/
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 STORAGE TECHNIQUES found in a review of 14 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:
- Improved manure storage techniques are used to avoid nutrients losses and emissions release from manure storage facilities (storage tanks, solid manure heaps, etc.)[2]
- Key descriptors:
- This review includes the following improved manure storage techniques:
- Additives: Physical (e.g. zeolite, biochar, medical stone, grape seeds and physical mixtures), chemical (e.g. acidic substances, metal salts, phosphogypsum, Mg-P salts, Ca-superphosphate and chemical mixtures) or microbial (e.g. nitrite oxidizing bacteria, nitrogen turnover bacteria and other compound microbial agents).
- Covers of either solid or liquid manure storage facilities, including plastic membranes, floating biomass or inert materials, natural crusts.
- Storage with biofilters (intercepting and treating air emissions from storage facilities).
- Manure acidification during storage.
- Manure cooling during storage.
- Compaction of solid manure heaps.
- Periodical cleaning of storage tanks
- Please, note that this is not an exhaustive list of improved manure storage techniques but of those found in the literature that meet the requirements to be included in our review.
- This review does not include techniques related to manure processing (e.g. anaerobic digestion, improved composting, solid-liquid separation, etc.), which are included in another group of fiches (Manure processing techniques).
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 11 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 Air pollutants emissions | NH3 | Compaction during storage | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Storage covers | Conventional management | 8 | 0 | 2 | 3 (2) | ||
Storage with acidification | Conventional management | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||
Storage with additives | Conventional management | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 (0) | ||
Storage with biofilters | Conventional management | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Storage with microbial inocula | Conventional management | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | CH4 | Compaction during storage | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Storage covers | Conventional management | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2 (1) | ||
Storage with acidification | Conventional management | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 (0) | ||
Storage with additives | Conventional management | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 (1) | ||
Storage with cooling | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Storage with microbial inocula | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | Global warming potential (CO2-eq) | Cleaning storage tanks | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
Storage covers | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||
Storage with additives | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | N2O | Compaction during storage | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Storage covers | Conventional management | 1 | 3 | 7 | 2 (1) | ||
Storage with acidification | Conventional management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||
Storage with additives | Conventional management | 3 | 0 | 4 | 1 (0) | ||
Storage with microbial inocula | Conventional management | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Increase Nutrients recovery | Total nitrogen loss | Compaction during storage | Conventional management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Storage covers | Conventional management | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Storage with additives | Conventional management | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Storage with microbial inocula | Conventional management | 2 | 0 | 0 | 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 |
Air pollutants emissions | Additive type (Ref6), Application dosage (Ref6), Bulk density (Ref14), Initial C/N ratio (Ref6), Initial moisture content (Ref6), Initial pH (Ref6), Livestock type (Ref7), Manure characteristics (Ref8), NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref7, Ref8, Ref8, Ref8, Ref8, Ref8, Ref8, Ref8, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14), Temperature in the heap (Ref14), Type of additive (Ref1) and Type of technology (Ref1) |
GHG emissions | Additive properties (Ref6), Additive type (Ref6), Bulk density (Ref14), Initial moisture content (Ref6), Moisture content (Ref14), NA (Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref1, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref2, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref3, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref5, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref9, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref10, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref11, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref12, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref13, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14), Type of additive (Ref1) and Type of technology (Ref1) |
Nutrients recovery | Additive properties (Ref6), Additive type (Ref6), Application dosage (Ref6), Initial C/N ratio (Ref6), Initial moisture content (Ref6) and NA (Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref4, Ref6, Ref6, Ref6, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14, Ref14) |
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 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 |
Ref2 | 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 |
Ref3 | 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 |
Ref4 | 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 |
Ref5 | Akdeniz, N | 2019 | A systematic review of biochar use in animal waste composting | Waste Management | 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.054 |
Ref6 | Cao Y, Wang X, Bai Z, Chadwick D, Misselbrook T, Sommer SG, Qin W, Ma L | 2019 | Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions during solid waste composting with different additives: A meta-analysis | Journal of Cleaner Production | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.288 |
Ref7 | 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 |
Ref8 | 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 |
Ref9 | 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 |
Ref10 | Wang, Y; Li, XR; Yang, JF; Tian, Z; Sun, QP; Xue, WT; Dong, HM | 2018 | Mitigating Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Feedlot Production: A System Meta-Analysis | Environmental Science & Technology | 10.1021/acs.est.8b02475 |
Ref11 | 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 |
Ref12 | 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 |
Ref13 | 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 |
Ref14 | 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 fiches and WIKI.
[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