Search

Your search keyword '"National Farmers' Union"' showing total 13 results
Start Over Author "National Farmers' Union"
13 results on '"National Farmers' Union"'

3. Twenty-one Day in Europe

Author

National Farmers Union and National Farmers Union

Abstract

Thity-eight National Farmers Union members representing seven states paid their own way to participate in a tour of Europe in October 1955. They visited farms, dairy's, cooperatives, cheese and sugar factories, and grain elevators. Locations visited were the Azores, Italy, Switzerland, France, and England. Narrated by John Eklund. Color film. Sound.

Published
1955

4. Arkansas Union Farmer newspapers

Author

National Farmers' Union (U.S.). Arkansas Division and National Farmers' Union (U.S.). Arkansas Division

Abstract

This collection contains newspapers from the Arkansas Union Farmer newspapers.

Published
1955

5. Design and Planning of a Transdisciplinary Investigation into Farmland Pollinators: Rationale, Co-Design, and Lessons Learned

Author

Simon Hodge, Oliver Schweiger, Alexandra-Maria Klein, Simon G. Potts, Cecilia Costa, Matthias Albrecht, Joachim R. de Miranda, Marika Mand, Pilar De la Rúa, Maj Rundlöf, Eleanor Attridge, Robin Dean, Philippe Bulet, Denis Michez, Robert J. Paxton, Aurélie Babin, Nicolas Cougoule, Marion Laurent, Anne-Claire Martel, Laurianne Paris, Marie-Pierre Rivière, Eric Dubois, Marie-Pierre Chauzat, Karim Arafah, Dalel Askri, Sebastien N. Voisin, Tomasz Kiljanek, Irene Bottero, Christophe Dominik, Giovanni Tamburini, Maria Helena Pereira-Peixoto, Dimitry Wintermantel, Tom D. Breeze, Elena Cini, Deepa Senapathi, Gennaro Di Prisco, Piotr Medrzycki, Steffen Hagenbucher, Anina Knauer, Janine M. Schwarz, Risto Raimets, Vicente Martínez-López, Kjell Ivarsson, Chris Hartfield, Pamela Hunter, Mark J. F. Brown, Jane C. Stout, Trinity College Dublin, Helmholtz Zentrum für Umweltforschung = Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), University of Freiburg [Freiburg], University of Reading (UOR), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche [Bologna] (CNR), Agroscope, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Estonian University of Life Sciences (EMU), Universidad de Murcia, Lund University [Lund], The Red Beehive Co. Ltd, Partenaires INRAE, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), University of Mons [Belgium] (UMONS), Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Unité Pathologie de l'abeille (UPA), Laboratoire de Sophia Antipolis, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES)-Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES), Laboratoire de santé animale, sites de Maisons-Alfort et de Normandie, Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES), BioPark Archamps (BioPark), National Veterinary Research Institute [Pulawy, Pologne] (NVRI), Swedish Farmers' Foundation for Agricultural Research, National Farmers' Union, British Beekeepers Association, Royal Holloway [University of London] (RHUL), and European Project: 773921,Horizon 2020,PoshBee(2018)

Subjects
landscape ecology, [SDV.BA.MVSA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Animal biology/Veterinary medicine and animal Health, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment, pan-European, Geography, Planning and Development, Building and Construction, pesticides, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, bees, bee pathogens, insect declines, pollinators, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology
Abstract

International audience; To provide a complete portrayal of the multiple factors negatively impacting insects in agricultural landscapes it is necessary to assess the concurrent incidence, magnitude, and interactions among multiple stressors over substantial biogeographical scales. Trans-national ecological field investigations with wide-ranging stakeholders typically encounter numerous challenges during the design planning stages, not least that the scientific soundness of a spatially replicated study design must account for the substantial geographic and climatic variation among distant sites. ‘PoshBee’ (Pan-European assessment, monitoring, and mitigation of Stressors on the Health of Bees) is a multi-partner transdisciplinary agroecological project established to investigate the suite of stressors typically encountered by pollinating insects in European agricultural landscapes. To do this, PoshBee established a network of 128 study sites across eight European countries and collected over 50 measurements and samples relating to the nutritional, toxicological, pathogenic, and landscape components of the bees’ environment. This paper describes the development process, rationale, and end-result of each aspect of the of the PoshBee field investigation. We describe the main issues and challenges encountered during the design stages and highlight a number of actions or processes that may benefit other multi-partner research consortia planning similar large-scale studies. It was soon identified that in a multi-component study design process, the development of interaction and communication networks involving all collaborators and stakeholders requires considerable time and resources. It was also necessary at each planning stage to be mindful of the needs and objectives of all stakeholders and partners, and further challenges inevitably arose when practical limitations, such as time restrictions and labour constraints, were superimposed upon prototype study designs. To promote clarity for all stakeholders, for each sub-component of the study, there should be a clear record of the rationale and reasoning that outlines how the final design transpired, what compromises were made, and how the requirements of different stakeholders were accomplished. Ultimately, multi-national agroecological field studies such as PoshBee benefit greatly from the involvement of diverse stakeholders and partners, ranging from field ecologists, project managers, policy legislators, mathematical modelers, and farmer organisations. While the execution of the study highlighted the advantages and benefits of large-scale transdisciplinary projects, the long planning period emphasized the need to formally describe a design framework that could facilitate the design process of future multi-partner collaborations.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland

Author

Jeroen Scheper, Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Maj Rundlöf, Robert Chlebo, Mario V. Balzan, Nieke Knoben, Lynn V. Dicks, Jane C. Stout, Menelaos C. Stavrinides, Simon G. Potts, John M. Holland, Bernard E. Vaissière, Androulla Varnava, Penelope J. Bebeli, M. J. Suso, H. N. Panou, Danilo Bevk, Chris Hartfield, Ignasi Bartomeus, Matthias Albrecht, Lorna J. Cole, Theodora Petanidou, Romualdas Zemeckis, David Kleijn, Miguel A. A. Pinheiro de Carvalho, Jean-Pierre Sarthou, Anželika Dautartė, Yael Mandelik, Montserrat Vilà, Robert J. Paxton, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Nikolaos Emmanouil, Andrea Holzschuh, European Commission, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Wageningen University, University of East Anglia, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM), Trinity College Dublin, University of Reading (UOR), Agroecology and Environment, Agroscope, Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology, Partenaires INRAE, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [Madrid] (CSIC), Agricultural University of Athens, National Institute of Biology [Ljubljana] (NIB), Universiteit Leiden, Leiden University Center for Linguistics, Universiteit Leiden [Leiden]-Universiteit Leiden [Leiden], Slovak University of Agriculture, Vytautas Magnus University - Vytauto Didziojo Universitetas (VDU), Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU), The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, University of Würzburg, Naturalis Biodiversity Center [Leiden], MTA Centre for Ecological Research, The Hebreu University of Jerusalem, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, University of the Aegean, Universidade da Madeira (UMA), Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University [Flagstaff], AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Cyprus University of Technology, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible - Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (IAS CSIC), Jagiellonian University, Abeilles et Environnement (AE), Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Cole, Lorna J [0000-0002-3929-0530], Kleijn, David [0000-0003-2500-7164], Albrecht, Matthias [0000-0001-5518-3455], Bartomeus, Ignasi [0000-0001-7893-4389], Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó [0000-0001-5906-4816], Rundlöf, Maj [0000-0003-3014-1544], Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka [0000-0002-5753-800X], Scheper, Jeroen [0000-0002-4314-996X], Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, and Naturalis Biodiversity Center

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, Forage (honey bee), Resource (biology), Pollination, [SDE.MCG]Environmental Sciences/Global Changes, media_common.quotation_subject, pollinator conservation, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, 010603 evolutionary biology, 01 natural sciences, pollination services, CAP Green Architecture, Faculdade de Ciências da Vida, Scarcity, Pollinator, Pollination services, Pollinator conservation, Environmental planning, Research Articles, media_common, 2. Zero hunger, agri-environment schemes, habitat complementarity, Ecology, 010604 marine biology & hydrobiology, agri‐environment schemes, Environmental impact of agriculture, Expert elicitation, Biological Sciences, 15. Life on land, Bees, PE&RC, Ecological Focus Areas, Geography, Agri-environment schemes, 13. Climate action, Habitat complementarity, Plantenecologie en Natuurbeheer, bees, Natural Sciences, Common Agricultural Policy, Research Article
Abstract

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised., To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.

Published
2020

7. Insect pollinators: linking research and policy

Author

Vanbergen, Adam J., Ambrose, Nick, Aston, David, Biesmeijer, Jacobus C., Bourke, Andrew, Breeze, Tom D., Brotherton, Peter, Brown, Mike, Chandler, Dave, Clook, Mark, Connolly, Christopher L., Costigan, Peter, Coulson, MiKe, Cresswell, James, Dean, Robin, Dicks, Lynn V., Felicioli, Antonio, Fojt, Otakar, Gallai, Nicola, Genersch, Elke, Godfray, Charles, Grieg-Gran, Maryanne, Halstead, Andrew, Harding, Debbie, Harris, Brian, Hartfield, Chris, Heard, Matt S., Herren, Barbara, Howarth, Julie, Ings, Thomas, Kleijn, David, Klein, Alexandra M., Kunin, Williams E., Lewis, Gavin, MacEwen, Alison, Maus, Christian, McIntosh, Liz, Millar, Neil S., Neumann, Peter, Ollerton, Jeff, Olschewski, Roland, Osborne, Juliet L., Paxton, Robert J., Pettis, Jeff, Phillipson, Belinda, Potts, Simon G., Pywell, Richard, Rasmont, Pierre, Roberts, Stuart P.M., Salles, Jean-Michel, Schweiger, Oliver, Sima, Peter, Thompson, Helen, Titera, Dalibor, Vaissière, Bernard, Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., Webster, Sarah, Wentworth, Jonathan, Wright, Geraldine A., NERC, Scottish Government-SASA, Partenaires INRAE, British Beekeepers Association, University of Leeds, NCB Naturalis, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia [Norwich] (UEA), School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading (UOR), Natural England, Food and Environment Research Agency, School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick [Coventry], Health and Safety Executive, University of Dundee, Dept Food Environm & Rural Affairs Defra, Syngenta Ltd, University of Exeter, The Red Beehive Co. Ltd, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM), Universita degli studi di Pisa, UK Science and Innovation Network, Ecole Nationale de Formation Agronomique de Toulouse (ENFA), Institute for Bee Research Hohen Neuendorf, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Royal Horticultural Society, Polaris House, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), National Farmers' Union, Food and Agriculture Organization, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), Alterra Green World Research (ALTERRA), Institut of Ecology, JSC International Ltd, Bayer Pharma AG [Berlin], Department of Neuroscience, Physiology & Pharmacology, University College of London [London] (UCL), Swiss Bee Research Centre, University of Northampton, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, School of Biological Sciences [Belfast], Queen's University [Belfast] (QUB), Institute for Biology, University of Bergen (UiB), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Université de Mons (UMons), Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée (LAMETA), Université Montpellier 1 (UM1)-Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 (UPVM)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Université de Montpellier (UM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro), Helmholtz Zentrum für Umweltforschung = Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Koppert Biological Systems, Bee Research Institute, Abeilles & Environnement (UR 406 ), Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Utrecht University [Utrecht], Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, Newcastle University [Newcastle], Naturalis Biodiversity Center [Leiden], Abeilles et environnement (AE), and Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

Subjects
ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS, [SHS]Humanities and Social Sciences
Abstract

International audience

Published
2012
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Emerging threats and opportunities to managed bee species in European agricultural systems: a horizon scan.

Author

Willcox BK, Potts SG, Brown MJF, Alix A, Al Naggar Y, Chauzat MP, Costa C, Gekière A, Hartfield C, Hatjina F, Knapp JL, Martínez-López V, Maus C, Metodiev T, Nazzi F, Osterman J, Raimets R, Strobl V, Van Oystaeyen A, Wintermantel D, Yovcheva N, and Senapathi D

Subjects
Bees, Animals, Agriculture, Pollination, Technology, Crops, Agricultural, Pesticides
Abstract

Managed bee species provide essential pollination services that contribute to food security worldwide. However, managed bees face a diverse array of threats and anticipating these, and potential opportunities to reduce risks, is essential for the sustainable management of pollination services. We conducted a horizon scanning exercise with 20 experts from across Europe to identify emerging threats and opportunities for managed bees in European agricultural systems. An initial 63 issues were identified, and this was shortlisted to 21 issues through the horizon scanning process. These ranged from local landscape-level management to geopolitical issues on a continental and global scale across seven broad themes-Pesticides & pollutants, Technology, Management practices, Predators & parasites, Environmental stressors, Crop modification, and Political & trade influences. While we conducted this horizon scan within a European context, the opportunities and threats identified will likely be relevant to other regions. A renewed research and policy focus, especially on the highest-ranking issues, is required to maximise the value of these opportunities and mitigate threats to maintain sustainable and healthy managed bee pollinators within agricultural systems., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Perennial biomass cropping and use: Shaping the policy ecosystem in European countries.

Author

Clifton-Brown J, Hastings A, von Cossel M, Murphy-Bokern D, McCalmont J, Whitaker J, Alexopoulou E, Amaducci S, Andronic L, Ashman C, Awty-Carroll D, Bhatia R, Breuer L, Cosentino S, Cracroft-Eley W, Donnison I, Elbersen B, Ferrarini A, Ford J, Greef J, Ingram J, Lewandowski I, Magenau E, Mos M, Petrick M, Pogrzeba M, Robson P, Rowe RL, Sandu A, Schwarz KU, Scordia D, Scurlock J, Shepherd A, Thornton J, Trindade LM, Vetter S, Wagner M, Wu PC, Yamada T, and Kiesel A

Abstract

Demand for sustainably produced biomass is expected to increase with the need to provide renewable commodities, improve resource security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with COP26 commitments. Studies have demonstrated additional environmental benefits of using perennial biomass crops (PBCs), when produced appropriately, as a feedstock for the growing bioeconomy, including utilisation for bioenergy (with or without carbon capture and storage). PBCs can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (2023-27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors. Development will need to be informed by measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental, economic and social metrics. It discusses interlinked issues that must be considered in the expansion of PBC production: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio-economic environment. It makes policy recommendations that would enable greater PBC deployment: (1) incentivise farmers and land managers through specific policy measures, including carbon pricing, to allocate their less productive and less profitable land for uses which deliver demonstrable greenhouse gas reductions; (2) enable greenhouse gas mitigation markets to develop and offer secure contracts for commercial developers of verifiable low-carbon bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) support innovation in biomass utilisation value chains; and (4) continue long-term, strategic R&D and education for positive environmental, economic and social sustainability impacts., Competing Interests: The authors declare that progress reported in this paper, which includes input from industrial partners, is not biased by their business interests., (© 2023 The Authors. GCB Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland.

Author

Cole LJ, Kleijn D, Dicks LV, Stout JC, Potts SG, Albrecht M, Balzan MV, Bartomeus I, Bebeli PJ, Bevk D, Biesmeijer JC, Chlebo R, Dautartė A, Emmanouil N, Hartfield C, Holland JM, Holzschuh A, Knoben NTJ, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Mandelik Y, Panou H, Paxton RJ, Petanidou T, Pinheiro de Carvalho MAA, Rundlöf M, Sarthou JP, Stavrinides MC, Suso MJ, Szentgyörgyi H, Vaissière BE, Varnava A, Vilà M, Zemeckis R, and Scheper J

Abstract

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications . To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Modelling-based identification of factors influencing campylobacters in chicken broiler houses and on carcasses sampled after processing and chilling.

Author

Hutchison ML, Taylor MJ, Tchòrzewska MA, Ford G, Madden RH, and Knowles TG

Subjects
Abattoirs standards, Animals, Campylobacter classification, Campylobacter genetics, Campylobacter Infections microbiology, Chickens, Colony Count, Microbial, Dogs, Food Microbiology, Campylobacter isolation & purification, Campylobacter Infections veterinary, Food Contamination analysis, Meat microbiology, Poultry Diseases microbiology
Abstract

Aims: To identify production and processing practices that might reduce Campylobacter numbers contaminating chicken broiler carcasses., Methods and Results: The numbers of campylobacters were determined on carcass neck skins after processing or in broiler house litter samples. Supplementary information that described farm layouts, farming conditions for individual flocks, the slaughterhouse layouts and operating conditions inside plants was collected, matched with each Campylobacter test result. Statistical models predicting the numbers of campylobacters on neck skins and in litter were constructed. Carcass microbial contamination was more strongly influenced by on-farm production practices compared with slaughterhouse activities. We observed correlations between the chilling, washing and defeathering stages of processing and the numbers of campylobacters on carcasses. There were factors on farm that also correlated with numbers of campylobacters in litter. These included bird gender, the exclusion of dogs from houses, beetle presence in the house litter and the materials used to construct the house frame., Conclusions: Changes in farming practices have greater potential for reducing chicken carcass microbial contamination compared with processing interventions., Significance and Impact of the Study: Routine commercial practices were identified that were correlated with lowered numbers of campylobacters. Consequently, these practices are likely to be both cost-effective and suitable for adoption into established farms and commercial processing., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Microbiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for Applied Microbiology.)

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. A farming perspective on the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom.

Author

Rossides SC

Subjects
Animals, Compensation and Redress, Disease Outbreaks prevention & control, Foot-and-Mouth Disease prevention & control, Humans, Travel, United Kingdom epidemiology, Veterinary Medicine trends, Agriculture economics, Disease Outbreaks veterinary, Foot-and-Mouth Disease epidemiology
Abstract

The outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) that occurred in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 was the single largest epidemic of FMD the world had ever experienced. This outbreak raises important issues about future FMD control strategies, including the use of vaccination. The outbreak has also stimulated a wider debate in the UK on the role and direction of agriculture. The author presents the views of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales on the handling of the outbreak by the UK Government and summarises some of the key lessons to be learned from a farming perspective.

Published
2002
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results