ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Sustain.
Sec. Modeling and Optimization for Decision Support
Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frsus.2025.1561453
This article is part of the Research TopicTransdisciplinary Engineering for Sustainability DecisionsView all 4 articles
Transdisciplinary Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) in the development of the Ruminant Farm Systems (RuFaS) model
Provisionally accepted- 1Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States
- 2U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, Agricultural Research Service (USDA), Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
This study adopts a transdisciplinary model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach to support the development of the Ruminant Farm Systems (RuFaS) model, an advanced on-farm decision support tool. Using the cloud-based MBSE platform Innoslate (SPEC Innovations, Manassas, VA), we identified key stakeholders, constructed use cases, defined system boundaries, refined stakeholder requirements, and outlined the system architecture and subsystem interfaces for RuFaS. To demonstrate RuFaS's ability to meet stakeholder requirements, we selected a specific use case focused on comparing whole farm impacts across different manure management scenarios. For the current case, we defined 12 scenarios from 4 manure management strategies and 3 diet-climate conditions based on U.S. regions. The scenarios included two bedding types (sawdust vs. sand), two storage methods (anaerobic digestion with lagoon (ADL) vs. slurry storage (SS)), and three regions (R1, R2, R3). RuFaS predictions were responsive to changes in scenario conditions, with whole farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ranging from 1.23 ± 4.64 × 10 -3 to 1.61 ± 9.45 × 10 -3 kg CO2-eq/kg fat-and protein-corrected milk (FPCM). Regional variations influenced whole herd enteric CH4 intensity, with R2 scenarios showing the highest emissions (0.472 ± 3.65 × 10 -3 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM), followed by R1 (0.458 ± 4.19 × 10 -3 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM) and R3 (0.449 ± 3.45 × 10 - 3 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM), driven by differences in dry matter intake, and milk production and composition. Manure storage methods also impacted emissions, with ADL scenarios producing 0.146 kg CO2-eq/kg FPCM lower whole farm GHG emissions than SS scenarios, due to the combined effects of reduced manure storage CH4 emissions associated with anaerobic digestion and associated increased NH3 emissions and subsequent indirect N2O emissions. These findings highlight the complex interactions among RuFaS model components and confirm its ability to support effective comparisons of manure management practices to meet specific stakeholder needs. Our transdisciplinary MBSE approach provides a robust framework for ongoing RuFaS evaluation, ensuring alignment with stakeholder requirements. This study represents a pioneering milestone in the application of MBSE to agricultural system model development, highlighting its potential to advance decision-making in sustainable dairy farm management.
Keywords: Model-based systems engineering, Transdisciplinary Engineering, sustainability, Dairy, manure management, RuFaS
Received: 15 Jan 2025; Accepted: 22 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Hu, Whitcomb, Ploetz and Reed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Haowen Hu, Cornell University, Ithaca, 14853, New York, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.