Manure Properties on Case-Study Farms in the Baltic Sea Regions : knowledge report

Full text

(1)

(2) JTI-report: Agriculture & Industry, No.417. Manure Properties on Case-Study Farms in the Baltic Sea Region – Knowledge Report. Baltic Manure, Work Package 3, Task 4. Erik Sindhöj, Allan Kaasik, Ksawery Kuligowski, Ilkka Sipilä , Kalvi Tamm, Andrzej Tonderski and Lena Rodhe. A reference to this report can be written in the following manner: Sindhöj, E., Kaasik, A., Kuligowski, K., Sipilä, I., Tamm, K., Tonderski, A. & Rodhe, L., 2013. Manure Properties on Case-Study Farms in the Baltic Sea Region. Report 417, Agriculture & Industry. JTI – Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering. Uppsala, Sweden. ISSN-1401-4963. © JTI – Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering 2013, ISSN-1401-4963.

(3) Baltic Forum for Innovative Technologies for Sustainable Manure Management. KNOWLEDGE REPORT. Manure Properties on Case-Study Farms in the Baltic Sea Region. By Erik Sindhöj, Allan Kaasik, Ksawery Kuligowski, Ilkka Sipilä, Kalvi Tamm, Andrzej Tonderski and Lena Rodhe WP3 Innovative technologies for manure handling. November 2013.

(4) Baltic Manure WP3 Innovative Technologies for Manure Handling. Manure Properties on Case-Study Farms in the Baltic Sea Region By Erik Sindhöj, Allan Kaasik, Ksawery Kuligowski, Ilkka Sipilä, Kalvi Tamm, Andrzej Tonderski, Lena Rodhe. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 1.

(5) PREFACE Baltic Manure (The Baltic Forum for Innovative Technologies for Sustainable Manure Management) is a Flagship Project in the Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), which is co-funded by the Baltic Sea Region Programme of the European Union. The work described in this report was performed within Work Package 3 (WP3) “Innovative technology for animal feeding and housing, processing, storage and spreading of manure” within Baltic Manure. The overall aim of WP3 is to identify innovative and economically viable technologies for handling and processing manure in an environmentally friendly and user-friendly way on large-scale livestock farms in the BSR. This report presents analytical results on the properties of manure sampled on selected case-study farms in the BSR, which are described in a previous Baltic Manure report (Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). Dairy, pig and poultry farms in Estonia, Finland, Poland and Sweden were included in the study. Manure sampling was carried out ex-housing (after the housing system and before storage) and ex-storage (after storage and before spreading), and in some cases manure quality was calculated ex-animal (based on feeding and production data). We then analysed how farm-specific manure handling techniques affected manure properties on the farms, and which manure processing technologies would be suitable for farms, based on manure properties. The researchers responsible for manure sampling and analysis in the different countries were Allan Kaasik and Kalvi Tamm in Estonia, Ilkka Sipilä in Finland, Ksawery Kuligowski and Andrzej Tonderski in Poland, and Erik Sindhöj and Lena Rodhe in Sweden. These researchers were also responsible for their specific country reports presented in Chapters 4 and 5. The other chapters were written primarily by Erik Sindhöj and Lena Rodhe, with input and contributions from the other authors. Appendix 4 contains a contact list for all authors. We would like to thank all the farmers who opened up their farms and generously contributed valuable time and assistance for completing this study.. November 2013 The authors. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 2.

(6) CONTENT 1. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.1. Svensk sammanfattning ............................................................................................................... 6. 2. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 7. 3. Aims ................................................................................................................................... 8. 4. Materials and methods ....................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Manure sampling ......................................................................................................................... 8 Ex-animal: .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Ex-housing: ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Ex-storage: .............................................................................................................................................................. 10. 4.2 Estonia ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 12. 4.3 Finland ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 17. 4.4 Poland........................................................................................................................................ 18 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 19. 4.5 Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 24. 4.6 Water additions, Swedish example farms .................................................................................... 24 Dairy farm................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Pig farm ................................................................................................................................................................... 25. 5. Results and discussion....................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Estonia ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 29. 5.2 Finland ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 34. 5.3 Poland........................................................................................................................................ 36 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 36 Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 39. 5.4 Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Dairy farms .............................................................................................................................................................. 40 The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 3.

(7) Pig farms.................................................................................................................................................................. 42 Poultry farm ............................................................................................................................................................ 45. 6. Factors influencing ex-housing and ex-storage manure properties..................................... 47. Livestock (feeding) .................................................................................................................... 47 Housing .................................................................................................................................... 48 7. Managing manure properties ........................................................................................... 52. Nutrient concentration .............................................................................................................. 52 Dry matter content ................................................................................................................... 52 Processing ................................................................................................................................ 52 8. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 53. 9. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 54. References ............................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix 1. Manure sampling manual ..................................................................................... 56 A1. Background ................................................................................................................................ 56 A2. Aims ......................................................................................................................................... 56 A3. Where to sample........................................................................................................................ 56 A4. Methods for manure sampling ................................................................................................... 57 4.1. Slurry ................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Sampling procedures .......................................................................................................................................... 58 4.2. Solid or semi-solid manure ............................................................................................................................... 59 Sampling procedures .......................................................................................................................................... 60. 5. Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 62 6. Sampling schedules ..................................................................................................................... 62. Appendix 2. Analysis results from manure samples. .................................................................. 64 Appendix 3. Manure properties per animal type for all countries. ............................................. 68 Cattle............................................................................................................................................... 68 Pigs.................................................................................................................................................. 71 Poultry............................................................................................................................................. 73. Appendix 4. Contact list for authors. ......................................................................................... 75. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 4.

(8) 1. Summary. This report describes manure properties at different points along the manure handling chain on selected dairy, pig and poultry farms in four countries in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Manure was sampled from at least two dairy farms, two pig farms and one poultry farm in Estonia, Finland, Poland and Sweden. Detailed descriptions of the manure handling chain on each of these farms can be found in Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013). In general, manure was sampled from two points along the manure handling chain on each farm: ex-housing and ex-storage. Ex-housing refers to manure being transported from the housing system to the storage system. In most cases in this report, ex-housing refers to the pumping pit which acts as temporary storage for manure from the housing system before transport to the main manure storage facility. Up to four ex-housing samples were taken during one year on each farm. At least one ex-storage sample was taken from the main manure storage facility just prior to spreading on each farm. In addition to this, ex-animal manure properties at excretion (before mixing with bedding materials and other substrates) were calculated for five dairy, one pig and one poultry farm, based on feed rations and production levels. Differences in manure properties between ex-animal, ex-housing and ex-storage were then used to analyse how management and manure handling techniques affect manure properties in the housing and storage system. Furthermore, cleaning water added to slurry in the house was measured on two farms in Sweden. There were considerable differences in ex-animal nutrient excretion between dairy farms in Sweden and Estonia, and the differences were more pronounced for phosphorus (P) than for nitrogen (N). The decrease in manure P concentrations between ex-animal and ex-housing on Swedish and Estonian dairy farms suggested that on average, dilution doubled the volume of manure generated in the housing system. This is a significant decrease in fertiliser value per cubic metre of slurry. There were also indications that dilution in the housing system occurred on pig farms as well, although less than on dairy farms, while there was little change in manure quality in the poultry housing system. Manure properties were reasonably similar between ex-housing and ex-storage, suggesting that manure handling in the housing system had a greater effect on manure properties than storage, even though many of the storage facilities were not covered. Cleaning water and wastewater added to the slurry in the housing system accounted for the largest percentage of observed dilution. There was considerable variation in N and P concentrations in manure ex-housing and ex-storage between dairy, pig and poultry farms, which indicates that spreading dose should be based upon actual manure analysis and not standard or default manure values. Controlling water addition to slurry should be an integral part of manure management on the farm and in particular in the housing system. Routine searches should be made for water leaks and it might be easy to implement re-use of cleaning water from certain processes. It might also be economically viable to divert some water additions to a separate infiltration field or small-scale treatment plant, depending on circumstances.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 5.

(9) 1.1. Svensk sammanfattning I denna rapport beskrivs stallgödselns egenskaper, främst innehåll av torrsubstans, kväve och fosfor, vid olika ställen i gödselhanteringskedjan på utvalda mjölkko-, gris- och fjäderfägårdar i fyra länder i Östersjöregionen. Stallgödseln provtogs på minst två mjölkgårdar, två svingårdar och en fjäderfägård i respektive Estland, Finland, Polen och Sverige. Detaljerade beskrivningar av gödselhanteringskedjan på var och en av dessa gårdar återfinns i JTI-rapport Lantbruk och Industri nr 409. På de flesta gårdar togs gödselprover från två platser längs gödselhanteringskedjan: ex-stall och ex-lager. Med gödsel ex-stall avses den gödsel som transporteras ut från stallet till lagringsplatsen och provet ex-lager togs ut vid tömning av lager i samband med spridning. I de flesta fall tog gödselprovet ex-stall i pumpbrunnen, vilken fungerar som uppsamlingsplats för gödseln från stallet innan den transporteras till gödsellagret eller i samband med utgödsling av fastgödsel. Under loppet av ett år togs på varje gård upp till fyra prover ex-stall och åtminstone ett prov exlager från gödsellagret strax innan spridning av gödseln. Utöver detta gjordes beräkningar av gödselns egenskaper för ex-djur (träck och urin; före inblandning av strömedel och andra tillsatser) för fem mjölkko-, en gris- och en fjäderfägård, baserat på foderstater och produktionsnivåer. Skillnader i gödselns egenskaper mellan ex-djur, ex-stall och ex-lager användes för att analysera hur management och gödselhanteringsteknik påverkat gödselns egenskaper i stall och lager. På två av gårdarna i Sverige utfördes dessutom mätningar av hur mycket tvättvatten som tillfördes flytgödseln vid rengöring. Det var påtagliga skillnader i gödselns beräknade näringsinnehåll ex-djur mellan mjölkgårdar i Sverige och Estland, och skillnaderna var mer uttalade för fosfor (P) än för kväve (N). Minskningen av gödselns P-koncentrationer mellan ex-djur och ex-stall på svenska och estländska mjölkgårdar antyder att utspädningen i genomsnitt fördubblade gödselvolymen, som ursprungligen producerats av djuren. Detta sänker markant näringssvärdet per kubikmeter gödsel. Resultaten tyder också på att det även sker en utspädning på grisgårdar, dock i mindre grad än på mjölkgårdar, medan förändringarna i gödselkvalitet på fjäderfägårdar var liten. Gödselns egenskaper var ganska lika mellan ex-stall och ex-lager, vilket innebär att gödselhanteringen i stallet hade en större effekt på egenskaperna än lagringen, trots att flera av de gödsellagren inte var täckta. Tvätt- och avloppsvatten som tillförts flytgödseln bidrog till den procentuellt största andelen av utspädningen visade vattenmätningarna på de två exempelgårdarna. Det fanns påtagliga variationer i N- och P-koncentrationer vid ex-stall och ex-lager mellan mjölk-, gris- och fjäderfägårdar, vilket indikerar att gödselgivan vid spridning bör baseras på analyserat näringsinnehåll och inte på schablonvärden. Rekommendationerna är att regelbundet kontrollera vattentillförseln till stallgödseln på gården och i synnerhet i stallet. Sök efter vattenläckor rutinmässigt och se möjligheterna till att återanvända tvättvatten. Beroende på förutsättningarna kan det även vara ekonomiskt lönsamt att avleda en del av vattentillförseln till en särskild infiltrationsbädd eller småskalig behandlingsanläggning.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 6.

(10) 2. Introduction. The physical and chemical properties of manure can vary greatly between farms, even for similar livestock types. Among many things, the properties depend largely on specific management practices and techniques used along the manure handling chain. Manure properties also differ on the same farm depending on where and when along the manure handling chain the samples are taken. Figure 1 gives an overview of relevant components in the manure handling chain. An extra manure processing component could also be included either before or after storage, depending on the techniques implemented.. Feed. Farm Production. Livestock Excrement Ex-animal. Bedding Housing. Cleaning/waste water. Losses. Drinking water spill Manure Ex-housing. Precipitation (uncovered) Export off-farm. *. Storage. Losses. Manure Ex-storage. Export (crops) Fertilizers. Land. Losses. Figure 1. Farm system (green). Major system components of a manure handling chain (brown). Other boxes for processing/treatment can be included either before or after storage. Black arrows are manure flows and blue arrows are water additions to manure that are relevant for determining manure characteristics. Grey arrows are other potential nutrient and mass flows which should be considered in an analysis of manure management. Broken arrows were not accounted for in the case study descriptions (Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). *Flow from feed/bedding to storage can be silage leachate, dumping of bad feed, or addition of straw to form a natural crust (diagram modified from Poulsen et al., 2006).. The first component in the manure handling chain is the livestock animals. The nutrient content of faeces and urine excreted by these animals is a balance between what goes into the animal in terms of feed, and what is utilised in terms of production, which could be milk or increased body. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 7.

(11) mass. Feed components and production levels are key factors for determining manure characteristics ex-animal. The housing system affects manure characteristics, since it decides whether slurry or solid manure handling techniques are used. Frequency of removal can also affect manure properties, as well as gaseous losses of nitrogen or carbon from manure. The type and quantity of bedding materials used, along with various potential sources of water additions to manure in the housing system, also affect manure quantity and quality. Period of confinement must also be considered in systems which give livestock access to outdoor areas or summer grazing. The slurry storage system affects manure properties depending on type of cover or roof, ratio of surface area to total volume, how the storage unit is filled, and how often the contents are mixed or agitated. In some cases, ruined feed or bedding material is added directly to the storage unit. If there is no roof, precipitation is added, but evaporation can also be significant. The duration of storage also affects manure properties. This report does not deal with land application, but only on manure quality ex-storage.. 3. Aims. The aims of this study were to: 1) Determine the properties (physical and chemical) of manure in the handling chain on farm level by sampling, analysing and assessing the suitability for different processing and handling technologies. 2) Identify influencing factors on manure properties, which could be changed in order to get better properties of the manure to be handled, processed and used as a resource.. 4. Materials and methods. In total, 21 farms were chosen from among the case study farms in Estonia, Finland, Poland and Sweden presented by Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013). Altogether, there were nine dairy farms, eight pig farms and four poultry farms. Sampling was planned to take place four times ex-housing and one time ex-storage per farm, but for different reasons complete sampling was only achieved for the farms in Estonia and Sweden. Ex-animal manure was calculated based on feed rations and production levels for Swedish and Estonian dairy farms (five farms), as well as one Swedish pig farm and one Swedish poultry farm. 4.1 Manure sampling Detailed descriptions of the sampling methodology recommended for use on the case study farms can be found in the Manual in Appendix 1, which was provided to all partners. The methodology for sampling was demonstrated by JTI at the start of the study during a farm visit in order to harmonise sampling procedure among partners. Only ex-housing and ex-storage manure was. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 8.

(12) sampled. Feeding and production data needed to calculate ex-animal manure characteristics (physical and chemical) were obtained during previous farm interviews (Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). Ex-animal: Total amounts of nutrients excreted in manure (ex-animal) were calculated as the difference between nutrient input and production output (Figure 2). Input is the nutrients in the feed. Production output for pigs and poultry is the weight gain of the animals. For dairy cows, milk is the production output, as well as the growth of the calf foetus in the pregnant cow. Danish national default values for N and P contents in live pigs and poultry at time of slaughter and for the nutrient content of the calf foetus were used. Actual milk protein content was used instead of default values to determine N output from milk. Details concerning the methods used for these calculations can be found in Poulsen and Kristensen (1998). Production (N, P). Feed (N,P). Livestock. Manure (N, P) Ex-animal. Figure 2. Conceptual model used for calculating nutrients in manure ex-animal. Nutrient quantities are in absolute amounts for a given period. Manure ex-animal consists of faeces and urine.. Nutrient amounts excreted ex-animal (calculated as above) were converted to nutrient concentrations for comparison with sampled manure properties from ex-housing and ex-storage. To convert nutrient amounts to concentrations, information on volume of manure produced per animal was needed. Volume of manure for dairy cows was calculated based on the digestibility of the organic matter in the various components of the feed rations according to Poulsen and Kristensen (1998). Swedish default values for faeces and urine quantities produced by pigs and poultry were used for the one Swedish pig farm and the one Swedish poultry farm. The total amounts of nutrients excreted were then divided by the volume of manure produced to estimate ex-animal nutrient concentrations. Ex-housing: Slurry was in most cases sampled from a pumping pit, where manure was collected from the housing system before being moved to the long-term storage unit. The pumping pit typically had 1-3 days’ buffer storage capacity for manure produced in the house. The instruction given was that the pumping pit should be mixed thoroughly before sampling. If access to the pumping pit was difficult, slurry was sampled from a cross-channel emptying into the pumping pit. If slurry mixing was not possible, multiple samples were taken from different levels and mixed manually into a composite sample.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 9.

(13) Solid manure was sampled during the mucking out process, either in the housing facility directly before removal, or from the long-term storage facility directly after removal (see Appendix 1 for detailed manual concerning solid manure sampling). The instruction given was for slurry ex-housing to be sampled roughly four times per year on each farm, during spring, summer, autumn and winter. Dilution was calculated as water added as a percentage of original excreted slurry volume based on changes in P concentration, since P is not volatised during handling, according to: Dilution (%) = ((PEx-animal / PEx-housing) -1) * 100,. Eq. 1. where P is the concentration of P (kg t-1) in the manure. Dilution can also be expressed as a quantity of substrate added based on the difference in slurry P concentration between ex-animal and ex-housing manure and the quantity of manure produced ex-animal according to: Dilution (kg) = (PEx-animal / PEx-housing) * ManureEx-animal - ManureEx-animal,. Eq. 2. where Manure is the quantity of manure (kg) excreted ex-animal. Note that Manure and PEx-animal were calculated as described above. Ex-storage: Slurry was sampled from the long-term storage unit just before or during removal for spreading. In most cases this was in spring (March to June) after winter storage, with the exception of autumn sampling for one Polish and one Finnish farm (Appendix 2). In general, sampling of slurry occurred after thorough mixing of the stored slurry, but mixing was not possible in some storage lagoons. To obtain a representative sample of solid manure, multiple samples were pooled into a composite sample on which the analysis was made. The number of samples taken to acquire a representative sample depended on site-specific situations and sampling techniques and is described in detail in the sampling guideline in Appendix 1. A solid manure sampler (Rodhe and Jonsson, 1999) was manufactured for the project (see Figure A2 in Appendix 1) and used by some partners. Manure samples were sealed immediately and put on ice or frozen until analysis. Samples from each country were sent to the national laboratory for analysis of dry matter content (DM), total nitrogen (TN), ammonium nitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and pH. Farm-specific details concerning manure sampling are described for each country below. Detailed descriptions of manure handling chains on the farms are described in more detail in Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013).. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 10.

(14) 4.2 Estonia Dairy farms In Estonia, sampling was carried out on three dairy farms (Farms 1, 2, 3). Farms 2 and 3 are largescale dairy farms, Farm 2 has 570 dairy cows and Farm 3 has about 620 dairy cows. Farm 1 is the experimental farm of the Estonian University of Life Sciences and has 125 dairy cows. All these farms have been built in recent years. All farms were conventional and the feed ration contained about 50% (48-54%) roughage. Table 4.1. Main variables used for calculating manure ex-animal from milking cows on three dairy farms in Estonia (Farms 1-3). Milk protein content was also used in the calculation, but is not shown here. Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3. Milk production (kg cow-1 yr-1) 7026 9711 9624. DM (kg cow-1 day-1) 21.5 20.2 17.9. Feed quality of total mixed ration N P OM (%) (%) (kg cow-1 day-1) 2.3 0.4 2.7 0.6 2.6 0.5. OM digestibility (%) 68 67 65. Pig farms In Estonia, sampling was carried out on two pig farms (4, 5). Farm 4 is a large pig producing unit with conventional production. It has 36 000 places for fatteners and 10 500 places for breeding and young sows. Total number of fatteners produced per year is 65 000. Starting weight for fattening is 7 kg, delivery weight is 113-115 kg and time from start to delivery is 165-170 days. Manure handling is slurry-based, with manure production of about 60 000 m3 per year. Farm 5 is a sub-contractor for Farm 4. This farm also has conventional production, with 12 212 places for fatteners. Total number of fatteners produced per year is 24 850. Starting weight of fattening is 7 kg, delivery weight is 113-115 kg and time from start to delivery is 165-170 days. Manure handling is slurry-based, with manure production of about 18 000 m3 per year.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 11.

(15) Table 4.2. Feed ration composition on two pig farms in Estonia (Farms 4,5) Ingredients, % Barley Wheat Oats Sugar beet dry Wheat bran Pea Soy bean meal Rapeseed cake Rapeseed meal Sunflower cake Lacto spray sow Lacto spray piglet Biofosfatin Premivit, bacon Premivit, Bac Whey Phyt 7141 Premivit, sow lactation Premivit, piglet MCP NaCl Lysine Methionine Threonine Toxicid EZ FRA LAC FRA C 12. Farm 4, finishers 20.00 46.13 6.90. Farm 5, finishers 40.00 30.00 5.86. Farm 4, sows 20.00 54.46 5.37 2.00. Farm 4, piglets 20.00 54.13 2.00. 6.00. 12.67. 4.00 3.00. 3.00. 10.00 3.00 5.30. 4.00 8.52 8.00. 5.00. 3.00 0.50. 1.09 0.20 3.30 0.20. 0.87 0.44 0.58. 0.33. 0.20 1.21 0.44 0.77 0.14 0.18 0.30 0.15. 1.28 0.44 0.30. 0.09 0.20. 0.25 0.20. Table 4.3. Chemical composition of feed rations on two pig farms in Estonia (Farms 4, 5) Component Raw protein, % Digestible protein g/kg Lysine g/kg Methionine g/kg Phosphorus g/kg Digestible phosphorus g/kg. Farm 4, finishers 15.56 123.19 8.59 2.08 6.88 2.63. Farm 5, finishers 16.54 138.01 9.62 2.95 6.41. Farm 4, sows 15.73 129.07 7.51 2.37 6.80. 3.02. Farm 4, piglets 17.99 151.30 11.62 3.99 6.81. 3.10. Poultry farm In Estonia, sampling was carried out on a large-scale poultry farm (6). Farm 6 has places for 1 420 000 broilers and 350 000 laying hens. The production is 74 000 000 eggs and 11 000 000 broilers annually. The farm has loose housing systems and a solid manure-based manure handling system for broilers. Currently, the farm is reconstructing the production units for laying hens to give larger The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 12.

(16) cages and a solid manure-based manure handling system. A slurry-based system is used only in the breeding unit. For broiler feeding, a premix and dried wheat (14%) are used in most units. However, in the recent unit built in 2012, wet wheat (24%) is used for broiler feeding. Solid manure was sampled from heaps by first digging a hole approximately 50 cm deep. Then using a spade, a layer of manure was cut off from the top to the bottom of the wall of the hole, and put in a bucket. This was repeated a further 4 times, so there were at least 5 subsamples taken from different points of the heap. Manure was sampled from the floor housing system by removing the manure layer from at least 5 sampling points on the floor. All composite samples were then mixed thoroughly before removing a 1 kg sub-sample for later analysis. Ex-housing manure on Farm 6 was sampled on 2 occasions from heaps 2 weeks after manure removal (winter and autumn samples from the same storage unit) and on 2 occasions directly from the house floor after emptying of broiler houses (spring and summer samples from different production units). Ex-storage sampling was made from one heap created in the field just prior to spreading in early spring. Storage time for manure in the heap was about 4 months. 4.3 Finland Dairy farms In Finland, two dairy farms were sampled. Farm 1 is a large dairy farm for Finnish conditions, with about 215 dairy cows. The main house was built in 2010-2011 in a loose cubicle (free-stall) design with 260 places for milking cows (Figure 4.1). The building is open sided, naturally ventilated by adjusting the roof ridge opening and side openings.. Figure 4.1. Layout of the dairy cow housing unit (1), manure pumping pit (4) and manure storage tanks (5 and 6) on Farm 1 in Finland.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 13.

(17) Ex-housing manure on Farm 1 was sampled from the pumping pit (item 4 in Figure 4.1) on three occasions. The building has a 2x12 milking parlour. Manure is removed twice a day with a small loader from the four parallel main concrete passages and deposited in a cross-channel at the end of the house. The main concrete passages slope about 1% towards the cross-channel. Approximately 1.5 m3 of wood shavings or sawdust are used as bedding material per day (600 m3 per year). The cross-channel empties via gravity flow into a 75 m3 below-ground concrete slurry pumping pit (4) just outside the house. The milking parlour area is flushed once daily with wastewater collected from the milking parlour. The storage capacity of the pumping pit is 75 m 3 and it is emptied every 3 days. The first rinsing water from the milking parlour is pumped straight to the slurry channel, while the rest of the rinsing and washing water is used for flushing the milking parlour floor. There is a separate, closed container for toilet water. There are five deep-litter calving pens. The deep litter is removed 2-3 times a year. Manure from the calving pens was not sampled. Ex-storage manure on Farm 1 was sampled once from the slurry pool while spreading in midsummer after the first cut of grass.. Figure 4.2. Layout of the dairy housing units (1, 2), manure pumping pit (4) and manure storage tanks (6, 7) on Farm 2 in Finland.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 14.

(18) Farm 2 has 120 dairy cows. The house was built in two phases: cold loose-housing stall with deep litter was built in 1997. This serves for housing young cattle and dry cows. A warm dairy cow stall with loose cubicles and a slurry system with open manure channels was built in 2005. The manure is constantly being removed by a cable-operated scraper. The stall is of 2+2 type, with a feeding aisle in the middle of the house. Four primary manure channels are scraped empty to a deep cross-channel that leads to the 300 m3 mixing pool and 8 m3 of slurry per day are pumped to the anaerobic digester (item 5 in Figure 4.2). Ex-housing manure on Farm 2 was sampled once from the slurry mixing pool. Beside manure, rinsing water from two Lely A2 milking robots and waste milk are flushed into the slurry pool. Calving pens and small calves are housed on deep litter system. Deep litter is removed once a year and spread directly on the field in spring. The aisle next to the feeding aisle is emptied once a week and the manure is stored in a roofed pit. Peat (1800 m3 year-1 and barley straw (400 round bales year-1) are used as bedding material in the deep litter house. In the dairy cow house, peat (200 m3 year-1) is used as an additional bedding material on the rubber mats. Deep litter manure was not sampled. Pig farms Farm 3 is a fattening pig farm with 3000 places for finishers, or fatteners, and yearly production of 10 800 pigs. The manure handling system is slurry-based and ex-housing manure was sampled from the manure pit on three occasions.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 15.

(19) MP. Figure 4.3. Layout of the pig housing unit (1), manure pit (MP) and primary manure storage tanks (3, 4 and 5) on Farm 3 in Finland. Farm 3 uses an indoor batch pen housing system with partially slatted floors. The building is closed with forced ventilation and heating. There is only one housing unit (see Figure 4.3), which is divided into 15 identical sections. Each section has 20 boxes and 10-11 pigs per box. Bedding material is a mixture of wood shavings and hay. Each section has one primary manure channel covered by the slatted floors. The openings in the primary manure channels are opened every 3 weeks and the manure is transported by gravity flow from the primary channels to the manure pit (MP) via 315 mm piping. The pit volume is 70 m3, which represents a storage capacity of 3-4 days, and is emptied twice a week. Each section is emptied and cleaned by washing every 100 days. The estimated water quantity used is 15 m3 per washing per section. From the manure pit, the slurry is pumped twice a week via a 500 m long 125-mm pipe to a nearby biogas plant, which takes care of the processing, storage and end use of the slurry. At the biogas plant, the pig slurry is processed with municipal sewage sludge and industrial waste materials. Therefore ex-storage manure was not sampled. Farm 4 is a fattening pig producer with 3300 places for finishers, or fatteners. The manure handling system is slurry-based. This farm uses an indoor batch pen housing system with partially slatted floors. There is only one housing unit, which is divided into 15 identical sections plus a section for loading and a section for sick animals (Figure 4.4). Each identical section has 20 boxes and 10-11 pigs per box. Straw is used as bedding material (800 kg/week). While taking the pigs in, The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 16.

(20) 2.5 kg of peat are spread in each box. Each section has one primary manure channel covered by the slatted floors. The openings in the primary manure channels are opened every 2 weeks and the manure is transported by gravity flow from the primary channel to the manure pit (MP) via 160-mm piping. The pit volume is 6-7 m3 and it is equipped with a grinding pump. Each section is emptied and cleaned by washing every 100 days. The estimated water quantity used is 10-12 m3 per washing per section. Shortly after the start of this study, Farm 4 stopped pork production and therefore ex-housing manure was not sampled.. Figure 4.4. Layout of the pig housing unit (1) and primary manure storage tank (2) on Farm 4 in Finland. Units (3) and (4) are other farm buildings. From the manure pit, the slurry was pumped via a 40 m long 160-mm pipe to the bottom of the primary storage unit of 2200 m3. The other four storage facilities are located from 4.7 to 7.5 km from the piggery. Ex-storage manure was sampled once. Poultry farm Farm 5 is a broiler chicken farm with approx. 7800 m2 available for raising broilers, split among 4 buildings and altogether 8 sections (Figure 4.5). For each batch, about a 2 cm deep layer of peat litter is spread on the floor. During the approx. 6-week long growing period, manure accumulates on the floor and mixes up with the peat. Manure removal occurs immediately after the chickens leave the house for slaughter; the manure is scraped into a pile and removed. Ex-housing manure sampling was carried out by collecting about 10 litres of subsamples either from the pile or directly from the broiler house floor. All manure produced on the farm is stored on a 700 m2 concrete pad. Ex-housing manure on Farm 5 was sampled once 1-2 days after manure removal from the dry manure storage pit and three times straight from the building while removing the manure. Ex-storage sampling was carried out once from the manure storage pit.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 17.

(21) Figure 4.5. Layout of the broiler pens and dry manure storage pit on Farm 5 in Finland. 4.4 Poland Dairy farms On Farm 1 (290 milking cows), ex-housing liquid manure samples were taken four times a year (March, June, October and December). The sampling took place in the indoor open manure pit (approx. 700 m3) directly under the slatted floors of the house (System 3, House 2b; see Fig. 6.5.2 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013), each time after half an hour of mixing with a portable propeller attached to the tractor. Three subsamples were taken to form 1 litre of sample. Ex-storage manure was sampled once from the full outdoor, concrete, open solid manure pad, also in June (see Fig. 6.5.4 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). Five 1.5 m drillings with the auger were made along the diagonal of the heap and 3 litres of solid manure sample were compiled using material from these drillings. On Farm 2 (340 milking cows at the time of sampling), ex-housing liquid manure samples were also taken four times a year (March, June, October and December). The first three samplings took place in the outdoor liquid manure pit with slatted cover (192 m 3) located just behind the house (System 2, House 3; see Fig. 6.5.8 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). From this house (with tie-stall pens and straw bedding), solid manure with urine is removed mechanically twice a day; the liquid part enters the pit, while the solid part goes to the open pad. Therefore samples may contain some straw, as small amounts could enter the pit during mechanical removal of solid manure with urine The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 18.

(22) from the house. The last sample was taken from a closed manure pit of the new house (capacity 520 animal places) built in October (see Fig. 6.5.10a in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013), where manure from House 3 also goes. The sampling was followed by mixing with a portable propeller attached to the tractor. Three subsamples were taken to form 1 litre of sample. Ex-storage manure was sampled once from the outdoor, concrete, open solid manure pad (¾ filled) (see Fig. 6.5.9 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). Five max. 1.5 m drillings with the auger were made along the diagonal of the heap and a 3-litre solid manure sample was formed by material from these drillings. Pig farms On Farm 3 (9200 fattening pigs), ex-housing liquid manure samples were taken from the manure pumping pit, where manure from four houses is collected (item 7 in Fig. 6.5.11 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013), in March, June, October and December. Since the manure collected from four houses flows continuously to the pumping pit, from where it is pumped on to the nearby biogas station, additional mixing was unnecessary. The second (June) sample may have been somewhat diluted due to earlier washing of the houses. An ex-storage liquid sample (June) was taken from the same pumping pit, as it flows directly to a covered small lagoon (2000 m3), before being almost immediately (1-2 day retention time) directed to the biogas plant. On Farm 4 (3680 sows), ex-housing liquid manure samples were taken in March, June, October and December from two manure wells collecting manure from all 14 houses (nos. 26-27 in Fig. 6.5.15 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). Three subsamples were taken to form a 1 litre sample from well 26, then the same was repeated for well 27 and finally a 1-litre sample was formed by mixing the manures obtained from both wells. The slurry in the well was mixed before sampling when possible. The third sample (October) could have had increased pH due to earlier lime disinfection of the houses. An ex-storage liquid sample (June) was taken from the covered preliminary steel tank (315 m3) for initial, short-term (1-2 day retention time) storage of manure before anaerobic digestion in a nearby biogas plant (Fig. 6.5.17 in Sindhöj and Rodhe, 2013). The manure in this tank is mixed automatically every half hour. Poultry farm Poultry manure was only sampled ex-housing on Farm 5 in Poland. The only place where manure could be sampled was outside the house. Normally it falls from the conveyor belt directly to the truck, which transports it to the uncovered field heaps. 4.5 Sweden Dairy farms Sampling took place on two dairy farms in Sweden. Farm 1 had 330 milk cows under organic production and Farm 2 had 430 milk cows. See Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013) for detailed descriptions of these farms. Ex-animal Feed composition and rations were determined on one occasion for Farm 1 and on three occasions for Farm 2, in which case we used the average feed ration for calculating ex-animal manure. Farm 1 did not have detailed analysis of each specific feed component, so values were The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 19.

(23) taken from standard feed tables for Sweden (Spörndly, 2003). Ex-animal manure production (both volume and nutrient content) was calculated for one milking cow and for the entire herd on each farm, based on feed rations and average milk production levels as presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4. Main variables used for calculating manure ex-animal from milking cows on two dairy farms in Sweden (Farms 1, 2). Milk protein content was also used in the calculation, but is not shown here. Farm 1* Farm 2. Milk production (kg cow-1 yr-1) 9 050 10 950. DM (kg cow-1 day-1) 20.5 22.5. Feed quality of total mixed ration N P OM (%) (%) (kg cow-1 day-1) 2.8 0.3 19.1 3.0 0.4 21.2. OM digestibility (%) 72 76. *Organic milk production. Farm 1 On Farm 1, it was possible to follow the manure handling chain for both of the main houses H1 and H2, since each had its own pumping pit and storage basins (Figure 4.6).. Figure 4.6. Layout of dairy housing units (H1, H2, H3, H4), pumping pits (MP1, MP2) and manure storage tanks (S1, S2, S3, S4) on Farm 1 in Sweden. Manure sampling occurred at MP1, MP2, S1, S2 and S3.. Ex-housing Ex-housing manure on Farm 1 was sampled from pumping pits MP1 and MP2 four times during one year (see Appendix 2). MP1 receives slurry from H1 (Figure 4.6) which houses only milking cows and has a 24-cow carousel milking parlour. Manure handling in H1 is only as slurry. MP2 receives manure from H2, which is a service house for calving, dry cows and cows with high cell counts and has a straight 5-cow milking parlour. The farmer commented that a lot of water is added from this house due to the design of the milking parlour and the need to clean waiting areas. H2 has both solid and slurry manure handling, but the solid manure is emptied directly into. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 20.

(24) the S3 slurry storage tank and mixed with the slurry. H3 and H4 house recruitment heifers and were not sampled. Ex-storage Ex-storage manure on Farm 1 was sampled once from the main storage structures S1, S2 and S3 before spreading in early summer. S1 and S2 receive slurry from MP1. S3 receives slurry from MP2 and solid manure directly from H2. S4 was not sampled because it had not been mixed and it was too difficult to obtain a representative sample. Farm 2 On Farm 2, it was only possible to follow manure properties along the entire handling chain for houses H1 and H2. It was not possible to follow slurry properties from H3 all the way to storage, since slurry in storage units S2-S4 also receive an unknown amount of slurry from H1 and H2. The ex-housing manure samples were taken from the pumping pits when only manure from their respective houses (see Figure 4.7) was present.. Figure 4.7.Layout of dairy housing units (H1, H2, H3, H4), pumping pits (MP1, MP2) and manure storage facilities (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6) on Farm 2 in Sweden. S1-3 are slurry storage tanks, S4 is a slurry storage lagoon and S5 is a concrete solid manure pad. Manure sampling occurred at MP1, MP2, S1, S2 and S3 and S5.. Ex-housing Ex-housing manure on Farm 2 was sampled from pumping pits MP1 and MP2 four times during one year (see Appendix 2). MP1 receives slurry from H1 and H2 (Figure 4.7). H1 is a mixed house for milking cows, dry cows and calving cows, plus a 2 x 20 parallel milking parlour. H1 has deeplitter pens with scraped passageways that empty into MP1 and when removed solid manure is stored on a concrete manure pad (S5). H2 is a resting house with mattresses for milking cows that has only slurry handling. MP1 primarily empties into S1 but can be diverted to MP2 when S1 is full. H3 is a mixed house for dry cows, heifers and cows with high cell counts. Manure handling in H3 is only as slurry which empties into MP2. H4 is a calf house with solid manure handling and a temporary storage pad (TS1) just outside. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 21.

(25) Ex-storage Ex-storage manure on Farm 2 was sampled once from the main storage structures S1, S2, S3 and S5 before spreading in early summer. S4 was not sampled because it had not been mixed and it was too difficult to obtain a representative sample. Pig farms Sampling took place on two pig farms in Sweden. Farm 3 was a finishing farm with 3150 places and produced approximately 9000 pigs per year. Farm 4 had 1000 sows and produced approximately 25 000 pigs per year for finishing. See Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013) for detailed descriptions of these farms. Ex-animal Data on feed composition, quality and rations were gathered for Farm 3 on one occasion and used to calculate nutrients excreted in ex-animal manure (Table 4.5). Volume of manure produced exanimal was taken from Swedish default values (Steineck et al., 2000). Ex-animal nutrient concentrations were then calculated by dividing the nutrient amounts by the default volumes. Nutrient use efficiency in feeding was calculated as the ratio of nutrients accumulated in the body of the pig divided by the total nutrient amount in the feed. Table 4.5. Main variables used for calculating manure ex-animal from finishing pigs on Farm 3 in Sweden. Feed also includes synthetic amino acids L-Lysine, DL-Methionine, and L-Treonine. Mega joules net energy (MJ NE). Farm 3. kg gain pig-1. MJ NE pig-1. 92. 3345. Feed characteristics and rations DM Crude protein P -1 % g (MJ NE) g (MJ NE) -1 26.4 13.1 0.37. Phytase FTU (MJ NE) -1 0.5. Farm 3 Nutrient concentrations in slurry were possible to follow along the entire handling chain on Farm 3, which had a relatively simple manure handling chain (Figure 4.8).. Figure 4.8.Layout of pig housing units (H1), manure pit (MP1) and primary manure storage tank (S1) on Farm 3 in Sweden. There is an additional satellite storage tank located 1.5 km away.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 22.

(26) Ex-housing Ex-housing manure on Farm 3 was sampled from the pumping pit MP1 four times during one year (see Appendix 2). MP1 receives slurry from H1, which houses all the pigs (Figure 4.8). All manure is handled as slurry. Ex-storage Ex-storage manure was sampled once from the main storage tank (S1) in the early summer before spreading. Farm 4 Nutrient concentrations were not possible to follow along the entire manure handling chain on Farm 4, due to the complexity of the housing system, lack of specific feed data for each group of pigs, and since 60% of the manure was exported off farm.. Figure 4.9. Layout of animal housing units (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8), pumping pits (MP1, MP2, MP3, MP4) anaerobic treatment tanks (pre, AD, post), primary slurry storage facilities (S1, S2) and solid manure storage (S3) on Farm 4. Manure flow pathways within house and between pumping pits and storage systems are indicated with dotted and dashed arrows.. Ex-housing Ex-housing manure on Farm 4 was sampled from pumping pits MP1 and MP2 four times during one year (see Appendix 2). MP1 receives slurry from buildings H1, H2 and H7 (Figure 4.9), which house recruitment sows, dry sows, farrowing sows and weaning pigs. MP2 receives slurry from buildings H3, H4, H5 and H6 which house dry sows, farrowing sows, and growing pigs from weaning to approximately 30 kg weight. Manure handling in all houses is a slurry-based system except for the breeding house H5, which also has deep-litter pens. However, all solid manure is only temporarily stored on S3 before being mixed directly into the anaerobic digester. MP4 receives slurry from H8, which houses dry sows, but was not sampled due to difficulties in mixing.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 23.

(27) Ex-storage All manure produced on Farm 4 was anaerobically digested before storage. Over 60% of the digested slurry produced during the year was exported to neighbouring farms. Ex-storage digested slurry intended for use on-farm was sampled once from the main storage tank (S1) before spreading. Poultry farm Sampling took place on one poultry farm in Sweden. The manure handling chain on this poultry farm, with broiler production (Farm 5), was quite straight-forward. Manure was accumulated on the floor during growth of the batch, after which it was scraped into a pile and removed. In order to minimise handling of the manure, it was deposited directly in field heaps where it was stored until the spring, when it was spread on the field. Farm 5 has 8400 m2 available for raising broilers, which allows about 180 000 chickens to be produced per batch, with 9 batches per year. See Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013) for a detailed description of this farm. Ex-animal Data on feed rations, composition and quality were collected from Farm 5 on one occasion (Table 4.6). Volume of manure produced ex-animal was taken from Swedish default values (Steineck et al., 2000). Ex-animal nutrient concentrations were then calculated by dividing the nutrient amounts by the default volumes. Nutrient use efficiency in feeding was calculated as the ratio of nutrients accumulated in the body of the pig divided by the total nutrient amount in the feed during fattening. Table 4.6. Main variables used for calculating manure ex-animal from broilers on Farm 5 in Sweden. Weight gain (kg chicken-1) Farm 5 1.65 a FTU = phytase units. Feed intake (kg chicken-1 ) 2.6. Feed characteristics and rations Crude protein P Phytase -1 -1 a (g kg feed) (g kg feed) ( FTU kg -1 feed) 198 5.0 515. Ex-housing and ex-storage Ex-housing poultry manure on Farm 5 was sampled from newly piled heaps shortly after manure removal between batches. All manure on Farm 5 was solid manure. Ex-storage sampling in early spring just prior to spreading was carried out in 5 different heaps, each representing a different batch. Storage time for the field heaps ranged from 1 to 7 months. All sampling was conducted with a solid manure sampling drill according to methods in Appendix 1. 4.6 Water additions, Swedish example farms Water additions to slurry were measured on two of the farms in Sweden, Farm 1 (dairy farm) and Farm 3 (pig farm). Dairy farm On Farm 1, measurements of water additions were made in the house (H1) that housed only milking cows (see Figure 4.6). Measurements included rinsing water from the milking parlour, The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 24.

(28) wastewater from cleaning the milking equipment and milk storage tanks, wastewater from the personnel showers, toilets and kitchen, and from rinsing of passageways crossing the centre drive through feeding alley. All of this water, except for rinsing passageways, was collected in a belowground concrete tank adjacent to the milking parlour before being added to the slurry. The tank was automatically emptied, by a pump with a flotation switch, directly into the cross-channel which transports slurry by gravity from the main manure channels into the pumping pit just outside the house. The capacity of the pump in the wastewater tank was measured to be approximately 1.4 litres/s and a HOBO pulse/state/event data logger (UX120-017) was connected to the pump to record daily pumping times during 6 months (from May-November, 2012). Water additions from these sources were then calculated by multiplying the running time of the pump with the pumping capacity. Also during this time, a water meter (Kamstrup, Multical 21) installed on a hose used to rinse passageways in the house recorded water use during this process. Water additions from drinking spillage or from regular cleaning the water cups were not measured. Measurements of water additions and water consumption during 6 months were then scaled up to calculate yearly water additions for the animal house. Pig farm On Farm 3, measurements of water additions were made in the main house (H1, see Figure 4.8). Two sources of water additions in the house were identified on Farm 3 by Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013): Wastewater from cleaning sections after each batch, and spill from drinking nipples. The house had 9 identical sections with places for 350 pigs each. Water consumption was measured during the cleaning of each section after a batch. Water meters (Kamstrup Multical 21) were installed on each of the two high pressure washers that were then attached to a cleaning robot (Ramsta Robotics) for cleaning the sections. Water measurements occurred between May and November, 2012 and covered cleaning after 13 batches, so each of the 9 sections was included at least once. Estimations of the difference between water consumption and water additions to the slurry channel were not made, but we assumed that water consumption was equal to water additions. Water additions from drinking spill or were not measured. Measurements of water additions during 6 months were then scaled up to calculate yearly water additions for the animal house.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 25.

(29) 5. Results and discussion. Specific analytical results from each sample are presented in Appendix 2. The results for each farm type in all countries are compiled in Appendix 3. 5.1 Estonia Dairy farms The physical and chemical properties of slurry on the three Estonian dairy farms varied considerably depending on where and when the samples were taken (Figure 5.1). Estonian dairy Farm 3. Estonian dairy Farm 2 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. DM (%). DM (%). 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. 8.0. 6.0 4.0. 6.0 4.0. 2.0. 2.0. 0.0. 0.0. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. P (kg/t). P (kg/t). Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0. TN (kg/t). 10.0. 8.0. TN (kg/t). 10.0. 8.0. TN (kg/t). 10.0. 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. P (kg/t). DM (%). Estonian dairy Farm 1 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0. 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. Ex-animal Ex-housing Ex-storage. Figure 5.1. Dry matter (DM), total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (P) content in slurry from dairy Farms 1, 2 and 3 in Estonia. Blue bars are modelled values, red bars represent manure samples and black bars on exhousing are the maximum and minimum values from multiple samples.. Ex-animal Manure N and P concentrations calculated ex-animal varied between Farms 1, 2 and 3 in Estonia (Figure 5.1). This was mainly due to differences in feed rations and differences in production levels (Table 5.1). The greater milk production on Farm 2 compared with Farms 1 and 3 also resulted in greater total excretion of N and P in the manure, but the amount of N excreted per kg of milk produced was lower for Farm 3 (Table 5.1). The ex-animal results presented in Figure 5.1 include milking cows and dry cows housed in the same sheds.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 26.

(30) Table 5.1. Nutrient flows in one milking cow during 30 days on dairy Farms 1-3 in Estonia. IN Feed Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3. N (kg) 15.0 16.5 13.8. OUT P (kg) 2.8 3.7 2.5. Milk N (kg) P (kg) 3.2 0.4 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.5. N excreted (g) per kg milk produced 20.1 15.4 11.9. Manure N (kg) P (kg) 11.6 2.4 12.3 3.2 9.4 1.9. Ex-housing The ex-housing nutrient concentrations shown in Figure 5.1 are the average of 4 different samples and the variation between maximum and minimum concentrations was quite large, as shown by the black bars. Cows are confined in the house all year on the three Estonian dairy farms, so summer grazing could not account for the variation between summer and winter samples. Average DM and nutrient concentrations were somewhat lower in ex-housing manure samples than in ex-animal manure (Figure 5.1). The decrease in P concentration on Farm 1 between ex-animal and ex-housing indicates 215% dilution according to Eq. 1. The decrease in P on Farm 2 indicates 87% dilution and on Farm 3 about 144% dilution. Ex-storage All ex-storage samples were taken in spring, covering the storage period from autumn to spring. On Farm 1, nutrient concentrations ex-storage were greater than the average ex-housing values for the dairy house (H1). The concrete roof on this manure storage unit prevents dilution of the slurry by excluding precipitation and also minimises ammonia (NH3) losses. Table 5.2. Relative changes in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in manure during the handling chain (ex-animal=100). Results from the dairy Farms 1-3 in Estonia. Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3. Ex-animal. Nitrogen Ex-housing. Ex-storage. Ex-animal. Phosphorus Ex-housing. 100 100 100. 43 65 59. 57 71 70. 100 100 100. 31 54 41. Ex-storage 40 43 46. On Farm 2, nutrient concentrations ex-storage were slightly less than the ex-housing average. This could be explained by the fact that the manure storage unit was not covered with a roof and was open to rainfall, causing dilution. On Farm 3, nutrient concentrations in slurry ex-storage were higher than the ex-housing average. Although the manure storage unit did not have a roof, it had a greater depth and smaller surface area to volume ratio, which would result in less dilution and lower NH 3 losses compared with the storage on Farm 2.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 27.

(31) Pig farms Physical and chemical properties of slurry on the two pig farms in Estonia varied considerably depending on where and when the samples were taken (Figure 5.2). Farms 4 and 5 are large-scale pig farms. Farm 4 has 36 000 places for fatteners and 10 500 places for breeding and young sows, while Farm 5 has 12 212 places for fatteners. Detailed descriptions of manure handling chains on the farms can be found in Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013). Estonian pig Farm 4,integrated production H1. 10.0. DM (%). 12.0. H4. 10.0. H3. 8.0. H2. 6.0 S1. 4.0. DM (%). 12.0. Estonian pig Farm 5, finishers. 2.0. 8.0 6.0. S1. H1. 4.0 2.0. 0.0. 0.0 Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-storage. Ex-housing. 10.0. Ex-storage. 10.0. H1 H3. H4. 8.0. H2. 6.0 S1. 4.0. TN (kg/t). TN (kg/t). 8.0. 2.0. 4.0. 0.0 Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-storage. Ex-storage. 2.0 H4 H3. 1.5. S1. 0.5. P (kg/t). P (kg/t). 1.0. Ex-housing. H1 H2. 1.5. S1. 2.0. 0.0 2.0. H1. 6.0. H1. S1. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. 1.0. 0.5. 0.0. 0.0 Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-housing Ex-storage. Figure 5.2. Dry matter (DM), total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (P) content in slurry for different housing pigs on Farms 4 and 5 in Estonia. On Farm 4, H1 houses finishing pigs, H2 houses sows before farrowing and lactating sows, H3 houses young and gestating sows and H4 houses gestating and farrowing sows.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 28.

(32) Ex-animal Both farms are conventional. Ex-animal manure composition was not calculated. In all rations, monocalcium phosphate is used as a P source. On Farm 5, phytase is included in the feed of finishers. Ex-housing The ex-housing nutrient concentrations shown in Figure 5.2 are the average of 4 different samples and the difference between maximum and minimum concentrations was quite large, especially in house 4 (H4) with sows (gestating and farrowing). The highest concentrations were found in the house with finishers (H1). Dry matter and nutrient concentrations were considerably lower in ex-housing manure samples for finishers on Farm 5 (Figure 5.2). The low concentration can be due to dilution through the addition of water to the slurry in-house and also addition of rainwater to the manure pit at the time of sampling. The ex-housing DM and nutrient concentrations of slurry from housing for fattening pigs (H1) on Farm 4 were greater than in slurry coming from sows and piglet production (H2-4). Ex-storage The construction of the manure storage facilities on Farms 4 and 5 is similar. All storage units are covered with floating clay Leca pebbles to reduce ammonia emissions. On Farm 4, nutrient concentrations ex-storage (S7; 3.28% DM, 4.03 kg/t N and 0.77 kg/t P) were lower than the calculated average ex-housing values for the different sections (H1, H2, H3, H4; 5.97% DM, 5.18 kg/t N and 1.15 kg/t P). This could be due to dilution of the slurry through the addition of rainwater. Decomposition of manure DM during the storage period also has a great impact on concentration of nutrients in slurry. Average decomposition of liquid manure DM is 20% per year (Poulsen and Kristensen, 1998). On Farm 5, nutrient concentrations ex-storage at spring sampling were higher than the ex-housing average and at the level of the maximum value for the four sampling occasions ex-housing. This is quite difficult to explain. Poultry farm The sampling took place at the primary storage facility in Saha. The 11 individual production units have contracts with service providers, who transport the manure from poultry houses to the Saha storage or to their own storage facilities. The Saha solid manure storage is a concrete pad with 8 months of storage capacity. There is a low concrete wall around part of the pad and precipitation and leachate are collected. However, only about 20% of the total annual manure production is stored here, because contractors transport most manure from various houses directly to the field for spreading or to local storage facilities.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 29.

(33) Estonian poultry farm 80.0 70.0. DM (%). 60.0 50.0. 40.0 30.0 20.0. 10.0 0.0. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. 40.0 35.0. TN (kg/t). 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0. 10.0. P (kg/t). 8.0 6.0. 4.0 2.0 0.0. Figure 5.3. Dry matter (DM), total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (P) content in solid manure from poultry Farm 6 in Estonia. Farm 6 has both egg and broiler production.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 30.

(34) 5.2 Finland Dairy farms Ex-housing manure samples were taken on both Finnish dairy farms from slurry mixing/pumping pit. The ex-storage slurry sample from Farm 1 was taken after mixing of the slurry storage unit at the time of spreading. Physical and chemical properties of ex-housing slurry on the two Finnish dairy farms were similar (see Figure 5.4 and Table 5.3). This can be due to fairly similar feed composition, loose cubicle housing system and limited use of bedding material. Despite different manure removal intervals, on Farm 1 twice a day and on Farm 2 continuously, the chemical properties were similar. Even the difference in the housing temperature, as Farm 1 has an unheated house and Farm 2 a as a warm loose house, did not give any great difference in slurry properties. However, slurry on Farm 2 was processed with anaerobic digestion, after which there was less DM and a greater concentration of NH4-N. Table 5.3. Dry matter (DM), total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (P) content in ex-housing manure on Finnish dairy Farms 1 and 2. FI FI FI. Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 2. Ex-housing Ex-housing Post A.D.. DM (%) 9.4* 9.8 6.7. TN (kg/t) 4.2* 3.9 3.7. P (kg/t) 0.75* 0.70 0.74. *Values are the average of 3 samples. On Farm 1, the DM and N content were slightly lower than the ex-housing average but the P and K contents remained at the same level (Fig. 5.4 and Appendix 2). The variation in the ex-housing samples was of the same magnitude as the decrease in nutrient content caused by rainwater accumulation in open slurry basins.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 31.

(35) Finnish dairy Farm 1 16.0 14.0. DM (%). 12.0 10.0. 8.0 6.0 4.0. 2.0 0.0. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. Ex-housing. Ex-storage. 10.0. TN (kg/t). 8.0. 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0. 1.8 1.6. 1.4. P (kg/t). 1.2. 1.0 0.8. 0.6 0.4 0.2. 0.0. Figure 5.4. Dry matter (DM), total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (P) content in ex-housing and ex-storage slurry on dairy Farm 1 in Finland. Ex-housing is the mean of 3 samples taken during one year from the manure pumping pit, which acts as temporary storage before manure is moved to storage. Black bars are the maximum and minimum values of the samples. Ex-storage sample was taken on June 20, 2013.. Pig farms Slurry DM, N and P concentrations were higher on Farm 4 ex-storage than on Farm 3 ex-housing, even though the latter values were based solely on ex-housing samples and the Farm 4 sample was an ex-storage sample from open slurry lagoon. Both farms used a liquid feeding system and. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 32.

(36) water was added to the slurry when sections were cleaned in between batches, so differences between farms are most likely due to differences in water additions between farms.. Finnish pig Farm 3 Ex-housing 12,0 10,0 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0. DM (%). TN (kg/t). P (kg/t). Figure 5.5. Dry matter (DM), total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (P) content in ex-housing slurry on pig Farm 3 in Finland. Ex-housing samples on Farm 3 were taken from the manure pumping pit which acts as temporary storage before manure is moved to storage, and are the mean of 3 samples taken during one year (black bars are the maximum and minimum values).. Ex-housing Ex-housing slurry DM and nutrient concentrations were low on Farm 3. The amount of washing water was not measured and the estimate, 15 m3 per confinement of 198 fattening pigs every 100 days, is probably lower than the actual usage. There were no reports of leaking drinking nipples. The higher values for the first sample may have been caused by insufficient mixing before sampling (Appendix 2). The mixing and pumping of the slurry in the pumping pit was controlled remotely by the biogas plant and the pig farm operator was informed of the mixing by the plant in order to take the samples when the mixing was on. The lower values were very much in line with previous slurry analyses in reports received from the farm. On Farm 3, ex-housing was not sampled due to cessation of pig keeping. Ex-storage All manure on Farm 3 was transported via a 500 m long pipeline to a nearby biogas plant, where the manure was processed in an anaerobic digester together with other organic by-products and therefore ex-storage manure was not sampled. The DM content and the concentrations of TN and P in the slurry on Farm 4 ex-storage are presented in Fig. 5.6. Only one sample was available, since Farm 4 stopped pig production shortly after the onset of this project.. The project is partly financed European Regional Development Fund. by. the. European. Union. -. 33.

No results found