Manure management at large-scale dairy farms poses environmental risks to air and water resources through greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient pollution. Current practices do not fully utilize the organic matter and nutrients contained in manure. This work evaluated the environmental performance of novel nutrients, energy, and water innovations for resource recovery (NEWIR) system intended to improve the sustainability of dairy manure management by reducing environmental impacts and recovering valuable resources from the manure. NEWIR consists of hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) for energy recovery, algae cultivation for nutrient recovery, and membrane distillation for water recovery. Life cycle assessment was used to compare the NEWIR system with conventional dairy manure management practices and to identify the benefits and unintended consequences of resource recovery. Results show vastly improved nutrient management performance by NEWIR, with marine and freshwater eutrophication potentials reduced 0.148 kg N-equivalent (eq.) and 0.168 kg P-eq. per functional unit, respectively, compared with conventional practices. NEWIR also reduces global warming potential (GWP) by 15% when recovered energy and nutrients are considered. However, NEWIR has higher water consumption than conventional practices, primarily due to the dilution water needed to support algae growth in HTC aqueous products. The dominant contributor to environmental impacts in NEWIR is algae cultivation, primarily due to buffering chemicals required to maintain high pH growth conditions for Spirulina maxima. Uncertainty analysis shows that NEWIR GWP may exceed that of the conventional farm, highlighting the need to reduce the environmental impacts of algae cultivation. Although additional work is needed to optimize algae cultivation and reduce GWP, NEWIR shows considerable potential to improve nutrient management and energy recovery from dairy manure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aguirre-VillegasH.A., LarsonR., and ReinemannD.J. (2014). From waste-to-worth: Energy, emissions, and nutrient implications of manure processing pathways. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 8, 770.
2.
BeleteY.Z., LeuS., BoussibaS., ZorinB., PostenC., ThomsenL., WangS., GrossA., and BernsteinR. (2019). Characterization and utilization of hydrothermal carbonization aqueous phase as nutrient source for microalgal growth. Bioresour. Technol. 290, 121758.
3.
BergeN.D., LiL., FloraJ.R.V., and RoK.S. (2015). Assessing the environmental impact of energy production from hydrochar generated via hydrothermal carbonization of food wastes. Waste Manag. 43, 203.
4.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). California greenhouse gas emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of emissions and other indicators. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-archive (Accessed March9, 2020).
5.
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). (2018). California agricultural statistics review 2017–2018. Available at: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics (Accessed June13, 2020).
6.
ChangA., HarterT., LeteyJ., MeyerR.D., Campbell-MatthewsM., MitloehnerF., PettygroveS., RobinsonP., and ZhangR.D. (2005). Managing Dairy Manure in the Central Valley of California. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee of Experts on Dairy Manure Management. Available at: https://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/files/136450.pdf (Accessed January16, 2020).
7.
DelrueF., AlauxE., MoudjaouiL., GaignardC., FleuryG., PerilhouA., RichaudP., PetitjeanM., and SassiJ.F. (2017). Optimization of Arthrospira platensis (Spirulina) growth: From laboratory scale to pilot scale. Fermentation. 3, 59.
8.
DuZ., HuB., ShiA., MaX., ChengY., ChenP., LiuY., LinX., and RuanR. (2012). Cultivation of a microalga Chlorella vulgaris using recycled aqueous phase nutrients from hydrothermal carbonization process. Bioresour. Technol. 126, 354.
9.
GuillenD.P., CoatsE.R., McDonaldA.G., and FerisK. (2018). An eco-friendly system for the production of value-added materials from dairy manure. JOM. 70, 1946.
10.
GustafsonR.D., HiibelS.R., and ChildressA.E. (2018). Membrane distillation driven by intermittent and variable-temperature waste heat: System arrangements for water production and heat storage. Desalination, 448, 49.
11.
HigginsB.T., and KendallA. (2012). Life cycle environmental and cost impacts of using an algal turf scrubber to treat dairy wastewater. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 436.
12.
HuijbregtsM.A.J., SteinmannZ.J.N., ElshoutP.M.F., StamG., VeronesF., VieriraM.D.M., HollanderA., ZijpM., and van HelmR. (2017). ReCiPe 2016 v1.1: A harmonized life cycle inventory assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 138.
13.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006) Chapter 10: Emissions from livestock and manure management. In IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Kanagawa, Japan, p. 10.1.
14.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006). ISO 14040: Environmental management: life cycle assessment principles and framework, 2nd edition. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
15.
JoshiJ., and WangJ. (2018). Manure management coupled with bioenergy production: An environmental and economic assessment of large dairies in New Mexico. Energy Econ. 74, 197.
16.
KaffkaS., BarzeeT., El-MashadH., WilliamsR., ZicariS., and ZhangR. (2016). Evaluation of dairy manure management practices for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in California: Final Technical Report to the State of California Air Resources Board. Contract No. 14-456. Available at https://biomass.ucdavis.edu.wp-content/uploads/ARB-Report-Final-Draft-Transmittal-Feb-26-2016.pdf (Accessed February20, 2020).
17.
KleinmanP., BlunkK.S., BryantR., SaporitoL., BeegleD., CzymmekK., KetteringsQ., SimsT., ShortleJ., McGrathJ., CoaleF., DubinM., DostieD., MaguireR., MeinenR., AllenA., O'NeillK., GarberL., DavisM., ClarkB., SellnerK., and SmithM. (2012). Managing manure for sustainable livestock production in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. J. Soil Water Conserv. 67, 54A.
18.
LeeH., and SumnerD.A. (2018). Dependence on policy revenue poses risks for investments in dairy digesters. Calif. Agric. 72, 226.
19.
MacDonaldJ.M., CessnaJ., and MosheimR. (2016). Changing structure, financial risks, and government policy for the U.S. dairy industry, ERR-205, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err205 (Accessed August11, 2021).
20.
MacDonaldJ.M., and McBrideW.D. (2009). The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks, Economic Information Bulletin No. 43. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications.pub-details/?pubid=44294 (Accessed August4, 2021).
21.
MadeiraM.S., CardosoC., LopesP.A., CoelhoD., AfonsoC., BandarraN.M., and PratesJ.A.M. (2017). Microalgae as feed ingredients for livestock production and meat quality: A review. Livest. Sci. 205, 111.
22.
Marin-BatistaJ.D., VillamilJ.A., QaramalekiS.V., CoronellaC.J., MohedanoA.F., and de la RubiaM.A. (2020). Energy valorization of cow manure by hydrothermal carbonization and anaerobic digestion. Renew. Energy, 160, 623.
23.
Mateo-SagastaJ., ZadehS.M., TurnalH., and BurkeJ. (2017). Water pollution from agriculture: A global review. Executive Summary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Led By International Water Management Institute. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i7754e/i7754e.pdf (Accessed February17, 2020).
24.
MeyerD., HeguyJ., KarleB., and RobinsonP. (2019). Characterize physical and chemical properties of manure in california dairy systems to improve greenhouse gas emission estimates. Final Report: Contract No. 16RD002. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: https:ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/apr/past/16rd002.pdf (Accessed March12, 2021).
25.
MillerC.M.F., WaterhouseH., HarterT., FadelJ.G., and MeyerD. (2020). Quantifying the uncertainty in nitrogen application and groundwater nitrate leaching in manure based cropping systems. Agric. Syst. 184, 102877.
26.
NaranjoA., JohnsonA., RossowH., and KebreabE. (2020). Greenhouse gas, water, and land footprint per unit of production of the California dairy industry over 50 years. J. Dairy Sci. 103, 3760.
27.
NumviyimanaC., WarchołJ., KhalafN., LeahyJ.J., and ChojnackaK. (2022). Phosphorus recovery as struvite from hydrothermal carbonization liquor of chemically produced dairy sludge by extraction and precipitation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10, 106947.
28.
OwsianiakM., RybergM.W., RenzM., HitzlM., and HauschildM.Z. (2016). Environmental performance of hydrothermal carbonization of four wet biomass waste streams at industry-relevant scales. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4, 6783.
29.
QaramalekiS.V., VillamilJ.A., MohedanoA.F., and CoronellaC.J. (2020). Factors affecting solubilization of phosphorus and nitrogen through hydrothermal carbonization of animal manure. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 12462.
30.
R5-2013-0122. (2013). California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Order R5-2013-0122: Reissued waste discharge requirements general order for existing milk cow dairies. Available at: https:waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2013-0122.pdf (Accessed January15, 2020).
31.
RajendranK., and MurthyG.S. (2019). Techno-economic and life cycle assessments of anaerobic digestion—A review. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 20, 101207.
32.
RansomK.M., BellA.M., BarberQ.E., KourakosG., and HarterT. (2018). A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 2739.
33.
RezaM.T., AndertJ., WirthB., BuschD., PielertJ., LynamJ.G., and MummeJ. (2014). Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass for energy and crop production. Appl. Bioenergy, 1, 11.
34.
RezaT.M., FreitasA., YangX., HiibelS., LinH., and CoronellaC.J. (2016). Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of cow manure: Carbon and nitrogen distributions in HTC products. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy, 35, 1002.
35.
RichmondA., and GrobbelaarJ.U. (1986). Factors affecting the output rate of Spirulina platensis with reference to mass cultivation. Biomass, 10, 253.
36.
RosenstockT.S., LiptzinD., DzurellaK., Fryjoff-HungA., HollanderA., JensenV., KingA., KourakosG., McNallyA., PettygroveG.S., QuinnJ., ViersJ.H., TomichT.P., and HarterT. (2014). Agriculture's contribution to nitrate contamination of Californian groundwater (1945–2005). J. Environ. Qual. 43, 895.
37.
SallsK.A., WonD., KolodeziejE.P., ChildressA.E., and HiibelS.R. (2018). Evaluation of semi-volatile contaminant transport in a novel, gas-tight direct contact membrane distillation system. Desalination, 427, 35.
38.
SilvaN.A., and HiibelS.R. (2021). Nutrient recovery of the hydrothermal carbonization aqueous product from dairy manure using membrane distillation. Environ. Technol. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2021.1995785.
39.
State of California (2016). Senate Bill No. 1383. Available at: https:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNAVClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383 (Accessed August5, 2021).
40.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2013). Literature review of contaminants in livestock and poultry manure and implications for water quality. EPA 820-R-13-002. Available at: https:nepis.epa.gov (Accessed May27, 2020).
41.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2017). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2017. Chapter 5: Agriculture. Available at: https:epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2017 (Accessed February3, 2020).
42.
U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. (2012). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/lci (Accessed August6, 2021).
43.
WernetG., BauerC., SteubingB., ReinhardJ., Moreno-RuizE., and WeidemaB. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1218.
44.
WuW., ChengL.C., and ChangJ.S. (2020). Environmental life cycle comparisons of pig farming integrated with anaerobic digestion and algae-based wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 264, 110512.
45.
ZhangY., WhiteM.A., and ColosiL.M. (2013). Environmental and economic assessment of integrated systems for dairy manure treatment coupled with algae bioenergy production. Bioresour. Technol. 130, 486.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
