Next Article in Journal
Impact of Spatial Change on Tourism by Bridge Connections between Islands: A Case Study of Ganghwa County in South Korea
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling and Prediction of the Uniformity of Spray Liquid Coverage from Flat Fan Spray Nozzles
Previous Article in Journal
Open-End Funds for Sustainable Economic Growth in China: The Relationship between Load Fees, Performance, and Flows
Previous Article in Special Issue
Survivability of Probiotic Bacteria in Model Systems of Non-Fermented and Fermented Coconut and Hemp Milks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 22
10.3390/su11226515
sustainability-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Review of Biomass Potential for Agricultural Biogas Production in Poland

by
Katarzyna Anna Koryś
1,2,
Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec
1,2,3,4,*,
Katarzyna Grotkiewicz
3 and
Maciej Kuboń
3,5
1
International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina 124, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, Brazil
2
Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Rio de Janeiro 22453900, Brazil
3
Department of Production Engineering, Logistic and Applied Computer Sciences, University of Agriculture in Kraków, Balicka 116B, 30-149 Kraków, Poland
4
School of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
5
Institute of Technical Sciences, State Vocational East European Higher School in Przemyśl, Książąt Lubomirskich 6, 37-700 Przemyśl, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(22), 6515; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226515
Submission received: 8 October 2019 / Revised: 5 November 2019 / Accepted: 8 November 2019 / Published: 19 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Production in Food and Agriculture Engineering)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Adequate management of biomass residues generated by agricultural and food industry can reduce their negative impacts on the environment. The alternative use for agricultural waste is production of biogas. Biomass feedstock intended as a substrate for the agricultural biogas plants may include energy crops, bio-waste, products of animal and plant origin and organic residues from food production. This study reviews the potential of selected biomass residues from the agri-food industry in terms of use for agricultural biogas production in Poland. The most common agri-food residues used as substrates for biogas plants in Poland are maize silage, slurry, and distillery waste. It is important that the input for the agricultural biogas installations can be based on local wastes and co-products that require appropriate disposal or storage conditions and might be burdensome for the environment. The study also discusses several limitations that might have an unfavourable impact regarding biogas plants development in Poland. Given the estimated biomass potential, the assumptions defining the scope of use of agricultural biogas and the undeniable benefits provided by biogas production, agricultural biogas plants should be considered as a promising branch of sustainable electricity and thermal energy production in Poland, especially in rural areas.

1. Introduction

Global environmental change caused by excessive exploitation of natural resources and combustion of fossil fuels causes a range of negative impacts on human health and functioning of ecosystems humans ultimately depend on. Generation of solid waste is increasing rapidly as a result of industrialization, global urbanization and economic development [1,2]. Projections indicate that by the 2050 the word population will reach 9.7 billion [3]. There is therefore an increasing pressure on land and water resources to supply food and industrial products. Inability to effectively manage wastes as recently highlighted by scientists and decision-makers lead to serious environmental and socio-economic problems that need urgent and reliable solutions [4,5]. In response to this problem, a number of scientific initiatives were founded with the goal of creating new usages for organic residues [6]. One of the solutions of organic waste management can be their use for production of biogas, during anaerobic digestion (AD) [7].
Biomass [8] represents an important source of alternative energy and provides an opportunity to decrease environmental problems such as pollution and depletion of natural resources [6]. It is widely available and regenerates in a relatively short time [9]. There are many possibilities of biomass processing. For example, agricultural residues and municipal solid residues for biogas and biofuel production [10,11], the use of organic waste for vermicomposting [12], as a supplement during combustion with hard or brown coal or use of agricultural, urban, woody and industrial pyrolyzed residues to improve soil quality [13,14]. This paper discusses the potential of using residual biomass in Poland for the energy sector. It focuses on the assessment of the suitability of biomass from agricultural production and by-products or residues from the agri-food industry as a substrate for biogas production.

2. Methods

The first stage of the study was the literature review, which was performed in English and in Polish languages. The search was conducted on the online databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct (without restriction to year). For this purpose, we provide an extensive combination of keywords in English and Polish (Table S1). The second stage was the selection of the scientific papers (articles, conference papers and PhD theses), based on title and abstract content. The selected documents were archived in the literature database Mendeley. Additionally, we reviewed the bibliography in the key documents with the aim of finding other relevant titles on the specific subject (“snowball” search method).

3. The Role of Biomass in Energy Production in Poland

The rational use of renewable energy sources is essential for sustainable development. Nowadays, Poland is the second largest coal consumer in the EU (after Germany), and the 10th largest coal (here referred to both: hard coal and lignite) consumer in the world, with consumption of 77 million tonnes of coal per year. In addition, the country is a leader in hard coal extraction and import. For example, in 2016 Poland produced 70.7 million tonnes of hard coal and imported 8.3 million tonnes [15]. Current data provided by the World Energy Council from 2017 showed that 92% of electricity and 89% of heat in Poland is generated from coal [16]. Biomass co-firing with fossil fuels might be a promising solution, allowing an increase in the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the total energy in Poland [17]. Supporting energy production from renewable energy sources has become an essential objective of the European Union’s policy as a strategy to pursue sustainable development [18,19]. In the case of Poland, the need for RES development results from the commitments of the "3 × 20" climate package imposed by the EU. By year 2020 Poland is obliged to obtain 15% of RES in gross final energy use and reduce emissions of air pollution. The use of biomass as the renewable energy source might be an essential aspect to achieve these obligations [20].
Biomass is one of the oldest as well as the most promising development of RES in Poland, with a great potential to be used for energy purposes [21]. It is mostly related to favourable geographical and climatic conditions for biomass production, wide range of its application, and its large resources [21,22,23]. In case of other RES, the limiting factors may result from unfavourable topography or insufficient resources (hydropower, wind energy), as well as the costs of production: for example, the high price of the solar cells for solar energy [21]. The energy obtained from biomass in Poland comprise approximately 80% of the entire energy pool, which is obtained from RES [20]. The technical potential of biomass in Poland is around 900 PJ/year [24]. The structure of primary energy production from renewable energy sources in Poland from 2016 is shown in Figure S1 [25]. Additionally, Poland is one of the largest exporters of biomass in Europe [21]. The annual biomass energy potential that can be managed is estimated as follows: over 20 million tons of waste straw, 4 million tons of wood waste (sawdust, tree cortex, sawdust, pellets), 6 million tons of sewage sludge from the paper industry and pulp, food and municipal waste [26].
From an environmental point of view, biomass can be considered better than coal. Previous studies demonstrated that combustion of biomass emits less SO2 compared to coal and has zero-balance carbon dioxide emission [27,28]. Furthermore, the ash gained from the combustion of biomass is returned to the soil, where the plants used for thermal process were cultivated and collected, is consistent with the principles of sustainable development [21]. Despite the fact that electric energy in Poland is obtained mainly from coal [17], it has been demonstrated that using biomass from agriculture co-products for energy purposes is fully justified [23].

4. The Potential of Use of Agricultural Residues for Biogas Production in Poland

In Poland, the production of agricultural biogas has a great potential to grow given increasing demand for heat and electricity from renewables. Moreover, availability of feedstock (substrates) presents interesting opportunities for potential investors, farmers in particular [29]. Because the production of agricultural biogas requires a daily input of substrates [30], location of agricultural biogas installation and its capacity to process the biomass is determined by the constant supply of raw material [31]. This ensures high biogas yield, stability of the fermentation process and possibility of formed digestate utilization [32]. The composition and capacity of biogas obtained from biomass depends on many indicators, including moisture and physical state of the feedstock, technology used, temperature and pressure. As the input for agricultural power plant, both animal and plant origin substrates can be applied as well as waste from the agri-food industry [30,33].

4.1. Utilization of Biomass from Animal and Plant Production

Large breeding farms and agri-food processing generate a significant amount of organic waste [34]. In accordance with the requirements of environmental protection and waste management, if the breeding farm presents more than 40,000 places of poultry, or pig stock more than 2000, farmers are obliged to dispose at least 70% of animals manure on their own farmlands [35]. Semi-liquid and liquid slurry from animal farming are valuable fertilizer, however, their improper storage, application and spillage can lead to environmental pollution and cause odour problems [36]. Their utilization as the substrate for agricultural biogas plants could be one of the options. This solution might be practically attractive for farmers that produce large amounts of organic waste characterized by high energy value. In Poland, approximately 80,750 tons of manure and 35 million m3 of slurry is provided as the organic waste of agricultural production. About one third of this amount could be processed into biogas for local use [34]. Banaszkiewicz and Wysmyk [37] estimated that the total technical potential to produce agricultural biogas from livestock excreta in Poland is 674 million m3, i.e., 26.2 PJ. Furthermore, the anaerobic digestion conducted in agricultural biogas plants provides stabilization and deodorization of raw manure, also changing the category of fertilizer from “natural” to “organic” as the final product, so it can be disposed-of easier [36]. Nevertheless, digesting of raw manure as the only substrate under thermophilic conditions might be unprofitable due to some exploitation issues and inhibition of biogas production due to higher N amounts in animal excreta than in other organic waste [38,39]. A mixture of slurry with plant-biomass enhances C/N (carbon to nitrogen) ratio and nutrient balance, contributing to the improvement of biogas quality and lowering production costs [40,41].
In the case of farming, not only animal excrements can be used as a substrate for an agricultural biogas plant. Straw is commonly used in agriculture as feed for farm animals, however, its surplus is not suitable for agricultural purposes and may be burdensome for the environment. Currently, the surplus of straw is estimated to be 10–11 million tonnes per year. [42]. Nevertheless, straw has been recognized as a valuable biomass for the energy sector. This raw material can provide 934 TJ of energy. Assuming that the average calorific value of coal is 24 MJ kg−1, the evaluated biomass could replace over 9.16 million tonnes of coal. However, it should be considered that straw combusting arouses controversy due to CO2 emissions [43].
In Poland, approximately 25% of arable lands can be used for the growing of annual energy crops with the aim of agricultural biogas production [44]. Among them, maize, more precisely maize silage combined with slurry is used often for the co-fermentation process [33]. In comparison with other grain plants, maize shows higher biogas efficiency (Table S2), high yielding potential, harvesting and silage [45,46,47]. It is worth mentioning that silages of various plants, especially corn silage, are used for large-scale energy purposes. In Poland, maize growing is concentrated mainly in the western and northern part of the country [48]. The spatial analysis conducted by Jędrejek and Jarosz [31] demonstrated that the most suitable voivodeships for the construction of 50–100 kW micro-biogas plant using 100% maize silage are: Lower Silesian, Pomerania, Lubusz, Greater Poland, Warmian-Masurian and West Pomeranian. In the communities located in the voivodeships mentioned above, there is also a prospect of building micro-biogas plants obtaining biogas from a blend of maize silage (70%) and slurry (30%). Nonetheless, cultivation of monoculture—as in the case of maize intended for silage—might have an unfavourable impact for the environment, especially for soil [31]. Thus, due to the growing interest of advantages resulting from agricultural biogas production, the number of installations built in recent years and high costs of the feedstock, more attention is paid for alternative substrates for biogas plants.

4.2. Biomass from the Agri-Food Industry

The Polish agri-food industry generates large amounts of organic waste [49]. Replacing or co-firing of biomass obtained from agricultural crops with the raw material from agri-food production can be a promising solution for biogas production in Poland [50]. The usage applies to processed and unprocessed waste from the agri-food production, e.g., fruit processing [51], residues from diary industry, [52,53], distillery waste [54], meat processing [55] or fresh vegetables and fruits [56,57]. Theoretically, any biodegradable biomass that contains carbohydrates, proteins and fats can be used as the substrate for the agricultural biogas plant, however the prerequisite for the profitability of using raw material is the content of the organic dry matter amount above 30% [58,59]. It should be emphasized that regarding the methane fermentation process, it is important to use technologies based on the use of by-products from agriculture that do not compete with the production of food or forage [44].

4.2.1. Fruits Residues

During extraction of juice from fruits, a by-product called fruit pomace is separated. A certain amount of leftover goes to landfill, contributing to environmental pollution, while a significant part can be applicable as an energy source [50]. The use of fruit pomace as an input for a biogas facility has been well-described in literature. For example, Pilarska et al. [60] showed that the quantity of biogas and methane obtained from apple pomace was as follow: 203.64 m3/ton of fresh substance and 101.36 m3/ton of fresh substance. As a comparison, the results for activated sludge in the current study is: 4.38 m3/ton of fresh substance for biogas and 2.21 m3/ton of fresh substance for methane. Moreover, Prask et al. [61] demonstrated that grape pomace obtained during wine production might be successfully used in agricultural biogas plants, both as a substrate or co-substrate. It is important to highlight that fruit residues contain low concentrations of heavy metals [62]. Thus, as the result of processing the fruit residues during the methane fermentation, valuable organic fertilizer which is nutrient-rich and free from heavy-metals can be obtained [63].

4.2.2. Dairy Industry

The main by-product of the dairy industry is whey, whose annual production in Poland is 2–3 million m3 [64]. Utilization of whey may be problematic, because it contains chemical substances, resistant for biodegradation in the conventional wastewater treatment [64]. Due to the content of lactose, which is the source of energy for many microbial groups like lactic acid bacteria, whey can be used in numbers of biotechnological processes, including methane fermentation, instead. Wesołowska-Trojanowska and Targoński [52] demonstrated that from one ton of substrate, up to 55 m3 of biogas, containing about 78% of methane, can be obtained. In addition, the product does not contain sulphur compounds and can be directly used for combustion in steam boilers without prior desulphurisation. Nevertheless, it should be noticed that depending on the milk processing technology used in the dairy plant, acid, sweet and casein whey may be formed, differing mainly in pH. Whey is characterized by extremely high chemical oxygen demand (COD)—approximately 50,000 mg O2/dm3, and nitrogen (Kjeldahl nitrogen (Nog) 600 mg N/dm3; nitrate nitrogen (N-NO3) 2.5 mg/dm3; N-NH4 + 60 mg/dm3). Therefore, despite the high biogas potential estimated, it is not recommended to use whey as the only substrate in the methane fermentation process, mainly due to the low C/N ratio required for the correct course of the process [53].

4.2.3. Meat Industry and Post-Slaughter Waste: Inconveniences Continuation

Meat industry, pork particularly, is one of the most important products of Polish agriculture [55]. However, the meat processing generates annually about 18 million tons of waste [65]. It poses a serious environmental and epidemiological threat and should be disposed of properly [44,65,66]. Due to the restrictive regulation regarding disposal of slaughterhouse waste, meat producers are struggling with the high costs of animal waste management [67]. Methane fermentation in purpose of their utilization seems to be an optimal solution [55]. The research conducted in the Institute of Biosystems Engineering (University of Life Sciences in Poznań) showed that the waste from the meat industry might be promising for biogas efficiency, due to the high content of protein and fats [68]. For example, the amount of biogas obtained from 1 ton of the content of the digestive tract was 275.77 m3, including methane: 194.38 m3/t fresh matter, which is 70.48% of gas. Also, it has been demonstrated that the mixture of slurry and digestive tract content of pigs is an energetically effective input in the methane fermentation process, producing high-energy biogas with a methane content exceeding 60% [55].
Nevertheless, the use of waste from slaughterhouse and meat processing in Poland as a substrate for biogas plants is associated with certain problems. First, this type of waste requires the prior sanitary treatment (thermal), in accordance with the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of 21 October 2009. The exception applies to the content of the digestive tract [65]. Second, the technological issues related with processing of selected organs. For instance, brains and spinal cords that cannot be used as a substrate for a biogas plant, as they might be the potential source of pathogenic prions [69]. Third: regarding the UE legislation, post-slaughterhouse wastes are divided into three categories (Animal by-product, ABPs), based on the risk they pose: category I ABPs classed as “particular risk” (SRM—from polish language: “material szczególnego ryzyka”), category II ABPs—“high-risk”, category III—“low-risk”. Only waste classified to category II and III can be used to produce agricultural biogas, after earlier treatment [70].
An appropriate and efficient fermentation process depends on the quality and proper balance of the supplied substrate. In the case of meat waste, the other, considerable issue is the high amount of nitrogen which makes a lot of difficulties in running the anaerobic fermentation process properly. Balance of the C/N components ratio is an important element because in the fermentation process the organic nitrogen from the substrate is converted into ammonium nitrogen, which is partly used for the synthesis of protein of newly emerging bacterial cells. In addition, ammonia is formed with excess nitrogen, which inhibits bacterial growth at low concentrations, while higher carbon to nitrogen ratio causes a decrease in the amount of methane due to disruption of the carbon metabolism [63].
Despite of mentioned inconveniences, a number of studies showed that waste of meat processing has a higher biomethane yield, i.e., compared to maize silage, the basic biogas input used in Europe. Furthermore, the biomass fermentation can be an effective tool to reduce the unfavourable effects of improper waste management from the meat industry, and the electricity and heat obtained can be an additional source of income for meat processing plants or used for their technological purposes [55,69].

4.2.4. Distillery Waste

Distillery stillage is a main by-product obtained during ethanol production [71,72]. Poland is one of the largest spirits producers worldwide and the amount of distillery stillage exceeds up to 12 times of alcohol, resulting in an estimated several million tons per year [73]. It creates a great problem with disposal of its surplus. Distillers contain, in addition to organic carbon (Ct) compounds, mineral nutrients necessary for plants and can be used to fertilize or improve the soil quality. A common feature of decoctions is too low phosphorus content in relation to nitrogen and potassium and relatively high Ct content [74]. Grain stillage is characterized by high content of B vitamins, minerals, exogenous amino acids, dietary and lactogenic value and favourable protein–oat ratio; therefore, it is used in the forage industry [75]. In turn, molasses stillage is not suitable for the forage purpose, however, for the economic reasons, is often used by biofuel producers as a substrate to produce ethanol [76]. Though molasses stillage may be used as fertilizer, the application on the field might be problematic due to its polluting potential and would generate further costs related with the constructions of the appropriate tanks for its storage [71,76]. At this point, attention should be paid to the hazard associated with excess potassium accumulation in the case of fertilization with this waste of crops grown for feed purposes [75]. Moreover, the period of usefulness of stillage is relatively short because of the risk of microbiological development [73].
Nevertheless, a number of studies were conducted with the aim of finding an optimal solution, regarding the difficulties associated with the large loads of distillery waste. The anaerobic digestion with biogas production is one of the alternative methods proposed for the utilization of stillage [49,54,77,78]. Biogas efficiency from stillage has been estimated in the range between 430–725 m3 Mg1 of dry organic matter, with methane content of 55% and is comparable to other substrates from the agri-food industry [79]. From the other hand, the use of stillage as the input for biogas plants can be justified in the case of a stable situation of the domestic ethanol industry and when the installation is located in vicinity of a distillery that generates great quantities of this waste. This would minimize the costs related with transport which might contribute to unfavourable economic stability [80,81]. Additionally, the high amount of potassium in molasses and accordingly in distillery waste, not only contaminates fields when it is used as fertilizer but may also inhibit bacteria involved in the anaerobic digestion. Therefore, when supplying the fermentation chamber, special attention should be paid to quality as well as chemical and elemental composition of the substrate [74,82].

4.2.5. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables: The Controversial Case

Utilization of fresh agricultural products for energy purposes seems to be unjustified and controversial. On other hand, in certain cases might be necessarily. Fresh fruits and vegetables require appropriate storage conditions, which most of the farms are deprived of. The amount of unused fresh biomass might be problematic for many food producers, as the product that stays with the farmers, become a waste and need to be disposed. For instance, the embargo imposed by the Russian Federation in 2014, had significant influence on Poland´s economic situation, causing the saturation of local markets with fresh agricultural products [56,57]. Thus, the farmers were recommended to use the waste as the substrate for biogas plant, because it would be profitable from the economic point of view [83]. The study conducted by Smurzyńska et al. [57], with the aim to determine the biogas yield and dynamic of the fermentation process of surplus of fresh vegetables and fruits (biogas and methane productivity tests were carried out for the following vegetables and fruits: eggplants, pumpkins, cauliflower, cabbage, peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers) demonstrated that the process of methane production has not been impaired by any inhibitory factors and biogas yield obtained from individual vegetables and fruits tested was comparable. Furthermore, a large number of polysaccharides in substrates tested contributed to a short but intense process of biogas production. A comparable study (also with the fruits covered by embargo, such as: apples, pears, nectarines, peaches and plums) showed that the biogas yield obtained from the tested fruits were also similar (653 m3/Mg peaches, 829.66 m3/Mg apples on organic matter) [56]. Based on these studies it can be concluded that biomass obtained from fresh non-traded agricultural products are a suitable substrate for biogas production, however, should be used only in case of exceptional situations.

5. Limitation for Development of Agricultural Biogas Plants in Poland

Agricultural biogas plants have huge potential that can positively influence both the environmental aspect and socio-economic development of a given area [34,84]. Currently there are 96 agricultural biogas plants in Poland under operation [85]. In Germany, for example, the number of installations is over 9400 and the country has similar potential for biogas production, when comparing arable land [85]. This difference can be explained by limiting factors such as the location. Construction of the installation may cause social resistance of the local communities. For instance, the surveys conducted with the residents of rural commune Kamionka in Lublin province, Poland, demonstrated that most of the residents were concerned about the unpleasant odour (60% of respondents) [86]. Other fears of the respondents were related to pollution, noise and risk of explosion. On the other hand, over 80% of the respondents indicated the benefits from an agricultural biogas facility, such additional income for the farmers, provision of the cheap energy for the community and positive impact on local environment. Moreover, some local producers were willing to cooperate with the owners of biogas facilities, by buying the energy, providing the biomass and using the post-fermentation pulp (digestate) for fertilizing purposes. The inconvenience related with cost of transport or seasonality of agri-food waste availability, characteristic for the areas with small farms that may cause input instability can be clarified by cooperation between farmers, producing different biomass [87]. Therefore, the decision regarding the selection of the place for the biogas installation should not only consider technological, environmental and legal issues, but also the social aspect should be taken into account [86].
The utilization of digestate might be another limiting factor for the development of agricultural biogas plants in Poland. The operating of agricultural biogas installations is associated with the generation of a large amount of post-fermentation pulp. This product, resulted from the digestion process contains more inorganic nitrogen than non-digested organic fertilizers, and, in consequence, more nitrogen in a form available for plants [88]. Previous studies conducted in EU countries demonstrated the possibility of using the digestate as a replacement for the traditional fertilizer or soil amendment, with the benefits both for the farmers (impact on the crop yields) and soil properties [89,90,91,92,93]. Nevertheless, in some cases the digestate management can be problematic for the biogas producers. When using digestate as the organic fertilizer, it is necessary to comply with several legal requirements regarding both storage methods of biomass intended for methane fermentation as the input and for fermentation pulp on the premises [93,94]. The other important issue of utilizing digestate for fertilizing purposes concerns is its classification. According to the law, digestate may be considered waste or by-product. However, numerous legal regulations for the digestate to be classified as a by-product and therefore qualify it for use as an organic fertilizer (or soil amendment), may be inconvenient for the producers (e.g., farmers, owners of the installation, etc.). Furthermore, the bio-fertilizers based on digestate require accurate physicochemical and microbiological tests in specialized research institutions and need to meet the procedures set by decision-makers [95]. These procedures apply to the use of digestate in agriculture as well as in gardening and forestry. The most important legal acts regarding the utilization and the requirements for the classification of digestate as a by-product, as well as legal requirements regarding methods of storage of substrates and digestate on biogas plant areas were discussed by Czekała et al. [94] and Łagocka et al. [96]. Nonetheless, due to the growing interest in energy obtained from the agricultural biogas installations in Poland, and consequently, an increased amount of post-digestate pulp attention should be given to the alternative methods of its management. In Italy for instance, the usage of digestate became a key factor to maintain profitability of biogas plants and to promote bioeconomy [88,97].
For the further development of agricultural biogas plants in Poland it is crucial to show farmers and residents the benefits of this type of investment. Promotion of bioeconomy as an important element of environmental sustainability and usage of renewable biological resources [98] as well as creating favourable conditions for research on cost-effective and implementing practical solutions [99].

6. Final Considerations

Agriculture plays an important role in the Polish economy and Poland is considered a producer and exporter of good quality products. The country has also considerable potential for biomass processing using agricultural, forest and municipal waste. Biomass from the residues of agri-food production and agricultural, especially bovine slurry, maize silage and distilleries has a great energy potential and is a valuable substrate for agricultural biogas production. Simultaneously it would be essential to implement and develop available and cost-effective technologies that convert biomass of agricultural origin into energy, while not competing with the food and forage market. The use of controversial products, for example fresh fruits and vegetables as a substrate should be considered with caution. Regarding the use of biomass for energy purposes, factors such an economic aspect, substrate availability and substrate storage should be taken into account. Utilization of digestate as a bio-fertilizer or soil amendment and its effect on crop yields is a priority for farmers. Nevertheless, here we propose further research on the impact of digestate on soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions and on the use of digestate in degraded areas in order to restore soil ecosystem services. Agricultural biogas installations have the potential to contribute to the greening of the Polish energy sector but unless certain restrictions are overcome, the share of biomass for energy production might be limited.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6515/s1, Table S1: List of keywords used for literature search, Table S2: Comparison of biomass from agriculture plants in terms of biogas yield, Figure S1: Structure of primary energy production from RES in Poland, 2016.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A.K. and M.K.; methodology, K.A.K. and A.E.L.; literature review, K.A.K. and K.G., database creation, K.A.K.; writing-original draft preparation, K.A.K.; writing-review end editing, A.E.L., K.G., and M.K.; funding acquisition, M.K.

Funding

The publication was financed by the National Centre for Research and Development, under the strategy program “Natural environment, agriculture and forestry” BIOSTRATEG III (BIOSTRATEG3/345940/7/NCBR/2017).

Acknowledgments

Anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their constructive review that significantly improved this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Suocheng, D.; Tong, K.W.; Yuping, W. Municipal solid waste management in China: Using commercial management to solve a growing problem. Util. Policy 2011, 10, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rosik-Dulewska, C.; Karwaczyńska, U.; Ciesielczuk, T. Możliwości wykorzystania odpadów organicznych i mineralnych z uwzględnieniem zasad obowiązujących w ochronie środowiska (Possibilities of using organic and mineral waste, regarding the principles applicable in environmental protection). Rocz. Ochr. Srodowiska 2011, 13, 361–376. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  3. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 241.
  4. Kostecka, J.; Koc-Jurczyk, J.; Brudzisz, K. Waste management in Poland and European Union. Arch. Waste Manag. Environ. Prot. 2014, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, L.K. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rodriguez, A.; Latawiec, A.E. Rethinking Organic Residues: The Potential of Biomass in Brazil. Mod. Concepts Dev. Agron. 2018, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  7. Grando, R.L.; De Souza Antune, A.M.; Da Fonseca, F.V.; Sánchez, A.; Barrena, R.; Font, X. Technology overview of biogas production in anaerobic digestion plants: A European evaluation of research and development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Renewable Energy Law of Poland [Dz.U. 2012 poz. 1229]. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20120001229/O/D20121229.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  9. Nowacka-Blachowska, A.; Resak, M.; Rogosz, B.; Tomaszewska, H. Zrównoważone wykorzystanie biomasy na terenie Dolnego Śląska (Sustainable use of biomass in Lower Silesia). Gor. Odkryw. 2016, 6, 48–53. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  10. Roszkowski, A. Biomasa i bioenergia—Bariery technologiczne i energetyczne (Biomass and bioenergy—Technological and energy limitations). Probl. Inz. Rol. 2012, 3, 79–100. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  11. Kacprzak, A.; Krzystek, L.; Ledakowicz, L. Badania biochemicznego potencjału metanogennego wybranych roślin energetycznych (Analysis on the biochemical methanogenic potential of selected energy plants). Inżynieria I Aparatura. Chemiczna 2010, 49, 32–33. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  12. Ansari, A.A. Effect of Vermicompost on the Productivity of Potato (Solanum tuberosum), Spinach (Spinaciaoleracea) and Turnip (Brassica campestris). World J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 4, 333–336. [Google Scholar]
  13. Castro, A.; Da Silva Batista, N.; Latawiec, A.E.; Rodrigues, A.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Silva, D.; Araujo, E.; De Moraes, L.F.D.; Guerra, J.G.; Galvão, G.; et al. The effects of Gliricidia-Derived Biochar on Sequential Maize and Bean Farming. Sustainability 2018, 10, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yuan, H.; Lu, T.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lei, T. Sewage sludge biochar: Nutrient composition and its effect on the leaching of soil nutrients. Geoderma 2016, 267, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Climate and Energy Policies in Poland. 2017. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/607335/IPOL_BRI(2017)607335_EN.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  16. World Energy Council. Available online: https://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/country/poland/coal/ (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  17. Dzikuć, M.; Piwowar, A. Ecological and economic aspects of electric energy production using the biomass co-firing method: The case of Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 856–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dec, B.; Krupa, J. Wykorzystanie odnawialnych źródeł energii w aspekcie ochrony środowiska (The use of renewable energy sources in the aspect of environmental protection). Przegląd Nauk. Metod. Eduk. Bezpieczenstwa 2007, 3, 722–757. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  19. Zuwała, J. Life cycle approach for energy and environmental analysis of biomass and coal co-firing in CHP plant with backpressure turbine. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 35, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ciepielewska, M. Development of Renewable Energy in Poland in the Light of the European Union Climate-Energy Package and the Renewable Energy Sources Act. 2016. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1429-3730.43.01 (accessed on 20 September 2018).
  21. Gołuchowska, B.; Sławiński, J.; Markowski, G. Biomass utilization as a renewable energy source in polish power industry-current status and perspectives. J. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 16, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ross, A.B.; Jones, J.M.; Chaiklangmuang, S.; Pourkashanian, M.; Williams, A.; Kubica, K.; Andersson, J.T.; Kerst, M.; Danihelka, P.; Bartle, K.D. Measurement and prediction of the emission of pollutants from the combustion of coal and biomass in a fixed bed furnace. Fuel 2002, 81, 571–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jasiulewicz, M. Potencjał energetyczny biomasy rolniczej w aspekcie realizacji przez Polskę Narodowego Celu Wskaźnikowego OZE i dyrektyw w UE w 2020 (Energy potential of agricultural biomass in the aspect of Poland’s implementation of the National RES Target and EU directives in 2020). Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. Agrobiz. 2014, 16, 70–76. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  24. Bartosiewicz-Burczy, H. Potencjał i energetyczne wykorzystanie biomasy w rajach Europy Srodkowej (Biomass potential and its energy utilization in the Central European countries). Energetyka 2012, 7, 860–866. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  25. Energy 2018. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/5485/1/6/1/energia_2018.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  26. Kuziemska, B.; Trębicka, J.; Wieremej, W.; Klej, P.; Pieniak-Lendzion, K. Benefits and risks in the production of biogas. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Przyr. Humanist. Siedlcach Ser. Adm. Zarządzanie 2014, 103, 99–113. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  27. Maj, G. Emission factors and energy properties of agro and forest biomass in aspect of sustainability of energy sector. Energies 2018, 11, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sikora, J. The research on efficiency of biogas production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste mixed with agricultural biomass. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2012, 2, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sikora, J.; Tomal, A. Determination of the energy potential of biogas in selected farm household. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2016, 3, 971–982. [Google Scholar]
  30. Czekała, W. Agricultural Biogas Plants as a Chance for the Development of the Agri-Food Sector. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jędrejek, A.; Jarosz, Z. Regionalne możliwości produkcji biogazu rolniczego (Regional possibilities of agricultural biogas production). Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. Agrobiz. 2016, 18, 61–65. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  32. Cukrowski, A.; Oniszk-Popławska, A.; Mroczkowski, P.; Zowsik, M.; Wiśniewski, G.; The Institute of Renewable Energy, Warszawa. A Guide for Investors Interested in Building the Agricultural Biogas Plants. 2011. Available online: http://www.mg.gov.pl/node/13229 (accessed on 28 September 2018).
  33. Piwowar, A.; Dzikuć, A.; Adamczyk, J. Agricultural biogas plants in Poland—Selected technological, market and environmental aspects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Obrycka, E. Korzyści społeczne i ekonomiczne budowy biogazowni rolniczych (Social and economic benefits of agricultural biogas plants). Zesz. Nauk. Szk. Gl. Gospod. Wiej. Ekon. Organ. Gospod. Zywnosciowej 2014, 107, 163–176. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  35. Act of 10 July 2007 on Fertilizers and Fertilization Law of Poland. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20071471033/T/D20071033L.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2019).
  36. Marszałek, M.; Banach, M.; Kowalski, Z. Utylizacja gnojowicy na drodze fermentacji metanowej i tlenowej—Produkcja biogazu i kompostu (Utilization of liquid manure by methane and oxygen fermentation—Biogas and compost production). Czas. Tech. 2011, 10, 143–158. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  37. Banaszkiewicz, T.; Wysmyk, J. Ecological aspect of utilization of agricultural feedstock. Eur. Reg. 2015, 23, 21–34. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  38. Pawlak, J. Biogaz z rolnictwa—Korzyści i bariery (Biogas from agriculture—Benefits and limitations). Probl. Agric. Eng. 2013, 3, 99–108. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  39. Borowski, S.; Domański, J.; Weatherley, L. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bujoczek, G.; Oleszkiewicz, J.; Sparling, R.; Cenkowski, S. High Solid Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2000, 76, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hryniewicz, M.; Grzybek, A. Available straw surplus for use for energy purposes in 2016. Probl. Inz. Rol. 2017, 25, 15–31. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  42. Jarosz, Z. Energy potential of agricultural crops biomass and their use for energy purposes. Sci. Noteb. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Wars. Probl. World Agric. 2017, 17, 81–92. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  43. Jasiulewicz, M. Possibility of Liquid Biofuels, Electric and Heat Energy Production from Biomass in Polish Agriculture. Polish J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 479–483. [Google Scholar]
  44. Michalski, T. Biogazownia w każdej gminie—Czy wystarczy surowca (Biogas plant in every municipality—Is there enough raw material). Wieś Jutra 2009, 3, 12–14. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  45. Romaniuk, W.; Domasiewicz, T.; Borek, K.; Borusiewicz, A.; Marczuk, T. Analiza Potrzeb Techniczno-Technologicznych oraz Propozycje Rozwiązań w Produkcji Biogazu w Gospodarstwach Rodzinnych i Farmerskich (The Analysis of Technical Demands and Possible Solutions for Biogas Production in Family Agriculture and on Farms); Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Agrobiznesu w Łomży: Lomży, Poland, 2015. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  46. Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Kościk, B.; Jóźwiakowski, K.; Marczuk, A.; Zarajczyk, J.; Kowalczuk, J.; Szmigielski, M.; Sagan, A. Effects of biochemical and thermochemical conversion of sorghum biomass to usable energy. Przem. Chem. 2015, 94, 1838–1840. [Google Scholar]
  47. Król, A. Kiszonki—Cenny substrat do produkcji biogazu (Silage—A valuable substrate for biogas production). Autobusy Tech. Eksploat. Syst. Transp. 2011, 10, 249–254. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  48. Księżak, J. Produkcja kukurydzy w różnych rejonach Polski (Maize production in various regions of Poland). Wieś Jutra 2009, 3, 16. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  49. Daniel, Z.; Juliszewski, T.; Kowalczyk, Z.; Malinowski, M.; Sobol, Z.; Wrona, P. The method of solid waste classification from the agriculture and food industry. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2012, 2, 141–152. [Google Scholar]
  50. Czyżyk, F.; Strzelczyk, M. Rational utilization of production residues generated in agri-food. Arch. Waste Manag. Environ. Prot. 2015, 17, 99–106. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kruczek, M.; Drygaś, B.; Habryka, C. Pomace in fruit industry and their contemporary potential application. World Sci. News 2016, 48, 259–265. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wesołowska-Trojanowska, M.; Targoński, Z. The whey utilization in biotechnological processes. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2014, 1, 102–119. [Google Scholar]
  53. Michalska, K.; Pazera, A.; Bizukojć, M.; Wolf, W.; Sibiński, M. Innovative dairies-energy independence and waste-free technologies as a consequence of biogas and photovoltaic investments. Acta Innov. 2013, 9, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  54. Adamski, M.; Pilarski, K.; Dach, J. Possibilities of Usage of the Distillery Residue as a Substrate for Agricultural Biogas Plant. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2009, 54, 10–15. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  55. Kozłowski, K.; Cieślik, M.; Smurzyńska, A.; Lewicki, A.; Jas, M. The usage of waste from meat processing for energetic purposes. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2015, 1, 36–46. [Google Scholar]
  56. Czekała, W.; Smurzyńska, A.; Cieślik, M.; Boniecki, P.; Kozłowski, K. Biogas Efficiency of Selected Fresh Fruit Covered by the Russian Embargo. In Proceedings of the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference SGEM 2016, Albena, Bulgaria, 30 June–6 July 2016; Volume 3, pp. 227–234. [Google Scholar]
  57. Smurzyńska, A.; Czekała, W.; Lewicki, A.; Cieślik, M.; Kozłowski, K.; Janczak, D. The biogas output of vegetables utilized in the polish market due to introduction of the Russian embargo. Tech. Rol. Ogrod. Leśna 2016, 6, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  58. Weiland, P. Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kupryś-Caruk, M. Agri-food industry as a source of substrates for biogas production. Postępy Nauk. Technol. Przem. Rolno Spoz. 2017, 72, 69–85. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  60. Pilarska, A.; Pilarski, K.; Ryniecki, A. The use of methane fermentation in the development of selected waste products of food industry. Nauk. Inz. Technol. 2014, 4, 100–111. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  61. Prask, H.; Fugol, M.; Szlachta, J. Biogaz z wytłoków z białych i czerwonych winogron. Przem. Ferment. Owocowo Warzywny. 2012, 5, 45–46. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  62. Bożym, M.; Florczak, I.; Zdanowska, P.; Wojdalski, J.; Klimkiewicz, M. An analysis of metal concentrations in food wastes for biogas production. Renew. Energy 2015, 77, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kwaśny, J.; Banach, M.; Kowalski, Z. Technologies of biogas production from different sources—A review. Chem. Tech. Trans. 2012, 17, 83–102. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  64. Maślanka, S.; Siołek, M.; Hamryszak, Ł.; Łopot, D. Zastosowanie odpadów z przemysłu mleczarskiego do produkcji polimerów biodegradowalnych. Chemik 2014, 68, 703–709. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  65. Janczukowicz, W.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M. Biodegradability evaluation of dairy effluents originated in selected sections of dairy production. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4199–4205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sobczak, A.; Błyszczek, E. Ways of management of by-products from meat industry. Czas. Tech. Chem. 2009, 106, 141–151. [Google Scholar]
  67. Adhikari, B.B.; Chae, M.; Bressler, D.C. Utilization of Slaughterhouse Waste in Value-Added Applications: Recent Advances in the Development of Wood Adhesives. Polymers 2018, 10, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zakrzewski, P. Technologia utylizacji odpadów poubojowych w instalacjach biogazowych (Technology of post-slaughter waste utilization in biogas installations). Czysta Ènerg. 2009, 10, 40–41. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  69. Dach, J.; Kozłowski, K.; Czekała, W. Odpady poubojowe na biogaz—Czy to sie opłaca? (Post-slaughter waste for biogas—Is it profitable). Biomasa 2017, 8, 38–40. [Google Scholar]
  70. EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1069/oj (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  71. Fuess, L.T.; Garcia, M.L. Anaerobic digestion of stillage to produce bioenergy in the sugarcane-to-ethanol industry. Environ. Technol. 2014, 35, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dubrovskis, V.; Plume, I. Methane production from stillage. In Proceedings of the 16th International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technology, Jelgava, 24–26 May 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Czupryński, B.; Kotarska, K. Recyrkulacja i sposoby zagospodarowania wywaru gorzelniczego (Recirculation and methods of managing stillage). Inz. Apar. Chem. 2011, 50, 21–23. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  74. Skowrońska, M.; Filipek, T. Nawozowe wykorzystanie wywaru gorzelnianego (The use of stillage for fertilizing purposes). Proc. ECOpole 2012, 6, 267–271. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kotarska, K.; Kłosowski, G.; Czupryński, B. Zagospodarowanie wywaru gorzelniczego na cele paszowe (Managing of stillage for fodder purposes). Przem. Ferment. Owocowo Warzywny 1996, 40, 27–30. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  76. Kotarska, K.; Dziemianowicz, W. Effect of Different Conditions of Alcoholic Fermentation of Molasses on Its Intensification and Quality of Produced Spirit. Zywnosc Nauka. Technologia. Jakosc 2015, 2, 150–159. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Owczuk, M.; Wardzińska, D.; Zamojska-Jaroszewicz, A.; Matuszewska, A. The use of biodegradable waste to produce biogas as an alternative source of renewable energy. Studia Ecol. Bioethicae UKSW 2013, 11, 133–144. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  78. Jasiulewicz, M. Implementation of the innovative investment in food industry and anaerobic digestion in the field of bioenergy. Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. Agrobiz. 2017, 19, 88–94. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  79. Romaniuk, W.; Domasiewicz, T. Substraty dla biogazowni rolniczych (Substrates for agricultural biogas plants). Agrotech. Porad. Rolnika 2014, 11, 74–75. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  80. Janczak, D.; Kozłowski, K.; Zbytek, Z.; Cieślik, M.; Bugała, A.; Czekała, W. Energetic Efficiency of the Vegetable Waste Used as Substrate for Biogas Production. Environment &Chem. 2016, 64, 06002. [Google Scholar]
  81. Kozłowski, K.; Lewicki, A.; Cieślik, M.; Janczak, D.; Czekała, W.; Smurzyńska, A.; Brzoski, M. The possibility of improving the energy and economic balance of agricultural biogas plant. Tech. Rol. Leśna 2017, 3, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kasprzycka, A. Causes of interference methane fermentation. Autobusy 2011, 10, 224–228. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  83. Szymanska, D.; Lewandowska, A. Biogas power plants in Poland—Structure, capacity, and special distribution. Sustainability 2015, 7, 16801–16819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rzeznik, W.; Mielcarek, P. Agricultural biogas plants in Poland. Eng. Rural Dev. 2018, 17, 1760–1765. [Google Scholar]
  85. Biomass Media Group. Available online: http://rynekbiogazu.pl/2018/03/21/potencjal-rozwoju-sektora-biogazu-w-polsce (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  86. Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Listosz, A.; Flisiak, M. Spatial and social conditions for the location of agricultural biogas plants in Poland (case study). E3S Web Conf. 2019, 86, 00036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Caruso, M.C.; Braghieri, A.; Capece, A.; Napolitano, F.; Romano, P.; Galgano, F.; Altieri, G.; Genovese, F. Recent updates on the use of agro-food waste for biogas production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bartoli, A.; Hamelin, L.; Rozakis, S.; Borzęcka, M.; Brandão, M. Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Koszel, M.; Lorencowicz, E. Agricultural use of biogas digestate as a replacement fertilizers. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 7, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Losak, T.; Hlusek, J.; Zatloukalova, A.; Musilova, L.; Vitezova, M.; Skarpa, P.; Zlamalova, T.; Fryc, J.; Vitez, T.; Marecek, J.; et al. Digestate from biogas plants is an attractive alternative to mineral fertilisation of kohlrabi. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2014, 2, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Šimon, T.; Kunzová, E.; Friedlová, M. The effect of digestate, cattle slurry and mineral fertilization on the winter wheat yield and soil quality parameters. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Koszel, M.; Kocira, A.; Lorencowicz, E. The evaluation of the use of biogas plant digestate as a fertilizer in alfalfa and spring wheat cultivation. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2016, 25, 3258–3264. [Google Scholar]
  93. Pilarska, A.A.; Piechota, T.; Szymańska, M.; Pilarski, K.; Wolna-Maruwka, A. Ocena wartości nawozowej pofermentów z biogazowni oraz wytworzonych z nich kompostów (Evaluation of fertilizer value of digestate and its composts obtained from biogas plant). Nauka Przyr. Technol. 2016, 10, 35. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Czekała, W.; Pilarski, K.; Dach, J.; Janczak, D.; Szymańska, M. Analysis of management possibilities for digestate from biogas plant. Tech. Rol. Ogrod. Leśna 2012, 4, 11–13. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  95. Mystkowski, E. Poferment dla rolnictwa (Digestate for agriculture). Rol. ABC 2015, 9, 1–5. (In Polish). Available online: https://studylibpl.com/doc/1424615/masa-pofermentacyjna-nawozem-dla-rolnictwa (accessed on 8 October 2019).
  96. Łagocka, A.; Kamiński, M.; Cholewński, M.; Pospolita, W. Korzyści ekologiczne ze stosowania pofermentu z biogazowni rolniczych jako nawozu organicznego (Ecological benefits from the use of digestate from agricultural biogas plants as organic fertilizer). Kosmos 2016, 65, 601–607. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  97. Pantaleo, A.; De Gennaro, B.; Shah, N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic co-digestion plants: An application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Konstantinis, A.; Rozakis, S.; Maria, E.A.; Shu, K. A definition of bioeconomy through bibliometric networks of the scientific literature. AgBioForum 2018, 21, 64–85. [Google Scholar]
  99. Krzywonos, M.; Marciszewska, A.; Domiter, M.; Borowiak, D. Bioeconomy -current status, trends and prospects. The challenge for universities, business and government. Pol. J. Agron. 2016, 27, 71–79. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226515

AMA Style

Koryś KA, Latawiec AE, Grotkiewicz K, Kuboń M. The Review of Biomass Potential for Agricultural Biogas Production in Poland. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22):6515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226515

Chicago/Turabian Style

Koryś, Katarzyna Anna, Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec, Katarzyna Grotkiewicz, and Maciej Kuboń. 2019. "The Review of Biomass Potential for Agricultural Biogas Production in Poland" Sustainability 11, no. 22: 6515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226515

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