european commission final report - appendices...european commission final report - appendices...

European Commission

Final Report - Appendices Collection and analysis of data to support the Commission in reporting in line with Article 73(2)(b) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions on the need to control emissions from the intensive rearing of cattle

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited

September 2012

© AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited September 2012 Doc Reg No. 30310

Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by AMEC (©AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2012). save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by AMEC under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of AMEC. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by AMEC at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. AMEC excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Document Revisions

No. Details Date

1 Draft final report outline for client comment

4th November 2011

2 Interim Report 16th January 2012

3 Draft Final Report - Appendices

9th May 2012

4 Final Report – Appendices 3rd July 2012

5 Final Report – Appendices [updated following feedback from Member States]

6th September 2012


Contents

Table B.1 Summary of Member State data received through consultation on cattle numbers and installations (thousands) 2 Table B.2 Domestic livestock population in Austria, 1990-2009 5 Table B.3 Quantities of farmyard manure accumulated over 6 months per stall place in m3 for different dung removal systems 6 Table B.4 Specific N excretion values of dairy cows in Austria, 1990-2009 7 Table B.5 Specific N excretion values of other livestock categories in Austria 7 Table B.6 CH4 emissions [Gg] per livestock category in Austria, 1990-2009 8 Table B.7 N2O emissions [Gg] from manure management in Austria, 1990-2009 9 Table B.8 Manure Management System distribution in Austria, 2009 10 Table B.9 Share of composted and untreated solid manure for cattle and swine in Austria in 2005 according to (Amon et al.,

2007) and distribution in 1990 according to expert opinion (Pollinger, 2008) 11 Table B.10 Slurry storage and treatment for cattle and swine in 2005 according to (Amon et al., 2007) and distribution in 1990

according to expert opinion (Pollinger, 2008) 11 Table B.11 Emissions from cattle, 2009 18 Table B.12 Amount of cattle in the Czech Republic (2010) 19 Table B.13 Number of farms in the Czech Republic (2010) 20 Table B.14 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation, cattle (Tier 2, 1990-2009) 21 Table B.15 Emissions of manure management in report period 1990, 2009 21 Table B.16 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation of cattle in 1990-2009 in Estonia, Gg 26 Table B.17 Methane emissions from cattle manure management activities in 1990-2009 in Estonia, Gg 27 Table B.18 N excretion factors of dairy cattle by country in 2009, kg N/head/year 28 Table B.19 Average N excretion factors, 1990-2009, kg N/head/year 28 Table B.20 Manure management system usage (%, Eastern Europe manure management system) and methane conversion

factors (MCFs) 28 Table B.21 Allocation of N (in manure) excreted by cattle among different types of manure management system, t N/year 29 Table B.22 Number of cattle heads in Finland, 2011 30 Table B.23 Number of dairy cattle installations, by herd size in Finland, 2011 31 Table B.24 Number of suckler cow installations, by herd size in Finland, 2011 31 Table B.25 Number of beef cattle installations, by herd size in Finland, 2011 32 Table B.26 Manure volumes (m3) by herd size: dairy cattle 33 Table B.27 Manure volumes (m3) by herd size: beef cattle 33 Table B.28 Methane emissions in Finland (2009) 35 Table B.29 N2O emissions in Finland (2009) 35 Table B.30 Ammonia emissions in Finland, 2009 35 Table B.31 Animal feeding measures in Finland 36 Table B.32 Evolution of the number of cattle farms by type of enterprise from 2005 to 2010 39 Table B.33 Distribution of cattle per type, France 40 Table B.34 Volumes of manure produced per year (2001) in France 41 Table B.35 Monthly excretion rates for dairy cows (kg/month) in France 41 Table B.36 Monthly excretion rates of N, P and K for medium sized suckling cow (670kg) (kg/month) in France 41 Table B.37 Average distribution by pollutant and by place for GHG impact of dairy systems in France 43 Table B.38 Average distribution by pollutant and by place for GHG impact of specialised suckling systems in France 43 Table B.39 Information regarding permit regime applicable to cattle farms 44 Table B.40 Total cattle heads and holdings by cattle herd size, in Germany 2010 46 Table B.41 Dairy cattle heads and holdings by herd size, in Germany 2010 46 Table B.42 Beef/male cattle heads and holdings by herd size, in Germany 2010 46 Table B.43 Calves and young cattle heads and holdings by herd size, in Germany 2010 47 Table B.44 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation in Germany, 1990-2009 48 Table B.45 Methane emissions from manure management for dairy cows in Germany, 1990-2009 48 Table B.46 N2O emissions from manure management for dairy cows in Germany, 1990-2009 49 Table B.47 Measures for the avoidance and reduction of ammonia emission and odour in Germany 51 Table B.48 Emission reduction measures in cattle housing in Germany 52 Table B.49 Farm numbers/size 53 Table B.50 Cattle numbers 53 Table B.51 Annual nutrient excretion rates for livestock 57 Table B.52 Amount of nutrient contained in 1m3 of slurry 58 Table B.53 Minimum slurry storage capacity required for cattle, sheep and poultry 64 Table B.54 Cattle Farms (2007) 66 Table B.55 Emissions of N2O, CH4 and NH3 from cattle (2007) 67 Table B.56 Shares of emission of N2O, CH4 and NH3 (2007) 67 Table B.57 Number of livestock (2010) 69 Table B.58 Number of livestock by size of agricultural holdings 70 Table B.59 Structure of cattle holdings (2010) 70


Table B.60 Number of cattle farm above 100 heads in Poland, as of 18 November 2011 73 Table B.61 Atmospheric emissions from cattle (dairy and others) for specific installations in Poland, 2011 74 Table B.62 Emissions of CH4 from cattle, 2009 75 Table B.63 Number of installations and livestock heads in Slovakia, 2010 78 Table B.64 N production (kg/head/year) and share in AWMS in Slovakia, 2009 78 Table B.65 Cattle NH3 emissions in Slovakia, 2010 79 Table B.66 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation according to the livestock in Slovakia, 1990 – 2009 79 Table B.67 Activity data and methane emissions for dairy cattle in Slovakia, 1990-2009 80 Table B.68 Activity data and methane emissions for non-dairy cattle in Slovakia, 1990-2009 80 Table B.69 Impacts of BAT in Slovakia 82 Table B.70 Number of cattle and holdings in Slovenia, 2010 83 Table B.71 Livestock heads according to animal type and housing regime 85 Table B.72 Annual nitrogen and manure excretion rates 86 Table B.73 Catalunyan standard nitrogen excretion factors 87 Table B.74 Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (2009) 87 Table B.75 Cattle heads in Sweden, 2011 89 Table B.76 Cattle heads and holdings in the UK, 2009-2011 (thousands)a 91 Table B.77 Dairy cattle and beef herd numbers in the UK, 2005-2011 92 Table B.78 Cattle heads and holdings by herd size in the UK, 2005 and 2010 (thousands) 93 Table B.79 Nitrogen Excretion Factors, kg N hd-1 year-1 for livestock in the UK (2000-2009) 93 Table B.80 Distribution of Animal Waste Management Systems used for Different Animal typesc 95 Table B.81 Cattle Manure Management Systems in the UK 96

Figure B.1 Population of non-dairy cattle in Estonia in 1990-2009, 1000 heads 25 Figure B.2 Population of dairy cattle in Estonia in 1990-2009, 1000 heads 25 Figure B.3 Nitrogen excretion factors in Hungary, 1993-2009 54 Figure B.4 Ammonia emissions in the UK, 1990-2009 94

Appendix A Data Proforma Appendix B Stakeholder Consultation

A1


Appendix A Data Proforma

Proforma AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 17 Angel Gate, City Road, London EC1V 2SH, United Kingdom Tel +44 (0) 207 843 1400 Fax +44 (0) 207 843 1410

h:\non-project\a230 professional support\charlotte\30310 agricultural proforma 031011 (cattle).doc

Members of IEEG To

Member State IPPC responsible experts for intensive agriculture Subject Project for the European Commission DG Environment, Ref: Ares (2011) 918813.

Collection and analysis of data to inform certain reviews required under Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED)

Topics Reporting in line with Article 73(2)(a) on the need to control emissions from

the intensive rearing of cattle

Response Deadline

30 November 2011

Intensive rearing of cattle

Background Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED) places an obligation in Article 73(2) on the European Commission to review “the need to control emissions from (…) the intensive rearing of cattle”.

AMEC has been contracted by the European Commission to gather and analyse information to support the Commission in line with Article 73(2)(b). This involves building on existing data and collecting and assessing any new information and/or data that are available from Member States.

As part of its review of the existing IPPC Directive the Commission collected information on the need to control emissions from intensive rearing of cattle. This information will be included as existing data for the review, but more up-to-date information is welcome.

It should be noted that Article 73(2)(b) does not restrict the options for the control of emissions from this sector solely to an amendment of the IED.

Questions 1. What information does your Member State hold on number of cattle farms

disaggregated by livestock number and/or type of enterprise (i.e. dairy, beef, suckler and others) as well as volumes of manure produced? Please can you provide any information you have in the most disaggregated form you have available.

2. How is ‘intensive rearing of cattle’ defined (if at all) in your Member State? What factors are taken into account in your definition of ‘intensive’ (e.g. length of housing period, stocking rates)?

3. What information does your Member State hold on atmospheric emissions of


pollutants from cattle farms (ammonia, methane and N2O)? What is their overall contribution to total emissions in your Member State? Is this contribution forecast to increase or decrease in the future? Please can you provide any information you have in the most disaggregated form you have available.

4. What information does your Member State hold on wider environmental impacts of the sector? e.g. emissions to water, impacts on climate change and biodiversity.

5. What information does your Member State hold on nitrogen excretion factors for dairy and beef cattle?

6. What are the most common forms of management system in place in intensive cattle farms in your Member State (separately for beef and dairy) in terms of:

a. Animal feeding (e.g. reliance on concentrate feed, typical protein levels in feed, ‘professionalism’ of designing rations).

b. Housing.

c. Slurry/Manure storage, handling and spreading.

7. What are the current requirements (if any) placed upon cattle farms in your Member State’s national legislation, that may impact on emissions to air, water, climate change or biodiversity as well as planning controls for new units?

Please provide information regarding the permit regime and monitoring requirements that are applicable to these farms.

8. What voluntary systems (if any) are in place for limiting emissions from intensive cattle farms in your Member State (e.g. codes of good practice, quality assurance schemes)?

9. What measures and techniques are currently applied for reducing emissions from cattle farms? Also, what measures and techniques are expected to be applicable in the future? Please provide any information you have on the costs and emission reduction potential of these techniques.

10. Please provide any information you hold on the likely future development in this sector (e.g. trends towards new ‘mega-units’).

11. Do you have any other comments on the review?


If you would like to discuss any of the questions in this proforma please contact the person named below.

Ben Grebot AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 17 Angel Gate, City Road, London EC1V 2SH, UK Direct +44 (0)20 7843 1414 [email protected]

B1


Appendix B Stakeholder Consultation

The following information summarises key data submitted by individual Member States during the study.

Table B.1 on the following page provides summary data on cattle, by number of heads and holdings, according to different cattle categories, that was provided during consultation with Member States.

B2


Table B.1 Summary of Member State data received through consultation on cattle numbers and installations (thousands)

Member State

Total cattle Dairy cattle Sucklers Heifers Bulls >1year Calves <1year

Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings

Austria 2,013 72 794 64 346 64 548 62 325 37

Belgium (Wallonia) 11 5 8 9 (meat

production)

Belgium (Flanders) Detailed data provided – see table in relevant section below.

Cyprus 55 23.4 10.6 0.6 20.2

Czech Republic 1,376 19 384 798

Denmark 563 526

Estonia 235 97 17 (meat)

Finland 914 11 286 2 57 162 111 12 (all beef) 299

France 9,465 232 3,729 63 4231 1,372 14.1

(fattening beef)

Germany 12,535 145 3,796 135 1130 87

Greece No data received

Hungary 734 40

Ireland No data received

Italy 6,081 145 1,703 61

Latvia 380 37 164 105.6

Lithuania No data received

B3


Member State

Total cattle Dairy cattle Sucklers Heifers Bulls >1year Calves <1year

Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings Heads Holdings

Luxembourg No data received

Malta No data received

Netherlands No data received

Poland 4 (over

100 heads)

Portugal 1,430 278 8 16 (beef)

Romania 166 (with over 100 places)

158

Slovakia 187 814 (beef)

Slovenia 472 31

Spain 6,046 906 1,391 630 1,145

Sweden 347 196 475

UK 10,076 88 1,844 24 1,650 (beef) 61 (beef)

B4


Austria

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Austria and accompanying documentation.

Number of installations and livestock heads

Austria has submitted as evidence the latest National Inventory Report 2011 (NIR)1. This document contains detailed information on population size by livestock category for 1990 to 2009. Table B.2 shows the population size of cattle by different categories. This data is based on the Austrian official statistics (STATISTIK AUSTRIA 2009) which provides national data of annual livestock numbers on a very detailed level.

Austria has submitted a national Lebensministerium 2011 report on “Structure of the cattle-holding companies in Austria”. This document contains information on livestock heads and number of holdings by herd sizes. The document is written in German and will be analysed following the submission of this report.

1 Submission under UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol

B5


Table B.2 Domestic livestock population in Austria, 1990-2009

Volumes of manure and excretion rates

Volumes of manure produced are reported in the Austrian National Action Programme under the Nitrates Directive (summarised in Table B.3).

B6


Table B.3 Quantities of farmyard manure accumulated over 6 months per stall place in m3 for different dung removal systems

Liquid manure

Dung – slurry system

Open stall dung

Dung Slurry

Cattle

Young cattle

Calves and young stock under ½ year 1.3 0.8 0.7 1.7

Young stock ½ to 1 year 3.4 1.8 1.7 3.9

Young stock 1 to 2 years 5.8 3.0 2.9 6.2

Cattle over 2 years

Bullocks, bulls 7.1 3.5 3.5 7.7

Cows 7.7 3.8 3.8 8.2

Dairy cows without offspring

Dairy cows (5000kg milk) 11.5 7.4 3.8 11.9





Dairy cows (> 10,000kg milk) 12.7 8.1 4.2 13.0

Suckler cows and nurse cows without offspring

Suckler and nurse cows 11.3 7.2 3.7 11.6

Austria’s NIR (2011) reports volatile solids (VS) and nitrogen excretion rates for dairy cattle, suckling cows and other non-dairy cattle. Nitrogen excretion rates are summarised in the tables below.

B7


Table B.4 Specific N excretion values of dairy cows in Austria, 1990-2009

Table B.5 Specific N excretion values of other livestock categories in Austria

Definition of ‘intensive rearing of cattle’

There is no definition for intensive cattle rearing in Austria.

Atmospheric emissions of pollutants from cattle farms (ammonia, methane and N2O)

Austria’s 2011 Informative Inventory Report (IIR) summarises greenhouse gases (methane, N2O and ammonia) from different livestock categories including dairy and non-dairy cattle from 1990 to 2009. The tables below show methane and N2O emissions by different livestock categories.

B8


Table B.6 CH4 emissions [Gg] per livestock category in Austria, 1990-2009

B9


Table B.7 N2O emissions [Gg] from manure management in Austria, 1990-2009

Austria has provided its most recent estimates of emissions projections. Austria’s National Air Emission Projections for 2010-2030 (submission under the UN/ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution) has been provided alongside the GHG Projections and Assessment of Policies and Measures in Austria. These will be assessed for the final report.

Wider environmental impacts of cattle rearing

Austria has provided its National Climate Change Report (2010)2. This will be analysed following the submission of this report.

National legislation

Austria provided information on current requirements placed upon cattle farms in its completed proforma. The construction of facilities for rearing cattle has to be permitted under the construction laws of the (nine) provinces (Bundesländer). Permit conditions are provided on a case-by-case basis. In certain cases the facilities also need a

2 in Compliance with the Obligations under the UNFCCC.

B10


permit under the Federal Water Act (§ 32 para. 2 f) of the Water Act, Fed. Law Gazette 1959, as amended by Fed. Law Gaz. I No 14/2011. Where the Water Act applies, conditions for monitoring can be found in the “Alllgemeine Abwasseremissionsverordnung”, Fed. Law Gazette 186/1996.

Measures and techniques for reducing emissions from cattle farms

The NIR (2011) and IIR (2011) contain detailed information on the distribution of animal housing and waste storage systems.

New information on animal waste management storage for cattle and swine was collected in the study “Animal husbandry and manure management systems in Austria (TIHALO)” (Amon et al., 2007). In this project a comprehensive survey on the agricultural practices in Austria was carried out. The tables below shows manure management practices in Austria in 2009.

Table B.8 Manure Management System distribution in Austria, 2009

Information is also included on the share of composted and untreated solid manure for the years 1990 and 2005, and the distribution of slurry storage and treatment (see tables below).

B11


Table B.9 Share of composted and untreated solid manure for cattle and swine in Austria in 2005 according to (Amon et al., 2007) and distribution in 1990 according to expert opinion (Pollinger, 2008)

Table B.10 Slurry storage and treatment for cattle and swine in 2005 according to (Amon et al., 2007) and distribution in 1990 according to expert opinion (Pollinger, 2008)

Belgium

Belgium submitted a joint response for Flanders and Wallonia.

B12



There are 11,289 installations with cows in Wallonia, of which 5,343 dairy and 8,692 for meat production. In 2009, the cattle population was 1.304 million heads. The number of holdings of suckler cows was estimated to be 8,391 units in 2009, representing 77% of all holdings.

Flanders provided a detailed breakdown of numbers of holdings and heads for various farm categories (see table below).

Beef cattle farms = more than >90% of all all bovine animals (adult + young stock) are bovine animals for meat production (suckler cow+ young stock-beef cattle + other bovine animals)

Number of adult bovine animals

Number of farms

Dairy cows (number)

Young stock (<2year)-Dairy

(number)

Suckler cow (number)

Young stock (<2jaar)-

Beef cattle (number)

Other bovine animals

(number)

Calves for fattening (number )

Total N production (kg

N)

0-49 5451 135 637 62110 122662 42866 548 10133414

50-99 888 177 127 34261 61822 25029 239 5374999

100-149 215 197 66 13600 25217 12112 81 2298887

150-199 61 120 38 4330 8026 6044 60 877134

200-249 18 26 17 1635 3369 2268 7 336854

250-299 13 32 43 1366 1947 2209 18 269740

300-349 6 0 0 184 259 1774 1 127880

350-399 2 0 286 416 490 57875

550-599 2 0 0 166 278 1012 1 89762

Total 6656 687 928 117938 223996 93804 955 19566547

Dairy cow farms = more than 90% of all bovine animals (adult + young stock) are bovine animals for milk production (Dairy cows + young stock-Dairy)


Number of farms

Dairy cows (number)


(number)


Young stock (<2jaar)-

Beef cattle (number)


(number)



N)

0-49 344 11349 9265 42 195 1419 245 1646746

50-99 407 27836 22456 84 660 3127 515 4091830

100-149 81 9382 7208 30 275 938 164 1338305

150-199 8 1379 1048 3 41 129 25 193846

250-299 2 549 460 3 19 72 8 74373

300-349 1 317 297 0 11 37 5 54068

Total 843 50812 40734 162 1201 5722 962 7399169

Mixed farms of which more than 50% of the adult bovine animals are dairy cows


Number of farms

Dairy cows (number)


(number)


Young stock (<2jaar)-Beef

cattle (number)


(number)



N)

B13


0-49 1326 32057 23517 2497 7422 11425 827 5071022

50-99 1672 81247 65606 6480 19207 28290 1819 13611411

100-149 407 33326 26967 2810 8141 11434 1756 5702778

150-199 91 10678 8794 760 2510 3949 201 1841568

200-249 17 2516 2252 244 793 952 53 463013

250-299 4 772 689 98 261 170 11 130990

300-349 2 447 450 1 27 232 9 87060

350-399 1 347 283 0 165 9 53111

400-449 1 295 253 30 188 100 55314

550-599 1 424 350 0 11 130 8 73080

Total 3522 162109 129161 12920 38725 56691 4684 27089345

Mixed farms of which less than 50% of the adult bovine animals are dairy cows


Number of farms

Dairy cows (number)


(number)



cattle (number)


(number)



N)

0-49 461 4539 4912 4106 6925 5587 156 1392599

50-99 740 17725 14997 17851 30310 17535 1014 5266941

100-149 228 8713 7870 9847 16918 8550 486 2761109

150-199 58 2897 2748 3310 5597 3494 841 966780

200-249 15 822 1150 1307 2005 1203 29 337497

250-299 5 330 642 641 765 363 15 142503

300-349 1 62 3 145 170 112 5 27243

350-399 1 0 288 219 189 152 0 41364

Total 1509 35088 32610 37426 62879 36996 2546 10936036

Farm for fattening calves = more than 75% of all bovine animals (adult + young stock) are fattening calves


Number of farms

Dairy cows (number)


(number)



cattle (number)


(number)



N)

0-299 34 17 0 33 75 88 6430 64773

300-599 137 469 364 433 685 440 65132 669725

600-899 65 8 18 265 718 157 46451 430764

900-1199 18 0 0 27 50 18 18492 155768

1200-1800 10 0 0 0 11 1 14030 115460

2800-3000 1 0 1 2831 23265

4400-4500 1 249 107 0 0 30 4423 61005

9100-9200 1 0 81 97 342 9189 103679

Total 267 743 489 839 1637 1076 166978 1624438

B14


farms with < 10 bovine animals (adult + young stock)


Number of farms

Dairy cows (number)


(number)



cattle (number)


(number)



N)

<10 3658 129 125 4209 7665 5870 14 915627


No data was submitted for Wallonia. For Flanders the following table was provided.

Animal species P2 O5-excretion (kg /animal, year)

N-excretion (kg/animal, year)

Exchangeable cattle (?in dutch: vervangingsvee) younger than 1 year 10 33

Exchangeable cattle (?in dutch: vervangingsvee) between 1and 2 year 19,2 58

Dairy cows with milk production of maximum 4000 kg milk/year 26 81

Dairy cows with milk production higher than 4000 until maximum 4250 kg milk/year 26,5 83

Dairy cows with milk production higher than 4250 until maximum 4500 kg milk/year 27 85
















Dairy cows with milk production higher than 8250 kg until maximum 8500 kg milk/year 37,5 117





B15


Animal species P2 O5-excretion (kg /animal, year)

N-excretion (kg/animal, year)

Dairy cows with milk production higher than 9500 kg until maximum 9750 kg milk/year 41,5 127

Dairy cows with milk production higher than 9750 until maximum 10.000 kg milk/year 42 129

Dairy cows with milk production higher than 10.000 kg milk/year 43 131

Suckler cows 28 65

Fattening calves 3,6 10,5

Bovine animals younger than 1 year 7 22,3

Bovine animals between 1 and 2 year 19,2 58

Other bovine animals 29,5 77


In the Flemish legislation there is no specific definition concerning intensive rearing of cattle. There is a definition for pigs and poultry based on the European IPPC-directive.

In practice concerning cattle ‘intensive’ is considered as the stock farm where the cattle are kept entirely indoors (in stables) throughout the whole year. If cattle are kept outside, this is not considered to be intensive.


Cattle is responsible for emitting 15.74 million kg NH3/year, which is 38.7% of the total emission of the agriculture in Flanders (40.6 million kg NH3/year). This is decreasing over time, partially due the decrease of stock of cattle itself and partially due to improving operational techniques (stable techniques, feed composition).

The total emissions of potential acidifying substances coming from agriculture decreased 1990-2008 by 56% according to the Milieurapport Vlaanderen 2010. The ammonia emissions cover a huge part of 83% in the potential acidifying emissions of agriculture in 2008. The SO2 share amounted to 5%, and the NO2 share to 12%.

Since 2008 the stock of cattle is increasing, due to expansion possibilities in the manure policy since 2007. The size of the stock is the driving force behind increasing emissions of acidifying substances, fine dust, greenhouse gases. A further increase of emissions in 2010 is expected.

Agriculture is the most important source of the acidifying emissions in Flanders (namely 36% in 2008). This is mainly due to the ammonia emissions coming from agriculture. 93% of the Flemish ammonia emissions come from agriculture, of which 38.7% is from the cattle sector.

No data was submitted by Wallonia.

B16



The MIRA (Milieurapport Vlaanderen) 2010 has developed a set of sectoral environmental indicators, including high-level indicators for agriculture (however, these are only to a limited extent split according to species).



Flanders presented a summary of relevant legislation, primarily the Title II of VLAREM (Flemish legislation) which covers almost all livestock farms, and contains requirements to limit impacts on air emissions, water emissions, warming effects and biodiversity. There are measures for both existing and new installations. Relevant to livestock are parts 4 and chapter 5.9 of VLAREM II (General environmental conditions and conditions concerning animals) along with the list of stables with low ammonia emissions (Ministerial Decree of 19 of March 2004 concerning the determination of the list of the low ammonia emission stable systems).

In Flanders the threshold for compulsory permitting is very low (in one region a rural area, for instance, permits are required for holdings with over 10 heads of cattle) which means that there are no voluntary regimes.

No information was submitted by Wallonia.


In Flanders the ‘Vlaamse Instelling voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VITO)’ conducted a BAT-study (BAT for the livestock sector – 2006), containing information regarding the different options for the applicability of BAT. This will be analysed following submission of this report.

Flanders submitted information on the ammonia reduction plan it has developed in response to the European regulations concerning ammonia emission ceilings. This is based on four pillars:

1. The obligation to use animal manure emissions on land

2. Adjustment in the composition of the animal feed

3. Adjustment of the stable level

4. Manure processing.

The pillars 1, 2 and 4 were brought in practice and regulated in the framework of the Manure Decree. Pillar 3 is regulated by a VLAREM obligation, where new stables must be built according to one of the techniques described in the list of stables with low ammonia emissions set out in the Ministerial Decree of March 2004. For cattle, there are for the moment no stables with low ammonia emissions determined because the measurement data are currently not sufficiently reliable for stables with natural ventilation.

B17



Additional information submitted during July 2012 consultation on final report

The box below provides details of additional (new) information/comments that were submitted by the authorities for the Flanders region of Belgium. It has not been possible to take this into account for the development of the report.

3. Baseline Definition Table 3.4 National legislation summary The table states for Belgium: no BAT defined for cattle: x In the regulations concerning environmental safety are laid down in the “Vlarem II” legislation. This legislation states that BAT should be used. The Flemish Institute for Technologisch Research (VITO) made a study under the authority of the Flemish government concerning the best available techniques (BAT) for the livestock sector. http://www.emis.vito.be/sites/default/files/pages/migrated/bbt_rapport_veeteelt_volledig_document.pdf Table 4.1 Thresholds already applied to cattle Also Flanders has already thresholds: Calves for slaughtering Stalls for calves for slaughtering, by which is understood one or more buildings and/or installations in which calves for slaughtering are reared or kept, (areas defined under the terms of the Royal Decree of 28 December 1972 concerning the organisation and application of the draft regional plans and the regional plans) a) in an area other than that stated in b) and c): with space for 5 to 500 animals inclusive b) in a residential area with a rural character: with space for 10 to 500 animals inclusive c) in an agrarian area: with space for 20 to 500 animals inclusive Stalls for indigenous large mammals, particularly horses, cows and cattle, by which is understood one or more buildings and/or installations in which large mammals other than pigs and calves for slaughtering are reared or kept (areas defined under the terms of the Royal Decree of 28 December 1972 concerning the organisation and application of the draft regional plans and the regional plans) a) in an area other than that stated in b) and c): with space for 5 up to and including 200 weaned animals b) in a residential area with a rural character: with space for 10 up to and including 200 weaned animals c) in an agrarian area: with space for 20 up to and including 200 weaned animals

Denmark

Denmark has a permit regime for cattle above 15 LU. Above 75 LU you need an approval if you expand and above 250 LU the regulation is as for livestock production according to the IED regulation. See sections 10-12 at http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/2A5F6C1B-452C-47CF-90AC-7AF828D4365C/0/ConsolidatedActonLivestockFarmingEnvironmentalApprovals.pdf

Denmark also has BAT standards for cattle (http://www.mst.dk/Virksomhed_og_myndighed/Landbrug/Husdyrgodkendelser/bat/BAT-standardvilkaar.htm) as well as some voluntary systems.

Cyprus

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Cyprus.

http://www.mst.dk/Virksomhed_og_myndighed/Landbrug/Husdyrgodkendelser/bat/BAT-standardvilkaar.htm

B18



According to the proforma, in 2010 there were 23,421 dairy cows, 10,560 heifers, 570 bulls and 20,164 calves. The total number of animals was 54,715.

The total volume of manure produced in 2010 is estimated about 732,000 cubic metres.


In Cyprus, intensive rearing of cattle is defined as organized cattle farming to produce and sell milk and meat. There is no minimum limit on the number of animals.


Cyprus provided the following table on emissions from cattle.

Table B.11 Emissions from cattle, 2009

Ammonia Methane N2O

Total emissions from cattle

950 t 5.75 Gg 0.1 Gg

Contribution to total NH3

4959 t 49.42 Gg 1.19 Gg

Total emissions from cattle (%)

19.2 11.6 8

Excretion factors

The following information was provided by Cyprus on nitrogen excretion factors for cattle.

• 0.36 Kg N for 1.000 kg live weight of dairy cows

• 0.55 Kg N for 1.000 Kg live weight of other cattle

Common Management Techniques

Cyprus reports that the most common management methods are as follows:

Animal feeding:

• The animals are fed on TMR (Total Mixed Ration) system consisting of 70% concentrate feed and 30% of hay/silage/fodder.

B19


• The protein levels are approximately 16% ration for dairy caws. The feed rations are calculated according to production levels.

Housing:

• The animals are housed all year round. There is no grazing system. There are two types of housing. At the first type the cows are housed in individual stalls and in the second the cows are free housed.

Manure:

• The slurry/manure is collected and stored in suitable storage facilities. Particularly, the slurry from the farms with individual stalls is treated by mechanical separator and the liquid fraction is stored in lagoons. The solid fraction as well as the manure in case of free housed farms is stored in concrete platform with slope towards the liquid waste channel. The solid is stored in concrete platform with slope towards the liquid waste channel. Any possible run –off or leaching from the solid waste storage facility is collected into the waste collection tank. The platform must also be covered during the winter to protect the manure from rain. Then can be applied to the fields according the Code of Good Agriculture Practice and the Action Program if is used in NVZ areas. Noted that the capacity of the platform must be for at least 6 months.


Farms must obtain Waste Discharge Permit according to the Water Pollution Control Law. The permits include terms to ensure good management of the wastes in order to protect the water and the soil. The permits are inspected periodically to ensure that the terms are implemented without any problems. Measures are taken when violations are found. The measures include letters of compliance or non-judicial settings and criminal prosecution from reports to the Attorney General.

Czech Republic

The following information is based on the proforma completed by the Czech Republic.


The Czech Republic provided the following tables on cattle and installation numbers. According to the proforma, the total number of cattle in the Czech Republic is constantly decreasing (at a rate of 2.7 % annually) as a result of the low price of milk, the stagnation of the price of meat alongside increasing production costs.

Table B.12 Amount of cattle in the Czech Republic (2010)

Livestock category Heads of cattle

Dairy cows 383,523

B20


Cows without milk production 167,722

Young cattle, bulls 798,041

Total 1,349,286

Table B.13 Number of farms in the Czech Republic (2010)

Size of farm (animals) Amount of farms Total animals

1-100 16015 240,654

101-200 1250 179,137

201-300 635 156,691

301-400 466 161,795

401-500 317 142,584

501-600 207 113,333

601-700 164 106,194

701-800 106 79,240

801-900 65 54,788

901-1000 44 41,869

1001-1700 80 99,762


There is no definition for intensive cattle rearing in the Czech Republic.


The Czech Republic refers to its latest National Inventory Report (2011). In this report, methane emissions from enteric fermentation by cattle over the period 1990-2009 are provided. Furthermore, methane and N2O emissions from manure management are provided (see tables below). The overall contribution of cattle farms to total emissions is 45 – 50% in ammonia (NIR, 2011), 40% N2O and 80% in methane (expert judgement).

B21


Table B.14 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation, cattle (Tier 2, 1990-2009)

Table B.15 Emissions of manure management in report period 1990, 2009

B22


Common forms of management system

The Czech Republic reports that the most common management methods are as follows:

Animal feeding

• Dairy cows – regulated nutrition for production, feeding in the form of mixed feed dose.

• Meat production – pasture - grass land (additional feed dose during winter season – bulky feed, hay, silage)

Housing.

• Dairy cows – on small farms the tied housing system with and bedding systems are used. On large farms the loose especially cubicle house system with periodical cleaning of floor is usually used.

• Meat production – year-round pasture or deep bedding in winter season.

Slurry/Manure storage, handling and spreading

Manure is stored in manure pits within farms or in fields. Manure pits are often covered by a selected emissions abatement cover (i.e. natural crust). According to the Czech legislation on fertilization, slurry has to be incorporated within 24 hours after spreading on the field. Band spreading slurry systems with a trailing hose or shoe are commonly used. Application of these abatement technologies has increased. Utilisation of slurry on agricultural biogas production units is also increasing.


According to the proforma, the following measures and techniques are currently applied for reducing emissions from cattle farms:

• Incorporation of manure: Band-spreading slurry with a trailing hose, Band spreading with trailing shoe, Injecting slurry (open slot), Incorporation of surface applied slurry within 24 hours.

• Slurry storage: Tight lid, roof or tent structure, plastic sheeting, natural crust (floating cover)

• Housing: Optimal barn air-condition with roof insulation, Decreasing the surface area fouled by manure, Adsorption of urine (e.g. by straw), Rapid removal of urine, rapid separation of faeces and urine, Decreasing of the air velocity above the manure

Some new measures will be possibly applied according to Gothenburg revision requirements.


The Czech Republic provided information on current requirements placed upon cattle farms in its completed proforma. The following pieces of legislation are relevant to cattle installations:

B23


• Act No. 86/2002 Coll., on air protection

• Decree No. 615/2006 Coll.on determination of emission limit and other conditions for operation of State stationary sources of pollution

• Act. No. 254/2001 Coll. on waters.

No further information is provided on the requirements of these acts on cattle installations.

Operators of cattle farms must prepare “The plan of good agricultural practice” and obtain authorisation of this document by the permitting authority. The Czech environmental inspection regularly checks compliance with this document. This document contains information dealing with ammonia emissions abatement technologies used on cattle farms and farmers are forced to use them (no detail has been provided on specific abatement technologies). In the instance of discrepancy between observer farmer practice and the permit document the farmer is penalized.

New farms are subject to environmental impact assessment (process EIA). The Ministry of Agriculture also performs cross-compliance check on selected farms that received subsidies.

Denmark

The UK did not complete a proforma on cattle, but did provide links to a number of documents.


According to Statistics Denmark, the production of dairy cattle and heifer in 2009 is 563,000 dairy cows and 526,000 heifers.

Emissions

The following table is provided in “Projection of SO2, NOx, NH3 and Particle emissions 2010-2030” (DCE, 2012) summarising emissions from agricultural activities in Denmark.

Excretion factors

DCE (2012) includes projections on nitrogen excretion factors from dairy and non-dairy cattle. According to the default values, N-excretion in 2009 for dairy cattle (large breed) was 140.9 kg N per animal per year (Poulsen, 2010).

B24


Common management techniques

Housing:

• Around 80 % of the dairy cattle and 30 % of the heifers are currently estimated to be housed in housing systems with cubicles (DCE, 2012).

• Changes in housing systems are assumed to lead towards phasing out both tethering and deep litter systems. All dairy cattle are expected to be housed in systems with cubicles in 2020, which means that all manure is handled as slurry. Same development is assumed for heifer, but extends over a longer period of time. All tethering housings are assumed to be replaced by housing system with cubicles in 2030, while around 15 % of the heifers are housed in deep litter systems.

Manure/slurry management:

• According to legislation BEK No. 1695 of 19/12/2006 and BEK No. 114 of 11/02/2011 from 2011 all slurry applied on grass fields or bare soil has to be injected. Alternatively an application technique with acid treated slurry can be used.


According to DCE (2012), for air pollutants the most important decisions, which can be considered as driving forces to implementation of further environmental requirements are; the National Agreement of Green Growth formulated in 2009 and followed up in 2010, the NEC Directive (Directive 2001/81/EC) and Danish Law on Environmental Approval of Animal holdings (LBK No. 1486 of 04/12/2009 and BEK No. 294 of 31/03/2009).


According to DCE (2012), technology to reduce emissions from agriculture is expected to take place in animal housing in future years. In the projections it is chosen to include the ammonia reducing effect of implementation of air cleaning and slurry acidification systems to adjust the pH value of the slurry. According to different technology suppliers these technologies seem to be the two most used systems. Furthermore, these technologies are described and the reduction effect is quantified in Best Available Techniques (BAT):

• BAT 1: Sulphuric acid treatment of slurry in housings for fattening pigs

• BAT 2: Sulphuric acid treatment of cattle slurry3

• BAT 3: Air cleaning with acid4.

3 Available in Danish: http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/53A4E928-3D24-407F-B8D6-E1C8EF4F4CEF/83990/MaSt01forsuringkvgBATbladudenkorr.pdf

4 Available in Danish: http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/53A4E928-3D24-407F-B8D6-E1C8EF4F4CEF/83989/SlSt02luftrensBATbladudenkorr.pdf

http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/53A4E928-3D24-407F-B8D6-E1C8EF4F4CEF/83990/MaSt01forsuringkvgBATbladudenkorr.pdf

http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/53A4E928-3D24-407F-B8D6-E1C8EF4F4CEF/83990/MaSt01forsuringkvgBATbladudenkorr.pdf

http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/53A4E928-3D24-407F-B8D6-E1C8EF4F4CEF/83989/SlSt02luftrensBATbladudenkorr.pdf

http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/53A4E928-3D24-407F-B8D6-E1C8EF4F4CEF/83989/SlSt02luftrensBATbladudenkorr.pdf

B25


The main objective for both technologies is to reduce the emission of NH3 along with a reduction in odour for the air cleaning.

Estonia

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Estonia.


Total number of cattle in 2009 in Estonia was approximately 234,700, of which 96,700 were dairy cows, 17,000 beef cattle, and rest of others. 70% of cattle are housed in smaller farms (under 300 heads).

The National Inventory Report (2011) includes data on livestock populations from 1990-2009. Figure B.1 shows the population of non-dairy cattle in Estonia from 1990-2009. Figure B.2 shows population of dairy cattle in Estonia from 1990-2009.

Figure B.1 Population of non-dairy cattle in Estonia in 1990-2009, 1000 heads

Figure B.2 Population of dairy cattle in Estonia in 1990-2009, 1000 heads

B26



‘Intensive rearing of cattle’ is defined in Estonia according to stocking rates. No further information has been provided.


According to the proforma, aggregated data from the Estonian Environmental Information Centre found that in 2010: cattle farms accounted for 81.7 % (6857.9) tons of total CH4 emissions, 64.9% of total N2O emissions (52.8 tons) and 72% of total NH3 emissions (1915.35 tons).

The total CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation of cattle were 19.76 Gg in 2009 (see Table B.16). Dairy cattle livestock was the main contributor to CH4 emissions from cattle enteric fermentation in Estonia in 2009. The total CH4 emissions from cattle manure management were 1.48 Gg in Estonia in 2009 (see Table B.17).

Table B.16 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation of cattle in 1990-2009 in Estonia, Gg

Source: NIR, 2011

B27


Table B.17 Methane emissions from cattle manure management activities in 1990-2009 in Estonia, Gg

Source: NIR, 2011

Excretion factors

The NIR (2011) includes information on nitrogen excretion factors. The nitrogen excretion factors for dairy cattle by county of Estonia are presented in Table B.18. The trend in the implied nitrogen excretion factors reported in the CRF is presented in Table B.19.

B28


Table B.18 N excretion factors of dairy cattle by country in 2009, kg N/head/year

Table B.19 Average N excretion factors, 1990-2009, kg N/head/year

Table B.20 Manure management system usage (%, Eastern Europe manure management system) and methane conversion factors (MCFs)

B29


The total quantity of nitrogen generated by cattle was 14,240 tonnes in Estonia in 2009. The allocation of nitrogen excreted among different types of manure management system is presented in Table B.21 below.

Table B.21 Allocation of N (in manure) excreted by cattle among different types of manure management system, t N/year


In Estonia, the IPPC was transposed through a number of legal acts including Governmental Regulation RT I 2002, 41, 258 that specifies “Sub-activities and threshold capacities subject to integrated permits and deadlines for the operator of the existing installation submitting an application for an integrated permit”. Article 9.1.2 states that an integrated permit is required for cattle farms having a facility for rearing 300 or more dairy cows, or 400 or more sucklers, or 600 or more young cows, who is considered more than 8 months of age until parturition heifers, cows and bulls over 8 months of age. If an installation is simultaneously rearing at least two of the above mentioned sub-categories of cattle then the total number of bovine animals in the installation must be calculated using the following conversion factors: 1.0 for dairy cow, suckler - 0.75, 0.5 - young cattle. The need for integrated permit should be decided by comparison with threshold for dairy cows.

At present 115 cattle farms (installations) are permitted under IPPC Act5.

Estonia has developed its own BAT document for the intensive rearing of cattle, covering:

• Good agricultural practice

• Feeding 5 These are individually listed here under code 9.1.2: http://www.ippc.envir.ee.

http://www.ippc.envir.ee/

B30


• Housing technologies

• Manure storage

• Spreading of manure.

The conclusions of this document will be further assessed following submission of this report.

According to the proforma, costs of these techniques are estimated at approximately €3000/m2 for new cattle farm.

Finland

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Finland.


Table B.22 shows the number of cattle in Finland in 2011.

Table B.22 Number of cattle heads in Finland, 2011

Animal category Number of animals

Dairy cows 285,529

Suckler cows 57,257

Heifers >1yr 161,924

Bulls >1 yr 110,781

Calves <1 yr 298,562

Source: Matilda agricultural statistics. Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Tike

Table B.23 -Table B.25 show the number cattle installations by herd size in Finland in 2011.

B31


Table B.23 Number of dairy cattle installations, by herd size in Finland, 2011

Herd size Farms Dairy cows (heads) Dairy cows/herd

1-9 1,832 9,031 4.9

10-14 1,663 20,160 12.1

15-19 1,878 31,783 16.9

20-29 2,754 65,964 24.0

30-39 1,282 43,505 33.9

40-49 659 29,057 44.1

50-74 836 50,288 60.2

75-99 153 12,993 84.9

100-149 137 16,223 118.4

150-199 23 4,016 174.6

200 - 10 2,509 250.9

Total 11,227 285,529 25.4


Table B.24 Number of suckler cow installations, by herd size in Finland, 2011

Herd size Farms Suckler cows (heads) Suckler cows/herd

1-9 695 2,875 4.1

10-14 242 2,903 12.0

15-19 247 4,179 16.9

20-29 362 8,838 24.4

30-39 234 7,975 34.1

40-49 135 5,957 44.1

50-74 201 12,018 59.8

75-99 79 6,667 84.4

100-149 33 4,008 121.5

150- 9 1,837 204.1

Total 2,237 57,257 25.6


B32


Table B.25 Number of beef cattle installations, by herd size in Finland, 2011

Herd size Number of farms Number of animals Animals divided by animal type (estimated)

Suckler cows Bulls Heifers Calves

1-50 10,389 99,251 18,885 38,961 14,524 26,881

51-100 745 52,432 9,977 20,582 7,673 14,200

101-150 260 32,006 6,090 12,564 4,684 8,668

151-200 148 25,801 4,909 10,128 3,776 6,988

201-250 73 16,210 3,084 6,363 2,372 4,390

251-300 46 12,415 2,362 4,874 1,817 3,362

301-350 32 10,338 1,967 4,058 1,513 2,800

351-400 18 6,833 1,300 2,682 1,000 1,851

401-450 17 7,339 1,396 2,881 1,074 1,988

451-500 7 3,369 641 1,323 493 912

501-550 10 5,304 1,009 2,082 776 1,437

551-600 4 2,259 430 887 331 612

601-650 6 3,713 707 1,458 543 1,006

651-700 2 1,375 262 540 201 372

701-750 1 738 140 290 108 200

751-800 1 798 152 313 117 216

801-850 1 818 156 321 120 222

851-900 1 894 170 351 131 242

901-950 2 1,822 347 715 267 493

951-1000 2 1,955 372 767 286 529

1001- 5 5,819 1,107 2,284 852 1,576

Total 11,770 291,489 55,464 114,424 42,655 78,946


Based on the estimates of Pyykkönen et al. (2010), the number of cattle units will decrease by 50% between the years 2010-2020. As the total number of animals is estimated to remain at the present level, the average size of cattle farms will double within the same time period.

Manure volumes

Based on the cattle numbers presented above, production of manure has been calculated by cattle type.

B33


Table B.26 Manure volumes (m3) by herd size: dairy cattle

Herd size (dairy cows)

Manure excreted on

pasture Slurry Deep litter Farmyard

manure Dung Urine

1-9 74,542 126,156 3,684 49,715 26,955 15,422

10-14 166,401 281,619 8,225 110,979 60,171 34,426

15-19 262,338 443,983 12,967 174,962 94,862 54,274

20-29 544,470 921,465 26,912 363,125 196,881 112,642

30-39 359,092 607,731 17,749 239,491 129,848 74,290

40-49 239,838 405,903 11,855 159,956 86,726 49,619

50-74 415,079 702,484 20,516 276,830 150,093 85,873

75-99 107,245 181,502 5,301 71,525 38,780 22,187

100-149 133,905 226,623 6,619 89,306 48,420 27,703

150-199 33,148 56,100 1,638 22,108 11,986 6,858

200 - 20,709 35,049 1,024 13,812 7,489 4,284

Total 2,356,768 3,988,615 116,490 1,571,808 852,210 487,578

Table B.27 Manure volumes (m3) by herd size: beef cattle

Herd size (all beef cattle)

Manure excreted on


manure Dung Urine

1-50 145,987 396,229 114,074 273,530 164,118 74,419

51-100 77,121 209,318 60,263 144,500 86,700 39,314

101-150 47,077 127,774 36,786 88,207 52,924 23,998

151-200 37,950 103,002 29,654 71,106 42,664 19,346

201-250 23,843 64,713 18,631 44,674 26,804 12,154

251-300 18,261 49,563 14,269 34,215 20,529 9,309

301-350 15,206 41,271 11,882 28,491 17,095 7,751

351-400 10,051 27,279 7,853 18,831 11,299 5,123

401-450 10,795 29,299 8,435 20,226 12,136 5,503

451-500 4,955 13,450 3,872 9,285 5,571 2,526

501-550 7,802 21,175 6,096 14,618 8,771 3,977

B34


Herd size (all beef cattle)

Manure excreted on


manure Dung Urine

551-600 3,323 9,018 2,596 6,226 3,735 1,694

601-650 5,461 14,823 4,268 10,233 6,140 2,784

651-700 2,022 5,489 1,580 3,789 2,274 1,031

701-750 1,086 2,946 848 2,034 1,220 553

751-800 1,174 3,186 917 2,199 1,320 598

801-850 1,203 3,266 940 2,254 1,353 613

851-900 1,315 3,569 1,028 2,464 1,478 670

901-950 2,680 7,274 2,094 5,021 3,013 1,366

951-1000 2,876 7,805 2,247 5,388 3,233 1,466

1001- 8,559 23,231 6,688 16,037 9,622 4,363

Total 428,746 1,163,679 335,022 803,328 481,997 218,559


There is no definition for intensive cattle rearing in Finland. According to expert consultation it seems that the most important factor in defining which farms are intensive and which are not would be the herd size, because it is the simplest and also quite descriptive way to assess farm's potential environmental impacts (if we understand term "intensive" as activity which (potentially) causes major environmental impacts). Based on the limits for pigs in IED and based on the limits of cattle and pig farms in the Finnish permitting system we suggest that dairy cow unit equal to or more than 150 heads and beef cattle unit equal to or more than 400 heads (suckler cows+bulls >1yr) would meet the definition of "intensive".


Cattle farming (all cattle types) is responsible for:

• 36% of national CH4 emissions (73 Gg CH4 in 2009 from manure management and from enteric fermentation of cattle). Forecast: no major changes in the future.

• 11% of national N2O emissions (2.1 Gg N2O in 2009, including direct+indirect emissions, from cattle manure management and manure application). Forecast: no major changes in the future.

• 53% of national NH3 emissions (19.8 Gg NH3 in 2009 from manure management and application). Forecast: no major changes in the future.

See the tables below for breakdown by cattle type for 2009.

B35


Table B.28 Methane emissions in Finland (2009)

Dairy cows Suckler cows Bulls Heifers Calves CATTLE TOTAL

36.7 3.5 6.9 9.2 10.4 66.7 Gg CH4 from cattle enteric fermentation

4.29 0.28 0.56 0.48 0.73 6.34 Gg CH4 from cattle manure management

73.04 Gg total

National total emissions: 203.5 Gg

Share of cattle farming: 36%

Table B.29 N2O emissions in Finland (2009)


0.26 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.17 0.68 Gg N2O from cattle manure management DIRECT

0.084 0.007 0.025 0.02 0.04 0.176 Gg N2O from cattle manure management INDIRECT

0.37 0.03 0.1 0.08 0.15 0.73 Gg N2O from cattle manure application DIRECT

0.04 0.002 0.009 0.007 0.013 0.071 Gg N2O from cattle manure application INDIRECT

0.29 0.04 0 0.09 0.025 0.445 Gg N2O from pasturing DIRECT

0.007 0.001 0 0.002 0.001 0.011 Gg N2O from pasturing INDIRECT

2.113 Gg total



Table B.30 Ammonia emissions in Finland, 2009


6.5 0.6 1.9 1.5 2.9 13.4 Gg NH3 from cattle manure management (houses+storages)

3.7 0.3 0.7 0.7 1 6.4 Gg NH3 from cattle manure application

19.8 Gg total



B36


Nitrogen excretion factors

Calculated nitrogen excretion factors for dairy cows, suckler cows, heifers, bulls and calves from 1980 to 2010 and estimates for 2011 and onwards are available. For the year 2009, the values are (kg N excreted per head per year):

• Dairy cows: 126.9

• Suckler cows: 68.9

• Heifers >1yr: 53.6

• Bulls >1 yr: 67.1

• Calves <1 yr: 39.1

Most common management measures

Animal feeding

Table B.34 below summarises animal feeding measures in Finland

Table B.31 Animal feeding measures in Finland

Animal feeding Dairy Beef cattle Suckler cows

Concentrated feed percentage 40-50% 40-50% 0-20%

Protein level 16-17% 13-15% 10-12%

Professional design of feed rations >75% >75% <25%

Housing

Dairy: All new buildings are loose housing. Traditionally thermal insulated buildings, walls of concrete sandwich type or wood framed with wood panelling. Roof structures are mainly made of wood. Typical ventilation is exhaust system, mechanical or natural that means negative pressure inside the building. During the last 10 years, barns with curtain walls and natural ventilation have increased rapidly in number and those will soon be the most common type for larger dairy operations. Milking system in new facilities are mostly automatic milking systems but also parallel milking parlours. Grazing possibility for dairy cows is about 70%, and 10% will have free passage to a feedlot.

TMR (total mixed ratio) mixer wagons are used in 80 % of all new dairy buildings.

B37


Beef cattle: About 60 % of the buildings are thermal insulated with slatted floors, 40 % are uninsulated buildings with straw bedding. Cold loose housing systems are continuously increasing and the building structures are getting lighter. The number Amount of animals per cubicle is about 20 on average.

Suckling cows are most typically (ca 90%) kept in cold un-insulated loose housing barns. One third of these are loose housing with free stalls.

Grazing possibility for beef and suckling cows is about 80 % and the rest of 20 % will have free passage to a feedlot.

TMR mixer wagons are mainly used in new beef cattle buildings but less for suckling cows.

Slurry/manure storage

Dairy: Manure handling is traditionally slatted floors with slurry channels 800-1500 mm deep from where slurry floats with own pressure out into the slurry tank. Most common in newer cow barns is however open manure alleys with installed scrapers or tractor scraping to an end pit, from where the manure is mechanically pumped or scraped to the manure tank.

Cylinder slurry tanks are made of concrete panels with height of 3-4m, volume 1000-2500 m3 per tank. Less than half of these tanks are uncovered. New cover structures have been developed for circular storages, dome type with steel structure and tarpaulin cover. The use of lagoons with geo-membranes has increased during the last 10-20 years.

Manure is mixed inside the tank before pumping in to tank wagons for transportation and spreading. Manure spreading will be done in terms to the environment support scheme. The use of wagons with direct injection of slurry into soil and exact spreaders for solid manure has strongly increased during last years.

About 60% of the solid manure basins are roofed.

Manure separation as well as biogas production and utilization is also increasing at larger operations, but in use at less than 5% of all operations.

Beef cattle: About 50% of existing beef cattle buildings have slatted floors over the slurry channels 800-1500mm deep from where the slurry floats with own pressure out into the slurry tank.

Most common manure handling in new buildings is manure mixed with straw bedding material. This solid manure and straw mixture is weekly, monthly or with longer intervals transported to a basin for solid manure where it is composting before spread at the fields.

B38



Permitting system

According to Finland's environmental protection legislation, permits are needed for all activities involving the risk of pollution of the air and water or contaminating the soil. One important condition for permits is that emissions are limited to the levels obtainable by using Best Available Techniques.

An environmental permit is required for: livestock shelters housing at least 30 dairy cows, 80 beef cattle, 60 full-grown sows, 210 finishing pigs, 60 horses or ponies, 160 ewes or goats, 2,700 laying hens or 10,000 broiler hens, or other livestock shelters which correspond in terms of manure production or environmental impact to a livestock shelter intended for 210 finishing pigs;

The Regional State Administrative Agencies decide on matters relating to environmental permits in respect of the large animal units, i.e. more than 75 dairy cows, 200 beef cattle, 250 full-grown sows, 1,000 finishing pigs, 30,000 laying hens or 50,000 broiler hens, or other livestock shelters which correspond in terms of manure production or environmental impact to a livestock shelter intended for 1,000 finishing pigs. For smaller units, municipalities are the competent authorities.

Applications for permits must be made in writing to the relevant authority, as defined in the Environmental Protection Decree. The authority will then make the application public as appropriate, giving the relevant authorities and anyone affected by the plans a chance to comment and to make proposals concerning the requirements for the permit.

Nitrates Directive

The whole of Finland has been classified as a vulnerable zone in accordance with the directive. The Government issued a decree on 9 November 2000 (931/2000) to implement the requirements of the Nitrate Directive. According to the decree:

• The storage capacity for manure and urine must be sufficient for 8-12 months depending on the length of the possible grazing period. There are special requirements for manure storing in heaps on the fields.

• Manure storages and manure gutters must be watertight to prevent direct nutrient leakages from manure management to soil and waters.

• No spreading of nitrogen fertilizers on flooded, frozen or snow-covered ground. Manure spreading is prohibited between 15 October and 15 April (between 15 November and 1 April if ground is not frozen or saturated with water).

• In autumn, manure has to be incorporated after application on bare soils as soon as possible. Maximum manure application volumes in autumn exist. It is not allowed to spread manure on the surface of grassland after 15 September.

B39


• Application of nitrogen fertilizers is prohibited closer than 5 metres from watercourses. If average slope of the field is more than 2%, surface application of nitrogen fertilizers is prohibited on a zone from 5 to 10 metres from watercourses. If the average slope of the field is more than 10%, surface spreading of manure is always prohibited.

• The amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year, including by the animals themselves, shall not exceed a specified amount of manure containing 170 kg of total N per hectare.

• Maximum levels of nitrogen fertilization (chemical + organic fertilizers) for different crops

• Requirements concerning building of animal sheds on the ground water reserve areas

• Requirements concerning placing and managing of the outdoor yards

• Silage effluents must be collected and stored in waterproof storage containers, spread according to the requirements concerning organic fertilizers

• Nitrogen analysis of manure (total nitrogen) has to be conducted every five years

• Book-keeping of nitrogen fertilization and yields.

Voluntary schemes

The partly EU-funded Agri-Environmental Support Scheme is a voluntary system for farmers to receive financial support for implementing environmentally-friendly agricultural practices, regarding e.g. fertilization levels. Approximately 90% of all farms in Finland have joined the support system.


Covering of slurry storages with floating covers is required in environmental permits. Low emission application measures are applied when possible.

France


According to the French submission, there are currently around 232,000 cattle farms in France (Institut de l’élevage 2011) as, shown in Table B.32.

Table B.32 Evolution of the number of cattle farms by type of enterprise from 2005 to 2010

Number of holdings 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Rate of change over 6 years

Annual rate of change

Dairy cows 82 681 78 484 73 736 69 118 65 662 62 551 -24% -4%

B40


Number of holdings 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Rate of change over 6 years

Annual rate of change

Mixed 24 923 24 721 24 497 23 643 22 446 21 490 -14% -2%

Suckler cows 93 523 91 404 89 649 87 934 85 499 83 098 -11% -2%

Fattening beef 15 166 14 583 14 279 14 282 14 128 14 082 -7% -1%

Very small holdings 79 964 77 435 75 618 68 225 58 169 50 868 -36% -6%

Total 296 257 286 627 277 779 263 202 245 904 232 089 -22% -4%

Source: BDNI-Nomabev – traitement Institut de l’Elevage

Nb. A more detailed breakdown according to sub-categories of farms (e.g. calves, fattening bull/calf, etc) is given.

In 2010, there were 19,500 million cattle reared in France. The distribution of the total number of animals is summarized below in Table B.33:

Table B.33 Distribution of cattle per type, France

Type of cattle Number in 2010 Percentage of total

Dairy cows 3 728 555 19%

Suckler cows 4 230 666 22%

Dairy heifers for breeding > 2 yr 833 983 4%

Beef heifers for breeding > 2 yr 1 016 996 5%

Heifers for fattening > 2 yr 251 289 1%

Males from dairy cattle > 2 yr 173 077 1%

Males from beef cattle > 2 yr 298 157 2%

Dairy heifers for breeding 1<yr<2 1 160 303 6%

Beef heifers for breeding 1<yr<2 1 017 974 5%

Heifers for fattening1<yr<2 280 437 1%

Males from dairy cattle 1<yr<2 364 956 2%

Males from beef cattle 1<yr<2 536 175 3%

Veal calves<1yr 749 362 4%

Other females < 1yr 2 862 811 15%

Other males < 1yr 1 960 676 10%

Total 9 465 417 100%

Source: Agreste 2010

B41



France has provided data on volumes of manure produced (see Table B.34).

Table B.34 Volumes of manure produced per year (2001) in France

Farm Yard Manure, tonnes FYM scraped, tonnes Slurry and other liquid manure m3

Production in France 78 million 17 million 83 million

Production per farm 300 65 320

Details on excretion rates for dairy cows and suckling cows have been provided and these are summarised below. Data has been provided for calves and other cows but is not presented here.

The administrative values used for the Nitrates Directive implementation in France are currently being reviewed together with the recast of the French Nitrates Regulation.

Table B.35 Monthly excretion rates for dairy cows (kg/month) in France

Diet Interior Exterior Spreadable after storage

Exported through consumed feed

N P K N P K N P K N P K

Exclusively or mainly pastured cows (over 85% of the time spent outside)

1.7 0.2 2.0 9.5 1.3 11.5 1.2 0.2 2.0 13.7 1.9 14.3

Mixed stabled and put out to pasture (35% of the time spent outside). Diet: 50% corn/50% grass

5.8 0.9 5.9 3.1 0.5 3.2 4.1 0.9 5.9 9.7 1.4 9.3

Source: CORPREN 1999

N.B. Further values are given for exclusively stabled cows, and according to different variations in diet.

Table B.36 Monthly excretion rates of N, P and K for medium sized suckling cow (670kg) (kg/month) in France

Diet Quantity consumed (kg)

Excreted nitrogen Spreadable after storage


N P K N P K

Hay 315 4.7 3.5 1.4 6.3 4.9 1.0 6.1

Dry grass 315 5.8 4.3 1.4 6.1 6.5 1.0 6.1

B42


Diet Quantity consumed (kg)

Excreted nitrogen Spreadable after storage


Corn 270 4.8 4.08 3.6 3.8 0.7 2.9 2.9

Pasture grass 468 10.6 12.0 1.8 14.2 12.7 1.9 14.3

Source: CORPREN 2001

NB. Figures are also provided for small and large suckler cows, as well as cull cows from dairy and suckler herds


The term “intensive” is not used in France. The term “extensive” has been largely defined, using mainly stocking rates and financial considerations. Currently, the term “intensive” farming refers to a very large number of animals reared in the same building using food produced outside the farm and not owning sufficient land to be able to spread all the excretions produced by the animals on the farm-land. The term “intensive” is also linked to a large-scale process for which all the steps of the production are controlled by the farmer and can be optimized (food, household, manure storage and spreading etc.), contrary to processes for which the optimal is reached by ecological equilibrium (for example, well managed pasture).


The values of annual atmospheric emissions of pollutants from cattle farms (PM, N2O, methane and ammonia) are being processed. Disaggregated data will be provided by France following submission of this report.

The contribution to NH3 emission is forecast to decrease in the future with a reduction in the number of cows and by applying targeted measures.


France submitted the report “Development of a methodology to assess carbon footprint in herbivore cattle farms. Implementation to dairy and beef production specialised farms” by the Livestock Institute (Gac A. at al, 2010). According to this methodology, dairy systems in France have raw carbon footprints between 1.19 and 1.31 kg CO2eq. per litre of milk produced and a compensation of carbon storage from 4 to 31 % (net C footprints from 0.84 to 1.15 kg CO2e.). The carbon footprints of the bovine meat systems are between 1412 and 2023 kg CO2eq. for 100 kg of live meat and between 872 and 1473 kg in net emissions (with potential compensation between 24 and 53 %).

B43


Table B.37 Average distribution by pollutant and by place for GHG impact of dairy systems in France

By place Enteric fermentation

Management of excretions Direct energy Inputs

Building Storage Pasture

Gas emitted CH4 CH4 N2O CH4 N2O CH4 N2O CO2 CO2

Kg equivalent of CO2/litre of milk

0.542 0.179 0.006 0.067 0.014 0.001 0.096 0.098 0.155

% of total 43% 15% 6% 7% 8% 13%

Source: Gac A. at al, 2010

Table B.38 Average distribution by pollutant and by place for GHG impact of specialised suckling systems in France

By place Enteric fermentation

Management of excretions Direct energy Inputs

Building Storage Pasture

Gas emitted CH4 CH4 N2O CH4 N2O CH4 N2O CO2 CO2

Kg equivalent of CO2/100kg meat

799 249 9.6 43 14 1.3 112 65 123

% of total 52% 17% 4% 7% 4% 8%

Source: Gac A. at al, 2010

A study is being conducted by the INRA (the French National Institute for Agricultural Research) collating research on integrated management of the nitrogen cycle in livestock breeding farms and impacts on air and water. Results are anticipated in early 2012.


France summarised the key legislation, including the ICPE regulation (Classified Installation to protect environment) and permit regime which covers larger holdings. The ICPE Law defines activities according to a volume or a capacity of production. Above a given threshold expressed in animal numbers, the potential impacts on the environment are considered sufficiently high to require an impact study and an administrative authorization with public consultation. For dairy farms, the threshold is 150 dairy cows and for cattle farms it is over 100 suckler cows or more than 400 calves or beef cows. Medium sized farms have to make a ‘declaration’, but are not required to undergo the full authorization procedure. The thresholds are set out in Table B.39.

The cost chargeable to the farmer is between €10,000-15,000, covering the impact study and the public inquiry.

B44


The Order of 7 February 2005 stipulates the technical rules applicable to permit holding cattle, poultry and/or wild fowl and pig farms under book V of the environmental code, and includes regulations regarding the spreading of manure.

Table B.39 Information regarding permit regime applicable to cattle farms

Livestock description Permit Regime Permit renewal Authority Number of farms

> 400 beef cows Authorization Minimum every 7 years State inspectors 500

201-400 beef cows Declaration under periodic control

Minimum every 5 years Certification body 1270

50-200 beef cows Declaration If necessary State inspectors 10000

>150 dairy cows Authorization Minimum every 7 years State inspectors 500

101-150 dairy cows Declaration under periodic control

Minimum every 5 years Certification body 1870

50-100 dairy cows Declaration If necessary State inspectors 31000

>100 suckler cows Declaration If necessary State inspectors 5900

N.B. does not include control under cross-compliance or by the water police

A national voluntary code of good practice was defined in application of the European directive 91 / 676 / EEC of December 12th, 1991. It is mandatory in nitrate vulnerable zones. It was updated in 2006 and applies, in broad terms, the criteria of the Gothenburg Protocol.

The French noted two other relevant voluntary codes of practice:

• The French Charter of Good Agricultural Practices in Cattle production (with over 110,000 farmers signed up)

• La certification environnementale des exploitations.


France mentioned an increase in farm sizes and increased use of automation including in terms of slurry systems (i.e. with cubicles and scraped alleys, and an outside pit). The response also referred to manure spreading equipment both larger and better adapted to improved fertilizing practices (with less volatilization).

In terms of techniques, France referred to an integrated indicator to assess nitrogen use efficiency and N losses to water and air: the ‘Nitrogen mass balance’. For cattle farms highly dependant on food produced on the farm (production capacity strongly linked to the land owned by the farm, like most of the herbivore production in France), it is necessary to take an integrated approach to the system (including feeding, housing, storage, spreading). Furthermore, this indicator takes into account the whole losses for each part of the farm system

B45


(Housing-Feeding-Storage-Spreading) and not solely air (or water) pollution. France also referred to adjusting feeding to the animals’ requirements.

In France, there is a great diversity of housing systems and some of them could produce both Farm Yard Manure (FYM) and slurry, including:

• Tied stall (producing FYM/producing slurry)

• Loose Housing

- Complete Deep litter (for both bedding and exercise/feeding yard)

- Deep litter (bedding area) + FYM scraped (exercise/feeding yard)

- Deep litter (bedding area) + slurry (exercise/feeding area)

• Cubicles

- producing FYM

- producing Slurry:

• Scraped floor

• Slatted floor

- producing both Slurry and FYM

More than 50% of the cattle housing consist of FYM systems. Cattle housing emissions are still poorly known and difficult to assess and FYM systems are the ones for which data is of lowest quality. France therefore considers it inappropriate to prescribe one system rather than another as long as more reliable data on efficiency of one system compared to the others are not available. The French government finances research projects for a better knowledge on cattle housing and gaseous emissions.

However, good environmental techniques currently applied or expected to be applied in the future for reducing emissions from cattle farms are detailed in a technical guide called: « Guide des bonnes pratiques environnementales d’élevages » (Guidance for good environmental practices for livestocks). Available from: http://www.rmtelevagesenvironnement.org/pdf/bpe_avi_porcs_bovins.pdf.

Germany

The following information is based on the proforma partly completed by Germany.

http://www.rmtelevagesenvironnement.org/pdf/bpe_avi_porcs_bovins.pdf

B46



The following tables have been provided by KTBL.

Table B.40 Total cattle heads and holdings by cattle herd size, in Germany 2010

Total farms with cattle (in general) Farms Cattle heads Livestock units

1 - 9 15 335 83 938 62 694

10 - 19 19 869 282 269 207 317

20 - 49 37 122 1 230 763 902 776

50 - 99 33 629 2 397 614 1 743 903

100 - 199 26 179 3 645 973 2 632 560

200 - 499 10 774 3 027 196 2 115 689

500 and more 1 942 1 866 754 1 310 098

Total 144 850 12 534 507 8 975 038

Table B.41 Dairy cattle heads and holdings by herd size, in Germany 2010

Farms with dairy cows Farms Cattle heads Livestock units

1 - 9 11 580 61 109 61 109

10 - 19 16 537 241 343 241 343

20 - 49 34 982 1 122 514 1 122 514

50 - 99 19 744 1 348 540 1 348 540

100 - 199 5 211 671 527 671 527

200 - 499 1 319 396 853 396 853

500 and more 390 322 903 322 903

Total 89 763 4 164 789 4 164 789

Table B.42 Beef/male cattle heads and holdings by herd size, in Germany 2010

Farms with beef/male cattle Farms Cattle heads Livestock units

1 - 9 59 070 179 040 137 435

10 - 19 12 836 176 476 127 999

B47


20 - 49 10 827 330 752 237 205

50 - 99 3 413 230 091 163 813

100 and more 1 243 213 704 152 659

Total 87 389 1 130 063 819 111

Table B.43 Calves and young cattle heads and holdings by herd size, in Germany 2010

Farms with calves and young cattle Farms Cattle heads Livestock units

1 - 9 49 699 235 149 70 545

10 - 19 30 992 433 628 130 088

20 - 49 36 882 1 144 033 343 210

50 - 99 12 437 839 192 251 758

100 and more 5 428 1 144 301 343 290

Total 135 438 3 796 303 1 138 891

Nitrogen excretion factors

Relevant nitrogen excretion factors are reported within the framework of the Kyoto protocol (National Inventory Report, 2011). They are summarized here:

• Dairy cows: 131.5 kg N/year

• Calves: 20.9 kg N/year,

• Dairy followers: 41.2 kg N/year,

• Beef cattle: 33.0 kg N/year,

• Nursing cows: 82 kg N/year;

• Cattle in general (without dairy cows) on average: 40.8 kg N/year.


No information provided.


Atmospheric emissions from cattle are reported within the framework of the NEC-directive (2001/81/EC; ammonia) and the Kyoto protocol (methane, N2O; National Inventory Report, NIR). Their contributions to total emissions are (roughly estimated) as follows:

B48


• In the case of ammonia, agriculture accounts for 95% of total emissions. In 2008 agricultural ammonia emissions were about 599 kt/a; ammonia emissions in Germany are generally decreasing, yet slightly exceed the NEC ceiling of 550 kt/a for Germany in 2010. Cattle accounts for about 70% of the agricultural ammonia emissions.

• In the case of methane agricultural emissions are about 25 Mio t/a, (CO2 equivalents) which are 2.7% of the total greenhouse gas emissions of Germany.

• In the case of nitrous oxide (N2O) agricultural emissions are about 40 Mio t/a (CO2 equivalents).

The tables below are taken from the NIR (2011) and show emissions by cattle category up to 2009.

Table B.44 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation in Germany, 1990-2009

Table B.45 Methane emissions from manure management for dairy cows in Germany, 1990-2009

B49


Table B.46 N2O emissions from manure management for dairy cows in Germany, 1990-2009

In the proforma it is stated that in the particular case of cattle, animals are kept outside for at least part of the year; so any measures implemented in the housing system may have limited influence on the total emissions. Nevertheless there is a growing trend, especially in northern Germany, towards keeping cattle inside the whole year round and feeding them with imported feedstuff. Manure tanks are another source of both ammonia and THG emissions. Ammonia emissions from cattle manure are considerably reduced by a natural crust on top of the storage tank; yet this does not apply for greenhouse gas emissions. A compulsory solid cover for all manure tanks would reduce these atmospheric emissions.

Common management systems

Animal feeding

Examples of basic feed rations and total mixed rations (TMR) have been provided.

Housing.

Dairy cattle: naturally ventilated housings (cubicles), passageways may be slatted or planed floors (concrete, asphalted concrete or coated with rubber), passageways are cleaned at least once per day.

Beef cattle: naturally ventilated housings, loose housing, fully slatted floor, slurry system.

B50


Slurry/Manure storage, handling and spreading.

Manure is usually stored outside the housings in concrete storage containers with a natural floating crust as a covering. Minimum storage capacity for 6 months is compulsory. No treatment. Broad cast application (splash plate), direct incorporation.


In 2006, a “National Framework for the Assessment of animal rearing procedures” (Nationaler Bewertungsrahmen Tierhaltungsverfahren) was published by two national working groups (on “animal welfare” and “environment and technology”). This framework is not legally binding (but advisory), but provides information and criteria for the competent bodies giving permits for animal farms falling under the IPPC-directive (now IED-directive). The objective of the framework is to safeguard a common implementation procedure and level both in environmental protection and animal welfare all over Germany. The authorization process (permit) of animal farms itself lies within the responsibility of the Federal States, according to the constitution of Germany. The framework includes not only pigs and poultry, but also cattle (cows, calves and fattening cattle) and horses.

Cattle farms with more than 600 places for cattle or 500 calves need a simplified permit according to the German federal law on emissions (Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz; 4th Ordinance part 5.4.7.1). Simplified in this case means there is no public participation in the permit process, as in the case of pig and poultry farms. Yet the environmental standards to be fulfilled are very similar (especially the technical standards for manure tanks, as laid down in DIN 1045 and DIN 11622).


Guideline VDI 3894 tier 1 (Part 1) “Housing systems and emissions: pigs, cattle, poultry and horses” (September 2011) describes the current state of the art in housing techniques and emission reduction measures in pig, cattle, poultry and horse husbandry. The following sources of emissions are considered:

• Housing facilities for animals,

• Adjacent facilities for the storage and treatment of solid and liquid manure as well as poultry dung and facilities for the storage and processing of certain feedstuff (in particular silage), and

• Areas outside of animal housing facilities where the animals can move freely (paddocks, cattle yards).

It describes the current best available techniques, equipment, and modes of operation in animal housing facilities as well as the emissions caused by them (odorants, ammonia, dust, methane and N2O). In addition, it shows how these emissions can be avoided and reduced.

Table B.51 lists the most important measures for the avoidance and reduction of ammonia and odorant emissions.

B51


Table B.47 Measures for the avoidance and reduction of ammonia emission and odour in Germany

B52


In addition to the above mentioned techniques, there are different other reduction measures for cattle. These are presented in Table B.48 below.

Table B.48 Emission reduction measures in cattle housing in Germany

Hungary

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Hungary.


According to the proforma, cattle farms in Hungary are registered in the Livestock Information System (TIR). As of the 30th November 2011, the number of cattle and cattle farms were as follows.

B53


Table B.49 Farm numbers/size

Size Number of cattle farms Number of cattle

Dairy cattle

>350 202 123,531

>400 167 110,553

>450 140 99,055

Other cattle

>700 29 34,887

>850 23 30,315

>1000 14 22,079

Total operating, market type cattle farms 40,366 737,702

Table B.50 Cattle numbers

Type Number of live cattle

Dairy 424,317

Beef 181,597

Dual use 131,788

TOTAL 737,702

Excretion factors

The NIR (2011) summarises data on estimated average annual nitrogen excretion factors of the individual livestock categories including dairy and non-dairy cattle.

B54


Figure B.3 Nitrogen excretion factors in Hungary, 1993-2009


In Hungarian law there is currently no definition for ‘intensive rearing of cattle’.


Data not disaggregated for cattle farms.

Common management systems

The most common forms of management system in place in intensive cattle farms are described below:

• Dairy cattle: loose-housing system (the majority: deep litter)

• Sucklers: slurry

• Beef cattle: loose-housing system, small groups, deep litter. The cow with its calf is usually grazed.

B55



These emissions are regulated by:

• Governmental decree 27/2006 (II. 7) on the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

• Regulation 59/2008 (IV.29.) FVM on the rules of the action plan on the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and on the rules of data provision and registration; and

• by governmental decree 219/2004. (VII. 21.) on the protection of groundwater.

The permit is issued by the notary together with the statement of the relevant administration(s), which takes into account all the above mentioned environmental media.

Ireland

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Ireland and accompanying documentation.

Number of installations and livestock heads Farms classified by type in Ireland (2007) 6

Farm Type Number of farms

Average farm size (ha)

Average herd size (includes young stock)

Average livestock unit size (LSU)

SR LU/HA

Specialist dairy 19,400 48.7 122.8 105.3 2.16

Specialist beef production 68,300 27.5 50.5 41.7 1.51

Mixed grazing livestock* 16,000 29.8 48.4 45.9 1.54

Mixed crops & livestock* 3,100 48.3 60.7 46.0 0.95

*May contain sheep/non cattle species 2007 Irish cattle farm statistics • 111,000 cattle farms • 6,606,000 cattle • The average Irish farm size is 32.7 hectares (all farms types). • Average number of dairy cows per farm: 39.9 cows • Average number of suckler cows per farm: 14.4 cows Profile of National Herd Size in 20077

6 CSO 2007. Farm Structure Survey 2007. http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/2007/farmstructure_2007.pdf

7 DAFF 2008. CMMS report 2007. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2008/CMMSreport2007.pdf

Average cattle numbers number of farms % of farms

< 25 46,540 41.2%

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/2007/farmstructure_2007.pdf

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2008/CMMSreport2007.pdf

B56



Nitrogen excretion factors are provided in the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010 in Table B.51.

25 - 49 25,538 22.6%

50 - 74 13,960 12.4%

75 - 99 8,740 7.7%

100+ 18,153 16.1%

Total 112,931

B57


Table B.51 Annual nutrient excretion rates for livestock

B58


Table B.52 Amount of nutrient contained in 1m3 of slurry


Currently there is no formal definition for “intensive rearing of cattle” in Ireland. Cattle rearing in Ireland does not fit the concept of intensive rearing. It is considered that intensive means that cattle spend most of their time indoors and being largely fed concentrates that are brought on to the farms. These systems do not exist: even for dairy cows only 14% of the diet was cereal based and about 60% is grazed grass. The trend in Ireland is towards greater use of grazed grass in the diet – a trend away from intensification. Overall the stocking rate on Irish farms is restricted by the nitrates directive (less than 2.0 LU per ha generally and less than 2.5 LU on derogation farms comprising about 10% of all cattle). Thus, most of the feed is produced on the farm where feeding takes place and the cattle spend a large proportion of the year grazing at pasture: 60% of all manure produced by cattle is produced at pasture. Thus the competent authorities do consider intensive cattle rearing to be practiced in Ireland. It is considered, that when assessing the parameters that might define intensive farms, there is a need to also consider the proportion of the nitrogen excretion produced indoors instead of the total nitrogen production of the farm, as grazing is considered to be an ammonia mitigation strategy.


Regarding atmospheric emissions of pollutants, Ireland reports that emissions from cattle farms represent 79.4% of total national ammonia emissions, 79.2% of methane emissions and 86.1% of N2O emissions. For NH3 and CH4, the calculation is said to be straightforward but for N2O it is more complicated.

Ireland has a national inventory for GHG and ammonia emissions from agriculture. The agriculture sector accounted for 29% of Ireland's total national emissions in 2009.

GHG and ammonia emissions related to Irish Agriculture

Total Agricultural emissions % of total national emissions

Ammonia 104k tons 98%

Cattle 74%

GHG emissions 17,575 tons CO2 Eq* 29%

B59


Total Agricultural emissions % of total national emissions

(74% from cattle)

*Of the total GHG emissions from the sector 62% is methane and 38% is nitrous oxide

Wider environmental impacts

Emissions to water

Ireland’s latest water quality report shows that 84% of groundwater bodies have been assessed as having good status. Many of the poor status groundwater bodies (15.3%) are associated with the karst limestone areas west of the Shannon where there is little soil cover to provide treatment of phosphorus, in particular, before it reaches groundwater.

Water quality has improved and it is likely that agricultural measures put in place under the Nitrates Regulations are having a positive impact. There are still problems in relation to diffuse pollution from agriculture causing eutrophication of freshwaters with the driving nutrient being phosphorus (P) instead of nitrogen.

Just 0.3% of Ireland’s groundwater bodies exceed the nitrate limit of 50ppm and nitrate concentrations in groundwater are highest in the south east of the country, which is associated with high levels of tillage.

Biodiversity

In general data linking agriculture to changes in biodiversity (either positive or negative) is lacking. A literature search by DAFM has not revealed evidence of damage due to ammonia emissions. UCD research through the Ag-Biota project reveal that while bumblebees as a group are still readily found on typical farmland, their abundance and diversity on moderately-to-intensively managed farmland may have declined by at least 50 per cent over the past 20-30 years. The research also suggests, however, that the increased grassland management intensity associated with dairy farming is not necessarily always ‘bad’ for all aspects of biodiversity and actually may have unexpected positive benefits. This research established that breeding bird populations are higher on field boundaries on relatively intensively managed dairy farms compared with much less intensively managed non-dairy farms.


Farmers are legally obliged to abide by the provisions of the nitrates directive and may be prosecuted for non-compliance. Compliance with the Nitrates Directive is one of the statutory management requirements under the Single Payment Scheme, and any farmer operating above the 170kg organic N/hectare limit must apply for a derogation. In 2009, 4,900 farmers were approved for derogations representing 3.4% of total holdings, 5.7% of the area and 10% of the grazing livestock units in the country. It is estimated that the average N excretion rate is about 110 kg of organic N per ha. There are penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of the directive.

B60


Under the Nitrates directive Storage facilities being provided on a holding on or after 31 March 2009 shall:

(a) be designed, sited, constructed, maintained and managed so as to prevent run-off or seepage, directly or indirectly, into groundwater or surface water and

(b) comply with such construction specifications for those facilities as may be approved from time to time by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

There are general obligations under the Single Payment Scheme to keep land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), as well as very specific obligations to comply with the relevant legislation implementing EU Directives on birds, habitats, nitrates and groundwater.

The first National Biodiversity Plan (2002-2006), published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, identified over 90 actions deemed necessary to help halt the loss of Ireland’s biodiversity. Thirty-nine of those actions fell within the remit of the Department of Agriculture under broad headings such as agriculture, forestry and conservation of genetic resources.

National Climate Change Strategy 2007 – 2012

As Ireland has targets under the Kyoto Commitment Period 1 and under the Effort Sharing Directive (Directive 406/2009 EC) emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are included in the target. There is a significant research programme in place and the national advisory service is focused on actions to reduce emissions.

Transboundary gases

Ireland is committed to reducing ammonia emissions under the National Emissions Ceilings Directive, with a target of 116 kt for 2010. The 2010 emissions level was 106.45 kt.

Practices in common use of farms – considered to be good practice on these farms include allowing a crust to form on stored slurry, spreading slurry early, using concentrate feeds with appropriate protein levels and maximizing grazing all reduce ammonia emissions. In addition emissions from the use of urea (for grassland associated with cattle production) is spread only in springtime following advice from Teagasc (the national research and advisory service). There is a programme in place to increase the use of clover in grazed swards. These measures mean that the maximum the use of synthetic N fertilisers is minimised.


Majority of livestock farmers base their animal diets on grass and grass silage with supplementary feed input. Housing is mainly for the winter months (3-5 months) and slatted housing is the most common housing system. Slurry is used as fertiliser on the land associated with the livestock rearing activity.

a. Animal feeding

B61


Irish Cattle diets Grassland Based:

• General aim to maximise grazed grass

• Grass plus grass forage: >85% of ruminants diet

• Winter feeding based on grass silage

Milk Production

• Mainly spring calving herd

• Supplementary concentrate feeding: mainly in early lactation and during the winter period

• Some concentrate feeding on grass as a carrier for minerals or short periods when grass is scarce

Beef Production

• Mainly autumn finishing from grass

• Typical slaughter age 18 to 30 months

• Young stock typically fed grass and silage only

• Suckler cows are also typically fed grass and silage only

Estimated protein levels in grass and forage are given below. DAFM carried out a survey in 2009 to review protein levels in various animal concentrate feeds: these are shown below. While it is accepted that the survey is not fully scientific it gives an indication of the protein levels in concentrates. Most concentrate feeding takes place during the winter housing period.

Estimated Crude Protein content of Irish forages Grass 17-20%

Silage 14%

Protein levels in Irish cattle feed – DAFM8 survey 2009. Product No. of samples Average content (as is %)

Calf starter 5 15.3

8 Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Analysis of a sample of cattle feeds in Ireland in 2009

B62


Calf grower 24 16.8

Beef weanling 5 15.0

Beef grower 34 14.5

Beef finisher/fattening 73 14.5

Dairy (lactating) 59 15.9

Bull grower 2 16.2

Bull finisher/fattening 8 15.3

Estimated feed budget (kg Dry matter/year) of different cattle systems (adapted from O’Mara et al., 2006)

Grass Silage Conc Total % grass % silage

% Conc

Dairy cows 2936 1091 679 4706 62.4% 23.2% 14.4%

Suckler cows (yearly) 2124 1012 44 3180 66.8% 31.8% 1.4% Average beef finishing systems (lifetime) 2682 1414 378 4474 58.7% 32.6% 8.7%

A very large proportion of concentrates fed on Irish farms are manufactured by compounders who typically employ animal nutritionists to design rations to suit the category of animal being fed. Thus most compounders manufacture a range of feeds to suit various categories of animals – with rations for young stock typically having higher protein levels than older cattle. Some larger farms use Total Mixed Ration systems: using advice from Teagasc or other consultants to design feeds suitable to the individual farm. A least cost approach can sometimes lead to higher protein levels than is necessary.

b. Housing.

Housing systems are similar for beef and dairy cattle – generally there are three main systems

- In sheds with slatted floors with the manure stored under the animals.

- In cubicle sheds with solid floors with the manure stores in outside tanks – these systems are less common and are in decline.

- Straw bedding systems with the manure stored under the cattle.

The main difference between dairy and cattle housing is that dairy cows and replacement animals are kept in cubicles. This is unusual for cattle systems except where solid floors are used. In addition, many dairy farmers use automatic scraping systems to keep passageways free of manure. These are used regularly and this practice is likely to reduce ammonia emissions, although this is not verified.

B63


Estimates of days spent indoors over the winter period are made from the Farm Facility Survey. Dairy cows are generally outdoors (day & night) with the remaining time spent indoors on cubicle housing. Beef animals are generally outdoors (day & night) with the remaining time spent indoors on slatted tanks or loose housing.

Table 6.4. Animal housing and grazing days Days housed Days grazing dairy cows 117 248 suckler cows 141 224 0-1 yrs 225 140 1-2 yrs 158 207 >2 yrs 26 339 dairy heifers 128 237 suckler heifers 139 226 bulls 158 207

c. Slurry/Manure storage, handling and spreading.

The predominant manure storage system is slurry with the remainder based on farm yard manure (Teagasc 2011). Cattle slurry is stored during designated periods and 52% is spread in the spring to maximise nitrogen efficiency. The vast majority of slurry is spread using low trajectory splashplate with a small percentage spread using the trailing shoe system. However, as the latter technologies are new to Ireland, probably in use only since 2007/2008, no data exists on the proportion of slurry spread using this system, but it is likely to be very small. Farmyard manure is stored either in designated areas or under the animals. Landspreading of farmyard manure normally takes place in the autumn to reduce grass contamination.


Ireland provided a summary of current management practices along with measures and techniques for reducing emissions. Key points include:

• The European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010 applies to all livestock farms (holdings). The regulation specifies minimum slurry storage capacities (set out in the table below), maximum stocking rates, storage periods for livestock manure and closed periods for application of slurry and farm yard manure. These will be analysed further following the submission of this report.

• The main measures and techniques to reduce emissions are also set out in the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010. Teagasc (the Irish Agricultural and Food Development Authority) is currently undertaking research projects in relation to reducing emissions from livestock production.

B64


Table B.53 Minimum slurry storage capacity required for cattle, sheep and poultry

Possible future measures that will be applied include:

Crusting of outside slurry stores: The assumption in the national ammonia inventory is that crusts form on all outside slurry stores. This occurs because slurry in these stores is not agitated over the winter storage period.

Early slurry spreading: The main measure at farm level that will be implemented (in addition to the provisions of the nitrates directive) will be to encourage farmers to spread their slurry earlier. This measure reduces emissions by about 17% compared to spreading in summertime. It should be cost neutral with some financial benefit due to nitrogen saving. Historically, the most common timing of slurry application was after grass silage harvest in the summer period in the months May to July. However, in recent years, the proportion of slurry applied in the spring period from mid January to April has increased from 34% in 2003/2004 to 52% in 2009, as farmers seek to maximise nitrogen fertiliser recovery by applying slurry in cooler weather conditions. Earlier spreading of slurry

B65


will be the main measure to reduce ammonia emissions and it is expected that the proportion spread in spring can be increased up to about 60%.

The main focus at farm level will be to increase the efficiency of production systems (i.e. maximise fertiliser and manure efficiency) to reduce emissions. In addition to this a suite of competitiveness measures are in place on a voluntary basis and are delivered through the advisory system: this includes measures to improve genetic merit and performance – e.g. milk yield, animal health and welfare, development of grazing systems and techniques etc. All these programmes have the impact of reducing nitrogen inputs per unit of production.

Additional feedback submitted during July 2012 consultation on final report

The box below provides details of additional feedback that was submitted by the Irish authorities. These comments relate primarily to modelling undertaken by IIASA using their GAINS model during the revision of the Gothenburg Protocol and therefore no changes have been made to this report.

Figures 4.8 and 4.9. These graphs indicate ammonia emissions reductions at the different ambition levels for each member state. With the exception of ambition level A (which is lower) the estimates are broadly similar for cattle and dairy cows. Combining data from the two graphs the total estimates emissions reduction is of the order of 18 kt. DAFM analysis indicates that cost effective mitigation potential is of the order of 650 tonnes for 2020. An analysis of the Maximum Feasible Technical Reduction9 (MFTR) would reduce emissions by an additional C. 5,500 tonnes. Thus, total emissions reductions would be of the order of 6 KT – about one third of the AMEC estimate. The discrepancy may be explained by the following (i) An assumption in the AMEC study that trailing show technology delivers a reduction of more than 60% - in contrast to research findings in Ireland which shows that it actually reduces emissions by about 35% (Lalor 2012). (ii) The GAINS model is a Tier one model calibrated using data provided by DAFM a number of years ago. Since then there has been a change in the modelling approach in Ireland. This change to use the more sophisticated NARSES, with a better simulation of emissions shows that the proportion of emissions from spreading is reduced (28%) compared to earlier estimates (52%). Thus it is likely that the data used in the AMEC analysis does not provide the most up to date analysis (it is acknowledged that Irelands data is relatively recent). In addition it is not clear what assumptions are made in the analysis regarding emissions reductions from changed feeding practices or housing adaptations. There is a close relationship between the estimate of mitigation potential from the use of a technology and the unit costs of reducing ammonia emissions. In order to provide a more precise analysis we need more detailed information on the assumptions used in the model to calculate emissions reductions and costs.

Italy

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Italy and accompanying documentation.


Italy provided data from the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) on the number of cattle farms and livestock number in 2007, as shown in the table below.

9 Assuming 80% of slurry is spread using trailing shoe, irrespective of costs, with a reduction of 35% of emissions. to achieve such a high level of penetration of this technology would require a large structural change.

B66


Table B.54 Cattle Farms (2007)

Livestock number classes Total

1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-499 500-999 1000-1999 >2000

Total cattle

farms 18,361 20,845 20,348 25,742 31,197 13,868 13,912 724 213 71 145,282

heads 28,191 80,260 151,292 364,458 939,139 944,414 2,537,240 467,431 276,509 291,829 6,080,762

Dairy cows

farms 9,211 10,656 7,140 11,470 11,940 6,425 3,706 69 8 2 60,627

heads 13,301 42,052 52,584 153,124 363,532 430,936 584,882 44,551 11,637 6,058 1,702,657

Source: ISTAT, SPA 2007


A rough estimation is given of the volume of manure produced by cattle farms at 90 millions tons: 50% in form of slurry and 50% as solid manure.

An interregional study (Bonazzi G. et al. 2006 - Evaluation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Livestock manures in Italy, Workshop of EU Commission, Brussels) reports on the results of research work carried out into the quantification of nitrogen in livestock manure in a Southern Europe country (Italy). The methodology is based on the criteria proposed by EU Commission (2001) and is used for calculating first N excretion from animals and then N lost through volatilisation, for dairy cows, pigs, broilers and laying hens. The results of this study are now used as standard excretion factors for Italy. Excretion levels were, on average, approximately 116 kg/cow place, with significant differences between the different breeds under consideration, with higher means for dairy breeds (121 kg on average for Friesian) compared to dual purpose breeds (105 kg on average).

The standard excretion factors for suckling cows and beef are respectively 54.1 and 48.0 kg/animal place.


There is no definition for intensive cattle rearing in Italy. However, some regional Authorities have established that cattle farms with more than 400 dairy cows, 600 suckling cows and 600 beef, shall ask for an individual permit for emissions to atmosphere. These categories could be considered as “intensive rearing of cattle”. For cattle farms included in installations with 200-400 dairy cows, 300-600 suckling cows or beef, instead of an individual permit, a general permit has been set up with general binding rules. Installations with less than 200 dairy cows, 300 suckling cows or beef are not subjected to binding rules.


The emissions from cattle farms are assessed in the national emission inventory (Ispra, 2009) for the year 2007 (the same year for which we have the latest ISTAT data on farm size). Data from a CRPA elaboration on the national emission inventory are reported in the tables below.

B67


Table B.55 Emissions of N2O, CH4 and NH3 from cattle (2007)

N2O CH4 NH3

Manure Manage-ment

Agricultural Soils

Total livestock

Enteric Fermentati-on

Manure Manageme-nt

Total livestock

Housing Storage Landspr-eading

Total

[tN2O/a] [tN2O/a] [tN2O/a] [tCH4/a] [tCH4/a] [tCH4/a] [tNH3/a] [tNH3/a] [tNH3/a] [tNH3/a]

Dairy cattle 4289 3913 8201 208130 25050 233180 28424 37439 23268 89131

Other cattle 3270 4052 7323 205030 31280 236310 30280 40727 24834 95841

Buffalo 581 496 1077 19720 3520 23240 3708 4884 3571 12162

Total cattle 8140 8462 16601 432880 59850 492730 62412 83050 51673 197135

Agriculture 12247 57390 69636 525073 145568 670641 112240 114920 77366 304526

Source: CRPA elaboration on National Emission Inventory data by ISPRA

Table B.56 Shares of emission of N2O, CH4 and NH3 (2007)

N2O CH4 NH3

[ktN2O/a] [% Agriculture]

[% National]

[ktCH4/a] [% Agriculture]

[% National]

[ktNH3/a] [% Agriculture]

[% National]

[ktN2

Total cattle 16.6 24% 16% 492.7 66% 27% 197.1 50% 47% 16.6

Total Agriculture 69.6 100% 68% 743.8 100% 41% 395.0 100% 94% 69.6

Total Italy 102.7 100% 1819.9 100% 419.4 100% 102.7

Source: CRPA elaboration on National Emission Inventory data by ISPRA

Italy forecasts that the contribution of cattle to total emissions of N2O, CH4 and NH3 will decrease in the next few years due to the decrease in cattle numbers and increase in feed efficiency.


No information was reported under wider environmental impacts.


Italy summarised mandatory measures to reduce emissions. These are currently in place only for surface and ground water protection, although these measures can have indirect positive effect on air quality and climate change. Italy gave the example of fertilisation plans, mandatory both in vulnerable and non vulnerable zones, which oblige farmers to achieve in animal manure application to crops 50% of Nitrogen efficiency for slurry and 40% for solid manure. This N efficiency is an obligation for dairy farms with more than 200 dairy cows, and

B68


requires the use of methods of manure application able to reduce emissions to air by at least 30% compared with the traditional surface landspreading method.

Although it is not implemented unilaterally across the country, some regional authorities have established that cattle farms with more than 400 dairy cows, 600 suckling cows and 600 beef require an individual permit for atmospheric emissions. These categories could be considered as “intensive rearing of cattle”. For cattle farms included in installations with 200-400 dairy cows, 300-600 suckling cows or beef, a general permit has been set up with general binding rules. Installations with less than 200 dairy cows or 300 suckling cows or beef are not subjected to binding rules.

Current farm management practices

The following summary was given by Italy:

• Animal feeding. Most cattle in Italy (both dairy and beef) are fed corn silage-based rations. Hay is commonly alfalfa. Dairy cows are given about 40-50% of concentrates of dry matter basis in their diet, typically as total mixed ration. The concentrates are solvent-extracted soybean, corn, barley and other by-products. Cows reared for the production of Parmigiano Reggiano cheese do not receive any kind of fermented feeds. Commonly, the diet protein percentage of producing cows is 15% on Dry Matter (DM). Replacing heifers or beef bulls are fed diets with lower protein content (typically 12-13% on DM). Corn is home-cropped or from local farms, whilst soybeans are imported. The technical levels of farmers regarding ration design are considered to be ‘quite good’.

• Housing. In a previous assessment made for the emission inventory, based on expert judgement, the share of different housing systems for dairy cows were estimated at 15% cubicles, 9% permanent litter; and 76% tied stall. For other cattle systems the estimation was roughly half with litter and half without. These estimates will be updated when the results from the 2010 Agricultural census are made available.

• Slurry/Manure storage, handling and spreading. The most widespread slurry storage system are slurry tanks (mainly in concrete, uncovered), while solid manure is collected and stored in heaps on a paved area, with collecting systems for the leachate. In-field FYM heaps are also commonly used. A better estimate will be possible when the results from the 2010 census are made available. The slurry spreading techniques include broadcast application with splash plate, bandspreading and direct injection. The last two techniques are not very widespread. The slurry, especially in more sensitive areas, is incorporated into the soil within 12-24 hours. In a recent surveys (2009) made by CRPA on a sample of 130 dairy cattle farms in Northern Italy, more than 90% of farms said that they broadcast the slurry on the soil with the splash plate technique or with slurry guns. Over 50% of respondents stated that they incorporate the slurry within 24 hours.


The techniques outlined by Italy for reducing emissions from cattle farms are applied especially in the storage and manure application stages.

Italy’s submission described:

B69


• The thick natural crust is normally formed during the slurry storage in tanks a, if the dry matter content of the slurry is sufficiently high, the slurry is not frequently disturbed on the surface and the climate is warm and dry. This natural crust cover significantly reduces NH3 emissions.

• The rapid incorporation of slurry/solid manure into soil, which is expected to gain increasing diffusion, due to local regulation and to the application of the Manure Fertilization Plans under the Action Programmes of the Nitrate Directive.

• Biogas plants treating cattle slurry (Italy has seen a rapid increase in these in recent years). According to an inventory made in 2010, the number of plants in cattle farms is at least 150 and it is expected to further increase in the near future. The biogas plants, fed mainly with animal manure, have the potential to significantly reduce CH4 emissions from the slurry storage phase.

According to the Italian submission, there are other potential measures that could be taken for reducing direct GHG emissions from dairy and beef farms, such as:

• Genetic selection of more efficient animals

• Use of natural feed additives that can modify rumen metabolism or reduce production of urea

• Reduction of diet protein

The voluntary system commonly adopted in Italy is the Good agricultural management code (D.M. 19/04/1999) with regards to animal waste management and irrigation.

Latvia

The following information is a summary of the information contained in the proforma submitted by Latvia.

Number of livestock and installations

Table B.57 Number of livestock (2010)

Cattle Number of livestock (1000s)

Total of which: 379.5

calves under 1 year 105.6

young cattle, aged 1-2 years 67.6

cattle over 2 years 206.3

dairy cows 164.1

B70


Table B.58 Number of livestock by size of agricultural holdings

All holdings Large holdings Medium-sized holdings Small holdings

Total cattle 379.5 112.1 120.9 146.5

of which dairy cows 164.1 53.6 52.2 58.3

Table B.59 Structure of cattle holdings (2010)

Cattle herd size Number of holdings

Total 36,835

1-5 26,720

6-10 3,934

11-20 2,762

21-50 2,049

51-100 762

101-300 393

301-500 175

>500 cattle 40


There is no definition for intensive cattle rearing in Latvia.


Latvia holds information on atmospheric emissions of pollutants from cattle farms. The emissions of greenhouse gases from the agriculture sector include: emissions of CH4 from enteric fermentation, CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management, N2O emissions from agricultural soils. This kind of information is necessary for preparation of the annual Latvian National Inventory Report.

According to the Latvian National Inventory Report (1990 – 2009) the emissions from agricultural sector in 2009 were about 21% of total greenhouse emissions of Latvia.

According to the forecast which was prepared by the University of Agriculture of Latvia in future concentration of the agricultural production will be prospective in Latvia. The concentration promotes efficiency of production and

B71


productivity. That means necessity to introduce new technologies for decreasing of atmospheric emissions of pollutants from cattle farms also.


The following summary was given by Latvia.

Animal feeding

The different dosages (ration) of nutrition (feed) are prepared taking into account the breed of cattle and type of use (milk, meat) or for dairy cows - milk yield and lactation. Beef cattle spend more time on pastures than dairy cattle. Beef cattle stay on pastures day and night. Pasture grass (green forage) are the main source of nutrients and energy in summer. Dry contents of grass contain all necessary nutrients for herbivorous animals.

Rough forage and fodder – hay, haylage and silage are the main feed for beef cattle in winter period. This kind of feed contains wood fibre (lignin) which is the main source of energy and protein. During winter period beef cattle are fed with mixed fodder which contains grain and additives.

The basic feed in summer time for dairy cows which graze on grass and additionally are fed with mixed fodder which contains grain and additives.

Dairy cows which are kept all time in holding are fed with roughage and luch (rich) feed that is hay, haylage and silage and mixed fodder which contains grain and additives.

Housing

The most common forms of housing on cattle farms as follows:

1) Dairy cow – tie up, solid floor; free slotted floor

2) Young stock (cattle) - tie up, solid floor

3) Heifer - tie up, solid floor

4) Bull - tie up, solid floor; free slotted floor


The most common forms of manure management systems include liquid system, solid storage and dry lot, pasture range and paddock.

B72


National Legislation

The current requirements imposed upon cattle farms (requirements related to all livestock farms) is the Republic of Latvia Cabinet Regulation No. 628 27 July 2004 Special Environmental Requirements for Performance of Polluting Activities in Animal Housing.

According to the Cabinet Regulation No. 628 upon designing a new animal housing, the design shall provide for building of a manure storage facility or manure processing technology.

According to the Law On Environmental Impact Assessment initial assessment is needed for intensive livestock construction: holdings, with more than 500 cattle and holdings with 250 cattle if there is not enough agricultural land for spreading of manure (the amount of nitrogen applied with livestock manure in one hectare of land shall not exceed 170 kg a year, which conforms to 1,7 animal units).


According to the Cabinet Regulation No. 628 the following requirements shall be specified for the drainage, storage and dispersal of manure and silage juice:

• collection and drainage systems in animal lodgings (except deep cattle-sheds where up to 20 animals are bred) shall be built from a waterproof material, which is resistant to the effects of equipment used in animal lodgings;

• the floor and walls of the storage facility shall be built from a waterproof material, which is resistant to the effects of the equipment;

• an appropriate system for the collection and drainage of liquid manure or slurry to the relevant storage facilities shall be established in animal lodgings;

• in storing of solid litter manure in a pile, the following requirements shall be complied with: temporary storage of litter manure shall be permissible on a field in piles. The keeping of piles on a field at the same site for a period exceeding 10 months is prohibited; forming the base for a pile of litter manure on a field, material protecting liquid fractions of manure from run-off shall be used. The surface and base of the pile of litter manure shall be covered with a protective layer, which hinders run-off or evaporation;

• manure shall not be dispersed in vulnerable zones in the period from 15 November to 15 March; and manure and silage juice shall not be dispersed on frozen, wet or snow-covered soil.

The following requirements shall be specified for the capacity of storage facilities of litter manure, liquid manure and silage juice:

• the volume of storage facilities of litter manure established in animal housing shall ensure accumulation of litter manure for at least six months. The volume of storage facilities of litter manure shall ensure accumulation of liquid manure for at least seven months. If the volume of storage facilities of litter manure or liquid manure does not conform to the aforementioned requirements, the

B73


operator of the animal housing shall enter into a contract with another natural person or legal person regarding the storage or use of litter manure or liquid manure outside the animal housing;

• Slurry from open and closed storage facilities of litter manure shall be collected in a separate facility, the capacity of which ensures accumulation of the amount of slurry collected within a period of seven months; and

• the storage facilities of liquid manure may be closed-type or covered with a permanent natural or artificial floating covering layer, which reduces evaporation. The floating covering layer or cover shall cover the surface of the storage facility at all times and, where appropriate, supplemented with a new material.

Poland

Poland submitted two tables of data: one on number of holdings according to size of holding, and one on atmospheric emissions from five installations. No further information was submitted. This will be investigated further following the submission of this report.

Table B.60 Number of cattle farm above 100 heads in Poland, as of 18 November 2011

Region Number of installations with 101-300 heads of cattle

Number of installations with 301-500 heads of cattle

Number of installations over 500 heads of cattle

Dolnośląskie 93 24 20

Kujawsko-pomorski 275 40 27

Lubelskie 123 8 7

Lubuskie 79 13 13

Łódzkie 132 8 6

Małopolskie 24 5 4

Mazowieckie 432 12 8

Opolskie 119 21 17

Podkarpackie 17 4 1

Podlaskie 494 16 5

Pomorskie 117 19 11

Śląskie 80 9 7

Świętokrzyskie 18 1 0

Warmińsko-mazurskie 426 39 22

Wielkopolskie 673 90 66

Zachodniopomorskie 80 22 24

B74


Region Number of installations with 101-300 heads of cattle

Number of installations with 301-500 heads of cattle

Number of installations over 500 heads of cattle

Total 3,182 331 238

Table B.61 Atmospheric emissions from cattle (dairy and others) for specific installations in Poland, 2011

Name of installation Region NH3 [kg/a] CH4 [kg/a] TSP [kg/a]

Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Produkcyjna OPOLSKIE 3,905.02

Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Produkcyjna OPOLSKIE 336.98

Fruitex Consolidated Sp. z oo OPOLSKIE 8,381.60

Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Produkcyjna Kaczkowo WIELKOPOLSKIE 1,334.00 4,464.00 42.62

Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Produkcyjna Kaczkowo WIELKOPOLSKIE 725.00 2,271.86 51.50

Portugal

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Portugal.


A link was provided to the most recent Portuguese survey on farm statistics which includes some summary data on cattle numbers:

http://ra09.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=RA2009&xpgid=ine_ra2009_publicacao_det&contexto=pu&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=119564579&PUBLICACOESmodo=2&selTab=tab1&pra2009=70305248


Intensive rearing is defined as the opposite of extensive rearing. Extensive rearing is described as “using not more than 1.4 NH/ha, or 2.8 NH/ha as long as food necessities can be provided by land”.


Portugal provided the following information. For farms, the following general national law is applied: http://dre.pt/pdf1s/2009/06/11100/0358003594.pdf

For IPPC farms, the http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/08/16400/0596705980.pdf is applied. The permits specify monitoring the emissions from the heat systems, accordingly to the national emissions Law:



http://dre.pt/pdf1s/2009/06/11100/0358003594.pdf

http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/08/16400/0596705980.pdf

B75


http://dre.pt/pdf1s/2004/04/080A00/21362149.pdf

Future developments

The following comments were provided on likely future developments in the sector:

• Beef farms - EU27 overview states that there is expected to be a 7% less production (2010-2020). In Portugal, there is likely to be an even bigger loss on production, considering that raw materials prices are raising.

• Dairy farms – From the COM study “Impacto de longo prazo da retirada das quotas 2020” we expect a production loss of 4%.

• Under the aim of “Roteiro Nacional de Baixo Carbono”, a study is underway where it is expected to preview the setoral emissions until 2050. This study will have estimative of rearing evolution. Results are expected at the beginning of 2012.

Romania

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Romania.


According to the proforma, in 2010 there were 166 cattle farms with a capacity of more than 100 places of which 158 dairy farms.


“Intensive rearing of cattle” is not defined in the national legislation applicable to cattle farms.


Table B.62 Emissions of CH4 from cattle, 2009

Source CH4 (Gg )

A. Enteric Fermentation 1. Cattle 190,70

Dairy Cattle 131,16 Non-Dairy Cattle 59,55

B. Manure Management 95,78 1. Cattle 40,79

Dairy Cattle 26,96 Non-Dairy Cattle 13,82

http://dre.pt/pdf1s/2004/04/080A00/21362149.pdf

B76



No information was reported on wider environmental impacts.


Animal feeding

• Animal feeding is done based on established recipes determined by zootechnician engineers/ doctors – it is administered based on type, age, category and weight. Each ration has a specific protein ratio. The quantity and mode of preparation is different because of many factors.

• For example in one farm, a 50% protein concentrate CDS and 50% cereals (45% corn, 5 % bran) is used for calves (cattle aged between 0 and 6 months). For cattle for fattening the ratio is 20% protein concentrate and 80% cereals. Feeding is done by means of a technological trailer set on the feeding path in front of the mangers and stalls. Outdoors feeding is done by the technological trailer loading the feed into containers.

• Water is provided through containers with a trap door or with a constant level situated in the stalls.

Housing.

• Most farms keep cattle in outdoor enclosures during summer and in stables during winter, using a mixed system. Farms keep dairy milks, the maternity and the calves separately. The code of good agricultural practices establishes the density for stalls, according to type, age, rearing purpose.


• Considering the commonly used management systems, slurry is usually eliminated in a mechanised way, using a scraper plough and is then stored on concrete platforms with walls at least 1.5 m high and collecting basins for the liquid component.

• After a maturing period of at least 18 weeks, as recommended by the Code of good agricultural practices for the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (approved by common Order of the Minister of Environment and Water Management no. 1182/2005 and of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development no. 1270/2005 ) manure is scattered on the fields of the owner or rented by the owner.

• The scattering is done in a mechanised way and it takes into account the results of the pedology studies elaborated by the county bureaus for pedology and agricultural chemistry studies and the measures set in the regulatory procedure by the water management and environmental protection authorities.

• There are other slurry management systems that start with the pre-collecting and centralising in a basin where slurry is minced and mixed. The slurry then goes through the station of separating solid from liquid components, facilities for the storage of the solid component and special equipment for the separate (by component) scattering on fields.

B77



In order to ensure the protection of areas vulnerable or possibly vulnerable to the pollution caused by nitrates, the provisions of the legislation currently in force in Romania regarding cattle farms mainly address the prevention of water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

The conditions are set in the regulatory act in accordance with the provisions of GD no. 964/2000 on the approval of the Action Plan for the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources , with further amendments, as well as with the provisions of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices for the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates (approved by common Order of the Minister of Environment and Water Management no. 1182/2005 and of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development no. 1270/2005 ).

According to GD no. 964/2000, the limit established for the Vulnerable Areas to nitrate pollution is 210kgN/ha for arable lands, diminishing over four years to 170 kgN/ha, 250 kgN/ha for meadows.

Cattle farms are included in MO no. 1789/2007 on the approval of the Procedure for the issuing of the environmental permit10, under point 1 of Annex 1 – “Rearing, farm activity for milk production, with a capacity of over 100 places” and the activity is conducted in accordance with the conditions of the environmental permit, based on the aforementioned act.

The requirements of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices are included in the environmental permits issued for farms with over 100 places.

Consequently, environmental permits include conditions regarding:

• the storage and management of effluents and manure in agro-zootechnical installations;

• applying nitrate fertiliser, the application period and techniques, periods inappropriate for applying nitrate fertilizer;

• applying fertiliser to uneven ground neighbouring water bodies or human consumption water catchment areas, when saturated with water, flooded, frozen or covered in snow;

• data regarding the content of fertilisers in manure.

Environmental permits also impose limits indicated by code, as operators have the obligation to elaborate an agricultural chemistry study before scattering slurry. The average composition of cattle slurry considered is 77% water, 20% organic materials, 0.45% nitrate, 0.23% P2O5, 0.50% K2O, 0.40% CaO.

10 Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 808/27.11.2007

B78


Slovakia

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Slovakia and accompanying documentation.


The Slovak Republic has a system (Central Livestock Registration (CLR)) for the identification and registration livestock in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000. CLR contents exact numbers of livestock in farms according to number of age, gender and record of changes and transfers livestock in line with EU legislation. Slovakia presented headline figures for both livestock and installations (see table below).

Table B.63 Number of installations and livestock heads in Slovakia, 2010

Dairy Beef

Number of cattle farms (projected capacity of over 200 animals) 773

Livestock number 187,245 813,959


Slovakia did not provide any information (due to a lack of information).

Data on N production (kg/head/year) for dairy and non-dairy cattle is given in the Slovakian NIR 2011.

Table B.64 N production (kg/head/year) and share in AWMS in Slovakia, 2009

Source: Slovakian National Inventory Report 2011


According to the proforma, intensive livestock breeding is characterised by: high concentration, with year-round stable in farms, with high level of balance of nutrient fodder ration and with high level of mechanisation in order to maximum production.


Slovakia submitted the following information on total ammonia emissions.

B79


Table B.65 Cattle NH3 emissions in Slovakia, 2010

Dairy Beef

NH3 emissions (tonnes) 1,388 974

Slovakia has also submitted as evidence the Slovakian National Inventory Report for 2011 to the UNFCCC, which presents the following data on methane emissions from enteric fermentation, dairy cattle and non-dairy cattle.

Table B.66 Methane emissions from enteric fermentation according to the livestock in Slovakia, 1990 – 2009


B80


Table B.67 Activity data and methane emissions for dairy cattle in Slovakia, 1990-2009


Table B.68 Activity data and methane emissions for non-dairy cattle in Slovakia, 1990-2009


B81


The NIR also presents data on CH4, N2O and N emissions from manure management.

Slovakia signposted us to the methodology for calculating ammonia emissions in the Informative Inventory Report 2011 to the annual data for reporting under Convention LRTAP. Latest emissions of ammonia from cattle farms and also activity data are published in CLRTAP reporting.


No information was reported on wider environmental impacts.


Water protection from the point of livestock is solved in Act No. 364/2004 Coll. on Waters and on Amendment of Act No. 372/1990 Coll. on Offences as amended (Waters Act).

Air protection from the point of livestock is solved in Act No 137/2010 Coll. on air.

Farmers have obligation to keep code of good agricultural practice, which contains:

1) Code of good agricultural practice– water protection against nitrate pollution from agriculture sources

2) Code of good agricultural practice on soil protection

3) Code of good application of manures.


Animal feeding

Professional making up fodder ration, production of nutrient-minerals premixes and complex fodder ration are ensured by fodder companies. Nourishment of livestock is mostly realised by suppliers in form of premixes and with using base plant row materials for a production of complex fodder mixtures. The fodder ration is balanced according to farmer and it is supplemented with own volume fodders.

Housing

Housing of livestock with dairy production is depended on technological and construction facilities of farms. It is preferred a system of free housing with lie boxes or free housing on bedding.

Housing of livestock with meet production is mostly realised by extensive form – on pastures. Shed form of battening in group hutches is used for intensive form of battening.

B82


Slurry/Manure storage, handling and spreading

Liquid manures is separated and stored in tanks or lagoons. Their application in soil is only under ground. Solid manures are stored in places, which compliance requests for restoring animal excrement. Their application in soil is mostly realised by ploughing.


Slovakia presented detailed information on techniques for reducing emissions. If there is a large source of air pollution, it is necessary to limit ammonia emission by installations of low emission systems and technologies with the aim of achieving the following reduction in ammonia emissions, using BAT set out in the publication Measures for Limiting Ammonia Emission from Livestock Breeding – Codex of Good Agricultural Practice.

Table B.69 Ammonia emission reductions to be achieved by large sources of air pollution

Operation Ammonia emission reductions

Stall ≥ 20 %

Storage facilities for manure ≥ 40 %

Application of Manures ≥ 30 %

The relevant measures are grouped under the following headings:

• The Good Strategy of Nourishing, e.g. adapting composition of fodder to demands of livestock state, e.g. according to age and weight of livestock and feeding stage; partial replacement of fresh grass by fibre with lower protein content, e.g. corn silage, hey, straw etc; avoiding intensive application of manures in grassland given for feeding; increasing rate of grazing; adding biotechnological preparations in fodder

• Livestock stall – Measures for Cattle, including cleaning and daily maintenance caw barns according to operating rules and fast drain of dung-water towards accumulation tanks

• Storage – liquid and solid manures

• Manure Application in Soil

• Low-emission Technology for liquid manures: shallow and furrow injectors, deep injectors, plough injectors, as well as different types of belt distributors

• Emission Reduction from Solid Organic Manures

These will be analysed further following submission of this report.

B83


Slovenia

The following information is based on the proforma submitted by Slovenia.


According to preliminary data of the Statistical office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS) in 2010 the number of agricultural holdings keeping cattle was 36,120. The number of farms with over 100 heads was 255.

Table B.70 Number of cattle and holdings in Slovenia, 2010

Farm size according to number of cattle Number of cattle Number of agricultural holdings

1 - 2 9,944 6,134

3 - 4 21,752 6,265

5 - 9 62,705 9,343

10 -14 57,101 4,848

15 - 19 48,781 2,901

20 - 29 72,004 3,03

30 - 49 83,724 2,24

50 - 99 73,267 1,104

>= 100 43,053 255

Total 472,331 36,12


No information was available for volumes of manure produced (Slovenia used international standard values to develop its thresholds for minimum stocking levels).

B84


National inventory on ammonia, methane and N2O emissions are established for the main cattle categories (dairy cows, suckler cows, other cattle) and main emission sources (animal housing, grazing, storage of animal manures, fertilization with animal manures). Cattle production contributes 60.4% of total national emissions of ammonia, 32.1% of emissions of N2O and 45.6% of methane emissions (figures include the emissions due to fertilization with cattle manures and indirect emissions of N2O). The contribution of cattle to total national emissions of methane, N2O and ammonia is expected to increase.

The 2011 Slovenian National Inventory Report to the UNFCCC contains data on methane emissions from dairy and non-dairy cows, from enteric fermentation and manure management, along with N2O emissions from manure management, with supporting calculation methodologies and emission factors. These will be analysed following submission of this report.


There is no definition for intensive cattle rearing in Slovenia.


According to the Slovenian response, there are no direct measurements of nitrogen excretion in dairy cattle in Slovenia, although some indirect information estimated on the basis of typical diets, productivity and milk urea concentrations is available. This information was not submitted as part of the consultation response.


Slovenia has information on climate change impacts (e.g. in the UNFCCC NIR), but not on water or biodiversity impacts.


The main legislation in Slovenia is the implementing legislation for the Nitrates Directive and the permitting regime. Slovenia submitted information on these, along with detailed information on current management practices. This will be analysed further following submission of this report.


Slovenia considers that the main measure contributing to reduction of emissions from cattle farms are the training courses which are compulsory for all beneficiaries of its Rural Development Programme. New animal houses and equipment for low emission animal manure spreading is also co-financed under the Rural Development Programme. Due to dispersed cattle production, Slovenia intends for education activities to remain the core measures to reduce emissions in future.

There is also an advisory code of good agricultural practice, covering protection of water, soil and air and preservation of biodiversity. For dairy farmers participating in the milk recording scheme there is a special web based application showing the trends in emissions of greenhouse gases and nitrogen losses on their farms, along

B85


with comparison to national average and instructions to reduce emissions. About 75% of all dairy cows are kept on these farms.

Spain

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Spain and accompanying documentation. Separate information was submitted by the Province of Catalunya.


Spain submitted the following table detailing livestock heads.

Table B.71 Livestock heads according to animal type and housing regime

Age in months Categories Regime housing Number animals total

Number animals intensive

Number animals extensive

<12

Calves Intensive/Extensive 1,144,525 1,144,525 866,882

Bulls Intensive/Extensive 336,189 323,857 12,332

Heifers Intensive/Extensive 625,897 194,379 431,518

12 -24

Bulls Intensive/Extensive 159,589 150,855 8,734

Heifers for replacement Intensive/Extensive 473,596 167,734 305,862

Heifers for slaughters Intensive/Extensive 81,411 25,646 55,765

> 24

Bulls Extensive 134,439 0 134,439

Heifers for slaughters Intensive/Extensive 9,785 6,847 2,938

Dairy Heifers Intensive 73,302 73,302 0

Heifers for replacement Extensive 200,501 0 200,501

Dairy Cows Intensive 832,938 832,938 0

Non-Dairy Cows Extensive 1,973,481 0 1973481

Calves Intensive/Extensive 1,144,525 1,144,525 866,882

All Total All 6,045,653

Source: BNAE 2009. RD manures, The Attached IIIrd

B86



Spain has constituted a Working Group composed of different experts and technical professionals and has developed a specific methodology based on the IPPC directive, adapted to Spanish conditions, in order to calculate the nitrogen excretion and the atmospheric emissions of pollutants from livestock.

The results are used to update the Nitrogen Balance of Spanish agriculture, National Emission Inventory and any requirements from the European Union and United Nations.

Table B.72 Annual nitrogen and manure excretion rates

Age in months

Categories Nitrogen excretion intensive (kg/animal/year)

Nitrogen excretion extensive (kg/animal/year)

Manure (t/year/head)

Manure (t /year)

<12 Calves 22.73 7.69 3.65 4,177,516

Bulls 30.97 27.83 1,227,090

Heifers 22.89 20.09 2,284,524

12 -24 Bulls 34.90 80.32 8.35 1,332,568

Heifers for replacement 64.54 55.41 3,954,527

Heifers for slaughters 64.59 53.87 679,782

> 24 Bulls 0.00 72.07

Heifers for slaughters 49.72 52.73

Dairy Heifers 53.19 0.00 20.80 1,524,682

Heifers for replacement 0.00 64.46 14.60 2,927,315

Dairy Cows 107.06 0.00 20.80 17,325,110

Non-Dairy Cows 0.00 60.97 14.60 28,812,823

All Total 64,245,936

Source: BNAE 2009. RD manures, The Attached IIIrd

Catalunya uses the following standardized excretion factors, set out in Decree 136/2009.

B87


Table B.73 Catalunyan standard nitrogen excretion factors

Category Slurry (m3/place/year) Manure (t/place/year) Manure density (t/m3)

Dairy

Cow 14 18

0.8

Sire 9 12

Suckler 0.4 0.6

Meat Reproductor 9 12

Suckler 0.5 0.7


Spain submitted the following table summarising atmospheric emissions from agriculture. Further detail (e.g. methodological) is available in the National Inventory Report 2011 submission to the UNFCCC.

Table B.74 Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (2009)

Greenhouse gas source CH4 N2O Total % Contribution

CO2-eq (kt)

Agriculture 18,701.24 20,011.47 38,712.71 10.5

Animal husbandry and manure management 18,120.58 2,483.71 20,604.29 5.6

Enteric fermentation 12,528.65 12,528.65 3.4

Manure management 5,591.93 2,483.71 8,075.64 2.2

Total (Gross Emissions) 36,387.22 26,209.49 367,548.42 100

Source: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Edition 2011 (1990-2009)


No information was submitted by Spain on the wider environmental impacts.


The Spanish regional authorities require farmers to elaborate a manure management plan prior to commencing activities. They have different mechanisms to control the application of manure in agriculture, along with voluntary systems for improved feeding systems and the codes of good practices in the application of manure to agriculture.

B88


The Spanish water authorities assess surface water and groundwater periodically.

Catalunya presented detailed information on its implementation of the IPPC Directive including permitting thresholds for farm sizes.


The Spanish Ministry, through the Working Group, develops surveys for livestock. The latest data from cattle is for 2005. A new livestock survey is currently being developed.

Spain submitted a table of information detailing current feeding practices according to different types of cattle. According to Spain, the main techniques currently are based around the improvement in feeding systems in order to reduce emissions from cattle farms. Key points on slurry/manure storage, handling and spreading in cattle were:

• The most frequent system of interior storage for solid excretions is the bed of straw. The frequency of retreating it is lower than one month. The excretions are deposited in a solid manure store.

• The liquid excretions are usually stored a pit during a time lower than a month followed by raft or tank.

• The method of application that prevails is the spreading system. The majority of the solid excretions are buried between 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. after the application to the field, whereas in case of the liquid excretions, the majority of them are buried in the moment of the preparation of the area for the sowing. The principal destination of the excretions, both solid and liquid, is the organic application in own lands.

Catalunya submitted key points on measures and techniques for reducing emissions from cattle farms, including:

• Waterproofing of all manure storage devices

• Authorization of discharge where necessary, and provided that the activity is within 100 meters of a watercourse

• Storage of hazardous waste and dead animals in closed containers and their management by an authorized manager

• Measures to prevent forest fires as long as the assets are located within 500 meters of a forest

Sweden

The following information is based on the proforma completed by Sweden and accompanying documentation.


According to the proforma, in Sweden there are about 5,000 full-time businesses specializing in milk production. The number of part-time business in milk production is very small, fewer than 50 companies.

B89


Approximately 3,000 full-time companies are focused on beef cattle and about 7,000 part-time businesses specializing in beef cattle.

There are about 70 holdings with cattle that have more than 400 LU. Overall, i.e. including companies with pigs and poultry, there are about 900 companies with more than 100 animal units in Sweden. There are about 35,000 enterprises with fewer than 100 LU.

The following table was provided by Sweden on cattle numbers.

Table B.75 Cattle heads in Sweden, 2011

Category Number of heads

Cows for milk production: 346,500

Cows for breeding calves: 195,600

Heifers, bulls and steers: 495,000

Calves, under 1 year: 475,000

Emissions

The emission of ammonia from all agricultural activities to air in Sweden is estimated for 2009 to a total of about 42,500 tonnes. Compared to 2007, a decrease of approximately 4% compared to 1995 emissions from agriculture fell by 25%. The emissions reduction is primarily due to improved manure management and reduced livestock numbers. The single largest source of emissions is through the handling of cattle manure, which account for about 60% of agricultural emissions.

Excretion factors

Values for phosphorus excretion and nitrogen content as well as stable and storage losses have been provided. These values can be used as basis for calculation.


For dairy cattle manure is handled predominantly as liquid manure (about 75%). For other beef is a more even distribution between solid manure (about 33%), manure (33%) and deep litter manure (33%) 4. In Sweden there are general rules which have storage facilities for livestock manure must be designed so that runoff or leakage occurs from the spaces.

B90



In Sweden there is a general law for animal holding company means that these companies have requirements for specific storage (6-8 months depending on company size and orientation) and coverage requirements of the storage facilities.

There is also a general law governing the application of fertilizers, such as periods when it is forbidden to spread manure, requirements for incorporation, etc. These rules apply irrespective of the spread is done in a livestock farms or without livestock.

Cattle farms with more 400 animal units require environmental permits. An environmental impact assessment of the company is conducted. Permits examination made by the prefectures (21 pc) and this takes into account the company's overall environmental impact. In Sweden, there are currently about 70 companies focussed on cattle that have an environmental permit.

Future developments

In Sweden, there is a general development and modernisation towards fewer and larger farms, while the total arable land area is slightly reduced. The production of milk decreases. This is due largely to increased competition from other EU countries.

UK

The UK did not complete a proforma on cattle, but did provide links to relevant documents and some data.


The 2011 survey on Land Use, Livestock and Labour on Agricultural Holdings found that the total number of cattle and calves in the UK decreased by 2% between June 2010 and 2011 and now stands at just over 9.9 million (see table below).

B91


Table B.76 Cattle heads and holdings in the UK, 2009-2011 (thousands)a

The main dairy herd has fallen by 2%, following the declining trend seen in recent years as the figure below shows. The UK beef herd has remained fairly stable since 2005. The main dairy and beef herds are made up of female cattle aged 2 years or more that have calved.

B92


Table B.77 Dairy cattle and beef herd numbers in the UK, 2005-2011

Source: 2011 Survey on Land Use, Livestock and Labour on Agricultural Holdings

The table below summarises numbers of holdings and livestock numbers by size group for 2005 and 2010.

B93


Table B.78 Cattle heads and holdings by herd size in the UK, 2005 and 2010 (thousands)

Source: Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2010

Excretion factors

Atmospheric emissions from cattle are reported within the framework of the Kyoto protocol (National Inventory Report, NIR, 2011). The table below shows nitrogen excretion factors for different cattle categories in the UK from 2000 to 2009.

Table B.79 Nitrogen Excretion Factors, kg N hd-1 year-1 for livestock in the UK (2000-2009)

Animal Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Dairy Cows 106 110 112 113 114 115.1 116.2 117.3 118.4 119.5

Dairy heifers in calf 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67

Beef cows and heifers 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79

B94


Animal Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Other Cattle > 2 year 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Other Cattle 1-2 year 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Other Cattle <1 year 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

Source: Cottrill and Smith, ADAS

Emissions

The graph below shows ammonia emissions from agriculture. Since 1990 ammonia emissions from agriculture have fallen by 26% due, according to Defra, to the contraction in the pig herd, reduced cattle numbers and a reduction in direct soil emissions. The background numbers were not available.

Figure B.4 Ammonia emissions in the UK, 1990-2009

Source: Defra Observatory monitoring framework – indicator data sheet: Ammonia emissions 2011

Methane and nitrous oxide emissions are not disaggregated for cattle.

Common management measures

The National Farmer’s Union provided a summary of the most common management measures under the headings of animal feeding, housing and slurry/manure management. This is summarized below:

B95


Animal feeding

• Dairy: Tailor-made, balanced and designed rations are prevalent in the dairy sector.

• Beef: There is more of a mixture in beef systems, with some designing their own rations but some beef finishing systems will be seeking advice from professional nutritionists. Aside from intensive cereal finishing systems there is a far lower reliance on concentrate feeds than in the dairy industry.

Housing.

• Dairy: Most farmers (about 80 %) still house cattle 5-6 months of the year, usually in cubiclesand/or to a lesser extent straw-bedded yards. Buildings are naturally ventilated. Systems are slurry-based.

• Beef: Deep-bed straw systems are prevalent. Some have slatted systems. Woodchip corrals can be used in outdoor systems, but these are not common.

Slurry/manure storage, handling and spreading.

• Dairy: Slurry is typically stored in tanks and/or lagoons. A mixture of injection and low level splash plate spreaders, to comply with NVZ rules, are used.

• Beef: Manure is generally stored in a field heap, spread in September or Spring and, if spread on land for cultivation, incorporated within 24 hours.

The table below is taken from the NIR (2011) and shows the distribution of animal waste management systems for different cattle categories.

Table B.80 Distribution of Animal Waste Management Systems used for Different Animal typesc

Animal Type Liquid System Daily Spread Solid Storage and Dry Lota

Pasture Range and Paddock

Otherb Fuel

Dairy Cows 30.6 14.1 9.8 45.5 NA NA

Other Cattle >1 year 6.0 23.0 20.4 50.5 NA NA

Other Cattle <1 year 22.9 22.3 54.8 NA NA

Notes:

a) Farmyard manure

b) Poultry litter, Stables from NH3 inventory (T. Misselbrook)

c) ADAS (1995a), Smith (2002)

B96


The table below, also from the NIR (2011), shows the distribution of cattle manure management systems in the UK.

Table B.81 Cattle Manure Management Systems in the UK

Manure Handling System Fraction of manure handled using manure system %

Dairy Beef and Other

Pasture Range 45.5 50.5

Liquid System 30.6 6.0

Solid Storage 9.8 20.4

Daily Spread 14.1 23.0

Notes: a IPCC (2000)

Defra also provided a copy of a 2010 project which examined the efficacy of a range of on-farm pollution control mitigation measures on a wide range of pollutants (greenhouse gasses, water pollution and air pollution). This will be analysed in further detail following submission of this report.

Voluntary measures

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) provided the following information on voluntary systems in place for limiting emissions from cattle farms.

Initiatives such as the Tried & Tested nutrient management project11 in the UK, which encourages farmers to plan and manage nutrients, are excellent examples of good partnerships between governments, their agencies and other key agricultural organisations, helping farmers to better manage nitrogen, including ammonia emissions. The Defra Farm Practices Survey 2011 also has some information on nutrient management planning practices, but again it does not show sector by sector results (although they should be able to provide this). However, it is encouraging that some 62% of farmers indicated that they have completed a nutrient management plan for their holding.

Furthermore, the farming sector in England has launched its own Greenhouse Gas Action Plan12 setting out how the industry will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. It shows a commitment to playing our part in tackling climate change by reducing our emissions by three million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year from 2018-2022.

11 http://www.nutrientmanagement.org/

12 http://www.nfuonline.com/ghgap/

http://www.nutrientmanagement.org/

http://www.nfuonline.com/ghgap/

B97


EBLEX Change in the Air13 shows how the beef (and sheep) sector intend to contribute, through production efficiencies, to this 11 % reduction. This will include better breeding and improved feed efficiencies.

The plan is for the DairyCo Dairy Roadmap to help the dairy sector contribute to this 11 % reduction. An industry meeting is taking place in early January 2012 to take this work forward.

One of the commitments set out in the government Natural Environment White Paper14 in June 2011 was to ‘bring together government, industry and environmental organisations to achieve the goals of ‘improving the environment and increasing food production’. This work, led by a steering group and chaired by Defra Minister Jim Paice, is expected to report in summer 2012.

Additional information submitted during July 2012 consultation on final report

The box below provides details of additional (new) information/comments that were submitted by the UK authorities.

13 http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/publications/p_cp_changeintheairtheenglishbeefandsheepproductionroadmap.pdf

14 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/

http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/publications/p_cp_changeintheairtheenglishbeefandsheepproductionroadmap.pdf

http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/publications/p_cp_changeintheairtheenglishbeefandsheepproductionroadmap.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/

B98


General point re: definition of intensive farming We suggest that any such definition could include housing period, but in particular stocking rate. In considering stocking rate, adherence to the Defra Code of Good Agricultural Practice- Protecting our Water, Soil and Air is suggested as a key factor. This includes a long- established limit of 250kg/ha of nitrogen, across the whole of a farm, equivalent to 2.5 medium-milking dairy cows/ ha. Use of a limit in this way should help deal with heavily stocked units, without incurring undue controls in respect of those larger herd sizes, where there is ample land available to support production in a sustainable manner. General point re: voluntary systems for reducing emissions Dairy and Red meat Roadmaps for England and Wales. Also the Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming, produced by the National Farmers Union, Dairy Uk, MDC ( now Dairy Co), RABDF and the EA. It was launched in 2006 to encourage dairy farmers - to voluntarily take ownership of environmental issues and solutions, to improve environmental performance, and therefore reduce the need for further regulation. All partners in delivery of the EPDF have recently re-affirmed need to continue delivery of the EPDF. In addition, the agricultural industry has recently produced a greenhouse gas action plan. The UK can provide more information on these voluntary systems if needed. Page 5 – common management systems – this will need to be flexible to allow changes in housing types to deal with welfare issues (e.g. Mastitis), see comment about page 62 Page 11 – Stocking density: is more the LSU and being able to meet the 250kg/Ha of N (see general comment on definition of intensive farming above) Page 50 – price of milk as discussed does not go as far as suggesting how much a scheme could cost the farmer Page 51 – the dairy sector will see larger farms due to economies of scale. We have a position statement on large farms [pdf provided but not replicated in this report] Page 53 – paragraph 4: it is unclear as to whether this seems to be suggesting that we would expect to see greater imports into the EU, and possible export of emissions overseas, is this what is intended by this section? Page 58 – SSAFO does cover pre 1991 stores if inspecting officers considered a risk to the environment. Page 58 - It mentions that the thresholds are indicative but the basis for choosing these thresholds is not clear. Page 59/60 - applicability of intensive. This does not seem to consider the load on the land on the farm i.e. 250kg/Ha. Page 62 – Larger herds may have the potential for greater point source pollution but small herds can cause just as much pollution as large herds in terms of poaching and diffuse pollution. This section also does not mention of nutrient loading on the land bank available. Any scheme needs to have the flexibility for the farmer to alter husbandry techniques for health needs e.g. mastitis control moving from cubicles to straw. Page 64 – there is legislations already in the UK that address some of these issues. E.g. SSAFO NVZs, British Cattle Movement Service cattle tracing, cross compliance.

european commission final report - appendices...european commission final report - appendices...

Documents