The aim of this study was to compare the environmental performance and sustainability of different management options for livestock waste in Cyprus. The two most common practices in the country, i.e. the use of anaerobic lagoons and conventional biogas plants, were compared with the innovative scheme developed in the LiveWaste project (LIFE12 ENV/CY/000544), which aims not only to produce bioenergy, but also to treat the digestate for nutrient recovery and water reuse. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was combined with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to compare the performance of these alternatives. Four relevant indicators were selected for each dimension of sustainability (environmental, social and economic).

The results of the evaluations showed that anaerobic lagoons are not an appropriate option for the sustainable management of livestock waste due to environmental (e.g. climate change, acidification and eutrophication) and social impacts (e.g. noise exposure, visual impact and risk perception for human health). The most important strengths and weaknesses of anaerobic treatment with and without digestate treatment were identified. Compared to conventional anaerobic digestion where digestate is directly applied as an organic fertiliser, the technology proposed in the project entails higher technological complexity due to nitrogen removal and phosphorus recovery. The rise in chemical and electricity requirements increased the impacts on some indicators, such as climate change and operational cost (emissions of greenhouse gases and operation costs were around 50% higher), while reduced impacts in others due to proper nutrient management, as acidification and eutrophication impacts (which were 10 and almost two times lower, respectively).

For the specific Cypriot conditions, where the overapplication of nutrients leads to pollution of water bodies, the innovative treatment scheme with higher technological development presents an interesting approach. Nevertheless, the treatment of the digestate should be analysed taking into account the specific characteristics of each scenario.

这项研究的目的是比较塞浦路斯牲畜废物不同管理方案的环境绩效和可持续性。该国最常见的两种做法，即使用厌氧池和常规沼气厂，与LiveWaste项目开发的创新计划（LIFE12 ENV / CY / 000544）进行了比较，该计划不仅旨在产生生物能源，而且还旨在处理消化物以回收营养物和再利用水。将生命周期评估（LCA）方法与层次分析法（AHP）相结合，以比较这些替代方法的性能。为可持续性的各个方面（环境，社会和经济）选择了四个相关指标。

评价结果表明，厌氧池是不适合的禽畜废物可持续管理的相应的选项因环境（如气候变化，酸化和富营养化）和社会影响（如噪声接触，视觉冲击和风险的认识，为人类健康） 。确定了有和没有消化处理的厌氧处理的最重要的优点和缺点。与传统的将消化液直接用作有机肥料的厌氧消化相比，该项目中提出的技术由于脱氮和回收磷而需要更高的技术复杂性。化学和电力需求的增加，对某些指标的影响越来越大，

对于特定的塞浦路斯条件，其中营养素的过度使用会导致水体的污染，具有更高技术发展水平的创新处理方案提出了一种有趣的方法。但是，应根据每种情况的具体特征来分析消化液的处理方法。