Closed-loop Organic Waste Management Systems for

Family Farmers in Brazil

René van der Velden1, Warde da Fonseca-Zang2,5, Joachim Zang2,5, Dominic Clyde-Smith1, Wilson

M. Leandro3,5, Priti Parikh4, Aiduan Borrion1, Luiza C. Campos1*

1
Dept. Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, Chadwick Building, University College London- UCL, Gower

St, London WC1E 6BT.

2
Sustainable Process Technology, Department 2, Federal Institute of Goiás, IFG, Rua 75, 46, Centro, CEP 74055110,

Goiânia - GO.
3
Agronomy Faculty, Federal University of Goiás – UFG, Av. Esperança s/n, Campus Samambaia, CEP 74690-900,

Goiânia - Goiás – Brazil.

4
Engineering for International Development Research Centre, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT.
5
Apinaje Technological Vocational Centre - Federal University of Goiás – UFG – Rodovia Goiânia – Nova Veneza ,

Km 0, S/N, Campus Samambaia. CEP: 74690-900, Goiânia - Goiás – Brazil.

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

1
Abstract

Family farmers in Brazil could diversify their sources of income source and improve agriculture

practices by adopting circular economy principles on their farms. Closed-loop technological systems

can be used to manage organic waste and produce fertilizer and biogas thereby generating revenue.

Anaerobic digestion is a proven technology that can produce digestate (i.e. fertilizer) and biogas from

organic waste, although digestate application in soil and crops without treatment can have adverse

effects. However, in practice, there is a lack of knowledge about the benefits of recycling organic

waste in farming communities in Brazil. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to provide conceptual

design configurations of closed-loop systems that manage organic waste and generate revenue for

small farms in Brazil. A literature review of selected technologies and interviews with Brazilian

family farmers were used to inform the components of the proposed conceptual designs. The proposed

designs are based on circular economy principles, incorporating anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis for

biochar, hydroponics and vermifiltration in various configurations. A complete closed-loop system

consisting of a 7.5 m3 digester, pyrolysis unit, a combined hydroponic and vermifilter unit and a

shredder is estimated to cost around USD$1600 (R$ 6600). The flexibility of the proposed systems

has the potential to increase resilience and income for small-scale farmers, whist encouraging good

practices for waste management. The conceptual designs can be used as a basis for further research

and development of small-scale organic waste management solutions in Brazil.

Keywords: family farmers, organic waste, closed-loop, biogas, technologies

2
Introduction

The agricultural sector in Brazil is characterised by two types of farms: family farms and non-family

farms [1]. Family farmers in Brazil are legally defined by Law No. 11.326 of 2006, using four criteria;

regionally defined maximum land tenure, use of predominantly family labour on the farm, main

income from on-farm activities, and the farm is run by family members [1]. In 2006, 84 % of all farms

in Brazil were classified as family farms [1], producing only 38 % of all agricultural value, but

providing 75 % of Brazil’s domestic food consumption [2].

Unfortunately, the income of family farmers is often below the minimum wage and escaping poverty

is difficult due to limited land ownership and low levels of capital [1]. Organic farming could

potentially foster sustainable rural development, increasing cost-effectiveness of farming practices,

and farmers can benefit from the growing market of organic products [3]. Furthermore, organic

farming has recently gained more attention, socially and politically, through subsidies offered by the

government, research institutes and development agencies [4]. Transitioning to organic practices

increases resilience by reducing dependency on external inputs [5] and presents a market opportunity.

Therefore, organic farming practices could potentially benefit family farmers in Brazil.

In addition, the disposal of agri-waste from family farmers is a major problem in Brazil because of

use of usual and inappropriate techniques such as incineration, grounding, irregular disposal, and

other solid waste disposal impactful techniques [6]. According to the Primary Care Information

System (SIAB) of the Ministry of Health [7], in Brazil, approximately 7% of families deposit their

waste to open areas and 13.5% burn or bury. Also, wastewater in places without sanitary installation

is discharged into open areas, posing a risk to human health [8].

3
Closed-loop systems in small farms, which apply circular economic principles, not only have the

potential to decrease negative environmental impacts and improve efficiencies [9] but they can also

recover nutrients and energy, thus offsetting further costs. An ideal way to valorise organic waste is

by using Anaerobic Digestion (AD), which enables both closed-loop and organic practices. AD is the

microbial conversion of biomass into biogas and a nutrient-rich fertiliser know as digestate [10]. Land

application of digestate replaces chemical fertiliser, but overuse comes with its risks such as leaching

of nutrients, soil acidification and ammonium toxicity [11, 12]. Various alternative systems for the

recovery of nutrients from digestate exist [13], however they are mainly used on macro scales and

few designs exist that are appropriate for micro-scale, for family farmers.

AD has proven successful on small-scale farms as a first step to closing the loop [14]. These systems

are relatively simple to operate and can turn organic waste into biogas for cooking, heating or

electricity generation, and organic fertiliser [15]. However, ligneous wastes such as cassava branches

are not suitable for AD [16]. Instead, they can be converted into biochar through small-scale

pyrolysis, where organic waste is heated in anoxic conditions [17]. Biochar is known for improving

moisture and nutrient retention of soil and as a way to successfully store carbon [18, 19]. In Goiás

State, Brazil which lies within the ‘Cerrado’ (a type of Brazilian savanna), the soil has high acidity

[20], and to obtain satisfactory agricultural production in these soils, the use of soil amendments is

recommended [21]. Therefore, biochar from agricultural waste may be helpful, given that biochar is

mainly beneficial to acidic soils [22]

One technology which can be used to recover nutrients from digestate is hydroponics, where crops

are grown in soilless conditions with only a solution to provide the necessary nutrients [23]. Where

most hydroponic implementations are large scale and in controlled conditions, new developments

explore small-scale options and the use of digestate as a nutrient solution [23]. Another option for
4
cleaning the digestate is by using a vermifilter, a filter in which earthworms aid the breakdown of

nutrients cleaning the digestate [24]. Additionally, vermifiltration provides nutrient-rich compost

[25]. Other options include using microalgae and struvite precipitation; however, these are not

suitable for small scale operations due to the need for economies of scale [26, 27].

Despite having technical solutions to support sustainable rural development, Neto et al. [28]

emphasise that environmental education is fundamental to assist rural families in protecting the

environment and diversification of their income sources. Also, the lack of technical knowledge limits

the rural producer in decision making [29]. Therefore, this paper aims to provide closed-loop

conceptual designs to manage organic waste and generate revenue in small farms in Brazil. These

conceptual designs could be used by researchers, engineers and agricultural experts as a basis to

design context specific solutions for family farmers across Brazil. It is also expected that the paper

will serve as a source of practical support for small-scale farmers. Although other technological

options can be considered in the design of closed-loop systems, this paper focuses on small-scale

anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, use of digestate in hydroponic systems and vermifiltration because

they have been identified as cost-benefit solutions that incorporate circular economy principles.

Interviews with family farmers were undertaken in Brazil to get an idea of the culture of these farmers

to allow for a more human-centred design focus [30]. These interviews combined with the literature

review form the basis of the conceptual designs of an organic waste management system suitable for

family farmers in Brazil.

5
Technologies for the closed-loop model

Small-scale anaerobic digestion

AD is the conversion of organic matter by microbes in the absence of oxygen. The organic matter is

converted into biogas and digestate, a nutrient-rich fertiliser [10]. Figure 1 shows the typical in- and

outputs and their contents of the AD of crop residues based on [10], [31], [32] and [33]. As can be

seen, the feedstock consists of organic matter combined with water with a ratio of 1:1 to decrease the

solid content of the feedstock [31]. The desired value of the solid content in a tubular tank is between

10 % and 14 % [16]. About 10 % of the mass of the feedstock is converted to biogas, while the rest

forms the digestate [33]. The biogas typically consists of 50-75 % biomethane, 25-45 % carbon

dioxide, <2 % nitrogen, 0.1-2 % hydrogen sulphide and some additional trace elements [10]. The

digestate can be divided into 95 % liquid fraction and 5 % dry fraction [32]. Each fraction can be used

separately, and for this several innovative approaches exist, for example, the use of the dry fraction

for the rearing of black soldier fly larvae [34]. Also, some recent studies have suggested the use of

digestate as AD pre-treatment for lignocellulosic material [35, 36], thus allowing for more materials

to enter the closed-loop cycle.

AD is considered more environmentally friendly than the direct application of manure on land [12],

since it reduces nitrous oxide [37] and methane emissions (GHGs) [16]. Also, deforestation can be

avoided by the provision of biogas as a cooking fuel instead of firewood [38]. Moreover, farmers

spend less time foraging for firewood or spend less money on cooking gas [37]. Biogas can also be

used for lighting or heating [15]. Besides gas, farmers are provided with a nutrient-rich fertiliser [39],

avoiding chemical fertiliser expenses [40]. Furthermore, pathogens and odours present in manure are

6
reduced [40]. Overall, biogas digesters are well suited in low and middle-income countries on family

or community scale [37] and can form the central component of farming systems [38].

However, AD systems pose some challenges. For example, harvesting of crop residues as feedstock

can be harmful to soil quality, leading to erosion and reduced plant growth [41]. It is therefore

necessary to leave some biomass on the field to cover the soil and part of it go to the biodigester. The

necessary water inputs might also form a problem in water-scarce regions [42]. Therefore, water reuse

and rainwater harvesting may be helpful. Handling digestate also poses challenges. The digestate

cannot be discharged into water bodies because of high BOD levels [42] and thus must be treated

before discharging. Additionally, the digestate and animal excreta can pose health risks if not handled

with care [43]. Therefore, safe use guidelines should always be followed [44]. In terms of design,

biodigesters need expert design and skilled construction [43] and Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

can be difficult. Many rural communities or farmers have stopped using biodigesters due to the lack

of their knowledge [14], which leads to mistrust in the digester [16]. Common problems are gas

leakage, low gas production and inadequate feedstock supply [45]. Furthermore, there is a lack of

sizing standards [14] and information on the design of small-scale digesters [42], leading to inefficient

designs. To overcome these challenges, in the case of Brazil, support may be sought from the

Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock

and Supply which provides biodigester guidelines and technical advice for farmers. The high capital

costs are an additional barrier for farmers with limited financial resources [37], thus affordable

systems must be developed and policies on incentives for biogas generation from the government

must be created. The Brazil-Germany project PROBIOGÁS promotes the use of biogas in Brazil to

expand the efficient energy use of biogas in basic sanitation and in agricultural and agro-industrial

initiatives, inserting biogas and biomethane in the national and national energy matrix.

7
In low and middle-income countries, AD is usually practised at a small scale in agricultural or

community settings [43]. While the basic mechanisms of all digesters are the same, they differ in

shape, size, material, insulation, bacteria regulation and mechanical input [14], influencing the

properties of biogas and digestate. Three small scale digesters are most commonly used in low and

middle-income countries: fixed dome digesters, floating drum digesters and flexible balloon digesters

[38, 42]. Fixed dome and floating drum digesters are less susceptible to temperature changes [38],

and have a longer life span [46] than balloon digesters. However, balloon digesters are simpler in

construction, O&M and require less capital [46]. Balloon digesters are recommended in rural areas

which have an average temperature above 20 °C [46]. All three digesters are usually placed partly or

completely underground, to avoid temperature fluctuations [47]. Automation of digesters in low and

middle-income countries is rare since they have little to no financial return at such small scale [37].

Different contexts require different digesters; however, prefabricated designs have high potential

because they are made using specialised materials and are less likely to malfunction [46].

Pyrolysis for biochar

Ligneous wastes cannot be fed into a digester. Instead, a simple and low-cost solution is transforming

them into biochar through pyrolysis [48]. Pyrolysis is the thermal conversion of biomass in the

absence of oxygen [49] into char, bio-oil and syngas [50]. Various types of pyrolysis include slow,

fast, rapid and flush, with slow pyrolysis being the most suitable for biochar creation [51]. This work

considers only slow pyrolysis given the fact it is a simpler system than fast pyrolysis and produces

heat and biochar [52] which can be easily used in small farms.

Biochar is known to be a good soil enhancer and is especially useful on infertile soil or in water

restricted regions [38, 17]. Applying biochar to the soil is an effective way to sequester carbon [51],

8
making it a carbon-negative waste management option [17]. It also decreases nitrous oxide and

ammonia emissions from fertiliser [48]. For farmers, it is useful because applying biochar improves

cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil which increases nutrient retention [18], prevents soil

acidification, and improves moisture retention [17]. Biochar also improves microbiological soil

fertility [51] and disease resistance of plants [50]. These capabilities make the soil more resilient

against climate variability [19] and reduce nutrient leaching and fertiliser requirement [18]. Overall,

these effects accumulate to improve seed emergence, crop growth and productivity [48]. The

technology for creating biochar is well-known, low cost and can be done with locally available

materials [18].

The main challenge of pyrolyzing organic wastes is its financial viability. Several studies found that

the technology was not financially viable without subsidies [53], or not financially viable for small

scale implementation [49]. However, where timber is too expensive, agricultural residues might be a

suitable low-cost alternative [18]. Moreover, using timber from the woods might also damage the

forest [17]. Vapours that are released form another challenge since they can cause air pollution [54]

and have potential health risks [50]. Overall, not enough is known about the viability of small-scale

pyrolysis, since most research in developed countries has been undertaken in the laboratory using

timber instead of crop residues [55].

Earthmound kilns are used by traditional communities in the Amazon [56], however, these traditional

methods are inefficient, waste heat and release GHGs [17]. More modern small-scale kilns are usually

batch units made of brick, metal or drums and there are also smaller pyrolytic cook stoves [50].

Single- and double-barrel retort kilns are the most common units [57]. A relatively recent

improvement of these kilns is the flame curtain kiln, which creates biochar layer by layer [58]. This

design decreases the negative environmental impacts [59], while producing biochar with similar
9
quality [60]. The main advantages are that these kilns do not need additional wood for ignition [61]

and they work as a dryer, so feedstock with higher moisture content can be used [58].

Digestate fertiliser

Anaerobic digester digestate contains all macro- and micronutrients present in the feedstock [62],

making it an excellent fertiliser [11, 39], capable of replacing chemical fertilisers [63]. Various studies

find similar or increased growth of crops when using digestate instead of raw animal manure as

fertiliser [64]. Compared to untreated animal manure, digestate has higher nitrogen plant availability

[64]. Similarly, compared to raw or composted crop residues, digestate has improved nutrient

availability [40]. Digestate has benefits over chemical fertiliser such as lower carbon footprint [63],

and reducing the effects of drought stress due to water retaining characteristics [12].

Researches on the effects of land application of digestate are not conclusive and often disagree on

how digested manure compares to undigested manure [64]. Compared to chemical fertiliser, digestate

can lead to higher eutrophication and acidification rates [63] and similarly, care must be taken to

prevent leaching into waterways [12]. Moreover, digestate might not be a complete fertiliser for all

crops [65], and depending on the feedstock, might not be suitable for land application due to high

biological oxygen demand (BOD), low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, odour issues, possible

phytotoxicity [11], and presence of pathogens [66]. Finally, due to pathogen accumulation, unsuitable

nutrient compositions and potential nutrient runoff alternative digestate handling options are

necessary [66]. Such technologies include hydroponics [67], vermifiltration [68], edible mushroom

production [23] and algal biomass production [69]. For simplification, the former two are explored

further in this work, while the others are interesting options for the future development of the

10
presented conceptual design. However, it is suggested that other technologies could be explored in

future studies.

Hydroponics using digestate

Hydroponics allow the growth of plants in soilless conditions, while nutrient-rich water is provided

to the roots containing all the nutrients the plants need for growth [70]. Hydroponic systems vary

depending on the type of plants, feeding regime, substrate type and system configuration. The most

common configuration of such systems is the nutrient film technique (NFT), where roots are partially

submerged in a thin layer of flowing water [71].

Literature about the use of digestate in hydroponic systems is scarce but increasing in recent years.

Related research is concerned with hydroponics for wastewater treatment [72] and organic

hydroponics [73]. Various successfully grown plants in digestate are lettuce [74], tomato [72, 67],

peppermint, basil [75], strawberry [76], water spinach [72] and silverbeet [11]. Some plants had lower

yields than plants grown in a conventional nutrient solution, however, this is likely to be caused by

the use of conventional systems rather than systems designed for digestate use. Moreover, if nutrient

composition, electrical conductivity (EC), and nitrogen levels are controlled, yields are similar or

higher than conventionally grown hydroponic plants [77]. For example, Lind et al. [78] have

investigated the cultivation of bok choy (Brassica rapa var. chinensis) in a hydroponic nutrient film

technique system with biogas digestate as the only fertilizer source. They found that the use of

digestate as a nutrient source resulted in EC levels (i.e. 2.0 mS cm−1) well suited for bok choy

hydroponic production when diluted to the desired nitrogen concentration (i.e. 200 mg ammonium–

nitrogen L−1). This work demonstrates the potential of using biogas digestate for hydroponic

production of plants.

11
Hydroponics has several advantages over soil-grown crops. Most notably, less water is needed [79],

less land area is necessary [80], yields are higher due to faster and denser growth [71], and leaching

of nutrients into the environment is not a risk [66]. The use of digestate in hydroponics avoids the

problems posed by using digestate as fertiliser [66], most notably leaching of nutrients and soil

harming [79]. Additionally, the right system would increase productivity, reduce the need for pest

control and improve ergonomics for workers [79]. Compared to using a conventional nutrient

solution, digestate has shown to reduce disease and pests [81], increase yield [81, 82], improve crop

quality [82]. For rural farmers hydroponic systems using digestate are especially beneficial because

they are less dependent on weather conditions increasing the resilience of farmers, fertilisers do not

have to be bought, and organic products can often be sold for higher prices.

Some notable downsides of hydroponics are the complexity of more advanced systems, the high

capital costs and the susceptibility to rapid pathogen spread [83]. With regards to using digestate,

there exists a lack of literature about the topic [11], making it hard to predict its viability. Specifically,

investment and running costs are yet unclear [67] and operation and control of these systems are less

well understood [84]. Some known challenges of using digestate in hydroponics are inhibited plant

growth due to nutrient deficiencies [67], damage to roots caused by inhibitors in the digestate [13],

and toxic conditions caused by nutrient accumulation [85]. Therefore, pH and nutrient levels need to

be controlled [86], however, this increases costs and irregular digestate composition make nutrient

supplementation difficult [87]. With respect to safety, not enough is known about the microbial aspect

of food safety when using digestate in hydroponics [88]. Early results show no dangerous pathogen

levels, but more research is needed [76]. Additionally, an ill-designed system might form a habitat

for mosquitoes and flies [89].

12
Microbes are traditionally seen as harmful to hydroponic systems. However, the right microorganisms

have proven to aid growth when using organic fertiliser [90]. These microbes are necessary to break

down organic matter which is present in digestate and perform nitrification [23], which does not occur

in conventional hydroponic systems [67], The microbes are commonly cultured in the substrate or

rhizosphere and form a biofilm [89]. Similar to constructed wetlands, these biofilms require an

adequate oxygen supply and surface area to oxidise organics so plants can take up the available

nutrients [89].

Pre-treatment of digestate is necessary to make it suitable for crop growth [82], remove suspended

solids [89], reduce ammonium content [90], increase DO [11] and adjust pH and EC levels [77].

Suspended solids can be removed by filtering the digestate. Ammonium levels can be decreased

through dilution, air sparging or using nitrifying bacteria [77]. Filtering and ammonium removal can

also be combined in a nitrifying biofilter [91] or a vermifilter [23]. Dilution of the digestate is usually

based on the ammonium concentration [76]. The use of chemicals to adjust pH or to supplement

specific nutrients has also shown to be successful [87].

Vermifiltration

Vermifiltration is a low-cost, environmentally friendly alternative for wastewater treatment highly

suitable in low and middle-income countries [24, 92]. In a vermifilter earthworms and microbes break

down organics, while a filter medium adsorbs impurities [93]. It is suitable for both rural communities

[94] and individual homes [25]. Additionally, experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of

combining constructed wetlands and vermifilters, which enhanced each other’s cleaning capabilities

[95, 96].

13
Furthermore, as opposed to conventional wastewater treatment, vermifiltration forms little to no

sludge [93, 92], is odour free [25], and little to no electricity is needed [94]. Vermifiltration has

comparable treatment capabilities to activated sludge process and trickling filters while being cheaper

in both construction and O&M and being simpler in operation [97]. Compared to alternative

ecological decentralised wastewater treatment, vermifiltration requires less land [98]. Their ability to

deal with fluctuations in input quantity [97] and the output being suitable for crop irrigation [94] make

them appropriate for small-scale agriculture. Lastly, vermifilters create additional value by providing

compost and earthworms which can be used as fish or poultry feed [25].

While most literature reports on pilot studies, less is known about long term effectiveness and

potential operational issues [92]. A difficulty known with the operation is the fact that the worms

need to be kept alive. Thus, the input cannot contain high levels of salts or toxicants [96] and

wastewater needs to be fed into the system year-round [25]. Studies report on the usage of domestic

sewage and swine manure [99]; however, no studies have been found using digestate.

Material and methods

Interviews

Ten interviews were held with farmers at the Agro Centro-Oeste Fair in Goiania, Goiás State Brazil

on the 30th and 31st of May 2019. Notes were taken and questions were asked in English by the

researcher and this was translated to Portuguese by a local researcher. However, it must be noted that

often the researcher had to clarify and steer the conversation with the interviewee before translating

since the answers were often not straightforward. The interviewees were asked questions verbally

instead of them filling out the questionnaire, by themselves. To allow people with lower levels of

14
education to participate. Each interview took roughly 35-50 minutes. Ethics approval was granted by

the Chair of the UCL Research Ethics Committee at University College London (12927/001,

approved on 6 March 2019) and Federal Institute of Goiás in Brazil (IFG ethics CAAE:

97040618.3.0000.8082, and judgement document number 3.022.577, approved 15 November 2018).

The fair was made up of stands with individual families, communities and cooperatives of farmers

presenting their products. Interviewees were selected throughout the fair if they produced fruits,

vegetables or processed food items and if they were available and willing to talk. Participants were

not rewarded for their participation.

The interview questionnaire (See Appendix A) consisted of 12 questions, being 10 closed-ended

questions and 2 open questions about challenges and opportunities, as well as two small mapping

exercises. The first mapping exercise showed the waste streams in and out of the farms, while the

second mapping exercise showed when crops were grown, what activities are involved and when

farmers are typically busy.

The answers to the closed questions were combined and averaged or listed. The answers to the open

questions and the additional notes were analysed by coding the responses and categorizing similar

answers from different respondents together. This way, not only answers given often were counted,

but also answers that were related were grouped. The mapping exercises were merged, and patterns

were identified by looking both at the merged versions as well as the individual maps and additional

notes to find differences and commonalities.

15
Design methodology

The closed-loop design system may be used as a basis for context-specific closed-loop farming

systems globally. Using the aforementioned technologies, the system aims to mitigate GHG

emissions and leaching of nutrients, while improving farmers’ resilience through maximizing the use

of organic resources, providing additional income and decreasing the weather dependency of farmers.

In order to accomplish this goal, the system needs to 1) be affordable for family farmers in Brazil, 2)

be usable for Brazilian family farmers, 3) fit with current family farming practices in Brazil and 4)

minimise adverse environmental impact.

The literature review and the interviews were used to inform the design process, where a systems

approach was used. The final design consists of various units working together in adaptable

configurations. Different configurations of the units create different closed-loop systems which allow

the system to be adjusted to the needs of farmers on a case-to-case basis. Before individual units were

designed, the overall system and various interplays between the various units were aligned. By

mapping out the possible in- and outputs of the separate units, these connections were defined.

All units are based on existing designs. A list of eleven design requirements was established, in

decreasing order of importance: capital costs, O&M costs, O&M difficulty, construction difficulty,

sustainability, health and safety, flexibility, materials availability, O&M time investment, the lifetime

of the units, and value creation. For the anaerobic digester and the pyrolysis units, these design

requirements were used to compare and select existing units. The hydroponic unit did not undergo

this process since only one small-scale design was available for the treatment of wastewater. The

vermifilter unit was based on designs used in literature which are very similar. If necessary the units

have been adapted to the local context with regards to available materials, costs, and ease of operation.

16
Making technical drawings for all units, aided in defining details and improving the unit designs and

the various possible unit configurations.

Agri-waste data was acquired from ‘Tchê Organicos’, organic farm in the State of Goiás, Brazil in

order to determine the amount of waste generated per hectare by a typical farm in Brazil. Keeping in

mind most farms have a small number of animals, the closed-loop system was designed for farms

ranging from sizes of 1 to 10 ha of cropland, with animal excreta of 0-20 chickens and/or 0-12 cow

and/or 0-10 pigs.

Results and discussion

Interview results

The results of the interviews were used as a human centered design method [30] to inform the

conceptual designs. All interviewees were farmers within Goiás State, Brazil (Table 1). Eight women

and two men were interviewed, one of the men was involved in the management of the cooperative

and was not a farmer himself, the other participants were all farmers. The income of the interviewees

varies a lot between families and throughout the year with an average of two times minimum wage

per month per family (R$ 998, or USD $246 in 2019). Table 2 shows a summary of the interview

results of the closed questions and the timeline mapping. Both income and produce (fruits and

vegetables) varied across the respondents. Half of them (n=10) also practice animal husbandry

providing either milk, eggs and/or meat, mainly for personal consumption. None of the respondents

had water access problems, with most of them using wells as their main water source. Irrigation is

only practised by a few farmers and is mostly done by hand during the dry season.

17
Challenges and opportunities were gathered from the family farmers (Appendix B, Table S.1). Three

farmers (n=10) mentioned the challenge of aligning production of products with market demand since

demand is difficult to predict. Another three farmers (n=10) mentioned weather conditions as a

challenge, either because of too much or too little rain in different seasons. Finances were mentioned

as a barrier by 5 farmers (n=10), relating to the difficulty to invest, the high price of animal food, the

market value of products, access to government funding or managing finances. Lastly, four

respondents (n=10) mentioned a lack of government support for (organic) family farmers.

The development of the farm was mentioned by three respondents (n=10). They want to increase the

number of animals they have or build greenhouses to decrease their dependency on the weather. Two

farmers (n=10) mentioned the market as an opportunity, these were farmers who grow novel products

or farm organic products. Collaboration is also seen as a future opportunity by 4 farmers (n=10), three

of which specifically mentioned their cooperative as an opportunity.

In- and outputs of the respondents’ farms were mapped (Appendix B, Table S.2). The most common

inputs are electricity, water and gas; however, these are usually not used for agriculture but only for

household activities. Additionally, electricity supply is often unreliable. Four of the farmers

interviewed (n=10) buy fertilisers externally, while two create it themselves organically. Animal

food, pesticides and liquid fuel are additional inputs mentioned less often. The most common outputs

are vegetables, milk, eggs and meat. The vegetables grown are mostly sold; however, milk, eggs and

meat are often only used for own consumption. Polluted water is discharged directly into the

environment by two farmers, whereas the other eight (n=10) reported that they utilise some form of

low-cost treatment, most commonly a black trench. Many additional specialised and self-processed

products such as baru nut, pitaya fruit, sweets and juice, were often mentioned; however, there is a

big variety amongst farmers.

18
The timeline mapping highlighted that different crops are grown throughout the year on the same

farm. The clearest distinction is between crops grown in the wet or dry season, either specifically

utilising or avoiding these seasons. Thus, leaf vegetables were only grown in the dry season. All

farmers (n=10) indicated they are busy all year round with peaks around planting and harvest season.

Often additional help was found within the community or family, either paid or unpaid.

Closed-loop waste management system

System configurations

As evident from the interviews, family farming agricultural practices vary widely. There is no one-

size-fits-all solution and thus the system needs to be flexible and adaptable. The design of each

individual system and the interplay between them should be adjustable. For example, some farms

have high amounts of ligneous waste such as cassava stems and branches. Thus, pyrolysis might be

a good approach. Alternatively, some farmers do not have enough capital for an additional vermifilter

so they can use the biochar as a filter instead. Additionally, family farmers are often limited in their

investment capabilities [1, 100]. It is thus unlikely they can invest in multiple units at once. Instead,

they might invest in additional units over time. This means the units should be able to function

independently as well as together. The technologies that are incorporated in the proposed system are:

anaerobic digester, pyrolysis unit, vermifilter, hydroponic unit, combined hydroponic and vermifilter

unit, and a shredder (see Figure 2). The anaerobic digester, vermifilter and hydroponic system is

chosen because jointly they are capable of forming a closed-loop waste management system. The

pyrolysis unit was added since some farms have ligneous wastes which are not suitable for AD;

additionally, the biochar can serve as a filter for digestate as well as enhance soil conditions. The

shredder is necessary to shred organic waste for the digester and biochar before land application, it

19
must be noted that the shredder is not specifically designed but a regular garden waste shredder is

assumed to be used. The following diagram (Figure 3) shows the flexibility of the system which

ensures it will suit with a wide range of family farming operations. For each system, technical

drawings were made to further develop the details of each system (Appendix C, Figures S.1 to S.8),

additionally lists of materials were created to determine the costs and difficulty of construction

(Appendix D, Tables S.1 to S.4).

Figures 3 to 5 show three multiple functions and possible alternative configurations of the system.

The anaerobic digesters have been designed in various sizes, whereas the other units only have one

size, since their capacity can easily be increased by adding more units, unlike with AD. To illustrate

this, an example configuration is presented in Figure 7. In this configuration, waste from 10 chickens

(1 kg [38]), 1 cow (11.25 kg [38]) and 3 hectares of cropland are considered amounting to a total of

44 kg crop residue, calculated based on data from [101]. Half the crop residues (i.e. 22 kg) can be

digested while the other half is pyrolyzed.

A suitable Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) is dependent on the feedstock and the type of digester

[15]. Advised HRTs range from 10-15 days [45] to 20-30 days [16]. Thus, for this design, we aimed

for an HRT between 10 and 30 days. A commonly recommended organic loading rate (OLR) is 2-5

kg Volatile Solids (VS)*m-3*d-1 [45].

Based on waste inputs and values of HRT and OLR, a digester of 3.7 m3 was estimated. This AD is

used in combination with one pyrolysis unit, two combined hydroponic and vermifiltration units and

some digestate applied to the cropland directly. The pyrolysis unit is used twice a month and the

biochar that is generated is enough for roughly 1.2 hectares per year.

20
A second design option is shown in Figure 8 and is suitable for a farm with 5 hectares of land (72.5

kg calculated based on data from Daioglou et al. [101], where 60 % of crop residue is suitable for

digestion, and 5 pigs (11.5 kg based on Orskov et al. [38]). This system is formed with a digester of

7.5 m3, a vermifilter and 6 hydroponics units, thus the pyrolysis unit is not included, and the additional

residue is left on the land.

As future research, it is suggested that mass- and energy-balances should be carried out for these

design configurations to better understand the effectiveness of the system. Additionally, determining

the energy flux and product yields by piloting the system could enhance the conceptual design.

Finally, other combinations of technologies (e.g. AD followed by pyrolysis of the by-products;

pyrolysis of wastes followed by integration of biochar in anaerobic digestion) could be considered to

explore ways to reduce costs in relation to the benefits.

Anaerobic digester unit in the closed-loop system

AD is a well-established technology which is the foundation of the proposed closed-loop system. The

alternative design flowchart as described in Grant & Lawrence [14] was used to determine the

appropriate specifications of the biodigester design. The limited investment capabilities of farmers

combined with the local ambient temperature and the educational level of farmers determined a non-

mixed tubular reactor working in mesophilic conditions to be the most suitable type of reactor, since

it is a low cost, needs no additional heating and is easy in operation. Thus, the design for the anaerobic

digester is based on the prefabricated tubular design by the company Sistema Biobolsa [102], with

only adjustments in size to allow for smaller digesters. The following sizes were deemed to fit with

the established amount of cropland and animals in the previous section as 1.5 m3, 3.7 m3, 7.5 m3 and

15 m3. With a 2:1 digestate-biogas ratio, which leaves space for biogas capture. These sizes

21
correspond with the reported appropriate biodigester sizes of 2.4 m3 to 15 m3 for small to medium

sized farms [16]. Since a conventional design is used, O&M process is the same.

Pyrolysis unit

Four pyrolysis units were compared using the design criteria. The traditional earth mound [56], the

single barrel retort kiln [57], the double-barrel retort kiln [57] and the Kon-Tiki film curtain kiln [58].

The Kon-Tiki flame curtain kiln was deemed the best unit, based on O&M costs since repairs are

rarely needed; sustainability, since harmful gasses are caught by the flame curtain [58]; O&M time

investment, since maintenance is rarely needed, operation per batch only takes a couple of hours and

drying is not needed [58]; lifetime, since the units are made out of long-lasting materials; and value

creation, since the unit does not need additional biomass for initial heating [58]. Thus, the design for

the pyrolysis unit is based on the Kon-Tiki flame curtain kiln design as presented by Schmidt &

Taylor [58], with slight modifications to reduce costs by reusing waste materials from construction.

The input is assumed to be ligneous crop residues, such as cassava branches, and possibly waste

wood. The feedstock is ignited on the bottom and layer for layer additional feedstock is applied for a

couple of hours. Once full, the batch is quenched with water or digestate and the biochar is ready to

be applied on land. One full batch of 0.73 m3 feedstock will give roughly 150 kg biochar. With the

advised application density of biochar of 5000 kg per hectare [18], one batch covers 0.03 ha (300 m2)

of land. Because the conceptual design assumes a slow pyrolysis system, it is suggested to include

fast pyrolysis in a future study to consider the benefit of bio-oil production and its application in small

farms.

22
Hydroponic unit

The design for the hydroponic unit is based on the hydroponic unit designed for wastewater treatment

by the co-author Clyde-Smith [89]. This unit has been chosen because it can be built with locally

obtainable materials and is easy to construct and operate. It is a vertical design in which microbial

growth in the substrate and rhizosphere aerobically breaks down organic matter. The nutrient solution

is aerated through the recirculation of the nutrient solution and the trickling downwards through the

substrate media and the plant roots.

The alterations that have been made to the design are: the additional two towers within one reservoir

to increase capacity, the use of one pump for three towers to lower the costs, the addition of an inlet

and water level measuring and improvement of watertight connections in the reservoir. Thus, costs

are lower and O&M are simpler compared to multiple units side by side. The operation consists of

filling up the reservoir with water and digestate (water: digestate ratio 4.5:1) and tending the plants.

Vermifiltration unit

The vermifiltration designs given in the literature are relatively simple and similar to each other [93,

97, 25]; as such this design is based on the recommended substrate layers from the literature i.e. from

bottom to top: a layer of 20 mm diameter gravel, one or more layers of aggregate possibly mixed with

sand of 5-16 mm diameter, a top layer of soil with worms [93, 92], and a combined bed height of 40-

60 cm [94]. The reservoir used is identical to the reservoir of the hydroponic unit. This decision was

made so the two designs could be combined into one unit. In this unit, digestate is placed in the bottom

reservoir. Two tanks are used with the filter material in the top tank and the bottom tank serving as a

reservoir. A pump and a perforated tube distribute the wastewater equally over the surface of the filter

bed. Concrete bricks are used to elevate the filter. Digestate simply needs to be spread over the

23
vermifilter and depending on subsequent use might need to be recirculated for a while. Once done,

the pump can be used to empty the system.

Combined hydroponic and vermifilter unit

The hydroponic unit and the vermifilter are also available as a combination of the two separate

systems. This reduces the costs further, simplifies the operation and maintenance, reduces operation

and maintenance time, and increases the organic loading rate that the unit can handle. Similar to the

hydroponic unit, diluted digestate (water: digestate ration 4.5:1) is placed in the bottom reservoir and

pumped up through the tower. After the water trickles down, it goes through the vermifilter back into

the reservoir. Since the vermifilter requires dry periods, tap switches are used to direct the water

straight to the reservoir, instead of through the filter bed.

System costs

Apart from the biodigesters and the shredder, the costs of the units were estimated based on the retails

price of the various parts needed to assemble them. The biodigester is assumed to be purchased from

a certified retailer, instead of self-built. As such, these costs are based on recent loans provided to

Mexican farmers for biodigesters from non-profit organisation Kiva [103]. The cost of the shredder

is based on a garden waste shredder’s costs as found online. Table 3 shows the total costs of these 3

systems using a digester of 7.5 m3 and Table 4 gives the costs of individual units. For example, a

completely closed-loop system can cost around R$ 6600 (USD$ 1600), for a system consisting of a

7.5 m3 digester, pyrolysis unit, a combined hydroponic and vermifilter unit and a shredder. The

average income of the interviewed farmers was roughly twice the minimum wage (R$ 1996 = USD$

484), thus the system costs may be covered with approximately four months of income. It is suggested

24
to determine the cost of the conceptual designs according to the local context as the cost may vary

from region to region, depending on the availability and costs of materials and labour.

Challenges and limitations of the design approach

As a well-established technology, AD gives an idea of the challenges associated with implementing

new systems on family farms. One such barrier is the failure of the technology, which in biogas

installations can be attributed to ill-designed systems, which do not function as expected [45], are

manufactured using low-quality materials [104] or require too much operation and maintenance time

[105]. Looking at this aspect for the hydroponic unit, it can be concluded that the technical feasibility

of the unit at scale has not been proven [11]. Small-scale and low-cost hydroponic units are gaining

more attention as a way to alleviate poverty and improve farmers’ resilience [106, 107, 108].

Moreover, the use of digestate in hydroponics is gaining more attention, albeit in industrialised

contexts [23]. However, the question remains whether the plants in a small-scale rural hydroponic

setup will grow at the same rate as within a commercial hydroponics setup. This is due in particular

to the lower skill base and lack of monitoring equipment. As it is important to control the pH and EC

to stop nutrient deficiency and toxicity, the digestate from the AD may have excess levels of nutrients

leading to toxicity, particularly ammonium toxicity. The level of nutrient can be monitored in

rudimental way through visual inspection of the plant, but the time lag may be too great to save the

crop [109]. The understanding of the level of dilution needed to mitigate toxicity and deficiency is

the case for further research.

Also, vermifilters have limited long-term studies within a rural agricultural context with proven

beneficial results [92] and even less literature is available for its use with digestate. Similarly, the

25
combined hydroponic unit and vermifilter reduces costs, but its technical feasibility requires further

investigation.

Another biogas implementation challenge is the inadequate training of farmers [104], causing

incorrect use [110] and subsequently loss of trust in the system [105]. Additionally, social and cultural

barriers can cause people not to accept biogas from human waste [110]. Alternatively, farmers might

not understand the benefits of using the new system as opposed to conventional farming practices.

Therefore, to overcome these challenges, participatory processes are crucial for creating solutions

that align not only with the needs of all stakeholders but also fit within their current lives and are

accepted by all affected parties [111]. In the case of Goiás State, the Apinaje Technological

Vocational Centre (CVT) - which develops activities of technological and rural extensions, applied

research and training of human resources and socialization of knowledge and techniques of

agroecology, organic production and clean production in organic production systems - is engaged

with the Organic Agriculture Development Association (ADAO) to promote the conceptual designs

proposed in this paper.

The proposed conceptual designs intend to inform technical solutions that are easy to maintain and

operate in a closed-loop system. The system has a twofold benefit, one is to reduce the operational

costs of the farm by the provision of biogas and fertilizer in the form of digestate, and the other is to

reduce any environmental impact caused by potential waste disposal practices. Current trends in

Brazil favour organic agriculture and new technologies [114], increasing the likelihood of success for

the proposed system. In addition, Caiado Couto et al. [115] found in their review that ‘waste, energy,

and food’ is a common interlinkage that focus on biogas generation from agricultural waste,

confirming that researchers seem to expect it to become an important renewable alternative in Brazil.

26
Therefore, our proposed closed-loop designs offer an opportunity to integrate other technologies to

enhance resource recovery in small farms. For example, the hydroponic system which allows for a

higher degree of control than soil grown crops is likely to increase the resilience of family farmers

against climate conditions and fluctuations in demand [116]. In addition, biochar can be used in

agriculture with positive responses up to 20 Mg/ha in crop productivity [117, 118, 119]. Therefore,

the effect on input substitution minimizes production costs, offering safe food production at

affordable prices. However, it is recommended to develop business models for each conceptual design

proposed in this work to support decision making. To support business model development, it is

suggested to install pilot plants of the proposed conceptual designs to collect data on system

efficiency, capital and operating expenses.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the design and operation of the anaerobic digester must

follow the national codes including electric code, fire safety code, gas code, and building code. In

addition, environmental regularization is a legal obligation prior to the installation of any potentially

polluting or degrading activity of the environment. Usually, in Brazil regularization and licensing of

biogas plants occurs at the state or municipal level, depending on the scope of the impact [121].

Municipalities can carry out the licensing of activities, since that receive state delegation, by signing

an agreement. In Europe, there are several policies, regulations and directives (e.g. Directive

2008/98/EC, Directive 2009/28/EC) which govern anaerobic digestion, nutrient, and waste

management activities [122]. Therefore, farmers planning an activity related to energy conversion

and nutrient recovery from energy crops and agricultural waste are advised to start with considering

the European regulatory framework and then turn to the regulatory framework of the Member State

where the facility will be located. For example, according to the Anaerobic Digestion and

27
Bioresources Association in the UK, biogas operators must comply with the requirement set by the

Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR).

Conclusion

By incorporating the selected technologies, the suggested conceptual designs offer a closed-loop

solutions for small-scale farmers. The system is specifically designed for family farmers in Brazil,

however it can potentially be implemented on small-scale farms in other low and middle-income

countries. A key feature of the design is its flexibility. For example, given fresh water or alternative

water sources, such as reclaimed water or rainwater, and the necessary infrastructure are available,

only minor alterations are required to successfully implement the system in different contexts. Thus,

the proposed system has the potential to increase resilience and income for small-scale farmers in

Brazil and beyond, while encouraging best practices for waste management in rural communities and

farms.

The proposed conceptual designs can be used as a basis for further development of circular systems

for small scale farms. Therefore, future research includes the development of pilot systems in small-

farms to support technical and financial feasibility studies and business model creation using

participatory methods.

28
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Tchê Organicos, organic farm in Terezopolis of Goiás, for

providing the agri-waste data for the design, and all interviewed farmers attending the Agro Centro-

Oeste Fair in Goiania, Goiás.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This project was supported by the Institutional Links grant numbers 332266861 and

201710267001279 under the Newton Fund: Institutional Links programme between the United

Kingdom and Brazil partnership. The grant is funded by the UK Department of Business, Energy and

Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG, and

delivered by the British Council. For further information, please visit www.newtonfund.ac.uk. Some

aspects of this research were supported by the Brazilian Research Council CNPq, grant number

402721/2017-9.

References

29
[1] S. M. Helfand, A. R. B. Moreira and D. W. Bresnyan, “Agricultural Productivity and Family Farms in
Brazil: Creating Opportunities and Closing Gaps,” 2015.

[2] F. V. Soares, R. Nehring, R. B. Schwengber, C. G. Rodrigues, G. Lambais, D. S. Balaban, C. Jones and

A. Galante, “Structured Demand and Smallholder Farmers in Brazil: the Case of PAA and PNAE,”
International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC - IG), Brasilia, 2013.

[3] L. Kilcher, “How organic agriculture contributes to sustainable development,” JARTS, vol. 89, pp. 31-
49, 2007.

[4] S. Schneider, S. Shiki and W. Belik, “Rural development in Brazil: overcoming inequalities and
building new markets,” Rivista di Economia Agraria, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 225-259, 2010.

[5] C. A. Francis, R. R. Harwood and J. F. Parr, “The potential for regenerative agriculture in the
developing world,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 65-74, 1986.

[6] A. P. R. Ferreira, F. J. M. Vasconcelos and S. A. Meira, “Alternativas para destinação de resíduos

sólidos da agricultura familiar,” in Educação ambiental: ecopedagogia e sustentabilidade dos recursos
naturais, Seabra, 2017.

[7] SIAB, “Famílias com coleta de lixo: Veja número de domicílios atendidos, com lixo a céu aberto,
queimado ou enterrado por cidade do Brasil,” 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.deepask.com/goes?page=barreiros/PE-Confira-a-coleta-de-lixo-no-seu-municipio---lixo-
coletado-a-ceu-aberto-queimado-ou-enterrado. [Accessed 10 October 2020].

[8] V. M. F. Miorin, “Agricultura Familiar em Áreas de Degradação Ambiental,” Rio Grande do Sul
Revista OKARA: Geografia em debate, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 83-107, 2009.

[9] S. C. Davis, D. Kauneckis, N. A. Kruse, K. E. Miller, M. Zimmer and G. D. Dabelko, “Closing the
loop: integrative systems management of waste in food, energy, and water systems,” Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 11–24, 2016.

[10] FNR, Guide to Biogas - From production to use, 5th ed., Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V.
(FNR), 2012.

[11] K. Krishnasamy, J. Nair and B. Bäuml, “Hydroponic system for the treatment of anaerobic liquid,”
Water Science & Technology, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 1164-1171, 2012.

30
[12] B. J. Chambers and M. Taylor, “The use of digestate as a substitute for manufactured fertilizer,” in
Bioenergy Production by Anaerobic Digestion - Using agricultural biomass and organic wastes, N. E.
Korres, P. O'Kiely, J. A. H. Benzie and J. S. West, Eds., New York, Routledge, 2013, pp. 359-374.

[13] R. Endo, K. Yamashita, T. Shibuya and Y. Kitaya, “Use of Methane Fermentation Digestate for
Hydroponic Culture: Analysis of Potential Inhibitors in Digestate to Cucumber Seedling,” Eco-
Engineering, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 67-72, 2016.

[14] W. D. Grant and T. M. Lawrence, “A simplified method for the design and sizing of anaerobic digestion
systems for smaller farms,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 345–360,
2014.

[15] M. S. Dhanya, S. Prasad and A. Singh, “Biogas technology for developing countries - An approach to
sustainable development,” in Bioenergy Production by Anaerobic Digestion - Using agricultural
biomass and organic wastes, N. E. Korres, P. O’Kiely and J. A. H. Benzie, Eds., New York, Routledge,
2013, pp. 397-421.

[16] G. Merlin and H. Boileau, “Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Waste: State of the Art and Future
Trends,” in Anaerobic Digestion: Types, Processes and Environmental Impact, A. Torrles, Ed., NY
USA, Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2013.

[17] H. K. Nsamba, S. E. Hale, G. Cornelissen and R. T. Bachmann, “Sustainable Technologies for Small-
Scale Biochar Production - A Review,” Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, vol. 5, pp. 10-31,
2015.

[18] B. Glaser, J. Lehmann and W. Zech, “Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly
weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal – a review,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 34, no. 4,
p. 219–230, 2002.

[19] A. Gathorne-Hardy, J. Knight and J. Woods, “Biochar as a soil amendment positively interacts with
nitrogen fertiliser to improve barley yields in the UK,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, vol. 6, 2009.

[20] J. S. S. Carneiro, Á. J. G. Faria, R. R. Fidelis, S. P. Silva Neto, A. C. Santos and R. R. Silva,

“Diagnóstico da variabilidade espacial e manejo da fertilidade do solo no Cerrado. Scientia Agraria,”
Scientia Agraria, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 38-49, 2017.

31
[21] J. S. S. Carneiro, S. A. de Sousa, M. Nikkel, T. T. Deusdará, Â. F. Machado and R. R. da Silva,
“Supercalagem: alterações em atributos químicos de um Latossolo Vermelho amarelo distrófico,”
Revista de Ciências Agroambientais, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 31-38, 2018.

[22] M. Zhang, M. Riaz, L. Zhang, Z. El-desouki and C. Jiang, “Biochar Induces Changes to Basic Soil
Properties and Bacterial Communities of Different Soils to Varying Degrees at 25 mm Rainfall: More
Efective on Acidic Soils,” Front. Microbiol, vol. 10, p. 1321, 2019.

[23] K. Stoknes, f. Scholwin, W. Krzesiński, E. Wojciechowska and A. Jasińska, “Efficiency of a novel

‘‘Food to waste to food” system including anaerobic digestion of food waste and cultivation of
vegetables on digestate in a bubble-insulated greenhouse,” Waste Management, vol. 56, p. 466–476,
2016.

[24] M. M. Manyuchi, L. Kadzungura and S. Boka, “Vermifiltration of Sewage Wastewater for Potential
Use in Irrigation Purposes Using Eisenia fetida Earthworms,” World Academy of Science, Engineering
and Technology, vol. 78, pp. 538-542, 2013.

[25] R. K. Sinha, G. Bharambe and U. Chaudhari, “Sewage treatment by vermifiltration with synchronous
treatment of sludge by earthworms: a low-cost sustainable technology over conventional systems with
potential for decentralization,” Environmentalist, vol. 28, p. 409–420, 2008.

[26] B. Etter, E. Tilley, R. Khadka and K. M. Udert, “Low-cost struvite production using source-separated
urine in Nepal,” Water Research, vol. 45, pp. 852-862, 2011.

[27] L. I. Fuldauer, B. M. Parker, R. Yaman and A. Borrion, “Managing anaerobic digestate from food waste
in the urban environment: Evaluating the feasibility from an interdisciplinary perspective,” Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 185, pp. 929-940, 2018.

[28] M. Neto, H. Nogueira, M. Mello, A. Sena and R. Filho, “Avaliação da percepção da gestão dos resíduos
sólidos provenientes da agricultura familiar nos assentamentos Baeté e Bom Jardim, Barreiros – PE,”
in Agroecologia Congress, Brasilia, 2017.

[29] L. Mendes and E. Y. Ichikawa, “O desenvolvimento tecnológico e o pequeno produtor rural:

construção, desconstrução ou manutenção da sua identidade?,” CADERNOS EBAPE, vol. 8, no. 1,
2010.

[30] D. Norman, The Design of Everday Things: Revised and expanded edition, Basic books, 2013.

32
[31] CONDRIT, “The Tubular Plastic Bio-Digesters,” 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.build-a-
biogas-plant.com/PDF/Low-cost%20Plastic-tube%20Biogas%20Digesters.pdf. [Accessed 21 July
2019].

[32] WRAP, “Using quality anaerobic digestate to benefit crops,” Waste and Resources Action Programme,
2012.

[33] M. Grudziński and A. Pietruszka, “Quantitative reduction of feedstock biomass as a result of conversion
in anaerobic digestion in agricultural biogas plant,” Folia Pomeranae Universitatis Technologiae
Stetinensis, Agricultura, Alimentaria, Piscaria et Zootechnica, vol. 328, no. 39/3, pp. 79-84, 2016.

[34] M. Elsayed, Y. Ran, P. Ai, M. Azab, A. Mansour, K. Jin, Y. Zhang and A. E. Abomohra, “Innovative
integrated approach of biofuel production from agricultural wastes by anaerobic digestion and black
soldier fly larvae,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 263, 2020.

[35] M. Elsayed, A. E. Abomohra, P. Ai, K. Jin, Q. Fan and Y. Zhang, “Acetogenesis and methanogenesis
liquid digestates for pretreatment of rice straw: A holistic approach for efficient biomethane production
and nutrient recycling,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 195, pp. 447-456, 2019.

[36] P. Ai, M. Chen, Y. Ran, K. Jin, J. Peng and A. E. Abomohra, “Digestate recirculation through co-
digestion with rice straw: Towards high biogas production and efficient waste recycling,” Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 263, 2020.

[37] P. Hobbs and A. Butler, “The sustainability of small-scale anaerobic digesters at farm scale,” in
Bioenergy Production by Anaerobic Digestion - Using agricultural biomass and organic wastes, N. E.
Korres, P. O’Kiely and J. A. H. Benzie, Eds., New York, Routledge, 2013, pp. 375-396.

[38] E. R. Orskov, K. Y. Anchang, M. Subedi and J. Smith, “Overview of holistic application of biogas for
small scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 70, pp. 4-16, 2014.

[39] C. Lukehurst and A. Bywater, “Exploring the viability of small scale anaerobic digesters in livestock
farming,” IEA Bioenergy, 2015.

[40] K. E. Ileleji, C. Martin and D. Jones, “Basics of energy Production through Anaerobic digestion of
Livestock Manure,” Purdue Extension BioEnergy series, August 2008.

[41] M. R. Cherubin, D. M. Da Silva Oliveira, B. J. Feigl, L. G. Pimentel, I. P. Lisboa, M. R. Gmach, L. L.

Varanda, M. C. Morais, L. S. Satiro, G. V. Popin, S. R. De Paiva, A. K. B. Dos Santos, A. L. S. De

33
 Vasconcelos, P. L. A. De Melo, C. E. P. Cerri and C. C. Cerri, “Crop residue harvest for bioenergy
production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review,” Scientia Agricola, vol.
75, no. 3, pp. 255-272, 2018.

[42] A. K. Singh and R. K. Kaushal, “Design of Small Scale Anaerobic Digester for Application in Indian
Village: A Review,” International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 11-
16, 2016.

[43] E. Tilley, L. Ulrich, C. Lüthi, P. Reymond and C. Zurbrügg, Compendium of Sanitation Systems and
Technologies, 2nd ed., Dübendorf: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 2014.

[44] World Health Organization, “Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater -
Volume 2 Wastewater use in agriculture,” WHO Press, 2006.

[45] K. Rajendran, S. Aslanzadeh and M. J. Taherzadeh, “Household Biogas Digesters—A Review,”

Energies, vol. 5, pp. 2911-2942, 2012.

[46] S. Cheng, Z. Li, H. Mang, E. Huba, R. Gao and X. Wang, “Development and application of
prefabricated biogas digesters in developing countries,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 34, pp. 387-400, 2014.

[47] R. Singh and R. C. Anand, “Comparative Performances of Indian Small Solid-State and Conventional
Anaerobic Digesters,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 47, pp. 235-238, 1994.

[48] J. Lehmann, J. Gaunt and M. Rondon, “Bio-Char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems - A Review,”
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 11, p. 403–427, 2006.

[49] M. Tripathi, J. N. Sahu and P. Ganesan, “Effect of process parameters on production of biochar from
biomass waste through pyrolysis: A review,” RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews, vol. 55, p.
467–481, 2016.

[50] W. Gwenzi, N. Chaukura, F. N. D. Mukome, S. Machado and B. Nyamasoka, “Biochar production and
applications in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities, constraints, risks and uncertainties,” Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 150, p. 250e261, 2015.

[51] A. Zabaniotou, D. Rovas, A. Libutti and M. Monteleone, “Boosting circular economy and closing the
loop in agriculture: Case study of a small-scale pyrolysis–biochar based system integrated in an olive
farm in symbiosis with an olive mill,” Environmental Development, vol. 14, pp. 22-36, 2015.

34
[52] C. Z. Zaman, K. Pal, W. Yehye, S. Sagadevan, S. T. Shah, G. A. Adebisi, E. Marlian, R. F. Rafique
and R. B. Johan, Pyrolysis: A Sustainable Way to Generate Energy from Waste, Intechopen.69036,
2017.

[53] P. Galgani, E. Van der Voet and G. Korevaar, “Composting, anaerobic digestion and biochar production
in Ghana. Environmental–economic assessment in the context of voluntary carbon markets,” Waste
Management, vol. 34, p. 2454–2465, 2014.

[54] J. A. Garcia-Nunez, M. R. Pelaez-Samaniego, M. E. Garcia-Perez, I. Fonts, J. Abrego, R. J. M.

Westerhof and M. Garcia-Perez, “Historical Developments of Pyrolysis Reactors: A Review,” Energy
Fuels, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 5751-5775, 2017.

[55] D. Zhang, M. Yan, Y. Niu, X. Liu, L. Van Zwieten, D. Chen, R. Bian, K. Cheng, L. Li, S. Joseph, J.
Zheng, X. Zhang, J. Zheng, D. Crowley, T. R. Filley and G. Pan, “Is current biochar research addressing
global soil constraints for sustainable agriculture?,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol.
226, pp. 25-32, 2016.

[56] O. T. Coomes and G. J. Burt, “Peasant charcoal production in the Peruvian Amazon: rainforest use and
economic reliance,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 140, pp. 39-50, 2001.

[57] J. Dennis, “Biochar Manual for Small Farms in BC,” 23 September 2011. [Online]. Available:
https://sites.google.com/site/fcfcbiocharmanual/. [Accessed 1 August 2019].

[58] H. Schmidt and P. Taylor, “Kon-Tiki flame curtain pyrolysis for the democratization of biochar
production,” the Biochar Journal, pp. 14-24, 2014.

[59] A. B. Smebye, M. Sparrevik, H. P. Schmidt and G. Cornelissen, “Life-cycle assessment of biochar

production systems in tropical rural areas: Comparing flame curtain kilns to other production methods,”
Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 101, pp. 35-43, 2017.

[60] R. N. Pandit, J. Mulder, S. E. Hale, H. P. Schmidt and G. Cornelissen, “Biochar from "Kon Tiki" flame
curtain and other kilns: Effects of nutrient enrichment and kiln type on crop yield and soil chemistry,”
PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 4, 2017.

[61] G. Cornelissen, N. P. Pandit, P. Taylor, B. H. Pandit, M. Sparrevik and H. P. Schmidt, “Emissions and
Char Quality of Flame-Curtain "Kon Tiki" Kilns for Farmer-Scale Charcoal/ Biochar Production,”
PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 5, 2016.

35
[62] J. Murphy, R. Braun, P. Weiland and A. Wellinger, “Biogas from Crop Digestion,” IEA Bioenergy,
2011.

[63] Y. L. Chiew, J. Spångberg, A. Baky, P. Hansson and H. Jönsson, “Environmental impact of recycling
digested food waste as a fertilizer in agriculture—A case study,” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, vol. 95, pp. 1-14, 2015.

[64] K. Möller and T. Müller, “Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop
growth: A review,” Engineering in Life Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 242-257, 2012.

[65] B. E. Liedl, J. Bombardiere and J. M. Chatfield, “Fertilizer potential of liquid and solid effluent from,”
Water Science & Technology, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 69-79, 2006.

[66] J. P. Sheets, L. Yang, X. Ge, Z. Wang and Y. Li, “Beyond land application: Emerging technologies for
the treatment and reuse of anaerobically digested agricultural and food waste,” Waste Management,
vol. 44, pp. 94-115, 2015.

[67] J. Neal and A. C. Wilkie, “Anaerobic Digester Effluent as Fertilizer for Hydroponically Grown
Tomatoes,” Journal of Undergraduate Research, vol. 15, no. 3, 2014.

[68] H. Lin, S. A. W. Diemont, T. Toland, W. Tao, D. Daley and D. L. Johnson, “Vermifiltration Ecological
Treatment for the Re-Use of Food Waste Digestate,” Water Environment Research, vol. 85, no. 11, pp.
2184-2193, 2013.

[69] N. Abdel-Raouf, A. A. Al-Homaidan and I. B. M. Ibraheem, “Microalgae and wastewater treatment,”

Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 19, p. 257–275, 2012.

[70] P. A. Chatelier, “Hydroponics,” The Science Teacher, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 74-75, 1954.

[71] M. D. Sardare and S. V. Admane, “A Review on Plants Without Soil - Hydroponics,” International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 299-304, 2013.

[72] K. Furukawa and M. Fujita, “Advanced Treatment and Food Production by Hydroponic Type
Wastewater Treatment Plant,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 219-228, 1993.

[73] C. Kawamura-Aoyama, K. Fujiwara, M. Shinohara and M. Takano, “Study on the Hydroponic Culture
of Lettuce with Microbially Degraded Solid Food Waste as a Nitrate Source,” Japan Agricultural
Research Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 71-76, 2014.

36
[74] D. Ronga, L. Setti, C. Salvarani, R. De Leo, E. Bedin, A. Pulvirenti, J. Milc, N. Pecchioni and E.
Francia, “Effects of solid and liquid digestate for hydroponic baby leaf lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)
cultivation,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 244, p. 172–181, 2019.

[75] D. Ronga, F. Pellati, V. Brighenti, K. Laudicella, L. Laviano, M. Fedailaine, S. Benvenuti, N. Pecchioni

and E. Francia, “Testing the influence of digestate from biogas on growth and volatile compounds of
basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) and peppermint (Mentha x piperita L.) in hydroponics,” Journal of
Applied Research on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, vol. 11, pp. 18-26, 2018.

[76] M. Dimambro, J. Steiner, R. Lillywhite and C. Keeling, “Use of quality digestates as a liquid fertiliser
in the commercial production of strawberries,” WRAP, 2015.

[77] M. E. Dimambro, “Novel uses for digestate: Protected horticulture,” Manchester, 2015.

[78] O. P. Lind, M. Hultberg, K. Bergstand, H. Larsson-Jönsson, S. Capsersen and H. Asp, “Biogas

Digestate in Vegetable Hydroponic Production: pH Dynamics and pH Management by Controlled
Nitrification,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2020.

[79] R. Monteiro Corrêa, S. Isabel do Carmo Pinto, É. Soares Reis and V. Andalo Mendes de Carvalho,
“Hydroponic Production of Fruit Tree Seedlings in Brazil,” in Hydroponics - A Standard Methodology
for Plant Biological Researches, T. Asao, Ed., Rijeka, InTech, 2012, pp. 225-244.

[80] A. G. A. Du Toit and M. T. Labuschagne, “A comparison between hydroponics systems and pots for
growing wheat in the greenhouse,” South African Journal of Plant and Soil, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 120-123,
2007.

[81] N. Duan, C. Lin, R. Y. Gao, Y. Wang, J. H. Wang and J. Hou, “Ecological and economic analysis of
planting greenhouse cucumbers with anaerobic fermentation residues,” Procedia Environmental
Sciences, vol. 5, p. 71–76, 2011.

[82] W. K. Liu, Q. Yang and L. Du, “Soilless cultivation for high-quality vegetables with biogas manure in
China: Feasibility and benefit analysis,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 24, no. 4, p.
300–307, 2009.

[83] S. Lee and J. Lee, “Beneficial bacteria and fungi in hydroponic systems: Types and characteristics of
hydroponic food production methods,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 195, pp. 206-215, 2015.

37
[84] T. Weidner, A. Yang and M. W. Hamm, “Consolidating the current knowledge on urban agriculture in
productive urban food systems: Learnings, gaps and outlook,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 209,
pp. 1637-1655, 2019.

[85] C. Chong, P. Purvis, G. Lumis, B. E. Holbein, R. P. Voroney, H. Zhou, H. Liu and M. Z. Alam, “Using
mushroom farm and anaerobic digestion wastewaters as supplemental fertilizer sources for growing
container nursery stock in a closed system,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 99, p. 2050–2060, 2008.

[86] U. J. López-Chuken, “Hydroponics and Environmental Clean-Up,” in Hydroponics - A Standard

Methodology for Plant Biolocial Researches, T. Asao, Ed., Rijeka, InTech, 2012, pp. 181-198.

[87] W. K. Liu, Q. C. Yang, L. F. Du, R. F. Cheng and W. L. Zhou, “Nutrient supplementation increased
growth and nitrate concentration of lettuce cultivated hydroponically with biogas slurry,” Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Science, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 391-394, 2011.

[88] M. Dimambro, J. Steiner and F. Rayns, “Literature review: Digestate use in protected horticulture,”
WRAP, 2015.

[89] D. Clyde-Smith, The development of an urban green infrastructure which is based on hydroponic
system and mimics the treatment of wastewater by constructed wetlands for the production of value
crops, London: PhD Thesis, University College London, 2016.

[90] M. Shinohara, C. Aoyama, K. Fujiwara, A. Watanabe, H. Ohmori, Y. Uehara and M. Takano,

“Microbial mineralization of organic nitrogen into nitrate to allow the use of organic fertilizer in
hydroponics,” Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, vol. 57, no. 2, p. 190—203, 2011.

[91] J. Cheng, T. E. Shearin, M. M. Peet and D. H. Willits, “Utilization of treated swine wastewater for
greenhouse tomato production,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 2, p. 77–82, 2004.

[92] L. Jiang, Y. Liu, X. Hu, G. Zeng, H. Wang, L. Zhou, X. Tan, B. Huang, S. Liu and S. Liu, “The use of
microbial-earthworm ecofilters for wastewater treatment with special attention to influencing factors in
performance: A review,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 200, pp. 999-1007, 2016.

[93] H. S. Bhise and G. S. Anaokar, “Design and Suitability of Modular Vermifilter for Domestic Sewage
Treatment,” International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 44-51, 2015.

38
[94] R. Singh, P. Bhunia and R. R. Dash, “A mechanistic review on vermifiltration of wastewater: Design,
operation and performance,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 197, p. 656e672, 2017.

[95] P. Tomar and S. Suthar, “Urban wastewater treatment using vermi-biofiltration system,” Desalination,
vol. 282, pp. 95-103, 2011.

[96] K. Samal, R. R. Dash and P. Bhunia, “Treatment of wastewater by vermifiltration integrated with
macrophyte filter: A review,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, vol. 5, p. 2274–2289,
2017.

[97] Y. Li, Y. Xiao, J. Qiu, Y. Dai and P. Robin, “Continuous village sewage treatment by vermifiltration
and activated sludge process,” Water Science & Technology, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3001-3010, 2009.

[98] M. Xing, X. Li and J. Yang, “Treatment performance of small-scale vermifilter for domestic wastewater
and its relationship to earthworm growth, reproduction and enzymatic activity,” African Journal of
Biotechnology, vol. 9, no. 44, pp. 7513-7520, 2010.

[99] Y. S. Li, P. Robin, D. Cluzeau, M. Bouché, J. P. Qiu, A. Laplanche, M. Hassouna, P. Morand, C.

Dappelo and J. Callarec, “Vermifiltration as a stage in reuse of swine wastewater: Monitoring
methodology on an experimental farm,” ecological engineering, vol. 32, p. 301–309, 2008.

[100] F. Chaddad, The Economics and Organization of Brazilian Agriculture - Recent Evolution and
Productivity Gains, Academic Press, 2016.

[101] V. Daioglou, E. Stehfest, B. Wicke, A. Faaij and D. P. Van Vuuren, “Projections of the Availability
and Cost of Residues from Agriculture and Forestry,” Global Change Biology Bioenergy, vol. 8, p.
456–470, 2016.

[102] Sistema.bio, “Product Catalogue,” Sistema Biobolsa, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://sistema.bio/wp-
content/uploads/2.1903_KENYA_CATALOG_LQ.pdf. [Accessed 21 July 2019].

[103] Kiva, “Kiva,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.kiva.org/. [Accessed 5 August 2019].

[104] H. Buckland, “Study of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystems in the Latin American
Pacific Alliance Countries - Case Study: Sistema Biobolsa, Mexico,” 2016.

[105] C. Mulinda, Q. Hu and K. Pan, “Dissemination and Problems of African Biogas Technology,” Energy
and Power Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 506-512, 2013.

39
[106] F. Orsini, R. Kahane, R. Nono-Womdim and G. Gianquinto, “Urban agriculture in the developing
world: a review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 33, no. 4, p. 695–720, 2013.

[107] M. M. Croft, S. G. Hallett and M. I. Marshall, “Hydroponic production of vegetable Amaranth

(Amaranthus cruentus) for improving nutritional security and economic viability in Kenya,” Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 32, no. 6, p. 552–561, 2017.

[108] L. Oliver and C. Whitworth, “Climate Smart Farming for Women in East Africa,” 2018.

[109] J. B. Jones, Complete Guide for Growing Plants Hydropononically, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014.

[110] S. Mittal, E. O. Ahlgren and P. R. Shukla, “Barriers to biogas dissemination in India: A review,” Energy
Policy, vol. 112, p. 361–370, 2018.

[111] F. Vanclay, A. M. Esteves, I. Aucamp and D. Franks, “Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for
assessing and managing the social impacts of projects,” Fargo ND, 2015.

[112] S. Hussain, E. B. -N. Sanders and M. Steinert, “Participatory Design with Marginalized People in
Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities Experienced in a Field Study in Cambodia,”
International Journal of Design, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 91-109, 2012.

[113] I. Zelenika and J. M. Pearce, “Barriers to Appropriate Technology Growth in Sustainable

Development,” Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 12-22, 2011.

[114] CE100 Brasil Network, “A Circular Economy in Brazil: An initial exploration,” 2017.

[115] L. C. Cuoto, L. C. Campos, W. da Fonseca-Zang, J. Zang and R. Bleischwitz, “Water, waste, energy
and food nexus in Brazil: Identifying a resource interlinkage research agenda through a systematic
review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, no. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110554,
p. 110554, 2020.

[116] K. Garvey, “Global agriculture, food and land use - How to create resilient agricultural systems in a
world of increasing resource scarcity and climate change,” 2013.

[117] B. Madari, A. R. Costa, L. M. Castro, J. L. S. Santos, V. M. Benites, A. O. Rocha and P. L. O. A.

Machado, “Charcoal as a soil conditioner for upland rice (cultivar primavera): A prospective study,”
Embrapa Rice and Beans, vol. 125, p. 2, 2006.

40
[118] P. G. Oguntunde, M. Fosu, A. Ajayi and N. V. Giesen, “Effects of charcoal production on maize yield,
chemical properties and texture of soil,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 39, pp. 295-299, 2004.

[119] B. Singh, B. P. Singh and A. L. Cowie, “Characterization and evaluation of biochars for their
application as a soil amendment,” Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 48, pp. 516-525, 2010.

[120] P. Bradley and C. Marulanda, “Simplified hydroponics to reduce global hunger,” Acta horticulturae,
vol. 554, pp. 289-295, 2001.

[121] Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente, Federação das Indústrias do Estado de Minas Gerais, GIZ,
“Guia técnico ambiental de biogás na agroindústria,” Belo Horizonte, 2015.

[122] L. Hermann and R. Hermann, “Report on regulations governing anaerobic digesters and nutrient
recovery and reuse in EU member states,” Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen, 2019.

41
Figure 1 - Typical AD feedstock and effluent contents. Data compiled from [10], [31], [32] and [33]

42
Figure 2 - Conceptual designs of the various units. (a) Anaerobic digester unit 7.5 m3, (b) Digestate storage, (c) Vermifilter unit, (d)

Hydroponic unit, (e) Pyrolysis unit, (f) Combined hydroponic and vermifilter unit. The shredder is not included in this figure.

43
Figure 3 - Complete system design and possible configurations. Solid blue arrows indicate the need for additional water into the system.

Dotted blue arrows indicate the potential need for additional water depending on operating conditions.

44
Figure 4 - System configuration with a digester 7.5 m3, pyrolysis unit and a combined hydroponics and vermifilter unit

45
Figure 5 - System configuration with a digester 7.5 m3, pyrolysis unit and a hydroponics unit

46
Figure 6 - System configuration with a digester 7.5 m3, a vermifilter and a hydroponics unit

47
Figure 7 - Example configuration of the system with the average daily in- and outputs for a farm with 3 hectares of cropland (44 kg of

crop residue per day), 10 chickens (1 kg of chicken manure per day) and 1 cow (11 kg of cow manure per day). Note that the pyrolysis

unit is only used twice a month, feedstock is stored between operations.

48
Figure 8 - Example configuration of the systems with the average daily in- and outputs for a farm with 5 hectares of cropland (72.5

kg of crop residue per day), 5 pigs (11.5 kg of pig manure per day).

49
Table 1 - Overview of interviewees

# Gender Occupation Education Family income (multiple of

minimum wage)*
1 F Farmer Complete high school 1-2
2 F Farmer Complete high school 1-2
3 M Farmer Professional technical education - >1
high school level
4 F Farmer Complete high school 1-2
5 M Cooperative Complete higher education 2-4
manager
6 F Farmer Complete primary education 2-3
7 F Farmer Complete higher education 2-4
8 F Farmer Incomplete elementary school 2-3
9 F Farmer Complete higher education 2-3
10 F Farmer Incomplete elementary school <1
(*) monthly minimum wage = R$ 998

50
Table 2 - Short summary of the interview results, closed questions and timeline exercise

Number of participants 10
Production on farm, most Farmers have a big variety themselves and mix animals
stated products and crop production. Exceptions are usually milk
production
Water sources Mainly wells, some rainwater. Differs much per farm, but
water is usually available
Irrigation Usually no irrigation, if used mostly by hand and mainly
in dry season
Waste destination Different for every farm. Some residues, burning and
collection most prominent.
Separate garbage 8 yes, 2 no
Use food leftovers 9 yes, 1 no
Purpose of food leftovers 7/10 practice composting, 3/10 use it for animal food,
2/10 use food on land (directly and after burning)
Notes on timelines Varying crops with varying planting times are often
planted on the same farm.
Most find it difficult to pinpoint the most difficult time of
the year, as they are always busy.
Help from neighbours is often leveraged (paid or unpaid).

51
Table 3 – Comparison of the total costs of the three presented configurations

Presented configuration Total costs (R$) Total costs ($USD)

Digester 7.5 m3, Combined hydroponic and 6589 1622
vermifilter unit, pyrolysis unit, shredder (Figure 4)
Digester 7.5 m3, Hydroponic unit, pyrolysis unit, 5450 1341
shredder (Figure 5)
Digester 7.5 m3, vermifilter unit, hydroponic unit 4316 1087
(Figure 6)

52
Table 4 - Costs in Brazilian real and US-dollar currencies of the units for a closed-loop system

Unit Total Total Source

costs costs
(R$) ($USD)
Digester 1.5 m3 (2:1 digestate: 800 197 Estimation based on [103]
biogas)
Digester 3.7 m3 (2:1 digestate: 1200 295 Estimation based on [103]
biogas)
Digester 7.5 m3 (2:1 digestate: 2000 492 Estimation based on [103]
biogas)
Digester 15 m3 (2:1 digestate: biogas) 4000 985 Estimation based on [103]
Pyrolysis unit (0.73 m3) 1382 340 Sum of parts at local retail price
Hydroponic unit (0.73 m3) 1118 275 Sum of parts at local retail price
Vermifilter (0.73 m3) 1298 320 Sum of parts at local retail price
Combined hydroponic and 2257 556 Sum of parts at local retail price
vermifilter unit (0.73 m3)
Organic waste shredder 950 234 Local retail price

53
Appendix A: Questionnaire

Número do formulário bilíngue/bilingual form Number: ________________

Questionário 01 – Características Socioeconômicas e Saneamento Rural

(Questionnaire 01 – Socio Economic Characteristics and Rural Sanitation)

Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável - Institucional Links do Reino Unido e FAPEG, Goiás,

Brasil
(Sustainable Rural Development – Institutional Links/British Council and FAPEG)
com o /with the
Project title: Water-Waste-Energy-Food Nexus Supporting Organic Farming in Rural
Communities - WWEFood Nexus
Título do projeto: Sistema Integrado Resíduo-Água-Energia-Alimento para comunidades de produção
orgânica

Outro projeto aprovado/CNPq/Another Grant:

Project Title/CNPq: CVT APINAJÉ – TRAINING OF YOUTH AND WOMEN
Título do Projeto do CNPq: Centro Vocacional Tecnológico CVT APINAJÉ: Jovens e Mulheres

Data da aplicação/Date of application: ____/_____/___________

Responsável pela aplicação/ Responsible for the application: _______________________________

Assinatura do responsável /Responsable Signature:_______________________________________

Local/Local: ____________, cidade/city:__________________________ Estado/State:___________

PERSONAL DATA

Características socioeconômicas/SOCIO ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

[ ] Ensino fundamental
incompleto (menos de 9 anos
Educação/ escola)/Incomplete Elementary
Education: School
[ ] Ensino fundamental completo
(9 anos)/Complete Primary
Education
[ ] Ensino médio
incompleto/Incomplete High
School
[ ] Ensino médio
completo/Complete High School
[ ] Educação profissional técnica
de nível médio/ Professional
54
 Technical Education – High
School level
[ ] Ensino superior
incompleto/Incomplete Higher
Education
[ ] Ensino superior
completo/Complete Higher
Education

Renda
familiar/Family [ ] Até 1 salário mínimo/Up to 1
Income: minimum wage
[ ] 1 a 2 salários mínimos/from 1
to 2 minimum wages
[ ] 2 a 3 salários mínimos/2 to 3
minimum wages
[ ] 3 a 4 salários mínimos/3 to 4
minimum wages
[ ] acima de 4 salários
mínimos/Above 4 minimum
wages

Produção [ ] arroz/Rice
principal na [ ] Feijão/Beans
propriedade/Mai
n production at
the farm:
[ ] Mandioca/Cassava/Yuca
[ ] Milho/Corn
[ ] Leite/Milk
[ ] Porco/Pig
[ ] Frango/Chicken
[ ] Outro/Other:_____________
RURAL SANITATION CHARACTERISTICS
Água para a [ ] Encanada/Well
agricultura/Wate
r for farming:
[ ] Captação de rio ou
córrego/River capture
[ ] Abastecimento público/Supply network
[ ] Outro/Other: ___________

Quantidade de água usada diariamente? How much water does your farm need per day?

55
De onde vem a água usada para as atividades rurais tais como irrigação e dessedentação de
animais? Where does the water for farming activities such as irrigation and animals come
from?

[ ] rio/lago / river/lake [ ] poço artesiano/deep well [ ] cisterna/shallow well

De onde vem a água para as atividades domesticas? Where does the water for domestic
activities come from?

[ ] rio/lago / river/lake [ ] poço artesiano/deep well [ ] cisterna/shallow well

Qual tipo de cultura irrigada há na área rural? What type of irrigated culture the farm has?

[ ] arroz/rice [ ] soja/soya beans [ ] cana-de-açúcar/sugar cane [ ] tomates/tomatoes

[ ] outro/Other: _________________________________________________________

Destinação dos [ ] Queima no local/ Burning on

resíduos (lixo)/ site
Waste
destination:
[ ] Joga em lixão/Thrown in a
waste dump
[ ] Joga no quintal/ Thrown in
the backyard
[ ] Enterrado/ Buried
[ ] Outro / Other: ____________

Faz separação do lixo? Do you separate the garbage?

[ ] Sim/Yes [ ] Não/No

Caso afirmativo, faz uso do resto de alimento para algum propósito? If yes, do you use
leftover food for any purpose?

[ ] Sim/Yes [ ] Não/No

Em caso afirmativo, para qual fim? If yes, for what purpose?

[ ] Compostagem/Composting [ ] alimento para animais/animal feed

[ ] Outro/other: ____________________________________________

56
O que faz com os recicláveis tais como latas de alumínio, vidro e plásticos/ What do you do
with recyclables such as cans, glas and plastic?

[ ] Leva para pontos de coleta/take them to a collection point [ ] vende/sell them

[ ] Outro/other: _____________________________________________

O que faz com as embalagens de pesticidas? What do you do with pesticide packaging?

[ ] Logística reversa desde quando? _______________ e para onde ou

quem?______________________________________________________ Em inglês: Reverse

logistic since when? _______ to where/whom? __________________

[ ] Descarta com o lixo comum/ Thrown them away with normal waste
[ ] Reusa as embalagens/ Reuse them

Qual o destino dos resíduos perigosos tais como medicamentos, óleos, graxas, lâmpadas
fluorescentes, bulbos de lâmpadas, baterias, pneus, eletrônicos? / Hazardous waste such as
medicines, oils, greases, light, bulbs, batteries, tires, electronics, go to which
destination/disposal?

[ ] Descarta com o lixo comum/Thrown them away with normal waste

[ ] Leva para a reciclagem/ Take them to a recycling station
[ ] Outro/Other: ________________________________
Esgoto doméstico/ Domestic sewage:

Água da chuva / Rain water:

Já teve algum problema com inundação na sua propriedade? Have you ever had any
problems with flooding on the property?
[ ] Sim/Yes [ ] Não/ No

Retém a água da chuva ? Is rain water stored?

[ ] Sim/Yes [ ] Não/ No

Em caso afirmativo, o que tem usado? If yes, what it is used for?

[ ] domestic use [ ] animal supply [ ] irrigation [ ] other: _______________

De onde coleta a água da chuva? Where is the rain water harvested from?
[ ] Telhados construídos/ building roofs [ ] solo ou terreno/ ground

[ ] Outro/other: ____________________________________

57
 CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE
Desafios, oportunidade e futuro
Quais 3 maiores 1:__________________________________________________
desafios que tem ____________________________________________________
na sua _____________________________________
propriedade? 2:__________________________________________________
What 3 main __________________________________________
challenges do _______________________________________________
you face as a 3:__________________________________________________
farmer? __________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Quais 3 1:__________________________________________________
oportunidades __________________________________________
que vê para _______________________________________________
futuro? 2:__________________________________________________
What 3 __________________________________________
opportunities do _______________________________________________
you see for the 3:__________________________________________________
future? __________________________________________
_______________________________________________

O que espera ____________________________________________________

para seu futuro? __________________________________________
What do you _______________________________________________
hope for in the ____________________________________________________
future? __________________________________________
_______________________________________________

SPENDING
Onde investiria Novas ferramentas / New tools
R$ 1.000,00 na Sementes / Seeds
sua propriedade? Fertilizantes e herbicidas
/Fertilisers and herbicides
How would you Água/ Water
divide 1000 Reas Manter infraestrutura na
over the propriedade / Physical upkeep of
following farm buildings
related Alimentação e cuidado animal
investments? /Animal food and care
melhorando sistemas antigos /
Improving old systems
Trabalhadores/ workers
Outros / other:
Outros / other:

58
Outros / other:

59
 Appendix B: Interview Results

Table S.5 – Interview results, combined outcome of the challenges and opportunities open questions

Challenges Number of Opportunities Number of farmers

farmers with recognising this
this challenge opportunity
Development of
Climate/weather 3 farm/settlement 3
Aligning production with
demand 3 Leverage the market 2
Electricity 2 Legal documents for land 1
Work force 2 Presenting products/fairs 1
Milk price 2 Improving cooperative 1
Register land 2 Financial support 1
Development of
Animal food price 1 farm/settlement 3
Investing/access to funds 1
Managing finances 1
Protect water 1

60
 Table S.6 - Interview results, combined outcome of the waste and energy mapping exercise

Inputs Number of Additional Output Number of Notes on output

farmers with notes on farmers with
this input input this output
Electricity 9 Electricity Vegetables 8
usually
from grid
water 9 usually not Milk 4 With only 2 that
for produce milk as
agriculture their main
income
Gas 7 Mostly for Eggs 3 Sometimes just
home for own
cooking consumptions
Fertiliser 6 of which 2 Meat 2 Sometimes just
organic and for own
self- consumptions
produced
seeds 3 Dirty water 2 Disposed in
environment
wood 3 Collected Processed food 2
from nature
animal food 3 Externally Fish 1
bought
Gasoline 2 For Waste ashes 1
generator
and
vehicles
Pesticides 2 Juice 1
Diesel 1 For milking Sweets 1
machine
packaging 1 Yoghurt/butter 1
Plant extract 1
Bulls 1

61
Appendix C: System Design

Figure S.9 - Technical drawing digester 1.5 m3

62
Figure S.10 - Technical drawing digester 3.7 m3

63
Figure S.11 - Technical drawing digester 7.5 m3

64
 Figure

S.12 - Technical drawing digester 15 m3

65
Figure S.13 - Technical drawing hydroponic unit

Figure S.14 - Technical drawing vermifilter unit

66
Figure S.15 - Technical drawing combined hydroponic and vermifilter unit

67
Figure S.16 - Technical drawing pyrolysis unit

68
Appendix D: Material list

1. Pyrolysis for biochar

Table 7 - Material list pyrolysis for biochar

Item Material/item Purpose Quantity Cost per Total

# item cost

(R$) (R$)

Iron dome

1 Steel sheet minimal Cone main pyrolysis chamber 2 310.24 620.48

2200x1200mm (2 mm)

2 Steel sheet minimal 600x600 Bottom of the cone 1 176.54 176.54

mm (2mm)

3 Steel sheet minimal Screen around the cone for wind 2 113.05 226.1

2500x1000mm (0.7 mm) management

4 Steel connectors Attach cone to the screen Waste pieces from item #01

5 Steel mesh 70x70mm Prevent biochar from draining 1 0

away

6 Steel bar 100x100x3200mm Legs to hold reactor above the 3 100 300

ground

Drain pipe

7 Pipe 90cm (50mm) Drain for flush water 1 23.9 23.9

8 Tap To open and close the drain when 1 34.9 34.9

69
 flushing

Total 1381.92

2. Hydroponic for wastewater treatment

Table 8 - Material list hydroponic unit for wastewater treatment

Item Material/item Purpose Quantity Cost per Total

# item (R$) cost

(R$)

Hydroponic system

Bottom reservoir

1 Water tank (500 L) Reservoir 1 159.9 159.9

2 Wooden plate 1.4x1.4x.03 m Lid of reservoir 1 100 100

(lxwxh)

3 Flange adaptor (50 mm) Openings for topping up and water 2 12 24

level measuring

4 Float valve For water level measuring 1 15 15

5 Wooden plate 0.9x0.9x.03 m Bottom anchor for towers Included in item #02

(lxwxh)

1 Tower

6 PVC pipe 7m (40mm) Back pipe, connectors between wyes 1.17 22.8 26.6

and tees

7 PVC wye (40mm) Plant holders 30 2 60

70
8 PVC pipe .15 m (150mm) Main top reservoir 1 9.5 9.5

9 Pipe lid (150mm) Close top reservoir bottom and top 2 18.8 37.6

10 Flange adaptor (40 mm) Watertight openings in top reservoir 4 10 40

for four openings

Total 173.7

3 complete towers 532.5

Top connection

11 PVC 90-degree elbow (40mm) Connectors for the top connection 4 2 8

12 PVC tees Connecting top reservoirs with top 3 2 6

connection

Pump system

13 Pump To pump the water upwards 1 220 220

14 Flexible tube To pump the water through 4 2.5 10

Miscellaneous

15 Coco coir As substrate for the plants 1 9.5 9.5

16 Silicon glue To use in case of leakages 1 14 14

17 Tie wrap To reinforce the towers if necessary 0.3 100 30

Total 1117.5

71
 3. Vermifilter
Table 9 - Material list vermifilter

Item Material/item Purpose Quantity Cost per Total

# item (R$) cost

(R$)

Vermifilter

1 Water tank (500 L) Filter reservoir and water receptor 2 159.9 319.8

2 Concrete brick To place one reservoir higher than the 6 2.6 15.6

other

3 Gravel Filter medium 14 4.09 57.26

4 Finer gravel (2 layers) Filter medium 28 4.09 114.52

5 Topsoil Filter medium Partly comes with item #06 and

can be collected in situ

6 Earthworms To put in the topsoil 8 89 712

7 Wire mesh 1.25x1.25m To keep the worms from going into 2 39 78

lower layers

8 Pump To pump the water upwards 1 220 220

9 Flexible tube To pump the water through and 4 2.5 10

distribute it over the surface

Total 1297.18

72
 4. Combined hydroponic and vermifilter system
Table 10 - Material list combined hydroponic and vermifilter system

Item Material/item Purpose Quantity Cost per Total

# item (R$) cost

(R$)

Combined hydroponic and vermifilter system

Bottom vermifilter

1 Water tank (500 L) Reservoir 2 159.9 319.8

2 Concrete brick To place one reservoir higher than the 6 2.6 15.6

other

3 Gravel Filter medium 14 4.86 68.04

4 Finer gravel (2 layers) Filter medium 28 4.09 114.52

5 Topsoil Filter medium 0

6 Earthworms To put in the topsoil 8 89 712

7 Wire mesh 1.25x1.25m To keep the worms from going into 2 39 78

lower layers

1 Tower

8 PVC pipe 8m (40mm) Back pipe, connectors between wyes 1.3 22.8 30.4

and tees

9 PVC wye (40mm) Plant holders 30 2 60

10 PVC pipe .15 m (150mm) Main top reservoir 1 9.5 9.5

73
11 Pipe lid (150mm) Close top reservoir bottom and top 2 18.8 37.6

12 Flange adaptor (40 mm) Watertight openings in top reservoir 4 10 40

for four openings

Total 177.5

3 complete towers 543.9

Top connection

13 PVC 90-degree elbow (40mm) Connectors for the top connection 4 2 8

14 PVC tee (40mm) Connecting top reservoirs with top 3 2 6

connection

Vermifilter spreading tubes

15 PVC pipe (40mm) Form network for water distribution 1 Included in item #08

over vermifilter
16 PVC tee (40mm) 9 2 18

17 PVC 45-degree elbow (40mm) 6 2 12

18 PVC 90-degree elbow (40mm) 9 2 18

19 PVC wye (40mm) 6 2 12

20 PVC tap switch (40mm) To switch the water from going to the 3 19.45 58.35

vermifilter or straight to the bottom

reservoir

Pump system

21 Pump To pump the water upwards 1 220 220

74
22 Flexible tube To pump the water through 4 2.5 10

Miscellaneous

23 Coco coir As substrate for the plants 1 9.5 9.5

24 Silicon glue To use in case of leakages 1 14 14

25 Tie wrap To reinforce the towers if necessary 0.3 100 30

Total 2256.31

75