Literature DB >> 24598150

Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley.

F Battini1, A Agostini2, A K Boulamanti3, J Giuntoli3, S Amaducci4.   

Abstract

This work analyzes the environmental impacts of milk production in an intensive dairy farm situated in the Northern Italy region of the Po Valley. Three manure management scenarios are compared: in Scenario 1 the animal slurry is stored in an open tank and then used as fertilizer. In scenario 2 the manure is processed in an anaerobic digestion plant and the biogas produced is combusted in an internal combustion engine to produce heat (required by the digester) and electricity (exported). Scenario 3 is similar to scenario 2 but the digestate is stored in a gas-tight tank. In scenario 1 the GHG emissions are estimated to be equal to 1.21 kg CO2 eq.kg(-1) Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM) without allocation of the environmental burden to the by-product meat. With mass allocation, the GHG emissions associated to the milk are reduced to 1.18 kg CO2 eq.kg(-1) FPCM. Using an economic allocation approach the GHG emissions allocated to the milk are 1.13 kg CO2 eq.kg(-1) FPCM. In scenarios 2 and 3, without allocation, the GHG emissions are reduced respectively to 0.92 (-23.7%) and 0.77 (-36.5%) kg CO2 eq.kg(-1) FPCM. If land use change due to soybean production is accounted for, an additional emission of 0.53 kg CO2 eq. should be added, raising the GHG emissions to 1.74, 1.45 and 1.30 kg CO2 eq kg(-1) FPCM in scenarios 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Primary energy from non-renewable resources decreases by 36.2% and 40.6% in scenarios 2 and 3, respectively, with the valorization of the manure in the biogas plant. The other environmental impact mitigated is marine eutrophication that decreases by 8.1% in both scenarios 2 and 3, mostly because of the lower field emissions. There is, however, a trade-off between non-renewable energy and GHG savings and other environmental impacts: acidification (+6.1% and +5.5% in scenarios 2 and 3, respectively), particulate matter emissions (+1.4% and +0.7%) and photochemical ozone formation potential (+41.6% and +42.3%) increase with the adoption of a biogas plant. The cause of the increase is mostly emissions from the CHP engine. These impacts can be tackled by improving biogas combustion technologies to reduce methane and NOx emissions. Freshwater eutrophication slightly increases (+0.8% in both scenarios 2 and 3) because of the additional infrastructures needed. In conclusion, on-farm manure anaerobic digestion with the production of electricity is an effective technology to significantly reduce global environmental impacts of dairy farms (GHG emissions and non-renewable energy consumption), however local impacts may increase as a consequence (especially photochemical ozone formation).
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biogas; Dairy farm; Environmental impacts; Greenhouse gas; Life cycle assessment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24598150     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  5 in total

Review 1.  Agriculture, dairy and fishery farming practices and greenhouse gas emission footprint: a strategic appraisal for mitigation.

Authors:  Avijit Ghosh; Sukanya Misra; Ranjan Bhattacharyya; Abhijit Sarkar; Amit Kumar Singh; Vikas Chandra Tyagi; Ram Vinod Kumar; Vijay Singh Meena
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Summary of performance data for technologies to control gaseous, odor, and particulate emissions from livestock operations: Air management practices assessment tool (AMPAT).

Authors:  Devin L Maurer; Jacek A Koziel; Jay D Harmon; Steven J Hoff; Angela M Rieck-Hinz; Daniel S Andersen
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2016-04-12

3.  Environmental Assessment of a Hybrid Solar-Biomass Energy Supplying System: A Case Study.

Authors:  Congguang Zhang; Jiaming Sun; Jieying Ma; Fuqing Xu; Ling Qiu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies.

Authors:  Giampiero Grossi; Pietro Goglio; Andrea Vitali; Adrian G Williams
Journal:  Anim Front       Date:  2018-11-12

Review 5.  Sustainable livestock production: Low emission farm - The innovative combination of nutrient, emission and waste management with special emphasis on Chinese pig production.

Authors:  Thomas Kaufmann
Journal:  Anim Nutr       Date:  2015-08-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.