Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia

Peyman Abdeshahian a,c, Jeng Shiun Lim a,b, Wai Shin Ho a,b, Haslenda Hashim a,b,
Chew Tin Lee a,n
a
Faculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, 81310 Johor, Malaysia
b
Process Systems Engineering Centre (UTM-Prospect), Faculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, 81310 Johor,
Malaysia
c
Department of Microbiology, Masjed Soleyman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Masjed Soleyman, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anaerobic digestion of renewable feedstocks has been known as a prospective technology for the pro-
Received 23 April 2015 duction of clean energy in the form of biogas. Biogas is a sustainable energy carrier which is mainly
Received in revised form composed of methane (60%) and carbon dioxide (35–40%). Among the raw substances, organic matters
17 November 2015
obtained from farm animal waste are pivotal sources for biogas production. In recent years, the number
Accepted 20 January 2016
Available online 8 February 2016
of animal husbandry has drastically grown in Malaysia. Accordingly, a large amount of animal waste
including manure, blood and rumen content are produced which provide a tremendous source of biogas
Keywords: generation. This paper presents biogas potential from the organic waste obtained from the farm animals
Biogas production and slaughterhouses in Malaysia. The findings of this study indicated that biogas potential of 4589.49
Anaerobic digestion
million m3 year
1 could be produced from animal waste in Malaysia in 2012 which could provide an
Farm animal waste
electricity generation of 8.27  109 kWh year
1.
Renewable energy
Crown Copyright & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
2. Livestock production in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
3.2. Livestock population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
3.3. Livestock waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
3.4. Calculation of the potential of biogas production from the livestock waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
3.5. Calculation of methane (CH4) content of biogas and the potential of electric power generation from biogas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
4. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
4.1. Animal waste production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
4.2. Potential of biogas generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721

n
Correspondence to: Department of Bioprocess Engineering, Faculty of Chemical
and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, 81310 Johor, 1. Introduction
Malaysia.
Tel: þ 60 162320865.
E-mail addresses: peyman_137@yahoo.com (P. Abdeshahian),
Nowadays, air pollution and global warming are the major
jslim@cheme.utm.my (J.S. Lim), howaishin@gmail.com (W.S. Ho), concerns arisen in the natural environment of human being. This
haslenda@cheme.utm.my (H. Hashim), ctlee@utm.my (C.T. Lee). issue could be attributed to the enormous evolution of greenhouse

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.117
1364-0321/Crown Copyright & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723
gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) which have been obtained from a vast com-
bustion of fossil fuels concurrently with increasing world popu-
lation [1–3]. It is well known that GHG act as a determinant factor
in global warming by surrounding the heat reflected from the
earth surface with the highest contribution of CO2 (60%) and less
effect of CH4 (15%) [2,4–6]. On the other hand, the intensive
depletion of fossil fuel resources due to their huge utilization with
the abrupt fluctuation in oil and fossil fuel energy source prices
has led to increasing trends towards finding renewable and cost–
wise green energy alternatives [7].
Biogas is an environmentally advantageous energy source which
is mostly comprised of methane (60%) and carbon dioxide (35–40%).
Moreover, biogas contains a low quantity of other gasses such as
ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), oxygen
(O2), nitrogen (N2) and carbon monoxide (CO) [8,9]. Biogas is the
gas evolved from a process known as anaerobic digestion (AD). AD
is known as the degradation of organic compounds to simple sub-
stances by microorganisms which live as syntrophy under the lack
of oxygen with releasing biogas [10,11]. AD has been found as a
biological process for the transformation of waste materials to
energy sources through the treatment of various organic waste such
as municipal solid waste, food waste, industrial waste, sewage
sludge, animal manure and agricultural residues [12–17]. AD of
organic waste offers some advantages including the reduction of
odor release, decrease of pathogens and low requirement for
organic sludge. Furthermore, the treated organic waste (digestate)
is used as an organic fertilizer for arable land instead of mineral
fertilizer as well as an organic substrate for green house cultivation
[18–21].
Manure waste obtained from the livestock industries are one of
the main organic waste which will be hazardous to environment if
they are not managed suitably. Animal manure contains a high
concentration of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), which causes
nutrient imbalance and pollution in environment. Furthermore,
the livestock manure contains the residues of some harmful sub-
stances such as growth hormone, antibiotics and heavy metals. On
the other hand, microorganisms in the animal manure could
contaminate the environment, which in turn causes the outbreak
of the human diseases. In this regard, it has been found that the
disposal of the livestock manure has a polluting impact on the
environment which contaminates air, soil and water sources.
Hence, the treatment of animal manure and slurries by AD process
has the beneficial outcomes of producing quality fertilizer,
reduction of odors and microbial pathogens with the sustainable
production of energy source as biogas [13,18,22–24].
Malaysia is one of the countries that are located in Southeast
Asia showing a high growth rate in economy. This is attributed to
the fact that Malaysia government policy has led to indus-
trialization of the country leading towards long-term commitment
for attaining the status as developed country by 2020 [25,26].
With the rapid economic growth, Malaysia’s gross domestic pro-
duct (GDP) has developed so that a growth rate of 5.1%, 5.6% and
4.7% has been obtained in 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively [27].
In line with this, the total population of Malaysia has increased
from 18 million in 1990 to 30 million in 2014 [27,28]. Conse-
quently, the energy demand in Malaysia has drastically risen
during the last two decades. For instance, final energy demand in
various sectors (industry, transport, agriculture, and residential
and commercial sector) of Malaysia has been elevated from
1.06  1012 mega joules (MJ) in 1999 to 1.29  1012 MJ in 2002 with
an increase rate of about 21%. It was also calculated that final
energy demand in Malaysia rose up to 1.86  1012 MJ in 2013 [29,
30]. Fig. 1 illustrates the variations in final energy demand in
Malaysia for the duration of 1999–2013 that have been shown for
each sector. In this context, it has been estimated that the final
715
Fig. 1. The variations in final energy demand in Malaysia for the duration of 1999–
2013 [30].
energy demand will attain a high level of 4.85  1012 MJ by 2030
[31]. Similar studies have shown a growing total electricity
demand in Malaysia from 61,168 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2000 to
116,353 GWh in 2012, accounting for an increment rate of 6.9% per
year [32]. This indicates that Malaysia is one of the biggest coun-
tries in terms of electricity consumption among the countries in
the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) [33,34]. It has
been estimated that the highest electricity demand will be
expected to reach 1.51  105 GWh in 2022, so that the electricity
demand is predicted to reach 2.16  105–2.34  105 GWh by 2030
[32,33,35].
The elevated utilization of energy in Malaysia has led to a high
dependency on fossil fuels including coal, oil and gas [31]. In this
regard, the intensive consumption of the fossil fuel sources has
caused the increased concern about the depletion of these non-
renewable sources of energy [36]. In addition, Malaysia faced the
severe impact of the fluctuation in oil and gas prices in the year of
2013 [37]. On the other hand, it has been found that both per
capita energy utilization and GDP (economic growth) favorably
affect per capita carbon emissions in the long run. In line with this
finding, it has been shown that per capita CO2 emissions has
increased drastically with a further increment of per capita GDP in
Malaysia from 1980 to 2009 [38]. Consequently, high dependency
on petroleum–based energy sources has enhanced greenhouse gas
emissions in Malaysia during the long term of fossil fuels con-
sumption, which in turn has caused the danger of air pollution
with its respective climate change such as increased temperature
and the reduction in rain fall [39]. Hence, Malaysian government
has adopted the appropriate Energy Policy. In this regard, follow-
ing the oil crisis in 1973, Malaysia National Energy Policy was
implemented to achieve three energy targets. The first target was
the supply of energy. This objective was defined as providing
sufficient, safe and low-cost energy sources by the increase of local
energy resources including both renewable and non-renewable
basis. The second target was the utilization of the energy which
indicated the more efficiency of the energy consumption with the
decrease in the wasting of energy and non-productive modes of
energy utilization. The third target was related to the issue of
environment which emphasized on the reduction of the deleter-
ious effects of all aspects associated with the energy on environ-
ment such as production, transportation and consumption [40].
Four-Fuel plan was introduced in 1981 in which natural gas was
defined as a source of electricity generation [33,41]. With
decreasing fossil fuel reserves in Malaysia, Malaysia government
introduced the Eight Malaysian Plan (2001–2005) to expand more
on the energy sources by introducing new energy source sub-
stitutes. In this plan, Five Fuel Diversification Strategy was laun-
ched by defining renewable energy as the fifth bases of fuel pro-
vision [42,43].
716 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723

The Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006–2010) was implemented in Thailand. The study showed that in 1997 about 3.2 million tons
2006 to make stronger the plan of efficient energy supply. How- (Mt) of animal waste (in dry matter) was produced in Thailand
ever, in spite of the high strength of the plan, the renewable with a biogas generation potential of 620 million m3 and an
energy objective was not attained. Thus, Malaysian government energy equivalent of 13 petajoules (PJ) [49]. Similar studies have
implemented a new Energy Policy in the Tenth Malaysia Plan been performed to some extent in Laos and Myanmar [50,51].
(2011–2015). This plan stipulated that the energy supply will
continue rigorously by making a higher completion for market and
decreasing energy subsidy to attain a renewable energy objective
of 985 MW by 2015, forming 5.5% of total electricity energy pro-
duction from different sources [42]. Thus, the utilization of
renewable sources such as agricultural residues, farm animal
waste and industrial waste for sustainable production of energy in
Malaysia is essential.

2. Livestock production in Malaysia

In recent years livestock farming and chicken production have

received increasing interest from farmers due to growing demands
for dairy products, beef, mutton and poultry meat. Table 1 shows
the amount of products obtained from the livestocks in Malaysia
during the year of 2004–2014 [44]. As can be seen, livestock pro-
duction has revealed an increasing trend from 2004–2014. In line
with this, the increased population of the livestock in Malaysia has
caused an elevated production of farm animal manure, resulting in
the difficulty with the disposal of a large amount of manure. This
could represent a severe pollution danger and high nutrient
release into the environment [18].
The livestock manure is one of the cost-effective and renewable Fig. 2. The overall contribution of the main source of the organic waste to the
production of biogas [47].
substrates for biogas production in the AD process [19,21,45].
Hence, the treatment of huge amount of the livestock manure in
AD is helpful for the appropriate management of the manure by
decreasing its polluting effect on the environment and producing
biogas as a valuable renewable energy source. Furthermore, the
conversion of the manure to organic fertilizer is favorable for the
improvement of crops growth in the arable land [20,23,46]. Fig. 2
depicts the high contribution of the animal manure to the pro-
duction of biogas from the main source of organic waste obtained
from the rural and urban areas [47]. Fig. 3 illustrates a schematic
diagram of a biogas plant for the production of biogas from the
farm animal wastes [48]. 10
Considering the importance of the farm animal waste as the 6
enormous raw substances for the energy plants, previous studies
have been performed to evaluate the potential of biogas genera- 9
tion from livestock waste. Table 2 shows the potential of biogas
production measured in some countries. Similar work has been
performed in the southeast countries including estimation for the Fig. 3. Picture of a biogas plant using livestock wastes: (1) Animal and poultry
potential of energy production from animal waste as evaluated in farm, (2) preliminary tank, (3) Slaughter house waste, (4) Mixing tank, (5) Digester,
(6) Power and heat cogeneration, (7) Post- treatment tank, (8) Collection of ferti-
lizer, (9) Offices and (10) Energy distribution grid [48].
Table 1
Livestock products from farm animals in Malaysia for the years 2004–2014 [44].
Table 2
Year Beef Mutton Poultry meat Milk The potential of biogas production measured in different country.
(Mta) (Mt) (1000 Mt) (Million liter)
Region Biogas production potential(1000 m3 yr
1) Year Reference
2004 26,658 1320 927.49 38.77
2005 29,396 1460 980.05 41.10 Cattle Goats and Poultry
2006 31,885 1600 1035.40 45.45 Sheep
2007 34,976 1780 1100 51.07
2008 38,250 1958.4 1162.57 56.49 Turkey 1,477,451 108,003 592,099 2009 [56]
2009 42,178 2161.9 1202 62.30 Iran 6,059,600 573,600 1,966,600 2011 [55]
a
2010 46,510 2386.5 1295.60 67 Finland 197,600– – 6440–23,900 2009 [84]
2011 48,835 3091.5 1289.90 70.87 438,000
a
2012 51,277 4806.2 1374.37 72.41 Sweden 214,100– – 8380–19,700 2009 [84]
2013 51,738 4321.4 1458.09 73.99 462,000
2014b 52,202 4575.1 1495.53 75.27 a
Denmark 242,200– – 11,300– 2010 [84]
509,000 41,700
a
Mt: Million tons.
b a
The amount of product is provisional measure. The biogas was calculated based on the volume of methane.
 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723 717

However, no study has so far been carried out to assess the content of the ruminants could be considered as the potential
potential of biogas production using waste substances obtained waste for the production of the biogas in the digester plants [55].
from farm animals in different regions of Malaysia. Due to the The amount of the farm animal waste is varied depending on the
growing animal husbandry in Malaysia and the enormous pro- type of animal, feeding methods, the size of animal body, the type
duction of animal waste per annum, it is necessary to make further of breeding, and keeping time at day or night [56]. For the calcu-
attempts with the recommendation of the appropriate manage- lation of the quantity of animal and poultry waste, the amount of
ment technology for the livestock wastes, for instance the pro-
the manure was calculated for the farm animals and poultry, while
cessing of the animal waste via an energy plant.
the amount of the rumen content and blood was calculated for the
The current study aims to evaluate the potential of biogas
slaughtered farm animals. Farm animals were categorized into the
energy generation from the livestock waste produced from the
large ruminants (buffaloes and cattle) or the small ruminants
animal husbandry and poultry farms in Malaysia. The finding of
this study illuminates the signification contribution of animal (sheep and goats). The amount of the excreta was calculated based
waste as a low-cost source for the generation of renewable energy, on the live body weight. Generally, the daily manure can vary
notably in the context of sustainability of energy production. based on the type of animal, body weight and animal age [56,57].
The amount of the manure, for instance, has been estimated as
10–20 kg/day for cattle, 2 kg/day for sheep and goat, and 0.08–
3. Methodology 0.1 kg/day for chicken, accounting for 5–6% of body weight/day, 4–
5% of body weight/day and 3–4% of body weight/day, respectively
3.1. Overview [56,58]. In this study, the quantity of the manure was calculated
based on the 9% of the body weight of the large ruminants, 4% of
In order to calculate the potential of biogas generation from the the body weight of the small ruminants and 3% of the body weight
farm animal waste, initial data was collected from the Department of poultry [55]. The average live body weight accounted 250 kg,
of Veterinary Services (DVS), Ministry of Agriculture and Agro- 40 kg and 1.5 kg for the large ruminants (buffaloes and cattle), the
Based Industry Malaysia [44]. The data included the population of
small ruminants (goats and sheep) and poultry (chickens and
livestocks kept in the farms in different regions of Malaysia and
ducks), respectively. Accordingly, the average amount of the
the number of slaughtered farm animals in the slaughterhouses of
manure was calculated based on 22.5 kg/day for the large rumi-
Malaysia in the year 2012. The quantity of the animal waste was
nants, 1.6 kg/day for the small ruminants and 0.045 kg/day for
then estimated per annum on the basis of body weight. The biogas
generation was calculated based on the amount of animal waste poultry (Table 4) [55]. The quantity of the blood and rumen con-
produced per annum. The parameters that had a direct correlation tent obtained from the slaughter of the animals is proportional to
with the biogas measurement were considered. These included the body weight and the age of the animals. In this study, the
the total solids of the waste and the availability of the animal amount of the blood obtained (kg) from the slaughtered animals
manure. The detailed calculations are presented in the following was considered as 8.4% of the body weight and 3% of the body
sections. weight for the large ruminants and the small ruminants, respec-
tively (Table 4). At the same time, the measured rumen weight (kg)
3.2. Livestock population for the slaughtered ruminants was considered as 12% of the body
weight of the large ruminants and 25% of the body weight of the
Malaysia is a tropical country in the Southeast Asia consisting small ruminants as shown in Table 4 [55]. Table 5 shows the
of the Peninsular of Malaysia (West Malaysia), and the East number of slaughtered farm animals based on the data recorded in
Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak). Malaysia has an equatorial climate slaughterhouses of Malaysia in 2012. The highest number of the
with a measured rainfall of 200–250 cm per annum which makes
slaughtered farm animals was cattle, followed by goats and buf-
it an important land area for agriculture and animal farming
faloes, while the slaughter of sheep had the lowest record
[18,52,53]. According to the data reported by DVS, Ministry of
(Table 5).
Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Malaysia [44], in 2012,
Malaysia had a total of 118,674 buffalos, 742,558 cattle, 458,646
Table 4
goats and 131,923 sheep. Furthermore, it was estimated that The average amount of animal waste considered based on body weight [55].
Malaysia had a poultry population of 866,315,011 birds as shown
in Table 3 [54]. Referring to Table 3, among different regions, the Livestock Body Manure Blood Rumen content
highest number of farm animals was kept in the Peninsular (day
1) weight (kg day
1) (kg day
1) (kg day
1)
(kg)
Malaysia, and followed by Sabah and Sarawak.
Large 250 22.5 21 30
3.3. Livestock waste ruminants
Small 40 1.6 1.2 10
ruminants
Animal and poultry waste is composed of the organic matter Poultry 1.5 0.045 –
that can be treated as the potential raw substance for the pro-
duction of bioenergy. In addition to manure, the blood content
obtained from the slaughtered animals and poultry, and the rumen
Table 5
Table 3 Slaughtered animals recorded in slaughterhouses of Malaysia in 2012 [44].
Livestock population of Malaysia in year 2012 [44,54].
Region Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep
Region Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Poultry
Peninsular Malaysia 9920 117,491 37,406 10,406
a
Peninsular Malaysia 65,858 663,563 394,905 127,671 703,310,511 Sabah 359 1056 NA NA
Sabah 45,539 63,875 49,146 2070 45,738,500 Sarawak 664 856 247 28
Sarawak 7277 15,120 14,595 2182 117,266,000
a
Not available.
718 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723

3.4. Calculation of the potential of biogas production from the live- 3.5. Calculation of methane (CH4) content of biogas and the potential
stock waste of electric power generation from biogas

The cumulative biogas produced from the livestock waste is
affected by the different factors such as feeding regime, animal
type, body weight, the proportion of total solids and the waste
availability [56]. The total solids of the waste is an important factor
for the production of biogas from the livestocks waste. Table 6
shows the range of total solid ratio in different farm animal waste
[55,56,59].
On the other hand, the collection of the manure cannot always
be carried out efficiently for the production of biogas and the
availability of the manure is varied [55]. Hence, for the calculation
of biogas production from the animal manure the availability
coefficient was taken into account when the cumulative biogas
volume was calculated. The theoretical potential of biogas gen-
eration from the manure was calculated as shown in Eq. (1):
TPB ¼ M  TS AC  EBTS
where TPB denotes the theoretical potential of biogas (m3 year
1),
M is the total amount of the manure produced for each region
(kg year
1), TS represents the ratio of the total solids of the animal
manure, AC denotes the availability coefficient and EBTS is the
quantity of estimated biogas produced per kilogram of the total
solids (m3 kg
1 TS).
In the current study, TS value was considered as 25% for the
large ruminants, 25% for the small ruminants and 29% for poultry
with the EBTS value of 0.6, 0.4 and 0.8 m3 kg
1 TS, respectively
[55]. The availability coefficient was considered as 50% for large
ruminants, 13% for small ruminants and 99% for poultry [55,56].
For the calculation of biogas from the blood and the rumen
content, it was assumed that all the waste obtained from the
slaughterhouse were transferred to the biogas plants with no
moisture loss. The amount of biogas production from the blood
and rumen content was calculated as 0.3 m3 per kg of fresh waste
collected [55].
The anaerobic digestion (AD) of the livestock manure has
shown that the percentage of methane content in the biogas
evolved from the livestock manure varies according to the source
of the manure. It has been found that the biogas obtained from the
AD process of cow manure is composed of 50–70% of methane
[18,19,46,60]. Furthermore, it has been estimated that the
methane content of the biogas generated from the sheep manure
is ranging from 40% to 50% [62]. While the biogas production using
chicken manure may contain methane content in the range of 50–
70% [46,61]. In this study, the quantity of methane content for the
large ruminants, small ruminants and poultry was selected as 60%,
45% and 60%, respectively. The percentage of methane composi-
tion of the biogas obtained from the slaughterhouse (rumen con-
tent and blood) was assumed as 60%. For the calculation of heating
value of the methane generated, it was assumed that 85% of the
methane evolved could be converted to heat (85% heating con-
ð1Þ version efficiency) in the boiler by considering a calorific value of
36 MJ per cubic meter of methane (36 MJ/m3) [62].
The potential of electricity generation from the biogas was
calculated according to Eq. (2):
ebiogas ¼Ebiogas  ɳ (2)
where ebiogas is the quantity of generated electricity (kWh year
1),
Ebiogas is the unconverted raw energy in the biogas (kWh year
1)
and the ɳ denotes the overall efficiency of the conversion of biogas
to electricity (%). The amount of ɳ is varied depending on the
power generation plants. The ɳ value is considered 35–42% and
25% in the power plants with large turbine system and small
generators, respectively [4,63]. In this study, the ɳ value was
assumed as 30% [64]. The quantity of Ebiogas is calculated using
Eq. (3):
_ biogas
Ebiogas ¼Energy contentbiogas  m (3)

where Energy contentbiogas represents the calorific value of biogas

(kWh m
3) and m _ biogas denotes the amount of biogas produced
Table 6 per year (m3 year
1). The quantity of the Energy contentbiogas is
The range of total solids in animal waste and biogas produced based on the amount assumed as 6 kWh m
3 by considering the biogas calorific value as
of total solids [55,56,59]. 21.5 MJ per m3 biogas (1 kWh ¼3.6 MJ) [4,64].

Livestock a
TS (%) Biogas (m3 kg
1 TS)

Cattle manure (fresh) 25–30 0.6–0.8 4. Results and discussion

Sheep manure (fresh) 18–25 0.3–0.4
Poultry manure 10–29 0.3–0.8
4.1. Animal waste production
Blood 18 0.3–0.6
Rumen content 12–16 0.3–0.6
The amount of wet waste production by farming animals in
a
Total solids. different regions of Malaysia according to the data recorded in

Table 7
The estimated values of farm animal waste of different regions in Malaysia in 2012.

Province Manure(Mta yr
1) Blood (ktd yr
1) Rumen(kt yr
1)

Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Poultry Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep

b
P. Malaysia 0.54 5.45 0.23 0.075 11.55 76.04 900.57 16.38 4.56 108.62 1,286.52 1,36.53 37.98
c
Sabah 0.38 0.53 0.03 0.001 0.75 2.75 8.10 NA NA 3.93 11.56 NA NA
Sarawak 0.06 0.13 0.009 0.001 1.92 5.09 6.56 0.1 0.01 7.27 9.37 0.90 0.1

a
Mt: Million tons.
b
Peninsular Malaysia.
c
Not available.
d
kt: Kilo tons.
 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723
Table 8
Potential biogas from animal waste of different regions in Malaysia in 2012.
Region Potential biogas from manure Potential biogas from blood
(Million m3 yr
1) (Million m3 yr
1)
Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Poultry Buffalo
P. Malaysia 40.50 408.75 3.0 0.98 2652.80 22.81
Sabah 28.50 39.75 0.40 0.01 172.26 0.83
Sarawak 4.50 9.75 0.01 0.01 440.99 1.53
2012 is shown in Table 7. It is shown that the higher amount of the
manure was produced in Peninsular Malaysia compared to that
from Sabah and Sarawak. It is obvious that poultry made a major
contribution to the production of manure in Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah and Sarawak with the annual manure production of 11.55,
0.75 and 1.92 million tons (Mt) year
1, respectively. It could be
attributed to the augmentation of poultry industry growth during
the last two decades in Malaysia in response to the increased
demand for poultry products [65]. Among farm animals, the
highest quantity of the manure was obtained from cattle with the
values as high as 5.45, 0.53 and 0.13 Mt yr
1 in Peninsular
Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, respectively (Table 7). A total of
21.656 Mt yr
1 of the livestock manure was produced in Malaysia.
On the other hand, plenty of blood was obtained from the
slaughtered cattle with the value as high as 900.57, 8.10 and 6.56
(kt yr
1) in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, respectively,
compared to wet blood obtained from the slaughtered buffalo,
goat and sheep. Similarly, a high amount of the rumen content was
produced by the slaughtered cattle with the values of 1286.52,
11.56 and 9.37 (kt yr
1) in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sar-
awak, respectively compared to the rumen content obtained from
the other animals slaughtered, indicating the fact that cattle is a
potential animal for providing a renewable source of biogas pro-
duction [19,66–68].
According to Table 7, the amount of 1.02 Mt yr
1 of blood
waste and 1.6 Mt yr
1 of rumen waste was potentially obtained
from the slaughtered farm animals in Malaysia. This indicates that
animal waste produced in the slaughterhouse could be efficiently
managed for further processing in the biogas plants to sustainably
generate renewable energy [55]. Referring to Table 7, it was esti-
mated that in 2012, a total of 24.28 Mt yr
1 of the animal waste
was produced in Malaysia.
4.2. Potential of biogas generation
Livestock waste notably has been found as the potential feed-
stock for sustainable generation of biogas in the AD process [51].
The biogas production potential from the animal and poultry
waste is shown in Table 8. It is found that the highest potential of
biogas evolution from the manure is related to the poultry
industry in the Peninsular Malaysia with the biogas production
potential of 2652.80 million m3 yr
1, followed by Sarawak and
Sabah with a biogas generation potential of 440.99 and
172.26 million m3 yr
1, respectively. This indicates the pivotal role
of poultry manure as a determinant source of energy in Malaysia
[69]. Among the farm animals, the manure obtained from the large
ruminants (cattle and buffalos) exhibited a high quantity of biogas
production potential compared to that from small ruminants
(goats and sheep). Evidently, the manure obtained from the cattle
showed the maximum potential of biogas production with the
potential values of 408.75, 39.75 and 9.75 million m3 yr
1, in
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, respectively. Similar
observation was reported by Afazeli et al. [55] who measured the
biogas production potential from the livestock manure kept in the
rural areas in Iran. They found that the potential of biogas
719
Potential biogas from rumen
(Million m3 yr
1)
Cattle Goat Sheep Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep
270.17 4.91 1.37 32.59 385.96 40.96 11.40
2.43 NA NA 1.18 3.47 NA NA
1.97 0.3 0.003 2.18 2.81 0.27 0.03
6.68%
10.47%
Manure
Rumen content
Blood
82.85%
Fig. 4. The schematic contribution of the livestock waste to the potential of biogas
production in Malaysia estimated for 2012.
generation from the manure of the large ruminants in 31 pro-
vinces accounted for 70% of the total biogas calculated, while the
biogas generated from the small ruminants manure contributed to
7% of the total biogas produced per annum. They also reported that
the potential of biogas calculated based on the poultry manure
was less than that of the large ruminants’ manure, contrary to that
observed in the current study. As shown in Table 8, the potential of
biogas production from the manure of the large ruminants, small
ruminants and poultry in three regions studied were 531.75, 4.52
and 3266.05 million m3 yr
1, respectively with a total biogas
production of 3802.32 million m3 yr
1. This result showed that
the potential of biogas produced from the poultry manure con-
stituted 85.9% of the total biogas, while the potential of biogas
production calculated for the large ruminants and small ruminants
accounted for 13.98% and 0.12% of the total biogas, respectively. In
this regard, studies fulfilled by Avcioğlu and Türker [56] revealed
that the potential of biogas produced from excreta of cattle, small
ruminant and poultry in Turkey contributed to 68%, 5% and 27% of
the total biogas measured, respectively. This discrepancy could be
related to the variation in the biotransformation rate of waste into
biogas and different amounts of the livestock waste produced [55].
As can be seen from the results in Table 8, a total of biogas of
306.323 million m3 yr
1 was potentially produced from the blood
waste of the slaughtered animals in Malaysia with the highest
potential of biogas generation from the cattle blood
(274.57 million m3 yr
1), accounting for 90% of the total biogas
produced.
On the other hand, the high quantity of biogas production
potential was measured from the rumen content compared to that
from waste blood. A total of biogas potential of 480.85 million
m3 yr
1 could be produced using the rumen content obtained
from the slaughterhouse which was 75.13% higher than the
potential of biogas generation from waste blood. Rumen fluid has
been found as an important source of biogas production since it
contains microbial consortium which are able to degrade organic
substances such as cellulose and hemicellulose at anaerobic con-
ditions to produce biogas [67]. The study on the microorganisms
existing in the rumen content has revealed that the rumen fluid
contains mainly strict anaerobes such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa,
methane generating Archaea and methane producing bacteria of
the genus Methanobrevibacter [70,71]. This indicated that rumen
720 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723

Table 10
The potential of electricity generation (kWh yr
1) from livestock wastes in differ-
Sabah
ent regions of Malaysia in 2012.
P. Malaysia
Region Manure-based Blood-based Rumen content-
electricity electricity based electricity
Sarawak
P. Malaysia 5.6  109 5.39  108 8.48  108
Sabah 4.34  108 5.87  106 8.37  106
Sarawak 8.2  108 6.85  106 9.52  106

Fig. 5. Potential of biogas production (million m3 yr
1) in different regions of

Malaysia studied for 2012.

10%
5.50%

P. Malaysia
Sabah
Sarawak

84.50%
Fig. 6. The schematic contribution of each region of Malaysia to the potential of
biogas production estimated for 2012.
Table 9
The estimation of annual methane content evolved from biogas production
(million m3 yr
1) and potential of heating value generated from methane (MJ yr
1)
using animal wastes in different regions of Malaysia in 2012.
Region Manure Blood Rumen content
CH4 Heating value CH4 Heating CH4
value
P. Malaysia 1870 5.73  1010 180 5.5  109 283
Sabah 145 4.44  109 1.96 6  107 2.8
Sarawak 274 8.39  109 2.29 7  107 3.18
content of slaughtered livestocks can be considered as the alter-
native source for the generation of biogas in AD process. Fig. 4
illustrates the contribution of the animal wastes to the potential of
biogas production in Malaysia. Based on Table 8, the potential of
biogas generated from the livestock waste in Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah and Sarawak was 3876.20, 248.83 and 464.46 million
m3 yr
1, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the potential of biogas genera-
tion from the livestock wastes in the regions studied. Fig. 6 depicts
the share of each region to the generation of biogas.
Table 9 shows the potential of methane content of biogas
production from the livestock waste measured in different regions
of Malaysia. As can be seen, the potential of methane evolved in
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak were estimated as 2333,
149.76 and 279.47 million m3 yr
1, respectively. The results shown
in Table 9 also indicated that the methane produced from the
animal waste was potentially able to provide the heat energy with
the value of 7.15  1010, 4.59  109 and 8.56  109 MJ yr
1 in
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, respectively when biogas
could be burned on-site.
The investigation on the potential of biogas production from
animal wastes in Poland showed that two regions had the
potential of biogas generation higher than 250 million m3 yr
1,
namely the Wielkopolskie Voivodeship and the Mazowieckie
Voivodeship with a biogas production of 387 and
272 million m3 yr
1, respectively [48]. In an attempt, a biogas
plant was installed in Ukraine to produce biogas using the
Fig. 7. The quantity of CO2 emissions (million metric tons) measured in Malaysia
from 2000 to 2012 [74,75].
livestock manure. The biogas plant was designed for carrying out
AD process under mesophilic conditions in two bioreactors with
the volume of 1000 m3 for the production of 3300 m3 of methane.
The biogas plant had an electrical capacity of 180 kWh [8]. It has
been reported that India has the potential of generation of
6.38  1088 m3 yr
1 of biogas with the annual production of
350 Mt of manure yr
1 [72].
Heating value Table 10 reveals the quantity of electricity possibly determined
from the conversion of livestock waste-based biogas to electrical
energy. As can be observed, the total amount of electricity gen-
8.66  109
8.57  107
eration estimated in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak was
9.73  107 7  109, 4.5  108 and 8.37  108 kWh yr
1, respectively. Based on
the results presented in Tables 8 and 10, it is obvious that the
potential of biogas produced from the livestock waste in Penin-
sular Malaysia (3876.2 million m3 yr
1) with a potential electrical
generation capacity of 7  109 kWh could provide 6.86% of the
total electrical energy consumed in Peninsular Malaysia in 2012
with the total electricity consumption of 1.02  1011 kWh [25]. As
can be found from Tables 8–10, the total potential of biogas pro-
duced from the livestock waste in Malaysia was
4589.49 million m3 yr
1 with a methane content of
2762.23 million m3 yr
1. This amount of biogas could potentially
generate a heating value of 8.46  1010 MJ yr
1 and an electrical
energy of 8.27  109 kWh yr
1.
In this view, it is desirable to consider the electricity potential
to be generated from the potential biogas estimated. It has been
reported that in 2012, the electricity energy of 1.16  1011 kWh was
consumed in Malaysia. Hence, the potential electrical energy
generated from the biogas estimated in this study could provide
7.12% of the total electricity power consumed in 2012. This indi-
cates that the production of biogas using the livestock waste can
decrease the costs for electrical power generation in Malaysia by
decreasing the import of coal that is one of the main sources of
electricity energy in Malaysia [25].
It is noteworthy that the generation of electrical energy in
Malaysia has been rigorously depended on the oil and natural gas
for a long time. With the need of decreasing the amount of oil and
natural gas sources, more attention has been paid to the coal
energy as a low-cost resource for the production of electricity [73].
Hence, the power sector in Malaysia depends greatly on the
 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723
imported coal to meet the growing energy demand [25]. It was
reported that Malaysia spent approximately US$ 727.3 million for
importing coal in 2010 with a coal price of US$ 35 per ton [40].
Obviously, increased Malaysia population and growing per
capita GDP with the elevated energy consumption have led to a
high GHG emission over the past years [74]. In this view, an
increment in per capita CO2 emissions was measured from 1980 to
2009 concurrently with increasing per capita GDP in Malaysia [38].
The similar studies have revealed that a quantity of 285.73 Mt of
CO2 will be emitted in Malaysia in 2020, accounting for 68.86%
increase compared to the quantity of CO2 released in 2000 [36].
Fig. 7 depicts the amount of CO2 emission measured in Malaysia
during 2000–2012 [75]. On the other hand, non-sustainable source
of the fossil fuels in Malaysia are running out so that the use of
renewable resources are of the prime importance to meet the
increased energy demand and decreasing air pollution and GHG
emission. Malaysia has been awarded abundant renewable sources
which are compatible with the clean energy production and
environmentally friendly energy sources. In this regard, there are a
number of existing renewable energy sources in Malaysia such as
hydropower, biomass energy, solar energy, wind, ocean energy
and hydrogen fuel cells [31,76–78].
In recent years, AD process has received renew attentions due
to the growing high exploitation of the renewable energy sources
in relation to GHG emission concerns [79]. Biogas production with
the evolution of the flammable gas methane could affect Malaysia
in both the environmental and economical aspects [47]. The biogas
technology is known as an environmentally beneficial approach
which may contribute to a safe recycling of manure to enhance
rural and urban sanitation standard levels. Biogas digesters could
process human and the animal manure into a suitable feedstock
for biogas generation which eliminates breeding grounds from
flies. Moreover, it decreases the release of disease and bad odors
which eliminate viruses and worm eggs. Therefore, biogas utili-
zation enhances health quality and ecological life. With the
implementation of treatment process for the rural manure in the
AD, compared to depositing manure in the uncovered places, it can
reduce the emissions of GHG such as CH4. On the other hand, the
combustion of biogas reduces the emissions of GHG compared to
those of traditional fossil fuels and biomass fuels such as wood and
straw, hence representing the protection of environmental from
the pollutants. The utilization of household biogas could reduce
rural energy demand and provide partly electrical energy for the
rural consumption which results in the reduction of energy costs
imposed on farmers and villagers. On the other hand, the fertilizer
obtained from the biogas digesters can be utilized for further
production of vegetables and fruit, and crop yield. This in turn will
raise the rural income by improving the standard of living quality
[80–82]. Environmental and economical benefits of biogas pro-
duction was sought by Yasar et al. [83] who studied on the pro-
duction of biogas from the anaerobic treatment of the organic
waste obtained from the sugar industry, namely the spent wash.
Spent wash showed a toxic effect on the environment with a high
quantity of chemical oxygen demand (COD) of 95,000 mg/L. By AD
treatment of spent wash, a total biogas of 20.34 million m3 was
produced using 0.5 million m3 of spent wash so that the COD
quantity was reduced to 18,000 mg/L during the biogas produc-
tion. The utilization of biogas in the electricity plant resulted in a
total electricity production of 37.7 million kWh.
Considering the fact that there is a rapid growth of the animal
husbandry in Malaysia and the enormous production of the live-
stock excreta, the anaerobic digestion of the animal waste in the
biogas plants provides a clean energy source with the reduction of
environmentally hazardous substances and waste management
costs. From an economic view point, the design of the biogas
plants with the low costs for investment, increased efficiency, easy
721
control of the system and simplicity in operation and maintenance
will enhance biogas generation in Malaysia, which in turn supplies
more electricity power to the national grid.
5. Conclusion
It has been a growing trend in the livestock population of
Malaysia in response to the increasing demands for the farm
animal products that results in the production of plenty of the
organic waste in the farms and slaughterhouses. This study shows
that the treatment of the farm animal waste by the anaerobic
digestion or biogas technology can potentially contribute to the
generation of huge amounts of the renewable energy as biogas. In
addition, the treated organic matters (digestate) could be used as
biochemicals and fertilizer in the agriculture land for crop culti-
vation. The findings of the current study revealed that the total
animal waste produced from the livestock kept in farms and the
slaughtered animals in slaughterhouse was about 24.28 Mt in
2012. On the other hand, the total potential of the biogas produced
from the livestock waste was 4589.493 million m3 yr
1 which
could provide a heating value of 8.46  1010 MJ yr
1 and an elec-
tricity generation potential of 8.27  109 kWh yr
1. This study
demonstrated that animal waste is the promising low-cost and
sustainable energy source in Malaysia which could be efficiently
utilized for the generation of biogas energy and electrical power.
Furthermore, anaerobic digestion of animal waste reduces their
detrimental impacts on the environment by enhancing public
health.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support allo-
cated by UTM Post-doctoral Scheme (02E23), UTM RA Sustain-
ability Flagship Project Grant (01G67)entitled “On-Campus Bio-
Recycling of Food and Green Wastes into Compost”, and the
Malaysian Ministry of Education Research Grant (4B145).
References
[1] Abdeshahian P, Dashti MG, Kalil MS, Yusoff WMW. Production of biofuel using
biomass as a sustainable biological resource. Biotechnology 2010;9:274–82.
[2] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA, Aghili N. The scenario of greenhouse gases reduction
in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:400–9.
[3] Bansal SK, Sreekrishnan TR, Singh R. Effect of heat pretreated consortia on
fermentative biohydrogen production from vegetable waste. Natl Acad Sci Lett
2013;16:125–31.
[4] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Development of biogas combustion in combined heat
and power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:868–75.
[5] Williams JB, Shobrak M, Wilms TM, Arif IA. Climate change and animals in
Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci 2012;19:121–30.
[6] Rahimnejad M, Adhami A, Darvari S, Zirepour A. Oh S-E. Microbial fuel cell as
new technology for bioelectricity generation: a review. Alexandria Eng J
2015;54:745–56.
[7] Abdeshahian P, Al-Shorgani NKN, Salih NKM, Shukor H, Kadier A, Hamid AA,
Kalil MS. The production of biohydrogen by a novel strain Clostridium sp. YM1
in dark fermentation process. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:12524–31.
[8] Chasnyk O, Sołowski G, Shkarupa O. Historical, technical and economic aspects
of biogas development: case of Poland and Ukraine. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;52:227–39.
[9] Sun Q, Li H, Yan J, Liu L, Yu Z, Yu X. Selection of appropriate biogas upgrading
technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:521–32.
[10] Christy PM, Gopinath LR, Divya D. A review on anaerobic decomposition and
enhancement of biogas production through enzymes and microorganisms.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:167–73.
[11] Li J, Wei L, Duan Q, Hu G, Zhang G. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of
dairy manure with three crop residues for biogas production. Bioresour
Technol 2014;156:307–13.
[12] Yong Z, Dong Y, Zhang X, Tan T. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
straw for biogas production. Renew Energy 2015;78:527–30.
722 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723
[13] Gebrezgabher SA, Meuwissen MPM, Prins BAM. Lansink AGJMO. Economic
analysis of anaerobic digestion – a case of Green power biogas plant in The
Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen J Life Sci 2010;57:109–15.
[14] Çelik I, Demirer GN. Biogas production from pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) pro-
cessing waste. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 2015;4:767–72. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.bcab.2015.10.009i.
[15] Huang R, Mei Z, Long Y, Xiong X, Wang J, Guo T, Luo T, Long E. Impact of
optimized flow pattern on pollutant removal and biogas production rate using
wastewater anaerobic fermentation. Bioresources 2015;10:4826–42.
[16] Nitsos C, Matsakas L, Triantafyllidis K, Rova U, Christakopoulos P. Evaluation of
Mediterranean agricultural residues as a potential feedstock for the produc-
tion of biogas via anaerobic fermentation. BioMed Res Int 2015. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1155/2015/171635.
[17] Shen Y, Linville JL, Urgun-Demirtas M, Mintz M, Snyder SW. An overview of
biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) in the United States: Challenges and opportunities towards energy-
neutral WWTPs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:346–62.
[18] Nasir IM, Ghazi TIM, Omar R, Idris A. Anaerobic digestion of cattle manure:
influence of inoculums concentration. Int J Engin Technol 2013;10:22–6.
[19] Ounnar A, Benhabyles L, Igoud S. Energetic valorization of biomethane pro-
duced from cow-dung. Procedia Eng 2012;33:330–4.
[20] De Vries JW, TMWJ Vinken, Hamelin L, De Boer IJM. Comparing environmental
consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce
bio-energy – a life cycle perspective. Bioresour Technol 2012;125:239–48.
[21] Comparetti A, Greco C, Navickas K, Venslauskas K. Evaluation of potential
biogas production in sicily. Eng Rural Dev 2012;24:555–9.
[22] Hol-Nielsen JB, Al-Seadi T, Oleskowicz P. The future of anaerobic digestion and
biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5478–84.
[23] Thu CTT, Cuong PH, Hang LT, Chao NV, Le Xuan Anh LX, Trach NX, Sommer SG.
Manure management practices on biogas and non-biogas pig farms in
developing countries-using livestock farms in Vietnam as an example. J Clean
Prod 2012;27:64–71.
[24] Ch'ng HY, Ahmed OH, Kassim S, Ab Majid NM. Co-composting of pineapple
leaves and chicken manure slurry. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 2013;2:23.
〈http://www.ijrowa.com/content/2/1/23〉.
[25] Basri NA, Ramli AT, Aliyu AS. Malaysia energy strategy towards sustainability:
a panoramic overview of the benefits and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;42:1094–105.
[26] M.E.C. Malaysia Energy Commission: Peninsular Malaysia electricity supply
industry outlook. Suruhanjaya Tenaga, Putrajaya; 2013.
[27] Department of statistics Malaysia; 2015. 〈http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/
〉.
[28] Mofijur M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Hazrat MA, Liaquat AM, Shahabuddin M,
Varman M. Prospects of biodiesel from Jatropha in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2012;16:5007–20.
[29] Mekhilef S, Saidur R, Safari A. Mustaffa WESB. Biomass energy in Malaysia:
Current state and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3360–70.
[30] Malaysia Energy Information Hub; 2015. 〈http://meih.st.gov.my/statistics〉.
[31] Petinrin JO, Shaaban M. Renewable energy for continuous energy sustain-
ability in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:967–81.
[32] Ahmad S, Tahar RM, Muhammad-Sukki F, Munir AB, Rahim RA. Role of feed-in
tariff policy in promoting solar photovoltaic investments in Malaysia: a system
dynamics approach. Energy 2015;84:808–15.
[33] Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable
development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy pro-
cess: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy 2014;63:458–66.
[34] Tang CF, Tan EC. Exploring the nexus of electricity consumption, economic
growth, energy prices and technology innovation in Malaysia. Appl Energy
2013;104:297–305.
[35] Akhwanzada SA, Tahar RM. Strategic forecasting of electricity demand using
system dynamics approach. Int J Environ Sci Dev 2012;3:328–33.
[36] Kardooni R, Yusoff SB, Kari FB. Renewable energy technology acceptance in
Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy 2016;88:1–10.
[37] Lean HH, Smyth R. Disaggregated energy demand by fuel type and economic
growth in Malaysia. Appl Energy 2014;132:168–77.
[38] Begum RA, Sohag K, Abdullah SMS, Jaafar M. CO2 emissions, energy con-
sumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;41:594–601.
[39] Johari A, Nyakuma BB, Mohd Nor SH, Mat R, Hashim H, Ahmad A, Zakaria ZY,
Abdullah TAT. The challenges and prospects of palm oil based biodiesel in
Malaysia. Energy 2015;81:255–61.
[40] Ali R, Daut I, Taib S. A review on existing and future energy sources for elec-
trical power generation in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:4047–
55.
[41] Jafar AH, Al-Amin AQ, Siwar C. Environmental impact of alternative fuel mix in
electricity generation in Malaysia. Renew Energy 2008;33:2229–35.
[42] Tye YY, Lee KT, Abdullah WNW, Leh CP. Second-generation bioethanol as a
sustainable energy source in Malaysia transportation sector: status, potential
and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4521–36.
[43] Oh TH, Pang SY, Chua SC. Energy policy and alternative energy in Malaysia:
issues and challenges for sustainable growth. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:1241–52.
[44] Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), Ministry of Agriculture & Agro-
Based Industry Malaysia. 〈http://www.dvs.gov.my〉.
[45] Ch'ng HY, Ahmed OH, Kassim S, Majid NMA. Recycling of sago (Metroxylon
sagu) bagasse with chicken manure slurry through co-composting. J Agric Sci
Technol 2014;16:1441–54.
[46] Nasir IM, Ghazi TIM, Omar R. Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock
manure treatment for biogas production: a review. Eng Life Sci 2012;12:258–
69.
[47] Divya D, Gopinath LR, Christy PM. A review on current aspects and diverse
prospects for enhancing biogas production in sustainable means. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:690–9.
[48] Igliński B, Buczkowski R, Cichosz M. Biogas production in Poland – current
state, potential and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:686–95.
[49] Prasertsan S, Sajjakulnukit B. Biomass and biogas energy in Thailand: poten-
tial, opportunity and barriers. Renew Energy 2006;31:599–610.
[50] Sadettanh K, Kumar S. Renewable energy resources potential in Lao PDR.
Energy Sour 2004;26:9–18.
[51] Than TMM. Myanmar's energy sector: banking on natural gas. Southeast Asian
Affairs 2005:257–89.
[52] Lim X-L, Lam W-H. Public acceptance of marine renewable energy in Malaysia.
Energy Policy 2014;65:16–26.
[53] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Feasibility study of biogas production and utilization
as a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;14:454–62.
[54] Federation of Livestock Farmers’ Association of Malaysia (FLFAM). 〈http://
flfam.org.my/〉.
[55] Afazeli H, Jafari A, Rafiee S, Nosrati M. An investigation of biogas production
potential from livestock and slaughterhouse wastes. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2014;34:380–6.
[56] Avcioğlu AO, Türker U. Status and potential of biogas energy from animal
wastes in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1557–61.
[57] Omrani GH. Basics biogas production from urban and rural waste. Iran: Uni-
versity of Tehran Publication; 1996.
[58] Kaygusuz K. Renewable and sustainable energy use in Turkey: a review.
Renewd Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6:339–66.
[59] Deublein D, Steinhauser A. Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an
introduction. Wiley-VCH-Verl Publication; 2011. 〈http://d-nb. info/1002408512〉.
[60] Omar R, Harun RM, Mohd Ghazi TI, Wan Azlina WAKG, Idris A, Yunus R.
Anaerobic treatment of cattle manure for biogas production. In: Proceedings
of the annual meeting of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2008,
Philadelphia, USA. p. 1–10.
[61] Noorollahi Y, Kheirrouz M, Farabi Asl H, Yousefi H, Hajinezhad A. Biogas
production potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;50:748–54.
[62] From biogas to heat, electricity and fuel. 〈http://www.methator.com/en/bio
gas-heat-electricity-fuel〉.
[63] Benito M, Ortiz I, Rodríguez L, Muñoz G. Ni–Co bimetallic catalyst for hydro-
gen production in sewage treatment plants: biogas reforming and tars
removal. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:14456–68.
[64] Garcia AP. Techno-economic feasibility study of a small-scale biogas plant for
treating market waste in the city of El Alto. Master of Science Thesis EGI 2014.
KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management , Division of Energy
and Climate.
[65] Roeper H, Khan S, Koerner I, Stegmann R. Low-tech options for chicken
manure treatment and application possibilities in agriculture. In: Proceedings
of the Sardinia, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Sympo-
sium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 3–7 October 2005.
[66] Eze JI, Agbo KE. Studies on the microbial spectrum in anaerobic bio-
methannization of cow dung in 10 m3 fixed dome biogas digester. Int J Phys
Sci 2010;5:1331–7.
[67] Rabiu A, Yaakub H, Liang JB, Samsudin AA. Increasing biogas production of
rumen fluid using cattle manure collected at different time as a substrate. J
Agric Vet Sci 2014;7:44–7.
[68] Nasir IM, Ghazi TIM, Omar R, Idris A. palm oil mill effluent as an additive with
cattle manure in biogas production. Procedia Eng 2012;50:904–12.
[69] Othman MYH, Yatim B, Salleh MM. Chicken dung biogas power generating
system in Malaysia. Renew Energy 1996;9:930–3.
[70] Alrawi RA, Ahmad A, Ismail N, Kadir MOA. Anaerobic co-digestion of palm oil
mill effluent with rumen fluid as a co-substrate. Desalin 2011;269:50–7.
[71] Miller TL, Wolin MJ. Inhibition of growth of methane-producing bacteria of
the ruminant forestomach by hydroxymethylglutaryl-scoa reductase inhibi-
tors. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:1445–8.
[72] Lohan SK, Dixit J, Kumar R, Pandey Y, Khan J, Ishaq M, Modasir S, Kumar D.
Biogas: a boon for sustainable energy development in India's cold climate.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:95–101.
[73] Shahmohammadi MS, Yusuff RM, Keyhanian S, Shakouri H. A decision support
system for evaluating effects of Feed-in Tariff mechanism: dynamic modeling
of Malaysia’s electricity generation mix. Appl Energy 2015;146:217–29.
[74] Khorasanizadeh H, Parkkinen J, Parthiban R, Moore JD. Energy and economic
benefits of LED adoption in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:629–37.
[75] The World Bank Group. Malaysia's indicator. Washington, DC: The World
Bank; 2013.
[76] Ho L-W. Wind energy in Malaysia: past, present and future. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;53:279–95.
[77] Foo KY. A vision on the opportunities, policies and coping strategies for the
energy security and green energy development in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;51:1477–98.
 P. Abdeshahian et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714–723
[78] Chong HY, Lam W-H. Ocean renewable energy in Malaysia: the potential of
the Straits of Malacca. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:169–78.
[79] Ahmed Y, Yaakob Z, Akhtar P, Sopian K. Production of biogas and performance
evaluation of existing treatment processes in palm oil mill effluent (POME).
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:1260–78.
[80] Dai J, Chen B, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Ahmad B. Sustainability-based economic and
ecological evaluation of a rural biogas-linked agro-ecosystem. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;41:347–55.
[81] Li C, Liao Y, Wen X, Wang Y, Yang F. The development and countermeasures of
household biogas in northwest grain for green project areas of China. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:835–46.
723
[82] Cheng S, Li Z, Mang H-P, Huba E-M, Gao R, Wang X. Development and
application of prefabricated biogas digesters in developing countries. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:387–400.
[83] Yasar A, Ali A, Tabinda AB, Tahir A. Waste to energy analysis of shakarganj
sugar mills: biogas production from the spent wash for electricity generation.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:126–32.
[84] Luostarinen S. Energy potential of manure in the Baltic Sea region: biogas
potential & incentives and barriers for implementation. Knowledge report,
Baltic Forum for Innovative Technologies for Sustainable Manure Manage-
ment; Baltic manure WP6 energy potentials 2013. 〈http://www.balticmanure.
eu/download/Reports/bm_energy_potentials_web.pdf〉.