The Experts below are selected from a list of 105 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
J La Cour Jansen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a life cycle approach to the Management of household food waste a swedish full scale case study
Waste Management, 2011Co-Authors: Anna Bernstad, J La Cour JansenAbstract:Environmental impacts from incineration, decentralised composting and centralised anaerobic digestion of solid organic household waste are compared using the EASEWASTE LCA-tool. The comparison is based on a full scale case study in southern Sweden and used input-data related to aspects such as source-separation behaviour, transport distances, etc. are site-specific. Results show that biological treatment methods - both anaerobic and aerobic, result in net avoidance of GHG-emissions, but give a larger contribution both to nutrient enrichment and acidification when compared to incineration. Results are to a high degree dependent on energy substitution and emissions during biological processes. It was seen that if it is assumed that produced biogas substitute electricity based on Danish coal power, this is preferable before use of biogas as car fuel. Use of biogas for Danish electricity substitution was also determined to be more beneficial compared to incineration of organic household waste. This is a result mainly of the use of plastic bags in the incineration alternative (compared to paper bags in the anaerobic) and the use of biofertiliser (digestate) from anaerobic treatment as substitution of chemical fertilisers used in an incineration alternative. Net impact related to GWP from the Management Chain varies from a contribution of 2.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if incineration is utilised, to an avoidance of 5.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if choosing anaerobic digestion and using produced biogas as car fuel. Impacts are often dependent on processes allocated far from the control of local decision-makers, indicating the importance of a holistic approach and extended collaboration between agents in the waste Management Chain. (Less)
-
a life cycle approach to the Management of household food waste a swedish full scale case study
Waste Management, 2011Co-Authors: Anna Bernstad, J La Cour JansenAbstract:Environmental impacts from incineration, decentralised composting and centralised anaerobic digestion of solid organic household waste are compared using the EASEWASTE LCA-tool. The comparison is based on a full scale case study in southern Sweden and used input-data related to aspects such as source-separation behaviour, transport distances, etc. are site-specific. Results show that biological treatment methods - both anaerobic and aerobic, result in net avoidance of GHG-emissions, but give a larger contribution both to nutrient enrichment and acidification when compared to incineration. Results are to a high degree dependent on energy substitution and emissions during biological processes. It was seen that if it is assumed that produced biogas substitute electricity based on Danish coal power, this is preferable before use of biogas as car fuel. Use of biogas for Danish electricity substitution was also determined to be more beneficial compared to incineration of organic household waste. This is a result mainly of the use of plastic bags in the incineration alternative (compared to paper bags in the anaerobic) and the use of biofertiliser (digestate) from anaerobic treatment as substitution of chemical fertilisers used in an incineration alternative. Net impact related to GWP from the Management Chain varies from a contribution of 2.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if incineration is utilised, to an avoidance of 5.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if choosing anaerobic digestion and using produced biogas as car fuel. Impacts are often dependent on processes allocated far from the control of local decision-makers, indicating the importance of a holistic approach and extended collaboration between agents in the waste Management Chain.
Anna Bernstad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a life cycle approach to the Management of household food waste a swedish full scale case study
Waste Management, 2011Co-Authors: Anna Bernstad, J La Cour JansenAbstract:Environmental impacts from incineration, decentralised composting and centralised anaerobic digestion of solid organic household waste are compared using the EASEWASTE LCA-tool. The comparison is based on a full scale case study in southern Sweden and used input-data related to aspects such as source-separation behaviour, transport distances, etc. are site-specific. Results show that biological treatment methods - both anaerobic and aerobic, result in net avoidance of GHG-emissions, but give a larger contribution both to nutrient enrichment and acidification when compared to incineration. Results are to a high degree dependent on energy substitution and emissions during biological processes. It was seen that if it is assumed that produced biogas substitute electricity based on Danish coal power, this is preferable before use of biogas as car fuel. Use of biogas for Danish electricity substitution was also determined to be more beneficial compared to incineration of organic household waste. This is a result mainly of the use of plastic bags in the incineration alternative (compared to paper bags in the anaerobic) and the use of biofertiliser (digestate) from anaerobic treatment as substitution of chemical fertilisers used in an incineration alternative. Net impact related to GWP from the Management Chain varies from a contribution of 2.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if incineration is utilised, to an avoidance of 5.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if choosing anaerobic digestion and using produced biogas as car fuel. Impacts are often dependent on processes allocated far from the control of local decision-makers, indicating the importance of a holistic approach and extended collaboration between agents in the waste Management Chain. (Less)
-
a life cycle approach to the Management of household food waste a swedish full scale case study
Waste Management, 2011Co-Authors: Anna Bernstad, J La Cour JansenAbstract:Environmental impacts from incineration, decentralised composting and centralised anaerobic digestion of solid organic household waste are compared using the EASEWASTE LCA-tool. The comparison is based on a full scale case study in southern Sweden and used input-data related to aspects such as source-separation behaviour, transport distances, etc. are site-specific. Results show that biological treatment methods - both anaerobic and aerobic, result in net avoidance of GHG-emissions, but give a larger contribution both to nutrient enrichment and acidification when compared to incineration. Results are to a high degree dependent on energy substitution and emissions during biological processes. It was seen that if it is assumed that produced biogas substitute electricity based on Danish coal power, this is preferable before use of biogas as car fuel. Use of biogas for Danish electricity substitution was also determined to be more beneficial compared to incineration of organic household waste. This is a result mainly of the use of plastic bags in the incineration alternative (compared to paper bags in the anaerobic) and the use of biofertiliser (digestate) from anaerobic treatment as substitution of chemical fertilisers used in an incineration alternative. Net impact related to GWP from the Management Chain varies from a contribution of 2.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if incineration is utilised, to an avoidance of 5.6kg CO(2)-eq/household and year if choosing anaerobic digestion and using produced biogas as car fuel. Impacts are often dependent on processes allocated far from the control of local decision-makers, indicating the importance of a holistic approach and extended collaboration between agents in the waste Management Chain.
O Oenema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
operational costs and neglect of end users are the main barriers to improving manure treatment in intensive livestock farms
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020Co-Authors: Meixiu Tan, Yong Hou, Ling Zhang, Shengli Shi, Weitong Long, Tao Zhang, O OenemaAbstract:Abstract Improving manure Management is essential to actualise a more circular economy in agro-ecosystems. However, the drivers of and barriers to improving manure Management and recycling are not well understood. We report farmers’ perceptions of manure Management techniques on dairy and poultry farms, with a focus on anaerobic digestion, solid–liquid separation, and composting as common techniques used to facilitate manure Management and valorisation. We conducted face-to-face interviews with 338 intensive livestock farmers in China. We hypothesised that farmers’ behaviour is differentially influenced by their perceptions of outcomes, social referents, and controlling factors of the manure Management techniques, and by farm and farmers’ characteristics. Results indicated that the actual adoption of manure treatment techniques was limited on the surveyed farms (21% dairy farms, 0%–2% poultry farms; other farms were either not equipped with these techniques or the techniques were not used). Most farms had limited cropland and recycled a small but variable percentage of manure (15%–64% for nitrogen and 25%–95% for phosphorus). Farmers’ perceptions of the environmental benefits of manure treatment and incentives from government agencies were identified as key drivers for the adoption of manure Management techniques. High operation cost, low benefit-cost ratios, technical failures, and lack of a functioning manure market were identified as main barriers. Farm scale, farmers’ education and identity also influenced farmers’ intention to use manure treatment techniques. Our results indicate that there is need for capacity building in the whole manure Management Chain, and for monitoring programmes. We argue that greater attention and governmental support should be allocated to (i) the actual operation of treatment techniques (instead of investment subsidies), and (ii) to the end-users of manure treatment products, who need appropriate application machines.
Yong Hou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
operational costs and neglect of end users are the main barriers to improving manure treatment in intensive livestock farms
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020Co-Authors: Meixiu Tan, Yong Hou, Ling Zhang, Shengli Shi, Weitong Long, Tao Zhang, O OenemaAbstract:Abstract Improving manure Management is essential to actualise a more circular economy in agro-ecosystems. However, the drivers of and barriers to improving manure Management and recycling are not well understood. We report farmers’ perceptions of manure Management techniques on dairy and poultry farms, with a focus on anaerobic digestion, solid–liquid separation, and composting as common techniques used to facilitate manure Management and valorisation. We conducted face-to-face interviews with 338 intensive livestock farmers in China. We hypothesised that farmers’ behaviour is differentially influenced by their perceptions of outcomes, social referents, and controlling factors of the manure Management techniques, and by farm and farmers’ characteristics. Results indicated that the actual adoption of manure treatment techniques was limited on the surveyed farms (21% dairy farms, 0%–2% poultry farms; other farms were either not equipped with these techniques or the techniques were not used). Most farms had limited cropland and recycled a small but variable percentage of manure (15%–64% for nitrogen and 25%–95% for phosphorus). Farmers’ perceptions of the environmental benefits of manure treatment and incentives from government agencies were identified as key drivers for the adoption of manure Management techniques. High operation cost, low benefit-cost ratios, technical failures, and lack of a functioning manure market were identified as main barriers. Farm scale, farmers’ education and identity also influenced farmers’ intention to use manure treatment techniques. Our results indicate that there is need for capacity building in the whole manure Management Chain, and for monitoring programmes. We argue that greater attention and governmental support should be allocated to (i) the actual operation of treatment techniques (instead of investment subsidies), and (ii) to the end-users of manure treatment products, who need appropriate application machines.
-
Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure Management Chains: A meta-analysis and integrated assessment
Global Change Biology, 2015Co-Authors: Yong Hou, Gerard Velthof, Oene OenemaAbstract:Livestock manure contributes considerably to global emissions of ammonia (NH3 ) and greenhouse gases (GHG), especially methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O). Various measures have been developed to mitigate these emissions, but most of these focus on one specific gas and/or emission source. Here, we present a meta-analysis and integrated assessment of the effects of mitigation measures on NH3 , CH4 and (direct and indirect) N2 O emissions from the whole manure Management Chain. We analysed the effects of mitigation technologies on NH3 , CH4 and N2 O emissions from individual sources statistically using results of 126 published studies. Whole-Chain effects on NH3 and GHG emissions were assessed through scenario analysis. Significant NH3 reduction efficiencies were observed for (i) housing via lowering the dietary crude protein (CP) content (24-65%, compared to the reference situation), for (ii) external slurry storages via acidification (83%) and covers of straw (78%) or artificial films (98%), for (iii) solid manure storages via compaction and covering (61%, compared to composting), and for (iv) manure application through band spreading (55%, compared to surface application), incorporation (70%) and injection (80%). Acidification decreased CH4 emissions from stored slurry by 87%. Significant increases in N2 O emissions were found for straw-covered slurry storages (by two orders of magnitude) and manure injection (by 26-199%). These side-effects of straw covers and slurry injection on N2 O emission were relatively small when considering the total GHG emissions from the manure Chain. Lowering the CP content of feed and acidifying slurry are strategies that consistently reduce NH3 and GHG emissions in the whole Chain. Other strategies may reduce emissions of a specific gas or emissions source, by which there is a risk of unwanted trade-offs in the manure Management Chain. Proper farm-scale combinations of mitigation measures are important to minimize impacts of livestock production on global emissions of NH3 and GHG.
Oene Oenema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure Management Chains: A meta-analysis and integrated assessment
Global Change Biology, 2015Co-Authors: Yong Hou, Gerard Velthof, Oene OenemaAbstract:Livestock manure contributes considerably to global emissions of ammonia (NH3 ) and greenhouse gases (GHG), especially methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O). Various measures have been developed to mitigate these emissions, but most of these focus on one specific gas and/or emission source. Here, we present a meta-analysis and integrated assessment of the effects of mitigation measures on NH3 , CH4 and (direct and indirect) N2 O emissions from the whole manure Management Chain. We analysed the effects of mitigation technologies on NH3 , CH4 and N2 O emissions from individual sources statistically using results of 126 published studies. Whole-Chain effects on NH3 and GHG emissions were assessed through scenario analysis. Significant NH3 reduction efficiencies were observed for (i) housing via lowering the dietary crude protein (CP) content (24-65%, compared to the reference situation), for (ii) external slurry storages via acidification (83%) and covers of straw (78%) or artificial films (98%), for (iii) solid manure storages via compaction and covering (61%, compared to composting), and for (iv) manure application through band spreading (55%, compared to surface application), incorporation (70%) and injection (80%). Acidification decreased CH4 emissions from stored slurry by 87%. Significant increases in N2 O emissions were found for straw-covered slurry storages (by two orders of magnitude) and manure injection (by 26-199%). These side-effects of straw covers and slurry injection on N2 O emission were relatively small when considering the total GHG emissions from the manure Chain. Lowering the CP content of feed and acidifying slurry are strategies that consistently reduce NH3 and GHG emissions in the whole Chain. Other strategies may reduce emissions of a specific gas or emissions source, by which there is a risk of unwanted trade-offs in the manure Management Chain. Proper farm-scale combinations of mitigation measures are important to minimize impacts of livestock production on global emissions of NH3 and GHG.
