Andrew Waterhouse: Both JSFA as well as JSFA Reports cover a wide range of topics in food, agriculture and related interdisciplinary fields. While JSFA has a strict aims and scope with novelty being a very important aspect, JSFA Reports will encourage publication of manuscripts that do not meet the criteria when it comes to cutting edge novelty. This will include regional studies, process optimisations, replication studies and survey studies with a limited hypothesis. We are also including some topics that are currently outside the scope of JSFA, but closely related and of interest to the readers of JSFA. MS: When an author submits a paper to JSFA, the manuscript is considered for publication in JSFA Reports too. Papers that fall outside the aims and scope of JSFA will be transferred to JSFA Reports whenever appropriate. Authors also have the option to opt out of this transfer service. JSFA Reports is here to save authors and reviewers time and effort by building in a seamless second option. AW: Cascade journals as we call them are not a new concept. Several prominent journals like Nature Journals, BMJ, Lancet, JAMA and Cell have such transfer facilities. Wiley has its own referral service called Manuscript Transfer to provide authors options amongst the Wiley journals. Now that JSFA's cascade journal, JSFA Reports is being launched, we look forward to helping many more authors find a good home for their papers.

As Editors of JSFA, we are pleased to announce a new initiative on behalf of The Society of Chemical Industry (SCI: JSFAʼs owning society) and our publishers Wiley. JSFAʼs popularity means that we receive many more submissions than we can publish. As a result, our rejection rate is high, and this means that many of the manuscripts that we turn away contain sound science and deserve to be published - and are indeed eventually published in other journals. We are therefore launching JSFA Reports, to provide a good home for these papers. We want to improve the journalʼs service to authors, by offering an option that will be a significant time (and effort) saver for researchers and editors, allowing the authors to avoid the work of starting afresh with a new journal. We will be leading both journals as Editors-in-Chief. JSFA Reports will be managed by Dr. Anna Kynadi as the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. We see JSFA Reports as providing a home for those papers that are solid research but fall just slightly outside the aims and scope of JSFA, for instance regional studies, process optimisations, replication studies and survey studies with a limited hypothesis. There also likely to be topics currently outside of our scope that could be encompassed. However, we stress these studies would still need to be to an excellent standard, possessing solid data and good analysis of that data, but might not have the broad application or international readership that we seek for JSFA papers. Such publications might be of great value to researchers or industrialists who are trying to apply the research data as a base for further research or for commercial benefits. While replication studies provide validation and generalizability for protocols/experimental set ups etc., regional studies and process optimisations might help reduce the R&D expenses when moving from laboratory scale to industry. The concept of such a journal, sometimes called a cascade journal, is not new. It is employed in a number of places, perhaps best known is among the Nature journals, but BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, and Cell and many others employ the same approach. In a similar effort, you might have seen that Wiley has just initiated a referral service amongst some of its journals called Manuscript Transfer (wiley.com), that provides authors with a similar option between any of the participating Wiley journals. We are not under any illusion that JSFA is rejecting papers of the same caliber as Nature, but the high rejection rate means that we do turn down much publishable material. The idea of JSFA Reports is to save authors and reviewers time and effort by building in a seamless second option. JSFA Reports is set to launch in this summer, and once operational, authors submitting to JSFA would have their submissions considered for both journals. Papers that are scientifically sound but not suitable for JSFA would be transferred to JSFA Reports and be considered there with the authorʼs permission. We look forward to helping many more authors find a good home for their papers in short order.

This paper assesses the role of soil organic matter (SOM) in pasture resilience and longevity. New Zealand pasture soils have high levels of SOM, which contribute to soil structural stability and nutrient cycling, functions that support resilient pasture. It is concluded that pasture resilience requires (a) a pasture-soil system that returns regular amounts of fresh, ‘labile’ carbon (C) since this younger SOM fraction plays a significant role in these processes, and (b) a thriving soil biota that can rapidly turn over this labile C. Pasture itself also plays a critical role as the major pathway for C transfer into the soil rhizosphere, with differences between species in amounts and composition of C returns. Resident (older) SOM should not be ignored and plays a role in sustaining soil structure, but the younger SOM is the fraction that turns over more often and plays a key role in nutrient supply.Soil organic matter is not a single solution to increasing pasture resilience since soil type and summer rainfall have been previously identified as key factors also. However, other identified factors such as plant nitrogen status, plant population dynamics and grazing management either influence or are influenced by the turnover of SOM, suggesting its role in pasture resilience should not be underestimated.

Journal of the Science of Food and AgricultureVolume 100, Issue 14 p. 5007-5007 Editorial David Reid, EiC 1998-2013 Andrew Waterhouse, Andrew Waterhouse University of California, Davis, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorMark Shepherd, Mark Shepherd AgResearch, Hamilton, New ZealandSearch for more papers by this author Andrew Waterhouse, Andrew Waterhouse University of California, Davis, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorMark Shepherd, Mark Shepherd AgResearch, Hamilton, New ZealandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 October 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10742Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume100, Issue14Special Issue: Special Section: In honour of David ReidNovember 2020Pages 5007-5007 RelatedInformation

Journal of the Science of Food and AgricultureVolume 100, Issue 5 p. 1841-1841 Editorial JSFA welcomes Digital technologies and integrated research to meet global food challenges Dr Mark Shepherd, Agresearch, New ZealandSearch for more papers by this authorProfessor Andrew Waterhouse, UC, Davis, USASearch for more papers by this author Dr Mark Shepherd, Agresearch, New ZealandSearch for more papers by this authorProfessor Andrew Waterhouse, UC, Davis, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 02 March 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10299Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume100, Issue530 March 2020Pages 1841-1841 RelatedInformation

The aim of the study was to determine if existing technologies could reduce nitrate leaching by 50%; while maintaining high levels of milk production and profitability. One farmlet, typical of the Waikato ('CURRENT') was stocked at 3.2 cows/ha and compared with a farmlet stocked at 2.6 cows/ha ('FUTURE'), focusing on higher cow production through the use of higher genetic merit cows, lower N fertiliser usage and removing cows from pasture (to a stand-off pad) during critical N leaching periods. The mitigation methods employed on the FUTURE farmlet reduced N leaching by 43% but meant the FUTURE farmlet was more expensive to run than the CURRENT (Control) farmlet. Although cows on the FUTURE farmlet each produced 68 kg more milksolids, production per hectare was 50 kg lower. Thus, the FUTURE farmlet yielded on average $279/ha/yr less profit than the CURRENT farmlet.

It is well-known that urine patches are the primary source of N leaching from intensively grazed pastures.Grazing ruminants regularly harvest N in pasture from the whole paddock but then deposit the majority of that ingested N into small areas or patches with high N loadings -perhaps of 200 to 2000 kg N /ha covering only 2 to 5% of the paddock area.Such loadings are far in excess of the ability of plants to use the N within a growing season and this is the major driver of leaching in grazed systems.Despite this knowledge, most simulation models ignore the patch nature of urine N returns to pastures and assume a uniform paddockwide application of urinary N -primarily because of the increased simulation runtime that a patchy return would bring to models.New technology in the simulation model APSIM now allows routine simulation of within-paddock heterogeneity of soil carbon and nitrogen and this can be used to represent individual urine patches.This new technology also opens up questions as to what degree of complexity is necessary.Here we use some new data of individual urine patch load and wetted area that was measured from six dairy herds with a variety of physiological states for six hours a day over seven days (Figure 1).The data shows very high variability and we combined it with the new technology to understand if the complexity of individual urine patch characteristics should be used, or if it is sufficient to include urine patches with average size and load.

Nitrate leaching from urine deposited by grazing animals is a critical constraint for sustainable dairy farming in New Zealand. While considerable progress has been made to understand the fate of nitrogen (N) under urine patches, little consideration has been given to the spread of urinary N beyond the wetted area. In this study, we modelled the lateral spread of nitrogen from the wetted area of a urine patch to the soil outside the patch using a combination of two process-based models (HYDRUS and APSIM). The simulations provided insights on the extent and temporal pattern for the redistribution of N in the soil following a urine deposition and enabled investigating the effect of lateral spread of urinary N on plant growth and N leaching. The APSIM simulation, using an implementation of a dispersion-diffusion function, was tested against experimental data from a field experiment conducted in spring on a well-drained soil. Depending on the geometry considered for the dispersion-diffusion function (plate or cylindrical) the area-averaged N leaching decreased by 8 and 37% compared with simulations without lateral N spread; this was due to additional N uptake from pasture on the edge area. A sensitivity analysis showed that area-averaged pasture growth was not greatly affected by the value of the dispersion factor used in the model, whereas N leaching was very sensitive. Thus, the need to account for the edge effect may depend on the objective of the simulations. The modelling results also showed that considering lateral spread of urinary N was sufficient to describe the experimental data, but plant root uptake across urine patch zones may still be relevant in other conditions. Although further work is needed for improving accuracy, the simulated and experimental results demonstrate that accounting for the edge effect is important for determining N leaching from urine-affected areas.

BACKGROUND A combination of field experiment and modelling tested the hypothesis that dry summers increase the risk of nitrogen (N) leaching from pasture owing to a combination of: soil N accumulation in a dry summer; slow recovery of drought-affected pasture in the autumn; and the resultant inefficient use of fertiliser N by the pasture. RESULTS In the experiment, pasture response to urea and apparent N recovery in autumn after the drought was half that of irrigated pasture (7 vs 13 kg dry matter kg-1 N; 28 vs 52% apparent recovery; P < 0.05). There was more soil mineral N at the start of drainage (P < 0.001) as a result of this inefficient fertiliser N use. Modelling of pasture growth in six different drought years demonstrated that subsequent N leaching risk after rewetting was inversely related to pasture N uptake during rewetting in the autumn. CONCLUSION When the period between post-drought pasture recovery and the onset of drainage is short, N leaching risk increases. Nitrogen leaching is determined by the type of autumn (slow or fast growing conditions before drainage) and the amount of fertiliser N applied. The latter can be managed by a farmer, but the former cannot. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

Abstract The world needs to produce more food, more sustainably, on a planet with scarce resources and under changing climate. The advancement of technologies, computing power and analytics offers the possibility that ‘digitalisation of agriculture’ can provide new solutions to these complex challenges. The role of science is to evidence and support the design and use of digital technologies to realise these beneficial outcomes and avoid unintended consequences. This requires consideration of data governance design to enable the benefits of digital agriculture to be shared equitably and how digital agriculture could change agricultural business models; that is, farm structures, the value chain and stakeholder roles, networks and power relations, and governance. We argue that this requires transdisciplinary research (at pace), including explicit consideration of the aforementioned socio‐ethical issues, data governance and business models, alongside addressing technical issues, as we now have to simultaneously deal with multiple interacting outcomes in complex technical, social, economic and governance systems. The exciting prospect is that digitalisation of science can enable this new, and more effective, way of working. The question then becomes: how can we effectively accelerate this shift to a new way of working in agricultural science? As well as identifying key research areas, we suggest organisational changes will be required: new research business models, agile project management; new skills and capabilities; and collaborations with new partners to develop ‘technology ecosystems’. © 2018 The Authors. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Field measurements from micro-plots (0.20 - 0.36 m2) of perennial ryegrass/white clover and of pure plantain were used to mimic a urine patch (UP) and to test the effects of UP nitrogen (N) load and size on pasture N offtake. Urine N offtake was greater with plantain than with standard pasture; however, the relative contribution to uptake from the wetted area and surrounding edge was the same for both species. Most (>90%) of the apparent offtake of urine N by plantain and standard pastures was within 20 cm of the edge of the UP. For the two urine patch sizes tested, edge contribution to urine N offtake was on average about 30% of the total from the UP, but was higher for at 600 kg N/ha urine N (45%) than at 300 kg N/ha (18%). Understanding this edge contribution is important for model improvement, and for the development of mitigations to decrease N leaching.

Journal of the Science of Food and AgricultureVolume 98, Issue 1 p. 7-7 Editorial Keeping the wheels of peer review turning Dr Mark Shepherd, Dr Mark Shepherd Mark.Shepherd@agresearch.co.nz Agresearch, New Zealand Professor Andrew Waterhouse, UC Davis, USASearch for more papers by this authorAndrew L Waterhouse, Andrew L Waterhouse Agresearch, New Zealand Professor Andrew Waterhouse, UC Davis, USASearch for more papers by this author Dr Mark Shepherd, Dr Mark Shepherd Mark.Shepherd@agresearch.co.nz Agresearch, New Zealand Professor Andrew Waterhouse, UC Davis, USASearch for more papers by this authorAndrew L Waterhouse, Andrew L Waterhouse Agresearch, New Zealand Professor Andrew Waterhouse, UC Davis, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 November 2017 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8742 Correction added on 27 June 2018, after first online publication: one of the author names for this article was omitted on first publication, and has now been corrected. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume98, Issue1January 2018Pages 7-7 RelatedInformation

The loss of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from dairy-farmed land can impair water quality. Efforts to curtail these losses in Australia and New Zealand (Australasia) have involved a mixture of voluntary and regulatory approaches. In the present paper, we summarise the losses of N and P from Australasian dairy farms, examine the policy drivers used for mitigating losses and evaluate the effectiveness of contrasting approaches to implementing mitigations. Median losses for N and P were 27 and 1.6 kg/ha.year respectively, with a wide range of variation (3–153 kg N/ha.year and 0.3–69 kg P/ha.year) caused by a complex array of climate, soil types, flow paths, nutrient surpluses and land management factors. This complexity, coupled with the variable implementation of measures to mitigate losses, means that many voluntary programs to decrease losses have had uncertain or limited success. Although there is little or no formal regulation in Australia, regulation exists in New Zealand that requires regional authorities to implement the best strategy to improve water quality according to regional-specific characteristics. In testing a generalised approach to mitigation (priority given to those that are easy to implement) in four regions in New Zealand, we found that P could be mitigated quite cheaply, but N reductions required more measures, some of which are costly. Conversely, prioritising on the basis of mitigation cost-effectiveness for a specific nutrient will lead to more rapid reductions in losses of the target nutrient, but with fewer co-benefits for the non-target nutrient or other water pollutants, such as faecal microorganisms and sediment. This information will assist farmers in deciding how to meet a catchment target at least cost.

The dairy-focused component of the Pastoral 21 research programme clearly demonstrated a range of options are available for farmers to decrease N and P losses to water. A series of key messages have been identified from the research programme and are presented in this paper. Whilst the N, P and sediment management strategies will provide options for creating headroom in catchments, future research is still required to identify management systems and farming technologies that deliver greater profitability, without compromising the gains in ‘footprint’ made in this programme. The Pastoral 21 Research Programme The Pastoral 21 (P21) research programme was jointly funded by MBIE, DairyNZ, B+L New Zealand, Fonterra and the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand during the period 2011-2016. Its overall goal was: “to deliver industry-accessible, adoptable, systems-level solutions for profitably increasing production while reducing environmental „footprint‟ (nutrient losses to water), that had been field tested for demonstrable efficacy and value”. The programme was structured into three main themes: Next Generation Dairy Systems; Mixed Livestock Systems; and Breakthrough Technologies (Feed and Environment). Due to constraints of space, the focus of this paper is on dairy production systems, although much of the information is also of direct relevance to the mixed livestock sector (as discussed later). Next Generation Dairy Systems There were four demonstration farmlets (Waikato, Manawatu, Canterbury, and South Otago) that compared a system currently typical of that region (‘Current’) with a modified system (‘Future’). The Future systems were designed to achieve the dual goals of increased profitability and decreased nutrient losses to water. Their design was based on farm system modelling (Beukes et al., 2011; Vogeler et al., 2012), thus the systems were established with the aim of testing whether the modelled benefits to nutrient losses and profit could be delivered in practice. A regional focus was important because of differences in resource availability (land, water) for dairying, and the contrasting challenges to dairy production with different soil-types and climates. Table 1 summarises the main features of the comparisons. Waikato tested an-all pasture system, focused on lower fertiliser N inputs, and standing cows off paddock in

A urine sensor has been developed to measure the volume and nitrogen (N) concentration of individual urination events from female cattle in the field. The objective of this paper was to establish that the sensor's refractive index (RI) value could be used to accurately estimate urinary-N concentration. Individual urine samples (168 in total) were collected from 18 cows that were fed monocultures (ryegrass, clover or turnips) or from cattle that grazed conventional mixed pasture (ryegrass/white clover) in the field. Regression analysis of urine sensor RI values with either urinary-N or potassium (K) concentrations yielded strong linear relationships (P<0.001) for all feed types. However, individual regression lines varied between feed types, particularly for turnips. We conclude the use of RI in the sensor provides an accurate estimate of urinary-N but site-specific calibration of the sensor is warranted due to different feed types affecting urine K:N ratio and, by inference, other aspects of composition.

Journal of the Science of Food and AgricultureVolume 97, Issue 1 p. 7-7 Editorial Innovations in Publishing Professor Andrew Waterhouse, Professor Andrew Waterhouse Editors in ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorDr Mark Shepherd, Dr Mark Shepherd Editors in ChiefSearch for more papers by this author Professor Andrew Waterhouse, Professor Andrew Waterhouse Editors in ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorDr Mark Shepherd, Dr Mark Shepherd Editors in ChiefSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8073Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume97, Issue115 January 2017Pages 7-7 RelatedInformation