Journals / Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 43 Sayı: 2

Waste management strategies for dairy farms of varying capacities

Farklı Kapasitelerdeki Süt Sığırı Çiftlikleri için Atık Yönetimi Stratejileri

Umut Kılıç(BURSA ULUDAG UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2389-3249
İlker Kılıç(BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, BİYOSİSTEM MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-0087-6718
Pages
185–200
Publication Date
2026-08-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Large-capacity dairy cattle farms, on the other hand, have the shortest payback period with an annual profit of 2,271,812 TL and a payback period of 5.24 years.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Dairy cattle farms must plan effectively for waste management due to the high volume of manure produced by the animals they keep.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A well-designed waste management plan not only creates a healthy environment for all stakeholders but also generates an additional source of income to support the dairy farm’s sustainability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Large-capacity dairy cattle farms, on the other hand, have the shortest payback period with an annual profit of 2,271,812 TL and a payback period of 5.24 years.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyogaz · Kompost · Bitkisel Üretim

Abstract

Dairy cattle farms must plan effectively for waste management due to the high volume of manure produced by the animals they keep. A well-designed waste management plan not only creates a healthy environment for all stakeholders but also generates an additional source of income to support the dairy farm’s sustainability. In this study, a general waste management plan was developed for 24 dairy cattle farms, and various scenarios (plant production, composting, biogas) that could be used as alternatives for the reuse of manure were comparatively evaluated. Calculations show that, if dairy cattle farms use manure for plant production in the first scenario, 38 tons of manure per hectare would need to be applied in the Bursa region, and across the 24 farms evaluated, the total manure available could be applied to an average of 21.45 hectares of land. In the second scenario, the total compost production across all dairy cattle farms was calculated to be 425.74 m3 per day. Approximately 80% of this amount belongs to dairy farms with large capacity (6 dairy farms). In the third scenario, biogas calculations indicate that the total manure from all dairy farms can generate 1,830,853 kWh of electricity annually. 70% of this figure (1,261,835.49 kWh) is obtained from large-capacity dairy farms, and 4% (67,663.61 kWh) is obtained from small-capacity dairy farms. When all the scenarios examined in the study were analyzed economically, the compost scenario yielded the highest economic gain and the shortest payback period across all groups. On small-capacity dairy farms, the annual profit is 104,758 TL, and the payback period is 8.49 years. Large-capacity dairy cattle farms, on the other hand, have the shortest payback period with an annual profit of 2,271,812 TL and a payback period of 5.24 years.

Özet

Süt sığırı işletmeleri içerisinde bulundurdukları hayvanların gübre üretme miktarlarının yüksek olması nedeniyle atık yönetimi konusunda iyi bir planlama gerçekleştirmek zorundadırlar. İyi tasarlanmış bir atık yönetim planı yalnızca tüm bu paydaşlar için sağlıklı bir ortam oluşturmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda işletmelerin sürdürülebilirlikleri için ek bir kazanç kaynağı da ortaya çıkarır. Bu çalışmada 24 adet süt sığırı işletmesi için genel bir atık yönetim planı oluşturulmuş ve gübrenin yeniden kullanılabilirliği amacıyla, birbirlerinin alternatifi olarak kullanılabilecek çeşitli senaryolar (bitkisel üretim, kompost, biyogaz) karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Hesaplamalar sonucunda işletmelerin gübreyi birinci senaryoda bitkisel üretim amacıyla kullanması durumunda Bursa bölgesinde hektar başına 38-ton gübre uygulanması gerektiği ve değerlendirilen 24 işletmeden elde edilecek toplam gübrenin ortalama 21.45 hektar araziye uygulanabileceği belirlenmiştir. İkinci senaryoda tüm işletmeler için toplam kompost üretimi günlük 425,74 m3 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu miktarın yaklaşık %80’lik kısmı büyük kapasiteye sahip işletmelere (6 adet) aittir. Üçüncü senaryo da ise biyogaz hesaplamaları sonucunda toplamda tüm işletmelerden elde edilecek gübre miktarı ile yıllık olarak 1.830.853 kWh elektrik üretimi gerçekleştirilebilmektedir. Bu rakamın %70’lik kısmı (1.261.835,49 kWh) büyük kapasiteli işletmelerden, %4’lük kısmı (67.663,61 kWh) küçük kapasiteli işletmelerden elde edilmektedir. Çalışmada ele alınan tüm senaryolar ekonomik olarak incelendiğinde tüm gruplar için en yüksek ekonomik kazanç ve en düşük amorti süresi kompost senaryosunda elde edilmiştir. Küçük kapasiteli süt sığırı çiftliklerinde yıllık kazanç 104758 TL’ dir ve amorti süresi 8.49 yıl olarak belirlenmiştir. Büyük kapasiteli süt sığırı çiftlikleri ise 2271812 TL yıllık kazanç ve 5.24 yıl amorti süresi ile en kısa süreye sahiptir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılıç, U., Kılıç, İ., *, İ. K. (2026). Waste management strategies for dairy farms of varying capacities. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 43 Sayı: 2, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.55507/gopzfd.1833927

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. Altınbilek, H. F., & Kızıl, Ü. (2019). Developing an android-based application to be used in capacity calculations of dairy farms. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 7(2), 249-257. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.633772
  2. Anonymous, (2015). Waste management regulation. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, Official Gazette, No. 291314. (in Turkish) https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/04/20150402-2.htm
  3. Anonymous, (2016). Implementation procedures and principles regarding the communique on the code of good agricultural practices for the prevention of nitrate pollution in waters caused by agricultural activities. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Official Gazette, No. 29976. [Accesed on March 2026] (in Turkish) https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/02/20170211-12.html
  4. Anonymous, (2017).Anonymous, (2017). Bovine farming (cattle breeding). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. [acces date: March 2026] (in Turkish) https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Konular/Hayvancilik/Buyukbas-Hayvancilik
  5. Anonymous, (2021). Guide to composting food scraps and waste."Save Your Food", Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. [Accesed on March 2026] (in Turkish) https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/ABDGM/Belgeler/Uluslararası%20Kuruluşlar/Gıdanı%20Koru%20Kompost.pdf.
  6. Anonymous, (2023). Turkish Statistical Institute. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/Home/Index. [Accessed in November 12, 2025].
  7. Anonymous, (2024). Bursa province cattle breeders association. https://www.bursadsyb.org.tr/bursa-ili-hayvancilik-istatistikleri [Accessed in November 14, 2025]
  8. Anonymous, (2025a). Turkish Statistical Institute https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hayvancilik-Istatistikleri-Haziran-2025-53936. [Accesed on November 14, 2025].
  9. Anonymous. (2025b). Turkish State Meteorological Service. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=BURSA. [Accesed on November 12, 2025].
  10. Anonymous, (2026a). YEKDEM and domestic component support prices for March 1, 2026. [Accesed on March, 2025]. (in Turkish) https://yesilhaber.net/epias-mart-2026-yekdem-fiyatlari/.
  11. Anonymous, (2026b). Straw market data. Samsun Commodity Exchange. [Accessed in March 2026] (in Turkish) https://www.samsuntb.org.tr/piyasa-verileri/saman-bugday-1013/
  12. Atılgan, A., Erkan, M., Saltuk, B., & Alagöz, T. (2006). Environmental pollution caused by existing manure from animal farms in Mediterranean region. Ecology, 15(58), 1-7. (in Turkish with English abstract). https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/50980
  13. Blas, M. D., Appelbaum, J., Torre, J. L., Garcia, A., Francisco, A. D. (2006) Characterisation of an electric motor directly coupled to a photovoltaic solar array in a refrigeration facility for milk cooling. Biosystems Engineering 95(3):461-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.07.003
  14. Brady, N. C. (1991). The nature and properties of soil. (10. Ed.) MacMillan Publishing.
  15. Bilgili, A. V., Yaldız, O., Bilgili, A. (2011). Compost and biogas plant feasibility report. Karacadağ Development
  16. Agency, Şanlıurfa. (in Turkish with English abstract). https://www.scribd.com/document/143379676/KOMPOST-VE-BİYOGAZ-TESİSİ-FİZİBİLİTE-RAPOR.
  17. Bilgili, M. Y. (2020). Some concepts and their explanations used in solid waste management. Eurasscience Journals, 8(2), 88-97. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.31451/ejatd.773288
  18. Cestonaro, T., de Mendonça Costa, M.S.S., de Mendonça Costa, L.A., Rozatti, M.A.T., Pereira, D.C., Lorin, H.E.F., &
  19. Carneiro, L.J. (2015). The anaerobic co-digestion of sheep bedding and ⩾ 50% cattle manure increases biogas production and improves biofertilizer quality. Waste Management, 46, 612-618.
  20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
  21. Coskun, N. Y. (2025). Coskun, N. Y. (2025). Biogas production from animal waste in dairy farms: energy efficiency and environmental impacts for Yozgat province. Journal of İnnovative Engineering and Natural Science, 5(2), 606-621. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.61112/jiens.1618691
  22. Cüre, B. (2022). Effect of chemical and organic fertilizers on the environment. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 3(2), 98-107. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://izlik.org/JA72JH64
  23. Dağdelen Türkyılmaz, Ü. (2024). Recycling and agricultural use of animal wastes.T. Karabacak, E. Gövez, & F. N. Özdemir (Eds.), Underground treasure: Economic reflections of sustainable agriculture (1st ed., pp. 109-120). Efeakademi Publications. (in Turkish) https://doi.org/10.59617/efepub20242233
  24. Dönmez Özyakar, H., Yılmaz, H. (2021). Economics analysis of manure utilization and management practices in dairy farms: the case of Burdur province. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 9(3): 460-469. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i3.460-469.3516
  25. Ekinci K., Külcü R., Kaya D., Yaldız O., Ertekin C., & Öztürk H. H. (2010). The prospective of potential biogas plants that can utilize animal manure in Turkey. Energy exploration & exploıtation, 28(3):187–206. https://doi.org/10.1260/0144-5987.28.3.187
  26. Görmüş, C. (2018). Determination of biogas energy potential of animal manure in Turkey. (M.Sc. Thesis, Namık Kemal University)
  27. Gülen, J., & Çeşmeli, Ç. (2014). General knowledge about biogas and usage areas of by products. Erzincan University Journal of Science and Technology, 5(1), 65-84. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://izlik.org/JA43GR68SS
  28. Hacısalihoğlu, S. (2023). Management of animal waste, Bursa-Karacabey case study. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 25(2), 403-415. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.1145589
  29. Jing, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Luo, J., Bo, L., Sun, M., Zhong, Z. (2016). Optimal cattle manure application rate to maximise crop yield and minimise risk of N loss to the environment in a wheat-maize rotation cropping system. International Nitrogen Initiative Conference, "Solutions to improve nitrogen use efficiency for the world", 4 – 8 December 2016, Melbourne, Australia.
  30. Karaman, S. (2006). Environmental pollutions caused by animal barns and solution possibilities. KSU. Journal of Science and Engineering 9(2), 133-139. (in Turkish with English abstract).
  31. Kaya D., & Öztürk H. H. (2012). Biogas technology: production-utilization-projecting. (First edition). Umuttepe Publishing. https://www.umuttepeyayinlari.com/biyogaz-teknolojisi (in Turkish)
  32. Kaynarca H., Kılıç T., Açıkkalp E., & Kandemir S. Y. (2021). Assessment of biogas potential in Eskişehir. Journal of Geography, 42, 271-282. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2021-881905
  33. Kılıç, İ., & Amet, B. (2017). Estimation of carbon footprint of a dairy cattle operation: Bursa case study. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University, 34(Special Issue), 132-140. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13002/jafag4415
  34. Kılıç, İ., Delice, H., Sofu, S., & Yıldız, B. (2018). Industrial symbiosis application in animal operations: Bursa case study. Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 240-248. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://izlik.org/JA34XL96PL
  35. Kılıç Erikgenoğlu, D., Gündüz A. A. B., Mavi A., & Arslan O. (2023). Biogas potential and environmental assessment of Bilecik province. 24th Congress on Thermal Science and Technology with International Participation. (in Turkish with English abstract)
  36. Kınık, Ç. (2023). Composting of rice husk with automated controlled compost reactors and the effect of compost on some properties of clas textured soil. (M.Sc. Thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University).
  37. Kızılgöz, İ. (2012). Indispensable input of organic crop production: Farmyard manure. Ziraat Mühendisliği, (358), 14-17. (in Turkish) https://izlik.org/JA59CJ54KM
  38. Kumaş, P. (2024). Raising awareness about recycling: the example of compost. Trakya Journal of Education, 14(2), 1032-1054. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1415225
  39. Kurt, A. (2021). Evaluation of biogas and compost availability potential of agricultural and animal origin in Düzce province. Journal of Yalvaç Academy, (6)1, 14-26. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://izlik.org/JA92UM59NK
  40. Külcü, R. (2016). Evaluation of agricultural biomass potentials of Afyonkarahisar city. Academia Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 1-9. (in Turkish with English abstract)
  41. Lalremruati, M., Devi, S. A. (2023). Duration of composting and changes in temperature, pH and C/N Ratio during composting: a review. Agricultural Reviews. 44(3): 350-356. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.R-2197
  42. Maj, I. (2022). Significance and challenges of poultry litter and cattle manure as sustainable fuels: a review. Energies, 15(23), 8981. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238981
  43. Olgun, M. (2011). Agricultural structures. Ankara University publishing. (in Turkish)
  44. Özbek, B., & Uçaroğlu, S. (2022). Composting of different animal manures. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, 27(1), 437-452. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.1035975
  45. Özek, E. (1994). Environmental pollution caused by agricultural activities and simulation models. (M.Sc. Thesis, Ankara University).
  46. Öztürk, M. (2017). Compost production from animal manure and wastes. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Ankara. (in Turkish)
  47. Öztürk, Y., & Sipahi, C. (2021). Some fertility traits of Holstein-friesian cattle raised at various production scales in the Western Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Veterinary Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 6(3), 148-152. https://doi.org/10.24880/maeuvfd.978574
  48. Saeed, A. A. H., Yub Harun, N., Bilad M. R., Afzal, M. T., Parvez, A. M., Roslan, F. A. S., Abdul Rahim, S., Vinayagam, V. D., Afolabi, H.
  49. K. (2021). Moisture content ımpact on properties of briquette produced from rice husk waste. Sustainability, 13(6): 3069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063069
  50. Salihoğlu, N. K., Teksoy, A., & Altan, K. (2019). Determination of biogas production potential from cattle and sheep wastes: Balikesir case study. Omer Halisdemir University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 8(1), 31-47. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.516798
  51. Şenol, H., Elibol, E. A., Açıkel, Ü., & Şenol, M. (2017). 2016’da Potential of producing biogas and electric energy from poultry animals in Turkey, 2016. BEU Journal of Science, 6(1), 1-11. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.307078
  52. Taban, S., Şahin, Ö., Turan, M. A., & Akça, H. (2020). Environment and waste management in agricultural production. 9th Technical Congress of Agricultural Engineering in Turkey.
  53. Tezel, Ö., & Yıldız, E. (2020). Sürdürülebilir atık yönetimi uygulamalarında dünya ve Türkiye karşılaştırması: Edikab örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi. 9(2): 35-48. (in Turkish with English abstract)
  54. Varol, H. (2017). Management of waste from animal breeding enterprises and its environmental potential impact: Afyonkarahisar case. (M.Sc. Thesis, Suleyman Demirel University).
  55. Yağlı, H., & Koç, Y. (2019). Determination of biogas production potential from animal manure: a case calculation for Adana province. Çukurova University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, 34(3),35-48. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.21605/cukurovaummfd.637603
  56. Yaldız, O., & Sözer, S. (2005). Calculation of energy production cost and fixed ınvestment in different size biogas plants. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science, 1(3), 213-220. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://izlik.org/JA27MZ36PC
  57. Yılmaz, A., & Bozkurt, Y. (2010). Urban solid waste management applications in Turkey and KUKAB case. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty Economics and Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 11-28. (in Turkish with English abstract) https://izlik.org/JA89KW87TN.