» Articles » PMID: 32613124

Performance Evaluation of Digestate Spreading Machines in Vineyards and Citrus Orchards: Preliminary Trials

Overview
Journal Heliyon
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2020 Jul 3
PMID 32613124
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This research was carried out to evaluate a local biogas plant's solid fraction digestate spreading in a citrus orchard and vineyard. Three spreaders were tested: a broadcast manure spreader in the citrus orchard, and two cylindrical-shaped spreaders in the vineyard; the first one working in broadcast configuration, the second one in localised configuration. Experimental tests assessed effective work time, mean work speed, digestate flow rate and longitudinal and transverse spreading uniformity. In the citrus orchard, the digestate was mainly spread in the centre of the inter-row (around 66%), with low variability between inter-rows (coefficient of variation (CV) equal to 2.7%) and much higher variability within inter-rows (CV = 31.4%). The effective work time was about 28% of total field time and real work capacity was about 0.96 ha h. In the vineyard, broadcast spreading released more on the right compared to the left (ratio 1.74) due to distributor disc rotation, whereas localised spreading was more uniform. Overall, variability between inter-rows had CV = 15.1% and within inter-rows CV = 33.3%. Real work capacity was about 0.16 ha h for broadcast spreading and 0.26 ha h for localised spreading. A preliminary economic evaluation, based on sub-contractor tariffs, produced the mean tariff for transaction and spreading costs of digestate in farms near the biogas plant.

References
1.
Sturmer B, Pfundtner E, Kirchmeyr F, Uschnig S . Legal requirements for digestate as fertilizer in Austria and the European Union compared to actual technical parameters. J Environ Manage. 2019; 253:109756. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109756. View

2.
Bolzonella D, Fatone F, Gottardo M, Frison N . Nutrients recovery from anaerobic digestate of agro-waste: Techno-economic assessment of full scale applications. J Environ Manage. 2017; 216:111-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.026. View

3.
Orzi V, Scaglia B, Lonati S, Riva C, Boccasile G, Alborali G . The role of biological processes in reducing both odor impact and pathogen content during mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Sci Total Environ. 2015; 526:116-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.038. View

4.
Logan M, Visvanathan C . Management strategies for anaerobic digestate of organic fraction of municipal solid waste: Current status and future prospects. Waste Manag Res. 2019; 37(1_suppl):27-39. DOI: 10.1177/0734242X18816793. View

5.
Valenti F, Porto S, Selvaggi R, Pecorino B . Co-digestion of by-products and agricultural residues: A bioeconomy perspective for a Mediterranean feedstock mixture. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 700:134440. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134440. View