Bondar, A., Pidpala, T., Danylchuk, G., & Onyshchenko, L.
(2025).
Influence of the type of livestock by-products on biogas yield and composition.
Animal Science and Food Technology,
16(1),
55-73.
https://doi.org/10.31548/animal.1.2025.55
The study of the effects of various types of animal waste on the quantity and composition of biogas is significant and relevant for optimising anaerobic fermentation processes, increasing the efficiency of biogas production and adapting technologies to farm conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of livestock by-products, specifically cattle manure, pig manure, and chicken manure, on the quantity and quality of biogas produced. The methods employed in the study included statistical analysis, gas analysis, and fermentation. The study analysed the physicochemical properties of several types of raw materials for biogas production. The study found that chicken manure had the highest potential for biogas production due to its high content of volatile solids (25-30%) and the optimum ratio of methane in the biogas composition (65%). Cattle manure was characterised by a stable average biogas yield (0.15-0.18 m3/kg volatile solids in feedstock (VT, %)), while pig manure had the lowest yield (0.12-0.14 m3/kg volatile solids in feedstock). According to the study results, the addition of carbonaceous materials (e.g., chopped straw) improved the carbon to nitrogen ratio to optimise the fermentation process. The analysis of the organic matter content before and after fermentation revealed a significant decrease for chicken manure (51%), which indicated the effectiveness of biodegradation. The study included an assessment of the composition of biogas, including methane (50-65%), carbon dioxide (30-40%), and hydrogen sulphide (1-3%). The change in pH in all types of raw materials after fermentation indicated that the environment in the bioreactors had stabilised, providing favourable conditions for microorganisms. The findings of this study can be used in practice by ecologists, agronomists, livestock technologists, and biogas producers to create energy-independent farms through the integration of biogas plants into farms
waste; manure; chicken manure; bioreactor; methane; carbon dioxide; fermentation
[1] Ajao, M.O., Olugboji, O.A., & Olusola, E. (2024). Effect of silicon oxide nanoadditive on biogas and methane yield of anaerobic digestion of cow dung and sheep dung. Journal of Systematic, Evaluation and Diversity Engineering, 4(5), 1-16.
[2] Akamati, K., Laliotis, G.P., & Bizelis, I. (2022). Comparative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in pig farming using tier inventories. Environments, 9(5), article number 59. doi: 10.3390/environments9050059.
[3] Akyürek, Z. (2023). Biogas energy from animal waste. In K.G. Ramawat, J.-M. Mérillon & J. Arora (Eds.), Agricultural waste: Environmental impact, useful metabolites and energy production (pp. 543-558). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-8774-8_20.
[4] Chozhavendhan, S., Gnanavel, G., Karthiga Devi, G., Subbaiya, R., Praveen Kumar, R., & Bharathiraja, B. (2020). Enhancement of feedstock composition and fuel properties for biogas production. In R.P. Kumar, B. Bharathiraja, R. Kataki & V.S. Moholkar (Eds.), Biomass valorization to bioenergy (pp. 113-131). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-150410-5_9.
[5] Chubur, V., Danylov, D., Chernysh, Ye., Plyatsuk, L., Shtepa, V., Haneklaus, N., & Roubik, H. (2022). Methods for intensifying biogas production from waste: A scientometric review of cavitation and electrolysis treatments. Fermentation, 8(10), article number 570. doi: 10.3390/fermentation8100570.
[6] Di Mario, J., Montegiove, N., Gambelli, A.M., Brienza, M., Zadra, C., & Gigliotti, G. (2024). Waste biomass pretreatments for biogas yield optimization and for the extraction of valuable high-added-value products: Possible combinations of the two processes toward a biorefinery purpose. Biomass, 4(3), 865-885. doi: 10.3390/biomass4030048.
[7] Dong, L., Cao, G., Guo, X., Liu, T., Wu, J., & Ren, N. (2019). Efficient biogas production from cattle manure in a plug flow reactor: A large scale long term study. Bioresource Technology, 278, 450-455. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.100.
[8] DSTU ISO 11722:2004. (2005). Solid mineral fuels. Coal is hard. Determination of moisture in a sample for general analysis by the nitrogen drying method. Retrieved from https://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page?id_doc=96281.
[9] DSTU ISO 5725-4:2005. (2005). Accuracy (correctness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Retrieved from https://zakon.isu.net.ua/sites/default/files/normdocs/dstu_gost_iso_5725-4_2005.pdf.
[10] Dudin, V., Polehenka, M., Tkalich, O., Pavlychenko, A., Hapich, H., & Roubik, H. (2024). Ecological and economic assessment of the effectiveness of implementing bioenergy technologies in the conditions of post-war recovery of Ukraine. Scientific Bulletin of the National Mining University, 1, 203-208. doi: 10.33271/nvngu/2024-1/203.
[11] Ejiko, S.O., Adewuyi, R.A., & Akerele, O.V. (2024). Physicochemical analysis and biogas production potential of selected animal waste substrates. Journal of Engineering and Earth Sciences, 17(1), 65-80.
[12] Geletukha, G.G., Kucheruk, P., & Matveev, Y. (2022). Prospects for biomethane production in Ukraine: Analytical note. Retrieved from https://uabio.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/UAPosition-paper-UABIO-29.pdf.
[13] Golub, G., Skydan, O., Kukharets, V., Yarosh, Y., & Kukharets, S. (2020). The estimation of energetically self-sufficient agroecosystem’s model. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 21(1), 168-175. doi: 10.5513/JCEA01/21.1.2482.
[14] Havrysh, V., Kalinichenko, A., Mentel, G., & Olejarz, T. (2020). Commercial biogas plants: Lessons for Ukraine. Energies, 13(10), article number 2668. doi: 10.3390/en13102668.
[15] Havrysh, V., Nitsenko, V., Bilan, Y., & Streimikiene, D. (2019). Assessment of optimal location for a centralized biogas upgrading facility. Energy and Environment, 30(3), 462-480. doi: 10.1177/0958305X18793110.
[16] Kravchenko, Y., & Bykova, O. (2023). Physico-chemical and agrochemical indicators of typical chernozem and isohumisol under various tillage and fertiliser systems. Plant and Soil Science, 14(1), 22-38. doi: 10.31548/plant1.2023.22.
[17] Kucher, O., Hutsol, T., Glowacki, S., Andreitseva, I., Dibrova, A., Muzychenko, A., SzelągSikora, A., Szparaga, A., & Kocira, S. (2022). Energy potential of biogas production in Ukraine. Energies, 15(5), article number 1710. doi: 10.3390/en15051710.
[18] Lohosha, R., Palamarchuk, V., & Krychkovskyi, V. (2023). Economic efficiency of using digestate from biogas plants in Ukraine when growing agricultural crops as a way of achieving the goals of the European Green Deal. Energy Policy Journal, 26(2), 161-182. doi: 10.33223/epj/163434.
[19] Lovanh, N., Loughrin, J., Ruiz-Aguilar, G., & Sistani, K. (2023). Methane production from a rendering waste covered anaerobic digester: Greenhouse gas reduction and energy production. Energies, 16(23), article number 7844. doi: 10.3390/en16237844.
[20] Mahmoud, I., Hassan, М., Aboelenin, S.M., Soliman, M.M., Attia, H.F., Metwally, K.A., Salem, H., El-Tahan, A.M., El-Saadony, M.T., & Khalaphallah, R. (2022). Biogas manufacture from codigestion of untreated primary sludge with raw chicken manure under anaerobic mesophilic environmental conditions. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 29(4), 2969-2977. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2022.01.016.
[21] Manushkina, T., Koloianidi, N., Hyrlya, L., & Bondar, A. (2024). Decarbonisation of agricultural technologies in Ukraine in achieving sustainable development goals. Scientific Horizons, 27(7), 127-137. doi: 10.48077/scihor7.2024.127.
[22] Mohammed, M., Belkair, A., Hamad, T., Jirhiman, A., Hassan, R., & Ahmeedah, A. (2022). Improving biogas production from animal manure by batch anaerobic digestion. Algerian Journal of Engineering and Technology, 6, 79-84.
[23] Moshenskyi, S., Grytsyshen, D., & Petruk, O. (2024). Agricultural and resource economy of Ukraine and problems for economic growth. Scientific Horizons, 27(1), 152-161. doi: 10.48077/scihor1.2024.152.
[24] Muminova, S.S., Bayadilova, G., Mukhametzhanova, O., Seilgazina, S.M., Zhumabayeva, R., & Rvaidarova, G. (2023). The effects of feeding with organic waste by terrestrial isopod Philoscia Muscorum on enzyme activities in an incubated soil. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 12(2), 122-126. doi: 10.18393/ejss.1211180.
[25] Mutate, C.T., Kanjanda, A.J., & Mehta, G. (2023). Small-scale electricity generation from biogas in third world countries. In R. Sharma, R. Kannojiya, N. Garg & S.S. Gautam (Eds.), Advances in engineering design (pp. 449-460). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-3033-3_38.
[26] Obileke, K., Makaka, G., Tangwe, S., & Mukumba, P. (2024). Improvement of biogas yields in an anaerobic digestion process via optimization technique. Environment Development and Sustainability. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04540-6.
[27] Ogunkeyede, А.О., Bankole, A.O., Isinwa, A.U., Raphael, S.J., Odoh, B.C., Isukuru, E.J., & Akpofure, R.-R. (2024). Assessing the suitability of animal and food waste samples for biogas production and fertilizer evaluation. Scholars International Journal of Chemistry and Material Sciences, 7(6), 60-70. doi: 10.36348/sijcms.2024.v07i06.001.
[28] Ojo, O.M. (2022). Daily and cumulative biogas yields from selected animal dungs. In A.O. Ayeni, S.E. Sanni & S.U. Oranusi (Eds.), Bioenergy and biochemical processing technologies: Recent advances and future demands (pp. 37-44). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-03096721-5_4.
[29] Orhorhoro, E.K., & Oghoghorie, O. (2024). Energy and environment enhancing biogas yield through anaerobic co-digestion of animal manure and seaweed. Progress in Energy and Environment, 28, 1-22. doi: 10.37934/progee.28.1.122.
[30] Palamarenko, Y.V., & Chikov, I.A. (2023). Assessing the efficiency of biogas plants: The national and foreign experience. Problems of Economy, 3(57), 323-336. doi: 10.32983/2222-0712-20233-323-336.
[31] Shmatenko, V.A. (2024). Modelling of biomethane production by changing biogas consumption and absorbing composition. In Proceedings of V International scientific and practical conference “Innovative development of science, technology and education” (pp. 139-152). Vancouver: Perfect Publishing.
[32] Singh, S., Dwivedi, K., Gupta, S., & Shukla, N. (2024). Application of methano bacteria for production of biogas. In P. Singh (Ed.), Emerging trends and techniques in biofuel production from agricultural waste (pp. 43-55). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-8244-8_3.
[33] Strokal, V., Berezhniak, Y., Naumovska, O., Vahaliuk, L., Ladyka, M., Pavliuk, S., Palamarchuk, S., & Serbeniuk, H. (2024). Natural resources of Ukraine: Consequences and risks of Russian aggression. Biological Systems: Theory and Innovation, 15(1), 37-60. doi: 10.31548/biologiya15(1).2024.004.
[34] Tkachenko, S.Y., Stepanov, D.V., & Stepanova, N.D. (2020). Analysis of social and energy and sustainable efficiency of biogas technology implementation. Visnyk of Vinnytsia Polytechnical Institute, 2, 34-41. doi: 10.31649/1997-9266-2020-149-2-34-41.
[35] Uwizeye, A., Gerber, P.J., Opio, C.I., Tempio, G., Mottet, A., Makkar, H., Falcucci, A., Steinfeld, H., & de Boer, I.J. (2019). Nitrogen flows in global pork supply chains and potential improvement from feeding swill to pigs. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 146, 168-179. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.032.
[36] Venslauskas, K., Navickas, K., Rubežius, M., Žalys, B., & Gegeckas, A. (2024). Processing of agricultural residues with a high concentration of structural carbohydrates into biogas using selective biological products. Sustainability, 16(4), article number 1553. doi: 10.3390/su16041553.
[37] Wang, H., Lim, T.T., Duong, C., Zhang, W., Xu, C., Yan, L., Mei, Z., & Wang, W. (2020). Long-term mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with corn stover and microbial community analysis. Microorganisms, 8(2), article number 188. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8020188.
[38] Žalys, B., Venslauskas, K., Navickas, K., Buivydas, E., & Rubežius, М. (2023). The influence of CO2 injection into manure as a pretreatment method for increased biogas production. Sustainability, 15(4), article number 3670. doi: 10.3390/su15043670.
[39] Zinoviev, S.H., & Pushkina, M.L. (2023). Technological management of reduction of environmentally harmful emissions of livestock into the environment (review). Pig Breeding and Agroindustrial Production, 1(79), 68-102. doi: 10.37143/2786-7730-2023-1(79)05.