The perception and use of cover crops within the island of Ireland

Publication history: Accepted - 14 December 2020; Published - 26 January 2021.The integration of cover crops within arable rotations is becoming increasingly popular due to their widely acknowledged benefits. Subsidisation of cover cropping is available to eligible farmers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) but not to Northern Ireland (NI) farmers. There has been little research focus on ROI and NI growers' perceptions about the husbandry associated with cover crops and the benefits of growing them. Surveys to gauge farmer use and perception of cover crops were conducted at two arable conferences, with 55 respondents in NI and 77 in ROI (132 respondents in total). Growers used cover crops mainly to improve and maintain soil structure in an overall bid to enhance soil health in ROI, whereas in NI it was predominantly for forage. The impact of subsidies provided by Ireland and its stipulated policy influences species choice, and farmers were more likely to plant cover crops after later harvested commercial crops, for example, September. Compared to growers in NI, they were found predominantly to plant after crops harvested in August. In ROI, 63% of respondents receiving subsidies would continue to use cover crops if this monetary incentive ceased

A carrying capacity framework for soil phosphorus and hydrological sensitivity from farm to catchment scales

Publication history: Accepted - 30 May 2019; Published online - 4 June 2019.Agricultural fieldswith above optimumsoil phosphorus (P) are considered to pose risks to water quality and especially when those areas are coincident with hydrologically sensitive areas (HSAs) that focus surface runoff pathways. This is a challenge tomanage in areas of agricultural intensity in surfacewater dominated catchments where water quality targets have to be met. In this study, a soil P survey of 13 sub-catchments and 7693 fields was undertaken in a 220 km2 catchment. HSAs were also determined as the top 25th percentile risk froma runoff routingmodel that used a LiDAR digital elevation model and soil hydraulic conductivity properties. Distributions of these spatial data were compared with river soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentration measured fortnightly over one year. The results showed that 41% of fields exceeded the agronomic optimumfor soil P across the sub-catchments.When compared with the available water quality data, the results indicated that the high soil P carrying capacity area of the sub-catchmentswas 15%. Combining high soil P and HSA, the carrying capacity area of the sub-catchmentswas 1.5%. The opportunities to redistribute these riskswere analysed on fields with below optimum soil P and where HSA risk was also minimal. These ranged from 0.4% to 13.8% of sub-catchment areas and this limited potential, unlikely to fully reduce the P pressure to over-supplied fields, would need to be considered alongside addressing this over-supply and also with targeted HSA interception measures.This work was undertaken as a component of the “EU EAA Soil Sampling and Analysis Scheme”, funded by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), Northern Ireland, under the European Union Exceptional Adjustment Aid Scheme.We thank catchment farmers for land access and participation. We acknowledge the contributions of AFBI scientific staffwhowere instrumental in the planning, acquisition and processing of data, Colleen Ward (AFBI Project Manager) and Peter Scott (DAERA lead). Finally we thank both anonymous reviewers for insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript

Interspecific visitation of cattle and badgers to fomites: A transmission risk for bovine tuberculosis?

Publication history: Accepted - 23 April 2019In Great Britain and Ireland, badgers (Meles meles ) are a wildlife reservoir of Mycobacterium bovis and implicated in bovine tuberculosis transmission to domestic cattle. The route of disease transmission is unknown with direct, so‐called “nose‐to‐nose,” contact between hosts being extremely rare. Camera traps were deployed for 64,464 hr on 34 farms to quantify cattle and badger visitation rates in space and time at six farm locations. Badger presence never coincided with cattle presence at the same time, with badger and cattle detection at the same location but at different times being negatively correlated. Badgers were never recorded within farmyards during the present study. Badgers utilized cattle water troughs in fields, but detections were infrequent (equivalent to one badger observed drinking every 87 days). Cattle presence at badger‐associated locations, for example, setts and latrines, were three times more frequent than badger presence at cattle‐associated locations, for example, water troughs. Preventing cattle access to badger setts and latrines and restricting badger access to cattle water troughs may potentially reduce interspecific bTB transmission through reduced indirect contact.This study was part of a PhD studentship funded by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)

Making Brexit Work for the Environment and Livelihoods : Delivering a Stakeholder Informed Vision for Agriculture and Fisheries

1. The UK’s decision to leave the EU has far-reaching, and often shared, implications for agriculture and fisheries. To ensure the future sustainability of UK agricultural and fisheries systems, we argue that it is essential to grasp the opportunity that Brexit is providing to develop integrated policies that improve the management and protection of the natural environments, upon which these industries rely. 2. This article advances a stakeholder informed vision of the future design of UK agriculture and fisheries policies. We assess how currently emerging UK policy will need to be adapted in order to implement this vision. Our starting point is that Brexit provides the opportunity to redesign current unsustainable practices and can, in principle, deliver a sustainable future for agriculture and fisheries. 3. Underpinning policies with an ecosystem approach, explicit inclusion of public goods provision and social welfare equity were found to be key provisions for environmental, agricultural and fishery sustainability. Recognition of the needs of, and innovative practices in, the devolved UK nations is also required as the new policy and regulatory landscape is established. 4. Achieving the proposed vision will necessitate drawing on best practice and creating more coherent and integrated food, environment and rural and coastal economic policies. Our findings demonstrate that “bottom-up” and co-production approaches will be key to the development of more environmentally sustainable agriculture and fisheries policies to underpin prosperous livelihoods. 5. However, delivering this vision will involve overcoming significant challenges. The current uncertainty over the nature and timing of the UK’s Brexit agreement hinders forward planning and investment while diverting attention away from further in-depth consideration of environmental sustainability. In the face of this uncertainty, much of the UK’s new policy on the environment, agriculture and fisheries is therefore ambitious in vision but light on detail. Full commitment to co-production of policy with devolved nations and stakeholders also appears to be lacking, but will be essential for effective policy development and implementation

Antimicrobial resistance monitoring results complementing the European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2020/2021 – The United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)

<p>This dataset contains AMR monitoring results in animals and food at the isolate level pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC and to Annex, part B, of Commission implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1729. In addition, the dataset includes any other results from isolates than the ones mentioned in the Commission implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1729. The quantitative minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data from dilution methods are included.</p> <p>Reporting authorities contributing to 2022 AMR data collection: DAERA (Northern Ireland)</p><p><span>XI; xlsx; [email protected]</span></p&gt

Petunjuk Singkat Bercocok Tanam Sayuran

46 hlm

Northern Ireland results from the monitoring of pesticide residues in food

<p>This dataset contains the analytical results of pesticide residues measured in the food products analysed by the national competent authorities. Pesticide residues resulting from the use of plant protection products on crops that are used for food or feed production may pose a risk factor for public health. For this reason, a comprehensive legislative framework has been established in the European Union (EU), which defines rules for the approval of active substances used in plant protection products, the use of plant protection products and for pesticide residues in food. In order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, legal limits, so called “maximum residue levels” or briefly “MRLs”, are established in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EU-harmonised MRLs are set for all pesticides covering all types of food products. A default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg is applicable for pesticides not explicitly mentioned in the MRL legislation. Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 imposes on Member States the obligation to carry out controls to ensure that food placed on the market is compliant with the legal limits.</p> <p>A sample is considered <strong>free of quantifiable residues</strong> if the analytes were not present in concentrations at or above the limit of quantification (LOQ). The LOQ is the smallest concentration of an analyte that can be quantified with the analytical method used to analyse the sample. It is commonly defined as the minimum concentration of the analyte in the test sample that can be determined with acceptable precision and accuracy.</p> <p>If a sample is <strong>contains quantifiable residues</strong> but within the legally permitted limit (maximum residue level, MRL), it is described as a sample  with quantified residue levels within the legal limits (below or at the MRL)</p> <p>A sample is considered <strong>non-compliant</strong> with the legal limit (MRL), if the measured residue concentrations clearly exceed the legal limits, taking into account the measurement uncertainty. It is current practice that the uncertainty of the analytical measurement is taken into account before legal or administrative sanctions are imposed on food business operators for infringement of the MRL legislation.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>REPORTING AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTING TO EACH DATA COLLECTION:</strong></p> <p>MOPER_2022 - Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)</p> <p>MOPER_2021 - Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>We are seeking feedback on our open data please complete the survey at the link below:<br>https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/9344dfa0-f384-cb72-65f6-6c187a6d0f14</strong></p>XI; CSV; [email protected]