Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry

被引:298
|
作者
Clemens, J
Trimborn, M
Weiland, P
Amon, B
机构
[1] Univ Bonn, Inst Plant Nutr, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
[2] Fed Agr Res Ctr, Inst Technol & Biosyst Engn, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
[3] Univ Nat Resources & Appl Life Sci, Dept Sustainable Agr Syst, Div Agr Engn, A-1190 Vienna, Austria
关键词
biogas; greenhouse gases; nitrous oxide; methane; ammonia; slurry; manure management;
D O I
10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.016
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
Biogas treatment of animal manures is an upcoming technology because it is a way of producing renewable energy (biogas). However, little is known about effects of this management strategy on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during fermentation, storage, and field application of the substrates compared to untreated slurries. In this study, we compared cattle slurry and cattle slurry with potato starch as additive during the process of fermentation, during storage and after field application. The addition of potato starch strongly enhanced CH4 production from 4230 I CH4 m(-3) to 8625 I CH4 m(-3) in the fermenter at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 29 days. Extending the HRT to 56 days had only a small effect on the CH4 production. Methane emissions from stored slurry depended on storage temperature and were highest from unfermented slurry followed by the slurry/starch mixture. Gas emissions from untreated and fermented slurry during storage were further analyzed in a pilot-scale experiment with different levels of covering such as straw cover, a wooden lid and no cover. Emissions of greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, NH3) were in the range of 14.3-17.1 kg CO2 eq. m(-3) during winter (100 day storage period) and 40.5-90.5 kg CO2 eq. m-3 during summer (140 day storage period). A straw cover reduced NH3 losses, but not overall GHG emissions, whereas a solid cover reduced CH4 and NH3 emissions. After field application, there were no significant differences between slurry types in GHG emissions (4.15-8.12 kg CO2 eq. m(-3) a(-1)). GHG emissions from slurry stores were more important than emissions after field application. Co-digestion of slurry with additives such as starch has a large potential to substitute fossil energy by biogas. On a biogas plant, slurry stores should be covered gas-tight in order to eliminate GHG emissions and collect CH4 for electricity production. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:171 / 177
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Greenhouse gas emissions in sludge ultrasonication followed by anaerobic digestion processes (vol 341, 125754, 2021)
    Sridhar, Pilli
    Tyagi, R. D.
    Bhunia, Puspendu
    Rout, Prangya Ranjan
    Zhang, Tian C.
    Surampalli, Rao Y.
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2021, 341
  • [32] Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation measures in Chinese agroecosystems
    Guo, Jianping
    Zhou, Chaodong
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY, 2007, 142 (2-4) : 270 - 277
  • [33] Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production
    Weiske, A
    Petersen, SO
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2006, 112 (2-3) : 105 - 106
  • [34] Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe
    Bellarby, Jessica
    Tirado, Reyes
    Leip, Adrian
    Weiss, Franz
    Lesschen, Jan Peter
    Smith, Pete
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2013, 19 (01) : 3 - 18
  • [35] Agricultural production, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential
    Verge, X. P. C.
    De Kimpe, C.
    Desjardins, R. L.
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY, 2007, 142 (2-4) : 255 - 269
  • [36] Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from animal production
    Liu, Zifei
    Liu, Yang
    [J]. GREENHOUSE GASES-SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 8 (04): : 627 - 638
  • [37] Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture: A UK Perspective
    Moran, Dominic
    MacLeod, Michael
    Wall, Eileen
    Eory, Vera
    McVittie, Alistair
    Barnes, Andrew
    Rees, Bob
    [J]. EUROCHOICES, 2010, 9 (03) : 22 - 23
  • [38] Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage - A review
    Kupper, Thomas
    Hani, Christoph
    Neftel, Albrecht
    Kincaid, Chris
    Buhler, Marcel
    Amon, Barbara
    VanderZaag, Andrew
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 300
  • [39] Greenhouse gas emissions from storage and field application of anaerobically digested and non-digested cattle slurry
    Rodhe, Lena K. K.
    Ascue, Johnny
    Willen, Agnes
    Persson, Birgitta Vegerfors
    Nordberg, Ake
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 199 : 358 - 368
  • [40] An examination of the continuous anaerobic co-digestion of cattle slurry and fish offal
    Callaghan, FJ
    Wase, DAJ
    Thayanithy, K
    Forster, CF
    [J]. PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 1998, 76 (B3) : 224 - 228