Use of empirical tools/calculators to quantify
GHG emission from agricultural systems
Tek B. Sapkota
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
New Delhi, India

Outline
• Different approaches for GHG quantification
• Tools/Calculators: What, why, where and which
• Examples (CFT and MoT)
• Data input
• Output
• Empirical models used
• Take home message

•eddy covariance
•flux-gradient
Agricultural emission quantification
methods
Micro-
meteorological
•Transparent vs opaque
•Static vs dynamic
Chamber
method
•Area
•Product
Life cycle
approach
•Tools/calculators
•Process-based models
Modeling
•Land cover
•Land cover change
Remote
sensing

Empirical tools/calculators
• Automated web-, excel- or other
software based application
• Equations/assumptions based on
experimental findings/robust models
• Limited complexity & require less
data

Why tools/calculators?
• Raise awareness
• Comparing practices
• Reporting (compliance)
• Environmental footprint of product

Scope
• Global
• Regional
• Local
• Crop production
• Livestock
• Horticulture
• Forestry
• Agro-ecosystem

GHG
Calculator
User
Friendly
Easy
software
Minimum
data
Cost
efficient
Scale
Neutral
Which calculator to use?

Tools/calculators
Colomb et al., 2012

Examples
CoolFarmTool (CFT) and Mitigation Options Tool (MoT)
● Farmer focused, Excel based, free, open-source
● Scope: global, non-crop specific
● Utilises farmer knowledge with robust empirical data models
● Management focused, decision support
● Semi life-cycle approach
● Exploration of mitigation options (MoT)
● (Hillier et al 2011. Environmental
Modelling and Software 26, 1070-1078 )
● Feliciano, D. et al., 2017. Agricultural Systems, 154, 100-111

Data inputs: CFT/MoT
Livestock
emissions
GHG emissions
arising from:
o Feed
o Manure
management
o Livestock
management and
productive phases
Farm energy
Emissions from:
o Electricity
o Diesel used in
field
o spraying
o tillage
oharvesting
Sequestration
GHG emissions
sequestered from:
oLand Use changes
oManagement
changes
oTillage
oCover
cropping
oCompost
oManure
oTrees planted
Fertilizer emissions
GHG emissions
arising from:
o Fertilizer type
o Fertilizer
nutrient/product
oFertilizer application
rate
o Fertilizer
application method
o Emissions related
to natural microbial
conversion of N in
the soil, in which
N2O can be lost to
the atmosphere.
o (Other agrichemicals
included also –
pesticide applications)

CFT

MoT

Output
● CO2 emission and sequestration
● CH4 emission
● N2O emission
● Mitigation options & potential

Feliciano et al., 2017

Feliciano et al., 2017

Land Use systems Parameters Empirical models
Paddy Mineral fertilizer application
Water regime
Compost application
Manure application
Yan et al. (2005)
Upland crops and
grasslands
Organic fertilizer application Stehfest and Bouwman
(2006)
Mineral fertilizer application Stehfest and Bouwman
(2006)
Organic amendments Smith et al. (1997)
Mineral fertilizer production China-Zhang et al. (2013)
Europe-Brentrup & Palliere
(2014)
Rest of world-IFA (2009)
Livestock Enteric fermentation Herrero et al (2013)
Empirical models used

Take home message
• Choice of method: Objective, level of
precision/accuracy and resources availability
• Tools/Calculators: Simple, less data but difficult
to capture all aspects of emission
• Not a black box: everybody can access
assumptions, factors and models
• Decision support tool for development workers
and policy makers

THANK YOU