Latest news with #ReadingUniversity
BBC News
2 days ago
- Science
- BBC News
Headbutting goats wrecking dairy researchers' study
BBC Researchers at a university hope that ear tags that track movement and behaviour will help to improve the welfare of dairy goats, however the animals are doing their best to thwart the project. The study is led by Harper Adams University in Shropshire, alongside Reading University and technology company SmartBell. The tags are already used in calves across the agricultural industry to provide early detection of health issues. But Dr Holly Vickery admitted the technology support team were struggling to understand why the tags kept on resetting and think it could be "because the goats are headbutting each other". "I'm surprised that the goats haven't eaten them," she said. The tags are orange and oblong shaped, and sit in the animals' ear with their normal numbered tag. "It's a bit like a Fitbit... it's got an accelerometer in it, and what it's doing is... it's tracking movement," said Dr Vickery. Behaviours that can be detected include lying down time, rumination, eating behaviours and general activity. The tags could also be used for the early detection of health issues and better responses to environmental factors like extreme heat. In cows, more "lying time" could signal that the animal is lame. "The goats are very different to work with, but broadly the behaviours that we want to look at are the same," said Dr Vickery. "The algorithms have to be tweaked because the goats display the behaviours in a slightly different way." This project involves a trial with 40 of the ear tags fitted to goats on a farm in Somerset. Dr Vickery said she would like to see the technology incorporated into animal welfare assessments in the future. "It would give much clearer data to consumers who want to make really informed decisions," she said. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram. Agriculture Goats
BBC News
2 days ago
- Science
- BBC News
Harper Adams study hopes ear tags will improve goat welfare
Researchers at a university hope that ear tags that track movement and behaviour will help to improve the welfare of dairy project is led by professionals from Harper Adams University in Shropshire alongside Reading University and technology company tags are already used in calves across the agricultural industry to provide early detection of health Dr Holly Vickery admitted there had been a technical issue. "At the minute, I've got my tech team, and they're working really hard on figuring out why the tags keep resetting, which we actually think might be because the goats are headbutting each other," she said. "I'm surprised that the goats haven't eaten them."The tags are orange and oblong shaped, and sit in the animals' ear with their normal numbered tag. "It's a bit like a Fitbit… it's got an accelerometer in it, and what it's doing is… it's tracking movement," said Dr that can be detected include lying time, rumination, eating behaviours and general activity. The tags could also be used for the early detection of health issues and better responses to environmental factors like cows, more "lying time" could signal that the animal is lame."The goats are very different to work with, but broadly the behaviours that we want to look at are the same," said Dr Vickery."The algorithms have to be tweaked because the goats display the behaviours in a slightly different way."This project involves a trial with 40 of the ear tags fitted to goats on a farm in Vickery said she would like to see the technology incorporated into animal welfare assessments in the future."It would give much clearer data to consumers who want to make really informed decisions," she said. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Indian Express
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Are Israel's airstrikes on Iran within legal bounds?
Is Israel's latest attack on Iran's military and nuclear facilities legal under international law? And would it be legal for the United States to intervene on Israel's behalf? The answer to those questions gets to the heart of the most basic principles of international law, which draw on hundreds of years of precedents to lay out when countries can justifiably use force against each other. Some experts say that if Israel is launching airstrikes on Iran solely to prevent a possible future attack, it would probably be illegal — and so would an effort by the United States to come to Israel's aid, as President Donald Trump considers whether to attack Iran's buried Fordo nuclear site. Other experts argue that the current military operation is part of a continuing conflict that began when Iran's proxies attacked Israel in 2023. That could strengthen Israel's argument that its actions are part of the defensive measures that followed those prior attacks, and thus legal. That same argument would apply to the United States if it attacks Iran at Israel's request. Jus ad Bellum and the Caroline Test The rules governing when states can use military force are known as the law of jus ad bellum, or 'right to war.' Jus ad bellum centers on the simple principle that states are prohibited from using force against each other, except in self-defense or if authorized by the UN Security Council. And even when the self-defense exception applies, the force must be limited to what is necessary and proportional. It is not a carte blanche for military conquest. Although those principles are set forth in the UN Charter, the law behind them is far older. The Caroline test — a rule of customary international law that says states can use force only when absolutely necessary, to address an imminent, overwhelming threat — stems from 1837, when British forces crossed into the United States to destroy the American ship Caroline, to prevent rebels from attacking Canada. (Precedents in international law often involve ships.) The principle still holds today that it is illegal to use military force to prevent a future attack that is not imminent. Israel's current bombing campaign appears to fall afoul of that rule, some experts say. 'There is simply no plausible way of arguing that Iran was about to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, which it doesn't even have,' Marko Milanovic, a law professor at Reading University in England, argued in a recent blog post. In his speech announcing the military operation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to describe the country's actions as preemptive. He said Israel was acting 'to thwart a danger before it is fully materialized,' and that Iran had enough material to produce nuclear weapons 'within a few months.' Several days later, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council, the Israeli government said the operation 'aimed to neutralize the existential and imminent threat from Iran's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.' Iranian leaders have called for Israel's destruction in the past, and Israel's small size makes it especially vulnerable to nuclear strikes. However, US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear weapon. Proxies and the Nicaragua Test Other legal scholars see it differently, arguing that Israel's military operation in Iran is part of a defensive response to armed attacks by Iran and its proxies, including Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. In that framing, Israel's attacks are not preventive, but rather part of an ongoing, justified self-defense operation. 'We are of the view that if the proxy war and the direct Israeli-Iranian hostilities are intertwined,' Amichai Cohen, a law professor at Ono Academic College in Israel, and Yuval Shany, a law professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, argued in a recent essay for the website Just Security, 'Israel is entitled to take self-defense measures against Iran, since some of its proxies — Hamas and the Houthis — continue to launch rockets against Israel almost on a daily basis with Iran's substantial involvement.' For that to be true, Iran's influence over its proxies would need to meet a legal standard that is sometimes called the 'Nicaragua test,' which arose from a case involving the U.S. backing of the Contra militia in Nicaragua. If a state has 'effective control' over a militia, it can be held legally responsible for the militia's actions. And if it has 'substantial involvement' in a particular attack, it shares in the legal consequences of that attack too. It appears unlikely that the 'effective control' standard would be met in this case, however. The members of Iran's so-called axis of resistance appear to have their own interests and to not be completely controlled by Iran. The New York Times has reported that Hamas failed to convince Iran to back its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, for example. And while experts have long believed that Iran had considerable involvement in the military operations of Hezbollah, which began firing rockets on Israeli positions on Oct. 8, 2023, that group signed a ceasefire agreement with Israel last year, and for now appears to be staying out of the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. Iran does not appear to have effective control over the Houthis. However, the United States has accused Iran of being directly involved in the Houthi rebels' attacks on ships in the Red Sea, which began later in October 2023, by providing targeting assistance. And the Houthis' attacks on Israel are still going on. Iran and Israel also traded direct strikes against each other's territory and personnel last year. In April, Iran fired hundreds of missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on an Iranian consular building in Damascus, Syria. Days later, Israel retaliated with strikes of its own against Iranian territory. Then, in October, Iran fired approximately 180 missiles at Israel in retaliation for Israel killing Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, and Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. But those strikes were relatively limited in both scope and time, so it is unlikely that they would be enough, on their own, to constitute an ongoing conflict. And even if there were such a conflict, Israel's escalation would still need to be necessary and proportional to its defensive needs, Shany said. What about the United States? The legality of a possible US intervention in the conflict would most likely turn on the legality of Israel's actions, Shany said. International law does allow collective self-defense, in which states provide assistance to victims of unlawful attacks, as long as the victim state requests it. That was why, for example, it was legal for the United States and other allies to assist Kuwait in repelling the Iraqi invasion in 1990. But if Israel's actions are illegal, then the United States' participation in them would be too, unless there was an independent justification such as a separate need for self-defense against Iran. International tribunals move slowly, so it is unlikely that Israel or the United States will answer for their decisions before a court soon, if ever. But the laws of war still matter. The shared expectations they create are part of the foundations of the international order, helping to preserve peace and stability. The rules have never been perfectly followed, and the international order never perfectly peaceful or stable. But every time the rules are violated, those shared expectations weaken, making the world more uncertain and dangerous.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Omega-3 is vital for your health. These are the signs you're deficient
From reducing your risk of heart disease and staving off dementia to easing joint pain, omega-3 – typically found in oily fish such as salmon and sardines – is often said to have huge health benefits. The latest research to spotlight the power of omega-3 is the Do-Health clinical trial which set out to establish how we can extend our 'healthspan' (our healthy active life). Do-Health recruited more than 2,000 healthy people over 70 from five European countries and measured the impact of various interventions. It had already found that a daily omega-3 supplement reduced participants' rate of infection by 13 per cent and falls by 10 per cent. This month, in a new paper, the research team also concluded that those taking omega-3 for three years had aged three months less than others on the trial, as measured by biological markers According to Parveen Yaqoob, an expert in omega-3 and professor of nutritional physiology at Reading University, our interest in these fatty acids stretches back to the 1950s, when researchers travelled to Greenland to study the Inuit diet. 'They ate huge amounts of whale and seal meat which was extremely rich in omega-3, and the first observation was that the Inuits had a very long bleeding time if they cut their skin,' says Prof Yaqoob. 'It suggested they had quite thin blood. The second observation was that even though whale and seal meat was really high in fat, the presence of cardiovascular disease was really low.' Somehow, this fatty diet was not causing the obesity-related chronic diseases we see here. Despite much evidence of benefit, there is still no recommended intake, and available supplements have wildly different concentrations. NHS guidelines suggest eating two pieces of fish a week, one of which should be oily fish (rich in omega-3). 'Unfortunately, 70 per cent of people in the UK eat no oily fish at all,' says Prof Yaqoob. So what are we missing? And how much do we need? 'They are a particularly unusual family of fatty acids,' says Prof Yaqoob. 'The three main omega-3s are ALA, DHA and EPA, and it's widely believed – though not conclusive – that DHA is more important for brain function, while EPA plays a greater role in cardiovascular health. You really only find EPA and DHA in oily fish.' We need a balance of fats in our diet, and humans evolved on the edges of land masses, eating fish, but the switch to agriculture has meant our diet now contains far more omega-6 fats (which come from vegetable oils). 'The ideal omega-6 to omega-3 ratio should be 3:1,' says Nicola Shubrook, a nutritionist with Urban Wellness. 'Some estimates suggest most people in the UK have a ratio of between 10:1 and even 50:1.' 'It's vital for the grey matter in your brain – every cell in your body has omega-3 in its membrane,' says Geoff Mullan, the chief medical officer at Human People, a longevity specialist healthcare provider. It can play a role in the regulation of blood clotting and also our inflammatory responses. 'That makes it important for the heart, skin, brain, joints and pretty much every system in the body.' The signs are: Dry, brittle skin – rough skin (keratosis pilaris) around the upper arms is a common early sign Dry eyes Joint pain – stiffness and slow recovery after exercise Low mood Cardiovascular: reduces risk of clotting, lowers triglycerides (a type of blood fat) Reduces inflammation – may improve many inflammation-related conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, psoriasis and dry eye disease Improves mood and cognitive function Reduces all-cause mortality EPA and DHA omega-3s are critical to the development of the foetal brain and retina. This is why infant formula – and breast feeding supplements – contain DHA. There's evidence that omega-3 can ease some of the psychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety and lack of concentration. 'Eating whole foods rather than supplements is always going to be better because of all the other nutrients that come with it,' says Nicola Shubrook, a nutritionist with Urban Wellness. 'A piece of salmon doesn't just contain omega-3; it has vitamins and minerals, all that protein, the amino acids.' Oily fish are the best – in some cases, the only omega-3-rich foods. These are the fish that store fat all over their body. How much you need to eat is a grey area. The participants in the Do-Health trial were taking omega-3 supplements of 1g per day. So how much oily fish equates to this? White fish store fat in their liver – not their flesh – so cod liver oil is another source. 'The generations that grew up taking cod liver oil absolutely swear that it has a beneficial effect, especially on keeping their joints supple,' says Prof Yaqoob. One tablespoon (14g) = 1.7g of omega-3 ALA is found in dark green vegetables, walnuts, flaxseed, chia seeds, hempseed and soybeans – all of which are packed with other nutrients too. However, they are not a useful source of EPA or DHA, which the human body needs. 'Humans can only convert 5 to 10 per cent of these, so it's a bit naughty of the food industry to say, 'Get your omega-3 eating flaxseeds'. Actually, you can't,' says Mullan. The only vegetarian source is omega-3 supplements which are derived from algae. 'It's really a nice way to get it,' says Mullan. 'Fish don't make omega-3 either. They eat it from plankton and then store it. The algae supplements are a step farther back, so you're not risking contaminants. You avoid the fishy taste too.' Anyone on blood thinners should speak to their doctor before taking an omega-3 supplement. Unfortunately, there is no agreed answer. The NHS simply advises eating at least one meal of oily fish a week, although the American Heart Association advises on eating two, and adds in a 1g daily supplement for heart disease patients. The Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM) recommends higher therapeutic doses (2-4g of omega-3 a day) to improve inflammation and autoimmune conditions, while the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends daily supplements that have a breakdown of 250mg of EPA and DHA for general health, and a higher dose 2-4g per day for triglyceride reduction. There are lots of reasons for belly fat, and omega-3 is no magic solution, but it can play a role in mitigating some of the harms by reducing levels of inflammation and harmful free radicals. Levels of omega-3 tend to be lower in overweight people. Yes. 'It's very strongly anti-inflammatory, it helps maintain a healthy skin barrier and helps with keratin production,' says Mullan. It can regulate oil production, improve hydration, soothe irritation and improve skin conditions such as eczema, acne, rosacea, psoriasis and keratosis pilaris. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Herald Scotland
22-05-2025
- Climate
- The Herald Scotland
Is Scotland's future on fire - and how can we stop it?
Is there any realistic chance of stopping them or is this what Scotland's future holds? This week Culbin forest near Forres has been alight; a month ago it was Glen Rosa on Arran; a week prior to that it was Galloway. By the end of April, more of the UK had been burnt by wildfires than the total for any year in more than a decade, according to the Global Wildfire Information System. The impacts on wildlife and cost to landowners can be pretty devastating. 'We've lost 10 years of conservation work and effort,' said one Arran ranger in the wake of the Glen Rosa fire. 'We just have to start again.' Read More: True, it's been an unusually dry spring, but the worrying long-term Scottish trend is for more intense, harder-to-handle fires that often begin on moorland and spread into forests. California suffered a deep collective trauma in January when a series of huge blazes broke out due to a combination of conditions – a period of high rainfall promoting vegetation growth, followed by drought, followed by high winds. At least 30 people died and more than 18,000 homes were destroyed. Scotland may not be a high hazard location for destructive wildfires like the western US, but the so-called 'hydroclimate whiplash' effect – a wet period followed by an intense dry period – is being more frequently observed in locations around the world including Scotland, creating the conditions for more frequent and troublesome wildfires. So do we just have to endure them? Yes and no, is the somewhat sad reality. Wildfires will continue and worsen, say the researchers, but we can manage them better. 'As long as climate change keeps happening, this effect keeps increasing,' says Theo Keeping of Reading University, an expert in wildfire risk modelling. The old postcard on the difference between Scotland's winter and summer weather, showing a rain-lashed figure cowering under an umbrella in both cases, once seemed to represent Scotland's best protection against wildfires: near-constant rain. That has changed. With a warming atmosphere able to absorb ever more moisture from the land, we still get plenty of rain, but in between times we are seeing longer settled spells when the ground is sucked dry of moisture. Scotland has started experiencing wildfires in areas which were not traditionally susceptible to them, and instead of being contained in spring, devouring dead vegetation leftover from the previous year, wildfires are occurring into summer and even late summer. 'They're certainly becoming more difficult to suppress and tend to have higher fuel loads – the amount of vegetation available for burning – which gives them greater intensity,' says Group Commander Niall MacLennan of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), based in Inverness. Heather that's above knee height, for instance, contains a lot of energy. Land management is part of the wildfire risk, says the SFRS. Changes to the way farms and estates use land, particularly where vegetation increases as a result, can have an impact. So can't fires be prevented in the first place? Some but not all. That would require a policy that is literally foolproof and no one has come up with one yet. Social media right now is full of pleas from rangers begging people not to flick away fag ends, light campfires and BBQs or leave glass bottles around that could magnify the sun (thought to be the cause of Glen Rosa's fire). Yet it's also full of exasperated posts from people who have found smouldering campfires set on tinder-dry moorland or under trees among dessicated pine needles. Clearly either the message isn't getting through, or some people are deliberately ignoring it. Probably both. Education is still crucial and there's more focus on it in Scotland than ever before. In other countries, like Portugal, it's helped reduce the number of fires. But as Keeping says 'it's almost impossible' to exclude all ignitions. That's why much effort has focused on finding ways of containing fires and putting them out pronto. Regenerating landscapes to better retain water; creating fire breaks (where vegetation is burnt or cut away); giving greater consideration to what we grow and where; creating lochans as water sources for firefighters: strategies such as this will just become more and more important. The Scottish Parliament has just passed legislation requiring anyone using 'prescribed burning', for firebreaks or muirburn, to hold a license and have training. Evacuation plans also have to be up to date in case of wildfires getting out of control. At the edge of towns and villages, householders might have to start giving more attention to reducing fire risk. MacLennan says he is concerned when he sees large-scale vegetation like gorse close to houses in rural areas because of the real risk the buildings could catch fire. If we can't stop fires igniting, we need to be able to extinguish them quickly. SFRS is focusing on a 'smarter' strategy for tackling wildfires, with specially trained firefighters in certain fire stations equipped with specific PPE and equipment, to manage and suppress fires in an agile way. A helicopter, like that used over Culbin forest, might deposit around 800litres of water over the fires – about eight baths-worth – which is highly effective. Civilian helicopters aren't always available for these operations though. Even ground vehicles suitable for the local terrain can be hard to come by and sometimes firefighters still have to walk to fire sites dressed in PPE and carrying water. That's one way land managers and locals can help out, offering lifts and vehicles. And perhaps that's the point: that we all have a role to play in this – individuals, government, fire service and communities. More intense wildfires, a consequences of unchecked climate change, are part of our collective future. It looks like it will take a collective effort to fight them. Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on Bluesky at @ and on X at @BecMcQ
