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 [2026/02/11 09:37] – [Method] roesemann | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2026/03/16 15:28] (current) – [Table] mielke | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| | 3.B.4.g i-iv | Poultry | | 3.B.4.g i-iv | Poultry | ||
| | 3.B.4.h | | 3.B.4.h | ||
| + | | {{page> | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | ^ ^ 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 |
| + | | {{page> | ||
| - | | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 95: | Line 96: | ||
| The data from the 2020 official agricultural census (DESTATIS, 2020)((Statistisches Bundesamt (2020): LW20, Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. https:// | 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 Vos et al. (2026), 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 2026, Chapter 17.3.1. | + | For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Vos et al. (2026), 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 2026((NID (2026): National Inventory Report 2026 for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2024. Available in April 2026.)), Chapter 17.3.1. |
| Since submission 2026 transports of manure, energy crops and digestates between NUTS 3 regions are simulated in the calculation model. This does not have major influence on the emissions of the whole country, but changes the distribution of emissions between single NUTS 3 regions. For details on the methodology, | Since submission 2026 transports of manure, energy crops and digestates between NUTS 3 regions are simulated in the calculation model. This does not have major influence on the emissions of the whole country, but changes the distribution of emissions between single NUTS 3 regions. For details on the methodology, | ||
| Line 149: | Line 150: | ||
| 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 181: | Line 182: | ||
| For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3. | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3. | ||
| - | The detailed emission factors for N< | + | 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 | + | ^ |
| ^ Ammonia | ^ Ammonia | ||
| ^ dairy cattle | ^ dairy cattle | ||
| Line 232: | Line 233: | ||
| All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables 4 and 5 compare the recalculated time series for NH< | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables 4 and 5 compare the recalculated time series for NH< | ||
| - | For NH3 there are many reasons for very different emissions compared to last year’s submission. For dairy cows the new methodology to claculate N and TAN excretions (see main page of the agricultural sector **recalculation No. 3**) results in general in lower emissions. The upward correction of historic milk yields (**recalculation No. 4**) results in higher emissions. In combination these two recalculations result in lower emissions, especially in more recent years. The subdivision of the sows category in gilts and old sows (**recalculation No. 5**) is the main reason for lower emissions from swine. The adjusted N excretion for horses after 2010 (**recalculation No. 6**) is the main reason for higher emissions from other animals. The addition of substrate transports to biogas plants (**recalculation No. 1**) has a smaller impact on emissions than the other recalculations. This recalculation is the main reason for the changes for emissions from other cattle and poultry but it also affects dairy cattle and swine emissions. Many of the other recalculations have much smaller effects. Overall, the changes result in lower emissions compared with last year’s submission. | + | For NH3 there are many reasons for very different emissions compared to last year’s submission. For dairy cows the new methodology to claculate N and TAN excretions (see [[sector: |
| The total emissions of NO< | The total emissions of NO< | ||
| Line 240: | Line 241: | ||
| ^ NFR Total emissions | ^ NFR Total emissions | ||
| ^ ^ Submission | ^ ^ Submission | ||
| - | | Total ^ current | + | ^ Total ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | -1.15 | -0.79 | -1.29 | -1.74 | -2.84 | -2.76 | -2.71 | -2.10 | -2.07 | -2.33 | -3.15 | -3.97 | -3.88 | -3.95 | | | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | -1.15 | -0.79 | -1.29 | -1.74 | -2.84 | -2.76 | -2.71 | -2.10 | -2.07 | -2.33 | -3.15 | -3.97 | -3.88 | -3.95 | | |
| - | | Dairy cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other cattle | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Swine ^ current | + | ^ Swine ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | poultry | + | ^ poultry |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other animals | + | ^ Other animals |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| __Table 5: Comparison of NO< | __Table 5: Comparison of NO< | ||
| ^ NFR Total emissions | ^ NFR Total emissions | ||
| - | | ^ Submission | + | ^ ^ Submission |
| - | | Total ^ current | + | ^ Total ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 5.60 | 4.35 | 3.20 | 2.38 | 0.84 | 0.67 | 1.01 | 1.77 | 0.97 | 0.65 | -0.40 | -1.48 | -1.39 | -0.86 | | | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 5.60 | 4.35 | 3.20 | 2.38 | 0.84 | 0.67 | 1.01 | 1.77 | 0.97 | 0.65 | -0.40 | -1.48 | -1.39 | -0.86 | | |
| - | | Dairy cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other cattle | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Swine ^ current | + | ^ Swine ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | poultry | + | ^ poultry |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other animals | + | ^ Other animals |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| Line 279: | Line 280: | ||
| ===== NMVOC ===== | ===== NMVOC ===== | ||
| - | 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 originate from cattle, 15.8 % from other animals. | + | In 2024, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 291.7 kt which is 97.1 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.1 % thereof originate from cattle, 15.9 % from other animals. |
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| Line 289: | Line 290: | ||
| === 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 NID 2025, 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 2026, Chapter 5.1.3.3, |
| - | * proportion x< | + | * proportion x< |
| * FRAC< | * FRAC< | ||
| * FRAC< | * FRAC< | ||
| Line 296: | Line 297: | ||
| * EF< | * EF< | ||
| - | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, |
| 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 6 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, 2023), 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, 2023), hence the EF of broilers has been adopted (because of similar housing). This assumption significantly lowers the overall IEF of other poultry |
| __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]__ | ||
| Line 323: | Line 324: | ||
| === 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 = 0.89; 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 = 0.90; other cattle: R² = 0.99). |
| === Recalculations === | === Recalculations === | ||
| - | 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. For dairy cattle and other cattle emissions are higher due to changes of NH3 emissions which have impact on the Tier 2 methodology which is applied for cattle NMVOC emissions. For other animals | + | 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. For dairy cattle and other cattle emissions are higher due to changes of NH< |
| Line 333: | Line 334: | ||
| ^ NFR Total emissions | ^ NFR Total emissions | ||
| ^ ^ Submission | ^ ^ Submission | ||
| - | | Total ^ current | + | ^ Total ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.82 | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.82 |
| - | | Dairy cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other cattle | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other animals | + | ^ Other animals |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| === Planned improvements === | === Planned improvements === | ||
| Line 349: | Line 350: | ||
| ===== Particle emissions ===== | ===== Particle emissions ===== | ||
| - | In 2022, **TSP** emissions from manure management amount to 64.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. | + | In 2024, TSP emissions from manure management amount to 60.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Of these emissions |
| - | Of these emissions | + | |
| - | 36.6 % of total **PM< | + | 34.7 % of total PM< |
| - | + | ||
| - | 68.6 % of total **PM< | + | 66.4 % of total PM< |
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, | + | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, |
| === Activity data === | === Activity data === | ||
| Line 365: | Line 364: | ||
| 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 8 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< | ||
| Line 421: | Line 420: | ||
| ^ 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 five swine subcategories (sows (divided in gilts and old sows), weaners, fattening pigs, boars) and the varying population shares in those housing systems the R< |
| ==== Recalculations ==== | ==== Recalculations ==== | ||
| - | The following table 9 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. | + | The following table 9 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. |
| - | __Table 9: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | + | __Table 9: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< |
| - | ^ TSP, PM< | + | ^ TSP, PM< |
| - | | ^ Submission | + | ^ ^ Submission |
| - | | TSP ^ current | + | ^ TSP ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| - | | PM< | + | ^ PM< |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | |
| - | | PM< | + | ^ PM< |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | |
| <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 2023**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: |
| </ | </ | ||