Do EU direct payments to beef producers belong in the 'blue box'?

In the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, so-called 'blue box' support measures were exempted from reduction commitments, provided they were delivered under 'production-limiting' programs. Although classified as 'blue box', the EU system of direct payments (DP) to beef farmers imposes 'claim-limiting' restrictions rather than 'production-limiting' restrictions, allowing farmers to keep additional animals over and above the number upon which they are eligible to claim DP. The present paper provides empirical evidence that EU direct payments capitalise into the market prices of male calves and young steers in Ireland. It is also likely that DP capitalises into the prices of beef cows and heifers. Given this capitalisation process, some farmers can obtain 'capitalised' DP on animals produced over and above the 'claim-limiting' restrictions, by selling these animals through auction markets. Thus, 'capitalised' DP probably encourages production over and above the limiting measures.

The 'direct costs' of livestock disease: The development of a system of models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain

The 'direct costs' attributable to 30 different endemic diseases of farm animals in Great Britain are estimated using a standardised method to construct a simple model for each disease that includes consideration of disease prevention and treatment costs. The models so far developed provide a basis for further analyses including cost-benefit analyses for the economic assessment of disease control options. The approach used reflects the inherent livestock disease information constraints, which limit the application of other economic analytical methods. It is a practical and transparent approach that is relatively easily communicated to veterinary scientists and policy makers. The next step is to develop the approach by incorporating wider economic considerations into the analyses in a way that will demonstrate to policy makers and others the importance of an economic perspective to livestock disease issues.

Direct versus indirect sexual selection: genetic basis of colour, size and recruitment in a wild bird

Indirect and direct models of sexual selection make different predictions regarding the quantitative genetic relationships between sexual ornaments and fitness. Indirect models predict that ornaments should have a high heritability and that strong positive genetic covariance should exist between fitness and the ornament. Direct models, on the other hand, make no such assumptions about the level of genetic variance in fitness and the ornament, and are therefore likely to be more important when environmental sources of variation are large. Here we test these predictions in a wild population of the blue tit (Parus caeruleus), a species in which plumage coloration has been shown to be under sexual selection. Using 3 years of cross-fostering data from over 250 breeding attempts, we partition the covariance between parental coloration and aspects of nestling fitness into a genetic and environmental component. Contrary to indirect models of sexual selection, but in agreement with direct models, we show that variation in coloration is only weakly heritable (h(2) < 0.11), and that two components of offspring fitness-nestling size and fledgling recruitment-are strongly dependent on parental effects, rather than genetic effects. Furthermore, there was no evidence of significant positive genetic covariation between parental colour and offspring traits. Contrary to direct benefit models, however, we find little evidence that variation in colour reliably indicates the level of parental care provided by either males or females. Taken together, these results indicate that the assumptions of indirect models of sexual selection are not supported by the genetic basis of the traits reported on here.