Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- the_complete_and_consistent_data_base_coco_for_the_national_scale [2020/02/13 09:44] – [COCO2: Final completions] matsz
+++ the_complete_and_consistent_data_base_coco_for_the_national_scale [2020/02/25 07:58] – [COCO1 Estimation procedure] matsz
@@ Line 329: / Line 329: @@
 \end{split}
 \end{align}
 \begin{align*}
 \begin{split}
-&\text {s.t.}\\
+&  \text {s.t.}\\
 &y_{i,t}^{LO}<y_{i,t}<y_{i,t}^{UP}\\
 &\text {Accounting identities defined on} y_{i,t}\\
 &\text {Identity of land use from different sources}
 \end{split}
 \end{align*}
 where //i// represents the index of the elements to estimate (crop production activities or groups, herd sizes etc.), //t// stands for the year, wgtx are weights attached to the different parts of the objective (\(wgt^{dat} = wgt^{hp} = 10, wgt^{ini} = 1, wgt^{up} = wgt^{lo} = 100)\), and
@@ Line 715: / Line 713: @@
   * Kirchgessner Tierernährng, 7th edition,  1987
   * CAPRI working paper 97-12 ([[http://www.ilr.uni-bonn.de/agpo/publ/workpap/pap97-12.pdf]])
+These functions are one the one hand quite complex. They are composed of various parts that finally give the requirements, for example for energy, as a function of various parameters that may be specific to the region (often the final weights, process length, daily growth) or uniform across regions (carcass ratio). In spite of several components these are typically linked in a straightforward fashion as will be illustrated with a relatively easy example (energy for maintenance of heifers for fattening).
+As a starting point, the daily growth from COCO is forced into the range defined in //‘feed_decl.gms’//. At the same time regions with a stocking rate above the MS average are assumed to rely on more intensive technologies, such that their daily growth is also above average (but within the range [\(DAILY_{lo},DAILY_{up}\)]). This is irrelevant in COCO (r=MS, no subnational regions) but relevant for CAPREG and CAPMOD calling the same //‘req_or_man_fnc.gms’//:
+\begin{align}
+\begin{split}
+&dailyIncrease_r^{HEIF}\\
+&= min [DAILY_{up}^{HEIF},max(DAILY_{lo}^{HEIF},\frac {stockingrate_r} {stockingrate_{MS}} DAILY_{MS}^{HEIF})]
+\end{split}
+\end{align}
+The daily increase is then used to determine the process length (rearrangement of equation below with empty days EDAYS = 0)
+\begin{align}
+\begin{split}
+&fatngday_r^{HEIF}\\
+&= min [DAYS_{up}^{HEIF},max\{DAYS_{lo}^{HEIF},\\
+& \quad (BEEF_r^{HEIF}/carcassSh_{HEIF}-startWgt_{HEIF})/dailyIncrease_r^{HEIF}\}]
+\end{split}
+\end{align}
+The daily increase and process length may be conbined to estimate the mean live weight,
+\begin{equation}
+meanWgt_r^{HEIF}=startWgt_{HEIF}+\frac {dailyIncrease_r^{HEIF}\cdot fatngdays_r^{HEIF}} 2
+\end{equation}
+which in turn is the last information to estimate energy requirements for maintenance according to the IPCC guidelines:
+\begin{equation}
+NEM_r^{HEIF}=(meanWgt_{HEIF})^{0.75}\cdot 0.322 \cdot fatngdays_r^{HEIF}
+\end{equation}
+Other energy requirements (for growth and activity) are calculated in a similar fashion as well as those for other animals. Important aspects to note are
+  * Fixed bounds for DAYS and DAILY ensure reasonable requirements, but require that the same constraints are anticipated in COCO and CAPREG to avoid inconsistencies.
+  * Regional coefficients are derived from the MS level information
+**Include file //‘coco2_gras.gms’//**
+With animal requirements specified the results of COCO1 for grass, other fodder and as a last resort cereals might be revised in terms of losses on farm to achieve an acceptable relationship of energy and protein requirements of total herds compared to the intake with feed. For gras and other fodder on arable land the contents may be adjusted in certain limits as well. The corrections do not eliminate the typical oversupply of nutrients compared to the requirements based on the literature, but they should give reasonable starting values for the feed allocation addressed in module CAPREG.
+===Compare COCO1 results with UNFCCC and compute correction factors in coco2_lulufc_carbon===
+In COCO1, an assignment of LULUCF effects (totals and per ha) has taken place, mostly relying on IPCC coefficients. These assignments are compared in coco2_lulucf_carbon with the reportings from EU MS to UNFCCC. For forestry and any transitions involving forestry, the standard IPCC reporting appears rather coarse, as it implies, for example, that management of forest land remaining forest has zero carbon effects. By contrast most EU countries report that there is still a considerable gain in biomass from forest management because the forests have not yet achieved a stable state (as implied by IPCC standard methodology).
+To pick up the detailed knowledge of management practices, disturbances, age and species structure embededed in the country level UNFCCC reporting the forest management coefficients per ha for the remaining class (FORFOR) have been already adopted in COCO1. Here we also compute correction factors for the default per ha effects from transitions involving forestry. These are ultimately stored on the data(.) array unloaded in the main result file to be used in LULUCF accounting of CAPMOD.
+===Complete prices for vegetable oil in coco2_oil_price===
+The EU prices for vegetable oils relevant for biofuel processing functions are assigned using prices from a USDA source. These assignments refer to prices at the wholesale level (relevant for the processing industry), not to consumer prices which have been determined previously.
+After this last include file the completions in module COCO2 are finished and the main output file (coco2_output.gdx) is unloaded. This file is loaded in subsequent modules (main use in CAPREG, but also in CAPTRD for nowcasting and in CAPMOD for update of LULUCF coefficients).