Selection of pig manure management strategies: Case study of Polish farms

Accepted Manuscript Selection of pig manure management strategies: Case study of Polish farms

Agnieszka Makara, Zygmunt Kowalski PII:

S0959-6526(17)32388-0

DOI:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.095

Reference:

JCLP 10887

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date:

26 February 2017

Revised Date:

02 October 2017

Accepted Date:

09 October 2017

Please cite this article as: Agnieszka Makara, Zygmunt Kowalski, Selection of pig manure management strategies: Case study of Polish farms, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.095

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights  Pig manure management systems are evaluated by the BATNEEC method.  Evaluated variants are storage, use in fertilization, and processing by filtration.  Filtration scored the highest rating.  A complex management system including elimination of manure storage is proposed.  The system provides fertilization and production of fertilizers from separated solid phase.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Selection of pig manure management strategies: Case study of Polish farms

2

Agnieszka Makara1*, Zygmunt Kowalski2

3

1Institute

4

Warszawska 24, 31-155 Kraków, Poland

5

2Minerals

6

7, 31-261 Kraków, Poland

7

*Corresponding author: tel.: +48 12 6282778; fax: +48 12 6282036

8

E-mail address: [email protected]

of Chemistry and Inorganic Technology, Cracow University of Technology,

and Energy Economy Research Institute Polish Academy of Science, Wybickiego

9 10

Abstract

11

The goal of the study is to propose a pig manure management system that is useful for the

12

owners of 30,000 ha of arable lands and a group of five Polish pig farms that produce

13

approximately 240,000 m3 y-1 of pig manure. The BATNEEC options method was used to

14

evaluate three selected systems of pig manure management: storage, utilization for

15

fertilization, and processing by filtration using the AMAK method for fertilizer production.

16

These options were evaluated on the basis of specific formulated criteria. The processing by

17

the AMAK method was rated very highly (89% maximum). However, very low scores were

18

given for fertilization with pig manure and its storage (39% and 22% maximum, respectively).

19

The system proposed for pig manure management was as follows: elimination of manure

20

storage in lagoons, application of roughly half the pig manure as fertilizer, processing of the

21

other half by the AMAK method on each farm, and the use of a separated solid phase to

22

produce mineral-organic fertilizers in one central unit.

23

Keywords: Pig manure; Management; Fertilization; Processing; Evaluation.

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25

Abbreviations: AMAK—designation of filtration method; AF Company—shortcut name of

26

company; FS1, FK, FM, FP, FS —shortcut names of farms

27

1. Introduction

28

The world swine population produces approximately 1.7 billion t of liquid manure annually.

29

Pig farming in the EU is concentrated in certain areas: 30% of the animals are located in a

30

major pig production basin that stretches from Denmark through northwestern Germany and

31

the Netherlands to northern Belgium. Other important regions include Cataluña and Murcia in

32

Spain, Lombardy in Italy, and Bretagne in France. The current annual production of manure

33

by pig farms in Germany, Spain, the UK, and the Netherlands amounts to over 120 million t

34

per year (Flotats et al., 2009; Marquer et al., 2014; Troy, 2012). Liquid pig manure is

35

classified as a natural fertilizer (Directive, 2003; Act, 2007). The use of manure for

36

fertilization depends on local conditions, such as the accessibility of arable lands,

37

transportation costs, and the availability of other fertilizers (Burton and Turner, 2003).

38

In 2014, the pig population in Poland, highly distributed across the country, was 11.6 million

39

head (Central, 2015). Pig farming in Poland comprised 212,000 farms in 2014, 0.6% of which

40

constituted high-scale farming, i.e., more than 1,000 pigs per operation, breeding more than

41

38% of the total number of pigs (Stokłosa, 2015).

42

One hundred pigs produce approximately 2,850 kg of pig manure per day (Jorgensen and

43

Jensen, 2009; Lens et al., 2004). Pig manure is rich in organic and inorganic nutrients that

44

have properties similar to mineral fertilizers. The volume of manure generated and its

45

chemical composition are strictly related to the number of head of stock and the method of pig

46

farming; they depend on the type and age of the animals, the feeding method, and the

47

condition of the animals (Sánchez and González, 2005; Schepers and Raun, 2008).

48

Nitrogen determines the value of the manure for fertilization; 1 m3 of pig manure with a dry

49

mass content of 8% contains 6.4 kg N, 4.0 kg P, and 3.0 kg K (Troy, 2012; Krawczyk and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 50

Walczak, 2010). Inorganic nitrogen compounds account for approximately 75% of the total N

51

content (Adeniyan et al., 2011; Bary et al., 2000). Pig manure is also a source of phosphorus

52

compounds, which occur mainly as inorganic forms, accounting for 74% to 87% of the total P

53

content (Czop, 2011; Potarzycki, 2003).

54

Pig manure has a positive effect on the total mass of organic matter and microbial biomass

55

within soil. Its use has a positive impact on soil quality parameters, including aggregate

56

stability, light soil organic matter, and soil microbial biomass (Woli et al., 2012; Yague et al.,

57

2012).

58

According to EU regulations (Directive, 2003; Schroeder et al., 2007), the mass of manure used

59

for fertilization must not exceed 170 kg of N ha-1. Studies (Rufete et al., 2006; Sorensen and

60

Amato, 2002) have reported that soil fertilized with natural manure cannot be considered free

61

of pathogens and indicator organisms, such as coliforms, faecal streptococci, and Salmonella,

62

for at least one year after manure application. Fertilization with manure is prohibited in

63

Poland between December 1 and the end of February, as well as when the soil is flooded with

64

water, covered with snow or frozen to a depth of 30 cm, or during rainfall (Act, 2007).

65

In the last 10 years, industrial pig breeding has increased considerably in Poland (Stokłosa,

66

2015). On the one hand, manure from industrial pig farming is troublesome waste, with

67

storage costs amounting to 46–70 EUR per 1 t of manure. On the other hand, the value of

68

nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contained in 1 t of manure exceeds 19 EUR (Data, 2015;

69

Quin et al., 2014; USDA, 2003). Therefore, the proper use of manure as a fertilizer can be

70

economically well-founded. Unfortunately, farmland that can be fertilized with pig manure is

71

continuously decreasing in Poland, as well as in Europe, and the management of this waste is

72

becoming increasingly problematic (Burton and Turner, 2003; Hernández et al., 2007;

73

Stokłosa, 2015).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 74

Problems include the cost of manure transport, regardless of the size of the farm. Processing of

75

manure can be attractive if the global cost of treatment, transportation, and treatment product

76

application is less than the cost of transportation and the application of raw pig manure on

77

available soil (Basset and van der Werf, 2005; Flotats et al., 2009; Wiens et al., 2008). Phase

78

separation can be used to enhance manure management capability. The solid phase can be

79

transported further distances, and the liquid fraction can be used on nearby land via irrigation

80

systems or processed further (Burton, 2007; Caballero-Lajarin et al., 2015; Moeller et al.,

81

2002).

82

Decisions about on-farm or centralized manure management strategies should result from

83

detailed study and design. For example, two models use anaerobic digestion for pig manure

84

management in Germany, Denmark, Austria, and Sweden: farm-scale units and centralized

85

plants (Holm-Nielsen et al., 2009). Germany has more than 4,000 on-farm units, whereas

86

Denmark has 21 large-scale centralized anaerobic digestion systems and 60 farm-scale plants

87

(Wilkinson, 2011).

88

The objective of this work was to analyse factors involved in decision making and to design an

89

appropriate pig manure management system for the owner of 30,000 ha of arable lands and five

90

Polish pig farms that produce approximately 240,000 m3 of pig manure per year. Three

91

management systems were evaluated: storage of pig manure in lagoons, fertilization of the

92

farms’ own fields with produced manure, and AMAK treatment using the filtration method

93

(Makara, 2016; Makara and Kowalski, 2015, 2016). Comparisons were made using

94

BATNEEC options for evaluation (Kowalski, 2001; Kowalski et al., 2012; Makara et al.,

95

2016a).

96 97

2. Materials and Methods

98

2.1. Manure

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 99

The manure originating from five AF Company pig farms in Western Pomerania in Poland was

100

subjected to the analyses (Table 1). At each farm, samples were collected from a drainpipe that

101

carried slurry from the pig farm to a lagoon. For the analyses, 10 representative 5-L samples

102

of pig manure were collected at each farm, sampled in April, May, and June 2010, every

103

Monday at the same hour, 9 am.

104

The profiles of the stock raised on these farms were: FS1, production of piglets for growing out

105

at the FK farm and gilts for the renewal of FS1 stock; FK, growing out of piglets from the

106

FS1 farm for meat plants and other external sales; FP, production of piglets for growing out at

107

the FM farm and gilts for the renewal of FP stock; FS, production of piglets for growing out

108

and external sales and gilts for the renewal of FS stock; FM, growing out of piglets from the

109

FP farm for meat plants and other external sales. Both the number of grown pigs and the

110

breeding proportion profile changed significantly in the years 2008–2010, mainly due to

111

variable market demand for pork (Kowalski et al., 2013; Makara and Kowalski, 2016).

112 113

2.2. Analyses

114

The chemical composition of the pig manure, filtrate, and separated solid phase was

115

determined in accordance with Polish standards for the examination of waste and fertilizers

116

(Kowalski et al., 2013; PCS, 2016). For the nitrogen determination, a DK6 mineralizer and

117

equipment for steam distillation, both manufactured by VELP, were used. Phosphorus content

118

in the pig manure and filtrate was determined with the use of a Nanocolor UV/VIS

119

spectrophotometer manufactured by Macherey-Nagel. The colour and turbidity of the filtrate

120

samples were also determined by using a Nanocolor UV/VIS spectrophotometer equipped

121

with a turbidity meter. For mineralization of samples for determination of Chemical Oxygen

122

Demand (COD), an M-9 mineralizer manufactured by WSL was used. Macroelements,

123

microelements, and heavy metals were determined using an Inductively Coupled Plasma

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 124

Atomic Emission (ICP-AE) spectrometer, OPTIMA 7300 DV manufactured by Perkin Elmer.

125

The average composition of pig manure from the five farms is given in Table 2. The variable

126

composition of slurry resulted from the mass and profiles of the stock raised on these farms.

127

All batches of pig manure used could be classified as thick manure.

128 129

2.3. Method of analysis of pig manure management systems by BATNEEC options

130

The evaluation method to analyse options for projected production consisted of the following

131

realization stages: identifying ideas and preparation areas, formation of the assessment team,

132

generation of options and their screening, and evaluation of the option’s feasibility. The case

133

was analysed by a team of four experts. Formal ranking and relative weight of evaluation

134

were the tools used for option prioritization. The scope of the assessment included the

135

selection of evaluation criteria for the analysed options and their estimation, which were both

136

subjective. The evaluation was qualitative in its character. The basic target for the team was to

137

generate and assess options. After the team had agreed on the final option list, sets of criteria

138

against which to evaluate the options were developed. The set of 20 criteria was worked out

139

using the BATNEEC (Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Costs) method

140

(Kowalski and Makara, 2010). Technical, environmental, and economic criteria were

141

performed to assess the implementation results. Each member of the team assessed options,

142

and the sum of average scores for all criteria yielded the option’s overall score (Kowalski,

143

2001; Kowalski et al., 2011, 2012).

144 145

3.

Results and Discussion

146

3.1. Fertilization with pig manure

147

The dosage of liquid manure was based on determining the content of one component, usually

148

nitrogen. For determining the dosage, two main factors should be taken into account:

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 149

equivalency to a nitrogen fertilizer, with the equivalent value for potassium and phosphorus as

150

100, and the percentage of coverage of nutrients with respect to nitrogen (Maćkowiak, 1994,

151

Makara and Kowalski, 2016).

152

The analyses of soil fertilized with pig manure belonging to manure producer AF Company

153

indicated that average nitrogen content was low (0.7 mg per 100 g of soil). The potassium and

154

magnesium content was average. Due to the high phosphorus content (16–20 mg P2O5 per 100

155

g of soil), the recommended dose of nitrogen was decreased to achieve acceptable quantities

156

of both phosphorus and nitrogen (Makara and Kowalski, 2016; Stokłosa, 2015).

157

The calculation of the manure dose was performed for three values of nitrogen mineral

158

fertilizer equivalent to 70, 60, and 50. In agronomic practice (Czuba, 1994), the term N

159

Mineral Fertilizer Equivalent value (MFEN) may be used to describe how many kg of N in

160

mineral form can be replaced with 100 kg of total manure N. The demands for fertilizing

161

components were calculated by using the values from the FS farm (in kg ha-1) and were 65 N,

162

30 P2O5, 49 K2O (Makara and Kowalski, 2016; Stokłosa, 2015). The composition of the pig

163

manure is shown in Table 2. The calculated manure dose was 40 m3 ha-1. The average dose of

164

dense manure used in Polish agriculture is 50 m3 ha-1 (Maćkowiak, 1994).

165

Mainly low-fertility soils were fertilized with pig manure. Only 19% of soils fertilized with

166

manure contained good quality soil. The average crop yield on the five farms in the years

167

2008–2010 was (in t ha-1): rape, 2.8–3.0; barley, 3.5–5.1; triticale, 4.6–5.5; rye, 3.5–5.0;

168

maize, 4.8–6.0; wheat, 6.5; and mixture of spring crops, 3.0–4.5 (Makara and Kowalski,

169

2016; Stokłosa, 2015). These yields were comparable to the typical yields for Poland (Czuba,

170

1996; Maćkowiak, 1994). Different yields for individual farms were due to the quality of the

171

cultivated soil.

172

Table 3 presents the cumulative consumption of pig manure for fertilization between 2008 and

173

2010. The total area fertilized with liquid manure per year was 2803 ha. An average of 122,029

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 174

m3 per year of pig manure was used, comprising 223 t of total nitrogen and 127 t of mineral

175

nitrogen. The average applied dose of manure was 44 m3 ha-1 (range 19–74 m3 ha-1). The average

176

dose of mineral N was 53 kg ha-1 (range 25–82 kg ha-1), whereas the total nitrogen dose was 86

177

kg ha-1 (range 42–141 kg ha-1). The average percentage of total available nitrogen was 61%. The

178

average distance between the fields to be fertilized and the pig farms was relatively short (3 km).

179

In general, the owners of the pig farms and arable lands used 51% of the total quantity of the

180

produced pig manure for fertilization. However, legal regulations allow fertilization with pig

181

manure for only nine months per year. Moreover, the cost of manure transport decreases its

182

use for fertilization when the distance to the fields exceeds 10 km. Therefore, even the owner

183

of pig farms and large arable lands can utilize only part of the produced pig manure for

184

fertilization.

185 186

3.2. Manure storage

187

In Europe, animal manure collected in housing systems has to be stored until it can be

188

transported and spread in the fields (Hansen, 2004). Based on legal regulations (Directive,

189

2003), the actual average storage time for liquid manure is approximately six months in many

190

countries, but it can also vary. Differences in storage periods are partly due to different

191

cropping seasons and manure application strategies, as well as differences in the regulation of

192

livestock production.

193

Liquid manure is stored mostly in tanks made from concrete or enamelled steel sheets outside

194

the livestock houses. Lagoons are the major storage systems in the UK, some southern and

195

eastern European countries, and Poland. The main disadvantage of lagoons is poorly sealed

196

containment, which may cause uncontrolled manure leakage into the soil (Makara and

197

Kowalski, 2016). In addition, according to building laws, manure tanks should be covered

198

(Bertora et al., 2008; Makara and Kowalski, 2016). Slurry lagoons and tanks are usually not

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 199

covered unless there is a local tradition of covering liquid manure stores (e.g., in Switzerland)

200

or if the covers are required by law to reduce emission of NH3 and odour (e.g., in Denmark,

201

Finland, and the Netherlands) or to exclude rainfall (Berg et al., 2006). The liquid manure is

202

usually homogenized in the tank prior to its application. The total nitrogen content in liquid

203

manure remaining in the lagoons is 50%, whereas the manure used directly from the farm

204

contains 66% total N (Bary et al., 2000). The total phosphorus content in stored pig manure

205

decreases by a few percent to less than the content of fresh manure after 90 days (Czop, 2011;

206

Krawczyk and Walczak, 2010).

207

In the analysed case, 118,829 m3 of pig manure per year was stored in five open lagoons made

208

from concrete for a minimum of six months. The volume of the lagoons ranged from 20,000

209

to 100,000 m3. The storage costs were estimated to be 46–70 EUR per 1 t of manure,

210

depending on the quantity stored (Data, 2016; Stokłosa, 2015; USDA, 2003).

211 212

3.3. Pig manure processing by the AMAK method

213

The AMAK treatment and filtration method (Makara and Kowalski, 2015, 2016) (Figure 1)

214

has been tested successfully on a pilot scale, which also confirmed the possibility of

215

eliminating odour emission from the filtrate and separated solid phase (Makara et al., 2016b).

216

The technological process allows for the sequential treatment of pig slurry with phosphoric

217

and sulfuric acid. The goal of introducing the mineral acids is to convert the nutrients into

218

forms that are bioavailable for plants, binding the volatile inorganic and organic compounds

219

and mineralizing the organic matter. After mineralization with acids, the slurry is alkalized

220

with a solution of lime milk, superphosphate is introduced into the slurry, and the manure is

221

alkalized again with a solution of lime milk and then heated. Next, filtration is undertaken to

222

obtain the separated solid phase and the filtrate. The solid phase is then mixed with suitable

223

mineral nutrients in order to obtain mineral-organic fertilizers.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 224

Treating the pig manure with the acids and superphosphate results in crystalline inorganic

225

compounds being incorporated into the solid phase of slurry. These compounds can bind more

226

than 99% of phosphorus contained in treated manure, resulting in water-insoluble

227

hydroxyapatite. The presence of crystalline phase improves the structure of the filtered

228

precipitate, increasing the filtration capacity of the treated manure. When the filtrate and raw

229

manure are compared (Table 4), phase separation is shown to result in a 95% reduction in

230

chemical oxygen demand (COD)—80% for nitrogen and 99% for phosphorus.

231

The obtained filtrate may be used for field irrigation or treated in conventional biological

232

sewage treatment plants.

233 234

3.4. Production of a mineral-organic fertilizer from separated solid phase

235

Solid phase containing significant amounts of bio-absorbable phosphorus compounds (Table

236

5) and microelements (Table 6) may be used for the production of mineral-organic fertilizers.

237

The formulations of nine fertilizers designed for rape, barley, triticale, rye, maize, wheat,

238

grass, oat, or a mixture of spring crops have been developed (Makara, 2016; Makara and

239

Kowalski, 2016; Stokłosa, 2015). As an example, Table 7 presents the balance sheets of

240

mineral-organic fertilizers for plants grown in soil with low phosphorus content (wheat).

241

The quantity of mineral-organic fertilizers produced by the AMAK method at different

242

treatment unit capacities is presented in Table 8. Generally, the mass of separated solid phase

243

produced is approximately five times lower than the mass of treated manure, and the mass of

244

produced mineral-organic fertilizer is three times lower than the mass of treated manure.

245

Studies of fertilization values have demonstrated that mineral-organic fertilizers containing

246

separated solid phase have a high value, indicating the possibility of their use in the

247

cultivation of maize, wheat, and rape. Experiments to determine the most effective

248

recommended dose were based on an assessment of the impact of fertilizers on the yield of

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 249

individual plant species and their chemical composition. Nutrients in fertilizers were also

250

included to enrich the soil (Makara and Kowalski, 2016; Stokłosa, 2015).

251

The calculation of manure processing costs was based on data reported from the tests on the

252

pilot unit for the scale of 15,000 t y-1 (Makara and Kowalski, 2016). The investment costs

253

were assumed to be 230,000 EUR. The installation is assumed to work for eight hours a day.

254

Four employees and one supervising technologist are sufficient to operate the installation in

255

one shift. The calculated costs show that it is possible to cover the manure treatment costs

256

with revenues from the sale of the produced fertilizer when it is sold for 186 EUR per 1 t of

257

treated manure (Makara and Kowalski, 2015). In Poland, the average price of 1 kg N is 1

258

EUR, 1 kg P is 3 EUR, and 1 kg K is 3 EUR. The price of urea is changing. In March 2017,

259

the price in Poland was around 330 EUR. However, in the last five years the global price of

260

urea decreased from 417 EUR in April 2012 to 208.5 EUR in February 2017 (Farmer, 2017;

261

Schnitkey, 2015).

262

Other profits result from cost savings: elimination of lagoon maintenance as well as manure

263

management and environmental costs.

264

The AMAK process is relatively inexpensive (i.e., low operating costs) and does not require

265

considerable investment.

266

Table 9 presents the balance of fertilization using different quantities of produced and

267

consumed pig manure. Thus, to use 122,029 m3 of manure in direct application as a fertilizer,

268

2,803 ha of farmland is needed. The utilization of this manure is equivalent to 42,710 t of

269

mineral-organic fertilizers and requires 142,367 ha of field.

270 271 272 273

3.5. Comparison of the analysed pig manure management systems using BATNEEC options

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 274

Three pig manure management systems were compared using the BATNEEC options method:

275

storage of pig manure in lagoons, fertilization of the farms’ own fields with pig manure

276

produced, and the AMAK treatment and filtration method resulting in production of mineral-

277

organic fertilizers from the separated solid phase and other fertilizer components.

278

Using the BATNEEC options (Dijkmans, 2000; Makara et al., 2016a), the systems were

279

analysed on the basis of technical, environmental, and economic consequences of their

280

implementation (Table 10).

281

The scope of the assessment included the selection of evaluation criteria for the analysed

282

options and their estimation, which were both subjective. Twenty criteria were proposed

283

(Figure 2), and the maximum score for each management system was 200 points. The criteria

284

are universal and can be used for any process after appropriate adaptation to its specific needs.

285

The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 2 on the basis of an average assessment

286

score rated by the team of four experts.

287

Assessments shown in Figure 2 indicate that the top-rated system is related to methods with

288

very high environmental and economic efficiencies, rather low investment costs, and short

289

implementation time. Management systems based on the AMAK method have a very high

290

score of 179 points (89% of maximum), which can be considered the best BATNEEC option.

291

However, the options of fertilization with manure (78 points) and storage of pig slurry (44

292

points) had very low scores (39% and 22% of maximum, respectively).

293

The management systems worked out for the group of five farms producing approximately

294

240,000 t y-1 of pig manure, based on the estimation of BATNEEC options, include the

295

following key assumptions (Figure 3):

296

 Elimination of manure storage in lagoons.

297

 Application of approximately 120,000 t y-1 of pig manure as a fertilizer.

298

 Processing approximately 120,000 t y-1 of pig slurry by the AMAK method on each farm

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 299

(at a scale appropriate to the mass of manure available for processing) and the total

300

production of approximately 27,000 t y-1 of separated solid phase. This may be a system of

301

farm-scale units, which is relatively simple for possible implementation.

302

 The use of approximately 27,000 t y-1 of separated solid phase to produce approximately

303

43,000 t y-1 of mineral-organic fertilizers in one central unit for mixing fertilizers (typical

304

centralized scale unit). The production of fertilizers by this method could easily be adapted

305

to the type of crops and the demand for fertilizer components in soils. It would also be

306

relatively simple technology with possible quick implementation.

307 308

4. Conclusions

309

The BATNEEC method was used to evaluate three systems for pig manure management:

310

manure storage, fertilization of arable lands, and processing of pig manure by the AMAK

311

filtration method with fertilizer production. Each option was evaluated by qualitative methods

312

using specific criteria formulated for the evaluation. Processing by the AMAK method

313

(considered the best BATNEEC) had very high scores, whereas fertilization with pig manure

314

and storage of pig slurry had low scores.

315

Thus, the proposed system of pig manure management involves application of half the

316

produced pig manure as a fertilizer (this is the real amount of pig manure used for fertilization

317

in the analysed case), and processing the other half of the produced manure by the AMAK

318

method into mineral-organic fertilizers. Pig manure could be used for fertilization only in the

319

months of the year when it is permitted by law. Processing of the manure originating directly

320

from pig farming is possible throughout the year. In this way, manure storage in lagoons

321

could be eliminated.

322

References

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 323

Act on fertilizers and fertilization of 10 July 2007, Pol. J. Laws 2007, No 147, Item 1033, (in

324

Polish).

325

Adeniyan, O.N., Ojo, A.O., Akinbode, O.A., Adediran, J.A., 2011. Comparative study of

326

different organic manures and NPK fertilizer for improvement of soil chemical properties and

327

dry matter yield of maize in two different soils. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage. 2, 9–13.

328

Bary, A., Cogger, C., Sullivan, D.M., 2000. Fertilizing with manure. PNW0533, Washington

329

State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA.

330

Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of

331

farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105, 127–

332

144.

333

Berg, W., Brunsch, R., Pazsiczki, I., 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from covered slurry

334

compared with uncovered during storage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 129–134.

335

Bertora, C., Alluvione, F., Zavattaro, L., van Groenigen, J.W., Velthof, G., Grignani, C.,

336

2008. Pig slurry treatment modifies slurry composition, N2O, and CO2 emissions after soil

337

incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 1999–2006.

338

Burton, C.H., 2007. The potential contribution of separation technologies to the management

339

of livestock manure. Livest. Sci. 112, 208–216.

340

Burton, C.H., Turner, C., 2003. Manure management: Treatment strategies for sustainable

341

agriculture, second ed. Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, UK.

342

Caballero-Lajarín, A., Zornoza, R., Faz, A., Lobera, J.B., Muñoz, M.A., Domínguez-Olivier,

343

S.G., 2015. Combination of low-cost technologies for pig slurry purification under semiarid

344

mediterranean conditions. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 226, 341.

345

Central Statistical Office, Department of Agriculture. State population of pigs in June 2014,

346

Warsaw, Poland, 09.15.2015, (in Polish).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 347

Czop, M., 2011. Biogenic potential of waste from pig stock. Arch. Waste Manage. Environ.

348

Prot. 13, 53–64, (in Polish).

349

Czuba, R., 1996. Mineral fertilization of crops, ZCh POLICE S.A., Police, (in Polish).

350

Data of Agrifarm Company, 2016 (personal unpublished information in Polish).

351

Dijkmans, R., 2000. Methodology for selection of best available techniques (BAT) at the

352

sector level. J. Clean. Prod. 8, 11–21.

353

Directive (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and Council of 13th October 2003

354

on fertilizers.

355

Farmer.pl., 2017. Market of mineral fertilizers in Poland. http://www.farmer.pl/

356

(accessed17.07.05), (in Polish).

357

Flotats, X., Bonmati, A., Fernandez, B., Magri, A., 2009. Manure treatment technologies: On-

358

farm versus centralized strategies. NE Spain as case study. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 5519–

359

5526.

360

Hansen, M.N., 2004. Influence of storage of deep litter manure on ammonia loss and

361

nniformity of mass and nutrient distribution following land spreading. Biosyst. Eng. 87, 99–

362

107.

363

Hernández, D., Fernández, J.M., Plaza, C., Polo, A., 2007. Water-soluble organic matter and

364

biological activity of a degraded soil amended with pig slurry. Sci. Total Environ. 378, 101–

365

103.

366

Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Al Seadi, T., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., 2009. The future of anaerobic

367

digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 5478–5484.

368

Jorgensen, K., Jensen, L.S., 2009. Chemical and biochemical variation in animal manure

369

solids separated using different commercial separation technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 100,

370

3088–3096.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 371

Kowalski, Z. 2001. Evaluation of options of production process modernization on the

372

example of sodium chromate production process. Pol. J. Chem. Technol. 3, 20–28.

373

Kowalski, Z., Generowicz, A., Makara, A., 2012. Evaluation of the municipal waste storage

374

technologies using BATNEEC method. Przem. Chem. 91/5, 805–810, (in Polish).

375

Kowalski, Z., Generowicz, A., Makara, A. Banach, M., 2011. Evaluation of phosphoric acid

376

production technology using methods of BATNEEC options and multicriteria analysis.

377

Przem. Chem. 90/5, 853–856, (in Polish).

378

Kowalski, Z., Makara, A., 2010. Methods of ecological and economic evaluation of

379

technology. Chemik 64, 158–167, (in Polish).

380

Kowalski, Z., Makara, A., Fijorek, K., 2013. Changes in the properties of pig manure slurry.

381

Acta Biochim. Pol. 60, 845–850.

382

Krawczyk, W., Walczak, J., 2010. Biogenic potential of manure as a source of ammonia

383

emissions and environmental threat. Ann. Zootech. Sci. 37, 187–193 (in Polish).

384

Lens, P., Hamelers, B., Hoitink, H., Bidlingmaier, W., 2004. Resource recovery and reuse in

385

organic solid waste management, IWA Publishing, London.

386

Maćkowiak, Cz., 1994. Rules on the use of manure, IUNG, Puławy, (in Polish).

387

Makara, A., Kowalski, Z., 2015. Pig manure treatment and purification by filtration. J.

388

Environ. Manag. 161, 317–324.

389

Makara, A., 2016. Processing of pig manure and its separation with filtration method, 199,

390

Minerals and Energy Economy Research Institute PAN, Kraków, (in Polish).

391

Makara, A., Kowalski, Z., 2016. Innovative bio-products for agriculture: Pig manure

392

utilization and treatment, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York.

393

Makara, A., Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Kowalski, Z., 2016a. Technological, environmental and

394

economic assessment of sodium tripolyphosphate production – a case study. J. Clean. Prod.

395

133, 243–251.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 396

Makara, A., Kowalski, Z., Sówka, I., 2016b. Possibility to eliminate emission of odor from

397

pig manure treated using AMAK filtration method. Desalin. Water Treat. 57, 1543–1551.

398

Marquer, P., Rabade, T., Forti, R., 2014. Pig farming sector - statistical portrait 2014. Pig

399

farming in the European Union: considerable variations from one Member State to another.

400

Eurostat. Statistics Explained.http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php

401

/Pig_farming_sector_-_statistical_portrait_2014/(accessed17.07.05).

402

Moeller, H. B., Sommer, S.G., Ahring, B. K., 2002. Separation efficiency and particle size

403

distribution in relation to manure type and storage conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 85, 189–

404

196.

405

Polish Committee for Standardization, 2016. Polish standards for examination of waste,

406

wastewater and fertilizers: PN-EN ISO 6878:2006; PN-ISO 7980:2002; PN-EN 13346:2002;

407

PN-EN 25663:2001; PN-Z-15011-3:2001; PN 93/C-87085:1993.

408

Potarzycki, J., 2003. Phosphorus in the soil. Elements in the environment. Phosphorus. J.

409

Elem. 8, 19–32.

410

Quinn, A., Brady, S., Carroll, C., Clarke, S., Lalor, S., McKeon, M., McCutcheon, G., 2014.

411

Pig Manure: A Valuable Fertiliser. Teagesac Pig Development Department.

412

https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2014/Pig_ManureA_valuable_fertiliser.pd

413

f/(accessed 17.07.04).

414

Rufete, B., Perez-Murcia, M.D., Perez-Espinosa, A., Moral, R., Moreno-Caselles, J., Paredes,

415

C., 2006. Total and faecal coliform bacteria persistence in a pig slurry amended soil. Livest.

416

Sci. 102, 211–215.

417

Sánchez, M., González, J.L., 2005. The fertilizer value of pig slurry. I. Values depending on

418

the type of operations. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 1117–1123.

419

Schepers, J.S., Raun, W., 2008. Nitrogen in agricultural systems. Agron. Monogr. 49, 101–

420

156.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 421

Schnitkey, G., December 15, 2015. Current Fertilizer Prices and Projected 2016 Fertilizer

422

Costs. http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2015/12/current-fertilizer-prices-and-projected-

423

2016-costs.html/(accessed17.07.05).

424

Schroeder, J.J., Aarts, H.F.M., Curth-van Middelkoop, J.C., Haan, M.H.A., de Schils, R.L.M.,

425

Velthof, G.L., Fraters, B., Willems, W.J., 2007. Permissible manure and fertilizer use in dairy

426

farming systems on sandy soils in the Netherlands to comply with the Nitrates Directive

427

target. Eur. J. Agron. 27, 102–114.

428

Sorensen, P., Amato, M., 2002, Remineralization and residual effects of N after application of

429

pig slurry to soil. Eur. J. Agron. 16, 81–95.

430

Stokłosa, K. 2015. Research on utilization of waste slurry from pig farming. West Pomeranian

431

University of Technology. Szczecin. Ph.D. Dissertation, (in Polish).

432

Troy, S.M., 2012. Treatment options for the separated solid fraction of pig manure. National

433

University of Ireland Galway. Galway. Ph.D. Dissertation.

434

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003.

435

Costs Associated with Development and Implementation of Comprehensive Nutrient

436

Management Plans. Part I—Nutrient Management, Land Treatment, Manure and Wastewater

437

Handling and Storage, and Recordkeeping, June 2003.

438

Wiens, M.J., Entz, M.H., Wilson, C., Ominski, K.H., 2008. Energy requirements for transport

439

and surface application of liquid pig manure in Manitoba. Canada. Agric. Syst. 98, 74–81.

440

Wilkinson, K.G., 2011. A comparison of the drivers influencing the adoption of on-farm

441

anaerobic digestion in Germany and Australia. Biomass Bioenerg. 35, 1613–1622.

442

Woli, K.P., Rakshit, S., Lundvall, J.P., Sawyer, J.E., Barker, D.W., 2012. On-Farm

443

Evaluation of Liquid Swine Manure as a Nitrogen Source for Corn Production. J. Agron. 105,

444

248–262.

445

Yague, M.R., Bosch-Serra, D.A., Antúnez, M., Boixadera, J., 2012. Pig slurry and mineral

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 446

fertilization strategies' effects on soil quality: Macroaggregate stability and organic matter

447

reactions. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 218–224.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1. Flow chart of the processing of pig manure by the AMAK method.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 2. Criteria and evaluation of pig manure management systems by the BATNEEC options method. Evaluation of options on grading scale 0–10 points.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3. Scheme of the pig manure management system proposed for five farms.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Average yearly head of stock, by type, for AF Company farms in 2008–2010. Farm names: FP Przytoczna, FM Miłostowo, FS1 Śmiłowo, FK Komorzewo, FS Słowenkowo. Farm FP FM FS1 FK FS Total % of total population

Pig type Total 18,579 32,100 6,222 15,500 25,500 97,901

Sows 2,877

Gilts 2,431

Weeners 2,500

Piglets 9,771

5,012

2,800 5,231

Fattening pigs 1,000 32,100 7 3,950 8,100 80,157

3,950 5,600 12,050

4,080 7,600 9,000 30,451

5.1

5.3

81.9

12.3

31.1

2,135

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Average composition of pig manure from five AF Company farms, 2008–2010. Farm names: FP Przytoczna, FM Miłostowo, FS1 Śmiłowo, FK Komorzewo, FS Słowenkowo. Farm

Dry mass (%)

Content (kg m-3 of liquid manure) ± SD Nt Nm P2O5 FS1 7.7±0.45 2.2±0.15 1.3±0.10 0.7±0.04 FK 7.1±0.40 1.6±0.11 1.0±0.07 0.7±0.04 FP 6.9±0.35 1.0±0.07 0.7±0.02 0.2±0.02 FS 8.5±0.51 2.4±0.16 1.6±0.12 0.5±0.03 FM 7.9±0.45 1.9±0.13 1.1±0.08 0.5±0.03 Average 7.6±0.45 1.8±0.13 1.1±0.08 0.5±0.03 SD, standard deviation for 10 samples from each farm; Nt, total N; Nm, mineral N.

K 2O 1.1±0.07 1.6±0.11 0.6±0.04 1.1±0.07 1.1±0.07 1.1±0.07

Table 3. Utilisation of pig manure for field fertilization on five pig farms, 2008–2010. Farm names: FP Przytoczna, FM Miłostowo, FS1 Śmiłowo, FK Komorzewo, FS Słowenkowo. Pig farm

Year

Manure Produced (m3 y-1) 11 500 11 866 FS1 11 400 11 866 11 350 11 866 24 200 24 340 FK 24 240 24 340 24 300 24 340 37 050 37 052 FP 37 000 37 052 37 020 37 052 112 140 112 350 FS 112 200 112 350 112 350 112 350 55 240 55 250 FM 55 100 55 250 55 145 55 250 Total 2008–10 720 235 Average per year 240078 Nt, total N; Nm, mineral N.

Utilised (m3 y-1) 13 934 8558 5454 14 316 10 609 10 609 37 429 24 104 24 104 34 857 34 857 34 857 35 873 37 127 39 399 366 087 122 029

(%) used for fertilization 121 75 48 59 44 44 101 65 65 31 31 31 65 67 71 51 51

Dose (m3 ha-1) 25 19 26 59 45 45 70 45 45 45 45 45 72 74 72 44 44

Quantity from manure Nt Nt -1 (kg y ) (kg ha-1) 30 305 55 19 362 42 11 799 57 22 654 94 16 992 72 16 992 72 37 520 70 24 120 45 24 120 45 83 700 108 83 700 108 83 700 108 68 363 137 70 359 141 74 665 137 51 86 86 222 784

Nm (kg y-1) 20 722 15 112 3906 14 962 18 082 1179 30 081 15 901 6642 40 279 53 679 40 279 39 461 44 935 34 658 379 878 126 626

Nm (kg ha-1) 32 25 34 59 45 45 49 32 32 72 72 72 79 82 79 53 53

P2O5 (kg ha-1) 18 13 18 41 32 32 14 9 9 23 23 23 36 37 36 23 23

K 2O (kg ha-1) 28 21 29 94 72 72 42 27 27 50 50 50 79 81 79 51 51

Crop area fertilized (ha) 551 461 207 241 236 236 536 536 536 775 775 775 499 499 545 8409 2803

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4. Characteristics of the filtrate obtained while using the most advantageous parameters. Sample Parameter obtained (SD for duplicate analysis) DM pH Colour Turbidity K Ca TKN -1 -1 -1 -1 (g L ) (mg Pt L ) (NTU) (g L ) (g L ) (g L-1) 1 <0.01 6.47 1650 8 3.05±0.15 1.95±0.11 1.67±0.08 2 <0.01 7.10 1593 10 1.15±0.03 0.19±0.01 0.59±0.03 3 <0.01 6.89 1140 6 1.08±0.05 0.61±0.03 0.77±0.04 4 <0.01 7.22 1420 13 2.00±0.11 1.75±0.08 1.76±0.08 5 <0.01 6.92 1368 10 2.31±0.12 2.31±0.12 1.27±0.06 6 <0.01 6.82 1220 5 0.95±0.04 1.62±0.08 0.86±0.05 DM, dry matter; TKN, total Kjeldahl nitrogen; COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand

COD (g L-1) 4.42±0.22 0.44±0.23 3.90±0.20 3.11±0.15 5.53±0.28 1.09±0.04

P (mg L-1) 70.0±3.5 10.0±0.06 20.0±1.0 60.0±3.1 60.0±3.0 30.0±1.5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5. Analysis of separated solid phase. Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6

Content of (% ± SD for duplicate analysis) N Ca K Mg 0.88±0.6 26.52±1.67 0.21±0.01 0.45±0.03 0.95±0.7 27.20±1.68 0.22±0.01 0.48±0.03 0.93±0.7 25.39±1.65 0.18±0.01 0.46±0.03 0.91±0.6 22.10±1.60 0.21±0.01 0.50±0.04 0.94±0.7 22.79±1.61 0.18±0.01 0.48±0.04 0.95±0.7 25.62±1.66 0.20±0.01 0.45±0.03

P 12.07±0.62 12.45±0.64 11.47±0.60 11.62±0.60 11.73±0.61 12.99±0.68

S 1.19±0.06 1.43±0.07 1.71±0.09 1.57±0.08 1.28±0.06 1.37±0.07

Moisture 45.3±0.5 47.4±0.5 42.0±0.5 49.8±0.5 43.9±0.5 47.7±0.5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 6. Microelement and heavy metal content of separated solid phase (SD for duplicate analysis). Denotation/ Sample B Cu Fe Mn Mo Zn As Cr Ni Cd Hg Pb

Content in sediment samples (mg kg-1) 1 26 32 884 86 0.77 186 5.5 50 4.6 2.6 0.02 1.4

2 23 42 892 97 0.89 216 4.5 52 3.5 2.6 0.018 1.1

3 22 37 980 80 0.95 218 7.0 71 4.4 3.4 0.027 1.7

4 28 22 742 77 0.76 155 5.6 36 3.2 2.0 0.015 1.0

5 24 24 880 65 0.50 130 3.6 32 3.1 1.7 0.016 1.7

6 25 30 878 80 no 180 5.0 50 3.9 2.5 no no

Average value 7 25 31 876 81 0.77 181 5.2 48.2 3.8 2.5 0.019 1.4

SD

2.4 8.5 85 12 0.17 38 1.3 8.0 0.63 0.65 0.0048 0.33

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 7. Universal fertilizer cultivated on soil with low phosphorus and microelement content (N:P2O5:K2O (4:7.5:7.5) + 0.1 B; 0.1 Cu; 0.2 Mn; 0.01 Mo; 0.2 Zn). No Component

1

Sediment from pig manure treatment

Nutrient (kg) Mass (kg per 1,000 kg Nt NA of fertilizer) 604.4

2.24

1.33

P2O5 K2O

CaO MgO Cu Mn B

75.0 1.09

91.9

Zn Mo

2 (NH4)2SO4 188.8 37.76 37.76 3 KCl 123.2 73.92 5 MgCO3 55.7 22.3 . 6 CuSO4 5H2O 3.94 1.0 7 MnSO4 . H2O 6.15 2.0 . 8 Na2B4O7 10H2O 8.85 1.0 9 ZnSO4 . 7H2O 8.81 2.0 . 10 (NH4)6Mo7O24 7H2O 0.184 0.1 Total 1,000 40.0 38.89 75.0 75.01 91.9 22.3 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 Mass of sediment per 1 t of manure used (kg) 211.5 Mass of fertilizer produced from 1 t of manure (kg) 349.9 Nt, total nitrogen; NA, ammonium nitrogen.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 8. Quantity of separated solid phase containing 10% humidity and fertilizers produced for different masses of treated pig manure with average 8% dry matter (based on the example of universal fertilizer from Table 7). Capacity (t y-1)

Sediment quantity (10% H2O) Filtrate quantity Fertilizer quantity -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 (kg t of (t d ) (t y ) (kg t of (t d ) (t y ) (kg t-1 of (t d-1) (t y-1) manure) manure) manure) 15,000a 222 10 3,330 551 25 8,265 350 17 5,250 100,000 222 67 22,200 551 165 55,100 350 111 35,000 c 122,029 222 82 27,090 551 201 67,238 350 136 42,710 240,078b 222 164 54,180 551 402 134,476 350 271 84,027 a Feasibility study was developed for installations with an annual capacity of 15,000 tons b Quantity of manure produced and c utilised for fertilization

Table 9. Balance of fertilization for different quantities of manure used and mineral organic fertilizers produced from treated manure. II – Consumption of pig manure from five pig farms for field fertilization Manure produced in five farms (m3 y-1) 240,078

Utilised (m3 y-1)

Used for fertilization (%)

Dose (m3 ha-1)

Quantity from manure Nt Nt Nm -1 -1 (kg y ) (kg ha ) (kg y-1)

Nm (kg ha-1)

P2O5 (kg ha-1)

CaO (kg ha-1)

K 2O (kg ha-1)

Crop area fertilized (ha)

122,029

51

49

222,784

53

23

92

51

2,803

Nm (kg ha-1)

P2O5 (kg ha-1)

CaO (kg ha-1)

K 2O (kg ha-1)

Crop area fertilized (ha)

118 118 118 118

23 23 23 23

92 92 92 92

23 23 23 23

17,500 116,667 142,367 280,090

86

126,626

III – Consumption of mineral-organic fertilizer produced from filtration sediment Manure Fertilizer treatment Produced capacity (t y-1) 3 -1 (m y ) 15,000 5,250 100,000 35,000 122,029 42,710 240,078 84,027 Nt, total N; Nm, mineral N.

Utilised (t y-1)

Dose (kg ha-1)

Quantity from fertilizer Nt Nt Nm (kg y-1) (kg ha-1) (kg y-1)

5,250 35,000 42,710 84,027

300 300 300 300

210,000 1,400,000 1,708,400 3,361,080

120 120 120 120

204,173 1,361,150 1,660,992 3,267,810

Table 10. Evaluated pig manure management options. Management systems

Consequences of implementation Technical

Environmental

Economic High storage costs. Negative impact on the local environment. High cost of land used for Irrecoverable loss of raw materials. Emission of odours and GHG. I – Storage of pig manure construction of lagoons. No technology for revitalization of landfills. Pollution of groundwater. High cost of maintenance of closed Consumption of land for a very long time. landfills. Decrease in amount of stored manure. Utilisation of nutrients and other manure High transportation costs decreased Negative local impact on the environment II – Fertilization with components. possibility of fertilization with during and as a result of fertilization. manure manure. Limited period of fertilization. Partial elimination of manure storage. Deficiency of field for fertilization. Limitation of fertilizer doses. Deficiency of field for fertilization. Utilisation of nutrients and other manure Profitability of fertilizer production. III – Treatment of manure components. Elimination of manure storage. Relatively low investment costs. by AMAK method. Production of mineral-organic fertilizers Total utilisation of waste. No limitation in sale of products. Production of mineralbased on separated solid phase. Elimination of odours and GHG emission. Potentially rather high area of fields that should be fertilized with organic fertilizers based Utilisation of filtrate for irrigation of fields or Elimination of land use for storage. produced fertilizer. on separated solid phase purification in biological wastewater Elimination of groundwater pollution. treatment plants.