New Markets For AD WRAP Format Final v2.c6779ccd.11341 PDF
New Markets For AD WRAP Format Final v2.c6779ccd.11341 PDF
New Markets For AD WRAP Format Final v2.c6779ccd.11341 PDF
Written by: Dr Hannah Rigby and Professor Stephen R Smith, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Imperial College London
Imperial College, believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory
requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using
any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).
The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to
ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being
inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain
whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by
WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the
material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must
not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its
web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Executive summary
Background:
Currently, the major outlet for liquid digestate is agricultural application and research is required to investigate
the suitability of liquid digestate products for other purposes such as use as a soil conditioner or fertiliser in
domestic gardens, growing media preparation and turf or roadside grass establishment. Technologies to further
process digestate and utilise the by-products, such as extraction of nutrients to produce a high-quality fertiliser,
also require investigation. Expanding the market for liquid digestates beyond agricultural application is important
to generate increased opportunity for reuse of biodegradable waste and production of bioenergy. This is
necessary to achieve government targets for reduction of biodegradable waste sent to landfill (CEC, 1999) and
promote anaerobic digestion (AD) as a method to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable
sources (CEC, 2009).
Data supplied by Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) from a separate project and additional information
sourced suggested that the physico-chemical and microbiological properties of the digestate were generally within
the specified levels stipulated in PAS 110. The exception to this was the microbiological properties of digestate
derived from livestock slurry (DLS), which had presumably not undergone a pasteurisation step. Other differences
between digestate from food waste feedstock (DFW) and DLS included a higher N and K concentration in DLS by
approximately 1%.
Findings:
The physico-chemical and microbiological properties of digestate were generally below upper limit values defined
in PAS 110, with the exception of the microbiological properties of digestate from DLS, which had presumably not
undergone a pasteurisation step. Other differences between digestate from food waste feedstock and animal
slurry feedstock included a higher N and K concentration in DLS by approximately 1%.
With the analysis of digestate available, the potential outlets for digestate considered in this report were: i) home
garden fertiliser and soil amendment products; ii) landscaping; iii) commercial fruit and vegetable production; iv)
compost tea production; v) mushroom growing media; vi) commercial nurseries; vii) forestry; viii) publically
owned flower beds/green spaces; viii) fertiliser for organic crops and farms; x) nutrient extraction from digestate;
xi) algal culture; xii) construction materials eg. Wood Plastic Composites (WPC) and Medium Density Fibreboards
(MDF); xiii) fuel production and xiv) biopesticides production.
Digestate could not be used as a replacement to home garden fertiliser products without supplementing with
additional nutrients, furthermore as a precautionary measure it is advisable not to use it for purposes where there
is potential for ingestion such as fruit and vegetable fertilisers for home gardens. Digestate has potential for use
in mushroom growing media, however, research to date has indicated that it may not be as suitable as other
organic feedstocks.
Underway (Technology developed and commercialised but further work is required to establish technology on a
wider scale):
extraction of nutrients and production of solid fuel using (for example) the ‘GG Eco Solutions’ process.
Promising (technology not yet developed for management of digestate on a commercial, economically viable
scale):
use of composted fibre as a bedding material for home gardens/landscaping/publically owned flower beds and
urban forestry;
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank WRAP for funding the project, especially Nina Sweet and David Tompkins for
providing information and guidance. We would like to thank Chris Haley (Imperial Innovations) for advice on
market research methods. Thanks to the Anaerobic Digestion plants which supplied the consultants with
additional data for the study. Thanks to Andrew Chambers (Greenwich Council), Stefan Czeladzinski
(Hammersmith & Fulham Council), Mrs K Ashani (Ealing Council), Alexander Piddington-Bishop (City of London)
and Leslie Williams (Brent Council). Thanks to Jake Prior and Edgar Blanco (AnDigestion Ltd.) and Alexander
Maddern (Agrivert Ltd.), who kindly provided advice. Goran Nylin (GG Eco Solutions) and Carl Aitken (Bidwells)
for providing information on the GG Eco process. Laurant Mantuana (Michegan State University) kindly provided
information on use of digestate fibres in construction materials. Ralph Noble (HRI Wellesbourne) for information
on mushroom compost. Thanks to Stuart Booker (CHA) and John Adlam (HTA) for advice on fertiliser usage in
the horticulture industry. Thanks to Andrew Moffat (Forestry Commission) for providing advice on fertiliser usage
in forestry.
If digestate meets the standards defined in the Quality Protocol PAS110 (BSI, 2010) then it is not considered a
waste and can be marketed for beneficial use. Otherwise, it must comply with the Environmental Permitting
Regulations (SI, 2010) and requires a waste management license or exemption from licensing. Agriculture is
currently the major outlet for digestate, and is currently a major route for sewage sludge management in the UK
as digestate is a stabilised and reliable fertiliser product, with a reduced odour and pathogen content (USEPA,
1993; Smith, 1996; Defra, 2007a; Smith, 2009). However, under the PAS110 standards, other uses such as
forestry, commercial horticulture, land reclamation and restoration are permitted although currently digestate
cannot be used for amateur gardening. Digestate may be used directly or separated into liquor (dry solids <6%)
and fibre fractions which have differing nutrient compositions; the fibre can be used directly on soil or after
composting (NNFCC, 2010). Research is required to review the potential for developing alternative markets to
the agricultural outlet for liquid digestate. Further treatment may be required to reduce bulk, improve ease of
handling and create digestate products which are fit-for-purpose for alternative and new market applications.
1.1. Objectives:
1. To identify potential new markets for digestate (as a raw material and as products that can use the nutrients in
a purified form from the digestate) - this will include:
to process the digestate liquid into an acceptable form for the uses identified in 1 (eg. concentration,
filtering);
for novel uses of digestate and by-products (eg. nutrient recovery, enzyme production, cellulosic ethanol)
For each of the uses identified which has potential for commercialisation the size of the market, and how the
supply chain works (eg. distribution outlets, the main companies selling products) will be investigated.
The nutrient content in separated liquor and fibre was estimated using separation efficiency values for three
different dewatering methods (Belt press, Screw press, Centrifuge) (Lukehurst et al., 2010).
Potential new uses for digestate included those listed under objective 1. Further uses were identified through
internet searches and searches of online databases of scientific literature and trade journals.
Processing technologies for novel uses of digestate and by-products (eg. P recovery, enzyme production, novel
microbial groups) were investigated through an internet search including a review of the scientific literature and
trade journals.
Estimated NPK content of separated liquor and fibre are presented in Table A13, nutrient separation is dependent
on the dewatering method used and varies for separated liquor and fibre. However, no data is available on the
bioavailability of nutrients in separated liquor and fibre, it is expected that the more soluble forms of nutrients are
partitioned into the liquor and the recalcitrant forms are retained in the fibre. Further work is required to
measure the nutritional composition of separated liquor and fibre.
The relatively high N content of digestate would be useful in the composting process. However, if the N content
is too high, it may be necessary to add bulking agents to increase the C:N ratio, such as woodchips, sawdust or
straw. This is also required to increase air permeability during the composting process (Evans, 2009). Therefore,
for the process to be viable there would need to a source of this type of biowaste in close proximity to the AD
plant. Thames Water Utilities used straw as a bulking agent for their composted biosolids (Evans, 2009).
The composts are currently sold in bags of 50-100 l or bulk bags of 1m3, co-composted stabilised separated
digestate fibre could also be packaged in the same manner.
Granular domestic fertilisers are currently available in boxes or bags of between 1-2 kg. To be marketed for use
in home gardens to fulfil the same role as currently available granular multi-purpose fertilisers, digestate would
need to be thermally dried to produce pellets or granules. This would also improve stability, reduce odour and
make a more suitable product for packaging.
Levington GRO-BAG Gro-bag for vegetable crops L950mm x W330mm x H50mm bag
Multi-Purpose
J Arthur Peat compost for houseplants, seed-sowing, potting,
Compost with Sinero Peat compost 100l bag
Bower hanging baskets (feeds for 4-6 weeks)
Boost
Multi-purpose compost (enriched with 40% more nutrients Compost enriched with
All purpose growing
Miracle Gro to feed plants for <3 months) beds, borders, pots, hanging Miracle Gro plant food & 50l bag
compost
baskets water retaining agent
To be marketed for use in home gardens so that the physical characteristics are suitable for use as a rose and
shrub feed, digestate would need to be thermally dried to produce pellets or granules, or ground into a fine
material.
To be processed for use in home gardens so that the physical characteristics are suitable for use as a liquid plant
feed, digestate would need to be separated into liquor to reduce the DS content from approximately 5% (Table
A1) to 2-3% (Table A7). This would allow greater infiltration of the fertiliser into the soil and reduce residues on
the soil surface, therefore more efficient use of nutrients. However, the nutrients in digestate are in a much
more dilute form (<1% fresh weight) than the concentrated nutrients in liquid feed. Therefore, it would be
necessary to apply the digestate liquor at 10-20 times the rate of commercially available liquid feeds (see further
calculations below for turf fertiliser application). This would result in waterlogging and it is not practicable in
terms of transport and packaging of the digestate liquor; it is therefore necessary to investigate methods of
concentrating the nutrients before digestate liquor can be used as liquid tomato feed.
Turf fertilisers:
Commercially available solid turf fertilisers have a mean N content of 12% (range 6-20%); a mean P content of
5% (range 2-8%) with 1% soluble (range 0-5%) and a mean K content of 6 (range 0-12%) (Table 9). The
available liquid turf fertilisers have a mean N content of 13% (range 3-25%); a mean P content of 1% (range 0-
1.7%) and a mean K content of 4.4% (range 0-8.3%). The NPK contents of liquid digestate on a dry solids basis
are therefore within the same range as turf fertiliser (Tables A3 and A4), and have similar NPK ratios. The high N
The majority of commercially available turf fertilisers are fine solids, although liquid turf fertilisers are also
available, therefore whole digestate would not have suitable physical properties as it is and would require further
processing. Separated liquor may be most suitable as a replacement for currently available turf fertilisers as it
would infiltrate into the soil more easily due to the lower dry solids content. However, the comparatively low
concentration of nutrients in liquid digestate (i.e. <1% fresh weight) means that transportation and packaging of
separated liquor is unlikely to be viable without further concentration of the nutrient content.
Commercially available solid turf fertilisers are currently sold in 25 kg packs. The recommended application rate
is generally 30-35 g m-2; depending on the specific NPK content of the product, this is equivalent to N
applications between 12-42 kg ha-1, P applications between 0-17.5 kg ha-1 and K applications between 0-42 kg
ha-1. To apply approximately equivalent nutrient concentrations from separated liquor (with a DS content of 3%
and NPK of 16:1:4) it would be necessary to apply 250-875 ml m-2. A 25 kg pack of solid turf fertiliser is
sufficient for approximately 800 m2. It might be feasible, although bulky, to sell digestate in 25 l drums, which
would be sufficient for a 28-100 m2 area, however, it is likely that it would not be economically viable.
The available liquid fertilisers are sold in 10 and 200 l containers; the recommended application rate is between
40-120 l ha-1. For a liquid turf fertiliser with an NPK content of 13:1:4, this would be equivalent to rates of N
between 6.1-18.4 kg ha-1; rates of P between 0.5-1.4 kg ha-1 and rates of K between 2.2-20.1 kg ha-1. For
equivalent applications of N from digestate liquor with a DS content of 3% (N:P:K, 16:1:4), the application rate
would be 1076 l – 3249 l ha-1, nearly thirty times the application rate of commercial fertiliser. A 10 l bottle of the
commercial liquid turf fertiliser with NPK content of 833-2500 m2, whereas to cover the same area separated 270
l of digestate liquor would be required.
The consistency of the nutrient concentration of separated liquor may also be problematic if it is to be marketed
for use in domestic horticulture. However, the interquartile ranges for the major plant nutrients are relatively low
(Table A3-A6). The variability may be further reduced if the digestate is sourced from plants receiving only
certain feedstocks. Physico-chemical analyses of separated liquor are required to demonstrate the consistency of
the nutritional composition.
The separated digestate liquor would need to be spread using a pedestrian sprayer or knapsack sprayer; as most
of the commercially available products are fine solids it is likely that liquid digestate will not be appealing to the
consumer. It is likely that transport costs for such a large volume of liquid would outweigh the value of the
product; therefore, it is necessary to investigate methods of concentrating the nutrient content before use of
digestate as turf fertiliser on home gardens is viable.
Summary:
A comparison of the physico-chemical properties of whole digestate, separated liquor and fibre and various
commercially available home garden fertilisers has indicated that:
i) digestate fibre may be suitable for co-composting with other organic residuals and use in home gardens,
however, consistency of the product may present a problem;
ii) separated liquor may be suitable for use as turf fertiliser in home gardens, but technologies for
concentrating the nutrients are required;
iii) separated liquor may be suitable for use as liquid plant feed in home gardens but technologies for
concentrating the nutrients are required;
iv) use of digestate for any other purpose in home gardens may require supplementing with P and K.
Physical contaminants:
Source segregation of organic wastes and control over input materials as specified in PAS110 means physical
contaminants will pose minimal risk for use in domestic gardens. Further processing of digestate, such as
separation of liquor and fibre, will further reduce the presence of physical contaminants.
Nutrients:
The three uses identified as most suitable for digestate in home gardens are use of composted fibre as a bedding
material, use of separated liquor as turf fertiliser and use of separated liquor as a liquid vegetable feed.
Composting reduces the availability of nutrients, due to losses of ammonia through volatilisation and the
conversion of soluble nutrients, such as P, to more recalcitrant forms during the composting process. Hence,
there is a low risk of volatilisation of ammonia or leaching of nutrients from stable composted separated fibre.
Leaching or runoff of N and P, and subsequent contamination of water sources, or gaseous emissions of N are
potential hazards from the use of separated liquor as a turf fertiliser. Nitrogen in digestate is present in both
organic and mineral forms, the available N will be equivalent to the mineral N plus a fraction of organic N which
will be mineralised over time; therefore, it is important to calculate availability of N accurately to calculate the
correct application rate. In addition to ensuring there are adequate nutrients for plant growth, this will prevent
over-application and potential losses to the environment. Leaching of N should not pose a greater risk than
currently commercially available turf fertilisers or liquid vegetable feed if applied according to instructions. In
addition, the slow release nature of the nitrogen will result in a lower risk of N loss during leaching events.
The slightly alkaline pH of digestate (Table A1) means that there may be a risk of ammonia losses by
volatilisation. However, assuming that the separated liquor infiltrates into the soil rapidly leaving little residue
there should be minimal risk of runoff of N or ammonia volatilisation. This is an area (soil infiltration) which may
require investigation before separated liquor is used for this purpose.
Microbiological characteristics:
The data indicates that there is minimal microbiological risk from DFW (Table A10), although DLS (Table A11)
may present a risk. However, if a pasteurisation step is included, which is required if digestate is to be used
outside the holdings of the digestate producer, the microbiological risk will be minimal.
Furthermore, the two most suitable applications for digestate identified in Section 4.2.1 would introduce a further
barrier to exposure. The composting process used to treat separated fibre for use in bedding and potting would
further eliminate pathogens. The nature of the end-use of digestate on a non-edible crop, means that the use of
separated liquor as turf fertiliser would not lead to potential exposure to hazardous organisms through ingestion
in contaminated soil or crops.
Heavy metals:
Heavy metals measured in digestate (Tables A8 and A9) were below upper limits set in PAS110, with the
exception of Cd and Zn in a limited number of cases. Further investigation may be required to identify sources of
Cd and Zn in digestate. Concentrations of trace metals such as Cu, Mo, Fe and Zn were present in similar
quantities to those in plant food such as “Miracle Gro Azelia, Camelia and Rhodedendron liquid plant food”,
indicating that these metals present a benefit rather than a barrier to use.
Organic contaminants:
Analysis of digestate indicated that concentrations of organic contaminants in digestate were low. As a reference
point, they were below limits suggested by the EC for the use of biosolids in agriculture.
Odour/Stability:
Digestate must be digested to an extent to which it is stable and therefore does not digest further during storage
and management and cause an offensive odour under the PAS 110 Specifications. Composting separated fibre
for use as a bedding and potting product will further stabilise the material reducing odour. Separated liquor may
have some odour and investigation may be required to determine whether this is considered unpleasant or
offensive before it could be used as a domestic garden product.
Salinity:
The salinity of digestate is approximately 5500-7500 µS cm-1 (20oC). This is similar to animal slurries and
biosolids which have been demonstrated to cause an increase in soil salinity when used as a soil amendment.
Composting fibre to use as bedding and potting material will prevent the risk of increased soil salinity, due to the
reduction of salts in soluble forms. However, there is a risk from increasing soil salinity through use of separated
liquor as a turf fertiliser or liquid vegetable feed. Therefore, the product instructions may need to recommend
the use of fertiliser only 2-3 times during a growing season. There is no data available on the salinity of
separated liquor; this would be useful to assess its suitability for use as a home garden turf fertiliser or liquid
vegetable feed. Trials with garden plants would be required.
100% organic
Slow release nutrients
granules for all
Description for Ericaceous plants
ericaceous plants (pH
(pH<7)
<7)
Total N (%dm) 15.0 (11.9-20.5) 16.1 (6.7-24.9) 9.8 6.5 9 7.8 (6.5-9)
NO3-N (%dm) Trace Trace n.d. 3 3.0
NH4-N (%dm) 10.5 (5.5-16.0) 10.9 (5.3-19.3) n.d. 6 6.0
Total P (%dm) 0.7 (0.3-2.0) 0.9 (0.2-5.0) 0.34 5.5 6.1 5.8 (5.5-6.1)
Soluble P (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.2) 0.3 n.d. 2.4 4.6 3.5 (2.4-4.6)
K (%dm) 4.7 (1.4-9.3) 3.2 (1.5-5.9) 1.5 7.0 15.8 11.5 (7-15.8)
Mg (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.48) 0.3 (0.0-3.7) n.d 1.2 1.8 1.5 (1.2-1.8)
Mn (%dm) n.d. n.d n.d.
B (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.0032 (0.0019-
Cu (%dm) 0.008 (0.002-0.018) n.d.
0.0043)
Mo (%dm) 0.0029 (0.0027-0.003) 0.001 n.d.
Fe (%dm) n.d. 1.4 (0.16-3.8) n.d. 0.5 1.0
Zn (%dm) 0.011 (0.007-0.014) 0.024 (0.0004-0.063) n.d.
†Estimated using separator efficiency values presented in Lukehurst et al. (2010)
Bonemeal granules
Sterilised ground bone,
Improved
slow release to encourage
Description establishment for
root development (roses,
trees, shrubs, fruit &
shrubs, border plants)
vegetables
Total N (%dm) 15.0 (11.9-20.5) 16.1 (6.7-24.9) 9.8 5.0 3.5 3.8 (3.5-5.0)
NO3-N (%dm) Trace Trace n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
NH4-N (%dm) 10.5 (5.5-16.0) 10.9 (5.3-19.3) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Total P (%dm) 0.7 (0.3-2.0) 0.9 (0.2-5.0) 0.34 7 8.6 7.8 (7-8.6)
Soluble P (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.2) 0.3 n.d. 0.9 0.9
K (%dm) 4.7 (1.4-9.3) 3.2 (1.5-5.9) 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mg (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.48) 0.3 (0.0-3.7) n.d 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mn (%dm) n.d. n.d n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
B (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.0032 (0.0019-
Cu (%dm) 0.008 (0.002-0.018) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.0043)
0.0029 (0.0027-
Mo (%dm) 0.001 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.003)
Fe (%dm) n.d. 1.4 (0.16-3.8) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Zn (%dm) 0.011 (0.007-0.014) 0.024 (0.0004-0.063) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
†Estimated using separator efficiency values presented in Lukehurst et al. (2010)
100% Organic
granules for flower
Slow release
beds & borders, roses Rose and shrub
Description rose and shrub
& bushes, trees, feed
feed
including fruit trees &
veg
Total N (%dm) 15.0 (11.9-20.5) 16.1 (6.7-24.9) 9.8 0.0 5.0 15 2.5 (0-5)
NO3-N (%dm) Trace Trace n.d. n.d. n.d. 6.4 6.4
NH4-N (%dm) 10.5 (5.5-16.0) 10.9 (5.3-19.3) n.d. n.d. n.d. 8.6 8.6
Total P (%dm) 0.7 (0.3-2.0) 0.9 (0.2-5.0) 0.34 0.0 2.6 4.6 2.4 (0-4.6)
Soluble P (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.2) 0.3 n.d. n.d. 0.9 3.6 2.9 (0.9-3.6)
K (%dm) 4.7 (1.4-9.3) 3.2 (1.5-5.9) 1.5 30.0 10.0 12.4 17.5 (10-30)
Mg (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.48) 0.3 (0.0-3.7) n.d 10.0 1.5 1.2 4.2 (1.2-10)
Mn (%dm) n.d. n.d n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
B (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.0032 (0.0019- 0.008 (0.002-
Cu (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.0043) 0.018)
0.0029 (0.0027-
Mo (%dm) 0.001 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.003)
Fe (%dm) n.d. 1.4 (0.16-3.8) n.d. n.d. 0.6 n.d. 0.6
0.011 (0.007- 0.024 (0.0004-
Zn (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.014) 0.063)
†Estimated using separator efficiency values presented in Lukehurst et al. (2010)
16.1
Total N (%dm) 15.0 (11.9-20.5) 7.3 6 5.9
(6.7-24.9)
NO3-N (%dm) Trace Trace n.d. 3.5 n.d
10.9
NH4-N (%dm) 10.5 (5.5-16.0) n.d. 2.5 n.d.
(5.3-19.3)
0.9
Total P (%dm) 0.7 (0.3-2.0) 1.0 1.72 2.1
(0.2-5.0)
Soluble P (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.2) 0.3 n.d. 1.72 2.1
3.2
K (%dm) 4.7 (1.4-9.3) 1.5 5.0 5.7
1.5-5.9)
0.3
Mg (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.48) n.d 4.98 n.d.
(0.0-3.7)
0.001 (soluble in water,
Mn (%dm) n.d. n.d n.d. n.d.
chelated by EDTA)
B (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
0.002 (soluble in water,
Cu (%dm) 0.0032 (0.0019-0.0043) 0.008 (0.002-0.018) n.d. n.d.
chelated by EDTA)
Mo (%dm) 0.0029 (0.0027-0.003) 0.001 n.d. 0.001 (soluble in water) n.d.
1.4 0.06 (soluble in water,
Fe (%dm) n.d. n.d. n.d.
(0.16-3.8) chelated by DTPA)
0.002 (soluble in water,
Zn (%dm) 0.011 (0.007-0.014) 0.024 (0.0004-0.063) n.d. n.d.
chelated by EDTA)
†Estimated using separator efficiency values presented in Lukehurst et al. (2010)
Scotts
Scotts Scotts Mean
Whole digestate Whole digestate Digestate liquor Greenmaster
Greenmaster Greenmaster (range)
Product (food waste only: (contains livestock (Belt press/ liquid
liquid liquid liquid turf
DFW) slurry: DLS) Screw press)† Spring and
High N High K fertiliser
Summer
16.1
Total N (%dm) 15.0 (11.9-20.5) 7.3 25 12 3.0 13.3
(6.7-24.9)
NO3-N (%dm) Trace Trace n.d. 7.3 0.8 0.3 2.8
10.9
NH4-N (%dm) 10.5 (5.5-16.0) n.d. 5.9 11.2 0.3 5.8
(5.3-19.3)
0.9
Total P (%dm) 0.7 (0.3-2.0) 1.0 0 1.7 1.3 1
(0.2-5.0)
Soluble P
0.1 (0-0.2) 0.3 n.d. 0 1.7 1.3 1
(%dm)
3.2
K (%dm) 4.7 (1.4-9.3) 1.5 0 5.0 8.3 4.4
1.5-5.9)
0.3
Mg (%dm) 0.1 (0-0.48) n.d 1.2 0 0 0.4
(0.0-3.7)
Cu (%dm) 0.0032 (0.0019-0.0043) 0.008 (0.002-0.018) n.d. 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Zn (%dm) 0.011 (0.007-0.014) 0.024 (0.0004-0.063) n.d. 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
However, the dilute concentration of nutrients in digestate liquor means it would be unsuitable for direct use as a
home garden product due to the expense and difficulty in handling the product. To improve the product, it would
be necessary to concentrate the nutrients; this would improve the economics of transporting digestate liquor.
Various membrane filtration technologies, such as reverse osmosis (RO), can potentially be used to concentrate
nutrients (Zhang et al., 2004, Kumar et al. 2007, Masse et al., 2007).
The state of research on the membrane treatment of manure, and concentration of nutrients was reviewed by
Masse et al. (2007) at “Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada”. Microfiltration (MF) and Ultrafiltration (UF)
membranes act as efficient solid-liquid separators that can isolate nutrients such as P associated with particles.
Technologies such as nanofiltration and RO are required for concentration of ammonia and potassium.
A laboratory-scale system to treat swine wastewater (15 000 mg l-1 volatile solids) with biological conversion,
filtration and RO to produce reclaimed water and a concentrated liquid fertiliser was investigated by Zhang et al.
(2004). The system consisted of an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR), one or two aerobic sequencing
batch reactors, a sludge settling tank, sand filter and RO unit. The oxidised N was increased to 53% of the total
N content after it passed through both aerobic sequencing batch reactors. The sand filter further reduced the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and solids prior to RO treatment. The researchers found that RO was very
effective in separating nutrient and salt elements from water; over 70% of NH3-N, NO2-N and NO3-N and over
90% of other elements, such as P, K, Cl, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Fe and Cu were concentrated in a liquid effluent with
10% of the original volume. Preliminary analyses by the authors suggested that the biogas energy produced
from swine manure was sufficient to meet the energy requirement for operating the wastewater treatment
system; however, it was suggested that the system needs to be scaled up and evaluated at pilot and farm scale
and costs and benefits analysed.
Masse et al. (2007) presented a summary of various commercial systems that have been established for manure
concentration:
i) A pilot system in France (the Ecoliz system) that can treat 2 m3 of swine manure day-1 which combines a
flocculation step to remove large solids and membrane filtration to concentrate nutrients. The process
concentrated manure in 10% of the initial volume; the cost of the system was evaluated at 12 Euros m-3 of
manure in 2002 (Gérard, 2002 cited in Masse et al., 2007).
ii) New Logic Research (http://www.vsep.com/) have developed the vibratory shear enhanced process (VSEP) for
manure purification. The system has been demonstrated using pig manure (Johnson et al., 2004); the effluent
(1.9% TS) from an anaerobic digester treating pig manure was concentrated in about 20% of the initial volume.
The Zn, Na, Mn, Mg, Fe and Cu were removed, whilst retention of potassium, phosphorus, Cl and Ca ranged
between 98-99%. Ammonia and sulphate were retained at 94.5% and 93.4% respectively. The technology uses
vibration to minimise membrane fouling, thereby minimising flux reduction. The technology has been installed on
two commercial farms in Korea and the Netherlands (Johnson et al., 2004).
iii) The company ‘Purin Pur’ installed a pilot membrane system was installed on a pig farm in Canada (Charlebois,
2000 cited in Masse et al., 2007). The system used a screen for coarse SS and P retention and tubular RO
membranes for final treatment. The cost of the system was evaluated at 5.97 Can$ m-3 manure. However the
pilot plant was not extensively used as the membranes became rapidly fouled.
iv) The company Bioscan have designed and tested the Biorek® hybrid membrane bioreactor process for
treatment of manure (Norddahl and Rohold, 2000, cited in Masse et al., 2007; du Preez et al., 2005). The system
consistes of a mesophilic anaerobic digester coupled to ultrafiltration for biomass retention, ammonia and
carbonate stripping and reverse osmosis (3.2 MPa, 35-40oC) of the product from the stripper for concentration of
P and K. Removal of ammonia and carbonate increase the permeate quality and prevent scaling on the
membrane.
A further barrier to the use of digestate liquor as a turf fertiliser in public spaces is potential odour which may
cause offence. A potential method for reducing odour may be stabilisation with iron or aluminium salts (eg.
Al2(SO4)3 or FeCl3) (Novak et al., 2007, Novak et al., 2009). This is an area which may require further
investigation if digestate liquor is judged to have an offensive odour.
Table 11 Key players in the garden chemicals and growing media sector, August 2007 (Mintel, 2007)
Garden products are stocked by DIY multiples (33%), garden centres (30%), non-DIY multiples (15%), mail
order/direct response (14%) and other sources (8%) (Mintel, 2010).
The leading product to the amateur market is multi-purpose compost (Evans, 2009) of which peat is frequently a
major constituent. The UK government is committed to reducing peat use under the Biodiversity Action
Programme (Defra, 2007b). In 2007, the total volume of peat and alternatives used in soil improvers and
growing media was 6.61 million m3 (~15.2 million tonnes). The overall proportion of peat in the products fell
from 53% to 46% and the proportion of alternatives rose to 54%. The greatest consumption of peat was by
amateur gardeners (69%) (Defra, 2007b), who use the greatest amount of growing media and soil improvers
(60%), compared to landscape contractors and professional growers.
(TERRA ECO-SYSTEMS at Thames Water successfully produced a growing media from composted biosolids that
sold at the same price as the brand-leading peat-based media (Evans, 2009). The product was sold nationwide
and sales doubled year on year (Evans, 2009). Market research by TERRA ECO-SYSTEMS in 1995 revealed that
gardeners looked favourable upon green products, but were concerned that they must perform as well as peat-
based products, be good value for money and easy to use. However, Evans (2009) did not recommend
composting biosolids for domestic use as a route forwards for wastewater treatment plant operators, one of the
reasons being that any change in feedstock to the process may require re-formulation and further testing, which
may take considerable time. Therefore, if digestate fibre was to be co-composted as a garden fertiliser it would
be essential to have a consistent feedstock to ensure low variability in compost properties.
4.2.3 Market
Horticultural companies such as ‘Monro Horticulture Ltd.’ and ‘CH Binder and Sons’ produce engineered soils from
loam combined with organic compost. There is potential for the market to expand; for example, extensive
projects such as preparation of the site for the London Olympics require artificial soil for landscaping (John
Adlam, HTA, pers. comm.).
4.5.3 Market
The mushroom industry may be the largest user of composted organics in the UK (John Adlam, HTA, pers
comm.).
The use of digestate on trees and shrubs eliminates the risk of ingestion of contaminants on crops or soil and
thus provides a further barrier to exposure to contaminants.
4.7 Forestry
4.7.1 Physico-chemical requirements
Discussion with a Forestry Commission contact (Andrew Moffat, Forestry Commission, pers. comm.) suggested
that there was little requirement for organic fertiliser materials in management of broadleaved woodland,
although there may be some fertiliser use for commercial conifer woodland. Therefore, irrigation of woodland
with separated liquor is a possibility, although supplementation with P and K may be required, so digestate liquor
is not ideally suited to this purpose.
It was suggested that the majority of fertiliser use was in ‘urban forestry’; therefore the amenity/landscape
category has the greatest potential for use of digestate. There is likely to be use of fertilisers, compost and some
mulch in ‘urban forestry’ or tree planting for landscape and amenity purposes, notably on brownfield land. The
Forestry Commission guidance on use of biosolids and composts is found at
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcin079.pdf/$FILE/fcin079.pdf and recommends PAS100 compost use.
Therefore, composted, PAS 110 compliant, separated fibre has potential for use in ‘urban forestry’.
Generally, within the London Borough Parks and Gardens the only areas on which mineral fertilisers are used are
sports pitches and recreation grounds. The turf fertilisers used have a range of NPK contents, but generally have
a high N:P or N:K ratio (See response from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in Table A14, detailing
nutrient specification of turf fertilisers). The NPK ratio of digestate is therefore within the range currently used as
turf fertiliser and may act as a suitable replacement for mineral fertilisers as discussed in Section 4.1.1. in relation
to fertiliser use in domestic gardens. Separated liquor would have the most appropriate physical properties as it
would infiltrate the soil more readily due to the lower DS content. The nutrients are present in low concentrations
as discussed in Section 4.1.1. This may not pose a problem as the dilute digestate liquor would represent a
source of water for irrigation plus nutrients for fertilisation. Presumably the fine solid chemical fertilisers currently
used on sports pitches are currently dissolved in water prior to application. However, economics of supplying
digestate liquor for public green spaces mean that this practice may not be viable unless transport costs were
low.
Replacement of the inorganic fertilisers currently used with separated liquor would allow London Boroughs to
further achieve their aim of increasing the use of recycled materials.
Use of separated liquor as turf fertiliser would prevent the risk of ingestion of hazardous organisms in
contaminated soil or crops. Appropriate codes of practice could be instigated for contractors if necessary.
Separated liquor may have some odour and investigation may be required to determine whether this is
considered unpleasant or offensive before it could be used in publically owned green spaces.
There is a risk from increasing soil salinity through use of separated liquor as a turf fertiliser. Therefore, the
product instructions may need to recommend the use of fertiliser only 2-3 times during a growing season. There
is no data available on the salinity of separated liquor; this would be useful to assess its suitability for use as a
turf fertiliser.
The first commercial installation is being undertaken at Helsingborg in Sweden. It will be commissioned at the
end of December with full operation by mid January 2011. The plant will treat digestate of sewage sludge and
the capacity will be 15 000 m3 yr-1. The fertiliser output is intended for use in agriculture and forestry in Sweden
(Carl Aitken, Bidwells, pers.comm.).
The capital cost of the technology is dependent on the material to be treated. In the example provided by GG
Eco Solutions for an energy crop digestate the capital cost is ~£400,000. The value of the output may vary but
typical values for biomass fuel pellets are in the range £80-£120 t-1, and for biofertiliser £80-£150 t-1 (Carl Aitken,
Bidwells, pers.comm.).
Research conducted by the ‘Carbon Trust’ and partners indicated that the most commercially viable and
sustainable route to produce algae biofuels is to culture algae in mixed shallow salt/brackish water open ponds
(or ‘raceways’) (Carbon Trust, 2010). Algal turf scrubbers (ATFTM) were designed by Water Adey and colleagues
at the Smithsonian institute in the 1970s. They were developed as water quality control devices on coral reef,
rocky shore, estuary and stream and pond microcosms and mesocosms (Craggs et al., 1996; Adey and Loveland,
1998). They have also been used to remove nutrients from agricultural run-off (Craggs et al., 1996). The
wastewater treatment technology is a simple, low-cost system, which cultures attached or benthic bacteria,
microalgae and filamentous algae on an inclined flow-way (Craggs et al., 1996). The main components of the
ATS system are a solid support for the growth and harvest of benthic algae, wave surge and optimal light (Mulbry
and Wilkie, 2001). The advantages over planktonic algae ponds are that, if there is sufficient light, much higher
rates of photosynthesis are achieved and it is easier to separate and remove the algal biomass. To harvest the
algae, the flow of wastewater is stopped, the flow-way is drained for 1h and the biomass is vacuumed from the
surface. This technology is already established commercially for wastewater treatment and water purification and
is described in detail in “Dynamic Aquaria Building and Restoring Living Ecosystems. 3rd Edition” (Adey and
Loveland, 2007).
Researchers at the USDA and Florida University have adopted Algal Turf Scrubber technology to recover nutrients
from several types of dairy manure (Mulbry and Wilkie, 2001; Wilkie and Mulbry, 2002; Kebede-Westhead et al.,
2003). The technology is an effective solution for treating manure and recycling the nutrients on-farm; the
combination of conventional cropping systems with an ATS could achieve more efficient crop production and farm
nutrient management. Filamentous algae are capable of year-round growing in temperate climates and can be
harvested on adapted farm-scale equipment. Mulbry and Wilkie (2001) conducted a study to investigate the
adapted ATS system to remove N, P and other constituents from raw and anaerobically digested manure. Before
digestion, the manure undergoes solids separation followed by anaerobic digestion of the separated liquids. A
typical manure input contained 0.6-0.9 g total N day-1, the dried algal yield was approximately 5 g m-2 day-1. The
dried algae contained approximately 5-7% N and 1.5-2% P. Algal N and P accounted for 33-42% of total N and
58-100% total input P. The technology was effective when anaerobically digested manure was used as a
feedstock and the improved bioavailability of manure nutrients during anaerobic digestion was beneficial for algal
production. Further research demonstrated that mean algal production increased with increased loading rate
(0.8-3.7 g total N and 0.12 to 0.58 g total P m-2 day-1) and irradiance (from 270-390 µmol photons m-2 s-1) from
approximately 8-19 g dry weight. The N and P content of the algal biomass and the recovery of nutrients by the
algal biomass also increased with loading rate.
The N content of the manure used in these ATS studies was approximately three times less than the N content
measured in DFW or DLS (Tables A3 and A4), and the P content was approximately half the P content measured
in DFW or DLS (Tables A5 and A6). However, this should not pose a problem as ATS loading rates are based on
the N and P content. The N:P ratio of the digested manure used by Mulby and Wilkie (2001) was between 9-10,
whereas the N:P ratio of DFW and DLS is approximately 18-21. However, the N:P ratio of separated liquor,
calculated from the estimated values in Table A7, is close to the values from Mulby and Wilkie’s study at
approximately 9.
The cost of drying and harvesting algae may present a barrier to implementing the technology; however, the
researchers suggest that when the technology is used in conjunction with anaerobic digestion where energy is
recovered from manure, the cost of drying harvested algae could be minimal. The N:P ratio of separated
digestate liquor may need further investigation as it could impact the species composition of the algal turf. A
further potential barrier would be if heavy metals or other contaminants from digestate are taken up or become
more concentrated by the algae, this requires further investigation. An economic assessment of potential markets
for the algae is required to determine if this technology could be adopted for beneficial use of digestate.
The economic potential of using anaerobically digested bovine biofibre for construction materials has been
investigated by the researchers (Spelter et al., 2008); this indicated that it is a less economically favourable
option than current uses for bovine biofibre (bedding). However, this could be overcome by larger scale and
longer-term contractual arrangements with a secure long-term outlet for the digestate fibre.
4.12 Fuel
4.12.1 Cellulosic Ethanol Production
Bioethanol is the primary fuel used as a petrol replacement for road transport vehicles and is produced by sugar
formation; the major source of sugar for bioethanol production is from energy crops. However, waste biomass is
a source of cellulose, lignocellulose, polysaccharides, proteins and other organic materials that can be used as a
low cost feedstock for enzymic hydrolysis to produce sugar for subsequent fermentation to bioethanol
(Champagne and Li, 2009; Yue et al., 2009).
The enzymic hydrolysis of cellulose is carried out by cellulase enzymes, such as the enzyme complex derived from
the filamenous fungus Trichoderma Reesei (Champagne and Li, 2009). The rate and extent of cellulose
hydrolysis by cellulase enzymes is influenced by substrate and enzyme factors and operational conditions. Pre-
treatment processes may be used to improve sugar yield, minimise the loss of carbohydrates and minimise the
formation of inhibitory by-products for hydrolysis and fermentation processes (Champagne and Li, 2009). These
pre-treatment processes may include: i) physical pre-treatment to subdivide lignocellulose material into fine
particles which are more susceptible to hydrolysis; ii) alkaline hydrolysis to increase internal surface area by
separation of structural linkages between the lignins and carbohydrates and iii) acids, which act as catalysts for
cellulose hydrolysis by increasing the rate of solubilisation resulting in higher conversion yields of cellulose to
sugars.
The main components of digestate fibre are two carbohydrate polymers, cellulose and hemicellulose, which form
the main structure of the biomass, and lignin, which binds the fibres together (Champagne and Li, 2009; Yue et
al., 2009). Previously, it has been assumed that digestate fibre is unsuitable for further conversion to other useful
energy or chemical products because the more labile fractions of organic matter are degraded during digestate
leaving a higher proportion of more recalcitrant molecules (Tambone et al., 2009). However, recent research by
Yue et al. (2009) demonstrated that, in fact, AD changes the composition of manure fibre and improves its
suitability as a cellulosic feedstock for ethanol production. There was a lower concentration of hemicellulose in
anaerobically digested manure fibre (12%) compared to raw manure (17%), and a greater concentration of
cellulose (32% compared to 22%). Digestate was shown to have greater digestibility than switchgrass,
commonly used as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production. The optimal pre-treatment process was dilute
alkali (2% sodium hydroxide, 130oC for 2 hours). Enzymatic hydrolysis of 10% (dry basis) pretreated digestate
fibre produced 51 g l-1 glucose at a conversion rate of 90% (glucose conversion rate (%) = glucose content
[g]/(1.1xcellulose in sample [g]) x 100). The fermentation of the hydrolysate had a yield of 72% ethanol.
The digestate fibre samples used by Yue et al. (2009) for the enzymatic hydrolysis process and subsequent
ethanol fermentation were digested manure from a dairy farm with the following characteristics: dry matter
content of 28.1%; 32.3% cellulose; 11.6% hemicellulose; 25.1% lignin; 7.5% crude protein; 48.4% C; 1.2% N;
0.36% ammonia; C:N ratio of 40.3; pH of 9.2% and total alkalinity of 400 mg CaCO3 l-1. The authors calculated
that, for every dry tonne of cattle manure, 0.6 dry tonnes of digestate fibre could be produced, which could be
used to produce 6.3 m3 of ethanol.
Kratseisen et al. (2010) showed that the net calorific value of digestate 1 was 15.8 MJ kg-1 at a water content of
9.2% and for digestate 2, the calorific value was 15.0 MJ kg-1 at a water content of 9.9%. This is similar to the
net calorific value of 16.3% from fuel pellets produced of pinewood with a water content of 12%. The N content
of the pellets produced by Kratzeisen et al. (2010) was high in comparison to the German standards for solid
fuels at 2.86% for digestate 1 and 1.54% for digestate 2. This is potentially a problem if the concentration of
nitrogen oxide during combustion is increased. There is also a risk of noxious emissions of sulphur (S) and
chlorine (Cl) if concentrations in the fuel are high. At concentrations of 0.3-0.9% S and 0.27-0.84% Cl, the
concentrations measured by Kratzeisen et al. (2010) exceeded the threshold values of 0.08 and 0.03 in the
German standards. Given the concentrations of 15-16.1% N, 0.33-0.9% S and 2.32-3.9% Cl measured in whole
liquid digestate (Tables A2-A3), then there may be a risk of noxious N, S and Cl emissions if used as solid fuel,
depending on partitioning of nutrients when digestate is dewatered and dried. In the study conducted by
Kratzeisen et al. (2010), several of the heavy metals in the fuel pellets also exceeded threshold values for solid
fuels given in German standards: As (threshold 0.8 mg kg-1); Cr (threshold 8 mg kg-1), Cu (threshold 5 mg kg-1),
Hg (threshold 0.05 mg kg-1) and Zn (threshold 100 mg kg-1), whereas Cd and Pb were below the thresholds of
0.5 mg kg-1 and 10 mg kg-1 respectively. By these standards, the heavy metal content of DFW and DLS presented
in Tables A8 and A9 would also be high. However, in the experiment conducted by Kratzeisen et al. (2010),
despite several elements in the solid fuel surpassing threshold values, the emissions of flue gas were within
defined limits for biofuels. Following combustion of digestate fuel pellets, nutrients remain in the ash, which can
be recycled as fertiliser. However, heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc and mercury may also be found in
the filter ash.
The authors concluded that the digestates investigated in the study could be recommended as a fuel for
combustion due to their calorific value, ash properties and the emissions, which allow their use in the solid
biomass combustion unit used for the study. However, they recommend that, as chemical composition and
physical properties of digestate fuel pellets depend on the blend of feedstock used for biogas production, further
investigations are required to cover a broader range of digestates and combustion techniques.
A summary of UK biofuels production is presented in Table 12; the proportion of biodiesel and bioethanol from
UK sources is 32% and 24% respectively, indicating there is potential for UK production to increase. Capacity for
biodiesel production was reduced in 2010 due to adverse market conditions, uncertainty surrounding the value of
RTFCs and potential changes to sustainability requirements when the EC Renewable Energy Directive is
introduced (AEA, 2010). The production capacity for biodiesel in 2010 was estimated at 464 million litres. The
bioethanol production capacity was estimated at 494 million litres for 2010, rising to 1100 million litres in 2012
and possibly to 1700 million litres after 2010 (AEA, 2010). The majority of biofuels are used in the UK road
market, small quantities are exported and small quantities are going into the UK heat and power market (AEA,
2010).
5.0 Summary
Currently, the major outlet for liquid digestate is agricultural application and research is required to investigate
the suitability of liquid digestate products for other purposes such as use in home gardens, growing media
preparation, turf establishment or roadside grass establishment. Expanding the market for liquid digestates
beyond agricultural application is important to generate increased opportunity for reuse of biodegradable waste
and production of bioenergy. This is necessary to achieve government targets for reduction of biodegradable
waste sent to landfill (CEC, 1999) and increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources
(CEC, 2009).
This report presents the findings of a three month project to investigate new markets for digestate. The
applications with the most potential for commercialisation were:
Underway (Technology developed and commercialised but further work is required to establish technology on a
wider scale):
Extraction of nutrients and production of solid fuel using (for example) the ‘GG Eco Solutions’ process. The
extraction of nutrients in a concentrated form has the advantage of producing a reliable and marketable
biofertiliser product. A commercial plant has been established in Sweden treating anaerobically digested
sewage sludge, and a pilot plant is under development in the UK. Further work is required to demonstrate
the process for a variety of AD feedstocks produced in the UK and to investigate the economics of the
process/develop markets for the products.
Promising (technology not yet developed for management of digestate on a commercial, economically viable
scale):
Landscaping and urban forestry: digestate fibre, co-composted with straw or woodchips, has potential for
use in landscaping, for example, production of artificial soils for the development of sites for major projects
such as the Olympics site or roadside verge construction. Alternatively, it could be used as a bedding
material for urban tree planting. These applications have the advantage that, unlike composts to be used as
a multi-purpose growing media in domestic horticulture, there would not be such a great requirement for
consistency in the compost properties. Instead, the co-composted fibre would be provided in large batches
for individual projects.
Turf fertiliser: separated liquor could be used for turf on publically owned sports grounds and other green
spaces as the NPK ratio is equivalent to chemical fertilisers currently used for this purpose. In addition to
nutrients digestate liquor would also supply water for irrigation. However, this may not be an economically
viable solution if the transport costs for the large volumes of liquid outweigh the benefit from the nutrients.
Further research is required to investigate methods of concentrating the nutrients such as use of membrane
References
Adey W, Loveland K, 1998. Dynamic Aquaria: Building Living Ecosystems, second ed. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, 498p.
AEA Technology plc. 2010. UK Production of Biofuels for Transport. Report to Department of Energy and Climate
Change [online]. Available at
https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Results_2009/RestatsUKBiofuelsProduction2009Abstract27July10.
pdf. Last consulted February 8, 2011.
Angerbauer C, Siebenhofer M, Mittelbach M, Guebitz GM, 2008. Conversion of sewage sludge into lipids by
Lipomyces starkeyi for biodiesel production. Bioresource Technology 99, 3051–3056.
Barber WPF and Lancaster R, 2009. Quantifying the impacts of co-digestion of waste streams with sewage
sludge. Proceedings of the CIWEM/Aqua Enviro 14th European Biosolids and Organic Residuals Conference,
Leeds, UK, 9-11 November 2009 [on pen drive].
Baumgarten E, Nagel M, Tischner R, 1999. Reduction of the nitrogen and carbon content in swine waste with
algae and bacteria. Applied Microbial Biotechnology 52, 281-284.
BSI (British Standards Institution), 2010. PAS 110:2010 Specification for whole digestate, separated liquor and
separated fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion of source-segregated biodegradable materials, BSI [online].
Available at
http://www.wrap.org.uk/farming_growing_and_landscaping/producing_quality_compost_and_digestate/bsi_pas_
110_.html. Last consulted September 2010.
Caldwell E, 2008. From digester to backyard deck: turning manure fibers into construction material. Ag Nutrient
Management [online]. Available at http://progressivedairy.com/anm/features/2008/0608/0608_caldwell.html.
Charlebois Y, 2000. Du lisier change en eau potable (Liquid manure changed into drinking water). La Terre de
chez nous, 71, 1-2 cited in Masse L, Massé DI, Pellerin Y, 2007. The use of membranes for the treatment of
manure: a critical literature review. Biosystems Engineering 98, 371-380.
Craggs RJ, Adey WH, Jessup BK and Oswald WJ, 1996. A controlled stream mesocosm for tertiary treatment of
sewage. Ecological Engineering 6, 149-169.
CEC: Council of the European Communities, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European parliament and of the
Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities,
No. L140/16-62.
Champagne P and Li C, 2009 Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic municipal wastewater treatment process residuals
as feedstocks for the recovery of simple sugars. Bioresource Technology 100, 5700-5706.
Defra, 2007a. Waste Strategy for England. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK
[online]. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/index.htm. Last consulted March 24,
2009.
Defra, 2010a. Developing an anaerobic digestion (AD) framework document. Department of Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, London, UK [online]. Available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ad/documents/anaerobic-digestion-framework-101130.pdf. Last
consulted December 21, 2009.
Defra, 2010b. Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: an Implementation Plan. Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK [online]. Available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ad/documents/implementation-plan2010.pdf. Last consulted
December 21, 2009.
du Preez J, Norddahl B, Christensen K, 2005. The BIOREK® concept: a hybrid membrane bioreactor concept for
very strong wastewater. Desalination 183, 407-415.
EC (European Commission), 2000. Working document on sludge. 3rd draft. 27 April. Brussels, Belgium: DG
Environment, European Commission.
EC (European Commission), 2003. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parilament on
the implementation of community waste legislation…for the period 1998-2000. COM(2003) 250 final/3. Brussels,
Belgium: EC [online]. Available at http://eur-lex.europan.eu/en/index.htm.
Evans TD, 2009. Using composted biosolids as a peat replacement. Proceedings of the CIWEM/Aqua Enviro 14th
European Biosolids and Organic Resources Conference, Leeds, UK, 9-11 November 2009.
Gérard C, 2002. Un pilote pour rejecter l’effluent en milieu naturel (A pilote to reject effluent in nature). Reússir
Porcs, 85, 49-50 cited in Masse L, Massé DI, Pellerin Y, 2007. The use of membranes for the treatment of
manure: a critical literature review. Biosystems Engineering 98, 371-380.
Jenner M, 2008. US Biofuels: a silver bullet or harbinger of death. Biocycle, May 2008.
Johnson G, Culkin B, Stowella L, 2004. Membrane filtration of manure wastewater [online]. Available at
http://www.vsep.com/pdf/Membrane_filtration_of_manure.pdf. Last consulted 7 February 2011.
Jorgensen K, Magid J, Luxhoi J, Jensen LS, 2010. Phosphorus distribution in untreated and composted solid
fractions from slurry separation. Journal of Environmental Quality 39 (1), 393-401.
Kebede-Westhea E, Pizarro C and Mulbry WW, 2003. Production and nutrient removal by periphyton grown
under different loading rates of anaerobically digested flushed dairy manure. Journal of Phycology 39, 1275-1282.
Kumar M, Badruzzaman M, Adham S, Oppenheimer J, 2007. Beneficial phosphate recovery from reverse osmosis
(RO) concentrate of an integrated membrane system using polymeric ligand exchanger (PLE). Water Research
41, 2211-1129.
Lukehurst C, Frost P and Al Saedi T, 2010. Utilisation of digestate from biogas plants as biofertiliser. IEA
Bioenergy.
Mantuana L and Gould MC, 2006. Promoting the use of digestate from anaerobic digesters in composite
materials. Final Report. Grant No. PLA-06-42. Community Energy Project Grant 2006. Michegan Biomass Energy
Program.
Masse L, Massé DI, Pellerin Y, 2007. The use of membranes for the treatment of manure: a critical literature
review. Biosystems Engineering 98, 371-380.
Mintel, 2010. Garden Products Retailing-UK-July 2010. Available online: http://academic.mintel.com/. Last
consulted 8 February 2011.
Mulbry WW and Wilkie AC, 2001. Growth of benthic freshwater algae on dairy manures. Journal of Applied
Phycology 13, 301-306.
Norddahl B and Rohold L, 2000. The Biorek concept for the conversion of organic effluent to energy,
concentrated fertiliser and potable water. cited in Masse L, Massé DI, Pellerin Y, 2007. The use of membranes
for the treatment of manure: a critical literature review. Biosystems Engineering 98, 371-380.
Noble R, Hobbs PJ, Mead A and Dobrovin-Pennington A, 2002. Influence of straw types and nitrogen sources on
mushroom composting emissions and compost productivity. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology,
29, 99 –110.
Pollard S, Tyrrel S, Longhurst P and Villa R, 2010. A generalised exposure assessment of anaerobic digestion
products in various end-use settings. WRAP and Environment Agency Project OFW002. Final Report to WRAP-
March 2008.
Smith SR, 1996. Agricultural recycling of sewage sludge and the environment. Cab Intenational, Oxon, UK.
Smith SR, 2009. A critical review of the bioavailability and impacts of heavy metals in municipal solid waste
composts compared to sewage sludge. Environment International 35, 142-156.
Spelter H, Winandy J and Zauche T, 2008. Anaerobically digested bovine biofiber as a source of fiber for
particleboard manufacturing: an economic analysis. Bioresources 3(4), 1256-1266.
Tambone F, Genevini P, D’Imporzano G, Adani F, 2009. Assessing amendment properties of digestate by studying
the organic matter composition and the degree of biological stability during the anaerobic digestion of the organic
matter fraction of MSW. Bioresource Technology 100(12), 3140-3142.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 1993. Part 503 standards for the use and disposal of sewage
sludge. Federal Register 58, 9248-9415.
Walker M, Banks C, Heaven S and Frederickson J, 2010. Development and evaluation of a method for testing the
residual biogas potential of digestates. Project number OFW004-005. Waste and Resources Action Programme,
January 2010 [online]. Available at http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Residual_Biogas_Potential_report_-
_Final.f37df5ad.9581.pdf. Last consulted 10 December 2010.
Wilkie AC and Mulbry WW, 2002. Recovery of dairy manure nutrients by benthic freshwater algae. Bioresource
Technology 84, 81-91.
Winandy J and Cai Z, 2008. Potential of using anaerobically digested bovine biofiber as a fiber source for wood
composites. BioResources 3(4), 1244-1255.
WRAP: Waste and Resources Action Programme & Environment Agency, 2010. Quality Protocol. Digestate. End
of waste criteria for the production and use of quality outputs from anaerobic digestion of source-segregated
biodegradable waste [online]. Available at http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/W524AnaerobicDigestatev4(1).pdf
Yue Z, Teater C, Liu Y, MacLellan J and Liao W, 2009. A sustainable pathway of cellulosic ethanol production
integrating anaerobic digestion with biorefining. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 105, 1031-1039.
Zhang RH, Yang P, Pan Z, Wolf TD and Turnball JH, 2004. Treatment of swine wastewater with biological
conversion, filtration, and reverse osmosis: A laboratory study. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 47(1), 243-250.
Table A1 Physicochemical properties of digestate produced from food waste feedstock (DFW)
Total
Specific neutralising Conductivity
Volatile BOD COD Stability
pH DS (%) Gravity VFAs value (µS/cm
solids (%) (mg l-1) (mg l-1) (L kg-1 VS)
(g ml-1) (%fw as 20oC)
CaO)
awaiting
n 2 6 2 2 data 2 2 2 2 2
Mean 8.4 4.5 0.95 69.0 26.1 7490 8769 43887 142
Min 8.3 2.7 0.94 68.3 23.1 6940 6437 34067 72
Max 8.4 6.8 0.96 69.6 29.1 8040 11100 53707 212
SD 0.1 1.5 0.01 0.9 4.2 777.8 3297 13888 99
Percentile
25 8.3 3.5 0.95 68.6 24.6 7215 7603 38977 107
50 8.4 4.7 0.95 69.0 26.1 7490 8769 43887 142
75 8.4 5.0 0.96 69.3 27.6 7765 9934 48797 177
Interquartile
range 0.0 1.4 0.01 0.6 3.0 550 2332 9820 70.0
Data supplied by WRAP (each value from duplicate measurements) and anonymous AD plant
Total
Specific neutralising
Volatile Conductivity Stability
pH DS (%) Gravity VFAs value BOD (mg l-1) COD (mg l-1)
solids (%) (µS/cm 20oC) (L kg-1 VS)
(g ml-1) (%fw as
CaO)
n 116 116 1 1 26 1 1 34 114 1
Mean 8 4.9 0.93 73.2 15.0 26.7 5477 10331 59106 89
Min 7.6 3.5 0.93 73.2 1.8 26.7 5477 1880 109 89
Max 8.8 9.3 0.93 73.2 41.7 26.7 5477 23600 170000 89
SD 0.2 1.0 9.5 4378 22177
Percentile
25 7.9 4.2 0.93 73.2 9.1 26.7 5477 7733 47789 89
50 8 4.8 0.93 73.2 13.8 26.7 5477 9145 56468 89
75 8.2 5.5 0.93 73.2 20.0 26.7 5477 12875 70125 89
Interquartile
range 0.3 1.3 0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0 5143 22336 0.0
Data supplied by WRAP (each value from duplicate measurements) and anonymous AD plant (approximately monthly data over 5 years), raw data presented in Appendix 1
n 6 6 4 6 6.0 2
Mean 15.0 5.7 10.5 9.3 61.9 1.5
Minimum 11.9 1.6 5.5 5.5 38.7 1.4
Maximum 20.5 10.0 16.0 16.0 86.8 1.6
Standard
3.19 3.14 4.33 3.87 3.87 0.10
Deviation
Percentiles 25 12.7 3.6 9.0 6.6 45.0 1.5
50 14.3 5.7 10.2 8.7 61.7 1.5
75 16.0 7.7 11.8 10.3 77.5 1.5
Inter-quartile
3.3 4.1 2.8 3.7 10.3 0.1
range
Data supplied by WRAP (each value from duplicate measurements) and Anonymous AD plant
†
NH4-N+NO3-N by KCl extraction
Table A4 Nitrogen content of digestate produced from mainly livestock waste feedstock (DLS)
Table A8 Heavy metal content of digestate produced from food waste (DFW)
Total Cu Total Zn Total Pb Total Cd Total Hg Total Ni Total Cr Total Mo Total F (mg Total Se Total As
(mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
n 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 2 2 2 2
Mean 31.5 105.1 46.3 1.2 1.1 43.2 50.2 2.9 209.5 0.59 1.7
Min 18.6 71.0 3.6 0.2 1 5.5 7.8 2.7 200.0 0.28 1.3
Max 42.6 142.3 114.7 2.2 1.1 137.3 157.5 3.0 219.0 0.89 2.1
SD 8.5 24.7 42.7 0.8 0.06 54.2 60.9 0.26 13.4 0.43 0.6
Percentiles
25 27.7 92.8 11.8 0.5 1.1 7.9 10.0 2.8 204.8 0.43 1.5
50 31.2 104.5 43.7 1.2 1.1 14.5 19.0 2.9 209.5 0.59 1.7
75 36.7 115.6 64.2 1.7 1.1 64.7 73.1 2.9 214.3 0.74 1.9
Interquartile
range 9.0 22.9 52.4 1.2 0.1 56.8 63.1 0.19 9.50 0.31 0.42
Data supplied by WRAP (each value from duplicate measurements) and anonymous AD plant
Total Cu Total Zn Total Pb Total Cd Total Hg Total Ni Total Cr Total Mo Total F Total Se Total As Total Al Total Fe
(mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
n 40 40 40 18 14 42 40 1 1 1 1 45 51
Mean 82.1 240.0 1.0 1.5 0.1 8.6 12.4 10.4 118.0 1.1 2.2 4141 14059
Min 20.3 4.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 10.4 118.0 1.1 2.2 131 1551
Max 180.7 631.0 17.9 2.3 0.6 18.8 38.2 10.4 118.0 1.1 2.2 11812 37701
SD 47.8 115.7 3.4 0.5 0.2 4.5 7.0 2464 8377
Percentile
s
25 34.8 171.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 6.4 8.9 10.4 118.0 1.1 2.2 1847 7580
50 96.6 220.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 8.3 11.4 10.4 118.0 1.1 2.2 3556 15014
75 120.1 294.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 10.0 14.4 10.4 118.0 1.1 2.2 5942 17316
Interquart
ile range 85.3 122.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.6 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4094 9736
Data supplied by WRAP (each value from duplicate measurements) and anonymous AD plant (approximately monthly data over 5 years)
Percentile
Polychlorinated biphenyls n Mean Min Max SD 25 50 75 Interquartile range
PCB - 18 (ng kg-1) 2 189.5 144 235 64.3 166.8 189.5 212.25 45.5
PCB - 28 (ng kg-1) 2 251.0 194 308 80.6 222.5 251 279.5 57
-1
PCB – 31 (ng kg ) 2 285.0 219 351 93.3 252 285 318 66
PCB - 47 (ng kg-1) 2 222.5 196 249 37.5 209.3 222.5 235.75 26.5
PCB - 49 (ng kg-1) 2 315.5 251 380 91.2 283.3 315.5 347.75 64.5
PCB - 51 (ng kg-1) 2 19.9 11.8 27.9 11.4 15.8 19.85 23.875 8.05
PCB - 52 (ng kg-1) 2 556.0 555 557 1.4 555.5 556 556.5 1
PCB - 77 (ng kg-1) 2 40.4 34.5 46.3 8.3 37.5 40.4 43.35 5.9
PCB - 81 (ng kg-1) 2 2.9 2.86 2.9 0.0 2.9 2.88 2.89 0.02
PCB - 99 (ng kg-1) 2 401.5 270 533 186.0 335.8 401.5 467.25 131.5
PCB - 101 (ng kg-1) 2 478.0 432 524 65.1 455 478 501 46
-1
PCB - 105 (ng kg ) 2 150.0 141 159 12.7 145.5 150 154.5 9
PCB - 114 (ng kg-1) 2 26.2 10.3 42.1 22.5 18.3 26.2 34.15 15.9
PCB - 118 (ng kg-1) 2 602.0 455 749 207.9 528.5 602 675.5 147
PCB - 123 (ng kg-1) 2 56.4 18.9 93.8 53.0 37.6 56.35 75.075 37.45
PCB - 126 (ng kg-1) 2 4.0 3.61 4.41 0.6 3.8 4.01 4.21 0.4
PCB - 128 (ng kg-1) 2 164.5 107 222 81.3 135.8 164.5 193.25 57.5
PCB - 138 (ng kg-1) 2 1036.5 710 1363 461.7 873.3 1036.5 1199.75 326.5
PCB - 153 (ng kg-1) 2 490.5 137 844 499.9 313.8 490.5 667.25 353.5
PCB - 156 (ng kg-1) 2 67.9 64.6 71.2 4.7 66.3 67.9 69.55 3.3
-1
PCB - 157 (ng kg ) 2 22.4 19.3 25.4 4.3 20.8 22.35 23.875 3.05
PCB - 167 (ng kg-1) 2 41.4 28.8 54.0 17.8 35.1 41.4 47.7 12.6
PCB - 169 (ng kg-1) 2 2.8 2.51 3.1 0.4 2.7 2.81 2.96 0.3
PCB - 170 (ng kg-1) 2 242.0 173 311 97.6 207.5 242 276.5 69
PCB - 180 (ng kg-1) 2 579.5 444 715 191.6 511.8 579.5 647.25 135.5
PCB - 189 (ng kg-1) 2 12.0 5.34 18.6 9.4 8.7 11.97 15.285 6.63
Total PCBs (ng kg-1) 6260
Brent Leslie Williams (020 8937 5619) Composting of materials (eg. London Plane Brent council have reduced use of artificial fertilisers on sports
leaves) in parks and use as a mulch to reduce pitches.
weeds in flower beds. Brent council's sports
pitch drainage and renovation project will
include in the specification the incorporation of
10% organic material by volume into the top
15cm of topsoil. The largest Park, Freyent
Country Park, has the Soil Association Organic
Standard. All green waste is used on site,
typically in situ. No artificial fertilisers are
used for any of the crops, which include hay,
timber and top fruit.
City of London Alex.piddington- Purchase well rotted FYM from a local supplier Elliot's: Granular inorganic summer Turf fertiliser 10-4-4
[email protected] to use for soil improvement on bedding (Turf); Mascot: Granular inorganic autumn turf fertiliser 5-5-10
displays and tend to undertake on a 3 year (Turf); Vitax: Granular inorganic Q4HN (Feeding Buxus) 10-
cycle due to the logistics inbolved. Use FYM 7.5-10.2 (Feeding box, hedging and reduces box wilt);
for new permanent plantings as a final mulch. Phosmag: Granular inroganic 5-19-10+7.5mg (Feeding trees
Proactive programme in mulching all and shrubs); Growmore: Granular inorganic 7-7-7 (Base
permanent plantings with green wastre- dressing before summer bedding); Elliot's: Granular organic 5-
leaves, prunings, grass cuttings, anything that 18 (Base dressing before spring bedding)
can decompose. Source green waste from
Royal Parks (very effective product to use)
Ealing [email protected] compost derived from recycling of green 11-5-5 fine turf micro granular spring and summer fertiliser, 5-
waste generated from shrub works and leaf 5-10 +4% Fe fine turf micro granular autumn and winter
clearance carried out in Ealing parks (26t) fertiliser, lawn sand 5.4% N + 1.5 % Fe and sulphate of potash
(bowling greens (5.5t)and cricket squares(2t)); 20-10-10
Spring and summer outfield fertiliser, 3-12-12 autumn and
winter outfield fertiliser (football and rugby pitches(2t)
Hammersmith [email protected] Information not supplied Fine turf fertilisers: SS2 mini-gran 14-2-7+1%Mg (35 g/m2);
and Fulham AW2 mini-gran 5-5-10+4% (35 g/m2); Mini-gran S/S 11-5-5
(35 - 70 g/per m2); Mini-gran A/W 3-10-5 (35 - 70 g/m2); Zero
Phosphate 14-0-7+1%Fe+1% (35 g/m2); Turf Starter 6-0-12
+2%mg+2%fe (35 g/m2); Weed & Feed 12-5-
3+MCPA+Dicamba (70 g/m2); Turf Hardener 3-0-
3+4%fe+2%mg (70 - 105 g/m2); SS6 mini gran 12-0-
9+1Mg+1Fe (35 g/m2); Lawn Sand 5.4%N+1.5%fe(powder)
(70 - 140 g/m2); Duragran 15-5-15 (30 g/m2); Delta 12-4-
8+0.5%fe (26% organic) (35-70 g/m2); Delta 8-6-6+0.5%fe
(35-70 g/m2); Delta 6-3-9+0.5%fe (35-70 g/m2); Apex 7-0-
14+2%fe (35 g/m2). Outfield Fertilizers: Granular 9-5-5 (35 -
70 g/m2); Granular 4-10-10 (35 - 70 g/m2); Granular 10-15-10
(35 g/m2); Granular 8-12-8 (35 - 70 g/m2); Granular 7-7-7 (35
- 70 g/m2); Granular 15-5-10 (35 - 70 g/m2); Granular 16-6-6
(35 - 70 g/m2); Granular 12-4-4 (35 - 70 g/m2). Amenity
Fertilizer: Planting Plus (5-18-10+Mg) 70 - 140 g/m2. Rose
Fertiliser: 4-3-13 + 1 Fe
Islington [email protected] The majority of material used to improve the We do not generally use organic fertilisers at our sites,
quality and health of our plants actually comes however, we may use a limited amount of fertiliser for use on
from our own green waste which is produced our fine turf areas. Our Tree Service does not use compost or
as a result of our maintenance operations.We fertilizers, however, they do re-use the wood chips from
have an arrangement with the North London Arboricultural operations as a mulch around tree bases in order
Waste Authority (NLWA) and our Grounds to suppress weed growth. We also use woodchips in some of
Maintenance Contractor (Enterprise) which our parks.
sees the majority of our green waste
transferred to the NLWA's recycling facility in
Edmonton for the necessary treatment, once
this process is completed we have access to
the recycled material for use in our parks. We
can use up to 14 tonnes of the material per
Kingston Robert Waite All mulches and composts used are natural No fertilisers used on flower beds. NPK fertilisers are used on
[email protected] sources. Horse manure from sources and sports surfaces.
woodchip from several sources are used.
Manure was dug into most of the seasonal
bedding in 2010. Seaweed extract is used to
promote growth and grass health. Leaves are
taken to Canbury Gardens and various
allotment sites where it's turned into mulch by
the various users. Some are taken to the
recycling centre when there is no requirement
atr other sites. Summer and winter bedding is
composted at the same sites although some is
given to organisations such as the Scouts.
Sutton [email protected] Sutton Parks Service currently uses recycled We do not use any other fertilisers on planted areas. We also
mulch and compost products only our parks use a seaweed based material on out bowling greens but no
borders both as a soil conditioner and mulch. other fertilisers.
Wandsworth Simon Cooper-Grundy (020 Green waste processed on site from green Winter sports piches-Autumn 3:12:12; Spring 9:7:7; Bowling
88718117) arisings from routine horticultural maintenance greens and cricket squares- Autumn 14:0:19:3-liquid seaweed
operations: a) used mainly as a mulch on extract feeds throughout the playing season as and when
shrub beds to a depth of 75mm, borough wide required all of which are slow release Nutralene and Poly PCU.
inclusive of cemeteries; b) incoporated into Details of quanities unavailable restricted to fine turf areas.
soil for new shrub planting schemes and
bedding once a year usually in spring; c)
screened the mulch down to 10mm and used
Tower Hamlets Raph O'Keeffe (02089851957) Tower Hamlets Parks currently uses no No fertilisers used
Fertilisers on our beds or Planters. Well rotted
F.Y.M. or Spent Mushroom Compost is dug
into all our beds and planters prior to planting
out with spring bedding in the Autumn. The
leaves collected in Victoria Park are shredded
and composted and used as mulch for the
Shrub Borders in the park. Any surplus has
been used to top up Street Planters and
supplement the Autumn soil improvement in
the Park. The Borough has recently started to
produce recycled Green Waste in partnership
with Veolia, who shred and compost the waste
at a site in Essex. We have successfully used
some of the coarser grade product as a mulch
on Shrubberies in the south of the borough
and are looking to expand use, including the
use of a finer grade of recycled Green Waste
as a soil improver for our seasonal beds and
planters. I have spoken to our Arboriculture
Officer regarding use of fertilisers. He said
that they don't use any. They dig in some
organic matter at planting to improve the soil.
Most of the planting stock is rootballed, and
the medium around the roots is of high
quality.