This paper addresses the question of summer cover crop adoption by farmers in presence of a risk of yield loss due to take-all disease and climate variability. To analyse the public incentives needed ...to encourage farmers to adopt summer cover crops as a means of reducing N leaching, we combine outputs from an economic, an epidemiological and an agronomic model. The economic model is a simple model of choice under uncertainty. The farmer is assumed to choose among a range of summer fallow managements and input uses on the basis of the expected utility criterion (HARA assumption) in presence of both climate and take all risks. The epidemiological model proposed by Ennaïfar et al. 1 is used to determine the impact of take all on yields and N-uptake. The crop-soil model (STICS) is used to compute yield developments and N-leaching under various management options and climatic conditions. These models are calibrated to match the conditions prevailing in Grignon, located in the main wheat-growing area in France. Eight management systems are examined: 4 summer fallow managements: 'wheat volunteers' (WV), 'bare soil' (BS), 'early mustard' (EM), 'late mustard' (LM), and 2 input intensities. We show that the optimal systems are BS (WV) when the take-all risk is (not) taken into account by agents. We then compute the minimum payment to each system such that it emerges in the optimum. We thus derive the required amounts of transfer needed to trigger catch crop adoption. The results of the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of management systems is robust over a wide range of input parameters.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
This paper addresses the question of summer cover crop adoption by farmers in presence of a risk of yield loss due to take-all disease and climate variability. To analyse the public incentives needed ...to encourage farmers to adopt summer cover crops as a means of reducing N leaching, we combine outputs from an economic, an epidemiological and an agronomic model. The economic model is a simple model of choice under uncertainty. The farmer is assumed to choose among a range of summer fallow managements and input uses on the basis of the expected utility criterion (HARA assumption) in presence of both climate and take all risks. The epidemiological model proposed by Ennaïfar et al. 1 is used to determine the impact of take all on yields and N-uptake. The crop-soil model (STICS) is used to compute yield developments and N-leaching under various management options and climatic conditions. These models are calibrated to match the conditions prevailing in Grignon, located in the main wheat-growing area in France. Eight management systems are examined: 4 summer fallow managements: 'wheat volunteers' (WV), 'bare soil' (BS), 'early mustard' (EM), 'late mustard' (LM), and 2 input intensities. We show that the optimal systems are BS (WV) when the take-all risk is (not) taken into account by agents. We then compute the minimum payment to each system such that it emerges in the optimum. We thus derive the required amounts of transfer needed to trigger catch crop adoption. The results of the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of management systems is robust over a wide range of input parameters.
This paper addresses the question of summer cover crop adoption by farmers in presence of a risk of yield loss due to take-all disease and climate variability. To analyse the public incentives needed ...to encourage farmers to adopt summer cover crops as a means of reducing N leaching, we combine outputs from an economic, an epidemiological and an agronomic model. The economic model is a simple model of choice under uncertainty. The farmer is assumed to choose among a range of summer fallow managements and input uses on the basis of the expected utility criterion (HARA assumption) in presence of both climate and take all risks. The epidemiological model proposed by Ennaïfar et al. 1 is used to determine the impact of take all on yields and N-uptake. The crop-soil model (STICS) is used to compute yield developments and N-leaching under various management options and climatic conditions. These models are calibrated to match the conditions prevailing in Grignon, located in the main wheat-growing area in France. Eight management systems are examined: 4 summer fallow managements: ’wheat volunteers’ (WV), ’bare soil’ (BS), ’early mustard’ (EM), ’late mustard’ (LM), and 2 input intensities. We show that the optimal systems are BS (WV) when the take-all risk is (not) taken into account by agents. We then compute the minimum payment to each system such that it emerges in the optimum. We thus derive the required amounts of transfer needed to trigger catch crop adoption. The results of the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis show that the ranking of management systems is robust over a wide range of input parameters.
Environ 20% des émissions françaises de gaz à effet de serre (GES) proviennent du secteur agricole.Dix actions portant sur des pratiques agricoles, décomposées en 26 sous-actions, ont été ...identifiéespour réduire les émissions de l'agriculture en France métropolitaine à l'horizon 2030. Leur potentield'atténuation et leur coût pour l'agriculteur ont été chiffrés et comparés. Ces actions portent sur lagestion de l'azote, les pratiques permettant d'accroitre le stockage de carbone dans les sols et labiomasse, l'alimentation animale et la production et la consommation d'énergie sur l'exploitation. Untiers du potentiel global d'atténuation est à coût négatif, c’est-à-dire avec un gain pour l’agriculteur. Ils'agit d'actions portant sur l'optimisation des intrants (engrais azotés, aliments animaux, énergie). Undeuxième tiers est à coût modéré (<25€ par tonne de CO2e évité). Ces actions nécessitent desinvestissements ou modifient les systèmes de culture, mais les coûts sont partiellement compensés pardes baisses de charge ou produits supplémentaires. Le troisième tiers est à coût plus élevé (>25€ partonne de CO2e évité). Il s'agit d'actions nécessitant des investissements ou achats d'intrants spécifiquessans retour financier, du temps de travail dédié ou entrainant des pertes de production plusimportantes.
About 20% of French emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) originate from the agricultural sector. Ten technical measures, split into 26 sub-measures, were proposed to reduce GHG emissions from French agriculture over the period 2010-2030. Their abatement potential and cost for the farmer werecompared. The proposed measures were linked to nitrogen management, management practices whichincrease carbon storage in soils and biomass, livestock diets and energy production and consumptionon farms. The overall abatement potential can be broken down into three parts. One third of thecumulated abatement potential corresponds to sub-measures with a negative technical cost. These submeasuresare based on an improved efficiency of inputs like N fertilizers, animal feed and energy. Thesecond part corresponds to sub-measures with a moderate cost (<€25 per metric ton of CO2e avoided).These sub-measures require specific investments or modifying the cropping system slightly more, butadditional costs or lower incomes are partially compensated for by a reduction in other costs oradditional marketable products. The third part corresponds to sub-measures with a high cost (>€25 permetric ton of CO2e avoided). These sub-measures require investment with no direct financial return, thepurchase of specific inputs, dedicated labour time or involve greater production losses.
Environ 20% des émissions françaises de gaz à effet de serre (GES) proviennent du secteur agricole.Dix actions portant sur des pratiques agricoles, décomposées en 26 sous-actions, ont été ...identifiéespour réduire les émissions de l'agriculture en France métropolitaine à l'horizon 2030. Leur potentield'atténuation et leur coût pour l'agriculteur ont été chiffrés et comparés. Ces actions portent sur lagestion de l'azote, les pratiques permettant d'accroitre le stockage de carbone dans les sols et labiomasse, l'alimentation animale et la production et la consommation d'énergie sur l'exploitation. Untiers du potentiel global d'atténuation est à coût négatif, c’est-à-dire avec un gain pour l’agriculteur. Ils'agit d'actions portant sur l'optimisation des intrants (engrais azotés, aliments animaux, énergie). Undeuxième tiers est à coût modéré (<25€ par tonne de CO2e évité). Ces actions nécessitent desinvestissements ou modifient les systèmes de culture, mais les coûts sont partiellement compensés pardes baisses de charge ou produits supplémentaires. Le troisième tiers est à coût plus élevé (>25€ partonne de CO2e évité). Il s'agit d'actions nécessitant des investissements ou achats d'intrants spécifiquessans retour financier, du temps de travail dédié ou entrainant des pertes de production plusimportantes.
About 20% of French emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) originate from the agricultural sector. Ten technical measures, split into 26 sub-measures, were proposed to reduce GHG emissions from French agriculture over the period 2010-2030. Their abatement potential and cost for the farmer werecompared. The proposed measures were linked to nitrogen management, management practices whichincrease carbon storage in soils and biomass, livestock diets and energy production and consumptionon farms. The overall abatement potential can be broken down into three parts. One third of thecumulated abatement potential corresponds to sub-measures with a negative technical cost. These submeasuresare based on an improved efficiency of inputs like N fertilizers, animal feed and energy. Thesecond part corresponds to sub-measures with a moderate cost (<€25 per metric ton of CO2e avoided).These sub-measures require specific investments or modifying the cropping system slightly more, butadditional costs or lower incomes are partially compensated for by a reduction in other costs oradditional marketable products. The third part corresponds to sub-measures with a high cost (>€25 permetric ton of CO2e avoided). These sub-measures require investment with no direct financial return, thepurchase of specific inputs, dedicated labour time or involve greater production losses.
L’agriculture française contribue pour près d’un cinquième aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES). En même temps, elle représente un potentiel de stockage du carbone. L’ADEME et les ministères ...chargés de l’Agriculture et de l’Environnement ont sollicité l’INRA pour réaliser une étude de l’agriculture française pour déterminer et analyser une dizaine d’actions portant sur des pratiques agricoles et susceptibles de favoriser le stockage de carbone par l’agriculture ou de réduire ses émissions de GES.
L’agriculture française contribue pour près d’un cinquième aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES). En même temps, elle représente un potentiel de stockage du carbone. L’ADEME et les ministères ...chargés de l’Agriculture et de l’Environnement ont sollicité l’INRA pour réaliser une étude de l’agriculture française pour déterminer et analyser une dizaine d’actions portant sur des pratiques agricoles et susceptibles de favoriser le stockage de carbone par l’agriculture ou de réduire ses émissions de GES.
