Farmer perception of benefits, constraints and opportunities for silvoarable systems: preliminary insights from Bedfordshire, England

Silvoarable agroforestry integrates the use of trees and arable crops on the same area of land, and such systems can be supported by national governments under the European Union’s (EU) Rural Development Regulations (2014–2020). In order to improve the understanding of farmers’ perceptions of such systems, detailed face-to-face interviews were completed with 15 farmers in Bedfordshire, England. Most of these farmers thought that silvoarable systems would not be profitable on their farms and that benefits would tend to be environmental or social rather than economic. Most farmers also thought that management and use of machinery would become more difficult. They felt that the tree component could potentially disrupt field operations and drainage and expressed concerns over the uncertain and long-term nature of timber revenue and the effect of intercrop yield reductions on crop revenue. Even so, 20% of the farmers stated they would use silvoarable systems if convinced that they were more profitable than conventional arable farming. A further 20% said they would farm the intercrop area belonging to someone else, if the rent was reduced to compensate for crop yield reductions. These results suggest that for most arable farmers, an economic advantage over current practice needs to exist before silvoarable systems are likely to be adopted. However, a minority might rent the crop component of a silvoarable system from another party or implement a full system for perceived environmental or social benefits

AGFORWARD: achievments during the first two years

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

AGFORWARD Third Periodic Report: July 2016 to December 2017

Project context The European Union has targets to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment and the quality of rural life. At the same time there is a need to improve our resilience to climate change and to enhance biodiversity. During the twentieth century, large productivity advances were made by managing agriculture and forestry as separate practices, but often at a high environmental cost. In order to address landscape-scale issues such as biodiversity and water quality, we argue that farmers and society will benefit from considering landuse as a continuum including both agriculture and trees, and that there are significant opportunities for European farmers and society to benefit from a closer integration of trees with agriculture. Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions.AGFORWARD (Grant Agreement N° 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD. The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commissio

AGFORWARD Project Final Report

Executive summary: The AGFORWARD project (Grant Agreement N° 613520) had the overall goal to promote agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development. It had four objectives (described below) which address 1) the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe, 2) identifying, developing and field-testing agroforestry innovations through participatory networks, 3) evaluating innovative designs and practices at field-, farm-, and landscape-scales, and promoting agroforestry in Europe through policy development and dissemination. Agroforestry is defined as the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. Context: European agroforestry has been estimated to cover 10.6 Mha (using a literature review) and 15.4 Mha using the pan-European LUCAS dataset (i.e. 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area). Livestock agroforestry (15.1 Mha) is, by far, the dominant type of agroforestry. The LUCAS analysis provides a uniform method to compare agroforestry areas between countries and over time. Identify, develop and field-test agroforestry innovations: 40 stakeholder groups (involving about 820 stakeholders across 13 European countries) developed and field-tested agroforestry innovations which have been reported in 40 “lesson learnt” reports, and in a user-friendly format in 46 “Agroforestry innovation leaflets”. The innovations for agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value included cheaper methods of tree protection and guidance for establishing legumes in wood pastures. Innovations for agroforestry with timber plantations, olive groves and apple orchards include the use of medicinal plants and reduction of mowing costs. Innovations for integrating trees on arable farms included assessments of yield benefits by providing wind protection. Innovations for livestock farms included using trees to enhance animal welfare, shade protection, and as a source of fodder. Peer-reviewed journal papers and conference presentations on these and other related topics were developed. Evaluation of agroforestry designs and practices at field- and landscape-scale: a range of publicly available field-scale analysis tools are available on the AGFORWARD website. These include the “CliPick” climate database, and web-applications of the Farm-SAFE and Hi-sAFe model. The results of field- and landscape-scale analysis, written up as peer-reviewed papers, highlight the benefits of agroforestry (relative to agriculture) for biodiversity enhancement and providing regulating ecosystem services, such as for climate and water regulation and purification. Policy development and dissemination: detailed reviews of existing policy and recommendations for future European agroforestry policy have been produced. The support provided is far wider than the single specified agroforestry measures. The recommendations included the collation of existing measures, and that agroforestry systems should not forfeit Pillar I payments. Opportunities for farmlevel and landscape-level measures were also identified. The project results can be found on the project website (www.agforward.eu), a Facebook account (www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject), a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/AGFORWARD_EU), and a quarterly electronic newsletter (http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/newsletters-1514.html). The number of national associations in Europe was extended to twelve, and a web-based training resource on agroforestry (http://train.agforward.eu/language/en/agforall/) created. AGFORWARD also supported the Third European Agroforestry Conference in Montpellier in 2016 attracting 287 delegates from 26 countries including many farmers. We also initiated another 21 national conferences or conference sessions on agroforestry, made about 240 oral presentations, 61 poster presentations, produced about 50 news articles, and supported about 87 workshop, training or field-visit activities (in addition to the stakeholder groups)

Defining the clonal dynamics leading to mouse skin tumour initiation.

The changes in cell dynamics after oncogenic mutation that lead to the development of tumours are currently unknown. Here, using skin epidermis as a model, we assessed the effect of oncogenic hedgehog signalling in distinct cell populations and their capacity to induce basal cell carcinoma, the most frequent cancer in humans. We found that only stem cells, and not progenitors, initiated tumour formation upon oncogenic hedgehog signalling. This difference was due to the hierarchical organization of tumour growth in oncogene-targeted stem cells, characterized by an increase in symmetric self-renewing divisions and a higher p53-dependent resistance to apoptosis, leading to rapid clonal expansion and progression into invasive tumours. Our work reveals that the capacity of oncogene-targeted cells to induce tumour formation is dependent not only on their long-term survival and expansion, but also on the specific clonal dynamics of the cancer cell of origin.C.B. is an investigator of WELBIO. A.S-D. and JC.L. are supported by a fellowship of the FNRS and FRIA respectively. B.D.S. and E.H. are supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 098357/Z/12/Z and 110326/Z/15/Z). EH is supported by a fellowship from Trinity College, Cambridge. This work was supported by the FNRS, the IUAP program, the Fondation contre le Cancer, the ULB fondation, the foundation Bettencourt Schueller, the foundation Baillet Latour, a consolidator grant of the European Research Council.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature1906

Forestry for a low carbon future. Integrating forests and wood products in climate change strategies

Following the introduction, Chapter 2 provides an overview of mitigation in the forest sector, addressing the handling of forests under UNFCCC. Chapters 3 to 5 focus on forest-based mitigation options – afforestation, reforestation, REDD+ and forest management – and Chapters 6 and 7 focus on wood-product based options – wood energy and green building and furnishing. The publication describes these activities in the context of UNFCCC rules, assessing their mitigation potential and economic attrac tiveness as well as opportunities and challenges for implementation. Chapter 8 discusses the different considerations involved in choosing the right mix of options as well as some of the instruments and means for implementation. Chapter 8 also highlights the co-benefits generated by forest-based mitigation and emphasizes that economic assessment of mitigation options needs to take these benefits into account. The concluding chapter assesses national commitments under UNFCCC involving forest miti gation and summarizes the challenges and opportunities

Esophageal and Gastric Malignancies After Bariatric Surgery: a Retrospective Global Study

Background: Bariatric surgery can influence the presentation, diagnosis, and management of gastrointestinal cancers. Esophagogastric (EG) malignancies in patients who have had a prior bariatric procedure have not been fully characterized. Objective: To characterize EG malignancies after bariatric procedures. Setting: University Hospital, United Kingdom. Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter observational study of patients with EG malignancies after bariatric surgery to characterize this condition. Results: This study includes 170 patients from 75 centers in 25 countries who underwent bariatric procedures between 1985 and 2020. At the time of the bariatric procedure, the mean age was 50.2 ± 10 years, and the mean weight 128.8 ± 28.9 kg. Women composed 57.3% (n = 98) of the population. Most (n = 64) patients underwent a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) followed by adjustable gastric band (AGB; n = 46) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n = 43). Time to cancer diagnosis after bariatric surgery was 9.5 ± 7.4 years, and mean weight at diagnosis was 87.4 ± 21.9 kg. The time lag was 5.9 ± 4.1 years after SG compared to 9.4 ± 7.1 years after RYGB and 10.5 ± 5.7 years after AGB. One third of patients presented with metastatic disease. The majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma (82.9%). Approximately 1 in 5 patients underwent palliative treatment from the outset. Time from diagnosis to mortality was under 1 year for most patients who died over the intervening period. Conclusion: The Oesophago-Gastric Malignancies After Obesity/Bariatric Surgery study presents the largest series to date of patients developing EG malignancies after bariatric surgery and attempts to characterize this condition.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio