JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

French inventory of animal waste management system : changes and impact on GHG emissions

Guillaume Gaborit

Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d’Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique

I nventaires & Etudes

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Summary

• Context– General– Agriculture in France

• Previous Methodology• Improved Methodology

– Farm survey– New parameters– Impact

• Conclusion

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Context

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE GB

CH4 in Gg eq CO2 N2O in Gg eq CO2

France is by far, with Germany, the greatest contributor to CH4 and N2O emission in the EU 15.

Total national emissions of CH4 and N2O - source EEA/ CITEPA

In 2002, France accounted for :• 18% of total EU CH4 Emissions• 22% of total EU N2O emissions

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Context

And particularly in France, agriculture constitutes the largest share in these emissions.

CH4 and N2O emissions (in Gg eq CO2) from agriculture vs Others sectors in countries of EU 15 in 2002 – Source EEA/ CITEPA

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE GB

Agriculture Other sectors

First columns : CH4

Second columns : N2O• France is the first consumer of synthetic fertilizer in EU and the 5th in the world. • French cattle stocks are the largest in the EU and one of the 20 largest in the world

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Context – Agriculture

French situation Agriculture is an important key source

for CH4 and N2O

• CH4 :

– Agriculture accounts for 69% (out of LUCF) of which 33% are due to 4B

• N2O

– Agriculture accounts for 76% of which 100% are due to 4B & 4D

• Other : for NH3 agriculture accounts for 98% of total national emissions

Enteric Fermentation; 1376

Manure Management; 673

Rice cultivation; 8

Agriculture; 2057

Energy; 342

Industrial Processes; 2

Waste; 562

Energy; 23

Industrial Processes; 29

Waste; 4

Manure Management; 9

Agricultural soils; 168

Agriculture; 177

Emissions of CH4 and N2O in 2002 (in Gg)

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Previous Methodology

• Despite the importance of agriculture emissions, methodology was IPCC Tier 1, consequence of a lack of data. Improvement : Heifers are separately treated from "Other Cattle" : a part of them are assimilated as Dairy cattle while the other part is considered as "other cattle" intermediate behavior

• Parameters (MS%, Bo, VS, Nexcr) used are those for Western European countries.

Particular note : Liquid system has a large part (often > 50%)

Dairy cattle 100 46 24 21 8 1Heifers 82 51,4 9,6 9,6 23 5,8Other Cattle 70 55 0 2 33 9Poultry 0,6 13 0 1 2 84Sheep and Goats 20 0 0 2 87 11Swine 20 77 0 23 0 0Other 25 0 0 0 96 4

pasture range and paddock

other system

MS%

N excretion (kg N/ year)

liquid system

daily spreadsolid

storage and drylot

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Farm Survey

• SCEES (within French Agricultural Ministry) carried out two widespread surveys : in 1994 and 2001.

• Conducted mainly in the framework of the French PMPOA programme : controlling pollution from agricultural sources not specifically designed to fulfill emission inventory requirements but nitrates issues

• Questionnaires deal with housing and manure management in particular can however be exploited.

• Field surveys • Concern cattle, swine, sheep and goats :

– Cattle : 17 679 farms out of about 282 000 ( 6% farms were surveyed) (in 2000)

– Swine : 5 500 farms out of about 59 000 ( 9% farms were surveyed) (in 2000)

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Improved methodology

• Based on national Animal Waste Management system instead of default IPCC values in line with IPCC Tier 2.

• Extended livestock description : 11 categories considered instead of the 5 from IPCC Tier 1.

• AWMS are to a certain extent time-dependable inventory more accurate

liquid system daily spreadsolid storage

and drylot

pasture range and paddock

other system

Dairy cattle 11 0 42 47 0Heifers 2 0 36 62 0Young < 1 year 100 0 0 0 0Other Cattle 2 0 36 62 0Swine 85 0 15 0 0Sows 70 0 30 0 0Young sows 62 0 29 9 0Poultry 65 0 33 2 0Sheep 0 0 30 70 0Goats 0 0 100 0 0Equine 0 0 38 62 0

MS%

MS% based on 1994 survey

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Improved methodology

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Dairy cattle Heifers Young < 1year

OtherCattle

Swine Sows Youngsows

Poultry Sheep Goats Equine

liquid system daily spread solid storage and drylot pasture range and paddock other system

Main remarks• No more daily spread• Cattle are mainly on solid storage• Pasture share is much more important for cattle

Difference between MS%IPCC Tier1 and New MS% from survey

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Impacts

• Two opposite behaviors:– As MCF liq >>MCF sol CH4 emissions decrease

– As Frac N sol >>Frac N liq N2O increase

In fact, due to corrections of certain data, in UNFCCC inventory for April 2005, variation will be smoothed as regard 2004 version

• N2O total : +1.3%

• CH4 total : -1.2%

• GWP total : +0.04%

Agriculture National total

N2O + 11% (4B + 4D) + 9%CH4 -30% (4B) - 10%

JRC – Ispra 21-22 October 2004

Conclusion

• IPCC Tier 1 parameters can prove to be strongly irrelevant (high uncertainties are thus justified) and Tier 2 is clearly required.

• Present improvements are a first step. Following are some points which should be investigated further in order to improve the inventory :– Parameters Bo, VS, MCF, etc.

– Need to take greater account of management techniques in order to integrate mitigation efforts accurately (use of trailing shoe, feeding practices, etc.) require statistics (currently unavailable) but also corresponding EF.

– N-balance approach