the ippc directive implementation in spain
DESCRIPTION
Results 2004-2005 and future work. THE IPPC DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN SPAIN. Carlos Piñeiro 1 , Pilar Illescas 2 , Gema Montalvo 2 and Manuel Bigeriego 3. 1 PigCHAMP Pro Europa: 2 Tragsega; 3 Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
UN ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air PollutionUN ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
Průhonice, Czech RepublicPrůhonice, Czech Republic April 2006April 2006
THE IPPC DIRECTIVE THE IPPC DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN IMPLEMENTATION IN
SPAINSPAINResults 2004-2005 and future work
Carlos Piñeiro1, Pilar Illescas2, Gema Montalvo2 and Manuel Bigeriego3
1PigCHAMP Pro Europa: 2Tragsega; 3Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Objective To summarize the current situation of
IPPC directive implementation in Spain, regarding
– Technical guideDuring 2003-05 period, Spanish Guide Document has been updated with the last available information:– Technical
– Economical
Both from literature and latest trials under Spanish conditions.
– BAT assessment
housing + (storage + spreading)
BATs selection
The candidates BAT were selected form the BREF document based on its:– Efficiency
– Applicability
– Cost - effectiveness
– Eligibility under Spanish conditions
Assessment in Poultry
– Laying hens
– Broilers
Pigs– Gestating sows
– Lactating sows
– Nursery
– Growers-finishers
Storage Spreading
Laying hens. Materials and methods
Commercial farm El Espinar del Henares (Guadalajara)
Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)
Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations
Already
Already presented
presented
Laying hens. Results
Frequent manure removal (kg/place/year)
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Weekly removal 0.079 0.037 0.0024 31.0
Frequent manure removal (twice a week)
0.039 0.034 0.0017 27.3
SEM 0.0078 0.0041 0.00017 1.73
p treatment *** NS ** *
Efficiency (%) 50.81 - 28.60 11.97
Range of emissions in BREF 0.010-0.386
0.021-0.043
0.014-0.021
No data
SEM = Standard error of the mean; n= 216Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
Already
Already presented
presented
Laying hens. Results
Manure drying (kg/place/year)
NH3 CH4 CO2
No drying 0.067 0.035 26.2
Manure drying 0.063 0.024 24.9
SEM 0.0044 0.0033 1.70
P treatment NS * NS
Efficiency (%) - 31.25 -
Range of emissions in BREF 0.010-0.386 0.021-0.043 No data
SEM = Standard error of the mean; n= 109Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
Already
Already presented
presented
Laying hens. Conclusions
Frequent manure removal (twice a week vs weekly) abated:Ammonia emissions: 50%Nitrous oxide: 29% Carbon dioxide: 10%Did not affect methane emissions
Manure drying abated:Methane emissions: 53%Did not affect ammonia, nitrous oxide, neither carbon dioxide emissions.
Combination both techniques could be a good option.
Already
Already presented
presented
– Commercial farm in Pinarejos (Segovia). 16000 broiler
Reference system
System proposed
Drinking Leaking drinkers
Non leaking drinkers
- Controls: NH3, CH4, N2O and CO2 concentration.
- Innova 1312 (infrared photoacoustic)
- Air extraction and temperature
Broilers. Materials and methods
– Effects:
Emissions (kg/place and year) NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Leaking drinking 0.055 0.058 0.005 54
Non leaking drinking 0.053 0.025 0.001 57
SEM 0.0030 0.0035 0.0007 3.4
P treatment NS *** *** NS
Efficacy (%) - 57 76 -
Range of emissions in BREF 0.050 – 0.315
0.004 – 0.006
0.009 – 0.024
NO DATA
SEM = Standard error of the mean; n=223; nN2O=187Probability: NS>0,10; t<0,10; * < 0,05; ** < 0,01; ***<0,001
Broilers. Results
Broilers. Conclusions
Non-leaking drinking systems are able to decrease methane and oxide nitrous emissions
Gestating sows. Trial 1Materials and Method
Commercial farm Valdalguís I (Segovia)
Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)
Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations
Already
Already presented
presented
Gestating sows. Trial 1Results (kg/place/year)
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Reference system (RS) 0.455 25.42 0.071 949
Reduced manure pit (RMP) 0.230 18.19 0.023 992
Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 0.536 20.71 0.012 964
SEM 0.021 0.520 0.003 22.26
P treatment RS vs RMP *** *** *** NS
P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** *** NS
Efficiency RMP (%) 49 28 68 -
Efficiency FSR (%) - 19 83 -
Range of emissions in BREF 0.4-4.2 21.1No
dataNo
data
SEM = Standard error of the mean; n= 1752Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
Already
Already presented
presented
Gestating sows. Trial 1 Conclusions
Reduced manure pit abated emissions of:
Ammonia: 49% Methane: 28% Nitrous oxide: 68%
Frequent slurry removal (once a week) abated emissions of:
Methane: 19% Nitrous oxide: 83%
Already
Already presented
presented
Gestating sows–Straw based system. Trial 2
Materials and MethodCommercial farm in Aguilafuente (Segovia)
Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)
Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations
-Substitution of slats for totally slated floor
- Well managed;
-3 kg / sow per week
- Changed weekly
Gestating sows–Straw based system. Trial 2 Results (kg/place/year)
SEM = Standard error of the mean; n= 1752Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Reference system 1.83 4.41 0.014 703
Straw based system 1.57 1.50 0.039 516
SEM 0.032 0.055 0.011 10.1
P treatment *** *** *** ***
Efficiency (%) 14 66 -178 27
Range of emissions in BREF 0.4-4.2 21.1No
dataNo
data
Gestating sows–Straw based system. Trial 2 Conclusions
Solid concrete floor system with straw reduced : Ammonia 11% Methane 66%
increased : Nitrous oxide 178%
Lactating sows. Materials and Method
Commercial farm Valdalguís I (Segovia)
Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations
Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)
Already
Already presented
presented
Lactating sows. Results (kg/place/year)
SEM = Standard error of the mean; n= 607Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Manure pan underneath 0.661 13.21 0.484 1,646
Reference system (deep pit)
0.974 37.35 0.846 2,913
SEM 0.043 1.001 0.022 47.82
p treatment *** *** *** ***
Efficiency (%) 32 65 43 43
Range of emissions in BREF
0.8-9.0 No data No data No data
Already
Already presented
presented
Lactating sows. Conclusions
Manure pan underneath abated emissions by: Ammonia (32%) Methane (65%) Nitrous oxide (43%) Carbon dioxide (43%)regarding reference system (deep pit)
Already
Already presented
presented
Nursery. Materials and methods
Commercial farm Carraturégano (Segovia)
Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)
Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations
Already
Already presented
presented
Nursery. Results Emissions (kg/place/year)
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Reference system (RS) 0.079 3.12 0.075 2,060
Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 0.060 2.81 0.044 1,499
Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW)
0.029 1.08 0.055 1,040
Low protein diet (LPD) 0.039 1.14 0.046 660
SEM 0.0019 0.0508 0.0012 16.50
P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs SSW *** *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs LPD *** *** *** ***
Range of emissions in BREF0.06-0.8
3.9No
dataNo
dataSEM = Standard error of the mean; nNH3=737; nCH4=733; nN2O=744; nCO2=267
Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
Already
Already presented
presented
Nursery. ResultsEfficiency (%)
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 24 10 41 27
Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW) 63 65 27 50
Low protein diet (LPD) 51 63 39 68
Already
Already presented
presented
Nursery. Conclusions
Frequent slurry removal abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.
Low protein diet abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Productive parameters were impaired, mainly in the first stage.
Manure channel with sloped side walls abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.
Already
Already presented
presented
Finishers. Materials and methods
Commercial farm Carraturégano (Segovia)
Measurement system: Innova 1312 (Sir S.A., Madrid)
Air sampling, anemometers and thermometers locations
Finishers. Results winterEmissions (kg/place/year)
NH3 CH4 N2O CO2
Reference system (RS) 1.34 1.21 0.088 410
Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW)
1.21 0.58 0.118 444
Low protein diet (LPD) 0.77 0.82 0.071 264
Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 0.53 0.42 0.056 167
Partly-slatted floor (PSF) 0.86 0.80 0.106 264
SEM 0.027 0.024 0.0046 9.0
P treatment RS vs SSW *** *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs LPD *** *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** NS ***
P treatment RS vs PSF *** *** ** ***
Range of emissions in BREF 0.9-4.0
0.9-11.1
0.02-3.44
No dataSEM = Standard error of the mean; n = 669
Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
Finishers. Results summerEmissions (kg/place/year)
NH3 CH4 CO2
Reference system (RS) 2.51 3.13 921
Manure channel with sloped side walls (SSW) 1.64 1.49 862
Low protein diet (LPD) 1.76 2.87 728
Frequent slurry removal (FSR) 1.77 2.22 616
Partly-slatted floor (PSF) 1.81 1.93 580
SEM 0.033 0.048 10.2
P treatment RS vs SSW *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs LPD *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs FSR *** *** ***
P treatment RS vs PSF *** *** ***
Range of emissions in BREF 0.9-4.0 0.9-11.1No
dataSEM = Standard error of the mean; n = 502
Probability: NS>0.10; t<0.10; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; ***<0.001
Finishers. Percentage of reduction regarding reference system
NH3 CH4 CO2
Manure channel with sloped side walls 10 - 30 50 8
Low protein diet 30 - 40 10 - 30 20 - 40
Frequent slurry removal 30 - 60 30 - 65 30 - 60
Partially-slatted floor 30 - 35 30 - 40 40
Finishers. Conclusions
Manure channel with sloped side walls abated ammonia and methane but hindered cleaning operations (effect on water and energy)
Finishers. Conclusions
Low protein diet abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Productive parameters slightly improved.
Frequent slurry removal abated ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.
Partially-slatted floor abated ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions were increased.
Economics
Investment and operational costs were also calculated for every technique
Cost explanation will be presented in tomorrow’s session
Ongoing works (I): Measurement of emmissions in other Spanish
regions Standard farms
(only forced ventilation is required)
Same equipment and methodology
Castilla y León (Segovia)
Murcia
Cataluña
Ongoing works (II): Nutrition in piglets
Project in co-operation with IRDA of Quèbec
Emmissions chambers Treatments:
– Control (T1)
– LP diet (T2)
– Acidifiers (T3)
– Fibre (T4)
– All together (T5)
Ongoing works (III): Slurry additives
Commercial farms
Same equipment
Treatments (3 x 2 incomplete)– Bacteria
– Zeolites
– Galacturonic Acid
x– In feed or directly to slurry
Ongoing works (IV)Water and energy
Assessment of commercial techniques– Water
• Drinking systems (nipple, bowls)
• Cleaning systems
– Energy• Illumination
• Heating
• Ventilation
• Isolation
ConclusionsSelected BAT are performing
environmentally well
Can be implemented at farm level
Percentage of efficiency is on BREF rank
Extra information is provided– Other gases
– Seasonality
– Productive performance
Still a lot of work to do
Thank YouThank You