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

Abstract: It is a widely held belief (IPCC) that climate change bringsmore risks to the worldI Since the start of MACSUR, TradeM has had risk on theagenda, but few results have so far come out. It has beenclaimed though, that there is no evidence for more risk in theglobal wheat market (Steen and Gjølberg 2014) (TradeMworkshop at Hurdalssjøen)I I have myself had the ambition of creating a dynamicstochastic model of the food system in which risk would be anintegral part, but time has been too shortI I have also pointed to methods from finance to reveal insights,and that is the road to be followed here, guided by Bølviken &Benth (2000) Buyer’s risk larger than seller’s risk — due to asymmetricdistribution of returns. Large price jumps are more likely thanequally sized price falls.I Long term positions much more risky than short term ones —as expectedI Agricultural commodities much less risky than crude oilI Price risk are related to volatility, and their changes over timewill have similar causal explanationsI Risks of producers and consumers of agricultural commoditieswill to some extent be related to the price risk, and also totheir portfolios and the co-variance between returns

Abstract: A requirement for successful integration of soil, crop and economic models is a relevant interface of the three. Economic farming models deal with choice of crops, crop management during growing season and stock management after harvest. With detailed daily weather information the state of the soil might be simulated so that a suitable sowing date can be estimated. Moreover with rational beliefs with respect to future crop prices, and with a crop model which responds to management, the management during the growing season might be optimized with respect to choice of cultivar, fertilization and irrigation. So far, as reflected by Müller and Robertson (2014), predictions of future crop yields according to crop models take only to small extent such farmer responses into account, and might therefore overestimate the responses of crop harvests to climate.Comparison of soil, crop and economic simulations with observed weather and crop outcomes might lead to estimation/calibration of unobserved parameters in all models. Such exercises need generic soil, crop and economic models which do not leave modelling outcomes to the crop modeller’s or economist’s discretion. No Label