1 / 26

Proposal for updating of guidebook chapters – the agricultural sector

Proposal for updating of guidebook chapters – the agricultural sector. Steen Gyldenkærne, Rikke Albrektsen & Mette Hjorth Mikkelsen Aarhus University DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. Updated chapters. 4.B Manure Management

elke
Download Presentation

Proposal for updating of guidebook chapters – the agricultural sector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposal for updating of guidebook chapters – the agriculturalsector Steen Gyldenkærne, Rikke Albrektsen & Mette Hjorth Mikkelsen Aarhus University DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy

  2. Updatedchapters • 4.B Manure Management • Update PM emission factors – Tier 1 and Tier 2 • New NMVOC emission factors – Tier 1 and Tier 2 • 4.D Agricultural Soils • Updated theNH3 emission factors from mineral fertiliser – Tier 1 and Tier 2 • Updated the NMVOC emission factor – Tier 1 • Concistency of PM emission factor • 4.F Field burning of agriculturalwastes • New/updated emission factors – Tier 1and Tier 2

  3. Process • January 2012 – project start (the Danish inventory team) • May 2012 - Discussionpaperpresented the TFEIP meeting in Bern • September 2012 – firstdraft of chapter 4.B, 4.D and 4.F • September/October 2012 - recivedcomments • December 2012 - seconddraft, available at TFEIPshomepage(http://tfeip-secretariat.org/meetings/) • May 2013 - Expert panel….. Like it/or not • Autum/winter 2013 - Final approvalby the EMEP Steeringbody and the Executive Body

  4. Commentsrecived • Recived around 100 comments • Netherlands. Hungary. Spain. Italy. UK. Germany. Ireland • Split the comment into four groups “Justify please” “Please is it possible to clarify this paragraph” “Tier 2 NMVOC – description of calculation is hard to understand.”

  5. Agenda – presentation of the results • NMVOC emissions • Ammonia emissions from fertilisers (Nick) • PM emissions • Emissions from fieldburning

  6. NMVOC emission 4.B Manure management New emission factor Tier 1 and Tier 2 4.D Agricultural soils updated emission factor – Tier 1

  7. NMVOC emission from manure management – 4.B NMVOC emission orginates from animalhusbandry – especiallysilage, degradation of feed in the rumen and from partlydigested and undigested fat, carbonhydratesand protein. Emission depends on: • animal type • feed – amount and consumption • manure management in housing and storage • straw • climateconditions

  8. NMVOC emission from manure management – 4.B • Guidebook 2009: Tier1 NMVOC emission factor(Appendix B. TableB1 – B15)

  9. Background • Literaturesearch – found 80 relevant peer reviewarticles - focus on VOCswhicharerelated to odour - concentrationlevel - differentmeasurementtechnology - measured in laboratory • NAEM study – National Air Emission MonitoringStudy - a cooperation fora between the US EPA and the livestockindustry - was initiated in 2006 in order to measure NH3, PM, H2S, NMVOC and TSP from animal operations.

  10. NVMOC measured from 16 different animal production facilities covering 5 x dairy cattle, 3 x sows, 2 x fatteners, 4 x egg layers and 2 x broilers - for a range of climatic conditions in the USA (2006 – 2010)

  11. Literature says; - from cattle pigs and poultry more than 200 NMVOCs has been identified. - but only 20 compounds is considered as significant and account for 80-90% of the total emissions Results from the NAEM Study - 20 most common VOC covers 87% of the total VOC

  12. - The VOC variesbetween the production types - Iso-propanol and n-propanolcontributes with 50% of the total VOC

  13. NMVOC – depends on the climate Measurements in the NAEM study indicate that the emission depends on temperature and ventilation rate. However, due to the sigificant variation of the measured emission the data is not strong enough to introduce a climate depended emission factor for the EMEP/EEA area.

  14. NAEM Study - emission levels - based on the average of all measurements These data is the basis for the furthercalculation of the NMVOC emission factor

  15. Estimation of the NMVOC emission factor Emission levelcoverted to agriculturalconditions for Western Europe by using the feedintake (MJ) For otheranimalcategories the emission is calculated by scaling with the VS excretion or the animalweight (IPCC 2006 – default values). • Dairycattle: • – USA: 320 MJ/head/day • - Europe: 256 MJ/head/day

  16. The NAEMEFincludes ensilage feeding. Emission from ensilage are 85% of total emission in housing– assumptionbased on Alanis et al., 2008 and Chung et al., 2010. Housingwith silage Housingwithoutsilage + + Emission from silage store is estimated to 25% of emission in housing. Based on Alanis et al., 2010 and Chung et al., 2010. Silage store + Manure store Manure store + + NMVOC emission based on the same fraction as NH3 (Feilberg et al., 2010) – NH3fractionsrefer to guidebook Table 3-8 Manureapplication Manureapplication + + Emission based on measurements from Shawn et al., 2007. Grazing Grazing NMVOC emission with silagefeeding NMVOC emission withoutsilagefeeding

  17. Results Emission from housing: • NMVOC emission levelsareetsimated from the NAEM study (dairycattle, sows, fattening pigs, layinghens and broilers) • Emission levels for otherlivestockcategoriesareestmated by scaling with feedintake (MJ) for cattle and for otherlivestockcategories; VS excretion or anmialwieght • Distinquishbetweenfeedingtable with and withoutsilage Emission from other emissions sources: • Based on literaturestudyfraction of emission from silage store, manure store, manureapplication and grazinganimalareetsimated • NMVOC emission factor Tier1 is provided • NMVOC emission factor Tier 2 is provided – based on Tier 1 - Cattle (kg NMVOC MJ-1) - Other (kg NMVOC VS-1)

  18. NMVOC from agriculturalsoil – 4.D • Guidebook 2009: Tier 1 NMVOC emission factor covering the emission from soils with cultivation of crops. But, unit and the reference is incorrect!!

  19. Updated NMVOC emission factor Tier 1 - 4.D Table A3‑2 NMVOC emission from agricultural crops, in kg NMVOC kg-1 dry matter and fraction of year, during which crops emit, in a a-1 • Dry matter content and crop distribution based on a weighted average (FAO Statistics, 2012) • Reference: • König et al. (1995) • Lambet al. (1993)

  20. Emission from fieldburning of agriculturalwaste – 4.F

  21. 4.F Field burning Tier 1 emission factor • Preveious EF refer to burning of rice • Suggestedthat Tier1 EF is based on wheatvalues • New Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factors; • Black Carbon (BC) and Cobber (Cu) – reference: Turn et al., 1996 • Polycyclearmoatichydrocarbons (PAHs). Differbetween 4 PAHs Reference; Jenkins et al., 1996

  22. 4.F Field burning - continued • In current guidebook: • EF for heavy metals – refer to Xinghua et al., 2007 • EF for all othercompoundsrefer to Jenkins et al., 1996 • But… the results from Jenkins et al., is publisched in severalotherarticles; Turn et al., 1997 – whichincludes emission from HM • ComparisonbetweenXinghua and Jenkins shows large differences for somepollutants • To maintain the highstlevel of consistencybetween the emission factors it is suggested to use EF for HM reported by Turn et al., 1997

  23. PM Emission 4.B Manure management updated Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission factor 4.D Agricultural soils Inconsistency – a need for updating!!

  24. PM emission from 4.D – agricultural soilsGuidebook 2009 includes PM emission factor - at Tier 1 and Tier 2 level Tier 1 EFs for PM10 and PM2.5refers to van der Hoek & Hinz (2007) – however, it is not clear how the Tier 1 EFs have been derived.” “The difference between the EFs for wet and dry climatic conditions is a factor of nine for soil cultivation and a factor of five for harvesting. It is neither described in the main GB chapter nor in annex 4 how these factors have been derived.”

  25. PM emission from livestockproduction • TSP emission factor included in the mainchapter • Corrected the reference to Takai et al., 1998, Seedorf and Hartung, 2001 • Emission factor provided for calves, beefcalves, weaners, goats, mules and asses, ducks, geese, turkey, fur animals and buffalo • Used a wegihted average of solid and liquidmanurebased on EU27 reporting of N (UNFCCC 2011) • Corrected transformation factor for poultry, horses and fattening pigs • Corrected the animalweight

  26. Thank you for your attention

More Related