Search

Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of 'real world commodity prices' differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between −0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change, growing populations, and increasing wealth are increasing demand for food, energy, and water. Additionally, water stress is expected to increase in the future in areas with high rates of seasonality of precipitation, due to increased variability in precipitation. One approach to limiting the impact of climate change on food system productions is through the intensive and extensive expansion of irrigated agriculture. This study develops a hydro-economic model to assess future agriculture production possibilities and the role of irrigation water in the Pacific Slope region of Guatemala, one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country. A range of future scenarios are presented to account for uncertainty around irrigation infrastructure expansion, future crop prices, incentives for production of biomass for bioenergy, and water availability and irrigation demand due to climate change. We find that current surface water irrigation infrastructure increases agricultural output by value in the region by about 5.3% compared to a fully rainfed system. Additionally, we show that with expanded irrigation infrastructure, agricultural output could increase by between 3.4% and 18.4% relative to current levels under current climate conditions, but the value of agricultural production could increase under climate change with projected output from current and expanded irrigation infrastructure resulting in an increase of 1.2–24.8% relative to current irrigation levels. We also present evidence that the marginal benefit from increased irrigation access to smallholder farmers is nearly equal to that received by large-scale industrial agricultural producers. • We defelop a spatially and temporally explicit hydro-economic model to assess alternative irrigation expansion scenarios. • We find that climate change has the potential to shift the location and timing of benefits received from irrigation. • The marginal benefits from irrigation expansion received by small farms are larger than that received by industrial farms. • Climate change has the potential to change the spatial and temporal distribution of irrigation water availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common inflammatory disorder of the exocrine pancreas that causes severe morbidity and mortality. Although the pathophysiology of AP is poorly understood, a substantial body of evidence suggests some critical events for this disease, such as dysregulation of digestive enzyme production, cytoplasmic vacuolization, acinar cell death, edema formation, and inflammatory cell infiltration into the pancreas. Oxidative stress plays a role in the acute inflammatory response. The present review clarified the role of oxidative stress in the occurrence and development of AP by introducing oxidative stress to disrupt cellular Ca2 + balance and stimulating transcription factor activation and excessive release of inflammatory mediators for the application of antioxidant adjuvant therapy in the treatment of AP., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2024 Cai et al.)

Understanding greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the U.S. agriculture and forest sectors is critical for evaluating potential pathways to limit global average temperatures from rising more than 2° C. Using the FASOMGHG model, parameterized to reflect varying conditions across shared socioeconomic pathways, we project the greenhouse gas mitigation potential from U.S. agriculture and forestry across a range of carbon price scenarios. Under a moderate price scenario ($20 per ton CO 2 with a 3% annual growth rate), cumulative mitigation potential over 2015-2055 varies substantially across SSPs, from 8.3 to 17.7 GtCO 2 e. Carbon sequestration in forests contributes the majority, 64-71%, of total mitigation across both sectors. We show that under a high income and population growth scenario over 60% of the total projected increase in forest carbon is driven by growth in demand for forest products, while mitigation incentives result in the remainder. This research sheds light on the interactions between alternative socioeconomic narratives and mitigation policy incentives which can help prioritize outreach, investment, and targeted policies for reducing emissions from and storing more carbon in these land use systems.

In recent decades, the carbon sink provided by the U.S. forest sector has offset a sizable portion of domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the future, the magnitude of this sink has important implications not only for projected U.S. net GHG emissions under a reference case but also for the cost of achieving a given mitigation target. The larger the contribution of the forest sector towards reducing net GHG emissions, the less mitigation is needed from other sectors. Conversely, if the forest sector begins to contribute a smaller sink, or even becomes a net source, mitigation requirements from other sectors may need to become more stringent and costlier to achieve economy wide emissions targets. There is acknowledged uncertainty in estimates of the carbon sink provided by the U.S. forest sector, attributable to large ranges in the projections of, among other things, future economic conditions, population growth, policy implementation, and technological advancement. We examined these drivers in the context of an economic model of the agricultural and forestry sectors, to demonstrate the importance of cross-sector interactions on projections of emissions and carbon sequestration. Using this model, we compared detailed scenarios that differ in their assumptions of demand for agriculture and forestry products, trade, rates of (sub)urbanization, and limits on timber harvest on protected lands. We found that a scenario assuming higher demand and more trade for forest products resulted in increased forest growth and larger net GHG sequestration, while a scenario featuring higher agricultural demand, ceteris paribus led to forest land conversion and increased anthropogenic emissions. Importantly, when high demand scenarios are implemented conjunctively, agricultural sector emissions under a high income-growth world with increased livestock-product demand are fully displaced by substantial GHG sequestration from the forest sector with increased forest product demand. This finding highlights the potential limitations of single-sector modeling approaches that ignore important interaction effects between sectors.

The Forestry and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) has historically relied on regional average costs of land conversion to simulate land use change across cropland, pasture, rangeland, and forestry. This assumption limits the accuracy of the land conversion estimates by not recognizing spatial heterogeneity in land quality and conversion costs. Using data from Nielsen et al. (2014), we obtained the afforestation cost per county, then estimated nonparametric regional marginal cost functions for land converting to forestry. These afforestation costs were then incorporated into FASOMGHG. Three different assumptions for land moving into the forest sector (constant average conversion cost, static rising marginal costs, and dynamic rising marginal cost) were run in order to assess the implications of alternative land conversion cost assumptions on key outcomes, such as projected forest area and cropland use, carbon sequestration, and forest product output.

Land can be used in several ways to mitigate climate change, but especially under changing environmental conditions there may be implications for food prices. Using an integrated global system model, we explore the roles that these land-use options can play in a global mitigation strategy to stabilize Earth's average temperature within 2 °C of the preindustrial level and their impacts on agriculture. We show that an ambitious global Energy-Only climate policy that includes biofuels would likely not achieve the 2 °C target. A thought-experiment where the world ideally prices land carbon fluxes combined with biofuels (Energy+Land policy) gets the world much closer. Land could become a large net carbon sink of about 178 Pg C over the 21st century with price incentives in the Energy+Land scenario. With land carbon pricing but without biofuels (a No-Biofuel scenario) the carbon sink is nearly identical to the case with biofuels, but emissions from energy are somewhat higher, thereby results in more warming. Absent such incentives, land is either a much smaller net carbon sink (+37 Pg C - Energy-Only policy) or a net source (-21 Pg C - No-Policy). The significant trade-off with this integrated land-use approach is that prices for agricultural products rise substantially because of mitigation costs borne by the sector and higher land prices. Share of income spent on food for wealthier regions continues to fall, but for the poorest regions, higher food prices lead to a rising share of income spent on food.