TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing different statistical models for predicting greenhouse gas emissions, energy-, and nitrogen intensity
AU - Hansen, Kristian Nikolai Jæger
AU - Steinshamn, Håvard
AU - Hansen, Sissel
AU - Koesling, Matthias
AU - Dalgaard, Tommy
AU - Hansen, Bjørn Gunnar
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - To evaluate the environmental impact across multiple dairy farms cost-effectively, the methodological framework for environmental assessments may be redefined. This article aims to assess the ability of various statistical tools to predict impact assessment made from a Life Cyle Assessment (LCA). The different models predicted estimates of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, Energy (E) and Nitrogen (N) intensity. The functional unit in the study was defined as 2.78 MJMM human-edible energy from milk and meat. This amount is equivalent to the edible energy in one kg of energy-corrected milk but includes energy from milk and meat. The GHG emissions (GWP100) were calculated as kg CO2-eq per number of FU delivered, E intensity as fossil and renewable energy used divided by number of FU delivered, and N intensity as kg N imported and produced divided by kg N delivered in milk or meat (kg N/kg N). These predictions were based on 24 independent variables describing farm characteristics, management, use of external inputs, and dairy herd characteristics. All models were able to moderately estimate the results from the LCA calculations. However, their precision was low. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was best for predicting GHG emissions on the test dataset, (RMSE = 0.50, R2 = 0.86), followed by Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) (RMSE = 0.68, R2 = 0.74). For E intensity, the Supported Vector Machine (SVM) model was performing best, (RMSE = 0.68, R2 = 0.73), followed by ANN (RMSE = 0.55, R2 = 0.71,) and Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) (RMSE = 0.55, R2 = 0.71). For N intensity predictions the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) (RMSE = 0.36, R2 = 0.89) and Lasso regression (RMSE = 0.36, R2 = 0.88), followed by the ANN (RMSE = 0.41, R2 = 0.86,). In this study, machine learning provided some benefits in prediction of GHG emission, over simpler models like Multiple Linear Regressions with backward selection. This benefit was limited for N and E intensity. The precision of predictions improved most when including the variables “fertiliser import nitrogen” (kg N/ha) and “proportion of milking cows” (number of dairy cows/number of all cattle) for predicting GHG emission across the different models. The inclusion of “fertiliser import nitrogen” was also important across the different models and prediction of E and N intensity.
AB - To evaluate the environmental impact across multiple dairy farms cost-effectively, the methodological framework for environmental assessments may be redefined. This article aims to assess the ability of various statistical tools to predict impact assessment made from a Life Cyle Assessment (LCA). The different models predicted estimates of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, Energy (E) and Nitrogen (N) intensity. The functional unit in the study was defined as 2.78 MJMM human-edible energy from milk and meat. This amount is equivalent to the edible energy in one kg of energy-corrected milk but includes energy from milk and meat. The GHG emissions (GWP100) were calculated as kg CO2-eq per number of FU delivered, E intensity as fossil and renewable energy used divided by number of FU delivered, and N intensity as kg N imported and produced divided by kg N delivered in milk or meat (kg N/kg N). These predictions were based on 24 independent variables describing farm characteristics, management, use of external inputs, and dairy herd characteristics. All models were able to moderately estimate the results from the LCA calculations. However, their precision was low. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was best for predicting GHG emissions on the test dataset, (RMSE = 0.50, R2 = 0.86), followed by Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) (RMSE = 0.68, R2 = 0.74). For E intensity, the Supported Vector Machine (SVM) model was performing best, (RMSE = 0.68, R2 = 0.73), followed by ANN (RMSE = 0.55, R2 = 0.71,) and Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) (RMSE = 0.55, R2 = 0.71). For N intensity predictions the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) (RMSE = 0.36, R2 = 0.89) and Lasso regression (RMSE = 0.36, R2 = 0.88), followed by the ANN (RMSE = 0.41, R2 = 0.86,). In this study, machine learning provided some benefits in prediction of GHG emission, over simpler models like Multiple Linear Regressions with backward selection. This benefit was limited for N and E intensity. The precision of predictions improved most when including the variables “fertiliser import nitrogen” (kg N/ha) and “proportion of milking cows” (number of dairy cows/number of all cattle) for predicting GHG emission across the different models. The inclusion of “fertiliser import nitrogen” was also important across the different models and prediction of E and N intensity.
KW - Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
KW - Extreme Gradient Boosting Machine (XGBOOST)
KW - Gradient boosting machine (GBM)
KW - Lasso Regression
KW - Machine learning
KW - Multiple Linear Regression with backward selection
KW - Support Vector Machines (SVM)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105000162862&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.compag.2025.110209
DO - 10.1016/j.compag.2025.110209
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:105000162862
SN - 0168-1699
VL - 234
JO - Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
JF - Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
M1 - 110209
ER -