Phosphorus flows in Europe and future scenarios
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,564 views
Presenter: Kimo van Dijk, Researcher Nutrient Managment and Phosphorus Security, Wageningen University Co-authors: - Title: Phosphorus flows in Europe and future scenarios Location: P-IMBALANCE, IIASA, Laxemburg, Austria Date: 23 April 2015 Personal website: http://kimovandijk.weebly.com Countries: Austria AT Belgium BE Bulgaria BG Cyprus CY Czech Republic CZ Germany DE Denmark DK Estonia EE Spain ES Finland FI France FR Greece EL Hungary HU Ireland IE Italy IT Lithuania LT Luxembourg LU Latvia LV Malta MT Netherlands NL Poland PL Portugal PT Romania RO Sweden SE Slovenia SI Slovakia SK United Kingdom UK Switzerland CH Phosphorus: Fosfor Fosfor Fòsfòr Фосфор Fosfor Фосфор Fosfor Fosfor Фосфор Фосфор Fosforas Fosfors Fuosfuors Fosfor Ffуsfforws Fosfar Fosfaras Fosfaar Fosforus Φωσφορος Ֆոսֆոր Fosfor Fosfor Фосфор Фосфор ফসফরাস فسفر ફૉસ્ફરસનો फास्फोरस Fosfor Fosfori Foszfor Фосфор Фосфор Паликандур Fosfor Fosfor Фосфор Фосфор Фосфор Фосфор Fosfor فوسفور Fosfor Fosforoa ფოსფორი [fūsfūr] זרחן Fosfru Lìn リン 인 ฟอสฟอรัส Photpho 磷 Posporo Fosfor Pūtūtae-whetū Fosforus ഫോസ്ഫറസ് பொஸ்பரசு Fosofo Fosforase Posfori Fósforo Phusphuru Fosforimi Fosforo Fosforon Pesticium
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Phosphorus flows in Europe and future scenarios
Similar to Phosphorus flows in Europe and future scenarios (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (9)
Phosphorus flows in Europe and future scenarios
- 1. Phosphorus flows in Europe and future scenarios Kimo van Dijk Wageningen University kimo.vandijk@wur.nl IIASA, Laxemburg, Austria 23 April 2015
- 2. Overview Phosphorus (P) cycling & challenges Present P flows in Europe ● Agronomic P balances ● Food P supply and intake requirements ● Recycling Sustainable P use options in society Potential future P use (scenario analyses) Summary & conclusions
- 4. Geological versus anthropogenic cycles RESOURCE RESERVES SINKS Society Crops Animals Industry & retail Consumers Non- food LossesInputs [90% fertilizer, and other mineral P use] Geological cycle Direct IMPACTS Anthropogenic cycle
- 5. Phoshorus challenges Non-renewable at human time scales Spatially concentrated: geopolitical dependency and tension Relatively low price, but price volatility (2008 case) Decreasing P-rock quality: ● P concentration ● impurities (e.g. cadmium, uranium) Pollution and eutrophication Cordell et al. 2009
- 6. R/P ratio for P, K & micronutrients A simplistic way of expressing resource scarcity R/P ratio = reserve / production De Haes et al. 2012
- 7. Phosphorus use in the EU-27 in 2005 Detergent, wood, paper & fibres Crops, fish, food products & mineral additives Animal feed, mineral additives & live animals Mineral fertiliser, seeds & pesticides Solid & liquid organic waste Organic waste Wood, paper & fibres Slaughter residues, solid & liquid waste Crops & food products Manure losses Live animals Leaching & runoff Seeding materials Input Output Soil [150,000] Flows & stocks in Gg = Mkg = kton P per year Van Dijk et al.(subm.)
- 8. Import, export and losses per sector Absolute quantity [Gg P/year] Relative fraction (of total system import, export and losses) Primary P import (+ secondary P = total import) Import Export Losses Import Export Losses Gg P/year % of total system primary import % of total sector import Cp 1452 4 76 61 2 7 1448 79 99.7 Ap 435 24 72 18 13 6 245 13 56.3 Fp 260 145 332 11 79 29 25 1 9.6 Nf 215 12 68 9 6 6 110 6 51.2 Hc - - 587 - - 52 - - - Total 2362 185 1135 100 100 100 1828 100 Van Dijk et al. (submitted) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Gross import Gross export Net trade Losses Accumulation Phosphorusquantity[GgP/year] Primary P (rock based) input accounts for 77 % of the total input of the system
- 9. Global fertilizer P consumption 1961-2010 FAOSTAT data 2010
- 10. Fertilizer P consumption in EU-27 in 2010 FAOSTAT data 2010
- 11. Animal feed P origin in EU-27 in 2005 Source: Miterra-Europe model, CAPRI & FAOSTAT data 2003-2005
- 12. Agronomic P balances in the EU Annual regional agricultural P balances [kg P/ha] for EU-15 in 2000 Estimated cumulative P balances [kg P/ha] of EU countries during 1991–2005 Source: Csathó & Radimszky 2012 Source: Grizzetti & Aloe, 2007
- 13. Soil P balances in NW-Europe Source: Lesschen et al. 2013. Options for closing the phosphorus cycle in agriculture
- 14. Average phosphate surplus in Dutch agriculture 1880-2010 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Surplus,kgP2O5/ha -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Cumulativesurplus,kgP2 O5 /ha Annual Cumulative Target 2015 1 kg P = 2.29 kg P2O5 Ehlert et al. 2011
- 15. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 DomesticfoodPsupply[kg/ca/year] Animal Plant Domestic food P supply in EU-27 in 2005 Domestic food P supply necessary to fullfill human dietary P intake requirements at consumption level Van Dijk et al. (submitted) Minimum P intake requirement Mean EU P intake Maximum P intake level
- 16. Reuse of organic waste in EU-27 in 2005 Based on Barth et al. 2008
- 17. Sludge destinations in EU-27 in 2010 Source: P-Rex, FP7 project, www.p-rex.eu; based on Eurostat 2010, Milieu Ltd 2010 & Destatis 2011
- 18. P concentrations in rivers and lakes in EU regions, period 1990 - 2005 Source: European Environment Agency, 2007
- 19. Potential phosphorus losses in society Three ‘types’ of potential P losses: ● Sequestration: incineration, landfilling, co-firing or use in the cement industry ● Accumulation: in agricultural soils or the environment ● Export: flows with unclear destinations Avoidable and unavoidable losses Point and diffuse sources Direct and indirect actors
- 20. Transition towards sustainable P use •remove non-essential P inputs (e.g. detergents) •match P requirements more closely (precision agriculture) •utilise legacy P stores Realign P inputs •optimise input management •minimise runoff and erosion •strategic retention zones Reduce P losses to water •avoid wastage •improve utilization efficiency •adopt integrated production systems Recycle P in bioresources •recover P in societies' wastes •produce fertilizer substitutes Recover P in wastes •influence dietary choice •define end-user P requirements •re-connect crop and animal production systems Redefine P in the food chain Withers, Van Dijk et al. 2015
- 21. Phoshorus recycling potential EU-27 [Gg P/year] Total Recycled Potential Sewage sludge 297 115 182 Biodegradable solid waste 130 38 92 Meat & bone meal 128 6 122 Total (minimum) 427 153 274 Total (maximum) 555 160 396 Mineral fertiliser use 1448 Manure use 1763 Van Dijk et al. (submitted)
- 22. Potential future P use scenarios Objectives & research questions: ● To develop a dynamic model for the analysis of the effects of changes in drivers and nutrient management strategies on P dynamics in the food chain. ● What would be the P dynamics & food production in EU-27 in case of a stop of P import via ● Q1: mineral fertilizers? ● Q2: mineral fertilizers and animal feed? ● Q3: What are the effects of nutrient management & best management practices (BMPs)?
- 23. Dynamic Food System model Mass balance principle Data: Miterra-Europe, CAPRI, FAOSTAT, Eurostat, reports, articles and experts EU-27 at country level, timesteps of one year Entire food system + non-food P imports, exports, losses and internal flows Flows described dynamically as function of sector input Crop P uptake as function of soil P stock and P application
- 24. Dynamic crop P uptake
- 25. Dynamic crop P uptake Mitscherlich yield response curve: Puptake= [a – b * exp (-c* Papplication)] * d
- 26. Scenarios & best management practices The scenarios are: ● BAU: present (~2005), Business as Usual ● S1: no P import via fertilizer ● S2: no P import via fertilizer + compound feed ● S3: as S2 + BMPs The best management practices (BMPs) are 90 % less: ● biowaste + waste water P losses (HC) ● forestry sector losses (NF) ● slaughter waste losses (FP) ● stable manure losses (AP) No changes in other drivers and factors, such as population, agricultural area, crop types etc.
- 27. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 AveragecropPuptake[kgP/ha/year] BAU SI S2 S3 Per ha EU-27 crop P uptake per scenario for 2005-2300 50 % 25 % Van Dijk et al. (submitted)
- 28. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 AveragesoilPstock[kgP/ha] BAU SI S2 S3 Per ha EU-27 soil P stock per scenario for 2005-2300 Van Dijk et al. (submitted)
- 29. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 France Lithuania Luxembourg Ireland Germany Sweden UnitedKingdom Belgium CzechRepublic Italy Bulgaria Malta Denmark Greece Estonia Spain Romania Netherlands Portugal Finland Slovakia Poland Austria Latvia Hungary Cyprus Slovenia BAU S1 S2 S3 Per capita food P supply per Member State per scenario in 2050 Van Dijk et al. (submitted)
- 30. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 AveragefoodPsupply[kgP/ca/year] BAU SI S2 S3 Changes in per capita food P supply in EU-27 per scenario for 2005-2300 Van Dijk et al. (submitted)
- 31. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 Averagedrymatteryield[kgP/ha/year] BAU SI S2 S3 Changes in dry matter crop yield in EU-27 per scenario for 2005-2300 50 % 33 % Van Dijk et al. (submitted)
- 32. Conclusions for the present state Europe is largely dependent on P imports via: ● Mineral fertilizers (60%), animal feed & additives (20%), food (10%) & non-food materials (10%) Ongoing P accumulation in agricultural soils, especially in western Europe by P surplusses Various recycling rates, generally low (except manure): ● Sewage sludge P recycling ranging from 0 - 90% ● Compost P re-use ranging from 0 - 70% Significant P losses via: ● Waterways: sewage discharge, leaching & erosion ● Sequestration: incineration, landfilling, infrastructure High potential to improve P use efficiency
- 33. Conclusions for future scenarios Soil P is an important stock to take into account in P dynamics, because of its buffering capacity and large size (~150.000 Gg P) A stop on P fertilizer import has a large effect on food production, mainly on the longer term A stop on P import via fertilizer and animal feed makes the effect even more pronounced, causing a larger and earlier drop in food production The effects can be mitigated by the implementation of best management practices in nutrient management Additional data is necessary, especially for downscaling to the regional level
- 34. Thank you for your attention Questions? Comments? Suggestions? kimo.vandijk@wur.nl / kimovandijk@xs4all.nl Twitter: @kimovandijk Website: kimovandijk.weebly.com
Editor's Notes
- Project work for the dutch government: Dutch P cycle. Losses and options for better use Phd work: sustainable use of P in EU Interactive session, please ask directly if something is unclear Sorry, figures are in elemental P, not P2O5, P is the element part of the molecule
- Source: http://nagrascience10.wikispaces.com/Interactive+notes+Unit+1 Very unrealistic that we can harvest it from seabeds or seawater, economically and on the short term impossible Anthropogenic activities in particular from the late 19th century onwards have impacted significantly on this natural phosphorus cycle. Leakage from extensive fertilization of agricultural soils has contributed to the eutrophication of surface waters and coastal areas resulting in algal blooms and dead zones across the globe. 11th most frequent element in the earth’s crust Both magmatic & sedimentary (1:7), with higher P content 12-16% in the sedimentary rock vs 5% in the magmatic Three natural cycles (without human interferrence) Bedrock erosion – watercourse – add deposition of organic material – sedimentation on the ocean floor (tectonic uplift) (millions of years) Soil- plants-animals-soil (years) Aquatic – water plants/organisms – water (cycle of some weeks)
- So for minerals nutrient cycles can have long geological and short anthropogenic cycle.
- P is an example element to show nutrient scarcity and flows in society. But micronutrients are also very important for food production and plant, human and animal health. What about the scarcity of these nutrients? The simplistic R/P ratio for the different nutrietns is shown here. Zinc has the lowest R/P ratio, with about 30 years. Mo the highest with about 50 years. 90% of P use is in agriculture. But for micronutrients this is in general not more then 10 %, 90 % is used in industries. Substituion and recycleing is possible, but at the moment still gets no attention. Copper is the best known micro nutrient, which is relatively scarce at the moment, resulting in high prices and theft of coppor from buildings and infrastructure. Molybdeum is a crucial element for the biological N fixation, so a shortage in Mo will affects also the N cycle. Both copper and seleen are important for livestock in animal production. In most western countries micronutrients are supplemented to animal feeds. Recent studies show that there is widespread deficiencies of micronutrients in human diets, also in the EU and USA. Van de ca. 20 mogelijke micronutriënten voor planten en dieren hebben 6 een potentieel aspect van schaarste, namelijk: borium, kobalt, koper, molybdeen, selenium en zink (B, Co, Cu, Mo, Se en Zn). Het mondiale gebruik van deze elementen in het voedselsysteem varieert van <1% tot 11% (Se en B) van het totale gebruik. Binnen het voedselsysteem vindt recycling plaats van micronutriënten via dierlijke mest, gewasresten, compost en slib. In bodems vindt niet-duurzame ophoping plaats van Cu en Zn via mest, vooral in gebieden met hoge veedichtheid. Gebruik van micronutriënten in diervoeding is veelal hoger dan gepubliceerde voedernormen; verlaging vereist nader onderzoek en beleid in internationaal verband. Prijsfluctuaties van seleen en borium zijn groot en wijzen op schaarste; recycling van beide elementen vindt echter nauwelijks plaats. De verhouding ‘reserves / jaarlijkse productie’ (R/P) van B, Co, Cu, Mo, Se en Zn varieert van 20 tot 84. De gerapporteerde relatief lage R/P van Zn (20-46) stemt niet overeen met de relatief lage en stabiele prijzen van Zn. Voor alle micronutriënten gebruikt door de industrie zijn er alternatieven, behalve voor Co. Door het lage gehalte in mengvoer hebben prijsfluctuaties van micronutriënten een beperkt effect op de voerprijs.
- Different sources: Miterra-Europe, CAPRI, FAOSTAT, Eurostat, reports, articles and experts P flow = physical flow x P content ‘Top down’ data integration VS ‘bottom up’ Assumptions were necessary In general (take home message): Large imports Longterm accumulation Little recycling (though high recycling of manure, and other flows in some specific countries) Leaky losses >>> Low P use efficiencies throughout the food system > high potential for better P management Explaining the conceptual system: Right side imports (blue), Left side export (orange) and losses (red), upward flows and downward flows Flows and stocks in Gg = Mkg = kton P, so not in P2O5 Explanation of each import flow, from the bottom to the top In every sector primary P is use: mineral fertilizer, inorganic feed P additives, food P additives / fertilizer use elsewhere (“virtual P use”), detergents / chemical industry / fire retardants / matches Mineral fertilizer the largest, animal feed + P additives significant, food and detergents small Percentage of total import IAp 18.40815 ICp 61.46693 IFp 11.0219 INF 9.103019 Mineral P rock based inputs CP = mineral fertilizers = 1448 Gg P AP = feed additives = 245 FP = food additives = 27 NF = detergents = 110 Explanation of each export flow: Mainly export via food processing industry, as food items and animal feed materials, mainly between EU countries Manure export for some countries such as the Netherlands, but intra trade Percentage of total export EAp 13.10174 ECp 2.008089 EFp 78.53402 ENf 6.356152 Explanation of each losses: Largest losses in human consumption as solid (compost) and liquid organic waste (sewage) (52% of total losses, 77 % of total sector input) Followed by food processing waste flows (residues, by-products, organic wastes) (29% total, 19% input) Leaky losses in agriculture: leaching (7 % total, 2 % input) Percentage of total losses LAp 6.320538 LCp 6.669956 LFp 29.25992 LHc 51.73891 LNf 6.010671 System balance: Gross import: 2362 ~2400 Gross export: 185 ~200 Net import: 2178 ~2200 Losses: 1135 ~ 1150 Accumulation: 1043 ~ 1050 The surplus is accumulating in (agricultural) soils (brown stock), which has been done for decenia. It is estimated that in the last century this accounts for a cummulative P surpluss of 150,000 ktons P P use efficiency in the sectors (2005 relative) Summary CP: ~60 % of CP input in crop products AP: ~ 20-30% in animal products, remainder mainly in manure which is cycled back with a high efficiency FP: ~80% in food, feed or fertilizer products, at least not lost NF: ~80% in non-food and detergent products HC: 0% for adult humans, but for the waste industry it is ~23 % on average Discuss internal flows. ~2500 kt P in harvest crop materials. 1/3 goes directly to the food industry, 2/3 is used as animal feed in animal production. Point at the flows that will be discusses in next slides, to give an overview. Food flow is domestic food P supply not the dietary intake at the mouth level. P flows in the EU-27 food system for 2005 in Gg P/year, showing the imports (I) , exports (E), losses of and internal upward/downward flows between sectors (indicated with square blocks), the width of the arrows representing the magnitude of the flow. Europe is highly dependent on P imports Increased soil P stocks P efficiency and recycling is generaly low High losses occur by (i) landfilling (ii) losses to hydrosystems
- The EU-27 in 2005 was largely dependent on primary P based on P-rock. About 77 % of the total input of the system is primary P, the remainder being secondary P based on organic flows.
- Since the green revolution a major input in agriculture is in the form of mineral P fertelizer based on primary P, Total global mineral P fertilizer consumption according to FAO data, with a subdivision by continents Steady use for North America , Oceania and Africa Large increase in Asia Decreasing path in Europe in the last two decenia, partly because of: the large drop around 1990 with the fall of the sovjet union, which made an end to subsidies on fertilizers in eastern Europe increasing efficiency in western EU countries. The decreasing trend is for entire EU, with major differences between countries: western EU decreasing, eastern EU increasing
- (Excluding Belgium, Malta and Cyprus) Mineral fertilizer import is ~50 % of total sector input Most recent FAO mineral P fertilizer consumption figure for 2010 for the different EU-27 Member States EU-27 average consumption around 6 kg per hectare, see the red bar For example, higher then average are Portugal, Poland, Ireland, Slovenia For example, the lowest consumption can be found in Greece, Estonia, Sweden, Austria, etc.
- Animal feed P import is ~20 % of total sector input Large differences between EU Member States where the animal feed is sourced from. On average for EU-27 80 % is local produced feed, 10% imported from outside EU and 10 % inorganic feed P additives (external import since based on primary P) On the left side the countries with the highest amount of import as feed and additives, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium On the right the countries with the lowest amount, and thus most dependent on local production of feed, such as Ireland, some eastern EU countries like Romania and Bulgaria, and Austra in central EU The local feed fraction is declining at the moment, and the import of animal feed and the use of inorganic feed P additives is increasing, which are both external P inputs of the food system
- EU 2005 dynamic model: 17 – 22 kg P/ha/year application in total including fertilizers, manure, compost, sewage sludge Left: Fig. 10 Estimated cumulative P balance of European countries, 1991–2005 (Csathó and Radimszky 2007, 2009 ) Source: Csathó, P. and L. Radimszky (2012). Sustainable Agricultural NP Turnover in the 27 European Countries. Organic Fertilisation, Soil Quality and Human Health. E. Lichtfouse, Springer Science+Business Media. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews. Right: Figure 4.41 European map of phosphorus balance per total surface in EU15, average on 10 km2 area. Source: page 93, Bruna Grizzetti, F. B., Alberto Aloe (2007). Spatialised European nutrient balance. Brussels, Belgium, European Commission, Joint Research Centre. There are large differences between agronomic P balances (total input – total output of agriculture), both between countries and within countries between regions, both per year in 2000 and in a recent period (1990-2005) In general high P surplusses, so higher input compared to uptake, with a clear link to intensity of animal production and manure P surplusses Countries with P deficit (negative P balance) can be found in east Europe. For example countries with high surplusses: NL, BE, Slovenia, Norway and UK For example countries with deficit: Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine
- Food P additives is 0.05 kg P/ca/year Food P import is ~33 % of total sector input P in food products after processing that go to human consumption, so the household intake, not human intake Black line shows the processed food P demand = 0.6 kg P/ca/year which is necessary to fulfill human dietary P intake requirements taking into account the efficiency between produced food and the actual human consumption (food wastes in households) On the left countries with high amounts of P in produced food up to 3 times higher than the requirement On the right countries with low amounts of P, theoretically higher then the requirement The EU average is 2 times higher. Potential to reduce P content in food by taking it out during processing? Similar to some studies with animal feed P reductions? Weighted mean per capita P intake in the EU is 0.5 kg P/ca/year = 1.4 g P/ca/year Minimum recommended P intake about 0.25 kg P/ca/year = 0.7 g P/ca/year Maximum human P intake level without any effect for health is about 1 kg P/ca/year = 3000 g P/ca/year
- In total 1.6 kg/ca/year enters the households as food (1.1 kg), food additives (0.05), detergents (0.2) and pet food (0.3) Since there is no accumulation in households apart from homecomposting, this amount also leaves the household as Solid organic waste = biodegradable solid waste Liquid organic waste = wastewater / sewage That part of the food that is not eaten is part of the biodegradable solid waste, together with garden waste and other green waste, which could potentially be reused as compost Reuse of organic waste is shown here as compost use as fraction of total potential organic waste quantity in % EU average as red bar, 15 % NL is doing very well with 65%, on the left side Several eastern EU countries are not reusing any significant amount
- Afther consumption the food P turns into excreta, and together with other waste water flows In most EU countries this sewage flow is collected in a centralized sewarege system to flow to wastewater treatment plants There it is treated, the P is, for the largest part, precipitated into the sludge, the solid fraction Here communal sewage sludge destination as % of the total for Red > application to land: which can include agricultural land, but not per definition Blue > Incineration: monoincineration, co-incineration in power plants or the cement industry, the ashes are in principle not recycled back to agriculture Green > Landfilling: which is less and less the case, in favour of incineration On the right the EU average 40 % applied to land 30 % incinerated 15 % landfilled The remainder to other destinations Large differences between countries: On the left countries with high % application to land, such as luxembourg, Ireland, Hungary On the right countries with no return to land/agriculture, such as the Netherlands (prohibited since 1995, incineration by law), Romania and Malta
- That part of the food and non-food P inflow of human consumption that is not collected or treated, is discharged to waterways Together with leaching and erosion P losses from (agricultural) soils It enters rivers, lakes and will find its way to deltas and seas This is already for decennia causing water quality problems and eutrophication Here some figures, on the left P concentrations in rivers (mg PO4-P/L) and on the right in lakes (mg P/L) for different EU regions between 1990 - 2005 In red northerm Europe which shows a stable and low P concentrations, since many measures have been taken in the last decennia In green western EU, showing a sharp decrease in the 90s, slowing down and now stabilizing In blue eastern EU, not showing clear trends, probably because of better management and more fertilizer use at the same time? Phosphorus concentrations in rivers (left; ortophosphate) and lakes (right; total phosphorus) between 1990 and 2005 in different regions of Europe. The annual mean concentrations for all stations were averaged per region in the regional aggregations http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe
- More efficient and effective use of P in the system, sectors and processes
- Inefficient use of manure in intensive livestock areas, potential future source in case of manure treatment/processing into a solid and liquid fraction, making it possible to recover P mainly from the solid, and N and K mainly from the liquid fraction 2012 manure data for NL 170 MkgP in total manure 130 Mkg P can be placed/allocated on Dutch agricultural land within legal application limits set by the Dutch government = 40 surplus 100 Mkg P surplus in manure in case the formal P fertilization recommendations are used (P application = P removal) Total quantity, quantity that is already recycled in the food chain (mainly agriculture) and theoretical potential (= toal – recycled) MBM calculations are based on a 2001 publication, so just after the new BSE regulations in the EU. Based on presentation slides of the European fatt and rendering association for 2011, it could be calculated that the total quantity in MBM is about 100 kton in case a P content of 4.2 % is taken. The same slides show that only 5 % of the CAT 1 and CAT2 animal by-products are reused in the food chain (pet feed or fertilizer use), the remainder is incinerated and the final destinations of the ashes are mainly sequestered.
- Q1: What is the effect of a stop of P import through mineral fertilizers? Q2: What is the effect of a stop of P import through mineral fertilizers and animal feed?
- Dit is een animatie, voor de correcte presentatie F5 voorstelling
- Dit is een animatie, voor de correcte presentatie F5 voorstelling
- These are the specific scenarios A selection, every scenario is in theory possible 743 Gg P losses reduction = 65 % of total system losses BAU 2005
- 60 % reduction for scenario 3
- Soil P accumulation, more than doubling soil P around 2300, getting similar to the cummulative P accumulation in the Netherlands in the last century ~5 kg P/ha/year accumulation for the EU-27 Soil P depletion, less pronounced by implementation of BMPs
- On average 15 % for compost reuse On average 40 % for sewage sludge recycling Read out loud and clear these conslusions Followed by: PUE enhancement can be created by bette management. For that we need a transition towards sustainable use of P, which includes the 4R principe/concept: Reduce: inputs whereever possible, with a focus on primary P inputs Reuse: organic materials such as food wastes, slaughter wastes and composts Recycle: P rich ‘wastes’ such as excreta, wastewater, sewage sludge Redefince/redesigh: the system, processes, human choices and networks
- Different sources: Miterra-Europe, CAPRI, FAOSTAT, Eurostat, reports, articles and experts P flow = physical flow x P content ‘Top down’ data integration VS ‘bottom up’ Assumptions were necessary In general (take home message): Large imports Longterm accumulation Little recycling (though high recycling of manure, and other flows in some specific countries) Leaky losses >>> Low P use efficiencies throughout the food system > high potential for better P management Explaining the conceptual system: Right side imports (blue), Left side export (orange) and losses (red), upward flows and downward flows Flows and stocks in Gg = Mkg = kton P, so not in P2O5 Explanation of each import flow, from the bottom to the top In every sector primary P is use: mineral fertilizer, inorganic feed P additives, food P additives / fertilizer use elsewhere (“virtual P use”), detergents / chemical industry / fire retardants / matches Mineral fertilizer the largest, animal feed + P additives significant, food and detergents small Percentage of total import IAp 18.40815 ICp 61.46693 IFp 11.0219 INF 9.103019 Mineral P rock based inputs CP = mineral fertilizers = 1448 Gg P AP = feed additives = 245 FP = food additives = 27 NF = detergents = 110 Explanation of each export flow: Mainly export via food processing industry, as food items and animal feed materials, mainly between EU countries Manure export for some countries such as the Netherlands, but intra trade Percentage of total export EAp 13.10174 ECp 2.008089 EFp 78.53402 ENf 6.356152 Explanation of each losses: Largest losses in human consumption as solid (compost) and liquid organic waste (sewage) (52% of total losses, 77 % of total sector input) Followed by food processing waste flows (residues, by-products, organic wastes) (29% total, 19% input) Leaky losses in agriculture: leaching (7 % total, 2 % input) Percentage of total losses LAp 6.320538 LCp 6.669956 LFp 29.25992 LHc 51.73891 LNf 6.010671 System balance: Gross import: 2362 Gross export: 185 Net import: 2178 Losses: 1135 Accumulation:1043 The surplus is accumulating in (agricultural) soils (brown stock), which has been done for decenia. It is estimated that in the last century this accounts for a cummulative P surpluss of 150,000 ktons P P use efficiency in the sectors (2005 relative) Summary CP: ~60 % of CP input in crop products AP: ~ 20-30% in animal products, remainder mainly in manure which is cycled back with a high efficiency FP: ~80% in food, feed or fertilizer products, at least not lost NF: ~80% in non-food and detergent products HC: 0% for adult humans, but for the waste industry it is ~23 % on average Discuss internal flows. ~2500 kt P in harvest crop materials. 1/3 goes directly to the food industry, 2/3 is used as animal feed in animal production. Point at the flows that will be discusses in next slides, to give an overview. Food flow is domestic food P supply not the dietary intake at the mouth level. P flows in the EU-27 food system for 2005 in Gg P/year, showing the imports (I) , exports (E), losses of and internal upward/downward flows between sectors (indicated with square blocks), the width of the arrows representing the magnitude of the flow. Europe is highly dependent on P imports Increased soil P stocks P efficiency and recycling is generaly low High losses occur by (i) landfilling (ii) losses to hydrosystems