|
|
Irz, X., & Kuosmanen, N. (2013). Explaining growth in demand for dairy products in Finland: an econometric analysis. Food Economics, 9(sup5), 47–56.
Abstract: The dairy sector represents the cornerstone of Finnish agriculture but faces new challenges linked to the decoupling of farm subsidies and abolition of milk production quotas. Because of its increasing exposure to market forces, the sector must anticipate future changes in demand and deliver precisely what Finnish consumers want. This paper contributes to that goal by analyzing retroactively the drivers of demand for dairy products over the period 1975–2010 using National Accounts Data. After presenting the evolution of consumption for dairy products, we estimate a complete system of demand for food and dairy products and use it to decompose demand growth into a substitution effect, income effect, and trend effect. The analysis points to the severity of the challenges that the sector is facing. Stagnant consumption is at least partially the result of continuous but adverse taste changes, and as Finnish consumers grow more prosperous, they allocate an increasingly smaller share of their food budget to the dairy group. The low own-price elasticity of demand for dairy products also limits the benefits to the sector of growth in milk production. Hence, business-as-usual will result in the dwindling importance of the dairy sector in the Finnish food chain. Innovation and product differentiation, perhaps emphasizing the attributes of livestock production processes, are clearly required to counter this evolution.
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2015). Variability of effects of spatial climate data aggregation on regional yield simulation by crop models. Clim. Res., 65, 53–69.
Abstract: Field-scale crop models are often applied at spatial resolutions coarser than that of the arable field. However, little is known about the response of the models to spatially aggregated climate input data and why these responses can differ across models. Depending on the model, regional yield estimates from large-scale simulations may be biased, compared to simulations with high-resolution input data. We evaluated this so-called aggregation effect for 13 crop models for the region of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. The models were supplied with climate data of 1 km resolution and spatial aggregates of up to 100 km resolution raster. The models were used with 2 crops (winter wheat and silage maize) and 3 production situations (potential, water-limited and nitrogen-water-limited growth) to improve the understanding of errors in model simulations related to data aggregation and possible interactions with the model structure. The most important climate variables identified in determining the model-specific input data aggregation on simulated yields were mainly related to changes in radiation (wheat) and temperature (maize). Additionally, aggregation effects were systematic, regardless of the extent of the effect. Climate input data aggregation changed the mean simulated regional yield by up to 0.2 t ha(-1), whereas simulated yields from single years and models differed considerably, depending on the data aggregation. This implies that large-scale crop yield simulations are robust against climate data aggregation. However, large-scale simulations can be systematically biased when being evaluated at higher temporal or spatial resolution depending on the model and its parameterization.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Asseng, S., Bindi, M., Biernath, C., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS One, 11(4), e0151782.
Abstract: We show the error in water-limited yields simulated by crop models which is associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate input data. Crop simulations at large scales (regional, national, continental) frequently use input data of low resolution. Therefore, climate and soil data are often generated via averaging and sampling by area majority. This may bias simulated yields at large scales, varying largely across models. Thus, we evaluated the error associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate data for 14 crop models. Yields of winter wheat and silage maize were simulated under water-limited production conditions. We calculated this error from crop yields simulated at spatial resolutions from 1 to 100 km for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Most models showed yields biased by <15% when aggregating only soil data. The relative mean absolute error (rMAE) of most models using aggregated soil data was in the range or larger than the inter-annual or inter-model variability in yields. This error increased further when both climate and soil data were aggregated. Distinct error patterns indicate that the rMAE may be estimated from few soil variables. Illustrating the range of these aggregation effects across models, this study is a first step towards an ex-ante assessment of aggregation errors in large-scale simulations.
|
|
|
|
Helming, K., Diehl, K., Geneletti, D., & Wiggering, H. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 82–87.
Abstract: The concept of ecosystem services as developed for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is currently the most extensive, international, scientific concept dealing with the interaction between the world’s ecosystems and human well-being. The fundamental asset is seen in the relevancy of the concept at the science–policy interface. Albeit, the mainstreaming of ecosystem services into policy making requires a framework that allows the transition of the scientific concept into the rationale of policy making. We hypothesize that the procedure of policy impact assessment is a suitable venue for this transition. This brings up two questions: 1) where in the process of policy impact assessment can ecosystem services be mainstreamed? 2) How can the impact on ecosystem services properly be accounted for? In this paper we distinguish two groups of policy cases: explicit cases directly addressing ecosystem services, and implicit cases of policies that follow other purposes but may have unintended impacts on ecosystem services as a side effect. The second group covers a wide range of policies for which we set out a framework for mainstreaming of ecosystem services. The framework is exemplary designed for the instrument of ex-ante impact assessment at European policy making level. We reveal that the two concepts of the MA and of the European policy impact assessment are indeed compatible, which makes the integration of the ecosystem service concept possible. We conclude that the linkage of the scientifically validated concept of ecosystem services with the policy concept of impact assessment has the potential of improving the credibility of the latter.
|
|
