toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links
Author Vosough Ahmadi, B.; Shrestha, S.; Thomson, S.G.; Barnes, A.P.; Stott, A.W. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Journal of Agricultural Science Abbreviated Journal J. Agric. Sci.  
  Volume 153 Issue 04 Pages 676-688  
  Keywords (up) CAP reform; models; level; water; Agriculture  
  Abstract The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.  
  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 0021-8596 1469-5146 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes LiveM Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4654  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Wallach, D. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Developing skills: how to train adaptive modelers Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Advances in Animal Biosciences Abbreviated Journal Advances in Animal Biosciences  
  Volume 6 Issue 01 Pages 52-53  
  Keywords (up) capacity building; skills development; training; integrated modeling  
  Abstract  
  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 2040-4700 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes Hub, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4683  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Mitter, H.; Heumesser, C.; Schmid, E. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Spatial modeling of robust crop production portfolios to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation to climate change Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Land Use Policy Abbreviated Journal Land Use Policy  
  Volume 46 Issue Pages 75-90  
  Keywords (up) climate change impact; adaptation; agricultural vulnerability; portfolio optimization; agricultural policy; agri-environmental payment; adaptive capacity; change impacts; risk-aversion; land-use; ecosystem services; change scenarios; europe; policy; future; water  
  Abstract Agricultural vulnerability to climate change is likely to vary considerably between agro-environmental regions. Exemplified on Austrian cropland, we aim at (i) quantifying climate change impacts on agricultural vulnerability which is approximated by the indicators crop yields and gross margins, (ii) developing robust crop production portfolios for adaptation, and (iii) analyzing the effect of agricultural policies and risk aversion on the choice of crop production portfolios. We have employed a spatially explicit, integrated framework to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation. It combines a statistical climate change model for Austria and the period 2010-2040, a crop rotation model, the bio-physical process model EPIC (Environmental Policy Integrated Climate), and a portfolio optimization model. We find that under climate change, crop production portfolios include higher shares of intensive crop management practices, increasing average crop yields by 2-15% and expected gross margins by 3-18%, respectively. The results depend on the choice of adaptation measures and on the level of risk aversion and vary by region. In the semi-arid eastern parts of Austria, average dry matter crop yields are lower but gross margins are higher than in western Austria due to bio-physical and agronomic heterogeneities. An abolishment of decoupled farm payments and a threefold increase in agri-environmental premiums would reduce nitrogen inputs by 23-33%, but also crop yields and gross margins by 18-37%, on average. From a policy perspective, a twofold increase in agri-environmental premiums could effectively reduce the trade-offs between crop production and environmental impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.  
  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 0264-8377 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4675  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Dietrich, J.P.; Klein, D.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Bonsch, M.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Weindl, I.; Stevanovic, M.; Müller, C. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.  
  Volume 9 Issue 6 Pages 064029  
  Keywords (up) climate change mitigation; afforestation; bioenergy; carbon capture and storage; land-use modeling; land-based mitigation; carbon sequestration; land-use change; crop productivity; carbon capture; energy; storage; model; food; conservation; agriculture; scenarios  
  Abstract The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.  
  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 1748-9326 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, TradeM Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4627  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author D’Ottavio, P.; Francioni, M.; Trozzo, L.; Sedic, E.; Budimir, K.; Avanzolini, P.; Trombetta, M.F.; Porqueddu, C.; Santilocchi, R.; Toderi, M. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Trends and approaches in the analysis of ecosystem services provided by grazing systems: A review Type Journal Article
  Year 2018 Publication Grass and Forage Science Abbreviated Journal Grass Forage Sci.  
  Volume 73 Issue 1 Pages 15-25  
  Keywords (up) climate regulation; food, habitat services; land degradation prevention; moderation of extreme events; natural (landscape) heritage; primary production; regulation of water flows; water quality regulation; Grassland Management; Plant-Communities; Land Degradation; Inner-Mongolia; Trade-Offs; Biodiversity; Provision; Impact; Consequences; Conservation  
  Abstract The ecosystem services (ES) approach is a framework for describing the benefits of nature to human well-being, and this has become a popular instrument for assessment and evaluation of ecosystems and their functions. Grazing lands can provide a wide array of ES that depend on their management practices and intensity. This article reviews the trends and approaches used in the analysis of some relevant ES provided by grazing systems, in line with the framework principles of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The scientific literature provides reports of many studies on ES in general, but the search here focused on grazing systems, which returned only sixty-two papers. This review of published papers highlights that: (i) in some papers, the concept of ES as defined by the MA is misunderstood (e.g., lack of anthropocentric vision); (ii) 34% of the papers dealt only with one ES, which neglects the need for the multisectoral approach suggested by the MA; (iii) few papers included stakeholder involvement to improve local decision-making processes; (iv) cultural ES have been poorly studied despite being considered the most relevant for local and general stakeholders; and (v) stakeholder awareness of well-being as provided by ES in grazing systems can foster both agri-environmental schemes and the willingness to pay for these services.  
  Address 2018-03-02  
  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 0142-5242 ISBN Medium Review  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes LiveM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5191  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: