Environmental impact of milk and electricity production from dairy farms with biogas plants of different size and feeding system

被引:3
作者
Fusi, Mara [1 ]
Pirlo, Giacomo [1 ]
机构
[1] Council Agr Res & Econ, Res Ctr Anim Prod & Aquaculture, CREA, Via Antonio Lombardo 11, I-26900 Lodi, Italy
关键词
Life cycle assessment; System expansion; Milk; Electricity; Anaerobic digestion; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; ANAEROBIC-DIGESTION; CARBON FOOTPRINT; ENERGY CROPS; EFFICIENCY; INTENSITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135445
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Anaerobic digestion is an effective method to decrease the environmental impact of milk production and to generate renewable energy. A dairy farm with an annexed biogas plant produces three outputs, milk, meat and electricity, and should be considered as a single system for the evaluation of the environmental impact. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent the size and feeding methods of the biogas plants in three dairy farms with different features affect the environmental impact related to the milk and electricity produced. The first farm was characterized by a biogas plant of 300 kW fed only with cattle manure, the second farm had a plant of 526 kW fed with cattle manure, maize silage and waste of maize grain production, while the third farm had a biogas plant of 999 kW fed with cattle and poultry manure, maize and triticale silage, and fats from slaugh-terhouse waste. The Life Cycle Assessment involved the environmental impact of Fat Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM), in the first instance with meat and electricity from biogas considered with an economic allocation, and then considered a credit. Successively, the environmental consequences of electricity were evaluated considering milk and meat as credits. With the economic allocation, Carbon Footprint (CFP) of one kg of FPCM was 0.82, 0.85 and 0.72 kg CO2 eq in the first, second and third farm, respectively. In all the three farms, electricity generation from biogas determined a reduction in the environmental impact of milk production thanks to a credit of emissions provided by the production of renewable energy. Milk CFP in the three farms was 0.82, 0.91 and 0.13 kg CO2 eq respectively, with mitigation from biogas of 11%, 11% and 85%. The best performances were obtained in the third farm thanks to higher levels of electricity generation, covered digestate storage and the large use of agri-industrial waste. Electricity CFP in the farms was-0.74,-0.68 and-0.06 kg CO2 eq/kWh respectively. Environmental consequences of electricity production from biogas plants were compensated in all the farms thanks to the credits provided by milk; this compensation was as greater as the ratio between milk and electricity production and the first farm reached better outcomes. In the context of reducing the environmental impact of animal foods and implementing an ecological transition to reach national and European goals for renewable energy production, the work could be beneficial to assess which combination between dairy and energy products should be promoted.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: Environmental impact of different agricultural substrates
    Lansche, Jens
    Mueller, Joachim
    [J]. ENGINEERING IN LIFE SCIENCES, 2012, 12 (03): : 313 - 320
  • [22] Associations between milking technology, herd size and milk production parameters on commercial dairy cattle farms
    Ivanyos, Dorottya
    Monostori, Attila
    Nemeth, Csaba
    Fodor, Istvan
    Ozsvari, Laszlo
    [J]. MLJEKARSTVO, 2020, 70 (02): : 103 - 111
  • [23] The possibility of biogas production during digestion of liquid manure and sewage from municipal and dairy wastewater treatment plants
    Magrel, L
    [J]. 6Th International Conference Environmental Engineering, Vols 1 and 2, 2005, : 388 - 391
  • [24] Environmental impact analysis of power generation from biomass and wind farms in different locations
    Gao, Cheng-kang
    Na, Hong-ming
    Song, Kai-hui
    Dyer, Noel
    Tian, Fan
    Xu, Qing-jiang
    Xing, Yu-hong
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2019, 102 : 307 - 317
  • [25] Modeling Favorable Locations for Biogas Plants that Generate Electricity from Dairy and Beef Cattle Manure through Mixed Integer Linear Programming
    Yilmaz, Halil Ibrahim
    Gonbe, Yalcin
    [J]. BIORESOURCES, 2024, 19 (03): : 4517 - 4530
  • [26] The effect of cefazolin on biogas production from thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure and waste milk
    Beneragama, Nilmini
    Iwasaki, Masahiro
    Lateef, Suraju A.
    Umetsu, Kazutaka
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OF SRI LANKA, 2015, 43 (04): : 369 - 376
  • [27] Biogas production and electricity generation from a quail manure wastewater treatment system per water depth
    Duarte, Roosevelt
    Rossa, Ueberson Boaretto
    Chiarello, Luana Marcele
    Scharf, Dilamara Riva
    Somensi, Cleder Alexandre
    Vischetti, Costantino
    Goncalves, Lilian Fernanda Sfendrych
    [J]. REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS AMBIENTAIS, 2023, 58 (02): : 293 - 303
  • [28] Simultaneous production of bioelectricity and biogas from chicken droppings and dairy industry wastewater employing bioelectrochemical system
    Fazal, Tahir
    Rehman, Muhammad Saif Ur
    Mushtaq, Azeem
    Hafeez, Ainy
    Javed, Fahed
    Aslam, Muhammad
    Fatima, Masoom
    Faisal, Abrar
    Iqbal, Javed
    Rehman, Fahad
    Farooq, Robina
    [J]. FUEL, 2019, 256
  • [29] Transforming the feeding regime towards low-input increases the environmental impact of organic milk production on a case study farm in central germany
    Eisert, Johannes
    Sahraei, Amir
    Knob, Deise Aline
    Lambertz, Christian
    Zollitsch, Werner
    Hoertenhuber, Stefan
    Kral, Iris
    Breuer, Lutz
    Gattinger, Andreas
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2025, 30 (01) : 79 - 92
  • [30] Can Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage from Power Plants Reduce the Environmental Impact of Electricity Generation?
    Petrakopoulou, Fontina
    Tsatsaronis, George
    [J]. ENERGY & FUELS, 2014, 28 (08) : 5327 - 5338