|
|
Lotze-Campen, H., von Witzke, H., Noleppa, S., & Schwarz, G. (2015). Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany. Agric. Syst., 136, 79–84.
Abstract: Highlights • We analyze the economic effects of plant breeding research in Germany. • Effects of reduced CO2 emissions due to productivity increases are being quantified. • Expansion of global agricultural area has been reduced by 1–1.5 million ha. • CO2 emissions have been reduced by 160–235 million tons. • German plant breeding research has an economic value of 10.8–15.6 billion EUR. Abstract We analyze the economic effects of plant breeding research in Germany. In addition to market effects, for the first time also effects of reduced CO2 emissions due to productivity increases are being quantified. The analysis shows that investments in German plant breeding research in the period 1991–2010 have reduced the global expansion of agricultural area by 1–1.5 million hectares. This has led to reduced CO2 emissions of 160–235 million tons. The economic value generated by plant breeding research, through increased production and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, is estimated at 10.8–15.6 billion EUR in the same period. This can be translated into a social rate of return on research investment in the range of 40–80% per year. Projections for the period 2011–2030 generate a return rate in the range of 65–140% per year. Investments into plant breeding research in Germany are highly profitable from a societal point of view. At the same time, our results show significant under-investments in agricultural research in Germany. These results provide a good justification for policy-makers to reverse funding cuts for public agricultural research over the last decades and to improve institutional conditions for private research, e.g. through better protection of intellectual property rights.
|
|
|
|
Kebreab, E., Tedeschi, L., Dijkstra, J., Ellis, J. L., Bannink, A., & France, J. (2016). Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enteric Fermentation. In E. Kebreab (Ed.), Advances in Agricultural Systems (Vol. 6, pp. 173–196). Synthesis and Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Storage in Agricultural and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and Adaptation, Advances in Agricultural Systems (6).
Abstract: Livestock directly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly through methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. For cost and practicality reasons, quantification of GHG has been through development of various types of mathematical models. This chapter addresses the utility and limitations of mathematical models used to estimate enteric CH4 emissions from livestock production. Models used in GHG quantification can be broadly classified into either empirical or mechanistic models. Empirical models might be easier to use because they require fewer input variables compared with mechanistic models. However, their applicability in assessing mitigation options such as dietary manipulation may be limited. The major driving variables identified for both types of models include feed intake, lipid and nonstructural carbohydrate content of the feed, and animal variables. Knowledge gaps identified in empirical modeling were that some of the assumptions might not be valid because of geographical location, health status of animals, genetic differences, or production type. In mechanistic modeling, errors related to estimating feed intake, stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, and acidity of rumen contents are limitations that need further investigation. Model prediction uncertainty was also investigated, and, depending on the intensity and source of the prediction uncertainty, the mathematical model may inaccurately predict the observed values with more or less variability. In conclusion, although there are quantification tools available, global collaboration is required to come to a consensus on quantification protocols. This can be achieved through developing various types of models specific to region, animal, and production type using large global datasets developed through international collaboration.
|
|
|
|
Özkan Gülzari, Ş., Åby, B. A., Persson, T., Höglind, M., & Mittenzwei, K. (2017). Combining models to estimate the impacts of future climate scenarios on feed supply, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance on dairy farms in Norway. Agric. Syst., 157, 157–169.
Abstract: • This study combines crop, livestock and economic models.
• Models interaction is through use of relevant input and output variables.
• Future climate change will result in increased grass and wheat dry matter yields.
• Changes in grass, wheat and milk yields in future reduce farm emissions intensity.
• Changes in future dry matter yields and emissions lead to increased profitability.
There is a scientific consensus that the future climate change will affect grass and crop dry matter (DM) yields. Such yield changes may entail alterations to farm management practices to fulfill the feed requirements and reduce the farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms. While a large number of studies have focused on the impacts of projected climate change on a single farm output (e.g. GHG emissions or economic performance), several attempts have been made to combine bio-economic systems models with GHG accounting frameworks. In this study, we aimed to determine the physical impacts of future climate scenarios on grass and wheat DM yields, and demonstrate the effects such changes in future feed supply may have on farm GHG emissions and decision-making processes. For this purpose, we combined four models: BASGRA and CSM-CERES-Wheat models for simulating forage grass DM and wheat DM grain yields respectively; HolosNor for estimating the farm GHG emissions; and JORDMOD for calculating the impacts of changes in the climate and management on land use and farm economics. Four locations, with varying climate and soil conditions were included in the study: south-east Norway, south-west Norway, central Norway and northern Norway. Simulations were carried out for baseline (1961–1990) and future (2046–2065) climate conditions (projections based on two global climate models and the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B GHG emission scenario), and for production conditions with and without a milk quota. The GHG emissions intensities (kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent: kgCO2e emissions per kg fat and protein corrected milk: FPCM) varied between 0.8 kg and 1.23 kg CO2e (kg FPCM)− 1, with the lowest and highest emissions found in central Norway and south-east Norway, respectively. Emission intensities were generally lower under future compared to baseline conditions due mainly to higher future milk yields and to some extent to higher crop yields. The median seasonal above-ground timothy grass yield varied between 11,000 kg and 16,000 kg DM ha− 1 and was higher in all projected future climate conditions than in the baseline. The spring wheat grain DM yields simulated for the same weather conditions within each climate projection varied between 2200 kg and 6800 kg DM ha− 1. Similarly, the farm profitability as expressed by total national land rents varied between 1900 million Norwegian krone (NOK) for median yields under baseline climate conditions up to 3900 million NOK for median yield under future projected climate conditions.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.
|
|
|
|
Zimmermann, A., Webber, H., Zhao, G., Ewert, F., Kros, J., Wolf, J., et al. (2017). Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements. Agric. Syst., 157, 81–92.
Abstract: Impacts of climate change on European agricultural production, land use and the environment depend on its impact on crop yields. However, many impact studies assume that crop management remains unchanged in future scenarios, while farmers may adapt their sowing dates and cultivar thermal time requirements to minimize yield losses or realize yield gains. The main objective of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of climate change impacts on European crop yields, land use, production and environmental variables to adaptations in crops sowing dates and varieties’ thermal time requirements. A crop, economic and environmental model were coupled in an integrated assessment modelling approach for six important crops, for 27 countries of the European Union (EU27) to assess results of three SRES climate change scenarios to 2050. Crop yields under climate change were simulated considering three different management cases; (i) no change in crop management from baseline conditions (NoAd), (ii) adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements to give highest yields to 2050 (Opt) and (iii) a more conservative adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements (Act). Averaged across EU27, relative changes in water-limited crop yields due to climate change and increased CO2 varied between -6 and + 21% considering NoAd management, whereas impacts with Opt management varied between + 12 and + 53%, and those under Act management between 2 and + 27%. However, relative yield increases under climate change increased to + 17 and + 51% when technology progress was also considered. Importantly, the sensitivity to crop management assumptions of land use, production and environmental impacts were less pronounced than for crop yields due to the influence of corresponding market, farm resource and land allocation adjustments along the model chain acting via economic optimization of yields. We conclude that assumptions about crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements affect impact variables but to a different extent and generally decreasing for variables affected by economic drivers.
|
|
