Renewable energy in zootechnical farms. Economic effects in light of the new legislation introduced in 2012

Author/s Anna Gaviglio, Biagio Pecorino, Alessandro Ragazzoni
Publishing Year 2014 Issue 2014/2
Language Italian Pages 30 P. 31-60 File size 310 KB
DOI 10.3280/ECAG2014-002003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This study proposes an analysis to evaluate the effects on the future choices of the zootechnical entrepreneur in light of the new indications in the Ministerial Decree of the July 6, 2012 "Execution of Art. 24 of the legislative decree 3 March 2011, no. 28 establishing incentives for the production of electricity from plants of renewable sources other than photovoltaic". Specifically, we will investigate the productive chain of biogas from anaerobic digestion and, in particular, the synergies that can be realized with the swine sector. The main objective is to assess what are the critical and the strength moments for the zootechnical entrepreneur in each stage of the chain, analyzing the opportunities of integration in order to gain an economic advantage in introducing innovative activities of process and transformation of livestock effluents; an economic profit can afford to enable virtuous practices on the part of the entrepreneur, also environmentally correct and able to make more sustainable the activities in the medium-long term.

Keywords: Energie rinnovabili, biogas, filiera integrate, comparto zootecnico, conto Economico

Jel codes: Q42, Q12, O13

  1. Al Seadi, T. (2002). Good practice in quality management of AD residues from biogas production. IEA Bioenergy, Task 24-Energy from Biological Conversion of Organic Waste, January 2002.
  2. Alburquerque, J.A., De la Fuente, C., & Bernal, M.P. (2012). Chemical properties of anaerobic digestates affecting C and N dynamics in amended soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 160(1), 15-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.007
  3. Bachmaier, J., Effenberger, M., & Gronauer, A. (2010). Greenhouse gas balance and resource demand of biogas plants in agriculture. Engineering in Life Science, 10(6), 560-569. DOI: 10.1002/elsc.201000073
  4. Balsari, P., Airoldi, G., & Gioielli, F. (2011). Le soluzioni disponibili per delocalizzare i reflui zootecnici, Università degli Studi di Torino - Giornata Tecnica “Le soluzioni tecniche per la delocalizzazione dei reflui zootecnici”, Verzuolo (TO), 10 luglio.
  5. Birkmose, T. (2007). “Digested manure is a valuable fertilizer”. In: Proceedings of European Biogas Workshop – The future of biogas in Europe III, University of Southern Denmark 14-16 June, Intelligent Energy - Europe programme. Probiogas project (pp. 89-94).
  6. Brown, B.B., Yiridoe, E.K., & Gordon, R. (2007). Impact of single versus multiple policy options on the economic feasibility of biogas energy production: Swine and dairy operations in Nova Scotia. Energy Policy, 35(9), 4597-4610. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.023
  7. Castellini, A., & Ragazzoni, A. (2009). Giudizio di convenienza per il trattamento dei liquami zootecnici. Estimo e Territorio, 72(4), 23-30.
  8. Castellini, A., & Ragazzoni, A. (2011). Strumenti per valorizzare la filiera “carne” in un’ottica di sostenibilità ambientale: produrre energia e limitare l’impatto dei nitrati. Rivista di Economia Agro-alimentare, 13(1-2), 297-317. DOI: 10.3280/ECAG2011-001014
  9. Corradini, E. (2012). I costi di produzione del suino pesante. Agricoltura, 40(5), 54-56.
  10. Cuéllar, A.D. & Webber, M.E. (2008). Cow power: the energy and emissions benefits of converting manure to biogas, Environmental Research Letters, 3(3). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002
  11. EurObserv’er (2010). Biogas barometer.
  12. Ferrero, G., Dezzani, F., Pisono, P., Puddu, L. (1998). Le analisi di bilancio. Indici e flussi. Milano: Giuffrè.
  13. Finco, A., Benedetti, A., Padella, M., Pettinari, E. (2010). La filiera agro-energetica del biogas: valutazioni economiche degli investimenti nelle aziende agricole. Economia & Diritto Agroalimentare, 15(3), 425-448.
  14. Gebrezgabher, S.A., Meuwissen, M.P.M., & Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. (2010). Costs of Producing Biogas at Dairy Farms in The Netherlands. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 1(1), 26-35.
  15. Gerber, P., Key, N., Portet, F., & Steinfeld, H. (2010). Policy options in addressinglivestock’s contribution to climate change. Animal, 4(3), 393-406. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731110000133
  16. Herrman, A. (2013). Biogas production from maize: Current state, challenges and prospects. 2. Agronomic and environmental aspects. BioEnergy Research, 6(1), 372-387. DOI: 10.1007/s12155-012-9227-x
  17. Hjort, M., Nielsen, A.M., Nyord, T., Hansen, M.N., Nissen, P., & Sommer, G. (2008). Plant nutrient value, odour emission and energy production of manure influenced by anaerobic digestion and separation. Agronomy for Sustainable Environment, 29(2), 329-338. DOI: 10.1051/agro:2008047
  18. Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Halberg, N., Hutingford, S., & Al Seadi, T. (1997). Joint biogas plant. Agricultural Advantages – Circulation of N, P and K, Report made for the Danish Energy Agency, Revised and emendated edition.
  19. Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Al Seadi, T., & Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. (2009). The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresource Technology, 100(22), 5478-5484. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046
  20. Piccinini, S., & Rossi, L. (2007). Sottoprodotti agro-industriali, un potenziale da sfruttare. Informatore Agrario, 63(34), 67-70.
  21. Poeschl, M., Ward, S., & Owende, P. (2010). Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(7), 1782-1797. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2010.04.010
  22. Pretolani, R. (2012). Seminario “La Politica agricola comunitaria 2014-2020. Simulazioni di impatto in Italia e in Lombardia”, Regione Lombardia, 30 gennaio 2012.
  23. Pucker, J., Jungmeier, G., Siegl, S., & Potsch, E.M. (2013). Anaerobic digestion of agricultural and other substrates – implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Animal, 7(2), 283-291. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731113000840
  24. Ragazzoni, A., & Castellini, A. (2012). Dall’evoluzione della normativa alcune riflessioni sulla filiera agro-energetica del biogas. Economia & Diritto Agroalimentare, 17(2), 211-230.
  25. Ragazzoni, A. (2011). Biogas: normative e biomasse: le condizioni per fare reddito. Verona: Ed. Informatore Agrario.
  26. Stegelin, F. (2010). Sustainable economic, marketing, environmental and financial opportunities for biogas recovery systems, Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the 2010 wera-72 Agribusiness Research Emphasizing Competitiveness and Profitability Meeting, Santa Clara, CA, June 13-15.
  27. Tricase, C., & Lombardi, M. (2009). State of the art and prospects of Italian biogas production from animal sewage: Technical-economic considerations. Renewable Energy, 34(3), 477-485. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2008.06.013
  28. Tuomisto, H.L., & Helenius, J. (2008). Comparison of energy and greenhouse gas balances of biogas with other transport biofuel options based on domestic agricultural biomass in Finland. Agricultural and Food Science, 17(3), 240-251. DOI: 10.2137/145960608786118857

  • Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies Andrea Bartoli, Lorie Hamelin, Stelios Rozakis, Magdalena Borzęcka, Miguel Brandão, in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews /2019 pp.133
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.031
  • Analysis of biomass availability for energy use in Sicily Gaetano Chinnici, Mario D’Amico, Marcella Rizzo, Biagio Pecorino, in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews /2015 pp.1025
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.174
  • From biogas to biomethane: A process simulation-based techno-economic comparison of different upgrading technologies in the Italian context Elena Barbera, Silvia Menegon, Donatella Banzato, Chiara D'Alpaos, Alberto Bertucco, in Renewable Energy /2019 pp.663
    DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.12.052
  • The impact of different energy policy options on feedstock price and land demand for maize silage: The case of biogas in Lombardy A. Bartoli, D. Cavicchioli, D. Kremmydas, S. Rozakis, A. Olper, in Energy Policy /2016 pp.351
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.018
  • The Effect of Biogas Production on Farmland Rental Prices: Empirical Evidences from Northern Italy Eugenio Demartini, Anna Gaviglio, Marco Gelati, Daniele Cavicchioli, in Energies /2016 pp.965
    DOI: 10.3390/en9110965

Anna Gaviglio, Biagio Pecorino, Alessandro Ragazzoni, Produrre energia rinnovabile nelle aziende agro-zootecniche. Effetti economici dalle novità introdotte nella normativa del 2012 in "ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE" 2/2014, pp 31-60, DOI: 10.3280/ECAG2014-002003