Publikasjoner
NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.
2025
Forfattere
Daniel Moreno-Fernández Johannes Breidenbach Isabel Cañellas Gherardo Chirici Giovanni D’amico Marco Ferretti Francesca Giannetti Stefano Puliti Sebastian Schnell Ross Shackleton Mitja Skudnik Iciar AlberdiSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Daniel Flø Johan A. Stenberg Lawrence Richard Kirkendall Kjetil Klaveness Melby Anders Nielsen Selamawit Tekle Gobena Beatrix Alsanius Jorunn Børve Paal Krokene Christer Magnusson Mogens Nicolaisen Line Nybakken May-Guri Sæthre Iben M. Thomsen Sandra WrightSammendrag
VKM has assessed the environmental and health risks associated with the use of the mite Lepidoglyphus destructor as feed. Background Anso-Mite Plus consists of the biological control agent Amblyseius andersoni and the feed organisms Carpoglyphus lactis and Lepidoglyphus destructor. Amblyseius andersoni and C. lactis have previously been assessed by VKM. VKM has now assessed the environmental and health risks of L. destructor. Conclusions Lepidoglyphus destructor has been found in homes, agricultural environments, and stored products in Norway. The species is well established in Norway, and introduced individuals are expected to be able to establish and spread. Lepidoglyphus destructor is widespread and common in Norway, and it seems unlikely that further introductions via Anso-Mite Plus will have any additional effects on biodiversity. Several studies report allergies to mites, including to L. destructor. The likelihood of developing mite allergies after handling the product is therefore high. However, the likelihood of allergic reactions after consuming plants treated with the product appears to be low. Lepidoglyphus is not a species-rich genus, and there is no documentation suggesting that L. destructor can be confused with other species. The risk assessment is approved by VKM's Panel on Plant Health.
Forfattere
Daniel Flø Johan A. Stenberg Lawrence Richard Kirkendall Kjetil Klaveness Melby Anders Nielsen Selamawit Tekle Gobena Beatrix Alsanius Jorunn Børve Paal Krokene Christer Magnusson Mogens Nicolaisen Line Nybakken May-Guri Sæthre Iben Margrete ThomsenSammendrag
VKM has assessed the environmental and health risks associated with the use of the mites Acarus siro and Suidasia pontifica as feed for various predatory insects and mites. Background POWERFOOD 3.0 is used as feed for various predatory mites and predatory insects. Acarus siro, Suidasia pontifica, and Carpoglyphus lactis constitute the product. Carpoglyphus lactis has previously been assessed by VKM. VKM has now prepared an environmental and health risk assessment of A. siro and S. pontifica. Conclusions Acarus siro occurs naturally in Norway, and new introductions will most likely be able to establish and spread in Norway. Suidasia pontifica, on the other hand, has never been recorded in the wild in Norway, and its tropical origin suggests that it will not establish and spread in Norway. No records of negative effects of A. siro and S. pontifica on biodiversity were found. Several studies report allergies to mites, including the species in the product POWERFOOD 3.0. The likelihood of developing mite allergies after handling the product is therefore high. However, the likelihood of allergic reactions following consumption of plants treated with the product appears to be low. Regarding taxonomic challenges that may affect the risk assessment, VKM found out that A. siro can be mistaken for A. farris and A. immobilis. These species differ only slightly in development and ecology. From the limited available knowledge about their biology, these three species are expected to have similar effects on biodiversity and human health. There are no known problems with species identification for Suidasia pontifica. The taxonomic issue with this species is that much of the literature uses an invalid name; S. medanensis. The risk assessment is approved by VKM's Panel on Plant Health.
Sammendrag
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.
Forfattere
Hilde Margrethe HelgesenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Hilde Margrethe HelgesenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Hilde Margrethe HelgesenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Hilde Margrethe HelgesenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Hilde Margrethe HelgesenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
https://www.buskap.no/article/2025/04/Er%20det%20de%20beste%20r%C3%B8dkl%C3%B8versortene%20som%20benyttes%20i%20dag