The hardware and bandwidth for this mirror is donated by METANET, the Webhosting and Full Service-Cloud Provider.
If you wish to report a bug, or if you are interested in having us mirror your free-software or open-source project, please feel free to contact us at mirror[@]metanet.ch.

IPCC Methodology Tiers in cowfootR

Understanding IPCC Methodology Tiers

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides three tiers of methodological complexity for greenhouse gas inventory calculations. cowfootR implements Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies for dairy farm carbon footprint assessments. This vignette explains the differences, when to use each approach, and demonstrates their practical application.

Data Requirements Analysis

Tier 1 Data Needs

tier1_requirements <- data.frame(
  Category = c("Animal Data", "Production", "Management", "Optional"),
  Essential_Data = c(
    "Number by category (cows, heifers, calves)",
    "Annual milk production (litres)",
    "Manure system type, basic inputs",
    "Farm area, country location"
  ),
  Time_to_Collect = c("< 1 hour", "< 1 hour", "1-2 hours", "< 1 hour"),
  Data_Source = c("Farm records", "Milk processor", "Farmer interview", "Farm records")
)

kable(tier1_requirements, caption = "Tier 1 Data Requirements")
Tier 1 Data Requirements
Category Essential_Data Time_to_Collect Data_Source
Animal Data Number by category (cows, heifers, calves) < 1 hour Farm records
Production Annual milk production (litres) < 1 hour Milk processor
Management Manure system type, basic inputs 1-2 hours Farmer interview
Optional Farm area, country location < 1 hour Farm records

Tier 2 Additional Requirements

tier2_additional <- data.frame(
  Category = c("Animal Characteristics", "Nutrition", "Management Detail", "Environmental"),
  Additional_Data = c(
    "Body weights, milk yield per cow, breeding records",
    "Feed composition, DM intake, diet digestibility",
    "Precise input quantities, equipment usage",
    "Climate data, soil types, system temperatures"
  ),
  Time_to_Collect = c("2-4 hours", "4-8 hours", "2-4 hours", "1-2 hours"),
  Expertise_Level = c("Basic", "Intermediate", "Basic", "Basic")
)

kable(tier2_additional, caption = "Additional Tier 2 Data Requirements")
Additional Tier 2 Data Requirements
Category Additional_Data Time_to_Collect Expertise_Level
Animal Characteristics Body weights, milk yield per cow, breeding records 2-4 hours Basic
Nutrition Feed composition, DM intake, diet digestibility 4-8 hours Intermediate
Management Detail Precise input quantities, equipment usage 2-4 hours Basic
Environmental Climate data, soil types, system temperatures 1-2 hours Basic

Input columns used by calc_batch() for Tier 2 calculations

When using calc_batch() with tier = 2, users may provide additional farm-level variables to enable more detailed IPCC Tier 2 calculations. All inputs represent one accounting year unless explicitly stated otherwise by the column name (e.g., *_kg_day).

The input data frame is flexible: only a small set of columns is strictly required, while the presence of additional columns enables more refined calculations. Missing optional columns do not cause errors; instead, cowfootR falls back to Tier 1–consistent default assumptions following IPCC and IDF guidance.

Core required columns (all tiers)

  • FarmID: Unique farm identifier
  • Milk_litres: Annual milk production (litres/year)
  • Cows_milking: Number of milking cows
  • Area_total_ha: Total managed farm area (hectares)

Tier 2–relevant optional columns by emission source

Enteric fermentation (Tier 2 refinement)

Providing one or more of the following columns enables Tier 2 enteric methane calculations based on animal performance and intake:

  • Milk_yield_kg_cow_year: Average annual milk yield per cow (kg/year)
  • Body_weight_cows_kg: Average body weight of milking cows (kg)
  • MS_intake_cows_milking_kg_day: Dry matter intake of milking cows (kg/day)
  • Ym_percent: Methane conversion factor (% of gross energy intake)

If none of these variables are provided, Tier 1 default emission factors are used.

Young stock (optional refinement)

When young stock is included, Tier 2 calculations may also use:

  • Body_weight_heifers_kg
  • Body_weight_calves_kg
  • Body_weight_bulls_kg
  • MS_intake_heifers_kg_day
  • MS_intake_calves_kg_day
  • MS_intake_bulls_kg_day

Manure management (Tier 2 refinement)

Tier 2 manure emissions may use additional information when available:

  • Manure_system: Manure management system (e.g., pasture, liquid storage)
  • Diet_digestibility: Diet digestibility (fraction)
  • Protein_intake_kg_day: Average protein intake per animal (kg/day)
  • Retention_days: Manure storage or retention time (days)
  • System_temperature: Average system temperature (°C)
  • Climate_zone: Climatic classification used for emission factors

Other emission sources

Soil, energy, and input-related emissions primarily rely on annual activity data (e.g., fertilizer use, fuel consumption, purchased inputs). For these sources, Tier 2 calculations are typically driven by regional emission factors rather than additional farm-specific columns.

Complete column specification

The full and authoritative list of supported input columns, including expected units and naming conventions, is provided by the Excel template generated with:

cf_download_template()

Theoretical Background

IPCC Tier System Overview

The IPCC tier system balances accuracy with data requirements and complexity:

  • Tier 1: Default emission factors with basic activity data
  • Tier 2: Country/region-specific factors with detailed activity data
  • Tier 3: Advanced modeling with comprehensive measurements (not implemented in cowfootR)

Key Differences in Dairy Applications

Aspect Tier 1 Tier 2
Emission Factors IPCC default values Region/farm-specific values
Data Requirements Basic (animal numbers, production) Detailed (weights, intake, composition)
Expected precision Lower (screening-level) Higher (farm-specific when good data are available)
Time Investment Low (hours) Medium (days)
Suitable For Screening, regional estimates Farm management, policy

## Methodological Differences by Emission Source

### Enteric Fermentation

#### Tier 1 Approach - Uses fixed emission factors by animal category and production system - Based on broad regional averages - No consideration of diet quality or animal performance

# Tier 1 enteric calculation example
enteric_tier1 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = 100,
  cattle_category = "dairy_cows",
  production_system = "mixed",
  tier = 1 # Uses default emission factors
)

print(enteric_tier1$emission_factors)
#> $emission_factor_ch4
#> [1] 115
#> 
#> $ym_percent
#> [1] 6.5
#> 
#> $gwp_ch4
#> [1] 27.2
#> 
#> $method_used
#> [1] "Tier 1"

Tier 2 Approach

  • Calculates methane based on energy intake and conversion efficiency
  • Accounts for diet digestibility, animal productivity, and body weight
  • Uses farm-specific or regional Ym (methane conversion) factors
# Tier 2 enteric calculation with detailed parameters
enteric_tier2 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = 100,
  cattle_category = "dairy_cows",
  avg_milk_yield = 7200,
  avg_body_weight = 580,
  dry_matter_intake = 19.5,
  ym_percent = 6.2,
  tier = 2 # Uses energy-based calculation
)

print(enteric_tier2$emission_factors)
#> $emission_factor_ch4
#> [1] 146.302
#> 
#> $ym_percent
#> [1] 6.2
#> 
#> $gwp_ch4
#> [1] 27.2
#> 
#> $method_used
#> [1] "Tier 2"

Manure Management

Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Comparison

# Tier 1: Simple emission factors
manure_tier1 <- calc_emissions_manure(
  n_cows = 100,
  manure_system = "liquid_storage",
  tier = 1
)

# Tier 2: VS and MCF-based calculation
manure_tier2 <- calc_emissions_manure(
  n_cows = 100,
  manure_system = "liquid_storage",
  tier = 2,
  avg_body_weight = 580,
  diet_digestibility = 0.68,
  climate = "temperate",
  retention_days = 90,
  system_temperature = 20
)

# Compare results
manure_comparison <- data.frame(
  Tier = c("Tier 1", "Tier 2"),
  CH4_kg = c(manure_tier1$ch4_kg, manure_tier2$ch4_kg),
  N2O_kg = c(manure_tier1$n2o_total_kg, manure_tier2$n2o_total_kg),
  CO2eq_kg = c(manure_tier1$co2eq_kg, manure_tier2$co2eq_kg),
  Method = c("Default factors", "VS + MCF calculation")
)

kable(manure_comparison, caption = "Manure Management: Tier 1 vs Tier 2")
Manure Management: Tier 1 vs Tier 2
Tier CH4_kg N2O_kg CO2eq_kg Method
Tier 1 3000.00 314.29 167400 Default factors
Tier 2 52573.48 314.29 1515799 VS + MCF calculation

Comprehensive Farm Comparison

Let’s compare both tiers using a realistic farm example:

Farm Profile

# Define comprehensive farm data
farm_profile <- list(
  # Basic data (required for both tiers)
  dairy_cows = 120,
  heifers = 35,
  calves = 40,
  milk_production = 850000, # litres/year
  farm_area = 160, # hectares

  # Detailed data (enhances Tier 2)
  cow_body_weight = 580,
  heifer_body_weight = 380,
  calf_body_weight = 170,
  milk_yield_per_cow = 7080,
  cow_dm_intake = 19.2,
  heifer_dm_intake = 11.5,
  calf_dm_intake = 6.2,
  diet_digestibility = 0.67,
  ym_factor = 6.1,

  # Management data
  concentrate_feed = 195000, # kg/year
  n_fertilizer = 2200, # kg N/year
  diesel_use = 9500, # litres/year
  electricity = 52000 # kWh/year
)

print(farm_profile[1:8])
#> $dairy_cows
#> [1] 120
#> 
#> $heifers
#> [1] 35
#> 
#> $calves
#> [1] 40
#> 
#> $milk_production
#> [1] 850000
#> 
#> $farm_area
#> [1] 160
#> 
#> $cow_body_weight
#> [1] 580
#> 
#> $heifer_body_weight
#> [1] 380
#> 
#> $calf_body_weight
#> [1] 170

Tier 1 Assessment

# Complete Tier 1 assessment
boundaries <- set_system_boundaries("farm_gate")

# Tier 1 calculations
enteric_t1 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = farm_profile$dairy_cows,
  cattle_category = "dairy_cows",
  tier = 1,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

heifers_t1 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = farm_profile$heifers,
  cattle_category = "heifers",
  tier = 1,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

calves_t1 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = farm_profile$calves,
  cattle_category = "calves",
  tier = 1,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

manure_t1 <- calc_emissions_manure(
  n_cows = farm_profile$dairy_cows + farm_profile$heifers + farm_profile$calves,
  manure_system = "pasture",
  tier = 1,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

soil_t1 <- calc_emissions_soil(
  n_fertilizer_synthetic = farm_profile$n_fertilizer,
  n_excreta_pasture = (farm_profile$dairy_cows + farm_profile$heifers) * 100,
  area_ha = farm_profile$farm_area,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

energy_t1 <- calc_emissions_energy(
  diesel_l = farm_profile$diesel_use,
  electricity_kwh = farm_profile$electricity,
  country = "UY",
  boundaries = boundaries
)

inputs_t1 <- calc_emissions_inputs(
  conc_kg = farm_profile$concentrate_feed,
  fert_n_kg = farm_profile$n_fertilizer,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

# Aggregate Tier 1 results
enteric_combined_t1 <- list(
  source = "enteric",
  co2eq_kg = enteric_t1$co2eq_kg + heifers_t1$co2eq_kg + calves_t1$co2eq_kg
)

total_t1 <- calc_total_emissions(enteric_combined_t1, manure_t1, soil_t1, energy_t1, inputs_t1)

Tier 2 Assessment

# Complete Tier 2 assessment using detailed data
enteric_t2 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = farm_profile$dairy_cows,
  cattle_category = "dairy_cows",
  avg_milk_yield = farm_profile$milk_yield_per_cow,
  avg_body_weight = farm_profile$cow_body_weight,
  dry_matter_intake = farm_profile$cow_dm_intake,
  ym_percent = farm_profile$ym_factor,
  tier = 2,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

heifers_t2 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = farm_profile$heifers,
  cattle_category = "heifers",
  avg_body_weight = farm_profile$heifer_body_weight,
  dry_matter_intake = farm_profile$heifer_dm_intake,
  ym_percent = farm_profile$ym_factor,
  tier = 2,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

calves_t2 <- calc_emissions_enteric(
  n_animals = farm_profile$calves,
  cattle_category = "calves",
  avg_body_weight = farm_profile$calf_body_weight,
  dry_matter_intake = farm_profile$calf_dm_intake,
  tier = 2,
  boundaries = boundaries
)

manure_t2 <- calc_emissions_manure(
  n_cows = farm_profile$dairy_cows + farm_profile$heifers + farm_profile$calves,
  manure_system = "pasture",
  tier = 2,
  avg_body_weight = 500, # Weighted average
  diet_digestibility = farm_profile$diet_digestibility,
  climate = "temperate",
  boundaries = boundaries
)

# Soil and other sources remain the same
enteric_combined_t2 <- list(
  source = "enteric",
  co2eq_kg = enteric_t2$co2eq_kg + heifers_t2$co2eq_kg + calves_t2$co2eq_kg
)

total_t2 <- calc_total_emissions(enteric_combined_t2, manure_t2, soil_t1, energy_t1, inputs_t1)

Results Comparison

# Compare tier results
tier_comparison <- data.frame(
  Source = c("Enteric", "Manure", "Soil", "Energy", "Inputs", "TOTAL"),
  Tier1_kg = c(
    enteric_combined_t1$co2eq_kg,
    manure_t1$co2eq_kg,
    soil_t1$co2eq_kg,
    energy_t1$co2eq_kg,
    inputs_t1$total_co2eq_kg,
    total_t1$total_co2eq
  ),
  Tier2_kg = c(
    enteric_combined_t2$co2eq_kg,
    manure_t2$co2eq_kg,
    soil_t1$co2eq_kg,
    energy_t1$co2eq_kg,
    inputs_t1$total_co2eq_kg,
    total_t2$total_co2eq
  )
) %>%
  mutate(
    Difference_kg = Tier2_kg - Tier1_kg,
    Difference_pct = round((Tier2_kg - Tier1_kg) / Tier1_kg * 100, 1)
  )

kable(tier_comparison, caption = "Emission Source Comparison: Tier 1 vs Tier 2")
Emission Source Comparison: Tier 1 vs Tier 2
Source Tier1_kg Tier2_kg Difference_kg Difference_pct
Enteric 497216.0 596472.9 99256.89 20.0
Manure 175266.0 260467.2 85201.23 48.6
Soil 107260.7 107260.7 0.00 0.0
Energy 29525.0 29525.0 0.00 0.0
Inputs 151020.0 151020.0 0.00 0.0
TOTAL 960287.7 1144745.8 184458.12 19.2

Visualization of Differences

# Prepare data for visualization
comparison_long <- tier_comparison %>%
  filter(Source != "TOTAL") %>%
  select(Source, Tier1_kg, Tier2_kg) %>%
  tidyr::pivot_longer(
    cols = c(Tier1_kg, Tier2_kg),
    names_to = "Tier", values_to = "Emissions"
  ) %>%
  mutate(Tier = gsub("_kg", "", Tier))

# Create comparison chart
ggplot(comparison_long, aes(x = Source, y = Emissions, fill = Tier)) +
  geom_col(position = "dodge", alpha = 0.8) +
  geom_text(aes(label = format(round(Emissions), big.mark = ",")),
    position = position_dodge(width = 0.9), vjust = -0.3, size = 3
  ) +
  labs(
    title = "Emission Estimates: Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Methodology",
    subtitle = "Same farm, different calculation approaches",
    x = "Emission Source",
    y = "Emissions (kg CO₂eq/year)"
  ) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(
    plot.title = element_text(size = 14, hjust = 0.5),
    axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 45, hjust = 1)
  ) +
  scale_fill_brewer(type = "qual", palette = "Set1")

Figure generated by this vignette; see the surrounding text for details.

Impact on Intensity Metrics

# Calculate intensity metrics for both tiers
intensity_t1 <- calc_intensity_litre(
  total_emissions = total_t1,
  milk_litres = farm_profile$milk_production,
  fat = 3.7,
  protein = 3.2
)

intensity_t2 <- calc_intensity_litre(
  total_emissions = total_t2,
  milk_litres = farm_profile$milk_production,
  fat = 3.7,
  protein = 3.2
)

# Compare intensities
intensity_comparison <- data.frame(
  Metric = c(
    "Total Emissions (kg CO₂eq)", "Milk Intensity (kg CO₂eq/kg FPCM)",
    "FPCM Production (kg)", "Difference in Intensity (%)",
    "Management Classification"
  ),
  Tier1 = c(
    format(round(total_t1$total_co2eq), big.mark = ","),
    round(intensity_t1$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm, 3),
    format(round(intensity_t1$fpcm_production_kg), big.mark = ","),
    "-",
    ifelse(intensity_t1$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm < 1.2, "Good", "Needs Improvement")
  ),
  Tier2 = c(
    format(round(total_t2$total_co2eq), big.mark = ","),
    round(intensity_t2$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm, 3),
    format(round(intensity_t2$fpcm_production_kg), big.mark = ","),
    round((intensity_t2$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm - intensity_t1$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm) /
      intensity_t1$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm * 100, 1),
    ifelse(intensity_t2$intensity_co2eq_per_kg_fpcm < 1.2, "Good", "Needs Improvement")
  )
)

kable(intensity_comparison, caption = "Intensity Metrics: Tier 1 vs Tier 2")
Intensity Metrics: Tier 1 vs Tier 2
Metric Tier1 Tier2
Total Emissions (kg CO₂eq) 960,288 1,144,746
Milk Intensity (kg CO₂eq/kg FPCM) 1.148 1.369
FPCM Production (kg) 836,400 836,400
Difference in Intensity (%) - 19.2
Management Classification Good Needs Improvement

Accuracy and Uncertainty

Uncertainty Ranges by Tier

uncertainty_analysis <- data.frame(
  Source = c("Enteric", "Manure", "Soil", "Energy", "Inputs"),
  Tier1_Uncertainty = c("Higher", "Higher", "Higher", "Lower", "Medium"),
  Tier2_Uncertainty = c("Medium", "Medium", "Medium", "Lower", "Medium"),
  Key_Improvement = c(
    "Diet-specific Ym factors",
    "VS calculation from intake",
    "Site-specific soil factors",
    "No significant change",
    "Regional emission factors"
  )
)

kable(uncertainty_analysis, caption = "Uncertainty Comparison by Emission Source")
Uncertainty Comparison by Emission Source
Source Tier1_Uncertainty Tier2_Uncertainty Key_Improvement
Enteric Higher Medium Diet-specific Ym factors
Manure Higher Medium VS calculation from intake
Soil Higher Medium Site-specific soil factors
Energy Lower Lower No significant change
Inputs Medium Medium Regional emission factors

Factors Affecting Accuracy

# Create accuracy comparison visualization
accuracy_data <- data.frame(
  Factor = c(
    "Enteric - Default EF", "Enteric - Energy Method", "Manure - Default",
    "Manure - VS/MCF", "Soil - Standard", "Energy - Standard", "Inputs - Default"
  ),
  Tier = c("Tier 1", "Tier 2", "Tier 1", "Tier 2", "Both", "Both", "Both"),
  Uncertainty_Low = c(70, 85, 60, 75, 50, 85, 75),
  Uncertainty_High = c(130, 115, 140, 125, 150, 115, 125),
  Method_Complexity = c(1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2)
)

accuracy_data$Uncertainty_Mid <- (accuracy_data$Uncertainty_Low + accuracy_data$Uncertainty_High) / 2

ggplot(accuracy_data, aes(
  x = reorder(Factor, Method_Complexity),
  y = Uncertainty_Mid, color = Tier
)) +
  geom_pointrange(aes(ymin = Uncertainty_Low, ymax = Uncertainty_High),
    size = 0.8, alpha = 0.8
  ) +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 100, linetype = "dashed", color = "gray50") +
  coord_flip() +
  labs(
    title = "Accuracy Ranges by Methodology and Tier",
    subtitle = "100 = Perfect accuracy, wider ranges = higher uncertainty",
    x = "Calculation Method",
    y = "Accuracy Range (% of true value)",
    color = "IPCC Tier"
  ) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(plot.title = element_text(size = 14, hjust = 0.5)) +
  scale_color_brewer(type = "qual", palette = "Set1")

Figure generated by this vignette; see the surrounding text for details.

Decision Framework: When to Use Each Tier

Tier Selection Criteria

decision_framework <- data.frame(
  Criterion = c(
    "Purpose", "Data Availability", "Time Available", "Expertise Level",
    "Accuracy Needs", "Budget", "Follow-up Actions"
  ),
  Use_Tier1 = c(
    "Regional estimates, screening",
    "Basic farm records only",
    "< 1 day",
    "Basic agricultural knowledge",
    "Screening-level precision",
    "Minimal cost",
    "Awareness, general comparison"
  ),
  Use_Tier2 = c(
    "Farm management, mitigation",
    "Detailed records + measurements",
    "2-5 days",
    "Nutrition/LCA knowledge helpful",
    "Better precision when detailed inputs are available",
    "Moderate investment",
    "Specific interventions, monitoring"
  )
)

kable(decision_framework, caption = "Tier Selection Decision Framework")
Tier Selection Decision Framework
Criterion Use_Tier1 Use_Tier2
Purpose Regional estimates, screening Farm management, mitigation
Data Availability Basic farm records only Detailed records + measurements
Time Available < 1 day 2-5 days
Expertise Level Basic agricultural knowledge Nutrition/LCA knowledge helpful
Accuracy Needs Screening-level precision Better precision when detailed inputs are available
Budget Minimal cost Moderate investment
Follow-up Actions Awareness, general comparison Specific interventions, monitoring

Cost-Benefit Analysis

# Cost-benefit comparison
cost_benefit <- data.frame(
  Aspect = c(
    "Data Collection Cost", "Technical Expertise", "Processing Time",
    "Result Accuracy", "Management Value", "Policy Applicability"
  ),
  Tier1_Score = c(1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3), # 1=low, 3=high
  Tier2_Score = c(3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2),
  Weight = c(0.2, 0.15, 0.15, 0.25, 0.15, 0.1) # Importance weights
)

cost_benefit$Tier1_Weighted <- cost_benefit$Tier1_Score * cost_benefit$Weight
cost_benefit$Tier2_Weighted <- cost_benefit$Tier2_Score * cost_benefit$Weight

tier1_total <- sum(cost_benefit$Tier1_Weighted)
tier2_total <- sum(cost_benefit$Tier2_Weighted)

cat("Weighted Decision Scores:\n")
#> Weighted Decision Scores:
cat("Tier 1:", round(tier1_total, 2), "\n")
#> Tier 1: 1.6
cat("Tier 2:", round(tier2_total, 2), "\n")
#> Tier 2: 2.6
cat(
  "\nRecommendation: Use", ifelse(tier2_total > tier1_total, "Tier 2", "Tier 1"),
  "for most farm-level assessments\n"
)
#> 
#> Recommendation: Use Tier 2 for most farm-level assessments

Sensitivity Analysis

Parameter Sensitivity in Tier 2

# Test sensitivity of key Tier 2 parameters
sensitivity_tests <- list(
  baseline = list(ym = 6.1, body_weight = 580, dm_intake = 19.2),
  high_ym = list(ym = 6.8, body_weight = 580, dm_intake = 19.2),
  low_ym = list(ym = 5.4, body_weight = 580, dm_intake = 19.2),
  heavy_cows = list(ym = 6.1, body_weight = 650, dm_intake = 19.2),
  light_cows = list(ym = 6.1, body_weight = 510, dm_intake = 19.2),
  high_intake = list(ym = 6.1, body_weight = 580, dm_intake = 21.5),
  low_intake = list(ym = 6.1, body_weight = 580, dm_intake = 16.9)
)

sensitivity_results <- lapply(names(sensitivity_tests), function(scenario) {
  params <- sensitivity_tests[[scenario]]

  enteric_test <- calc_emissions_enteric(
    n_animals = farm_profile$dairy_cows,
    cattle_category = "dairy_cows",
    avg_milk_yield = farm_profile$milk_yield_per_cow,
    avg_body_weight = params$body_weight,
    dry_matter_intake = params$dm_intake,
    ym_percent = params$ym,
    tier = 2
  )

  data.frame(
    Scenario = scenario,
    CH4_kg = enteric_test$ch4_kg,
    CO2eq_kg = enteric_test$co2eq_kg
  )
})

sensitivity_df <- do.call(rbind, sensitivity_results) %>%
  mutate(
    Change_from_baseline = round((CO2eq_kg - CO2eq_kg[Scenario == "baseline"]) /
      CO2eq_kg[Scenario == "baseline"] * 100, 1)
  )

kable(sensitivity_df, caption = "Tier 2 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis")
Tier 2 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario CH4_kg CO2eq_kg Change_from_baseline
baseline 17007.34 462599.6 0.0
high_ym 18959.00 515684.8 11.5
low_ym 15055.68 409514.4 -11.5
heavy_cows 17007.34 462599.6 0.0
light_cows 17007.34 462599.6 0.0
high_intake 19044.68 518015.2 12.0
low_intake 14970.00 407184.0 -12.0

Impact on Farm Rankings

# Create hypothetical farm comparison
set.seed(456)
farm_comparison <- data.frame(
  Farm = paste0("Farm_", LETTERS[1:6]),
  Tier1_Intensity = c(1.15, 1.42, 0.98, 1.65, 1.28, 1.33),
  Tier2_Intensity = c(1.08, 1.51, 1.12, 1.48, 1.35, 1.29)
) %>%
  mutate(
    Tier1_Rank = rank(Tier1_Intensity),
    Tier2_Rank = rank(Tier2_Intensity),
    Rank_Change = Tier2_Rank - Tier1_Rank
  )

# Visualize ranking changes
ranking_plot_data <- farm_comparison %>%
  select(Farm, Tier1_Rank, Tier2_Rank) %>%
  tidyr::pivot_longer(
    cols = c(Tier1_Rank, Tier2_Rank),
    names_to = "Tier", values_to = "Rank"
  ) %>%
  mutate(Tier = gsub("_Rank", "", Tier))

ggplot(ranking_plot_data, aes(x = Tier, y = Rank, group = Farm, color = Farm)) +
  geom_line(size = 1.2, alpha = 0.7) +
  geom_point(size = 3) +
  geom_text(aes(label = Farm), vjust = -0.8, size = 3) +
  scale_y_reverse(breaks = 1:6, labels = paste0("#", 1:6)) +
  labs(
    title = "Farm Ranking Changes: Tier 1 vs Tier 2",
    subtitle = "Lines show how farm rankings change between methodologies",
    x = "Methodology Tier",
    y = "Performance Rank (1 = best)"
  ) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(
    legend.position = "none",
    plot.title = element_text(size = 14, hjust = 0.5)
  )

Figure generated by this vignette; see the surrounding text for details.


kable(farm_comparison[, c("Farm", "Tier1_Intensity", "Tier2_Intensity", "Rank_Change")],
  caption = "Impact of Methodology on Farm Rankings"
)
Impact of Methodology on Farm Rankings
Farm Tier1_Intensity Tier2_Intensity Rank_Change
Farm_A 1.15 1.08 -1
Farm_B 1.42 1.51 1
Farm_C 0.98 1.12 1
Farm_D 1.65 1.48 -1
Farm_E 1.28 1.35 1
Farm_F 1.33 1.29 -1

Practical Recommendations

Implementation Strategy

Based on the analysis, here are practical recommendations:

For Research and Policy

  • Use Tier 2 for developing mitigation strategies
  • Use Tier 1 for initial screening and regional inventories
  • Combine approaches for cost-effective large-scale assessments

For Farm Advisors

  • Start with Tier 1 to identify high-impact farms
  • Upgrade to Tier 2 for detailed improvement plans
  • Focus data collection on parameters with highest uncertainty

For Farmers

  • Tier 1 benefits: Quick assessment, low cost, baseline establishment
  • Tier 2 benefits: Precise targeting, monitoring progress, optimization

Quality Assurance

# Quality control recommendations
quality_control <- data.frame(
  Tier = c("Tier 1", "Tier 1", "Tier 2", "Tier 2", "Both"),
  Check_Type = c(
    "Data Range", "Internal Consistency", "Parameter Validation",
    "Results Plausibility", "Cross-Validation"
  ),
  Description = c(
    "Verify animal numbers and production within expected ranges",
    "Check milk per cow, stocking rates against system type",
    "Validate body weights, intakes against literature values",
    "Compare results with similar farms and published studies",
    "Run both tiers where possible, investigate large differences"
  ),
  Critical_Level = c("Medium", "High", "High", "Medium", "High")
)

kable(quality_control, caption = "Quality Assurance Recommendations by Tier")
Quality Assurance Recommendations by Tier
Tier Check_Type Description Critical_Level
Tier 1 Data Range Verify animal numbers and production within expected ranges Medium
Tier 1 Internal Consistency Check milk per cow, stocking rates against system type High
Tier 2 Parameter Validation Validate body weights, intakes against literature values High
Tier 2 Results Plausibility Compare results with similar farms and published studies Medium
Both Cross-Validation Run both tiers where possible, investigate large differences High

Conclusions

Key Findings

  1. Tier differences: Tier 2 can differ from Tier 1 because it uses more farm-specific parameters (e.g., intake, body weight, digestibility, Ym). The magnitude and direction of the change depend on the farm system and the quality of the Tier 2 inputs.

  2. Source-specific impacts: Enteric fermentation and manure management are often the most sensitive to tier choice, because Tier 2 relies on more detailed animal and diet information.

  3. Data investment: Tier 2 typically requires more detailed data collection and more careful parameter checking, but it can provide results that are more representative of the specific farm when those inputs are reliable. ### Selection Guidelines

Choose Tier 1 when: - Conducting regional assessments with limited resources - Screening large numbers of farms quickly - Data availability is severely limited - Results are for general awareness or policy screening

Choose Tier 2 when: - Developing farm-specific mitigation strategies - Monitoring progress over time - Detailed data is available or can be collected - Results will guide significant investments

Use both when: - Resources allow for comprehensive analysis - Validation of results is critical - Training purposes or methodology development

The choice between Tier 1 and Tier 2 should align with the intended use of results, available resources, and required accuracy. cowfootR’s flexible implementation of both tiers enables users to select the most appropriate methodology for their specific needs.


This analysis demonstrates cowfootR’s implementation of IPCC 2019 guidelines. For detailed single-farm analysis, see the “Single Farm Analysis” vignette. For processing multiple farms, consult the “Batch Farm Assessment” vignette.

These binaries (installable software) and packages are in development.
They may not be fully stable and should be used with caution. We make no claims about them.