Project: Best praccces for Agricultural Wastes (AW) treatment and reuse in the Mediterranean countries Co- funded by LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance, LIFE10 ENV/GR/594 Website: www.wastereuse.eu, 01/09/11-31/08/15 WASTEREUSE conference, Brussels, 12 May 2015 Towards A Sustainable Use of Agricultural Waste The WASTEREUSE approach on sustainable use of agricultural waste Prof KonstanEnos Komnitsas Chania, Crete, Greece 1
CoordinaCng Beneficiary:, www.mred.tuc.gr/p013215_uk.htm Coordinator: Prof. K. Komnitsas, email komni@mred.tuc.gr Associated Beneficiaries: - Centro de Edafología y Biología Aplicada del Segura, Consejo Superior de InvesEgaciones CienYficas (CEBAS- CSIC), Murcia, Spain, www.cebas.csic.es - Center for Agricultural ExperimentaEon and Assistance (CERSAA), Albenga, Italy, www.cersaa.it - LABCAM s.r.l, Albenga, Italy - Signosis Sprl.,, www.signosis.eu 2
Why treatment and reuse of AWs is required? AWs such as olive oil mill, winery, livestock farm wastes, are produced in huge quan??es in many countries AWs have high content of recalcitrant compounds and are characterized as poten?ally hazardous when disposed untreated on soil or in water bodies AWs reuse has several advantages including (i) produc?on of ferilisers and reduc?on of raw materials needs (eg. phosphate ores), (ii) reduc?on of carbon footprint of agricultural processes, (iii) reduc?on of environmental risk for soils and waters in agricultural areas, and (iv) water savings Prac?ce towards zero waste approach 3
Wastereuse objec?ves Evalua?on of innova?ve and tradi?onal technologies for AW treatment regarding their suitability for crop cul?va?on Development of alterna?ve cul?va?on prac?ces for the most widely cul?vated crops in the Mediterranean region Protec?on of soil quality from the disposal of AW Development of Best Management Prac?ces Reduc?on of carbon footprint in agriculture Increase compe??veness of Mediterranean agriculture 4
Ini?al assessment of exis?ng AW treatment technologies AW treatment technologies, inves?gated/developed in 49 funded projects, were screened and considered for applica?on in Spain and Italy 5
Lab. development of alterna?ve agricultural prac?ces in Spain & Italy Lab experiments were carried out for the characteriza?on of untreated and treated AW Assessment of AW suitability for crop produc?on 35 soil samples from Spain, Italy and Greece were characterized 60 AWs from Italy and Spain, including alperujo, pig slurry manure and compost from olive mill wastes, were assessed 6
Demonstra?on tests in Spain & Italy Objec?ve: demonstra?on of the feasibility of the applica?on of AWs in open field and greenhouse cul?va?ons with cereals and vegetables Study areas in Spain: A) Las Tiesas area in Barrax, Albacete: open- field cereal (barley and so` wheat) cul?va?on B) Tres Caminos area in La Matanza, Santomera, Murcia: cul?va?on of tomato and lebuce in greenhouse The Italian demonstra?on area is located in Albenga, Savona province, Liguria region, in northern Italy. Greenhouse cul?va?ons of basil, rocket and lamb's lebuce as well as open- field cul?va?ons of rosemary, lebuce and cabbage were carried out by CERSAA 7
Greenhouse culevaeons Open- field culevaeons Technical University Crete (TUC) 8 12 May, 2015 Brussels, Belgium
Risk and LCA Analysis Risk analysis is carried out to assess risks for a recipient (soil, water, air), as a result of ac?on (e.g raw materials extrac?on, waste disposal, agricultural ac?vity) LCA is used for the quan?ta?ve assessment of the environmental, economic and social impacts (soil, water and air) during the life cycle of a process (eg. Industrial, agricultural) or product 9
Risk Mapping Methodology A widely used GIS- based approach for the evalua?on of groundwater vulnerability in porous aquifers is the DRASTIC model (developed by US EPA) DRASTIC u?lizes seven hydrogeological parameters to determine vulnerability to groundwater contamina?on DRASTIC is an acronym that stands for the ini?als of the seven hydrogeological parameters D Depth to Water R Net Recharge A Aquifer Media S Soil Media T Topography I Impact of Vadose Zone Media C Hydraulic Conduc?vity of Aquifer 10
DRASTIC overview Each parameter is scaled by a Weigh?ng factor (for the Generic or Agricultural DRASTIC model) ranging from 1 to 5 Then, each parameter is assigned a Ra?ng between 1 and 10, depending on its class DRASTIC index is computed by applying a linear combina?on of the seven parameters based on the equa?on DRASTIC Index = D R D W + R R R W + A R A W + S R S W + T R T W + I R I W + C R C W Where R= Ra?ng, W= Weight DRASTIC provides two different weigh?ng modes, one for normal condi?ons (Generic DRASTIC) and one for condi?ons of intense agricultural ac?vi?es (Agricultural/Pes?cide DRASTIC) as those prevailing at Barrax 11
Depth to water (m) Net Recharge (mm) Aquifer media Soil media Classes Ra?ng Classes Ra?ng Classes Ra?ng Classes Ra?ng (0 1.5) 10 (0 50.8) 1 Massive shale 2 Thin or absent 10 (1.5 4.6) 9 (50.8-101.6) 3 Metamorphic/igneous 3 Gravel 10 (4.6 9.1) 7 (101.6 177.8) 6 Weathered meta - morphic 4 Sand 9 igneous (9.1 15.2) 5 (177.8 254) 8 Glacial?ll 5 Peat 8 (15.2 22.8) 3 (>254) 9 Bedded sandstone, 6 Shrinking clay 7 Limestone (22.8 30.4) 2 Generic DRASTIC weight:4 Massive sandstone 6 Sandy loam 6 (>30.4) 1 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:4 Massive limestone 6 Loam 5 Generic DRASTIC weight:5 Sand and gravel 8 Silty loam 4 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:5 Basalt 9 Clay loam 3 Karst limestone 10 Muck 2 Generic DRASTIC weight:3 No Shrinking clay 1 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:4 Topography (slope %) Impact of vadose zone Hydraulic Conduc?vity (m/d) Classes Ra?ng Classes Ra?ng Classes Ra?ng (0-2) 10 Confining layer 1 (04 4.1) 1 (2-6) 9 Silt/Clay 3 (4.1 12.3) 2 (6-12) 5 Shale 3 (12.3 28.7) 4 (12-18) 3 Metamorphic/ Igneous 4 (28.7 41) 6 (>18) 1 Limestone 6 (41 82) 8 Generic DRASTIC weight:1 Sandstone 6 (>82) 10 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:3 Bedded limestone, 6 Generic DRASTIC weight:3 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:2 Sand and gravel 6 Generic DRASTIC weight:2 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:5 Sand and gravel 8 Basalt 9 Karst limestone 10 Generic DRASTIC weight:5 Agricultural DRASTIC weight:4 12
Spa?al distribu?on of Hydraulic Conduc?vity, Barrax (Spain) 13
Agricultural vulnerability map, Barrax 14
Actual concentra?on of nitrates in groundwater, Barrax 15
Geological map of Albenga (Italy) 16
Hydrographic network and al?tude map, Albenga 17
Land cover map of Albenga and Nitrate Vulnerability Zone (NVZ) 18
Spa?al distribu?on of Hydraulic Conduc?vity, Albenga 19
Pes?cide DRASTIC groundwater vulnerability map, Albenga 20
Suscep?bility Index (SI) groundwater vulnerability map, Albenga 21
Cradle- to- gate approach in LCA 22
Flow diagram of the main phases included in the LCA study 23
Contribu?on of each cul?va?on phase to each impact category in the greenhouse cul?va?on of lebuce in Spain (Murcia) (AP: acidifica?on poten?al, EP: Eutrophica?on poten?al; GWP: Global warming poten?al; ODP: Ozone deple?on poten?al; POCP: Photochemical ozone crea?on poten?al and CED: Cumula?ve energy demand) 24
Contribu?on of each cul?va?on phase to each impact category in the greenhouse cul?va?on of lebuce in Italy (AP: acidifica?on poten?al, EP: Eutrophica?on poten?al; GWP: Global warming poten?al; ODP: Ozone deple?on poten?al; POCP: Photochemical ozone crea?on poten?al and CED: Cumula?ve energy demand) 25
Code of Waste Management Best Prac?ces Based on experimental results as well as the outcomes of the LCA and Risk Analysis, a Code of Waste Management Best Prac?ces for AW Applica?on has been developed The Code provides decision making tools to policy makers towards a more sustainable agriculture 26
Conclusions AWs can be treated and reused in agriculture, offering substan?al benefits Risk and LCA analysis should be carried out to compare impacts of exis?ng and alterna?ve agricultural prac?ces AWs can definitely become a resource 27
Thank you for your aben?on 28