MANURE FROM OUR AGRICULTURAL ANIMALSA QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FOCUSED ON BIOGAS PRODUCTION
Juan José Chávez‐Fuentes, Aureliana Capobianco, Marianna Czölderová, Miroslav Hutňan
Slide
1. What is the current population of agricultural animalsworldwide?
2. How much agricultural manure is produced every day?
3. How high could be the biogas/methane production rate from all this manure?– Global distribution
2
Aim of this work
Slide 3
Manure
Slide 4
Lots of manure…
Slide 5
Agricultural animals
• Rapid industrialization of agriculture to sustain fast human population growth• Most of agricultural animals have also experienced a fast population growth• Industrial agriculture is focused on the production of meat, milk, eggs and other
secondary products derived from the slaughter
Slide 6
Agricultural animals (Population growth)
02004006008001.0001.2001.4001.6001.8002.0002.2002.4002.600
02468101214161820222426
1961
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2014
MILLION HEA
DS
Cattle and
buffalo, pig, she
e and goat, horse and
cam
els
BILLION HEA
DS
Humans, chicken
Humans Poultry Cattle and buffaloesPigs Sheep and goats Horse and camels
1) Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT)
Slide 7
Environmental concerns
Agricultural animals:• Consumes large quantity of resources (animal feed and water) • Largest user of agricultural land worldwide• Major source of problems such deforestation, anthropogenic GHG emissions (estimated to be as
much as 9% CO2, 40% CH4 and 60% N2O worldwide), contamination and depletion of water resources, among other related problems (Steinfeld, FAO Report 2006)
• Yield large quantities of effluents, called manure
Slide 8
Manure description and current uses
• Manure contains mostly animal faces and urineOther components of manure: Organic (Straw, fodder residues, skin, tail hair) and inorganic (lime, sand, sawdust and soil)
• According to dry matter content, it is classified as liquid, slurry and solid
• Quantity and quality of manure vary according to:‐ Animal species and breed‐ Livestock purpose (Food, products or labour)‐ Type of farming‐ Feeding patterns and diet composition
• Harvestability of manure is strongly determined by the type of farming‐ Small‐scale farming‐ Industrial farming (concentrated animal feeding operations)
• Common uses of manure:• Fertilizer + soil amendment: Stabilization through manure pits, anaerobic
lagoons or composting• Additive for feedstock (poultry manure)• Substrate for biogas production (anaerobic digestion)
Slide
Methodology for quantitative analysis
How to calculate manure’s biogas and methane potential?
Nm3 CH4/d
No. of live animals quantification of manure biogas methane
Enteric fermentation CH4 emission factors methane
http://faostat.fao.org/
Slide 10
Methodology for quantitative analysis
No. of animals (j) in country (i)
Specific manure production (animal j)kg d‐1 head‐1
Organic matter content (animal j)g VS kg‐1
FAO
Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic
Scientific literature
Specific biogas production (animal j)L kg‐1 VS
Scientific literature
Assumptions and simplifications:‐ Only one breed is considered
for each animal‐ Average size, weight of
animals and manure production
‐ Harvestability of manure is not considered
Slide 11
World population
7,4
1,48
0,20
0,99
2.13 x 10
1,21
1,01
0,06
WORLD POPULATIONBillion heads
1) Worldometers Statistical Information2) Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT)
Slide
0.4
7.3
0.6
0.8
1.2
2.5
2.3
0.4
0.3
4.4
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.8
1.80.3
Dry matter (TS)Organic matter (VS)
12
Manure production
GLOBAL MANURE PRODUCTION RATEMillion Ton/d
SMP1(kg d‐1 hd‐1)
TS2,3(g/kg)
VS2,3(g/kg)
Cattle 29 169.1 102.5
Buffaloes 19 169.1 102.5
Pig 2.5 310.2 269.3
Chicken 0.084 678.4 475
Sheep 3 676 503
Goat 2.7 861.3 642.3
Horse 25 249.7 186.1
Globalmanureproductionrate N , · SMP · TS ; N , · SMP · VS
1) Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic. Ordinance no. 199/2008, appendix no. 22) Kafle et al., 2015. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential using different statistical models. Waste Manage.3) Marti‐Herrero, J. 2015. Cow, sheep and llama manure at psychrophilic anaerobic co‐digestion with low cost tubular digester in cold climate and high altitude. Bioresource Tech.
Slide 13
Estimation of total and feasible potential for biogas production
Biogas production rate
Globalbiogaspotential I , I , N , · SMP · VS · SBP
Globalbiogaspotential N , · SMP · VS · SBP
TOTAL POTENTIAL
FEASIBLE POTENTIAL
Iw –Water infrastructure and sanitation development
It – Development in terms of transport and infrastructure
1) Adapted from Social Progress database: http://socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi2) Adapted from World Band Logistic Performance database: http://data,worldbank.org/indicator
Slide
Potential for biogas production through anaerobic digestion
1300
112
329 362259
423
61
555
37 185 181 112 130 23
TotalFeasible
Globalbiogaspotential I , I , N , · SMP · VS · SBP
SBP(L kg‐1 VS d‐1)
CH4(%)
Cattle 295 69
Buffaloes 295 69
Pig 495 65
Chicken 425 61
Sheep 142 65
Goat 242 65
Horse 222 70
GLOBAL BIOGAS POTENTIALMillion Nm3/d
1) Kafle et al., 2015. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential using different statistical models. Waste Manage.2) Cestonaro et al., 2015. The anaerobic co‐digestion of sheep bedding and cattle manure increases biogas production and improves biofertilizer quality. Waste Manage.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Slide
Methane potential
Globalmethanepotential I , I , N , · SMP · VS · SBP · %CH ,
GLOBAL METHANE POTENTIAL Million Nm3/d
897
77
214 221169
275
43
383
26 120 110 73 85 16
TotalFeasible
1) Kafle et al., 2015. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential using different statistical models. Waste Manage.2) Cestonaro et al., 2015. The anaerobic co‐digestion of sheep bedding and cattle manure increases biogas production and improves biofertilizer quality. Waste Manage.
SMP(L kg‐1 VS d‐1)
CH4(%)
Cattle 295 69
Buffaloes 295 69
Pig 495 65
Chicken 425 61
Sheep 142 65
Goat 242 65
Horse 222 70
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Slide
Gross energy potential
Globalenergyproductionpotential I , I , N , · SMP · VS · SBP · %CH , · GCV
GLOBAL ENERGY POTENTIAL GWh/d9918
855
2364 24391864
3038
471
4238
285 1328 1218 802 937 180
TotalFeasible
11.06 kWh/Nm3GCV of methane:
Slide
268
23
64 6650
82
13
114
836 33
22 25 5
TotalFeasible
17
Electricity sales potential
Globalsalespotentialforelectricity I , I , N , · SMP · VS · SBP · %CH , · GCV · η · η · €
1) Using a modern CHP unit with thermodynamic conversion efficiency of 90 % and electrical energy conversion efficiency of 30 %2) Current subsidized price for electricity produced through anaerobic digestion set at 100 €/MWh. Based on tariffs given by the Regulatory Office for Network Industries of the Slovak Republic.
Ord. no. 143/2015.
GLOBAL SALES POTENTIAL FOR ELECTRICITY Million €/dCHP unitηth = 90 %ηel = 30 %
Tariff: 100 €/MWh
Slide
Global biogas distribution
Where do we find the highest potential for biogas production from agricultural manure?
TOP 5: Agricultural animals
212187
11789
57
BrazilIndiaChinaUSA
Ethiopia
463219831923
1331930
ChinaUSA
IndonesiaBrazilIran
Million heads
10,36,465,4
3,6
USAMexicoChinaBrazil
Argentina
48068382826
ChinaUSA
BrazilGermanyVietnam
20272635041
ChinaAustralia
IndiaIran
Nigeria
188133
716756
ChinaIndia
NigeriaPakistan
Bangladesh
Slide 19
Global biogas distribution
TOP 10Million m3/d
171817562
242220201414
ChinaBrazilUSAIndia
AustraliaArgentina
MexicoPakistanFrance
Germany
Slide 20
Nutrients in manure
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
K
N
P
• AD of agricultural manure yields stabilised sludge with improved properties and rich content of ammonia and orthophosphate enhancing the possibility for nutrients recovery
NUTRIENTS IN MANUREMillion kg/d
g kg‐1 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
Cattle 3 0.7 4.2Buffalo 3 0.7 4.2Pig 5 1.3 1.9Chicken 10 2.4 4.2Sheep 7.6 3 7Goat 7.6 3 7Horse 5.8 2.8 5
1) Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic. Ordinance no. 199/2008, appendix no. 2
Nutrient N, PorK N , · SMP · M ,
Slide 21
Conclusions
• The global impact of our agricultural animals on theenvironment is currently very high and contributes toclimate change and depletion of resources in a notorious way
• Animal manures are rich in organic compounds andnutrients, and even though classical techniques allow farmsto take some advantage from manure, it can cause manyenvironmental problems if not properly managed
• Anaerobic digestion is an integrated natural process that canenable a remarkable contribution to manure management,energy production and nutrients recovery; making animalfarming more sustainable
• The feasible potential for biogasproduction from manure is very vast inmany countries and will play a major role infuture years
Slide 22
Thank you for your attention!
Ing. Juan José Chávez Fuentes, MSc.Anaerobic Technology GroupDepartment of Environmental EngineeringInstitute of Chemical and Environmental EngineeringFaculty of Chemical and Food TechnologySlovak University of Technology
Email: [email protected]
