Search

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]

Faecal lipidome signatures may vary depending on diet. Analyzing 17 different lipidome compounds and calculating ratios between them, we analysed the composition of faecal lipidomes (fatty alcohols, stanols, and archaeol) of beef cattle fed different diets. In this study, we measured the faecal lipidome profiles of beef cattle fed three types of grass silage representative of United Kingdom grasslands by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The forage consisted of 1) permanent pasture (sown perennial ryegrass mixed with unsown species); 2) reseeded perennial ryegrass monoculture; and 3) reseeded mixture of perennial ryegrass and white clover (ca 80:20 fresh weight). The contents of three forages varied significantly in water-soluble carbohydrates, acid detergent fibre, neutral detergent fibre, modified acid detergent fibre, crude protein, metabolizable energy, and crude ash. Diet significantly affected the composition of the faecal lipidome. Apart from stigmasterol, sex and the diet-by-sex interaction did not affect the faecal lipidome. Further, the ratios of lipidome compounds in faeces were validated as biomarkers of diet composition. The 24-ethyl coprostanol, 5-stigmastanol, campesterol, and even chain fatty alcohols such as C18-OH (3-hydroxy stearoyl carnitine), C22-OH -- alcohol fraction with 22 carbon residues, C24-OH -- alcohol fraction with 24 carbon residues, C26-OH -- alcohol fraction with 26 carbon residues, and various lipidome ratios differed significantly between diets on a univariate basis. Based on an analysis of the composition and ratios of faecal lipidomes, this study provides a means for predicting the diet composition of agricultural livestock and wild herbivores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Intensive livestock grazing has been associated with an increased risk of soil erosion and concomitant negative impacts on the ecological status of watercourses. Whilst various mitigation options are promoted for reducing livestock impacts, there is a paucity of data on the relationship between stocking rates and quantified sediment losses. This evidence gap means there is uncertainty regarding the cost–benefit of policy preferred best management. Methods: Sediment yields from 15 hydrologically isolated field scale catchments on a heavily instrumented ruminant livestock farm in the south west UK were investigated over ~ 26 months spread across 6 years. Sediment yields were compared to cattle and sheep stocking rates on long-term, winter (November–April), and monthly timescales. The impacts of livestock on soil vegetation cover and bulk density were also examined. Cattle were tracked using GPS collars to determine how grazing related to soil damage. Results: No observable impact of livestock stocking rates of 0.15–1.00 UK livestock units (LU) ha−1 for sheep, and 0–0.77 LU ha−1 for cattle on sediment yields was observed at any of the three timescales. Cattle preferentially spent time close to specific fences where soils were visually damaged. However, there was no indication that livestock have a significant effect on soil bulk density on a field scale. Livestock were housed indoors during winters when most rainfall occurs, and best management practices were used which when combined with low erodibility clayey soils likely limited sediment losses. Conclusion: A combination of clayey soils and soil trampling in only a small proportion of the field areas lead to little impact from grazing livestock. Within similar landscapes with best practice livestock grazing management, additional targeted measures to reduce erosion are unlikely to yield a significant cost-benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]