Since 2002, Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) has been the Meat and Livestock Commission in Scotland. As QMS is both the caretaker for the Scottish red meat assurance schemes which were set up by the red meat industry back in the late 1980’s, as well as the owner of the Scotch Beef, Scotch Lamb and Specially Selected Pork brands, it is very well placed within the UK to be able to develop standards that address both consumer and other industry agency concerns.

Previous generations of animal scientists were extremely successful in increasing livestock production. Surpluses in Europe led us to focus more on other aspects of production systems – such as product quality, environmental effects and animal welfare -in the last 15 years. The recent FAO report ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ (FAO, 2006) has reinforced issues about pollution, greenhouse gases and loss of biodiversity associated with the production gains. They estimate that livestock lead to 37% of global methane and 65% of global nitrous oxide, whilst contributing 18% of global climate change. Recent dramatic increases in commodity prices for food, particularly milk protein, remind us of the need to increase productivity to meet the demand from increasing urban populations and compensate for losses to other land uses. The challenge is to develop systems that produce more and better food whilst also reducing pollution potential.

Modest annual genetic improvements accumulated over a sequence of years can have pronounced impacts on livestock farming industries, and the products generated from them. Genetic evaluation of animals which is a precursor to genetic improvement also provides a platform for tactical use of the genetic variation available at any one time (e.g. identifying easy calving bulls to mate heifers). As a consequence, genetic improvement can have profound implications both within the supply chain and for society in general. Research investment represents one option in the tool kit of government and industry bodies to manipulate livestock product supply chains to benefit their constituents. Industry bodies also have marketing and extension in their toolkit, while governments have the additional option of legislation.

Genetic improvement of livestock is largely the result of selection based on estimated breeding values (EBVs) calculated from data on phenotypes and pedigrees. This technology has been very successful without using data on the individual genes responsible for genetic variation. For several years experiments have mapped genes affecting economic traits or quantitative trait loci (QTL) to chromosomal regions using genetic markers. Unfortunately this information has not lead to a substantial increase in the rate of genetic improvement.

‘There is no bigger problem than climate change. The threat is quite simple, it’s a threat to our civilization’. This statement was made by Sir David King, until December 2007 Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government.

The total contribution (both direct and indirect) of agriculture is estimated to be between 17 and 32% of all global, human-induced greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), with direct emissions of methane from livestock estimated to contribute around 7%. Much emphasis has thus been placed on trying to decrease methane emissions, yet the Smith et al (2008) identified much greater potential for mitigation of total GHG emissions from livestock production associated with management of grazing land than from decreasing methane production.

The United States (US) produces 13.3 billion bushels of corn and 3.2 billion bushels of soybeans annually. Sixty percent of total corn is used in livestock production, with 31% used in beef production, 27% in poultry, 24% in pork, and 15% in dairy. Current US policy dictates that 25% of fossil fuel requirements will be replaced by biofuels by 2025. The entire US corn crop used for ethanol production would replace only 12.3% of the current US fossil fuel demand. Fundamentally, the use of US grain crops will not have a significant impact on total fuel use in the near future. Alternative energy sources-cellulosic fermentation products, cropland conversion to sugar cane, increased use of wind, geothermal, or other energy power, or a significant reduction in prices for crude oil will diminish the demand for alternative fuels.

It is anticipated that there will be a significant increase in the quantity of co-products available from the biofuel industry for use in animal feed. The co-products are the result of either biodiesel or bioethanol production. Biodiesel is produced from oil. One of the main sources of oil is oil seed rape but other oil seeds such as sunflower, Crambe and Camelina sativa (Cottrill et al., 2007) may be used. Bioethanol is produced from the fermentation of sugar which is either added directly to the process or obtained from the digestion of starch. The co-products produced include glycerol (glycerine or glycerin) from the production of biodiesel and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) from the production of bioethanol from starch.

Bio-fuels are probably the most obvious and well known recent development, but whatever the industry the term co-products is now outdated as no factory will ever be constructed without recognition of the value contribution of all products. For example the new Cargill plant in Manchester, that uses wheat as the substrate, produces, starch plus its derivatives, vital wheat gluten, potable alcohol via a joint arrangement with an adjacent company Nedalco, wheatfeed, potentially a liquid feed for pigs and ruminants, plus a ruminant moist feed CœTraffordgold. They are all essential products to justify capital investment and profitable plant operation.

In early 2007, the National Research Council’s Nutrient Requirement of Horses – Sixth Revised Edition (commonly known as the 2007 Horse NRC) was published. Given that it had been 18 years since the previous edition had been released, a substantial amount of new information was included which increased the length of the publication over the three-fold from the 1989 version. While a number of requirements or feeding suggestions did not change dramatically, there are some differences worth highlighting. Furthermore, there are some additions to the publication, such as an updated computer program, a section on ration formulation by hand, and a chapter on donkeys and other equids that many individuals will find useful. Sections are also included on feed additives, feeding behaviour, and feeding management of horses.

There are two main reasons why equine research is needed and they are: 1) the horses and 2) the people that work with the horses. A large percentage of equine research is done to improve the health and welfare of the animals. From the determination of nutrient requirements to figuring out ways to prevent disease, a great deal of research focuses on ways to improve the lives of horses. The majority of the rest of equine research deals with ways to aid horse owners. These issues often involve trying to find more cost effective ways of managing animals or examining methods to improve the performance of horses in competition. In a lot of cases, the research serves both purposes. For instance, by finding ways to reduce injuries, suffering by animals decreases and the financial costs or losses associated with injuries are reduced which is advantageous to the horse owner. Furthermore, an injury preventing the horse from being ridden or, even worse, resulting in the destruction of that animal can often be emotionally devastating for those who have great fondness for their animal.

The discussion will reflect on description, development or implementation of something called a ‘knowledge or technology transfer’ strategy, backed up by observations and reflections on what leads each of us to change our own behaviours with a view to surfacing perspectives on what the purpose of a knowledge or technology transfer strategy might be.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the social basis of knowledge transfer, viewing it in a wider context and questioning the usefulness of some of the previous programmes. The empirical basis of this work stems from a series of research projects undertaken in Cornwall over the past 5 years, which considered the impacts of training programmes in the County on land-based businesses. Cornwall has had a very organised agricultural sector that has been determined to use the opportunity of EU Objective one funding to make the sector more competitive, a central part of which has been the provision of training, at a variety of levels and through a number of mechanisms. In the county the English Vocational Training Scheme was altered to allow participants to claim for either childcare or someone to watch over their stock, whilst they took up the training opportunity. It was this scheme that we investigated, initially looking for any new social networks that might have arisen during the training and later how the information from the training was diffused. The resulting social networks and interview data revealed that many of the farm businesses taking part in these projects had a very narrow base of support and advice. Although highly embedded in their communities, with solid local contacts, these were not extensive social networks. The result was that the information about the training was not diffused very widely often going no further than the immediate family. Therefore it was not part of a wider discussion about opportunities or possibilities for the business; rather it was often treated as being of significant competitive advantage and kept close within the key actors in the business. The interview data revealed that the main competitors the business principals believed that they faced were their farming neighbours.