Search

The exponential rise of information available means we can now, in theory, access knowledge on almost any question we ask. However, as the amount of unverified information increases, so too does the challenge in deciding which information to trust. Farmers, when learning about agricultural innovations, have historically relied on in-person advice from traditional ‘experts’, such as agricultural advisers, to inform farm management. As more farmers go online for information, it is not clear whether they are now using digital information to corroborate in-person advice from traditional ‘experts’, or if they are foregoing ‘expert’ advice in preference for peer-generated information. To fill this knowledge gap, we sought to understand how farmers in two contrasting European countries (Hungary and the UK) learnt about sustainable soil innovations and who influenced them to innovate. Through interviews with 82 respondents, we found farmers in both countries regularly used online sources to access soil information; some were prompted to change their soil management by farmer social media ‘influencers’. However, online information and interactions were not usually the main factor influencing farmers to change their practices. Farmers placed most trust in other farmers to learn about new soil practices and were less trusting of traditional ‘experts’, particularly agricultural researchers from academic and government institutions, who they believed were not empathetic towards farmers’ needs. We suggest that some farmers may indeed have had enough of traditional ‘experts’, instead relying more on their own peer networks to learn and innovate. We discuss ways to improve trustworthy knowledge exchange between agricultural stakeholders to increase uptake of sustainable soil management practices, while acknowledging the value of peer influence and online interactions for innovation and trust building.

Simple Summary Animal production is the main source of ammonia emission worldwide and all member countries of the European Union must reduce their national emissions. Among nutritional strategies, feeding low protein diets, using more nutritional phases, or using different feed additives can decrease the nitrogen excretion of animals and, in this way, lower the ammonia volatilisation from the manure. Pro- and prebiotics are widely used to improve gut health and to decrease the incidence of diseases. Numerous research findings have been published on the practical effects of pro- and prebiotics, but their impact on the urinary and faecal N excretion in chickens has not been completely clarified yet. In this research, the effects of using lactic acid and butyric acid producing bacterial strains, and wheat bran as a potential prebiotic, was tested with broiler chickens. Both probiotics increased the dry matter content and decreased the urinary N ratio of the excreta, which is positive from an ammonia emission point of view. Wheat bran and its xylan-oligosaccharides decreased both the ammonium -N content and the urinary N ratio. The results proved that beside the well-known nutritional techniques, the feed additives, which modify the gut microbiota and the fermentation in the caeca, can decrease the urinary-N excretion, and in this way lower the ammonia emission of broiler chickens. Abstract Ammonia emission is a concern for the poultry industry from both environmental and animal welfare points of view. The objective of this research was to determine whether probiotics or wheat bran supplementation of broiler diets can modify the N composition of the excreta and the dynamics of ammonia volatilisation emission from the manure. A total of 120-day-old Ross 308 broiler chickens were fed six different diets. The treatments included a corn and soybean meal-based control diet (C) and diets containing wheat bran (WB). Both diets were fed alone and with supplementation of a lactic acid (Lactobacillus farciminis, LAB) and a butyric acid (Clostridium butyricum, BAB) producing bacterial strain. Treatment BAB had a significant effect on the dry matter content of the excreta and both probiotics decreased the amount of excreted uric acid. Treatment WB resulted in a significantly lower NH+4-N concentration of excreta and a tendency toward reduced uric acid content. Treatment LAB reduced the urinary N ratio of excreta. Among dietary treatments, WB resulted in the highest urease producing cell numbers in the excreta, but this difference was not significant. Based on our results, similar to pigs, the soluble fibre fraction of poultry diets can also modify the urinary to faecal N ratio of the excreta.

The novelty of this study lies in the analyses of legislation concerning land use policies by examining the specific boundary between land ownership and land take. The basic motive was that the European Commission (EC) withdrew the Soil Framework Directive (SFD) in 2014 following the objections of certain Member States (MS) who countered that as most lands are privately owned, they should not fall under the remit of public governance. Since the withdrawal of the SFD land take is an issue receiving more attention. The legal content of ownership rights has been subjected to constant debate in the context of land-use policies and planning practices, which raises the questions of who decides how the land can be used and whether administrative authorities give priority to non-agricultural uses. Our study seeks to explore these issues through the lens of property law by comparing different legislations on access to land on three levels of policy implementation: the EU, the national, and the local levels. MS legislations are highlighted through the example of Hungary in two aspects: (1) regulation regarding Access to Land and Land Ownership Rights (ALOR), and (2) legislation and results of the LANDSUPPORT decision support system concerning Land Take Changes (LTC). We designed figures to demonstrate how policymakers can use the new LANDSUPPORT platform to show the gaps and inconsistencies among the above aspects. We found that the legislative regulations concerning private land use to achieve soil protection objectives remain the weakest link in the environmental protection legislation of the EU. Anxieties concerning built-in legal guarantees on each of the studied levels actualise our research. Currently, global land management is not on the political table although common European legislation might be able to preserve land for agricultural use.

To ensure an adequate level of protection in the European Union (EU), the European Commission (EC) adopted the Soil Thematic Strategy in 2006, including a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive (the Directive). However, a minority of Member States (United Kingdom, Germany, France, Austria, and The Netherlands) could not agree on the text of the proposed Directive. Consequently, the EC decided to withdraw the proposal in 2014. In the more than 10 years that have passed since the initial proposal, a great number of new evidences on soil degradation and its negative consequences, have proved the necessity of a common European soil protection Directive. This study is aimed at specifying the possible obstacles, differences, and gaps in legislature and administration in the countries that formed the blocking minority, which resulted in the refusal of the Directive. The individual legislations of the opposing countries on the matter, were summarized and compared with the goals set by the Directive, in three highlighted aspects: (1) soil-dependent threats, (2) contamination, and (3) sealing. We designed a simple schematic evaluation system to show the basic levels of differences and similarities. We found that the legislative regulations concerning soil-dependent degradation and contamination issues in the above countries were generally well defined, complementary, and thorough. A common European legislation can be based on harmonised approaches between them, focusing on technical implementations. In the aspect of sealing we found recommendations, principles, and good practices rather than binding regulations in the scrutinised countries. Soil sealing is an issue where the proposed Directive&rsquo, s measures, could have exceeded those of the Member States.