Press Manure Separation System
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Research Report
Press Manure Separation System
Management Initiative (MLMMI) and the Manitoba Pork Council. MLMMI is
funded by the Canada and Manitoba governments through Growing
Forward 2, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. Thanks to Topeaka
farms for their assistance and cooperation to complete this project.
Disclaimer
Any data, analyses of data, project results and conclusions conveyed in this
report are those of the project researchers and not of the government of Canada
or Manitoba.
4.3 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 9
5. Results and Conclusions ...............................................................................................11
5.3 Summary .............................................................................................................21
Appendix B Summarized Laboratory Results ......................................................................... 23
Appendix C Agronomic Considerations .................................................................................. 28
Appendix D Manure Sample Results ...................................................................................... 32
Page 1 of 35
1. Executive Summary
Amendments to Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship’s Livestock Manure and
Mortalities Management Regulation limit the land application of phosphorus (P). The
majority of the P is contained in the solid manure; therefore, removing the solids will
reduce the P content of the liquid manure. Manure processing technologies, which
separate out the P with the manure solids, create the possibility of two useable fertilizer
fractions: (1) a liquid fraction manure low in P, and (2) a P rich separated solid fraction.
The treated liquid manure can then be land applied in the local area, and the solids
containing the P can be transported to areas where soils are lacking sufficient P. This is
critical for two municipalities with excess P for the crop land available.
PAMI (Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute) evaluated a European manure treatment
system currently installed at a commercial farm in southeastern Manitoba. The system
evaluated is manufactured by VP Systems, who currently have other systems operating
in the Netherlands. The system is an automated, multistage treatment system design to
treat large volumes of manure. The major components include an air flotation tank,
which removes a large portion of solids (containing the majority of phosphorus) with the
aid of polymer and a belt filter press to dewater the solids skimmed off the flotation tank.
The remaining treated liquid is stored in a lagoon for land application.
Composite samples were collected of the influent manure stream, treated liquid stream
and separated solids on 12 days of system operation during a three month period. The
samples were analyzed at a third party laboratory for nutrient concentration.
The VP Systems achieved an average percent P removal on a concentration basis of
82.9% for all trials, with a minimum and maximum ranging from 78.4%-88.6%. The
cumulative P and DM removal efficiency by mass was calculated to be 84.1% and
63.5% over the 3-week evaluation period, respectively. The manure treated had an
average dry matter content of 6.5%, which is significantly higher than the average dry
matter content of 3.7% for finishing barns in Manitoba and needs to be considered when
comparing other results.
An opinion of capital costs for a system installation and operating costs was developed.
Operating costs were based on the systems inputs measured during the evaluation. The
overall cost of treatment in the case scenario was estimated to be a minimum of 3.34 ¢/ I
Gal compared to typical manure land application cost of 1 ¢/ I Gal.
Page 2 of 35
2. Introduction
In Manitoba, producers apply manure as a fertilizer source for their crops in accordance
to the Manitoba Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation 42/98. The
regulation specifies the amount of manure applied based on the nitrogen (N) limits and
phosphorus (P) thresholds. For municipalities that have excess nutrients compared to
the available land mass, an alternative solution is required to maintain their operations in
a sustainable manner.
The project addresses the desire of the agriculture community to quantify the P removal
from the “VP-Systems BV”, a company based in the Netherlands, which provides
treatment systems for liquid swine manure. The system uses chemical flocculent, air
flotation and a belt filter press to separate the solids from the liquid manure. It is a
combination of processes that provides a high probability of success at removing
significant quantities of P from the liquid swine manure. The entire process in the
Netherlands integrates a reverse osmosis (RO) system at the end of the system, which
creates a stream of clean water and a concentrated nitrogen solution for crop
fertilization. However, the first commercial system in Manitoba does not have the RO
system at the end of process.
A successful system should consistently remove excess nutrients, while keeping the
cost of removal to a minimum. The project objective was to determine the P removal of
the system, the system’s reliability and maintenance requirements and the economics of
operating the system. Other producers are interested in installing a manure treatment
system, but without operational data, additional systems in Manitoba may be a risky
investment. The evaluation was aimed to provide information to other producers in
Manitoba to make an informed decision if similar nutrient removal system is suitable for
their operations.
3. Project Objective
The project monitored the performance of the VP systems’ manure treatment process
and provided information on the following:
a) What are the phosphorus (P) and the dry matter (DM) removal efficiency?
b) How reliable is the VP system?
c) What are the operational and maintenance requirements for the VP system?
d) What is the economics of installing and operating the system for a chosen barn
scenario?
The information provided is a third-party review of the manure treatment’s performance.
These performance metrics were monitored on the pilot system and extrapolated to fit a
case scenario barn. The reported economic cost is an opinion derived from the
measurements taken from the pilot project and should be viewed as a reference. Every
operation is unique and the parameters may change between different farm operations.
Page 4 of 35
4. Project Description
The project consisted of evaluating a VP systems’ air flotation and belt filter press
manure separation system currently installed at a commercial barn near St. Malo,
Manitoba and has been in commercial operation on the farm for two years. Only manure
from feeder-finisher barns was fed to the treatment system during the evaluation period,
ensuring consistent manure was processed.
The system is currently configured to treat approximately 109 million L (24 million
imperial gallons or 45 gallon/minute) of manure annually if operating continuously 24
hours a day. The manufacturer recommends that the equipment be operated at 80% of
maximum capacity (equivalent to 87.3 million L or 19.2 million I. Gal) and the other 20%
of the time would be allocated for maintenance operations. The system is modular and
the annual capacity can be doubled to treat 175 million L (38.4 million imperial gallons)
of raw manure with minimal additional equipment. However, any additions are not
required at this time since the system is currently operating under the maximum
capacity. Additional installed system capacity will be utilized as additional barns come on
line.
As a general overview, the VP systems can be installed in any farm to treat the collected
manure before it is discharged into the existing lagoon. Figure 1 illustrates a simplified
process diagram of the added components from the VP systems. The manure from each
barn is collected in a central holding tank (equalization tank or EQ tank), which agitates
the manure before it is pumped to the separation system. The EQ tank minimizes the
manure variation from different barns and suspends the solid particles that normally
settle out.
Figure 1. Simplified process diagram.
The manure from the EQ tank, along with air and polymer, are mixed together in the air
flotation tank. The air and polymer bind to the solid particles in the manure and float to
the top of the tank. The floating manure solids are skimmed off the top of the air flotation
Page 5 of 35
tank, leaving the treated liquid manure. The treated liquid manure is temporarily stored in
a surge tank below the floor. When the surge tank is full, the treated manure is pumped
out into a lagoon for storage until land application.
The solids skimmed from the flotation tank are directed onto a filter belt press for
dewatering. The filter belt press squeezes the water from the solids between a series of
rollers. The belt has fine pores allowing the water to escape while retaining the large
solid particles on the belt. The solid particles on the filter belt drop onto a separate
conveyor for transport to a ventilated storage building. The separated liquid manure from
the belt press is re-circulated through the floatation tank and mixed with the fresh influent
manure.
Polymer is the key chemical added into the system to assist the solid manure and
nutrient removal process. Polymers are a molecular substance that contains a large
number of chemical units linked together for different desired properties. The polymer
chosen to use with the VP systems was determined based on its ability to bind the
suspended solids as well as remove P from the liquid manure. Additional chemicals are
added in small amounts to reduce the foam generated during operation or for cleaning
the system.
4.1 Measurement Equipment
A combination of calibrated electrical energy loggers, flow meters and scales were used
to monitor the input and output materials from the manure treatment system. An energy
logger was connected to the three phase power lines to measure the peak energy
demand along with the basic energy demand (Figure 2). The peak energy demand often
fluctuates because the processing equipment is programmed to operate only when
required. The basic energy demand is used to power the mixers in the EQ tank, fans,
lights and controls regardless if the treatment system is in operation.
Page 6 of 35
Figure 2. Energy Logger with a real time tablet display module
A flow meter was installed on the influent (raw) manure and the polymer blend line to
monitor their respective flow rate (Figure 3). The manure flow meter was installed
downstream from the pump in the EQ tank to measure the total manure volume treated.
The polymer flow meter was also installed downstream of the polymer mixing tank. The
polymer and water was determined by taking the difference between the mass flow of
the polymer blend and the concentrated polymer. The polymer use was determined by
the height of material remaining in the storage tank at different time intervals with a
calibrated tape measure. Multiple weigh scales were used to measure the small
quantities of RO descale, citric acid and anti-foam that were added to the system
(Figure 4).
Figure 4. Chemical additions required by the VP systems
Additional flow meters were installed on the manure effluent pump to measure the
amount of liquid manure treated by the system (Figure 5). The VP Systems collects the
separated liquid manure in a temporary storage tank underground until a level gauge is
triggered, which turns on a pump to empty the excess manure into the lagoon. The
Flow meter
Page 8 of 35
separated solids were collected and weighed periodically to determine the solid manure
removal rate (Figure 6). The separated solids were collected in a tandem truck off the
conveyer belt and weighed to determine the solid removal rate. A total of 6 wheel scales,
one for each wheel, were used to determine the weight of the solids collected.
Figure 5. Liquid effluent flow meter installation
Figure 6. Liquid effluent and separated solids manure measurements (Left: Separated solids
manure collection method, Right- Wheel scales)
Flow meter
Page 9 of 35
4.2 Health and Safety
All systems that store, agitate or move manure, including the VP Systems, have the
potential to release hydrogen sulphide (H2S). H2S gas is produced from decaying
organic matter and smells like rotten eggs at low concentrations. Exposure to H2S gas
can be harmful or even fatal at relatively low concentrations (100 parts per million of H2S
in air is immediately dangerous to health and life). Because of the severity from H2S
exposure and the potential for exposure, safety controls (i.e. ventilation systems,
enclosures, etc) and procedures are required to ensure safe operation of any manure
agitation or treatment system. Careful consideration of methods to eliminate H2S is
important at the design phase, prior to construction.
In Manitoba, the regulations specify a maximum of 1 ppm H2S exposure continuously
during an 8 hour day and a 5 ppm maximum during any point without respiratory (Self
Contained Breathing Apparatus – SCBA) protection. At locations where there is risk of
H2S exposure, all operators should be trained in the hazards of H2S exposure, suitable
personnel protective equipment and be fitted for the specific size of protective
equipment. In addition, operating personnel should wear a personal H2S monitor.
Monitors are not used directly to measure the system’s performance, rather for the
operator’s safety to warn of H2S exposure. In addition, respirators with acid gas
cartridges were used during the evaluation to filter out low levels of H2S in areas of high
probability for H2S exposure.
Additional ventilation systems will be required to maintain the ambient conditions around
the manure treatment processing equipment consistently within the H2S requirements.
4.3 Data Collection
A total of 72 manure samples were collected over 12 days between March 6, 2015 and
June 16, 2015. On each sampling day, one composite sample was taken of the influent
manure, effluent manure and the solid manure at two different time periods. Each
composite sample was collected from three manure samples before submission to the
laboratory (Figure 7). In addition, two lagoon samples were taken on two separate days
to verify the effluent manure results. The detailed sample logs are found in Appendix A.
The samples were sent to a third party laboratory for P, K, TKN, NH4-N, dry matter,
density, pH, carbon, and conductivity.
Page 10 of 35
Figure 7. Typical liquid composite samples
A combination of lab concentration results, calibrated volumetric flow meter and scales
were used to determine the mass balance of the system. The mass flow rate was
determined by combining the volumetric flow data with the lab sample results, while the
weight measurements were collected manually on scales. An energy consumption
logger was used to monitor the peak and minimum energy demand in a system of this
size.
Daily and site visit logs were used to qualitatively determine what the expected
maintenance requirements are and to determine how reliably the system performs. The
qualitative assessment will list the benefits and requirements to operate the system,
however, each potential customer must evaluate if this system is suited for their own
operations. The economic opinion was evaluated based on the case scenario of 30 000
finisher hogs. The monitored costs, maintenance, and cost savings were measured from
the pilot site and extrapolated to reflect the case scenario. The economic opinion would
highlight the potential capital investment, annual cost and the annual savings.
Page 11 of 35
5. Results and Conclusions
5.1 Performance evaluation
The focus of the evaluation was to quantify the P and DM removal and to assess the
economic feasibility of the VP systems manure treatment system. Each manure fraction
(manure influent, effluent and solid manure) were averaged to minimize the variability of
manure. A summary of the laboratory’s nutrient results are shown in Appendix B.
Tabulated manure sample results could be found in Appendix D.
The following evaluation was based on the results found at the commercial barn where
the system is installed. The results may vary if the system was used to treat manure with
different properties (dry matter, phosphorus concentration, etc.). The average dry matter
found at the commercial barn was 6.5%, while the average for liquid swine manure from
feeder operations was reported as 3.7% from the “Manure Management Facts – Liquid
Gold? The Composition of Liquid Pig Manure in Manitoba”. Management decisions can
greatly influence the dry matter content in the manure by changing daily operation
practices to conserve water.
5.1.1 Phosphorus (P) and Dry Matter (DM) removal
The nutrient removal in the manure was evaluated based on both the concentration and
by mass using the equations below. In most systems where the flow rates are
equivalent, the concentration difference is a good indicator for the system performance.
(%) = 100 − []/[]
However, a mass balance comparison provides a more accurate indicator for the
phosphorus and dry matter removal due to the VP systems adding water as one of their
inputs, which causes the inflow and outflow manure rates to be different. The following
equation was used for both phosphorus and dry matter to calculate their respective
removal rates on a mass basis.
(∑[. ] ∗ ) − = ∑[. ] ∗

, x = number of input materials
, y = number of output materials
The P and DM removal in the effluent manure were calculated and shown in Figure 8
and 9. Over the sampling period of 12 weeks, the VP Systems had average removal
efficiencies of 82.9% P removal and 66.2% DM removal based on concentration. The
cumulative P and DM removal efficiency by mass was calculated to be 84.1% and
Page 12 of 35
63.5% over the 3-week evaluation period, respectively. The summarized manure sample
results are listed in Table 1 and the P and DM removal details are listed in Appendix B.
There were no identified trends when comparing the phosphorus and dry matter removal
rates between the initial respective concentration levels. The agronomic benefits of
removing the P and DM from the liquid fraction into the solid manure fraction are
described in Appendix C by Agra-Gold Consulting Ltd.
Figure 8. Phosphorus (P) removal rates from the raw manure (concentration basis) compared to
the treated liquid effluent. (Refer to Appendix B- Figure 11 for imperial units)
Figure 9. Dry matter removal rates from the raw manure (concentration basis) compared to the
treated liquid effluent.
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
Manure
Type
Dry
Matter
Liquid
Dry
Matter
Solids 30.2 14.7 4.4 6.3 2.3 82.9 66.2
The mass balance removal rates account for the concentration and flow rate differences
between the manure streams to determine how much of each nutrient is removed when
the solids are separated from the raw manure. As discussed in Section 4, the inflow
components primarily comprised of the (raw) manure influent, polymer blend
(concentrated polymer mixed with RO water), and antifoam. The final products from this
system are a stream of liquid manure and separated solids. The mass balance accounts
for the addition of water used to mix the concentrated polymer.
The antifoam and separated solids flow rates were measured at discrete times because
the inputs could not be measured on a continuous basis due to the flow rates involved
(low antifoam rate and very high separated solids production rate). Therefore, the
periodic measurements were averaged to calculate the expected mass flow rate for the
antifoam and solid manure over the entire sampling period.
A cumulative mass balance calculation was performed to evaluate the P and DM
removal between the raw manure and the processed manure (Figure 10). The flow rate
from the raw and processed manure was multiplied by the average P and DM
concentration to determine the quantity of nutrients entering and exiting the VP systems.
The outflow nutrient content divided by the inflow nutrient content will provide the
nutrient removal efficiency over the duration of the sampling period.
Page 14 of 35
Figure 10. Cumulatively P and DM removal between raw and processed manure over 3 week
Because the total quantity of manure was too great to measure over the entire sampling
period, average concentration values were used in calculating the mass balance values.
The use of influent and effluent manure flow rates, when combined with the average
manure nutrients, affects the nutrient mass balance calculations. Refer to Figure 12 in
Appendix B for the influent manure variability over time. The initial removal rates in the
first few hours were found to be high due to the timing of the manure pumps. The
influent pump was triggered to pump manure into the system, but the effluent pump was
not triggered until the manure tank reached a certain level which caused the initial
irregular readings. However, the actual nutrient removal rate would plateau to a constant
value over time.
The VP systems’ treatment method consistently removed both the P and DM content
from the raw manure. A total of 1.52 million L (334 000 I. Gal) of raw manure was
processed during the sampling period with a total calculated phosphorus content of 2210
kg when the average phosphorus concentration (1453 mg/L) was used. This resulted in
1.41 million L (310 000 I. Gal) of treated liquid effluent manure at 249 mg/L (P) with an
estimated total P content of 350 kg. Therefore, the solid separated solids removed from
the influent manure were estimated to contain 1860 kg of phosphorus (84.1% removal).
The high nutrient removal rates would allow farm operations to apply more liquid manure
on P-excessive lands and have the opportunity to recover costs by selling a phosphorus
rich solid manure stream.
5.1.2 System reliability
During the evaluation period, PAMI and other project partners were on site to measure
and observe the system’s performances with the owner of the commercial farm. The
system’s reliability and operational assessment were based on the events that occurred
at the commercial farm. VP Systems manure treatment system demonstrated that it has
the ability to operate consistently in terms of P and DM removal. The system integrates
the following few key features that assist the operator:
1. Provides remote system monitoring with a real time video feed. The remote
monitoring with alarms allows the operator to run the system with confidence
knowing technical experts are there to provide guidance and trouble shoot system
components. The manufacturer is able to link into the system to review the system
parameters to provide immediate support on operating the manure treatment system.
Currently in Manitoba, the technical support is limited to telephone, data and video
logging. However, additional service packages have been offered in the Netherlands
for an extra cost. The cost difference and availability of these service packages for
Manitoba are outside the scope of this project.
2. The system is designed to automatically shut-down to prevent any major accidents
when any integrated equipment sensors are operating outside the designed
parameters.
3. The system is equipped with a large raw (influent) manure equalization tank to
collect manure from the barns. Two mixers agitate the manure constantly to minimize
variation in the manure being processed.
4. The separated solids are automatically distributed inside the storage shed in two
windrows, which minimizes the operator’s management time.
5. The system uses a reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment system to remove
minerals from the well water to improve the polymer efficiency. The technology
provider recommended treating the water to reduce the polymer consumption and
cost.
6. The system is capable of processing high manure flow rates, but the equipment
components operate at slow moving speeds. The slow speeds provide a safer work
environment for any operators on site.
Page 16 of 35
5.1.3 Operational and maintenance requirements
Like many systems, VP systems have demonstrated the ability to operate consistently
but it requires additional labour and maintenance repairs to ensure the system is
operational.
1. Although the system is constantly monitored remotely with a control system,
personnel are required on site to take samples and monitor the system parameters.
The remote system provides real time videos and parameter controls but requires
visual inspection from an experienced operator to determine if the system is
operating correctly.
2. Automatic shutdown protocol is useful to prevent major damage to the system but
the system parameters require periodic adjustments. The system parameters are not
constants and are adjusted to ensure a good removal rate is achieved. There is a
learning curve for the operator to ensure they can determine the optimal equipment
settings. Examples of adjustable parameters include:
a. Operating frequency of the scraper chain floatation tank for the solid manure
(Hz)
b. Operating frequency of the filter belt press (Hz)
c. Set point polymer dosage to raw manure (% polymer blend/raw manure)
d. Flow regulation in the floatation tank (Imp Gal/min)
e. Set point for the polymer blend concentration (% polymer/water usage)
* A, B & C are adjusted based on the visual inspection of the liquid manure effluent.
**D is adjusted based on the available manure and the desired processing time
***E is adjusted based on how the polymer control valve is operating. Over time the control valve has a
greater restriction and the valve needs to be adjusted based on a physical polymer flow rate test.
3. Like most systems, equipment such as pumps, valves, mixers, scrapers, conveyors,
and flow meters require periodic maintenance to ensure they are operating
effectively. The manufacturer recommends the system be shut down for one day per
week for maintenance and every three weeks, the system should be cleaned and
inspected to determine if any parts require replacing.
4. The chemical additions are supplied in a batch system and are refilled manually.
5. Any mechanical equipment such as conveyors and gates that are exposed to both
excess moisture and cold temperatures in the winter are required to be cleaned to
ensure that they will be operational over the winter months.
Page 17 of 35
5.2 Economics of installing and operating the system
An economic assessment was performed for an existing 30 000 grower/finisher barn on
a one pump manure treatment system. The amount of manure generated will be
equivalent to the number of hogs multiplied by the estimated manure produced by that
type of operation. For example, 1 grower/finisher will generate 7.1 l/day (1.56 I gal per
day). Therefore, the estimated manure in one year is 77.7 million L (17.1 million I gal) of
manure. Refer to the “Farm Practices Guidelines for Pig Producers in Manitoba” (2007)
for more information. The economic assessment would be comparing the normal
operations of land application against the manure treatment costs.
A normal operation would not be required to invest in infrastructure and equipment, but
they would be required to pay a higher rate to land apply the manure if they were
restricted by the Manitoba regulations. The treatment option would require a capital
investment along with additional on-going operational costs. The benefits of a treatment
system would include a lower volume of manure, low phosphorus concentration, and
provides a concentrated solid manure stream for sale. The economic opinion factors a
constant variable cost for land application and does not include any premiums for
hauling manure for operations near P-excess lands. Perspective reviewers will be
required to add the extra costs if it applies to their operations. The economic opinion was
derived from the pilot operation in Manitoba and should be only used as a reference.
The cost estimates were based on the removal requirements for 6.5% dry matter content
manure from 9000 feeders and the values were extrapolated for the case scenario. A
lower dry matter content may change the cost requirements for P and DM removal. In
addition, the decommissioning costs and potential value for a P removal system are not
included in this opinion.
The capital expenditures and the economic opinion summary are shown in Table 2 and
3, respectively. The capital expenditures details are listed in Table 2 and are categorized
in either one of three categories: infrastructure, equipment or installation costs. The
commercial farm re-used the existing liquid manure storage and expanded the existing
building into the manure treatment/control room to keep the costs down. These
additional costs will apply for producers without the existing infrastructure in place. The
infrastructure investments in Table 2 included the new separated solid manure shed, the
new expansion to the existing building for the manure treatment control room, and the
modifications of the existing building and land to install the VP systems components.
With the case scenario, 17.1 million gal is processed (68% capacity) with the VP
systems, which is below the recommended maximum capacity (19.2 million gal).
Annual operating costs were categorized under electricity, polymer, anti-foam,
maintenance, pumping, and monitor costs. Each category was calculated based on the
costs incurred at the commercial farm. The operating costs will vary for each installation
because of the unique operating conditions (manure type, composition, etc.) specific to
Page 18 of 35
individual farms. The chemical/polymer costs may also vary depending on brand and
supplier of the products and needs to be investigated.
Finally, there was a cost recovery category for the VP systems by selling the separated
solids. However, for this economic opinion, the revenue resulting from the sale of solids
was assumed to offset the additional solid transportation costs (net zero benefit).
The overall cost of treatment was found to be more expensive than land applying the
manure if the operation has the available land base near-by. If not, extra premiums
would be required to transport the manure and may offset the additional cost of
treatment. If the capital investment and revenue generated from sale of the separated
solids is neglected, the farm scenario will be expected to pay 2.30 cents per gallon for
manure treatment compared to 1 cent per gallon for land application. If capital recovery
was factored over 10 years while excluding interest, the total cost of treatment will be
expected to be 3.34 cents per gallon.
Currently, there are no additional costs added for the remote monitoring service in this
study. Additional monitoring packages and prices are not available locally because there
are an insufficient number of installations in North America to justify providing this
service. However, VP systems in the Netherlands offer three different service packages
for an additional cost and are disclosed to provide a general perspective on the potential
service cost. Information on monitoring packages and costs follow:
The “Basic” package would cover the telephone, data and video logging through
remote access for €0.25/m3 of raw manure.
The “Silver” package would include a guaranteed response and would ensure
that the system is running within 8 hours. This would also include a bi-weekly
check-up from a certified technician. The estimated cost would be €0.50-0.75/m3
depending on the size and location of the operation.
Lastly, a “Gold” package is offered for €1.50/m3 that includes labour for
operation, clean-up, maintenance and check-ups from a certified technician.
Page 19 of 35
Cost Category Opinion of Cost
Infrastructure* $518,000
2 ] $130,000
2 ] $60,000
ft 2 ] and earthwork
Building insurance $5,000
Total Capital $ 1,782,000
*The capital investment did not include the liquid manure storage and the structure that was converted from
an existing building.
Page 20 of 35
Table 3. Economic opinion of yearly operating expenses for the case farm operating a VP
Systems manure treatment system (17.1 million gallons of manure) [a][b][c][l][m]
Category As usual –
Polymer [g]
$127,000 [i][j][k]
Annual Saving
[a] Neglecting any evaporation losses
[b] Cost of RO descale, membranes and citric acid would be not included for the economics since they were
used in minute quantities in comparison with the other costs. [c]
Maximum capacity of the treatment system is 80% (approx. 19 million I gallon) [d]
Manure treatment capital costs are amortized over 10 years, while neglecting the interest costs. The salvage cost of equipment and buildings are assumed to be zero after 10 years. [e]
Water usage is approximately 11.8% compared to influent manure, however, well water is used, and therefore no charges are accounted for. [f]
Electricity use was measured at 41.7 kW/hr when in operational and at 5.4 kW/hr parasitic load when idle. Electricity charge was calculated at $0.07/kWh. [g]
Polymer use is 0.32 I gallon per 1000 I gallon of manure at the cost of $31.64 per I gallon of polymer ($5800 per 220 US gallon container). Cost may vary depending on vendor and polymer selected. [h]
Anti-foam use is 0.03 gallon per 1000 I gallon of manure at a cost of $5.23 per gallon. [i] Regular pumping rate is $0.01 per gallon of manure
[j] Pump out savings after treatment is 20% based the operator’s observations due to the lower dry matter
content, which result in more efficient pump out. [k]
Assuming a 7% volume reduction in the manure effluent compared to the manure influent based on the flow meters readings during the evaluation. [l] Assuming the revenue from solids generation will cover the transportation costs
[m] Additional heating costs (eg. Heating in the manure treatment and control room) over the winter are
neglected from this comparison [n]
Estimated cost from the commercial operation for repairing mechanical parts and equipment. [o]
Estimated labour cost based on a full time employee
Page 21 of 35
5.3 Summary
The VP systems manure treatment system consistently removed a high percentage of
phosphorus and dry matter from the manure during this evaluation period. There are
many safeguards designed in the control systems to ensure that the operator has the
right tools to operate this equipment effectively. However, this system may require daily
supervision to ensure that the system parameters will offer the best nutrient removal.
The opinion of cost generated for this report is intended to provide increased knowledge
and availability of information on a variety of manure nutrient management options in
Manitoba.
Summarized Laboratory Results
Figure 11. Phosphorus (P2O5) removal rates from the raw manure (concentration basis)
compared to the treated liquid effluent
Figure 12. Manure influent variability
75.0%
77.5%
80.0%
82.5%
85.0%
87.5%
90.0%
92.5%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Influent Sample #
% Dry Matter
Figure 13. N, P, K average concentrations
Figure 14. Dry matter and moisture content.
Table 4. Average density, pH, and conductivity in each category (24 samples each)
Manure Fraction Density (g/ml) Maximum Bulk
Density (kg/m3)
pH Conductivity
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
To ta
Page 26 of 35
Table 5. P removal in the effluent manure when compared with the influent averaged at 82.9 % P
removal based on concentration.
Page 27 of 35
Table 6. DM removal in the effluent manure when compared with the influent averaged 66.2 %
DM removal based on concentration.
Page 28 of 35
Treatment system
VP Systems treatment was implemented to deal with the high soil test phosphorus
values experienced by Topeaka Farms on their owned annul cropland. A large number
of fields around the Topeaka Farms hog facility have phosphorus values in excess of 60
ppm. The Manitoba Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation 42/98
restricts the amount of phosphorus which can be applied to these lands. Due to this
constraint, Topeaka Farms was finding it increasingly difficult to meet their nitrogen
fertilizer requirements with manure. Faced with increased hauling costs to get the
manure to neighbouring land, which was phosphorus deficient, and purchasing
commercial nitrogen for the Topeaka owned land, placed addition economic pressure on
the farm. According to the owner of Topeaka, commercial fertilizer was not able to
provide the same yield benefits as manure fertilizer.
VP Systems, a Dutch treatment company, has a number of similar installations in
Holland which provide full treatment for manure. Their systems in Holland integrate a
reverse osmosis system at the back end of the system which creates clean water and a
concentrated nitrogen stream for crop fertilization. As this is a concentrated nitrogen
product it has no additional economic or practical benefit for Topeaka, this treatment
system only treated manure up to the end of the belt filter press step. The site chosen by
Topeaka was at its finishing barn facilities.
Topeaka Farms grows grain corn, soybeans, oats, wheat, and canola as their main
crops. Typical nitrogen to phosphate removal ratios of these common crops is 3.5 : 1. If
manure is to be applied to every acre every year at Topeaka, without building up
phosphate in the soil, the manure must exceed 3.5 : 1 Avail N : Phosphate ratio.
Stream 1: Influent Liquid
Influent Data
% Dry Matter
6.5 93.5 74.0 48.6 33.3 26.6
The influent stream (raw manure from the barn pits) is not a true reflection of the
resulting manure which will be applied to the fields as it has not be subjected to
Page 29 of 35
precipitation/evaporation/nitrogen losses from an open lagoon. (some of the manure
may be up to 7 months old while other manure in the storage would be fresh from the
barns). It is anticipated that there will be further nitrogen volatilization losses to the air in
the earthen manure storage as the manure ages in the storage. Having said this
though, the influent stream shows what fresh manure would test as it enters the manure
storage. The available nitrogen (which = ammonia N + .25 x organic N) to phosphate
ratio is:
48.6 + 0.25 x ( 74-48.6) / 33.3 = 1.65 : 1
This ratio closely matches the Agra-Gold Consulting Ltd. database value of 1.6 : 1 for
other finishing barns in Manitoba. When you consider land application losses of nitrogen
via aerway (15%) and over winter losses of nitrogen (another 15%) the ratio of applied
manure can be closer to 1.2 : 1 ratio of nitrogen to phosphate applied: 1.65 x .7
(combined loss of over winter losses and aerway volatilization losses) = 1.16 : 1 which is
the resulting applied available N to phosphate ratio.
Given the difference between the phosphate removal of the typical Topeaka annual
crops and the applied manure’s applied available N:Phosphate ratio, the implication is
that manure should only be used as the fertilizer source once in every 3 years:
(assuming no additional phosphate is applied in the non-manure years)
3.5 (annual N:Pcrop removal ratio) /1.16 (manure applied available N:Phosphate ratio) =
3 years
Effluent Data
% Dry Matter
2.55 97.82 55.00 45.00 5.71 25.43
Again, the effluent stream is not a true reflection of the resulting manure which will be
applied to the fields as explained in the previous section but shows how fresh effluent
manure entering the manure storage will test.
The available nitrogen to phosphate ratio is:
45 +0.25 x (55-45) / 5.71 = 8.3 : 1
When you consider application losses of nitrogen via aerway (15%) and over winter
Page 30 of 35
losses of nitrogen (another 15%) the ratio of applied manure can be closer to 5.8 : 1 ratio
of nitrogen to phosphate applied: 8.3 x .7 (combined loss of over winter losses and
aerway volatilization losses) = 5.8 : 1.
This ratio exceeds 3.5 : 1 annual crop N:Phosphate ratio (3.5 : 1) and therefore will
actually mine phosphate out of the soil when applied on an annual basis to meet the
nitrogen requirements of the crop.
An economic advantage of applying the effluent liquid is the low solids content. As seen
in Figure 1 the dry matter content is 2.55% which is almost 30% of the Influent liquid’s
dry matter content of 6.5%. Topeaka Farms, who applies their own manure via their
own drag line system has commented that the application flow rate has increased by
approximately 20% versus non-treated manure. This lower dry matter manure should
also require less horse power to agitate and keep the fine solids in suspension. Both of
these factors should bring savings when considering the cost of application.
Stream 3: Solids Stream
Solids Data
% Dry Matter
lbs/Mt
Mean
30.2 68.6 32.4 9.0 29.0 5.6 300
The separated solids pile is a product rich in phosphate and nitrogen. About 65% of the
nitrogen is organic nitrogen, (Organic N = TKN – NH4-N) with the rest being in a highly
crop available ammonia form.
There has been lots of agronomic research and producer understanding of the nutrient
availability and release rates of liquid hog manure. This is not the case for separated
hog solids in Manitoba’s environment and soils, However, this work has been started by
the University of Manitoba through an MLMMI grant.
The carbon to nitrogen ratio of the separated solids is 300/32 = 9 : 1 ratio.
Agronomically, a solid manure with such a low C:N ratio, means that the carbon should
not tie up the nitrogen when field applied. At this point Topeaka has not made the
choice to compost this solid manure as this would require carbon (such as shavings or
wheat, oats, or barley straw) to be mixed into the pile and managed to allow for the
appropriate composting process.
Page 31 of 35
Topeaka is currently selling the separated solids for approximately 50% of the cost of the
polymer. In addition the receiver is transporting and applying the solids at their own
cost. The current receiver still has questions relating to the nutrient release rates but
recognizes that this is a good source of phosphorus which could buildup lower
phosphorus levels.
1 kg/tonne = 2 lb/ton 1 g/ml = 0.036 lb/in3
1 kg/m3 = 0.062 lb/ft3 1 mg/L = 0.010014 lb/1000 I gal
Saskatchewan Operations Manitoba Operations Corporate Services
Box 1150 Box 1060 Box 1150 2215 – 8
th Avenue 390 River Road 2215 – 8
th Avenue
Humboldt, SK S0K 2A0 Portage la Prairie, MB R1N 3C5 Humboldt, SK S0K 2A0 1-800-567-7264 1-800-561-8378 1-800-567-7264