LiGAPS-Beef, a mechanistic model to explore potential and feed-limited beef production 3: model evaluation.

LiGAPS-Beef (Livestock simulator for Generic analysis of Animal Production Systems - Beef cattle) is a generic, mechanistic model designed to quantify potential and feed-limited growth, which provides insight in the biophysical scope to increase beef production (i.e. yield gap). Furthermore, it enables identification of the bio-physical factors that define and limit growth, which provides insight in management strategies to mitigate yield gaps. The aim of this paper, third in a series of three, is to evaluate the performance of LiGAPS-Beef with independent experimental data. After model calibration, independent data were used from six experiments in Australia, one in Uruguay and one in the Netherlands. Experiments represented three cattle breeds, and a wide range of climates, feeding strategies and cattle growth rates. The mean difference between simulated and measured average daily gains (ADGs) was 137 g/day across all experiments, which equals 20.1% of the measured ADGs. The root mean square error was 170 g/day, which equals 25.0% of the measured ADGs. LiGAPS-Beef successfully simulated the factors that defined and limited growth during the experiments on a daily basis (genotype, heat stress, digestion capacity, energy deficiency and protein deficiency). The simulated factors complied well to the reported occurrence of heat stress, energy deficiency and protein deficiency at specific periods during the experiments. We conclude that the level of accuracy of LiGAPS-Beef is acceptable, and provides a good basis for acquiring insight in the potential and feed-limited production of cattle in different beef production systems across the world. Furthermore, its capacity to identify factors that define or limit growth and production provides scope to use the model for yield gap analysis.

LiGAPS-Beef, a mechanistic model to explore potential and feed-limited beef production 2: sensitivity analysis and evaluation of sub-models.

The model LiGAPS-Beef (Livestock simulator for Generic analysis of Animal Production Systems - Beef cattle) has been developed to assess potential and feed-limited growth and production of beef cattle in different areas of the world and to identify the processes responsible for the yield gap. Sensitivity analysis and evaluation of model results with experimental data are important steps after model development. The first aim of this paper, therefore, is to identify which parameters affect the output of LiGAPS-Beef most by conducting sensitivity analyses. The second aim is to evaluate the accuracy of the thermoregulation sub-model and the feed intake and digestion sub-model with experimental data. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using a one-at-a-time approach. The upper critical temperature (UCT) simulated with the thermoregulation sub-model was most affected by the body core temperature and parameters affecting latent heat release from the skin. The lower critical temperature (LCT) and UCT were considerably affected by weather variables, especially ambient temperature and wind speed. Sensitivity analysis for the feed intake and digestion sub-model showed that the digested protein per kg feed intake was affected to a larger extent than the metabolisable energy (ME) content. Sensitivity analysis for LiGAPS-Beef was conducted for ¾ Brahman×» Shorthorn cattle in Australia and Hereford cattle in Uruguay. Body core temperature, conversion of digestible energy to ME, net energy requirements for maintenance, and several parameters associated with heat release affected feed efficiency at the herd level most. Sensitivity analyses have contributed, therefore, to insight which parameters are to be investigated in more detail when applying LiGAPS-Beef. Model evaluation was conducted by comparing model simulations with independent data from experiments. Measured heat production in experiments corresponded fairly well to the heat production simulated with the thermoregulation sub-model. Measured ME contents from two data sets corresponded well to the ME contents simulated with the feed intake and digestion sub-model. The relative mean absolute errors were 9.3% and 6.4% of the measured ME contents for the two data sets. In conclusion, model evaluation indicates the thermoregulation sub-model can deal with a wide range of weather conditions, and the feed intake and digestion sub-model with a variety of feeds, which corresponds to the aim of LiGAPS-Beef to simulate cattle in different beef production systems across the world.

LiGAPS-Beef, a mechanistic model to explore potential and feed-limited beef production 1: model description and illustration.

The expected increase in the global demand for livestock products calls for insight in the scope to increase actual production levels across the world. This insight can be obtained by using theoretical concepts of production ecology. These concepts distinguish three production levels for livestock: potential (i.e. theoretical maximum) production, which is defined by genotype and climate only; feed-limited production, which is limited by feed quantity and quality; and actual production. The difference between the potential or limited production and the actual production is the yield gap. The objective of this paper, the first in a series of three, is to present a mechanistic, dynamic model simulating potential and feed-limited production for beef cattle, which can be used to assess yield gaps. A novelty of this model, named LiGAPS-Beef (Livestock simulator for Generic analysis of Animal Production Systems - Beef cattle), is the identification of the defining factors (genotype and climate) and limiting factors (feed quality and available feed quantity) for cattle growth by integrating sub-models on thermoregulation, feed intake and digestion, and energy and protein utilisation. Growth of beef cattle is simulated at the animal and herd level. The model is designed to be applicable to different beef production systems across the world. Main model inputs are breed-specific parameters, daily weather data, information about housing, and data on feed quality and quantity. Main model outputs are live weight gain, feed intake and feed efficiency (FE) at the animal and herd level. Here, the model is presented, and its use is illustrated for Charolais and Brahman × Shorthorn cattle in France and Australia. Potential and feed-limited production were assessed successfully, and we show that FE of herds is highest for breeds most adapted to the local climate conditions. LiGAPS-Beef also identified the factors that define and limit growth and production of cattle. Hence, we argue the model has scope to be used as a tool for the assessment and analysis of yield gaps in beef production systems.

Environmental labelling in The Netherlands: a framework for integrated farming.

This article compares four Dutch environmental certification schemes for agricultural food crops, analysing their methodology and the completeness of their criteria on five aspects: pesticide use, nutrient use, water management, energy and materials consumption, and habitat management. The least stringent of the labels, the MBT ('Environmentally Aware Cultivation') certificate, serves mainly to increase farmers' awareness of nutrient and pesticide use. With regard to both administrative obligations and actual management practices, the MBT label largely mirrors the terms of standing Dutch legislation. The CC ('Controlled Cultivation') and AMK ('Agro-Environmental') labels comprise more and more stringent criteria. With their restrictions on nutrient and pesticide use, these two labels serve as the two principal labels in the field of integrated agriculture. There is little difference between the two and it is recommended that they be merged, on the basis of a standardised definition of integrated agriculture. The EKO ('Organic Agriculture') label proceeds from different principles, but as a minimum should also comply with Dutch legislation without exception. For both integrated and organic agriculture, in addition to criteria on pesticide and nutrient use, criteria should also be developed for water management, energy and materials use and habitat management. The relationship between the criteria and their respective thresholds and Dutch legislation is also addressed. Existing criteria are frequently specified in such a way that the environmental benefits cannot be ascertained. This is a serious drawback for the parties further down the chain: auctioneers, retailers and consumers. It is recommended to develop qualitative guidelines for an Agricultural Stewardship Council at international level, like the Forest Stewardship Council, and a separate label for integrated agriculture per country comprising quantitative criteria for all relevant aspects of farming operations.