|
Hutchings, N. (2014). Farm-scale modelling. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
|
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N., & Noe, E. (2014). Methods for regional scale farming systems modelling and uncertainty assessment – sustainability assessment case studies of production, nutrient losses and greenhouse gas emissions from grassland based systems. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: In the EU Joint-Programming-Initiative: Modelling European Agriculturewith Climate Change for Food Security (MACSUR, LiveM: http://www.macsur.eu/index.php/livestock-modelling) we develop a research frameworkfor the modelling and sustainability assessment of livestock and grasslandbased farming systems at farm and regional scales.Based on results from related research and model development in Denmark,methodologies used for regional scaling, the description of data requirementsand sources, and methods to predict the effect and effectiveness of climate-and environment related policy measures are developed. In this study we present results from farm modelling in a study areaaround Viborg, Western Denmark using the http://www.Farm-N.dk/ model (Env.Pol. 159 3183-3192), including thedistribution of N-surpluses into different types of losses, and a comparisonwith empirical studies of farm nitrogen balances in the Danish study and fiveadditional European landscapes (Biogeosciences 9, 5303–5321). Based on this,methods and development needs for the mapping and uncertainty assessment ofnutrient losses and greenhouse gas emissions are discussed, referring to the presentdevelopment of the Farm-AC model and ongoing scenario studies in e.g. the www.dNmark.org project. In these scenarios, regional-scale policy measures areimplemented via the responses of a range of stakeholders, such as farmers,public interest groups, regulators and politicians. When modelling the outcomeof the policy measures implementation, it is often assumed that stakeholdersrespond as economically rational entities. However, social and cultural factorsare also known to play a role and modelling methods that permit these factorsto be taken into account will also be discussed.
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
Kipling, R. P., Topp, C. F. E., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Cortignani, R., et al. (2019). To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers. Env. Model. Softw., 120, Unsp 104492.
Abstract: Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change.
|
