|
|
Bodirsky, B. L., & Müller, C. (2014). Robust relationship between yields and nitrogen inputs indicates three ways to reduce nitrogen pollution. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(11), 111005.
Abstract: Historic increases in agricultural production came at the expense of substantial environmental burden through nitrogen pollution. Lassaletta et al (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 105011) examine the historic relationship of crop yields and nitrogen fertilizer inputs globally and find a simple and robust relationship of declining nitrogen use efficiency with increasing nitrogen inputs. This general relationship helps to understand the dilemma between increased agricultural production and nitrogen pollution and allows identifying pathways towards more sustainable agricultural production and necessary associated policies.
|
|
|
|
Kyle, P., Müller, C., Calvin, K., & Thomson, A. (2014). Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts. Earth’s Future, 2, 83–98.
Abstract: This study assesses how climate impacts on agriculture may change the evolution of the agricultural and energy systems in meeting the end-of-century radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs). We build on the recently completed Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) exercise that has produced global gridded estimates of future crop yields for major agricultural crops using climate model projections of the RCPs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). For this study we use the bias-corrected outputs of the HadGEM2-ES climate model as inputs to the LPJmL crop growth model, and the outputs of LPJmL to modify inputs to the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our results indicate that agricultural climate impacts generally lead to an increase in global cropland, as compared with corresponding emissions scenarios that do not consider climate impacts on agricultural productivity. This is driven mostly by negative impacts on wheat, rice, other grains, and oil crops. Still, including agricultural climate impacts does not significantly increase the costs or change the technological strategies of global, whole-system emissions mitigation. In fact, to meet the most aggressive climate change mitigation target (2.6W/m(2) in 2100), the net mitigation costs are slightly lower when agricultural climate impacts are considered. Key contributing factors to these results are (a) low levels of climate change in the low-forcing scenarios, (b) adaptation to climate impacts simulated in GCAM through inter-regional shifting in the production of agricultural goods, and (c) positive average climate impacts on bioenergy crop yields.
|
|
|
|
Milford, A. B., Le Mouel, C., Bodirsky, B. L., & Rolinski, S. (2019). Drivers of meat consumption. Appetite, 141, Unsp 104313.
Abstract: Increasing global levels of meat consumption are a threat to the environment and to human health. To identify measures that may change consumption patterns towards more plant-based foods, it is necessary to improve our understanding of the causes behind the demand for meat. In this paper we use data from 137 different countries to identify and assess factors that influence meat consumption at the national level using a cross-country multivariate regression analysis. We specify either total meat or ruminant meat as the dependent variable and we consider a broad range of potential drivers of meat consumption. The combination of explanatory variables we use is new for this type of analysis. In addition, we estimate the relative importance of the different drivers. We find that income per capita followed by rate of urbanisation are the two most important drivers of total meat consumption per capita. Income per capita and natural endowment factors are major drivers of ruminant meat consumption per capita. Other drivers are Western culture, Muslim religion, female labour participation, economic and social globalisation and meat prices. The main identified drivers of meat demand are difficult to influence through direct policy intervention. Thus, acting indirectly on consumers’ preferences and consumption habits (for instance through information, education policy and increased availability of ready-made plant based products) could be of key importance for mitigating the rise of meat consumption per capita all over the world.
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
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.
|
|
|
|
Lehtonen, H. S., & Irz, X. (2013). Impacts of reducing red meat consumption on agricultural production in Finland. Agriculture and Food Science, 22(3), 356–370.
Abstract: This paper summarises the simulated effects on Finnish agrcultural production and trade of a 20% decrease in Finnish demand for red meat (beef, pork, lamb). According to our results, reduced red meat consumption would be offset by increased consumption of poultry meat, eggs, dairy products and fish, as well as small increases in consumption of fruits and vegetables, peas, nuts, cereal products and sweets. By including the derived demand changes in an agricultural sector model, we show that livestock production in Finland, incentivised by national production-linked payments for milk and bovine animals, would decrease by much less than 20% due to the complex nature of agricultural production and trade. Overall, assuming unchanged consumer preferences and agricultural policy, a 20% reduction in red meat consumption is not likely to lead to a substantial decrease in livestock production or changed land use, or greenhouse gas emissions, from Finnish agriculture.
|
|
