DIAS report Animal Husbandry no. 21 • January 2001
Publisher: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Tel. +45 89 99 19 00 Research Centre Foulum Fax +45 89 99 19 19 P.O. Box 50
DK-8830 Tjele
Sale by copies: up to 50 pages 50,- DKK
(incl. VAT) up to 100 pages 75,- DKK
more than100 pages 100,- DKK
Hans Benny Rom & Claus G. Sorensen Research Centre Bygholm
Department of Agricultural Engineering P. O. Box 536
DK-8700 Horsens
Sustainable Handling and Utilisation
of Livestock Manure from Animals to Plants
Proceedings, NJF-Seminar no. 320, Denmark, 16-19 January 2001
Organiser: NJF-Section VII. Agricultural Engineering
DIAS report Animal Husbandry no. 21 • January 2001
Publisher: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Tel. +45 89 99 19 00 Research Centre Foulum Fax +45 89 99 19 19 P.O. Box 50
DK-8830 Tjele
Sale by copies: up to 50 pages 50,- DKK
(incl. VAT) up to 100 pages 75,- DKK
more than100 pages 100,- DKK
Hans Benny Rom & Claus G. Sorensen Research Centre Bygholm
Department of Agricultural Engineering P. O. Box 536
DK-8700 Horsens
Sustainable Handling and Utilisation
of Livestock Manure from Animals to Plants
Proceedings, NJF-Seminar no. 320, Denmark, 16-19 January 2001
Organiser: NJF-Section VII. Agricultural Engineering
Preface
This report provides a compilation of the papers presented at the NJF-seminar No. 320:
“Sustainable Handling and Utilisation of Livestock Manure from Animals to Plants”.
In recent years, the concept of sustainable agriculture has become a main topic in the political debate about agricultural production systems as well as in the debate within the agricultural community itself. Animal welfare, technological development, energy and nutrient recycling combined with minimising the environmental impact have been, and continue to be keywords in the development of a sustainable agricultural sector within Europe.
Good agricultural practices for reducing the ammonia emission are being addressed on a natio- nal and on an international level, including animal feeding, housing systems, manure transpor- tation systems and storage facilities for solid and liquid manure, and finally spreading techni- ques including transport and logistics.
Consequently, it is highly needed to highlight validated and certified methods of reducing gase- ous missions and achieving a sustainable development within the handling and utilisation of livestock manure from animals to plants.
The objective of the seminar was to promote scientific discussions on a national as well as on an international level in order to stimulate innovative research, product development and scientific co-operation within the topics. Furthermore, handling methods and treatment techniques were discussed and validated in order to develop sustainable and certified methods that may contribute to improving the utilisation of nutrients and minimising the environmental impact from livestock manure.
Committed and encouraged scientists presenting the state-of-the-art of the issues addressed have written the seminar papers. The presentations were organised in five sessions dealing with various aspects of handling and utilisation of livestock manure combined with mini- mising the environmental impacts.
The topics presented at the seminar covered the following scientific subjects:
• Losses of nutrients and odours related to diet composition and feeding strategy
• Nutrient transformation, losses and odours related to livestock production facilities
• (indoor/outdoor productions)
• Nutrient transformation, losses and odours related to storage facilities
• Distribution, losses of nutrients and odours related to application techniques and strategy
• Operational and economic management for handling, transportation and spreading.
Preface
This report provides a compilation of the papers presented at the NJF-seminar No. 320:
“Sustainable Handling and Utilisation of Livestock Manure from Animals to Plants”.
In recent years, the concept of sustainable agriculture has become a main topic in the political debate about agricultural production systems as well as in the debate within the agricultural community itself. Animal welfare, technological development, energy and nutrient recycling combined with minimising the environmental impact have been, and continue to be keywords in the development of a sustainable agricultural sector within Europe.
Good agricultural practices for reducing the ammonia emission are being addressed on a natio- nal and on an international level, including animal feeding, housing systems, manure transpor- tation systems and storage facilities for solid and liquid manure, and finally spreading techni- ques including transport and logistics.
Consequently, it is highly needed to highlight validated and certified methods of reducing gase- ous missions and achieving a sustainable development within the handling and utilisation of livestock manure from animals to plants.
The objective of the seminar was to promote scientific discussions on a national as well as on an international level in order to stimulate innovative research, product development and scientific co-operation within the topics. Furthermore, handling methods and treatment techniques were discussed and validated in order to develop sustainable and certified methods that may contribute to improving the utilisation of nutrients and minimising the environmental impact from livestock manure.
Committed and encouraged scientists presenting the state-of-the-art of the issues addressed have written the seminar papers. The presentations were organised in five sessions dealing with various aspects of handling and utilisation of livestock manure combined with mini- mising the environmental impacts.
The topics presented at the seminar covered the following scientific subjects:
• Losses of nutrients and odours related to diet composition and feeding strategy
• Nutrient transformation, losses and odours related to livestock production facilities
• (indoor/outdoor productions)
• Nutrient transformation, losses and odours related to storage facilities
• Distribution, losses of nutrients and odours related to application techniques and strategy
• Operational and economic management for handling, transportation and spreading.
We want to recognise the Scientific Committee for their support in achieving a high scientific level through review and relevant comments to the presented papers. Furthermore, we wish to thank the leader group and our colleagues at Research Centre Bygholm for their encourage- ment, support and positive criticism.
Finally, we want to recognise the group of secretaries for their secretarial help, which has be- en essential for the preparation of the seminar and the report.
The Organising Committee
Organizing committee
Hans Benny Rom, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark Claus G. Sørensen, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark Marianne P. Thygesen, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark
Scientific Committee
John Morken, Norwegian Agricultural University, Dept. of Technique, Aas, Norway Gretar Einarsson, Agricultural Research Institute, Technical Department, Borgarnes, Iceland Eirikur Blöndal, Agricultural Research Institute, Technical Department, Borgarnes, Iceland Girma Gebresenbet, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden
Petri Kapuinen, MTT/Vakola, Vakolantie 55, Vihti, Finland
Claus Grøn Sørensen, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark Hans Benny Rom, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark
We want to recognise the Scientific Committee for their support in achieving a high scientific level through review and relevant comments to the presented papers. Furthermore, we wish to thank the leader group and our colleagues at Research Centre Bygholm for their encourage- ment, support and positive criticism.
Finally, we want to recognise the group of secretaries for their secretarial help, which has be- en essential for the preparation of the seminar and the report.
The Organising Committee
Organizing committee
Hans Benny Rom, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark Claus G. Sørensen, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark Marianne P. Thygesen, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark
Scientific Committee
John Morken, Norwegian Agricultural University, Dept. of Technique, Aas, Norway Gretar Einarsson, Agricultural Research Institute, Technical Department, Borgarnes, Iceland Eirikur Blöndal, Agricultural Research Institute, Technical Department, Borgarnes, Iceland Girma Gebresenbet, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden
Petri Kapuinen, MTT/Vakola, Vakolantie 55, Vihti, Finland
Claus Grøn Sørensen, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark Hans Benny Rom, DIAS, Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark
Contents
The Danish nitrate policy... 7 Sophie Winther, Denmark
Integrating emissions at a farm scale... 11 N.J. Hutchings, Denmark (N.J. Hutchings & S.G. Sommer)
Best available techniques (BAT) for Irish intensive pig and poultry producers ... 16 W. Magette, Ireland (W. Magette, T. Curran, G. Provolo, V. Dodd, P. Grace,
B. Sheridan & E. Cummins)
The environmental load from outdoor areas and yards for pigs... 24 Hans von Wachenfelt, Sweden
Quantification of nitrogen losses and nutrient flow in straw bedded housing
systems for cattle ... 34 Hans Benny Rom, Denmark (H.B. Rom, K. Henriksen, P. Dahl & M. Levring)
Low cost aerobic stabilisation of poultry layer manure ... 42 K.A. Smith, United Kingdom (K.A. Smith, D.R. Jackson & J.P. Metcalfe)
Storage of manure in heaps ... 51 Maarit Puumala, Finland
The influence of different litter materials on the emission of poultry manure... 58 Günter Hörnig, Germany (G. Hörnig, R. Brunsch & E. Scherping)
Ammonia emissions from broiler manure during handling... 66 Stig Karlsson, Sweden (S. Karlsson & L. Rodhe)
Specification of requirements – a way in bringing new spreading techniques into use... 67 Carl-Magnus Petterson, Sweden
Improved spreading technology for semi-solid organic fertilisers... 75 Johan Malgeryd, Sweden (J. Malgeryd & O. Pettersson)
Slurry application on ley – new techniques... 81 Lena Rodhe, Sweden (L. Rodhe & C. Rammer)
Ammonia volatilization from pig slurry applied to spring wheat
with different techniques ... 82 Pasi Mattila, Finland
A new concept for use of pig slurry for cereals... 89 Petri Kapuinen, Finland
Contents
The Danish nitrate policy... 7 Sophie Winther, Denmark
Integrating emissions at a farm scale... 11 N.J. Hutchings, Denmark (N.J. Hutchings & S.G. Sommer)
Best available techniques (BAT) for Irish intensive pig and poultry producers ... 16 W. Magette, Ireland (W. Magette, T. Curran, G. Provolo, V. Dodd, P. Grace,
B. Sheridan & E. Cummins)
The environmental load from outdoor areas and yards for pigs... 24 Hans von Wachenfelt, Sweden
Quantification of nitrogen losses and nutrient flow in straw bedded housing
systems for cattle ... 34 Hans Benny Rom, Denmark (H.B. Rom, K. Henriksen, P. Dahl & M. Levring)
Low cost aerobic stabilisation of poultry layer manure ... 42 K.A. Smith, United Kingdom (K.A. Smith, D.R. Jackson & J.P. Metcalfe)
Storage of manure in heaps ... 51 Maarit Puumala, Finland
The influence of different litter materials on the emission of poultry manure... 58 Günter Hörnig, Germany (G. Hörnig, R. Brunsch & E. Scherping)
Ammonia emissions from broiler manure during handling... 66 Stig Karlsson, Sweden (S. Karlsson & L. Rodhe)
Specification of requirements – a way in bringing new spreading techniques into use... 67 Carl-Magnus Petterson, Sweden
Improved spreading technology for semi-solid organic fertilisers... 75 Johan Malgeryd, Sweden (J. Malgeryd & O. Pettersson)
Slurry application on ley – new techniques... 81 Lena Rodhe, Sweden (L. Rodhe & C. Rammer)
Ammonia volatilization from pig slurry applied to spring wheat
with different techniques ... 82 Pasi Mattila, Finland
A new concept for use of pig slurry for cereals... 89 Petri Kapuinen, Finland
Reduction of ammonia emission by slurry injection – effect of different
types of injectors... 98 Martin N. Hansen, Denmark
Development of a simple predictive model for ammonia volatilisation
following land application of manures ... 106 T.H. Misselbrook, United Kingdom (T.H. Misselbrook, F.A. Nicholson,
R.A. Johnson & G. Goodlass)
Development of a measuring device for the transverse distribution of slurry
using an injector... 116 Jan Langenakens, Belgium
Experiences with ReBio wet sowing in the years 1997-1999 ... 125 Hans Christian Endrerud, Norway (H.C. Endrerud, S. Sakshaug & B. Simonsen)
Separation of slurry in a decanting centrifuge and a screw press as influenced
by slurry characteristics ... 126 H.B. Møller, Denmark
Enhancing plant utilization of livestock manure: A cropping system perspective... 134 Enrico Ceotto, Italy
Runoff of nutrients and faecal micro-organisms from grassland after slurry application... 144 Jaana Uusi-Kämppä, Finland (J. Uusi-Kämppä & H. Heinonen-Tanski)
Sustainable handling and utilisation of manure and organic waste resources.
The centralised biogas plant approach... 152 Kurt Hjort-Gregersen, Denmark
Labour and machinery input for different manure application techniques
and transportation systems... 159 Claus G. Sørensen, Denmark
Measurement of soil compaction around slurry injection slits... 168 Ivar Lund, Denmark
Ammonia volatilization from manure applied to fields - data collection for an
EU database and its statistical analysis ... 174 Henning T. Søgaard, Denmark (H.T. Søgaard & S.G. Sommer)
The economics of manure handling from storage to field application... 188 Brian H. Jacobsen, Denmark
Umbilical slurry system for the future ... 196 Kyrre Vastveit & Kjell Vastveit, Norway
Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (presentation)... 202
Reduction of ammonia emission by slurry injection – effect of different
types of injectors... 98 Martin N. Hansen, Denmark
Development of a simple predictive model for ammonia volatilisation
following land application of manures ... 106 T.H. Misselbrook, United Kingdom (T.H. Misselbrook, F.A. Nicholson,
R.A. Johnson & G. Goodlass)
Development of a measuring device for the transverse distribution of slurry
using an injector... 116 Jan Langenakens, Belgium
Experiences with ReBio wet sowing in the years 1997-1999 ... 125 Hans Christian Endrerud, Norway (H.C. Endrerud, S. Sakshaug & B. Simonsen)
Separation of slurry in a decanting centrifuge and a screw press as influenced
by slurry characteristics ... 126 H.B. Møller, Denmark
Enhancing plant utilization of livestock manure: A cropping system perspective... 134 Enrico Ceotto, Italy
Runoff of nutrients and faecal micro-organisms from grassland after slurry application... 144 Jaana Uusi-Kämppä, Finland (J. Uusi-Kämppä & H. Heinonen-Tanski)
Sustainable handling and utilisation of manure and organic waste resources.
The centralised biogas plant approach... 152 Kurt Hjort-Gregersen, Denmark
Labour and machinery input for different manure application techniques
and transportation systems... 159 Claus G. Sørensen, Denmark
Measurement of soil compaction around slurry injection slits... 168 Ivar Lund, Denmark
Ammonia volatilization from manure applied to fields - data collection for an
EU database and its statistical analysis ... 174 Henning T. Søgaard, Denmark (H.T. Søgaard & S.G. Sommer)
The economics of manure handling from storage to field application... 188 Brian H. Jacobsen, Denmark
Umbilical slurry system for the future ... 196 Kyrre Vastveit & Kjell Vastveit, Norway
Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (presentation)... 202
THE DANISH NITRATE POLICY Ms. Sophie Winther
Ministry of the Environment and Energy, The National Forest and Nature Agency Haraldsgade 53, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø. Tel.: +45 39 47 27 59. Email: swi@sns.dk
The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)
The objectives of the Nitrates Directive are as follows
- to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources - to prevent further pollution
To achieve these goals the member states will have to identify zones vulnerable to nitrate leaching, and Denmark has designated the whole national territory as vulnerable.
The member states have to implement action plans for the vulnerable zones.
State of the environment
The Danish agricultural production is very intensive, which has led to high levels of nitrate leaching into the aquatic environment. In Denmark, nitrate leaching mainly causes problems with regard to ground water and in inlets and coastal waters.
Nitrate pollution is seen as severe algae growth in inlets and in coastal waters. In periods in the summer, this can cause lack of oxygen and consequently, fish mortality.
In the ground water, the nitrate leaching has in some drillings led to a nitrate concentration higher than 50 mg/l.
Improvement of the environmental state of the surface water ground water has a high priority for the Danish Government, and so it has been for the last 15 years, because:
- Lakes, streams, inlets and coastal waters are important elements in the Danish natural en- vironment
- In Denmark non-purified ground water is used as drinking water
- From an international perspective, nutrient losses from Danish agricultural production are of importance to the state of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.
THE DANISH NITRATE POLICY Ms. Sophie Winther
Ministry of the Environment and Energy, The National Forest and Nature Agency Haraldsgade 53, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø. Tel.: +45 39 47 27 59. Email: swi@sns.dk
The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)
The objectives of the Nitrates Directive are as follows
- to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources - to prevent further pollution
To achieve these goals the member states will have to identify zones vulnerable to nitrate leaching, and Denmark has designated the whole national territory as vulnerable.
The member states have to implement action plans for the vulnerable zones.
State of the environment
The Danish agricultural production is very intensive, which has led to high levels of nitrate leaching into the aquatic environment. In Denmark, nitrate leaching mainly causes problems with regard to ground water and in inlets and coastal waters.
Nitrate pollution is seen as severe algae growth in inlets and in coastal waters. In periods in the summer, this can cause lack of oxygen and consequently, fish mortality.
In the ground water, the nitrate leaching has in some drillings led to a nitrate concentration higher than 50 mg/l.
Improvement of the environmental state of the surface water ground water has a high priority for the Danish Government, and so it has been for the last 15 years, because:
- Lakes, streams, inlets and coastal waters are important elements in the Danish natural en- vironment
- In Denmark non-purified ground water is used as drinking water
- From an international perspective, nutrient losses from Danish agricultural production are of importance to the state of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.
Danish Nitrate Policy
The action plans relevant to the aquatic environment sector are listed below:
• The NPo Action Plan of 1985
• The Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment of 1987
• The Action Plan for a Sustainable Development in Agriculture of 1991
• The Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment II of 1998.
In implementing the four action plans Denmark fulfils the requirements stated in Art. 5 in the Nitrates Directive.
General regulations
The Danish action plans are implemented through a number of statutory rules. These rules are grouped in the following:
Storage capacity for animal manure
The storage capacity must be sufficient to ensure that application of manure takes place in ac- cordance with the provisions for field application. As an absolute minimum the storage capa- city must correspond to 7 and in general 9 months’ production, but most farmers have a ca- pacity of 10 months’ production, or even more.
Livestock density
The regulations describe a maximum number of animals (LU) per hectare on a farm. For in- stance, if the farmer has a livestock of 170 LU, he must have 100 hectares of arable land avail- able for manure application. He must either own the land, rent it or have an agreement with an- other farmer to whom he can deliver the manure. In Denmark, this rule is called the “harmony criteria”.
“The harmony criteria” is an expression of the maximum amount of livestock manure that may be applied per hectare annually, and hence is an expression of how much nitrogen may be ap- plied per hectare annually.
Green cover and catch crops
One of the preconditions for effective nutrient management is to prevent nitrogen from leaching from the soil after harvest. On each individual farm, there must be a green cover during the autumn at a minimum of 65-70% of the arable farmland.
Danish Nitrate Policy
The action plans relevant to the aquatic environment sector are listed below:
• The NPo Action Plan of 1985
• The Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment of 1987
• The Action Plan for a Sustainable Development in Agriculture of 1991
• The Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment II of 1998.
In implementing the four action plans Denmark fulfils the requirements stated in Art. 5 in the Nitrates Directive.
General regulations
The Danish action plans are implemented through a number of statutory rules. These rules are grouped in the following:
Storage capacity for animal manure
The storage capacity must be sufficient to ensure that application of manure takes place in ac- cordance with the provisions for field application. As an absolute minimum the storage capa- city must correspond to 7 and in general 9 months’ production, but most farmers have a ca- pacity of 10 months’ production, or even more.
Livestock density
The regulations describe a maximum number of animals (LU) per hectare on a farm. For in- stance, if the farmer has a livestock of 170 LU, he must have 100 hectares of arable land avail- able for manure application. He must either own the land, rent it or have an agreement with an- other farmer to whom he can deliver the manure. In Denmark, this rule is called the “harmony criteria”.
“The harmony criteria” is an expression of the maximum amount of livestock manure that may be applied per hectare annually, and hence is an expression of how much nitrogen may be ap- plied per hectare annually.
Green cover and catch crops
One of the preconditions for effective nutrient management is to prevent nitrogen from leaching from the soil after harvest. On each individual farm, there must be a green cover during the autumn at a minimum of 65-70% of the arable farmland.
Quota for Nitrogen Fertilisation
Normative values for crop nitrogen are stipulated and developed for each crop as a function of soil type and precrop. The nitrogen norms are stipulated at 10% below the economically op- timal application rate.
The farmers are obliged to calculate the nitrogen quota for his farm every year. This quota sets the maximum allowed nitrogen fertilisation. The farmers are not allowed to use more ni- trogen fertiliser regardless of whether they use chemical fertiliser, manure or other organic fertilisers.
Standards for nitrogen content in manure
Values for nitrogen content in manure are stipulated for type of animal as a function of type of housing and storage facilities. The farmers are obliged to use these standards when calculating the nitrogen content of the manure produced on their farms.
In Denmark, there is a voluntary development towards a more efficient protein feeding of livestock. The use of protein per kg of pig or poultry meat produced has been reduced by ad- justing the amino acid composition of the diet to the needs of the animals.
Minimum requirements for the utilisation of nitrogen in manure
The rules also stipulate minimum requirements for the utilisation of the nitrogen content.
Pig slurry 70%*
Cattle slurry 65%*
Other types of manure 60%*
* plus 5%, if necessary
Fertiliser accounts
To monitor the use of fertiliser there is an obligation for all Danish farmers each year to draw up crop rotation and fertiliser plans as well as fertiliser accounts. The use of crop rotation and fertiliser plans will be obligatory when calculating the quota of nitrogen fertiliser.
After every harvest the fertiliser accounts should be sent to the authorities for control. The authorities will have access to information on delivery of milk, animals for slaughter and sale of chemical fertiliser to the individual farmers.
The authorities that control the fertiliser accounts use this information. If the farmer has an excess use of nitrogen fertiliser, he will be fined.
Quota for Nitrogen Fertilisation
Normative values for crop nitrogen are stipulated and developed for each crop as a function of soil type and precrop. The nitrogen norms are stipulated at 10% below the economically op- timal application rate.
The farmers are obliged to calculate the nitrogen quota for his farm every year. This quota sets the maximum allowed nitrogen fertilisation. The farmers are not allowed to use more ni- trogen fertiliser regardless of whether they use chemical fertiliser, manure or other organic fertilisers.
Standards for nitrogen content in manure
Values for nitrogen content in manure are stipulated for type of animal as a function of type of housing and storage facilities. The farmers are obliged to use these standards when calculating the nitrogen content of the manure produced on their farms.
In Denmark, there is a voluntary development towards a more efficient protein feeding of livestock. The use of protein per kg of pig or poultry meat produced has been reduced by ad- justing the amino acid composition of the diet to the needs of the animals.
Minimum requirements for the utilisation of nitrogen in manure
The rules also stipulate minimum requirements for the utilisation of the nitrogen content.
Pig slurry 70%*
Cattle slurry 65%*
Other types of manure 60%*
* plus 5%, if necessary
Fertiliser accounts
To monitor the use of fertiliser there is an obligation for all Danish farmers each year to draw up crop rotation and fertiliser plans as well as fertiliser accounts. The use of crop rotation and fertiliser plans will be obligatory when calculating the quota of nitrogen fertiliser.
After every harvest the fertiliser accounts should be sent to the authorities for control. The authorities will have access to information on delivery of milk, animals for slaughter and sale of chemical fertiliser to the individual farmers.
The authorities that control the fertiliser accounts use this information. If the farmer has an excess use of nitrogen fertiliser, he will be fined.
Tax on fertiliser
Nitrogen fertiliser used for other purposes than for agricultural and fruit and vegetable pro- duction, e.g. fertiliser for private gardens and public parks, will be taxed.
Voluntary instruments
Besides the general obligatory regulation, there are a number of programmes aimed at con- vincing farmers to adopt environmentally friendly production methods. The programmes in- clude financial support for the conversion to:
- Organic farming
- Nature restoration projects, such as afforestation and re-establishment of wetlands - Environmentally friendly farming, e.g. use of less nitrogen fertiliser
Environmental Improvements
There are strong indications that the Danish action plans for the aquatic environment over the past 15 years have reduced the environmental impact from the agricultural production:
- the amount of chemical fertilisers used has been reduced by nearly 130 mill. kg N, which corresponds approximately to a 30% reduction.
- the nitrogen surplus in Danish agriculture – i.e. the difference between nitrogen input (chemical fertilisers, manure, nitrogen fixation and deposition) and removed nitrogen – has been reduced by approx. 20%.
- The overall national nitrogen leaching – based on model calculations – has been reduced by approx. 27%.
- The nitrate concentration in water leaving the root zone has been reduced by approx. 25%
in the period 1990-1999.
- There are indications that reduction of nitrate concentration in root-zone water will cause a reduction of the nitrate content in streams with a few years of delay. The available data seems to indicate this. It will take some years before there are enough data from which to make any conclusions due to different influences such as crop rotations, soil types and especially the climatic conditions.
- Monitoring from 1997 shows that 65% of the Danish ground water drillings contain less than 1 mg of nitrates per litre and 10% exceeds the Danish recommended level of 25 mg nitrate per litre.
Tax on fertiliser
Nitrogen fertiliser used for other purposes than for agricultural and fruit and vegetable pro- duction, e.g. fertiliser for private gardens and public parks, will be taxed.
Voluntary instruments
Besides the general obligatory regulation, there are a number of programmes aimed at con- vincing farmers to adopt environmentally friendly production methods. The programmes in- clude financial support for the conversion to:
- Organic farming
- Nature restoration projects, such as afforestation and re-establishment of wetlands - Environmentally friendly farming, e.g. use of less nitrogen fertiliser
Environmental Improvements
There are strong indications that the Danish action plans for the aquatic environment over the past 15 years have reduced the environmental impact from the agricultural production:
- the amount of chemical fertilisers used has been reduced by nearly 130 mill. kg N, which corresponds approximately to a 30% reduction.
- the nitrogen surplus in Danish agriculture – i.e. the difference between nitrogen input (chemical fertilisers, manure, nitrogen fixation and deposition) and removed nitrogen – has been reduced by approx. 20%.
- The overall national nitrogen leaching – based on model calculations – has been reduced by approx. 27%.
- The nitrate concentration in water leaving the root zone has been reduced by approx. 25%
in the period 1990-1999.
- There are indications that reduction of nitrate concentration in root-zone water will cause a reduction of the nitrate content in streams with a few years of delay. The available data seems to indicate this. It will take some years before there are enough data from which to make any conclusions due to different influences such as crop rotations, soil types and especially the climatic conditions.
- Monitoring from 1997 shows that 65% of the Danish ground water drillings contain less than 1 mg of nitrates per litre and 10% exceeds the Danish recommended level of 25 mg nitrate per litre.
INTEGRATING EMISSIONS AT A FARM SCALE N. J. Hutchings1* & S.G. Sommer2
1Dept. of Agricultural Systems, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark. E-mail: Nick.Hutchings@agrsci.dk.
2Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Bygholm, P.O. Box. 536, DK-8700 Horsens, Denmark. E-mail: SvenG.Sommer@agrsci.dk.
Abstract
This paper describes the latest developments in the FASSET farm-scale model. The model has been expanded to describe cattle farming and the description of manure handling impro- ved. The improvements include the capacity to house more than one animal type in an animal house and a more detailed description of the emission of ammonia from animal housing, sto- rage and field-applied manures.
Key words: ammonia emission, manure, farm.
Introduction
In most European countries, livestock farms make the largest contribution to ammonia emis- sions. This ammonia has its origins in the portion of the nitrogen fed to animals in feedstuffs that fails to be incorporated in agricultural products and is excreted in animal manure. This nitrogen may be emitted as ammonia from a number of on-farm sources; animal housing, ma- nure storage, field-applied manure and excreta deposited in the field by grazing animals. As housing, storage and field sources are sequentially linked, any change in the emission from one source will have an effect on emissions later in the chain. Current methods of estimating ammonia emissions incorporate the 'knock-on' effect of emission from one source on subse- quent sources. Emission estimates used in modelling atmospheric ammonia are normally ba- sed on emission factors, i.e. the ammonia emitted is calculated as a percentage of the total in- coming nitrogen. For animal housing or grazed pasture, this incoming nitrogen is the total nitrogen excreted by animals. For stored or spread manure, it is the nitrogen output from the previous stage of the manure handling system.
The advantage of this method of calculating ammonia emissions is that it is simple and reaso- nably transparent. This is a major consideration if one wishes to reflect regional variations in the structure of agriculture, as separate calculations must be made for all the different catego- ries of livestock (sheep, pigs, dairy cattle etc). However, there are a number of disadvantages in this approach:
INTEGRATING EMISSIONS AT A FARM SCALE N. J. Hutchings1* & S.G. Sommer2
1Dept. of Agricultural Systems, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark. E-mail: Nick.Hutchings@agrsci.dk.
2Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Bygholm, P.O. Box. 536, DK-8700 Horsens, Denmark. E-mail: SvenG.Sommer@agrsci.dk.
Abstract
This paper describes the latest developments in the FASSET farm-scale model. The model has been expanded to describe cattle farming and the description of manure handling impro- ved. The improvements include the capacity to house more than one animal type in an animal house and a more detailed description of the emission of ammonia from animal housing, sto- rage and field-applied manures.
Key words: ammonia emission, manure, farm.
Introduction
In most European countries, livestock farms make the largest contribution to ammonia emis- sions. This ammonia has its origins in the portion of the nitrogen fed to animals in feedstuffs that fails to be incorporated in agricultural products and is excreted in animal manure. This nitrogen may be emitted as ammonia from a number of on-farm sources; animal housing, ma- nure storage, field-applied manure and excreta deposited in the field by grazing animals. As housing, storage and field sources are sequentially linked, any change in the emission from one source will have an effect on emissions later in the chain. Current methods of estimating ammonia emissions incorporate the 'knock-on' effect of emission from one source on subse- quent sources. Emission estimates used in modelling atmospheric ammonia are normally ba- sed on emission factors, i.e. the ammonia emitted is calculated as a percentage of the total in- coming nitrogen. For animal housing or grazed pasture, this incoming nitrogen is the total nitrogen excreted by animals. For stored or spread manure, it is the nitrogen output from the previous stage of the manure handling system.
The advantage of this method of calculating ammonia emissions is that it is simple and reaso- nably transparent. This is a major consideration if one wishes to reflect regional variations in the structure of agriculture, as separate calculations must be made for all the different catego- ries of livestock (sheep, pigs, dairy cattle etc). However, there are a number of disadvantages in this approach:
• the emission from liquid manures is related to the ammoniacal content of manures, not the total nitrogen content.
• both the emission rate and the dispersion pattern are affected by the weather. Some disper- sion models make allowance for this by seasonally weighting the emissions. The validity of these weightings is uncertain.
• ammonia emission abatement techniques may affect the emission of other forms of pollu- tion (e.g. emission of nitrous oxide, nitrate leaching), and this may be overlooked.
To address some of these problems, we have adopted a more process-orientated, farm-scale approach.
The Farm ASSEssment Tool (FASSET)
The FASSET farm model uses information concerning livestock feeding practices to estimate the excretion of organic and ammoniacal nitrogen. This nitrogen is tracked as it passes through animal housing, manure storage and manure spreading or after deposition on pasture during grazing (Fig. 1). The model operates with a daily timestep.
Figure 1. N flows in FASSET
Version 1.0 of the model, which can simulate arable and pig farming, is completed and has been described elsewhere (Jacobsen et al., 1999). Here we describe some on-going develop- ments to the model, with the emphasis on the management of animal manure.
Animal models
FASSET contains a pig model, and a cattle model has been constructed and is currently being tested. These models partition N in feed between production (milk, animal growth), urine and faeces. The pig model is prescriptive, i.e. the level of production is an input, and the only function of the model is to partition the excreta between urine and faeces. The cattle model is responsive, i.e. the production increases and decreases in response to feeding practice. The
Animal feed
Animals
Animal housing
Manure storage
Fields
NH 3, N2O NH 3, N2O
NO3
NO3
Crops produced
Deposition Fixation Fertiliser Deposition Fixation Fertiliser Crops
sold Crops sold Feed bought Feed bought
N flow in FASSET
Animal products
• the emission from liquid manures is related to the ammoniacal content of manures, not the total nitrogen content.
• both the emission rate and the dispersion pattern are affected by the weather. Some disper- sion models make allowance for this by seasonally weighting the emissions. The validity of these weightings is uncertain.
• ammonia emission abatement techniques may affect the emission of other forms of pollu- tion (e.g. emission of nitrous oxide, nitrate leaching), and this may be overlooked.
To address some of these problems, we have adopted a more process-orientated, farm-scale approach.
The Farm ASSEssment Tool (FASSET)
The FASSET farm model uses information concerning livestock feeding practices to estimate the excretion of organic and ammoniacal nitrogen. This nitrogen is tracked as it passes through animal housing, manure storage and manure spreading or after deposition on pasture during grazing (Fig. 1). The model operates with a daily timestep.
Figure 1. N flows in FASSET
Version 1.0 of the model, which can simulate arable and pig farming, is completed and has been described elsewhere (Jacobsen et al., 1999). Here we describe some on-going develop- ments to the model, with the emphasis on the management of animal manure.
Animal models
FASSET contains a pig model, and a cattle model has been constructed and is currently being tested. These models partition N in feed between production (milk, animal growth), urine and faeces. The pig model is prescriptive, i.e. the level of production is an input, and the only function of the model is to partition the excreta between urine and faeces. The cattle model is responsive, i.e. the production increases and decreases in response to feeding practice. The
Animal feed
Animals
Animal housing
Manure storage
Fields
NH 3, N2O NH 3, N2O
NO3
NO 3
Crops produced
Deposition Fixation Fertiliser Deposition Fixation Fertiliser Crops
sold Crops sold Feed bought Feed bought
N flow in FASSET
Animal products
production can be closely controlled, while most cattle production is at the mercy of the quantity and quality of forage available.
The excrete is routed to either the animal housing or the pasture, depending on whether the animals are grazing or not.
Housing model
The animal housing is divided into sections, each containing a separate animal category (e.g.
fattening pigs, calves) (Fig 2).
Figure 2. Schematic representation of an example animal house and section.
The animal section can have one or two floors (e.g. solid floor and slats). Animal excreta is deposited on the floor as dung or urine. If two floors are present, the excreta is partitioned between them according to a user-input distribution parameter.
Ammonia loss from the animal section is simulated by use of a dynamic process model that responds to the area of flooring covered by excreta, the chemical composition of the excreta (ammoniacal N concentration, pH), the temperature in the animal house and the ventilation rate. For solid and farm-yard manure, the emission of ammonia is dependent on whether the manure is composting. The switch between composting/non-composting is made dependent on the C:N ratio of the manure and whether air has access to the base of the floor. If the ma- nure composts, a simple model of ammonia emission is used, again dependent on the C:N ra- tio. If a solid or farm-yard manure does not compost, a proportion of the urine excreted is as- sumed to remain on the surface of the manure and is volatilised.
For slurry-based systems or those based on partial separation of solid and liquid manures, the excreta is removed to store daily. Storage can be temporarily in-house (e.g. slurry pit) or long- term in-house (e.g. as in straw-based systems), or the manure can be removed immediately.
Animals
FYM
slurry pit Example animal section Animal house
Field/storage
Storage
production can be closely controlled, while most cattle production is at the mercy of the quantity and quality of forage available.
The excrete is routed to either the animal housing or the pasture, depending on whether the animals are grazing or not.
Housing model
The animal housing is divided into sections, each containing a separate animal category (e.g.
fattening pigs, calves) (Fig 2).
Figure 2. Schematic representation of an example animal house and section.
The animal section can have one or two floors (e.g. solid floor and slats). Animal excreta is deposited on the floor as dung or urine. If two floors are present, the excreta is partitioned between them according to a user-input distribution parameter.
Ammonia loss from the animal section is simulated by use of a dynamic process model that responds to the area of flooring covered by excreta, the chemical composition of the excreta (ammoniacal N concentration, pH), the temperature in the animal house and the ventilation rate. For solid and farm-yard manure, the emission of ammonia is dependent on whether the manure is composting. The switch between composting/non-composting is made dependent on the C:N ratio of the manure and whether air has access to the base of the floor. If the ma- nure composts, a simple model of ammonia emission is used, again dependent on the C:N ra- tio. If a solid or farm-yard manure does not compost, a proportion of the urine excreted is as- sumed to remain on the surface of the manure and is volatilised.
For slurry-based systems or those based on partial separation of solid and liquid manures, the excreta is removed to store daily. Storage can be temporarily in-house (e.g. slurry pit) or long- term in-house (e.g. as in straw-based systems), or the manure can be removed immediately.
Animals
FYM
slurry pit Example animal section Animal house
Field/storage
Storage
The routing of manure from animal category onto the flooring and then to a specific manure store means that the consequences of changes in the feeding of a particular animal category will be reflected in the ammonia emission from the relevant animal section and in the quality of the manure produced from it.
Manure storage
Manure can be stored as slurry in a slurry tank (covered or uncovered), as the liquid fraction from partial separation in a closed tank or as farm-yard manure or the solid fraction resulting from partial separation, in a stack.
Ammonia emission from the stored slurry is simulated by a dynamic process model, similar to that used for animal housing. In addition to the chemical characteristics of the slurry, the los- ses from storage are made a function of wind speed, air temperature and rainfall. Emission from the liquid fraction of partially separated manure is simulated in the same way but as it is subscribed by law that it must be stored in a covered tank, the emissions are always low. The same model of emission from farm-yard manure stored in animal housing is used to simulate emissions from muck heaps.
Field application of manure
Ploughing, sowing and fertilisation follows a user-determined time schedule. There is cur- rently no capacity to adjust the timings of these events to reflect the effect of current conditi- ons (e.g. soil moisture status).
The field model consists of a soil model and one or more crop models (e.g. a spring barley crop would have one model, whereas spring barley undersown with grass would have two).
The crop model describes nutrient uptake and growth. The soil is modelled as a number of layers, and the water flow between these layers is simulated. Nutrient transformations (cur- rently only nitrogen) are described in each layer. To date, the greatest effort has been put into the field model, but details are not provided here, as the emphasis in this paper is on manure handling. Further details of the field model can be found elsewhere (Jacobsen et. al., 1999).
Manure is applied by use of a user-defined application technique. Depending on the choice of technique, the area of manure exposed to the atmosphere is either the area of the field (broad- spreading) or some fraction of it (e.g. trailing hose application). If the field is ploughed after application, the manure is buried to the appropriate depth. Ammonia emission is simulated using a model similar to that described in Hutchings et. al. (1996). If the field is ploughed after application, ammonia volatilisation is simulated as a two-stage process; before and after ploughing. Although this approach acknowledges the need to account for differences in the time-lag between application and ploughing, as daily mean meteorological variables are used, the simulation is only partially realistic in this respect.
The routing of manure from animal category onto the flooring and then to a specific manure store means that the consequences of changes in the feeding of a particular animal category will be reflected in the ammonia emission from the relevant animal section and in the quality of the manure produced from it.
Manure storage
Manure can be stored as slurry in a slurry tank (covered or uncovered), as the liquid fraction from partial separation in a closed tank or as farm-yard manure or the solid fraction resulting from partial separation, in a stack.
Ammonia emission from the stored slurry is simulated by a dynamic process model, similar to that used for animal housing. In addition to the chemical characteristics of the slurry, the los- ses from storage are made a function of wind speed, air temperature and rainfall. Emission from the liquid fraction of partially separated manure is simulated in the same way but as it is subscribed by law that it must be stored in a covered tank, the emissions are always low. The same model of emission from farm-yard manure stored in animal housing is used to simulate emissions from muck heaps.
Field application of manure
Ploughing, sowing and fertilisation follows a user-determined time schedule. There is cur- rently no capacity to adjust the timings of these events to reflect the effect of current conditi- ons (e.g. soil moisture status).
The field model consists of a soil model and one or more crop models (e.g. a spring barley crop would have one model, whereas spring barley undersown with grass would have two).
The crop model describes nutrient uptake and growth. The soil is modelled as a number of layers, and the water flow between these layers is simulated. Nutrient transformations (cur- rently only nitrogen) are described in each layer. To date, the greatest effort has been put into the field model, but details are not provided here, as the emphasis in this paper is on manure handling. Further details of the field model can be found elsewhere (Jacobsen et. al., 1999).
Manure is applied by use of a user-defined application technique. Depending on the choice of technique, the area of manure exposed to the atmosphere is either the area of the field (broad- spreading) or some fraction of it (e.g. trailing hose application). If the field is ploughed after application, the manure is buried to the appropriate depth. Ammonia emission is simulated using a model similar to that described in Hutchings et. al. (1996). If the field is ploughed after application, ammonia volatilisation is simulated as a two-stage process; before and after ploughing. Although this approach acknowledges the need to account for differences in the time-lag between application and ploughing, as daily mean meteorological variables are used, the simulation is only partially realistic in this respect.
Model outputs
The model outputs are production of milk, animals or crops and losses of nitrogen as nitrate, ammonia and nitrous oxide (though not currently nitrous oxide from manures). Certain eco- nomic variables are also output, although the economic aspects of manure spreading are not modelled.
Role of FASSET
FASSET has three main roles. Firstly, it can be used to investigate how farm management can be changed to reduce the losses of ammonia and other nitrogen compounds to the environ- ment and to assess the economic consequences of such actions. Secondly, it can be used to reveal interactions (both positive and negative) between measures designed to reduce ammo- nia emissions and the losses of other compounds. The reverse is also possible. Finally, FAS- SET allows emission estimates to take account of national or regional variations in livestock numbers and feeding practices, animal housing, manure storage, manure spreading and their interaction with the climate. However, if the results are to represent an improvement over exi- sting methods, it also demands that good quality data are available concerning the farm structure and management.
References
Hutchings, N.J., Sommer, S.G. & Jarvis, S.C., 1996. A model of ammonia volatilisation from a grazing livestock farm. Atmospheric Environment 30: 589-599.
Jacobsen, B.H., Petersen, B.M., Berntsen, J., Boye, C., Sørensen, C.G., Søgaard,H.T. & Han- sen, J.P., 1999. An integrated economic and environmental farm simulation model (FAS- SET). Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Copenhagen. Report No. 102.
Model outputs
The model outputs are production of milk, animals or crops and losses of nitrogen as nitrate, ammonia and nitrous oxide (though not currently nitrous oxide from manures). Certain eco- nomic variables are also output, although the economic aspects of manure spreading are not modelled.
Role of FASSET
FASSET has three main roles. Firstly, it can be used to investigate how farm management can be changed to reduce the losses of ammonia and other nitrogen compounds to the environ- ment and to assess the economic consequences of such actions. Secondly, it can be used to reveal interactions (both positive and negative) between measures designed to reduce ammo- nia emissions and the losses of other compounds. The reverse is also possible. Finally, FAS- SET allows emission estimates to take account of national or regional variations in livestock numbers and feeding practices, animal housing, manure storage, manure spreading and their interaction with the climate. However, if the results are to represent an improvement over exi- sting methods, it also demands that good quality data are available concerning the farm structure and management.
References
Hutchings, N.J., Sommer, S.G. & Jarvis, S.C., 1996. A model of ammonia volatilisation from a grazing livestock farm. Atmospheric Environment 30: 589-599.
Jacobsen, B.H., Petersen, B.M., Berntsen, J., Boye, C., Sørensen, C.G., Søgaard,H.T. & Han- sen, J.P., 1999. An integrated economic and environmental farm simulation model (FAS- SET). Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Copenhagen. Report No. 102.
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES (BAT) FOR IRISH INTENSIVE PIG AND POULTRY PRODUCERS
W. Magette1* T. Curran1, G. Provolo2, V. Dodd1, P. Grace1 B. Sheridan1 & E. Cummins1
1Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, University College Dublin, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, IRELAND *Corresponding author: william.magette@ucd.ie
2Instituto di Ingegneria Agraria, Via Celoria 2, Universita di Milano, I-20133 Milan, Italy
Abstract
The EU Directive (96/61/EC) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution preven- tion and control (IPPC) requires for a variety of industrial activities to be issued environ- mental permits (e.g., IPPC licenses) to ensure a high level of environmental protection. In- stallations for the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry are among the industrial activities that will require IPPC licenses. The IPPC Directive states that emission limit values, parameters or equivalent technical measures should be based on best available techniques (BAT) taking into consideration the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical loca- tion and local environmental conditions. We were commissioned by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency to develop a draft Best Available Techniques Guidance Note, which will identify BAT for controlling emissions to all environmental media (soil, water and air) from intensive pig and poultry rearing operations. We considered issues ranging from building de- sign to operating (i.e., managerial) practices, as well as related issues such as animal welfare, disease transmission, and food safety. In this paper we present our preliminary synthesis of scientific papers, legislation, and limited on-site operating data from facilities in Ireland and other EU Member States.
Key words: IPPC, BAT, agricultural pollution.
Introduction
In June 2000, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency contracted us1 to produce a "draft BAT note" applicable to pig and poultry operations in preparation for implementing EU Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).
This Directive advances environmental management beyond that mandated by previous EU legislation, and endeavours "to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution" from specified activities. Among the specified activities in Directive 96/61/EC are those for the in- tensive rearing of pigs and poultry.
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES (BAT) FOR IRISH INTENSIVE PIG AND POULTRY PRODUCERS
W. Magette1* T. Curran1, G. Provolo2, V. Dodd1, P. Grace1 B. Sheridan1 & E. Cummins1
1Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, University College Dublin, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, IRELAND *Corresponding author: william.magette@ucd.ie
2Instituto di Ingegneria Agraria, Via Celoria 2, Universita di Milano, I-20133 Milan, Italy
Abstract
The EU Directive (96/61/EC) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution preven- tion and control (IPPC) requires for a variety of industrial activities to be issued environ- mental permits (e.g., IPPC licenses) to ensure a high level of environmental protection. In- stallations for the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry are among the industrial activities that will require IPPC licenses. The IPPC Directive states that emission limit values, parameters or equivalent technical measures should be based on best available techniques (BAT) taking into consideration the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical loca- tion and local environmental conditions. We were commissioned by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency to develop a draft Best Available Techniques Guidance Note, which will identify BAT for controlling emissions to all environmental media (soil, water and air) from intensive pig and poultry rearing operations. We considered issues ranging from building de- sign to operating (i.e., managerial) practices, as well as related issues such as animal welfare, disease transmission, and food safety. In this paper we present our preliminary synthesis of scientific papers, legislation, and limited on-site operating data from facilities in Ireland and other EU Member States.
Key words: IPPC, BAT, agricultural pollution.
Introduction
In June 2000, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency contracted us1 to produce a "draft BAT note" applicable to pig and poultry operations in preparation for implementing EU Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).
This Directive advances environmental management beyond that mandated by previous EU legislation, and endeavours "to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution" from specified activities. Among the specified activities in Directive 96/61/EC are those for the in- tensive rearing of pigs and poultry.
Directive 96/61/EC requires affected activities to employ “best available techniques” (BAT) for pollution prevention and control, and gives a generic definition of BAT and related terms.
“BAT shall mean, the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole:
Techniques shall include both the technology used and the way in which the in- stallation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned,
Available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows imple- mentation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator,
Best shall mean most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole."
Our group had previously been responsible for developing guidance notes for EPA (EPA 1996a, 1996b) describing the best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BAT- NEEC) in the pig and poultry production sectors. Our brief in this project was to update these documents by defining more specifically what constitutes BAT for controlling environmental emissions from these two types of agricultural industries in Ireland. In addition to environ- mental emission issues, we also were to consider related topics such as animal welfare, dis- ease transmission, food safety, buffer zones, energy management, and soil P limits.
We were required to produce three iterations of the draft BAT note, allowing for public re- view and comment during the development process. This paper presents our current progress toward this end. We understand each Member State is conducting a similar appraisal.
Methods
On our behalf the Irish EPA established a "BAT Reference Committee" to facilitate interac- tion with agricultural and environmental stakeholders and preparation of the initial drafts of the BAT note. Membership on the committee consisted of prominent representatives from the pig / poultry industries, the National Agricultural Research and Advisory Service, and the National Fisheries Management Agency. EPA chaired committee meetings, which were held
Directive 96/61/EC requires affected activities to employ “best available techniques” (BAT) for pollution prevention and control, and gives a generic definition of BAT and related terms.
“BAT shall mean, the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole:
Techniques shall include both the technology used and the way in which the in- stallation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned,
Available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows imple- mentation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator,
Best shall mean most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole."
Our group had previously been responsible for developing guidance notes for EPA (EPA 1996a, 1996b) describing the best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BAT- NEEC) in the pig and poultry production sectors. Our brief in this project was to update these documents by defining more specifically what constitutes BAT for controlling environmental emissions from these two types of agricultural industries in Ireland. In addition to environ- mental emission issues, we also were to consider related topics such as animal welfare, dis- ease transmission, food safety, buffer zones, energy management, and soil P limits.
We were required to produce three iterations of the draft BAT note, allowing for public re- view and comment during the development process. This paper presents our current progress toward this end. We understand each Member State is conducting a similar appraisal.
Methods
On our behalf the Irish EPA established a "BAT Reference Committee" to facilitate interac- tion with agricultural and environmental stakeholders and preparation of the initial drafts of the BAT note. Membership on the committee consisted of prominent representatives from the pig / poultry industries, the National Agricultural Research and Advisory Service, and the National Fisheries Management Agency. EPA chaired committee meetings, which were held
prior to our preparation of a first draft of the BAT note. (Subsequent meetings with the com- mittee will be held as we produce the two additional iterations of the draft BAT note).
We conducted an extensive literature review focused on five key areas:
• manure management and emissions to soil and water
• odour and ammonia emissions to the atmosphere
• atmospheric dispersion modelling as an analytical tool
• waste management systems and building design
• odour and ammonia treatment technologies.
We also developed a very detailed questionnaire for distribution to selected European and American colleagues in an attempt to solicit operating data about outstanding pig and poultry production facilities in other countries. We endeavoured to visit some facilities firsthand, and were assisted in doing so by gracious hosts in Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and America. In addition, we attended various technical conferences both to learn about the latest research in pollution control for intensive animal production facilities and to publicise our ef- forts to develop a BAT statement for Ireland. We “networked” with leading scientists in Europe and the U.S. via email, and also worked through professional organisations (i.e., European Society of Agricultural Engineers) to solicit information for use in our analysis.
Our ultimate objective was to identify technologies and techniques that were:
• widely perceived to provide exceptional control of environmental emissions
• commercially available and/or in widespread use
• applicable in Irish conditions.
Results and Discussion
Our meetings with the BAT Reference Committee have been productive in transferring in- formation to and from agricultural and environmental stakeholders, as represented by the committee membership. We have had frank discussions encompassing philosophical to prac- tical issues. Our broad literature review has produced a database of nearly 1000 citations, most of which were written in the last 10 years. Our attendance at a variety of recent confer- ences has assured us that we are up-to-date on the latest developments in pollution control for animal-based enterprises. Likewise, with the assistance of colleagues in Europe and America, we feel confident that we have seen examples of the best management practices and technolo- gies that have achieved widespread commercial application.
Perhaps not surprisingly, we received very limited responses to our questionnaire. We believe the poor response was due largely to the comprehensive nature of the questions we asked. For example, for a given operation deemed to be exceptional, we requested quite specific opera-
prior to our preparation of a first draft of the BAT note. (Subsequent meetings with the com- mittee will be held as we produce the two additional iterations of the draft BAT note).
We conducted an extensive literature review focused on five key areas:
• manure management and emissions to soil and water
• odour and ammonia emissions to the atmosphere
• atmospheric dispersion modelling as an analytical tool
• waste management systems and building design
• odour and ammonia treatment technologies.
We also developed a very detailed questionnaire for distribution to selected European and American colleagues in an attempt to solicit operating data about outstanding pig and poultry production facilities in other countries. We endeavoured to visit some facilities firsthand, and were assisted in doing so by gracious hosts in Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and America. In addition, we attended various technical conferences both to learn about the latest research in pollution control for intensive animal production facilities and to publicise our ef- forts to develop a BAT statement for Ireland. We “networked” with leading scientists in Europe and the U.S. via email, and also worked through professional organisations (i.e., European Society of Agricultural Engineers) to solicit information for use in our analysis.
Our ultimate objective was to identify technologies and techniques that were:
• widely perceived to provide exceptional control of environmental emissions
• commercially available and/or in widespread use
• applicable in Irish conditions.
Results and Discussion
Our meetings with the BAT Reference Committee have been productive in transferring in- formation to and from agricultural and environmental stakeholders, as represented by the committee membership. We have had frank discussions encompassing philosophical to prac- tical issues. Our broad literature review has produced a database of nearly 1000 citations, most of which were written in the last 10 years. Our attendance at a variety of recent confer- ences has assured us that we are up-to-date on the latest developments in pollution control for animal-based enterprises. Likewise, with the assistance of colleagues in Europe and America, we feel confident that we have seen examples of the best management practices and technolo- gies that have achieved widespread commercial application.
Perhaps not surprisingly, we received very limited responses to our questionnaire. We believe the poor response was due largely to the comprehensive nature of the questions we asked. For example, for a given operation deemed to be exceptional, we requested quite specific opera-
