BioEnergy Research

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 694–702 | Cite as

Mixed Culture of Corn and White Lupine as an Alternative to Silage Made from Corn Monoculture Intended for Biogas Production

  • Antonín Kintl
  • Tomáš Vítěz
  • Jakub ElblEmail author
  • Monika Vítězová
  • Tereza Dokulilová
  • Jan Nedělník
  • Jiří Skládanka
  • Martin Brtnický


The production of biomass from legumes for energy purposes is considered an important element of sustainable agriculture. Leguminous plants allow the biological fixation of nitrogen (BFN), which contributes to reduction in the input of mineral fertilizers, and hence lightens the environmental burden. Replacing mineral inputs into crop production using BFN (the production of silage) represents an important step towards achieving greater sustainability of biogas station operation. This paper deals with the possibility of using silage prepared from a mixture of conventional energy crops—corn and legume (lupine) in biogas stations. The aim of the paper was to find out how the addition of legume affects the production of methane and to determine the optimal ratio of maize and lupine in silage. Different variants of silage were prepared: without the addition of legume (sole corn), with the addition of lupine at different ratios (50/50, 70/30, 90/10), and sole lupine. This silage was subjected to fermentation tests and analyzed in order to determine the nutrient content effect on the fermentation process. The lowest total methane production was detected in the lupine silage and the highest total methane production was observed in the maize silage (0.327 m3 CH4/kg VS) and in the mixed silage 90/10 (0.330 m3 CH4/kg of VS). It was found that with the increasing proportion of lupine in the silage, methane production (50/50 < 70/30 < 90/10) declines due to the increased content of poorly degradable organic substances.

Graphical Abstract


Legumes Lupine Maize silage Mixed culture Methane Biogas plant 



This research was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, institutional support MZE-RO1719.


  1. 1.
    Scarlat N, Dallemand J, Fahl F (2018) Biogas: developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew Energy 129(A):457–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weiland P (2003) Production and energetic use of biogas from energy crops and wastes in Germany. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 109(1–3):263–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bacenetti J, Fusi A, Guidetti R, Fiala M (2013) Life cycle assessment of maize cultivation for biogas production. J Agric Eng 44 (s2) 44:579–582. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lüker-Jansa N, Simmering D, Ottea A (2005–2010) The impact of biogas plants on regional dynamics of permanent grassland and maize area—the example of Hesse, Germany. Agric Ecosyst Environ 241(2017):24–38. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samarappuli D, Berti MT (2018) Intercropping forage sorghum with maize is a promising alternative to maize silage for biogas production. J Clean Prod 194:515–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Britz W, Delzeit R (2013) The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment. Energy Policy 62:1268–1275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vasileiadis VP, Sattin M, Otto S, Veres A, Pálinkás Z, Ban R, Pons X, Kudsk P, van der Weide R, Czembor E, Moonen AC, Kiss J (2011) Crop protection in European maize-based cropping systems: current practices and recommendations for innovative integrated Pest management. Agric Syst 104(7):533–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer AKP, Ehimen EA, Holm-Nielsen JB (2018) Future European biogas: animal manure, straw and grass potentials for a sustainable European biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 111:154–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adeux G, Giuliano S, Cordeau S, Savoie JM, Alletto L (2017) Low-input maize-based cropping systems implementing IWM match conventional maize monoculture productivity and weed control. Agriculture. 7(9):74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svoboda N, Taube F, Kluß C, Wienforth B, Sieling K, Hasler M, Kage H, Ohl S, Hartung E, Herrmann A (2015) Ecological efficiency of maize-based cropping systems for biogas production. Bioenergy Res 8(4):1621–1635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shahzad K, Maier S, Narodoslawsky M (2014) Biogas production from intercropping (Syn-energy). Chem Eng Trans 39:1753–1758. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Jørnsgaard B, Kinane J, Steen Jensen E (2008) Grain legume–cereal intercropping: the practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renew Agric Food Syst 23(1):3–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooker RW, Bennett AE, Cong WF (2015) Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol 206(1):107–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nasri R, Kashani A, Barary M, Paknejad F, Vazan S (2014) Nitrogen agronomic efficiency of wheat in different crop rotations, and the application rates of nitrogen. Int J Biosci 4(6):190–200. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stinner PW (2015) The use of legumes as a biogas substrate - potentials for saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Energy Sustain Soc 5(4).
  16. 16.
    Gatta G, Gagliardi A, Soldo P, Monteleone M (2013) Grasses and legumes in mixture: an energy intercropping system intended for anaerobic digestion. Ital J Agron 8(1):7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wahid R, Feng L, Cong WF, Ward AJ, Møller HB, Eriksen J (2018) Anaerobic mono-digestion of lucerne, grass and forbs – influence of species and cutting frequency. Biomass Bioenergy 109:199–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harvani JL (2013) Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yields, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in rain fed conditions of Zanjan province in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal 2(29):169–183Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kettl KH, Niemetz N, Sandor N, Eder M, Narodoslawsky M (2010) Ecological evaluation of biogas feedstock from intercrops. Chem Eng Trans 21:433–438 Accessed 30 May
  20. 20.
    Loučka R, Lang J, Jambor V, Nedělník J, Třináctý J, Tyrolová Y, Kučera J (2014) Verified methodical process of obtaining and processing the values in the national system of evaluation of silage corn hybrids, the certified methodology. CZE:1–47Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mlejnkova V, Horky P, Kominkova M (2016) Biogenic amines and hygienic quality of lucerne silage. Open Life Sci 11(1):280–286. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skladanka J, Adam V, Zitka O (2017) Comparison of biogenic amines and mycotoxins in alfalfa and red clover fodder depending on additives. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(4):418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lesteur M, Bellon-Maurel V, Gonzalez C, Latrille E, Roger JM, Junqua G, Steyer JP (2010) Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: a review. Process Biochem 45(4):431–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pham CH, Triolo JM, Cu TT, Pedersen L, Sommer SG (2013) Validation and recommendation of methods to measure biogas production potential of animal manure. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 26(6):864–873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK (2004) Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy 26:485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dubrovskis V, Adamovics A, Plume I, Kotelenecs V, Zabarovskis E. Biogas production from greater Burdock, Largeleaf Lupin And Sosnovsky Cow Parsnip, 10th International Scientific Conference ENGINEERING FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Jelgava, 26.-27.05.2011, pp 388–392. Accessed 4 March
  27. 27.
    Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Zollitsch W, Mayer K, Gruber L (2007) Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure—influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1–4):173–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hataka A (1994) Lignin-modifying enzymes from selected white-rot fungi: production and role from in lignin degradation. FEMS Microbiol Rev 13(2–3):125–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jördening H-J, Winter J (2005) Environmental biotechnology concepts and applications. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Filya I (2004) Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity. Anim Feed Sci Technol 116(1–2):141–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Di Marco ON, Aello MS, Nomdedeu M, Van Houtte S (2002) Effect of maize crop maturity on silage chemical composition and digestibility (in vivo, in situ and in vitro). Anim Feed Sci Technol 99(1–4):37–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielfa A, Cano R, Polanco MF (2015) Theoretical methane production generated by the co-digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste and biological sludge. Biotechnol Rep 5:14–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carvalho L, Di Berardino S, Duarte E. Biogas production from Mediterranean crop silages, Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill ymposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 3–7 October 2011. 2011 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agriculture Research, Ltd.TroubskoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of AgriSciencesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Agrosystems and Bioclimatology, Faculty of AgriSciencesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  4. 4.Section of Microbiology and Molecular Biotechnology, Department of Experimental Biology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Animal Nutrition and Forage Production, Faculty of AgriSciencesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Agrochemistry, Soil Science, Microbiology and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of AgriSciencesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  7. 7.Institute of Chemistry and Technology of Environmental Protection, Faculty of ChemistryBrno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations