Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research

Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research

Biomass Resource Management and Increasing the Yield of Biogas Production in the Farm: A Review

Document Type : Review Article(s)

Authors
Amin Pirmoghani 1
Rashed Mohammadrezaei 2
Behzad Shahmoradi 3
1 Student Research Committee, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
2 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
3 Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
10.34172/jaehr.1388
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion (AD) converts animal and agricultural waste into biogas, offering significant benefits for waste management and renewable energy production. It enhances energy security, reduces dependence on imports, and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. Despite its potential, AD faces challenges that require improved policies, investments, and training. Technological advancements, such as nanotechnology, can further increase biogas production, while by-products like biofertilizer contribute to farm profitability. However, pathogens in animal waste (AW), such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella, pose public health risks through contamination of water, food, and surfaces. Efficient management of livestock waste is essential to reduce environmental impacts, and the proper pricing of natural resources, including land, water, and landfills, is crucial for sustainability. The benefits of biogas include energy generation, waste reduction, pathogen elimination, and the conversion of organic waste into high-quality fertilizer, which supports agricultural productivity. However, challenges remain, such as small-scale technology, impurities, temperature sensitivity, and limited applicability in urban areas. To improve economic feasibility, the fermentation process can be conducted in controlled environments using digestion tanks. This study explores strategies for effective biomass resource management, focusing on optimizing biogas production and its by-product utilization for sustainable energy development.
Keywords
Animal wastes
Anaerobic digestion
Production potential
Farm profitability
Biogas

Subjects

  1. Meister M, Rezavand M, Ebner C, Pümpel T, Rauch W. Mixing non-Newtonian flows in anaerobic digesters by impellers and pumped recirculation. Adv Eng Softw. 2018;115:194-203. doi: 1016/j.advengsoft.2017.09.015.
  2. Thakur H, Verma NK, Dhar A, Powar S. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and bio flocculated sewage sludge towards bio-methane production. Energy Rep. 2024;11:2867-76. doi: 1016/j.egyr.2024.02.040.
  3. Borgquist S, Nis Bay Villadsen S, Abildskov J, Warm C, Gravers Kristensen P, Moos K, et al. Innovative electroscrubbing process for biogas impurity removal. Sep Purif Technol. 2025;354(Pt 1):128677. doi: 1016/j.seppur.2024.128677.
  4. Yadav N, Mohanakrishna G, Gandu R, Cahan R, Gandu B. Enhancing anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production: Impact of graphene nanoparticles and multiwalled nanotubes on direct interspecies electron transfer mechanism. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2024;191:2335-49. doi: 1016/j.psep.2024.09.089.
  5. Lin H, Black MJ, Lin O, Minter T, Borrion A. Biogas utilisation–life cycle assessment of enabling technology for transport biomethane - UK case study, Bore Hill farm Biodigester. Biomass Bioenergy. 2024;190:107402. doi: 1016/j.biombioe.2024.107402.
  6. Zeynali R, Asadi M, Ankley P, Esser M, Brinkmann M, Soltan J, et al. Sustainable enhancement of biogas production from a cold-region municipal wastewater anaerobic digestion process using optimized sludge-derived and commercial biochar additives. J Clean Prod. 2024;478:143948. doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2024.143948.
  7. Roy Barman D, Bhattacharjee S, Rajak S. Analysis of an anaerobically digested animal waste-based microturbine driven-biogas energy system. Renew Energy. 2024;234:121205. doi: 1016/j.renene.2024.121205.
  8. Luo T, Shen B, Mei Z, Hove A, Ju K. Unlocking the potential of biogas systems for energy production and climate solutions in rural communities. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):5900. doi: 1038/s41467-024-50091-9.
  9. Silva-González JA, Chandel AK, da Silva SS, Balagurusamy N. Biogas in circular bio-economy: sustainable practice for rural farm waste management and techno-economic analyses. In: Balagurusamy N, Chandel AK, eds. Biogas Production: From Anaerobic Digestion to a Sustainable Bioenergy Industry. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 389-414. doi: 1007/978-3-030-58827-4_17.
  10. Hollas CE, Rodrigues HC, Oyadomari VM, Bolsan AC, Venturin B, Bonassa G, et al. The potential of animal manure management pathways toward a circular economy: a bibliometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022;29(49):73599-621. doi: 1007/s11356-022-22799-y.
  11. Terziev A, Zlateva P, Ivanov M. Enhancing the fermentation process in biogas production from animal and plant waste substrates in the southeastern region of Bulgaria. Fermentation. 2024;10(4):187. doi: 3390/fermentation10040187.
  12. Alam SM, Li P, Fida M. Groundwater nitrate pollution due to excessive use of N-fertilizers in rural areas of Bangladesh: pollution status, health risk, source contribution, and future impacts. Expo Health. 2024;16(1):159-82. doi: 1007/s12403-023-00545-0.
  13. Mehmood U, Tariq S, Aslam MU, Agyekum EB, Uhunamure SE, Shale K, et al. Evaluating the impact of digitalization, renewable energy use, and technological innovation on load capacity factor in G8 nations. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):9131. doi: 1038/s41598-023-36373-0.
  14. Dhir B. Biofuel production from agricultural waste: a global trend. In: Singh P, ed. Emerging Trends and Techniques in Biofuel Production from Agricultural Waste. Singapore: Springer; 2024. p. 1-13. doi: 1007/978-981-99-8244-8_1.
  15. Srivastava PK, Tiwari GN, Sinha AS. Enhanced vermicomposting of rice straw and pressmud with biogas slurry employing Eisenia fetida: production, characterization, growth, and toxicological risk assessment. J Environ Manage. 2024;352:120032. doi: 1016/j.jenvman.2024.120032.
  16. Suthar S. Potential of domestic biogas digester slurry in vermitechnology. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101(14):5419-25. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2010.02.029.
  17. Rikkonen P, Tapio P, Rintamäki H. Visions for small-scale renewable energy production on Finnish farms–a Delphi study on the opportunities for new business. Energy Policy. 2019;129:939-48. doi: 1016/j.enpol.2019.03.004.
  18. Dahiya A. Bioenergy: Biomass to Biofuels. Academic Press; 2014.
  19. Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA. Biogas capture from wastewaters: the high-rate anaerobic digesters. Biogas Energy. New York, NY: Springer; 2012. p. 63-104. doi: 1007/978-1-4614-1040-9_6.
  20. Ahammad SZ, Sreekrishnan TR. Biogas: an evolutionary perspective in the Indian context. In: Soccol CR, Brar SK, Faulds C, Ramos LP, eds. Green Fuels Technology: Biofuels. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 431-43. doi: 1007/978-3-319-30205-8_17.
  21. Carcelon J, Clark J. Methane Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters. The US Environmental Production Agency, The US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Energy; 2002. p. 64-8.
  22. Raven RP, Gregersen KH. Biogas plants in Denmark: successes and setbacks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2007;11(1):116-32. doi: 1016/j.rser.2004.12.002.
  23. Nie H, Wang Z, You J, Zhu G, Wang H, Wang F. Comparison of in vitro digestibility and chemical composition among four crop straws treated by Pleurotus ostreatus. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020;33(1):24-34. doi: 5713/ajas.18.0023.
  24. Jingura RM, Matengaifa R. Optimization of biogas production by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy development in Zimbabwe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2009;13(5):1116-20. doi: 1016/j.rser.2007.06.015.
  25. Sohail M, Khan A, Badshah M, Degen A, Yang G, Liu H, et al. Yak rumen fluid inoculum increases biogas production from sheep manure substrate. Bioresour Technol. 2022;362:127801. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2022.127801.
  26. Paulo LM, Stams AJ, Sousa DZ. Methanogens, sulphate and heavy metals: a complex system. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2015;14(4):537-53. doi: 1007/s11157-015-9387-1.
  27. Levén L, Eriksson AR, Schnürer A. Effect of process temperature on bacterial and archaeal communities in two methanogenic bioreactors treating organic household waste. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007;59(3):683-93. doi: 1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00263.x.
  28. Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2008;34(6):755-81. doi: 1016/j.pecs.2008.06.002.
  29. Yang Z, Wang W, He Y, Zhang R, Liu G. Effect of ammonia on methane production, methanogenesis pathway, microbial community and reactor performance under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Renew Energy. 2018;125:915-25. doi: 1016/j.renene.2018.03.032.
  30. Nielsen HB, Uellendahl H, Ahring BK. Regulation and optimization of the biogas process: propionate as a key parameter. Biomass Bioenergy. 2007;31(11-12):820-30. doi: 1016/j.biombioe.2007.04.004.
  31. Siegert I, Banks C. The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochem. 2005;40(11):3412-8. doi: 1016/j.procbio.2005.01.025.
  32. Karim K, Thomas Klasson K, Hoffmann R, Drescher SR, DePaoli DW, Al-Dahhan MH. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: effect of mixing. Bioresour Technol. 2005;96(14):1607-12. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2004.12.021.
  33. Olugasa TT, Omokayode JO, Idusuyi N. Investigation of the influence of impeller type, speed and vertical height on the mixing efficiency of a biogas plant stirrer. In: Bindhu V, Tavares JM, Ţălu Ş, eds. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Inventive Material Science Applications. Singapore: Springer; 2022. p. 617-34. doi: 1007/978-981-16-4321-7_51.
  34. Zhang Y, Yu G, Yu L, Siddhu MA, Gao M, Abdeltawab AA, et al. Computational fluid dynamics study on mixing mode and power consumption in anaerobic mono- and co-digestion. Bioresour Technol. 2016;203:166-72. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2015.12.023.
  35. Hoffmann RA, Garcia ML, Veskivar M, Karim K, Al-Dahhan MH, Angenent LT. Effect of shear on performance and microbial ecology of continuously stirred anaerobic digesters treating animal manure. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008;100(1):38-48. doi: 1002/bit.21730.
  36. Winkler J, Neuner T, Hupfauf S, Arthofer A, Ebner C, Rauch W, et al. Impact of impeller design on anaerobic digestion: assessment of mixing dynamics, methane yield, microbial communities and digestate dewaterability. Bioresour Technol. 2024;406:131095. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2024.131095.
  37. Lemmer A, Naegele HJ, Sondermann J. How efficient are agitators in biogas digesters? Determination of the efficiency of submersible motor mixers and incline agitators by measuring nutrient distribution in full-scale agricultural biogas digesters. Energies. 2013;6(12):6255-73. doi: 3390/en6126255.
  38. Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL. Design of facilities for the treatment and disposal of sludge. In: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991. p. 765-926.
  39. Karim K, Hoffmann R, Klasson T, Al-Dahhan MH. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: waste strength versus impact of mixing. Bioresour Technol. 2005;96(16):1771-81. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2005.01.020.
  40. Kaparaju P, Buendia I, Ellegaard L, Angelidakia I. Effects of mixing on methane production during thermophilic anaerobic digestion of manure: lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Bioresour Technol. 2008;99(11):4919-28. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2007.09.015.
  41. Gómez X, Cuetos MJ, Cara J, Morán A, García AI. Anaerobic co-digestion of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal solid wastes: conditions for mixing and evaluation of the organic loading rate. Renew Energy. 2006;31(12):2017-24. doi: 1016/j.renene.2005.09.029.
  42. Mohammadrezaei R, Zareei S, Behroozi-Khazaei N. Improving the performance of mechanical stirring in biogas plant by computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Agric Eng Int CIGR J. 2017;19(4):91-7.
  43. Stafford DA. The effects of mixing and volatile fatty acid concentrations on anaerobic digester performance. Biomass. 1982;2(1):43-55. doi: 1016/0144-4565(82)90006-3.
  44. Hashimoto AG. Effect of mixing duration and vacuum on methane production rate from beef cattle waste. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1982;24(1):9-23. doi: 1002/bit.260240103.
  45. Ong HK, Greenfield PF, Pullammanappallil PC. Effect of mixing on biomethanation of cattle-manure slurry. Environ Technol. 2002;23(10):1081-90. doi: 1080/09593332308618330.
  46. Dachs G, Rehm W. Der Eigenstromverbrauch von Biogasanlagen und Potenziale zu dessen Reduzierung. 2006. Available from: https://www.infothek-biomasse.ch/index.php?option = com_abook&view = book&id = 1059:der-eigenstromverbrauch-von-biogasanlagen-und-potenziale-zu-dessen-reduzierung&catid = 5:alle&Itemid = 101&lang = de.
  47. Liljestam Cerruto J. Energianalys av Svensk Växtkrafts biogasanläggning i Västerås. 2011. Available from: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/3130/1/liljestam_cerruto_j_110818.pdf.
  48. Karim K, Hoffmann R, Thomas Klasson K, Al-Dahhan MH. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: effect of mode of mixing. Water Res. 2005;39(15):3597-606. doi: 1016/j.watres.2005.06.019.
  49. Rico C, Rico JL, Muñoz N, Gómez B, Tejero I. Effect of mixing on biogas production during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of screened dairy manure in a pilot plant. Eng Life Sci. 2011;11(5):476-81. doi: 1002/elsc.201100010.
  50. Stroot PG, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L. Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions—I. digester performance. Water Res. 2001;35(7):1804-16. doi: 1016/s0043-1354(00)00439-5.
  51. Sulaiman A, Hassan MA, Shirai Y, Abd-Aziz S, Tabatabaei M, Busu Z, et al. The effect of mixing on methane production in a semi-commercial closed digester tank treating palm oil mill effluent. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2009;3(3):1577-83.
  52. Chae KJ, Jang A, Yim SK, Kim IS. The effects of digestion temperature and temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Bioresour Technol. 2008;99(1):1-6. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2006.11.063.
  53. Rojas C, Fang S, Uhlenhut F, Borchert A, Stein I, Schlaak M. Stirring and biomass starter influences the anaerobic digestion of different substrates for biogas production. Eng Life Sci. 2010;10(4):339-47. doi: 1002/elsc.200900107.
  54. Lin KC, Pearce ME. Effects of mixing on anaerobic treatment of potato-processing wastewater. Can J Civ Eng. 1991;18(3):504-14. doi: 1139/l91-061.
  55. Hamdi M. Effects of agitation and pretreatment on the batch anaerobic digestion of olive mil. Bioresour Technol. 1991;36(2):173-8. doi: 1016/0960-8524(91)90176-k.
  56. Chen J, Li X, Liu Y, Zhu B, Yuan H, Pang Y. Effect of mixing rates on anaerobic digestion performance of rice straw. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2011;27(1):144-8.
  57. Kowalczyk A, Harnisch E, Schwede S, Gerber M, Span R. Different mixing modes for biogas plants using energy crops. Appl Energy. 2013;112:465-72. doi: 1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.065.
  58. Ghanimeh S, El Fadel M, Saikaly P. Mixing effect on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour Technol. 2012;117:63-71. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2012.02.125.
  59. Zhao Y, Li X, Cheng J, Yang C, Mao ZS. Experimental study on liquid–liquid macromixing in a stirred tank. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2011;50(10):5952-8. doi: 1021/ie102270p.
  60. Ochieng A, Onyango MS. Homogenization energy in a stirred tank. Chem Eng Process. 2008;47(9-10):1853-60. doi: 1016/j.cep.2007.10.014.
  61. Ge CY, Wang JJ, Gu XP, Feng LF. CFD simulation and PIV measurement of the flow field generated by modified pitched blade turbine impellers. Chem Eng Res Des. 2014;92(6):1027-36. doi: 1016/j.cherd.2013.08.024.
  62. Zhai X, Kariyama ID, Wu B. Investigation of the effect of intermittent minimal mixing intensity on methane production during anaerobic digestion of dairy manure. Comput Electron Agric. 2018;155:121-9. doi: 1016/j.compag.2018.10.002.
  63. Chol MM, Muchuka NM, Nyaanga DM. Effect of stirring intervals on biogas production from cow dung and maize silage mix ratio. Int J Power Energy Res. 2021;5:1-11. doi: 22606/ijper.2021.51001.
  64. Mohammadrezaei R, Zareei S, Behroozi- Khazaei N. Optimum mixing rate in biogas reactors: energy balance calculations and computational fluid dynamics simulation. Energy. 2018;159:54-60. doi: 1016/j.energy.2018.06.132.
  65. Lindmark J, Eriksson P, Thorin E. The effects of different mixing intensities during anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2014;34(8):1391-7. doi: 1016/j.wasman.2014.04.006.
  66. Tan VW, Chan YJ, Arumugasamy SK, Lim JW. Optimizing biogas production from palm oil mill effluent utilizing integrated machine learning and response surface methodology framework. J Clean Prod. 2023;414:137575. doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2023.137575.
  67. Nor NA, Mustapha WA, Hassan O. Deep eutectic solvent (DES) as a pretreatment for oil palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) in sugar production. Procedia Chem. 2016;18:147-54. doi: 1016/j.proche.2016.01.023.
  68. Abdulrazak S, Hussaini K, Sani HM. Evaluation of removal efficiency of heavy metals by low-cost activated carbon prepared from African palm fruit. Appl Water Sci. 2017;7(6):3151-5. doi: 1007/s13201-016-0460-x.
  69. Gunatilake SK. Methods of removing heavy metals from industrial wastewater. J Multidiscip Eng Sci Stud. 2015;1(1):12-8.
  70. Drake HL, Gößner AS, Daniel SL. Old acetogens, new light. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1125(1):100-28. doi: 1196/annals.1419.016.
  71. Wang Q, Xia C, Alagumalai K, Thanh Nhi Le T, Yuan Y, Khademi T, et al. Biogas generation from biomass as a cleaner alternative towards a circular bioeconomy: artificial intelligence, challenges, and future insights. Fuel. 2023;333(Pt 2):126456. doi: 1016/j.fuel.2022.126456.
  72. Karimi Alavijeh M, Yaghmaei S. Biochemical production of bioenergy from agricultural crops and residue in Iran. Waste Manag. 2016;52:375-94. doi: 1016/j.wasman.2016.03.025.
  73. Wilkinson KG. A comparison of the drivers influencing adoption of on-farm anaerobic digestion in Germany and Australia. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35(5):1613-22. doi: 1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.013.
  74. Paes LA, Bezerra BS, Deus RM, Jugend D, Battistelle RA. Organic solid waste management in a circular economy perspective–a systematic review and SWOT analysis. J Clean Prod. 2019;239:118086. doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2019.118086.
  75. Pandey HO, Upadhyay D. Global livestock production systems: Classification, status, and future trends. Emerging Issues in Climate Smart Livestock Production. 2022:47-70. HYPERLINK “https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822265-2.00017-X”doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822265-2.00017-X.
  76. Nishtar S, Niinistö S, Sirisena M, Vázquez T, Skvortsova V, Rubinstein A, et al. Time to deliver: report of the WHO Independent High-Level Commission on NCDs. Lancet. 2018;392(10143):245-52. doi: 1016/s0140-6736(18)31258-3.
  77. Mohammadi Maghanaki M, Ghobadian B, Najafi G, Janzadeh Galogah R. Potential of biogas production in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;28:702-14. doi: 1016/j.rser.2013.08.021.
  78. Lal R. Integrating animal husbandry with crops and trees. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4:113. doi: 3389/fsufs.2020.00113.
  79. Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P. The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(22):5478-84. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046.
  80. Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2010;14(7):1782-97. doi: 1016/j.rser.2010.04.010.
  81. López-Castrillón W, Sepúlveda HH, Mattar C. Off-grid hybrid electrical generation systems in remote communities: trends and characteristics in sustainability solutions. Sustainability. 2021;13(11):5856. doi: 3390/su13115856.
  82. Bhatia SK, Kim SH, Yoon JJ, Yang YH. Current status and strategies for second generation biofuel production using microbial systems. Energy Convers Manag. 2017;148:1142-56. doi: 1016/j.enconman.2017.06.073.
  83. Abdeshahian P, Lim JS, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT. Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;60:714-23. doi: 1016/j.rser.2016.01.117.
  84. Khalil M, Berawi MA, Heryanto R, Rizalie A. Waste to energy technology: the potential of sustainable biogas production from animal waste in Indonesia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019;105:323-31. doi: 1016/j.rser.2019.02.011.
  85. Rawlins J, Beyer J, Lampreia J, Tumiwa F. Waste to Energy in Indonesia: Assessing Opportunities and Barriers Using Insights from the UK and Beyond. United Kingdom: Carbon Trust; 2014.
  86. Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Valijanian E, Kazemi Shariat Panahi H, Nizami AS, Ghanavati H, et al. A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas production, part 2: mainstream and downstream strategies. Renew Energy. 2020;146:1392-407. doi: 1016/j.renene.2019.07.047.
  87. Köhl M, Živojinović I, Pettenella D, Camia A. Criterion 6: maintenance of other socio-economic functions and condition. FOREST EUROPE. 2015:2035.
  88. Philippe FX, Cabaraux JF, Nicks B. Ammonia emissions from pig houses: influencing factors and mitigation techniques. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2011;141(3-4):245-60. doi: 1016/j.agee.2011.03.012.
  89. Scarlat N, Dallemand JF, Monforti-Ferrario F, Banja M, Motola V. Renewable energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union–an overview from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress Reports. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;51:969-85. doi: 1016/j.rser.2015.06.062.
  90. Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A, et al. The IWA anaerobic digestion model no 1 (ADM1). Water Sci technol. 2002;45(10):65-73. doi: 2166/wst.2002.0292.
  91. Westbrook J, Barter GE, Manley DK, West TH. A parametric analysis of future ethanol use in the light-duty transportation sector: Can the US meet its Renewable Fuel Standard goals without an enforcement mechanism? Energy Policy 2014;65:419-31. doi: 1016/j.enpol.2013.10.030.
  92. Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Applied microbiology and biotechnology. 2010;85(4):849-60. doi: 1007/s00253-009-2246-7.
  93. Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A, et al. The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). Water Science and Technology. 2002;45(10):65-73. doi: 2166/wst.2002.0292.
  94. Barbusinski K, Kalemba K, Kasperczyk D, Urbaniec K, Kozik V. Biological methods for odor treatment–a review. J Clean Prod. 2017;152:223-41. doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.093.
  95. Rybarczyk P, Szulczyński B, Gębicki J, Hupka J. Treatment of malodorous air in biotrickling filters: a review. Biochem Eng J. 2019;141:146-62. doi: 1016/j.bej.2018.10.014.
  96. Chansiriwat W, Chotwatcharanurak L, Khumta W, Suwannaruang T, Shahmoradi B, Kumsaen T, et al. Biofuel production from waste cooking oil by catalytic reaction over Thai dolomite under atmospheric pressure: effect of calcination temperatures. Eng Appl Sci Res. 2021;48(1):102-11. doi: 14456/easr.2021.12.
  97. Korres NE, Singh A, Nizami AS, Murphy JD. Is grass biomethane a sustainable transport biofuel? Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin. 2010;4(3):310-25. doi: 1002/bbb.228.
  98. Devi RP, Kamaraj S. Design and development of updraft gasifier using solid biomass. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(4):182-9.
  99. Green BW. Fertilizer use in aquaculture. In: Davis DA, ed. Feed and Feeding Practices in Aquaculture. 2nd ed. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2022. p. 29-63. doi: 1016/b978-0-12-821598-2.00012-6.
  100. Thorenz A, Wietschel L, Stindt D, Tuma A. Assessment of agroforestry residue potentials for the bioeconomy in the European Union. J Clean Prod. 2018;176:348-59. doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.143.
  101. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar TD, Castel V, de Haan C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization; 2006.
  102. Amjid SS, Bilal MQ, Nazir MS, Hussain A. Biogas, renewable energy resource for Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2011;15(6):2833-7. doi: 1016/j.rser.2011.02.041.
  103. Bouwman L, Goldewijk KK, Van Der Hoek KW, Beusen AH, Van Vuuren DP, Willems J, et al. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900-2050 period. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(52):20882-7. doi: 1073/pnas.1012878108.
  104. Liu C, Nie X, Wang Z, Yang H, Wang J, Zhang H, et al. Biogas slurry: a potential substance that synergistically enhances rapeseed yield and lodging resistance. Ind Crops Prod. 2024;222(Pt 2):119643. doi: 1016/j.indcrop.2024.119643.
  105. Sorathiya LM, Fulsoundar AB, Tyagi KK, Patel MD, Singh RR. Eco-friendly and modern methods of livestock waste recycling for enhancing farm profitability. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric. 2014;3(1):50. doi: 1007/s40093-014-0050-6.
  106. Hagos K, Zong J, Li D, Liu C, Lu X. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;76:1485-96. doi: 1016/j.rser.2016.11.184.
  107. Mayer F, Bhandari R, Gäth S. Critical review on life cycle assessment of conventional and innovative waste-to-energy technologies. Sci Total Environ. 2019;672:708-21. doi: 1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.449.
  108. Aravani VP, Tsigkou K, Papadakis VG, Kornaros M. Biochemical Μethane potential of most promising agricultural residues in Northern and Southern Greece. Chemosphere. 2022;296:133985. doi: 1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133985.
  109. Wang H, Bi X, Clift R. A case study on integrating anaerobic digestion into agricultural activities in British Columbia: environmental, economic and policy analysis. Environ Pollut. 2021;271:116279. doi: 1016/j.envpol.2020.116279.
  110. Jadhav P, Muhammad N, Bhuyar P, Krishnan S, Abd Razak AS, Zularisam AW, et al. A review on the impact of conductive nanoparticles (CNPs) in anaerobic digestion: applications and limitations. Environ Technol Innov. 2021;23:101526. doi: 1016/j.eti.2021.101526.
  111. François M, Lin KS, Rachmadona N, Khoo KS. Advancement of nanotechnologies in biogas production and contaminant removal: a review. Fuel. 2023;340:127470. doi: 1016/j.fuel.2023.127470.
  112. Jadhav P, Nasrullah M, Zularisam AW, Bhuyar P, Krishnan S, Mishra P. Direct interspecies electron transfer performance through nanoparticles (NPs) for biogas production in the anaerobic digestion process. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2022;19(10):10427-39. doi: 1007/s13762-021-03664-w.
  113. Abdelwahab TA, Mohanty MK, Sahoo PK, Behera D. Application of nanoparticles for biogas production: current status and perspectives. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 2024;46(1):8602-14. doi: 1080/15567036.2020.1767730.
  114. Abdelwahab TA, Fodah AEM. Utilization of nanoparticles for biogas production focusing on process stability and effluent quality. SN Appl Sci. 2022;4(12):332. doi: 1007/s42452-022-05222-6.
  115. Eljamal O, Eljamal R, Falyouna O, Maamoun I, Thompson IP. Exceptional contribution of iron nanoparticle and aloe vera biomass additives to biogas production from anaerobic digestion of waste sludge. Energy. 2024;302:131761. doi: 1016/j.energy.2024.131761.
  116. Wang S, Lin H, Abed AM, Mahariq I, Ayed H, Mouldi A, et al. RETRACTED: life cycle analysis of biowaste-to- biogas/biomethane processes: cost and environmental assessment of four different biowaste scenarios organic fraction of municipal solid waste and secondary sewage sludge. Energy. 2024;308:132593. doi: 1016/j.energy.2024.132593.
  117. Pasqualino JC, Meneses M, Abella M, Castells F. LCA as a decision support tool for the environmental improvement of the operation of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(9):3300-7. doi: 1021/es802056r.
  118. Booker Nielsen M. Identifying challenges and drivers for deployment of centralized biogas plants in Denmark. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):8021. doi: 3390/su14138021.
  119. Sarker SA, Wang S, Mehedi Adnan KM, Sattar MN. Economic feasibility and determinants of biogas technology adoption: evidence from Bangladesh. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020;123:109766. doi: 1016/j.rser.2020.109766.
  120. Tagne RF, Dong X, Anagho SG, Kaiser S, Ulgiati S. Technologies, challenges and perspectives of biogas production within an agricultural context. The case of China and Africa. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23(10):14799-826. doi: 1007/s10668-021-01272-9.
  121. Vu TK, Tran MT, Dang TT. A survey of manure management on pig farms in Northern Vietnam. Livest Sci. 2007;112(3):288-97. doi: 1016/j.livsci.2007.09.008.
  122. Muvhiiwa R, Hildebrandt D, Chimwani N, Ngubevana L, Matambo T. The impact and challenges of sustainable biogas implementation: moving towards a bio-based economy. Energ Sustain Soc. 2017;7(1):20. doi: 1186/s13705-017-0122-3.
  123. Okpaga FO, Adeolu AI, Nwalo FN, Okpe AO, Ikpeama CC, Ogwu CE. Safeguarding ecosystems using innovative approaches to manage animal wastes. Bio-Research. 2024;22(1):2274-91. doi: 4314/br.v22i1.6.
  124. Ketuama CT, Roubík H. Economic viability and factors affecting farmers’ willingness to pay for adopting small-scale biogas plants in rural areas of Cameroon. Renew Energy. 2024;230:120895. doi: 1016/j.renene.2024.120895.
  125. Leiva-Tafur D, Rascón J, Corroto de la Fuente F, Goñas M, Gamarra Torres OA, Oliva-Cruz M. Spatio-temporal evaluation of metals and metalloids in the water of high Andean livestock micro-watersheds, Amazonas, Peru. Heliyon. 2024;10(12):e33013. doi: 1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33013.
  126. Parihar SS, Saini KP, Lakhani GP, Jain A, Roy B, Ghosh S, et al. Livestock waste management: a review. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2019;7(3):384-93.
  127. Qi J, Yang H, Wang X, Zhu H, Wang Z, Zhao C, et al. State-of-the-art on animal manure pollution control and resource utilization. J Environ Chem Eng. 2023;11(5):110462. doi: 1016/j.jece.2023.110462.
  128. Hejna M, Gottardo D, Baldi A, Dell’Orto V, Cheli F, Zaninelli M, et al. Review: nutritional ecology of heavy metals. Animal. 2018;12(10):2156-70. doi: 1017/s175173111700355x.
  129. Orellana-Mendoza E, Camel V, Yallico L, Quispe-Coquil V, Cosme R. Effect of fertilization on the accumulation and health risk for heavy metals in native Andean potatoes in the highlands of Perú. Toxico Rep. 2024;12:594-606. doi: 1016/j.toxrep.2024.05.006.
  130. Zhen H, Jia L, Huang C, Qiao Y, Li J, Li H, et al. Long-term effects of intensive application of manure on heavy metal pollution risk in protected-field vegetable production. Environ Pollut. 2020;263(Pt A):114552. doi: 1016/j.envpol.2020.114552.
  131. Thakur A, Mikkelsen H, Jungersen G. Intracellular pathogens: host immunity and microbial persistence strategies. J Immunol Res. 2019;2019(1):1356540. doi: 1155/2019/1356540.
  132. Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Avery SM, Munro F, Moore A. Analyses of livestock production, waste storage, and pathogen levels and prevalences in farm manures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(3):1231-6. doi: 1128/aem.71.3.1231-1236.2005.
  133. Raeeszadeh M, Gravandi H, Akbari A. Determination of some heavy metals levels in the meat of animal species (sheep, beef, turkey, and ostrich) and carcinogenic health risk assessment in Kurdistan province in the west of Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29(41):62248-58. doi: 1007/s11356-022-19589-x.
  134. Wurtsbaugh WA, Paerl HW, Dodds WK. Nutrients, eutrophication and harmful algal blooms along the freshwater to marine continuum. WIREs Water. 2019;6(5):e1373. doi: 1002/wat2.1373.
  135. Haida M, El Khalloufi F, Mugani R, Essadki Y, Campos A, Vasconcelos V, et al. Microcystin contamination in irrigation water and health risk. Toxins. 2024;16(4):196. doi: 3390/toxins16040196.
  136. Fetscher AE, Howard MD, Stancheva R, Kudela RM, Stein ED, Sutula MA, et al. Wadeable streams as widespread sources of benthic cyanotoxins in California, USA. Harmful Algae. 2015;49:105-16. doi: 1016/j.hal.2015.09.002.
  137. Liu BL, Yu PF, Guo JJ, Xie LS, Liu X, Li YW, et al. Congener-specific fate and impact of microcystins in the soil-earthworm system. J Hazard Mater. 2024;471:134439. doi: 1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134439.
  138. Conti C, Guarino M, Bacenetti J. Measurements techniques and models to assess odor annoyance: a review. Environ Int. 2020;134:105261. doi: 1016/j.envint.2019.105261.
  139. Powers WJ. Odor control for livestock systems. J Anim Sci. 1999;77(Suppl 2):169-76. doi: 2527/1999.77suppl_2169x.
  140. Conti C, Guarino M, Bacenetti J. Odor nuisance in the livestock field: a review. In: Coppola A, Di Renzo G, Altieri G, D’Antonio P, eds. Innovative Biosystems Engineering for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Food Production. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 199-206. doi: 1007/978-3-030-39299-4_22.
  141. Haider KM, Focsa C, Decuq C, Esnault B, Lafouge F, Loubet B, et al. Chemical characterization of volatile organic compounds emitted by animal manure. J Environ Manage. 2024;364:121453. doi: 1016/j.jenvman.2024.121453.
  142. Millner PD. Bioaerosols associated with animal production operations. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(22):5379-85. doi: 1016/j.biortech.2009.03.026.
  143. Grave K, Torren-Edo J, Mackay D. Comparison of the sales of veterinary antibacterial agents between 10 European countries. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(9):2037-40. doi: 1093/jac/dkq247.
  144. Pagliari P, Wilson M, He Z. Animal Manure Production and Utilization: Impact of Modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. In: Waldrip HM, Pagliari PH, He Z, eds. Animal Manure: Production, Characteristics, Environmental Concerns, and Management. Vol 67. John Wiley & Sons; 2020. p. 1-14. doi: 2134/asaspecpub67.c1.
  145. Jauregi L, Epelde L, Alkorta I, Garbisu C. Antibiotic resistance in agricultural soil and crops associated to the application of cow manure-derived amendments from conventional and organic livestock farms. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:633858. doi: 3389/fvets.2021.633858.
  146. Liu ZT, Ma RA, Zhu D, Konstantinidis KT, Zhu YG, Zhang SY. Organic fertilization co-selects genetically linked antibiotic and metal(loid) resistance genes in global soil microbiome. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):5168. doi: 1038/s41467-024-49165-5.
  147. Poindexter C, Yarberry A, Georgakakos C, Rice C, Lansing S. Antibiotic resistance partitioning during on-farm manure separation and high temperature rotary drum composting. J Environ Sci. 2025;152:701-13. doi: 1016/j.jes.2024.06.043.
  148. Heuer H, Schmitt H, Smalla K. Antibiotic resistance gene spread due to manure application on agricultural fields. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011;14(3):236-43. doi: 1016/j.mib.2011.04.009.
  149. Zalewska M, Błażejewska A, Czapko A, Popowska M. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in animal manure–consequences of its application in agriculture. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:610656. doi: 3389/fmicb.2021.610656.
  150. Gao FZ, He LY, He LX, Zou HY, Zhang M, Wu DL, et al. Untreated swine wastes changed antibiotic resistance and microbial community in the soils and impacted abundances of antibiotic resistance genes in the vegetables. Sci Total Environ. 2020;741:140482. doi: 1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140482.
  151. Ndambi OA, Pelster DE, Owino JO, De Buisonjé F, Vellinga T. Manure management practices and policies in sub-Saharan Africa: implications on manure quality as a fertilizer. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3:29. doi: 3389/fsufs.2019.00029.
  152. Collignon PJ, McEwen SA. One health—its importance in helping to better control antimicrobial resistance. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019;4(1):22. doi: 3390/tropicalmed4010022.
  153. Tiedje JM, Fu Y, Mei Z, Schäffer A, Dou Q, Amelung W, et al. Antibiotic resistance genes in food production systems support One Health opinions. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2023;34:100492. doi: 1016/j.coesh.2023.100492.
  154. Siri-Anusornsak W, Meneely J, Greer B, Vangnai K, Mahakarnchanakul W, Elliott C, et al. In vitro assessment of commercial multi-mycotoxin binders to reduce the bioavailability of emerging mycotoxins in livestock. Emerg Contam. 2023;9(4):100256. doi: 1016/j.emcon.2023.100256.
  155. Ström G, Albihn A, Jinnerot T, Boqvist S, Andersson-Djurfeldt A, Sokerya S, et al. Manure management and public health: sanitary and socio-economic aspects among urban livestock-keepers in Cambodia. Sci Total Environ. 2018;621:193-200. doi: 1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.254.
  156. Harris AR, Pickering AJ, Harris M, Doza S, Islam MS, Unicomb L, et al. Ruminants contribute fecal contamination to the urban household environment in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(9):4642-9. doi: 1021/acs.est.5b06282.
  157. Gizaw Z, Yalew AW, Bitew BD, Lee J, Bisesi M. Animal handling practice among rural households in northwest Ethiopia increases the risk of childhood diarrhea and exposure to pathogens from animal sources. Environ Health Insights. 2024;18:11786302241245057. doi: 1177/11786302241245057.
  158. Sentamu DN, Kungu J, Dione M, Thomas LF. Prevention of human exposure to livestock faecal waste in the household: a scoping study of interventions conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1613. doi: 1186/s12889-023-16567-x.
  159. Yugo DM, Meng XJ. Hepatitis E virus: foodborne, waterborne and zoonotic transmission. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(10):4507-33. doi: 3390/ijerph10104507.
  160. Lavallée-Bourget È M, Fernandez-Prada C, Massé A, Turgeon P, Arsenault J. Prevalence and geographic distribution of Echinococcus genus in wild canids in southern Québec, Canada. PLoS One. 2024;19(7):e0306600. doi: 1371/journal.pone.0306600.
  161. Alho AM, Dias MC, Cardo M, Aguiar P, de Carvalho LM. The evolution of cystic echinococcosis in humans and ruminants in Portugal—a One Health approach. Vet Sci. 2023;10(9):584. doi: 3390/vetsci10090584.
  162. Kotwa JD, Isaksson M, Jardine CM, Campbell GD, Berke O, Pearl DL, et al. Echinococcus multilocularis infection, Southern Ontario, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(2):265-72. doi: 3201/eid2502.180299.
  163. Christophe S, Pentieva K, Botsaris G. Knowledge and practices of Cypriot bovine farmers towards effective and safe manure management. Vet Sci. 2023;10(4):293. doi: 3390/vetsci10040293.
  164. Khan MN, Sial TA, Ali A, Wahid F. Impact of agricultural wastes on environment and possible management strategies. In: Núñez-Delgado A, ed. Frontier Studies in Soil Science. Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 79-108. doi: 1007/978-3-031-50503-4_4.
  165. Yadav C, Yadav P, Joshi A, Meena M, Harish, Arora J. Agricultural waste and its impact on the environment. In: Arora J, Joshi A, Ray RC, eds. Transforming Agriculture Residues for Sustainable Development: From Waste to Wealth. Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 3-19. doi: 1007/978-3-031-61133-9_1.
  166. Elbasiouny H, Elbanna BA, Al-Najoli E, Alsherief A, Negm S, Abou El-Nour E, et al. Agricultural waste management for climate change mitigation: some implications to Egypt. In: Negm AM, Shareef N, eds. Waste Management in MENA Regions. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 149-69. doi: 1007/978-3-030-18350-9_8.
  167. Iyke-Ofoedu MI, Takon SM, Ugwunta DO, Ezeaku HC, Nsofor ES, Egbo OP. Impact of CO2 emissions embodied in the agricultural sector on carbon sequestration in South Africa: the role of environmental taxes and technological innovation. J Clean Prod. 2024;444:141210. doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2024.141210.
  168. Gao Y, Cabrera Serrenho A. Greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers could be reduced by up to one-fifth of current levels by 2050 with combined interventions. Nat Food. 2023;4(2):170-8. doi: 1038/s43016-023-00698-w.
  169. Jost E, Schönhart M, Mitter H, Zoboli O, Schmid E. Integrated modelling of fertilizer and climate change scenario impacts on agricultural production and nitrogen losses in Austria. Ecol Econ. 2025;227:108398. doi: 1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108398.
  170. Obeidat M, Awawdeh M, Matiatos I, Al-Ajlouni A, Al-Mughaid H. Identification and apportionment of nitrate sources in the phreatic aquifers in Northern Jordan using a dual isotope method (δ15N and δ18O of NO3-). Groundw Sustain Dev. 2021;12:100505. doi: 1016/j.gsd.2020.100505.
  171. Casanave Ponti SM, Videla CC, Monterubbianesi MG, Andrade FH, Rizzalli RH. Crop intensification with sustainable practices did not increase N2O emissions. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2020;292:106828. doi: 1016/j.agee.2020.106828.
  172. Gomes SM, Carvalho AM, Cantalice AS, Magalhães AR, Tregidgo D, de Oliveira DV, et al. Nexus among climate change, food systems, and human health: an interdisciplinary research framework in the Global South. Environ Sci Policy. 2024;161:103885. doi: 1016/j.envsci.2024.103885.
  173. World Health Organization (WHO). Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s. In: Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050s. WHO; 2014.
  174. Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, et al. Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J Public Health Policy. 2016;37(1):13-31. doi: 1057/s41271-016-0002-7.
  175. Morton S, Pencheon D, Squires N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation: a national global framework for health, development and equity needs a systems approach at every level. Br Med Bull. 2017;124(1):81-90. doi: 1093/bmb/ldx031.
  176. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520(7545):45-50. doi: 1038/nature14324.
  177. Demain JG. Climate change and the impact on respiratory and allergic disease: 2018. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18(4):22. doi: 1007/s11882-018-0777-7.
  178. Bohan S. Nitrogen Overdose. Oakland Tribune (Oakland, CA). 2007. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070812/ai_n19477123. Accessed March 25, 2008.
  179. Black JL, Davison TM, Box I. Methane emissions from ruminants in Australia: mitigation potential and applicability of mitigation strategies. Animals. 2021;11(4):951. doi: 3390/ani11040951.
  180. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Mitigation: 2015-2050. EPA-430-R-19-010. 2019. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/epa_non-co2_greenhouse_gases_rpt-epa430r19010.pdf accessed December 10, 2020.
  181. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.
  182. Qin D, Chen Z, Averyt KB, Miller HL, Solomon S, Manning M, et al. IPCC, 2007: summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, et al, eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  183. Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Makkar HP. Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Livestock Production: A Review of Technical Options for Non-CO2 Emissions. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.
  184. Caro D, Kebreab E, Mitloehner FM. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions from global livestock systems through nutrition strategies. Clim Change. 2016;137(3):467-80. doi: 1007/s10584-016-1686-1.
  185. Ahmed E, Yano R, Fujimori M, Kand D, Hanada M, Nishida T, et al. Impacts of Mootral on methane production, rumen fermentation, and microbial community in an in vitro study. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:623817. doi: 3389/fvets.2020.623817.
  186. Kamke J, Kittelmann S, Soni P, Li Y, Tavendale M, Ganesh S, et al. Rumen metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses of low methane yield sheep reveals a Sharpea-enriched microbiome characterised by lactic acid formation and utilisation. Microbiome. 2016;4(1):56. doi: 1186/s40168-016-0201-2.
  187. Cieslak A, Szumacher-Strabel M, Stochmal A, Oleszek W. Plant components with specific activities against rumen methanogens. Animal. 2013;7 Suppl 2:253-65. doi: 1017/s1751731113000852.
  188. Nowak B, Moniuszko-Szajwaj B, Skorupka M, Puchalska J, Kozłowska M, Bocianowski J, et al. Effect of Paulownia leaves extract levels on in vitro ruminal fermentation, microbial population, methane production, and fatty acid biohydrogenation. Molecules. 2022;27(13):4288. doi: 3390/molecules27134288.
  189. Zhao Y, Zhao G. Decreasing ruminal methane production through enhancing the sulfate reduction pathway. Anim Nutr. 2022;9:320-6. doi: 1016/j.aninu.2022.01.006.
  190. Kumar K, Dey A, Rose MK, Dahiya SS. Impact of dietary phytogenic composite feed additives on immune response, antioxidant status, methane production, growth performance and nutrient utilization of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) calves. Antioxidants (Basel). 2022;11(2):325. doi: 3390/antiox11020325.
  191. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1492):789-813. doi: 1098/rstb.2007.2184.
  192. Qamruzzaman M. Do natural resources bestow or curse the environmental sustainability in Cambodia? Nexus between clean energy, urbanization, and financial deepening, natural resources, and environmental sustainability. Energy Strat Rev. 2024;53:101412. doi: 1016/j.esr.2024.101412.
Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research
Volume 13, Issue 2
Winter 2025
Pages 68-89