Modelling

Modelling

biochemical rumen functions
biochemical rumen functions
with special emphasis on
with special emphasis on
methanogenesis
methanogenesis
DDD
Dr Jan Dijkstra
Dr Jan Dijkstra

Animal Nutrition Group
Animal Nutrition Group

Wageningen University
Wageningen University
Overview


Principles of mathematical
Principles of mathematical
modelling
modelling


Empirical models of methane production
Empirical models of methane production


Mechanistic models of methane production
Mechanistic models of methane production
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Prediction ~ mathematical models


A model is an
A model is an
equation or set of equations
equation or set of equations

that
that
represent the
represent the
behaviour of a system
behaviour of a system
France and Thornley (1984) France and Thornley (1984)


Prediction requires use of models
Prediction requires use of models


A model can be viewed as an idea, hypothesis or
A model can be viewed as an idea, hypothesis or
relation expressed in mathematics
relation expressed in mathematics


Symbiosis between experimentation and
Symbiosis between experimentation and
modelling
modelling
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Model classification
dynamic OR static
dynamic OR static
deterministic OR stochastic
deterministic OR stochastic
mechanistic OR empirical
mechanistic OR empirical
To put categories into a more familiar context, a model
To put categories into a more familiar context, a model
based on:
based on:


regression analysis
regression analysis

static, stochastic, empirical
static, stochastic, empirical


linear programming
linear programming

static, deterministic, empirical

static, deterministic, empirical


differential
differential
eqns
eqns

dynamic, deterministic,
dynamic, deterministic,
mechanistic
mechanistic
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Levels of organization
1
1
-
-
+
i
i
i
2
Description of level Level
Herd / flock
Animal
Organ / tissue
Cell
i
Dijkstra & France
(2005)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Properties of hierarchical systems


Each level has its own concepts and language
Each level has its own concepts and language


Each level is an integration of items from lower
Each level is an integration of items from lower
levels
levels


Successful operation of a level requires lower
Successful operation of a level requires lower
levels to function properly, but not necessarily
levels to function properly, but not necessarily
vice
vice
versa
versa
Level Level Description of level Description of level
i + 1 i + 1
i i
i - 1 i - 1
i - 2 i - 2
Herd / flock Herd / flock
Animal Animal
Organ / tissue Organ / tissue
Cell Cell
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Contributions of modelling


Models make best use of (precious) data
Models make best use of (precious) data


Models provide a convenient data summary,
Models provide a convenient data summary,
useful for interpolation and cautious extrapolation
useful for interpolation and cautious extrapolation


Models provide quantitative description and
Models provide quantitative description and
understanding of biological problems
understanding of biological problems


Modelling
Modelling

provides strategic and tactical support
provides strategic and tactical support
to research
to research
programmes
programmes


Modelling
Modelling

allows exploration of possible
allows exploration of possible
outcomes when data are not available
outcomes when data are not available
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Overview


Principles of mathematical
Principles of mathematical
modelling
modelling


Empirical models of methane production
Empirical models of methane production


Mechanistic models of methane production
Mechanistic models of methane production
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Livestock greenhouse gases
manure /
fertilizer
CO
2
N
2

O
CH
4
deforestatio

n
enteric
fermentation
FAO (2006)
GWP
*
-100 yr:
CO
2
1
CH
4
25
N
2

O 298
*
Global Warming
Potential
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Livestock greenhouse gases
manure /
fertilizer
CO
2 N
2

O
CH
4
deforestatio

n
enteric
fermentation
GWP
*
-20 yr:
CO
2
1
CH
4
72
N
2

O 289
*
Global Warming
Potential
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
FAO (2006)
Rumen methanogenesis


Fermentative micro
Fermentative micro
-
-
organisms utilize dietary
organisms utilize dietary
organic matter to produce VFA plus gases (e.g.,
organic matter to produce VFA plus gases (e.g.,
CO
CO
2 2

, H
, H
2 2

)
)


amount of H
amount of H
2 2

depends on type of VFA
depends on type of VFA


Methanogens
Methanogens

reduce CO
reduce CO
2 2

to CH
to CH
4 4

using H
using H
2 2

,
,
keeping H
keeping H
2 2

partial pressure in rumen low
partial pressure in rumen low


H
H
2 2

is used up as it is produced
is used up as it is produced


CH
CH
4 4

production:
production:


2
2

12% of GE intake
12% of GE intake


10
10

35 g/kg DM intake
35 g/kg DM intake
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Organic
matter
Micro-

organisms
VF

A
feed

intake
Rumen
2. Microbial

growth

(efficiency)
3. Type VFA
f (substrate type, pH, )
Gut
outflow
absorption
Factors involved in rumen methanogenesis
1. Chemical composition & degradation characteristics
H
2
CH
4
CO
2
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Empirical models of methane production


> 30 empirical models available
> 30 empirical models available


inventory
inventory


mitigation strategy
mitigation strategy


Independent variables include live weight, milk
Independent variables include live weight, milk
production, feed intake, dietary components,
production, feed intake, dietary components,
digestibility
digestibility


Applied in models of greenhouse gas emissions
Applied in models of greenhouse gas emissions
in whole farm setting
in whole farm setting
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Assessment of accuracy of empirical models


9 methane equations applied in 8 whole farm
9 methane equations applied in 8 whole farm
models
models


169 observations from 9 studies
169 observations from 9 studies
Ellis et al. (2010) Global Change Biology
Mean
Mean
SD
SD
Min
Min
Max
Max
Feed intake (kg DM/d)
Feed intake (kg DM/d)
19.6
19.6
4.0
4.0
11.2
11.2
32.0
32.0
Milk production (kg/d)
Milk production (kg/d)
30.3
30.3
9.05
9.05
8.8
8.8
49.4
49.4
Methane production (g/d)
Methane production (g/d)
371
371
77.1
77.1
117
117
698
698
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Empirical models of methane production -

1


274 (Europe) or 323 (N
274 (Europe) or 323 (N
-
-
America)
America)
IPCC (1997) Tier I
IPCC (1997) Tier I


0.06 x GE intake / 55.65
0.06 x GE intake / 55.65
IPCC (1997) Tier II
IPCC (1997) Tier II


10 + 4.9 x milk yield + 1.5 x LW
10 + 4.9 x milk yield + 1.5 x LW
0.75 0.75
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)
-
-

1
1


137 + 10 x milk yield
137 + 10 x milk yield
Corre
Corre

(2002)
(2002)
CH
CH
4 4

production (g/d) estimated as:
production (g/d) estimated as:
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Empirical models of methane production -

2


(45
(45

0.02 x DMI
0.02 x DMI
2 2

1.8 x C18:2
1.8 x C18:2

84 x C
84 x C

20) x
20) x
DMI
DMI
Giger
Giger
-
-
Reverdin
Reverdin

et al. (2003)
et al. (2003)


[1.3 + 0.11 x
[1.3 + 0.11 x
Dig
Dig
m m

+
+
Mn
Mn

x (2.4
x (2.4

0.05 x
0.05 x
Dig
Dig
m m

)] x
)] x
GEI
GEI
Blaxter
Blaxter

&
&
Clapperton
Clapperton

(1965)
(1965)


63 + 79 x CF + 10 x NFE + 26 x CP
63 + 79 x CF + 10 x NFE + 26 x CP

212 x FAT
212 x FAT
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)
-
-

2
2


(3 + 0.5 x NSC + 1.7 x HC + 2.7 x CEL)/55.65
(3 + 0.5 x NSC + 1.7 x HC + 2.7 x CEL)/55.65
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
CH
CH
4 4

production (g/d) estimated as:
production (g/d) estimated as:


20 x concentrate + 22 x maize
20 x concentrate + 22 x maize
sil
sil

+ 27 x grass
+ 27 x grass
(
(
sil
sil
)
)
Schils
Schils

et al. (2006)
et al. (2006)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Evaluation of empirical methane models
Pred
Pred

CH
CH
4 4
(g/d)
(g/d)
RMSPE
(%)
CCC
IPCC (1997) Tier I
IPCC (1997) Tier I
304
304 27.6 0.01
IPCC (1997) Tier II
IPCC (1997) Tier II
399
399 20.9 0.49
Corre
Corre

(2002)
(2002)
440
440 34.2 0.13
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)

1
1
404
404 29.5 0.29
Giger
Giger
-
-
Reverdin
Reverdin

et al. (2003)
et al. (2003)
230
230 52.5 0.12
Blaxter
Blaxter

&
&
Clapperton
Clapperton

(1965)
(1965)
332
332 21.2 0.27
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
391
391 20.2 0.46
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)

2
2
345
345 20.9 0.22
Schils
Schils

et al. (2006)
et al. (2006)
483
483 39.5 0.25
Ellis et al. (2010)
Observed CH
4

371 g/d
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Evaluation of empirical methane models
Pred
Pred

CH
CH
4 4
(g/d)
(g/d)
RMSPE
RMSPE
(%)
(%)
CCC
IPCC (1997) Tier I
IPCC (1997) Tier I
304
304
27.6
27.6 0.01
IPCC (1997) Tier II
IPCC (1997) Tier II
399
399
20.9
20.9 0.49
Corre
Corre

(2002)
(2002)
440
440
34.2
34.2 0.13
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)

1
1
404
404
29.5
29.5 0.29
Giger
Giger
-
-
Reverdin
Reverdin

et al. (2003)
et al. (2003)
230
230
52.5
52.5 0.12
Blaxter
Blaxter

&
&
Clapperton
Clapperton

(1965)
(1965)
332
332
21.2
21.2 0.27
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
391
391
20.2
20.2 0.46
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)

2
2
345
345
20.9
20.9 0.22
Schils
Schils

et al. (2006)
et al. (2006)
483
483
39.5
39.5 0.25
Ellis et al. (2010)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Evaluation of empirical methane models
Pred
Pred

CH
CH
4 4
(g/d)
(g/d)
RMSPE
RMSPE
(%)
(%)
CCC
CCC
IPCC (1997) Tier I
IPCC (1997) Tier I
304
304
27.6
27.6
0.01
0.01
IPCC (1997) Tier II
IPCC (1997) Tier II
399
399
20.9
20.9
0.49
0.49
Corre
Corre

(2002)
(2002)
440
440
34.2
34.2
0.13
0.13
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)

1
1
404
404
29.5
29.5
0.29
0.29
Giger
Giger
-
-
Reverdin
Reverdin

et al. (2003)
et al. (2003)
230
230
52.5
52.5
0.12
0.12
Blaxter
Blaxter

&
&
Clapperton
Clapperton

(1965)
(1965)
332
332
21.2
21.2
0.27
0.27
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
Moe & Tyrrell (1979)
391
391
20.2
20.2
0.46
0.46
Kirchge
Kirchge

ner
ner

et al. (1995)
et al. (1995)

2
2
345
345
20.9
20.9
0.22
0.22
Schils
Schils

et al. (2006)
et al. (2006)
483
483
39.5
39.5
0.25
0.25
Ellis et al. (2010)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Evaluation of empirical methane models
Ellis et al. (2010)
Model:
Giger-Reverdin

et al. (2003)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Observed CH
4
(g/d)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
H
4

(
g
/
d
)
y = x
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Evaluation of empirical methane models
Ellis et al. (2010)
Model:
Moe & Tyrrell
(1979)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Observed CH
4
(g/d)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
H
4

(
g
/
d
)
y = x
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Conclusions empirical methane models


Predictions poor; significant bias and deviation of
Predictions poor; significant bias and deviation of
regression slope from unity
regression slope from unity


Simple, generalized models performed worse
Simple, generalized models performed worse
than models based on diet composition
than models based on diet composition


Substantial errors into inventories of whole farm
Substantial errors into inventories of whole farm
greenhouse gas emissions are likely
greenhouse gas emissions are likely


Low prediction error may lead to incorrect
Low prediction error may lead to incorrect
mitigation recommendations
mitigation recommendations
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Overview


Principles of mathematical
Principles of mathematical
modelling
modelling


Empirical models of methane production
Empirical models of methane production


Mechanistic models of methane production
Mechanistic models of methane production
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Rate : state formalism


State variables:
State variables:
Q
Q
1 1
,
,

Q
Q
2 2
,
,

..,
..,
Q
Q
n n


Change of state variables with time
Change of state variables with time
t
t
:
:
d
d
Q
Q
1 1
/d
/d
t = f
t = f
1 1
(
(
Q
Q
1 1
, Q
, Q
2 2
,
,

,
,
Q
Q
n n
;
;

P
P
)
)
d
d
Q
Q
2 2
/d
/d
t = f
t = f
2 2
(
(
Q
Q
1 1
, Q
, Q
2 2
,
,

,
,
Q
Q
n n
;
;

P
P
)
)
. .
. .
. .
. .
d
d
Q
Q
n n
/d
/d
t
t
= f
= f
n n
(
(
Q
Q
1 1
, Q
, Q
2 2
,
,

,
,
Q
Q
n n
;
;

P
P
)
)


Differential equations based on law of mass
Differential equations based on law of mass
conservation, 1
conservation, 1
st st

law of thermodynamics, etc
law of thermodynamics, etc
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Organic
matter
Micro-

organisms
VF

A
feed

intake
Rumen
2. Microbial

growth

(efficiency)
3. Type VFA
f (substrate type, pH, )
Gut
outflow
absorption
Factors involved in rumen methanogenesis
1. Chemical composition & degradation characteristics
H
2
CH
4
CO
2
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Mechanistic rumen module
small small
intestine intestine
NDF
NDF NDF
feed intake feed intake rumen rumen
gut wall gut wall
NDF
microb microb
starch
starch starch
starch
VFA VFA
Ac Pr Bu
starch
LCFA LCFA
protein
protein
protein protein
NH
3
NH NH
33
amino
acids
amino amino
acids acids
NH
3
urea
protein
sugars
F-AA +pept
glucose
glucose glucose
NDF
glucose
amino acid
NH
3
urea
microb
Dijkstra et al. (1992)
Modifications:
Dijkstra (1994)
Mills et al. (2001)
Dijkstra et al. (2002)
Kebreab

et al.
(2004)
Bannink

et al.
(2006)
In use in:
Netherlands
UK
Australia
Brazil
Canada
USA
and many more
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Efficiency of microbial growth

Substrate is used for

non-growth purposes (maintenance)

growth purposes

Yield is related to fractional
growth rate

(Pirt, 1965)
1 / Y = M /

+ 1 / Y
max
Y = growth yield
M = maintenance requirement
Y
max

= maximum yield

= fractional growth rate 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Fractional growth rate (/h)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
G
r
o
w
t
h

y
i
e
l
d

(
g
/
g
)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Microbial metabolism: N source
Yield affected by availability of preformed molecules
0 500 1000
90
110
130
150
per unit OM
per unit CHO
B
a
c
t
e
r
i
a
l

p
r
o
t
e
i
n

y
i
e
l
d
(
g

p
r
o
t
e
i
n
/
k
g

d
e
g
r

O
M

o
r

C
H
O
)
Trypticase (mg/l)
Russell & Sniffen (1984)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Energy and N synchrony: energy spilling

K. aerogenes; Neijssel

& Tempest
(1976)
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
0
5
10
15
20
Dilution rate (/h)
glycerol limited
ammonia limited
M
i
c
r
o
b
i
a
l

y
i
e
l
d
(
g

D
M
/
m
o
l

A
T
P
)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
U
glycerol

in energy spilling

= v
max

Q
microbes

/(1+[ammonia]/J
ammonia

)
Significance of VFA molar proportion
C
C
6 6

H
H
12 12

O
O
6 6

+2H
+2H
2 2

O
O

2C
2C
2 2

H
H
4 4

O
O
2 2

(acetate) + 2CO
(acetate) + 2CO
2 2

+
+
4H
4H
2 2
C
C
6 6

H
H
12 12

O
O
6 6

+
+
2H
2H
2 2

2C
2C
3 3

H
H
6 6

O
O
2 2

(propionate) + 2H
(propionate) + 2H
2 2

O
O
C
C
6 6

H
H
12 12

O
O
6 6

C
C
4 4

H
H
8 8

O
O
2 2

(butyrate) + 2CO
(butyrate) + 2CO
2 2

+
+
2H
2H
2 2
CO
CO
2 2

+
+
4H
4H
2 2

CH
CH
4 4

+ 2H
+ 2H
2 2

O
O
acetate
acetate

70%
70%
propionate
propionate

15%
15%
butyrate
butyrate

15%
15%
CH
CH
4 4

0.39 mol/mol VFA
0.39 mol/mol VFA
60%
60%
25%
25%
15%
15%
0.31 mol/mol VFA
0.31 mol/mol VFA
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Mechanistic model methane production
(Dijkstra et

al. 1992; Mills et al. 2001; Bannink et al. 2006)
Acetate
H
2
Propionate
Butyrate
Lipid
hydrogenation
Valerate
Microbial growth
with ammonia
Microbial growth
with amino acids
H
2
source
H
2
sink
Fermentation
Feed input
Large Intestinal
Model
Small intestinal
digestion
Rumen Model
Fermentation
Fermentation
Methane
CO
2

+ 4H
2

CH
4

+2H
2

O
EXCESS
Methane
module
Methane
module
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
VFA stoichiometry


Type of VFA formed related to substrate
Type of VFA formed related to substrate
fermented, rumen pH, roughage
fermented, rumen pH, roughage
vs
vs

concentrate
concentrate
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
m
o
l

a
c
e
t
a
t
e
/
m
o
l

s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
u
g
a
r
s
s
t
a
r
c
h
c
e
l
l
u
l
o
s
e
h
e
m
i
-
c
e
l
l
u
l
o
s
e
roughage concentrate
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
m
o
l

p
r
o
p
i
o
n
a
t
e
/
m
o
l

s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
u
g
a
r
s
s
t
a
r
c
h
c
e
l
l
u
l
o
s
e
h
e
m
i
-
c
e
l
l
u
l
o
s
e
roughage concentrate
Murphy et al.
(1984)
acetate propionate
Analysis
substrate type
roughage

vs.
concentrates
efficiency
microbial
growth
kinetics
VFA-absorption
pH
In vivo data
rumen
digestion
lactating cows
VFA stoichiometry

and rumen pH
Bannink

et al. (2008)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Sc: sugars
St: starch
Methane formation from various substrates
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Starch Cell wall Protein
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
pH 5.5
pH 6.0
pH 6.5
CH
4

from
soluble
carbohydrates
set at unity
Bannink

et al. (2008)
Mechanistic models of methane formation


Prediction based on description of the rumen in
Prediction based on description of the rumen in
terms of components and associated processes
terms of components and associated processes


Mechanistic models superior predictive power
Mechanistic models superior predictive power
Benchaar
Benchaar

et al. (1998); Mills et al. (2001);
et al. (1998); Mills et al. (2001);
Kebreab
Kebreab

et al. (2006)
et al. (2006)


Allows evaluation of dietary mitigation options
Allows evaluation of dietary mitigation options


Inventories under Kyoto protocol
Inventories under Kyoto protocol
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Example: Netherlands, database 1990 -

2008


Milk production and composition data
Milk production and composition data


Feed intake data
Feed intake data


feed categories: fresh grass, grass silage, maize
feed categories: fresh grass, grass silage, maize
silage, wet byproducts, concentrates
silage, wet byproducts, concentrates


concentrate chemical composition from central
concentrate chemical composition from central
database
database


roughage chemical composition from Laboratory for
roughage chemical composition from Laboratory for
Soil and Crop Testing
Soil and Crop Testing

Dietary changes in 1990

2008

more maize silage and less fresh grass

crude protein content decreased

starch and sugar content increased
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
DM intake and fat corrected milk (FCM)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
F
C
M

o
r

D
M
I

(
k
g
/
d
)
FCM production
DM intake
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Simulated methane production
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
c
o
w
/
y
r
)
15
16
17
18
19
20
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g

D
M

o
r

g
/
k
g

F
C
M
)
Methane (kg/cow/yr)
Methane (g/kg DM)
Methane (g/kg FCM)
Simulated methane production
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
c
o
w
/
y
r
)
15
16
17
18
19
20
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g

D
M

o
r

g
/
k
g

F
C
M
)
Methane (kg/cow/yr)
Methane (g/kg DM)
Methane (g/kg FCM)
Simulated methane production
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
c
o
w
/
y
r
)
15
16
17
18
19
20
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g

D
M

o
r

g
/
k
g

F
C
M
)
Methane (kg/cow/yr)
Methane (g/kg DM)
Methane (g/kg FCM)
Methane Conversion Factor (MCF)
Trend methane
Trend methane
production
production
(kg/cow/yr):
(kg/cow/yr):
IPCC 1.38
IPCC 1.38
model 1.05
model 1.05 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
M
C
F

(
%

G
E
)
Mechanistic model
IPCC Tier 2 (1997)
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Conclusions mechanistic methane models


Continued interaction between mechanistic
Continued interaction between mechanistic
modelling
modelling

and experimentation allows faster
and experimentation allows faster
progress
progress


combine expertise in traditional fermentation parameters,
combine expertise in traditional fermentation parameters,
molecular microbiological tools, and mathematics
molecular microbiological tools, and mathematics


Mechanistic methane models enable prediction
Mechanistic methane models enable prediction
based on understanding of the system
based on understanding of the system
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Acknowledgements


Andre
Andre
Bannink
Bannink

Lelystad
Lelystad
, the Netherlands
, the Netherlands


Jennifer Ellis
Jennifer Ellis

Univ
Univ

Guelph, Canada
Guelph, Canada


James France
James France

Univ
Univ

Guelp
Guelp
, Canada
, Canada


Ermias
Ermias

Kebreab
Kebreab

Univ
Univ

Davis, USA
Davis, USA


Secundino
Secundino

Lopez
Lopez

Univ
Univ

Leon, Spain
Leon, Spain
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Acknowledgements


Andre
Andre
Bannink
Bannink

Lelystad
Lelystad
, the Netherlands
, the Netherlands


Jennifer Ellis
Jennifer Ellis

Univ
Univ

Guelph, Canada
Guelph, Canada


James France
James France

Univ
Univ

Guelp
Guelp
, Canada
, Canada


Ermias
Ermias

Kebreab
Kebreab

Univ
Univ

Davis, USA
Davis, USA


Secundino
Secundino

Lopez
Lopez

Univ
Univ

Leon, Spain
Leon, Spain
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Practical solutions: model results
0
5
10
15
20
25
mean NL doubled
maize
silage
early cut
grass
silage
reduced
fertiliser
+2% fat
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g
)
per kg feed
per kg milk
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Practical solutions: model results
0
5
10
15
20
25
mean NL doubled
maize
silage
early cut
grass
silage
reduced
fertiliser
+2% fat
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g
)
per kg feed
per kg milk
-4%
-5%
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Practical solutions: model results
0
5
10
15
20
25
mean NL doubled
maize
silage
early cut
grass
silage
reduced
fertiliser
+2% fat
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g
)
per kg feed
per kg milk
-3%
-6%
-4%
-5%
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Practical solutions: model results
0
5
10
15
20
25
mean NL doubled
maize
silage
early cut
grass
silage
reduced
fertiliser
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g
)
per kg feed
per kg milk
-3%
-6%
+8%
+11%
-4%
-5%
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions
Practical solutions: model results
0
5
10
15
20
25
mean NL doubled
maize
silage
early cut
grass
silage
reduced
fertiliser
+2% fat
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
g
/
k
g
)
per kg feed
per kg milk
-3%
-6%
+8%
+11%
-2%
-6%
-4%
-5%
J. Dijkstra
Modelling

methane emissions