
BMP testingAnimal excreta (slurry, manure, poultry litter)
Duck slurry — BMP: 6 studies, weighted mean 395 m³ CH₄/t VS
Duck slurry is a rarely studied material rich in nitrogen and water from duck rearing; results from several sources differ greatly, and the risk is ammonia.
rating: neutralCH₄ ≈ 55 % (estimate)
Photo MiNe (sfmine79) from Taipei, Taiwan / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY 2.0, source file; changes: cropping
- Weighted mean
- 395m³ CH₄/t VS
- Range
- 135–551m³ CH₄/t VS
- Records
- 6studies
- Publications
- 2sources
- Temperatures
- 30 °C, 38 °Cof the test
Methane in biogas
Medium methane content · ≈ 5.5 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 3 % DM × 6.25; in manure part of the N is ammonium nitrogen)) and the yields of compound groups according to FNR.
Rating for biogas plants
neutral — editorial rating for biogas plantsNo clear advantages — worth charging a fee for accepting it
Potential per tonne of fresh matter: low (21 m³ CH₄/t); process risk: protein / nitrogen. Handling costs: sand, stones, shells.
Why? Rating factors
Potential per tonne 0
- ±0potential 21 m³ CH₄/t fresh matter (BMP 395 × DM 6.2 % × VS 84 %)
Process stability +0.5
- −1protein / nitrogen: risk of ammonia inhibition at higher shares
- +1.5high alkalinity — stabilises the pH of the mixture
Handling and costs −0.5
- −0.5sand, stones, shells — sediment in the digester
Total points: 0 · thresholds: ≥ 2.5 very good, ≥ 1 good, below — neutral; negative with cumulative process risk.
Add to the co-digestion calculator CSV data
BMP curves from 6 studies
Weighted mean Individual records
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 (395); 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.
Records and sources
Download CSV| Source | BMP m³ CH₄/t VS | Temperature | Sample | Curve |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lallement et al. (2023) DOI | 551 | 38 °C · mesophilic | duck slurry | end point (model curve) |
| Vedrenne et al. (2008) · 1 DOI | 135 | 30 °C · mesophilic | duck slurry | end point (model curve) |
| Vedrenne et al. (2008) · 2 DOI | 172 | 30 °C · mesophilic | duck slurry | end point (model curve) |
| Vedrenne et al. (2008) · 3 DOI | 255 | 30 °C · mesophilic | duck slurry | end point (model curve) |
| Vedrenne et al. (2008) · 4 DOI | 310 | 30 °C · mesophilic | duck slurry | end point (model curve) |
| Vedrenne et al. (2008) · 5 DOI | 320 | 30 °C · mesophilic | duck slurry | end point (model curve) |
| Weighted mean | 395 | arithmetic mean 290, SD 147 | ||
Typical composition
- Dry matter (DM)
- 6.2% (range 6.2–6.2)
- Volatile solids (VS)
- 84 % DM (range 84–84)
- Nitrogen
- 3 % DM
- C/N ratio
- 14
Median and range of the determinations reported in the publications behind this substrate's BMP records (read from: MY-D); dry matter: 1 determination, volatile solids: 1 determination. C/N was calculated as the ratio of C and N content (% DM) from the same source. DM from a single determination – indicative value.
Sources: Lallement et al. (2023).
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
Low confidence: the description is based on general characteristics of the substrate group, not on studies of this material. Treat it as a hint to be verified.
Advantages
- Methane potential in the Substraty.pl BMP set: weighted mean 394.8 m³ CH₄/t VS (SD 147.4; 6 records, 2 sources).
- High alkalinity and ammonium N: a buffer for acidic substrates (Rajagopal et al. 2013).
Drawbacks and risks
- Waterfowl excreta contain a lot of N (uric acid -> NH3): risk of free ammonia inhibition, especially at higher temperature and pH (Rajagopal et al. 2013; Abouelenien et al. 2010).
- BMP data from several sources differ strongly: set the dose after analysis.
Co-digestion — what to combine it with, what to watch out for
- combines well
substrates: carbon-rich — e.g. Wheat straw, Maize silage (whole crop), Cereal straw (unspecified), Willow (short rotation), Cardboard and paperboard
Carbon substrates lower the ammonia risk by improving the C/N.[1][2]
- caution
substrates: protein-rich — e.g. Food waste, Municipal sewage sludge (mixed), Poultry manure, Organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Grass clippings
Additional protein -> NH3 threshold exceeded.[1]
Dosing
No source threshold. Monitor NH4-N and pH, combine with carbon substrates.
Introduce gradually, starting with a small dose and monitoring the process (e.g. FOS/TAC, pH, gas composition).
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).
- 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
- Rajagopal, Masse, Singh (2013). A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour. Technol.
- Hagos et al. (2017). Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
- Abouelenien et al. (2010). Improved methane fermentation of chicken manure via ammonia removal by biogas recycle. Bioresour. Technol.
- Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1069/2009 określające przepisy sanitarne dotyczące produktów ubocznych pochodzenia zwierzęcego (art. 9, 10, 12–14, 24)
- Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 142/2011 wykonujące rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1069/2009 (zał. IV rozdz. III, zał. V rozdz. I i III)
- 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
Duck slurry is a mixture of duck excreta, water and feed residues from rearing carried out in unbedded systems or with minimal bedding. Ducks use and foul a lot of water, so the excreta are liquid. In Poland duck rearing is located mainly in a few regions, so the raw material is available only in specific places. The dataset contains samples from several studies, tested mainly under mesophilic conditions, with several records coming from a single series at a lower temperature.
Properties relevant to digestion
Bird excreta contain a lot of nitrogen, including uric acid, which breaks down to ammonia. Combined with low dry matter, this gives a liquid substrate with a high concentration of ammonium nitrogen and a high buffering capacity. Free ammonia can inhibit methanogenic archaea, particularly at higher temperature and at large doses. The slurry may contain feathers, sand and feed residues. The content of readily available carbohydrates is limited, so the potential depends on the undigested components of the feed.
How to read the spread of results
The range of results in the dataset is very wide, which reflects the variability of this material: the slurry depends on the feed, the age of the birds, the amount of water and the method of storage. Differences in methodology also have an effect: temperature (several records at a lower temperature), the substrate-to-inoculum ratio, adaptation of the inoculum to ammonia and test length. High values may concern samples rich in undigested feed residues, and low ones diluted or long-stored material. With a limited number of sources, a reliable typical range cannot be determined.
In biogas plant practice
Duck slurry is suitable for co-digestion with carbon-rich materials (silages, straw, plant waste), which lower the ammonia concentration. When planning the dose, ammonium nitrogen and pH must be monitored. It is a natural fertiliser on the farm, and in the context of ABP a Category 2 material, which may be used in a biogas plant under the conditions set out in EU and national regulations. Detailed requirements should be confirmed with the veterinary authority.
For comparison with cattle slurry, duck material has a higher nitrogen concentration and less fibre, which changes the character of the risk: it is limited not by lignin but by ammonia.
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.
Bibliography
- 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
- Vedrenne, F.; Béline, F.; Dabert, P.; Bernet, N. (2008). The effect of incubation conditions on the laboratory measurement of the methane producing capacity of livestock wastes. Bioresource Technology 99(1), 146–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.043 DOI
All sources of the site: bibliography.





