|
Bartley, D. J., Skuce, P. J., Zadoks, R. N., & MacLeod, M. (2016). Endemic sheep and cattle diseases and greenhouse gas emissions. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 253–255.
|
|
Vitali, A., Bernabucci, U., Nardone, A., & Lacetera, N. (2016). Effect of season, month and temperature humidity index on the occurrence of clinical mastitis in dairy heifers. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 250–252.
|
|
Kipling, R. P., & Özkan Gülzari, Ş. (2016). Stakeholder engagement and the perceptions of researchers: how agricultural modellers view challenges to communication. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 240–241.
|
von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Cai, Y., Calvin, K., et al. (2014). Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 3.
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.
|
Lehtonen, H. (2015). Evaluating adaptation and the production development of Finnish agriculture in climate and global change. Agricultural and Food Science, 24(3), 219–234.
Abstract: Agricultural product prices and policies influence the development of crop yields under climate change through farm level management decisions. On this basis, five main scenarios were specified for agricultural commodity prices and crop yields. An economic agricultural sector model was used in order to assess the impacts of the scenarios on production, land use and farm income in Finland. The results suggest that falling crop yields, if realized due to low prices and restrictive policies, will result in decreasing crop and livestock production and increasing nutrient surplus. Slowly increasing crop yields could stabilise production and increase farm income. Significantly higher crop prices and yields are required, however, for any marked increase in production in Finland. Cereals production would increase relatively more than livestock production, if there were high prices for agricultural products. This is explained by abundant land resources, a high opportunity cost of labour and policies maintaining current dairy and beef production.
|
