Records |
Author |
Hutchings, N.J.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; de Haan, M.; Sandars, D. |
Title |
How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Animal |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animal |
Volume |
12 |
Issue ![sorted by Issue field, descending order (down)](img/sort_desc.gif) |
10 |
Pages |
2171-2180 |
Keywords |
dairy cattle; farm-scale; model; greenhouse gas; Future Climate Scenarios; Systems-Analysis; Milk-Production; Crop; Production; Mitigation; Intensity; Impacts |
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. |
Address |
2019-01-07 |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
ISSN |
1751-7311 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5212 |
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
Author |
Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. |
Title |
Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
Volume |
45 |
Issue ![sorted by Issue field, descending order (down)](img/sort_desc.gif) |
1 |
Pages |
85-85 |
Keywords |
climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; cmip5 |
Abstract |
Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty. |
Address |
2016-10-31 |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
ISSN |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4796 |
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
Author |
Robinson, S.; van Meijl, H.; Willenbockel, D.; Valin, H.; Fujimori, S.; Masui, T.; Sands, R.; Wise, M.; Calvin, K.; Havlik, P.; Mason d’Croz, D.; Tabeau, A.; Kavallari, A.; Schmitz, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; von Lampe, M. |
Title |
Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
Volume |
45 |
Issue ![sorted by Issue field, descending order (down)](img/sort_desc.gif) |
1 |
Pages |
21-35 |
Keywords |
global agricultural models; global food system scenario analysis; general equilibrium; partial equilibrium; growth; trade |
Abstract |
This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models. |
Address |
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
ISSN |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4735 |
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
Author |
Ventrella, D.; Giglio, L.; Charfeddine, M.; Dalla Marta, A. |
Title |
Consumptive use of green and blue water for winter durum wheat cultivated in Southern Italy |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Italian Journal of Agrometeorology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Italian Journal of Agrometeorology |
Volume |
20 |
Issue ![sorted by Issue field, descending order (down)](img/sort_desc.gif) |
1 |
Pages |
33-44 |
Keywords |
irrigation; water productivity; model simulation; climate change; climate-change scenarios; air co2 enrichment; impact; footprint; irrigation; simulation; yield; agriculture; variability; resources |
Abstract |
In this study at the regional scale, the model DSSAT CERES-Wheat was applied in order to simulate the cultivation of winter durum wheat (WW) and to estimate the green water (GW) and the blue water (BW) through a dual-step approach (with and without supplemental irrigation). The model simulation covered a period of 30 years for three scenarios including a reference period and two future scenarios based on forecasted global average temperature increase of 2 and 5 degrees C. The GW and BW contribution for evapo transpiration requirement is presented and analyzed on a distributed scale related to the Puglia region (Southern Italy) characterized by high evaporative demand of the atmosphere. The GW component was dominant compared to BW, covering almost 90% of the ETc of WW Under a Baseline scenario the weight BW was 11%, slightly increased in the future scenarios. GW appeared dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall during the crop cycle, and to the hydraulic characteristics of soil for each calculation unit. After considering the effects of climate change on irrigation requirement of WW we carried out an example of analysis in order to verify the economic benefit of supplemental irrigation for WW cultivation. The probability that irrigation generates a negative or zero income ranged between 55 and 60% and climate change did not impact the profitability of irrigation for WW as simulated for the economic and agro-pedoclimatic conditions of Puglia region considered in this study. |
Address |
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4653 |
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
Author |
Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. |
Title |
Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
Volume |
45 |
Issue ![sorted by Issue field, descending order (down)](img/sort_desc.gif) |
1 |
Pages |
85-101 |
Keywords |
climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5 |
Abstract |
Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty. |
Address |
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
ISSN |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4536 |
Permanent link to this record |