GM Crop Farm Scale Evaluations:
Scientific Steering Committee Minutes
October 11th 1999
| Attending: | Members: | Professor Chris Pollock (chair) (IGER) Dr David Gibbons (RSPB) Professor Mick Crawley (Imperial College) Dr Nick Sotherton (GCT) Dr Nicholas Aebischer (GCT) Mr Jim Orson (Morley Research Centre) Dr Alastair Burn (EN) |
| Assessors: | Dr Brian Johnson (EN) Mr Trevor Denham (MAFF) Dr Emma Hennessey (MAFF) Dr Roger Turner (SCIMAC) Dr Toby Willison (SERAD) Dr Linda Smith (DETR) Dr Nick Brickle (DETR) |
|
| Contractors: | Dr Les Firbank (ITE) Professor Joe Perry (IACR) Dr Geoff Squire (SCRI) Dr Peter Rothery (ITE) Dr Mark Hill (ITE) Dr Alan Dewar (IACR) |
Apologies for absence
None
Minutes of last meeting
The minutes of the last meeting have already been approved and are publicly available on the farm-scale evaluations web-site.
Contractors report of progress
The contractors presented an interim report of progress, included as Annex 1.
Finalisation of sampling protocols
The steering committee reviewed each protocol in turn. Members were generally happy with the protocols, considering them to be scientifically rigorous. A number of minor improvements were recommended:
Vascular plants
The committee was generally content, but suggested that transect locations should be randomised and that a simple measurement of the standing seed crop or seed biomass be made in order to compare weed productivity between treatments. An assessment of standing seed crop (and its state of maturity) could be used as a measure of food availability to wildlife that feeds on weed seeds. The committee also recommended that a ‘pen-picture’ of weed distribution in each field be used to document any obvious patchiness.
Seed bank
Some reservations were voiced regarding the power to detect differences in the seed bank between treatments, however, it was felt that a well designed analysis could still yield interesting results. The contractors were urged to continue developing the protocol and to consider the correct balance of sampling between fields and headlands. The committee agreed to consider this issue further at the next meeting.
Invertebrates
The committee considered the invertebrate sampling protocol and suggested several refinements. It was agreed that a measure of the abundance of invertebrates (including pest species) on crop plants should be incorporated. It was also felt that the within-field number of samples need to be more clearly justified and the extraction efficiency of vacuum samples to be quantified.
The committee discussed whether pitfall trapping should be stratified within fields. Such an analysis was welcomed by the committee and the contractors agreed to consider further whether the proposed number of pitfall traps per field and their location was appropriate.
Discussion between the contractors and relevant committee members should take place as soon as possible to decide on any appropriate refinements.
Bees & butterflies
Concerns were raised about the low density/total count likely to be recorded. However, it was felt that a two tier analysis, using abundance data for commoner species and also diversity of all species, would be acceptable.
Slugs & Snails
Some further validation was sought for the accuracy of the trapping method.
Earthworms
The committee agreed with the contractors that earthworm sampling should not be undertaken as the agreed experimental design is inappropriate. Thus to include them would be a poor use of resources.
Split and paired fields and the number of fields
Following the last steering committee meeting the contractors carefully considered the issues in co-operation with members of the steering committee. A detailed paper was presented to the committee that is summarised in the interim report (it is anticipated that the detailed paper will be published in a peer reviewed journal in due course).
On balance, the statistical and logistical arguments favoured adopting a split field approach and so such an approach was agreed unanimously by the committee.
The detailed statistical analysis was also used to calculate the most appropriate number of fields. The approach was based upon the need to detect effects of an order of magnitude reasonably anticipated from previous equivalent ecological studies. It was unanimously agreed to seek 25 fields, per crop, per year, for three years (75 fields per crop total).
It was also agreed that the size of fields should seek to reflect commercial reality. Fields should not be so large that they are unrepresentative, nor so small that edge effects dominate. As a rough guide the size of each half should be in the region 5-10 ha, although this might be somewhat smaller in the case of maize.
Site selection
The committee discussed at length how the range of farming practices for a particular crop should be reflected in the sample of fields monitored. It was agreed that the farms selected needed to be representative of farming in the UK. Because those farmers that might readily volunteer to grow GM crops may be biased to particular farming practices, those adopting other practices may need to be sought proactively.
The possibility of using some form of a stratified sample was considered (farms sub-divided by type/intensity of usual management). It was discussed whether such a stratified sample would represent farm types in the proportion they occur in the UK, or be deliberately skewed in order, say, to have an equal number of each type. The committee advised that further consideration be given to this issue by the contractors, in contact with relevant committee members, with a view to confirming the approach as soon as possible.
The committee agreed that it would be necessary to establish the range of farming practices for each crop to guide any decision on stratified sampling, this information would also be relevant to the interpretation of results.
The contractors asked to be provided with considerably more potential farms than required. They would obtain further details, select farms and a field in each farm to fulfil the selection criteria, then randomise the allocation of treatments to experimental units, in consultation with the Steering Group. Units to be planted with GM crops would then be notified to SCIMAC and growers. The committee supported this request and SCIMAC undertook to find potential sites.
SCIMAC fodder/sugar beet farm-scale evaluations
The committee reiterated that it was only prepared to oversee this research programme if identical terms and conditions applied as to the government funded research, particularly regarding the publication of results. SCIMAC confirmed that this would be the case.
Pesticide Advice
The committee unanimously agreed the need for openness in the advice given to farmers on pesticide use. Members agreed that SCIMAC should be advising as little as necessary for the GM crop, and should play no part in advising for the non-GM crop. It was agreed that the contractors, DETR and SCIMAC would discuss further how a greater degree of openness could be achieved.
Site security
The contractors raised concerns about the damage to the research programme and the concerns for the safety of their own staff as a result of illegal trespass and vandalism at field sites.
The committee agreed that measures to reduce the loss of sites by vandalism, or to increase the safety of field workers, would be welcome. Opinion differed over whether increased secrecy would achieve either of the two objectives. Discussion should continue between relevant parties.
Public Relations
The contractors raised the issue of public relations; wishing the committee to note the difficulty in getting across accurate information on the research programme. The contractors would welcome further support to provide information to balance the frequently inaccurate information presented in the media. The steering committee noted the concern and agreed that a further meeting of the relevant parties should discuss the issue.
Further research
The possibility of further research being conducted on the farm-scale evaluation sites was discussed. DETR indicated that it is hoping to initiate further gene flow monitoring and research studies on birds and mammals. The committee continues to welcome further research proposals and provisionally agreed the following position:
- In principle the committee is keen to maximise the value of the farm-scale evaluation site;
- the committee is prepared to view any proposal for research on the farm-scale evaluations sites in order to determine the level of compatibility with the primary ecological research.
- In principle the scientific steering committee would be prepared to take a deeper interest in other biodiversity research that would add value to the farm-scale evaluations research.
Further research proposals, from any source, should be directed to DETR
Interim report
I was agreed that the interim report submitted by the contractors would be published on the internet. More detailed discussion of the protocols contained in an appendix to the report would not be put on the internet immediately, as the contractors are seeking to publish the data in refereed journals. The committee supported this intention.
Next meeting
March 10th 2000
Page published 23 December
1999;
Page last modified
25 February, 2003