New CAPs for all

Pondering the CAP tends to have a distinctly soporific effect upon me, but when, as happened recently, I hear Brian Aldridge and Neil Carter debating it on the Archers, I know it really must be important. And it doesn't take much digging into this topic to bring home how much CAP reform could affect us all. It won't just make a difference economically, but it could also have fundamental effects on the ecology and landscapes of the whole of the UK. Obviously I have been mugging up from Relu's latest briefing paper, http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/briefings/BRIF%2012%20CAP/12674%20RELU%20CAP%20Briefing%20Paper.pdf written for us by Alan Woods. As always, Alan has the policy issues at his fingertips and deftly draws in evidence from across the programme. These findings advocate reformed agri-environment schemes that promote an ecosystem services framework - which means getting more for your money from every acre, not just in terms of food but also other vital goods such as clean water, carbon storage and wildlife. There isn't going to be any more land available, so we have to get the best we can from what's already there. I can't say that CAP reform is going to be my favourite reading from now on (except possibly as an alternative to counting sheep) but I can't deny its importance, and I will be as interested as anybody in the outcome of the reform process.

Questing, questing, questing...........

When Ixodes ticks are ready to feed, they go out 'questing' for a bite from a passing animal or unclad human leg. But, if they are carrying Borrelia burgdorferi, that human could contract Lyme Disease - an illness that, left untreated, can be more serious than just an itchy bite mark. So whose fault is that? You can't really blame the tick - it's what ticks do. And who infected them in the first place? At Relu's "Assessing and Communicating Animal Disease Risks for Countryside Users" practitioner panel yesterday, one land manager was anxious because "My deer always get the blame". I can understand his sense of injustice, as deer don't actually carry Lyme Disease - although high concentrations of deer do seem to be associated with lots of ticks, simply because they provide regular meals for them. But the ticks are picking up Borrelia burgdorferi from small mammals and birds. So are they the baddies? Of course, if people using the countryside are well-informed it may not matter. They can cover up, avoid long grass, particularly at relevant times of year, and inspect themselves and pets for any ticks when they get home. If the little pests are removed quickly, using tweezers, they will cause no problem. But whose responsibility is it to tell us about the risks? That's not so easy to answer.

Where is the certainty in animal disease?

Three Relu researchers presented results at last night's Animal and Plant Disease Forum, which brings practitioners and members of the policy community together with academics. If there is consensus on animal disease, it seems to be that information will always be incomplete. In situations of exotic disease outbreaks, it is difficult if not impossible to predict the course of events, and yet action of some sort must be taken. And of course, detailed plans are in place for emergencies such as another outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease, or Avian flu. They map out a response, specific down to timings of media releases. But the uncertainty of animal disease means that the response is unlikely to follow such a prescribed plan. So is there any point in having a plan at all? Is it really there to give those who have to cope some sense of being in control as all around them descends into chaos? Does it give them some firm ground from which to step out into the unknown? If so, the plan has a very useful function. And if action achieves the required outcome, knowledge will follow. http://www.relu.ac.uk/research/Animal%20and%Plant%20Disease/Animal%20and%20Disease.html

Bring on the biodigesters

Why aren't farmers diversifying into on-farm energy production? It's a bit of a mystery if we believe the figures that researchers on Relu's Energy Production on Farms Through Anaerobic Digestion project have come up with. At their end of project conference there was some scepticism among industry insiders. And yet, it does seem as though both farmers and the UK Government might be missing a trick. If they do take the energy production route, they should bear in mind another finding from the team. Unlike farmers in Germany and Austria, they would be better off not relying on maize to feed their digesters. Maize is marginal for much of the UK and doesn't encourage wildlife. Residues from crops they already grow could be a much better option, and could provide a triple win for food production, biodiversity and energy. Perhaps farmers just need a bit more information about the possibilities and some more encouragement from policymakers. Look out for more results from this project http://www.ad4rd.soton.ac.uk/

Do fence them in

Sometimes simple solutions really are the best. While many great minds are exercised about how the UK is going to meet the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive, a group of Relu researchers has been concentrating on the practicalities of reducing faecal contamination in our rivers. According to their computer model, building better fences that prevent livestock from fouling watercourses would be the single most effective strategy. It would work better than more complicated approaches, aimed at reducing stocking densities - which is good news for farmers. And for Relu this represents a great piece of cross-programme research, involving people from several projects. So it's good news all round. Read all about it in the press release http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/Press%20Releases/fences%20clean%20up%20watercourses%20final.doc and the research is published in Water Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.062 .

Could new farm animals provide a future for the livestock sector?

The future for livestock farmers could be pretty bleak if we believe everything we read in the press. Is meat really going to give you cancer? Is producing beef wrecking the rainforests and the planet? Are farting cows really a major contributor to climate change? Will millions starve if we don't all become vegetarians? A seminar on Friday, organised by the Food Research Partnership brought together policymakers, academics and representatives from the industry to ruminate on the problems and brainstorm new approaches. They were asked to think about the contribution that the livestock sector makes to the environment and society so climate change wasn't far from anyone's mind. As meat eating becomes more and more a feature of life in the developing world can what we do in the UK even make a difference? But, in this session, prompted by the Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington and chaired by Chris Gaskell, Principal of the Royal Agricultural College, the discussion was surprisingly upbeat. Maggie Gill from the Scottish Government encapsulated the messages from the day when she urged producers to move from their defensive position and communicate the positive messages about meat eating to balance out what the public is hearing. Meat can be beneficial for the human diet, grazing is important for maintaining iconic landscapes and animals can transform grass and other fibre that is inedible by humans into valuable protein with great efficiency. By the end of Friday afternoon the groups were in full voice when they fed back to the chair: couldn't we rethink the ban on feeding food waste to pigs instead of sending it to landfill, breed cows that would give more lactations, maybe without having to give birth, and animals that would create less methane. What other technical fixes might be developed to eliminate the methane problem? And why just cows, sheep and pigs? What about all those other animals we could use for food? By this point the delegates were buzzing. Perhaps even ostriches might take off.

A report from the day will be produced for the Chief Scientific Adviser.

Relu hits a blue note

It's probably a sign of what a dull life I lead but the latest excitement at Relu publications is 6 page gatefold new policy and practice note in the series of four page green notes. It's not a printer's error but a special publication aimed at local government. A fruitful collaboration with some representatives from local authorities has resulted in what we hope is going to be an occasional series - but we shall have to see how it is received. This first blue note is, appropriately enough, on the topic of water management.
http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/20%20Farnsworth/PPN20.pdf