Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 314–322 | Cite as

Feasibility study of a centralized biogas plant performance in a dairy farming area

  • Yoshiteru Takeuchi
  • Fetra J. Andriamanohiarisoamanana
  • Seiichi Yasui
  • Masahiro Iwasaki
  • Takehiro Nishida
  • Ikko Ihara
  • Kazutaka Umetsu


In this feasibility study, the anaerobic co-digestion of different organic wastes obtained from a dairy farming area in Hokkaido prefecture, Japan was investigated with the objective of building a centralized biogas plant. The daily organic wastes generated from the study area were 210 t/day, comprised of 90% barn wastes and 10% wastewater sludge and feed residue of total mixed ration. The wastes can be categorized into high VS/TS ratio which is easily biodegradable and low VS/TS ratio which is hardly biodegradable. The methane yield of each substrate was investigated in a batch experiment followed by a continuous experiment at mesophilic temperature. Compared to other organic wastes, higher methane production potential were obtained from dairy manures with the highest yield, resulting in 0.19 m3/kgVS, from dairy manure slurry. Moreover, a longer hydrolysis rate constant (7.2 days) was observed with dairy manure slurry rather than beef cattle manure (3.4 days). Due to the mixture of substrates in the continuous experiment, the methane yield increased significantly (0.35 m3/kgVS), reaching almost double of that observed during batch experiments. The average biogas production performance was 39.26 m3 per m3 of added substrate. This illustrates the potential economic viability of the prospective centralized biogas plant.


Centralized biogas plant Methane yield Biogas production performance Organic waste Hydrolysis rate constant 


  1. 1.
    He G, Bluemling B, Mol APJ, Zhang L, Lu Y (2013) Comparing centralized and decentralized bio-energy systems in rural China. Energy Policy 63:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L (2003) Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants: status and future trends. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 109(1–3):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Umetsu K, Ying C, Kikuchi S, Iwasaki M, Takeuchi Y, Oi M, Shiroishi K, Uematsu T, Yasui S (2011) Integration of centralized biogas plant in cold-snowy region in Japan. Biotechnol Anim Husb 27(3):405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pukšec T, Duić N (2012) Economic viability and geographic distribution of centralized biogas plants: case study Croatia. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14(3):427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yabe N (2013) Environmental and economic evaluations of centralized biogas plants running on cow manure in Hokkaido, Japan. Biomass Bioenergy 49:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flotats X, Bonmatí A, Fernández B, Magrí A (2009) Manure treatment technologies: on-farm versus centralized strategies. NE Spain as case study. Bioresour Technol 100(22):5519–5526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shahriari H, Warith M, Hamoda M, Kennedy KJ (2012) Effect of leachate recirculation on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste Manag 32(3):400–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ladu JLC, Lü X (2014) Effects of hydraulic retention time, temperature, and effluent recycling on efficiency of anaerobic filter in treating rural domestic wastewater. Water Sci Eng 7(2):168–182.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen JL, Ortiz R, Steele TWJ, Stuckey DC (2014) Toxicants inhibiting anaerobic digestion: a review. Biotechnol Adv 32(8):1523–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu Y, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Ni B-J (2015) Zero valent iron significantly enhances methane production from waste activated sludge by improving biochemical methane potential rather than hydrolysis rate. Sci Rep 5:8263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nurliyana MY, H’ng PS, Rasmina H, Kalsom MSU, Chin KL, Lee SH, Lum WC, Khoo GD (2015) Effect of C/N ratio in methane productivity and biodegradability during facultative co-digestion of palm oil mill effluent and empty fruit bunch. Ind Crops Prod 76:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Sakamoto Y, Yamashiro T, Yasui S, Iwasaki M, Ihara I, Tsuji O, Umetsu K (2015) Effects of handling parameters on hydrogen sulfide emission from stored dairy manure. J Environ Manage 154:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Sakamoto Y, Yamashiro T, Yasui S, Iwasaki M, Ihara I, Nishida T, Umetsu K (2016) The seasonal effects of manure management and feeding strategies on hydrogen sulphide emissions from stored dairy manure. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. doi: 10.1007/s10163-016-0519-7 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kato S, Yamashiro T, Lateef SA, Iwasaki M, Umetsu K (2010) Co-digestion of cow manure and crude glycerin. J Soc Agric Struct Jpn 41(3):118–123.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atandi E, Rahman S (2012) Prospect of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure: a review. Environ Technol Rev 1(1):127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamashiro T, Lateef SA, Ying C, Beneragama N, Lukic M, Iwasaki M, Ihara I, Nishida T, Umetsu K (2013) Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cow manure and high concentrated food processing waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 15(4):539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serrano A, Siles JA, Martín MA, Chica AF, Estévez-Pastor FS, Toro-Baptista E (2016) Improvement of anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge through microwave pre-treatment. J Environ Manage 177:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Matsunami N, Yamashiro T, Iwasaki M, Ihara I, Umetsu K (2016) High-solids anaerobic mono-digestion of riverbank grass under thermophilic conditions. J Environ Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2016.05.005 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Standard Methods (2005) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater (21st ed.). American Public Health Association/American Water Works/Water Environment FederationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kimura Y, Umetsu K, Takahata H (1994) The effect of temperature on continuously expanding AD (III)—Characteristics of anaerobic digested dairy slurry for CED. J Jpn Grassl Sci 40:165–170.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu J, Zheng Y, Xu F, Li Y (2014) Solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of hay and soybean processing waste for biogas production. Bioresour Technol 154:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miranda ND, Granell R, Tuomisto HL, McCulloch MD (2016) Meta-analysis of methane yields from anaerobic digestion of dairy cattle manure. Biomass Bioenergy 86:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang X, Yun S, Zhu J, Du T, Zhang C, Li X (2016) Bioresource Technology Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of aloe peel waste with dairy manure in the batch digester†¯: Focusing on mixing ratios and digestate stability. Bioresour Technol 218:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montañés Alonso R, Solera del Río R, Pérez García M (2016) Thermophilic and mesophilic temperature phase anaerobic co-digestion (TPAcD) compared with single-stage co-digestion of sewage sludge and sugar beet pulp lixiviation. Biomass Bioenergy 93:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roati, Fiore S, Ruffino B, Marchese F, Novarino D, Zanetti MC (2012) Preliminary evaluation of the potential biogas production of food-processing industrial wastes. Am J Environ Sci 8(3):291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aoki K, Umetsu K, Nishizaki K, Takahashi J, Kishimoto T, Tani M, Hamamoto O, Misaki T (2006) Thermophilic biogas plant for dairy manure treatment as combined power and heat system in cold regions. Int Congr Ser 1293:238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Umetsu K, Takahata H, Takeuchi Y (2000) Farm scale anaerobic digester of dairy manure slurry in a cold region. Soc Agric Struct Jpn 31:179–185Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lehtomäki A, Huttunen S, Rintala JA (2007) Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: effect of crop to manure ratio. Resour Conserv Recycl 51(3):591–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Estevez MM, Sapci Z, Linjordet R, Schnürer A, Morken J (2014) Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and steam-exploded Salix with recirculation of liquid digestate. J Environ Manage 136:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yue Z, Chen R, Yang F, MacLellan J, Marsh T, Liu Y, Liao W (2013) Effects of dairy manure and corn stover co-digestion on anaerobic microbes and corresponding digestion performance. Bioresour Technol 128:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang C, Xiao G, Peng L, Su H, Tan T (2013) The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 129:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jabłoński SJ, Biernacki P, Steinigeweg S, Lukaszewicz M (2015) Continuous mesophilic anaerobic digestion of manure and rape oilcake - Experimental and modelling study. Waste Manag 35:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sarker S, Muller HB (2014) Regulating feeding and increasing methane yield from co-digestion of molasses and cattle manure. Energy Convers Manag 84: 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raven RPJM, Gregersen KH (2007) Biogas plants in Denmark: successes and setbacks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11(1):116–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshiteru Takeuchi
    • 1
  • Fetra J. Andriamanohiarisoamanana
    • 1
  • Seiichi Yasui
    • 2
  • Masahiro Iwasaki
    • 1
  • Takehiro Nishida
    • 1
  • Ikko Ihara
    • 3
  • Kazutaka Umetsu
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Animal and Food HygieneObihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary MedicineObihiroJapan
  2. 2.Airwater Co. LtdSapporoJapan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Agriculture ScienceKobe UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations