Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative fertilizer properties of digestates from mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: focusing on plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) and environmental risk

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The fertilizer properties of anaerobic digestate depend on the feedstock and operating conditions of digestion. In this study, the comparative fertilizer properties of mesophilic and thermophilic digestates from dairy manure were evaluated for plant nutrient contents, and special attention was paid to plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB). Two digestates contained similar plant nutrient contents, while the thermophilic digestate contained higher contents of NH4+–N. The quantity of Bacillus and Pseudomonas in the mesophilic digestate was significantly higher than in the thermophilic digestate. Furthermore, Bacillus showed siderophore production and antifungal activity (43.5–75.3%), and Pseudomonas showed siderophore and phytohormone production (4.2–75.2 µg ml−1). One phosphate solubilizing isolate was also detected in the mesophilic digestate. These results indicated that two digestates showed different fertilizer properties with respect to nutrient contents and PGPB, and digestates had the potential to increase the availability of phosphorus and iron in the soil, both to provide phytohormones to plant roots and protect plants from fungal phytopathogens. The contents of indicator bacteria and heavy metals were analyzed to determine their environmental risk, and the results showed a high reduction in indicator bacteria and lower levels of heavy metals than in other feedstocks.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P (2009) The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 100:5478–5484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Umetsu K, Kondo R, Tani M, Hayashi T (2002) Fertilizer value of anaerobically co-digested dairy manure and food processing wastes. Greenhouse gases and animal agriculture. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture, Obihiro, Japan, 7–11 November 2001, pp 331–342

  3. Alburquerque JA, de Fuente C, Ferrer-Costa A et al (2012) Assessment of the fertiliser potential of digestates from farm and agroindustrial residues. Biomass Bioenerg 40:181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abubaker J, Risberg K, Pell M (2012) Biogas residues as fertilisers—effects on wheat growth and soil microbial activities. Appl Energy 99:126–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Risberg K, Cederlund H, Pell M et al (2017) Comparative characterization of digestate versus pig slurry and cow manure—chemical composition and effects on soil microbial activity. Waste Manag 61:529–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: current perspective. J King Saud Univ - Sci 26:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodríguez H, Fraga R (1999) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol Adv 17:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Indiragandhi P, Anandham R, Madhaiyan M, Sa TM (2008) Characterization of plant growth-promoting traits of bacteria isolated from larval guts of Diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Curr Microbiol 56:327–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ji SH, Gururani MA, Chun SC (2014) Isolation and characterization of plant growth promoting endophytic diazotrophic bacteria from Korean rice cultivars. Microbiol Res 169:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vessey JK (2003) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 255:571–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nkoa R (2014) Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 34:473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dong B, Liu X, Dai L, Dai X (2013) Changes of heavy metal speciation during high-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 131:152–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu N, Guo X (2014) Sequential extraction of anaerobic digestate sludge for the determination of partitioning of heavy metals. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 102:18–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sahlström L (2003) A review of survival of pathogenic bacteria in organic waste used in biogas plants. Bioresour Technol 87:161–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamashiro T, Lateef SA, Ying C et al (2013) Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cow manure and high concentrated food processing waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 15:539–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lakshmanan V, Shantharaj D, Li G et al (2015) A natural rice rhizospheric bacterium abates arsenic accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Planta 242:1037–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Matsunami N, Yamashiro T et al (2017) High-solids anaerobic mono-digestion of riverbank grass under thermophilic conditions. J Environ Sci 52:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Riva C, Orzi V, Carozzi M et al (2016) Short-term experiments in using digestate products as substitutes for mineral (N) fertilizer: agronomic performance, odours, and ammonia emission impacts. Sci Total Environ 547:206–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gavala HN, Yenal U, Skiadas IV et al (2003) Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Effect of pre-treatment at elevated temperature. Water Res 37:4561–4572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zirkler D, Peters A, Kaupenjohann M (2014) Elemental composition of biogas residues: variability and alteration during anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenerg 67:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Micolucci F, Gottardo M, Cavinato C et al (2016) Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of the liquid fraction of pressed biowaste for high energy yields recovery. Waste Manag 48:227–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith SR, Lang NL, Cheung KHM, Spanoudaki K (2005) Factors controlling pathogen destruction during anaerobic digestion of biowastes. Waste Manag 25:417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner AO, Gstraunthaler G, Illmer P (2008) Survival of bacterial pathogens during the thermophilic anaerobic digestion of biowaste: laboratory experiments and in situ validation. Anaerobe 14:181–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bagge E, Sahlström L, Albihn A (2005) The effect of hygienic treatment on the microbial flora of biowaste at biogas plants. Water Res 39:4879–4886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sahlström L, Aspan A, Bagge E et al (2004) Bacterial pathogen incidences in sludge from Swedish sewage treatment plants. Water Res 38:1989–1994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar P, Dubey RC, Maheshwari DK (2012) Bacillus strains isolated from rhizosphere showed plant growth promoting and antagonistic activity against phytopathogens. Microbiol Res 167:493–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Insam H, Gómez-Brandón M, Ascher J (2015) Manure-based biogas fermentation residues—friend or foe of soil fertility? Soil Biol Biochem 84:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaur G, Sudhakara Reddy M (2014) Influence of P-solubilizing bacteria on crop yield and soil fertility at multilocational sites. Eur J Soil Biol 61:35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li X, Guo J, Dong R et al (2016) Properties of plant nutrient: comparison of two nutrient recovery techniques using liquid fraction of digestate from anaerobic digester treating pig manure. Sci Total Environ 544:774–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kupper KC, Bettiol W, de Goes A et al (2006) Biofertilizer for control of Guignardia citricarpa, the causal agent of citrus black spot. Crop Prot 25:569–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu K, Garrett C, Fadamiro H, Kloepper JW (2016) Induction of systemic resistance in Chinese cabbage against black rot by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Biol Control 99:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Alfa MI, Adie DB, Igboro SB et al (2014) Assessment of biofertilizer quality and health implications of anaerobic digestion effluent of cow dung and chicken droppings. Renew Energy 63:681–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Owamah HI, Dahunsi SO, Oranusi US, Alfa MI (2014) Fertilizer and sanitary quality of digestate biofertilizer from the co-digestion of food waste and human excreta. Waste Manag 34:747–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Iwasaki M, Yamashiro T, Beneragama N et al (2011) The effect of temperature on survival of pathogenic bacteria in biogas plants. Anim Sci J 82:707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The fungal strain Fusarium nivale f. sp. graminicola was purchased from the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (Tsukuba, Japan). This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan (no. 10670499).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Animal and Food Hygiene, Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Obihiro, Hokkaido, 080-8555, Japan

    Guangdou Qi, Zhifei Pan, Yasuha Sugawa, Fetra J. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, Takaki Yamashiro, Masahiro Iwasaki & Kazutaka Umetsu

  2. Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Immunology, Research Center for Animal Hygiene and Food Safety, Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Obihiro, Hokkaido, 080-8555, Japan

    Keiko Kawamoto

  3. Graduate School of Agriculture Science, Kobe University, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan

    Ikko Ihara

Authors
  1. Guangdou Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhifei Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasuha Sugawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fetra J. Andriamanohiarisoamanana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takaki Yamashiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masahiro Iwasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Keiko Kawamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ikko Ihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kazutaka Umetsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazutaka Umetsu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qi, G., Pan, Z., Sugawa, Y. et al. Comparative fertilizer properties of digestates from mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: focusing on plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) and environmental risk. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20, 1448–1457 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0708-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0708-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation