Bio -based and A ppl ied Economics BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6e172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Copyright: © 2022 W. Sobczak, J. Gołębiewski. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: W. Sobczak, J. Gołębiewski (2022). Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected exam- ples. Bio-based and Applied Econom- ics 11(3): 265-275. doi: 10.36253/bae-9753 Received: September 18, 2020 Accepted: September 9, 2022 Published: November 4, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Fabio Gaetano Santeramo. ORCID WS: 0000-0003-3812-3877 JG: 0000-0001-7869-790X Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Wioleta Sobczak*, Jarosław Gołębiewski Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland *Corresponding author. E-mail: wioleta_sobczak@sggw.edu.pl Abstract. The growing demand for raw materials for the production of biofuels may lead to an increase in the prices of these raw materials and, due to the shortage of land, to an increase in the prices of other crops. This is due to the fact that the growing demand for raw materials for the production of methyl esters and bioethanol (the most widely used biofuels), such as rape and corn, is a form of competition on the food and feed markets. It should be mentioned that although the topic is not new, it is still very relevant, taking into account the expansion of energy crops, as well as national, Euro- pean and world energy policy. Especially due to the fact that, as has already been men- tioned, the use of plant products for the production of biofuels has an impact on the regulations of the food market.This study is to analyze the volatility and dependence of ethanol, biodiesel, maize and rapeseed prices in the period of 2016-2019 and aims at assessing the correlation between the agricultural and biofuel markets. In this paper, the investigation regarding co-integration of biofuel and agricultural commodity prices has utilized ethanol and commodity prices with the use of the vector error correction model (VECM). Price dependencies between the prices of biodiesel, rapeseed, maize and ethanol were found, indicating the existence of long-term causality in at least one direction between the analyzed prices. The results indicated that biodiesel prices dur- ing the period in question were influenced by the previous week’s prices of biofuel and rapeseed. Moreover, biodiesel prices had an impact on the level of ethanol and rape- seed prices. In the case of rapeseed, the correlation between its prices and those of corn is also noticeable, while prices of corn may also affect prices of ethanol. Keywords: Biofuels, Agricultural market, Biofuel market. Jel Codes: Q16, Q4. 1. INTRODUCTION To deal with the unprecedented pace of climate change caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is a clear need to shift from an energy dependency on fossil fuels to renewable energy. Now, with environmental policy pushing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, aided by recent advances in crop engineering and fermentation processes, the production of bioethanol and biodiesel has once again become viable and sustainable substitutes for petroleum-based fuels. Production of biofuels showed a growing tendency in the 1990s when the assumptions of the Com- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 266 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Wioleta Sobczak, Jarosław Gołębiewski mon Agricultural Policy (CAP) indirectly supported the production of biofuels through guaranteed minimum prices, subsidies per hectare of production and com- pensation payments for set-aside land that, however, could be used to produce raw materials for biofuel pro- duction. Moreover, the 2003 CAP reform introduced a cultivation premium for production of energy crops on primary land (Lamers et al., 2011). It should be noted that in the case of the production of pollutants, more than a quarter of the total CO2 emissions are generated by the transport sector (Adams et al., 2020). To miti- gate the effects of global warming caused by the accu- mulation of greenhouse gases from climate change, it is imperative to reduce CO2 emissions from fuel com- bustion in car engines and to switch to alternative and cleaner fuels. It should be noted that the development of road transport in the world has led to a rapid increase in the demand for fuels, especially those derived from crude oil. Increased greenhouse gas emissions are due to the burning of fossil fuels and to changes in land use caused by human activities. Therefore, alternative solu- tions are sought, especially biofuels that could actually compete with conventional energy sources (Kurowska et al., 2020, Klikocka et al., 2019). It should be empha- sized that the known oil resources are limited resourc- es. Various studies set the date of the world peak in oil production in 1996-2035. That is why it is so important to pay attention to biomass-based energy technologies, which use waste or plant matter to produce energy with lower GHG emissions than fossil fuel sources (Sheehan, 1988). Thus, biofuels entered the market as an option to reduce dependence on crude oil and as a way to pur- sue social, economic and environmental sustainability (Chavez et al., 2010, Kurowska et al., 2020). As noted by Janda et al. (2012), increased interest in the applica- tion of biofuels as an alternative to liquid fossil fuels was observed after the oil crisis that occurred on world markets in the 1970s. In addition, the use of biofuels (compared to fossil fuels) contributes to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (Hallam et al., 2006). Mov- ing on to the meaning of biofuels, it should be clari- fied that the term biofuel refers to liquid and gaseous fuels (bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas) and solids produced mainly from biomass (Demirbas, 2008). Biofuel is a non-polluting, locally available, sustainable and reliable fuel obtained from renewable sources (Vasudevan et al., 2005). Liquid biofuels are primarily used to power vehicles, but they can also power engines or fuel cells to generate electricity (Demirbas, 2007). Bioethanol and biodiesel are the two most popular biofuels used as sub- stitutes for regular gasoline and diesel fuel (Clerici and Alimonti, 2015). As already mentioned the global demand for bio- fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel is increasing mainly for environmental reasons (Goswamia and Choudhuryb, 2019; Ajanovic, 2011). This is in line with the expansion of this market and the rapid increase in their production worldwide (Banse et al., 2008). Biofuels are perceived as an essential element in the development of fuel mar- kets (Ryan et al., 2006). In the transport sector, ethanol constitutes the most widely consumed liquid biofuel in the world (McPhail, 2011). It should be noted that the demand for biofuels is driven mainly by the trans- port sector (Fundira and Henley 2017). Brunschwig et al. (2012) as well as Balat (2011) indicated that biodiesel is an attractive alternative to diesel fuel. Sivakumar et al. 2010 noted that with population growth, industrial development, and fossil fuel transportation costs soar- ing, it seems reasonable that countries seek for solutions independent from non-renewable fuels for climatic and economic reasons (Reboredo et al., 2016), thus drawing the attention of many stakeholders related to this issue, i.e. decision makers, representatives of the industry, and the scientific community (Timilsina et al., 2011). At the same time, the development of the biofuel market translates into a growing demand for the most important agricultural production factors (van Eijck et al., 2014). However, it should be taken into considera- tion that biofuels compete for renewable and non-renew- able resources, and therefore may affect their sustain- able growth and the market for agricultural products. Increased cultivation of biofuel crops will affect land utilization (Searchinger, 2007) which will have an impact on global natural resources and environmental sustain- ability (Zhang et al., 2009, Hausman et al., 2012), i.e. by generating indirect effects from their exploitation (van Noorden, 2013). Moreover, extending the cultivation area of biofuels with a simultaneous increase in population may lead to higher prices of agricultural raw materials on international markets. Thus, production of biofuels can pose challenges in terms of sustainable food produc- tion (Naylor et al., 2007). Moreover, in the case of bio- fuels, a crowding-out effect may appear (Vacha, 2013), redirecting food production to production of biofuel (Baffes, 2013). It should be emphasized that if part of the soil resources is occupied by the fields of energy crops, the potential for food production is weakened, which may result in an increase in food prices. Competition between energy crops and food crops has consequences such as rapidly rising food prices and a food deficit on a global scale (Gomiero, 2010, OECD-FAO). The prob- lem of competition between bioenergy crops and plants intended for consumption, resulting from land use, was also noted by Vasile et al. (2016) and Cai et al. (2010), 267Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Tomei and Heliwell (2016). Therefore, the indirect effects of biofuel production have become the subject of research and discussion among economists, environmentalists, NGOs, and international organizations that call for an additional analysis of the outcomes related to biofuels (Bentivoglio and Rasetti, 2015; Oláh, 2017). It has been observed that the growing demand for raw materials for the production of methyl esters and bioethanol (the most widely used biofuels), such as rapeseed or corn, is a form of competition in the food and feed markets (Koizumi, 2015). It should also be noted that the activities related to the production of biofuels also have indirect negative effects of land use, such as the conversion of food crops into fuel (Humalisto, 2015). This phenomenon is known as indirect land use change, which, in combination with the conversion of carbon-rich lands, can lead to signifi- cant greenhouse gas emissions, which counteracts the previously indicated positive environmental importance of biofuels (Britz and Hertel, 2011, EC. Directive (EU) 2015 / 1513, Santeramo and Searle 2019, Kupczyk 2020). As the research by Searchinger et al. (2008), emissions of greenhouse gases from corn ethanol in selected loca- tions may even double compared to the continued use of petroleum products. Then, the impact of the biofuel pro- gram on greenhouse gas emissions may be unfavorable (Britz and Hertel, 2011). In consequence, it raises doubts as to whether biofuels are a friendlier alternative to petrol (Chakravorty et al., 2017). The issue of dependence between the agricul- tural market and the biofuel market plays a signifi- cant role, inter alia, due to the expansion of biofuels into global agricultural commodity markets (Drabik et al., 2016,Banase et al., 2008). The research conducted so far by, among others, Wright (2011), 2011 de Gorter and Drabik (2015) indicate a sharp increase in biofuel production as well as a strong and direct relationship between prices of energy and agricultural commodit. ). The growing demand for raw materials for the produc- tion of biofuels may lead to an increase in the prices of these raw materials, and due to the shortage of land, to an increase in the prices of other crops (Searchinger, 2008). The price interdependencies between the food and biofuel market have therefore become an ongoing subject of discussion among energy, environmental and agricultural economists interested in the sustainabil- ity of biofuels (Kristoufek, 2012, Oladosu and Msangi, 2013, Kurowska et al. 2020). Drabik and et al. (2016) also notes that the global agriculture and energy sectors have become more interdependent due to the surge in biofuel production over the past two decades. At the same time, both sectors exhibit high price volatility. In contrast, the transmission of global price shocks to domestic markets, from agricultural commodities to food prices, might have a significant impact on income distribution and welfare for farmers and consumers. As a result, the issue of price transmission between agricultural markets and biofuel markets becomes relevant from the perspective of political economy. This article analyzes the price relations between the biofuel market and the market of agricultural products. The price transmission between the prices of rapeseed, biodiesel, maize and ethanol was assessed. The goal was to obtain answers to the following research questions: 1. How were the prices of biodiesel, ethanol, corn and turnip in the analyzed period ? 2. Is there a relationship between the prices of bio- diesel, bioethanol, corn and turnip in the analyzed period ? 3. What is the relationship between the prices of bio- diesel, bioethanol, corn and turnip in the analyzed period? It should be mentioned that although the topic is not new, it is still very relevant, taking into account the expansion of energy crops, as well as national, European and world energy policy. Especially due to the fact that, as already mentioned, the use of plant products for the production of biofuels affects the condition of the food market. 2. METHODS AND DATA The data set includes weekly wholesale prices of eth- anol, biodiesel, rapeseed and maize, from the first week of 2016 to the last week of 2019, from global markets, i.e. the stock exchange: The Paris Stock Exchange oraz New York Mercantile Exchange Prices have been averaged and given in EUR. In order to standardize the currency, the average EUR rate in a given trading week was used. A period of no significant disturbances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic was selected. The mutual inte- gration of all prices was analyzed. Prior to estimation of model parameters, it is neces- sary to determine the stationarity of the analyzed time series. For the purpose of this study, the Kwiatkowski, Phillips, Schmidt and Shin (KPSS) test was applied (Maddala, 2009; Welfe 2009). The direction of cointe- grating relations between the analyzed prices was estab- lished based on the vector model of the VECM error correction, which determines the short-term dynamics of each price within long-term relations. According to the Granger representation theo- rem, the equation of the VECM error correction model 268 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Wioleta Sobczak, Jarosław Gołębiewski assumed the following form (Gujarati and Porter, 2009; Johansen and Joselius, 1990): (1) where: (2) (3) Xt= [xt1 …xtk]T – vector of observations on the current values of all explanatory variables, Dt – vector of exogenous equation components such as intercept, time change, non-stochastic regression, delayed values of exogenous variables, A0 – matrix of parameters with vector variables Dt. (does not contain zero elements), Ai – matrix of parameters with delayed xt vector vari- ables (does not contain zero elements), k – model row, specifying the maximum length of the delay, εt = [e1t … ekt]T – vectors of stationary random dis- turbances (residual vectors of the model equa- tions). In order to assess the response of individual varia- bles to a change in the price level of another component, the Impulse Response Function (IRF) was applied, as presented below (Baillie, Kapetanios, 2013). (4) where: B – matrix of parameters standing at non-lagged vector values Xt, Φi – response of the distinguished vector variable Xt to an impulse from another variable. The choice of the order of variables in the model depends on the AIC information criterion. The length of the model lag has been 1. The Granger causality test was used to analyse rela- tions between the studied variables. Testing cau-sality in the Granger sense is based on the following system of equations: (5) (6) where: Yt – values of the variable Y; Xt – values of the variable X; β – structural parameters of the model; ut– random component of the model (Granger, 1969). The null hypothesis in the Granger Causality test assumes that all βk coefficients are equal to zero, which means that there is no causality, while the alternative hypothesis assumes the occurrence of causality in the Granger sense. 3. RESULTS In 2021, the global production of biofuels reached the level of 1,747 thousand. barrels of oil equivalent per day, compared to 187 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day, produced in 2000. Production of biofuels, given the belief that it can provide energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the relevant sectors. The global biofuel market is expected to reach over $ 200 bil- lion by 2030 (statista.com, 2022). As noted, price developments in the four markets in question appear to be correlated. The evolution of rape- seed, maize, biodiesel, ethanol prices and their volatility in years 2016-2019 is depicted in Figure 2. In the ana- lyzed time period, a gradual decline in biodiesel prices was observed. This situation stabilized in the first quar- ter of 2016. A similar situation occurred in the case of ethanol prices. Throughout years 2016-2019, there were significant fluctuations in the prices of ethanol and bio- diesel. In the case of rapeseed and maize, the differences were milder. Studying the interdependencies of time series requires an examination of their stationarity. The lev- el of integration of the analyzed time series was tested using the KPSS test. The calculated value of the test statistics presented in Table 1 with the included lags at significance level α = 0.01 indicates rejection of the null hypothesis which suggests the stationarity of the tested 269Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 time series, proving the non-stationarity of the analyzed prices. The performed test using the Johansen method shows that at the signifi cance level equal to 0.05, the null hypothesis of no cointegrating relation should be reject- ed. Th e test results included in Table 2 indicate the exist- ence of three dependence relations between the exam- ined prices. Th e existence of relationships between prices proves the existence of long-term causality in at least one direc- tion between the analyzed prices. However, it does not indicate the direction of causality in price developments. Th is causality can be determined using the vector model of the VECM error correction (Table 3). Th e results of the model estimation for the analyzed prices suggested the existence of numerous relationships between the analyzed prices (statistically significant relationships between the price levels have been marked in grey). Namely, the price level of biodiesel in the said period was infl uenced by prices of this biofuel from the previ- ous week and prices of rapeseed. At the same time, bio- diesel prices infl uenced the price level of ethanol and rapeseed. In the case of rapeseed, the estimation of the 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 Figure 1. Biofuel production worldwide from 2000 to 2021(in 1,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day). Source: Own elaboration based on statista.com. Table 1. Results of stationarity tests with regard to the analyzed time series. Biodiesel Ethanol Maize Rapeseed KPSS test statistics / Critical value 1.724*** 1.581*** 0.852*** 0.965*** p-value = 0,01 0.587 0.587 0.587 0.587 p-value = 0,05 0.399 0.399 0.399 0.399 p-value = 0,1 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311 Source: Own calculations and analysis with the use of EViews soft ware. Table 2. Occurrence of correlations between the analyzed time series - Johansen’s test. Th e number of cointegrating vectors Test trace Critical value p=0,05 0* 66.05 47.99 1* 36.61 28.99 2* 14.99 13.11 3 3.44 4.74 Source: Own calculations and analysis with the use of EViews soft ware. 270 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Wioleta Sobczak, Jarosław Gołębiewski VECM model showed a connection with maize prices. Nonetheless, it should be noted that maize prices may also cause changes in ethanol prices. In this case, the obtained results indicate the existence of a two-way rela- tionship. The impulse response function determined on the basis of the estimation of VECM parameters illustrated the occurrence of reactions between individual variables, as depicted in Table 3 (Figure 2). The IRF functions were determined by the results of the VECM model parame- ter estimation for the levels. The course of the IRF func- tion confirms the interaction of prices, for which the VECM model estimation indicated the presence of inter- dependencies in their formation. Based on the analysis of the course of the IRF func- tion, the reaction to the impulse appears up to 2 weeks after its occurrence while individual functions expire within 3-4 weeks, rebalancing the system. The Granger causality test was used to determine which prices are interdependent in terms of price forma- tion. The test results are presented in Table 4. Figure 2. Price level of rapeseed, maize, biodiesel and ethanol prices in the analyzed period in nominal terms (in EUR). Source: Own calcu- lations and analysis with the use of EViews software. Table 3. The results of the VECM model parameters estimation.   Biodiesel Rapeseed Ethanol Maize CointEq1  -32.05 24.25 -0.31 -13.14 27.24 8.15 0.21 5.88 [-1.24] [2.31] [-2.19] [-2.74] Δ_biodiesel 0.41 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.02 [2.74] [2.11] [1.11] [0.40] Δ_rapeseed 0.73 0.31 0.01 0.11 0.62 0.06 0.01 0.05 [2.13] [3.88] [0.99] [2.87] Δ_ethanol -24.75 -0.20 0.17 -6.412 18.11 6.01 0.07 3.31 [-1.74] [-0.02] [-1.51] [-1.74] Δ_maize -0.24 -0.27 0.01 -0.07 0.42 0.14 0.001 0.08 [-0.81] [-1.81] [1.64] [-1.07] Source: Own calculations and analysis with the use of EViews software. Δ – price of given product from previous period. 271Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Figure 3. The reaction of individual markets to an impulse in the form price level changes. X axis - days; Y axis - price in EUR. Source: Own calculations and analysis with the use of EViews software. 272 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Wioleta Sobczak, Jarosław Gołębiewski The analyzes of the Granger causality test showed that there was a relationship between the prices of bio- diesel and ethanol, the impact of rapeseed prices on bio- diesel prices, the price of rapeseed and ethanol prices, as well as the prices of rapeseed and corn prices.. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The obtained results indicate that further research is necessary in order to provide a detailed description of the multiple dependencies that occur in the biofuel market as well as their connection with fossil fuel and agricultural markets. The presented research results on price volatility and price response of selected biofuels and agricultural products could have been measured more thoroughly with higher frequency data (e.g. daily), as well as taking into account products such as soybean, palm oil, rice or sugar. In addition, it is worthwhile to examine the problem from a broader perspective and to consider to what extent the price interdependence in these markets is a natural phenomenon and how much action is taken to promote the bioeconomy. Literature provides many studies on the relationship between the biofuel market and the agricultural raw materials mar- ket, e.g. Ciaian and Kancs, (2011), Janda et al. (2012), Serra and Zilberman et al. (2013), Kristoufek et al. (2014), de Gorter et al. (2013), de Gorter et al. (2015), Goswami and Choudhury (2019). However, due to the dynamic character of the market, this area should be the subject of continuous study. The conducted analyses indicated relationships between the prices of biodiesel, rapeseed, maize and ethanol, proving the existence of long-term causality in at least one direction between the analyzed prices. Based on the results of the estima- tion of the VECM model parameters, biodiesel prices in the period in question were influenced by prices of this biofuel from the previous week and prices of rape- seed. Moreover, biodiesel prices influenced the price level of ethanol and rapeseed. In the case of rapeseed, one may also observe the dependence of its prices on the prices of maize, while the prices of maize might be cause changes in ethanol prices. Moreover, in this case, the obtained results indicate the existence of a two-way relationship. This study may add value to previous studies, show- ing the relationship between the prices of biofuels and agricultural products, and thus become the basis for further considerations on the analysis of the impact of energy crops and biofuel production on the prices of agricultural and food products. It should also be men- tioned that obtaining fuels from bio sources is becoming more and more important. Particular attention in this direction has been paid recently, when there has been a strong increase in the prices of fossil fuels resulting from the pandemic situation in recent years and the ongoing war in Ukraine. REFERENCES 1. Adams, S., Boateng, E., Acheampong, A.O. (2020). Transport energy consumption and environmen- tal quality: Does urbanization matter? Sci. Total Environ., 744, Article 140617, 10.1016/j.scito- tenv.2020.140617 Table 4. The results of the Granger causality test. Null Hypothesis: F-Statistic Prob. Etanol does not Granger Cause Biodiesel 0.154 0.856 Accepted Biodiesel does not Granger Cause Etanol 6.285 0.002* Rejected Corn does not Granger Cause Biodiesel 1.358 0.259 Accepted Biodiesel does not Granger Cause Corn 1.276 0.281 Accepted Rape does not Granger Cause Biodiesel 4.769 0.009* Rejected Biodiesel does not Granger Cause Rape 0.880 0.416 Accepted Corn does not Granger Cause Ethanol 1.467 0.232 Accepted Ethanol does not Granger Cause Corn 0.955 0.386 Accepted Rape does not Granger Cause Ethanol 3.439 0.034* Rejected Ethanol does not Granger Cause Rape 1.152 0.317 Accepted Rape does not Granger Cause Corn 2.020 0.001* Rejected Corn does not Granger Cause Rape 1.806 0.166 Accepted *Probability 0.05 then Null Hypothesis is rejected. Source: Own calculations and analysis with the use of EViews software. 273Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 2. Ajanovic, A. (2011). Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices? Ener- gy, 36: 2070-2076 3. Baffes, J. (2013). A framework for analyzing the interplay among food, fuels and biofuels. Global Food Security 2: 110–116. 4. Baillie, R.T., Kapetanios, G. (2013). Estimation and inference for impulse response functions from uni- variate strongly persistent processes. Econometrics Journal, 16(3): 376–377. 5. Balat, M. (2011). Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production – A review of current work. Energy Conversion and Management, 52: 1479–1492. 6. Banse, M., van Meijl, H., Tabeau A. and Woltjer, G. (2008). Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricul- tural markets? European Review of Agricultural Eco- nomics 35(2): 117–141. 7. Banse, M., van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., Woltjer, G. (2008). Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricul- tural markets?. European Review of Agricultural Eco- nomics, 35(2): 117-141. 8. Bentivoglio, D.; Rasetti, M. (2015). Biofuel sustain- ability: Review of implications for land use and food price. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 70: 7–31. 9. Britz, W., Hertel, T.W.(2011). Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and EU environmental quality: an integrated PE, global CGE analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 142: 102-109. 10. Britz, W., Hertel, T.W. (2011). Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and EU environmental quality: An integrated PE, global CGE analysis. Agri- culture, Ecosystems & Environment, 142(1-2): 102- 109. 11. Brunschwig, C., Moussavou, W., Blin, J. (2012). Use of bioethanol for biodiesel production. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 38: 283-301. 12. Chakravorty, U., Hubert, M.H., Moreaux, M and Nøstbakken, L. (2017). Long‐Run Impact of Biofuels on Food Prices. The Scandinavian Journal of Econom- ics, 119 (3): 733-767 13. Chavez, E.; Liu, D.H.; Zhao, X.B. (2010). Biofuels production development and prospects in China. J. Biobased Mater. Bioenergy, 4: 221–242. 14. Ciaian, P., Kancs, A. (2011). Food, energy and envi- ronment: is bioenergy the missing link? Food Policy 36: 571–580. 15. Clerici A., Alimonti, G. (2015). World energy resources, EPJ Web Conf., 98: 01001, 10.1051/epj- conf/20159801001 16. COM (2020) 80: Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and of the Council Establish- ing the Framework for Achieving Climate Neutrality and Amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (Euro- pean Climate Law). Available online: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/procedure/EN/2020_36 (accessed on 25 January 2022) 17. de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., (2015). The Economics of Biofuel Policies: Impacts on Price Volatility in Grain and Oilseed Markets. Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan: 304. 18. de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., Just, D.R., (2013). How biofuels policies affect the level of grains and oilseed prices: theory, models, and evidence. Global Food Security, 2 (2): 82–88. 19. de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., Just, D.R., (2015). The Eco- nomics of Biofuel Policies: Impacts on Price Volatil- ity in Grain and Oilseed Markets. Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. 20. Demirbas, A., (2007). Progress and recent trends in biofuels, Prog Energy Combust Sci, 33: 1-18 21. Demirbas, A., (2008). Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projections, Ener- gy Conversion and Management. 49 (8):2106-2116. 22. Drabik, D., Ciaian, P., Pokrivčák, J. (2016). The effect of ethanol policies on the vertical price transmission in corn and food markets. Energy Economics 55: 189-199. 23. EC. Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Par- liament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 Amending Directive 98/70/EC Relating to the Quali- ty of Petrol and Diesel Fuels and Amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 24. Fundira, T., Henley, G. (2017). Biofuels in Southern Africa: Political Economy, Trade, and Policy Environ- ment’. UNU-WIDER Working Paper 2017/48. Hel- sinki: UNU-WIDER. 25. Gomiero, T.; Paoletti, M.G.; Pimentel, D. (2010). Bio- fuels: Ethics and concern for the limits of human appropriation of ecosystem services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 23: 403–434. 26. Goswamia, K., Choudhuryb, H. K. (2019). Biofuels versus food: Understanding the trade-offs between climate friendly crop and food security. World Devel- opment Perspectives, 13: 10-17. 27. Granger, C.W.J. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica, (37) 3: 424–438. 28. Gujarati, D.N., Porter, D.C. (2009). Basic economet- rics, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 29. Hallam, D., Rapsomanikis, G. (2006). Threshold cointegration in the sugar-ethanol-oil price system in 274 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 Wioleta Sobczak, Jarosław Gołębiewski Brazil: evidence from nonlinear vector error correc- tion models. FAO, Rome (Italy). Commodities and Trade Div. 30. Hausman, C., Auffhammer, M., Berck, P. (2012). Farm Acreage Shocks and Crop Prices: An SVAR Approach to Understanding the Impacts of Biofuels. Environ Resource Economics 53:117–136. 31. Hochman, G., Rajagopal, D., Zilberman, D., (2010). Are bioduels the culprit? OPEC, food, and fuel. American Economic Review 100:183–187. 32. Humalisto, N.H. (2015). Climate policy integration and governing indirect land-use changes—actors in the EU’s biofuel policy-formulation, Land Use Policy, 45:150-158 33. Janda, K., Kristoufek, L., Zilberman D. (2012). Bio- fuels: policies and impacts. Agricultural Economics 58 (8): 372-386 34. Johansen, S., (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointe- grating Vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 12: 231-54. 35. Johansen, S., Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likeli- hood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration- With Applications to the Demand for Money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52(2): 169-210. 36. Klikocka, H.; Kasztelan, A.; Zakrzewska, A.; Wyłupek, T.; Szostak, B.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B. (2019). The energy efficiency of the production and conversion of spring triticale grain into bioethanol. Agronomy 9, 423. 37. Koizumi, T. Biofuels and food security. (2015). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 829–841. 38. Kristoufek, L., Janda, K., Zilberman, D., (2014). Price transmission between biofuels, fuels and food com- modities. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 8 (3): 362–373. 39. Kristoufek, L.; Janda, K.; Zilberman, D. (2012). Mutual Responsiveness of Biofuels, Fuels and Food Prices. CAMA Working Paper 38. Available online: https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/working- papers/2012/382012.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2019). 40. Kupczyk, A.; Mączyńska-Sęczek, J.; Golisz, E.; Borowski, P.F. (2020). Renewable Energy Sourc- es in Transport on the Example of Methyl Esters and Bioethanol. Processes, 8, 1610. https://doi. org/10.3390/pr8121610 41. Kurowska, K.; Marks-Bielska, R.; Bielski, S.; Kryszk, H.; Jasinskas, A. (2020). Food Security in the Context of Liquid Biofuels Production. Energies, 13, 6247. htt- ps://doi.org/10.3390/en13236247 42. Kusideł E., (2000). Modele wektorowo-autoregresyjne VAR. Metodologia i zastosowanie [w:] Suchecki B. (red.), Dane panelowe i modelowanie wielowy- miarowe w badaniach ekonomicznych. Tom. 3, Wydawnictwo Absolwent, Łódź: 48. 43. Lamers P., Hamelinck C., Junginger, M. and Faaij, A. (2011). International bioenergy trade—A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6): 2655-2676. 44. Maddala G.S. (2008). Econometrics. Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, pp. 619–620. 45. McPhail, L.L. (2011). Assessing the impact of US ethanol on fossil fuel markets: A structural VAR approach. Energy Economics, 33: 1177–1185. 46. Naylor, R. L., Liska, A., Burke, M. B., Falcon, W. P., Gaskell, J. C., Rozelle, S. D., and Cassman, K. G. (2007). The ripple effect: Biofuels, food security and the environment. Environment, 49: 30–43. 47. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook. Available online: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=HIGH_ AGLINK_2019# (accessed on 17 December 2021). 48. Oladosu G., Msangi S. (2013). Biofuel-Food Mar- ket Interactions: A Review of Modeling Approaches and Findings, Agriculture, 3(1), 53-71; https://doi. org/10.3390/agriculture3010053 49. Oláh, J., Lengyel, P., Balogh, P., Harangi-Rákos, M., Popp, P. (2017). The Role of Biofuels in Food Com- modity Prices Volatility and Land Use. Journal of Competitiveness, 9 (4): 81-89. 50. Reboredo, FH., Lidon, F., Pessoa, F. and Ramalho, JC. (2016). The Fall of Oil Prices and the Effects on Bio- fuels. Trends in Biotechnology 34(1): 3-6. 51. Ryan L., Convery F., Ferreira, S. (2006). Stimulating the use of biofuels in the European Union: Implica- tions for climate change policy. Energy Policy, 34: 3184–3194. 52. Santeramo F.G., Searle, S., (2019). Linking soy oil demand from the US Renewable Fuel Standard to palm oil expansion through an analysis on vegetable oil price elasticities. Energy Policy, 127, 19-23. 53. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, Houghton, R., R. A., Dong, F. and Elobeid, A. (2008) Jacinto Fabiosa, Simla Tok- goz, Dermot Hayes, Tun-Hsiang Yu. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319: 1238–1240. 54. Serra, T., Zilberman, D., (2013). Biofuel-related price transmission literature: A review. Energy Economics 37:141–151. 55. Sheehan J, Cambreco V, Duffield J, Garboski M, Shapouri H. (1988). An overview of biodiesel and petroleum diesel life cycles. A report by US Depart- ment of Agriculture and Energy, p. 1–35. 275Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 265-275, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9753 56. Sivakumar, G., Vail, D. R., Xu, J. F., Burner, D. M., Lay, J. O., Ge, X. M. and Weathers, P. J. (2010). Bioethanol and biodiesel: Alternative liquid fuels for future generations. Engineering in Life Sciences, 10: 8–18. 57. T.D. Searchinger, R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, T. Yu. (2008). Use of croplands for biofuels increase greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change, Science, 319: 1238-1240. 58. Timilsina, G.R., Mevel, S., Shrestha, A., (2011). Oil price, biofuels and food supply. Energy Policy, 39: 8098–8105. 59. Tomei, J., Helliwell, R. (2016). Food versus fuel? Going beyond biofuels. Land Use Policy, 56, 320-326. 60. Vacha, L.; Janda, K.; Kristoufek, L. and Zilberman, D. (2013). Time-Frequency Dynamics of Biofuels Fuels- Food System. Energy Economics, 40: 233–241. 61. Valin, H., Peters, D., van den Berg, M., Frank, S., Havlik, P., Forsell, N., Hamelinck, C., (2015). The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU: Quantification of area and greenhouse gas impacts. Report commissioned by the European Commission: Project number: BIENL13120. 62. van Eijck, J., Romijn, H., Smeets, E., Bailis, R., Rooij- akkers, M., Hooijkaas, N. and Faaij, A. (2014). Com- parative analysis of key socio-economic and environ- mental impacts of smallholder and plantation based jatropha biofuel production systems in Tanzania. Bio- mass and Bioenergy, 61: 25–45. 63. van Noorden, R. (2013) EU debates U-turn biofuels policy. Nature, 499: 13–14 64. Vasudevan, P., Sharma S. and Kumar A., (2005). Liq- uid fuel from biomass: an overview, J Sci Ind Res, 64: 822-831 65. Website: https://www.statista.com (access: 15.07.2022).Hallam, D., Rapsomanikis, G. (2006). Threshold cointegration in the sugar-ethanol-oil price system in Brazil: evidence from nonlinear vector error correction models. FAO, Rome (Italy). Com- modities and Trade Div. 66. Welfe, A. (2008). Econometrics. Methods and appli- cation, Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw: 368–369. 67. Wright, B.D. (2011). The economics of grain price volatility. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 33 (1): 32-58. 68. Zhang, Z., Lohr, L., Escalante C. and Wetzstein, M. (2009). Ethanol, Corn, and Soybean Price Relations in a Volatile Vehicle-Fuels Market. Energies, 2(2): 320-339. Volume 11, Issue 3 - 2022 Firenze University Press Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Nora Hatvani1,*, Martien J.A. van den Oever2, Kornel Mateffy1, Akos Koos1 Food loss and waste accounting: the case of the Philippine food supply chain Anieluz Pastolero*, Maria Sassi The role of network characteristics of the innovation spreaders in agriculture Antonio Lopolito1,*, Angela Barbuto2, Fabio Gaetano Santeramo2 The co-evolution of policy support and farmers behaviour. An investigation on Italian agriculture over the 2008-2019 period Roberto Esposti Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Wioleta Sobczak*, Jarosław Gołębiewski