© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 1

EAGEREuropean Agricultural Gaseous Emissions

Inventory Researchers NetworkUpdate 2007

ParticipantsDenmark: Nick Hutchings Germany: Ulrich Daemmgen & Dieter Haenel, FAL; Helmut Doehler, KTBL; Netherlands: Gert-Jan Monteny, IMAG; F.K. van Evert, PRI; H.H. Luesink, LEISweden: Lena Rodhe, JTISwitzerland: Harald Menzi and Beat Reidy, SHLUK: Jim Webb, AEA Energy & Environment; Tom Misselbrook, IGERAffiliated: Zig Klimont, IIASA

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 2

Why EAGER ?

• Check comparability and reliability of existing inventory methods quality control; improvement of methods

• Develop inventories suitable for reporting under the convention– Present inventories are not sufficient for time series: insufficient information on farming practice

(expert assumptions); not all influencing factors considered

• Better harmonisation of inventory approaches– Common general approach– Comparable emission factors– Comparable presentation of results

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 3

Past activities• Analysis of the situation and the existing problems associated with

inventory making• Detailed introduction of the methods developed/used by members• Compilation and comparison of N excretions• Compilation and comparison of emission factors

• Congruency testing of models for slurry systems (calculations with common model scenarios; cattle and pigs)

→Paper accepted for publication in Atmospheric Environment

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 4

Current activities• Extension of congruency testing exercise to solid manure systems

(calculations with common model scenarios; beef cattle and broilers)

•Work still under progress

• Situation appeared to be even more complex than that for slurry systems• N transformation processes (mineralization, immobilization)

• Relevance of other N losses N2O)

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 5

Congruency testing: Beef FF scenario (fixed emission factors, fixed N excretions)

• Bad agreement of total emissions and emissions from individual emission stages•What are the

reasons?0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

CH2 DK G NL UK

kg N

H3-

N y

r-1 ApplicationStorageHousing

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 6

Congruency testing: Beef FF scenario (fixed emission factors, fixed N excretions)

• Agreement is much better if immobilization of TAN in bedding material and other N losses are accounted for• Models differ highly to the extend these

processes are taken into account

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

CH2 DK G NL UK

kg N

H3-

N y

r-1

ImmobOther NApplicationStorageHousing

Significance of N immobilization and other N losses

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 7

Conclusions for solid manure scenarios• Individual models differ highly with respect to the degree

immobilisation of TAN and other N losses (N2O) are accounted for• If these two processes are included in the comparisons, the

different models generally compare very well• Variation of NH3 emissions is much higher than for slurry

systems• Need for a better understanding of the size of other N losses and

the role of N transformation processes

© SHL / 28.4.2006/H. Menzi 8

Conclusions after 4 years of EAGER• Thorough and critical analysis of models and intensive

exchange between participants– Weaknesses of all models recognized and improved all

partners and models profited from the exercise– Starting harmonization between calculation procedures

• Evidence of good comparability between N-flow models– Indication that models are following the same general procedure

and are based on comparable data and assumptions

• Relatively good agreement for slurry scenarios, variation is much higher for solid manure scenarios