|
|
Kässi, P., Känkänen, H., Niskanen, O., Lehtonen, H., & Höglind, M. (2015). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation under climate change in Finland and north-western Russia. Biosystems Engineering, 140, 11–22.
Abstract: Cattle feeding in Northern Europe is based on grass silage, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. If ensuring sufficient silage availability in every situation is prioritised, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area in farmers’ decision-making. One way to manage the variation in grass yield is to increase grass production and silage storage capacity so that they exceed the annual consumption at the farm. The cost of risk management in the current and the projected future climate was calculated taking into account grassland yield and yield variability for three study areas under current and mid-21st century climate conditions. The dataset on simulated future grass yields used as input for the risk management calculations were taken from a previously published simulation study. Strategies investigated included using up to 60% more silage grass area than needed in a year with average grass yields, and storing silage for up to 6 months more than consumed in a year (buffer storage). According to the results, utilising an excess silage grass area of 20% and a silage buffer storage capacity of 6 months were the most economic ways of managing drought risk in both the baseline climate and the projected climate of 2046-2065. It was found that the silage yield risk due to drought is likely to decrease in all studied locations, but the drought risk and costs implied still remain significant. (C) 2015 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Kässi, P., Niskanen, O., & Känkänen, H. (2014). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation in changing climate in Jokioinen and St. Petersburg (Vol. 3).
Abstract: Cattle’s feeding is based on grass silage in Northern Europe, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. In farms decision making, grass area is usually determined by the variation of yield. To be adequate in every situation, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area. Other way to manage the grass yield risk is to increase silage storage capacity over annual consumption. Variation of grass yield in climate data from years 1961-1990 was compared with 15 different climate scenario models simulating years 2046-2065. A model was developed for evaluating the inadequacy risk in terms of cultivated area and storing capacity. The cost of risk is presented and discussed.In northern Europe a typical farm has storage for roughage consumption of almost one year. In addition, there can be a buffer storage. The extra storage is to be used before and during the harvest season. New harvest will be fed to animals only after the buffer empty. Shortage in the buffer storage is possible to be filled, when the yield exceeds the target level. For risk management, two alternative mechanisms are given: forage buffer and possibility to alter the field area.According to our results, there are no significant adverse effects in the cost of risk and implied farm profitability due to climate change. Selecting the risk management scenario of 30 % grass yield risk turned out to be the least cost solution. No Label
|
|
|
|
Lehtonen, H. S., Kässi, P., Korhonen, P., Niskanen, O., Rötter, R., Palosuo, T., et al. (2014). Specific problems and solutions in climate change adaptation in North Savo region (Vol. 3).
Abstract: Crop production for feed dominates land use in North Savo in eastern Finland. The value of dairy and beef production is appr. 70 % of the total value of agricultural production of the region. In climate change adaptation research we are especially interested in dairy and meat sectors, which are directly dependent on the development of productivity of crop production. Climate change implies changes in cereals and forage crop yields and nutritive quality. There are most likely increasing problems and risks related to overwintering and growing periods. Grass silage is mainly self-produced on farms and most often there is no market for silage. Silage production and use are vulnerable to changes in local climate, because lost yield cannot be easily replaced from market. Risks and costs due to increasing inter-annual yield volatility can be reduced by good management practices, such as crop rotation, plant protection, soil improvements and better crop protection against plant diseases.However the profitability of such measures is dependent on market and policy conditions. Nevertheless new cultivars and species, as well as various options for production and risk management, are most likely needed in future climate. Some adaptations may have multiple benefits which however may realize only in medium or long run. It is important to safeguard the most important and obviously needed adaptations, and identify market and socio-economic conditions which inhibit farmers from necessary adaptations and lead to reduced productivity and increased production costs. No Label
|
|
|
|
Kässi, P., Niskanen, O., & Känkänen, H. (2014). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation in changing climate in Jokioinen and St. Petersburg. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Cattle’s feeding is based on grass silage in Northern Europe, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. In farms decision making, grass area is usually determined by the variation of yield. To be adequate in every situation, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area. Other way to manage the grass yield risk is to increase silage storage capacity over annual consumption. Variation of grass yield in climate data from years 1961-1990 was compared with 15 different climate scenario models simulating years 2046-2065. A model was developed for evaluating the inadequacy risk in terms of cultivated area and storing capacity. The cost of risk is presented and discussed. In northern Europe a typical farm has storage for roughage consumption of almost one year. In addition, there can be a buffer storage. The extra storage is to be used before and during the harvest season. New harvest will be fed to animals only after the buffer empty. Shortage in the buffer storage is possible to be filled, when the yield exceeds the target level. For risk management, two alternative mechanisms are given: forage buffer and possibility to alter the field area. According to our results, there are no significant adverse effects in the cost of risk and implied farm profitability due to climate change. Selecting the risk management scenario of 30 % grass yield risk turned out to be the least cost solution.
|
|
|
|
Lehtonen, H. S., Kässi, P., Korhonen, P., Niskanen, O., Rötter, R., Palosuo, T., et al. (2014). Problems and opportunities in climate change adaptation in North Savo region. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Crop production for feed dominates land use in North Savo in eastern Finland. The value of dairy and beef production is appr. 70 % of the total value of agricultural production of the region. In climate change adaptation research we are especially interested in dairy and meat sectors, which are directly dependent on the development of productivity of crop production. Climate change implies changes in cereals and forage crop yields and nutritive quality. There are most likely increasing problems and risks related to overwintering and growing periods. Grass silage is mainly self-produced on farms and most often there is no market for silage. Silage production and use are vulnerable to changes in local climate, because lost yield cannot be easily replaced from market. Risks and costs due to increasing inter-annual yield volatility can be reduced by good management practices, such as crop rotation, plant protection, soil improvements and better crop protection against plant diseases.However the profitability of such measures is dependent on market and policy conditions. Nevertheless new cultivars and species, as well as various options for production and risk management, are most likely needed in future climate. Some adaptations may have multiple benefits which however may realize only in medium or long run. It is important to safeguard the most important and obviously needed adaptations, and identify market and socio-economic conditions which inhibit farmers from necessary adaptations and lead to reduced productivity and increased production costs.
|
|
