Polish perspective on integrated nitrogen management. Tadeusz Kuczyński, University of Zielona Góra

Transcription

1 Tadeusz Kuczyński, University of Zielona Góra

2 Number of cattle in Poland depending on farm size, 2007 Source: GUS, 2007

3 Number of cows in Poland depending on farm size, 2007 Source: GUS, 2007

4 Number of fatteners in Poland depending on farm size, 2007 Source: GUS, 2007

5 Number of sows in Poland depending on farm size, 2007 Source: GUS, 2007

6 GAINS investment functions for storage of pig manure (per animal place) for different storage capacity required (storage time) Source: Klimont and Winiwarter, April 2011

7 Comparison of costs for slurry injection and incorporation of slurry and manures Source: Klimont and Winiwarter, April 2011

8 Cattle and cows Pigs and sows: Wielkopolska 2009; Wielkopolska 2009; 1,3 % liquid manure 5 % liquid manure for 72,8 % tied fatteners and for herds weaners, 11 % for sows herds Source: Report of ITP. Poznań Branch for Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2010

9 % of ammonia reduction ( )acc. to MFTR Polish perspective on integrated 60,0% 52,8% 50,0% 46,6% 40,0% 30,0% 35,2% 38,9% 20,0% 10,0% 11,3% 18,5% 18,3% 0,0% DE FR NL IT ES UK PL Country The percentage of ammonia reduction for selected European countries necessary to meet in the period of MFTR ceiling levels

10 Changes of total LU numbers (x1000) in Poland, According to CIAM 2011 emission of ammonia in Poland Source: GUS, Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture, 2010 was at a level of 315 kt in Assuming that 80 % of ammonia emission is from animal production, it dropped down in years by 31 kt on the basis of reduction in LU alone, reaching in 2009 a level 284 kt. Our goal for a year 2020 is 247 kt which is to reduce ammonia emission in next 10 years by 15% only

11 Most important conclusions: 1. Extend relaxations from obligatory abatement measures and making detailed N balance for farms up to LU (5 LU suggested by ANNEX IX; 15 LU sugg. By CIAM 2011) 2. Introduction of obligatory regulations in cases where the countries may have serious problems with meeting MFTR limits in Approve using Category II strategies the same way as Category I strategies are used to give farmers more choice or should be more stringent in classifying to Category I; Why for example should I be forced to use scrubbers, whereas their efficiency was proved in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark only; and we still do not know enough on their durability and effect on indoor climate; we should remember that they completely change the recent approach to animal buildings ventilation

12 Most important conclusions: 4. Another question is using EMEP data on ammonia exchange between European countries to find if export or import is prevailing. For example Poland imports 5 times more ammonia from Germany than is exporting to this country. In all EU documents it is stated that all polluters must pay for their pollutions. Currently the data on ammonia migration are used in GAINS model only for evaluation of critical areas for eutrophication and acidification. 5. GAINS model does not take into account the density of animals per hectare, resulting in a level of concentration of nitrogen which should affect nitrogen load in the form of manure from the animals and have further effect on ammonia abatement process. 6. More contact with IIASA to have better representation of the specific Polish conditions in GAINS model