Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Feeding Management Optimization in Livestock Farms with Anaerobic Digestion Plant: A Discrete Stochastic Programming (DSP) Model

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)
By:
Open Access
|Aug 2022

References

  1. [1] Reisinger A., Clark H. How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming? Global Change Boil. 2018:24(4):1749–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.1397529105912
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] Salem Ali O. A. A., Verdini L., De Mastro G. Effect of different crop management systems on rainfed durum wheat greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint under Mediterranean conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016:140(2):608–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.135
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.10.1017/CBO9781107415324
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Gerber P. J., et al. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, 2013.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] Dono G., et al. Adapting to uncertainty associated with short-term climate variability changes in irrigated Mediterranean farming systems. Agric. Syst. 2013:117:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.01.005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] Dono G., et al. An Integrated Assessment of the Impacts of Changing Climate Variability on Agricultural Productivity and Profitability in an Irrigated Mediterranean Catchment. Water Resour. Manag. 2013:27(10):3607–3622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0367-3
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Bernabucci U., et al. The effects of heat stress in Italian Holstein dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2014:97:471–486. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-661124210494
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Mittenzwei K., et al. Combined effects of climate change and policy uncertainty on the agricultural sector in Norway. Agric. Syst. 2017:153:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.016
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Godfray H. C. J., et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010:327:812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.118538320110467
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). FAOSTAT Statistical Database of the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Division. Rome [Online]. [Accessed 11.03.2022]. Available: http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] European Commission. Communication from the Commission EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Com (2010) 2020, Brussels, Commission of the European Communities, 2020.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] Haas R., et al. Efficiency and effectiveness of promotion systems for electricity generation from renewable energy sources – Lessons from EU countries. Energy 2011:36(4):2186–2193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.06.028
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 2009:L140/16.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010:85:849–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-719777226
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Khalid A., et al. The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Manag. 2011:31(8):1737–1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.02121530224
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Bacenetti J., et al. Mitigation strategies in the agro-food sector: The anaerobic digestion of tomato purée by-products. An Italian case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2015:526:88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.06925918896
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Bacenetti J., et al. Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable. Appl. Energy. 2016:179:669–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.029
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Lijó L., et al. Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops. Renew. Energy. 2014:68:625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Venanzi S., et al. Use of agricultural by-products in the development of an agro-energy chain: A case study from the Umbria region. Sci. Total Environ. 2018:627:494–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.17629426172
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Bacenetti J., et al. Anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas process. Sci. Total Environ. 2013:463–464:541–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.05823831800
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Torquati B., et al. Environmental Sustainability and Economic Benefits of Dairy Farm Biogas Energy Production: A Case Study in Umbria. Sustainability 2014:6(10):6696–6713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6106696
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] Tilman D., et al. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002:418(6898):671–677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature0101412167873
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Sauerbrei R., et al. Increased energy maize production reduces farmland bird diversity. GCB Bioenergy 2014:6(3):265–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12146
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Negri M., et al. Evaluation of methane production from maize silage by harvest of different plant portions. Biomass Bioenergy 2014:67:339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.016
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Massé D. I., Talbot G., Gilbert Y. On farm biogas production: A method to reduce GHG emissions and develop more sustainable livestock operations. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2011:166–167:436–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.075
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Lesteur M., et al. Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: A review. Process Biochem. 2010:45(4):431–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2009.11.018
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] Alatriste-Mondragón F., et al. Anaerobic codigestion of municipal, farm, and industrial organic wastes: a survey of recent literature. Water Environ. Res. 2006:78(6):607–636. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143006X11167316894987
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Ashekuzzaman S. M., Poulsen T. G. Optimizing feed composition for improved methane yield during anaerobic digestion of cow manure based waste mixtures. Bioresour. Technol. 2011:102(3):2213–2218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.11820974531
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. [29] Ba B. H., Prins C., Prodhon C. Models for optimization and performance evaluation of biomass supply chains: An Operations Research perspective. Renew. Energy 2016:87:977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.045
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] Møller H. B., Sommer S. G., Ahring B. K. Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004:26(5):485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Wolf C., McLoone S., Bongards M. Biogas plant optimization using genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the Signals and Systems Conference 2008:244:249.10.1049/cp:20080670
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. [32] Wei X, Kusiak A. Optimization of biogas production process in a wastewater treatment plant. Proceedings of the 2012 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference 2012:1–9.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. [33] Qdais H. A., et al. Modeling and optimization of biogas production from a waste digester using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. Resources, Resour Conserv Recy. 2010:54(6):359–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.012
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. [34] Wang X., et al. Optimizing feeding composition and carbon-nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour Technol. 2012:120:78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.05822784956
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. [35] García-Gen S., Rodríguez J., Lema J. M. Optimisation of substrate blends in anaerobic co-digestion using adaptive linear programming. Bioresour. Technol. 2014:173:159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.08925305644
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. [36] Alvarez J. A., Otero L., Lema J. M. A methodology for optimising feed composition for anaerobic co-digestion of agroindustrial wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2010:101(4):1153–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.06119833510
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. [37] Dono G., et al. Income impacts of climate change: irrigated farming in the Mediterranean and expected changes in probability of favorable and adverse weather conditions. German J. Agric. Econ. 2014:63(3):177–186.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. [38] Liu Y., Tao F. Probabilistic Change of Wheat Productivity and Water Use in China for Global Mean Temperature Changes of 1°, 2°, and 3° C. J Appl Meteorol Climatol. 2013:52(1):114–129. https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-12-039.1
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. [39] Steidl J., et al. Expansion of an Existing Water Management Model for the Analysis of Opportunities and Impacts of Agricultural Irrigation under Climate Change Conditions. Water 2015:7(11):6351–6377. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7116351
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. [40] Crean J., et al. Representing climatic uncertainty in agricultural models – an application of state-contingent theory. Agric Resour Econ. 2013:57(3):359–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. [41] Dono G., et al. Winners and losers from climate change in agriculture: Insights from a case study in the Mediterranean basin. Agricultural Systems 2016:147:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.013
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. [42] McCarl B. A., Spreen T. H. Applied mathematical programming using algebraic systems. 1997 [Online]. [Accessed 11.03.2022]. Available: https://agecon2.tamu.edu/people/faculty/mccarl-bruce/books.htm
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. [43] Calatrava J., Garrido A. Modelling water markets under uncertain water supply. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005:32(2):119–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi006
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. [44] Cortignani R., Dono G. Agricultural policy and climate change: An integrated assessment of the impacts on an agricultural area of Southern Italy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008:81:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.003
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. [45] Dono G., et al. Winners and losers from climate change in agriculture: Insights from a case study in the Mediterranean basin. Agric. Syst. 2016:147:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.013
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. [46] Flaten O., Lien G. Stochastic utility-efficient programming of organic dairy farms. Eur. J. Oper Res. 2007:181(3):1574–1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.053
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. [47] Schievano A., et al. Predicting anaerobic biogasification potential of ingestates and digestates of a full-scale biogas plant using chemical and biological parameters. Bioresour Technol. 2008:99(17):8112–8117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.03018440801
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. [48] Nasir I. M., Mohd Ghazi T. I., Omar R. Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock manure treatment for biogas production: A review. Eng. Life Sci. 2012:3:258–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201100150
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  49. [49] Zhai N., et al. Effect of initial pH on anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cow manure. Waste Manag. 2015:38:126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.02725623001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  50. [50] Maragkaki A. E., et al. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge with agro-industrial by-products for increased biogas production of existing digesters at wastewater treatment plants. Waste Manag. 2017:59:362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.04327818072
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  51. [51] Pezzolla D., et al. Optimization of solid-state anaerobic digestion through the percolate recirculation. Biomass Bioenergy 2017:96:112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.11.012
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  52. [52] Di Domenica N., et al. Scenario generation for stochastic programming and simulation: a modelling perspective. IMA J. Manag. Math. 2007:20(1):1–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpm027
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  53. [53] Madansky A., Inequalities for Stochastic Linear Programming Problems. Management Sci. 1960:6(2):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.6.2.197
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  54. [54] De Menna F., et al. Optimization of agricultural biogas supply chains using artichoke byproducts in existing plants. Agric. Syst. 2018:165:137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  55. [55] Pastare L., Romagnoli F. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Biogas Production from Cerathophyllum demersum, Fucus vesiculosus and Ulva intestinalis in Latvian Conditions. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2019:23(2):258–271. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-0067
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  56. [56] Dzene I., Bodescu F. Evaluation of Biomass Availability for Biogas Production at Regional Level. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2010:3(3):54–62. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10145-009-0007-6
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  57. [57] Schievano A., D’Imporzano G., Adani F. Substituting energy crops with organic wastes and agro-industrial residues for biogas production. J. Environ. Manage. 2009:90(8):2537–2541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.01319254824
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  58. [58] Auburger S., et al. Economic optimization of feedstock mix for energy production with biogas technology in Germany with a special focus on sugar beets – Effects on greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances. Renew. Energy. 2016:89:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.042
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0045 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 587 - 605
Published on: Aug 15, 2022
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Biogas,
by-products,
climate uncertainty,
livestock,
stochastic programming
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2022 Lucio Cecchini, Daniela Pezzolla, Massimo Chiorri, Giovanni Gigliotti, Biancamaria Torquati, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)Next article