Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > To mulch or to munch?

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

To mulch or to munch?: big modelling of big data

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

To mulch or to munch? big modelling of big data. / Rodriguez, D.; de Voil, P.; Rufino, Mariana C. et al.
In: Agricultural Systems, Vol. 153, 05.2017, p. 32-42.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Rodriguez, D, de Voil, P, Rufino, MC, Odendo, M & van Wijk, MT 2017, 'To mulch or to munch? big modelling of big data', Agricultural Systems, vol. 153, pp. 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.010

APA

Rodriguez, D., de Voil, P., Rufino, M. C., Odendo, M., & van Wijk, M. T. (2017). To mulch or to munch? big modelling of big data. Agricultural Systems, 153, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.010

Vancouver

Rodriguez D, de Voil P, Rufino MC, Odendo M, van Wijk MT. To mulch or to munch? big modelling of big data. Agricultural Systems. 2017 May;153:32-42. Epub 2017 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.010

Author

Rodriguez, D. ; de Voil, P. ; Rufino, Mariana C. et al. / To mulch or to munch? big modelling of big data. In: Agricultural Systems. 2017 ; Vol. 153. pp. 32-42.

Bibtex

@article{0b6c713160534440bbde4956fccb7106,
title = "To mulch or to munch?: big modelling of big data",
abstract = "African farmers are poorly resourced, highly diverse and aground by poverty traps making them rather impervious to change. As a consequence R4D efforts usually result in benefits but also trade-offs that constraint adoption and change. A typical case is the use of crop residues as mulches or as feedstock. Here we linked a database of household surveys with a dynamic whole farm simulation model, to quantify the diversity of trade-offs from the alternative use of crop residues. Simulating all the households in the survey (n = 613) over 99 years of synthetic climate data, showed that benefits and trade-offs from “mulching or munching” differ across agro-ecologies, and within agro-ecologies across typologies of households. Even though trade-offs between household production or income and environmental outcomes could be managed; the magnitude of the simulated benefits from the sustainable intensification of maize-livestock systems were small. Our modelling framework shows the benefits from the integration of socio-economic and biophysical approaches to support the design of development programs. Our results support the argument that a greater focus is required on the development and diversification of farmers' livelihoods within the framework of an improved understanding of the interconnectedness between biophysical, socio-economic and market factors.",
keywords = "APSIM, Whole farm modelling, Integrative analyses, Farm diversity",
author = "D. Rodriguez and {de Voil}, P. and Rufino, {Mariana C.} and M. Odendo and {van Wijk}, {M. T.}",
year = "2017",
month = may,
doi = "10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.010",
language = "English",
volume = "153",
pages = "32--42",
journal = "Agricultural Systems",
issn = "0308-521X",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCI LTD",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - To mulch or to munch?

T2 - big modelling of big data

AU - Rodriguez, D.

AU - de Voil, P.

AU - Rufino, Mariana C.

AU - Odendo, M.

AU - van Wijk, M. T.

PY - 2017/5

Y1 - 2017/5

N2 - African farmers are poorly resourced, highly diverse and aground by poverty traps making them rather impervious to change. As a consequence R4D efforts usually result in benefits but also trade-offs that constraint adoption and change. A typical case is the use of crop residues as mulches or as feedstock. Here we linked a database of household surveys with a dynamic whole farm simulation model, to quantify the diversity of trade-offs from the alternative use of crop residues. Simulating all the households in the survey (n = 613) over 99 years of synthetic climate data, showed that benefits and trade-offs from “mulching or munching” differ across agro-ecologies, and within agro-ecologies across typologies of households. Even though trade-offs between household production or income and environmental outcomes could be managed; the magnitude of the simulated benefits from the sustainable intensification of maize-livestock systems were small. Our modelling framework shows the benefits from the integration of socio-economic and biophysical approaches to support the design of development programs. Our results support the argument that a greater focus is required on the development and diversification of farmers' livelihoods within the framework of an improved understanding of the interconnectedness between biophysical, socio-economic and market factors.

AB - African farmers are poorly resourced, highly diverse and aground by poverty traps making them rather impervious to change. As a consequence R4D efforts usually result in benefits but also trade-offs that constraint adoption and change. A typical case is the use of crop residues as mulches or as feedstock. Here we linked a database of household surveys with a dynamic whole farm simulation model, to quantify the diversity of trade-offs from the alternative use of crop residues. Simulating all the households in the survey (n = 613) over 99 years of synthetic climate data, showed that benefits and trade-offs from “mulching or munching” differ across agro-ecologies, and within agro-ecologies across typologies of households. Even though trade-offs between household production or income and environmental outcomes could be managed; the magnitude of the simulated benefits from the sustainable intensification of maize-livestock systems were small. Our modelling framework shows the benefits from the integration of socio-economic and biophysical approaches to support the design of development programs. Our results support the argument that a greater focus is required on the development and diversification of farmers' livelihoods within the framework of an improved understanding of the interconnectedness between biophysical, socio-economic and market factors.

KW - APSIM

KW - Whole farm modelling

KW - Integrative analyses

KW - Farm diversity

U2 - 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.010

DO - 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.010

M3 - Journal article

VL - 153

SP - 32

EP - 42

JO - Agricultural Systems

JF - Agricultural Systems

SN - 0308-521X

ER -