Eory, V., & Hutchings, N. (2016). Farm management and sustainability indicators: What and how to include in farm scale models (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
Hutchings, N., Weindl, I., Topp, C. F. E., Snow, V. O., Rotz, A., Raynal, H., et al. (2017). Does collaborative farm-scale modelling address current challenges and future opportunities (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Resources required increasing, resources available decreasing Farm-scale modellers will need to make strategic decisions Single-owner models May continue with additional resources Risk of ‘succession’ problem Community modelling is an alternative Need to continue building a community of farm modellers
|
Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., Bellocchi, G., Hutchings, N., Olesen, J., & Saetnan, E. (2014). AnimalChange. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: The EU-FP7 project AnimalChange (AN Integration of Mitigation and Adaptation options for sustainable Livestock production under climate CHANGE, http://www.animalchange.eu, 2011-2015) addresses mitigation and adaptation options and provides scientific guidance for their integration in sustainable development pathways for livestock production under climate change in Europe, Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. The project provides insights, innovations, tools and models for livestock production incorporating socio-economic and environmental (particularly GHG emission) variables. Scenario studies are carried out at scales ranging from animal and pasture, to farm and to region, for given management options. A wide range of livestock production systems is included in the project. The core analytical spine of the project is a series of coupled biophysical and socio-economic models combined with experimentation. This allows exploring future scenarios for the livestock sector under baseline and atmospheric CO2 stabilization scenarios. These scenarios are first constructed and then elaborated and enriched by breakthrough mitigation and adaptation options at field and animal scales, integrated and evaluated at farm scale and finally used to assess policy options and their socio-economic consequences. The modelling results are useful for governments, agricultural and food industry and the agricultural sector (farmers). There are many synergies between the European activities of AnimalChange and those of the LiveM theme of MACSUR, in particular with respect to access to livestock production datasets, dialogue with stakeholders and comparison and integration of grassland and livestock models with crop and socio-economic models in pilot studies at a variety of scales.
|
Hutchings, N. (2015). A comparison of farm-scale models to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms in Europe (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Farm-scale models quantify the cycling of nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) so are powerful tools for assessing the impact of management-related decisions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially on dairy cattle farms, where the internal cycling is particularly important. Farm models range in focus (economic, environmental) and the detail with which they represent C and N cycling. We compared four models from this range in terms of on-farm production and emissions of GHGs, using standardized scenarios. The models compared were SFarMod, DairyWise, FarmAC and HolosNor. The scenarios compared were based on two soil types (sandy clay versus heavy clay), two roughage systems (grass only versus grass and maize), and two climate types (Eindhoven versus Santander). Standard farm characteristics were; area (50 ha), milk yield (7000 kg/head/year), fertiliser (275 kg N and 150 kg N/ha/year for grass and maize, respectively). Potential yields for grass 10t dry matter (DM)/ha/year in both areas, maize 14 t DM/ha/ year in Eindhoven and 18t DM/ha/ year in Santander. The import of animal feed and the export/import manure and forages was minimized. Similar total farm direct GHG emissions for all models disguised a variation between models in the contribution of the different on-farm sources. There were large differences between models in the predictions of indirect GHG emission from nitrate leaching. Results could be explained by differences between models in the assumptions made and detail with which underlying processes were represented. We conclude that the choice of an appropriate farm model is highly dependent upon the role it should play and the context within which it will operate, so the current diversity of farm models will continue into the future. No Label
|
