meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2021/02/11 13:39] – doering | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2024/11/06 15:10] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ===== Short description ===== | ===== Short description ===== | ||
| - | ^ NFR-Code | + | ^ NFR-Code |
| - | | **3.B ** | ** Manure Management** | + | | **3.B ** | ** Manure Management** |
| - | | **consisting of / including source categories** | + | | **consisting of / including source categories** |
| - | | 3.B.1.a & 3.B.1.b | + | | 3.B.1.a & 3.B.1.b |
| - | | 3.B.2, 3.B.4.d, 3.B.4.e | + | | 3.B.2, 3.B.4.d, 3.B.4.e |
| - | | 3.B.3 | Swine | T3 (NH< | + | | 3.B.3 | Swine | T3 (NH< |
| - | | 3.B.4.a | + | | 3.B.4.a |
| - | | 3.B.4.f | + | | 3.B.4.f |
| - | | 3.B.4.g i-iv | Poultry | + | | 3.B.4.g i-iv | Poultry |
| - | | 3.B.4.h | + | | 3.B.4.h |
| - | < | + | ^ Key Category |
| - | + | | 3.B.1.a | |
| - | ---- | + | | 3.B.1.b |
| - | Legend | + | | 3.B.2 |
| - | T = key source by Trend / L = key source by Level | + | | 3.B.3 |
| - | + | | 3.B.4.d | |
| - | ---- | + | | 3.B.4.e |
| - | + | | 3.B.4.g.i | |
| - | //Methods// | + | | 3.B.4.g.ii |
| - | D: | + | | 3.B.4.g.iii |
| - | RA: | + | | 3.B.4.g.iv |
| - | T1: Tier 1 / Simple Methodology * | + | |
| - | T2: Tier 2* | + | |
| - | T3: | + | |
| - | C: | + | |
| - | CS: Country Specific | + | |
| - | M: Model | + | |
| - | as described in the EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ---- | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | //AD:- Data Source for Activity Data // | + | |
| - | NS: | + | |
| - | RS: | + | |
| - | IS: | + | |
| - | PS: Plant Specific data | + | |
| - | AS: | + | |
| - | Q: specific questionnaires, | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ---- | + | |
| - | //EF - Emission Factors// | + | |
| - | D: Default (EMEP Guidebook) | + | \\ |
| - | C: Confidential | + | |
| - | CS: Country Specific | + | |
| - | PS: Plant Specific data</ | + | |
| Line 60: | Line 38: | ||
| - | NO< | + | NO< |
| NMVOC emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contributed 97.2 % (295.8 kt) from total agricultural NMVOC emissions (304.4 kt). | NMVOC emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contributed 97.2 % (295.8 kt) from total agricultural NMVOC emissions (304.4 kt). | ||
| Line 66: | Line 44: | ||
| In 2019, manure management contributed, | In 2019, manure management contributed, | ||
| - | **Activity data for all pollutants** | + | ==== Activity data for all pollutants |
| The Federal Statistical Agency and the Statistical Agencies of the federal states carry out surveys in order to collect, along with other data, the head counts of animals. The results of these surveys are used for emission calculations, | The Federal Statistical Agency and the Statistical Agencies of the federal states carry out surveys in order to collect, along with other data, the head counts of animals. The results of these surveys are used for emission calculations, | ||
| Line 97: | Line 75: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | + | ==== Additional data ==== | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | **Additional data** | + | |
| Emission calculations in accordance with a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method require data on animal performance (animal weight, weight gain, milk yield, milk protein content, milk fat content, numbers of births, numbers of eggs and weights of eggs) and on the relevant feeding details (phase feeding, feed components, protein and energy content, digestibility and feed efficiency). To subdivide officially recorded total numbers of turkeys into roosters and hens, the respective population percentages need to be known. Details on data requirements for the modelling of emissions from livestock husbandry in the German inventory can be found in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapters 4 to 8. | Emission calculations in accordance with a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method require data on animal performance (animal weight, weight gain, milk yield, milk protein content, milk fat content, numbers of births, numbers of eggs and weights of eggs) and on the relevant feeding details (phase feeding, feed components, protein and energy content, digestibility and feed efficiency). To subdivide officially recorded total numbers of turkeys into roosters and hens, the respective population percentages need to be known. Details on data requirements for the modelling of emissions from livestock husbandry in the German inventory can be found in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapters 4 to 8. | ||
| Line 115: | Line 88: | ||
| For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.4. Time series of frequency distributions of housing systems, storage systems and application techniques as well as the corresponding emission factors are provided in NIR 2021, | For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.4. Time series of frequency distributions of housing systems, storage systems and application techniques as well as the corresponding emission factors are provided in NIR 2021, | ||
| + | ===== NH₃ and NOₓ ===== | ||
| + | ==== Method ==== | ||
| + | === N in manure management === | ||
| - | + | == N excretion | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | ===== NH3 and NOx ===== | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | ==== Methodology ==== | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | **N in manure management** | + | |
| - | **N excretion** | + | |
| In order to determine NH< | In order to determine NH< | ||
| Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.3.4.3 as well as Chapters 4 to 8. | Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.3.4.3 as well as Chapters 4 to 8. | ||
| Line 161: | Line 127: | ||
| ^ geese | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | | ^ geese | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | | ||
| - | **N mass flow and emission assessment** | + | == N mass flow and emission assessment |
| - | + | The calculation of the emissions of NH< | |
| - | The calculation of the emissions of NH< | + | |
| This approach differentiates between N excreted with faeces (organic nitrogen Norg, i. e. undigested feed N) and urine (total ammoniacal nitrogen TAN, i. e. fraction of feed N metabolized). The N flow within the manure management system is treated as depicted in the figure below. This method reconciles the requirements of both the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook for NH< | This approach differentiates between N excreted with faeces (organic nitrogen Norg, i. e. undigested feed N) and urine (total ammoniacal nitrogen TAN, i. e. fraction of feed N metabolized). The N flow within the manure management system is treated as depicted in the figure below. This method reconciles the requirements of both the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook for NH< | ||
| Line 172: | Line 137: | ||
| //General scheme of N flows in animal husbandry// | //General scheme of N flows in animal husbandry// | ||
| - | m: mass from which emissions may occur. Narrow broken arrows: TAN (total ammoniacal nitrogen); narrow continuous arrows: organic N. The horizontal arrows denote the process of immobilisation in systems with bedding occurring in the house, and the process of mineralisation during storage, which occurs in any case. Broad arrows denote N-emissions assigned to manure management (Eyard NH3 emissions from yards; | + | //m: mass from which emissions may occur. Narrow broken arrows: TAN (total ammoniacal nitrogen); narrow continuous arrows: organic N. The horizontal arrows denote the process of immobilisation in systems with bedding occurring in the house, and the process of mineralisation during storage, which occurs in any case. Broad arrows denote N-emissions assigned to manure management (E< |
| - | The figure allows tracing of the pathways of the two N fractions after excretion. The various locations where excretion may take place are considered. The partial mass flows down to the input to soil are depicted. During storage Norg can be transformed into TAN and vice versa. Both, the way and the amount of such transformations may be influenced by manure treatment processes like, e. g., anaerobic digestion where a considerable fraction of Norg is mineralized to TAN. For details see Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapters 3.3.4.3 and 3.3.4.4 | + | The figure allows tracing of the pathways of the two N fractions after excretion. The various locations where excretion may take place are considered. The partial mass flows down to the input to soil are depicted. During storage Norg can be transformed into TAN and vice versa. Both, the way and the amount of such transformations may be influenced by manure treatment processes like, e. g., anaerobic digestion where a considerable fraction of Norg is mineralized to TAN. For details see Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapters 3.3.4.3 and 3.3.4.4. Wherever NH< |
| - | + | ||
| - | **Air scrubber systems in swine and poultry housings** | + | |
| + | == Air scrubber systems in swine and poultry housings == | ||
| For pig and poultry production the inventory considers the effect of air scrubbing. Data on frequencies of air scrubbing facilities and the removal efficiency are provided by KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft / Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture). The average removal efficiency of NH< | For pig and poultry production the inventory considers the effect of air scrubbing. Data on frequencies of air scrubbing facilities and the removal efficiency are provided by KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft / Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture). The average removal efficiency of NH< | ||
| Line 183: | Line 147: | ||
| The amounts of NH< | The amounts of NH< | ||
| - | **Anaerobic digestion of manure** | + | == Anaerobic digestion of manure |
| According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion of manure is treated like a particular storage type that, however, comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, | According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion of manure is treated like a particular storage type that, however, comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, | ||
| NH< | NH< | ||
| - | **Emission Factors** | + | == Emission Factors |
| - | + | Application of the N mass flow approach requires detailed emission factors for NH< | |
| - | Application of the N mass flow approach requires detailed emission factors for NH< | + | |
| The detailed NH< | The detailed NH< | ||
| Line 204: | Line 166: | ||
| //Table 3: IEF for NH< | //Table 3: IEF for NH< | ||
| | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2011 ^ 2012 ^ 2013 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2011 ^ 2012 ^ 2013 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ | ||
| - | ^ IEF in kg NH3 per animal place | + | ^ IEF in kg NH₃ per animal place |
| ^ dairy cattle | ^ dairy cattle | ||
| ^ other cattle | ^ other cattle | ||
| Line 217: | Line 179: | ||
| ^ ducks | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.192 | 0.190 | 0.189 | 0.188 | 0.187 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | | ^ ducks | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.192 | 0.190 | 0.189 | 0.188 | 0.187 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.186 | | ||
| ^ geese | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.300 | 0.298 | 0.298 | 0.298 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | | ^ geese | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.300 | 0.298 | 0.298 | 0.298 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.297 | | ||
| - | ^ IEF in kg NOx per animal place | + | ^ IEF in kg NOₓ per animal place |
| ^ dairy cattle | ^ dairy cattle | ||
| ^ other cattle | ^ other cattle | ||
| Line 231: | Line 193: | ||
| ^ geese | 0.00018 | 0.00018 | 0.00019 | 0.00021 | 0.00023 | 0.00023 | 0.00021 | 0.00022 | 0.00021 | 0.00022 | 0.00022 | 0.00021 | 0.00021 | 0.00021 | | ^ geese | 0.00018 | 0.00018 | 0.00019 | 0.00021 | 0.00023 | 0.00023 | 0.00021 | 0.00022 | 0.00021 | 0.00022 | 0.00022 | 0.00021 | 0.00021 | 0.00021 | | ||
| - | **Trend discussion for Key Sources** | + | == Trend discussion for Key Sources |
| Dairy cattle, other cattle and swine are key sources of NH< | Dairy cattle, other cattle and swine are key sources of NH< | ||
| For NO< | For NO< | ||
| - | **Recalculations** | + | == Recalculations == |
| + | All time series of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated since 1990. Tables REC-1 and REC-2 compare the recalculated time series for NH< | ||
| + | This is predominantly due to the update of the models of dairy cows, calves, heifers and male beef cattle, see main page of the agricultural sector ([[sector: | ||
| + | |||
| + | The NH< | ||
| + | |||
| + | The NH< | ||
| + | |||
| + | The overall NH< | ||
| + | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.5.2.. | ||
| - | All time series of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated since 1990. Tables REC-1 and REC-2 compare the recalculated time series for NH< | ||
| //Tables REC-1 and REC-2: Comparison of the NH< | //Tables REC-1 and REC-2: Comparison of the NH< | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| | | | | ||
| ^ Total | ^ Total | ||
| Line 258: | Line 227: | ||
| ^ | ^ | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| ^ | ^ | ||
| ^ Total | ^ Total | ||
| Line 274: | Line 243: | ||
| - | **Planned improvements** | + | == Planned improvements |
| No improvements are planned at present. | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| + | |||
| ===== NMVOC ===== | ===== NMVOC ===== | ||
| + | In 2019, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 295.8 which is 97.2 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.8 % originate from cattle, 4.7 % from pigs, and 9.4 % from poultry. | ||
| + | All NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector are excluded from emission accounting by adjustment as they are not considered in the NEC and Gothenburg commitments (see Chapter 11 - [[general: | ||
| - | In 2019, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to xx316.5 which is xx97.6 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. xx85.7 % originate from cattle, xx4.5 % from pigs, and xx8.7 % from poultry. | + | ==== Method |
| - | All NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector are excluded from emission accounting by adjustment as they are not considered in the NEC and Gothenburg commitments (see Chapter 11 - Adjustments and Emissions Reduction Commitments). | + | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP (2019)-3B-28 was used to assess the NMVOC emissions from manure management for dairy cattle and other cattle. For all other animals the Tier 1 methodology (EMEP (2019)-3B-17) was used. |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | **Method** | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP (2016)-3B-25 [10] was used to assess the NMVOC emissions from manure management for dairy cattle and other cattle. For all other animals the Tier 1 methodology (EMEP (2016)-3B-17 | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ** Activity data** | + | |
| + | === Activity data === | ||
| Animal numbers serve as activity data, see Table 1. | Animal numbers serve as activity data, see Table 1. | ||
| - | **Emission factors** | + | === Emission factors |
| For the Tier 2 methodology applied to dairy cattle and other cattle the following data was used: | For the Tier 2 methodology applied to dairy cattle and other cattle the following data was used: | ||
| + | * gross feed intake in MJ per year, country specific data from the annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, see NIR 2021, Chapter 5.1.3.3, | ||
| + | * proportion x< | ||
| + | * FRAC< | ||
| + | * FRAC< | ||
| + | * EF< | ||
| + | * EF< | ||
| - | * gross feed intake in MJ per year, country specific data from the annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, see NIR 2020, Chapter 5.1.3.3, | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, Table 3.4 [10] were used: For horses the emission factors for feeding with silage was chosen, for all other animals the emission factors for feeding without silage. Due to missing country-specific emission factors or emission factors that do not correspond to the inventory’s animal categories, the emission factors provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, Table 3.4, were used to define specific emission factors for weaners, boars, lambs, ponies/ |
| - | * proportion x house of the year the animals spend in the livestock building: country specific data, being equal to 1 – xgraz with xgraz the proportion of the year spent on pasture, see NIR 2020, Chapter 19.3.2, | + | The implied emission factors given in Table 4 relate the overall NMVOC emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The IEFs for dairy cattle and other cattle are are much higher than the EMEP Tier 1 EF, which are 17.937 kg NMVOC for dairy cattle and 8.902 kg NMVOC for other cattle. The only possible explanation for those huge differences is that the EMEP Tier 2 and Tier 1 methods are not consistent. |
| - | * FRACsilage 1 as proposed by EMEP (2016)-3B-27 [10], since silage feeding for cattle is considered dominant in Germany | + | |
| - | * FRACsilage store: 0.25 as proposed by EMEP (2016)-3B-28 [10] for European conditions | + | |
| - | * EFNMVOC silage_feeding, | + | |
| - | * EFNH3, | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC as provided in EMEP (2016)-3B-18, Table 3.4 [10] were used: For horses the emission factors for feeding with silage was chosen, for all other animals the emission factors for feeding without silage. Due to missing country-specific emission factors or emission factors that do not correspond to the inventory’s animal categories, the emission factors provided in EMEP (2016)-3B-18, Table 3.4, were used to define specific emission factors for weaners, boars, lambs, ponies/ | + | |
| - | The implied emission factors given in Table 4 relate the overall NMVOC emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The IEFs for dairy cattle and other cattle are identical to the EMEP Tier 2 EF and are much higher than the EMEP Tier 1 EF, which are 17.937 kg NMVOC for dairy cattle and 8.902 kg NMVOC for other cattle. The only possible explanation for those huge differences is that the EMEP Tier 2 and Tier 1 methods are not consistent. | + | |
| The IEFs for the other categories provided in Table 4 correspond to the EMEP Tier 1 emission factors, except for horses, sheep, swine and other poultry. These categories comprise subcategories with different emission factors so that their overall IEFs in Table 4 represent subpopulation-weighted national mean values. | The IEFs for the other categories provided in Table 4 correspond to the EMEP Tier 1 emission factors, except for horses, sheep, swine and other poultry. These categories comprise subcategories with different emission factors so that their overall IEFs in Table 4 represent subpopulation-weighted national mean values. | ||
| - | Note that other poultry in Germany includes not only geese and ducks but also pullets. For pullets no default EF is given in the EMEP guidebook (EMEP, | + | Note that other poultry in Germany includes not only geese and ducks but also pullets. For pullets no default EF is given in the EMEP guidebook (EMEP, |
| //Table 4: IEF for NMVOC from manure management// | //Table 4: IEF for NMVOC from manure management// | ||
| Line 327: | Line 290: | ||
| ^ ducks | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | | ^ ducks | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | | ||
| ^ geese | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | | ^ geese | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.489 | | ||
| - | **Trend discussion for Key Sources** | ||
| - | Dairy cattle and other cattle are key sources of NMVOC emissions from manure management. The total NMVOC emissions from both animal categories strongly correlate with the animal numbers given in Table 1 (cattle: R² = 0.98; other cattle: R² = 0.99). | + | === Trend discussion for Key Sources === |
| + | Dairy cattle and other cattle are key sources of NMVOC emissions from manure management. The total NMVOC emissions from both animal categories strongly correlate with the animal numbers given in Table 1 (dairy cattle: R² = 0.895; other cattle: R² = 0.995). | ||
| - | **Recalculations** | + | === Recalculations === |
| + | All time series of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated since 1990. Table REC-3 compares the recalculated time series of the NMVOC emissions from 3.B with the respective data of last year’s submission. The recalculated total emissions are lower by 4 to 11 %. This is due to improved methodology for the cattle sector (**recalculation reasons 1 through 4**, see [[sector: | ||
| + | Emissions of other animals remained unchanged. Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.5.2. | ||
| - | All time series of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated since 1990. Table REC-3 compares the recalculated time series of the NMVOC emissions from 3.B with the respective data of last year’s submission. The recalculated total emissions are by more than 60 % higher. This is completely due to the introduction of the Tier 2 methodology for cattle (recalculation No 1, see main page of the agricultural sector (https:// | ||
| - | Emissions of other species remained unchanged, **with the exception of laying hens emissions in 2017**, due to **recalculation No 8**. Further details on recalculations are described in Haenel et al. (2020), Chapter 3.5.2 [1]. | ||
| //Table REC-3: Comparison of NMVOC emissions of the submissions (SUB) 2020 and 2021// | //Table REC-3: Comparison of NMVOC emissions of the submissions (SUB) 2020 and 2021// | ||
| Line 349: | Line 312: | ||
| ^ ^ 2020 | 40.46 | 36.94 | 38.62 | 39.61 | 39.89 | 42.29 | 44.89 | 46.87 | 46.70 | 45.93 | 45.42 | 45.56 | 45.11 | | | ^ ^ 2020 | 40.46 | 36.94 | 38.62 | 39.61 | 39.89 | 42.29 | 44.89 | 46.87 | 46.70 | 45.93 | 45.42 | 45.56 | 45.11 | | | ||
| - | **Planned improvements** | + | === Planned improvements |
| No improvements are planned at present. | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| ===== TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 ===== | ===== TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 ===== | ||
| + | In 2019, TSP emissions from manure management amount to 71.1 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Within the emissions from manure management 22.4 % originate from cattle, 39.3 % from pigs, and 37.7 % from poultry. 42.7 % of the PM< | ||
| + | ==== Method ==== | ||
| + | EMEP (2013)-3B-26 [9] provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the current Guidebook (EMEP, 2019), this methodology has been replaced by a Tier 1 methodology. However, EF for cattle derived with the EMEP 2013 Tier 2 methodology remained unchanged. So the EMEP 2013((EMEP (2013): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2013)) methodology was kept for cattle. For swine the EMEP 2013 methodology was formally kept but the EMEP 2019 Tier 1 EF was used both for slurry and solid based manure management systems. The same was done with the EMEP 2016 EFs for laying hens (used for cages and perchery). In case the EMEP 2019 EFs are just the rounded EMEP 2013 EFs, the unrounded EMEP 2013 EFs were kept. | ||
| + | The inventory considers air scrubber systems in swine and poultry husbandry. For animal places equipped with air scrubbing the emission factors are reduced according to the removal efficiency of the air scrubber systems (90 % for TSP and PM< | ||
| - | In 2019, TSP emissions from manure management amount to xx71.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Within the emissions from manure management xx22.6 % originate from cattle, xx39.8 % from pigs, and xx37.0 % from poultry. xx43.0 % of the PM< | + | === Activity data === |
| - | + | ||
| - | **Method** | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | EMEP (2013)-3B-26 [9] provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the current Guidebook (EMEP, 2016) [10], this methodology has been replaced by a Tier 1 methodology. However, EF for cattle derived with the EMEP 2013 Tier 2 methodology remained unchanged. So the EMEP 2013 [9] methodology was kept for cattle. For swine the EMEP 2013 [9] methodology was formally kept but the EMEP 2016 Tier 1 EF was used both for slurry and solid based manure management systems. The same was done with the EMEP 2016 EFs for laying hens (used for cages and perchery). In case the EMEP 2016 EFs are just the rounded EMEP 2013 EFs, the unrounded EMEP 2013 EFs were kept. | + | |
| - | The inventory considers air scrubber systems in swine and poultry husbandry. For animal places equipped with air scrubbing the emission factors are reduced according to the removal efficiency of the air scrubber systems (90 % for TSP and PM< | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | **Activity data** | + | |
| Animal numbers serve as activity data, see Table 1. | Animal numbers serve as activity data, see Table 1. | ||
| - | **Emission factors** | + | === Emission factors |
| - | + | Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM< | |
| - | Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM< | + | |
| The implied emission factors given in Table 5 relate the overall TSP and PM emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The Guidebook does not indicate whether EFs have considered the condensable component (with or without). | The implied emission factors given in Table 5 relate the overall TSP and PM emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The Guidebook does not indicate whether EFs have considered the condensable component (with or without). | ||
| Line 416: | Line 373: | ||
| ^ geese | ^ geese | ||
| - | **Trend discussion for Key Sources** | + | ==== Trend discussion for Key Sources |
| + | Swine and laying hens are key sources of TSP emissions from manure management. The total TSP emissions from swine mainly follow the animal numbers given in Table 1. However, due to air scrubbing and different emission factors of the different housing systems of the four swine subcategories (sows with piglets, weaners, fattening pigs, boars) and the varying population shares in those housing systems the R< | ||
| - | Swine and laying hens are key sources of TSP emissions from manure management. The total TSP emissions from swine mainly follow the animal numbers given in Table 1. However, due to different emission factors of the different housing systems of the four swine subcategories (sows with piglets, weaners, fattening pigs, boars) and the varying population shares in those housing systems the R< | + | ==== Recalculations |
| - | + | Table REC-4 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. | |
| - | ** Recalculations** | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Table REC-4 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. | + | |
| //Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | //Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | ||
| Line 435: | Line 390: | ||
| ^ PM< | ^ PM< | ||
| - | ** Planned improvements** | + | ===== Planned improvements |
| No improvements are planned at present. | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| - | **Uncertainty** | + | ===== Uncertainty |
| Details will be described in [[general: | Details will be described in [[general: | ||