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 [2025/02/21 11:48] – [Table] niebuhr | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2025/02/25 11:29] (current) – [Table] niebuhr | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| __Table 1: Population of animals, in [1,000 individuals]__ | __Table 1: Population of animals, in [1,000 individuals]__ | ||
| - | | ^ 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 | | + | ^ mules and asses |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | 90,0 | 100,0 | 140,0 | 170,0 | 149,9 | 135,9 | 138,8 | 142,8 | 146,9 | 150,9 | 154,9 | 157,5 | 160,0 | 162,6 | | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ 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 | 17.525, | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ 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 | 54.921,5 | 55.365,4 | 55.809, | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ geese | 781,5 | 617,0 | 404,8 | 329,5 | 278,1 | 400,8 | 329,0 | 327,7 | 326,3 | 324,9 | 323,5 | 354,2 | 385,0 | 415,7 | | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ deer | + | ^ deer | 155,8 | 204,0 | 252,3 | 261,5 | 270,7 | 279,9 | 281,7 | 283,5 | 285,4 | 287,2 | 289,1 | 290,9 | 292,7 | 294,6 | |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| + | | Other animals: no data available | ||
| ==== 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. | + | 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 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, | ||
| Line 86: | Line 87: | ||
| 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 | + | 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 the respective |
| - | 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 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The data from the 2020 official agricultural census (DESTATIS, 2020)((Statistisches Bundesamt (2020): LW20, Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Rösemann | ||
| Line 98: | Line 105: | ||
| == N excretion == | == N excretion == | ||
| - | In order to determine NH< | + | In order to determine NH< |
| __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 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 ^ | + | ^ ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 | **2023** |
| - | | | + | | |
| - | ^ 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 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | | + | ^ deer | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | 16.00 | |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | | + | ^ deer | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| Line 141: | Line 148: | ||
| 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< |
| Not explicitly shown in the N mass flow scheme is air scrubbing in housing and anaerobic digestion of manure. These issues are separately described further below. Note that emissions from grazing and application are reported in sector 3.D. | Not explicitly shown in the N mass flow scheme is air scrubbing in housing and anaerobic digestion of manure. These issues are separately described further below. Note that emissions from grazing and application are reported in sector 3.D. | ||
| Line 152: | Line 159: | ||
| 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 through the livestock systems 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 through the livestock systems 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. (2024), Chapter 4.2. 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) supplemented by data from the 2020 agricultural census. 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) supplemented by data from the 2020 agricultural census. The average removal efficiency of NH< | ||
| - | According to KTBL, 7.5 % of all pig places were equipped with ”first class” systems in 2022, another 12.5 % were equipped with “second class” systems. For poultry 0.85 % of all laying hen places and 2.2 % of all broiler places were equipped with air scrubbers that remove both NH< | + | According to KTBL, 7.6 % of all pig places were equipped with ”first class” systems in 2023, another 12.6 % were equipped with “second class” systems. For poultry 0.9 % of all laying hen places and 2.4 % of all broiler places were equipped with air scrubbers that remove both NH< |
| - | 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. In the German Inventory it comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, | + | According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion of manure is treated like a particular storage type. In the German Inventory it comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, |
| NH< | NH< | ||
| Line 170: | Line 177: | ||
| 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< | ||
| - | The detailed NH< | + | The detailed NH< |
| - | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2024), Chapter 4.3. | + | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Rösemann |
| - | Table 3 provides, by animal category, the implied NH<sub>3</ | + | The detailed emission factors for N< |
| - | 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< | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | | **Ammonia** | + | | **Ammonia** |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 | 0.000 | |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **Nitrogen oxides** | + | | **Nitrogen oxides** |
| - | ^ 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 | 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 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | ||
| Line 226: | Line 231: | ||
| == Recalculations == | == Recalculations == | ||
| - | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables | + | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables |
| + | |||
| + | For NH3 there are two main reasons for very different | ||
| - | One reason for this is that the animal categories deer, rabbits, ostrich, and fur animals are reported | + | The total emissions of NOx for all years are much higher than those of submission 2024. The main reason for this is the doubling of the N2O emission factors |
| - | Further details on recalculations are described in Vos et al. (2024), Chapter 1.3. | + | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann |
| - | __Table 4: REC-1: Revised | + | __Table 4: Comparison of NH< |
| - | | ^ 1990 | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** | + | | | **Submission** |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | Total |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | **thereof: from other cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current submission | + | | other cattle |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from swine** | + | | swine |
| - | ^ current submission | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | | poultry |
| - | | **thereof: from poultry** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current submission | + | | other animals |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from other animals** | + | |
| - | ^ current submission | + | |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | |
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | __Table 5: REC-2: Revised | + | __Table 5: Comparison of NO< |
| - | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |||||||||||||| | + | | | **Submission** |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | Totals |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ 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 | | | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | **thereof: from other cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | other cattle |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from swine** |||||||||||||| | + | | swine ^ current |
| - | ^ current | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ previous | + | | poultry |
| - | | **thereof: from poultry** |||||||||||||| | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | other animals |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from other animals** |||||||||||||| | + | |
| - | ^ current | + | |
| - | ^ previous | + | |
| Line 285: | Line 286: | ||
| ===== NMVOC ===== | ===== NMVOC ===== | ||
| - | In 2022, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 278.2 kt which is 96.9 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.8 % originate from cattle, 15.2 % from other animals. | + | In 2023, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 292.1 kt which is 96.9 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.2 % thereof |
| ==== 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 use of the Tier 2 methodology yields 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 | + | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP (2023)-3B-26 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 (2023)-3B-17) was used. The use of the Tier 2 methodology yields 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 295: | Line 296: | ||
| === 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 2024, Chapter 5.1.3.3, | + | * gross feed intake in MJ per year, country specific data from the annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, see NID 2025, 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 were used as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, Table 3.4. 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/ | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, Table 3.4. 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 (2023)-3B-17, Table 3.4, were used to define specific emission factors for weaners, boars, lambs, ponies/ |
| 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 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 and swine. 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 and swine. 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, | + | 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, |
| __Table 6: IEF for NMVOC from manure management, in [kg NMVOC per animal place]__ | __Table 6: IEF for NMVOC from manure management, in [kg NMVOC per animal place]__ | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | | + | ^ 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 | |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| === 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 = 0.87; other cattle: R² = 0.99). | + | 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 = 0.89; other cattle: R² = 0.99). |
| === Recalculations === | === Recalculations === | ||
| - | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. 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 | + | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Table 7 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 higher. |
| - | __Table 7: REC-3: Revised | + | __Table 7: Comparison of NMVOC emissions |
| - | | ^ 1990 | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** | + | | | **Submission** |
| - | ^ current | + | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | Total |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | **thereof: from other cattle** |||||||||||||| | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | other cattle |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from other animals** | + | | other animals |
| - | ^ current | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ previous | + | |
| === Planned improvements === | === Planned improvements === | ||
| Line 366: | Line 366: | ||
| 68.6 % of total **PM< | 68.6 % of total **PM< | ||
| ==== 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 2023 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 2023 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 373: | Line 373: | ||
| === 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). | ||
| __Table 8: IEF for TSP, PM< | __Table 8: IEF for TSP, PM< | ||
| - | ^ ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 | + | ^ ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 |
| - | | **Total suspended particles** (TSP) | + | | **Total suspended particles** (TSP) ||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.0484 | + | ^ sheep | 0.0484 |
| - | ^ goats | 0.0914 | + | ^ goats | 0.0914 |
| - | ^ swine | 0.8260 | + | ^ swine | 0.8260 |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.1898 | + | ^ laying hens | 0.1898 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.1400 | + | ^ ducks | 0.1400 |
| - | ^ geese | 0.2400 | + | ^ geese | 0.2400 |
| - | ^ deer | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **PM< | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.0194 | + | ^ sheep | 0.0194 |
| - | ^ goats | 0.0368 | + | ^ goats | 0.0368 |
| - | ^ swine | 0.1241 | + | ^ swine | 0.1241 |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.0400 | + | ^ laying hens | 0.0400 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.1400 | + | ^ ducks | 0.1400 |
| - | ^ geese | 0.2400 | + | ^ geese | 0.2400 |
| - | ^ deer | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **PM< | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.0059 | + | ^ sheep | 0.0059 |
| - | ^ goats | 0.0112 | + | ^ goats | 0.0112 |
| - | ^ swine | 0.0056 | + | ^ swine | 0.0056 |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.0030 | + | ^ laying hens | 0.0030 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.0180 | + | ^ ducks | 0.0180 |
| - | ^ geese | 0.0320 | + | ^ geese | 0.0320 |
| - | ^ deer | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| ==== 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 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< | + | 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 ==== | ||
| - | The following table shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Visible differences occur especially | + | The following table 9 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Visible differences occur in every year, these are largely |
| - | __Table 9: REC-4: Revised | + | __Table 9: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< |
| - | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 ^ | + | | ^ Submission |
| - | | **TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES (TSP)** | + | | |
| - | ^ current | + | | **Total Suspended Particles (TSP)** |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: ^ previous |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.05 | 1.65 | 3.39 | 4.77 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.01 | | | + | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.61 | 0.91 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.65 | |
| - | | **PM< | + | | | | |
| - | ^ current | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: ^ previous |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.15 | 1.82 | 3.83 | 5.62 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | | + | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.99 | 1.39 | 1.09 | 1.12 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 1.01 | 1.04 | -0.18 | -1.70 |
| - | | **PM< | + | | | | |
| - | ^ current | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: ^ previous |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.09 | 0.52 | 1.10 | 1.67 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | | | + | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 1.79 | 2.53 | 2.15 | 2.34 | 2.12 | 2.02 | 2.02 | 2.05 | 2.10 | 2.16 | 2.22 | 1.70 | 1.07 | | |
| <WRAP center round info 65%> | <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 2022**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: |
| </ | </ | ||
| ===== Planned improvements ===== | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
| Line 464: | Line 464: | ||
| ===== Uncertainty ===== | ===== Uncertainty ===== | ||
| - | Details | + | Details |