Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41203932›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2025

Deconstructing the Livestock Manure Digester and Biogas Controversy.

Allie Wainer, David C Love, Brent F Kim, Jamie Harding, Qinfan Lyu, D'Ann L Williams, Christopher D Heaney, Benjamin F Hobbs, Keeve E Nachman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Allie Wainer *Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
David C Love *Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
Brent F Kim *Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
Jamie HardingDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
Qinfan LyuDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
D'Ann L WilliamsDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
Christopher D HeaneyDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
Benjamin F HobbsDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA.
Keeve E NachmanDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7007, Baltimore, MD, 21205-2179, USA. knachman@jhu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAnaerobic manure digesters are a hotly debated and rapidly expanding technology that extracts biogas from animal manure. We assessed claims by proponents and opponents of the technology by reviewing evidence regarding digesters and pollutant emissions, occupational health, environmental injustice, economics, and climate. RECENT

findingsManure digesters can mitigate some impacts from industrial animal agriculture, such as odors and methane emissions, while potentially increasing or perpetuating others, such as ammonia emissions and nutrient pollution. While promoted as a climate solution, manure digesters only address a fraction of livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions and may exacerbate or introduce new occupational and community hazards, such as from flared biogas. Policies play a large role in subsidizing manure digesters, incentivizing further expansion of industrial animal agriculture-an industry with documented harms to rural populations. In summary, proponent claims in many cases overstated the evidence of actual benefits, while opponent concerns were either validated by the evidence or merit further investigation. Based on the current state of available evidence, manure digesters should not be promoted as a solution for manure management and energy production.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryBiofuelsLivestockManureAgricultureAnaerobiosisAnimalsGreenhouse GasesHumansBiofuelsGreenhouse GasesManureAnaerobic digestersClimate changeCommunity healthEnvironmental justiceLivestock manure

Identifiers

PMID41203932
PMCPMC12594661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.