Abstract: This report provides an overview of how grasslands are represented in six different farmscale  models represented in MACSUR. A survey was conducted, followed by a workshop in  which modellers discussed the results of the survey, and identified research challenges and  knowledge gaps. The workshop was attended by grassland as well as livestock specialists.  The investigated models differed largely with respect to how grasslands were represented,  e.g. as regards weather and management factors accounted for, spatial and temporal  resolution, and output variables. All models had grassland modules that simulate DM yield  and herbage N content (or crude protein (CP) content = N content x 6.25). Many models  also simulate P content, whereas only one simulate K content. About half of the model  simulate herbage energy value and/or herbage fibre content and fibre and/or dry matter  digestibility. Critical input data required from grassland models to simulate ruminant  productivity and GHG emissions at farm scale was identified by the workshop participants.  The different types of input data required were ranked in order of importance as regards  their influence on important system outputs. For simulation of ruminant productivity and  GHG emissions, herbage DM yield was ranked as the most important input variable from  grassland models, followed by CP content together with at least one variable describing  herbage fibre characteristics. These findings suggest that work on improving the ability of  the current grassland models with respect to simulation of fibre/energy should be  prioritized in farm-scale modelling aiming at quantifying livestock production and GHG  emissions under different management regimes and climate conditions. More work is also needed on model evaluation, a task that has not been prioritized yet for some models.

Abstract: It is a widely held belief (IPCC) that climate change bringsmore risks to the worldI Since the start of MACSUR, TradeM has had risk on theagenda, but few results have so far come out. It has beenclaimed though, that there is no evidence for more risk in theglobal wheat market (Steen and Gjølberg 2014) (TradeMworkshop at Hurdalssjøen)I I have myself had the ambition of creating a dynamicstochastic model of the food system in which risk would be anintegral part, but time has been too shortI I have also pointed to methods from finance to reveal insights,and that is the road to be followed here, guided by Bølviken &Benth (2000) Buyer’s risk larger than seller’s risk — due to asymmetricdistribution of returns. Large price jumps are more likely thanequally sized price falls.I Long term positions much more risky than short term ones —as expectedI Agricultural commodities much less risky than crude oilI Price risk are related to volatility, and their changes over timewill have similar causal explanationsI Risks of producers and consumers of agricultural commoditieswill to some extent be related to the price risk, and also totheir portfolios and the co-variance between returns

Abstract: A requirement for successful integration of soil, crop and economic models is a relevant interface of the three. Economic farming models deal with choice of crops, crop management during growing season and stock management after harvest. With detailed daily weather information the state of the soil might be simulated so that a suitable sowing date can be estimated. Moreover with rational beliefs with respect to future crop prices, and with a crop model which responds to management, the management during the growing season might be optimized with respect to choice of cultivar, fertilization and irrigation. So far, as reflected by Müller and Robertson (2014), predictions of future crop yields according to crop models take only to small extent such farmer responses into account, and might therefore overestimate the responses of crop harvests to climate.Comparison of soil, crop and economic simulations with observed weather and crop outcomes might lead to estimation/calibration of unobserved parameters in all models. Such exercises need generic soil, crop and economic models which do not leave modelling outcomes to the crop modeller’s or economist’s discretion. No Label