Journals / Black Sea Journal of Agriculture / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5

Evaluation of Liquid Digestates Derived from Different Biogas Feedstocks on Physicochemical Properties and Heavy Metal Contents of Soil and Wheat Production under Central Anatolian Conditions

Gamze Depel(Soil, Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute, Ankara 06170, Türkiye)0000-0003-2749-8243
Zeynep Demir(Toprak, Gübre ve Su Kaynakları Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü)0000-0002-7589-3216
Derya Özalp Ünal(Field Crops Central Research Institute, Ankara 06170, Türkiye)0000-0002-0268-9812
Ayten Namlı(Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Ankara University, Ankara 06110 Türkiye)0000-0003-1913-2751
Nihal Ceren Alıcı(Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Ankara University, Ankara 06110 Türkiye)0000-0002-2147-0760
Özgür Doğan(Tübitak Marmara Research Center (MAM), Gebze, Kocaeli 41470, Türkiye)0000-0002-7415-5369
Pages
663–678
Publication Date
2026-09-15
🏛️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)

In addition, future studies should include pathogen, contamination, and pesticide analyses to provide a more comprehensive assessment of digestate use in agricultural systems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of liquid digestates (LDs) derived from different biogas feedstocks on soil physical and chemical properties, heavy metal contents and wheat production under the semi-arid calcareous soil conditions of the Central Anatolian Region of Türkiye.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The field experiment was established during the 2021–2022 wheat growing season using a randomized block design with an unfertilized control, optimum mineral fertilization (NPK), and LD applications at rates of 15, 30, 45, and 60 t ha⁻¹.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, future studies should include pathogen, contamination, and pesticide analyses to provide a more comprehensive assessment of digestate use in agricultural systems.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021–2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Soil physical and chemical properties · Soil fertility · Biogas feedstocks

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of liquid digestates (LDs) derived from different biogas feedstocks on soil physical and chemical properties, heavy metal contents and wheat production under the semi-arid calcareous soil conditions of the Central Anatolian Region of Türkiye. The field experiment was established during the 2021–2022 wheat growing season using a randomized block design with an unfertilized control, optimum mineral fertilization (NPK), and LD applications at rates of 15, 30, 45, and 60 t ha⁻¹. Three independent field experiments with the same experimental design were established for each of the three liquid digestate types: poultry manure + poppy residues (PP), cattle manure + plant residues (CP), and a poultry manure + cattle manure mixture (PC). The chemical composition and agronomic performance of the digestates varied depending on feedstock origin. According to the obtained results, soil physical properties, including field capacity, permanent wilting point, bulk density, and saturated hydraulic conductivity, did not differ significantly among the treatments. LDs increased available P₂O₅ and K₂O contents without causing significant changes in soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), CaCO₃, soil organic matter, available Ca and Mg, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable cations. In PP digestate applications, available P₂O₅ increased from 52.9 to 81.7 kg ha⁻¹ and K₂O from 2477.6 to 2918.8 kg ha⁻¹. In CP digestate applications, available P₂O₅ and K₂O values ranged between 46.9–85.6 kg ha⁻¹ and 1923.0–2196.7 kg ha⁻¹, respectively. In PC digestate applications, available P₂O₅ increased from 38.8 to 89.5 kg ha⁻¹, while K₂O reached 2196.7 kg ha⁻¹. Only PP digestate significantly increased Fe and Mn contents. Heavy metal analyses revealed that Ni and Pb concentrations in the soil remained low and statistically non-significant, whereas Cd, Co, and Cr concentrations were below detection limits. Although the highest grain yields were obtained at 30 t ha⁻¹ for the PP and CP digestates and at 45 t ha⁻¹ for the PC digestate, the 15 t ha⁻¹ applications also resulted in substantial yield improvements and produced grain yields that were statistically comparable to those obtained with mineral NPK fertilization. Nevertheless, because the study was limited to short-term and single-season conditions, long-term multi-year studies are required to better evaluate the cumulative effects of repeated LD applications on soil quality, salinity dynamics, nutrient cycling, soil biology, environmental sustainability, and food safety. In addition, future studies should include pathogen, contamination, and pesticide analyses to provide a more comprehensive assessment of digestate use in agricultural systems.

Özet

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of liquid digestates (LDs) derived from different biogas feedstocks on soil physical and chemical properties, heavy metal contents and wheat production under the semi-arid calcareous soil conditions of the Central Anatolian Region of Türkiye. The field experiment was established during the 2021–2022 wheat growing season using a randomized block design with an unfertilized control, optimum mineral fertilization (NPK), and LD applications at rates of 15, 30, 45, and 60 t ha⁻¹. Three independent field experiments with the same experimental design were established for each of the three liquid digestate types: poultry manure + poppy residues (PP), cattle manure + plant residues (CP), and a poultry manure + cattle manure mixture (PC). The chemical composition and agronomic performance of the digestates varied depending on feedstock origin. According to the obtained results, soil physical properties, including field capacity, permanent wilting point, bulk density, and saturated hydraulic conductivity, did not differ significantly among the treatments. LDs increased available P₂O₅ and K₂O contents without causing significant changes in soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), CaCO₃, soil organic matter, available Ca and Mg, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable cations. In PP digestate applications, available P₂O₅ increased from 52.9 to 81.7 kg ha⁻¹ and K₂O from 2477.6 to 2918.8 kg ha⁻¹. In CP digestate applications, available P₂O₅ and K₂O values ranged between 46.9–85.6 kg ha⁻¹ and 1923.0–2196.7 kg ha⁻¹, respectively. In PC digestate applications, available P₂O₅ increased from 38.8 to 89.5 kg ha⁻¹, while K₂O reached 2196.7 kg ha⁻¹. Only PP digestate significantly increased Fe and Mn contents. Heavy metal analyses revealed that Ni and Pb concentrations in the soil remained low and statistically non-significant, whereas Cd, Co, and Cr concentrations were below detection limits. Although the highest grain yields were obtained at 30 t ha⁻¹ for the PP and CP digestates and at 45 t ha⁻¹ for the PC digestate, the 15 t ha⁻¹ applications also resulted in substantial yield improvements and produced grain yields that were statistically comparable to those obtained with mineral NPK fertilization. Nevertheless, because the study was limited to short-term and single-season conditions, long-term multi-year studies are required to better evaluate the cumulative effects of repeated LD applications on soil quality, salinity dynamics, nutrient cycling, soil biology, environmental sustainability, and food safety. In addition, future studies should include pathogen, contamination, and pesticide analyses to provide a more comprehensive assessment of digestate use in agricultural systems.

🔖

Cite This Article

Depel, G., Demir, Z., Ünal, D. Ö., Namlı, A., Alıcı, N. C., Doğan, Ö. (2026). Evaluation of Liquid Digestates Derived from Different Biogas Feedstocks on Physicochemical Properties and Heavy Metal Contents of Soil and Wheat Production under Central Anatolian Conditions. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5, 663–678. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1956852

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. 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 & Environment, 160, 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.007
  2. Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., & Lana, M. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
  3. American Public Health Association (APHA). (2017). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (23rd ed.). APHA.
  4. Amlinger, F., Pollak, M., & Favoino, E. (2020). Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC).
  5. Anonymous. (2024). Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. Renewable energy and biomass statistics. https://enerji.gov.tr (accessed on 12 January 2026).
  6. AOAC. (2005). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (18th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
  7. ASAE. (2003). Moisture measurement-unground grain and seeds ASAE Standards (S352.2). American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
  8. Atav, V., Yuksel, O., & Namlı, A. (2025). Impact of single and cumulative applications of biogas liquid digestate on soil and plant. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 27(5), 1061-1077.
  9. Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev. 1). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
  10. Barłóg, P., Hlisnikovský, L., & Kunzová, E. (2020). Effect of digestate on soil organic carbon and plant-available nutrient content compared to cattle slurry and mineral fertilization. Agronomy, 10(3), 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030379
  11. Bartkowiak, A., Piątek, M. (2020). Analysis of Heavy Metal Content in Soil Fertilised with Fresh and Granulated Digestate. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 29(5), 3517–3524. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/117692
  12. Barzgar, Z., Towfighi, H., Fathi-Gerdelidani, A., Shahbazi, K., Heidari, A., Etesami, H., Verrillo, M., Savy, D., & Spaccini, R. (2025). Molecular determinants of humic and fulvic acids in enhancing micronutrient availability in calcareous soils: a comparative study on Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu dynamics. Scientific Reports, 15, 34142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06678-3
  13. Black, C. A. (1965). Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical properties, including statistics of measurement and sampling (Agronomy Monograph 9.1, pp. 499–510). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy; Soil Science Society of America Journal Inc.
  14. Bo, P., He, Q., Lan, Y., Li, J., Liu, H., Li, X., & Wang, H. (2025). Reducing mineral fertilizer can improve the soil quality and increase the wheat yield and nutrient utilization efficiency: the fertilizing effect of organic–inorganic compound fertilizers. Agriculture, 15(12), 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15121294
  15. Bonet-Garcia, N., Baldasso, V., Robin, V., Gomes, C. R., Guibaud, G., Alves, M. J., Castro, R., Mucha, A. P., & Almeida, C. M. R. (2023). Metal mobility in an anaerobic digestate-amended soil: the role of two bioenergy crop plants and their metal phytoremediation potential. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1267463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1267463
  16. Bouyoucos, G. J. (1951). A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soils 1. Agronomy Journal, 43, 434-438. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1951.00021962004300090005x
  17. Bower, C. A., Reitemeier, R. F., & Fireman, M. (1952). Exchangeable cation analysis of saline and alkali soils. Soil Science, 73, 251-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195204000-00001
  18. Bremner, J. M. (1996). Nitrogen—Total. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods (pp. 1085–1121). Soil Science Society of America.
  19. Depel, G., Demir, Z., Özalp Ünal, D., Namlı, A., Alıcı Sungur, N., & Doğan, Ö. (2026). Effects of biogas-derived liquid digestates on wheat yield, kernel quality and economic performance under semi-arid conditions. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 15(3): 428-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.18393/ejss.1962099
  20. Dexter, A. R. (2004). Soil physical quality: Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma, 120(3–4), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.004
  21. EIE (Electricity Works Survey Administration). (2020). Turkey Biogas Potential Report.
  22. El-Damarawy, Y. A., Saleh, E. M., Ibrahim, O. M., El-Refaey, A. A., Saleh, M. E., & El-Gamal, E. H. (2025). Optimizing phosphorus released in calcareous soil amended with bone char and bone ash using response surface methodology and desirability function. Scientific Reports 15, 30198. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-13548-5
  23. Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA). (2024). Electricity market installed capacity statistics. https://www.epdk.gov.tr (accessed on 03 January 2026).
  24. Ertop, H., Atilgan, A., Kocięcka, J., Krakowiak-Bal, A., Liberacki, D., Saltuk, B., & Rolbiecki, R. (2023). Calculation of the potential biogas and electricity values of animal wastes: Turkey and Poland case. Energies, 16(22), 7578. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227578
  25. European Biogas Association (EBA). (2024). Exploring digestate’s contribution to healthy soils. EBA Report. https://www.europeanbiogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Exploring-digestate-contribution-to-health-soils_EBA-Report.pdf (accessed on 03 January 2026).
  26. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2023). Agricultural waste and biogas resources. https://www.fao.org (accessed on 03 January 2026).
  27. Häfner, F., Hartung, J. & Möller, K. (2022). Digestate composition affecting N fertiliser value and C mineralisation. Waste Biomass Valor, 13, 3445–3462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-022-01723-y
  28. Havlin, J. L., Tisdale, S. L., Nelson, W. L., & Beaton, J. D. (2014). Soil fertility and fertilizers: An introduction to nutrient management (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
  29. Hijazi, O., Munro, S., Zerhusen, B., & Effenberger, M. (2016). Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1291–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.013
  30. Hillel, D. (1982). Introduction to soil physics (pp. 14–28). Academic Press.
  31. Hillel, D. (2004). Introduction to environmental soil physics. Elsevier Academic Press.
  32. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). Renewables 2023. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023 (accessed on 05 January 2026).
  33. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1994). Soil quality — Pretreatment of samples for physico-chemical analyses (ISO 11464:1994).
  34. Jackson, M. L. (1958). Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.
  35. Kapluhan, E. (2013). Drought and Drought ın Turkey Effect of Agriculture. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 27, 487-510.
  36. Lal, R., & Shukla, M. K. (2004). Principles of soil physics. Marcel Dekker.
  37. Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069
  38. Leo, W. M. (1963). A rapid method for estimating structural stability of soils. Soil Science, 96(5), 342–346.
  39. Liu, K., Zhang, C., Guan, B., Yang, R., Liu, K., Wang, Z., Li, X., Xue, K., Yin, L., & Wang X. (2021). The effect of different sowing dates on dry matter and nitrogen dynamics for winter wheat: an experimental simulation study. PeerJ, 9, e11700. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11700
  40. Marschner, P. (2012). Marschner’s mineral nutrition of higher plants (3rd ed.). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-63043-9
  41. Möller, K. (2015). Effects of anaerobic digestion on soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, N emissions, and soil biological activity. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 1021–1041 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0284-3
  42. Möller, K., & Müller, T. (2012). Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: A review. Engineering in Life Sciences, 12(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201100085
  43. Muhmood, A., Majeed, A., Niaz, A., Shah, A. H., Shah S. S. H., & Shahid, M. O. (2018). Evaluation of anaerobic digestate potential as organic fertilizer in improving wheat production and soil properties. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 24(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9734/IJPSS/2018/43255
  44. Murphy, J., & Riley, J. P. (1962). A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta, 27, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5
  45. Nkoa, R. (2014). Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0196-z
  46. Ragályi, P., Szécsy, O., Uzinger, N., Magyar, M., Szabó, A., & Rékási, M. (2025). Factors influencing the impact of anaerobic digestates on soil properties. Soil Systems, 9(3), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9030078
  47. Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils (Agriculture Handbook No. 60). U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  48. Rowell, D. L. (1996). Soil science: Methods & applications. Harlow: Wesley Longman Limited.
  49. Šatvar Vrbančić, M., Petek, M., Lazarević, B., Jukić, Ž., Meers, E., & Čoga, L. (2024). Solid and liquid fraction of digestate as an alternative mineral nitrogen source: Two-year field research in Croatia. Agriculture, 14(8), 1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081243
  50. Slepetiene, A., Kochiieru, M., Jurgutis, L., Mankeviciene, A., Skersiene, A., & Belova, O. (2022). The effect of anaerobic digestate on the soil organic carbon and humified carbon fractions in different land-use systems in Lithuania. Land, 11(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010133
  51. Sogn, T. A., Dragicevic, I., Linjordet, R., Krogstad, T., Eijsink, V. G. H., & Eich-Greatorex, S. (2018). Recycling of biogas digestates in plant production: NPK fertilizer value and risk of leaching. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 7, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-017-0188-0
  52. Soil Survey Staff. (2014). Kellogg soil survey laboratory methods manual (Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0). R. Burt et al. (Eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  53. Swift, R. S. (1996). Organic matter characterization. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America.
  54. Tambone, F., Genevini, P., D’Imporzano, G., & Adani, F. (2010). Assessing amendment and fertilizing properties of digestates from anaerobic digestion through a comparative study with digested sludge and compost. Chemosphere, 81(5), 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.08.034
  55. Tigini, V., Franchino, M., Bona, F., & Varese, G. C. (2016). Is digestate safe? A study on its ecotoxicity and environmental risk on a pig manure. Science of the Total Environment, 551–552, 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.004
  56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2007). Method 3051A: Microwave assisted acid digestion of sediments, sludges, soils, and oils. USEPA.
  57. U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils (USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 60). U.S. Government Printing Office.
  58. van Midden, C., Harris, J., Shaw, L., Sizmur, T., & Pawlett, M. (2023). The impact of anaerobic digestate on soil life: A review, Applied Soil Ecology, 191, 105066, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2023.105066
  59. Walkley, A., & Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  60. Weil, R. R., & Brady, N. C. (2017). The Nature and Properties of Soils, 15th ed.; Global Edition; Pearson Education.
  61. Weimers, K., Bergstrand, K. J., Hultberg, M., & Asp, H. (2022). Liquid anaerobic digestate as sole nutrient source in soilless horticulture—or spiked with mineral nutrients for improved plant growth. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 770179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.770179
  62. Zapata-Morales, A. L., & Moreno-Andrade, I. (2025). Valorization of digestates from organic solid waste as fertilizers, soil improvers, and agricultural prebiotics: panorama and perspectives. 3 Biotech, 15, 333 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-025-04507-y
  63. Zhu, Y., Yuan, G., Zhao, Z., Tang, Y., Li, P., & Han, J. (2021). Pig farm biogas slurry can effectively reduce the pH of saline-alkali soils. Environmental Technology, 44(10), 1415–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2021.2003440