Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Composition, potential emissions and agricultural value of pig slurry from Spanish commercial farms

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pig slurry is a valuable fertilizer for crop production but at the same time its management may pose environmental risks. Slurry samples were collected from 77 commercial farms of four animal categories (gestating and lactating sows, nursery piglets and growing pigs) and analyzed for macronutrients, micronutrients, heavy metals and volatile fatty acids. Emissions of ammonia (NH3) and biochemical methane potential (BMP) were quantified. Slurry electrical conductivity, pH, dry matter content and ash content were also determined. Data analysis included an analysis of correlations among variables, the development of prediction models for gaseous emissions and the analysis of nutritional content of slurries for crop production. Descriptive information is provided in this work and shows a wide range of variability in all studied variables. Animal category affected some physicochemical parameters, probably as a consequence of different slurry management and use of cleaning water. Slurries from gestating sows and growing pigs tended to be more concentrated in nutrients, whereas the slurry from lactating sows and nursery piglets tended to be more diluted. Relevant relationships were found among slurry characteristics expressed in fresh basis and gas emissions. Predictive models using on-farm measurable parameters were obtained for NH3 (R2 = 0.51) and CH4 (R2 = 0.76), which suggests that BMP may be estimated in commercial farms from easily determined slurry characteristics. Finally, slurry nutrient composition was highly variable. Therefore, complete analyses of slurries should be performed for an effective and environmental friendly land application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMP:

Biochemical methane potential

CH4 :

Methane

DM:

Dry matter

EC:

Electrical conductivity

CV:

Coefficient of variation

NH3 :

Ammonia

OM:

Organic matter

SV:

Volatile solids

TKN:

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TAN:

Total ammonia nitrogen

VFA:

Volatile fatty acids

References

  • Aarnink AJA, Verstegen MWA (2007) Nutrition, key factor to reduce environmental load from pig production. Livest Sci 109(1–3):194–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abubaker J, Risberg K, Jönsson E, Dahlin A S, Cederlund H, Pell M (2015) Short-term effects of biogas digestates and pig slurry application on soil microbial activity. Appl Environ Soil Sci. Article ID 658542: 1–15

  • Adekunle KF, Okolie JA (2015) A review of biochemical process of anaerobic digestion. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 6:205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL, Guwy J, Kalyuzhnyi S, Jenicek P, Van Lier JB (2009) Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci Technol 59(5):927–934

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Antezana W, Calvet S, Beccaccia A, Ferrer P, De Blas C, García-Rebollar P, Cerisuelo A (2015) Effects of nutrition on digestion efficiency and gaseous emissions from slurry in growing pigs: III. Influence of varying the dietary level of calcium soap of palm fatty acids distillate with or without orange pulp supplementation. Anim Feed Sci Technol 209:128–136

  • APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Centennial, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai ZH, Qin W, Chen Q, Oenema O, Zhang FS (2014) Changes in pig production in china and their effects on nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses. Environ Sci Technol 48:12742–12749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beccaccia A, Ferrer P, Ibáñez MA, Estellés F, Rodríguez C, Moset V, De Blas C, Calvet S, García-rebollar P (2015) Relationships among slurry characteristics and gaseous emissions at different types of commercial spanish pig farms. Span J Agric Res 13(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conn KL, Topp E, Lazarovits G (2007) Factors influencing the concentration of volatile fatty acids, ammonia, and other nutrients in stored liquid pig manure. J Environ Qual 36(2):440–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diacono M, Montemurro F (2010) Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:401–422. doi:10.1051/agro/2009040

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Díez JA, Hernaiz P, Muñoz MJ, Torre A, Vallejo A (2006) Impact of pig slurry on soil properties, water salinization, nitrate leaching and crop yield in a four-year experiment in Central Spain. Soil Use Manag 20(4):444–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourmad J-Y, Jondreville C (2007) Impact of nutrition on nitrogen, phosphorus, Cu and Zn in pig manure, and on emissions of ammonia and odours. Livest Sci 112(3):192–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EUROSTAT (2015) Pig farming sector—statistical portrait. Pig Farming in the European Union: considerable variations from one member state to another. Statistics in Focus 15/2014. Author: Pol Marquer, Teresa Rabade, Roberta Forti ISSN:2314-9647, Catalogue number: KS-SF-14-015-EN-N

  • Fangueiro D, Lopes C, Surgy S, Vasconcelos E (2012a) Effect of the pig slurry separation techniques on the characteristics and potential availability of N to plants in the resulting liquid and solid fractions. Biosyst Eng 113(2):187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fangueiro D, Ribeiro H, Vasconcelos E, Coutinho J, Cabral F (2012b) Influence of animal slurries composition and relative particle size fractions on the C and N mineralization following soil incorporation. Biomass Bioenergy 47:50–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer P, Cambra-López M, Cerisuelo A, Peñaranda D, Moset V (2014) The use of agricultural substrates to improve methane yield in anaerobic co-digestion with pig slurry: effect of substrate type and inclusion level. Waste Manag 34:196–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galassi G, Colombini S, Malagutti L, Crovetto GM, Rapetti L (2010) Effects of high fibre and low protein diets on performance, digestibility, nitrogen excretion and ammonia emission in the heavy pig. Anim Feed Sci Technol 161:3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopalan P, Jensen PD, Batstone DJ (2013) Anaerobic digestion of swine effluent: impact of production stages. Biomass Bioenergy 48:121–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández D, Fernández JM, Plaza C, Polo A (2007) Water-soluble organic matter and biological activity of a degraded soil amended with pig slurry. Sci Total Environ 378:101–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández D, Polo A, Plaza C (2013) Long-term effects of pig slurry on barley yield and N use efficiency under semiarid mediterranean conditions. Eur J Agron 44:47–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hristov AN, Oh J, Lee C, Meinen R, Montes F, Ott T, Firkins J, Rotz A, Dell C, Adesogan A, Yang W, Tricarico J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Dijkstra J, Oosting S (2013) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production—A review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. In: Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Makkar HPS (eds) FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177. FAO, Rome

  • Iguácel F, Yagüe MR, Betrán J, Orús F (2011) Ensayos de Fertilización Con Purín Porcino, En Cereales de Invierno de Secano, Dirección General de Desarrollo Rural, Centro de Transferencia Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón. Informe Técnico 226:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarret G, Cerisuelo A, Peu P, Martinez J, Dourmad JY (2012) Impact of pig diets with different fibre contents on the composition of excreta and their gaseous emissions and anaerobic digestion. Agric Ecosyst Environ 160:51–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jouany JP (1982) Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Sci Alimen 2:131–144

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krupa SV (2003) Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. Environ Pollut 124(2):179–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mantovi P, Fumagalli L, Beretta GP, Guermandi M (2006) Nitrate leaching through the unsaturated zone following pig slurry applications. J Hydrol 316:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Suller L, Azzellino A, Provolo G (2008) Analysis of livestock slurries from farms across Northern Italy: relationship between indicators and nutrient content. Biosyst Eng 99(4):540–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moral R, Moreno-Caselles J, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, Rufete B, Paredes C (2005a) Characterisation of the organic matter pool in manures. Bioresour Technol 96(2):153–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moral R, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, Moreno-Caselles J, Paredes C (2005b) Estimation of nutrient values of pig slurries in Southeast Spain using easily determined properties. Waste Manag 25(7):719–725

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moral R, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, Moreno-Caselles J, Paredes C, Rufete B (2008) Salinity, organic content, micronutrients and heavy metals in pig slurries from South-Eastern Spain. Waste Manag 28(2):367–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morazán H, Alvarez-Rodriguez J, Seradj AR, Balcells J, Babot D (2015) Trade-offs among growth performance, nutrient digestion and carcass traits when feeding low protein and/or high neutral-detergent fiber diets to growing-finishing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 207:168–180

  • Moset V, Cambra-López M, Estellés F, Torres AG, Cerisuelo A (2012) Evolution of chemical composition and gas emissions from aged pig slurry during outdoor storage with and without prior solid separation. Biosyst Eng 111(1):2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ndegwa PM, Vaddella VK, Hristov N, Joo HS (2009) Measuring concentrations of ammonia in ambient air or exhaust air stream using acid traps.  J Environ Qual 38(2):647–653

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson FA, Chambers BJ, Williams JR, Unwin RJ (1999) Heavy metal contents of livestock feeds and animal manures in England and Wales. Bioresour Technol 70(1):23–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olusegun OS (2014) Influence of NPK 15-15-15 Fertilizer and Pig Manure on Nutrient Dynamics and Production of Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata L. Walp. Am J Agric For 2(6):267

    Google Scholar 

  • Parera i Pous J, Olivé D, Mallol Nabot C, Torrijos NC (2010) Adaptación Del Uso de La Conductividad Eléctrica (CE) Para Determinar de Forma Rápida El Contenido En Nutrientes Del Purín Porcino En Catalunya. International Workshop on Anaerobic Digestion of Slaughterhouse Waste, pp 67–76

  • Patience JF, Gould SA, Koehler D, Corrigan B, Elsbernd A, Holloway CL (2015) Super-dosed phytase improves rate and efficiency of gain in nursery pigs. Anim Ind Rep AS 661:98

    Google Scholar 

  • Penha HG, Menezes JF, Silva CA, Lopes G, Carvalho CA, Ramos SJ, Guilherme LRG (2015) Nutrient accumulation and availability and crop yields following long-term application of pig slurry in a Brazilian Cerrado soil. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 101(2):259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popovic O, Jensen LS (2012) Storage temperature affects distribution of carbon, VFA, ammonia, phosphorus, copper and zinc in raw pig slurry and its separated liquid fraction. Water Res 46(12):3849–3858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Provolo G, Martínez-Suller L (2007) In situ determination of slurry nutrient content by electrical conductivity. Bioresour Technol 98(17):3235–3242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez M, González JL (2005) The fertilizer value of pig slurry. I. Values depending on the type of operation. Bioresour Technol 96(10):1117–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT User´s guide, v 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoumans OF, Chardon WJ, Bechmann ME, Gascuel-Odoux C, Hofman G, Kronvang B, Rubæk HG, Ulén B, Dorioz JM (2014) Mitigation options to reduce phosphorus losses from the agricultural sector and improve surface water quality: a review. Sci Total Environ 468–469:1255–1266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder JJ, Cordell D, Smit AL, Rosemarin A (2010) Sustainable use of phosphorus. Plant Research International Wageningen UR. Report 357

  • Scotford IM, Cumby TR, White RP, Carton OT, Lorenz F, Hatterman U, Provolo G (1998) Estimation of the nutrient value of agricultural slurries by measurement of physical and chemical properties. J Agric Eng Res 71(3):291–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoek DJW, Johannes DS, Ogink NWM, Koerkamp PWGG (2014) Sensitivity analysis of mechanistic models for estimating ammonia emission from dairy cow urine puddles. Biosyst Eng 121:12–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suresh A, Choi HL, Oh DI, Moon OK (2009) Prediction of the nutrients value and biochemical characteristics of swine slurry by measurement of EC—electrical conductivity. Bioresour Technol 100:4683–4689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thygesen O, Triolo JM, Sommer SG (2012) Indicators of physical properties and plant nutrient content of animal slurry and separated slurry. Biol Eng Trans 5(3):123–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Triolo JM, Sommer SG, Møller HB, Weisbjerg MR, Jiang XY (2011) A new algorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during anaerobic digestion: influence of lignin concentration on methane production potential. Bioresour Technol 102:9395–9402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Duivenbooden N, de Wit CT, Van Keulen H (1996) Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium relations in five major cereals reviewed in respect to fertilizer recommendations using simulation modelling. Fertil Res Wagening 44:37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viguria M, Sanz-Cobeña A, López DM, Arriaga H, Merino P (2015) Ammonia and greenhouse gases emission from impermeable covered storage and land application of cattle slurry to bare soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 199:261–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Villamar CA, Canuta T, Belmonte M, Vidal G (2012) Characterization of swine wastewater by toxicity identification evaluation methodology (TIE). Water Air Soil Pollut 223(1):363–369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Villamar CA, Rodríguez DC, López D, Peñuela G, Vidal G (2013) Effect of the generation and physical–chemical characterization of swine and dairy cattle slurries on treatment technologies. Waste Manage Res 31(8):820–828

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Villar MC, Petrikova V, Díaz-Raviña M, Carballas T (2004) Recycling of organic wastes in burnt soils: combined application of poultry manure and plant cultivation. Waste Manage 24(4):365–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webb J, Menzi H, Pain BF, Misselbrook TH, Dämmgen U, Hendriks H, Döhler H (2005) Managing ammonia emissions from livestock production in Europe. Environ Pollut 135:399–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Webb J, Broomfield M, Jones S, Donovan B (2014) Ammonia and odour emissions from UK pig farms and nitrogen leaching from outdoor pig production. Sci Total Environ 470:865–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:849–860

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yagüe MR, Bosch-Serra AD, Boixadera J (2012) Measurement and estimation of the fertiliser value of pig slurry by physicochemical models: usefulness and constraints. Biosyst Eng 111(2):206–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Wei Q, Wu S, Qi D, Li W, Zuo Z, Dong R (2014) Batch anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions. Appl Energy 128:175–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (AGL2011-30023) and the Valencian Government (ACOMP/2013/118). We thank the BABEL Project, Building Academic Bonds between Europe and Latin America. Erasmus Mundus Programme Action 2 for PhD fellowships. The translation of this paper was funded by the Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Animal Science and Technology, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain

    W. Antezana, P. Ferrer, F. Estellés, M. Cambra-López & S. Calvet

  2. Facultad de Agronomía y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, Av. de La Cultura 733, P.B. 921, Cusco, Peru

    W. Antezana

  3. Departamento de Producción Agraria, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, E.T.S. Ingenieros Agrónomos de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    C. De Blas, P. García-Rebollar, C. Rodríguez & A. Beccaccia

  4. Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Animal, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias, Pol. La Esperanza 100, 12400, Segorbe, Castellón, Spain

    A. Cerisuelo

  5. Department of Engineering, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830, Tjele, Denmark

    V. Moset

Authors
  1. W. Antezana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. De Blas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. García-Rebollar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Beccaccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Ferrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Cerisuelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. V. Moset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. F. Estellés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Cambra-López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. S. Calvet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Antezana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antezana, W., De Blas, C., García-Rebollar, P. et al. Composition, potential emissions and agricultural value of pig slurry from Spanish commercial farms. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 104, 159–173 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9764-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9764-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation