9pgs, Soil loss due to crop harvest contributes to land degradation, and knowledge of this challenge can guide the choice of crops for sustainable agriculture. Nigeria is the largest producer of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) and the third largest producer of peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn) in the world. Due to limited information on soil loss during peanut and cassava harvests worldwide, and cost of nutrient loss, a two-year field experiment was conducted to compare soil loss due to harvesting of peanut and cassava and to estimate cost of nutrient loss due to crop harvest under traditional agriculture. Peanut pod yields of 2.39 and 2.08 t ha–1harvest–1 removed 0.62 and 0.58 t ha–1 harvest–1 during peanut harvest, respectively, for years 1 and 2. Similarly, cassava yields of 22.71 and 21.40 t ha–1 harvest–1 removed 1.11 and 0.91 t ha–1harvest–1 during cassava harvest, respectively, for years 1 and 2. Crop yields strongly correlated with soil loss due to peanut harvest (R2= 0.36; p < 0.001) and soil loss due to cassava harvest (R2 = 0.23; p < 0.01). Significantly higher soil loss due to cassava harvest compared to peanut harvest can be ascribed to higher cassava yield. Also, soil nutrient loss due to crop harvest was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for cassava compared with peanut by 27.6% phosphorus (P) and 73.7% potassium (K) for the first year and 39.2% P and 79.1% K for the second year. Fertilizer equivalent cost of P and K losses due to cassava harvest for the two years was higher than that of peanut by US$29 ha–1. The study indicated that the intensity of nutrient loss by harvesting is largely dependent on the crop type, and harvesting of cassava can deplete soil nutrients faster than that of peanut under traditional agriculture. Sequential planting of cassava (deep rooted crop) followed by peanut (shallow rooted crop) as a crop rotation management practice is recommended to mitigate soil loss due to continuous harvesting of cassava, and harvesting with thorough shaking technique is also suggested to reduce nutrient loss potential of crop harvesting.
12pgs, In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon's attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.
