|
|
Köchy, M. (2015). FACCE MACSUR Joint Workshops 2015 (Vol. 7).
Abstract: FACCE MACSUR comprises many different groups whose work contribute to improving the European capacity of modelling agriculture with climate change and providing an assessment of these impacts for stakeholders. Some groups work on methodological issues in a single discipline, others work on cross-disciplinary concepts. The meeting provided an opportunity for the members of the groups to meet for intensive discussions and exchange of ideas, which is not as easily done in phone or video conferences. Various groups also met with each other to agree on work plans and common settings for research. Overall, 105 researchers attended the workshops. For coordinating work with the global program AgMIP, AgMIP’s principle investigator John Antle attended the meeting and, meeting in a video call, coordination teams of MACSUR and AgMIP agreed to continue the successful collaboration in the future. Major overarching outcomes of the meetings were agreements on policy and climate scenarios recommended to be used within MACSUR, development of an approach to quantify effects of extreme climatic events on socio-economic indicators, and closer collaboration among several groups at the level of regional case studies.
|
|
|
|
Sinabell, F. (2016). Adaptation to climate change in the European agriculture: A new tool for explicit cost accounting (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: farm structure in Austria and level of educationchallenges of more volatile markets / more uncertain yieldsmore uncertainty about revenues and costsspecialisation and liquidity problems – not alleviated by EU direct paymentspolitical measures: late, uncertain, no legal title, wrong incentivestax credits – not relevant in Austria for most farmsprice hedging instruments steep learning curve and intransparent marketsmost frequently used: service of buying co-operatives control of accumulation risksdetails of contract are attractive for farmerse.g. monthly benefits for milk producersbenefits at the time of sale for pig, piglet, grain producerscombination with production risk insurance with discountsgovernment support during introduction period / as a new policy instrumentmarketing and sales: wholesale buyers / dairies / producer organisations offer margin insurance as a service
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. (2015). A comparison of farm-scale models to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms in Europe (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Farm-scale models quantify the cycling of nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) so are powerful tools for assessing the impact of management-related decisions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially on dairy cattle farms, where the internal cycling is particularly important. Farm models range in focus (economic, environmental) and the detail with which they represent C and N cycling. We compared four models from this range in terms of on-farm production and emissions of GHGs, using standardized scenarios. The models compared were SFarMod, DairyWise, FarmAC and HolosNor. The scenarios compared were based on two soil types (sandy clay versus heavy clay), two roughage systems (grass only versus grass and maize), and two climate types (Eindhoven versus Santander). Standard farm characteristics were; area (50 ha), milk yield (7000 kg/head/year), fertiliser (275 kg N and 150 kg N/ha/year for grass and maize, respectively). Potential yields for grass 10t dry matter (DM)/ha/year in both areas, maize 14 t DM/ha/ year in Eindhoven and 18t DM/ha/ year in Santander. The import of animal feed and the export/import manure and forages was minimized. Similar total farm direct GHG emissions for all models disguised a variation between models in the contribution of the different on-farm sources. There were large differences between models in the predictions of indirect GHG emission from nitrate leaching. Results could be explained by differences between models in the assumptions made and detail with which underlying processes were represented. We conclude that the choice of an appropriate farm model is highly dependent upon the role it should play and the context within which it will operate, so the current diversity of farm models will continue into the future. No Label
|
|
|
|
Lehtonen, H. (2015). Pilot study at North Savo region (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Feed crop cultivation dominates land use in North Savo region where the value of dairy milk and beef production is approx. 70 % of the total value of agricultural production. Grass silage is produced on cultivated grasslands through grass-cereal rotations. There are restricted or no markets for silage. Dairy and beef farms, directly dependent on the quantity and quality of silage, are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions. Long-term viability of farming is dependent on the long-term productivity development of feed crop production, and ability to cope with adverse weather conditions, affecting both quality and quantity of feed. Adaptation challenges include more frequent wet and dry conditions, increased pest and disease pressure, and overwintering problems, affecting quantity and quality of grass and cereals harvests. More frequent wet conditions are combined with larger farm size, higher axle loads of heavy machinery, increased risk of soil compaction, and high timeliness costs due to rapidly deteriorating feed quality if not harvested at the right time. Some solutions impose new investments and high costs. Results from bio-physical modeling show a clear need for new cultivars better suited in future climate. Various other solutions discussed with the farmers and extension specialists include improved maintenance of drainage and soil structure, to be promoted by crop rotation, soil improvements such as liming, as well as better crop protection. However, higher grass yields may be realized without considerably increased inter-annual yield variability. Needed long-term investments may thus lead to increased productivity under favorable market and policy conditions. No Label
|
|
|
|
Smith, P. (2015). Addressing the joint challenges of climate change and food security (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Feeding 9–10 billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. While supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5–15.6 Gt CO2-eq. yr-1) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5–4.3 Gt CO2-eq. yr-1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO2-eq. yr-1), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focusing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to co-deliver to other policy agendas, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. No Label
|
|
