Next Article in Journal
Incorporating Street-View Imagery into Multi-Scale Spatial Analysis of Ride-Hailing Demand Based on Multi-Source Data
Previous Article in Journal
Fs-Laser-Induced Micro- and Nanostructures on Polycarbonate and Cellulose Acetate Butyrate for Cell Alignment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/app15126753
applsci-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

Spatial Estimation of Biogas and Compost Potential for Sustainable Livestock Manure Management in Bangladesh

by
Zinat Mahal
1,* and
Helmut Yabar
2
1
Doctoral Program in Environmental Studies, Degree Programs in Life and Earth Sciences, Graduate School of Science and Technology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8577, Japan
2
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8577, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 6753; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126753
Submission received: 7 May 2025 / Revised: 6 June 2025 / Accepted: 12 June 2025 / Published: 16 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

A significant amount of livestock manure is generated in Bangladesh, creating challenges for sustainable manure management. Bioenergy and organic fertilizer production from manure are expected to provide opportunities for renewable resources, including environmental benefits. Therefore, this research aimed to spatially assess the potential of manure for biogas and compost using GIS (geographic information system) symbology and hot spot analyses, based on theoretical estimations. This study identified hot spots for biogas and compost production from various types of livestock manure at the district and sub-district levels, whereas previous studies have only explored these at a national level. The estimated total biogas and compost potential was approximately 15,035.50 million m3 and 67.36 million tons, respectively, from livestock manure in 2024, distinguishing it as a feasible alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation and synthetic fertilizers for crop production. Overall, the regional pattern maps of the socio-economic potential, hot spot identification, and environmental benefits assessments of manure will provide a more localized approach to planning sustainable manure management strategies for biogas and compost production in Bangladesh.

1. Introduction

The livestock sector is considered an important agricultural subsector in Bangladesh, where manure disposal is a critical part of sustainable livestock production. About 432.38 million head of farm animals [1] produce a large volume of manure, which has a remarkable impact on air and water quality due to improper manure management [2,3,4]. In Bangladesh, livestock manure is stored solidly and is employed for the conventional fertilization of rural land, with little regard for environmental impacts [5]. A field survey by the Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI) revealed that approximately 91% of manure from small ruminants was typically stored as solid matter (Figure 1). In contrast, manure from large ruminants was utilized for composting (9–26%), in addition to solid storage (30–42%). In rural Bangladesh, only the manure of large animals was used as fuel material (37–43%). A small fraction of waste is converted into biogas through anaerobic digestion on a limited scale [6]. However, various policies, laws, and regulations aimed at environmental protection promote the conversion of waste into valuable resources in Bangladesh.
The National Environment Policy of 2018 suggests introducing green technologies to upgrade the environment, using natural resources properly [7]. The National Agriculture Policy of 2013 and the National Livestock Development Policy of 2007 also supported waste recycling through safe and eco-friendly manure management [8]. Moreover, the overconsumption of natural gas for energy production poses a significant threat to sustainable development, making it essential to explore alternative energy sources such as biogas to address this challenge [9,10,11]. The previous studies related to the biogas potential in Bangladesh [12,13] stated that livestock manure has the potential to produce biogas as a potent source of renewable energy and that digestate can be used as biofertilizer. Alternatively, livestock manure can be used as organic fertilizer via composting, which can lower the volume and weight of the original biowaste and reduce the viability of pathogens that benefit soil function and crop quality [14,15]. Composting helps to bind nutrients effectively in organic forms and reduces the nuisance odor emissions and moisture content of livestock waste, resulting in a product that is more environmentally safe than raw manure applications [16,17].
Therefore, livestock manure can serve as compost or energy, with composting and anaerobic digestion remaining as the two primary methods for recovering resources and energy from agricultural wastes [14]. In Bangladesh, bio-gasification and composting are the most important options due to the lack of energy sources in rural areas and the high demand for fertilizer for agricultural production. Figure 2 indicates that the uses of electricity and synthetic fertilizer show an increasing trend from 2001 to 2024 [18].
However, solely assessing manure potential for biogas or compost production in theory might not yield clear guidance for practical application. As the livestock production is scattered throughout the country, it is necessary to know which regions are more suitable for bioenergy or biofertilizer production. Therefore, to obtain information about which areas are appropriate for biogas and compost production from specific types of livestock manure, detailed spatial analysis, such as hot spot identification, was performed in this study for effective manure management. Firstly, mathematical equations are used to assess the indicators, such as livestock manure generation, biogas and compost potential, economic and environmental benefits, etc. Then, this study applied spatial analysis, such as symbology and hot spot analyses via ArcMap 10.8 software, to assess the spatial valorization of manure and visualize the findings of the research.
Hence, this method is innovative for the study area, contrasting with previous research on manure management, which mostly focuses on national data; instead, this study incorporates regional data to accomplish the regional aspect evaluation. Studies related to biogas generation derived from animal waste [19,20] usually focus on different techniques for energy utilization, such as heat and electricity production, but lack spatial potentiality analysis. Previous studies regarding renewable energy production [21,22,23] and compost generation [24,25,26] from livestock waste only included GHG emission mitigation assessments and did not consider the potential for biogas and compost production in relation to the aquatic environment. This study evaluates both the potential for reducing GHG emissions and nutrient leaching from manure through the generation of bioenergy and organic fertilizer from livestock manure, a crucial aspect for this riverine country, as well as a new observation for obtaining appropriate measurements of water pollution.
This study created regional pattern maps using extensive datasets from different livestock types at the district and sub-district levels, aiming to enhance the future optimization of specific manure management plans. Furthermore, this research highlights hot spots for biogas and compost production, along with economic and environmental benefits assessments, providing local governments and private organizations with new insights for developing sustainable livestock manure management strategies in Bangladesh.

2. Materials and Methods

Using mathematical equations, livestock manure potential was assessed for both biogas and compost production cases in Bangladesh. Based on this theoretical estimation, the regional pattern maps were formulated using spatial analysis. For biogas and compost potential assessment, both socio-economic (biogas and electricity potential, compost and synthetic fertilizer replacement potential) and environmental (GHG emissions and manure nutrients leaching reduction potential) indicators were considered in this study. The flowchart is given in Figure 3.

2.1. Data Collection and Processing

Data regarding livestock population and rice yield were collected from a report that was prepared by the livestock services and statistics departments of Bangladesh in 2024. Some data, like manure generation, along with biogas, electricity, biofertilizer, and compost potential, were generated by mathematical analysis, and the equations were modified from those suggested in previous articles and publications related to livestock manure management, which are discussed in specific sections of this paper. During mathematical estimation, this study considered the manure from six types of livestock (cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep, chickens, and ducks) for the evaluation of biogas and compost potential, as these animals are generally raised in Bangladesh [1]. For the calculation of manure valorization, this study considered cattle and buffalo as large animals, sheep and goats as small animals, and chickens and ducks as poultry.
Before spatial analysis, the collected survey data (livestock population in each district/upazila) and mathematically estimated data (manure generation, biogas yield, electricity generation, compost production, synthetic fertilizer replacement) were processed via a spreadsheet to obtain shape file data using GIS (ArcMap 10.8) software. The shape file was further linked to the administrative dataset retrieved from the ArcGIS online [27]. This integrated spatial database was used to interpret the spatial analysis results.

2.2. Theoretical Assessment

2.2.1. Available Manure Generation

The manure yield is calculated as 10%, 4%, and 3% of the body weight for large animals, small animals, and poultry, respectively [28]. In Bangladesh, the average weights of livestock are 190 kg for large animals, 20 kg for small animals, and 1.5 kg for poultry [29,30]. Consequently, the projected daily manure output is 19 kg for large animals, 0.8 kg for small animals, and 0.045 kg for poultry. However, collecting all the generated manure is impractical; thus, the efficiency of available manure collection has been incorporated to quantify the overall potential for biogas and compost. It was assumed that the availability coefficient is 50% for large animals, 13% for small animals, and 90% for poultry manure generation [12,19]. The available manure was evaluated for each district and sub-district by considering the total numbers and specific livestock types across all districts and sub-districts of Bangladesh.

2.2.2. Biogas, Electricity, and Biofertilizer Potential

Total solids (TS) represent a critical factor for biogas generation from animal manure, with TS distribution in manure ranging from 10–30% for different types of livestock [30,31]. Furthermore, biogas production based on TS varies among livestock types, with estimates of 0.6–0.8 m3 kg−1 TS for large animals, 0.3–0.4 m3 kg−1 TS for small animals, and 0.3–0.8 m3 kg−1 TS for poultry [13,30,31,32]. However, the values of various factors employed in this study to estimate biogas potential are displayed in Table 1. Equations (1)–(3) were utilized to calculate the biogas production potential from manure [19,21,32,33].
Theoretical potential of biogas production (m3/year) = Total manure (kg/year) × TS in manure × availability coefficient × Biogas yield (m3/kg TS)
Electricity generation from biogas = Quantity of biogas produced
× Energy content in biogas × η
Biofertilizer Potential = (DM − VS) + 40% of VS
Here, η denotes the coefficient factor (in %) for biogas to electricity transformation. The η value depends on energy generation systems, and it varies from 35 to 42% for large turbine structures and is around 25% for small dynamo plants [29,34]. However, this study presumed the lowest values for this coefficient factor for electricity generation from biogas. Energy content in biogas was estimated by considering the calorific value (21.8 MJ/m3) of biogas. Thus, the computed energy content was 6 kWh m−3, as 1 kWh is the equivalent of 3.6 MJ [35]. DM indicates the dry mass, while VS represents volatile solids in manure. VS in DM is responsible for the production of biogas. The values used in this study for DM and VS percentages for biogas generation [36] are also shown in Table 1. The CH4 content in biogas varies with manure types, and this study classifies CH4 concentrations as 60% for large animals and poultry manure and 45% for small animal manure [37,38].
Table 1. Values used to estimate the biogas potential in this study.
Table 1. Values used to estimate the biogas potential in this study.
Livestock TypesManure Generation Rate (kg/Head/Day)Availability Coefficient (%)TS of Manure (%)Biogas Yield (m3 kg−1 TS)DM (% of Manure)VS (% of DM)CH4 Content
(% of Biogas)
Large Animal1950250.60258060
Small Animal0.813250.40188045
Poultry0.04590290.80107060

2.2.3. Compost Production Potential and Synthetic Fertilizer Replacement

The carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio is one of the most important parameters for composting. In this study, compost was considered a mixture of livestock manure and rice straw to obtain the optimum C/N ratio. For the carbon source, rice straw is considered because rice is regularly cultivated all over the country. The C/N ratio in a composting pile needs to range from 20:1 to 40:1. This study considered the C/N ratio of compost to be 30:1. The amount of manure and rice straw needed for the desired C/N ratio is estimated using the Pearson Square procedure [15]. A detailed worksheet for the calculation of the total amount of compost based on the C/N ratio is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B (Figure A1 and Table A1). The reduction of total mass after the composting of feedstock ranged from 10–50% of the initial mass [39]. This study assumed a higher value of mass reduction percentage to calculate the total compost generation from livestock manure.
The percentage of synthetic fertilizer replaceable by livestock manure compost (SR) was calculated by Equations (4) and (5) [40]. The average values used for N, P, and K content in livestock manure (Table 2), the loss of respective nutrients during the composting process, and the bioavailability of nutrients are shown in Table 3. The use of synthetic fertilizer in the districts was collected from the allocation of fertilizer in 2024 by the Department of Agriculture in Bangladesh [41].
SR (%) = 100 × Estimated yearly nutrient supply from manure compost ÷ Used or allocated synthetic fertilizer in a year
Nutrient supply = (% of N, P, and K content in manure) × (yearly available manure generation) × (100 − loss of N, P, and K during composting) × 0.01 × (Bioavailability of N, P, and K by agricultural plants)

2.2.4. GHG Emissions Reduction Potential of Biogas

In biogas-based power generation plants, measurable emissions, such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), etc., are not produced, making estimations unnecessary [52,53]. Nonetheless, some CH4 leakage may occur from the bioreactor; hence, this study assumed a 5% leakage rate from the biodigester [54]. To estimate GHG emissions from these leakages, Equation (6) was applied [13,20,54]. Equation (7) was used to calculate the equivalent of CH4 [12,54]. The global warming potential of CH4 compared to CO2 is 25 kg CO2 per kg CH4 [55]. The potential for reducing GHG emissions from biogas has been evaluated concerning fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. The Bangladesh Economic Review states that Bangladesh achieved its highest electricity generation from natural gas in 2024, accounting for approximately 50.32% of total grid production [18]. This study used Equation (8) to estimate the CO2eq emissions reduction potential from substituting natural gas with biogas [54,56]. Here, the specific emission factor (SEF) for natural gas is 2.75 kg CO2 per liter [54]. Natural gas is composed of about 90% CH4 [57,58]. The ratio for volume of natural gas and CH4 content is 1:1.11. Thus, the volume of natural gas corresponding to CH4 in liters is determined by multiplying the total amount of CH4 in biogas by the equivalent factor (1.11). The net reduction in GHG emissions was calculated using Equation (9).
CH4 emissions (from leakages) = 0.05 × Total amount of CH4 production
× CH4 density (0.717kg/m3)
GHG Emissions (in CO2eq) = CH4 emissions (from leakages) × Global warming
potential of CH4
Avoided CO2eq emission = Total quantity of natural gas equivalent to CH4
× SEF
Net reduction of GHG emissions = Avoided CO2eq emission − GHG Emissions
from biogas (in CO2eq)

2.2.5. GHG Emissions Reduction Potential of Compost

The GHG emissions reduction potential for livestock manure compost was estimated compared to the emissions produced from synthetic fertilizers using Equation (10).
GRC = TC × ASR × (GSF − GC)
where GRC = GHG emissions reduction potential of compost (kg CO2eq), TC = total compost from livestock manure (kg), ASR = average synthetic fertilizer replaceable by manure compost (%), GSF = GHG emission rate (kg CO2eq/kg synthetic fertilizer), and GC = GHG emission rate (kg CO2eq/kg compost).
The GHG emission factors for synthetic fertilizer and compost are listed in Table 4 and Table 5. The GHG emission from composting is affected by many factors, such as the types of waste, the composting technology, the methods of quantification of GHG emissions, etc. [59,60,61,62], where the GHG emission factor for synthetic fertilizer varies according to the region and fertilizer types. While the emission from synthetic fertilizer and compost has no specific criteria, and the values vary extensively, this study assumed the average value of the referred ranges for the assessment of the GHG emissions reduction potential of manure compost in Bangladesh. This study used emission factors as the amount of emission (kg CO2eq) produced from 1 kg of compost or synthetic fertilizer production, respectively.

2.2.6. Nutrient Leach-Out Reduction Potential of Biogas and Compost

The nutrient leach-out reduction potential of biogas and compost production was estimated by screening the leach-out nutrients obtained in biofertilizer/compost from the total leach-out nutrients present in livestock manure. This study assumed that about 50% of the total generated manure was applied in the agricultural field or left on pastureland. However, most of the studies focus on nutrient loss through runoff, subsurface drainage, and leaching, mainly occurring from cropland due to fertilizer or chemical uses, and nutrient loss is influenced by many factors such as management practices, climate, soil properties, rainfall, and topography [74,75,76,77]. This study used the average value of the referenced range for the N and P content in manure, biofertilizer, and compost (Table 2) and the N and P leach-out factors (Table 6) for calculating nutrient reduction potentials using Equation (11) [78].
NLD = LFN + (Ii − RDN)
where NLD = nutrient leach-out in each district (kgha−1)
LFN = leaching factor for nutrients (kgha−1)
Ii = intensity for N or P of stock item, i, such as manure of each livestock type, biofertilizer, or compost, was divided by the area of the district (kgha−1).
RDN = recommended dose of nutrient applications in the field (kgha−1), which it was considered as 30 and 15 kgha−1 for nitrogen and phosphorus application, respectively, to the field from the farmyard manure source [79].
Table 6. Nutrient leaching factors occurring through runoff and subsurface drainage.
Table 6. Nutrient leaching factors occurring through runoff and subsurface drainage.
TN (kgha−1)TP (kgha−1)CountrySoil TypeCropsOthersReference
9.30.29FinlandPeat soilCereals, barleySubsurface drainage[80]
21.70.30NorwayMineral soilPerennial grassSubsurface drainage[81]
2.410.64China-CerealsRunoff[82]
250.30FinlandPeat soilGrassSubsurface drainage[83]
39–1910.9–2.4Sweden Garden plantsSurface runoff[84]
3.3–30.40.11–0.32ArgentinaNo-tillageCover cropsRainfall[85]
4.30.04SwedenSilty loamBarley, grassSubsurface[86]
28.5–40.00.7–4.3East Asia-Rice, paddySubsurface[87]
4.5–12.9 0.5–2.6East Asia-Rice, paddySurface runoff[87]
Note: TN = total nitrogen; TP = total phosphorus.

2.3. Spatial Analysis

2.3.1. Symbology Analysis

Theoretically estimated data were joined to the administrative shapefiles (district and sub-district boundaries) and projected to the universal data of WGS 1984 longitude and latitude using the projection and monitoring tools of GIS software. Then, all the parameters, such as biogas potential, compost potential, electricity and fertilizer generation, etc., were analyzed using symbology analysis of the software. The districts and sub-districts were classified into five categories, from very low to very high, with an equal interval range based on the maximum and minimum value of each indicator and identified by distinct colors.

2.3.2. Hot Spot Analysis

The hot spot analysis was performed to identify hot spots for biogas and compost production from different livestock manure types in Bangladesh using GIS software. This tool identifies statistically significant spatial clusters of high values (hot spots) and low values (cold spots), and it works by looking at each feature within the context of neighboring features [88]. However, a feature with a high value is interesting but may not be a statistically significant hot spot. To be identified as a statistically significant hot spot, a feature will display a high value and be surrounded by other features with high values. Hot spots were analyzed based on symbology analysis. Finally, the hot spots were statistically significant with a 95–99% confidence interval, being identified by different colors in the maps.

3. Results

After analysis, the study found that livestock manure offers economic and environmental benefits when transformed into biogas or compost. The spatial estimation of biogas and compost potential varied, and these spatial distributions are presented at the division, district, and sub-district levels of the country to provide a clear view of regional potential. Moreover, hot spots for biogas and compost production were identified for various types of livestock manure across Bangladesh.

3.1. Regional Pattern of Biogas and Compost Potential

Division-wise biogas and compost production potential against livestock populations are shown in Figure 4. Among the divisions, the highest biogas production of 2690.12 million m3 (18.72% of the total biogas) was estimated from Rangpur, followed by Rajshahi (2624.07 million m3), Chattogram (2161.47 million m3), Khulna (2074.01 million m3), Dhaka (2006.04 million m3), and the Sylhet division has the lowest share (5.66%) of the total biogas potential from livestock manure due to the lower concentration of livestock and poultry in this area. Similarly, the highest compost production potential was found in the Rangpur division (12,116.32 kilotons/year), and the lowest compost potential in the Sylhet division (4217.48 kilotons/year). From Figure 4, it is found that the Barisal, Chattogram, and Dhaka divisions had higher livestock populations, but they exhibited comparatively lower biogas or compost potential. Because the number of poultry animals is higher compared to the number of large animals, and poultry produces a lower volume of manure, subsequently, these areas display a low level of biogas and compost production. Similarly, the Rangpur and Sylhet divisions exhibited a higher number of large animals, producing more manure to yield more biogas and compost compared to that of other divisions.
District and sub-district-wise biogas and compost production potential from manure in 2024 was presented via spatial analysis (Figure 5 and Figure 6). For annual biogas production among the districts, six districts (Dinajpur, Bogra, Noagaon, Sirajgonj, Mymensingh, and Chattogram) were in very high group, with 448.09 to 547.18 million m3 biogas production potentiality, whereas the other 8, 9, 17, and 24 districts fell into the high (348–448 million m3), moderate (249–348 million m3), low (150–248 million m3), and very low (51–150 million m3) groups, respectively (Figure 5a). The sub-districts also displayed the potential for biogas production, which ranged from 9.75 to 109.45 million m3 per year (Figure 5b).
The spatial distribution of compost production potential from livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024 is shown in Figure 6, and the districts are also classified into five categories from very low to very high, based on equal interval classification, similar to those employed for biogas potentiality. Here, six districts (Naogaon, Bogra, Sirajganj, Chuadanga, Faridpur, Narail) were categorized with very high potential (1.99–2.43 million tons/year), while eight districts (Nilphamari, Rangpur, Tangail, Pabna, Gazipur, Jhalokathi, Patuakhali, Cox’s Bazar) were placed in the high (1.55–1.99 million tons/year) compost production potentiality group. However, the rest of the districts displayed very low (227–668 kilotons/year) to medium (1110–1551 kilotons/year) compost potential. A compost production potential of about 44 to 501 kilotons per year was found at the sub-district level (Figure 6b).

3.2. Hot Spot Identification

The symbology and hot spots of biogas production from various types of manure are illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Primarily, the northern part of the country demonstrates a higher potential for biogas production from large animal manure, with four districts (Dinajpur, Naogaon, Shirajganj, Mymensingh) identified as hot spots with a 95% confidence interval (Figure 8a). Conversely, only two districts (Patuakhali and Bhola) were recognized as hot spots (99% confidence) for biogas production from buffalo manure, while the remainder of Bangladesh exhibits extremely low biogas potential from these animals due to a smaller buffalo population (Figure 8b). The western part of Bangladesh shows potential for biogas production from goat manure, with three districts (Meherpur, Chuadanga, Jhenaidah) identified as hot spots with 99% a confidence interval, and four other districts (Kushtia, Rajshahi, Naogaon, Joypurhat) classified as hot spots with a 95% confidence interval (Figure 8c). The northern part of the country displays hot spots (Dinajpur, Kurigram, Naogaon, Bogra, Tangail) for biogas production from sheep manure (Figure 8d). For biogas production from poultry manure, one district (Mymensingh) was recognized as a hot spot for chicken manure and two districts (Comilla, Noakhali) (Figure 8e) for duck (Figure 8f) manure, respectively.
As for biogas potential, the hot spots for compost production from various types of manure were based on symbiology analysis (Figure 9), which showed a similar pattern in regard to symbiology and hot spots. Hot spots for compost production from cattle manure were identified in the Sirajganj, Naogaon, Faridpur, and Narail districts (Figure 10a). For buffalo manure, the Gaibandha and Patuakhali districts were designated as hot spots for compost production (Figure 10b). Likewise, the compost potential of goat manure was notably high in five districts: Khagrachori, Rajshahi, Narail, Lakshmipur, and Comilla (Figure 10c). In comparison, five other districts (Bogra, Tangail, Kushtia, Faridpur, Narail) were categorized as having very high potential for compost production from sheep manure (Figure 10d). The potential for compost from chicken manure was highest in the Naogaon district. In contrast, Noakhali and Cox’s Bazar ranked highest for duck manure compost in 2023 (Figure 10e,f).
However, the potential for total biogas and compost production is influenced by the manure of large animals, particularly cattle manure. Thus, the patterns of biogas and compost production potential from cattle manure (Figure 7a and Figure 9a) closely resemble those of total biogas and compost production (Figure 5a and Figure 6a).

3.3. Electricity Potential

Division-wise electricity potential from biogas in Bangladesh is illustrated in Figure 11. Among the eight divisions, Rangpur ranks highest in its electricity production potential, generating 4.04 million MWh/year from livestock manure, which could meet 59.97% of the total electricity demand in 2024. In contrast, the Chattogram division was estimated to produce about 3.24 million MWh/year of electricity from biogas but can only satisfy 17.93% of its electricity demand due to significantly high industrial electricity needs. Although the Barisal division displays relatively low electricity production potential, it can still replace more than 50% of its demand due to lower electricity demand in this region. Similarly, the Sylhet division exhibits low electricity potential, but its electricity coverage from biogas is comparatively higher.
The spatial assessment of electricity generation reveals nearly identical distribution patterns with those of biogas production potential. Six districts (Dinajpur, Bogra, Naogaon, Sirajganj, Mymensingh, and Chittagong) fall into the very high category (806,548–984,928 MWh/year), while eight districts (Nilphamari, Rangpur, Gaibandah, Tangail, Pabna, Jessore, Comilla, and Patuakhali) are categorized as high (628,168–806,547 MWh/year) for electricity production (Figure 12a). From the upazila-wise biogas potential map, the western-northern part of the country displays significant electricity potential, ranging from 54,549 to 137,323 MWh each year (Figure 12b). However, the existing electricity coverage map (Figure 12c) indicates where electricity is needed for economic development. The upazila-wise analysis of electricity potential can provide insights into locations where the electricity demand could be met by bioenergy production from livestock manure.

3.4. Synthetic Fertilizer Replacement

The percentage of synthetic fertilizer used which is replaceable with livestock manure compost as N (urea), P2O5 (diammonium phosphate), and K2O (muriate of potash) were estimated for each district of Bangladesh, and the data is classified into five categories, i.e., less than 20% (pink colored), 21–40% (blue colored), 41–60% (green colored), 61–80% (yellow colored), and greater than 81% (red colored), as shown in Figure 13. About 20% of N content fertilizer uses could be replaced by manure compost for at least 26 of 64 districts, where 3 districts (Narail, Lakshmipur, Jhalokati) displayed the opportunity to replace more than 80% of synthetic N content fertilizer with livestock manure compost in Bangladesh in 2024. This study revealed that over 80% of P2O5 and K2O fertilizers can be substituted with manure compost across 8 and 24 districts, respectively. This suggests that compost holds greater potential compared to synthetic fertilizers in these regions. An even higher replacement rate, exceeding 100%, was observed in various districts characterized by lower agricultural crop production but a significant number of reared livestock.
However, the average synthetic fertilizer replacement by manure compost in Bangladesh in 2024 was 31.367%, 37.89%, and 86.26% for N content fertilizer, P2O5, and K2O, respectively.

3.5. GHG Emissions and Nutrient Leach-Out Reduction Potential

A comparison of GHG emissions and nutrient leach-out reduction potential for biogas and compost production from various livestock groups is shown in Figure 14. About 21,402 and 45,267 kilotons CO2eq/year of GHG emissions could be reduced from biogas and compost, respectively. The combined manure nutrient leaching reduction potential was 3122 (214.94 kg ha⁻¹) and 748 (52.15 kg ha⁻¹) from biogas and compost, respectively. The district-wise net emissions reduction potential for biogas production ranges from 73.52–779.65 kilotons CO2eq/year, while it ranges from 152.94 to 1635.78 kilotons CO2eq/year for compost production. Similarly, the nutrient leach-out reduction potential ranged from 26 to 430, and 6 to 112 kgha−1year−1 for biogas and compost production, respectively, at the district level in Bangladesh.
Overall, the GHG emissions reduction potential by producing manure bioenergy was lower than that for manure compost due to the lower amount of fossil fuels needed for composting than for anaerobic digestion. However, the manure nutrients leaching reduction potential was much higher for biogas production than for composting because of a smaller amount of biogas digestate produced than compost generated for agricultural production.

4. Discussion

A detailed spatial analysis of the potential for biogas and compost production was conducted, indicating the suitable areas for developing manure management facilities. This study illustrates the spatial distribution of biogas and compost production potential across Bangladesh through regional pattern maps. The regional pattern maps created by this study provide clear information regarding which districts or upazilas display the maximum capacity to produce bioenergy or compost from natural sources for sustainable agriculture. Moreover, the hot spot analysis identifies the districts ideal for establishing biogas and compost facilities across Bangladesh based on specific types of livestock manure.
This spatial analysis will aid in making informed decisions about where to establish biogas and compost facilities for improved manure management, offering significant opportunities to advance livestock production toward sustainable agricultural development in Bangladesh. However, the government of Bangladesh has developed a livestock extension policy that sets forth many recommended actions for sustainable agricultural production and improved livestock manure management. However, specific strategies and schemes of manure management that will be suitable for feasible livestock farming have not yet been analyzed. This spatial and hot spot detection will assist in the choice of effective planning for manure management facility installation to produce clean energy and organic fertilizer by reducing environmental pollution.
From the creation of regional pattern maps, it was determined that the variation in biogas/compost potentiality in different divisions, districts, and sub-districts is mainly due to the variation in the number and types of livestock populations in each area. For example, the total livestock population in the Chattogram division is higher than that of Rangpur; nevertheless, the total biogas/compost production is lower due to the smaller number of large animals in the Chattogram division, as large animal manure produces more biogas/compost than does poultry manure. The district and sub-districts in the western-northern part of the country displayed the greatest potential for both biogas and compost production
The detailed theoretical manure potential of six animals is presented in Table 7. The total manure generation was 216.98 million tons, whereas the available manure was estimated as 107.57 million tons in Bangladesh in 2024. The annual biogas amount of 15,035.59 million m3 can be converted into about 27 million MWh of electricity, whereas the maximum amount of electricity comes from cattle manure, measuring 23.12 million MWh/year. As Bangladesh mainly depends on natural gas for power generation, the biogas yield can reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. In 2024, the total need for electricity was about 88,450 million kWh/year in Bangladesh [89]. This study estimated that 27.06 million MWh/year of electricity could be generated from manure biogas in 2024, which could fulfill 30.59% of the total electricity demand. Moreover, in rural areas, biogas can replace other fuels like diesel, coal, etc. One study found that total biogas potential from animal manure could replace 12.13 million tons of coal and 1.65 megaliters of diesel in 2016 [13]. Livestock manure can even produce energy and contribute to the national energy grid. By 2030, the government of Bangladesh plans to produce 12% of its total electricity from renewable sources [89]. Thus, the renewable energy demand can be mitigated by producing biogas from livestock manure in Bangladesh.
In the case of compost production, about 67,454.84 kilotons of compost can be produced from total livestock manure, which could supply 2202.13 kilotons of synthetic fertilizer in Bangladesh in 2024. Compost production potential from livestock manure will be a reasonable alternative to avoid the use of synthetic fertilizer, and the estimated total compost can replace synthetic fertilizer use for crop cultivation. Thus, organic fertilizer production through compost generation plays a significant role in crop production. Being an agriculturally based country, the demand for fertilizer in crop production is huge in Bangladesh. However, farmers tend to prefer chemical fertilizers to compost for high and quick yields. Sometimes, the replacement of chemical fertilizer seems to be very impractical because farmers evaluate compost quality to be very inconsistent and unreliable. Most farmers refuse to use compost consistently because they are more interested in increasing crop yield rapidly without considering the environmental impacts of synthetic fertilizers. Therefore, to extend livestock compost more widely in Bangladesh, further research should be conducted, e.g., using technology to more precisely evaluate compost quality and efficiency in crop yield compared to the results for synthetic fertilizer.
Figure 15 illustrates the comparative contribution of different livestock to biogas and compost production. Large animal manure accounts for a significant 88.91% of the total, with cattle manure contributing 83.59%, while buffalo manure only represents 5.31% of the overall biogas production. Poultry manure makes up approximately 9.52% of the total biogas output, although small animals in Bangladesh contribute a minimal percentage to biogas production, which aligns with previous findings [12,13,30]. Large animal and poultry manure exhibit the highest potential for biogas or bioenergy generation in rural areas of the country [90].
In addition to the manure potentiality assessment, this study also found that the GHG emissions and manure nutrient leach-out were reduced by producing both biogas and compost, which is encouraged by the existing rules and policies in Bangladesh. Among GHG mitigation options like better storage, separation, aeration of livestock manure, etc., following a potential assessment, it was determined that biogas and compost generation are foremost for providing both socio-economic and environmental benefits. This study estimated the average emission rate from biogas-based electricity generation as 298.21 g CO2eq/kWh, which was parallel to the results in the studies by Refs. [91,92,93,94]. Some studies found lower GHG emissions (9–25 g CO2eq/kWh) [22,95] and higher GHG emission (510 g CO2eq/kWh) [21] than those observed in this study because of the different methodological approaches and equations applied. However, it is supported that the GHG emission from biogas-based electricity generation is lower than the emission from electricity production using resources such as fossil fuels, coal, etc. other than biogas sources in Bangladesh, i.e., 588 g CO2eq/kWh [96]. The study also estimated the GHG emission reduction potential for compost, which is comparatively higher than that for biogas generation due to the fact that it requires less fuel consumption and operational costs [97]. Moreover, compost generation might be a cheap alternative to commercial fertilizer for fertile soil, and it is viewed as a viable option for reducing waste [26].
The total GHG emissions in Bangladesh comes from three sectors, including energy (44.02%), agriculture (36.01%), and waste (11.55%) [18]. If expected levels of biogas and compost generation from livestock manure are implemented, environmental impacts will be reduced in each sector. At the same time, these green technologies will reduce the amount of waste generated for open dumping on land and the leaching of manure nutrients into water, which can limit the eutrophication potential.
In addition, this study estimated that the leach-out rate of manure nutrients to water is approximately 3121.41 and 749.10 kilotons (leach-out reduction rate 214.94 and 52.15 kgha−1) annually from bioenergy and manure compost production cases, respectively. These green technologies will reduce the amount of manure nutrients leaching into the water, which can limit the eutrophication potential. However, the leach-out reduction potential of manure nutrients is a very new concept for both manure biogas and compost production from livestock manure in Bangladesh, and it deserves further investigation in the future.

5. Conclusions

The spatial assessment of livestock manure potential is necessary for efficient manure management plan development by the local authorities. To implement manure management facilities such as biogas and compost plants, etc., determining suitable areas is vital, and these areas were located through symbology and hot spot analyses in this study. The detailed spatial analysis of manure potential identifies suitable areas for developing biogas and compost plants, while the hot spot analysis provides a clear understanding of which districts will be suitable for establishing biogas and compost plants based on specific types of livestock manure across Bangladesh.
In the existing government policies related to livestock production and manure management, the development of specific manure management facilities is emphasized to explore local resources. The estimated biogas potential from livestock manure can effectively produce renewable energy, which can reduce the burden on excessive fossil fuel use for electricity generation, and composting can recover nutrients for use as organic fertilizer, which can replace the use of synthetic fertilizer for improved crop yield in rural areas of Bangladesh. Moreover, biogas and compost production can significantly reduce GHG emissions and manure nutrient leaching into water. If this huge amount of manure can be utilized for biogas and compost production on a large scale, it will be beneficial for the country’s economy and for the environment.
This study offers future information on the optimization of manure management facilities based on this spatial manure potential evaluation. Moreover, the detailed life cycle assessment of biogas and compost production, including social impacts, in the future may more transparently clarify the economic and environmental perspective for researchers, policymakers, livestock farmers, fertilizer establishments, and the energy segment of the government. This necessitates thorough research, development, and extension efforts focusing on strategies and techniques that enhance the benefits of livestock manure for bioenergy or composting, while reducing impacts on natural resources and ecosystems.
However, every task presents some challenges. The spatial analysis based on the theoretical estimation of manure potential, which is grounded in livestock distribution, does not consider the geological or social factors, such as available suitable area, household demand, interest in constructing biogas or compost plants, etc. Another foremost limitation of this study was the availability and quality of the data. While an effort was made to gather accurate data, there may still be inconsistencies with the survey data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.M.; methodology, Z.M.; software, H.Y.; validation, H.Y.; formal analysis, Z.M.; investigation, H.Y.; resources, H.Y.; data curation, Z.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.M.; writing—review and editing, H.Y.; visualization, Z.M.; supervision, H.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Graduate School of Environmental Sciences and Technology, University of Tsukuba, Japan.

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.

Appendix A

An example of using the Pearson Square method for proper compost mixture determination [15]. Pearson Square procedure: 1 is the C/N ratio of typical straw; 2 is the C/N ratio of typical beef manure; 3 is the difference between straw and beef manure; 4 is the desired C/N ratio; 5 is the difference between the beef manure C/N ratio and the desired C/N ratio—multiplying this value by 100 reveals that 16.67% straw is needed for the desired C/N ratio; 6 is the difference between the straw C/N ratio and the desired C/N ratio—multiplying this value by 100 reveals that 83.33% manure is needed for the desired C/N ratio.
Applsci 15 06753 g0a1
Figure A1. An example of using the Pearson Square method for proper compost mixture.
Figure A1. An example of using the Pearson Square method for proper compost mixture.
Applsci 15 06753 g0a1

Appendix B

Table A1. Worksheet for the total amount of compost calculation based on the C/N ratio.
Table A1. Worksheet for the total amount of compost calculation based on the C/N ratio.
ManureC/N Ranges [15,98]C/N
(This Study)		% of Manure% of Rice StrawTotal Available Manure (in kg)Compost Production (in kg)Final Compost Production (in kg) (After 50% Mass Reduction)
Large Animal 18–20:118:180.64519.35590,876,153,648.85112,686,655,897.8856,343,327,948.94
Small Animal 16–18:116:178.12521.875108,460,030.91138,828,839.5669,412,919.78
Poultry6–7:16:167.56732.4325,552,972,364.028,218,468,133.884,109,234,066.94
Note: The C/N ratio for rice straw ranges from 80–120 [15,98].

References

  1. DLS. Livestock Economy at a Glance; Department of Livestock Services: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2024. Available online: http://dls.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/dls.portal.gov.bd/page/ee5f4621_fa3a_40ac_8bd9_898fb8ee4700/2023-07-23-12-04-afbcccb96f8b27d4bab6501aa8c2c2ff.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2025).
  2. FAO. Livestock and Environment Statistics: Manure and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Global, Regional and Country Trends, 1990-2018; Report No.: FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No. 14; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f0cebfdd-725e-4d7a-8e14-3ba8fb1486a7/content (accessed on 7 December 2024).
  3. Searchinger, T.; Waite, R.; Hanson, C.; Ranganathan, J. Creating a Sustainable Food Future “A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050”; World Reaserch Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/593176/1/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2024).
  4. Mahal, Z.; Yabar, H.; Mizunoya, T. Spatial Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Eutrophication Potential from Livestock Manure in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock. ILMM Draft National Integrated Livestock Manure Management (ILMM) Policy; Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. BLRI. Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute. 2023. Available online: https://blri.gov.bd/ (accessed on 27 May 2025).
  7. MoEF. The National Environment Policy; Ministry of Environment and Forest, the Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018. Available online: https://moef.gov.bd/site/page/1c05e31e-1bb0-46ce-95a3-6ee3c82b439f/%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B6-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF,%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%BF (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  8. Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. Laws of Bangladesh. 2024. Available online: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/laws-of-bangladesh.html?lang=en (accessed on 12 September 2024).
  9. Venier, F.; Yabar, H. Renewable energy recovery potential towards sustainable cattle manure management in Buenos Aires Province: Site selection based on GIS spatial analysis and statistics. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1317–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mahal, Z.; Yabar, H. A Spatial Modeling Approach for Optimizing the Locations of Large-Scale Biogas Plants from Livestock Manure in Bangladesh. Land 2025, 14, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aktar, K.; Yabar, H.; Mizunoya, T.; Islam, M.M. Application of GIS in Introducing Community-Based Biogas Plants from Dairy Farm Waste: Potential of Renewable Energy for Rural Areas in Bangladesh. Geomatics 2024, 4, 384–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Siddiki, S.Y.A.; Uddin, M.N.; Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Ong, H.C.; Lam, S.S.; Kumar, P.S.; Ahmed, S.F. Theoretical calculation of biogas production and greenhouse gas emission reduction potential of livestock, poultry and slaughterhouse waste in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chowdhury, T.; Chowdhury, H.; Hossain, N.; Ahmed, A.; Hossen, M.S.; Chowdhury, P.; Thirugnanasambandam, M.; Saidur, R. Latest advancements on livestock waste management and biogas production: Bangladesh’s perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lei, Z.; Zhan, X.; Lee, D.J. Recent advancements in sustainable management of livestock waste and rural environment (LSW-2020). Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 316, 123958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mary, A.K. Composting Animal Manures: A Guide to the Process and Management of Animal Manure Compost|NDSU Agriculture 2022. Available online: https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/extension/publications/composting-animal-manures-guide-process-and-management-animal-manure-compost (accessed on 24 May 2024).
  16. Bayu, W.; Rethman, N.F.G.; Hammes, P.S. The Role of Animal Manure in Sustainable Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. J. Sustain. Agric. 2005, 25, 113–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sanford, G.R.; Cook, A.R.; Posner, J.L.; Hedtcke, J.L.; Hall, J.A.; Baldock, J.O. Linking Wisconsin Dairy and Grain Farms via Manure Transfer for Corn Production. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Finance Division, Ministry of Finance. Economic Review. 2024. Available online: https://mof.portal.gov.bd/site/page/28ba57f5-59ff-4426-970a-bf014242179e/Bangladesh-Economic-Review (accessed on 2 May 2024).
  19. Islam, K.N.; Sarker, T.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F.; Atri, A.C.; Alam, M.S. Renewable energy generation from livestock waste for a sustainable circular economy in Bangladesh. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 139, 110695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. Afotey, B.; Sarpong, G.T. Estimation of biogas production potential and greenhouse gas emissions reduction for sustainable energy management using intelligent computing technique. Meas. Sens. 2022, 25, 100650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Miranda, D.S.; Kulay, L. A prospective study on the environmental feasibility of supplying electricity to the Brazilian Amazon through biogas power generation. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 55, 102962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Deublein, D.; Steinhauser, A. (Eds.) Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An Introduction, 1st ed.; Wiley: Weinheim, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mayerová, M.; Šimon, T.; Stehlík, M.; Madaras, M.; Koubová, M.; Smatanová, M. Long-term application of biogas digestate improves soil physical properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 231, 105715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nordahl, S.L.; Preble, C.V.; Kirchstetter, T.W.; Scown, C.D. Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions from Composting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 2235–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lin, L.; Xu, F.; Ge, X.; Li, Y. Improving the sustainability of organic waste management practices in the food-energy-water nexus: A comparative review of anaerobic digestion and composting. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 89, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. ArcGIS Online 2024. Available online: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=arcgis+online (accessed on 13 November 2024).
  28. DLS. Department of Livestock Services 2024. Available online: https://dls.gov.bd/ (accessed on 24 April 2024).
  29. Abdeshahian, P.; Lim, J.S.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T. Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 714–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Afazeli, H.; Jafari, A.; Rafiee, S.; Nosrati, M. An investigation of biogas production potential from livestock and slaughterhouse wastes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Avcioğlu, A.O.; Türker, U. Status and potential of biogas energy from animal wastes in Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1557–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Deublein, D.; Steinhauser, A. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources. In Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Halder, P.; Paul, N.; Joardder, M.; Khan, M.; Sarker, M. Feasibility analysis of implementing anaerobic digestion as a potential energy source in Bangladesh. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Benito, M.; Ortiz, I.; Rodríguez, L.; Muñoz, G. Ni–Co bimetallic catalyst for hydrogen production in sewage treatment plants: Biogas reforming and tars removal. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 14456–14468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Garcia, A.P. Techno-Economic Feasibility Study of a Small-Scale Biogas Plant for Treating Market Waste in the City of El Alto KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management Energy Technology EGI-2014-083MSC Division of Energy and Climate SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM. 2014. Available online: http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:741758/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2024).
  36. Ngumah, C.; Ogbulie, J.; Orji, J.; Amadi, E. Potential of Organic Waste for Biogas and Biofertilizer Production in Nigeria. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2013, 63, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nasir, I.M.; Ghazi, T.I.M.; Omar, R. Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock manure treatment for biogas production: A review. Eng. Life Sci. 2012, 12, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Noorollahi, Y.; Kheirrouz, M.; Asl, H.F.; Yousefi, H.; Hajinezhad, A. Biogas production potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Breitenbeck, G.A.; Schellinger, D. Calculating the Reduction in Material Mass And Volume during Composting. Compos. Sci. Util. 2004, 12, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ikumo, H. Estimation of Potential Supply of Livestock Waste Compost to Replace Chemical Fertilizer Use in Japan Based on 2000 Census of Agriculture. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 2005, 39, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. DAE. Department of Agricultural Extension-Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 2024. Available online: https://dae.gov.bd/ (accessed on 9 July 2024).
  42. Cestonaro, T.; Costa, M.S.S.d.M.; Costa, L.A.d.M.; Pereira, D.C.; Rozatti, M.A.; Martins, M.F.L. Addition of cattle manure to sheep bedding allows vermicomposting process and improves vermicompost quality. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hossain, Z.; Bahar, M.; Sarkar, B.; Donne, S.W.; Wade, P.; Bolan, N. Assessment of the fertilizer potential of biochars produced from slow pyrolysis of biosolid and animal manures. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 155, 105043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brown, C. Available Nutrients and Value for Manure; The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Rural Affairs: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2013; Available online: https://fieldcropnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Nutrient-Value-of-Manure.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2024).
  45. Leikam, D.F.; Lamond, R.E. Estimating Manure Nutrient Availability Report, No.: MF-2562; Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2003; Available online: https://bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/download/estimating-manure-nutrient-availability_MF2562 (accessed on 26 December 2024).
  46. Raza, S.T.; Tang, J.L.; Ali, Z.; Yao, Z.; Bah, H.; Iqbal, H.; Ren, X. Ammonia Volatilization and Greenhouse Gases Emissions during Vermicomposting with Animal Manures and Biochar to Enhance Sustainability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 18, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. de Mendonça Costa, M.S.M.; Bernardi, F.H.; de Mendonça Costa, L.A.; Pereira, D.C.; Lorin, H.E.F.; Rozatti, M.A.T.; Carneiro, L.J. Composting as a cleaner strategy to broiler agro-industrial wastes: Selecting carbon source to optimize the process and improve the quality of the final compost. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2084–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cao, Y.; Chang, Z.; Wang, J.; Ma, Y.; Yang, H.; Fu, G. Potential use of anaerobically digested manure slurry to suppress Phytophthora root rot of chilli pepper. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 168, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Slepetiene, A.; Volungevicius, J.; Jurgutis, L.; Liaudanskiene, I.; Amaleviciute-Volunge, K.; Slepetys, J.; Ceseviciene, J. The potential of digestate as a biofertilizer in eroded soils of Lithuania. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Alfa, M.; Adie, D.; Igboro, S.; Oranusi, U.; Dahunsi, S.; Akali, D. Assessment of biofertilizer quality and health implications of anaerobic digestion effluent of cow dung and chicken droppings. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 681–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ezemagu, I.; Ejimofor, M.; Menkiti, M.; Diyoke, C. Biofertilizer production via composting of digestate obtained from anaerobic digestion of post biocoagulation sludge blended with saw dust: Physiochemical characterization and kinetic study. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Vries, J.; Vinken, T.; Hamelin, L.; De Boer, I. Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy—A life cycle perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 125, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Szabo, G.; Fazekas, I.; Szabo, S.; Szabo, G.; Buday, T.; Paladi, M.; Kisari, K.; Kerenyi, A. The Carbon Footprint of a Biogas Power Plant. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2014, 13, 2867–2874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ayodele, T.; Ogunjuyigbe, A.; Alao, M. Economic and environmental assessment of electricity generation using biogas from organic fraction of municipal solid waste for the city of Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 718–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. 2006. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  56. Kaygusuz, K. Renewable and sustainable energy use in Turkey: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2002, 6, 339–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Viswanathan, B. Chapter 3—Natural Gas. In Energy Sources Amsterdam; Viswanathan, B., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lebel, E.D.; Finnegan, C.J.; Ouyang, Z.; Jackson, R.B. Methane and NOx Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves, Cooktops, and Ovens in Residential Homes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 2529–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Andersen, J.; Boldrin, A.; Christensen, T.; Scheutz, C. Greenhouse gas emissions from home composting of organic household waste. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2475–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Clemens, J.; Cuhls, C. Greenhouse gas emissions from mechanical and biological waste treatment of municipal waste. Environ. Technol. 2003, 24, 745–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hao, X.; Chang, C.; Larney, F.J. Carbon, Nitrogen Balances and Greenhouse Gas Emission during Cattle Feedlot Manure Composting. J. Environ. Qual. 2004, 33, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hellebrand, H. Emission of Nitrous Oxide and other Trace Gases during Composting of Grass and Green Waste. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 69, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Skowrońska, M.; Filipek, T. Life cycle assessment of fertilizers: A review. Int. Agrophysics 2014, 28, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Albaugh, T.J.; Vance, E.D.; Gaudreault, C.; Fox, T.R.; Allen, H.L.; Stape, J.L.; Rubilar, R.A. Carbon Emissions and Sequestration from Fertilization of Pine in the Southeastern United States. For. Sci. 2012, 58, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Brentrup, F.; Hoxha, A.; Christensen, B. Carbon footprint analysis of mineral fertilizer production in Europe and other world regions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food (LCA Food 2016), Dublin, Ireland, 19–21 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  66. Davis, J.; Haglund, C. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of Fertiliser Production: Fertiliser Products Used in Sweden and Western Europe; SIK: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  67. Williams, A.G.; Audsley, E.; Sandars, D.L. Environmental burdens of producing bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes in England and Wales using simulation and system modelling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, W.; Geng, Y.; Hong, J.; Yang, D.; Ma, X. Life cycle assessment of potash fertilizer production in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 138, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Friedrich, E.; Trois, C. GHG emission factors developed for the recycling and composting of municipal waste in South African municipalities. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2520–2531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Phong, N.T. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Plants. Vietnam. J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 54, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ahn, H.; Mulbry, W.; White, J.; Kondrad, S. Pile mixing increases greenhouse gas emissions during composting of dairy manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2904–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Luske, B. Reduced GHG Emissions Due to Compost Production and Compost Use in Egypt Comparing Two Scenarios; Report No.: 2010-016 LbD; Louis Bolk Instituu: Bunnik, The Netherlands, 2010; Available online: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/17480/4/17480.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2025).
  73. McDougall, F.R.; White, P.; Franke, M.; Hindle, P. (Eds.) Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK; Malden, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dunkerley, D. Effects of rainfall intensity fluctuations on infiltration and runoff: Rainfall simulation on dryland soils, Fowlers Gap, Australia. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 26, 2211–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jin, Z.; Guo, L.; Yu, Y.; Luo, D.; Fan, B.; Chu, G. Storm runoff generation in headwater catchments on the Chinese Loess Plateau after long-term vegetation rehabilitation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 748, 141375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhong, S.; Tian, X.; Geng, Y.; Santagata, R.; Zhuang, M.; Chen, W.; Yang, S.; Ulgiati, S. Sustainability assessment in the anthropocentric watershed based on emergy and decomposition methods: A case study of Erhai Lake Basin, southwest China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 139, 108932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Du, Y.; Li, T.; He, B. Runoff-related nutrient loss affected by fertilization and cultivation in sloping croplands: An 11-year observation under natural rainfall. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 319, 107549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dybowski, D.; Dzierzbicka-Glowacka, L.A.; Pietrzak, S.; Juszkowska, D.; Puszkarczuk, T. Estimation of nitrogen leaching load from agricultural fields in the Puck Commune with an interactive calculator. PeerJ Life Environ. 2020, 8, e8899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Singh, S.R.; Kundu, D.K.; Dey, P.; Singh, P.; Mahapatra, B.S. Effect of balanced fertilizers on soil quality and lentil yield in Gangetic alluvial soils of India. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 156, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yli-Halla, M.; Lötjönen, T.; Kekkonen, J.; Virtanen, S.; Marttila, H.; Liimatainen, M.; Saari, M.; Mikkola, J.; Suomela, R.; Joki-Tokola, E. Thickness of peat influences the leaching of substances and greenhouse gas emissions from a cultivated organic soil. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 806, 150499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kløve, B.; Sveistrup, T.E.; Hauge, A. Leaching of nutrients and emission of greenhouse gases from peatland cultivation at Bodin, Northern Norway. Geoderma 2010, 154, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sun, C.; Zhou, H.; Chen, L.; Shen, Z. The pollution risk assessment of nitrogen and phosphorus loss in surface runoff from farmland fertilizer. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2017, 36, 1266–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pham, T.; Yli-Halla, M.; Marttila, H.; Lötjönen, T.; Liimatainen, M.; Kekkonen, J.; Läpikivi, M.; Klöve, B.; Joki-Tokola, E. Leaching of nitrogen, phosphorus and other solutes from a controlled drainage cultivated peatland in Ruukki, Finland. Sci. Total. Environ. 2023, 904, 166769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sieczko, A.K.; van de Vlasakker, P.C.; Tonderski, K.; Metson, G.S. Seasonal nitrogen and phosphorus leaching in urban agriculture: Dominance of non-growing season losses in a Southern Swedish case study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 79, 127823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Portela, S.I.; Reixachs, C.; Torti, M.J.; Beribe, M.J.; Giannini, A.P. Contrasting effects of soil type and use of cover crops on nitrogen and phosphorus leaching in agricultural systems of the Argentinean Pampas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2024, 364, 108897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Norberg, L.; Linefur, H.; Andersson, S.; Blomberg, M.; Kyllmar, K. Nutrient losses over time via surface runoff and subsurface drainage from an agricultural field in northern Sweden. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 1235–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Fu, J.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Hu, K.; Wang, S.; Zhou, M.; Hayashi, K.; Wang, H.; Zhan, X.; Jian, Y.; et al. Importance of subsurface fluxes of water, nitrogen and phosphorus from rice paddy fields relative to surface runoff. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. ESRI. Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) (Spatial Statistics)—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation. 2024. Available online: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-statistics/hot-spot-analysis.htm (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  89. BPDB. Bangladesh Power Development Board. 2024. Available online: http://www.bpdb.gov.bd/site/page/d2d5afd4-9f20-4c05-9102-a7c7de13798e/- (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  90. Mahbub, A.A.; Islam, A.R.M.T. Current status of running renewable energy in Bangladesh and future prospect: A global comparison. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Isola, C.; Sieverding, H.L.; Asato, C.M.; Gonzalez-Estrella, J.; Litzen, D.; Gilcrease, P.C.; Stone, J.J. Life cycle assessment of portable two-stage anaerobic digestion of mixed food waste and cardboard. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kadiyala, A.; Kommalapati, R.; Huque, Z. Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Different Biomass Feedstock Electricity Generation Systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Siddiqui, S.; Zerhusen, B.; Zehetmeier, M.; Effenberger, M. Distribution of specific greenhouse gas emissions from combined heat-and-power production in agricultural biogas plants. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 133, 105443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Whiting, A.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy 2014, 70, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ugwu, S.N.; Harding, K.; Enweremadu, C.C. Comparative life cycle assessment of enhanced anaerobic digestion of agro-industrial waste for biogas production. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 345, 131178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. IEA. CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2013; p. 112. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-2013_co2_fuel-2013-en.html (accessed on 18 November 2024).
  97. Vaneeckhaute, C.; Meers, E.; Michels, E.; Buysse, J.; Tack, F. Ecological and economic benefits of the application of bio-based mineral fertilizers in modern agriculture. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 49, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rynk, R.; van de Kamp, M.; Willson, G.B.; Singley, M.E.; Richard, T.L.; Kolega, J.J.; Gouin, F.R.; Laliberty, L., Jr.; Kay, D.; Murphy, D.M.; et al. On-Farm Composting Handbook (NRAES 54); Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 15 06753 g001
Figure 1. Manure management practices in Bangladesh (Source: data collected from BLRI and analyzed in this study).
Figure 1. Manure management practices in Bangladesh (Source: data collected from BLRI and analyzed in this study).
Applsci 15 06753 g001
Applsci 15 06753 g002
Figure 2. Energy and fertilizer demand in Bangladesh: (a) electricity generation; (b) fertilizer uses (Source: data collected from the Economic Review Report of Bangladesh and analyzed in this study).
Figure 2. Energy and fertilizer demand in Bangladesh: (a) electricity generation; (b) fertilizer uses (Source: data collected from the Economic Review Report of Bangladesh and analyzed in this study).
Applsci 15 06753 g002
Applsci 15 06753 g003
Figure 3. Research flowchart.
Figure 3. Research flowchart.
Applsci 15 06753 g003
Applsci 15 06753 g004
Figure 4. Division-wise biogas and compost potential from livestock manure in 2024: (a) total biogas potential (in million m3/year); (b) total compost potential (in kilotons/year).
Figure 4. Division-wise biogas and compost potential from livestock manure in 2024: (a) total biogas potential (in million m3/year); (b) total compost potential (in kilotons/year).
Applsci 15 06753 g004
Applsci 15 06753 g005
Figure 5. Total biogas production potential from livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) district-wise biogas potential; (b) sub-district-wise biogas potential.
Figure 5. Total biogas production potential from livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) district-wise biogas potential; (b) sub-district-wise biogas potential.
Applsci 15 06753 g005
Applsci 15 06753 g006
Figure 6. Total compost production potential from livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) district-wise compost potential; (b) sub-district-wise compost potential.
Figure 6. Total compost production potential from livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) district-wise compost potential; (b) sub-district-wise compost potential.
Applsci 15 06753 g006
Applsci 15 06753 g007
Figure 7. Symbology for biogas production from different livestock manures in Bangladesh: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Figure 7. Symbology for biogas production from different livestock manures in Bangladesh: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Applsci 15 06753 g007
Applsci 15 06753 g008
Figure 8. Hot spots for biogas production from different livestock manures in Bangladesh: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Figure 8. Hot spots for biogas production from different livestock manures in Bangladesh: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Applsci 15 06753 g008
Applsci 15 06753 g009
Figure 9. Symbology for compost production from different livestock manures in Bangladesh: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Figure 9. Symbology for compost production from different livestock manures in Bangladesh: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Applsci 15 06753 g009
Applsci 15 06753 g010
Figure 10. Hot spots for compost production from different livestock manures: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Figure 10. Hot spots for compost production from different livestock manures: (a) cattle manure; (b) buffalo manure; (c) goat manure; (d) sheep manure; (e) chicken manure; (f) duck manure.
Applsci 15 06753 g010
Applsci 15 06753 g011
Figure 11. Division-wise electricity potential from biogas in Bangladesh: (a) electricity production from biogas; (b) replacement of electricity demand by biogas.
Figure 11. Division-wise electricity potential from biogas in Bangladesh: (a) electricity production from biogas; (b) replacement of electricity demand by biogas.
Applsci 15 06753 g011
Applsci 15 06753 g012
Figure 12. Spatial distribution of electricity potential from biogas in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) district-wise potential; (b) sub-district-wise potential; (c) existing electricity coverage.
Figure 12. Spatial distribution of electricity potential from biogas in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) district-wise potential; (b) sub-district-wise potential; (c) existing electricity coverage.
Applsci 15 06753 g012
Applsci 15 06753 g013
Figure 13. Synthetic fertilizer replacement by compost (%) in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) urea replaceable; (b) P2O5 replaceable; (c) K2O replaceable.
Figure 13. Synthetic fertilizer replacement by compost (%) in Bangladesh in 2024: (a) urea replaceable; (b) P2O5 replaceable; (c) K2O replaceable.
Applsci 15 06753 g013
Applsci 15 06753 g014
Figure 14. Comparison of environmental impacts between biogas and compost production: (a) GHG emissions reduction potential; (b) nutrient leach-out reduction potential.
Figure 14. Comparison of environmental impacts between biogas and compost production: (a) GHG emissions reduction potential; (b) nutrient leach-out reduction potential.
Applsci 15 06753 g014
Applsci 15 06753 g015
Figure 15. Total biogas and compost production potential from different livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024.
Figure 15. Total biogas and compost production potential from different livestock manure in Bangladesh in 2024.
Applsci 15 06753 g015
Table 2. The NPK content in livestock manure and biogas digestate/compost.
Table 2. The NPK content in livestock manure and biogas digestate/compost.
ComponentsN (%)P (%)K (%)References
Large animal manure2.70.6240.6[42]
1.791.686.17[43]
0.920.330.66[44]
0.550.900.50[45]
Small animal manure1.940.990.38[43]
1.820.591.11[46]
1.040.281.01[44]
Poultry manure4.521.682.12[43]
2.71.321.45[44]
1.652.401.7[45]
Biofertilizer/Compost3.30.922.1[47]
2.10.943.67[48]
0.720.160.29[49]
6.12.75.5[24]
2.362.37-[50]
0.220.0120.03[51]
Table 3. Loss of nutrients during composting and nutrient bioavailability to plants.
Table 3. Loss of nutrients during composting and nutrient bioavailability to plants.
NutrientsNPKReferences
Loss of nutrients during composting (%)401020[40]
Nutrient bioavailability for agricultural plants (%)408090[40]
Table 4. GHG emission factors for synthetic fertilizer production.
Table 4. GHG emission factors for synthetic fertilizer production.
Emission Factor (kg CO2eq/kg Fertilizer)Type of FertilizerCountry/RegionReferences
1.6UreaEurope[63]
3.1USA[64]
1.9/2.7Europe/Russia, USA[65]
4Sweden and Western Europe[66]
3.5United Kingdom[67]
1.3–1.8Ammonium phosphateSweden and Western Europe[66]
1.4/1.7Europe/Russia, USA[65]
1Single superphosphateSweden[66]
0.6United Kingdom[67]
0.4–0.54Triple superphosphateEurope, Russia, USA[65]
1Sweden[66]
1.2United Kingdom[67]
0.14–0.25Potassium chlorideChina[68]
Table 5. GHG emission factors for composting waste.
Table 5. GHG emission factors for composting waste.
Emission Factor (kgCO2eq/kg Compost)Waste TypeAuthors
0.172–0.186Municipal waste[69]
0.18Biowaste[70]
0.239Household waste[59]
0.145–0.173Dairy manure[71]
0.413Municipal waste[60]
0.423Cattle manure[61]
0.164Organic waste[72]
0.381Grass and green waste[62]
0.229Livestock manure[25]
0.323Solid waste[73]
Table 7. The assessed livestock manure potential in Bangladesh in 2024.
Table 7. The assessed livestock manure potential in Bangladesh in 2024.
Manure PotentialityCattleBuffaloGoatsSheepChickensDucksTotal
Manure generation (million tons/year)188.81911.5288.6181.2085.6451.156216.98
Available manure (million tons/year)94.4095.7641.1200.1575.0811.04107.57
Biogas (million m3/year)12,847.06784.36101.6414.241069.33218.9615,035.59
Electricity (MWh/year)23.121.410.2020.0281.9240.39427.064
Biofertilizer (kilotons/year)12,273.26749.33104.8614.69294.6860.3413,497.17
Compost (kilotons/year)58,534.033573.72717.02100.473759.76769.8667,363.03
Synthetic fertilizer supply (kilotons/year)692.8143.24643.7890.21609.28125.762202.13
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

Mahal, Z.; Yabar, H. Spatial Estimation of Biogas and Compost Potential for Sustainable Livestock Manure Management in Bangladesh. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6753. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126753

AMA Style

Mahal Z, Yabar H. Spatial Estimation of Biogas and Compost Potential for Sustainable Livestock Manure Management in Bangladesh. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(12):6753. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126753

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mahal, Zinat, and Helmut Yabar. 2025. "Spatial Estimation of Biogas and Compost Potential for Sustainable Livestock Manure Management in Bangladesh" Applied Sciences 15, no. 12: 6753. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126753

APA Style

Mahal, Z., & Yabar, H. (2025). Spatial Estimation of Biogas and Compost Potential for Sustainable Livestock Manure Management in Bangladesh. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6753. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126753

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