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:agricultural_soils:start [2025/02/28 15:52] – [Recalculations] niebuhr | sector:agriculture:agricultural_soils:start [2025/04/28 16:31] (current) – [3.D.a.2.a - Animal manure applied to soils] tarakji | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| | 3.D.c | NA | NA | | 3.D.c | NA | NA | ||
| | 3.D.e | NA | -/- | NA | NA | NA | NA | | 3.D.e | NA | -/- | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||
| - | | 3.D.f | NA | NA | + | | 3.D.f | NA | NA |
| | | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| ==== Emission factors ==== | ==== Emission factors ==== | ||
| - | The emission factors for NH< | + | The emission factors for NH< |
| __Table 2: Synthetic fertilizers, | __Table 2: Synthetic fertilizers, | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| - | __Table 4: REC-1: Revised | + | __Table 4: Comparison of NH< |
| ^ NH3 and NOx emissions from fertilizer application, | ^ NH3 and NOx emissions from fertilizer application, | ||
| | ^ Submission | | ^ Submission | ||
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
| ===== 3.D.a.2.a - Animal manure applied to soils ===== | ===== 3.D.a.2.a - Animal manure applied to soils ===== | ||
| - | In this sub-category Germany reports the NH< | + | In this sub-category Germany reports the NH< |
| Germany uses the Tier 2 methodology for estimating NMVOC emissions for cattle in sector 3.B (manure management). The use of this methodology yields NMVOC emissions which formally could be reported in the sectors 3.D.a.2.a 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 and 3.D.a.3 the notation key IE is used for NMVOC emissions. | Germany uses the Tier 2 methodology for estimating NMVOC emissions for cattle in sector 3.B (manure management). The use of this methodology yields NMVOC emissions which formally could be reported in the sectors 3.D.a.2.a 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 and 3.D.a.3 the notation key IE is used for NMVOC emissions. | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| The calculation of the amount of N in manure applied is based on the N mass flow approach (see 3.B). It is the total of N excreted by animals in the housing and the N imported with bedding material minus N losses by emissions of N species from housing and storage. Hence, the amount of total N includes the N contained in anaerobically digested manures to be applied to the field. | The calculation of the amount of N in manure applied is based on the N mass flow approach (see 3.B). It is the total of N excreted by animals in the housing and the N imported with bedding material minus N losses by emissions of N species from housing and storage. Hence, the amount of total N includes the N contained in anaerobically digested manures to be applied to the field. | ||
| - | The frequencies of application techniques and incorporation times as well as the underlying data sources are described in Rösemann et al. (2025) ((Rösemann, | + | The frequencies of application techniques and incorporation times as well as the underlying data sources are described in Rösemann et al. (2025) ((Rösemann, |
| __Table 5: AD for the estimation of NH< | __Table 5: AD for the estimation of NH< | ||
| Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
| ==== Methodology ==== | ==== Methodology ==== | ||
| - | NH< | + | NH< |
| ==== Emission factors ==== | ==== Emission factors ==== | ||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
| These differences are predominantly caused by a higher estimate of manure N, which is applied, compared to the last submission. Many of the recalculations have an effect on this. The two most important ones are **No. 3** (lower NH< | These differences are predominantly caused by a higher estimate of manure N, which is applied, compared to the last submission. Many of the recalculations have an effect on this. The two most important ones are **No. 3** (lower NH< | ||
| - | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2025) ((Rösemann, | + | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2025) ((Rösemann, |
| - | __Table 7: REC-2: Revised | + | __Table 7: Comparison of NH< |
| | ^ Submission | | ^ Submission | ||
| | | | | ||
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
| ===== 3.D.a.2.b – Sewage sludge applied to soils ===== | ===== 3.D.a.2.b – Sewage sludge applied to soils ===== | ||
| - | The calculation of NH< | + | The calculation of NH< |
| ==== Activity data ==== | ==== Activity data ==== | ||
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
| There were no recalculations concerning sewage sludge except the replacement of extrapolated activity data in 2022 with data from the Federal Statistical Office. Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2025), Chapter 1.3. | There were no recalculations concerning sewage sludge except the replacement of extrapolated activity data in 2022 with data from the Federal Statistical Office. Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann et al. (2025), Chapter 1.3. | ||
| - | __Table 9: Revised | + | __Table 9: Comparison of NH< |
| | ^ Submission | | ^ Submission | ||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||
| Line 265: | Line 265: | ||
| Recalculations after 2013 are mainly due to the update of activity data. Concerning NH< | Recalculations after 2013 are mainly due to the update of activity data. Concerning NH< | ||
| - | __Table 12:REC-4: Revised | + | __Table 12: Comparison of NH< |
| | ^ Submission | | ^ Submission | ||
| | | | | ||
| Line 360: | Line 360: | ||
| ==== Emission factors ==== | ==== Emission factors ==== | ||
| - | According to the methodology given in EMEP (2023) the emission factor for the NH< | + | According to the methodology given in EMEP (2023) the emission factor for the NH< |
| - | **Formel** | + | |
| + | EF_//NH//< | ||
| + | |||
| Where x is the according crop and N< | Where x is the according crop and N< | ||
| The implied emission factors provided in the following table are defined as ratio of the total NH< | The implied emission factors provided in the following table are defined as ratio of the total NH< | ||
| Line 482: | Line 485: | ||
| <WRAP center round info 65%> | <WRAP center round info 65%> | ||
| - | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2022**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: | + | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2022**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: |
| </ | </ | ||
| ==== Planned improvements ==== | ==== Planned improvements ==== | ||
| - | No improvements are planned | + | |
| + | <WRAP center round info 45%> | ||
| + | At the moment, no category-specific | ||
| + | </ | ||
| ==== Uncertainty ==== | ==== Uncertainty ==== | ||