Dairy Manure Biogas Potential Report 3-29-09 Complete

Dairy Manure Biogas Opportunities

in Manica Province, Mozambique
A Preliminary Assessment

Prepared for
Land O’ Lakes
International Development
Smallholder Dairy Development Program

in Manica Province, Mozambique
Prepared by
Paul Schwengels
Consultant, Climate Change, Clean
Energy and Environment
March 29, 2009

Dairy Manure Biogas Opportunities in Manica Province, Mozambique:
A Preliminary Assessment March 27, 2009

Dairy Manure Biogas Opportunities in Manica Provence,
Mozambique: A Preliminary Assessment
Paul Schwengels1
Introduction
This report assesses the opportunities for use of biogas digesters to produce and use methane
from dairy manure in a number of locations and at three different scales. The assessment was
carried out under contract to Land O’ Lakes International Development. With support from the
US Department of Agriculture, Land O’ Lakes International Development (LOL/ID) is
implementing a project titled Smallholder Dairy Development Program in Manica Province in
Mozambique. The main objectives of this private sector-based initiative are to begin rebuilding
Mozambique’s dairy industry to meet market demand and to increase incomes for smallholder
farmers through participation in a sustainable dairy value chain.
The objective of this report is to assess the opportunities for biogas digesters to capture methane
from dairy manure within the framework of the overall program. Specifically, the program has
identified three different scales of biogas digesters that might be introduced within the
framework of this program: 1) household scale - small digesters to provide gas for cooking and
lighting plus fertilizer for individual smallholder farmers; 2) milk collection center (MCC) scale
- slightly larger digesters that would support a small electricity generator to operate coolers,
lights and possibly other small loads at MCCs where smallholders will deliver milk to be held for
daily pick-up by the ultimate buyer; and 3) dairy farm scale where a larger digester might
provide boiler fuel and electricity for the farm and for a processing plant producing cheese,
yogurt and potentially other products. This report is based in part on information provided by the
program and participation of the author in a program design visit to Manica province in
November 2008.
The next section provides background on the dairy development program and the region, as well
as the potential benefits of biodigesters. The following three sections discuss the feasibility and
possible design options for each of the three different scales of interest to the program. These
preliminary assessments consider past experiences, alternative technical designs, costs and
benefits, potential problems and solutions, remaining questions and recommended next steps for
each of the three possible scales of biogas application in the program. The last section provides
a summary discussion of the results, conclusions and recommendations from this preliminary
assessment.
Background
The Smallholder Dairy Development Programme: Manica Province is one of the best areas in
Mozambique for livestock farming due to its climate and access to multiple markets. Over a four

1
Independent consultant, climate change, clean energy and environment, pschwengels@yahoo.com
1


year period, program funds will be used to begin rebuilding the national dairy herd, to train
smallholder farmers in feed/fodder techniques, animal husbandry and animal traction, and to
establish producer-level cooperatives and milk collection centers to build a sustainable dairy
value chain in the region. As a result of the proposed program, household incomes for
participating beneficiaries are expected to increase between 100 to 600 percent, milk production
to increase significantly, and crop production to increase by at least 30 percent for farms
utilizing draft animals.
By the program’s end, more than 900 purebred dairy cows will have been distributed. The
program also projects that at least 1,000 local cows will be inseminated with dairy cattle
genetics. The continued use of dairy cattle genetics over time will help turn local cows into
more productive dairy cows. In geographic areas where artificial insemination (AI) is not
feasible, purebred dairy bulls will be used to help improve the milk productivity of cows.
Ten producer-level cooperatives and three milk collection centers will be formed, located on or
near the three commercial farms housing the breeding herds. The centers will be operated under
a partnership between the co-ops and the commercial farmers. The centers will be located so they
are easily accessible by farmers to assure the milk is transported quickly and efficiently. A large
number of smallholder farmers will receive training in fodder and pasture management, animal
husbandry, and animal traction. Marketing for expanded products will be included in the
program as well.
Substantial increases in income are anticipated for smallholder farmers, who can increase their
income to $1,050 a year by the end of the program. The program will contribute to the
establishment of new milk collection and marketing infrastructure to supply an existing market
(the Manica processor) as well as a potential expanded domestic market and future export
markets in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The estimated dollar impact of the
program is $2.5 million generated from increases in the amount of milk produced, the value of
beef sold (from male calves produced by the restocking program, discussed further in Section
6e), and the asset value of the animals. This economic impact climbs to $6 million after two
additional years. Furthermore, improvements in cash crop productivity are expected as a result of
introduction and expansion of draft power within Manica Province.
In the design of this program, LOL/ID also identified the potential benefit of utilizing dairy
manure to produce biogas for the benefit of smallholder farmers and other program participants.
Use of biodigester technology can capture methane and provide fuel and improved fertilizer.
The initial program proposal called for installation of a digester at one of the milk collection
centers to serve as a pilot project for the use of biogas as an energy source to generate electricity
to run a milk cooler. This would allow or the collection of data to determine the economic
feasibility of this model. If successful, the use of biogas could be expanded, allowing for
establishment of additional milk collection centers without reliable access to the electrical grid.
As the program planning evolved, it became apparent that biogas digesters could potentially be
applied at other points in the program as well. It was decided to evaluate the feasibility of biogas
utilization at three separate scales as described above.
2


The Case for Biogas
Anaerobic digester technology is considered by many experts to be an excellent tool for

improving life, livelihoods, and health in the developing world. It is also seen as an
economically attractive source of energy and greenhouse gas reductions in developed countries.
Dairy manure biogas digester technology has proven to be technically and economically feasible
and successful in many applications. There is a long history of biogas technology at several
scales and with many alternative designs. There is evidence that biogas was used to heat bath
water in Assyria during 10 BC.2 Household scale digesters have been widely used for many
years in developing countries, especially India and China, as firewood for cooking has become
scarce. Many other countries from Honduras to the tiny South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu,
have in recent years also able to harness the methane gas created naturally from decomposing
manure and other organic materials. In the last 20 years, biogas technology has been applied at
many different scales including community scale digesters for off-grid electricity up to large
scale dairy farms processing manure from hundreds or thousands of cows to produce electric
power, fuel for machinery and boilers as well as heat for space heating and other processes.
Biogas technology can convert a waste management problem into an energy resource. The
system uses an anaerobic digester and adapts existing manure management practices to collect
biogas. The biogas can be directly combusted as a cooking and lighting fuel, it can be used as a
fuel source to generate electricity for on-farm use or for sale to the electrical grid, as a boiler
fuel, or for other heating or cooling needs.
The biologically stabilized digester effluent provides a high-quality organic fertilizer and other
byproducts that can be used in a number of ways, depending on local needs and resources.
Successful byproduct applications include use as a crop fertilizer, bedding, and as aquaculture
supplements. Beyond energy and fertilizer, the technology offers many additional potential
benefits. It can reduce odor and improve sanitation. It can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve indoor air quality while creating new jobs and a new business sector. It can reduce the
need for firewood and charcoal which in turn helps preserve forested areas and natural
vegetation, and can improve quality of life especially for women and children who traditionally
gather fuel for cooking. The significance of many of these benefits including respiratory health
and sanitation, reducing deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions is staggering. If
these “externalities” could be translated into economic value, they would certainly justify the
investment costs many times over.
A well-maintained digester can last over 20 years and will pay for itself in one-fifth that time.
Promoting wide deployment of this technology could result in significant improvements in health
and quality of life for rural populations. The range of potential benefits clearly justifies
consideration of the opportunities for biogas technologies in a program that seeks to encourage
development of the dairy industry.

2
Kangmin and Ho, 2006
3


Appendix A provides more detailed technical information on technologies for biogas digesters
and related systems, including gas clean up and use in boilers and generators, investment costs
and a wide range of monetary and non-monetary benefits. The next three sections provide
results of preliminary evaluation of biogas options in three specific contexts of potential
applications within the Manica Province program – small households, milk collection centers
(MCC) and the Evertz dairy farm that will support a breeding herd and provide central
processing of the milk produced in the program into marketable products.
4


Household Scale Biogas Opportunities
Background
As noted above, there is a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for household scale digesters as a
key clean energy technology for sustainable rural development in Africa as well as elsewhere in
the developing world. The Manica Province program team is commendably considering
demonstrations and promotion of household scale digesters for individual small holders. Most of
the cows distributed by the project will go to smallholder farmers who will then have one or
more cows and possibly other animals. These individual farmers will manage their own dairy
cows and transport their milk to collection centers operated by cooperatives. The primary
objectives of the program are to build a sustainable dairy industry and to raise the incomes and
quality of life of the rural population of Manica Province.
Small scale digesters are proven technology that can produce gas for cooking and light in rural
households. The residual slurry can be used as high quality fertilizer and could help farmers
increase crop production for additional income or fodder to support additional animals.
Experience in Asia has shown that widespread deployment of household biodigesters can be
highly successful.
It is estimated that, at present over 22 million households worldwide receive energy for lighting
and cooking from biogas produced in household-scale biogas digesters. This includes 18 million
households in China,3 3.7 million households in India, and more than 155,000 households in
Nepal; all three countries are world leaders in biogas development and deployment. At the rural,
small-scale level, the experience in Nepal exemplifies biogas benefits. Of the installed digesters,
more than 95% are in daily use and an estimated 12,000 jobs have been created in the emerging
biogas industry. Its use has shown a reduction of workload for women and girls of 3
hours/day/household, annual savings of kerosene of 2.5 liters/household, and annual savings of
fuelwood, agriculture wastes and dung of 3 tons/household4. Larger installations have generated
income-producing opportunities and based on anecdotal evidence, have also improved rural
health. A similar program was started in Vietnam in 2004 and was winner of the Energy World
Globe award 2007. More than 25,000 installations have since been built and are now
operational.5
Other benefits have also been demonstrated in successful household biogas programs. According
to the government, there are 3 million biogas digesters operating in Guangxi Provence, China.
This makes the province the largest producer of biogas in the country if not the world. Each
biogas digester takes as input animal and human waste, and together they prevent vast amounts
of methane from escaping into the atmosphere. The International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) estimates that the Guangxi digesters also replace burning of 8 million tons
of standard coal and 3 million tons of firewood each year6.

3
Jingong. 2005
4
USAID 2007
5
Biogas for a Better Life, 2007.
6
Small Farm Permaculture, 2008.
5


There is a great deal of activity currently in Africa and other developing countries. The Africa
Biogas Initiative, for example, was launched in 2007 with support from more than 20
organizations, including development assistance and African non-profit organizations.
The initiative is currently supporting the implementation of a national promotion program in
Rwanda; ongoing stakeholder consultations in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania, and;
desk and feasibility studies in about 20 African countries including Sudan, Zambia, Mali,
Nigeria7.
Appendix B provides more detailed background information on digester types, design issues
including rules of thumb for sizing, and lessons learned from international experience. It
summarizes relevant experience on economic costs and benefits of household digesters in a
number of developing country programs and feasibility studies. The appendix also summarizes a
number of lessons learned from prior programs on overcoming financial, technical and
institutional barriers to wide deployment of household digesters.
Biogas System Design
Digester type: There are several types of digesters that have been used successfully in programs
in developing countries over the past several decades. Two designs seem most likely to meet the
needs of the Manica Province program. The Nepalese GGC 2047 model fixed dome digester
is a modification of the design developed in China and used successfully there for many years. It
has been promoted successfully in many countries and is being adopted by most, if not all, of the
Biogas Africa Initiative countries. Documentation is very good and readily available. This
design seems to be somewhat costly in the African context, but very durable and it pays for itself
over a few years.
The other recommended design is the plastic tubular digester. This has also been implemented
very successfully in some countries and is currently being promoted in some African countries,
notably Tanzania. It is also very well documented, and installation, operation and maintenance
manuals, specifications and other technical information are readily available. This design is
much less costly to install but is not expected to be as durable and there are possible operational
problems that need study.
Another design that might be worth looking at further is the Puxin biodigester digester from
China. Depending on results of further investigation this technology might offer an approach to
shorten construction time and improve quality and durability of digesters. This is not yet a
widely understood and proven technology but depending on the cost of the molds and other parts
from the Chinese company and acceptability with participants and installers it might be worth
some testing.
Digester size: Rules of thumb for various sizes and digester types provide a starting point for
initial design. A key point is that the size of plant (and biogas output) has to be based on the

7
Ukpabi, 2008
6


amount of available dung as input not on the family size or desired gas output. Some experts
suggest that energy for cooking and some lighting for a typical rural family in a developing
country would require between 1 and 2 m3/day.8 This would require a digester with an internal
volume of 4 m3 or more. The performance of biogas digesters in Monica province conditions
remains an empirical question. The program will need carry out demonstrations of one or more
digester designs and carefully monitor their performance, including the actual biogas production.
This will help to develop a clear understanding of the combinations of numbers of cows, sizes
and types of digesters and other factors that will lead to consistently successful results in the
Manica Province conditions. It is certainly possible that a single cow digester can provide
enough gas to drastically improve a household’s cooking and lighting options. It also seems that
2 cows or 1 cow and other livestock may be a more appropriate to be sure that a family’s needs
are completely met.
Gas uses: Cook stoves that operate on biogas are widely available in most African countries. In
Kenya, biogas cookers are available locally, and local artisans have been able to fabricate new
ones or modify LPG stoves to use biogas which is much cheaper.9 However, there is little or no
quality control on biogas appliances. This is probably representative of the situation in most
African countries including Mozambique. Lanterns using biogas are widely available but not
very efficient. As noted in appendix B, one country program in Tanzania10 has identified the
need for improved biogas lighting technology as a priority area for research.
As with digester technology, this is an area where the Program will need to work with local
entrepreneurs, and academic and other organizations to determine what types of technology are
currently available and at what cost, and whether the program can or should undertake to
stimulate new local businesses and products to supply the needs of the program and subsequent
biogas industry development.
Economics of Household Digesters
A review of experience with household digesters, and of cost benefit calculations and feasibility
analyses in several African countries, provides a rough sense of the likely economics of
introducing such digesters in Manica Province. Assuming that dung and biogas production, fuel
prices, rural income levels are similar, it is likely that fixed dome biogas digesters can be
installed and operated at costs that will pay for themselves through savings in fuel and fertilizer
cost (or increased crop production) in 3-6 years, and that the societal benefits would be much
larger. Installation of plastic tubular digesters could yield similar benefits at lower installation
cost, if durability and operational questions are resolved.
Household biogas digesters are often financially viable on paper from the perspective of
individual farmers in developing countries. However, biogas development on a significant scale
has generally required government financed investment subsidies and/or affordable financing

8
TNAU, 2008
9
Biogas for a Better Life, 2007a
10
SGP, 2001
7


(for construction and/or maintenance of biogas plants) for small and lower-income farmers.11
The initial capital investment is often an insurmountable barrier for poor rural farmers even
though the savings will outweigh the costs in a few years. Except for some cases involving the
least expensive designs (e.g., plastic tubular digesters in Vietnam) it has generally been deemed
necessary and logical for governments or donors to partially subsidize the initial capital costs.
The benefits to society far outweigh the costs of subsidies and program support, and farmers can
be convinced to pay half or more of the cost if financing is available.
The full capital cost of the fixed dome design is likely to be unaffordable for most poor farmers,
but for the plastic tubular design, costs may be low enough that they can be paid fully by farmers
after some demonstration and start up support. For wide deployment of any type of digester,
however, a financing mechanism is required for farmers to pay back at least part of initial
installation costs over time.
In the Manica province context, financing through small holder cooperatives seems feasible and
could overcome many of the organizational difficulties that have plagued other programs. The
MCCs, managed by cooperatives, will be receiving milk from individual farmers and providing
payments to these participants based on milk sales. The program concept already envisions that
the cooperative would retain a small percentage of the sales revenues from each farmer to cover
costs of operation of the Milk Collection Center, medicine and veterinary services as needed,
training and other ongoing support services. If the cooperatives were to provide or guarantee
loans for the installation of biogas digesters this mechanism could be used to collect monthly
payments from individual farmers. It will be important to carry out detailed financial analysis as
the program moves forward to determine whether subsidies to bring down the initial capital cost,
as is the case in most successful developing country programs to date, will be appropriate to
move the biogas digester penetration to significant levels.
A number of previous biogas digester promotion programs, successful and not, have illustrated
range of possible barriers would need to be overcome to allow for a successful program to
promote household digesters in Manica Province. Appropriate technology and financing are two
critical prerequisites for success as discussed above but past programs have also identify other
technical and institutional barriers to biogas digester deployment and successful operation.
Lessons learned include the need for: 1) careful program planning and design, including
consultation with key stakeholders; 2) quality digester construction with correct materials by
qualified technicians; 3) attention to educating and informing the intended participants and other
stakeholders as a part of the program; 4) technical training on installation, quality of materials
and maintenance of digesters; 5) certification of trained installers and service personnel, and of
materials meeting standards; and 6) a network of technical support and monitoring to ensure
long term benefit of the program.

11
USAID, 2007
8


The structure of milk production cooperatives and milk collection centers envisioned by the
program offers a valuable potential support mechanism not only for financing but for other key
aspects of a digester program, including:
• Training on biogas digesters can potentially be organized through cooperatives and MCCs
coordinated with dairy management, animal traction and other training that will be a central
focus of the overall program. This could include training for installers and entrepreneurs to
help establish the capability to deliver and service digesters and biogas appliances on a
commercial basis, basic education on digesters for farmers, training on operation and
maintenance for farmers and family members interested in participating in the biogas digester
option;
• Certification of installers and technicians, standards for materials, etc. could be organized
through the cooperatives, though technical expertise will need to be provided by the program
initially; and
• Ongoing maintenance and operation could be monitored and addressed with service or
training as needed through the cooperatives.
More detail on the calculations, assumptions and other information used to produce the results in
this section is provided in appendix B.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Household scale biogas digesters are definitely an economically, socially and environmentally
attractive technology that could be integrated into the overall Manica Province program. It has
the potential to contribute to improved health and quality of life for the participants in the
program in addition to the other improvements in income and welfare that the program seeks to
provide them.
Recommendation: The program should move forward with steps to promote household biogas
digesters to the maximum degree possible within the framework of its overall smallholder dairy
development activities.
2. Many design and feasibility issues need further study. Data collection and consultation with
stakeholders are necessary and could take some time. Cost- benefit and affordability analyses
should be carried using actual prices, incomes, farming and cooking practices, manure
management practices, water availability, etc., that needs to be collected. More credible and
detailed information will contribute to further progress in promoting household scale biogas
digesters in Manica Province. There is a great deal going on currently in Africa around the
promotion of biogas digesters. The Biogas Africa Initiative is one priority contact, as is the
Tanzania Program promoting plastic tubular digesters. Kenya has a number of past or ongoing
programs, at least one of which has been supported by Land O’ Lakes in the past12. Consultation
with all key stakeholders is valuable in gaining better understanding of the best ways to adapt
and promote technology and will gain the engagement and ownership of the stakeholders in a

12
Contacts and information for other programs is provided in appendix E.
9


successful outcome. A critical need is to identify several entrepreneurs with construction and
fabrication skills needed to start businesses installing and maintaining digesters.
Recommendations: a) Make contact with other programs promoting biogas in Africa to

exchange information and obtain technical advice.
b) Consider conducting or supporting a more detailed feasibility assessment including data
collection, consultation with potential partners and stakeholders and technical and financial
analysis.
3. Demonstrations and tests of selected digester designs are needed, can be carried out in
parallel with data collection and analysis, and will generate a great deal of information on
digester performance and operation Based on this initial assessment, fixed dome and plastic
tubular digester designs are recommended because they are well understood and proven in many
countries. However, many design options are available, and it is important for the project to
consult with stakeholders and potential installers of digesters and to work with them in the
design selection and testing. Technical organizations working with both of these designs in
nearby countries can be contacted and information shared with the Manica Province program.
Local entrepreneurs should install the demonstrations, and farmers test them, before fixing on a
single design or choices to be offered to farmers in a any larger scale distribution. A
demonstration and testing phase can:
• prove to local participants that the technology works;
• train entrepreneurs and technical staff who can serve as installers, trainers and technical
assistance providers in the future; and
• determine the needed digester size, number of cows, and digester performance data.
Results of these demonstrations combined with a feasibility assessment of wider deployment

potential, could allow the program to move forward quickly in whatever directions are chosen.
Recommendation: Consider initiating demonstrations of two or more digester types as soon as

possible. These demonstrations would likely cost on average under $1000 each even if technical
experts need to be brought in from other African countries. Demonstrations could be
implemented at or near a training location, such as an MCC, and potentially be integrated with
testing of larger versions of similar designs for MCC scale application. These demonstrations
could provide a foundation for an expanded program, but even if the Manica Province program
determines that support for larger-scale deployment is not possible within the available budget,
they can make a lasting contribution. Other biogas initiatives in Africa likely can build on
demonstrations and training provided by the program.
4. Beyond demonstration, the Manica Province program could consider a pilot phase for
promotion of household biogas digesters in the Chimoio region. The program could provide
funds to cover subsidies for some number of installations coordinated through the cooperatives.
In parallel, the program could contact other programs and donors in nearby African countries to
explore options of partnering with others or handing off implementation of a larger biogas
program.
10


Except for early demonstration units, digesters should not be given away – farmers need to pay
for them to value them. Initially at least, partial subsidies are likely to be needed to make the
digester installation costs affordable, particularly if the fixed dome design is adopted. Once a
more detailed feasibility assessment and demonstrations have developed more credible estimates
of the costs and economic benefits, the program can determine whether and at what level,
subsidies are needed to make digesters affordable for smallholder farmers.
Recommendation: After completion of demonstrations and further feasibility assessment,

consider implementing a second phase to demonstrate the program implementation arrangements
that can promote commercial deployment of biogas digesters in Manica Province. If this is not
possible look for ways to transfer results to other programs with greater resources focused on
promotion of biogas digesters.
11


Biogas Opportunities at Milk Collection Centers
As a key component of the overall Manica Province program, milk collection centers will be
established to accumulate and store milk from individual small farmers until daily pick up by the
dairy buyer. The expected schedule is that milk will be collected in the mid-morning, chilled and
cool-stored until it is picked up around noon. Then the equipment would be shut down and
cleaned and restarted when late afternoon/evening milk deliveries are received. The milk
cooler(s) would have to run all night and through the morning until the pick up at noon.
Initially, 50-60 farmers would receive cows in a radius around the first MCC. As the project
grows, the number of farmers using a single MCC is expected to rise to over 100 farmers. The
number could be higher depending on the number of participating farmers in a reasonable travel
distance from the MCC.
Milk cooler units would be at least 500 liters and could be up to 1500 liters depending on
expected usage. Peak electricity demand could be about 2 kW – 5 kW depending on the size and
usage. The program is interested in testing the feasibility of using small biogas digesters and
generators to provide power for operation of the coolers, lights and possibly other plug loads at
milk collection centers. The sites under consideration for the early MCCs are all connected to
the power grid, but power supply is not reliable, so some backup generator capacity would be
needed with or without biogas, to ensure that large quantities of milk are not lost in the event of a
power outage at a critical time in the daily collection, storage and pick up cycle.
The global experience with household scale digesters is extensive and successful programs have
been implemented in many areas, China, India and Nepal for example. Large scale dairy farm
applications are also being widely implemented in developed countries as they provide
economically attractive investments and have many environmental benefits. There are fewer
examples of the “community scale” digester systems needed for the MCC application –e.g., 10-
60 cows, a 25-75 m3 digester, and possibly a 5 kW generator set. This is larger than household
scale but very small for a commercial electricity generation application. The economic analysis
is somewhat problematic, as power generation at this scale requires relatively expensive capital
and it is not possible to capture the economies of scale present at the dairy farm level.
One of the key design issues for this project is determining the required manure and
corresponding number of cows needed to provide sufficient electricity generation for operation
of the coolers and other electricity needs of the MCC. The planned approach for the smallholder
program is to initially allocate one cow per farmer, after training and verification that the farmer
has prepared the facilities and feed needed. The farmers would then take individual
responsibility for their cows and repay the program by turning over the first female calf from
their cow – to be provided to another farmer who has completed the necessary training and
certification. The farmers will be dispersed around the MCC within a reasonable distance, as
they will milk their cows and immediately deliver the milk twice daily.
Cooperatives will be established for participating smallholders, and will manage the MCCs and
provide other central services (training, testing, veterinary services, insemination, etc.) to
members. Moving large volumes of cow manure to a central point does not seem to be a viable,
12


sustainable option, however. As discussed in appendix C, there are examples of central
collection of manure but this analysis assumes that the cows providing manure input to the MCC
digester(s) will be located at the MCC. To demonstrate the use of biogas to power an MCC in
the Manica Province program, the program will need to locate a number of cows at the MCC
sufficient to provide enough manure to support its power needs - chiller(s) and lights. The
program team would prefer to keep this number to a minimum, as locating cows away from the
smallholders who are responsible for them is somewhat inconsistent with goals of the program.
The desired outcome is establishing individual smallholders as owners and managers of their
individual cows, within the framework of a cooperative collection and marketing group.
Possibilities for centralizing cows need to be carefully evaluated. One possibility is to locate a
small breeding herd at the MCC, managed by the MCC staff. If a sufficient number cannot be
achieved in this way, some of the closest smallholders may need to keep their cows at the MCC
but remain responsible for care, feeding, milking and management of the cows.
At the time of the initial program design visit13on which this report is based, several possible
sites had been identified as candidates for an MCC. One possibility is the Instituto Agrario de
Chimoio (IAC Agricultural Institute of Chimoio). Chimoio is the capital of Manica Province
and its largest city. The smallholder program will be implemented in the countryside around it.
The IAC is on the outskirts of town and does have farmers nearby. The campus is very large
with facilities for training and lodging trainees, and plenty of room for cows and other MCC
facilities. There is room for any sized digester and locating a demonstration here would provide
a facility for training on construction and operation of digesters along with other aspects of the
training program.
Another potential site is a small orphanage, with sufficient land area, close to the dairy farm that
will be picking up milk from the MCCs. There are also at least two small to medium sized farms
outside the city, that could potentially house parts of the breeding herd, and seem to have a
number of willing smallholders around them who could be participants. All of these sites have
enough space to locate MCC equipment, digesters and generators, as well as a small breeding
herd of cows. Some also have facilities for training and demonstration and all have smallholder
farmers in easy walking or bicycling distance. Key decision criteria include likely numbers and
willingness of potential smallholder participants around a particular site. Additionally, all of
these possible sites have potential uses for extra gas or power if the digester system is sized for
growth and in early stages produces more gas than the MCC can use. Another interesting feature
is that the sites also have potential to provide other types of organic materials that could be fed
into the digester – food waste, night soil (if this is acceptable to local culture), etc. – if desired.
Small amounts of such materials, in addition to manure, can significantly increase biogas output
of a digester14.

13
November, 2008
14
House, 2006
13


In order to evaluate potential opportunities and designs for biogas at the milk collection centers,
key initial issues are: 1) power requirements; 2) type and size of digester; and 3) number of cows
to produce the needed amount of manure. The details of technical assumptions and calculations
used to produce these estimate are provided in Appendix C along with a great deal of other
technical information relevant to community scale digester systems. Results of the calculations
are provided below.
Power Requirements: Based on the typical power requirements and expected duty cycles of milk
coolers the power needs for an MCC would range from 14 kWh/day, for a small facility with one
500 liter cooler, up to 40 kWh/day, for a larger center with 1500 liters of cooler capacity. These
power requirements could be met with biogas powered IC engine generator sets using 8.5 to 24
m3 biogas/day.
Digester types: Experience with dairy manure biogas digesters of this size is limited, particularly
in electric power generation applications. Digester designs that have been constructed or
proposed at this scale are either scaled up versions of the household designs or scaled down
versions of the dairy farm designs. This initial assessment indicates that the most appropriate
designs are relatively low cost technologies scaled up from household scale designs widely and
successfully used in developing countries including many in Africa. The fixed dome and plastic
tubular digester designs are proven, reliable and relatively low cost technologies. The fixed
dome design represents the best known and most reliable technology in the developing world
while the plastic tubular is the lower cost approach, but with possible durability and operational
problems that need to be examined in more detail. One or both of these technologies should be
considered for the first phase of the MCC biogas effort.
Some of the proven farm scale digester types could also be scaled down to MCC sizes. Covered
anaerobic lagoons are a potentially interesting, low cost, and low maintenance design, but the
large volume, land area and water requirements are potential problems. This option is worth
further investigation but as a lower priority at the community scale. The water and volume
issues raise questions about the potential for wide replication. The plug flow digester design is a
well understood and effective technology that plays a key role in farm scale systems in
industrialized countries, and may well become important in Africa in the future. It is currently
too costly, risky and unfamiliar to be the preferred technology for MCC or community scale
applications in Africa.
Digester sizes: A fixed dome digester could be developed at a 25 m3 size and should provide at
least 9 m3 biogas/day, more than enough for an MCC with one 500 liter cooler. A 25 m3
digester would require about 225 kg manure /day and about 225 liters of water/day as input. A
larger fixed dome digester of around 75 m3 should produce at least 25 m3/day and be sufficient to
support 1500 liters of cooling capacity and some other electrical loads for the MCC. For a 75 m3
community scale digester, with HRT of 55 days, the manure requirement would be about 675
kg/day with 675 liters of water.
The 8.5 m3 biogas/day required for a small MCC could also be provided by installing two 18 m3
plastic tubular digesters. With a retention time of 55 days, 36 m3 total volume would require
14


about 220kg manure and 440 liters of water/day. It is not clear that scaling this design up to the
large MCC size would make sense. The logical approach for the Manica Province program for
this technology would be to start with the commercially available 18 m3 design and get
information on its performance before making decisions about larger scale applications. If this is
determined to be an attractive technology, additional 18 m3 units could be added incrementally.
One interesting approach would be to install both fixed dome and plastic tubular designs –
possibly both one 18 m3 plastic bag and a fixed dome of 15 m3 to provide the daily biogas
needed (8.5 m3/day) to support a small MCC with 500 liters of milk cooling.
Number of Cows: The estimates of production of biogas per cow feeding a digester system are
quite variable – ranging from 0.5 to 2.8 m3/cow/day. The largest source of variability in this
range is the amount of manure that is available for the digester per cow. Based on experience in
developing countries and conditions expected in the Manica Province program, the range of 12-
25kg manure/cow/day should capture the reasonable expectations for assessment of digester
options for the MCC scale. For fixed dome and plastic tubular digesters this translates to 9-19
cows for a small MCC and 27-56 cows for the larger facility.
As the variability is primarily due to how much manure on average makes it from one cow into
the digester, this uncertainty can be reduced substantially by monitoring actual manure
production. Manure should be collected on site and measured before final decisions are made on
size of digester and number of cows. Rather than rules of thumb, the number of cows needed
can be determined based on actual manure available per cow at a particular site.
Electricity Generation: A 2-5kW internal combustion (IC) engine generator set would be a
reliable and least cost option for generating electricity to power the MCCs. A dual-fuel
biogas/diesel generator set could be specified so that diesel would be available as back up if there
should be a temporary disruption of the biogas supply. A 2-3 kW genset would be capable of
supplying the power needed for the small MCC configuration while a 5 kW size would support a
large MCC. These units are widely available and reliable, and the conversion of a diesel engine
generator to run on biogas is easy and inexpensive.
Economic Costs and Benefits
Costs: Based on experience and feasibility studies from a number of developing country
applications it is estimates that a 25 m3 fixed dome digester producing 8.5 m3 biogas/day would
require an investment of $1875 – 2125, and a large MCC scale digester of 75 m3
producing over 25 m3 biogas/day would require $5625 – 6275. The 8.5 m3 biogas/day required
for a small MCC could be provided by installing two 18 m3 plastic tubular digesters, at a total
cost of $1200-1300.
For power generation, reciprocating engine generator sets for heavy duty use (as opposed to
standby use) are available as small as 1 kW and are estimated to cost $500-1,000/kW15 For
purposes of this assessment $1,000/kW is a reasonable first approximation of cost. So a
generator would cost $2,000-3,000 for a small MCC configuration and $5,000 for the large size.

15
E Source 2007
15


Based on the preliminary assessment, total cost, including digester construction and purchase of
a generator set, for a small MCC would be at minimum $4,000-6,000 to produce 12 kWh/day
and $11,000 – 15,000 for the 40 kWh/day large MCC scale. It should be emphasized that these
are very preliminary numbers as a starting point for considering the overall economics of biogas
power generation for the milk collection centers in the Manica Province program.
Benefits: The small MCC system is sized to produce 12 kWh/day or 4380 kWh/year. Using a
reported national average price of $0.08/kWh this would generate savings of $350.40/year from
electric power not purchased from the grid. The large MCC system would generate savings 40
kWh/day or 14,600kWh/year. At $0.08/kWh this would save $1168 in a year. Capital costs are
$4,000-6,000 to produce 12 kWh/day and 11,000 – 15,000 for the large MCC scale. For this
simple calculation operating costs are not considered although there would certainly be some, but
not significant relative to the capital. The small MCC calculation shows a simple payback of 11.4 –
17.1 years. For the large MCC, it is 9.4 – 12.8 years. This is basically not attractive as an
investment project on strictly financial terms.
The avoided cost of power is, of course, higher if part of the alternative is back up power
generated with diesel fuel. Based on reported national average diesel fuel price of $0.60/liter, the
cost of electricity produced by a diesel generator set is over $0.18kWh. Also, it may not be
appropriate to count the full cost of the generator set as a cost of the biogas project, as a back-up
generator would be required in any case. Effluent from the digester(s) can be used a fertilizer to
improve crop yield or can be sold. These factors along, with more detailed information to
replace assumptions and rules of thumb used here, could improve the cost benefit analysis
significantly. It may ultimately be a financially viable commercial option. This will not be
known until a more detailed feasibility assessment and demonstration(s) are completed.
Certainly the investment in biogas systems for this application could be justified based on the
wide range of non-energy benefits to society and welfare of participants, even if subsidies are
required to make the finances work on an investment basis. If subsidies turn out to be necessary,
and the program grows and needs many MCCs, it may be worthwhile looking into carbon credits
as a source of some additional cash returns.
this section is provided in appendix C.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Preliminary evaluation indicates that biogas electricity generation may not be attractive on
strictly financial investment terms given the scale and the duty cycle needed for MCCs. There
have been few, if any, demonstrations in applications like this, and uncertainty is very large
based on limited information, rules of thumb and assumptions. This leads to two main
conclusions:
16


1. A serious information gathering effort and more detailed feasibility analysis of biogas
opportunities is needed in the next stage of the program. Key information needed includes:
Typical manure produced per cow per day
Amount of water used and organic solids flushed from typical MCC operations
Cost of materials for digester construction
Typical local labor costs for both skilled technicians and unskilled labor
Actual electricity and fuel prices delivered to MCC site
Delivered cost of diesel-biogas dual fuel generator sets in Chimoio
Economic value of fertilizer
In developing and evaluating better information it is important to involve and work with a range
of stakeholders who will be involved in implementation and outcomes of the program. This
includes farmers, dairy experts, local government, contacts in other African biogas programs,
etc. A key group that needs to be engaged is local mechanical and engineering service providers
and entrepreneurs who can deliver equipment, installation, training, and maintenance on a
commercial basis for both the household and MCC scale digesters in future. This group can
provide a great deal of input about what works and doesn’t, what materials and equipment are
available and costs, and how to structure designs and programs for acceptance in the region.
Recommendation: The program should consider supporting further data collection and
assessment, as well as consultation with local stakeholders and other biogas practitioners and
programs in Africa as a basis for detailed design of a project
2) A demonstration of biogas power generation at one or more MCCs would be a critical next
step to further understanding of the technologies and their economics. It is not reasonable to
expect biogas power generation to pay for itself at an MCC at this initial stage. The many
currently unquantifiable benefits still make this application attractive from the perspective of the
overall economy and society. This is not to suggest, however, that economics should be ignored
in a demonstration. In order to develop information and experience that can lead to sustainable
commercial technology for the future, it is important to initially design the system to be as close
as possible to financially viable. Carefully designed, with appropriate technologies, these
systems can be within striking range of that goal. The most likely digester types based on this
preliminary assessment are scaled up versions of the household designs, fixed dome digesters
and plastic tubular digesters. This project may be able to help define biogas designs and system
configurations that maximize net benefits so that the technology becomes closer to financial
viability and lower subsidy requirements over time
Demonstrations will be valuable as a learning and information gathering exercise, and will
provide data that can be helpful for expansion of this program as well as other dairy development
programs. They will also prove to local participants that biogas digesters are feasible and provide
a training facility that can be useful in supporting implementation of further MCC scale efforts as
well as household scale applications.
Recommendation: The program should consider constructing at least one MCC biogas
electricity project as a demonstration, without expectation of recovering investment costs. .
17


Additional conclusions:
3. It is important to plan for phasing in the implementation of a biogas system whether a

demonstration or a commercial project. In this case, a diesel generator will be needed from the
start as back up to grid power, while any of the digesters recommended will take some time after
initial charging before design biogas production is achieved. The diesel generator can be used
as needed for back up, and as biogas becomes available it can be used in the generator and
increased until the full electricity load is met by biogas generation.
4. There is a great deal of overlap between the next steps for household and MCC scale biogas
digester promotion. They are naturally connected because the MCCs could have a key role in
organizing and hosting training, technical assistance, and financing for the household scale
activities. The same digester types appear to be most likely or both scales and this suggests
opportunities for synergies and economies the more the two programs can be integrated at least
in the early stages.

18


Biogas Opportunities for a Mid-Sized Modern Dairy Operation: Evretz Dairy Farm and
Gouda Gold Processing Plant
The Evretz Dairy Farm and Gouda Gold Processing Plant, operated by Brendon and Jenny
Evans, is a small, relatively modern dairy operation with about 150 cows currently, and
ambitious plans for growth and improvement over the next several years. It also includes a
modern cheese processing and yogurt production plant that has capacity to expand many times
beyond what it is now producing. These expansion plans and capacities are critical to the
success of the Land O’ Lakes Smallholder Dairy Development Program in Manica Province.
This farm will serve as the home of a breeding herd being introduced into Manica province, and
also as the buyer for milk produced by small holder dairy cooperatives established by the by the
Land O’ Lakes program. The farm expects to increase its own herd to 500 or more cows over
the next 3 years. Given the expected increase in milk production and purchases from small
holder cooperatives, the cheese and yogurt production will increase dramatically. The owners
are exploring adding new products as well e.g., by adding a long life milk production plant.
Currently the farm is milking 120-130 cows and flushes manure from the milk parlor and
holding area. This flush volume is estimated at 500 liters/day. This flush water goes into an
open culvert and combines with waste water estimated at 2000 liters/day from the cheese and
yogurt processing facility. The combined flush water flows about 150m into an unlined open pit
and is used sometimes for fertilizing nearby pasture. A paved feeding area is also flushed but
the flush water is currently allowed to run off downhill not combined with milking and factory
waste. Flush water from the current feeding area is estimated at 100-500 liters/day. Plans are to
connect this flush water to current milking and processing waste by means of a new open culvert
about 100-130 m.
When not in milking or feeding areas the cows are in open lots. Manure in open lots is collected
and composted for use as fertilizer on the farm pasture areas. Collected manure could be added
to a digester daily. Flush water from a concrete floor feeding area could be directed to digester –
currently 100-500l/day. The farmer estimates that roughly 50% of manure from the lactating
cows is captured in flush water from the milking parlor, holding area and feeding area. The
remainder is collected from fields and open lots. Close to 100% of excreted manure could
potentially be available for use in a biogas digester.
The cheese processing plant includes a boiler that currently uses 60-70 liters/day diesel fuel.
Cost of diesel fuel is estimated at $0.60/liter16. Electricity is provided by the grid with a 60 KVA
diesel generator as a backup, as the grid power is unreliable. Also, two borehole pump wells
are operated by electricity from the grid to provide water for dairy and cheese processing
activities as well as irrigation for some pastures. Average electricity price nationally is reported
as $0.08 per kWh and this value is used for preliminary calculations17.

16
Based on published national estimate Metschies, 2005
17
AFDB, 2007
19


As noted above, the owners are planning to expand the dairy herd and to make significant
improvements in the farm infrastructure over the next few years. The processing plant is
expected to increase production greatly as milk from the farm and from smallholder cooperatives
increases over several years. Another expansion option under consideration is the addition of a
facility for producing and packaging long life milk. The preliminary estimates are that
wastewater from the combined processing facilities could increase by more than a factor of 10 --
to 25,000 liters/day – by the time all of the expansions and improvements are implemented over
3-5 years.
In the dairy operation, two or more concrete feeding areas may be added, all located uphill and
flushed into the open culvert drainage system. The owners are also considering moving to free
stalls instead of open lots at some point, which would result in a greater percentage of manure
being flushed. The owners are also considering installing a system of settling tanks at the
terminus of the culvert system and pumping liquid fertilizer out of the last tank to be sprayed
onto a much larger pasture area than is currently fertilized. The owners are interested in
exploring options to use biogas technology to capture methane from manure to offset energy
costs in the dairy and processing operations. Several options for introducing biogas capture are
possible and may be economically attractive.
Capital constraints are severe due to a poorly developed banking system in Mozambique (as in
many developing countries). This leads to a preference for lower capital cost options, or options
where capital cost can be provided incrementally. Given the innovative nature of the farm scale
biogas and electricity generation technology in Mozambique, and the substantial greenhouse gas
benefits, it would be worth exploring development financing or carbon credits as possible ways
of overcoming early capital costs hurdles.
Digester type: As discussed in Appendix D, the anaerobic lagoon type of digester appears
appropriate for this dairy farm application. The amounts of flush and wastewater produced by
the current and planned operations are well matched with this technology, and it is low cost,
reliable and low maintenance. This design requires a large pond, to handle the large volumes of
slurry. The minimum depth is 2 m, but lagoons typically have a depth of 4-6 m depending upon
ground water levels. Lagoons are usually built with a compacted clay or synthetic (e.g., plastic)
liner to prevent leakage and groundwater contamination. An airtight cover system provides the
required airtight anaerobic conditions and collects biogas as produced by bacteria in the lagoon.
The cover is typically constructed of flexible synthetic materials such as high density
polyethylene (HDPE). The design usually includes a mixing tank and pump to ensure an even
flow of well mixed slurry into the lagoon. Manure slurry is pumped in one end of the pond and
effluent removed at the other while gas is extracted from the top of the flexible cover. The gas
can be used to fuel the existing boiler and to generate electric power.
Effluent can be used as liquid fertilizer while solids can be separated and used or sold for
bedding, compost, etc. Generally a storage lagoon or tank is installed to handle liquid effluent
20


until it is used as fertilizer. Fertilizer application occurs unevenly over time and effluent needs to
be extracted from the lagoon at a roughly constant rate to keep the lagoon operation and
digestion process running smoothly. The settling tanks already being considered could serve this
function.
Digester size: Based on current and projected numbers of cows and dairy product production,
and using available information assumptions and rules of thumb, a series of calculations have
been done to illustrate the range of possible anaerobic lagoon sizes and levels of biogas
production that could be supported at this farm. A number of scenarios were evaluated reflecting
a range in the number of cows, from the current level of about 120 milking cows to the projected
target of 500 within a few years, and variation of 50 – 90 % of manure collected. The results
show that an anaerobic lagoon would require dedication of substantial area for lagoon use. A
small lagoon fed by the current level of 120 cows and capturing 50% of the excreted manure
would require a lagoon volume of 375 m3. At 3 m depth this would be equivalent to
approximately 125 m2 surface area or 10 m by 12.5 m. At the 500 cow size a lagoon could
require volumes of 1900 m3 to 3400 m3, and from 475 m2 of surface area up to 850 m2 (25 m by
35 m) depending on the percentage of manure captured and fed into the lagoon.
The results also show that even with the current scale of dairy operations, enough manure is
being generated to produce 50-85 m3 biogas/day and if the dairy is successful in its plans to
expand to 500 cows, it could produce sizable amounts of biogas, 238 – 425 m3day.
Gas use: The highest priority gas use will clearly be fuel for the boiler currently used
intermittently in the cheese and yogurt processing operation. The current fuel for the boiler is
diesel that is relatively expensive, and the boiler conversion to biogas is simple and inexpensive.
The boiler can be configured to run on either biogas or diesel. Diesel can be used as a backup
fuel if needed. The boiler use will go up as the processing volume increases. Even with
expanded boiler fuel demand, there may to be additional biogas available for other uses. The
next most attractive use would be to generate electricity to replace electricity purchased from the
grid for use on the farm. It may be possible to adapt the existing backup diesel generator to run
on biogas and use this to generate power up to some level. This would be a very low cost option
if it is feasible and the generator can operate enough hours to use the excess biogas. If the
existing generator cannot be adapted for biogas fuel or is not capable of for heavy use required, a
new internal combustion IC engine generator set is the next least cost option. Dual-fuel engine
generators are widely available. It appears that a great deal of electric power from the generator
could be used on site, particularly if the dairy and processing operations expand and the biogas
generated power can be used to operate the borehole pumps as well as the other uses.
Depending on the level of trace gases in the biogas and the specific equipment in which it is
used, the gas may need to be cleaned before use. Several low cost technologies are available and
some information is provided in appendix A.
Digester System Economics
21


Costs: For the biogas digester system estimates are based on reported costs for comparable
systems or components from international experience. Depending on the size of the lagoon in
the different possible scenarios evaluated, the investment cost estimates for the digester range
from $6,000 from a small lagoon that could produce about 50 m3 of biogas/day to $38,250 for a
large lagoon that could handle waste from 500 cows and supply 475 m3 biogas/day.
There is no significant investment cost required for converting the boiler to operate on biogas.
When power generation with biogas is included there are additional investment costs for the
generator set. If the existing backup diesel generator can be retrofit and used for at least the first
few years this would keep the initial costs of the generator set are quite low - less that $2000. If
it is determined that a new dual-fueled, heavy duty IC engine generator set is needed, than this
will raise the initial investment cost substantially, adding $25,000-50,000 to the project costs.
Total costs could range from $6,000 for a small digester where the gas is all used in the boiler
and no significant gas use equipment investments are necessary, up to as high as $88,250 if a
new generator is required and its cost is at the high end of the expected range.
Benefits: Substitution of biogas for currently purchased energy – diesel fuel and electricity – is
the major monetary benefit of a biogas digester system for this facility. First priority is
substitution for diesel fuel to fire the boiler used in the food processing plant. At the current rate
of fuel usage and using a reported national average diesel price of $0.60/liter, backing out all
current diesel use would save $79/day or $14, 235/year, and require roughly 124 m3/day of
biogas.
Table 1: Costs and Benefits of Biogas Options

Cases Cost Benefits Simple payback
$ $ Years
1. 120 cows, 50% manure capture 6,000 5840* 1.03
2. 120 cows, 90% manure capture 9,150 9855* <1
3. a. 500 cows, 50% manure capture, no 24,375 27,235* <1
generator
3.b. 500 cows, 50% manure capture, plus 26,375 19,900 1.2
retrofit of existing generator
3.c. 500 cows, 50% manure capture, plus 49,375- 19,900 2.5 – 3.7
new generator 74,375
4. a. 500 cows, 90% manure capture, plus 40,250 31,667- 1.1
retrofit of existing generator 39,712
4 b. 500 cows, 90% manure capture, plus 63,250- 31,667- 1.6 – 2.4
new generator 88,250 39,712
*no electricity generation, assumes that all biogas produced can be used to back out diesel fuel for the boiler.
Table 1 provides a summary of the information on costs and benefits for each of the scenarios
assessed to reflect the Evertz Farm current and projected future situations. More detail on these
rough calculations is provided in Appendix D. One initial observation is that all of the proposed
22


options appear to be financially attractive, and some could allow recovery of investment costs
through saved energy costs in roughly one year or less. This result holds
across a range of assumptions about size and technology.
Implementation Issues
Financing: As noted in the background section above, capital constraints are severe in the
current situation. Even though financial returns are very high on paper, it may be difficult to
obtain financing for out of pocket investment cost, particularly if the best option includes
purchase of a new IC engine generator set.
If financing proves to be a barrier to more detailed design and implementation of biogas energy
production, initially or later, there are some non-commercial sources that could be explored.
Development financing organizations, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) and development agencies from individual countries
may find this project interesting because of the greenhouse gas (GHG) and economic
development benefits. As the first of a kind demonstration of a key sustainable energy
technology in Mozambique, there is a justification for supporting this project on development
assistance grounds, particularly if it can be shown that this project will contribute to the
improvement of welfare of poor smallholder farmers in the area around the farm. The
UNDP/GEF Small Grants Program has previously provided funding for a dairy farm biogas
project in Zimbabwe18 though the justification for this grant was the demonstration of innovative
technology, a fuel cell powered with biogas, to produce electricity.
Also, the project would have significant and verifiable GHG reductions that could generate
marketable emissions reduction credits that could be certified and sold under the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) or other GHG emissions trading programs. There are at least
six biogas projects have been registered with the CDM and a methodology for calculating the
baseline and measuring reductions has been approved. Most of the projects to date have been
swine farms, but there is great interest in dairy projects as well and a number of project
development firms are actively looking for GHG reduction projects. Annex xx provides
information on the CDM activities in the biogas area.
A quick estimate of the current value of 475 m3, the biogas captured in the largest version of the
project shows that emissions reductions would be 79.26 tonnes CH4/yr or 1,664 tonnes CO2
equivalent/year. The price for which carbon credits are being purchase is currently rather
unstable as carbon markets are still developing. Prices for credits in the European Union reached
levels of over $33.00/tonne in June 2008, while more recently, with the global financial
downturn and lower energy prices, the going rate has been as low as $10.00/tonne. This range
of prices would translate to a value of $16,640 – 54,912 for the credits that could be generated in
a year by Everts Farm with 500 cows. This would be worth looking into as an opportunity to
further increase the financial benefit of the project making it even more profitable. It may be
possible also that carbon market project developers would be able to help with the up-front

18
SGP, 2006
23


investment and technical assistance costs in return for ownership of certified emission reduction
credits to be generated after the project is implemented.
Phasing: Implementation of a biogas digester project at Evertz Farm can be phased in over time
and there are options that would involve fairly low capital investment at the outset if that is
desired. In addition, this could be coordinated with the planned expansion of the dairy farm and
processing plant as these are planned over several years.
1) Certain relatively low cost improvements can begin at any time while better information and
analysis are being obtained. It seems reasonable to start constructing a lagoon and clay liner,
mixing, pumping, piping, separation and equipment for pumping liquid fertilizer to fields. These
seem to be relatively inexpensive and useful improvements independent of biogas production
and will allow for improved utilization of the fertilizer value of the manure.
2) The first major investment cost for the biogas production is the lagoon cover and gas
collection system. Once this investment has been made, some biogas should begin to flow fairly
soon. As soon as biogas is available, the boiler can be modified and gas can begin displacing
diesel fuel with clear financial benefit.
3) Once the biogas production has fully replaced the need for diesel fuel for the boiler, the
electricity generation phase of the project can be considered. If the existing standby generator
can be adapted and used for some significant amount of power generation, then the investment
cost will again be low and the pay very quick through avoided electricity purchases.
4) If it is determined at this point or subsequently that a new generator is needed then this
incremental project can probably be designed so that it pays back investment in a couple of
years.
Each of these phases of investment should pay for itself fairly quickly and each one can be
implemented independently, with no commitment as to when or if the next stage will be
undertaken.
this section is provided in appendix D.
Conclusions and recommendations.
1. This very preliminary assessment indicates that biogas energy at this Evertz Farm would be a
highly attractive investment with some options likely to pay for themselves in one year. The
assessment is by necessity crude and subject to large uncertainties. A biogas digester project is
well worth pursuing further. In addition to the financial returns for the Evertz Farm/Gouda Gold
operation, the recognition as a leader in promoting “green technology” could have value for
marketing, dealing with government, etc. Failure to follow through to implementation of a
biogas to energy project in this situation would be an opportunity lost.
24


Recommendation: The Evertz Farm/Gouda Gold owners should move ahead with next steps
toward development of a biogas digester system if at all possible.
2. Significant effort needs to be directed toward assembling and developing better information
and analysis to support design and implementation of a successful investment project. The needs
include:
• Collection of better data, including
o local fuel prices,
o current on-site energy use -- diesel, power – amounts, prices and total monthly cost
o fertilizer prices, practices
• Measurements such as
o manure/cow/day -- % flushed and otherwise collected
o volume of flush water/day
o volume of food processing waste water flow, % solids
• Analysis
o engineering/technical design advice on specific technologies/systems
o improved calculations and projections of energy, water, manure management and
other data with expansion
o credible feasibility study including technical, engineering and financial IRR
components
Recommendation: a) Evertz Farm/Gouda Gold should consider carrying out data collection and
analysis to respond to the above list. This should move toward completing a feasibility
assessment and design specifications for one or more preferred biogas digester system options.
b) The Manica Province program should consider providing expert technical assistance to the
farm operators (e.g., International experts brought in for training and design of the household and
MCC scale biogas demonstrations, may be able to provide technical assistance to the farm at
very low incremental cost).
3. If financing is a barrier, initially or in later stages, there are some non-commercial sources that
could be explored. Development financing organizations, such as the Global Environment
Facility (GEF), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and development agencies from
individual countries may find this project interesting because of the greenhouse gas (GHG) and
economic development benefits. Also, the project would have significant and verifiable GHG
reductions that could generate marketable emissions reduction credits to be certified and sold
under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or other GHG emissions trading programs.
Recommendation: Explore possibilities of proposals to development assistance organizations

currently active in biogas in Africa, and also make contact with carbon trading project
developers to see if there is interest in a dairy farm biogas project. (Appendix E provides some
information and contacts in this area.)
4. Consider integrating biogas system development into the long term phased strategy for
expansion of the dairy farm and milk product processing. This will allow investments to be
made incrementally and begin to pay for themselves before the next increment of investment is
25


required. This will help to ensure that the biogas production is implemented efficiently and with
maximum return per dollar invested.
26


Overall Conclusions
This report has presented results of a preliminary evaluation of opportunities for biogas digester
systems to provide energy, fertilizer and other benefits within the framework of the Land O’
Lakes Smallholder Dairy Development Program in Manica Province. These results are based
largely on data, rules of thumb and assumptions drawn from published literature on biogas
digesters and adapted to the Manica Province situations. The quantitative results should be
considered indicative, and need to be verified and refined using actual data from the program
locations before major investment decisions are made.
1. At all three scales of projects evaluated, there are positive opportunities for anaerobic
digesters that should be explored in more detail. Household scale biogas digesters are definitely
an attractive technology that could be integrated into the overall Manica Province Program and
add to the income and welfare benefits that the program seeks to achieve for participants. For
the milk collection center (MCC) scale, the Manica Province program could make a major
contribution by carrying out a demonstration(s) of biogas power options at one or more sites.
At the dairy farm scale, there are very financially attractive options for implementing a biogas
digester system at different sizes and with different uses for the gas.
2. Proven, reliable and low cost digester designs have been identified for all three applications,
and these should provide a basis for moving ahead with both further assessment and with design
of demonstration or commercial projects. At the household and the MCC scale, two well tested
household designs - The fixed dome digester and the plastic tubular digester - are obvious
choices. At the dairy farm scale, the recommended design is the covered anaerobic lagoon, the
lowest cost and lowest maintenance option at this scale
3. Better data and analysis is needed to verify and refine the preliminary assessment results
provided in this report. These results of this preliminary assessment clearly suggest that the
modest investment by the program in more detailed assessment using more accurate data and
measurements as input is justified by very large potential benefits.
4. Involvement of stakeholders is important at all levels. A centrally important category of

stakeholders is potential commercial partners who can sell, install and service digesters and
related biogas systems at the household and MCC scales. Firms, shops and entrepreneurs that
have skills in mechanical, small construction, engineering and equipment service areas should be
contacted and those interested engaged in the program design and planning process. Long run
success will depend heavily on the availability of trained and certified commercial vendors,
suppliers and service firms that can make money on successful biogas digesters. These partners
can become the engine for sustainable growth of the market, with initial financial support from
the program and potentially from government or other donors..
5. If successful, the Milk Collection Centers (MCCs) and smallholder dairy cooperatives planned
to support the dairy development operations central to the program can be an enormous resource
for development and improvements in health and welfare in the program region. For biogas
digester deployment, this structure can provide a framework that will help overcome barriers that
27


have been encountered in previous programs, through training, technical support, financing, etc.
This would increase the likelihood of long term success for household and MCC scale biogas
and could strengthen the cooperatives by giving them an additional type of benefit to offer their
participants.
6. At all scales, the recommended biogas digester systems and current conditions will allow for
phasing investments and project implementation over time. This can have several benefits,
allowing for learning from initial stages to inform refinements in design of later stages; reducing
the requirement for up-front investment from the program and participants to more manageable
levels; and allowing some of the benefits of early investments to begin to flow before the next
phase of investment is required.
7. The availability of capital for the initial investments is likely to be a barrier to implementation
and financing assistance may be needed at all levels. Most successful household biogas digester
programs around the world have included capital subsidies, special financing arrangements or
both. Large farm scale dairy farm projects in the US and Europe also frequently receive
financial subsidies of one kind or another as incentives to move ahead with projects. The MCC
scale biogas technology will need full funding for demonstration and this should provide a great
deal of information on costs, benefits and technical design. These projects all provide wider
social and environmental benefits beyond those that accrue directly to the investors.
8. Although it was considered only peripherally in this assessment, the program managers and
partners should explore working with carbon credit project developers. Certifying and selling
emissions reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism or other greenhouse gas trading
programs could increase the profitability of biogas energy investments. It is also possible that
some developers may provide capital and expertise at the outset in return for rights to emissions
reductions to be certified later. This is initially an obvious option for the farm scale system, but
could eventually provide support for MCC and household scale programs as well.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Smallholder Dairy Development Program in Manica Province carry
out and support biogas energy development at all three scales if possible and consider the
following actions as next steps in this process:
1. Contact other manure biogas energy initiatives and projects in Africa. These programs can
provide access to experience technical experts, organizations and equipment providers as well as
lessons learned from past experience. This may also lead to partnerships down the road with
some of the organizations that can support expansion of the biogas elements of the program and
will add to its long term impact on improved health and welfare for participants (see Appendix
E).
2. Support more detailed study and analysis to improve data and technical basis for design and
implementation of biogas energy strategies at all three levels. This should include engagement of
28


local stakeholders. Among the most important stakeholders are engineering, small construction
and mechanical services firms who can become commercial installers and service providers.
3. Support a few demonstrations of small digester designs as quickly as possible. This can be
done in parallel with improving analysis on the long tern directions. It may be possible and
efficient to carry out demonstration of household and MCC scale designs initially at a single
MCC/training location.
4. Encourage and support the Evertz Dairy Farm and Gouda Gold Dairy Processing Plant in
refining the assessment provided in this report and exploring specific biogas investment options.
This could include some assistance and support in identifying sources of development or carbon
financing if necessary.
29


References
African Development Bank (AFDB) Group. 2007. Mozambique Electricity II Project Project
Performance Evaluation Report (PPER) Operations Evaluation Department, 8 February
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/Uploads/afdb/Documents/Evaluation-Reports/12550249-
En-Mozambique-Electricity-II.pdf
An Bui Xuan, Man Ngo Van, Khang Duong Nguyen, Anh Nguyen Duc & Preston, T. R., 1996.
Installation and Performance of low-cost polyethylene tube biodigesters on small scale
farms in Vietnam. Proc. National Seminar-workshop in sustainable Livestock Prod. on
local feed resources. Agric. Pub. House Ho Chi Minh, pp.95-103.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5256t/w5256t06.htm
Bajgain, Sundar. 1994. Nepal Biogas Plant -- Construction Manual for the GGC 2047 Model
Biogas Plant. Biogas Support Programme (BSP), Kahmandu, Nepal, September 1994
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_nepal.html
Bajgan, Sundar. 2006. Implementation Plan - National Domestic Biogas and Manure Programme
in Bangladesh. http://reein.org/biomass/idcol/ndbmpb.htm
BCAS. 2006. Popularization of Biogas Plants: A Prefeasibility Study. Bangladesh Center for
Advanced Studies, Promotion of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse
Gas Abatement (PREGA) project, August 2006. www.adb.org/Clean-‐
Energy/documents/BAN-‐PFS-‐Popularization-‐Biogas.pdf
Biogas for a Better Life. 2007. Biogas for a Better Life: An African Initiative.
http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/Biogas%20for%20Better%20Life%20Brochure.
pdf
Biogas for a Better Life. 2007a. Promoting Biogas Systems in Kenya: A Feasibility Study.
October, 2007. http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/Kenya-Feasibility-Study.pdf
Biogas for a Better Life. 2008. South Africa: Household Biogas Feasibility Study, January 2008
http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/South-Africa-Feasibility-Study.pdf
British Biogen. 1997. Anaerobic Digestion of Farm and Food Processing Residues: Good
Practice Guidelines http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk/gpg/adgpg/adgpgfront.htm
Brown, Valerie J. 2006. Biogas: a Bright Idea for Africa. Environmental Health Perspectives,
Volume 114, Number 5, May 2006.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1459950
Coelho, S. T. S.M Stortini, O. C. Silva, O. S. Martins, V. Pecora, and F.C. Abreu. 2006. Energy
Generation by a Renewable Source – Sewage Biogas. Rio-6 World Climate and Energy
30


Event 17-18 November, 2006, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
http://cenbio.iee.usp.br/download/projetos/14_RIO6_enrg-‐biog.pdf
Davies, R. M. 2007. Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas. Fact Sheet, Nuffield Farming
Scholarship Trust, FACE (Farming and Countryside Education) website:
http://www.face-
online.org.uk/resources/factsheets/discovering/anerobic%20digestion%20and%20biogas.
pdf

Davis, Sharon. 2006. Unconventional Power for an Unconventional Country. Biophile issue 3,
31 October 2006. http://biophile.co.za/energy/unconventional-‐power-‐for-‐an-‐
unconventional-‐country
Devkota, Govinda Prasad. 2003. A Report on Biogas Installation and Training. Presented at a
Workshop organized by the METTA Development Foundation, in Myitkyina, Myanmar,
Oct. 30-Nov. 14. www.palangthai.org/en/bsep/docs/BiogasTrainingOctNov2003.pdf
Energysavingnow.com. 2000. Low Cost Practical Designs of Biogas Technology from India.
http://energy.saving.nu/biomass/biogas.shtml
Esource. 2006. Distributed Generation: Reciprocating Engines, Microturbines, Fuel Cells,

Stirling Engines, and Photovoltaics. Purchasing Advisor. E Source Companies, LLC.
www.esource.com/BEA/demo/PDF/P_PA_44.pdf
FAO. 1997. A system approach to biogas technology. Sustainable Deveopment Department,

Food and Agriculture Organization, June.
http://www.fao.org/sd/Egdirect/Egre0022.htm
Forst, Charlie. 2001. Biogas Digester: Floating Drum. Echo Appropriate Technology Note.
http://www.echotech.org/mambo/images/DocMan/Biogas%20-‐
%20Floating%20Drum.pdf
Forst, Charlie. 2002. Technologies Demonstrated at Echo: Horizontal Biogas Digester. An

Echo Concept Paper.
http://www.wcasfmra.org/biogas_docs/Horizonal%20Biogas%20Digester.pdf
GEF Egypt. 2008. Project Document: Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development. Posted on
the Global Environment Facility Web Site, July 14
http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C28/documents/1335PI
MS2284EgyptBioenergyProjectDocument_Final0205Rev206.pdf
Goldstein, Nora. 2006. Microturbines, Gas Engines Link Biogas to the Grid. BioCycle
September 2006, Vol. 47, No. 9, p. 59
http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001066.html
31


Goodrich, Phillip R. 2005. Anaerobic Digesters Systems for Mid-Sized Dairy Farms. The
Minnesota Project.
http://www.mnproject.org/pdf/agstar%20report%20full%20update.pdf
Green Gadget Inspector. 2008. Biogas Digesters. January 23.

http://gadgetgreeninspector.blogspot.com/2008/01/biogas-‐digesters.html
GTZ, 2007. Feasibility Study for a National Domestic Biogas Programme in Burkina Faso.
Prepared By Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit (Gtz) Gmbh for the
Biogas For A Better Life African Initiative, June.
http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/Biogas-‐Feasibility-‐Study-‐Burkina-‐Faso.pdf
GTZ, undated. Biogas Digest Volume IV Biogas – Country Reports Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), GmbH (German Agency for Technical Cooperation)
and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology (ISAT)
http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-‐biogas-‐volume4.pdf
Ho, Mae-Wan. 2005. Biogas bonanza for third world development. Science in Society 27, 29,
2005. http://www.i-‐sis.org.uk/BiogasBonanza.php
House, H.K. 2006. Biogas Production - Lessons Learned from Europe. Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture & Rural Affairs, 23 October 2006, web site
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/news/vbn1006a1.htm
Li Jingong. 2005. Rural Biogas Development in China. Director, Division of Energy, Ecology
and Environment Center for Science and Technology Development, Ministry of
Agriculture, Beijing.

Kahn, E.U. 2007. Biogas for distributed power generation and safe drinking water with
Stirling engine. Swedish Sustainability Foundation.
http://www.sustainablefuture.se/docs/biogas%20for%20elektricity%20and%20water%20
purification.pdf
Karekezi, Stephen and Waeni Kithyoma. 2003. Renewable Energy in Africa: Prospects and
Limits. The Workshop for African Energy Experts on Operationalizing the NEPAD
Energy Initiative, 2- 4 June, 2003, Dakar, Senegal.
Kangmin, Li and Ho, Mae-Wan. 2006. Biogas China. Institute for Science in Society, London
http://www.i-‐sis.org.uk/BiogasChina.php
Kramer, Joseph M. 2004. Agricultural Biogas Casebook – 2004 Update. Resource Strategies,
Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, September.
http://www.mrec.org/pubs/AgriculturalBiogasCasebook2004Update.pdf
32


Kramer, Joe. 2008. Wisconsin Agricultural Biogas Casebook, July 2008 Edition. Prepared for
Wisconsin Focus on Energy – Renewables Program, by the Energy Center of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI.
http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Renewables/20
08BiogasCaseStudy
Krich, K., D. Augenstein, J.P. Batmale, J. Benemann, B. Rutledge, D. Salour. 2005. Biomethane
from Dairy Waste: A Sourcebook for the Production and Use of Renewable Natural Gas
in California. http://www.suscon.org/cowpower/biomethaneSourcebook/Full_Report.pdf
Last, Steve. 2007. Biogas Methane Explained & Other Articles

http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steve_Last
Martin, John H. 2008. An Evaluation of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon for Flushed Dairy Cattle
Manure Stabilization and Biogas Production. Eastern Research Group, Report to: AgStar
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/flushed_dairy_cattle.pdf
Metschies, Gerhard P. 2005. International Fuel Prices 2005. Supported by GTZ

http://www.international-‐fuel-‐prices.com/downloads/FuelPrices2005.pdf
Munasinghe, S. undated. Using a Biogas Digester. Practical Action Technical Brief

www.scribd.com/doc/8337831/Using-‐A-‐Bogas-‐Digester
Munasinghe, S. 1999. Biogas Technology and Integrated Development [Experiences from Sri
Lanka] www.betuco.be/biogaz/Biogas%20technology%20sri%20lanka.pdf
Nelson, Carl and Lamb, John. 2002, Final Report: Haubenschild Farms Anaerobic Digester
Updated!, The Minnesota Project, St. Paul Minnesota, August. www.mnproject.org
National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). 2008. Covered Anaerobic Ponds
for Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Capture: Piggeries. NIWA Information Series No.
32 2008. Prepared for New Zealand Pork, Wellington, N.Z.
http://www.nzpork.co.nz/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=NEegFPB2nhk%3d&tabid=71&mid=6
74
Practically Green Environmental Services. 2008. What size digester do I need ... the biogas
calculation. Solar House, Magherafelt ,Co. Londonderry, BT45 6HW, Northern Ireland
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/ae198/Digestergoldsizeperformanc.html
RETScreen International. 2008. Combined Heat & Power Project - 50kW Reciprocating engine
- 50 kW - Biogas / Canada. Online Case Study, last modified November 25
http://www.retscreen.net/ang/case_studies_50_kw_biogas_canada.php
33


RETScreen International. 2008. Combined heating & power - Reciprocating engine - 65 kW -
Biogas / Canada. Online Case Study, last modified November 25
http://www.retscreen.net/ang/case_studies_65_kw_biogas_canada.php
Sampat, P. 1995. India's low-tech energy success. World Watch, Nov-Dec 1995 v8 n6
p21(3) Worldwatch Institute
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/SouthAsReadings/IndiaEnergy
Success.html

Schwager, J. 2008. New markets: big rewards or big risks? Developing UK Biogas, Stoneleigh
Park Conference Centre, Coventry, UK, Recycling and Waste World.
Scott, N. R., Zicari,S., Saikkonen, K. and Bothi, K. 2006. Characterization of Dairy-

Derived Biogas and Biogas Processing. Paper Number: 064177, ASABE Annual
International Meeting, Portland, Oregon, July 2006.
www.cowpower.cornell.edu/project_docs/ASABE%20Biogas%20July%202006.doc
SGP, 2001. Biogas Technology in Agricultural Regions, Tanzania. Small Grants Program,
Global Environment Facility, United Nations Development Program,
http://sgp.undp.org/download/SGP_Tanzania2.pdf
SGP, 2006. Generation of electricity from Biogas through the fuel cell technology (ZIM/03/10).
Small Grants Program, Global Environment Facility, United Nations Development
Program,
sgp.undp.org/web/projects/7106/generation_of_electricity_from_biogas_through_the
fuel_cell_technology
Shenzhen Puxin Science& Technology Co. Ltd. 2008. Puxin Biogas Systems. Shenzhen, P.R.
China, undated, downloaded December 2008.
http://www.puxinbiogas.com/en/index.asp?a=41&gclid=CN3Fiaj_oZcCFQVOtAodfX3dJA
Small Farm Permaculture and Sustainable Living.com. 2008. DIY Methane Generator. Undated,
downloaded December 2008 http://www.small-‐farm-‐permaculture-‐and-‐sustainable-‐
living.com/methane_generator.html
TNAU. 2008. Biogas Information Portal. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Department of
Environmental Sciences. Biogas Information Portal, undated, downloaded December
2008 http://www.4rain.com/agrisite/index.php
Thompson, S. 2001. Bovine Biogas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.

website: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/dec01/biogas.html
34


Ukpabi, Chudi. 2008. Biogas for Better Life, an African Initiative.
http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/Biogas-Initiative-Article-CUkpabi.pdf
U.S. Agency for International Development. 2007. Biogas: Retrospect and Prospects: Georgia,
Rural Energy Program. Report Prepared by Winrock International for the U.S. Agency
for International Development, July 2007.
Final Biogas Report 3-‐29-‐
09.dochttp://www.ruralenergyprogram.ge/files/microsoft_word_-‐
_biogas_report__english.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from

Anaerobic Digestion Systems on U.S. Livestock Production Facilities. Natural
Resources Conservation Service. October.
http://www.info.usda.gov/media/pdf/TN_BIME_1_a.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. AgStar Handbook. Second Edition.

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/resources/handbook.html

35


Appendix A: Biogas Digesters – General Technical Background
Biogas Digester Technology19
The basic principles of biogas digester technology are simple and consistent across a range of
scales and applications. A digester consists of one or more airtight reservoirs into which organic
feedstock – dairy manure, human waste, food processing waste, etc. - is introduced either in
batches or continuously. The anaerobic environment (oxygen is excluded) causes different bio-
chemical reactions to occur than would happen in open air. Anaerobic digestion is a process that
occurs naturally in cows’ stomachs and anaerobic bacteria already present in the manure ferment
the waste, producing heat and gas. Digestion is accomplished in two general stages. First,
acidogenic bacteria turn biomass into volatile fatty acids and acetic acid. Then methanogenic
bacteria metabolize these compounds into a combination of methane-rich gas and odorless
phosphorus- and nitrogen-laden slurry, which makes excellent fertilizer. The end product is
about 50–80% methane and 20–40% CO2, with small amounts of hydrogen sulfide and other
impurities. Small-scale digesters for household use are commonly made of concrete, bricks,
metal, fiberglass, or plastic. Larger commercial biogas digesters are made mainly of bricks,
mortar, and steel.
Biogas burns like liquefied petroleum gas and has an energy value of approximately 600 to 800
BTU per cubic foot (17.7-23.6 kJ/m3).20 It can be used to produce heat through direct, external
combustion, a household stove for cooking, a light fixture with a gauze mantle for lighting, or to
other appliances connected with simple natural gas plumbing, or it can heat a boiler or other
larger and more technologically advanced combustion equipment. The gas can run also internal
combustion engines, gas turbines and other technologies that power generators to produce
electricity.
A typical biogas system consists of the five basic components: 1) manure collection, 2) the
anaerobic digester vessel, 3) effluent storage, 4) gas handling, and 5) gas use.
Manure collection Livestock facilities use manure management systems to collect and store
manure because of sanitary, environmental, and farm operational considerations. Manure is
collected and stored as liquids, slurries, semi-solids, or solids. Small farmers in developing
countries may collect manure for use as fuel or to be spread on fields. For household scale
digesters manure is collected manually and shoveled into the digester at least daily.
In large dairy farms manure is collected through flush, scrape, and vacuum systems. A water
flushing system will generally reduce the concentration of manure from 12 percent solids, “as
excreted,” to less than one percent solids in the flush water. Flush systems are more economical
and less labor-intensive than scrape or vacuum systems. Scrape systems simply collect the

19
Adapted from Brown,2006; Biogas for a Better Life, 2007; TNAU 2008; US EPA, undated.
20
U.S. EPA, undated.
36


manure by scraping it to a sump. Under normal weather conditions the scraped manure has
approximately the same consistency as the “as excreted” manure. During the warm dry summer
(often the case in Manica Province) manure may lose water on the slab. Vacuum systems collect
“as excreted” manure with a vacuum truck and haul it to a digester or disposal site rather than to
an intermediate sump. Vacuum collection is a slow and tedious process. The collected manure is
undiluted and approximately equal to the “as excreted” concentration.
Pre-processing: For many digester types manure must be mixed before entering the digester. If
thick slurries are processed in an anaerobic digester, intense mixing is required to maintain the
solids in suspension. In large scale systems this is done with mechanical mixers and pumps. In
the household systems this is done by hand with a shovel. Sometimes in large systems some of
the solids are removed through screens or gravity separation prior to entering the digester. The
purpose is to remove sand, straw or other extraneous materials that might clog the digester
process. However, removal of solids also results in the removal of some of the organic material
through screening and sedimentation and will reduce the quantity of organic solids that can be
converted to gas in the digester. The preferred approach is to manage the dairy, bedding and
manure collection systems to minimize contaminants.
In large farms, toxic materials such as fungicides and antibacterial agents can have an adverse
effect on anaerobic digestion. The anaerobic process can handle small quantities of toxic
materials without difficulty but amounts should be kept as small as possible. Storage containers
for fungicides and antibacterial agents should be placed at locations that cannot leak into the
anaerobic digester.
Anaerobic digester The digester is the component of the manure management system that
optimizes naturally occurring anaerobic bacteria to decompose and treat the manure while
producing biogas. Digesters are covered with an air-tight impermeable cover to trap the biogas
for on-farm energy use. Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) is the average number of days a
volume of manure remains in the digester, that is the volume of the digester/the daily input.
Depending on temperature, moisture content and the type of digester, HRT can be 6 days up to
60 days to fully process manure.21 (Simpler digesters may take longerand can be up to 70-90
days in cooler climates.22) Methane producing bacteria require a neutral to slightly alkaline
environment (pH 6.8 to 8.5) in order to produce methane.
Specific technical design options for digesters are different depending on the scale. These are
discussed in detail in the appendices that deal with the 3 scales relevant to this program.
Effluent storage The products of the anaerobic digestion of manure in digesters are biogas and
effluent. The effluent is a stabilized organic solution that has value as a fertilizer and other
potential uses. Waste storage facilities are required to store treated effluent because the nutrients
in the effluent generally cannot be applied to land and crops evenly year round. The size of the
storage facility and storage period must be adequate to meet farm requirements during the non-

21
Brown, 2006.
22
Devkota, 2003
37


growing season. Facilities with longer storage periods allow flexibility in managing the waste to
accommodate weather changes, equipment availability and breakdown, and overall operation
management.
The digested slurry, or effluent, is automatically discharged from the outlet, is an excellent bio-
fertilizer, rich in humus. The anaerobic fermentation increases the ammonia content by 120%
and quick acting phosphorous by 150%. Similarly the percentage of potash and several micro-
nutrients useful to the healthy growth of the crops also increase. The nitrogen is transformed into
ammonia that is easier for plant to absorb. This digested slurry can either be taken directly to the
farmer’s field along with irrigation water or stored in a slurry pits (attached to the digester) for
drying or directed to a compost pit for making compost along with other waste biomass. The
slurry and also the sludge contain a higher percentage of nitrogen and phosphorous than the same
quantity of raw organic material fed into the digester.23
Sometimes the final products are separated into a liquid stream and a solid stream. The liquid
stream will contain inorganic nitrogen as ammonia and a small amount of phosphorus. The solid
stream will contain organic nitrogen and a vast majority of the phosphorus. Both the solid and
liquid streams will be fully stabilized and odorless. Large dairy farms in the industrialized
countries often sell the solids or compost them for bedding.
Gas handling A gas handling system removes biogas from the digester and transports it to the
end-use, such as an engine or boiler. The gas system can include the digester cover, pressure
and vacuum relief devices, water trap, flame trap, pressure regulator, gas meter, check valve,
pressure gauges, piping, gas pump or blower; condensate drain(s), waste gas burner and a gas
holder,. Biogas produced in the digester is trapped under an airtight cover placed over the
digester. The biogas is removed by pulling a slight vacuum on the collection pipe (e.g., by
connecting a gas pump/blower to the end of the pipe), which draws the collected gas from under
the cover. A gas meter may be used to monitor the gas flow rate. The biogas coming from the
digester is saturated with water vapor. This water vapor will condense at the walls of the
pipeline. If this condensed water is not removed regularly, it will ultimately clog the pipeline.
Hence, a condensate drain has to be placed in the pipeline. The position of the water drain should
be vertically below the lowest point of the pipeline so that water will flow by gravity to the trap.
Water can be removed by opening the drain. As this has to be done periodically, the drain must
be well accessible and protected in a well, maintained drain pit. Flame traps are emergency
devices installed in gas lines to prevent flames travelling back up the gas line (flashback) and
reaching the digester. The flame trap generally consists of a box filled with stone or a metal grid.
If a flame develops in the gas line, the temperature of the flame is reduced below the ignition
point as it passes through the trap and the flame is extinguished.24
A mixture of biogas and air can be explosive. Methane gas in concentrations of between 5% and
15% in air by volume is explosive. Operating staff on waste treatment plants should ensure that
no air is allowed to enter the digester or gasholder. All piping and equipment must be sealed

23
Energysaving.com
24
Russell, 2008
38


properly to prevent gas from escaping to the outside. There must be no smoking and all electrical
installations, including light switches, torches etc must be of the explosion-proof type, as the
smallest spark could ignite escaped gases.25
Biogas Clean-up: All biogas produced in a digester contains methane, carbon dioxide and small
amounts of trace gases. These trace gases can include hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), non-
methane volatile organic carbons (NMVOC), nitrogen and halocarbons. The presence of non-
burnable substances in the biogas, like water and carbon dioxide, reduces the conversion
efficiency. The major concern, however, is hydrogen sulfide that can be 0.3 to 2% of biogas.
When burned, hydrogen sulfide combines with oxygen to produce sulfur dioxide, which reacts
with moisture to produce sulfuric acid. This not only has a corrosive effect on equipment, but
contributes to the acid rain problem as well. Using the biogas in technologies like IC engines
for conversion of biogas to energy may require either a method to remove toxic and corrosive
contaminants, or special procedures to accommodate the deleterious effects of contaminants in
the biogas stream. One common on-farm approach is changing oil (in IC engines) frquently
(numerous operators change oil weekly). This practice can prevent equipment damage without
removing the trace H2S.
To successfully burn biogas that has not had the H2S removed, a boiler should be operated
continuously. When biogas containing H2S is burned, the H2S is converted into oxides of sulfur
(S) (primarily sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3)). These sulfur compounds are
regulated as air pollutants in the United States, and air emission permits are required depending
on the amount released by a facility. When exhaust gases containing SO2 and SO3 cool below
the dew point temperature, the moisture that condenses in the gas stream will combine with these
compounds to form highly corrosive sulfuric acid (H2SO4). It is the formation of H2SO4
following the combustion of biogas that contains H2S that results in severe equipment corrosion.
A method commonly employed when operating boilers on biogas containing H2S is to operate
the boiler continuously at a temperature above dew point. By maintaining the boiler temperature
above the dew point of the gas steam, H2SO4 is not formed inside the boiler and corrosion is
avoided. Since SO2 will reduce the dew point of the gas stream, the greater the H2S level of a
biogas, the higher the boiler temperature that must be maintained to avoid H2SO4 formation.
Biogas with a 1,000 parts per million H2S concentration will require exhaust gas stream
temperatures of around 150 degrees Celsius (302 ºF) to remain above dew point. Of course,
wherever the exhaust gas stream cools to dew point outside of the boiler, H2SO4 will be formed.
Thus, it is very important to direct exhaust gases away from any equipment, personnel, or
livestock. Since H2SO4 will form when the boiler is shut down, cautionary measures must be
taken to avoid any cycling of the boiler on and off when burning H2S-laden biogas to avoid
corrosion.26

25
Russell, 2008
26
USDA, 2007
39


There are many types of devices to “scrub” the biogas of corrosive compounds contained in the
biogas (e.g., hydrogen sulfide). These scrubbers range from very simple and low cost to more
sophisticated devices. A biogas scrubber can be as simple as that shown in figure 1, a simple
low cost device designed for use with household scale digesters.27 Most digesters at this scale do
not include gas cleaning and the biogas stoves and lighting technologies in rural households are
generally able to function well despite H2S problems. Some designers, however, recommend
use of simple scrubbers like this one.
This device consists of a 20-gallon (80 liter) drum filled with about 15 gallons (60 liters) of
water. Biogas from the digester is piped into a low connection on the drum. It bubbles up
through the water to reduce the CO2 and SO2 content of the biogas. The gas is then piped off at
a top connection to a storage container.
Another simple technique used in Europe is to add a small amount of oxygen in the head space
of the digester to combine with the hydrogen sulphide to produce a precipitate, thus removing
most of the hydrogen sulphide. The biogas is then transferred to the engines underground, so
most of the moisture would condense out of the gas.28 A similar gas cleaning approach in the
North America is limited to removal of H2S by introduction of air into the gas line with a simple
condensation removal system.29

Figure1: A Simple Biogas Scrubber

Source: Forst, 2002
Many biogas producers use “Iron Sponge” (iron impregnated wood chips) as a filter to remove
contaminants (principally hydrogen sulfide, H2S) from biogas before introduction of into the
energy converter. One higher technology biogas purification system removes sulfuric
components and humidity from biogas in three steps. In the first step most of the biogas humidity

27
Forst, 2002
28
House, 2006
29
RETScreen,
40


is removed, by a recipient where the water is condensed. In the second step, biogas is directed to
purification system, composed of two molecular screens, removing the remainder humidity and
the sulfíde components (H2S). In the third step, biogas passes through an amount of iron chip,
removing remaining H2S.30
There are numerous chemical, physical and biological methods utilized for removal of H2S from
a gas stream and new approaches are being developed currently. Recent research31 has indicated
that cow-manure compost mixed with wood chips can be used for removal of H2S from biogas in
small-scale reactors. Testing has also been carried out that suggests that addition of food wastes
to the anaerobic digestion of manure can lead to lower concentrations of H2S in the biogas.
There is some disagreement among experts over how likely it is that boilers and IC engine
generators can operate on biogas without cleaning. According to one authoritative source: “In
general, it would be unwise to burn ‘as produced’ gas in expensive equipment unless it is
engineered to be capable of handling the trace H2S.” 32 According to the EPA AgStar
Handbook, however, “Gas treatment is not usually necessary if proper maintenance procedures
are followed.”33 The best advice may be, according to one good practice manual “The best
advice is to choose the appropriate equipment, consult the manufacturer as to the best methods
for specific plant requirements, and ensure that anyone using it is fully trained to operate it
efficiently.”34
Gas storage: In many cases, the biogas produced in a digester is stored in the headspace of the
digester vessel, often under a flexible cover. Biogas can also be stored separately for on-farm
uses in some cases. In practice most biogas is used as it is produced and the need for biogas
storage is usually of a short term or temporary nature, e.g., at times when production exceeds
consumption or during maintenance of digester equipment. Several simple and inexpensive low
pressure storage options are available and can be added to the biogas system if needed. These
included flexible gas bags made of material similar to digester covers, floating roof storage tanks
and water sealed gas holders.35
Gas use. Recovered biogas can be utilized in a variety of ways. Gas of this quality can be used to
generate electricity; it may be used as fuel for a boiler, space heater, or refrigeration equipment;
or it may be directly combusted as a cooking and lighting fuel. Since the composition of this gas
is different, the burners designed for coal gas, butane or LPG when used, as ‘biogas burner’ will
give lower efficiency. Therefore specially designed biogas burners are used which give a thermal
efficiency of 55-65%36. Biogas is a very stable gas, which is non-toxic, colorless, tasteless and
odorless. However, as biogas has a small percentage of hydrogen sulfide, the mixture may smell

30
Coelho, et al., 2006
31
Scott, 2006
32
British Biogen, 1997.
33
USEPA AgStar Handbook
34
British Biogen, 1997.
35
Krich, et al., 2005
36
USEPA AgStar Handbook
41


very slightly of rotten eggs, which is not often noticeable especially when being burned. When
the mixture of methane and air (oxygen) burn a blue flame is emitted, producing large amount of
heat energy. Because of the mixture of carbon dioxide in large quantity the biogas becomes a
safe fuel in rural homes as this will prevent explosion.
Boilers: Diesel fired boilers can be adjusted to operate on biogas relatively easily and also can be
set up to operate on either fuel. This will allow diesel to be used as a back-up fuel in the event
there is a disruption of the biogas supply. Boilers normally require very little biogas cleaning
and conditioning prior to use, and boiler efficiency has been reported to average 75 percent when
burning biogas. Boilers will operate on very low gas pressures in the range of 5 to 10 inches of
water.37 While burning biogas with large amounts of H2S will decrease the useful life and
increase the maintenance of the equipment, it is still commonly done. The lower the
concentration of H2S in the biogas, the longer the boiler life. One recommendation for
operating a boiler with high levels of H2S is to operate the boiler continuously as the H2S
converts to sulfuric acid and causes corrosion when the temperature drops below the dew point.
IC Engine or Gas Turbine generators: Both IC engines and gas turbine driven generators sets are
being used to generate electricity from biogas. IC Engine. Natural gas or propane engines are
easily converted to burn biogas by modifying carburetion and ignition systems, essentially to
handle larger volumes of fuel due to the CO2 in biogas. Engines may also be modified to accept
higher levels of contaminants in the incoming air stream (versus the consistency of natural gas).
A biogas fueled engine generator will normally convert 18 - 25 percent of the biogas BTUs to
electricity, depending on engine design and load factor. Gas treatment is not necessary if proper
maintenance procedures are followed. Biogas engines less than 200 horsepower (150 kW)
generally meet stringent air pollution limits without modification if run with a lean fuel mixture.
Gas Turbines. Small gas turbines that are specifically designed to use biogas are also available.
An advantage to this technology is lower NOx emissions and lower maintenance costs, however
turbines cost substantially more per kW than IC engines.38
These components of a biomass system are included in some form in biogas digester systems at
all scales. However the detailed designs of the digester and other components vary depending on
the size of the system, the applications for the gas, location and other factors. The report will
describe each of the three scales that can potentially apply in the program and the technology
available for each. For each scale the report will briefly discuss relevant experience in other
countries, assess in rough terms the costs and benefits, and present options and recommendations
for each potential application

Digester Sizing and Performance
Usually in dairy biogas design situations one knows roughly the number of head of dairy cattle
that will be producing manure. Determining the size of digester needed and the expected biogas
production, will require an understanding of the likely biogas production per cow. This value is
a result of several intermediate steps. First, there is considerable uncertainty about the manure

37
USDA, 2007.
38
Goldstein, 2006
42


produced per cow per day. As shown in table 1, estimates range from 25 to nearly 80 kg manure
per cow. This range is affected by breed and condition of dairy cattle, amount and types of feed,
water availability, climate, etc.
Second, the calculations that follow assume that close to 100% of manure excreted is captured
and delivered to the digester. If this is not the case rules of thumb will need to be adjusted to
account for the percentage of total manure captured.
Finally, there is some variation in the rate of production of biogas per unit of manure. This is a
measure of efficiency of the digester, dependent on digester design, maintenance, quality of
manure and other materials in feedstock, local temperature and other conditions, etc. Most
“rule of thumb” calculations use a figure of 25 m3 biogas/tonne of manure.
All of these uncertainties combine to give a range of 0.625 to 2.8 kg per cow. The upper end of
this range appears to be representative of recent, well designed and maintained projects at large
dairy farms. Table 2 provides measured results from several existing dairy manure projects in
North America. Some experts suggest that a major factor contributing to these relatively high
numbers/head may be due to larger than expected production of manure from cows in
intensively managed dairy farms39.
Table 1: Literature estimates of Biogas Production per Dairy Cow

Excretal Number of cows Biogas per Biogas per
output to proeduce 1 tonne manure head
tonne
Units kg/hd/d Head m3/tonne m3/hd/dy
DEFRA 200540 53 19 25 1.2-1.4
Practically Green, 200741 25-50 20-40 25 0.635-1.25
Schanbacher, 200742 45.4-79.45 13-22 23.4-27.9 1.3- 2.7

The literature on small scale household digesters, offers a range of estimates of manure and
biogas production per cow. Most of these estimates are toward the lower end of the overall
range as might be expected given issues of lower quality and amounts of feed, incomplete
collection of manure and less than optimal digester performance in small scale digesters typical
of developing country situations.
Experts suggest that energy for cooking and some lighting for a typical rural family in a
developing country would require a minimum of 1 m3 biogas/day. There are some technical

39
Nelson and Lamb, 2002,
40
DEFRA, 2005
41
Practically green, 2008
42
Schanbacher, 2007
43


sources43 that suggest that a single cow might provide sufficient manure and urine to produce 1
m3 biogas/day. Several sources 44 suggest that 2 cows are a minimum while others45 argue that
4 or more cows are necessary to ensure support for a family’s biogas needs. The higher
numbers of cows needed for a household digester assume use of the widely practiced livestock
management system, where cattle feed widely in communal areas during the day and are only
penned (corralled) at night so that only a fraction of the total manure is collected.
Medium or community scale digester systems tend to be very similar to household systems. They
will then have more or less the same performance characteristics (manure input, gas yield and
fertilizer production per m3 of digester content) as the smaller systems46.
Table 2: Dairy Manure Digester performance examples47

Project # of Biogas m3/cow Methane Elect Gen kWh/cow/ Digester type/size
Cows m3/day /day Content kW-‐ year
% kWh/yr
Cobden, 140 400 2.8 55 complete mix
Ontario, mesophilic
Canada
Castellani, <1,500 3,300 2.2 70 c Unheated covered
California anaerobic lagoon
Haubenschild 840 2400 2.9 135- 1304 combined phase,
Farms (dairy) 1,095,000 mesophilic, plug-flow,
flexible cover
Gordondale 875 135-‐ 1208 two phase, mesophilic,
Farms (dairy) 876,000 mixed plug-flow loop,
fixed cover/ 350,000 gl
(1325 m3)
New 1,400 3220 2.3 260- 1,071 combined phase ,
Horizons 1,500,000 mesophilic, plug-flow
(x2) flexible cover
Tinedale 2,400 5600 2.3 375 combined phase
Farms (dairy) mesophilic complete-
mix (converted TPAD)
b
fixed cover
b. Temperature-phased anaerobic digester
c. avg 2130 m3 biogas/day used to generate avg. 4172 kWh/day – 0.51 m3/kWh or 1m3 yields 1.96 kWh
Obviously these rules of thumb are useful for rough estimates only. Before development of any
project generating methane from manure, the developers need to collect dung or monitor
quantities for at least several days to determine average daily dung production. On this basis, the
appropriate size biogas digester plant can be calculated.

43
Last, 2007, Brown, 2006,
44
Forst, 2002, Biogas for a Better Life. 2007
45
Biogas for a Better Life, 2008
46
GEF Egypt 2008
47
Cobden data from RETScreen, 2008, Castellani Brothers data from Martin 2008, all others from Kramer, 2004.
44


Once daily input of manure is estimated then there are recommended approaches for developing
a first estimate of the size of the digester - organic loading rate and hydraulic retention time
(HRT).of sizing a digester design. For large scale dairy farm digesters, there are two approaches
commonly used.48
1) Loading Rate method uses a 'rule of thumb' that 6kg dry matter/day requires 1 cubic meter of
digester. For dairy manure, as excreted, 12 % of the total weight is solids. Therefore for high
solids digesters the amount of manure is multiplied by 0.12 to give the number of m3 of digester
capacity needed. This method is appropriate for high solids digesters only.
2) Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) method is a very simple calculation that applies to most
large scale digesters. This method requires an estimate of the volume of the daily input in m3
and an estimate of the HRT which for dairy cattle is mainly a function of the type of digester and
in some cases the local climate.
Note a tonne (1000kg) of water has a volume of 1 cubic meter (1000Litres) by definition. For
most approximations, liquid food and farm wastes have a density close to that of water.
To estimate the range of possible sizes for most high solids digesters, use a retention time
(average residence time in the digester ) of 15 days with a limit of +/- 7 days for a wide range of
materials. For low density digesters, e.g., anaerobic lagoons, the retention times are longer in the
range of 40 days.
For example, a high solids digester handling 10 tonnes of manure would convert to 10 m3/day
multiplied by 15 days would require a 150 m3 digester. A lagoon handling the same volume of
manure would have input of 40 m3/day - 10 m3 manure/day multiplied by 4 to reflect dilution by
flush water to 3% solids or less. The retention time would be 40 days so volume required is
40m3/day x 40days HRT = 1600 m3 lagoon volume.
For household scale digesters, sizing is specific to the particular design with some designs
calling for digesters as small as 3 m3 to supply biogas for a household up to some suggesting that
8 m3 is the minimum size for a household digester. Required size for household and community
scale digesters are determined by input volume and HRT and specific design. This will be
explained in more detail in later sections for specific designs.
Economics of digester projects
Biogas digester projects as all scales are evaluated first in terms of financial viability. This is a
function of monetary costs and benefits. The costs are mainly capital costs of the digester and
any other equipment needed for the system including gas using technology like cookstoves and
boilers, electric power generators, manure and gas handling and storage equipment, piping, clean
up and safety equipment. Operating costs are also considered, though in most cases they are

48
This discussion is adapted from Practically Green. 2008
45


low, as the basic feedstock is essentially free. There are maintenance and operation costs,
however, at all levels.
Energy benefits: Monetary benefits are primarily the value of the energy produced using the
biogas, whether that is direct combustion, offsetting another fuel like wood, diesel, kerosene,
etc., or the generation of electricity that offsets purchases from the grid, and sometimes actually
is sold to the grid when not needed on the farm.
Fertilizer Benefits: The second category of monetary benefits comes from the sale of, or avoided
purchase of, fertilizer, compost, bedding and other products that are derived from the effluent or
digested manure coming out of the digester. In the process of anaerobic digestion, the organic
nitrogen in the manure is largely converted to ammonium. Ammonium is the primary constituent
of commercial fertilizer, which is readily available and utilized by plants.49
Manure is already widely spread on fields as a soil amendment. Anaerobic digestion can
increase the value of manure as a fertilizer. Carbon or “organic” compounds are undesirable
bulk when manure is used as fertilizer. The high proportion of organic substances in cow
manure ordinarily inhibit the action of beneficial microbes. Anaerobic digestion turns 70 to 90
percent of the carbon present in manure into methane and carbon dioxide, reducing what is called
‘organic loading’ and allowing the beneficial microbes to work. The digestion process converts
organic nitrogen into an inorganic form (ammonia or nitrate nitrogen) that can be taken up more
quickly by plants. These nitrogen compounds are far less obnoxious and far more useful as
fertilizers. Timing of the plant uptake of ammonia and nitrate nitrogen, similar to that of
commercial fertilizers, is more predictable than the plant uptake of organic nitrogen from raw
manure. Nearly odorless, these compounds are much more readily utilized by plants, and, if
applied properly, much less likely to run off and contaminate ponds, lakes and waterways. In
rural developing countries, the by-product slurry has twice the nitrogen content of composted
dung because open-air composting allows much of the nitrogen to escape in the form of volatile
compounds.
The remaining bulky organic substances can be separated out, greatly reducing storage needs.
With the addition of a solids separation system, the final products are a solid, fibrous material
and a liquid with the consistency of milk—both nearly odorless. The fiber can be used as animal
bedding, a soil amendment or as a high-quality potting soil. The liquid can be stored and applied
to fields as high-quality fertilizer. After solids separation, the effluent can still be spread on the
fields, retaining about 75 percent of the total nutrients of the original manure. Weed seeds in
manure subjected to anaerobic digestion can exhibit reduced germination and viability compared
to weed seeds contained in untreated manure.50 Unlike decomposing dung, digester effluent is
odorless and does not attract flies or mosquitoes. Farmers in India have reported that it actually
repels termites, and inhibits weed growth.51 However, nitrogen in ammonia form can easily be

49
TNAU, 2008
50
TNAU, 2008
51
Sampat, 1995
46


lost to the air (called volatilization), where it is a pollutant (see below). Therefore, care must be
taken to handle the digested manure to minimize nutrient leaching and volatilization.52
In many cases digester effluent used as fertilizer can replace otherwise purchase commercial
products, or be sold to other users, creating a readily determined market value that can be
included in the economic benefit analysis. In others, it is used to replace fertilization with raw
manure or to expand the use of fertilizer on existing farms, and the benefit would be increased
productivity from the fertilized areas. This is harder to quantify and value. Likewise with solids
separation, if fiber products are sold a market value can be included, but often they are used on
farm and economic value of hard to determine.
These costs and benefits are really quantifiable only in the context of the scale and type of
digester, the conditions around the farm or other location of the digester and the normal practices
in the base case situation. These costs and benefits are examined in more detail below in the
discussion of options at each of the three scales of interest in the Manica Province program –
household scale, milk collection center or community scale, and modern dairy farm scale.

Non-Monetized Benefits of Biogas Recovery and Use
As illustrated in the previous section, accounting of financial benefits for biogas projects is
usually limited to the energy value of the biogas and the value of digested effluent as fertilizer or
other products, but there are many other benefits that are not captured in this analysis. Properly
designed and used, a biogas digester can mitigates a wide spectrum of social and environmental
problems: it can improve the quality of life for rural households, it can mitigate respiratory health
problems associated with wood, charcoal and dung fueled cookstoves; it improves sanitation; it
reduces greenhouse gas emissions; it reduces demand for wood and charcoal for cooking, and
therefore helps preserve forested areas and natural vegetation;
Social and Gender Benefits: The switch to biogas fuel for cooking and lighting can have a
profound effect on the quality of life and opportunities for rural families especially for women.
Just gathering the fuel takes several hours a day -- work that, in sub-Saharan Africa, is done
almost entirely by women and children. Women also do most of the housework that can be
significantly reduced by a switch from dung or fuelwood to biogas. In Sri Lanka, it has been
reported that women and children, freed from firewood collection and from cleaning smoke-
blackened utensils and the disposal of animal waste, gain some two hours a day for other
activities. About 80% now use this time to earn extra income that currently accounts for
approximately 24% of the family's monthly income.53 In Tanzania a government program
distributed and installed 46 plastic digesters in several villages. After the digesters had been
running for five months, respondents said they were doing an average of five fewer hours of
housework (including fuel collection) per day. In rural areas where there is otherwise no

52
Nelson and Lamb, 2002
53
Ho, 2005
47


electricity supply, biogas has enabled women to engage in evening study, literacy classes and
other home and community activities.54
Respiratory Health Benefits: For the rural poor in the developing world, biogas’s greatest benefit
may be that it can help alleviate a very serious health problem: poor indoor air quality. Some 2
billion people around the world, including 89% of the sub-Saharan African population, use
biomass for cooking and heating.55 Where combustible biomass is the chief energy source, life
often revolves around an indoor cookstove or open fire that likely has no vent to the outdoors.
Figure xx illustrates the relative levels of emissions of two of the most serious indoor pollution
health risks from the possible fuels that can be used for cooking and lighting in rural areas.
Women do most of the cooking and they and their children are exposed to cookstove smoke far
more than men. Their respiratory health suffers accordingly.
In 2000, burning solid fuels caused 1–2 million deaths, comprising 3–4% of total global
mortality.56 In 2002 the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that indoor air pollution
much of it stemming from biomass burning may increase the risk of acute lower respiratory
infections in children, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults, tuberculosis, low birth
weight, asthma, ear infections, and even cataracts.57 The Global Health Council, an international
group of health care professionals and organizations based in Washington, DC, reported that of
all infectious diseases worldwide, those in the lower respiratory tract are the leading cause of
death.58 Switching to biogas has resulted in a smoke-free and ash-free kitchen, so women
and their children are no longer exposed to the risks of respiratory infections and other
effects of indoor pollution, and can look forward to longer, healthier lives

54
Brown, 2006
55
Flavin and Auek, 2005
56
Martinot, 2005
57
Who, 2002
58
Brown, 2006
48


Figure xx: Local pollutant emissions along the energy ladder
(source: Biogas for a Better Life, 2008)

Sanitation and disease: With the switch to biogas in smallholder farms, cattle dung is no
longer stored in the home or the farm yard, but is fed directly to the biogas digester, with a
significant improvement in sanitation. The anaerobic digestion process also destroys
pathogens reducing the likelihood of disease. According to the Global Health Council, almost
40% of deaths in Africa are due to diarrheal diseases. There is no question that animal waste is
loaded with pathogens that are transmitted via the oral–fecal route and can cause diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, dehydration, fever, vomiting, and—in vulnerable populations such as infants,
children, the elderly, and immunocompromised persons—death.59
Even though the biodigestion process naturally reduces the pathogen load, handling biogas
feedstock and using biogas slurry as fertilizer does carry some risk of infection. It is not entirely
clear whether slurry from household scale digesters can still harbor enough pathogens to infect
humans who handle it or eat crops fertilized with it, though the risk of infection is certainly
greatly reduced. A Cape Town, South Africa–based alternative energy company, has reported
that once people see a digester in action and are trained in proper hygiene, such as washing their
hands while working with it, they realize that health risks associated with operating a biodigester
are relatively minor. This company has installed a number of biogas systems in rural areas.60
If latrines can be connected to the household scale digesters, this can also have great sanitation
and health benefits. Whether or not this is an option depends on cultural factors. In Nepal very

59
Ibid.
60
Brown, 2006
49


few households were initially interested in latrines, but more than 60% have now had them
installed.61
Large, farm-scale digesters also reduce pathogens dramatically. Heated digesters reduce
pathogen populations dramatically in a few days. Lagoon digesters isolate pathogens and allow
pathogen kill and die-off prior to entering storage for land application. These processes have the
potential to practically eliminate many, but not all, kinds of pathogens, greatly reducing this
potential source of water pollution. The effectiveness of a particular digester in pathogen
destruction will vary. Biogas digesters in industrialized countries are required to meet fairly
stringent standards for use of effluents as fertilizer of any other discharge. Generally digesters
can be operated so that they meet these standards without requiring further treatment of the
effluent.
Reduced Surface and Groundwater Contamination: Digester effluent is a more uniform and
predictable product than untreated manure. The higher ammonium content allows better crop
utilization and the physical properties allow easier land application. Properly applied, digester
effluent reduces the likelihood of surface or groundwater pollution. Anaerobic digestion greatly
reduces Total Oxygen Demand (TOD), is a measure of how much oxygen could potentially be
consumed by breaking down organic matter, such as that found in manure. This is an issue if
there is a catastrophic spill of manure that enters surface water. If too much oxygen in the water
is used to break down manure that spills into a stream, natural stream life will suffer or be killed.
Reduced Odors: Biogas systems reduce offensive odors from manure storage facilities. These
odors impair air quality and may be a nuisance to nearby communities. Biogas systems reduce
these offensive odors because the volatile organic acids, the odor causing compounds, are
consumed by biogas producing bacteria. One study showed that anaerobic digestion reduced
odor by 97 percent over fresh manure.62For some projects, odor control is a primary reason for
installing a digester, especially covered lagoon systems. Fly propagation is also extremely
limited in digested manure compared to fresh manure.
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Methane is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon
dioxide in causing global warming. By capturing and burning the methane produced from animal
manure, anaerobic digesters help to slow down the rate of global warming. (Note: manure
management systems that result in aerobic decay of manure, such as grazing systems and dry
manure packs, do not produce significant amounts of methane; thus the benefit of methane
reduction reported here is only in comparison to other anaerobic systems of treating manure,
such as a lagoon system). In addition to the environmental benefit, this ability to provide
verifiable greenhouse gas reductions can be a source of revenues to help with the up front capital
costs. In developing countries verified greenhouse gas reductions can be registered as certified
emissions reductions (CERs) under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This is outside
the scope of this report and probably not relevant in the early stages of the program, but could be
worth exploring if the program leads to scaled up numbers of digesters in the future.

61
Biogas for a Better Life, 2007.
62
Nelson and Lamb, 2002
50


Preservation of forested areas and natural vegetation. By substituting biogas for fuelwood
anaerobic digestion reduces demand for wood and charcoal for cooking, and therefore reduces
the degradation of forest and vegetation. That, and the practice of containing livestock for
manure collection, which might otherwise graze in the forest, both contribute to protecting
the remaining forests and allowing the forests to regenerate.

51


Appendix B: Household Scale Digester Systems
Household Biogas Digester Designs
The three most common types of systems that have been extensively used are: 1) Fixed dome, 2)
Floating drum (or dome) and 3) Plastic tubular.
Fixed dome digester: Developed and extensively deployed in China the standard fixed dome
design consists of a gas-tight chamber constructed of bricks, stone or poured concrete (see figure
xx). Both the top and bottom are hemispherical and are joined together by straight sides. The
fermentation (digester) chamber and the gasholder are one unit. The inside surface is sealed by
many thin layers of mortar to make it gas-tight; earlier designs showed gas leakages. The
hemispherical top and bottom are designed to withstand high structural forces. The basic design
keeps the ratios of key dimensions constant, e.g. diameter to height of the cylinder is 2:1. This
design works according to the principle of constant volume, changing pressure. When the rate of
gas production is higher than that of gas consumption, pressure inside the digester rises and
expels some digester contents into the overflow compartment. When the consumption is higher
than production, pressure inside the digester falls and the expelled materials in the outlet
compartment run back to digester. Changing pressure of gas delivered into home varies causes
variations in heat produced by cooking elements. Some systems use separate gas storage that can
help to maintain constant gas pressure.
Figure 3. Schematic of fixed dome digester63
Chinese designs are resource conserving, compact, and adaptable to whatever building materials
is locally available. Attempts to replicate the Chinese results outside the People’s Republic of

63
1


China (PRC) have yielded very uneven results. High quality materials and trained installers are
needed to build this kind of digester and this can be expensive. Building materials, such as
cement, lime and quarried stones, which are produced locally in China, can be expensive in other
countries. The construction of the dome can be difficult unless an experienced technical expert is
involved. Creating a water and gas tight digester vessel can be difficult and can take some time.
The design also requires continuous checking for leaks and repair whenever they occur.
Although it is required only rarely, Chinese bioreactors are also difficult to clean. Some firms
provide digester-cleaning services at a cost as part of their business. Depending the level of
maintenance, a digester may need cleaning every 1 to 2 year.64
A variation of the fixed dome model biogas plant has been designed and optimized in the
Institute of Fuel Research and Development (IFRD), Bangladesh Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (BCSIR), Dhaka. This model is durable (25-30 years), easy to construct with
locally available construction materials and has a better performance. It has been patented and
disseminated throughout Bangladesh with satisfactory operational results65.
A very popular adaptation of the Chinese model is the fixed-dome digester GGC 2047,
developed in Nepal. Based on the principles of fixed dome model from China, the Gobar Gas
and Agricultural Equipment Development Company (GGC) of Nepal developed this design and
has been popularizing it since the early 1990s. The design uses a standardized concrete dome
and has been developed to minimize construction cost and to maximize durability and
performance.66 This design has proved its performance and reliability in Nepal and several other
Asian countries. This design is being promoted currently in some African countries (e.g.
Ethiopia, Rwanda, etc. under the Biogas for Africa Initiative) and has been adapted for use in
South Africa.67
Building and installation of this unit still requires skill, and some have developed technical
problems because of poor workmanship and installation by unqualified persons. The unit
requires that the water trap and other fittings be checked regularly for leaks. Also, water
condensing in along the fittings, and at times in the cookers, can be an issue, but the inlet pipes
can easily be modified with several water traps to ameliorate this problem and help identify
leakages.68
Well designed and constructed, and well maintained, any of these fixed dome digesters should
have a lifetime of at least 15-20 years. The hydraulic retention time (HRT), for cow manure, is
35-55 days. At total solids concentrations of 5-8% it produces 0.2-0.3m3 biogas/m3 of
biodigester volume/day.69

64
USAID 2007
65
BCAS, 2006
66
FAO, 1997
67
68
69
USAID, 2007, Devkota, 2003.
2


Floating drum (or dome) digester: This design has been developed, standardized and widely
disseminated in India and works on the principle of constant pressure, changing volume. Figure
xx shows a current popular version of this basic design. The digester includes a cylindrical
section, commonly made from brick and cement that is covered with a gas tight steel cylinder
which moves up when gas production is higher than consumption and comes down under the
reverse conditions.
The life spans of these digesters vary widely, and are dependent upon the quality of labor and
materials used in construction, as well as management and maintenance. In Bangladesh, one
study reported that the durability of floating dome biogas plant is only 4-6 years. The floating
drum, made of mild steel sheet, was prone to rapid corrosion, and replacement or repair was
difficult in the target rural areas where welding and workshop-facilities were often not
available70.
Other researchers have shown that high quality, well-managed floating drum digesters can last
for over 40 years, though there are some failures – largely because of poor management and
maintenance. On the average, it is safe to say that floating drum digesters, if built with high

Figure 4. Floating Dome (Indian Design) Type Digester71

70
BCAS, 2006
71
USAID, 2007
3


quality materials and well managed, can give service of at least 15-20 years providing cooking
gas, lighting and fertilizer. Good maintenance includes the need for repainting of all metal parts
every few years to ensure that they are protected from corrosion.72 Fabrication and installation
of floating drum digesters requires technicians who are well trained and fairly experienced
technical workers. There are kits that can be installed by the end user, with instructions to guide
the installation, and that could significantly reduce costs. However, this installation still requires
pre-existing technical knowledge to self-build.73
The Shenzhen Puxin Science & Technology Co. Ltd. has developed a variation of this floating
drum concept intended to simplify the construction process while also improving quality and
standardization of the digesters. The company markets a product composed of a number of steel
molding boards, used to construct a poured concrete digester. According to the company’s
website, the molds allow a 6 or 10 m3 Puxin biogas digester to be built within 48 hours. The
steel mold can be reused over 2000 times and lasts over ten years. It is easy to build the concrete
digester, as the workers do not need a blueprint, and require only limited training to work with
the steel mold. The other key component marketed by the company is a glass fiber reinforced
plastic gasholder that serves as the floating drum, to collect and store the biogas produced in the
digester. The gasholder has a volume of 1.0 m3 (for 6m3 plant) or 1.2 m3 (for 10m3 plant) and
can last over 10 years.
Compared traditional fixed and floating dome designs the company advertises that this design is
easy to build with a 100% success rate, requires no skilled labor, is less likely to leak throughout
the life of the plant, and can be built in much less time – 2 days compared to up to 15 days, with
leak testing and repairs, for a traditional fixed dome design. Because the digester is cast
concrete, the durability and maintenance issues are less of a problem.74
Plastic tubular digester: The bag digester was developed in the 60’s in Taiwan to solve the
problem of high costs experienced with brick, concrete and metal digesters. The first designs
used nylon and neoprene but they proved relatively costly. In the 1970s, poly vinyl chloride
(PVC) was combined with the residue from aluminum refineries to produce the product named
"red mud PVC". This was later replaced by less costly polyethylene which is now the most
common material used in Latin America, Asia and Africa.
The tubular digester is basically a long cylindrical polyethylene or PVC bag, half-buried
longitudinally in the ground, fed with fresh cow dung slurry at one end and discharged at the
other. Figure xx shows a plastic tubular digester and its integration into a rural farm system.
With the formation of gas, the bag swells like a balloon and the gas is led out to the point of use
through a pipe by putting pressure on the balloon from outside. The gas can be stored in a reservoir
after leaving the digester. Gas storage reservoirs can be large plastic bags or more substantial
vessels, like a floating drum tank.

72
73
Ibid.
74
Shenzhen Puxin, 2008
4


While the polyethylene bags are much cheaper than the above designs, they are also less durable
and certain parts can require replacement every 2-3 years. Experience has shown that a bag
digester could be successful where materials and fabrication facilities are easily available, and
with the right design and quality control. 75
In Vietnam, and several other developing countries (including India, Colombia, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, Cambodia and Bangladesh) this digester has been promoted to reduce production cost,
utilize local materials and simplify installation and operation. The low-cost digester has been
well received by poor farmers, especially when farmers participate fully in the necessary
maintenance and repair work. In the Vietnam program, in less than ten years, over 20,000
polyethylene digesters were installed and mainly paid by the farmers themselves76.
Figure 5: Low-cost plastic tubular biodigester77
Tanzania a UNDP funded project is promoting polyethylene bag digesters and has worked with
farmers to install more than 1000 such systems.78 The digester design produces gas for cooking
and lighting for a household and can be installed in about 4 hours by a trained technician with
local labor support. The digester requires the excreta from 1-2 cows, 5-8 pigs or 4 able-bodied
people on a daily basis as well as an adequate water supply, ideally operating on 2 parts water for
one part manure. Interestingly, this project has connected with an existing program, “Heifer-in-
Trust,” under which a farmer is loaned an in-calf heifer, and agrees to give the first two female

75
GEF Egypt 2008.
76
Ho, 2005
77
An, et al, 1994
78
SGP, 2001
5


calves to neighbors. UNDP project has trained 50 technicians in Uganda as well as in Tanzania
to install and repair biogas systems, but still identifies the scarcity of adequately trained
technicians as a technical barrier limiting the rate at which digesters can be disseminated. Other
opportunities for improving the technology, such as integrating rain water harvesting with biogas
systems, improving durability, and developing an improved biogas-powered lighting system
have been identified and are being addressed.
In Kenya, a recent study79 found that success rates for tubular bag digesters have been low to date. In
2006 a Kenyan plastics company adapted international designs and started manufacturing and selling
UV treated, pressure resistant plastic tubular digesters of between 9 m3 and 18 m3. Since then, about
200 units have been installed countrywide. The study found that although the technology seems
simple and quick to install and use there are complex technical issues that must be addressed during
installation, use and maintenance. Four of the five digesters actually visited had some technical or
operational problems. These problems were easily solved by trained personnel, but point to the need
to review the technology and technical support system. The digester performance also seems to vary
with effects of temperature more than other household scale digesters that are fully buried
underground.
A modification of the low-cost plastic biodigester system to help the durability of the digestion
chamber involves constructing it from bricks and concrete. The design is a cross between an
underground fixed dome (Chinese) model and a plastic-bag model. The main digestion chamber
is a rectangular (flat-topped) low-depth underground concrete tank. There is no pre-digestion/
mixing chamber, but instead a siphon-type input with active and continuous scum-breaking
action is used.80 This design has not had widespread deployment and needs further study.
Another interesting design, the “Horizontal biogas digester,” operates in a very similar manner as
the polyethylene tubular digester. It is really a slightly inclined cylinder that can be constructed
by welding together 3 or more 200 liter drums with the lids and bottoms removed from the
drums except on the 2 ends. Manure slurry is introduced on the upper end and the effluent flows
out of the lower end. Gas is extracted through a pipe at the topmost point of the digester and
collected in a storage container that could be a flexible bladder or a more substantial vessel such
as a floating drum container. This is an inclined plane continuous flow digester. Organic
material that is entered into the upper end of the digester exits the lower end. When fed 2% of its
volume per day, the process takes about 50 days for a volume to pass through. During this
process, about 50% of the carbon in the material is converted into methane and carbon dioxide81.
This design can be also constructed at very low cost and may be more durable than the plastic
digesters.
All of these designs are fed semi-continuously (e.g., once a day). There are small scale digesters
that operate in a “batch mode”, filled once and then left to produce gas until the methanogenesis
process is complete then emptied and refilled. These have not been used in any significant

79
Biogas for a Better Life, 2007a.
80
GEF Egypt, 2008
81
Forst, 2002
6


programs with dairy manure82. Many other designs or variations have also been developed but
those described above are considered the most appropriate for the Manica Province program.
Biogas digesters are usually built underground to protect them from temperature variations and
also to prevent accidental damage. The exception is the plastic tubular digesters that are not
completely buried and hence more affected by temperature and exposed to damage. Typically, in
developing nations, biogas digesters are constructed in a pit which is excavated by a trained
laborer with assistance from one or more members of the household or community.

Digester Sizing
It is important to correctly size a digester in order to obtain the maximum biogas production per
unit of reactor volume while maintaining low capital construction costs. For larger plants (e.g.
for 400 or more cattle), a number of empirically based calculation methods are available but
small family-size digesters have primarily relied on sizing tables based on long experience with
trial and error. Tables 3 and 4 below are from the Nepalese Construction Manual for the GGC
2047 Fixed Dome Digester, published in 1994 and an updated training manual from this program
released in 2003. This sizing information has proven reliable for many years and is still
reproduced and recommended in technical reports on biogas digesters.83
Table 3
Size of
Daily Fresh Daily Water Approx. No. Cattle
S.N. Plant
Dung (kg) Liters Required
m3
1. 4 24 24 2-3
2. 6 36 36 3–4
3. 8 48 48 4–6
4. 10 60 60 6–9
5. 15 90 90 9 – 14
6. 20 120 120 14 and more
* Plant size is the sum of digester volume and gas storage
** Based on a hydraulic retention time of 70 days
(Source: Bajgain, 1994
)

Table 4: Size, volume and gas production of fixed dome plant

82
USAID, 2007
83
USAID, 2007
7


Size (cum) Digester Gas storage Daily dung Retention Gas production/
vol.(Cum) vol. (Cum) feeding (kg) time (Day) day (Cum)

4 2.8 1.2 25 80 1.4
6 4.4 1.7 40 75 1.8
8 5.8 2.2 48 83 2.2

(Source Devkota, 2003)
One concern in all digesters is under loading (from oversizing the digester, or disruption of the
flow of inputs). The construction manual for the Nepalese GGC 2047 fixed dome digester
cautions: “If a plant is underfed, the gas production will be low; in this case, the pressure of the
gas might not be sufficient to displace the slurry in the outlet chamber. This means that amount
of slurry fed into the digester is more than the amount of slurry thrown out from the outlet. This
will cause the slurry level to rise in the digester; gasholder and it may eventually enter to the gas
pipe and sometimes, to the gas stove and lamp while opening the main valve.”84 While the
mechanisms may be different, all of the digester designs will perform poorly if they are built
significantly too large for the manure supply, or for any reason are loaded at substantially less
than the design input.
On the other hand, it is also a concern if the digester is overloaded so that the slurry moves
through the chamber too quickly. According to a recent USAID report: “Optimal gas production
per m3 however, must allow a margin of safety in size, equal to several days’ additional retention
beyond “optimum”, to ensure viable growth for the methanogenic microbes... and must be large
enough to avoid “washout.”85 If the quantity of methanogenic bacteria carried out of the digester
with the effluent flow is greater than the their growth rate inside the digester then this will “wash
out” the population of bacteria in the digester and slow the methane production process.
Before deciding the size of any biogas digester no matter which design, it is necessary to collect
dung for several days to determine the average daily dung production. The amount of dung daily
available helps in determining the capacity of the plant. The key point is that the size of plant
has to be based on the amount of available dung as input not on the family size or desired gas
output.
This report provides rules of thumb for various sizes and digester types as a starting point for
initial design, but the program will need carry out demonstrations and carefully monitor their
performance to develop a clear understanding of the combinations of number of cows, size and
type of digesters and other factors that will lead to consistently successful results in the Manica
Province conditions.
Based on the results of data collection and testing, the program will develop an understanding of
whether a single well-managed dairy cow will provide sufficient manure to support a biogas
digester sized to provide cooking and lighting for a household. If not, some households may still

84
Bajgain, 1994
85
USAID, 2007
8


be able to purchase and install the system at their house if they own other livestock, and they
could then, using the manure from their own livestock, use the effluent on their own land and use
the gas in their own kitchen. There may also be some cases where two or more households may
“pool” their resources (manure) for a single digester and will have to agree on how to divide the
effluent and the gas among the participating households.
Some experts suggest that energy for cooking and some lighting for a typical rural family in a
developing country would require a minimum of 1 m3 biogas/day.86 Other estimates of gas
required for cooking -- 0.3- 0.4m3/day/person – and for lighting -- 0.10-0.12M3/hr/100candle
power light -- suggest that this requirement could be between 1 and 2 m3/day.87 The literature on
small scale household digesters, offers a range of estimates of manure and biogas production per
cow. Most of these estimates are toward the lower end of the overall range as might be expected
given issues of lower quality feed, incomplete collection of manure and digester performance in
small scale, developing country situations.
There are some technical sources88 that suggest that a single cow might provide sufficient
manure and urine to produce 1 m3 biogas/day. Several sources 89 suggest that 2 cows are a
minimum while others90 argue that 4 or more cows are necessary to ensure support for a family’s
biogas needs. The higher numbers of cows needed for a household digester assume use of the
widely practiced livestock management system, where cattle feed widely in communal areas
during the day and are only penned (corralled) at night so that only a fraction of the total manure
is collected.
As noted above, biogas includes trace elements that can create problems in some gas using
equipment. Most household biogas systems assume that cookstoves and other simple household
equipment will not require biogas cleaning, but there are simple designs for gas cleaning that can
be added if this turns out to be necessary.91

Economics of Household Digesters
Costs: There are a large range of estimates of the cost of construction of a digester sufficient to
supply the cooking and lighting needs of a household – depending on the design, size, materials,
location, etc. It is generally agreed that the fixed and floating dome designs are more costly that the
plastic tube option – although they have much longer lifetimes. Costs have been reduced as designs
have been standardized and improved through the 1980s and 1990s.92

86
87
TNAU, 2008
88
Last, 2007, Brown, 2006,
89
F orst, 2002, Biogas for a Better Life. 2007
90
91
See Forst, 2002 e.g.
92
BCAS, 2006
9


Recent estimates of the cost of a digester sufficient for a household’s cooking and lighting needs
are around $260 in China93 and $200-250 in India,94 $250-390 in Nepal,95 and $200 in
Vietnam.96 In Africa, recent estimates of costs for the same designs and sizes are much higher.
A recent GEF project document97 estimates that the cost of either fixed or floating dome digesters in
Egypt would be about $90/m3. This would be $540 for a 6m3 digester and $720 for 8m3. In 2007
and 2008 several researchers associated with the Biogas Africa Initiative estimated costs for a 6
m3 fixed dome digester in South Africa at $900-1150, Rwanda at $860, Uganda at $770-1000
and Kenya at $575.98
The differences in cost are most importantly due to the estimated local costs of materials –
cement, brick, piping – which can be 4 times higher, or more, in African countries. Labor costs
are also somewhat higher in the African countries. Some of this cost difference can be
explained by the difference in cost for locally manufactured materials in Asia versus those
imported into Africa. Indeed some of the highest cost estimates include significant import duties
and VAT that raise the delivered cost of materials. Some of the labor costs are also valuation of
in-kind labor contributions of participating households. Some of the differences may also be
due to exchange rates at the times of the calculations.
If programs like the Biogas Africa Initiative are successful at promoting widespread deployment
of manure biogas technologies, it is possible that typical costs of digester installation can come
down substantially over time. If a substantial biogas industry develops, cost may come down
over time due to local manufacture of materials and scale economies. A combination of
government policy, technology improvements, and other measures will also help to encourage a
growing market and lower costs. However, it appears likely that, in the near term, construction
of household scale fixed or floating dome digesters in Manica Province will cost a minimum of
$500-600 out of pocket.
Plastic tubular digesters are less expensive and easier to install. In Vietnam, costs have been
reported to be $40 or less for a full system (materials only).99 In Tanzania, different projects
have estimated total costs including installation at $100 or less.100 This is clearly much more
manageable for small farmers in terms of up-front costs. In Kenya, a locally manufactured
plastic bag digester is sold at around $400 for an 8 m3 digester, possibly over $500 with
installation. The key issue with the plastic digesters is how long they will last and how much
maintenance and operation is required.
Cost Benefit Analysis: From the point of view of a small holder who might invest in a digester,
there are two products - biogas and fertilizer – that can yield quantified monetary benefits. There

93
Greengadget, 2008
94
Last, 2008, TNAU, 2008
95
Ashden, 2005
96
97
GEF Egypt 2008
98
South Africa and Rwanda, Biogas for a Better Life 2008; Uganda and Kenya, Biogas for a Better Life 2007a
99
An, et al., 1996
100
Brown, 2006, SGP 2001
10


are different approaches for the evaluation of these products of the biogas plant, but a fairly
straightforward one is to use the value of products for which these substitute. The gas should be
valued at the cost of fuels for which it substitute. In cooking it may be compared with firewood,
butane, charcoal or possibly with dried dung. In lighting it may be compared with kerosene or
candles.
For example, box xx shows some sample calculations created by researchers in India.101 This
example estimates annual energy and fertilizer benefits of over 15,000 rupees (over $300), from
3 m3 fixed dome digester that costs Rs. 12000 (about $250). The benefit cost ratio is 15,
608.05/1954 = 7.99. In this example, the critical component of the benefit is the avoided
firewood cost so the result would be very sensitive to the cost of firewood and whether the
individual farmer actually purchases all of his cooking fuel or if some or all of it is collected by
family members.
If dung is used directly for cooking fuel it is difficult to get monetary values but there are still
clear benefits. 12.3 kg of dried dung cakes is equivalent to 61.5 kg wet dung, assuming 20 per
cent solids in the wet dung. If this dung were processed in a gas plant, it would be expected to
produce 2 m3 of gas (calorific value about 20 MJ/m3) which is double the amount of heat
obtained from the dung cakes (calorific value about 8.8 MJ/kg), taking into account the
efficiency of the biogas stove which is about 60 per cent in comparison to the efficiency of the
cattle dung stove (open hearth) which is usually less than 10 per cent. 12.3 x 8.8 = 108.24 MJ
energy from dung x 0.10 eff = 10.8MJ energy from dung. 20 x 2 = 40 MJ energy from Biogas x
0.60 eff = 24 MJ energy from biogas. So the biogas would provide more than twice the energy
value of dried dung plus the full value of the fertilizer. When the dung is burned of course there
would be none available for fertilizer. The quality of life and health benefits would be very large
also in this case, although they are not able to be expressed in monetary terms for the farmers.
A study in South Africa102 provides some detailed data on cooking fuels and costs among the
rural poor in 3 provinces in that country. Based on data from a household statistical survey on
use of 3 fuels – paraffin, LPG and wood – for cooking, it concludes that “in South Africa, many
of the poor have to resort to using paraffin or wood” and calculates the average avoided fuel
costs per year for a household for the three provinces at ZAR 744 (US$ 106). This is very
conservative estimate as the total cooking energy costs indicated by the households which were
surveyed is between ZAR 90 and ZAR 172 per month in the three provinces. Fertilizer benefits
were estimated at ZAR 285 (US$41)/year. This study uses a cost of $1050 for a 6 m3 fixed
dome digester and with loan interest and maintenance cost annualized the internal rate of return
is positive, 16% without government subsidies. It is important to note that in this case, monthly
loan repayments would exceed current monthly fuel costs for individual farmers.
A study in Burkina Faso103 reported typical fuel use for a rural family of 10 people at 5400
kg/year fuel wood, valued at $68, 480 kg/year charcoal, valued at $44, and 36 liters/year of

101
TNAU, 2008
102
103
Gtz, 2007
11


kerosene at $36 for a total of $148/year fuel costs. Capital costs of a 6 m3 fixed dome digester
that could substitute biogas for all of these fuels, were calculated at $821 (plus in kind labor).
The internal rate of return was calculated using annualized capital and interest plus annual
maintenance costs against benefits of energy use for cooking fuel and lighting only for a family
of 10 people. This study found a positive but somewhat low IRR of 10.25% in this case. It also
considered the benefit of carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) which
raised the IRR to 21.18%.
A recent similar analysis in Egypt104 found a 14% IRR for the investment and simple payback of
6.1 years. It should be noted, however, that the results are sensitive to the estimated value of the
fertilizers and the value of the fuel the biogas is replacing, namely whether it is LPG, kerosene or
a mix of them and what is considered as the real or perceived value added for the reduced need
for transporting kerosene or LPG over the distances, which sometimes can add significantly to
the final price of these fuels.

104
GEF Egypt, 2008
12


Box 1: Example of Economic Benefits
Researchers in India1 have calculated the values of energy and fertilizer for a household scale digester.
Energy value is calculated starting with firewood and kerosene fuel offset per m3 biogas produced based
on a number of assumptions:
1. 70 per cent of the gas will be used, instead of wood, for cooking and 30 per cent, instead of
kerosene for lighting.
2. the calorific values are biogas (20MJ/m3), kerosene (38 MJ/litre) and firewood (20 MJ/kg),
3. stove efficiencies of 60 per cent for the biogas and 10 per cent for the firewood
4. the same lamp efficiency for biogas and kerosene
5. average cost of Rs.10/litre for kerosene and Rs.3/- kg for firewood
6. the digester produces 3 m3 biogas/day all used for cooking and lighting.
For firewood in cooking 1 kg of firewood contains the same energy as 1 m3 of biogas, but the gas stove is
6 times more efficient than the typical wood stove so 1m3 offsets 6 kg firewood valued at Rs 3/kg or Rs 18.
For kerosene in lighting the equivalent values are 38MJ/20MJ or 0.53 litre biogas valued at Rs. 10/litre or
Rs. 5.3 offset for each m3 biogas.
From these figures it is easy now to calculate the annual benefits of using biogas instead of kerosene and
firewood as follows:
Kerosene Rs. 5.30/m3 x 0.9 m3/day (30% of 3 m3/day) x365day = Rs. 1,741.05/year. Firewood Rs. 18/
m3 x 2.1 m3/day (70% of 3 m3/day) x 365 days = Rs. 13,797.00
The total value of biogas as energy is then Rs. 15,538.05 (US$ 318.40)/year.
Value of fertilizer in digester effluent in comparison to the raw or the cow dung
Assumptions: 1) the fresh dung has initially 0.10% nitrogen; 2) for each m3 of biogas produced 25 kg of
cattle dung is used per day (i.e. 9125 kg/year) and 3) commercial urea fertilizer has 46% nitrogen and costs
Rs. 3.45/kg
The value of 1 kg nitrogen is Rs. 3.45/kg fertilizer divided by .46 (%N) = Rs. 7.50
Annual N in manure is 9125 kg dung at 0.10 per cent nitrogen = 9 kg nitrogen
Value of nitrogen in cattle dung for 3 m3/day biogas plant = 9 x 3.0 x 7.50 = Rs. 202.50/year
In the current method of making manure (piling the dung for 30 days before use) the manure value of
nitrogen decreases by about 50 per cent.
Value of usable nitrogen in dung = 202.50 x 0.5 = Rs. 101.25.
If, the new practice of drying the effluent is adopted, then only 15 per cent of the nitrogen will be lost.
Accordingly, the value of nitrogen = 202.50 x 0.85 = Rs. 172.13.
The improved nitrogen value of the manure = 172.12 - 101.25 = Rs.70.80/yr
Total energy and fertilizer value in this example is Energy Rs. 15,538.05 + fertilizer Rs. 70.80 = Rs.
15,608.05 (US$ 319.85)/year.
1
TNAU 2008

A financial and economic analysis of biogas digesters was carried out recently for the Biogas
Africa Initiative which plans to promote biogas digesters in more than 20 countries across the
13


continent.105 The outcome was positive, but strongly depended on the price of firewood. Biogas
is always a very attractive option from the broad societal or economy-wide perspective, but less
so for households. At the macro-economic level, the study found biogas programs to be
profitable even when overall program costs are more than 20%. Additional benefits from better
health and sanitation are not quantified in these calculations but would add significant benefits
from the perspective of society. Other quality of life and productivity benefits from savings of
time and effort for fuel gathering, would also accrue to women in particular.
At this stage it is possible to look at analyses from other developing countries, especially African
countries as indicative of the costs and benefits of household scale digesters in Manica Province.
In order to accurately calculate costs and benefits for the Manica Province application it is
necessary to collect better data on current energy sources and fertilizer practices and their costs
to the farmers.
Implementation of Household Digester Programs
Financing: Although household biogas digesters are often financially viable on paper from the
perspective of individual farmers in developing countries, biogas development on a significant
scale has required government financed investment subsidies and/or affordable financing (for
construction and/or maintenance of biogas plants) particularly for small and lower-income
farmers.106
The initial capital investment is often an insurmountable barrier for poor rural farmers even
though the savings will outweigh the costs in a few years. Except for some cases involving the
least expensive designs (e.g., plastic tubular digesters in Vietnam) it has generally been deemed
necessary and logical for governments or donors to partially subsidize the initial capital costs.
The benefits to society far outweigh the costs of subsidies and program support and farmers can
be convinced to pay half or more of the cost if financing is available.
In China for example, the central government pays half the price of building a $260 fixed dome
biogas digester. India provides substantial subsidies through a complicated formula that takes
into account location, social grouping and income to ensure that the neediest participants receive
the most help from the government.107
The very successful program in Nepal has been used as a model program by experts around the
world. The program is managed by a dedicated central government organization, the Biogas
Support Programme (BSP). This program administers subsidies to reduce and level the costs of
a 6 m3 fixed dome plant – the Nepal GGC 2047 design also used as a model around the world.
Construction costs for the plant vary between $250-325 depending on the location of the plant.
Additional costs of transporting materials raise the cost for remote, hilly areas. The BSP subsidy
program operates on a sliding scale so that each plant owner pays the same amount, equivalent to
about $180. One third of the owner contribution is paid in kind, by the family providing labor

105
106
USAID, 2007
107
Gtz, undated
14


and materials, but the remaining $120 is still a significant amount of money for rural Nepali
farmers. The participants are willing to pay this amount because they have seen the long-term
benefits that these plants have brought to their neighbors. They are also able to finance biogas
plants, considered a safe investment in Nepal, where over 80 banks and micro- finance
organizations will provide loans. Most families pay back their loan within about eighteen
months: those who previously purchased fuelwood will have saved more than the cost of the
biogas plant within this time.108
In Tanzania, where a UNDP funded project is promoting low cost plastic tubular digesters,
financial barriers still exist in obtaining the biogas systems. Each system costs $100-120 with
appliances and installation, and the system more than pays for itself over a short time through
income generation and savings on fuel purchase. Nonetheless, this up-front cost represents a
large percentage of many farmers’ yearly income. Micro-finance systems have been developed
to ensure the spread of this technology. In one region, a women’s organization has established a
revolving credit fund with support from the project. Each family contributes a set amount of
savings per month, and farmers then can then acquire credit on a revolving basis.109
In the Manica province context, financing through small holder cooperatives seems feasible and
could overcome many of the problems that have created problems for other programs. These
organizations will be receiving milk from individual farmers and providing payments to these
participants based on milk sales. The program concept already envisions that the cooperative
would retain a small percentage of the sales revenues from each farmer to cover costs of
operation of the Milk Collection Center, medicine and veterinary services as needed, training and
other ongoing support services. If the cooperatives were to provide or guarantee loans for the
installation of biogas digesters this mechanism could be used to collect monthly payments from
individual farmers. It will be important to carry out detailed financial analysis as the program
moves forward to determine whether subsidies to bring down the initial capital cost, as is the
case in most successful developing country programs to date, will be appropriate to move the
biogas digester penetration to significant levels.
Technical and Institutional Issues: A number of previous biogas digester promotion programs,
successful and not, have illustrated the need for systematic efforts to identify and overcome a
range of possible barriers that could undermine long term program success. Appropriate
technology and financing are two critical prerequisites for success as discussed above but past
programs have also identify other technical and institutional barriers to biogas digester
deployment and successful operation.
In the early stages of India's biogas development programs results were disappointing to some
experts. With government incentives such as subsidies and tax benefits to encourage biogas use,
a large number of digesters were being installed. In 1995, however, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri,
Director of the Tata Energy Research Institute, stated that only two-thirds of the installed plants
are actually functioning (although official figures at the time placed this figure at 89 percent).

108
Ashden, 2005
109
SGP, 2001
15


Several technical and institutional problems were undermining the long term use of digesters.
The early programs were standardized, and managed top down for the entire country. Across-
the-board implementation policies led to the construction of plants in areas unsuited to biogas
production. In cooler or drought-prone regions, or in villages with insufficient cattle, projects
often failed. Plants that encountered technical difficulties were sometimes abandoned when
project technicians failed to follow up. Conventional fuels like diesel, kerosene and LPG were
also highly subsidized in rural areas, reducing the incentive to make the switch to biogas or to
continue its use in the face of technical difficulties.110 These problems have been addressed
through the use of a formula that includes regional location and income in allocating subsidies to
individuals, and by decentralized implementation 111now managed by the states and local
government organizations. In addition, training and technical support systems have been
enhanced, and the Indian program has become one of the world’s successful models.
Several programs in Africa have had disappointing past experience with operation of digesters
after installation. Tanzania began distributing heavily subsidized concrete and steel digesters
costing $1400 each in 1982. By 1991, only a few of these digesters were still in operation.112
Subsequently, the UNDP funded program described above has been more successful by focusing
on much less expensive plastic tubular digesters and including more involvement of local
organizations and technical support113.
In Kenya biogas digesters have been promoted by donors, government and NGOs for fifty years,
and trained Kenyan technicians have built hundreds of biogas digesters in the country.
Evaluations showed that a high proportion of digesters appear to operate below capacity, are
dormant or in disuse after construction because of management, technical, socio-cultural and
economic problems. In Egypt, plants have been installed in the past with significant donor
support, but without significant follow-up and technical support. Many were later abandoned or
found to be operating at low levels. Technical experts visiting some still operating plants were
able to increase gas production immediately by 5-6 times through technical improvements.114
Greater investments in training, education and technical support were needed to keep many of
the plants operating at satisfactory levels.
Lessons learned include the following:115
• Program planning and design: Program planners or promoters need to have a clear
understanding of the purpose, implementation strategy and expected benefits of the program
– Why is this a good idea for the society at large? Why is it good for the participants? Are
the necessary inputs – e.g., manure and water, construction materials – likely to be available
in the require quantities and at acceptable cost? Are there adequate uses/markets for the
products – biogas and fertilizer? Program planning needs to address, for example, how to

110
Sampat, 1995
111
GEF Egypt 2008
112
Brown, 2006
113
SGP, 2001
114
GEF Egypt 2008
115
This summary of lessons learned adapted from Biogas for a Better Life 2007a
16


reach customers with marketing, installation and technical follow-up in areas where there are
no private and often no public means of transport to potential customers combined with
impassable roads.
• Technology design and construction: biogas digesters are not as simple as they look. They
must be properly designed and constructed by a qualified technician(s). The digester must be
sized and designed to fit the resources, conditions and needs of the particular location. It is
often the case that scarcity of trained technical experts can hamper the ability to scale up
programs. Identification and training of sufficient numbers of technicians and verification of
availability of materials and construction equipment need to be built into a plan for
deployment of digesters. Shortages of trained personnel can result in delays in
implementation, and worse, inadequately trained installers may be used leading to failures,
operational problems and long term acceptance issues for digesters. A related issue is the
need to establish clear standards for technology, materials, certification of technicians, and
quality control procedures.
• Education and promotion of technology: Large scale programs to deploy biogas digesters
need to pay attention to educating and informing the intended participants and other
stakeholders as a part of the program. There is a need for a sustained awareness creation
campaign to educate potential users on the uses and benefits of biogas. Where possible this
should include some survey, stakeholder consultation, or other research to identify potential
acceptance problems, positive features that should be emphasized, and approaches that fit
local culture. For example, the re-charging of the digester may be seen as a dirty job and
hence leads to poor ownership responsibility by users.116
• Technical Training: Technicians need to be trained in installation, quality of materials and

maintenance of digesters. Some certification system should be established if possible so that
participants can identify trained technical experts. Installers may also need training on
marketing and business management. Farmers should be trained on proper utilization of
biogas and correct application of equipment. Digesters are built without proper explanation
to users on how to care for them.
• Technical support for operation and maintenance: A lot of proper operation and
maintenance is a function of education and training of the owners and local technicians.
However, there are inevitably problems that arise that cannot be solved by individual farmer-
owners of household scale digesters. In addition, there is a tendency for some participants to
become less conscientious over time. With so many competing uses for rural farm labor,
management of the digesters can suffer without adequate technical backstopping occurring
during further operation. It is a lesson of many successful and failed programs that a network
of technical support and monitoring can make a huge difference is the long term benefits of
the program.

116
17


In planning and implementing the Manica Province program, some of these lessons are critically
important while others may not be relevant at least in the near term.
18


Appendix C: Milk Collection Center (MCC) Scale Digester Systems
MCC Power requirements
Some very preliminary calculations provide a rough estimate of the power and manure
requirements at an MCC in order to back out the number of cows needed and to suggest the
sizing and design of the possible system components. Table C-1 contains some typical power
requirements for chillers likely to be used for the MCCs. The first option used is the 500 l
chiller. This might be sufficient for the first MCC and additional chillers could be added as the
milk collections increase over time. This allows for incremental investment and also for
sequencing of the peak demand from multiple chillers to smooth out the load if necessary.
Table C-1 MCC Chiller power requirements

Tank Voltage, Freq (phases) Refrigeration Run Max Run Run Peak Peak
Capacity
size (l) Watts
current current KVA* kW** KVA** kW**
500 220 -240 V, 50 Hz, (S) 2227W, 1.2 Hp 5.99 A 7.26A 1.3777 1.171 1.7424 1.481
1000 220 -240 V, 50 Hz, (S) 5706W, 2,5 Hp 14.1A 26.3A 3.243 2.757 6.312 5.365
1000 380 -400 V, 50 Hz, (3) 5706W, 2.5 Hp 5,.27A 8.1A 3.022 5.605 4.764
+
3.555
1500 220 -240 V, 50 Hz, (S) 7276W, 3 Hp 19.8 A 27A 4.554 3.871 6.48 5.502
1500 380 -400 V, 50 Hz, (3) 7276W, 3 Hp 7.52A 9.21A 5.074 4.313 6.373 5.417
* Run KVA =Middle of voltage range (e.g., 230v or 390v X run current in amps / 1000.
** kW = KVA x .85 power factor
*** Peak = highest voltage (240, 400) X peak current in amps/1000
+
3 phase KVA = v X a X 1.73
This assumes that the chiller will be operating at full load for periods of 3 hours when milk
deliveries are coming in and milk temperatures need to be lowered to standard levels quickly.
The rest of the time that the chiller is on, it is assumed that the cooling components will be
coming on intermittently to maintain temperature but not running continuously. The estimate is
that this will require 20% of full power on average over long periods.
Power needs – 500 liters $100% = 1.2 kW 20%= 0.28

Usage – 10 AM- 1PM = 100% 3hrs
1-4PM = 0
4-7PM = 100% 3hrs
5PM-10AM = 20% 15hrs
6hrs X 1.2= 7.2 kWh + 15hrs X 0.24= 3.6 kWh = Total 10.8 kWh/day
Thus to be sure that power needs of one 500 liter cooler and a few other small loads can be met,
the digester needs to produce biogas sufficient to generate around 12 kWh/day.
1


For one 1,500 liter cooler on the same duty cycle the MCC would require
6 X 4.3 kW = 25.8 kWh
15 X 0.86 kW = 12.9 kwh
Total 38.7 kWh This would imply generation of 40 kWh/day
Estimates of electric power production from biogas range from 1.7-2.35 kWh/m3117 due to the
quality of biogas, efficiency of conversion technology and other factors. Given the small scale
and developing country setting of this program, it is appropriate to use the lower end of the
range for these estimates. To produce 14 kWh/day, the digester must provide 12/1.7=8.3 m3
biogas/day. 40 kWh/day would require 40/1.7= 23.5 m3 biogas.
Though one 500 liter cooler should be enough to handle milk from a cooperative group of 50-60
farmers each with one cow, it is likely that these MCCs would expand over time and need to
receive milk from larger numbers of cows. The Monica Province program staff estimate that an
individual farmer with one dairy cow under the expected conditions could deliver up to 8
liters/day to the MCC. This would happen if the farmer manages and feeds his cow well, and
delivers all of the milk to the MCC (not holding any out for his own family’s use). Using this
value, 50-60 farmers would deliver a maximum of 440-480 liters/day. However, it is envisioned
that MCCs could grow over time to support 100 or more farmers, each with at least one cow. It
may be a important to plan for possible expansion in the design of an MCC biogas system.
One possibility is that an MCC might start with 1 500 liter cooler sufficient to support its first
group of 50-60 farmers. Then as the group grows another 500 liter cooler or even 2 could be
added over time. Or the MCC could initially install a 500 liter or 1500 liter cooler. Another
strategy would be to install a 500 liter cooler at the outset then to swap it for a larger cooler as
the cooperative grows and pass on the small one to another MCC starting up. Digester design
needs to consider what would be required to support up to 1500 liters of cooling and other small
loads. The construction of a digester would definitely be better done only once. One larger
digester would be less costly and difficult to construct and operate than two or more smaller
digesters.
To support an MCC with1500 liter cooling capacity would require roughly 40 kWh/day and 24 -
25 m3 biogas/day for either three 500 liter coolers or one 1500 liter cooler.

Digester types and sizes
Experience with dairy manure biogas digesters of this size is limited, particularly in electric
power generation applications. In straightforward investment project evaluation in developed
countries, dairy manure projects generally need to be at a larger scale - usually several hundred
cows – in order to justify the capital costs of digester and generation equipment. The AgStar
Program in the U.S. recommends that dairy farms consider investment in biogas electricity

117
Estimates are from DEFRA 2005: Davies, 2007
2


generation if they have 500 head or more118. In Europe smaller scale digesters have been
implemented119 (with support of active renewable energy programs and financial incentives) and
the AgStar program has more recently supported research on smaller scale diary manure biogas
economics120. Nonetheless, there are few projects as small as would be envisioned for the MCC
applications in Manica Province.
A recent GEF project proposal121 has evaluated community scale anaerobic digestion as an option
for Egypt. This evaluation concluded that community digester systems can be very similar to
household systems. They will then have more or less the same performance characteristics
(manure input, gas yield and fertilizer production per m3 of digester content) as the smaller
systems. The reference community scale digester for this evaluation is 130 m3 in volume and
fed by roughly 100 cows.
The fixed dome digester described in the previous section has proven to be reliable and effective
in many successful household scale biogas programs and is currently being promoted in several
African countries. The literature from the Nepalese Biogas Promotion Program (BSP),122
provides specifications and instructions for construction of a fixed dome digesters up to a 50 m3
size that is expected to produce at least 15 m3 biogas/day. A community scale fixed dome
digester, like the one described for the GEF project in Egypt, at 130 m3 would produce at least
39 m3 biogas/day. Fixed dome household digesters are usually fed with equal amounts of
manure and water and use a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of somewhere around 55 days in
warm flat areas.
Using rules of thumb provided for household scale digesters in appendix B, a fixed dome
digester could be developed at a 25 m3 size and should provide at least 9 m3 biogas/day, more
than enough for an MCC with one 500 liter cooler. A 25 m3 digester would require about 225
kg manure /day and about 225 liters of water/day as input. A larger fixed dome digester of
around 75 m3 should produce at least 25 m3/day and be sufficient to support 1500 liters of
cooling capacity and some other electrical loads for the MCC. For a 75 m3 community scale
digester, with HRT of 55 days, the manure requirement would be about 675 kg/day with 675
liters of water.
The plastic tubular digester, commonly used at the household scale, described in some detail in
the previous section, is a possible low cost approach for the MCC scale. Very inexpensive
household scale tubular plastic biogas digesters have been installed in many countries, in recent

118
US AgStar Handbook: The first screening criterion listed: “Is Your Confined Livestock Facility (Dairy or Hog)
“Large”? For screening purposes, livestock facilities with at least 500 head of dairy cows/steers or 2,000 sows or
feeder pigs in confinement, where at least 90 percent of the manure is collected regularly, are potential
candidates. Facilities of this size produce enough manure to generate the biogas required to support a financially
viable project. It should be noted, however, that this size criterion is not absolute. Smaller confined facilities could
potentially support successful recovery projects, given certain site-‐specific and market conditions. “
119
Harold K. House, 2006.
120
Philip R. Goodrich. 2005.
121
GEF Egypt, 2008
122
Devkota, 2003
3


years -- e.g., 800 plastic digesters were installed in Viet Nam in 3 years. These digesters have a
volume of about 5 m3 and cost under $100 USD. They are generally fabricated on site by
installers using commonly available polyethylene sheeting. No examples of plastic tubular
digesters of this design at sizes needed to support an MCC have been found, but this is
theoretically possible. The concerns about plastic tubular digesters are durability and possible
operational problems.
Since 2006, a Kenyan company, Pioneer Technologies, Ltd., has been manufacturing and selling
an improved, UV treated, pressure resistant plastic tubular digesters up to 18 m3 capacity. To
support an MCC, a higher quality product would be advisable, so the assuming the costs of
manufactured, heavy duty models from Kenya seems to be the safer option. The 8.5 m3
biogas/day required for a small MCC could be provided by installing two 18 m3 plastic tubular
digesters. With a retention time of 55 days, 36 m3 total volume would require about 220kg
manure and 440 liters of water/day.
It is not clear that scaling this design up to the large MCC size would make sense. Certainly the
logical approach for the Manica Province program to this technology would be to start with the
smaller design and get information on its performance before making decisions about larger
scale applications. If this is determined to be an attractive technology, additional 18 m3 units
could be added incrementally.
Another approach that has been proposed is to scale down a design that is normally used in
projects for large (at least 200 cows) dairy farms. There are two farm-scale digester designs that
could be considered for the MCC applications – plug flow digester and covered anaerobic
lagoon.
The plug flow digester is commonly used in the large dairy applications where manure is
collected is by scraping and is fed into the digester in near “as excreted” condition, with about
10-13% solids. This type of digester is heated so that the methanogenesis process is relatively
rapid and HRT is relatively low about 20-30 days. Because it takes less diluted manure as input
and has a lower HRT, this is the most compact of the designs considered here. It is somewhat
more to expensive and complex to construct and operate as it requires heating of the digester and
premixing of the manure prior to the input to the digester.
A typical design for a plug-flow system includes a manure collection system, a mixing pit and
the digester itself. The liquids and solids from the dairy cows are scraped to a collection pit at
least twice per day. A prop type mixer is used to agitate the manure, then a pump loads manure
into the digester. In the mixing pit, the addition of water adjusts the proportion of solids in the
manure slurry to the optimal consistency. The digester is a long, rectangular container, often
built below-grade, with an airtight, expandable cover. New material added to the tank at one end
pushes older material to the opposite end. Coarse solids in ruminant manure form a viscous
material as they are digested, limiting solids separation in the digester tank. As a result, the
material flows through the tank in a "plug." Anaerobic digestion of the manure slurry releases
biogas as the material flows through the digester. The flexible, impermeable cover on the
digester traps the gas. Inside the digester, suspended heating pipes allow hot water to circulate.
The hot water heats the digester to keep the slurry at 25°C to 40°C (77°F to 104°F), a
4


temperature range suitable for methane-producing bacteria. The hot water can come from
recovered waste heat from an engine generator fueled with digester gas or from burning digester
gas directly in a boiler.
A 70 m3 plug flow digester has been proposed to provide biogas for power generation and heat
in Bangladesh.123 A unit of this size, heated to 40oC, with a typical HRT of 20 days, would
require at least 3 tones of manure/day as input and could produce at least 70 m3 biogas/day.
A large plug flow digester in the US can produce 1.5 m3 biogas/m3 of digester volume124. If a
70 m3 digester in a developing country could approach this efficiency it would produce over 100
m3/day of biogas more than four times what would be needed for a large MCC.
To support a large MCC, a plug flow digester of roughly 18 m3 could produce more than 24 m3
of biogas/day. With a design retention time of 20 days, the digester would require about 900
liters input/day of manure mixed with small amounts of water, say 800 kg manure. Because of
the complexity and cost, a plug flow digester would probably not be an attractive option for any
smaller size than this, so it has not been evaluated for the small MCC, 8-9 m3 biogas/day scale.
A covered anaerobic lagoon is the least expensive and most easily operated of the large digester
designs but requires considerable area, and water input. The waste is washed into the lagoon by
flushing the animal pens with water. Solid waste, particularly the fibrous type of cows, is
sometimes separated before the wastewater enters the lagoon to prevent the buildup of solid
material. Anaerobic organisms naturally present in the manure and the environment decompose the
waste in the anaerobic conditions of the lagoon.
Anaerobic lagoons have a longer hydraulic retention time (about 40 days) and are generally
slightly less efficient in converting manure to biogas. The lower efficiency is less of an issue in
tropical climates, where temperature remains high enough for anaerobic bacteria to function well
all year round without heating.
The covered anaerobic lagoon volume required is calculated for 8.5 and 24m3 biogas/day to
cover the range of possible MCC scale options. For anaerobic lagoons the size is determined by
the daily loading volume times the hydraulic retention time (HRT). A typical HRT for an
lagoon is 40 days.
An anaerobic lagoon is best suited for organic wastes with a total solid concentration of 0.5%-
3%. To dilute manure, with 12 % solids as excreted, 3-11 times the volume of waste water from
the MCC would need to be added (dilute 12% solids to 3 - 1% solids). A lagoon with volume of
around 150 m3 with would produce about 8.5 m3 biogas/day, sufficient to support the small
MCC. With a 40 day retention time this would require daily flow of 3.6 m3/day at 1% solids
this would be equivalent to 340 kg manure/day. This would require a minimum of 1000
liters/day to dilute the slurry to 3% solids and 3800 liters to dilute to 1% solids.

123
Khan,
124
Nelson and Lamb, 2002; Kramer 2008
5


A lagoon of roughly 450 m3 would produce about 24 m3 biogas/day for a large MCC with 1500
liters of milk cooling capacity. With HRT of 40 days, this size lagoon would require about 4 m3
input flow/day at 1% solids this would be equivalent to 950 kg manure/day.
A minimum depth of two meters is necessary for anaerobic conditions, but the depth should not
exceed 6 meters. Sometimes a secondary lagoon is used to accept wastes while the primary
lagoon is undergoing maintenance or for other purposes. For the small MCC size, a lagoon of 3
m depth would require a surface area of 50m, e.g., 5 m by 10 m. For the large MCC size a
lagoon of 4 m depth, would need an area of 112.5 m – e.g., 8m by 14 m.
A lagoon may possibly be appropriate for MCCs as extra water will be used to clean equipment
and facilities daily between milk pickup and late afternoon deliveries so extra water along with
some organic waste from cleaning will be readily available. It would only make sense for an
MCC application if the operations of the facility produced large amounts of waste water or if the
manure is flushed into a collection system, and if the site has plenty of space. The amount of
wastewater that would be generated daily by normal operation of the MCC is a critical input to
this analysis and should be verified through measurement after the first MCC is in operation,
before moving toward this option.

Number of cows needed
This analysis assumes that the cows feeding an MCC digester(s) will be located at the MCC.
Transporting manure is much more cumbersome and difficult than modest amounts of milk. It
may be technically feasible, but does not seem attractive as a sustainable model for replication.
In developed countries centralized digesters and power generation projects are being developed
at a very large scale where substantial amounts of manure are transported by truck to central
facilities.125 This model is clearly not appropriate to the scale and conditions of the MCC.
There are not many examples to be found of successful projects involving manure transport at
the MCC scale and in developing countries. One interesting exception is a proposed Global
Environment Facility (GEF) project to promote biomass energy in Egypt126. Among other
technologies, this project is proposing to promote community scale biodigesters in the 100 cow
size range, where dispersed farmers would bring manure to the central digester and pick up
fertilizer for their own use. The project document does not give much detail on how this would
work, but it is worth watching to see if this can be successful. At some future point, the Manica
Province program may want to reconsider this approach at the MCC scale.
The estimates of production of biogas per cow feeding a digester system are quite variable –
ranging from 0.5 to 2.8 m3/cow/day. This makes it difficult to determine the size of digester to
install for a given number of cows. Or, as in the case of the MCC scale digester, as the amount
of biogas needed is roughly known and it is difficult to estimate the number of cows needed to
produce this level of output for different types of digesters.

125
AgStar Handbook,
126
GEF Egypt Project Document, 2008
6


Several design documents aimed at smaller scale digesters give estimates in the range of 0.65-1.4
m3/cow/day.127 The ranges are primarily due to variations in the amount of manure produced per
cow, the percent of manure actually collected and fed into the digester, and the effectiveness of
the digester in converting volatile solids in the manure to biogas. The largest source of
variability in this range is the amount of manure that is fed into the digester per cow. For
milking cows in developed country situations a figure of 50kg manure/cow/day might be
appropriate, where virtually all of the manure is collected and used in the digester. 20-25
kg/cow/day is usually the lower end of the range used in the industrialized world.
Table C-2: Estimates of manure and cows needed to feed MCC digesters
Type Manure input for Cows needed for Manure input for Cows needed
small MCC small MCC large MCC for large MCC
Fixed Dome 225kg/day 9-19 675kg/day 27-56
Plastic Tubular 220kg/day 9-19
Plug Flow 800kg/day 32-67
Anaerobic 340 kg/day 13-29 950 kg/day 38-79
Covered Lagoon
Biogas programs in developing countries use still lower figures, around 10-12 kg/cow/day.128
These developing country rules of thumb appear to be general estimates that represent the
average breed, management and feeding practices and include dairy and non-dairy cows. It is
likely, therefore that the manure production of the cows distributed by the Manica Province
project will be somewhat higher. These cows will be a more productive breed and will be
managed and fed in ways that will produce more milk than average dairy cows. Milk production
is proportional to manure production and the cows will likely be managed at the MCC so that a
higher proportion of the excreted manure will be captured than is normally the case in
developing countries.
Based on all of these factors one would expect that the daily manure input to the digester per cow
would be somewhere between the developing country rule of thumb and the typical figures for
dairies in the industrialized world. The range of 12-25kg manure/cow/day should capture the
reasonable expectations for assessment of digester options for the MCC scale. Table C-2
provides estimates of cows needed based on estimated manure requirements of the different
digester design options considered.
The good news is that the variability is primarily due to how much manure on average makes it
from one cow into the digester. Manure production can and should be collected on site and
carefully measured before final decisions are made on size of digester and number of cows. This
is true for any digester design. Rather than rules of thumb, the digester design can be adjusted
to match actual manure available for a particular site and number of cows.

127
Defra, 2005; Practically Green Environmental Services. 2008, FACE 2008.
128
Bajgain, 2003
7


As discussed above, it may be necessary to clean the gas before it goes to a power generator.
The hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in particular, present in small amounts in biogas can form sulfuric
acid in the combustion process and damage equipment. Testing of the actual composition of
produced biogas and consultation with equipment suppliers will determine whether cleanup is
needed. If so, there are several simple scrubbing technologies that can be built into the digester
system design or purchased commercially.

Electricity Generator
For the MCC scale the primary generation option would be an internal combustion (IC) engine
generator. Reciprocating engines drive the vast majority of on-site generation. They are mass-
produced by many manufacturers around the world, cost less than other distributed generation
technologies, and have a fully developed sales, maintenance, and repair infrastructure. All of
these factors, combined with market familiarity, decreasing exhaust emissions, extended service
intervals, and long engine life, continue to make reciprocating engines the most commonly used
technology.
Often in agricultural systems, a standard diesel or spark engine is modified to burn the biogas to
turn a generator to produce electricity. A biogas fueled engine generator will normally convert
18 - 25 percent of the biogas energy to electricity, depending on engine design and load factor.
Gas treatment my or may not be needed as described earlier.
Dual-fuel engines are growing in popularity. These units use a small amount of diesel for start-up
and then run on natural gas. Emissions are reduced nearly to the level of natural gas engines.
These units can be operated on 100 percent diesel fuel at times when natural gas is not available.
A number of engine manufacturers make dual-fuel units, and existing diesel gensets can also be
retrofitted to dual-fuel at a reasonable cost.129
A Stirling engine generator is another option that has been proposed for small scale distributed
generation in developing country applications. A Free Piston Stirling engine has logistic
benefits with external combustion of biogas and also is somewhat more efficient. However, this
technology is likely to be significantly more expensive and sales and service are less likely to be
readily available in rural areas of developing countries. 130
A 2-5kW IC engine generator set would be a reliable and least cost option for generating
electricity to power the MCCs. A dual-fuel biogas/diesel generator set would be recommended
so that diesel would be available as back up if there should be a temporary disruption of the
biogas supply. A 2-3 kW genset would be capable of supplying the power needed for the small
MCC configuration while a 5 kW size would support a large MCC.

Economics of MCC System
Cost of biogas electricity system

129
E Source, 2006.
130
Khan, 2007; E Source, 2006.
8


One estimate of cost for constructing a community scale digester, using household scale designs
such as the Nepalese fixed dome, is that the household scale costs roughly $90 per m3 and with
economies of scale this would go down to $70/m3 for a 130 m3 digester.131 These numbers
represent a mid range estimate for fixed dome digester construction costs. Some estimates in
Asia are as low as $60-65 m3 for a household scale digester, while some African countries
estimate $140-170/m3 for the same design.132 For the MCC possible sizes – 25 m3 and 75 m3 –
a range of $75-85/m3 seems appropriate. A 25 m3 digester producing 8.5 m3 biogas/day would
require an investment of $1875 – 2125, and a large MCC digester of 75m3 producing over 25 m3
biogas/day would require $5625 – 6275.
The retail price for the 18m3 plastic tubular digester in Kenya is at least $600, but could be
higher with costs associated for installation, including some form of protection over the plastic
bag. Household scale programs in Asia and elsewhere133 have reported costs of under $100 for
digesters about one third this size. To support an MCC, a higher quality product would be
advisable, so the Kenyan cost numbers are probably more appropriate for the Manica Province
program. The 8.5 m3 biogas/day required for a small MCC could be provided by installing two
18 m3 plastic tubular digesters, costing $1200-1300.
In the US small plug flow digester estimated investment costs are rarely less that $1000/m3 of
digester volume. 134 This would require an investment of $18,000 for a unit to support the large
MCC. Even if costs in a developing country can be reduced (and this is not necessarily the case
for a relatively advanced technology not widely used in Africa) the cost would still be very high
for the MCC application.
Covered anaerobic lagoons are the least costly large scale design in industrialized countries. The
metric of $/m3 of volume is not appropriate for this technology as the lagoon volume could vary
dramatically across the range of solids concentrations (0.5-3%) that could be encountered at
different digester sites. A more useful measure is $/cow input to the lagoon. Lagoons in the U.
S. typically require investment of $100-200/cow135. Applying this rule of thumb to the sizes
required for the MCC application yields $1200 – 5800 for a small MCC digester and $3800 –
15,800 for a large MCC. While this range is very large and suggests caution and considerable
further study before any decision, it does also suggest that at the lower end of the cost range,
with careful design and management, an anaerobic lagoon could be roughly equivalent in cost
per m3 biogas provided to the scaled up household scale technologies – fixed dome and plastic
tubular digesters. The primary concerns about the anaerobic lagoon technology are the need for
large amounts of water and the land area required.

131
USAID, 2007
132
Greengadget, 2008 ,estimates for China; Ashden, 2005 for Nepal; Biogas for a Better Life, 2007a estimates for
Rwanda and South Africa.
133
Columbia, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Bangladesh are documented in An, et al., 1996
134
Goodrich, 2005; USDA, 2007.
135
USDA, 2007
9


For power generation, reciprocating engine generator sets for heavy duty use (as opposed to
standby use) are available as small as 1 kW and are estimated to cost $500-1,000/kW136 For
purposes of this assessment $1,000/kW is a reasonable first approximation of cost. So a
generator would cost $2,000-3,000 for a small MCC configuration and $5,000 for the large size.
Total cost, including digester construction and purchase of a generator set, for a small MCC
would be at minimum $4,000-6,000 to produce 12 kWh/day and $11,000 – 15,000 for the large
MCC scale. These are very preliminary numbers and need to refined through collection of better
data, more detailed analysis, and actual demonstration and measurement. They are a starting
point for considering the overall economics of biogas power generation for the milk collection
centers in the Manica Province program.
Benefit Cost Analysis
The financial analysis of the MCC biogas/power options is complicated. The primary benefit is
the cost of avoided electricity. There is great uncertainty about the cost of digesters at this scale
and some questions about the incremental cost of the biogas option relative to an uncertain
baseline of MCC cost without biogas. What values to use for electricity and fuels replaced by
the biogas is also a question.
For example using a recent analysis of a proposed community scale biogas digester in Egypt
used a subsidized power price of $0.03/kWh and also a more realistic marginal cost based price
of $0.09/kWh. This makes a huge difference in the financial viability of a community scale
digester and power generation project. At the lower price the project is not viable but at the
higher commercial tariff which might be obtained directly from the targeted customers, the IRR is
7% and a simple payback period is 9.1 years. A recent report from the African Development Bank
(AFDB) stated that the national average electricity tariff for Mozambique was equivalent to
$0.08/kWh, while the while the long run marginal cost was $0.091/kWh.137 This means that
electricity prices on average are lower than cost, or subsidized. The report also indicates that there
are different tariffs for different geographical regions and different classes of customers that include
substantial cross subsidies. The actual price paid by a residential or commercial customer could
vary significantly from the national average.
The other value that can be used is the avoided cost of diesel fuel which would be the typical fuel for
back-up power when grid power is not available. In the Egypt study, substitution of biogas for
diesel provided a positive IRR of 8% and simple payback of 8.6 years even with a low government
subsidized diesel price. With an unsubsidized diesel price or by providing a similar subsidy for
biogas, the IRR would jump to 30% with a simple payback of 3 years.
For the MCC applications in Manica Province, there are several factors that are specific to this
location and application. The actual power and fuel prices of course need to be determined and used
for a credible calculation. In addition, because of the nature of the MCC electricity demand the
generator will not be used at full load most of the time. Generally in a biogas power project, the

136
E Source 2007
137
AFDB, 2007
10


financial logic is to size the generator so that it can run at near full load as much of the time as
possible, so that the capital costs can be spread across as many kWh of power produced as possible.
In the MCC case, a key objective is to limit the number of cows that will need to be located at the
MCC to support the digester. Plus the duty cycle expected for the milk cooling equipment inherently
results in a small amount of time where the load will require near full load of the generator, and
many hours of low load. Finally, the scale of this project is smaller than most commercial biogas
power project and this also makes it more difficult for the project to be financially viable.
As a result one would expect that this overall investment project would be less attractive than other
biogas power projects. The small MCC system is sized to produce 12 kWh/day or 4380 kWh/year.
Using the national average price of $0.08/kWh this would generate savings of $350.40/year from
electric power not purchased from the grid. The large MCC system would generate savings 40
kWh/day or 14,600kWh/year. At $0.08/kWh this would save $1168 in a year.
Capital costs are $4,000-6,000 to produce 12 kWh/day and 11,000 – 15,000 for the large MCC
scale. For this simple calculation operating costs are not considered although there would certainly
be some, but not significant relative to the capital. The Small MCC calculation shows a simple
payback of 11.4 – 17.1 years. The large MCC shows 9.4 – 12.8 years. This is basically not
attractive as an investment project on strictly financial terms.
The avoided cost of power is, of course, higher if the alternative is back up power generated with
diesel fuel. Reported national average retail diesel prices in Mozambique fluctuated between
$0.43 and $0.79/liter from 2000-2004 and a value of $0.60/liter is about the average.138 A diesel
generator produces about 3.2 kWh for each liter of fuel it uses up. Value of avoided fuel use
assuming that 100% power would have been from a diesel generator:
For the small MCC system - 12 kWh/3.2 = 3.75 liters/day x $0.60 = $2.25 per day = $821.25 per
year. The simple payback would be 4.9 – 7.3 years.
For the large MCC - 40 kWh/3.2= 10.7 liters/day x $0.60 = 6.42 per day = $2343.30 per year and
the simple payback 4.6 – 6.4 years.
Clearly the assumption of 100% diesel generator power offset by biogas is not realistic, but
rather an upper bound on the financial benefit of the biogas substitution. This might be a useful
indicator of the value of a biogas system if an MCC were to be developed in a rural off-grid
location in the future.
Another way to think about this financial analysis is to assume that the MCC would require a
backup diesel generator of roughly equivalent capital cost even without a decision to invest in
biogas. A standby generator designed to run much less than full time might be somewhat less
costly than what might be required for the biogas system, but not drastically less. Assuming that
the generator cost is not counted against the biogas project the costs of the MCC systems would
be $2,000-3,000 for a small digester and $6,000-$10,000 for a large system.
This would bring the simple paybacks to

138
Metschies, 2005
11


Small MCC 5.1 – 8.6 years

Large MCC 4.5 – 22.8 years
Another limitation of these preliminary calculations is that they do not include any financial
benefit for the high quality fertilizer that will be produced from the biogas digesters. This is
clearly a real benefit, but there is not readily available market information that would allow for a
quantitative estimate of the value.
Of course there are many of the other non-monetary benefits that are discussed in an earlier
section of this report – improvements in odor and sanitation, local air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions reductions, etc.
12


Appendix D: Diary Scale Digester Systems
Digester Type and Design
Box D-1 summarizes the digester types most commonly used in large dairy farm operations in
the U.S. These are all proven, cost-effective and reliable designs, but the appropriate design for
the Evertz Farm/Gouda Gold application is the covered anaerobic digester. This is the least cost
design of the four digester types and is suited for low concentrations (less than 3 percent) of
solids. It is best suited to dairy farms with flush systems for manure collection like the Evertz
Farm flush manure management system and the waste water from the Gouda Gold processing
facility. Anaerobic lagoons are perhaps the most trouble free, low maintenance systems
available for treatment of animal waste from large dairy farms. A properly designed, constructed
and operated anaerobic lagoon is very forgiving and not likely to create emergency situations
that can be expected with many alternative waste management systems. Adding methane
recovery to the system increases maintenance but even in the event of failure of the gas
collection system, it will not interrupt the waste stream and digestion process.
The main advantages of covered anaerobic lagoons are the low capital cost compared to other
digester types, fairly simple construction design, and ease of management. The disadvantage of
covered anaerobic lagoons is the large footprint (land area requirement), solids settling issues,
and the dependency of biogas production on climate. Anaerobic lagoons operate at ambient
temperature and a principal drawback of this design in the US is that it is not as well suited for
cooler climates. This is not a problem in Manica Province.
Figure D-1: Covered Anaerobic Lagoon Digester139
Solids introduced into a lagoon are prone to settle and require removal at some interval because
of the large dilution volume and long HRT associated with covered anaerobic lagoons.
Appropriate sludge removal intervals will depend on the loading of the lagoon and the

139
Burke, 2002
1


concentrations of inorganic solids and indigestible fiber in the wastewater. Nuisance odors may
2


Box D-1: Farm Scale Digester Types1
There a few primary types of anaerobic digesters currently in wide use in North America. The choice
of which digester to use is driven by the existing (or planned) manure handling system at the facility.
The digester must be designed to operate as part of the facility’s operations. One of the basic options
will generally be suitable for most conditions. Exhibit 1-1 summarizes the main characteristics of these
digester technologies:
Covered Lagoon Digester. Covered lagoons are used to treat and produce biogas from liquid manure
with less than 3 percent solids. Generally, large lagoon volumes are required, preferably with depths
greater than 2 meters. The typical volume of the required lagoon can be roughly estimated by multiplying
the daily manure flush volume by 40 to 60 days. Covered lagoons for energy recovery are compatible
with flush manure systems in warm climates.
Complete Mix Digester. Complete mix digesters are engineered tanks, above or below ground, that treat
slurry manure with a solids concentration in the range of 3 to 10 percent. These structures require less
land than lagoons and are heated. Complete mix digesters are compatible with combinations of scraped
and flushed manure.
Plug Flow Digester: Plug flow digesters are engineered, heated, rectangular tanks that treat scraped dairy
manure with a range of 11 to 13 percent total solids. Swine manure cannot be treated with a plug flow
digester due to its lack of fiber.
Fixed Film Digester. Fixed-film digesters consist of a tank filled with plastic media. The media
supports a thin layer of anaerobic bacteria called biofilm (hence the term "fixed-film"). As the
waste manure passes through the media, biogas is produced. Like covered lagoon digesters
fixed-film digesters are best suited for dilute waste streams typically associated with flush
manure handling or pit recharge manure collection.
.
1
Source: U.S. EPA, AgStar Handbook
3


be generated while cleaning the lagoons.140
The effluent from the digester is a valuable source of nitrogen for plants that can be field applied
for improved crop production. Placing a cover over the lagoon for collecting biogas virtually
eliminates odor from the lagoon. Odor from field application of effluent from covered lagoons is
much reduced from what might be expected when applying untreated or uncovered lagoon
effluent. Periodic sludge removal can be achieved either by temporary removal of all or part of
the cover, or by providing gas tight openings around the cover perimeter to access the lagoon.
Generally, large lagoon volumes are required. The minimum depth is 2 m, but lagoons typically
have a depth of 4-6 m depending upon ground water levels. Covered anaerobic lagoons are
usually built with a compacted clay or synthetic (e.g., plastic) liner to prevent leakage and
groundwater contamination. Facilities on sites with high ground water will need to be avoided or
tile drained. The lagoon is constructed with slightly sloping sides.
The volume of the required lagoon can be roughly estimated by multiplying the daily manure
flush volume by hydraulic retention time (HRT), normally 40 to 60 days.141 Slurry with solids
content of 0.5-3% is appropriate for treatment in a lagoon.142
The cover of the lagoon serves to create the airtight, anaerobic conditions needed for methane
formation and also serves as the gas storage and collection area. Covers are typically constructed
of flexible synthetic materials including high density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low-density
polyethylene (LLPE), ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM), polypropylene (PP),
or reinforced polyethylene (RPE). These materials have a life-span of more than 20 years and are
easily repaired. Biogas is collected in pipes along the top of the cover and moved using a low
vacuum pump to the point of use. In some cases, excess biogas is flared (burned off without
being used for other energy needs) from covered anaerobic lagoons. Biogas from covered
anaerobic lagoons has been utilized quite successfully and economically to fuel boilers and
generate electricity.143
Flush water from the milking process and other wastewater, such as from the food processing
activities, typically moves through drains that empty into a manure mix tank. At this point other
manure scraped or hand collected from barns and pastures can be added so long as there is
sufficient water coming in to maintain a solids content of 3% or below. Generally, an agitator
device mixes the tank and a chopper pump moves the slurry to the lagoon. In some cases solids
may be screened and removed prior to entering the lagoon. The slurry may be pumped through a
separation process (separator screens and/or gravity separation) to remove non-degradable solids
like straw and sand that can interfere with methane production and lead to more frequent
cleaning of the lagoon. However, a considerable amount of energy potential is lost with the

140
NIWA, 2008
141
In colder climates such as North America, HRT can be much longer, up to 8 months. Usually these lagoons are
used strictly for waste handling and odor control,and methane is often flared.
142
US EPA AgStar Handbook
143
USDA, 2007; NIWA, 2008
4


removal of particulate solids, so it is preferable to manage the dairy and manure handling
operations in ways that avoid the presence of extraneous solids and skip the separation step if
possible.144
Effluent processing: Solids separation may be done after effluent flows out of the lagoon. This
would provide a liquid, easily used, high quality fertilizer, and a solid product that can be used or
possibly sold for bedding, soil amendments, etc. If this is done, or for other reasons, a liquid
storage tank/lagoon for slurry fertilizer would be needed. If fertilizer application occurs
unevenly, as is likely in this case, effluent would need to be extracted from the lagoon at the
same rate that influent is put in to keep the lagoon operation and digestion process running
smoothly.
Part of the design of the digester system should include development of a plan for use of the
processing and use of the effluent, or the volumes could quickly overwhelm the storage capacity
and cause problems. Sufficient areas need to be identified for application of the liquid effluent
to avoid overflow or waste. If solids are separated, as is usually the case in dairy farm scale
operations, then uses should be identified. Solids can be spread on cropland, composted and
exported off the farm, recycled as bedding, or otherwise used.
Size and Biogas Production
In order to determine the correct size of a covered anaerobic lagoon and potential biogas
production, the number of cows needs to be multiplied by the kg manure/cow/day, and % of
manure captured. The Evertz Farm calculations also need to account for the other organic solids
coming from cheese and yogurt processing. The manure as excreted contains 12 % solids so the
total manure captured is multiplied by 0.12. Solids in the processing waste stream should be
estimated and added to give the total solids entering the lagoon/day. This is combined with the
flow of flush water/day to give the total volume of slurry/day. Sufficient liquids must be added to
dilute the slurry to 3% solids or less. This daily flow is multiplied by the hydraulic retention
time (HRT) to determine the total volume needed for the lagoon.
Typical manure produced per day by a dairy cow in the US is about 50 kg. Evertz Farm is in a
developing country with a normally warm, dry climate and feed practices that may not be as
intense as US dairies, so a conservative assumption is 30 kg/cow. Anaerobic lagoons normally
have a relatively long HRT of 40-60 days and 50 days is used here as an estimate. The
calculations are a crude effort to get a sense of the potential and economics of biogas capture and
use.
The lower bound calculations assume the current situation of about 120 cows being milked and
that the system will capture manure flushed from the milk parlor and holding area, and that the
flush water from the paved feeding area will be connected to the waste stream if a digester is
installed. This gives a figure of 50% of total manure captured in flush water . The second
calculation is for the same 120 cows but assumes that a mixing tank is installed and that manure

144
Burke, 2002
5


collected from fields is combined with the flushed slurry mixed and pumped into the lagoon.
That would allow 90% of the manure to be utilized. In both of these cases current levels of
cheese and yogurt processing are assumed and that wastewater is included. The second set of
estimates are for the medium term projected numbers of 500 milking cows with greatly expanded
cheese, yogurt and long life milk processing. The two cases again assume 50% and 90% capture
of manure respectively.
The results show that even with the current operation enough manure is being generated to
produce 50-85 m3 biogas/day and if the diary is successful in its plans to expand to 500 cows, it
could produce sizable amounts of biogas – 238 – 425 m3. This would also require dedication of
substantial area for lagoon use. At the 500 cow size a lagoon could require 475 m2 of area up to
850 m2 depending on the percentage of manure captured and fed into the lagoon.
Gas Handling: Biogas is collected in the headspace of the anaerobic lagoon under the flexible
biogas collection cover. Covers can typically function as reservoirs for biogas storage for some
time at low pressures. It is particularly important to ensure that excessive amounts of air do not
enter the gas collection system. Depending on the methane concentration of the biogas, explosive
mixtures are created when air is mixed with biogas such that 6 to 12 percent of the mixture is
CH4. Safety precautions, including adequate flame traps and pressure reducers, should be used
on biogas delivery lines. A gas meter to monitor rate of flow, and pump will be required to
move the gas through piping to the boiler, generator and any other possible uses.
Ordinarily, with lagoons the biogas storage capacity under the lagoon flexible cover is sufficient
to hold all the gas produced until it is used. It may be preferable to locate gas storage closer to
the end uses and this can be accomplished with a simple storage container – e.g., a flexible
rubber/plastic bag or simple floating drum – that will hold gas near the end uses at a constant
pressure.
There is some question as to the need for gas treatment, in particular scrubbing to remove
hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Once biogas starts to be produced, it can be tested to determine the H2S
content and the equipment in which it will be used can be evaluated to determine whether it will
be able to accept this level of contaminants. Boilers and IC engine generators, for example,
often are able to operate on biogas without cleaning before use.
Gas Uses
The highest priority gas use will clearly be fuel for the boiler currently used intermittently in the
cheese and yogurt processing operation. The current fuel for the boiler is diesel and it is
estimated that 50-60 liters are used per day on average. This will also increase as the expansion
plans are implemented. Diesel fuel is relatively expensive and operating a boiler is a very simple
and efficient use of biogas. Most likely the boiler can be modified to operate on biogas relatively
easily and also can be set up to operate on either fuel. This will allow diesel to be used as a
back-up fuel in the event there is a disruption of the biogas supply. Boilers normally require
very little biogas cleaning and conditioning prior to use, and boiler efficiency has been reported
to average 75 percent when burning biogas. While burning biogas with large amounts of H2S
6


will decrease the useful life and increase the maintenance of the equipment, it is still commonly
done. The lower the concentration of H2S in the biogas, the longer the boiler life. If H2S is
slightly high, one approach is to change oil and clean the boiler frequently.145 Once H2S

145
Scott, 2005.
7


Box D-2: Calculations of Lagoon Size and Biogas Production
Case 1. 120 cows x 15kg/cow/day (30 kg manure 50% recovered) = 1800 kg, 12% solids = 216
+ flush water 1000 liters/day + processing waste water 2000 liters/day = 4800 liters
assume that processing waste water contains 1% organic solids =20kg total solids = 226
Total volume of slurry needs to be 7530 liters/day to dilute to 3% solids. In addition to the
estimated flow of 4800 liters 2730 liters/day more water is needed to achieve minimum flow =
7530 liters/day
7.53 m3/day x 50 days = 376.5 m3
375 m3 lagoon volume at 3 m depth – approximately 125 m2 surface area or 10m by 12.5 m
estimated biogas production is 2 tonnes (1.8 manure + 0.2 equiv from food processing waste x 25
m3
biogas/tonne manure = 50 m3 biogas/day
Case 2. 120 cows 90% manure captured = 3240 kg manure/day = 388.8 kg solids + 20 kg solids
from food processing = 408.8 kg solids @ 3% soilds this equals 13,627 liters/day total flow.
@ 50 days HRT = 680 m3 lagoon volume at 4 meters depth – approximately 170 m2 surface
area or 10 m by 17m
3.2 tonnes + 0.2 from food processing solids 3.4 tonnes x 25 m3/tonne = 85 m3 biogas/day
Case 3: 500 cows – 30 kg manure/day 50% captured --7500 kg (12% solids) = 900 kg solids
Food processing waste water = 25 m3 day a 1% solids = 250 kg solids total solids 1150 kg/day
diluted to 3% = 38 m3 minimum daily flow @ 50 days HRT =
l
1900 m3 lagoon volume at 4 m depth – approximately 475 m2 surface area or 19m by 25 m.
9.5 tonnes manure/day x 25 m3/tonne = 238 m3 biogas/day
Case 4: 500 cows x 30kg manure/cow/d ay 90% captured -- 15 tonnes/day – 12% = 1800 kg
solids
Food processing waste water = 25 m3 day a 1% solids = 250 kg solids, total solids 2,050
kg/day diluted to 3% = 68,340 liters 68 m3/day minimum flow @ 50 days HRT
3400 m3 lagoon volume at 4 m depth approximately 850 m2 surface area or 25 m by 34 m
17 tonnes (manure + food solids) x 25 m3/tone = 425m3 biogas/day

8


concentrations can be determined, the managers of the plant can make a judgment as to whether
some biogas cleaning is needed. This can be added into the gas handling system at any time
without much difficulty.
Once the boiler is converted and operating satisfactorily on biogas, there is like to be additional
biogas available for other uses in the farm and processing operations. The next most financially
attractive use for the gas would be to generate electricity to supply the on-site needs and back out
purchased electricity from the grid. The least cost option would be to retrofit the existing diesel
fired IC engine generator set to operate on either diesel or biogas. This 60 KVA generator is
currently used as back-up power for the unreliable local grid and would need some evaluation to
determine if it is durable enough to run nearly for long periods of time to generate enough power
to offset all or most of the on-site electricity needs.
If the existing generator cannot be adapted for heavy use and biogas fuel, then a new IC engine
generator set is the next least cost option. Dual-fuel engine generators are widely available.
These units use a small amount of diesel for start-up and then run on gas. Emissions are reduced
nearly to the level of natural gas engines. These units can be operated on 100 percent diesel fuel
at times when natural gas is not available. A number of engine manufacturers make dual-fuel
units, and existing diesel gensets can also be retrofitted to dual-fuel at a reasonable cost.146 If the
existing genset cannot be utilized, a new generator would be required and this would add
considerably to the capital cost of the system. It appears at first look, that a great deal of electric
power from the generator could be used on site, particularly if the biogas generated power can
be used to operate the borehole pumps as well as the other uses.
As the overall expansion plan of the farm and processing plant is implemented over time, and/or
as existing equipment ages and becomes less reliable, additional options for using the biogas can
be considered. Depending on how much power, boiler fuel and process heat are needed it may
make sense to expand the system and to install a new and larger generator, possibly in a
cogeneration configuration so that the waste heat from the electric power generation could be
used to heat water to supplement the boiler, or for other uses. In addition to IC engines, several
newer technologies could be considered at that point as well. Micro turbine generators, Stirling
engines and fuel cells have all been used or proposed for biogas generation projects.147

Economics
The estimated costs of the digester system: The costs of an anaerobic lagoon are composed of
the 1) lagoon construction, 2) the flexible cover and gas collection system and 3) various
additional smaller scale components. No detailed cost estimates have been available for
construction of anaerobic lagoons in Africa or other developing countries. Cost estimators have
been derived from costs reported in the US and other industrialized countries.
These cost factors have been adjusts a bit, in a fairly crude way, to reflect lower labor and
construction costs one would expect in Mozambique, and slightly higher costs that may be

146
Esource, 2006.
147
See for example Esource, 2006, Goldstein, 2006
9


Box D-3: Anaerobic Lagoon Cost Estimates
Based on US experience with large lagoons, estimated costs for lagoon cover and gas collection
system are between $16 and $25 per m2 surface area. Balance of the system (mainly lagoon
construction, etc.) runs between $0.80 and $1.5 per m3 lagoon capacity.1 Another analysis from New
Zealand breaks down cost components of a new anaerobic digester system.1 These costs are similar
($20-25/m2) for the cover and gas collection but considerably higher ($8-10/m3) for balance of
system including construction of the lagoon.
As the lagoon construction and other components are likely to be largely labor, and use local
materials these costs may be somewhat lower in Mozambique, a medium to low figure of $5/m3 is
used for lagoon excavation and other costs. Conversely, the flexible cover and gas collection system
may need to be imported so a higher figure of $25/m2 of surface area is used.
There are other analyses that show higher costs and identify additional components that may be
included in the above estimates. To be conservative it is assumed that an additional $1000 - $5000
is needed to cover adjustments to the boiler, additional equipment, piping, etc.
Case 1. 120 cows 50% manure captured: 50 m3 biogas/day

Costs are estimated to be: 125 m2 surface area x $25/m2 = 3125
375 m3 lagoon volume x $5/m3 = 1875
Additional system components = 1000
Total cost = $6,000
Case 2. 120 cows 90% manure captured 85 m3 biogas/day

Costs are estimated to be: 170 m2 surface area x $25/m2 = $4250
680 m3 lagoon volume x $5/ m3 =
$3400
Additional system components = $1500
Total cost = $9,150
Case 3: 500 cows – 30 kg manure/day 50% captured 238 m3 biogas/day

Costs are estimated to be: 475 m2 surface area x $25/m2 = $11,875
1900 m3 lagoon volume x $5/m3 = $9,500
Additional system components = $3,000
Total cost = $24,375
Case 4: 500 cows x 30kg manure/cow/d ay 90% 425m3 biogas/day

Costs are estimated to be: 850 m2 surface area x $25/m2 = $21,250
3400 m3 lagoon volume x $5/m3 = $17,000
Additional system components = $5,000
Total cost = $38,250

10


incurred for items, like the flexible cover, that likely to be imported. Box 3 provides “ball park”
estimates of cost for the 4 size/configuration cases developed earlier. The investment cost
estimates range from $6,000 from a small lagoon that could produce about 50 m3 of biogas/day
to $38,250 for a large lagoon that could handle waste from 500 cows and supply 475 m3
biogas/day, likely more than enough to supply boiler fuel and a good deal of electricity
generation needed for the farm and processing plant.
It is likely that the existing diesel boiler could be adapted to run on either biogas or diesel fuel
without significant cost. This is a common practice on biogas projects around the world and is
assumed to add no significant cost. This, like other assumptions in this assessment should be
examined in more detail as part of the of a project design process if the decision is made to move
forward.
Generator costs: If the existing diesel generator can be retrofitted and used for at least the first
few years this would keep the initial costs of the system are quite low. If it is determined that a
new dual fueled, heavy duty IC engine generator set is needed, than this will raise the initial
investment cost substantially.
It is conservative to estimate that the retrofit of the existing generator plus increase maintenance
could cost $2000. Also, it is assumed that biogas from the smaller sized lagoons would be
entirely used to supply boiler fuel, as backing out diesel is the most economically valuable gas
use.
If it is determined that a new generator is required, the range for a standard dual fuel IC engine
generator set of 50 kW (roughly equivalent to 60KVA current unit) at $500-1000/kW would be
$25,000-$50,000.
Total costs: For the smaller scale lagoons, the gas production would all go into offsetting boiler
fuel, no generation technology costs would be needed and the total cost would equal the digester
costs in Box D-2.
For the two larger lagoon cases cost estimates are more complicated.
1) The 1900 m3 lagoon producing 238 m3 biogas/day would be:
a. lagoon and digester system only $24,375, if all of the gas could be used as boiler fuel
due to expanded operations;
b. lagoon and digester system $24,375 + generator upgrade $2000 = 26,375;
c. lagoon and digester system + new generator = $49,375-74,375
2) The 3400 m3 lagoon producing 475 m3 biogas/day would be:

a. lagoon and digester system $38,250 + generator upgrade- $2000 = $40,250
b. lagoon and digester system + new generator = $63,250- 88,250
Financial benefits: Substitution of biogas for currently purchased energy – diesel fuel and
electricity – is the major monetary benefit of a biogas digester system for this facility. First
priority is substitution of biogas for the existing use of diesel fuel to fire the boiler used in the
11


food processing plant. An initial estimate from the plant manager is that the boiler currently uses
60-70 liters/day supporting the processing plant. A recent report indicated that diesel prices in
Mozambique have been between $0.40-$0.80/liter in the early 2000s.148 $0.60/liter is a
conservative value used for these calculations. If purchase of 65 liters/day of diesel at a price of
$0.60/liter is avoided the savings would be $39/day or $14,235/year. Substitution of this amount
of diesel fuel would require at most124 m3 biogas/day.
The remaining biogas available, as much as 475-124 = 351 m3, could be used for power
generation and/or expanded operation of the boiler. The cheese, yogurt and long life milk
processing is expected to ramp up with expansion of the dairy operations and increasing milk
purchases from the smallholder dairy cooperatives. If the boiler fuel demand expands, this
would be the first priority for use of additional biogas. It is the highest value use, and does not
require any further capital investment.
The power generation at 1.7 kWh/m3 could be in theory as much as 597 kWh/day. It is not clear
at this point whether this much power could be productively used on a daily basis, and this
should be further evaluated. At an electricity price of $0.08/kWh (reported to be the national
average electricity tariff in Mozambique.149 This of course needs to be recalculated using actual
on-farm figures for price and daily use) would save roughly $47.76/day or $17,432/year.
If the boiler fuel requirement doubled with the expansion, the diesel substitution could save
$28,470/year and the remaining 227 m3 biogas could produce up to 385 kWh/day at $0.08/kWh
worth $30.80/day or $11,242/year.
Total energy savings for the largest lagoon option are

14,235 + 17,432 = $31,667 with replacement of current diesel use only, plus power
28,470 + 11,242 = $39,712 with replacement of double diesel use, plus power.
With existing generator total costs = $40,250 the best case provides for a simple payback of
slightly over 1 year. With a new generator, costs would be $63,250– $88,250 and simple
Table D-1: Costs and Benefits of Biogas Options

Cases Cost Benefits Simple payback
$ $ years
1. 120 cows, 50% manure capture 6,000 5840* 1.03
2. 120 cows, 90% manure capture 9,150 9855* <1
3. a. 500 cows, 50% manure capture, no 24,375 27,235* <1
generator
3.b. 500 cows, 50% manure capture, plus 26,375 19,900 1.2
retrofitted generator
3.c. 500 cows, 50% manure capture, plus 49,375- 19,900 2.5 – 3.7
new generator 74,375

148
Metschies, 2005
149
AFDB, 2007
12


4. a. 500 cows, 90% manure capture, plus 40,250 31,667- 1.1
retrofitted generator 39,712
4 b. 500 cows, 90% manure capture, plus 63,250- 31,667- 1. – 2.4
new generator 88,250 39,712
*no electricity generation, assumes that all biogas produced can be used to back out diesel fuel for the boiler.
payback would be 1.6 to 2.8 years. Costs and benefits were calculated in the same way for all
cases and results are shown in Table D-1.
These economic calculations do not include monetized value for the anaerobic lagoon effluent
used as fertilizer or other products. These benefits could be substantial as the effluent is much
higher quality fertilizer than the raw manure and could be sold or could increase productivity
significantly if applied to pastures or crops on the farm. However, the value of these products is
difficult to determine at this time. More detailed analysis may be able to quantify some of these
benefits, further improving the financial attractiveness of the project.
On the other hand, there are some costs that clearly are not captured in this preliminary analysis.
No effort has been made to include operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, sometimes
estimated as 5-6% of annualized capital costs in the US.150 This figure would include O&M for
the digester systems and also any increases in O&M for equipment like the boiler and IC engine
generator. Some additional components e.g., piping systems, may add costs not included in the
analyses used to derive cost estimators. More detailed analysis of the individual components –
biogas cleaning, tanks, pumps, valves, buildings, etc -- could show higher costs than those
embedded in the general cost estimators used in this analysis. This is particularly an issue for
imported equipment.
There is also some cost associated with more detailed study possibly up to a full engineering
feasibility study that will be necessary to move this project forward. May be possible for the
Manica Province program to support some additional consulting/engineering services as a next
step. It is also possible to seek development funding, e.g., GEF small grants program or CDM
project developers.
Despite the uncertainties and limitations of the financial analysis in this report, it seems unlikely
that better data and analysis will change the fundamental conclusion that biogas opportunities
here are economically attractive. There are options for using initial increments of biogas that
appear to save more than their cost in the first year. Most of the size and technology
configurations appear to payback in under 3 years which is generally considered a very attractive
rate of return on investment.

Phasing of project investments

150
USDA, 2007.
13


The components of the proposed digester and biogas utilization system are all proven
commercial products or items that can be produced locally. However, the overall system is
somewhat complex and the interactions between the components need to be timed and planed
carefully to avoid waste and disruption. Notably, the anaerobic lagoon digester will take some
time to begin operation and stabilize daily biogas production. It would be wasteful to make an
investment in generation technology that would sit idle or underutilized waiting for the biogas
supply to be available. Similarly, the construction and operation of the lagoon must be timed to
fit with the expansion plans of the dairy so that the lagoon can be fed by the necessary head of
cows when it begins filling for operation. Another reason for careful planning and phased
investment is that capital scarcity is a major constraint for the project as described above.
Ideally, parts of the project can be implemented at relatively low cost and begin to show
financial benefits quickly, then additional component investments can be made as possible.
Fortunately, this project has several aspects that will make phasing relatively easy and may allow
capital costs to be held lower than most similar projects. Project investment can be phased in
several ways. First, it would be worth considering phased development of anaerobic lagoon
capacity. Depending on the rate at which expansion of the dairy and food processing operations
is expected, it may be many years before the volume of daily manure and wastewater flows will
be sufficient to support a full scale 3400 m3 lagoon capacity. It may make sense to build this as
two lagoons of half this size, 1900 m3 volume. The first could be scheduled for completion and
operation at a point where the dairy herd will be at roughly 250 cows and the food processing
waste water will increase somewhat, but not to full expected flows. This would lower the initial
investment cost and spread some of the investment into future years, but would allow for some
savings to be generated quickly by substituting biogas for diesel fuel. It might also have an
advantage down the road when the lagoon needs to be cleaned of sludge. One half could be
cleaned at a time so that the flow of biogas would not be completely disrupted. This option
would clearly forgo some economies of scale and increase overall cost. Pros and cons need to be
evaluated in more detail.
A second opportunity for lowering initial investment costs is lies in the existence of the boiler
used for food processing and very likely easy and inexpensive to adapt for use of biogas to
replace some or all of the existing diesel fuel. This is a low cost option that generates high
returns as diesel fuel is the most expensive energy option that can be replaced.
The other interesting option for phasing is the possibility of adapting the existing diesel fired
back-up generator to biogas and running it for sufficient periods to offset some of the farms
purchase of electricity from the grid. This is a lower value opportunity that replacing diesel fuel
but could add to savings and help the early investments to pay for themselves very quickly.
Some modest improvements in the manure handling system could also begin fairly quickly and
be spread over long periods avoid lumpiness of capital investment. It would be useful to
consider replacing or adapting the open culvert system for moving manure from the milking
parlor and other flush areas to the lagoon. These distance are fairly long and it is possible that
some of the energy value in the slurry is being lost through volitization in the current system.
Adding PVC piping or some similar material into the existing culverts would eliminate this
14


problem without a huge investment. It also reduces odor. Add drain pipes from the existing
feeding area to lagoon location.
A mixing tank, pumps and settling tank(s) will be necessary for full operation of the lagoon
digester, and could be introduced earlier with benefits for the manure management system before
the full operation of the digester system. Acquisition of a fertilizer pumping vehicle could allow
some of the fertilizer benefits to be obtained before the biogas energy benefits are fully in place.
15


Appendix E: Biogas Program Information and Contacts
There are a great many programs that are currently promoting or have recently promoted
biogas digester systems in African countries. Some of the programs that have been cited in
this report, and appear to have the greatest relevance to the Manica Province program, are
listed below. Where possible contact information is provided.
Regional - Biogas for Better Life, An African Initiative (also referred to as Biogas Africa
Initiative) http://www.biogasafrica.org/index.html
Communication Contact: Chudi Ukpabi
+31(0) 652 033 141
Email: chudicommunication@yahoo.com
Biogas Initiative Ambassador: Hauwa Ibrahim

Plot 2261, Ndola Crescent, Wuse Zone 5, Abuja, Nigeria.
Phone: +234 9 523 6663; Fax: +234 9 523 8271
Email: hauwana@yahoo.com
On May 20-23, 2007 representatives from 27 countries in Africa, and 37 in all, met in
Nairobi, Kenya to formally launch the Biogas for Better Life Initiative. This meeting follows
an exploratory workshop organized in Amsterdam in October 2006. During this 3-day event
participants discussed how to carry forward the objectives of the broader Initiative. A
number of country national biogas program pre-feasibility and feasibility studies are already
completed or underway, and programs are already being launched in Rwanda and Ethiopia.
Twenty-one founding organizations, international and African, are listed with websites at
http://www.biogasafrica.org/AllItems.aspx.html
Kenya
Sustainable Community Development Services Programme (SCODE) is a non-profit

making Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). It was formed in 1996 and has its registered
office and community training resource centre in Nakuru. The NGO SCODE operates in
Nakuru district and is currently the leading installer of biogas systems in Kenya with 200
installed systems. Most systems have been installed cash, but SCODE has also developed a
structure with an internal revolving fund, with seed money from 3 donors. SCODE is a
member of the East African Energy Technology Development Network (EAETDN).
EAETDN was established in 1998 and has 35 members in Kenya who work in various areas
of energy development. The goal of the network is to reduce poverty among communities in
East Africa through use of appropriate clean energy technologies. SCODE is the Chair and
Focal Point of the EAETDN in Kenya.
John Maina (Executive Co-ordinator)

Email via Household Energy Network Site: http://www.hedon.info/SCODEKenya
Renewable Energy Engineering Contractors (REECON)

Email: reecon@mitsuminet.com
1


REECON was established in 1998 and registered in Kenya in 1999. It is involved in
development, fabrication and installation of renewable energy systems and technologies that
are environmentally friendly. REECON has highly qualified technicians who have been
involved in the biogas sector for over 15 years.
Pioneer Technologies Ltd is a local company incorporated in Kenya and operated by

Kenyans. It started biogas business as an offshoot of a plastic business they have been
running. It ventured into biogas because of two major reasons – problems of energy
especially in the rural areas, and the need to conserve forests/trees. They had also recognised
the logical option of using already existing resources – cow-dung and plastics and that at least
60 percent of rural households have livestock, which can give sufficient dung to be used in
production of methane. Currently, Pioneer Technologies Ltd receives support from Land
O’lakes and has entered into research collaboration with Jomo Kenyatta University of
Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). Land O’Lakes gives financial support to the company
in the production of biogas digesters. JKUAT is supposed to carry out investigations into
issues arising from the use of the technology, with focus on how the technology can be
improved, made more efficient, etc. Pioneer Technologies partnered with the USAID Dairy
Development for Kenya project completed in 2008 by Land O; Lakes, Inc. The project
supported the private-sector service-provider of biogas, to re-introduce an affordable
olythene/tubular biogas technology to smallholder dairy farmers with appropriate training
and technical back-up in place to ensure sustainability.
Land O; Lakes contact in Kenya: Mulinge Mukumbu and/or Joe Carvalho
Land O’Lakes, Inc. – Kenya Office
Phone: +254-20 3748685
Fax: +254-20 3745056
E-mail: lolkenya@landolakes.com
In the business model for biogas under the Breathing Space project in Kenya, financial
institutions (the KUSSCO umbrella organization of Kenyan SACCOs, and KWFT) are
supported to promote loans for biogas systems. The biogas systems are installed by
technicians managed and trained by partner companies SCODE and REECON. IT Power also
has the responsibility to check on the quality of the systems.
Biogas for a Better Life. 2007a. Promoting Biogas Systems in Kenya: A Feasibility Study.
October, 2007. http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/Kenya-Feasibility-Study.pdf
South Africa
AGAMA Energy, a Cape Town, South Africa–based alternative energy company

Greg Austin, director
AGAMA Energy (Pty) Ltd
9b Bell Crescent Close
Westlake Business Park
Westlake, 7945
Phone: +27 (0)21 701 3364
Fax : +27 (0)21 701 3365
http://agama.co.za/
2


(email can be sent through the website)
AGAMA Energy is a leading renewable energy consulting business in Southern Africa.

Established in 2000, it is a privately owned company with many years of project experience
that covers a wide range of more sustainable energy solutions. We have undertaken research
and consulting projects over the past decade for a diverse range of local and international
clients and pioneered the delivery of more sustainable energy services. Strategic focus areas
include
• green buildings and sustainable developments

• energy management services
• carbon related projects
• bioenergy project development and implementation (mainly biogas)
• the marketing and sale of green power certificates
BiogasPower
Shelby Tyne
South Africa
shelby@biogaspower.co.za
Business +27-31-7811981 Mobile +27-83-6428229
Description: Manufactures and designs cheap and cost effective bio-plant designs that
provide sustainable and renewable energy. Zero Waste Livestock Farming
Website Address:http://www.biogaspower.co.za
Biogas for a Better Life. 2008. South Africa: Household Biogas Feasibility Study, January
2008
http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/South-Africa-Feasibility-Study.pdf
Tanzania
Foundation for Sustainable Rural Development, or SURUDE (NGO)

Implementing Organization: UNDP/GEF Small Grants Program Project: Biogas Technology
in Agricultural Regions, Tanzania
SURUDE – Biogas and sustainable energy projects -

http://www.superflex.net/tools/supergas/surude.shtml
Dr. Sebastian V. Sarwatt
Executive Secretary
Foundation for Sustainable Rural Development (SURUDE)
P.O.Box 3087
MOROGORO, TANZANIA
Tel: 255 – 744-411 968
E-mail: svsarwatt@suanet.ac.tz
Website: www.superflex.dk/surude
Founded in 1994, SURUDE is a membership organization currently involving about 250

farmers. SURUDE’s main office is located in Turiani, about 200 km west of Dar Es Salaam.
Five sub-centers are being established in the various regions of Tanzania in an effort to
3


further spread the use of biogas technology incorporated with farming and livestock
practices.
Cows can provide a steady supply of manure, and farmers are helped to obtain them through
a “Heifer-in-Trust”scheme under which a farmer is loaned an in-calf heifer, and agrees to
give the first two female calves to neighbors.
A Danish company called Superflex has helped produce and distribute the tubular plastic
biogas digester. http://www.superflex.net/tools/supergas/index.shtml
Egypt
UNDP/GEF Project: Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development

Project Documen Posted on the Global Environment Facility Web Site, July 14, 2008
http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C28/documents/1335PIMS22
84EgyptBioenergyProjectDocument_Final0205Rev206.pdf
Project Contact Person:

Vesa Rutanen
Date: 9 July 2008 Tel. and Email: +358 50 320 9287
vesa.rutanen@undp.org
GEF Project – This project has evaluated and plans to promote, among other biomass
technologies, household, community scale, and farm scale biogas digester systems.
Bukina Faso
GTZ, 2007. Feasibility Study for a National Domestic Biogas Programme in Burkina
Faso. Prepared By Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit (Gtz) Gmbh for
the Biogas For A Better Life African Initiative, June.
http://www.biogasafrica.org/Documents/Biogas-Feasibility-Study-Burkina-Faso.pdf
Institut de Recherche en Sciences Appliquées et de Technologie (IRSAT)

Contacts: Dr. Oumar Sanogo and Gombila Kaboré
03 BP 7047
Ouagadougou 03 Burkina Faso
Phone: 226-50-36-3790
Fax: 226-50-36-37901
NETwork for the development of Sustainable Sanitation in Africa (NETSAF)

(Réseau de développement à l'échelle des approches durables d'implémentation de
l'assainissement en Afrique)
Burkina Faso
Contact: Patrick Bracken
Clean Development Mechanism/Carbon Credit References/Contacts
Mozambique Designated National Agency
4


Ministério para a Coordenação da Acção Ambiental (MICOA)
Av. Acordos de Lusaka nº 2115
P.O. Box nº 2020
Maputo
Mozambique
Ms. Marília Telma António Manjate (telmanjate@yahoo.com.br )
Phone: (258-21)46 5849/46 6245
Fax: (258-21)46 6495
http://www.micoa.gov.mz/
Carbon Limits (former ECON Carbon),

Oslo South Africa
Contact: Torleif Haugland Contact: Randall Spalding-Fecher
Biskop Gunnerius' gate 14A P.O. Box 34107
P.O. Box 5 Rhodes Gift, 7707
N-0051 Oslo South Africa
Norway spalding-fecher@tiscali.co.za
torleif.haugland@carbonlimits.no Phone: +27 82 857 9486
Phone: +47 90 55 11 37
Fax: +47 22 42 00 40
http://www.carbonlimits.no/
Based in Oslo, Norway, Carbon Limits is an active player in the emerging carbon market.
With substantial experience in all phases of the carbon market, as well as energy and
development, Carbon Limits assist clients in monetizing carbon benefits.
A;though details are confidential the website indicates that in 2007 the company initiated
development of CDM project in Mozambique
Small project to use natural gas locally for power production and possible extension of gas
use into manufacturing industries.
Cleaner Climate - an international carbon solutions company whose expertise lies in the
commercialisation of carbon, that can help farmers install and operate such systems in South
Africa.
Headquartered in the United Kingdom, Cleaner Climate has a global network of operations in
over 6 countries.
www.cleanerclimate.com.
Kerry Wright, director of Cleaner Climate

South Africa
27 De Winaar Street, Halfway House
Midrand, 1682, South Africa
kerry@cleanerclimate.com
International
Mozambique GEF UNDP Small Grants Programme (SGP) is part of the global SGP which is
a GEF corporate programme that aims to deliver global environmental benefits through
5


community based approaches. It covers the GEF focal areas of biodiversity, climate change,
international waters, persistent organic polutants and land degradation. It doesn't intervene in
GEF focal area of ozone layer depletion. Its guided under the principle that community action
can maintain the fine balance between human needs and environmental imperatives. Grants
are also made directly to community groups and NGOs in recognition of the key role they
play as a resource and constituency for environment and development concerns.
Augusto Correia
Rua Francisco Barreto,
nº322
Maputo 4595
Mozambique
Tel: +258 (0)1 491 409
Fax: +258 (0)1 492 325
augusto.correia@undp.org.
www.undp.org/sgp
Shell Foundation Breathing Space Project:

Karen Westley, Shell Foundation,
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA,
United Kingdom
E-mail: Karen.Westley@shell.com
In 2001, the Shell Foundation committed US$10 million to its Breathing Space programme
with the goal of reducing health risks associated with IAP suffered by 1 million women and
children
in developing countries by 2008.
In the business model for biogas under the Breathing Space project in Kenya, financial
institutions (the KUSSCO umbrella organization of Kenyan SACCOs, and KWFT) are
supported to promote loans for biogas systems. The biogas systems are installed by
technicians managed and trained by partner companies SCODE and REECON. IT Power also
has the responsibility to check on the quality of the systems.
6

Dairy Manure Biogas Potential Report 3-29-09 Complete

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dairy Manure Biogas Potential Report 3-29-09 Complete

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dairy Manure Biogas Opportunities

Smallholder Dairy Development Program

March 29, 2009

Anaerobic digester technology is considered by many experts to be an excellent tool for

Biogas System Design

Economics of Household Digesters

Conclusions and Recommendations

Recommendations: a) Make contact with other programs promoting biogas in Africa to

Results of these demonstrations combined with a feasibility assessment of wider deployment

Recommendation: Consider initiating demonstrations of two or more digester types as soon as

Recommendation: After completion of demonstrations and further feasibility assessment,

Biogas System Design

Conclusions and Recommendations

3. It is important to plan for phasing in the implementation of a biogas system whether a

Biogas System Design

Digester System Economics

Table 1: Costs and Benefits of Biogas Options

Conclusions and recommendations.

Recommendation: Explore possibilities of proposals to development assistance organizations

4. Involvement of stakeholders is important at all levels. A centrally important category of

Esource. 2006. Distributed Generation: Reciprocating Engines, Microturbines, Fuel Cells,

FAO. 1997. A system approach to biogas technology. Sustainable Deveopment Department,

Forst, Charlie. 2002. Technologies Demonstrated at Echo: Horizontal Biogas Digester. An

Green Gadget Inspector. 2008. Biogas Digesters. January 23.

Last, Steve. 2007. Biogas Methane Explained & Other Articles

Metschies, Gerhard P. 2005. International Fuel Prices 2005. Supported by GTZ

Munasinghe, S. undated. Using a Biogas Digester. Practical Action Technical Brief

Scott, N. R., Zicari,S., Saikkonen, K. and Bothi, K. 2006. Characterization of Dairy-

Thompson, S. 2001. Bovine Biogas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. AgStar Handbook. Second Edition.

Appendix A: Biogas Digesters – General Technical Background

Biogas Digester Technology19

Figure1: A Simple Biogas Scrubber

Table 1: Literature estimates of Biogas Production per Dairy Cow

DEFRA 200540 53 19 25 1.2-1.4

Practically Green, 200741 25-50 20-40 25 0.635-1.25

Schanbacher, 200742 45.4-79.45 13-22 23.4-27.9 1.3- 2.7

Table 2: Dairy Manure Digester performance examples47

Economics of digester projects

Household Biogas Digester Designs

Figure 3. Schematic of fixed dome digester63

Figure 5: Low-cost plastic tubular biodigester77

Implementation of Household Digester Programs

Lessons learned include the following:115

• Technical Training: Technicians need to be trained in installation, quality of materials and

MCC Power requirements

Table C-1 MCC Chiller power requirements

Power needs – 500 liters $100% = 1.2 kW 20%= 0.28

Cost of biogas electricity system

Benefit Cost Analysis

Small MCC 5.1 – 8.6 years

Digester Type and Design

Figure D-1: Covered Anaerobic Lagoon Digester139

be generated while cleaning the lagoons.140

Size and Biogas Production

9.5 tonnes manure/day x 25 m3/tonne = 238 m3 biogas/day

3400 m3 lagoon volume at 4 m depth approximately 850 m2 surface area or 25 m by 34 m

17 tonnes (manure + food solids) x 25 m3/tone = 425m3 biogas/day

Box D-3: Anaerobic Lagoon Cost Estimates

Case 1. 120 cows 50% manure captured: 50 m3 biogas/day

Case 2. 120 cows 90% manure captured 85 m3 biogas/day