Domesticating rewilding: combining rewilding and agriculture offers environmental and human benefits

This is the final version. Available on open access from Wageningen Academic Publishers via the DOI in this recordDespite, or because of, the debates surrounding it, rewilding remains a polarising concept, especially with respect to its (perceived) connotations of removal of human activity, particularly productive agriculture, from land. It is possible to reconcile rewilding and farming, however, thus helping to overcome concerns surrounding rewilding, and to produce win-win outcomes in terms of environmental and human benefits. By ‘domesticating’ rewilding (i.e. adapting it to be more compatible with human needs), ecological restoration can be combined with food production. The most straightforward way of achieving this is ‘agricultural rewilding’, a form of rewilding which aims to restore ecosystem functions using low-intensity human interventions involving the introduction, management, and harvest of livestock. For example, rewilding advocates the introduction of large herbivores for the ecological benefits they deliver within ecosystems. A purist view of rewilding would require that these herbivores be wild, or at least surrogates for wild species: they would provide ecological benefits but play no role in productive agriculture. In agricultural rewilding, however, these herbivores could be domestic species (typically hardy, native breeds), which would act as analogues for their wild counterparts: they would have the same ecological benefits and could contribute to food production. Combining rewilding and agriculture in this way helps to address some of the key concerns related to rewilding, such as that it excludes people and their livelihoods from the land, or that it can reduce food self-sufficiency, therefore outsourcing food production (and its related environmental impacts) to other areas. In addition, agricultural rewilding delivers environmental benefits associated with rewilding while also producing high-quality, high-welfare, high-value food in the form of meat that is environmentally, ethically, and financially sustainable

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection versus infliximab treatment of distal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomized multicenter trial (LIR!C-trial)

Contains fulltext : 69534.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: With the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohn's disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction.The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohn's disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohn's disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007. DISCUSSION: The LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR1150

Environmental burdens of producing bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes in England and Wales using simulation and system modelling

Background, aims and scope Food production is essential to life. Modern farming uses considerable resources to produce arable crops. Analysing the environmental burdens of alternative crop production methods is a vital tool for policymakers. The paper describes the production burdens (calculated by life cycle analysis) of three key arable crops: bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes as grown in England and Wales using organic and non-organic (contemporary conventional) systems. Resource use (e.g. abiotic and energy) and burdens from emissions are included (e.g. global warming potential on a 100-year basis, global warming potential (GWP), and eutrophication and acidification potentials). Methods Crop production was analysed, using systems models, so that the effects of factors like changing N fertiliser application rates or irrigation could be examined. Emissions of nitrate were derived from a simulation model in which soil organic N was driven to steady state so that all long-term effects were properly accounted for. Yield response curves to N were similarly derived from long-term experiments. Crop nutrient inputs and plant protection applications were derived from national survey data and the literature. All major inputs were accounted for including fertiliser extraction, manufacture and delivery; pesticide manufacture; field fuel use; machinery and building manufacture; crop drying, cooling and storage. The current balance of production systems were found from survey data. The weighted mean national production was calculated froma combination of three rainfall levels and soil textures. The system boundary is the farm gate. The functional unit is 1 t marketable fresh weight of each product. Results and discussion The primary energy needs for the producing the three main crops were 2.4, 4.9 and 1.4 GJ/t for bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes, respectively. When expressed in terms of dry matter, protein or energy, wheat incurred smaller burdens than oilseed rape, which incurred lower burdens than potatoes. The crops do, of course, all play different roles. Organically produced bread wheat needed about 80% of the energy of non-organic, while organic potatoes needed 13% more energy than nonorganically produced ones. While pesticide use was always lower in organic production, other burdens were generally inconsistently higher or lower. Land occupation was always higher for organic production. Lower fertiliser use (and hence energy use) in organic systems is offset by more energy for fieldwork and lower yields. Main crop potato energy needs are dominated by cold storage. Reducing the N application rate for bread wheat production reduces energy use and GWP. The optimum for energy is with N at about 70% of the current level. It seems to be lower for GWP, but the sub-models used are beyond their range of reliability. The results are generally of the same order as those from other European studies. Conclusions Arable crop production depends heavily on fossil fuel in current major production systems. The emissions causing GWP are very dependent on nitrous oxide, more so than fuel consumption. That, together with emissions of ammonia and nitrate, means that agriculture has a C-N footprint rather than the C footprint that typifies most industrial life. Recommendations and perspectives With the large influence of nitrous oxide on GWP, evaluation of nitrous oxide emissions by another method, e.g. crop-soil simulation modelling instead of the more rigid IPCC method would improve the robustness of the analysis. The transition betweenfarming systems was not included in this study, but there could be short to medium term benefits of converting from nonorganic to organic methods that should be evaluated. System modelling allows alternative production methods to be readily explored and this greatly enhances LCA methodology