Environmentally Sustainable Biogas? The Key Role of Manure Co-Digestion with Energy Crops

We analysed the environmental impacts of three biogas systems based on dairy manure, sorghum and maize. The geographical scope of the analysis is the Po valley, in Italy. The anaerobic digestion of manure guarantees high GHG (Green House Gases) savings thanks to the avoided emissions from the traditional storage and management of raw manure as organic fertiliser. GHG emissions for maize and sorghum-based systems, on the other hand, are similar to those of the Italian electricity mix. In crop-based systems, the plants with open-tank storage of digestate emit 50% more GHG than those with gas-tight tanks. In all the environmental impact categories analysed (acidification, particulate matter emissions, and eutrophication), energy crops based systems have much higher impacts than the Italian electricity mix. Maize-based systems cause higher impacts than sorghum, due to more intensive cultivation. Manure-based pathways have always lower impacts than the energy crops based pathways, however, all biogas systems cause much higher impacts than the current Italian electricity mix. We conclude that manure digestion is the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions; although there are trade-offs with other local environmental impacts. Biogas production from crops; although not providing environmental benefits per se ; may be regarded as an option to facilitate the deployment of manure digestion.

[1]  Peter Weiland,et al.  Methane emissions from biogas‐producing facilities within the agricultural sector , 2010 .

[2]  Giuntoli Jacopo,et al.  Carbon accounting of forest bioenergy : Conclusions and recommendations from a critical literature review , 2014 .

[3]  Günter Leithold,et al.  Effects of different manuring systems with and without biogas digestion on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in mixed organic dairy farming systems , 2008, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

[4]  John D. Spengler,et al.  Spatial patterns of mobile source particulate matter emissions-to-exposure relationships across the United States , 2007 .

[5]  Padella Monica,et al.  Progress in estimates of ILUC with MIRAGE model , 2014 .

[6]  Andrea Monti,et al.  Are we ready to cultivate sweet sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock? A review on field management practices , 2012 .

[7]  S Heaven,et al.  Reducing the environmental impact of methane emissions from dairy farms by anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. , 2011, Waste management.

[8]  T. Bruulsema,et al.  Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects , 2009 .

[9]  Barbara Amon,et al.  Greenhouse gas and ammonia emission abatement by slurry treatment , 2006 .

[10]  T. Wilbanks,et al.  Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[11]  David Styles,et al.  Cattle feed or bioenergy? Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas feedstock options on dairy farms , 2015 .

[12]  T. Ochsner,et al.  Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? , 2007 .

[13]  C. Cantero‐Martínez,et al.  Soil organic carbon storage in a no-tillage chronosequence under Mediterranean conditions , 2014, Plant and Soil.

[14]  S. Amaducci,et al.  Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[15]  Malene Nielsen,et al.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR GAS FIRED CHP UNITS < 25 MW , 2004 .

[16]  Göran Berndes,et al.  Bioenergy and water - the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. , 2002 .

[17]  Stefan Thurner,et al.  Dry matter losses of grass, lucerne and maize silages in bunker silos , 2013 .

[18]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[19]  O. Jolliet,et al.  The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA , 2008 .

[20]  S. Schittenhelm.  Effect of Drought Stress on Yield and Quality of Maize/Sunflower and Maize/Sorghum Intercrops for Biogas Production , 2010 .

[21]  E. Brizio,et al.  LCA of bioenergy chains in Piedmont (Italy): a case study to support public decision makers towards sustainability. , 2011 .

[22]  Jean-Marc Jossart,et al.  Energy and CO2 balance of maize and grass as energy crops for anaerobic digestion. , 2008, Bioresource technology.

[23]  Wenju Liang,et al.  Contributions of soil biota to C sequestration varied with aggregate fractions under different tillage systems , 2013 .

[24]  Athar Mahmood,et al.  Chemical composition and methane yield of sorghum cultivars with contrasting row spacing , 2012 .

[25]  John E. Sawyer,et al.  Extractable Soil Phosphorus and Inorganic Nitrogen following Application of Raw and Anaerobically Digested Swine Manure , 2005 .

[26]  C. Herrmann,et al.  Effects of ensiling, silage additives and storage period on methane formation of biogas crops. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[27]  Stefano Amaducci,et al.  Non-structural carbohydrates and fibre components in sweet and fibre sorghum as affected by low and normal input techniques. , 2004 .

[28]  J. Bacenetti,et al.  Environmental assessment of two different crop systems in terms of biomethane potential production. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[29]  E. Stehfest,et al.  N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions , 2006, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

[30]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers , 2014 .

[31]  K. Cassman,et al.  Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation , 2014 .

[32]  B. Weidema,et al.  Rebuttal to ‘Indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) – scientific robustness and consistency with international standards’ , 2015 .

[33]  H. V. D. van der Werf,et al.  An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[34]  Andrea Monti,et al.  Energy crops in rotation. A review , 2011 .

[35]  Giuntoli Jacopo,et al.  Solid and gaseous bioenergy pathways: input values and GHG emissions , 2014 .

[36]  Sara González-García,et al.  Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion , 2014 .

[37]  Jing Lian,et al.  A novel test method for evaluating the methane gas permeability of biogas storage membrane , 2013 .

[38]  Jacinto F. Fabiosa,et al.  Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change , 2008, Science.

[39]  Sara González-García,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops , 2014 .

[40]  S. Amaducci,et al.  Crop yield and quality parameters of four annual fibre crops (hemp, kenaf, maize and sorghum) in the North of Italy , 2000 .

[41]  Dr. Ruth Delzeit,et al.  Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel policies and its uncertainties ” , 2011 .

[42]  G. Venturi,et al.  Sweet and fibre sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), energy crops in the frame of environmental protection from excessive nitrogen loads , 2006 .

[43]  Alan J. Franzluebbers,et al.  Achieving soil organic carbon sequestration with conservation agricultural systems in the southeastern United States. , 2010 .

[44]  Vincenzo Tabaglio,et al.  Yield performance of maize (Zea mays L.) cropped under conventional tillage and no-tillage in Northern Italy , 2006 .

[45]  Vincenzo Tabaglio,et al.  Monoculture Maize (Zea mays L.) Cropped Under Conventional Tillage, No-tillage and N Fertilization: (I) Three Year Yield Performances , 2009 .

[46]  Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut.  Biogas-Messprogramm II. 61 Biogasanlagen im Vergleich. Publikation , 2009 .

[47]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , 2006 .

[48]  E. Robert,et al.  Indirect Land Use Change From Increased Biofuels Demand - Comparison of Models and Results for Marginal Biofuels Production from Different Feedstocks , 2010 .

[49]  Gabriele Canali,et al.  How Distorting Policies Can Affect Energy Efficiency and Sustainability: The Case of Biogas Production in the Po Valley (Italy) , 2014 .

[50]  G. Righini,et al.  Assessment of the AMS-MINNI system capabilities to simulate air quality over Italy for the calendar year 2005 , 2014 .

[51]  James W. Jones,et al.  Long-term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal systems in a Mediterranean area , 2012 .

[52]  Sara González-García,et al.  Comparative environmental performance of three different annual energy crops for biogas production in Northern Italy. , 2013 .

[53]  G. Pirlo,et al.  A Simplified Tool for Estimating Carbon Footprint of Dairy Cattle Milk , 2013 .

[54]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2014 .

[55]  Christoph Walla,et al.  The optimal size for biogas plants , 2008 .

[56]  B. Soane,et al.  No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment , 2012 .

[57]  Barbara Amon,et al.  Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment , 2006 .

[58]  M. Acutis,et al.  Nitrate leaching under maize cropping systems in Po Valley (Italy) , 2012 .

[59]  Mohamed Abdalla,et al.  Conservation tillage systems: a review of its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions , 2013 .

[60]  Jean-Paul Hettelingh,et al.  Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator (14 pp) , 2006 .

[61]  Antonio Vallejo,et al.  Gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3− leaching from urea applied with urease and nitrification inhibitors to a maize (Zea mays) crop , 2012 .

[62]  M. Borin,et al.  Effects of tillage systems on energy and carbon balance in north-eastern Italy , 1997 .

[63]  A. Boulamanti,et al.  Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability , 2013 .

[64]  G. Berndes,et al.  The bioenergy and water nexus , 2011 .

[65]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion , 2014 .

[66]  S. Solomon.  The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[67]  G. Carrosio.  Energy production from biogas in the Italian countryside: Policies and organizational models , 2013 .

[68]  Simone Fazio,et al.  CO2 savings affect the break-even distance of feedstock supply and digestate placement in biogas production , 2012 .

[69]  Philippe Rochette,et al.  Gaseous nitrogen emissions and forage nitrogen uptake on soils fertilized with raw and treated swine manure. , 2007, Journal of environmental quality.

[70]  Jens Lansche,et al.  Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: Environmental impact of different agricultural substrates , 2012 .

[71]  R. Derpsch,et al.  Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research? , 2014 .