Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Summary -- Multi-purpose project -- Holistic approach to primary production -- Introducing the new term side flow -- Comparing different terms -- Methods used for quantification -- Amounts of side flows and food waste -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1 Purpose and objectives of the project -- 1.2 Research questions -- 1.3 Demarcation -- 1.4 Reading instructions -- 2. Definitions, terms and system boundaries -- 2.1 Definitions, terms and system boundaries of this project -- 2.2 Comparing the definition used in this project to other existing definitions -- 3. Amount of side flows in Nordic countries -- 3.1 Food production and conversion factors -- 3.2 Side flow and food waste -- 3.2.1 Cereals, oil crops -- Wheat -- Rye -- Barley -- Oats -- Oil crops -- 3.2.2 Starchy roots, sugar crops -- Potatoes -- Sugar beet -- 3.2.3 Vegetables, pulses -- Tomatoes -- Onions, green shallots -- Cabbages and brassicas -- Cauliflowers and broccoli -- Lettuce and chicory -- Cucumbers and gherkins -- Peas, green -- Carrots and turnips -- Mushrooms and truffles -- Vegetables, Other -- Beans -- Peas, field -- Pulses, Other and products -- 3.2.4 Fruits -- Apples -- Pears -- Strawberry -- Currants -- Fruits, Other -- 3.2.5 Meat, offal, animal fats -- Bovine Meat -- Mutton & Goat Meat -- Pig meat -- Poultry Meat -- Meat, Other -- Offal -- Fats, Animals, Raw -- 3.2.6 Milk, eggs -- Milk -- Butter, Ghee -- Cream -- Eggs -- 3.2.7 Fish, seafood -- Fish, caught (wild fish): -- Farmed fish: -- Seafood -- Fish oil -- 3.3 Discussion of side flows and food waste -- 4. Case studies -- 4.1 Results -- 4.1.1 Questionnaire results -- 4.1.2 Field study results -- 4.2 Discussion on case studies -- 4.2.1 Uncertainty of results -- 4.2.2 Field studies -- 4.2.3 Reasons for side flow -- 4.2.4 Side flow treatment -- 5. Development of methodology.

Developing efficient policy instruments and incentive schemes to promote the uptake of greenhouse gas mitigation measures requires some kind of prioritisation of the mitigation measures. An important consideration in this process is the estimated cost and costefficiency the measures. The high number of reports done in developed countries show a high variability in the country-level cost-effectiveness estimates, and suggest that approaches providing higher granularity at the spatial and farm type could suit better to the purpose of regional policy development. At the same time, there is still a gap in our understanding of economic mitigation potential of agriculture in developing and newly industrialised countries.To address these questions this report presents three studies. The first is a literature review of the cost-effectiveness estimates of mitigation measures published in the past 15 years, discussing the variability in these estimates. The second study reports on marginal abatement cost curves for beef cattle production in Brazil. Finally, the last report presents the conceptual basis of a tool to assess the financial implications of the mitigation measures to be used in parallel with the FarmAC model, ultimately providing mitigation measure costeffectiveness estimates specific to individual farms. Additionally, it describes the selection of mitigation measures which have been assessed at the farm level in Component 3 of the AnimalChange project.