IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v138y2015icp88-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated manure management to reduce environmental impact: II. Environmental impact assessment of strategies

Author

Listed:
  • De Vries, J.W.
  • Groenestein, C.M.
  • Schröder, J.J.
  • Hoogmoed, W.B.
  • Sukkel, W.
  • Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G.
  • De Boer, I.J.M.

Abstract

Manure management contributes to adverse environmental impacts through losses of nitrogen (N), phosphorus, and carbon (C). In this study, we aimed to assess the potential of newly designed strategies for integrated manure management (IS) to reduce environmental impact. An important aspect of the strategies was that they prevented pollution swapping. Life cycle assessment was used to compute climate change (CC), fossil fuel depletion (FFD), terrestrial acidification (TA), marine eutrophication (ME), particulate matter formation (PMF), N use efficiency (NUE), and phosphorus over application rate (POA), relative to the crop demand for N. We applied the IS to North West European practice (Ref) and included the Dutch current situation of progressive manure management (NL) to illustrate the potential of the IS to reduce environmental impact. Manure management in Ref included production and management of liquid and solid dairy cattle manure applied to maize and grass, and liquid pig manure applied to wheat. A Monte Carlo uncertainty simulation was done to assess the effect of variation in N and C losses and N uptake by crops on the comparison with Ref, IS, and NL. Results showed that the IS reduced all environmental impacts in all manure product and crop combinations and more than doubled the NUE (70% compared with maximum 33% in Ref). Main causes were: segregation of pig and dairy cattle urine and feces inside the housing system reduced methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) emissions; addition of zeolite to solid dairy cattle manure reduced NH3 emission; sealed storages in all IS reduced volatilization of N and C; bio-energy production from the feces reduced the production of fossil electricity and heat; and finally N emissions in the field were reduced by ammonia emission reducing application techniques and improved application management (tillage, field traffic en synchronization of manure product application with crop demand). Compared with the Ref, NL had lower TA, PMF, POA, and higher NUE, except for solid cattle manure applied to grass. This result indicates that the Dutch regulations to reduce NH3 emissions were successful, but that CC can be improved. Compared with NW EU practice, IS reduced environmental impact up to 185% for CC, up to >700% for FFD, up to 96% for TA, up to 99% for ME, up to 100% for PMF, up to 110% for POA and more than doubled the NUE. We concluded that the designed IS avoid pollution swapping in the entire manure management system.

Suggested Citation

  • De Vries, J.W. & Groenestein, C.M. & Schröder, J.J. & Hoogmoed, W.B. & Sukkel, W. & Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. & De Boer, I.J.M., 2015. "Integrated manure management to reduce environmental impact: II. Environmental impact assessment of strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 88-99.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:138:y:2015:i:c:p:88-99
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X15000736
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.05.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ola Stedje Hanserud & Kari-Anne Lyng & Jerke W. De Vries & Anne Falk Øgaard & Helge Brattebø, 2017. "Redistributing Phosphorus in Animal Manure from a Livestock-Intensive Region to an Arable Region: Exploration of Environmental Consequences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Imane Uald-lamkaddam & Arezoo Dadrasnia & Laia Llenas & Sergio Ponsá & Joan Colón & Esther Vega & Mabel Mora, 2021. "Application of Freeze Concentration Technologies to Valorize Nutrient-Rich Effluents Generated from the Anaerobic Digestion of Agro-Industrial Wastes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Yunlong Zhang & Tengteng Li & Shuikuan Bei & Junling Zhang & Xiaolin Li, 2018. "Growth and Distribution of Maize Roots in Response to Nitrogen Accumulation in Soil Profiles after Long-Term Fertilization Management on a Calcareous Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Cortez-Arriola, José & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Rossing, Walter A.H. & Scholberg, Johannes M.S. & Améndola Massiotti, Ricardo D. & Tittonell, Pablo, 2016. "Alternative options for sustainable intensification of smallholder dairy farms in North-West Michoacán, Mexico," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 22-32.
    5. Sandile Birthwell Ndwandwe & Ruey-Chee Weng, 2018. "Competitive Analyses of the Pig Industry in Swaziland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Köninger, Julia & Lugato, Emanuele & Panagos, Panos & Kochupillai, Mrinalini & Orgiazzi, Alberto & Briones, Maria J.I., 2021. "Manure management and soil biodiversity: Towards more sustainable food systems in the EU," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    7. Alberto Finzi & Gabriele Mattachini & Daniela Lovarelli & Elisabetta Riva & Giorgio Provolo, 2020. "Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of a Collective Integrated Treatment System for Energy Recovery and Nutrient Removal from Livestock Manure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Susanne Theuerl & Christiane Herrmann & Monika Heiermann & Philipp Grundmann & Niels Landwehr & Ulrich Kreidenweis & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "The Future Agricultural Biogas Plant in Germany: A Vision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, January.
    9. De Vries, J.W. & Hoogmoed, W.B. & Groenestein, C.M. & Schröder, J.J. & Sukkel, W. & De Boer, I.J.M. & Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., 2015. "Integrated manure management to reduce environmental impact: I. Structured design of strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 29-37.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:138:y:2015:i:c:p:88-99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.