IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i23p9950-d452660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Municipal Sludge as a Low-Grade Nutrient Source: A Case Study from South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Eyob Habte Tesfamariam

    (Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag: X20, Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa)

  • Zekarias Mihreteab Ogbazghi

    (Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag: X20, Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa)

  • John George Annandale

    (Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag: X20, Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa)

  • Yemane Gebrehiwot

    (Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag: X20, Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa)

Abstract

Municipal sludge has economic value as a low-grade fertilizer as it consists of appreciable amounts of the macro and micronutrients. When using sludge as fertilizer, the economic aspect should be taken into account. In this study, the following specific objectives were identified: (a) to investigate the economic feasibility of using sludge as a fertilizer; (b) to estimate the maximum economic distance sludge can be transported as a fertilizer; and (c) to test the economic feasibility of selling sludge using commercial inorganic fertilizer as a bench mark. The study showed that for anaerobically digested, paddy dried, municipal sludge consisting of 3% N, 2% P, and 0.3% K the economic feasibility of transporting the sludge was limited to a diameter of 20 km in the arid zone, 28 km in the semi-arid zone, 51 km in the sub humid zone, 66 km in the humid zone, and 75 km in the super-humid zone. Therefore, the economic feasibility of using sludge as a substitute for or complementary to commercial inorganic fertilizer is dictated by the distance between the wastewater care work and the farm, sludge nutrient concentration, agro-ecological zone (rain and temperature), and the real-time commercial inorganic fertilizer price.

Suggested Citation

  • Eyob Habte Tesfamariam & Zekarias Mihreteab Ogbazghi & John George Annandale & Yemane Gebrehiwot, 2020. "Cost–Benefit Analysis of Municipal Sludge as a Low-Grade Nutrient Source: A Case Study from South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9950-:d:452660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9950/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9950/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tesfamariam, Eyob H. & Annandale, John G. & Steyn, Joachim M. & Stirzaker, Richard J. & Mbakwe, Ikenna, 2015. "Use of the SWB-Sci model for nitrogen management in sludge-amended land," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 262-276.
    2. Ayalew, W. & King, J. M. & Bruns, E. & Rischkowsky, B., 2003. "Economic evaluation of smallholder subsistence livestock production: lessons from an Ethiopian goat development program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 473-485, July.
    3. repec:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:3-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oz Sahin & Edoardo Bertone, 2022. "Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems (SDEWES)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-4, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bethelhem Legesse Debela, 2017. "Factors Affecting Differences in Livestock Asset Ownership Between Male- and Female-Headed Households in Northern Ethiopia," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(2), pages 328-347, April.
    2. Xu, Yecheng & Zhang, Yaoqi & Chen, Jiquan & John, Ranjeet, 2019. "Livestock dynamics under changing economy and climate in Mongolia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Roessler, Regina & Drucker, Adam G. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Markemann, André & Lemke, Ute & Thuy, Le T. & Valle Zárate, Anne, 2008. "Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 184-192, May.
    4. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    5. Siegmund-Schultze, M. & Rischkowsky, B. & da Veiga, J.B. & King, J.M., 2010. "Valuing cattle on mixed smallholdings in the Eastern Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 857-867, February.
    6. Mbanasor, Jude Anayochukwu & Nwachukwu, Ifeanyi Ndubuto & Agwu, Nnanna Mba & Njoku, Maria-Stella Etomchi & Onwumere, Joe, 2013. "Analysis Of Income Inequality And Poverty Dynamics Among Rural Farm Households In Abia State, Nigeria," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 1(2), pages 1-6, October.
    7. Faizal Adams & Kwasi Ohene-Yankyera & Robert Aidoo & Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa, 2021. "Economic benefits of livestock management in Ghana," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Videla-Mensegue, H. & Caviglia, O.P. & Sadras, V.O., 2022. "Functional crop types are more important than diversity for the productivity, profit and risk of crop sequences in the inner Argentinean Pampas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. Bethelhem Legesse Debela & Gerald E. Shively & Stein T. Holden, 2021. "Implications of food-for-work programs for consumption and production diversity: Evidence from the Tigray Region of Ethiopia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.
    11. Ngarava, Saul & Mushunje, Abbyssinia & Chaminuka, Petronella, 2020. "Qualitative benefits of livestock development programmes. Evidence from the Kaonafatso ya Dikgomo (KyD) Scheme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Ogbazghi, Z.M. & Tesfamariam, E.H. & Annandale, J.G., 2016. "Modelling N mineralisation from sludge-amended soils across agro-ecological zones: A case study from South Africa," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 322(C), pages 19-30.
    13. Debela, Bethelhem Legesse & Shively, Gerald E. & Holden, Stein T., 2017. "Food for Work and Diet Diversity in Ethiopia," CLTS Working Papers 14/17, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 21 Oct 2019.
    14. Kassie, Girma T. & Abdulai, Awudu & Haile, Aynalem & Yitayih, Mulugeta & Asnake, Woinishet & Rischkowsky, Barbara, 2023. "Understanding pastoralists’ preferences for goat traits: Application of all-levels and end-point choice experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Eric Ruto & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate Preferences for Cattle Traits in Kenya," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Simianer, H., 2005. "Decision making in livestock conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 559-572, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9950-:d:452660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.