1. The impact of concentrated pig production in Flanders: a spatial analysis G. Willeghems, L. De Clercq, E. Michels, E. Meers, and J. Buysse Juan Tur Cardona 150th EAAE Seminar, Edinburgh

2. Outline Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions
Department of Agricultural Economics
24/08/2015

3. Introduction
Livestock production in Belgium, and hence, carbon footprint, is concentrated in the North and North-Western part of the country. It has been suggested that a more equal spreading of livestock production might reduce the carbon footprint.
Department of Agricultural Economics
24/08/2015

4. High concentration of livestock in Flanders
Environmental problems (Surplus of nutrients)
Fertilization standards.
Limitations on the transport of manure (language border)
01/07/2014

5. Research Question
Can spatial reallocation of livestock production in Belgium reduce the impact of GHG emissions?
Research Objectives
conduct economic and environmental optimization
determine main differences
determine marginal spatial impact on CO2 emissions of a decrease in manure pressure
The research questions is translated into three different research objectives:
conduct an economic (cost minimization) and environmental (GHG minimization) optimization for 3 manure management scenarios,
2) determine the main differences between both approaches,
3) determine the marginal spatial impact on CO2 emissions of a decrease in manure pressure (i.e., increased spreading of pig production).
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

6. Methodology Life cycle analysis
GHG for three manure management scenarios
Include LCA in Manure allocation model
1. LCA: consequential
2 .Focus on greenhouse gas emissions, hence carbon footprint
For 3 manure management scenario’s
3. Inserted into the manure allocation model
Department of Agricultural Economics
24/08/2015

7. Life cycle analysis (1) attributional vs consequential approach
marginal spatial impact of decrease in manure pressure
consequential LCA
attributional approach: provides information on the share of global burdens that can be associated with a product and its life cycle
And uses average data (i.e., data representing the average environmental burden for producing a unit of the good or service in the system),
consequential approach: estimate how flows to and from the environment will change as a result of different potential decisions
And uses marginal data representing the effects of a small change in the output of goods and/or services.  
consequential life cycle approach most appropriate as in this case spatial reallocation of livestock production
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

8. Carbon footprint
direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions linked to an activity, facility or limited territory
compare different products or activities, reduce emissions and investigate possible improvements (Guns, 2014)
expressed in CO2 equivalents (CH4, NOx)
LCA will be focused only on GHG emissions, these are calculated by using the carbon footprint
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

9. Calculation of environmental impact of pig manure management (2)
Focus on CO2 emissions (carbon footprint)
Functional unit = amount of manure produced per year for each municipality
Regions under investigation are Flanders (nutrient rich) & Wallonia (nutrient poor)
System boundaries: from production to land application
2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories and available country specific date
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

10. 3 possibilities for manure management
Raw manure scenario
Treatment scenario
Separation scenario
We will calculate carbon footprint and conduct LCA for 3 different types of manure management systems
The model allows a combination of these 3 different possibilities in the same situation,
NOTE: in the paper I use the word ‘processing’ both for manure treatment (biological treatment) and separation. Treatment is then used specifically for the biological treatment of manure
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

11. raw manure is stored for 6 months
transported firstly to own and nearby fields
Then outside the pressure region within Flanders or Wallonia, and applied to crop land
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

12. (2) Manure Treatment
manure is stored for 1,5 months at the farm, then 10 days at the treatment center, and then separated
The thin fraction is treated in biological treatment plant, then applied on land;
The thick fraction is transported to composting facility (assumed 50 km), composted and transported to France (assumed 200km),
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

13. (3) Manure Separation
manure is stored for 1,5 months at the farm, then 10 days at the treatment center, and then separated
The thin fraction is again stored for 4 months, then applied on the land (you cannot apply manure in winter time);
The thick fraction is transported to composting facility (assumed 50 km), composted and transported to France (assumed 200km),
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

14. Overview of emissions assumptions emissions storage transport
in pit under stables
intermediate storage of manure for processing/separation
storage of thin fraction after separation
CH4
direct N2O
indirect N2O from NH3 and NOx
transport
non-renewable energy use from transport and injection
CO2
application
emissions from managed soils
emissions from machinery use
processing
energy use centrifuge, biological treatment and composting process
manure separation in closed vessel, no other emissions
emissions biological treatment
transport to composting plant and France
CO2 from energy use
indirect N2O from NH3 and NOx (negligible)
avoided emissions
emissions from production and transport NPK
application of replaced mineral fertilizers
Overview of the different types of emissions that occur in the different stages of manure management
We don’t only look at CO2 emissions but also CH4 and N2O, as these three are all greenhouse gasses. CH4 and N2O are much more powerful than CO2
Global warming potential 1 kg CH4 = 25 kg CO2
Global warming potential 1 kg N20 = 298 kg CO2
Raw manure: 6 months storage
Separation: 1,5 months storage at farm, 10 days at treatment center
Separation thin fraction: 4 months storage thin fraction
Application: emissions from soil, also from fuel use from machinery while spreading the manure
Avoided emissions: emissions from production of mineral fertilizers and transport by boat/ truck etc. from production facility to storage/sales point
Avoided emissions from the application of mineral fertilizers: machinery fuel use and emissions from managed soils (taking into account the mineral fertilizer equivalent vlaue for N,P,K)
Department of Agricultural Economics
20/04/2015

15. Manure Allocation Model (3)
Belgium: Flanders (nutrient surplus) and Wallonia (nutrient deficit)
municipality level: nutrient supply and demand
data from Federal Statistics Department
goal: minimize total cost/CO2 emissions of manure management
combination of 3 scenarios
raw/separated/processed manure is exchanged between municipalities
Third part of the methodology: the manure allocation model
Focus area: Belgium, consists of 2 regions: Flanders and Wallonia
The model optimizes, at municipal level, either the cost-efficiency, either the environmental effect of the manure market in Belgium based on Belgian fertilization standards.
cost-efficiency: calculated based on transport distances and cost of manure separation and processing,
carbon footprint: determined based on a consequential LCA calculation.

16. Manure Allocation Model
IMPORTANT here to mention is that:
COST minimization looks at all types of manure
CO2 minimization only for emissions from pig manure because this type of manure presents the biggest problem to get rid off.
SO, when we say that, under CO2 minimiz, no manure is transported, we mean that no PIG manure is transported, other types of manure are transported but taken into account for GHG emissions
RAW manure produced in municipality 1, then different options, keep RAW or PROCESS. This processed manure ends up in municipality 2 fields with crops which have different fertilization standards,
Main model equations added in last slide
Minimize CO2 emissions from pig manure management
Minimize cost for livestock manure management
Department of Agricultural Economics
20/04/2015

17. Results
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

18. General
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

20. Model simulations Scenario Border FL-WAL Minimize 1 – CB_cost Closed
3 – OB_cost
Open
4 – OB_CO2
4 different scenario’s were simulated. Look at closed and open border because language border is actually manure border, currently no manure transport possible.
closed border between FL and WAL with cost minimization
closed border between FL and WAL with CO2 minimization
Open border between FL and WAL with cost minimization
Open border between FL and WAL with CO2 minimization
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

21. Overview of the general outcome of the 4 model scenarios.
Scenarios 1 and 2 assume a closed border (CB), while scenarios 3 and 4 assume an open border (OB).
Moreover, scenarios 1 and 3 minimized cost, while scenarios 2 and 4 minimized carbon footprint (CO2).
Scenarios which minimize cost also express the largest CO2 emissions. Scenarios that minimize CO2 have a higher cost, CO2 emissions are exactly the same for SC 2 and 4.
We will see the reason why in the next slide.
(if anyone asks: the OB CO2 min scenario is a bit cheaper than the CB CO2 one, because cost is calculated for ALL manure types. Even though all pig manure is separated, the other manure types are being transported as much as possible, which is cheaper.)
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

22. Overview, per scenario, of carbon footprint, shown per manure management option
Cost minim scenarios (1 and 3) transport as much as possible raw manure, because it is the cheaper option, When the border is open (SC 3), there is much more transport of raw manure and much less processed manure because due to the open border manure can now be transported into the nutrient poor wallonia region,
As manure separation has the lowest carbon footprint, there is only separation in CO2 min scenarios (2 and 4). Also, the presence or absence of a border is not important anymore since all manure will be separated anyway,
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

23. Pie diagram for the 4 scenarios depicting share of each type of emission
Generally: when looking at all four figures together, all similar image in regard to specific shares of the different types of emission sources.
Cost minim: almost half of the emissions are due to methane emissions from storage (light blue - all types of manure management together, i.e., raw, treated and separated). In the other 2 scenarios, CH4 dominates as well but less.
Another large source of emissions in all scenarios: direct N2O emission (yellow) from the soil after manure application.
Emissions from nitrification/denitrification (dark blue on top) only present in cost minim scenarios as these are the only ones where biological treatment takes place.
Another important observation is that manure transport as such (light green) only contributes a small part to the overall emissions.
Avoided emissions from use (production) of mineral fertilizer (grey) and avoided emissions from the use of manure instead of mineral fertilizer (brown) are similar in size. Avoided emissions from fuel use are negligible. More avoided emissions in CO2 minim scenario (link to attributional LCA – highest avoided emissions with separation)
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

24. Spatial Analysis
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

25. Spatial overview of total CO2 emissions per municipality in Belgium
carbon footprint, is concentrated in the North and North-Western part of the country. 4 scenarios look very similar, scenario 2 and 4 identical, scenario 1 and 3 larger emissions (see scale in legend)
Department of Agricultural Economics
24/08/2015

26. Consequential LCA – Marginal CO2 impact
RQ: Can spatial reallocation of livestock production in Belgium reduce the impact of GHG emissions?
simulate livestock spreading by relaxing fertilisation standards
calculate the marginal CO2 impact of 1 kg extra N per municipality allowed
for CO2 minimizing scenario
Use Consequential LCA to answer research question: ‘spreading of livestock production to decrease the carbon footprint’
In model: simulate spreading by relaxing fertilisation standards, i.e., allowing more nutrients from manure to be put on the field.
More specifically: increase the nitrogen standard by 1 kg per municipality and calculate the marginal CO2 impact of this increase, i.e., how much more or less CO2 is emitted per kg N.
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

27. Legend scale of the legend: indicates rather small impact
Greatest reductions in areas with high livestock densities
focus on one specific municipality: encircled in red and called Hoogstraten. Emission =2300 ton CO2 when emissions are minimized and 2900 and 4400 ton for cost minimization under closed and open border respectively.
1 extra kg of N  carbon footprint decreases by 250 g CO2. decrease not be caused by additional manure processing as all manure is separated  the only possibility = decrease in transport of treated manure.
100 g CO2 equivalents per ton manure per km
1 kg N equals 125 kg manure
12,5 g CO2 per kg N
25 g CO2 less  125 kg manure 20 km transport
more nitrogen allowed on the field =more manure is allowed on the field and that less manure transported to other regions.
The maximum reduction = 0.5 kg CO2, for the municipality of Hooglede (blue circle), located in West-Flanders.

28. Perspective: CO2 costs of pig production
Production cost in concentrated area:
1 pig: 5 ton manure per 9 kg N/ton
22,5 kg CO2 per year
Fixed costs of pig production
3,7 kg CO2 /kg life weight for 1 pig
740 kg CO2 per year
3 %
(5 ton manure* 9 kg N per ton * 0,51 kg CO2/kg N (marginal)=) 22.5 kg CO2/year
(not sure where these numbers come from, its Andreas calculation – ill check with him tomorrow)
Ray has a paper on carbon footprint of pig meat in Flanders but they talk about deboned meat, not life weight. Numbers are in same order of largitude)
Weight of 1 pig: 100 kg
6 months growth period
(3,7*100/2 =) 740 kg
Manure production in concentrated pig production areas is only negligible in comparison to total CO2 emissions from pig production
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

29. Conclusions
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

30. Environmental optimum: separating all manure
Economic optimum: maximizing transport of raw manure until fertilization standards are fulfilled, subsequently separating and processing the excess manure
Environmental optimum: separating all manure
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

31. Manure storage is main contributor to carbon footprint
Rearrangement of spatial spreading of pig production will not substantially decrease CO2 emissions
Manure storage is main contributor to carbon footprint
change manure storage systems
A number of ways to reduce carbon footprint during manure storage have been described in literature
Clemens et al. (2006): biogas production is a very efficient way to reduce the GHG emissions Moreover, nitrous oxide emissions will be eliminated by gas-tight cover because the headspace contains no oxygen, a prerequisite for N2O formation. A wooden cover significantly reduced net total GHG emissions from untreated and digested slurry, while a layer of chopped straw did not reduce GHG emissions.
More specifically for pig manure slurry:
CH4 production from slurry can be reduced by addition of inhibiting compounds and acids (Amon et al., 2001; Berg and Pazsiczki, 2003).
Slurry cooling as well as lowered indoor temperatures and a reduced air exchange rate are mentioned in (Monteny et al., 2001) to reduce CH4 emissions.
Most effective measures are to prevent formation of bacteria inoculum by frequent and complete slurry removal (Monteny et al., 2001; Osada et al., 1998; Van den Weghe et al., 2005).
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

32. Model Equations cost minimization Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015

33. GHG minimization Main conditions manure balance nutrient balance
Department of Agricultural Economics
23/10/2015