Animal-related injuries: a population-based study of a five-state region in the upper Midwest: Regional Rural Injury Study II

PROBLEM: While agricultural injury has been identified among the major causes of occupational injury mortality and morbidity, data have been limited pertinent to the magnitude, consequences, and potential risk factors for animal-related injuries -- a major source of morbidity among agricultural operations. METHODS: Demographics, exposure, and injury data were collected for 1999 and 2001 among agricultural households in a five-state region. Causal models facilitated survey design, data analyses, and interpretation of results; directed acyclic graphs guided multivariate modeling. RESULTS: From 7,420 households (84% response of eligible), a total of 5,045 injury events were reported; 1,016 (20.1%) were animal-related. Multivariate analyses revealed increased risks for those <20 years; residents of all states compared to Minnesota; all age groups compared to 0-4 years; >0 hours worked; and prior agricultural injury history. For those 20+ years, increased risks were identified for: South Dakota residents; males; >0 hours worked; and prior agricultural injury history. For those cases <20 and 20+ years of age, 58% and 46%, respectively, resulted in lost work time on their agricultural operations (31% and 50%, one week or more). CONCLUSIONS: Animal-related injury has a major impact on the agricultural industry. Results serve as a basis for interventions and further research. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The impact of animal-related injuries on the agricultural industry appears significant; among age groups <20 and 20+, 85% and 82%, respectively, had some resulting restriction. For all events combined, 29% and 30%, respectively, involved restriction from one week to 3+ months; 12% and 15% involved restriction for one month or more. Among those <20 and 20+ years of age, 58% and 46%, respectively, lost work time on their own agricultural operation as a result of injuries associated with their own operation; 22% and 15% lost one week or more. Moreover, of the non-agriculture-related injuries, 31% and 50% resulted in lost work time on their own operation; 15% and 28%, respectively, lost one week or more. Restrictions such as these can affect the productivity of the operation, resulting in financial impacts, especially on small operations that have few people to manage the required tasks.     

Rehabilitating Agricultural Streams in Australia with Wood: A Review

Worldwide, the ecological condition of streams and rivers has been impaired by agricultural practices such as broadscale modification of catchments, high nutrient and sediment inputs, loss of riparian vegetation, and altered hydrology. Typical responses include channel incision, excessive sedimentation, declining water quality, and loss of in-stream habitat complexity and biodiversity. We review these impacts, focusing on the potential benefits and limitations of wood reintroduction as a transitional rehabilitation technique in these agricultural landscapes using Australian examples. In streams, wood plays key roles in shaping velocity and sedimentation profiles, forming pools, and strengthening banks. In the simplified channels typical of many agricultural streams, wood provides habitat for fauna, substrate for biofilms, and refuge from predators and flow extremes, and enhances in-stream diversity of fish and macroinvertebrates.Most previous restoration studies involving wood reintroduction have been in forested landscapes, but some results might be extrapolated to agricultural streams. In these studies, wood enhanced diversity of fish and macroinvertebrates, increased storage of organic material and sediment, and improved bed and bank stability. Failure to meet restoration objectives appeared most likely where channel incision was severe and in highly degraded environments. Methods for wood reintroduction have logistical advantages over many other restoration techniques, being relatively low cost and low maintenance. Wood reintroduction is a viable transitional restoration technique for agricultural landscapes likely to rapidly improve stream condition if sources of colonists are viable and water quality is suitable.     

Resource frontiers and agglomeration economies: The varied logics of transnational land-based investing in Southern and Eastern Africa

Actor-level data on large-scale commercial agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa are scarce. The peculiar choice of transnational investing in African land has, therefore, been subject to conjecture. Addressing this gap, we reconstructed the underlying logics of investment location choices in a Bayesian network, using firm- and actor-level interview and spatial data from 37 transnational agriculture and forestry investments across 121 sites in Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, and Ethiopia. We distinguish four investment locations across gradients of resource frontiers and agglomeration economies to derive the preferred locations of different investors with varied skillsets and market reach (i.e., track record). In contrast to newcomers, investors with extensive track records are more likely to expand the land use frontier, but they are also likely to survive the high transaction costs of the pre-commercial frontier. We highlight key comparative advantages of Southern and Eastern African frontiers and map the most probable categories of investment locations.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01682-z.     

碱性催化剂对农业废物液化产生生物油和气体的影响

采用热化学处理法对农业废物玉米秸秆和苹果渣进行处理,3种碱性物质Na2CO3、K2CO3和KOH作为催化剂,都能不同程度提高液化生物油收率、减少固体残渣收率.但碱性催化剂会降低气体收率,因而不适合作为以获得气体产物为目的的生物质气化试验的催化剂.就增加液化生物油收率方面而言,Na2CO3的催化效果最好,KOH催化效果次之,K2CO3的催化效果最差.     

污水处理厂的污泥农用问题

污水处理过程产出大量污泥。将这类污泥用作农业有机肥料是一个很有前景的实践。但这种利用却因为污泥中含有多种重金属和病源体而受到很大限制。文章概述了有关污泥中重金属及病源体的研究状况。     

Practical and ethical considerations of agricultural research assistance for the Third World

The right to eat and to an adequate standard of living for everyone motivates agricultural research assistance to developing countries with the primary objective of assuring sufficient food supply. This article focuses on aspects of food production and related agricultural research with specific examples from animal production. It discusses ethics of agricultural research in light of the utilitarian theory and compares livestock production in developing and developed countries. Major reasons for low outputs of animal production in developing countries are identified, and the potential for increasing the productivity of original, extensive production systems is evaluated. The article reviews the current status of biotechnology in developing countries and discusses several advanced animal technologies. The conclusions emphasize the need to involve local professionals in all phases of research and technology transfer in developing countries, avoidance of research that may worsen the situation of the recipients, sustainability of production systems, and the need for detailed assessment of potential impacts of technology on recipients.     

The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy

The regulatory structures underlying United States and European Union policies regarding genetically modified (GM) food and crops are fundamentally different. The US regulates GM foods and crops as end products, applying roughly the same regulatory framework that it does to non GM foods or crops. The EU, on the other hand, regulates products of agricultural biotechnology as the result of a specific production process. Accordingly, it has developed a network of rules that regulate GM foods and crops specifically. As a result, US regulation of GM foods and crops is relatively permissive, whereas EU regulation is relatively restrictive. Why are genetically modified food policies in the United States and the European Union so strikingly different? In the light of the recent World Trade Organization dispute on agricultural biotechnology, it may seem that economic interests are the driving force behind policies. While they are certainly part of the picture, the issue is far more complex. This paper argues that three different elements help explain differences between US and EU GM food policies. First, an investigation of US and European policies of the 1970s and 1980s on recombinant DNA research and of events leading up to early GM food and crop regulation allows a deeper understanding of current policy. Second, scrutinizing underlying values and norms can uncover the beliefs that condition current GM food and crop policy. Third, an analysis of involved actors’ views and levels of success in influencing policy is essential to understanding US and EU policies.     

Nonpoint-Source Agricultural Hazard Index: A Case Study of the Province of Cremona, Italy

This paper reports the results of a study aimed at the evaluation of the hazard level of farming activities in the province of Cremona, Italy, with particular reference to groundwater. The applied methodology employs a parametric approach based on the definition of potential hazard indexes (nonpoint-source agricultural hazard indexes, NPSAHI). Two categories of parameters were considered: the hazard factors (HF), which represent all farming activities that cause or might cause an impact on groundwater (use of fertilizers and pesticides, application of livestock and poultry manure, food industry wastewater, and urban sludge), and the control factors (CF), which adapt the hazard factor to the characteristics of the site (geographical location, slope, agronomic practices, and type of irrigation). The hazard index (HI) can be calculated multiplying the hazard factors by the control factors and, finally, the NPSAHI are obtained dividing HI into classes on a percentile basis using a scale ranging from 1 to 10. Organization, processing, and display of all data layers were performed using the geographical information system (GIS) ArcView and its Spatial Analyst extension. Results show that the potential hazard of groundwater pollution by farming activities in the province of Cremona falls mainly in the fifth class (very low hazard).     

“The Moral Difference between Intragenic and Transgenic Modification of Plants”

Public policy on the development and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has mainly been concerned with defining proper strategies of risk management. However, surveys and focus group interviews show that although lay people are concerned with risks, they also emphasize that genetic modification is ethically questionable in itself. Many people feel that this technology “tampers with nature” in an unacceptable manner. This is often identified as an objection to the crossing of species borders in producing transgenic organisms. Most scientists reject these opinions as based on insufficient knowledge about biotechnology, the concept of species, and nature in general. Some recent projects of genetic modification aim to accommodate the above mentioned concerns by altering the expression of endogenous genes rather than introducing genes from other species. There can be good scientific reasons for this approach, in addition to strategic reasons related to greater public acceptability. But are there also moral reasons for choosing intragenic rather than transgenic modification? I suggest three interrelated moral reasons for giving priority to intragenic modification. First, we should respect the opinions of lay people even when their view is contrary to scientific consensus; they express an alternative world-view, not scientific ignorance. Second, staying within species borders by strengthening endogenous traits reduces the risks and scientific uncertainty. Third, we should show respect for nature as a complex system of laws and interconnections that we cannot fully control. The main moral reason for intragenic modification, in our view, is the need to respect the “otherness” of nature.     

What's the Moral of the GM Food Story?

This paper is an attempt to examine issues and problemsraised by agricultural biotechnology by drawing on the richnessof contemporary ideas in ethical theory and thereby contribute tothe project of establishing new approaches to these problems. Thefundamental argument is that many of the negative aspects ofagricultural biotechnology are generated at the level of theunderlying conceptual frameworks that shape the technology'sinternal modes of organization, rather than the unintendedeffects of the application of an inherently benevolent set oftechniques. If ``food ethics' is to address the adverse impacts ofagricultural biotechnology, it must ultimately challenge theseconceptual frames, which, I argue, emerge from Enlightenment,liberal, political, and economic theory.The translation of traditional bioethics (focusing on principlessuch as autonomy and rights, justice, and well being) into foodethics does not produce the critical tools that are ableadequately to challenge the harmful legacy of Enlightenmentthinking. What is needed are reorientations of ethics that arecapable of formulating concepts and approaches that to someextent break with the presuppositions that underpin biotechnologyat its foundation. This paper suggests that narrative andfeminist critiques of medical bioethics are a good place to startin this project.