DOCSLIB.ORG

Theme 1 PA4 Genetic Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theme 1 PA4 Genetic Resources Evaluation of Biodiversity 2020 Annex 4 Evidence Summary: Theme 1- Priority Action 4: Conservation of Agricultural Genetic Resources Date 12/06/2019 Contents 1 Priority Action 4 of Theme 1 – Conserving agricultural genetic diversity ................................ 3 1.1 Evaluation framework ............................................................................................................. 3 1.1.1 Intervention logic ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Method for generating the Evidence Pack ...................................................................... 1 2 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Q. 1 What actions and activities have been delivered? .......................................................... 2 2.2 Q2. What progress has been made towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England? ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Evidence .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Q3. What factors/actions have improved or hindered the management of genetic resources? .......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Q4. Considering the progress since 2010, what more could be done in future to conserve and enhance agricultural genetic resources? What opportunities are there, and what are the barriers/challenges that need to be addressed?................................................................................ 9 2 1 Priority Action 4 of Theme 1 – Conserving agricultural genetic diversity 1.1 Evaluation framework 1.1.1 Intervention logic Priority action 4 aims to ensure genetic diversity in cultured plants, farmed animals and their wild relatives is conserved and enhanced wherever appropriate. This genetic diversity can make an important contribution to provisioning of food security by offering genes that are important for future crop or livestock breeding. By raising stakeholder awareness of the importance of genetic diversity along with issuing guidance on the conservation of genetic resources, establishing efficient ID and monitoring systems for genetic diversity, and incentivizing farmers to maintain and increase stocks of rare breed farm animals, the Strategy aims to encourage responsible management of genetic resources and to enhance and conserve agricultural genetic resources in situ. Alongside this, funding for fruit, vegetable and seed banks should enable ex situ storage of genetic diversity of cultivated plants and their wild relatives, for future use. These actions should ensure that agricultural genetic resources are conserved and enhanced, increasing resilience and contributing to long-term food security. Figure.1 presents the logic model for Priority Action 4, describing the Outputs, Intermediate (or short term) Outcomes and the long term Outcomes that activities under this Priority Action aim to achieve. It shows how activities such as raising awareness and producing guidance, incentivising sustainable management of genetic resources, monitoring, maintaining and enhancing ex situ collections, should contribute to improved management and conservation, and ultimately to a resilient agricultural genetic resource base, contributing to provisioning of long-term food security. The Long-term Outcomes of this Priority Action, along with those of all other Priority Actions across Themes, eventually feed into the wider Strategy Impacts. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of activities, outputs and outcomes but instead illustrates the general theory of change for Priority Action 4. Achieving Priority Action 4 is expected to contribute to Outcomes 1 and 3 of the Strategy. 3 Impacts Priority Actions Activities Outputs Intermediate Long term Outcomes Outcomes Ensure that Maintaining ex-situ Fruit/veg/seed banks Rare species are Stakeholders are ‘agricultural’ collections are able to store added to ex-situ aware of the Biodiversity loss genetic diversity is seeds of rare breed storage importance of is halted conserved and Development of in- fruit, veg, crops and agricultural genetic situ and ex-situ UK enhanced wild relatives ex-situ Agricultural genetic diversity and manage Farm Animal Healthy well- wherever appropriate diversity is efficiently it responsibly Genetic Resources functioning Inventories of genetic monitored conservation ecosystems diversity updated and strategy and efficient identification implementation Stakeholders follow Coherent and monitoring Rare cultivated plants guidance. guidance to manage ecological systems for genetic and farmed animals genetic diversity networks with diversity are are conserved, Updating more and better established increasing resilience inventories of Number of individuals and contributing to places for nature genetic diversity and of ‘native breed at provisioning of food developing easy ID Strategy and guidance risk’ animals are security and monitoring in place to support maintained or Outcome 1a, 1c, 3 systems conservation of increased Benefits for genetic resources wildlife and Introduction of rare people breed supplement Farmers uptake the to AE-schemes rare breed supplement Raising awareness of the importance of genetic resources Figure.1 Logic model for Priority Action 4 - Agricultural Genetic Diversity 4 1.1.2 Evaluation Questions The evaluation of Priority Action 4 intends to answer the following questions, looking to evaluate progress across stages in the above process, and to understand the factors influencing progress and the future lessons that can be learnt: 1. What actions/activities have been delivered? 2. What progress has been made towards ensuring conservation of agricultural genetic resources in England? 3. What factors/actions have improved or hindered the management of genetic resources? 4. Considering the progress since 2010, what more could be done in future to conserve and enhance agricultural genetic resources? What opportunities are there, and what are the barriers/challenges that need to be addressed? 1.1.1 Method for generating the Evidence Pack This evidence pack draws together evidence from evaluations and reports of activities undertaken since 2011, to respond to the evaluation questions. Evidence was obtained from Defra and partner organisations and through desk research, up to the 9th July 2019. A questionnaire was sent to members of the Farm Animal Genetic Resources committee (FAnGR) and UK Plant Genetic Resources Group (UKPGR), to gather opinions on progress, the factors that have influenced progress, and the opportunities to improve progress in future along with the challenges that need to be addressed (see Appendix 1). Members of the FAnGR and UKPGR represent government and partner organisations, and NGOS. Ten responses were received to the survey, providing some limited expert opinion. The evidence presented is unlikely to be exhaustive given the time limitations of the Evaluation project. 1 2 Evaluation 2.1 Q. 1 What actions and activities have been delivered? The key actions and activities that have been carried out since 2011 under the Strategy to help achieve the aims of Priority Action 4 are summarised in Table 2. This is not an exhaustive list and does not include all voluntary or private-sector initiatives, although it is recognised that the Strategy aimed to influence the agenda of a wider audience of stakeholders and organisations, to achieve delivery of its’ aims. Table 1 Summary of Strategy activities under Theme 1 Priority Action 4 Key reforms described by the Strategy Progress • Raise awareness of existing • Development of coordinated in situ and ex situ UK Farm Animal Genetic genetic diversity and encourage Resources conservation strategy and implementation guidance1 to provide responsible management and stakeholders and policy makers with best-practice guidance. conservation, including by • The FAnGR Committee produced guidelines for breed societies on reflecting this issue in key policies contingency planning for preservation of their genetic resources in case of a and programmes. notifiable disease outbreak2 • Farmers are incentivized through AES payments to maintain and enhance stocks of rare breed farm animals. There has been a slight (0.43%) increase in uptake of agreements including this option in CS compared to ES3. In July 2019, there were 212 live agreements including the Native breeds at risk supplement, covering 13580.38ha4. • Report on UK Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) published in April 20135. This report provides an updated appraisal of the status of and trends in domestic FAnGR, including a comprehensive Inventory of all breeds present in the UK, and assessment of UK livestock biodiversity and of the work that is being done to manage these resources. • A review of current and new technologies relevant to FAnGR was published in 2018, providing guidelines to breed societies and conservation organisations on the appropriate choice of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animal Genetic Resources Information Bulletin
    The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Les appellations employées dans cette publication et la présentation des données qui y figurent n’impliquent de la part de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture aucune prise de position quant au statut juridique des pays, territoires, villes ou zones, ou de leurs autorités, ni quant au tracé de leurs frontières ou limites. Las denominaciones empleadas en esta publicación y la forma en que aparecen presentados los datos que contiene no implican de parte de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación juicio alguno sobre la condición jurídica de países, territorios, ciudades o zonas, o de sus autoridades, ni respecto de la delimitación de sus fronteras o límites. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and the extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Information Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. Tous droits réservés. Aucune partie de cette publication ne peut être reproduite, mise en mémoire dans un système de recherche documentaire ni transmise sous quelque forme ou par quelque procédé que ce soit: électronique, mécanique, par photocopie ou autre, sans autorisation préalable du détenteur des droits d’auteur.
    [Show full text]
  • European Livestock Breeds Ark and Rescue Net (Elbarn)
    European Livestock Breeds Ark and Rescue Net Contents 5 Preface 6 What is ELBARN? 8 Agrobiodiversity - a crucial part of biodiversity 9 International agreements 10 Agrobiodiversity and nature conservation 12 Nature Park Lonjsko Polje, Croatia 14 Agrobiodiversity and rural development 15 Milina Project, Serbia 18 Why are traditional breeds endangered? 20 The importance of non-governmental organizations 21 The ELBARN project: a partnership of five NGOs 21 EuroNatur 22 SAVE Foundation 23 Steunpunt Levend Erfgoed (SLE) 24 The Society For The Conservation Of Old And Endangered Livestock Breeds In Germany (GEH) 25 Associazione Italiana ‘RAZZE AUTOCTONE A RISCHIO DI ESTINZIONE’ (RARE) 26 Solving the problem 27 Rescue actions 27 Booted goat (Stiefelgeiss) 29 Carpathian Buffalo 31 Ark Centres 31 Saving endangered livestock in Galicia 33 An Ark Farm with an educational ethos 34 Steunpunt Levend Erfgoed: Living Heritage Park and Expo 36 Jakobson’s Farmstead Museum in Estonia 37 Vlahi Eco-centre, Bulgaria 39 What does our living heritage tell us? 1 2 Contents 40 Conservation Breeding 42 Mora Romagnola pig, Italy 44 The Walachian Museum in Roznov 45 Conservation of local breeds in France 47 Chillingham Wild Cattle 49 Oulokeros goat, Greece 50 The Danish Ertebølle Landrace sheep 51 Marketing 52 Marketing meat from traditional breeds 54 Quality products from Mangalitsa pigs in Hungary 55 Geographical information 59 Outcomes and future perspectives 60 Area Action Plans 62 Further information 62 ELBARN website 63 Arca-Net 64 ELBARN partners 65 Other websites 67 Acknowledgement 3 4 Preface Raising awareness about conservation work taking The texts and photos that follow show the variety place all over Europe to ensure that the animals of ways in which ‘agrobiodiversity’ can be seen that form part of our (agri-)cultural heritage are as important.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Genetic Analysis of White Park Cattle in Germany
    Archiv Tierzucht 52 (2009) 6, 561-573, ISSN 0003-9438 © Research Institute for the Biology of Farm Animals (FBN) Dummerstorf, Germany Population genetic analysis of White Park Cattle in Germany GÜNTER BIEDERMANN1, WERNER HECHT2, EIKE FANDREY3, HEIKE RUDOLPH3 and KAI FRÖLICH3 1Witzenhausen; former: Department of Animal Breeding, University of Kassel, Germany, 2Department of Veterinary- Pathology, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Gießen, Germany, 3Arche Warder, Zentrum für alte Haus- und Nutztierrassen e. V., Warder, Germany Abstract The population of White Park Cattle in Germany is composed of 11 males and 33 females. This group of cattle has been analysed with regards to generation intervals, coancestry, and inbreeding on the basis of three generations of ancestors. The average interval between the current and the parental generation amounts to seven years. The average coefficient of coancestry in the population is estimated to be 18 % and the average degree of inbreeding at 16 %. The rate of inbreeding in the last generation is approximately 12 %. These values exceed those reported for most breeds of production animals. Keywords: White Park Cattle, generation interval, relationship, inbreeding, rate of inbreeding Zusammenfassung Populationsgenetische Analyse der White Park Cattle-Population in Deutschland Die aus 11 männlichen und 33 weiblichen Tieren bestehende White Park Cattle-Population in Deutschland wurde auf der Basis von drei Vorfahrengenerationen hinsichtlich ihrer Generationsintervalle sowie der Verwandtschafts- und Inzuchtverhältnisse untersucht. Das durchschnittliche Generationsintervall zwischen der aktuellen und ihrer Elterngeneration beträgt annähernd sieben Jahre. Der mittlere Verwandtschaftskoeffizient wurde mit 18 %, der mittlere Inzuchtkoeffizient mit 16 % geschätzt. Mit der aktuellen Generation stieg die Inzucht um ca. 12 % an. Diese Werte liegen weit über jenen, die von anderen Nutztierrassen bekannt sind.
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Characterisation and Conservation Genetics of the Indigenous Irish Kerry Cattle Breed
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/210229; this version posted October 28, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Genomic characterisation and conservation genetics of the indigenous Irish Kerry cattle breed 1 Sam Browett1, Gillian McHugo2, Ian W. Richardson3, David A. Magee2, Stephen D. E. Park3, 2 Alan G. Fahey2, John F. Kearney4, Carolina N. Correia2, Imtiaz A. S. Randhawa5, David E. 3 MacHugh2, 6* 4 1 Ecosystems and Environment Research Centre, School of Environment and Life Sciences, 5 University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, United Kingdom. 6 2 UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, D04 7 V1W8, Ireland. 8 3 IdentiGEN, Ltd., Block 2, Blackrock Office Park, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Dublin, A94 H2X4, 9 Ireland. 10 4 Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, P72 X050, Ireland. 11 5 Sydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, 2570, NSW, Australia. 12 6 UCD Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, 13 Dublin, D04 V1W8, Ireland. 14 15 * Correspondence: David E. MacHugh, Animal Genomics Laboratory, UCD School of 16 Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, D04 V1W8, Ireland. 17 Email: [email protected] 18 Keywords: cattle, conservation genomics, endangered breed, inbreeding, genetic diversity, 19 population genomics, selection signature, SNP array. 20 21 22 Note 1: This is an Associate Editor (D.E.M) Inaugural Article submission to Frontiers in Genetics: 23 Livestock Genomics 24 Note 2: British English language style preferred for publication of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000: NOTICE OF
    Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000: NOTICE OF RELEVANT AUTHORITY DECISION FOLLOWING CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED LONG TERM RESTRICTION OF CROW ACCESS Prepared by Natural England Access Authority: Northumberland County Council Relevant Authority: Natural England Local Access Forum: Northumberland Date of direction notice: 6th October 2014 Original Dates of restriction on Reason for Land Parcel Name Direction original direction: Exclusion Ref. CROW s25: Keep to marked routes Public Safety – Ros Hill Bank 2004120055 until 28th May 2016 danger from wild cattle Natural England has now decided how to proceed following its consultation about the above direction to restrict CROW access on this land. The relevant authority’s decision is to give a direction restricting CROW access in the way it originally proposed, until 9th October 2020. Information about the decision: Natural England has commenced a review of the above direction in accordance with statutory guidance (further information provided at Annex One below). An initial consultation was held with statutory consultees and the general public that sought views on the existing directions in August 2014. Natural England received feedback from the Ramblers who believe this represents a unique situation but raised concerns that the permissive route was blocked by fallen trees and difficult to use and so could no longer support the current direction without works to remove the obstructions taking place. A site visit was also undertaken with a representative from the Chillingham Wild Cattle Association on August 8th 2014. Following correspondence with the applicant, he has assured us that the site is checked at regular intervals and following any gales by either him and / or the warden for fallen or damaged tress.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Calving in European Prehistoric Cattle and Its Impacts On
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Seasonal calving in European Prehistoric cattle and its impacts on milk availability and cheese‑making Marie Balasse1*, Rosalind Gillis1,17, Ivana Živaljević2, Rémi Berthon1, Lenka Kovačiková3, Denis Fiorillo1, Rose‑Marie Arbogast4, Adrian Bălăşescu5, Stéphanie Bréhard1, Éva Á. Nyerges6, Vesna Dimitrijević7, Eszter Bánfy8,11, László Domboróczki9, Arkadiusz Marciniak10, Krisztián Oross11, Ivana Vostrovská12,13, Mélanie Rofet‑Salque14, Sofja Stefanović2,7 & Maria Ivanova15,16 Present‑day domestic cattle are reproductively active throughout the year, which is a major asset for dairy production. Large wild ungulates, in contrast, are seasonal breeders, as were the last historic representatives of the aurochs, the wild ancestors of cattle. Aseasonal reproduction in cattle is a consequence of domestication and herding, but exactly when this capacity developed in domestic cattle is still unknown and the extent to which early farming communities controlled the seasonality of reproduction is debated. Seasonal or aseasonal calving would have shaped the socio‑ economic practices of ancient farming societies diferently, structuring the agropastoral calendar and determining milk availability where dairying is attested. In this study, we reconstruct the calving pattern through the analysis of stable oxygen isotope ratios of cattle tooth enamel from 18 sites across Europe, dating from the 6th mill. cal BC (Early Neolithic) in the Balkans to the 4th mill. cal BC (Middle Neolithic) in Western Europe. Seasonal calving prevailed in Europe between the 6th and 4th millennia cal BC. These results suggest that cattle agropastoral systems in Neolithic Europe were strongly constrained by environmental factors, in particular forage resources. The ensuing fuctuations in milk availability would account for cheese‑making, transforming a seasonal milk supply into a storable product.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Behaviour in Farm Animals
    Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN FARM ANIMALS 1 Z:\Customer\CABI\A3952 - Keeling - Social Behaviour DA #8.vp 13 March 2001 11:04:01 A3952:AMA:Keeling:Second Revise:13-Mar-01 Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen 2 Z:\Customer\CABI\A3952 - Keeling - Social Behaviour DA #8.vp 13 March 2001 11:04:01 A3952:AMA:Keeling:Second Revise:13-Mar-01 Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Social Behaviour in Farm Animals Edited by L.J. Keeling Department of Animal Environment and Health Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Skara Sweden and H.W. Gonyou Prairie Swine Centre Saskatoon Canada CABI Publishing 3 Z:\Customer\CABI\A3952 - Keeling - Social Behaviour DA #8.vp 13 March 2001 11:04:02 A3952:AMA:Keeling:Second Revise:13-Mar-01 Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International CABI Publishing CABI Publishing CAB International 10 E 40th Street Wallingford Suite 3203 Oxon OX10 8DE New York, NY 10016 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 212 481 7018 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 212 686 7993 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cabi.org © CAB International 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Social behavior in farm animals / edited by L.K.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.1 the Legacy of the Aurochs 34 `I
    Durham E-Theses Ospring of the Aurochs: A comparison of a reference collection of Dexter cattle skeletons with archaeological and historical data GIDNEY, LOUISA,JANE How to cite: GIDNEY, LOUISA,JANE (2013) Ospring of the Aurochs: A comparison of a reference collection of Dexter cattle skeletons with archaeological and historical data, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10561/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Contents Contents 1 List of Tables 7 List of Figures 10 List of Plates 15 List of Abbreviations 21 Declaration 22 Statement of Copyright 22 Acknowledgements 23 Dedication 24 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 25 1.1 Aims and objectives 27 1.2 Major sources of data 28 i. Artistic and historical evidence 28 ii. The Reference Collection of Dexter Skeletons 28 iii.
    [Show full text]
  • The Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare a POLICY FRAMEWORK for CHURCHES and CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS
    The Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR CHURCHES AND CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR CHURCHES AND CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS » 1 Contents The Christian Ethics of Acknowledgements The Research Team is grateful for the diligent participation of Farmed Animal Welfare representatives of Partner Organizations in discussions and farm site visits, and in providing feedback on drafts of this A POLICY FRAMEWORK John Bentley/Alamy Stock Photo framework. Partner Organizations and their representatives FOR CHURCHES AND are listed in the Appendix. Being listed as a Partner Organization does not imply endorsement of this framework. CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS We are also grateful to organizations and individuals beyond the Partners who provided feedback on framework drafts. Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 Part 1: Why farmed animal welfare should matter to Christians 6 Part 2: Key features of a Christian ethics of farmed animal welfare 13 Part 3: A Christian ethical evaluation of current UK systems of farming animals 18 Current UK Farming Practice: Chickens 22 Current UK Farming Practice: Fish 28 Current UK Farming Practice: Sheep 34 The Christian Ethics Current UK Farming Practice: Pigs 40 of Farmed Animal Welfare: A Policy Framework for Churches Current UK Farming Practice: Cattle 45 and Christian Organizations David L. Clough, Part 4: Conclusions and recommendations Margaret B. Adam, for policy and practice 52 David Grumett, Siobhan Mullan Part 5: Resources and further reading 56 November 2020 The Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare research project is Appendix: Research Team and Partner Organizations 61 funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council http://www1.chester.ac.uk/cefaw cover image: iStock.com/Sonja Filitz 2 » THE CHRISTIAN ETHICS OF FARMED ANIMAL WELFARE A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR CHURCHES AND CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS » 1 Executive Summary This document presents a framework to Christians should support the flourishing of Food retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers can help farmed animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000: NOTICE of RELEVANT AUTHORITY DECISION FOLLOWING CONSULTATION on a PROPOSED LONG T
    Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000: NOTICE OF RELEVANT AUTHORITY DECISION FOLLOWING CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSED LONG TERM EXCLUSION OF CROW ACCESS Prepared by Natural England Access Authority: Northumberland County Council Relevant Authority: Natural England Local Access Forum: Northumberland Date of direction notice: November 1st 2019 Direction Dates of restriction on Reason for Land Parcel Name Reference original direction: restriction Keep to marked routes CROW s25: Ros Hill Bank 2004120055 until 9th October 2020 Public Safety Natural England has now decided how to proceed following its review of the above mentioned long term direction to restrict open access rights on this land. An initial consultation was held with statutory consultees and the general public that sought views on the existing direction. This ended on August 2nd 2019 and we received no comments. A second consultation was held with statutory consultees and the general public, which ended on 27th September 2019, Natural England received feedback from the access authority, who had no objections to the proposal, in light that the permissive route is no longer available. Outcome of the review: The relevant authority’s decision is to give a direction excluding open access rights in the way it originally proposed, until November 1st 2025. Information about the decision: Chillingham Cattle are a breed of cattle that live in a large enclosed park at Chillingham Castle in Northumberland, of which this site forms a small part. The herd numbers around 100 beasts. About half of them are bulls. All cows and bulls have horns and a fierce temperament to match.
    [Show full text]
  • Heredity and Eugenics
    ;mij!|!ni|i|i!!!t|||ii|[i|!ii' I; iliiiii mijp ^. p. pm pbrarg 5.- -' ^ *-. QH4-5I NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES S00612362 K i^atc Due ~E rs '3 Inn 77 i /liar 3 4 TJHTT-4; 1985 3ijan;i§ 3 0ec^ ir»^; APR 2 3 1986 ^Pfi \ 2 1994 SDec'SB HEREDITY AND EUGENICS HEREDITY AND EUGENICS BY R. RUGGLES GATES, Ph.D., F.L.S. PROFESSOR OF EOTAKY IN 1 HE UNIVERSITY OK LONDO.N A.ND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY AT KING'S COLLEGE: SOMETI.ME ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFoKNIA; AUTHOR OF "the MUTATION FACTOR IN EVOLUTION," ETC. CONSTABLE AND CO. LTD, LONDON BOMBAY SYDNEY 1923 fltO^ERTT mRARY N. C. SiMte C^Uegf PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY BILLING AND SONS, LTD., GUILDFORD AND ESHER TO MY MOTHER THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED QlH-i „ .r.,; PREFACE This book has been written partly by the accident of circumstances and partly by request. It is based upon a couple of articles which appeared in the Eugenics Review for January and April, 1920, and part of it was written during a holiday in America in 1 92 1. Although m}' present interests are occupied with the field of modern botany, I was impelled to write this book by my interest in Eugenics, which is in turn founded upon a knowledge of genetics. The actual writing of it was, however, only made possible by the many friends in various parts of the world who have sent me their publications. It is clear to scientific men, although rarely to statesmen and law-makers, that any intelligent attempt to improve the conditions and qualities of the human race must be founded upon some knowledge of the manner in which these qualities arise and are inherited and maintained or lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglia Ruskin University the Behaviour of Free-Roaming
    ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY THE BEHAVIOUR OF FREE-ROAMING HERDS OF HIGHLAND CATTLE AND KONIK POLSKI AT WICKEN FEN NATURE RESERVE. CAROL LAIDLAW A thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Anglia Ruskin University for the degree of Master of Philosophy Submitted September 2018 Acknowledgements Firstly, and with much gratitude, my sincerest thanks go to my first supervisor, Dr. Dawn Hawkins, for her support, expertise and statistical skill. I owe a debt of gratitude also to my second supervisor, Dr. Olivia Norfolk, who helped to order my harems. Thanks are additionally due to Dr. Nancy Harrison, Dr. Francine Hughes and Dr. Mark Kennedy. Sincere thanks go to the National Trust for providing the funding to complete this research, and to Jon Megginson for thinking of the opportunity. Especial thanks to my managers and colleagues at Wicken Fen NNR, who provided me with the time and support to conduct this research. Appreciative thanks go to Martin Lester, who has kept the faith, provided advice, eaten cake and supplied maps without hesitation. Collecting the data, and completing this thesis, involved the help and support of many other people along the way. I am extremely grateful to Lizzie Dale and Maddie Downes, for many days spent out in the field as my recording assistants. Warm thanks to those who gave of their time proof-reading and editing; Peter Green, Hugh Laidlaw, Julie Zac, but most especially Gerrard Smallwood. I thank Dr. Peter Carey, Owen Mountford, and Dr. Stuart Warrington for guidance and information on species lists, habitat maps and the flora associated with the fen.
    [Show full text]