|
Back to Science Homepage
SEERAD Research Strategy Review:
Research Needs and Priorities Consultation
Comments by
Dr James Irvine
FRSE DSc FRCPEd FRCPath FIsntBiol FInstDirectors
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
by Crieff, Perthshire PH6 2HX
(Filed 19 September 2003)
© LandCare Scotland
Reproduced with permission
It is a daunting task to attempt to comment
on this consultation paper (1). To do justice to
the subject it would be necessary to have a full understanding of
what research is currently being done and to what standard. With
the exception of the Scottish Crop Research Unit (SCRI) based at
Invergowrie, Dundee, the annual reports of the various institutes
funded by SEERAD are disappointing in the description of the research
that they undertake, being in general more hype than fact. My comments
will therefore be directed to broad issues rather than detail.
It is a matter of major regret that SEERAD,
either by choice or by decree from higher authority, has decided
to direct a substantial part of its budget to human health. I understand
that some 25% of the budget previously spent on agricultural matters
is being redirected to human health thereby forcing the main research
institutes to redirect their efforts. While human health is of prime
importance there is another government department and other institutes
that concentrate on these matters much more effectively. Not surprisingly
therefore research done in Scotland on agriculture, including animal
health and welfare, is considered to be in serious decline, again
with the exception of the SCRI.
In my view SEERAD (along with DEFRA and
the Green Party in the EU) is on the wrong track with its current
and future programme in relation to what is referred to as “Sustainable
Agriculture” - an essentially meaningless term (2,
3). Every farmer in Scotland has tried for centuries
to run a “sustainable” farm. It is an insult to farmers
for certain academics and politicians to come up with this supposedly
new creed. Most people are now heartily sick of spin and hype that
has some superficial appeal but is based on fallacy. The vast majority
of farmers in Scotland know only too well that they have to look
after their land - otherwise it will not serve them or their succeeding
generations. Indeed that is why Scotland’s landscape is so
highly admired, and has been admired for generations. It is now
under threat from urban-based environmental do-gooders who have
little understanding of farming and seem reluctant to learn, as
the urban/rural divide widens.
SEERAD (along with DEFRA and the excessive
number of ill-conceived directives emanating from Brussels) are
placing too much emphasis on environmental issues and not enough
on maintaining a farming industry that has done so much through
knowledge of the land to maintain and improve the environment. Ironically
it will be the overemphasis on the environment by politicians that
will seriously compromise the farming industry that has served the
environment in Scotland so well. Policies emanating from the Macauley
Land Use Research Institute (MLRI) and Rural Economy departments
at Aberdeen (and Newcastle) are in my view misdirected and are not
in the best interests of Scotland - they appear to have jumped on
to the Brussels bandwagon of “sustainable” agriculture.
What theses bodies describe as ”sustainable” is unlikely
to be sustainable in a realistic economic sense (4).
The folly of diversifying out of farming in Scotland
as advocated by SEERAD is described in a report on a SAC workshop
held in Coupar, Angus in 2001 entitled "New Enterprise - New
Beginnings" (5). SAC itself got its fingers
severely burned by doing just that, with an independent report by
Deloitte & Touche telling it to get back to its core function
and stop dissipating its resources (6).
Listening to so-called experts on rural
economy reveals just how little they appear to know about how land
is actually managed. Reduced agricultural production is not what
Scotland needs, as evidenced by Professor Chris Doyle's independent
report on the impact of the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) on the Red Meat Sector in Scotland (7).
Scotland has an enviable international reputation for quality and
needs to produce more of it, not less. SEERAD’s research role
should be directed to achieving this - not undermining it.
As a farmer with a scientific background
I endeavour to produce quality cattle, sheep and barley. With regard
to the livestock part of my farming enterprise I cannot bring to
mind any major help that SEERAD funded research has recently contributed.
As my farm is not atypical of many Scottish farms this surely must
be a matter of some concern.
Genetics of Scottish Cattle
Cultybraggan Farm runs a pedigree Aberdeen
Angus herd, a pedigree limousin herd and commercial crosses between
the two breeds. The farm sells commercial store cattle through Caledonian
Mart, Stirling. In the commercial shows linked with the sales at
the mart the farm is not infrequently among the prize winners, indicating
that what we produce is appropriate for the market (8).
But we know that we could produce a better product if research on
animal genetics were better focussed. Aberdeen Angus breeding is
the Scottish flagship, yet what help has SEERAD funded research
contributed to its further development?
The genetic input from DEFRA, the Meat and
Livestock Commission (MLC) and Signet has stagnated over many years
- so much so that now the Australians with the involvement of their
Universities and Research Institutes are now far ahead of us (9,
10, 11, 12).
A few years ago a young, enterprising and well-respected Aberdeen
Angus breeder emigrated from Scotland to the USA through frustration
over the lack of adoption of progressive thinking in his native
land, and he has thrived in his new venture (13).
I regret to say that the input from SAC in this regard seems to
be poorly directed and is not serving the industry well. They appear
to be more interested in commodity markets than in helping to maintain
(or indeed re-establish) Scotland’s lead as a livestock producing
country. Hype from Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) about quality is
not enough.
Animal Health and Welfare
In terms of animal health I see little
impact on my farm arising from recent research done by Scottish
Institutes or Universities. Rather what one hears is much hype about
organic farming that has such a poor record in terms of animal health
(14, 15) and no proven benefit
to human health either (16). Even the claims of
organic farming as being necessarily beneficial to the environment
are questionable - in terms of the leakage of nitrates for example.
According to Professor Hugh Pennington organic food is just as likely
to give you food poisoning as conventional produce; and that while
the organic sector may use less pesticides, the amount used in non-organic
food is unlikely to do anybody any harm (17).
Would it not be better for SEERAD to promote
good animal health in Scottish farm livestock, whether the animals
are farmed conventionally or organically? The reality is that the
Scotland (along with the rest of the UK) has a declining health
status amongst its farm livestock compared to other European countries.
The costs of trying to improve animal health on Scottish farms is
currently prohibitive. Part of the problem seems to be that the
SAC advisory services are required to operate on a commercial basis
with substantial margins of profit. If government wishes the Scottish
livestock industry to again contribute positively to the balance
of payments, it should invest in a more focussed and economically
sensible manner so as to help achieve this objective.
There should be incentives rather than additional
financial burdens for running a closed herd, whereby the herd generates
its own replacements and keeps itself isolated from neighbouring
farms. Double fencing, with hedgerows if appropriate, around farm
boundaries should be given high priority in terms of funding. To
make a closed herd secure that fence should where possible be supplemented
with electrification as cattle may otherwise choose to ignore it
when their reproductive attraction for neighbouring beasts gets
the better of them. But here the political drive to open virtually
all farmland to the public at all times - to do a vast range of
activities that many urban-thinking persons might include under
the category of being responsible - is counter-productive.
Johne’s disease, BVD, IBR in cattle
and scab and listeria in sheep are among the serious diseases that
affect Scottish livestock. The management of TB in cattle throughout
the UK is nothing short of a disgrace (18, 19)
with endless ‘research’ and inquiries going on since the
excellent Zuckerman Report in 1980 (20). Such
fruitless, inefficient and highly expensive inquiries are set to
continue for the next several years with the ill-fated Krebs Inquiry
and the committee that it spawned (21), based
on excessive political and pseudo-scientific “correctness”.
It would appear that politicians seem to want to put aside the science
if some well-funded, so-called ‘environmental” lobby objects.
At the same time one has to wonder at the pronouncements of some
scientists, such that the public looses credibility in them. Again,
in relation to TB the current tests are inaccurate as they are archaic.
I am aware that some research is being done in this area but seldom
do we hear of any clear account of what progress is being made or
what the problems are.
The endlessly protracted studies on whether
there is BSE in sheep has reached absurd levels. The quality of
the science that has gone into this has been appalling, epitomised
by confusing sheep’s brains with cows’. There seems to
be a lack of clarity in the publication of the different tests available:
indeed, when I recently inquired from government sources I was unable
to get access to appropriate publications adequately laying out
the properties of these different tests. It is no longer satisfactory
for government laboratories just to say that they are satisfactory
- the data should be in the public domain for independent assessment.
Helminthic (worm) infestation of livestock
is another major problem. Recent advice from DEFRA on internal parasite
control in sheep (22), summarised in the Veterinary
Record (23), merely emphasises the gravity of
the problem and does little to overcome it. Indeed, it now tells
us that the previous advice was not appropriate and actually encouraged
resistance. Trying to breed livestock that are worm resistant is
all very well, but it is not going to answer the problem in the
foreseeable future. The situation is currently serious. There appears
to be little research on new worming agents.
The failure to apply international science
to the UK situation is all too clearly seen in relation to Foot
and Mouth Disease. The misinformation about vaccination, and poor
knowledge of immunological principles and of what was already widely
known, was all too manifest at the outbreak of FMD in 2001. I understand
that at the recent rehearsal for an outbreak of FMD at a farm not
far from me in Perthshire, it was stated that confirmation of the
type of virus could not be achieved for 14 days and the time to
procure the appropriate vaccine was so delayed that “keeping
vaccination in mind” was a mockery. While it can be argued
that the problem here rests with Pirbright, DEFRA, the EU and the
O.I.E., I do not hear SEERAD making much of a noise about the fallacy
of it all. Nor do I sense that SEERAD is actually doing anything
about helping in this diagnostic area in terms of research - yet
Scotland is one of Europe’s leading livestock producing countries
and the Scottish Executive makes claims that Scotland is a leader
in biotechnology, but where has it gone? (24).
A deeply disappointing feature of DEFRA and of
SEERAD is their apparent inability to agree as to what kind of microchip
they want in livestock tagging systems. It is beyond comprehension
that after so many years the government authorities still have not
decided on this fundamental matter, thereby holding up commercial
development of such systems and their more widespread adoption by
the livestock farming industry. It casts great doubt on the competence
of government in relation to computer technology that is at the
heart of the application of science to practice. How can a farmer
be expected to take the risk of investing thousands of pounds on
an electronic tagging system, when the government may announce shortly
after that they do not approve of that particular microchip? Just
how many years does ti take them to make up their minds?
As some 85% or more of land classed as less
favoured or disadvantaged, Scotland cannot do much else with it
other than farm livestock. Fortunately some of the best land in
the world for livestock is in Scotland. It is therefore essential
that Scotland makes a good job of its livestock industry. SEERAD
funded research should be contributing to this in a much more focussed
manner.
Veterinary services for farming are in
serious decline (25). This farm is fortunate in
that it is served by a vet who is primarily interested in large
animal veterinary practice - cattle, sheep and horses. But she is
the exception. Too many veterinary practices find farm work rather
less financially rewarding than lucrative pet practice. It would
appear that more and more vets now do not like to work unsociable
hours. Indeed there seems to be something wrong with the selection
of students entering veterinary schools and the options for training
that are open to them. If a farm does not have access to prompt,
affordable and competent veterinary services advances in research
are unlikely to be applied efficiently, whatever new regulations
might dictate regarding compliance criteria in terms of the Common
Agricultural Policy review. It is a worrying thing that many of
the country's brightest talent is attracted into veterinary schools,
but end up doing little research (as there is no apparent career
structure) with their main drive being to make money out of old
folks' pets.
The most important thing SEERAD can do
to improve animal health and welfare (and indeed the environment)
is to facilitate (not inhibit) the production of high-quality beef
and lamb in Scotland. The demand for it is there, but too many irrational
obstacles are put in the way of achieving it.
The proposed double tagging of sheep with
individual numbers is a massive and unnecessary burden, quite apart
from not knowing what microchip should be used. The banning of on-farm
burial of fallen livestock due to come into operation in some two
weeks in the absence of any system to replace it, will add a further
large burden on to farms for no clear purpose other than an illogical
EU directive (26). My attempts to understand why
this was necessary led to statements that it was because of the
risk of pathological prions escaping into the water supply - yet
the Food Standards Agency is aiming to dispense with the over 30
months scheme for cattle, and the infectivity of humans by such
prions is now seen to be minuscule. The epidemic of CJD - predicted
so dramatically by inappropriate epidemiological modelling - never
came about (27, 28).
Confusion between Government Departments and its Agencies
SEERAD sends out confused and conflicting
messages from its various departments and agencies, with little
attempt at rational co-ordination. On the one hand improved biosecurity
and animal health are high on their agenda, while on the other the
Access Code (especially in relation to farms next urban settlements)
seriously undermines it (29, 30,
31, 32, 33,
34, 35). Conservation and biodiversity
are also high on SEERAD's agenda, yet the Access Code (again especially
in relation to farms next urban settlements) seriously undermines
what many farmers have been trying to do in this regard for years
(29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34).
SEERAD gives the impression that it is only through its agency (Scottish
Natural Heritage) and charitable bodies such as the RSPB that the
environment can be properly catered for - a serious fallacy given
the monofocal outlook of these bodies (35, 36).
When research does produce results of immediate
practical importance, their application may be lost through party
politics. An example is the risk of infection from verocytogenic
E. Coli 0157. The risk of picking up this bug on livestock farmland
is significant, yet the Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code only
pays lip service to it - preferring to pursue its ideological goal
of open access by the public to virtually all farmland including
existing rights of way that currently go through farmsteadings with
livestock. Indeed Scottish Executive's self-contradiction is illustrated
in a recent joint statement they issued with the Food Standards
Agency. The statement advised regarding the recreational use of
animal pasture (37):
"Ideally, to completely avoid risk of infection from E.coli
from this source fields used for grazing or holding stock should
not be used for picnicking and play areas, especially where these
involve children.
"These risks can be greatly reduced by adopting sensible
precautions including keeping animals off the fields for the preceding
three weeks prior to recreational use. Any visible animal droppings
should be removed at the beginning of the three-week period. Mow
the grass, keep ti short and remove the clippings before the fields
are used for recreation and keep animals off the fields during
use."
What might one ask is the difference in risk between
town's folk taking extensive but informal access in any numbers
at any time of day or night to the livestock pastures of an adjacent
farm, compared to an organised event? The risks are the same, but
litigation may be different. Here the science is to be applauded,
but it needs to be applied with better logic and not at the whim
of a political agenda.
In a recently reported study in England and Wales
(38) 75 farms were surveyed to determine the prevalence
of faecal excretion of VTEC 0157 by cattle,its primary reservoir
host. Faecal samples were collected from from 4663 cattle between
June and December 1999. At least one positive animal was identified
in 39% of the farms. Clearly the problem is not a trivial one and
these findings must somehow get through to the drafters of the Scottish
Outdoor Access Code (39) as Scottish farms are
unlikely to be any different from those in England and Wales in
this respect.
In planning applied research it is important
to know what the objectives are. For example, what kind or kinds
of cattle do we want in Scotland? Farmers who are mainly involved
in the commodity market and breeders of pedigree bulls apparently
are in favour of decoupling in terms of the mid term CAP review,
but those of us who attempt to produce at the higher end of the
commercial livestock market see substantial dangers in decoupling
from production. Scotland needs more high quality commercial cattle
- not less. This will not be achieved if the financial pressures
continue to discourage quality production. What appears to be shaping
up is decoupling with more rules and regulations about animal health
and welfare and environment controls, which would be a recipe for
low cost, poor quality production - a further nail in the coffin
for the quality end of the Scottish livestock industry. Producing
low quality commodity products should not be the aim as other countries
can do that cheaper and without all the burdens that are imposed
in the UK. Yet choosing low cost breeds as the prime priority is
being advocated by Dr David Pullar of MLC (40).
This is relevant to what SEERAD should be doing with its £43
million research funds.
From my experience in human medicine (both
clinical and research) it is clear that research can only be effectively
achieved and applied in the clinical field if there is a competent
and properly functioning clinical service in the first place. As
Sir Brian Follet has stated in the Royal Society FMD Report(41)
- high standards of animal health can only be achieved if there
is a thriving livestock industry. The research branch of SEERAD
needs to work in closer liaison with the political aspects that
appear to be so misdirected.
Organic Farming - it is time the bubble of hype was pricked
The SAC has produced a somewhat expensive
CD-ROM on organic farming. It contains much hype but little science,
and is frankly misleading in terms of trying to promote organic
farming versus conventional farming. In collaboration with the Soil
Association the SAC also organised a conference at Paisley University
earlier this year with the title "Agriculture: the primary
health service?"(42). The scientific content
was poor - the SAC should not be jumping on to bandwagons in the
attempt to make some money for itself while sacrificing scientific
standards. Both the conference and the CD ROM were and are of poor
educational value, and in my view do not meet appropriate levels
of scientific integrity.
Professor Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh
speaking at the LEAF Conference at Battleby in September last year
(43, 44) severely criticised
the case made out by the organic lobby as not standing up to objective
and scientific analysis. He also took to task the claims made by
environmentalists in that many such claims cannot be substantiated,
or are presented in an unbalanced manner.
According to senior SAC organic specialist David
Younie (45) if support cash for organic production
dries up, Scottish sheep producers will be as quick to jump off
the bandwagon as they were to jump on it. The article states that,
tempted by public money offered to aid the conversion to organic
husbandry, Scots sheep farmers took the pledge in droves between
1995 - 2000. The number of sheep farmers going organic rocketed
from 16 to 434, almost entirely driven by the hill sheep sector.
Now what is happening is that many of these conversion
contracts are coming to the end of their five-year term, and according
to the rules of the scheme the money is drying up. David Younie
is quoted as saying:
"A lot of people who got into organic farming in 1998
and 1999 are coming to the end of conversion and, if they do not
see any advantage in being in organic farming, they will be tempted
to drop out - and who can blame them?"
General Comments
The purpose of SEERAD funded research is
surely to contribute to the improvement of the Scottish environment
and of Scottish rural affairs that should include farming as a central
component. Although the name “agriculture” has been dropped,
farming is the main component affecting the true rural environment
in Scotland as opposed to its advancing urbanisation.
Powerful lobbies that beat the environment
drum with such fervour do much harm by denigrating the fundamental
work farmers do in Scotland for conservation and biodiversity. The
government agency SNH is one of the main culprits as it does not
appear to have much competent knowledge of farming, yet as already
mentioned farming is involved in the vast majority of Scotland’s
land. In much of Scotland there is little wrong with the environment,
yet the “environmentalists” through self-interest seem
to want to tell everyone otherwise, and to manipulate government
to believe in their largely misguided crusade that they are the
guardians of the countryside - Scotland’s Natural Heritage
as they choose to call it. There are areas of the countryside that
do need attention, but such blunderbuss techniques as currently
proposed are inappropriate. As the respected Borders livestock farmer,
John Elliot, writing in the Scottish Farmer said “No-one really
knows, other than in extreme cases, what farmers do wrong and what
changes we must make to improve it” (46,
47). Indeed on visiting the Borders lately to
attend the Kelso Ram Sales I saw little wrong with it and much that
was highly pleasing.
For SEERAD to achieve a successful outcome
from its research programme on Agriculture, Biological and Related
Research there has to be a more favourable economic/political farming
background. There has to be a better balance between the self-claimed
“environmentalists” and the business of farming. There
has to be a much better recognition that Scottish farmers have traditionally
been - and continue to be - good custodians of the environment.
There has to be some common-sense control on the endless directives
coming from Brussels, the logic of which can often be lacking and
their effects seriously inhibiting. In turn UK scientists need to
behave more responsibly in their pronouncements as they seek funds
at apparently any cost to others and at the expense of their own
scientific integrity and credibility.
© LandCare Scotland
References
Many of the following references, which are
chosen for ease of links within this website, give a guide to a
wider bibliography
1. SEERAD (2003). Research
Strategy Review: Research Needs and Priorities Consultation
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/about/ERAD/ABRG/00015597/page1577945555.aspx
2. MacKerron, D. K. L,
Hillman, R. J and Duncan, M. J. (2003). Sustainablity in agriculture.
http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/Document/AnnReps/02Indiv/06Sustai.PDF
3. Irvine, James (2003).
Sustainability in agriculture
Environment homepage, Filed 7 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
4. Irvine, James (2003). The
arrogance of academics pontificating about rural affairs: are they
letting us down? Review of ECRR Conference: Scotland’s Landscape
- a Fixed Asset?
Socail/Economic/Political Homepage, Filed 14 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
5. Irvine, James (2003). New
Enterprise - New Beginnings: Farmers Workshop, Coupar Angus, June
2001
Social/Economic/Political Homepage, Filed 16 January 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Reproduced with permission of LandCare Scotland
6. Irvine, James (2003).17 March
2003
Shake Up at Scottish Agricultural College: what is the present standing
of Scottish agriculture?
Social/Economic/Political Homepage, Filed 17 March03, www.land-care.org.uk
7. Editorial (2003). Impact
of the Mid-Term Review of the CAP on the Red Meat Sector in Scotland.
Social/Economic/Political Homepage, Filed 23 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
8. Cultybraggan Farm (2003).
Further success for Cultybraggan cattle, 13th January
Farm Sales, Filed 14 January 03, www.land-care.org.uk
9. Sundstrom, Brian (2002).
Breedplan - Australian based international beef cattle genetic evolution
programme.
Science Homepage, Filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk
10. Irvine, James (2003).
Future pedigree breeding of cattle: QMS meeting Monday 26th May
Science Homepage, Filed 6 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk
11. Editorial (2003). Suckler
cow herds and CAP review: unwise words from MLC
Science Homepage, Filed 29 July 03, www.land-care.org.uk
12. Editorial (2003). Have
Signet and MLC muscled in on Breedplan?
Science Homepage, Filed 5 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
13. Groom, Robert (2003).
Letter from America from expatriot Scot Aberdeen Angus breeder.
Science Homepage, Filed 9 April 03, www.land-care.org.uk
14. Editorial (2002). Organic
farmers will have to get real” says Professor McKellar
Animal Health Homepage. 23 December 02,www.land-care.org.uk
15. Watkins, Ruth (2002).
Compassion for health of farm animals 2003.
Article published on www.warmwell.com
Animal Health Homepage. 31 December 02, www.land-care.org.uk
16. Editorial (2002).
Food Standards Agency does not provide support for organic farming.
Environment Homepage, Filed14 Novemebr 02, www.land-care.org.uk
17. Pennington, Hugh (2003).
Authorities rapped: face to face with Douglas MacSkimming. Scottish
Farmer, August 30: p 6.
18. Irvine, James (2003).
Just how bad is the TB problem in UK cattle.
Tuberculosis Homepage,Filed 25 February 03,www.land-care.org.uk
19. Editorial (2003). Incidents
of TB in cattle in Scotland, 1985 - 2002.
Tuberculosis Homepage,Filed 26 February 03,www.land-care.org.uk
20. Irvine, James (2003).
TB in cattle and badgers: the Zuckerman Reprot (1980) revisted.
Tuberculosis Homepage, Filed 10th March 03, www.land-care.org.uk
21. Editorial (2003). Tuberculosis
in Cattle: DEFRA in no hurry to review Strategy
Tuberculosis Homepage, Filed 10 March 03, www.land-care.org.uk
22. DEFRA (2003). Internal parasite
control in sheep - short term strategies to slow the development
of antihelminthic resistance in internal parasite of sheep in the
UK.
www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/pdf/workshop110303.pdf
23. Leader (2003). New recommendations
on antihelminthic use in sheep.
Veterinary Record, vol 153: p343.
24. Irvine,
James (2003). Where has UK Biotechnology gone?
Science Homepage, Filed 21 March 03, wwww.land-care.org.uk
25. Irvine, James (2003).
Veterinary services to the cattle and sheep sectors. SAC Workshop
2nd June 2003, Norton House Hotel, Ingliston.
Animal Health - General Aspects Homepage, Filed 13 June 2003, www.land-care.org.uk
26. Irvine James (2003),
Why is it necesssary to ban the burial of fallen stock? Part 2.
The view of the EC scientific sterring committee
Environment Homepage,Filed10 April 2003,
www.land-care.org.uk
27. Linklater, Magnus (2002).
They drive us Mad with False Fears about Mad Cows
The Times, 5th December.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-503184,00.html
reproduced with permission
TSE Homepage, Filed 9December 02, www.land-care.org.uk
28. Irvine,
James (2003). Fewer future deaths from vCJD predicted than previously
estimated.
TSE Homepage, Filed 15 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
29. Mylius, Andrew (2003). Land
Reform and the Access Code: Problems and Unanswered Questions.
Land Reform Homepage, Filed 26 Feburary 03, www.land-care.org.uk
30. Mylius, Andrew (2001). Access:
the Reality for Farmers, Landowners, Foresters and all Rural Residents.
LandCare Scotland, Vol. 1, pp. 3-18.
Reproduced with permission
Land Reform Homepage, Filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk
31. Mylius, Andrew (2003). Draft
Scottish Outdoor Access Code: Response to consultation
Access Code Homepage, Filed 17 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk
32. Irvine, James (2003). Response
to SNH Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code
From the perspective of a livestock/arable farm next to an urban
settlement.
Access Code Homepage, Filed 27 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk
33. Irvine, James (2001). SNH
Conference September 2000
Enjoyment and Understanding of the Natural Heritage: Finding the
New Balance between Rights and Responsibilities. A Review of the
Proceedings
LandCare Scotland vol 1:pp 25-32.
Reproduced with permission and minor updates
Land Refrom Homepage, Filed 22 January 03, www.land-care.org.uk
34. Raeside, Terry (2001). Land
Reform: Response to Scottish Executive Proposals for Legislation.
Veterinary Hazards to Open Access to Enclosed Agricultural Land
LandCare Scotland, Vol. 1, pp. 33-34.
Reproduced with permission
Access Code Homepage, Filed 15 November 02, www.land-care.org.uk
35. Macleod, Kirsty (2003). Lochaber
Biodiversity Forum:
Comments on its function.
Environment Homepage, 18 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk
36. Mitchell, David (1999). Isles
of the West. Cannongate, Edinburgh. ISBN 0-86241-878-X
37. Arbucle, Andrew (2003). Warnings
on disease risk. Dundee Courier, August 26: p 15.
38. Paiba, G.A. Wilesmith, J.
W., Evans, S. J. et al (2003). Prevalence of faecal excretion of
verocytotoxic Escherichia Coli 0157 in cattle in England
and Wales.
Veterinary Record, 153: 347-353.
39. Scottish Natural Heritage
(2003). Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code: a document for consultation.
(www.snh.org.uk/soac/)
40. Leader (2003). Easy-care
cattle are best for the UK say scientists. Scotttish Farmer, August
23: p 4.
41. The
Royal Society (2002). Infectious Diseases in Livestock. July 2002.
www.royalsoc.ac.uk
42. Irvine, James (2003). Agriculture:
The Primary Health Service?
Soil Association and SAC Conference: Paisley, 28 May 2003
High in Hype but Poor in Credibility
Food Homepage, Filed 2 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk
43. Editorial (2002). Prof Trewavas
and other speakers at LEAF Conference 26 September, Battleby, Perthshire
Enviornment Homepage, Filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk
44. Arbuckle, Andrew (2002).
Scientists deride organic claims. Dundee Courier.
Reproduced with permission
www.land-care.org.uk
45. Editorial (2003). The organic
bubble.
Social/Economic/Political Homepage, Filed 27 August 03, www.land-care.org.uk
46. Elliot, John (2003).
All in a spin! Scottish Farmer. August 16, 2003
47. Editorial (2003).
“Our Spin is not rough or tough enough”
Social/Edonomic/Political Homepage, Filed 26 August 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Finis
|
