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.

Abstract: Cattle’s feeding is based on grass silage in Northern Europe, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. In farms decision making, grass area is usually determined by the variation of yield. To be adequate in every situation, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area. Other way to manage the grass yield risk is to increase silage storage capacity over annual consumption. Variation of grass yield in climate data from years 1961-1990 was compared with 15 different climate scenario models simulating years 2046-2065. A model was developed for evaluating the inadequacy risk in terms of cultivated area and storing capacity. The cost of risk is presented and discussed.In northern Europe a typical farm has storage for roughage consumption of almost one year. In addition, there can be a buffer storage. The  extra storage is to be used before and during the harvest season. New harvest will be fed to animals only after the buffer empty. Shortage in the buffer storage is possible to be filled, when the yield exceeds the target level. For risk management, two alternative mechanisms are given: forage buffer and possibility to alter the field area.According to our results, there are no significant adverse effects in the cost of risk and implied farm profitability due to climate change. Selecting the risk management scenario of 30 % grass yield risk turned out to be the least cost solution. No Label