Clean Techn Environ Policy (2010) 12:153–161

DOI 10.1007/s10098-009-0236-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Analysis of methane yields from energy crops and agricultural

by-products and estimation of energy potential from sustainable
crop rotation systems in EU-27
Alexander Bauer Æ Christian Leonhartsberger Æ
Peter Bösch Æ Barbara Amon Æ Anton Friedl Æ
Thomas Amon

Received: 2 June 2009 / Accepted: 7 June 2009 / Published online: 7 July 2009

Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract Currently an increasing demand for renewable European population than energy-based crop rotation
energy can be observed. A part of this demand could be systems.
covered by the production of energy from agrarian bio-
mass. Due to the limited availability of arable land, food Keywords Methane
Biogas
Crop rotation system

and feed production are starting to compete for agrarian Energy potential
EU-27
resources. A way out of this dilemma is to develop con-
cepts that are based on otherwise unused agrarian biomass
Abbreviations
like straw and include new technologies for the fermenta-
DM Dry matter
tion of lignocellulosic biomass. In this paper, the energy
XA Raw ash
potentials of two different cropping systems are compared.
XP Raw protein
In the energy-based crop rotation system all crops were
XL Raw fat
used either for biogas or ethanol production. In the biore-
XF Raw fibre
finery-based approach, the various crops were used in
XX N-free extracts
cascades for the production of food as well as feed.
WPS Whole plant silage
Experimental laboratory work and field trials were com-
COE Crude oil equivalent
bined to calculate energy and biomass yields of the crops
under investigation. The results demonstrate that steam
explosion pretreatment of wheat straw led to a 30%
increase in the specific methane yield. The calculated
energy output of the biorefinery-based crop rotation system Introduction
amounted to a total of 126 GJ ha-1 year-1. Extrapolating
this energy output to the total arable land of the EU-27 Policies for renewable energy in Europe focus on mastering
member states, 13,608 PJ of energy could be produced. the challenge of energy security. Accelerated investments in
Therefore, biorefinery-based crop rotation systems could biofuel production are driven by a variety of factors
provide approximately three times more energy to the including the development of evermore efficient conversion
technologies, the introduction of new government policies
and the rising oil price (CGEE 2007). According to a reso-
A. Bauer (&)
C. Leonhartsberger
B. Amon
T. Amon lution of the European Commission (2006), the proportion of
Division of Agricultural Engineering,
renewable energies in relation to total energy consumption is
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences,
Peter-Jordan-Strasse 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria supposed to increase by 20% and the proportion of biofuels
e-mail: alexander.bauer@boku.ac.at in relation to total fuel consumption is supposed to increase
URL: http://www.nas.boku.ac.at/ by 10% until the year 2020.
Consequently, research and investments in renewable
P. Bösch
A. Friedl
Vienna University of Technology, energy forms will further increase with biomass being at
Getreidemarkt 9/166, 1060 Vienna, Austria the forefront of these efforts. Lately, it became more and

123
154
more obvious that first generation biofuels and corre-
sponding currently used technologies have several draw-
backs. Among others, first generation biofuels contribute to
higher food prices due to their competition with food crops
(Mitchell 2008; FAO 2008). These constraints spurred an
interest in second-generation biofuel production from non-
food biomass. New concepts are required for the exploi-
tation of non-food biomass on hand for the purpose of
energy production (Sims et al. 2008).
Biorefinery systems aim at the optimal utilisation of the
whole crop. They represent an integrative and holistic
approach to the bio- and thermo-chemical conversion of
renewable raw materials and biomasses into marketable
products, such as fuels and energy (Kamm and Kamm
2004a; Smith 2005; Fernando et al. 2006). It is essential to
develop biorefinery systems that meet the challenge to
simultaneously cover the demands of the food, feed,
energy, and material industries. Such biorefinery system
could be developed around biogas production from agri-
cultural by-products and biomass after its preceding util-
isation as a source for the food, feed, and chemical
industry. In case calculations of energy output are based on
sustainable systems, the potential of biogas production is
actually higher than previously assumed.
From all renewable energy technologies utilising arable
biomass, biogas production is regarded as one of the
environment-friendliest technologies due to the vast num-
ber of suitable agricultural feedstock and the potential for a
closed nutrient cycle (Döhler et al. 2006). Currently, maize
is the main feedstock for biogas production. Integrating
energy crops into side-adapted and sustainable crop rota-
tion systems helps to avoid environmental problems in
form of pests, diseases, nutrient leaching or soil degrada-
tion. Crop rotation systems are the basis for a sustainable
production of biomass as well as for high soil productivity
and a continuous operation of biogas plants (Karpenstein-
Machan 2005; Leonhartsberger et al. 2008). Sustainable
land-use strategies have to be developed for the supply
of biomass feedstock. These should be compatible with
climatic, environmental and socio-economic conditions
prevailing in each region (Kamm and Kamm 2004b).
Concepts need to be developed that aim at delivering high
energy yields per hectare of already cultivated arable land,
and allow the production of food, feed and materials
without mutual competition.
Different technologies for the utilisation of renewable
raw materials have been developed over the recent years.
The unexploited energy potential of by-products from
conversion techniques including stillage from ethanol
production, glycerol from biodiesel production as well as
agricultural remains such as straw has to be released. So
far, the potential of available technologies are not yet fully
developed and still require in part the addition of fossil
123
A. Bauer et al.
energy. Combining available technologies for the process
of energy production will result in reduced production
costs, less use of fossil energy, and increased recycling of
excess materials and by-products, thereby minimising the
ecological footprint (Liebmann et al. 2007). Non-pretreated
lignocellulosic biomass is only of limited use as a feed-
stock for biogas production, because methanogenic bacte-
ria are not capable of degrading the lignocellulosic
structure of straw. As a consequence, a floating crust is
formed on the digester. Straw is currently being used
mainly in combustion facilities or otherwise left on the
field. The combustion of straw yields a higher energy
output than its fermentation in a biogas plant. Nevertheless,
combustion of straw is ecologically undesirable: organic
and humus forming substances as well as nitrogen are lost
and the disposal of the ash is problematic. Here, pretreat-
ment technologies for biomass with high lignocellulose
content offer a solution to this dilemma. Pretreated ligno-
cellulosic biomass is broken down more quickly and
effectively by methanogenic bacteria in the digester and the
development of a floating crust can successfully be avoided
(Bauer et al. 2007).
The aim of the present paper was to calculate and
compare the energy output potential of a specific energy-
and a biorefinery-based crop rotation system. Here, we
present results of our study aimed at comparing the energy
output potential of a biorefinery-based versus an energy-
based crop rotation system. Both systems have been
developed out of a site-specific and ecologically balanced
crop rotation system. Biomass yields were obtained from
field trials. The methane building capacity of by-products
from a distillery as well as biomass and remains from
wheat, maize, barley, sunflower and lucerne were measured
in laboratory experiments. Pretreatment of the lignocellu-
losic biomass was performed by steam explosion.
Materials and methods
Raw material
In the course of the experiment, the nutrient composition
and specific methane yield from various agricultural bio-
masses, residues, by-products from the distillery process as
well as mixtures of these substrates were investigated
(Table 1). The energy crops maize (Zea mays L.), barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.), sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.),
lucerne (Medicago sativa L.), and sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor L.) were grown and harvested in 2007 in the district
of Korneuburg (Lower Austria). Whole plant silages
(WPS) were prepared by chopping the plant material into
pieces of 2–4 cm and manually compressing it in 2-L
plastic containers. Wheat stillage was obtained from the
Analysis of methane yields and estimation of energy potential from sustainable crop rotation systems 155

Table 1 Investigated substrates and mixtures

Stillage Maize Barley Sunflower Lucerne Sorghum Native straw Pretreated straw
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Wheat stillage 100 – – – – – – –

Maize silage – 100 – – – – – –
Barley silage – – 100 – – – – –
Sunflower silage – – – 100 – – – –
Lucerne silage – – – – 100 – – –
Sorghum silage – – – – – 100 – –
Wheat straw – – – – – – 100 –
Pretreated wheat strawa – – – – – – – 100
Mixture 1 17.9 82.1 – – – – – –
Mixture 2 15.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 – 21.2 – –
Mixture 3 15.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 – – –
Mixture 4 14.2 – 28.6 – 28.6 28.6 – –
Mixture 5 14.2 – 28.6 28.6 28.6 – – –
Mixture 6 15.2 21.2 – 21.2 21.2 21.2 – –
Mixture 7 20.0 – – – – – – 80.0
Proportion was measured on a dry matter basis
a
Steam-exploded wheat straw, pretreatment conditions: 170C, 10 min, 3.0 L H2O

distillery at Starrein (Lower Austria). All substrates were
stored at 4C until further use.
Wheat straw (Triticum aestivum L.) samples were
obtained from field trials in the district of Steyr (Upper
Austria). Prior to steam explosion pretreatment and
anaerobic digestion, the straw was chopped into pieces of
5–10 cm by a crop chopper. Non-pretreated straw material
was ground to a particle size of 0.5–1.0 mm in an impact
mill (Büchi B400) prior to the digestion process.
Steam explosion pretreatment of straw in a batch
reactor
The pretreatment was performed at the Technologie und
Dienstleistungszentrum Ennstal (Upper Austria). Direct
steam injection of 1 kg of wheat straw was performed in a
15-L reactor. The procedure of steam pretreatment was
evaluated at 170C and a period of 10 min. Direct steam
injection of 1 kg of wheat straw was performed in a 15-L
batch reactor for 10 min at 20 bar and 170C. Subse-
quently, 3,000 g of water was added to the sample. The
temperature inside the reactor was monitored during the
pretreatment procedure. Pretreated straw samples were
stored under vacuum at 4C until further use.
Analytical methods
The investigations covered a wide range of parameters:
specific biogas and methane yield, biogas quality, ingre-
dient composition of substrates and elemental analyses.
Methane potentials of the investigated biomass variants
were determined in three replicates by anaerobic digestion
experiments carried out in accordance with VDI 4630
(2006) and DIN 38 414 (1985). In detail, eudiometer batch
digesters of 0.25-L capacity were used. The temperature
was set to 37.5C. Variants to be analysed and inoculum
were weighed out in a ratio of 1:3 (based on DM). The
amount of biogas produced was monitored on a daily basis.
Biogas production is given in norm litres per kilogram of
volatile solids (LN kg-1 VS). The determination of biogas
composition (CH4 and CO2) was performed by using the
Multiple Gas Analyzer #2 gas chromatograph (GC-SRI
Instruments) and the separating column FS-FFAP-CB,
df = 0.5 lm. Data given in tables and figures represent
means and standard deviations based on the performed
experiments.
The ingredient composition of investigated substrates
was determined by analysing the following parameters:
raw ash (XA), raw protein (XP), raw fat (XL), raw fibre
(XF), N-free-extracts, sugar and starch. Analyses were
carried out by the Laboratory for Animal Feed of the
Chamber of Agriculture in Rosenau (Lower Austria) using
standard procedures based on Naumann and Bassler (1993)
and Van Soest and Wine (1967). The mass loss during the
drying process of silages due to evaporation of volatile
substances was corrected by applying the formula of
Weißbach and Kuhla (1995).
Elemental analyses of all samples were performed
according to standard procedures (Theiner 2008) by the
Microanalytical Laboratory of the University of Vienna

123
156 A. Bauer et al.

using an Element-Analyzer of Perkin-Elmer (EA 1108
CHNS-O, Carlo Erba). Based on the results from elemental
analyses, the theoretical biogas and methane yields as well
as the concentrations of the trace gases ammonia and
hydrogen sulphide were estimated. The calculated methane
yield according to Boyle (1976) was used for balancing the
amount of carbon that was converted into methane during
anaerobic fermentation. The chemical composition of
mixtures was calculated on the basis of the compositions of
the single crops and the ratio of the single crops in the
mixture (see Table 1).
Development of energy- and biorefinery-based crop
rotation systems and calculation of their energy
potential
The site-specific and ecologically balanced crop rotation
system outlined in Table 2 was the basis for the develop-
ment of a balanced energy and a biorefinery-based crop
rotation system.
In the initial crop rotation, the crops were mainly used
for food production and their cropping distribution corre-
sponded to the portrayed region. In the energy-based crop
rotation system, all crops were designated for the produc-
tion of biogas or ethanol. Potatoes were replaced by
sorghum that like maize is a high yielding C4 crop. For
anaerobic digestion, the whole crop was used and con-
served as silage. Biomass yields are long-term mean values
Table 2 Initial crop rotation
Year Crop Utilisation
obtained from variety testing programmes at the research
site Fuchsenbigl of the Austrian Agency for Health and
Food Safety (AGES 2007), or from own field trials at the
research site Groß-Enzersdorf. Both sites feature compa-
rable soil and climate conditions (Fuchsenbigl: altitude,
147 m; average annual precipitation, 523 mm; average
annual temperature, 9.3C; soil type, Chernozem;
Groß-Enzersdorf: 153 m; 551 mm; 9.9C; Chernozem).
For the biorefinery-based crop rotation, the main prod-
ucts of the crops were used for food purposes. Corn yields,
given in dry matter per hectare, have been calculated from
literature data (AGES 2007) reduced by overall moisture
content. The moisture content was assumed to be 14% for
maize and cereals, and 8% for sunflower, respectively. The
amount of straw was calculated from corn yields by using
following corn–straw ratios: wheat and barley 1:0.8 (Freyer
2003), maize 1:1, (Holz and Koch 2008), sunflower 1:2.7
(Aufhammer 1998).
The results of the anaerobic digestion experiments and
the biomass yields obtained from literature were used for
the calculation of the energy yield per hectare. Therefore,
the specific ethanol yield was assumed to be 0.27 kg eth-
anol per kg wheat (KTBL 2005). The methane (ethanol)
yield per hectare was calculated by multiplying the bio-
mass yield with the specific methane yield (specific ethanol
yield). The energy yield per hectare was calculated by
multiplying the biomass yield with the calorific value of
methane, respectively, ethanol (specific ethanol yield).
Energy yields per hectare are given separately for each
crop and in total for the complete crop rotation as annual
averages.

1 Lucerne Green manure

2 Potato Industry Results and discussion
3 Summer barley Food
4 Maize Food
Chemical composition of substrates
5 Sunflower Food
6 Winter wheat Food
The chemical composition of the analysed substrates is
presented in Table 3. The dry matter content of the samples

Table 3 Chemical composition of single crops and mixtures

DM % FM XA % DM XP % DM XL % DM XF % DM XX % DM Starch Sugar
g kg-1 DM g kg-1 DM

Wheat stillage 5.0 5.0 29.6 12.8 7.4 45.2 83 12

Maize silage 27.7 5.1 10.0 2.5 25.8 56.6 203 7
Barley silage 22.6 8.1 8.5 2.4 35.8 45.2 0 6
Sunflower silage 24.7 9.5 10.6 11.5 27.0 41.9 19 7
Lucerne silage 27.1 7.9 14.7 3.5 31.4 42.5 66 5
Sorghum silage 19.4 7.2 9.4 2.6 34.1 46.7 2 4
Wheat straw 92.4 6.9 2.0 0.9 46.6 43.6 3 3
Pretreated wheat strawa 15.7 4.7 2.4 1.7 46.4 44.8 5 24
a
Steam-exploded wheat straw, pretreatment conditions: 170C, 10 min, 3.0 L H2O

123
Analysis of methane yields and estimation of energy potential from sustainable crop rotation systems 157

Table 4 Biogas and methane yields measured according to VDI 4630 (VDI 2006)
Biogas yield SD Methane yield SD Energy yieldb Theoretical methane Degree of
(LN kg-1 VS) (LN kg-1 VS) (MJ kg-1 DM) yieldc (LN kg-1 VS) degradationd (%)

Wheat stillage 766 – 419 – 15.8 510 82.2

Maize silage 673 13.7 345 7.0 13.0 442 77.9
Barley silage 717 15.4 375 8.1 13.7 449 83.6
Sunflower silage 630 6.3 345 3.4 12.4 488 70.6
Lucerne silage 654 9.8 357 5.3 13.1 455 78.5
Sorghum silage 672 18.1 362 9.7 13.4 449 80.6
Wheat straw 484 24.6 276 20.5 10.2 436 63.2
Pretreated wheat strawa 641 15.3 361 6.3 13.7 448 80.6
Mixture 1 654 32.2 353 17.3 13.3 454 77.6
Mixture 2 706 12.6 375 6.7 13.9 465 80.6
Mixture 3 681 8.9 387 5.1 14.3 466 82.9
Mixture 4 681 1.1 356 0.6 13.1 459 77.6
Mixture 5 695 5.8 385 3.2 14.1 471 81.8
Mixture 6 686 12.8 368 6.8 13.6 467 79.0
Mixture 7 692 28.2 371 16.5 14.0 496 74.8
a
Steam-exploded wheat straw, pretreatment conditions: 170C, 10 min., 3.0 L H2O
b
Energy yield 1 Nm3 CH4 = 39.79 MJ (Beitz and Küttner 1987)
c
Theoretical methane yield, according to Boyle (1976)  
d Methane yield according to VDI 4630 LN kg1 VS
Degree of degradation (%) ¼ 1
Theoretical methane yield LN kg VS

ranged from 5.0% (stillage) to 92.4% (straw). In the course
of the pretreatment, the dry matter content of straw
decreased from 92.4 to 15.7% due to the mixing of 1 kg
straw with 3 kg of water and the heating of the reactor by
direct steam injection. The dry matter content of energy
crop silages (maize, barley, sunflower, lucerne and sor-
ghum) varied between 19.4 and 27.1%. The analytical
results revealed a high raw protein and raw fat content for
wheat stillage and lucerne silage. The content of N-free
extracts ranged between 41.9 and 45.2% DM, and the raw
protein content of the other energy crops varied between
8.5 and 10.6% DM.
The theoretical specific biogas and methane yields were
calculated based on the elemental analysis results accord-
ing to the formula of Boyle (1976). Thereof, a specific
biogas yield in the range of 863–1,020 LN kg-1 VS, and a
specific methane yield from 436 to 510 LN kg-1 VS were
calculated. The calculated methane concentration in biogas
was between 51.0 and 54.4%. About 90–93% of the
methane potential estimated after Boyle (1976) could be
realised during anaerobic fermentation in batch digesters
(VDI 2006).
Methane potential of analysed crops and mixtures
The biogas and methane potential of analysed crops and
mixtures was determined in anaerobic batch experiments
(Table 4). The specific biogas yield of analysed substrates
ranged from 484 to 766 LN kg-1 VS, the specific methane
yield was between 276 and 419 LN kg-1 VS.
The high methane potential of wheat stillage
(419 LN kg-1 VS) resulted from the high content of raw
protein and high degree of degradation. About 82.2% of
the theoretical methane potential can be transformed in
methane by methanogenic bacteria. The specific methane
yield of all energy crop silages ranged from 345 to
375 LN kg-1 VS and the degree of degradation averaged at
78.2%. From sunflower silage only 70.6% of the theoretical
methane potential could be realised. This can be ascribed to
high amounts of ligno-cellulose complexes, already con-
tained in the plants at the time of harvesting, leading to an
incomplete degradation by the methanogenic bacteria
during fermentation (Amon et al. 2007).
Wheat straw showed a specific methane yield of
275 LN kg-1 VS. Previous studies have indicated lower
specific methane yields in the range of 162 to
241 LN kg-1 VS (Sharma et al. 1988; Møller et al. 2004).
The higher yield achieved in this experiment can be
attributed to a lower particle size of \1 mm (Torres-
Castillo et al. 1995). The theoretical methane yield of
pretreated wheat straw is about 448 LN kg-1 VS. An
assumed degradation degree of 80% in the digester results
in a theoretical specific methane yield of 360 LN kg-1 VS.
In our laboratory experiments, the specific methane yield of
pretreated wheat straw was found to be 361 LN kg-1 VS.
Therefore, pretreatment of straw by steam explosion

123
 158

123
Table 5 Biomass and energy yields of an exemplarily energy and biorefinery-based crop rotation system in Lower Austria
Year Energy-based crop rotation system Biorefinery system
a
Crop Utilisation Biomass Specific energy Energy yield Utilisation Biomassa Specific energy Energy yield
(t DM ha-1) yield (MJ kg-1 DM) (GJ ha-1 year-1) (t DM ha-1) yield (MJ kg-1 DM) (GJ ha-1 year-1)

1 Lucerne Biogas 14.7 13.1 192 Feed 14.7 – –

2 Sorghum Biogas 21.7* 13.4 290 Biogas 21.7 13.4 290
3 Summer barley corn Biogas (WPS) 9.9* 13.7 192 Food 5.2 – –
Summer barley strawb Biogas 4.2 13.7 57
4 Maize corn Biogas (WPS) 20.0 13.0 192 Food 9.6 – –
Maize strawb Biogas 9.6 13.7 131
5 Sunflower corn Biogas (WPS) 14.4* 12.4 192 Food 3.6 – –
b
Sunflower straw Biogas 9.7 13.7 133
6 Winter wheat corn Ethanol 5.9 7.2 42 Ethanol 5.9 7.2 42
Wheat stillage Biogas 2.3 15.8 36 Biogas 2.3 15.8 36
Winter wheat strawb Not used 4.7 – – Biogas 4.7 13.7 64
Mean ethanol yield per ha and year of whole crop rotation 7 7
Mean methane yield per ha and year of whole crop rotation 183 119
Mean total energy yield per ha and year of whole crop rotation 190 126
a
Biomass yields are long-time mean values (AGES 2007) or means obtained from own field trials*
b
Corn–straw ration: wheat and barley 1:0.8 (Freyer 2003), maize 1:1, (Holz and Koch 2008), sunflower 1:2.7 (Aufhammer 1998)
c
Specific energy yields: results of anaerobic digestion experiments in accordance with VDI (2006) in LN kg-1 VS; 1 Nm3 methane: 39.79 MJ (Beitz and Küttner 1987)
d
Specific ethanol yields: 0.27 kg ethanol per kg wheat corn (Gangl 2004): 1 kg ethanol = 26.8 MJ (KTBL 2005)
A. Bauer et al.
Analysis of methane yields and estimation of energy potential from sustainable crop rotation systems
increased the specific methane yield by 31% compared to
untreated straw.
The methane yield potential from feedstock mixtures
ranged from 353 to 387 LN kg-1 VS with mixtures 3 and 5
achieving the highest methane yields. The energy crops
contained in these mixtures can be produced in sustainable
crop rotation systems. Since no co-fermentation effects
were observed in the described experiments, the calculation
of the methane potential of the crop rotation system was
based on the methane yields of the single crops and by-
products.
Biorefinery system
In Table 5, the energy output potentials of an energy-based
crop rotation system and a biorefinery-based crop rotation
system are shown. The energy-based crop rotation used all
crops for energy production, mainly by anaerobic digestion
for which the whole crop can be used. Maize and sorghum
showed the highest biomass yields (20.0 respectively
21.7 t DM ha-1). Lucerne (14.7 t), sunflower (14.4 t) and
barley (9.9 t) are characterized by medium biomass yields.
Winter wheat is especially suited for the use in ethanol
production. The corn yield of wheat is about 5.9 t DM ha-1,
corresponding to a production of 1.6-t ethanol per hectare.
Additionally, a major by-product of ethanol production, the
stillage, can also be utilised for energy production. In the
pure energy system wheat straw remained on the field. The
total energy yield in terms of GJ ha-1 year-1 for the whole
crop rotation was 190 of which 4% (7 GJ ha-1 year-1) were
obtained in the form of ethanol and 96% (183 GJ ha-1
year-1) in the form of methane.
By combining the same crop rotation system with a
biorefinery approach (parallel production of food, feed, and
energy), a total energy yield of 126 GJ ha-1 year-1 could
be realised. Again, wheat corn was used for ethanol pro-
duction, while the corn of sunflower, maize and barley
were used as food. All by-products and remains of food and
ethanol production were used for anaerobic digestion. A
biogas plant fed with pretreated cereal straw, stillage from
ethanol production, and sorghum biomass can produce
119 GJ ha-1 year-1 of energy.
The total arable land in the EU-27 comprises about
108 Mha (EUROSTAT 2008). In reference to Bo Holm
Nielsen et al. (2007) we estimated that 20% of the arable
land can be used for energy crop production. Based on this
assumption, the average energy production was calculated
at 190 GJ ha-1 year-1 translating into an overall energy
production of 4,104 PJ year-1 for the EU-27 member
states. These figures are in accordance with the numbers
published by Bo Holm Nielsen et al. (2007).
Since food, feed and energy crops are produced in
parallel, the biorefinery-based crop rotation system can be
159
applied to the total arable land area. Therefore, the total
annual energy generation potential of the EU-27 member
states sums up to approximately 13,600 PJ. This is 3.3
times more than the total energy production from energy-
based systems.
In 2005, the final energy consumption within the EU-27
was 1,169 Mt of crude oil equivalent (COE). The energy
potential of the biorefinery-based crop rotation system
(13,608 PJ) corresponds to 325 Mt COE. Depending on
raw material and cropping system, between 7 and 37% of
the energy output are required as input for biogas pro-
duction (Gerin et al. 2007; Tricase and Lombardi 2009).
For our calculations, we assumed an energy input of 34%
for the production of biogas and 90% for the production of
ethanol (Ponton 2009). Therefore, biorefinery-based crop
rotation systems could cover about 17.5% of the final
energy consumption in EU-27.
Conclusions and outlook
Our results highlight the promising potential of renewable
energy produced by biorefinery-based crop rotation sys-
tems. This innovative approach could cover for close to
18% of the final energy consumption of the EU-27 member
states in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner.
Furthermore, the presented concept harmonizes the pro-
duction of food, feed and energy in form of biogas and
ethanol.
Following conclusions can be drawn from our findings:
• Sustainable energy production from agrarian biomass
should not be based on single crops, but rather on site-
adapted and environmentally friendly crop rotation
systems.
• Several agrarian remains and by-products, as well as
industrial waste products contain high energy potentials
that should be integrated into an energy production
concept.
• The specific energy yield of lignocellulosic biomass
like straw can be increased by pretreatment technolo-
gies. In the context of anaerobic digestion, steam
explosion pretreatment is likely the method of choice.
• Biorefinery-based crop rotation systems, which are
based on agrarian by-products and waste from biofuel
production as feedstock, provide significantly more
energy to the population of the EU-27 member states
than the more traditional energy-based crop rotation
systems.
In the years to come, the European population will
benefit from the implementation of full-scale integrated
biorefineries that will resort to newly available energy
crops and remains thereof. Biorefinery concepts will
123
160
concentrate on anaerobic digestion as key technology for
agrarian biomass-based energy production. They will allow
for a sustainable and high land productivity and they are
the prerequisite for conciliating the production of food,
feed, and energy.
Future biorefinery systems face the challenge of how to
incorporate various by-products from industry processes as
well as crop remains. The implementation of this concept
among other things relies on the application of pretreat-
ment technologies for lignocellulosic biomass.
The ecological impacts from production, transport, and
biomethanisation will have to be evaluated by LCA studies.
The scope of our study did not allow for this type of
assessment.
Research and development are of paramount importance
to the production of competitive and environmentally
sound biofuels. In the short term, successful efforts will
lead to an improvement of already available feedstock and
technologies. Our mid-term goal is the successful produc-
tion of second-generation biofuels (mainly from lignocel-
lulosic biomass).
Acknowledgments This project was carried out and financed within
the scope of the Austrian Program on Technologies for Sustainable
Development, ‘‘Energy systems of tomorrow’’. This program is an
initiative of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation
and Technology (BMVIT). Additional funding was provided by the
Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management.
References
AGES (2007) Austrian species list: agricultural crops. [Österreichi-
sche beschreibende Sortenliste: landwirtschaftliche Pflanzenar-
ten] Austrian Republic. Institute of Plant Varieties, Vienna
Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Machmüller A, Hopfner-Sixt K,
Bodiroza V, Hrbek R, Friedel J, Pötsch E, Wagentristl H,
Schreiner M, Zollitsch W (2007) Methane production through
anaerobic digestion of various energy crops grown in sustainable
crop rotations. Bioresour Technol 98:3204–3212. doi:10.1016/
j.biortech.2006.07.007
Aufhammer W (1998) Crop and other types of Cereal – Meaning, Use
and Cultivation | [Getreide und andere Körnerfruchtarten -
Bedeutung, Nutzung und Anbau]. UTB, Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart
Bauer A, Hrbek R, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Bodiroza V, Zollitsch
W, Liebmann B, Pfeffer M, Friedl A, Amon T (2007) Potential
of biogas production in sustainable biorefinery concepts. 15th
European biomass conference and exhibition, 7–11 May 2007.
In: Proceedings of the 15th EBCE, CD-Rom, OD 7.1, Italy and
WIP-Munich, Germany
Beitz W, Küttner KH (1987) Dubbel pocket-book for engineering.
(Dubbel Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau). Springer, Berlin
Bo Holm Nielsen J, Oleskowicz-Popiel P, Al Seadi T (2007) Energy
crop potentials for bioenergy in EU-27. 15th European biomass
conference and exhibition, 7–11 May 2007. In: Proceedings of
the 15th EBCE, CD-Rom, OD 1.3, Italy and WIP-Munich,
Germany
123
A. Bauer et al.
Boyle WC (1976) Energy recovery from sanitary landfills—a review.
In: Microbial energy conversion: the proceedings of a seminar,
Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp 119–138
CGEE (2007) LA-EU biofuels research workshop, final report. 23–27
April 2007. Centre for Strategic Studies and Management,
CGEE, Sao Paulo
Döhler H, Hartmann S, Eckel H (2006) Energy crop rotation,
materials cycles, soil fertility. (Energiefruchtfolgen, Sto-
ffkreisläufe, Bodenfruchtbarkeit): Fachtagung 5 Oktober 2006.
Bonn, Proceedings pp 65–78
European Commission (2006) Biofuels in the European Union—a
vision for 2030 and beyond. Final report of the Biofuels
Research Advisory Council. EUR 22066, Directorate-General
for Research Sustainable Energy Systems
EUROSTAT (2008) Europe in figures—Eurostat yearbook 2008.
European Communities, Luxembourg
FAO (2008) The State of Food and Agriculture 2008. Biofuels:
prospects, risks and opportunities. Agricultural Biotechnology-
meeting the needs of the poor Rome. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations
Fernando S, Adhikari S, Chandrapal C, Murali N (2006) Biorefin-
eries: current status, challenges, and future direction. Eng Fuels
20:1727–1737. doi:10.1021/ef060097w
Freyer (2003) Crop rotation. (Fruchtfolgen). Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart
Gangl (2004) Ethanol production from starch raw materials for fuel
purposes. (Ethanolherstellung aus stärkehaltigen Rohstoffen für
Treibstoffzwecke). Diploma Thesis, Institute of Agricultural and
Forestry Economics, University of Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences, Vienna
Gerin PA, Vliegen F, Jossart J-M (2007) Energy and CO2 balance of
maize and grass as energy crops for anaerobic digestion.
Bioresour Technol 99(7):2620–2627. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.
2007.04.049
Holz J, Koch H (2008) Key data for crop specific changes in soil
humus content in humus equivalent (kg humus-C) per hectare
and year. [Kennzahlen zur fruchtartspezifischen Veränderung
des Humusvorrates (Humusbedarf) des Bodens in Humusäqui-
valenten (kg Humuskohlenstoff) pro ha und Jahr]. Chamber of
Agriculture Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster. http://www.lk-wl.
de/fachangebot/ackerbau/pdf/tabellen-humus.pdf. 12 February
2009
Kamm B, Kamm M (2004a) Biorefinery-systems. Chem Biochem
Eng Q 18:1–6
Kamm B, Kamm M (2004b) Principles of biorefineries. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol doi:10.1007/s00253-003-1537-7
Karpenstein-Machan M (2005) Energy crop production for biogas
plant operators. (Energiepflanzenbau für Biogasanlagenbetrei-
ber). DLG-Verlags GmbH, Frankfurt am Main
KTBL (2005) Key data for agriculture. (Faustzahlen für die Land-
wirtschaft). Kuratorium für Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V,
Darmstadt
Leonhartsberger C, Bauer A, Lyson D, Kryvoruchko V, Bodiroza V,
Milovanovic D, Friedel JK, Rinnhofer T, Amon T (2008)
Sustainable biogas production through the integration of high-
yielding and site-adapted energy crops into crop rotation
systems. In: 18th international congress of chemical and process
engineering, 24–28 August 2008, summaries vol 4, PRES2008
Prag; ISBN: 978-80-02-02051-6
Liebmann B, Pfeffer M, Wukovits W, Bauer A, Amon T, Gwehen-
berger G, Narodoslawsky M, Friedl A (2007) Modelling of
small-scale bioethanol plants with renewable energy supply.
10th Conference on process integration, modelling and optimi-
sation for energy saving and pollution reduction, PRES 2007,
ISBN: 88-901915-4-6, Chem Eng Trans12:309–314
Analysis of methane yields and estimation of energy potential from sustainable crop rotation systems
Mitchell D (2008) A note on rising food prices. Policy research
working paper. 4682. The World Bank Development prospect
Group, Washington, DC
Møller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK (2004) Methane productivity of
manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biom Bioeng doi:
10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.008
Naumann C, Bassler R (1993) Chemical analysis of feeds. (Die
chemische Untersuchung von Futtermittel), 3rd edn. VDLUFA,
Darmstadt
Ponton JW (2009) Biofuels: thermodynamic sense and nonsense.
J Clean Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.003
Sharma SK, Mishra IM, Sharma MP, Saini JS (1988) Effect of
particle size on biogas generation from biomass residues.
Biomass. doi:10.1016/0144-4565(88)90107-2
Sims R, Taylor M, Saddler J, Mabee W (2008) From 1st to 2nd
generation biofuel technologies. An overview of current industry
and RD&D activities–report. International Energy Agency, Paris
Smith W (2005) The biorefinery concept: a platform for the delivery
of renewable chemicals. Manuscript, National Non-Food Crops
Centre
DIN standard (1985) 38 414-8: German standard methods for the
examination of water, waste water and sludge; sludge and
sediments (group S): determination of the amenability to
anaerobic digestion. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V,
Berlin, p 8
161
Theiner J (2008) Elemental C/H/N/S Analysis/2009. Internal standard.
Microanalytical Laboratory, University of Vienna, Vienna, Aus-
tria. http://www.univie.ac.at/Mikrolabor/ind_eng.htm. Accessed
12 February 2009
Torres-Castillo R, Llabres-Luengo P, Mata-Alvarez J (1995) Tem-
perature effect on anaerobic digestion of bedding straw in a one-
phase system at different inoculum concentration. Agric Ecosys
Env. doi:10.1016/0167-8809(95)00592-G
Tricase C, Lombardi M (2009) State of the art and prospects of Italian
biogas production from animal sewage: technical-economic
considerations. Renew Energy doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.06.013
Van Soest PJ, Wine RH (1967) Use of detergents in the analysis of
fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents.
J Assoc Off Agric Chem 50:50–55
VDI (2006) VDI standard 4630: fermentation of organic materials.
Characterisation of substrate, sampling, collection of material
data, fermentation tests. VDI association, energy technology
Weißbach F, Kuhla S (1995) Substance losses in determining the dry
matter content of silage and green fodder: arising errors and
possibilities of correction. (Stoffverluste bei der Bestimmung des
Trockenmassegehaltes von Silagen und Grünfutter: Möglichke-
iten der Korrektur). Animal feeding 3 [Übers. Tierernährung 23],
pp 189–214
123