Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Scarlat N, Dallemand J, Fahl F (2018) Biogas: developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew Energy 129(A):457–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:109:1-3:263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2013.356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7090074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9614-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shahzad K, Maier S, Narodoslawsky M (2014) Biogas production from intercropping (Syn-energy). Chem Eng Trans 39:1753–1758. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1439293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170507002025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/4.6.190-200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-015-0034-z

  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. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2013.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.12.029

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):169–183

    Google Scholar 

  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 http://www.aidic.it/cet/10/21/073.pdf. Accessed 30 May

  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:1–47

  21. Mlejnkova V, Horky P, Kominkova M (2016) Biogenic amines and hygienic quality of lucerne silage. Open Life Sci 11(1):280–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/biol-2016-0037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):418

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2009.11.018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12623

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Moller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK (2004) Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy 26:485–495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. http://tf.llu.lv/conference/proceedings2011/Papers/Title_Contents.pdf. Accessed 4 March

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.1994.tb00039.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jördening H-J, Winter J (2005) Environmental biotechnology concepts and applications. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.06.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(02)00077-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2014.10.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, Italy

Download references

Funding

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agriculture Research, Ltd., Zahradní 1, 664 41, Troubsko, Czech Republic

    Antonín Kintl, Jakub Elbl & Jan Nedělník

  2. Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00, Brno, Czech Republic

    Tomáš Vítěz & Tereza Dokulilová

  3. Department of Agrosystems and Bioclimatology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jakub Elbl

  4. Section of Microbiology and Molecular Biotechnology, Department of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00, Brno, Czech Republic

    Monika Vítězová

  5. Department of Animal Nutrition and Forage Production, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jiří Skládanka

  6. Department of Agrochemistry, Soil Science, Microbiology and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00, Brno, Czech Republic

    Martin Brtnický

  7. Institute of Chemistry and Technology of Environmental Protection, Faculty of Chemistry, Brno University of Technology, Purkyňova 118, 61200, Brno, Czech Republic

    Martin Brtnický

Authors
  1. Antonín Kintl
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomáš Vítěz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jakub Elbl
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Monika Vítězová
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tereza Dokulilová
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jan Nedělník
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jiří Skládanka
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martin Brtnický
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakub Elbl.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kintl, A., Vítěz, T., Elbl, J. et al. Mixed Culture of Corn and White Lupine as an Alternative to Silage Made from Corn Monoculture Intended for Biogas Production. Bioenerg. Res. 12, 694–702 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10003-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10003-y

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Martin Brtnický View author profile