Sabine Houot, Marie-Noel Pons, Marylis Pradel, Marc-Antoine Caillaud, Isabelle Savini, Anaïs Tibi

BrusselsMarch 16th, 2015

USE OF FERTILIZING WASTE MATERIALSIN AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REPORT

INRA – CNRS - IRSTEA

.02

• A mission for the French research organizations a national charter since 2011

• Objective: To provide policy makers with an up to date view of the scientific and technological knowledge on any question of economical, environmental or public health importance

• Procedure for the expert report on fertilizing waste materials (“MAFOR”)Official request from French ministries Constitution of a scientific task force (declaration of potential conflicts of interests)

33 scientific experts + 2 documentation specialists + a project teamExamination of the scientific literature (peer-reviewed mostly) by experts

What is known/unknown, controversial, needs for additional research About 3500 references cited in the report

• The request: assessment of the agronomic benefits of MAFOR, their potential impacts on ecosystem contamination, and the overall economic and social consequences of their use.

No recommendations are proposed Out of the scope: potential health impacts, comparison between agricultural

spreading and other ways of recycling or elimination, assessment of treatments efficiency

Collective scientific expertise a scientific synthesis for policy makers

.03

• Summary of the expert report in french (107p) (soon available in english) https://inra-dam-front-resources-cdn.brainsonic.com/ressources/afile/267560-bfb3b-resource-esco-mafor-synthese.html

• Synopsis (8p) in englishhttps://inra-dam-front-resources-cdn.brainsonic.com/ressources/afile/261380-eeab2-resource-mafor-8-page-synopsis.html

• Full expert report (950p) in Frenchhttp://institut.inra.fr/Missions/Eclairer-les-decisions/Expertises/Toutes-les-actualites/Expertise-Mafor-effluents-boues-et-dechets-organiques#

Full text documents online

.04

Ressource and use of MAFOR in France

Diversity of MAFOR- Mainly coming from agriculture: 94% of spread amounts are animal manures- 6% remaining = composts and other MAFOR from urban and industrial origin (15

to 80% of the potential already recycled)

121 millions tons (fresh mass, FM) of MAFOR spread every year 17t FM ha-1 agricultural land in average + 148 millions tons of animal manure directly emitted on pasture lands

Fait avec Philcarto * 26/04/2014 08:09:24 * http://philcarto.free.fr

Effectif total

522293 [R13]

488083 [R12]

318019 [R14]

230708 [R06]

159583 [R07]

86541 [R19]

fumier bovin

lisier bovin

effluents avicoles

effluents porcins

effluents ovins et cunicoles

compost d'origine animale

compost DV ou OM

boues STEU / STEI

effluents de l'industrie betteravière

autre Mafor organique

Fait avec Philcarto * 26/04/2014 08:10:43 * http://philcarto.free.fr

Effectif total

706944 [R19]

373213 [R16]

277097 [R07]

152966 [R18]

50239 [R04]

12831 [R10]

fumier bovin

lisier bovin

effluents avicoles

effluents porcins

effluents ovins et cunicoles

compost d'origine animale

compost DV ou OM

boues STEU / STEI

effluents de l'industrie betteravière

autre Mafor organique

Spatial heterogeneity of Mafor spreading in France potential engineering to optimize the spatial redistribution of ressource

Fait avec Philcarto * 20/03/2014 16:18:46 * http://philcarto.free.fr

Effectif total

522293 [R13]

488083 [R12]

318019 [R14]

230708 [R06]

159583 [R07]

86541 [R19]

fumier bovin

lisier bovin

effluents avicoles

effluents porcins

effluents ovins et cunicoles

compost d'origine animale

compost DV ou OM

boues STEU / STEI

effluents de l'industrie betteravière

autre Mafor organique

Fait avec Philcarto * 20/03/2014 16:18:46 * http://philcarto.free.fr

Effectif total

522293 [R13]

488083 [R12]

318019 [R14]

230708 [R06]

159583 [R07]

86541 [R19]

fumier bovin

lisier bovin

effluents avicoles

effluents porcins

effluents ovins et cunicoles

compost d'origine animale

compost DV ou OM

boues STEU / STEI

effluents de l'industrie betteravière

autre Mafor organiqueOther

Urban composts

sludges

Farmyard manure

Cattle manure

Poultry manure

Pig manure

Other manure

Composted manure

Sugarbeet effluents

POTENTIAL INTEREST FOR CROPS AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMETAL IMPACTS

.05

.06

Interests of MAFOR use in agriculture fertilizer and soil improver To be demonstrated before use of any new substrate

MAFOR

Soil improverOM, pH

FertilizerN, P, K

WasteCo-products

Treatment

Soil properties

SOIL

Pedo-climatic conditionsAgricultural practices

.07

Relationship between N fertilizer and organic amendment potentials

Composting

Phase separation

Drying Anaerobic digestion

Potential efficiency as organic amendment

N mineral fertilizer equivalent 100% mineral N equivalent

Slurry/Poultry manures

Pig and cattle slurries

Sewage sludges

Raw digestatesfrom anaerobic digestion

Compost MBT

Farmyardmanure

Composts (manures, sludge, digestates,

greenwastes, biowastes)

.08

Fertilizer values of MAFOR mineral fertilizer substitution

Mineral N fertilizer equivalent:

From Gutser et al., 2005ESCo « Breeding and Nitrogen » 2012

P fertilizer equivalent: • Mineral P fertilizer equivalent >80%

• Exceptions: Ashes and sludges where P has been precipitated• Potentially enough P in Mafor to satisfy all crop needs for P

K fertilizer equivalent: similar to mineral K fertilizer

MAFOR as organic amendment: potential increase of soil organic matter Physical:

Structure, water ,

compaction

Chemical:CEC, pH

Biological: Activities,

biodiversity

Standardized indicator of efficiency (XPU 44 162) Database available

Prediction of SOM increase

Lashermes et al.,2009

Peltre et al.,2012

.010

Associated environmental impacts

WATER

AIR

NO3

DOCP

NH3

0-100% NH4

incorporation

EF N2O: 1.425%

EF CH4: <1%Slurries, digestates

N2O CH4

VOC

VOC1-100 g/ha

Emission factors to be improved

3 juillet 2014

POTENTIAL IMPACTS RELATED TO CONTAMINANTS

.011

.012

TransferTo ground waters

Three classes of contaminants

Contaminants in MAFOR

05/05/2014

Run off

Leaching

MAFOR

Retention and transformation

Transfer to plants

Transfer to animals

TransferTo surface waters

Biological

Organic

Trace elements

PersistanceMobilityBiodisponibilityTransfer to

waters

.013

• Main threats:

Plant diseases or zoonosis

Dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes

• Associated with faecal origin: sewage sludge and animal manures

• Potential actions

Biological contaminants

05/05/2014

Treatments hygienization : temperature (composting , thermophilic anaerobic digestion); drying, pH increase

No treatment 100% efficient

Agricultural practices: Delay between spreading and harvest, animal return to grass… Variation among countries (3 to 6 weeks in France; 1 year in Denmark)

.014

ADEME, Belon 2012

• Limited numbers; more or less (Sn, Tl…) documented; naturally present in the environment

• Nanoparticles: impacts poorly known (Ag, Ti)

• Persistant accumulation in soils. Sludge regulation and TE thresholds no impacts on soils and crops after 15 years. Longer term?

Trace elements

05/05/2014

Pesticides

Mineral fertilizers

Animal manure

Liming materials

Sludges and composts

Atmospheric deposition

Annual contribution of the 6 contamination sources to the total amount of TE reaching soils in France

Similar regulation for all fertilizers

.015

Treatment:

Decrease of mobility

Total concentration:

• increase after digestion or composting

• Dilution after liming

Initial imputs

Choice of woods before burning decrease of TE concentration in ashes

Animal feeds or prescriptions

Sorting before treatment: Biowaste composting, separate networks for industrial waste waters

Potential actions to decrease TE fluxes or impacts

05/05/2014

.016

Very large diversity, few contaminants regulated

Major threats: pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors

More or less persistant (days to years); metabolites can be toxic

Partial dissipation during treatment; bound residues linked to organic phases

Impacts on crops:

hydrophobic molecules: sorbed on roots but no transfer

other: potential transfer but few data and not observed in real conditions

Impacts on animals: little data; studies with pure molecules

Organic contaminants

05/05/2014

3 juillet 2014

SYNTHESIS AND RESEARCH NEEDS

.017

• Difficult to take into account all variation factors• In publications, Mafor are poorly described• Nothing new on acceptability and economical aspects

Origin : treatment

Soil

Climate

Time

What has to be considered to evaluate the use of MAFOR in agriculture

Spreading

Synthesis of scientific publications:

Emissions

.019

Economic conditions to the substitution of Mafor for mineral fertilizers?

• Price of Mafor compared to mineral fertilizer• Very few studies; price of Mafor can be an obstacle to their use although they

are usually low.• No cost for Mafor with waste status could be incentive in context of price

increase of mineral fertilizers.

• Synthesis of cost/benefits of treatment/use of Mafor transport and spatial redistribution between areas with surplus or deficit of Mafor• Little scientific data on exchange markets of Mafor between producers and

users• Litle data to arbitrate between cost of spreading raw materials (related to

transport) and cost of treatment before spreading (objective to decrease volume and transport costs) to be able to export Mafor from areas with surplus

.020

Needs to optimize the use of Mafor

• Upstream : typology of agronomical interests: origin X treatment characteristics

and potential interest of Mafor presence and behavior of contaminants during treatments

• Territorial management including all concerned actors Works on acceptability of Mafor Economic record related to the use of Mafor: cost/benefits approaches, studies

on existing market related to Mafor use; potential spatial redistribution of Mafor? Complete environmental evaluations : including treatment upstream

• Plots/ farm : Quality/method and date of spreading Optimisation of cropping system Adapted and parameterized decision tools Behavior of contaminants; delay after spreading: soil resilience; hierarchy of

contaminants Sanitary risk evaluation To be able to predict long term impacts (> 20 years) long term experiments Environmental evaluations : considering benefits and environmental impacts

.021

Acknowledgments

Thanks to all involved experts, to the team project!

Thank you for your attention!