About usContact

BMP testingAnimal excreta (slurry, manure, poultry litter)

Cattle manure — BMP: 27 studies, weighted mean 149 m³ CH₄/t VS

Cattle manure and excreta are a lignocellulosic substrate of moderate potential, widely used in agricultural biogas plants as the basis of co-digestion.

rating: goodCH₄ ≈ 52 % (estimate)

Published Updated 3 min readFeedstockData Editorial Team

Photo David Anstiss / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY-SA 2.0, source file; changes: cropping

Weighted mean
149m³ CH₄/t VS
Range
51–322m³ CH₄/t VS
Records
27studies
Publications
14sources
Temperatures
35 °C, 36 °C, 37 °C, 38 °Cof the test

Methane in biogas

Medium methane content · ≈ 5.2 kWh/m³ of biogas

estimate from the substrate type The collected studies contain no measurement. The interval follows from the approximate composition (protein from total nitrogen (N 1.2 % DM × 6.25; in manure part of the N is ammonium nitrogen)) and the yields of compound groups according to FNR.

How we calculate it and what the zones mean

Rating for biogas plants

good — editorial rating for biogas plantsStable, usually accepted without a fee

Potential per tonne of fresh matter: moderate (31 m³ CH₄/t); stabilises the process (high alkalinity, supplies trace elements). Handling costs: sand, stones, shells, fibres, floating layer, slow degradation.

Why? Rating factors

Potential per tonne +1

  • +1potential 31 m³ CH₄/t fresh matter (BMP 149 × DM 25.2 % × VS 82 %)

Process stability +2

  • +1.5high alkalinity — stabilises the pH of the mixture
  • +0.5supplies trace elements (Co, Ni, Se, Fe)

Handling and costs −1.5

  • −0.5sand, stones, shells — sediment in the digester
  • −0.5fibres, floating layer — shredding and intensive mixing
  • −0.5slow degradation — long retention time

Total points: 1.5 · thresholds: ≥ 2.5 very good, ≥ 1 good, below — neutral; negative with cumulative process risk.

Editorial rating per the methodology · confidence of the rating: high · excluding market prices

Add to the co-digestion calculator CSV data

BMP curves from 27 studies

Weighted mean Individual records

BMP curves: Cattle manureCumulative methane production over time for 27 records and the weighted mean of 149 m³ CH₄/t VS. 27 of the curves are model curves (first-order kinetics).0100200300400051015202530time [d]m³ CH₄/t VSLallement et al. (2021) · 1: 227 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2021) · 2: 238 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Legesse et al. (2024): 143 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Baek et al. (2020): 109 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Rubio et al. (2019): 72 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Saha et al. (2025): 75 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Cu et al. (2014) · 1: 157 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Cu et al. (2014) · 2: 222 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Kafle i Chen (2016): 202 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Kouas et al. (2017) · 1: 70 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Kouas et al. (2017) · 2: 177 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Kouas et al. (2017) · 3: 212 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Labatut et al. (2011): 243 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 1: 132 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 2: 162 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 3: 167 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 4: 191 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 5: 199 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 6: 224 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 7: 233 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 8: 236 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 9: 258 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 10: 322 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Li et al. (2013): 51 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lisboa i Lansing (2013): 91 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Eliasson et al. (2023): 195 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Schumacher et al. (2019): 114 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)mean149

Dashed lines are a model curve (first-order kinetics, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt)); the end point comes from the publication. All curves are model curves.

Cumulative methane production over the test [m³ CH₄/t VS]. The thick line is the weighted mean of all records (149); dots mark the end values given in the publications. Point at the chart to read values; click a legend item to hide or show a record.

  • Show the remaining records in the legend (15)

Records and sources

Download CSV
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS		TemperatureSampleCurve
Lallement et al. (2021) · 1 DOI22738 °C · mesophiliccow manure (inoculum 2)end point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2021) · 2 DOI23838 °C · mesophiliccow manure (inoculum 1)end point (model curve)
Legesse et al. (2024) DOI14335 °C · mesophiliccow dung (CD), mono-digestion (T-7)end point (model curve)
Baek et al. (2020) DOI10935 °C · mesophiliccattle manure with sawdust bedding (CM), mono-digestion (Run 1)end point (model curve)
Rubio et al. (2019) DOI7235 °C · mesophiliccattle manure (CM)end point (model curve)
Saha et al. (2025) DOI7535 °C · mesophiliccow dung (CD), 100%end point (model curve)
Cu et al. (2014) · 1 DOI15737 °C · mesophilicdairy cow manureend point (model curve)
Cu et al. (2014) · 2 DOI22237 °C · mesophiliccow manureend point (model curve)
Kafle i Chen (2016) DOI20236 °C · mesophilicdairy manureend point (model curve)
Kouas et al. (2017) · 1 DOI7035 °C · mesophilicmanureend point (model curve)
Kouas et al. (2017) · 2 DOI17735 °C · mesophilicmanureend point (model curve)
Kouas et al. (2017) · 3 DOI21235 °C · mesophilicmanureend point (model curve)
Labatut et al. (2011) DOI24335 °C · mesophilicRaw dairy manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 1 DOI13238 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 2 DOI16238 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 3 DOI16738 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 4 DOI19138 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 5 DOI19938 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 6 DOI22438 °C · mesophiliccattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 7 DOI23338 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 8 DOI23638 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 9 DOI25838 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 10 DOI32238 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Li et al. (2013) DOI5137 °C · mesophilicDairy Manureend point (model curve)
Lisboa i Lansing (2013) DOI9135 °C · mesophilicdairy Manureend point (model curve)
Eliasson et al. (2023) DOI19537 °C · mesophilicCattle manureend point (model curve)
Schumacher et al. (2019) DOI114—Cattle manure (untreated)end point (model curve)
Weighted mean149arithmetic mean 175, SD 68

Typical composition

Dry matter (DM)
25.2% (range 10.9–69.8)
Volatile solids (VS)
82 % DM (range 73–91)
Nitrogen
1.2 % DM
C/N ratio
33.5

Median and range of the determinations reported in the publications behind this substrate's BMP records (read from: MY-D); dry matter: 14 determinations, volatile solids: 13 determinations. C/N was calculated as the ratio of C and N content (% DM) from the same source.

Sources: Cu et al. (2014); Kafle et al. (2016); Labatut et al. (2011); Lallement et al. (2023); Li et al. (2013).

The composition of the raw material varies between batches — for plant calculations use an analysis of your own sample. The calculator inserts typical values automatically.

Process properties

  • fibrous
  • high dry matter
  • high alkalinity (buffer)
  • source of trace elements
  • forms a floating layer
  • sand and sediment
  • slowly degrading
  • editorial classification

Advantages

  • Methane potential in the Substraty.pl BMP dataset: weighted mean 148.7 m³ CH₄/t VS (SD 68.0; 27 records, 14 sources).
  • Provides N, trace elements and microflora; lower ammonia risk than with poultry litter (Kafle and Chen 2016).
  • In uniform BMP tests of five types of manure, dairy cattle manure was the reference point for the other species (Kafle and Chen 2016).

Drawbacks and risks

  • Long straw fibres form a floating crust and clog pumps (Weiland 2010).
  • Slow hydrolysis of lignocellulose requires a long HRT (Weiland 2010).
  • Sand in the bedding settles out (Weiland 2010).

Co-digestion — what to combine it with, what to watch out for

Dosing

No restriction; use as a component of the feed with size reduction.

Practical requirements

  • ABP cat. 2 (Art. 9 of Reg. 1069/2009): manure, slurry and digestive tract content may be digested without prior sterilisation if the authority does not recognise a risk of spreading a serious transmissible disease (Art. 13(e)(ii)); in that case a minimum of 70 °C for a minimum of 60 min applies (Reg. 142/2011, Annex V Ch. III Section 1), and where they are the only material of animal origin in the installation, the authority may approve other requirements (Section 2 point 3).
  • Shred: shredding increases the surface available for degradation and speeds it up, but does not necessarily raise the final gas yield (FNR 2010, Ch. 3 “Triturado”).
  • Provide for removal of sand and heavy contaminants: sand is often strongly bound to organic matter and is released only in the digester, and sediments reduce its usable capacity, so a scraper or bottom drain is needed (FNR 2010, Ch. 3).

Sources of the process data

  1. Pitk et al. (2014). Mesophilic co-digestion of dairy manure and lipid rich solid slaughterhouse wastes. Bioresour. Technol.
  2. Kafle, Chen (2016). Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of BMP using different statistical models. Waste Manag.
  3. Weiland (2010). Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
  4. Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1069/2009 określające przepisy sanitarne dotyczące produktów ubocznych pochodzenia zwierzęcego (art. 9, 10, 12–14, 24)
  5. Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 142/2011 wykonujące rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1069/2009 (zał. IV rozdz. III, zał. V rozdz. I i III)
  6. FNR (2010). Guía sobre el Biogás – Desde la producción hasta el uso (hiszp. wydanie „Leitfaden Biogas”, GIZ 2013)

The co-digestion calculator will assess a specific mixture containing this substrate.

What it is and where it comes from

Cattle manure is a mixture of cattle excreta and bedding, most often straw, arising in bedded cowsheds and on resting areas. The dataset also includes dairy cattle excreta, including the American "dairy manure", versions without bedding or with sawdust, and fresh excreta from developing countries. Polish dairy and beef farms produce large quantities of manure, which is traditionally used as a fertiliser. After slurry, manure is the most commonly used substrate of agricultural biogas plants.

Properties relevant to digestion

The dry matter of manure is higher than in slurry, and the material contains undigested feed fibres and bedding, that is, a lot of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin. The unit methane potential is therefore moderate, and decomposition is slow. Manure is a good source of nitrogen, trace elements and microflora, and the ammonia risk is lower than with poultry litter. Long straw fibres can form a floating crust or block pumps, so they require shredding. Sand from the resting areas settles in the tanks.

How to read the spread of results

The dataset contains many records from numerous sources, so the spread reflects the real variability of the material. It is determined by the type and amount of bedding (straw, sawdust), the feed, the age of the animals, the manure storage time (clamp composting lowers the potential, because part of the matter is mineralised) and comminution. Methodological differences are added: the inoculum (several records are described by inoculum numbers), temperature, substrate-to-inoculum ratio, test length and the way of converting to VS. A single figure must therefore be treated as an indicative point on a wide range.

In biogas plant practice

Manure is a good basis for mixtures with substrates of higher potential (silages, food waste). It requires shredding and even dosing, and a dose of dry manure increases the viscosity of the suspension. Fresh manure gives a better result than manure stored for a long time. On the farm it is a natural fertiliser, subject to the fertilisation rules, and in the context of ABP it is category 2 material, which may be used in a biogas plant under the conditions set out in EU and national regulations.

For comparison with slurry, manure is harder to handle (feeding, mixing), but has a higher concentration of organic matter per tonne of fresh matter. This difference matters when planning logistics and tank sizes.

Methodology in brief

BMP is the amount of methane obtained from volatile solids (VS) in a batch test, given in m³ CH₄ per tonne of VS (numerically the same as NmL CH₄/g VS in the publications) and converted to normal conditions (0 °C, 101.325 kPa). The weighted mean gives each publication a total weight of 1, split equally between its results for the substrate — a paper testing twenty varieties does not outweigh a paper with a single sample. In inter-laboratory programmes the unit is the laboratory (total weight 1), and within it the weight of a test grows with the number of bottles (replicates). Results after pretreatment (e.g. thermal, chemical, enzymatic) are shown separately and are not included in the mean.

Solid lines are curves measured in the tests. Where a publication gives only the final result, we draw a first-order kinetic model, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt): only the end point comes from the publication, and the shape of the curve serves purely as visualisation — do not read the production on a particular day from it. For this substrate k = 0.393 d−1 was assumed (median of rate constants k reported in the sources and/or fitted to the mean measured curves).

The statistics describe the spread of published results — a descriptive compilation, not a meta-analysis or a guarantee of plant yield.

Full methodology and correction policy

Bibliography

  1. Lallement, A.; Siaud, A.; Peyrelasse, C.; Kaparaju, P.; Schraauwers, B.; Maunas, S.; Monlau, F. (2021). Impact of Operational Factors, Inoculum Origin, and Feedstock Preservation on the Biochemical Methane Potential. Bioengineering 8(11), 176. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering8110176 DOI
  2. Legesse, H.A.; Debele, W.H.; Wachemo, A.C. (2024). Anaerobic co-digestion of khat waste and cow dung for enhanced bio-methane production potential: Substrates conversion rate. Heliyon 10(24), e41124. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41124 DOI
  3. Baek, G.; Kim, D.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Lee, C. (2020). Treatment of Cattle Manure by Anaerobic Co-Digestion with Food Waste and Pig Manure: Methane Yield and Synergistic Effect. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(13), 4737. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17134737 DOI
  4. Rubio, J.A.; Romero, L.I.; Wilkie, A.C.; García-Morales, J.L. (2019). Mesophilic Anaerobic Co-digestion of Olive-Mill Waste With Cattle Manure: Effects of Mixture Ratio. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3, 9. DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00009 DOI
  5. Saha, C.K.; Nime, J.; Khatun, M.L.; Sharna, T.H.; Alam, M.M. (2025). Rice straw co-digestion potential with cow dung and poultry droppings for maximizing biogas production in Bangladesh. Heliyon 11(4), e42687. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42687 DOI
  6. Cu, T.T.T.; Nguyen, T.X.; Triolo, J.M.; Pedersen, L.; Le, V.D.; Le, P.D.; Sommer, S.G. (2014). Biogas Production from Vietnamese Animal Manure, Plant Residues and Organic Waste: Influence of Biomass Composition on Methane Yield. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28(2), 280–289. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.14.0312 DOI
  7. Kafle, G.K.; Chen, L. (2016). Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Management 48, 492–502. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021 DOI
  8. Kouas, M.; Torrijos, M.; Sousbie, P.; Steyer, J.P.; Sayadi, S.; Harmand, J. (2017). Robust assessment of both biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetics of solid residues in successive batches. Waste Management 70, 59–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.001 DOI
  9. Labatut, R.A.; Angenent, L.T.; Scott, N.R. (2011). Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresource Technology 102(3), 2255–2264. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035 DOI
  10. Lallement, A.; Peyrelasse, C.; Lagnet, C.; Barakat, A.; Schraauwers, B.; Maunas, S.; Monlau, F. (2023). A Detailed Database of the Chemical Properties and Methane Potential of Biomasses Covering a Large Range of Common Agricultural Biogas Plant Feedstocks. Waste 1(1), 195–227. DOI: 10.3390/waste1010014 DOI
  11. Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, G.; Chen, C.; He, Y.; Liu, X. (2013). Comparison of methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Bioresource Technology 149, 565–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.063 DOI
  12. Lisboa, M.S.; Lansing, S. (2013). Characterizing food waste substrates for co-digestion through biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments. Waste Management 33(12), 2664–2669. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.004 DOI
  13. Eliasson, K.A.; Singh, A.; Isaksson, S.; Schnürer, A. (2023). Co‐substrate composition is critical for enrichment of functional key species and for process efficiency during biogas production from cattle manure. Microbial Biotechnology 16(2), 350–371. DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.14194 DOI
  14. Schumacher, B.; Zerback, T.; Wedwitschka, H.; Weinrich, S.; Hofmann, J.; Nelles, M. (2019). The Influence of Pressure-Swing Conditioning Pre-Treatment of Cattle Manure on Methane Production. Bioengineering 7(1), 6. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering7010006 DOI

All sources of the site: bibliography.

Other substrates in the group “Animal excreta (slurry, manure, poultry litter)”