This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Dr. Vera Eory
Department of Rural Economy, Environment & Society, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Basic Info


Research Keywords & Expertise

0 Sustainable Agriculture
0 greenhouse gas emissions
0 agricultural and resource economics
0 Farmers' behaviour
0 Whole farm modelling

Fingerprints

greenhouse gas emissions
Sustainable Agriculture

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Journal article
Published: 31 March 2021 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Agricultural injuries are a valuable social sustainability indicator. However, current methods use sector-scale production data, so are unable to assess the impact of changes in individual farming practices. Here, we developed a method that adopts a life cycle approach to quantify the number of serious injuries during agricultural production processes and assess the potential impact of changes in agricultural practices. The method disaggregates agricultural production into operations and estimates the contribution each operation makes to the frequency of different types of injuries. The method was tested using data collected by survey during an expert workshop in which sixteen participants were asked to estimate the parameters related to typical dairy cattle and pig farms. Parameter estimates for specific operations varied considerably between participants, so normalized values were used to disaggregate sector-scale statistics to production operations. The results were in general agreement with the results from other studies. Participants found it challenging to quantify the potential effect of new technologies. Provided suitable empirical statistical data are available, the method can be used to quantify the risk of injury associated with individual products and provide an ex-ante assessment of future developments in farming practices.

ACS Style

Noha Mahmoud; Allan Leck Jensen; Cairistiona Topp; Claus Sørensen; Michael Nørremark; Vera Eory; Nicholas Hutchings. A Method to Quantify the Detailed Risk of Serious Injury in Agricultural Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3859 .

AMA Style

Noha Mahmoud, Allan Leck Jensen, Cairistiona Topp, Claus Sørensen, Michael Nørremark, Vera Eory, Nicholas Hutchings. A Method to Quantify the Detailed Risk of Serious Injury in Agricultural Production. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (7):3859.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Noha Mahmoud; Allan Leck Jensen; Cairistiona Topp; Claus Sørensen; Michael Nørremark; Vera Eory; Nicholas Hutchings. 2021. "A Method to Quantify the Detailed Risk of Serious Injury in Agricultural Production." Sustainability 13, no. 7: 3859.

Journal article
Published: 04 April 2020 in Journal of Rural Studies
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Agriculture is a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions and therefore effective policy interventions are required in order to mitigate these emissions. One form of intervention used within the agricultural sector is participatory extension programmes (PEPs). PEPs are advisory programmes based on voluntary participation where farmers, researchers, and rural experts collectively learn by sharing information and experiences. To evaluate the contribution of these programmes towards more climate friendly farming, this paper conducts an ex-post evaluation of a PEP focused on the voluntary uptake of on-farm emissions mitigation practices in the UK. We use a mixed-methods approach to understand both the adoption of new practices and a range of human-social outcomes such as social learning, resilience and improved decision-making. We find that participants in the PEP show a higher level of practice adoption compared to non-participants. However, the evaluation of the human-social indicators shows that the change cannot always be attributed to PEP participation. The paper contributes to the current literature by conducting the first evaluation on a climate change PEP in a developed country and by developing and applying an effective evaluation framework for climate change PEPs, in order to achieve an understanding of the change achieved by PEPs.

ACS Style

Jorie Knook; Vera Eory; Matthew Brander; Dominic Moran. The evaluation of a participatory extension programme focused on climate friendly farming. Journal of Rural Studies 2020, 76, 40 -48.

AMA Style

Jorie Knook, Vera Eory, Matthew Brander, Dominic Moran. The evaluation of a participatory extension programme focused on climate friendly farming. Journal of Rural Studies. 2020; 76 ():40-48.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jorie Knook; Vera Eory; Matthew Brander; Dominic Moran. 2020. "The evaluation of a participatory extension programme focused on climate friendly farming." Journal of Rural Studies 76, no. : 40-48.

Article
Published: 19 December 2019 in Environmental Management
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Although the link between agriculture and diffuse water pollution has been understood for decades, there is still a need to implement effective measures to address this issue. In countries with light-touch regulation, such as New Zealand and Australia, most efforts to promote environmental management practices have relied on voluntary initiatives such as participatory research and extension programmes; the success of which is largely dependent on farmers’ willingness and ability to adopt these practices. Increased understanding of the factors influencing farmer decision-making in this area would aid the promotion of effective advisory services. This study provides insights from 52 qualitative interviews with farmers and from observations of nine farmer meetings and field days. We qualitatively identify factors that influence farmer decision-making regarding the voluntary uptake of water quality practices and develop a typology for categorising farmers according to the factors that influence their decision-making. We find that in light-touch regulated countries certainty around policy and also around the effectiveness of practices is essential, particularly for farmers who delay action until compelled to act due to succession or regulation. The contribution of this paper is threefold: (i) it identifies factors influencing decision-making around the uptake of water quality practices in a light-touch regulated country; (ii) it develops a typology of different farmer types; and (iii) it provides recommendations on policy approaches for countries with light-touch regulation, which has potential relevance for any countries facing changes regarding their agricultural policy, such as post-Brexit policy in the UK.

ACS Style

Jorie Knook; Robyn Dynes; Ina Pinxterhuis; Cecile A. M. De Klein; Vera Eory; Matthew Brander; Dominic Moran. Policy and Practice Certainty for Effective Uptake of Diffuse Pollution Practices in A Light-Touch Regulated Country. Environmental Management 2019, 65, 243 -256.

AMA Style

Jorie Knook, Robyn Dynes, Ina Pinxterhuis, Cecile A. M. De Klein, Vera Eory, Matthew Brander, Dominic Moran. Policy and Practice Certainty for Effective Uptake of Diffuse Pollution Practices in A Light-Touch Regulated Country. Environmental Management. 2019; 65 (2):243-256.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jorie Knook; Robyn Dynes; Ina Pinxterhuis; Cecile A. M. De Klein; Vera Eory; Matthew Brander; Dominic Moran. 2019. "Policy and Practice Certainty for Effective Uptake of Diffuse Pollution Practices in A Light-Touch Regulated Country." Environmental Management 65, no. 2: 243-256.

Journal article
Published: 01 October 2019 in Environmental Modelling & Software
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

R.P. Kipling; C.F.E. Topp; A. Bannink; D.J. Bartley; I. Blanco-Penedo; R. Cortignani; A. del Prado; G. Dono; P. Faverdin; A.-I. Graux; N.J. Hutchings; L. Lauwers; Ş. Özkan Gülzari; P. Reidsma; S. Rolinski; M. Ruiz-Ramos; D.L. Sandars; R. Sándor; M. Schönhart; G. Seddaiu; J. van Middelkoop; S. Shrestha; I. Weindl; V. Eory. To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers? Environmental Modelling & Software 2019, 120, 1 .

AMA Style

R.P. Kipling, C.F.E. Topp, A. Bannink, D.J. Bartley, I. Blanco-Penedo, R. Cortignani, A. del Prado, G. Dono, P. Faverdin, A.-I. Graux, N.J. Hutchings, L. Lauwers, Ş. Özkan Gülzari, P. Reidsma, S. Rolinski, M. Ruiz-Ramos, D.L. Sandars, R. Sándor, M. Schönhart, G. Seddaiu, J. van Middelkoop, S. Shrestha, I. Weindl, V. Eory. To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers? Environmental Modelling & Software. 2019; 120 ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

R.P. Kipling; C.F.E. Topp; A. Bannink; D.J. Bartley; I. Blanco-Penedo; R. Cortignani; A. del Prado; G. Dono; P. Faverdin; A.-I. Graux; N.J. Hutchings; L. Lauwers; Ş. Özkan Gülzari; P. Reidsma; S. Rolinski; M. Ruiz-Ramos; D.L. Sandars; R. Sándor; M. Schönhart; G. Seddaiu; J. van Middelkoop; S. Shrestha; I. Weindl; V. Eory. 2019. "To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers?" Environmental Modelling & Software 120, no. : 1.

Research review
Published: 18 September 2019 in Global Change Biology
Reads 0
Downloads 0

To limit warming to well below 2°C, most scenario projections rely on greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRTs); one such GGRT uses soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural land. In addition to their role in mitigating climate change, SCS practices play a role in delivering agroecosystem resilience, climate change adaptability, and food security. Environmental heterogeneity and differences in agricultural practices challenge the practical implementation of SCS, and our analysis addresses the associated knowledge gap. Previous assessments have focused on global potentials, but there is a need among policy makers to operationalise SCS. Here, we assess a range of practices already proposed to deliver SCS, and distil these into a subset of specific measures. We provide a multi‐disciplinary summary of the barriers and potential incentives toward practical implementation of these measures. First, we identify specific practices with potential for both a positive impact on SCS at farm level, and an uptake rate compatible with global impact. These focus on: optimising crop primary productivity (e.g. nutrient optimisation, pH management, irrigation) reducing soil disturbance and managing soil physical properties (e.g. improved rotations, minimum till) minimising deliberate removal of C or lateral transport via erosion processes (e.g. support measures, bare fallow reduction) addition of C produced outside the system (e.g. organic manure amendments, biochar addition) provision of additional C inputs within the cropping system (e.g. agroforestry, cover cropping) We then consider economic and non‐cost barriers and incentives for land managers implementing these measures, along with the potential externalised impacts of implementation. This offers a framework and reference point for holistic assessment of the impacts of SCS. Finally, we summarise and discuss the ability of extant scientific approaches to quantify the technical potential and externalities of SCS measures, and the barriers and incentives to their implementation in global agricultural systems.

ACS Style

Alasdair J. Sykes; Michael Macleod; Vera Eory; Robert Rees; Florian Payen; Vasilis Myrgiotis; Mathew Williams; Saran Sohi; Jon Hillier; Dominic Moran; David A. C. Manning; Pietro Goglio; Michele Seghetta; Adrian Williams; Jim Harris; Marta Dondini; Jack Walton; Joanna House; Pete Smith. Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology. Global Change Biology 2019, 26, 1085 -1108.

AMA Style

Alasdair J. Sykes, Michael Macleod, Vera Eory, Robert Rees, Florian Payen, Vasilis Myrgiotis, Mathew Williams, Saran Sohi, Jon Hillier, Dominic Moran, David A. C. Manning, Pietro Goglio, Michele Seghetta, Adrian Williams, Jim Harris, Marta Dondini, Jack Walton, Joanna House, Pete Smith. Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology. Global Change Biology. 2019; 26 (3):1085-1108.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alasdair J. Sykes; Michael Macleod; Vera Eory; Robert Rees; Florian Payen; Vasilis Myrgiotis; Mathew Williams; Saran Sohi; Jon Hillier; Dominic Moran; David A. C. Manning; Pietro Goglio; Michele Seghetta; Adrian Williams; Jim Harris; Marta Dondini; Jack Walton; Joanna House; Pete Smith. 2019. "Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology." Global Change Biology 26, no. 3: 1085-1108.

Journal article
Published: 26 December 2018 in Environmental Science & Policy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Current adopters of precision agriculture are divergent from current non-adopters. First adopters are influenced by economic and informational interventions. Increasing adoption is constrained by scepticism towards economic returns. EU agricultural policy does not recognise complexity across domains to enable uptake.

ACS Style

A.P. Barnes; I. Soto; Vera Eory; B. Beck; A.T. Balafoutis; B. Sanchez; J. Vangeyte; S. Fountas; T. van der Wal; M. Gómez-Barbero. Influencing incentives for precision agricultural technologies within European arable farming systems. Environmental Science & Policy 2018, 93, 66 -74.

AMA Style

A.P. Barnes, I. Soto, Vera Eory, B. Beck, A.T. Balafoutis, B. Sanchez, J. Vangeyte, S. Fountas, T. van der Wal, M. Gómez-Barbero. Influencing incentives for precision agricultural technologies within European arable farming systems. Environmental Science & Policy. 2018; 93 ():66-74.

Chicago/Turabian Style

A.P. Barnes; I. Soto; Vera Eory; B. Beck; A.T. Balafoutis; B. Sanchez; J. Vangeyte; S. Fountas; T. van der Wal; M. Gómez-Barbero. 2018. "Influencing incentives for precision agricultural technologies within European arable farming systems." Environmental Science & Policy 93, no. : 66-74.

Journal article
Published: 23 October 2018 in Journal of Cleaner Production
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Achieving an optimal nutrient balance is one of the main targets of sustainable agriculture. The aim of this study was to identify “hotspots” of agricultural nutrient imbalance. This was done by developing a modelling framework and using it to analyse the spatial distribution of agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus flows. The nutrient flows for the main livestock species in Scotland (namely cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens), were quantified using the Scottish Agricultural Emission Model (SAEM). The model was used in connection with agricultural census data for Scotland, which provided spatial distribution of the livestock production, including numbers of animals in certain livestock categories. The average fertiliser application rates for the main crops in Scotland were obtained from the British Survey of Fertiliser Practice and were used as an indicator of the nutrient demand for these crops. The Scottish agricultural census data were used to determine the spatial distribution of different arable crops and grassland in Scotland. This spatial information was combined with the nutrient excretion results to determine the nutrient balance. The results show that the areas with highest nitrogen fertiliser application rate are mainly located in central and eastern Scotland, including the areas where cereal production mainly occurs, while areas where the availability of excreted nutrients is highest are located in southern and north eastern Scotland, i.e. in the main cattle production areas. The higher stability of excreted phosphorus compared to nitrogen allowed a more detailed analysis of a regional phosphorus balance. In major parts of the agricultural production areas in eastern Scotland, the fertiliser application rate (crop nutrient demand) exceeds the amount of phosphorus excreted by the livestock. There are also areas where high phosphorus fertiliser application rate (crop production) and organic phosphorus output (from animal production) overlap, indicating that in these areas there is a high potential to re-use the phosphorus excreted by livestock. Compared to other spatial models for nutrient flows, the modelling framework utilizing a process-based livestock model provides scope to analyse the effects of livestock management and potential changes in livestock systems on regional nutrient balances in more detail.

ACS Style

Ilkka Leinonen; Vera Eory; Michael MacLeod. Applying a process-based livestock model to predict spatial variation in agricultural nutrient flows in Scotland. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018, 209, 180 -189.

AMA Style

Ilkka Leinonen, Vera Eory, Michael MacLeod. Applying a process-based livestock model to predict spatial variation in agricultural nutrient flows in Scotland. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 209 ():180-189.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ilkka Leinonen; Vera Eory; Michael MacLeod. 2018. "Applying a process-based livestock model to predict spatial variation in agricultural nutrient flows in Scotland." Journal of Cleaner Production 209, no. : 180-189.

Journal article
Published: 11 October 2018 in Land Use Policy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Precision agricultural technologies (PATs) allow more detailed management of in-field variability. Policy and advisory communities have championed PATs as a route to preserving natural capital whilst increasing productivity from agricultural land. A range of PATs are currently available for the agricultural producer but uptake varies by the type of technology and region. Whereas most studies on uptake have focused on US or Australia we empirically examine uptake of machine guidance (MG) and variable rate nitrogen technologies (VRNT) within European farming systems. Using primary information from 971 arable crop growers across five countries: Belgium, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK, a multilevel random intercept regression estimated a) the differences between adoption and non-adoption and b) the differences between VRNT and MG adoption. We find, aside from size and income differences, which reflect the economic cost barrier to adoption, an attitudinal difference, in terms of optimism towards the technology’s economic return leading to more probability of uptake. Moreover innovative and information seeking behaviour also proved significant when upgrading from machine guidance to variable rate technologies. Subsidy and taxation were considered positive drivers of uptake within the community. However, results suggest that more indirect interventions, such as informational support to counteract industry bias, and demonstration to prove the viability of economic return may be effective at meeting land manager and policy expectations towards PATs.

ACS Style

A.P. Barnes; I. Soto; Vera Eory; B. Beck; A. Balafoutis; B. Sánchez; J. Vangeyte; S. Fountas; T. van der Wal; M. Gómez-Barbero. Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy 2018, 80, 163 -174.

AMA Style

A.P. Barnes, I. Soto, Vera Eory, B. Beck, A. Balafoutis, B. Sánchez, J. Vangeyte, S. Fountas, T. van der Wal, M. Gómez-Barbero. Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy. 2018; 80 ():163-174.

Chicago/Turabian Style

A.P. Barnes; I. Soto; Vera Eory; B. Beck; A. Balafoutis; B. Sánchez; J. Vangeyte; S. Fountas; T. van der Wal; M. Gómez-Barbero. 2018. "Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers." Land Use Policy 80, no. : 163-174.

Journal article
Published: 18 May 2018 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Increasing the production of meat and milk within sub-Saharan Africa should provide significant food security benefits. However, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent a challenge, as cattle production in the region typically has high emissions intensity (EI), i.e., high rates of GHG emissions per unit of output. The high EI is caused by the relatively low production efficiencies in the region, which are in turn partly due to endemic cattle diseases. In theory, improved disease control should increase the efficiency and decrease the emissions intensity of livestock production; however quantitative analysis of the potential GHG mitigation effects of improved disease control in Africa is lacking. This paper seeks to respond to this by using a hybrid modelling approach to quantify the production and emissions effects of removing trypanosomiasis from East African cattle production systems. The emissions are quantified for each cattle production system using an excel version of GLEAM, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model. The results indicate that removing trypanosomiasis leads to a reduction in the emissions intensity per unit of protein produced of between 0% and 8%, driven mainly by the increases in milk yields and cow fertility rates. Despite the limitations, it is argued that the approach provides considerable scope for modelling the GHG impacts of disease interventions.

ACS Style

Michael MacLeod; Vera Eory; William Wint; Alexandra Shaw; Pierre J. Gerber; Giuliano Cecchi; Raffaele Mattioli; Alasdair Sykes; Timothy Robinson. Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Effect of Removing Bovine Trypanosomiasis in Eastern Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1633 .

AMA Style

Michael MacLeod, Vera Eory, William Wint, Alexandra Shaw, Pierre J. Gerber, Giuliano Cecchi, Raffaele Mattioli, Alasdair Sykes, Timothy Robinson. Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Effect of Removing Bovine Trypanosomiasis in Eastern Africa. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (5):1633.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michael MacLeod; Vera Eory; William Wint; Alexandra Shaw; Pierre J. Gerber; Giuliano Cecchi; Raffaele Mattioli; Alasdair Sykes; Timothy Robinson. 2018. "Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Effect of Removing Bovine Trypanosomiasis in Eastern Africa." Sustainability 10, no. 5: 1633.

Journal article
Published: 01 May 2018 in Journal of Cleaner Production
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Vera Eory; Sylvain Pellerin; Gema Carmona Garcia; Heikki Lehtonen; Ieva Licite; Hanna Mattila; Thøger Lund-Sørensen; John Muldowney; Dina Popluga; Lisbeth Strandmark; Rogier Schulte. Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018, 182, 705 -716.

AMA Style

Vera Eory, Sylvain Pellerin, Gema Carmona Garcia, Heikki Lehtonen, Ieva Licite, Hanna Mattila, Thøger Lund-Sørensen, John Muldowney, Dina Popluga, Lisbeth Strandmark, Rogier Schulte. Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 182 ():705-716.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vera Eory; Sylvain Pellerin; Gema Carmona Garcia; Heikki Lehtonen; Ieva Licite; Hanna Mattila; Thøger Lund-Sørensen; John Muldowney; Dina Popluga; Lisbeth Strandmark; Rogier Schulte. 2018. "Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential." Journal of Cleaner Production 182, no. : 705-716.

Original article
Published: 30 April 2018 in Journal of Agricultural Economics
Reads 0
Downloads 0

The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by cost‐effectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom‐up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative cost‐effective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom‐up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost‐effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost‐effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6% and 107.3% across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1% (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32% (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be ‘win–win’ under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost‐ineffective and cost‐effective.

ACS Style

Vera Eory; Cairistiona F. E. Topp; Adam Butler; Dominic Moran. Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2018, 69, 627 -645.

AMA Style

Vera Eory, Cairistiona F. E. Topp, Adam Butler, Dominic Moran. Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2018; 69 (3):627-645.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vera Eory; Cairistiona F. E. Topp; Adam Butler; Dominic Moran. 2018. "Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Journal of Agricultural Economics 69, no. 3: 627-645.

Journal article
Published: 26 April 2018 in The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Jorie Knook; Vera Eory; Matthew Brander; Dominic Moran. Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2018, 24, 309 -325.

AMA Style

Jorie Knook, Vera Eory, Matthew Brander, Dominic Moran. Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2018; 24 (4):309-325.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jorie Knook; Vera Eory; Matthew Brander; Dominic Moran. 2018. "Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes." The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 24, no. 4: 309-325.

Specialty grand challenge article
Published: 28 March 2018 in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Arguably the greatest grand challenge for humankind is to keep the biosphere within its safe and just operating space, providing sufficient resources to meet people’s needs without exceeding the Earth’s capacity to supply them (Raworth, 2012). “Safe” is defined in terms of keeping planetary environmental processes, through mechanisms such as climate regulation and improved nutrient cycles, within limits over the long term (Rockstrom et al., 2009). “Just” is increasingly being interpreted in terms of meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with targets addressing various forms of equity as well as biophysical needs (Griggs et al., 2013). Keeping the biosphere within the operating space requires that we produce the food we need, along with the ecosystem and socioeconomic goods and services we require (Garnett et al., 2013). By definition, achieving this challenge also means achieving the sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture, whereby more food is produced from the same area of land (or water), with reduced or reversed negative environmental impacts accompanied by a range of positive societal and environmental co-benefits. SI is variously considered as a goal (Royal Society, 2009), a process (Firbank et al., 2013), a trade-off between economic production activity and ecological performance (Gadanakis et al., 2015), or a suite of interventions (Godfray and Garnett, 2014). Is this challenge achievable? The jury is out. There are growing calls for dramatic increases in food production (Bernard and Lux, 2017) alongside grave concerns around the environmental impacts of agriculture on biodiversity (Maxwell et al., 2016), climate change (Whitfield et al., 2018), ecosystem services (Dobson et al., 2006), and continued food production (Smith et al., 2016). But people are starting to provide some tentative answers, suggesting that it is possible to stay within the safe and just operating space, as long as certain changes to the agrifood system are put in place. For instance, Mauser et al. (2015) suggested that improved crop management and market mechanisms could make the need to use more land to meet demand for biomass unnecessary. Muller et al. (2017) have asked whether organic farming could feed the world, while at the same time meet a range of environmental sustainability objectives. They sought to answer this by developing simulations of food supply and environmental impact under different scenarios of change in land use, levels of food waste, and potential impact of climate change on yields. Their answer was that organic farming will only feed the world if other aspects of the food system are changed at the same time. Finally, Eshel et al. (2017) have looked at the impacts of a shift to “sustainable” beef production in the US, concluding that a beef industry fed only by pastures and by-products of the food industry could generate around 43% of current levels of production and deliver substantial benefits to human health, depending on whether land used to grow livestock feed is reallocated to other crops. Such simulation studies are starting to bring about a degree of rigor to a debate that has otherwise been dominated more by heat than by light, simply by focusing attention on the assumptions behind the models. These conceal some rather large unknowns, including (i) the extent to which pest and disease control on organic land is subsidized by pesticide applications in the surrounding landscape; (ii) the scale of natural capital (NC) needed to help mitigate increasing climate volatility, where NC is defined as the world’s stock of natural assets needed to sustain food production; and (iii) the extent to which soil management for food production can provide carbon sequestration. It is also a challenge to reach some form of consensus on the meaning and measurement of agricultural sustainability. Musumba et al. (2017) proposed a framework for farm-scale sustainability assessments that include elements of social justice, NC, and food security. Of course, the selection of appropriate indicators is a long way from ensuring sustainable agriculture. Farmers need to gain enough value from their social and ecosystem benefits to adopt sustainable farming methods, and their choices will depend on social, economic, environmental, and regulatory context (de Oliveira Silva et al., 2016); in particular, they will need to maintain soil function and resilience (Schiefer et al., 2016). However, evidence of farming practices that simultaneously benefit food production and environment (Pywell et al., 2015) does not ensure the wide uptake of such practices: institutional innovation may be needed (Schut et al., 2016) as well as actions promoting behavioral and attitudinal change by both farmers (Moran et al., 2013) and the public (Barnes et al., 2016), many of whom are risk-averse. Sustainable landscape and catchment management is more complex again, as it is delivered by balancing different land and water uses and users across the area, either in terms of total amounts (Hodgson et al., 2010) or through spatially explicit allocation of land uses (Panagopoulos et al., 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2012; Landis, 2017). Dearing et al. (2014) examined interactions among a range of food and environmental indicators from two areas of China and concluded that increases in food production have pushed water quality beyond safe limits. While there may have been agricultural intensification, this was not achieved in an environmentally sustainable manner, which is now recognized (Liu et al., 2016). The situation is further complicated by the reality of highly globalized value chains, the resultant transfers of value, nutrients, and pollutants as well as embedded carbon, energy, water, and labor. Adding to this, the relationships between rural, peri-urban, and urban agrifood systems are rapidly changing (Battersby, 2017). Throughout the twentieth century, the...

ACS Style

Leslie G. Firbank; Simon Attwood; Vera Eory; Yiorgos Gadanakis; John Michael Lynch; Roberta Sonnino; Taro Takahashi. Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2018, 2, 1 .

AMA Style

Leslie G. Firbank, Simon Attwood, Vera Eory, Yiorgos Gadanakis, John Michael Lynch, Roberta Sonnino, Taro Takahashi. Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2018; 2 ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leslie G. Firbank; Simon Attwood; Vera Eory; Yiorgos Gadanakis; John Michael Lynch; Roberta Sonnino; Taro Takahashi. 2018. "Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services." Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2, no. : 1.

Review
Published: 31 July 2017 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Agriculture is one of the economic sectors that affect climate change contributing to greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly. There is a trend of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but any practice in this direction should not affect negatively farm productivity and economics because this would limit its implementation, due to the high global food and feed demand and the competitive environment in this sector. Precision agriculture practices using high-tech equipment has the ability to reduce agricultural inputs by site-specific applications, as it better target inputs to spatial and temporal needs of the fields, which can result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Precision agriculture can also have a positive impact on farm productivity and economics, as it provides higher or equal yields with lower production cost than conventional practices. In this work, precision agriculture technologies that have the potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are presented providing a short description of the technology and the impacts that have been reported in literature on greenhouse gases reduction and the associated impacts on farm productivity and economics. The technologies presented span all agricultural practices, including variable rate sowing/planting, fertilizing, spraying, weeding and irrigation.

ACS Style

Athanasios Balafoutis; Bert Beck; Spyros Fountas; Jurgen Vangeyte; Tamme Van Der Wal; Iria Soto; Manuel Gómez-Barbero; Andrew Barnes; Vera Eory. Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1339 .

AMA Style

Athanasios Balafoutis, Bert Beck, Spyros Fountas, Jurgen Vangeyte, Tamme Van Der Wal, Iria Soto, Manuel Gómez-Barbero, Andrew Barnes, Vera Eory. Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (8):1339.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Athanasios Balafoutis; Bert Beck; Spyros Fountas; Jurgen Vangeyte; Tamme Van Der Wal; Iria Soto; Manuel Gómez-Barbero; Andrew Barnes; Vera Eory. 2017. "Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics." Sustainability 9, no. 8: 1339.

Original article
Published: 03 March 2017 in Regional Environmental Change
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Economic appraisal and technical effectiveness of adaptation options are key criteria for judging climate change adaptation investment decisions in all sectors. Yet relatively little methodological guidance exists for determining the most appropriate appraisal techniques for different adaptation options. This paper provides adaptation options and scopes relevant appraisal methods in agriculture focussing on livestock production specifically. We find that for many adaptation options for livestock agriculture, standard (expected) cost-benefit analysis is an appropriate tool. For adaptation options requiring long lead times or those with long lifetimes, techniques incorporating uncertainty (‘robust’ methods) are more suitable, including real options analysis, portfolio analysis and robust decision-making. From a comprehensive list of adaptation options in the livestock sector, we identify the most appropriate appraisal technique for each option and describe how the robust appraisal tools could be applied to heat stress, flood risk and water management.

ACS Style

Ruth Dittrich; Anita Wreford; Cairistiona Topp; Vera Eory; Dominic Moran. A guide towards climate change adaptation in the livestock sector: adaptation options and the role of robust decision-making tools for their economic appraisal. Regional Environmental Change 2017, 17, 1701 -1712.

AMA Style

Ruth Dittrich, Anita Wreford, Cairistiona Topp, Vera Eory, Dominic Moran. A guide towards climate change adaptation in the livestock sector: adaptation options and the role of robust decision-making tools for their economic appraisal. Regional Environmental Change. 2017; 17 (6):1701-1712.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruth Dittrich; Anita Wreford; Cairistiona Topp; Vera Eory; Dominic Moran. 2017. "A guide towards climate change adaptation in the livestock sector: adaptation options and the role of robust decision-making tools for their economic appraisal." Regional Environmental Change 17, no. 6: 1701-1712.

Review
Published: 01 November 2016 in Environmental Research
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.033Climate change has the potential to impair livestock health, with consequences for animal welfare, productivity, greenhouse gas emissions, and human livelihoods and health. Modelling has an important role in assessing the impacts of climate change on livestock systems and the efficacy of potential adaptation strategies, to support decision making for more efficient, resilient and sustainable production. However, a coherent set of challenges and research priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens under climate change has not previously been available. To identify such challenges and priorities, researchers from across Europe were engaged in a horizon-scanning study, involving workshop and questionnaire based exercises and focussed literature reviews. Eighteen key challenges were identified and grouped into six categories based on subject-specific and capacity building requirements. Across a number of challenges, the need for inventories relating model types to different applications (e.g. the pathogen species, region, scale of focus and purpose to which they can be applied) was identified, in order to identify gaps in capability in relation to the impacts of climate change on animal health. The need for collaboration and learning across disciplines was highlighted in several challenges, e.g. to better understand and model complex ecological interactions between pathogens, vectors, wildlife hosts and livestock in the context of climate change. Collaboration between socio-economic and biophysical disciplines was seen as important for better engagement with stakeholders and for improved modelling of the costs and benefits of poor livestock health. The need for more comprehensive validation of empirical relationships, for harmonising terminology and measurements, and for building capacity for under-researched nations, systems and health problems indicated the importance of joined up approaches across nations. The challenges and priorities identified can help focus the development of modelling capacity and future research structures in this vital field. Well-funded networks capable of managing the long-term development of shared resources are required in order to create a cohesive modelling community equipped to tackle the complex challenges of climate change.authorsversionPeer reviewe

ACS Style

Şeyda Özkan; Andrea Vitali; Nicola Lacetera; Barbara Amon; André Bannink; Dave J. Bartley; Isabel Blanco-Penedo; Yvette de Haas; Isabelle Dufrasne; John Elliott; Vera Eory; Naomi J. Fox; Phil Garnsworthy; Nicolas Gengler; Hedi Hammami; Ilias Kyriazakis; David Leclere; Françoise Lessire; Michael Macleod; Timothy P. Robinson; Alejandro Ruete; Daniel Sandars; Shailesh Shrestha; Alistair W. Stott; Stanislaw Twardy; Marie-Laure Vanrobays; Bouda Vosough Ahmadi; Isabelle Weindl; Nick Wheelhouse; Adrian G. Williams; Hefin W. Williams; Anthony Wilson; Søren Østergaard; Richard P. Kipling. Challenges and priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens in the context of climate change. Environmental Research 2016, 151, 130 -144.

AMA Style

Şeyda Özkan, Andrea Vitali, Nicola Lacetera, Barbara Amon, André Bannink, Dave J. Bartley, Isabel Blanco-Penedo, Yvette de Haas, Isabelle Dufrasne, John Elliott, Vera Eory, Naomi J. Fox, Phil Garnsworthy, Nicolas Gengler, Hedi Hammami, Ilias Kyriazakis, David Leclere, Françoise Lessire, Michael Macleod, Timothy P. Robinson, Alejandro Ruete, Daniel Sandars, Shailesh Shrestha, Alistair W. Stott, Stanislaw Twardy, Marie-Laure Vanrobays, Bouda Vosough Ahmadi, Isabelle Weindl, Nick Wheelhouse, Adrian G. Williams, Hefin W. Williams, Anthony Wilson, Søren Østergaard, Richard P. Kipling. Challenges and priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens in the context of climate change. Environmental Research. 2016; 151 ():130-144.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Şeyda Özkan; Andrea Vitali; Nicola Lacetera; Barbara Amon; André Bannink; Dave J. Bartley; Isabel Blanco-Penedo; Yvette de Haas; Isabelle Dufrasne; John Elliott; Vera Eory; Naomi J. Fox; Phil Garnsworthy; Nicolas Gengler; Hedi Hammami; Ilias Kyriazakis; David Leclere; Françoise Lessire; Michael Macleod; Timothy P. Robinson; Alejandro Ruete; Daniel Sandars; Shailesh Shrestha; Alistair W. Stott; Stanislaw Twardy; Marie-Laure Vanrobays; Bouda Vosough Ahmadi; Isabelle Weindl; Nick Wheelhouse; Adrian G. Williams; Hefin W. Williams; Anthony Wilson; Søren Østergaard; Richard P. Kipling. 2016. "Challenges and priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens in the context of climate change." Environmental Research 151, no. : 130-144.

Journal article
Published: 01 May 2016 in European Journal of Agronomy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Methods are needed for the design and evaluation of cropping systems, in order to test the effects of introducing or reintroducing crops into rotations. The interaction of legumes with other crops (rotational effects) requires an assessment at the cropping system scale. The objective of this work is to introduce a cropping system framework to assess the impacts of changes in cropping systems in a participatory approach with experts, i.e., the integration of legumes into crop rotations and to demonstrate its application in two case studies. The framework consists of a rule-based rotation generator and a set of algorithms to calculate impact indicators. It follows a three-step approach: (i) generate rotations, (ii) evaluate crop production activities using environmental, economic and phytosanitary indicators, and (iii) design cropping systems and assess their impacts. Experienced agronomists and environmental scientists were involved at several stages of the framework development and testing in order to ensure the practicability of designed cropping systems. The framework was tested in Västra Götaland (Sweden) and Brandenburg (Germany) by comparing cropping systems with and without legumes. In both case studies, cropping systems with legumes reduced nitrous oxide emissions with comparable or slightly lower nitrate-N leaching, and had positive phytosanitary effects. In arable systems with grain legumes, gross margins were lower than in cropping systems without legumes despite taking pre-crop effects into account. Forage cropping systems with legumes had higher or equivalent gross margins and at the same time higher environmental benefits than cropping systems without legumes. The framework supports agronomists to design sustainable legume-supported cropping systems and to assess their impacts

ACS Style

Moritz Reckling; Jens-Martin Hecker; Göran Bergkvist; Christine Watson; Peter Zander; Nicole Schläfke; Fred Stoddard; Vera Eory; Cairistiona Topp; Juliette Maire; Johann Bachinger. A cropping system assessment framework—Evaluating effects of introducing legumes into crop rotations. European Journal of Agronomy 2016, 76, 186 -197.

AMA Style

Moritz Reckling, Jens-Martin Hecker, Göran Bergkvist, Christine Watson, Peter Zander, Nicole Schläfke, Fred Stoddard, Vera Eory, Cairistiona Topp, Juliette Maire, Johann Bachinger. A cropping system assessment framework—Evaluating effects of introducing legumes into crop rotations. European Journal of Agronomy. 2016; 76 ():186-197.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moritz Reckling; Jens-Martin Hecker; Göran Bergkvist; Christine Watson; Peter Zander; Nicole Schläfke; Fred Stoddard; Vera Eory; Cairistiona Topp; Juliette Maire; Johann Bachinger. 2016. "A cropping system assessment framework—Evaluating effects of introducing legumes into crop rotations." European Journal of Agronomy 76, no. : 186-197.

Journal article
Published: 01 November 2015 in Agricultural Systems
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Rafael De Oliveira Silva; Luis G. Barioni; Tiago Zanett Albertini; Vera Eory; Cairistiona Topp; Fernando A. Fernandes; Dominic Moran. Developing a nationally appropriate mitigation measure from the greenhouse gas GHG abatement potential from livestock production in the Brazilian Cerrado. Agricultural Systems 2015, 140, 48 -55.

AMA Style

Rafael De Oliveira Silva, Luis G. Barioni, Tiago Zanett Albertini, Vera Eory, Cairistiona Topp, Fernando A. Fernandes, Dominic Moran. Developing a nationally appropriate mitigation measure from the greenhouse gas GHG abatement potential from livestock production in the Brazilian Cerrado. Agricultural Systems. 2015; 140 ():48-55.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rafael De Oliveira Silva; Luis G. Barioni; Tiago Zanett Albertini; Vera Eory; Cairistiona Topp; Fernando A. Fernandes; Dominic Moran. 2015. "Developing a nationally appropriate mitigation measure from the greenhouse gas GHG abatement potential from livestock production in the Brazilian Cerrado." Agricultural Systems 140, no. : 48-55.

Report
Published: 01 August 2015 in Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Ce document livre un examen des travaux publiés à l'échelle internationale sur le rapport coût-efficacité des mesures axées sur l'offre qui permettent de réduire l'intensité des émissions de gaz à effet de serre agricoles en préservant ou renforçant la production. La présente étude analyse 65 études internationales récentes consacrées au rapport coût-efficacité de mesures agricoles d'atténuation, qui couvrent 181 activités différentes. Neuf études de cas de mesures d'atténuation largement appliquées illustrent, en général à partir d'une méthode d’estimation ascendante des coûts, les différences significatives du rapport coût-efficacité des mesures entre les pays et les études, dues en partie à des différences contextuelles. Les comparaisons entre ces études hétérogènes doivent être appréhendées avec toute la circonspection voulue, mais les résultats suggèrent que les mesures reposant sur l'efficience d'utilisation des engrais et l'amélioration génétique du bétail, ainsi que les possibilités d’amélioration de l'efficacité énergétique des engins et machines agricoles, sont considérées comme des solutions d'atténuation hautement performantes en terme de coût-efficacité dans les différents pays. Un premier examen des mesures publiques montre qu’il existe différentes solutions possibles pour encourager l'adoption de mesures économes et efficaces, allant de campagnes d'information à des stratégies d'incitation. Il convient d'approfondir l'analyse pour surmonter les difficultés d'estimation restantes et trouver comment les mesures d'atténuation peuvent s'inscrire dans le cadre plus vaste des stratégies climatiques, agricoles et environnementales.

ACS Style

Michael MacLeod; Vera Eory; Guillaume Gruère; Jussi Lankoski. Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture. Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture 2015, 1 .

AMA Style

Michael MacLeod, Vera Eory, Guillaume Gruère, Jussi Lankoski. Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture. Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture. 2015; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michael MacLeod; Vera Eory; Guillaume Gruère; Jussi Lankoski. 2015. "Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture." Rapport coût efficacité des mesures d'atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en agriculture , no. : 1.

Preprint
Published: 01 January 2015
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper reviews the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of supply-side mitigation measures that can reduce the emissions intensity of agriculture while maintaining or increasing production. Sixty-five recent international studies of cost-effectiveness covering 181 individual activities are reviewed. Nine case studies of well covered mitigation measures, generally using a cost-engineering approach, illustrate significant differences in the cost-effectiveness of measures across countries and studies, in part due to contextual differences. Although caution needs to be exercised in comparing heterogeneous studies, the results suggest that measures based on fertiliser use efficiency, cattle breeding, and potentially improving energy efficiency in mobile machinery, are often considered highly cost-effective mitigation measures across countries. A preliminary overview of policy highlights the existence of a range of options to encourage the adoption of cost-effective measures, from information to incentive-based policies. Further analysis is needed to address remaining estimation challenges and to help determine how mitigation measures may be embedded into broader climate, agricultural and environmental policy frameworks.

ACS Style

Michael MacLeod; Vera Eory; Guillaume Gruère; Jussi Lankoski. Cost-Effectiveness of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Agriculture: A Literature Review. 2015, 1 .

AMA Style

Michael MacLeod, Vera Eory, Guillaume Gruère, Jussi Lankoski. Cost-Effectiveness of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Agriculture: A Literature Review. . 2015; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michael MacLeod; Vera Eory; Guillaume Gruère; Jussi Lankoski. 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Agriculture: A Literature Review." , no. : 1.