Next Article in Journal
Fault Diagnosis on Medium Voltage (MV) Electric Power Distribution Networks: The Case of the Downstream Network of the AES-SONEL Ngousso Sub-Station
Next Article in Special Issue
Biological Hydrogen Production from Corn-Syrup Waste Using a Novel System
Previous Article in Journal
The Optimal Operation Criteria for a Gas Turbine Cogeneration System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microalgal and Terrestrial Transport Biofuels to Displace Fossil Fuels
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback

Veronica Arthurson
Department of Microbiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7025, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden
Energies 2009, 2(2), 226-242;
Submission received: 3 March 2009 / Revised: 30 March 2009 / Accepted: 9 April 2009 / Published: 16 April 2009


Anaerobic digestion is an optimal way to treat organic waste matter, resulting in biogas and residue. Utilization of the residue as a crop fertilizer should enhance crop yield and soil fertility, promoting closure of the global energy and nutrient cycles. Consequently, the requirement for production of inorganic fertilizers will decrease, in turn saving significant amounts of energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and indirectly leading to global economic benefits. However, application of this residue to agricultural land requires careful monitoring to detect amendments in soil quality at the early stages.

1. Biogas residue

Anaerobic digestion of organic waste has significant potential to reduce global warming and climate change [1] as it promotes enhanced cycling of nutrient resources through nutrient-rich end products [2,3] (hereafter referred to as biogas residue) and presents an alternative to the energy-demanding generation of mineral fertilizers [4,5,6]. Anaerobic waste treatment leads to the generation of renewable energy in the form of biogas (carbon dioxide and methane) [7] and indirect decrease in methane emissions from landfill areas [8] through alternative recycling of residual products that were formerly landfilled or incinerated [9]. Moreover, application of biogas as an alternative fuel may moderate the use of fossil fuels and mitigate release of greenhouse gases [1]. However, to guarantee the maximum recovery value of organic wastes, the residual product, i.e. biogas residue, should have a meaningful purpose, and optimal benefits derived from its production. The application of residue as a fertilization agent that is recycled back to arable land ensures that crops receive the majority of the essential nutrients required for growth [2,10,11,12], i.e., soil fertility is conserved [13], and the soil structure and humus balance is improved [14,15], thus promoting closure of the natural nutrient and energy cycles. In contrast, application of inorganic fertilizers to crop fields is supplementary to the nutrient cycle, resulting in the need for increased production of fertilizers requiring significant energy input [4,5,6], along with continued escalation in the amount of residual waste treatment products [16] with no way of benefiting from its nutrient-rich nature. Thus, the use of biogas residue as an alternative should not only close the global nutrient cycle, but also indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere through decreased need for inorganic fertilizers and new landfill sites.
In 2006, about 18% of organic waste from Swedish households was treated in biogas or compost plants, struggling towards the national goal of treating 35% of organic waste using biological approaches by 2010 [17]. The entire quantity of biogas residue produced in Sweden in 2006 (273,000 tons) was used within agriculture [17]. The use of biogas residue as a crop fertilizer within agriculture is a relatively new concept [14], and different types of waste are routinely employed as input substrate for digesters [18,19,20,21,22]. Common sources of feedstock include source-separated household or commercial food waste, slaughterhouse waste, as well as agricultural waste and slurry. Depending on the country and location of the biogas plant, sewage sludge may be applied as input substrate [23]. However, in view of its restricted use within agriculture in several European countries [24], sewage sludge will not be discussed and included in the term “biogas residue” within this article, unless stated otherwise.
Biogas residue is the final remnant of the original waste placed into digesters that cannot be utilized by microbes involved in the anaerobic degradation process [7]. The residue additionally contains the mineralized remains of dead bacterial mass derived from within the digesters [7]. To ensure that biogas residue is an acceptable crop fertilizer, the waste needs to be of high quality with proven value as an efficient plant nutrient source and/or soil conditioner [16]. The quality of biogas residue is assessed based on three criteria, specifically, chemical, biological and physical features [15], and is significantly dependent on the origin of the organic waste used as feedstock. Based on the source and possible pre-treatments applied, the resulting residue may contain persistent organic matter, such as dioxin-like compounds [25,26], polychlorinated bromines (PCB) and pesticides [27], polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) [28], chlorinated paraffins [29], phenolic compounds [28,30,31] and phthalates [28,32,33]. The potential risks of introducing these contaminants to agricultural land in terms of soil perturbation need to be considered prior to application of biogas residue. For instance, the concentration of the contaminant, its chemical reactivity, volatility, water solubility and absorption capacity are crucial determinants [34,35], as well as the degradation capacity of soil and potential long-term effects on soil processes [36,37,38]. The biological quality of biogas residue is additionally related to the presence of pathogenic microorganisms and seeds [39,40,41,42], which may facilitate new transmission routes of pathogens between humans, animals and the environment. Finally, biogas residue may contain various types of physical impurities, such as glass, plastic, metal and/or stones [43]. In addition to significant effects on the suitability of biogas residue as a crop fertilizer, physical and chemical properties of untreated feedstock affect the rate of bioconversion, and hence its potential as a biogas generation substrate.
Anaerobic zymogenous microorganisms that are inoculated in biogas plants degrade the organic fractions of feedstock to CH4, CO2 and digested residue. Essential nutrients (N, P, K, Mg), including trace elements required by plants, are conserved in the residue [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. However, nutrients are present in inorganic plant-available forms at a markedly higher extent in digested residue, compared to untreated waste [47,48,50,52,53,54], due to the large input of organic nutrients that are mineralized during the digestion process [7]. For instance, digested residue contains 25% more accessible ammonium (NH4+-N) than untreated liquid manure [55]. Consistent with these findings, several trials show that biogas residue enhances crop yield [10,11]. Additionally, biogas residue inhibits plant diseases and induction of microbial resistance [56], and has a direct effect on soil-borne diseases [57] and indirect effect on stimulation of biological activity [58].
Overall, the application of biogas residue as fertilizers within agriculture has not been as extensively evaluated as other types of organic waste, emphasizing the urgent need for further studies within this field to obtain products with positive implications for the global environment. This article focuses on the known effects of biogas residue as a crop fertilizer and soil conditioner. Additionally, a brief discussion about the modern molecular methods suitable for monitoring the land application of biogas residue is included along with a section dealing with the future challenges in the use of biogas.

2. Effects of biogas residue on soil microbiology and quality

Organic matter is an essential component of soil that not only provides nutrients for crops. but also improves soil aggregation, facilitating the maintenance of structure, drainage and aeration [59], which are necessary for good crop yields. Consequently, addition of organic matter makes the soil less erodible and easier to plough, and enhances nutrient retention. Moreover, soil acquires increased resistance to crusting and compaction, enabling better growth of crop roots, and stimulates microbial activity [44,45], indirectly leading to improved crop yield. For instance, application of organic waste enhances the soil N and P content [60], improves soil structure and water holding capacity [61], suppresses crop disease [57], and diminishes the need for chemical weed control [62]. Furthermore, microbial biomass [63,64] and various soil enzymatic activities, including those of urease, alkaline phosphatase and β-glucosidase [65,66], are increased, implying that a broad range of soil functions benefit from biogas residue amendment.
As the soil microbial biomass is a living metabolizing unit, it responds more quickly to changes in the surrounding environment, compared to organic matter as an entity. Changes in soil microbial parameters may therefore reflect perturbations in soil quality induced by biogas residue long before these modifications are envisaged in chemical properties, such as the C, N and P content [14]. Consequently, evaluation of the structure, function and/or activity of the microbial community, either as a whole or in terms of specific phylogenetic/functional groups, presents the best “live view” of the events occurring in soil, providing rapid and reliable information on soil quality.
Nyberg et al. [67] investigated whether organic household waste biologically treated in different ways (anaerobic digestion, composting, swine manure and cow manure) affects the ammonia-oxidizing activities and compositions of indigenous bacterial communities in soil. The group showed that the ammonia-oxidizing bacterial community composition was not affected by organic matter. However, while no community shift was detected, application of swine manure and residue produced by thermophilic anaerobic digestion suppressed the rate of potential ammonia oxidation in the soil after 12 weeks of incubation. The authors speculate that compounds inhibitory to ammonia-oxidizing activity are present in these residues. Based on previous data obtained from organic fraction extracts of residue, it was concluded that the inhibitory compounds are organic in nature, possibly constituting organic pollutants detected in other batches of the same anaerobic residue [25,31,32].
Soil microorganisms are generally stimulated as a result of fertilization with biogas residue, as evident from the addition of inorganic nutrients and organic matter [68]. Similar results were obtained by Odlare et al. [58] who performed a 4-year field trial in Sweden focusing on the effects of organic waste (composted household waste, biogas residue from household waste, anaerobically digested sewage sludge, pig manure, cow manure and mineral fertilizer) on soil chemical and microbiological parameters. The researchers observed that biogas residue enhanced microbial biomass (measured as substrate-induced respiration) and the proportion of metabolically active microorganisms, compared to the untreated control. Furthermore, in contrast to the short-term study discussed above [67], biogas residue increased the rate of potential ammonia oxidation, nitrogen mineralization capacity and the specific growth rate constant of denitrifiers [58]. However, this increase was not statistically significant, compared to that of the control amended with mineral fertilizer. Due to the chemoautotrophic nature of nitrifying bacteria, higher benefits of ammonium-rich biogas residue for soil nitrifiers were expected in relation to the actual effects, as their prime source of energy is ammonia. Mineral nitrogen-phosphorus-sulphur (N-P-S) fertilizer mainly utilizes nitrate as its source of nitrogen, and would thus be a suitable control for the ammonium oxidation rate in soil amended with biogas residue [58]. Generally, no negative effects of organic waste products were observed on the soil microbial parameters analyzed. Furthermore, biogas residue contained higher concentrations of mineral nitrogen and easily degradable carbon, leading to greater efficiency in promoting soil biological activity. The authors concluded that changes in the microbial properties of the soil adjust more rapidly than chemical properties to amendment by organic waste, further confirming the suitability of microbial processes as sensitive indicators of short-term alterations in the soil environment [58].
In contrast to the results of Odlare et al. [58], Ernst and co-workers [69] reported reduced amounts of readily available nutrients and increased levels of barely decomposable organic matter in the digested residue. The recalcitrant nature of the residue led to reduced microbial activity in the soil and decreased biomass of earthworms, compared to conventional cattle slurry. Moreover, negative effects of earthworms on soil nitrification, microbial biomass and basal respiration by the digested residue were observed [69]. As fertilizers were applied at the same amount of NH4-N, treatment with the digested residue resulted in lower total C input (since the proportion of NH4-N is higher than that in untreated slurry), which possibly explains the reduced stimulation of microorganisms by earthworms upon application of biogas residue [69]. The authors further discuss the qualitative differences in organic C among the treatments, which may additionally contribute to the variations in microbial activity observed with biogas residue and conventional cattle slurry [69].
The significant variations in the qualitative composition of C among biogas residues and its decisive role in supporting microbial consortia further emphasize the need for an aerobic post-treatment stage (i.e., curing/maturation, particularly if the original feedstock contains woody/plant material) where recalcitrant organic compounds, such as lignin, are further degraded by aerobic microorganisms, such as fungi [70].

3. Effects of biogas residue on plant growth

Upon anaerobic degradation, the energy in organic waste is predominantly transformed into methane, whereas nitrogen is mainly conserved in the resultant residue as ammonium [7]. The anaerobic digestion procedure leads to a decreased C/N ratio from 17.0 in raw swine manure to 10.5 in biogas residue, which may be explained by loss of carbon as CH4 and CO2 during this process [71]. This finding is consistent with other studies reporting a lower C/N ratio in biogas residue after anaerobic digestion [48,49]. When considering the organic fractions only, the C/Norg ratio is increased following anaerobic digestion due to a decrease in the organic N concentration [50]. However, N may be immobilized in organic materials with high C/N ratios (above 18) upon application to soil [50], which should be taken into account when calculating the crop requirement of biogas residue (i.e., N). A lower level of carbon remaining in the residue is available for microbial degradation, compared to that in untreated waste and/or manure and/or slurry, and digested residues contain less total C as a result of conversion to CH4 during the degradation process [1,47,50,53,69]. Moreover, the amount of lignin is higher in anaerobically digested residues than conventional slurry [72], similar to that in residues produced during thermophilic composting [73].
The low C/N ratio in biogas residue, compared to untreated manure, leads to decreased N immobilization, and consequently, reduced N mineralization and bioavailability at the time of application [53,74,75,76]. Conversely, Loria and Sawyer [77] reported that raw and digested swine manure generated similar net inorganic N and mineralization, although the chemical oxygen demand (COD) was significantly decreased after digestion. Rubaek et al. [78] showed that N uptake by ryegrass was higher with biogas residue than raw manure in the first cut. However, the opposite phenomenon was observed in the second cut [78]. Moreover, the amount of N lost by denitrification was higher in plots treated with raw, compared to digested slurry [78]. Other studies show that plots fertilized with biogas residue and raw manure provide similar crop yields [74,79]. In general, biogas residue presents an efficient nitrogen source for plants with the potential to improve crop yield and soil properties [80,81,82,83]. However, it is important to remember that N is the most common limiting factor for crop growth in organic farming systems [84,85,86,87] owing to failure in synchronizing crop N demand and supply to the soil by mineralization of organic fertilizers [88].
The issue of how effectively biogas residue can substitute common artificially produced mineral fertilizers in terms of crop yield is of significant interest. A recent report by Montemurro et al. [89] focused on determining the potential of biogas residue in crop yield. During a two-year field experiment, no significant differences were observed in the cumulative plant dry weight of alfalfa subjected to different fertilizer treatments (anaerobic digestates and mineral fertilizers), whereas for cocksfoot crops, mean yield was higher in plots treated with biogas residue in relation to control plots. At the end of the trial, no heavy metals were detected in either plants or soil, and plant nutrient content was not affected by fertilizer application. The authors concluded that biogas residue could be effectively utilized in the short term to provide nutrients to crops [89]. In another study, Kocar [90] compared the fertilizer value of anaerobically digested cattle slurry with those of commercial organic and chemical fertilizers. Higher yields of safflower were obtained with biogas residue than commercial organic and chemical fertilizers. The authors propose that the input of chemical fertilizers should decrease with the use of anaerobically digested residues, whereas soil texture is improved [90]. Chantigny and colleagues [91] reported similar fertilizer values of raw and anaerobically treated liquid swine manure to that of mineral fertilizer upon immediate incorporation into soil [91], supporting the significant potential of biogas residue as a valuable substitute and/or complement to mineral fertilizers. Moreover, the risk of postharvest NO3 accumulation with swine manure was no higher than that with mineral fertilizer [91].
Båth and Rämert [2] reported a higher content of mineral nitrogen in soil amended with biogas residue derived from domestic household waste, compared to that fertilized with compost during the initial 70 days after planting. The group further demonstrated improved yield of leeks following fertilization with biogas residue in relation to compost amendment [2], which may be explained by the higher amount of N in forms immediately available to plants (i.e. inorganic N, predominantly ammonium). A study by Rivard et al. [10] showed that dried and composted biogas residue produced from municipal solid waste induced an increase in crop weight (i.e., corn) and plant yield in direct proportion to the residue application rate. Moreover, Garg and co-workers [92] reported that fertilization of soil with biogas slurry generated from cattle dung improved the yield of wheat over non-modified controls. Grain yield increased with the application of biogas residue, which was attributed to the lower bulk density of soil, increased hydraulic conductivity, and greater moisture retention. Consequently, the improved status of nutrients through amendment of the physical properties of soil contributed to the higher yield of wheat [92]. An investigation by Marchain [93] further disclosed that biogas residue induced a 6-20% higher yield in vegetable production, clearly signifying that a broad range of plants potentially benefit from this mode of fertilization, including vegetables and cereals. However, since biogas residue contains a significant proportion of mineralized N, crops that display a short and intensive period of N uptake should preferably be fertilized using this method [16,48] to minimize N leakage. Furukawa and Hasegawa [94] reported that biogas residue produced from source-separated household waste was comparable to NPK fertilizers in terms of early N uptake, fresh yield, and N uptake at harvest of spinach and komatsuna. Since biogas residue is rich in NH4+-N and K but low in P [95], and soil-exchangeable K is high [94], its fertilizer value may be mainly attributed to the N effect [94]. Consistently, Tiwari et al. [11] showed that significant amounts of mineral N could be substituted with biogas slurries in cropping of wheat, and Svensson and colleagues [16] reported that biogas residue derived from source-separated household waste contained equivalent quantities of mineral N to that supplied by organic fertilizers of agricultural crops, and enhanced both crop yield and grain quality of oats and spring barley (i.e., the N content of grain). Additionally, biogas residue was equally as good as or better than cow manure, pig slurry and mineral fertilizer in terms of fertilization of agricultural crops [58]. Odlare et al. [58] concluded that biogas residue may contain higher amounts of mineral N and easily degradable C [14] (for instance, compared to compost), and should hence be more efficient in supplying available N to crops than other types of organic waste [58]. In contrast, El-Shakweer et al. [96] reported similar crop yields using soil amended with air-dried biogas residue and unmodified soil, and other studies report that anaerobic digestion results in relative enrichment of heavily degradable compounds [1,47,50,69]. Nevertheless, biogas residue is evidently an efficient N source for the fertilization of agricultural crops [16]. Notably, soil fertilized with biogas residue requires phosphorus (i.e. superphosphate) supplementation to avoid P deficits [16], emphasizing the need to analyze and monitor the quality of biogas residue before indiscriminate application to agricultural land as a fertilizer.

4. Post-treatment of biogas residue

Biogas residue resulting from anaerobic digestion of organic waste has significant potential as a crop fertilizer and soil conditioner. However, the residue may not be a suitable soil improver in its basic form, owing to possible phytotoxicity [97,98,99], viscosity and odor [100], difficult handling, and expensive soil application approaches [101]. Therefore, further treatment is essential to enhance its applicability as a crop fertilizer before use as an acceptable saleable product [102], such as composting (i.e., aerobic degradation) and/or air-drying.
Biogas residue displays high water content (95-98%), raising the issue of whether it should be dewatered and dried before application within agriculture. These procedures may eliminate the need for spraying, resulting in reduction of application costs and improved targeting of nutrient deficiency spots [15]. On the other hand, upon drying, up to 90% of NH4+ may be lost as ammonia (NH3) [10], which would dramatically reduce the benefits of biogas residue as a crop fertilizer. In case of distribution to the crop field without prior drying, the residue can be spread through conventional irrigation techniques, which presents an advantage over dried residue, since application is possible throughout the crop cycle [15]. However, the application time needs to be taken into account to match nutrient availability with the needs of crops and avoid leakage of mineralized N into soil and subsequently, groundwater [48]. Loss of N within agriculture occurs through nitrate leaching, microbial denitrification and NH3 volatilization, results in decreased supply of N to crops, and simultaneously constitutes a threat to sustainable management [88]. NH3 volatilization may lead to eutrophication of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, which are limited in N, and contribute to increased acidification of sensitive ecosystems [88,103]. Additionally, the spreading equipment used should ensure minimization of NH3 emissions occurring due to the potentially high NH3 content and high pH of the residue. However, cattle slurries with a lower content of dry matter are reported to infiltrate the soil more easily than slurries with a higher content of dry matter [104,105,106], which may have implications for the soil infiltration potential of liquid biogas residue. Moreover, the dry matter content of manure significantly affects NH3 emission [107]. Specifically, higher emission is observed at elevated dry matter levels (i.e., from cattle than pig slurry) [108]. Misselbrook et al. [105] suggested that the physical nature of dry matter content (fibrous vs. colloidal) is an important factor influencing the soil infiltration potential of slurries. As rapid infiltration into soil reduces NH3 emissions, it is important that farmers replace techniques such as simple land spreading and band spreading with shallow injection to minimize NH3 loss to optimize benefits of the digested residue [48]. In conjunction with suitable application techniques, anaerobic digestion of organic material represents a potential key procedure for producing organic waste fertilizers via reduction of solid concentrations and particle sizes [48,51,109,110].
The decreased carbon content in biogas residue, compared to untreated waste (such as manure or slurry), may lead to reduced formation of the potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide [111], and resulting emissions [88,112]. Due to the potential presence of a more recalcitrant form of C in digested residue (easily degradable C compounds are decomposed in the digestion process) compared to untreated waste [1,47,50,69], the rate of microbial degradation in soil, and hence, oxygen consumption may be reduced [49,113,114,115,116,117]. This results in less anoxic microsites, and possibly, decreased rates of denitrification, indicating significant potential to reduce N2O and N2 loss [88].
To further reduce the risk of N leakage, biogas residue can be further processed and stabilized in compost. This results in a fertilizer product of higher quality, as mineralized N is fixed onto humus-like fractions. Additionally, composting of the digested residue induces the degradation of resistant organic elements, such as lignin [70], which are usually not completely degraded by anaerobic microorganisms. The aerobic microbes present in compost transform phytotoxic NH3 into nitrates, resulting in an end-product with improved fertility that is more suitable as a soil conditioner. Composting additionally contributes to odor reduction, making the residue more acceptable as a soil improver.
A report by Abdullahi et al. [102] showed that the phytotoxicity of fresh waste and anaerobic digests decreased along with the degradation of easily biodegradable organics of waste during the composting process. Moreover, seed germination (Raphanus sativus L.) increased with dilution of the mature (composted) residue and extension of the incubation time. Accordingly, the authors recommend lower application rates of composted residue in combination with longer lag periods between the spreading of composted residue and planting, which would potentially reduce the amount of biodegradable organic material in the residue, and consequently, phytotoxicity [102].
Regardless of the preferred approach of fertilizer application, post-treatments available for biologically treated organic waste (biogas residue), such as composting, should be an increasing focus of research interest as the amount of waste accumulates and future surveys continue to prove the suitability of biogas residue as a crop fertilizer for agricultural land. However, it is important to consider that the quality of the resulting residue depends on the quality of original input waste, highlighting the importance of proper source separation systems. Accordingly, interference of toxic chemicals and non-degradable inclusion in the process should be minimized, ultimately leading to improved quality of the product residue.

5. Monitoring the application of biogas residue to arable land

For the safe application of biogas residual fertilizer, it is crucial to monitor the resulting changes in the surrounding soil environment, which usually includes large amounts of nutrients (mineralized and organic) and organic C. Several methods currently available for the evaluation of treatment effects on soil quality mainly focus on chemical properties, including the C, N and P content, that slowly adjust to the altered conditions [58]. However, there is an imminent risk of overlooking the short-term effects of residue application when relying on solely these analyses. Therefore, to distinguish short-term changes (including the resulting long-term effects) in soil quality, it is essential to analyze the structure, function and/or activity of microbial communities present in the soil [37,118,119,120,121], which present a more rapid response to environmental changes [58]. An accurate picture of the early changes in soil quality can be obtained by evaluating microbial properties, preferably in combination with chemical characteristics, since perturbations affecting the function of soil are reflected at an early stage.
A number of methods are currently available for monitoring changes in structure and function among microbial communities, including metabolic activity [122]. However, studies on soil microflora should greatly benefit from the application of new molecular tools [121,123] in combination with traditional methods, which should provide a representative picture of the community structure, including species not adapted to monoculturing and functional groups. It is important to consider that the dominant genotypes are primarily identified with general PCR-based molecular techniques, and in cases where the aim is to explore the total diversity of complex samples, such as soil, other approaches [124,125,126] are additionally necessary.
To date, relatively few studies have focused on molecular methods to monitor changes in soil quality induced as a result of biogas residue application [67]. Molecular tools facilitating the characterization of complex microbial communities should be further exploited in relation to land application of biogas residue.

6. Conclusions and future challenges

Overall, the potential of biogas residue as a crop fertilizer and soil conditioner appears predominantly positive. However, application of the residue to cropland requires rigorous monitoring to detect early perturbations in soil quality, which may result in reduced crop yield. Conflicting results are reported on the effects of biogas residue on soil chemical and/or microbiological properties, including increased [44,45,58,63,64] and decreased [69] microbial activity and biomass. However, the majority of published investigations confirm its significant value in improving crop yield [2,10,11,16,58,92,93] and grain quality [16]. Biogas residue, which commonly contains large amounts of mineralized N and low concentrations of heavy metals, presents a promising alternative to mineral fertilizers that require substantial energy input at production. However, careful analysis of organic pollutants, reported to exist at high concentrations in organic household waste, is essential.
In Sweden, biogas is commonly upgraded to vehicle fuel, since this is the most profitable method of gas production [127]. However, improved regulations and recommendations are warranted, both from an environmental perspective and in terms of turning costs related to fertilizer production into a profitable income. Ideally, farmers, the food industry, as well as scientific expertise should be involved in such communications, which would promote confidence and trust among the involved partners. Irrespective of its perceived importance by specific groups (for instance, scientists), biogas residue will not be used and recycled unless farmers accept the product. To convince doubtful farmers and the general public, the value of biogas residue as crop fertilizer and soil conditioner needs to be further confirmed, emphasizing the urgent need for more extensive studies in this field. This type of research will have wide-ranging implications in global energy and nutrient cycling, as well as world economics, including the finances of individual farmers.


My sincere thanks go to the two anonymous reviewers who provided critical constructive comments on the manuscript, which resulted in a significantly improved article.


  1. Clemens, J.; Trimborn, M.; Weiland, P.; Amon, B. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Båth, B.; Rämert, B. Organic household wastes as a nitrogen source in leek production. Acta. Agr. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Pl. 2000, 49, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nyberg, K.; Sundh, I.; Johansson, M.; Schnürer, A. Presence of potential ammonia oxidation (PAO) inhibiting substances in anaerobic digestion residues. Applied. Soil Ecol. 2004, 26, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Davis, J.; Haglund, C. Life cycle inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production. Fertiliser products used in Sweden and western Europe; Chalmers University of Technology: Göteborg, Sweden, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kongshaug, G. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in fertilizer production. In IFA technical conference; Marrakech, Morocco, 1998; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
  6. Patyk, A. Balance of energy consumption and emissions of fertilizer production and supply. In International conference of life cycle assessment in agriculture, food and non-food agro-industry and forestry: Achievements and prospects; Brussels, Belgium, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerardi, M.H. The microbiology of anaerobic digesters; John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, U.S.A., 2003. [Google Scholar]
  8. Börjesson, G.; Samuelsson, J.; Chanton, J.; Adolfsson, R.; Galle, B.; Svensson, B.H. A national landfill methane budget for Sweden based on field measurements, and an evaluation of IPCC models. Tellus 2009, 61B, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hjelmar, O. Disposal strategies for municipal solid waste incineration residues. J. Hazard. Mater. 1996, 47, 345–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rivard, C.J.; Rodriguez, J.B.; Nagle, N.J.; Self, J.R.; Kay, B.D.; Soltanpour, P.N.; Nieves, R.A. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Utility of process residues as a soil amendment. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 1995, 51-52, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tiwari, V.N.; Tiwari, K.N.; Upadhyay, R.M. Effect of crop residues and biogas slurry incorporation in wheat on yield and soil fertility. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2000, 48, 515–520. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, Y.; Shen, F.; Liu, R.; Wu, L. Effects of anaerobic fermentation residue of biogas production on the yield and quality of Chinese cabbage and nutrient accumulations in soil. Int. J. Glob. Energy Issues 2008, 29, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Adediran, J.A.; De Baets, N.; Mnkeni, P.N.S.; Kiekens, L.; Muyima, N.Y.O.; Thys, A. Organic waste materials for soil fertility improvement in the border region of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Biological Agric. Hortic. 2003, 20, 283–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Odlare, M. Organic residues. In A resource for arable soils; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala,Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  15. Monnet, F. An introduction to anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. In Remade Scotland; Final Report Biogasmax; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Svensson, K.; Odlare, M.; Pell, M. The fertilizing effect of compost and biogas residues from source separated household waste. J. Agric. Sci. 2004, 142, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Palm, O. The quality of liquid and solid digestate from biogas plants and its application in agriculture. In ECN/ORBIT e.V. Workshop The future for Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste in Europe; Pres. Nr. 20; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  18. Perez, M.; Romero, L.I.; Sales, D. Steady state anaerobic thermophilic degradation of distillery wastewater in fluidized bed bioreactors. Biotechnol. Progr. 1997, 13, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gallert, C.; Henning, A.; Winter, J. Scale-up of anaerobic digestion of the biowaste fraction from domestic wastes. Water Res. 2003, 37, 1433–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De la Rubia, M.A.; Pérez, M.; Romero, L.I.; Sales, D. Effects of solids retention time (SRT) on pilot scale anaerobic thermophilic sludge digestion. Proc. Biochem. 2006, 41, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Forster-Carneiro, T.; Pérez García, M.; Romero García, L.I. Composting potential of different inoculum sources on modified SEBAC system treatment of municipal solid wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3354–3366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Voca, N.; Kricka, T.; Cosic, T.; Rupic, V.; Jukic, Z.; Kalambura, S. Digested residue as a fertilizer after the mesophilic process of anaerobic digestion. Plant Soil Environ. 2005, 51, 262–266. [Google Scholar]
  23. Morsing, M. The use of sludge in forestry and agriculture: A comparison of the legislation in different countries. In Forest Landscape Res.; Danish Forest & Landscape Research Institute: Lungby, Denmark, 1994; No. 5. [Google Scholar]
  24. Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. In EEC.; 1986.
  25. Engwall, M.; Schnürer, A. Fate of Ah-receptor agonists in organic household waste during anaerobic degradation-estimation of levels using EROD induction in organ cultures of chick embryo livers. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 27, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Olsman, H.; Björnfoth, H.; van Bavel, B.; Lindström, G.; Schnürer, A.; Engwall, M. Characterisation of dioxin-like compounds in anaerobically digested organic material by bioassay-directed fractionation. Organohal. Comp. 2002, 58, 345–348. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nilsson, M.L. Occurence and fate of organic contaminants in waste; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala,Sweden, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  28. Angelidaki, I.; Mogensen, A.S.; Ahring, B.K. Degradation of organic contaminants found in organic waste. Biodegradation 2000, 11, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Nilsson, M.-L.; Waldeback, M.; Liljegren, G.; Kylin, H.; Markides, K.E. Pressurized-fluid extraction (PFE) of chlorinated paraffins from the biodegradable fraction of source-separated household waste. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 2001, 370, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Levén, L.; Nyberg, K.; Korkea-aho, L.; Schnürer, A. Phenols in anaerobic digestion processes and inhibition of ammonia oxidising bacteria (AOB) in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 364, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Levén, L.; Schnürer, A. Effects of temperature on biological degradation of phenols, benzoates and phtalates under methanogenic conditions. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2005, 55, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nilsson, M.-L.; Kylin, H.; Sundin, P. Major extractable organic compounds in the biologically degradable fraction of fresh, composted and anaerobically digested household waste. Acta Agric Scand, B Soil Plant Sci. 2000, 50, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hartmann, H.; Ahring, B.K. Phthalic acid esters found in municipal organic waste: Enhanced anaerobic degradation under hyper-thermophilic conditions. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Ejlertsson, J.; Johansson, M.; Karlsson, A.; Meyerson, U.; Svensson, B.H. Anaerobic degradation of xenobiotics by organisms from municipal solid waste under landfilling conditions. Int. J. Gen. Mol. Micr. 1996, 69, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alexander, M. Biodegradation and bioremediation, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 1999. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bergström, L.; Stenström, J. Environmental fate of chemicals in soil. Ambio 1998, 27, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
  37. Enwall, K.; Philippot, L.; Hallin, S. Activity and composition of the denitrifying bacterial community respond differently to long-term fertilization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 8335–8343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Girvan, M.S.; Campbell, C.D.; Killham, K.; Prosser, J.I.; Glover, L.A. Bacterial diversity promotes community stability and functional resilience after perturbation. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 7, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bagge, E.; Sahlström, L.; Albihn, A. The effect of hygienic treatment on the microbial flora of biowaste at biogas plants. Water Res. 2005, 39, 4879–4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Sahlström, L. A review of survival of pathogenic bacteria in organic waste used in biogas plants. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 87, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sahlström, L.; Bagge, E.; Emmoth, E.; Holmqvist, A.; Danielsson-Tham, M.L.; Albihn, A. A laboratory study of survival of selected microorganisms after heat treatment of biowaste used in biogas plants. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7859–7865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Schnürer, A.; Schnürer, J. Fungal survival during anaerobic digestion of organic household waste. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 1205–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. OEPP/EPPO. Guidelines for the management of plant health risks of biowaste of plant origin. EPPO Bull. 2008, 38, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  44. Marinari, S.; Masciandaro, G.; Ceccanti, B.; Grego, S. Influence of organic and mineral fertilisers on soil biological and physical porperties. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 72, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Debosz, K.; Petersen, S.O.; Kure, L.K.; Ambus, P. Evaluating effects of sewage sludge and household compost on soil physical and microbial properties. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2002, 19, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ostrem, K. Greening waste: anaerobic digestion for treating the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. M.S. thesis, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A., 2004. [Google Scholar]
  47. Field, J.A.; Caldwell, J.S.; Jeyanayagam, S.; Reneau Jr., R.B.; Kroontje, W.; Collins Jr., E.R. Fertilizer recovery from anaerobic digesters. Trans. ASAE 1984, 27, 1871–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Möller, K.; Stinner, W.; Deuker, A.; Leithold, G. Effects of different manuring systems with and without biogas digestion on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in mixed organic dairy farming systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 82, 209–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Asmus, F.; Linke, B.; Dunkel, H. Eigenschaften und Düngerwirkung von ausgefaulter Gülle aus der Biogasgewinnung. Arch. Acker-pflanz. Bod. Berlin 1988, 32, 527–532. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kirchmann, H.; Witter, E. Composition of fresh, aerobic and anaerobic farm animal dungs. Bioresour. Technol. 1992, 40, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Martin, J.H. A comparison of dairy cattle manure management with and without anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. In Report for the AgSTAR program, US Environmental Protection Agency, contract no 68-W7-0068, task order no 400; 2004; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  52. Larsen, K.E. Fertilizer value of anaerobic treated cattle and pig slurry to barley and beet. In Efficient land use of sludge and manure; Kofoed, A.D., Williams, J.H., L´Hermite, P., Eds.; Elsevier Applied Science Publishers: London, U.K., 1986; pp. 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  53. Messner, H.; Amberger, A. Composition, nitrification and fertilizing effect of anaerobically fermented slurry. In Agricultural waste management and environmental protection: 4th international CIEC symposium; Szabolcs, I., Welte, E., Eds.; Braunschweig, Germany, 1987; pp. 125–130. [Google Scholar]
  54. Plaixats, J.; Barcelo, J.; Garcia-Moreno, J. Characterization of the effluent residue from anaerobic digestion of pig excreta for its utilization as fertilizer. Agrochemica 1988, 32, 236–239. [Google Scholar]
  55. Monnet, F. Digested biomass as fertiliser. 2003. Available online:
  56. Yu, F.; Guan, X.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, M.; Guo, P.; Pan, J.; Li, S. Application of biogas fermentation residue in Ziziphus jujuba cultivation. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 2006, 17, 345–347. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Hoitink, H.A.J.; Boehm, M.J. Biocontrol within the context of soil microbial communities: a substrate-dependent phenomenon. Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 1999, 37, 427–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Odlare, M.; Pell, M.; Svensson, K. Changes in soil chemical and microbiological properties during 4 years of application of various organic residues. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1246–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil structure and soil organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jakobsen, S.T. Aerobic decomposition of organic wastes 2. Value of compost as fertilizer. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1995, 13, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Joshua, W.D.; Michalk, D.L.; Curtis, I.H.; Salt, M.; Osborne, G.J. The potential for contamination of soil and surface water from sewage sludge (biosolids) in a sheep grazing study. Geoderma 1998, 84, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pinamonti, F. Compost mulch effects on soil fertility, nutritional status and performance of grapevine. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998, 51, 148–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Leifeld, J.; Seibert, S.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Biological activity and organic matter mineralization of soils amended with biowaste composts. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2002, 165, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jedidi, N.; Hassen, A.; van Cleemput, O.; M´Hiri, A. Microbial biomass in a soil amended with different types of organic wastes. Waste Manag. Res. 2004, 22, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Blagodatsky, S.A.; Richter, O. Microbial growth in soil and nitrogen turnover: a theoretical model considering the activity state of microorganisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1998, 30, 1743–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liang, Y.C.; Yang, Y.F.; Yang, C.G.; Shen, Q.Q.; Zhou, J.M.; Zang, L.Z. Soil enzymatic activity and growth of rice and barley as influenced by organic matter in an anthropogenic soil. Geoderma 2003, 115, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nyberg, K.; Schnürer, A.; Sundh, I.; Jarvis, Å.; Hallin, S. Ammonia-oxidizing communities in agricultural soil incubated with organic waste residues. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2006, 42, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Petersen, S.O.; Henriksen, K.; Mortensen, G.K.; Krogh, P.H.; Brandt, K.K.; Sorensen, J.; Madsen, T.; Petersen, J.; Gron, C. Recycling of sewage sludge and household compost to arable land: Fate and effects of organic contaminants, and impact on soil fertility. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 72, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ernst, G.; Müller, A.; Göhler, H.; Emmerling, C. C and N turnover of fermented residues from biogas plants in soil in the presence of three different earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea longa, Aporrectodea caliginosa). Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 1413–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tuomela, M.; Vikman, M.; Hatakka, A.; Itävaara, M. Biodegradation of lignin in a compost environment: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 72, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chaussod, R.; Catrouz, G.; Juste, C. Effects of anaerobic digestion of organic wastes on carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates: laboratory and field experiments. In Efficient land use of sludge and manure; Kofoed, A.D., Williams, J.H., L´Hermite, P., Eds.; Elsevier Applied Science Publishers: London, U.K., 1986; pp. 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  72. El-Shinnawi, M.M.; El-Tahawi, B.S.; El-Houssieni, M.; Fahmy, S.S. Changes of organic constituents of crop residues and poultry wastes during fermentation for biogas production. Mircen journal 1989, 5, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Steger, K.; Eklind, Y.; Olsson, J.; Sundh, I. Microbial community growth and utilization of carbon constituents during thermophilic composting at different oxygen levels. Microbial Ecol. 2005, 50, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Dahlberg, S.P.; Lindley, J.A.; Giles, J.F. Effects of anaerobic digestion on nutrient availability from dairy manure. Trans ASAE 1988, 31, 1211–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Demuynck, M.; Nyns, E.J.; Naveau, H. Use of digested effluents in agriculture. In Long-term effects of sewage sludge and farm slurries applications; Williams, J.H., Guidi, G., L´Hermite, P., Eds.; Elsevier Applied Science Publishers: Essex, UK, 1985; pp. 2–13. [Google Scholar]
  76. Juste, C.; Dureau, P.; Lasserre, M. Influence de la digestion méthanique sur la valeur fertilisante de divers déchets organiques. Compt. Rend. Scean. Acad. Agricul. France 1981, 6, 782–790. [Google Scholar]
  77. Loria, E.R.; Sawyer, J.E. Extractable soil phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen following application of raw and anaerobically digested swine manure. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rubaek, G.H.; Henriksen, K.; Petersen, J.; Rasmussen, B.; Sommer, S.G. Effects of application technique and anaerobic digestion on gaseous nitrogen loss from animal slurry applied to ryegrass (Lolium perenne). J. Agric. Sci. 1996, 126, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kay, J.; Mitchell, D. Suitability of the liquid produced from anaerobic digestion as a fertiliser; Energy Technology Support Unit; Department of Trade and Industry: London, U.K., 1997. [Google Scholar]
  80. Smith, J.L.; Elliot, L.F. Tillage and residue management effects on organic matter dynamics in semi-arid regions. Adv. Soil Sci. 1990, 13, 69–88. [Google Scholar]
  81. Prasad, R.; Power, J.F. Crop residue management. Adv. Soil Sci. 1991, 15, 205–251. [Google Scholar]
  82. Pathak, H.; Kushwaha, J.S.; Jain, M.C. Evaluation of manurial value of biogas spent slurry composted with dry mango leaves, wheat straw and rock phosphate on wheat crop. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 1992, 40, 753–757. [Google Scholar]
  83. Salyers, A.A.; Gupta, A.; Wang, Y. Human intestinal bacteria as reservoirs for antibiotic resistance genes. Trends Microbiol. 2004, 12, 412–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Pang, X.P.; Letey, J. Organic farming: challenge of timing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Berry, P.M.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Philips, L.; Hatch, D.J.; Cuttle, S.P.; Rayns, F.W.; Gosling, P. Is the productivity of organic farms restricted by the supply of available nitrogen? Soil Use Manage. 2002, 18, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Möller, K.; Habermeyer, J.; Zinkernagel, V.; Reents, H.J. Impact and interaction of nitrogen and Phytophtora infestans as yield-limiting and yield-reducing factors in organic potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) crops. Potato Res. 2006, 49, 281–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Möller, K.; Reents, H.J.; Maidl, F.X. Einfluss von Zwischenfruchtanbau und verschiedenen Saatzeiten von Getreide als Nachfrucht von Kartoffeln auf Nitratdynamik im Boden und das Wachstum von Getreide im ökologischen Landbau. Pflanzenbauwissenschaften 2006, 10, 45–59. [Google Scholar]
  88. Möller, K.; Stinner, W. Effects of different manuring systems with and without biogas digestion on soil mineral nitrogen content and on gaseous nitrogen losses (ammonia, nitrous oxides). Eur. J. Agron 2009, 30, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Montemurro, F.; Canali, S.; Convertini, G.; Ferri, D.; Tittarelli, F.; Vitti, C. Anaerobic digestates application on fodder crops: effects on plant and soil. Agrochemica 2008, 52, 297–312. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kocar, G. Anaerobic digesters: from waste to energy crops as an alternative energy source. Energy Sour.t A: Recov. Util. Environ. Effects 2008, 30, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chantigny, M.H.; Angers, D.A.; Bélanger, G.; Rochette, P.; Eriksen-Hamel, N.; Bittman, S.; Buckley, K.; Massé, D.; Gasser, M.-O. Yield and nutrient export of grain corn fertilized with raw and treated liquid swine manure. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 1303–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Garg, R.N.; Pathak, H.; Das, D.K.; Tomar, R.K. Use of flyash and biogas slurry for improving wheat yield and physical properties of soil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 107, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Marchain, U. Biogas process for sustainable development. In FAO Agricultural Service Bulletin 9-5; Food and Agricultural Organization: Rome, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  94. Furukawa, Y.; Hasegawa, H. Response of spinach and komatsuna to biogas effluent made from source-separated kitchen garbage. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1939–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Masse, D.I.; Croteau, F.; Masse, L. The fate of crop nutrients during digestion of swine manure in psychrophilic anaerobic sequencing batch reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2819–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. El-Shakweer, M.H.A.; El-Sayad, E.A.; Ewees, M.S.A. Soil and plant analysis as a guide for interpretation of the improvement efficiency or organic conditioners added to different soils in Egypt. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 2067–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Poggi-Varaldo, H.M.; Trejo-Espino, J.; Fernandez-Villagomez, G.; Esparza-Garcia, F.; Caffarel-Mendez, S.; Rinderknecht-Seijas, N. Quality of anaerobic compost from paper mill and municipal solid wastes for soil amendment. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Tiquia, S.M.; Tam, N.F.Y.; Hodgkiss, I.J. Effects of composting on phytotoxicity of spent pig-manure sawdust litter. Environ. Pollut. 1996, 93, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, W. Ammonia toxicity to macrophytes (common duckweed and rice) using stating and renewal methods. Environ. Tox. Chem. 1991, 10, 1173–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Smet, E.; Van-Langenhore, H.; De-Bo, I.Z. The emission of volatile compounds during the aerobic and the combine anaerobic/aerobic composting of biowaste. Atmos. Environ. 1998, 33, 1295–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tchobanoglous, G.; Kreith, F.; Williams, M.E. Introduction. In Handbook of solid waste management, (second edition); Tchobanoglous, G., Kreith, F., Eds.; McGraw-Hill Professional: New York, NY, U.S.A., 2002. [Google Scholar]
  102. Abdullahi, Y.A.; Akunna, J.C.; White, N.A.; Hallett, P.D.; Wheatley, R. Investigating the effects of anaerobic and aerobic post-treatment on quality and stability of organic fraction of municipal solid waste as soil amendment. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 8631–8636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Schulze, E.D.; de Vries, W.; Hauhs, M.; Rosen, K.; Rasmussen, L.; Tamm, C.O.; Nilsson, J. Critical loads for nitrogen deposition on forest ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1989, 48, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Döhler, H. Laboratory and field experiments for estimating ammonia losses from pig and cattle slurry following application. In Odour and ammonia emissions from livestock farming. Proceedings of a seminar; Elsevier: Silsoe, UK, 1991; pp. 132–140. [Google Scholar]
  105. Misselbrook, T.H.; Scholefield, D.; Parkinson, R. Using time domain reflectometry to characterize cattle and pig slurry infiltration into soil. Soil Use Manag. 2005, 21, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Misselbrook, T.H.; Nicholson, F.A.; Chambers, B.J. Predicting ammonia losses following the application of livestock manure to land. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Sommer, S.G.; Hutchings, N.J. Ammonia emission from field applied manure and its reduction - invited paper. Eur. J. Agron. 2001, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pain, B.F.; Thompson, R.B.; Rees, Y.J.; Skinner, J.H. Reducing gaseous losses of nitrogen from cattle slurry applied to grassland by the use of additives. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1990, 50, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Masse, L.; Masse, D.I.; Beaudette, V.; Muir, M. Particle size distribution and characteristics of raw and anaerobically digested swine manure slurry. In ASAE/CSAE Meeting Presentation. paper number 044085 2004.
  110. Dahlin, S.; Kirchmann, H.; Kätterer, T.; Gunnarsson, S.; Bergström, L. Possibilities for improving nitrogen use from organic materials in agricultural cropping systems. Ambio 2005, 34, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  111. Drury, C.F.; Reynolds, W.D.; Tan, C.S.; Welacky, T.W.; Calder, W.; McLaughlin, N.B. Emissions of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 570–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Amon, B.; Moitzi, G.; Schimpl, M.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Wagner-Alt, C. Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Ammonia emissions from management of liquid manures, Final report 2002. On behalf of "Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environmental and Water management" and "Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture"; Research project No 1107. BMLF GZ 24.002/24-IIA1a/98, extension GZ 24.002/33-IIA1a/00; Vienna, Austria, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  113. Merz, H.U. Untersuchungen zur wirkung von unbehandelter und methanvergorener rindergülle auf den N-umsatz unter Dactylis glomerata L. sowie auf das keimverhalten verschiedener pflansenarten. Dissertation der Fakultät III, Agrarwissenschaften I der Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  114. Reinhold, G.; Klimanek, E.M.; Breitschuh, G. Zum einfluss der biogaserzeugung auf veränderungen in der kohlenstoffdynamik von Gülle. Arch Acker-pflanz. Bod. 1991, 35, 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  115. Kirchmann, H.; Bernal, M.P. Organic waste treatment and C stabilization efficiency. Soil Biol. Biochem 1997, 29, 1747–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Clemens, J.; Huschka, A. The effect of biological oxygen demand of cattle slurry and soil moisture on nitrous oxide emissions. Nutr. Cycl Agroecosyst. 2001, 59, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Oenema, O.; Wrage, N.; Velthof, G.L.; Groenigen, J.W.; van Dolfing, J.; Kuikman, P.J. Trends in global nitrous oxide emissions from animal production systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 72, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Artursson, V.; Finlay, R.D.; Jansson, J.K. Combined bromodeoxyuridine immunocapture and terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis highlights differences in the active soil bacterial metagenome due to Glomus mosseae inoculation or plant species. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 7, 1952–1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Artursson, V.; Jansson, J.K. Use of bromodeoxyuridine immunocapture to identify active bacteria associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal hyphae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 6208–6215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Throbäck, I.N.; Enwall, K.; Jarvis, Å.; Hallin, S. Reassessing PCR primers targeting nirK, nirS and nosZ genes for molecular diversity surveys of denitrifying bacteria, and the analysis of community structure with DGGE. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2004, 49, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Enwall, K. Community ecology of denitrifying bacteria in arable land. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  122. Torstensson, L. Microbial assays in soils. In Soil ecotoxicology; Tarradellas, Ed.; J. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A., 1997. [Google Scholar]
  123. Arthurson, V. Bacterial-fungal interactions highlighted using microbiomics: potential application for plant growth enhancement. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  124. Hough, B.R.; Smith, M.J.; Britten, R.J.; Davidson, E.H. Sequence complexity of heterogeneous nuclear RNA in sea urchin embryos. Cell 1975, 5, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Narayan, R.K.J.; Rees, H. Nuclear DNA variation in Lathyrus. Chrmosoma 1976, 54, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Curtis, T.P.; Sloan, W.T.; Scannell, J.W. Estimating prokaryotic diversity and its limits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99, 10494–10499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Jönsson, O. Biogas upgrading and use as transport fuel; Swedish Gas Centre: Malmoe, Sweden, 2001. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arthurson, V. Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback. Energies 2009, 2, 226-242.

AMA Style

Arthurson V. Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback. Energies. 2009; 2(2):226-242.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arthurson, Veronica. 2009. "Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback" Energies 2, no. 2: 226-242.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop