Home | [41–50] << 51 >> |
Niemi, J. (2016). Framework of stochastic gross margin volatility modeling of crop rotation with farm management practices (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: DP models with risk aversion through meanvariancespecification is already implemented inLuke and applied in North Savo regionHOWEVER climate change, e.g. changes in mean andvariance of crop yiels, still not yet taken into account– Recently, such crop modelling results have becomeavailble for wheat as well, not only for barley– Still CC impact available for 2 cereals crops only, whilemost farms cultivate more than 2 crops Some early conclusions• The suggested approach is consistent in terms of DPprinciples and mean-variance approach and can provideconsistent results for farm scale risk analysis• It is however hard to utilise the approach except assuming afarm with only few crops (those with crop modelling / otherresults of climate change effects on mean and (co-variance)© Natural Resources Institute Finland• Assuming no change in price (co)variability is a majorsimplification results show farm level (or local) effects ofchanges in mean yields and yield (co)variability only
|
Biewald, A. (2016). Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies, different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and 3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation
|
Schils, R. (2017). Yield gaps of cereals across Europe (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The increasing global demand for food requires a sustainable intensification of crop production in low-yielding areas. Actions to improve crop production in these regions call for accurate spatially explicit identification of yield gaps, i.e. the difference between potential or water-limited yield and actual yield. The Global Yield Gap Atlas (GYGA) project proposes a consistent bottom-up approach to estimate yield gaps. For each country, a climate zonation is overlaid with a crop area map. Within climate zones with important crop areas, weather stations are selected with at least 10 years of daily data. For each of the 3 dominant soil types within a 100 km zone around the weather stations, the potential and water-limited yields are simulated with the WOFOST crop model, using location-specific knowledge on crop systems. Data from variety trials or other experiments, approaching potential or water-limited yields, are used for validation and calibration of the model. Actual yields are taken from sub-national statistics. Yields and yield gaps are scaled up to climate zones and subsequently to countries. The average national simulated wheat yields under rainfed conditions varied from around 5 to 6 t/ha/year in the Mediterranean to nearly 12 t/ha/year on the British Isles and in the Low Countries. The average actual wheat yield varied from around 2 to 3 t/ha/year in the Mediterranean and some countries in East Europe to nearly 9 t/ha/year on the British Isles and in the Low Countries. The average relative yield gaps varied from around 10% to 30% in many countries in Northwest Europe to around 50% to 70% in some countries in the Mediterranean and East Europe. The paper will elaborate on results per climate zone and soil type, and will also include barley and maize. Furthermore we will relate yield gaps to nitrogen use.
|
Schils, R. (2017). Online maps of Yield Gaps of cereals across Europe (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The yield gap and water productivity analysis of key cereal crops in Europe is completed and results are available through www.yieldgap.org
|