Composition, potential emissions and agricultural value of pig slurry from Spanish commercial farms

[EN] Pig slurry is a valuable fertilizer for crop production but at the same time its management may pose environmental risks. Slurry samples were collected from 77 commercial farms of four animal categories (gestating and lactating sows, nursery piglets and growing pigs) and analyzed for macronutrients, micronutrients, heavy metals and volatile fatty acids. Emissions of ammonia (NH3) and biochemical methane potential (BMP) were quantified. Slurry electrical conductivity, pH, dry matter content and ash content were also determined. Data analysis included an analysis of correlations among variables, the development of predictionmodels for gaseousemissions and the analysis of nutritional content of slurries for crop production. Descriptive information is provided in this work and shows a wide range of variability in all studied variables. Animal category affected some physicochemical parameters, probably as a consequence of different slurry management and use of cleaning water. Slurries from gestating sows and growing pigs tended to be more concentrated in nutrients, whereas the slurry from lactating sows and nursery piglets tended to be more diluted. Relevant relationships were found among slurry characteristics expressed in fresh basis and gas emissions. Predictivemodels using on-farmmeasurable parameterswere obtained forNH3 (R2 = 0.51) andCH4 (R2 = 0.76), which suggests that BMP may be estimated in commercial farms from easily determined slurry characteristics. Finally, slurry nutrient composition was highly variable. Therefore, complete analyses of slurries should be performed for an effective and environmental friendly land application.This project was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (AGL2011-30023) and the Valencian Government (ACOMP/2013/118). We thank the BABEL Project, Building Academic Bonds between Europe and Latin America. Erasmus Mundus Programme Action 2 for PhD fellowships. The translation of this paper was funded by the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Spain.Antezana-Julian, WO.; Blas, CD.; García-Rebollar, P.; Rodríguez, C.; Beccaccia, A.; Ferrer Riera, P.; Cerisuelo, A.... (2016). Composition, potential emissions and agricultural value of pig slurry from Spanish commercial farms. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 104(2):159-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9764-3S1591731042Aarnink AJA, Verstegen MWA (2007) Nutrition, key factor to reduce environmental load from pig production. Livest Sci 109(1–3):194–203Abubaker J, Risberg K, Jönsson E, Dahlin A S, Cederlund H, Pell M (2015) Short-term effects of biogas digestates and pig slurry application on soil microbial activity. Appl Environ Soil Sci. Article ID 658542: 1–15Adekunle KF, Okolie JA (2015) A review of biochemical process of anaerobic digestion. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 6:205–212Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL, Guwy J, Kalyuzhnyi S, Jenicek P, Van Lier JB (2009) Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci Technol 59(5):927–934Antezana W, Calvet S, Beccaccia A, Ferrer P, De Blas C, García-Rebollar P, Cerisuelo A (2015) Effects of nutrition on digestion efficiency and gaseous emissions from slurry in growing pigs: III. Influence of varying the dietary level of calcium soap of palm fatty acids distillate with or without orange pulp supplementation. Anim Feed Sci Technol 209:128–136APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Centennial, BaltimoreBai ZH, Qin W, Chen Q, Oenema O, Zhang FS (2014) Changes in pig production in china and their effects on nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses. Environ Sci Technol 48:12742–12749Beccaccia A, Ferrer P, Ibáñez MA, Estellés F, Rodríguez C, Moset V, De Blas C, Calvet S, García-rebollar P (2015) Relationships among slurry characteristics and gaseous emissions at different types of commercial spanish pig farms. Span J Agric Res 13(1):1–15Conn KL, Topp E, Lazarovits G (2007) Factors influencing the concentration of volatile fatty acids, ammonia, and other nutrients in stored liquid pig manure. J Environ Qual 36(2):440–447Diacono M, Montemurro F (2010) Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:401–422. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009040Díez JA, Hernaiz P, Muñoz MJ, Torre A, Vallejo A (2006) Impact of pig slurry on soil properties, water salinization, nitrate leaching and crop yield in a four-year experiment in Central Spain. Soil Use Manag 20(4):444–450Dourmad J-Y, Jondreville C (2007) Impact of nutrition on nitrogen, phosphorus, Cu and Zn in pig manure, and on emissions of ammonia and odours. Livest Sci 112(3):192–198EUROSTAT (2015) Pig farming sector—statistical portrait. Pig Farming in the European Union: considerable variations from one member state to another. Statistics in Focus 15/2014. Author: Pol Marquer, Teresa Rabade, Roberta Forti ISSN:2314-9647, Catalogue number: KS-SF-14-015-EN-NFangueiro D, Lopes C, Surgy S, Vasconcelos E (2012a) Effect of the pig slurry separation techniques on the characteristics and potential availability of N to plants in the resulting liquid and solid fractions. Biosyst Eng 113(2):187–194Fangueiro D, Ribeiro H, Vasconcelos E, Coutinho J, Cabral F (2012b) Influence of animal slurries composition and relative particle size fractions on the C and N mineralization following soil incorporation. Biomass Bioenergy 47:50–51Ferrer P, Cambra-López M, Cerisuelo A, Peñaranda D, Moset V (2014) The use of agricultural substrates to improve methane yield in anaerobic co-digestion with pig slurry: effect of substrate type and inclusion level. Waste Manag 34:196–203Galassi G, Colombini S, Malagutti L, Crovetto GM, Rapetti L (2010) Effects of high fibre and low protein diets on performance, digestibility, nitrogen excretion and ammonia emission in the heavy pig. Anim Feed Sci Technol 161:3–4Gopalan P, Jensen PD, Batstone DJ (2013) Anaerobic digestion of swine effluent: impact of production stages. Biomass Bioenergy 48:121–129Hernández D, Fernández JM, Plaza C, Polo A (2007) Water-soluble organic matter and biological activity of a degraded soil amended with pig slurry. Sci Total Environ 378:101–103Hernández D, Polo A, Plaza C (2013) Long-term effects of pig slurry on barley yield and N use efficiency under semiarid mediterranean conditions. Eur J Agron 44:47–86Hristov AN, Oh J, Lee C, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan A, Yang W, Tricarico J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Dijkstra J, Oosting S (2013) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production—A review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. In: Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Makkar HPS (eds) FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177. FAO, RomeIguácel F, Yagüe MR, Betrán J, Orús F (2011) Ensayos de Fertilización Con Purín Porcino, En Cereales de Invierno de Secano, Dirección General de Desarrollo Rural, Centro de Transferencia Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón. Informe Técnico 226:15Jarret G, Cerisuelo A, Peu P, Martinez J, Dourmad JY (2012) Impact of pig diets with different fibre contents on the composition of excreta and their gaseous emissions and anaerobic digestion. Agric Ecosyst Environ 160:51–58Jouany JP (1982) Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Sci Alimen 2:131–144Krupa SV (2003) Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. Environ Pollut 124(2):179–221Mantovi P, Fumagalli L, Beretta GP, Guermandi M (2006) Nitrate leaching through the unsaturated zone following pig slurry applications. J Hydrol 316:1–4Martínez-Suller L, Azzellino A, Provolo G (2008) Analysis of livestock slurries from farms across Northern Italy: relationship between indicators and nutrient content. Biosyst Eng 99(4):540–552Moral R, Moreno-Caselles J, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, Rufete B, Paredes C (2005a) Characterisation of the organic matter pool in manures. Bioresour Technol 96(2):153–158Moral R, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, Moreno-Caselles J, Paredes C (2005b) Estimation of nutrient values of pig slurries in Southeast Spain using easily determined properties. Waste Manag 25(7):719–725Moral R, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, Moreno-Caselles J, Paredes C, Rufete B (2008) Salinity, organic content, micronutrients and heavy metals in pig slurries from South-Eastern Spain. Waste Manag 28(2):367–371Morazán H, Alvarez-Rodriguez J, Seradj AR, Balcells J, Babot D (2015) Trade-offs among growth performance, nutrient digestion and carcass traits when feeding low protein and/or high neutral-detergent fiber diets to growing-finishing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 207:168–180Moset V, Cambra-López M, Estellés F, Torres AG, Cerisuelo A (2012) Evolution of chemical composition and gas emissions from aged pig slurry during outdoor storage with and without prior solid separation. Biosyst Eng 111(1):2–10Ndegwa PM, Vaddella VK, Hristov N, Joo HS (2009) Measuring concentrations of ammonia in ambient air or exhaust air stream using acid traps.  J Environ Qual 38(2):647–653Nicholson FA, Chambers BJ, Williams JR, Unwin RJ (1999) Heavy metal contents of livestock feeds and animal manures in England and Wales. Bioresour Technol 70(1):23–31Olusegun OS (2014) Influence of NPK 15-15-15 Fertilizer and Pig Manure on Nutrient Dynamics and Production of Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata L. Walp. Am J Agric For 2(6):267Parera i Pous J, Olivé D, Mallol Nabot C, Torrijos NC (2010) Adaptación Del Uso de La Conductividad Eléctrica (CE) Para Determinar de Forma Rápida El Contenido En Nutrientes Del Purín Porcino En Catalunya. International Workshop on Anaerobic Digestion of Slaughterhouse Waste, pp 67–76Patience JF, Gould SA, Koehler D, Corrigan B, Elsbernd A, Holloway CL (2015) Super-dosed phytase improves rate and efficiency of gain in nursery pigs. Anim Ind Rep AS 661:98Penha HG, Menezes JF, Silva CA, Lopes G, Carvalho CA, Ramos SJ, Guilherme LRG (2015) Nutrient accumulation and availability and crop yields following long-term application of pig slurry in a Brazilian Cerrado soil. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 101(2):259–269Popovic O, Jensen LS (2012) Storage temperature affects distribution of carbon, VFA, ammonia, phosphorus, copper and zinc in raw pig slurry and its separated liquid fraction. Water Res 46(12):3849–3858Provolo G, Martínez-Suller L (2007) In situ determination of slurry nutrient content by electrical conductivity. Bioresour Technol 98(17):3235–3242Sánchez M, González JL (2005) The fertilizer value of pig slurry. I. Values depending on the type of operation. Bioresour Technol 96(10):1117–1123SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT User´s guide, v 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., CarySchoumans OF, Chardon WJ, Bechmann ME, Gascuel-Odoux C, Hofman G, Kronvang B, Rubæk HG, Ulén B, Dorioz JM (2014) Mitigation options to reduce phosphorus losses from the agricultural sector and improve surface water quality: a review. Sci Total Environ 468–469:1255–1266Schröder JJ, Cordell D, Smit AL, Rosemarin A (2010) Sustainable use of phosphorus. Plant Research International Wageningen UR. Report 357Scotford IM, Cumby TR, White RP, Carton OT, Lorenz F, Hatterman U, Provolo G (1998) Estimation of the nutrient value of agricultural slurries by measurement of physical and chemical properties. J Agric Eng Res 71(3):291–305Snoek DJW, Johannes DS, Ogink NWM, Koerkamp PWGG (2014) Sensitivity analysis of mechanistic models for estimating ammonia emission from dairy cow urine puddles. Biosyst Eng 121:12–24Suresh A, Choi HL, Oh DI, Moon OK (2009) Prediction of the nutrients value and biochemical characteristics of swine slurry by measurement of EC—electrical conductivity. Bioresour Technol 100:4683–4689Thygesen O, Triolo JM, Sommer SG (2012) Indicators of physical properties and plant nutrient content of animal slurry and separated slurry. Biol Eng Trans 5(3):123–135Triolo JM, Sommer SG, Møller HB, Weisbjerg MR, Jiang XY (2011) A new algorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during anaerobic digestion: influence of lignin concentration on methane production potential. Bioresour Technol 102:9395–9402Van Duivenbooden N, de Wit CT, Van Keulen H (1996) Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium relations in five major cereals reviewed in respect to fertilizer recommendations using simulation modelling. Fertil Res Wagening 44:37–49Viguria M, Sanz-Cobeña A, López DM, Arriaga H, Merino P (2015) Ammonia and greenhouse gases emission from impermeable covered storage and land application of cattle slurry to bare soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 199:261–271Villamar CA, Canuta T, Belmonte M, Vidal G (2012) Characterization of swine wastewater by toxicity identification evaluation methodology (TIE). Water Air Soil Pollut 223(1):363–369Villamar CA, Rodríguez DC, López D, Peñuela G, Vidal G (2013) Effect of the generation and physical–chemical characterization of swine and dairy cattle slurries on treatment technologies. Waste Manage Res 31(8):820–828Villar MC, Petrikova V, Díaz-Raviña M, Carballas T (2004) Recycling of organic wastes in burnt soils: combined application of poultry manure and plant cultivation. Waste Manage 24(4):365–370Webb J, Menzi H, Pain BF, Misselbrook TH, Dämmgen U, Hendriks H, Döhler H (2005) Managing ammonia emissions from livestock production in Europe. Environ Pollut 135:399–406Webb J, Broomfield M, Jones S, Donovan B (2014) Ammonia and odour emissions from UK pig farms and nitrogen leaching from outdoor pig production. Sci Total Environ 470:865–875Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:849–860Yagüe MR, Bosch-Serra AD, Boixadera J (2012) Measurement and estimation of the fertiliser value of pig slurry by physicochemical models: usefulness and constraints. Biosyst Eng 111(2):206–216Zhang W, Wei Q, Wu S, Qi D, Li W, Zuo Z, Dong R (2014) Batch anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions. Appl Energy 128:175–18

Environmental burdens of producing bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes in England and Wales using simulation and system modelling

Background, aims and scope Food production is essential to life. Modern farming uses considerable resources to produce arable crops. Analysing the environmental burdens of alternative crop production methods is a vital tool for policymakers. The paper describes the production burdens (calculated by life cycle analysis) of three key arable crops: bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes as grown in England and Wales using organic and non-organic (contemporary conventional) systems. Resource use (e.g. abiotic and energy) and burdens from emissions are included (e.g. global warming potential on a 100-year basis, global warming potential (GWP), and eutrophication and acidification potentials). Methods Crop production was analysed, using systems models, so that the effects of factors like changing N fertiliser application rates or irrigation could be examined. Emissions of nitrate were derived from a simulation model in which soil organic N was driven to steady state so that all long-term effects were properly accounted for. Yield response curves to N were similarly derived from long-term experiments. Crop nutrient inputs and plant protection applications were derived from national survey data and the literature. All major inputs were accounted for including fertiliser extraction, manufacture and delivery; pesticide manufacture; field fuel use; machinery and building manufacture; crop drying, cooling and storage. The current balance of production systems were found from survey data. The weighted mean national production was calculated froma combination of three rainfall levels and soil textures. The system boundary is the farm gate. The functional unit is 1 t marketable fresh weight of each product. Results and discussion The primary energy needs for the producing the three main crops were 2.4, 4.9 and 1.4 GJ/t for bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes, respectively. When expressed in terms of dry matter, protein or energy, wheat incurred smaller burdens than oilseed rape, which incurred lower burdens than potatoes. The crops do, of course, all play different roles. Organically produced bread wheat needed about 80% of the energy of non-organic, while organic potatoes needed 13% more energy than nonorganically produced ones. While pesticide use was always lower in organic production, other burdens were generally inconsistently higher or lower. Land occupation was always higher for organic production. Lower fertiliser use (and hence energy use) in organic systems is offset by more energy for fieldwork and lower yields. Main crop potato energy needs are dominated by cold storage. Reducing the N application rate for bread wheat production reduces energy use and GWP. The optimum for energy is with N at about 70% of the current level. It seems to be lower for GWP, but the sub-models used are beyond their range of reliability. The results are generally of the same order as those from other European studies. Conclusions Arable crop production depends heavily on fossil fuel in current major production systems. The emissions causing GWP are very dependent on nitrous oxide, more so than fuel consumption. That, together with emissions of ammonia and nitrate, means that agriculture has a C-N footprint rather than the C footprint that typifies most industrial life. Recommendations and perspectives With the large influence of nitrous oxide on GWP, evaluation of nitrous oxide emissions by another method, e.g. crop-soil simulation modelling instead of the more rigid IPCC method would improve the robustness of the analysis. The transition betweenfarming systems was not included in this study, but there could be short to medium term benefits of converting from nonorganic to organic methods that should be evaluated. System modelling allows alternative production methods to be readily explored and this greatly enhances LCA methodology