meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2021/12/25 11:28] – [Table] doering | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2023/05/05 10:46] (current) – [Country specifics] doering | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 35: | Line 35: | ||
| {{ : | {{ : | ||
| - | In 2020, NH< | + | In 2021, NH< |
| - | 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 96.8 % (281.2 kt) from total agricultural NMVOC emissions (290.6 kt). |
| - | In 2020, manure management contributed, | + | In 2021, 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. 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 | + | 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 |
| - | 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, | + | 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 | 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 | 1'780.3 | | + | | 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 | 1,780.3 | |
| - | | 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 | 154.9 | | + | | 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 | 154.9 | 158.9 | |
| - | | 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 | 21'622.0 | | + | | 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 | 21,622.0 | 19, |
| - | | 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 | 54'477.6 | | + | | 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 | 54,477.6 | 55, |
| - | | 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 | 2'209.1 | 2'181.9 | 2'154.6 | 2'127.4 | | + | | 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 | 2,127.4 | 2,127.4 | |
| - | | 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 | 323.5 | | + | | 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 | |
| - | | 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, 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' |
| ---- | ---- | ||
| ==== 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 Voss et al. (2022), 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 |
| Most of the data mentioned above is not available from official statistics and was obtained from literature, from publications by agricultural associations, | Most of the data mentioned above is not available from official statistics and was obtained from literature, from publications by agricultural associations, | ||
| + | |||
| 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/ | ||
| RAUMIS did not model complete time series but only selected years. RAUMIS data for the years 1991, 1995, and 1999 are used in the inventory for years 1990 – 1993, 1994 – 1997, and 1998 – 1999, respectively. | RAUMIS did not model complete time series but only selected years. RAUMIS data for the years 1991, 1995, and 1999 are used in the inventory for years 1990 – 1993, 1994 – 1997, and 1998 – 1999, respectively. | ||
| - | For the year 2010, respective data are used that were derived from the 2010 official agricultural census and the simultaneous survey of agricultural production methods (Landwirtschaftliche Zählung 2010, Statistisches Bundesamt/ Federal Statistical Office) as well as the 2011 survey on manure application practices (Erhebung über Wirtschaftsdüngerausbringung, | + | For the year 2009, respective data are used that were derived from the 2010 official agricultural census and the simultaneous survey of agricultural production methods (Landwirtschaftliche Zählung 2010, Statistisches Bundesamt/ Federal Statistical Office) as well as the 2011 survey on manure application practices (Erhebung über Wirtschaftsdüngerausbringung, |
| 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 the year 2020 data from the 2020 official agricultural census (Landwirtschaftszählung 2020) are used for housing systems, storage systems and manure spreading systems. | + | The gaps between the latest RAUMIS model data (1999) and the first official data (2009) were closed by linear interpolation on district level. For the year 2019 data from the 2020 official agricultural census (Landwirtschaftszählung 2020, LW20) are used for housing systems, storage systems and manure spreading systems. |
| - | For 2011 to 2019 the housing and storage systems data was linearly interpolated between the censuses of 2010 and 2020. The data on manure spreading techniques was linearly interpolated between the census data from 2010 and 2015, and for 2016 to 2019 between the censuses conducted in 2015 and 2020. In addition, it was taken into account that, as of 2012, slurry spread on bare soil has to be incorporated within four hours. For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Vos et al. (2022), Chapter | + | For 2010 to 2018 the housing and storage systems data was linearly interpolated between the censuses of 2010 and 2020. The data on manure spreading techniques was linearly interpolated between the census data from 2009 and 2015, and for 2016 to 2018 between the censuses conducted in 2016 and 2020. In addition, it was taken into account that, as of 2012, slurry spread on bare soil has to be incorporated within four hours. For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Rösemann |
| ===== NH₃ and NOₓ ===== | ===== NH₃ and NOₓ ===== | ||
| Line 94: | Line 95: | ||
| == N excretion == | == N excretion == | ||
| - | In order to determine NH< | + | In order to determine NH< |
| - | Vos et al. (2022), Chapter | + | |
| //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 ^ 2020 ^ | + | ^ ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2011 ^ 2012 ^ 2013 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 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 | 11.0 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | 13.0 | 13.4 | 13.2 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.0 | 13.0 | | + | ^ swine | 13.0 | 13.4 | 13.2 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 12.6 | 12.6 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 12.6 | 12.6 | 12.5 | 12.4 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.90 | | + | ^ laying hens | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.89 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.61 | | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.70 | | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 50.0 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ 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 | | + | ^ swine | 72.0 | 71.7 | 71.1 | 71.8 | 72.3 | 72.0 | 71.8 | 71.7 | 71.5 | 71.6 | 71.4 | 71.2 | 71.1 | 71.0 | 70.8 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 70.2 | | + | ^ laying hens | 70.2 | 69.6 | 69.0 | 69.3 | 70.0 | 70.0 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 70.0 | | + | ^ geese |
| == N mass flow and emission assessment == | == N mass flow and emission assessment == | ||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
| 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. | 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 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 Vos et al. (2022), Chapters 3.3.4.3 and 3.3.4.4. Wherever NH< | + | During storage Norg can be transformed into TAN and vice versa. Both, the way and the magnitude 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 |
| == 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 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) |
| - | According to the KTBL data, 7.5 % of all pig places were equipped with certified | + | According to the KTBL data, 6.6 % of all pig places were equipped with ”first class” |
| - | 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< | ||
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
| The detailed NH< | The detailed NH< | ||
| - | 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 | + | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Rösemann |
| - | The detailed emission factors for N< | + | Table 3 provides, by animal category, the implied NH< |
| + | |||
| + | The the detailed emission factors for N< | ||
| 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 ^ 2020 ^ | + | | ^ 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 |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 0.82 | 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 | 1.62 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ 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 | 3.92 | | + | ^ swine | 4.53 | 4.45 | 4.33 | 4.25 | 4.08 | 4.01 | 3.94 | 3.89 | 3.84 | 3.86 | 3.81 | 3.77 | 3.73 | 3.67 | |
| - | ^ 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 | | + | ^ laying hens | 0.214 | 0.206 | 0.211 | 0.209 | 0.137 | 0.138 | 0.136 | 0.135 | 0.133 | 0.132 | 0.130 | 0.129 | 0.128 | 0.126 | 0.125 | 0.125 | |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ 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 | | + | ^ ducks | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.193 | 0.192 | 0.189 | 0.188 | 0.188 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.185 | 0.185 | 0.185 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.185 | 0.185 | |
| - | ^ 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 | | + | ^ 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 | 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 | 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 | 0.013 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ 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 | | + | ^ swine | 0.011 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.011 | |
| - | ^ 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 | | + | ^ laying hens | 0.00027 | 0.00026 | 0.00025 | 0.00029 | 0.00035 | 0.00035 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 | 0.00033 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 0.00024 | 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 | | + | ^ 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 |
| == 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< | + | 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: | + | |
| - | The overall NH< | ||
| - | //Tables REC-1 and REC-2: Comparison of the NH< | + | The NH< |
| + | ([[sector: | ||
| - | ^ NH₃ emissions from manure management, in Gg | ||
| - | | | ||
| - | ^ Total | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Other cattle | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Swine | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ poultry | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ Other animals | ||
| - | ^ | ||
| - | ^ NOₓ emissions from manure management, in Gg ||||||||||||||||| | + | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2023), Chapter 1.3. |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | ^ Total | + | //Tables REC-1 and REC-2: Comparison of the NH< |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | + | ^ NH₃ emissions from manure management, in Gg |||||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ | + | | |
| - | ^ Other cattle | + | ^ Total |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ Swine | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ poultry | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ Other animals | + | ^ Swine |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| + | ^ poultry | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other animals | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^ NOₓ emissions from manure management, in Gg |||||||||||||||||| | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Total | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Dairy cattle | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other cattle | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Swine | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ poultry | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| + | ^ Other animals | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| Line 242: | Line 249: | ||
| ===== 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 2021, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 281.2 kt which is 96.8 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.6 % originate from cattle, 4.5 % from pigs, and 9.7 % 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 ==== | ||
| - | 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. The use of the Tier 2 methodology deliversyields NMVOC emissions which formally could be reported in the sectors 3.D.a.2.a (application of manure to soils) and 3.D.a.3 (grazing emissions). However, to be congruent with the NMVOC emissions for other animal categories, Germany reports these emissions in the NMVOC emissions reported from manure management (3.B). For the NFR codes 3.D.a.2.a |
| === Activity data === | === Activity data === | ||
| Line 254: | Line 259: | ||
| === 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 2023, 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// | ||
| - | ^ 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 | 0.131 | | + | ^ 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 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 0.642 | | + | ^ 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 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 = 0.895; 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 = 0.867; other cattle: R² = 0.993). |
| === 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 | + | 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 of other animals | + | For other animals |
| - | //Table REC-3: Comparison of NMVOC emissions of the submissions (SUB) 2020 and 2021// | ||
| - | ^ NMVOC emissions from manure management, in Gg ||||||||||||||||| | + | //Table REC-3: Comparison of NMVOC emissions of the submissions (SUB) 2022 and 2023// |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | ^ Total | + | ^ NMVOC emissions from manure management, in Gg |||||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | + | ^ Total |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ Other cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ Other animals | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| + | ^ Other animals | ||
| + | ^ | ||
| === Planned improvements === | === Planned improvements === | ||
| Line 310: | Line 316: | ||
| ===== 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 | + | In 2021, TSP emissions from manure management amount to 60.6 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Within the emissions from manure management |
| ==== 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 326: | ||
| === 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 326: | Line 332: | ||
| //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 |
| - | ^ 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 of TSP emissions from manure management. The total TSP emissions from swine mainly follow the animal numbers given in Table 1 for the earlier years of the time series. However, due to increases in places equipped with 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. | + | 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< | + | ^ |
| + | ^ ^ SUB | ||
| + | ^ TSP ^ 2023 | 50.03 | 42.23 | 42.39 | 41.09 | 39.83 | 41.23 | 43.26 | 44.30 | 44.48 | 43.62 | 43.28 | 43.26 | 42.22 | 41.51 | 41.37 | 39.59 | | ||
| + | ^ 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 | | | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| + | ^ PM< | ||
| - | ^ 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 ^ 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< | ||
| + | <WRAP center round info 60%> | ||
| + | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2020**, 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. | ||