Sabine Houot, Marie-Noel Pons, Marylis Pradel, Marc-Antoine Caillaud, Isabelle Savini, Anaïs Tibi Brussels March 16th, 2015 USE OF FERTILIZING WASTE MATERIALS IN AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY M AIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REPORT INRA – CNRS - I RSTEA

.02 A mission for the French research organizations  a national charter since 2011 Objective: To provide policy makers with an up to date view of the scientific and technological knowledge on any question of economical, environmental or public health importance Procedure for the expert report on fertilizing waste materials (“MAFOR”) Official request from French ministries Constitution of a scientific task force (declaration of potential conflicts of interests)  33 scientific experts + 2 documentation specialists + a project team Examination of the scientific literature (peer-reviewed mostly) by experts  What is known/unknown, controversial, needs for additional research  About 3500 references cited in the report The request: assessment of the agronomic benefits of MAFOR, their potential impacts on ecosystem contamination, and the overall economic and social consequences of their use.  No recommendations are proposed  Out of the scope: potential health impacts, comparison between agricultural spreading and other ways of recycling or elimination, assessment of treatments efficiency Collective scientific expertise  a scientific synthesis for policy makers

.03 Summary of the expert report in french (107p) (soon available in english) cdn.brainsonic.com/ressources/afile/ bfb3b-resource-esco-mafor- synthese.html cdn.brainsonic.com/ressources/afile/ bfb3b-resource-esco-mafor- synthese.html Synopsis (8p) in english cdn.brainsonic.com/ressources/afile/ eeab2-resource-mafor-8- page-synopsis.html Full expert report (950p) in French actualites/Expertise-Mafor-effluents-boues-et-dechets-organiques# Full text documents online

.04 Ressource and use of MAFOR in France  Diversity of MAFOR -Mainly coming from agriculture: 94% of spread amounts are animal manures -6% remaining = composts and other MAFOR from urban and industrial origin (15 to 80% of the potential already recycled)  121 millions tons (fresh mass, FM) of MAFOR spread every year  17t FM ha -1 agricultural land in average millions tons of animal manure directly emitted on pasture lands  Spatial heterogeneity of Mafor spreading in France  potential engineering to optimize the spatial redistribution of ressource Other Urban composts sludges Farmyard manure Cattle manure Poultry manure Pig manure Other manure Composted manure Sugarbeet effluents

P OTENTIAL INTEREST FOR CROPS AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMETAL IMPACTS.05

.06 Interests of MAFOR use in agriculture  fertilizer and soil improver  To be demonstrated before use of any new substrate MAFOR Soil improver OM, pH Fertilizer N, P, K Waste Co-products Treatment Soil properties SOIL Pedo-climatic conditions Agricultural practices

.07 Relationship between N fertilizer and organic amendment potentials Composting Phase separation Drying Anaerobic digestion Potential efficiency as organic amendment N mineral fertilizer equivalent 100% mineral N equivalent Slurry/Poultry manures Pig and cattle slurries Sewage sludges Raw digestates from anaerobic digestion Compost MBT Farmyard manure Composts (manures, sludge, digestates, greenwastes, biowastes)

.08 Fertilizer values of MAFOR  mineral fertilizer substitution  Mineral N fertilizer equivalent: From Gutser et al., 2005 ESCo « Breeding and Nitrogen » 2012  P fertilizer equivalent: Mineral P fertilizer equivalent >80% Exceptions: Ashes and sludges where P has been precipitated Potentially enough P in Mafor to satisfy all crop needs for P  K fertilizer equivalent: similar to mineral K fertilizer

MAFOR as organic amendment: potential increase of soil organic matter Physical: Structure, water, compaction Chemical: CEC, pH Biological: Activities, biodiversity Standardized indicator of efficiency (XPU )  Database available Prediction of SOM increase Lashermes et al.,2009 Peltre et al.,2012

.010 Associated environmental impacts WATER AIR NO 3 DOC P NH % NH 4  incorporation EF N 2 O: 1.425% EF CH 4 : <1% Slurries, digestates N 2 O CH 4 VOC g/ha Emission factors to be improved

3 juillet 2014 P OTENTIAL IMPACTS RELATED TO CONTAMINANTS.011

.012 Transfer To ground waters Three classes of contaminants Contaminants in MAFOR 05/05/2014 Run off Leaching MAFOR Retention and transformation Transfer to plants Transfer to animals Transfer To surface waters  Biological  Organic  Trace elements Persistance Mobility Biodisponibility Transfer to waters

.013 Main threats:  Plant diseases or zoonosis  Dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes Associated with faecal origin: sewage sludge and animal manures Potential actions Biological contaminants 05/05/2014  Treatments  hygienization : temperature (composting, thermophilic anaerobic digestion); drying, pH increase  No treatment 100% efficient  Agricultural practices: Delay between spreading and harvest, animal return to grass… Variation among countries (3 to 6 weeks in France; 1 year in Denmark)

.014 ADEME, Belon 2012 Limited numbers; more or less (Sn, Tl…) documented; naturally present in the environment Nanoparticles: impacts poorly known (Ag, Ti) Persistant  accumulation in soils. Sludge regulation and TE thresholds  no impacts on soils and crops after 15 years. Longer term? Trace elements 05/05/2014 Pesticides Mineral fertilizers Animal manure Liming materials Sludges and composts Atmospheric deposition Annual contribution of the 6 contamination sources to the total amount of TE reaching soils in France Similar regulation for all fertilizers

.015  Treatment:  Decrease of mobility  Total concentration: increase after digestion or composting Dilution after liming  Initial imputs  Choice of woods before burning  decrease of TE concentration in ashes  Animal feeds or prescriptions  Sorting before treatment: Biowaste composting, separate networks for industrial waste waters Potential actions to decrease TE fluxes or impacts 05/05/2014

.016  Very large diversity, few contaminants regulated  Major threats: pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors  More or less persistant (days to years); metabolites can be toxic  Partial dissipation during treatment; bound residues linked to organic phases  Impacts on crops:  hydrophobic molecules: sorbed on roots but no transfer  other: potential transfer but few data and not observed in real conditions  Impacts on animals: little data; studies with pure molecules Organic contaminants 05/05/2014

3 juillet 2014 S YNTHESIS AND RESEARCH NEEDS.017

Difficult to take into account all variation factors In publications, Mafor are poorly described Nothing new on acceptability and economical aspects Origin : treatment Soil Climate Time What has to be considered to evaluate the use of MAFOR in agriculture Spreading Synthesis of scientific publications: Emissions

.019 Economic conditions to the substitution of Mafor for mineral fertilizers? Price of Mafor compared to mineral fertilizer Very few studies; price of Mafor can be an obstacle to their use although they are usually low. No cost for Mafor with waste status  could be incentive in context of price increase of mineral fertilizers. Synthesis of cost/benefits of treatment/use of Mafor  transport and spatial redistribution between areas with surplus or deficit of Mafor Little scientific data on exchange markets of Mafor between producers and users Litle data to arbitrate between cost of spreading raw materials (related to transport) and cost of treatment before spreading (objective to decrease volume and transport costs) to be able to export Mafor from areas with surplus

.020 Needs to optimize the use of Mafor Upstream : typology of agronomical interests: origin X treatment  characteristics and potential interest of Mafor presence and behavior of contaminants during treatments Territorial management including all concerned actors Works on acceptability of Mafor Economic record related to the use of Mafor: cost/benefits approaches, studies on existing market related to Mafor use; potential spatial redistribution of Mafor? Complete environmental evaluations : including treatment upstream Plots/ farm : Quality/method and date of spreading Optimisation of cropping system  Adapted and parameterized decision tools Behavior of contaminants; delay after spreading: soil resilience; hierarchy of contaminants  Sanitary risk evaluation To be able to predict long term impacts (> 20 years)  long term experiments Environmental evaluations : considering benefits and environmental impacts

.021 Acknowledgments Thanks to all involved experts, to the team project! Thank you for your attention!