IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Feasibility Study on the Production of Biogas in Dairy Farming

To cite this article: A B D Nandiyanto et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 288 012024

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 185.158.106.221 on 26/01/2018 at 01:05

The 2nd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 (2017) 012024 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012024
1234567890

Feasibility Study on the Production of Biogas in Dairy

Farming

A B D Nandiyanto1*, R Ragadhita1, A C Maulana1 and A G Abdullah2

1
Departemen Kimia, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi no 229,
Bandung 40154, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
2
Departemen Pendidikan Teknik Elektro, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr.
Setiabudi no 229, Bandung 40154, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

*[email protected]

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility study on the development of
biogas in dairy farming. In short of the production process, the biogas was produced by
utilizing waste from dairy farming industry (i.e. cow’s manure and cassava peel). The
production of biogas was analyzed from engineering perspective with several economic
evaluation parameters, including gross profit margin, internal rate return, payback period, net
present value, and so on. The engineering analysis result showed that the production of biogas
is prospective using current technologies. Mass balance calculation showed that 1 kg of cow’s
manure supported with 0.30 kg of cassava peal waste from cows’ leftover can be converted
into near to 0.20 kg of biogas. Assuming 1700 kg of cow’s manure per month, the production
of more than 300 kilograms of biogas can be obtained, showing the excellent prospect for
solving the environmental issues in dairy farming industries. In the economic evaluation, the
result showed that direct conversion of biogas is not profitable. To confirm the potentiality of
the biogas project for being applied in industrial uses, three types of projects were compared,
including production of “biogas only”, “fresh milk production only”, and “combination of
biogas and fresh milk production”. The result suggested that to get project profitable, the
biogas production must be applied with the dairy farming such as milk production. Moreover,
the profitability analysis of this “combination between biogas and fresh milk production” is
higher than that of “fresh milk production only”. Since the biogas production can give
excellent benefit on both profit and solving environmental issues in dairy farming industries,
further developments from this study must be done.

1. Introduction
Dairy farming is one of the largest agroindustries in Indonesia. This industry mainly focuses on the
production of fresh milk, this type of industry mainly produces daily 10 liters/cattle that only satisfies
one fourth of the national demand for fresh milk [1], making the Indonesian government to patch the
leak by import. Indeed, this circumstance encourages more farmers and industries to increase the
production.
The development in the agroindustrial sector gives beneficial effects for not only human but
also surrounding environment. This can be found in the increases in the number and the types of
pollutants from the industrial sector and then into the environment [2]. In spite of the demand of
the milk production, the boost in the dairy industry meets problems, especially in huge amount of

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 2nd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 (2017) 012024 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012024
1234567890

waste, including cows’ manure and cassava peel from cows’ leftover. Cassava is typically used as the
main food for cow in addition to grass. Direct disposal these wastes create problems in water and air
pollutions, contaminating water, changing ecosystem, giving dust and smelly air condition. [3,4]. One
of the prospective methods to remove waste element in the waste water treatment is a membrane bio
filter [4]. Thus, methods for solving these problems are inevitable.
One of the effective treatments for solving wastes from dairy farming industry is biogas production
[5], through the fermentation process to decompose organic matter through anaerobic fermentation
conditions (See Figure 1). When using dairy farming waste, the process is assisted by a
microorganism from cows’ manure itself. To obtain optimum condition for microorganism to work
optimal, the fermentation process must be conducted at temperature of between 30oC and 35oC [6].
The fermentation produces mostly methane and carbon dioxide. Then, the quality of the product
depends on the organic waste used. Thus, when using kitchen waste, garden, cow manure, and
domestic waste as a main source for the fermentation process, biogas in different qualities and
quantities will be generated [7]. Methane is the major component of natural gas [8]
Biogas is an excellent energy source due to its excellent burning process. Biogas is flammable and
its burning process does not produce smoke as produced by fuel oil or natural gas [3]. Although the
biogas is potential to be used for alternative energy, this energy source can be ignited only when
having a methane level of at least 57% [9,10]. Thus, additional treatment to purify as well as
increasing the methane level must be added in the production process.
Here, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility study on the biogas production based
on the dairy farming industry. Biogas was made from a mixture of cows’ manure and cows’ leftover
(e.g. tapioca liquid waste). The production of biogas was evaluated from engineering perspective with
several economic evaluation parameters, including gross profit margin (GPM), internal rate return
(IRR), payback period (PBP), cumulative net present value (CNPV), breakeven point (BEP),
profitability index (PI) on sales to investment. Optimization of the process for gaining excellent profit
but at the same time solving the environmental issues was done. Indeed, this study will give beneficial
information for further development.

2. Methods
In this preliminary plant design, biogas is produced from a mixture of cows’ manure and tapioca liquid
waste. Tapioca liquid waste was produced from cassava peel as a cows’ leftover. The product of
biogas was methane gas that is potentially used for energy source. The design of the reactor is used as
a medium-scale design, in which detailed designed processes are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flow Chart for the Production of Biogas

To support economic analysis, the data collection process for economic evaluation is based on the
average price in the online shopping web. All data are then calculated by a simple mathematical

2
The 2nd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 (2017) 012024 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012024
1234567890

analysis. The production of biogas with various conditions, whether combined with fresh milk
production or not, was tested. The biogas production was analyzed with several economic evaluation
parameters, including GPM, IRR, PBP, CNPV, BEP, and PI sales to investment.

3. Results and discussion

Figure 1. shows the processing chart for the production of biogas based on cow’s manure and tapioca
liquid waste. As discussed in the above, tapioca liquid waste was obtained from cows’ leftover. The
process can be explained in the following. First, tapioca liquid waste and cows’ manure with a ratio of
1: 3 was used. Then, the mixture was put into digester tank via a small inlet pipe. The digester tank is a
closed system tank. The optimum condition was fixed at 30 – 35oC to get excellent production. Inside
the digester tank, microorganisms from the cow manure do fermentation process for reshuffling the
organic component into methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In general, the fermentation in the
digester occurs in several steps: hydrolysis, acidification, and methane gas formation.
The first step is the hydrolysis of organic material via bacterial fermentation. Long-chain organic
material (e.g. complex carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) breaks into short-chain components.
The second step is acidification, in which the bacteria produce acids for converting short chain
compounds from the hydrolysis step into acetic acid. To maintain the pH condition in the range of 7
and 8, buffer must be added. In addition to acetic acid, alcohols, organic acids, amino acids,
dihydrogen sulfide (H2S), CH4, hydrogen (H2), and CO2 are also produced. Additionally, since the
bacteria also live in acidic circumstance and require oxygen to produce acetic acid, some oxygen gas
must be added into the digester. The third step is the methane gas formation using bacteria
fermentation, known as methanogenesis. The process converts acetic acid into CH4 and CO2. The
reaction is described as [11]:
CH3COOH CH4 + CO2 (1)
2H2 + CO2 CH4 + 2H2O (2)
The final product in the anaerobic fermentation process is a mixture of CH4 (55 - 75%), CO2 (25 -
45%), H2 (1 - 5%), and other gases such as H2S (0 - 3%). Since the content of CO2 in biogas is still
very large, digester product cannot be used directly.
Thus, to reduce CO2, the product from digester is introduced into NaOH solution. NaOH was
selected due this material is relatively cheap, easy accessible, and non-toxic [12]. The process is
conducted in the absorption-separator column, in which the digester product is bubbled from the
bottom of the column. CO2 is absorbed, while CH4 is released to the top of the column. The reaction
during the CO2 absorption process can be written as [13]:
CO2(g) CO2(g) (3)
CO2(g) + NaOH(aq) NaHCO3(aq) (4)
NaOH(aq) + NaHCO3(aq) Na2CO3 (s) + H2O(l) (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2(g) + NaOH(aq) Na2CO3(s) + H2O(l) (4)
Finally, after the absorption process, the product can be utilized for commercial uses.
Based on the above processes (Figure 1), calculating the mass balance can be done with several
assumptions:
1. Cleaned peel cassava contains 35% of dry matter [14].
2. 1000 kilograms of cleaned peel cassava can produce 514 kilograms of liquid waste [14].
3. One cow can produce 25 kilograms of cows’ manure per day [15]. Thus, taking 3 cows in the
dairy farming industry will create 2250 kilograms of cow manure per month.
4. The efficiency of cows in generating manure is about 50%. If there is an excess in manure, the
manure itself will be dumped and buried into the land.
5. The conversion of biogas from the cow manure is 75%. Thus, total production of biogas from 6
cows (adding efficiency of manure generation) is 16875 kilograms per month.
6. The biogas produced from digester contains CH4, CO2, and H2O of 60, 35, and 0.30%,
respectively [16], and the rest is omitted as organic components.

3
The 2nd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 (2017) 012024 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012024
1234567890

7. Losses gained from mechanical process are 5%.

Based on the above assumptions, a mixture of 500 kg of tapioca liquid waste and 1678 kg of cows’
manure can generate 315 kg of methane per month. Then, putting the methane into a gas tube with a
volume of 3 kg per bottle can produce 105 gas tubes. And the reason for the tapioca liquid waste was
chosen because of it can be easily obtained from turmeric, which is commonly used and largely
available in Asia [12].
Analysis of the gross profit margin is presented in Table 1. This table compared three possible
routes: “biogas only”, “fresh milk production only”, and “combination of biogas and fresh milk
production”. Various gross profit margin values were obtained, in which the highest value was for the
“combination of biogas and fresh milk production” project. The production of “biogas only” will
create unprofitable project since all the raw materials must be provided and purchased.

Table 1. Estimated GPM for various projects relating to biogas from Dairy Farming industry
Type of project GPM (USD)
Biogas only USD 2874
Fresh Milk production only USD 20148
Combination of Biogas and Fresh Milk USD 24457
production

Based on the above engineering perspective gained from mass balance calculation, the process is
feasible for industry. Further, scaling up process of this project will give more benefits. However,
further economic evaluation must be added. Indeed, several assumptions for economic evaluation must
be made:
1. The length of the project operation is 20 years with the total TIC of 85791 USD for converting
3780 kg of cow’s manure per year.
2. The labor wage is 2040 USD annually, and the biogas production plant employs 2 labors.
3. The discounted rate in this project is 15%.
4. The income tax is 10%.
5. The project does not progress with loan from bank.
6. The sales of biogas only, fresh milk production only, and combination of biogas and milk
production are 2898 USD, 22995 USD, and 25893USD.
7. Using 1 USD conversion equal to Rp 10000.

Analysis of CNPV informing the relationship between selection of the processes and the
potentiality of the project to be applied in practical uses. The CNPV suggested that the production of
“biogas only” results in the unprofitable project, whereas the “combination of biogas and milk
production” is the best. Analysis of payback period confirmed that the production of biogas is not
worth, while those of “fresh milk production only” and “combination of biogas and milk production”
have 7 and 6 years for regaining the initial investment fund. The main problems for the unprofitable
project of “biogas only” are because the profit from the sale of biogas is so small. Thus it is not
enough to meet other unexpected costs. The boost of profit was obtained when applying project of
“combination of biogas and milk production”, in which was higher than that of “fresh milk production
only”. This is because the project has sales advantage of a combination of fresh milk and biogas is
large enough to meet the cost of other unexpected needs. Analysis of CNPV for the production of
biogas and fresh milk shown in Figure 2 different types of curves were obtained.

4
The 2nd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 (2017) 012024 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012024
1234567890

Figure 2. The CNPV in the year of production for various types of projects

To confirm the profitability analysis of the project, other economic analyses were also done (See
Table 2). This table shows in detail PI sales to investment, IRR, BEP, and last CNPV on the project.

Table 2. Analysis of IRR, BEP, and last CNPV on the project

Type of project PI to investment IRR (Percent BEP Last CNPV/TIC
Discounted Rate)
Biogas Only 0% 300% N/A 0%
Fresh milk 29% 300% 1 28%
production only
Combination of 38% 300% 1 37%
Biogas and milk
production

In the case of BEP, the “biogas only” is unprofitable. The BEP analysis for “fresh milk production”
needed 84 times of the production cycles, whereas that for “combination of biogas and fresh milk
production” is 72 times of the production cycles. Then, these profitability analyses were supported by
PI sales to investment, in which the “fresh milk production only” and “combination of biogas and milk
production” was 33 and 42%, respectively. The latest CNVP for both projects were also magnificent
with values of USD 9457 and 12546, respectively. Based on this analysis, “combination of biogas and
milk production” is more profitable than “fresh milk production only” and “biogas only”. The IRR can
be obtained when the CNPV is zero, in which this will be 300% of discount rates. Meanwhile the total
investment cost for production for “biogas only” and “combination biogas and milk production” is
USD 33541, whereas investment cost for production “fresh milk production only” is USD 32653,
which show that project is unprofitable by investment. The reason of this happening is due production
uses conventional method and the production is inefficiency.

4. Conclusion
Biogas production in dairy farming industry has been evaluated from engineering perspective and
economic feasibility study. Engineering perspective showed that the biogas production is potentially
done using current technology. However, the economic evaluation showed different views. The
production of “biogas only” is incompatible for practical uses since it results unprofitable project. To

5
The 2nd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 (2017) 012024 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012024
1234567890

improve the potentiality of the biogas project, the present study compared three types of projects,
including “biogas only”, “fresh milk production only”, and “combination of biogas and fresh milk”.
The result showed that when the biogas production is applied with the dairy farming such as milk
production, advantageous production is obtained. Moreover, the profitability analysis of this
combination between biogas and milk production is higher than that of milk production only. The
main reason for the excellent profitability for combination of biogas and fresh milk is because the
sales advantage of a combination of fresh milk and biogas is large enough to meet the cost of other
unexpected needs. Since the biogas can give excellent benefit on both profit and solving
environmental issues in dairy farming industries, further development from this study must be done.

References

[1] Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan 2007 Statistik Peternakan Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan
Departemen Pertanian RI Jakarta
[2] Anshar A M, Taba P & Raya I 2016 Kinetic and Thermodynamics Studies the Adsorption of
Phenol on Activated Carbon from Rice Husk Activated by ZnCl2 Indonesian Journal of
Science and Technology 1 1 47-60
[3] Ghose T K 1980 Methane from integrated biological systems Food and Nutrition Bulletin 2 3
36-40
[4] Sulastri A and Rahmidar L 2016 Fabrication of Biomembrane from Banana Stem for Lead
Removal Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology 1 1 115-131
[5] Elizabeth R and Rusdiana S 2011 Efektivitas Pemanfaatan Biogas sebagai Sumber Bahan
Bakar dalam Mengatasi Biaya Ekonomi Rumah Tangga di Pedesaan Bogor: Pusat Sosial
Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian
[6] Ginting N 2007 Penuntun Praktikum: Teknologi Pengolahan Limbah Peternakan Departemen
Peternakan, Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Sumatera Utara
[7] Indarto K E 2010 Prouksi biogas limbah cair industri tapioka melalui peningkatan suhu dan
penambahan urea pada perombakan anaerob (Doctoral dissertation Universitas Sebelas
Maret)
[8] Andika R and Valentina V 2016 Techno-economic Assessment of Coal to SNG Power Plant in
Kalimantan Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology 1 2 156-169
[9] Hammad S M D 1999 Integrated environmental and sanitary engineering project at Mirzapur
Journal of Indian Water Work Association 28 231-236
[10] Hessami M A, Christensen S and Gani R 1996 Anaerobic digestion of household organic waste
to produce biogas Renewable Energy 9 1-4 954-957
[11] Yazid M and Bastianudin A 2011 Selekesi Mikroba Metanogenik Menggunakan Irradiasi
Gamma Untuk Peningkatan Efisiensi Proses Digesti Anaerob Pembentukan Biogas
GANENDRA Majalah IPTEK Nuklir 14 1
[12] Nandiyanto A B D, Sofiani D, Permatasari N, Sucahya T N, Wiryani A S, Purnamasari A, Rusli
A and Prima E C 2016 Photodecomposition profile of organic material during the partial
solar eclipse of 9 march 2016 and its correlation with organic material concentration and
photocatalyst amount Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology 1 2 132-155
[13] Aspriandi N, Kusuma I W & Widiyarta I M 2017 Pemurnian Biogas Terhadap Gas Pengotor
Karbondioksida (CO2) Dengan Teknik Kolom Manometer (Manometry Column) LOGIC 13
1 55
[14] Tjokroadikoesoemo P S 1988 HFS dan industri ubi kayu lainnya Gramedia
[15] Widyastuti F R, Purwanto P and Hadiyanto H 2013 Potensi Biogas Melalui Pemanfaatan
Limbah Padat Pada Peternakan Sapi Perah Bangka Botanical Garden Pangkal Pinang
METANA 9 02
[16] Deublein D and Steinhauster A 2008 Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources an
Introduction WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA Weinheim