| Records |
Author  |
Ventrella, D.; Giglio, L.; Charfeddine, M. |
| Title |
Climate change and nitrogen fertilization for winter durum wheat and tomato cultivated in Southern Italy |
Type |
Conference Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
CropM |
| Abstract |
|
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
18th Nitrogen Workshop. The nitrogen challenge: building a blueprint for nitrogen use efficiency and food security, 2014-06-30 to 2014-07-03 |
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2878 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Vitali, A.; Lana, E.; Amadori, M.; Bernabucci, U.; Nardone, A.; Lacetera, N. |
| Title |
Analysis of factors associated with mortality of heavy slaughter pigs during transport and lairage |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Journal of Animal Science |
Abbreviated Journal |
J. Anim. Sci. |
| Volume |
92 |
Issue |
11 |
Pages |
5134-5141 |
| Keywords |
Abattoirs/*statistics & numerical data; Animals; *Data Interpretation, Statistical; Humidity/adverse effects; Light/adverse effects; *Mortality; Retrospective Studies; Seasons; Swine/*physiology; Temperature; Time Factors; Transportation/*statistics & numerical data; lairage; mortality; pigs; temperature-humidity index; transport |
| Abstract |
The study was based on data collected during 5 yr (2003-2007) and was aimed at assessing the effects of the month, slaughter house of destination (differing for stocking density, openings, brightness, and cooling device types), length of the journey, and temperature-humidity index (THI) on mortality of heavy slaughter pigs (approximately 160 kg live weight) during transport and lairage. Data were obtained from 24,098 journeys and 3,676,153 pigs transported from 1,618 farms to 3 slaughter houses. Individual shipments were the unit of observation. The terms dead on arrival (DOA) and dead in pen (DIP) refer to pigs that died during transport and in lairage at the abattoir before slaughtering, respectively. These 2 variables were assessed as the dependent counts in separate univariate Poisson regressions. The independent variables assessed univariately in each set of regressions were month of shipment, slaughter house of destination, time traveled, and each combination of the month with the time traveled. Two separate piecewise regressions were done. One used DOA counts within THI levels over pigs transported as a dependent ratio and the second used DIP counts within THI levels over pigs from a transport kept in lairage as a dependent ratio. The THI was the sole independent variable in each case. The month with the greatest frequency of deaths was July with a risk ratio of 1.22 (confidence interval: 1.06-1.36; P < 0.05) and 1.27 (confidence interval: 1.06-1.51; P < 0.05) for DOA and DIP, respectively. The lower mortality risk ratios for DOA and DIP were recorded for January and March (P < 0.05). The aggregated data of the summer (June, July, and August) versus non-summer (January, March, September, and November) months showed a greater risk of pigs dying during the hot season when considering both transport and lairage (P < 0.05). The mortality risk ratio of DIP was lower at the slaughter house with the lowest stocking density (0.64 m(2)/100 kg live weight), large open windows on the roof and sidewalls, low brightness (40 lx) lights, and high-pressure sprinklers as cooling devices. The mortality risk ratio of DOA increased significantly for journeys longer than 2 h, whereas no relationship was found between length of transport and DIP. The piecewise analysis pointed out that 78.5 and 73.6 THI were the thresholds above which the mortality rate increased significantly for DOA and DIP, respectively. These results may help the pig industry to improve the welfare of heavy slaughter pigs during transport and lairage. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1525-3163 (Electronic) 0021-8812 (Linking) |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4641 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
von Lampe, M.; Willenbockel, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Cai, Y.; Calvin, K.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; Nelson, G.C.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Valin, H.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; van Meijl, H. |
| Title |
Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
| Volume |
45 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
3-3 |
| Keywords |
Computable general equilibrium; Partial equilibrium; Meta-analysis; Socioeconomic pathway; Climate change; Bioenergy; Land use; Model; intercomparison; land-use change; food demand; crop productivity; climate-change; future |
| Abstract |
Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales. |
| Address |
2016-10-31 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4822 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Wallach, D.; Mearns, L.O.; Asseng, S.; Rötter, R.P. |
| Title |
Using ensembles of models in climate and crop modelling |
Type |
Conference Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
CropM |
| Abstract |
|
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
XIII ESA congress, Debrecen, Hungary, 2014-08-25 to 2014-08-29 |
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2893 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Wallach, D.; Rivington, M. |
| Title |
A framework for assessing the uncertainty in crop model predictions |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
3 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
D-C4.1.2 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
It is of major importance in modeling to understand and quantify the uncertainty in model predictions, both in order to know how much confidence to have in those predictions, and as a first step toward model improvement. Here we show that there are basically three different approaches to evaluating uncertainty, and we explain the advantages and drawbacks of each. This is a necessary first step toward developing protocols for evaluation of uncertainty and so obtaining a clearer picture of the reliability of crop models. No Label |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2231 |
| Permanent link to this record |
