Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-42vt5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-30T21:29:35.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fumigene: a model to study the impact of management rules and constraints on agricultural waste allocation at the farm level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2008

X. CHARDON ,
C. RAISON ,
A. LE GALL ,
T. MORVAN  and
P. FAVERDIN
X. CHARDON
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1080 Dairy Production, F-35000 Rennes, France Agrocampus Rennes, UMR1080 Dairy Production, F-35000 Rennes, France Institut de l'Elevage, Monvoisin, F-35650 Le Rheu, France
C. RAISON
Affiliation:
Institut de l'Elevage, Monvoisin, F-35650 Le Rheu, France
A. LE GALL
Affiliation:
Institut de l'Elevage, Monvoisin, F-35650 Le Rheu, France
T. MORVAN
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1069 Sol-Agronomie-Spatialisation, F-35000 Rennes, France Agrocampus Rennes, UMR1069 Sol-Agronomie-Spatialisation, F-35000 Rennes, France
P. FAVERDIN*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1080 Dairy Production, F-35000 Rennes, France Agrocampus Rennes, UMR1080 Dairy Production, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: philippe.faverdin@rennes.inra.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In France, many dairy farms plan the allocation of animal wastes to the fields of the farm at the beginning of every year. This decision is complex, because many factors must be taken into account at the field and farm scales, including increasingly constraining environmental regulations. To evaluate the environmental impact of waste allocation strategies, these strategies have to be translated into consistent decisions. The objective of the current study was to reproduce the decisions made by farmers, in a wide range of contexts. For this purpose, a linear programming model that could help in generating yearly waste allocations was developed. The model, called Fumigene, takes into account the farmer's preferences and environmental, agronomic and feasibility constraints. It was applied on two case farms and the simulated waste allocations were compared to those chosen by the farmers over periods of 3 and 4 years, respectively. The evaluation showed that the waste allocations generated by the model were consistent with the strategies of the farmers. Fumigene was then used in investigating the impact of taking into account the phosphorus (P) fertilization constraints instead of only the nitrogen constraints. In the case studied, balancing P fertilization over 5 years led to small changes in waste allocation. Balancing P fertilization every year caused bigger changes and led to export of a part of the wastes. In a general way, Fumigene can be coupled with environmental evaluation tools to compare the impacts of different waste allocation strategies.

Information

Type
Modelling Animal Systems Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 521 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Attonaty, J.-M., Chatelin, M. H. & Garcia, F. (1999). Interactive simulation modeling in farm decision-making. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 22, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkelaar, M., Eikland, K. & Notebaert, P. (2005). lp_solve: Open Source (Mixed-integer) Linear Programming System. Available from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lp_solve/ (verified 10 July 2008).Google Scholar
BRETAGNE ENVIRONNEMENT (2003). Chiffres cles de l'environnement en Bretagne. Rennes, France: Bretagne Environnement.Google Scholar
Centner, T. J. & Feitshans, T. A. (2006). Regulating manure application discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations in the United States. Environmental Pollution 141, 571–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comifer, (1996). Calcul de la fertilisation azotée des cultures annuelles. Guide méthodologique pour l'établissement des préconisations locales. Paris, France: Comité Français d'Etude et de Développement de la Fertilisation Raisonnée.Google Scholar
Decau, M.-L., Simon, J.-C. & Jacquet, A. (2003). Fate of urine nitrogen in three soils throughout a grazing season. Journal of Environmental Quality 32, 1405–1413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deenen, P. J. A. G. & Middelkoop, N. (1992). Effects of cattle dung and urine on nitrogen uptake and yield of perennial ryegrass. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 40, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Animal Science 82, 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giasson, E., Bryant, R. B. & Bills, N. L. (2002). Environmental and economic optimization of dairy manure management: a mathematical programming approach. Agronomy Journal 94, 757–766.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B. H., Petersen, B. M., Berntsen, J., Boye, C., Sørensen, C. G., Søgaard, H. T. & Hansen, J. P. (1998). An integrated economic and environmental farm simulation model (FASSET). In Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Report No. 102. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics.Google Scholar
Karmakar, S., Laguë, C., Agnew, J. & Landry, H. (2007). Integrated decision support system (DSS) for manure management: a review and perspective. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 57, 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machet, J., Dubrulle, P. & Louis, P. (1990). AZOBIL: a computer program for fertilizer N recommendations based on a predictive balance sheet method. In Proceedings of the First Congress of the European Society of Agronomy (Ed. Scaife, A.), p. 21. Paris, France: European Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Morvan, T., Ruiz, L. & Viaud, V. (2007). Cumulative effects of applications of organic fertilizers on soil organic matter dynamics. In Proceedings of the 16th International CIEC Symposium. Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
Pratt, P., Davis, S. & Sharpless, R. (1976). A four-year field trial with animal manures. II. Mineralization of nitrogen. Hilgardia 44, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remy, J. C. & Hebert, J. (1977). Le devenir des engrais azotés dans le sol. Comptes Rendus de l'Acadamie Agriculture de France 63, 700–710.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. A., Levins, R. A. & Richardson, D. W. (1997). Manure Application Planner (MAP): Software for environmental and economical nutrient planning. Journal of Production Agriculture 10, 441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar