Performances of mesophilic anaerobic digestion systems treating poultry mortalities

Abstract

A closed‐loop anaerobic digestion system consisting of a leachbed (LB) and an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) was tested as an alternative for the disposal of poultry mortalities. This paper compares the performances of three LB‐UASB treatment systems with different initial moisture contents in the LBs. Each LB was loaded with one chicken and 5, 10 or 18 liters of water. The LBs initially carried out the hydrolysis/acidification phase while the UASBs the methanogenesis phase. Due to repeated inoculation by the UASBs, the LBs with 10 and 18 liters of water started producing methane on day 5, while the one with 5 liters of water on day 19. However, methane production rates were low before day 40 for the LB with 10 liters of water and day 60 for the other LBs. Methane production gradually improved as the LBs continued to receive ungranulated sludge from the UASBs. The LBs eventually became balanced methane reactors. Continued balanced fermentation in the LBs resulted in leachates with very low substrate concentrations that could no longer support high‐rate methanogenesis in the UASBs. Consequently, methane production rates from the UASBs decreased quickly while that from the LBs reached peak levels. Cumulative methane production from each LB eventually exceeded that from its connecting UASB. After 118 days of digestion, 414, 437 and 470 liters of methane were produced from the three systems, respectively. Cumulative methane production from the LBs with 5 and 18 liters of water accounted for 63% of the total methane produced from their respective systems. The LB with 10 liters of water produced 75% of the total methane from that system. Methane yields ranged from 0.485 to 0.554 m³ (Kg TS) ¹. About 86% of the initial dry weight was biodegraded. All three systems performed very well with little operational problems. Overall, the system that started with 10 liters of water in the LB performed the best. Strategy for enhancing system performances and implementing farm applications are discussed.