GHGFARM - A SOFTWARE TOOL TO ESTIMATE AND REDUCE
NET-GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FROM FARMS IN CANADA
Nathaniel K. Newlands
Environment, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Lethbridge Research Centre, 5403-1st Avenue South, P.O. Box 3000, T1H 4B1, Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada
Email: newlandsn@agr.gc.ca
ABSTRACT
Decision support software tools and computer simulation
models help us to better understand the structure and func-
tioning of agricultural ecosystems - how to better manage
them in a sustainable way. They assist in the synthesis
of interdisciplinary knowledge amongst stake-holders, au-
tomation of meta-analyses, communication and outreach.
In this paper, we showcase the GHGFarm software tool
for estimating and reducing net-greenhouse gas emission
from farms. This software tool provides a capability for
scientists, policy makers, and agricultural producers to col-
lectively quantify, interpret and compare alternative farm
management scenarios, thereby encouraging the adoption
of longer-term sustainable farm practices. Farmers can
characterize their multi-enterprise operations and manage-
ment practices in a flexible way. Reduction scenarios
are generated from current scientific knowledge and emis-
sion algorithms available (International Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC), modified with Canadian-specific emission
factors, local practices, topography, and climate conditions.
We discuss the software development approach, highlight-
ing past and present challenges within the broader context
of empirical software engineering and agricultural exten-
sion. We identify the need for a better resolved multi-user
stream/flow design, enhancement of the graphical user in-
terface, expanded sensitivity testing and quantification of
uncertainty.
KEY WORDS
Agriculture, ecosystems, greenhouse gases, mitigation,
software
1 Introduction
Computers play a prominent role in science, encompass-
ing a broad spectrum of applications; from enhancing in-
strumentation control and accelerating data processing, to
search, archival and communication information technol-
ogy, decision-support tools, computer simulation models
and innovative knowledge engineering to help solve com-
plex real-world problems.
In agriculture, the high power and availability of
computing resources and software development tools
has led to a large number of agricultural models and
579-044
software decision-support tools. These include tools
and models that aid in land-use and land-use change
decision-making such as ROTAT[1], DSSAT[2], and
MEACROS[3], help to improve animal feed quality, nu-
trition (UNEForm[4], VAMPP[5]), and on-farm water use
(DAMEA$Y[6]). Concurrently, tools and models have
been coupled together into integrated analytical frame-
works for broader inter-disciplinary application and to ad-
dress more complex, inter-connected and distributed prob-
lems[7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. In terms of mitigating and
reducing greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide, nitrous ox-
ide and methane), a number of farm emission models have
been developed and tested, with a few coupled to farm
ecosystem models that describe the cycling of nutrients,
water and materials helping to explain emission losses and
their spatial and temporal patterning.
The advantages these tools offer are most evident at
a ’system-level’, whereby new knowledge and innovative
approaches can be readily made available and applied to a
large and diverse user community thereby accelerating the
adoption of beneficial, sustainable agricultural practices.
Given the time, costs and resources required to comprehen-
sively measure, analyze, integrate scientific data and find-
ings on agricultural systems (hereafter agroecosystems),
computer tools serve to alleviate costs and make infor-
mation collection, synthesis and simulation of agroecosys-
tems more feasible, consistent and reliable. The models
DNDC (DeNitrification DeComposition[16,17]), FARM-
SCAPE[18], DyNoFlo Dairy[19], and FASSET[20] are just
a few examples of models that have been embedded into
software tools. In general, software engineering of scien-
tific models has proceeded to varying extents, depending on
whether the model’s lower-level code/algorithms are pri-
marily shared and applied amongst scientists, or whether
the user community is more inter-disciplinary and diverse
where higher-level graphical interfaces/scientific visualiza-
tion provide additional functionality, greater enhancement
of underlying logic or assist with interpretation of results.
Despite these broadly recognized advantages, specific
user groups still have distinct, complementary perspectives
and unique needs; from a agricultural decision/policy mak-
ers’ perspective, computer tools make science more ac-
cessible by increasing cooperation between stake-holders,
guiding management decisions and communicating policy
7
options. Scientists primarily consider these tools help sup-
port rational inference and decision-making with the aim of
reducing uncertainty, whereas farmers and other producers,
often as primary end-users, must confront uncertainty and
risks by considering whether the problem at hand is ade-
quately addressed and interpreted using a computer tool.
They ultimately decide whether the tool is sufficiently flex-
ible and useful for better resolving a problem, or in the case
where a tool contains an embedded model, whether it can
generate reliable inferences, required to generate realistic
insights, in search of an optimal decision and solution.
Recently, Meinke et al.[21] undertook a review of
models to assess their net environmental benefits to farms
to elucidate some guidance for future modeling applica-
tions. They conclude that for successful development and
adoption of model and simulation approaches, relevance
and strong partnerships between farmer, scientist and ad-
visors are critically important. Key points of practice iden-
tified were: issues must be neither trivial nor obvious, an
approach must reduce complexity rather than proliferate
choices to aid the decision-making process, and the agri-
cultural systems themselves must be sufficiently flexible to
allow management interventions based on insights gained
from models.
Agriculture is a significant contributor to global
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s). In Canada, 2004 agri-
culture emissions (roughly 250 000 farms covering 50 Mha
with 98% of farms family owned), comprised 55 Mt or
7.2% of all national GHG emissions, an increase of 10 Mt
since 1990. Just over half (50.5%) of total agricultural
emissions are from nitrous oxide (N2 O), with methane
(CH4 ) accounting for 49.5% (EC[22]). Agricultural GHG
emissions vary by the extent of enteric fermentation in the
rumen of livestock (mainly cattle), microbial activity that
processes nitrogen from fertilizer added to the soil, rate of
decomposition of crop residue and soil organic matter, and
specific methods for applying, handling and storing ma-
nure. About 83% of Canada’s cropland is in the interior
plains of western Canada, made up of the semi-arid and
sub-humid Prairies and Boreal Plain ecosystems, constitut-
ing mainly mineral soils. Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions
emitted from agriculture originate, for example, from trac-
tor fossil fuel use and heating, or from net decomposition
or organic matter in soils or vegetative matter.
The GHGFarm tool was developed to enable scien-
tists, policy makers, and agricultural producers to collec-
tively quantify, interpret and compare alternative farm man-
agement scenarios, thereby encouraging the adoption of
longer-term sustainable farm practices. The tool aims to
confer: 1) a better understanding of farms as systems and
the cumulative effects of incremental farming decisions, 2)
to identify strategies to reduce emissions on specific farms
and 3) to objectively assess potential impacts of a manage-
ment chance before a specific practice is implemented on
their farm. Embedded within the software is an emissions
model consisting of a set of equations/algorithms consis-
tent with the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC
8
emissions quantification methodology modified to Cana-
dian conditions and farming.
The aim of this paper is to showcase the GHGFarm
tool and to report on what has been learned for agricul-
tural and environmental practitioners engaged in develop-
ing mitigation and adaptation tools and sustainable devel-
opment projects. We provide an overview of the software
development approach, highlighting past and present chal-
lenges within the broader context of empirical software en-
gineering and agricultural extension.
2 Methodology
A tandem approach was applied in developing the
GHGFarm emissions model and associated software
tool. The first version (available online at http :
//ncgavs.usask.ca/ghg calculator/GHGF arm1.1/)
was developed based on a so-called agile software
methodology[23], whereby iterative changes guided by in-
cremental feedback led to a set of emergent requirements.
In this way, the software tool contained features and func-
tionality that did not strongly contextualize or tailor to any
specific user group, but instead was made available to wide
user audience to encourage feedback. This first version
was released and showcased at the Eleventh Conference
of the Parties (COP 11) to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the first
Meeting of the Parties (MOP 1) to the Kyoto Protocol in
2005 held in Montreal, Quebec. This version contained
a bilingual interface (French and English). Feedback in-
formation from the public, conference policy and scientist
delegates, national and international non-governmental
organizations (NGO’s) and agricultural producers was
gathered. This complemented consultation and consensus-
building efforts led by producer organizations at the local
and regional level and a series of national consultation
meetings. This approach helped to build confidence
between the developers and intended client groups.
Once a set of requirements could be well-articulated
that was considered to meet the needs of the targeted user
groups (i.e., scientist, farmer/producer, policy-maker), a
software plan based on a traditional, staged process was ini-
tiated, whereby farm-level emission algorithms were ver-
ified according to their consistency with emission algo-
rithms specified in Canada’s National Carbon and Green-
house Gas Emission Accounting and Verification System
(NCGAVS). Detailed information on user recommenda-
tions and strategic improvements towards a second release
version were also prepared, directed towards articulating
and adding features and functionality requested by the in-
dividual user groups themselves.
The GHGFarm model consists of a set of algorithms
that simulate whole farm greenhouse/trace gas emissions
(carbon dioxide - CO2 , nitrous oxide - N2 0 and methane -
CH4 ) as a function of climate, soil properties and manage-
ment practices, and was coded and developed as a software
tool using the object-oriented language, Visual Basic.NET
(Microsoft Corp.). Integrating the emission equations pro-
vides an overall net-estimate of farm-level GHG emission
in CO2 equivalent units based on the global warming po-
tential of each gas. The model’s algorithms are static
(i.e., independent of time), although some assumptions on
present day conditions do consider change of variables over
time, such as history of tillage practice, in specifying ini-
tial conditions. The model’s parameters are consistent with
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guide-
lines, modified for Canadian conditions through a combi-
nation of expert opinion and meta-analysis of latest results
from the statistical analysis of emission data[24,25]. For
further information on the detailed methodology, we refer
readers to a documentation report available from the GHG-
Farm web-site and a methodological paper[26].
Users input information on farm environmental con-
ditions, past and current operations, and are able to, subse-
quently, build scenarios consisting of a single change or
simultaneous change to multiple variables; such as live-
stock number/s, change a crop rotation, amount and type
of fertilizer applied, or to alter tillage intensity or manure
handling. Users run models corresponding to the control
and set of ’model farm’ scenarios (Figure 1). Uncertainty
is propagated for various individual sources of greenhouse
gas emission that contribute to uncertainty in the net-GHG
estimate for a farm. Currently this procedure assigns indi-
vidual sources to a specified category/level of uncertainty.
Accompanying a procedure to estimate uncertainty, is an
automated procedure to validate net-GHG estimates with
other independent estimates derived from data and mod-
els. This validation procedure has not yet been fully im-
plemented, but instead, has been conducted independently,
in part due to lack of sufficient farm-level GHG estimates
and associated breakdown of individual sources for cross-
validation. Here we implicitly include model sensitivity
analysis with the validation category. Two extensions as
modules or sub-models have been developed and used in
research, concurrent to the development of a second re-
lease version of the tool - a bio-energy and economic mod-
ule. The bio-energy module performs life-cycle accounting
(LCA) of biodiesel production from canola and soybean
energy crops, and couples with the main GHGFarm emis-
sion algorithms to estimate net-GHG emission and relative
GHG savings generated by the use of bio-fuel compared to
fossil fuel sources[27]. Production chains for ethanol from
corn, wheat, wheat ethanol, sugarbeet and biogas from ma-
nure methane and processing of residues are also modeled.
An economic module enables producers and extension per-
sonnel to determine the potential economic impacts and
costs of adopting effective GHG mitigation strategies at the
farm level and is currently adapted to cow-calf livestock en-
terprises in Alberta, Canada.
The GHGFarm’s software architecture consists of
three layers: persistence, ecosystem-logic and presenta-
tion (Figure 2). The persistence layer contains data-
bases and reference/’look-up’ tables specifying local cli-
mate (i.e., temperature, precipitation), soil type, emission
9
Figure 1. Overview of the GHGFarm emission model and
software tool, addressing multi-user requirements.
coefficients/factors, archived input and output for all model
scenario runs, and specific persistent user-flow directives
enabling the graphical user interface (hereafter, GUI) to
change to accommodate user preferences. The ecosystem-
logic layer contains the GHG emission model equations
and algorithmic linkage between them. This layer also
specifies leading variables for a series of default mitigation
scenarios a user can select and run to compare with their
model farm as a control. Users are also free to specify their
own scenarios by varying management control variables of
interest.
Within the presentation layer, is the core GUI consist-
ing of a set of windows that enables users to specify in-
formation on local climate, soil conditions, land-use, crop-
ping, livestock, manure, and on-farm energy use (e.g., trac-
tors, heating). The extension interface complements the
core interface by adapting it to user preferences, and pre-
senting graphical results of emissions from model farms
and scenarios with links to detailed information on the in-
dividual emission contributions, assumptions and values
selected/input by users during run-time, or obtained from
database tables.
3 Example Mitigation Scenario
An example of GHGFarm output results for four model
farms (control and three scenarios) is shown in Figure 4.
The farm control is that of a cow-calf farm located in the
Canadian Prairies in Western Canada consisting of 2000 ha
(80% cropland, 20% grassland/rangeland), 100 beef cows
with calves, and a 20 yr history of intensive tillage prac-
tice. Based on this control or benchmark farm, GHGFarm
calculates that emissions can potentially be reduced by up
to 153% by a series of mitigation practices: adopting no-
till practices, modifying fertilizer input levels by introduc-
ing legumes in rotation, and converting cropland to pas-

Figure 2. Primary user-related and logical flow steps within
three layers of the GHGFarm software architecture.
Figure 3. The core GUI provides a flexible, stream-lined
series of windows for users to specify the location of their
farm, local climate conditions, and information on land-
use, cropping, livestock, and manure handling, storage and
application.
10
ture. While GHGFarm has been developed specifically to
handle Canadian farms and conditions, further adaptation
would enable net-GHG estimates to be generated and com-
pared for a broader farm context and range of environmen-
tal conditions. For example, Olesen et al.[28,29] modeled
European conventional and organic dairy farms with a fixed
50 ha land area by varying livestock density and the rel-
ative amount of feed imported, with regional differences
expressed by varying milk yield, crop rotations, livestock
housing and manure management (this European model is
called ’FarmGHG’, not to be confused with the Canadian
model called ’GHGFarm’). Their modeling and scenario
results reveal nitrogen (N) use-efficiency as a leading op-
eration variable (and proxy) for estimating net-farm GHG
emission reduction; a doubling of N efficiency from 12.5
to 25% was found to reduce emissions by ca. 50%. In
their farm scenarios, net-GHG emission varied roughly be-
tween 3-16 Mg CO2eq ha−1 yr−1 under N fertilizer input
rates of 56-319 kgN ha−1 yr−1 , compared to the Canadian
cow-calf farm absolute reductions varying between 447-
850 Mg CO2eq ha−1 yr−1 and much lower N rates of 10-50
kgN ha−1 yr−1 alongside other mitigation practices.
Additional estimates for other mitigation scenarios
for dairy farms, the largest sources of agricultural GHG
emission in Europe, show net-GHG reductions of 3% ac-
companying manure application by direct injection into
soil, 13% by efficient lifetime scheduling of cows, 7% by
improved manure handling through the use of covered stor-
age, and 96% by use of an anaerobic digestion to process
wastes into biogas and used to substitute fossil fuel use on
the farm. Across all modeled farm, regional and country-
specific scenarios, net-GHG emission reductions of 25-
105% were discovered possible with multiply applied mit-
igation measures, comparable to 156% shown here for the
Canadian cow-calf farm with an additional conservative es-
timate of 25% possible, estimated from a range of estimates
obtained using the GHGFarm’s biodiesel model component
(see [27]). Gibbons et al.[30] have also recently developed
a model characterizing dairy and beef farms in northwest-
ern England, called ’farm-adapt’. This model includes esti-
mation of uncertainty by Monte-Carlo (MC) simulation us-
ing a triangular distribution for parameters and re-sampling
rate from these distributions of 1000. They identify three
primary sources of uncertainty: lack of fundamental un-
derstanding of biophysical systems, poor validation and
weather-induced variability. Corresponding to an absolute
emission level of 9 Mg CO2eq ha−1 yr−1 , MC simulations
for multiply applied mitigation measures yielded an over-
estimated mean and uncertainty range of 16%.
4 Discussion and Conclusion
Recent reviews identify, in general, a disappointing adop-
tion of decision-support systems targeting farmers, as
a special case of broader adoption and diffusion of
information technology (IT) and systems development
(ISD)[31,32,33]. Further exploration of human adoption

Figure 4. Example model output for a farm and three GHG
mitigation scenarios. The farm is characteristic of a Prairie
farm in Western Canada. Note that a reduction in fallow
would not apply to farms in Eastern Canada and are pro-
vided here for illustrative purposes only.
and non-adoption behaviour indicates a need for such tools
to address the feeling and thinking domain (see Kim et
al.[34]). Yet, the extension of specialist knowledge and sci-
entific understanding to address agricultural problems and
issues is still urgently needed given that many underlying
aspects of these systems are neither easily or typically as-
sessed in practice, such as precise defining of ecosystem
components, flows and heterogeneous features, reliable
characterization of an agricultural system’s initial, interme-
diate and final ecological ’state’, its sustainability condition
before management changes are introduced or as a conse-
quence of a sequence of changes being applied. Moreover,
the comprehensiveness of a model to suit all farm and en-
vironmental differences does not necessarily imply that ap-
plication of such a tool and its support of farming decisions
would be more reliable. Instead, more refined and transpar-
ent models and associated software tools whereby input-
output and cause-effect relationships are more tractable by
a given user, are required. Such a motivation or need is sep-
arate from a communication or deployment strategy for dif-
ferent users and levels of adoption (i.e., innovators, early-
adopters, late-adopters, laggards) and instead involves the
use of training sessions and targeting groups to help accel-
erate adoption efforts. Whether from a policy-maker, sci-
entist or producer perspective, models and software tools
must avoid becoming ’black-boxes’ and strive to maintain
transparency alongside flexibility and ease of use. Broad
feedback in developing GHGFarm followed an adaptive ap-
proach: a fairly lengthy and broad level of consultative,
communication and outreach to gather scientific informa-
tion and user-feedback that preceded a more traditional
staged software development process, aiming to solidify
11
characteristic needs and preferences of multiple users. In
this way, higher transparency of models/tools and flexibil-
ity in their application was found to be highly dependent
on the degree that they can be constructed and resolve a
multi-user stream/flow design, in addition to greater trans-
parency.
Validating net-GHG estimates from GHGFarm is also
still a challenge, given the scarcity of published whole-farm
estimates for a wide range of farm types, conditions and
practices. Yet, the ability of this tool to address ’what-
if’ questions and to generate scenarios for multiple mit-
igation measures and a wide variety of combinations of
such measures shows its potential for a broader role, ap-
plication and use. For example, GHGFarm could be used
to generate GHG reduction estimates for farms where es-
timates currently are not available or where measurement
and estimation knowledge, capacity and capability are too
costly to obtain or unreadily available. In this way, a multi-
stream software architecture and design bridges multi-user
perspectives and preferences to ensure the highest level of
transparency. Extensive sensitivity testing and quantifica-
tion of uncertainty are especially needed as they contribute
to our ability to interpret, compare and assess reliability in
model output, thereby further supporting its use and exten-
sion. Furthermore, other than general help guidelines for
users, there is currently no module which can help to un-
derstand and interpret the quantitative scenario results from
GHGFarm and should be considered in future versions of
the GHGFarm software tool.
International efforts aimed at establishing a consis-
tent modeling framework and software development strat-
egy (e.g., IPCC Tier-3 level assessment) that encom-
passes farm-level, regional and national differences will
likely be necessary for broad extension and adoption of
decision-support tools like GHGFarm. Moreover, a con-
sistent and reliable framework is also essential if farm-
level estimates from GHGFarm are to be verified and vali-
dated with other farm-level estimates worldwide or by up-
scaling/downscaling against national GHG inventory esti-
mates and regional indicators[35]. The GHGFarm emis-
sion model may also be decoupled from the existing soft-
ware tool and ’re-used’ to profile changes in GHG/trace gas
emission over time by coupling it with a dynamic ecosys-
tem model. An example of this approach is offered with a
simple dynamic model already formulated[36], and a more
comprehensive and sophisticated dynamic model, currently
in development[37].
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the ’Model Farm Program’,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The authors
acknowledge the helpful recommendations and discussion
with Dr. H. Henry Janzen and R.L. Desjardins as part of
collaborative development of the first-version of the GHG-
Farm software decision-support tool. We acknowledge sci-
entists who have contributed emission data and expert in-
terpretation for adapting IPCC default equations to Cana-
dian conditions: P. Rochette, R.L. Desjardins, M. Boehm,
R. Lemke, S.M. McGinn, D. Mass, E. Pattey, T. McAllister,
M. Bolinder, A.J. VandenBygaart, D.A. Angers, D. Gibb,
B.H. Ellert, W. Smith, J. Dyer, and H. Wang. We espe-
cially acknowledge B.L. Helgason and Kalvin D. Kroker
(Phoenix Engineering Inc, Chestermere, Alberta, Canada).
References
[1] S. Dogliotti, W.A.H. Rossing, M.K. van Ittersum, RO-
TAT, a tool for systematically generating crop rota-
tions, Europ. J. Agronomy, 19, 2003, 239-250.
[2] J.W. Jones, G. Hoodenboom, C.H. Porter, K.J. Boote,
W.D. Batchelor, L.A. Hunt, P.W. Wilkens, U. Singh,
A.J. Gijsman, J.T. Ritchie, the DSSAT cropping sys-
tem model, Europ. J. Agronomy, 18, 2003 235-265.
[3] F. Mazzetto and R. Bonera, MEACROS: a tool for
multi-criteria evaluation of alternative cropping sys-
tems, Europ. J. Agronomy, 18, 2003, 379-387.
[4] E. Thomson, J. Nolan, UNEForm: a powerful feed
formulation spreadsheet suitable for teaching or on-
farm formulation, Animal Feed Science and Technol-
ogy, 91, 2001, 233-240.
[5] R.M.T. Baars, C. Solano, M.T. Baayan, J. Rojas, L.T.
Mannetje, MIS support for pasture and nutrition man-
agement of dairy farms in tropical countries. Comput-
ers and Electronics in Agriculture, 15, 1996, 27-39.
[6] S.N. Lisson, L.E. Brennan, K.L. Bristow, B.A. Keat-
ing, D.A. Hughes, DAM EA$Y - software for assess-
ing the costs and benefits of on-farm water storage
based production systems, Agricultural Systems, 76,
2003, 19-38.
[7] J.F. Garcia-Quijano, G. Deckmyn, E. Moons, S.
Proost, R. Ceulemans, B. Muys, An integrated deci-
sion support framework for the prediction and eval-
uation of efficiency, environmental impact and to-
tal social cost of domestic and international forestry
projects for greenhouse gas mitigation: description
and case studies, Forest Ecology and Management,
207, 2005, 245-262.
[8] H. Neufeldt, M. Schaf̈er, E. Angenendt, C. Li,
M., Kaltschmitt, J. Zeddies, Disaggregated green-
house gas emission inventories from agriculture via
a coupled economic-ecosystem model, Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 112, 2006, 233-240.
[9] J.J. Stoorvogel, Integration of computer-based models
and tools to evaluate alternative land-use scenarios as
part of an agricultural systems analysis, Agricultural
Systems, 49, 1995, 353-367.
12
[10] M.A. Miller, M.E. Rister, L.A. Lippke, G.M. Perry,
M.A. Cochran, K. Cunningham, Applying operation
research methods to identify complex government
farm program participation decisions, Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 5, 1990, 31-45.
[11] D.J. Parsons and D.G. Randle, A message system to
integrate diverse programs and databases in a farm de-
cision support system, Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 8, 1993, 117-127.
[12] L. Gauthier and T. Neel, SAGE: An object-oriented
framework for the construction of farm decision-
support systems, Computers and Electronics in Agri-
culture, 16, 1996, 1-20.
[13] M.J. Shaffer and M.K. Brodahl, Rule-based manage-
ment for simulation in agricultural decision support
systems, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
21, 1998, 135-152.
[14] D.K. Lovett, L. Shalloo, P. Dillon, F.P. O’Mara, A sys-
tems approach to quantify greenhouse gas fluxes from
pastoral dairy production as affected by management
regime, Agricultural Systems, 88, 2006, 156-179.
[15] H. Flessa, R. Ruser, P. Dorsch, T. Kamp, M.A.
Jimenez, J.C. Munch and F. Beese, Integrated evalua-
tion of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 , CH4 , N2 O)
from two farming systems in southern Germany, Agri-
culture, Ecosystems and Environment, 91, 2002, 175-
189.
[16] C. Li, T.A. Frolking, A model of nitrous oxide evo-
lution from soil driven by rainfall events: I. Model
structure and sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res. 97 (D9),
1992, 9759-9776.
[17] Y. Zhang, C. Li, X. Zhou, B. Moore III, A simulation
model linking crop growth and soil biogeochemistry
for sustainable agriculture. Ecological Modeling, 151,
2002, 75-108.
[18] R.L. McCown, Z. Hochman, P.S. Carberry, In search
of effective simulation-based intervention in farm
management, p. 232-238 In: Proceeedings of the
international congress on modeling and simulation
(MODSIM05) ”Advances and Applications for Man-
agement and Decision Making”, A. Zerger and R. M.
Argent (eds.) Melbourne, 12-15 December 2005.
[19] V.R. Cabrera, N.E. Breuer, P.E. Hildebrand and D.
Letson, Florida dairy farm model: a user friendly
computerized tool for increased profits while mini-
mizing N leaching under varying climatic conditions,
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49, 2005,
286-308.
[20] J. Berntsen, B.M. Peterson, B.H. Jacobsen, J.E. Ole-
sen and N.J. Hutchings, Evaluating nitrogen taxation
scenarios using the dynamic whole farm simulation
 model FASSET, Agricultural Systems, 76, 2003, 817-
839.
[21] H. Meinke, W.E. Baethgen, P.S. Carberry, M. Do-
natelli, G.L. Hammer, R. Selvaraju, C.O. Stockle, In-
creasing profits and reducing risks in crop production
using participatory systems simulation approaches,
Agricultural Systems, 70, 2001, 493-513.
[22] EC (Environment Canada), National Inventory Re-
port, Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada
1990-2004. Ottawa, April 2006. 451pp.
[23] J. Segal, When software engineers met research sci-
entists: a case study, Empirical Software Engineering,
10, 2005, 517-536.
[24] J.T. Houghton, L.G.M. Filho, B. Lim, K. Treanton, I.
Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D.J. Griggs and B.A. Callender,
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Green-
house Gas Inventories (London: Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, 1997).
[25] J. Penman, D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B.
Nyenzi, S. Emmanual, L. Buendia, R. Hoppaus, T.
Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa and K. Tanabe, Good
Practice Guidelines and Uncertainty Management in
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (London: In-
tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
2001).
[31] M.W. Wakefield, J.W. King, A trend analysis of com-
puting in agricultural extension, Computers and Elec-
tronics in Agriculture, 11, 1994, 239-248.
[32] J.C. Ascough II, D.L. Hoag, W.M. Frasier, G.S. Mc-
Master, Computer use in agriculture: an analysis of
Great Plains producers, Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 23, 1999, 189-204.
[33] ] R.L. McCown, Changing systems for support-
ing farmers’ decisions: problems, paradigms, and
prospects, Agricultural Systems, 74, 2002, 179-220.
[34] H.-W. Kim, H.C. Chan, Y.P. Chan, A balanced
thinking-feelings model of information systems con-
tinuance, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 65, 2007,
511-525.
[35] N. Halberg, G. Vershuur and G. Goodlass, Farm
level environmental indicators; are they useful? An
overview of green accounting systems for European
farms, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
105, 2005, 195-212.
[36] N.K. Newlands, F.J. Foyle, L.L. Yang and H.H.
Janzen, A dynamic ecosystem model to estimate and
predict farm-scale greenhouse gas emissions under
different mitigation strategies, International Transac-
tions in Operations Research, Submitted.

[26] H.H. Janzen, M. Boehm, R.L. Desjardins, P. Rochette, [37] N.K. Newlands, Modeling agroecosystems as com-
D.A. Angers, M. Bolinder, J. Dyer, B.H. Ellert, D. plex, dynamic systems, Proceedings of the Canadian
Gibb, E.G. Gregorich, B.L. Helgason, R. Lemke, S.M. Society for Bioengineering (CSBE/SCGAB) 2006 An-
McGinn, T. McAllister, N.K. Newlands, E. Pattey, nual Conference, Edmonton, AB, July 16-19, 2006,
W. Smith, A.J. VandenBygaart and H. Wang, A pro- No. 06-300, 1-9.
posed approach to estimate and reduce net greenhouse
gas emissions from whole farms, Canadian Journal of
Soil Science, 1(4), 2006, 1-17.
[27] N.K. Newlands, F.J. Foyle and L.L. Yang, Potential
net reductions in farm greenhouse gas emissions from
bioenergy production in Canada, Computers in Agri-
culture and Natural Resources, Proceedings of the 4th
World Congress, 2006, 111-121.
[28] J.E. Olesen, K. Schelde, A. Weiske, M.R. Weisbjerg,
W.A.H. Asmam and J. Djurhuus, Modelling green-
house has emissions from European conventional and
organic dairy farms, Agriculture, Ecosystems and En-
vironment, 112(2-3), 2006, 207-220.
[29] A. Weiske, A. Vabitsch, J.E. Olesen, K. Schelda, J.
Michel, R. Friedrich, M. Kaltschmitt, Mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions in European conventional
and organic dairy farming, Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, 112, 2006, 221-232.
[30] J.M. Gibbons, S.J. Ramsden, A. Blake, Modelling un-
certainty in greenhouse gas emissions from UK agri-
culture at the farm level. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 112, 2006, 347-355.

13