Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2016.04.20 Literature Review
2016.04.20 Literature Review
2016.04.20 Literature Review
Written by: Mary Dimambro and Joachim Steiner (Cambridge Eco Ltd) and
Document reference: WRAP, 2014, Banbury, Literature review: Digestate use in
Francis Rayns
protected (Garden
horticulture, Organic)
Prepared by M E Dimambro, J Steiner and F Rayns
Front cover photography: Strawberries growing in a nutrient solution containing whole food waste digestate at Warwick
Crop Centre (Cambridge Eco Ltd)
While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, WRAP does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising from reliance on this
report. Readers are responsible for assessing the accuracy and conclusions of the content of this report. Quotations and case studies have been drawn from the public
domain, with permissions sought where practicable. This report does not represent endorsement of the examples used and has not been endorsed by the organisations
and individuals featured within it. This material is subject to copyright. You can copy it free of charge and may use excerpts from it provided they are not used in a
misleading context
Document and you
reference: must
[e.g. WRAP,identify
2006,the sourceName
Report of the material
(WRAP and acknowledge
Project WRAP‘s
TYR009-19. Report copyright.
prepared You must notWRAP]
by…..Banbury, use this report or material from it to endorse or
suggest WRAP has endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see WRAP‘s terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk
Executive summary
The aim of this review is to describe the current state of knowledge worldwide regarding the
use of whole digestate, separated liquid digestate (liquor) and separated solid digestate
(fibre) from anaerobic digestion (AD) in protected horticulture. Overall, published studies
indicate that there is significant potential for digestates (whole, liquor and fibre) to be used
in protected horticulture for both ornamental and edible crop production.
A number of studies have examined the use of whole and separated liquor as a liquid
organic fertiliser in soil-grown crops and also in soil-less production. Evidence was also found
of whole, liquor and fibre digestate as growing media ingredients.
Several studies have been identified, investigating either composting the digestate fibre
alone or co-composting with other ingredients. The composted end-products were then
assessed for their potential as growing media or as growing media ingredients.
The evidence suggests that whole, liquor and fibre digestate, in combination with other
standard industry ingredients, can generally achieve similar or better yields compared to
standard growing practices, provided the recommended nutrient and electrical conductivity
(EC) levels are considered. Moreover, in some instances improved crop quality and/or taste
was reported when using digestates.
As the trials reported generally focussed on a limited number of digestate treatments, further
optimisation of the treatments may have given better results, and would be recommended,
should digestate use be considered for commercial use in protected horticulture.
Large scale adoption of digestates within the protected sector could result in a reduction in
the use of peat and inorganic fertilisers in this sector. There is evidence that growing media
incorporating digestate fibre (from biosolids) are used in commercial growing media products
endorsed by US local administration, and winning national awards by the US Environmental
Protection Agency.
Perceptions around food safety could present a barrier to the uptake of digestates in some
markets. Very few studies were found to consider microbiological aspects of food safety with
regards to the use of digestates in protected horticulture. No evidence was found to suggest
that the use of digestates posed a greater microbiological risk than commercial growing
media and fertilisers, although one UK study did recommend that further research was
required. Moreover, where overseas studies included an analysis of food safety in terms of
microbial contamination or levels of potentially toxic elements, these were not deemed to be
greatly different to those in conventional growing media and fertilisers. In addition, PAS110
compliance ensures PTEs, pathogens and organic contaminants are monitored and kept
within safe levels.
In regulatory terms, the current market limitations imposed by the anaerobic digestate
quality protocol (ADQP) present a significant barrier to the uptake of digestates in some
markets. The UK regulatory approach should be kept under review, particularly given the
apparently successful deployment of digestates in a range of markets elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Rob Lillywhite and Catherine Keeling of the University of
Warwick for assistance with the literature searching and interpretation, in addition to the UK
and European academics who provided information on their research.
Admixture The substance that results from mixing all the ingredients in a growing media
‗recipe‘; more generally a mixture which results when two different materials
are combined without occurrence of chemical reactions
ADQP Anaerobic Digestate Quality Protocol – End of waste criteria for the production
and use of quality outputs from the anaerobic digestion of source segregated
wastes
Biofertiliser Biofertiliser is the name adopted for digestates certified as compliant with UK
end of waste criteria
cv Cultivar
Digestate fibre Fibrous fraction of material derived by separating the coarse fibres from the
whole digestate
Digestate liquor Liquid fraction of material remaining after separating coarse fibres from whole
digestate
DM Dry matter
EA Environment Agency
FM Fresh matter
Hygromull Open-pore hydrophilic PU foam improves WHC and substrate aeration, and is
able to adsorb nutrients.
Lecaton Thermally expanded burnt clay granules improve the physical characteristics of
substrates, are able to absorb cations, and may release Ca
PAS110 The British Standards Institution‘s publicly-available specification BSI PAS 110
is a specification for digestate quality (BSI, 2014). It is also a core requirement
for the UK‘s end of waste positions for digestate. PAS110 specifies:
Controls on input materials and the management system for the process of
anaerobic digestion and associated technologies
Minimum quality of whole digestate, separated fibre and separated liquor
Information that is required to be supplied to the digestate recipient
Perlite Expanded volcanic Al-silicate increases the aeration and water-holding capacity
of substrates
TS Total solids
Whole digestate Material resulting from an anaerobic digestion process that has not undergone
post-digestion separation
In 2012, an estimated 1.44 million tonnes of digestate was produced from anaerobic
digestion (AD) in the UK, with approximately 99% of this being used in agriculture and field
horticulture, with the very small remainder used for land restoration (WRAP, 2013b).
Whilst there are undoubted benefits associated with the use of digestate in agriculture1, the
reliance on a single market is risky, and AD industry resilience would be improved if a wider
range of markets could be developed. Indeed, the Defra/DECC Anaerobic Digestion Strategy
and Action Plan identified the need to find appropriate markets for quality digestates, and
one of WRAP‘s aim is to facilitate the increased uptake of digestate use by the horticultural
industry (Defra and DECC, 2011).
Within this context WRAP has supported a number of field projects to investigate potential
non-agricultural markets for digestate. These include landscaping and regeneration, energy
crops on previously developed land, sports and amenity turf, and soil manufacture (under
projects OMK001 and OMK004). The use of digestates in protected plant horticulture has
also been highlighted as an area for potential development (WRAP, 2011b, Zero Waste
Scotland, 2010), and this has been progressed via WRAP programme OMK006. This includes
four research projects which considered a range of uses of digestates for protected
horticultural crops, including edibles and ornamentals (WRAP 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d).
At present, the Anaerobic Digestate Quality Protocol (ADQP) does not cover digestates used
in these emerging markets (WRAP and Environment Agency, 2010).
WRAP‘s OMK006 trials recommended that a brief review of existing research into the use of
digestates in protected horticulture could be of benefit to the industry, highlighting less
mainstream potential uses for digestate as well as informing future regulatory approaches to
such emerging digestate markets. This desk study aims to address these recommendations.
2.0 Methodology
Search terms were established for the literature searching, including synonyms, spelling
variations and different combinations of terms as listed below. Academic searching was
largely carried out using the ISIS Web of Science and Coventry University ‗Locate‘. These
covered not only the principal agricultural and horticultural databases, but also food-related
databases, environmental science, water, pollution, toxicology and general science
databases. A number of these databases also index grey literature. The titles retrieved from
these searches were screened, and then abstracts were downloaded. These abstracts were
subjected to a second round of screening where useful papers were selected. Full text was
obtained for these items. In addition, relevant publications cited in reports obtained in the
searching were also obtained.
Some literature was available from WRAP, EA and ORG websites and sources, as well as the
authors‘ databases and libraries.
1
For example, see www.wrap.org.uk/dc-agri
European digestate experts were contacted to ascertain whether further information could
be found regarding work which is not available in English, for an insight into any additional
European studies.
3.0 Findings
The review of the academic literature revealed that a range of information was available for
a number of crops. The idea of using digestate, either whole or separated, in growing media
had been suggested in a number of reports and reviews (for example: (Hogg et al., 2007,
WRAP, 2011b, Arvanitoyannis, 2008)) but it is not always clear if this is based on experience
or purely recommendations for research. Sometimes the terminology was unclear,
particularly in publications from overseas, so it was difficult to be sure if the authors were
referring to digestate of the consistency, feedstock type, quality and AD technology of that
presently available in the UK.
Discussions with European experts revealed a few additional studies which generally
focussed on the use of digestates from maize and silage-based systems which tend to have
high dry matter content.
These findings are collated and discussed below, according to digestate use and type.
Unfortunately not all publications clarify whether the digestate has been separated into fibre
and liquor fractions or remains whole, but where this is defined this information is included.
Some studies were not written in English, German or Italian, and in such cases where only
the abstract was in English with insufficient information available for the purposes of this
review, this has been highlighted.
4.0 Whole digestate and digestate liquor studies with soil-grown crops
Crops grown in soil or growing media (which may include peat or coir), are often fertilised
with a nutrient solution which may be delivered as part of the irrigation regime (fertigation),
or as a separate fertiliser once, or at set time points. Firstly, recent UK work on the use of
digestate as a fertiliser for strawberries is discussed. This is followed by a review of studies
of whole and liquor digestate use as a fertiliser, with the majority of work in this area
focussing on tomato production.
A feasibility study undertaken in 2013 had the aim of establishing whether six digestates
produced in the UK could be used successfully as fertiliser for strawberry production (WRAP,
2015d). The feedstock materials included potato waste, dairy cattle slurry, food waste,
maize, and a mixture of maize, manure and milk waste. Some digestates were whole
digestates, whilst others were the separated liquor fraction. Overall, the results showed that
it is possible to produce strawberries using digestate-based nutrient solutions with yields and
quality similar to strawberries grown with traditional mineral fertilisers (see front cover
photograph).
Table 1. Final nutrient concentrations in the digestate solutions following dilution for the strawberry
trial (WRAP, 2015d)
Glasshouse trials were carried out with strawberry plants, (variety Elsanta), planted in
standard commercial peat grow-bags. Digestates were diluted between 25 and 51 times to
bring their nitrogen concentrations down to commercial norms (see Table 1). Some minor
amendments were then performed to optimise the profile of the nutrient solution. Solutions
There were significant differences in yield and fruit quality between digestate treatments of
various feedstock types: Three of the six digestates performed as well as the control in
terms of both total fruit yield and Class 1 yield. Two (food and dairy cattle slurry based)
treatments produced fruit that generally out-performed the control throughout the season
with respect to taste assessments. Improvement in fruit flavour was the most notable
difference. The other three digestate treatments had slightly reduced yields compared to
the control, but this reduction was large enough to be significant only in one of the
treatments (digestate derived from maize, manure and milk waste). All three of these
digestate treatments achieved better results in the taste test than the control.
Figure 1. Day 18 showing strawberry plants fertigated with digestate and an industry standard
(control). All plants observed to be healthy with no effect of treatment in evidence (WRAP, 2015d).
4.2 Research outside the UK: Using whole digestate and digestate liquor as a fertiliser for
soil-grown crops
Tomato trials were carried out over several years at the GBZ Straelen, in Germany, and
summarised briefly in a number of research notes (Andreas, 2004a, Andreas, 2005, Andreas,
2006, Andreas, 2003). Tomatoes were grown under glass with white mulch foil as a soil
cover. In most cases, no data is available on the digestate type, nutrient breakdown or
application timings in these research notes other than what is reported below.
In 2002, the trial consisted of two treatments both with an application rate of 300 kg N/ha
over the season. The control was two applications of calcium ammonium nitrate, with the
second treatment being digestate (from farm residues) applied through drip-feeding. For the
three tomato varieties trialled, there were no significant differences in yield between the
control and digestate treatments (Andreas, 2003).
In 2005, a standard organic treatment of horn meal as the base fertiliser and vinasse
(distillation residue) applied as a top dressing (two applications), was compared to a
digestate treatment which comprised three applications of digestate after planting (with 1.28
kg N, 0.3 kg P2O5 and 1.28 kg K2O/m³), with both treatments having the same total N
applied (340 kg N/ha) (Andreas, 2006). Tomato yield differences between treatments were
Figure 2: Tomatoes grown using a digestate fertiliser solution at GBZ Straelen (Andreas, 2004a).
Figure 3: Left: Cocktail tomato ―Oakley‖, grown using digestate (Reintges 2013, pers. comm.). Right:
Round ―organic‖ tomatoes grown using a digestate fertiliser solution at GBZ Straelen (Andreas, 2007).
Figure 4: Peppers grown using a digestate fertiliser solution at GBZ Straelen in 2004 (left) and 2007
(right) (Andreas, 2004b, Andreas, 2007).
In a study from the USA, digestate produced from pig slurry and wastewater from a pig unit
was treated with a trickling nitrification biofilter with polystyrene beads, which converted
almost 90% of the ammonium in the digestate into nitrate (Cheng, 2004). The resultant
nitrified digestate was subsequently used as both fertiliser and irrigation water for
approximately 14,400 tomato plants grown in perlite in greenhouses. All tomatoes were
grown using the treated digestate, with no commercial control. Experimental data indicate
that the tomato greenhouses used approximately 12 m3 of the effluent and 3.84 kg nitrogen
per day. Moreover, the daily yield was 520 kg (37 g/plant) of marketable fruit, which was
deemed by the authors to represent a financially viable operation.
Table 2. Average nutrient concentration of the digestate after treatment with the nitrification biofilter,
which was subsequently used for tomato production (Cheng, 2004)
A study on cucumber production used digestates produced from pig manure, with one
digestate type termed ‗biogas slurry‘ (assumed to be whole or liquid digestate due to the 3%
organic matter content), and the other termed ‗biogas residue‘ (assumed to be separated
fibre due to the 30% organic matter content) (Duan et al., 2011). One treatment (treatment
1) used digestate in three different ways (see Table 3): Digestate fibre was used as a base
fertiliser, providing 1/3 of the nutrients, whole/liquor digestate was used as a top dressing,
and whole/liquor digestate was used as a foliar application. In both instances the
whole/liquor digestate was mixed 1:1 with water. Inorganic fertiliser was used as the control
treatment and also applied in three ways: Base fertiliser, top dressing and foliar application
(treatment 2, see Table 3).
The chlorophyll content in the leaves was higher in the digestate treatment. Compared with
the control, the cucumbers grown with digestate were longer with a lower curvature (both
properties deemed an advantage), with a significant total yield increase of 16%. Moreover,
the cucumbers grown with digestate had higher concentrations of soluble sugars and
proteins, indicating an improved nutritional quality. Both the digestate and control
cucumbers had concentrations of Pb, Cd, Hg and As which were lower than the minimal
detectable limit of the Chinese national standard. The incidences of aphids and mildew on
cucumber plants grown with digestate were both significantly fewer compared to the control.
Potassium
Digestate Diammonium Potassium sulphate
Nutrient Treat- Digestate Water Carbamide
‘slurry’ phosphate chloride compound
application ment fibre (kg) (kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg) (kg) fertiliser
(kg)
Base 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
fertiliser 2 0 0 0 0.9 0.15 0.60 0
Top 1 0 40 40 0 0 0 0
dressing 2 0 0 79.69 0.18 0.03 0.10 0
Foliar 1 0 5 5 0 0 0 0
application 2 0 0 9.95 0 0 0 0.05
The following study focuses on rye grass, which is not generally grown in the glasshouse,
but nonetheless provides additional data on the use of digestates as a fertiliser for pot grown
plants.
In a German pot trial, perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne) was grown in loamy sand for five
months in 21 cm diameter, 25.5 cm high pots (Benzenberg et al., 2011). After 40 days, a
one-off fertiliser application was made, with two types of digestates from crops (silage
feedstock species not specified in the paper, but most likely grass). One digestate was
produced from the separated liquid fraction of silage, and the other digestate from whole
crop (unseparated) silage. Inorganic fertiliser was used as the control treatment. The two
digestates and the inorganic fertiliser were all applied at five N-rates: 0, 50, 100, 150 and
200 kg N/ha. Increasing the N rate resulted in increasing biomass yield. For each N rate,
there was a similar above-ground biomass yield for the two digestates and the mineral N
fertiliser. However, for the digestate made from the liquid fraction of silage, the biomass
yield response levelled off at 150 kg N/ha.
5.0 Whole digestate and digestate liquor studies with soil-less production
Soil-less production via hydroponics includes a range of systems, from plant roots grown
purely in nutrient solution through to plants grown with nutrient solution in inert media such
as perlite, rockwool or gravel. Further details of hydroponics systems are discussed in a
recent WRAP report (WRAP, 2015b). The majority of work on the potential of digestates in
such systems has been undertaken outside the UK, with one recent WRAP funded trial
conducted in England, as discussed below.
5.1 UK research: Hydroponic production of tomato and lettuce with three whole
digestates
The feasibility of using digestates for the hydroponic production of tomato and lettuce in
England was investigated in a recent study (WRAP, 2015b). Three whole digestates were
used, with two from food waste and a third from cattle manure and potato waste. Overall,
the study showed that digestate was suitable as an amendment in hydroponic solutions, but
that diluting the digestate to an appropriate ammonium concentration for the crop is an
important consideration. Further research was recommended on the potential for pathogens
to be present in the digestates.
Table 4. Dilutions required to reduce digestate ammonium to 10% of the total N (WRAP, 2015b).
Where there are three sets of numbers, those outside brackets refer to the pre-flowering stage for tomato, those within parenthesis refer to fruit-
set (tomatoes) and those within square brackets refer to lettuce.
Cattle manure &
Food waste 1 Food waste 2
potato waste
Total-N (mg/l) 3359 6912 4327
Ammonium-N (mg/l) 2846 6654 4227
Nitrate-N (mg/l) 513 258 100
Excess total-N (x) 30 (23) [17] 61 (48) [31] 38 (30) [21]
Ammonium-N (% of total) 85 92 98
Dilution needed (x) 252 (198) [142] 589 (462) [333] 374 (294) [211]
Nitrate amendment required (mg/l) 100 (127) [176] 102 (129) [179] 101 (129) [180]
Table 5. The final nutrient concentrations of the solutions for the hydroponics trial(WRAP, 2015b)
mg/l N P Mg K Ca Mn Fe Cu Zn Mo Cl B
Tomato: Pre-fruiting 113 62 50 199 122 0.62 2.5 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.85 0.44
Tomato: Post-fruiting 144 62 50 199 165 0.62 2.5 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.85 0.44
Lettuce 200 62 50 154 247 0.62 2.5 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.85 0.44
The tomato fruit yield was similar for all five treatments, with sugar content and the results
of taste tests indicating that fruit quality was also equivalent. Tomato fruit grown in one of
the food waste digestate treatments contained more cobalt than fruit from other treatments,
while fruits grown in the inorganic solution amended with 10% ammonium contained less
sodium than those grown in the cattle manure and potato waste digestate.
Figure 5. Lettuce and tomato grown using digestate nutrient solution (WRAP, 2015b)
Lettuce yields were unaffected by the digestates, although leaves had higher concentrations
of calcium and copper when grown in solutions containing digestates. Salmonella was
tentatively identified (using conventional plating techniques) in a number of digestate
5.2 Research outside the UK regarding whole digestate and digestate liquor with soil-less
production
In three studies from the USA, Liedl et al. (2004b, 2004a, 2006) compared diluted digestate
produced from poultry litter with commercial hydroponic feeds in soil-less tomato, cucumber
and lettuce production, and found promising results in all three systems, as described below.
In a hydroponic tomato production trial, tomato plants were grown in buckets containing a
mixture of 85% coarse perlite and 15% coir (v/v). Two nutrient solutions were used for
fertigation: A commercial standard fertiliser (150ppm N, 50 ppm P, 200 ppm K, 150 ppm Ca,
50 ppm Mg, 60 ppm S and various trace elements (not specified)), and diluted poultry litter
digestate, with the NH3-N content of the digestate diluted to match the N concentration in
the commercial fertiliser treatment. Unfortunately no data on the nutrient content or dilution
rate of the digestate is presented in the paper. The pH of both nutrient solutions was
adjusted to achieve 5.5-6.8 using 85% H3PO4 and EC levels of 2.2-2.8 mS/cm. With
digestate alone, plant growth rate was reduced, and fewer, smaller fruits were produced,
with signs of ammonia toxicity. The authors highlighted that tomato plants are sensitive to
fertilisers where ammonia is the dominant form of N. To reduce ammonia levels the
ammonium/nitrate ratio was balanced by firstly heating and air sparging the digestate to
reduce ammonia levels, and then by adding Ca(NO3)2, to return the nutrient solution to the
same N concentration as the commercial control. When this solution was fed to the tomato
plants signs of Mg deficiency were evident. It was found that when the N forms had been
balanced and the Mg concentration supplemented using MgSO4 with the same Mg
concentration as the commercial control, the poultry litter digestate solution was found to
function as well as the commercial control (Liedl, 2004a). A summary of the results is shown
in
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Summary of the main findings of a series of hydroponic tomato trials (Liedl, 2004a)
In the second trial, four growth trials were conducted on hydroponically grown lettuce
transplants (nutrient film technique). In all trials there were four treatments, including a
Table 6. Analysis of the nutrient solutions used in the fourth lettuce trial, in ppm (Liedl, 2004b).
In soil-less cucumber production (perlite/coir media), the digestate was diluted to the same
mineral nitrogen concentration as that found in the commercial feed, and solution pH
maintained at 5.6-6.0. Average fruit weight decreased by 11 % when plants were grown
with the digestate, but the percentage of fruits classified as grade 1 increased (33 % grade
1, compared to 26 % with the commercial feed) (Liedl, 2006).
In a Canadian study, digestate (‗process liquid wastewater‘) from the anaerobic digestion of
mixed municipal solid waste was used as a material for fertigation of three ornamentals
(silverleaf dogwood, common ninebark and Spiraea) over a three month period in a growing
medium consisting of 73% bark, 22% peat, and 5% pea gravel by volume (Chong, 2008).
Four weeks after planting, four fertigation treatments commenced:
1 Recirculated control fertilizer solution based on a nutrient formula with a targeted EC of 2.2 dS/m;
2 recirculated mushroom farm wastewater (diluted 10x with tap water);
3 recirculated digestate from MSW (diluted 20x with tap water);
4 Nutryon (Polyon) 17-5-12 (17N–2P–10K) 6 month controlled-release fertilizer with micro-nutrients
(Nutrite, Elmira, Ont.) topdressed at a rate of 39 g/container (nutrients not recirculated).
A Chinese study investigated the effect of a range of nutrient solutions including animal
manure digestate (termed biogas slurry so assumed to be whole or liquor) on growth and
leaf nitrate concentration of lettuce, using five treatments (Wenke, 2009):
1 Inorganic nutrient solution (control): NO3--N, 15mmol/l
2 Organic nutrient solution: N from diluted digestate (1:5 v/v): 8.69 mmol N/l
3 Organic nutrient solution: N from diluted digestate (1:5 v/v) + glycerine: 15 mmol N/l
4 Organic nutrient solution: N from diluted digestate (1:4 v/v): 10.43 mmol N/l
5 Organic nutrient solution: N from diluted digestate (1:4 v/v) + glycerine: 15 mmol N/l
The composition of inorganic nutrient solution was as follows (all in mmol/l): 0.75 K2SO4;
0.25 KH2PO4; 0.65 MgSO4; 0.1 KCl; 7.5 Ca(NO3)2; 1.0x10-3 H3BO3; 1.0x10-3 MnSO4;
1.0x10-4 CuSO4; 5.0x10-6 (NH4)6Mo7O24; 1.0x10-3 ZnSO4; 0.1 EDTA-Fe(II). The composition
of digestate nutrients was: N 0.73 g/l; P 0.028 g/l; K 0.74 g/l; NH4+-N 0.7 g/l; NO3--N 8.62
mg/l; calcium 352 mg/l; magnesium 227 mg/l; SO24- 15 mg/l; iron 4.1 mg/l; manganese 0.48
mg/l; copper 0.96 mg/l; zinc 3.35 mg/l; EC 6.36 (no EC units in the paper); pH 7.8. The EC
after dilution was 2.05 for the 1:4 v/v treatments and 1.76 in the 1:5 v/v treatments. The
initial pH of all solutions was adjusted to 6.
Lettuce seeds were pre-germinated in an incubator and then planted into 5cm high pots
(base 3 cm –top 5 cm Ф) filled with sterilised sand, with three seeds per pot. Once the
seedlings were present all pots were watered with a 5ml standard inorganic solution of
4mmol/l NO3—N, then 9 and 15 days later the plants were fertigated with 400 ml/pot of the
treatment nutrient solutions. On day 20 the plants were harvested. Treatments 2 and 3
significantly increased shoot weight and number of expanded leaves, compared to the
control. Compared with the control, all organic treatments (2-5) significantly reduced shoot
nitrate content, with the treatments including glycine being lower than the digestate only
treatments. The authors concluded that digestate offers potential to replace inorganic
fertilisers in the hydroponic production of lettuce, with lower nitrate levels deemed an
advantage for consumer health, as excessive intake of nitrate was highlighted as being a
potential health hazard.
Although not specifically a horticultural crop, but of relevance due to the use of digestate for
fertigation, the following Canadian trial is included. The use of digestate for the fertigation of
two cool season turfgrass species (green creeping bent grass and Kentucky bluegrass) was
investigated (Michitsch et al., 2008). The grasses were grown in plastic containers (8.3cm
diameter and 20cm deep) in a 4:1 sand:peat mixture for three months in a growth room,
with three cuts being undertaken during the trial period. Digestate from BMW was applied
weekly at rates of 25, 50, 100 and 200% of the recommended rate of 25 kg N/ha. This was
compared to a standard inorganic fertiliser at the same N rates. It was found that the use of
digestate at the recommended N doses performed as well as the inorganic fertiliser at the
same N rate. Moreover, the low NO3:NH4 ratio had no observable effect on the growth of the
grasses.
The studies below focus on the mixing of digestates with other growing media ingredients to
support the growth of a range of crops. One recent UK study used whole and liquor
digestates for the production of three ornamentals as described below.
6.1 UK research: Bark admixtures: Formulation and testing of novel organic growing
media using quality digestates for the production of containerised plants
Four different digestates were mixed at five different rates with a base growing medium
comprising bark, wood fibre and topsoil (see Table 7) (WRAP, 2015a). The four digestate
feedstocks were food waste (whole digestate), food waste (separated liquor, different
source), potato waste (whole digestate) and maize (separated liquor). It was found that a
suitable base mix for subsequent addition of digestate and the creation of admixtures with
an open structure was: 60% bark, 30% wood fibre and 10% topsoil by volume. This was
combined in a ratio of 5l base mix to five different volumes of digestate (0.1l, 0.25l, 0.5l,
0.75l and 1l) to create the final experimental admixtures. In addition to the four digestates,
each added at five rates, two industry standards were used as controls – one peat based and
the other peat free. The plant species investigated were wavy cyclamen (Cyclamen
repandum), fern (Asplenium scolopendrium) and black pine (Pinus nigra). All were planted
into the admixtures and assessed regularly for at least 90 days.
Table 7. Details of the digestate type and volumes used for the admixtures trial (WRAP, 2015a)
For black pines there was no significant difference in any growth parameter compared to the
controls, including number of stems, plant height and plant quality. A growth vs time
analysis showed pines of all treatments grew at comparable rates. Destructive harvest
analysis to determine the mean dry weight of the whole plant, of stems and of roots as well
as dry matter content and mean root-to-shoot ratio did not generally show statistically
significant differences between the digestate-bark admixtures and the controls.
For ferns there was mostly no significant difference in any growth parameter compared to
the controls, for assessments made of number of fronds, frond length, chlorophyll content
and foliage quality. A growth vs time analysis showed ferns of nearly all treatments growing
at comparable rates (see Figure 7). Destructive harvest analysis to determine the mean dry
weight of the whole plant, of stems and of roots as well as dry matter content and root-to-
shoot ratio did not generally show statistically significant differences between the various
treatments and the controls. Admixtures with high doses of 1l food waste digestate were the
exception to the above findings, with a significant reduction in fern chlorophyll content and
leaf quality, which was attributed to comparatively high sodium content and EC originating
from the food waste digestates.
For cyclamen, there was no significant difference in any growth parameter measured
compared to the controls. A growth vs. time analysis showed cyclamen in all treatments
senescing at similar times. Destructive harvest analysis was carried out on the cyclamen
corms, as all plants had senesced at the point of harvest. The mean dry weight of the corm
and dry matter content did not generally show statistically significant differences between
the various treatments and the control.
Figure 7. Fern plants after 90 days of growth in peat-free control (left) and a maize digestate-bark
admixture (right) (WRAP, 2015a)
6.2 Research outside the UK regarding whole digestate and digestate liquor as a growing
media ingredient
A Czech glasshouse study focussed on determining the impact of the application of digestate
from pig slurry on the yield and dry matter content of a range of cultivars of both tomato
and pepper plants in peat-bark growing media (Kouřimská et al., 2009, Kouřimská et al.,
2012). The digestate consisted of (per l) 595 mg NH4+, 755 mg PO43-, and 1.1–1.25 g K2O.
The four treatments, all in 20 l pots were:
1 Unfertilised control;
2 Inorganic standard 15 g (NH4)2SO4 and 9 g K2HPO4 added to each pot (20 l) prior to planting, and 7.5 g
(NH4)2SO4 added 30 days later;
3 Digestate: 0.8 l added to each pot prior to planting, and another 2 l added 30 days later;
4 50% of inorganic fertiliser (7.5 g (NH4)2SO4 and 4.5 g K2HPO4) and 50% (0.4 l) of digestate added to
each pot prior to planting, and 3.75 g (NH4)2SO4 and 1.5 l of digestate added 30 days after planting.
The amendments were mixed into the growing media at the start of the experiment and
then more of the same amendments were added after 30 days as a liquid feed. The trials
with tomatoes were repeated with new plants and growing media over five years, and for
the peppers over two years. The unfertilised control had the lowest yield. There were no
significant differences in yields with the organic and inorganic fertiliser treatments (2, 3 and
4), for all cultivars of both tomato and pepper, although the combined treatment showed a
slight trend for being the highest yielding. Interestingly, the dry matter contents of both
tomato and pepper were in the following descending order: Digestate (treatment 3) >
combined (treatment 4) > control (treatment 1)> inorganic only (treatment 2). The higher
dry matter content of the crop in the digestate treatment was deemed by the authors to be
a positive effect, indicating that the digestate matches the nutritional needs of the plants in
the most suitable way. The higher dry matter content can be an important factor for
vegetable products (such as ketchups, dry products, puree etc.), improving the shelf life of
fresh vegetables. Lower water content inhibits the growth of undesirable microorganisms,
which cause decay of the products. Moreover, the heavy metal content remained below
permitted limits, and was not significantly different to conventionally fertilised tomatoes.
There was no difference between these plants and those grown in peat-bark media that had
had a conventional inorganic fertiliser added.
The following two studies discussed in this section focus on crops not generally grown in the
glasshouse, but nonetheless provide additional data on the use of whole and liquor fraction
digestates as a growing media ingredient.
A one year Czech study (Lošák et al., 2012) investigated the effect of a pig slurry/maize
silage digestate on pot grown kohlrabi (a nitrogen demanding crop). All pots contained 6 kg
of fluvial soil, with four treatments:
1 untreated control,
2 urea (1.5 g N/pot),
3 digestate (N-P-K-Mg g/pot: 1.5-0.18-0.69-0.08),
4 urea, triple super phosphate, KCl, MgSO4 (N-P-K-Mg g/pot: 1.5-0.18-0.69-0.08).
The N dose was the same in treatments 2-4, being 1.5 g N/pot. In treatment 4 the P, K and
Mg doses corresponded to those supplied in the digestate treatment. The treatments were
thoroughly mixed and the kohlrabi seeds were sown ten days later. Yields in the digestate
treatment were comparable to those achieved with artificial fertilisers (over three times those
of the unfertilised control). Both digestate and fertilisers reduced the ascorbic acid (Vitamin
C) content of the crop but tissue nitrate concentration (high levels of which can be harmful
to health) was much higher in the fertilised treatments 2 and 4.
The separated solid fraction of digestate (termed digestate fibre) is produced by separating
the whole digestate via a range of different processes including screw, screw press,
centrifuge and membrane filtration (Cavinato, 2013). The use of digestate fibre in growing
media has been highlighted as a potential emerging application in the UK (WRAP, 2013a),
although this end use is not currently permitted by PAS110 and the ADQP, and as such there
are no guidelines to date regarding desired characteristics. As a comparison, the existing
guidelines for the specification of quality compost for use in growing media can be used as
an important resource for recommended targets and limits. The main quality parameters for
compost use in growing media include stability, phytotoxicity, PTEs and physical and
chemical properties, with upper limits of 50 mg/l for NH4-N, 150 mg/l for sodium, 1000 mg/l
for chloride and 1500 μS/cm for EC (WRAP, 2011a).
Interestingly, a recent industry survey regarding the potential use of digestate fibre as a
growing media ingredient highlighted the following (WRAP, 2013a):
‗The production of growing media for container growing of plants for professional and
amateur use is a highly specialised market with stringent requirements for the
physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the product. Companies have
internal specifications for components to meet requirements such as moisture
content, bulk density, air-filled porosity and available water capacity. There is a
requirement for constituents to be low in nutrients and soluble salts, and possibly low
pH – to allow crop-specific nutrients to be added in the correct proportions. They
must have low levels of physical contaminants, toxic elements and organic
contaminants, be free from pathogens and also microbially stable to prevent further
physical breakdown during product use. There is a continued need to find suitable
peat replacement products that are not only technically robust but also sustainable
Published research has investigated digestate fibre mixed with a range of materials
(including other wastes and commercial growing medium ingredients) or the use of
composted digestate, on the performance of a range of edible and ornamental crops. In
other cases digestate has been composted together with other ingredients to produce a
product. These scenarios are discussed below.
Digestate fibre is also being used in other (non-horticultural) applications. For example,
matured or dried digestate fibre is used for cattle bedding in the US (Alexander, 2012).
However such uses are beyond the scope of this literature review, and are not discussed
further here.
When the digestate fibre is subsequently composted either alone or together with other
feedstocks, provided the composting process meets the requirements of PAS100 (BSI, 2011),
it would be regulated as a compost, rather than as a digestate. This has implications for the
waste status of the material, since ‗end of waste composts‘ can be used for a wider range of
applications than ‗end of waste digestates‘. Further information on acceptable markets for
the different materials can be found in their respective quality protocols (WRAP and
Environment Agency, 2010, 2012).
Solid digestate (fibre) has been trialled as a growing media ingredient with a range of other
constituents, and some examples are summarised in Table 9. A recent UK study focussing on
the use of digestate fibre for tomato production is discussed below.
7.1.1 UK research: The use of cattle slurry digestate fibre in mixtures with coir and pine
bark as plant growth substrates in the intensive production of glasshouse tomato
crops
The use of digestate fibre produced from cattle slurry was assessed as a growing media
ingredient for tomato production in a recent feasibility study (Challinor, 2014). Overall, the
study concluded that digestate fibre may act as an additional nutrient reservoir for the
sustained growth and yield of crops, such as tomato.
The digestate fibre was left to stand for six weeks prior to mixing. The three treatments
were coir only, 50:50 digestate fibre:coir (v/v) and 50:50 digestate fibre:pine bark (v/v). The
higher digestate fibre pH was moderated by the lower pH of the coir and the bark, to create
growing media deemed suitable for tomato production (see Table 10). The resultant growing
media were filled into polythene sleeves, and then planted with tomatoes (cv Dometica).
Water and nutrients were delivered via standard drip irrigation. The feed regime was tailored
to best meet the nutrient demands of the plants and optimise nutrient availability. It was
possible to obtain similar fruit quality in both the digestate mixtures and the standard coir
substrate over a period of eight months.
There were no visible symptoms of plant damage caused by pesticides or herbicides during
the trial, demonstrating that there was no such contamination in the digestate mixes.
The coir treatment had the highest marketable yield at 30.19 kg/m2, with the digestate and
bark mix yielding 27.85 kg/m2, compared with 25.89 kg/m2 from the digestate and coir mix.
The author highlighted that it is likely that positional effects of the substrate rows and the
absence of replication in the trial glasshouse may have influenced the plot yields.
Further research on potential crop contaminants and also the presence of human, animal
and plant pathogens in the digestate was recommended, especially prior to future use in
intensive cropping. Moreover, it was highlighted that the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the digestate fibre must be fully quantified before use, as an understanding
of the analytical profile will help to avoid any of the potential nutritional difficulties, and
assist management decisions during the crop growth period.
Figure 8. UK tomato trial in July 2013 (left) and September 2013 (right). Left: Digestate and bark,
middle row: Digestate and coir, right: Coir only.
7.1.2 Research outside the UK: Digestate fibre as a growing medium ingredient
A German study investigated the use of digestate fibre from 80% maize silage and 20% rye
silage mixed (v/v) in concentrations of 0, 20, 30 and 40% with peat (Rakers et al., 2010).
Petunia surfinia ―White‖ seedlings were potted and grown for five weeks, after which yield,
height and number of buds were determined, with no significant effects between the
A 70 day greenhouse pot trial compared the growth of lettuce over 70 days in two Italian
soils (sandy loam and loam), combined with 200 and 400 kg N/ha of the solid fraction of pig
manure (pH 7, N 2.9% DM, organic C 43.5% DM), the digestate fibre from pig manure (pH
8, N 3% DM, organic C 35.9% DM), and granular urea as an inorganic fertiliser (Trinchera et
al., 2013). There was also an unfertilised control treatment. The lettuce transplants were
grown in 2 l pots. The N availability of both the solid digestate and manure were comparable
to standard industry practice for fertilising short term horticultural crops. Plant quality was
good at the end of the experiment, in both the soils and for both of the organic
amendments.
Even though the plant dry matter was partially reduced with the organic amendments, as
compared to the inorganic fertiliser, the macro and micronutrient uptake was lower. This
indicates improved nutrient use efficiency of the organic amendments compared to the urea
treatment. Moreover, the digestate treatments generally performed as well as or better than
the unfertilised controls.
Crippa et al (2011) used digestate fibre (derived from manure or maize and agro-industrial
waste) to partly replace peat in growing media. A 30 day lettuce trial showed promising
results with good physical characteristics. The pure digestate fibre treatment without peat
had a high conductivity that inhibited cress germination during a preliminary bioassay,
whereas peat and digestate mixes performed as well as peat in the lettuce trial.
Wrede (2012) compared a number of different blends of solid maize silage-based digestate
mixed with standard growing media and with standard growing media alone as the control
treatment (see Figure 8). The 0% and 20% digestate treatments included 4g/l slow release
fertiliser, and the 30% and 40% digestate treatments included 3g/l slow release fertiliser
(nutrient contents of the digestate and fertiliser were not defined). Two varieties of roses
(with both cuttings with formed roots, and also plants with a grafted rootstock) were grown
in 5.5 l pots for seven months. The 20% digestate treatment generally improved the quality
of the roses (assessed by plant height, bud weight and sorting the plants visually into two
quality categories) compared to those grown in the control media. The 30% and 40%
digestate treatments did not result in improved quality. Reduction of bud weight for 30%
and 40% digestate treatments was attributed to the lower dose of controlled release
fertiliser compared to the 0% and 20% digestate treatments.
An American research group investigated the use of dairy manure digestate fibre (pH 8.4, EC
3.5 dS/m) on ornamentals as a peat replacement in a number of glasshouse trials
(MacConnell et al., 2010, MacConnell and Collins, 2009). An initial pot trial using Petunia
grandiflora focussed on the following treatments:
1 60% peat moss, 25% compost (sterilized greenhouse cull plant waste), 15% pumice;
2 85% peat moss and 15% pumice;
3 85% digestate fibre and 15% pumice;
4 60% digestate fibre, 25% compost, 15% pumice;
5 40% digestate fibre, 40% peat moss and 20% pumice.
6 All media had dolomite lime (CaMg(CO3)2) incorporated at a rate of 0.59 kg/m3. Plants
were fertigated daily with a mixture of 20-10-20 and 15-0-15 at 150 ppm N. When
the digestate fibre was the main growing media ingredient, chlorosis was observed
(due to poor availability of Fe and Mn), in addition to lower fresh weight, height and
number of flower buds than the peat based treatments. The authors detail a range of
trials focussing on improvement of the digestate fibre to address this. It was found
that a lowering of the pH through post digestion acidification made Mn and Fe more
available. It was also found that nutrient amendment was required to improve results.
Thus in later trials the amended digestate fibre was diluted with peat, and the petunia
plants performed as well as peat, as shown in
7 Figure 10. The treatments were:
1 80% peat moss, 20% P with 1.78 kg/m3 dolomite lime (CaMg(CO3)2) and 0.89 kg/m3 limestone flour
(CaCO3);
2 70% digestate fibre, 30% pumice;
3 70% digestate fibre, 30% pumice with 0.89 kg/m3 S;
4 70% digestate fibre, 30% pumice with 0.89 kg/m3 S and 4.15 kg/m3 gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O);
5 70% digestate fibre, 30% pumice with 0.89 kg/m3 S, 4.15 kg/m3 gypsum, and 0.89 kg/m3 limestone
flour.
Figure 10. Comparison of 1:1 optimised digestate fibre pre-treated media and peat (left) and peat
control (right) (MacConnell et al., 2010)
A number of Italian studies were identified where digestate was mixed with rice husks/hulls
and a range of other growing media ingredients, including peat and perlite (Brazzale, 2012,
Dengo, 2013, Sambo et al., 2010, Vanetto, 2012, Zanta, 2001). The digestate fibre had a dry
matter content of 30-40% for these trials (Giorgio Ponchia 2014 pers comm).
Four substrates were prepared with increasing rates (0, 33, 67 and 100%) of ground rice
hulls (GRH) mixed with peat. These mixes were either amended with 20% digestate
produced from fruit and wine waste, or used without digestate. Tomato seedlings were
grown under three irrigation regimes. Water holding capacity and easily available water
decreased with the increase in GRH content. Differences between substrates were increased
when digestate was added. Digestate generally reduced total pore space and air-filled
porosity, but not in all mixes. Electrical conductivity was increased with the addition of
digestate. Higher nutrient concentrations were observed in substrates containing digestate.
The addition of digestate improved the growth of the tomato plants (Bassan et al., 2014).
Figure 11. Cyclamen plants (Brazzale, 2012). Top photo with 0%, 10%, 30% and 50% rice husks
(left to right), plus peat without digestate in all four pots. Bottom photo with 0%, 10%, 30% and
50% rice husks (left to right), plus peat with 20% digestate in all four pots.
Another Italian study investigated a range of substrates including peat, rice husks and perlite
with two varieties of Cyclamen persicum (Brazzale, 2012). The same approach (and
proportions of rice hull to peat, with or without 20% digestate amendment, but no perlite)
was used as described above. The same fertigation regime was provided for all treatments,
with N, P, K, Ca and Mg concentrations varying throughout the season. In this instance,
digestate increased the growth of leaves and roots and total fresh weight of the plants (see
Figure 11).
Table 11. Details of six growing media used in a cyclamen trial (Dengo, 2013)
Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6
% perlite 20 0 0 20 0 0
% GRH 0 20 40 0 16 32
% peat 80 80 60 60 64 48
% digestate fibre 0 0 0 20 20 20
Density (g/cm3) 79.4 92.5 100.9 114.2 117.0 126.6
Total porosity (% v/v) 78.1 81.7 87.5 80.5 87.2 88.7
Porosity in the air (% v/v) 40.9 39.8 42.6 34.4 34.0 40.5
WHC (% v/v) 37.2 41.9 44.9 46.1 53.2 48.2
DM (%) 32.4 31.2 41.8 30.8 33.4 34.0
OM (%) 74.6 88.3 81.8 66.5 77.2 76.5
pH 7.1 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.0 7.0
EC (μS/cm) 230 260 217 670 653 620
N-NO3 (mg/l) 3.41 2.58 1.17 9.00 8.34 5.05
N-NH4 (mg/l) 5.61 7.03 2.06 3.5 6.81 2.51
P2O5 (mg/l) 4.59 4.66 6.82 3.4 7.11 7.09
K (mg/l) 24.1 39.1 35.1 83.1 81.8 70.8
Ca (mg/l) 15.8 20.5 9.2 39.3 31.3 23.6
Mg (mg/l) 3.06 4.24 1.71 5.18 5.41 3.85
SO4 (mg/l) 22.7 17.5 15.2 24.5 22.7 17.5
A number of trials were undertaken in an in-depth three year study in Germany, using fresh
and composted digestate fibre as a growing media ingredient (Meinken et al., 2009). In the
first trial, seven types of fresh digestate fibre from crops (crops not specified but assumed to
include maize) was mixed with peat to achieve a salt content of either 1g/l or 2g/l (termed
digestate salt 1 or digestate salt 2), apart from one digestate fibre which had only 1g/l salt
concentration. No information was provided by the authors regarding the make-up of the
salt or EC levels. However, these two salt concentrations of 1g/l and 2g/l correspond roughly
to a conductivity of 0.6mS/cm and 1.2mS/cm (Kehres and Thelen-Jüngling, 2006). The
volume of digestate fibre in the resultant mix was between 9.1% and 33% to achieve a salt
content of 1g/l and double that (i.e. up to 66%) for the 2g/l trials. There were two peat-only
controls with additional salt added at concentrations of 1g/l and 2g/l.
For each combination, 25 seeds were sown in 9l pots. Plants investigated were Chinese
cabbage and barley. Plant fresh weight and leaf colour were assessed after 4 weeks. It was
found that Chinese cabbage had significantly lower fresh weight when using the digestates,
as compared to the two controls. Fresh weight of Chinese cabbage was approximately 87%
of the 1g/l control for the digestate salt 1 treatments, and only 73% of the 2 g/l control for
the digestate salt 2 treatments.
Barley grain fresh weight varied more and on occasion the digestate fibre treatments
performed better than the control. For the digestate salt 1 treatment, the variation was
between 20% and 140% of the control with the same salt content, while for the digestate
salt 2 treatment, the variation was between 7% and 87% with respect to the corresponding
control.
When looking at the leaf colour, it was found that pronounced chlorosis occurred for three of
the seven types of digestate fibre and necrosis occurred for two types of digestate fibre,
whereby the highest observed leaf quality was that for the controls. Both Chinese cabbage
and barley plants showed a similar tendency for both necrosis and chlorosis.
The authors of the study interpreted their findings by the assumption that unidentified
growth inhibiting substances were present in the digestate fibre. They further hypothesised
that the high pH of 6.9 observed in only one digestate fibre mix could have induced a lack of
iron. The authors conclude that the use of fresh digestate fibre in growing media carries high
risks for the healthy growth of seedlings (Meinken et al., 2009). Subsequently, trials were
carried out where the digestate fibre was composted prior to use, as described in Section 0.
The following studies focus on the growth of arable crops (rape and sunflowers) and rye
grass in digestate fibre. Although these crops are not produced under glass commercially,
these trials demonstrate further evidence regarding the suitability of digestate fibre as a
growing media component either alone or in combination with other ingredients.
In the first trial, rye grass was sown and grown for four months, with four cuts undertaken
at monthly intervals. For the accumulated DM yield of the four cuts, the 100% unleached
and leached compost and digestate fibre treatments were comparable or significantly greater
than the control. However, the 80% leached compost with 20% additives treatment
generally had a significantly lower DM yield than the control. The 80% unleached digestate
fibre with 20% hygromull treatment resulted in a higher rye grass yield and total nutrient
uptake than the other treatments. This was attributed to the fact that hygromull has a high
water-holding capacity and is able to store nutrients and deliver them later in the growing
season than the other additives.
In the second trial, rape was sown and harvested after 51 days (compost treatments) and 58
days (digestate treatments). Subsequently sunflowers were sown in the same pots as
recently harvested rape, and the sunflower plants were harvested after 40 days. Generally,
the DM yield of rape and sunflowers grown in compost or digestate fibre was slightly higher
or comparable to the control. Moreover, there were no significant differences in DM yield of
sunflower between the pure materials (100% compost or digestate fibre) and those mixed
with additives.
A study in Ireland compared the use of digestate with compost on the growth of perennial
rye grass (Prasad et al., 2013). All treatments provided 218 kg N/ha. The trial was conducted
in 15 cm diameter pots containing 5 l of soil. The treatments included soil only, compost,
digestate fibre, compost or digestate fibre with inorganic N as a top dressing five times,
digestate liquor applied five times and inorganic fertiliser-only applied five times. The grass
was harvested five times over a four month period, with the liquid amendments applied after
each harvest. The grass harvest was best in the inorganic fertiliser treatment. Nitrogen
uptake was improved when the treatment included both the organic amendment and the
inorganic top dressing. Digestate liquor applied at the rate described above caused burning
of the foliage. This study also provides an in-depth comparison of the compost and digestate
fibre used in the trial. The authors highlight that it is very important to measure the
inorganic nitrogen (mostly NH4-N) and express it as a % of total N, to ensure that the
grower has an accurate indicator of crop nitrogen availability.
Do and Scherer (2012) described the use of ‗solid phase‘ digestate (presumed to be fibre
digestate, from pig manure and maize) and green waste compost alone or as 80:20 growing
media blends with perlite, styromull, hygromull, lecaton, peat and coir. Rye grass was grown
in 6 l pots and cut four times at 30 day intervals. Plants were watered daily. Satisfactory
growth of rye grass as a test crop was obtained with relatively little difference between the
treatments. The 80:20 (v/v) mix of digestate fibre:hygromull resulted in a higher ryegrass
yield and a significantly higher uptake of P and Mg than the control. The higher total nutrient
For the UK, the composting of digestate fibre has been highlighted as a potential means to
stabilise the product further and also to reduce odour (WRAP, 2013a). In the US, digestate
fibre is already routinely being composted (or dried) to ensure the final product is stable,
making it easier to store and transport, in addition to adding value in the growing media
ingredient market place (Alexander, 2012, MacConnell et al., 2010). Composting digestate
has also been highlighted as a means of reducing nutrient loss of the raw digestate (Warnars
and Oppenoorth, 2014). A limited number of studies were found regarding the use of
composted digestates as growing media, including recent UK work which is discussed below.
7.2.1 UK research: The potential of using composted digestate fibre for horticulture for
ornamental production
Digestate fibre from three feedstocks (potato waste, BMW and maize) was composted for 12
weeks. The composted digestate fibre was then mixed with green waste compost (GWC),
with the volume of composted digestate fibre being 10%, 30% and 50% (WRAP, 2015c).
Some characteristics of these growing media are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Analysis of the growing media mixes at the start of the ornamentals trial (WRAP, 2015c)
CDF = composted digestate fibre, GWC = green waste compost
Bulk Available N
Conductivity P K Mg Total N
density pH as NH4
g/l µS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l kg/t
Peat based
277.64 6.18 670 19.57 286.61 51.48 132.68 17.94
control
Peat free
223.8 6.12 504 39.83 64.77 4.93 129.2 10.88
control
50 % potato waste CDF:
508 8.22 2080 68.27 2136.35 64.69 38.56 20.56
50% GWC
50% BMW CDF:
399.44 7.72 1582 14.61 1583.06 77.82 178.12 18.78
50% GWC
50% Maize CDF:
349.68 7.66 1384 15.54 1660.19 44.75 86.12 19.04
50% GWC
30 % potato waste CDF:
540.32 8.18 2128 42.09 2240.2 88.27 420.52 17.42
70% GWC
30% BMW CDF:
431.96 7.96 1652 11.09 1771.57 64.64 152.16 17.84
70% GWC
30% Maize CDF:
481.6 7.78 1926 5.39 2072.6 104.42 96.24 16.72
70% GWC
10 % potato waste CDF:
529.56 8.06 2108 7.56 2382.01 95.85 163.78 14.8
90% GWC
10% BMW CDF:
464.8 7.98 1778 4.54 1938.64 76.32 120.46 14.7
90% GWC
10% Maize CDF:
457.64 8.02 1736 5.76 1908.03 60.12 124.08 14.76
90% GWC
The species used in this trial were representative of UK hardy ornamental nursery stock
(HONS) and bedding plants, and had a range of nutrient and pH tolerances. A Heuchera
hybrid, Euonymus fortunei, Dryopteris erythrosora (fern), Viburnum tinus purpureum and
Four of the five species tested produced generally good quality plants across the range of
growing media mixes. The exceptions were the ferns (Dryopteris), where plants failed to
grow in the majority of the compost mixes except for the peat-based control, and Heuchera
which performed poorly in the two mixes containing 30% and 50% composted potato
digestate fibre. This reduction in growth in the Heuchera was attributed to the levels of pH
above 8, EC over 2000 µS/cm and/or potassium above 2000 mg/l in the potato fibre mixes.
Leaching prior to use as a growing media ingredient was proposed as a way to reduce the
high EC levels of the composted digestate fibre. The potato waste digestate was also much
denser and wetter than the other two digestates, and harder to handle and mix with the
GWC.
Figure 12. UK ornamental growth trials with composted digestate fibre as a growing media
ingredient (WRAP, 2015c)
Composted digestate fibre can, in many cases, be successfully used to grow a range of
high value ornamental species;
Composted digestate fibre can be reliably incorporated as a growing media component up
to at least 50% by volume;
The digestate fibre used in this study did not require pH adjustment, nutrient leaching or
nutrient supplementation prior to use in order to produce commercially satisfactory levels
of growth for the majority of the plant species tested; and
The physical structure of the digestate fibre compost blend with GWC appeared stable
over a three month time line.
The same three CDF digestates were used for a subsequent germination study (WRAP,
2015c). The treatments were:
1 Control: Peat-reduced modular compost (as used in commercial plant raising);
2 85% 3 – 6mm GWC with 15% coir;
3 85% 6mm screened potato waste CDF + 15% coir (control);
4 85% 6mm screened BMW CDF + 15% coir;
5 85% 6mm screened maize CDF + 15% coir.
For all three species, the seeds failed to germinate during the 28 days in the potato waste
CDF treatment, which the authors attributed to the high EC values for this material.
Moreover, germination of the Chinese cabbage seeds was significantly reduced by the GWC
treatment, compared to the control, with the maize and BMW CDF treatments performing as
well as the control. For lettuce, with the exception of the poor performance of the potato
waste CDF treatment, the pattern of germination was similar for the other four treatments.
However, germination of the tomato seedlings in the control treatment was significantly
more rapid than all the other treatments.
In conclusion, over the observed time period, the maize and BMW CDF mixes performed as
well as the control in terms of germination of the lettuce and Chinese cabbage seeds, but
significantly less well with the tomato seeds.
7.2.2 Research outside the UK: Using composted digestate fibre as a growing media
ingredient
In a 2011 study, growing media for potting mixes were formulated from composted
anaerobically digested cattle biosolids (0 - 60%), aged pine bark (30 - 90%) and 10% sand.
The resultant mixes had suitable physical properties (air-filled porosity, container capacity,
total porosity and bulk density). Where the digestate component was 30% or greater, high
sodium, chloride, potassium and phosphorus were deemed likely to cause problems for plant
growth (Ridout, 2011).
Digestate fibre from cow manure was composted in a windrow for 100 days (Inbar, 1985).
During composting the pH fell from 7.5 to 6.6 whilst the amount of soluble salts increased.
This digestate compost was then compared to the raw digestate fibre, both being used as a
growing media ingredient for tomato, cucumber and pepper. The raw digestate fibre was
found to inhibit tomato growth (even after additional fertilisation), whereas the composted
digestate fibre was as good or superior to peat.
Finally, a 2010 study examined the response over nine weeks of rooted Chrysanthemum
cuttings grown in a range of substrates local to Washington, USA (Krucker, 2010).
The substrates were:
1 100% Groco (a biosolids digestate which was then composted with sawdust);
2 100% Tagro (a biosolids digestate cake mixed 2:1:1 (v/v) with sawdust and sand);
3 100% dairy manure compost;
4 100% digestate fibre from dairy manure;
5 50% Groco:50% douglas-fir bark (v/v);
6 50% Tagro:50% bark (v/v);
7 50% dairy compost:50% bark (v/v);
8 50% digestate fibre from dairy manure:50% bark (v/v); and
9 the control, a commercial peat–perlite mixture (70% to 80% sphagnum peatmoss, in addition
to perlite, dolomitic limestone and gypsum, no nutrients added).
The dairy manure digestate fibre had an initial EC average (8.3 dS/m) above the
recommended range so it was leached with a volume of water equivalent to four times the
volume of the substrate. After leaching, the EC, nitrate, and pH levels for the two digestate
treatments (treatments 4 and 8 below) were in the same range as the other substrates.
A micronutrient mix was added to all substrates. Four days after transplanting, all plants
were fertilised with a solution containing 200mg/l N, 100 mg/l P and 200mg/l K. Thereafter N
The generally inferior performance in 100% Groco (treatment 1) was attributed to low
water-holding capacity. In substrates with higher available N (Groco, Tagro, Tagro:bark, and
digestate fibre from dairy manure), plant growth parameters generally did not respond to
doubling the applied N; whereas in the other substrates, including the control, growth
generally increased in response to additional N. The differences in leaf colour across
treatments were not large, with more of a colour difference observed due to the two N
treatments rather than due to the different substrates. Root growth of plants in the
substrates was similar to the control in both irrigation systems.
The authors concluded that biosolids and dairy manure products can be used as substrates
under reduced fertilisation (low N rate), with both surface and sub-irrigation systems.
Interestingly, the Tagro:bark mix produced for this study was adapted by the City of
Tacoma, WA, and since 2004 has been sold in bulk and bags as Tagro Potting Soil. In 2009
the production used 25% of the total biosolids output from the city of Washington, and the
product was awarded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s highest rating for use in
landscaping, vegetable gardens and indoor container gardens (City of Tacoma, 2014).
7.3 Using digestate fibre co-composted with other materials as a growing media
ingredient
Several papers described the potential of co-composting digestate with other materials (such
as vine prunings, wheat straw or grape marc waste) in order to stabilise the digestate and
thus, to improve its properties for use as a more suitable growing medium ingredient
(Bustamante, 2012, Bustamante et al., 2013). A recent WRAP report suggests co-composting
digestate fibre with green waste to improve physical, chemical and biological characteristics
(WRAP, 2013a).
For example, the solid fraction of digestate (from cattle manure with 4.3% cattle slurry and
11.6% maize-oat silage) was composted either alone or with 10% or 20% vine prunings (on
a fresh weight basis) (Bustamante, 2012). In addition 0.2% sulphur was added to reduce
pH, and 1% almond shell powder added to increase the C:N ratio. For this study and that
discussed below (Restrepo, 2013), the composting method was trapezoidal static piles 1.5m
high with a 2x3m base, with aeration from the base. After 95 days the aeration was stopped
and the compost left to mature for a further month. Water was added as necessary.
The ammonia concentration of the digestate composts was much lower than the fresh
digestate fibre, with this being predominantly attributed to volatilisation and immobilisation.
The digestate fibre composts showed greater in vitro suppression of Fusarium oxysporum f.
sp. melonis, than the uncomposted digestate. The resultant compost was considered to have
suitable physical properties for use as growing media, including bulk density, total pore
space and shrinkage. For all three composts produced, the composting reduced pH and C:N
but increased the EC (see Table 13). The authors imply that the composting of digestate
fibre can result in the production of an added-value product due to this much greater degree
of stability and maturity (compared with uncomposted digestate), in addition to enhanced
physical properties (Bustamante, 2012).
Table 13. Characteristics of raw digestate, compost feedstocks and final digestate composts (131
days old) (Bustamante, 2012)
EC OM
pH C:N
(dS/m) (g/kg)
Raw digestate fibre at the start of the trial 8.8 4.49 797 19.20
Material composted (including 0.2% S and 1% almond shell)
Day 0 8.46 4.65 833 19.7
100% digestate fibre
Mature 6.92 7.52 659 10.4
90% digestate fibre, Day 0 8.37 3.51 850 21.9
10% vine shoot prunings Mature 6.88 6.19 702 11.9
80% digestate fibre, Day 0 8.34 3.18 858 26.7
20% vine prunings Mature 7.02 5.07 706 13.4
7.3.2 Digestate fibre co-composted with wood chip and flax straw
A number of trials were undertaken in an in-depth three year study using fresh and
composted digestate fibre as a growing media ingredient. The original publication includes
an in-depth investigation of the composting process in addition to the growth trials outlined
below for composted digestate fibre, with preliminary trials on fresh digestate fibre described
in Section 7.1.2 (Meinken et al., 2009). The digestate fibres obtained were from three
sources with a range of feedstocks (digestate 1: 30% salad waste, 30% fresh maize, 20%
cow manure, 20% maize starch, potato starch and fruit juice waste; digestate 2: 50% maize
silage, 10% sugar beet tops, 30% cereal dust, 10% processing fat; digestate 3: 12% forage
rye silage, 18% crushed cereal grain, 70% pig manure).
Digestate fibre was mixed with wood chip or flax straw at 20% and 40% by volume and
composted for six weeks. The compost was turned weekly for the first four weeks and then
once in the sixth week. The stability of the compost was measured during the composting
process and found to increase during the composting process, finally reaching a stability
Table 14. Composition of the CDF after seven weeks of composting, before additions, also showing
the % of CDF added to peat to create the final mixes used in the trial (Meinken et al., 2009).
F = flax straw, W = wood chip. Chemical extraction methods in brackets.
CDF characteristics before mixing with peat
Additive Salt N P2O6 K2O Na Cl Cu Zn %
Digestate before pH (H2O) (CAT) (CAL) (CAL) (H2O) (H2O) (agua (agua mixed
regia) regia) with
composting g/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
mg/kg mg/kg peat
1 0 6.8 5.3 542 8070 2320 347 410 43 196 19
1 20% F 7.1 3.73 228 7142 2157 291 355 40 170 27
1 40% F 7.1 2.92 139 5239 1754 221 267 37 162 34
1 20% W 7.2 3.7 213 6856 2018 292 370 40 186 27
1 40% W 7.1 2.75 65 6106 1643 228 274 34 165 36
2 0 6.9 3.94 254 1539 2819 312 598 39 142 27
2 20% F 7.4 1.97 50 647 2020 164 417 28 180 40
2 40% F 7.4 1.5 48 459 1610 117 291 25 101 40
2 20% W 7.4 1.8 54 643 1911 157 383 28 106 40
2 40% W 7.2 1.26 38 397 1339 109 274 21 103 40
3 0 7.1 6.16 608 5629 3165 654 1356 114 407 16
3 20% F 7.2 4.57 504 3971 2779 455 978 98 298 22
3 40% F 6.9 3.44 455 2554 1949 298 558 73 216 29
3 20% W 6.8 4.45 146 3198 2633 467 904 90 299 22
3 40% W 6.4 3.6 63 2495 1749 367 653 73 246 28
The Scaevola aemula ‗Saphira‗ (fan flower) trial lasted for 13 weeks. The CDF mix treatments
all resulted in some leaf discolouration or necrosis, which in some cases spread over the
whole leaf, thus reducing plant quality. However, the growth of plants in terms of fresh
weight was comparable or greater in some of the CDF growing media mixes than the peat
control. Correlation with phosphate content was proposed as the issue with CDF mixes
where growth was reduced. The greatest reduction in plant quality correlated with CDF
mixes with highest phosphate content (up to 8 mg P2O5/l). The lowest phosphate content
CDF mixes resulted in the best plant quality. Scaevola is known to be sensitive to high levels
of phosphate (Schmitz, 2009). The authors commented that high concentrations of
The Sutera ‗Baja‗ growth trial lasted for 14 weeks. Only slight differences in fresh weight
between treatments were observed, with all CDF mixes being comparable or greater than
the control. However, chlorosis and in fewer cases necrosis appeared at the end of the trial
in some treatments, which was attributed to iron deficiency.
The Pelargonium zonale ‗Deep Red Robe‗ trial lasted 11 weeks. In this case, the treatments
with higher levels of phosphate resulted in higher fresh weight than lower phosphate
treatments. Compared to the peat control, some yields were higher and some lower with the
CDF mixes. Plants all grew well, with good quality observed. The number of flowers was
significantly less than the control in two of the 15 CDF mix treatments.
The sunflower Helianthus annuus 'Estate' was grown as an example of a salt tolerant species
used for cut flowers. The same CDF mixes as above were used but adjusted with chalk to be
pH 6. Seeds were planted directly into the substrates with the trial lasting for 13 weeks. Half
drain pipes 4.5m long (20x7cm) were used with seeds planted every 20cm (approx. 45 seeds
per treatment). Drip fertigation was implemented from week 4 onwards.
After seven weeks there were some significant differences in plant growth, although by the
end of the trial (week 13) there were no significant differences in stem length, flower
diameter and stem fresh weight in all treatments including the control. There was a large
variation in results within each treatment at the end of the trial, which the authors attributed
to uneven germination rates.
One of each plant type was transplanted into a 20 l rectangular pot (five plants per pot),
with three replicates of each treatment. The trial lasted for 22 weeks, with liquid fertiliser
applied weekly from week 6 onwards in all treatments (Meinken et al., 2009).
There was no significant difference in growth per pot compared to the control, assessed by
total fresh weight at the end of the trial. All plants grew well. For one species
(Osteospermum), there was a large variability in the number of flowers, often being higher
for the digestate fibre composts compared to the control. The authors suggested that the
mixes trialled were suitable for growing ornamental flowering plants in balcony pots,
provided they complied with the German standard for growing media (BGK, 2007).
In a Spanish seedling production trial, digestate fibre from cattle manure, cattle slurry and
maize-oat silage was composted with 0.2% sulphur and 1% almond shell powder for 125
days as described above, and then mixed with peat in a dilution series of 25, 50 and 75%
(v/v); the control was 100% peat (Restrepo, 2013). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum),
muskmelon (Cucumis melo), and pepper (Capsicum annuum) were grown in the mixes for
40 days. Typically, in a commercial system the plants would subsequently be transplanted
into new containers or outside in the field.
The plants were all fertigated twice a week with an industry standard solution containing
(mM) 136 N (NO3− and NH4+), 49.4 P2O5, 23.4 K2O, 22.8 CaO, 6.25 Fe, 0.24 Cu, 3.18 Mn,
0.54 Zn, and 0.16 Mo. All mixes containing the composted digestate fibre had higher EC
values and pH than pure peat. Higher EC was deemed to be the main limiting factor for the
use of composted digestate fibre as a growing media ingredient, with values ranging from
0.44 dS/m for 100% peat to 5.25 dS/m for the 75% digestate compost. The pH values
(ranging from 5.97 for 100% peat to 6.37 for 75% digestate compost) were deemed to be
within the acceptable range for seedling production.
As the percentage volume of digestate compost was increased, so were the N, K, Mg and Zn
contents in the shoots of the plant seedlings of the three species. Micronutrient contents
were generally not affected, with the exception of an increase in Zn in 75% digestate
compost.
Muskmelon and pepper seed germination were comparable in all treatments. However, for
tomato seed germination, only the 25% digestate compost:peat mix was comparable to the
control, with higher concentrations of digestate compost reducing emergence. This was
attributed to the EC levels. The 25% digestate compost:peat mix was deemed to be the
most similar to the peat control in terms of shrinkage, readily available water and water
buffering capacity.
Bioassays are generally used to test germination, seedling growth, weeds and phytotoxins
(pesticide and herbicide residues) in amendments such as composts and digestates in a
controlled environment. Several of the published examples of digestate use as a growing
media ingredient for container grown plants are bioassays focussing on the germination and
growth of cereals and cress. Those of most relevance to digestate use in protected
horticulture are discussed below.
A Spanish study evaluated the quality of BMW as a component for growing media using a
bioassay with cress and barley (Moldes, 2006). For the first compost, the BMW was
processed through an aerobic bioprocess for 15 days in composting tunnels, followed by 3
months of curing (termed aerobic BMW). For the second compost the BMW was processed
through two steps: AD, followed by an aerobic curing step to stabilize the digested residue
(length of composting time not specified) (termed anaerobic BMW). Peat and composted
pine bark were used as the two controls, and then diluted by 25, 50 and 75% with the
aerobic and anaerobically processed products. Both BMW products were found to have high
EC. All treatments were fertilised with a nutrient solution to result in 220 mg N/l, 338 mg P/l
and 194 mg K/l, plus micronutrients. Interestingly, when barley germination was assessed at
3, 7 and 10 days, both BMW products mixed with the composted bark had higher
germination rates than the substrates which included peat. Moreover, the aerobic BMW
performed better than the anaerobic product. When cress was grown in the same mixes,
In Finland a study was undertaken to assess the effects of digestates (whole, solid and liquid
fractions of three digestates: 1) 90% pig manure and 10% industrial byproducts, 2) 100%
sewage sludge and 3) 20% biowaste, 70% sewage sludge and 10% grease trap sludge)
using various bioassays (Maunuksela et al., 2012). Pig manure and inorganic fertiliser (NPK
concentrations not specified) were used as controls. The digestates and controls were diluted
with artificial soil, sphagnum peat, or a peat-based commercial growing medium. The mixing
ratio in each case was determined by the ammonium nitrogen content of the samples, with a
target value of 90 kg NH4-N/ha. The mixtures were supplemented with a commercial trace
nutrient mixture, and their pH was adjusted with ground limestone to 5.5 – 6.0 for
sphagnum peat, and 6.0 – 6.5 for artificial soil. Petri dish cress tests lasting 72 hrs and 18 d
pot trials with Chinese cabbage and barley were undertaken.
For the cress test, the digestates mixed with peat treatments performed better in terms of
both germination and root growth than peat with NPK fertiliser. The digestate mixed with soil
treatments inhibited cress growth slightly, compared to the soil with NPK control, except for
the digestate 1 fibre (90% pig manure, 10% industrial byproducts), which stimulated cress
growth. However, the cress grown in the digestate mixed with soil treatments performed as
well as or better than the manure control.
The fresh weight and root growth of the barley seedlings was, in the vast majority of
digestate treatments, enhanced compared to the controls. However, for the Chinese
cabbage, some growth inhibition and chlorophyll content reduction with the digestate
treatments was observed compared to the controls, with the exception of the digestate 3
fibre treatment (20% biowaste, 70% sewage sludge and 10% grease trap sludge), which
stimulated growth. The authors attributed this generally negative effect to the Chinese
cabbage being more salt sensitive than barley and cress.
It is likely that further investigations into the use of digestate in growing media will have
been undertaken privately by manufacturers or plant raisers, and not be freely available in
the published literature. Several websites provide additional examples:
Marsh Sea farm in Lincolnshire - working with Bulrush horticulture to develop a range of
growing media including digestate: (http://www.greenergreens.co.uk/our-initiatives/)
Charles Gould (Michigan State University) describes using digestate fibre in high quality
growing media: (http://fyi.uwex.edu/midwestmanure/files/2009/10/Gould-PPT-Fiber.pdf)
The literature obtained during this review has demonstrated that there have been a wide
range of predominantly academic trials focussing on the use of digestate to grow a range of
crops.
In general, plant growth has not been greatly affected by the use of digestate to replace
inorganic fertilisers.
Where high concentrations of digestate were used, increases in EC and/or ammonia levels
have in some cases negatively impacted on plant response. However, when digestates
complied with the range of standard fertiliser or growing media parameters (e.g. EC,
ammonia), results tended to be comparable or even slightly better than using standards such
as peat or peat free growing media. Thus it is important to ensure that the EC and N levels
are within the standard industry ranges used for the specific application. Moreover, it is
important to measure the inorganic nitrogen (NH4-N and NO3-N) and express it as a % of
total N, to ensure that the grower has an accurate indicator of crop nitrogen availability.
Where the whole or liquor digestate was used as a liquid feed, tailoring the digestate
nutrient content (through dilution and nutrient addition) to meet the needs of the crop
tended to result in yields comparable to the inorganic industry standard.
A summary table highlighting the studies obtained relating to the use of various digestate
fractions on different crop types is summarised in Table 15.
As the trials reported generally focussed on a limited number of digestate treatments, further
optimisation of the treatments may have given better results, and would be recommended,
should digestate use be considered for commercial use in protected horticulture.
AI, T., LIU, Q. Y., LI, J. Y., & CHEN, D. H. 2006. Effects of anaerobic fermentation residues
on growth characteristics and nutrition quality of lettuce [J]. Renewable Energy, 6,
16.
ALEXANDER, R. 2012. Farmers are finding economic benefit to generating their own cow
bedding and quick release fertilizer. Biocycle, 53, 56.
ANDREAS, C. 2004a. Auch die Tomaten mit Biogasrestnährlösung in Dammkultur und im
Bioanbau entwickeln sich prächtig. Landwirtschaftskammer NRW, GBZ Straelen /
Köln-Auweiler.
ANDREAS, C. 2004b. Geselle Thomas K. bei kritischer Betrachtung des Paprikas mit
Biogasrestnährlösung. Landwirtschaftskammer NRW, GBZ Straelen / Köln-Auweiler.
ANDREAS, C. 2007. Die Cocktailtomate ´Oakley´ reift schon, während die runden
Biotomaten mit Biogasrestnährlösung noch wachsen müssen. Landwirtschaftskammer
NRW, GBZ Straelen / Köln-Auweiler.
ANDREAS, C., REINTGES, T. 2003. Bewässerungsdüngung im Bodenanbau ist mit
Biogasrestnährlösung sinnvoll und möglich. Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland -
Gartenbauzentrum Straelen, Versuche im deutschen Gartenbau
ANDREAS, C., REINTGES, T. 2005. Der Einsatz von Restnährlösung aus Biogasanlagen zur
Düngung von Tomaten ist auch im Bioanbau interessant. Landwirtschaftskammer
NRW, GBZ Straelen / Köln-Auweiler, Versuche im deutschen Gartenbau
ANDREAS, C., REINTGES, T. 2006. Restnährlösung aus Biogasanlagen ist zur Düngung von
Tomaten im Bioanbau einsetzbar. Landwirtschaftskammer NRW, GBZ Straelen / Köln-
Auweiler, Versuche im deutschen Gartenbau
ARVANITOYANNIS, I. S. V., T. H. 2008. Vegetable waste treatment: comparison and critical
presentation of methodologies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 48,
205-247.
BASSAN, A., SAMBO, P., ZANIN, G. & EVANS, M. R. 2012. Use of fresh rice hulls and
anaerobic digestion residues as substrates alternative to peat. Acta Horticulturae,
927, 1003-1010.
BASSAN, A., SAMBO, P., ZANIN, G. & EVANS, M. R. 2014. Rice hull-based substrates
amended with anaerobic digested residues for tomato transplant production. Acta
Horticulturae, 1018, 573-581.
BENZENBERG, M., FRICKE, T. & WACHENDORF, M. 2011. Effects of biogas digestates on the
above and below ground biomass of Lolium perenne L. Grassland farming and land
management systems in mountainous regions. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium of
the European Grassland Federation. Gumpenstein, Austria.
BGK 2007. Qualitätskriterien und Güterichtlinien Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost e.V.
BRAZZALE, L. 2012. Impiego di substrati e vasi ecosostenibili per la coltivazione del ciclamino
(Cyclamen persicum Mill.) Tesi di Laurea, Università Degli Studi di Padova.
BSI 2011. PAS 100:2011. Specification for composted materials. British Standards Institution
(BSI). Third Edition ed. London.
BSI 2014. PAS 110:2014 Specification for whole digestate, separated liquor and separated
fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion of source-segregated biodegradable
materials. The British Standards Institution.
BUSTAMANTE, M. A., ALBURQUERQUE, J.A., RESTREPO, A.P., DE LA FUENTE, C., PAREDES
C., MORAL, R., BERNAL, M. P. 2012. Co-composting of the solid fraction of anaerobic
digestates, to obtain added-value materials for use in agriculture. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 45, 1-10.
BUSTAMANTE, M. A., RESTREPO, A. P., ALBURQUERQUE, J. A., PÉREZ-MURCIA, M. D.,
PAREDES, C., MORAL, R. & BERNAL, M. P. 2013. Recycling of anaerobic digestates by
composting: effect of the bulking agent used. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 61-
69.