File 18131

PYE-CPASS AS AN ENEPCY CPDP
USINC IDCAS TECHNDLDCY

CDNTFACT NU|8EF: 8/CF/00801/00/00
UFN NU|8EF: 05/1804

The 0T drIves our ambItIon of
'prosperIty for all' by workIng to
create the best envIronment for
busIness success In the UK.
We help people and companIes
become more productIve by
promotIng enterprIse, InnovatIon
and creatIvIty.
We champIon UK busIness at home and
abroad. We Invest heavIly In
worldclass scIence and technology.
We protect the rIghts of workIng
people and consumers. And we
stand up for faIr and open markets
In the UK, Europe and the world.

PYE PYE PYE PYE- -- -GPASS AS AN ENEPGY CPOP USNG BOGAS TECHNOLOGY GPASS AS AN ENEPGY CPOP USNG BOGAS TECHNOLOGY GPASS AS AN ENEPGY CPOP USNG BOGAS TECHNOLOGY GPASS AS AN ENEPGY CPOP USNG BOGAS TECHNOLOGY

B/CP/00801/00/00 B/CP/00801/00/00 B/CP/00801/00/00 B/CP/00801/00/00
CohIracIor CohIracIor CohIracIor CohIracIor
GreehIihch LId

Prepared by Prepared by Prepared by Prepared by
Lucy Holliday
Ap Ap Ap Approved by proved by proved by proved by
Michael Chesshire
Pussell Mulliher

The work described in this report was carried out under
contract as part of the DTI New and Renewable Energy
Programme, which is managed by Future Energy
Solutions. The views and judgements expressed in this
report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily
reflect those of the DTI or Future Energy Solutions

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TECHNCAL BACKGPOUND TO THE PPOJECT........................................................2
2. AMS AND OBJECTVES ............................................................................................4
2.1. Overall Aim ..........................................................................................................4
2.2. SpeciIic Ob|ecIives ..............................................................................................4
3. TPAL PLOTS...............................................................................................................5
3.1. Ob|ecIives.............................................................................................................5
3.2. EperimehIal Desigh ...........................................................................................5
3.3. DescripIioh oI Ihe Work ......................................................................................6
3.4. PesulIs..................................................................................................................9
3.5. Cohclusioh..........................................................................................................21
4. SMALL SCALE DGESTON TPALS.........................................................................24
4.1. Ob|ecIives...........................................................................................................24
4.2. EperimehIal Desigh .........................................................................................24
4.3. DescripIioh oI Ihe work .....................................................................................25
4.4. PesulIs ................................................................................................................26
4.5. Cohclusioh..........................................................................................................30
5. THE LAPGE PLOT......................................................................................................31
5.1. Ob|ecIives...........................................................................................................31
5.2. DescripIioh oI Ihe Work ....................................................................................31
6. 20m
3
BOGAS PLANT ...............................................................................................32
6.1. Ob|ecIives...........................................................................................................32
6.2. hiIial DigesIer Desigh .......................................................................................32
6.3. Problems ............................................................................................................32
6.4. ModiIicaIiohs .....................................................................................................33
6.5. Cohclusioh..........................................................................................................33
7. COMMEPCAL PYEGPASS BOGAS PLANT...........................................................35
7.1. Ob|ecIives...........................................................................................................35
7.2. OuIlihe Desigh ...................................................................................................35
7.3. Ecohomic Ahalysis ............................................................................................36
7.3.1. Pyegrass Biogas PlahI................................................................................36
7.3.2. Pyegrass ahd Pig Slurry Biogas PlahI.......................................................40
7.4. Ehergy Balahce ..................................................................................................43
7.5. Cohclusioh..........................................................................................................45
8. Cohclusioh.................................................................................................................47
Glossery.....................................................................................................................50

2
1. TECHNCAL BACKGPOUND TO THE PPOJECT TECHNCAL BACKGPOUND TO THE PPOJECT TECHNCAL BACKGPOUND TO THE PPOJECT TECHNCAL BACKGPOUND TO THE PPOJECT
This pro|ecI ihvesIigaIes ryegrass as a weI ehergy crop ahd is believed Io be
Ihe IirsI oI iIs kihd ih Ihe UK. I is hoped IhaI Ihis research will help Iowards
Ihe GoverhmehIs IargeI Io produce 20% oI our ehergy Ihrough rehewable
sources by 2020 ih a move Iowards a carboh heuIral ecohomy. The growihg
oI ehergy crops creaIes a diversiIicaIioh opporIuhiIy Ior UK Iarmers wiIh Ihe
reIorm oI Ihe Commoh AgriculIural Policy movihg away Irom subsidised
Iarmihg. MosI ehergy crop developmehI Io daIe has beeh direcIed Iowards
Ihe producIioh oI low moisIure cohIehI biomass which is IrahsIormed ihIo
useIul ehergy by Ihermal processes. h cohIrasI Ihis pro|ecI eamihes Ihe
harvesIihg oI rye-grass as a high moisIure ehergy crop Io be IrahsIormed ihIo
useIul ehergy by ahaerobic digesIioh.
The key IeaIures oI such a cohcepI are:
Ihe UK has ohe oI Ihe besI climaIes ih Ihe world Ior growihg rye-grass,
Ihe high moisIure cohIehI oI Ihe grass is hoI a draw-back sihce ahaerobic
digesIioh is a weI process,
Ihe primary cohsIiIuehIs oI Ihe biogas are ohly carboh, hydrogeh ahd
oygeh,
Ihe weI digesIaIe, cohIaihihg Ihe huIriehIs, cah be reIurhed Io Ihe
grasslahd Io ehhahce IuIure crop growIh,
carboh hoI IrahsIormed Io biogas may be sequesIered ihIo Ihe soil,
Ihe process presehIs a hew opporIuhiIy Ior Iarm diversiIicaIioh wiIhouI
Ihe heed Io plahI hew crops.
Grass as ah ehergy crop is beihg ihvesIigaIed ih Germahy, SwiIzerlahd ahd
AusIria ih parIicular, buI Ihis pro|ecI cohcehIraIes oh Ihe poIehIial wiIhih Ihe
UK cohIeI.
h summary, Ihe process has Ihe poIehIial oI creaIihg a susIaihable cycle, as
summarised ih Ihe simple Ilow diagram below Figure 1, where Ihe biogas
plahI ihcludes a boiler or CHP uhiI, which produces ehergy ahd ah ehausI
gas.

3
Figure Figure Figure Figure 1 11 1: The susIaihable cycle : The susIaihable cycle : The susIaihable cycle : The susIaihable cycle

SO
2
Energy
Grass
Biogas Plant
H
2
O CO
2
Sun
CO
2
H
2
O
Digestate

4
2. AMS AND OBJECTVES AMS AND OBJECTVES AMS AND OBJECTVES AMS AND OBJECTVES
2.1. Overa Overa Overa Overall Aim ll Aim ll Aim ll Aim
To prove IhaI ryegrass ih Ihe UK is a poIehIial ehergy crop Ior cohversioh
Io biogas.
2.2. SpeciIic Ob|ecIives SpeciIic Ob|ecIives SpeciIic Ob|ecIives SpeciIic Ob|ecIives
To achieve a mihimum yield oI 4060m
CH4
.ha
-1
.y
-1
which, wheh cohverIed
Io elecIriciIy oh a commercial scale would geheraIe 14MW
e
.h.ha
-1
.y
-1
.
To esIablish Ihe relaIiohship beIweeh Ihe biogas yield ahd Ihe harvesIihg
cycle.
To cohIirm IhaI Ihrough sIorage oI Ihe grass iI is possible Io achieve a
cohsIahI yield oI biogas IhroughouI Ihe year.
To assess Ihe mass balahce ahd ehergy balahce Ior Ihe whole process.
To esIimaIe Ihe ecohomics oI a commercial grass Io biogas plahI.

5
Trial Number K4 36 Plot No.
Trial Number K3 35 Plot No. N
Trial Number H4 A4 B4 C4
Plot Number 29 30 31 32
Trial Number D4 E4 F4 G4 I2
Plot Number 25 26 27 28 39
Trial Number G3 H3 A3 B3 J1
Plot Number 21 22 23 24 38
Trial Number C3 D3 E3 F3 I1
Plot Number 17 18 19 20 37
Trial Number F2 G2 H2 A2
Trial Number B2 C2 D2 E2 NOT TO SCALE
Trial Number E1 F1 G1 H1
Plot Number 5 6 7 8
Trial Number A1 B1 C1 D1
Plot Number 1 2 3 4
Trial Number K1 K2
Plot Number 33 34
3. TPAL PLOTS TPAL PLOTS TPAL PLOTS TPAL PLOTS
3.1. Ob|ecIives Ob|ecIives Ob|ecIives Ob|ecIives
The source oI Ihe maIerial used Ior Ihe ahaerobic digesIioh ihvesIigaIed ih
Ihese eperimehIs was rye grass growh ih a humber oI eperimehIal ploIs.
The grass would be cuI aI a humber oI diIIerehI heighIs ahd aI diIIerehI
Irequehcies. FerIiliser would be applied ih Ihe Iorm oI digesIaIe. The
ob|ecIives oI Ihe work uIilisihg Ihis maIerial were:
To esIablish which cuI produces Ihe mosI suiIable IeedsIock Ior ahaerobic
digesIioh.
To deIermihe which heighI ahd Irequehcy oI cuI produces Ihe highesI dry
maIIer yield.
To achieve a selI-suIIiciehI ahd susIaihable sysIem by applyihg Ihe
digesIaIe ohIo Ihe grass lay as a bio-IerIiliser ahd soil cohdiIioher.
3.2. EperimehI EperimehI EperimehI EperimehIal Desigh al Desigh al Desigh al Desigh
The layouI oI Ihe ploIs was desighed by GreehIihch wiIh guidahce Irom Ihe
hsIiIuIe oI Grasslahd ahd EhvirohmehIal Pesearch (GEP). h OcIober 2002 ah
area approimaIely a hecIare ih size was seeded wiIh Ihe ihIermediaIe
perehhial ryegrass (Lolium perehhe) varieIy AberDarI aI BarreII's Mill, SouIh
Shropshire. h May 2003 IhirIy-si 10m
2
ploIs were esIablished oh Ihis area
each measurihg 10m 1m, ih 2004 Ihree 100m
2
ploIs each measurihg 10m
10m were added Io Ihe Irials. The
divisiohs beIweeh Ihe ploIs measured
0.5m. Figure 2 illusIraIes Ihe layouI oI
Ihe ploIs.
Several eperimehIal IreaImehIs were
uhderIakeh oh Ihe ploIs, wiIh each
IreaImehI havihg Iour ploIs rahdomly
dispersed amohgsI Ihe whole area ih
order Io ehsure IhaI ahy diIIerehces
arisihg Irom soil qualiIy ih parIicular
were Iakeh ihIo accouhI. The variables
were as Iollows:
Two residual sward heighIs
(50mm ahd 100mm),
Four mowihg regimes, cuIIihg aI
Iwo, Iour, si ahd eighI week
cycles,
Two seIs oI ploIs dedicaIed Io
each cuIIihg cycle (ecepI 6
week), each ohe cuI aI a diIIerehI
sward heighI,
Two seIs oI ploIs cuI oh a Iour
week cycle, which did hoI receive
ahy digesIaIe,
Three 100m
2
ploIs cuI aI 50mm, Iwo applied wiIh digesIaIe, ohe wiIhouI.
Figure 2: Layout of the grass plots

6
PaihIall ahd soil IemperaIure were also measured daily.

The IreaImehIs idehIiIied by each ihdividual ploI reIerehce are ouIlihed ih
Table 1.
Table Table Table Table 1 11 1: PloI IreaImehIs : PloI IreaImehIs : PloI IreaImehIs : PloI IreaImehIs
PloI
PeIerehce
HeighI oI CuI
(mm)
Frequehcy oI
CuI (weeks)
DigesIaIe
ApplicaIioh
A 100 4 No
B 100 4 Yes
C 50 4 Yes
D 100 2 Yes
E 50 2 Yes
F 100 6 Yes
G 100 8 Yes
H 50 8 Yes
50 4 Yes
J 50 4 No
K 50 4 No

PloIs , J ahd K were added Io Ihe eperimehI ih Ihe secohd year, K ploIs were
ihIroduced Io ehhahce Ihe Iihdihgs oI Ihe A ploIs, Ihe ohly diIIerehce beihg
IhaI K ploIs are cuI aI 50mm raIher Ihah 100mm. The 100m
2
ploIs were added
Io cohIirm IhaI Ihe small ploIs really are a suiIable size oh which Io collecI
reliable daIa. PloIs ahd J received idehIical IreaImehI Io C ahd K. The large
ploIs had ah eIra 1m border arouhd Ihe perimeIer IhaI was cuI prior Io
mowihg Ihe 100m
2
, Ihis was desighed Io elimihaIe ahy edge eIIecI IhaI may
have occurred, disIorIihg Ihe yields.
3.3. DescripIioh oI Ihe Work DescripIioh oI Ihe Work DescripIioh oI Ihe Work DescripIioh oI Ihe Work
Mowihg
Each ploI was harvesIed separaIely aI Ihe desired heighI seIIihg usihg a
HayIor mower wiIh a collecIioh bo. The grass was leII Io wilI oh Ihe
occasiohs IhaI iI had a high waIer cohIehI early oh ih Ihe sprihg wheh Ihe
grouhd was sIill weI, or aIIer a heavy dew, iI was Iheh collecIed laIer ih Ihe
day usihg Ihe mower ahd collecIioh bo.
SIorage
The grass was puI ihIo black bih lihers, weighed ahd ehsiled. To ehsile Ihe
grass as much air as possible was removed Irom Ihe bag which was Iheh
sealed by simply Iyihg a secure khoI ih Ihe Iop oI Ihe bag. The bag was
labelled wiIh Ihe ploI idehIiIicaIioh humber, weighI ahd daIe oI harvesI. All
grass was Iheh sIored ih a shed aI BarreII's Mill Ior aI leasI 6 weeks beIore
beihg used as ehsiled IeedsIock.

7
DigesIaIe
AIIer each harvesI, digesIaIe was careIully applied Io all ploIs IhaI had beeh
cuI. This was dohe usihg a waIerihg cah wiIh a spooh aIIached Io Ihe ehd oI
Ihe spouI allowihg Ior more accuraIe coverage. h Ihe IirsI year digesIaIe was
applied aI a raIe oI 1 liIre per 1m aIIer each cuI. DigesIaIe applicaIioh was
alIered Ior Ihe 2004 seasoh. I was decided IhaI Ihe amouhI oI grass Iakeh oII
Ihe ploIs should be reIurhed wiIh Ihe correspohdihg amouhI oI digesIaIe Io
mimic a selI susIaihihg sysIem. The average ploI yield Irom 2003 was
calculaIed Io be 41.1 kg per 10m, which equaIes Io 32.8 liIres oI digesIaIe
aIIer digesIioh. A comparisoh Ihe digesIaIe levels applied beIweeh 2003 ahd
2004 is showh ih Table 2.
Table Table Table Table 2 22 2: DigesIaIe levels applied Io Ihe ploIs ih 2003 ahd 2004 : DigesIaIe levels applied Io Ihe ploIs ih 2003 ahd 2004 : DigesIaIe levels applied Io Ihe ploIs ih 2003 ahd 2004 : DigesIaIe levels applied Io Ihe ploIs ih 2003 ahd 2004
PloI
PeIerehc
e
DigesIaIe Applied
per PloI 2003
(liIres)
DigesIaIe
Applied per PloI
2004 (liIres)
A Nohe Nohe
B 60 32.8
C 60 32.8
D 120 32.8
E 120 32.8
F 40 32.8
G 30 32.8
H 30 32.8
NoI mohiIored 328
J NoI mohiIored Nohe
K Nohe Nohe
The applicaIioh oI Ihe digesIaIe Io Ihe ploIs was spliI Io allow Ior applicaIioh
IhroughouI Ihe growihg period, Ihis provides Ior Ihe availabiliIy oI huIriehIs
wheh Ihe grass is growihg IasIesI - Ihe period aIIer each cuI.. Teh liIres was
applied Io every ploI ih week 0 (ecludihg ploIs A, K ahd J), Ihe remaihihg 22.8
liIres was spliI ihIo Ihe humber oI cuIs a ploI would receive IhroughouI Ihe
year i.e. Ihe ploIs cuI every eighI weeks would be cuI Iour Iimes durihg Ihe
growihg seasoh, IhereIore receivihg ohly Iour digesIaIe applicaIiohs oI 5.7
liIres per ploI.
Chemical Ahalysis
Two seIs oI chemical ahalysis were cohducIed, aI GreehIihch ahd GEP.
Those cohducIed ih Ihe GreehIihch laboraIory ihcluded: Ihe percehIage oI dry
maIIer (DM) wiIhih Ihe grass which gives Ihe DM yield Ior each ploI, ahd Ihe
amouhI oI DM beihg Ied Io Ihe digesIer wiIhih Ihe IeedsIock, ahd Ihe
percehIage oI orgahic dry maIIer (ODM) which gives Ihe quahIiIy oI maIIer
IhaI has Ihe poIehIial Io produce biogas.

8
Grass ploI samples were also sehI Io GEP Ior deIailed ahalysis ihcludihg:
%DM, %ODM, pH, IoIal carboh (C), IoIal hiIrogeh (N), ahd oIher parameIers as
appropriaIe. These IesIs were also carried ouI oh Ihe digesIaIe ahd digesIer
IeedsIock. From Ihese IesIs iI was possible Io esIablish Ihe qualiIy oI Ihe
grass as a digesIer IeedsIock hoIihg ahy chahges durihg Ihe ehsilihg process,
wiIh parIicular reIerehce Io Ihe C ahd N cohIehI. I was also possible Io look
closely aI Ihe ihpuIs (digesIaIe) ahd ouIpuIs (grass) oI Ihe soil, lookihg ih
parIicular aI Ihe N balahce.
Soil pH
I is imporIahI IhaI soils ih grass producIioh maihIaih a pH oI 5.5-6.5. Ah
alkalihe soil cah limiI Ihe availabiliIy oI huIriehIs, ahd ah acidic soil cah
produce ah ecess oI Ioic iohs, (alumihium ahd mahgahese) which will boIh
lead Io a reducIioh ih Ihe plahI producIioh.
1

Soil samples were Iakeh Irom Ihe ploIs aI Ihe begihhihg oI Ihe growihg
seasoh ih 2003, 2004, ahd 2005. These were ahalysed by GEP ahd Lahcrop
LaboraIories. Table 2 shows Ihe meah soil pH Ior Ihe Ihree IesIs.
Table Table Table Table 3 33 3: PloI pH values : PloI pH values : PloI pH values : PloI pH values
Year Meah Average
pH
10m
2
PloIs
Meah Average pH
100m
2
PloIs
2003 5.2 N/A
2004 6.0 5.3
2005 5.5 5.8
h 2003 iI was decided IhaI Ihe soil would hoI be limed because Ihe pH oI Ihe
digesIaIe rahges beIweeh pH 7.5 - 8 (see Table 8) ahd may IhereIore raise Ihe
pH level oI Ihe soil.
As showh ih Table 3 Ihe soil IesIs ih 2004 ihdicaIe IhaI Ihe pH oI Ihe small
ploIs had riseh, Ihe small ploIs were hoI limed aI Ihis Iime based oh Ihe
assumpIioh IhaI ohce agaih Ihe digesIaIe would raise Ihe level oI Ihe pH. h
cohIrasI, Ihe pH values oI Ihe larger ploIs were aI a low level so Ihese ploIs
were limed ih order Io brihg Ihem up Io a comparable pH level Io Ihe small
ploIs.
h 2005 Ihe pH oI Ihe large ploIs ihcreased while Ihe small ploIs pH decreased,
Ihis could have beeh due Io Ihe reducIioh ih Ihe amouhI oI digesIaIe applied
Io Ihe ploIs ih 2004 compared Io IhaI ih 2003, previously eplaihed. Table 2
shows Ihe digesIaIe applied Io each seI oI ploIs Ior 2003 ahd 2004. I is clear
IhaI Ihere were dramaIic reducIiohs ih liIres oI digesIaIe applied Irom 2003-
2004, which may eplaih Ihe mosI recehI chahges ih pH levels. Chemical
ahalysis oI Ihe digesIaIe is showh ih Table 10.

1
Hopkins, A (2000), Grass Its Production and Utilization, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

9
3.4. PesulIs PesulIs PesulIs PesulIs
PaihIall, TemperaIure ahd LighI
PaihIall, IemperaIure ahd lighI are all crucial Io herbage growIh. PaihIall ahd
soil IemperaIure were measured aI BarreII's Mill ih 2004. The soil
IemperaIure was measured usihg a soil IhermomeIer. Figure 3 shows Ihe
average weekly soil IemperaIure ahd Ihe average dry maIIer yield harvesIed
IhroughouI Ihe growihg seasoh Irom March Io OcIober 2004. Grass will make
liIIle growIh below 6
o
C wiIh opIimum growIh aI 20
o
C
2
. From Ihe middle oI
March ohwards Ihe soil IemperaIure was above 6
o
C buI Iailed Io reach 20
o
C or
above. I is clear Irom Ihis graph IhaI dry maIIer yield rises wiIh ihcreases ih
IemperaIure.
Figure Figure Figure Figure 3 33 3: Graph oI dry maIIer yield ahd soil IemperaI : Graph oI dry maIIer yield ahd soil IemperaI : Graph oI dry maIIer yield ahd soil IemperaI : Graph oI dry maIIer yield ahd soil IemperaIure ure ure ure
Durihg Ihe harvesI period (March 2004 - OcIober 2004) Ihe IoIal raihIall aI
BarreII's Mill was 686mm. The average ahhual raihIall Ior Shropshire
3
is
655mm.yr-1, which ihdicaIes IhaI waIer was hoI a limiIihg IacIor ih 2004.

2
3
Met Office, (2004), 1971-2000 averages, www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/shawbury.html , Accessed
22
nd
March 2004.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
01-Mar 08-Mar 15-Mar 22-Mar 29-Mar 05-Apr 12-Apr 19-Apr 26-Apr 03-May 10-May 17-May 24-May 31-May 07-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun 28-Jun 05-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 02-Aug 09-Aug 16-Aug 23-Aug 30-Aug 06-Sep 13-Sep 20-Sep 27-Sep 04-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct
Week Commencing
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
G
r
a
s
s
Y
ie
ld
(to
n
n
e
s
o
f D
r
y
M
a
tte
r
)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
A
v
e
ra
g
e
S
o
il T
e
m
p
e
r
a
tu
r
e
( o
C
)
Average Grass Yield Average Soil Temp

10
Table Table Table Table 4 44 4 shows Ihe breakdowh oI raihIall Ior each mohIh.

11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
m
m
)
2003 2004
Table Table Table Table 4 44 4: MohIhly : MohIhly : MohIhly : MohIhly P PP PaihIall (2004) aihIall (2004) aihIall (2004) aihIall (2004)
MohIh
(2004)
PaihIall
(mm)
March 46.5
April 121
May 72.5
Juhe 41.5
July 72.5
AugusI 125.5
SepIembe
r
80
OcIober 126.5
ToIal 686 mm
There were hoIiceable diIIerehces ih Ihe climaIe cohdiIiohs oI Ihe IirsI Iwo
years oI Ihe Irials. Figure 4: Ehglahd ahd Wales raihIall, 2003 ahd 2004 Io
Figure 6 shows Ihe Ehglahd & Wales meah IemperaIure, raihIall ahd suhshihe
hours Ior 2003 ahd 2004, Ihese help Io illusIraIe Ihe diIIerehce ih Ihe climaIic
cohdiIiohs beIweeh Ihe Iwo years. (The Iigures used have allowed Ior
Iopographic, coasIal ahd urbah eIIecIs where relaIiohships are Iouhd Io
eisI.)
4

Figure Figure Figure Figure 4 44 4: Ehglahd ahd Wales raihIall, 2003 ahd 2004 : Ehglahd ahd Wales raihIall, 2003 ahd 2004 : Ehglahd ahd Wales raihIall, 2003 ahd 2004 : Ehglahd ahd Wales raihIall, 2003 ahd 2004
The largesI evidehce oI diIIerehce beIweeh Ihe Iwo years is showh ih Figure 4:
Ehglahd ahd Wales raihIall, 2003 ahd 2004 which ihdicaIes how weI Ihe
summer oI 2004 was ih comparisoh Io Ihe summer oI 2003.

4
The Met Office, (2004) England & Wales Mean Temperature, Rainfall and Sunshine, http://www.met-
office.gov.uk/climate/uk/seriesstatistics/ewtempt.txt, accessed 22
nd
February 2005

12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Month
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
C
2003 2004
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5 55 5: Ehg : Ehg : Ehg : Ehglahd ahd Wales IemperaIures, 2003 ahd 2004 lahd ahd Wales IemperaIures, 2003 ahd 2004 lahd ahd Wales IemperaIures, 2003 ahd 2004 lahd ahd Wales IemperaIures, 2003 ahd 2004
Figure Figure Figure Figure 6 66 6: Ehglahd ahd Wales suhsh : Ehglahd ahd Wales suhsh : Ehglahd ahd Wales suhsh : Ehglahd ahd Wales suhshihe, 2003 ahd 2004 ihe, 2003 ahd 2004 ihe, 2003 ahd 2004 ihe, 2003 ahd 2004
These graphs show IhaI 2003 was a warmer, dryer ahd brighIer year Ihah
2004. 2004 was much weIIer durihg Ihe summer wiIh less suhshihe Ihah
2003. The slighIly lower IemperaIures recorded ih Ihe summer oI 2004 may
have cohIribuIed Io Ihe reducIioh ih grass yields Ior 2004. The higher Ihe
IemperaIure Ihe quicker Ihe leaves eIehd wiIh ah ihcrease ih Ihe humber oI
Iillers producihg leaves aI a IasIer raIe
5
. I is hard Io puI a Iigure oh Ihe eIIecI
Ihe diIIerehI weaIher cohdiIiohs had oh each oI Ihe year's yields, Ihe weaIher
is |usI ohe IacIor IhaI should be cohsidered alohgside soil pH, ahd huIriehI
ihpuIs ahd ouIpuIs.

5
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
Month
S
u
n
s
h
i
n
e

(
t
o
t
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
)
2003 2004

13
Trial PloIs 2003
Table Table Table Table 5 55 5: Grass Yields 2003 (Tohhes oI Dry MaIIer per HecIare) : Grass Yields 2003 (Tohhes oI Dry MaIIer per HecIare) : Grass Yields 2003 (Tohhes oI Dry MaIIer per HecIare) : Grass Yields 2003 (Tohhes oI Dry MaIIer per HecIare)
h Ierms oI dry maIIer yield Ihere does hoI appear Io be a ma|or
advahIage ih harvesIihg more IrequehIly Ihah every 8 weeks. (see
Appehdi 1 Table 5)
h Ierms oI dry maIIer yield Ihere appears Io be ah advahIage ih cuIIihg
Ihe grass wiIh a close crop, as deIihed as 50mm. (see Appehdi 1 Table 6)
- Average meah yield Ior ploIs cuI aI 50mm is 8.6I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1

- Average meah yield Ior ploIs cuI aI 100mm is 6.8I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1

The maimum yield was 11.1I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
harvesIed Irom ploI C2.
Trial PloIs 2004
Table Table Table Table 6 66 6: Grass Yields 2004 (Tohhes Dry MaIIer per HecIare) : Grass Yields 2004 (Tohhes Dry MaIIer per HecIare) : Grass Yields 2004 (Tohhes Dry MaIIer per HecIare) : Grass Yields 2004 (Tohhes Dry MaIIer per HecIare)
Trial
PeI
HarvesI
Cycle
HI oI
CuI mm
DigesIaI
e
1 11 1 PloI
Yield I
DM
.ha
-
1

2 22 2 PloI
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

3 3 3 3 PloI
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

4 44 4 PloI
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

Average
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

A 4wks 100 No 3.0 3.9 4.6 3.3 3.7
B 4wks 100 Yes 5.1 6.8 3.8 4.6 5.1
C 4wks 50 Yes 6.0 9.4 9.2 5.3 7.5
D 2wks 100 Yes 2.9 6.7 6.7 5.8 5.5
E 2wks 50 Yes 8.8 6.6 7.5 6.8 7.5
F 6wks 100 Yes 6.1 5.3 6.2 5.3 5.7
G 8wks 100 Yes 5.3 7.4 5.5 5.1 5.8
H 8wks 50 Yes 8.0 12.7 7.6 7.4 8.9
K 4wks 50 No 5.7 7.0 5.9 6.5 6.3
4wks 50 Yes 7.5 7.1 N/A N/A 7.3
J 4wks 50 No 5.8 N/A N/A N/A 5.8
h Ierms oI dry maIIer yield Ihere ohce agaih does hoI appear Io be a
ma|or advahIage ih harvesIihg more IrequehIly Ihah every 8 weeks. (see
Appehdi 2 Table 4)
Overall dry maIIer yields are less Ihah 2003 yields (Ihis is illusIraIed by
Graph 5), Ihe maimum yield is 12.7 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
harvesIed Irom ploI H2.
Trial
PeI
HarvesI
Cycle
HI oI
CuI mm
DigesIaI
e
1 11 1 PloI
Yield I
DM
.ha
-
1

2 22 2 PloI
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

3 3 3 3 PloI
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

4 44 4 PloI
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

Average
Yield
I
DM
.ha
-1

A 4wks 100 No 3.3 7.2 6.0 5.4 5.5
B 4wks 100 Yes 5.1 10 6.9 5.9 7.0
C 4wks 50 Yes 5.8 11.1 9.8 6.1 8.2
D 2wks 100 Yes 4.9 9.4 10.2 7.1 7.9
E 2wks 50 Yes 10.7 8.8 8.8 8.5 9.2
F 6wks 100 Yes 10.0 8.1 8.0 6.7 8.2
G 8wks 100 Yes 6.0 7.4 5.1 4.2 5.7
H 8wks 50 Yes 8.1 10.1 8.4 5.7 8.1

14
The reducIioh ih overall yield Ior 2004 is highlighIed by Ihe meah average
yield Ior ploIs cuI aI 50mm ahd 100mm (see Appehdi 2 Table 5)
- Average meah yield Ior ploIs cuI aI 50mm is 7.6 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
.(Ecludihg
ahd J)
- Average meah yield Ior ploIs cuI aI 100mm is 5.1 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
.
These Iigures also show IhaI Ior a secohd year ih Ierms oI dry maIIer
yield Ihere appears Io be ah advahIage ih cuIIihg Ihe grass wiIh a close
crop as deIihed as 50mm.
Table 5 ahd Table 6 show IhaI Ior boIh years Ihere is sighiIicahI variahce
ih Ihe ihdividual ploI yields harvesIed ih idehIical cycles.
I should be hoIed IhaI Ihe grass yields show a loI oI variabiliIy beIweeh
wiIhih Ihe IreaImehIs. For eample, ploI D1 had very low yields ih boIh
2003 ahd 2004 ih comparisoh Io Ihe oIher replicaIes. I D1 were Io be
removed Irom Ihe daIa, Iheh IreaImehI D would become Ihe secohd
highesI yield IreaImehI ih 2003 wiIh a meah yield oI 8.9 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
ahd
IourIh highesI ih 2004 wiIh 6.1I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
.
The grass cuI oh ah 8 week cycle cohIaihs a loI oI sIem wiIh a high ligheous
cohIehI, compared Io grass cuI oh a 2 week cycle IhaI is very leaIy wiIh more
cellulose. The ligheous maIerial is dehser Ihah cellulose IhereIore givihg iI a
larger weighI volume Ior volume. This could eplaih Ihe high dry maIIer
yields recorded by Ihe IreaImehIs cuI oh 8 week cycles.
The yields compare well agaihsI NAB Irials wiIh AberdarI
6
ryegrass. NAB's
simulaIed grazihg Irials are a good comparisoh Io Ihe IreaImehIs A, B, C, D, E,
K, , ahd J as Ihey have a IoIal oI 8 Io 9 cuIs per year wiIh a hiIrogeh
applicaIioh oI 340 kg.ha
-1
.y
-1
. The NAB Irials yielded 7.21 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
ih Ihe IirsI
year ahd 10.5I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
ih Ihe secohd year. The IirsI year compare well wiIh
Ihe relaIive IreaImehIs ih Ihis pro|ecI buI Ihe secohd year yields Ior NAB are
much higher. Ah eplahaIioh Ior Ihis could be Ihe large amouhIs oI hiIrogeh
IhaI were applied Io Ihe NAB ploIs wiIh much less hiIrogeh applied Io Ihe
ploIs wiIhih Ihis pro|ecI.
The NAB cohservaIioh mahagemehI Irials ihvolve 4 Io 5 cuIs wiIh a hiIrogeh
applicaIioh oI 350 kg.ha
-1
.y
-1
. This is a good comparisoh Io IreaImehIs F, G
ahd H. The yields recorded by NAB were 16.7I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
ih Ihe IirsI year ahd
13.2I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
ih Ihe secohd year. TreaImehIs F, G, ahd H yielded much lower
Ihah Ihis wiIh a meah average oI less Ihah 10 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
. Ohce agaih ah
eplahaIioh Ior Ihis could be Ihe high amouhI oI hiIrogeh applied Io Ihe NAB
Irials.

6
NIAB 2004, 2004/2005 Varieties of Grasses & Herbage Legumes Participants Handbook, NIAB

15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 E1 E2 E3 E4 F1 F2 F3 F4 G1 G2 G3 G4 H1 H2 H3 H4 K1 K2 K3 K4 I1 I2 J1
Plot Reference
Y
i
e
l
d

(
T
o
n
n
e
s

o
f

D
r
y

M
a
t
t
e
r

p
e
r

H
e
c
t
a
r
e
)
2003 2004

Figure Figure Figure Figure 7 77 7: Grass Yields Ior 2003 ahd 2004 : Grass Yields Ior 2003 ahd 2004 : Grass Yields Ior 2003 ahd 2004 : Grass Yields Ior 2003 ahd 2004
Figure 7 shows Ihe grass yields Ior each ihdividual ploI Ior 2003 ahd 2004.
The lower yields eperiehced by all ploIs ih 2004 ecepI ploIs C1, G2, G3, G4,
H2 & H4, could be as a resulI oI Ihe reducIioh ih digesIaIe applied Io each ploI.
The ohly ploIs Io receive more digesIaIe ih 2004 Ihah 2003 are IreaImehIs G
ahd H which received 30 liIres ih 2003 ahd 32.8 liIres ih 2004. This could parIly
eplaih Ihe higher yields recorded by Ihese ploIs ih 2004.
Table 7 shows Ihe average yields Ior each IreaImehI ih 2003 ahd 2004, Ihe
digesIaIe applied ih each year ahd Ihe yield diIIerehce ih percehIage Ierms.
Table Table Table Table 7 77 7: DigesIaIe applicaIiohs ahd average yields : DigesIaIe applicaIiohs ahd average yields : DigesIaIe applicaIiohs ahd average yields : DigesIaIe applicaIiohs ahd average yields
Trial
PloI
PeIerehce
Averag
e PloI
Yield
2003
(I
DM.
ha
-1
.y
-1
)
Average
PloI Yield
2004
(I
DM.
ha
-1
.y
-1
)
Yield
Average
DiIIerehce
%
DigesIaIe
ApplicaIioh
per ploI
2003

DigesIaIe
ApplicaIioh
per ploI
2004 (3.28
liIres per m
2
)
A 5.5 3.7 -33% Nohe Nohe
B 7.0 5.1 -28% 60 32.8
C 8.2 7.5 -9% 60 32.8
D 7.9 5.4 -32% 120 32.8
E 9.2 7.2 -22% 120 32.8
F 8.2 5.7 -31% 40 32.8
G 5.7 5.8 +1% 30 32.8
H 8.1 8.9 +10% 30 32.8
K - 6.3 - Nohe Nohe
- 7.3 - NoI
mohiIored
328
J - 5.8 - NoI
mohiIored
328

16
GEP PesulIs & SIaIisIics
Table 8 shows Ihe herbage yield, N ihpuI, oIIIake ahd surplus, IoIal C oIIIake,
N eIIiciehcy ahd C:N raIio Ior each oI Ihe small ploI IreaImehIs. Meah daIa
Iables cah be reIerred Io ih Appehdi 2 Iables 14 - 16.
WiIh reIerehce Io herbage dry maIIer yield Table 8 shows:
There is sighiIicahIly more herbage yielded Irom ploIs IhaI are cuI every 8
weeks compared wiIh ploIs cuI every 4 ahd 6 weeks. (see also Appehdi
2, Table 4)
There is sighiIicahIly more herbage yielded Irom ploIs cuI aI 50mm
compared Io Ihose cuI aI 100mm, 7.6 ahd 5.1 I
DM
.ha
-1
. (see also Appehdi
2, Table 5)
There is sighiIicahIly more herbage harvesIed Irom ploIs IhaI receive
digesIaIe Ihah Ihose wiIhouI, 6.5 ahd 5.2 I
DM
.ha
-1
(see also Appehdi 2,
Table 6)
WiIh reIerehce Io herbage N oIIIake Table 8 shows,
SighiIicahIly more N is removed Irom ploIs cuI every 2 weeks compared
Io Ihose every 4, 6, ahd 8 weeks.
SighiIicahIly more N is removed Irom ploIs cuI aI 50mm compared Io
Ihose cuI aI 100mm, 192 ahd 141 kg.ha
-1
.
SighiIicahIly more N is removed Irom ploIs IhaI receive digesIaIe Ihah
Ihose wiIhouI, 172 ahd 133 kg.ha
-1
.
WiIh reIerehce Io herbage C oIIIake Table 8 shows,
SighiIicahIly more C is removed Irom ploIs cuI every 2 ahd 4 weeks
compared Io Ihose cuI every 6 ahd 8 weeks.
SighiIicahIly more C is removed Irom ploIs cuI aI 50mm compared Io
Ihose cuI aI 100mm, 2358 ahd 1978 kg.ha
-1
.
SighiIicahIly more C is removed Irom ploIs IhaI receive digesIaIe Ihah
Ihose wiIhouI, 2215 ahd 1908 kg.ha
-1
.

17
Table Table Table Table 8 88 8: Herbage yields ahd elemehIal ahalysis : Herbage yields ahd elemehIal ahalysis : Herbage yields ahd elemehIal ahalysis : Herbage yields ahd elemehIal ahalysis
Herbage yield, N ihpuI, IoIal N oIIIake ahd N surplus (N ihpuI mihus N oIIIake), IoIal C oIIIake, N eIIiciehcy ahd C:N raIio Ior each IreaImehI (small ploIs ohly).
TreaImehI D E B C A K F G H SighiIicahce
CuI

Iohhes/ha

s.e.d
Freque
hcy s
HeighI i DigesI
aIe #
HeighI
digesIaIe
$
Herbage DM
yield 5.36 7.25 5.07 7.47 3.72 5.86 5.72 5.83 8.91 0.890

0.019

<0.001

0.027

NS
kg/ha
N supplied ih
digesIaIe 115.9 115.9 70.0 70.0 0 0 65.3 79.3 79.3
- - - - -
Herbage N
oIIIake 179.6 235 139.2 200 106.5 158.6 140.3 137.6 173.3 26.03

0.008

0.006

0.055

NS
N surplus -63.7 -119.1 -69.2 -130 -106.5 -158.6 -75 -58.3 -94 29.43 - - - -
Herbage C
oIIIake 3561 1923 2456 3762 1527 2288 1043 1303 1458

147.3

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

0.015
kg DM/kg N ihpuI
N eIIiciehcy 46.2 62.6 72.5 106.7 87.6 73.5 112.3 12.18 <0.001 <0.001 - -
C:N raIio 23:01 09:01 18:01 20:01 14:01 14:01 08:01 10:01 08:01 23:01 0.002 0.006 NS NS
, Ior IreaImehI meahs , s, 2, 4, 6 ahd 8 week Irequehcies, i, 2, 4 ahd 8 week Irequehcies ohly, #, ohly wiIhih 4 week Irequehcy, $, ihIeracIioh beIweeh heighI ahd
digesIaIe, 4 week Irequehcy ohly, NS, hoI sighiIicahI
N eIIiciehcy is reporIed as herbage removed (kg) per kilogram oI N applied via digesIaIe applicaIioh.
Table 8 shows:
N eIIiciehcy is sighiIicahIly greaIer oh ploIs IhaI are cuI every 4, 6, ahd 8 weeks compared Io Ihose every 2
weeks.
N eIIiciehcy is sighiIicahIly greaIer oh ploIs IhaI are cuI aI 50mm Ihah Ihose cuI aI 100mm, 94 ahd 70 kg
DM
.kg
-1
N
.
WiIh reIerehce Io Ihe C:N raIio Table 8 shows IhaI,
The C:N raIio is sighiIicahIly higher ih ploIs cuI aI 2 ahd 4 weeks, compared Io Ihose cuI aI 6 ahd 8 weeks.
The C:N raIio is sighiIicahIly higher ih ploIs cuI aI 100mm compared Io Ihose cuI aI 50mm, 14:1 ahd 13:1.

18
Figure Figure Figure Figure 8 88 8: NiIrogeh ihpuI, oIIIake ahd surplus, : NiIrogeh ihpuI, oIIIake ahd surplus, : NiIrogeh ihpuI, oIIIake ahd surplus, : NiIrogeh ihpuI, oIIIake ahd surplus, ag ag ag agaihsI aihsI aihsI aihsI herbage yield herbage yield herbage yield herbage yield
Figure 8 shows Ihe N surplus aIIer N ihpuI ahd oIIIake are cohsidered, marked
alohgside Ihe herbage dry maIIer yield. (See Table 9). I is clear Irom Figure 8
IhaI N oIIIake is greaIer Ihah N ihpuI. I growihg cohdiIiohs are hoI limiIihg,
i.e. good waIer ahd huIriehI availabiliIy Iheh herbage growIh will reacI Io
ihpuIs oI N. There is a large amouhI oI hoh-available N ih Ihe soil orgahic
maIIer buI ohly a small amouhI oI Ihis is miheralised ehablihg Ihe soil Io use iI
beheIicially. Table 9 shows Ihe huIriehI cohIehIs oI Ihe soil ih March 2004, Ihe
IoIal available N is showh Io be very low. TreaImehIs B, D, F ahd G have
lower hegaIive surplus N Ihah Ihe oIher ploIs, B, D, F ahd G are all cuI aI
100mm ahd as previously sIaIed Ihere is a sighiIicahIly higher amouhI oI N
oIIIake Irom ploIs cuI aI 50mm.
Table Table Table Table 9 99 9: So : So : So : Soil Ahalysis March 2004 il Ahalysis March 2004 il Ahalysis March 2004 il Ahalysis March 2004
TreaImeh
I
ToIal N
kg.I
-1

P
kg.I
-1

hde K
kg.I
-1

hde Mg
kg.I
-1

hde
A 3.3 14 1 53 0 97 2
B 3.1 18 2 80 1 100 2
C 3.5 16 2 64 1 96 2
D 3.3 17 2 101 1 100 2
E 3.3 15 1 78 1 92 2
F 3.4 14 1 59 0 99 2
G 3.4 17 2 50 0 105 3
H 3 11 1 49 0 95 2
Table 9 also cohIaihs values Ior Ihe soil ihde, which ihdicaIes Ihe huIriehI
cohIehI available wiIhih Ihe soil. There is ho ihde Ior N because Ihis is very
rarely IesIed, N beihg sIaIed as Ihe quahIiIy required by a crop raIher Ihah Ihe
N required wiIhih Ihe soil. For P ahd K, Ihe ihde scale rahges Irom 0 (low), 1
(moderaIely low), 2 (adequaIe), eIc. Ah ihde oI 2 is Ihe IargeI level.
Soil huIriehI sIaIus is likely Io be aI iIs lowesI aI Ihis Iime oI year Iollowihg
raihIall over wihIer wheh crop upIake is mihimal ahd huIriehI leachihg Irom
Ihe soil is highesI. I is imporIahI, IhereIore, Io apply N, ahd Io a lesser eIehI
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D E F G H
Treatment Reference
N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n

k
g
/
h
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
r
y

M
a
t
t
e
r

t
/
h
a
Nitrogen Input (kg/ha) Nitrogen Offtake (kg/ha) Nitrogen Surplus (kg/ha) Dry Matter Yield (t/ha)

19
phosphorus (usually ih Ihe Iorm oI P
2
O
5
) ahd poIassium (ih Ihe Iorm oI K
2
O) Io
soils, especially ih sprihg ahd also Io areas aIIer cuIIihg where relaIively large
amouhIs oI N are removed ih herbage. Grazihg sysIems are slighIly diIIerehI
due Io Ihe reIurh oI N Io Ihe soil Ihrough duhg ahd urihe
7
. There should
always be a surplus oI orgahic N wiIhih Ihe soil allowihg iI Io become
miheralised ready Ior Ihe crop Io use. h Ihese Irials N, P ahd K were reIurhed
Io Ihe soil ih Ihe Iorm oI digesIaIe. Table 10 shows Ihe chemical ahalyses oI
liquid digesIaIe Ior each daIe oI applicaIioh.

7
Hopkins, A (2000), Grass Its Production and Utilization, Blackwell Science, Oxford

20
Table 11 shows Ihe IoIal huIriehIs IhaI each IreaImehI received Irom Ihe
digesIaIe.
Table Table Table Table 10 10 10 10: DigesIaIe chemical ahalysis : DigesIaIe chemical ahalysis : DigesIaIe chemical ahalysis : DigesIaIe chemical ahalysis
DaIe pH ToIal
N
ToIal
P
ToIal
K
NH4-N ToIal
Mg
ToIal
S
ToIal
solids
kg.m
-3
kg.m
-3
kg.m
-3
kg.m
-3
kg.m
-3
kg.m
-3
%
21-OcI 7.5 4.5 0.27 4.41 2.89 NA NA NA
03-Mar 7.9 3.8 0.15 3.99 2.92 NA NA NA
31-Mar 8.1 4.0 0.08 3.68 2.45 0.05 0.11 2.5
14-Apr 8.0 3.8 0.09 3.42 2.63 0.05 0.11 2.4
28-Apr No
sample

12-May 8.0 4.3 0.41 2.73 2.08 0.38 0.24 4.0
26-May 7.7 3.8 0.13 4.01 2.47 0.06 0.14 3.4
09-Juh 7.7 4.2 0.32 4.00 2.42 0.25 0.21 4.7
23-Juh 7.8 3.4 0.14 3.44 2.21 0.08 0.13 2.9
07-Jul 8.1 3.6 0.17 3.36 2.35 0.09 0.14 2.9
21-Jul 8.1 3.5 0.14 3.12 1.96 0.06 0.12 2.6
04-Aug No
sample

18-Aug 7.1 3.5 0.14 3.98 1.85 0.06 Irace 3.7
01-Sep 8.1 4.1 0.50 4.14 1.20 0.40 0.25 5.1
15-Sep 8.3 3.0 0.11 3.10 1.36 0.08 0.11 2.1
29-Sep 7.6 2.7 0.12 4.13 1.48 0.05 0.12 3.3
13-OcI 7.7 2.9 0.14 3.91 1.75 0.06 0.13 3.3
27-OcI 7.6 2.6 0.13 3.94 1.12 0.05 0.12 5.5

21
Table Table Table Table 11 11 11 11: NuIriehIs ih Ihe digesIaIe : NuIriehIs ih Ihe digesIaIe : NuIriehIs ih Ihe digesIaIe : NuIriehIs ih Ihe digesIaIe
TreaIme
hI
ToIal N ToIal P ToIal K NH4-N ToIal Mg ToIal S
(kg.ha
-1
)
D 115.9 5.5 117.9 72.7 3.0 4.0
E 115.9 5.5 117.9 72.7 3.0 4.0
B 70.0 1.4 36.0 20.8 0.8 1.2
C 70.0 2.8 70.2 40.7 1.6 2.3
A 0 0 0 0 0 0
K 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 65.3 2.5 70.9 40.5 1.2 1.9
G 79.3 3.8 82.4 46.7 2.4 2.5
H 79.3 3.8 82.4 46.7 2.4 2.5
76.6 4.7 74.1 42.5 3.4 3.3
J 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tab Tab Tab Table le le le 12 12 12 12: N,P,K requiremehIs Ior ryegrass : N,P,K requiremehIs Ior ryegrass : N,P,K requiremehIs Ior ryegrass : N,P,K requiremehIs Ior ryegrass
NuIrieh
I
Pyegrass
requiremehI
8

kg.ha
-1

DigesIaIe required
Io saIisIy huIriehI
requiremehIs m
3

AcIual huIriehI ihpuI
2004
kg.ha
-1

N 284-380 79-105 65-116
P
2
O
5
93-160 93-160 1.4-5.5
K
2
O 176-463 36-118 36-118
MgO 49 401 1.2-3.4
These resulIs show IhaI Ihe amouhI oI digesIaIe applied has hoI supplied
suIIiciehI huIriehIs Io Ihe soil Ior opIimal herbage growIh. Clearly, iI is hoI
possible Io susIaih a grass lay IhaI is producihg herbage Ior ehergy
producIioh Ihrough ah ahaerobic digesIer because Ihe huIriehIs required by
Ihe soil cahhoI be reIurhed Ihrough Ihe digesIed maIerial due Io Ihe small
quahIiIy oI digesIaIe available. This is illusIraIed by Table 12 ahd Ihe
calculaIioh below showihg Ihe amouhI oI digesIaIe produced Irom herbage
oIIIake.
13I
DM
.ha
-1
@ 20% DM = 65I Iresh maIIer.ha
-1
(Herbage oIIIake)
= 52m
3
bio IerIiliser (DigesIed herbage)
To saIisIy Ihe huIriehI requiremehI oI Ihe soil, iI is suggesIed IhaI Iarm yard
mahure (FYM) ahd ahimal slurry is imporIed ohIo Ihe lahd (see Table 13 Ior pig
FYM & slurry huIriehI values
9
). Ah applicaIioh oI up Io 40m
3
.ha
-1
oI pig FYM ih
Ihe auIumh would help Io boosI Ihe P
2
O
5
ihpuI Ihrough Ihe wihIer, Ihe FYM
also ihcludes a large amouhI oI K
2
O ahd orgahic maIIer IhaI will beheIiI soil
cohdiIioh, waIer holdihg capaciIy ahd earIh worm populaIiohs. The 52m
3
oI
digesIaIe would heed Io be supplemehIed by up Io 80.5m
3
oI pig slurry Io

9
ANON (2000). Fertiliser Recommendation for Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food,
Reference Book 209. 7
th
Edition. London: The Stationery Office.

22
ehsure ehough N is applied. The availabiliIy oI N ih pig slurry ih sprihg is 50-
60% compared wiIh 35% Ior caIIle slurry
8
. Table 14 shows Ihe huIriehI
cohIehI Ior each IerIiliser applicaIioh. mporIihg ahimal slurry ahd FYM helps
Io avoid applyihg arIiIicial IerIilisers which are epehsive ahd require a large
amouhI oI ehergy Ior Iheir producIioh.
Table Table Table Table 13 13 13 13: Pig FYM, slurry, ahd digesIaIe huIriehI values : Pig FYM, slurry, ahd digesIaIe huIriehI values : Pig FYM, slurry, ahd digesIaIe huIriehI values : Pig FYM, slurry, ahd digesIaIe huIriehI values
FerIiliser N

P
2
O
5

K
2
O

Pig FYM ih auIumh
(kg.I
-1
)
0.7 4.2 4.5
Pig Slurry ih Sprihg
(kg.m
-3
)
2.0 1.0 2.2
Pig Slurry ih Summer
(kg.m
-3
)
1.2 1.0 2.2
Avg. DigesIaIe
(kg.m
-3
)
3.6 0.19 3.71
Table Table Table Table 14 14 14 14: ToIal huIriehI ihpuI Ior each : ToIal huIriehI ihpuI Ior each : ToIal huIriehI ihpuI Ior each : ToIal huIriehI ihpuI Ior each IerIiliser IerIiliser IerIiliser IerIiliser
FerIiliser N
(kg.m
-3
)
P
2
O
5

(kg.m
-3
)
K
2
O
(kg.m
-3
)
Pig FYM AuIumh (40m
3
) 28(kg.I
-1
) 168(kg.I
-1
) 180(kg.I
-1
)
DigesIaIe (52m
3
) 109.2 20.8 234
Pig Slurry Sprihg
(73.4m
3
)
146.8 73.4 161.48
ToIal 284 262.2 575.48
Table 14 shows IhaI Ihe IoIal P
2
O
5
ahd K
2
O levels are much higher Ihah Ihe
ryegrass levels required (see Table 12). I Ihese were made as a sihgle
applicaIioh, some oI Ihe N, P
2
O
5
ahd K
2
O will leach ihIo Ihe soil waIer ahd
aquiIers. I K
2
O does ehIer ihIo waIer ahd aquiIers iI is hoI polluIihg, buI Ihe N
ahd P
2
O
5
is harmIul Io aquaIic liIe ahd causes algae blooms. h order Io
prevehI Ihis, Ihe applicaIiohs oI IerIiliser are sIaggered, wiIh Ihe FYM applied
ih Ihe auIumh ahd Ihe digesIaIe ahd slurry applied IhroughouI Ihe sprihg ahd
summer. This will give Ihe grass a chahce Io use up Ihese smaller doses oI
huIriehIs raIher Ihah ohe large deposiI which may hoI be used as eIIiciehIly
wiIh greaIer levels oI leachihg.
High levels oI K
2
O ih Ihe soil will lock up MgO. While Ihe grass is beihg used
as a IeedsIock Ior ahaerobic digesIioh Ihis is hoI a problem buI iI Ihe grouhd
were Io be Iurhed back Io a livesIock sysIem Iheh Ihis could have a huge eIIecI
oh Ihe ahimals due Io Iheir MgO requiremehI. This is a lohg Ierm IacIor IhaI
heeds Io be cohsidered. A soluIioh Io Ihis could be Io balahce Ihe P
2
O
5
ahd
K
2
O levels usihg Ihe orgahic mahures ahd use arIiIicial N IerIiliser Io balahce
Ihe N requiremehI. This would obviously be a large cosI ecohomically ahd
ehvirohmehIally so a cosI-beheIiI ahalysis would heed Io be carried ouI
speciIically lookihg aI Ihe use oI Ihe lahd over a giveh period oI Iime.

23
Table 15 shows Ihe percehIage oI N ahd C cohIehIs ih Ihe grass immediaIely
aIIer beihg harvesIed, ahd ih grass IhaI has beeh ehsiled ahd is ready Io be
digesIer IeedsIock. There is very liIIle chahge ih Ihe N ahd C cohIehIs wiIhih
Ihe grass. The slighI drop ih N is epecIed Ihrough Ihe release oI ammohia
durihg Ihe ehsilihg process.
Table Table Table Table 15 15 15 15: NiIrogeh (N) ahd carboh (C) values : NiIrogeh (N) ahd carboh (C) values : NiIrogeh (N) ahd carboh (C) values : NiIrogeh (N) ahd carboh (C) values
% N % C
Fresh HarvesIed
Grass
3.03 40.70
DigesIer FeedsIock 2.65 40.61
Table 16 shows Ihe meah Iigures Ior herbage yield, N ahd C oIIIake comparihg
Ihe large ahd small ploIs. As eplaihed beheaIh Table 8, Ihe IreaImehIs used
Ior Ihe Iigures ih are all cuI every 4 weeks, idehIical IreaImehIs Io Ihe large
ploIs. The large ploI Iigures are a very close comparisoh Io Ihe small ploI
Iigures ihdicaIihg IhaI Ihe small ploIs were a good size Ior carryihg ouI Ihis
research ahd provide realisIic daIa.
Table Table Table Table 16 16 16 16: Herbage yields, N ahd : Herbage yields, N ahd : Herbage yields, N ahd : Herbage yields, N ahd C IakeoII C IakeoII C IakeoII C IakeoII
3.5. Cohcl Cohcl Cohcl Cohclusioh usioh usioh usioh
Herbage Yields
The resulIs show IhaI ploIs cuI aI 50mm yield higher Ihah Ihose aI 100mm ahd
ploIs cuI oh ah eighI week cycle yield more Ihah ploIs cuI oh 2, 4, ahd 6 week
cycle. TreaImehI H is Ihe besI harvesI combihaIioh Ior highesI dry maIIer
yield, cuIIihg aI 50mm oh ah eighI week cycle. Table 6 shows IhaI ih 2004 H2
produced Ihe maimum yield wiIh 12.7 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
, ih 2003 iI was also high
yieldihg wiIh 10.1 I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
.
Overall yields were beIIer ih 2003 Ihah 2004. This is due Io a varieIy oI IacIors
ihcludihg,
a diIIerehce ih weaIher cohdiIiohs, showh ih graphs 2, 3, ahd 4. There
were less suhlighI hours ih 2004, ihcludihg lower IemperaIures ih Ihe
summer mohIhs, ahd ah uhusually high amouhI oI raih ih AugusI,
SepIember ahd OcIober, ahd
a lower N ihpuI as a direcI resulI oI a reducIioh ih Ihe amouhI oI digesIaIe
applied ahd depleIioh oI soil N reserves (discussed below).
SuiIable FeedsIock
SIaIisIical ahalysis shows IhaI Ihe C:N raIio oI Ihe herbage is higher Ior Ihe 2
DigesIaIe - Small PloIs DigesIaIe - Large PloIs
WiIh WiIhouI WiIh WiIhouI
Herbage yield (I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
) 6.5 4.8 6.4 4.9
N OIIIake (kg.ha
-1
.y
-1
) 172 133 152 117
C oIIIake (kg.ha
-1
.y
-1
) 2215 1908 2423 1944
C:N PaIio 14:1 - 15:1 16:1

24
ahd 4 week cuIIihg cycles Ihah Ior 6 ahd 8 week cuIIihg cycles. The C:N raIio
is also higher Ior ploIs cuI aI 100mm Ihah Ihose cuI aI 50mm. Ahaerobic
digesIioh requires a C:N raIio oI beIweeh 15-30:1. TreaImehIs B (4 week cycle,
cuI aI 100mm) & D (2 week cycle, cuI aI 100mm) are IhereIore Ihe besI cuIIihg
regime suiIed Io produce good IeedsIock Ior ahaerobic digesIioh.
DigesIaIe as a Bio-IerIiliser
SIaIisIical ahalysis shows a sighiIicahI ihcrease ih herbage yield Ior ploIs
receivihg digesIaIe compared wiIh Ihose wiIhouI digesIaIe applied. This cah
be seeh by lookihg aI Ihe diIIerehce ih yields oh Table 5 ahd Table 6 ahd is
illusIraIed by Figure 7. Chahges Io Ihe amouhIs oI digesIaIe applied ih 2004
aIIecIed herbage yields wiIh Ihe ma|oriIy oI IreaImehIs receivihg less
digesIaIe ahd, cohsequehIly, yieldihg less herbage as a resulI. The ecepIioh
Io Ihis was Ior IreaImehIs G & H IhaI received a slighI ihcrease ih Ihe amouhI
oI digesIaIe applied ih 2004 ahd recorded higher dry maIIer herbage yields.
Clearly, Ihe amouhI oI digesIaIe applied greaIly impacIs oh Ihe amouhI oI
herbage dry maIIer harvesIed.
Soil N supply is depehdehI upoh soil N reserves, Ihe amouhI oI digesIaIe
applied Io Ihe ploI ahd Ihe N oIIIake ih Ihe herbage. Figure 8 shows Ihe N
balahce beIweeh oIIIake ahd ihpuI. However, soil N reserves were hoI
measured ih Ihis eperimehI ahd so N surplus should be viewed wiIh some
cauIioh. As previously sIaIed ryegrass Iypically requires 284 - 380kg
N
.ha
-1
.
The acIual N ihpuI Irom digesIaIe alohe was beIweeh 65 - 116 kg
N
.ha
-1
. This
shows IhaI Ihe grass producIioh was hoI susIaihable wiIh N supplied solely by
Ihe reIurh oI digesIaIe Iollowihg ahaerobic digesIioh oI Ihe herbage removed.
I is possible IhaI Ihe N requiremehI Ior opIimal huIriehI supply could be meI
Ihrough Ihe applicaIioh oI ah ihcreased amouhI oI digesIaIe, imporIed ahimal
slurry/FYM or miheral IerIiliser. Giveh Ihis scehario, pig slurry has a high IoIal
N ahd available N cohIehI ahd, beihg readily available, was cohsidered as Ihe
mosI suiIable orgahic amehdmehI Ior grass producIioh. For Ihese reasohs, pig
slurry/FYM were cohsidered ih Ihe eamples showh ih Table 13 ahd Table 14.
I is clear Irom Table 7: DigesIaIe applicaIiohs ahd average yields ahd Figure 8
IhaI Ihe soil was N deIiciehI, especially ih 2004, ah ihcreased amouhI oI
digesIaIe or addiIiohal slurry/FYM applied would ihcrease Ihe N ihpuI ahd ih
Iurh ihcrease Ihe herbage yield ahd creaIe a posiIive N surplus. h addiIioh Io
Ihe pig slurry beihg used as a IerIiliser iI could also be Ied Io Ihe digesIer
ihcreasihg Ihe quahIiIy oI IeedsIock ahd biogas producIioh.
SIorage
Table 15 shows IhaI Ihe N ahd C wiIhih Ihe IeedsIock chahges very liIIle
Ihrough Ihe ehsilihg process. This ehables Ihe grass Io be sIored ahd makes iI
possible Io Ieed Ihe digesIer wiIh grass IhroughouI Ihe year.
The highesI yieldihg IreaImehI (TreaImehI H) ahd Ihe besI IreaImehIs Ior
digesIer IeedsIock ih Ierms oI C:N raIio (TreaImehIs B ahd D) do hoI coihcide.
I Ihe digesIer was Ied purely oh grass oh a Iarm IhaI ohly produced ehergy
crops, Iheh perhaps Ihe grass would be harvesIed oh a Iour week cycle. This
would help Io ehsure Ihe lohg-Ierm healIh oI Ihe digesIer buI Ihe ahhual grass
yields would be lower. A more likely scehario is IhaI Ihe digesIer will be Ied

25
grass as parI oI a Iarmihg sysIem IhaI ihcludes livesIock (dairy ahd/or beeI
caIIle) so IhaI boIh grass ahd slurry would be available Ior use as a IeedsIock.
However, ih Ihis siIuaIioh, grass is more likely Io be used as ahimal Ieed
raIher Ihah digesIer Ieed ahd, IhereIore, would be cuI oh a lohger cycle e.g.
every 6 - 8 weeks producihg a high yieldihg crop wiIh a lower C:N raIio.
Slurry Irom housed livesIock would be used as IeedsIock durihg Ihe wihIer
mohIhs wiIh grass ahd wasIe silage beihg Ied Io Ihe digesIer ih summer
mohIhs wheh Ihere is less slurry available.

26
Photo 2: 1500 litre digester
Photo 1: 0.3m
3
digester
4. SMALL SCALE DGESTON TPAL SMALL SCALE DGESTON TPAL SMALL SCALE DGESTON TPAL SMALL SCALE DGESTON TPALS SS S
To ahaerobically digesI ryegrass usihg a sihgle sIage cohIihuously sIirred
Iahk reacIor (CSTP).
To esIablish Ihe meIhahe yield Ior ryegrass wiIh a IargeI oI 410

m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM

which is quoIed by ProIessor Weilahd
10
as beihg Ihe maimum yield Ior
ryegrass.
To eamihe ahy diIIerehces ih Ihe digesIibiliIy ahd meIhahe yields oI
ehsiled ahd Iresh grass.
4.2. EperimehIal Desigh EperimehIal Desigh EperimehIal Desigh EperimehIal Desigh
Two diIIerehI small scale ahaerobic digesIers have beeh used Ior Ihis parI oI
Ihe pro|ecI. The IirsI digesIer was builI
speciIically Ior Ihese Irials. I was a 0.3
m
3
digesIer wiIh a sihgle pump IhaI
was used Io re-circulaIe digesIaIe,
heaI, ahd mi Ihe digesIer. I was Ied
by augurihg Ihe grass ihIo Ihe vessel,
Ihrough a pipe ih Ihe side oI Ihe
digesIer wiIh ahoIher pipe Ior
discharge, see PhoIo 1. AlIhough Ihe
digesIer produced biogas, Ihere were a
humber oI problems which reduced
Ihe eIIiciehcy oI Ihe process. The
pump cohIihually blocked which
meahI IhaI Ihe cohIehIs oI Ihe digesIer would lose IemperaIure ahd remaihed
sIill makihg Ihe uhmied digesIioh
process uhsIable. This digesIer rah
Ior hihe mohIhs beIore iI was
replaced ih December 2004 by a 1.5m
3

digesIer, a previously Iried ahd IesIed
desigh. There were ho pumps used ih
Ihis secohd digesIer. The digesIer
was mied by compressihg gas ahd
re-circulaIihg iI up Ihrough Ihe
digesIer. The digesIer was heaIed
usihg ah ihIerhal heaIihg sysIem ih
Ihe base oI Ihe Iahk. The digesIer
vessel was had ho ihIerhal parIs
reducihg Ihe chahce oI scum
IormaIioh. The grass was augured ih Ihrough Ihe Iop oI Ihe digesIer wiIh ah
overIlow weir Ior discharge. PhoIo 2 shows Ihe 1.5m
3
digesIer. BoIh

10
Weiland, P, Rieger, C, and Ehrmann, T,2002, Evaluation of the Newest Biogas Plants in Germany with Respect to Renewable
Energy Production, Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Nutrient Management, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Germany.

27
Photo 3: 1.5m
3
digester contents
digesIers were ruh cohIihuously ahd Ied daily. The maih goal IhroughouI
Ihese Irials, highlighIed ih secIioh 4.1, was Io esIablish Ihe quahIiIy oI
meIhahe produced Irom 1kg oI orgahic dry maIIer. The digesIers were boIh
Ied 5kg oI Iresh grass or silage everyday. Daily readihgs ehsured IhaI Ihe
digesIers were cohIihually mohiIored. The gas was collecIed ih Ihe same way
oh boIh models usihg a bell over waIer gas holder, Ihis meahI IhaI Ihe gas
producIioh ahalysis were cohsisIehI IhroughouI Ihe Irials.
4.3. DescripIioh oI Ihe work DescripIioh oI Ihe work DescripIioh oI Ihe work DescripIioh oI Ihe work
Daily Peadihgs
The mohiIorihg, Ieedihg ahd ahalysis oI Ihe digesIer were all parI oI Ihe daily
rouIihe.
The daily readihgs helped Io cohIrol ahd uhdersIahd whaI is or has beeh
goihg oh ihside Ihe digesIer. The readihgs ihcluded recordihg Ihe
IemperaIure ahd Ihe hours ruh by eiIher Ihe pump or Ihe gas miihg.
The gas holder heighI was measured ahd recorded which gave Ihe amouhI oI
gas produced Irom Ihe previous days Ieed, Ihe gas was Iheh ahalysed usihg
ah ihIra red gas ahalyser. Fihally Ihe gas holder was lowered by opehihg Ihe
gas valve ahd Ihe hew sIarIihg heighI Iheh recorded.
The discharge pipe or Ihe overIlow weir would Iheh be rodded wiIh a pluhger.
This ehcouraged ahy digesIaIe above Ihe digesIer overIlow weir Io discharge
beIore Ihe hew Ieed was Ied prevehIihg ahy Iresh IeedsIock Irom immediaIely
dischargihg.
Five kilograms oI IeedsIock were measured ouI ihIo buckeIs Ior each day aI
Ihe begihhihg oI each week. By Ihe ehd oI Ihe week Ihe Iresh grass or silage
was oIIeh spoilI compared Io IhaI aI Ihe begihhihg oI Ihe week, iI was
IhereIore decided IhaI Ihe Ieed would be made up oh a Mohday ahd oh a
Thursday allowihg Ihe IeedsIock less Iime Io spoil beIore beihg Ied Io Ihe
digesIer, givihg a cohsisIehI qualiIy oI IeedsIock. Where hecessary Ihe grass
was shredded Io reduce Ihe parIicle size allowihg iI Io be pumped ahd Io
ehhahce Ihe digesIioh process wiIh ah ihcrease ih surIace area Ior Ihe bacIeria
Io access.
The 300 liIre digesIer had pluhges ih Ihe ihleI ahd ouIleI pipes ehsurihg IhaI
everyIhihg remaihed ihside Ihe digesIer uhIil Ihey were removed durihg Ihe
daily readihgs.
Ahalysis
The readihgs were ehIered daily ihIo a
spreadsheeI calculaIihg gas producIioh ahd
quahIiIies oI Ieed ahd discharge. FeedsIock
ahd digesIaIe were ahalysed weekly Ior Ihe
IoIal solids ahd Ihe volaIile solids (orgahic
dry maIIer). See appehdi 3 Ior Ihis IesI
meIhod.

28
4.4. PesulIs PesulIs PesulIs PesulIs
The 0.3m
3
digesIer rah Ior Iwo periods. The IirsI was Irom SepIember 2003 Io
November 2003 ahd was Ied oh ehsiled grass harvesIed durihg Ihe 2003
growihg seasoh. The secohd was Irom March 2004 Io July 2004 ahd was Ied
oh Ireshly harvesIed grass. The 1.5m
3
digesIer rah Irom Jahuary 2005 Io May
2005 ahd was Ied oh ehsiled grass harvesIed durihg Ihe 2004 growihg seasoh.
The ryegrass was successIully ahaerobically digesIed producihg biogas ahd
digesIaIe (bio-IerIiliser). PhoIo 3 shows Ihe cohIehIs oI Ihe 1.5m
3
digesIer
wheh Ihe lid was removed Ior alIeraIiohs Io Ihe auger sysIem.
The gas produced IhroughouI Ihe Irials was a good ehough qualiIy Io burh
wiIh average meIhahe cohIehI oI approimaIely 53%.
The meah mohIhly meIhahe yields are as Iollows:
Table Table Table Table 17 17 17 17: : : : 0.3m 0.3m 0.3m 0.3m
3 33 3
DigesIer SepIember 2003 DigesIer SepIember 2003 DigesIer SepIember 2003 DigesIer SepIember 2003 - -- - November 2003 (Silage) November 2003 (Silage) November 2003 (Silage) November 2003 (Silage)
MohIh m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM

SepIember 375
OcIober 310
November 304
Table Table Table Table 18 18 18 18: :: : 0.3m 0.3m 0.3m 0.3m
3 33 3
DigesIer March 2004 DigesIer March 2004 DigesIer March 2004 DigesIer March 2004 - -- - July 2004 (Fresh Grass) July 2004 (Fresh Grass) July 2004 (Fresh Grass) July 2004 (Fresh Grass)
MohIh m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM

March 203
April 295
May 252
Juhe 196
July 134
Table Table Table Table 19 19 19 19: 1 : 1 : 1 : 1. .. .5 55 5m mm m
3 33 3
DigesIer Jahuary 2005 DigesIer Jahuary 2005 DigesIer Jahuary 2005 DigesIer Jahuary 2005 - -- - May 2005 (Si May 2005 (Si May 2005 (Si May 2005 (Silage) lage) lage) lage)
MohIh m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM

Jahuary 265
February 347
March 347
April 429
May 383
Table 17 ahd Table 18 show IhaI Ihe 0.3m
3
digesIer produced reasohable
meIhahe yields ih Ihe early sIages oI boIh Irials beIore declihihg Iowards Ihe
ehd. The Iresh grass Iailed Io reach 0.3m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
ih comparisoh Io Ihe silage
which reached a meah mohIhly average oI 375 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
. The 1.5m
3
digesIer
meIhahe yield Iigures showh ih Table 19 are high ahd cohsisIehI durihg
February ahd March, ihcreasihg ih April ahd Iallihg ih May. The overall meah
meIhahe yield Iigures Ior each oI Ihe Ihree Irials are,

29
Table Table Table Table 20 20 20 20: Average meIhahe yie : Average meIhahe yie : Average meIhahe yie : Average meIhahe yield Iigures ld Iigures ld Iigures ld Iigures
DaIe m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM

SepI. '03 - Nov '03 325
March '04 - July '04 229
Jah. '05 - May '05 357
There is a clear diIIerehce beIweeh Ihe meIhahe yields oI Ihe Iresh grass ahd
Ihe silage showh by Table 20, Ihe overall meIhahe yield oI Ihe silage is 342
m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
, ahd 229 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
Ior Iresh grass. These resulIs will have beeh
aIIecIed by Ihe Iwo diIIerehI digesIer desighs. The cohdiIiohs wiIhih Ihe 1.5m
3

digesIer were more sIable Ihah Ihose ih Ihe 0.3m
3
digesIer, which is ihdicaIed
by Ihe higher meIhahe yield ahd cohsisIehI gas qualiIy. The overall average
meah meIhahe yield Ior Ihe Ihree Irials is 288 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
. The rahge oI daily
meIhahe producIioh Ior 1Iohhe oI ryegrass ODM was very variable Ior all oI
Ihe Irials, Ihese Iigures are showh ih Figure 9 Io Figure 11.

The Iigures below show Ihe daily meIhahe yield Ior ryegrass.
Daily Methane Yield for Ryegrass
Cubic Metres of Methane per Tonne of Organic Dry Matter
(September '03-November '03)
200
220
406
393
554
422
460
431
946
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
S
e
p
te
m
b
e
r
O
c
to
b
e
r
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
Date
m
3
C
H
4
.
t
-1
O
D
M
m3CH4.t-1ODM Linear (m3CH4.t-1ODM)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 9 99 9: MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield - -- - SepIember '03 Io November '03 SepIember '03 Io November '03 SepIember '03 Io November '03 SepIember '03 Io November '03

30
(March '04 - July '04)
640
459 454
433
417 413
379
419
279
234
111
160
209
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
M
a
r
c
h
A
p
r
il
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
J
u
ly
Date
m
3
C
H
4
.
t
-1
O
D
M
m3CH4.t-1ODM Linear m3CH4.t-1ODM

Figure Figure Figure Figure 10 10 10 10: MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield - -- - March '04 Io July '04 March '04 Io July '04 March '04 Io July '04 March '04 Io July '04
.
(Jan '05 - May'05)
290 292 288 291
273
428
529
509
517
585 585
610
795
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
M
a
r
c
h
A
p
r
il
M
a
y
Date
m
3
C
H
4
.
t
-
1
O
D
M
m3CH4.t-1ODM Linear m3CH4.t-1ODM

Figure Figure Figure Figure 11 11 11 11: MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield : MeIhahe yield - -- - Jah '05 Io May '05 Jah '05 Io May '05 Jah '05 Io May '05 Jah '05 Io May '05
Figure 9 shows Ihe daily meIhahe producIioh Ior Ihe 0.3m
3
digesIer Ied oh
silage. The producIioh was Iairly cohsisIehI Irom OcIober Io Ihe ehd oI
November showh by Ihe horizohIal Irehd lihe, oh average meIhahe yields oI
beIweeh 200-460 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
were recorded. A mechahical Iailure wiIh Ihe
pump shuI Ihe plahI dowh aI Ihe begihhihg oI December, iI was re-
commissiohed ih February Ihe Iollowihg year.
From February Ihe daily meIhahe yield (illusIraIed by Figure 10) was very
ihcohsisIehI wiIh Iigures oI beIweeh 100 ahd 600 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
. The digesIer
became biologically uhsIable several Iimes ihdicaIed by meIhahe cohIehIs oI
less Ihah 50%. This may have beeh caused by Ihe qualiIy oI Ihe IeedsIock,
(e.g. diIIerehces beIweeh 2 & 8 week cuI grass, or spoilI grass or silage), or Ihe

31
re-occurrihg mechahical problems associaIed wiIh Ihe pump which impacIed
oh Ihe miihg ahd IemperaIure oI Ihe digesIer causihg IrequehI scum
IormaIioh, ih Iurh Ihis disIurbed Ihe micro-orgahisms ahd IhereIore Ihe
digesIioh process. Problems wiIh Ihe pump also caused IrequehI scum
IormaIioh. The slopihg Irehd lihe emphasises Ihis declihe ih digesIer healIh.
Figure 11 shows Ihe daily meIhahe yield Irom Ihe 1.5m
3
digesIer Ior Ihe Iihal
seI oI Irials wiIh a silage IeedsIock. Ohce Ihe digesIer had sIabilised
(cohsisIehI gas qualiIy oI 50% meIhahe or above) Ihe average meIhahe yield
rahged beIweeh 270 ahd 600 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
, hever droppihg below 270 m
3
CH4
.I
-
1
ODM
. The Irehd lihe shows a sIeady ihcrease ih meIhahe producIioh as Ihe
digesIer became more acclimaIised Io Ihe grass. The meIhahe qualiIy
remaihed aI a cohsisIehI level durihg Ihis Iihal Irial, droppihg below 50% ohly
ohce or Iwice. I Ihe gas qualiIy oh eiIher oI Ihe digesIers dropped below 50%
meIhahe cohIehIs Iheh Ihe digesIer would hoI be Ied uhIil iI improved Io a
mihimum oI 50%.
I should be hoIed IhaI Ihe reIehIioh Iime oI Ihe 0.3m
3
digesIer was 60 days
ahd 300 days Ior Ihe 1.5 m
3
digesIer. A Ieed raIe oI 5kg oI weI maIIer was Ied
IhroughouI Ihe Irials equal Io approimaIely 1kg oI dry solids per day. The
reIehIioh Iime relaIes Io Ihe quahIiIy oI Ieed ahd Ihe size oI Ihe digesIer which
resulIs ih Ihe lehgIh oI Iime IhaI Ihe maIerial remaihs ihside Ihe digesIer, Ihe
reIehIioh Iime oI grass is hard Io esIablish due Io iIs speciIic graviIy which will
vary Irom 0.8-1.2 depehdihg oh Ihe sIaIe oI Ihe grass. This meahs IhaI 5kg oI
grass may be 4-6 liIres wheh ih Ihe digesIer. MosI gas is giveh oII beIweeh 1
ahd 14 days
11
, ohce Ihe digesIioh process has sIabilised, ahd Ihe Ieed is
cohsIahI, Ihe gas producIioh should also sIabilise. Wheh Iakihg daily readihgs
iI was assumed IhaI Ihe gas produced IhaI day is a direcI resulI oI Ihe
previous days Ieed. Ohe oI Ihe aims oI Ihis pro|ecI is Io esIablish Ihe meIhahe
yield Ior ryegrass IhereIore Ihese lohg reIehIioh Iimes were hoI a criIical issue
wiIhih Ihis research, measurable gas producIioh ahd digesIer healIh were oI
key imporIahce.
The Iigure seI by Weilahd oI 410 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
was reached ahd eceeded
IhroughouI Ihe Irials buI Ihe meah averages are sighiIicahIly lower. h
correspohdehce wiIh Weilahd, he sIaIed IhaI Ihis Iigure is based oh baIch
Irials ih 25 liIre IermehIers aI 37
o
C IhereIore Ihis Iigure cahhoI be reached ih a
CSTP. BaIch reacIors are maihIaihed uhIil all oI Ihe available gas ih Ihe
maIerial has beeh collecIed, eveh Ihough Ihe raIe oI producIioh drops Io very
low levels. For cohsIahI producIioh, Ihe digesIers are supplied wiIh regular
Ieed, collecIihg Ihe ma|oriIy oI Ihe available meIhahe buI hever achievihg Ihe
Iull poIehIial oI Ihe IeedsIock. The grass lehgIh was cuI aI ohly Iew mm ahd
ehsiled beIore digesIioh as Iheir eperimehIs have showh IhaI ehsilihg
ihcreases Ihe gas yield. Gas yields oI beIweeh 220 - 380 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
were also
recorded. See appehdi 4 Ior Ihe correspohdehce.

11
Fulford, D, (1988), Running a Biogas Programme: A handbook, Intermediate Technology Publications, London

32
4.5. Cohclusioh Cohclusioh Cohclusioh Cohclusioh
Pyegrass cah be ahaerobically digesIed Io produce biogas ahd bio-IerIiliser.
This was proved Ihrough Ihe use oI Iwo diIIerehI digesIers.
The meah average meIhahe yield Irom Ihis eperimehI was 288 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
.
This Iigure ihcludes all daIa Irom boIh digesIers, usihg Iresh grass ahd silage.
The rahge oI gas yields varied greaIly, showh by graphs 7-9, Irom 200-600
m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
.
There is a deIihiIe diIIerehce ih Ihe quahIiIy oI meIhahe produced Irom Iresh
grass Io IhaI produced Irom silage. This is clearly seeh by Ihe 3 Irials, Table 21
highlighIs Ihese Iigures.
Table Table Table Table 21 21 21 21: FeedsIock ahd meIhahe producIioh : FeedsIock ahd meIhahe producIioh : FeedsIock ahd meIhahe producIioh : FeedsIock ahd meIhahe producIioh
DaIe DigesIer FeedsIock m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM

SepI. '03 - Nov '03 0.3m
3
Silage 325
March '04 - July '04 0.3m
3
Fresh Grass 229
Jah. '05 - May '05 1.5m
3
Silage 357
I musI be hoIed IhaI Ihe Iresh grass was ohly digesIed Ior ohe Irial usihg Ihe
0.3m
3
digesIer which had mechahical problems IhroughouI Ihe Irials impacIihg
oh Ihe digesIioh process ahd Ihe ehd resulIs. Fresh grass should be digesIed
ih Ihe 1.5m
3
digesIer Io ehhahce Ihis daIa, buI uhIorIuhaIely Ihere was hoI
Iime wiIhih Ihis pro|ecI. The 1500 liIre digesIer was more sIable Ihah Ihe 0.3m
3

digesIer wiIh ah average gas producIioh oI 357 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
.
The meah average gas yield Ior silage is 342 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
, compared Io 229
m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
Ior Iresh grass. Ohce agaih Ihe cohdiIiohs oI Ihe digesIer Ior Ihe
Iresh grass Irial were hoI cohsIahI, ahd Ihe biological sIabiliIy oI Ihe digesIer
cohIehIs was less sIable Ihah IhaI oI silage, ihdicaIed by poorer gas qualiIy.
This leads us Io believe IhaI eveh wiIh Iresh grass Irials usihg Ihe
1.5m
3
digesIer Ihe overall gas yield would sIill be lower Ihah IhaI oI silage. Ah
eplahaIioh Ior Ihis could be IhaI Ihe silage has sIarIed Io reacI ahd break
dowh biologically prior Io beihg Ied Io Ihe digesIer ehhahcihg Ihe digesIioh
process, compared Io Iresh grass IhaI is placed sIraighI ihIo Ihe digesIer
immediaIely aIIer beihg cuI. The IesIs carried ouI by GEP showed IhaI Ihere
is very liIIle diIIerehce beIweeh Ihe Iresh grass ahd Ihe grass ready Io be Ied
Io Ihe digesIer. This is |usI comparihg C ahd N quahIiIies. The acids
produced durihg Ihe ehsilihg process were hoI ahalysed wiIh ih Ihis pro|ecI ih
comparisoh Io Ihose ih Ihe Iresh grass. This makeup oI Ihe IeedsIock is viIal
Io Ihe digesIioh process, ahd more research musI be dohe oh silage
preparaIioh. Pesearch is beihg carried ouI oh Ihis aI Viehha UhiversiIy as parI
oI Cropgeh, a research pro|ecI Iuhded by Ihe EU.
A closer look aI Ihe research carried ouI by Weilahd shows IhaI his
eperimehIs were a loI smaller Ihah Ihe Irials ih Ihis pro|ecI wiIh Ihe 410
m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
beihg a maimum meIhahe yield. His Iihdihgs relaIe closely Io
Ihose Iouhd Irom Ihis pro|ecI helpihg Io veriIy Ihis research.

33
5. THE LAPGE PLOT THE LAPGE PLOT THE LAPGE PLOT THE LAPGE PLOT
To harvesI Ihe area oh a regular basis, Ieedihg Ihe grass Io Ihe 20m
3

digesIer Iresh or ehsilihg iI ahd sIorihg iI Ior IuIure use.
To apply Ihe resulIihg digesIaIe as a bio-IerIiliser back ohIo Ihe lahd.
5.2. DescripIioh oI Ihe Work DescripIioh oI Ihe Work DescripIioh oI Ihe Work DescripIioh oI Ihe Work
h Ihe IirsI seasoh Ihe grass was mowh every Iwo weeks ahd eiIher ehsiled or
Ied Iresh Io Ihe digesIer as required. This was dohe usihg a ride oh mower.
The ehsiled grass was hoI good qualiIy as iI was oIIeh mowh wheh weI
producihg poor silage. I was decided IhaI ih Ihe secohd year Ihe grass would
be mowh wheh required by Ihe digesIer as Iresh grass IeedsIock. h addiIioh
Ihis would reduce Ihe cosI oI sIorihg Ihe grass oh a commercial scale. This
worked well, cuIIihg Ihe grass aI Ihe highesI seIIihg as Ihe IeedsIock was
required.

34
Photo 4: Biogas Plant
6. 20 20 20 20m mm m
3 33 3
BOGAS PLANT BOGAS PLANT BOGAS PLANT BOGAS PLANT
To Irial Ihe digesIioh oI ryegrass oh a larger scale usihg grass harvesIed
Irom Ihe large ploI Io Ieed Ihe digesIer all year rouhd usihg boIh Iresh
ahd ehsiled grass.
To use Ihe digesIer Io eperimehI wiIh various modiIicaIiohs
ihvesIigaIihg Ihe besI way Io desigh a commercial plahI Ior Ihe digesIioh
oI ryegrass.
6.2. hiIi hiIi hiIi hiIial DigesIer Desigh al DigesIer Desigh al DigesIer Desigh al DigesIer Desigh
The digesIer capaciIy is 20m
3
wiIh a recepIioh Iahk Ior preparihg Ihe
IeedsIock, a sIorage Iahk Ior Ihe digesIaIe ahd a bell over waIer gas holder.
See PhoIo 4 ahd 5.
The IeedsIock was prepared as liquid slurry by miihg Ihe grass wiIh re-
circulaIed digesIaIe. This was mied ahd chopped ih Ihe recepIioh Iahk usihg
a chopper pump. This pump was also used Io Ieed Ihe digesIer which was Ied
mahually every day Iollowihg Ihe preparaIioh oI Ihe Ieed mi. The Ieed
ehIered Ihe digesIer Ihrough a pipe ih Ihe rooI. The digesIer was mied usihg
biogas IhaI was recirculaIed up Ihrough Ihe digesIer. The digesIer was heaIed
usihg ah ihIerhal heaI echahger, wiIh Ihe IemperaIure oI Ihe digesIer seI aI
37
o
C. The digesIaIe was discharged via ah overIlow weir which occurred
wheh Ihe cohIehIs wiIhih Ihe digesIer vessel became higher Ihah Ihe Iop oI
Ihe overIlow pipe. The overIlow pipe cah be seeh ih phoIo 4 siIuaIed beIweeh
Ihe digesIer ahd Ihe digesIaIe sIorage Iahk.
6.3. Problems Problems Problems Problems
This ihiIial desigh creaIed several problems,
The digesIer cohIehIs developed a skih oh Ihe Iop as a resulIed oI grass
sIickihg Io Ihe gas recirculaIioh pipes ahd Ihe ihIerhal heaI echahger.
The grass was chopped wheh passihg Ihrough Ihe chopper pump buI Ihe
parIicle size reducIioh was mihimal allowihg subsIahIial lehgIhs oI grass
Io ehIer ihIo Ihe digesIer ahd sIick Io Ihe compohehIs wiIhih Ihe digesIer.
The gas miihg would parIially break up Ihe scum which would Iheh
move ahd shap Ihe gas recirculaIioh pipes as iI Iell.
Photo 5: Reception Tank

35
Every Iime Ihe digesIer was Ied Ihe Ieed would Iall oh Iop oI Ihe skih
which would Iheh develop iIs owh skih creaIihg layers oI scum wiIhih Ihe
digesIer.
The scum would oIIeh build up prevehIihg Ihe gas Irom passihg Ihrough
Ihe gas IakeoII pipe aI Ihe Iop oI Ihe digesIer, Ihis Iheh caused Ihe gas Io
be released Io aImosphere Ihrough Ihe pressure relieI valve.
6.4. ModiIicaIiohs ModiIicaIiohs ModiIicaIiohs ModiIicaIiohs
The gas miihg pipes were relocaIed dowh Ihe sides oI Ihe digesIer Io Ihe
Iloor oI Ihe vessel.
The ihIerhal heaI echahger was removed ahd replaced by ah eIerhal
heaI echahger. This was a pump IhaI drew liquor Irom Ihe boIIom oI Ihe
digesIer, up Ihrough Ihe heaI echahger ahd back ih aI Ihe Iop oI Ihe
digesIer ih Ihrough Ihe side pahel. This uses Ihe same cohcepI adopIed
by Ihe 0.3m
3
digesIer.
The Ieed mechahism was modiIied so IhaI iI was Ied Ihrough Ihe ihleI
pipe oI Ihe heaI echahger aI Ihe Iopside oI Ihe digesIer.
The Ieed Irom Ihe miihg Iahk was redirecIed Ihrough a maceraIor ahd
moho pump beIore ehIerihg ihIo Ihe digesIer. The maceraIor chopped
Ihe IeedsIock which IurIher reduced Ihe parIicle size oI Ihe maIerial
ehIerihg Ihe digesIer. This ehhahced Ihe digesIioh process Iwo sIage by
ihcreasihg Ihe surIace area available Ior Ihe bacIeria, ahd prevehIihg Ihe
IeedsIock Irom cloggihg ih Ihe pipes or ih Ihe digesIer vessel iIselI.
The mosI recehI modiIicaIioh is Ihe ediIioh oI a discharge pump ahd a
belI press separaIor. This allows Ihe solids Io be separaIed ouI leavihg a
Ihih digesIaIe liquor. This reduces Ihe amouhI oI solids IhaI are re-
circulaIed wiIhih Ihe liquor wheh makihg Ihe Ieed mi.
A desigh was prepared Ior Ihe ihsIallaIioh oI ah auger sysIem IhaI would
Ieed Ihe grass ih dry raIher Ihah beihg mied wiIh a liquid allowihg iI Io
be pumped ihIo Ihe digesIer. Havihg Irialled Ihis oh Ihe 0.3m
3
digesIer
ahd eperiehced problems wiIh cohIihuous blockages ih Ihe miihg
pump, iI was decided IhaI iI would be beIIer Io sIick wiIh Ihe eisIihg
Ieedihg mechahism.
The digesIer was mohiIored closely Ior gas producIioh ih Ihe IirsI year. The
biogas yield was Iouhd Io be ah average oI 9m
3
per day Irom 100kg oI grass
per day, Ihis is equivalehI Io approimaIely 250 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
. The mohiIorihg
ceased durihg Ihe ehgiheerihg modiIicaIiohs buI iI is epecIed IhaI Ihe gas
yield would how be higher due Io Ihe hew layouI oI Ihe digesIer ahd Ihe
reduced parIicle size, which boIh appear Io ehhahce Ihe digesIioh process.
The modiIicaIiohs Io Ihe digesIer have beeh very successIul wiIh Ihe digesIer
beihg Ied oh grass IhroughouI Ihe alIeraIiohs. PelocaIihg ihIerhal mechahical
parIs has beeh crucial, allowihg hoIhihg Ior Ihe grass Io geI sIuck oh which
would resulI ih a build up oI scum. The gas miihg works well ahd is assisIed
by Ihe eIerhal heaI echahger which recirculaIes Ihe liquor wheh Ihe digesIer
calls Ior heaI. The hew Ieedihg mechahism is also a good improvemehI wiIh
a hoIiceable reducIioh ih parIicle size ahd less blockages. There are sIill

36
occasiohal problems wiIh pumpihg grass, a Ihick mi cah easily block up Ihe
miihg ahd Ieedihg pumps. As mehIiohed above Ihe idea oI ah auger Ieedihg
sysIem was dropped ih Iavour oI Ihe currehI meIhod. Havihg said Ihis, quick
mi pumps ih Germahy combihe ah auger Ieedihg sysIem wiIh Ihe addiIioh oI
recirculaIed digesIer cohIehIs Io push Ihe IeedsIock Ihrough ihIo Ihe digesIer.
There would be ho parIicle size reducIioh usihg Ihis meIhod IhereIore iI would
be imporIahI IhaI Ihe size oI Ihe maIerial was chopped as small as possible aI
Ihe poihI oI harvesI.

37
7. COMMEP COMMEP COMMEP COMMEPCAL PYEGPASS BOGAS PLANT CAL PYEGPASS BOGAS PLANT CAL PYEGPASS BOGAS PLANT CAL PYEGPASS BOGAS PLANT
To desigh a commercial biogas plahI speciIically Ior Ihe digesIioh oI
ryegrass Ior ehergy producIioh.
To assess Ihe ecohomics oI such a pro|ecI wiIh parIicular reIerehce Io Ihe
capiIal ahd operaIihg cosIs oI Ihe plahI ahd Ihe cosIs oI harvesIihg ahd
IrahsporIihg Ihe IeedsIock.
To ahalyse Ihe ehergy ihpuI used Io produce Ihe IeedsIock agaihsI Ihe
ehergy oupuI produced aI Ihe ehd oI Ihe process.
7.2. OuIlihe Desigh OuIlihe Desigh OuIlihe Desigh OuIlihe Desigh
This desigh is based oh a Iarm wiIh 100 hecIares oI ryegrass which is Io be
harvesIed as IeedsIock Ior Ihe digesIer. The area oI 100 hecIares was choseh
so IhaI a large ehough plahI could be desighed suiIable Ior a combihed heaI
ahd power (CHP) uhiI Ior Ihe producIioh oI heaI ahd elecIriciIy. I is assumed
IhaI all IeedsIock is silage ahd Iigures wiIhih Ihe process calculaIiohs spread
sheeI (appehdi 5) are based oh Ihis assumpIioh. The grass is harvesIed
usihg a IracIor mower Iollowed by a Iorage harvesIer which chops Ihe grass
Io ah average oI 40mm ih lehgIh which is suiIable Io be Ied Io Ihe digesIer
wiIhouI IurIher parIicle size reducIioh. Ohce harvesIed Ihe grass is sIored ih a
silage clamp.
The grass will be IrahsIerred daily Irom Ihe silage clamp ihIo a hopper usihg a
IrohI ehd loader. AI Ihe boIIom oI Ihe hopper Ihere will be ah auger, beheaIh
which digesIer liquid is pumped Ihrough pushihg Ihe grass ihIo Ihe digesIer,
Ihis is called a quick mi pump. This sysIem allows boIh liquid ahd solid
IeedsIock Io be Ied Io Ihe digesIer.
The digesIer will be ah above grouhd ihsulaIed cylihdrical vessel. I will be
mied usihg gas miihg as Ihe 1.5m
3
ahd 20m
3
digesIers have demohsIraIed
IhaI Ihis works very well. The digesIer will be heaIed usihg ah ihIerhal heaI
echahger.
DigesIaIe will discharge over a mechahical press which will separaIe Ihe
solids ahd Ihe liquor. The liquid digesIaIe will be sIored ih a large sIorage
Iahk uhIil Ihe Iarmer is ready Io spread iI ohIo Ihe lahd. The solid digesIaIe
will Iall ihIo a pile beheaIh Ihe separaIor which cah be used as a soil
cohdiIioher.
This plahI will hoI require a pasIeurisaIioh uhiI as Ihere are ho ahimal by
producIs wiIhih Ihe IeedsIock. The pasIeurisaIioh uhiI has beeh leII ih Ihe
spreadsheeI allowihg Ior IuIure epahsioh oI Ihe plahI.
The digesIaIe sIorage Iahk will double as a gas holder wiIh a Ileible
membrahe over Ihe Iop oI Ihe sIore. This desigh will ehsure IhaI all Ihe gas is
collecIed ihcludihg ahy Irom Ihe sIorage Iahk, Ihe odours will all be cohIaihed
ahd will reduce Ihe IooIprihI oI Ihe plahI wiIhouI Ihe heed Ior addiIiohal
grouhd space Ior a separaIe gas holder.
The gas will be used oh siIe ih a CHP uhiI wiIh a spark ighiIioh ehgihe. h
Germahy iI is commoh pracIise Ior Iarmers Io use duel Iuel ehgihes because

38
Ihey are cheaper, however Ihey require diesel as Ihe piloI Iuel. CHP uhiIs are
how desighed Io Iake uh-scrubbed biogas wiIh hydrogeh sulphide levels oI up
Io 500ppm.
A sIahdby gas boiler will also be ihcluded Io use ahy ecess gas ahd Io back
up Ihe CHP uhiI durihg maihIehahce work.
7.3. Ecohomic Ahalysis Ecohomic Ahalysis Ecohomic Ahalysis Ecohomic Ahalysis
7.3.1. Pyegrass Biogas PlahI
FeedsIock
The cosI oI esIablishihg Ihe grass sward is f150 per hecIare, Ihis ihcludes
ploughihg, drillihg, rollihg ahd Ihe cosI oI Ihe seed. The lay will lasI Iive years.
Oh Ihe balahce sheeI Ihis will be ihcluded uhder IeedsIock producIioh which
will ihclude Ihe yearly harvesIihg cosIs ahd Ihe esIablishmehI cosI oI f30 per
hecIare per year.
The digesIaIe Irom Ihe biogas plahI cah be used Io IerIilise Ihe sward buI as
mehIiohed ih secIioh 3 iI would heed Io be supplemehIed by addiIiohal
IerIiliser such as pig FYM ahd slurry. I is imporIahI IhaI muck or slurry is
used raIher Ihah hiIrogeh IerIiliser which is ehergy epehsive Io produce ahd
releases large amouhIs oI carboh dioide. A Iigure oI f20 per hecIare per year
should be allowed Ior Ihe imporIihg oI Iarm mahure ahd slurry ahd will be
ihcluded ih Ihe cosI oI IeedsIock producIioh.
The cosI oI harvesIihg ryegrass as silage is f395 per hecIare based oh Iour
cuIs per year. This Iigure ihcludes, mowihg iI, collecIihg ahd choppihg iI
usihg a Iorage harvesIer, IrahsporI Irom Ihe Iield Io Ihe silage clamp, ahd Ihe
rollihg ahd Ihe sealihg oI Ihe silage clamp. (This price is based oh cohIracIihg
cosIs ih 2005) I is assumed IhaI Ihe Iarmer will already have a silage clamp ih
which Io sIore Ihe grass. The IoIal cosI oI producIioh is f445 per hecIare per
year.
The cosI oI lahd musI be Iakeh ihIo accouhI as a rehI wheIher or hoI Ihe lahd
is owhed by Ihe Iarmer. The cosI oI lahd ih Ihis pro|ecI is f150 per hecIare,
Ihis will vary depehdihg oh each ihdividual siIuaIioh.
TrahsporI
The cosI oI IrahsporI is hoI ah issue as Ihe silage clamp will be siIuaIed oh Ihe
Iarm alohgside Ihe biogas plahI. I is presumed IhaI Ihe Iarmer will already
have a IrohI ehd loader Irom previous or cohIihuihg Iarmihg pracIises which
will be used Io load Ihe hopper, buI Ihe cosIs oI Ihis operaIioh have beeh
ihcluded.

39
CapiIal CosI
Pro|ecI mahagemehI & desigh f38,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI ryegrass hopper & Ieed sysIem f44,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI digesIer Iahk & equipmehI f115,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI press & equipmehI f30,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI digesIaIe ahd gas sIorage f68,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI CHP uhiI & gas boiler f95,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI cohIrol pahel, ihsIrumehIaIioh &
cablihg
f32,000
CohsIrucIioh oI Iahk bases ahd cohIrol buildihg f38,000
Process commissiohihg, Iraihihg ahd mahual f15,000
CohIihgehcy f25,000
f500,000
Ahhual OperaIihg CosIs
The operaIihg cosIs ihclude Ihe labour, maihIehahce ahd spares, ehgihe oil
ahd oIher cohsumables ahd uIiliIies.
Pevehue
The maih drive oI Ihis pro|ecI is Ihe producIioh oI rehewable ehergy which is
where Ihe maih ihcome will come Irom Ihe sale oI elecIriciIy back Io Ihe
haIiohal grid. There is also a large ecohomic beheIiI Io be had Irom Ihe
surplus heaI produced by Ihe CHP uhiI. For eample iI could be used ih
glasshouses Io grow IruiI ahd vegeIables all year rouhd. h addiIioh CO
2
Irom
Ihe biogas could also be used ih a glasshouse ehhahcihg Ihe growihg
ehvirohmehI Ior plahIs. To make Ihis biogas plahI ecohomically viable iI is
essehIial IhaI Ihe heaI ehergy is used.
hcome cah be had Irom Ihe digesIaIe Iibre which could be sold locally as a
soil ehhahcer. The liquid digesIaIe also has ah ecohomic value Io Ihe Iarmer
as iI cah be recycled back ohIo Ihe lahd as a bio-IerIiliser replacihg Ihe cosI oI
miheral IerIilisers.
Epahsioh oI Ihe biogas plahI could allow Ior oIher IeedsIock Io be broughI ih
Ior which a gaIe Iee could be charged, e.g. local auIhoriIy wasIe, oIher
agriculIural wasIe, or abaIIoir wasIe. I should be hoIed IhaI iI ahimal by-
producIs are Io be Ied Io Ihe digesIer Iheh a pasIeurisaIioh uhiI musI be added
Io Ihe plahI Io comply wiIh Ihe Ahimal By-ProducI PegulaIiohs.
Ecohomic Ahalysis
The ecohomic ahalysis cah be seeh oh Ihe spread sheeI oh Ihe Iollowihg page.
Three sceharios are giveh each wiIh diIIerehI ihcomes. A1 ohly receives
ihcome Irom Ihe sale oI elecIriciIy, A2 receives ihcome Irom Ihe sale oI
elecIriciIy ahd composI, ahd A3 receives ihcome Irom Ihe sale oI elecIriciIy,
composI ahd heaI.
The key Iigures used are a ryegrass yield oI 12.7I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
, which is equivalehI

40
Io 11.1I
ODM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
, Ihis is Ihe maimum yield recorded oh ploI H2. A meIhahe
yield oI 342m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
is used as Ihis was Ihe meah average gas yield Ior
ryegrass. The average meIhahe cohIehI oI Ihe gas is 53%. The availabiliIy oI
Ihe CHP is 95%, wiIh ah elecIrical eIIiciehcy oI 33% ahd a heaI eIIiciehcy oI
52%.
The mass ahd ehergy balahce Ior Ihis plahI is showh ih appehdi 6.

41
ON- FARM ANAEROBIC DIGESTER Case Case Case
SIMPLE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT A1 A2 A3
Annual Energy Crop Production tonnes per year 6,367 6,367 6,367
Annual Slurry Production tonnes per year 0 0 0
Total Digester Feedstock tonnes per year 6,367 6,367 6,367
Biogas Yield from Energy Crop m3 per day 2,003 2,003 2,003
Biogas Yield from Slurry m3 per day 0 0 0
Total Biogas Yield m3 per day 2,003 2,003 2,003
Energy Value of Biogas kW (fuel) 438 438 438
Potential CHP Electricity Production kW (electrical) 145 145 145
Potential CHP Heat Production kW (heat) 228 228 228
Process Heat kW (heat) 32 32 32
CHP Availability % 95 95 95
Usage Factor for Surplus Heat % 0 0 66
Gross Electricity Production MW.hrs per year 1,203 1,203 1,203
Net Useful Heat Production MW.hrs per year 0 0 1,174
Oil Equivalence of Useful Heat litres per year 0 0 138,165
Value of Electricity per MW.hr 75 75 75
Value of Heat per MW.hr 20 20 20
Value of Gross Electricity Production per year 90,227 90,227 90,227
Value of Net Heat Production per year 0 0 23,488
Value of Energy Production per year 90,227 90,227 113,715
Area of Land Required for Energy Crops hectares 100 100 100
Cost of Production of Energy Crops per year 45,000 45,000 45,000
Cost of Land for Energy Crops per year 15,000 15,000 15,000
Percentage of Biofertiliser as Solid % 7 7 7
Production of Solid Biofertiliser tonnes per year 446 446 446
Production of Liquid Biofertiliser tonnes per year 5,921 5,921 5,921
Value of Solid Biofertiliser per tonne 0.00 5.00 5.00
Value of Solid Biofertiliser per year 0 2,228 2,228
Labour Costs per year 8,000 8,000 8,000
Operating & Maintenance Costs per year 12,000 12,000 12,000
Summary of Economics - per year
Income
Value of Electricity 90,227 90,227 90,227
Value of Heat 0 0 23,488
Value of Solid Biofertiliser 0 2,228 2,228
Total Income 90,227 92,455 115,943
Expenditure
Labour Costs 8,000 8,000 8,000
Maintenance & Operating Costs 12,000 12,000 12,000
Cost of Energy Crops 60,000 60,000 60,000
Total Expenditure 80,000 80,000 80,000
Income less Expenditure 10,227 12,455 35,943
Capital Costs
Capital Cost of Plant 500,000 500,000 500,000
Capital Grant % 0 0 0
Net Capital Cost of Plant 500,000 500,000 500,000
Interest Rate % 7.0 7.0 7.0
Capital Pay-Back Period years 15 15 15
Average Annual Finance Cost per year 50,833 50,833 50,833
Income less Expenditure less Finance -40,607 -38,378 -14,890

42
7.3.2. Pyegrass ahd Pig Slurry Biogas PlahI
The ryegrass ecohomic model shows IhaI Ihe sales oI elecIriciIy, heaI ahd
composI are viIal, buI eveh aI Ihese opIimisIic prices Ihe revehue Iails Io cover
Ihe epehdiIure. To ehhahce Ihe digesIioh process ahd ihcrease ehergy
producIioh pig slurry will become ah addiIiohal IeedsIock Io Ihe ryegrass Irom
100 hecIares oI lahd. There will be ho eIra cosI ih imporIihg Ihis as a
IeedsIock as iI is already ihcorporaIed ihIo Ihe cosI oI grass producIioh, Ihe
quahIiIy oI pig slurry imporIed Ior digesIioh will be equal Io Ihe amouhI oI
eIra huIriehIs required Io IerIilise Ihe grass, see page 18 Ior deIails. I is
IhoughI IhaI Ihere will be ho huIriehIs losI Irom Ihe pig slurry as a resulI oI Ihe
ahaerobic digesIioh process, Ihose goihg ihIo Ihe digesIer will be equal Io
Ihose goihg ouI ahd will be readily available Ior Ihe plahIs Io use.
The cosIs oI Ihe plahI will be higher Ihah Ihe previous model wiIh Ihe addiIioh
oI Iwo Iahks. The IirsI will be a holdihg Iahk Ior a mohIhs supply oI pig slurry
wiIh a sihgle membrahe cover Io capIure ahy gas which cah Iheh be uIilised
Ihrough Ihe maih gas holder. The secohd Iahk will be ah addiIiohal digesIaIe
sIorage Iahk which will also have a sihgle membrahe rooI Io capIure ahy gas.
Each digesIaIe sIorage Iahk will cohIaih 44 days oI digesIer discharge.
Appehdi 7 shows Ihe process calculaIiohs Ior a IeedsIock oI pig slurry ahd
ryegrass. There will be ah ihcrease ih Ihe volume oI IeedsIock however Ihe
digesIer size will remaih Ihe same. This will meah IhaI Ihe reIehIioh Iime oI
Ihe grass will be reduced due Io Ihe large volume oI pig slurry IhaI will be Ied
ihIo Ihe digesIer, co-digesIioh Irials ih Ihe 20m
3
digesIer carried ouI sihce Ihe
ehd oI Ihis research have ihdicaIed IhaI grass digesIs well wiIh a varieIy oI
IeedsIocks ahd aI a much shorIer reIehIioh Iime Ihah Ihose wiIhih Ihis pro|ecI.
CapiIal CosI
Pro|ecI mahagemehI & desigh f38,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI ryegrass hopper & Ieed sysIem f44,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI digesIer Iahk & equipmehI f115,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI press & equipmehI
f30,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh IirsI digesIaIe sIorage Iahk ahd gas
sIorage
f68,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI secohd digesIaIe sIorage Iahk f30,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI pig slurry holdihg Iahk f30,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI CHP uhiI & gas boiler f95,000
Supply & ihsIallaIioh oI cohIrol pahel, ihsIrumehIaIioh &
cablihg
f32,000
CohsIrucIioh oI Iahk bases ahd cohIrol buildihg f38,000
Process commissiohihg, Iraihihg ahd mahual f15,000
CohIihgehcy f25,000
f560,000

43
Ahhual OperaIihg CosIs
The operaIihg cosIs will remaih Ihe same as Ihe ryegrass model. There will be
ho eIra hahdlihg oI Ihe IeedsIock because Ihe pig slurry is imporIed ahyway
ahd Ihe ruhhihg cosIs oI Ihe plahI will also remaih Ihe same.
Pevehue
The revehue sIreams will remaih Ihe same as Ihe ryegrass model.
The ecohomic spreadsheeI oh Ihe Iollowihg page seIs ouI Ihe same sceharios
Ior Ihe previous model buI Ior a ryegrass ahd pig slurry biogas plahI. The key
Iigures used ih addiIioh Io Ihose lisIed Ior Ihe ryegrass model are a gas qualiIy
oI 58% meIhahe ahd a yield oI 232m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
.
The mass ahd ehergy balahce Ior Ihis plahI is showh ih appehdi 8. The Iwo
simple ecohomic spreadsheeIs Ior boIh commercial models cah be seeh side
by side ih appehdi 9.

44
ON- FARM ANAEROBIC DIGESTER Case Case Case
SIMPLE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT B1 B2 B3
Annual Energy Crop Production tonnes per year 6,367 6,367 6,367
Annual Slurry Production tonnes per year 7,352 7,352 7,352
Total Digester Feedstock tonnes per year 13,719 13,719 13,719
Biogas Yield from Energy Crop m3 per day 2,003 2,003 2,003
Biogas Yield from Slurry m3 per day 274 274 274
Total Biogas Yield m3 per day 2,276 2,276 2,276
Energy Value of Biogas kW (fuel) 545 545 545
Potential CHP Electricity Production kW (electrical) 180 180 180
Potential CHP Heat Production kW (heat) 284 284 284
Process Heat kW (heat) 68 68 68
CHP Availability % 95 95 95
Usage Factor for Surplus Heat % 0 0 66
Gross Electricity Production MW.hrs per year 1,498 1,498 1,498
Net Useful Heat Production MW.hrs per year 0 0 1,298
Oil Equivalence of Useful Heat litres per year 0 0 152,733
Value of Electricity per MW.hr 75 75 75
Value of Heat per MW.hr 20 20 20
Value of Gross Electricity Production per year 112,338 112,338 112,338
Value of Net Heat Production per year 0 0 25,965
Value of Energy Production per year 112,338 112,338 138,302
Area of Land Required for Energy Crops hectares 100 100 100
Cost of Production of Energy Crops per year 45,000 45,000 45,000
Cost of Land for Energy Crops per year 15,000 15,000 15,000
Percentage of Biofertiliser as Solid % 5 5 5
Production of Solid Biofertiliser tonnes per year 680 680 680
Production of Liquid Biofertiliser tonnes per year 12,919 12,919 12,919
Value of Solid Biofertiliser per tonne 0.00 5.00 5.00
Value of Solid Biofertiliser per year 0 3,400 3,400
Labour Costs per year 8,000 8,000 8,000
Operating & Maintenance Costs per year 12,000 12,000 12,000
Summary of Economics - per year
Income
Value of Electricity 112,338 112,338 112,338
Value of Heat 0 0 25,965
Value of Solid Biofertiliser 0 3,400 3,400
Total Income 112,338 115,737 141,702
Expenditure
Labour Costs 8,000 8,000 8,000
Maintenance & Operating Costs 12,000 12,000 12,000
Cost of Energy Crops 60,000 60,000 60,000
Total Expenditure 80,000 80,000 80,000
Income less Expenditure 32,338 35,737 61,702
Capital Costs
Capital Cost of Plant 560,000 560,000 560,000
Capital Grant % 0 0 0
Net Capital Cost of Plant 560,000 560,000 560,000
Interest Rate % 7.0 7.0 7.0
Capital Pay-Back Period years 15 15 15
Average Annual Finance Cost per year 56,933 56,933 56,933
Income less Expenditure less Finance -24,596 -21,196 4,769

45
7.4. Ehergy Balahce Ehergy Balahce Ehergy Balahce Ehergy Balahce
The ehergy balahce Ior Ihe ahaerobic digesIioh oI ryegrass cah be seeh below.
This is based oh work carried ouI by SouIhampIoh UhiversiIy as parI oI
Cropgeh, a Europeah Uhioh Iuhded research pro|ecI. The culIivaIioh Iigures
used are based oh Ihe work oI Leach
12
. h Ihis model Ihe grass will be
harvesIed 4 Iimes a year wiIh digesIaIe added as IerIiliser aIIer each harvesI.
The grass yields are based oh ploI H2, wiIh a meIhahe yield oI 342
m
3
CH
4
.IODM. ProducIioh ehergy is Ihe ehergy Ihe biogas plahI requires Io ruh
iIselI.

12
Leach, G. (1976) Energy and Food Production, Guildford, IPC Science and Technology Press.

46
The ehergy raIio Ior ryegrass is 1:4.4 (ihpuI ehergy:ouIpuI ehergy), wiIh ah
ehergy balahce Iigure oI 101.8 GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1
. (This ihcludes dividihg Ihe ehergy
cosI oI sowihg Ihe crop ih Ihe IirsI year across Ihe 5 years oI Ihe crop liIe). h
comparisoh, wheaI graih growh Ior biogas producIioh produces 71GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1

wiIh ah ehergy raIio oI 1:3. Ped Clover, which has a higher dry maIIer yield
Ihah ryegrass, produces 107GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1
ahd has ah ehergy raIio oI 1:4.5. The
breakdowh oI each ehergy balahce cah be seeh ih appehdi 10.
Biogas produced Irom crops cah also be compared wiIh oIher equivalehI
bioIuels. Biogas produced Irom crops cah also be compared wiIh oIher
equivalehI bioIuels parIicularly biodiesel ahd bioeIhahol. A humber oI sIudies
Ryegrass Energy Balance
operation number of energy labour operation number of energy labour
operations fuel used MJ/ha h/ha operations fuel used MJ/ha h/ha
year 1 year 2+
fuel l/ha number of years 4
plough 1 19.6 843 1.66
secondary cultivation 1 6.42 276 0.62
seed bed 1 3.93 169 0.5 number of
drill 1 3.93 169 0.5 operations
roll 1 1.3 56 0.33 per year
fuel
fertiliser application 1 1.99 86 0.62 forage harvester 4 81.6 3508.8 8
spray 0 0 0 0 transport silage 4 5.2 223.6 1.32
forage harvester 1 20.4 877 2 fertiliser application 4 7.96 342.28 2.48
transport silage 1 1.3 56 0.33
fuel total/year 94.76 4074.68 11.8
fuel total 58.87 2531 6.56 fuel total/ha 379.04 16298.72 47.2
chemicals (kg/ha) chemicals (kg/ha/yr) years
N 0 0 N 0 4 0
P
2
O
5 0 0 P
2
O
5 0 4 0
K
2
O 0 0 K
2
O 0 4 0
number of applications number of applications
sprays 0 0 sprays 0 0
chemical total 0 chemical total 0
labour MJ/ha h/ha labour MJ/ha h/ha
total labour energy 12.7 6.56 total labour energy 91.6 47.2
energy input (year1) 2.5 GJ/ha total energy input (years 2-5) 16.4 GJ/ha
Total crop energy input total 18.9 GJ/ha over 5 years
yield
1st year harvest 10.1 tDM/ha
year 2+ harvest yield 12.7 tDM/ha/yr
year 2+ total harvest yield 50.8 tDM/ha
yield total 60.9 t/ DMha
methane energy
ODM (89% of yield DM) 53.592 t/ha
l CH4/kg ODM 342 18328464 l CH4
18328.464 m3 CH4
36 MJ/m3 659.824704 GJ / ha
Fuel energy output total 659.82 GJ / ha over 5 years
production energy (20%) 131.96
Total energy input (crop + production) 150.90 GJ/ha
balance 508.9 GJ/ha
101.8 GJ/ha/year

47
by MorIimer eI al
13,14
have compared Ihe ehergy requiremehIs Ior Ihe
producIioh ahd processihg oI bioIuels usihg a sIahdard IormaI. h Ihese
sIudies Ihe ehergy required Ior culIivaIioh is giveh as a sihgle Iigure raIher
Ihah a breakdowh oI operaIiohs. h order Io compare Ihe eIIiciehcy oI
ahaerobic digesIioh wiIh Ihese oIher bioIuels we cah cohsider Ihe use oI
wheaI graih. The culIivaIioh ehergy required Ior producIioh oI wheaI graih is
Ihe same Ior AD ahd bioeIhahol so ahy diIIerehces resulI Irom Ihe ehergy
required Ior Ihe producIioh process iIselI. A comparisoh oI Ihe ehergy
requiremehIs is showh ih Table 22. The breakdowh oI Ihe ehergy balahces cah
be seeh ih appehdi 11.
Table Table Table Table 22 22 22 22
Crop BioIuel Ehergy Balahce
GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1

Ehergy PaIio
(ihpuI:ouIpuI)
WheaI BioeIhahol 34.67 1:2.3
WheaI Biogas 68.48 1:3
Oilseed Pape Biodiesel 18.25 1:1.8
I is imporIahI IhaI Ihe ehergy balahce is looked aI alohgside Ihe raIio, iI a crop
ahd Iuel combihaIioh has a high ehergy raIio Ihe beheIiIs are limiIed iI Ihe
amouhI oI ehergy reIurhed is small.
From Ihe piloI scale plahI a commercial desigh has beeh developed usihg
Ioday's Iechhology Io ruh a digesIer purely oh ryegrass. The capiIal ahd
operaIihg cosIs oI Ihe plahI are calculaIed wiIh a payback Iime oI 15 years.
The plahI would sIruggle Io break eveh, eveh wiIh revehue maimised
Ihrough Ihe sale oI Ihe elecIriciIy, heaI ahd composI. This biogas plahI would
ohly be purchased wiIh a ma|or capiIal grahI, or iI Ihe Iarmer had all Ihe
IeedsIock producIioh equipmehI ahd ah immediaIe use Ior Ihe heaI ehergy.
A more likely scehario is presehIed ih Ihe secohd commercial desigh which
ihcludes ah addiIiohal IeedsIock which is Ihe pig slurry already imporIed Ior
rye-grass IerIilisaIioh. This model has a larger capiIal cosI however Ihe
ehergy producIioh is higher. The ecohomic spreadsheeI Ior Ihis secohd
model ohce agaih shows Ihe imporIahce oI maimisihg revehue Irom Ihe
elecIriciIy, heaI ahd composI wiIh case B3 |usI breakihg eveh. Appehdi 11
shows Ihe Iwo commercial models side by side each wiIh Ihe Ihree ihcome
sceharios, Irom which iI is clear IhaI iI is more beheIicial Io co-digesI Ihe pig
slurry wiIh Ihe ryegrass. The seI up oI Ihis digesIer will allow Ihe Iarmer Io

13
Mortimer, Elsayed, and Horne, 2004, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Bioethanol Production from Wheat
Grain and Sugar Beet, Sheffield Hallam University.
14
Mortimer, Cormack, Elsayed and Horne, 2003, Evaluation of the Comparative Energy, global Warming and Socio-
economic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel, Sheffield Hallam University.

48
imporI a varieIy oI IeedsIocks, boIh liquid ahd solid. Co-digesIioh Irials sihce
Ihe ehd oI Ihis research have ihdicaIed IhaI grass is much easier Io digesI wiIh
oIher liquid IeedsIocks.
The ehergy balahce Ior rye-grass (ahd alIerhaIive ley crops) Io biogas is high,
especially ih comparisoh Io bioeIhahol ahd biodiesel producIioh. To make Ihe
mosI oI a Iarm ehergy crop biogas plahI a Iarmer should be advised Io grow a
varieIy oI high yieldihg biomass crops which complemehI ohe ahoIher
IhroughouI Ihe seasohs. For eample, maize could be Ied Io Ihe digesIer
Ihrough Ihe auIumh wiIh poIaIoes Ihrough Ihe wihIer mohIhs ahd grasses
ahd graihs ih Ihe sprihg ahd summer. This would reduce Ihe heed Ior sIorage
ahd ehhahce Ihe digesIioh process wiIh a varieIy oI bacIeria digesIihg Ihe
diIIerehI IeedsIock ih Iurh creaIihg a healIhier digesIer compared Io ohe IhaI is
Ied a moho crop. Slurries ahd mahures could also be ihcorporaIed wiIhih Ihe
IeedsIocks. This Iype oI ehergy crop Iarmihg would help wiIh Ihe
maihIehahce oI Ihe soil due Io Ihe crop roIaIiohs which would ihclude
hiIrogeh Iiihg crops such as red clover reducihg Ihe heed Ior addiIiohs oI
hiIrogeh IerIiliser.
The use oI Ihe biogas plahI cah be maimised by buildihg a digesIer which
allows Ior co-digesIioh wiIh oIher maIerials ihcludihg ahimal slurries, showh
by Ihe secohd commercial model. WasIe is a huge issue, ih parIicular bio-
degradable wasIe, ahd biogas Iechhology could play a huge parI ih reducihg
Ihis ever ihcreasihg problem. Farmers may also gaih Iihahcially by collecIihg
gaIe Iees Ior Ihe imporIed maIerial. PecehI rises ih oil prices have seeh
ihIeresI shiII Iowards rehewable sources oI ehergy, Ior a biogas plahI Ihis
could make Ihe Iihahcial model look a loI more posiIive wiIh ah ihcrease Ihe
demahd Ior greeh elecIriciIy ahd heaI, ahd a bio-IerIiliser wiIh a low ehergy
ihpuI, demahdihg a lower price ih comparisoh Io miheral IerIiliser which will
ihcreases ih price ih accordahce wiIh Ihe cosI oI oil.

49
8. Cohclusioh Cohclusioh Cohclusioh Cohclusioh
PeIerrihg back Io Ihe origihal ob|ecIives Ihe Iollowihg cohclusiohs cah be
drawh,
The maimum Ieasible meIhahe yield recorded was 3800m
3
CH4
.ha
-1
.y
-1
,
(equivalehI Io 342m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
) which wheh cohverIed Io elecIriciIy would
produce 11.7MW.h.ha
-1
.y
-1
. (See appehdi 5 Ior ehergy producIioh
deIails) These Iigures are based oh Ihe maimum grass ODM yield ahd
Ihe average meIhahe yield Ior silage. This is lower Ihah Ihe origihal
IargeI yield oI 4060 m
3
CH4
.ha
-1
.y
-1
which wheh cohverIed Io elecIriciIy
would geheraIe 14MWh.ha
-1
.y
-1
. This IargeI Iigure was calculaIed usihg a
ryegrass yield oI 9.9I
ODM
.ha
-1
wiIh a meIhahe yield oI 410m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
. As
discussed ih secIioh 4 Ihe origihal meIhahe yield IargeI was Iakeh Irom a
paper by ProIessor Weilahd
15
, which oh closer ihspecIioh Iurhs ouI Io be a
maimum Iigure recorded Irom 25 liIre baIch eperimehIs which would
hoI be Ieasible oh a larger scale as Ihey are capiIal ahd labour ihIehsive.
The digesIioh oI ryegrass could be ehhahced by Ihe ihIroducIioh oI
ahoIher IeedsIock, e.g. slurry, Io co-digesI wiIh Ihe ryegrass. This sIudy
has beeh proved IhaI a grass sysIem could be susIaihed buI becomes a
delicaIe biological ehvirohmehI ahd less versaIile Ihah a digesIer Ied a
varieIy oI IeedsIocks.
Grass harvesIed oh a 2 ahd 4 week cycle have good C:N raIios Ior
ahaerobic digesIioh (18-23:1) compared Io Ihe ploIs harvesIed oh a less
IrequehI cycle oI 6 -8 weeks (8-10:1). The ideal C:N raIio Ior ahaerobic
digesIioh is 15-30:1. PloIs cuI aI a heighI oI 100mm have a beIIer C:N
raIio Ihah Ihose cuI aI 50mm (see appehdi 1). Visually iI is clear IhaI
Ihere is a higher lighih cohIehI ih grass cuI oh ah 8 week cycle Ihah grass
cuI oh a 2 week cycle. This ihdicaIes IhaI biogas will be produced quicker
Irom grass cuI every 2 weeks due Io Ihe higher cohIehI oI cellulose ahd
small amouhI oI ligheous maIerial which Iakes a shorIer Iime Io break
dowh Ihah grass cuI every 8 weeks.
As a resulI oI ehsilihg Ihe grass iI is possible Io achieve a cohsIahI yield oI
biogas IhroughouI Ihe year. This research has showh IhaI ehsiled grass
produces a higher average meIhahe yield oI 342 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
compared Io
Iresh grass wiIh 229 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
. A possible eplahaIioh Ior Ihis is IhaI
durihg Ihe ehsilihg process Ihe breakdowh commehces wiIh Ihe
producIioh oI acids beheIicial Io Ihe ahaerobic digesIioh process.
The ehergy ahd mass balahce calculaIiohs cah be seeh ih appehdi 5 ahd
are mapped ouI ih diagrammaIic Iorm ih appehdi 6. The Iigures are
based oh Ihe desigh oI a commercial scale plahI. The ihpuI is ryegrass
Irom 100 hecIares which iI is assumed will yield 11.1 I
ODM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
based oh
Ihis research. These process calculaIiohs also assume IhaI Ihe grass will
yield 342 m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
also based oh resulIs Irom Ihis research. The ihpuIs

15
Weiland, P, Rieger, C, and Ehrmann, T,2002, Evaluation of the Newest Biogas Plants in Germany with Respect to Renewable
Energy Production, Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Nutrient Management, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Germany.

50
ahd ouIpuIs Ior Ihis commercial scale plahI based oh Ihe assumpIiohs
above are showh ih
The ehergy balahce showh oh page 39 shows Ihe producIioh oI biogas
usihg ryegrass Io have a posiIive balahce oI 101.8GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1
wiIh ah
ehergy raIio oI 1:4.4. This compares well agaihsI Ihe use oI oIher crops Io
produce biogas, e.g red clover which has ah ehergy balahce oI
107.8GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1
ahd ah ehergy raIio oI 1:4.5. A slighIly diIIerehI model
based oh Ihe work oI MorIimer eI al, 2003 ahd 2004 was used Io compare
Ihe use oI wihIer wheaI Ior biogas ahd bio-eIhahol producIioh ahd oilseed
rape Ior Ihe producIioh oI biodiesel. Table 22, page 40, shows Ihe direcI
comparisoh oI Ihese Iechhologies ihdicaIihg IhaI wihIer wheaI Ior biogas
producIioh has boIh a high ehergy producIioh oI 68.48GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1
ahd a
good ehergy raIio oI 1:3. BoIh wihIer wheaI used Ior Ihe producIioh oI
bioeIhahol ahd oilseed rape Ior Ihe producIioh oI biodeisel show lower
ehergy balahces ahd raIios.
Electricity
Heat
Ryegrass
Ryegrass
Dry Matter
% Dry Matter
Organic Dry Matter
% Organic Dry Matter
6,367
1,273
20
1,133
S9
tJyr
tJyr
%
tJyr
%
Liquid Biofertiliser
Liquid
Dry Matter
% Dry Matter
Organic Dry Matter
4,772
161
3.4
91
56.5
tJyr
tJyr
% DM
tJyr
% ODM
Fibre Biofertiliser
Fibre
Dry Matter
% Dry Matter
Organic Dry Matter
644
161
25
91
56.5
tJyr
tJyr
% DM
tJyr
% ODM
Anaerobic Digester
Temperature 37
o
C
Biogas
731,046
952
m
3
Jyr
tJyr
Gross Output
Plant Consumption
Net Output
1,205
33
1,172
MW.hrJyr
MW.hrJyr
MW.hrJyr
Gross Output
Plant Consumption
Net Output
2,061
392
1,670
MW.hrJyr
MW.hrJyr
MW.hrJyr
Ryegrass Biogas Plant
Mass & Energy Balance

Figure Figure Figure Figure 12 12 12 12: Pyegrass biogas plahI mass & ehergy balahce : Pyegrass biogas plahI mass & ehergy balahce : Pyegrass biogas plahI mass & ehergy balahce : Pyegrass biogas plahI mass & ehergy balahce
The desigh oI a commercial biogas plahI ruh oh ryegrass ahd Ihe ihpuIs &
ouIpuIs look aIIracIive, however, Ihe Iihahcial model shows IhaI uhless
Ihere is a large ihiIial capiIal ihvesImehI or Ihe Iarmer already has all Ihe
ma|or equipmehI Ior Ihe IeedsIock producIioh Iheh iI is uhlikely IhaI Ihis
ihvesImehI would be made. The ecohomic spreadsheeI Ior a commercial
ryegrass plahI shows IhaI Ihe plahI would sIruggle Io break eveh, eveh
wiIh Ihe sale oI elecIriciIy, heaI ahd composI. The secohd commercial
scale model ihcludes grass ahd pig slurry as co-digesIihg IeedsIock. The
pig slurry is primarily imporIed as ah addiIiohal IerIiliser Ior Ihe ryegrass
producIioh. The ecohomic spreadsheeI Ior Ihis model is much more
posiIive buI iI is sIill clear IhaI Ihe sales oI elecIriciIy, heaI ahd composI
are viIal Io Ihe Iihahcial sIabiliIy oI Ihe plahI. There will be ah ihcrease ih
Ihe capiIal cosI oI Ihis secohd plahI, Ihis will make iI equipped Io Iake ih a
varieIy oI IeedsIock, boIh liquid ahd solid. I oIher wasIe is imporIed a

51
gaIe Iee could be commahded creaIihg ahoIher ihcome Ior Ihe plahI. The
commercial digesIer desigh cah easily accommodaIe a wide rahge oI
IeedsIock ihcludihg ahimal by producIs wiIh Ihe addiIioh oI a
pasIeurisaIioh uhiI.
This pro|ecI has provided very Iirm grouhdihg Ior GreehIihch's currehI
research wiIhih Cropgeh, a Europeah cohsorIium ihvesIigaIihg Ihe
producIioh oI biogas usihg agri wasIes ahd ehergy crops. h Germahy, aI
Ihe Iime oI wriIihg, Ihere are 3,000 Iarm biogas plahIs beihg ruh oh crops
ahd agri wasIes provihg IhaI biogas Iechhology is viable. The reIorm oI
Ihe Commoh AgriculIural Policy Iorcihg Iarmers Io grow crops IhaI have
real mohiIory value, combihed wiIh Ihe cohIihuihg rise ih Ihe price oI oil,
will make ahaerobic digesIioh a real opIioh Ior ehergy producIioh.

52
Glossery Glossery Glossery Glossery
DM dry maIIer
ODM orgahic dry maIIer
CH
4
MeIhahe
CO
2
Carboh Dioide
H
2
S Hydrogeh Sulphide
N NiIrogeh
C Carboh
P Phosphorous
K PoIassium
P
2
O
5
PhosphaIe
K
2
O PoIash
MgO Maghesium Oide
CHP Combihed HeaI & Power
TS IoIal solids
VS volaIile solids
kg.ha
-1
.y
-1
kilograms per hecIare per year
kg.I
-1
kilogram per Iohhe
kg.m
-3
kilogram per cubic meIre
kg.ha
-1
kilogram per hecIare
kg
DM
.kg
-1
N
kilograms oI dry maIIer per kilogram oI hiIrogeh
I
DM
.ha
-1
Iohhes oI dry maIIer per hecIare
I
DM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
Iohhes oI dry maIIer per hecIare per year
I
ODM
.ha
-1
.y
-1
Iohhes oI orgahic dry maIIer per hecIare per year
m
3
CH4
.I
-1
ODM
cubic meIres oI meIhahe per Iohhe oI orgahic dry maIIer
m
3
CH4
.ha
-1
.y
-1
cubic meIres oI meIhahe per hecIare per year
MW.h megawaII hours
MW
e
.h megawaII (elecIriciIy) hours
MW
Ih
.h megawaII (Ihermal) hours
kW
e
.h kilowaII (elecIriciIy) hours
kW
Ih
.h kilowaII (Ihermal) hours
MW
e
.h.ha
-1
.y
-1
megawaII (elecIriciIy) hours per hecIare per year
GJ.ha
-1
.y
-1
giga |oules per hecIare per year

File 18131

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição 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

File 18131

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PYE-CPASS AS AN ENEPCY CPDP

USINC IDCAS TECHNDLDCY

Você também pode gostar