Search

Rapid uptake of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures is central to reducing agricultural and land use emissions and meeting the UK Net Zero policy. The socioeconomic challenges and barriers to uptake are poorly understood, with yet unclear structural pathways to the uptake of GHG mitigation measures. Using an online survey of 201 agricultural land managers across the UK, and applying multiple linear regression and stepwise regression analysis, this research established farm and farmers' factors influencing perceptions and willingness to adopt GHG mitigation measures. The results consistently show that farm sector, farmers' business perception, and labour availability influence willingness to adopt GHG mitigation measures. Based on the farmers' qualitative feedback, other barriers to adoption include costs and concerns for profitability, lack of flexibility in land tenancy contracts, poor awareness and knowledge of the application of some GHG mitigation measures, perception about market demand e.g bioenergy crops, and scepticism about the future impacts of adopting varying GHG mitigation measures. In the midst of the ongoing net zero transition, this study identifies existing barriers to the uptake of GHG mitigation measures, and specifically, a substantial gap between farmers and the science of GHG mitigation measures and the need to incentivise a farm and farming community-led policy interventions to promote adoption of GHG mitigation measures., Competing Interests: The authors declare no known competing interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright: © 2024 Jebari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Long-term application of biosolids to agricultural soil results in the slow accumulation of potentially toxic elements (PTEs), which are regulated by maximum permitted limit values to protect human health and the environment. Two programmes of UK government-funded (MAFF/DoE) research were commissioned in the 1990s to investigate the safety of the controls on PTEs in relation to the potential transfer to the food chain via the animal ingestion route by sheep grazing biosolids-amended soil. Here, we re-examine this evidence in the light of other recent research and revised food quality standards, to determine the significance of lead (Pb) accumulation in soil from the agricultural use of biosolids. Direct ingestion of biosolids-amended soil is the main transfer pathway of Pb to grazing livestock. The concentrations of Pb in muscle tissue of animals grazing biosolids-amended soil observed in the MAFF/DoE trials, and reported in the scientific literature, were generally small and similar to background, control values. Lambs and ewes ingesting biosolids-amended soil with a total Pb concentration > 200 mg kg -1 dry soil at a rate of 10 % in the diet exceeded the current maximum permitted concentration of Pb in offal (0.5 mg kg -1 fresh weight). However, the decline in PTE concentrations found in biosolids, due to improved industrial practices and stricter controls on the emissions of contaminants to the environment in general and wastewater in particular, has mitigated the risk of Pb accumulation above the food quality standard for this element in offal. Given the significant improvements in biosolids quality, and particularly in the Pb content, regulatory soil and sludge limits for Pb are no longer likely to have a practical or significant impact on the amount of Pb entering the food chain through the animal ingestion route from biosolids-amended agricultural soil., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Stephen Smith reports financial support was provided by the Food Standards Agency. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Microbes are increasingly central to visions of sustainable and healthy futures, including in farming movements such as regenerative agriculture. In social science and environmental humanities scholarship, (re)connecting with microbes is seen as a way to challenge, conceptually and practically, the very ontology of human-nature separation which underpins the destruction and violence in human relations with other living beings and with environments. The crux of this onto-ethical potential is a shift towards relational modes of knowing microbes, rooted in localised, proximate, and sensuous practice, and expressed in embodied expertise. This paper engages critically with this promise by calling attention to persistence of calculability to people's self-governance within current microbiopolitics. Through a case study of regenerative agriculture in the United Kingdom, I argue that while embodied expertise of soil microbes is seen as crucial to soil health-oriented farming, it is also dismissed as an insufficient in guiding farmers and shaping future practice, including by farmers themselves. Regenerative agriculture continues to function within "farming by numbers", an agri-biopolitical regime in which farmers' and advisors' subjectivity is that of calculating managers situated in calculable environments. As a result, calculability acts as a 'break' on the development of alternative microbial onto-ethics, and regenerative agriculture practitioners look for ways to bring soil microbes into the realm of calculability (e.g., through metagenomics). Consequently, the way microbes are being incorporated into future agri-environmental relations reinforces rather than threatens existing structures of biopolitical power. Overall, I argue that human-microbe research, potentially due to its empirical focus on alternative practices, has underplayed the importance of calculability to people's self-governance in relations with microbes. The struggle for a new microbiopolitics, especially in agriculture and environmental management, will require addressing the continued importance of calculability, and a creative and socially relevant experimentation with alternative forms of expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an urgent need for transformational change in global and UK agriculture. Current practices undermine the long-term future of farming and impoverish ecosystems in the UK and elsewhere. However, change is not happening at the scale and pace which is needed. Work by David Abson, drawing on ideas by Donella Meadows, explored this failure of progress and proposed a research agenda focused on transformational leverage points which influence sustainability. These points are centred on three realms of leverage: reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of sustainability. In this paper, these ideas are explored through a combined researcher/stakeholder workshop focused on transformational change in UK livestock systems. Workshop participants were asked to discuss and identify potential levers of change under the three realms identified by Abson. The multiplicity of levers identified and the interactions across realms emphasise the need for new kinds of knowledge creation which are highly transdisciplinary, as well as emphasising the complexity of levers which are likely to play a role in the transformation of livestock food systems in the UK and elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century. Food production and farming are a key if troubling component of that challenge. Livestock production accounts for well over half of annual global consumption of antimicrobials, though the contribution of the sector to drug resistance is less clear. As a result, there is an injunction to act in advance of incontrovertible evidence for change. In this paper we engage with the role of market actors in the precautionary regulation of farming practices and AMR threats. The paper takes the UK poultry sector as exemplary of an audit-led process that has, in recent years, achieved impressive reductions in antimicrobial use. Using qualitative interview data with farmers and veterinarians we chart the changing practices that have accompanied this reduction in treatments. We use this analysis to raise some cautions around audit-led systems of regulation. Audits can lock farms and animals into particular versions of farming and animal health; they can elevate harmful compensatory practices (including disinfectant uses); and they can reproduce an actuarial approach to an issue that does not fit the conventions of risk management. The paper presents the considerable successes that have been achieved over a short period of time in a livestock sector, while generating notes of caution concerning the audit-led management of livestock-related AMR threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri-environmental policies in the UK stand on the threshold of significant change, with wide acceptance that radical changes are needed to ensure a better delivery of public goods in future. The UK's departure from the EU presents an opportunity to fully realise the "Public Money for Public Goods" principle in the new suite of Environmental Land Management schemes. A likely priority will be the delivery of conservation goals at a landscape scale, which will require the recruitment of a broader range of actors and institutions than at present, including an emerging group of what we call in this paper 'new land managers'. Understanding the changing dynamics of rural land occupancy, and the characteristics and motivations of these new land managers, will be essential in the future for the effective delivery of these public schemes. Data on land market trends is nevertheless patchy and poorly researched. For this paper, we drew on a survey of land agents in England, all of whom were members of the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), in order to gather information and reflections on contemporary land markets. A key finding is that agricultural policy reform and retrenchment is seen by many of these experts as a significant driver of future change. Taken together with other interacting factors such as the overall tax burden on businesses and the economic and personal situation of farmers and their succession status, many of our respondents predicted significant structural change, with more land coming on to the market for resale. At the same time, increasing demand for land from "lifestyle/non-farming landholders" and the growing presence of people entering the market interested in enroling land for carbon sequestration and natural capital improvements, will mean a shift in the types of individuals and organisations holding land. Those holding and managing land in coming years are likely to comprise an ever more diverse and fragmented community of land owners and occupiers The task for policymakers then, is to deliver a suite of interventions specifically tailored to the various types of landholders in order to engage them effectively into public goods delivery under ELMs. • Traditional focus of UK agri-environmental policies is on main occupation farmers. • Emphasis on landscape scale delivery requires broader set of public good providers. • Knowledge gaps in rural land occupancy mean that successful recruitment is limited. • Findings reported here indicate a continued diversification of landholder types. • A suite of interventions tailored to the broadening landholders types will be key. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dairy production in the UK has undergone substantial restructuring over the last few decades. Farming intensification has led to a reduction in the total numbers of farms and animals, while the average herd size per holding has increased. These ever-changing circumstances have important implications for the health and welfare of dairy cows, as well as the overall business performance of farms. For decision-making in dairy farming, it is essential to understand the underlying causes of the inefficiencies and their relative impact. The investigation of yield gaps regarding dairy cattle has been focused on specific causes. However, in addition to the risk of overestimating the impact of a specific ailment, this approach does not allow understanding of the relative contribution to the total, nor does it allow understanding of how well-described that gap is in terms of underlying causes. Using the English and Welsh dairy sectors as an example, this work estimates the Loss Gap–composed of yield losses and health expenditure ‐ using a benchmarking approach and scenario analysis. The Loss Gap was estimated by comparing the current performance of dairy herds as a baseline with that of scenarios where assumptions were made about the milk production of cows, production costs, market prices, mortality, and expenditure related to health events. A deterministic model was developed, consisting of an enterprise budget, in which the cow was the unit, with milking herd and young stock treated separately. When constraining milk production, the model estimated an annual Loss Gap of £148 to £227 million for the whole sector. The reduction in costs of veterinary services and medicines, alongside herd replacement costs, were important contributors to the estimate with some variation between the scenarios. Milk price had a substantial impact in the estimate, with revenue from milk yield representing more than 30% of the Loss Gap, when milk price was benchmarked against that of the top performing farms. This framework provides the boundaries for understanding the relative burden from specific causes in English and Welsh dairy cattle, ensuring that the sum of the estimated losses due to particular problem does not exceed the losses from all-causes, health or non-health related. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The long-term field experiments at Rothamsted in south-east England (UK) are an important resource that has been used extensively to study the effects of land management, atmospheric pollution and climate change on soil fertility and the sustainability of crop yields. However, for these and other long-term experiments around the world to remain useful, changes are sometimes needed. These changes may be required to ensure that the experiment is not compromised by e.g. acidification or weeds, but often they are needed to ensure that the experiment remains relevant to current agricultural practice, e.g. the introduction of new cultivars and the judicious use of pesticides. However, changes should not be made just for the sake of change or to investigate aspects of management that could be better resolved in a short-term experiment. Rather, modifications should only be made after carefully considered discussion, involving scientists from different disciplines. It must be remembered however that there are limitations to what can be achieved in one experiment. In this paper we give examples of why certain changes were made to the Rothamsted experiments and what the results of those changes have been. We also highlight the value of archiving crop and soil samples for future studies. • The management of Rothamsted's long-term experiments (LTEs) is discussed. • The effects of that management on soil fertility and crop yields are considered. • The need for changes to LTEs to ensure their continued relevance is emphasised. • Reasons for changes to Rothamsted's LTEs and the results of those changes are given. • The value of archived soil and crop samples is highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Plants, People, Planet is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The UK Government has set an ambitious target of achieving a national "net-zero" greenhouse gas economy by 2050. Agriculture is arguably placed at the heart of achieving net zero, as it plays a unique role as both a producer of GHG emissions and a sector that has the capacity via land use to capture carbon (C) when managed appropriately, thus reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Agriculture's importance, particularly in a UK-specific perspective, which is also applicable to many other temperate climate nations globally, is that the majority of land use nationwide is allocated to farming. Here, we present a systematic review based on peer-reviewed literature and relevant "grey" reports to address the question "how can the agricultural sector in the UK reduce, or offset, its direct agricultural emissions at the farm level?" We considered the implications of mitigation measures in terms of food security and import reliance, energy, environmental degradation, and value for money. We identified 52 relevant studies covering major foods produced and consumed in the UK. Our findings indicate that many mitigation measures can indeed contribute to net zero through GHG emissions reduction, offsetting, and bioenergy production, pending their uptake by farmers. While the environmental impacts of mitigation measures were covered well within the reviewed literature, corresponding implications regarding energy, food security, and farmer attitudes towards adoption received scant attention. We also provide an open-access, informative, and comprehensive dataset for agri-environment stakeholders and policymakers to identify the most promising mitigation measures. This research is of critical value to researchers, land managers, and policymakers as an interim guideline resource while more quantitative evidence becomes available through the ongoing lab-, field-, and farm-scale trials which will improve the reliability of agricultural sustainability modelling in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The environmental and social impacts of cultured meat, and its economic viability, are contingent on its implications for food production and for agriculture. However, the implications of cultured meat production for farmers have not yet been thoroughly investigated and are poorly understood. The aim of this research was to engage with the farming sector in critically assessing cultured meat as a technology which could profoundly affect future farm livelihoods, land use, rural and farming communities and agricultural value chains. Ensuring farmers' voices, and potential 'counter-narratives' inform the development of cultured meat is not only inclusive, but could identify unexpected impacts of this emerging technology and contribute to the framing of the social license of the industry developing them. Methods: Six focus groups were undertaken with 75 UK farmers from a variety of farming sectors and regions. Questions focused on what the term 'cultured meat' means to farmers, the potential impacts of cultured meat, and potential business scenarios arising for farmers. All meetings were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Results and discussion: Farmers expressed complex and considered reflections on cultured meat, raising several perceived opportunities and risks associated with the themes of 'ethics and affective' narratives, 'environment-based' narratives, and 'socio-economic' narratives. Aspects of foci of power, food system control and transparency associated with cultured meat emerged from the conversations, as well as cultured meat's potential impacts on the environment and on jobs, farming/rural communities and connecting with the land. Conclusion: Globally, meat production underpins the livelihoods of many rural communities, so a transition to cultured meat is likely to have deep-seated ethical, environmental, and socio-economic impacts. Within the discourse on cultured meat the voices of farmers are often lost. While not claiming to be representative of all UK farming, this study engaged UK farmer perspectives as a way of starting the substantive process of greater stakeholder inclusion in cultured meat innovation pathways, and which should underpin responsible technology transitions in agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental context: Ammonia emissions from inorganic nitrogen fertilisers used in agriculture can impact air quality, human health and ecology. This study quantifies such emissions and their controlling factors from UK and Ireland agricultural soils. Emissions are variable and, from non-urea fertilisers, substantially exceed maximum emission factors used by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This suggests that UK emission factors need to be refined further, with consideration of inter alia land-use, fertiliser type, soil pH and chemical inhibitors. Rationale: Ammonia (NH3) emissions from inorganic nitrogen (N) fertilisers applied to agricultural soils have negative implications for environmental quality and human health. Despite this, efforts to reduce NH3 emissions in the UK have achieved limited success. This study aims to provide an overview of NH3 emissions from UK and Ireland agricultural soils receiving N fertilisers, their regulating factors and the potential role of inhibitors in reducing current NH3 losses. Methodology: A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant experimental data and studies, and the extracted data (total of 298 field fertilisation events) were categorised and analysed systematically. Results: NH3 emissions ranged from −4.00 to 77.00% of applied fertiliser-N lost as NH3. In addition to fertiliser type, NH3 losses were also significantly affected by land-use type and soil pH. Urease and combined urease and nitrification inhibitors significantly reduced emissions by 74.50 and 70.00% compared to uninhibited-urea respectively. Discussion: In addition to fertiliser types, land-use and soil pH were found as factors for consideration as modifiers to the maximum NH3 emission factor (EFmax) values currently used in the UK, in order to improve estimations of NH3 emissions, particularly from non-urea fertilisers. This is imperative as NH3 losses exceeded current EFmax limits, particularly in the case of non-urea fertilisers, by ~34%, implying that NH3 emissions estimated from UK synthetic fertiliser require further refinements. NH3 losses are not completely inhibited, inhibitors cannot be solely relied upon for tackling NH3 emissions from UK and Ireland fertiliser usage and further research is needed into alternative mitigation methods to further reduce NH3 losses. Environmental context. Ammonia emissions from inorganic nitrogen fertilisers used in agriculture can impact air quality, human health and ecology. This study quantifies such emissions and their controlling factors from UK and Ireland agricultural soils. Emissions are variable and, from non-urea fertilisers, substantially exceed maximum emission factors used by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This suggests that UK emission factors need to be refined further, with consideration of inter alia land-use, fertiliser type, soil pH and chemical inhibitors. This article belongs to the collection Dedication to Prof. Edward Tipping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]