meta data for this page
  •  

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2026/04/01 11:33] – kotzullasector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2026/04/01 11:40] (current) – [Uncertainty] kotzulla
Line 305: 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  and 3.D.a.3 the key note IE is used for NMVOC 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 key note IE is used for NMVOC emissions. 
Line 318: 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<sub>house</sub> of the year the animals spend in the livestock building: country specific data, being equal to 1 – x<sub>graz</sub> with x<sub>graz</sub> the proportion of the year spent on pasture, see NID 2026, Chapter 17.3.1[(UBA2026)],    * proportion x<sub>house</sub> of the year the animals spend in the livestock building: country specific data, being equal to 1 – x<sub>graz</sub> with x<sub>graz</sub> the proportion of the year spent on pasture, see NID 2026, Chapter 17.3.1[(UBA2026)],
-   * FRAC<sub>silage</sub>: 1 as proposed by EMEP (2023)-3B-27, since silage feeding for cattle is considered dominant in Germany +   * FRAC<sub>silage</sub>: 1 as proposed by EMEP (2023), Chapter 3.B, p. 27, since silage feeding for cattle is considered dominant in Germany 
-   * FRAC<sub>silage store</sub>: 0.25 as proposed by EMEP/EEA (2023)-3B-27[(EMEPEEA2023)] for European conditions +   * FRAC<sub>silage store</sub>: 0.25 as proposed by EMEP/EEA (2023), Ch. 3.B, p. 27[(EMEPEEA2023)] for European conditions 
-   * EF<sub>NMVOC, silage_feeding</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, house</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, graz</sub> are taken from EMEP/EEA (2023)-3B-31, table 3.11[(EMEPEEA2023)] as 0.0002002, 0.0000353 and 0.0000069 kg NMVOC/MJ feed intake, respectively,+   * EF<sub>NMVOC, silage_feeding</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, house</sub>, EF<sub>NMVOC, graz</sub> are taken from EMEP/EEA (2023), Chapter 3.1, p. 31, table 3.11[(EMEPEEA2023)] as 0.0002002, 0.0000353 and 0.0000069 kg NMVOC/MJ feed intake, respectively,
    * EF<sub>NH₃,storage</sub>, EF<sub>NH₃,building</sub> and EF<sub>NH₃,application</sub> are taken from the NH<sub>3</sub> reporting (see above and 3.D).    * EF<sub>NH₃,storage</sub>, EF<sub>NH₃,building</sub> and EF<sub>NH₃,application</sub> are taken from the NH<sub>3</sub> reporting (see above and 3.D).
  
-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/light horses and pullets, ostriches, and deer see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3.3[(VOSETAL2026)].+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/light horses and pullets, ostriches, and deer see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3.3[(VOSETAL2026)].
  
-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 385: Line 385:
 ==== Method ==== ==== Method ====
  
-EMEP/EEA (2013), Chapter 3.B, page 26[(EMEPEEA2013)] provided a Tier2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, 2023), this methodology has been replaced by a Tier1 methodology. However, EF for cattle derived with the EMEP/EEA 2013 Tier2 methodology remained unchanged. Therefore, the EMEP/EEA 2013[(EMEPEEA2013)] methodology was kept for cattle. For swine the EMEP 2013 methodology was formally kept but the EMEP/EEA 2023 Tier 1 EF was used both for slurry and solid based manure management systems. +EMEP/EEA (2013), Ch. 3.B, p. 26[(EMEPEEA2013)] provided a Tier2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, 2023), this methodology has been replaced by a Tier1 methodology. However, EF for cattle derived with the EMEP/EEA 2013 Tier2 methodology remained unchanged. Therefore, the EMEP/EEA 2013[(EMEPEEA2013)] methodology was kept for cattle. For swine the EMEP 2013 methodology was formally kept but the EMEP/EEA 2023 Tier1 EF was used both for slurry and solid based manure management systems. 
 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 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<sub>10</sub>, 70 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub>). For details see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.2.2.  For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)[(HUISINTVELTETAL2011)], 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<sub>10</sub>, 70 % for PM<sub>2.5</sub>). For details see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.2.2. 
  
 === 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<sub>10</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> from livestock husbandry are provided in EMEP/EEA (2023)-3B-18, Table 3.5 and 55, Table A1.7. For cattle the Tier2 emission factors provided in EMEP/EEA (2013)-3B-29, Table 3-11 were used, because they differentiate between slurry and solid manure systems and were also used to develop the EMEP 2023 Tier 1 emissions factors. They are also provided in EMEP/EEA (2023)-3B-53, Table A1.7.+Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM<sub>10</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> from livestock husbandry are provided in EMEP/EEA (2023), Ch. 3.B, p. 18, Table 3.5 and 55, Table A1.7. For cattle the Tier2 emission factors provided in EMEP/EEA (2013), Ch. 3.B, p. 29, Table 3-11 were used, because they differentiate between slurry and solid manure systems and were also used to develop the EMEP/EEA 2023 Tier1 emissions factors. They are also provided in EMEP/EEA (2023), Ch. 3.B, p. 53, Table A1.7.
  
 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 496: Line 497:
 [(VOSETAL2026> Vos, C., Rösemann, C., Haenel, H.-D., Dämmgen, U., Döring, U., Wulf, S., Eurich-Menden, Döhler, H., Steuer, B., Osterburg, B., Fuß, R. (2026): Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German agriculture 1990 – 2024: Report on methods and data (RMD) Submission 2026. www.eminv-agriculture.de, 2026)] [(VOSETAL2026> Vos, C., Rösemann, C., Haenel, H.-D., Dämmgen, U., Döring, U., Wulf, S., Eurich-Menden, Döhler, H., Steuer, B., Osterburg, B., Fuß, R. (2026): Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German agriculture 1990 – 2024: Report on methods and data (RMD) Submission 2026. www.eminv-agriculture.de, 2026)]
  
-[(BITTMANETAL2014> Bittman, S., Dedina, M., Howard C.M., Oenema, O., Sutton, M.A., (eds) (2014): Options for Ammonia Mitigation. Guidance from the UNECE task Force on Reactive Nitrogen. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK, 2014)]+[(BITTMANETAL2014> Bittman, S., Dedina, M., Howard C.M., Oenema, O., Sutton, M.A. (2014): Options for Ammonia Mitigation. Guidance from the UNECE task Force on Reactive Nitrogen. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK, 2014)]
  
 [(DESTATIS2020> Statistisches Bundesamt (2020): LW20, Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online/statistic/41141/details, Wiesbaden, 2020)] [(DESTATIS2020> Statistisches Bundesamt (2020): LW20, Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online/statistic/41141/details, Wiesbaden, 2020)]
Line 507: Line 508:
 [(REIDYETAL2008> Reidy et al. (2008): Reidy, B., Dämmgen, U., Döhler, H., Eurich-Menden, B., Hutchings, N.J., Luesink, H.H., Menzi, H., Misselbrook, T.H., Monteny, G.-J., Webb, J. (2008): Comparison of models used for the calculation of national NH3 emission inventories from agriculture: liquid manure systems. Atmospheric Environment, 42, pp. 3452-3467; 2008)) [(REIDYETAL2008> Reidy et al. (2008): Reidy, B., Dämmgen, U., Döhler, H., Eurich-Menden, B., Hutchings, N.J., Luesink, H.H., Menzi, H., Misselbrook, T.H., Monteny, G.-J., Webb, J. (2008): Comparison of models used for the calculation of national NH3 emission inventories from agriculture: liquid manure systems. Atmospheric Environment, 42, pp. 3452-3467; 2008))
  
-[(EMEPEEA2013> EMEP/EEA (2013): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2013, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/3-b-manure-management/@@download/file; Copenhagen, 2013))+[(EMEPEEA2013> EMEP/EEA (2013): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2013, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/4-agriculture/3-b-manure-management/@@download/file; Copenhagen, 2013)}
  
-[(EMEPEEA2023> EMEP/EEA (2023): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2023, EEA Report No 06/2023, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2023.; Copenhagen, 2023))+[(EMEPEEA2023> EMEP/EEA (2023): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2023, EEA Report No 06/2023, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2023.; Copenhagen, 2023)]
  
 [(UBA2026> UBA (2026): National Inventory Report (NID) 2026 for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2024. Dessau-Roßlau, April 2026.)] [(UBA2026> UBA (2026): National Inventory Report (NID) 2026 for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2024. Dessau-Roßlau, April 2026.)]