Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
A comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from dairy farms by four systems models
with eight agro-climatic scenarios
...
Acknowledgements
FACCE-JPI and National Funding Bodies
The Four Models
• SFARMMOD, Cranfield University, UK
• DairyWise, Wageningen University,
The Netherlands
• FarmAC, Aarhus ...
Eight (23)
Agro-climatic scenarios
Climate
Cool v. Warm
Netherlands v. N
Spain
Soil type
Light v. Heavy
Sand v. Clay
Cropp...
Key Points
1. Overall the models are in good agreement
2. They vary in the detail
3. Experiences and Recommendations
Carbon Footprint
Total per kg Milk
From the Cow’s body
From Manure management
From the Field and farm
Discussion & experiences
• The scenarios only make small differences to the Total
• Farm-gate not Life-Cycle GHG emissions...
Recommendation
• Using all four models together “Ensemble
modelling”
– Robust average and spread of results
– Triangulatio...
Key points
1. Good general agreement across models
2. The devil is in the ‘smaller’ details
3. Key carbon footprint is: En...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms by four systems models with eight agro-climatic scenarios

126 views

Published on

A talk given at Camulodunum Speakers, Colchester 23/5/2016. A Toastmasters International Club. It was for Project 4 of the advanced manual on Technical Presentations. It was a practice run for a speech to be delivered in Potsdam in June at the LiveM meeting of the Macsur2 Knowledge Hub. http://macsur.eu/

  • Be the first to comment

A comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms by four systems models with eight agro-climatic scenarios

  1. 1. A comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms by four systems models with eight agro-climatic scenarios Daniel Sandars ACB ALB, Research Fellow Project 4 Technical Presentations, Camulodunum Speakers, 23 May 2016 Daniel Sandars, Nick Hutchings, Şeyda Özkan, Michel De Haan
  2. 2. Acknowledgements FACCE-JPI and National Funding Bodies
  3. 3. The Four Models • SFARMMOD, Cranfield University, UK • DairyWise, Wageningen University, The Netherlands • FarmAC, Aarhus University, Denmark • HolosNor, Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  4. 4. Eight (23) Agro-climatic scenarios Climate Cool v. Warm Netherlands v. N Spain Soil type Light v. Heavy Sand v. Clay Cropping Grass v. Grass and Forage Maize
  5. 5. Key Points 1. Overall the models are in good agreement 2. They vary in the detail 3. Experiences and Recommendations
  6. 6. Carbon Footprint
  7. 7. Total per kg Milk
  8. 8. From the Cow’s body
  9. 9. From Manure management
  10. 10. From the Field and farm
  11. 11. Discussion & experiences • The scenarios only make small differences to the Total • Farm-gate not Life-Cycle GHG emissions – e.g. not the manufacture of fertilisers • No new measurements • Not all management factors can or were controlled – e.g. area of maize, etc. • Hard work – assembling and interpreting data from novel regions – Identifying assumptions and ambiguities between models
  12. 12. Recommendation • Using all four models together “Ensemble modelling” – Robust average and spread of results – Triangulation effect – The best (and worst) of all models – Need to be able to control more management factors between models – Need to understand the differences and improve the models
  13. 13. Key points 1. Good general agreement across models 2. The devil is in the ‘smaller’ details 3. Key carbon footprint is: Enteric CH4, Field N2O and Manure CH4 4. Ensemble modelling offers the next step beyond model comparison 5. Challenge the sixth sense when looking at unfamiliar regions, models, and data.

×