Exercise Induced Bronchoconstriction: A Comparison of two Provocation Tests for the Screening of Athletes

BACKGROUND: Exercise induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) affects a large number of athletes, with rates within literature between 7% to 50% for elite athletes (Dickinson et al., 2006; Falvey et al., 2010). Two provocation methods for the diagnosis of EIB include an exercise challenge test (ECT) and a eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea (EVH) test. Previous research has compared the airway response to ECT to EVH but has often failed to ensure that the ECT is conducted according to standardised guidelines (ATS., 1999; Trumper et al., 2009; Stickland et al., 2010). PURPOSE: Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the airway responses to ECT and EVH following standardised guidelines. METHODS: In a randomised order and on separate days, seventeen participants completed an ECT and an EVH test. Participants were all University level athletes or professional rugby league player (Age 25 ± 2 yr.; height 1.81 ± 0.06 m; mass 85.4 ± 13.7 kg) recruited via open enquiry to the study. The ECT procedure followed the American Thoracic Society (ATS) protocol, whilst the EVH test followed the procedures recommended by Anderson et al. (2001). Spirometry was performed prior to and at 0, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 min post challenge. A positive EIB diagnosis was regarded as a ≥10% decrease in forced expired ventilation over one second (FEV1). RESULTS: Nine participants experienced a fall in FEV1 ≥10%, with five having falls ≥10% in both provocation tests. Two participants experienced falls in the ECT alone and EVH alone respectively. Out of the nine participants, only two had a previous history of asthma. There was no significant difference in the peak ΔFEV1 between the two provocation tests (p=0.143). CONCLUSION: In summation, athletes should be tested for EIB, with both the ECT and EVH being acceptable methods, although our results are inconclusive due to poor agreement and limitations. Future research should aim to have a greater number of participants

Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery

Decision support tools, usually considered to be software-based, may be an important part of the quest for evidence-based decision-making in agriculture to improve productivity and environmental outputs. These tools can lead users through clear steps and suggest optimal decision paths or may act more as information sources to improve the evidence base for decisions. Yet, despite their availability in a wide range of formats, studies in several countries have shown uptake to be disappointingly low. This paper uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the factors affecting the uptake and use of decision support tools by farmers and advisers in the UK. Through a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, we found that fifteen factors are influential in convincing farmers and advisers to use decision support tools, which include usability, cost-effectiveness, performance, relevance to user, and compatibility with compliance demands. This study finds a plethora of agricultural decision support tools in operation in the UK, yet, like other studies, shows that their uptake is low. A better understanding of the fifteen factors identified should lead to more effective design and delivery of tools in the future.This research was funded as part of Defra's Sustainable Intensification Platform (Project Code LM0201). In addition, WJS was funded by Arcadia, LVD was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) programme, grant code NE/K015419/1. T.A. was supported by the European Commission's Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship Programme (PIIF-GA-2011-303221) and the Isaac Newton Trust.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.00

Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture:lessons for knowledge exchange and policy

As a response to the environmentally and socially destructive practices of post-war mechanization and intensification, the concept of sustainable agriculture has become prominent in research, policy, and practice. Sustainable agriculture aims to balance the economic, environmental, and social aspects of farming, creating a resilient farming system in the long-term. Over the last few decades, various concepts have been used in research and policy to encourage the adoption of sustainable practices. Within such a congested space, this paper assesses the value of ‘integrated farm management’ as a concept for the promotion of sustainable agriculture. The concept is the subject of renewed policy interest in England and Wales and it is also being promoted in Europe. Previous research, however, has suggested that integrated farm management may not be well understood or widely practised. There are also criticisms that it can be impractical and poorly differentiated from similar ideas. As such, renewed insights are required into how useful the concept might be for encouraging sustainable agriculture. Using a mixed methods approach, we gathered the views of farmers, farm advisors, and industry representatives about integrated farm management in England and Wales, and interpreted these through a theoretical framework to judge the strength of the concept. Overall, the general principles of Integrated Farm Management were found to be coherent and familiar to most of our respondents. However, the concept performed poorly in terms of its resonance, simplicity of message, differentiation from other similar terms and theoretical utility. We reflect on our findings in the context of other ways to promote sustainable agriculture, drawing out messages for policy and knowledge exchange in England and Wales, as well as elsewhere.This research was funded as part of Defra's Sustainable Intensification Platform (Project Code LM0201). In addition, WJS was funded by Arcadia, LVD was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council partly under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) programme, grant codes NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1

Northern grazing carbon farming – integrating production and greenhouse gas outcomes 1 : Climate Clever Beef Final Report

This project targeted three large and diverse regions across northern Australia: the Queensland Gulf, the Queensland Fitzroy Basin and the Northern Territory (Victoria River District, Douglas Daly and Barkly Tableland regions). Eleven grazing businesses across three broad regions were engaged as case studies to undertake demonstrations and evaluations within their businesses. These businesses manage more than 1,281,000 ha and 97,600 cattle. The project provided an excellent opportunity to capitalize on established networks and genuine producer interest and participation built up in recent initiatives (e.g. CCRP Climate Clever Beef (Bray et al. 2014), Northern Grazing Systems project (Phelps et al. 2014), RELRP, SCaRP, SavannaPlan, CQ Beef). The project team included research and extension professionals with decades of combined experience working with northern beef producers. The knowledge and analytical tools developed during previous projects identified practices to: reduce the greenhouse gas emissions impact of beef businesses, manage climate variability, improve land condition and increase business profitability

Northern grazing carbon farming – integrating production and greenhouse gas outcomes 1 : Climate Clever Beef Final Report

This project targeted three large and diverse regions across northern Australia: the Queensland Gulf, the Queensland Fitzroy Basin and the Northern Territory (Victoria River District, Douglas Daly and Barkly Tableland regions). Eleven grazing businesses across three broad regions were engaged as case studies to undertake demonstrations and evaluations within their businesses. These businesses manage more than 1,281,000 ha and 97,600 cattle. The project provided an excellent opportunity to capitalize on established networks and genuine producer interest and participation built up in recent initiatives (e.g. CCRP Climate Clever Beef (Bray et al. 2014), Northern Grazing Systems project (Phelps et al. 2014), RELRP, SCaRP, SavannaPlan, CQ Beef). The project team included research and extension professionals with decades of combined experience working with northern beef producers. The knowledge and analytical tools developed during previous projects identified practices to: reduce the greenhouse gas emissions impact of beef businesses, manage climate variability, improve land condition and increase business profitability

Engaging citizens in sustainability research: Comparing survey recruitment and responses between Facebook, Twitter and Qualtrics

Purpose The study aims to compare survey recruitment rates between Facebook, Twitter and Qualtrics and to assess the impact of recruitment method on estimates of energy content, food safety, carbon footprint and animal welfare across 29 foods. Design/methodology/approach Two versions of an online survey were developed on the citizen science platform, Zooniverse. The surveys explored citizen estimations of energy density (kcal) or carbon footprint (Co2) and food safety or animal welfare of 29 commonly eaten foods. Survey recruitment was conducted via paid promotions on Twitter and Facebook and via paid respondent invites on Qualtrics. The study included approximately 500 participants (Facebook, N˜11 (ratings 358), Twitter, N˜85 (ratings 2,184), Qualtrics, N = 398 (ratings 11,910)). Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-square analyses compared citizen estimations with validated values and assessed the impact of the variables on estimations. Findings Citizens were unable to accurately estimate carbon footprint and energy content, with most citizens overestimating values. Citizen estimates were most accurate for meat products. Qualtrics was the most successful recruitment method for the online survey. Citizen estimates between platforms were significantly different, suggesting that Facebook and Twitter may not be suitable recruitment methods for citizen online surveys. Practical implications Qualtrics was the favourable platform for survey recruitment. However, estimates across all recruitment platforms were poor. As paid recruitment methods such as Qualtrics are costly, the authors recommend continued examination of the social media environment to develop appropriate, affordable and timely online recruitment strategies for citizen science. Originality/value The findings indicate that citizens are unable to accurately estimate the carbon footprint and energy content of foods suggesting a focus on consumer education is needed to enable consumers to move towards more sustainable and healthy diets. Essential if we are to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals of zero hunger, good health and wellbeing and responsible consumption and production. The study highlights the utility of Zooniverse for assessing citizen estimates of carbon footprint, energy content, animal welfare and safety of foods

How Does Citizen Science Compare to Online Survey Panels? A Comparison of Food Knowledge and Perceptions Between the Zooniverse, Prolific and Qualtrics UK Panels

With an increasing focus on the uptake of healthy and sustainable diets, a growing body of research has explored consumer perceptions and understanding of the environmental impacts and safety of foods. However, this body of research has used a wide range of methods to recruit participants, which can influence the results obtained. The current research explores the impact of different recruitment methods upon observed estimations of the carbon footprint (gCO2e), energy content (Kcal), food safety and animal using three different online recruitment platforms; Qualtrics (N = 397), Prolific (N = 407), Zooniverse (N~601, based on unique IP addresses). Qualtrics and Prolific participants rated the carbon footprint, energy content, food safety and animal welfare of all foods in the survey. Zooniverse citizens rated the carbon footprint or energy content then food safety or animal welfare of all foods in the survey. Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square analyses compared the energy content and carbon footprint estimations with validated values, and differences in estimate accuracy and perceptions between recruitment methods. Participants were unable to accurately estimate the carbon footprint and energy content of foods. The carbon footprint of all foods were overestimated, with the exception of beef and lamb which was underestimated. The calorie content of fruits and vegetables are typically overestimated. Perceptions of animal welfare and food safety differed by recruitment method. Zooniverse citizens rated animal welfare standards to be lower for meat products and eggs, compared to Qualtrics and Prolific participants. Overall, Qualtrics participants typically held the highest food risk perceptions, however this varied by food type. The lack of knowledge about the carbon footprint and energy content of foods demonstrates the need for consumer education and communication to enable the move toward healthier and more sustainable diets. Perceptions of food safety and animal welfare demonstrate a baseline from which to develop consumer focused communications and governance. We have shown that different recruitment tools can result in differences in observed perceptions. This highlights the need to carefully consider the recruitment tool being used in research when assessing participant knowledge and perceptions