




































Global Sustainability Research                                             ISSN: 2833-986X                                                 
https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v2i2.518 

                                                                  

 
 

Global Scientific Research        58 
 

RESEARCH ARTICLE  

Effects of using P.juliflora leaves as additive in anaerobic digestion of poultry wastes 

Josiah O. Babatola1, Olalekan Olotu1, Ayoola E. Awode1*, Adedeji Adelodun2 

1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Engineering Technology, The Federal 

University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria 
2Department of Marine Science and Technology, School of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Federal University of 

Technology, Akure, Nigeria 

 

Corresponding author: Ayoola E. Awode: awodeae@futa.edu.ng 

Received: 28 May, 2023, Accepted: 18 June, 2023, Published: 23 June, 2023 

 

Abstract 

This study explores the influence of P.juliflora leaves as an additive in the anaerobic digestion of poultry droppings from 

layers and broilers. Six digesters (A, B, C, D, E, and F) were used with a retention time of 31 days. The dry weight content 

of the digesters include: 100% layer wastes (control), 100% broiler wastes (control), 95% layer wastes + 5% P. juliflora 

leaves, 90% layer wastes + 10% P. juliflora leaves, 95% broiler wastes + 5% P. juliflora leaves, and 90% broiler wastes + 

10% P. juliflora leaves. Layer wastes plus 5% Prosopis Juliflora created 18% more biogas than layer wastes alone, and layer 

wastes plus 10% Prosopis Juliflora produced 22% more biogas than layer wastes alone, which was the control set-up. In 

comparison to digester broiler wastes alone, broiler wastes plus 5% and broiler wastes plus 10% both produced 20% and 

24% more biogas, respectively. In conclusion, adding 5 and 10 percent of Prosopis Juliflora to poultry manure from layers 

or broilers has significantly increased the generation of biogas. Broiler wastes plus 10% Prosopis Juliflora yielded the most 

amount of methane and least amount of hydrogen sulfide, which makes it the most suitable substrate. 

Keywords: biogas; renewable energy; digester; additive  

Introduction 

The recent worldwide rapid population growth, along with 

the depletion of natural resources, has resulted in a 

significant increase in fuel prices. This has motivated a 

number of countries to investigate renewable and 

alternative sources of energy in order to fulfil their rising 

energy demands (Ajiboye et al., 2018). Reliance on 

traditional energy sources such as coal and petroleum has 

resulted in ecological imbalance, climate change, health 

risks, and resource depletion (Aragaw & Andargie, 2013). 

As a result, renewable energy sources such as solar power, 

biogas, biodiesel, wind power, and tidal power have 

emerged as the energy revolution's vanguard (Islam, 2012). 

Due to the continued use of fossil fuels and their associated 

environmental impact, particularly the influence of 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the environment, research 

focusing on the creation of alternative fuels from biological 

sources has expanded. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the 

principal cause of growing GHG emissions in the 

atmosphere. Notably, worldwide energy demand is 

continually increasing, with fossil fuels still accounting for 

around 88% of total energy output today (UNEP, 2014). 

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a promising, low-energy, and 

ecologically friendly technique. Recent research has shown 

that biogas produced using AD has significant advantages 

over other bioenergy sources (Nishio and Nakashimada, 

2007). When opposed to fossil fuels, AD technology can 

dramatically cut GHG emissions by utilizing readily 

available resources. Furthermore, digestate, a byproduct of 

this method, is an ideal alternative to mineral fertilizers in 

crop cultivation. AD converts organic waste such as 

manure, food scraps, sludge, and agricultural leftovers into 

biogas in the absence of oxygen (Iqbal et al., 2014). Due to 

its minimal ecological impact (Esposito et al., 2012) and 

great energy recovery potential (Carrère, 2010), the AD 

process is preferred for transforming trash into fuel. Biogas 

from AD has significant advantages over other bioenergy 

production technologies, and it has the potential to replace 

fossil fuels (Ofoefule et al., 2010). 

mailto:awodeae@futa.edu.ng


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        59 
 

The anaerobic digestion of organic material produces 

biogas, which is mostly made of methane. Because the 

anaerobic degradation process is comparable to the 

underwater decomposition of organic material in wetlands, 

biogas is sometimes referred to as “marsh gas” or “swamp 

gas” (IBA, 2016). Biogas is a colorless, combustible gas 

made up of 50-70% methane and 20-40% carbon dioxide, 

with traces of nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia, hydrogen 

sulphide, and water vapor (Lasisi and Ojomo, 2017). 

Biogas, a critical component of the carbon biogeochemical 

cycle, is naturally produced and can be used as an 

alternative energy source (Energypedia, 2016). 

The current study seeks to assess the biogas yield of 

increased anaerobic digestion of two distinct breeds of 

chicken manure using Prosopis Juliflora. The study's 

objectives include: the design and construction of medium-

sized digesters for waste decomposition, the analysis of the 

physio-chemical and microbiological properties of chicken 

droppings and Prosopis Juliflora, the evaluation of both the 

daily and overall cumulative yield of biogas, and the 

comparison of enhanced Prosopis Juliflora and non-

enhanced biogas yield from various digesters. 

 

Literature Review 

Despite the economic and environmental benefits of 

producing biogas from various biological wastes utilising 

AD technology, the search for more inexpensive, 

renewable, and sustainable energy sources is pressing due 

to rising fuel costs (Fantozzi & Buratti, 2011). The poultry 

sector is a major source of worry, as waste from daily 

chicken feed is frequently used as organic manure. With 

the growing number of chickens grown in Nigeria, there is 

a pressing need to investigate alternate energy sources in 

order to mitigate the negative effects (Ekka et al., 2016). 

Several researchers have concentrated on producing biogas 

from a wide range of widely available agricultural and 

environmental wastes that are damaging to the 

environment (Awode et al., 2022). Although anaerobic 

digestion of biodegradable waste is thought to be a 

promising source of renewable energy, it has certain 

drawbacks. These include the slow decomposition of 

complex organic waste and the presence of carbon dioxide 

and hydrogen sulphide in the biogas produced (Wang et al., 

2023). Before biogas can be utilized as fuel, these 

components must be eliminated.  

However, the introduction of Prosopis juliflora during the 

anaerobic digestion process could significantly alleviate 

these restrictions, potentially increasing biogas generation 

while decreasing carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide 

emissions. Prosopis juliflora (P. juliflora) is a non-

traditional feed resource that has been investigated for its 

potential as an addition in the anaerobic digestion of 

poultry wastes. Prabhu et al. (2021) evaluated the 

anaerobic digestion of several biomass wastes, including P. 

juliflora leaves, and discovered that P. juliflora pods 

produced the most biogas. Samadi et al. (2022) studied the 

co-digestion of poultry abattoir and vegetable wastes and 

discovered that a C/N ratio of 25:1 was ideal for biogas 

production. However, no particular research on the effects 

of employing P. juliflora leaves as an addition in anaerobic 

digestion of chicken wastes were found. Rajagopal et al. 

(2021) explored the combination of microalgae cultivation 

and anaerobic digestion of poultry wastes and discovered 

that the liquid digestate obtained after the digestion process 

may be used as a substrate for microalgae growth. The 

study employed various liquid digestate dilutions for 

microalgae growth and discovered that Chlorella vulgaris 

CPCC 90 could grow and utilize nutrients from a 10% 

diluted chicken manure digestate. Awode et al. (2022) 

evaluated the effect of biochar as a supplement on the 

anaerobic digestion of layer and grill poultry droppings. 

The biogas from the digester with the highest biochar 

content produced the most methane while creating the least 

hydrogen sulphide. According to the findings of this study, 

biochar can be utilized as a supplement to improve the 

efficiency of anaerobic digestion of poultry manure. 

Hakimi et al. (2021) explored the co-anaerobic digestion of 

chicken manure with sawdust and local herbs such as serai 

wangi, peppermint, and orange peel waste as biogas 

additions.  According to the findings of this study, 

traditional herbs can be utilized as supplements to improve 

the effectiveness of anaerobic digestion of poultry manure. 

As a result, the current study makes an important 

contribution to the body of information on improving 

biogas production from poultry waste utilizing Prosopis 

juliflora. 

 

Methodology 

 

Materials  

The construction of the digesters was done with: six black 

plastic kegs of 25 L capacity each (they served  as the main 

digester chambers), six catheter bags of 500 ml (was used 

to collect the biogas produced), flexible rubber hose (were 

used to connect the catheter bags to the digesters), 12.5 mm 

back nuts, stop corks, 12.5 mm pipes, PVC gum (all used 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        60 
 

for both the inlet and outlet of the digesters), thermometer, 

pH meter, weighing scale and syringe,  (all used for various 

parameter’s measurement), and  Prosopis juliflora obtained 

from school farm are the waste to be used.  

Digester Design considerations 

In achieving one of the objectives of this research, some 

parameters were considered in designing and constructing 

effective and efficient digesters. The parameters include 

operating volume, digester volume and digester 

construction. They are briefly explained below. 

Operating Volume 

When a fixed amount of water is added to a known amount 

of feedstock, the operational volume of the digester is just 

the volume of slurry ratio in the digestion (Babatola, 2008, 

Ajiboye et al., 2018). For optimal digestion operation, it is 

common practice to use a digester whose total volume is 

less than the total volume of the slurry. According to 

Ahmadu et al. (2009), the operating volume of a digester is 

determined on the basis of a chosen retention time and the 

daily substrate input quantity of the operating volume is 

expressed in equation 1. 

Vo =  Sd  × RT (m3/day × number of days) 

  (1) 

Where: 

Vo is the operating volume of digester, 

Sd is the daily substrate input and, 

RT is the retention time, which is the interval of time the 

mixed slurry is allowed to decompose in the digester.  

Digester Volume 

The volume of a digester is equal to the volume of the 

substrate container, whether the container is prefabricated 

or ready-made. The number of ready-made 25-l containers 

is what constitutes the digester volume in this case. The 

digester capacity, also known as the total volume, must be 

more than the operational volume to accommodate the 

expansion of the slurry and the creation of biogas during 

fermentation. Slurry rise and biogas production require at 

least 20% of the total volume of the digester, which is why 

Ahmadu et al. (2009) and Otun et al. (2015) claimed that 

this volume should not exceed 80% of the total capacity of 

the digester. The total volume VT is thus given in equation 

2.  

VT = V0  × 1.25                                                                        (2) 

Digester Construction  

Each of the 25-liter containers had a hole drilled into its top 

and two holes drilled onto its sides. The top holes were 

roughly 1.5 centimeters in diameter. It was determined that 

a hose with an external diameter of 1.5 cm would be used 

to link the digester to the gas collection chamber 

(Catheter), while a hose with an interior diameter of 0.9 cm 

would be used for this purpose. Each keg had an additional 

hole cut in its base with a diameter of 4.1 centimeters; this 

hole served as the exit from which the slurry used in the pH 

measurement was drawn. Each digester was outfitted with 

a thermometer that read daily temperatures. The entire bio-

digester system was made airtight by using rubber tubes 

and glue to seal any perforations.  

Sourcing and Collection of Materials 

The digester component materials were all procured from 

Oja-Oba market in Akure, Nigeria. Chicken manures for 

the two breeds (Layers and Broilers) were collected from 

the Agricultural research farm of the Federal University of 

Technology, Akure (FUTA), Nigeria.  

Pre-treatment of Waste Specimens 

These chicken manures were collected in black sealed 

polythene bags to preserve their original moisture. Pre-

treatment was initiated at the point of collection, and it 

includes sorting, reduction in particle size and addition of 

water. Pre–treatment is done to enhance degradation of 

volatile solids, thus increasing biogas yield. 

Sample Preparation and Loading of Digester 

 The samples were prepared by mixing the manure of each 

chicken breed in varying component using 50:50 (10 L of 

water +10 kg of poultry waste) for control sample A and 

D, 45:5:50 (10 L of water + 10 kg of poultry waste + 1 kg 

of prosopis Juliflora) for sample B and E, 40:10:50 (10 L 

of water + 10 kg of poultry waste + 2 kg of prosopis 

Juliflora) for sample C and F. The composition of the 

mixtures is shown in Table 1. The mixtures will each be 

loaded into the Six 25 liters digester fabricated. Thereafter, 

the set-ups were arranged well for digestion for 30 days. To 

ensure optimal digestion of substrate and to forestall the 

buildup of scum and layers that could kill off the bacteria 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        61 
 

and limit biogas generation, the digesters were manually 

agitated at regular intervals. Each digester had a gas 

cylinder attached to its outlet, capturing the biogas it 

produced. 

 

 

 

 

 

Result And Discussions 

Sample Pre-Analysis 

The analyses of the poultry waste consisting of the layer 

waste (LW) and broiler waste (BW) and their mixtures 

with Prosopis Juliflora in different ratios was carried out in 

the laboratory to determine their physico-chemical 

properties. Table 2 shows the moisture content, volatile 

solid, total solid concentration and the different 

constituents of the wastes such as ash, fat, crude protein, 

carbon content, nitrogen content.  

Table 1: Detailed Composition of Each Mixture  

Mixtures Digester Label Type of Enhancement 

CM Type 1  A Non Enhanced 

CM Type 1 + P.juliflora  B Enhanced with P.juliflora leaves (5%) 

CM Type 1 + P.juliflora C Enhanced with P.juliflora leaves (10%) 

CM Type 2  D Non Enhanced 

CM Type 2 + P.juliflora E Enhanced with P.juliflora leaves (5%) 

CM Type 2 + P.juliflora F Enhanced with P.juliflora leaves (10%) 

 

Table 2: Physico-chemical properties of the fresh poultry waste 

Parameters Digesters 

  A B C D E F 

Moisture (%) 69.5 53.4 63.4 68.3 58.2 52.7 

Fat (%) 4.3 6.7 4.2 3.9 6.64 6.28 

Ash (%) 3.05 2.6 3.7 4.0 2.2 2.1 

Fibre (%) 1.03 1.5 1.2 1.37 1.59 1.65 

Crude Protein (%) 10.25 12.25 10.42 10.36 12.64 13.42 

Nitrogen (%) 1.87 2.68 1.93 2.31 1.84 1.85 

Total Solids (%) 32.3 29.2 29.67 28.45 26.4 27.3 

Temperature(0C) 30 30 29.5 29 30 29.5 

Carbon(%) 14.53 18.62 15.34 18.63 14.26 14.52 

Carbohydrate 9.5 8.9 8.69 8.74 9.2 9.05 

C/N Ratio 7.77 6.94 7.96 8.06 7.75 7.82 

pH 5.6 5.6 6.25 6.3 5.7 5.95 

Volatile Solids (mg/%TS) 27.75 28.5 28.24 27.59 25.85 25.7 

Phosphorus 1.1 1.5 1.12 1.11 1.45 1.56 

Calcium(%) 0.97 2.5 0.94 0.93 1.8 1.94 

Potassium(%) 0.78 0.9 0.77 0.75 0.85 0.89 

Magnesium(%) 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.3 0.37 

Sodium(%) 0.2 0.25 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.26 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        62 
 

Daily, Average and Cumulative Biogas Yield from the 

Digesters 

The daily gas yield was measured and calculated through 

the difference in daily weight gain of the collecting bags 

and the increase in the weight gain of the bags. Figure 1 

and 2 show the graphs of the daily and cumulative biogas 

yield of the digesters, respectively.  

 

 Figure 1: Daily Biogas Yield from digesters 

 

Figure 2: Cumulative Biogas Yield from digesters 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        63 
 

 

The different peaks and troughs located along Figure 1 can 

be attributed to varying environmental and biological 

conditions of the different digesters. 

As observed in figure 2 the biogas production began on the 

first day of the retention period in all six digesters due to 

the extended pre-fermentation period and shows the biogas 

yield of the digesters over the 30-day retention period 

which started in small amount on the first day and 

increased steadily on the subsequent days till the peak yield 

was reached, and the yield started decreasing drastically 

until it finally stopped producing biogas, this reduction in 

daily gas yield is due to the fact that the microorganisms 

responsible for the production of biogas have consumed a 

large part of the substrate thereby leading to a drop in 

biogas production. This same trend was also noticed by 

Kumar et al. (1987). 

From figure 2, for the layer wastes the cumulative yield of 

digester C showed an 18% increase from the yield of 

digester A and digester D showed a 22% increase from the 

yield of digester A while for broiler wastes, digester E 

showed a 20% increase in cumulative yield from digester 

B and digester F exhibited a 24% increase in biogas yield. 

 

Figure 3: Total Biogas Yield from digesters 

 

It could be seen from figure 3 that the highest biogas yield was from digester F for the broiler wastes and digester D for the 

layer wastes, but the broiler wastes had a higher yield than the layer wastes which may be due to the higher carbon to nitrogen 

ratio. 

  
Figure 4: Duration to reach maximum yield 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        64 
 

It could be seen from the Figure 4 that when compared to 

the control set-ups A and B, the set-ups containing Prosopis 

Juliflora took a longer time to reach their maximum yields 

as was evident from set-ups D and F which could be due to 

availability of substrate for the microorganisms to feed on. 

 

 
Figure 5: Maximum Biogas Yield from digesters 

 

Digester pH During Retention Period 

 
Figure 6: pH of Slurry in Digester 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        65 
 

Figure 5 shows that maximum biogas yield was observed 

to be higher in the digesters containing Prosopis Juliflora 

when compared to the control set-ups and was even higher 

in the substrates containing 10% of Prosopis Juliflora when 

compared to that with 5% Prosopis Juliflora which may be 

due to the higher carbon to nitrogen ratio. 

Daily Monitoring and Comparison of the operating 

parameters 

Digester Temperature During Retention Period 

The temperature of the digesters was also recorded daily 

for the whole period of biogas production. The average 

ambient temperature observed during the study was 37 0C 

while the average digester temperatures for each of the five 

substrates digested were respectively 29.9 0C, 29.9 0C, 30.0 
0C, 30.1 0C, 29.9 0C and 29.9 0C. These values show that 

there is negligible difference in the average digester 

temperatures for the six digesters, which provides a 

common base for comparison of results. The temperatures 

of the digesters fall in the mesophilic range and the pH falls 

within a range of 6.2 to 7.6 which is optimal for biogas 

production as reported by (Aremu & Agarry, 2013).  

The pH of the substrates was observed to have increased 

steadily as shown in Figure 6 as the retention period 

increased from a slightly acidic to a more alkaline state as 

the acidogenic bacteria were displaced by the 

methanogenic bacteria to produce biogas. 

 

 

Digester pH During Retention Period 

 

 Figure 7: Average Pressure in Digester 

 

 

The pressure inside the digesters were also observed 

through the pressure gauge installed in the digester and 

were recorded daily at the point of collecting the gas 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        66 
 

collection bags. The average pressures of the six digesters are shown in the figure 7. 

Analysis of operating parameters 

All analyses were done with Microsoft Excel 2016. 

 

Regression Analysis  

Table 4: Estimates of multiple regression analysis 

Source 

 

SS df      MS 

Number of 

observation: 186 

     F: 532.54 

Model  1563 6 1653.17 Prob > F: 0.000 

Residual  521.65 179 3.23 R-squared: 0.960 

     Adj R-squared: 0.965 

Total  2084.65 185 54.62 Root MSE: 1.6402 

             

       

Cumulative yield 

 

Coefficient Std. Err.      t P>t [95% Conf. 

Interval

] 

Waste type  -1.215 .390       -3.51 0.001 -2.139 -0.599 

Duration  0.570 .042      16.21 0.000 0.592 0.756 

Percentage addition of 

Prosopis Juliflora 

 

1.975  0.35     5.740 0.000 -9.311 13.336 

Temperature  -0.245 .150     -1.76 0.070 -0.559 0.032 

Pressure  0.000 .010      0.04 0.966 -0.019 0.020 

pH  4.285 .887      3.87 0.000 1.682 5.181 

constant  -15.219 6.669   -2.23 0.014 -28.038 -1.716 

 

Table 5: Constituents of Biogas from GCMS analysis 

Digester Duration (Day) Gas Composition(%) 

  CH4 CO2 N2 H2S 

C 10 53.60 41.99 3.11 1.36 

 20 57.88 37.53 3.19 1.39 

  30 60.40 35.29 3.05 1.26 

D 10 56.44 39.29 3.02 1.25 

 20 62.54 33.26 3.05 1.16 

  30 63.79 32.16 2.96 1.10 

F 10 58.85 36.49 3.62 1.04 

 20 63.23 33.11 2.72 0.93 

  30 66.08 30.59 2.51 0.82 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        67 
 

According to Table 4, the cumulative yield decreases by 

1.215 units for each change in the categorical variable 

waste type (e.g., from layer trash to grill waste). The waste 

type, duration pH, and constant (y-intercept) are the most 

significant variables in Table 4.3, with p values less than 

0.05. 

The relationship between the response and predictor 

variables is described in equation 4.1: 

Cumulative yield = 0.57 ∗ duration + 1.975 ∗

Percantage addition of PJ − 0.245 ∗ temperature −

14.877      (3) 

Biogas Analysis 

From the experiment which was carried out, the highest 

biogas yields were recorded in digesters C, D and F. The 

gases produced from the 3 set-ups on the 10th, 20th and 30th 

day of the retention period were collected and taken to the 

laboratory for analysis of the constituents and the 

properties of the gas from the two samples. A Shimadzu 

GC gas chromatograph mass spectroscopy instrument was 

used. 

From the Table 5 it can be seen that the methane 

composition increases with time, the carbon (IV) oxide 

decreases with time and the nitrogen and hydrogen 

sulphide gas also decrease with time. The decrease in the 

hydrogen sulphide gas is responsible for the reduction in 

odor of the feedstock with time. 

The highest methane content was observed in the digester 

F i.e., broiler wastes and 10% Prosopis Juliflora on the 30th 

day but digester D showed the highest percentage increase 

in methane content; increasing by 13% from the 10th day to 

the 30th day and it is closely followed by digester F which 

shows a 12.28% increase. Figures 8, 9, and 10 show the 

correlations between biogas production in digesters C, D, 

and F and the relative amounts of methane and hydrogen 

sulfide in the gas. 

    

 

 

 Figure 8: Digester C (a) CH4 content & Daily Yield (b)H2S content & Daily yield  

 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        68 
 

 

From figure 14 it could be noticed that in digester C the 

relationship between the daily yield and the methane 

content is positively correlated while the daily yield and 

hydrogen sulphide content are negatively correlated. 

 

Figure 9: Digester C (a) CH4 content & Daily Yield (b)H2S content & Daily yield  

From figure 9 it could be noticed that in digester D the relationship between the daily yield and the methane content is 

positively correlated while the daily yield and hydrogen sulphide content are negatively correlated.      

 

 
Figure 10: Digester F (a) CH4 content & Daily Yield (b)H2S content & Daily yield 

From figure 10 it could be noticed that in digester F the 

relationship between the daily yield and the methane 

content is positively correlated while the daily yield and 

hydrogen sulphide content are negatively correlated. 

Discussions 

The objective of this study was to study the effect of adding 

prosopis juliflora in controlled proportions to poultry 

wastes, namely layers and broilers. From the preliminary 

tests carried out on the wastes, it was observed that broiler 

wastes had a lesser carbon to nitrogen ratio than the layer 

wastes and the substrates containing Prosopis Juliflora had 

a higher carbon to nitrogen ratio than the control set-ups. 

This shows that there is a relationship between the carbon 

to nitrogen ratio and the biogas yield, as reported by 

Deublein and Steinhauser (2011). Biogas yield increased 

steadily from the time feedstocks were introduced until the 

third week, when it began to decline (possibly because 

microorganisms in the digester consumed the 

biodegradable part of the feedstock, causing the population 

of microorganisms to decrease, in turn decreasing the 

biogas yield (Kossman et al., 2001). 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        69 
 

The highest biogas yields were recorded in the digesters 

using Prosopis Juliflora, with the layer wastes plus 10% 

Prosopis Juliflora digester producing 22% more biogas 

than the layer wastes only digester and the broiler wastes 

plus 10% Prosopis Juliflora digester. The biogas yield with 

the addition of Prosopis Juliflora was 24% higher than with 

just broiler wastes, corroborating what Thanarasu (2019) 

found. 

After collecting and analyzing samples of gas on days 10, 

20, and 30. It was determined that the methane content of 

the biogas increased with time. Methane was found in 

lower concentrations in the gas on day 10, but at higher 

levels on days 20 and 30. Sasse (1988) has also 

documented this. Digester F achieved the greatest H2S 

reduction, by a factor of 32.8%. 

 

Conclusion  

This project research revealed the amount of the gas that 

can be produced from the two types of poultry wastes 

(layer wastes and broiler wastes) can be increased by 

adding prosopis juliflora at different proportions to poultry 

wastes (layer and broiler wastes). 

According to the research, layer wastes plus 5% Prosopis 

Juliflora created 18% more biogas than layer wastes alone, 

and layer wastes plus 10% Prosopis Juliflora produced 

22% more biogas than layer wastes alone, which was the 

control set-up. In comparison to digester broiler wastes 

alone, broiler wastes plus 5% and broiler wastes plus 10% 

both produced 20% and 24% more biogas, respectively. In 

conclusion, adding 5 and 10 percent of Prosopis Juliflora 

to poultry manure from layers or broilers has significantly 

increased the generation of biogas. Broiler wastes + 10% 

Prosopis Juliflora produced the highest amount of methane 

and least amount of toxic gas i.e. hydrogen sulfide, which 

makes it the most suitable substrate.  This study provided 

information on the quantity and quality of biogas produced 

from the anaerobic digestion of chicken manure mixed 

with Prosopis Juliflora through enhanced scheme and 

established the importance of Prosopis Juliflora in the co-

digestion of solid wastes for high biogas yield. 

 

Acknowledgement: None 

Funding sources 

 

This research did not receive any specific grant from 

funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-

profit sectors 

Conflict of interest 

 

The authors have no competing interests 

 

References 

 

Adeoti, O. Ayelegun, T. A and Osho, S. O. (2014). Nigeria 

biogas potential from livestock manure and its 

estimated climate value, Renewable and Sustainable 

Energy Reviews, 37: 243–248. 

Afazeli, H.  Jafari, A.  Rafiee, S.  and Nosrati, M. (2014). 

An investigation of biogas production potential from 

livestock and slaughter house wastes, Renewable and 

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37; 243–248. 

Ajiboye, A. V., Lasisi, K. H. and Babatola, J. O. (2018). 

Evaluation of the effect of sodium hydroxide solution 

on biogas yield of anaerobic digestion of poultry 

waste and the digestate, Int J Energ Water Res, 2(1-

4): 23-31. DOI 10.1007/s42108-018-0003-2. 

Aragaw, T. and Andargie, M. (2013). Co-digestion of 

cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase 

biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums. 

International Journal of Physical Science, 8:443–450. 

Awode, A.E., Babatola, J.O. and Adelodun, A.A., 2022. 

Effect of Biochar on Biogas Yield of Poultry Wastes. 

Environmental Protection Research, pp.62-74. 

Babatola, J. O. (2008) Comparative study of biogas yield 

pattern in some animal and household wastes. 

African Research Review, 2 (4): 54-68.  

Bouallagui, H., Touhami, Y., Cheikh, R. B. and Hamdi, M. 

(2005). Bioreactor performance in anaerobic 

digestion of fruit and vegetables waste. Process 

Biochem, 40: 989–997.  

Carrère, H. (2010). Pretreatment methods to improve 

sludge anaerobic degradability: A review. Journal of 

Hazardous Materials, 183 (1):1–15. 

CEERT (2001) Renewable and Non- Renewable Energy‘s 

United State Department of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. Issue No 8, Pp 2-3. 

Deublein D. and Steinhauser A. (2011). Biogas from waste 

and renewable resources: An Introduction, Wiley -

VCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA. 

Ekka, R. Sharma, V and Kumar, A. (2016). Study of 

Biogas Production from Poultry Droppings Waste, 

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 

Centre (IJIRC). 2(2): 90-96. 

Energypedia (2016). Biogas Basics. Available at 

www.energypedia.info/wiki/biogas_biogas. 

Accessed on the 22nd November, 2018. 

http://www.energypedia.info/wiki/biogas_biogas


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research        70 
 

Esposito, G., Frunzo, L., Liotta, F., Panico, A. and Pirozzi, 

F. (2012). BMP tests to measure the biogas 

production from the digestion and co-digestion of 

complex organic substrates. Open Journal of 

Environmental Engineering, 5: 1–8. 

Fantozzi F, Buratti C. (2011). Anaerobic digestion of 

mechanically treated OFMSW: experimental data on 

biogas/methane production and residues 

characterization. Bioresour Technol, 102: 8885–

8892. 

Hakimi, M., Shamsudin, M.R., Pendyala, R., Aminah, S. 

and Gunny, A.A.N., 2021, May. Co-anaerobic 

digestion of chicken manure and selected additives 

for biogas production. In IOP Conference Series: 

Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 765, No. 1, p. 

012055). IOP Publishing.\ 

International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 

special report (2015): Energy and climate change. 

Final report. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2015. 

Iqbal, S. A., Rahaman, S., Rahman, M. and Yousuf, A. 

(2014). Anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste to 

produce biogas. 10th International Conference on 

Mechanical Engineering, ICME 2013, Procedia 

Engineering, 90: 657 – 662. 

IRENA (2015). Africa 2030: Roadmap for a Renewable 

Energy Future, IRENA, Abu Dhabi. 

www.irena.org/remap, date accessed 20th April, 

2017. 

Islam, A., Hossain, S., and Iqbal, S. A. (2016). Upgraded 

method of biogas production from kitchen waste, 

cow dung and chicken manure in anaerobic co-

digestion process. In International conference on 

mechanical, industrial and energy engineering 26–

27. December, 2016, Khulna, Bangladesh. 

Islam, M. N. (2012).  Energy resources and governance 

issues: Bangladesh perspective, Lecture delivered at 

policy planning and management Course (PPMC), 

Organized by Bangladesh public Administration 

Training Center (BPATC), Savar-1243, Bangladesh, 

2012. 

Li Y. B., Park S. Y., Zhu J. Y. (2011). Solid-state anaerobic 

digestion for methane production from organic waste. 

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(1): 

821– 826. 

Li, R, Chen, S. and Li, X (2009). Anaerobic co-digestion 

of kitchen waste and cattle manure for methane 

production. Energy Sources. 31: 1848-1856. 

Li, Y., Park, S. Y., and Zhu, J. (2011). Solid-state anaerobic 

digestion for methane production from organic waste. 

Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 821–

826. 

Maishanu, S. M., Musa, M. Sambo, A. S. (1990). Biogas 

Technology the output of Sokoto Energy Research 

Centre, Nigerian Journal of Solar Energy, 9 183-194. 

Nishio N, Nakashimada Y. (2007). Recent development of 

anaerobic digestion processes for energy recovery 

from wastes. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 103 (2):105–124. 

Ofoefule, A. U., Uzodinma, E. O. and Anyanwu, C. N. 

(2010). Studies on the effect of anaerobic digestion 

on the microbial flora of animal wastes: Digestion 

and modeling of process parameters. Trends in 

Applied Sciences Research, 5(1), 39–47. 

Prabhu, A.V., Raja, S.A., Avinash, A. and Pugazhendhi, 

A., 2021. Parametric optimization of biogas potential 

in anaerobic co-digestion of biomass wastes. Fuel, 

288, p.119574. 

Rajagopal, R., Mousavi, S.E., Goyette, B. and Adhikary, 

S., 2021. Coupling of Microalgae Cultivation with 

Anaerobic Digestion of Poultry Wastes: Toward 

Sustainable Value Added Bioproducts. 

Bioengineering, 8(5), p.57. 

Samadi, M.T., Leili, M., Rahmani, A., Moradi, S. and 

Godini, K., 2022. Anaerobic co-digestion using 

poultry slaughterhouse and vegetable wastes to 

enhance biogas yield: effect of different C/N ratios. 

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, pp.1-9. 

Wang, Q., Xia, C., Alagumalai, K., Le, T.T.N., Yuan, Y., 

Khademi, T., Berkani, M. and Lu, H., 2023. Biogas 

generation from biomass as a cleaner alternative 

towards a circular bioeconomy: Artificial 

intelligence, challenges, and future 

insights. Fuel, 333, p.126456. 


