Next Article in Journal
Animal Waste-Based Biogas—Toward Closing the Loop in the EU Countries
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Performance Evaluation of Car Seat Heat Pump for Electric Vehicles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 18
Issue 23
10.3390/en18236199
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agricultural Biogas as a Sustainable Energy Source for Non-Agricultural Regions: The Case of Lubuskie Province, Poland

by
Jakub Kostecki
and
Sylwia Myszograj
*
Institute of Environmental Engineering, University of Zielona Góra, 15 Prof. Z. Szafrana St., 65-516 Zielona Góra, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(23), 6199; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236199
Submission received: 29 October 2025 / Revised: 19 November 2025 / Accepted: 25 November 2025 / Published: 26 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Utilization of Renewable Energies for Waste Water Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

A major milestone for the European Union in reducing the environmental impact of its economy was the announcement of the European Green Deal. This strategy emphasizes that energy is the cornerstone of sustainable economic development and that its main objective is to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is clear that energy production must come primarily from renewable sources. The Polish biogas market is still small compared to neighboring countries, with around 300 biogas plants, including landfill gas recovery systems and facilities at wastewater treatment plants. However, agricultural biogas plants offer significant opportunities for growth. Both the agricultural and processing industries generate large quantities of by-products that serve as good substrates for biogas production. This article presents the characteristics of one Polish province in terms of agricultural biogas potential. It discusses the availability of substrates for biogas production, including biodegradable waste and plant- and animal-based materials. On this basis, the potential for agricultural biogas production was estimated. It was found that the main obstacle to the development of agricultural biogas plants in the Lubuskie Province is the considerable fragmentation of farms.

1. Introduction

In recent years, most European countries, including Poland, have been increasing the share of green, clean energy in their energy mix. Rising electricity and natural gas prices, the increasing cost of CO2 emission allowances, and the growing crisis in the agricultural sector are placing investment planning for biogas and biomethane in a new perspective. Today, such investments appear not only necessary but even indispensable for the implementation of the energy transition, particularly in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, and increasing energy diversification. Climate change is driving the search for renewable energy sources that are universally available and operate independently of weather conditions.
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process in which bacteria break down organic matter to produce biogas, a promising renewable energy source. Depending on the nature of the substrates used for biogas production, a distinction can be made between substrates from waste management (landfill biogas and biogas from anaerobic stabilization processes), from wastewater management (biogas from sewage sludge), and from manure, slurry, agricultural residues, energy crops, food waste, and by-products from the agri-food industry (agricultural biogas) [1]. Biogas is a mixture primarily of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), with smaller amounts of hydrogen (H2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), nitrogen (N2), water vapour, and other gases [2].
The composition of biogas depends on the type of substrates being digested. In anaerobic stabilization plants and in agricultural biogas, the methane content typically ranges from 40–75%, and 45–55% in landfill gas [3,4,5]. According to the European Biogas Association (EBA), biogas and biomethane are among the key technologies supporting the EU’s path to carbon neutrality by 2050 [6].
Currently, biogas is most often burned in combined heat and power (CHP) units to produce electricity and heat. In times of energy crisis, biogas becomes particularly valuable, as it can be upgraded to biomethane and injected into the natural gas grid. Current EU guidelines define biomethane as “purified biogas” [7].
The present number of agricultural biogas plants in Poland (135 units; Figure 1), with a total installed electrical capacity of just over 152 MW, contrasts sharply—and unfavourably—with, for example, the approximately 9500 biogas plants in Germany, which have a total installed capacity of about 9300 MW. It is worth noting that Poland has around 1.5 million hectares more agricultural land than Germany and a highly developed agri-food processing sector that generates significant amounts of bio-waste [8].
Table 1 summarizes the production of agricultural biogas, electricity, and heat from agricultural biogas in Poland between 2011 and 2025. The gradual increase in energy recovery from agricultural biogas does not exhaust the potential available in Polish agriculture and the agri-food industry. In 2024, the main raw materials for biogas production in Poland were, in order: post-slaughter residues—20.17%, fruit and vegetable waste—16.13%, slurry—15.80%, waste from food processing—13.38%, other materials—11.47%, maize silage—7.64%, technological sludge from the agri-food industry—4.91%, waste from the dairy industry—4.46%, sugar beet pulp—3.75%, and expired food—2.29% [9].
It is common practice to generalise the sources of biogas. For instance, Koryś [10] identifies the following categories: agricultural waste (e.g., manure, plant residues), food industry waste (e.g., processing residues), sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants, and municipal waste. In the context of Poland, ref. [11] points to more specific sources, including cereal crops, maize, sorghum, whole oilseed crops and their marc, as well as organic waste from bioethanol production and the food industry. Permanent grassland has also been recognised as an important biomass source, particularly due to the low cost of obtaining the raw material.
Despite the growing body of research on biogas development in agricultural regions, a clear knowledge gap remains regarding areas with a weak agricultural profile, fragmented farm structures, and highly diversified biomass streams. In such regions, including the Lubuskie Voivodeship, the technical feasibility of agricultural biogas production is uncertain due to low livestock density, variability in crop yields, limited availability of plant substrates for energy purposes, and fluctuating quantities of biodegradable waste. These conditions make it difficult to determine whether biogas installations can be effectively supplied and operated throughout the year. Therefore, a detailed, region-specific assessment of feedstock availability and biogas potential is necessary to identify the real opportunities and constraints for biogas development in structurally non-agricultural areas.
This paper presents the characteristics of one of the Polish voivodeships with a predominantly non-agricultural structure in the context of opportunities for agricultural biogas production. The availability of substrates for biogas generation is discussed, including biodegradable waste and plant- and animal-based materials. Based on these data, the agricultural biogas production potential was estimated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Lubuskie Province (Poland)—Site Characteristics

The Lubuskie Voivodeship is located in western Poland. With an area of 13,988 km2, it is one of the smaller voivodeships in the country (13th out of 16). It has a population of 1,003,150, corresponding to a population density of 73 persons/km2 (compared with the Polish average of 123 persons/km2) [12]. A distinctive feature of Lubuskie is its high forest cover, which reaches almost 50%.
Household income varies across the region, but various settlement types account for nearly half of it. The share of agriculture and hunting in the provincial budget in 2022 was only 1.4% (PLN 9.6 million). Since 2015, there has been a systematic decline in revenues from agriculture and hunting (from 65.8 million, or 13.7%) [12]. According to the Voivodeship Development Strategy [13], the leading agricultural specializations include, in particular, poultry farming (mainly turkey production). The region is also characterized by a large number of organic farms with substantial agricultural land. Although the number of farms is decreasing (20,000 in 2020 compared with 22,100 in 2010), their average size is increasing (23.5 ha in 2020 compared with 22.1 ha in 2015). Almost 47% of farms are between 0 and 5 ha, 18% between 5 and 10 ha, and 9% between 10 and 15 ha, while more than 26% exceed 15 ha [14].
The main barriers to agricultural development are poor soil quality and periodic adverse weather conditions, such as droughts. In recent years, local products—mainly wine and honey—have gained economic importance. As of 2025, 100 products from the Lubuskie Voivodeship had been listed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, including honey, cheese, preserves, and meat products [15].
Industry and construction together employ 35.6% of the working population in the voivodeship, while agriculture accounts for 7.4%, services for 23.2%, and finance for 2.1% [12]. The gross domestic product of Lubuskie in 2022 amounted to PLN 50.0 billion, representing 2.1% of Poland’s GDP; of this, PLN 1.3 billion (2.6%) was generated by agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing. This sector has seen unprecedented growth in recent years [14].
The Lubuskie Voivodeship is one of the least industrialized regions in Poland, which means that its energy consumption is among the lowest in the country [16]. The Voivodeship Development Strategy [13] indicates favourable conditions for the production of energy from renewable sources, particularly wind energy, biomass combustion installations, and biogas production technologies (Table 2).

2.2. Agricultural Biogas Plants in the Lubuskie Region

According to the register of agricultural biogas producers in the Lubuskie Voivodeship, there are nine biogas plants in operation [9]. Their capacities range from 0.25 MW to 1.14 MW, and their years of operation vary from only a few months to several years. Most of the installations are located in the southern part of the province. The location of each plant is shown in Figure 2, and a detailed summary is provided in Table 3.

2.3. Availability of Substrates for Biogas Production in the Lubuskie Province

2.3.1. Biodegradable Waste

The following groups of biodegradable waste are generated in the Lubuskie Province [18]:
  • waste from agriculture, horticulture, hydroponics, fishing, forestry and hunting,
  • waste from the preparation and processing of food products of animal origin,
  • waste from the preparation, processing and preservation of foodstuffs and waste of plant origin, including fruit, vegetables, cereal products, edible oils, cocoa, coffee, tea and tobacco processing, yeast and yeast extract production, molasses preparation and fermentation,
  • waste from the dairy industry,
  • waste from the baking and confectionery industry,
  • waste from the production of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages,
  • waste from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture,
  • waste from pulp, paper and board processing,
  • waste from sewage treatment plants not included in other groups,
  • waste from the treatment of drinking water and water intended for industrial use.
Not all types of bio-waste can be digested to produce agricultural biogas. In Poland, commonly used feedstocks for agricultural biogas production include post-agricultural digestate, manure, food processing waste, and fruit and vegetable residues. A detailed overview is provided in Table 4.
From the perspective of agricultural biogas production, the most relevant wastes include agricultural waste, waste from the processing of animal products, and waste from the processing of plant products. These materials can undergo recovery processes, primarily through their use as fuel or for other forms of energy production [19]. The quantities of biodegradable waste—excluding municipal waste—generated in the Lubuskie Voivodeship are summarized in Table 5.

2.3.2. Livestock Production

In Lubuskie Voivodeship, poultry farming dominates in terms of quantity (Table 6), although its number has been decreasing in recent years due to diseases (especially avian influenza). The next largest groups are pigs and cattle.

2.3.3. Crop Production

Crop production is closely linked to the soil types present in a given area. In the Lubuskie Voivodeship, sandy soils of various origins predominate, and in terms of quality they are mostly classified as medium or poor. For this reason, a large share of the land has been afforested—the forest cover of the voivodeship is nearly 52% [14]. In recent years, despite an increase in the area of land in good agricultural condition, the amount of fallow land has also grown (Table 7).
An increase in the importance of pulses and oilseeds, including oilseed rape, has been observed, with these crops progressively occupying more agricultural land. This trend was evident between 2015 and 2023. The area devoted to staple cereals remained high (around 25%), with wheat, rye, and triticale playing a dominant role, although fluctuations in crop structure were noted. In contrast, the cultivation of potatoes, tree fruit, and field vegetables showed either a downward trend or high variability (Table 8).

2.4. Analytical Methods

To estimate the amount of biogas energy that can be produced, the quantity of wet manure generated by different types of farm animals was calculated (Equation (1)). This process included determining the average manure production per animal, the dry matter and volatile solids content, and the actual availability of manure for biogas production. The collectability of manure depends on the length of time animals remain in housing and on the effectiveness of manure collection and storage during that period. For this reason, the usable amount of manure is expressed as a percentage, reflecting its actual collectability and availability for biogas generation (Equation (2)). All calculations were based on the data presented in [21,22].
F M = A N · A D M · 365 ;   k g y e a r
M E =   F M · D M ·   V D M · R M · A V ;   m 3 y e a r ,
where:
FM—amount of fresh manure (kg/year)
AN—number of animals,
ADM—average daily manure production per animal (kg/day·animal)
ME—biogas production potential (m3/year)
DM—dry matter content (%)
VDM—volatile dry matter content (%)
RM—raw material-specific biogas production rate (m3/kgVDM)
AV—availability of resources, 85%
The biogas production potential from plant substrates and waste was calculated based on yield/generated waste, dry matter content, biogas yield. We assumed 15% production for all plant products and 100% of waste, which is summaries in Equation (3).
P S = P Y · D M · R M · A V ;   m 3 y e a r
where:
PS—biogas production potential (m3/year)
PY—harvested biomass/generated waste (tonne/year)
DM—dry matter content (%)
RM—raw material-specific biogas production rate (m3/kgVDM)
AV—availability of resources, 15% was assumed for all plant raw materials and 100% for waste
Due to substantial differences in how various crop groups are utilized, as well as regional variation in the availability of plant fractions suitable for energy purposes, the actual share of agricultural biomass that can be directed to anaerobic digestion is difficult to determine precisely. Analyses conducted at the EU level indicate that approximately 65% of total agricultural biomass is used for animal feed, around 15% is consumed directly as food, and the remaining 20% is allocated to industrial, bioenergy and other uses, including processing residues and unavoidable losses. Only a portion of this latter category can be effectively used in biogas installations—primarily crop residues, agro-industrial by-products and materials already flowing into the bioenergy sector. Taking these constraints into account, and considering regional differences in biomass accessibility and crop structure, an average value was adopted for further calculations, assuming that approximately 15% of agricultural biomass can be regarded as realistically available for biogas production. This estimate reflects typical proportions observed across EU countries and includes both residual biomass and fractions intentionally directed toward energy applications [22]. The availability of animal waste resources is consistent with typical volatile solids degradation parameters for manure, takes into account small losses during storage, corresponds to the real efficiency of fermentation in agricultural installations, does not overestimate the potential and is consistent with the approach used in technical and strategic analyses [23].

3. Results and Discussion

The variability in the availability and characteristics of feedstocks is influenced by spatiotemporal differences. Over the analysed period, the numbers of different types of livestock changed in varying ways (Table 6). Significant increases were observed for cattle, whose population grew steadily, and for turkeys, which reached their highest numbers in recent years. A similarly positive, though less pronounced, trend was recorded for goats, where a slight increase followed a period of stagnation.
The opposite trend occurred in the pig population, which declined markedly—especially in the most recent years—and in the horse population, where an initial decrease was followed by stabilisation at a lower level. Certain animal groups exhibited considerable variability, including sheep. In the case of poultry and other birds, population instability is partly associated with outbreaks of avian influenza occurring in the voivodeship. The changes observed in the region appear to be consistent with national trends [19,24].
The highest energy potential is associated with cattle, for which the estimated amount of recoverable energy increased progressively over time. Although other animals—including pigs, poultry, sheep, ducks, horses, goats, and turkeys—also contribute to biogas production, their input is significantly smaller compared to that of cattle (Figure 3).
The production of biogas from livestock manure is considered a highly promising method of managing organic waste in agriculture. This approach not only enables the generation of renewable energy, but also contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, particular emphasis should be placed on several key aspects related to the efficiency of the methane fermentation process and the technologies used for manure collection and treatment [25,26,27,28,29].
Cattle manure provides the highest and most stable energy potential, owing both to the large mass of manure produced and to the relatively high content of dry organic matter suitable for fermentation [26,30]. In the case of pigs, the production potential has been declining as the pig population decreases, which may reflect changes in rearing practices. Nonetheless, pig manure exhibits favourable parameters for fermentation, meaning that even relatively small quantities represent a valuable feedstock for biogas installations [31,32].
The variability observed in the poultry sector reflects its increasing importance. Although poultry manure has a lower dry matter content than cattle or pig manure, its large volume and relatively high organic matter content can still yield substantial energy potential. A major challenge for this sector is its vulnerability to avian influenza, which can necessitate the culling and disposal of entire flocks [33].
The properties of plant biomass in the context of methanogenesis illustrate a complex relationship between lignocellulosic structure and fermentation potential. The proportion of hemicellulose relative to lignin and the extent to which nitrogen compounds can be effectively metabolised have a significant impact on biogas yields. For plant-based substrates, availability is strongly influenced by environmental factors—such as water supply and sunlight—to a much greater extent than for animal-derived substrates [34].
The results of the analysis for the Lubuskie Voivodeship are presented in Figure 4. Oilseeds, together with green maize, were identified as having the highest biogas potential. This trend highlights the growing significance of these feedstocks in biogas production, primarily due to their high fat content and ease of processing in biogas plants. Other crop groups, including total cereals, also show an upward trend, albeit with more variability.
Conversely, soft berries and tree fruit exhibit the lowest biogas potential. Their low methane yield can be attributed to two factors: first, these crops have a low dry matter content; and second, they show limited efficiency in methane fermentation. Although their biomass can be used for biogas production, their low organic matter content makes them less effective substrates compared with other plant materials.
For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that 15% of each crop’s yield is available as a substrate; however, actual availability varies widely. Moreda [35] indicates that substrate availability may range from 5% to as much as 90%, depending on the feedstock.
The production of biogas from plant raw materials is one of the key components of sustainable energy management, providing a renewable energy source while enabling the utilisation of agricultural waste. Plant biomass is characterised by varying biogas yields due to differences in chemical composition, as highlighted by numerous authors [36,37]. The cultivation of crops for energy purposes allows for the maximisation of energy yield per unit area, although their suitability for methane fermentation depends on factors such as harvest date, cultivar, and dry matter and nutrient content. Additionally, the use of agricultural land for energy production raises ethical concerns, as it may compete with food production [38,39].
Cereals are among the most commonly used substrates for biogas production on agricultural land due to their high carbohydrate content and well-established cultivation technologies. Maize is the most widely used crop; however, staple cereals such as wheat, rye, barley, oats, and triticale can serve as attractive co-substrates or substitutes in regions unsuitable for maize cultivation [40,41,42]. Cereal straw, although widely available, requires pre-treatment due to its high lignin content and unfavourable C:N ratio, yet it is a valuable substrate when co-digested with manure [43,44].
Legumes and oilseeds are gaining popularity as alternatives to maize, offering high calorific value and favourable environmental performance [45]. Root crops, field vegetables, and fruit constitute a group of substrates with high levels of readily fermentable sugars; however, production losses for these crops tend to be relatively low [46,47].
Optimising biogas production often requires the co-digestion of different substrates to balance the fermentation mixture and increase yields. A common example is the combination of plant-based and animal-based materials, reflecting the local availability of these feedstocks in agricultural biogas plants [41,48].
Waste from the dairy and wood processing industries exhibits the highest technical biogas potential in both 2018 and 2026 (Figure 5). A substantial increase in the contribution of most waste categories to the overall biogas potential is projected for 2026. Some types of industrial waste—such as waste from vegetable processing, wood processing, or the confectionery sector—display slightly lower but steadily increasing values. The evidence indicates a growing potential for biogas production from waste over the years, primarily due to an overall increase in the volume of waste generated in the Lubuskie Voivodeship.
Numerous authors have noted that agricultural and animal-processing wastes are viable substrates for biogas production, although their effectiveness depends on both their composition and the pretreatment applied [49,50]. Agricultural residues such as straw provide a stable source of organic matter but often require co-digestion with other substrates to balance the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio and optimise microbial activity. Manure, in turn, typically serves as a nitrogen-rich component that stabilises the fermentation mixture [51]. Certain by-products of animal processing, such as blood or offal, contain high levels of protein, which leads to a rapid release of ammonia during digestion. This, in turn, inhibits methanogens unless these materials are diluted or co-digested with high-carbon substrates such as lignocellulosic waste [52,53].
By-products from vegetable processing and the dairy industry are highly biodegradable; however, their use poses logistical challenges. Vegetable waste (e.g., peels, trimmings) decomposes rapidly, leading to acidification if not counterbalanced by alkaline substrates such as livestock manure [54,55]. This is particularly important for local biogas plants, where feedstock origin, availability, and transport distance must be carefully considered to ensure stable operation [55]. Dairy by-products such as whey contain low solids and exhibit an unfavourable C/N ratio, making them unsuitable as standalone substrates [56,57].
Wastes from the bakery, confectionery, and beverage industries are characterised by high energy density and therefore require precise management [58]. Bakery wastes such as bread and dough may contain up to 70% carbohydrates, which undergo rapid hydrolysis. This can lead to an accumulation of volatile fatty acids, making pH control necessary through co-digestion with manure [59].
The wood-processing and pulp industries generate substantial quantities of waste with high technical potential for biogas production. However, their high lignin content poses a major challenge for fermentation. Pretreatment can greatly enhance their usability [60]. Sawdust and pulp sludge exhibit low biodegradability—typically below 30%—unless subjected to mechanical shredding or chemical treatment to facilitate lignin degradation. Their co-digestion with nitrogen-rich substrates (e.g., poultry litter) has been shown to effectively balance carbon and nitrogen ratios [61,62].

4. Conclusions

From a sustainability perspective, the utilisation of waste feedstocks for biogas production is an essential element of the circular economy. It reduces methane emissions arising from uncontrolled decomposition while simultaneously providing renewable energy and valuable organic fertiliser. A critical component of biogas production is the effective use of by-products generated during the fermentation process. Owing to their organic composition and chemical characteristics, these by-products can serve as high-quality organic fertilisers. Their application has the potential to substantially reduce dependence on synthetic fertilisers, thereby supporting environmental sustainability.
Rural areas are particularly well suited for biogas production due to the abundant availability of biomass, animal manure, and plant residues. As a result, agricultural enterprises in these regions can meet a significant proportion of their energy needs through biogas generation.
The Lubuskie Voivodeship is notable on a national scale for its extensive forest cover, which is largely attributable to the prevalence of poor podzolic soils. In terms of agricultural activity, the region is characterised by the dominance of industrial poultry farming, whereas crop production remains highly fragmented. In recent years, revenue from traditional farming and hunting has continued to decline. At the same time, emerging agricultural sectors—such as viticulture—have begun to gain increasing importance.
In assessing the biogas production potential of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, it is important to recognise that, despite its distinctive characteristics, the region demonstrates substantial promise. Feedstock availability fluctuates annually, and the degree to which local energy needs can be met is directly dependent on the utilisation of this energy potential. However, persistent uncertainties in the legal framework, together with the possibility of social conflict, continue to pose significant constraints to the full integration of biogas into the regional energy market.
The outlook for biogas remains favourable, particularly in light of recent technological developments and the advancement of sophisticated optimisation systems. Nevertheless, one of the key challenges associated with biogas production relates to the management of odour emissions. These emissions can cause nuisance for local communities and frequently give rise to social concerns.
Future development of agricultural biogas in the Lubuskie Voivodeship should focus on improving feedstock availability, optimizing collection systems for livestock manure, and increasing the use of locally produced biodegradable waste. Strengthening cooperation between farms, processing industries and municipalities could help overcome fragmentation and improve substrate logistics. Further technological advancements in co-digestion, odor mitigation and process optimization may enhance the efficiency and social acceptance of biogas plants. Clear and stable regulatory frameworks, together with financial incentives, remain essential to support investments and unlock the region’s full biogas potential.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K., S.M.; methodology, J.K. validation, J.K., S.M.; formal analysis, J.K.; resources, J.K., S.M.; data curation, J.K., S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K., S.M.; writing—review and editing, J.K., S.M.; visualization, J.K., S.M.; supervision, J.K., S.M.; project administration, J.K., S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J.; Szymańska, D. Agricultural Biogas Plants—A Chance for Diversification of Agriculture in Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Murphy, J.D.; Thamsiriroj, T. Fundamental Science and Engineering of the Anaerobic Digestion Process for Biogas Production. In the Biogas Handbook; Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 104–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alonso, M.J.C.; Franco, M.R.M.; Valenciana, A.P.; Montañez-Hernández, L.E. Metabolic Engineering: A Tool to Increase the Methane Yield and Efficiency of Anaerobic Digestion Process. In Biogas Production; Balagurusamy, N., Chandel, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jameel, M.K.; Mustafa, M.A.; Ahmed, H.S.; Mohammed, A.J.; Ghazy, H.; Shakir, M.N.; Lawas, A.M.; Mohammed, S.K.; Idan, A.H.; Mahmoud, Z.H.; et al. Biogas: Production, Properties, Applications, Economic and Challenges: A Review. Results Chem. 2024, 7, 101549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Da Costa Gomez, C. Biogas as an Energy Option: An Overview. In The Biogas Handbook; Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. European Biogas Association. About Biogas and Biomethane. Available online: https://www.europeanbiogas.eu/about-biogas-and-biomethane/#_ftnref1 (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  7. European Parliament and Council. 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. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, L140, 16–62. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dach, J.; Pulka, J.; Janczak, D.; Lewicki, A.; Pochwatka, P.; Oniszczuk, T. Energetic Assessment of Biogas Plant Projects Based on Biowaste and Maize Silage Usage. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 505, 012029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Krajowy Ośrodek Wsparcia Rolnictwa. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/attachment/cd33660f-9f14-40d2-bb14-94eb49bfcbfa (accessed on 17 November 2025). (In Polish)
  10. Koryś, K.A.; Latawiec, A.E.; Grotkiewicz, K.; Kuboń, M. The Review of Biomass Potential for Agricultural Biogas Production in Poland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jasiulewicz, M. Potencjał Biomasy w Polsce; Politechnika Koszalińska: Koszalin, Poland, 2010. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  12. Polska w Liczbach. Województwo Lubuskie. Available online: https://www.polskawliczbach.pl/lubuskie (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  13. Województwo Lubuskie. Strategia Rozwoju Województwa Lubuskiego 2030; Sejmik Województwa Lubuskiego: Zielona Góra, Poland, 2021; Available online: https://bip.lubuskie.pl/system/obj/47551_SRWL_2030_wersja_2.0_na_ZWL1.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  14. Statistical Office in Zielona Góra. Statistical Yearbook of the Lubuskie Voivodship 2024; Statistical Office in Zielona Góra: Zielona Góra, Poland, 2024. Available online: https://zielonagora.stat.gov.pl/en/publications/statistical-yearbook/statistical-yearbook-of-lubuskie-voivodship-2024%2C2%2C20.html (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  15. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. List of Traditional Products. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/rolnictwo/lista-produktow-tradycyjnych (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  16. Łączak, A.; Bazan-Krzywoszańska, A.; Mrówczyńska, M.; Skiba, M. Renewable Energy Sources in the Lubusz Voivodship (Poland). The Present Conditions and Perspectives for Development. Civil Environ. Eng. Rep. 2018, 28, 31–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Available online: https://www.ure.gov.pl (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  18. Waste Management Plan for Lubusz Voivodeship for the Years 2020–2026; Zielona Góra, Poland, 2020. Available online: https://www.lubuskie.pl (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  19. Journal of Laws 2013, Item 21. Act of 14 December 2012 on Waste. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130000021 (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  20. GUS. Local Data Bank (BDL). Available online: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/bdl/start (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  21. Ertop, H.; Atilgan, A.; Kocięcka, J.; Krakowiak-Bal, A.; Liberacki, D.; Saltuk, B.; Rolbiecki, R. Calculation of the Potential Biogas and Electricity Values of Animal Wastes: Turkey and Poland Case. Energies 2023, 16, 7578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pisano, G.; Rajšl, I.; Thrän, D.; Kulisic, B.; Natea, M.; Scarlat, N.; Monforti, F.; Pennington, D. Biomass Production, Supply, Uses and Flows in the European Union: First Results from an Integrated Assessment; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Krauska, E.; Waliszewska, H.; Krzymiński, M.; Lenart, K.; Popkiewicz, M.; Racięcki, W. Realny potencjał produkcji biometanu w Polsce. Opracowanie na potrzeby Symulatora Polskiego Systemu Energetycznego, wyd. NCBiR Warszawa, 2024. Available online: https://gov.pl (accessed on 19 April 2025). (In Polish)
  24. Pepliński, B. Location of Cows and Pigs in Suburban Areas of Polish Metropolitan Centers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Szajner, P.; Wieliczko, B. Energy Efficiency in Polish Farms. Energies 2024, 17, 3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khan, M.U.; Ahmad, M.; Sultan, M.; Sohoo, I.; Ghimire, P.C.; Zahid, A.; Sarwar, A.; Farooq, M.; Sajjad, U.; Abdeshahian, P.; et al. Biogas Production Potential from Livestock Manure in Pakistan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eggemann, L.; Rau, F.; Stolten, D. The Ecological Potential of Manure Utilisation in Small-Scale Biogas Plants. Appl. Energy 2023, 331, 120445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Scarlat, N.; Fahl, F.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Monforti, F.; Motola, V. A Spatial Analysis of Biogas Potential from Manure in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 915–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nehra, M.; Jain, S. Estimation of Renewable Biogas Energy Potential from Livestock Manure: A Case Study of India. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2023, 22, 101432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.; Luo, L.; Xu, Y.; Chen, X.; Chen, Y.; Tang, J.; Imanaka, T.; Luo, F. Study on Biogas Production from Pig Manure Wastewater by Microbial Electrosynthesis at Sub-Psychrophilic Conditions. Process Biochem. 2024, 146, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Silva, I.; Lapa, N.; Ribeiro, H.; Duarte, E. Pig Slurry Anaerobic Digestion: The Role of Biochar as an Additive Towards Biogas and Digestate Improvement. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Klimek, K.; Kapłan, M.; Syrotyuk, S.; Bakach, N.; Kapustin, N.; Konieczny, R.; Dobrzyński, J.; Borek, K.; Anders, D.; Dybek, B.; et al. Investment Model of Agricultural Biogas Plants for Individual Farms in Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 7375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Plaza, P.I.; Lambertucci, S.A. Unsustainable Production Patterns and Disease Emergence: The Paradigmatic Case of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 951, 175389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pawłowski, L.; Pawłowska, M.; Kwiatkowski, C.A.; Harasim, E. The Role of Agriculture in Climate Change Mitigation—A Polish Example. Energies 2021, 14, 3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. López Moreda, I. The Potential of Biogas Production in Uruguay. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1580–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mukhambet, Y.; Shah, D.; Tatkeyeva, G.; Sarbassov, Y. Slow Pyrolysis of Flax Straw Biomass Produced in Kazakhstan: Characterization of Enhanced Tar and High-Quality Biochar. Fuel 2022, 324, 124676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Figueiredo, A.F.; Brede, M.; Heller, J.; Redzepovic, L.; Illi, L.; Weichgrebe, D. Anaerobic Digestion of Hemp and Flax Straw and Shives and Rapeseed Straw by the Ruminal Microbiota. Bioenergy Res. 2024, 17, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gamborg, C.; Millar, K.; Shortall, O.; Sandøe, P. Bioenergy and Land Use: Framing the Ethical Debate. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 909–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malavisi, A. Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Global Development. J. Glob. Ethics 2024, 20, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Janiszewska, D.; Ossowska, L. Spatial Differentiation of Agricultural Biomass Potential in Polish Voivodeships. Energies 2023, 16, 6828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tymińska, M.; Skibko, Z.; Borusiewicz, A. The Effect of Agricultural Biogas Plants on the Quality of Farm Energy Supply. Energies 2023, 16, 4600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bužinskienė, R.; Miceikienė, A.; Venslauskas, K.; Navickas, K. Assessment of Energy–Economy and Environmental Performance of Perennial Crops in Terms of Biogas Production. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Havrysh, V.; Kalinichenko, A.; Brzozowska, A.; Stebila, J. Agricultural Residue Management for Sustainable Power Generation: The Poland Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lehtomäki, A. Biogas Production from Energy Crops and Crop Residues; Jyväskylä Studies in Biological and Environmental Science 163; University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kintl, A.; Huňady, I.; Vítěz, T.; Brtnický, M.; Sobotková, J.; Hammerschmiedt, T.; Vítězová, M.; Holátko, J.; Smutný, V.; Elbl, J. Effect of Legumes Intercropped with Maize on Biomass Yield and Subsequent Biogas Production. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Morales-Polo, C.; Cledera-Castro, M.d.M.; Moratilla Soria, B.Y. Biogas Production from Vegetable and Fruit Markets Waste—Compositional and Batch Characterizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhu, Y.; Luan, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Duan, Z.; Ruan, R. Current Technologies and Uses for Fruit and Vegetable Wastes in a Sustainable System: A Review. Foods 2023, 12, 1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Holewa-Rataj, J.; Rataj, M.; Kapusta, P.; Brzeszcz, J.; Janiga, M.; Król, A. Home Biogas Production from Organic Waste: Challenges and Process Optimization of Methane Fermentation. Energies 2025, 18, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Frankowski, J.; Czekała, W. Agricultural Plant Residues as Potential Co-Substrates for Biogas Production. Energies 2023, 16, 4396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nwokolo, N.; Mukumba, P.; Obileke, K.; Enebe, M. Waste to Energy: A Focus on the Impact of Substrate Type in Biogas Production. Processes 2020, 8, 1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Scherzinger, M.; Kaltschmitt, M.; Elbanhawy, A.Y. Anaerobic Biogas Formation from Crops’ Agricultural Residues—Modeling Investigations. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 359, 127497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luo, W.; Zhang, J.; Ahmmed, M.K.; Sakai, K.; Shahidi, F.; Zhi, Z.; Wu, H. Valorization of Animal By-Product Enzymes: Advancing Sustainable Food Processing through Innovative Extraction, Purification, and Application Strategies. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2025, 156, 104870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Molinuevo-Salces, B.; González-Fernández, C.; Gómez, X.; García-González, M.C.; Morán, A. Vegetable Processing Wastes Addition to Improve Swine Manure Anaerobic Digestion: Evaluation in Terms of Methane Yield and SEM Characterization. Appl. Energy 2012, 91, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xia, L.; Lam, S.K.; Yan, X.; Chen, D. How Does Recycling of Livestock Manure in Agroecosystems Affect Crop Productivity, Reactive Nitrogen Losses, and Soil Carbon Balance? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 7450–7457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Czekała, W.; Pulka, J.; Jasiński, T.; Szewczyk, P.; Bojarski, W.; Jasiński, J. Waste as Substrates for Agricultural Biogas Plants: A Case Study from Poland. J. Water Land Dev. 2023, 56, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ahmadi-Pirlou, M.; Mesri Gundoshmian, T. The Effect of Substrate Ratio and Total Solids on Biogas Production from Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 23, 1938–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Al-Rousan, A.; Zyadin, A. A Technical Experiment on Biogas Production from Small-Scale Dairy Farm. J. Sustain. Bioenergy Syst. 2014, 4, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Konkol, I.; Świerczek, L.; Cenian, A. Biogas Production from Bakery Wastes—Dynamics, Retention Time and Biogas Potential. J. Res Appl. Agric. Eng. 2018, 19, 226–233. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kot, W.; Adamski, M.; Durczak, K. Usefulness of the Bakery Industry Waste for Biogas Production. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2015, 60, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
  60. Iram, A.; Berenjian, A.; Demirci, A. A Review on the Utilization of Lignin as a Fermentation Substrate to Produce Lignin-Modifying Enzymes and Other Value-Added Products. Molecules 2021, 26, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hakimi, M.M.; Manogaran, D.; Shamsuddin, R.; Johari, S.A.M.; Hassan, M.A.M.; Soehartanto, T. Co-anaerobic Digestion of Sawdust and Chicken Manure with Plant Herbs: Biogas Generation and Kinetic Study. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Paranhos, A.G.O.; Adarme, O.F.H.; Barreto, G.F.; Silva, S.Q.; Aquino, S.F. Methane Production by Co-digestion of Poultry Manure and Lignocellulosic Biomass: Kinetic and Energy Assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 300, 122588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 18 06199 g001
Figure 1. Number of producers and installations registered as agricultural biogas producers in Poland [9]. Data from 2011–2024 as of the last day of the year, data for 2025 as of 31 March.
Figure 1. Number of producers and installations registered as agricultural biogas producers in Poland [9]. Data from 2011–2024 as of the last day of the year, data for 2025 as of 31 March.
Energies 18 06199 g001
Energies 18 06199 g002
Figure 2. Location of agricultural biogas plants in the Lubuskie Voivodeship.
Figure 2. Location of agricultural biogas plants in the Lubuskie Voivodeship.
Energies 18 06199 g002
Energies 18 06199 g003
Figure 3. The potential amount of biogas production from animal products.
Figure 3. The potential amount of biogas production from animal products.
Energies 18 06199 g003
Energies 18 06199 g004
Figure 4. The potential amount of biogas production from plant biomass.
Figure 4. The potential amount of biogas production from plant biomass.
Energies 18 06199 g004
Energies 18 06199 g005
Figure 5. The potential amount of biogas production from waste materials.
Figure 5. The potential amount of biogas production from waste materials.
Energies 18 06199 g005
Table 1. Production of agricultural biogas, electricity and heat from agricultural biogas between 2011 and 2024 [9].
Table 1. Production of agricultural biogas, electricity and heat from agricultural biogas between 2011 and 2024 [9].
YearProduced Biogas [Million m3]Generated Electricity [GWh]Generated Heat [GWh]
201136.64673.43382.638
201273.152141.804160.128
2013112.412227.890246.557
2014174.253354.978373.906
2015206.236429.400224.996
2016250.325524.532n.d.
2017292.036608.270n.d.
2018304.475638.510n.d.
2019307.337646.355n.d.
2020328.174689.713n.d.
2021343.070732.882n.d.
2022375.003796.675n.d.
2023430.080919.277n.d.
2024468.5171012.18n.d.
n.d.—the regulatory amendment removed the obligation for agricultural biogas producers to provide information on the amount of heat generated from agricultural biogas.
Table 2. The list of licensed RES installations in Poland and in the Lubusz Voivodeship (Source: prepared by the author, based on www.ure.gov.pl, accessed on 19 April 2025 [17]).
Table 2. The list of licensed RES installations in Poland and in the Lubusz Voivodeship (Source: prepared by the author, based on www.ure.gov.pl, accessed on 19 April 2025 [17]).
No.Type of Installation *PolandLubusz Voivodeship
Number of InstallationsCapacity of Installations [MW]Number of InstallationsCapacity of Installations [MW]Energy Participation, [%]
1BGM21.328000
2BGO10239.14820.8440.20
3BGS9244.74341.640.38
4BMG62.833000.00
5BMM43.93000.00
6H210.999000.00
7PVA61294847.602459412.72296.23
8WIL612405.92110.23
9WO418101.2992412.6752.96
Total73665447.802490428.881-
* BGM—mixed biogas installation, BGO—sewage treatment plant biogas installation, BGS—landfill biogas installation, BMG—forest or agricultural biomass installation, BMM—mixed biomass installation, H2—renewable hydrogen installation, PVA—solar installation, WIL—onshore wind power plant, WO—hydropower plant.
Table 3. List of biogas producers in the Lubuskie Voivodeship [9].
Table 3. List of biogas producers in the Lubuskie Voivodeship [9].
No.Start DateCompany NamePrimary SubstrateAnnual Biogas Production [m3]Total Electrical Capacity, MWe
11 January 2011Biogaz Agri Sp. z o.o.Pig manure1,100,0000.252
210 June 2016DRP BIOGAZ sp. z o.o.Manure mixed with silage and slurry1,600,0000.4
317 January 2020BIOENERGIA sp. z o.o.Maize silage, poultry silage, beet pulp, straw and pig slurry4,400,0000.999
416 April 2021EKO BRZOZA ROGOŻA I WSPÓLNICY S.J.Maize and grass2,200,0000.499
529 July 2021PGB Energetyka 5 sp. z o.o.Maize silage, liquid manure, cereal slurry and whey4,380,0000.999
68 October 2021AGROCOOP sp. z o.o. sp. k.Manure, slurry and maize silage5,000,0001.14
724 February 2022PGB Energetyka 15 sp. z o.o. Biomass4,380,0000.999
813 December 2022Fermy Trzody “POL-FERM” sp. z o.o.Pig manure2,200,0000.498
919 July 2023EKO BRZOZA ROGOŻA I WSPÓLNICY S.J.Maize and grass4,500,0000.499
Table 4. Raw materials used for agricultural biogas production in Poland in 2024. (based on quarterly reports submitted by agricultural biogas producers, ref. [9]).
Table 4. Raw materials used for agricultural biogas production in Poland in 2024. (based on quarterly reports submitted by agricultural biogas producers, ref. [9]).
No.Raw MaterialQuantity, Tonnes
1Distillery stillage1,523,236.934
2Fruit and vegetable residues1,217,709.640
3Slurry1,193,131.508
4Food processing waste1,010,413.079
5Maize silage576,744.680
6Technological sludge from the agri-food industry370,795.278
7Dairy industry waste336,933.042
8Sugar beet pulp283,152.753
9Expired food172,972.721
10Manure132,527.621
11Slaughterhouse waste119,059.144
12Fruits and vegetables106,004.420
13Plant biomass waste99,715.602
14Fats66,046.629
15Grain; grain waste60,839.564
16Poultry litter60,468.175
17Stomach contents41,779.860
18Green fodder32,915.840
19Sludge from plant product processing30,473.738
20Grass and cereal silage26,053.869
21Wash water/rinse water19,068.860
22Protein–fat waste12,811.839
23Glycerin11,499.269
24Vegetable oils9472.810
25Waste from vegetable oil production8377.038
26Digestate8348.140
27Feed8325.283
28Fatty sludge4817.321
29Straw3083.100
30Protein–fat sludges1391.140
31Liquid wheat residues1270.262
32Lecithin and soap mixture697.764
33Post-extraction pomace from herbal pharmaceutical production677.220
34Coffee237.463
Total7,551,051.606
Table 5. Amount of generated and managed biodegradable waste other than municipal waste in the Lubuskie Voivodeship, Poland, in 2018 [20].
Table 5. Amount of generated and managed biodegradable waste other than municipal waste in the Lubuskie Voivodeship, Poland, in 2018 [20].
Waste SubgroupGenerated (2018), TonnesMass Recovered by Using Primarily as Fuel or Other Means to Generate Energy, TonnesGenerated
(2026—Projection), Tonnes
Agricultural waste3413.190.153844.93
Wastes from processing of animal products9824.620.1411,067.36
Wastes from the processing of products of vegetable origin2206.6114.692485.73
Wastes from the dairy industry536.530.00604.4
Wastes from the bakery and confectionery industry7241.740.008157.77
Wastes from the beverage industry15,390.70.0017,337.51
Wastes from wood processing225,995.8114,761.6254,582.54
Wastes from the pulp industry38,516.06302.5943,388.06
Wastes from sewage treatment73,530.888.586,153.15
Wastes from water treatment224,845.980.00263,442.9
Table 6. Changes in livestock population over the years Lubuskie Voivodeship [20].
Table 6. Changes in livestock population over the years Lubuskie Voivodeship [20].
Year201520162017201820192020202120222023
Total, in Units ×103
Cattle72.73772.97277.63181.20582.41486.91781.2690.78491.389
Pigs144.744153.245148.563148.236126.413105.901103.25565.69100.708
Sheep5.8454.9346.0565.8377.4577.5786.4886.265.945
Goats1.5070.7150.7150.7150.7151.3121.3121.721.732
Horses6.2364.0324.0324.0324.0323.7463.7463.7463.746
Poultry 4153.6914017.3814717.8363928.3874543.3953960.2693544.0543250.4494805.605
Geese16.22126.40315.0254.582116.28583.031n.d.n.d.n.d.
Ducks and others48.23254.18665.54582.54980.66892.994n.d.n.d.n.d.
Turkeys1046.773905.251256.3071564.442202.3951796.0922312.7822546.3362396.484
n.d.—no data available.
Table 7. Changes to farmland use in Lubuskie Voivodeship [20].
Table 7. Changes to farmland use in Lubuskie Voivodeship [20].
Year201520162017201820192020202120222023
Area, ha
Total area of agricultural holdings419,363423,777414,919408,942422,717470,009n.d.n.d.449,667
Forested area on agricultural holdings12,02779639759723178648717n.d.n.d.7863
Farmland391,225399,941390,716388,070401,438444,053n.d.n.d.431,626
Farmland in good agricultural condition386,209395,707387,987385,007398,872439,453n.d.n.d.428,693
Domestic gardens346398413527481393n.d.n.d.276
Pasture and meadow97,13995,696100,988101,27298,000115,300n.d.n.d.112,419
Perennial crops480736663443244429657281n.d.n.d.3634
Arable land283,917295,491283,143280,765297,426316,480n.d.n.d.312,363
Green fodder on arable land25,47419,69620,26213,71215,00819,411n.d.n.d.13,857
Fallow land (including green manures)637476535821873964718936n.d.n.d.6767
Orchards325429112197144829032012593320302002
n.d.—no data available.
Table 8. Changes in harvest in Lubuskie Voivodeship [14,20].
Table 8. Changes in harvest in Lubuskie Voivodeship [14,20].
Year201520162017201820192020202120222023
Harvest, Tonnes
Green maize184,018282,846336,444129,167211,613246,632286,743290,806298,359
Legumes24,16214,67615,38012,43215,81337,65420,84344,28855,116
Oilseeds112,02296,37893,41268,45652,85383,85796,329116,873126,868
Sunflower seeds02006794208692738535992146265
Soy150521219431464247351014051151
Flax (seeds and straw)61015002270339139
Total cereals649,238813,556889,251547,256707,951895,9071,001,980826,559872,721
Basic cereals with mixtures560,112688,055716,373454,816608,196728,518809,313656,083698,500
Basic cereals542,645672,164699,306432,114582,810712,171770,929651,676693,838
Cereals Wheat218,913245,481272,794162,217214,096235,030246,412258,714259,079
Rye64,58294,174102,44562,97193,320117,942123,35388,870112,067
Barley73,18299,027101,21463,37781,545103,967149,60095,304110,926
Oats20,29520,60227,48813,32615,63831,69235,48224,35825,140
Triticale165,674212,881195,366130,223178,211223,541216,082184,431186,628
Cereal mixtures17,46715,89117,06622,70225,38616,34738,38544064662
Potatoes97,626150,96595,27062,69760,43582,988162,08651,78452,278
Sugar Beet73,985101,207112,54982,00493,305121,169166,650134,437188,993
Rape and turnip rape108,97792,42689,22565,73849,01577,65788,085102,45511,4286
Ground vegetables83,90988,29577,16359,92858,29522,50279,46743,57343,233
Tree fruit29,74934,97413,75216,32813,027858175,27318,51211,836
Soft Berries13,64486477329634855884840606558206765
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kostecki, J.; Myszograj, S. Agricultural Biogas as a Sustainable Energy Source for Non-Agricultural Regions: The Case of Lubuskie Province, Poland. Energies 2025, 18, 6199. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236199

AMA Style

Kostecki J, Myszograj S. Agricultural Biogas as a Sustainable Energy Source for Non-Agricultural Regions: The Case of Lubuskie Province, Poland. Energies. 2025; 18(23):6199. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236199

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kostecki, Jakub, and Sylwia Myszograj. 2025. "Agricultural Biogas as a Sustainable Energy Source for Non-Agricultural Regions: The Case of Lubuskie Province, Poland" Energies 18, no. 23: 6199. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236199

APA Style

Kostecki, J., & Myszograj, S. (2025). Agricultural Biogas as a Sustainable Energy Source for Non-Agricultural Regions: The Case of Lubuskie Province, Poland. Energies, 18(23), 6199. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18236199

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop