Abstract: Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture should be assessed across cropping systems and agroclimatic regions. In this study, we investigate the ability of the FASSET model to analyze differences in the magnitude of N2O emissions due to soil, climate and management factors in cereal-based cropping systems. Forage maize was grown in a conventional dairy system at Mabegondo (NW Spain) and wheat and barley in organic and conventional crop rotations at Foulum (NW Denmark). These two European sites represent agricultural areas with high and low to moderate emission levels, respectively. Field trials included plots with and without catch crops that were fertilized with either mineral N fertilizer, cattle slurry, pig slurry or digested manure. Non-fertilized treatments were also included. Measurements of N2O fluxes during the growing cycle of all the crops at both sites were performed with the static chamber method with more frequent measurements post-fertilization and biweekly measurements when high fluxes were not expected. All cropping systems were simulated with the FASSET version 2.5 simulation model. Cumulative soil seasonal N2O emissions were about ten-fold higher at Mabegondo than at Foulum when averaged across systems and treatments (8.99 and 0.71 kg N2O-N ha(-1), respectively). The average simulated cumulative soil N2O emissions were 9.03 and 1.71 kg N2O-N ha(-1) at Mabegondo and at Foulum, respectively. Fertilization, catch crops and cropping systems had lower influence on the seasonal soil N2O fluxes than the environmental factors. Overall, in its current version FASSET reproduced the effects of the different factors investigated on the cumulative seasonal soil N2O emissions but temporally it overestimated emissions from nitrification and denitrification on particular days when soil operations, ploughing or fertilization, took place. The errors associated with simulated daily soil N2O fluxes increased with the magnitude of the emissions. For resolving causes of differences in simulated and measured fluxes more intensive and temporally detailed measurements of N2O fluxes and soil C and N dynamics would be needed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: This study investigated the mortality of dairy cows during heat waves. Mortality data (46,610 cases) referred to dairy cows older than 24 mo that died on a farm from all causes from May 1 to September 30 during a 6-yr period (2002-2007). Weather data were obtained from 12 weather stations located in different areas of Italy. Heat waves were defined for each weather station as a period of at least 3 consecutive days, from May 1 to September 30 (2002-2007), when the daily maximum temperature exceeded the 90th percentile of the reference distribution (1971-2000). Summer days were classified as days in heat wave (HW) or not in heat wave (nHW). Days in HW were numbered to evaluate the relationship between mortality and length of the wave. Finally, the first 3 nHW days after the end of a heat wave were also considered to account for potential prolonged effects. The mortality risk was evaluated using a case-crossover design. A conditional logistic regression model was used to calculate odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for mortality recorded in HW compared with that recorded in nHW days pooled and stratified by duration of exposure, age of cows, and month of occurrence. Dairy cows mortality was greater during HW compared with nHW days. Furthermore, compared with nHW days, the risk of mortality continued to be higher during the 3 d after the end of HW. Mortality increased with the length of the HW. Considering deaths stratified by age, cows up to 28 mo were not affected by HW, whereas all the other age categories of older cows (29-60, 61-96, and >96 mo) showed a greater mortality when exposed to HW. The risk of death during HW was higher in early summer months. In particular, the highest risk of mortality was observed during June HW. Present results strongly support the implementation of adaptation strategies which may limit heat stress-related impairment of animal welfare and economic losses in dairy cow farm during HW.

Abstract: Changes in climate, technology, policy and prices affect agricultural and rural development. To evaluate whether this development is sustainable, impacts of these multiple drivers need to be assessed for multiple indicators. In a case study area in the Netherlands, a bio-economic farm model, an agent-based land-use change model, and a regional emission model have been used to simulate rural development under two plausible global change scenarios at both farm and landscape level. Results show that in this area, climate change will have mainly negative economic impacts (dairy gross margin, arable gross margin, economic efficiency, milk production) in the warmer and drier W+ scenario, while impacts are slightly positive in the G scenario with moderate climate change. Dairy farmers are worse off than arable farmers in both scenarios. Conversely, when the W+ scenario is embedded in the socio-economic Global Economy (GE) scenario, changes in technology, prices, and policy are projected to have a positive economic impact, more than offsetting the negative climate impacts. Important is, however, that environmental impacts (global warming, terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication) are largely negative and social impacts (farm size, number of farms, nature area, odour) are mixed. In the G scenario combined with the socio-economic Regional Communities (RC) scenario the average dairy gross margin in particular is negatively affected. Social impacts are similarly mixed as in the GE scenario, while environmental impacts are less severe. Our results suggest that integrated assessments at farm and landscape level can be used to guide decision-makers in spatial planning policies and climate change adaptation. As there will always be trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental impacts stakeholders need to interact and decide upon most important directions for policies. This implies a choice between production and income on the one hand and social and environmental services on the other hand