Examples of implementing manure processing technology at the farm level in the Baltic Sea Region

Erik Sindhöj1*, Anni Alitalo2, Pellervo Kässi2, Ilkka Sipilä2, Kalvi Tamm3, Lena Rodhe1

1JTI – Uppsala Sweden, 2MTT – Agrifood Research Finland, 3Estonian Research Institute of Agriculture*erik.sindhoj@jti.se

Slurry cooling

Motives for use: energy recovery and reduced ammonia emissions

Pellon

ReferenceSindhöj E., Rodhe L., (Editors). 2013. Examples of Implementing

Manure Processing Technology at Farm Level. Report 412, Agriculture & Industry. JTI- Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden

Drum composting

Motives for use: received tipping fees for horse manure, income from composted products

A)

B) C)ECSAB

Slurry acidification

Motives for use: ammonia abatement demanded by authorities

Biocover SyreN

Nutrient concentrationPROTOTYPES

Motives for use: reduced volume to store and spread, create a fertilizer product more similar to mineral fertilizers

Belt press separator

Screw press separator

Aerobic biological treatment

Solid Fraction

Ammonium sulfate

Effluent

Scrubber

Pig slurry

Solid fraction

Liquid fraction

Solid fraction

Chemical flocculation

Liquid fraction

Liquid fraction

Ammonia stripping

Scrubber

Chemical addition

Pellon Biosampo and schematic process flow

Processing technology Type of farm (country) Processing capacity Costs*(€ m-3 yr-1) Incomes and savings not included

Nutrient concentration – Prototype Dairy farm (SE) Target capacity 15000 m3 yr-1 4.92 Less costs for storage, transport and spreading; possible fertiliser saleNutrient concentration – Prototype Pig farm (FI) Target capacity 6000 m3 yr-1 3.81Nutrient concentration - Reverse osmosis Pig farm (NL), 1050 sows 10 000 m3 yr-1 6.49 Less costs for exporting manure, sold liquid fertiliser

Acidification - In housing Pig farm (DK), produces 6500 finishers yr-1 Max capacity NA, farm generates 3250 m3 yr-1 6.68 Saved N; S fertilisation unnecessaryAcidification - In storage Dairy farm (EE) Max capacity NA, farm generates 14 000 m3 yr-1 0.13 S fertilisation unnecessary (Dosage only for S fertilisation)Acidification - During spreading Fictive pig farm (DK), 3800 places, typical for DK Max capacity NA, farm generates 6000 m3 yr-1 1.04 Saved N; S fertilisation unnecessary

Composting - Drum Beef cattle (SE), deep litter manure Max capacity 18 500 m3 yr-1 5.55 Income from tipping fees, sold commercial soil and fertiliser products

Composting - Drum Pig and beef cattle (SE), 640 sows with 5500 places for finishers, and 150 nursing cows Max capacity 18 500 m3 yr-1 3.96 Reduced volumes to store and spread and sold commercial soil and

fertiliser products

Mechanical separation - Screw press Pig farm (FI), 600 sows, 2300 finishers yr-1 Max capacity 25 m3 hr-1 pig slurry, generates 1700 m3 yr-1 2.11 Saved logistic costs, better allocation of nutrients on farmMechanical separation - Centrifuge Dairy farm with biogas (SE), 450 milking cows Approx. 20 000 m3 digestate yr-1 1.62 Less costs for liquid manure handling (but costs for solids)

Slurry cooling - Heat pumps Pig farm (FI), 1000 fattening pig places Max capacity NA, cools 1200 of 2000 m3 yr-1 2.99 Saved N and energy

Mechanical separation

Motives for use: reduced volume of slurry to store and spread, odor reduction, alternative use of solid fraction

*costs include investment, maintenance and operational costs. Annuity method was used for investment costs with 10 yrs depreciation and 5% APR (interest).

Storage for solid fraction Solid-liquid

separation

Aerobic biologicaltreatment

NH3

stripping

NH3

scrubbing

Table: Processing technology, type of farm, processing capacity and cost of processing.