Search

The aim of this project is to explore the social and ethical dimensions of the agricultural production of perennial energy crop and crop residues for energy. Biomass – any living or recently living matter – is being promoted in industrialised countries as part of the transition from fossil fuels to an economy based on renewable energy. Various challenges face the use of bioenergy however. One particularly controversial and high profile example has been the use of food crop biofuels in transport which are seen to conflict with food production and to cause significant environmental damage. Suggested ways around these controversies is the production of perennial energy crops such as grasses and trees and crop residues such as straw, which are seen to require fewer inputs and less prime land. Some have analysed the controversies raised by biofuels in terms of controversies around industrial agriculture more broadly: biofuels are perceived to be large scale, monocultural, environmentally damaging and pushed by agri-business and energy interests. This project asks what type of agriculture system perennial energy crops and crop residues are seen as developing within, if at all. This was considered worth exploring because the type of system will have a large bearing on how they are received in future. To this end a theoretical framework of different paradigms of agriculture ranging from industrial agriculture at one end to alternative agriculture at the other was developed and applied to the data. Interviews with key stakeholders and analysis of key documents in the UK and Denmark were carried out to address the question of how perennial energy crops and crop residues are seen as overcoming previous controversies raised by food crop biofuels, in terms of their place in agricultural systems. The thesis argues that stakeholder’s visions of perennial energy crops and crop residues can be understood in terms of four models of agriculture: two industrial and two alternat

It has been recognised that few cattle farmers undertake biosecurity practices on their farms. Approaches that take into consideration individuals’ preparedness for change, alongside beliefs thought to motivate the enactment of certain behaviours, may provide a framework for actuating tangible change. The aim of this study was to use a combination of behaviour change models to link beliefs with behaviour and identify possible key interventions to improve the uptake of biosecurity measures by dairy cattle farmers in Great Britain (GB). This is the first study to explore farmers’ practices and attitudes in relation to the prevention of direct (animal to animal contact); indirect (via fomites); and other biosecurity measures using a multi-theory approach. A cross-sectional study was carried out, with postal questionnaires sent to 2505 dairy cattle farmers. Questions were asked about the extent to which a host of biosecurity measures were used, the influence of various stakeholders (e.g. veterinarians, industry bodies) in informing biosecurity choices, and the perceived control farmers felt they had over biosecurity on their farms. Farmer attitudes towards biosecurity were also explored. Two behaviour change models, the Transtheoretical Model, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, were utilised. A variety of analysis methods were used to interrogate the data, including multivariable logistic regression. A total of 908/2505 (36.2%) farmers responded, with 757 responses (30.2%) deemed eligible for inclusion. Farmers generally fell into one of two categories: those that reported not applying biosecurity measures with no intention of doing so in the future, and those that reported undertaking biosecurity measures for some time. Farmers felt that biosecurity improved cattle health and welfare, but also felt that disease was inevitable. More farmers agreed with statements relating to their ability to control, rather than prevent disease. Analysis suggested a difference between

Bioenergy has been proposed as both a problem and a solution for land use conflicts arising at the nexus between food security and environmental conservation. But such assessments need to be considered in light of differences in the way people value the use of land and the facts that are considered or excluded in making such judgements. While technical and policy appraisals of food security favour a target-based approach that considers land as a global resource to be managed in accordance with universal targets and technological innovation for food production and nature conservation, social researchers highlight the need for a context-based approach where considerations of the role of land in people’s everyday lives and its historical and cultural attachments ought to shape interventions. This Chapter highlights the assumptions and value judgements that underpin different visions of how land should be used by opening up conflicting judgements that arise when we position bioenergy in the context of current and future agricultural systems. We develop a ‘responsible innovation’ framework to highlight the fact that there are multiple pathways for any technological intervention. Drawing on research undertaken in the UK, we apply this framework to valuations of land use and biomass in agricultural systems. We identify a number of, often conflicting, value dimensions related to different uses of land (for food, fuel or fodder), to land quality (should marginal land be used for fuel production) and to different uses of biomass (including competition for the use of straw, the use of biomass for on-farm energy generation as opposed to national energy targets, and biomass for large-scale biorefining to meet multiple objectives at the food/fuel/environment nexus). By opening up to scrutiny the assumptions that reinforce particular innovation pathways we were able to look beyond technical innovation in agricultural systems and land use choices to consideration of social innovati

The paper clarifies the social and value dimensions for integrated sustainability assessments of lignocellulosic biofuels. We develop a responsible innovation approach, looking at technology impacts and implementation challenges, assumptions and value conflicts influencing how impacts are identified and assessed, and different visions for future development. We identify three distinct value-based visions. From a techno-economic perspective, lignocellulosic biofuels can contribute to energy security with improved GHG implications and fewer sustainability problems than fossil fuels and first-generation biofuels, especially when biomass is domestically sourced. From socio-economic and cultural-economic perspectives, there are concerns about the capacity to support UK- sourced feedstocks in a global agri-economy, difficulties monitoring large-scale supply chains and their potential for distributing impacts unfairly, and tensions between domestic sourcing and established legacies of farming. To respond to these concerns, we identify the potential for moving away from a one-size-fits-all biofuel/biorefinery model to regionally- tailored bioenergy configurations that might lower large-scale uses of land for meat, reduce monocultures and fossil-energy needs of farming and diversify business models. These configurations could explore ways of reconciling some conflicts between food, fuel and feed (by mixing feed crops with lignocellulosic material for fuel, combining livestock grazing with energy crops, or using crops such as miscanthus to manage land that is no longer arable); different bioenergy applications (with on-farm use of feedstocks for heat and power and for commercial biofuel production); and climate change objectives and pressures on farming. Findings are based on stakeholder interviews, literature synthesis and discussions with an expert advisory group.

It has been recognised that few cattle farmers undertake biosecurity practices on their farms. Approaches that take into consideration individuals’ preparedness for change, alongside beliefs thought to motivate the enactment of certain behaviours, may provide a framework for actuating tangible change. The aim of this study was to use a combination of behaviour change models to link beliefs with behaviour and identify possible key interventions to improve the uptake of biosecurity measures by dairy cattle farmers in Great Britain (GB). This is the first study to explore farmers’ practices and attitudes in relation to the prevention of direct (animal to animal contact); indirect (via fomites); and other biosecurity measures using a multi-theory approach. A cross-sectional study was carried out, with postal questionnaires sent to 2505 dairy cattle farmers. Questions were asked about the extent to which a host of biosecurity measures were used, the influence of various stakeholders (e.g. veterinarians, industry bodies) in informing biosecurity choices, and the perceived control farmers felt they had over biosecurity on their farms. Farmer attitudes towards biosecurity were also explored. Two behaviour change models, the Transtheoretical Model, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, were utilised. A variety of analysis methods were used to interrogate the data, including multivariable logistic regression. A total of 908/2505 (36.2%) farmers responded, with 757 responses (30.2%) deemed eligible for inclusion. Farmers generally fell into one of two categories: those that reported not applying biosecurity measures with no intention of doing so in the future, and those that reported undertaking biosecurity measures for some time. Farmers felt that biosecurity improved cattle health and welfare, but also felt that disease was inevitable. More farmers agreed with statements relating to their ability to control, rather than prevent disease. Analysis suggested a difference between

The UK is the largest lamb meat producer in Europe. However, the low profitability of sheep farming sector suggests production efficiency could be improved. Although the use of technologies such as Electronic Identification (EID) tools could allow a better use of flock resources, anecdotal evidence suggests they are not widely used. The aim of this study was to assess uptake of EID technology, and explore drivers and barriers of adoption of related tools among English and Welsh farmers. Farm beliefs and management practices associated with adoption of this technology were investigated. A total of 2000 questionnaires were sent, with a response rate of 22%. Among the respondents, 87 had adopted EID tools for recording flock information, 97 intended to adopt it in the future, and 222 neither had adopted it, neither intended to adopt it. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multivariable logistic regression modelling were used to identify farmer beliefs and management practices significantly associated with adoption of EID technology. EFA identified three factors expressing farmer’s beliefs–external pressure and negative feelings, usefulness and practicality. Our results suggest farmer’s beliefs play a significant role in technology uptake. Non-adopters were more likely than adopters to believe that ‘government pressurise farmers to adopt technology’. In contrast, adopters were significantly more likely than non-adopters to see EID as practical and useful (p≤0.05). Farmers with higher information technologies literacy and intending to intensify production in the future were significantly more likely to adopt EID technology (p≤0.05). Importantly, flocks managed with EID tools had significantly lower farmer- reported flock lameness levels (p≤0.05). These findings bring insights on the dynamics of adoption of EID tools. Communicating evidence of the positive effects EID tools on flock performance and strengthening farmer’s capability in use of technology are likely to enh

Responsibility for biosecurity in UK farming is being devolved from government to industry, with a greater emphasis on the veterinarian (vet)-farmer relationship. Although social science has shown that care for animals is part of ‘good farming’, the British dairy sector sees a need to improve biosecurity. This research uses the good farmer concept to compare how vets and dairy farmers define good farming for biosecurity based on qualitative interviews with 28 vets and 15 dairy farmers in England. The results revealed two conflicting ‘good farmer’ identities: the large, commercial farmer who has the economic capital to invest in biosecurity and veterinary services; and the self-sufficient stock keeper whose cultural and social capital lead them to manage herd health independently. These identities reflect changing ‘rules of the game’, following Bourdieu's use of the term, and increasing penetration of vets’ cultural capital into the sector. They involve different constructions of risk which need to be recognised within debates about good biosecurity.

Biosecurity, defined as a series of measures aiming to stop disease-causing agents entering or leaving an area where farm animals are present, is very important for the continuing economic viability of the United Kingdom dairy sector, and for animal welfare. This study gathered expert opinion from farmers, veterinarians, consultants, academics, and government and industry representatives on the practicality and effectiveness of different biosecurity measures on dairy farms. The study used best-worst scaling, a technique that allows for greater discrimination between choices and avoids the variability in interpretation associated with other methods, such as Likert scales and ranking methods. Keeping a closed herd was rated as the most effective measure overall, and maintaining regular contact with the veterinarian was the most practical measure. Measures relating to knowledge, planning, and veterinary involvement; buying-in practices; and quarantine and treatment scored highly for effectiveness overall. Measures relating to visitors, equipment, pest control, and hygiene scored much lower for effectiveness. Overall, measures relating to direct animal-to-animal contact scored much higher for effectiveness than measures relating to indirect disease transmission. Some of the most effective measures were also rated as the least practical, such as keeping a closed herd and avoiding nose-to-nose contact between contiguous animals, suggesting that real barriers exist for farmers when implementing biosecurity measures on dairy farms. We observed heterogeneity in expert opinion on biosecurity measures; for example, veterinarians rated the effectiveness of consulting the veterinarian on biosecurity significantly more highly than dairy farmers, suggesting a greater need for veterinarians to promote their services on-farm. Still, both groups rated it as a practical measure, suggesting that the farmer-veterinarian relationship holds some advantages for the promotion of biosecurity

The farm animal veterinary profession in the UK has faced a number of challenges in recent decades related to the withdrawal of government funding and a contraction of the agricultural sector. They have come under pressure to respond by developing skills and focusing on disease prevention advisory services. However, this puts veterinarians in competition with other providers of these services, and moves in this direction have only been partial. Failure to respond to these challenges puts the veterinary profession at risk of de-professionalisation—a loss of their monopoly over knowledge, an erosion of client beliefs in their service ethos and a loss of work autonomy. This paper explores how farm animal veterinarians in England perceive these challenges and are responding to them. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 28 veterinarians from Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon farm accredited practices. Veterinarians were chosen from high, medium and low density cattle farming regions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and themes identified through the constant comparison method. The majority of respondents recognised the challenges facing the veterinary profession. Most believed their role had changed, moving towards that of a disease prevention adviser who was part of the farm management team. In terms of maintaining and redefining their professional status, farm animal veterinarians do have a defined body of knowledge and the ability to develop trusting relationships with clients, which enhances their competitiveness. However, while they recognise the changes and challenges, moves towards a disease prevention advisory model have only been partial. There seem to be little effort towards using Farm accreditation status or other strategies to promote their services. They do not appear to be finding effective strategies for putting their knowledge on disease prevention into practice. Disease prevention appears to be delivered on farm on an ad h

There is seen to be a need for better biosecurity – the control of disease spread on and off farm – in the dairy sector. Veterinarians play a key role in communicating and implementing biosecurity measures on farm, and little research has been carried out on how veterinarians see their own and farmers’ roles in improving biosecurity. In order to help address this gap, qualitative interviews were carried out with 28 veterinarians from Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon farm accredited practices in England. The results were analysed using a social ecology framework and frame analysis to explore not only what barriers vets identified, but also how vets saw the problem of inadequate biosecurity as being located. Veterinarians’ frames of biosecurity were analysed at the individual, interpersonal and contextual scales, following the social ecology framework, which see the problem in different ways with different solutions. Farmers and veterinarians were both framed by veterinarians as individualised groups lacking consistency. This means that best practice is not spread and veterinarians are finding it difficult to work as a group to move towards a “predict and prevent” model of veterinary intervention. But diversity and individualism were also framed as positive and necessary among veterinarians to the extent that they can tailor advice to individual farmers. Veterinarians saw their role in educating the farmer as not only being about giving advice to farmers, but trying to convince the farmer of their perspective and values on disease problems. Vets felt they were meeting with limited success because vets and farmers may be emphasising different framings of biosecurity. Vets emphasise the individual and interpersonal frames that disease problems are a problem on farm that can and should be controlled by individual farmers working with vets. According to vets, farmers may emphasise the contextual frame that biosecurity is largely outside of their control on dairy farms

The paper clarifies the social and value dimensions for integrated sustainability assessments of lignocellulosic biofuels. We develop a responsible innovation approach, looking at technology impacts and implementation challenges, assumptions and value conflicts influencing how impacts are identified and assessed, and different visions for future development. We identify three distinct value-based visions. From a techno-economic perspective, lignocellulosic biofuels can contribute to energy security with improved GHG implications and fewer sustainability problems than fossil fuels and first-generation biofuels, especially when biomass is domestically sourced. From socio-economic and cultural-economic perspectives, there are concerns about the capacity to support UK- sourced feedstocks in a global agri-economy, difficulties monitoring large-scale supply chains and their potential for distributing impacts unfairly, and tensions between domestic sourcing and established legacies of farming. To respond to these concerns, we identify the potential for moving away from a one-size-fits-all biofuel/biorefinery model to regionally- tailored bioenergy configurations that might lower large-scale uses of land for meat, reduce monocultures and fossil-energy needs of farming and diversify business models. These configurations could explore ways of reconciling some conflicts between food, fuel and feed (by mixing feed crops with lignocellulosic material for fuel, combining livestock grazing with energy crops, or using crops such as miscanthus to manage land that is no longer arable); different bioenergy applications (with on-farm use of feedstocks for heat and power and for commercial biofuel production); and climate change objectives and pressures on farming. Findings are based on stakeholder interviews, literature synthesis and discussions with an expert advisory group.

The aim of this project is to explore the social and ethical dimensions of the agricultural production of perennial energy crop and crop residues for energy. Biomass – any living or recently living matter – is being promoted in industrialised countries as part of the transition from fossil fuels to an economy based on renewable energy. Various challenges face the use of bioenergy however. One particularly controversial and high profile example has been the use of food crop biofuels in transport which are seen to conflict with food production and to cause significant environmental damage. Suggested ways around these controversies is the production of perennial energy crops such as grasses and trees and crop residues such as straw, which are seen to require fewer inputs and less prime land. Some have analysed the controversies raised by biofuels in terms of controversies around industrial agriculture more broadly: biofuels are perceived to be large scale, monocultural, environmentally damaging and pushed by agri-business and energy interests. This project asks what type of agriculture system perennial energy crops and crop residues are seen as developing within, if at all. This was considered worth exploring because the type of system will have a large bearing on how they are received in future. To this end a theoretical framework of different paradigms of agriculture ranging from industrial agriculture at one end to alternative agriculture at the other was developed and applied to the data. Interviews with key stakeholders and analysis of key documents in the UK and Denmark were carried out to address the question of how perennial energy crops and crop residues are seen as overcoming previous controversies raised by food crop biofuels, in terms of their place in agricultural systems. The thesis argues that stakeholder’s visions of perennial energy crops and crop residues can be understood in terms of four models of agriculture: two industrial and two alternative. The