Orfee: A bio-economic model to simulate integrated and intensive management of mixed crop-livestock farms and their greenhouse gas emissions

Mosnier, Claire; Duclos, Anne; Agabriel, Jacques; Gac, Armelle

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.07.005

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the environmental pillar, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) quantified the emissions of methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) at all stages of agricultural production and for all inputs, from cradle to farm exit gate (Mosnier et al, 2017). The three gases were aggregated by their GWP into a single indicator expressed in CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 e) with CO 2 = 1; CH 4 = 28; N 2 O = 265 (Myhre et al, 2013).…”

Section: Sustainability Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The farm-level optimization algorithm used in these models simulates new combinations of activities that maximize a given objective function and are consistent with specified biological, technical, structural, and regulatory constraints. The farm model Orfee (Mosnier et al, 2017) is particularly suited to the configuration of mixed production systems since it takes into account several complementarities between the different farm enterprises. These complementarities are parameterized according to current knowledge regarding the value of organic fertilization, impacts of one crop on the following ones, on-farm production of feed and litter for animals, value of grazed grass in mixed grazed pasture, possibility to use machines, building and labour for different productions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does mixing livestock farming enterprises improve farm and product sustainability?

Mosnier

Benoît

Minviel

et al. 2021

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed farming systems are gaining interest both as a risk management strategy and to apply agroecological principles. This study set out to assess the sustainability of mixed systems compared to their specialized counterparts. The Orfee bioeconomic farm model was used to simulate three mixed farms: beef and dairy, beef and sheep, and cash crop and beef, under 1990-2017 prices and policies in France. Several sustainability criteria were computed at two scales (i) aggregated farm level, to assess whether mixed farms with several integrated enterprises performed better than if these enterprises were managed in specialized farms, and (ii) unit of product or labour to assess whether a product was produced more sustainably and a worker obtained higher and more stable income in a mixed farm. We found that mixed farms had less work peaks, lower global warming potentials and nitrogen balances, lower total production costs, higher and more stable net incomes than if their enterprises were managed in two specialized farms. However, profitability and income variability of the mixed farms were not better than the best performing specialized farm. The consumption of concentrate feed decreased in the mixed livestock farms but increased in the beefcrop farm that degraded feed-food competition.

show abstract

Section: Sustainability Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does mixing livestock farming enterprises improve farm and product sustainability?

Mosnier

Benoît

Minviel

et al. 2021

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Optimization models are particularly appropriate for this purpose, as they can endogenously simulate the most cost-effective mix of potential abatement measures and re-design production systems. The selected models jointly capture to a large extent the type of models used for this type of analysis: the global partial equilibrium land-use model GLOBIOM (Havlík et al, 2014), the aggregate linear programming model AROPAj (De Cara and Jayet, 2011) describing the behavior of a set of representative farms, and finally two high-technological-detail single-farm models, ORFEE (Mosnier et al, 2017a) as a static model and FARMDYN as a dynamic model (Lengers et al, 2014). These models have already been used elsewhere to assess mitigation potential in dairy production (but not exclusively).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenhouse gas abatement strategies and costs in French dairy production

Mosnier

Britz

Julliere

et al. 2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The French dairy sector-like the rest of the economy-has to address the challenge of mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to curb climate change. Deciding the economically optimal mitigation level and mix of abatement strategies requires knowledge on the cost of reducing GHG emissions. Agricultural bio-economic models can help identify which production-system changes are needed to reduce GHG emissions at different levels of incentives at minimal cost. The results reflect the model structure and parameter set, especially for GHG emissions accounting. Here abatement strategies and related costs for several levels of tax on GHG emissions in French dairy production are compared using four bio-economic models: the three supply models AROPAj, ORFEE and FARMDYN and the global partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM. It is found that between 1% and 6% GHG emissions abatement can be achieved at the current price of the EU allowances without substantially reducing milk production or outsourcing input production such as feed or herd renewal. Costs reflect the planning horizon: mitigation is more expensive when past investments are not amortized. Models that account for demand-side factors show a carbon tax has potential negative impacts on consumers through higher milk prices, but could nevertheless partly offset the reduction in income of farmers simulated by farm models. Model results suggest that promising on-farm GHG emissions abatement strategies include measures that let animals reach their full production potential and moderately intensive land management. Highlights • GHG abatements simulated by three supply farm models and one partial equilibrium model • 15% milk price increase and considerable decrease in profits found at 100€/tCO 2 eq tax • 1% to 6% and 4% to 15% abatement found resp.at 20€ and 100€ tax with limited outsourcing • Up to 70% GHG abatement found at 100€/tCO 2 eq tax if the carbon tax is not embodied in trade • Up to 15% GHG abatement found with productive dairy cows raised on low-input forages

show abstract

“…L'objectif est ici d'évaluer les conséquences techniques et économiques du choix de la race (Ho ou Mo) à l'échelle de l'exploitation dans différents contextes français. Pour cela, des simulations bioéconomiques ont été réalisées à l'aide du modèle Orfée, développé par l'INRA (Mosnier et al, 2017). En effet, un changement de race impacte simultanément de nombreux paramètres (besoins alimentaires, en bâtiment, frais d'élevage…) et nécessite une mise en cohérence globale du système.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Holstein ou Montbéliarde : des différences phénotypiques aux conséquences économiques à l’échelle de l’exploitation

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dans un contexte économique instable et difficile, les choix tels que la race utilisée dans les exploitations bovines laitières peuvent être remis en cause. Cet article présente au travers de deux études, l’analyse des différences phénotypiques de vaches de race Montbéliarde (Mo) et Holstein (Ho) et leur intégration au sein d’un modèle bioéconomique. Placées dans des conditions d’élevage équivalentes, les vaches de race Mo produisent environ 12% de lait en moins que celles de race Ho, avec des taux butyreux et protéique supérieurs. L’âge au vêlage est en moyenne inférieur de trois mois chez les vaches Ho, mais leurs performances de reproduction et de santé sont moins bonnes, aboutissant à un intervalle entre vêlages supérieur de 25 jours à celui de la race Mo et une fréquence de mammites plus élevée. Réalisés en excluant les systèmes sous appellation d’origine ou indication géographique contrôlée et en Agriculture Biologique, ces travaux permettent de préciser les différences de réponses à système fourrager équivalent. Les simulations économiques quantifient les conséquences des choix raciaux à l’échelle de l’exploitation dans deux scénarios : i) à même nombre de vaches et ii) à même volume de lait vendu. Ces scénarios sont appliqués à trois cas types conventionnels spécialisés dans la production laitière, mais avec des systèmes fourragers et des niveaux de production laitière contrastés (ensilage de maïs en Bretagne, maïs-herbe en Pays-de- -Loire et tout foin en Auvergne). Sur le plan économique, les simulations où les troupeaux des deux races vendent le même volume de lait montrent que la race Mo est plus rentable quel que soit le système d’élevage (+8 à +23% de résultat courant). Dans la deuxième situation, à nombre de vaches équivalent, les résultats économiques des deux races sont très proches. D’un côté, les besoins alimentaires du troupeau Ho sont supérieurs en conséquence du taux de renouvellement et du niveau d’ingestion des animaux plus élevés. De l’autre, malgré une productivité inférieure, la qualité du lait et la meilleure valorisation des carcasses de la race Mo génère plus de produits. Au final, le troupeau de race Mo permet de dégager entre 1000 et 2900 € de résultat courant supplémentaire par unité de travail homme et par an selon les situations.

show abstract

Orfee: A bio-economic model to simulate integrated and intensive management of mixed crop-livestock farms and their greenhouse gas emissions

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

Does mixing livestock farming enterprises improve farm and product sustainability?

Does mixing livestock farming enterprises improve farm and product sustainability?

Greenhouse gas abatement strategies and costs in French dairy production

Holstein ou Montbéliarde : des différences phénotypiques aux conséquences économiques à l’échelle de l’exploitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About