ArticlePDF Available

Ecological intensification by integrating biogas production into nutrient cycling: Modeling the case of Agroecological Symbiosis

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

There is growing demand to produce both food and renewable energy in a sustainable manner, while avoiding competition between food and energy production. In our study, we investigated the potential of harnessing biogas production into nutrient recycling in an integrated system of organic food production and food processing. We used the case of Agroecological Symbiosis (AES) at Palopuro, which is a combination of three farms, a biogas plant, and a bakery, as a case to explore how biogas production using feedstocks from the farms can be used to improve nutrient cycling, and to calculate how much energy could be produced from the within-system feedstocks. The current system (CS) used in organic farms, and the integrated farm and food processing AES system, were analyzed using Substance Flow analysis. In the AES, annual nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) surpluses were projected to be reduced from 95 kg ha−1 to 36 kg ha−1 and from 3.4 kg ha−1 to −0.5 kg ha−1 respectively, compared to the CS. Biogas produced from green manure leys as the major feedstock, produced 2809 MWh a−1. This was 70% more than the energy consumed (1650 MWh a−1) in the systemand thus the AES system turned out to be a net energy producer. Results demonstrated the potential of biogas production to enhance the transition to bioenergy, nutrient recycling, and crop productivity in renewable localized farming and food systems.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy
Ecological intensification by integrating biogas production into nutrient
cycling: Modeling the case of Agroecological Symbiosis
Kari Koppelmäki
a,b,
, Tuure Parviainen
a
, Elina Virkkunen
c
, Erika Winquist
d
, Rogier P.O. Schulte
b
,
Juha Helenius
a
a
Agroecology, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014, Finland
b
The Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 430, Wageningen, AK 6700, The Netherlands
c
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Kirkkoahontie 115 D, Linnantaus 87910, Finland
d
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Vuorimiehentie 2, Espoo 02150, Finland
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Biological nitrogen fixation
Localized agrifood system
Nutrient losses
Organic farming
Renewable energy
Sustainable intensification
ABSTRACT
There is growing demand to produce both food and renewable energy in a sustainable manner, while avoiding
competition between food and energy production. In our study, we investigated the potential of harnessing
biogas production into nutrient recycling in an integrated system of organic food production and food proces-
sing. We used the case of Agroecological Symbiosis (AES) at Palopuro, which is a combination of three farms, a
biogas plant, and a bakery, as a case to explore how biogas production using feedstocks from the farms can be
used to improve nutrient cycling, and to calculate how much energy could be produced from the within-system
feedstocks. The current system (CS) used in organic farms, and the integrated farm and food processing AES
system, were analyzed using Substance Flow analysis. In the AES, annual nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)
surpluses were projected to be reduced from 95 kg ha
−1
to 36 kg ha
−1
and from 3.4 kg ha
−1
to −0.5 kg ha
−1
respectively, compared to the CS. Biogas produced from green manure leys as the major feedstock, produced
2809 MWh a
−1
. This was 70% more than the energy consumed (1650 MWh a
−1
) in the systemand thus the AES
system turned out to be a net energy producer. Results demonstrated the potential of biogas production to
enhance the transition to bioenergy, nutrient recycling, and crop productivity in renewable localized farming
and food systems.
1. Introduction
There is a growing demand for ecological intensification in food
production. Food must be produced in greater quantities and agri-
culture is concurrently expected to supply other ecosystem services
(Schulte et al., 2014;Tittonell, 2014). Furthermore, there is now dual
pressure to produce renewable energy and meet European Union tar-
gets (European Commission, 2014), and to recycle nutrients (European
Commission, 2015). At present, agriculture and the food system as a
whole, are de-localized and highly dependent on fossil fuels and mi-
neral fertilizers as net inputs. This has caused many negative environ-
mental impacts (Whatmore, 1995;Kummu et al., 2012;IPES-Food,
2016). Sustainably produced biomasses are proposed to have significant
potential to replace fossil fuels and facilitate the transition to the pro-
duction of renewable energy in a circular economy (Haas et al., 2015).
One challenge across the Global North is that farms have specialized
into either livestock or crop farms, fertilizer use has intensified, and
spatial separation of crop and livestock production systems has in-
creased. This situation works against the objective of recycling plant
nutrients (Buckwell and Nadeu, 2016), and has led to a lack of manure
for use in crop farms located in areas without livestock. In response,
most farms have relied on mineral fertilizers. Contrastingly, organic
crop farms have had to rely on green manure or commercial organic
fertilizers. A lack of leys in stockless conventional farms and a lack of
opportunities to spread manure or other organic fertilizers has resulted
in negative environmental impacts, such as diminishing soil carbon
contents and substantial nutrient excesses, in the areas with spatial
separation of crop and livestock production (Uusitalo et al., 2007;
Heikkinen et al., 2013;Maillard and Angers, 2014).
The challenge arising from the spatial separation of animal pro-
duction and crop production is even more apparent on organic farms,
because they have to rely on green manure leys instead of using mineral
fertilizers. In green manuring, the timing of N mineralization does not
meet with the peak demand of the crop plants (Berry et al., 2002). Also,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.12.007
Received 16 May 2018; Received in revised form 19 December 2018; Accepted 19 December 2018
Corresponding author at: Agroecology, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014, Finland
E-mail address: kari.koppelmaki@helsinki.fi (K. Koppelmäki).
Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
Available online 28 December 2018
0308-521X/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T
the common practise in Nordic conditions of terminating green manure
leys by ploughing them in late autumn creates risks for losses of N and
other nutrients from the green manure as the nutrients are released
from the decomposing biomass too early (Uusi-Kämppä and Jauhiainen,
2010). For these reasons there is a need to develop alternative strategies
to increase N use efficiency in stockless organic farming (Berry et al.,
2002;Möller, 2009;Borgen et al., 2012).
These challenges and opportunities have created a need for finding
new ways to integrate food production and renewable energy produc-
tion in a sustainable manner. One approach is to use green manuring
leys, that are not competing with food production, for combined energy
and organic fertilizer production.
Stinner et al. (2008),Tuomisto and Helenius (2008),Siegmeier et al.
(2015), and Blumenstein et al. (2018) all suggest the use of green
manure leys as a feedstock in biogas production in organic farming. As
an added benefit, nutrients can be more efficiently reallocated in time
and space if these leys are harvested for digestion in biogas plants,
instead of tilled in the soil. This increases nutrient use efficiency and
returns higher yields, thereby potentially increasing productivity in the
farming system (Möller, 2009;Möller and Müller, 2012).
A further innovation was described by Koppelmäki et al. (2016).
They proposed Agroecological Symbiosis (AES); as a food system ap-
plication of the more generic idea of industrial symbiosis (Chertow,
2000), to further enhance nutrient recycling and to make full use of the
bioenergy produced within the system. AES is a food production and
processing symbiosis of farms and food processors. In addition, as a
localized food system model, AES is expected to have cultural and
socio-economic benefits (Koppelmäki et al., 2016), which are not dealt
with in this article. The first AES is actively forming in the village of
Palopuro in southern Finland. In this AES, a dry-digestion biogas unit
produces energy from green manure leys together with manure.
However, the knowledge gap regarding potential trade-offs between
energy gains and changes in food production, nutrient cycles and
among other soil functions remains. There is a need to ensure that the
production system is optimized to minimize trade-offs and maximize
synergies between food and energy production.
In our study, we explore how agricultural biomasses that are not
competing with food production can be utilized in producing renewable
energy and enhancing nutrient recycling in food production and pro-
cessing in an AES context. The aim of our paper is to explore the po-
tential of closing nutrient loops and increasing energy self-sufficiency in
food production through AES. We use Palopuro AES as a case and carry
out an ex-ante assessment of a biophysical system in terms of (1)
agricultural and food products produced and sold, (2) nutrients pro-
duced within, imported to, and exported from, (3) energy requirements,
energy sources, and salable energy of the AES.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case description
In this study, we used Palopuro Agroecological Symbiosis (http://
blogs.helsinki.fi/palopuronsymbioosi/) as the pilot case of an energy-
positive, circular food production system. Palopuro AES is located in
Southern Finland, approximately 50 km north of Helsinki, in the village
of Palopuro near the town of Hyvinkää (60°37′50″N, 024°51′35″E).
Palopuro AES consists of the following operations: an organic cereal
farm, an organic vegetable farm, an organic hennery, a bakery, and a
biogas plant (Fig. 1). An investment decision to build a biogas plant was
made at the time of the study. From the beginning, the bakery has
participated in planning the AES and formulating a construction plan,
but the investment had not yet been realized at the time of our study.
Hence, our study comprises of an ex-ante assessment of the AES system,
as compared to the current system (CS). A full description of the Pa-
lopuro AES can be found in the Supplementary Material (S1).
The biogas plant serves as the heart of energy production and
nutrient flows (Fig. 1). By far, silage from green manure leys of the
farms will be the most important feedstock for the plant, representing
71% of the total feedstock quantity. The use of grass biomass as a
feedstock in biogas production follows the ideas previously presented
by Möller et al. (2008),Stinner et al. (2008), and Tuomisto and
Helenius (2008). Other feedstocks include chicken manure from the
hennery and manure from horse stables. Unlike the other feedstocks,
horse manure is not recycled within, but imported to the AES from
stables located nearby. Receiving horse manure is a service provided by
the AES to small horse stables in the neighbourhood, as these often do
not have their own fields for manure spreading.
Through the anaerobic digestion of the biomasses, recycled within
the AES alone, the AES becomes a net energy producer (Koppelmäki
et al., 2016). The biogas can be directly used by the AES in on-farm
processes, such as grain drying, and as fuel for the ovens in the bakery.
The rest of the biogas will be upgraded to biomethane for use as fuel for
the needs of the AES itself, and for sale at a gas station to be built next
to the plant.
The nutrient-rich digestate will be used as organic fertilizer on the
farm fields. The majority of the fields at Palopuro AES have been
managed under organic certification since 2010. Currently, the crop
rotations follow commonly used practices of stockless organic farms in
southern Finland. A five-year crop rotation consists of two years of
perennial green manure leys, followed by autumn- or spring-sown
cereals, then a pulse crop and, finally, spring-sown cereal with under-
sown grass seeds to establish the subsequent green manure leys. N
fertilization relies on the green manure leys and commercial organic
fertilizers are used in part of the fields. Horse manure is used as a soil
conditioner. In an operating AES, the green manure leys are replaced by
dual-purpose leys: this serves as the biological N input into the system,
but also converts green manuring leys into mobile organic fertilizers.
2.2. Food production and nutrient flow analyses
In this study, we modeled a current scenario (CS), which represents
the typical organic farming system based on current agricultural ac-
tivities of the farms participating in Palopuro AES. This scenario was
compared to the AES Scenario (AES), the functions of which were de-
signed in the completed research and development (R&D) project
(Helenius et al., 2017). The farm's arable land and hennery were sys-
tems boundaries for the CS. Arable land also included the vegetable
farm's fields, which consisted of one ha of vegetables and two ha of
green manure leys. For the AES model, boundaries were the symbiosis'
farm fields and operations including the biogas plant, which will begin
operating in autumn 2018, and the bakery, which is in the planning
stage (Fig. 1).
N and P flows were calculated, and a comparison was made between
CS and AES. Nutrient flows were illustrated using STAN 2.5.1302
substance flow analysis software. The data for arable land were com-
piled from cultivation notes (available arable land and fertilization use)
taken at farms of the Palopuro AES and from the literature. Energy use
and grain consumption data for the bakery were compiled from
Samsara Ltd., which has made plans to move its operations to become
part of Palopuro AES. The biogas plant operations were designed based
on the results of the R&D project, which was conducted in 2015–2017
(Helenius et al., 2017), and on results reported from biogas literature.
For the CS, the area of green manure leys followed the common
practices of organic crop farms in the region, which meant that 40% of
the crop rotation was allocated to green manuring. For the AES, the
area of green manure leys was set to meet the demand of the biogas
plant together with the other fallows, which were not included in the
crop rotation. Crop rotation was optimized to the demands of the AES
framework, as applied to Palopuro AES. This means that, in addition to
supplying enough feed for the henhouse, the fields should also produce
enough baking-quality grain for the bakery and enough feed in the form
of silage for the biogas plant.
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
40
The area of other fallows, nature management fields, and buffer
zones was set to be the same as in the farm's current crop rotation,
comprising approximately 8% of the total farm area. In the AES model,
the biomass harvested from buffer zones was used for biogas produc-
tion. In the CS model, the grass cut from the buffer zones was not used
for agricultural purposes. In the AES model, the use of harvest from the
buffer zones added 0.5% to the N and 0.6% to the P flows. In addition, a
part of the nature management fields was harvested to meet the de-
mand for grass biomass in biogas production. Nature management
fields and buffer zones are both common agricultural land uses in
Finland covering approximately 9% of the total agricultural land area in
the study region during 2017 (Natural Resources Institute Finland,
2018a). This is because they are subsidized by the agri-environmental
support system. According to regulations, harvest biomass from these
fields is allowed (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2014).
The total farmland was 385 ha in both scenarios, but allocations to
the various crops and land uses varied (Table 1). The crop yields
(Table 1) were average organic crop yields in the region (CS) (Natural
Resources Institute Finland, 2018a) or adjusted (AES) as follows: in the
AES model, biomass from the green manure leys is harvested for
anaerobic digestion in the biogas plant. The digestate is recycled to non-
leguminous crops. Based on published research (Möller et al., 2008;
Stinner et al., 2008;Möller and Müller, 2012), the digestate had
10–28% better fertilizer value in terms of crop response than the same
biomass used as green manure. An added benefit is that, while green
manure is used in the same field parcel in which it was grown, recycling
in the form of digestate allows for re-allocation of nutrients based on
optimization between the parcels.
To estimate the achievable yield increases resulting from the ad-
vantages described earlier, we calculated how much readily available
soluble N (nitrite NO
2
, nitrate NO
3
, and ammonium NH
4+
) for
plants the digestate from biogas production would include. This was
based on the nutrient value of the feeds used. After that, we assumed
that the soluble N in the digestate would be used to fertilize non-le-
guminous crops in the crop rotation, thus increasing yields. Based on
these calculations, we estimated that 30 kg of soluble N ha
−1
(total N
150 kg ha
−1
), available for non-leguminous crops in the AES model,
increased cereal yields by 40%, compared to the traditional organic
farming practice in CS. The 40% yield increase is factored in the
modeling. This is based on N-rate yield response modeling by Valkama
et al. (2013). This model was a meta-regression with both Mitscherlich-
type exponential and quadratic fit. It was based on various Finnish N
fertilizer experiments for low-yielding spring cereals in 1940–2014 at
17 sites in Finland. The nutrient content of the digestate (Table 2) was
derived from the nutrient contents of the feedstocks used multiplied by
a solubility factor of 1.2 (Möller and Müller, 2012) to obtain the defi-
nitive soluble N value for the digestate. Grass biomass value was based
on average values for silage obtained from National Feed tables
(Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2018b). The value for horse
manure was based on results from Luostarinen et al. (2017). The N
content of the hen manure was taken from Luostarinen et al. (2017).
Because of gaseous N losses from the manure, N content could not be
calculated from the input-output balance. P content of the hen manure
was calculated from the input-output balance by subtracting the P
content of the produced eggs and the disposed hens from all the P in-
puts to the hennery. Other parameters and explanations for nutrient
flow analyses are given in Table 3.
2.3. Energy consumption and production
Data on energy use were collected from the farms and, for the biogas
production and the bakery in the AES model, we used data collected in
the R&D project, where the functions of symbiosis were planned
(Helenius et al., 2017). The energy consumption data included the
Fig. 1. System boundaries of the modeled case as (a) the current system and (b) as a system converted to agroecological symbiosis (AES). The AES adds not just a
biogas plant, but also a food processing unit to the system.
Table 1
Field use and yields
a
in the CS and AES models.
Field use Area
(ha) CS
Area
(ha) AES
Yield
kg ha
−1
in
CS
Yield kg ha
−1
in AES
Rye 40 40 1900 2660
Oat 42 32 2100 2940
Barley 25 25 2300 3220
Wheat 35 70 2000 2800
Pea 20 20 1800 1800
Pea-oat intercrop 51 57 2100 2100
Green manure leys 142 111 20,000 20,000
Nature management fields 20 20 15,000 15,000
Buffer zones (not in crop
rotation)
9 9 10,000 10,000
Vegetables 1 1 12,000 12,000
Total area 385 385
a
The crop yields in the CS model are based on average organic crop yields in
the region (Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2018a) while the higher yield is
factored in the AES model.
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
41
electricity and heating needed for agricultural operations, the energy
needed for bread baking in the bakery, fuels for the machinery, and the
biogas plant's own energy consumption. All the energy consumption
data are expressed in Megawatt hours (MWh). The energy production
data consisted of the biogas production described earlier. The bio-
methane potential (BMP) of the various biomasses was derived from the
literature and is expressed as normal cubic meters (Nm
3
). The BMP
value for silage, 298 Nm
3
CH
4
tn
−1
total solids, was based on values
(229–353 Nm
3
CH
4
tn
−1
for various herbaceous grasses) reported by
Seppälä et al. (2009) and the values (292–320 Nm
3
CH
4
tn
−1
) reported
by Wahid et al. (2015) for grass-clover mixtures. We determined the
BMP for horse manure as 120 Nm
3
CH
4
tn
−1
total solids based on va-
lues (88–196 Nm
3
CH
4
VS
−1
) reported by Mönch-Tegeder et al. (2013)
and we used the value 324 Nm
3
CH
4
tn
−1
total solids for chicken
manure, based on results by Kafle and Chen (2016). We assumed that
the whole biomethane potential was realized over a digestion time of
three months.
2.4. Uncertainties and sensitivity analysis
The uncertainty of various factors was determined by classifying
them into three different uncertainty levels (10, 20, and 30%)
(Supplementary Table 1). The classification was based on ranges used
by Antikainen et al. (2005). To account for the variability in flows
depending on management decisions and the availability of, for ex-
ample, horse manure imported from neighboring farms, we relied on
personal communication with the operators of Palopuro AES. After
assigning uncertainty levels to each factor, data reconciliation was
performed using the STAN data calculation tool for uncertainty re-
conciliation (Cencic and Rechberger, 2008).
The sensitivity of results of the models' outputs to variation to input
parameters was tested by changing the parameter values one-by-one
Table 2
Nutrient content, biomethane production, and the quantities of feeds used in
biogas production. The nutrient values are based on average values in the
National feed tables (Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2018b) and bio-
methane production (CH
4
Nm
3
a
−1
) is calculated based on biomethane po-
tential values reported by Seppälä et al. (2009),Wahid et al. (2015),Mönch-
Tegeder et al. (2013), and Kafle and Chen (2016).
Silage Horse
manure
Chicken
manure
Feed
together
Digestate
Feed FM tn a
−1
2450 800 185 3435 2804
DM % 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.29
Feed DM tn a
−1
823 270 57 1150 813
TN kg tn
−1
FM 7.0 3.4 14.02 6.8 8.4
TN tn a
−1
18.1 2.7 2.59 23.5 23.5
SN kg tn
−1
FM 1.1 0.5 3.47 1.1 1.6
SN tn a
−1
2.7 0.4 0.6 3.7 4.5
a
TP kg tn
−1
FM 0.7 0.8 6.3 1.0 1.0
TP kg a
−1
1.8 0.6 1.2 3.6 3.6
CH
4
production
Nm
3
a
−1
233,632 28,800 18,508 280,940
Explanations: dry matter (DM), fresh matter (FM), Total nitrogen (TN), Soluble
nitrogen (SN), Total phosphorous (TP).
a
To determine the digestate's soluble nitrogen content, we used a solubility
factor of 1.2 based on the review study by Möller and Müller (2012).
Table 3
Explanation of nutrient flows.
Flow number Flow Explanation Reference
1 Nitrogen
deposition
Nitrogen deposition to the arable land of AES. Derived from the nitrogen deposition
to the area of the Hyvinkää municipality in 2016.
SYKE, 2018
2 Nitrogen fixation Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) according to a formula described by Anglade
et al., 2015. The values used for BNF were: Green manure leys 222 kg ha
−1
(Yield
20,000 tn a
−1
FM*), Nature management fields 183 kg ha
−1
(Yield 15,000 tn a
−1
FM), Peas 71 kg ha
−1
(yield 1800 kg ha
−1
), and pea-oat intercrop 25 kg ha
−1
(pea
yield 525 kg ha
−1
).
Anglade et al. (2015)
3 Digestate Combined nutrient content of feeds (Table 2) subtracted from the estimated nitrogen
loss during storage (6%).
Paavola and Rintala (2008)
4 Crop sales Cropping area multiplied by average organic crop yields in region multiplied by
yield increase 40% for digestate-fertilized crops (explained in the text). Nitrogen and
phosphorus content of the crops based on the literature.
Natural Resources Institute Finland (2018a)
5 Green manure
leys
Harvested silage to biogas production. Silage nutrient content was based on the
nutrient value of late-harvested red-clover/timothy silage.
Natural Resources Institute Finland (2018b)
6 Flour Demand for the bakery (personal communication). Nitrogen and phosphorus content
based on the literature.
Personal communication with Zukale, P. (2016) and
Antikainen et al. (2005)
7 Feed Demand for the hennery (personal communication). Nitrogen and phosphorus
content based on the literature.
Personal communication with Latostenmaa V. (2017)
and Natural Resources Institute Finland (2018b)
8 Bread Same as flow 6.
9 Horse manure Feedstock to the biogas plant as an input to the system. Nutrient content based on
the literature.
Luostarinen et al. (2017)
10 Organice
fertilizer
Organic fertilizers utilized on the farms in the CS model. Cultivation notes
11 Chicken manure Manure produced by the hennery. Nitrogen content based on the literature and
phosphorus content calculated by subtracting the phosphorus content of the
produced eggs and the disposed hens from all the phosphorus inputs to the hennery.
Luostarinen et al. (2017)
12 Chicken feed The quantity of concentrate used in the hennery. Nutrient values were obtained from
the concentrate manufacturer.
Personal communication with Latostenmaa V. (2017)
and Hemmilä T. (2017)
13 Ready-to-lay
poultry
Ready-to-lay hens into the henhouse Anal. Methods (2014)
14 Eggs Average egg production per chicken per year multiplied by the number of hens in the
hennery (5600)
Aro (1998)
15 Hens Hens out Anal. Methods (2014)
16 Losses Nitrogen leaching and gaseous losses from the arable land were calculated by
subtracting outputs (flows 4 and 7) from inputs (flows 1,2,9,10). Phosphorus losses
due to erosion and leaching were based on the literature
Tattari et al. (2017)
17 Losses Nitrogen losses from the biogas production to be 6% during storage Paavola and Rintala (2008)
18 Losses Nitrogen losses from the hennery = Inputs Outputs
* FM = Fresh matter.
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
42
while keeping other variables equal. After this we reran the calculation.
To observe the sensitivity of the calculated nutrient surpluses from
arable land, we changed the original values within the uncertainty
ranges. To observe the sensitivity of energy production, we changed the
feed dry matter (DM) content ± 10%, and to observe BMP sensitivity,
we used the minimum and maximum value ranges from the literature,
as explained earlier.
3. Results
3.1. Nutrient flows
Compared to CS, circulating the grass biomass and manure through
the biogas plant in the AES increased the mobile N input to the arable
land, which resulted in increased crop production and reduced nutrient
losses from the system (Table 4). Nitrogen and P surpluses were reduced
by 36 kg ha
−1
(1–70 kg ha
−1
) and 3.9 kg ha
−1
(2.8–5.1 kg ha
−1
), re-
spectively, compared to CS. Also, the smaller area for green manure leys
reduced the biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) resulting in smaller N
surpluses.
By far, the most substantial N input to both systems was BNF from
the atmosphere (Fig. 2). In the AES model, BNF was 30% smaller than
in the CS model. The BNF quantity resulted in the greatest uncertainty
in N surplus (Table 5). The most substantial P input was derived from
the hennery (Fig. 3). This was due to net imports of chicken feed con-
centrate, as the exported eggs only contained 21% of the P imported in
the feeds. Also, horse manure contributed a substantial quantity of P to
the system, resulting in 43% of the total P imports. In the CS model, the
majority of P was imported in the form of organic fertilizers (Table 4),
which were no longer used in the AES model. In both models, crop sales
formed the largest N and P exports.
3.2. Energy production
The AES produced 2809 MWh gross energy from the green manure
leys, fallows, and manures (Table 6). Silage harvest from the bioenergy-
green manure leys was the most important feedstock to biogas produc-
tion. This produced approximately 83% of the total energy while con-
tributing only 71% to the total quantity of feedstock materials used in
biogas production. The share of horse manure in the feedstock was 23%,
but its contribution to produced energy was only 10%. The operations of
the AES consumed ca. 59% of the quantity of produced energy.
Energy production from the biogas plant was very sensitive to feed-
stock quality (Table 7). Energy produced was increased when the horse
manure was replaced by silage with a higher biomethane potential.
4. Discussion
Our study showed that biogas production based on utilizing bio-
masses available within the farming system has the potential to increase
primary production in farming, reduce nutrient losses, and produce
renewable energy in excess while enhancing nutrient recycling.
4.1. Increased nutrient use efficiency
Reduced N and P surpluses and increased nutrient use efficiency
were consequences of increased crop production from arable land,
which led to greater outputs from the system. In the AES model, the
biogas plant plays a key role in nutrient recycling and in increased
system-level plant nutrient use efficiency by allowing for spatial and
temporal nutrient re-allocation in the crop rotation without importing
new nutrient inputs from outside of the system.
The projected cereal yield increase was 40% for the AES model
compared to average yields on organic farms without livestock in
Southern Finland. The digestate from biogas production enabled an
increased quantity of soluble N to be available for crops in spring, thus
enhancing crop growth. The positive effect on cereal yields attained by
using digestate as a fertilizer is supported by findings from other stu-
dies, though the reported effects have been smaller; 10% by Stinner
et al. (2008) and 14% by Brozyna et al. (2013). Farmers have reported a
20–25% yield increase and increased protein content for cereals in a
survey conducted in Germany (Blumenstein et al., 2015). In the AES
model, the assumption of a yield increase was based on modeling re-
sults from metadata by Valkama et al. (2013): these indicated sub-
stantial yield responses when original yields were low, as is the case in
stockless organic farming in Finland. Similar yield responses (37–38%)
were achieved in a study by Blumenstein et al. (2018), where the im-
pact of integrated biogas production was modeled on yields in stockless
organic farming. However, the 40% yield increase presents the poten-
tial achievable yield increase in situations when no other factors, such
as unfavourable weather conditions or weed competition, limit the
yield response. We used the ± 20% sensitivity range for the yield re-
sponse to the digestate to account for situations where agricultural
yields vary depending on many factors not included in the modeling.
In both the AES and CS, nutrient imports into the system were
equivalent with the exception of BNF, which was substantially influ-
enced by the reduced field area needed for green manuring due to
enhanced nutrient use efficiency. As a result, the nitrogen surplus was
reduced by 38% in the AES model compared to CS. This reduction was
further augmented by increased crop yields per hectare and per system.
Nitrogen losses were reduced, but further specification of these N losses
to air or water was not included in this study. Dahlin et al. (2011)
compared how harvesting the green manure vs. mulching affects N
recycling in field experiments. They suggested that harvesting the green
manure leys' biomass is likely to reduce both gaseous losses to the at-
mosphere and nutrient leaching compared to conventional mulching
where grass mulch is left on the ground.
In our study, we assumed that BNFs from green manure leys were
equal in both models. However, biomass harvesting can result in in-
creased BNF. Hatch et al. (2007) found that clover leys increased BNF
Table 4
Nitrogen and phosphorous balances and nutrient use efficiency (Beatty et al., 2016) for arable land in the CS and AES models. Uncertainty range in parentheses. Units
are in elemental nutrients kg
a
−1
.
N P
CS AES CS AES
Input 118 ( ± 24.3) 136 ( ± 23.9) 7.1 ( ± 1.0) 8.9 ( ± 0.8)
BNF 96 ( ± 20.2) 77 ( ± 14.3)
Manure/organic fertilizers/ 18 ( ± 3.0) 7.1 ( ± 1.0)
Digestate 55 ( ± 8.6) 8.9 ( ± 0.8)
Nitrogen deposition 3 ( ± 1.0) 3 ( ± 1.0)
Output 23 ( ± 2.9) 76 ( ± 10.2) 3.7 ( ± 0.7) 9.4 ( ± 1.3)
Surplus 95 ( ± 20.2) 59 ( ± 14.2) 3.4 ( ± 1.4) −0.5 ( ± 0.2)
Nutrient use efficiency 0.2 0.24 0.52 0.58
Surplus kg tn
−1
harvest 89 44 3.20 −0.40
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
43
by 9–61 kg ha
−1
compared to treatments where clover was mulched
and left on the ground. Stinner et al. (2008) reported that reduced soil
N availability was compensated for by enhanced BNF, resulting in equal
pea yields. However, biomass harvest has not always enhanced BNF, as
Dahlin and Stenberg (2010) have reported. According to Dahlin et al.
(2011), only 14% of the N from the aboveground biomass is recycled
back into grass growth when used as green manure.
In the AES model, the P balance was slightly negative (−0.5 kg P
ha
−1
), whereas a surplus of 3.4 kg P ha
−1
in the CS was near the
average balance of 4 kg P ha
−1
in Finland (OECD, 2018). As with N, this
caused by larger yields in the AES model, which resulted in increased P
exports from the system. Phosphorus exported out of the system, in-
cluding erosion, was replaced by imports in the form of horse manure
and concentrate feed for hens (Fig.3).
In our study, the hennery contributed 34% (CS) and 57% (AES) of
total P imports to the system, in the form of feed concentrate, but only
14% (CS) and 10% (AES) of the total P exports, in the form of eggs.
Most of the P in the chicken feed is excreted in the manure. This results
Fig. 2. Nitrogen flows (tn a
−1
) in the AES and CS models. The width of the arrow is proportional to the flow rate. Blue arrows illustrate imports into and exports out
of the system, red arrows illustrate the losses from the system, and black arrows are flows within the system. Explanations of the flows are provided in Table 3. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
44
in a potential risk for P accumulation in soils where manure is used
continuously. Such an outcome was reported in Finland by Uusitalo
et al. (2007), who observed greater P balances resulting in increased P
contents in the soils of livestock farms compared to arable crop farms.
In light of the slightly negative P balance in the AES model, imports
are needed to compensate for the exports to maintain soil fertility. As an
Table 5
Sensitivity to change in model parameters to the model outcomes of nitrogen and phosphorous surpluses.
Sensitivity scenario Nitrogen surplus CS Nitrogen surplus AES Phosphorus surplus CS Phosphorus surplus AES
kg ha
−1
kg ha
−1
kg ha
−1
kg ha
−1
Green manure ley biomass +20% 16.0 12.5
Green manure ley biomass −20% −16.0 −12.5
Crop yields (cereals) +20% −2.7 −2.0 −0.5 −0.4
Crop yields (cereals) −20% 2.7 2.0 0.5 0.4
Fig. 3. Phosphorus flows (tn a
−1
) in the AES and CS models. The width of the arrow is proportional to the flow rate. Green arrows illustrate imports into and exports
out of the system, red arrows illustrate the losses from the system, and black arrows are flows within the system. Explanations of the flows are given in Table 3. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
45
outcome of decades of mineral fertilization at rates exceeding plant
uptake, current P levels in Finnish farmland soils are high and yield
losses are not expected in short term, even if negative P balances are
maintained (Ylivainio et al., 2014).
The AES is not a fully closed system, because certain nutrients are
imported into and certain nutrients are exported out of the system in
the form of crop sales. Nitrogen required in crop production can be
supplied by BNF, but with P the interpretation of a desirable level of
self-sufficiency depends on the intrinsic or historic soil P level.
4.2. From energy consumer to energy producer
The AES model converted the studied production system from an
energy consumer to a net energy producer by taking advantage of
available biomasses within the system that were not used in food pro-
duction. Seventy percent more biogas was produced than was con-
sumed in total by the farm operations, bakery, and biogas plant (plant's
own energy needs).
In the AES model, biomasses from within the system boundaries,
which included the green manure leys and chicken manure, produced
energy equal to 7.29 MWh ha
−1
in the AES field area. The biomethane
potential of horse manure is substantially lower than that of silage and
chicken manure (Seppälä et al., 2009;Mönch-Tegeder et al., 2013;
Wahid et al., 2015;Kafle and Chen, 2016). In terms of energy pro-
duction, horse manure was not an important feedstock and could be
replaced by crop residues such a straw. However, horse farms often lack
fields for manure spreading, which means they may be willing to pay
biogas companies for manure management.
4.3. Sensitivity analyses
Results were sensitive to certain input factors in both models.
Changes in grass biomass produced ha
−1
substantially affected N
balances as the formula for calculating BNF was based on the quantity
of biomass produced. Biogas production was most sensitive to the
quality of green manure leys, which were used as feedstock in biogas
production.
4.4. Applicability and limitations of the study
Our study explored how integrating biogas production into a cereal
production system affected nutrient flows and energy self-sufficiency in
an integrated system of organic farming and food processing. Our study
focused on one AES case located in southern Finland. The results con-
firm previous findings that nutrient recycling from green manuring
through a biogas plant is productive in stockless organic farming. The
introduction of dry biogas production into a stockless organic crop
rotation therefore allows for the arable area allocated to green man-
uring crops to be reduced, which further negates undue competition
between fuel and food competition.
The case study further demonstrates that food production and pro-
cessing can be made energy-positive through its own bioenergy, with a
dramatic climate change mitigation benefit through the replacement of
fossil energy. This requires re-localizing to the scale required for AES.
The results cannot be directly applied to other AES, as the concept re-
quires situated system designs.
The green manure leys in the AES model have an important func-
tion: their purpose is even more multi-functional than typical in organic
crop farming. On organic farms, green manure leys are traditionally
used for BNF, soil conditioning, and weed suppression. In the AES
model, the leys maintain these functions while also serving as feedstock
for biogas production and for the production of recyclable digestate,
allowing for more efficient use of BNF and nutrient reallocation within
the system to better meet crop nutrient demand.
Based on the results of our study, net energy production is sig-
nificant in areas not used in food production. If the fallows available in
all of Finland were farmed for biogas feedstock with the same pro-
ductivity as in this study, they would produce over 4 TWh a
−1
of en-
ergy. As a comparison, the motor fuel oil consumption in Finland's
agriculture and horticulture sector was 2.45 TWh a
−1
in 2016 (Official
Statistics of Finland, 2016).
In Finland, the proportion of perennial green manure leys is larger
than in organic crop farms in other Northern European countries or in
Central Europe. In terms of energy production, this makes the im-
plementation of the AES system described in this study specifically re-
levant to Finland, and more challenging in these other areas.
The results are applicable in stockless organic crop farms. However,
both organic and conventional farms typically have fallow land in ad-
dition to cash crops or rotational green manure leys. This is a typical
situation in Finland, where 11% of agricultural land was fallows in
2017 (Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2018a), creating a sub-
stantial potential resource for biogas production. However, yield in-
creases as described in our study would not apply to conventional
systems, as there, the digestate would be replacing mineral fertilizers.
This would require re-parameterization of our model for non-organic
conditions.
4.5. Further research questions
The feasibility of the AES mode-of-action needs to be studied for a
range of food products in variable production conditions at various
spatial and organizational scales. In addition to food and energy pro-
duction and nutrient recycling, impacts on soil functions, such soil
carbon content, on greenhouse gas emissions, and on biodiversity
should also be studied at the farm level and at a regional scale.
In our case study, the integration of food processing and primary
production at the farm did not influence nutrient flows, because there
were no losses from the bread-baking process. Other types of food
processing, such as dairy processing, meat processing, or vegetable
Table 6
Gross energy production and consumption in the AES model.
Energy produced, and current energy use
MWh a
−1
Produced energy 2809
Silage 2336
Horse manure 288
Chicken manure 185
Consumed gross energy
a
1650
Biogas plant 390
Cereal farm 625
Machinery 250
Grain drying 250
Electricity 125
Hennery 275
Vegetable farm 10
Bakery 350
Energy surplus 1159
a
Consumed electricity was converted to needed primary energy using a
factor of 0.4 (Boyce, 2001)
Table 7
The effect of increasing and decreasing various parameters in the energy
production. Silage biomethane potential min. and max. Values described ear-
lier.
MWh a
−1
Silage DM content +10% 234
Silage DM content - 10% −234
Silage biomethane potential max. value 432
Silage biomethane potential min. value −541
Replacing 300 tn of horse manure by silage 179
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
46
cleaning and peeling processes, could potentially provide additional
waste biomasses that could be utilized in energy production and sub-
sequently recycled back into food production. However, it is notable
that with a redesign for AES, a bread system can be converted from an
energy consumer to an energy producer, from primary production to
deliveries.
In more intensive farming systems, the risk for trade-offs in various
farmland functions increases. For example, there might not be as much
available grass biomass that could be utilized in biogas production
without competing with the conventional food production. However,
especially in warmer climates, a longer growing season means a greater
potential for cover crops to produce substantial biomasses, which can
function as an alternative feedstock in biogas production without
competing with other farmland functions.
In this study, results were based on modeling. The Palopuro AES
case needs to be evaluated by direct measurements and ex-post assess-
ments once fully functional. Field experiments examining the fertilizing
effect of digestate have been conducted with digested slurries or other
slurries combined with energy crops or crop residues (Stinner et al.,
2008;Möller, 2009;Benke et al., 2017). To our knowledge, no other
available studies have explored the fertilizing effect of digestates with
as high of a dry matter content as the digestate from the dry-fermen-
tation type of biogas plant modeled in our case study.
5. Conclusions
Agroecological Symbiosis serves as an adaptive model in meeting
the challenge of nutrient recycling and the transition to renewable
energy for ecologically intensified localized food systems. Such utili-
zation of the multiple beneficial functions of leys helps diversify rota-
tions in, especially, specialized arable farms. AES systems may turn
food production and processing to an energy-positive sector, while re-
ducing environmental loading. Our study demonstrated the impacts of
biogas production on nutrient flows and energy production. However,
other environmental impacts, including soil organic matter changes and
greenhouse gas emissions, should be studied in the future. Also, the N
value of digestates should be studied with plot experiments. Further
studies concerning variable production conditions, including other
types of food production systems, are needed to gain full understanding
of the potential of an AES for sustainable food production.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Ministry of the Environment in Finland
for funding the Palopuro AES project. The authors also wish to thank all
the participants in the Palopuro AES project: especially Markus Eerola
from Knehtilä Farm, Virva Latostenmaa from Mäntymäen luomu ltd,
Peter Zukale from Samsara ltd, and Jukka Kivelä from the University of
Helsinki. We are also grateful for two anonymous reviewers who gave
their comments.
This work received funding from the Finnish Ministry of the
Environment's Programme (RAKI2) to promote the recycling of nu-
trients and improve the ecological status of the Archipelago Sea [grant
number YM52/481/2015].
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.12.007.
References
Analytical Methods Committee, 2014. Meat and poultry nitrogen factors. R. Soc. Chem. 6,
4493–4495.
Anglade, J., Billen, G., Garnier, J., 2015. Relationships for estimating N2 fixation in le-
gumes: incidence for N balance of legume-based cropping systems in europe.
Ecosphere 6, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00353.1.
Antikainen, R., Lemola, R., Nousiainen, J.I., Sokka, L., Esala, M., Huhtanen, P.,
Rekolainen, S., 2005. Stocks and flows of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Finnish
food production and consumption system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 287–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.10.025.
Aro, H., 1998. Kananmunan moninaiskäytön kehittäminen. Kirjallisuuskatsaus.
Maatalouden tutki-muskeskuksen julkaisuja. Sarja A 35. Jokioinen: Maatalouden
tutkimuskeskus (66 p. ISBN 951-729-513-8, ISSN 1238-9935. (in Finnish with English
abstract)).
Beatty, P., Klein, M., Fischer, J., Lewis, I., Muench, D., Good, A., 2016. Understanding
Plant Nitrogen Metabolism through Metabolomics and Computational Approaches.
Plants 5, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants5040039.
Benke, A.P., Rieps, A.M., Wollmann, I., Petrova, I., Zikeli, S., Möller, K., 2017. Fertilizer
value and nitrogen transfer efficiencies with clover-grass ley biomass based fertili-
zers. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 107, 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-
017-9844-z.
Berry, P.M., Sylvester-Bradley, R., Philipps, L., Hatch, D.J., Cuttle, S.P., Rayns, F.W.,
Gosling, P., 2002. Is the productivity of organic farms restricted by the supply of
available nitrogen? Soil Use Manag. 18, 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1079/
SUM2002129.
Blumenstein, B., Siegmeier, T., Bruckhaus, C., Anspach, V., Möller, D., 2015. Integrated
bioenergy and food production-a german survey on structure and developments of
anaerobic digestion in organic farming systems. Sustain 7, 10709–10732. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su70810709.
Blumenstein, B., Siegmeier, T., Selsam, F., Möller, D., 2018. A case of sustainable in-
tensification: Stochastic farm budget optimization considering internal economic
benefits of biogas production in organic agriculture. Agric. Syst. 159, 78–92. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.016.
Borgen, S.K., Lunde, H.W., Bakken, L.R., Bleken, M.A., Breland, T.A., 2012. Nitrogen
dynamics in stockless organic clover-grass and cereal rotations. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosystems 92, 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-012-9495-z.
Boyce, M.P., 2001. Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook, Gas Turbine Engineering
Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7846-9.X5000-7.
Brozyna, M.A., Petersen, S.O., Chirinda, N., Olesen, J.E., 2013. Effects of grass-clover
management and cover crops on nitrogen cycling and nitrous oxide emissions in a
stockless organic crop rotation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 181, 115–126. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.013.
Buckwell, A., Nadeu, E., 2016. Nutrient Recovery and Reuse (NRR) in European
Agriculture. (RISE, Rural Invest. Support Eur. 92).
Cencic, O., Rechberger, H., 2008. Material Flow Analysis with Software STAN.
EnviroInfo.
Chertow, M.R., 2000. INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS: Literature and taxonomy. Annu. Rev.
Energy Environ. 25, 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313.
Dahlin, A.S., Stenberg, M., 2010. Transfer of N from red clover to perennial ryegrass in
mixed stands under different cutting strategies. Eur. J. Agron. 33, 149–156. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2010.04.006.
Dahlin, A.S., Stenberg, M., Marstorp, H., 2011. Mulch N recycling in green manure leys
under Scandinavian conditions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 91, 119–129. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10705-011-9450-4.
European Commission, 2014. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions a Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period
from 2020 to 2030.
European Commission, 2015. Communication from the commission to the European
Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular
Economy.
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M., 2015. How circular is the global
economy?: An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the
European union and the world in 2005. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 765–777. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jiec.12244.
Hatch, D.J., Goodlass, G., Joynes, A., Shepherd, M.A., 2007. The effect of cutting,
mulching and applications of farmyard manure on nitrogen fixation in a red clover/
grass sward. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 3243–3248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2006.07.017.
Heikkinen, J., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., Regina, K., 2013. Declining trend of carbon in
Finnish cropland soils in 1974-2009. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 1456–1469. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.12137.
Helenius, J., Koppelmäki, K., Virkkunen, E., 2017. Agroecological symbiosis in nutrient
and energy self-sufficient food production. Reports of the Ministry of Environment 18
(In Finnish with English abstract).
IPES-Food, 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial
Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems. International Panel of Experts on
Sustainable Food Systems. http://ipes-food.org/images/Reports/
UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf, Accessed date: 9 January 2018.
Kafle, G.K., Chen, L., 2016. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different
livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using
different statistical models. Waste Manag. 48, 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.10.021.
Koppelmäki, K., Eerola, M., Albov, S., Kivelä, J., Helenius, J., Winquist, E., Virkkunen, E.,
2016. Challenges for the New Rurality in a Changing World : Proceedings from the
7th International Conference on Localized Agri-Food Systems, 8–10 May 2016.
Södertörn university, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food,
wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater,
cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
47
1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092.
Luostarinen, S., Grönroos, J., Hellstedt, M., Nousiainen, J., Munther, J., 2017. Finnish
Normative Manure System: System Documentation and First Results. Natural re-
sources and bioeconomy studies 48/2017. Natural Resources Institute Finland.
Maillard, É., Angers, D.A., 2014. Animal manure application and soil organic carbon
stocks: a meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/
gcb.12438.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2014. Rural Development Programme for mainland
Finland 2014-2020. https://www.maaseutu.fi/globalassets/rural_fi/rural-program/
rural_development_programme_2014-2020.pdf (Accessed 15 April 2018).
Möller, K., 2009. Influence of different manuring systems with and without biogas di-
gestion on soil organic matter and nitrogen inputs, flows and budgets in organic
cropping systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 84, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10705-008-9236-5.
Möller, K., Müller, T., 2012. Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient avail-
ability and crop growth: a review. Eng. Life Sci. 12, 242–257. https://doi.org/10.
1002/elsc.201100085.
Möller, K., Stinner, W., Deuker, A., Leithold, G., 2008. Effects of different manuring
systems with and without biogas digestion on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in mixed
organic dairy farming systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 82, 209–232. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10705-008-9196-9.
Mönch-Tegeder, M., Lemmer, A., Oechsner, H., Jungbluth, T., 2013. Investigation of the
methane potential of horse manure. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 15, 161–172.
Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2018a. Luke's Statistical Services. http://stat.luke.fi/
en, Accessed date: 9 March 2018.
Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2018b. Feed Tables and Nutrient Requirements of
Farm Animals Used in Finland. https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/
Rehutaulukot/feed_tables_english (accessed 10 April 2018).
OECD, 2018. Nutrient Balance (Indicator). https://data.oecd.org/agrland/nutrient-
balance.htm (accessed 2 February 2018).
Official Statistics of Finland, 2016. Energy Consumption of Agriculture and Horticulture.
http://stat.luke.fi/en/energy-consumption-of-agriculture-and-horticulture (accessed
9 April 2018).
Paavola, T., Rintala, J., 2008. Effects of storage on characteristics and hygienic quality of
digestates from four co-digestion concepts of manure and biowaste. Bioresour.
Technol. 99, 7041–7050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.005.
Schulte, R.P.O., Creamer, R.E., Donnellan, T., Farrelly, N., Fealy, R., O'Donoghue, C.,
O'hUallachain, D., 2014. Functional land management: A framework for managing
soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 38, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.002.
Seppälä, M., Paavola, T., Lehtomäki, A., Rintala, J., 2009. Biogas production from boreal
herbaceous grasses - specific methane yield and methane yield per hectare. Bioresour.
Technol. 100, 2952–2958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.01.044.
Siegmeier, T., Blumenstein, B., Möller, D., 2015. Farm biogas production in organic
agriculture: System implications. Agric. Syst. 139, 196–209. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agsy.2015.07.006.
Stinner, W., Möller, K., Leithold, G., 2008. Effects of biogas digestion of clover/grass-leys,
cover crops and crop residues on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in organic stockless
farming systems. Eur. J. Agron. 29, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2008.04.
006.
SYKE, 2018. Finnish Environment Institute Hertta database (version 5.7). http://www.
syke.fi/avoindata, Accessed date: 2 January 2018.
Tattari, S., Koskiaho, J., Kosunen, M., Lepistö, A., Linjama, J., Puustinen, M., 2017.
Nutrient loads from agricultural and forested areas in Finland from 1981 up to
2010—Can the efficiency of undertaken water protection measures seen? Environ.
Monit. Assess. 189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5791-z.
Tittonell, P., 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture-sustainable by nature. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006.
Tuomisto, H.L., Helenius, J., 2008. Comparison of energy and greenhouse gas balances of
biogas with other transport biofuel options based on domestic agricultural biomass in
Finland. Agric. Food Sci. 17, 240–251. https://doi.org/10.2137/
145960608786118857.
Uusi-Kämppä, J., Jauhiainen, L., 2010. Long-term monitoring of buffer zone efficiency
under different cultivation techniques in boreal conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
137, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.002.
Uusitalo, R., Turtola, E., Grönroos, J., Kivistö, J., Mäntylahti, V., Turtola, A., Lemola, R.,
Salo, T., 2007. Finnish trends in phosphorus balances and soil test phosphorus. Agric.
Food Sci. https://doi.org/10.2137/145960607784125339.
Valkama, E., Salo, T., Esala, M., Turtola, E., 2013. Nitrogen balances and yields of spring
cereals as affected by nitrogen fertilization in northern conditions: a meta-analysis.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 164, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.09.010.
Wahid, R., Ward, A.J., Møller, H.B., Søegaard, K., Eriksen, J., 2015. Biogas potential from
forbs and grass-clover mixture with the application of near infrared spectroscopy.
Bioresour. Technol. 198, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.154.
Whatmore, S., 1995. From farming to agribusiness: The global agro-food chain. In:
Geographies of Global Change: Remapping the World in the Late 20th Century. Basil
Blackwell, pp. 33–40.
Ylivainio, K., Sarvi, M., Lemola, R., Uusitalo, R., Turtola, E., 2014. Regional P Stocks in
Soil and in Animal Manure as Compared to P Requirement of Plants in Finland.
K. Koppelmäki et al. Agricultural Systems 170 (2019) 39–48
48
... AES is a situated development of food systems focused on the relocalization of production, processing, and consumption of food products. Palopuro AES was established to close the energy loop through nutrient (re)cycling and making use of system-produced bioenergy (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). Beyond the environmental considerations, the Palopuro AES provides a living example of a localized food system that acknowledges the place-based natural and social components of agricultural systems (Koppelmäki et al. 2019, see also Chapter 13 on Traditional Ecological Knowledge in this book). ...
... Palopuro AES was established to close the energy loop through nutrient (re)cycling and making use of system-produced bioenergy (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). Beyond the environmental considerations, the Palopuro AES provides a living example of a localized food system that acknowledges the place-based natural and social components of agricultural systems (Koppelmäki et al. 2019, see also Chapter 13 on Traditional Ecological Knowledge in this book). The Palopuro AES reveals the processes and interconnections of how food gets to consumers, where it comes from, who interacts with it, and where it goes when consumers are not using it (Clapp 2016). ...
... Palopuro AES recycles organic materials to produce biofuel and fertilizers (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). The manure from the animal operations, the excess silage from the organic leys, and other crop residues are combined and deposited in an on-farm anaerobic digester. ...
... Integrating agricultural systems with biogas production and using the digestate as fertilizer could be one way to increase recycling of nutrients from fork to farm, obtain a valuable fertilizer, and produce bioenergy (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). Compared with untreated cattle manure, digested cattle manure can have a higher content of NH 4 -N, which is directly plant-available N (Webb et al. 2013). ...
... The use of digestate on organic farmland is small but increasing, and there is a lack of knowledge about how anaerobic digestion of farm manure in biogas production systems affects nutrient cycling on farms (Nowak et al. 2015;SCB 2020). A study by Koppelmäki et al. (2019) highlighted the need for evaluation of on-farm biogas production, as nutrient cycling can be expected to be influenced by type of farm and type of feedstock used. The agronomic value of digestate is also highly Org. ...
... Previous studies have suggested that biogas production can enable recycling of nutrients from local society and redistribute them between farms, thereby improving the reuse of nutrients (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). In the present study, the IDC farm cooperating with a central co-digesting biogas plant gained about 20 kg N per hectare by replacing manure with digestate, while the amounts of P and K stayed the same. ...
Article
Full-text available
Few fertilizers are permitted for organic farming, which is a challenge when securing nutrient availability, particularly of nitrogen (N). Digestate from biogas production could be a valuable fertilizer for increasing crop yields, through its high content of plant-available nitrogen (NH 4 -N), but is rarely used in practice. This study evaluated how anaerobic digestion of manure and use of digestate affected inflows and outflows of nutrients and potentially toxic elements on four organic farms with different solutions for digestate production. Mass flows and element concentrations were documented 3 years on three dairy farms and one crop farm and used for calculating farm budgets. Nitrogen and phosphorus (P) budgets were also calculated for biogas reactor and storage pits on three farms. Nitrogen surplus exhibited large variation (18–87 kg N ha ⁻¹ year ⁻¹ ) at farm level, with purchased digestate or poultry manure giving major N inputs. The risk of process losses was high, with up to 40% of N and P in feedstock entering farm biogas reactors not recovered in digestate. The proportion of NH 4 -N in total N in digestate was slightly higher (2–9%) or lower (37%) than in feedstocks entering farm biogas reactors. Improved stirring in farm biogas reactors and storage pits to decrease N and P sedimentation, particularly when digesting poultry manure, would directly increase digestate value. Two farms purchasing digestate from central biogas plants received a digestate causing significant cadmium inputs. Keeping records on element flows can help to tailor the use of digestate for organic farms to achieve a sustainable use of nutrients.
... AES is a situated development of food systems focused on the relocalization of production, processing, and consumption of food products. Palopuro AES was established to close the energy loop through nutrient (re)cycling and making use of system-produced bioenergy (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). Beyond the environmental considerations, the Palopuro AES provides a living example of a localized food system that acknowledges the place-based natural and social components of agricultural systems (Koppelmäki et al. 2019, see also Chapter 13 on Traditional Ecological Knowledge in this book). ...
... Palopuro AES was established to close the energy loop through nutrient (re)cycling and making use of system-produced bioenergy (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). Beyond the environmental considerations, the Palopuro AES provides a living example of a localized food system that acknowledges the place-based natural and social components of agricultural systems (Koppelmäki et al. 2019, see also Chapter 13 on Traditional Ecological Knowledge in this book). The Palopuro AES reveals the processes and interconnections of how food gets to consumers, where it comes from, who interacts with it, and where it goes when consumers are not using it (Clapp 2016). ...
... Palopuro AES recycles organic materials to produce biofuel and fertilizers (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). The manure from the animal operations, the excess silage from the organic leys, and other crop residues are combined and deposited in an on-farm anaerobic digester. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter draws attention to the concept of nuclear awareness that arose in the wake of the nuclear catastrophes. It highlights epistemic and political stakes: the almost unimaginable timetables of nuclear energy (extraction and waste) on one hand, and the threat of instantaneous destruction on the other. The chapter emphasizes nuclear awareness as a critical assertion of nuclear energy and its societal impact and as a trigger of critical thinking of nuclear technology, nuclear power production, nuclear agenda, as well as their challenges and opportunities involved. The chapter analyzes the tools of narrating the Chernobyl disaster in the contemporary nuclear fiction, regarded as a archive of the nuclear Anthropocene and a case of nuclear knowledge management.
... N outputs covered N volatilization, organic matter outputs (manure and bedding straw), and N included in the forage and feed. We calculated N fixation separately following the methodology of (Koppelmäki et al., 2019) based on the formula from Anglade et al. (2015). The values used for BNF were 35.77 ...
... HNV farms, by including semi-natural grasslands in production, offer the additional value of freeing arable land to grow crops for direct human consumption or other uses (e.g., bioenergy production) (Karlsson and Röös, 2019;Koppelmäki et al., 2019). Although the total land occupation, including semi-natural grasslands and other natural permanent pastures, was similar on both farm types, HNV farms require less arable land due to their use of semi-natural grasslands. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sustainability of livestock production is a highly contested issue in agricultural sustainability discourse. This study aimed to assess the environmental impact of farms using semi-natural grasslands in Finland, or so-called High Nature Value (HNV) farms. We estimated the environmental impact of 11 such farms, including greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), nitrogen (N) balance, land occupation, and carbon storage. We also accounted for unique biodiversity, defined in this study as communities that are dependent on semi-natural grasslands. We compared these to the alternative states of the farms, specifically a hypothetical farm with the same production output but without access to semi-natural grasslands. GHG emissions at the farm level (tCO2eq/ha) in HNV farms were 64% lower than on the alternative farms; GHG emissions at the product level (tCO2eq/t LW) and N balance (N kg/ha) were 31% and 235% lower, respectively. The carbon stocks were 163% higher at farm level. Biodiversity values, indicated by the share of semi-natural grassland in management, ranged from 23% to 83% on HNV farms. Six out of eleven farms would need to increase their arable land occupation by an average of 39% of arable land to fulfil their needs for animal feed if they did not utilize semi-natural grassland. This study contributes to growing evidence that HNV farming systems can support sustainable production by minimising arable land occupation, reducing nutrient loses, and increasing carbon storage while maintaining unique biodiversity.
... As highlighted by Romera et al. (2020), studies in industrial ecology have already considered the inclusion of economic firms which could help lowering input and logistical costs and should be included in a territorial network. Here, it will be relevant to consider not only the agricultural sector in a food system transition but to see how to build a coordinated network at the local level, which could articulate relationships between farmers and other actors in the territory while achieving cultural and socio-economic benefits in a so-called AES (Agroecological Symbiosis) (Koppelmäki et al., 2019). The FAAB project mentioned earlier in section 3.6. ...
Article
Context Crop-livestock integration is a theoretical ideal for sustainable agriculture. However, the number of European crop-livestock farms has decreased due to multiple factors (e.g. agricultural policies and work constraints). Crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level (e.g. through grain-manure exchanges) is a relevant option to address these limiting factors. However, this integration within farmer groups is challenging because it requires collective redesign to address organizational issues. Objective We developed a participatory approach that includes the serious game Dynamix to support the co-design of scenarios of crop-livestock integration among farms. Methods The approach consists of six steps: (1) initial group meeting to define the problem; (2) farmer interviews to identify motivations and collect technical and economic farm data; (3) scenario co-design meeting using the serious game Dynamix, including a spatially explicit board game and a simulation model; (4) multicriteria evaluation of these scenarios at the individual farm and group levels using the simulation model included in Dynamix; (5) group meeting to discuss the results; and (6) monitoring of selected scenario implementation. We applied this methodology with two groups of farmers in southwestern France. Results and conclusions In the two groups, crop farmers wanted to diversify their cropping systems and use manure to improve soil quality. Livestock farmers were interested in local and non-GMO feed for their animals. The scenario they selected included i) inserting cereal-legume mixtures into crop rotations on crop farms to be sold to livestock farms and ii) transferring manure from livestock farms to crop farms. In this scenario, the predicted overall gross margin increased more for livestock farmers (median = 29.90 €/ha) than for crop farmers (median = 6.60 €/ha). Nitrogen balance management was improved: crop farmers decreased their use of mineral fertilizer by 2.8–17.4 kg/ha/year; livestock farmers decreased their feed inputs improving local feed self-sufficiency. However, farmers' workload and management complexity increased, with 22–54 h of additional work per farmer per year. Compared to other scenarios, trade-offs between individual farm and group benefits resulted in greater local autonomy in inputs but lower autonomy in decision-making. In the two groups, discussions improved trust, which is a key ingredient for transitioning to integration beyond the farm level. Significance Our study is the first to use a standardized participatory approach based on a serious game to support the complex issue of crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level. Applying the approach to a case-study revealed its strong potential. It can easily be scaled-out to other agricultural contexts.
... As such, the analysis of disruptive exemplars serves a wider purpose that goes beyond a mere retrospective exercise with limited relevance for understanding current and emerging societal dynamics (Hopster 2021). One such exemplar is the agroecological symbiosis piloted in Finland, in which the generation of on-farm bioenergy from green manure is combined with precision fertilization, resulting in a concomitant increase in the production area of cash crops for human consumption (Koppelmäki et al 2019). As such, this novel production system has overcome the food-fuel competition for land that is implicitly assumed in, inter alia, the CAPRI scenario analyses by the European Commission that informed European biofuel policies (Blanco et al 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
We comment on one of the scientific paradoxes of our times in the field of global studies on food: the influential scenario studies that call for new paradigms for the global food system are themselves locked into a past solution space. We posit that the extrapolation of past solution spaces into the future runs the risk of restricting the modelled scenarios to futures that are very similar to the status quo. We propose a novel complementary approach to scenario building, which we provocatively refer to as “Learning from future successes”: identifying and studying existing, successful early exemplars of disruptively novel farming systems that have independently reconfigured, and as such ‘break the rules’ of the relationships between the agronomic, environmental, economic and entrepreneurial variables commonly modelled in global food studies. By analyzing these existing exemplars, we can reconstruct their transition pathways as the basis to examine futures for regional and global food systems that are simultaneously radically progressive, yet proven to be attainable and desirable. Using disruptive exemplars as the starting point, we may discover novel sets of drivers of the future (e.g., cultural diversity, trust, gender relations), that have thus far eluded past experiences and trends. Drawing also from imagination and creativity, this approach broadens the gamut of possible pathways and people’s agency to shape desired futures. We illustrate our approach with three international initiatives: the Global Network of Lighthouse Farms, Agroecological Lighthouses, and Seeds of Good Anthropocenes. All three networks have identified and brought together existing early exemplars of disruptive farming and food systems; together they demonstrate complementary applications of our approach, namely: 1) the redesign of future farming systems, 2) the illumination of pathways for scaling disruptive systems, and 3) the formulation of narratives and visions that are inspirational and that incentivize change.
... For example, perennial ley is today grown mainly on livestock farms but may become more economically feasible on arable farms if e.g. fertiliser prices increase or if other outlets such as bioenergy production become more lucrative (Koppelmäki et al. 2019). Europe has recently experienced surging fertiliser prices due to natural gas shortage (Fedorinova et al. 2022) and a future transition towards renewable synthetic nitrogen could also push up prices (Tallaksen et al. 2015), potentially making nitrogen fixating crops a more viable alternative. ...
Article
Full-text available
To balance trade-offs between livestock’s negative environmental impacts and their positive contributions (e.g. maintaining semi-natural grasslands, varied agricultural landscapes and crop rotations), a better understanding is needed of how the supply of ecosystem services differs across farms. We analysed a suite of indicators for non-provisioning ecosystem services on a large subset of Swedish farms (71% of farms, covering 82% of agricultural land) and related these to farm type, farm size and livestock density. The analysed indicators exhibited clear geographical patterns with hotspots especially in less productive regions. Controlling for this spatial variation we still found that small-scale and ruminant farms were associated with more varied landscapes, small-scale habitats, semi-natural grasslands and better crop sequences compared to nearby farms specialised in crop production, while farms specialising in monogastric livestock were associated with less varied landscapes and inferior crop sequences. Results for cultural ecosystem services indicated that farms with more semi-natural grassland were associated with more visitors and more likely located within designated recreation or nature conservation areas.
... In conclusion, well-designed and applied biogas systems, may be essential to transform conventional farming to more sustainable farming, with significantly improved management of nutrients and soils (Koppelmäki et al., 2019;Metson et al., 2020), where the latter can involve smartly designed crop rotation systems with cover/intermediary crops (Magnolo et al., 2021; such as ley crops, Prade et al., 2014). For example, Hagman (2018) has found that biogas plants are essential for organic farming in Sweden, as the biofertilizers can be certified/approved for organic farming schemes. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This is an IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 report, addressing biogas, or biomethane, used in the transport sector. The report summarizes essential information on technology, economics, sustainability transitions, policy, and sustainability performance. The concluding chapter is a summary for policy makers
... However, biofuels are also promoted as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels for reducing greenhouse gases and promoting agricultural development, which is the strength of integrated farming systems. They can produce food, biofuels, and multiple products from biomass, whose total value-added can be greater than that generated by fossil fuels (Fernandez et al., 2018;Koppelmäki et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
The present Cuban economic model focuses on renewable sources of energy production, according to sustainable development strategies for 2030. However, the strategies do not consider biogas (or methane) due to, among other reasons, a lack of knowledge of its actual potential. Following the methodology of the batch anaerobic digestion process, the study shows the biomethane potential contained in the most critical agricultural solid wastes generated in Cuba, i.e., rice straw, cane straw, corn straw, bean straw, banana straw (leaves), coffee husk, and parchment coffee. Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) was assayed by lab-scale (585 ml) batch reactors, using the pig manure anaerobic sludge as inoculum under mesophilic conditions (35 ± 2 °C). Physicochemical parameters (total volatile solids, pH, alkalinity, volatile fatty acid concentration, and alkalinity ratio) were determined for process stability, quantifying the biogas production daily. Subsequently, the BMP was calculated for all substrates. The results showed that corn straw (0.42 l CH4 per gram of volatile solids) contained the highest biomethane potential. Stability on all systems was obtained, demonstrating the viability of the inoculum used to start digesters that treat this waste. The total potential methane obtained was 1258 106 m3/year, which is enough to generate 3,750 GWh of power per year—equivalent to 18 % of the total annual electricity generation in the country.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of this article is to present a review of the industrial symbiosis literature for responsible consumption in order to identify its relationship and by-products in the coffee growing sector. The type of investigation is documentary, and the method is deductive. The research was carried out in two phases: Systematic Literature Review (SLR) based on the SLR model of Garza-Reyes (2015) and the identification of the literature and relationships with other studies. The result that was obtained was that the reviewed literature maintains that industrial symbiosis is a way to get a sustainable world, because it supports the generation of jobs, additional income, lengthens the life cycle of products, uses waste as by-products and transfers it knowledge. In this sense, through this research, the bases of the relationship of industrial symbiosis with responsible consumption are laid, which can be applied in the coffee growing sector, where many benefits are obtained due to the amount of waste that is produced, during its production, and the properties that waste has, in order to be used as by-products of other processes, thus helping society, the environment and the economy of the sector.
Article
Full-text available
In temperate regions, legume-based green manures are a key element of organic rotations. However, specialized farms lack sufficient mobile organic fertilizers. To gain a better understanding of the N flows and the nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) fertilizer value of different clover-grass-based fertilizers (biogas digestate, compost, silage and fresh clover-grass obtained from clover-grass ley biomass), we assessed their fertilizer value. Nitrogen and P offtake by the ryegrass was used to assess the short-term effects. The data were completed using model calculations to assess the field-to-field N-transfer efficiencies and the overall N-transfer efficiencies. The greatest plant N offtake was achieved with digestates (64%) and the lowest from the compost (6%) and solid farmyard manure (14%). The mineralization rate was positively related to the NH4⁺–N/total N ratio (P < 0.01, r² = 0.82). The model calculations indicate that the overall short-term N-transfer efficiencies are driven by the field-to-field N-transfer efficiency and the field-to-crop transfer efficiency. However, in the long term, model calculations indicate that a high field-to-field N-transfer efficiency is the key strategic approach when aiming to achieve cropping systems with a high overall long-term N-transfer efficiency. Consequently, the results showed that aerobic decomposition (composting) significantly lowered field-to-field as well as field-to-crop N-transfer rates. The relative P use efficiency strongly differed among the fertilizers. In particular, freshly cut clover-grass and solid manure increased P availability and led to an increase of plant P offtake that was higher than the amount of P supplied.
Article
Full-text available
Long-term data from a network of intensively monitored research catchments in Finland was analysed. We studied temporal (1981–2010) and spatial variability in nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), from 1987 losses, both from agricultural and forestry land. Based on trend analysis, total nitrogen (TN) concentrations increased in two of the four agricultural sites and in most of the forested sites. In agricultural catchments, the total phosphorus (TP) trends were decreasing in two of the four catchments studied. Dissolved P (DRP) concentrations increased in two catchments and decreased in one. The increase in DRP concentration can be a result of reducing erosion by increased non-plough cultivation and direct sowing. In forested catchments, the TP trends in 1987–2011 were significantly decreasing in three of the six catchments, while DRP concentrations decreased significantly in all sites. At the same time, P fertilisation in Finnish forests has decreased significantly, thus contributing to these changes. The mean annual specific loss for agricultural land was on average 15.5 kg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ for N and 1.1 kg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ for P. In the national scale, total TN loading from agriculture varied between 34,000–37,000 t year⁻¹ and total P loading 2400–2700 t year⁻¹. These new load estimates are of the same order than those reported earlier, emphasising the need for more efforts with wide-ranging and carefully targeted implementation of water protection measures.
Article
Full-text available
A comprehensive understanding of plant metabolism could provide a direct mechanism for improving nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in crops. One of the major barriers to achieving this outcome is our poor understanding of the complex metabolic networks, physiological factors, and signaling mechanisms that affect NUE in agricultural settings. However, an exciting collection of computational and experimental approaches has begun to elucidate whole-plant nitrogen usage and provides an avenue for connecting nitrogen-related phenotypes to genes. Herein, we describe how metabolomics, computational models of metabolism, and flux balance analysis have been harnessed to advance our understanding of plant nitrogen metabolism. We introduce a model describing the complex flow of nitrogen through crops in a real-world agricultural setting and describe how experimental metabolomics data, such as isotope labeling rates and analyses of nutrient uptake, can be used to refine these models. In summary, the metabolomics/computational approach offers an exciting mechanism for understanding NUE that may ultimately lead to more effective crop management and engineered plants with higher yields.
Book
Full-text available
This report explores the potential for a shift to occur from current food systems, characterized by industrial modes of agriculture, to systems based around diversified agroecological farming. It asks what the impacts on food systems would be if diversity, rather than uniformity, were the key imperative. The ecological benefits of such a shift have been widely documented. The key question in this report, is how can food systems based around diversified agroecological farming succeed where current systems are failing, namely in reconciling concerns such as food security, environmental protection, nutritional adequacy and social equity. As this report shows, there is much promise in the emerging evidence.
Article
Full-text available
There is a lack of literature reporting the methane potential of several livestock manures under the same anaerobic digestion conditions (same inoculum, temperature, time, and size of the digester). To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has reported biochemical methane potential (BMP) predicting models developed and evaluated by solely using at least five different livestock manure tests results. The goal of this study was to evaluate the BMP of five different livestock manures (dairy manure (DM), horse manure (HM), goat manure (GM), chicken manure (CM) and swine manure (SM)) and to predict the BMP using different statistical models. Nutrients of the digested different manures were also monitored. The BMP tests were conducted under mesophilic temperatures with a manure loading factor of 3.5 g volatile solids (VS)/L and a feed to inoculum ratio (F/I) of 0.5. Single variable and multiple variable regression models were developed using manure total carbohydrate (TC), crude protein (CP), total fat (TF), lignin (LIG) and acid detergent fiber (ADF), and measured BMP data. Three different kinetic models (first order kinetic model, modified Gompertz model and Chen and Hashimoto model) were evaluated for BMP predictions. The BMPs of DM, HM, GM, CM and SM were measured to be 204, 155, 159, 259, and 323 mL/g VS, respectively and the VS removals were calculated to be 58.6%, 52.9%, 46.4%, 81.4%, 81.4%, respectively. The technical digestion time (T80–90, time required to produce 80–90% of total biogas production) for DM, HM, GM, CM and SM was calculated to be in the ranges of 19–28, 27–37, 31–44, 13–18, 12–17 days, respectively. The effluents from the HM showed the lowest nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentrations. The effluents from the CM digesters showed highest nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and digested SM showed highest potassium concentration. Based on the results of the regression analysis, the model using the variable of LIG showed the best (R2 = 0.851, p = 0.026) for BMP prediction among the single variable models, and the model including variables of TC and TF showed the best prediction for BMPs (R2 = 0.913, p = 0.068–0.075) comparing with other two-variable models, while the model including variables of CP, LIG and ADF performed the best in BMP prediction (R2 = 0.999, p = 0.009–0.017) if three-variable models were compared. Among the three kinetic models used, the first order kinetic model fitted the measured BMPs data best (R2 = 0.996–0.998, rRMSE = 0.171–0.381) and deviations between measured and the first order kinetic model predicted BMPs were less than 3.0%.
Article
Full-text available
Rising global energy needs and limited fossil fuel reserves have led to increased use of renewable energies. In Germany, this has entailed massive exploitation of agricultural biomass for biogas generation, associated with unsustainable farming practices. Organic agriculture not only reduces negative environmental impacts, organic farmers were also prime movers in anaerobic digestion (AD) in Germany. This study's aim was to identify the structure, development, and characteristics of biogas production associated with organic farming systems in order to estimate further development, as well as energetic and associated agronomic potentials. Surveys were conducted among organic farms with AD technology. 144 biogas plants could be included in the analysis. Total installed electrical capacity was 30.8 MWel, accounting for only 0.8% of the total installed electrical capacity in the German biogas sector. Recently, larger plant types (>250 kWel) with increased use of (also purchased) energy crops have emerged. Farmers noticed increases in yields (22% on average) and quality of cash crops in arable farming through integrated biogas production. In conclusion, although the share of AD in organic farming is relatively small it can provide various complementary socio-ecological benefits such as the enhancement of food output through digestate fertilization without additional need for land, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manures and soils. However, to achieve this OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2015, 7 10710 eco-functional intensification, AD systems and their management have to be well adapted to farm size and production focus and based primarily on residue biomass.
Article
Organic agriculture is often criticized for its lower productivity compared to conventional farming, while biogas production on organic farms is confronted with many structural constraints additionally impeding its profitability. However, integrated anaerobic digestion seems to induce multiple benefits for the respective organic farm system, such as reduced environmental impacts, improved nutrient efficiency, and stabilized or increased yields. In order to measure these effects within entire farm systems, systemic evaluation approaches are needed. Consequently, in this study we modelled twelve different livestock-keeping (LS) and stockless (noLS) organic farm prototypes comprising of arable farming, dairy cattle, grassland, and biogas production in a farm system assessment. The aim was to evaluate the impact of integrated anaerobic digestion (+ AD) on agronomic, economic, and risk aspects by applying stochastic optimization. While the absolute amount of readily available nitrogen as well as cash crop yields increase for both LS + AD and noLS + AD farm models, especially noLS farm types benefit from the novel availability of a mobile nitrogen (N) fertilizer (biogas digestate) to meet cash crop N demands. Integrated AD may increase profitability of arable farming and reduce its risk potential by displaying first order stochastic dominance. In addition, this diversification strategy may reduce the overall production risk of organic farms. By providing renewable energy as well as increasing food outputs and economic stability, the integration of AD in organic farms may serve as an example for the often postulated aim of a sustainable or eco-functional intensification of organic agricultural systems to face the challenge of productivity increases.
Book
The Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook has been the standard for engineers involved in the design, selection, and operation of gas turbines. This revision includes new case histories, the latest techniques, and new designs to comply with recently passed legislation. By keeping the book up to date with new, emerging topics, Boyce ensures that this book will remain the standard and most widely used book in this field.The new Third Edition of the Gas Turbine Engineering Hand Book updates the book to cover the new generation of Advanced gas Turbines. It examines the benefit and some of the major problems that have been encountered by these new turbines. The book keeps abreast of the environmental changes and the industries answer to these new regulations. A new chapter on case histories has been added to enable the engineer in the field to keep abreast of problems that are being encountered and the solutions that have resulted in solving them.