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 [2026/04/01 09:58] – [Uncertainty] kotzulla | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2026/04/01 11:40] (current) – [Uncertainty] kotzulla | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| ==== 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. (2026), Chapter 2[(VOSETAL2026)]. | 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. (2026), Chapter 2[(VOSETAL2026)]. | ||
| Line 160: | Line 161: | ||
| 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 184: | Line 185: | ||
| == 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 [(IPCC2006)]. In the German Inventory it comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, |
| NH< | NH< | ||
| Line 196: | Line 197: | ||
| For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3[(VOSETAL2026)]. | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3[(VOSETAL2026)]. | ||
| - | 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< | ||
| Line 304: | Line 305: | ||
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP/EEA (2023)-3B-26[(EMEPEEA2023)] 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/EEA (2023)-3B-17)[(EMEPEEA2023)] 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). | + | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP/EEA (2023), Chapter 3.B, page 26 [(EMEPEEA2023)] 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/EEA (2023),Chapter 3.B, page 17)[(EMEPEEA2023)] 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 | 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 | ||
| Line 317: | Line 318: | ||
| * 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[(UBA2026)], | * 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[(UBA2026)], | ||
| * 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/EEA (2023)-3B-17, Table 3.4[(EMEPEEA2023)]. 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/EEA (2023)-3B-17, 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/EEA (2023), Ch. 3.B, p. 17, Table 3.4[(EMEPEEA2023)]. 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/EEA (2023), Ch. 3.B, p. 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/EEA 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/EEA 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 Tier2 and Tier1 methods are not consistent. |
| - | 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. | + | The IEFs for the other categories provided in Table 6 correspond to the EMEP Tier1 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 2023 EMEP/EEA guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 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 6 the IEFs are listed separately for each poultry category). The IEF of the sheep category is significantly lower than the EMEP/EEA 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 2023 EMEP/EEA guidebook (EMEP/EEA, 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 6 the IEFs are listed separately for each poultry category). The IEF of the sheep category is significantly lower than the EMEP/EEA 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. | ||
| Line 384: | Line 385: | ||
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | EMEP/EEA (2013), | + | EMEP/EEA (2013), |
| In case the EMEP 2023 EFs are simply rounded EMEP/EEA 2013 EFs, the unrounded EMEP/EEA 2013 EFs were kept. | In case the EMEP 2023 EFs are simply rounded EMEP/EEA 2013 EFs, the unrounded EMEP/EEA 2013 EFs were kept. | ||
| For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)[(HUISINTVELTETAL2011)], | For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)[(HUISINTVELTETAL2011)], | ||
| === Activity data === | === Activity data === | ||
| + | |||
| Animal numbers serve as activity data, see Table 1. | Animal numbers serve as activity data, see Table 1. | ||
| === 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 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). | 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). | ||
| Line 489: | Line 491: | ||
| Details are described in [[general: | Details are described in [[general: | ||
| + | [(IPCC2006> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [(IPCC2019> | ||
| [(VOSETAL2026> | [(VOSETAL2026> | ||
| - | [(BITTMANETAL2014> | + | [(BITTMANETAL2014> |
| [(DESTATIS2020> | [(DESTATIS2020> | ||
| Line 503: | Line 508: | ||
| [(REIDYETAL2008> | [(REIDYETAL2008> | ||
| - | [(EMEPEEA2013> | + | [(EMEPEEA2013> |
| - | [(EMEPEEA2023> | + | [(EMEPEEA2023> |
| [(UBA2026> | [(UBA2026> | ||