The influence on biogas production of three slurry-handling systems in dairy farms

被引:8
作者
Coppolecchia, Damiano [1 ]
Gardoni, Davide [1 ]
Baldini, Cecilia [1 ]
Borgonovo, Federica [1 ]
Guarino, Marcella [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Milan, Dipartimento Sci Vet Salute Prod Anim & Sicurezza, I-20133 Milan, Italy
关键词
Manure handling; biogas production; dairy farms; anaerobic digestion;
D O I
10.4081/jae.2015.449
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Handling systems can influence the production of biogas and methane from dairy farm manures. A comparative work performed in three different Italian dairy farms showed how the most common techniques (scraper, slatted floor, flushing) can change the characteristics of collected manure. Scraper appears to be the most neutral choice, as it does not significantly affect the original characteristics of manure. Slatted floor produces a manure that has a lower methane potential in comparison with scraper, due to: a lower content of volatile solids caused by the biodegradation occurring in the deep pit, and a lower specific biogas production caused by the change in the characteristics of organic matter. Flushing can produce three different fluxes: diluted flushed manure, solid separated manure and liquid separated manure. The diluted fraction appears to be unsuitable for conventional anaerobic digestion in completely stirred reactors (CSTR), since its content of organic matter is too low to be worthwhile. The liquid separated fraction could represent an interesting material, as it appears to accumulate the most biodegradable organic fraction, but not as primary substrate in CSTR as the organic matter concentration is too low. Finally, the solid-liquid separation process tends to accumulate inert matter in the solid separated fraction and, therefore, its specific methane production is low.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 35
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] APHA, 2012, STANDARD METHODS EXA, DOI DOI 10.2105/SMWW.2882.023
  • [2] Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: Potential and research challenges
    Appels, Lise
    Lauwers, Joost
    Degreve, Jan
    Helsen, Lieve
    Lievens, Bart
    Willems, Kris
    Van Impe, Jan
    Dewil, Raf
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2011, 15 (09) : 4295 - 4301
  • [3] Economic sustainability of a biomass energy project located at a dairy in California, USA
    Camarillo, Mary Kay
    Stringfellow, William T.
    Jue, Michael B.
    Hanlon, Jeremy S.
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2012, 48 : 790 - 798
  • [4] Chastain JP, 2001, APPL ENG AGRIC, V17, P343
  • [5] Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste
    El-Mashad, Hamed M.
    Zhang, Ruihong
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 101 (11) : 4021 - 4028
  • [6] Fabbri C., 2012, BOVINI LATTE BIOGAS
  • [7] Direct and indirect land-use competition issues for energy crops and their sustainable production - an overview
    Fritsche, Uwe R.
    Sims, Ralph E. H.
    Monti, Andrea
    [J]. BIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR, 2010, 4 (06): : 692 - 704
  • [8] Characteristics of Gas Generation (NH3, CH4, N2O, CO2, H2O) From Horse Manure Added to Different Bedding Materials Used in Deep Litter Bedding Systems
    Garlipp, Felix
    Hessel, Engel F.
    van den Weghe, Herman F. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2011, 31 (07) : 383 - 395
  • [9] Comparing energy crops for biogas production Yields, energy input and costs in cultivation using digestate and mineral fertilisation
    Gissen, Charlott
    Prade, Thomas
    Kreuger, Emma
    Nges, Ivo Achu
    Rosenqvist, Hakan
    Svensson, Sven-Erik
    Lantz, Mikael
    Mattsson, Jan Erik
    Borjesson, Pal
    Bjornsson, Louisa
    [J]. BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2014, 64 : 199 - 210
  • [10] Biochemical Methane Potential of Beef Feedlot Manure: Impact of Manure Age and Storage
    Gopalan, Preethi
    Jensen, Paul D.
    Batstone, Damien J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2013, 42 (04) : 1205 - 1212