1

Benefits of a Two-Compartment Anaerobic Digester of Cattle Manure and how it will Mitigate
Climate Change in Canada

Linda Nagelhout

AGR 1110, Sec. 0101

November 26, 2019

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AND BENEFITS…………………………………………3
A. Introduction
B. Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure
C. The Process of Anaerobic Digestion in a Two-Phase Reactor
D. Need for Anaerobic Digesters in Canada
E. Anaerobic Digesters for Mitigating Climate Change and Benefits to Canada
F. Canadian Companies Manufacturing Anaerobic Digesters

PART II: PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION……………………………………………………7

A. Materials and Assembly
B. Government Subsidies
C. Biosafety Regulations and Standards
D. Operator Training
E. Feasibility and Cost
F. Improving Adoption of the Product by the Farmer

PART III: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRODUCT………………………………………12

A. Positive and Negative Impacts of Implementing an Anaerobic Digester

B. Product Adoption
C. Future Studies
D. Other Benefits to Canada

PART IV: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS……………………………….16

A. Recommendations
B. Conclusions
 3

PART I: PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AND BENEFITS

Introduction

As climate change continues to become a more pressing issue with each year that goes

by, the need to find solutions which will help to mitigate climate change are becoming

imperative, especially within the agricultural industry. Studies show that the livestock sector

alone accounts for approximately 5 to 10% of the overall contribution to climate change (Lovett,

1997). This is a result of animal waste which produces greenhouse gases such as methane and

carbon dioxide that trap heat warming the earth’s atmosphere (Aydinalp and Cresser, 2008). Yet,

the goods and products developed as a result of the livestock sector are essential in feeding the

world’s growing population as well as accounting for about 8% of Canada’s gross domestic

product (Statistics Canada, 2017). For these reasons, a two-compartment anaerobic digester for

cattle manure has been developed as a way of capturing greenhouse gases and overall mitigating

climate change.

Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure

The process of anaerobic digestion includes microbes in the absence of oxygen which

degrade organic material such as cattle manure and produce biogas which is mainly composed of

methane and carbon dioxide. These gases can then be converted into a source of energy such as

heat or electricity (Holly et al., 2017). The process involves cattle manure being fed into the first

of two reactors where it will then undergo a series of 4 successive stages: hydrolysis,

acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis (Meegoda et al., 2018). Since the acidogenic and

methanogenic bacteria experience optimal growth under different temperatures, the concept of

two-phase anaerobic digestion was proposed in the 1970’s. Contrary to the traditional single-
 4

phase process of anaerobic digestion, the two-phase process would be able to achieve a higher

efficiency in terms of methane production and stability of the overall process. This is because the

temperature of the reactors plays a major role in successful interactions between the microbial

groups as well as impacting the growth and metabolism of the bacteria (Wang et al., 2019).

The Process of Anaerobic Digestion in a Two-phase Reactor

In the first reactor, acid-forming bacteria convert complex materials such as fats, proteins

and carbohydrates from the manure (slurry) to organic fatty acids mainly composed acetic and

propionic acids through the process of hydrolysis and fermentation. These products are then

transferred to the second reactor to be further processed. In the second phase, methane and other

gaseous end products are formed by “methane-forming” bacteria which get collected (Persson et

al., 2016). Figure 1 below shows the two-phase process of anaerobic digestion. Finally, after a

certain retention period, the remaining products in the form of a nutrient-rich slurry are removed

from the digester and can be used as fertilizer of made into dry-compost bedding for the cattle

(EPA, 2017).

Figure 1. Input materials and products over the course of two-phase anaerobic digestion
(McCarty, 1964).

Need for Anaerobic Digesters in Canada

 5

As of 2018, Canada had a dairy cow and heifer population of approximately 1.5 million

distributed across almost 11 000 farms. Figure 2 below shows the number of dairy cows and

heifers in each province of Canada. The majority of dairy farms can be found in Quebec and

Ontario which are the two biggest dairy producing provinces in Canada and house approximately

976 000 dairy cows and heifers (Government of Canada, 2019). Thus, the implementation of

anaerobic digesters for cattle manure would be most beneficial in these two regions. The current

method for storing cattle manure include lagoons and pits underneath of the barns which provide

oxygen-free environments allowing the ferment and produce greenhouse gases such as methane

and carbon dioxide (EPA, 2017). One study which collected samples of methane production over

a 24-hour period beneath slatted floors of dairy barns determined the rate to be 0.011kg CH₄/kg

volatile solids (VS) (Petersen et al., 2016). Thus, if the average dairy cow produces 62 kg of

manure per day, 0.682 kg of CH₄ are being released into the atmosphere each day per cow as a

result (Statistics Canada, 2015).

 6

Figure 2. This map shows the number of farms, dairy cows and dairy heifers in each province of
Canada (Government of Canada, 2019).

Anaerobic Digesters for Mitigating Climate Change and Benefits to Canada

Implementing anaerobic digesters in Quebec and Ontario which have the highest dairy

cow populations in Canada would be an effective strategy for mitigating climate change because

it would capture the biogases produced and convert them into a source of energy instead of

allowing them to be released into the atmosphere. On a 500-cow dairy farm, this would reduce

emissions by almost 125 000 kg of methane per year, which does not yet factor in the levels of

carbon dioxide also released. Because the anaerobic digester captures the biogases released, it is

able to convert them into a source of energy.

 7

Furthermore, the nutrient-rich digestate removed from the digester can be used as a

fertilizer and applied to fields improving soil health (EPA, 2017). This is important because with

the extreme weather events as a result of climate change, the soil needs to be able to continue to

sustain crops which rely on healthy soil. Some benefits of applying the digestate include

increasing the soil’s ability to retain water, raising the organic matter content and reducing the

amount of both soil erosion and nutrient runoff (EPA, 2017).

Canadian Companies Manufacturing Anaerobic Digesters

Table 1. Contact information of potential suppliers of anaerobic digesters in Ontario

(OMAFRA, 2019).
AMEC
900 Maple Grove Rd., Unit 10
Campbridge, ON N3H 4R7
Tel: 519-650-7127
Contact: Richard St. Jean
Anaergia Inc.
5338 John Lucas Dr.
Burlington, ON L7L 6A6
Tel: (905)-766-3333
Contact: Kurt Rohmann
Bio-En Power Inc.
4 Arthur St. North
Elmira, ON
Tel: 519-669-5171 ext. 240
Contact: Earl Brubacher

PART II: PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION

Materials and Assembly

When considering the design of the digester, its structure should be composed as to

minimize heat loss, allow for easy flow of manure through the system, be as automated as

possible and allow for easy access for maintenance and repair. Furthermore, the materials used

should be able to withstand corrosion, as they are consistently in contact with the manure and

biogases produced. The size and design of the digester will be based off of Penn State

University’s vertical double chamber type, a two-phase system which will reflect the topics
 8

discussed in this report. The complete design of the digester including the manure preparation

area and the effluent storage pit can be seen below in figure 3.

Figure 3. The design of Penn State University’s two-phase digester system (Persson et al., 2016).

The size of this digester which is appropriate for a 100-cow operation and has a retention

time of 14 days and is 4.8 m high with a diameter of 6 m (Homan et al., 2016).. These

dimensions result in a capacity of 100 m3 of manure to be processed with enough room for

biogas collection above the manure. The roof is independent of the tank and is made out of

galvanized steel which allows for flotation depending on the pressure of the gas. It also has the

capacity to store the gas produced over a 6-hour time period (Homan et al., 2012).

Government Subsidies

As Canada continues to try and find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adopt

new technologies which will aid in doing so, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has

developed the federal Agriculture Clean Technology Program. The Program prioritizes projects

which focus on the improvement of two clean technology sectors: precision-agriculture and agri-
 9

based bioproducts. Agri-based bioproducts are defined as renewable resources resulting from the

degradation of agricultural resources or wastes which can include animal manure and crop

residue (Government of Canada, 2019). Because the process of anaerobic digestion involves

producing methane and carbon dioxide as a result of degrading cattle manure, the provinces of

Quebec and Ontario are eligible for funding regarding the implementation of an anaerobic

digester under the Program. The Program allows applicants to apply for up to 50% of total

eligible costs, to a maximum of $5 million per project (Government of Canada, 2019).

Biosafety Regulations and Standards

According to the Canadian Biogas Association (2019), resource recovery and waste

management regulations play a vital role in the safe handling and transportation of the various

products inputted and produced by the anaerobic digester. Government bodies at the federal,

provincial and municipal levels have implemented regulations in relation to resource recovery

and waste management which aim to protect public health, the environment and preserve natural

resources. These regulations generally apply to the collection and transportation of waste; limits

on the types and quantities of feedstocks inputted for processing; digestate and nutrient

management to regulate storage and application to land and the production of renewable energy.

Regulations specific to Quebec include the Environment Quality Act chapter Q-2, r.13;

Regulation Respecting Solid Waste, the Agriculture Management Regulations and the Act

Respecting Energy Transition Quebec. To summarize the objectives of these Acts, they are in

place to protect the water and soil from pollution and to promote and support energy transition.

Regulations specific to Ontario include O. Reg 267/03: Nutrient Management Act of 2002, O.

Reg 347: General Waste Management Act of EPA, O. Reg 359/09: Renewable Energy

Approvals, Ontario Water and Resources Act as well as guidelines to follow for suitable site
 10

selection. These Acts are in place to regulate the storing and application of nutrients on

agricultural land, regulate the inputs and processing of waste, regulate facilities producing

electricity from renewable sources and to manage the wastewater which is separated from the

digestate after processing. Acts implemented by the federal government include the Federal

Fertilizers Act which states that digestate of anaerobic digestion is designated as a fertilizer by

the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (Canadian Biogas Association, 2019).

Operator Training

The anaerobic digestion system consists of many moving parts and hazards which could

place someone at risk when working on the digester. For this reason, it is important for operators

to understand the risks and take the proper precautions when loading or handling the digester.

Some of the general risks associated with the digester include exposure to many colourless and

odourless gases, drowning, flammability, explosion and entry into confined spaces (Canadian

Biogas Association, 2019). Owners of anaerobic digestion facilities are highly encouraged to

seek professional advice in identifying the risks specific to their site and developing protocols to

mitigate the hazards. Some recommended formal reviews include using the Hazard and

Operability (HAZOP) review, Process Safety Management Review (PSMR), or a similar

methodology (Canadian Biogas Association, 2019).

Feasibility and Cost

Before implementing an anaerobic digester on a farm, it is important to determine what

is required in order to break even or be profitable. The initial cost of an anerobic digester can be

anywhere from hundreds of thousands of dollars to often even millions (Moser et al., 2017). On

top of that, the running costs of maintenance and repair, labour and hydro also need to be taken
 11

into account (Moser et al., 2017). Daily, the labour required for the average anaerobic digester

takes anywhere from half an hour to an hour and a half which includes cleaning and maintenance

(Persson et al., 2016). Based on the hourly wage of $16.00/hour of a farm worker near Toronto,

ON, it would cost approximately $6000 annually for labour for an anerobic digester

(Government of Canada, 2019). Based on Penn State University’s design for the two-phase

digester, the average daily electricity usage needed to power the multiple pumps used in the

system and lighting for the equipment room is 25 kWh/day (Persson et al. 2016). Currently, the

implementation of an anaerobic digester is only feasible on the largest farms in Quebec and

Ontario milking over 600 cows (Anderson, 2012). Table 2 below shows a general version of the

various parameters which influence the economy of the product and determine whether it should

or should not be implemented on a certain farm.

Table 2. Various parameters influencing the initial investment cost and running costs (Wellinger,
1996).

Parameters Influencing the Major Effect on Running Major Effect on

Economy Cost Investment Cost

Type of Equipment Pretreatment Pretreatment

Type of Digester Type of Digester
Upgrade of Biogas Upgrade of Biogas
Chemical Additives Use of Biogas
Storage of Biogas

Capacity Efficiency of Economy of Sale

Electricity Production

Profitability Interest Rates Subsidies

Taxes
Amortization

Laws Post-Treatment Post Treatment

End of Use Products Impact Studies
Security Requirements

Cost of Living Labour Labour

Insurance Land Prices
 12

Transportation Cost

Type of Waste Biological Oxygen Demand Source Separation

(BOD)
Content Inhibitors

Improving Adoption of the Product by Farmers

In order to improve the adoption of anaerobic digesters by farmers, the initial and running

costs would first have to be reduced (Anderson, 2012). At this point in time, the return in

investment is not significant enough to sustain implementing an anaerobic digester on farms with

less than 600 cows. With a greater number of cows comes more manure being processed and a

higher electricity yield by the digester, thus making it feasible for large farms to be able to deal

with the high cost of electricity to run the anaerobic digester in Ontario. A 25% increase in the

saleable electricity prices to $0.249 per kWh would result in anaerobic digesters being feasible

for a 200-cow herd. Furthermore, if a carbon exchange market was to be created, it would

increase the adoption by dairy farms with 400 cows or more with the breakeven carbon credit

prices being $35.62/ton for a 400-cow farm and $1.91/ton for a 600-cow farm (Anderson, 2012).

PART III: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRODUCT

Positive and Negative Impacts of Implementing an Anaerobic Digester

Though there are many positive impacts of implementing an anaerobic digester on a

farm, there are still negatives to the product which could be improved. In terms of an anaerobic

digesters impact on the environment, it is able to mitigate climate change by reducing the

methane and carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere. If the average lactating
 13

dairy cow produces 62 kg of manure per day, 0.682 kg of CH₄ are being released into the

atmosphere each day per cow as a result (Statistics Canada, 2015). If an anaerobic digester was

implemented on a 600-cow farm, it would convert approximately 150 000 kg of CH₄ into a

source of energy as well as mitigating climate change.

Furthermore, the digestate extracted from the digester after the sufficient amount of

biogas has been produced is a nutrient-rich slurry which can be used as a fertilizer and applied to

land(EPA, 2017). With climate change continuing to become a more pressing issue, it is

important for the soil to be able to adapt to the changing environmental conditions such as

drought and irregular rainfalls. The digestate has the ability to improve soil health by increasing

its ability to retain water, reduce soil erosion and nutrient runoff and increase the organic matter

content of the soil (EPA, 2017).

One of the negative impacts of anaerobic digesters is that the initial and running costs are

very high, thus limiting the implementation of the product to the largest farmers only in Ontario

and Quebec. As well as it being a capital investment, it is an added worry for the farmer which

requires additional time to look after (Green Coast, 2018). A digester can be thought of as a

massive stomach which requires at least an hour of maintenance each day. For a farmer whose

schedule is already quite busy, it could mean having to hire another person or take on the extra

responsibility.

Product Adoption

As of 2012, only 10 large farms in Ontario have implemented an anaerobic digester with

government aid which only makes up 0.28% of the total number of farms in Ontario according to

Figure 2 in Part I (Anderson, 2012). This is due to the high initial and running costs of the
 14

anaerobic digester which only make it feasible for farms greater than 600 cows (Anderson,

2012). Realistically, until the prices of saleable electricity produced by the digester increase and

the capital investment is reduced, the option of implementing an anaerobic digester is only

available for farms with more than 600 cows.

Future Studies

Currently, many studies are being done on how to make anaerobic digestion a more

efficient process that will produce more biogas per kg of volatile solids inputted into the digester.

The successful degradation of the slurry and production of biogas are heavily reliant on the

interactions between the microorganisms present (Meegoda et al., 2018). Therefore, improving

on the bacteria which are the source of the degradation process will likely improve the efficiency

of biogas production. The most important groups of bacteria present throughout the four stages

of anaerobic digestion are the Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya communities (Castellano-Hinojosa

et al., 2018). The Bacteria community plays a role in producing the acetic acid necessary for

methane production in the methanogenic phase of the process while the Archaea community is

responsible for the production of methane by converting acetic acid to methane. Due to the

strong relationship present between the acetogenic and methanogenic bacteria throughout the

process, biomonitoring the system could give researchers insight on the most efficient

microbiome for methane production as well as predicting and preventing system failure (Amani

et al., 2010).

Other Benefits to Canada

Aside from mitigating climate change and the digestate being an excellent source of

fertilizer which can be applied to fields, an increased adoption of anaerobic digesters would lead
 15

to a higher demand of construction for them. This would create more job opportunities for the

Canadian construction workers and ultimately benefit the Canadian economy (Canadian Biogas

Association, 2013). Figures 4 and 5 below demonstrate the economic benefits and job

availability for each sector which utilize anaerobic digestion. It can be analyzed that in terms of

both economic and job potential, the agriculture sector contributes the most creating an economic

spinoff of $9.3 billion and 10 200 job opportunities annually (Canadian Biogas Association,

2013).

Figure 4. Capital investment opportunity for the various sectors which utilize anaerobic digestion
systems (measured in billion dollars) (Canadian Biogas Association, 2013).
 16

Figure 5. Annual job potential created through implementing anaerobic digestion on a larger
scale (Canadian Biogas Association, 2013).

PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations

Though it is costly, there are many benefits of implementing an anaerobic digester on

dairy farms in Quebec and Ontario where the dairy cattle populations are high in comparison to

other Canadian provinces. For the future, studies should be done on how to make anaerobic

digestion a more efficient process that would allow it to be feasible for farmers milking less than

600 dairy cows. Finding the optimal microbiome could simplify the process thus making it less

costly and ultimately mitigate climate change on a larger scale as more farmers would adopt the

product.

Conclusions
 17

Throughout this analysis, the process of anaerobic digestion has shown to have many

positive effects on Canada’s environment. It can mitigate climate change by capturing and

converting the biogases produced through anaerobic digestion into a source of energy instead of

allowing them to be released back into the atmosphere. Even though it is not currently feasible

for farms with less than 600 dairy cows due to the high initial investment and running costs,

studies are being done to increase the efficiency of the process by developing a microbiome

which would allow for the greatest amount of methane production. For now, the largest farms in

Canada and Quebec are able to adopt this product with the help of government subsidies and

ultimately have a positive impact on the environment through the mitigation of climate change

and improving soil health.

 18

References

Amani, T., Nosrati, M. & Sreekrishnan, T. R. (2010). Anaerobic Digestion from the viewpoint of
microbiological, chemical, and operational aspects – a review. Environmental Reviews,
18, 255-278.

Anderson, R. C. (2012). The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Technology for Ontario Farmers.
[PDF file] Available from: https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/
10214/3630/Rob%27s_Thesis_final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed November
25, 2019).

Aydinalp, C. & Cresser, M. S. (2008). The Effects of Global Climate Change on Agriculture.
American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 3(5), 672-676.

Canadian Biogas Association. (2019). Canadian Anaerobic Digestion Guideline – Draft. [PDF
file] Available from: https://biogasassociation.ca/images/uploads/documents
/2019/resources/CBA-AD-Guideline-Jul_11_2019.pdf (accessed November 23, 2019).

Canadian Biogas Association. (2013). Canadian Biogas Study – Benefits to the Economy,
Environment and Energy. [PDF file] Available from: https://biogasassociation.ca/images/
uploads/documents/2014/biogas_study/Canadian_Biogas_Study_Summary.pdf (accessed
November 26, 2019).

Castellano-Hinojosa, A., Armato, C., Pozo, C. & González-Martínez, A. (2018). New concepts in
anaerobic digestion processes: recent advances and biological aspects. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 102(12): 5065-5076.

EPA. (2017). Environmental Impacts of Anaerobic Digestion (AD). EPA [online] Available
from: https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/environmental-benefits-anaerobic-
digestion-ad (accessed November 23, 2019).

Government of Canada. (2019). Agricultural Clean Technology Program: Applicant Guide.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. [online] Available from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/
eng/programs-and-services/agricultural-clean-technology-program/applicant-
guide/?id=1521203650548 (accessed November 22, 2019).

Government of Canada. (2019). General Farm Worker near Toronto (ON). [online] Available
from: https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/marketreport/wages-occupation/9297/22437 (accessed
November 26, 2019).

Government of Canada. (2019). Number of farms, dairy cows and heifers. Canadian Dairy
Information Centre. [online] Available from: https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index
_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=farm-ferme&s3=nb (accessed November 10, 2019).

Green Coast. (2018). Facts About Anaerobic Digesters: What are the Pros and Cons? [online]
 19

Available from: https://greencoast.org/facts-about-anaerobic-digesters/ (accessed

November 25, 2019).

Holly, M. A., Larson, R. A., Powell, J. M., Ruark, M. D. & Aguirre-Villegas, H. (2017).
Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated dairy manure
during storage and after land application. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 239,
410-419.

Homan, E., Shaw, M. D., Bartlett, H. and Persson, S. (2012). Biogas from Manure. [online]
Available from: https://extension.psu.edu/biogas-from-manure (accessed November 13,
2019).

Lovett, J. C. (1997). R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss eds., Climate Change
1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change - Scientific-Technical
Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1996, ISBN 0 521 56431 X (hb), 0 521 56437 9
(pb). Environment and Development Economics, 2(2), 223-229.

McCarty, P. L. (1964). Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals: Part I, Chemistry and

microbiology. Public Works, 95(9):107-112.

Meegoda, J. N., Li, B., Patel, K. & Wang, L. B. (2018). A Review of Processes, Parameters,
and Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion. NCBI, 15(10), 2224.

Moser, M. A., Mattocks, R. P., Gettier, S. & Roos, K. (2017). Benefits, Costs and Operating
Experience at Seven New Agricultural Anaerobic Digesters. [PDF file] Available from:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/lib-
ben.pdf (accessed November 25, 2019).

OMAFRA. (2019). Anaerobic Digestion Contact List. [online] Available from:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/ad_contact.htm#1 (accessed
November 25, 2019).

Persson, S. P. E., Bartlett, H. D., Branding, A. E. & Regan, R. W. (2016). Agricultural Anaerobic
Digesters: Design and Operation. [online] Available from:
https://extension.psu.edu/agricultural-anaerobic-digesters-design-and-operation (accessed
November 14, 2019).

Petersen, S. O., Olsen, A. B., Elsgard, L., Triolo, J. M. & Sommer, S. G. (2016). Estimation of
Methane Emissions from Slurry Pits Below Pig and Cattle Confinements. PLoS ONE,
11(8), e0160968.

Statistics Canada. (2015). A geographical profile of livestock manure production in Canada,

2016. [online] Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-002-x/2008004
/article/10751-eng.htm (accessed November 10, 2019).
 20

Statistics Canada. (2018). Agriculture. [online] Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/

\n1/pub/11-402-x/2011000/chap/ag/ag-eng.htm (accessed 15 November 2019).

Wang, S., Ma, F., Ma, W., Wang, P., Zhao, G. & Lu, X. (2019). Influence of Temperature on
Biogas Production Efficiency and Microbial Community in a Two-Phase Anaerobic
Digestion System. Water, 11(1), 133.

Wellinger, A. (1996). Deploying Anaerobic Digesters: Current Status and Future Possibilities.
[PDF file] Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy96/20558.pdf (accessed
November 16, 2019).