Evaluation of biogas yield and kinetics from the anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung and horse dung: a strategy for sustainable management of livestock manure

Abstract

In this study, investigation was done to determine the optimum combination of cow dung (CD) and horse dung (HD) for enhanced biogas production and plant stability. Anaerobic co-digestion of CD and HD at varying percentage combination was carried out in five (5) identical 25 L cylindrical digesters (A–E) for a retention period of 37 days, at an average ambient temperature of 33 °C. Using the Microsoft excel solver function, 2010 version, the modified Gompertz model was applied to predict the relevant kinetic variables of the digestion process. Result obtained shows that digester D with 25% CD and 75% HD produced the highest daily biogas, followed by C (50% CD and 50% HD), B (75% CD–25% HD), A (100% CD) and E (100% HD). Digester D also had maximum biogas production potential (A) of 13.8 L/gVS, maximum biogas production rate (µ) of 0.69 L/gVS/day and shortest lag phase (λ) of 5.20 days. Digester E with 100% HD, though had a short lag phase of 5.72 days, had the least total biogas yield of 5.1 L/gVS. The closeness of the coefficients of determination (R2) to 1 reflects a good fit, between experimental and simulated data. The study found that increase in the amount of cow dung beyond 25% led to decrease in biogas yield. It has also shown that biogas production from CD and HD is feasible and can serve as way of removing CD and HD from the environment while serving as a source of bioenergy. Further study on best ways of pre-treating the substrates for greater biogas yield is recommended.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

(Adapted from Achinas et al. 2018)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Achinas S, Li Y, Achinas V, Euverink GJW (2018) Influence of sheep manure addition on biogas potential and methanogenic communities during cow dung digestion under mesophilic conditions. Sustain Environ Res 28(5):240–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmadu TO, Folayan CO, Yawas DS (2009) Comparative performance of cow dung and chicken droppings for biogas production. Nigerian J Eng 1(16):154–164

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alfa MI, Adie DB, Iorhemen OT, Okafor CC, Ajayi SA, Dahunsi SO, Akali DM (2013) Assessment of mesophilic co-digestion of cow dung with lemon grass for biogas production. Nigeria J Technol 3(32):478–484

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alfa MI, Dahunsi SO, Iorhemen OT, Okafor CC, Ajayi SA (2014) Comparative evaluation of biogas production from poultry droppings. Cow Dung Lemon Grass, Bioresour Technol 157(2014):270–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alfa MI, Okuofu CA, Adie DB, Dahunsi SO, Oranusi US, Idowu SA (2012) Evaluation of biogas potentials of Cymbopogon citratusas alternative energy in Nigeria. Int J Green Chem Bioprocess 4(2):34–38

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alvarez R, Villca S, Lidén G (2006) Biogas production from llama and cow manure at high altitude. Biomass Bioenerg 30(1):66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Awosusi A, Sethunya V, Matambo T (2020) Synergistic effect of anaerobic co-digestion of South African food waste with cow manure: Role of low density-polyethylene in process modulation. Mater Today Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. APHA (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th ed. Jointly published by American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF), Washington, USA

  9. Borowski S, Domański J, Weatherley L (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge. Waste Manage 34(2):513–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coppolecchia D, Gardoni D, Baldini C, Borgonovo F, Guarino M (2015) The influence on biogas production of three slurry-handling systems in dairy farms. J Agr Eng 46:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Azevedo AR, dos Coutinho SRA, Pereira CR, Cecchin D (2020) Characterization of solid waste of restaurant and its energy generation potential: case study of Niterói, RJ, Brazil. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 1–10

  12. Dima AD, Parvulescu OC, Mateescu C, Dobre T (2020) Optimization of substrate composition in anaerobic co-digestion of agricultural waste using central composite design. Biomass Bioenerg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dinuccio E, Gioelli F, Cuk D, Rollè L, Balsari P (2013) The use of co-digested solid fraction as feedstock for biogas plants. J Agric Eng. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2013.355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Esteves EMM, Herrera AMN, Esteves VPP, Morgado CDRV (2019) Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: a review. J Clean Prod 219:411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feng L, Perschke YML, Fontaine D, Nikolausz M, Ward AJ, De-Rocha UN, Correa FB, Eriksen J, Sorensen P, Moller HB (2020) Anaerobic digestion of co-ensiled cover crop and barley straw: Effect of co-ensiling ratios, manure addition and impact on microbial community structure. Ind Crops Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.112025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer E, Powrosnik AM, Beil C (2013) Assessment of process stability and biogas yield for the anaerobic digestion of horse dung in lab-scale. Landtechnik 68(4):248–251

    Google Scholar 

  17. Garlipp F, Hessel EF, Vanden W, Herman FA (2011) Characteristics of gas generation (NH3, CH4, N2O, CO2, H2O) from horse manure added to different bedding materials used in deep litter bedding systems. J Equine Vet Sci 31(2011):383–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghasimi SMD, Idris A, Chuah TG, Tey BT (2009) The Effect of C: N: Pratio, volatile fatty acids and Na+ levels on the performance of an anaerobic treatment of fresh leachate from municipal solid waste transfer station. Afr J Biotech 8(18):4572–4581

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hadin A, Eriksson O, Hillman K (2016) A review of potential critical factors in horse keeping for anaerobic digestion of horse manure. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 65:432–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hagos K, Zong J, Li D, Liu C, Lu X (2017) Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 76(2017):1485–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Igboro SB, Okuofu CA, Ahmadu TO, Otun JA (2011) Development and Evaluation of a Biogas Stove. Nigerian J Eng 17(2):12–19

    Google Scholar 

  22. Iqbal HMN, Ahmed I, Zia MA, Irfan M (2011) Purification and characterization of the kinetic parameters of cellulase produced from wheat straw by Trichoderma viride under SSF and its detergent compatibility. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 2(3):149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaro RH, Icalina MAA, Talemporos RT et al (2020) Biogas production from waste pulps of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) via anaerobic digestion. Energ Ecol Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00182-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kalia AK, Singh SP (1998) Horse dung as a partial substitute for cattle dung for operating family-size biogas plants in a hilly region. Biores Technol 64(1):63–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Karki AB, Shrestha NJ, Bajgain S (Eds) (2005) Biogas as renewable energy source in Nepal: theory and development. Nepal, BSP. Obtainable on www.snvworld.org

  26. Khayum N, Anbarasu S, Murugan S (2018) Biogas potential from spent tea waste: A laboratory scale investigation of co-digestion with cow manure. Energy 165:760–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li K, Liu R, Cui S, Yu Q, Ma R (2018) Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures with corn stover or apple pulp for enhanced biogas production. Renew Energy 118(2018):335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lo KV, Bulley NR, Liao PH, Whitehead AJ (1983) The effect of solids-separation pretreatment on biogas production from dairy manure. Agric Wastes 8(3):155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Matheri AN, Belaid M, Seodigeng T, Ngila CJ (2015) The kinetic of biogas rate from cow dung and grass clippings. In: Paper presented at the 7th international conference on latest trends in engineering and technology (ICLTET'2015), Irene, Pretoria (South Africa)

  30. McLeod JD, Othman MZ, Beale DJ, Joshi D (2015) The use of laboratory scale reactors to predict sensitivity to changes in operating conditions for full-scale anaerobic digestion treating municipal sewage sludge. Biores Technol 189:384–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Menardo S, Balsari P (2012) An Analysis of the energy potential of anaerobic digestion of agricultural by-products and organic waste. Bioenerg Res 5:759–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Noonari AA, Mahar RB, Sahito AR, Brohi KM (2019) Anaerobic co-digestion of canola straw and banana plant wastes with buffalo dung: effect of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on methane yield. Renew Energy 133(2019):1046–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Oladejo OS, Dahunsi SO, Adesulu-Dahunsi AT, Ojo SO, Lawal AI, Idowu EO, Olanipekun AA, Ibikunle RA, Osueke CO, Ajayi OE, Osueke N, Evbuomwan I (2020) Energy generation from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, cow dung and piggery dung. Bioresour Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ojolo SJ, Dinrifo RR, Adesuyi KB (2007) Comparative study of biogas from five substrates. Adv Mater Res J 18–10:519–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Onokwai AO, Owamah HI, Ibiwoye MO, Ayuba GC, Olayemi OA (2020) Application of response surface methodology (RSM) for the optimization of energy generation from Jebba hydro-power plant, Nigeria. ISH J Hydraulic Eng 1–9

  36. Owamah HI (2020) Biogas yield assessment from the anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cymbopogon citratus. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 1–8

  37. Owamah IH, Izinyon OC, Igbinewekan P (2017) Characterization and quantification of solid waste generation in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: a case study of Ogbe-Ijoh community in Delta State. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 19(1):366–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Owamah HI (2020) A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality for drinking purpose in a Nigerian rural Niger delta community. Groundwater Sustain Dev 10:100286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Owamah HI, Alfa MI, Onokwai AO (2020) Preliminary evaluation of the effect of chicken feather with no major pre-treatment on biogas production from horse dung. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag 14:100347

    Google Scholar 

  40. Owamah HI, Alfa MI, Oyebisi SO, Emenike PC, Otuaro EA, Gopikumar S, Kumar SS (2021) Groundwater quality monitoring of a popular Niger Delta university town in Nigeria. Groundw Sustain Dev 12:100503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ozturk B (2013) Evaluation of biogas production yields of different waste materials. Earth Sci Res 2(1):165–174

    Google Scholar 

  42. Paranhos AGD, Adarme OFH, Barreto GF, Silva SD, De-Aquino SF (2020) Methane production by co-digestion of poultry manure and lignocellulosic biomass: Kinetic and energy assessment. Bioresour Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pan-in S, Sukasem N (2017) Methane production potential from anaerobic co-digestions of different animal dungs and sweet corn residuals. Energy Procedia 138(2017):943–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Parvage MM, Ulén B, Kirchmann H (2015) Are horse paddocks threatening water quality through excess loading of nutrients. J Environ Manag 147(2015):306–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Perazzolo F, Mattachini G, Tambone F, Calcante A, Provolo G (2016) Nutrient losses from cattle co-digestate slurry during storage. J Agr Eng 47:94–99

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pratiwi S, Juerges N (2020) Review of the impact of renewable energy development on the environment and nature conservation in Southeast Asia. Energ Ecol Environ 5:221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00166-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Reza MS, Islam SN, Afroze S et al (2020) Evaluation of the bioenergy potential of invasive Pennisetum purpureum through pyrolysis and thermogravimetric analysis. Energ Ecol Environ 5:118–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-019-00139-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Riggio V, Comino E, Rosso M (2015) Energy production from anaerobic co-digestion processing of cow slurry, olive pomace and apple pulp. Renew Energy 83(2015):1043–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sébastien GTL (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cattle slurry and agroindustrial fats: effect of fat ratio on the digester efficiency. Chem Eng Sci Sustain Ind 9(2014):5

    Google Scholar 

  50. Valenti F, Porto SMC, Chinnici G, Cascone G, Arcidiacono C (2017) Assessment of citrus pulp availability for biogas production by using a GIS-based model: the case study of an area in southern Italy. Chem Eng Trans 58:529–534

    Google Scholar 

  51. Veerappan AR, Shanmugam S, Venkateshkumar R (2019) Experimental investigation on the effect of anaerobic co-digestion of cotton seed hull with cow dung. Biomass Convers Biorefinery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00523-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Veeken A, Kalyuzhnyi S, Schariff H, Hamelers B (2000) Effect of pH and VFA on hydrolysis of organic solid waste. J Environ Eng 126(12):1076–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Veroneze ML, Schwantes D, Gonçalves AC Jr, Richart A, Manfrin J, da Paz Schiller A, Schuba TB (2019) Production of biogas and biofertilizer using anaerobic reactors with swine manure and glycerin doses. J Cleaner Prod 213:176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wadjeam P, Reungsang A, Imai T, Plangklang P (2019) Co-digestion of cassava starch wastewater with buffalo dung for bio-hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 44(29):14694–14706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang M, Sun X, Li P, Yin L, Liu D, Zhang Y, Li W, Zheng G (2014) A novel alternate feeding mode for semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with chicken manure. Bioresour Technol 164(2014):309–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wellinger A, Murphy JD, Baxter D (2013) The biogas handbook: science, production and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  57. Xia Y, Massé DI, McAllister TA, Beaulieu C, Ungerfeld E (2012) Anaerobic digestion of chicken feather with swine manure or slaughterhouse sludge for biogas production. Waste Manage 32(2012):404–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zarkadas IS, Sofikiti AS, Voudrias EA, Pilidis GA (2015) Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pasteurised food wastes and dairy cattle manure in batch and large volume laboratory digesters: focussing on mixing ratios. Renew Energy 80(2015):432–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zhai N, Zhang T, Yin D, Yang G, Wang X, Ren G, Feng Y (2015) Effect of initial pH on anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cow manure. Waste Manag 38(2015):126–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the technical staff of the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and the Academic Research and Entrepreneurship Development (A-RED) Initiative, Asaba, Nigeria for their immense contributions in improving the manuscript.

Funding

The study was not funded by third party.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Meshach Ileanwa Alfa initiated the study, generated the data and put the results in perspectives. Meshach Ileanwa Alfa, Hilary Ijeoma Owamah and Anthony Ogochukwu Onokwai prepared and edited the manuscript. Hilary Ijeoma Owamah and Anthony Ogochukwu Onokwai handled the submission and review processes. Sudalaimuthu Gopikumar, Solomon Olakunle Oyebisi, Smita Subodh Kumar,|Somvir Bajar, Olusegun David Samuel and Samuel Chukwujindu Ilabor assisted hugely in revising the manuscript after the first review especially in the area of graphical abstract preparation in conjunction with Meshach Ileanwa Alfa. Sudalaimuthu Gopikumar, Solomon Olakunle Oyebisi, Smita Subodh Kumar, Somvir Bajar, Olusegun David Samuel and Samuel Chukwujindu Ilabor also undertook the replotting of the graphs and enriching of the result and discussion section in line with reviewers’ comments. Anthony Ogochukwu Onokwai prepared the tabular comparison of result obtained in the study with those of previous studies. Hilary Ijeoma Owamah handled the correspondences and general supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilary Ijeoma Owamah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have no competing interest whatsoever.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alfa, M.I., Owamah, H.I., Onokwai, A.O. et al. Evaluation of biogas yield and kinetics from the anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung and horse dung: a strategy for sustainable management of livestock manure. Energ. Ecol. Environ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00203-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anaerobic digestion
  • Modified Gompertz model
  • Biogas
  • Cow dung
  • Horse dung