| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Hutchings, N.J.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; de Haan, M.; Sandars, D. |
|
| |
Title |
How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Animal |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animal |
|
| |
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
10 |
Pages |
2171-2180 |
|
| |
Keywords |
dairy cattle; farm-scale; model; greenhouse gas; Future Climate Scenarios; Systems-Analysis; Milk-Production; Crop; Production; Mitigation; Intensity; Impacts |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-01-07 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language  |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1751-7311 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5212 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Foyer, C.H.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Tai, A.P.K.; Anders, S.; Fodor, N.; Wong, F.-L.; Ludidi, N.; Chapman, M.A.; Ferguson, B.J.; Considine, M.J.; Zabel, F.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Varshney, R.K.; Nguyen, H.T.; Lam, H.-M. |
|
| |
Title |
Modelling predicts that soybean is poised to dominate crop production across Africa |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Plant Cell and Environment |
Abbreviated Journal |
Plant Cell Environ. |
|
| |
Volume |
42 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
373-385 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Climate-Change; Food Security; Sustainable Intensification; Smallholder; Farmers; Nitrogen-Fixation; Yield; Adaptation; Diversity; Impact; CO2 |
|
| |
Abstract |
The superior agronomic and human nutritional properties of grain legumes (pulses) make them an ideal foundation for future sustainable agriculture. Legume-based farming is particularly important in Africa, where small-scale agricultural systems dominate the food production landscape. Legumes provide an inexpensive source of protein and nutrients to African households as well as natural fertilization for the soil. Although the consumption of traditionally grown legumes has started to decline, the production of soybeans (Glycine max Merr.) is spreading fast, especially across southern Africa. Predictions of future land-use allocation and production show that the soybean is poised to dominate future production across Africa. Land use models project an expansion of harvest area, whereas crop models project possible yield increases. Moreover, a seed change in farming strategy is underway. This is being driven largely by the combined cash crop value of products such as oils and the high nutritional benefits of soybean as an animal feed. Intensification of soybean production has the potential to reduce the dependence of Africa on soybean imports. However, a successful “soybean bonanza” across Africa necessitates an intensive research, development, extension, and policy agenda to ensure that soybean genetic improvements and production technology meet future demands for sustainable production. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-01-10 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0140-7791 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5215 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Kipling, R.P.; Topp, C.F.E.; Bannink, A.; Bartley, D.J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Cortignani, R.; del Prado, A.; Dono, G.; Faverdin, P.; Graux, A.-I.; Hutchings, N.J.; Lauwers, L.; Gulzari, S.O.; Reidsma, P.; Rolinski, S.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Sandars, D.L.; Sandor, R.; Schoenhart, M.; Seddaiu, G.; van Middelkoop, J.; Shrestha, S.; Weindl, I.; Eory, V. |
|
| |
Title |
To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
120 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Unsp 104492 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Adaptation; Agricultural modelling; Climate change; Research challenges; greenhouse-gas emissions; farm-level adaptation; land-use; food; security; adapting agriculture; livestock production; decision-making; change impacts; dairy farms; crop |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Address |
2020-02-14 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5223 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
