Anaerobic Digestion of FinishingCattle ManureA.K. Watson, S.C. Fernando, G.E. Erickson, T.J. KlopfensteinUniversity of Neb...
Integrated BioRefineryFeedlot Ethanol PlantAnaerobic DigesterDistillers GrainsManureCropProductionGrain
Integrated BioRefineryFeedlot Ethanol PlantAnaerobic DigesterDistillers GrainsManureCropProductionGrain
Integrated BioRefineryFeedlot Ethanol PlantAnaerobic DigesterDistillers GrainsManureCropProductionGrain
ObjectivesTrial 1• Impact of cattle diet on manure qualityTrial 2• Impact of cattle housing and ash contamination
Materials and Methods• Seven, 1 L digesters– Turnover every 20 days (sampleand feed 1/20th every day)– 9% DM– 37° C– pH 7....
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.3030 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Methaneproduction,L/gOMfedC3 d9 d18 d37 C20 d RTMesophilic Thermophilic...
Materials and Methods• Methane Production– Methane Detector• RKI instruments– Concentration & flow rate= methane productio...
Impact of Diet• Control Cattle– 82.5% DRC– 5% Molasses– 7.5% Alfalfa– 5% Supplement• 0.986% urea• WDGS Cattle– 47.5% DRC– ...
Impact of Diet• Complete collection in cement gutter– 4 steers on each diet– 3 d– Manure slurry analyzed and weighed into ...
Cattle Performance0.1500.1550.1600.1650.1700.1750 10 20 30 40 50G:FCorn DGS Inclusion, % of diet DMBremer et al. 2011. Eff...
Digestibility0204060801000 40TotalTractDigestibility,%Corn WDGS Inclusion, % of diet DMCorrigan et al. 2009. Effect of cor...
Digestibility0.00.51.01.52.02.50204060801000 15 30 45 60FecalOM,kg/dTotalTractDigestibility,%Corn/Sorghum WDGS Inclusion, ...
Impact of Diet% of DM CONTManureCONTEffluentWDGSManureWDGSEffluentTotal N 3.95a 6.93d 3.79a 6.02cP 1.88a 4.40c 2.64b 4.82d...
Impact of Diet• Two 6-week periods (switchback design)CONT WDGS SEM P-valueDMD 42.7 44.9 1.1 0.05OMD 51.0 52.9 1.1 0.10
Impact of Diet• Two 6-week periods (switchback design)CONT WDGS SEM P-valueMethane,L/d0.551 0.634 0.05 0.10Methane,L/g OM ...
Impact of DietCONT WDGS SEM P-valueOMD 51.0 52.9 1.1 0.10Methane,L/g OM fed0.116 0.137 0.01 0.05Methane,L/g OMdegraded0.23...
• Samples taken from digesters on eachtreatment at 4 time points• Started with 100,000 sequences and 10,000OTUs– Data anal...
Effluent Samples-Eubacteria at Phylum LevelFibrobacteresFirmicutesTenericutesActinobacteriaSynergistetesChloroflexiBacteri...
ThermoproteiThermoplasmataMethanomicrobiaMethanobacteriaWDGSCONTEffluent Samples-Archaea at Class Level
Microbial Community Analysis-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.5-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4PC2(15.5%-Bacter...
Species Diversity• Eubacteria populations– WDGS 177 OTUs common to all 4 samples– CONT 47 OTUs common to all 4 samples• Ho...
Impact of Housing• Open lot manure quality affected by– Cattle ration– Environmental conditions• season– Animal stocking d...
Feedlot Pen Surface05101520250 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth,cmOrganic Matter, %Organic LayerInterface LayerSoil LayerMielke et al...
Feedlot Pen Surface05101520250 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth,cmOrganic Matter, %Organic LayerInterface LayerSoil LayerMielke et al...
Impact of Housing• Complete confinementmanure, 88% OM (CONF)• Open feedlot manure, 26% OM(FDLT)• One 6-week period– 3 dige...
Impact of HousingCONF FDLT SEM P-valueOMD, % 46.7 24.8 3.11 < 0.01Methane,L/d0.478 0.229 0.07 < 0.01Methane,L/g OM fed0.10...
Next Steps• New design– 45 L, ash removal• Varying levels of ash contamination– “Pure” manure 80% OM– Soil surface of pen ...
Summary• Feeding WDGS to cattle– Improves cattle performance– Decreases digestibility in cattle– Enhances digestibility an...
Questions??Himark BioGasVegreville, AB, Canada
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Anaerobic Digestion of Finishing Cattle Manure

1,334 views

Published on

Proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/67633

The concept of utilizing feedlot manure in an anaerobic digester to power an ethanol plant, which then produces feed for cattle, has been called a closed loop system. In this system inputs are minimized and outputs are used by another component. This research looked at differences in manure quality within this system. Trial 1 considered incorporating distillers grains into the cattle diet and the effects on methane potential of the manure. For this system to be utilized by the feedlot industry in Nebraska, the manure collected for anaerobic digestion must be collected from soil-based open feedlot pens which account for over 95% of the feedlot cattle raised in Nebraska. Trial 2 addressed the methane potential of open-lot feedlot manure and its feasibility for anaerobic digestion.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,334
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
497
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Changes in manure quality due to addition of distillers grains to the diet
  • 95%+ of Nebraska feedlots have open lot soil based pens
  • OM = VS and DM = TS
  • Manure slurry = feces and urine, fresh
  • Meta analysis of 20 WDGS (3,365 steers); 4 MDGS (680 steers); 4 DDGS (581 steers) studies All corn DGS replacing DRC, HMC or blend of two
  • Within 3 corn types (DRC, HMC, SFC) no interactions
  • 6 ruminally and duodenallycannulated steers in SFC diets
  • Anaerobic digester performance
  • For digester not animal
  • Principal coordinate analysis plots or clusters microbial community based on species composition/who is there how abundant they are phylogenic relationshipActually many of the same species are present in both digesters (previous slides) but how abundant they are differ by trt
  • Very difficult to collect only the top 8 cm of high OM material with this size of equipment
  • Approximately 70% less OM in FDLT manure compared to CONFCONF manure is urine and feces, freshFDLT was urine and feces deposited onto pen surface at one time, undergoes changes over 150 d before collected, stockpiled and then utilized
  • Anaerobic Digestion of Finishing Cattle Manure

    1. 1. Anaerobic Digestion of FinishingCattle ManureA.K. Watson, S.C. Fernando, G.E. Erickson, T.J. KlopfensteinUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
    2. 2. Integrated BioRefineryFeedlot Ethanol PlantAnaerobic DigesterDistillers GrainsManureCropProductionGrain
    3. 3. Integrated BioRefineryFeedlot Ethanol PlantAnaerobic DigesterDistillers GrainsManureCropProductionGrain
    4. 4. Integrated BioRefineryFeedlot Ethanol PlantAnaerobic DigesterDistillers GrainsManureCropProductionGrain
    5. 5. ObjectivesTrial 1• Impact of cattle diet on manure qualityTrial 2• Impact of cattle housing and ash contamination
    6. 6. Materials and Methods• Seven, 1 L digesters– Turnover every 20 days (sampleand feed 1/20th every day)– 9% DM– 37° C– pH 7.00 (sodium hydroxide)– Anaerobic conditions, constantflow of N2 gas
    7. 7. 0.000.050.100.150.200.250.3030 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Methaneproduction,L/gOMfedC3 d9 d18 d37 C20 d RTMesophilic ThermophilicVarel et al. 1980. Effect of temperature and retention time on methane production frombeef cattle waste. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 40:217-222.
    8. 8. Materials and Methods• Methane Production– Methane Detector• RKI instruments– Concentration & flow rate= methane production• DM and OM degradation– Feed 9.0% DM– Measure DM and OM ofeffluent
    9. 9. Impact of Diet• Control Cattle– 82.5% DRC– 5% Molasses– 7.5% Alfalfa– 5% Supplement• 0.986% urea• WDGS Cattle– 47.5% DRC– 40% WDGS– 7.5% Alfalfa– 5% Supplement
    10. 10. Impact of Diet• Complete collection in cement gutter– 4 steers on each diet– 3 d– Manure slurry analyzed and weighed into individualfeeding allotments• Switchback design– 7 digesters– Digesters on trt for 42 d (2 complete turnovers)– Measurements made last 5 d
    11. 11. Cattle Performance0.1500.1550.1600.1650.1700.1750 10 20 30 40 50G:FCorn DGS Inclusion, % of diet DMBremer et al. 2011. Effect of distillers grains moisture and inclusion level in livestockdiets on greenhouse gas emissions in the corn-ethanol-livestock life cycle. Prof. Anim.Sci. 27:449-455.Linear QuadWDGS < 0.01 < 0.01MDGS < 0.01 0.05DDGS < 0.01 0.45
    12. 12. Digestibility0204060801000 40TotalTractDigestibility,%Corn WDGS Inclusion, % of diet DMCorrigan et al. 2009. Effect of corn processing method and corn wet distillers grains plussolubles inclusion level in finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 87:3351-3362.P-valueStarch 0.92OM 0.05DM 0.08NDF 0.72
    13. 13. Digestibility0.00.51.01.52.02.50204060801000 15 30 45 60FecalOM,kg/dTotalTractDigestibility,%Corn/Sorghum WDGS Inclusion, % of diet DMLuebbe et al. 2012. Wet distillers grains plus solubles concentration in steam-flaked-corn-based diets: Effects on feedlot cattle performance, carcass characteristics, nutrientdigestibility, and ruminal fermentation characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 90:1589-1602.Linear QuadStarch < 0.01 < 0.01OM < 0.01 0.99NDF < 0.01 0.89Fecal OM 0.04 0.32
    14. 14. Impact of Diet% of DM CONTManureCONTEffluentWDGSManureWDGSEffluentTotal N 3.95a 6.93d 3.79a 6.02cP 1.88a 4.40c 2.64b 4.82dS 0.45a 0.83c 0.51b 0.75cMg 0.48a 1.08c 0.65b 1.19ca,b,c,d Means within a row without a common superscript differ (P<0.05).
    15. 15. Impact of Diet• Two 6-week periods (switchback design)CONT WDGS SEM P-valueDMD 42.7 44.9 1.1 0.05OMD 51.0 52.9 1.1 0.10
    16. 16. Impact of Diet• Two 6-week periods (switchback design)CONT WDGS SEM P-valueMethane,L/d0.551 0.634 0.05 0.10Methane,L/g OM fed0.116 0.137 0.01 0.05
    17. 17. Impact of DietCONT WDGS SEM P-valueOMD 51.0 52.9 1.1 0.10Methane,L/g OM fed0.116 0.137 0.01 0.05Methane,L/g OMdegraded0.237 0.261 0.03 0.44
    18. 18. • Samples taken from digesters on eachtreatment at 4 time points• Started with 100,000 sequences and 10,000OTUs– Data analyzed represents 3,500 OTUs– Ribosomal Database Project (Michigan StateUniversity)Microbial Community AnalysisEffluentSampleDNA PCR454SequencingDiversityIdentity
    19. 19. Effluent Samples-Eubacteria at Phylum LevelFibrobacteresFirmicutesTenericutesActinobacteriaSynergistetesChloroflexiBacteriodetesProteobacteriaVerrucomicrobiaUnclassifiedWDGSCONT
    20. 20. ThermoproteiThermoplasmataMethanomicrobiaMethanobacteriaWDGSCONTEffluent Samples-Archaea at Class Level
    21. 21. Microbial Community Analysis-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.5-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4PC2(15.5%-Bacteria,14.0%-Archaea)PC1 (23.6% - Bacteria, 53.9% - Archaea)Bacteria-WDGS Bacteria-CONTArchaea-WDGS Archaea-CONT
    22. 22. Species Diversity• Eubacteria populations– WDGS 177 OTUs common to all 4 samples– CONT 47 OTUs common to all 4 samples• Homova P < 0.001• Amova P < 0.001• Archaea populations– WDGS 137 OTUs common to all 4 samples– CONT 87 OTUs common to all 4 samples• Homova P = 0.019• Amova P < 0.001
    23. 23. Impact of Housing• Open lot manure quality affected by– Cattle ration– Environmental conditions• season– Animal stocking density– Pen cleaning frequency– Distance from the feed bunk
    24. 24. Feedlot Pen Surface05101520250 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth,cmOrganic Matter, %Organic LayerInterface LayerSoil LayerMielke et al. 1974. Soil profile conditions of cattle feedlots. J. Environ.Quality 3:14-17.
    25. 25. Feedlot Pen Surface05101520250 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth,cmOrganic Matter, %Organic LayerInterface LayerSoil LayerMielke et al. 1974. Soil profile conditions of cattle feedlots. J. Environ.Quality 3:14-17.
    26. 26. Impact of Housing• Complete confinementmanure, 88% OM (CONF)• Open feedlot manure, 26% OM(FDLT)• One 6-week period– 3 digesters on CONF– 4 digesters on FDLT (3 failed dueto ash buildup)
    27. 27. Impact of HousingCONF FDLT SEM P-valueOMD, % 46.7 24.8 3.11 < 0.01Methane,L/d0.478 0.229 0.07 < 0.01Methane,L/g OM fed0.103 0.189 0.03 0.01• 4 remaining digesters
    28. 28. Next Steps• New design– 45 L, ash removal• Varying levels of ash contamination– “Pure” manure 80% OM– Soil surface of pen 10% OM– Stockpiled 20% OM– Fresh 25% OM– Cement pad 50% OMFrequency and area of pen cleaning
    29. 29. Summary• Feeding WDGS to cattle– Improves cattle performance– Decreases digestibility in cattle– Enhances digestibility and methane production• Changes in OM composition of manure• Changes in microbial community• Open lot manure can be used as anaerobic digesterfeedstock if ash buildup is avoided– 95% of feedlot cattle in open lot soil based pens
    30. 30. Questions??Himark BioGasVegreville, AB, Canada

    ×