meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2021/02/12 13:40] – [Table] formatting minor gniffke | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2024/11/06 14:47] (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 |
| - | <hidden> | + | ^ 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: | + | |
| - | T3: | + | |
| - | C: CORINAIR | + | |
| - | 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 57: | Line 35: | ||
| {{ : | {{ : | ||
| - | In 2019, NH< | + | In 2020, NH< |
| - | NO< | + | NO< |
| - | NMVOC emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contributed | + | NMVOC emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contributed |
| - | In 2019, manure management contributed, | + | In 2020, 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, |
| - | The animal population figures used in the inventory are presented in Table 1. Buffaloes are included in the cattle population figures, mules and asses are included in the horse population figures (IE), see Rösemann | + | The animal population figures used in the inventory are presented in Table 1. From 2017 to 2019 the animal population figures for horses, goats and poultry differ from the figures presented in the last IIR. In the last year’s submission these figures were extrapolated from the year 2016. Now there are new figures available for the year 2020 and the years 2017-2019 have been interpolated. Buffaloes are included in the cattle population figures, mules and asses are included in the horse population figures (IE), see Vos et al. (2022), Chapters 4.1 and 7.1. In the first years after the German reunification in 1990 animal livestock decreased markedly. The head counts for cattle continued to decrease significantly until 2006/2007, followed by a more or less stable period until 2014. Since 2015 a slight decrease occurred. In 2020, dairy cattle numbers are 61.7 % of 1990 numbers, while the total population of other cattle is at 56.2 % of 1990. Swine numbers decreased until 1995 and then increased slightly. Since 2014 a slight decrease occurred (2020: 81.6 % of 1990). The 2020 numbers of horses, sheep and goats are, respectively, |
| - | Figures for broilers and turkeys are showing a massive increase since 1990. In total, | + | Figures for broilers and turkeys are showing a massive increase since 1990. Since the year 2013, there have been only minor changes of total poultry numbers. In total, |
| //Table 1: Population of animals// | //Table 1: Population of animals// | ||
| - | ^ Population of animals (in 1000) ||||||||||||||| | + | ^ Population of animals (in 1000) |||||||||||||||| |
| - | | ^ 1990 | + | | ^ 1990 |
| - | | dairy cattle | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | other cattle | + | | other cattle |
| - | | buffalo | + | | buffalo |
| - | | mules and asses | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | IE | | + | | mules and asses |
| - | | horses | + | | horses |
| - | | sheep | 3,266.1 | 2,990.7 | 2,743.3 | 2,643.1 | 2,245.0 | 1,979.7 | 1,965.9 | 1,877.2 | 1,892.4 | 1,866.9 | 1,851.0 | 1,863.2 | 1,846.0 | 1,813.6 | | + | | sheep | 3'266.1 | 2'990.7 | 2'743.3 | 2'643.1 | 2'245.0 | 1'979.7 | 1'965.9 | 1'877.2 | 1'892.4 | 1'866.9 | 1'851.0 | 1'863.2 | 1'846.0 | 1'813.6 | |
| - | | goats | 90.0 | 100.0 | 140.0 | 170.0 | 149.9 | 143.4 | 136.8 | 130.2 | 133.1 | 135.9 | 138.8 | 141.7 | 144.6 | 147.4 | | + | | goats | 90.0 | 100.0 | 140.0 | 170.0 | 149.9 | 143.4 | 136.8 | 130.2 | 133.1 | 135.9 | 138.8 | 142.8 | 146.9 | 150.9 | |
| - | | swine | 26,502.5 | 20,387.3 | 21,767.7 | 22,742.8 | 22,244.4 | 22,787.9 | 23,648.3 | 23,391.2 | 23,666.9 | 22,978.5 | 22,761.2 | 22,920.8 | 22,019.2 | 21,596.4 | | + | | swine | 26'502.5 | 20'387.3 | 21'767.7 | 22'742.8 | 22'244.4 | 22'787.9 | 23'648.3 | 23'391.2 | 23'666.9 | 22'978.5 | 22'761.2 | 22'920.8 | 22'019.2 | 21'596.4 | 21' |
| - | | laying hens | 53,450.5 | 45,317.3 | 44,225.6 | 38,203.6 | 35,279.0 | 39,514.9 | 43,750.8 | 47,986.7 | 49,303.0 | 50,619.3 | 51,935.5 | 52,524.4 | 53,561.4 | 53,901.4 | | + | | laying hens | 53'450.5 | 45'317.3 | 44'225.6 | 38'203.6 | 35'279.0 | 39'514.9 | 43'750.8 | 47'986.7 | 49'303.0 | 50'619.3 | 51'935.5 | 52'571.1 | 53'206.6 | 53'842.1 | 54' |
| - | | broilers | + | | broilers |
| - | | turkeys | + | | turkeys |
| - | | pullets | + | | pullets |
| - | | ducks | 2,013.7 | 1,933.7 | 2,055.7 | 2,352.2 | 3,164.3 | 3,029.5 | 2,894.6 | 2,759.7 | 2,585.3 | 2,410.8 | 2,236.4 | 2,236.4 | 2,236.4 | 2,236.4 | | + | | ducks | 2'013.7 | 1'933.7 | 2'055.7 | 2'352.2 | 3'164.3 | 3'029.5 | 2'894.6 | 2'759.7 | 2'585.3 | 2'410.8 | 2'236.4 | 2'209.1 | 2'181.9 | 2'154.6 | |
| - | | geese | 781.5 | 617.0 | 404.8 | 329.5 | 278.1 | 366.8 | 455.5 | 544.2 | 472.5 | 400.8 | 329.0 | 329.0 | 329.0 | 329.0 | | + | | geese | 781.5 | 617.0 | 404.8 | 329.5 | 278.1 | 366.8 | 455.5 | 544.2 | 472.5 | 400.8 | 329.0 | 327.7 | 326.3 | 324.9 | |
| - | | other animals: no data available a) ||||||||||||||| | + | | other animals: no data available a) ||||||||||||||| | |
| < | < | ||
| a) Animal numbers of other animals are not available. Emissions of other animals were approximated with estimated population figures for a single year (see Rösemann et. al., 2017, Chapter 9, ((Rösemann C, Haenel H-D, Dämmgen U, Freibauer A, Döring, U, Wulf S, Eurich-Menden B, Döhler H, Schreiner C, and Osterburg B, 2017, Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German Agriculture 1990 – 2015. Report on methods and data (RMD), Submission 2017. Thünen Report 46, 423 p.)) and submitted to the TERT of the NECD-Review. The TERT confirmed that emissions are below the threshold of significance. For GHG emission reporting the UNFCCC has acknowledged that the emissions from Germany' | a) Animal numbers of other animals are not available. Emissions of other animals were approximated with estimated population figures for a single year (see Rösemann et. al., 2017, Chapter 9, ((Rösemann C, Haenel H-D, Dämmgen U, Freibauer A, Döring, U, Wulf S, Eurich-Menden B, Döhler H, Schreiner C, and Osterburg B, 2017, Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German Agriculture 1990 – 2015. Report on methods and data (RMD), Submission 2017. Thünen Report 46, 423 p.)) and submitted to the TERT of the NECD-Review. The TERT confirmed that emissions are below the threshold of significance. For GHG emission reporting the UNFCCC has acknowledged that the emissions from Germany' | ||
| Line 97: | Line 75: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| + | ==== 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 Voss et al. (2022), Chapters 4 to 8. | ||
| - | + | Most of the data mentioned above is not available from official statistics and was obtained from literature, from publications by agricultural | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | **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. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Most of the data mentioned above is not available from official statistics and was obtained from literature, from publications by agricultural | + | |
| For 1991, 1995 and 1999, frequency distributions of feeding strategies, husbandry systems (shares of pasturing/ | For 1991, 1995 and 1999, frequency distributions of feeding strategies, husbandry systems (shares of pasturing/ | ||
| Line 112: | Line 85: | ||
| For the year 2015, data on techniques of farm manure spreading from the 2016 official agricultural census (Agrarstrukturerhebung 2016, Statistisches Bundesamt / Federal Statistical Office) are used. | For the year 2015, data on techniques of farm manure spreading from the 2016 official agricultural census (Agrarstrukturerhebung 2016, Statistisches Bundesamt / Federal Statistical Office) are used. | ||
| - | The gaps between the latest RAUMIS model data (1999) and the first official data (2010) were closed by linear interpolation on district level. For 2011 to 2019 the 2010 data was kept, with the exception | + | The gaps between the latest RAUMIS model data (1999) and the first official data (2010) were closed by linear interpolation on district level. |
| - | For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Rösemann | + | For 2011 to 2019 the housing and storage systems |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| ===== NH₃ and NOₓ ===== | ===== NH₃ and NOₓ ===== | ||
| + | ==== Method ==== | ||
| + | === N in manure management === | ||
| - | ==== Methodology ==== | + | == N excretion |
| - | + | In order to determine NH< | |
| - | **N in manure management** | + | Vos et al. (2022), Chapter 3.3.4.3 as well as Chapters 4 to 8. |
| - | **N excretion** | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | In order to determine NH< | + | |
| - | Rösemann | + | |
| //Table 2: National means of N excretions and TAN contents// | //Table 2: National means of N excretions and TAN contents// | ||
| - | ^ ^ 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 |
| - | ^ mean N excretions in kg per animal place | + | ^ mean N excretions in kg per animal place |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 7.7 | 7.7 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | | + | ^ sheep | 7.7 | 7.7 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
| - | ^ goats | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.0 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | 12.1 | 12.6 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 13.1 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 13.3 | | + | ^ swine | 13.0 | 13.4 | 13.2 | |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.89 | | + | ^ laying hens | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.90 | |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ geese | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | | + | ^ geese | 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 | 0.70 | |
| - | ^ mean TAN contents in % | + | ^ mean TAN contents in % |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | 74.3 | 74.1 | 73.8 | 73.7 | 73.3 | 73.2 | 73.0 | 73.0 | 72.9 | 72.9 | 72.8 | 72.7 | 72.7 | 72.7 | | + | ^ swine | 72.0 | 71.7 | 71.1 | 71.8 | 72.3 | 72.1 | 71.9 | 71.8 | 71.7 | 71.8 | 71.7 | 71.6 | 71.5 | 71.4 | 71.3 | |
| - | ^ laying hens | 70.3 | 69.6 | 69.1 | 69.4 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.1 | 70.2 | 70.1 | 70.1 | 70.1 | 70.1 | 70.1 | | + | ^ laying hens | 70.2 | 69.6 | 69.0 | 69.3 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.0 | 70.2 | 70.2 | 70.2 | 70.2 | 70.2 | 70.2 | 70.2 | |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | 49.9 | | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ 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 | 70.0 | |
| - | + | ||
| - | **N mass flow and emission assessment** | + | |
| - | The calculation of the emissions of NH< | + | == N mass flow and emission assessment == |
| + | 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 174: | Line 139: | ||
| //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< | //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 | + | The model 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 represented. |
| + | During storage Norg can be transformed into TAN and vice versa. Both, the way and the magnitude | ||
| - | **Air scrubber systems in swine and poultry housings** | + | == Air scrubber systems in swine and poultry housings |
| + | For pig and poultry production the inventory model 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 | + | According to the KTBL data, 7.5 % of all pig places were equipped with certified systems in 2020, another 0.7 % were equipped with non-certified systems. For poultry 0.6 % of all laying hen places |
| + | The amounts of NH<sub>3</ | ||
| - | According to the KTBL data, 7.3 % of all pig places were equipped with certified systems in 2019, another 0.7 % were equipped with non-certified systems. For poultry 0.6 % of all laying hen places | + | == Anaerobic digestion of manure == |
| - | The amounts of NH< | + | According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion |
| - | **Anaerobic digestion of manure** | + | NH< |
| - | + | ||
| - | According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion of manure is treated like a particular storage type that, however, comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | 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< |
| - | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Rösemann | + | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2022), Chapters 4 to 8; for emission factors of digested manure see Vos et al. (2022), Chapter 3.4.4.2.4. Table 3 provides, by animal category, the implied NH< |
| - | The detailed emission factors for N< | + | The detailed emission factors for N< |
| - | + | ||
| - | All NO< | + | |
| Table 3 shows the implied emission factors of NH< | Table 3 shows the implied emission factors of NH< | ||
| //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 |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.83 | | + | ^ sheep | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | |
| - | ^ goats | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | 4.42 | 4.41 | 4.37 | 4.32 | 4.19 | 4.15 | 4.12 | 4.12 | 4.11 | 4.09 | 4.10 | 4.10 | 4.11 | 4.10 | | + | ^ swine | 4.60 | 4.50 | 4.37 | 4.30 | 4.13 | 4.07 | 4.03 | 4.00 | 3.98 | 4.02 | 4.00 | 3.98 | 3.97 | 3.94 | |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.214 | 0.203 | 0.203 | 0.200 | 0.142 | 0.144 | 0.144 | 0.145 | 0.145 | 0.145 | 0.146 | 0.146 | 0.147 | 0.147 | | + | ^ laying hens | 0.212 | 0.203 | 0.199 | 0.198 | 0.142 | 0.144 | 0.144 | 0.145 | 0.146 | 0.146 | 0.147 | 0.147 | 0.148 | 0.149 | 0.150 | |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.189 | 0.188 | 0.188 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.185 | 0.185 | 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 | 0.384 | 0.384 | 0.384 | 0.383 | 0.380 | 0.380 | 0.380 | 0.379 | 0.379 | 0.378 | 0.378 | 0.378 | 0.378 | 0.378 | 0.378 | |
| - | ^ IEF in kg NOₓ per animal place ||||||||||||||| | + | ^ IEF in kg NOₓ per animal place |||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | | + | ^ swine | 0.011 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00026 | 0.00029 | 0.00035 | 0.00035 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00033 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | | + | ^ laying hens | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00026 | 0.00029 | 0.00035 | 0.00035 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 | 0.00034 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.00024 | 0.00024 | 0.00024 | 0.00025 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00026 | 0.00026 | | + | ^ ducks | 0.00024 | 0.00024 | 0.00024 | 0.00025 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 | 0.00027 |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.00024 | 0.00024 | 0.00025 | 0.00027 | 0.00030 | 0.00030 | 0.00028 | 0.00029 | 0.00028 | 0.00029 | 0.00029 | 0.00029 | 0.00028 | 0.00028 | 0.00028 |
| - | + | ||
| - | **Trend discussion for Key Sources** | + | |
| - | Dairy cattle, other cattle and swine are key sources of NH< | + | == Trend discussion for Key Sources == |
| + | 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< | ||
| + | The total emissions of NH< | ||
| + | ([[sector: | ||
| - | 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< | + | The overall |
| - | This is predominantly | + | |
| - | The NH< | + | //Tables REC-1 and REC-2: Comparison of the NH< |
| - | The NH< | + | ^ NH₃ emissions from manure management, |
| + | | | ||
| + | ^ Total | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other cattle | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Swine | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ poultry | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other animals | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| - | The overall NH< | + | ^ NOₓ emissions from manure |
| - | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.5.2.. | + | ^ |
| + | ^ Total | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other cattle | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Swine | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ poultry | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other animals | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| - | //Tables REC-1 and REC-2: Comparison of the NH< | + | == Planned improvements == |
| + | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| - | ^ NH3 emissions from manure management, in Gg |||||||||||||||| | ||
| - | | | ||
| - | ^ Total | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Other cattle | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Swine | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ poultry | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Other animals | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | |||
| - | ^ NOx emissions from manure management, in Gg ^||||||||||||||| | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Total | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Other cattle | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Swine | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ poultry | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Other animals | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | **Planned improvements** | ||
| - | |||
| - | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| ===== NMVOC ===== | ===== NMVOC ===== | ||
| + | In 2020, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 289.8 which is 96.9 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.7 % originate from cattle, 4.8 % from pigs, and 9.4 % from poultry. | ||
| - | + | ==== Method | |
| - | 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: | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | **Method** | + | |
| 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. | 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. | ||
| - | ** 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 2022, 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 2021, Chapter 5.1.3.3, | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, |
| - | * 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 2021, 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 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 (2019)-3B-29, | + | |
| - | * FRACsilage store: 0.25 as proposed by EMEP (2019)-3B-30 for European conditions | + | |
| - | * EFNMVOC silage_feeding, | + | |
| - | * EFNH3, | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, | + | |
| - | 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 | + | |
| 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, 2019) , hence the EF of broilers has been adopted (because of similar housing). This assumption significantly lowers the overall IEF of other poultry in Table 4 the IEFs are listed separately for each poultry category). The IEF of the sheep category is significantly lower than the EMEP Tier 1 emission factor, because for lambs the EF is assumed to be 40% lower compared to an adult sheep in accordance with the difference in N excretion between lambs and adult sheep. | + | 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, 2019), hence the EF of broilers has been adopted (because of similar housing). This assumption significantly lowers the overall IEF of other poultry in Table 4 the IEFs are listed separately for each poultry category). The IEF of the sheep category is significantly lower than the EMEP Tier 1 emission factor, because for lambs the EF is assumed to be 40% lower compared to an adult sheep in accordance with the difference in N excretion between lambs and adult sheep. |
| //Table 4: IEF for NMVOC from manure management// | //Table 4: IEF for NMVOC from manure management// | ||
| - | ^ IEF in kg NMVOC per animal place ^|||||||||||||| | + | ^ IEF in kg NMVOC per animal place |||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ ^ 1990 | + | ^ ^ 1990 |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.132 | 0.132 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.131 | | + | ^ sheep | 0.131 | 0.131 | 0.132 | |
| - | ^ goats | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | 0.542 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | 0.695 | 0.698 | 0.690 | 0.682 | 0.669 | 0.663 | 0.656 | 0.654 | 0.652 | 0.651 | 0.649 | 0.648 | 0.648 | 0.648 | | + | ^ swine | 0.695 | 0.698 | 0.690 | 0.682 | 0.669 | 0.663 | 0.656 | 0.654 | 0.652 | 0.651 | 0.649 | 0.648 | 0.648 | |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | 0.165 | | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ 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 |
| - | ^ 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 |
| - | **Trend discussion for Key Sources** | + | === 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 = 0.887; other cattle: R² = 0.998). | ||
| - | Dairy cattle and other cattle are key sources | + | === Recalculations === |
| + | All time series | ||
| - | **Recalculations** | ||
| - | All time series of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated since 1990. Table REC-3 compares the recalculated time series | + | //Table REC-3: Comparison |
| - | Emissions of other animals remained unchanged. Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.5.2. | + | |
| + | ^ NMVOC emissions from manure management, in Gg ||||||||||||||||| | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Total ^ 2022 | 391.24 | 332.95 | 318.87 | 298.26 | 297.23 | 297.42 | 299.37 | 304.56 | 306.95 | 305.72 | 302.74 | 299.98 | 296.20 | 293.49 | 289.79 | | ||
| + | ^ ^ 2021 | 390.80 | 332.18 | 318.01 | 297.65 | 296.79 | 297.13 | 299.17 | 304.38 | 306.74 | 305.38 | 303.07 | 300.94 | 297.86 | 295.83 | | | ||
| + | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| + | ^ ^ 2021 | 196.61 | 170.97 | 162.10 | 155.50 | 155.75 | 157.45 | 157.39 | 159.40 | 162.04 | 162.45 | 161.82 | 161.15 | 160.81 | 160.84 | | | ||
| + | ^ Other cattle | ||
| + | ^ ^ 2021 | 153.72 | 124.27 | 117.29 | 102.54 | 101.14 | 97.38 | 96.89 | 98.11 | 98.00 | 97.00 | 95.83 | 94.23 | 91.95 | 90.15 | | | ||
| + | ^ Other animals | ||
| + | ^ ^ 2021 | 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 | 44.84 | | | ||
| - | //Table REC-3: Comparison of NMVOC emissions of the submissions (SUB) 2020 and 2021// | + | === Planned improvements |
| - | + | ||
| - | ^ NMVOC emissions from manure management, in Gg | + | |
| - | ^ ^ SUB ^ 1990 | + | |
| - | ^ Total ^ 2021 | 390.80 | 332.18 | 318.01 | 297.65 | 296.79 | 297.13 | 299.17 | 304.38 | 306.74 | 305.38 | 303.07 | 300.94 | 297.86 | 295.83 | | + | |
| - | ^ ^ 2020 | 439.44 | 365.76 | 344.98 | 320.23 | 317.25 | 317.26 | 318.95 | 324.80 | 326.92 | 325.45 | 322.84 | 320.20 | 316.49 | | | + | |
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | + | |
| - | ^ ^ 2020 | 231.88 | 194.00 | 177.13 | 167.50 | 166.57 | 168.13 | 167.69 | 170.01 | 172.37 | 172.58 | 171.57 | 170.89 | 169.97 | | | + | |
| - | ^ Other cattle | + | |
| - | ^ ^ 2020 | 167.09 | 134.83 | 129.24 | 113.12 | 110.78 | 106.84 | 106.37 | 107.92 | 107.84 | 106.95 | 105.84 | 103.75 | 101.42 | | | + | |
| - | ^ Other animals | + | |
| - | ^ ^ 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** | + | |
| No improvements are planned at present. | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| ===== TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 ===== | ===== TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 ===== | ||
| + | In 2020, TSP emissions from manure management amount to 71.3 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Within the emissions from manure management 22.5 % originate from cattle, 39.5 % from pigs, and 37.4 % from poultry. 42.8 % of the PM< | ||
| + | ==== Method ==== | ||
| + | EMEP (2013-3B-26) 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. Therfore, 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 simply 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 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< | + | === Activity data === |
| - | + | ||
| - | **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< | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | **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 386: | Line 323: | ||
| //Table 5: IEF for TSP, PM< | //Table 5: IEF for TSP, PM< | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | | **IEF in kg TSP per animal place** | + | | **IEF in kg TSP per animal place** |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ goats | 0.0914 |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ ducks | 0.1400 |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ geese | 0.2400 |
| - | | **IEF in kg PM< | + | | **IEF in kg PM< |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ goats | 0.0368 |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ ducks | 0.1400 |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ geese | 0.2400 |
| - | | **IEF in kg PM< | + | | **IEF in kg PM< |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ goats | 0.0112 |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ laying hens | 0.0030 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ ducks | 0.0180 |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ geese | 0.0320 |
| - | **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 | + | ==== Recalculations ==== |
| + | Table REC-4 shows the effects | ||
| - | ** Recalculations** | + | //Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< |
| - | Table REC-4 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Changes in the years 1990 through 1999 are a consequence of the update of the dairy cow model (**recalculation reason 1**, see [[sector: | + | ^ TSP, PM10, PM2.5 emissions from manure management, in Gg ||||||||||||||||| |
| + | ^ ^ SUB | ||
| + | ^ TSP ^ 2022 | 50.04 | 42.24 | 42.43 | 41.25 | 40.30 | 41.80 | 43.95 | 45.14 | 45.45 | 44.74 | 44.54 | 44.59 | 43.65 | 43.04 | 42.99 | | ||
| + | ^ TSP | ||
| + | ^ PM<sub>10</ | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| - | //Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | ||
| - | |||
| - | ^ TSP, PM10, PM2.5 emissions from manure management, in Gg |||||||||||||||| | ||
| - | ^ ^ SUB | ||
| - | ^ TSP ^ 2021 | 50.04 | 42.24 | 42.44 | 41.26 | 40.32 | 41.79 | 43.90 | 45.06 | 45.33 | 44.58 | 44.35 | 44.40 | 43.55 | 42.90 | | ||
| - | ^ TSP ^ 2020 | 50.26 | 42.41 | 42.44 | 41.26 | 40.32 | 41.79 | 43.91 | 45.07 | 45.36 | 44.61 | 44.39 | 44.44 | 43.62 | | | ||
| - | ^ PM< | ||
| - | ^ PM< | ||
| - | ^ PM< | ||
| - | ^ PM< | ||
| - | |||
| - | ** Planned improvements** | ||
| + | <WRAP center round info 60%> | ||
| + | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2019**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | ===== 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: | ||