SimsDairy provides the opportunity to examine several emission mitigation strategies (greenhouse gas and other nitrogen emissions) for a dairy cattle farm and the size of this mitigation effect for this farming system.
An example, using realistic values, is provided in the MilKey platform in order to give information about the functionality and the results of the SimsDairy model regarding the effect of mitigation strategies on the emissions from a dairy cattle system in comparison to a reference scenario (baseline). Therefore, the results presented in this chapter of the MilKey platform are a product of simulations and they are not derived from real data acquired from the dairy cattle farming systems examined during the MilKey project. The results will be updated after the acceptance of a manuscript that has been submitted for publication.
The potential effect of various mitigation strategies to the contribution of these GHG emission sources to the total
GHG emissions, emitted N substances to the total N emissions, and N hotspots to the total N emissions of the dairy
cattle farming system can be shown in the following steps:
Check the mitigation practices that have been assessed: Each time the cursor is placed on a
mitigation practice (from the list below), the user is able to see a short description of this practice.
Click on the mitigation practice: The user is able to see the effect of the mitigation practice
on the contribution of the various sources to the total GHG emissions. This is done in comparison to the
relevant effect of the baseline scenario. The tables and the figures for the baseline and the mitigation
scenarios are simultaneously visible to the user, allowing an easier visual comparison of these results. A note
appears to the user explaining if the alternative scenario tested leads to higher or lower total GHG emissions
from the dairy cattle farming system.
The key features of the dairy production systems modeled in Table 1
The mitigation methods are presented in Table 2
Table 1
Units
WCi
WOs
ECs
MCi
NCs
ACs
Location
–
Germany
Germany
Poland
Italy
Norway
Ireland
Production system
–
Conventional
Organic
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Degree of intensi-
–
Intensive
Semi-extensive
Semi-extensive
Intensive
Semi-extensive
Semi-extensive
Average monthly
°C
12
11
9
14
7
10
Average monthly
mm
72
50
57
87
84
84
Soil texture
–
Sand
Sandy loam
Clay loam
Sandy loam
Clay Loam
Dairy animals
Animals
138
240
50
565
55
185
Total dairy live-
LU
184
304
83
956
91
236
Main cow breed
Name
Holstein
Holstein
Crossbreedb
Holstein
Norwegian red
Crossbreedc
Milk production
kg FPCMa
11,194
7724
8898
9547
7865
5522
Milk yield
kg animal−1day−1
30.6
21.1
24.3
26.2
21.5
15.1
Forage-to-concen-
Ratio
60:40
80:20d
80:20
50:50
60:40
90:10
Crude protein in
%
27
15
23
20
18
14
Silage type
–
Grass/maize
Grass/maize
Grass/maize
Grass/maize
Grass
Grass
Farm area (UAA)
ha
71
495
80
270
87
87
Surface grassland
%
55
44
71
46
86
100
Grazing time
Days
0
215
164
0
139
259
Slurry storage
Type
Crusted
Crusted
Rigid
Crusted
Rigid
Crusted
Slurry application
Type
Shallow injection
Band spreading
Broadcast
Broadcast
Broadcast
Shallow injection
WCi Western European conventional intensive system
WOs Western European organic semi-extensive system
ECi Central-Eastern European conventional semi-extensive system
MCi Mediterranean conventional intensive system
NCs Northern European conventional semiextensive system
ACs Atlantic conventional semi-extensive system
°C degrees centigrade, mm millimetres
LU livestock units
FPCM fat and protein corrected milk
UAA utilised agricultural area
CAN calcium ammonium nitrate
U urea
AN ammonium nitrate. astandardised to 4% fat and 3.3% protein per kilogram of milk (IDF 2015); bHolstein, Montbéliarde, and Polish red; cHolstein and Jersey; d20% of the diet composed by self-produced cereal mix (no concentrates bought); emore than one typology of mineral fertiliser is applied
