Plantecongres 2015, Herning 15 January Andreas Pacholski: New Knowledge on Ammonia emissions INNOVATIONS-INKUBATOR

Transcription

1 NEW KNOWLEGE ON AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM RAW AND PROCESSED MANURES APPLIED BY DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES Andreas Pacholski Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany INNOVATIONS-INKUBATOR

2 contents: 1. Relevance and measures to reduce ammonia emissions 2. Methodology to test ammonia emissions in the field 3. New knowledge - co-fermented animal slurries - incorporation methods (open slot, closed slot, harrowing) - acidification 4. Conclusions 2

3 Ammonia emissions reduce fertilizer value of field applied manure: fertilizing effect mainly depends on ammonium content Reduction of N fertilzer value by ammonia (NH 3 -)losses Gutseret al

4 Contribution of the agricultural sector to environmental effects caused by gaseous emissions in the EU (15) Erisman et al

5 Contribution of agriculture (NH 3 -losses) to air borne acid deposition in Germany Germany Deutschland gesamt Share German agriculture davon Landwirtschaft UBA 2010 Acid equivalents [t]

6 Measures to reduce ammonia emissions from field applied manures A. Reduce contact to atmosphere / increase contact to soil effectiveness in reducing ammonia emissions: incorporation with soil cover (e.g. closed slot injection) > incorporation (e.g rotary tiller), open slot injection > trailing shoe > trainling hose > splash plate B. Modify slurry composition: surpresssing ammonia formation and increasing slurry infiltration - Separation (liquid phase + solid phase) - dilution - acidification C. Combination of A. + B (e.g. incorporation + acidification) 6

7 Open questions General principles for reduction of ammonia emissions are known, but: - Is there a stable redution effect for each method, how do specific technical modifications change the effect? - Effectiveness under specific conditions (weather, soil, crops, manure)? - Are there specific yield effects? Comparative, simultaneous testing of different slurries and slurry applicatiion methods Multi-plot based comparison 7

8 Methodological challenges quantitatively valid standard mehtods (e.g. micrometeorological methods) require large areas and cannot be used for replicate measurements in classical agronomical field trials Plot methods (chambers, wind tunnels): often not quantitatively valid and also expensive (e.g. wind tunnels) limiting field replication New methodology required? 8

9 New NH 3 -loss measurement approach (Gericke et al., Biosys. Eng. 2011) Control by reference measurements: micromet. method Dräger-Tube Meth. micromet. method(bls) Plot measurements: dynamic chamber + passive flux sampler Sampler resultsscaledbyabsolute chamber fluxes Standard Comp. Method

10 Recommended experimental design chess board Ni et al Large, quadratic plots ~ 100 m²avoid effect of uneven manure distribution Large distances between plotsminimize transfer of ammoinia between plots Tranfer between plots taken into account by control plots 10

11 Validation of NH 3 -methods tested against simultaneous micrometeorological measurement 1 ] cumulated kumulierte NH NH 3 -Verluste DSM [kg N ha loss plot measurements [kg N ha ] y = 0.96x r² = : kumulierte NH 3 -Verluste blm [kg N ha -1 ] cumulated NH 3 -loss micromet. method [kg N ha -1 ] (Gericke et al. 2011, Quakernack et al. 2012) 11

12 A. Ammonia emissions of digestates from co-fermtation of slurries and energy crops Earlier studies on digestates: organic residues without energy crops no effect of fermentation on ammonia emissions compared to animal slurries Typical slurries from co-fermentation with energy crops: - high ph-values, high viscosities ammonia emissions from field applied energy crops based slurries still uncertain 12

13 Agronomic field trials Hohenschulen (loamy soil) Karkendamm (sandy soil) Crop rotations (duration 2 years) maize whole crop wheat it. rye grass perennial rye grass (4 cuts) maize monoculture maize monoculture maize winter wheat - (catch crop)

14 N-fertilization N fertilizers N-levels (N tot ) Mineral-N (CAN) Pig slurry 0 kg N ha -1 Cattle slurry 120 kg N ha -1 Biogas slurry (co-fermented) 240 kg N ha -1 Biogas slurry (energy crops) 360 kg N ha -1 Slurries applied with trail hoses

15 Hohenschulen (loamy sand) 240 plots Karkendamm (sandy soil) 96 plots Field experiments Biogas-Expert October 2006 March 2009

16 NH 3 -loss measurements Simultaneous measurement of organic slurry treatments (n = 4) Duration of measurement campaigns: -ca. 3 days after slurry application Highest N-levels and control (at some dates also other N-levels) Not all slurry application dates 18 measurement campaigns

17 Das Bild kann nicht angezeigt werden. Dieser Computer verfügt möglicherweise über zu wenig Arbeitsspeicher, um das Bild zu öffnen, oder das Bild ist beschädigt. Starten Sie den Computer neu, und öffnen Sie dann erneut die Datei. Wenn weiterhin das rote x angezeigt wird, müssen Sie das Bild möglicherweise löschen und dann erneut einfügen. Das Bild kann nicht angezeigt werden. Dieser Computer verfügt möglicherweise über zu wenig Arbeitsspeicher, um das Bild zu öffnen, oder das Bild ist beschädigt. Starten Sie den Computer neu, und öffnen Sie dann erneut die Datei. Wenn weiterhin das rote x angezeigt wird, müssen Sie das Bild möglicherweise löschen und dann erneut einfügen. Das Bild kann nicht angezeigt werden. Dieser Computer verfügt möglicherweise über zu wenig Arbeitsspeicher, um das Bild zu öffnen, oder das Bild ist beschädigt. Starten Sie den Computer neu, und öffnen Sie dann erneut die Datei. Wenn weiterhin das rote x angezeigt wird, müssen Sie das Bild möglicherweise löschen und dann erneut einfügen. Das Bild kann nicht angezeigt werden. Dieser Computer verfügt möglicherweise über zu wenig Arbeitsspeicher, um das Bild zu öffnen, oder das Bild ist beschädigt. Starten Sie den Computer neu, und öffnen Sie dann erneut die Datei. Wenn weiterhin das rote x angezeigt wird, müssen Sie das Bild möglicherweise löschen und dann erneut einfügen. Das Bild kann nicht angezeigt werden. Dieser Computer verfügt möglicherweise über zu wenig Arbeitsspeicher, um das Bild zu öffnen, oder das Bild ist beschädigt. Starten Sie den Computer neu, und öffnen Sie dann erneut die Datei. Wenn weiterhin das rote x angezeigt wird, müssen Sie das Bild möglicherweise löschen und dann erneut einfügen. Test of cofermented digestates: measured losses 40 cumul lated NH 3 -losses [% NH + 4 -N] a morning noon afternoon b c a b a a a Cattle slurry Pig slurry Anaerobic digestates 0 Application time / slurry type Kruskal-Wallis p<

18 Analyisis of data with empirical model Niet al., in 2012 a. Calculation of total emissions based on Michaelis-Menten type equation N ( t ) N(t) N max K m t = Nmax t t + K m cumulative emission at time (t) asymptotic maximum loss point in time where N(t)=0.5 * N max time cumu ulated ammonia loss time (h) acc. Sogaard et al (ALFAM model)

19 Empirical model b. Model parameters calculated as product of influencing factors x x... x x... x1 xm x1 N = A A A and K = B B B x max 0 1 m m 0 1 m m x m = influencing factor m A m = parameter for factor m B m = parameter for factor m Model development: 1. Deriving empirical N max - and K m -values by fitting of Eq. 1 to NH 3 loss time courses of experimental data 2. Fitting of log transformed Eq. 2 to calculated N max and K m by multiple linear regression acc. Sogaard et al (ALFAM model)

20 Empirical model: performance parameterization Cattle slurry Pig slurry Biogas slurry validation ammonia loss [kg N ha -1 ] f = y0+a*x R² 0.82 p < Y0 = ns A = 0.95 p < RMSE (all) 3.2 kg N ha -1 1 : RMSE (all) 2.2 kg N ha -1 1 : 1 predicted measured ammonia loss [kg N ha -1 ] measured ammonia loss [kg N ha -1 ] Niet al. 2012

21 Empirical model: factors affecting NH 3 losses varibale Nmax Km Slurry type ph Dry matter [%] Total ammoniacal N applied [kg N ha -1 ] Crop type LAI Air temperature [ C] Wind speed 2 m [m s -1 ] Precipitation [mm] Global radiation [ W m -2 ] Biogas>pig cattle wheat/grass>maize increasing Wheat/grass decreasing

22 Ammonia emissions from anaerobic digestates ideal model comparison cumulated NH 3 -loss [kg N ha -1 ] cattle slurry pig slurry anaerobic digestate >5mm precipitation cattle slurry pig slurry anaerobic digestate Typical AD (high ph, TAN) higher relative ammonia losses as compared to typical animal slurries (Ni et al. 2012) time after application [h] Animal slurries and AD applied at same N application rates under identical canopy and weather conditons calculated with an empirical model (Ni et al. 2012)

23 Emission saving application techniques (open/closed slot) Injection: Cutting of soil with 1-2 discs (ca cm depth) Injection of slurry Working width: max. 12 m acidification (ph 6 6.5): Mixing of slurry with sulphuric acid immediately prior to application with trail hosess- + N- fertilization Working width max. 36 m (in field or animal house/storage) Acid container source: Biocover A/S 23

24 Effect of ph-value of organic manures on risk of ammonia emissions 100 Perc centage NH 3 -N and NH + 4 -N NH 4 + NH 3 10 C 20 C 30 C ammonium ammonia ph calculated acc Denmead et al. (1982) 24

25 B. Effect of open slot injection on ammonia emissions from grass grown on a clayey marshland (in cooperation with Aarhus University) - Cofermented digestate applied by trail hoses and open slot injecdtion (according total N) - Compared to CAN with and without effect of open slot injection - 5 treatments + ck - Cuts Determination of N losses and grass yields injected trail hoses 25

26 Effects of open slot injection on ammonia emissions (2nd and 4th application) 26

27 Effects of open slot injection on ammonia emissions 27

28 Effects of open slot injection on yields Yield (0.1.t DM/ha) Behandlung p<0.001 Schnitt p<0.001 BehandlungxSchnitt p<0.008 a a a b b c a a a ab ab b a a a ab a b a a a b b c CAN + inj CAN Inj CAN sol Injected AD AD Trail hose ck Apparent N utilization [% N appl] A AB B C C 0 cut 2 cut 3 cut 4 sum 0 28

29 C. Effect of open slot injection and acidification on ammonia emissions from grass grown on a clayey marshland and sandy soil (in cooperation with Aarhus University and VFL) - Cattle slurry applied by trail hoses (unacidified, ph 6.5, ph 6) and open slot injecdtion (dinjection distances 17.5 cm and 35 cm) according ammonium N - 5 treatments + ck - Cuts 1-4 (marsh), 1-2 (sand) - N yield response curve by increasing CAN - Application of S to exclude S effect of acidification - Determination of N losses and grass yields 29

30 Ammonia emissions and yields marshland (n=4, error bars = stamdard error, Student-Newman-Keuls Test) lowest NH 3 -emissons at ph 6 and injection 35 cm Cumulative yield of organic treatments (280 kg NH 4+ -N) on level of 160 kg CAN No significant differences between yields of organic treatments 30

31 Ammonia emissions and yields - sandy soil (n=4, Fehlerbalken = Standardfehler, Student-Newman-Keuls Test) lowest NH 3 -emissons at ph 6 and injection 35 cm Total yields of organic variants (240 kg NH 4+ -N) auf Niveau von kg CAN Over all cuts significant differences between yields of organic treatments 31

32 Plot based relationship between yields and ammonia emissions injection and acidification 32

33 D. Ammonia emissions from cattle slurry applied to summer barley affected by application method (cattle slurry) 2014 (in cooperation with Aarhus University, Odense University and VFL) Trail hose, NH3-max 100 N Nedfældning Slangeudlæg ning 150 N 150 N Slangeudl., nedharvning Forsuring Forsuring, nedharvning 10 / Ubehandlet Forsuring Slangeudl., nedharvning Nedfældning Ubehandlet Forsuring Nedfældning 150 N / Forsuring, nedharvning Slangeudl., nedharvning Forsuring Ubehandlet Nedfældning Slangeudlægni ng Slangeudlæg ning Ubehandlet Trail hose, NH3-max Slangeudlæg ning 150 N 100 N Forsuring, nedharvning Forsuring, nedharvning 100 N 100 N Slangeudl., nedharvning 1.st of April 1.st of April Injection, before sowing Untreated Min. fert. Foulum 1.st of April 29.th of April Trail hose, harrow, bef. sowing Trail hose, after germ. 1.st of April 29.th of April Trail hose, acid, harrow, bef. sowing Trail hose, acid., after germ. 1st trial: 4 treatments (closed slot injection, incorporation, incorporation + acid, trail hoses) + ck 2nd trial: 2 treatments (trail hoses, trail hoses + acid) + ck 33

34 Effects of application methods on ammoia emissions first application Closed slot injection % = reduction compared to trail hose (TH) of incorporation (incorp.) application 34

35 Effects of application methods on ammoia emissions - second application 35

36 E. ammonia emissions affected by slurry type and acidification - winter wheat 2014 (in cooperation with Aarhus University, Odense University and VFL) Kvæggylle + Separeret + VÆRN Separeret 150 N Minkgylle VÆRN syre syre Ubehandlet Ubehandlet Svinegylle Svinegylle + syre Separeret + syre Afgasset Minkgylle + syre Kvæggylle Separeret Kvæggylle + syre Afgasset Minkgylle 150 N Svinegylle Ubehandlet Afgasset + syre Ubehandlet 100 N 100 N Kvæggylle Afgasset + syre Minkgylle + syre Svinegylle + syre 1.st replication Afgasset 18 meter 4.th replication N VÆRN Separeret + syre Kvæggylle Afgasset + syre VÆRN Kvæggylle + syre Separeret + syre Minkgylle + syre 150 N Minkgylle Svinegylle + syre Ubehandlet Ubehandlet 100 N Svinegylle Ubehandlet 150 N Ubehandlet Afgasset + syre Minkgylle + syre Svinegylle Separeret Kvæggylle + syre Afgasset Svinegylle + syre Kvæggylle Separeret Minkgylle 4 Pig slurry 1 Mink slurry 2 Separated slurry (liq) Pig slurry + acid Mink slurry + acid Separated Slurry+acid 5 Cattle slurry 3 Gassified slurry Untreated Cattle slurry + acid Gassified slurry + acid Mineral fertilizer 1st trial: 10 treatments (5 slurries with and without acidification) + ck 36

37 Ammonia emissions first application to winter wheat (target Ammonium-N level 80 kg N/ha) ammoni ia loss [% emissions cattle slurry] A A B B B -61% * -57% * -58%* -74%* no effect field acidification 0 cattle cattle A+ AD AD A+ AD sep AD sep A+ mink mink A+ pig pig A+ ph ?? appl NH 4+ -N (kg N/ha) Slurry type AD = digested cattle slurry * significant t-test with and without acid Letters = sig level ANOVA slurry type 37

38 Yield and N-uptake by wheat (data from Annette Vestergaard, VFL) Hkg kerne per ha Gylle til vinterhvede Kerneudbytte af tilført total-n Tilført Kg N/ha Stigende N Svinegylle Svinegylle + syre Minkgylle Minkgylle + syre Separeret, afgasset gylle Sep. afg. gylle + syre Afgasset gylle Afgasset gylle + syre Kvæggylle Kvæggylle + syre Poly. (Stigende N) kg N/ha i kerne Gylle til vinterhvede N-udbytte af tilført total-n Tilført Kg N/ha Stigende N Svinegylle Svinegylle + syre Minkgylle Minkgylle + syre Separeret, afgasset gylle Sep. afg. gylle + syre Afgasset gylle Afgasset gylle + syre Kvæggylle Kvæggylle + syre Linear (Stigende N) 38

39 F. cofermented digestates: reducion of emissions by acidification? (in cooperation with geoconcept GmbH, Germany) Separated AD (liquid) Cof. of chicken manure and silage maize (ph 8.2, NH4-N 3.8 kg/t, 5.7% TS) Application by commercial system (100 kg ammonium-n/ha) 3 treatment levels: a. Without acid, b. 2.5 l sulfuric acid/t, c. 5 l sulfuric acid/t Measurement of ammonia losses over 2 days after application 39

40 Experimental design CKoffside Messung: DE Baasdorf Datum: KW Plots: 3 CKs, 1 CK-offside, 3 Systemeinstellung, 12 Gärrest Personen: Sven Sussyk, Christian Wagner Ende m m CK 13 Systemei nstellung 3. ph 7 Systemei nstellung CK ph - 55 m CK m - 2, 3 1, 6 4, Systemei nstellung Start 1. ph 40

41 Time course of ammonia emissions after application 41

42 Cumulated emissions after application 30 NH 3 loss [% NH + 4 -N applied d] A AB B -11% -35% 0 no acid ph1 (2.5 l acid/m³) ph2 (5 l acid/m³) - Acidification: reduction of ammonia emissions - Significant reduction only by high levels of sulfuric acid supply 42

43 Conclusions New measurement approach allows for new comparative, agronomic tests Cofermented anaerobic digestates characterized by higher ammonia emissions compared to conventional slurries Large data sets and model development necessary to substantiate differences between ammonia emissions from different slurry types and application methods more robust models desirable no silver bullet application method restriction for slurry types (e.g. acidification of AD), environmental conditions (wet, dry soils injection), slurry amounts (incorporation) Economic benefit of reduction measures may vary between slurry types 43

44 Thanks to: Robert Quakernack Achim Seidel Tavs Nyord Annette Vestergaard Christian Wagner Sasha Hafner 44