The impact of concentrated pig production in Flanders: a spatial analysis G. Willeghems, L. De...

The impact of concentrated pig production in Flanders:

a spatial analysis

G. Willeghems, L. De Clercq, E. Michels, E. Meers, and J. Buysse

Juan Tur Cardona

150th EAAE Seminar, Edinburgh

[email protected]@ugent.be

[email protected]

2 Department of Agricultural Economics24/08/2015

Outline

• Introduction

• Methodology

• Results

• Conclusions

Introduction


01/07/2014 4

• High concentration of livestock in Flanders

• Environmental problems (Surplus of nutrients)

• Fertilization standards.

• Limitations on the transport of manure (language border)

Department of Agricultural Economics23/10/2015

5

Research QuestionCan spatial reallocation of livestock production in Belgium reduce the impact of GHG emissions?

Research Objectives

1.conduct economic and environmental optimization

2.determine main differences

3.determine marginal spatial impact on CO2 emissions of a decrease in manure pressure

Methodology


• Life cycle analysis

• GHG for three manure management scenarios

• Include LCA in Manure allocation model

Life cycle analysis (1)

• attributional vs consequential approach

• marginal spatial impact of decrease in manure pressure

consequential LCA


7

Carbon footprint

• direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions linked to an activity, facility or limited territory

• compare different products or activities, reduce emissions and investigate possible improvements (Guns, 2014)

• expressed in CO2 equivalents (CH4, NOx)


8

Calculation of environmental impact of pig manure management (2)

•Focus on CO2 emissions (carbon footprint)

• Functional unit = amount of manure produced per year for each municipality

•Regions under investigation are Flanders (nutrient rich) & Wallonia (nutrient poor)

•System boundaries: from production to land application

•2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories and available country specific date


9

3 possibilities for manure management

1.Raw manure scenario

2.Treatment scenario

3.Separation scenario


10


(1) Raw manure


(2) Manure Treatment


13

(3) Manure Separation


Overview of emissions

assumptions emissions

storage

in pit under stables

intermediate storage of manure for processing/separation

storage of thin fraction after separation

CH4

direct N2O

indirect N2O from NH3 and NOx

transport non-renewable energy use from transport and injection CO2

applicationemissions from managed soils

emissions from machinery use

direct N2O


CO2

processing

energy use centrifuge, biological treatment and composting process

manure separation in closed vessel, no other emissions

emissions biological treatment

transport to composting plant and France

CO2 from energy use

direct N2O

indirect N2O from NH3 and NOx (negligible)

avoided emissions

emissions from production and transport NPK

application of replaced mineral fertilizers

CO2

direct N2O


Manure Allocation Model (3)

•Belgium: Flanders (nutrient surplus) and Wallonia (nutrient deficit)

•municipality level: nutrient supply and demand

•data from Federal Statistics Department

•goal: minimize total cost/CO2 emissions of manure management

•combination of 3 scenarios

•raw/separated/processed manure is exchanged between municipalities 15


16

Manure Allocation Model

Minimize CO2 emissions from pig manure management

Minimize cost for livestock manure management

Results


General


20Department of Agricultural Economics23/10/2015

Model simulations

Scenario Border FL-WAL Minimize

1 – CB_cost Closed Cost

2 – CB_CO2 Closed CO2

3 – OB_cost Open Cost

4 – OB_CO2 Open CO2


pag. 21

Spatial Analysis



pag. 25

Consequential LCA – Marginal CO2 impact

• RQ: Can spatial reallocation of livestock production in Belgium reduce the impact of GHG emissions?

• simulate livestock spreading by relaxing fertilisation standards

• calculate the marginal CO2 impact of 1 kg extra N per municipality allowed

• for CO2 minimizing scenario


26

Perspective: CO2 costs of pig production• Production cost in concentrated area:

1 pig: 5 ton manure per year @ 9 kg N/ton

22,5 kg CO2 per year

• Fixed costs of pig production

3,7 kg CO2 /kg life weight for 1 pig

740 kg CO2 per year


28

3 %

Conclusions


• Economic optimum: maximizing transport of raw manure until fertilization standards are fulfilled, subsequently separating and processing the excess manure

• Environmental optimum: separating all manure


30

• Rearrangement of spatial spreading of pig production will not substantially decrease CO2 emissions

• Manure storage is main contributor to carbon footprint

change manure storage systems


31

Model Equations

𝐶𝑇𝑅 = ൭ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑇𝑅𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴 + 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑇𝑅

𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴,𝑇 ൱∗ 𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 ∗ 𝑑𝑚1,𝑚2


32

𝐶𝑆𝑃𝑅 = 𝑐𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑 ∗ ൭ 𝑀𝑚1,𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑊𝑚1,𝐴 + 𝑀𝑚2,𝑚1,𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑇𝑅

𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴 − 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑇𝑅𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴 + 𝑀𝑚2,𝑚1,𝑇,𝐴𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑇𝑅

𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴− 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑇𝑅𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴 ൱

𝐶𝑃𝑅 = σ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑇,𝐴𝑃𝑅𝑂𝐶 ∗ 𝑐𝑇,𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑚1,𝑇,𝐴 𝐶𝐴𝑉 = ቌ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑁+ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑁 𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔 ቍ∗ 𝑀𝐹𝐸𝑁∗ 𝑐𝑁+ ቌ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑃 + 𝑀𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑃 𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔 ቍ ∗ 𝑀𝐹𝐸𝑃

∗ 𝑐𝑃+ ቌ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝐾+ 𝑀𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝐾 𝑚1,𝑝𝑖𝑔 ቍ ∗ 𝑀𝐹𝐸𝐾∗ 𝑐𝐾 𝑀𝑖𝑛.𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇 = 𝐶𝑇𝑅+ 𝐶𝑆𝑃𝑅+ 𝐶𝑃𝑅− 𝐶𝐴𝑉 cost minimization


33

𝑀𝑖𝑛.𝐶𝑂2,𝑇𝑂𝑇 = σ 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝑆𝑇𝑂𝑅𝐸,𝐶𝐻4𝑆𝐶 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝑆𝑇𝑂𝑅𝐸,𝑁2𝑂𝐷 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝑆𝑇𝑂𝑅𝐸,𝑁2𝑂𝐼𝐷 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝑇𝑅 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐷 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐼𝐷 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑃𝐿,𝐹𝑈𝐸𝐿 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝑃𝑅𝑂𝐶 − (𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑉,𝑀𝐹+ 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑉,𝑀𝐹 𝐴𝑃𝑃𝐿 + 𝐶𝑂2,𝑆𝐶𝐴𝑉,𝑀𝐹 𝐴𝑃𝑃𝐿 𝐹𝑈𝐸𝐿)

𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴 𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑇𝑅 + 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴𝑃𝑅𝑂𝐶,𝑇𝑅𝑚1,𝑇 ≤ 𝑀𝑚1,𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑊

𝑚1

𝑀𝑚1,𝐴,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝐴 + 𝑀𝑚2,𝑚1,𝐴,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑇𝑅,𝑁𝑈𝑇

𝑚2,𝐴 − 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝐴,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑅𝐴𝑊,𝑇𝑅,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑚2,𝐴 + 𝑀𝑚2,𝑚1,𝑇,𝐴,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑇𝑅,𝑁𝑈𝑇

𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴− 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐼𝑁,𝑇𝑅,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴 − 𝑀𝑚1,𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴,𝑁𝑈𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐼𝐶𝐾,𝑇𝑅,𝑁𝑈𝑇

𝑚2,𝑇,𝐴 ≤ 0.95∗ ℎ𝑎𝑚1,𝐶𝑅𝑁𝑈𝑇 ∗ 𝑁𝑅𝐶𝑅𝑁𝑈𝑇

𝐶𝑅

manure balance

nutrient balance

GHG minimization

Main conditions

The impact of concentrated pig production in Flanders: a spatial analysis G. Willeghems, L. De...

Documents

Transcript of The impact of concentrated pig production in Flanders: a spatial analysis G. Willeghems, L. De...