/
Blog Posts
Data extracted in July 2021
Fiche created in February 2024
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of MANURE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES found in a review of 17 synthesis papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 277 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 7 to 172. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
- Description:
- Manure processing techniques can be used to change manure chemical/physical properties and composition and thus increasing manure management efficiency as an amendment and fertiliser, while limiting emissions, as compared to untreated manure[2]
- Key descriptors:
- In this review, manure processing techniques include:
- Composting of solid manure using improved techniques (e.g. turning, forced-air, bulking agents).
- Anaerobic digestion of slurries. Here, the environmental impacts of anaerobic digestion of manure alone (i.e. mono-digestion) or with other substrates (i.e. co-digestion) are reviewed and are considered either as result of the overall processing chain (pre-storage, digesters, post-storage, land distribution, energy generation using biogas) or from single steps.
- Liquid manure storage in anaerobic lagoons or in aerobic lagoons;
- Solid manure storage in piles. Improved techniques for manure storage in static stockpiles (e.g. physical, chemical or microbial additives, etc.) are excluded here, and included in a separate set of fiches regarding ‘Improved manure storage techniques’.
- Solid-liquid separation (e.g. decanter centrifuges, screw press, roller presses, decantation). The effects are considered by comparing either handling, storage or land application of the separated fractions, as compared to the raw manure.
- Drying of solid fractions
- Recovery of nutrients through physical or chemical treatments (e.g. struvite precipitation, ammonia stripping)
- Manure pasteurization
- Note that this is not an exhaustive list of manure processing techniques, but of those found in the literature that meet the requirements to be included in this review
- NA
2. EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(table 1)
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects. Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
All selected synthesis papers included studies conducted in Europe , and 15 have a quality score higher than 50%.
Table 1: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Decrease Acidification (LCA) | Acidification potential (LCA approach) | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | NH3 | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 (0) |
Composting | Conventional management | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
Solid-liquid separation | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Decrease Anti-microbial resistance | Antibiotic resistant microbes/genes | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Composting | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Drying | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Land application of aerobic lagoon stored manure | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Land application of anaerobic lagoon stored manure | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Land application of pile-stored solid manure | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Pasteurization | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Increase Carbon sequestration | Soil organic carbon | Composting/Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Ecotoxicity (LCA) | Ecotoxicity (LCA approach) | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Decrease Energy use (LCA) | Energy use (LCA approach) | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Decrease Eutrophication (LCA) | Eutrophication (LCA approach) | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease GHG emissions | Aggregated GHGs emission | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Decrease GHG emissions | CH4 | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 (0) |
Composting | Conventional management | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 (0) | ||
Solid-liquid separation | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | N2O | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 (0) |
Composting | Conventional management | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 (0) | ||
Solid-liquid separation | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 (0) | ||
Decrease Global warming potential (LCA) | Global warming potential (CO2-eq) | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Increase Nutrients recovery | P recovery | Treatment with struvite precipitation | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Increase Nutrients recovery | Total nitrogen loss | Composting | Conventional management | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Resource depletion (LCA) | Resource depletion (LCA approach) | Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Increase Soil biological quality | Soil biological quality | Composting/Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil total nitrogen | Composting/Anaerobic digestion | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Acidification (LCA) | NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1 and Ref1) |
Air pollutants emissions | Bulk density (Ref17), Livestock type (Ref10), Manure characteristics (Ref11), NA (Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17), Temperature in the heap (Ref17) and Type of technology (Ref2) |
Anti-microbial resistance | NA (Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5), Temperature (Ref5) and Type of manure (Ref5) |
Carbon sequestration | NA (Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6 and Ref6) |
Ecotoxicity (LCA) | NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1 and Ref1) |
Energy use (LCA) | NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1 and Ref1) |
Eutrophication (LCA) | NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1 and Ref1) |
GHG emissions | Bulk density (Ref17), Climate (Ref8), Crop type (Ref8), Duration of treatment (Ref8), Moisture content (Ref17), NA (Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref8, Ref8, Ref8, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref15, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16), Soil organic carbon (Ref8), Type of technology (Ref2) and Water filled pore space (Ref8) |
Global warming potential (LCA) | NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16, Ref16 and Ref16) |
Nutrients recovery | Mg:PO4 ratio (Ref7), NA (Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17, Ref17) and pH (Ref7) |
Resource depletion (LCA) | NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1 and Ref1) |
Soil biological quality | NA (Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6 and Ref6) |
Soil nutrients | NA (Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6 and Ref6) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: TOPIC: (manure OR slurry OR digestate OR (digested near/3 manure)) AND TOPIC: (management OR storage OR lagoon* OR "anaerobic digest*" OR tank* OR treatment OR process* OR technolog* OR techni* OR (soil near/3 application) OR (soil near/3 distribution) OR (soil near/3 amend*) OR biogas OR precision) AND TOPIC: ("meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | Web of Science and Scopus: run on 01 July 2021 |
Exclusion criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 | Zhang J., Wang M., Yin C., Dogot T. | 2021 | The potential of dairy manure and sewage management pathways towards a circular economy: A meta-analysis from the life cycle perspective | Sci. Total Environ. 779, 146396. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146396 |
Ref2 | Zhang Z., Liu D., Qiao Y., Li S., Chen Y., Hu C. | 2021 | Mitigation of carbon and nitrogen losses during pig manure composting: A meta-analysis | Science of the Total Environment 783 147103 | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147103 |
Ref3 | Ba, SD; Qu, QB; Zhang, KQ; Groot, JCJ | 2020 | Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from dairy manure composting | Biosystems engineering | 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.02.015 |
Ref4 | Emmerling, C; Krein, A; Junk, J | 2020 | Meta-Analysis of Strategies to Reduce NH3 Emissions from Slurries in European Agriculture and Consequences for Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Agronomy 10, 1633 | 10.3390/agronomy10111633 |
Ref5 | Goulas, A; Belhadi, D; Descamps, A; Andremont, A; Benoit, P; Courtois, S; Dagot, C; Grall, N; Makowski, D; Nazaret, S; Nelieu, S; Patureau, D; Petit, F; Roose-Amsaleg, C; Vittecoq, M; Livoreil, B; Laouenan, C | 2020 | How effective are strategies to control the dissemination of antibiotic resistance in the environment? A systematic review | Environmental Evidence 9, 1–32 | 10.1186/s13750-020-0187-x |
Ref6 | Liu, SB; Wang, JY; Pu, SY; Blagodatskaya, E; Kuzyakov, Y; Razavi, BS | 2020 | Impact of manure on soil biochemical properties: A global synthesis | SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 745, 141003. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141003 |
Ref7 | Lorick, D; Macura, B; Ahlstrom, M; Grimvall, A; Harder, R | 2020 | Effectiveness of struvite precipitation and ammonia stripping for recovery of phosphorus and nitrogen from anaerobic digestate: a systematic review | Environmental Evidence 9, 1–20 | 10.1186/s13750-020-00211-x |
Ref8 | Xia, F; Mei, K; Xu, Y; Zhang, C; Dahlgren, RA; Zhang, MH | 2020 | Response of N2O emission to manure application in field trials of agricultural soils across the globe | SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 733, 139390. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139390 |
Ref9 | Zhao, SX; Schmidt, S; Qin, W; Li, J; Li, GX; Zhang, WF | 2020 | Towards the circular nitrogen economy - A global meta-analysis of composting technologies reveals much potential for mitigating nitrogen losses | Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135401 | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135401 |
Ref10 | Ti, CP; Xia, LL; Chang, SX; Yan, XY | 2019 | Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission: A meta-analysis | Environ. Pollut. 245, 141–148 | 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.124 |
Ref11 | Wang, Y; Xue, W; Zhu, Z; Yang, J; Li, X; Tian, Z;Dong, H; Zou, G; | 2019 | Mitigating ammonia emissions from typical broiler and layer manure management - A system analysis | Waste Management | 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.019 |
Ref12 | Sajeev, EPM; Winiwarter, W; Amon, B | 2018 | Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Different Stages of Liquid Manure Management Chains: Abatement Options and Emission Interactions | Journal of environmental quality | 10.2134/jeq2017.05.0199 |
Ref13 | Wang, Y; Dong, HM; Zhu, ZP; Gerber, PJ; Xin, HW; Smith, P; Opio, C; Steinfeld, H; Chadwick, D | 2017 | Mitigating Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Swine Manure Management: A System Analysis | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY | 10.1021/acs.est.6b06430 |
Ref14 | Jayasundara, S; Appuhamy, JADRN; Kebreab, E; Wagner-Riddle, C | 2016 | Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian dairy farms and mitigation options: An updated review | CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE | 10.1139/cjas-2015-0111 |
Ref15 | Hou, Y; Velthof, GL; Oenema, O | 2015 | Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment | Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 1293–1312 | 10.1111/gcb.12767 |
Ref16 | Miranda, ND; Tuomisto, HL; McCulloch, MD | 2015 | Meta-Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Anaerobic Digestion Processes in Dairy Farms | Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 5211–5219 | 10.1021/acs.est.5b00018 |
Ref17 | Pardo, G; Moral, R; Aguilera, E; del Prado, A | 2015 | Gaseous emissions from management of solid waste: a systematic review | Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 1313–1327 | 10.1111/gcb.12806 |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fic
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] AMEC – Environment & infrastructure UK limited, in partnership with BIO intelligence service. Collection and analysis of data for the control of emissions from the spreading of manure - Final report 2014 for The European Commission. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/Final%20Report.pdf