Chapter 5 - NFR 3 - Agriculture

Last updated on 25 May 2016 12:28 (cf. Authors)

NFR-Code Name of Category
3 Agriculture
consisting of / including source categories
3.B Manure Management
3.D Agricultural Soils
3.I Agriculture other

Country specifics

There are no emissions from the categories 3.F Field burning of agricultural residues.

Short description

Emissions occurring in the agricultural sector in Germany derive from manure management (NFR 3.B), agricultural soils (NFR 3.D) and agriculture other (NFR 3.I).
The pollutants reported are:

  • ammonia (NH3),
  • nitrous oxides (NOx),
  • volatile organic compounds (NMVOC),
  • particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10 and TSP) and
  • hexachlorobenzene (HCB).

In 2014 the agricultural sector emitted 703.7 Gg of NH3 , 122.3 Gg of NOx, 211.0 Gg of NMVOC, 64.5 Gg of TSP, 50.2 Gg of PM10 and 8.2 Gg of PM2.5 and 6.8 kg HCB. The trend from 1990 onwards is shown in the graph below. The sharp decrease of emissions from 1990 to 1991 is due to a reduction of livestock population in the New Länder (former GDR) following the German reunification. The increase of NH3 emissions since 2005 is mostly due to the expansion of anaerobic digestation of energy crops, especially the application of the digestion residues. This is a new emission source which is reported for the first time for the submission at hand. This source also effects NOx emissions. However, these emissions are excluded from emission reporting by adjustment, as they are not part of the NEC and Gothenburg commitments. The increase of particle emissions over time is mostly due to increasing poultry figures. Further details concerning trends can be found in Haenel et al. (2016) [1], Chapter 2.

As displayed in the diagram below, in 2014 # % of Germany’s total NH3 emissions derived from the agricultural sector, while nitrous oxides reported as NOx contributed # % and NMVOC # % to the total NOx and NMVOC emissions of Germany. Regarding the emissions of PM2.5, PM10 and TSP the agricultural sector contributed #, # % and #%, respectively, to the national emissions of PM.
HCB emissions of pesticide use are reported the first time.

Recalculations and reasons

(see 11.1 Recalculations)
In the following paragraph the most important recalculations will be addressed. The need for recalculations arose from improvements in input data and methodologies (for details see Haenel et al. (2016) [1]).
Differences of the agricultural emissions between the submission 2016 and the previous submission (Submission 2015) are due to the issues listed below.

  • Livestock-population figures: For swine, sheep, horses and poultry rounded population figures for 2007 were replaced by exact data. This caused small changes in interpolated livestock-population figures from 2004 to 2009. Swine figures for 2003 were corrected as well as poultry figures for 2010 and 2013, with the effect that poultry figures since 2004 have changed marginally. These changes led to small changes in emissions for all reported pollutants.
  • Anaerobic digestion: Time series of substrate data have been updated in order to include substrates from an additional type of biogas plants (Biogas upgrading plants). This has a minor effect on NH3- and NOx-emissions of cattle, swine and poultry in source category 3.B and on NOx-emissions from application of animal manure to soils (3.D).
  • Dairy cows: Update of the milk yields for the year 2013.
  • Fattening pigs: Data gap closure for weight gains and animal weights was changed from keeping the last existing data to linear interpolation.
  • Laying hens: Start weight, final weight and egg weight were updated for all years of the time series.
  • Broilers: The national gross production of broiler meat of the year 2013 was updated.
  • Pullets: Linked to the update of the start weight of laying hens the final weight of pullets was adjusted.
  • Turkeys: Update of activity data for the year 2013 (final weight, weight gain, duration of fattening period, feed intake relative to growth).
  • Synthetic fertilizers: Missing activity data for Berlin (1990 – 2001) was added, leading to a small increase of NH3 and NOx-emissions in these years.

Visual overview

Chart showing emission trends for main pollutants in NFR 3 - Agriculture:

Click to enlarge.

Specific QA/QC procedures for the agriculture sector

Numerous input data were checked for errors resulting from erroneous transfer between data sources and the tabular database used for emission calculations.
The German IEFs and other data used for the emission calculations were compared with EMEP default values and data of other countries (see Haenel et. al. (2016) [1]).
Changes of data and methodologies are documented in detail (see Haenel et. al. (2016) [1], Chapter 3.5.2).
Once emission calculations with the German inventory model GAS-EM are completed for a specific submission, activity data (AD) and implied emission factors (IEFs) are transferred to the CSE database (Central System of Emissions) to be used to calculate the respective emissions within the CSE. These CSE emission results are then cross-checked with the emission results obtained by GAS-EM.

By comparisons with the results of the previous year calculations and plausibility checks, a comprehensive review of the emission calculations was carried out.

Model data have been verified in the context of a project by external experts (Zsolt Lengyel, Verico SCE). Results show that input data are consistent with other data sources (Eurostat, DESTATIS) and that the performed calculations are consistently and correctly applied in line with the methodological requirements. Furthermore, the GAS-EM model is continuously validated by experts of KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft) and the EAGER group (European Agricultural Gaseous Emissions Inventory Researchers Network).

Bibliography
1. Haenel et al. (2016): Calculations of gaseous and particulate emissions from German agriculture 1990-2014. Report on methods and data (RMD) Submission 2016. Thünen Report (in preparation).
2. 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, 3452-3467.
3. Dämmgen U., Hutchings N.J. (2008): Emissions of gaseous nitrogen species from manure management - a new approach. Environmental Pollution 154, 488-497.
5. Dämmgen U., Erisman J.W. (2005): Emission, transmission, deposition and environmental effects of ammonia from agricultural sources. In: Kuczyński T., Dämmgen U., Webb J., Myczko (eds) Emissions from European Agriculture. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. pp 97-112.
6. Weingarten, P. (1995): Das „Regionalisierte Agrar- und Umweltinformationssystem für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland“ (RAUMIS). Berichte über die Landwirtschaft Band 73, 272-302.
7. Henrichsmeyer, W.; Cypris, Ch.; Löhe, W.; Meuth, M.; Isermeyer F; Heinrich, I.; Schefski, A.; Neander, E.; Fasterding, F.;, Neumann, M.; Nieberg, H.( 1996): Entwicklung des gesamtdeutschen Agrarsektormodells RAUMIS96. Endbericht zum Kooperationsprojekt. Forschungsbericht für das BMELF (94 HS 021), Bonn, Braunschweig.
8. IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996): 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Reference Manual (Volume 3).
11. NIR (2016):National Inventory Report 2016 for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2014. Available in April 2016.
12. Bailey, R. E., (2001): Global hexachlorobenzene emissions. Chemosphere, 43(2), 167-182.
13. Beall, M.L., (1976): Persistence of aerially applied hexachlorobenzene on grass and soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 5, 367-369
14. BVL (Bundesamts für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit Braunschweig): persönliche Mitteilung der Wirkstoffdaten, 2015.
15. Nielsen, Ole-Kenneth, Plejdrup M. S., Winther M., Nielsen,M., Fauser P., Albrektsen R., Mikkelsen M.H., Hjelgaard K., Hoffmann L., Thomsen M., Bruun H. G., (2014): Danish Emission Inventory for Hexachlorobenzene and Polychlorinated Biphenyls, No.103, 2014, Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Department of Environmental Science, pp65.
16. Fiedler, H., Hub, M., Willner, S., Hutzinger, O., (1995): Stoffbericht Hexachlorbenzol (HCB), Texte und Berichte zur Altlastenbearbeitung 18/95, Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg, p.67, pp150.
17. EMEP EB, 2012: EMEP Executive Body Decision 3/2012 in ECE/EB.AIR/111/Add.1 - Adjustments under the Gothenburg Protocol to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them
URL: http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/Adjustments/ECE_EB.AIR_111_Add.1__ENG_DECISION_3.pdf
18. EMEP EB, 2012: EMEP Executive Body DecisionDecision 2014/1 - Improving the guidance for adjustments under the 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them
URL: http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/Adjustments/Decision_2014_1.pdf
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License