Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2025
Authors
Tatsiana EspevigAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Anders Bryn Rune Halvorsen Peter Horvath Lasse Torben Keetz Ida Marielle Mienna Trond Simensen Olav Skarpaas Ingrid Vesterdal Tjessem Joachim Paul Töpper Vigdis Vandvik Liv Guri Velle Catharina Caspara VloonAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Åshild Ergon Signe Bråtelund Randi Berland Frøseth Jon Arne Dieseth Anders Borgen Paolo AnnicchiaricoAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Sonja G. Keel Alice Budai Lars Elsgaard Brieuc Hardy Florent Levavasseur Liang Zhi Claudio Mondini César Plaza Jens LeifeldAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
Context Dairy farming contributes approximately 2.5 % of annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, necessitating effective mitigation strategies. Two approaches are often discussed: low-intensity, low-cost production with minimal reliance on purchased inputs; and high-intensity production with higher-yielding cows to reduce land use and reduce methane emissions per unit of milk. Objective The objective was to identify management factors and farm characteristics that explain variations in GHG emissions, environmental, and economic performance. Indicators included were GHG emissions, land use occupation, energy intensity, nitrogen intensity, and gross margin. Methods Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was used to calculate the environmental impacts for 200 commercial dairy farms in Central Norway based on farm activities, purchased inputs, machinery, and buildings from 2014 to 2016. A multiple regression analysis with backward elimination was conducted to highlight important variables for environmental impact and economic outcome. Results and conclusions A higher share of dairy cows was found to be the most important factor in reducing GHG emissions, energy and nitrogen intensity, and land use but also to decrease gross margin. Additional key factors for reducing environmental impact included less purchased nitrogen fertiliser, and higher forage yield. There were no statistical correlations between GHG emissions and gross margin per MJ of human-edible energy delivered. Significance Conducting LCA for many dairy farms allows to highlight important factors influencing environmental impact and economic outcome. Using the delivery of human-edible energy from milk and meat as a functional unit allows for a combined evaluation of milk and meat production on a farm.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Darius KviklysAbstract
European fruit research institute network (EUFRIN) has started coordinated apple rootstock trials across the Europe in 2017. Until now, nineteen research institutions from 14 countries established 6 apple rootstock trials where 33 apple rootstocks of different vigour are in tests. Introduction of new apple orchard designs, multileader canopies usually require more vigorous rootstocks. Investigations of semi-dwarfing apple rootstocks ‘PFR1’ and ‘PFR3’ (New Zealand), ‘G.935’ and ‘G.202’ (US), ‘EM_01’ (UK) and ‘G.11’ as control were performed with apple ‘Galaval’ in Spain, France, and Lithuania during 2017-2023. On the average of five trial sites, the most vigorous trees were on ‘EM_01’, ‘PFR1’ and ‘PFR3’, exceeding vigour of trees on ‘G.11’ by 61 – 84%. Apple trees on rootstocks ‘PFR1’, ‘PFR3’ and ‘G.935’ produced higher cumulative yields, ‘G.202’ similar and ‘EM_01’ significantly lower yield comparing with ‘G.11’. Fertility index of ‘G.935’ equalled fertility of dwarfing ‘G.11’. Fertility index of ‘PFR3’ was similar to ‘G.202’, and the lowest was recorded for ‘EM_01’. Average fruit size did not depend on rootstocks. Rootstock – site interaction was not significant for tree vigour, fruit size, however significant interactions were recorded for cumulative yield and fertility index.