Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 346–350 | Cite as

Anaerobic digestion of cattle waste at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures

  • R. I. Mackie
  • M. P. Bryant
Environmental Biotechnology Original Paper


Methanogenesis was studied using stirred, bench-top fermentors of 3-1 working volume fed on a semi-continuous basis with waste obtained from cattle fed a high grain, finishing diet. Digestion was carried out at 40 and 60°C. CH4 production was 11.8, 18.3, 61.9 and 84.5% higher in the thermophilic than the mesophilic digestor at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 g volatile solids (VS) l−1 reactor volume loading rates, respectively. When compared on an energetic basis CH4 production was 7.4, 18.3, 72.9 and 107.3 kJ day higher in the thermophilic than the mesophilic digestor. CH4 production decreased more rapidly with each increase in VS loading rate and decrease in retention time (RT) in the mesophilic than the thermophilic digestor. When expressed as l g−1 VS fed or as kJ kJ−1 fed, the amount of CH4 was 49% less at the highest compared to the lowest loading rate in the mesophilic digestor. In the thermophilic digestor the decrease was only 16%. Propionate accumulated in the mesophilic digestor at the two highest loading rates, reaching concentrations of about 50 mM, but were only about 13 mM in the thermophilic digestor. Isobutyrate, isovalerate plus 2-methylbutyrate, and valerate also accumulated at the higher loading rates.


Valerate Anaerobic Digestion Methanogenesis Loading Rate Volatile Solid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Public Health Association (APHA) (1975) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 14th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) (1965) Official methods of analysis, 10th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs PK, Hogan JP, Reid JL (1957) Effects of volatile fatty acids, lactic acid and ammonia on rumen pH in sheep. Aust J Agric Res 8:674–690Google Scholar
  4. Bryant MP (1979) Microbial methane production-theoretical aspects. J Anim Sci 48:193–201Google Scholar
  5. Buhr HO, Andrews JF (1977) The thermophilic anaerobic digestion process. Water Res 11:129–143Google Scholar
  6. Chaney AL, Marbach EP (1962) Modified reagents for the determination of urea and ammonia. Clin Chem 8:130–132Google Scholar
  7. Converse JC, Graves RE, Evans GW (1977) Anaerobic degradation of dairy manure under mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures. Trans ASAE 20:336–340Google Scholar
  8. Cooney CL, Wise DL (1975) Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of solid waste for fuel gas production. Biotechnol Bioeng 17:1119–1135Google Scholar
  9. Fischer JR, Meador NF, Sievers DM, Fulhage CD, Iannotti EL (1979) Design and operation of a farm anaerobic digestor for swine manure. Trans ASAE 22:1129–1136Google Scholar
  10. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis. Agricultural Handbook No. 379, USDA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Hashimoto AG, Chen YR, Prior RL (1979) Methane and protein production from animal feedlot wastes. J Soil Water Conserv 34:16–19Google Scholar
  12. Hino T, Russell JB (1985) Effect of reducing-equivalent disposal and NADH/NAD on deamination of amino acids by intact rumen microorganisms and their cell extracts. Appl Environ Microbiol 50:1368–1374Google Scholar
  13. Mackie RI, Bryant MP (1981) Metabolic activity of fatty acid-oxidizing bacteria and the contribution of acetate, propionate, butyrate, and CO2 to methanogenesis in cattle waste at 40 and 60°C. Appl Environ Microbiol 41:1363–1373Google Scholar
  14. Mackie RI, Bryant MP (1990) Efficiency of bacterial protein synthesis during anaerobic degradation of cattle waste. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:87–92Google Scholar
  15. McInerney MJ, Bryant MP (1981) Basic principles of bioconversions in anaerobic digestion and methanogenesis. In: Sofer SS, Zaborski OJ, (eds) Biomass conversion processes for energy and fuels. Plenum, New York, pp 277–296Google Scholar
  16. McInerney MJ, Bryant MP, Pfenning N (1979) Anaerobic bacterium that degrades fatty acids in synthrophic association with methanogens. Arch Microbiol 122:129–135Google Scholar
  17. McInerney MJ, Bryant MP, Hespell RB, Costerton JW (1981) Syntrophomonas wolfei gen nov., sp. nov., an anaerobic syntrophic, fatty acid-oxidizing bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 41:1029–1039Google Scholar
  18. Mills PJ (1979) Minimization of energy input requirements of an anaerobic digestor. Agric Wastes 1:57–66Google Scholar
  19. Pfeffer JT (1974) Temperature effects an anaerobic fermentation of domestic refuse. Biotechnol Bioeng 16:771–787Google Scholar
  20. Salanitro JP, Muirhead PA (1975) Quantitative method for gas chromatographic analysis of short-chain monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acids in fermentation media. Appl Microbiol 29:374–381Google Scholar
  21. Smith RJ, Hein ME, Griener TH (1979) Experimental methane production from animal excreta in pilot-scale and farm-size units. J Anim Sci 48:16–202Google Scholar
  22. Van Velsen AFM, Lettinga G, Ottelander D (1979) Anaerobic digestion of piggery waste. 3. Influence of temperature. Neth J Agric Sci 27:255–267Google Scholar
  23. Varel VH, Hashimoto AG, Chen YR (1980) Effect of temperature and retention time on methane production from cattle waste. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:217–222Google Scholar
  24. Varel VH, Isaacson HR, Bryant MP (1977) Thermophilic methane production from cattle waste. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:298–307Google Scholar
  25. Zeikus JG (1980) Microbial populations in digestors. In: Stafford DA ed Anaerobic digestion. Applied Science, London, pp 61–87Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. I. Mackie
    • 1
  • M. P. Bryant
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal Sciences, 132 Animal Sciences LaboratoryUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of MicrobiologyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations