THE IPPC DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN SPAIN

UN ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air PollutionUN ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

Průhonice, Czech RepublicPrůhonice, Czech Republic April 2006April 2006

THE IPPC DIRECTIVE THE IPPC DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN IMPLEMENTATION IN

SPAINSPAINResults 2004-2005 and future work

Carlos Piñeiro1, Pilar Illescas2, Gema Montalvo2 and Manuel Bigeriego3

1PigCHAMP Pro Europa: 2Tragsega; 3Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Objective To summarize the current situation of

IPPC directive implementation in Spain, regarding

– Technical guideDuring 2003-05 period, Spanish Guide Document has been updated with the last available information:– Technical

– Economical

Both from literature and latest trials under Spanish conditions.

– BAT assessment

housing + (storage + spreading)

BATs selection

The candidates BAT were selected form the BREF document based on its:– Efficiency

– Applicability

– Cost - effectiveness

– Eligibility under Spanish conditions

Assessment in Poultry

– Laying hens

– Broilers

Pigs– Gestating sows

– Lactating sows

– Nursery

– Growers-finishers

Storage Spreading

Laying hens. Materials and methods

Commercial farm El Espinar del Henares (Guadalajara)

Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)

Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations

Already

Already presented

presented

Laying hens. Results

Frequent manure removal (kg/place/year)

NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Weekly removal 0.079 0.037 0.0024 31.0

Frequent manure removal (twice a week)

0.039 0.034 0.0017 27.3

SEM 0.0078 0.0041 0.00017 1.73

p treatment *** NS ** *

Efficiency (%) 50.81 - 28.60 11.97

Range of emissions in BREF 0.010-0.386

0.021-0.043

0.014-0.021

No data

SEM = Standard error of the mean; n= 216Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001

Already

Already presented

presented

Laying hens. Results

Manure drying (kg/place/year)

NH3 CH4 CO2

No drying 0.067 0.035 26.2

Manure drying 0.063 0.024 24.9

SEM 0.0044 0.0033 1.70

P treatment NS * NS

Efficiency (%) - 31.25 -

Range of emissions in BREF 0.010-0.386 0.021-0.043 No data


Already

Already presented

presented

Laying hens. Conclusions

Frequent manure removal (twice a week vs weekly) abated:Ammonia emissions: 50%Nitrous oxide: 29% Carbon dioxide: 10%Did not affect methane emissions

Manure drying abated:Methane emissions: 53%Did not affect ammonia, nitrous oxide, neither carbon dioxide emissions.

Combination both techniques could be a good option.

Already

Already presented

presented

– Commercial farm in Pinarejos (Segovia). 16000 broiler

Reference system

System proposed

Drinking Leaking drinkers

Non leaking drinkers

- Controls: NH3, CH4, N2O and CO2 concentration.

- Innova 1312 (infrared photoacoustic)

- Air extraction and temperature

Broilers. Materials and methods

– Effects:

Emissions (kg/place and year) NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Leaking drinking 0.055 0.058 0.005 54

Non leaking drinking 0.053 0.025 0.001 57

SEM 0.0030 0.0035 0.0007 3.4

P treatment NS *** *** NS

Efficacy (%) - 57 76 -

Range of emissions in BREF 0.050 – 0.315

0.004 – 0.006

0.009 – 0.024

NO DATA

SEM = Standard error of the mean; n=223; nN2O=187Probability: NS>0,10; t<0,10; * < 0,05; ** < 0,01; ***<0,001

Broilers. Results

Broilers. Conclusions

Non-leaking drinking systems are able to decrease methane and oxide nitrous emissions

Gestating sows. Trial 1Materials and Method

Commercial farm Valdalguís I (Segovia)



Already

Already presented

presented

Gestating sows. Trial 1Results (kg/place/year)

NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Reference system (RS) 0.455 25.42 0.071 949

Reduced manure pit (RMP) 0.230 18.19 0.023 992

Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 0.536 20.71 0.012 964

SEM 0.021 0.520 0.003 22.26

P treatment RS vs RMP *** *** *** NS

P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** *** NS

Efficiency RMP (%) 49 28 68 -

Efficiency FSR (%) - 19 83 -

Range of emissions in BREF 0.4-4.2 21.1No

dataNo

data


Already

Already presented

presented

Gestating sows. Trial 1 Conclusions

Reduced manure pit abated emissions of:

Ammonia: 49% Methane: 28% Nitrous oxide: 68%

Frequent slurry removal (once a week) abated emissions of:

Methane: 19% Nitrous oxide: 83%

Already

Already presented

presented

Gestating sows–Straw based system. Trial 2

Materials and MethodCommercial farm in Aguilafuente (Segovia)



-Substitution of slats for totally slated floor

- Well managed;

-3 kg / sow per week

- Changed weekly

Gestating sows–Straw based system. Trial 2 Results (kg/place/year)


NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Reference system 1.83 4.41 0.014 703

Straw based system 1.57 1.50 0.039 516

SEM 0.032 0.055 0.011 10.1

P treatment *** *** *** ***

Efficiency (%) 14 66 -178 27

Range of emissions in BREF 0.4-4.2 21.1No

dataNo

data

Gestating sows–Straw based system. Trial 2 Conclusions

Solid concrete floor system with straw reduced : Ammonia 11% Methane 66%

increased : Nitrous oxide 178%

Lactating sows. Materials and Method

Commercial farm Valdalguís I (Segovia)



Already

Already presented

presented

Lactating sows. Results (kg/place/year)


NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Manure pan underneath 0.661 13.21 0.484 1,646

Reference system (deep pit)

0.974 37.35 0.846 2,913

SEM 0.043 1.001 0.022 47.82

p treatment *** *** *** ***

Efficiency (%) 32 65 43 43

Range of emissions in BREF

0.8-9.0 No data No data No data

Already

Already presented

presented

Lactating sows. Conclusions

Manure pan underneath abated emissions by: Ammonia (32%) Methane (65%) Nitrous oxide (43%) Carbon dioxide (43%)regarding reference system (deep pit)

Already

Already presented

presented

Nursery. Materials and methods

Commercial farm Carraturégano (Segovia)



Already

Already presented

presented

Nursery. Results Emissions (kg/place/year)

NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Reference system (RS) 0.079 3.12 0.075 2,060

Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 0.060 2.81 0.044 1,499

Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW)

0.029 1.08 0.055 1,040

Low protein diet (LPD) 0.039 1.14 0.046 660

SEM 0.0019 0.0508 0.0012 16.50

P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs SSW *** *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs LPD *** *** *** ***

Range of emissions in BREF0.06-0.8

3.9No

dataNo

dataSEM = Standard error of the mean; nNH3=737; nCH4=733; nN2O=744; nCO2=267

Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001

Already

Already presented

presented

Nursery. ResultsEfficiency (%)

NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 24 10 41 27

Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW) 63 65 27 50

Low protein diet (LPD) 51 63 39 68

Already

Already presented

presented

Nursery. Conclusions

Frequent slurry removal abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.

Low protein diet abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Productive parameters were impaired, mainly in the first stage.

Manure channel with sloped side walls abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.

Already

Already presented

presented

Finishers. Materials and methods

Commercial farm Carraturégano (Segovia)



Finishers. Results winterEmissions (kg/place/year)

NH3 CH4 N2O CO2

Reference system (RS) 1.34 1.21 0.088 410

Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW)

1.21 0.58 0.118 444

Low protein diet (LPD) 0.77 0.82 0.071 264

Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 0.53 0.42 0.056 167

Partly-slatted floor (PSF) 0.86 0.80 0.106 264

SEM 0.027 0.024 0.0046 9.0

P treatment RS vs SSW *** *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs LPD *** *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** NS ***

P treatment RS vs PSF *** *** ** ***

Range of emissions in BREF 0.9-4.0

0.9-11.1

0.02-3.44

No dataSEM = Standard error of the mean; n = 669

Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001

Finishers. Results summerEmissions (kg/place/year)

NH3 CH4 CO2

Reference system (RS) 2.51 3.13 921

Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW) 1.64 1.49 862

Low protein diet (LPD) 1.76 2.87 728

Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 1.77 2.22 616

Partly-slatted floor (PSF) 1.81 1.93 580

SEM 0.033 0.048 10.2

P treatment RS vs SSW *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs LPD *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** ***

P treatment RS vs PSF *** *** ***

Range of emissions in BREF 0.9-4.0 0.9-11.1No

dataSEM = Standard error of the mean; n = 502

Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001

Finishers. Percentage of reduction regarding reference system

NH3 CH4 CO2

Manure channel with sloped side walls 10 - 30 50 8

Low protein diet 30 - 40 10 - 30 20 - 40

Frequent slurry removal 30 - 60 30 - 65 30 - 60

Partially-slatted floor 30 - 35 30 - 40 40

Finishers. Conclusions

Manure channel with sloped side walls abated ammonia and methane but hindered cleaning operations (effect on water and energy)

Finishers. Conclusions

Low protein diet abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Productive parameters slightly improved.

Frequent slurry removal abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.

Partially-slatted floor abated ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions were increased.

Economics

Investment and operational costs were also calculated for every technique

Cost explanation will be presented in tomorrow’s session

Ongoing works (I): Measurement of emmissions in other Spanish

regions Standard farms

(only forced ventilation is required)

Same equipment and methodology

Castilla y León (Segovia)

Murcia

Cataluña

Ongoing works (II): Nutrition in piglets

Project in co-operation with IRDA of Quèbec

Emmissions chambers Treatments:

– Control (T1)

– LP diet (T2)

– Acidifiers (T3)

– Fibre (T4)

– All together (T5)

Ongoing works (III): Slurry additives

Commercial farms

Same equipment

Treatments (3 x 2 incomplete)– Bacteria

– Zeolites

– Galacturonic Acid

x– In feed or directly to slurry

Ongoing works (IV)Water and energy

Assessment of commercial techniques– Water

• Drinking systems (nipple, bowls)

• Cleaning systems

– Energy• Illumination

• Heating

• Ventilation

• Isolation

ConclusionsSelected BAT are performing

environmentally well

Can be implemented at farm level

Percentage of efficiency is on BREF rank

Extra information is provided– Other gases

– Seasonality

– Productive performance

Still a lot of work to do

Thank YouThank You

THE IPPC DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN SPAIN

Documents

Transcript of THE IPPC DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN SPAIN