meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2024/04/16 12:03] – [TSP, PM10 and PM2.5] kotzulla | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2024/11/06 13:54] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | ^ Key Category | + | ^ ^ NO< |
| - | | 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 54: | Line 54: | ||
| 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, 2022 poultry population figures are at 154.3 % of 1990. A detailed description of the animal numbers used can be found in the National Inventory Report 2024 2), Chapter 5.1.3.2.3. Emissions of deer, rabbits, ostrich and fur-bearing animals are reported since submission 2024, see Vos et al. (2024)[(Vos2024)]. The underlying animal numbers of these categories were estimated in different ways because there are no surveys which collect those animal numbers, for details see Vos et al, 2024, Chapter 2.3. However, the impact of those animal categories on the total emissions is small. | 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, 2022 poultry population figures are at 154.3 % of 1990. A detailed description of the animal numbers used can be found in the National Inventory Report 2024 2), Chapter 5.1.3.2.3. Emissions of deer, rabbits, ostrich and fur-bearing animals are reported since submission 2024, see Vos et al. (2024)[(Vos2024)]. The underlying animal numbers of these categories were estimated in different ways because there are no surveys which collect those animal numbers, for details see Vos et al, 2024, Chapter 2.3. However, the impact of those animal categories on the total emissions is small. | ||
| - | + | __Table 1: Population of animals, in [1,000 individuals]__ | |
| - | **// | + | | ^ 1990 |
| - | __Table 1: Population of animals, in [1000 individuals]__ | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | + | ^ other cattle | |
| - | ^ ^ Population of animals (in 1000) ||||||||||||| | + | ^ buffalo |
| - | | ^ 1990 | + | ^ mules and asses | IE |
| - | | dairy cattle | + | ^ horses |
| - | | other cattle | + | ^ sheep | |
| - | | buffalo | + | ^ goats | 90.0 | 100.0 | 140.0 | 170.0 | 149.9 | 135.9 | 138.8 | 142.8 | 146.9 | 150.9 | 154.9 | 158.9 | 163.0 | |
| - | | mules and asses | IE | + | ^ swine | 26,502.5 | 20,387.3 | 21,767.7 | 22,742.8 | 22,244.4 | 22,978.5 | 22,761.2 | 22,920.8 | 22,019.2 | 21,596.4 | 21,622.0 | 19,728.6 | 17,692.3 | |
| - | | horses | + | ^ laying hens | 53,450.5 | 47,575.8 | 48,640.0 | 43,641.6 | 41,700.5 | 50,619.3 | 51,935.5 | 52,571.1 | 53,206.6 | 53,842.1 | 54,477.6 | 55,324.7 | 57,092.7 | |
| - | | sheep | | + | ^ broilers |
| - | | goats | 90.0 | 100.0 | 140.0 | 170.0 | 149.9 | 135.9 | 138.8 | 142.8 | 146.9 | 150.9 | 154.9 | 158.9 | 163.0 | | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | | swine | 26.502,5 | 20.387,3 | 21.767,7 | 22.742,8 | 22.244,4 | 22.978,5 | 22.761,2 | 22.920,8 | 22.019,2 | 21.596,4 | 21.622,0 | 19.728,6 | 17.692,3 | | + | ^ pullets |
| - | | laying hens | 53.450,5 | 47.575,8 | 48.640,0 | 43.641,6 | 41.700,5 | 50.619,3 | 51.935,5 | 52.571,1 | 53.206,6 | 53.842,1 | 54.477,6 | 55.324,7 | 57.092,7 | | + | ^ ducks | |
| - | | broilers | + | ^ geese | |
| - | | turkeys | + | ^ deer |
| - | | pullets | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | | ducks | | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | | geese | | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | deer | + | |
| - | | rabbits | + | |
| - | | ostrich | + | |
| - | | fur animals | + | |
| ==== 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 Vos et al. (2024), Chapter 2 [(Vos2024)]. | 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 Vos et al. (2024), Chapter 2 [(Vos2024)]. | ||
| + | |||
| Most of the data regarding feed and performance is not available from official statistics and was obtained from literature, from publications by agricultural associations, | Most of the data regarding feed and performance 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. 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, | 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 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. 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 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 Vos et al. (2024), Chapter 2.5. Time series of frequency distributions of housing systems, storage systems and application techniques as well as the corresponding emission factors are provided in NID 2024, Chapter 17.3.1. | 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 (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 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 Vos et al. (2024), Chapter 2.5. Time series of frequency distributions of housing systems, storage systems and application techniques as well as the corresponding emission factors are provided in NID 2024, Chapter 17.3.1. | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| == N excretion == | == N excretion == | ||
| + | |||
| In order to determine NH< | In order to determine NH< | ||
| Line 134: | Line 135: | ||
| == N mass flow and emission assessment == | == N mass flow and emission assessment == | ||
| + | |||
| The calculation of the emissions of NH< | The calculation of the emissions of NH< | ||
| This approach differentiates between N excreted with faeces (organic nitrogen Norg, i. e. undigested feed N) and urine (total ammoniacal nitrogen TAN, i. e. fraction of feed N metabolized). The N flow within the manure management system is treated as depicted in the figure below. This method reconciles the requirements of both the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook for NH< | This approach differentiates between N excreted with faeces (organic nitrogen Norg, i. e. undigested feed N) and urine (total ammoniacal nitrogen TAN, i. e. fraction of feed N metabolized). The N flow within the manure management system is treated as depicted in the figure below. This method reconciles the requirements of both the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook for NH< | ||
| Line 161: | Line 163: | ||
| == 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< | ||
| Line 173: | Line 176: | ||
| __Table 3: IEF for NH< | __Table 3: IEF for NH< | ||
| - | | | + | ^ |
| - | ^ | + | | |
| - | | | | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ deer | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| - | ^ deer | | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | | |
| - | | | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ deer | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | |
| - | ^ deer | | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | |
| == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | ||
| Line 226: | Line 228: | ||
| - | __Table 4: REC-1: | + | __Table 4: REC-1: |
| - | | | + | | ^ 1990 |
| - | ^ Total | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | ::: | absolute change | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | | ::: | relative change [%] | 0.21 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.13 | | | + | ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | + | ^ relative change [%] | 0.21 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.13 | | |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** |
| - | ^ Other cattle | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | ^ Swine | current submission | + | | **thereof: from other cattle** |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | ^ Poultry | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | | **thereof: from swine** |
| - | ^ Other animals | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | + | | **thereof: from poultry** | |
| - | + | ^ current submission | |
| - | __Table 5: REC-2: Comparison of NO< | + | ^ previous submission |
| + | | **thereof: from other animals** |||||||||||||| | ||
| + | ^ current submission | ||
| + | ^ previous submission | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| - | | | + | __Table 5: REC-2: Revised NO< |
| - | ^ Total | + | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 ^ |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | ::: | absolute change | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | ::: | relative change [%] | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 1.26 | 1.14 | 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.10 | | | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | ^ Dairy cattle | + | ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ relative change [%] | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 1.26 | 1.14 | 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.10 | | |
| - | ^ Other cattle | + | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** |||||||||||||| |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | ^ Swine | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | | **thereof: from other cattle** |||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ Poultry | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | ^ Other animals | + | | **thereof: from swine** |
| - | | ::: | previous submission | + | ^ current submission |
| + | ^ previous submission | ||
| + | | **thereof: from poultry** | ||
| + | ^ current submission | ||
| + | ^ previous submission | ||
| + | | **thereof: from other animals** | ||
| + | ^ current submission | ||
| + | ^ previous submission | ||
| Line 291: | Line 304: | ||
| 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 | + | __Table |
| - | ^ ^ 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 | 0.132 | 0.131 | | + | ^ sheep |
| - | | 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 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | | swine | 0.695 | 0.698 | 0.690 | 0.682 | 0.669 | 0.651 | 0.649 | 0.648 | 0.648 | 0.648 | 0.642 | 0.645 | 0.643 | | + | ^ swine |
| - | | 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 | | + | ^ 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 | | + | ^ 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 | | + | ^ geese |
| - | | deer | + | ^ deer | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | |
| - | | rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | | ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | | fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| === Trend discussion for Key Sources === | === Trend discussion for Key Sources === | ||
| Line 319: | Line 332: | ||
| - | __Table | + | __Table |
| | ^ 1990 | | ^ 1990 | ||
| | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** | ||
| - | | current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | | absolute change | + | ^ absolute change |
| - | | relative change [%] | 0.12 | 0.45 | 0.86 | 1.26 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.15 | | | + | ^ relative change [%] | 0.12 | 0.45 | 0.86 | 1.26 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.15 | | |
| - | | **THEREOF: FROM DAIRY CATTLE** | + | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** |||||||||||||| |
| - | | current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | | **THEREOF: FROM OTHER CATTLE** | + | | **thereof: from other cattle** |||||||||||||| |
| - | | current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | | **THEREOF: FROM OTHER ANIMALS** | | + | | **thereof: from other animals** |
| - | | current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | | previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| === Planned improvements === | === Planned improvements === | ||
| Line 340: | Line 353: | ||
| No improvements are planned at present. | No improvements are planned at present. | ||
| - | ===== | + | ===== |
| In 2022, **TSP** emissions from manure management amount to 64.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. | In 2022, **TSP** emissions from manure management amount to 64.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. | ||
| Of these emissions 24.7 % originate from cattle, 32.0 % from pigs, and 42.6 % from poultry. | Of these emissions 24.7 % originate from cattle, 32.0 % from pigs, and 42.6 % from poultry. | ||
| - | 36.6 % of total **PM<SUB>10</SUB>** emissions from the agricultural sector are caused by manure management, where 35.7 % originate from cattle, 14.6 % from pigs, and 48.7 % from poultry. | + | 36.6 % of total **PM<sub>10</sub>** emissions from the agricultural sector are caused by manure management, where 35.7 % originate from cattle, 14.6 % from pigs, and 48.7 % from poultry. |
| - | 68.6 % of total //PM<SUB> | + | 68.6 % of total **PM<sub> |
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2019 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. Therefore, 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. For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)((Huis In’t Velt, J.W.H., Dousma, F., Nijboer, G.M. (2011): Gaseous Emissions and fine dust from rabbit housing systems. Livestock research Wageningen, Report 459.)), for ostriches the EFs of goats were used. 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< | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2019 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. Therefore, 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. For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)((Huis In’t Velt, J.W.H., Dousma, F., Nijboer, G.M. (2011): Gaseous Emissions and fine dust from rabbit housing systems. Livestock research Wageningen, Report 459.)), for ostriches the EFs of goats were used. 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< | ||
| Line 360: | Line 373: | ||
| 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). | ||
| - | //Table 5: IEF for TSP, PM< | + | __Table 8: IEF for TSP, PM< |
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | | | | + | | |
| - | | dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | | other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | | horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | | sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | | goats | + | ^ goats |
| - | | swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | | laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | | broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | | turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | | pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | | ducks | + | ^ ducks |
| - | | geese | + | ^ geese |
| - | | deer | 0,0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |
| - | | rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | | ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | | fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | | | + | | |
| - | | dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | | other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | | horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | | sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | | goats | + | ^ goats |
| - | | swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | | laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | | broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | | turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | | pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | | ducks | + | ^ ducks |
| - | | geese | + | ^ geese |
| - | | deer | 0,0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |
| - | | rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | | ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | | fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | | | + | | |
| - | | dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | | other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | | horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | | sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | | goats | + | ^ goats |
| - | | swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | | laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | | broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | | turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | | pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | | ducks | + | ^ ducks |
| - | | geese | + | ^ geese |
| - | | deer | 0,0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |
| - | | rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | | ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | | fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| ==== Trend discussion for Key Sources ==== | ==== Trend discussion for Key Sources ==== | ||
| Line 419: | Line 432: | ||
| ==== Recalculations ==== | ==== Recalculations ==== | ||
| - | Table 5 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Visible differences occur especially in the years before 2013, these are due to the correction of the numbers of laying hens and broilers (**recalculation No. 6**). The addition of new animal categories to the inventory (**recalculation No. 1**) shows only a very small effect. See [[sector: | + | The following table shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Visible differences occur especially in the years before 2013, these are due to the correction of the numbers of laying hens and broilers (**recalculation No. 6**). The addition of new animal categories to the inventory (**recalculation No. 1**) shows only a very small effect. See [[sector: |
| - | __Table | + | __Table |
| | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 ^ | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 ^ | ||
| | **TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES (TSP)** | | **TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES (TSP)** | ||
| - | ^ current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.05 | + | ^ relative change [%] | |
| - | | **PM< | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.15 | + | ^ relative change [%] | |
| - | | **PM< | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ current submission | + | ^ current submission |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | ^ previous submission |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.09 | + | ^ relative change [%] | |
| - | <WRAP center round info 60%> | + | <WRAP center round info 65%> |
| For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2021**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2021**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: | ||
| </ | </ | ||