meta data for this page
  •  

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2021/12/25 11:28] – [Table] doeringsector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2022/09/15 13:44] (current) – [Country specifics] Fix link hausmann
Line 14: Line 14:
 | 3.B.4.h                                          | Other animals                                                                                                            |                                                                                                     | NE                                                              | | 3.B.4.h                                          | Other animals                                                                                                            |                                                                                                     | NE                                                              |
  
-^  Key Category  ^  SO₂     ^  NOₓ  ^  NH₃  ^  NMVOC  ^  CO   ^  BC   ^  Pb   ^  Hg   ^  Cd   ^  Diox  ^  PAH  ^  HCB  ^  TSP  ^  PM₁₀  ^  PM₂ ₅  ^ +^  Key Category  ^  NO<sub>x</sub>  ^  NMVOC  ^  SO<sub>2</sub>  ^  NH<sub>3</sub>  ^  PM<sub>2.5</sub>  ^  PM<sub>10</sub>  ^  TSP  ^  BC  ^  CO  ^  Pb  ^  Cd  ^  Hg  ^  Diox  ^  PAH  ^  HCB  ^ 
-| 3.B.1.a         |  -          |  -/-  |  L/T  |  L/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  -/-  |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.1.a        |  -/-             |  L/-     -               |  L/-             |  L/-               |  L/             |  -/-    |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 3.B.1.b         |  -          |  -/-  |  L/T  |  L/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  -/-  |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.1.b        |  -/-             |  L/-     -               |  L/T             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  -/-    |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 3.B.2           |  -          |  -/-  |  -/-  |  -/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  -/-  |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.2          |  -/-             |  -/-     -               |  -/-             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  -/-    |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 3.B.3           |  -          |  -/-  |  L/T  |  -/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  L/ |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.3          |  -/-             |  -/-     -               |  L/T             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  L/-  |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 3.B.4.d         |  -          |  -/-  |  -/-  |  -/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  -/-  |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.4.d        |  -/-             |  -/-     -               |  -/-             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  -/-    |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 3.B.4.e         |  -          |  -/-  |  -/-  |  -/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  -/-  |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.4.e        |  -/-             |  -/-     -               |  -/-             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  -/-    |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 3.B.4.g.i       |  -          |  -/-  |  -/-  |  -/-    |  -    |  -     -    |  -    |  -    |  -     |  -    |  -    |  L/ |  -/-   |  -/-    | +| 3.B.4.g.i      |  -/-             |  -/-     -               |  -/-             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  L/-  |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    | 
-| 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     |  -/-             |  -/-     -               |  -/-             |  -/-               |  -/-              |  -/-    |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -   |  -     |  -    |  -    |
  
  {{page>general:Misc:LegendEIT:start}}  {{page>general:Misc:LegendEIT:start}}
Line 38: Line 38:
  
  
-NO<sub>x</sub> emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contribute only 1.3 % (~ 1.4 kt) to the total agricultural NO<sub>x</sub> emissions. They are calculated proportionally to N<sub>2</sub>O emissions, see Vos et al. (2022) ((VosC., Rösemann C., Haenel H-D., Dämmgen U., Döring U., Wulf S., Eurich-Menden B., Freibauer A., Döhler H., Schreiner C., Osterburg B. & FußR(2022)Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German Agriculture 1990 –2020Report on methods and data (RMD)Submission 2022. Thünen Report (in preparation). https://www.thuenen.de/de/ak/arbeitsbereiche/emissionsinventare)).+NO<sub>x</sub> emissions from category 3.B (manure management) contribute only 1.3 % (~ 1.4 kt) to the total agricultural NO<sub>x</sub> emissions. They are calculated proportionally to N<sub>2</sub>O emissions, see Vos et al. (2022) ((Vos C, Rösemann C, Haenel H-D, Dämmgen U, Döring U, Wulf S, Eurich-Menden B, Freibauer A, Döhler H, Schreiner C, Osterburg BFuß R (2022) Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German agriculture 1990 – 2020 Report on methods and data (RMD) Submission 2022. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 452 p, Thünen Rep 91, DOI:10.3220/REP1646725833000. https://www.thuenen.de/de/fachinstitute/agrarklimaschutz/arbeitsbereiche/emissionsinventare)).
  
 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 242: Line 242:
  
 ===== NMVOC ===== ===== NMVOC =====
-In 2019, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 295.8 which is 97.% of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.% originate from cattle, 4.% from pigs, and 9.4 % from poultry. +In 2020, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 289.8 which is 96.% of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.% originate from cattle, 4.% 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:adjustments:adjustment_de-c|Adjustments and Emissions Reduction Commitments]]). +
  
 ==== 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<sub>house</sub> of the year the animals spend in the livestock building: country specific data, being equal to 1 – x<sub>graz</sub> with x<sub>graz</sub> the proportion of the year spent on pasture, see NIR 2021, Chapter 19.3.2,+   * proportion x<sub>house</sub> of the year the animals spend in the livestock building: country specific data, being equal to 1 – x<sub>graz</sub> with x<sub>graz</sub> the proportion of the year spent on pasture, see NIR 2022, Chapter 19.3.2,
    * FRAC<sub>silage</sub>: 1 as proposed by EMEP (2019)-3B-29, since silage feeding for cattle is considered dominant in Germany    * FRAC<sub>silage</sub>: 1 as proposed by EMEP (2019)-3B-29, since silage feeding for cattle is considered dominant in Germany
    * FRAC<sub>silage store</sub>: 0.25 as proposed by EMEP (2019)-3B-30 for European conditions    * FRAC<sub>silage store</sub>: 0.25 as proposed by EMEP (2019)-3B-30 for European conditions
    * EF<sub>NMVOC, silage_feeding</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, house</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, graz</sub> are taken from EMEP (2019)-3B-32, table 3.11 as 0.0002002, 0.0000353 and 0.0000069 kg NMVOC/MJ feed intake, respectively,    * EF<sub>NMVOC, silage_feeding</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, house</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, graz</sub> are taken from EMEP (2019)-3B-32, table 3.11 as 0.0002002, 0.0000353 and 0.0000069 kg NMVOC/MJ feed intake, respectively,
-   * EF<sub>NH₃,storage</sub>, EF<sub>NH₃,building</sub> and EF<sub>NH₃,application<sub> are taken from the NH<sub>3</sub> reporting (see above and 3.D).+   * EF<sub>NH₃,storage</sub>, EF<sub>NH₃,building</sub> and EF<sub>NH₃,application</sub> are taken from the NH<sub>3</sub> reporting (see above and 3.D).
  
-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/light horses and pullets, see Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.3.4.2. +For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, Table 3.4 [10]: 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/light horses and pullets, see Vos et al. (2022), Chapter 3.3.4.2. 
-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.+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  cattle sector (**recalculation reasons 1 through 4**, see [[sector:agriculture:start|main page of the agricultural sector]]). +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 lower in some years and skightly higher in other years. This is due to improved methodology for the suckler cows (**recalculation reason 4**, see [[sector:agriculture:start|main page of the agricultural sector]]).and the use of the data from the official agricultural census of 2020 (recalculation reason 1) which are changing the NH3 emissions that have impact to the Tier 2 methodology which is applied for cattle NMVOC emissions. For other animals there are differences back to the year 2017. These differences are caused by updated animal numbers (see above). Further details on recalculations are described in Vos et al. (2022), Chapter 3.5.2.
-Emissions of other animals remained unchanged. Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.5.2.+
  
  
-//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.% of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Within the emissions from manure management 22.% originate from cattle, 39.% from pigs, and 37.% from poultry. 42.% of the PM<sub>10</sub> emissions from the agricultural sector are caused by manure management, where 34.% originate from cattle, 18.% from pigs, and 46.% from poultry. PM<sub>2.5</sub> emissions from the agricultural sector mostly originate from manure management (84.%), of which are 77.% from cattle, 3.0 % from pigs, and 18.% from poultry.+In 2020, TSP emissions from manure management amount to 71.% of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Within the emissions from manure management 22.% originate from cattle, 39.% from pigs, and 37.% from poultry. 42.% of the PM<sub>10</sub> emissions from the agricultural sector are caused by manure management, where 34.% originate from cattle, 19.% from pigs, and 45.% from poultry. PM<sub>2.5</sub> emissions from the agricultural sector mostly originate from manure management (84.%), of which are 78.% from cattle, 3.0 % from pigs, and 17.% from poultry.
  
 ==== Method ==== ==== 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. +EMEP (2013-3B-26provided 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<sub>10</sub>, 70 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub>). For details see Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.3.4.3.3.+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<sub>10</sub>, 70 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub>). For details see Vos et al. (2022), Chapter 3.3.4.3.3.
  
 === Activity data === === Activity data ===
Line 320: Line 317:
  
 === Emission factors === === Emission factors ===
-Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM<sub>10</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> from livestock husbandry are provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-19, Table 3.5 and 55, Table A1.7. For cattle the Tier 2 emission factors provided in EMEP (2013)-3B-29, Table 3-11 were used, because they differentiate between slurry and solid manure systems and were also used to develop the EMEP 2019 Tier 1 emissions factors.+Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM<sub>10</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> from livestock husbandry are provided in EMEP (2019-3B-19), Table 3.5 and 55, Table A1.7. For cattle the Tier 2 emission factors provided in EMEP (2013-3B-29), Table 3-11 were used, because they differentiate between slurry and solid manure systems and were also used to develop the EMEP 2019 Tier 1 emissions factors.
  
 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<sup>2</sup> of the linear regression is lower than 1 (0.79). For laying hens and broilers, due to the low prevalence of air scrubbing systems. TSP emissions almost perfectly correlate with the animal numbers provided in Table 1 (R<sup>2</sup> = 1).+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<sup>2</sup> of the linear regression is lower than 1 (0.78). For laying hens and broilers, due to the low prevalence of air scrubbing systems. TSP emissions almost perfectly correlate with the animal numbers provided in Table 1 (R<sup>2</sup> = 1).
  
 ==== Recalculations ==== ==== Recalculations ====
-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:agriculture:start|main page of the agricultural sector]]). This update includes a modified calculation of the share of year spent on pasture, resulting in longer grazing periods and therefore lower emissions of particulate matter from manure management in the years 1990 through 1999. Differences of TSP and PM emissions in the years as of 2005 are due to updated activity data of air scrubbing systems for sows, weaners, fattening pigs and broilers, see **recalculation reasons 8 and 10** on [[sector:agriculture:start|the main page of the agricultural sector]]. Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2021), Chapter 3.5.2.+Table REC-4 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Changes in the years 2000 through 2019 are a consequence of the use of the data of the official agricultural census 2020 as well as new animal population figures for the years 2017-2019 (**recalculation reason 1**, see [[sector:agriculture:start|main page of the agricultural sector]]). Further details on recalculations are described in Vos et al. (2022), Chapter 3.5.2.
  
-//Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM<sub>10</sub> & PM<sub>2.5</sub>) of the submissions (SUB) 2020 and 2021//+//Table REC-4: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM<sub>10</sub> & PM<sub>2.5</sub>) of the submissions (SUB) 2021 and 2022//
  
 ^  TSP, PM10, PM2.5 emissions from manure management, in Gg                                                                                                                                  ||||||||||||||||| ^  TSP, PM10, PM2.5 emissions from manure management, in Gg                                                                                                                                  |||||||||||||||||
Line 384: Line 381:
 ^ PM<sub>2.5</sub>                                            2021  |   5.01 |   4.47 |   4.18 |   3.89 |   3.86 |   3.86 |   3.91 |   4.01 |   4.01 |   3.97 |   3.91 |   3.88 |   3.80 |   3.72 |        | ^ PM<sub>2.5</sub>                                            2021  |   5.01 |   4.47 |   4.18 |   3.89 |   3.86 |   3.86 |   3.91 |   4.01 |   4.01 |   3.97 |   3.91 |   3.88 |   3.80 |   3.72 |        |
  
 +
 +<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:recalculations:start|chapter 8.1 - Recalculations]].
 +</WRAP>
 ===== Planned improvements ===== ===== Planned improvements =====
 No improvements are planned at present. No improvements are planned at present.