Suchergebnisse

Funded by BBSRC . Grant Number: BB/L009951/1 Scottish Government Food, Land and People program Israel Science Foundation . Grant Numbers: 1349/13 , 1339/13 United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Kinchin, I orcid:0000-0003-0133-2763; Mccalman, JR orcid:0000-0002-3022-3980 ; © 2019 Researchers worldwide are increasingly reporting the societal impact of their research as part of national research productivity assessments. However, the challenges they encounter in developing their impact case studies against specified government assessment criteria and how pitfalls can be mitigated are not reported. This paper examines the key steps taken to develop an Aboriginal Family Wellbeing (FWB) empowerment research impact case study in the context of an Australian Research Council (ARC) pilot research impact assessment exercise and the challenges involved in applying the ARC criteria. The requirement that researchers demonstrate how their institutions support them to conduct impactful research has the potential to create supportive environments for researchers to be more responsive to the needs of users outside academia. However, the 15-year reference period for the associated research underpinning the reported impact and the focus on researcher's current institutional affiliation constitute potential constraints to demonstrating the true impact of research. For researchers working with Indigenous people, relationships that build over long periods of time, irrespective of university affiliation, are critical to conducting impactful research. A more open-ended time-frame, with no institutional restrictions for the 'associated research' provides the best opportunity to demonstrate the true benefits of research not only for Indigenous people but for Australian society more broadly. ; Associated Grant Code:1078927

Researchers worldwide are increasingly reporting the societal impact of their research as part of national research productivity assessments. However, the challenges they encounter in developing their impact case studies against specified government assessment criteria and how pitfalls can be mitigated are not reported. This paper examines the key steps taken to develop an Aboriginal Family Wellbeing (FWB) empowerment research impact case study in the context of an Australian Research Council (ARC) pilot research impact assessment exercise and the challenges involved in applying the ARC criteria. The requirement that researchers demonstrate how their institutions support them to conduct impactful research has the potential to create supportive environments for researchers to be more responsive to the needs of users outside academia. However, the 15-year reference period for the associated research underpinning the reported impact and the focus on researcher's current institutional affiliation constitute potential constraints to demonstrating the true impact of research. For researchers working with Indigenous people, relationships that build over long periods of time, irrespective of university affiliation, are critical to conducting impactful research. A more open-ended time-frame, with no institutional restrictions for the 'associated research' provides the best opportunity to demonstrate the true benefits of research not only for Indigenous people but for Australian society more broadly. ; This study was undertaken under the auspices of the Centre of Research Excellence: An Innovation Platform for Integrated Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care (CRE-IQI, funded by the NHMRC ID 1078927). In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge funding support received by the Lowitja Institute, and in-kind support from James Cook University and the Cairns Institute.

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. Ruminant livestock are important sources of human food and global greenhouse gas emissions. Feed degradation and methane formation by ruminants rely on metabolic interactions between rumen microbes and affect ruminant productivity. Rumen and camelid foregut microbial community composition was determined in 742 samples from 32 animal species and 35 countries, to estimate if this was influenced by diet, host species, or geography. Similar bacteria and archaea dominated in nearly all samples, while protozoal communities were more variable. The dominant bacteria are poorly characterised, but the methanogenic archaea are better known and highly conserved across the world. This universality and limited diversity could make it possible to mitigate methane emissions by developing strategies that target the few dominant methanogens. Differences in microbial community compositions were predominantly attributable to diet, with the host being less influential. There were few strong co-occurrence patterns between microbes, suggesting that major metabolic interactions are non-selective rather than specific. ; We thank Ron Ronimus, Paul Newton, and Christina Moon for reading and commenting on the manuscript. We thank all who provided assistance that allowed Global Rumen Census collaborators to supply samples and metadata (Supplemental Text 1). AgResearch was funded by the New Zealand Government as part of its support for the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. The following funding sources allowed Global Rumen Census collaborators to supply samples and metadata, listed with the primary contact(s) for each funding source: Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación, Martín Fraga; Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency, Canada, Tim A. McAllister; Area de Ciencia y Técnica, Universidad Juan A Maza (Resolución Proy. N° 508/2012), Diego Javier Grilli; Canada British Columbia Ranching Task Force Funding Initiative, John Church; CNPq, Hilário Cuquetto Mantovani, Luiz Gustavo Ribeiro Pereira; FAPEMIG, Hilário Cuquetto Mantovani; FAPEMIG, PECUS RumenGases, Luiz Gustavo Ribeiro Pereira; Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (project number PJ010906), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea, Sang-Suk Lee; Dutch Dairy Board & Product Board Animal Feed, André Bannink, Kasper Dieho, Jan Dijkstra; Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Vahideh Heidarian Miri; Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ilma Tapio; Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Argentina (Project PNBIO1431044), Silvio Cravero, María Cerón Cucchi; Irish Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Alexandre B. De Menezes; Meat & Livestock Australia; and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry (Australian Government), Chris McSweeney; Ministerio de Agricultura y desarrollo sostenible (Colombia), Olga Lucía Mayorga; Montana Agricultural Experiment Station project (MONB00113), Carl Yeoman; Multistate project W-3177 Enhancing the competitiveness of US beef (MONB00195), Carl Yeoman; NSW Stud Merino Breeders' Association, Alexandre Vieira Chaves; Queensland Enteric Methane Hub, Diane Ouwerkerk; RuminOmics, Jan Kopecny, Ilma Tapio; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) of the Scottish Government and the Technology Strategy Board, UK, R. John Wallace; Science Foundation Ireland (09/RFP/GEN2447), Sinead Waters; Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, Mario A. Cobos-Peralta; Slovenian Research Agency (project number J1-6732 and P4-0097), Blaz Stres; Strategic Priority Research Program, Climate Change: Carbon Budget and Relevant Issues (Grant No.XDA05020700), ZhiLiang Tan; The European Research Commission Starting Grant Fellowship (336355—MicroDE), Phil B. Pope; The Independent Danish Research Council (project number 4002-00036), Torsten Nygaard Kristensen; and The Independent Danish Research Council (Technology and Production, project number 11-105913), Jan Lassen. These funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; Peer Reviewed