Manure Nutrient Management in the Netherlands

Manure Nutrient Management in the Netherlands Oscar Schoumans (Alterra Wageningen UR) International Symposium Challenges in fertilization and manure management VIC,17 18 December 2014

Content 1. Dutch Agriculture 2. Dutch 5th Action Program Nitrate Directive 3. Closing the P cycle 4. Dutch Strategy Manure Processing

Netherlands: Agriculture (2012) Area (km 2 ) Netherlands 41,543 Agricultural Area 17,750 grassland 9,380 maize 2,310 arable 6,070 Number (million) cattle dairy 4.0 pig 12.2 poultry 97.7 Manure production (million kg) Nitrogen (N) 461 Phosphate (P2O5) 170

Nitrogen & Phosphate production (2013) Nitrogen (kg N ha -1 ) Phosphorus (kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 ) or less or less > 300 > 120

Outline 1. Dutch Agriculture 2. Dutch 5th Action Program Nitrate Directive 3. Closing the P cycle 4. Dutch Strategy Manure Processing

Improvement of groundwater quality Measures to reach 50 mg/l in groundwater: Manure N: 170 kg N/ha (ND), but raising the statutory nitrogen fertiliser replacement value for pig slurry from 70% to 80% as of 2014 (all sand & loess areas) 6 A 20% reduction of the application standards of leaching-prone crops (including maize) as of 2015 (South sand and loess areas)

Derogation dairy farms Specific measures in order to reach 50 mg/l in groundwater: Maximum 230 kg N/ha Minimal 80% grassland Chemical P fertilizers fully banned 7

Improvement of surface water quality: P Red = WFD noncompliant for P Reduction of the Phosphate application standards Third AP Fourth AP Fifth AP 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grassland Soils with high phosphate levels 110 100 90 90 85 85 85 80 Phosphate-neutral soils 110 100 95 95 95 95 95 90 Soils with low levels of phosphate 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Arable land Soils with high phosphate levels 95 (85) 1 85 75 70 65 55 55 50 Phosphate-neutral soils 95 (85) 85 80 75 70 65 65 60 Soils with low levels of phosphate 95 (85) 85 85 85 85 85 80 75 8

Mandatory manure processing Purpose: relieve pressure from the Dutch manure market Manure processing obligation for livestock farmers producing a surplus at farm level Obligation to process a certain percentage of the surplus, established annually: Commencing date 1-1-2014 9 Ministry of Economic Affairs Dutch 5th AP

Mandatory manure processing Farms with a P surplus: Percentage of the P surplus to be processed (manure) Region 2014 2015 South 30% 50% East 15% 30% Other 5% 10% 1) Not yet set 1) 10

Outline 1. Water quality 2. Dutch 5th Action Program Nitrate Directive 3. Closing the P cycle 4. Dutch Strategy Manure Processing

EU-27 balance: Phosphorus Gross balance EU27 (roughly) Source: Van Dijk et al., in prep IN ktonp % OUT & Accumulation ktonp % No-food & detergents 100 4% Products (exported) 600 23% Crops & food products 600 23% Waste & losses 1200 46% Animal feed & P additives 400 15% Accumulation 800 31% Mineral fertilizer 1500 58% 2600 100% 2600 100% High P input mainly to agricultural production system (73%) High P losses (46%; including [organic] waste) High P accumulation 31% (mainly in soils; 29%) EU: negligible rock phosphate mines completely depended on P import!!! P reserves worldwide: 67 billion tons World mining: 0.224 billion tons / year ( 300 years ) Source: USGS, 2014

Manure surplus: The Netherlands ManureProduction: 175 mill. kg P 2 O 5 Can tbe applied on ownfarm 94 mill. kg P 2 O 5!!!!!tocrop farms + others(nl) 48 mill. kg P 2 O 5!!!!!Currentprocessing (mainly exported) 20 mill. kg P 2 O 5!!!!!Export(notprocessed) 26 mill. kg P 2 O 5 Processing & ex port: high costs for intensive husbandry Bron: Koeijer et al. 2012

Closing the P cycle P export Agriculture 5 P-recovery 15 30 mill.kg P 2 O 5 Manure Reduction P surplus NL: 46 mill. kg P 2 O 5 Mineral concentrates Manure separation 4 5 10 mill. kg P 2 O 5 3 Livestock Akkerbouw Arable 2 Bio refinery Feed Fertilizer P import Non-food 2 5 mill. kg P 2 O 5 Reduction P input 1 9 16 mill. kg P2O5

Reducing P inputs: Feed Reduce P content in animal feed Overall ReductionP in feed: dairycattle20-25% pigs25% No negativeeffectson animalperformance, health andfertility. Effective at short term Limited increaseof feedingcosts(< 4%) Reductionof amountof P in manurebyabout10 millionkg P 2 O 5 Source: Van Krimpen et al. (2010)

Reducing P inputs: Fertilizer Replacement of fertilizers by manure fractions Many technical options available Better N/P-ratio both liquid and solid fraction Liquid fraction fraction: N- & K-rich Solid fraction: P- and organic matter rich Better options to fill-up the room set by limits Energy costs separation << energy costs of transport of water Manure separator sieve belt Source: Schröder et al. (2011)

Outline 1. Water quality 2. Dutch 5th Action Program Nitrate Directive 3. Closing the P cycle 4. Dutch Strategy Manure Processing

Potential economical value of pig slurry Potential value of pig slury Content 1) Market price resource 2) Value (kg/m 3 ) ( /kg) ( /ton) Nitrogen (N) 0.8-6.8 0.167-0.389 0.13-2.64 Potassium (as K 2 O) 2-14 0.095-0.222 0.19-3.10 Phosphate (as P 2 O 5 ) 0.6-6.2 0.157-0.365 0.09-2.26 Organic matter (solid phase) 35-45 0.091-0.117 3.19-5.27 Value of resource ( / ton) 3.60-13.28 1) Römkens and Rietra (2008) 2) LEI, 2012; resp. 15% - 35% of the fertilizer market price base on KAS (N), TSP( P 2 O 5 ) and K60 (K 2 O) and value of energy production of organic matter (based on 0.07-0.09 per kwh) Costof manureprocessing must below tomake money out of valuable components of manure!! Bron: Schoumans et al. (2010) Update market prices: 2012

Processing techniques Separation Composting Drying Sanitizing Pelletting (Co-)digestion CH 4 Ultrafiltration/Reversed osmosis Stripping concentrated NH 4, K solution acid NH 4 solution Biological N removal N 2 Incineration P-ash Gasification P-ash, syngas (H 2, CO, CO 2, CH 4 ) Pyrolyse P-biochar, syngas (H 2, CO, CH 4 ), oil Wet oxidation sub critical P-ash, NH 3 Wet oxidation super critical P-ash Wet super critical gasification P-biochar, syngas (H 2, CO, CH 4 ) Precipitation struvite MAP (MgNH 4 PO 4. 6 H 2 O) Precipitation Ca~P CaP Scale Product Sludge AirPrex full MAP Lysogest full MAP NuReSys full MAP PHOSPAQ full MAP CRYSTALACTOR full CaP Gifhorn process full MAP Fix-Phos full CaP Stuttgart process pilot MAP Budenheim process pilot CaP sludge liquid/process water REPHOS full MAP PEARL (PEARL 500) full MAP NuReSys full MAP P-RoC pilot CaP PHOSTRIP pilot MAP or CaP P recovery during or after incineration MEPHREC full P fertilizer SUSAN full P fertilizer Thermphos* full White P4 LeachPhos pilot MAP or CaP EcoPhos/SNB/HVC full DCP

Replacement of fertilizers by manure fractions Mineral concentrates Aim: toproducemineralnk concentrates(substitutefor fertilizers) from the liquid fraction of manure However, the EU!Nitrate Directive states that all products derived fromanimalmanureis animalmanure, and has tocomply with the manure rules of the Nitrate Directive Pilot with10 installations are being tested: Technique: reversed osmoses(ro) Source: Velthof et al. (2012)

Production of mineral concentrate (example)

Average composition of mineral concentrates Increased N and K contents Low P content NH 4 : ± 90% of total N ph >7.5 Large differences between treatment plants Pilots: perspectives, but not yet approved by Brussels Plant N-total N-NH 4 P K g/kg g/kg % Ntotal g/kg g/kg A 6.4 5.9 92 0.2 7.1 B 7.2 6.9 96 0.01 6.8 C 8.9 7.8 88 0.34 8.4 D 5.3 4.7 89 0.11 6.8 E 4.2 3.6 86 0.08 5.5 F 8.1 7.1 88 0.26 8.1 H 11 10.5 95 0.27 15.7

End products Mineral concentrate Liquid N-K fertiliser Solid fraction P fertiliser Organic N fertiliser Soil conditioner Permeate (water)

Phosphate and Phosphorus recovery Duckweed Algae animal feed Communal waste water Mineral concentrates Agriculture Pig slurry Effluent WWTP (Waste Water Treatment Plant) Pretreatment (N,K & P) Liquid fraction Biogas/ CHP/ residual heat Short term Wet solid fraction Household waste Drying SNB (sludge treatment) (incineration & energy production) Incineration/Biomass plant (incineration & energy production) Long term Dry solid fraction Fertilizer industry P producer Pyrolyses Plant Phosphate Fertilizer Phosphate ash Fertilizer Phosphorus (P4) Export P-Biochar Source: Schoumans et al., 2011 Production of secondary P for industries with an existing international market

Phosphate and Phosphorus recovery Duckweed Algae animal feed Communal waste water Mineral concentrates Agriculture Pig slurry Effluent WWTP (Waste Water Treatment Plant) Pretreatment (N,K & P) Liquid fraction Biogas/ CHP/ residual heat Short term Wet solid fraction Household waste Long term manure still rather expensive Fertilizer industry P producer Pyrolyses Plant (20-30 per ton pig slurry) Drying SNB (sludge treatment) Incineration/Biomass plant Complete P recovery from Dry solid fraction (incineration& energy production) (incineration& energy production) Phosphate Fertilizer Phosphate ash Fertilizer Phosphorus (P4) Export P-Biochar Production of secondary P for industries with an existing international market

Physical & chemical treatment of manure Partly P recovery from manure is also an option (low hanging fruit) Physical separation technique: determines the chemical compositionof liquid andsolidphase(n, P andk) Chemical treatment: determines type of phosphate precipitates Acid - base approach : Ca-phosphates Base - Mg approach : Mg-phosphates& struvite Reducethe P content in manure(the surplus); more manure (organic matter!!) can be applied on land; no (cost of) export

Manure surplus: The Netherlands Dutch legislation: In 2015: 50% of the farm surplus (P 2 O 5 ) need tobeprocessed; Pig slurry: 20 25 mill. kg P 2 O 5 However, by reducingp content in feed a reductionof 10!15 mill. kg P 2 O 5 will beachieved (convenant) Short term: need of cheap processing techniques to recover about 25% phosphate surplus from pig slurry

P release & P recovery whole pig slurry Acid - base approach Acidified pig slurry P concentration in and P recovery from liquid fraction P concentration P recovery

Treatment of liquid fraction Base Mg approach A: Magnesium ammonium phosphate: NH 4 -struvite ( 8.5 < ph < 9.5) Mg 2+ +NH 4+ + HPO 4 2- + 6H 2 O MgNH 4 PO 4.6H 2 O B: Magnesium potassium phosphate: K-struvite (9 < ph < 10.5) Mg 2+ + K + + HPO 4 2- + 6H 2 O MgKPO 4.6H 2 O C: Magnesium hydrogen phosphate (ph < 8.5) Mg 2+ + HPO 4 2- + 6H 2 O MgHPO 4.6H 2 O

Treatment of liquid fraction Base Mg approach Liquid fraction Slurry P Without NaOH (ph ~8) With NaOH (ph ~ 9.5) g P kg -1 Mg(OH) 2 MgCl 2 MgO Mg(OH) 2 MgCl 2 MgO Pig slurry 1 (1000 rpm) 0.91 67 74 73 70 70 76 Pig slurry 2 (screw press) 2.28 94 92 93 92 92 93 Pig slurry 3 (300 rpm) 1.51 90 92 93 90 91 91 Increase of ph: no significant effect on P recovery Independent of form of Mg addition P recovery at ph ~ 8 variesbetween67 93%

Mg-phosphate crystals

Cost of chemicals (25% P recovery) Acid - Base approach (Ca ~ P) / ton pig slurry Pig slurry 0.33-1.32 Pig slurry course fraction 0.34-0.69 Pig slurry liquid fraction 0.17-6.78 Base - Mg approach (Mg ~ P) / ton pig slurry Pig slurry liquid fraction (ph 8) 0.23-2.08 Pig slurry liquid fraction (ph 9.5) 1.36-7.84 Acid-base approach: solid fraction Base -Mg approach: liquid fractionat ph 8 Proof of principle(lab): technique feasible Costchemicalsrelativelow (< 2 per ton pigslurry; in practicehigher?)

2014: Pilot / demonstration plant: P recovery from pig slurry Size flexible separator Liquid fraction Solid fraction products Precipitation system Mg addition Filter Acid addition Filter Ca-base Filter Phosphate preciptate Liquid fraction with a low P content Solid fraction with a low P content N-stripper NH 4 solution Manure with a reduced P (and N) content Crop required N-P adjusted manure

Concluding remarks & perspective Need to increase nutrient efficiencies & nutrient recovery from manure (EU nutrient cycling; NL legislation) Dutch strategy: Loweringthe P content in feed (Stimulate) manure separation(more room for manure) Mineral concentrates(n, K; as replacement for fertilizer use) 2015: At least25% P recovery frompigslurry P recovery options (short term) Incineration(P ash), pyrolyse (P biochar) still too expensive Drying/export current practice but high costs Chemical treatment seems to have perspective(demo 2014-2016) Thank you for your attention

Thank you for your attention