Possibilities of Using White Sweetclover Grown in Mixture with Maize for Biomethane Production
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Localization of the Field Experiment
2.2. Production of Plant Biomass for Silage Preparation
- (1)
- Sole crop (SC)—White sweetclover
- (2)
- Mixed cropping (MC)—White sweetclover + maize
- (3)
- Sole crop (SC)—Maize
2.3. Production of Mixed Culture Silage—Preparation of Model Silage
2.4. Silage Characteristics
2.5. Fermentation Tests
2.6. Statistical Analysis—Data Treatment
3. Results
3.1. Qualitative Parameters of Silage
3.2. Biomethane Yield
3.3. Methane Content in Biogas
3.4. Interaction between Silage Parameters and Biomethane Yield
4. Discussion
4.1. Qualitative Parameters of Silage
4.2. Biomethane Yield
4.3. Methane Content in Biogas
4.4. Interaction between Silage Parameters and Biogas Yield
5. Conclusions
- (a)
- The addition of legume (White s.c.) to the maize silage significantly affected silage composition with a direct proportion of the increasing legume content in the silage. The content of White s.c. in silage increased above 10%w, significantly affecting the following qualitative parameters of silage: CF, ADF, NDF and coumarin content. ADF and NDF values in silage were proportional to the content of White s.c., and their content in the silage was increasing with the growing content of White s.c. The highest contents of ADF (38.84%TS) and NDF (57.10%TS) were recorded in the model silage with the highest share of legume (70%w White s.c. and 30%w maize). Similarly, as in the case of ADF and NDF parameters in MC silages, the highest concentration of coumarin (16.33%TS) was found in the model silage with the highest content of White s.c. (70%w). The content of coumarin was decreasing with the decreasing share of White s.c. in silage.
- (b)
- The addition of legume to the maize silage affected the methane yield. The methane yield was significantly decreasing, with a increasing share of White s.c. in silage. The share of White s.c. up to 15%w in silage decreased the methane yield by 3% compared with the pure maize silage. The addition of 20–30% decreased the methane yield by 11% compared with the pure maize silage. Thus, the addition of up to 20% had presumably no significant influence on decreasing the methane yield.
- (c)
- The addition of legume to the maize silage did not negatively affect the biogas quality, i.e., did not reduce the concentration of methane in biogas if the share of legume in the silage did not exceed 50%w. Silages with the content of White s.c. from 30%w to 10%w exhibited the average content of methane in biogas at a level of 55%. The average content of methane with using the maize silage alone and the silage made of White s.c. only were 56.5% and 52.27%, respectively.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Methods of Plant Sowing in the Mixed Cropping System Used from 2015 to 2018
Appendix B. Biogas Yield
Appendix C. Results of PCA Analysis
Variable | Factor Coordinates of Variables According to Correlations (Combination of All Parameters) Active and Additional Variables | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | |
Biogas yield (m3/kgVS) | −0.97 | 0.14 | −0.18 | 0.05 |
Methane yield (m3/kgVS) | −0.99 | 0.05 | −0.12 | −0.04 |
Concentration of methane in biogas (vol. %) | −0.89 | −0.43 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
Coumarin | 0.94 | −0.21 | −0.29 | −0.004 |
* TS | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.21 | 0.14 |
* Proteins | 0.85 | −0.34 | −0.03 | −0.09 |
* Lipids | −0.29 | −0.29 | 0.05 | −0.07 |
* CF | 0.92 | −0.18 | −0.11 | 0.002 |
* Starch | −0.67 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.05 |
* ADF | 0.74 | −0.32 | −0.27 | −0.14 |
* NDF | 0.61 | −0.48 | −0.13 | −0.18 |
* ADL | 0.58 | −0.32 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
References
- Weiland, P. Production and energetic use of biogas from energy crops and wastes in Germany. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2003, 109, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacenetti, J.; Fusi, A.; Guidetti, R.; Fiala, M. Life Cycle Assessment of maize cultivation for biogas production. J. Agric. Eng. 2013, 44, 579–582. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, A.; Ehimen, E.; Holm-Nielsen, J.B. Future European biogas: Animal manure, straw and grass potentials for a sustainable European biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 111, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Møller, H.B.; Sommer, S.; Ahring, B. Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britz, W.; Delzeit, R. The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment. Energ. Policy 2013, 62, 1268–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeux, G.; Giuliano, S.; Cordeau, S.; Savoie, J.-M.; Alletto, L. Low-Input Maize-Based Cropping Systems Implementing IWM Match Conventional Maize Monoculture Productivity and Weed Control. Agriculture 2017, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kettl, K.H.; Niemetz, N.; Sandor, N.; Eder, M.; Narodoslawsky, M. Ecological evaluation of biogas feedstock from intercrops. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2010, 21, 433–438. [Google Scholar]
- Milani, M.; Montorsi, L. Energy Recovery of the Biomass from Livestock Farms in Italy: The Case of Modena Province. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2018, 6, 464–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svoboda, N.; Taube, F.; Kluß, C.; Wienforth, B.; Sieling, K.; Hasler, M.; Kage, H.; Ohl, S.; Hartung, E.; Herrmann, A. Ecological Efficiency of Maize-Based Cropping Systems for Biogas Production. BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 1621–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, K.; Maier, S.; Narodoslawsky, M. Biogas Production from Intercropping (Syn-Energy). Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 39, 1753–1758. [Google Scholar]
- Levin, D.B.; Chahine, R. Challenges for renewable hydrogen production from biomass. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 4962–4969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Jørnsgaard, B.; Kinane, J.; Jensen, E.S. Grain legume–cereal intercropping: The practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2008, 23, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brooker, R.W.; Bennett, A.E.; Cong, W.; Daniell, T.J.; George, T.S.; Hallett, P.; Hawes, C.; Iannetta, P.P.M.; Jones, H.G.; Karley, A.J.; et al. Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol. 2014, 206, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, F.; Gan, Y.; Chai, Q.; Feng, F.; Zhao, C.; Yu, A.; Mu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Boosting system productivity through the improved coordination of interspecific competition in maize/pea strip intercropping. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 198, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddique, K.; Regan, K.; Tennant, D.; Thomson, B. Water use and water use efficiency of cool season grain legumes in low rainfall Mediterranean-type environments. Eur. J. Agron. 2001, 15, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.-J.; Li, Y.-Y.; Yu, C.-B.; Sun, J.-H.; Christie, P.; An, M.; Zhang, F.-S.; Li, L. Crop nitrogen use and soil mineral nitrogen accumulation under different crop combinations and patterns of strip intercropping in northwest China. Plant Soil 2011, 342, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasri, R.; Kashani, A.; Barary, M.; Paknejad, F.; Vazan, S. Nitrogen agronomic efficiency of wheat in different crop rotations, and the application rates of nitrogen. Int. J. Biosci. 2014, 4, 190–200. [Google Scholar]
- Battini, F.; Agostini, A.; Boulamanti, A.; Giuntoli, J.; Amaducci, S. Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: Case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. Sci. Total. Environ. 2014, 481, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stinner, P.W. The use of legumes as a biogas substrate - potentials for saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2015, 5, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olorunmaiye, P.M. Weed control potential of five legume cover crops in maize/cassava intercrop in a Southern Guinea savanna ecosystem of Nigeria. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2010, 4, 324–329. [Google Scholar]
- Bilalis, D.; Papastylianou, P.; Konstantas, A.; Patsiali, S.; Karkanis, A.; Efthimiadou, A. Weed-suppressive effects of maize–legume intercropping in organic farming. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2010, 56, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lithourgidis, A.S.; Dordas, C.A.; Damalas, D.A.; Vlachostergios, D.N. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 396–410. [Google Scholar]
- Kintl, A.; Vítěz, T.; Elbl, J.; Vítězová, M.; Dokulilová, T.; Nedělník, J.; Skládanka, J.; Brtnický, M. Mixed Culture of Corn and White Lupine as an Alternative to Silage Made from Corn Monoculture Intended for Biogas Production. BioEnergy Res. 2019, 12, 694–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, D.; Schrader, S.; Kleinsteuber, S.; Harms, H.; Sträuber, H. Biogas production from coumarin-rich plants—Inhibition by coumarin and recovery by adaptation of the bacterial community. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2015, 91, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadaňková, P.; Kintl, A.; Koukalová, V.; Kučerová, J.; Brtnický, M. Coumarin content in silages made of mixed cropping biomass comprising maize and white sweetclover. In 19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019; SGEM: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2019; pp. 115–121. [Google Scholar]
- Gatta, G.; Gagliardi, A.; Soldo, P.; Monteleone, M. Grasses and legumes in mixture: An energy intercropping system intended for anaerobic digestion. Ital. J. Agron. 2013, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamei Harvani, J. Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yields, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in rain fed conditions of Zanjan province in Iran. Seed Plant Prod. J. 2013, 2, 169–183. [Google Scholar]
- Mlejnkova, V.; Horky, P.; Kominkova, M.; Skládanka, J.; Hodulikova, L.; Adam, V.; Mlcek, J.; Jurikova, T.; Sochor, J. Biogenic amines and hygienic quality of lucerne silage. Open Life Sci. 2016, 11, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skládanka, J.; Adam, V.; Zítka, O.; Mlejnkova, V.; Kalhotka, L.; Horký, P.; Konecna, K.; Hodulikova, L.; Knotová, D.; Balabanova, M.; et al. Comparison of Biogenic Amines and Mycotoxins in Alfalfa and Red Clover Fodder Depending on Additives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ČSN EN 15934—Sludge, Treated Biowaste, Soil and Waste—Calculation of Dry Matter Fraction after Determination of Dry Residue or Water Content; European Committee for Standardization: Brussel, Belgium, 2007; Available online: https://csnonline.agentura-cas.cz/Detailnormy.aspx?k=92539 (accessed on 5 May 2017).
- ČSN EN 15169—Characterization of Waste—Determination of Loss on Ignition in Waste, Sludge and Sediments; European Committee for Standardization: Brussel, Belgium, 2007; Available online: https://csnonline.agentura-cas.cz/Detailnormy.aspx?k=79397. (accessed on 5 May 2017).
- ISO 13906—Determination of Acid Detergent Fibre (ADF) and Acid Detergent Lignin (ADL) Contents; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; Available online: https://csnonline.agentura-cas.cz/Detailnormy.aspx?k=89284 (accessed on 5 May 2017).
- Divišová, R.; Vítová, E.; Divis, P.; Zemanová, J.; Omelková, J. Validation of SPME-GC-FID Method for Determination of Fragrance Allergens in Selected Cosmetic Products. Acta Chromatogr. 2015, 27, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nabel, M.; Schrey, S.D.; Temperton, V.M.; Harrison, L.; Jablonowski, N.D. Legume Intercropping with the Bioenergy Crop Sida hermaphrodita on Marginal Soil. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferreira, G.; Brown, A.N. Environmental Factors Affecting Corn Quality for Silage Production. In Advances in Silage Production and Utilization; Da Silva, T., Santos, E.M., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrmann, C.; Heiermann, M.; Idler, C. Effects of ensiling, silage additives and storage period on methane formation of biogas crops. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 5153–5161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stinner, P.W.; Deuker, A.; Schmalfuß, T.; Brock, C.; Rensberg, N.; Denysenko, V.; Trainer, P.; Möller, K.; Zang, J.W.; Janke, L.; et al. Perennial and Intercrop Legumes as Energy Crops for Biogas Production. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R.S., Das, A., Yadav, G.S., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2018; pp. 139–171. [Google Scholar]
- Slepetiene, A.; Slepetys, J.; Tilvikiene, V.; Amaleviciute, K.; Liaudanskiene, I.; Ceseviciene, J.; Kadziuliene, Z.; Dabkevicius, Z.; Buliauskaite, R. Evaluation of chemical composition and biogas production from legumes and perennial grasses in anaerobic digestion using the OxiTop system. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2016, 25, 1342–1347. [Google Scholar]
- Boe, K.; Batstone, D.J.; Steyer, J.-P.; Angelidaki, I. State indicators for monitoring the anaerobic digestion process. Water Res. 2010, 44, 5973–5980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lošák, T.; Hlušek, J.; Zatloukalová, A.; Musilová, L.; Vítězová, M.; Škarpa, P.; Zlámalová, T.; Fryč, J.; Vítěz, T.; Mareček, J.; et al. Digestate from biogas plant is an attractive alternative to mineral fertilization of kohlrabi. J. Sustain. Dev. Energ. Water Environ. Syst. 2014, 2, 309–318. [Google Scholar]
- Herrmann, A. Biogas Production from Maize: Current State, Challenges and Prospects. 2. Agronomic and Environmental Aspects. BioEnergy Res. 2012, 6, 372–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Cossel, M.; Hartung, J.; Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I. Optimization of specific methane yield prediction models for biogas crops based on lignocellulosic components using non-linear and crop-specific configurations. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2018, 120, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lajdová, Z.; Lajda, J.; Kapusta, J.; Bielik, P. Consequences of maize cultivation intended for biogas production. Agric. Econ. 2016, 62, 543–549. [Google Scholar]
- Popp, D.; Plugge, C.M.; Kleinsteuber, S.; Harms, H.; Sträuber, H. Inhibitory Effect of Coumarin on Syntrophic Fatty Acid-Oxidizing and Methanogenic Cultures and Biogas Reactor Microbiomes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e00438-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El-Mashad, H.M.; Zhang, R. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 4021–4028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labatut, R.A.; Angenent, L.T.; Scott, N.R. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2255–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehtomäki, A.; Huttunen, S.; Rintala, J. Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 51, 591–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amon, T.; Amon, B.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Zollitsch, W.; Mayer, K.; Gruber, L. Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure—Influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 118, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiland, P. Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 85, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann, C.; Idler, C.; Heiermann, M. Biogas crops grown in energy crop rotations: Linking chemical composition and methane production characteristics. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 206, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hutňan, M.; Špalková, V.; Bodík, I.; Kolesárová, N.; Lazor, M. Biogas production from maize grains and maize silage. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 323–329. [Google Scholar]
- Rasit, N.; Idris, A.; Harun, R.; Ghani, W.A.W.A.K. Effects of lipid inhibition on biogas production of anaerobic digestion from oily effluents and sludges: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çalli, B.; Mertoglu, B.; Inanc, B.; Yenigün, O. Effects of high free ammonia concentrations on the performances of anaerobic bioreactors. Process. Biochem. 2005, 40, 1285–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siles, J.; Brekelmans, J.; Martín, M.; Chica, A.; Martin, A. Impact of ammonia and sulphate concentration on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 9040–9048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strik, D.; Domnanovich, A.; Holubar, P. A pH-based control of ammonia in biogas during anaerobic digestion of artificial pig manure and maize silage. Process. Biochem. 2006, 41, 1235–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavlostathis, S.G.; Giraldo-Gomez, E. Kinetics of Anaerobic Treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 1991, 24, 35–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, A.O.; Lins, P.; Malin, C.; Reitschuler, C.; Illmer, P. Impact of protein-, lipid- and cellulose-containing complex substrates on biogas production and microbial communities in batch experiments. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 458-460, 256–266. [Google Scholar]
- Alves, M.M.; Pereira, M.A.; Sousa, D.Z.; Cavaleiro, A.J.; Picavet, M.; Smidt, H.; Stams, A.J.M. Waste lipids to energy: How to optimize methane production from long-chain fatty acids (LCFA). Microb Biotechnol. 2009, 2, 538–550. [Google Scholar]
- Boomsma, C.R.; Santini, J.B.; Tollenaar, M.; Vyn, T.J. Maize Morphophysiological Responses to Intense Crowding and Low Nitrogen Availability: An Analysis and Review. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 1426–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cortesi, A. Assessing the Synergistic Effects of Co-digestion of Maize Silage and Red Chicory Waste. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2018, 32, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample | Soil Reaction (pH) | Plant Available Nutrient Content (mg/kg) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P | K | Ca | Mg | ||
Arable Soil | 5.9 | 95 ± 4.7 | 246 ± 39.4 | 1271 ± 64.7 | 135 ± 17.0 |
Treatment | Percentage of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Silage * | Percentage of White Sweetclover (Melilotus Albus MED.) in Silage * | Kilograms of Maize (Zea Mays L.) in Silage | Kilograms of White Sweetclover (Melilotus Albus MED.) in Silage | Average Density of Model Silage in Dry Matter (kg/m3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maize | 100 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 173.9 |
White sweetclover | 0 | 100 | 0 | 8 | 198.7 |
Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | 30 | 70 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 171.0 |
Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | 50 | 50 | 4 | 4 | 155.9 |
Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | 70 | 30 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 155.7 |
Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | 80 | 20 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 167.2 |
Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | 85 | 15 | 6.8 | 1.2 | 161.2 |
Maize + White s.c. 9:1 | 90 | 10 | 7.2 | 0.8 | 173.4 |
TS | VS | Proteins | Starch | Lipids | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% ± SD | HSD | % ± SD | HSD | %TS ± SD | HSD | %TS ± SD | HSD | %TS ± SD | HSD | |
Maize | 33.28 ± 0.58 | A | 96.07 ± 0.07 | A | 8.13 ± 0.14 | A,B | 20.66 ± 2.83 | B,C,D | 4.26 ± 0.07 | D |
White s.c. | 36.14 ± 3.30 | A | 96.75 ± 0.13 | A | 11.62 ± 0.84 | E | 4.51 ± 0.15 | A | 3.83 ± 0.11 | D |
Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | 32.17 ± 0.95 | A | 94.89 ± 0.24 | A | 11.34 ± 0.24 | E | 11.13 ± 0.49 | A,B | 2.59 ± 0.23 | A |
Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | 34.10 ± 0.57 | A | 95.65 ± 0.03 | A | 10.95 ± 0.21 | D,E | 16.54 ± 1.61 | A,B,C | 3.64 ± 0.15 | C,D |
Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | 32.06 ± 0.54 | A | 96.43 ± 0.83 | A | 9.95 ± 0.23 | C,E | 25.93 ± 1.57 | C | 4.03 ± 0.45 | C,D |
Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | 32.84 ± 0.55 | A | 96.21 ± 0.41 | A | 8.45 ± 0.15 | B,C | 32.58 ± 0.87 | D | 3.40 ± 0.15 | A,C,D |
Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | 32.10 ± 0.54 | A | 96.58 ± 0.19 | A | 8.32 ± 0.17 | B,C | 23.81 ± 3.41 | B,C,D | 3.93 ± 0.09 | C,D |
Maize + White s.c. 9:1 | 34.13 ± 0.57 | A | 96.69 ± 0.21 | A | 8.10 ± 0.13 | B | 21.04 ± 5.60 | B,C,D | 3.01 ± 0.16 | B,D |
CF | ADF | NDF | ADL | Coumarin | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% TS ± SD | HSD | % TS ± SD | HSD | % TS ± SD | HSD | % TS ± SD | HSD | mg/g TS ± SD | HSD | |
Maize | 16.73 ± 0.30 | A | 20.35 ± 0.43 | A,B | 42.14 ± 0.90 | A | 6.16 ± 2.28 | A,B | 1.84 ± 0.20 | A |
White s.c. | 28.16 ± 1.06 | C | 31.62 ± 4.15 | C,D | 48.67 ± 5.60 | B,C | 14.32 ± 3.89 | A,B | 17.51 ± 0.84 | D |
Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | 25.49 ± 0.56 | B,C | 38.84 ± 1.70 | D | 57.10 ± 3.75 | C | 16.33 ± 0.55 | B | 14.25 ± 1.18 | C |
Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | 23.11 ± 1.18 | B | 32.07 ± 1.47 | C,D | 48.27 ± 0.82 | B,C | 13.08 ± 4.15 | A,B | 12.33 ± 0.33 | C |
Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | 19.74 ± 0.64 | A,B | 26.53 ± 0.52 | B,C | 43.01 ± 0.73 | A | 5.42 ± 0.33 | A,B | 7.97 ± 0.14 | B |
Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | 18.70 ± 0.32 | A | 25.11 ± 1.10 | B,C | 41.47 ± 0.89 | A | 4.20 ± 0.55 | A | 7.73 ± 0.13 | B |
Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | 17.59 ± 0.46 | A | 23.44 ± 0.79 | B,C | 39.17 ± 0.67 | A | 3.90 ± 0.85 | A | 7.29 ± 0.63 | B |
Maize + White s.c. 9:1 | 18.01 ± 0.81 | A | 22.49 ± 0.77 | B | 37.21 ± 1.64 | A | 11.01 ± 1.89 | A,B | 4.35 ± 0.35 | A |
Variants | Maize | White s.c. | Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | Maize + White s.c. 9:1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | M = 0.271 m3/kgVS | M = 0.161 m3/kgVS | M = 0.199 m3/kgVS | M = 0.217 m3/kgVS | M = 0.240 m3/kgVS | M = 0.242 m3/kgVS | M = 0.263 m3/kgVS | M = 0.264 m3/kgVS |
Maize | 0.000175 | 0.000177 | 0.000358 | 0.039756 | 0.060095 | 0.982983 | 0.988470 | |
White s.c. | 0.000175 | 0.005070 | 0.000255 | 0.000175 | 0.000175 | 0.000175 | 0.000175 | |
Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | 0.000177 | 0.005070 | 0.456127 | 0.003545 | 0.002363 | 0.000189 | 0.000187 | |
Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | 0.000358 | 0.000255 | 0.456127 | 0.176705 | 0.121646 | 0.001207 | 0.001094 | |
Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | 0.039756 | 0.000175 | 0.003545 | 0.176705 | 0.999998 | 0.193271 | 0.175552 | |
Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | 0.060095 | 0.000175 | 0.002363 | 0.121646 | 0.999998 | 0.272433 | 0.249201 | |
Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | 0.982983 | 0.000175 | 0.000189 | 0.001207 | 0.193271 | 0.272433 | 1.000000 | |
Maize + White s.c. 9:1 | 0.988470 | 0.000175 | 0.000187 | 0.001094 | 0.175552 | 0.249201 | 1.000000 |
Variants | Maize | White s.c. | Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | Maize + White s.c. 9:1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | M = 56.52% | M = 52.27% | M = 53.61% | M = 54.37% | M = 55.82% | M = 54.75% | M = 55.18% | M = 55.51% |
Maize | 0.0014 | 0.0335 | 0.1874 | 0.9831 | 0.3824 | 0.6430 | 0.8927 | |
White s.c. | 0.0014 | 0.6974 | 0.2104 | 0.0073 | 0.0932 | 0.0399 | 0.0155 | |
Maize + White s.c. 3:7 | 0.0335 | 0.6974 | 0.9741 | 0.1665 | 0.8264 | 0.5701 | 0.3076 | |
Maize + White s.c. 1:1 | 0.1874 | 0.2103 | 0.9741 | 0.6128 | 0.9996 | 0.9770 | 0.8299 | |
Maize + White s.c. 7:3 | 0.9831 | 0.0073 | 0.1665 | 0.6128 | 0.8676 | 0.9831 | 0.9998 | |
Maize + White s.c. 8:2 | 0.3824 | 0.0932 | 0.8264 | 0.9996 | 0.8676 | 0.9997 | 0.9752 | |
Maize + White s.c. 8.5:1.5 | 0.6430 | 0.0399 | 0.5701 | 0.9770 | 0.9831 | 0.9997 | 0.9996 | |
Maize + White s.c. 9:1 | 0.8927 | 0.0155 | 0.3076 | 0.8299 | 0.9998 | 0.9752 | 0.9996 |
Biogas Yield | Meth. Yield | Meth. in Biogas | TS | Proteins | Lipids | CF | Starch | ADF | NDF | ADL | Coumarin | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biogas yield | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.80 | −0.29 | −0.88 | 0.24 | −0.91 | 0.66 | −0.73 | −0.65 | −0.63 | −0.91 |
Methane yield | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.86 | −0.32 | −0.85 | 0.28 | −0.92 | 0.67 | −0.72 | −0.60 | −0.61 | −0.92 |
Meth. in biogas | 0.80 | 0.86 | 1.00 | −0.39 | −0.62 | 0.40 | −0.76 | 0.59 | −0.55 | −0.35 | −0.38 | −0.77 |
TS | −0.29 | −0.32 | −0.39 | 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.25 | −0.31 | −0.17 | −0.24 | 0.02 | 0.17 |
Proteins | −0.88 | −0.85 | −0.62 | 0.04 | 1.00 | −0.26 | 0.92 | −0.65 | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.73 | 0.89 |
Lipids | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.40 | 0.11 | −0.26 | 1.00 | −0.24 | 0.14 | −0.42 | −0.26 | −0.53 | −0.23 |
CF | −0.91 | −0.92 | −0.76 | 0.25 | 0.92 | −0.24 | 1.00 | −0.78 | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.64 | 0.94 |
Starch | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.59 | −0.31 | −0.65 | 0.14 | −0.78 | 1.00 | −0.53 | −0.56 | −0.54 | −0.64 |
ADF | −0.73 | −0.72 | −0.55 | −0.17 | 0.91 | −0.42 | 0.84 | −0.53 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.67 | 0.84 |
NDF | −0.65 | −0.60 | −0.35 | −0.24 | 0.85 | −0.26 | 0.77 | −0.56 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
ADL | −0.63 | −0.61 | −0.38 | 0.02 | 0.73 | −0.53 | 0.64 | −0.54 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 1.00 | 0.59 |
Coumarin | −0.91 | −0.92 | −0.77 | 0.17 | 0.89 | −0.23 | 0.94 | −0.64 | 0.84 | 0.71 | 0.59 | 1.00 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kintl, A.; Elbl, J.; Vítěz, T.; Brtnický, M.; Skládanka, J.; Hammerschmiedt, T.; Vítězová, M. Possibilities of Using White Sweetclover Grown in Mixture with Maize for Biomethane Production. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091407
Kintl A, Elbl J, Vítěz T, Brtnický M, Skládanka J, Hammerschmiedt T, Vítězová M. Possibilities of Using White Sweetclover Grown in Mixture with Maize for Biomethane Production. Agronomy. 2020; 10(9):1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091407
Chicago/Turabian StyleKintl, Antonín, Jakub Elbl, Tomáš Vítěz, Martin Brtnický, Jiří Skládanka, Tereza Hammerschmiedt, and Monika Vítězová. 2020. "Possibilities of Using White Sweetclover Grown in Mixture with Maize for Biomethane Production" Agronomy 10, no. 9: 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091407