Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 6019–6027 | Cite as

Chemical amendment of pig slurry: control of runoff related risks due to episodic rainfall events up to 48 h after application

  • Cornelius J. O’ Flynn
  • Mark G. Healy
  • Paul Wilson
  • Nyncke J. Hoekstra
  • Shane M. Troy
  • Owen Fenton
Research Article

Abstract

Losses of phosphorus (P) from soil and slurry during episodic rainfall events can contribute to eutrophication of surface water. However, chemical amendments have the potential to decrease P and suspended solids (SS) losses from land application of slurry. Current legislation attempts to avoid losses to a water body by prohibiting slurry spreading when heavy rainfall is forecast within 48 h. Therefore, in some climatic regions, slurry spreading opportunities may be limited. The current study examined the impact of three time intervals (TIs; 12, 24 and 48 h) between pig slurry application and simulated rainfall with an intensity of 11.0 ± 0.59 mm h−1. Intact grassed soil samples, 1 m long, 0.225 m wide and 0.05 m deep, were placed in runoff boxes and pig slurry or amended pig slurry was applied to the soil surface. The amendments examined were: (1) commercial-grade liquid alum (8 % Al2O3) applied at a rate of 0.88:1 [Al/ total phosphorus (TP)], (2) commercial-grade liquid ferric chloride (38 % FeCl3) applied at a rate of 0.89:1 [Fe/TP] and (3) commercial-grade liquid poly-aluminium chloride (10 % Al2O3) applied at a rate of 0.72:1 [Al/TP]. Results showed that an increased TI between slurry application and rainfall led to decreased P and SS losses in runoff, confirming that the prohibition of land-spreading slurry if heavy rain is forecast in the next 48 h is justified. Averaged over the three TIs, the addition of amendment reduced all types of P losses to concentrations significantly different (p < 0.05) to those from unamended slurry, with no significant difference between treatments. Losses from amended slurry with a TI of 12 h were less than from unamended slurry with a TI of 48 h, indicating that chemical amendment of slurry may be more effective at ameliorating P loss in runoff than current TI-based legislation. Due to the high cost of amendments, their incorporation into existing management practices can only be justified on a targeted basis where inherent soil characteristics deem their usage suitable to receive amended slurry.

Keywords

Pig slurry Runoff P sorbing amendments Nitrates Directive Water Framework Directive Phosphorus Suspended solids 

References

  1. Allen BL, Mallarino AP (2008) Effect of liquid swine manure rate, incorporation, and timing of rainfall on phosphorus loss with surface runoff. J Environ Qual 37:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brennan RB, Fenton O, Grant J, Healy MG (2011) Impact of chemical amendment of dairy cattle slurry on phosphorus, suspended sediment and metal loss to runoff from a grassland soil. Sci Total Environ 409:5111–5118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan RB, Healy MG, Grant J, Ibrahim TG, Fenton O (2012) Incidental phosphorus and nitrogen loss from grassland plots receiving chemically amended dairy cattle slurry. Sci Total Environ 441:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. British Standards Institution (1990b) Determination by mass-loss on ignition. British standard methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Chemical and electrochemical tests. BSI, London. BS 1377–3Google Scholar
  5. British Standards Institution (1990) Determination of particle size distribution. British standard methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. BSI, London, pp 1377–2Google Scholar
  6. Creamer RE, Brennan F, Fenton O, Healy MG, Lalor STJ, Lanigan GJ, Regan JT, Griffiths BS (2010) Implications of the proposed Soil Framework Directive on agricultural systems in Atlantic Europe—a review. Soil Use Manage 26:197–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dao TH (1999) Co-amendments to modify phosphorus extractability and nitrogen/phosphorus ration in feedlot manure and composted manure. J Environ Qual 28:1114–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daverede IC, Kravchenko AN, Hoeft RG, Nafziger ED, Bullock DG, Warren JJ, Gonzini LC (2004) Phosphorus runoff from incorporated and surface-applied liquid swine manure and phosphorus fertilizer. J Environ Qual 33:1535–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dou Z, Zhang GY, Stout WL, Toth JD, Ferguson JD (2003) Efficacy of alum and coal combustion by-products in stabilizing manure phosphorus. J Environ Qual 32:1490–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards DR, Daniel TC (1993) Drying interval effects on runoff from fescue plots receiving swine manure. Trans ASAE 36:1673–1678Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2000) Council Directive of 22 December 2000 establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy (2000/60/EC). www.wfdireland.ie
  12. Hart MR, Quin BF, Nguyen ML (2004) Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects. J Environ Qual 33:1954–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healy MG, Ibrahim TG, Lanigan GJ, Serrenho AJ, Fenton O (2012) Nitrate removal rate, efficiency and pollution swapping potential of different organic carbon media in laboratory denitrification bioreactors. Ecol Eng 40:198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordan P, Melland AR, Mellander P-E, Shortle G, Wall D (2012) The seasonality of phosphorus transfers from land to water: implications for trophic impacts and policy evaluation. Sci Total Environ 434:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleinman PJA, Srinivasan MS, Dell CJ, Schmidt JP, Sharpley AN, Bryant RB (2006) Role of rainfall intensity and hydrology in nutrient transport via surface runoff. J Environ Qual 35:1248–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lefcourt AM, Meisinger JJ (2001) Effect of adding alum or zeolite to dairy slurry on ammonia volatilisation and chemical composition. J Dairy Sci 84:1814–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCutcheon GA (1997) MSc thesis. National University of Ireland, DublinGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald S, Murphy T, Holden N (2007) Spatial and temporal issues in the development of a microbial risk assessment for cryptosporidiosis. In: Holden NM, Hochstrasser T, Schulte RPO, Walsh S (eds) Making science work on the farm. A workshop on decision support systems for Irish agriculture. Agmet, Dublin, pp 100–104Google Scholar
  19. Monteney GJ (2001) The EU Nitrates Directive: a European approach to combat water pollution from agriculture. Sci World J 1:927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore PA Jr, Daniel TC, Edwards DR (1999) Reducing phosphorus runoff and improving poultry production with alum. Poult Sci 78:692–698Google Scholar
  21. Moore PA Jr, Daniel TC, Edwards DR (2000) Reducing phosphorus runoff and inhibiting ammonia loss from poultry manure with aluminum sulfate. J Environ Qual 29:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morgan MF (1941) Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system. Connecticut agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 450. New Haven, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  23. Nolan T, Troy SM, Gilkinson S, Frost P, Xie S, Zhan X, Harrington C, Healy MG, Lawlor PG (2012) Economic analyses of pig manure treatment options in Ireland. Bioresour Technol 105:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’ Flynn CJ, Fenton O, Healy MG (2012a) Evaluation of amendments to control phosphorus losses in runoff from pig slurry applications to land. Clean Soil Air Water 40:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’ Flynn CJ, Fenton O, Wilson P, Healy MG (2012b) Impact of pig slurry amendments on phosphorus, suspended sediment and metal losses in laboratory runoff boxes under simulated rainfall. J Environ Man 113:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Bric C (1991) MSc thesis. National University of Ireland, DublinGoogle Scholar
  27. Official Journal of the European Community (1991) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sourcesGoogle Scholar
  28. Penn CJ, Bryant RB, Callahan MA, McGrath JM (2011) Use of industrial byproducts to sorb and retain phosphorus. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 42:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Preedy N, McTiernan KB, Matthews R, Heathwaite L, Haygarth PM (2001) Rapid incidental phosphorus transfers from grassland. J Environ Qual 30:2105–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Regan JT, Rodgers M, Healy MG, Kirwan L, Fenton O (2010) Determining phosphorus and sediment release rates from five Irish tillage soils. J Environ Qual 39:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. S.I. No. 272 of 2009. European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations (2009) Statutory Office, DublinGoogle Scholar
  32. S.I. No. 419 of 1994. Environment Protection Agency Act (1992) (Urban waste water treatment regulations, 1994). Statutory Office, DublinGoogle Scholar
  33. S.I. No. 610 of 2010. (Good agricultural practice for protection of waters) regulations 2010, Statutory Office, DublinGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulte RPO, Melland AR, Fenton O, Herlihy M, Richards KG, Jordan P (2010) Modelling soil phosphorus decline: expectations of Water Frame Work Directive policies. Environ Sci Policy 13:472–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Serrenho A, Fenton O, Murphy PNC, Grant J, Healy MG (2012) Effect of chemical amendments to dairy soiled water and time between application and rainfall on phosphorus and sediment losses in runoff. Sci Total Environ 430:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharpley AN (1997) Rainfall frequency and nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from soil amended with poultry litter. J Environ Qual 26:1127–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharpley AN, Smith SJ, Jones OR, Berg WA, Coleman GA (1992) The transport of bioavailable phosphorus in agricultural runoff. J Environ Qual 21:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith DR, Moore PA Jr, Griffis CL, Daniel TC, Edwards DR, Boothe DL (2001) Effects of alum and aluminium chloride on phosphorus runoff from swine manure. J Environ Qual 30:992–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith DR, Moore PA Jr, Maxwell CV, Haggard BE, Daniel TC (2004) Reducing phosphorus runoff from swine manure with dietary phytase and aluminum chloride. J Environ Qual 33:1048–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith DR, Owens PR, Leytem AB, Warnemuende EA (2007) Nutrient losses from manure and fertilizer applications as impacted by time to first runoff event. Environ Pol 147:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wall D, Jordan P, Melland AR, Mellander P-E, Buckley C, Reaney SM, Shortle G (2011) Using the nutrient transfer continuum concept to evaluate the European Union Nitrates Directive National Action Programme. Environ Sci Policy 14:664–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams JD, Wilkins DE, McCool DK, Baarstad LL, Klepper BL, Papendick RI (1997) A new rainfall simulator for use in low-energy rainfall areas. Appl Eng Agric 14:243–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelius J. O’ Flynn
    • 1
  • Mark G. Healy
    • 1
  • Paul Wilson
    • 3
  • Nyncke J. Hoekstra
    • 2
  • Shane M. Troy
    • 4
  • Owen Fenton
    • 2
  1. 1.Civil EngineeringNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.TeagascEnvironmental Research CentreJohnstown CastleIreland
  3. 3.School of TechnologyUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  4. 4.Scottish Rural CollegeEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations