IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3605-d523227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Biogas Slurry Application on Biomass Production and Forage Quality of Lolium Multiflorum

Author

Listed:
  • Wenzhi Xu

    (Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China)

  • Yongqun Zhu

    (Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China)

  • Xie Wang

    (Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China)

  • Lei Ji

    (Institute of Grassland Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Hong Wang

    (Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China)

  • Li Yao

    (Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China)

  • Chaowen Lin

    (Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, China)

Abstract

The development of ecological circular agriculture has been highly encouraged to recycle agricultural wastes, reduce mineral fertilizer input, and protect the environment. Biogas slurry (BS), a by-product of biogas production generated from anaerobic digestion of animal waste and crop residues, is often considered a substitute to reduce mineral fertilizer input. Being a cheap source of organic matter and plant nutrients, its application may improve soil fertility and yield quality and quantity. The field experiments were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to study the plant growth responses and forage quality by applying biogas slurry to replace chemical synthetic fertilizer (CSF). Results revealed that biogas slurry combination with chemical synthetic fertilizer significantly ( p < 0.05) improved the growth of Italian ryegrass on treatment with T2, and the Italian ryegrass dry matter was increased by more than 9.00%, while the stem-to-leaf ratio was decreased by more than 12% (second cutting), in comparison with only chemical synthetic fertilizer group. In the case of forage quality, the crude protein (CP) and crude fiber (CF) content had a significant difference was observed between the T0 and T2 treatment group. Compare with the chemical synthetic fertilizer group, the CP content improved by 10.35%, and the CF content decreased about 10.00%. Based on these results, it was concluded that the application of 37.5 kg/ha CSF + 100.5 t/ha BS could improve the production of biomass and forage quality in Italian ryegrass.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenzhi Xu & Yongqun Zhu & Xie Wang & Lei Ji & Hong Wang & Li Yao & Chaowen Lin, 2021. "The Effect of Biogas Slurry Application on Biomass Production and Forage Quality of Lolium Multiflorum," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3605-:d:523227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3605/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3605/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mengistu, M.G. & Simane, B. & Eshete, G. & Workneh, T.S., 2015. "A review on biogas technology and its contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in Ethiopia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 306-316.
    2. Veronica Arthurson, 2009. "Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback," Energies, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Katuwal, Hari & Bohara, Alok K., 2009. "Biogas: A promising renewable technology and its impact on rural households in Nepal," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2668-2674, December.
    4. Khan, Ershad Ullah & Martin, Andrew R., 2016. "Review of biogas digester technology in rural Bangladesh," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 247-259.
    5. Prasertsan, S. & Sajjakulnukit, B., 2006. "Biomass and biogas energy in Thailand: Potential, opportunity and barriers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 599-610.
    6. Zhang, Cunsheng & Su, Haijia & Baeyens, Jan & Tan, Tianwei, 2014. "Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 383-392.
    7. Abdeshahian, Peyman & Lim, Jeng Shiun & Ho, Wai Shin & Hashim, Haslenda & Lee, Chew Tin, 2016. "Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 714-723.
    8. Mao, Chunlan & Feng, Yongzhong & Wang, Xiaojiao & Ren, Guangxin, 2015. "Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 540-555.
    9. Surendra, K.C. & Takara, Devin & Hashimoto, Andrew G. & Khanal, Samir Kumar, 2014. "Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 846-859.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kasinath, Archana & Fudala-Ksiazek, Sylwia & Szopinska, Malgorzata & Bylinski, Hubert & Artichowicz, Wojciech & Remiszewska-Skwarek, Anna & Luczkiewicz, Aneta, 2021. "Biomass in biogas production: Pretreatment and codigestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Hynek Roubík & Jana Mazancová & Phung Le Dinh & Dung Dinh Van & Jan Banout, 2018. "Biogas Quality across Small-Scale Biogas Plants: A Case of Central Vietnam," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Muhammad U. Khan & Muhammad Ahmad & Muhammad Sultan & Ihsanullah Sohoo & Prakash C. Ghimire & Azlan Zahid & Abid Sarwar & Muhammad Farooq & Uzair Sajjad & Peyman Abdeshahian & Maryam Yousaf, 2021. "Biogas Production Potential from Livestock Manure in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Islam, KM Nazmul & Sarker, Tapan & Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Atri, Anashuwa Chowdhury & Alam, Mohammad Shafiul, 2021. "Renewable energy generation from livestock waste for a sustainable circular economy in Bangladesh," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Khalil, Munawar & Berawi, Mohammed Ali & Heryanto, Rudi & Rizalie, Akhmad, 2019. "Waste to energy technology: The potential of sustainable biogas production from animal waste in Indonesia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 323-331.
    6. Şenol, Halil & Ali Dereli̇, Mehmet & Özbilgin, Ferdi, 2021. "Investigation of the distribution of bovine manure-based biomethane potential using an artificial neural network in Turkey to 2030," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    7. Ma, Chaonan & Liu, Jianyong & Ye, Min & Zou, Lianpei & Qian, Guangren & Li, Yu-You, 2018. "Towards utmost bioenergy conversion efficiency of food waste: Pretreatment, co-digestion, and reactor type," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 700-709.
    8. Sarker, Swati Anindita & Wang, Shouyang & Adnan, K.M. Mehedi & Sattar, M. Nahid, 2020. "Economic feasibility and determinants of biogas technology adoption: Evidence from Bangladesh," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    9. Igliński, Bartłomiej & Buczkowski, Roman & Cichosz, Marcin, 2015. "Biogas production in Poland—Current state, potential and perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 686-695.
    10. Alberto Regattieri & Marco Bortolini & Emilio Ferrari & Mauro Gamberi & Francesco Piana, 2018. "Biogas Micro-Production from Human Organic Waste—A Research Proposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Shirzad, Mohammad & Kazemi Shariat Panahi, Hamed & Dashti, Behrouz B. & Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali & Aghbashlo, Mortaza & Tabatabaei, Meisam, 2019. "A comprehensive review on electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials through anaerobic digestion of agricultural and livestock/slaughterhouse wastes in Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 571-594.
    12. Ni, Ji-Qin, 2024. "A review of household and industrial anaerobic digestion in Asia: Biogas development and safety incidents," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    13. Ricardo Situmeang & Jana Mazancová & Hynek Roubík, 2022. "Technological, Economic, Social and Environmental Barriers to Adoption of Small-Scale Biogas Plants: Case of Indonesia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Garfí, Marianna & Martí-Herrero, Jaime & Garwood, Anna & Ferrer, Ivet, 2016. "Household anaerobic digesters for biogas production in Latin America: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 599-614.
    15. Daniela Szymańska & Aleksandra Lewandowska, 2015. "Biogas Power Plants in Poland—Structure, Capacity, and Spatial Distribution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Li, Changjiang & Liao, Yuncheng & Wen, Xiaoxia & Wang, Yangfeng & Yang, Fei, 2015. "The development and countermeasures of household biogas in northwest grain for green project areas of China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 835-846.
    17. Cheng, Shikun & Li, Zifu & Mang, Heinz-Peter & Neupane, Kalidas & Wauthelet, Marc & Huba, Elisabeth-Maria, 2014. "Application of fault tree approach for technical assessment of small-sized biogas systems in Nepal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1372-1381.
    18. Mancini, Enrico & Tian, Hailin & Angelidaki, Irini & Fotidis, Ioannis A., 2021. "The implications of using organic-rich industrial wastewater as biomethanation feedstocks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    19. Chen, Ting & Shen, Dongsheng & Jin, Yiying & Li, Hailong & Yu, Zhixin & Feng, Huajun & Long, Yuyang & Yin, Jun, 2017. "Comprehensive evaluation of environ-economic benefits of anaerobic digestion technology in an integrated food waste-based methane plant using a fuzzy mathematical model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 666-677.
    20. Gudina Terefe Tucho & Henri C. Moll & Anton J. M. Schoot Uiterkamp & Sanderine Nonhebel, 2016. "Problems with Biogas Implementation in Developing Countries from the Perspective of Labor Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.

    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:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3605-:d:523227. 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.