Examples of implementing manure processing technology at the farm level in the Baltic Sea Region
Erik Sindhöj1*, Anni Alitalo2, Pellervo Kässi2, Ilkka Sipilä2, Kalvi Tamm3, Lena Rodhe1
1JTI – Uppsala Sweden, 2MTT – Agrifood Research Finland, 3Estonian Research Institute of Agriculture*[email protected]
Slurry cooling
Motives for use: energy recovery and reduced ammonia emissions
Pellon
ReferenceSindhöj E., Rodhe L., (Editors). 2013. Examples of Implementing
Manure Processing Technology at Farm Level. Report 412, Agriculture & Industry. JTI- Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden
Drum composting
Motives for use: received tipping fees for horse manure, income from composted products
A)
B) C)ECSAB
Slurry acidification
Motives for use: ammonia abatement demanded by authorities
Biocover SyreN
Nutrient concentrationPROTOTYPES
Motives for use: reduced volume to store and spread, create a fertilizer product more similar to mineral fertilizers
Belt press separator
Screw press separator
Aerobic biological treatment
Solid Fraction
Ammonium sulfate
Effluent
Scrubber
Pig slurry
Solid fraction
Liquid fraction
Solid fraction
Chemical flocculation
Liquid fraction
Liquid fraction
Ammonia stripping Scrubber
Chemical addition
Pellon Biosampo and schematic process flow
Processing technology Type of farm (country) Processing capacity Costs*(€ m-3 yr-1) Incomes and savings not included
Nutrient concentration – Prototype Dairy farm (SE) Target capacity 15000 m3 yr-1 4.92 Less costs for storage, transport and spreading; possible fertiliser saleNutrient concentration – Prototype Pig farm (FI) Target capacity 6000 m3 yr-1 3.81Nutrient concentration - Reverse osmosis Pig farm (NL), 1050 sows 10 000 m3 yr-1 6.49 Less costs for exporting manure, sold liquid fertiliser
Acidification - In housing Pig farm (DK), produces 6500 finishers yr-1 Max capacity NA, farm generates 3250 m3 yr-1 6.68 Saved N; S fertilisation unnecessaryAcidification - In storage Dairy farm (EE) Max capacity NA, farm generates 14 000 m3 yr-1 0.13 S fertilisation unnecessary (Dosage only for S fertilisation)Acidification - During spreading Fictive pig farm (DK), 3800 places, typical for DK Max capacity NA, farm generates 6000 m3 yr-1 1.04 Saved N; S fertilisation unnecessary
Composting - Drum Beef cattle (SE), deep litter manure Max capacity 18 500 m3 yr-1 5.55 Income from tipping fees, sold commercial soil and fertiliser products
Composting - Drum Pig and beef cattle (SE), 640 sows with 5500 places for finishers, and 150 nursing cows Max capacity 18 500 m3 yr-1 3.96 Reduced volumes to store and spread and sold commercial soil and
fertiliser products
Mechanical separation - Screw press Pig farm (FI), 600 sows, 2300 finishers yr-1 Max capacity 25 m3 hr-1 pig slurry, generates 1700 m3 yr-1 2.11 Saved logistic costs, better allocation of nutrients on farmMechanical separation - Centrifuge Dairy farm with biogas (SE), 450 milking cows Approx. 20 000 m3 digestate yr-1 1.62 Less costs for liquid manure handling (but costs for solids)
Slurry cooling - Heat pumps Pig farm (FI), 1000 fattening pig places Max capacity NA, cools 1200 of 2000 m3 yr-1 2.99 Saved N and energy
Mechanical separation
Motives for use: reduced volume of slurry to store and spread, odor reduction, alternative use of solid fraction
*costs include investment, maintenance and operational costs. Annuity method was used for investment costs with 10 yrs depreciation and 5% APR (interest).
Storage for solid fraction Solid-liquid
separation
Aerobic biologicaltreatment
NH3stripping
NH3scrubbing
Table: Processing technology, type of farm, processing capacity and cost of processing.
Top Related