meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2021/12/25 12:27] – [Table] doering | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2024/11/06 14:47] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| | 3.B.4.h | | 3.B.4.h | ||
| - | ^ Key Category | + | ^ Key Category |
| - | | 3.B.1.a | + | | 3.B.1.a |
| - | | 3.B.1.b | + | | 3.B.1.b |
| - | | 3.B.2 | + | | 3.B.2 | -/- | -/- |
| - | | 3.B.3 | + | | 3.B.3 | -/- | -/- |
| - | | 3.B.4.d | + | | 3.B.4.d |
| - | | 3.B.4.e | + | | 3.B.4.e |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.i | + | | 3.B.4.g.i |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.ii | + | | 3.B.4.g.ii |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.iii | + | | 3.B.4.g.iii |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.iv | + | | 3.B.4.g.iv |
| | | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| - | NO< | + | NO< |
| NMVOC emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contributed 96.9 % (289.8 kt) from total agricultural NMVOC emissions (298.9 kt). | NMVOC emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contributed 96.9 % (289.8 kt) from total agricultural NMVOC emissions (298.9 kt). | ||
| Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
| //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 ^ 2020 ^ |
| ^ IEF in kg NH₃ per animal place |||||||||||||||| | ^ IEF in kg NH₃ per animal place |||||||||||||||| | ||
| ^ dairy cattle | ^ dairy cattle | ||
| Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
| ===== 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. | + | 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. |
| - | 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 ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| Line 254: | Line 252: | ||
| === 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, | + | * 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< | + | * proportion x< |
| * FRAC< | * FRAC< | ||
| * FRAC< | * FRAC< | ||
| * EF< | * EF< | ||
| - | * EF< | + | * EF< |
| - | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used 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 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. |
| 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// | ||
| Line 286: | Line 284: | ||
| === 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 = 0.895; other cattle: R² = 0.995). | + | 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). |
| === 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 | + | 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 slightly |
| - | Emissions | + | |
| - | //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) 2021 and 2022// |
| ^ NMVOC emissions from manure management, in Gg ||||||||||||||||| | ^ NMVOC emissions from manure management, in Gg ||||||||||||||||| | ||
| Line 310: | Line 307: | ||
| ===== 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< | + | 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 ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | EMEP (2013)-3B-26 | + | 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. |
| - | 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< | + | 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 === | === Activity data === | ||
| Line 320: | Line 317: | ||
| === 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 368: | Line 365: | ||
| ==== 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 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< |
| ==== Recalculations ==== | ==== Recalculations ==== | ||
| - | Table REC-4 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Changes in the years 1990 through | + | Table REC-4 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Changes in the years 2000 through |
| + | |||
| + | //Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | ||
| - | //Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | + | ^ |
| + | ^ ^ 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 ^ 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 | | | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ 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< | ||
| + | <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 ===== | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
| No improvements are planned at present. | No improvements are planned at present. | ||