Evaluation of Different Feedstocks for Biogas Output and Bioslurry Quality in Household Digesters in Banyuwangi

  • Agung Herdianto Universitas PGRI Argopuro Jember
  • Andhi Krisdhianto Universitas PGRI Argopuro Jember
  • Mohamad Syaifudin Aswan Universitas PGRI Argopuro Jember
Keywords: Feddstock, Biodigester, Biogas, Bioslurry, Household

Abstract

This study evaluates the effect of different feedstock types on biogas production and bioslurry quality at the household scale in Banyuwangi Regency. The assessment focused on biogas byproducts in the form of bioslurry derived from three types of feedstock household organic waste, goat manure, and cow manure. The research employed a completely randomized design (CRD) experimental method, in which each feedstock was fermented in a biodigester for one month, after which the resulting bioslurry was analyzed in the laboratory. The parameters measured included pressure (P), volume (V), daily gas production (ΔV), as well as the quality of bioslurry macronutrients pH, organic carbon, total nitrogen, P₂O₅, K₂O, C/N ratio and tests for pathogenic microbes. The results showed that all three feedstock types have potential as biogas substrates, indicated by positive gas production rates throughout the fermentation period. Cow manure yielded the highest cumulative biogas production potential (ΔV 146.81 liters), followed by household organic waste (ΔV 116.17 liters) and goat manure (ΔV 95.87 liters). In terms of bioslurry quality, cow manure provided relatively higher nutrient content (Ntotal and P₂O₅) compared to goat manure and household organic waste. The household-scale biogas technology applied in Banyuwangi demonstrates significant potential as a renewable energy source. However, its liquid digestate byproduct tends to have low nutrient content and carries biological risks that warrant attention in its utilization. Therefore, post-treatment measures such as composting or further maturation are necessary to ensure bioslurry safety and improve its agronomic value.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

J. A. Alburquerque, C. de la Fuente, and M. P. Bernal, “Chemical properties of anaerobic digestates affecting C and N dynamics in amended soils,” Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., vol. 160, pp. 15–22, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.007.

V. Arthurson, “Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback,” Energies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 226–242, Apr. 2009, doi: 10.3390/en20200226.

Budiyono, “The Influence of Total Solid Contents on Biogas Yield from Cattle Manure Using Rumen Fluid Inoculum,” Energy Res. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–11, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.3844/erjsp.2010.6.11.

K. B. Cantrell, T. Ducey, K. S. Ro, and P. G. Hunt, “Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation opportunities,” Bioresour. Technol., vol. 99, no. 17, pp. 7941–7953, Nov. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.061.

S. Dutta, M. He, X. Xiong, and D. C. W. Tsang, “Sustainable management and recycling of food waste anaerobic digestate: A review,” Bioresour. Technol., vol. 341, p. 125915, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125915.

T. Edwiges et al., “Influence of chemical composition on biochemical methane potential of fruit and vegetable waste,” Waste Manag., vol. 71, pp. 618–625, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.030.

S. C. Ingham et al., “Escherichia coli Contamination of Vegetables Grown in Soils Fertilized with Noncomposted Bovine Manure: Garden-Scale Studies,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol., vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 6420–6427, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.11.6420-6427.2004.

A. M. Kartini and N. Ilminnafik, “Potensi Bioenergi Dari Pengolahan Limbah Peternakan Dan Sampah Organik Di Kabupaten Banyuwangi,” J. Kendali Tek. dan Sains, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 222–236, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.59581/jkts-widyakarya.v2i1.2720.

J. Mata-Alvarez, J. Dosta, M. S. Romero-Güiza, X. Fonoll, M. Peces, and S. Astals, “A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 36, pp. 412–427, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.039.

K. Möller and T. Müller, “Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: A review,” Eng. Life Sci., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 242–257, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1002/elsc.201100085.

D. Sahara, “Livestock waste as alternative energy for rural households: A review,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 1292, no. 1, p. 012002, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1292/1/012002.

S. Singh and K. Kaushik, Factors affecting anaerobic digestion of organic waste. 2018.

M. Yu, K. Wang, and H. Vredenburg, “Insights into low-carbon hydrogen production methods: Green, blue and aqua hydrogen,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 41, pp. 21261–21273, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.04.016.

Published
2025-11-05
How to Cite
[1]
A. Herdianto, Andhi Krisdhianto, and Mohamad Syaifudin Aswan, “Evaluation of Different Feedstocks for Biogas Output and Bioslurry Quality in Household Digesters in Banyuwangi”, JI, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 379-386, Nov. 2025.