Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Putative Benefits (putative + benefit)
Selected AbstractsMammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside , what are the putative benefits?MAMMAL REVIEW, Issue 4 2007D. W. MACDONALD ABSTRACT 1The impacts of agricultural intensification on farmland wildlife have been the subject of increasing concern, particularly over the last two decades. Population declines have occurred for a number of mammalian species, sometimes drastically so, and changes in farming practice are believed to be significant contributory factors. 2The major policy instruments for delivering environmental benefits on farmland are agri-environment schemes. These encourage farmers to adopt more environmentally sensitive farming practices to promote farmland biodiversity. Additionally, compulsory set-aside, which reduces agricultural surplus, could also have positive impacts on wildlife. In this paper we consider some of the putative benefits of agri-environment schemes and set-aside for mammals. 3We review how establishment and management options within agri-environment schemes and set-aside might affect habitat resources for mammals. For example, conservation headlands increase plant and invertebrate resources within the crop edge for mammals such as wood mice. Grassy field margins can support communities of smaller mammals, and hedgerows may act as important commuting and hunting routes. Their potential will depend on factors such as seed mixtures used, timing and severity of cutting, and length of time they have been in place. 4At a farm level, habitat heterogeneity may be increased through organic agriculture, which is supported by some agri-environment schemes. Studies suggest significant benefits to mammals, including wood mice and bats. However, it is increasingly recognized that effective conservation of farmland mammals must seek solutions at the landscape scale, addressing such issues as habitat connectivity between farms. One approach may be the better targeting of scheme agreements. 5We suggest that agri-environment schemes and set-aside can contribute to the conservation of mammals on farmland. Recent policy changes are likely to have further positive impacts on farmland wildlife but appropriate mammal monitoring programmes must be developed rigorously to assess their effects. [source] Sunlight robbery: A critique of public health policy on vitamin D in the UKMOLECULAR NUTRITION & FOOD RESEARCH (FORMERLY NAHRUNG/FOOD), Issue 8 2010Oliver GillieArticle first published online: 28 JUN 2010 Abstract The British Isles have a very cloudy climate and as a result receive fewer hours of clear sunlight than most other industrial regions. The majority of people in these islands have low blood levels of vitamin D [25(OH)D] all year round. Few food products are fortified with vitamin D in the UK and the government does not recommend any vitamin D supplement for most adults in the UK. Diseases associated with vitamin D insufficiency such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes (types 1 and 2) and multiple sclerosis are more frequent in the UK, and particularly in Scotland, than in many other European countries and some, such as multiple sclerosis and diabetes (types 1 and 2), are increasing in incidence. Present knowledge suggests that the risk of some chronic diseases could be reduced if vitamin D intake or sun exposure of the population were increased. Yet policy and public health recommendations of the UK government and its agencies (e.g. the Health Protection Agency, the Food Standards Agency) and of Cancer Research UK have failed to take full account of established and putative benefits of vitamin D and/or sunshine. The epidemic of chronic disease in the UK, which is associated with and caused at least in part by vitamin D insufficiency, has not been adequately recognized by these agencies, and too often measures taken by them have been misguided, inappropriate or ineffective. [source] Review Article: Is it time to embrace haemodiafiltration for centre-based haemodialysis? (Review Article)NEPHROLOGY, Issue 4 2008JAMES JB PETRIE SUMMARY: Improvements in survival in dialysis patients over the past few decades have been disappointing. Recent prospective trials such the haemodialysis study have not shown conclusive improvements. Two recent observational studies have found a striking survival advantage for haemodiafiltration (HDF). This review covers the differences between HDF and conventional haemodialysis (HD) and the history of the technological advances in the HDF technique. In addition, it explores the putative benefits of HDF over HD. While the observational studies provide a basis for optimism that HDF will provide benefit to dialysis patients, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn until the results of randomized controlled trials are available. While the evidence in favour of HDF at this stage is observational only, there are no studies suggesting that the treatment is detrimental. The use of HDF should probably be increased, particularly in centres where an increase in the frequency and duration of dialysis cannot be readily achieved. [source] | ||||||||||