Demand For Agricultural Goods Research Articles

Auction Algorithm: Peer-To-Peer System Based on Hybrid Technologies for Smallholder Farmers to Control Demand and Supply

The demand for agricultural goods could be affected by variables such as population growth and consumer tastes. Environmental and zoonotic risks jeopardise crop yields as well as the dependability of distribution and storage networks. Governments can aid in addressing issues of supply and demand by enacting policies like price controls and subsidies. Climate change threatens agricultural output and livestock health, while other climate variables have been polluted by outside sources. Pesticides not only endanger wildlife that isn't intended to be harmed, but they also poison the environment, killing beneficial insects and other organisms. The rising costs of agricultural goods may be mitigated, at least in part, through regional and global trade agreements. When third parties intervene in farming, farmers stand to lose money. One example is the utilisation of low-quality inputs, while another is predatory financing. So we are proposing an Auction Algorithm: peer-to-peer system based on hybrid technologies for smallholder farmers to control demand and supply. To implement an auction algorithm, you need to set up the auction platform and back-end systems. You may also need to integrate the platform with hybrid technologies such as block chain and machine learning. Together, machine learning and blockchain technology can help agriculture companies improve their forecasts of demand and supply, make it easier to keep track of inventory, and reduce risks and inefficiencies in the supply chain. Designing and constructing the blockchain, establishing the P2P network, testing and deploying the system these are the stages of bringing a peer-to-peer system to life using blockchain technology. When we implement the above technologies in the agriculture sector, they have the potential to improve efficiency, promote transparency, and eventually help farmers increase their earnings. This technology can help increase agricultural quality by enhancing industrial efficiency, transparency, and sustainability.

Land Sharing vs Land Sparing to Conserve Biodiversity: How Agricultural Markets Make the Difference

In this paper, we model the supply and demand for agricultural goods and assess and compare how welfare, land use, and biodiversity are affected under intensive and extensive farming systems at market equilibrium instead of at exogenous production levels. As long as demand is responsive to price, and intensive farming has lower production costs, there exists a rebound effect (larger market size) of intensive farming. Intensive farming is then less beneficial to biodiversity than extensive farming is, except when there is a high degree of convexity between biodiversity and yield. On the other hand, extensive farming leads to higher prices and smaller quantities for consumers. Depending on parameter values, it may increase or decrease agricultural producer profits. Implementing “active” land sparing by zoning some land for agriculture and other land for conservation could overcome the rebound effect of intensive farming, but we show that farmers have then incentives to encroach on land zoned for conservation, with higher incentives under intensive farming. We also show that the primary effect of the higher prices associated with extensive farming is a reduction of animal feed production, which has a higher price elasticity of demand, whereas less of an effect is observed on plant-based food production and almost no effect is observed on biofuel production if there are mandatory blending policies.

Erhaltung der Landwirtschaftsflächen bedingt Priorisierung der Leistungen (Essay)

Protection of agricultural land needs prioritization of goods and services (essay) In Switzerland, productive agricultural land is scarce. Settlement development, forest encroachment and the expansion of natural habitats reduce the availability of agricultural surfaces and thus agriculture's potential to contribute to domestic food security. In addition, rural infrastructure developments as well as production immissions such as odor and noise increase land-use conflicts. To address these conflicts, society's demand for agricultural goods and services and the requirements of a productive agricultural sector must be reconciled by defining spatial areas in which goods and services provided by a multifunctional agriculture are prioritized. As shown by the example of the canton Zurich, such a spatial prioritization of agricultural goods and services allows for a consideration of synergies and trade-offs in actual planning processes to effectively protect agricultural surfaces.

Food Security and Competition Issues in Food Supply Chain in Transitional Economies. Case for Four Food Categories in Uzbekistan.

Almost everywhere in world, despite lower agricultural commodity prices, consumer food prices have been increasing in recent years. Notwithstanding a global recession and largest grain harvest on record in 2008, food prices have been heading up again. Between now and 2050 world’s population will rise by a third, but demand for agricultural goods will rise by 70% and demand for meat will double. In first ten months of 2009, food prices increased by 9.8%, prompting fears of a resumption of surge that began in 2007, first of two years of crisis. And as some experts claim in their early findings: in many places, supply of inputs is unhealthily monopolized. The food supply chain is issue not only for low income countries, but for affluent states as well. At their meeting in L’Aquila in July 2009, Group of Eight (G8) called agriculture and food security as the core of international agenda. Moreover, EU has been conducting own investigation of food supply chain to identify major causes of price stickiness in consumer food prices. Therefore, current situation in food markets, once again has brought up issue of food security as in developed countries so in developing poor countries, for which food expenditures make up large share of population’s income. For a country such as Uzbekistan, where large share of income is spent on foods and approximately 60% of population resides in rural areas and directly (or indirectly) depends on agricultural sector, providing fair competition and level playing field is of great importance. Hence, it was essential to analyze emerging trends, assess efficiency, transparency and level playing field in food supply chain, and to identify bottlenecks or artificial barriers that impede development of efficient and competitive supply chains.

Changing environmental characteristics of European cropland

The spatial configuration of agricultural systems is continuously changing in response to changes in demand for agricultural goods, changes in the level of competition between different land use activities, and progress in agricultural technology. This may lead to a change in the location of agricultural systems and consequently to a change in their average environmental characteristics. This paper explores the change in environmental characteristics of cropland (horticulture and field crops) over the years 1950, 1990 and 2000, for Western and Eastern Europe, using basic descriptive statistics. Underlying mechanisms are explored with logistic (interaction) regression analysis. We find that in both Eastern and Western Europe, crop cultivation shifted away from cities. In Western Europe cropland became situated on shallower soils, steeper slopes, and drier and less accessible areas. Probable reasons are that technical progress reduced the importance of traditional constraints such as drought, poor soils, and distance from markets, so that crop farmers were allowed to move to warm and sunny areas where potential productivity is highest. In addition, cropland probably lost some of its competitive power to grassland and nature. In Eastern Europe cropland concentrated on deeper soils and flatter terrain from 1990 onward. Here, the abandonment of the central planning system and a more flexible land market must have allowed a shift of cropland towards more suitable locations.

Future scenarios of European agricultural land use

This paper presents the development of quantitative, spatially explicit and alternative scenarios of future agricultural land use in Europe (the 15 European Union member states, Norway and Switzerland). The scenarios were constructed to support analyses of the vulnerability of ecosystem services, but the approach also provides an exploration of how agricultural land use might respond to a range of future environmental change drivers, including climate and socio-economic change. The baseline year was 2000 and the scenarios were constructed for 3 years (2020, 2050 and 2080) at a spatial resolution of 10 min latitude and longitude. Time slices were defined for the climate scenarios as the 10 years before 2020, 2050 and 2080. The scenarios were based on an interpretation of the four storylines of the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) using a simple supply/demand model of agricultural area quantities at the European scale and the disaggregation of these quantities using scenario-specific, spatial allocation rules. The scenarios demonstrate the importance of assumptions about technological development for future agricultural land use in Europe. If technology continues to progress at current rates then the area of agricultural land would need to decline substantially. Such declines will not occur if there is a correspondingly large increase in the demand for agricultural goods, or if political decisions are taken either to reduce crop productivity through policies that encourage extensification or to accept widespread overproduction. For the set of parameters assumed here, cropland and grassland areas (for the production of food and fibre) decline by as much as 50% of current areas for some scenarios. Such declines in production areas would result in large parts of Europe becoming surplus to the requirement of food and fibre production. Although it is difficult to anticipate how this land would be used in the future, it seems that continued urban expansion, recreational areas (such as for horse riding) and forest land use would all be likely to take up at least some of the surplus. Furthermore, whilst the substitution of food production by energy production was considered in these scenarios, surplus land would provide further opportunities for the cultivation of bioenergy crops.

Integrating agricultural and forestry GHG mitigation response into general economy frameworks: Developing a family of response functions

An econometrically estimated family ofresponse functions is developed forcharacterizing potential responses togreenhouse gas mitigation policies by theagriculture and forestry sectors in theU.S. The response functions are estimatedbased on results of anagricultural/forestry sector model. Theyprovide estimates of sequestration andemission reductions in forestry andagriculture along with levels of sectoralproduction, prices, welfare, andenvironmental attributes given a carbonprice, levels of demand for agriculturalgoods, and the energy price. Sixalternative mitigation policiesrepresenting types of greenhouse gasoffsets allowed are considered. Resultsindicate that the largest quantity ofgreenhouse gas offset consistently appearswith the mitigation policy that pays forall opportunities. Restricting carbonpayments (emission tax or sequestrationsubsidy) only to aff/deforestation or onlyto agricultural sequestration substantiallyreduces potential mitigation. Highercarbon prices lead to more sequestration,less emissions, reduced consumer and totalwelfare, improved environmental indicatorsand increased producer welfare.