Management Options to Reduce N-Losses from Ploughed Grass-Clover

Nitrate (NO3 -) leaching from grassland can be kept at acceptable levels, but is often high after ploughing for grassland renewal or for silage maize/grain production. In on-farm research with several organic farmers, management options are being explored to save scarce organic manure and to reduce N-losses

The NDICEA model: a supporting tool for nitrogen management in arable farming

Abstrac

Das NDICEA-Modell zur Abbildung der Stickstoffdynamik im ökologischen Gemüsebau

Der NDICEA-Ansatz zur Stickstoffmodellierung kombiniert Bewirtschaftungs- und Wetterdaten, um den Umsatz organischer Substanzen zu berechnen. Die Ergebnisse der Modellierung des ökologischen Gartenbaus unterstreichen den Einfluss der Bodenbearbeitung auf die Stickstoffmineralisierung

The effect of local Suicide Prevention Action Networks (SUPRANET) on stigma, taboo and attitudes towards professional help-seeking: an exposure–response analysis

Purpose: In 2017, the European Alliance against Depression (EAAD) programme was introduced in the Netherlands through the creation of six local Suicide Prevention Action Networks (SUPRANET Community). This programme consists of interventions on four levels: (1) a public awareness campaign, (2) training local gatekeepers, (3) targeting high-risk persons in the community and (4) training of primary care professionals. This study aims to gain insight into the effectiveness of the SUPRANET programme on attitudinal changes in the general public by studying the exposure–response relationship. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional design, using general population surveys to measure key variables over time. The surveys were conducted in the six intervention regions (N = 2586) and in the Netherlands as a whole as a control region (N = 4187) and include questions on socio-demographic variables, brand awareness of the Dutch helpline, perceived taboo on suicide, attitudes towards depression and help-seeking. To examine the exposure–response relationship, regions were diff

The impact of a suicide prevention awareness campaign on stigma, taboo and attitudes towards professional help-seeking

Background: In 2017, the European Alliance against Depression (EAAD) was introduced in The Netherlands through the creation of six Suicide Prevention Action Networks (SUPRANET Community). The intervention was launched with a national suicide prevention awareness campaign. This campaign aims to encourage the general public to talk about suicide. This study aimed to gain insight into the effectiveness of the campaign in achieving attitudinal change in the general public, as stigmas related to mental health disorders and -services are an important reason for insufficient help-seeking. Methods: A repeated cross-section design, using general population surveys (N = 6,773) to measure key variables over time. The survey includes questions on socio-demographic variables, campaign visibility, brand awareness of the Dutch helpline, perceived taboo on suicide, attitudes towards depression and help-seeking. Results: The public awareness campaign was predominantly visible among the younger generation. Respondents who indicated having seen the public awareness campaign showed more openness towards seeking professional help and were considerably more likely to be familiar with the Dutch helpline than those who reported not having seen the campaign. Campaign awareness also seemed to relate to a higher perceived taboo on suicide and a lower estimation o

Tackling bovine TB

On 18 December Defra revealed that during 2018, 32,601 badgers were killed, bringing the total number slaughtered under licence since 2013 to almost 67,000.1 ‘Effectiveness’ claims relate not to the impact on cattle TB, but rather to the ability of the contracted shooters to kill sufficient badgers to satisfy their licence requirements, which they can hardly fail to reach given that target numbers are ‘adjusted’ by Natural England part-way through the culls according to the contractors’ progress. Sixty per cent of the badgers have been killed by ‘controlled shooting’, a method rejected by both the government’s Independent Expert Panel2 and the BVA3 because of animal welfare concerns. During 2018 Natural England directly monitored just 89 (0.43 per cent) of controlled shooting events. It is deplorable that the chief veterinary officer (CVO) continues to support the roll-out of a policy that permits controlled shooting, when veterinary organisations have condemned the method on animal welfare grounds. It is particularly concerning that the CVO appears to have deflected responsibility for humaneness to Natural England’s chief scientist who, as far as we are aware, has no background in animal welfare science. It is also unacceptable for government to attribute reductions in herd bovine TB (bTB) incidents over the first four years of culling in the original ‘pilot’ cull zones to its badger culling policy.4 Independent analysis of this and more recent data from the Gloucestershire pilot cull zone5 indicate that new herd incidence is rising sharply, with 22 herd breakdowns in the 12 months to September 2017 (an increase of 29.4 per cent when compared to the 17 breakdowns reported by APHA for the previous 12 months). Analysis of the 2018 figures indicates that both incidence and prevalence are now rising even faster, with a further 24 herd breakdowns occurring between 1 January and 5 December 2018. To date, the government and its officials cite data that are two years out of date, but have declined to comment on this emerging evidence that, far from resulting in a substantial disease control benefit, badger culls may be leading to a sharp increase in bTB in cattle. Natural England’s chief scientist and the UK’s CVO continue to endorse a failing and inhumane policy, bringing their offices into serious disrepute. We urge them, and the BVA, to reconsider their support for further badger culling, and instead focus on the actual cause of bTB’s epidemic spread – a cattle skin test with a sensitivity of only 50 per cent,6,7 and the ongoing problems associated with cattle movements and on-farm biosecurity

Animal welfare impacts of badger culling operations

We are writing to express our extreme concern following recent media coverage1, 2 relating to the methodology being used by contractors to kill badgers under licence, as part of the government’s policy to control bovine TB in cattle. The coverage relates to the shooting of badgers that have been captured in live traps. Covert video footage (https://bit.ly/2Eud1iR ) from Cumbria shows a trapped badger being shot with a firearm at close range, following which it appears to take close to a minute to stop moving. The contractor clearly observes the animal during this time but makes no attempt to expedite the death of the badger and prevent further suffering, as required by the current Natural England best practice guide which states: ‘Immediately after shooting, the animal should be checked to ensure it is dead, and if there is any doubt, a second shot must be taken as soon as possible.’3 The conversation between the contractor and his companion also suggests they were considering moving the badger to another site before finally bagging the carcase, again breaching the best practice guide. While the footage only relates to the experience of a single badger, and while the degree to which the badger was conscious in the period immediately following the shot is unclear, we can by no means be certain that the badger did not suffer. It also raises serious questions about the training, competence and behaviour of contractors, in relation to both badger welfare, and biosecurity. This adds to existing concerns relating to the humaneness of ‘controlled shooting’ (targeting free-roaming badgers with rifles), which continues to be a permitted method under culling licences, in spite of the reservations expressed by both the government-commissioned Independent Expert Panel in its 2014 report,4 and the BVA, which concluded in 2015 that it ‘can no longer support the continued use of controlled shooting as part of the badger control policy’.5 (However, it has since continued to support the issuing of licences which permit the method). The BVA has consistently indicated its support for what it calls the ‘tried and tested’ method of trapping and shooting, but has thus far failed to provide comprehensive and robust evidence for the humaneness of this method. Figure1 Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint Natural England reported that its monitors observed 74 (just over 0.6 per cent) of controlled shooting events for accuracy and humaneness During 2017, almost 20,000 badgers were killed under licence across 19 cull zones, around 60 per cent of which were killed by controlled shooting, the remainder being trapped and shot.6 Natural England reported that its monitors observed 74 (just over 0.6 per cent) of controlled shooting events for accuracy and humaneness. No information has been provided on the extent to which trapping and shooting activities were monitored. This raises serious concerns about the extent of suffering that might be experienced by very large numbers of animals, for which contractors are not being held to account. If contractors reach their maximum culling targets set by Natural England for 2018, as many as 41,000 additional badgers could be killed.7 The extent to which these animals will suffer is once again being left in the hands of contractors, with woefully inadequate oversight, and in the face of anecdotal evidence of breaches of best practice guidance. This situation is clearly unacceptable from an animal welfare perspective and it is our view that by endorsing the policy, the BVA is contradicting the principles contained within its own animal welfare strategy.8 We therefore urge the BVA to withdraw its support for any further licensed badger culling, and the RCVS to make it clear that any veterinarian who provides support for culling activities that result in unnecessary and avoidable animal suffering could face disciplinary proceedings. The veterinary profession has no business supporting this licensed mass killing with all its inherent negative welfare and biosecurity implications, and for which the disease control benefits are, at best, extremely uncertain. We believe the continued support for the culls by veterinary bodies in the face of poor evidence for its efficacy damages the credibility of the profession, and that same support in the face of potential animal suffering on a large scale undermines its reputation. We stand ready to discuss these issues in more detail