Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions
and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation
and a...
Agustin Del Prado

Jørgen Olesen

Paul Crosson

Alan Rotz
Outline
1. General overview
2. Basic principles of farm models
3. Whole-farm models for quantification and mitigation of
G...
Models reviewed
LANDDAIRY
+NGAUGE

Casey & Holden
Foley et al.
Lovett et al.
O’Brien et al.

SIMSDAIRY

FARMSIM DAIRYWISE
...
Main components of a ruminant livestock system

grass
Sources of GHG (from the cradle to farm gate)
Enteric CH4

manure CH4

Animal
soils N2O

Feed Production

manure N2O

Manu...
Component 1: the animal
How much do they eat or meat/milk produce?
•
•
•
•

Energy and nutrient requirements (e.g. protein...
Component 2: manure handling
How much excreta?
How much and how is it mixed & collected?
How much and how is it stored?
Is...
Component 3: feed production

vs

Soil N2O

Emission Factor

Bouwman (1998)

mechanistic and dynamic

Empirical and static...
Component 3: feed production Indirect emissions

Indirect N2O: NH3, NO3Important to account for pollution swapping or syne...
Component 3: feed production grazing

Bryant and Snow (2012)

• How much herbage is produced?
• Digestibility, protein?
• ...
Component 3: feed production grazing

Specialized models

e.g. ECOMOD+DairyMod
(Johnson et al., 2008)

• Grazing patterns
...
Soil Carbon
Respired CO2

↓
↓
↓
Saturated flow

↓

Fixed CO2

↓

↓

Radiant energy

Runoff C
Stored C

↓

Leached C

↓

IF...
But C field-scale modelling and experiments…
Modelled with LANDDAIRY farm model+RothC

Long-term effect on soil C stocks o...
Uncertainty-model structure

• Complex model structure
•More reliable results
•More mitigation options
• BUT – model param...
Uncertainty-emission factors
Foley et al. (2011)

Clarke et al., (2013)

Sensitivity analysis

MC simulation

• Emission f...
Interactions among farm components-key to mitigation
milk+meat

concentrates

CATTLE
CATTLE

purchased/sold

forages

silage
grazed
NH3

grazing
N
fixation

DUNG
URINE

PLANT
...
higher energy
lower protein

milk+meat
milk+meat

concentrates

CH4

CATTLE
CATTLE

purchased/sold

forages

silage
grazed...
milk+meat

concentrates

CATTLE
CATTLE

purchased/sold

forages

silage
grazed

grazing
N
fixation

DUNG
URINE

PLANT

CO2...
milk+meat

concentrates

CATTLE
CATTLE

purchased/sold

forages

silage
grazed

grazing
N
fixation

DUNG
URINE

PLANT

hou...
milk+meat

concentrates

CATTLE
CATTLE

purchased/sold

forages

silage
grazed

grazing
N
fixation

DUNG
URINE

PLANT

hou...
CH4

milk+meat

concentrates

∆ crude protein
concentration
∆ urine: dung ratio
…

CATTLE
CATTLE

purchased/sold

forages
...
Confinement vs grazing
1200

Conc.
Purchased

1000

ton DM / yr

800

Grain
produced

600

Grazed forage

400

Hay & silag...
Confinement vs grazing

1.0

C-footprint: kg CO2e / kg ECM
Secondary emissions
Engine emissions
Manure handling
Net animal...
Confinement vs grazing
C-footprint: kg CO2e / kg ECM
1.0
0.8

Secondary emissions
Manure handling

Engine emissions
Net an...
Modelling mitigation measures

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Ba: baseline
Man: manure changes
FQ: frequency of reseeding
N-Fert: optimi...
Farm economics is an important factor for mitigation
• Level of adoption will largely depend on economics
• A number of mo...
Should we try to account for non-market values?

PROVISION

Milk Q
quality
Mil
PROVISION

4.0

BAseline
1-Baseline

MARKET...
Farm models should be able to be used for mitigation
+adaptation to climate change impacts
Start day of grass
growing seas...
Farm models should be able to be used for mitigation
+adaptation to climate change impacts
South West England (example)

C...
Recommendations to improve farm modelling for
quantification of GHG, mitigation and adaptation
• We need to balance comple...
Recommendations to improve farm modelling for
quantification of GHG, mitigation and adaptation
• Future farm models for mi...
Acknowledgements
grant no. CGL2009-10176

grant no. PC2010-33A

grant no. 266018

Also thanks to the Guest Editor (Nick Ho...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Session 10 14.00_adel_prado_whole-farm models

1,445 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,445
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,105
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Session 10 14.00_adel_prado_whole-farm models

  1. 1. Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems Agustin del Prado, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Spain Paul Crosson, Teagasc, Ireland Jørgen Olesen, Aarhus University, Denmark Alan Rotz, USDA-ARS, University Park, USA
  2. 2. Agustin Del Prado Jørgen Olesen Paul Crosson Alan Rotz
  3. 3. Outline 1. General overview 2. Basic principles of farm models 3. Whole-farm models for quantification and mitigation of GHG 4. Linking mitigation and adaptation to climate change 5. Final Recommendations
  4. 4. Models reviewed LANDDAIRY +NGAUGE Casey & Holden Foley et al. Lovett et al. O’Brien et al. SIMSDAIRY FARMSIM DAIRYWISE FARMGHG FASSET Holos-NOR Holos DAIRYGEM IFSM OVERSEER, HoofPrint Ecomod-suite DAIRYNZ
  5. 5. Main components of a ruminant livestock system grass
  6. 6. Sources of GHG (from the cradle to farm gate) Enteric CH4 manure CH4 Animal soils N2O Feed Production manure N2O Manure Fuel combustion Secondary emissions Different levels Data from del Prado et al. (2013), Animal (this issue)
  7. 7. Component 1: the animal How much do they eat or meat/milk produce? • • • • Energy and nutrient requirements (e.g. protein) Feed on offer (e.g. fiber, energy, protein) Genetics Structure of the herd mechanistic CH4 CO2 empirical Farm models prefer empirical How much do they excrete?
  8. 8. Component 2: manure handling How much excreta? How much and how is it mixed & collected? How much and how is it stored? Is manure treated? How much and how is applied?
  9. 9. Component 3: feed production vs Soil N2O Emission Factor Bouwman (1998) mechanistic and dynamic Empirical and static Affected by soil type, weather and management • Soil environment • Soil inorganic N availability • Soil Organic Matter • Competing processes (plant, denitrification, leaching…)
  10. 10. Component 3: feed production Indirect emissions Indirect N2O: NH3, NO3Important to account for pollution swapping or synergetic effects of measurements targeting reduction of GHG emissions • Many models use Emission Factors (but not all) • Mechanistic NH3 requires wind, pH, etc…info • Mechanistic NO3- soil water transport modelling (complex)
  11. 11. Component 3: feed production grazing Bryant and Snow (2012) • How much herbage is produced? • Digestibility, protein? • How much N fixation?
  12. 12. Component 3: feed production grazing Specialized models e.g. ECOMOD+DairyMod (Johnson et al., 2008) • Grazing patterns • Spatial variability (urine, dung patches) vs “Other” models e.g. SIMSDAIRY (based on Brown et al., 2005 and Scholefield et al., 1996) • Semi-empirical • More uniform grasslands
  13. 13. Soil Carbon Respired CO2 ↓ ↓ ↓ Saturated flow ↓ Fixed CO2 ↓ ↓ Radiant energy Runoff C Stored C ↓ Leached C ↓ IFSM (Integrated Farm System Model)
  14. 14. But C field-scale modelling and experiments… Modelled with LANDDAIRY farm model+RothC Long-term effect on soil C stocks of applying slurry vs digestate vs compost 3 pools of SOC with different decomposition rate After RAMIRAN 2013 presentation (del Prado A. and Pardo G.)
  15. 15. Uncertainty-model structure • Complex model structure •More reliable results •More mitigation options • BUT – model parameterisation requirements much greater
  16. 16. Uncertainty-emission factors Foley et al. (2011) Clarke et al., (2013) Sensitivity analysis MC simulation • Emission factors •Considerable source of uncertainty •Soil N2O and carbon cycling
  17. 17. Interactions among farm components-key to mitigation
  18. 18. milk+meat concentrates CATTLE CATTLE purchased/sold forages silage grazed NH3 grazing N fixation DUNG URINE PLANT housing MANURE MANURE CO2 purchased/sold roots + stubbles SOIL Manipulation 1 (Animal)-Crude protein concentration N2O
  19. 19. higher energy lower protein milk+meat milk+meat concentrates CH4 CATTLE CATTLE purchased/sold forages silage grazed CH4 grazing N fixation DUNG URINE PLANT housing MANURE MANURE ∆volatile solids (VS) B0 CO2 purchased/sold roots + stubbles SOIL Manipulation 1 (Animal)-Crude protein concentration
  20. 20. milk+meat concentrates CATTLE CATTLE purchased/sold forages silage grazed grazing N fixation DUNG URINE PLANT CO2 housing MANURE MANURE NH3 roots + stubbles SOIL SOIL Manipulation 1 (Animal)-Crude protein concentration purchased/sold
  21. 21. milk+meat concentrates CATTLE CATTLE purchased/sold forages silage grazed grazing N fixation DUNG URINE PLANT housing MANURE MANURE CO2 purchased/sold roots + stubbles N2O SOIL SOIL ∆inorganic N NO3 Manipulation 1 (Animal)-Crude protein concentration
  22. 22. milk+meat concentrates CATTLE CATTLE purchased/sold forages silage grazed grazing N fixation DUNG URINE PLANT housing MANURE MANURE CO2 purchased/sold roots + stubbles SOIL SOIL ∆inorganic N Manipulation 1 (Animal)-Crude protein concentration
  23. 23. CH4 milk+meat concentrates ∆ crude protein concentration ∆ urine: dung ratio … CATTLE CATTLE purchased/sold forages silage grazed grazing N fixation DUNG URINE PLANT housing MANURE MANURE CO2 purchased/sold roots + stubbles SOIL SOIL Manipulation 1 (Animal)-Crude protein concentration
  24. 24. Confinement vs grazing 1200 Conc. Purchased 1000 ton DM / yr 800 Grain produced 600 Grazed forage 400 Hay & silage produced 200 0 Confined, High Confined, Moderate Confined with pasture Outdoors, all grass Rotz et al. (2009)
  25. 25. Confinement vs grazing 1.0 C-footprint: kg CO2e / kg ECM Secondary emissions Engine emissions Manure handling Net animal/feed 0.8 0.6 1000 800 Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous oxide 600 400 200 0 0.4 0.2 0.0 Confined, High Confined, Moderate Confined with pasture Outdoors, all grass Rotz et al. (2009)
  26. 26. Confinement vs grazing C-footprint: kg CO2e / kg ECM 1.0 0.8 Secondary emissions Manure handling Engine emissions Net animal/feed 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Confined, High Confined, Moderate Confined with pasture Rotz et al. (2009) (US) 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Outdoors, all grass DEFRA-AC0209 (Anon, 2010) (UK) O’Brien et al. 2012 (IRL) • Results will be biased on specific definition of farm system and model • In US and UK cases GHG results are better for medium-grazing scenario
  27. 27. Modelling mitigation measures • • • • • • • • Ba: baseline Man: manure changes FQ: frequency of reseeding N-Fert: optimisation of mineral fertiliser N Fertilit: improving animal fertility Diet: optimising N intake LIP: adding lipid supplements DCD: applying nitrification inhibitors -Measures applied in combination may have interactions amongst each other -The reduction of GHG when we combine measures is not equal to adding the reduction effects from single measures. Del Prado et al.(2010)
  28. 28. Farm economics is an important factor for mitigation • Level of adoption will largely depend on economics • A number of models permit economic evaluation of mitigation strategies • A few models evaluate economics and GHG impacts together e.g. MACCs Foley et al. (2011)
  29. 29. Should we try to account for non-market values? PROVISION Milk Q quality Mil PROVISION 4.0 BAseline 1-Baseline MARKET VALUE 3.5 2 €/L leche 3.0 £/ milk 2.5 Biodiversity 2.0 4 Biodiv 1.5 3 (SOIL, FARM) 1.0 0.5 5 0.0 6 7 N2O/ha 8 Anim. Welfare 9 10 11 SUSTAINABLE Sustainable Animal Welfare +health Landscape LANDSCAPE Soil Q CULTURAL/ Soil quality ETICS Soil protection (structure, fertility) Ecosystem Services 11 farm scenarios showing results for different Ecosystem services Example taken from Del Prado et al. (2009) using the SIMSDAIRY model
  30. 30. Farm models should be able to be used for mitigation +adaptation to climate change impacts Start day of grass growing season SW YH WA 18 SC 110 100 90 80 70 YH WA SC 14 12 10 8 6 4 60 2 50 a SW 16 120 annual grass growth (t DM ha-1yr-1) average start day (Since 1st Jan) of grazing season 130 Grass productivity 0 baseline 2020 2050 2080 b baseline 2020 2050 2080 framework -Farm-models may be integrated in frameworks. -For most regions in the UK grass productivity and growing season will increase (about a month in 2020) but grass digestibility will decrease. -Adaptation may be increasing grazing for one month. Del Prado et al.(in prep.)
  31. 31. Farm models should be able to be used for mitigation +adaptation to climate change impacts South West England (example) C-footprint NH3 8.0 1700 g CO2-eq/l milk 7.5 gNH3/Lmilk 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 1100 baseline scenario 2020 2020 (ADAPT) 25 20 15 10 5 5.0 1000 NO3- 30 g NO3-N/L milk NO3 1800 0 baseline 2020 scenario 2020 (ADAPT) baseline 2020 scenario 2020 (ADAPT) -More variable results for C-footprint and N leachate in 2020. -C-footprint decreases and NH3 and NO3- increase. -One month extra grazing (adaptation) has no effect on C-footprint but positive for NH3 and negative for NO3-. Del Prado et al.(in prep.)
  32. 32. Recommendations to improve farm modelling for quantification of GHG, mitigation and adaptation • We need to balance complexity in farm models • Quantifying uncertainties is essential (linkage of components and in relation to parameterisation). • We need better datasets against which to test farm scale models. • We need to improve simulation of soil C fluxes and N2O emissions.
  33. 33. Recommendations to improve farm modelling for quantification of GHG, mitigation and adaptation • Future farm models for mitigation and adaptation must be sufficiently sensitive to weather conditions and incorporate economics. • We need to test and compare farm scale simulation models for their sensitivity to climate change (temperature, precipitation and CO2). • Wider environmental and socio-economic impacts need to be considered when developing tailored recommendations. • Farm modelers should collaborate together.
  34. 34. Acknowledgements grant no. CGL2009-10176 grant no. PC2010-33A grant no. 266018 Also thanks to the Guest Editor (Nick Holden) and 2 anonymous reviewers

×