
he
concre
te
sit
uati
on
.
Med
ium
There
are
severa
l com
merc
ial
pla
nts
/techn
olo
gie
s on th
e
mark
et,
w
hic
h
are
quit
e
easy
to
insta
ll
on
the
farm
, p
rovid
ed sta
ble
syste
ms,
sto
rag
e ta
nks etc
. on th
e fa
rm
are
suit
able
fo
r th
is.
Th
e in
vestm
ent
com
ple
xit
y is
fa
irly
hig
h,
du
e t
o t
he p
re t
reatm
ent
floccu
lati
on t
ypic
ally b
ein
g
part
of
a w
ider
manure
tre
atm
ent
syste
m,
com
pri
sin
g a
lso
m
ech
anic
al sep
ara
tion
.
50 51
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 52 R
ef N
o. 1
2
Sep
ara
tion
by s
crew
pre
ssin
g
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e)
of
N a
nd P
The p
rinci
ple
is
bas
ed o
n a
sim
ple
scr
ew
mec
han
ism
, w
her
e th
e c
on
tinu
ousl
y ad
ded
mat
eri
al is
put
und
er
pre
ssure
and
th
ereb
y p
ress
ing o
ut
the
liquid
part
. Th
e ca
pac
ity
is h
igh a
nd,
as w
ell as
th
e inve
stm
ent
is q
uit
e lo
w. T
he
separa
tion e
ffic
iency
conce
rnin
g n
utr
ients
in
th
e fi
bre
fra
ctio
n is
fair
ly low
, w
hic
h is
rela
ted
to a
si
mp
le, b
ut
stab
le t
echnolo
gy.
Scr
ew
pre
ssin
g
Conte
nt
in f
ibre
fra
ctio
n
Cap
acit
y (t
/h)
N
P %
of
tota
l vo
lum
e%
DM
(dry
mat
ter)
10 - 3
0
8 –
10 %
10 –
30 %
8 %
10 –
40 %
In c
ase
the liv
est
ock
den
sity
in a
n a
rea
is t
he
max
imally
allo
wed
acc
ord
ing
to t
he
Nit
rate
s D
irec
tive
, th
e ap
plica
tion
of
live
stock
man
ure
would
typ
ical
ly m
ean
th
e d
oub
le o
f th
e n
eeds
of
the
crops
conce
rnin
g P
.
By e
xp
ort
ing t
he
fibre
fra
ctio
n t
o a
reas
wit
h a
low
live
stock
den
sity
, ove
r-fe
rtilis
ati
on a
nd leac
hin
g o
f exce
ss
P ca
n b
e avo
ided
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
achin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
~ 3
5.0
00
1
,00
0
,25
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
1: N
iels
en, 2
008
2: EU
Com
mis
sion
,
200
3
Scen
ario
s II –
V
Pric
es
Hig
hEf
fect
on
le
achin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Lo
w
There
are
seve
ral co
mm
erc
ial pla
nts
/tec
hn
olo
gie
s on t
he
mar
ket
, an
d is
qu
ite
eas
ily
to inst
all o
n t
he
farm
if
the
condit
ions
at
the
farm
are
suit
able
conce
rnin
g s
table
sy
stem
s, s
tora
ge
tan
ks
etc.
51
52
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
53
52
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
53
Ref
No. 1
4
Sep
ara
tion
by f
ilte
r p
ressin
g
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e)
of
N a
nd P
The
pri
nci
ple
is
bas
ed o
n a
sys
tem
wh
ere
the
mat
eri
al i
s pas
sing a
sp
ecif
ic t
ype
of
filt
er
(ban
d f
ilte
r).
Th
isban
d f
ilte
r is
const
antl
y tu
rnin
g o
n r
oller
s to
make
the
mate
rial
movi
ng a
nd t
o g
ain p
ress
ure
on t
he
mat
eria
l,an
d t
her
eby
the
liquid
par
t w
ill p
ass
the
filt
er.
Oft
en t
he
band f
ilte
r se
par
atio
n is
follow
ed b
y a
scre
w p
ress
ing
unit
, to
incr
eas
e th
e d
ry m
atte
r co
nte
nt
in t
he
fibre
fra
ctio
n.
The
ban
d f
ilte
r is
both
eff
icie
nt
and h
as a
good
cap
acit
y, b
ut
the
inve
stm
ent
is f
air
ly h
igh.
Ban
d f
ilte
r C
onte
nt
in f
ibre
fra
ctio
n
Cap
acit
y (t
/h)
N
P %
of
tota
l vo
lum
e%
DM
(dry
mat
ter)
8 - 1
2
29 %
73 %
9 %
35 %
NB:
Data
for
ban
d f
ilte
r is
wit
h f
locc
ula
tion,
see
oth
er t
able
.
In c
ase
the liv
est
ock
den
sity
in a
n a
rea
is t
he
max
imally
allo
wed
acc
ord
ing
th
e N
itra
tes
Dir
ecti
ve,
the
applica
tion o
f live
stock
man
ure
would
typ
ical
ly m
ean
th
e doub
le o
f th
e need
s of
the
crops
conce
rnin
g P
.
By e
xp
ort
ing t
he
fibre
fra
ctio
n t
o a
reas
wit
h a
low
liv
esto
ck
den
sity
, ove
r-fe
rtilis
atio
n a
nd leac
hin
g o
f ex
cess
P c
an b
e av
oid
ed.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s
per
tonn
es p
er k
g s
ave
d N
or
P le
ach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
~ 1
25
.00
0
1
,00
1
,50
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
1: N
iels
en, 2
008
2: EU
Com
mis
sion
, 2
003
Scen
ario
s II -
V
Pric
es
Hig
hEf
fect
on
le
achin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Med
ium
There
are
seve
ral co
mm
erc
ial pla
nts
/tec
hn
olo
gie
s on t
he
mar
ket
, an
d is
qu
ite
eas
ily
to inst
all o
n t
he
farm
if
the
condit
ions
at
the
farm
are
suit
able
conce
rnin
g s
table
sy
stem
s, s
tora
ge
tan
ks
etc.
But
the
inve
stm
ent
and
co
mple
xit
y is
fai
rly
hig
h,
also
du
e to
th
e p
re t
reat
men
t as
fl
occ
ula
tion.
52 53
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
53
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Ref
No. 1
5
Sep
ara
tion
by c
en
trif
ug
e
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N
and P
The m
anu
re is b
ein
g c
entr
ifug
ed
wit
h 3
.000
– 4
.000 r
/min
ute
, so t
he liq
uid
is s
ep
ara
ted
fro
m t
he f
ibre
fr
acti
on
. T
he f
ibre
fra
cti
on is c
onti
nu
ously
moved o
ut
of
the d
rum
by a
slo
wer
rota
ting c
onveyer.
T
he c
en
trif
ug
e h
as h
igh c
ap
acit
y,
and
good s
ep
ara
tion e
ffic
iency, bu
t fa
irly
hig
h investm
en
t.
Cen
trif
ug
e
Conte
nt
in f
ibre
fra
cti
on
Cap
acit
y (
t/h)
N
P
% o
f to
tal volu
me
% D
M (
dry
matt
er)
6
20 %
70 %
10 %
30 %
In c
ase t
he liv
esto
ck d
ensit
y in a
n a
rea is t
he m
axim
ally a
llow
ed
accord
ing t
he N
itra
tes D
irecti
ve, th
e a
pp
licati
on o
f livesto
ck
manure
wou
ld t
ypic
ally m
ean t
he d
ouble
of
the n
eeds o
f th
e c
rops
concern
ing P
.
By e
xp
ort
ing t
he f
ibre
fra
cti
on t
o a
reas w
ith
a low
liv
esto
ck
densit
y,
over-
fert
ilis
ati
on a
nd leachin
g o
f excess P
can b
e a
void
ed.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
Innovati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N o
r P leach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
~ 1
00
.00
0
1
,00
0
,70
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g
reducti
on e
ffect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
1: N
iels
en
, 2
008
2: EU
Com
mis
sio
n,
200
3
Scen
ari
os II – V
Pri
ces
Hig
h
Eff
ect
on
le
achin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Med
ium
, th
ere
are
severa
l com
merc
ial pla
nts
/machin
es o
n t
he
mark
et,
an
d is q
uit
e e
asily t
o insta
ll o
n t
he f
arm
if
the c
on
dit
ions
at
the f
arm
are
su
itable
concern
ing s
table
syste
ms, sto
rag
e t
an
ks
etc
.
But
the investm
ent
is f
air
ly h
igh,
and a
lso t
he d
em
ands f
or
cap
acit
y o
f fl
ow
of
mate
rial/
manu
re.
54
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
55
54
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
55
Ref
No. 1
6
Flo
tati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
an
d P
Flota
tion
is
use
d exte
nsi
vely
in f
ood i
ndust
ry es
pec
ially
for
the
trea
tmen
t of
pro
cess
w
aste
wate
r. B
y fl
ota
tion
, su
spen
ded
mat
eri
al c
an b
e se
par
ated
fro
m t
he
liquid
ph
ase
and
co
nce
ntr
ated i
n a
slu
dg
e p
has
e, s
kim
med
and h
andle
d s
epar
ately
. By
flota
tion,
wat
er
satu
rate
d w
ith a
ir u
nd
er
pre
ssure
is
bro
ught
to t
he
bott
om
of
the
flota
tion t
ank a
nd
re
leas
es m
icro
scopic
bubble
s to
th
e w
aste
wat
er
or
man
ure
to b
e tr
eat
ed.
In c
ontr
ast
to
sed
imen
tati
on,
wh
ere
heav
y part
icle
s p
reci
pit
ated in
a liquid
, yo
u get
in a
flota
tion
fo
rmed l
arg
e l
ight
par
ticl
es b
rought
to t
he
surf
ace
of
very
fin
e s
mall b
ubble
s, w
hic
h s
its
on t
he
susp
end
ed m
ateri
al.
Th
e su
spen
ded m
ater
ial ca
n b
e s
crap
ed o
ff t
he s
urf
ace
wit
h a
m
ech
anic
al s
crap
er a
nd f
orm
s fl
ota
tion s
ludg
e. V
irtu
ally
all s
usp
end
ed m
ate
rial
in t
he
liquid
can
be r
emove
d b
y th
is p
roce
ss.
A D
anis
h co
mpan
y h
as
applied
th
e fl
ota
tion in
co
mbin
atio
n
wit
h
ozon
e dosi
ng fo
r tr
eatm
ent
of
man
ure
. Fu
rth
erm
ore
, th
ere
is
inst
alle
d a
flo
tati
on p
lant
to t
reat
deg
asse
d
bio
mas
s on a
sin
gle
bio
gas
pla
nts
in D
enm
ark
. Fl
ota
tion h
as b
een
use
d f
or
trea
tmen
t of
man
ure
on p
ig f
arm
s in
USA
.
Flota
tion i
s th
us
a pro
cess
, w
hic
h c
an f
urt
her
pu
rify
th
e liq
uid
fra
ctio
n a
fter
a m
ech
anic
al
sep
arat
ion
and
a fl
occ
ula
tion
pro
cess
. Fl
ota
tion
is
oft
en
use
d
in
com
bin
atio
n
wit
h
chem
ical
flo
ccu
lati
on.
By f
lota
tion a
very
hig
h p
roport
ion o
f am
monia
in t
he
liqu
id i
s dis
charg
ed w
ith
th
e ai
r, w
hile
the s
usp
end
ed m
ate
rial
flo
ated. It
is
there
fore
nec
essa
ry t
o m
ake
a
collec
tion o
f ex
hau
st a
ir f
rom
flo
tati
on i
f th
e m
eth
od s
hould
be
reco
mm
end
ed.
This
should
be
don
e to
pre
vent
the
amm
on
ia t
o e
scap
e w
ith t
he
exh
aust
air
, w
hic
h s
ubse
qu
entl
y w
ill le
ad t
o a
dep
osi
tion o
f am
mon
ia.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
to
nn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata.
How
ever
, a p
lant
in H
ollan
d,
whic
h u
sed f
lota
tion in
addit
ion t
o f
locc
ula
tion
, dru
m b
elt
separa
tion,
reve
rse
osm
osi
s,
and d
emin
eral
isat
ion,
clai
med
th
e op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s fo
r al
l
pro
cess
es
wer
e a
t a
leve
l of
5 p
er t
on s
lurr
y.
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Fog
ed, 2
009
Scen
ario
s II t
o V
Pr
ices
Lo
w
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata.
H
igh
– ty
pic
ally
th
e te
chnolo
gy
is
part
of
a hig
h-t
ech
live
stock
man
ure
man
agem
ent
treat
men
t p
lan
t.
54 55
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
55
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 56 R
ef N
o. 1
7
Sep
ara
tion
by d
rum
fil
ters
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
an
d P
Dru
m s
ieve: Th
e p
rinci
ple
is
an a
pp.
4 m
eters
long d
rum
, w
here
th
e m
ateri
al is
flow
ing
thro
ugh insi
de
and t
he liq
uid
is
pas
sing
th
roug
h t
he
dru
m.
Even
tual
ly t
he
dru
m c
an b
e m
ounte
d w
ith
a f
ibre
clo
th o
n
the
outs
ide
to o
pti
miz
e th
e se
par
atio
n.
Th
e d
rum
sie
ve h
as o
ften
low
er c
apac
ity,
but
has
fai
rly
good
se
par
atio
n e
ffic
iency
in r
elati
on t
o a
low
inve
stm
ent.
Dru
m s
ieve
Conte
nt
in f
ibre
fra
ctio
n
Cap
acit
y (t
/h)
N
P %
of
tota
l vo
lum
e%
DM
(dry
mat
ter)
2 -3
20 %
30 - 5
5 %
25 - 2
7 %
12 %
In c
ase
the liv
est
ock
den
sity
in a
n a
rea
is t
he
max
imally
allo
wed
ac
cord
ing t
he
Nit
rate
s D
irec
tive
, th
e ap
plica
tion o
f live
stock
m
anure
wou
ld t
ypic
ally
mean
th
e d
ouble
of
the
needs
of
the
crop
s –
esp
ecia
lly
conce
rnin
g P
. By
exp
ort
ing t
he
fib
re f
ract
ion t
o
areas
wit
h a
low
liv
esto
ck d
ensi
ty,
an o
ver-
fert
ilis
atio
n w
ith
P c
an
be
avoid
ed,
and t
hus
a hig
h d
egre
e of
leac
hin
g o
f th
e exce
ss P
.
Acc
ord
ing
to N
, th
e fi
bre
fra
ctio
n c
on
tain
s m
ain
ly (
> 9
0%
) of
org
anic
bound
ed N
, w
hic
h m
ean
s th
at
it is
ove
rall a
mm
on
ium
and
nit
rate
(m
iner
al N
) th
at is
left
in t
he liq
uid
par
t, a
nd t
hat
mean
s a
subst
anti
al re
duct
ion in t
he
pote
nti
al lea
chin
g.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
achin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
~ 2
5.0
00
1
,00
0
,35
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
1: N
iels
en, 2
008
2: EU
Com
mis
sion
,
200
3
Scen
ario
s II –
V
Pric
es
Hig
hEf
fect
on
le
achin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Lo
w, th
ere
are
seve
ral co
mm
erc
ial pla
nts
/mac
hin
es o
n t
he
mar
ket
, an
d is
qu
ite
eas
ily
to inst
all o
n t
he
farm
if
the
con
dit
ions
at t
he f
arm
are
su
itab
le c
once
rnin
g s
table
sys
tem
s, s
tora
ge t
anks
etc.
56
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
57
56
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
57
Ref
No. 2
1
Ph
ad
justm
en
t, a
cid
ific
ati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
an
d P
pH
adju
stm
ent
is d
on
e of
the liq
uid
liv
esto
ck m
anure
/ f
ract
ion
in a
n a
cid
tre
atm
ent
unit
wh
ere a
mm
onia
is
bound
wit
hsu
lphuri
c ac
id (H
2SO
4)
to fo
rm am
mon
ium
su
lph
ate in
ord
er to
p
reve
nt
amm
onia
em
issi
ons
from
th
e tr
eatm
ent
pro
cess
. Th
e ac
idif
icat
ion i
s th
us
a te
chn
olo
gy,
whic
h m
ain
ly i
s use
d f
or
the p
urp
ose
of
reduci
ng
em
issi
ons
from
the
live
stock
man
ure
, w
hic
h a
re c
lose
ly r
elat
ed t
o s
mel
l/nuis
ance
s fr
om
th
e p
ig p
roduct
ion.
Typ
ical
ly 0
.5%
of
the
sulp
huri
c ac
id,
equal
to 5
kg p
er t
onn
es s
lurr
y, is
able
to r
educe
pH
to a
bou
t 5.5
, w
hile
pH
in f
resh
pig
slu
rry
in a
pro
ject
is
meas
ure
s to
ab
out
7.3
(Si
egle
r, 2
009).
The
emis
sion o
f m
eth
ane
from
cat
tle
slurr
y h
as b
een
meas
ure
to b
e re
duce
d 6
7-9
0 %
(Ja
cob
sen
, 20
09
), a
nd w
e m
ust
anti
cipate
a s
imilar
eff
ect
for
pig
slu
rry.
The c
onte
nt
of
N i
n t
he
slu
rry
is 1
5-2
0 %
hig
her
than
in u
ntr
eat
ed s
lurr
y du
e t
od
ecre
ased
em
issi
on o
f am
monia
fro
m t
he
stab
le,
stora
ge
and
fie
ld (
Jaco
bse
n,
20
09
). T
ests
sh
ow
th
at t
he
emis
sions
of
laughte
r g
as a
re r
educe
d w
ith
80
%.
Field
tri
als
have
sh
ow
n h
igh
er f
ield
eff
ects
(b
ioav
aila
bilit
y of
nit
rog
en)
of
acid
ifie
d s
lurr
y, h
ow
eve
r w
ith
a b
ig v
ari
ati
on
bet
ween
res
ponse
s in
dif
fere
nt
tria
ls (
Søre
nse
n,
20
06 a
nd
Jen
sen,
200
6).
See
furt
her
und
er a
ddit
ives
.
Less
em
issi
on
of
am
mon
ia e
mis
sions
mean
s th
atle
ss N
co
uld
re
turn
as
at
mosp
heri
c d
eposi
tion
and
that
m
ore
N
is
re
-cir
cula
ted
in
the
agri
cult
ura
l pro
duct
ion r
ath
er t
han
endin
g i
n t
he
envi
ronm
ent.
Field
tri
als
indic
ates
, th
at ac
idif
icati
on o
f sl
urr
yaf
fect
s th
e f
ield
eff
ect.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
10
0.0
00 (
?)
50 (
?)
2 (?)
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Jaco
bse
n, 2
00
9
Søre
nse
n, 2
006
Jense
n,
20
06
The e
ffec
t w
ill b
e fo
und
at
all
farm
s.
Pric
es
Low
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
gM
ediu
m
2-2
(N
)
Low
–
eac
h
farm
ca
n
eas
ily
atta
ch
anac
idif
icati
on u
nit
to t
he
slurr
y sy
stem
at
the
farm
.
56 57
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
57
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 58
Ref
No. 2
2
PH
in
creasin
g, li
min
g
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
an
d P
It i
s in
som
e ca
ses
rele
vant
to i
ncr
eas
e th
e pH
in t
he
man
ure
subst
rate
. This
is
for
inst
ance
the
case
in c
onn
ecti
on
wit
h N
-str
ippin
g –
see
bel
ow
.
A S
wed
ish c
om
pan
y has
des
crib
ed a
conce
pt
wh
ereby
live
stock
man
ure
wit
h m
ore
th
an 5
0%
dry
matt
er u
nd
erg
oes
a dry
ing a
nd s
teri
lizat
ion p
roce
ss,
wh
ere
on
ly e
ner
gy
gen
erat
ed b
y ca
lciu
m o
xid
e h
ydra
tion p
roce
ss i
s use
d.
As
are
agen
t is
use
d v
ery
hig
h r
eac
tivi
ty lim
e oxid
e. T
he
pro
duct
bec
om
es a
soil lim
ing f
ert
ilis
er in a
dry
ste
rilized
form
.The
react
ive
lim
e use
d in t
he
pro
cess
is
serv
ing a
s a
sou
rce
of
ener
gy
for
the
dry
ing a
nd a
s st
eri
lizin
g a
gen
t fo
r al
lbac
teri
a an
d v
iruse
s (p
ath
og
ens)
pre
sent
in t
he
man
ure
, an
d a
s lim
ing
ag
ent
chan
gin
g s
oil p
H.
Probably
no ef
fect
in
ca
se of
N-s
trip
pin
g,
whic
h as
men
tion
ed
typic
ally
is
don
e to
av
oid
an
aero
bic
dig
esti
on inh
ibit
ion.
The e
ffec
t co
nn
ecte
d w
ith t
he
use
of
lim
e f
or
dry
ing
the
man
ure
will
make
it m
ore
eco
nom
ic t
o t
ransp
ort
the
man
ure
to o
ther
are
as –
how
ever
, pig
man
ure
s ar
eal
most
alw
ays
in th
e fo
rm of
slu
rry,
fo
r w
hic
h th
ete
chn
olo
gy
app
aren
tly
is n
ot
rele
vant.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Knut
Hovl
and
Scen
ario
s II t
o V
Pric
es
Non
e
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
gLo
w
No d
ata
Low
– m
ixin
g o
f th
e m
anure
wit
h l
ime
can p
robab
lybe
don
e w
ith m
achin
ery
th
at i
s ava
ilab
le o
n m
ost
farm
s.
58
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
59
58
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues f
or
man
ure t
reatm
en
t -
for
inte
nsiv
e r
eari
ng
of
pig
s i
n B
alt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s
Tech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"B
est
Practi
ce M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page 5
9
Ref
No. 2
3
Tem
pera
ture
an
d p
ressu
re t
reatm
en
t
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd
P
Tre
atm
ent
of
slu
rry b
y r
ais
ing t
he t
em
pera
ture
to m
ore
th
an 7
2 d
egre
es s
hall b
e m
ad
e o
n a
num
ber
of
Danis
h b
iog
as p
lants
, as t
his
is a
vete
rin
ary
requir
em
en
t. T
he s
lurr
y is h
ygie
nic
an
d a
t th
e s
am
e
tim
e a
big
ger
port
ion o
f th
e o
rgan
ic m
att
er
is m
ad
e a
ccessib
le t
o b
iolo
gic
al d
eg
radati
on
aft
erw
ard
s.
This
can incre
ase t
he b
iog
as y
ield
if
the s
lurr
y is s
ubsequ
entl
y u
sed
in b
iog
as p
lants
.
A c
om
bin
ati
on o
f hig
h p
ressu
re a
nd h
igh t
em
pera
ture
(pre
ssure
cookin
g) h
as b
een u
sed f
or
pre
-
treatm
ent
of
the f
ibre
fra
cti
on o
f sep
ara
ted s
lurr
y.
By t
he t
reatm
ent
a h
ygie
nic
pro
duct
is m
ad
e a
nd
at
the s
am
e t
ime h
igh
er
pro
port
ions o
f cellulo
se a
nd h
em
icellulo
ses is m
ad
e a
vailable
for
subsequ
en
t
bio
log
ical tr
eatm
en
t. T
he p
rocess is v
ery
en
erg
y c
onsum
ing a
nd
am
monia
is d
isch
arg
ed w
ith t
he
exh
aust
air
and h
as t
o b
e c
ollecte
d, to
pre
vent
air
polluti
on
.
As a
sta
nd
alo
ne t
reatm
ent
this
form
of
treatm
en
t cannot
be r
ecom
men
ded b
ut
can b
e b
en
efi
cia
l in
som
e c
ases in c
om
bin
ati
on w
ith b
iog
as p
lan
ts.
The p
rocess is
als
o called hygie
nin
g in
case th
e tr
eate
d m
ate
rial
is com
pri
sed by EU
’s A
nim
al
By-
pro
ducts
Dir
ecti
ve.
Tem
pera
ture
an
d p
ressu
re t
reatm
ent
can b
e d
on
e o
f bio
mass s
ubstr
ate
s w
ith h
igh
cellu
lose a
nd lig
nin
conte
nt
in o
rder
to o
bta
in a
hig
her
bio
gas y
ield
of
such f
racti
ons.
No d
irect
eff
ect.
How
ever,
th
e t
reatm
en
t w
ill, in c
ase it
is a
pplied t
o
pla
nt
fib
res,
make t
he a
naero
bic
tre
atm
ent
more
eff
icie
nt
becau
se
it o
pens t
he c
ell s
tructu
res s
o t
he a
naero
bic
bacte
ria c
an d
igest
the
substr
ate
more
eff
icie
ntl
y.
It i
s c
laim
ed t
hat
the b
iogas p
roducti
on
in
this
way c
an b
e i
ncre
ased w
ith 2
0 -
60
%.
A l
arg
er
part
of
the N
w
ould
sim
ilarl
y
be
con
vert
ed
to
the
more
re
ad
ily
available
am
moniu
m N
, w
here
fore
th
e d
igesta
te w
ould
have r
ela
tively
hig
her
field
eff
ect.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
Innovati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N o
r P
leachin
g
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
50
.00
0 (?)
-
5 (
?)
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g r
educti
on
eff
ect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
Fog
ed
, 2
009
The d
igesta
te is u
sed
to f
ert
ilis
e
cro
ps a
ccord
ing
a f
ert
ilis
er
pla
n.
Pri
ces
Low
Eff
ect
on
leachin
g
Hig
h
Dep
ends o
n
the s
itu
ati
on
of
the
indiv
idual
farm
.
Hig
h –
this
is t
ypic
ally p
art
of
a c
om
ple
x l
ivesto
ck m
anure
tr
eatm
ent
facilit
y
58 59
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
59
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
SB
est
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 60
Ref
No. 2
4
Ad
din
g o
ther
chem
ical to
man
ure
, h
ere
un
der
en
zym
es
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
an
d P
Und
er t
he
gen
eri
c d
enom
inat
ion of
man
ure
ad
dit
ives
are
a
gro
up of
pro
duct
s m
ade
up of
dif
fere
nt
com
pounds
that
inte
ract
wit
h t
he
man
ure
, ch
angin
g its
ch
ara
cteri
stic
s an
d p
rop
erti
es.
Thes
e pro
duct
s are
applied t
o t
he
pig
man
ure
in t
he
pit
s, a
nd t
he
follow
ing e
ffec
ts a
re d
escr
ibed
to
dif
fere
nt
deg
rees
in t
he
lab
el of
ever
y p
roduct
:
1.
a re
duct
ion in t
he e
mis
sion o
f se
vera
l g
aseous
com
poun
ds
(NH
3 a
nd H
2S)
2.
a re
duct
ion o
f unple
asan
t od
ours
3.
a ch
ang
e in
th
e p
hys
ical
pro
pert
ies
of
the
man
ure
to m
ake
eas
ier
its
use
4.
an incr
eas
e in
th
e fe
rtilis
ing v
alu
e o
f th
e m
anure
5.
a st
abilis
ati
on o
f p
ath
og
en m
icro
-org
anis
ms.
Usu
ally,
th
e it
ems
2 a
nd 3
are
th
e m
ain r
eas
ons
for
their
use
at
a fa
rm l
eve
l. B
elow
th
e te
chniq
ues
1 –
5ar
e d
etai
led.
1.
Ad
dit
ives
fo
r re
duci
ng
the
emis
sion
of
seve
ral
gas
eous
com
pounds :
Th
e d
ecre
ase
in
gas
eous
emis
sions
achie
ved t
hro
ugh i
ts u
se (
mai
nly
NH
3 a
nd H
2S)
is o
ne
of
the
most
inte
rest
ing y
et c
ontr
ove
rsia
l
poin
ts.
It h
as b
een
wel
l docu
men
ted t
hat
up t
o 9
0 %
of
the
N p
roduce
d b
y th
e pig
s is
as
ure
a.
Wh
en t
he
ure
ase
pro
duce
d b
y fa
ecal
mic
ro-o
rgan
ism
s co
mes
into
conta
ct w
ith u
rea, th
e fo
llow
ing r
eact
ion o
ccurs
:
CO
(NH
2)2
+ 3
H2O
2 N
H4 +
HC
O3 +
OH
This
reac
tion i
s hig
hly
infl
uen
ced b
y te
mp
era
ture
and p
H,
for
exam
ple
, un
der
10 °C
or
at a
pH
bel
ow
6.5
the
reac
tion s
tops.
2.
Addit
ives
for
reduci
ng u
nple
asan
t od
ours
: O
dou
r re
sult
s fr
om
th
e m
ix o
f dif
fere
nt
com
pounds
und
er
anaero
bic
cond
itio
ns.
More
th
an 2
00
subst
ance
s in
volv
ed h
ave
been
id
enti
fied
, su
ch a
s:
vola
tile
fat
ty a
cids
alco
hols
(in
dol, s
kat
ole
, p-c
reso
l, e
tc)
H2S
and d
eriv
ati
ves
amm
onia
oth
er N
com
pound
s (a
min
es a
nd
merc
apta
ns)
.
There
is
a hug
e va
riati
on i
n t
he
pro
port
ion a
nd c
once
ntr
atio
n o
f eve
ry s
ubst
ance
dep
endin
g o
n t
he
typ
e
of
farm
, nutr
itio
n a
nd n
utr
itio
nal
man
ag
em
ent,
and c
lim
atic
con
dit
ions.
This
cou
ld e
xpla
in w
hy
in m
any
inst
ance
s th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of
thes
e co
mp
ounds
agai
nst
od
ours
co
uld
not
be
pro
ven
under
farm
The
effe
cts
on leac
hin
g in c
once
rnin
g N
rel
ated
wit
h t
he
addit
ive
effe
ct o
n e
mis
sion o
n a
mm
onia
and o
ther
N c
om
pound
s. L
ess
emis
sion o
f am
mon
ia e
mis
sions
mean
s th
at l
ess
N c
ould
retu
rnas
atm
osp
her
ic d
eposi
tion
an
d t
hat
more
N i
s re
-cir
cula
ted
in
the
agri
cult
ura
l p
roduct
ion
rath
er
than
en
din
g
in
the
envi
ronm
ent.
The
effe
ct o
n P
lea
chin
g i
s as
soci
ated w
ith t
he
use
of
addit
ives
in p
roce
sses
to s
epar
ate
the
man
ure
in f
ract
ions,
allow
ing t
he
fibre
fra
ctio
n w
ith a
hig
h c
onte
nt
of
P to
be
export
ed t
o a
reas
wit
h a
low
liv
esto
ck d
ensi
ty.
60
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
61
60
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
61
condit
ions.
3.
Addit
ives
for
chan
gin
g t
he
ph
ysic
al p
rop
erti
es o
f th
e m
anure
: Th
e obje
ctiv
e of
the a
ddit
ive
is t
o m
ake
the
man
ure
eas
ier
to h
andle
. Th
ese
addit
ives
are
pro
bably
th
e m
ost
use
d a
nd t
hei
r ef
fect
s ar
e w
ell
know
n.
Th
eir
use
re
sult
s in
an
in
creas
e in
m
anu
re fl
ow
ing,
an
elim
inat
ion of
sup
erfi
cial
crust
s,
a
reduct
ion o
f so
lved
and s
usp
end
ed s
olid
s an
d a
red
uct
ion
in t
he
stra
tifi
cati
on o
f th
e m
anu
re.
How
ever,
th
ese
effe
cts
were
not
dem
onst
rate
d in
eve
ry c
om
par
able
cas
e.
Their
ap
plica
tion m
ight
mak
e th
e cl
ean
ing
of
the m
anu
re p
its
easi
er,
an
d t
here
by
mig
ht
short
en t
he
clean
ing t
ime
requir
ed a
nd a
llow
a s
avin
g in w
ater
and e
nerg
y co
nsu
mpti
on.
More
ove
r, s
ince
th
e m
anu
re
is m
ore
hom
og
eneo
us,
it
eas
es t
he
man
ure
’s a
gri
cult
ura
l u
se (
bet
ter
dosi
ng).
4.
Addit
ives
for
incr
easi
ng t
he
fert
ilis
ing
val
ue
of
the m
anure
: This
eff
ect
is i
n f
act
der
ived
fro
m t
he
reduct
ion i
n N
H3 e
mis
sions,
th
ere
by
keep
ing
this
N r
eta
ined
in t
he m
anu
re (
in m
any
case
s th
rough t
he
incr
ease
d s
ynth
esis
of
the
mic
robia
l ce
lls,
giv
ing h
igh
er
leve
ls o
f org
anic
N).
5.
Ad
dit
ives
for
stab
ilis
ing p
ath
og
ens
mic
ro-o
rgan
ism
s: There
ar
e m
any
dif
fere
nt
mic
roorg
anis
ms
in
man
ure
, p
art
of
thes
e co
ntr
ibute
to t
he
gas
eous
em
issi
on
s an
d o
dours
. It
is
also
poss
ible
to f
ind f
aec
al
coli f
orm
s an
d S
alm
on
ella
and
oth
er p
ig p
ath
og
ens,
vir
us,
eggs
of
flie
s an
d n
emat
od
es in t
he
man
ure
.
Usu
ally,
th
e lo
ng
er
the
stora
ge p
erio
d t
he
hig
her
the
dec
reas
e in
pat
hog
ens,
bec
ause
of
the
dif
fere
nt
requir
emen
ts o
f te
mp
erat
ure
and p
H.
Th
e pH
dec
reas
es w
ithin
th
e fi
rst
month
of
stora
ge
(fro
m 7
.5 t
o
6.5
beca
use
th
e m
icro
bia
l sy
nth
esis
of
vola
tile
fat
ty a
cid
s) w
hic
h h
as
a n
egat
ive
effe
ct o
n p
ath
og
ens
surv
ival
. Som
e of
the
man
ure
addit
ives
hav
e b
een
des
ign
ed
to c
ontr
ol th
em,
esp
ecia
lly
the
eggs
of
flie
s.
Typ
es o
f m
anure
addit
ives
mas
kin
g a
nd n
eutr
alisi
ng a
gen
ts:
Th
ese
are
a m
ix o
f ar
om
atic
com
poun
ds
(hel
iotr
opin
, va
nillin
)
that
w
ork
b
y m
askin
g
the
man
ure
od
our.
Th
e ag
ent
is
eas
ily
des
troye
d
by
man
ure
m
icro
-org
anis
ms.
Its
act
ual ef
fica
cy is
qu
esti
on
able
.
adso
rbers
: Th
ere
are
a l
arge
num
ber
of
subst
ance
s th
at h
ave
dem
onst
rate
d a
n a
bilit
y to
adso
rb
amm
onia
. Som
e ty
pes
of
zeolite
s ca
lled
clin
op
tilo
lite
s h
ave
show
n t
he b
est
effe
ct,
bei
ng a
dded
eith
er t
o t
he
man
ure
or
to f
eed o
n a
mm
onia
em
issi
on.
Th
ey a
re a
lso a
ble
to i
mp
rove
soil s
truct
ure
and h
ave
th
e add
ed b
enef
it t
hat
th
ey a
re n
ot
toxic
or
haz
ard
ous.
Peat
giv
es s
imilar
resu
lts
and i
s al
so s
om
etim
es u
sed.
ure
ase
inh
ibit
ors
: Th
ese
com
pounds
stop t
he
reac
tion d
escr
ibed
ear
lier
pre
venti
ng
ure
a fr
om
bei
ng
tr
ansf
orm
ed in
to a
mm
onia
. Th
ere
are
th
ree m
ain
typ
es o
f ure
ase
inhib
itor:
1.
phosp
hora
mid
es:
applied d
irec
tly
to t
he
soil.
Show
a g
ood e
ffec
t. T
hey
work
bet
ter
in a
cid
so
ils,
but
could
aff
ect
soil m
icro
-org
anis
ms
2.
yucc
a extr
acts
(Y.
sch
idig
era
): m
any
tria
ls h
ave
been
don
e t
o a
sses
s it
s p
ote
nti
al b
ut
the
avai
lable
info
rmat
ion i
s co
ntr
ove
rsia
l, s
how
ing g
ood r
esu
lts
in s
om
e ca
ses,
but
no e
ffec
t
60 61
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
61
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 62
at a
ll in o
ther
cas
es
3.
stra
w:
consi
der
ed a
s an
adso
rban
t in
man
y re
fere
nce
s. H
ow
ever
bes
ides
th
e a
bso
rbin
g
effe
ct,
it a
lso incr
eas
es t
he
C:N
rat
io.
Its
use
is
contr
ove
rsia
l b
ecau
se in m
any
oth
er w
ork
s it
show
s an
incr
ease
in a
mm
onia
em
issi
ons.
pH
reg
ula
tors
: th
ere
are
tw
o m
ain
typ
es:
1.
acid
reg
ula
tors
: usu
ally
inorg
anic
aci
ds
(phosp
hori
c, h
ydro
chlo
ric,
sulp
huri
c).
In g
enera
l
they
show
good e
ffec
ts b
ut
thei
r co
sts
are
very
hig
h a
nd t
he
subst
ance
s th
emse
lves
are
dan
gero
us.
Th
eir
use
is
not
reco
mm
end
ed a
t fa
rm l
evel
(!)
2.
Ca
and M
g s
alts
: th
ese
sal
ts i
nte
ract
wit
h m
anu
re c
arb
onat
e, d
ecre
asi
ng t
he
pH
. Th
ey
could
incr
eas
e t
he
fert
ilis
ing v
alu
e of
the m
anure
but
could
als
o i
ncr
ease
th
e s
alinit
y of
the
soil (c
hlo
rid
es). Th
ey
are
use
d so
met
imes
, but
mai
nly
in
co
mbin
atio
n w
ith oth
er
addit
ives
.
oxid
isin
g a
gen
ts:
Th
eir
effe
cts
are
thro
ugh:
oxid
ati
on o
f th
e od
ou
r co
mp
ounds
pro
vid
ing o
xyg
en t
o a
erob
ic b
acte
ria
inac
tiva
ting t
he
anaero
bic
bac
teri
a th
at g
enera
te o
doro
us
com
pounds.
The
most
ac
tive
are
st
rong
oxid
isin
g
agen
ts
such
as
h
ydro
gen
p
ero
xid
e,
pota
ssiu
m
perm
angan
ate
or
sodiu
m h
ypoch
lori
de.
Th
ey a
re h
azar
dous
and n
ot
reco
mm
end
ed f
or
farm
use
.
Som
e of
them
(fo
rmal
deh
yde)
cou
ld b
e ca
rcin
og
ens.
Ozone
applica
tion h
as d
emonst
rate
d i
ts
effi
cacy
but
op
era
tional co
sts
are
very
hig
h.
flocc
ula
nts
: ar
e m
iner
al c
om
pounds
(fer
ric
or
ferr
ous
chlo
rid
e an
d o
ther
s) o
r org
anic
poly
mer
s.
P is
hig
hly
dec
reas
ed b
ut
thei
r use
gen
era
tes
was
te t
hat
is
dif
ficu
lt t
o m
anag
e (s
ee
also
ab
ove
)
dis
infe
ctan
ts an
d an
tim
icro
bia
ls:
chem
ical
co
mp
ounds
that
in
hib
it th
e ac
tivi
ty of
the
mic
ro-
org
anis
ms
invo
lved
in o
dour
gen
erat
ion
. Th
ey
are e
xp
ensi
ve t
o u
se a
nd w
ith s
ust
ain
ed u
se a
n
incr
ease
in d
osi
ng is
need
ed
bio
log
ical ag
ents
: th
ese
can
be
div
ided into
:
1.
enzym
es:
thei
r use
is
to l
iqu
efy
solids.
Th
ey a
re n
ot
haz
ardous.
Th
e ac
tual
effe
ct d
epen
ds
stro
ngly
on
th
e ty
pe
of
enzym
e, t
he
subst
rate
an
d a
pro
per
mix
ing
2.
bac
teri
a:
exog
enous
stra
ins:
they
hav
e to
com
pete
wit
h n
atu
ral
stra
ins
whic
h m
akes
get
tin
g g
ood
resu
lts
more
dif
ficu
lt.
Their
use
is
bet
ter
in an
aer
obic
pit
s or
lag
oons
to re
duce
th
e
org
anic
mat
ter
pro
duci
ng C
H4 (
sow
ing of
met
han
ogen
s bac
teri
a is
more
ef
fici
ent
and
62
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
63
62
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
63
sensi
tive
to p
H a
nd t
emp
erat
ure
). H
igh
eff
icac
y but
freq
uen
t re
-sow
ing h
as t
o b
e c
arr
ied
out
pro
mote
n
atu
ral
stra
ins:
th
is is
bas
ed on ad
din
g ca
rbonat
e su
bst
rate
s (incr
eas
ed C
:N
rati
o). I
ts e
ffec
t is
bas
ed o
n t
he
use
of
amm
on
ia a
s a
nutr
ient,
but
they
need
a s
uff
icie
nt
sourc
e o
f C
to d
eve
lop a
n e
ffic
ient
synth
esis
pro
cess
, ch
angin
g a
mm
onia
on t
he o
rgan
ic N
of
cell t
issu
e. R
e-so
win
g h
as t
o b
e ca
rrie
d o
ut
too,
to a
void
reve
rtin
g t
o t
he
star
ting p
oin
t.
They
are
not
haz
ard
ous
and n
o s
ign
ific
ant
cross
-med
ia e
ffect
s have
been
report
ed.
Ove
rall e
ffic
acy
of
man
ure
addit
ives
and
farm
use
: N
ow
aday
s th
ere a
re m
any
man
ure
add
itiv
es i
n t
he
mar
ket
, but
the
effi
cacy
has
not
been
dem
onst
rate
d i
n e
very
cas
e.
On
e of
the
mai
n p
roble
ms
is t
he
lack
of
stan
dard
tec
hniq
ues
to t
est
and a
nal
yse
the
resu
lts.
An
oth
er
pro
ble
m w
ith t
hei
r use
is
that
man
y tr
ials
hav
e on
ly b
een
dev
elop
ed u
nder
exp
eri
men
tal
condit
ion
s in
lab
ora
tori
es a
nd n
ot
on-f
arm
, w
her
e big
vari
ati
ons
in n
utr
itio
n,
the
man
ag
emen
t of
nu
trit
ion,
pH
and t
emp
era
ture
can
be
foun
d.
Bes
ides
this
,
there
is
als
o s
om
etim
es a
hu
ge
volu
me o
f m
anu
re t
o b
e m
ixed
wit
h t
he
addit
ive i
n a
pit
or
lag
oon
, an
d
the
resu
lts
achie
ved o
ften
dep
end a
lot
more
on t
he
mix
ing e
ffic
iency
than
on t
he
lack
of
effi
cacy
of
the
addit
ive.
Im
pro
ving t
he
flow
ch
arac
teri
stic
s se
ems
to b
e st
rongly
rela
ted w
ith a
good m
ixin
g.
The
effi
cacy
of
eve
ry c
om
pound i
s hig
hly
dep
end
ent
on t
he
corr
ect
dosi
ng
, ri
ght
tim
ing
and a
good
mix
ing.
In s
om
e ca
ses
a sm
all
effe
ct h
as b
een
obse
rved
of
an i
ncr
eas
e in
th
e fe
rtilis
ing v
alu
e, b
ut
this
ef
fect
is
rela
ted t
o t
he t
ype o
f cr
op,
the
tim
e o
f ap
plica
tion a
nd d
osi
ng.
It h
as
to b
e h
ighlighte
d t
hat
in m
any
case
s th
e e
ffec
ts o
n h
um
an o
r an
imal h
eal
th o
r oth
er e
nvi
ronm
enta
l ef
fect
s by
usi
ng a
ddit
ives
are
not
kn
ow
n a
nd t
his
, of
cours
e, lim
its
thei
r applica
bilit
y.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
50
0 (
small)
Dep
ends
Dep
ends
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Euro
pea
n C
om
mis
sion,
200
3
More
P in p
roduce
d liv
esto
ck m
anure
than
can
be
consu
med
by
the
crops
on t
he
farm
.
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Low
Dep
ends
on
the
situ
atio
n
of
the
indiv
idual
farm
.
Low
62 63
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
63
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
9
The
size
of
the
bio
gas
pla
nt
exam
ple
com
plie
s w
ith t
he
size
of
the
model
sce
nar
ios,
tab
le 5
sec
tion 2
.1.6
.
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 64
Ref
No. 3
1
An
aero
bic
dig
esti
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
negati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
Anaero
bic
dig
esti
on is
a b
acte
riolo
gic
al fe
rmen
tati
on
pro
cess
, w
her
eby
hom
og
enis
ed l
iquid
bio
mas
s of
a co
nst
ant
tem
pera
ture
of
30
-45°C
(m
esoph
ile)
or
55°C
(th
erm
oph
ile)
, an
d d
ue t
o t
he
abilit
y fo
r pum
pin
g w
ith a
max
imal d
ry m
atte
r
conte
nt
of
12.5
%, is
ferm
ente
d b
y an
aer
obic
mic
roorg
anis
ms,
whic
h a
re n
atu
rally
occ
urr
ing in
esp
ecia
lly
catt
le m
anu
re. Th
e
ferm
enta
tion lead
s to
th
e bio
gas
pro
duct
ion,
whic
h t
ypic
ally
has
a m
ethan
e c
on
tent
of
60-6
5%
. Th
e h
ydra
ulic
rete
nti
on t
ime
is n
orm
ally
from
15-4
0 d
ays
, an
d t
he
pro
cess
hap
pen
s in
one
or
two s
tag
es, w
ith t
he
latt
er
giv
ing
a s
lightl
y h
igh
er b
iogas
pro
duct
ion.
Prop
elle
rs a
re n
orm
ally
inst
alle
d in t
he d
iges
tion t
anks
to e
nsu
re t
he
dig
esta
te r
emain
s h
om
ogen
ous
and
giv
es
a m
axim
al r
eleas
e of
bio
gas
. Th
e b
iogas
pro
duct
ion d
epen
d m
uch
of
the
typ
e of
bio
mas
s –
see
figure
s in
th
e lite
ratu
re.
Typ
ical
ly 1
5%
(m
esophile
pro
cess
) to
25
% (
therm
ophile
pro
cess
) of
the
ener
gy
pro
duct
ion f
rom
a b
iog
as p
lan
t is
use
d t
o
heat
up t
he
dig
este
r. A
bout
3-4
% o
f th
e en
erg
y is
use
d a
s ele
ctri
city
consu
mp
tion f
or
pum
pin
g,
mix
ing, tr
ansp
ort
and
oth
er.
The r
emai
nin
g e
nerg
y p
roduct
ion c
an b
e use
d f
or
farm
purp
ose
s or
sold
. The c
om
mun
ity
pla
nts
als
o s
erv
e as
cen
tres
for
re-d
istr
ibuti
on o
f m
anure
in t
he
regio
n.
Field
tri
als
perf
orm
ed b
y D
anis
h A
gri
cult
ura
l A
dvi
sory
Serv
ice h
ave
pro
ven 1
7-3
0%
hig
her
fi
eld e
ffec
t of
N in d
iges
ted liv
esto
ck m
anure
, co
mp
ared
to n
on-d
iges
ted liv
esto
ck m
anure
–
how
ever,
th
e incr
eas
e of
the f
ield
eff
ect
is
hig
her
for
catt
le s
lurr
y th
an f
or
pig
slu
rry,
w
here
fore
we in t
his
rep
ort
ass
um
e 1
0%
in
crea
se o
f th
e fi
eld e
ffec
t. T
he
dig
esta
te is
more
hom
og
enous,
e.g
. le
ss lum
py,
nutr
ients
m
ore
eve
nly
spre
ad o
ut,
mak
ing t
he
dig
esta
te e
asie
r to
seep
eve
nly
into
th
e cr
op
root
are
a,
enabling b
ette
r nutr
ient
upta
ke
from
cro
ps.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
to
nn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
ach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
75.0
00
50
2,0
0
Maj
or
refe
rence
s
Con
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmat
ion
Bir
km
ose
et
al.,
200
7 (
all is
sues
)
The d
iges
tate
is
use
d a
ccord
ing a
fert
ilis
er
pla
n.
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effe
ct o
n
leac
hin
g
Hig
h
Kg s
ave
d N
lea
chin
g9 =
10
% *
25
,00
0 *
5 k
g =
12
,50
0
kg.
Pric
e p
er k
g s
ave
d N
lea
chin
g =
0
,70
(sa
me
as
pri
ce f
or
N in c
om
mer
cial
fer
tilise
r),
assu
min
g
ther
e c
an
be p
rod
uce
d 2
90
m3 m
ethan
e p
er t
onn
es
vola
tile
solid
s (V
S);
a p
aym
ent
for
elec
tric
ity
of
app
. 1
02
per
MW
h,
the
ann
ual
rev
enu
es l
evel
s ou
t th
e a
nnu
al c
ost
s;
run-o
ff a
nd
em
issi
ons
are
unch
ang
ed,
and
th
at w
hat
is n
ot
taken
up
by
the
crop
is
leac
hed
to t
he a
qu
atic
envi
ronm
ent
soon
er o
r la
ter;
the
exce
ss h
eat
pro
duce
d c
an b
e u
tilise
d;
and
the
10
%
incr
eas
ed
fiel
d
effe
ct
is
taken
into
consi
der
atio
n i
n t
he f
erti
lise
r p
lannin
g.
Mediu
m –
bio
gas
pla
nts
ran
ge f
rom
bein
g
smal
l an
d s
imple
to lar
ge a
nd c
om
ple
x /
hig
h
tech
. Th
ere is
gen
era
lly
a la
rge
econ
om
y of
scal
e an
d larg
e b
iogas
pla
nts
would
typ
ical
ly
requir
e a
ran
ge
of
perm
its,
incl
ud
ing b
uildin
g
perm
its
and
envi
ronm
enta
l appro
val.
9 T
he s
ize o
f th
e bio
gas
pla
nt
exa
mple
com
plie
s w
ith t
he
size
of
the
model sc
enarios,
table
5 s
ection 2
.1.6
.
64
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
65
64
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
65
Ref
No. 4
1
Com
posti
ng
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Com
post
ing o
f so
lid m
anure
is
a f
orm
of
aer
ob
ic t
reat
men
t w
hic
h c
an o
ccur
nat
ura
lly
in liv
esto
ck m
anure
heap
s. H
igh p
oro
sity
(3
0 –
50 %
) is
req
uir
ed f
or
suff
icie
nt
aer
atio
n.
Tem
per
ature
s in
th
e co
mp
ost
hea
p a
re b
etw
een
50 a
nd 7
0 º
C a
nd k
ill m
ost
of
the
path
ogen
s. C
om
post
w
ith a
dry
mat
ter
of
up
to 8
5 %
can
be
pro
duce
d. Su
itab
ilit
y fo
r applica
tion d
epen
ds
on t
he s
truct
ure
of
the
man
ure
, but
requir
es a
min
imum
dry
mat
ter
conte
nt
of
20 %
. T
ypic
al liv
esto
ck m
anu
re h
eaps
do n
ot
sati
sfy
the
requir
emen
ts f
or
thoro
ugh c
om
post
ing.
Wit
h c
ontr
olled a
pplica
tion, m
anu
re is
com
post
ed in s
tack
s of
a si
ze t
hat
suit
s th
e aer
obic
con
dit
ions
and
th
e use
of
mac
hin
ery
.
Bes
t re
sult
s ar
e o
bta
ined
by
usi
ng
wel
l-ch
opp
ed s
traw
and s
olid m
anure
in
th
e ri
ght
pro
port
ions
and b
y co
ntr
ollin
g t
emp
erat
ure
and m
ois
ture
conte
nt
in long n
arro
w ‘
win
dro
ws’
. C
om
post
ing
can
als
o b
e perf
orm
ed i
n a
bar
n (
e.g.
pre
-dri
ed m
anure
). S
pec
ific
sys
tem
s hav
e b
een
dev
elo
ped t
hat
consi
st o
f a
com
bin
atio
n o
f ta
nks
wit
h a
erat
ion
and
sti
rrin
g e
quip
men
t to
enh
ance
th
e fe
rmen
tati
on p
roce
ss a
nd
conta
iner
s or
boxes
for
furt
her
fer
men
tati
on a
nd
dry
ing.
Prop
erly
com
post
ed s
olid
man
ure
sig
nif
ican
tly
reduce
s th
e vo
lum
e of
mat
eria
l sp
read
to lan
d a
nd t
he a
mount
of
od
ou
r re
leas
ed. For
easi
er
han
dling,
pel
leti
zin
g is
app
lied
in a
ddit
ion
to c
om
post
ing
.
Com
post
ing is
don
e in
ord
er t
o m
ake
live
stock
man
ure
sta
ble
, i.e.
able
to t
ransp
ort
an
d s
tore
wit
hout
furt
her
mould
ing o
r fe
rmen
ting,
wit
hout
seepin
g,
and
wit
hout
eva
pora
tions.
Fu
rth
er, th
e pu
rpose
of
com
post
ing
com
pri
ses
adva
nta
ges
as
bei
ng a
ch
eap w
ay t
o r
educe
th
e w
ater
amoun
t, a
nd a
poss
ibilit
y to
kill w
eed
seed
s an
d p
ath
og
ens.
The e
ffec
t on leac
hin
g is
neg
ativ
e: Barr
ing
ton
et
al.
(2002
) hav
e re
port
ed t
hat
N loss
es f
rom
pig
/str
aw m
anu
re t
hro
ug
h
seep
age
is b
etw
een
12 a
nd
22
%,
and
th
at f
urt
her
31 t
o 5
7%
N
is lost
du
ring t
he
com
post
ing a
s em
issi
ons
of
N2 a
nd N
2O
, in
to
tal a
loss
of
53
to 6
9%
of
the
N.
Com
post
ing o
f live
stock
man
ure
in c
lose
d c
onta
iners
would
pro
bably
make
the e
con
om
y in
th
is t
echn
olo
gy
even
wors
e.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s,
per
tonn
es p
er k
g s
ave
d N
or
P le
achin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
For
a c
om
post
ing p
lan
t th
at t
reat
s 2,0
00 t
onn
es m
anure
wit
h 1
,360
tonn
es s
awdust
and p
roduci
ng 1
,800
tonn
es c
om
post
:
For
a t
urn
ed w
ind
row
sys
tem
, an
ap
pro
pri
ate
trac
tor
and t
urn
er
could
eas
ily
cost
3
5,0
00
to
40,0
00.
If b
uild
ings
are
const
ruct
ed f
or
all fo
ur
acti
viti
es (
mix
ing,
com
post
ing,
curi
ng a
nd s
tora
ge)
, to
tal co
nst
ruct
ion c
ost
s co
uld
be
82
,00
0 t
o
100,0
00
for
an
op
erat
ion
of
this
siz
e.
No d
ata
Aro
und
20 a
s an
av
erag
e,
dep
endin
g o
n t
he
effi
cien
cy.
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion
effe
ctC
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Min
istr
y of
Agri
cult
ure
, Food
and F
ish
erie
s. 1
996
Barr
ingto
n e
t al
.,
200
2
Com
post
ing h
as n
o leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t –
on t
he
contr
ary,
th
e pro
cess
its
elf
is o
ften
reas
on f
or
leac
hin
g.
Pric
es
Low
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
gH
igh
The q
ues
tion
cannot
be
answ
ered b
ecau
se
there
is
a n
egat
ive
effe
ct o
n t
he
leac
hin
g.
Com
post
ing
ca
n
be
org
anis
ed
on
eve
ry
farm
,how
ever,
th
ere
exis
ts m
ore
ad
vance
d an
d i
ndust
rial
com
post
ing t
echn
olo
gie
s, w
hic
h p
rob
ably
hav
e a
larg
eec
onom
y of
scal
e.
64 65
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
65
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 66 Ref
No. 4
1A
C
om
posti
ng
of
liq
uid
liv
esto
ck m
an
ure
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
On s
om
e in
stal
lati
ons
for
the
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng o
f p
igs,
aer
obic
tre
atm
ent
is u
sed t
o r
educe
od
our
emis
sions
from
pig
slu
rry
and,
in s
om
e ca
ses,
to r
educe
its
N c
on
ten
t. L
iqu
id m
anure
is
com
post
ed b
y m
ean
s of
aer
atio
n (
liquid
com
post
ing
) or
by
mix
ing i
t w
ith
an a
deq
uat
e a
mount
of
litt
er.
Th
e m
ixtu
re
can t
hen
be
com
post
ed i
n a
sta
ck o
r dru
m.
In a
era
tion
, aer
obic
tre
atm
ent
is u
sed t
o i
mpro
ve t
he
pro
per
ties
of
liqu
id
man
ure
w
ith
out
dry
ing
and
solidif
ying
the
man
ure
. M
anure
co
nta
ins
larg
e
quan
titi
es
of
nutr
ients
fo
r pla
nts
an
d m
icro
-org
anis
ms,
as
w
ell
as m
icro
bes
th
at
are
cap
able
of
uti
lisi
ng t
hes
e nutr
ients
. Th
e ai
r co
nduct
ed i
nto
liq
uid
man
ure
sta
rts
aer
obic
dec
om
posi
tion,
whic
h
pro
duce
s h
eat
, an
d
as
a
resu
lt
of
the
aera
tion
bac
teri
a an
d
fungi
whic
h
use
oxyg
en
in
thei
r m
etab
olism
mu
ltip
ly.
Th
e m
ain
pro
duct
s fr
om
th
e act
ivit
y of
mic
ro-o
rgan
ism
s are
car
bon d
ioxid
e,
wat
er
and h
eat
.
Desi
gns
are
sit
e-sp
ecif
ic a
nd t
ake
into
acc
ount
loadin
g r
ate
and t
he
tim
e tr
eat
ed s
lurr
y need
s to
be
store
d b
efore
bei
ng a
pplied
to l
and.
Such
sys
tem
s m
ay
incl
ud
e th
e u
se o
f m
ech
anic
al s
epar
ators
. (F
rance
, p
art
icula
rly
Bri
ttan
y, h
as s
om
e t
reat
men
t pla
nts
for
reduci
ng N
and P
, w
hile m
any
countr
ies
hav
e a
few
exam
ple
s of
aero
bic
tre
atm
ent
for
reduci
ng o
dou
r e.
g.
Germ
any,
Ita
ly,
Port
ugal
an
d t
he
UK
). A
era
tion i
s als
o a
pplied
to p
rep
are
slu
rry
for
it t
o b
e use
d t
o f
lush
gutt
ers
, tu
bes
or
can
als
und
er
slat
ted f
loors
.
See
the d
escr
ipti
on f
or
com
post
ing.
It is
a
risk
fo
r an
y of
the
aera
tion te
chn
olo
gie
s, es
pec
ially
for
nit
rifi
cati
on
-den
itri
fica
tion,
that
th
ere
are
fo
rmed
la
ughin
g
gas
, N
2O
, in
conn
ecti
on w
ith t
he
aer
atio
n a
nd t
he
con
vers
ion o
f N
that
is
acc
elera
ted d
ue t
o t
hat
.
The
long
life
tim
e
(150
ye
ars
) of
laughin
g
gas
, N
2O
, in
th
e
atm
osp
her
e co
ntr
ibute
s to
it
s la
rge
radia
tive
-forc
ing
pote
nti
al,
whic
h is
310
tim
es t
hat
of
carb
on d
ioxid
e (C
O2).
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
ach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
For
a c
om
post
ing p
lan
t th
at t
reat
s 2,0
00 t
onn
es
man
ure
wit
h 1
,360 t
onn
es s
aw
dust
and p
roduci
ng
1,8
00 t
onn
es c
om
post
:
For
a t
urn
ed w
ind
row
sys
tem
, an
ap
pro
pri
ate
tr
acto
r an
d t
urn
er c
ou
ld e
asily
cost
3
5,0
00
to
40,0
00.
If b
uild
ings
are
const
ruct
ed f
or
all fo
ur
acti
viti
es (
mix
ing,
com
post
ing,
curi
ng
an
d
stora
ge), t
ota
l co
nst
ruct
ion c
ost
s co
uld
be
82,0
00 t
o
100
,00
0 f
or
an o
pera
tion o
f th
is
size.
No d
ata
Aro
und
20 a
s an
ave
rag
e,
dep
endin
g o
n t
he
effi
cien
cy.
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Min
istr
y of
Ag
ricu
ltu
re,
Food a
nd F
ish
erie
s.
199
6
Barr
ingto
n e
t al
., 2
002
Com
post
ing h
as n
o leac
hin
g r
educt
ion e
ffec
t –
on
the
contr
ary,
th
e pro
cess
its
elf
is o
ften
reas
on f
or
leac
hin
g.
Pric
es
Low
Ef
fect
on
leac
hin
g
Hig
h
The q
ues
tion
cannot
be
answ
ere
d
bec
ause
th
ere
is
a neg
ativ
e ef
fect
on
the
leac
hin
g.
Com
post
ing
ca
n
be
org
anis
ed
on
ev
ery
fa
rm,
how
eve
r,
there
exis
ts
more
adva
nce
d
and
indust
rial
co
mp
ost
ing
tech
nolo
gie
s,
whic
h
pro
bably
h
ave
a la
rge
econ
om
y of
scal
e.
66
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
67
66
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Ref
No. 4
2
Dry
ing
an
d p
ell
eti
zin
g
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g
(posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
It i
s n
ot
possib
le t
o s
tore
th
e f
ibre
fra
cti
on f
rom
slu
rry s
ep
ara
tion o
ffhan
d,
an
d t
hat
is a
para
mete
r w
hic
h r
educes t
he i
nte
rest
for
separa
tion.
Though i
t is
possib
le t
o d
ry t
he f
ibre
s f
ollow
ed b
y a
pelleti
zin
g p
rocess a
nd t
hen b
e a
ble
to s
tore
it.
Th
e s
mell i
s r
educed b
y
this
pro
cess a
s w
ell.
If i
nsta
lled
on
a b
iog
as p
lan
t, t
he h
eat
for
the d
ryin
g i
s p
rovid
ed b
y e
xhaust
gas f
rom
gas m
oto
rs.
Th
e d
ryer
is t
ypic
ally a
co-
curr
ent
rota
ry d
ryer.
Th
e h
ot
exhaust
gas m
akes t
he w
ate
r evap
ora
te b
y d
irect
heati
ng.
Aft
er
the d
ryin
g u
nit
th
e f
inal
pro
duct
is s
ep
ara
ted b
y g
ravit
y i
n a
sep
ara
tion c
ham
ber.
Th
e d
ry s
ludg
e (
90 %
dry
matt
er)
falls t
hro
ugh a
rota
tion f
eed
er
valv
e i
nto
a
scre
w c
onveyor
that
transp
ort
s t
he f
inal p
roduct
to a
sto
re.
The s
ep
ara
ted g
as f
rom
th
e d
ryer
flow
s in
to a
seri
es o
f cyclo
nes.
A
blo
wer,
sit
uate
d a
fter
the c
yclo
nes,
ensu
res t
he g
as f
low
s in t
he w
hole
dry
ing s
yste
m.
Som
e n
ew
vari
ati
ons o
f th
is t
echnolo
gy r
e-u
ses t
he s
team
fro
m t
he e
vap
ora
tion p
rocess f
or
heati
ng u
p p
urp
oses.
An
d t
here
by
a m
uch b
ett
er
en
erg
y b
ala
nce.
Aft
er
the d
ryin
g p
rocess t
he d
ry f
ibre
s a
re o
ften p
ressed i
nto
pellets
duri
ng a
pelleti
zin
g p
rocess.
Th
ere
by t
he v
olu
me o
f th
e
bio
mass w
ill d
ecre
ase s
ignif
icantl
y,
and t
he r
esult
is a
hom
og
en
ous s
tora
ble
bio
mass.
The i
nvestm
ent
is r
ath
er
heavy,
an
d t
oo e
xp
ensiv
e t
o insta
ll o
n a
sin
gle
farm
pla
nt.
But
it m
ight
be q
uit
e i
nte
resti
ng f
or
big
ger
com
mon s
ep
ara
tion –
or
bio
gas p
lants
.
The investm
en
t pri
ce b
elo
w is b
ased o
n a
cap
acit
y a
t 1,5
tonnes p
er
hour.
Leach
ing r
educti
on is a
ssocia
ted w
ith t
he
spre
adin
g e
ffect,
descri
bed
ab
ove.
Com
ple
te d
ryin
g o
f th
e f
ibre
fra
cti
on
makes it
econ
om
ically p
ossib
le t
o
transport
th
e p
roduct
far
aw
ay t
o a
reas
wit
h low
liv
esto
ck d
ensit
y.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
In
novati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N o
r P l
each
ing
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
Heavy.
Dry
ing:
250.0
00
Pelleti
zin
g:
200.0
00
50
10
– 4
0
- D
ep
end
en
t on t
yp
e o
f te
chn
olo
gy a
nd t
he local
en
erg
y p
rices.
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g
reducti
on
eff
ect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
CBM
I, 2
00
9
Scen
ari
os II -
V
Pri
ces
Mediu
m
Eff
ect
on
leachin
g
Hig
h
Exp
eri
ence f
rom
Spain
is t
hat
pellets
wit
h a
conte
nt
of
7:5
:6 N
PK
alo
ne in h
eat
consum
pti
on c
osts
17 k
Wh h
eat
per
kg
pellets
for
the d
ryin
g u
sin
g t
he t
radit
ion
al
techn
olo
gy. Th
e h
eat
consum
pti
on inclu
des
heat
used
for
oth
er
pro
cesses in t
he p
lan
t.
To t
his
com
es t
he d
epre
cia
tion a
nd r
unn
ing
of
the p
lant.
How
ever,
com
merc
ial solu
tions
are
seen,
wh
ere
th
e h
eat
from
burn
ing t
he
pellets
are
more
th
an s
uff
icie
nt
to r
un t
he
dry
ing p
rocess.
Hig
h –
this
techn
olo
gy is n
ot
a
sta
nd
-alo
ne t
echnolo
gy,
but
is
part
of
a c
om
ple
x liv
esto
ck
manure
tre
atm
ent
pla
nt
wit
h
techn
olo
gie
s lik
e p
H-a
dju
stm
en
t,
mech
anic
al sep
ara
tion
, and
oth
er.
The t
echnolo
gy is n
ot
suit
ab
le
on s
ing
le f
arm
pla
nts
.
66 67
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
67
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
69
Ref
No. 4
3
Com
bu
sti
on
of
fib
re f
ract
ion
or
so
lid
man
ure
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Com
bust
ion c
an b
e m
ade
of
sep
arat
ed f
ibre
fra
ctio
ns,
deep
lit
ter
or
oth
er d
ry m
anure
typ
es.
As
a re
sult
of
the
hig
h t
em
per
atu
re a
ll t
he
od
oro
us
com
pon
ents
are
elim
inate
d.
Th
e hot
flu
e g
ases
leavi
ng t
he
seco
nd
cham
ber
go t
hro
ugh
a h
eat
exch
ang
er,
in
whic
h w
ate
r is
hea
ted.
The b
enef
it o
f th
is t
echn
iqu
e is
th
e p
roduct
ion o
f an
ash
that
can
be
use
d as
a f
erti
lise
r an
d of
hot
wat
er
whic
h i
s use
d f
or
heat
ing an
dw
hic
h t
her
efore
sav
es f
oss
il f
uel
use
.
Tec
hn
ical
ly
com
bust
ion
work
s unpro
ble
mati
c,
and
ca
n
be
fully
auto
mate
d,
but
fib
res
from
slu
rry
should
acc
ord
ing t
o t
he
EU W
aste
Inci
nera
tion D
irec
tive
(2
00
0/7
6/E
F) b
e tr
eate
d a
s w
aste
, re
sult
ing i
nre
gula
tions
of
the
smoke
from
co
mbust
ion.
Th
is
requ
ires
d
etai
led
meas
ure
men
ts n
ot
applica
ble
fo
r fa
rm sc
ale
use
. Th
e re
sult
is
th
at
fibre
s in
pra
ctic
e sh
ould
be
inci
nera
ted i
n l
arg
e w
aste
com
bust
ion o
rC
HP
pla
nts
in c
om
bin
atio
n w
ith o
ther
bio
mas
ses
such
as
stra
w,
wood
chip
s or
house
hold
was
tes.
Most
of
the
N w
ill b
e co
nve
rted
to N
2,
and t
here
fore
not
leach
.
Gen
era
lly,
com
bust
ion c
once
ntr
ates
th
e P
of
the f
ibre
s or
the
solid m
anure
, in
th
e as
h.
Th
e as
hco
nte
nt
of
slu
rry
fib
res
is r
elati
vely
hig
h (
15-3
5%
). T
he
ash P
is
not
wel
l su
ited
for
pla
nt
upta
ke,
but
wh
en t
reat
ed w
ith a
cid i
s ca
n b
e m
ade
pla
nt
avai
lab
le.
The
ash s
hould
be
reuse
d f
or
fert
ilis
erpro
duct
ion.
In t
his
cas
e th
e re
sult
ing P
-use
could
be
bet
ter
adap
ted
to t
he
crop n
eed
s.
Com
bust
ion w
ill
loose
the N
conte
nt
of
the
fib
re f
ract
ion,
som
e of
it i
n t
he
form
of
NO
x.
Th
ese
can, h
ow
ever,
be c
lean
ed o
ff t
he
smoke
and t
here
by
reduci
ng t
he
air
polluti
on.
How
ever,
oft
en t
he
ash i
s b
eing u
sed f
or
oth
er p
urp
ose
s, s
uch
as
road
fill, c
emen
t p
roduct
ion
,th
ere
by
reduci
ng t
he
risk
of
P le
achin
g,
but
also
loosi
ng p
ote
nti
al
fert
ilis
er
from
the
pro
duct
ion
cycl
e.
In s
om
e co
untr
ies
there
are
sp
ecif
ic r
equir
emen
ts a
s to
th
e m
eas
ure
men
ts o
f th
e em
itte
d s
moke
incr
easi
ng t
he
cost
of
this
tec
hnolo
gy.
In a
ddit
ion,
in D
enm
ark t
here
is
a ‘w
aste
-tax’
on f
ibre
s fo
rco
mbust
ion.
Econ
om
ical
ly i
t is
doubtf
ul
at p
rese
nt
in s
om
e co
untr
ies
and n
ot
pre
sentl
y b
eing u
sed i
n t
arg
etco
untr
ies.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
ach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Prac
tice
Not
rele
vant
at f
arm
sca
le a
s
it s
hou
ld b
e d
eliv
ered
to
larg
e ex
isti
ng c
om
bust
ion
pla
nts
-
Not
rele
vant
to
calc
ula
te
sep
arat
ely
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Jørg
ense
n e
t al
.,
200
8
Scen
ario
s II t
o V
.Pr
ices
?
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
gH
igh
Can
not
be
calc
ula
ted a
t pre
sent.
Eco
nom
ic
feas
ibilit
y st
ud
ies
should
be m
ad
e in
all
targ
et c
ountr
ies.
Pote
nti
ally
a r
ath
er
exp
ensi
ve t
echnolo
gy.
Easy
to im
ple
men
t te
chnic
ally
, w
ith
leg
isla
tive
challen
ges
in
rel
atio
n t
o t
he
in
terp
reta
tion o
f th
e EU
Was
te Inci
nera
tion
Dir
ecti
ve
68
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
69
68
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 70
Ref
No. 4
4
Pyro
lysis
/ T
herm
al g
asif
icati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Therm
al g
asif
icati
on c
an g
ive
hig
her
eff
icie
ncy
as
com
pare
d t
o c
om
bust
ion a
nd
few
er p
rob
lem
s w
ith c
orr
osi
on.
Therm
al g
asif
icat
ion
adds
heat
(w
ith
or
wit
hout
oxyg
en,
dep
endin
g on
th
e te
chn
olo
gy)
to
th
e
inco
min
g b
iom
ass
an
d c
on
sist
s of
two p
roce
sses
: Pyr
oly
sis
con
vert
ing m
ost
org
anic
su
bst
ance
s in
to g
asse
s at
som
e 4
00-7
00
o C
elsi
us
in a
Cir
cula
ting
Flu
id B
ed r
eac
tor
giv
ing
ris
e t
o a
ch
arc
oal
, w
hic
h in t
he f
ollow
ing g
asif
icat
ion in a
sec
ond
reac
tor
also
will b
e t
urn
ed into
gas
.
The r
esult
ing g
as is
not
at p
rese
nt
use
ful fo
r al
l en
gin
e ty
pes
.
Therm
al gas
ific
atio
n of
the
solid se
para
tion fr
acti
on has
been
im
ple
men
ted on pilot
bas
is in
co
mbin
atio
n w
ith o
ther
tech
nolo
gie
s.
At
pre
sent
the p
roce
ss h
as f
aced t
he
sam
e ch
alle
ng
es a
s th
e co
mbust
ion t
echnolo
gy
by
the
EU
W
aste
Inci
ner
atio
n D
irec
tive
(200
0/7
6/E
EC)
and t
here
fore
it
is n
ot
avai
lab
le o
n t
he
mar
ket
.
Therm
al
gasi
fica
tion
has
so
me
adva
nta
ges
as
co
mpar
ed
to
com
bust
ion d
ue
to low
er
tem
pera
ture
s in
th
e pro
cess
:
Less
NO
x e
mis
sion
Less
dio
xin
em
issi
on
More
read
ily
reuse
of
ash-P
Gen
era
lly,
th
e P
is n
ot
lost
in t
his
tec
hn
olo
gy
and c
an a
ppar
entl
y b
e
use
d d
irec
tly
into
fer
tilis
er
pro
duct
ion.
Most
of
the
N w
ill b
e co
nve
rted
to N
2,
and t
here
fore
not
leach
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
ach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
Not
pre
sentl
y av
aila
ble
as s
tand
alon
e
tech
nolo
gy
at f
arm
scal
e
-
Can
not
be
calc
ula
ted
at
pre
sent
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Jørg
ense
n e
t al
.,
200
8
Scen
ario
s II t
o V
.
Pric
es
?
Effe
ct o
n
leac
hin
g
Hig
h
Can
not
be
calc
ula
ted a
t pre
sent.
Eco
nom
ic
feas
ibilit
y st
ud
ies
should
be m
ad
e in
all
targ
et c
ountr
ies.
Pote
nti
ally
a r
ath
er
exp
ensi
ve t
echnolo
gy.
Dif
ficu
lt t
o im
ple
men
t te
chnic
ally
, w
ith
leg
isla
tive
challen
ges
in
rel
atio
n t
o t
he
in
terp
reta
tion o
f th
e EU
Was
te Inci
nera
tion
Dir
ecti
ve
68 69
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
69
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
71
Ref
No. 4
6
Com
posti
ng
of
man
ure
wit
h l
arv
ae o
f th
e h
ou
sefl
y
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
A m
eth
od f
or
com
post
ing
man
ure
usi
ng
th
e h
ouse
fly
larv
ae
has
been
subje
ct t
o r
esen
t re
searc
h a
t th
e U
niv
ers
ity
of
Alica
nte
. Th
e ai
m f
or
the
pro
ject
is
to ad
dre
ss 3
maj
or
pro
ble
ms.
1.
Ove
rload o
f m
anure
an
d n
utr
ients
in a
reas
wit
h d
ense
liv
esto
ck p
roduct
ion.
2.
Need
fo
r hig
h qu
alit
y p
rote
in fe
edin
g.
3.
Od
our
emis
sions
in re
lati
on to
m
anu
re
man
ag
emen
t. T
hose
thre
e pro
ble
ms
can a
ll b
e m
et i
f th
e m
anu
re i
s co
mp
ose
d b
y fl
y la
rvae
. M
ore
th
an h
alf
of
the
org
anic
mat
ter
in t
he
man
ure
as
wel
l as
th
e nutr
ients
is
been
tra
nsf
orm
ed i
n t
o l
arv
ae,
wh
ich l
ater
can
be
use
d a
s fe
edin
g e
x.
in f
ish f
arm
ing.
The r
esid
ue is
at o
dou
r le
ss d
ry c
om
post
, eas
y to
dis
trib
ute
and a
pp
ly.
Prin
cip
ally
this
tec
hn
olo
gy
can c
onve
rt t
he
mai
n p
art
of
the
N a
nd P
into
flies
, w
hic
h i
s use
d a
s a f
eed i
ngre
die
nt,
and
thus
re-c
ircu
late
d i
n t
he a
gri
cult
ura
l pro
duct
ion,
and
elim
inat
ing t
he
risk
of
bei
ng
lea
ched.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
g
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
CBM
I, 2
00
9
The N
and P
can
not
be
use
d in a
n
envi
ronm
enta
lly
safe
to
fert
ilis
e c
rops.
Pric
es
No
Effe
ct o
n
leac
hin
g
Mediu
m
No d
ata.
Uncl
ear,
but
pro
bably
th
e te
chn
olo
gy
would
req
uir
e la
rge
spac
e.
70
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
71
70
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 72
Ref
No. 5
1
Ult
ra f
iltr
ati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Ult
ra f
iltr
ati
on i
s m
ade o
n r
aw s
lurr
y or
the
liquid
sep
arat
ion f
ract
ion.
It i
s a
typ
e
of
pre
-tre
atm
ent
for
the
reve
rse
osm
osi
s tr
eat
men
t, b
oth
tec
hn
olo
gie
s b
eing p
art
of
a hig
h t
ech
man
ure
tre
atm
ent
faci
lity
wh
ere
th
e liquid
par
t is
pu
rifi
ed u
p t
o (
or
near
to)
clean
wate
r. T
he
ult
ra f
iltr
atio
n p
roce
ss w
ill
rem
ove
susp
end
ed s
olids
as
wel
l as
bac
teri
a an
d v
irus,
while
small d
isso
lved
mole
cule
s pass
es t
he
filt
rati
on
an
d c
an b
e re
move
d b
y re
vers
e osm
osi
s, w
her
e th
e pore
siz
e of
the
mem
bra
nes
is
smal
ler.
The
mem
bra
nes
can
clo
g a
nd m
ust
be
in s
uch
cas
es b
e cl
ean
ed.
Mem
bra
ne
must
ty
pic
ally
be
repla
ced e
very
sec
ond y
ear
to e
nsu
re o
pti
mal
funct
ion.
The
ult
ra
filt
rati
on
pro
cess
p
roduce
a
liquid
fr
acti
on,
whic
h
conta
ins
the
susp
end
ed s
olids
and o
ther
, an
d a
puri
fied
fra
ctio
n t
o f
urt
her
puri
fy i
n a
rev
ers
e
osm
osi
s p
roce
ss.
As
for
the o
ther
sep
ara
tion t
echn
olo
gie
s.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
achin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
No d
ata
No d
ata
1.0
to 5
.5
Maj
or
refe
rence
s
Con
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmat
ion
Mas
sea
et a
l.,
200
7
Scen
ario
s II -
V
Pric
es
Low
Ef
fect
on
le
achin
g
Hig
h
Dep
ends
on t
he
situ
atio
n o
f th
e
indiv
idual
farm
.
Hig
h –
will b
e p
art
of
a hig
h-t
ech m
anure
tr
eatm
ent
pla
nt.
70 71
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
71
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
73
Ref
No. 5
2
N-s
trip
pin
g
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
an
d P
By s
trip
pin
g a
part
of
the
dis
solv
ed am
monia
in a
liquid
can
be
rem
ove
d b
y eva
pora
ted t
o t
he
air.
Su
bse
qu
entl
y, t
he
eva
pora
ted a
mm
on
ia i
s co
llec
ted i
n c
once
ntr
ate
d f
orm
in a
sec
ond l
iquid
. It
is
thus
poss
ible
to m
ove
am
monia
fro
m t
he
man
ure
slu
rry
to a
sec
ond l
iquid
and
use
this
as
a co
nce
ntr
ated
fert
ilis
er.
N-s
trip
pin
g i
s a
two s
tag
e pro
cess
: The
firs
t p
art
hap
pen
s in
a s
trip
pin
g c
olu
mn
, w
here
air
is
add
ed t
o r
ele
ase
the
amm
onia
. Th
e re
leas
ed a
mm
onia
is
tran
sfer
red t
o a
n a
bso
rpti
on c
olu
mn
, w
her
e th
e
amm
onia
is
captu
red w
ith a
cid
ifie
d w
ate
r.
Am
mon
ia in a
qu
eous
solu
tion is
vola
tile
an
d r
equir
es s
pec
ial eq
uip
men
t if
it
should
be
use
d a
s fe
rtilis
er.
By
acid
ifyi
ng t
he
liquid
wit
h s
ulp
huri
c ac
id y
ou c
an f
orm
an
am
moniu
m f
ert
ilis
er w
hic
h is
stab
le in
st
ora
ge.
Am
mon
ia s
trip
pin
g c
an b
e co
nduct
ed a
t m
anu
re o
r d
egas
sed m
anu
re. W
ork
is
und
erw
ay t
o d
evel
op a
st
ripp
er
perm
anen
tly
tran
sform
ing t
he
amm
onia
form
ed in
the b
iog
as p
roce
ss. St
ripp
ing o
f am
monia
ca
n im
pro
ve t
he b
iolo
gic
al t
urn
ove
r of
bio
gas
pla
nts
as
amm
onia
in h
igh c
once
ntr
atio
ns
is d
ele
teri
ous
to
the
turn
ove
r. S
trip
pin
g p
roce
sses
are
wel
l kn
ow
n f
rom
man
y in
dust
rial
app
lica
tions.
The
pro
cess
can
for
inst
ance
be
use
d in o
rder
to p
reve
nt
the
inh
ibit
ion e
ffec
t on
th
e an
aero
bic
dig
esti
on
of
hig
h N
conce
ntr
atio
ns
in t
he
subst
rate
as
for
inst
ance
ch
icken
man
ure
.
By
stri
ppin
g a
mm
on
ia f
rom
man
ure
you c
an p
roduce
a f
erti
lise
r,
eith
er
in t
he f
orm
of
an a
qu
eous
solu
tion
of
am
mon
ia or
an
amm
oniu
m s
ulp
hat
e so
luti
on.
Th
e f
ert
ilis
er c
an b
e tr
ansp
ort
ed
and u
sed a
s a
dir
ect
subst
itu
te f
or
com
merc
ial
fert
ilis
er.
There
ar
e m
ade
seve
ral
dem
o
scal
e tr
ials
w
ith
pro
duct
ion
of
both
aq
ueous
amm
on
ia s
olu
tions
as a
mm
oniu
m s
ulp
hat
e s
olu
tions.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata
No d
ata
3 t
o 1
0 p
er k
g N
rem
ove
d
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
CBM
I Sc
enar
ios
II -
VPr
ices
-
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
Dep
ends
on
the
situ
atio
n
of
the
indiv
idual
farm
.
Hig
h –
this
is
not
a st
and-a
lon
e te
chn
olo
gy,
bu
t ra
ther
a co
mp
on
ent
of
a hig
h-t
ech liv
esto
ck m
anure
tre
atm
ent
faci
lity
.
72
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
73
72
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 74
Ref
No. 5
4
Revers
e o
sm
osis
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and
P
Inve
rse
mem
bra
ne
osm
osi
s is
use
d i
n a
vari
ety
of
indust
rial
app
lica
tions.
Rev
ers
e osm
osi
s is
a m
emb
ran
efi
ltra
tin
g t
echnolo
gy
by
use
of
a se
mi-p
erm
eab
le m
embra
ne,
and t
he
tech
nolo
gy
can a
chie
ve a
very
good
qual
ity
of
treat
ed w
ate
r. R
ever
se o
smosi
s of
slurr
y re
quir
es a
pre
tre
atm
ent
of
the
slurr
y to
rem
ove
th
eco
ars
est
par
ticl
es,
there
by
exte
ndin
g t
he
op
era
ting t
ime
of
filt
rati
on. T
ypic
ally
, a p
re-t
reat
men
t co
nsi
st o
f a
sim
ple
mec
han
ical se
par
atio
n f
ollow
ed b
y u
ltra
filtr
atio
n.
Sev
era
l D
anis
h c
om
pan
ies
hav
e b
een
work
ing f
or
years
wit
h m
embra
ne
filt
rati
on t
echn
olo
gie
s fo
r tr
eat
ing m
anure
and b
uilt
a co
uple
of
full-
scal
e pla
nts
,al
though n
ot
curr
entl
y in
op
erat
ion
. Th
e te
chn
olo
gy
requir
es c
onduct
ing r
egula
r ri
nse
s an
d r
egen
era
tion
of
mem
bra
nes
.
The
cost
of
op
era
ting a
reve
rse
osm
osi
s pla
nt
can b
e quit
e si
gnif
ican
t an
d h
as b
een
on
e of
the
barr
iers
to
the
use
of
the
tech
nolo
gy.
Th
e co
st i
s p
artl
y du
e to
th
e hig
h en
erg
y co
nsu
mp
tion t
o c
reat
e th
e hig
hop
erat
ing p
ress
ure
s, c
lean
ing a
nd
cost
s fo
r re
pla
cem
ent
of
mem
bra
nes
.
The
pro
cess
can
rem
ove
99%
of
the
org
anic
matt
er a
nd u
p t
o 9
9.5
% o
f th
e sa
lts.
For
man
ure
tre
atm
ent
the
K ion
sti
ll r
emai
n in t
he
wat
er
frac
tion
an
d m
igh
t se
t lim
its
for
the
use
of
this
as
irri
gat
ion w
ate
r.
The i
nput
in t
he p
roce
ss i
s a l
iqu
id f
ract
ion,
for
inst
ance
com
ing
fro
m u
ltra
filtr
ati
on.
Aci
dif
icat
ion o
f th
efe
ed f
luid
wou
ld t
ypic
ally
be n
eces
sary
to e
nsu
re a
good n
utr
ient
rem
ova
l.
As
for
the o
ther
sep
ara
tion t
echn
olo
gie
s.
Wit
h r
ever
se o
smosi
s, it
is p
oss
ible
to o
bta
in a
wat
er q
ual
ity
of
the
treat
ed s
lurr
y w
hic
h m
akes
it
poss
ible
to d
isch
arg
e t
he
liquid
fra
ctio
n d
irec
tly
to t
he
reci
pie
nt.
It
is t
hus
poss
ible
wit
hth
is t
echn
olo
gy
to p
roduce
pota
ble
wate
r. O
per
atin
g c
ost
s fo
rth
e te
chn
olo
gy
is s
o g
reat
that
pt.
th
ere
is n
o t
he
bas
is f
or
the
use
of
tech
nolo
gy
in t
he
Bal
tic
regio
n.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
Mas
sea
et a
l.,
200
7
Scen
ario
s II t
o V
.Pr
ices
Lo
w
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
gH
igh
Dep
ends
on
the
situ
atio
n
of
the
indiv
idual
farm
.
Hig
h –
this
is
not
a st
and-a
lon
e te
chn
olo
gy,
bu
t ra
ther
a co
mp
on
ent
of
a hig
h-t
ech liv
esto
ck m
anure
tre
atm
ent
faci
lity
.
72 73
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
73
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
75
Ref
No. 5
5
Ion
exch
an
ge a
nd
dem
inera
lisati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
De-m
iner
alis
ati
on
mean
s re
movi
ng
of
min
era
ls
from
al
most
cl
ean
w
ater
b
y fi
ltra
tion
and/o
r ch
emic
al
sed
imen
tati
on.
The
pro
cess
has
curr
entl
y only
pra
ctic
al r
ele
vance
for
the
trea
tmen
t of
man
ure
in c
ases
wh
ere
th
e liquid
fra
ctio
n s
hall b
e dis
pose
d o
f in
th
e natu
re.
No d
irec
t, b
ut
the
tech
nolo
gy
would
(in t
his
cas
e)
typ
ical
ly b
e part
of
a h
igh-t
ech l
ives
tock
man
ure
tr
eatm
ent
pla
nt,
an
d t
he
effe
ct o
n l
eac
hin
g s
hal
l th
eref
ore
be
eval
uat
ed o
n b
asis
of
the
effe
ct o
f th
e
enti
re p
lant.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
achin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
Low
Lo
w
Low
Maj
or
refe
rence
s
Con
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmat
ion
Fog
ed, 2
009
Scen
ario
s II -
V
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effe
ct o
n
leac
hin
g
Hig
h
Dep
ends
on t
he
situ
atio
n o
f th
e
indiv
idual
farm
.
Low
– c
an e
asi
ly b
e in
stalled
at
all
farm
s, b
ut
dep
ends
on a
hig
h a
nd
com
plica
ted p
uri
fica
tion o
f liquid
fr
acti
ons
bef
ore
the d
e-m
inera
lisa
tion.
74
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
75
74
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Ref
No. 5
6
Aeratio
n
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
The t
erm
“aero
bic
tre
atm
ent”
refe
rs t
o b
iolo
gic
al tr
eatm
ent
pro
cesses t
hat
occu
r in
the p
resence o
f oxyg
en.
In t
hese p
rocesses,
aero
bic
m
icro
org
anis
ms oxid
ize bio
-available
org
an
ic an
d nit
rog
en
ous com
pounds.
Rem
oval
of
these oxyg
en d
em
andin
g
com
pounds p
rovid
es a
means t
o r
educe o
dor
em
issio
n a
nd t
o r
educe a
mm
onia
em
issio
ns.
Aero
bic
tre
atm
ent
has n
ot
been
used
much i
n t
reatm
en
t of
liquid
or
slu
rry m
anure
pri
mari
ly d
ue t
o t
he re
lati
on b
etw
een th
e b
en
efi
ts and th
e extr
a c
osts
associa
ted w
ith o
pera
ting t
he m
oto
rs,
com
pre
ssors
or
fans r
equ
ired t
o s
upp
ly en
ough o
xyg
en t
o s
upp
ort
aero
bic
bacte
ria.
Severa
l ty
pes o
f aera
tion o
f slu
rry w
ere
teste
d.
Aera
tion m
ay b
e p
art
ly t
o c
onvert
am
monia
to n
itra
te,
wh
ich c
an s
ubsequ
entl
y b
e t
ransfo
rmed i
nto
fre
e N
by d
enit
rifi
cati
on,
part
ly t
o r
educe l
evels
of
org
an
ic m
att
er
in t
he l
iquid
fra
cti
on.
Nit
rifi
cati
on (
convers
ion o
f am
monia
to n
itra
te)
is v
ery
en
erg
y-
inte
nsiv
e in
te
rms of
pow
er
consum
pti
on fo
r aera
tion,
sti
rrin
g,
etc
. If
nit
rate
subsequ
entl
y is
con
vert
ed in
to fr
ee N
b
y
denit
rifi
cati
on a
port
ion o
f th
e o
rganic
mate
rial in
th
e s
lurr
y w
ill b
e c
onsum
ed
. N
and o
rgan
ic m
att
er
is l
ost
in t
he p
rocess,
and
at
the s
am
e t
ime s
ignif
icant
am
oun
ts o
f en
erg
y a
re c
onsu
med.
Th
e a
mount
of
aera
tion n
eed
ed (
in i
ncre
asin
g o
rder)
dep
en
ds
on w
heth
er
it i
s d
esir
ed t
o j
ust
reduce o
dour,
or
com
ple
tely
rem
ove t
he o
xygen d
em
and o
f th
e o
rganic
matt
er,
or
to s
upply
en
oug
h o
xyg
en f
or
oxid
ati
on o
f am
moniu
m t
o n
itra
te.
See
com
ments
und
er
com
posti
ng
–
refe
rence n
um
bers
41 a
nd 4
1A
.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
Innovati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N
or
P leachin
g
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
Low
– c
an b
e p
erf
orm
ed
wit
hout
exis
ting p
um
ps,
equip
ment
and
machin
ery
on t
he f
arm
Pro
bably
<
1 p
er
ton
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g r
educti
on e
ffect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
Fog
ed
, 2
009
Scen
ari
os II -
V
Pri
ces
Hig
h
Eff
ect
on
leachin
g
Hig
h
Dep
ends o
n t
he
sit
uati
on
of
the
indiv
idual fa
rm.
Low
.
74 75
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
75
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
77
Ref
No. 5
6A
O
zon
ati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g
(posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Ozon
e is
a v
ery
pow
erfu
l oxid
isin
g a
gen
t an
d r
eac
ts v
ery
rapid
ly w
ith a
lmost
anyt
hin
g.
Ozon
e m
ust
be
pro
duce
d l
oca
lly
bec
ause
it
is u
nst
able
and c
ann
ot
be
store
d.
Ozon
e is
use
d as
flo
ccula
nt
for
the
separa
tion o
f m
anu
re b
y fl
ota
tion
. M
eth
ods
for
ozon
e
trea
tmen
t an
d s
epar
atio
n o
f m
anu
re a
re b
eing d
eve
lop
ed,
and t
here
are
gre
at e
xp
ecta
tions
to t
he
tech
nolo
gy.
Ozon
e tr
eat
men
t
com
bin
ed w
ith
th
e fl
ota
tion o
f th
e su
spen
ded
mat
eri
al i
n t
he
slurr
y fo
rms
a c
lear
liquid
and
a c
once
ntr
ated
slu
dg
e. T
he f
luid
can
then
be
furt
her
pro
cess
ed t
o a
very
hig
h q
ual
ity,
while
the
sludg
e fr
acti
on
shou
ld b
e h
and
led a
s fl
ota
tion s
ludg
e.
The u
se o
f ozon
e c
an b
e ap
plied
for
the
rem
edia
tion o
f n
uis
ance
od
oro
us
chem
icals
in l
iquid
man
ure
s. G
aseous
ozon
e is
bubble
d
dir
ectl
y in
to liq
uid
man
ure
in a
con
tinu
ousl
y st
irre
d b
atc
h r
eac
tor.
Olf
acto
metr
y d
eterm
inat
ions
dem
onst
rate
a
signif
ican
t re
duct
ion
in
od
ours
in
ozon
ized
sa
mple
s as
co
mp
ared
to
raw
an
d
oxyg
enat
ed s
ample
s, h
ow
ever
, w
ith b
ig v
ari
atio
n a
mon
g t
ech
nolo
gy
suppliers
. V
ola
tile
fatt
y ac
ids,
nit
rate
, ph
osp
hat
e an
d a
mm
onia
conce
ntr
atio
ns
were
unch
ang
ed b
y ozon
atio
n.
Th
e bio
chem
ical
oxyg
en d
eman
d (
BO
D)
and t
he
chem
ical
oxyg
en d
em
and (
CO
D)
is
esse
nti
ally
un
affe
cted
by
ozon
atio
n,
wit
h t
he
ozon
e co
nce
ntr
ati
ons
trie
d.
Ozon
e ca
n b
e g
ener
ated
fro
m o
xyg
en i
n t
he
atm
osp
her
e or
by
pure
oxyg
en.
Op
era
ting c
ost
s fo
r th
e p
roduct
ion o
f ozon
e is
rela
tive
ly h
igh.
Alt
hough i
t is
th
eore
tica
lly
poss
ible
to o
xid
ize
a ve
ry l
arg
e port
ion o
f th
e org
anic
mat
ter
in t
he
slurr
y w
ith
ozon
e is
not
tech
nic
ally
and
eco
nom
ical
ly f
eas
ible
.
Unid
enti
fied
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
g
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
CBM
I N
/A
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
N/A
Low
– c
an b
e in
stal
led a
t eve
ry
farm
76
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
77
76
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 78
Ref
No. 5
7
Nit
rifi
cati
on
-den
itri
fica
tion
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
le
achin
g (p
osi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e)
of
N a
nd
P
The
nit
rifi
cati
on-d
enit
rifi
cati
on p
roce
ss c
onve
rts
the
N i
n t
he
slurr
y to
fre
e N
, N
2,
a p
roce
ss t
hat
is c
om
monly
use
d i
n w
aste
wat
er
trea
tmen
t fa
cilit
ies.
Bio
logic
al c
onve
rsio
n o
f am
monia
to N
gas
is
a t
wo s
tep
pro
cess
. A
mm
onia
must
fir
st b
e o
xid
ized t
o n
itra
te;
nit
rate
is
th
en r
educe
d t
o N
gas
. Th
ese
reac
t io
ns
requir
e dif
fere
nt
envi
ronm
ents
and i
nvo
lve t
wo t
anks,
an a
noxic
tan
k a
nd a
n a
nae
robic
dig
esti
on t
ank.
Th
e fi
rst
step in t
he p
roce
ss,
conve
rsio
n o
f am
monia
to n
itri
te a
nd t
hen
to n
itra
te,
is c
alled
nit
rifi
cati
on (
NH
3 N
O2
NO
3).
The p
roce
ss is
sum
mar
ized
in t
he f
ollow
ing
equati
ons:
NH
4 +
3/2
O2
NO
2
- + 2
H+
+ H
2O
NO
2
- + 1
/2 O
N
O3
-
It is
import
ant
to n
ote
th
at t
his
pro
cess
req
uir
es a
nd
consu
mes
oxyg
en,
and t
hus
contr
ibute
s to
th
e BO
D (
bio
chem
ical
oxyg
en d
eman
d).
The p
roce
ss i
s m
edia
ted
by
the
bac
teri
a N
itro
som
on
as a
nd N
itro
bac
ter,
whic
h r
equir
e an
aero
bic
(pre
sence
of
oxyg
en)
envi
ronm
ent
for
gro
wth
and m
etab
olism
of
N.
Thus,
the
nit
rifi
cati
on p
roce
ss m
ust
pro
ceed
und
er a
ero
bic
con
dit
ions.
Th
e se
con
d s
tep
of
the
pro
cess
, th
e
conve
rsio
n o
f nit
rate
to N
gas
, is
ref
erre
d t
o a
s den
itri
fica
tion.
This
pro
cess
can
be
sum
mar
ized
as:
NO
3
- + 5
/6 C
H3O
H
1/2
N2 +
5/6
CO
2 +
7/6
H2O
+ O
H-
This
pro
cess
is
also
med
iate
d b
y b
acte
ria.
For
the
reduct
ion o
f nit
rate
to N
gas
to o
ccur,
th
e dis
solv
ed o
xyg
en l
eve
l m
ust
be
at o
r n
ear
zero
; th
e d
enit
rifi
cati
on p
roce
ss m
ust
pro
ceed u
nd
er a
naer
ob
ic c
on
dit
ions.
Th
e bact
eria
als
o r
equir
e a
carb
on f
ood s
ou
rce
for
ener
gy
and c
onve
rsio
n o
f N
. Th
e b
acte
ria
met
abolize t
he
carb
onac
eous
mat
eri
al o
r BO
D i
n t
he
was
tew
ater
as t
his
food
sou
rce,
met
abolizin
g i
t to
carb
on d
ioxid
e. T
his
in t
urn
red
uce
s th
e BO
D o
f th
e se
wag
e, w
hic
h i
s d
esir
able
. H
ow
eve
r, i
f th
e se
wag
e is
alr
ead
y lo
w i
n B
OD
, th
e
carb
on f
ood
sou
rce
will
be
insu
ffic
ient
for
bac
teri
al
gro
wth
and
den
itri
fica
tion
will
not
pro
ceed
eff
icie
ntl
y. I
n t
he
aer
obic
dig
esti
on t
ank
the
conve
rsio
n of
amm
onia
to
nit
rate
an
d nit
rite
ta
kes
pla
ce.
In th
e an
oxic
ta
nk,
mic
roorg
anis
ms
use
th
e fr
ee oxyg
en in
nit
rate
com
pound a
s a
sou
rce
of
energ
y. T
he
pro
cess
pro
duce
s m
ore
bac
teri
a an
d r
emove
s N
fro
m t
he
slu
rry
by
con
vert
ing i
t in
to f
ree
N g
as,
whic
h i
s re
leas
ed i
nto
th
e a
ir.
Th
e sy
stem
is
build s
o t
hat
oxyg
en i
s p
rovi
ded
to t
he s
lurr
y by
way
of
tin
y aer
atin
g b
ubble
s p
rovi
ded b
y d
iffu
sers
.
See
the d
escr
ipti
on f
or
com
post
ing, te
chn
olo
gy
refe
rence
s num
ber
41 a
nd 4
1A
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al c
ost
s,
per
tonn
es p
er k
g s
ave
d N
or
P le
achin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
No d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata,
how
eve
r a
Span
ish p
lant
visi
ted b
y C
BM
I in
Jun
e
200
9 u
sed 1
5-2
0 k
Wh p
er t
on
, alo
ne f
or
elec
tric
ity,
but
incl
udin
g s
epar
ati
on a
nd c
om
post
ing o
per
atio
ns.
Maj
or
refe
rence
s
Con
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
CBM
I, 2
00
9
Scen
ario
s II -
VPr
ices
Lo
w
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
Dep
ends
on t
he
situ
atio
n o
f th
e
indiv
idual
farm
.
Hig
h –
shal
l b
e im
ple
men
ted
as
a c
om
munit
y pla
nt.
76 77
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
77
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
SB
est
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
79
Ref
No. 5
8
Str
uvit
e p
reci
pit
ati
on
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Stru
vite
fo
rmat
ion
mean
s th
ecr
ysta
lliz
atio
n
of
N
and P
in t
he
form
of
stru
vite
(M
gN
H4PO
46H
2O
), a
lso
ca
lled
MA
P,
whic
h i
s a
slow
rele
asin
g a
nd v
alu
able
fe
rtilis
er.
The
stru
vite
pre
cip
itat
ion i
s fo
rced
by
intr
oduct
ion
of
the
Mg
2
+ i
on,
for
inst
ance
in t
he
form
of
Mg(O
H) 2
and
MgC
l 26H
2O
. pH
ad
just
men
t w
ill
oft
en
be
nec
essa
ry t
o f
orc
e t
he
pro
cess
.
Stru
vite
pre
cipit
ati
on h
as s
o f
ar
not
been
dev
elop
ed
to
com
merc
ial
stag
e as
a
live
stock
m
anure
tr
eatm
ent
tech
nolo
gy.
Stru
vite
pre
cipit
ate
d f
rom
man
ure
can
be u
sed a
s a f
erti
lise
r p
roduct
. Si
nce
str
uvi
te c
on
tain
s b
oth
am
monia
an
d P
, th
is c
an b
e re
move
d f
rom
the
man
ure
or
be
applied
or
use
d o
ther
wis
e. S
truvi
te c
an b
e use
d d
irec
tly
as a
fert
ilis
er
wit
h a
slo
w r
eleas
e of
nutr
ien
ts,
acco
rdin
g t
o G
erm
an a
nd
man
y oth
er
stu
die
s. S
truvi
te p
reci
pit
ates
as
crys
tals
th
at
can b
e re
move
d a
s a d
ry p
roduct
that
can b
e tr
ansp
ort
ed a
s a
stable
fer
tilise
r. P
reci
pit
atio
n o
f st
ruvi
te a
nd u
se o
f th
is
can p
ote
nti
ally
hav
e a
ben
efic
ial in
flu
ence
on t
he
leac
hin
g o
f b
oth
N a
nd P
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d N
or
P le
ach
ing
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t (w
aste
wat
er)
Pr
acti
ce
N
o d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmat
ion
Hjo
rth,
20
09
Scen
ario
s II -
VPr
ices
H
igh
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Low
– c
an p
rinci
pal
ly b
e im
ple
men
ted a
t eve
ry f
arm
.
78
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
79
78
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 80
Ref
No. 5
9
Alg
ae p
rod
uct
ion
on
liq
uid
man
ure
su
bstr
ate
s
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
Pilo
t re
sear
ch h
as s
tart
ed i
n f
or
inst
ance
Hollan
d o
n t
he f
easi
bilit
y of
alg
ae
pro
duct
ion o
n
liquid
man
ure
subst
rate
s. T
he
chal
lengin
g i
dea
beh
ind t
his
is
to u
tilise
th
e fa
cts
that
alg
ae
gro
ws
wel
l in
wate
rs t
hat
are
ric
h o
n p
lant
nutr
ien
ts,
that
alg
ae
in p
ilot
studie
s has
sh
ow
n
incr
edib
le h
igh
pro
duct
ivit
y le
vels
, an
d t
hat
th
ey
are r
elat
ively
eas
y to
re
cove
r bio
ener
gy
sourc
es f
rom
, in
th
e fo
rm o
f pla
nt
oil t
hat
can
rep
lace
foss
il f
uel
s. P
lant
nutr
ients
can
be
re-
circ
ula
ted i
n t
he
agri
cult
ura
l p
roduct
ion,
the
P b
ein
g o
f ve
ry h
igh q
ual
ity
that
could
be
use
d
as f
eed
ingre
die
nt.
The
pro
duct
ion w
ou
ld r
esu
lt i
n t
hre
e co
mpon
ents
: Pl
ant
oil,
a re
st-f
ibre
fra
ctio
n a
nd r
ejec
t w
ater,
whic
h d
ep
end
ent
on l
oca
l pri
ce c
ondit
ions
can b
e c
lean
ed u
p t
o t
he e
con
om
ic o
pti
mal
le
vel.
The
exp
ecte
d
effe
ct
is
sim
ilar
to
th
at
of
the
separa
tion
tech
nolo
gie
s des
crib
ed ab
ove
: Th
e re
st-f
ibre
fr
acti
on w
ould
b
e p
oss
ible
to
ex
port
to
ar
eas
wit
h low
liv
esto
ck d
ensi
ty.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pilo
t
Prac
tice
No d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
s
Con
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion
effe
ct
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
CBM
I Sc
enar
ios
II -
VPr
ices
H
igh
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Probably
hig
h
78 79
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
79
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Page
81
Ref
No. 9
3
Fie
ld a
pp
lica
tion
: S
urf
ace
sp
read
ing
(tr
ail
ing
hoses)
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e)
of
N a
nd P
In th
e te
rm of
field
ap
plica
tion,
surf
ace sp
readin
g usi
ng tr
ailing h
ose
s is
on
e of
seve
ral
opti
ons.
Th
e
tech
nolo
gy
pla
ces
the m
anu
re o
n t
he
surf
ace, b
etw
een
th
e ro
ws
of
the
crop.
Prin
cip
le:
Flex
ible
rubb
er
hose
s are
inst
alle
d w
ith
an
inte
rnal
dis
tance
on a
pp.
30
cm
on a
wid
e s
ecti
on
(oft
en
24 m
), m
ounte
d b
ehin
d o
n t
he
man
ure
tan
ker
. Th
e hose
s ar
e ‘t
railin
g’
along t
he
soil s
urf
ace,
while
‘layi
ng’
the
man
ure
on t
he
surf
ace
in r
ow
s, b
elow
th
e g
reen
par
t of
the c
rop.
This
te
chnolo
gy
sign
ific
antl
y in
creas
es th
e fi
eld
effe
ct,
if
com
par
ed t
o t
he
refe
rence
of
aeri
al s
pre
adin
g (
spla
sh p
late
).
The
tech
nolo
gy
has
very
lit
tle,
if
any,
eff
ect
on t
he
leac
hin
g
of
P,
unlike
shal
low
inje
ctio
n w
hic
h i
s not
cove
red h
ere
, b
ut
is g
ain
ing p
opu
lari
ty in p
ract
ices
.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
save
d
N o
r P
leac
hin
gC
om
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
25
.00
0 –
50.0
00
(su
ffic
ient
for
a la
rge
pig
farm
) 0
,5
n
o d
ata
Maj
or
refe
rence
sC
on
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g r
educt
ion e
ffec
t C
ert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
1: EU
Com
mis
sion
, 2
003
2: La
nd
scen
tret
, 2
005
Scen
ario
s I -
V
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effe
ct o
n leac
hin
g
Hig
h
No d
ata
Med
ium
, use
of
the
tech
nolo
gy
need
s tr
ain
ed d
rive
rs, fa
irly
new
slu
rry
tan
ker
s etc
.
80
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
81
80
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Ref
No. 9
4
Con
stru
cted
wetla
nd
s
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
Constr
ucte
d w
etl
ands m
ean a
n a
rea,
wh
ere
a l
iquid
fra
cti
on i
s f
looded
in
to.
Th
e a
rea i
s g
row
n w
ith a
catc
h c
rop
, w
hic
h w
ill
captu
re t
he N
, P
and
oth
er
resid
ues.
Th
e cro
p can b
e harv
este
d and
dig
este
d in
a
bio
gas p
lant,
for
insta
nce.
Th
e l
iqu
id f
racti
on t
hat
is l
et
to t
he a
rea i
s
typic
ally c
lean
ed u
p t
o a
n e
conom
ic o
pti
mum
, In
ord
er
to m
inim
ise t
he
are
a o
f th
e w
etl
and.
Exam
ple
s o
f constr
ucte
d w
etl
and
s:
In t
he U
SA
such w
etl
an
ds a
re u
sed
fo
r th
e d
isp
osal
of
the l
iquid
fra
cti
on t
hat
are
collecte
d f
rom
feedlo
ts
(Fog
ed,
200
9),
in
Holland
for
reje
ct
wate
r fr
om
a
nit
rifi
cati
on-
denit
rifi
cati
on p
lan
t (F
og
ed,
200
9), and i
n D
enm
ark
th
ey a
re s
een i
n
conn
ecti
on t
o h
igh-t
ech b
iog
as p
lants
, als
o f
or
reje
ct
wate
r.
The e
ffect
sh
all t
ypic
ally b
e s
een in c
om
bin
ati
on w
ith
th
e e
nti
re e
ffect
of
the liv
esto
ck m
anu
re
treatm
ent
facilit
y t
o w
hic
h t
he c
onstr
ucte
d w
etl
an
ds b
elo
ngs.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
Innovati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N o
r P
leachin
g
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
Pri
ces a
re
pro
bably
sim
ilar
to p
rices o
f
lag
oons. T
ypic
ally
50
,00
0
40
Low
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g r
educti
on
eff
ect
Cert
ain
ty o
f
info
rmati
on
Fog
ed
, 2
009
Scen
ari
os II -
V
Pri
ces
Mediu
m
Eff
ect
on
le
achin
g
Mediu
m
Vary
ing w
ith
the c
oncre
te
sit
uati
on
.
Mediu
m –
can b
e c
onstr
ucte
d a
t all
farm
s, but
typ
ically t
he w
etl
and
s
are
only
a s
mall p
art
of
a c
om
ple
x
livesto
ck m
anure
tre
atm
ent
pla
nt.
80 81
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
81
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Ref
No. 1
11
Off
icia
l P n
orm
s f
or
fert
ilis
ing
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
Off
icia
l P norm
s fo
r fe
rtilis
ing.
EU
h
as no d
em
an
ds fo
r off
icia
l P norm
s fo
r fe
rtilis
ing,
but
they
have
an
yw
ay
been
intr
oduced
in
Fin
lan
d,
Lit
huan
ia,
Sw
ed
en and G
erm
an
y,
in m
ost
cases as a m
axim
al
app
licati
on ra
te p
er
ha,
indep
end
ent
of
the
cro
p
gro
wn.
P
fert
ilis
er
norm
s
are
in
tern
ati
onally
conven
ed
via
H
ELC
OM
, and
can
furt
herm
ore
b
e
imp
osed
via
EU
’s
Wate
r Fra
mew
ork
Dir
ecti
ve.
Off
icia
l P f
ert
ilis
er
norm
s w
ould
hin
der
an a
nnual spre
adin
g o
f P a
bove s
om
e a
vera
ge levels
fo
r th
e ty
pic
al
envir
onm
enta
lly safe
applicati
on of
P.
The norm
s w
ould
, how
ever,
n
ot
consid
er
the P
leachin
g r
isk f
rom
sp
ecif
ic f
ield
s.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
Innovati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N o
r P leachin
g
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
Low
Low
Low
Majo
r re
fere
nces
Con
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g r
educti
on
eff
ect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
CBM
I Scen
ari
os II to
V.
Pri
ces
Hig
h
Eff
ect
on
le
achin
g
Hig
h
Low
Low
82
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
83
82
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Best
Avail
ab
le T
ech
niq
ues
for
man
ure
tre
atm
en
t -
for
inte
nsi
ve r
eari
ng
of
pig
s in
Balt
ic S
ea R
eg
ion
EU
Mem
be
r S
tate
s T
ech
nic
al
Rep
ort
"
Best
Pra
ctic
e M
an
ure
Han
dli
ng
, P
ha
se 2
"
Sid
e 84
Ref
No. 1
12
P-in
dex
Bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
Desc
rip
tion o
f th
e ef
fect
on
lea
chin
g (
posi
tive
or
neg
ativ
e) o
f N
and P
The p
urp
ose
of
a P ind
ex is
to a
sses
s th
e ri
sk o
f P d
eliv
ery
to s
urf
ace
wat
ers
. Th
e in
dex
is
a t
ool
to h
elp c
onse
rvat
ion p
lann
ers
, la
nd
ow
ners
/lan
d u
sers
an
d o
ther
s to
eva
luat
e
the c
urr
ent
risk
fro
m P
reac
hin
g s
urf
ace
wate
r fr
om
a s
pec
ific
sit
e, a
nd t
o d
eter
min
e
fact
ors
whic
h d
om
inat
e th
e ri
sk d
ue
to P
tra
nsp
ort
to s
urf
ace
wat
ers
. It
will
als
o a
ssis
t la
nd
ow
ners
/lan
d u
sers
in m
akin
g m
anag
emen
t d
ecis
ions
to r
educe
th
e ri
sk.
The P-
ind
ex h
as
an
ero
sion co
mp
on
ent,
w
hic
h co
nsi
ders
sh
ell
and ri
ll
ero
sion,
P
enri
chm
ent,
tota
l so
il P,
filte
r st
rip,
sedim
ent
delive
ry,
dis
tance
to a
str
eam
, an
d t
he
long t
erm
bio
tic
ava
ilab
ilit
y of
part
icu
late
P i
n s
urf
ace
wat
er e
cosy
stem
s. .
A r
un
off
co
mp
on
ent
consi
ders
w
ater
run-o
ff
bas
ed
on
a m
od
ific
atio
n
of
the
runoff
cu
rve
num
ber,
so
il
test
s,
rate
ti
me
and
meth
od
of
P applica
tion.
An
inte
rnal
dra
inag
e
com
pon
ent
consi
ders
th
e p
rese
nce
of
tile
s, w
ater
fl
ow
to
ti
le lin
es,
surf
ace
wat
er
rech
arg
e to
subsu
rfac
e fl
ow
, an
d s
oil t
ests
.
Esta
blish
ing o
f n
on-c
ult
ivat
ed b
uff
er
zon
es a
long s
tream
s, a
nd t
err
aces
in t
he
steep
fi
elds,
would
dra
mat
ically
reduce
th
e P-
ind
ex.
The
wh
ole
ind
ex i
s a
form
ula
, w
hic
h i
s ea
sily
cal
cula
ted
annual
ly o
nce
th
e sp
ecif
ic
par
amet
ers
for
the
giv
en f
ield
have
been
dete
rmin
ed.
The
P-in
dex
is
a to
ol, t
hat
dir
ectl
y ca
n a
sses
s th
e ri
sk o
f P
leac
hin
g,
and t
here
fore
w
het
her
there
is
a n
eed
for
not
spre
adin
g liv
esto
ck m
anu
re o
n a
cert
ain
fie
ld.
Inve
stm
ent
pri
ce,
Innova
tion s
tag
eBas
ic
Var
iable
Op
erat
ion
al
cost
s,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
sa
ved
N o
r P
leac
hin
g
Com
ple
xit
y of
imple
men
tati
on
Res
earc
h
Pi
lot
Pr
acti
ce
Low
Lo
w
Low
Maj
or
refe
rence
s
Con
dit
ion f
or
leac
hin
g
reduct
ion e
ffec
t
Cert
ainty
of
info
rmati
on
1: M
alla
rin
o e
t al
., 2
005
2: N
atura
l R
esourc
es C
onse
rvat
ion
Ser
vice
s (N
RC
S),
20
04
Hig
h P
-in
dex
leve
ls
Pric
es
Hig
h
Effe
ct o
n
leac
hin
g
Hig
h
Low
Lo
w
82 83
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
83
Best
AvA
ilA
Ble
tech
no
log
ies
for
mA
nu
re t
reA
tmen
t
B
Alt
ic s
eA 2
020
AN
NEX
E: T
AB
LES W
ITH
SH
OR
T D
ESPR
IPT
ION
OF L
IVEST
OC
K M
AN
UR
E T
REA
TM
EN
T T
EC
HN
OLO
GIE
S
Ref
No. 1
13
Cert
ific
ati
on
of
pers
on
s, w
ho t
ran
sp
ort
or
sp
read
liv
esto
ck m
an
ure
Bri
ef
descri
pti
on
Descri
pti
on o
f th
e e
ffect
on
leachin
g (
posit
ive o
r n
eg
ati
ve)
of
N a
nd P
Cert
ific
ati
on
of
pers
on
s,
who
transp
ort
s,
spre
ad
or
in
oth
er
ways
handle
livesto
ck
manure
. C
ert
ific
ati
on c
an h
app
en o
n b
asis
of
an i
nit
ial
train
ing o
f 6 h
ours
+ t
est,
and a
2
hours
annu
al up
date
+ t
est.
It i
s e
xp
ecte
d t
he t
rain
ing
will
have a
reducti
on e
ffect
on
leachin
g,
because i
t w
ill
ensure
pers
ons w
ho h
an
dle
liv
esto
ck m
anure
und
ers
tands h
ow
to s
ecu
re a
pre
cis
e s
pre
adin
g a
nd
how
to a
void
leakag
e.
Investm
ent
pri
ce,
Innovati
on s
tag
e
Basic
V
ari
able
Op
era
tion
al
costs
,
per
tonn
es
per
kg
saved
N o
r P l
each
ing
Com
ple
xit
y o
f im
ple
menta
tion
Researc
h
Pilot
Pra
cti
ce
Low
Low
Low
Majo
r
refe
rences
C
on
dit
ion f
or
leachin
g r
educti
on e
ffect
Cert
ain
ty o
f in
form
ati
on
Fog
ed
, 2
009
If leach
ing h
app
ens d
ue t
o s
pills
, in
-corr
ect
dosin
g, m
is-m
an
ag
em
ent
of
manu
re in r
ela
tion
wit
h t
ransport
and
spre
adin
g.
Mediu
m
Vary
ing w
ith t
he c
oncre
te
sit
uati
on
.
Low
84
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
85
ANNEX F: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EU INTEGRATED
POLLUTION AND PREVENTION CONTROL DIRECTIVE (2008/1/EEC)
AnneX f: QuestionnAire on the effectiveness of the eu integrAted Pollution And Prevention control directive (2008/1/eec)
PurPose: To validate the strength and effectiveness of the directive to prevent and limit N and P leakage from industrial animal farms, focus installations for the intensive rearing of pigs influence on waterways and the Baltic Sea. To help identify the current best available manure handling technologies, and main obstacles for their implementation.
stAkeholders:1. EU Commission, civil servant responsible for elaboration and implementation of Directive (Interview)2. IPPC Technical Working Group/National Authorities responsible for national implementa- tion of Directive(Internet Survey)3. National/Regional Authorities monitoring instal- lations for the intensive rearing of pigs compli- ance with directive (Internet Survey)
knowledge sought:A. Quality of recommended BAts – n/P• What criteria regarding N/P emissions apply for BATs for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs?• How effective are these criteria to prevent N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs?• How are BATs validated and chosen by EU Commission?• How is prevention of N/P leakage from Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs prioritized during the validation of BATs• Form and quality of process to elaborate BREF (Ref. doc. On BAT for Intensive Rearing of Poul try and Pigs?• How does EU gather information on BATs? (From what regions, and what stakeholders, on what regularity, who at EU validates?)
• Relevance/quality of BAT Reference Documents (BREFs)
B. communication of BAts – n/P from eu to member states• How are BATs communicated to member states?• With what regularity?• To who?• How is it validated that the information is received, read and spread and used in permit processes
c. communication of BAts – n/P nationally• How are BAT communicated to farmers?• With what regularity?• How is it validated that the information is received, read and used?
d compliance with directive• How does EU commission ensure that Member states implement IPPC directive?• How does EU commission ensure that recom- mended BATs are implemented in Member States? (information exchange, guidance develop- ment, visits to authorities and training) • How does EU act if compliance is dissatisfactory?• To what extent is BAT – N/P compliance ensured when regional/local authority is permitting ani- mal farms?• How is implementation of BAT – N/P monitored by regional/local authorities? • How is violation of permits/disregarding use of BAT – N/P sanctioned?
e Quality of national monitoring• How are compliance checks carried out?• How decisive is the BREF document on BAT for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs when issuing permits for new pig farms, and when inspecting existing?
84 85
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX F: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EU INTEGRATED
POLLUTION AND PREVENTION CONTROL DIRECTIVE (2008/1/EEC)
f Quality of eu monitoring• How does EU check the application of IPPC Directive in national legislation?• How does EU ensure the use of the BREFs in national license permitting, and monitoring of farms?
g. BAts• What are the three BATs to prevent N/P-leakage from installations for the intensive rearing of pigs?• What are the main obstacles to comply with the Directive
interview Question to eu commission
Quality of recommended BAts – n/P• What criteria regarding N/P emissions apply for BATs for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs?• How effective are these criteria to prevent N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs?• How are BATs validated and chosen by EU Commission?• How is prevention of N/P leakage from Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs prioritized during the validation of BATs• How is the procedure to elaborate BREF (Ref. doc. On BAT for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs?• How does EU gather information on BATs? (From what regions, and what stakeholders, on what regularity, who at EU validates?)
communication of BAts – n/P from eu to member states• How are BATs communicated to member states?• With what regularity?• To who?• How is it validated that the information is recei- ved, read and spread and used in permit processes
compliance with directive/eu monitoring• How does EU commission ensure that Member states implement IPPC directive? E.g. if appli- cation of IPPC Directive should be incorporated in national legislation?• How does EU commission ensure that recom-
mended BATs are implemented in Member States? (Information exchange, guidance develop- ment, monitoring?) • How does EU ensure the use of the BREFs in national license permitting, and monitoring of farms?• How does EU act if compliance with the Direc- tive is dissatisfactory?
QuestionnAire to technicAl working grouP
1. How effective is the IPPC Directive in reducing N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective - Comment:
2. How effective is the IPPC Directive in promoting Best Available Techniques (BATs) to reduce N/P l eakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective - Comment:
3. How effective is EU commission secretariat responsible for IPPC Directive in collecting information on and evaluating the potential of upcoming techniques to reduce N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective - Comment:
4. How prioritized is prevention of N/P leakage from Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs, relative to other objectives within the BREF document e.g. reducing water use and energy, during the elaboration of BREF documents? - Prioritized - Not prioritized - Comment:
86
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
87
5. How effective are the techniques listed in present the Reference Document on Best Available Tech- niques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry (BREF document from July 2003) to prevent/reduce N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective - Comment:
6. To what extent are the techniques listed today in the BREF document implemented in your coun- try? If you answer “To a low extent” on the previous question, please comment on why. - To a high extent - To a low extent - Comment:
7. Which current available techniques (either already listed in the BREF from 2003, or other) are in your opinion the most effective to reduce N and P at installations for the intensive rearing of pigs, under the regulation of the IPPC direc- tive? Please list three and comment on the ad- vantages of each one: - 1: - 2: - 3: - Comment:
8. What are the main obstacles for the large scale implementation of the techniques you have listed above? - 1: - 2: - 3: - Comment:
QuestionnAire to comPetent nAtionAl Authorities
9. How effective is the IPPC Directive in reducing N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective
- Comment:
10. How effective is the IPPC Directive in promot- ing Best Available Techniques (BATs) to reduce N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective - Comment:
11. To what extent are the techniques listed today in the BREF document implemented in your coun- try? If you answer “To a low extent”, please com- ment on why. - To a high extent - To a low extent - Comment:
12. How are recommended BATs for reducing N and P leakage from installations for the intensive rear-ing of pigs in the IPPC directive communi- cated to pig farmers concerned in your country? - When issuing permits - At regular monitoring? - Other?
13. How is it validated that the information is received and used? - Comment:
14. How is compliance with the recommendations in the IPPC Directive /BREF document for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs ensured? - Comment:
15. How decisive is the BREF document for Inten- sive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs when issuing permits for new installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Decisive - Not decisive - Comment:
16. How effective are the techniques listed in the present Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry
ANNEX F: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EU INTEGRATED
POLLUTION AND PREVENTION CONTROL DIRECTIVE (2008/1/EEC)
86 87
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
(BREF document from July 2003) to prevent/re- duce N/P leakage from Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs? - Effective - Not Effective - Comment:
17. Which current available techniques (either already listed in the BREF/2003 or other) are in your opinion the most effective to reduce N and P at installations for the intensive rearing of pigs, under the regulation of the IPPC directive? Please list three and comment on the advantages of each one: - 1: - 2: - 3: - Comment:
18. What are the main obstacles for the large scale implementation of the techniques you have listed above? - 1: - 2: - 3: - Comment:
ANNEX F: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EU INTEGRATED
POLLUTION AND PREVENTION CONTROL DIRECTIVE (2008/1/EEC)
88
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
89
ANNEX G: MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP FOR INTENSIVE
LIVESTOCK FARMING, BALTIC SEA REGION
AnneX g: memBers of the technicAl working grouP for intensive livestock fArming, BAltic seA region
DE - Leonie Chonsch. Umweltbundesamt, leonie, [email protected]
DE - Helmut Doehler ,Kuratorium fur Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtshaft, [email protected]
DE - Ewald Grimm, Kuratorium fur Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtshaft, [email protected]
DE - Dietrich Schulz, Umweltbundesamt, [email protected]
DE - Herman Van den Weghe, Department fuer Nutztierwissenschaft [email protected]
DK - Kristian Snorre Andersen, Danish Environment Protection Agency, [email protected]
DK - Niels Lundgaard, Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre, [email protected], [email protected]
EE - Lilian Olle, Ministry of Environment of Estonia, [email protected]
Env.NGO - Thyge Nygaard, Danish Society for Nature Protecktion, [email protected]
Env.NGO - Christian Schaible, European Environmental Bureau, [email protected]
EU - Keir Mc Andrew, DG Environment, [email protected]
EU - Filip Francois, DG Environment, [email protected]
EU - Alexandre Paquot, DG Environment, [email protected]
EU - European IPPC Bureau, Paoulo Montobbio, [email protected]
FI - Juha Groenroos, Finnish Environment Institute, [email protected]
FI I - lkka Sipilä, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, [email protected]
Ind. NGO - Tadeusz Kuczynski, [email protected], [email protected]
Ind.NGO - Mr. Poul Pedersen, [email protected]
LV - Parsla Dzirne, Putnu fabrika Kekava, [email protected]
LV - Aivars Kokts, Ulbroka (Latvian institute for mechanization)
PL - Anna Poklewska-Koziell, IBMER Poznan Branch, [email protected]
PL - Urszula Rzeszot, Atkins, [email protected]
SE - Mona Strandmark, Swedish Board of Agriculture, [email protected]
88 89
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX H: INFORMATION EXCHANGE GROUP REPRESENTATIVES, BALTIC SEA REGION
AnneX h: informAtion eXchAnge grouP rePresentAtives, BAltic seA region
DE - Maresa BREITMEIER, [email protected]
DE - Matthias WEIGAND, [email protected]
DE - Susanne HEUTLING, [email protected]
DE - WASKOW Siegfried, [email protected]
DK - Camilla TROLLE, [email protected]
EE - TRUUSA Juri, [email protected]
FI - HIETAMÄKI Markku, [email protected]
FI - Mikko ATTILA, [email protected]
FI - SAHIVIRTA Elise, [email protected]
FI - Salo-Asikainen Sirpa, [email protected]
LT - Gediminas ALMANTAS, [email protected]
LV - Indra KRAMZAKA, [email protected]
LV - OZOLA Daina, [email protected]
PL - Typko Malgorzata, [email protected]
SE - Asa.Wiklund-Fredstrom, [email protected]
SE - BLOMDAHL Anna, [email protected]
SE - BRANDBERG Joakim, [email protected]
SE - NYSTROM Erik, [email protected]
LT - KAIRIENE Egle, [email protected]
LV - KRUMINA Guna, [email protected]
90
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
91
ANNEX I: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
AnneX i: rePort from roundtABle discussion
BAckgroundResearchers/experts, who represent the countries in the target area in the European IPPC Bureau at JRC in Seville, as well as farmer’s organisations and autho-rities, are important stakeholders for the project. It is important that the project consult the stake-holders to ensure trust and ownership to the recom-mendations the project will develop, to ensure that the project link up to and support other initiatives concerning livestock manure treatment technologies
and the implementation of the IPPC Directive, and in order to prepare for later, successful implementa-tion of the projects recommendations. A roundtable discussion with the stakeholders was on this background built into the project activities, and it took place at The Royal Academy of Sciences in Stockholm on 29 September 2009. Individual meetings were organised after the roundtable discus-sion with selected stakeholders, who were unable to participate in the roundtable discussion.
PArticiPAnts
Name Institution Country Tel. E-mail
Thyge Nygaard
Danmarks Naturfredningförening
DK + 45 39 174 088 [email protected]
Ilkka Sipilä MTT Agrifood Research Finland
Animal Production Research
FI +358-3-41883676 GSM +358-40-5077229
Aivars Kokts Ulbroka (Latvian institute for mechanization)
LV +371-29112050 [email protected]
Dr. Valerijus Gasi nas
Lithuanian Water Management Institute
LT +37034568100
Vaclovas Ber inskas
Lithuanian Environment Protection Agency, Head of Division for pollution
LT +37 05 266 2824 [email protected]
Lena Rodhe Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering
SE +46 18 30 33 51
Mobil 076-103 13 33
Ulla-Britta Fallenius
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
SE +46 8 698 10 00 [email protected]
Organizers
Henning L. Foged
CBMI DK +45 89 99 25 36 [email protected]
Lotta Samuelson
Baltic Sea 2020 SE +46 8 673 97 61 [email protected]
Conrad Stralka
Baltic Sea 2020 SE +46 8 673 97 62 [email protected]
Fredrik Wulff
Baltic Sea 2020 SE [email protected]
90 91
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX I: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
AgendA1. Welcome, Conrad Stralka, Baltic Sea 2020 2. Introduction and programme, moderated by Project Leader Henning Lyngsø Foged3. Presentation of participants4. Presentation of the project, Lotta Samuelson, Baltic Sea 2020, and Henning Lyngsø Foged, CBMI5. Expert statement about leaching of N and P from pig manures, Fredrik Wulff, Baltic Sea 20206. Presentation of complete list of technologies which are identified within the project, their advantages and disadvantages, Henning Lyngsø Foged, CBMI7. Discussion about prioritising the manure treat- ment technologies against the parameters defined in the project, moderated by Henning Lyngsø Foged, CBMI 8. Results of survey and discussion about IPPC Communication and Implementation, Henning Lyngsø Foged, CBMI9. Summing up and concluding, Lotta Samuelson, Baltic Sea 2020
discussedre. 1: welcomeConrad Stralka informed in his welcome about the activities of Baltic Sea 2020.
re. 2: introductionHenning Foged emphasized in his introduction how important we consider the stakeholders in relation to the ultimate success criteria for the project – a higher degree of livestock manure treatment to reduce the leaching of N and P. Henning Foged also said that the project should be seen as supporting and linking up to other initiatives concerning livestock manure treatment technologies.
re. 3: Presentation of participantsThe meeting had 11 participants from 5 of the 8 target countries.
re. 4: Presentation of the projectLotta Samuelson mentioned especially that the over-all objective of the “Best Practice Manure Projects”
is to reduce leaching of nutrients from large instal-lations for the intensive rearing of pigs around the Baltic Sea. Phase 1 of the project concluded that ac-cording to statistics from EU Joint Research Bureau, nutrients in manure put on fields in the Baltic Sea catchment area exceeds the nutrient discharge from households in the same area. Baltic Sea 2020 will focus on reducing nutrient leaching in manure from installations for the intensive rearing of pigs to the aquatic environment. Henning Foged pointed out that the IPPC Directive is 13 years old, it came into force in a period where livestock manure treatment was rarely happening, and since then has a major structural development had taken place in the pig production sector. Danish installations for the intensive rearing of pigs had an average of 550 pigs per farm with pigs in 1996, including both sows, piglets and fatteners – today this figure is 2.250! It seems justified that the project on this background considers, whether livestock manure treatment technologies should be given more focus in the administration of the IPPC Directive. Vaclovas Beržinskas said during the discussion, water monitoring should be part of the project and that part of the problem with leaching is a setback that the environmental permitting institutions do not wish to deal with complicated issues.
re. 5: expert statementFredrik Wulff focused in his presentation on the input of N and P to the Baltic Sea from agricultural production in the form of fertilisers and feed. The agriculture sector is calculated to provide for 50% of the total nutrient load to the Baltic Sea. The EU legislation as well as voluntary actions by farmers has resulted in more efficient use of fertilisers and excess nutrients to the waterways leaching is expected to de-crease n the coming years. Denmark has had a large decline in its use of mineral fertiliser, but simultaneo-usly a large increase in imported protein feed. Professor Wulff cited a Finnish study, which had shown that 11% of N and 17% of P had leached from manures spread in the autumn, while the leach-ing was 33% of N and 59% of P in manures spread in the winter.
92
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
93
Ulla-Britta Fallenius commented that the most important data is the specific amounts of nutrients that actually reach the Baltic Sea, and not what is put on fields. Lena Rohde said similarly, that it would be inte-resting to know how much actually is retained in the produced pork, and also pointed out that Denmark in the period with increased import of (N in) protein feed also had increased its export of (N in) pork. re. 6: Presentation of complete list Henning Foged started the presentation with ex-plaining how the word technologies and leaching had been defined in the project. He said that more than 30 livestock manure treatment technologies had been listed, and are being described with respect to their effect on leaching, their cost, etc. Included in the complete list of technologies were also technologies like legally based P norms for fertilising and the use of a P-index (inspired from his visit to USA). Ulla-Britta Fallenius commented that anaerobic digestion does not have effect on leaching because the input and output amounts of N and P are the same. She also mentioned that HELCOM already had bound member states to introduce P norms. It was clarified from the discussion that several countries already had P norms (Sweden, Lithua-nia, and Finland) and that HELCOM Action Plan decides P norms in all Baltic nations. Henning Foged said that this was not the case for Denmark. Vaclovas Beržinskas pointed out that HELCOM is without sanction possibilities, and that its role is restricted. re. 7: Prioritising technologiesHenning Foged informed that the current list with technologies will be reduced; technologies with no apparent leaching reduction effect will be removed as will technologies which are likely to have some environmental hazards (e.g. leaching or other unac-ceptable environmental hazards). The list shall also be reduced with technologies which currently are un-validated and/or still at research level and with technologies for which there could be ethical con-siderations hindering their effective dissemination. The rest of the technologies are ranked according the Project Leaders view on a combination of their cost-
efficiency, complexity of implementation, legal and other bottlenecks. Prioritising will happen on basis of facts in a prag-matic way, by Henning Foged and his colleagues in discussion with Baltic Sea 2020. A group discussion followed, on whether;
• Aerobic treatments should be down-prioritised due to their risk of production of laughter gas and loss of N?• Whether evaporation and drying is un-ethical due to its high energy consumption? • Whether incineration/combustion and other technologies for removal of plant nutrients are un-ethical because they cause higher consump- tion/production of mineral fertilisers, with the incurred energy consumption and negative climate effect.
Henning added that• Technologies that ensure the recirculation of plant nutrients in the agricultural production have an economic advantage – the value of the N and P is typically € 10 per ton slurry (the cost of storing and spreading the liquid or solid manure is typically of the same magnitude)• Technologies, which comprise bioenergy reco- very has an economic advantage, as the gas has an economic value. Additional to this they are bene- ficial for the society, because they make the countries more independent of imported energy resources, give a more diversified energy supply, and helps to reach international conventions and obligations in relation with climate gases and environmental loads. In some cases these society benefits have direct monetary values.• Technologies that cannot ”stand-alone” or have clear economies of scale would typically have an advantage of being implemented via farmer coo- peration or a service provider.
Thyge Nygaard said that anaerobic digestion gives a better field effect, and that it therefore also limits the amount of N that otherwise could be leached. Hen-ning Foged said that the Danish Agricultural Advisory Service in their field trials had documented 17–30%
ANNEX I: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
92 93
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
higher field effect in digested slurry. A longer discus-sion happened about the field effect. It was finally concluded that the field effect is a useful indicator for evaluation of some of the livestock manure treatment technologies’ effect on leaching reduction. The matter about farmer cooperation was also subject for many comments. It was generally the opi-nion, that the project could promote larger livestock manure treatment plants for combined technologies, and that this even would take away the structural development pressure on the pig producers, which somehow would be a result in itself.
re. 8: survey resultThe time was scarce, and Henning Foged said that although only 10 persons had completed the survey at that stage he saw some clear trend in the answers:
• All respondents says there is a considerable leach- ing of N and P that ends in the marine environ- ment (30% leaching of N and 21% leaching of P)• There is a clear expectation to an increase in the deployment of livestock manure treatment technologies (from an estimate of 3% in 1990 to
ANNEX I: REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
an expectation to 38% in 2020)• 7 out of 10 respondents see a link between leach- ing and livestock manure treatment technologies • Respondents consider the implementation of the IPPC legislation to be rather effective, but also that it does probably not have the focus on leach- ing of N and P and how this could be reduced with livestock manure treatment technologies
Henning concluded that “As use of livestock manure treatment technologies becomes more and more widespread, and as (some of them) have an effect on leaching of N and P (and sometimes also other environmental effects), there is a clear justification to increase the focus on livestock manure treatment technologies in the BREF for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs”.
re. 9: summarising and concludingLotta Samuelson thanked for the participation and the good input into the discussions. Baltic Sea 2020 will send conclusions from the meeting to partici-pants, and will also consider sending out the project report for comments.
94
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
95
ANNEX J: KEY ELEMENTS OF POLISH LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO N AND P LEACHING
AnneX j: keY elements of Polish legislAtion in relAtion to n And P leAching
The Water Law – article 47 of this regulation states the overall rule that all agriculture activities should prevent N chemical compounds discharges into water. Moreover it states that Directors of Regional Water Management Authority will specify ground water and surface water susceptible to N chemical compounds from agricultural sources and areas particularly vulnerable from which runoff of N from agriculture sources to the waters ought to be limited.
Regulation of Minister of Environment on criteria of outlining water susceptible to N discharges from agri-culture – this regulation sets the criteria describing water which should be classified as water polluted with nitrates and water in danger of being polluted with nitrates. It also describes thresholds above which eutrophication process starts in water.
Regulation of Minister of Environment on specific requirements to be met by action programs aiming to mitigate N runoff from agriculture – this regulation describes actions and procedures which prevent N runoff from agriculture into water.
Implementation of the Nitrate Directive: Poland has assigned 21 areas, ca 5% of the Polish agricultural land, as particularly vulnerable to nitrates from agri-cultural sources. The outflow of N from these areas to water should be reduced. These areas (N Vulnerable Zones, VNZ) have been legally empowered by 11 regulations of Regional Water Management Board di-rectors (published in the Official Journals of specific regions).
Polish Inspection for Environmental Protection (IEP) monitors farms operating in NVZ, including these which do not fall under IPPC regime.
The Polish act on fertilisers and fertilizing transposes the Resolution of the European Parliament and the council No 2003/2002 of 13.10.2003 on fertilisa-tion into polish law. It set certain obligations which
should be fulfilled by farmers when using manure:
• The dose of manure applied during the year may not contain more than 170 kg N (N) pure com- ponent per 1 ha of agricultural land (Article 17. 3), • IPPC pig farm with more than 2 000 places for productive pigs with weight more than 30 kg or 750 places for sows is obliged to: - Make a plan of fertilization, comprising regulations in legal acts and “Good Agri- culture Practise” (below). - Make use of at least 70% of manure on the farm arable land and the rest of 30% can be sold, on bases of written agreement that a purchaser has to prepare fertilisation plan in 30 days. (Article 18.1). - Manure and slurry are stored only in sealed containers enabling the collection of at least 4-monthly production of fertili- ser. These tanks should be closed tanks (Article 25.1), - Fertilisers other than manure and slurry must be stored on the impervious plates which are secured in such way that leaks are not released into soil (Article 25.2).• The Polish Inspection for Environmental Protection prepares information on requirements for IPPC farms to achieve an integrated permit. The regional chemical-agricultural stations conduct controlling activities, including nutrient treatment, on these installations each year.
The act on fertilisers and fertilization prohibits the use of (most important prohibitions):
• fertilisers on soils flooded with water and covered with snow or frozen for depth of 30 cm and during rainfall (Article 20.1.1),• manure in a liquid form on soils without plant cover located on slopes above 10% and the vegetation intended for direct human consump- tion (Article 20.1.2a),
94 95
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX J: KEY ELEMENTS OF POLISH LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO N AND P LEACHING
• manure in liquid form – during the growing season of plants for direct human consumption (Article 20.1.2b).
Code of Good Agricultural Practice: For the pur-pose of achieving the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union, Code of Good Agricultural Practice was introduced by Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environ-ment. It is a set of principles and recommendations based on law in Poland in the scope of environmental protection and advice on how to reduce the negative impact of agriculture on the environment. Good agricultural practice is being implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis, however, it is associated with the possibility of getting the single surface payment.
A farmer who wants to introduce good agricul-tural practice should ensure the appropriate use and storage of natural and artificial fertilisers and plant protection products, keep proper economy in
grassland, protect soil and keep adequate water state. The farmer should also apply nutrient management regulations and implement crop rotation with accom-panying agriculture system that protects the soil.
As part of good practice the farmer should also care about work safety, maintenance of machinery and equipment in good conditions, maintaining tidiness and order within the farming business. Good agricul-tural practice also provides appropriate conditions for animal husbandry.
Sources: Personal communication, Chief Inspector of Envi-ronmental Protection, Andrzej Jagusiewicz, Polish Inspection of Environmental Protection
Helsinki Commission Report from Land-based Pollu-tion Group, Eleventh meeting, Sopot, Poland, 16-18 May 2006, Agenda Item 5.1.
96
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
97
ANNEX K: KEY ELEMENTS OF DANISH LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO N AND P LEACHING
AnneX k: keY elements of dAnish legislAtion in relAtion to n And P leAching
PoliciesDenmark had, due to developments in nitrate levels of the ground water, already taken decisions in 1985 on policy goals and introduced legislation to imple-ment these goals. EU’s Nitrates Directive was issued first six years after, heavily inspired of the instruments that were already taken into use in Denmark to reduce leaching:• relation between the livestock manure production and the agricultural land;• required storage capacity for livestock manure; and• restrictions on spreading time for livestock manures.
In order to ease the introduction of the regulations in a pedagogic and understandable way there was defined a so-called Animal Unit, by which it without
respect to animal type, feed intensity, production system, bedding type or other is possible to preci-sely define the requirement to the relation between agricultural land and the livestock production. 1 Animal Unit was determined to 100 kg N ex. storage, and shall not be mixed with other conversion factors for livestock, for instance the Large Livestock Units, which most countries uses, and where 1 cow is 1 Large Livestock Unit, but which has no connection to the environmental load of the livestock. The policy plans during the years in relation to leaching is seen from the table below. The latest policy plan is the “Green Growth Plan”, which has been issued by the Danish Government in April 2009. The plan sets the goal of reducing the leaching with 210.000 ton N and 19.000 ton P latest
Year Plan Significant elements in legislation:
1985 NPO-plan - regulation of allowed animal units per ha
- min. storage capacity for animal manure
1987 Water Environment Action Plan I
- 50% reduction in N-leaching from agr.
- 65% ”autumn green fields”
- Slurry in autumn only to winter covered fields
1992 Sustainable agriculture
- Slurry only to grass or oilseed rape in autumn
- Max. N-standards for crops (N-quota per farm)
- Min. utilization of N in animal manure
- Fertiliser plans and -accounts.
1998 Water Environment Action Plan II
- 10% decrease of N-standards (The N-quota)
- 6% ”super” green fields in autumn
- 15% higher utilization of N in animal manure
2005 Water Environment Action Plan III - 50% reduction of the P leaching
- 13% reduction of the N leaching
96 97
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX K: KEY ELEMENTS OF DANISH LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO N AND P LEACHING
by 2015. The goals shall be reached for instance via the establishing of more buffer strips along streams. Additionally, the plan includes the goal of having at least 50% of all livestock manures treated for energy purposes by 2020, and mention that principally all livestock manures should be treated in the future. concrete legislAtionThe current legislation in Denmark to implement the provisions of EU’s Nitrates Directive is found in • Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 757 af 29. juni 2006 om jordbrugets anvendelse af gødning og om plantedække (Law about use of fertilisers and about plant cover)• Bekendtgørelse om jordbrugets anvendelse af gødning og om plantedække i planperioden 2008/09 (Regulation about use of fertilisers and about plant cover for the planning period 2008/09)• Miljøministeriets bekendtgørelse nr. 1695 af 19. december 2006 om husdyrbrug og dyrehold for mere end 3 dyreenheder, husdyrgødning, ensilage mv. (Regulation about animal husbandry)• Lov nr. 418 af 26. juni 1998 om afgift af kvælstof indeholdt i gødninger m.m. (Law about exise taxation of N in mineral fertiliser)• Bekendtgørelse nr. 1596 af 19. december 2007 om direkte støtte til landbrugere efter enkelt- betalingsordningen (Regulation about direct subsidisation of farmers according the ssingle payment scheme)• Bekendtgørelse nr. 345 af 13. maj 2008 om krydsoverensstemmelse. (Regulation about cross compliance)• Bekendtgørelse om kvælstofprognosen for 2009, der udsendes omkring 1. april 2009. (Regulation about the N prognosis)
The mentioned legislation says for instance, that installations for the intensive rearing of pigs must dispose of 1 ha of agricultural land for spreading of livestock manure for each 1,4 Animal Units, instal-lations for the intensive rearing of pigs must have 9 months storage capacity for livestock manure, the field effect of pig slurry must be at least 75%, there
must be elaborated fertiliser plans according official fertiliser norms and manure standards latest by 21 April, and there must be submitted fertiliser accounts (in 2010 latest 1 February for the previous harvest year 2008/09). The Danish Nature Protection Law contains provisions regarding distances between stables and watercourses, the quality of the floors in the stables, etc. The law holds as well the provisions in relation to the IPPC Directive concerning requirements for environmental permitting of intensive livestock farms – and again Denmark was on the forefront with the requirements, which came already in 1974, 15 years before the IPPC Directive was issued by EU. In 1999 the IPPC Directive was built into the Nature Protection Law, and it was decided that intensive livestock farms in Denmark was defined as farms with more than 250 Animal Units, no matter whether pigs, poultry or cattle. In 2006 came addi-tionally a new Law on Approval of Livestock Farms, which determines, that • hobby farms (for instance 2 cows or 10 sheep) is under control and shall comply with some soft environmental regulations; • small farms with 3–15 animal units shall inform the authorities of change in livestock production;• farms with 15–75 animal units (Annex 2) needs an environmental approval; • farms with 75–250 animal units (Annex 2) needs an environmental approval – screening; • farms with more than 250 animal units (Annex 1) needs an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval; and• authorities who handle environmental applications and EIA applications are paid by the applicant.
The Danish Environmental Protection Agency orga-nises in connection to the environmental permitting the so-called technology lists, which are the Danish versions of the BAT’s. The Danish technology lists are stronger than the BAT’s contained in the BREF document, as it for instance is not allowed to broad spread slurry in Denmark; it has to be applied with band laying systems, and in case of bare soils and grasslands the slurry must be injected.
98
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
99
ANNEX L: STRUCTURAL STATISTICS AND MAP OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE
INTENSIVE REARING OF PIGS IN DENMARK, SWEDEN AND POLAND
AnneX l: structurAl stAtistics And mAP of instAllAtions for the intensive reAring of Pigs in denmArk, sweden And PolAnd
stAtisticsThe statistics in the tables below are made to indi-cate the structure and sizes of pig farms in Denmark, Poland and Sweden. They are based on available official statistics from different sources, and therefore there is
not full consistency between the different tables. There is drastic structural change in the Danish pig production, illustrated by the fact that there in 2008 were 5.819 pig herds in Denmark, while this number was 17.688 and 34.322 in 1998 and 1988, respectively.
denmark
Best Available Techniques for manure treatment - for intensive rearing of pigs in Baltic Sea Region EU Member States Technical Report "Best Practice Manure Handling, Phase 2"
Page 100
Farms Production pigs (>=50kg) Tot. no of production pigs in holdings No % No %
<2000(C) 4.559 92,3 2.127.846 61
2000-2999(A) 247 5,0 617.377 18
3000-4999(A) 119 2,4 475.941 14
>=5000(A) 12 0,2 283.619 8
Sum(A) 378 100 1.376.936 100
Absolute No(C ) 4.937 3.504.781
Farms Sows Tot. no of sows in holdings
No % No %
<500(C ) 2.186 74 406.656 38
500-999(A) 594 20 445.203 42
1000-1499(A) 123 4 153.689 15
1500-4999(A) 0 0 0 0
>=5000(A) 61 2 53.685 5
Sum(A) 778 100 1.059.232 100
Absolute No(C ) 2.964 1.059.233
Farms Total pigs Tot. no of pigs in holding
No % No %
< 2000 3.560,0 61 2.394.884 19
2000-2999 1.577,0 27 5.020.358 39
3000-4999 0,0 0 0 0
>=5000 682,0 12 5.322.406 42
Sum(A) 5.819,0 100 12.737.648 100
Absolute No(C) 5.819,0 12.737.648
Sources:
(A) Personal information: Danmarks Statistiks Bibliotek og Information. European Statistical Data Support. Karsten Kjeld Larsen, e-meil: [email protected] +45 39 17 33 78. Data from 2008.
(B) European Commission Directorate - General Environment. 2009. Monitoring of Permitting Progress for Existing IPPC Installations. -Data from 2008
(C) Livestock by country, unit and type. StatBank Denmark. Http://statbank.dk/statbank5a. Visited 2009.10.05. Data from 2008
There is drastic structural change in the Danish pig production, illustrated by the fact that there in 2008 were 5.819 pig herds in Denmark, while this number was 17.688 and 34.322 in 1998 and 1988, respectively.
98 99
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
ANNEX L: STRUCTURAL STATISTICS AND MAP OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE
INTENSIVE REARING OF PIGS IN DENMARK, SWEDEN AND POLAND
Poland
Farms Production pigs
(>=50kg) Tot. no of production pigs in holding
No % No (*) % (**)
< 2000(E) 414.476 99,97 4.069.602 83,8
2000-4999( D) 44 0,01 157.482 3,2
5000-9999( D) 31 0,01 173.234 3,6
10000-24999( D) 31 0,01 342.485 7,1
>=25000( D) 3 0,00 112.499 2,3
Sum total 414.585 100 4.855.300 100
Absolute No(A) 4.855.300
(*) Calculated on the median base of particular herd size ranges
(**) percent pigs recalculated on the basis of absolute number of pigs
Farms Sows Tot. no of sows in holding No % No (*) % (**)
<750 data not available
- data not available
750-1999(D) 19 - 25.866 -
2000-4999(D) 14 - 42.243 -
5000-9999(D) 1 - 10.000 -
>=10000(D) 0 - - -
Sum(D) 34 100 78.109 100
Absolute No(A) 1.587.400
No of IPPC provisions (B) 2008(B) 2009 (C )
For production pigs (6.8b) 116 67
For sows (6.8c) 6 33
For production pigs and sows (6.8 b and c) 44
Sources:
(A) GUS, 2008 (CBS, Poland) Publication available on http://www.stat.gov.pl/, data from 2008,
(B) European Commission Directorate - General Environment. 2009. Monitoring of Permitting Progress for Existing IPPC Installations. Data from 2008
(C) Ministry of Environment, 2009. http://ippc.mos.gov.pl/ippc/?id=53., data from 2009
(D) Personal information: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Head of Dept Hanna Kostrzewska, 2009, March.
(E ) Personal information : [email protected], Central Statistical Office
100
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
101
sweden
Best Available Techniques for manure treatment - for intensive rearing of pigs in Baltic Sea Region EU Member States Technical Report "Best Practice Manure Handling, Phase 2"
Page 102
Sweden
Farms Production pigs (>50kg) Tot. no of production pigsin holdings
No % No (*) %
<2000 2.073 96,2 1.065.908 77
2000-4999 74 3,4 258.963 19
>=5000 8 0,4 60.000 4
Sum(A) 2.155 100 1.384.871 100
Absolute No(C) 974.100
Farms Sows Tot. no of sows in holdings
No % No (*) %
<750 2.302 99,0 322.543 90
750-1499 16 0,7 17.992 5
1500-2249 6 0,3 11.247 3
2250-3999 2 0,1 6.124 2
Sum(A) 2.326 100,0 357.906 100
Absolute No(C) 357.906
Farms total pigs Tot. no of pigs in holding
No % No (*) %
<2000 4.391 98,0
2000-4999 82 1,8
5000-9999 8 0,2
Sum(A) 4.481 100,0 0,0 0,0
Absolute No(C) 1.609.300,0
No of IPPC provisions (B) 2008
For production pigs (6.8b) 102
For sows (6.8c) 15
Sources
( A) personal information: Jeanette Mikhael, e-mail: [email protected], 2009
(B)
European Commission Directorate - General Environment. 2009. Monitoring of Permitting Progress for Existing IPPC Installations. Data from 2008
(C) SCB, 2008. www.scb.se
Maps
See next pages.
The Danish map shows all pig farms, while only IPPC farms are shown on the Polish map. A larger version of the Danish map can be downloaded from http://www.cttools.dk/downloads/Husdyr_Placering_DK.pdf, in which case the text in the top right box with figures for distribution of different livestock types on Danish municipalities, can be read
ANNEX L: STRUCTURAL STATISTICS AND MAP OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE
INTENSIVE REARING OF PIGS IN DENMARK, SWEDEN AND POLAND
100 101
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
mAPsThe Danish map shows all pig farms, while only IPPC farms are shown on the Polish map. A larger version of the Danish map can be downloaded from
http://www.cttools.dk/downloads/Husdyr_Place-ring_DK.pdf, in which case the text in the top right box with figures for distribution of different livestock types on Danish municipalities, can be read.
ANNEX L: STRUCTURAL STATISTICS AND MAP OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE
INTENSIVE REARING OF PIGS IN DENMARK, SWEDEN AND POLAND
Con
Terr
a
007012112192666Århus
122670143282349320529Aalborg
1431011272457219338353Aabenraa
0081496142483Ærø
2207386729254888Vordingborg
1827441953629022241806Viborg
1735251172058315834096Vesthim.
1247131612865210418423Vejle
912441132118115935254Vejen
1029931082501529658573Varde
00001171Tårnby
2066251452631628157338Tønder
515051903533711821612Thisted
15235720837052274349Sønderborg
1778613889405996Syddjurs
41051598335265184Svendborg
1356706712092314868Struer
22943145984754Stevns
151335570091338Sorø
00119600Solrød
51333537653141972Slagelse
62065161299409818018Skive
22137512007305154Skanderborg
115980137288314511Silkeborg
0013266471321Samsø
00101994198Roskilde
0041661481715Ringsted
1010902734937022941604Ringkøb.-Sk.
3437911830010823357Rebild
331611821338487884Randers
00212948172942Odsherred
226031538681631Odense
1125671235961263Odder
101375518765243599Næstved
4768598915194265Nyborg
364810519076548888Norddjurs
231012525750489111Morsø
5958529039357859Middelfart
6363492174189121148Mariagerfjord
00003635Læsø
11070000Lyngby-Taar.
44307414936111236Lolland
5739104215509116967Lemvig
1942339285861Lejre
00416892142572Langeland
11981523712475Køge
11285510517115458113Kolding
004466655847Kerteminde
34178617762213881Kalundborg
8303878140188817709Jammerbugt
9269179146836712842Ikast-Brande
00114500Høje-Taastrup
593610419565367637Horsens
1224411151890012022642Holstebro
007111729224010Holbæk
1519621673369215230652Hjørring
0034323596Hillerød
79742143967616331735Herning
00003257Helsingør
16177913922948344967Hedensted
1829871683222110420753Haderslev
6128712619507294915Guldborgsund
11235741111821Gribskov
00237300Greve
7909120194417512310Faaborg-Midt.
0022743675Frederiksværk-Hu.
0010162991388Frederikssund
890412320007355587Frederikshavn
23601430012600Fredericia
11122239106958Faxe
4108812522240244117Favrskov
00002215Fanø
121997661474017735806Esbjerg
00002375Egedal
71309187332555310349Brønderslev-Dron.
5152811517384407847Bornholm
1919916939346627Bogense
35012350675811067Billund
581114123864397417Assens
00453200Allerød
Antal stederAntal DEAntal stederAntal DEAntal stederAntal DEKommuneAndetSvinKvæg
007012112192666Århus
122670143282349320529Aalborg
1431011272457219338353Aabenraa
0081496142483Ærø
2207386729254888Vordingborg
1827441953629022241806Viborg
1735251172058315834096Vesthim.
1247131612865210418423Vejle
912441132118115935254Vejen
1029931082501529658573Varde
00001171Tårnby
2066251452631628157338Tønder
515051903533711821612Thisted
15235720837052274349Sønderborg
1778613889405996Syddjurs
41051598335265184Svendborg
1356706712092314868Struer
22943145984754Stevns
151335570091338Sorø
00119600Solrød
51333537653141972Slagelse
62065161299409818018Skive
22137512007305154Skanderborg
115980137288314511Silkeborg
0013266471321Samsø
00101994198Roskilde
0041661481715Ringsted
1010902734937022941604Ringkøb.-Sk.
3437911830010823357Rebild
331611821338487884Randers
00212948172942Odsherred
226031538681631Odense
1125671235961263Odder
101375518765243599Næstved
4768598915194265Nyborg
364810519076548888Norddjurs
231012525750489111Morsø
5958529039357859Middelfart
6363492174189121148Mariagerfjord
00003635Læsø
11070000Lyngby-Taar.
44307414936111236Lolland
5739104215509116967Lemvig
1942339285861Lejre
00416892142572Langeland
11981523712475Køge
11285510517115458113Kolding
004466655847Kerteminde
34178617762213881Kalundborg
8303878140188817709Jammerbugt
9269179146836712842Ikast-Brande
00114500Høje-Taastrup
593610419565367637Horsens
1224411151890012022642Holstebro
007111729224010Holbæk
1519621673369215230652Hjørring
0034323596Hillerød
79742143967616331735Herning
00003257Helsingør
16177913922948344967Hedensted
1829871683222110420753Haderslev
6128712619507294915Guldborgsund
11235741111821Gribskov
00237300Greve
7909120194417512310Faaborg-Midt.
0022743675Frederiksværk-Hu.
0010162991388Frederikssund
890412320007355587Frederikshavn
23601430012600Fredericia
11122239106958Faxe
4108812522240244117Favrskov
00002215Fanø
121997661474017735806Esbjerg
00002375Egedal
71309187332555310349Brønderslev-Dron.
5152811517384407847Bornholm
1919916939346627Bogense
35012350675811067Billund
581114123864397417Assens
00453200Allerød
Antal stederAntal DEAntal stederAntal DEAntal stederAntal DEKommuneAndetSvinKvæg
DE
Fjerkræ!.
5 - 75
!.
75 - 1
20
!.
120 -
250
!.
over
250
Pelsdyr!.
5 - 75
!.
75 - 1
20
!.
120 -
250
!.
over
250
DE
Kvæg!.
75 - 1
20
!.
120 -
250
!.
250 -
500
!.
over
500
Svin!.
75 - 1
20
!.
120 -
250
!.
250 -
500
!.
over
500
102
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
103
ANNEX L: STRUCTURAL STATISTICS AND MAP OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE
INTENSIVE REARING OF PIGS IN DENMARK, SWEDEN AND POLAND Best Available Techniques for manure treatment - for intensive rearing of pigs in Baltic Sea Region EU Member States Technical Report "Best Practice Manure Handling, Phase 2"
Page 104
Map of IPPC installations * in Poland and pig density in voivodships (pigs in IPPC installations/voivoidship) ** (Sources: *Ministry of Environment Protection, http://ippc.mos.gov.pl/ippc/?id=53. Data from 10.09.2009, ** Ministry of Agriculture and Rural)
Legend:
swine
sows
swines and sows
<1500 1500-4999 5 000-19 999 20 000-49 999 50 000-99 999 >100 000
2009
Szczecin
Wroc aw
Opole
ód
Kielce
Kraków
ZielonaGó
Pozna
Rzeszó
Lublin
Olsztyn
Bydgosz
Gd k
Bia ysto
Katowic
Warsza
Map of IPPC installations * in Poland and pig density in voivodships (pigs in IPPC installations/voivoidship) **
Sources:
*Ministry of Environment Protection, http://ippc.mos.gov.pl/ippc/?id=53. Data from 10.09.2009, ** Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Legend:
swine
sows
swines and sows
swine
sows
swines and sows
<1.500 1.500-4.999 5.000-19.999 20.000-49.999 50.000-99.999 >100.000
104
Best AvAilABle technologies for mAnure treAtment BAltic seA 2020
Lilla Frescativägen 4B Box 50005 S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
phone: +46 (0)8 673 97 64 fax: +46 (0)8 673 97 60 e-mail: [email protected]
www.balticsea2020.org