A YEAR in REVIEW 2018 LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) the Go-To Organisation for the Delivery of More Sustainable Food and Farming
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
IB Process Plant Study Page 2 of 107
Industrial Biotechnology Process Plant Study March 2015 A report for: The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Innovate UK and The Industrial Biotechnology Leadership Forum (IBLF). Authors: David Turley1, Adrian Higson1, Michael Goldsworthy1, Steve Martin2, David Hough2, Davide De Maio1 1 NNFCC 2 Inspire Biotech Approval for release: Adrian Higson Disclaimer While NNFCC and Inspire biotech considers that the information and opinions given in this work are sound, all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it. NNFCC will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of this report. NNFCC NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products. NNFCC, Biocentre, Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182 York Science Park, Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345 Innovation Way, E: [email protected] Heslington, York, Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk YO10 5DG. IB Process Plant Study Page 2 of 107 Acknowledgement NNFCC wishes to acknowledge the input of the many stakeholders who provided information on the pilot scale equipment present in their respective facilities and more specifically the following stakeholders who gave of their time and experience, either in the workshop, or in one-to-one discussions with the project team. We would like to thank all for their valued input. Sohail Ali Plymouth Marine Laboratory Mike Allen Plymouth Marine Laboratory -
Long-Term Experiments
ROTHAMSTED LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS Guide to the Classical and other Long-term experiments, Datasets and Sample Archive Edited by A. J. Macdonald Contributors Andy Macdonald, Paul Poulton, Ian Clark, Tony Scott, Margaret Glendining, Sarah Perryman, Jonathan Storkey, James Bell, Ian Shield, Vanessa McMillan and Jane Hawkins. Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ, UK Tel +44 (0) 1582 763133 Fax +44 (0) 1582 760981 www.rothamsted.ac.uk 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 THE CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTS 7 Broadbalk Winter Wheat 7 Broadbalk and Geescroft Wildernesses 19 Park Grass 20 Hoosfield Spring Barley 31 Exhaustion Land 34 Garden Clover 36 OTHER LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS 37 At Rothamsted 37 At Woburn 39 RESERVED AND DISCONTINUED EXPERIMENTS 41 Barnfield 41 Hoosfield Alternate Wheat and Fallow 41 Woburn Market Garden 42 Agdell 42 The Woburn Intensive Cereals Experiments 43 Saxmundham, Rotations I & II 43 Amounts of Straw and Continuous Maize Experiments 44 (Rothamsted and Woburn) METEOROLOGICAL DATA 45 LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS AS A RESOURCE 45 THE ROTHAMSTED SAMPLE ARCHIVE 47 ELECTRONIC ROTHAMSTED ARCHIVE (e-RA) 49 THE ROTHAMSTED INSECT SURVEY (RIS) 50 UK ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE NETWORK (ECN) 52 NORTH WYKE FARM PLATFORM 53 MAP OF ROTHAMSTED FARM 28 REFERENCES 56 The Rothamsted Long-term Experiments are supported by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Front cover under the National Capabilities programme Broadbalk from the air, 2015 2018 © Rothamsted Research grant (BBS/E/C/000J0300), and by the Back cover ISBN 978-1-9996750-0-4 (Print) Lawes Agricultural Trust. Park Grass from the air, 2015 ISBN 978-1-9996750-1-1 (Online) 2 FOREWORD It is a testament to the foresight and Managing and documenting these experiments commitment of Sir John Lawes and Sir Henry and their associated data and archives is Gilbert, as well as others who have come after not a trivial task. -
Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written and researched by: Ian Fitzpatrick, Richard Young and Robert Barbour with Megan Perry, Emma Rose and Aron Marshall. We would like to thank: Kath Dalmeny Adele Jones Christopher Stopes David Gould Stuart Meikle Marie Christine Mehrens Anil Graves Dominic Moran Thomas Harttung Jules Pretty Patrick Holden Hannah Steenbergen for helpful comments on draft versions or sections of the report. All interpretation, opinion and error is the responsibility of the authors alone. Designed by: Alan Carmody, Midas Design Consultants Ltd. and Blue Moon Creative Production Coordinator: Hannah Steenbergen Printed by Vale Press Ltd. First published November 2017 Revised and corrected July 2019 We would like to thank the following organisations for their invaluable support for our work on True Cost Accounting, as well as the Brunswick Group, who kindly hosted our report launch in November 2017: THE HIDDEN COST OF UK FOOD FOREWORD 3 PREFACE TO THE 2019 EDITION 5 PREFACE 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Hidden costs in 2015 ............................................................................................................................................8 Challenges to be overcome .............................................................................................................................10 Addressing the challenges ..............................................................................................................................10 The purpose of this report ...............................................................................................................................10 -
Healthy Ecosystems East Anglia a Landscape Enterprise Networks Opportunity Analysis
1 Healthy Ecosystems East Anglia A Landscape Enterprise Networks opportunity analysis Making Landscapes work for Business and Society Message LENs: Making landscapes 1 work for business and society This document sets out a new way in which businesses can work together to influence the assets in their local landscape that matter to their bottom line. It’s called the Landscape Enterprise Networks or ‘LENs’ Approach, and has been developed in partnership by BITC, Nestlé and 3Keel. Underpinning the LENs approach is a systematic understanding of businesses’ landscape dependencies. This is based on identifying: LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE FUNCTIONS ASSETS The outcomes that beneficiaries The features and depend on from the landscape in characteristics LANDSCAPE order to be able to operate their in a landscape that underpin BENEFICIARIES businesses. These are a subset the delivery of those functions. Organisations that are of ecosystem services, in that These are like natural capital, dependent on the they are limited to functions in only no value is assigned to landscape. This is the which beneficiaries have them beyond the price ‘market’. sufficient commercial interest to beneficiaries are willing to pay make financial investments in to secure the landscape order to secure them. functions that the Natural Asset underpins. Funded by: It provides a mechanism It moves on from It pulls together coalitions It provides a mechanism Benefits 1 for businesses to start 2 theoretical natural capital 3 of common interest, 4 for ‘next generation’ intervening to landscape- valuations, to identify pooling resources to share diversification in the rural of LENs derived risk in their real-world value propositions the cost of land management economy - especially ‘backyards’; and transactions; interventions; relevant post-Brexit. -
Agrochemicals - the Silent Killers Case Histories
Case histories Agrochemicals - the Silent Killers Rosemary Mason MB, ChB, FRCA and Palle Uhd Jepsen former Conservation Adviser to the Danish Forest and Nature Agency JUSTIFICATION The purpose of this document is to highlight the problems of the current and future use of agrochemical products, using a series of case studies. Have we forgotten Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring from 1962? Many of these chemicals are far more toxic (and persistent) than DDT. They are the silent destroyers of human health and the environment. CONTENTS CASE HISTORIES 2 Honeybees 2 Bumblebees 3 Super-weeds 5 The controversial BBC Countryfile programme 6 Why are the European authorities determined to get GM crops into Europe? 7 EFSA has recently given positive opinions on old herbicides at the request of industry 8 Another GM, herbicide tolerant seed in the pipeline 9 What is the role of the Commissioner of the Health and Consumers Directorate? 9 The effects of GM crops on humans in Latin America 10 Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling 13 Danish farmers report side effects with GM Soya fed to pigs 14 Desiccation of crops with glyphosate to dry them 15 Scientists complain that the EC has ignored independent scientific advice about Roundup® 15 RMS (DAR) studies on glyphosate 16 Other EFSA reasoned opinions for modification of MRLs in food 17 Lack of ecological knowledge from industry and governments 17 Humans are bearing the brunt of these genotoxic chemicals and will do so even more 18 The Faroes Statement: Human Health Effects of Developmental Exposure to Chemicals in Our Environment 2007 19 The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal 19 Peoples’ Submission 19 The Verdict 23 Summary of Verdict by members of the Jury 23 1 Summary of complaints to the Ombudsman 1360/2012/BEH about the EC and EFSA CASE HISTORIES Honeybees Dead queens and workers. -
Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 48 (2014) 51E62
Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 48 (2014) 51e62 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibmb Identification of pheromone components and their binding affinity to the odorant binding protein CcapOBP83a-2 of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata P. Siciliano a,b, X.L. He a, C. Woodcock a, J.A. Pickett a, L.M. Field a, M.A. Birkett a, B. Kalinova c, L.M. Gomulski b, F. Scolari b, G. Gasperi b, A.R. Malacrida b, J.J. Zhou a,* a Department of Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Herts. AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom b Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie, Università di Pavia, Via Ferrata 9, 27100 Pavia, Italia c Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the AS CR, v.v.i., Flemingovo nám. 2, CZ-166 10 Prague 6, Czech Republic article info abstract Article history: The Mediterranean fruit fly (or medfly), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann; Diptera: Tephritidae), is a serious Received 30 July 2013 pest of agriculture worldwide, displaying a very wide larval host range with more than 250 different Received in revised form species of fruit and vegetables. Olfaction plays a key role in the invasive potential of this species. Un- 17 February 2014 fortunately, the pheromone communication system of the medfly is complex and still not well estab- Accepted 18 February 2014 lished. In this study, we report the isolation of chemicals emitted by sexually mature individuals during the “calling” period and the electrophysiological responses that these compounds elicit on the antennae Keywords: fl fl of male and female ies. -
Understanding the Elements and Adoption of Environmental Best Practice in Horticulture
Understanding the elements and adoption of environmental best practice in horticulture Arthur Andersen Project Number: AH00018 AH00018 This report is published by Horticulture Australia Ltd to pass on information concerning horticultural research and development undertaken for Australian Horticulture. The research contained in this report was funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd with the financial support of all levy paying industries. All expressions of opinion are not to be regarded as expressing the opinion of Horticulture Australia Ltd or any authority of the Australian Government. The Company and the Australian Government accept no responsibility for any of the opinions or the accuracy of the information contained in this report and readers should rely upon their own enquiries in making decisions concerning their own interests. ISBN 0 7341 0459 6 Published and distributed by: Horticultural Australia Ltd Level 1 50 Carrington Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 8295 2300 Fax: (02) 8295 2399 E-Mail: [email protected] © Copyright 2002 Horticulture Australia Contents Part 1: Executive Summary Part 2: Report Part 3: A guide to implementation Part 4: Appendices • Horticulture Australia ANDERSEN Introduction Understanding the elements and adoption The expected outcomes of the best practice of environmental best practice in study were to: horticulture' is a joint initiative of Horticulture • Gather information on management Australia limited (HAL) and the National practices which help minimise the Land and Water Resources -
DSV Spring Crop Plots
400 700 20 401 702 800 806 900 24 701 40 17 17 18 Lemken Harper Adams 807 20 Omex 501 Landquip Crop 15 15 1107 14 500 Househam Sprayers Ltd 802 804 University J Brock & Sons 901 1100 Alpler Agricultural Sprayers Billericay Farm 202 201QPH 203 9 10 10 Catering 2 100 Ltd 8 Altek-Lechler 8 8 8 Soil Association KRM Ltd Machinery LH Agro Services Griffith Elder 6 Shufflebottom 6 6 / Certification Microgenetics 10 108 54 36 36 36 280 600 425 216 135 360 300 375 330 64 56 225 150 300 160 120 260 102 18 9 6 6 6 20 25 25 27 15 20 25 22 8 7 15 15 20 15 26 13 18 12 40 10 12 120 12 12 15 10 40 1 101 204 2 205 402 3 403 502 4 503 704 5 6 809 902 7 903 1002 8 1003 1102 9 6 Creagh 6 Catering 3 17 Basak Concrete 10 10 10 10 Atlantis Tanks Products36 11 11 Barclays 12 12 Tractors Group Ltd 15 Strutt & Parker 15 15 15 16 Fruehauf 16 15 McConnel 15 905 15 McHale 15 Miedema 120 AHDB 100 143 6 Challow 6 20 Mercer 20 170 505 Chafer 144 Products 24 24 36 Machinery 103 207 Machinery 8 104 270 600 180 906 225 Isuzu Offroad Driving 6 Weirbags 6 Wilson 256 10 Extenda Line 10 907 60 60 6 10 10 402A 10 36 Wraight 706 54 206 9 9 1004 Course 7 Roythornes 7 504 150 12 12 200 105 80 Hugh Crane 106 Solicitors AHDB Pentair Terrington 77 15 15 45 45 10 (Cleaning 10 12 12 72 10 1005 507 Hypro EU 288 Machinery Tilhill 209 Spring Crop Plots - I Equipment) 96 12 12 6 6 Nuffield Forestry MHA MacIntyre Theatre 909 Farming 12 208 Hudson 100 100 42 72 811 908 10 15 15 Cleveland 14 14 10 CLA 10 600 508 Joskin SA 6 6 7 7 13 1006 72 708 Alliances 13 60 60 72 211 40 6 Sentry 6 Dual 36 NAAC Drainage Area 6 ODA UK 6 6 Pumps 6 42 107 150 36 Limited 10 108 Ltd 36 36 84 225 910 213 813 104 210 510 100 12 Fram Farmers 12 6 De Lacy 6 710 7 7 1007 Executive 509 911 Oil NRG 15 36 42 1008 Concept Karcher Farm 13 Lycetts 13 215 10 10 6 Miles 12 12 120 Drainage Machinery Centre JHS Team 912 Ltd 7 Laurence 7 1800 20 20 13 13 Ltd 36 2400 Gould 18 18 Sprayers 7 7 109 100 225 156 42 405 1010 72 1109 217 49 9 EPR Ely 9 511 110 216 MOBA 104 1009 6 Mobile 6 914 6 6 Landmark William Morfoot Eternit 7 72 R.A.B.I. -
Profits and Potatoes
Rothamsted Research and the Value of Excellence: A synthesis of the available evidence Report to Rothamsted Research By Sean Rickard October 2015 Séan Rickard Ltd. 2015 1 Forward by the Director and Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research Professor Achim Dobermann Assessing the impact of agricultural research is difficult because science is a complex and lengthy process, with pathways to impact that vary widely. It is common that research and development stages towards new technologies and know-how last 15 or even more years, followed by many more years for reaching peak adoption by farmers and other users of new technology. Adoption is often slow and diffuse, also because unlike in manufacturing many agricultural innovations need to be tailored to specific biophysical and even socioeconomic environments. Some of the many impact pathways may be known well, whereas others are not or are very difficult to quantify. Attribution presents another problem, i.e., it is often very difficult to quantify how much of the observed technological progress or other impact can be attributed to a specific innovation or an institution. Progress in productivity and efficiency is the result of many factors, including technology, knowledge and policy. Even more difficult is to assess the impact of agricultural technology on a wider range of ecosystem services and consumer benefits. Nevertheless, in science we need to be willing to rigorously assess the relevance of our research. In his report, Sean Rickard has attempted to quantify the cumulative impact Rothamsted Research has had through key impact pathways that are most directly linked to its research. The economic approach used is in my view sound, providing a robust framework and a first overall estimate of the wider impact. -
Rothamsted Repository Download
Patron: Her Majesty The Queen Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ Telephone: +44 (0)1582 763133 WeB: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/ Rothamsted Repository Download A - Papers appearing in refereed journals Firbank, L. G., Attwood, S., Eory, V., Gadanakis, Y., Lynch, J. M., Sonnino, R. and Takahashi, T. 2018. Grand challenges in sustainable intensification and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2 (7), pp. 1-3. The publisher's version can be accessed at: • https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00007 The output can be accessed at: https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/84746/grand- challenges-in-sustainable-intensification-and-ecosystem-services. © 28 March 2018, CC-BY license applies 17/09/2019 09:05 repository.rothamsted.ac.uk [email protected] Rothamsted Research is a Company Limited by Guarantee Registered Office: as above. Registered in England No. 2393175. Registered Charity No. 802038. VAT No. 197 4201 51. Founded in 1843 by John Bennet Lawes. SPECIALTY GRAND CHALLENGE published: 28 March 2018 doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00007 Grand Challenges in Sustainable intensification and ecosystem Services Leslie G. Firbank 1*, Simon Attwood 2,3, Vera Eory 4, Yiorgos Gadanakis 5, John Michael Lynch 6, Roberta Sonnino7 and Taro Takahashi8,9 1 School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2 Bioversity International, Maccarese, Italy, 3 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, 4 Land Economy, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, United Kingdom, -
Bovine TB Partnership Members List
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bovine TB Partnership members biographies February 2021 Contents John Cross – Chair .............................................................................................................. 3 Members .............................................................................................................................. 3 Stephanie Young .............................................................................................................. 3 Paul Westaway (High Risk Area) ..................................................................................... 3 Di Wastenage (High Risk Area) ....................................................................................... 4 David Barton (High Risk Area) ......................................................................................... 4 Phil Latham (Edge Area) .................................................................................................. 4 Chris Addison (Low Risk Area) ........................................................................................ 4 Professor Rosie Woodroffe .............................................................................................. 5 Dr Sue Mayer ................................................................................................................... 5 Dr Andy Robertson ........................................................................................................... 5 Dr Gareth Enticott............................................................................................................ -
Understanding the an English Agribusiness Lobby Group
Understanding the NFU an English Agribusiness Lobby Group Ethical Consumer Research Association December 2016 Understanding the NFU - an English Agribusiness Lobby-group ECRA December 2016 1 Contents 1. Introduction – The NFU an English Agribusiness Lobby group 3 2. Economic Lobbying – undermining the smaller farmer 2.1 NFU and farm subsidies – promoting agribusiness at the expense of smaller farmers 11 2.2 NFU and TTIP – favouring free trade at the expense of smaller farms 15 2.3 NFU and supermarkets – siding with retailers and opposing the GCA 17 2.4 NFU and foot and mouth disease – exports prioritised over smaller producers 20 3. Environmental Lobbying – unconcerned about sustainability 3.1 NFU, bees and neonicotinoids – risking it all for a few pence more per acre 24 3.2 NFU and soil erosion – opposing formal protection 28 3.3 NFU and air pollution – opposing EU regulation 31 3.4 NFU, biodiversity and meadows – keeping the regulations away 33 3.5 NFU and Europe – keeping sustainability out of the CAP 41 3/6 NFU and climate change – a mixed response 47 3.7 NFU and flooding – not listening to the experts? 51 4. Animal interventions – keeping protection to a minimum 4.1 Farm animal welfare – favouring the megafarm 53 4.2 NFU, badgers and bovine TB – driving a cull in the face of scientific evidence 60 4.3 The Red Tractor label – keeping standards low 74 5. Social Lobbying – passing costs on to the rest of us 5.1 NFU and Organophosphates in sheep dip – failing to protect farmers’ health 78 5.2 NFU and road safety – opposing regulations 82 5.3 NFU and workers’ rights – opposing the Agricultural Wages Board 86 5.4 NFU and Biotechnology – Supporting GM crops 89 6.