The spread of livestock diseases, such as African swine fever (ASF) or the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), caused by viruses and/or bacteria such as Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli, are currently reducing biosecurity; as such, EU regulations avoid the use of derived manure for biofertilisation. This is happening in a global context, where the price of food, fertilisers, and energy have a strong correlation. In fact, surges in the cost of these commodities contribute to strong tensions in food-insecure countries, very often resulting in food riots. This review paper addresses the current technologies available in the EU for the treatment of manure, including that derived from livestock affected by the above diseases. Additionally, within the agricultural sector, livestock farming is the major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as methane, nitrogen monoxide, and carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming and, therefore, climate change. Thus, this paper also discusses manure management technologies aimed at reducing GHG emissions, considered as livestock farming footprints according to EU regulations. The literature review followed a widely implemented method divided into three phases: planning (theoretical background), execution (search strategy), and result analysis. The current technologies available in the EU for manure management are aerobic treatment, composting, anaerobic digestion (AD), decanter centrifuge, VP-HoBe, BENAS AD, Geamix housing system, belt press sieve–reverse osmosis, vibrating reverse osmosis, granulation, gasification, and pyrolysis. RENURE (REcovered Nitrogen from manure), i.e., an organic fertiliser that is partially or totally derived from manure, can replace synthetic chemical/mineral fertilisers, thereby building up a resilient food production chain capable of using locally available resources. This review indicates that pyrolysis and AD are the best suited technologies for processing manure that may be affected by the above diseases, as they have been proven to effectively avoid the spread of those specific pathogens. Moreover, these two technologies can reduce livestock footprints. However, further research will need to assess the selected manure management technologies through the computation of energy balance, in order to maximise energy efficiency.
Citation: George Attard, Antonio Comparetti, Eglė Jotautienė, Antanas Juostas, Francesco Mira. Manure management in EU for biosecurity increase and livestock farming footprints reduction[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2026, 11(4): 1026-1058. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2026051
The spread of livestock diseases, such as African swine fever (ASF) or the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), caused by viruses and/or bacteria such as Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli, are currently reducing biosecurity; as such, EU regulations avoid the use of derived manure for biofertilisation. This is happening in a global context, where the price of food, fertilisers, and energy have a strong correlation. In fact, surges in the cost of these commodities contribute to strong tensions in food-insecure countries, very often resulting in food riots. This review paper addresses the current technologies available in the EU for the treatment of manure, including that derived from livestock affected by the above diseases. Additionally, within the agricultural sector, livestock farming is the major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as methane, nitrogen monoxide, and carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming and, therefore, climate change. Thus, this paper also discusses manure management technologies aimed at reducing GHG emissions, considered as livestock farming footprints according to EU regulations. The literature review followed a widely implemented method divided into three phases: planning (theoretical background), execution (search strategy), and result analysis. The current technologies available in the EU for manure management are aerobic treatment, composting, anaerobic digestion (AD), decanter centrifuge, VP-HoBe, BENAS AD, Geamix housing system, belt press sieve–reverse osmosis, vibrating reverse osmosis, granulation, gasification, and pyrolysis. RENURE (REcovered Nitrogen from manure), i.e., an organic fertiliser that is partially or totally derived from manure, can replace synthetic chemical/mineral fertilisers, thereby building up a resilient food production chain capable of using locally available resources. This review indicates that pyrolysis and AD are the best suited technologies for processing manure that may be affected by the above diseases, as they have been proven to effectively avoid the spread of those specific pathogens. Moreover, these two technologies can reduce livestock footprints. However, further research will need to assess the selected manure management technologies through the computation of energy balance, in order to maximise energy efficiency.
| [1] |
Leip A, Weiss F, Wassenaar T, et al. (2010) Evaluation of the livestock sector's contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS)—final report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. |
| [2] |
Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, et al. (2021) Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2: 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
|
| [3] |
EEA-European Environment Agency (2021) Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in Europe. |
| [4] |
Fuchs R, Calum B, Rounsevell M (2020) Europe's Green Deal offshores environmental damage to other nations. Nature 586: 671–673. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02991-1 doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02991-1
|
| [5] |
Europe Sustainable Development Report 2021 (2021) Transforming the European Union to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. SDSN & IEEP. |
| [6] |
Friedmann H (1987) International regimes of food and agriculture since 1870. In: Shanin T (ed.), Peasants and peasant societies, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 258–276. |
| [7] |
Friedmann H (1982) The political economy of food: The rise and fall of the postwar international food order. Am J Soc 88S: 248–286. |
| [8] |
Friedmann H, McMichael P (1989) Agriculture and the state system: The rise and fall of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29: 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1989.tb00360.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.1989.tb00360.x
|
| [9] |
Sutton M, Howard C, Erisman JW, et al. (2011) The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 1–601. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976988 |
| [10] |
Oger A (2022) The fertiliser transition. Addressing social and environmental spillovers in the fertiliser sector. Institute for European Environmental Policy, 1–19. |
| [11] |
Vaneeckhaute C, Belia E, Meers E, et al. (2018) Nutrient recovery from digested waste: Towards a generic roadmap for setting up an optimal treatment train. Waste Manage 78: 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.047 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.047
|
| [12] |
Farghali M, Osman AI, Umetsu K, et al. (2022) Integration of biogas systems into a carbon zero and hydrogen economy: A review. Environ Chem Lett 20: 2853–2927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01468-z doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01468-z
|
| [13] |
Attard G, Comparetti A, Febo P, et al. (2017) Case study of potential production of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) from livestock wastes in Mediterranean islands. Chem Eng Trans 58: 553–558. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1758093 doi: 10.3303/CET1758093
|
| [14] |
Billen G, Aguilera E, Einarsson R, et al. (2021) Reshaping the European agro-food system and closing its nitrogen cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity. One Earth 4: 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.008 doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.008
|
| [15] |
Aguilera E, Díaz-Gaona C, García-Laureano R, et al. (2020) Agroecology for adaptation to climate change and resource depletion in the Mediterranean region. A review. Agric Syst 181: 102809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102809 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102809
|
| [16] |
Comparetti A, Ciulla S, Greco C, et al. (2025) State of the art of biomethane production in the Mediterranean Region. Agronomy 15: 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071702 doi: 10.3390/agronomy15071702
|
| [17] |
Regulation (EU) (2019) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and Council of the 5th June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 while repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 establishing the rules for marketing livestock manure. |
| [18] |
Regulation (EU) (2016) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health ("Animal Health Law"). |
| [19] |
European Commission (2026) ADIS current year notification: 01/01/2026–23/09/2026–created on 24/09/2026. Available from: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt/adis/public/notification/outbreaks-current-year-report |
| [20] |
Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4: 356–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 doi: 10.1177/1534484305278283
|
| [21] |
Beline F, Martinez J (2002) Nitrogen transformations during biological aerobic treatment of pig slurry: effect of intermittent aeration on nitrous oxide emissions. Bioresour Technol 83: 225–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00219-X doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00219-X
|
| [22] |
Loyon L, Guiziou F, Beline F, et al. (2007) Gaseous emissions (NH3, N2O, CH4 and CO2) from the aerobic treatment of piggery slurry—Comparison with a conventional storage system. Biosyst Eng 97: 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.030 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.030
|
| [23] |
Loyon L (2017) Overview of manure treatment in France. Waste Manage 61: 516–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.040 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.040
|
| [24] |
Ranade VV, Bhandari VM (2014) Chapter 1—Industrial wastewater treatment, recycling, and reuse: An overview. In: Ranade VV, Bhandari VM (eds.), Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and Reuse, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099968-5.00001-5 |
| [25] |
Béline F, Daumer ML, Loyon L, et al. (2008) The efficiency of biological aerobic treatment of piggery wastewater to control nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogen and gas emissions. Water Sci Technol 57: 1909–1914. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.316 doi: 10.2166/wst.2008.316
|
| [26] |
Derbyshire JB, Brown EG (1979) The inactivation of viruses in cattle and pig slurry by aeration or treatment with calcium hydroxide. J Hygiene 82: 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022172400025705 doi: 10.1017/S0022172400025705
|
| [27] |
Lund E, Nissen B (1983) The survival of enteroviruses in aerated and unaerated cattle and pig slurry. Agric Wastes 7: 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-4607(83)90044-6 doi: 10.1016/0141-4607(83)90044-6
|
| [28] |
Heinonen-Tanski H, Niskanen EM, Salmela P, Lanki E (1998) Salmonella in animal slurry can be destroyed by aeration at low temperatures. J Appl Microbiol Aug 85: 277–81. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.00487.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.00487.x
|
| [29] |
Juteau P, Tremblay D, Ould-Moulaye C-B, et al. (2004) Swine waste treatment by self-heating aerobic thermophilic bioreactors Water Res 38: 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2003.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.11.001
|
| [30] |
He X, Li Z, Xing C, et al. (2023) Carbon footprint of a conventional wastewater treatment plant: An analysis of water-energy nexus from life cycle perspective for emission reduction. J Cleaner Prod 429: 139562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139562 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139562
|
| [31] |
Misra RV, Roy RN, Hiraoka H (2023) Land and Water Discussion Paper 2, On-Farm Composting Methods, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2003. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/y5104e/y5104e05.htm#TopOfPage. |
| [32] |
Greco C, Comparetti A, Fascella G, et al. (2021) Effects of vermicompost, compost and digestate as commercial alternative peat-based substrates on qualitative parameters of Salvia officinalis. Agronomy 11: 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010098 doi: 10.3390/agronomy11010098
|
| [33] |
Verweij PE, Lucas JA, Arendrup MC, et al. (2020) The one health problem of azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: current insights and future research agenda. Fungal Biol Rev 34: 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2020.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.fbr.2020.10.003
|
| [34] |
NUTRIMAN—NUTRIent MANagement and Nutrient Recovery Thematic Network. Available from: https://nutriman.net/farmer-platform/product. |
| [35] |
Monteith HD, Shannon EE, Derbyshire JB (1986) The inactivation of a bovine enterovirus and a bovine parvovirus in cattle manure by anaerobic digestion, heat treatment, gamma irradiation, ensilage and composting. J Hyg (Lond). Aug 97: 175–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022172400064457 doi: 10.1017/s0022172400064457
|
| [36] |
García M, Fernández-Barredo S, Pérez-Gracia MT (2014) Detection of hepatitis E virus (HEV) through the different stages of pig manure composting plants. Microb Biotechnol 7: 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12064 doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12064
|
| [37] |
Gurtler JB, Doyle MP, Erickson MC, et al. (2018) Composting to inactivate foodborne pathogens for crop soil application: A review. J Food Prot 81: 1821–1837. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-217 doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-217
|
| [38] |
Brown S, Kruger C, Subler S (2008) Greenhouse gas balance for composting operations. J Environ Qual 37: 1396–1410. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0453 doi: 10.2134/jeq2007.0453
|
| [39] |
Martins O, Dewes T (1992) Loss of nitrogenous compounds during composting of animal wastes. Bioresour Technol 42: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(92)90068-9 doi: 10.1016/0960-8524(92)90068-9
|
| [40] |
Comparetti A, Febo P, Greco C, et al. (2013) Current state and future of biogas and digestate production. Bulg J Agric Sci 19: 1–14 |
| [41] |
Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, et al. (2008) Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol 99: 7928–7940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.044 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.044
|
| [42] |
Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85: 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7 doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7
|
| [43] |
Al Seadi T, Rutz D, Prassl H, et al. (2008) Biogas Handbook: 9–10. Published by University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, Niels Bohrs Vej, DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark. |
| [44] |
Marañón E, Salter AM, Castrillón L, et al. (2011) Reducing the environmental impact of methane emissions from dairy farms by anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. Waste Manag 31: 1745–1751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.015 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.015
|
| [45] |
Philippe F-X, Nicks B (2015) Review on greenhouse gas emissions from pig houses: Production of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide by animals and manure. Agric Ecosyst Environ 199: 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.015 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.015
|
| [46] |
Andreadakis AD (1992) Anaerobic digestion of piggery wastes. Water Sci Technol 25: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1992.0003 doi: 10.2166/wst.1992.0003
|
| [47] |
Rodríguez DC, Belmonte M, Peñuela G, et al. (2011) Behaviour of molecular weight distribution for the liquid fraction of pig slurry treated by anaerobic digestion. Environ Technol 32: 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2010.501821 doi: 10.1080/09593330.2010.501821
|
| [48] |
Kaparaju P, Rintala J (2011) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by adopting anaerobic digestion technology on dairy, sow and pig farms in Finland. Renew Energy 36: 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.05.016 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.05.016
|
| [49] |
Ramírez-Islas ME, Güereca LP, Sosa-Rodriguez FS, et al. (2020) Environmental assessment of energy production from anaerobic digestion of pig manure at medium-scale using life cycle assessment. Waste Manag 102: 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.012 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.012
|
| [50] |
Álvarez-Fraga L, Capson-Tojo G, Sanglier M, et al. (2025) A meta-analysis of pathogen reduction data in anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 207: 114982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114982 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114982
|
| [51] |
EIP-AGRI Project Database. Available from: https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects_en. |
| [52] |
Liu Z, Carroll ZS, Long SC, et al. (2017) Centrifuge separation effect on bacterial indicator reduction in dairy manure. J Environ Manage 15 191: 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.022 |
| [53] |
Aguirre-Villegas H, Larson RA, Ruark MD (2017) Solid-liquid separation of manure and effects on greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. Sustainable Dairy Fact Sheet Series. University of Wisconsin - Extension. Available from: sustainabledairy.org. |
| [54] |
Monteith HD, Shannon EE, Derbyshire JB (1986) The inactivation of a bovine enterovirus and a bovine parvovirus in cattle manure by anaerobic digestion, heat treatment, gamma irradiation, ensilage and composting. J Hyg 97: 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022172400064457 doi: 10.1017/S0022172400064457
|
| [55] |
Lund B, Jensen VF, Have P, et al. (1996) Inactivation of virus during anaerobic digestion of manure in laboratory scale biogas reactors. Vet Microbiol 52: 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(96)00014-2 doi: 10.1016/0378-1135(96)00014-2
|
| [56] |
Lin M, Wang A, Ren L, et al. (2022) Challenges of pathogen inactivation in animal manure through anaerobic digestion: A short review. Bioengineered 13: 1149–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2021.2017717 doi: 10.1080/21655979.2021.2017717
|
| [57] |
Camilleri-Rumbau MS, Briceño K, Fjerbæk Søtoft L, et al. (2021) Treatment of manure and digestate liquid fractions using membranes: Opportunities and challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18: 3107. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063107 doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063107
|
| [58] |
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Ricci A, Allende A, et al. (2017) Public health risks associated with hepatitis E virus (HEV) as a food-borne pathogen. EFSA J 15: 4886. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4886 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4886
|
| [59] |
Pabby A, Rizvi A, Sastre A (2008) Handbook of Membrane Separation: Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Biotechnological Application; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA. |
| [60] |
Shi Wei Benjamin MM (2009) Fouling of RO membranes in a vibratory shear enhanced filtration process (VSEP) system. J Membr Sci 331: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.12.027 doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.12.027
|
| [61] |
Johnson G, Culkin B, Monroe M (2003) Vibratory shear guards against mineral scale membrane fouling. Filtr Sep 40: 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(03)80095-2 doi: 10.1016/S0015-1882(03)80095-2
|
| [62] |
Rizzioli F, Bertasini D, Bolzonella D, et al. (2023) A critical review on the techno-economic feasibility of nutrients recovery from anaerobic digestate in the agricultural sector. Sep Purif Technol 306: 122690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122690 doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122690
|
| [63] |
Lee J, Kim S, Choi J, et al. (2004) Tertiary treatment of biologically treated piggery wastewater using vibratory shear-enhanced RO membrane. Water Sci Technol 49: 435–442. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2004.0785 doi: 10.2166/wst.2004.0785
|
| [64] |
Atkinson S (2005) VSEP vibratory membrane filtration system treats hog manure. Membr Technol 1: 10–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-2118(05)00301-0 doi: 10.1016/S0958-2118(05)00301-0
|
| [65] |
Vaneeckhaute C, Meers E, Michels E, et al. (2012) Fate of macronutrients in water treatment of digestate using vibrating reverse osmosis. Water Air Soil Pollut 223: 1593. |
| [66] |
Vaneeckhaute C, Darveau O, Meers E (2019) Fate of micronutrients and heavy metals in digestate processing using vibrating reversed osmosis as resource recovery technology. Sep Purif Technol 1603: 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.04.055 doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.04.055
|
| [67] |
Yoon Y, Ok Y-S, Kim D-Y, et al. (2004) Agricultural recycling of the by-product concentrate of livestock wastewater treatment plant processed with VSEP RO and bio-ceramic SBR. Water Sci Technol 49: 405–412. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2004.0781 doi: 10.2166/wst.2004.0781
|
| [68] |
Vega E, Paredes L, Marks EAN, et al. (2022) Application of vibrating reverse osmosis technology for nutrient recovery from pig slurry in a circular economy model. Membranes 12: 848. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12090848 doi: 10.3390/membranes12090848
|
| [69] |
Gaudutis A, Jotautienė E, Mieldažys R, et al. (2023) Sustainable use of biochar, poultry and cattle manure for the production of organic granular fertilizers. Agronomy 13: 1426. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051426 doi: 10.3390/agronomy13051426
|
| [70] |
Mieldažys R (2020) Technological and environmental evaluation of manure management and its processing into granular fertilizer using additives. Doctoral dissertation, Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas. |
| [71] |
FEECO (2018) The manure granulation handbook. Available from: https://feeco.com/literature. |
| [72] |
Mazeika R, Staugaitis G, Baltrusaitis J (2016) Engineered pelletized organo-mineral fertilizers (OMF) from poultry manure, diammonium phosphate and potassium chloride. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 4: 2279–2285. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01748 doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01748
|
| [73] |
Zhang R (2024) University of California, Davis, California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)—Alternative Manure Management Program (AMMP): Demonstration Project—Final Report. Project: "Demonstration of an Advanced Manure Management System for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Producing Valuable Products" (Grant Agreement No. 19-0963-000-SO). Available from: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oars/ammp/docs/AMMP_DemoNTP2019_FinalReport.pdf. |
| [74] |
Cathcart A, Smyth BM, Forbes C, et al. (2022) Effect of anaerobic digestate fuel pellet production on Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella persistence. GCB Bioenergy-Bioprod Sustainable Bioecon 14: 1055–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12986 doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12986
|
| [75] |
Singh D (2023) Chapter 17—Advances in industrial waste management. In: Singh P, Verma P, Singh R (Eds.), Waste Management and Resource Recycling in the Developing World, Elsevier, 385–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90463-6.00027-0 |
| [76] |
NETL—National Energy Technology Laboratory. Available from: https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/intro-to-gasification. |
| [77] |
He X, Hu Q, Chen J, et al. (2022) Energy and environmental risk assessments of poultry manure sustainable solution: An industrial case study in Singapore. J Cleaner Prod 339: 130787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130787 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130787
|
| [78] |
Rout PR, Pandey DS, Haynes-Parry M, et al. (2023) Sustainable valorisation of animal manures via thermochemical conversion technologies: An inclusive review on recent trends. Waste Biomass Valor 14: 553–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-022-01916-5 doi: 10.1007/s12649-022-01916-5
|
| [79] |
Attard G, Agnello A, Comparetti A, et al. (2019) Manure as a potential source of renewable energy: The behaviour and characterisation of biofuels generated from three animal manure types when subjected to pyrolysis. Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilità 2: 331–344. 10.3280/RISS2019-002-S1021 |
| [80] |
Quiroga G, Castrillón L, Fernández Y, et al. (2010) Physico-chemical analysis and calorific values of poultry manure. Waste Manage 30: 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.12.016 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.12.016
|
| [81] |
Ro KS, Cantrell KB, Hunt PG (2010) High-temperature pyrolysis of blended animal manures for producing renewable energy and value-added biochar. Ind Eng Chem Res 49: 10125–10131. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101155m doi: 10.1021/ie101155m
|
| [82] |
Schnitzer MI, Monreal CM, Facey GA, et al. (2007) The conversion of chicken manure to biooil by fast pyrolysis Ⅰ. Analyses of chicken manure, biooils and char by C-13 and H-1 NMR and FTIR spectrophotometry. J Environ Sci Health, Part B 42: 71–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601230601020894 doi: 10.1080/03601230601020894
|
| [83] |
Akor CI, Osman AI, Farrell C, et al. (2021) Thermokinetic study of residual solid digestate from anaerobic digestion. Chem Eng J 406: 127039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.127039 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.127039
|
| [84] |
Ginebra M, Muñoz C, Zagal E (2022) Carbon stability and soil N2O emissions. Pyrolyzed or unpyrolyzed manure?. J Environ Manage 322: 116095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116095 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116095
|
| [85] |
Muñoz C, Ginebra M, Zagal E (2024) Impact of pyrolyzed and unpyrolyzed animal manures on soil properties, carbon sequestration, and clover productivity in Andisol. Agronomy 14: 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030592 doi: 10.3390/agronomy14030592
|
| [86] |
Rathnayake D, Schmidt HP, Leifeld J, et al. (2023) Biochar from animal manure: A critical assessment on technical feasibility, economic viability, and ecological impact. GCB-Bioenergy-Bioprod Sustainable Bioecon 15: 1078–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13082 doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13082
|
| [87] |
Su G, Ong HC, Zulkifli NWM, et al. (2022) Valorization of animal manure via pyrolysis for bioenergy: A review. J Cleaner Prod 343: 130965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130965 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130965
|
| [88] |
Wang A, Zou D, Zhang L, et al. (2019) Environmental risk assessment in livestock manure derived biochars. RSC Adv 9: 40536–40545. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ra08186k doi: 10.1039/c9ra08186k
|
| [89] |
EUR-lex. Document 31991L0676. Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC). Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A31991L0676. |
| [90] |
EBA-European Biogas Association (2023). Recommendations. Publication of the Integrated Nutrient Management Action Plan. 28th March, 2023. Integrated Nutrient Management Action Plan: an opportunity for an holistic approach to nutrient flows and losses. The Role of RENURE. Transparency Register: 18191445640-83: 1–3. |
| [91] |
Venglovsky J, Sasakova N, Placha I (2009). Pathogens and antibiotic residues in animal manures and hygienic and ecological risks related to subsequent land application. Bioresour Technol 100: 5386–5391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.068 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.068
|
| [92] |
Figueroa A, Derksen T, Biswas S, et al. (2021). Persistence of low and highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in reused poultry litter, effects of litter amendment use, and composting temperatures. J App Poultry Res 30: 100096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2020.09.011 doi: 10.1016/j.japr.2020.09.011
|
| [93] |
Turner C, Williams SM, Burton CH, et al. (1999). Pilot scale thermal treatment of pig slurry for the inactivation of animal virus pathogens. J Environ Sci Health, Part B 34: 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601239909373241 doi: 10.1080/03601239909373241
|
| [94] |
Elving J, Emmoth E, Albihn A, et al. (2012) Composting for avian influenza virus elimination. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 3280–3285. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.07947-11 doi: 10.1128/AEM.07947-11
|
| [95] |
Stephens CB, Spackman E (2017) Thermal Inactivation of avian influenza virus in poultry litter as a method to decontaminate poultry houses. Prev Vet Med 15 145: 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.06.012 |
| [96] |
Rathnayake D, Schmidt HP, Leifeld J, et al. (2023). Biochar from animal manure: A critical assessment on technical feasibility, economic viability, and ecological impact. GCB Bioenergy-Bioprod Sustainable Bioecon 15: 1110–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13082 doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13082
|
| [97] |
Lin M, Wang A, Ren L, et al. (2022). Challenges of pathogen inactivation in animal manure through anaerobic digestion: A short review. Bioengineered 13: 1149–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2021.2017717 doi: 10.1080/21655979.2021.2017717
|
| [98] |
Haas B, Ahl R, Böhm R, et al. (1995) Inactivation of viruses in liquid manure. Rev Sci Tech 14: 435–445. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.14.2.844 doi: 10.20506/rst.14.2.844
|
| [99] |
Macdonald A, Omoaka N, Juarez M, et al. (2026). Manure management during African swine fever outbreak: identifying gaps through a narrative review. Front Vet Sci 13: 1760996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2026.1760996 doi: 10.3389/fvets.2026.1760996
|
| [100] |
Duc HM, Ngan PH, Son HM, et al. (2022) The use of composting for the disposal of African swine fever virus-infected swine carcasses. Transbound Emerg Dis 69: e3036–e3044. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14659 doi: 10.1111/tbed.14659
|
| [101] |
Symeon GK, Akamati K, Dotas V, et al. (2025) Manure management as a potential mitigation tool to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems. Sustainability 17: 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020586 doi: 10.3390/su17020586
|
| [102] |
Comparetti A, Febo P, Greco C, et al. (2014) Assessment of organic waste management methods through energy balance. Am J Appl Sci 11: 1631–1644. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2014.1631.1644 doi: 10.3844/ajassp.2014.1631.1644
|
Figures(13)
George Attard, Antonio Comparetti, Eglė Jotautienė, Antanas Juostas, Francesco Mira. Manure management in EU for biosecurity increase and livestock farming footprints reduction[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2026, 11(4): 1026-1058. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2026051
Combined aerobic/anaerobic process for the treatment of wastewater [24]
Principles of aerobic composting [33]
Flow chart of an anaerobic digestion plant (Powersystems, UK)
Decanter centrifuge for the recovery of nitrogen and phosphorus from manure or digestate (GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH, Germany)
Plant using the VP-HoBe manure and digestate valorisation system (VP-HoBe B.V., the Netherlands)
Layout (a) and flowchart (b) of the BENAS anaerobic digestion plant for the co-digestion of corn silage/poultry manure/food biowaste (or wastewater) mix, integrated with the FiberPlus system to generate ammonium sulphate, lime, phosphorous, and potassium (as fibres) (GNS: Gesellschaft für Nachhalige Stoffnutzung mbH, Germany)
"Geamix" housing system for nitrogen and phosphorous recovery from urine and solid soil improver from calves manure (Geamix, calf breeder Stefan Thelosen, the Netherlands)
Process for the recovery of nitrogen and phosphorous from manure, by means of belt press sieve and reverse osmosis (Vlako B.V., the Netherlands)
Flowchart of VSEP (vibratory shear enhanced processing) batch mode pilot testing process, integrated with a reverse osmosis membrane [68]
Flowchart of the mixer-dryer granulation method, applied to poultry litter [72]
Flowchart of the gasification process [76]
Drying approach to integrate livestock manure in a pyrolysis process: excess heat generated during the pyrolysis is used to dry manure prior to pyrolysis [86]
DownLoad: