Cemagref - For Your Information · 200 doctorate and 40 post-doctorate students 110 M€budget including 79 M€Core Budget and 31 M€contracts (2010) Public research institute (EPST)

1 Midwest Manure Summit – Green Bay – February 2011

Cemagref

Environmental science and technology

research institute


Cemagref

9 centres + 2 branches (Strasbourg

and Martinique)

Workforce of

1400 including 500 scientists,

200 doctorate and 40 post-doctorate

students

110 M€ budget including 79 M€ Core

Budget and 31 M€ contracts (2010)

Public research institute (EPST)


Competences

Scientific and technical support for public policyin the form of research, science advice, models and operational tools

An engineeringapproach that includes multi-disciplinary components

Land, water and environmental technologies Fields directly related to the needs of Society


Organisation

Water

Resources, environments, uses and risks

Environmental technologies

Networks, water treatment, waste

LandTerritorial development, biodiversity, risks and

vulnerabilities

12 research themes

3 departments


International partnerships (out of Europe)

Canada : Laval

University, INRS,

University of British

Columbia,

Mc Gill Univ.,

Ministry of Natural

Resources,IRDA

US : USGS, MIT,

UC Berkeley,

UC Davis

USDA-ARS

Brazil : Sao Paulo

University, Brasilia

University, EMBRAPA,

National Water Agency

(ANA)

Mediterranean area :IAV Hassan II Marocco,

INRGREF Tunisia

South Africa :Cape Town University, IWMI

Australia :ANU, CSIRO, USYD,

UTS, UNSW, Univ. of

Western Australia,

Monash Univ.,

Newcastle Univ.

New Zealand :

NIWA, Landcare Research


Cemagref organisation

Technologies for sustainable

agricultural systems

Technologies for clean,

energy-efficient processes

Water and waste technologies

and processes

Integration, modelling and

environmental evaluation

Environmental technologiesNetworks, water treatment, waste


A set of technological platforms

1.5 T Agro&Process MRI in Rennes Test facility for irrigation systems in Aix

Computer cluster in Clermont-Ferrand

Low-speed aeraulic platform in Rennes

Tractor test track and truck

equipped with dynamometric

apparatus in Antony

Remote sensing

in Montpellier

L’Esturial in Bordeaux

Test facility

for manure

spreading

in Clermont

Reduction

of pesticide

pollutions

in Montpellier


Cemagref in Rennes

60 permanent staffs

20 PhD students

2 research units

Food product quality

Environmental management and biological

treatment of wastes (GERE)


Cemagref and livestock effluents

Labo mobile

In line or single

analysis N2O, NH3,

CO2, CH4

+ ventilation

Floating chamber

plastic tent + sucking

Wind tunnel

Static chamber


In situ measurement of green house gas emission


In situ measurement of treatment plants performances


Pilot experiments

Biological pilot treatment plant

used for studying nitrogen

removal.

Equipment to measure

ammonia emissions in

controlled conditions


Pilot experiments

Combined anaerobic digestion

+aerobic nitrogen removal


Laboratory test to assess methanogenic potential from animal

wastes

1- Pressure is measured to calculate

the biogas amount

2- Headspace is analysed for

CO2/CH4 ratio


Some others lab equipments….

CODGas chromatograph

HPLC (VFA,

Sugars, Lipids…)

TKN

Microscopy

European perspectives on technical

and economical approaches to

phosphorus recycling

Marie-Line Daumer


Plan

Context

– Why recycling P is important ?

– What is the problem in Europe ?

Phosphorus in animal manure

– Sources of animal P

– P from Cattle manure

– P from Poultry manure

– P from Pig manure

Phosphorus Recycling from liquid effluents

– Current techniques

– Developing techniques

Conclusions


Context : Why recycling P is important ?

Phosphorus is a limited Resources

– Available for the next 100 – 400 years depending on the

technical and economical criteria for the extraction.

Phosphorus is contributing to surface water eutrophication

Photo :

http://eauxpluviales.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/introduction/

Environmental impact

Wildlife (fauna and flora) disturbances

Economical consequences :

• Drinkable water (less authorized

resources and more expensive to purify)

• Leisure use compromised

• Fish farming impossible


Context : What is the problem in Europe?

Source JRC-IES

Livestock concentration

Source JRC-IES

Solution = Transfer ?

500 km


Phosphorus in animal manure : sources

Source JRC-IES

Most of the phosphorus is from bovine and other grazing animals


Phosphorus in animal manure : Cattle

Vaches laitièresVaches allaitantes

100 0 100 Kilometers

N

Source : AGRESTE-Statistique

agricole annuelle 1995

Mise en page : Cemagref GERE

Labo SIG

édité le 21/05/01

GEOFLA®©IGN2000

Dairy cows

Others

Bovine and grazing animals are spread

over all the territory :

Manure is already used locally

Example for France (comparable to UK)

Grazing is still significant, bovine farms

have usually enough land :

No or low surplus at the farm level

Excepted in Netherlands

In the current context P from cattle manure is

not an issue excepted in some cases

But it can become if bands are increasing

without increasing the surfaces.


Long term effect (NTK/P)

0

2

4

6

8

10

deep

litte

r

yard

scr

apin

g

com

poste

d man

ure

undilu

ted li

quid m

anure

dilute

d liq

uid m

anur

e

calv

es s

lurr

y

dirty

wat

er

N/P

in

bo

vin

e m

an

ure

N/P in manure N/P mini for crops N/P max for crops

0

2

4

6

8

10

deep

litte

r

yard

scr

apin

g

com

poste

d man

ure

undilu

ted li

quid m

anure

dilute

d liq

uid m

anur

e

calv

es s

lurr

y

dirty

wat

er

N/P

in

bo

vin

e m

an

ure

N ammo/P N/P mini for crops N/P max for crops

Phosphorus in animal manure : Cattle

Short term effect (Namm./P)

Bovine manures are quite well balanced

Considering long term effect

(mineralization of organic nitrogen)

P surplus in solid manures

No surplus at farm level:

•Complementary mineral N

P surplus at farm level

•Exportation of the manureP surplus in liquid manures

•Recycling by extraction


Phosphorus in animal manure : cattle

P recycling by extraction will depend on the country

France

1

1

2

2

UK

4

4

Spain

Italy

3

3Germany

5

5

The proportion of manure from housed cattle produced

as liquid on a country by country basis (Burton and

Turner, 2003).

Liquid manure

Extraction

Solid manure

Exportation


Phosphorus in animal manure : poultry

GEOFLA®©IGN2000


agricole annuelle 1995

Mise en page : Cemagref GERE

Labo SIG

édité le 21/05/01

N


Poules pondeusesPoulets de chair et coqsDindes, dindonsCanards

Laying Hens

Broilers

Turkeys

Ducks

Example for France

(comparable to other countries)

Poultry are in defined areas

Poultry farms have usually not enough

land :

High surplus at the farm level


0

2

4

6

8

10

Duc

k sl

urry

Layin

g Hen

s Slu

rry

Layin

g Hen

s M

anure

Drie

d Lay

ing H

ens

Man

ure

Bro

ilers

Man

ure

Turkey

Man

ure

N/P

in

po

ult

ry m

an

ure


0

2

4

6

8

10

Duc

k sl

urry

Layin

g Hen

s Slu

rry

Layin

g Hen

s M

anure

Drie

d Lay

ing H

ens

Man

ure

Bro

ilers

Man

ure

Turkey

Man

ure

N/P

in

po

ult

ry m

an

ure


Long term effect (NTK/P) Short term effect (Namm./P)


Poultry manures are not balanced P surplus in solid manures

•High dry matter content

•Low bedding material

•Heat available

Easy to dry and to export

P surplus in liquid manures

•Recycling by extraction (see

below)


• Other solution developed for solids

– Combustion (in UK mainly): 3 units

– The biggest one :

• 400.000 ton dry solid poultry manure

• 800-850°C

• Electricity produced 38.5 MW

• Supported with subsidies from a governmental program on non-fossil fuel electricity generation.

• Ashes used as K and P fertilizer



Phosphorus in animal manure : pigs

Example for France

(comparable to other countries)

Pigs are in defined areas

Pigs farms have usually not enough land :

High surplus at the farm level

GEOFLA®©IGN2000


agricole annuelle 1995Mise en page : Cemagref GERE Labo SIG

édité le 21/05/01

N


Truies


Long term effect (NTK/P) Short term effect (Namm./P)


Pigs slurries are not balanced

P surplus in liquid (slurries)

•Recycling (see below)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Sow

Wea

ner

Fatte

nerM

ixt

N/P

in

pig

slu

rry


0

2

4

6

8

10

Sow

Wea

ner

Fatte

nerM

ixt

N/P

in

pig

slu

rry




Main pig farmers are producing slurries (liquid manure)

1

1

France

2

2

Denmark3

3

Germany

4

4

Spain

Italy

5

5

The proportion of manure from housed pigs produced as

liquid on a country by country basis (Burton and Turner,

2003).

6

6Netherlands

Liquid manure

Extraction


• Most of P from animal is coming from cattle in Europe but– Cattle are spread over all the territory

– In cattle farms, P surplus are low. Solids are in concern.

– Local application complemented by mineral N fertilization when required.

– Exportation of solid manure on short distances because of volume (bedding material) and dry matter

• Less than 10% of P is coming from poultry in Europe but– Poultry are produced in specific areas

– In poultry farms, P surplus are high, solids are in concern

– Exportation after drying is developed –medium distances- high dry matter, low bedding materials

– Exportation of ashes after combustion (ashes used as mineral fertilizer, UK mainly)

• Less than 10% of P is coming from pigs in Europe but– Pigs are produced in specific areas

– In pigs farms, P surplus are high, liquids are in concern

– Exportation after mechanical separation is developed –short distances-(low dry matter)

Phosphorus in animal manure : conclusion


P recycling from liquid manure: current techniques

History

N : 3-4 kg.m-3

P : 1 kg.m-3

Raw slurry

Spreading basis : 170 kg organic

N/ha/year

43-57 kg P/ha

Low surplus

N : 0,5-1 kg.m-3

P : 0,8-1 kg.m-3

Biological treatment

Nitrate directive

1991

140-340 kg P/ha

High surplus

!

N and P have to be removed in

the same ratio!


Recycling P from liquid manure: current techniques

• P in liquid manure is as small and dense particles (calcium P

or magnesium P) Mechanical separation

– Developed at a large scale only for pig slurry and mainly in

France, Belgium and Spain

Centrifuge decanter



Press-auger Decantation

+ press

auger

Vibrating

screen

Filter-

press

Vacuum or

band filter

Centrifuge

decantor

Mass % 4-8 4-8 15-20 15-20 11-16 10-13

P% 6-26 25-35 3-32 92-97 80-92 70-80

N% 2-14 2-14 5-24 5-15 32-38 14-25

DM% 30-36 30-36 11-8 26-27 24-26 30-35

P(kg/t) 12 12 5 11 15 23

N (kg/t) 7.5 7.5 5.2 9 10 11

Energy

(KW/m3)

1 1 <1 5 1.5 3-6

Invest (k€) 40-50 40 10-15 350 60-90 125

Further

treatment

Drying or

composting

Drying or

composting

Composting

with bulking

Compostin

g

Composting

with bulking

Composting

Performances of separation devices


• Limits of mechanical separation

– Post-treatment of solid required

– Product outlet (short distances- 20km)

– Competition with other organic fertilizers (composts from

household wastes)

• Other techniques

– Developed only at pilot scale

– Too sophisticated to be manage at farm level in European

context

– Too expensive



Recycling P from liquid manure: Perspectives

Biologically

treated

pig slurry

separation Sludge (OM)

precipitation

filtration

Mineral fertilizer

Struvite

(MgNH4PO4)

+

CaPO4

acidification

Liquid

(K)

Liquid (P)

Which acid ?

•HCl

•H2SO4

•HNO3

•Acetic

•Formic

Technical approach 1



Biologically

treated

pig slurry

acidification separation Sludge (OM)

precipitation

filtration Liquid

(K)

Mineral fertilizer

Struvite

(MgNH4PO4)

+

CaPO4

Liquid (P)

Which technique?

Decantation

•72h

•Sludge = 50%

•Liquid (P)= 50%

Draining + polymère

•<1h

•Sludge = 20%

•Liquid (P)= 80%




Biologically

treated

pig slurry

acidification separation Sludge (OM)

precipitation

filtration Liquid

(K)

Mineral fertilizer

Struvite

(MgNH4PO4)

+

CaPO4

Liquid (P)

Which reactant?

•MgCl2 + NaOH

•MgO



• Mineral fertiliser quality


g/kg

TS 838±1

P 96±2 26%(P2O5)

NTK 4±1 <1%

Ca 142±26 24%(CaO)

Mg 70±10 14%(MgO)

K 50±4 7%(K2O)

Na 17±1

Normalized NPK (N-P2O5-K2O): 0-26-7 +24% of CaO +14% of MgO,.

In compliance French standard NF U42-001/A8 class II (> 18% of P2O5+K2O).

Close to the limits for class III products (fertilizers supplying calcium and magnesium).

The neutralizing value of the products was not analysed in the present study.



Amount (kg/m 3) P.U.(€/k

g)

Price (€/m 3)

Formic Acetic Formic Acetic

Acid 8 20 1 8 20

MgO 1 2 1.5 1.5 3

Invest 1.4 1.4

En.&

Maint.

1.4 1.4

Total 12.3 26.1

Economical approach



Economical approach

acide

66%

MgO

12%

investissement

11%

énergie et

maintenance

11%

acide

66%

MgO

12%

investissement

11%

énergie et

maintenance

11%

acide

66%

MgO

12%

investissement

11%

énergie et

maintenance

11%

acide

66%

MgO

12%

investissement

11%

énergie et

maintenance

11%

acide

66%

MgO

12%

investissement

11%

énergie et

maintenance

11%

acide

66%

MgO

12%

investissement

11%

énergie et

maintenance

11%

Total 12.3€/m3 of pig slurry treated

Acid

66%

MgO

12%

Invests

11%

Energy &

maintenance

11%


•Treatment point of view :

• cost >Centrifugation (2€/m 3 ) but …

•No further composting required

•Product that can be sold

Conclusions

•Fertilizing point of view (first approxim.):

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000km

Eu

ros

.kg

P-1

Mineral product Solid from centrifuge decanter

Solid product after optimisation Triple super P. Public price including transport


• Fertilizer point of view :

– Recycled P : 15€/kgP

– Mineral P: 10 €/kgP (public price including transport)

– In ten years?

– Higher agronomic efficiency than current mineral P?

• Ingoing works :– Optimization

– Full scale pilot for pig slurry and agro-food indutries effluents (dissolution not required)

– Assessment of fertilizer value

– Environmental assessment of the process

Conclusions


Thank you for your attention

More [email protected]

www.cemagref.fr

mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Cemagref - For Your Information · 200 doctorate and 40 post-doctorate students 110 M€budget including 79 M€Core Budget and 31 M€contracts (2010) Public research institute (EPST)