Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of raw swine waste and effluents treated anaerobically: parameters for Brazilian environmental regulation construction aiming agricultural use

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Brazil, swine raw waste from pig stall cleaning (SRW) represents an important water and nutrients sources for crops. However, treatment systems have been searched for to reduce its contaminant loads, making swine effluent agricultural use possible. Therefore, the study purpose was to evaluate agricultural use potential of swine effluents from anaerobic treatment system, considering current legislations. SRW was sieved and treated in anaerobic digester, with hydraulic retention times (HRT) equal to 100, 130, 30, 180 and 210 days. Treated effluent from digester (SEB) was diluted with water (SED) (1:50, v:v), simulating effluent characteristics from a complete treatment system. Chemical, physico-chemical, and microbiological parameters were determined in effluents. There were reductions of 80 to 90% in organic load, P, Ca, Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn and Mg contents. There were fecal coliforms and Salmonella spp. elimination. Nevertheless, there was other coliform bacteria growth. SEB presented EC, N-NH4+, and Na values higher than standards for agricultural use. Cu and Zn contents of SEB were reduced only when HRT were higher than 100 days. Thus, treated swine effluent use should be regulated by agricultural and environmental criteria established by future legislation, considering most pollutants elements, such as N, Na and pathogens.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazilian Association of Animal Protein—ABPA (2018) Annual Report 2018. ABPA, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  2. Choudhary M, Bailey LD, Grant CA (1996) Review of the use of swine manure in crop production: effects on yield and composition and on soil and water quality. Waste Manag Res 14:581–595

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lorimor J, Powers W, Sutton A (2004) Manure characteristics. Manure Management Systems Series. MWPS, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jha R, Berrocoso JFD (2016) Dietary fiber and protein fermentation in the intestine of swine and their interactive effects on gut health and on the environment: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 212:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  5. Novaes W (2001) Agrarian development dilemmas (in Portuguese). Estudos Avançados 15:51–60

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mateo-Sagasta J, Zadeh SM, Turral H (2017) Water pollution from agriculture: a global review. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  7. Meade G, Pierce K, O’Doherty JB, Mueller C, Lanigan G, Cabe MC, T, (2011) Ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions following land application of high and low nitrogen pig manures to winter wheat at three growth stages. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:208–217

    Google Scholar 

  8. Petersen SO, Sommer SG (2011) Ammonia and nitrous oxide interactions: roles of manure organic matter management. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:503–513

    Google Scholar 

  9. Congreves KA, Grant BB, Dutta B, Smith WN, Chantigny MH, Rochette P, Desjardins RL (2016) Predicting ammonia volatilization after field application of swine slurry: DNDC model development. Agric Ecosyst Environ 219:179–189

    Google Scholar 

  10. Karr JD, Showers WJ, Gilliam W, Andres AS (2001) Tracing nitrate transport and environmental impact from intensive swine farming using delta nitrogen-15. J Environ Qual 30:1163–1175

    Google Scholar 

  11. Karimi R, Akinremi W, Flaten D (2017) Cropping system and type of pig manure affect nitrate-nitrogen leaching in sandy loam soil. J Environ Qual 46:785–792

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brooks JP, Adeli A, MClaughlin MR (2014) Microbial ecology, bacterial pathogens, and antibiotic resistant genes in swine manure wastewater as influenced by three swine managements systems. Water Res 57:96–103

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ceretta CA, Girotto E, Lourenzi CR, Trentin G, Vieira RCB, Burnetto G (2010) Nutrient transfer by runoff under no tillage in a soil treated with successive applications of pig slurry. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:689–699

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tiecher TL, Ceretta CA, Comin JJ, Girotto E, Miotto A, Moraes MP, Benedet L, Ferreira PAA, Lorenzi CR, Couto RR, Brunetto G (2013) Forms and accumulation of copper and zinc in a Sandy typic hapludalf soil after long-term application of pig slurry and deep litter. Rev Bras Ciênc Solo 37:812–824

    Google Scholar 

  15. Xu Y, Yu W, Ma Q, Zhou H (2013) Accumulation of copper and zinc in soil and plant within ten-year application of different pig manure rates. Plant Soil Environ 59:492–499

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mallmann FJK, Santos DR, Bender MA, Gubiani E, Veiga M, Minella JPG, Vanoort F, Simunek J (2017) Modeling zinc and copper movement in an oxisol under long-term pig slurry amendments. Vadose Zone J 16:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jacela JY, Derouchey M, Tokach MD, Goodband RD, Nelssen JL, Renter DR, Dritz SS (2010) Feed additives for swine: fact sheets—high dietary levels of copper and zinc for young pigs, and phytase. J Swine Health Prod 18:87–91

    Google Scholar 

  18. Perdomo CC, Lima GJMMD, Nones K (2001) Pig production and environment (in Portuguese). Seminário Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Suinocultura, Gramado

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moral R, Perezes-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 28:367–371

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lima GJMM, Scapini LB, Tevernari FC (2012) Comparison of nutritional requirements for castrated male pigs recommended by the Brazilian Tables (2011) and NRC (2012) (in Portuguese). Embrapa Swine & Poultry, Concórdia

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bertoncini EI (2016) São Paulo's Agency develops pilot model to reuse pig manure (in Portuguese). Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Brasília

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bertoncini EI (2012) The experiences of water reuse in rural areas (in Portuguese). Symposium of committees of the hydrographic basins of Piracicaba, Capivari and Jundiaí rivers, São Pedro

  23. Lyberatos G, Skiadas IV (1999) Modelling of anaerobic digestion—a review. Glob Nest J 1:63–76

    Google Scholar 

  24. Abdelgadir A, Chen X, Liu J, Xie X, Zhang J, Zhang K, Wang H, Liu N (2014) Characteristics, process parameters, and inner components of anaerobic reactors. BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/841573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Garrido MG, Martínez SM, Cano AF, Yanardag AB, Arocena JM (2014) Soil fertility status and nutrients provided to spring barley (Hordeum distichon L.) by pig slurry. Chil J Agric Res 74:73–82

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shcelegel AJ, Assefa Y, Bond HD, Haag L, Stone LR (2017) Changes in soil nutrients after 10 years of cattle manure and swine effluent application. Soil Till Res 172:48–58

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schlegel AJ, Assefa Y, Bond HD, Wetter SM, Stone LY (2015) Corn response to long-term applications of cattle manure, swine effluent, and inorganic nitrogen fertilizer. Agronomy J 107:1701–1710

    Google Scholar 

  28. Water Resource National Council—CNRH (2005) Resolution Nº 54 of November 28 (2005) Establishes modalities, guidelines and general criteria for direct reuse no potable of water and provides other measures (in Portuguese). Diário Oficial da União, Brasília

    Google Scholar 

  29. Environmental Company of São Paulo State—CETESB (2015) Technical Norma P4.231: vinasse—criteria and procedures for application to agricultural soil (in Portuguese). CETESB, São Paulo

  30. Environmental Company of São Paulo State—CETESB (2010b) Technical Norm P4.002: effluents and sludge from the citrus industry—criteria and procedures for application to agricultural soil (in Portuguese). CETESB, São Paulo

  31. Environmental Company of São Paulo State—CETESB (2006). Technical Instruction Nº 31: application of reuse water from domestic sewage treatment plant in agriculture (in Portuguese). CETESB, São Paulo

  32. Eaton EA, Leonore S, Clesceri EWR, Arnold EA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. APHA; AWWA; WEF, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kempers AJ, Zweers A (1986) Ammonium determination in soil extracts by the salicylate methods. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 17:715–723

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yang JE, Skogley E, Schaff B, Kim J (1998) A simple spectrophotometric determination of nitrate in water, resin on soil extracts. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1108–1111

    Google Scholar 

  35. United States Environmental Protection—USEPA (2012) Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants; analytical methods for biological pollutants in wastewater and sewage sludge: final rule. USEPA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  36. São Paulo (1976) Legislative Assembly. Decree No. 8468 of September 8, 1976. Approves the Regulation of Law No. 997 of May 31, 1976, which provides for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution (in Portuguese). Diário Oficial do Estado, São Paulo

  37. Vivan M, Kunz A, Stolberg J, Perdomo C, Tchio VH (2010) Efficiency of biodigester and stabilization pond interaction in removal of swine manure pollutants (in Portuguese). Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental 14:320–325

    Google Scholar 

  38. Viancelli A, Kunz A, Steinmetz RLR, Kich JD, Canal CW, Coldebella A, Esteves PA, Barardi CRM (2013) Performance of two swine manure treatments systems on chemical composition and on reduction of pathogens. Chemosphere 90:1539–1544

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fernandes GW, Kunz A, Steinmetz RLR, Szogi A, Vanotti A, Flores EMM, Dressler VL (2012) Chemical phosphorus removal: a clear strategy for piggery wastewater management in Brazil. Environ Technol 33:1677–1683

    Google Scholar 

  40. Duda RM, Oliveira RA (2011) Treatment of swine wastewater in UASB reactor and anaerobic filter in series followed of trickling filter (in Portuguese). Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental 16:91–100

    Google Scholar 

  41. Amaral AC, Kunz A, Steinmetz RLR, Justi KC (2014) Zinc and copper distribution in swine wastewater treated by anaerobic digestion. J Environ Manag 141:132–137

    Google Scholar 

  42. Szögi AA, Vanotti MB (2016) Decline of phosphorus, copper and zinc in anaerobic swine lagoon receiving pretreated influent. Sci Agric 73:417–423

    Google Scholar 

  43. Meng X, Yu D, Wei Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Wang Z, Liu J, Wang Y (2018) Endogenous ternary pH buffer system with ammonia-carbonates-VFAs in high solid anaerobic digestion of swine manure: an alternative for alleviating ammonia inhibition? Process Biochem 69:144–152

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mudhoo A, Kumar S (2013) Effects of heavy metals as stress factors on anaerobic digestion processes and biogas production from biomass. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10:1383–1398

    Google Scholar 

  45. National Research Council—NRC (2012) Nutrient requirements of swine. The National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  46. Oliveira PAV (2002) Generation and management of swine manure (in Portuguese). In: Training in sustainable environmental practices, EMBRAPA, Concórdia

  47. Orrico Júnior MAP, Orrico ACA, Junior JL (2009) Anaerobic biodigestion of swine manure with and without separation of the solid fraction in different hydraulic retention times (in Portuguese). Engenharia Agrícola 29:474–482

    Google Scholar 

  48. Carrington EG, Harman A, Pike EB (1982) Inactivation of Salmonella during anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. J Appl Bacteriol 53:331–334

    Google Scholar 

  49. World Health Organization—WHO (2000) Guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated wastewater used in agriculture: recommendations for revising WHO guidelines. Bull World Health Organ 78:1104–1106

    Google Scholar 

  50. Environmental National Council—CONAMA (2005) Resolution Nº 357 of May 17, 2005: provides for water bodies classification and environmental guidelines for its classification, establishes conditions and standards for effluents discharge and provides other measures (in Portuguese). Diário Oficial da União, Brasília

  51. Unites States Environmental Protection—USEPA (2012) Guidelines for water reuse. USEPA, Washington

  52. Sato MI, Hachich EM, Menegon-Junior N, Melo AMJ, Coelho MCLS, di Bari M, Ramos SR (2008) Technical report—monitoring of Escherichia coli and thermotolerant coliforms at points in the network of evaluation of the quality of internal waters of the State of São Paulo (in Portuguese). CETESB, São Paulo

  53. Bilotta P, Kunz A (2013) Swine manure post-treatment technologies for pathogenic microorganisms inactivation. Eng Agríc 33:422–431

    Google Scholar 

  54. Smith SR, Lang NL, Cheung KHM, Spanoudaki K (2005) Factors controlling pathogen destruction during anaerobic digestion of biowastes. Waste Manag 25:417–425

    Google Scholar 

  55. Massé D, Gilbert Y, Topp E (2011) Pathogen removal in farm-scale psychrophilic anaerobic digesters processing swine manure. Bioresour Technol 102:641–646

    Google Scholar 

  56. Larsen HE, Munch B, Schlundt J (1994) Use indicators for monitoring the reduction of pathogens in animal waste treated in biogas plants. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 5–6:544–555

    Google Scholar 

  57. Higins MJ, Chen YC, Murtgy SN, Hendrickson D, Farrel J, Schafer P (2007) Reactivation and growth of non-culturable indicator bacteria in anaerobically digested biosolids after centrifuge dewatering. Water Res 41:665–673

    Google Scholar 

  58. Luo J, Angelidaki I (2014) Analysis of bacterial communities and bacterial pathogens in a biogas plant by the combination of ethidium monoazide, PCR and Ion Torrent sequencing. Water Res 60:156–163

    Google Scholar 

  59. Environmental Company of São Paulo State—CETESB (2010) Board Decision No. 388/2010/P of December 21, 2010: approval of premises and guidelines for the application of waste and effluents in agricultural soil in the São Paulo State (in Portuguese). Diário Oficial do Estado, Poder Executivo, Section 1:59–60

  60. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  61. Feigin A, Ravina I, Shalhevet J (1991) Irrigation with treated sewage effluent: management for environmental protection. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gonçalves RAB, Folegatti MV, Gloaguen TV, Libardi PL, Montes CR, Lucas Y, Dias CTS, Melfi AJ (2007) Hydraulic conductivity of a soil irrigated whit treated sewage effluent. Geoderma 139:241–248

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kessler NHC, Sampaio SC, Sorace M, Lucas SD, Palma D (2014) Swine wastewater associated with mineral fertilization on corn crop (Zea mays.). Eng Agríc 34:554–566

    Google Scholar 

  64. Smith CJ, Oster JD, Sposito D (2015) Potassium and magnesium in irrigation water quality assessment. Agric Water Manag 157:59–64

    Google Scholar 

  65. Possignolo NV, Bertoncini EI, Vitti AC (2017) Decomposition of the organic matter of natural and concentrated vinasse in sandy and clayey soils. Water Sci Technol 75:728–738

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A master scholarship was supported by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) under Grant nº 158795/2013-0, and the pilot treatment system was supported by State Water Resource Fund (FEHIDRO) under Grant nº 093/2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Av. Centenário, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 303, 13400-070, Brazil

    Sarah Mello Leite Moretti & Cassio Hamilton Abreu-Junior

  2. São Paulo’s Agency for Agribusiness Technology, Secretariat of Agriculture and Food Supply of São Paulo State, Rod. SP 127, km 30, C.P. 28, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13400-970, Brazil

    Edna Ivani Bertoncini

Authors
  1. Sarah Mello Leite Moretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edna Ivani Bertoncini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cassio Hamilton Abreu-Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Mello Leite Moretti.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moretti, S.M.L., Bertoncini, E.I. & Abreu-Junior, C.H. Characterization of raw swine waste and effluents treated anaerobically: parameters for Brazilian environmental regulation construction aiming agricultural use. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23, 165–176 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01115-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01115-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation