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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


8


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


8 9


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


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


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



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


13


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



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


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.


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


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.


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


17


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 development support requires Member States to set up Rural Development Programmes, which shall “provide for agri-environment measures throughout 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 livestock) 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



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 internationally 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 agricultural 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


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


18 19


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-


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


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 technology 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 analysed/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, investment price, running/operational costs, pre-requi- sites/enablers (herd size/scale of economy, available land, distance to available land, price of energy, available subsidies, etc.)• Stakeholder consultations via a roundtable discussion 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 discussion, have been consulted at individual meetings about for instance the efficiency of the implementation of the IPPC Directive.• Data analysis to make a reduced list of most interesting 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



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


23


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



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


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 normally 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 temperature and pressure treatment with anaerobic digestion, because the substrates for anaerobic digestion anyway have to be heated up to around 35°C (mesophile process) or 55°C (thermophile process).

24 25



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


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


Table 6 continued.

26 27


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.


28


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)


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


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


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


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 gasification 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



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


33


Table 8 continued.

# Livestock Manure


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



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 separation with flocculation and/or flotation. The separation 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 technology should be a BAT for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs which have more P in

Table 8 continued.

# Livestock Manure


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


35


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 (recirculation 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 digestion 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 livestock manures. P fertiliser norms and the P-index will in combination directly avoid over-fertilisation 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 validate 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 technologies 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



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 information about the livestock manure treatment technologies 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 document, 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 technologies that are regulated under both waste handling 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 investment might be low in case the farmer stops livestock 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


37


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


85


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 implementation of Directive(Internet Survey)3. National/Regional Authorities monitoring installations for the intensive rearing of pigs compliance 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 recommended BATs are implemented in Member States? (information exchange, guidance development, 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 animal 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




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 received, 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 application 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 development, 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


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 country? 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 directive? Please list three and comment on the advantages 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 promoting 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 country? If you answer “To a low extent”, please comment 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 communicated 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



86 87


(BREF document from July 2003) to prevent/reduce 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:



88


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


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


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

[email protected]

Aivars Kokts Ulbroka (Latvian institute for mechanization)

LV +371-29112050 [email protected]

Dr. Valerijus Gasi nas

Lithuanian Water Management Institute

LT +37034568100

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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



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 treatment 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


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 consumption/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 recovery has an economic advantage, as the gas has an economic value. Additional to this they are beneficial 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 cooperation 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%


92 93


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 leaching of N and P that ends in the marine environment (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


an expectation to 38% in 2020)• 7 out of 10 respondents see a link between leaching 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 leaching 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


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 fertiliser. 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 consumption (Article 20.1.2a),

94 95


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


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


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


99


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




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


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



100 101


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.



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


103


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

102 103


104


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