The science behind the schemes

 PhD student Beth Brockett shares her experience of a knowledge exchange event that brought research scientists together with the people at the practical end of land management

The idea for a knowledge exchange event came about while I was having a chat with Chair of the Cumbrian Farmer Network, Will Rawling, over tea and cake in his kitchen. I was preparing to carry out fieldwork on Will’s farm to estimate soil carbon storage and nitrogen retention and he commented that, although he had attended many events about the importance of greenhouse gas mitigation and agriculture, no one had ever explained the science behind the process of soil carbon storage to him. I did my best to remedy this, and in return Will talked me through the processes involved in silage fermentation. It struck us both that it was a shame farmers and scientists didn’t talk like this more often and in June of this year twelve farmers, ten farm environment advisors and nine academics met at Will’s farm to discuss a range of scientific topics pertinent to livestock farming in the northwest.

The event started outside with three different activities. In one part of a field, academics gathered participants around a soil pit to explain research into soil compaction and how, when combined with intense rainfall, compaction can lead to flooding – a familiar problem for many farmers in the area. The group discussed how reducing stocking levels and farm traffic could help prevent this and recent research into how species-rich swards can improve soil structure. The discussion moved onto how hammering a length of drainpipe into the ground lets researchers “take the field into the lab” to measure the nitrogen which leaches from the soil during rainfall and how these measurements relate to the soil biota and grassland productivity.

Nearby, other scientists gathered farmers and advisors around what looked like an astronaut’s helmet (and was in fact an Infra-Red Gas Analyser) to explain the basics of soil photosynthesis and respiration, and how carbon and nitrogen emissions are measured in the field. After a brief explanation the Analyser started to measure the amount of photosynthesis occurring under the slightly grey conditions. The scientists then described new research into how plant traits, such as root length and leaf size, affect carbon and nitrogen retention underground and how this links to the activities of soil microbes. Did you know that there are more bacterial cells in a handful of soil than there are people on Earth?

The flow of knowledge travelled both ways and over in the farm yard, local farmers introduced the monitoring scheme on nearby Kinnerside Common. A collaboration between the commoners and Natural England, it aims to increase vegetation diversity on the common. The farmers are trained in plant identification and surveying “with the aid of a GPS, good eyes and a handbook” and paid for submitting information regularly.

Back in the farm workshop after coffee, discussion around use of satellite images to analyse vegetation and estimate below-ground processes led to lively debate, which continued over lunch.

After the event 94 per cent of attendees said they had found it worthwhile, with a number subsequently getting in touch for further information about the research. With reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and changes to the UK’s agri-environment schemes likely to consider managing farmland to deliver ecosystem services like absorbing greenhouse gases, these conversations benefit all parties:

“This kind of event enables scientists to understand how scientific outputs are interpreted on-the-ground and stimulates ideas and collaborations.”   Catherine Baxendale from Lancaster University.

“Much of what was discussed at the meeting was actually about good farming practice and if it helps to reduce damage to the planet then we all win. I think more events focusing on how sustainable food production can work alongside genuine environmental management systems, would be well received and valued by everyone, it gets us working together and sharing knowledge.”  Chair of the Cumbrian Farmer Network and host Will Rawling

“Thoroughly enjoyed today.  Personally, I would like a whole day on each topic.” Farmer Glenis Postlethwaite.

The event was sponsored by the Agricultural Ecology Group of the British Ecological Society and the Ecosystems Knowledge Network and was supported by the Cumbrian Farmer Network, NERC and Lancaster and Manchester Universities.   For more information email: b.brockett@lancaster.ac.uk

Mind the gap

Science Communications Manager Anne Liddon writes…

In many research programmes across the UK researchers are investigating the implications of environmental change for communities and the ways in which they are going to have to adapt.  It’s a potential troubling question for everyone, particularly land managers and their advisers.  So it’s just as well so many scientists are researching the theme of ecosystem services, investigating the range of goods that land provides, how they interrelate and the effects of environmental change upon those services.  But we also know there is often a knowledge gap between the researchers and professional advisers who each bring knowledge to addressing this challenge. 

Transferring knowledge between research and practice sounds as though it should be straightforward but real life it is always more complicated than that.  We have made some advances. We know from experience, that knowledge exchange can be a much more effective approach than knowledge transfer.  Involving practitioners at an early stage enables the research to be more relevant in the real world, and draws in a different, but equally valuable, kind of expertise.  This kind of involvement is happening more and more, but we can’t afford to be complacent, and we certainly aren’t reaching all the parts that need to be reached.  Landbridge is one means of addressing this gap. 

An event in Birmingham on 18 June brings together some of those leading scientists who have developed the ecosystems approach with land advisers and planners who are working at the front line.  The day is intended to help land advisers to develop their knowledge of how the ecosystem approach could be applied in their everyday practice, but it’s going to be a two-way process.  The researchers won’t be lecturing – they will be engaging in discussion and knowledge exchange in an event that is shaped by the participants.  Afterwards the experiences from the day will feed into a policy and practice note that we hope will be useful for a whole range of land advisers, highlighting the challenges and opportunities and giving practical guidance.  As I write there are a few places left (email Alister.Scott@bcu.ac.uk) but you will need to be quick.  I’m certainly looking forward to it.

Inter-professional working

Judy Pearson, a Rural Chartered Surveyor from Chesterton Humberts, Stamford writes about the latest Landbridge publication

Networking can be defined as ‘a supportive system of sharing information and services among individuals and groups having a common interest’. In rural based industries our common interest is more often than not, our client. Farmers and landowners are the reason for our parts of the jigsaw puzzle, they connect all sorts of specialists.

I read the Landbridge document on inter-professional working with great interest. The issue of competition within sectors, is something that we deal with every day as agents. The report details that businesses offering new services outside of their traditional profession increases competition. This rang true with me when I considered the number of firms that now offer advice on renewable energy, a relatively new area of expertise which most firms of agents now offer advice on.

I note the quote in the report from an annoyed land agent who speaks of accountants and solicitors carrying out valuations accusing them of taking his work away. In some circumstances I can understand why this would be frustrating, but creating an issue and not wanting to work cohesively with other professions is something, in my opinion, that must be avoided. In a job which has a diverse range of specialisms and clients, it can be beneficial to see our role as ‘part of a team of advisors’, for example, working with solicitors and accountants not against them.

The report states that important strategies to make inter-professional working succeed include reciprocity and acknowledging the expertise of other professions. Sharing knowledge between professions is certainly something I try actively to do and it has its benefits. For example, often solicitors who need clarification on things such as an intricacy of the Single Payment Scheme or something similar will call to ask the question. The favour is usually returned with that tricky question on tenancy or land law which you just can’t seem to find the answer to. Equally, having relationships with other professionals means that if something comes up for one of their clients which is out of their professional remit, they may recommend you to their client. This is one way that new business is won. Nothing is more valuable than a good reputation, which makes networking and inter-professional working invaluable.

Reading this report really enlightens you about the benefit of working with others. As an agent there are a multitude of formal networking events that one can attend, but what is often just as useful is picking up the phone and talking to other professionals and arranging an informal meet up, perhaps a sandwich one lunch time to have a chat about what you do and the practice areas you specialise in, in an informal setting.

Networking and inter-professional working in the rural industries is incredibly important, especially in an age where so much information is available online, it is imperative to keep in contact with specialists in different areas of work to chat through issues with. Working together not only has many benefits for the professional, but many benefits for the client including increased efficiency and potential to reduce costs.

I recommend reading the report to get a full understanding of the issues it discusses, it is available at:

http://www.relu.ac.uk/landbridge/resources/pdfs/Interactive%20professional%20resource%201.pdf     

Judy also runs her own social media campaign, find her on twitter: @blondeagadvisor , read her blog: http://blondeagadvisor.wordpress.com/

What is the value of advice?

Corrina Gibbs, Policy Co-ordinator at Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)

Advising farmers is what members of the AIC do, so of course we think that’s a useful job.  But it was very gratifying to hear Ministers from both Defra and BIS agreeing that advice from professional advisers in the commercial sector is a vital way to transfer knowledge and innovation onto farms across the UK.  Sir James Paice MP,  Minister for Agriculture and Food David Heath, and Minister for Universities and Science David Willetts, kindly supported the launch of AIC’s “Value of Advice” report at the House of Commons, along with an array of industry representatives.

Publication of the report is an important step in a process that began last autumn. Although technical advice is part of the very fabric of farm life we felt that its importance has often been overlooked. Nor perhaps, has it been realised how much the nature of that advice has changed in recent years with a focus on resource efficiency and the delivery of environmental outcomes to address the challenge of sustainable intensification.  A research project, looking at these issues, seemed timely.

The AIC research was unashamedly ‘farmer-centric’, making the farmer and their business the focus of our research. We therefore engaged with farmers and advisers and it became clear that there is a ‘home team’, which led to the development of the AIC Ring of Confidence. Unsurprisingly, given the isolated nature of running a farm, the decision maker at the centre needs a ring of people whom the farmers has confidence in. This includes professional advisers, ranging from agronomists to land agents, from feed advisers to seed representatives - who provide tailored up-to-date advice and act as a sounding board for farmers’ plans and aspirations. There is an outer ring of advisers (consisting of government inspectors and advisers), who tend not to be seen as the ‘home team’. Many farmers tend to have less confidence in their advice as it if often focused on specific policy objectives and may not be tailored to a specific farm, its enterprises and its aspirations.

There is significant potential for advisers from the inner and outer ring to work together constructively to deliver consistent and relevant advice to farmers. The recently published Defra Review of Advice and Incentives also recommends that this is a way forward under their new advice framework. So what next for taking forward the Value of Advice report findings? AIC will work closely with Defra and its agencies to further develop the advisory framework and also with BIS to flesh out the UK Agri-Tech Strategy. With at least 45 million each year being invested in R&D by AIC members they clearly have a key role to play in ensuring science gets put into practice.

The full Value of Advice report can be downloaded from our website.  If you have any queries about the project please contact me at Corrina.Gibbs@agindustries.org.uk

Could online knowledge resources be made to work more effectively for land-based professionals?

 Asks Charles Leventon who manages the Harper Adams Openfields initiative

At the recent AgriFood Charities Partnership Fourth Annual Forum held at the Farmers Club, Lord Curry of Kirkharle , who is a Patron of the Partnership, spoke of the various challenges facing the industry and urged the sector to share knowledge and work together to address these.  While acknowledging initiatives such as the Centre of Excellence for UK Farming and OpenFields, as well as Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Lord Curry made the point that the large number of projects concerned with the delivery of knowledge to land-based practitioners presents a confusing picture.

I would agree that the multiplicity of knowledge sources across the many disciplines of the land-based sector present a complicated, fractured and, what is probably, an incomplete picture for the end users – farmers, land managers, advisors and their networks.  The large number of organisations involved (both as knowledge developers and knowledge disseminators) across so many disciplines means there is a vast amount that is of potential use – but it is difficult to gain an adequate picture of where the useful knowledge resides, despite the power of Google and other internet search engines.

Of course, access to online resources is not the ‘silver bullet’ solution for knowledge exchange across the sector – but well organised and readily accessible information online can enable more effective learning through both formal and informal best practice networks.  Whilst working on the development of OpenFields as an open-access library for the industry, the team at Harper Adams University has encountered the wide variety of approaches to providing online access to knowledge resources:

·         Many single organisation sources and some aggregated collections

·         Use of links vs offering direct downloads

·         Free to access or ‘members only’ or ‘pay to view’

·         Different levels of detail in describing or organising (cataloguing) items for search or browse

·         Much variation in approach to copyright and re-use licensing

A few examples to illustrate the variations are provided among the links at the foot of this blog.

This leads me to pose the question how can we best or better organise knowledge materials online: a) to help users access them more readily and b) provide a reasonably comprehensive picture of where the most useful knowledge is being developed?

Two suggestions for more effective knowledge sharing

1.    Make sure there is a copy of everything deposited in one place Let’s all start to put a copy of each newly produced knowledge transfer/exchange items (in digital format – text, audio or video) in a single cooperative ‘space’ where it can be readily accessed, would probably be more findable by search engines and could be consulted in the context of other materials.  Authors may be reluctant to do this if they think it detracts from their organisation specific web site.  However, I would argue that it is better to be seen as being part of the bigger picture – the result may be that users become more aware of your organisation’s capabilities.  Furthermore, I would suggest that the existence of a high profile main aggregator will encourage the knowledge developers to translate and more rapidly disseminate the products of research into practitioner friendly materials.

2.    Enable re-use and onward publication While we might debate whether and how the sector would implement such a cooperative effort, we could take immediate steps to make our knowledge materials more transferable – i.e. by making clear how they may be used, repurposed or republished.  Too often the authors and publishers of helpful, best practice guidance remain silent regarding copyright and licensing or a conservative option is adopted, simply stating copyright ownership.  Unless the intellectual property has a commercial value by virtue of its innovation, I am presuming that those of us in the business of knowledge transfer for the benefit of the economy would want their materials to be as used as widely possible.  We need, therefore, to be explicit about any controls we see as being appropriate.

It can be straightforward to create a simple licence statement to attach to a given item.  Here are a couple of examples:

1.    RuSource Briefings: “© Alan Spedding 2013. This briefing may be reproduced or transmitted in its entirety free of charge. Where extracts are used, their source must be acknowledged. RuSource briefings may not be reproduced in any publication or offered for sale without the prior permission of the copyright holder.”

2.    Harper Adams Technical Notes:  “You may copy this work provided that this copyright notice is displayed, you do not alter, transform or build on the work, you do not charge others to access or copy the work and you make clear to others that this notice applies to them if they use or share this work.”

Creative Commons offers copyright licence numerous models that are free to adopt.  Alternatively these models can be useful to illustrate what you intend when working with your organisation’s legal adviser.

Whether we consider our knowledge transfer network to be local or transnational we can all benefit if we give more thought to how we use the internet - making it easier to share knowledge.

The views and opinions expressed in this item are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Harper Adams University or OpenFields or those of organisations with materials held in OpenFields.

© Charles Leventon 2013. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)

A few examples of different approaches:

AdLib http://www.adlib.ac.uk/adlib/ a resource that includes Government codes of practice, industry guidelines, legislation summaries – free to browse with subscription to access various collections

Animal - The International Journal of Animal Biosciences  http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ANM  a typical academic journal web site offering abstracts and subscription for full papers

Animal Bytes http://www.bsas.org.uk/animal_bytes/  articles and presentations from BSAS presented in a simpler, more readable version aimed at farmers, technical advisors, policy-makers and members of the public.  Free, open access but republication restricted.

CALU http://www.calu.bangor.ac.uk/publications.php.en?menu=13&catid=6203&subid=0

an example of a collaborative project - aimed at enterprises in Wales but worthy of wider exposure

CEUKF http://www.ceukf.org/knowledge-hub/  Centre of Excellence for UK Farming – Knowledge Hub

Defra Science and Research Projects Database http://randd.defra.gov.uk/  access to Defra’s considerable number of commissioned science and research reports

EBLEX http://www.eblex.org.uk/publications/research.aspx beef and lamb research publications - see also other AHDB Sector Divisions’ respective web sites for similar repositories of research information and technical guidance

Farm Efficiency Hub ubHubhttp://www.adlib.ac.uk/ghg/home.eb  a prototype service with resources collected by industry for industry to facilitate access, management and improved consistency in farm advice to support the Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (GHGAP)

Land Life Leisure   http://edina.ac.uk/landlifeleisure/ Weekly digest of press releases, reports and articles – on subscription

Livestock NorthWest http://livestocknw.co.uk/  a four year project offering a “gateway to information, advice and support for livestock farmers looking to improve performance in England's North West”

OpenFields  http://www.openfields.org.uk/  a free to access library for the land-based sector containing collections from many organisations and incorporating Harper Adams University repository

Reading University http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/view/divisions/4=5Fq2010a2d.html   example of a university repository of academic and research papers (School of Agriculture, Policy & Development / Economic and Social Sciences Division / Farm Management Unit)

Relu Policy & Practice Notes http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policyandpracticenotes.htm  also accessible via OpenFields

RuSource Briefings http://www.arthurrankcentre.org.uk/publications-and-resources/rusource  “a free rural information service for anyone working in the countryside or with rural people, and those supporting rural life” with full searchable catalogue also available on OpenFields

SRUC            http://www.sruc.ac.uk/downloads  a variety of documents including research notes and case studies but no information on licensing for republication

How is CAP reform shaping up?

Oliver Lee from Andersons’ Farm Business Consultants provides some insights on the current situation.

 Keeping up with the developments in the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 and the associated Common Agricultural Policy reform sometimes seems like a full time job for those of us advising land managers.  Everyone wants to know just how it’s going to affect us here in the UK, who is going to be better or worse off, will Environmental Stewardship carry on in a similar form, or will it be all change?  And will the results be good or bad news for farmers, consumers and the environment?  None of this has been at all clear.  But recent events have provided a bit more clarity on what will happen over the next 7 years, even if we don’t yet have the full picture of how this will affect us at farm level. 

A compromise was eventually reached during negotiations that was acceptable to both contributor countries such as the UK and Germany, and countries like France, Italy and many of the new Member States who were arguing for a ‘strong Europe’ (code for high spending). In headline terms future spending will be around 3% lower than in the current 2007-2013 seven year period at €960bn.

In terms of CAP, total spending has dropped by around 9% in real terms to €373bn over 7 years – i.e. around 39% of the total MFF. Due to changes in modulation rules there is likely to be a significant drop in Rural Development funds. The ‘new modulation’ at 15% (a drop from 19%) does not have to be match-funded by national Treasuries, and it is unlikely to be by the UK Treasury even at this lower rate.

All issues to do with money have been dragged into the discussion on the MFF. Therefore capping of direct aid has been included in the deal. The text states simply that ‘capping of direct payments for large beneficiaries will be introduced by Member States on a voluntary basis’. It seems pretty clear that it will be left up to individual countries to decide whether they want to cap or not, it is unlikely that Defra in England will introduce it.

Again, because it is a monetary issue (and perhaps because EU leaders like to call the shots), ‘greening’ has been dragged into the Budget discussions. The proportion of direct aid going towards greening is to be fixed at the original figure of 30%.  Interestingly, the text states that there will be a ‘clearly defined flexibility for Member States relating to the choice of equivalent greening measures’. This seems to suggest that Defra’s preferred option of greening via the ELS will be allowed.

The new MFF still has to be ratified by the EU Parliament. The Parliament has always been a strong supporter of ‘more Europe’ – i.e. greater spending. It is unlikely to be happy at the cuts that Heads of State have agreed. Whether the Parliament will actually block the deal is unclear. It may simply flex its muscles a bit and then acquiesce.

With so much tied-up already it doesn’t seem to leave much for Farm Ministers and the EU Parliament to decide within the CAP reform negotiations. At least the fixing of the Budget now allows these negotiations to progress. We, at Andersons, would hope that the full Parliament can sign off the European Parliament’s position within the next month, and Farm Ministers can also agree their version. That would still give an opportunity for a political agreement on CAP reform by the end of the Irish Presidency in June. As ever, the devil is likely to be in the detail. The comprehensive ‘Implementing Regulations’ setting out this detail are unlikely to be available before the autumn. So, although the Budget deal has taken a step forward, there is still some way to go before the final shape of the CAP post-2014 is known.

Only connect…..

The recent Foresight report on “Future Identities, changing identities in the UK: the next 10 years”, highlights the importance of technology and “hyper-connectivity”.  What does this really mean for rural businesses and the people who advise them?  Rural Business Adviser Simon Haley is from a generation that has embraced this technology, for both business and social life.  In his latest blog he shares some insights.

Is social media just the latest buzzword or can it really enable interprofessional working? asks Rural Business Adviser Simon Haley

Among the buzzwords at the inaugural workshop of the Landbridge Network was that phrase ‘social media’.  Most of those in the room had probably heard it before, but I would guess that few are actually using it daily in their business lives.   Social media used for business is quite different from using it to connect with friends.  But advances in technology have made communications much easier, and the borders between our personal and business lives are becoming blurred, with public profiles linking individuals to businesses.  That can mean reputations being enhanced or damaged for both.

Very simply, social media can be defined by its terminology. Being social is all about sharing and interaction, and the same conversations that happen face to face are now online, where others can listen in to those conversations and add their opinion. This means that I can make contact with other professionals across the country without having to visit them. And by making regular contacts of this kind, familiarity builds into a longer-term relationship.  This is a concept I was putting into practice throughout 2012.  But the way we use the internet and applications on mobile phones have moved to a new level, beyond simply providing information via a webpage. The world is now dominated by interaction and engagement. Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook are three of the most widely known social networking sites, but sites such as YouTube and eBay also come under this umbrella owing to their feedback and interaction mechanisms. 

So how do we use this explosion in social media effectively for interprofessional working? Well currently, I am involved in a project which aims to address this exact question. I run a two hour online discussion forum on Twitter every Thursday evening looking at issues within the rural industries. This platform, under the profile and hashtag #AgriChatUK, gives everyone involved in agriculture a place to share ideas, discuss pressing rural issues, debate hot topics and connect with other people in the industry.   There are open discussions, with over 4,100 followers, and a varied range of participants including farmers, rural advisors, land agents, lawyers, journalists, academics, NFU officeholders and people who are simply interested in the countryside. I am convinced it opens up new connections within the industry.  To give just one example, a recent discussion on the role of the levy boards saw the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, DairyCo and BPEX join Twitter specifically to take part.  And the comments they received gave them a lot of useful feedback, including answers to questions they might not have considered asking.

If more professionals used social media in its most basic form simply to expand networks and connections, then I believe the right questions can be asked more quickly, and to better effect, and directed towards the right people within the industry.  But we need to look ahead too.  Social media must be developed and given its proper value. It is not something that businesses or professionals should undertake half-heartedly.  They could be using online networks to transcend traditional exchange barriers such as distance and time, and to establish valuable relationships. Social media will never, and should never, replace traditional means of linking up with colleagues, as these are still the most important and effective way of communicating, but they are a useful additional tool.  They provide another way to get messages and news out to the industry more quickly and with greater effect.

The use of these media enables people to express opinions, which are honest, reflective and happening in real time. Summaries of the discussion from forums such as AgriChatUK  help to raise awareness and will ultimately pay dividends along the value chain. Businesses need to have a presence on such media, but it is important to know which social networking platform is right for you and how to then use this to your advantage.  That could mean keeping yourself informed about new grants, or posting an instant reaction to the Autumn Statement, which other professional firms can then benefit from, rather than waiting another week for the email briefing to be sent. The more professionals that engage in using such a resource the more the industry can benefit as a whole.  So if you haven’t been using media such as Twitter, and the discussion forums, why not give them a try?  Clicking onto #AgriChatUK might be a good starting point.