Using Methane in Intensive

Livestock IndustriesRIRDC Publication No. 08/050

RIRDCInnovation for rural Australia

08-050 Final Report covers.indd 1 14/04/2008 12:47:03 PM

Using Methane in Intensive Livestock Industries

by Magma Pty Limited

April 2008

RIRDC Publication No 08/050 RIRDC Project No. MPL-1A/PRJ-000865

ii

© 2008 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation All rights reserved ISBN 1 74151 639 0 ISSN 1440-6845 Using Methane in Intensive Livestock Industries Publication No. 08/050 Project No. MPL-1A/PRJ-000865 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details Magma Pty Limited GPO Box 629 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6257 0000 Fax: 02 6257 0003 Email: info@magma.com.au In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in April 2008

iii

Foreword Methane is the dominant agricultural greenhouse gas in Australia, with methane from livestock representing twelve per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions. Detailed information regarding research and development activities in Australia and New Zealand into the capture and use of methane in intensive livestock industries is hard to come by. This report aims to bring together available information about methane capture and use research and development applicable to the intensive livestock industries in Australia and New Zealand. The report makes recommendations as to the priorities to which future research and development should be targeted. The long-term benefits to intensive livestock industries in Australia are expected to be reduced greenhouse gas emissions, potential energy and water savings for farmers, together with the opportunity to develop new income streams. The potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions may prove to be valuable not just from the environmental perspective, but may also provide additional income as carbon trading is established in Australia. This project was funded under the RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program, a program that is funded by the Australian Government, and four R&D Corporations – Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation, Australian Pork Limited, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Dairy Australia. This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1800 research publications, forms part of our Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture R&D program, which aims to develop/adapt methane capture and use technology for application in the Australian intensive animal industries. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Abbreviations APL Australian Pork Limited CH4 Methane CO2 Carbon Dioxide CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DA Dairy Australia DPI&F Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) DPI Victoria Department of Primary Industries Victoria GWP Global warming potential H2S Hydrogen Sulphide HCAL High-rate Covered Anaerobic Lagoon IPCC Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change MAF New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries MLA Meat and Livestock Australia NGII The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory PLEA Probiotics with low energy aeration ppbv parts per billion by volume RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute TS Total solids VS Volatile solids

v

Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ vii Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methane ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Methane .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Greenhouse gas properties.................................................................................................................................. 4 Global warming potential ................................................................................................................................... 4 Atmospheric Concentrations .............................................................................................................................. 4 Methane Sinks .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methane sources ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Livestock enteric fermentation ........................................................................................................................... 5 Livestock manure management (Anaerobic digestion) ...................................................................................... 6 Methane in Australian agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 6 Methane in New Zealand agriculture ................................................................................................................. 7

Livestock enteric fermentation ............................................................................................................................ 9 Livestock manure management (anaerobic digestion) .................................................................................... 10

Effluent treatment options ................................................................................................................................ 10 Covered anaerobic ponds ................................................................................................................................. 12 Anaerobic digester............................................................................................................................................ 14 Flaring of methane............................................................................................................................................ 16

Current Research Activity ................................................................................................................................. 18 Covered lagoons ............................................................................................................................................... 18

Environmental Biotechnology CRC ............................................................................................................. 18 PMP Environmental Pty Limited ................................................................................................................. 18 Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) (DPI&F) .................................................. 19 Massey University Centre for Environmental Technology and Engineering............................................... 19 Nick Bullock Consulting............................................................................................................................... 19 Quantum Bioenergy ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Digester Design ................................................................................................................................................ 20 GHD Pty Limited.......................................................................................................................................... 20 DPI Victoria ................................................................................................................................................. 20 DiCom - Bioprocessing ................................................................................................................................ 20

Integrated farming systems............................................................................................................................... 21 SARDI........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Environmental Biotechnology CRC ............................................................................................................. 21

Flaring of methane............................................................................................................................................ 21 University of Sydney..................................................................................................................................... 21

Other Research ................................................................................................................................................. 22 University of Melbourne............................................................................................................................... 22 Coomes Consulting ...................................................................................................................................... 22

vi

Potential future research activity ...................................................................................................................... 23 Digester design ................................................................................................................................................. 23 Increased bio-gas yield ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Flares ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Scrubbers .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Electricity generation using porous burners ..................................................................................................... 26 Electricity generation using fuel cells............................................................................................................... 26 Multi-enterprise methane collection and use models ....................................................................................... 27

Carbon Trading .................................................................................................................................................. 28 Methane to Markets International Expo .......................................................................................................... 29 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix - Research activity ............................................................................................................................. 31 References............................................................................................................................................................ 51

vii

Executive Summary What is this Report About? Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates that on-farm activities (excluding energy use) produce around sixteen percent of overall national emissions. This is more than all of Australia’s transport based emissions, making the agricultural sector the second largest source of greenhouse gases after electricity production. Methane is the dominant agricultural greenhouse gas in Australia, with methane from livestock representing twelve per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately one quarter of those emissions of methane are from animal waste. Methane is produced during the anaerobic (i.e., without oxygen) decomposition of organic material in livestock manure management systems. Manure deposited on fields and pastures, or otherwise handled in a dry form, produces insignificant amounts of methane. Reducing methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective ways to realise immediate environmental benefits due to methane’s potency as a greenhouse gas. Who is the Report targeted at? This Report has been prepared for researchers and industry with an interest in methane capture and use. Background Detailed information regarding research and development activities in Australia and New Zealand into the capture and use of methane in intensive livestock industries is hard to come by. Aims of the Report This report brings together available information about methane capture and use research and development applicable to the intensive livestock industries in Australia and New Zealand and makes recommendations as to where future research and development should be targeted. Methodology Information has been sought by discussing relevant research activities with:

• research providers; • research funding agencies; • industry associations; • industry members; and • any other source of relevant information.

Results Traditionally the most common manure management systems used in Australia have been treatment by anaerobic lagoons and direct application of manure slurries to land. The capture and use of methane has not traditionally been a priority in the decision making process; the issue of minimising odour has been a greater priority. Priorities are now changing due to environmental considerations and the potential to generate new farm income streams or reduce costs through the capture and use of methane.

viii

The two principal methods of capturing methane are the use of covered anaerobic lagoons or the use of an anaerobic digester. The use of the methane thus collected can vary from simply flaring the gas, this provides a relatively cheap option, while still providing environmental benefits as flaring converts methane into the less harmful, in greenhouse terms, carbon dioxide. The more expensive, in capital terms, but potentially more beneficial, use of methane is to generate energy and/or heat that can be utilised on the farm or sold to energy users. Research activities have to date been concentrated in the following areas:

• the design of covered lagoons; • digester design; • integrated farming systems; and • the flaring of methane.

Lagoon design guidelines are still however based on Barth’s Rational Design Standard for anaerobic lagoons, which were formulated in 1985. Research and modelling is required to assess whether these design guidelines are still appropriate. Any proposal to capture and use methane becomes more economical if greater quantities of methane are available. Therefore there is a need to continue research into how to increase methane yields. The flaring of methane may be the only viable option for minimising greenhouse emissions for smaller farms. However cost considerations, resulting from Australian design standards, can be prohibitive, to even this simplest method of minimising greenhouse emissions. Research into how flaring costs can be minimised is essential and is the subject of another current project commissioned by RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program. Impurities within the gas collected are an additional cost within any system of methane use. Biogas scrubbing systems are expensive to purchase, install and operate. Research into improving existing or developing new scrubber systems to minimise overall operating costs could make significant impacts on the economics of methane collection and use. At present most projects use modified diesel engines for electricity generation. These systems are expensive to purchase and need to be regularly rebuilt. Porous burners are an alternative, however this Australian invention is in its infancy and are currently more expensive than commercial generation systems. Further research is required to prove their effectiveness and reliability for agricultural application. Another alternative to the use of modified diesel engines is the fuel cell. Fuel cells currently operate at landfills and wastewater treatment plants in the United States, proving they are a valid technology for reducing emissions and generating power from methane. Further research is required to prove their effectiveness and reliability for agricultural application. The potential to have multiple enterprises jointly develop methane capture and use facilities has not been fully investigated in Australia. In Europe feedlots are often closely located offering the potential of a cooperative approach that provides an economic scale. Research is required to prove the economics and technical feasibility of multi-enterprise waste management systems in Australia.

ix

Carbon trading, or emissions trading, is a recently developed, market-based scheme for environmental improvement that allows parties to buy and sell permits for emissions or credits for reductions in emissions of certain pollutants. The intensive livestock industry needs to continue to monitor developments in respect of carbon trading, in order to ensure it maximizes the economic benefit, to the industry, that may be available from such trading. The Methane to Markets International Expo is being held in Beijing, China between 30 October and 1 November 2007. The timing of the Expo provides RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program with the opportunity to consider international methane capture and use research and development activities, and assess their application in, or adaptation to Australian conditions. Implications The intensive livestock industries and policy makers will be better informed on options, strategies and technologies for capture and use of methane from the intensive livestock industries. Recommendations In order to maximise the economic benefit from future research activity funded by RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program it is recommended that the priorities noted in this Report be considered in conjunction with international research activities expounded at the Methane to Markets International Expo.

1

Introduction Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates that on-farm activities (excluding energy use) produce around eighteen percent of overall national emissions. This is more than all of Australia’s transport based emissions, making the agricultural sector the second largest source of greenhouse gases after electricity production. Methane is the dominant agricultural greenhouse gas in Australia, with methane from livestock representing twelve per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions. The potential for capture and use of methane from livestock is greatest in the intensive livestock industries, where manure management is estimated to contribute three per cent of emissions from Australian agriculture. Agriculture can make a significant contribution to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas abatement programs can provide secondary income streams for farmers. For producers in Australia’s intensive livestock industries it offers the potential for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions through technology transfers from more developed countries, secondary income streams or cost reductions and improved waste management. The Methane to Markets Partnership was launched in 2004, at a Ministerial Meeting in Washington, DC, when 14 national governments signed on as Partners (currently there are 19 members). The new Partners made formal declarations to minimise methane emissions from key sources, stressing the importance of implementing methane capture and use projects in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program is a collaborative research and development program (combining Government, Research and Industry partners); the purpose of which is to identify and respond to the issues important for the mitigation of methane emissions from the wastes of intensive livestock production. Through RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program, and as part of the international Methane to Markets Partnership, Australia’s intensive livestock industries (pigs, beef and dairy) have the capacity to improve their ability to capture and use methane emissions from animal wastes. In the United States, facilities are often significantly larger than in Australia making investment in methane technology more cost effective, due to the economies of scale that can be achieved. In Europe, while individual facilities are frequently small, they are often closely located with other similar sized operations which together offer potential for a cooperative approach to provide the economies of scale necessary for viability. The Australian intensive livestock industries display different characteristics from countries where methane capture and use has proved to be economically viable.

2

Objectives The objectives of the project were to identify methane capture and use research and development activities occurring both in Australia and New Zealand. Identification of current research activities will enable RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program to identify research and development priorities and provide for the coordination of future research.

3

Methodology Data, in respect of methane capture and use research and development, has been collected from available sources in both Australia and New Zealand. Information has been sought by discussing relevant research activities with:

• research providers; • research funding agencies; • industry associations; • industry members; and • any other party with relevant information.

Relevant databases have also been reviewed for additional information. In addition information has been sought by utilising the knowledge and networks of RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Steering Committee members and the participating Research and Development Corporations. Wherever possible information obtained from the above sources has been confirmed by discussion with the researcher, who was encouraged to provide the information to be included in the catalogue. In cases where researchers could not be contacted information that is available has been edited for inclusion in this report. In order that the collected data can be presented in a uniform manner a proforma presentation format has been designed to summarise the research.

4

Methane Methane Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is a principal component of natural gas. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Greenhouse gas properties Once in the atmosphere, methane absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This property can contribute to the warming of the atmosphere, which is why methane is a greenhouse gas. Global warming potential The concept of a global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. The definition of a GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit of mass of the greenhouse gas to that of one unit of mass of CO2 over a specified time period. As part of its scientific assessments of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has published reference values for GWPs of several greenhouse gases. According to the IPCC Second Assessment Report, methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere when compared to CO2 over a 100-year time period. Methane’s relatively short atmospheric lifetime, coupled with its potency as a greenhouse gas, makes it a crucial candidate for mitigation of global warming over the near-term (i.e., next 25 years or so). Atmospheric Concentrations

Figure 1: Atmospheric Methane Concentrations

Source: Dlugokencky, et. al., 2003 The historical record, based on analysis of air bubbles trapped in ice sheets, indicates that methane is more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years. Since 1750, global average atmospheric concentrations of methane have increased by 150 percent from approximately 700 to 1,745 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1998 (IPCC 2001). Over the past

5

decade, although methane concentrations have continued to increase, the overall rate of methane growth has slowed. In the late 1970s, the growth rate was approximately 20 ppbv per year. In the 1980s, growth slowed to 9-13 ppbv per year (IPCC 2001). The period of 1990 to 1998 saw variable growth of between 0 and 13 ppbv per year. A study by Dlugokencky, et. al. shows that atmospheric methane has been at a steady state of 1751 ppbv between 1999 and 2002. Methane Sinks Once emitted, methane is removed from the atmosphere by a variety of processes, frequently called "sinks". The balance between methane emissions and methane removal processes ultimately determines atmospheric methane concentrations, and how long methane emissions remain in the atmosphere. The dominant sink is oxidation by chemical reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH). Methane reacts with OH to produce CH3 and water in the tropospheric layer of the atmosphere. Stratospheric oxidation plays a minor role in removing methane from the atmosphere. Similar to tropospheric oxidation, minor amounts of methane are destroyed by reacting with OH in the stratosphere. These two OH reactions account for almost 90% of methane removals (IPCC, 2001). In addition to methane reaction with OH, there are two other known sinks: microbial uptake of methane in soils and methane’s reaction with chlorine atoms in the marine boundary layer. It is estimated these sinks contribute 7% and less than 2% of total methane removal, respectively. Methane sources Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Human-related activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. Methane emission levels from a source can vary significantly from one country or region to another, depending on many factors such as climate, industrial and agricultural production characteristics, energy types and usage, and waste management practices. For example, temperature and moisture have a significant effect on the anaerobic digestion process, which is one of the key biological processes that cause methane emissions in both human-related and natural sources. Also, the implementation of technologies to capture and utilise methane from sources such as landfills, coalmines, and manure management systems affects the emission levels from these sources. Livestock enteric fermentation Among domesticated livestock, ruminant animals (cattle, pigs, sheep, etc) produce significant amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive processes. In the rumen, or large fore-stomach, of these animals, microbial fermentation converts feed into products that can be digested and utilised by the animal. This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces methane as a by-product, which can be exhaled by the animal. Methane is also produced in smaller quantities by the digestive processes of other animals, including humans, but emissions from these sources are insignificant.

6

Livestock manure management (Anaerobic digestion) Methane is produced during the anaerobic (i.e., without oxygen) decomposition of organic material in livestock manure management systems. Liquid manure management systems, such as lagoons and holding tanks, can cause significant methane production and these systems are commonly used at larger pig, cattle and dairy operations. Manure deposited on fields and pastures, or otherwise handled in a dry form, produces insignificant amounts of methane. Methane in Australian agriculture Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (figure 2) estimates that on-farm activities (excluding energy use) produce around 16 percent of overall national emissions. This is more than all of Australia’s transport based emissions, making the agricultural sector the second largest source of greenhouse gases after electricity production.

0102030405060

SustainingEnergy

Agriculture Transport IndustrialProcesses

Land UseChange &Forestry

FugitiveEmissions

Waste

50

16 145 6 6 3

Figure 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture

(Source: National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005)

The Australian livestock sector released 62.6 Mt CO2-equivalents in 1999, making it the nation’s largest source of agricultural greenhouse gas emission. The principle greenhouse gas arising from agricultural livestock management is methane (99%) with a small quantity (1%) of nitrous oxide (N2O) being released from degradation of nitrogenous compounds in faeces and urine. Extensive ruminant enterprises are the principle sources of livestock manure but emissions from these wastes are not credited to livestock in the national inventory. Only greenhouse gas emissions from the managed manures and effluent derived from the intensive livestock industries are included in the manure management portion of the livestock emissions inventory. Methane attributed to livestock is liberated from the anaerobic microbial fermentation of feedstuffs in the gut (97%) and faeces (3%) of livestock by methanogenic organisms (methanogens). While small amounts of methane are liberated from microbial digestion occurring in the digestive tract of pigs, these and other simple stomached livestock sources contribute only 0.2 % of the enteric (digestive tract) emissions from Australian livestock. It is ruminant animals that are the single largest source of Australia’s agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (2861Gg CO2 -e) and alone contribute 13.1% of Australia’s total national emissions (NGGI 1999). The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, identified the digestive processes of livestock constituted the largest share of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for two-thirds of net national agricultural emissions.

7

In microbial and chemical degradation of excreta, a trade-off exists between disposing of wastes by aerobic treatments (leading to carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions) compared with anaerobic treatment (which promotes methane release). The 1999 NGGI inventory shows that approximately 98% of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manure occur as methane. Although 98% of manure emissions are methane, this contributes only 3% of total methane emissions from the livestock sector. Manure therefore constitutes a very small source of greenhouse gas emissions relative to enteric fermentation and therefore limited research has been targeted at minimising emissions from this source. Methane in New Zealand agriculture Out of a total New Zealand methane emission of about 1.5 Mt/yr, approximately 80% are produced by New Zealand's ruminant livestock. Of the ruminant emissions, 58% are from sheep and lambs, 28% from beef cattle, 18% from dairy cattle. These are all estimates made in the absence of direct measurements. Emissions from animal wastes have not been assessed for lack of available data.

% Livestock 82.5 Natural Wetlands 5.5 Landfills 6.5 Oil & Gas fields 1.4 Coalmining 0.8 Biomass burning 1.1 Other sources 2.2 Total 100.0 Figure.3 Methane Sources in New Zealand

Source: Lassey et al. (1992) Aggregate New Zealand methane emissions are at least twice the global average on either a per land area basis or when related to economic output (GDP), and at least five times the global per capita emission. The New Zealand share of global methane emissions (about 0.3%), while small, is also more than twice that of global carbon dioxide emissions (0.13%). Thus, the ratio of New Zealand methane to CO2 emissions is high by world standards. The metabolic processes in the rumen are quite well understood, with the result that the methane produced can be estimated to within about 15%. These estimates are on the basis of a specified proportion of the gross energy intake lost as methane (in the range 6-9% depending primarily on food quality); each kilogram of methane released is 56 MJ of energy 'lost'. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) has long collected statistics of stock food consumption according to stock classification, in units known as "stock units". A stock unit (s.u.) is the metabolisable energy required annually as feed by a standard breeding ewe of 55 kg bearing, on average, 1.20 lambs and rearing 1.05 to weaning. The MAF statistics comprise a census for each stock classification, and an aggregation of these into total stock units (by weighting with the s.u.-equivalent). For example, a dairy cow has an annual feed demand of 7.0 stock units. On the basis of the energy requirement of the 'standard breeding ewe', Lassey et al (1992) deduce a methane emission under New Zealand animal husbandry conditions of 11.5 kg CH4 per s.u. By aggregating the stock-unit equivalents of the New Zealand stock population (101 X 106 s.u. at the June 1988 census, plus 6 x 106 to allow for lambs born and slaughtered between censuses), Lassey et al. estimate methane emissions at 1.24 Mt/yr. Of this aggregate, 28% are from beef cattle, 18% from dairy cattle, and 58% from sheep and lambs.

8

Fairly static stock numbers during the 1980s and into the early 1990s means that New Zealand methane emissions are unlikely to have changed appreciably. However, a sustainable increase in demand for New Zealand dairy, meat or wool products could lead to higher emissions in the future. The majority of New Zealand livestock is not maintained on feedstock basis and hence methane from effluent ponds forms only a small proportion of agricultural methane sources. There are a few estimates of methane emissions from effluent ponds. The New Zealand Climate Change Programme (2001) estimated 16.93 Gg from such ponds compared to a total of 1 399 Gg from all agricultural sources. Therefore as in Australia little research has been focused on methane emissions from effluent ponds.

9

Livestock enteric fermentation To date the majority of research, in both Australia and New Zealand, into reducing methane emissions emanating from livestock has been in the area of minimising enteric methane emissions. Strategies that have been suggested to reduce enteric methane include: Intensification - Feeding livestock high digestibility feed such as grain or high quality pasture increases milk production per cow and reduces methane emissions per unit of production (i.e. more efficient production). Rumen Modifiers - Monensin is one of the only products shown to be consistently effective in reducing rumen methane emissions, with reductions either only slight to approximately 25 %. However, investigations indicate that the decrease in methane production may be short-lived. The use of antibiotics in ruminant feeds has been reviewed, concluding that there is evidence that bacterial resistance in livestock may result in resistance to antibiotics in human medicine. If changes are made to current registrations it is possible that some antibiotics will no longer be an option to modify methane emissions from ruminants. Dietary Fats - Additions of unsaturated fatty acids to ruminant diets may reduce methane by up to 40% i.e. 7% linseed oil may result in a 37 % reduction in methane emission. Carbohydrate Type - The type of carbohydrate fermented in the rumen influences methane production. Dairy production systems based on temperate perennial ryegrass/white clovers pasture will produce less methane than dairy cows fed sub-tropical pastures like Setaria or Kikuyu. The fermentation of brewers’ grain and distillery products containing relatively available fibre results in methane production 33% to 50% of that seen with common feedstuffs of comparable digestibility. Forage Processing - Grinding and pelleting of forages can markedly decrease methane production. At high intakes, methane loss/unit of diet can be reduced 20-40 %. Increased rate of passage of the ground or pelleted forage is the likely cause of the reduced methane production. Defaunation - In the absence of protozoa, rumen methane emissions are reduced by an average of 20 %, and it is likely that cows will produce up to 1 to 1.5 litres more milk per day at peak lactation. As animals refaunate rapidly by grazing, only dairy production systems offer the possibility of administering defaunating agents regularly during milking. Acetogens - Acetogens are rumen microbes that convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen gas (H2) to acetate, an energy source for the cow, while methanogens form methane, a waste product, from the same basic compounds. Research is underway in New Zealand to investigate the possibility of replacing methanogenic microbes with acetogenic microbes. Vaccination - Methanogens are antigenetically distinct from other organisms in the rumen allowing a vaccination approach to the reduction of methane production by rumen methanogens. The CSIRO is working on a vaccination with on-farm trials currently underway.

10

Livestock manure management (anaerobic digestion) Manure comprises both urine and faeces. It consists of water (90% of manure), complex carbohydrates and nutrients. Complex carbohydrates consist mainly of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. These are broken down into simpler compounds such as methane, carbon dioxide and water during effluent treatment. Manure also contains large quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, as well as minor nutrients, trace elements and salts. A range of pathogens is also contained in manure. The objective of a manure management system is to treat and / or otherwise use the manure in an ecologically sustainable manner. Effluent treatment options Direct Land Application - Wastes are flushed from conventional sheds into a collection sump. The Manure slurry is pumped into a tanker and directly spread on agricultural land without treatment. Direct Land Application (Irrigation and Composting) - Wastes are flushed from conventional sheds into a collection sump via a rundown screen (solid separator). A rundown screen only removes about 25% of volatile solids. The solids are composted with a bulking agent (sawdust, straw) and sold off-site as fertiliser. The liquid component is irrigated daily and without treatment onto agricultural land. Anaerobic Lagoon (No separation or recycling) - Wastes are flushed from conventional sheds into a conventional anaerobic pond (loading rate – 80 gVS/m3/day). This pond overflows into a secondary (holding) pond from which effluent is irrigated onto agricultural land. Irrigation can be timed to match crop and weather conditions. Once in every ten years (or so), sludge is removed from the anaerobic pond, composted and sold off-site as fertiliser. Anaerobic Lagoon (Solid Separation) - This option is the same as the previous option except that solids are separated from the waste stream using a rundown screen prior to entry to the anaerobic pond. This reduces the required capacity of the anaerobic pond. Solids are composted and effluent is irrigated. Anaerobic Lagoon (Solid Separation and Recycling) - This option is the same as the previous option except that treated effluent is recycled from the secondary pond back through the sheds as flushing water. This reduces the requirement for clean water, reduces the irrigation requirements and allows more frequent flushing (and thus cleaner sheds). Mechanically-aerated Lagoon - Wastes are flushed from conventional sheds into a mechanically-aerated basin. No solids are removed. After treatment, the effluent flows into a storage lagoon prior to irrigation. Treated effluent is recycled as flushing water. Accumulated sludge is removed, composted and sold off-site. Mechanically-aerated treatment ponds are typical of sewage and food processing waste treatment systems. They are reliant on good management and maintenance. Problems rapidly develop if the aerators break down. Covered Anaerobic Pond - In this option the anaerobic pond has an impermeable cover. Methane and odourous gases are collected under this cover. This biogas can be used as an energy source or simply flared (burned) off. The pond cover significantly reduces odour emissions but adds extra capital cost. The pond loading rate is increased so that pond size can be decreased thus reducing capital cost.

11

Anaerobic Digester - In this option, wastes are anaerobically digested in a controlled system using digester tanks. Biogas is produced and this generates electricity for sale to the local grid. This system is expensive and complex but eliminates odour and has the potential to generate income from sales of electricity and fertiliser. Complete Deep-litter system - In this option, conventional sheds are replaced with deep-litter sheds. These sheds (known as ecoshelters) are low cost, greenhouse-type sheds in which a deep layer of litter (sawdust, straw, rice hulls) is placed. The manure mixes with the litter and composts. At the end of each batch, the manure plus litter is removed and sold off-site as compost. No ponds are required. Provided that the litter remains aerobic, this is a very low odour option. However, there are animal health and growth performance issues that make this system undesirable for a full farrow-to-finish piggery. Surface-aerated Ponds - In this option an anaerobic pond is mechanically surface aerated. Research indicates that this should significantly reduce odour emissions but adds capital and operating costs. High efficiency Solid Separation - This option is the same as the Anaerobic Lagoon (Solid Separation and Recycling) except that the rundown screen is replaced with a high-performance centrifuge solid separator. About 65% of volatile solids are removed from the waste stream. Hence, the size of the anaerobic pond is reduced. However, this adds significant capital and operating costs. Anaerobic Lagoon plus Evaporation Pond - In this option, wastes are flushed into an anaerobic pond (without solid separation). Treated effluent overflows from the anaerobic pond into an evaporation pond. There is no effluent irrigation and no composting of screened solids. Occasionally sludge is removed. The size of the evaporation pond is dependent on the local climate but a large surface area is needed. A large surface area means a large odour-emitting surface. This system has very little daily operational requirements and is therefore attractive to producers. Integrated Floc-based Sequence Batch Reactor - Wastes are treated in a digester tank that is periodically aerated and non-aerated. This sequencing of each batch of effluent results in BOD and nitrogen removal. This is a technically complex system. The selection of a particular manure management system should consider:

• local climate; • environmental constraints; • final utilisation site of nutrients; • capital costs; • operating costs; • labour requirements; • convenience; and • technical requirements.

In Australia and New Zealand, the chosen system is usually low capital cost, low operating cost, low labour input and is not constrained by cold climates. Historically, the environmental constraints of very close neighbours and limited land for nutrient spreading have often not applied. Hence, the most common systems used in Australia are treatment by anaerobic lagoons and direct application of manure slurries to land.

12

However, in terms of methane capture and use only the

• covered anaerobic pond; and • anaerobic digester

have any real significance, although their use can be in conjunction with other options noted above. Covered anaerobic ponds There are a number of issues to be addressed when designing a lagoon cover:

• there are several synthetic cover materials available. Each has a different strength, life and capital cost.

• a stormwater removal system is essential to prevent the cover from being torn or pulled out at the edges.

• the gas collecting under the cover contains explosive quantities of methane and potentially toxic levels of H2S.

• excess methane can be removed by flaring (burning) but the flare can be a considerable portion of the total installed cost.

The following analysis of a covered lagoon at a piggery is taken directly from Farran et al. (1997), who considered Piggery effluent being flushed into a covered anaerobic lagoon. Biogas is drawn off from under the lagoon cover. The anaerobic lagoon overflows into a facultative lagoon. Flushing water is recycled from this lagoon and effluent is irrigated from the lagoon. Sludge is periodically removed from the anaerobic lagoon. The initial design criteria were:

• hydraulic retention time > 80 days • volatile solids loading rate 193 g VS/ m3/day • biogas production 0.672 m3/kg BOD removed • design used > 80 days 0.343 m3/kg BOD removed

Farran et al. (1997) notes that further data from Safley and Westerman (1988 & 1989) gave inflated values for anaerobic lagoon emissions with respect to what is theoretically possible. System specifications 200-sow unit 2000-sow unit Anaerobic lagoon (m3) 4,500 45,000 Lagoon depth (m) 6 6

Area of cover (m) 40 x 40 55 x 55 (4 of) Facultative lagoon (m3) 8,300 83,000 Annual biogas production (m3 x 106) 0.057 0.57

A similar analysis was undertaken for covered lagoons at Parkville Piggery near Scone, NSW. This was an existing 15,500 SPU piggery where treatment lagoon remediation was required. The piggery had rundown screens and the solids are treated using vermiculture. There were two existing anaerobic lagoons.

13

The options evaluated were:

• covering one of the existing anaerobic lagoons • covering a new centralised anaerobic lagoon • installing an in-vessel digester for the screened solids.

Covering an Existing Anaerobic Lagoon - The existing lagoons had a surface area of 3,800 m2 (35 m x 110 m) and an estimated depth of 1.5 m. The anaerobic lagoons had a capacity of 12ML and a retention time of 40 days. The estimated loading rate was 120 gVS/m3/day. The effluent would continue to be screened prior to entering the lagoon. High-density polyethylene was proposed as the covering medium as it was the cheapest material available and had been used elsewhere without serious problems. Nevertheless, the cost of the covering was $133,000. Other costs were $4,000 for a condensate trap, $10,000 for a H2S scrubber, $60,000 for a flare to burn excess gas, and other costs. The total capital cost was about $300,000. Assuming that the cogeneration saved $27,000 annually in electricity costs, it was concluded that the option could not be economically justified. Covering a New Anaerobic Lagoon - In this option, the existing anaerobic lagoons were to be decommissioned and a new single, deep lagoon installed. The smaller, deeper lagoon providing savings in the cost of covering the lagoon. Solids would still be removed by screening. The lagoon would be 8 ML (40 m x 40 m x 5 m deep) with a loading rate of 400 gVS/m3/day. The retention time would be 13 days. As with the previous option, sludge build up under the cover was an issue. There was no known system in Australia that allows for sludge removal without the cover being removed. The capital cost of this option was $497,420 but it was concluded that this offered a saving of $100,000 that was needed to upgrade the existing lagoons. Assuming that the cogeneration saved $32,000 annually in electricity costs, it was concluded that the option could not be economically justified. Installing an in-vessel digester for the screened solids - The digestion of the screened solids to produce biogas could be undertaken in a vessel digester. There were two examples of solids digesters being used for piggeries in Australia. The first was at Berrybank Farms Piggery near Ballarat (see below) and consisted of two steel tanks with a combined volume of 3400kL. The second was a simpler system at the University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus piggery that was a fibreglass vessel with a volume of 60kL. The digester would have a capacity of 0.1ML and a retention time of 100 days. The loading rate would be 10,000 gVS/m3/day. The capital cost would be $838,420. Assuming that the cogeneration saved $20,000 annually in electricity costs, it was concluded that the option could not be economically justified. In all cases, the use of covered lagoons was not considered economically viable if assessed as a cogeneration plant. However, they have been installed as odour control devices. Presumably, in those cases, the high costs of lagoon covering and flaring were less than other odour control strategies or relocation of the whole facility. Covering a new Anaerobic Lagoon is the least uneconomic of the three options. In the future an additional return may be available in the form of greenhouse credits, whereby the business would benefits financially from any reductions to total greenhouse emissions. For the option described above, the net reduction in greenhouse gases would be about 5,482 tonnes CO2 equivalent. There is currently no indicative figure for the value of a tonne of CO2, but in order for the company to achieve an acceptable payback (4-5 years), the company would need to receive an additional $40,000/year in returns, which equates to about $7-8 /tonne CO2 in greenhouse credits

14

Anaerobic digester Anaerobic Digesters can vary from the very simple to the very complex in their design. The necessary functions of a digester, however, can be summarized as:

• to contain the 'charge' of water and solids; • to collect the gas for processing and storage; • to regularly stir and mix the charge; • to accept new quantities of charge; • to keep the charge at operating temperature; • to provide a means to discharge the spent contents; and • to allow access for repairs and maintenance.

These necessary functions can be varied in form depending on the type of digester either 'batch' or 'continuous'. Further there are two types of digestion Mesophilic and Thermophilic, which refer to the operating temperature ranges of particular bacterial types. Mesophilic digesters operate at around 'blood-heat' or 38°C, give or take 10°C, while the thermophilic types work at hot-water temperatures of around 60°C. Needless to say, the thermophilic digesters require extra heating which translates into extra running costs, while a mesophilic digester will only need a little extra heating. Thermophilic digesters have a place in industry, however, when the feedstock temperature has already been elevated by the industrial process, such as the hot water used for washing-down in animal sheds. A Batch Digester operates on a single charge until it is exhausted, producing gas via a scrubber to a storage device. At the end of the digestion cycle, the Batch Digester is emptied, cleaned, recharged and restarted for a new cycle then left until done. This cycle time may be as long as six weeks. Operating the batch digestion system requires that you have two or more digesters to be able to have a more or less continuous gas supply (Three is more practical). Batch digesters have the quality of predictability because once started they are not disturbed or interrupted. On the other hand, Continuous-Feed Digesters have increments of charge added and subtracted on a daily basis to provide an ongoing replenishment of charge materials and water. It is obvious that the amounts withdrawn and replaced should be exactly the same or the digester may become either overloaded or underloaded. Knowledge of the feedstock, that with water makes up the digester charge, is vital. Continuous-feed digester systems are less expensive to set up due to lower capital costs (only one digester is needed, not several) but they do require close monitoring of feedstock solids. On the other hand, they are easier to automate due to their incremental nature. The Anaerobic Digester is explained using the Berrybank Farm as an example. Charles I.F.E., the company that runs Berrybank Farm at Windemere in Victoria, decided to seek ways to improve the efficiency of the operation. The company also wanted to relieve the pollution problems associated with the odourous waste from the piggery, and to find ways of reducing its consumption of 400,000 litres of bore water per day. Berrybank Farm was home to 15,000 pigs with an estimated live weight of 800 tonnes. It produced a daily average of 275,000 litres of sewage effluent with an organic solids content of approximately 2%. To put this in context this is roughly the same as the sewage output of a town with a population of about 50,000 people. Berrybank Farm has developed a sophisticated waste management system to recover all the waste from the pigs, and to treat it so that the various by-products can be used on the farm (as flush water, gas for electricity, and fertiliser), or sold at a profit.

15

The waste management system is a seven-stage process - shown schematically in the diagram below - including automatic and continuous waste collection, grit removal, slurry thickening, primary digestion, secondary digestion, biogas purification and a co-generation thermic plant. The process was implemented in November 1989. Electricity production commenced in 1991.

Figure 3: Schematic of seven-stage waste management system

(Source: www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/corporate/eecp/case-studies/charlesife.html) The farm modified the existing drainage around and under the piggery to recover the waste products, and installed automatic flushing valves and linked them to the main pumping station. The valves are solenoid-activated and enable remote-controlled flushing at various times of the day, working in a somewhat similar way to an automatic watering system in a domestic garden. Meat and bone meal fed to the pigs contains granules of bone and this passes through the pig and into the effluent. The grit from these granules resides in the slurry and is removed by simple sedimentation. This is important, as the grit can damage the internal pump mechanisms. The slurry is then pumped to the thickening plant, where the finer suspended solids are separated from the water. The clarified water is recycled, either as flush water in the piggery, put into storage, or applied directly to the land as fertiliser. The thickening plant separation process is a combination of an existing screen and a newly developed flotation system. Flotation allows the separation of water from the smaller suspended particles; this is not always possible using other processes. The primary and secondary digesters are where the anaerobic digestion takes place. A digester simply provides the ideal conditions for the process to proceed at a faster, more controlled rate, by excluding air, thoroughly mixing the contents and maintaining optimum temperatures. The biogas is then purged of potentially damaging sulphur by scrubbers, traps and a dehumidifier, before being pumped to the co-generation thermic plant, where it is converted into thermic heat and electricity. The plant produces 180 kW/hr of electricity for 16 hours per day (enough to power over 400 households), and has the potential to considerably boost this output. Heat is used for the primary digester, while electricity not used on the farm is sold to large power producers. The farm's feed mill consumes 60% of the electricity generated during the day. The solid and colloidal parts of the digested slurry are separated from the water by centrifuge. This reduces the bulk of the slurry by up to 90%. The end result is composted humus - a valuable fertiliser for the farm and the domestic potting mix market. The separated water also has enough residual nutrients to replace the use of chemical fertiliser when applied to cropping land. The farm can use this fertiliser (both liquid and solid) on 80% of their cropping land.

16

Each day the farm now recovers:

• approximately 7 tonnes of waste solids at 35% dry matter, used as fertiliser; • 100,000 litres of recyclable water; • 100,000 litres of mineralised water, used as fertiliser; and • 1,700 cubic metres of biogas, able to run a co-generation electricity program with a daily

output of 2,900 kW of electricity. The capital cost of the Berrybank Farm project was approximately $2 million. Berrybank Farm achieved an economic payback on its investment in about six years, and also considers the environmental benefits to be enormous. As a result of cleaner production, Berrybank Farm has also achieved:

• 70% reduction in water usage • improved stock conditions • improved working conditions for staff • elimination of odour

Annual estimated savings as a result of cleaner production are shown below.

Annual Saving Electricity $125,000

Water $50,000 Fertiliser $250,000 Total annual savings $425,000 Berrybank Farm has proven that both financial and environmental benefits can be achieved from investment in an Anaerobic Digester. Berrybank has also changed its image in the community - from an environmental problem to a welcome industry that offered a good working environment. Further information about Berrybank Farm and its Anaerobic Digester system is readily available on the internet, as several studies have been completed of this system. Flaring of methane Where methane is captured by intensive livestock industries it is often flared. Methane flaring is a cheaper alternative to capture and use, but still provides significant environmental benefits converting methane into the less harmful carbon dioxide. Burning one molecule of methane produces two molecules of water and one molecule of CO2. In this way, flaring methane reduces its climate change impact by a factor of 21 (Methane having 21 times the global warming impact of CO2). A flaring system is also required when methane is used to produce either heat or electricity. Demand for the biogas may vary according to the pattern of the electricity use or if equipment goes off line for any period (e.g. maintenance periods). For these reasons a system must be in place to deal with gas in excess of demand. Due to environmental standards, methane flaring is a costly exercise in Australia compared with the US with costs of technology being up to ten times more expensive. The equipment, which makes up a flaring system, includes the flare itself, a valve train, a gas booster, a flame arrestor, control cabinet, an LPG pilot light system and a fail-safe control system. A large flare system with a capacity of 1000 m3 biogas/day can cost around $27,000. Including the ancillary equipment, the total cost would be in the range of $50,000. Figures higher than this have been used in some of the economic modelling for energy recovery from biogas.

17

Minimising the costs of flaring would provide an incentive for an increase in the recovery of methane, whether this is purely for flaring, or whether for generation of electricity or heat. Methane flaring is a common practice not just in relation to methane arising from agriculture effluent, but also in respect of methane derived from mining and other industrial processes. However there appears to be little research into flaring technology in Australia or New Zealand. This would appear to be a result of flaring of methane being a minor cost in the overall process budget, and the requirement to meet demanding Standards. This lack of research into flaring has been identified by RIRDC’s “Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture” Program, which has commissioned an assessment of Australian standards for methane flaring against the requirements in Europe/US. It is anticipated that this assessment will identify areas in which the cost of flaring methane can be reduced provided Australian Standards are revised.

18

Current Research Activity Current research activities have been grouped into similar areas of research, based on the primary objective of the research. However many research activities include additional research activities in non-primary research areas. Further details in respect of the projects discussed below are included in the Appendix to this report. Covered lagoons Environmental Biotechnology CRC This project aimed to evaluate in the field the covered anaerobic lagoon concept for abattoir wastewater. Novel improvements in lagoon configurations were to be simulated in laboratory reactors, and then field tested at an abattoir, which utilised dissolved air flotation grease removal prior to anaerobic treatment. The laboratory system successfully showed enhanced methane production and the process was upgraded to a full-scale demonstration lagoon and plant in southern NSW. The Lagoon successfully showed increased methane generation rates with improved biomass through attached growth enhancement. Redesign of the inlet works was required to minimise the clogging due to oversized solids entry and the revised operations including Hypalon cover gave improved methane recovery compared with conventional lagoon systems. PMP Environmental Pty Limited PMP Environmental Pty Ltd is researching the implications for performance and biogas yield of sludge recirculation in covered lagoons. The methodology is to install a pump and pipe network to recycle, and potentially waste, sludge from within a High-rate Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (HCAL), to determine the effect of sludge recirculation on biological performance and biogas yield. The specific objectives of the research are:

• to prove that a pump and pipe network can be used to recycle sludge within covered anaerobic lagoons.

• to assess the biological performance of a HCAL lagoon with and without sludge recycling and effluent screening.

• to assess the optimal sludge recirculation regime (flow and SS) to maximize biogas yield and biological performance while minimising pumping costs.

• to determine biogas yield and composition from a HCAL lagoon with and without sludge recycling and effluent screening.

This project is due to submit its report in November 2007 however initial results indicate the inclusion of the recycle facilities and monitoring of the biogas generation has been successful and has raised a number of important issues with respect to the optimisation of the biogas use.

19

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) (DPI&F) There is sufficient anecdotal evidence suggesting that management systems using highly loaded, covered, solids settling ponds present significant potential for reducing adverse impacts. This is supported by the results of some recent experimental work conducted by the DPI&F (Skerman and Collman, 2006). The successful application of this technology may result in:

• Smaller ponds that are less expensive and easier to construct, line, cover and desludge. • Reduced odour emissions through covering and biofiltration of gaseous emissions. • Potential capture of methane for biogas utilisation. • More effective use of nutrients from the waste stream by regular desludging.

This project is due for completion in December 2007. Massey University Centre for Environmental Technology and Engineering Many New Zealand dairy farms currently employ two pond anaerobic/aerobic pond systems. The anaerobic ponds are typically oversized to cope with sludge accumulation. The large area of the ponds makes it uneconomical to cover them for methane capture. The objective of the current project is to produce a simple solids removal and leaching system so as to provide reduced sized ponds with a high organic content/ low solids feed for methane production. Laboratory scale trials are currently being undertaken. Farm scale trials will commence in late 2007. This project is due for completion in December 2008. Nick Bullock Consulting This project will use the four dairy farms involved in the initial Probiotics with low energy aeration (PLEA) research (located in Wagga, Comboyne, Cowra, Gympie and Wingham) as demonstration farms for field days, workshops and on going validation of the technology. Dosing with pro-biotics, aeration and nutrient analysis will be maintained during the length of the project to ensure farmers attending field days can view the technology in action. Investment and operating costs of the PLEA technology will be determined and compared with current methods of effluent treatment. Benefits of PLEA, such as improved water quality for wash down, potential to produce methane and reduced odour will be considered also. The resulting information will enable farmers to make a well-informed decision regarding the potential usefulness of the technology for their farming systems. This project is due for completion in May 2008. Quantum Bioenergy Quantum BioEnergy is currently conducting research and development trials in conjunction with project partners on a novel technology for the removal of very significant quantities of organic materials from liquid wastes. This innovative technology involves no moving parts and promises to improve on the performance of conventional aeration technologies without the running costs.

20

Laboratory trials conducted to date have indicated that this technology has application across waste streams of various strengths and has produced some remarkable outcomes that have the potential to entirely replace the need for aeration of tertiary effluent. The structure consists of a series of ultra-porous membranes in direct contact with the air. The combination of evaporation and diurnal temperature differential between the air and liquid creates convection currents over the gills allowing them to ‘breath’. The gills are arranged in parallel and function as high rate trickle filters creating rapid growth of biofilm (aerobic bacteria and fungi) which strip nutrients and BOD from organic waste streams at a 2.5 – 10 times more efficiently than current aerobic treatment systems. It is anticipated that the technology will be commercially available in early 2008. Digester Design GHD Pty Limited GHD Pty Limited are preparing:

• an assessment of optimal digester design for deep-letter bedding • an assessment of biogas yield from deep-litter bedding; and • providing preliminary project design and assessment for anaerobic digestion at Australian

piggeries This project is due to provide its final report in January 2008. DPI Victoria Active Research have developed a mobile methane digester that allows for “live” testing and process efficiency demonstrations on individual farms to tailor design appropriate systems. Fixed methane digesters are expensive to build and potentially expensive to run. This technology allows the farmer to have his system extensively analysed, then have a tailor made treatment system to suit the particular context. The practicalities and on farm operating costs associated with the use of a methane digester will be determined and compared with current methods of effluent treatment. Possible benefits will be identified and evaluated. This project is due to be completed in November 2008. DiCom - Bioprocessing The DiCOM ® process is a novel method for treating the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. It represents emerging Australian technology in combining thermophilic anaerobic digestion with in-vessel composting without requiring between process handling. In contrast to wastewater treatment, the biological degradation of solid organic material does not completely (e.g. >90%) remove organic material. Subsequent to the degradation of the easily degradable putrescent material, the aim is to produce a stable and nutrient rich end product that can be safely applied in horticulture, agriculture or aquaculture (e.g. compost, vermicompost, soil conditioner).

21

Integrated farming systems SARDI The aim of the project is to develop an integrated farming system, which prevents organic pollution and enhances primary and secondary industry production, income and sustainability. The emphasis and novel research aspects of the project are:

• to design a system which utilises thermophilic digestion to kill pathogens; • to optimise the bioavailability of nitrogen and phosphorus and methane; • to create an enhanced natural aquatic system which maximises both primary and secondary

productivity. The expected outcome of the project is the development of methods to eliminate pathogens and to promote an efficient integrated biosystems for organic waste and wastewater treatment for the livestock and food processing industries. This project is due to be completed in November 2007. Environmental Biotechnology CRC The aim of this project is to provide treatment technology to produce safe, easy to handle organic fertiliser from sewage and food processing biosolids, while producing excess electricity. In contrast to existing high-technology options, the project will specifically address the needs of small and medium scale biosolids producers, including food processing industries, and communities less than 100,000 persons. The product is a packaged treatment plant, which can be used to sanitise, reduce, and utilise organic solids that are normally produced by the above industries. The packaged treatment plant will have an input of unstabilised solids, and an output of renewable electricity and organic fertiliser. This project is due to be completed in July 2009. Flaring of methane University of Sydney The objective of this project is to develop technology that can be applied at farm scale to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from intensive dairy and beef operations, using a porous burner reaction system, developed to combust fugitive methane in mine ventilation exhausts from coal mines. A porous burner stabilises combustion over a wide range of operating conditions, is in contrast to conventional burners in which the fuel and air burn in a flame at the burner exit. Porous burners produce significantly lower emissions of combustion related products (e.g. NOx and CO); have wider flammability limits, greater turn down ratio, increased thermal efficiency and a more uniform heat distribution. The key advantage however, is that very dilute fuel-air mixtures can be combusted without the need for supplementary fuel. Leading to an inexpensive and robust solution to reduce methane emissions and generate a usable supply of energy, and completely eliminate any odour causing compounds. This project is due to be completed in July 2009.

22

Other Research University of Melbourne The main objective of the project is to improve understanding of total greenhouse gas emissions (methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia) from intensive beef production systems. The expected outcomes of the project are:

• improved estimates of total greenhouse gas (methane, nitrous oxide and NH3) emissions from intensive beef production systems;

• understanding of the link between various intensive livestock management practices and their influence on greenhouse gas emissions; and

• enhanced Australian capability in quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production systems.

This project is due to be completed in January 2008. Coomes Consulting The aim of this project is the review of international and Australian innovative and emerging technologies to treat dairy shed effluent, outlining potential innovative and emerging technologies to treat dairy effluent generated from shed and feedlot facilities. This project is due for completion in March 2008.

23

Potential future research activity The potential for future research activity regarding the capture and use of methane within the Australian feedlot industries is considerable. Areas of research that may be considered priority areas regarding the capture and use of methane can be summarised as follows: Digester design Intensive cattle, dairy and piggery feedlots are still being built using designs that make retro fitting methane capture systems unnecessarily difficult; existing regulation entrenches outmoded approaches. Volume is the most important factor in designing an anaerobic pond. The most common reason for unsatisfactory performance for this type of pond is inadequate capacity. In a well-designed pond the anaerobic digestion process produces a stabilised sludge, which accumulates at the bottom of the pond at a rate proportional to the amount of manure treated. The larger the pond per unit volume of added manure, the greater the amount of liquid remaining for effective degradation of the incoming manure. Where ponds are used in parallel to process the effluent from a piggery, their capacities can be regarded as additive in assessing whether the required capacity is present. However, where ponds are constructed in series only the capacity of the first pond should be counted in assessing whether the required capacity is present. This is because the first pond is subject to the entire organic loading and the majority of the sludge will accumulate there. Ponds are often used in series to produce a higher quality effluent for recycling through the piggeries flushing system. Current lagoon guidelines follow Barth’s (1985) Rational Design Standard (RDS) for anaerobic lagoons. Barth recommended extremely low loading rates resulting in excessively large lagoons that are difficult to retrofit for biogas capture. This technique has two major objectives:

• Reducing pond odour emissions. • Maintenance of a minimum treatment volume and sludge accumulation rate.

A number of parameters were identified to account for the main influences on pond function. The large influence that climate has on the biological activity in the pond is accounted for by a temperature dependent K-value or pond activity ratio which is determined from the average annual reaction rate of a particular region. As a result, Australia can be divided into climatic zones corresponding to K-values. K values for Australia can be found in the book “Effluent at Work” published by NSW Agriculture. The following variables are required to calculate the size of a pond:

• The desired time interval between sludge removal (yrs). • Average total solids (TS) production of the piggery (kg/d) • Average volatile solids (VS) production of the piggery (kg/d). • K value for the area • LRVmax(corresponding to the minimum treatment volume) = 0.1kg/m3/d.

Historically, it has been advised that anaerobic ponds should be as deep as economically feasible whilst maintaining the bottom above ground water levels. This advice has been based on the

24

information that the presence of oxygen in ponds less than 2 m deep inhibits anaerobic bacteria and reduces the rate of decomposition. There is also information that deep ponds accumulate more heat than shallow ponds, have a more stable temperature, and so offer more stable performance. However, as increasing levels of bacterial growth occur with increasing temperature, a pond with a more stable temperature regime may have less bacterial growth than a shallower pond which reaches higher temperatures during the warmer seasons. A shallower pond will also have a greater surface area, hence a larger volume in which the light transmittance favours the growth of purple sulphur bacteria. Anaerobic ponds have operated successfully at depths between 2 m and 10 m but most are between 4 and 6 metres. The minimum recommended depth is 2.5 metres. Whilst traditionally anaerobic ponds have been deep, there is evidence that shallow ponds function at least as well and may be preferable under some circumstances. The rate at which sludge accumulates will vary with the loading rate, the location (climate), the feed type, and the initial capacity of the pond. There exists a myth that very large or deep ponds will accumulate sludge to a certain point after which the sludge level becomes stabilised. As at least 20% of the material entering the pond is non-biodegradable fixed solids, which will continue to accumulate in the pond as sludge. In an aged pond, the sludge will contain a large proportion of these fixed solids. Researchers have found that the solids accumulation rate in anaerobic ponds treating piggery wastes may be estimated using an average value of 0.00303 m3/kg Total Solids. Solid material can be removed from the effluent by screening and/or settling before entering the pond to reduce the sludge accumulation rate. However, this leaves the problem of what to do with the screened solids. Reduction of solids accumulation may be justified for some larger piggery units. Research and modelling is required to assess whether these designs and guidelines are still appropriate. Increased bio-gas yield The main determinant of the amount of biogas is the amount of carbon in the organic waste. When the waste degrades some of the carbon becomes part of the cellular material of the microbes (assimilated carbon) and the rest of the carbon forms methane and carbon dioxide (dissimilated carbon). The more anaerobic the process, the more of this carbon is converted to methane. The anaerobic process is greatly affected by temperature. Most systems operate in either the mesophilic range (25-40°C) or the thermophilic range (50-65°C). The thermophilic range allows for the largest loading rate of a digester as well as increasing the destruction of harmful pathogens. Although little research has been done at lower temperatures, it has been observed that digestions can also take place in the psychrophilic range of less than 25°C. Higher temperature systems generally have a greater rate of waste processing per unit volume of digester but tend to be more complicated to operate, and require more equipment. Anaerobic digestion volatile-solids destruction is reduced with more fibrous wastes such as feedlot manure, or from crop stubbles. Research is being performed to increase ethanol from crop residues, these enzymes should equally convert fibrous wastes into readily digestible sugars. Anaerobic thermophilic digestion has also been shown to increase the subsequent volatile-solid destruction and biogas yield. Further research needs to be performed in these areas to assess the potential for increasing biogas yield.

25

Flares As has previously been stated currently flares are relatively expensive to purchase and have tyo be installed to appropriate Australian Design Standards. However there are essential safety issues in relation to any system that collects methane, whether for purely odour reduction or energy generation. The Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture Program has already identified research into flares as a priority, noting that due to environmental standards, methane flaring is a costly exercise in Australia compared with the United States with costs of technology being up to ten times more expensive. A separate project has been commissioned to Assess Australian standards for methane flaring against requirements of Europe/United States. The objectives of this project are to: Identify areas in which Australian standards cause additional costs to be incurred by Australian industry. Make recommendations as to how the Australian standards may, if appropriate, be amended to reduce costs to Australian industry, without impacting adversely on environmental benefits and safety. Gas flow rates for on farm systems would be expected to range from 600 m3/hr to as little as 25 m3/hr. For smaller producers it should be possible to develop a low cost flare. The effectiveness of a number of flares should be assessed, with regulatory approval being sought for the most appropriate flares in differing scenarios. The research project is anticipated to consider the design parameter of: air requirement; stack exit velocity; energy release; exhaust gas flow rate; and residence time. The review should include the examination of both open and enclosed flares. Scrubbers Biogas consists mainly of methane and carbon dioxide, with smaller amounts of water vapor and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other impurities. Although the total composition of H2S in biogas is relatively small, H2S is typically the most problematic contaminant because it is toxic and corrosive and even in small quantities can create maintenance and operational problems especially in plants where the biogas is recovered to fuel engine-generators or boilers. In addition to corrosion problems, H2S is also a toxic air pollutant that can create a severe odour nuisance even in minute concentrations. The treatment of biogas for removal of sulfur compounds has become increasingly important as regulations restricting sulfur emissions have become tighter. Biogas contains H2S in concentrations from 150 to 3000 ppm or more, depending on the influent composition. The odour of hydrogen sulfide becomes offensive at 3 to 5 ppms. An atmospheric concentration of 300 ppm can be lethal. Even small amounts of hydrogen sulfide can cause piping corrosion, gas engine pitting, and clogged piston rings. Many engine manufacturers require the H2S content to be as low as 90 ppm. Other gas utilisation equipment can be affected by H2S corrosion. When biogas is burned or flared, the H2S can generate sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. H2S removal is a must when your local Regulatory requirements limit SO2 emissions. Removing H2S as soon as possible is recommended to protect downstream equipment, increase safety, and enable possible utilisation of more efficient technologies such as microturbines and fuel cells. Biogas scrubbing systems are expensive to purchase, install and operate. Research into improving existing or developing new scrubber systems to minimise overall operating costs could make a significant impacts on the economics of methane collection and use.

26

Trickling bio-filters appear to have potential as a low cost, low complexity, highly robust technology for cleaning ammonia and hydrogen sulphide to more acceptable levels. Also advances have been made in renewable media for solid waste scrubbers; and piggery effluent, which has a relatively high alkalinity and could potentially be recycled without chemical dosing to run a low cost liquid scrubber. Each of these systems needs to be trialed and further developed in order to compare their relative performance and costing. Electricity generation using porous burners At present most biogas projects use modified diesel engines for electricity generation. These systems are expensive to purchase and need to be regularly rebuilt. Porous burners have the ability to burn lean fuel/air mixtures, and it has additionally been shown that, unlike conventional piston generators, the combustion process is stable against changes in fuel concentration and flow rate. Porous Burners are theoretically simple devices that enable combined heat and power generation. With no moving parts they should have an extremely long operational life with minimal maintenance requirements. As an Australian invention in its infancy Porous Burners are currently more expensive than commercial generation systems. Currently the focus of most research regarding porous burners is aimed at their application in the mining industry. Further research is required to prove their effectiveness and reliability for agricultural application. Electricity generation using fuel cells A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, with water and heat as its by-product. Methane is a hydrogen rich fuel. As long as fuel is supplied, the fuel cell will continue to generate power. Since the conversion of the fuel to energy takes place via an electrochemical process, not combustion, the process is clean, quiet and highly efficient – two to three times more efficient than fuel burning. In addition to low or zero emissions, the benefits of fuel cells include high efficiency and reliability, multi-fuel capability, siting flexibility, durability, and ease of maintenance. Fuel cells are also scalable and can be stacked until the desired power output is reached. Since fuel cells operate silently, they reduce noise pollution as well as air pollution and the waste heat from a fuel cell can be used to provide hot water or space heating. Fuel cells currently operate at landfills and wastewater treatment plants in the United States, proving themselves as a valid technology for reducing emissions and generating power from the methane gas they produce. A market and economic feasibility study of fuel cells for the wastewater industry, was completed by the engineering firm of CH2M Hill in May 1997. The study revealed that fuel cell power plants could be cost competitive with engine driven and turbine power plants to recover energy from digester gas. Further research is required to prove their effectiveness and reliability for agricultural application.

27

Multi-enterprise methane collection and use models In Europe, while facilities are frequently smaller than in Australia, they are often closely located offering the potential of a cooperative approach that provides an economic scale. The potential to have multiple enterprises jointly develop methane capture and use facilities has not been fully investigated in Australia. There are several key issues which would need investigating:

• what is the impact of treating varying waste products in a common facility; o liquid manure may have differing total solids percentages; o dry manure would have high total solids percentages; and o crop stubbles of different types.

• how far, and by what method can waste streams be economically transported; • what is a viable economic scale for multi-enterprise projects (e.g. is a 1MW facility viable?),

and how does this impact on the design of the integrated waste management and electricity generation system; and

• what is the best governance model for a multi-enterprise project, co-operative, joint venture, limited company or third party ownership.

Research is required to prove the economics and technical feasibility of multi-enterprise waste management systems in Australia.

28

Carbon Trading Carbon trading, or emissions trading, is a market-based scheme for environmental improvement that allows parties to buy and sell permits for emissions or credits for reductions in emissions of certain pollutants. Emissions trading enables established emission goals to be met in the most cost-effective way by letting the market determine the lowest-cost pollution abatement opportunities. Under such a scheme, the environmental regulator first determines total acceptable emissions and then divides this total into tradeable units (often called credits or permits). These units are then allocated to scheme participants. Participants that emit pollutants must obtain sufficient tradeable units to compensate for their emissions. Those that reduce emissions may have surplus units that they can sell to others that find emission reduction more expensive or difficult. In suitable cases, trading schemes offer significant advantages over other regulatory approaches, both in certainty of environmental outcome and the potential to minimise overall compliance cost. While the pros and cons of carbon credits continue to be debated by the international community. The Sydney Futures Exchange has established a carbon credits trading market and many carbon emitters are buying credits from forest growers. While forests are an important carbon sink, there is a limit to the amount of carbon that they can store. The largest carbon sink is in the fossil fuels in the ground, but we are currently using them as a major source of energy and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere as a result. On 1 June 2007 the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions released its final report, “Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading - Final Report”. The report claims international consensus on trading is still a long way off, and therefore recommends Australia should go it alone in introducing a domestic scheme and not wait for the rest of the world. The report also suggests that some politically sensitive sectors of the Australian economy, such as agriculture, should be exempt. Even if the agricultural sector is exempt from the requirements of the scheme, it should still be able to benefit financially from the sale of carbon credits created through reducing carbon emissions. A carbon trading scheme was announced by the New Zealand Government on 20 September 2007. The first stage of the scheme will start in 2008 with a free allocation of carbon credits to foresters. Liquid fossil fuels would be brought into the trading scheme in 2009, electricity generators and industry the year after, and the agricultural sector in 2013. The agricultural industry, and in particular the intensive livestock sector, needs to continue to monitor developments in respect of carbon trading, in order to ensure it maximizes the economic benefit that may be available to it from such trading.

29

Methane to Markets International Expo The Methane to Markets International Expo is being held in Beijing, China between 30 October and 1 November 2007. The Methane to Markets International Expo provides an international forum for promoting methane recovery and use project opportunities and technologies. The Expo provides an opportunity to:

• review international project activities and technologies; • meet with potential project partners and financiers; • learn about the latest technologies and services; and • explore key technical, policy, and financial issues

The timing of the Expo provides the Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture Program with the opportunity to consider international methane capture and use research and development activities, and assess their application in, or adaptation to Australian conditions. As this Report has been limited to a review of methane capture and use research and development activity in Australia and New Zealand, this assessment of similar activity on an international scale is critical. If the future research activities of the Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture Program are decided purely on the basis of this report, research dollars may be wasted in duplicating research that has already been performed elsewhere in the world. The results of international research can be made available to the Australian intensive livestock industry, through:

• direct purchase of new technology; • licensing of new technology; and/or • the adaptation of technology, either purchased or licensed, to Australian conditions.

One possible conclusion that may be made after attending the Expo is that a more detailed review of international research into methane capture and use in intensive livestock industries is required prior to the setting of any priorities for future Australian research, by the Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture Program. It is therefore considered essential that the Methane to Markets in Australian Agriculture Program attends the Expo.

30

Recommendations It is recommended that future methane capture and use research and development activities should be directed as follows:

1) Research and modelling is required to assess whether the historic and current design guidelines for waste management systems are still appropriate;

2) Continuing research into how to quantify methane yields;

3) Researching how to minimise the costs of flaring systems, which still meet applicable Australian standards;

4) Research into improving existing or developing new environmentally friendly scrubber systems to minimise overall operating costs of methane collection and use systems;

5) Research is required to prove the economics and technical feasibility of multi-enterprise waste management systems in Australia

31

Appendix - Research activity Access Table: This table provides a guide to key characteristics of relevant recent and current R&D Projects in Australia and New Zealand, to facilitate access. R&D Focus Industry Products PROJECT NAME

Mea

sure

Eco

nom

ic

Via

bilit

y

Alte

rnat

ive

Tec

hnol

ogie

s

Pigs

Bee

f

Dai

ry

Ele

ctri

city

Hot

Wat

er

Fert

ilise

r /

Mul

ch

Page

Charles IFE Biogas Project X X X 32

Technical, Economic And Financial Implications Of Using Piggery Waste To Generate Electricity

X X X 34

Greenhouse gas emissions and intensive beef production

X X 35

Mobile Methane Digester X X X 36

Sludge recirculation in covered lagoons; implications for performance and biogas yield.

X X 37

Improved piggery effluent management systems incorporating covered, highly loaded settling ponds.

X X 38

Anaerobic digestion of spent bedding from deep-litter housing

X X X 39

DICOM – Bioprocessing X X 40

Integrated Biosystems X X 42

Biosolids digestion X X 44

Treatment of abattoir waste water using a covered anaerobic lagoon

X X 45

Harnessing methane from intensive animal systems for multiple benefit: Turning negatives into positives

X X 46

Review of international and Australian innovative and emerging technologies to treat dairy shed effluent.

X X 47

Probiotics with low energy aeration (PLEA)

X X X 48

Biogil Technology X 49

Innovative Anaerobic Pond Design – Making Sustainable Energy Recovery a Practical Reality

X X 50

32

Project Title Charles IFE Biogas Project

Researcher: Mellville Charles Managing Director Berrybank Farm, Windermer Ballarat VIC 3352

Organisation: Charles I.F.E. Pty Ltd

Funding agency: Charles I.F.E. Pty Ltd

Collaborators:

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Charles Integrated Farming Enterprises Pty Ltd is saving $435,000 per year from a $2 million investment in a Total Waste Management System for its Berrybank Farm. The System involves generating electricity from biogas, conserving and recycling water and collecting waste for sale as fertiliser. Despite the large investment, most of which went into the electricity generation equipment, the technologies and methods used are simple and straightforward. Waste from one part of a farm is the input to another. Along the way, the company has eliminated environmental problems such as odours and groundwater contamination and dramatically reduced consumption of water. Background: Berrybank Farm is home to 15,000 pigs with an estimated live weight of 800 tonnes. It produces a daily average of 275,000 litres of sewage effluent with an organic solids content of approximately 2%. This is roughly the same as the sewage output of a town with a population of about 50,000 people. Cleaner Production Initiative: Berrybank Farm has developed a sophisticated waste management system to recover all the waste from the pigs, and to treat it so that the various by-products can be used on the farm (as flush water, gas for electricity, and fertiliser), or sold at a profit. The process was implemented in November 1989. Electricity production commenced in 1991. Further Developments: In 2001, Charles IFE supplied liquid and solid organic fertiliser from the piggery to two garden product companies who use the organic fertilisers in their potting mixes and soil conditioners. The final product is sold to numerous sporting fields, bowls greens, golf clubs and racecourses. Notably, organic fertilisers have been found to have advantageous properties over chemical fertilisers in that grass roots penetrate deeper and turf recovers faster. A new case study was documented in 2001 for the production of biological soil conditioner at Nutratherm Australia, one of the companies receiving organic fertiliser from Berrybank Farm.

Completion date: 1991 and 2001

33

Publications: (1991 Report) http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/corporate/eecp/case-studies/charlesife.html (2001 Report) http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/corporate/eecp/case-studies/nutratherm.html see also APL Project 1915: Renewal Energy Industry Development Report On Technical, Economic And Financial Implications Of Using Piggery Waste To Generate Electricity Prepared by Bob Lim & Co P/L in partnership with Headberry Partners P/L For Australian Pork Ltd: August 2004

34

Project Title Technical, Economic And Financial Implications Of Using Piggery Waste To Generate Electricity

Researcher: Bob Lim

Organisation: Bob Lim & Co P/L in partnership with Headberry Partners P/L

Funding agency: Australian Pork Ltd

Collaborators: Mr Jock Charles of Berrybank farm, Ballarat, Mr Ian Connaughton, Castlemaine Meats Ms Amber Crawford of QAF Corowa Mr Mark Kendrew of Javelin Partners Pty Ltd, Perth Dr Robert Booth, author of “The Warring Tribes” Mr Ian Farran

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

This Report seeks to provide the pig industry with an economic and financial framework to assist with assessing the commercial possibilities for proceeding with investment in electricity generating plant utilising biogas generated from pig farming. It includes detailed Case Studies of:

• Parkville Piggery, Parkville; • Scone Fresh Meat, Scone; • Mudgee Abattoir, Mudgee • Australian Meat Holdings (AMH), Aberdeen; • Bartter Enterprises Poultry Processing Plant, Griffith; • Streets Ice Cream Factory, Minto; and • Tooheys Brewery, Sydney.

This Report researches the key incentives which could be utilized to convert piggery waste to electricity and develops a financial model (the APL Model) to test the commerciality of capital injection by a piggery to generate electricity from the piggery waste stream. It also provides insights into the major economic and financial issues confronting piggery owners when seeking to assess the potential for utilizing the liquid piggery waste stream for power generation.

Completion date: August 2004

Publications: APL Project 1915: Renewal Energy Industry Development Report On Technical, Economic And Financial Implications Of Using Piggery Waste To Generate Electricity Prepared by Bob Lim & Co P/L in partnership with Headberry Partners P/L For Australian Pork Ltd: August 2004

35

Project Title Greenhouse gas emissions and intensive beef production

Researcher:

Organisation: University of Melbourne

Funding agency: University of Melbourne

Collaborators: MLA AGO

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Background: The cattle feedlot industry has been increasing rapidly in recent years and it is recognized that greenhouse gases emission is significantly less per kg of product comparing to grazing cattle. However, we don’t have any actual measurement data of greenhouse gas emissions from the cattle feedlot in Australia and there is no hard evidence to evaluate whether the current practices used in raising livestock are the best for minimizing these emissions. The recently developed micrometeorological method using open path lasers and FTIR systems makes the measurement of CH4, N2O and NH3 emissions from intensive beef production systems (feedlot) feasible. These methods will be applicable to other air quality issues associated with animal agriculture. Objective: The main objective of the project is to improve understanding of total greenhouse gas emissions (methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia) from intensive beef production systems. Outcomes:

• Improved estimates of total greenhouse gas (methane, nitrous oxide and NH3) emissions from intensive beef production systems.

• Understanding of the link between various intensive livestock management practices and their influence on greenhouse gas emissions.

• Enhanced Australian capability in quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production systems.

Completion date: January 2008

Publications:

36

Project Title Mobile Methane Digester

Researcher: Barrie Bradshaw

Organisation: DPI Victoria

Funding agency: Dairy Australia; National Landcare Program

Collaborators: Barrie Bradshaw

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Managed anaerobic digestion is the use of bacteria in the absence of oxygen to convert liquid organic waste to biogas and water. Active Research has a mobile methane digester that allows for “live” testing and process efficiency demonstrations on individual farms to tailor design appropriate systems. Fixed methane digesters are expensive to build and potentially expensive to run. This technology allows the farmer to have his system extensively analysed, then have a tailor made treatment system to suit the particular context. One demonstration site will be established at the DPI Victoria Ellinbank research station located in West Gippsland with the potential of also trailing on a number of commercial farms in the area. Practicalities and on farm operating costs associated with the use of a methane digester will be determined and compared with current methods of effluent treatment. Possible benefits will also be identified and evaluated.

Completion date: November 2008

Publications:

37

Project Title Sludge recirculation in covered lagoons; implications for performance and biogas yield

Researcher: Steve Harding

Organisation: PMP Environmental Pty Ltd

Funding agency: Australian Pork Ltd with Dinez Nominees contribution

Collaborators: Dinez Nominees Pty Ltd is the primary subcontractor

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Install a pump & pipe network to recycle, and potentially waste, sludge from within a High-rate Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (HCAL), to determine the effect of this sludge recirculation on biological performance and biogas yield. Specific Objectives:

• To prove that a pump and pipe network can be used to recycle sludge within covered anaerobic lagoons.

• To assess the biological performance of a HCAL lagoon with and without sludge recycling and effluent screening.

• To assess the optimal sludge recirculation regime (flow and SS) to maximize biogas yield and biological performance while minimizing pumping costs.

• To determine biogas yield and composition from a HCAL lagoon with and without sludge recycling and effluent screening.

Completion date: 02 Nov 07

Publications: APL Project 2107: Progress Reports to date

38

Project Title Improved piggery effluent management systems incorporating covered, highly loaded settling ponds

Researcher: Alan Skerman

Organisation: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Qld)

Funding agency: Australian Pork Ltd

Collaborators: Piggery owners (TG & FL Reed)

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

There is sufficient anecdotal evidence suggesting that management systems using highly loaded, covered, solids settling ponds present significant potential for reducing adverse impacts. This is supported by the results of some recent experimental work conducted by DPI&F (Skerman and Collman, 2006). The successful application of this technology may result in:

• Smaller ponds that are less expensive and easier to construct, line, cover and desludge.

• Reduced odour emissions through covering and biofiltration of gaseous emissions.

• Potential capture of methane for biogas utilisation. • More effective use of nutrients from the waste stream by regular

desludging. This project will be conducted at two locations: Reed’s Piggery: currently operated as a 510 sow (5933 SPU), farrow-to-finish unit, near the town of Dalby, on the central Darling Downs. All sheds have conventional underfloor flushing channels that are flushed every second day using effluent recycled from pond 4 (wet weather storage pond). DPI&F Wacol Piggery: a scaled down model of the highly loaded settling pond at Reed’s piggery will be established at the DPI&F Wacol piggery. This piggery is operated as a grower unit, receiving, on average, 90 x 8 week old (average 17 kg liveweight) weaner pigs, each week. Finished pigs exit the piggery at 100 kg liveweight, at approximately 21 weeks of age. Objectives

• Assess the performance of highly loaded settling ponds in removing solids from the waste stream.

• Assess solids accumulation rates in highly loaded settling ponds. • Assess the performance of impermeable covers, installed in

conjunction with a biofilter system, in reducing odour emissions from highly loaded settling ponds.

• Determine the impact of highly loaded settling ponds on odour emissions from subsequent effluent storages receiving overflows from the settling pond.

• Identify practices required to effectively manage the system.

Completion date: 12 December 2007

Publications: APL Project 2108: Progress Reports to date

39

Project Title Anaerobic digestion of spent bedding from deep-litter housing

Researcher: Chris Hertle

Organisation: GHD PTY LTD

Funding agency: Australian Pork Ltd

Collaborators: AWMC

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

This project will assess the viability of deep-litter digestion projects at Australian piggeries; with the following objectives:

• Assessment optimal digester design for deep-letter bedding • Assessment of biogas yield from deep-litter bedding • Provide preliminary project design and assessment for anaerobic

digestion at 6 Australian piggeries. • A literature review on energy generation from crop stubbles,

particularly co-digestion with pig manure. The review will also include cost/benefit and SWOT assessments of the possible technologies for spent DLH bedding including: anaerobic digestion, incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis. Various anaerobic digestion configurations will be assessed.

• Lab scale trials determining the quantity and characteristics of biogas and solids residue from digesting spent DLH including barley straw, wheat straw and rice hull beddings.

• The digestion trials will involve testing for BMP (biological methane potential) by AWMC. It is proposed that trials would involve 3 duplicates and 2 controls.

• Process modelling to provide reactor sizing, heating and mixing requirements for particular gas yields and volatile solids destruction.

• Large scale laboratory mixing trials to be conducted by mixer supplier (e.g. Mixtec)

• Preliminary design of anaerobic digester systems. Will probably consider standard CSTR digesters (in tank), plug flow digesters, and high rate covered anaerobic lagoons (HCALs). This will include the design of materials handling, size reduction and blending systems, pumping systems and mixing in the digester, biogas management (flaring and combustion options) and digested sludge handling.

• Budget capital cost estimates of the anaerobic systems. • Estimated operating and maintenance costs and cost savings

from energy recovery. • Preparation of a final report containing recommendations on

reactor configurations, feasibility of co-digestion and biogas yield estimates.

Completion date: 15 January 2008

Publications: APL Project 2142: Progress Reports to date: Literature Review May 2007 Results of Spent Bedding Inoculum Testing June 2007

40

Project Title DICOM - Bioprocessing

Researcher: Dr Ralf Cord-Ruwisch

Organisation: Murdoch University

Funding agency: Environmental Biotechnology CRC

Collaborators: AnaeCo Pty Ltd, University of Queensland

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Project Summary: The DiCOM ® process is a novel method for treating the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW). It represents emerging Australian technology in combining thermophilic anaerobic digestion with in-vessel composting without requiring between process handling. When using MSW or green-waste/manure mixes, the revolutionary process can accomplish extremely high rates of biogas production (5L/L/d) and the aerobic stabilization of the end product (compost). The process is energy neutral, as biological heat production heats to operating temperature with the gas produced typically providing an excess of energy. Nutrients in the waste are conserved in the stable compost that can be safely returned to the environment as soil conditioner. The centrepiece of the technology is the anaerobic thermopile treatment of solid waste producing sustainable energy as a by-product. The high operating temperature of the process ensures maximum pathogen removal from the waste. The rate of hydrolytic enzyme production during the pre-composting stage will play a significant role in the digestion process, as it is the rate-limiting step. To overcome the mass transfer problems typically encountered in hydrolysis reactions, a liquid recycling loop will be an integral part of the reactor. This will allow uniform dispersion of microorganisms and enzymes, removal of undesired by-products, and improved process monitoring and control. The method is applicable to all organic wastes including livestock wastes with some modifications. Expected benefits: In contrast to wastewater treatment, the biological degradation of solid organic material does not completely (e.g. >90%) remove organic material. Subsequent to the degradation of the easily degradable putrescent material, the aim is to produce a stable and nutrient rich end product that can be safely applied in horticulture, agriculture or aquaculture (e.g. compost, vermicompost, soil conditioner). Some wastes (e.g. manures, green waste, etc.) can be treated rapidly to achieve this. However, the degradation of wastes containing protein and fat can result in significant microbial activity causing problems with odours (amines, fatty acids, ammonia, sulphide) and leachates (amino acids, peptides, N and P) that have potentially significant environmental impacts (e.g., attracting vermin, polluting water and groundwater, etc). The integrated approach will offer a combination of treatment steps to minimise the environmental impacts and optimise the production of useful products. This will have high potential for commercialisation. Outcomes completed to date:

• A fully operating computer controlled DiCOM ® process in the laboratory established.

• Extra-cellular enzyme profiles at various stages of composting identified.

41

• Effect of the 1st composting phase on biomethanation phase identified.

• Mass balance on the parallel reactors produced. • Pro/Con of parallel reactor operation identified. • Risk of VFAs and N build-up on biomethanation composting

performance identified • Transferability of data from lab to large pilot scale plant

established.

Completion date: June 2007

Publications: EBCRC Project 2.7 – Bioprocessing in EBCRC 2005-06 Annual Report

42

Project Title Integrated Biosystems

Researcher: Dr Martin Kumar

Organisation: South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI)

Funding agency: Environmental Biotechnology CRC

Collaborators: University of Adelaide, Murdoch University

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Project summary: The aim of the project is to develop an integrated farming system, which prevents organic pollution and enhances primary and secondary industry production, income and sustainability. The emphasis and novel research aspects of the project are to

1) design a system which utilises thermophilic digestion to kill pathogens,

2) optimise the bioavailability of nitrogen and phosphorus and methane and

3) create an enhanced natural aquatic system which maximises both primary and secondary productivity.

Pollution from intensive farming systems is a current environmental concern. In Australia, intensive animal systems housing pigs, poultry, turkeys, dairy, feed lot cattle, horses as well as food processing industries have resulted in an animal waste disposal problem. Seepage into the ground water and run off into streams and rivers is one of the causes of increasing concentration of nitrates and phosphates in drinking water. A proactive approach by the livestock industries in solving its environmental issues and using its resources more effectively has considerable potential benefits, including improvement in farm income, rural employment and long term sustainability of these industries. The intensive industries recognise the need to develop sustainable practices. Similarly the management of organic wastes from a number of associated industries will be a platform for non-fossil energy production. Expected benefits: The expected outcome of the project is the development of methods to eliminate pathogens and to promote an efficient integrated biosystems for organic waste and wastewater treatment for the livestock and food processing industries. This is a system approach with a high degree of reliability and flexibility, which presents excellent choices or options for farmers/producers to adapt depending on their circumstances. The treatment system is aimed at producing by products such as biogas, livestock and fish feed, crops, pastures, fertiliser, water for recycling and other agricultural commodities. The commercialisation potential exists in developing depuration methods using novel design systems for thermophilic digestion. Outcomes to date:

• Establishment of the facility, plan experiments, develop protocols Construct, commission, trouble shoot lab scale two stage thermophilic/mesophilic and one stage digester

• Completion and assessment of the two-stage AD preliminary output Prototype & engineering design documentation of full-scale IBS at piggery developed

43

• Incubate and show preferred organisms for modules fed on two-stage AD effluent

• Lab-scale evaluation of growth efficiency & nutrient tolerance in commercial & ornamental fish species

• A demonstration pond to illustrate the IBS principles has been established at Tatiara in South Australia.

Completion date: November 2007

Publications: EBCRC Project 2.6 - Integrated Biosystems (IBS) in EBCRC 2005-06 Annual Report

44

Project Title Biosolids digestion

Researcher: Dr Damien Batstone

Organisation: Advanced Wastewaster Management Centre (AWMC), University of Queensland

Funding agency: Environmental Biotechnology CRC

Collaborators: Queensland Government

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Project summary: The aim of this project is to provide treatment technology to produce safe, easy to handle organic fertiliser from sewage and food processing biosolids, while producing excess electricity. In contrast to existing high-technology options, the project will specifically address the needs of small and medium scale biosolids producers, including food processing industries, and communities with less than 100,000 persons. The product is a packaged treatment plant, which can be used to sanitise, reduce, and utilise organic solids that are normally produced by the above industries. The packaged treatment plant will have an input of unstabilised solids, and an output of renewable electricity and organic fertiliser. Expected benefits: Economic: The product technology can treat organic solids at $50/wet tonne on a net present value basis, including capital investment. This is highly competitive with other alternatives such as aerobic digestion. In addition, this is lower risk; as compared to competing technologies it is not dependent on variable commodities such as electricity (it produces this instead), or transport. In the short term, Queensland industries are one of the major beneficiaries, and UQ will be employing personnel to work on the project. The full-scale facility will be constructed by Queensland industry. The project promotes primary industries, and rural communities by providing affordable solids management, renewable and high-quality fertiliser, and renewable energy. Social: The project specifically addresses smaller wastewater treatment plants, and food processing industries. The technology is low odour compared to competing technologies, and produces a final product with excellent fertiliser qualities. It makes agricultural industries more affordable; as it decreases the cost burden associated with small-scale food processing, and can therefore be promoted as benefiting local agricultural communities. Environmental: Current treatment methods for biosolids at small and medium scale require causes 40 kgCO2 emissions per tonne of biosolids treated. The technology proposed here will instead produce renewable energy, worth 30 kgCO2 emissions offset, for a net reduction of 70 kgCO2. Implemented across Queensland, this offers a conservative reduction of 140 Tonnes/day in CO2 emission reductions, equivalent to 35,000 passenger cars off the road. In addition, production of the renewable fertiliser offsets 97% of greenhouse gas emissions related to fertiliser production for an equivalent amount of mineral nitrogen and phosphorous.

Completion date: July 2009

Publications: Nil; Start-up phase

45

Project Title Treatment of abattoir waste water using a covered anaerobic lagoon

Researcher: Dr Nicolas Ashbolt

Organisation: University of NSW

Funding agency: Environmental Biotechnology CRC

Collaborators: Sinclair Knight Merz, Southern Meats Pty Ltd

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Project summary: This project aims to evaluate, in the field, the coved anaerobic lagoon concept for abattoir wastewater. Novel improvements in lagoon configurations are to be simulated in laboratory reactors, and then field tested at an abattoir, which utilises dissolved air flotation grease removal prior to anaerobic treatment. Expected benefits & Outcomes: The laboratory system successfully showed enhanced methane production and the process was upgraded to a full scale demonstration lagoon and plant in southern NSW. The Lagoon successfully showed increased methane generation rates with improved biomass through attached growth enhancement. Redesign of the inlet works was required to minimise the clogging due to oversized solids entry and the revised operations including Hypalon cover gave improved methane recovery compared with conventional lagoon systems.

Completion date: December 1998

Publications: CRCWMPC Project 01-6005 in CRCWMPC 1997-98 Annual Report

46

Project Title Harnessing methane from intensive animal systems for multiple benefit: Turning negatives into positives

Researcher: Dr Andrew Harris

Organisation: Laboratory for Sustainable Technology; University of Sydney

Funding agency: AGO

Collaborators: University of Sydney

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Objective: To develop technology that can be applied at farm scale to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from intensive dairy and beef operations, using a porous burner reaction system, developed to combust fugitive methane in mine ventilation exhausts from coalmines. A porous burner stabilises combustion over a wide range of operating conditions, is in contrast to conventional burners in which the fuel and air burn in a flame at the burner exit. Porous burners produce significantly lower emissions of combustion related products (e.g. NOx and CO); have wider flammability limits, greater turn down ratio, increased thermal efficiency and a more uniform heat distribution. The key advantage however, is that very dilute fuel-air mixtures can be combusted without the need for supplementary fuel. leading to an inexpensive and robust solution to reduce methane emissions and generate a usable supply of energy, and completely eliminate any odour causing compounds. Methodology: The project will be undertaken in three stages:

• An experimental study investigating the mechanism of combustion of gaseous emissions from dairy and beef feedlots using porous burners;

• A modelling study using computational fluid dynamic and kinetic models to investigate scale-up parameters.

• A pilot-scale, on-site demonstration of the technology.

Completion date: 30/07/2009

Publications:

47

Project Title Review of international and Australian innovative and emerging technologies to treat dairy shed effluent

Researcher: Scott Birchall

Organisation: Coomes Consulting

Funding agency: Dairy Australia; National Landcare Program

Collaborators: DPI Vic; DPI NSW

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Coomes Consulting will produce a review outlining potential innovative and emerging technologies to treat dairy effluent generated from shed and feedlot facilities. Coomes Consulting have been awarded the contract to produce the Dairy Industry Technical Information Resource for Effluent Management and Reuse database, a project which has synergies with this activity. This review will include existing industry knowledge from Australia and overseas including information from the other intensive industries (e.g. Alternative Systems for Piggery Effluent Treatment 2000, Australian Pork). Findings from this review will be incorporated into the Dairy Industry Technical Information Resource for Effluent Management and Reuse database. The report will also be placed on the Dairying for Tomorrow website and disseminated through Dairying for Tomorrow and State agency communication networks. The database project is being sponsored by the National Dairy Alliance and is supported by all relevant state agencies through significant levels of in-kind funding.

Completion date: March 2008

Publications:

48

Project Title Probiotics with low energy aeration (PLEA)

Researcher: Nick Bullock

Organisation: Nick Bullock Consulting

Funding agency: Dairy Australia; National Landcare Program

Collaborators: For Earth Pty Ltd, DA, Active Research, Farmers; Mid-Coast DAGs, DPI Qld, DPI NSW, DPI Vic

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

This project will use the four dairy farms involved in the initial PLEA research (located in Wagga, Comboyne, Cowra, Gympie and Wingham) as demonstration farms for field days, workshops and on going validation of the technology. Dosing with pro-biotics, aeration and nutrient analysis will be maintained during the length of the project to ensure farmers attending field days can view the technology in action. Investment and operating costs of the PLEA technology will be determined and compared with current methods of effluent treatment. Benefits of PLEA, such as improved water quality for wash down, potential to produce methane and reduced odour will be considered also. The resulting information will enable farmers to make a well-informed decision regarding the potential usefulness of the technology for their farming systems. As part of this project the potential for PLEA to be used in conjunction with methane digestion will be investigated as part of an on farm trial. PLEA technology would be employed to clean up the waste produced after a pond had been used for methane production.

Completion date: May 2008

Publications:

49

Project Title Biogil Technology

Researcher: Lionell Freedman

Organisation: Quantum BioEnergy Pty Ltd

Funding agency: Quantum BioEnergy Pty Ltd

Collaborators:

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Quantum BioEnergy is currently conducting research and development trials in conjunction with project partners on a novel technology for the removal of very significant quantities of organic materials from liquid wastes. This innovative technology involves no moving parts and promises to improve on the performance of conventional aeration technologies without the running costs. Laboratory trials conducted to date have indicated that this technology has application across waste streams of various strengths and has produced some remarkable outcomes that have the potential to entirely replace the need for aeration of tertiary effluent The structure consists of a series of ultra-porous membranes in direct contact with the air. The combination of evaporation and diurnal temperature differential between the air and liquid creates convection currents over the gills allowing them to ‘breath’. The gills are arranged in parallel and function as high rate trickle filters creating rapid growth of biofilm (aerobic bacteria and fungi) which strip nutrients and BOD from organic waste streams at a 2.5 – 10 times more efficiently than current aerobic treatment systems. It is anticipated that the technology will be commercially available in early 2008.

Completion date:

Publications: Updates on research outcomes will be notified through website (www.bioenergy.net.au) and through industry publications and the wider media.

50

Project Title Innovative Anaerobic Pond Design – Making Sustainable Energy Recovery a Practical Reality

Researcher: Dr. Andy Shilton and Alistair Broughton

Organisation: Massey University Centre for Environmental Technology and Engineering

Funding agency: Dairy Insight (New Zealand)

Collaborators: Dr Rupert Craggs (National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research) Dr Graeme Attwood (AgResearch)

Project Details (Background / Objectives / Expected Outcomes);

Many New Zealand dairy farms currently employ two pond anaerobic/aerobic pond systems. The anaerobic ponds are typically oversized to cope with sludge accumulation. The large area of the ponds makes it uneconomical to cover them for methane capture. The objective of the current project is to produce a simple solids removal and leaching system so as to provide reduced sized ponds with a high organic content/ low solids feed for methane production. Laboratory scale trials are currently being undertaken. Farm scale trials will commence in late 2007.

Completion date: December 2008

Publications: "Leaching of COD from settled dairy shed effluent for biogas production: the effect of mixing and dilution." Poster abstract for the 11th IWA Specialist Conference on Anaerobic Digestion, Brisbane, September 2007

51

References Barth, CL 1985, ‘The rational design standard for anaerobic livestock lagoons’, Agricultural Waste

Utilization and Management, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, 638-647. St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Dlugokencky, E.J., S. Houweling, L. Bruhwiler, K.A. Masarie, P.M. Lang, J.B. Miller, and P.P.Tans, Atmospheric methane levels off: Temporary pause or new steady state?, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(19), 1992, doi:10.1029/2003GL018126, 2003.

IPCC, 1992, Climate change 1992 - the supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment (J T Houghton, B A Callender, S K Varney, editors), Cambridge University Press.

IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001 Lassey, K R, D C Lowe, M R Manning, and G C Waghorn, 1992, "A source inventory for atmospheric

methane in New Zealand and its global perspective", Journal of Geophysical Research, 97:3751-3765.

Eckard R., Dalley D. and Crawford M, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks, and Impacts of Potential Management Changes on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration from Dairy Production Systems in Australia Proceedings, CRC for Greenhouse Accounting (May 2000).

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005, Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of Environment and Water Resources 2007

Farran, I., C. Maul & S. Charles. 1997, 'Methane emissions project -Final Report', Pig Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Safley, L.M. Jr & P.W. Westerman. 1988, 'Biogas production from anaerobic lagoons', Biological Wastes, vol. 23, pp. 181-193.

Safley, L.M. Jr & P.W. Westerman. 1989, 'Anaerobic lagoon biogas recovery systems', Biological Wastes, vol. 27, pp. 43-62.

Australian Centre for Cleaner Production (1998). Total waste management system at Berrybank Farm Piggery, Charles I.F.E. Pty Ltd. In Best Practice Design, Technology and management, p.20-22

Kruger I., Taylor G. and Ferrier M (1995), ‘Effluent at work’, NSW Department of Agriculture (ISBN 0 7305 6741 9)

Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading - Final Report 2007, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Commonwealth Government, ISBN 978-0-9803115-4-9 (paperback), ISBN 978-0-9803115-5-6 (PDF), ISBN 978-0-9803115-6-3 (RTF), ISBN 978-0-9803115-7-0 (DOC)

Project References Biogas energy generation and methane emission reduction in the pork industry; Bob Lim & Co Pty

Ltd; Australian Pork Limited Project 1915 Sludge recirculation in covered lagoons; implications for performance and biogas yield; PMP

Environmental Pty Ltd; Australian Pork Limited Project 2107 Improved piggery effluent management systems incorporating covered, highly loaded settling ponds;

Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries; Australian Pork Limited Project 2108 Anaerobic digestion of spent bedding from deep-litter housing; GHD Pty Limited; Australian Pork

Limited Project 2142

RIRDC Publication No. INSERT PUB NO. HERE

Using Methane in Intensive

Livestock IndustriesRIRDC Publication No. 08/050

Methane is the dominant agricultural greenhouse gas in Australia, with methane from livestock representing twelve per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions.

Detailed information regarding research and development activities in Australia and New Zealand into the capture and use of methane in intensive livestock industries is hard to come by. This report aims to bring together available information about methane capture and use research and development applicable to the intensive livestock industries in Australia and New Zealand.The report also makes recommendations as to the priorities to which future research and development should be targeted.

The long-term benefits to intensive livestock industries in Australia are expected to be reduced greenhouse gas emissions, potential energy and water savings for farmers, together with the opportunity to develop new income streams.

The Program is funded by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry from the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Landcare Program. Industry funding and support has been received from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Dairy Australia, Australian Pork, Meat and Livestock Australia and the Australian Lot Feeders’ Association.

RIRDC manages and funds priority research and translates results into practical outcomes for industry. Our business is about new products and services and better ways of producing them. Most of the information we produce can be downloaded for free from our website: www.rirdc.gov.au. Books can be purchased online or by phoning

02 6271 4166

RIRDCInnovation for rural Australia

Contact RIRDC:Level 2

15 National CircuitBarton ACT 2600

PO Box 4776Kingston ACT 2604

Ph: 02 6271 4100Fax: 02 6271 4199

Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.auweb: www.rirdc.gov.au

This publication can be viewed at our website— www.rirdc.gov.au. All RIRDC books can be purchased from:.

www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

08-050 Final Report covers.indd 2 14/04/2008 12:47:05 PM