Telling Stories:Farmers Offer New Insights into Farming Resilience

We explore elements of resilience on East Anglian farms through analysis of nine farmers’ life stories. Using a largely unprompted narrative approach, narrators had freedom to structure their own personal accounts, and later to review our initial interpretations. Transcriptions were organised in timelines, themes were identified, and causes and effects of major farm turning points distinguished. We find that internal drivers such as intergenerational transition, health and family relationships, from the narrators’ viewpoint, were cited as producing more change than external pressures such as price volatility or production variation. Robust and especially adaptation responses are prevalent in the stories, transformations are neither particularly radical nor innovative, but widespread piecemeal change through time can accumulate to enhance resilience. Four farmers identified more as businesspeople, with blurred boundaries between their farming and other commercial interests. Farming succession, with occasional conflict and new problems arising from extended working lives, prompts most change. Insights can arise as much from what is unsaid in these stories, and self‐explanation to outsiders can have cathartic effects. This narrative and analysis approach challenges preconceptions and can reframe theoretical perspectives and suggest approaches for policy reform. The focus was on existing farms with some resilience, further work should explore why former farmers were not resilient. Narrative analysis in other European countries showed important similarities in differing system contexts, but also divergences in the overall character of the life‐stories.EU; GB; en; contact: [email protected]

Animal health and welfare planning in organic dairy cattle farms

Continuous development is needed within the farm to reach the goal of good animal health and welfare in organic livestock farming. The very different conditions between countries call for models that are relevant for different farming types and can be integrated into local practice and be relevant for each type of farming context. This article reviews frameworks, principles and practices for animal health and welfare planning which are relevant for organic livestock farming. This review is based on preliminary analyses carried out within a European project (acronym ANIPLAN) with participants from seven countries. The process begins with gathering knowledge about the current status within a given herd as background for making decisions and planning future improvements as well as evaluating already implemented improvements. Respectful communication between the owner of the herd and other farmers as well as animal health and welfare professionals (veterinarians and advisors) is paramount. This paper provides an overview of some current animal health and welfare planning initiatives and explains the principles of animal health and welfare planning which are being implemented in ANIPLAN partner countries, in collaboration with groups of organic farmers and organisations

Cattle remain immunocompetent during the acute phase of foot-and-mouth disease virus infection

Infection of cattle with foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) results in the development of long-term protective antibody responses. In contrast, inactivated antigen vaccines fail to induce long-term protective immunity. Differences between susceptible species have also been observed during infection with FMDV, with cattle often developing persistent infections whilst pigs develop more severe symptoms and excrete higher levels of virus. This study examined the early immune response to FMDV in naïve cattle after in-contact challenge. Cattle exposed to FMDV were found to be viraemic and produced neutralising antibody, consistent with previous reports. In contrast to previous studies in pigs these cattle did not develop leucopenia, and the proliferative responses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to either mitogen or third party antigen were not suppressed. Low levels of type 1 interferon and IL-10 were detected in the circulation. Taken together, these results suggest that there was no generalised immunosuppression during the acute phase of FMDV infection in cattle

Farmer groups for animal health and welfare planning in European organic dairy herds

A set of common principles for active animal health and welfare planning in organic dairy farming has been developed in the ANIPLAN project group of seven European countries. Health and welfare planning is a farmer‐owned process of continuous development and improvement and may be practised in many different ways. It should incorporate health promotion and disease handling, based on a strategy where assessment of current status and risks forms the basis for evaluation, action and review. Besides this, it should be 1) farm-specific, 2) involve external person(s) and 3) external knowledge, 4) be based on organic principles, 5) be written, and 6) acknowledge good aspects in addition to targeting the problem areas in order to stimulate the learning process. Establishing farmer groups seems to be a beneficial way of stimulating a dynamic development on the farms towards continuous improvement, as in this case with focus on animal health and welfare planning. Various factors influence the process in different contexts, e.g. geographical, cultural, traditional factors, and a proper analysis of the situation as well as the purpose of the group is necessary, and can relevantly be negotiated and co‐developed with farmers as well as facilitators before being implemented. Farmer groups based on farmer‐to‐farmer advice and co‐development need a facilitator who takes on the role of facilitating the process and ‘decodes’ him‐ or herself from being ‘expert’

D2.2 Report on analysis of biographical narratives exploring short- and long-term adaptive behaviour of farmers under various challenges

The Horizon 2020 project Towards Sustainable and Resilient EU Farming Systems (SURE-Farm) defines resilience as maintaining the essential functions of EU farming systems in the face of increasingly complex and volatile economic, social, ecological and institutional risks: Meuwissen (2018) suggests that resilience over time is achieved across the increasingly fundamental attributes of robustness, adaptability and transformability, representing system responses to short, medium and long-term external drivers, respectively. Maxwell (1986) also recognised that external drivers vary significantly in time and space and distinguished four different types of perturbations: noise, shocks, cycles and trends. Analysis of narratives (Rosenthal, 2004; Riessmann, 2008) can be used to enable researchers to gain indepth understanding of the rationale surrounding farmer decision making when faced with drivers of change (e.g. MacDonald et al., 2014), and how farmers manage critical decision points in their farming businesses. This understanding is crucial for developing the tools and policy measures needed to support the sustainability and resilience of European agriculture. We have used personal histories of family farms, and business histories of corporate farms, to identify phases in the separate production, demographic and policy adaptive cycles (and consequences of interactions between them) as they have impacted on the individuals concerned and their business enterprises. Biographical stories were collected from nine to ten narrators (early-, mid- and late-career), in each of five case studies chosen to represent a range of regions and farming systems in Europe. These included large scale family and corporate arable farms in Northeast Bulgaria (BG) and the East of England (UK); dairy farms in Flanders (BE); small-scale perennial crop (hazelnut) farms in central Italy (IT) and high value egg and broiler systems in Southern Sweden (SE). A single question was used to initiate the narrators’ stories, without qualification beforehand, supported only with expressions of interest and encouragement in the first part of the interview, with subsequent exploratory questions devoted to clarifying the internal structure of the narrative. Narratives were transcribed and analysed to identify the drivers and responses to critical decision-making points in the stories. Comparisons across the five regional farming system cases have also been made to generate wider insights into how the narrators responded to different challenges. The drivers leading up to critical decision points in the narratives were grouped according to themes which followed a spectrum ranging from internal (those arising from within the farm system), to external (those acting on the farm system). Internal drivers included health, relationships, intergenerational change, retirement, redundancy. The more intermediate drivers included financial pressures, skills, labour, disasters, land issues, water. External drivers included supply chain factors, markets, technology, policy and regulation. Some drivers and responses were observed to relate to the farmer whilst others related to the farming system. Key findings from cross-narrative analysis distinguished inertia as the predominant response to system challenges, and that incremental changes (or creeping change, as we have termed it) in the system over a long-time frame rather than a definable critical decision point, is widely evident in the narratives. Climate change was not identified as being a driver and was only mentioned at all in two of the 45 narratives. Farmer identity ranged broadly across the narratives with the extremes being represented by those who farmed because it was their vocation, to those who perceived themselves first and foremost as business operators. To an extent, these identities reflected the degree of attachment to land, with the more vocational farmers having a strong attachment to their farmed land (particularly in the Flemish case) and the more business-minded (particularly in Northeast Bulgaria and the East of England) having less attachment. The long-term nature of the hazelnut crop in Central Italy meant that attachment to the land was strong, regardless of farmer identity. Family support, whether perceived as positive or negative by the narrator, was found to influence decision-making, and changing work/life balance expectations, particularly amongst early-career farmers with young families, was also influential. The narratives revealed different approaches to risk alleviation, both within and across case studies. In instances where land availability was not restricted (for example, Northeast Bulgaria, and to some extent, East Anglia), scale enlargement was predominant, but where land was restricted, diversification was the predominant response (for example, in the Flemish narratives). There were strong similarities and distinctive differences across the narrative contexts. Similarities included the dominance of internal drivers, intergenerational change as a major critical decision point, the perception of many external drivers as noise, and more frustration with policy drivers compared with weather events. There were few mentions of insurance by the narrators. The findings indicate that robustness is demonstrated in response to many drivers classified as cycles and shocks, whilst prolonged trends result primarily in adaptation. Transformations were relatively infrequent in the narratives and those identified were not radical in nature. The main policy related conclusions from the study suggest that farming systems are ill-equipped for a rapid move from direct payments to income insurance. They also appear to be unprepared for climate change. Long-term, coherent strategies required for dealing with intergenerational change were not apparent, confirming parallel literature that suggests that legal, social welfare and policy obstacles to farm succession need to be addressed

In-vivo T-cell depleted reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in first remission: results from the prospective, single-arm evaluation of the UKALL14 trial.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of chemotherapy in patients older than 40 years with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is poor and myeloablative allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) has a high transplant-related mortality (TRM) in this age cohort. The aim of this study was to assess the activity and safety of reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic HSCT in this patient population. METHODS: This was a single-arm, prospective study within the UKALL14 trial done in 46 centres in the UK, which recruited patients to the transplantation substudy. Participants in UKALL14 had B-cell or T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, were aged 25-65 years (BCR-ABL1-negative) or 18-65 years (BCR-ABL1-positive), and for this subcohort had a fit, matched sibling donor or an 8 out of 8 allelic matched unrelated donor (HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and HLA-DR). On June 20, 2014, the protocol was amended to allow 7 out of 8 matched unrelated donors if the patient had high risk cytogenetics or was minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive after the second induction course. Patients were given fludarabine, melphalan, and alemtuzumab (FMA; intravenous fludarabine 30 mg/m2 on days -6 to -2, melphalan 140 mg/m2 on day -2, and alemtuzumab 30 mg on day -1 [sibling donor] and days -2 and -1 [unrelated donor]) before allogeneic HSCT (aged ≥41 years patient pathway). Donor lymphocyte infusions were given from 6 months for mixed chimerism or MRD. The primary endpoint was event-free survival and secondary and transplantation-specific endpoints included overall survival, relapse incidence, TRM, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01085617. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2011, to July 26, 2018, 249 patients (236 aged ≥41 years and 13 younger than 41 years) considered unfit for a myeloablative allograft received an FMA reduced-intensity conditioned HSCT. 138 (55%) patients were male and 111 (45%) were female. 88 (35%) participants received transplantations from a sibling donor and 160 (64%) received transplantations from unrelated donors. 211 (85%) participants had B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. High-risk cytogenetics were present in 43 (22%) and another 63 (25%) participants were BCR-ABL1-positive. At median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-70), 4-year event-free survival was 46·8% (95% CI 40·1-53·2) and 4-year overall survival was 54·8% (48·0-61·2). 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 33·6% (27·9-40·2) and 4-year TRM was 19·6% (15·1-25·3). 27 (56%) of 48 patients with TRM had infection as the named cause of death. Seven (15%) of 48 patients had fungal infections, 13 (27%) patients had bacterial infections (six gram-negative), and 11 (23%) had viral infections (three cytomegalovirus and two Epstein-Barr virus). Acute GVHD grade 2-4 occurred in 29 (12%) of 247 patients and grade 3-4 occurred in 12 (5%) patients. Chronic GVHD incidence was 84 (37%) of 228 patients (50 [22%] had extensive chronic GVHD). 49 (30%) of 162 patients had detectable end-of-induction MRD, which portended worse outcomes with event-free survival (HR 2·40 [95% CI 1·46-3·93]) and time-to-relapse (HR 2·41 [1·29-4·48]). INTERPRETATION: FMA reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic HSCT in older patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in first complete remission provided good disease control with moderate GVHD, resulting in better-than-expected event-free survival and overall survival in this high-risk population. Strategies to reduce infection-related TRM will further improve outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK

A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems

Agricultural systems in Europe face accumulating economic, ecological and societal challenges, raising concerns about their resilience to shocks and stresses. These resilience issues need to be addressed with a focus on the regional context in which farming systems operate because farms, farmers’ organizations, service suppliers and supply chain actors are embedded in local environments and functions of agriculture. We define resilience of a farming system as its ability to ensure the provision of the system functions in the face of increasingly complex and accumulating economic, social, environmental and institutional shocks and stresses, through capacities of robustness, adaptability and transformability. We (i) develop a framework to assess the resilience of farming systems, and (ii) present a methodology to operationalize the framework with a view to Europe’s diverse farming systems. The framework is designed to assess resilience to specific challenges (specified resilience) as well as a farming system’s capacity to deal with the unknown, uncertainty and surprise (general resilience). The framework provides a heuristic to analyze system properties, challenges (shocks, long-term stresses), indicators to measure the performance of system functions, resilience capacities and resilience-enhancing attributes. Capacities and attributes refer to adaptive cycle processes of agricultural practices, farm demographics, governance and risk management. The novelty of the framework pertains to the focal scale of analysis, i.e. the farming system level, the consideration of accumulating challenges and various agricultural processes, and the consideration that farming systems provide multiple functions that can change over time. Furthermore, the distinction between three resilience capacities (robustness, adaptability, transformability) ensures that the framework goes beyond narrow definitions that limit resilience to robustness. The methodology deploys a mixed-methods approach: quantitative methods, such as statistics, econometrics and modelling, are used to identify underlying patterns, causal explanations and likely contributing factors; while qualitative methods, such as interviews, participatory approaches and stakeholder workshops, access experiential and contextual knowledge and provide more nuanced insights. More specifically, analysis along the framework explores multiple nested levels of farming systems (e.g. farm, farm household, supply chain, farming system) over a time horizon of 1-2 generations, thereby enabling reflection on potential temporal and scalar trade-offs across resilience attributes. The richness of the framework is illustrated for the arable farming system in Veenkoloniën, the Netherlands. The analysis reveals a relatively low capacity of this farming system to transform and farmers feeling distressed about transformation, while other members of their households have experienced many examples of transformation

Farmland biodiversity and agricultural management on 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions

Farmland is a major land cover type in Europe and Africa and provides habitat for numerous species. The severe decline in farmland biodiversity of the last decades has been attributed to changes in farming practices, and organic and low-input farming are assumed to mitigate detrimental effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity. Since the farm enterprise is the primary unit of agricultural decision making, management-related effects at the field scale need to be assessed at the farm level. Therefore, in this study, data were collected on habitat characteristics, vascular plant, earthworm, spider, and bee communities and on the corresponding agricultural management in 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions. In 15 environmental and agricultural homogeneous regions, 6–20 farms with the same farm type (e.g., arable crops, grassland, or specific permanent crops) were selected. If available, an equal number of organic and non-organic farms were randomly selected. Alternatively, farms were sampled along a gradient of management intensity. For all selected farms, the entire farmed area was mapped, which resulted in total in the mapping of 11 338 units attributed to 194 standardized habitat types, provided together with additional descriptors. On each farm, one site per available habitat type was randomly selected for species diversity investigations. Species were sampled on 2115 sites and identified to the species level by expert taxonomists. Species lists and abundance estimates are provided for each site and sampling date (one date for plants and earthworms, three dates for spiders and bees). In addition, farmers provided information about their management practices in face-to-face interviews following a standardized questionnaire. Farm management indicators for each farm are available (e.g., nitrogen input, pesticide applications, or energy input). Analyses revealed a positive effect of unproductive areas and a negative effect of intensive management on biodiversity. Communities of the four taxonomic groups strongly differed in their response to habitat characteristics, agricultural management, and regional circumstances. The data has potential for further insights into interactions of farmland biodiversity and agricultural management at site, farm, and regional scale