1

Overviewpaper:Livestock,ClimateandNaturalResourceUse

HenningSteinfeld1,CarolynOpio1,JulianChara2,KyleFDavis3,PeterTomlin4andStaceyGunter5

1. FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations2. CentroparalaInvestigaciónenSistemasSosteniblesdeProducciónAgropecuaria3. ColumbiaUniversity4. KansasStateUniversity5. UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture

Global food systems play a central role in anthropogenic environmental change. In particular, thelivestock sector is a key contributor to a range of environmental issues. Human demand for animalproductshasrisenmarkedlyoverthepast50yearswithimportantenvironmentalimpacts,contributingtoclimatechange,waterdepletionandpollution, landdegradation,andbiodiversity loss (Steinfeldetal.,2006;O’Mara;2011)

Environmentalimpactshavebeenpartlymitigatedbyproductivityincreasesinlivestockthathavebeenbroughtaboutby thebroadapplicationof scienceandadvanced technology in feedingandnutrition,genetics and reproduction, and animal health control as well as general improvements in animalhusbandry and overall food chainmanagement. These innovations have led to transitions from low-inputlow-outputsystemstomoreefficientandproductivelivestocksystemsinmanypartsoftheworld.Whiletherehavebeentransitionstowardsmoreefficientsystems,theoverallenvironmentalburdenofthelivestocksectorcontinuestoincrease(Davisetal.2015).

Livestocksystemsvarywidelyacrossanimalspecies,productsandgeographies.Productionoccursinawide range of ecosystems, from those relatively undisturbed, such as rangelands, through food-producing landscapes with mixed patterns of human use, to production environments that areintensively modified and managed by humans. Livestock systems have evolved as a result of agro-ecological potential, the relative availability of land, labor and capital and the demand for livestockproducts(Steinfeldetal.,2019).

Extensivelivestocksystemsarelowintheuseoflaborandexternalinputs.Thesesystemstendtooccurin lightlymanaged areas that are frequently unsuitable for crop and therefore do not competewithdirect food production. Extensive livestock systems span a diversity of landscapes, from the dryrangelandsofAfricatotemperatezonesinNorthAmerica,thesteppesofCentralAsia,WesternEuropeandNewZealand..Alreadylivingatclimaticextremes(arid,semi-aridandcoldenvironments),livestockkeepers are vulnerable to climate change, with extreme weather and extended droughts causingdecreases in productivity aswell as high levels of herdmorbidity andmortality. This type of farmingdirectlyutilizesnaturalbiomassproduction,withrelativelyloweryieldsperunitoflandwithhigherGHGemissions intensities. In principle, grazing systems are closed systems, where the waste product(manure) is used within the system, if well-managed, often does not present a burden on theenvironment. However, resource degradation, especially of land and biodiversity, is a widespreadproblem.Forthemostpartthis isoccurringwhere,asaresultofexternalpressures, traditionallywellmanaged common lands have become open access areas (de Haan, Steinfeld and Blackburn, 1997).Problemsofaccessalsoleadtoconcentrationandovergrazingincertainareasbuttoabandonmentofother areas. This problem of access can result from conflicts or lack of infrastructures (boreholes inAfrica, roads tosummerpastures inCentralAsia). Insuchopenaccesssituations,degradation ismostsevere. On the other hand, with appropriate management grazing systems can offer potential forecosystemserviceandbiodiversityenhancement(Janzen2010;Teagueetal.2013).

2

Labour-intensivesystemsaretypicallyoperatedbysmallholders,mostlyaspartofmixedcrop-livestockfarms,butalsoaspastoralandsilvopastoralsystems.Thesesystemsproducemilk,eggsandmeat,butother outputs suchmanure as fertilizer or animal traction are important as well. Livestock act as abuffer and asset that can bemobilized in case of need. Themajority of labour-intensive systems aresubsistence family farms, which sell or exchange any surpluses locally. For these farming families,livestockareanimportantsourceofnutritiousfoodandfulfilsocialandfinancialfunctions.Ifmeasuredsimplybyyieldgaps,resourceuseinsubsistencefarmsisgenerallyinefficientcomparedtoextensiveorcapital-intensive systems (e.g., Herrero et al., 2013). However, there are othermetrics thatmust beconsidered,particularlyinrelationtonutrientcycling,addingvaluetocropresidues,providingdraughtpowerandmanureandcapturingcarbon.Resourceuse inmixedfarming isoftenhighlyself-reliantasnutrients and energy flow from crops to livestock and back. In situationswhere animals are kept forproductivepurposes, bydefinition, such a closed systemoffers positive incentives to compensate forenvironmentaleffects,makingthemlessdamagingormorebeneficialtothenaturalresourcebase.

Capital-intensive systems are open in both physical and economic terms. They depend on externalsupplies of feed, energy and other inputs. The operations are usually large-scale, mechanized andvertically integrated.There is thusagreateruniformityoftechnologyandpracticesthan inmixedandgrazing systems. These systems are defined by their reliance on external feeds that are nutritionallyoptimizedtopromotegrowth.Forcattle,thismeansfatteningtheanimalsongrain-andoilseedbasedfeeds in feedlots during the last few months before slaughter. With intensive pork and poultryproduction, the animals are exclusively fed purchased feeds. Farmers also use selective breeding tooptimizeforsize,highproductivity(e.g.milkyield)andrapidgrowthinintensivesystems,andanimalsare kept in controlled, confined settings, often indoors. This system uses large amounts of feed andotherexternal inputs,butalsoproducesgreateryieldperunitof landthanextensivefarmingsystems.Fewfarmersgaindirectly fromthesesystems,butmanypeoplebenefit fromaregularsupplyofsafe,affordable, nutritious food. In contrast to extensive systems and integrated crop-livestock systems,thesesystemsarealmostexclusivelydedicatedto foodproduction,asa responsetogrowingdemandfor animal protein domestically and for export. Emission intensities are often low in these systems.However,withspecializationandconcentrationofanimals inhighdensities,dealingwithnutrient-richmanure is a challenge for intensive systems and a major source of soil and water pollution. Capitalintensivesystems,throughtrade links,canalsoexertpressuresonecosystemsindistant locations, forexample through the use of soy from the Americas in livestock feed in Europe or East Asia. Thesesystems,ifnotproperlyregulated,offermanyopportunitiestoneglecttheirenvironmentalcosts.

LanduseandlandusechangeLandisthebasisoffoodproduction,butisafiniteresource.Thetriplingoffoodproductionoverthelast50years(FAO,2017)haspartlybeensupportedbybringingmorelandintoproduction,butatthesametimehasresultedinsignificantdegradationandsoilerosion.

Livestock grazing and feed production on arable land occupy almost one-third of the global ice-freeterrestrial land surface (Steinfeld et al. 2006). They are used to appropriate the majority of globalphytomass capturedbyhumanactivity,mostly by converting vegetalmaterial of no immediateotherusebywayofruminantproduction.Intotal,cropandlivestockproductionaccountsfor78percentofglobalhumanappropriationofnetprimaryproductivity(HANPP),theremaining22percentmadeupbyforestry, infrastructure,andhuman-inducedfires(Haberletal.,2007).Krausmannetal (2008)suggestthat 58 percent of directly used human-appropriated biomass was utilized by the livestock sector in2000,whileDavisandD’Odorico(2015)estimatedthathalfofallcropcalorieproductionwasusedforfeed in 2011. Considering the inefficiencies inherent to biological feed conversion, the expectedexpansion of livestock productionwill likely grow as a share in anthropogenic biomass consumption.

3

Biomass appropriation does not necessarily imply a negative impact on the environment. In properlymanagedgrass-basedsystems,grazingandmowingcontributetoincreasedecosystemproductivityandbiodiversity.Demonstrations in the State ofGeorgia (USA)with grass-fed beef production has shownwithappropriatemanagementofpasture lands,theycansequestermorecarbonequivalentsthanthebeef producing enterprise emits (WOF, 2019). Derner et al. (1997) reported increased soil carbonstorage in grazed versus non-grazed pastures in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado. Inmanyregions,grasslandsrepresenttheonlyviablesystemoffoodproductionandenablecommunitiestoinhabit,andprosperin,aridandsemi-aridregions.However,livestocksystems,particularlyinfragilelandscapeswithhighlyvariableclimatethatlivestockoftenoccupy,areoftenimpliedinextensivelanddegradation(SteinfeldandGerber,2010;AshandMelvor,2005).

Livestockareanimportantlanduser,directlyaspasturesandindirectlythroughtheirdemandforfeedproducedonarableland.Grassaccountsforcloseto46percentoffeeduseinlivestocksystemsandisacrucialfeedresourceforbothgrazingandmixedproductionsystems(Mottet,etal.,2017).

Grasslands are facing increasing threats by multiple anthropogenic activities. The Land DegradationAssessment inDrylands (LADA) concluded thatabout16percentof rangelandsare severelydegraded(FAO, 2010). Other studies also reported severe degradation in grazing biomes. Nabuurs (2004)estimated that about 5 percent of soil organic carbon has been lost from overgrazed ormoderatelydegradedtemperateand/orborealgrasslands.Morerecently,Leetal.(2014),estimatedthatabout40percentofgrasslandsexperienceddegradationbetween1982and2006. Inmanypartsof,grasslandsarebeingconvertedeithertocroplandsordegradedfromovergrazingbylivestock.Onlyaround20%ofNorthAmerica'scentralgrasslandshavenotyetbeendevelopedorconvertedtocropland,andmuchofwhatremainsisutilizedforcattlegrazing(Samson,etal.,1998).InChina,grasslanddegradationinInnerMongoliaisbelievedgenerallytobeamajorreasonfortheincreasedfrequencyofseveresandandduststormsinnorthernChinainrecentdecades,particularlyinBeijingandadjacentregions(Shietal.,2004).

Many of theworld's grasslands are in poor condition and showing signs of degradation caused by avarietyof reasons,mostly related toovergrazingand the resultingproblemsof soilerosionandweedencroachment.Manyoftheproblems,particularlyinlowincomecountries,arisefromthebreakdownoftraditional management with centuries-old nomadic and transhumant grazing systems. Populationgrowth,urbanization,collectivizationandsubsequentbreak-upofcollectivefarms,andlanddistributionhaveallcontributedtothedeclineoftraditionalgrazingsystemsinmanyregions,andtheirreplacementwithcontinuousovergrazingandsubsequentdeterioration.

In intensive livestock operations, the need for external feed drives up demand for crops and land togrowthem.Today,aboutone-thirdofglobalcroplandisusedtoproducefeedcrops(Mottetetal.2017).Unlikeruminantsystems,whichmainlyrequiregrazingareas,intensiveporkandpoultrysystemsrelyoncropland elsewhere for feed production. Soybean production for livestock feed becomes especiallyrelevant in this regard because of its concentration in deforested areas in Latin America. The addedimpacts of land-use change in systems that source feeds from high-deforestation areas can certainlyoutweigh thegains fromhigherproductivity—this impact in factexplains thehigheroverallemissionsassociatedwithintensiveporkproductionatthegloballevel(FAO,2013).Additionally,sincemarketsforlivestockfeedareglobal,anyincreaseindemandcanresultincontinuedpressureforlandconversioninfeedproductionregions.Thereareotherindirectpathwaysthroughwhichsoybeancouldbeleadingtodeforestation. For example, Fearnside (2005) suggests thatwhilepastureoccupies vast areasof land,soybeancultivationcarriesthepoliticalweightnecessarytoinduceinfrastructureimprovements,whichinturnstimulatescropexpansion.Further,Nepstadetal(2006)suggestthatgrowthoftheBraziliansoyindustry may have indirectly led to the expansion of the cattle herd. According to several studies(Nepstadetal.,2006; Cattaneo,2008;Dros2004),soybeanhasdrivenuplandpricesintheAmazon(5–

4

10foldinmanyareasofMatoGrosso)andSouthAmerica,allowingmanycattlerancherstosellvaluableholdingsatenormouscapitalgainsandpurchasenewlandfurthernorthandexpandtheirherdfurther.

Such pressures have contributed to the conversion of land fromnatural habitats to agricultural uses,particularlyintropicalforestareas.Landuseconversionfromforesttopastureisdrivenbydemandforlivestockproducts,limitedalternativestolivestockproductionintheseareas,profitsthatcanbemadein land appreciation at the agricultural frontier, and lack of enforcement of policies and regulations.Landisalsoclearedforproducingfeedcrops,andconversionofgoodpasturestocrops(andviceversa;Nicholson et al., 1995) is also widespread. Converting natural ecosystems reduces biodiversity andecosystemservices(e.g.,pollination,pestcontrol,floodcontrol).Currentpasturemanagementpracticesoftenresultinlanddegradation,whichresultsintheneedformoreforestclearing,andpastureburningtopromoteregrowthandnutrientcyclingleadstoadditionalforestlossesfromaccidentalfires.Forestclearing,oftenthroughburning,releaseslargeamountsofCO2totheatmosphere,andgreaterlivestocknumbersalsoincreaseGHGemissions.Atthesametime,theabilityofterrestrialecosystemstoabsorbgases(especiallyCO2)isreducedbyforestclearing.

LivestockproductioninachangingclimateFuturelivestockproductionrequiresadaptationtoacomplexsuiteofimpactslinkedtoclimatechange:higher temperatures; changes in rainfall patterns, amounts and intensity, andmoreextremeweatherevents; requirements for GHGmitigation; potential competition for land resources for production ofhuman food, animal feed, fuels, and carbon sequestration and increasing input costs due to watershortage and higher energy costs; and expectations that sustainable production and environmentalprotectionbedemonstrated.

Globally, the livestock sector contributes 14.5 percent (7.1 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent) of globalanthropogenicemissions(FAO,2013),consideringnotonlydirectemissionsfromanimalsandmanure,but also emissions associated with feed production and land use change, as well as processing andtransport.Methane (CH4) emissions from livestock are estimated to be approximately 3.1 Gt CO2 eq.accounting for 44 percent of the total anthropogenic methane emissions. Furthermore, the globallivestocksectorcontributes3.1GtCO2eq.ofnitrousoxide(N2O),about72percentoftheanthropogenicN2Oemissions.ThecontributionofactualCO2emissionsfromthelivestocksectorareestimatedat2GtCO2,or6percentoftheglobalanthropogenicCO2emissions(FAO,2013).

Livestockcontributebothdirectlyandindirectlytoclimatechange.Directemissionsareproducedfromtheanimalandareassociatedwithbiologicalprocessessuchasenteric fermentationandmanureandurine excretion. Specifically, ruminants produce CH4 directly as a byproduct of digestion via entericfermentation (i.e., fermenting organic matter via methanogenic microbes producing CH4 as an end-product). Methane and N2O emissions are produced from nitrification/denitrification of manure andurine.Directemissionsrepresent49percentoftheemissionsfromlivestock(FAO,2013).Indirectemissionsrefertoemissionsassociatedwithactivitiessuchasfeedproduction(CO2andN2O),manure storageandapplication (N20 andCH4), productionof fertilizer for feedproduction (CO2), andprocessingandtransportationoffeed,animals,andlivestockproducts(CO2).Theseemissionsrepresent41percentofthelivestockemissions.

Additional indirect emissions include emissions from land use linked to livestock production. Theseemissions are associated with deforestation (i.e., conversion of forest to pasture and cropland forlivestockpurposes),desertification(i.e.,degradationofabovegroundvegetationfromlivestockgrazing),and release of C from cultivated soils (i.e., loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) via tilling, and natural

5

processes).FAOestimateslivestockinducedlandusechangeforfeedproductiontoberesponsibleforalmost10percentoftotallivestockemissions(FAO,2013).

Globally, there is more carbon in soil than in terrestrial plants and the atmosphere combined.Grasslandsarethelargestterrestrialcarbonsink,occupyingabout70percentoftheglobalagriculturalareaandareestimatedtocontainglobally343billiontonnesofcarbon,nearly50percentmorethanisstored in forests worldwide (FAO, 2010). The large area under grasslands implies that even smallincrementsofchange insoilcarbonstocks ingrasslandcanhaveasignificant impactonglobalcarbonbalance(Sacksetal.,2014).Ingrazinglandssoilcarbonstocksaresusceptibletolossuponconversiontootherlandusesorfollowingactivitiesthatleadtodegradation(e.g.,overgrazing).Pastureareahasbeenshrinking while arable land area has been growing, suggesting continued conversion of grassland tocroplands.Around20percentoftheworld'snativegrasslandshavebeenconvertedtocultivatedcrops(Ramankuttyetal.2008).Emissionsfromcattledominatelivestock-relatedemissions,contributingaround65percentofthetotal.Buffaloesandsmall ruminantsadda further9percentand7percent respectively, so inall ruminantsaccountforover80%oftotallivestockrelatedclimateimpacts,mostsignificantlyviaentericmethane–whicharehighest,perunitofmilkormeat,ingrazingsystems.

Emission intensities (i.e.emissionsperunitofproduct)vary fromcommodity tocommodity.Theyarehighest forbeef (almost300kgCO2-eqperkilogramofproteinproduced), followedbymeatandmilkfrom small ruminants (165 and 112kg CO2-eq.kg, respectively). Cowmilk, chicken products and porkhave lower global average emission intensities (below 100 CO2-eq/kg protein). Current livestockproduction systems operate at very different levels of efficiency. As a result, emissions per unit ofproduct,oremissionintensities,canvarysubstantiallywithinsystems.Forexample,emissionintensitiesforbeefvaryfrom100to490kgCO2-eq/kgprotein.

Regional emissions and country emission profiles vary widely. Differences are explained by therespective shares of ruminants or monogastrics in total livestock production, and by differences inemissionintensitiesforeachproduct,betweenregions.LatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanhasthehighestleveloflivestockemissions(almost1.3GtCO2eq.)duetotheimportanceofbeef.Althoughatareducedpace inrecentyears,ongoing land-usechangecontributestohighCO2emissions intheregion,duetotheexpansionofbothpastureandcroplandforfeedproduction.Withthehighestlivestockproductionandrelativelyhighemission intensities for itsbeefandpork,EastAsiahasthesecondhighest leveloflivestock emissions (more than 1 Gt CO2 eq.). North America andWestern Europe show similar GHGemissiontotals(over0.6GtCO2eq.)andalsofairlysimilarlevelsofproteinoutput.However,emissionpatternsaredifferent.InNorthAmerica,almosttwo-thirdsofemissionsoriginatefrombeefproductionwhichhashighemissionintensities.Incontrast,beefinWesternEuropemainlycomesfromdairyherdswithmuchloweremissionintensities.InNorthAmerica,emissionintensitiesforchicken,porkandmilkare lower than in Western Europe because the region generally relies on feed with lower emissionintensity. South Asia’s total sector emissions are at the same level as North America and WesternEuropebutitsproteinproductionishalfwhatisproducedinthoseareas.Ruminantscontributealargeshare due to their high emission intensity. For the same reason, emissions in sub-Saharan Africa arelarge,despitealowproteinoutput(FAO,2013).

Climatechangeposesaseriousthreattothelivestocksector,althoughthemagnitudeoftheimpactsisuncertain because of the complex interactions and feedback processes in the ecosystem and theeconomy.Shiftsinclimaticconditionsareaffectinglivestockproductioninseveralways(Rojas-Downing

6

etal.,2017). Temperature increases,shifts inrainfalldistributionandincreasedfrequencyofextremeweather events are expected to adversely affect livestock production and productivity in mostlocations.1 This can occur directly through increased heat stress and reduced water availability, andindirectlythroughreducedfeedandfodderqualityandavailability(Chapmanetal.,2012;Polleyetal.,2013;Thorntonetal.,2009),increaseddiseasepressure(Lacetera,2019),andcompetitionforresourceswith other sectors (FAO, 2010; Thornton et al. 2009; Thornton and Gerber, 2010; Thornton 2010;Nardoneetal.,2010).

While the effects of climate change on livestock are diverse, more serious impacts are expected ingrazingsystems,duetotheirdirectdependenceonambientconditionsaffectedbyclimatechange,andtheir limited adaptation options (Aydinalp and Cresser, 2008 Thornton et al, 2009). Impacts areexpected to be most severe in arid and semi-arid grazing systems at low latitudes, where highertemperatures and lower rainfall is expected to reduce rangeland yields and increase degradation(Hoffman and Vogel, 2008). Predicted changes in climate and weather are likely to result in morevariablepastureproductivityandquality,increasedlivestockheatstress,greaterpestandweedeffects,more frequent and longer droughts, more intense rainfall events, and greater risks of soil erosion(Stokesetal.2010).Climatechangemayalsoimpactongrazingsystemsbyalteringspeciescompositioninmixedswards.Forexample,warmingfavourstropical(C4)speciesovertemperate(C3)species,withassociatedchangesinpasturequality(Howdenetal.2008).Augustineetal.(2018)reportedthatshort-grass prairie grass in the United States when grown in-situ under CO2 enrichment and warming,increased in net primary production but declined inmetabolizable energy and protein concentration.WhiletheabsolutemagnitudeofthedeclineinenergyandnitrogenduetocombinedwarmingandCO2enrichment is relatively small, suchshiftscanhavesubstantial consequences for theruminantgrowthratesduringtheprimarygrowingseasoninthelargestremainingrangelandecosysteminNorthAmerica(Augustineetal.,2018).

Incontrast, thedirect impactsofclimatechangearemore limitedonnon-grazingsystems,asanimalsare housed in buildings which allow greater control over ambient conditions (Thornton and Gerber2010; FAO 2010). Indirect impacts from lower crop yields, feed scarcity and higher feed and energypricesarenonethelessimportantinthesesystemsaswell.

Withinthesebroadtrends,therewillbelargelocalvariations,astheimpactsofclimatechangearelikelytobehighlyspatiallyspecific.

The impactofclimatechangeon livestockproduction isalsogreatly influencedby thevulnerabilityoflivestockkeepers,whoareoftenpoor.Traditionally,livestockkeepershavebeencapableofadaptingtolivelihoodthreatsandinsomesituationslivestockkeepingisitselfanadaptationstrategy.Eventhoughclimatechangepresentsgreatadaptationchallengesforlivestock,itcouldalsoelevatetheimportanceoflivestock,giventhegreatercapacityforlivestocktocopewithincreasedclimatevariabilitycomparedto cropping. Jones and Thornton (2009) predict that climate change and variability is likely to induceshiftsfromcroppingtoincreaseddependenceonlivestockinAfrica.

Adoptionofmanagementchangesforlongertermadaptationiscurrentlylimitedbyuncertaintyaboutthe local impacts of climate change, and limited information on the best response strategies forprofitablefarmingenterprises.Researchisneededtobetterunderstandthedirectandindirecteffectsofclimatechangeonanimalproductionsystemsfordevelopmentofregionallyapplicable, longertermadaptationstrategies(Garnaut,2011;FAOandIPCC,2017).

1Theremayalsobepositiveimpactsfromwarmtemperaturesathigherlatitudesthoughreductionsincoldstressforanimalsraisedoutside,andthroughreductionsinwinterheatingcostsinconfinedsystems(FAO,2009).

7

WaterUseWaterusageforthelivestocksectorshouldbeconsideredanintegralpartofagriculturalwaterresourcemanagement,consideringthetypeofproductionsystem(e.g.grassland-based,mixedcrop–livestockorlandless) and scale (intensive or extensive), the species and breeds of livestock, and the social andculturalaspectsoflivestockfarmingindifferentcountries(Schlink,NguyenandViljoen,2010).

Consumptivewater use in livestock is generally divided into two categories: (1) drinking and processwater–directbluewateruse;and(2)wateruseforproductionoffeed,fodderandgrazing–blue(i.e.,irrigation)andgreen(i.e.,rainfall)wateruse2.Livestockproductionrequireshighamountsofwater,thevastmajorityofwhichcomesfromindirectwateruse.Deutschetal.(2010)estimatedthatthelivestocksectorusesanequivalentof11900km³offreshwaterannually,thatisapproximately10percentoftheannual global water flows (estimated at 111000km³).Weindl et al. (2017) estimated that for 2010,2290km3ofgreenwaterand370km3ofbluewaterwereattributedtofeedproductiononcropland.

Daily water requirements of livestock vary significantly between animal species, and within herds,differentiated by the animal's size and growth stage. Consumption rates can be affected byenvironmental andmanagement factors, such as air temperature, relative humidity,metabolism andlevel of production. The quality of the water, which includes temperature, salinity and impuritiesaffectingtasteandodour,alsohasaneffect.Further,thewatercontentoftheanimal'sdietinfluencesitsdrinkingwaterneeds.Feedwitharelativelyhighmoisturecontentdecreasesthequantityofdrinkingwaterrequired.Forexample,dependingontheirlevelofmilkproduction,dairycowsdrinkbetween68-155litresofwaterperday(OMAFRA,2015),whileswinedrinkbetween2.6-22litresperday(Meehanetal., 2015), small ruminantsdrinkbetween2-12 litresperday (DAF, 2014), andpoultrydrinkbetween0.05-0.77litresperday.

Apart from drinking water for livestock, water is used to grow and process feed, and for processingoutputintomarketableproducts.Gerbens-Leenesetal.(2013)foundonaverage,thewaterfootprintofconcentrates(1000m3tonne-1;globalaverage)isfivetimeslargerthanthewaterfootprintofroughages(grass,cropresiduesandfoddercrops;200m3tonne-1).Asroughagesaremainlyrain-fedandcropsforconcentratesareoftenirrigatedandfertilized,theblueandgreywaterfootprintsofconcentrateswerefoundtobe43and61timesthatofroughages,respectively.

Thedifferenceinwaterrequirementshasanimpactonthetotalwateruseforaspecificproductrelyingonthegrainfromaparticularregion.Onekilogramofgrainusedinlivestockfeedrequiresabout1000to 2000 kg of water if the feed is grown in the Netherlands or Canada. The same grain, however,requires approximately 3000 to 5000 kg of water if grown in an arid region like Egypt or Israel(ChapagainandHoekstra,2003).

Inadditiontoeffectsonquantityused,loadingofnutrients,pesticides,andantibiotics(Chee-Sanfordetal.2009)usedinagriculturehavenegativeeffectsonwaterqualityandposepublichealthproblemsforhumans. Phosphorous and nitrogen fertilizer pollution in particular is notorious for producing algalbloomsandanoxicdeadzonesinbothfreshwaterandcoastalmarinesystems,whichkillfishandreducethepalatability of drinkingwater for human consumption. Globally, there areover 400 coastal deadzones–upfrom49inthe1960s–andtheseareexpandingattherateof10percentperdecade(DiazandRosenberg,2008).Anadditional115sitesintheBalticSeawereaddedtothelistin2011(Conleyetal.2011).IntheUnitedStatesalone,agricultureisestimatedtohaveaccountedforaround60percent

2Bluewater represents surfaceandgroundwater,whereasgreenwater representswater lost fromtheunsaturatedzoneofsoilsbyevaporationandtranspirationfromplantsderiveddirectlyfromrainfall(Falkenmark,2003).Graywater,atheoreticalestimate of the amount of water necessary to dilute pollutants, varies widely depending on the pollutant (e.g., nitrate,syntheticorganicchemicals)andthethresholdsselectedfortheirconcentrations.

8

ofriverpollution,30percentoflakepollutionand15percentofestuarineandcoastalpollutionin2010(OECD,2012;2013).

NutrientuseandcyclinginlivestocksystemsLivestockhaveapositiveroleinbalancedagriculturalsystemsinthattheycanprovidealargepartofthenutrients for food production. The increasing use of synthetic fertilizer has played a major role inincreasingthesupplyoffoodnecessarytosupportarapidlygrowinghumanpopulation,andforallowinga higher share of livestock products in human diets. These gains in human nutrition are howeveraccompanied by additional nutrient use and environmental degradation. Rapid growth in the flow ofnutrients through food systems to feed a growing and more affluent population is causing seriousenvironmentalandpublichealthimpactsbecauseoflargeleakagesinthetransformationprocess.

Today, nutrients are used inefficiently in most agri-food systems – resulting in enormous andunnecessary losses to the environment, with impacts ranging from air and water pollution to theunderminingofimportantecosystems(andservices)aswellasthelivelihoodstheysupport.

Animals requirespecificnutrients in thecorrectamountandcomposition tooptimizeproductivity.Allnutrient elements are taken up via feed and water ingested. The amounts taken up depend on thenutrient element, animal type, body mass, productivity, and management. Feeding regimes areformulatedwithasafetymarginbyincreasingtheconcentrationsofnutrientsbeyondthoseneededtomeet requirements. Therefore, overfeeding results in excretion of excessive nutrients. A largepercentage of the nutrient elements consumed in the feed is excreted via dung and urine (typicallybetween 60% and >90% of the nutrients present in feed, depending on animal species, feedcomposition,productivityandmanagement(Liuetal.,2017).Mineralsupplements(e.g.Cu,Zn,Se,Ca,Mg)areoffered toanimals toboostproductivityand improvehealth.This supplementationofanimalfeeds also enhances the nutrient content in animalmanure, and hence the fertilization value of theanimalmanure.However,excessivesupplementationcanalsomakemanureapollutant.

Livestocksystemsarehighlydiverseintheirnutrientmanagement.Ingrazingsystems,mostofthedungandurineisdepositedonpasturesandnutrientsarethusrecycled,buttherecyclingofNandPisoftenlowduetothespatiallyunevendistributionofmanure.Inmixedcrop–livestockfarms,therecyclinganduse of manure nutrients greatly depends on the management of manure, manure managementtechnology, availability of synthetics substitutes and regulations. Recycling of manure nutrients ischallenging in large industrialproductionsystemswithreducedaccessto landformanureapplication,resultinginnutrientloadingandpollution.

Animal manure is a large source of organic carbon and nutrients, and important for improving soilquality and the fertilization of crops. Returning manure to land is one of the oldest examples of acirculareconomy.FAOestimatesthatabout70percentofthenitrogeningestedisreturnedto landinthe form of animal manure. While this figure seems impressive, much of the recycled nutrients isimprecisely applied resulting in unbalanced fertilization. In addition, not all nutrients are availableimmediatelyforuptakebyplantsandthereforelosttotheenvironment.

Furthermore, inappropriate collection, storage and subsequent application of manure to croplandcontributetohighlossesofmanurenutrientstoairandwaterbodies.ManureNandParenoteffectivelyusedincropproductiondueto:(1)theoftenincompletecollectionandinappropriatestorageofmanurefromhousedanimals,with largevolatilizationand leaching losses; (2) thepoor timingandmethodofmanureapplication;and(3)therelativelylowpricesofchemicalfertilizers.

9

The specialization and geographic concentration of livestock production since the second half of the20th century has resulted in the spatial decoupling of crop and animal production, and limited theopportunities for the utilization of nutrients in animal manure (Naylor et al., 2008). Areas with highanimaldensityproduceexcessvolumesofnutrients in relationto localcapacityof landtoabsorbthisload.Inlargeindustriallivestockoperationsthatimportlargequantitiesofnutrientsintheformoffeed,nutrientoverloadsoftenresult innegativeconsequencesforenvironmentandhumanhealth.Tradeinfeed not only results in the concentration of excessive nutrients but also in the depletion of soilnutrientsinsomecountries.Asaresult,manurenutrientsareoftennotutilizedefficiently.Incontrasttothenutrientoversupplyinsomepartsoftheworld(NorthAmerica,Europe,SouthAsia,EastAsia),thereremain vast areas, notably in Africa and Latin America, where harvesting without external nutrientinputs(nutrientmining)hasledtolanddegradationanddepletionofsoilfertility(Smalingetal.1997;Sanchez,2002).

Nitrogen plays an important role in animal production because it is essential for the production ofanimaltissues,suchasmeat,milk,eggsorwool.Theglobalefficiencyofnitrogeninanimalproductionislow.Correspondingvaluesfornitrogenuseefficiency(NUE)arelowformeatanddairyproducts(5-30percent) as compared with plant-commodities (45-75 percent) (Westhoek et al., 2015). Ninety-sixmillion tonnes3 of nitrogen are excreted by livestock annually; equivalent to about 80 percent of theglobalN fertilizerdemand. Nitrogen is lost throughemissionsofammonia (NH3),nitrousoxide (N2O),andnitricoxide(NO).NH3contributestoeutrophicationandacidificationwhenredepositedontheland.NOplaysaroleintroposphericozonechemistry,andN2Oisapotentgreenhousegas.

UnlikeN, themajor concern over P is the potential pollution of surfacewater. Excess P in the soil isconverted into water-insoluble forms, which then attach to soil particles and can erode into lakes,streams, and rivers. Erosion of soil particles containing P compounds into surface waters stimulatesgrowthof algaeandotheraquaticplants. The resultingdecomposition following such increasedplantgrowthdiminishestheoxygeninthewater,creatinganenvironmentthatisunsuitableforfishandotheranimals (i.e.eutrophication).Confinedanimaloperationsandexcess fertilizationareconsidered tobethemajorsourcesofPenteringwaterbodies.Incerealgrainsandoilseedmealsthatmakeupthebulkof non-ruminant diets, two thirds of P is organically bound in the form of phytate. This form of P islargelyunavailabletomonogastricanimals.Therefore,inorganicPisaddedtodiets,usuallyinexcess,tomeet the P requirement ofmonogastric animals, leading to excess P excretion (Denbow et al. 1995;Humeretal.,2015).ThegeneralefficiencyofutilizationofdietaryP is relatively low (20–27%),andasignificantamountofPiscontainedinlitterandmanure(Ferketetal.2002).

Trace elements are essential dietary components for livestock species. However, they also exhibit astrong toxic potential.When supplemented in doses above the animal requirements, trace elementsaccumulateinmanureandrepresentapotentialthreattotheenvironment.Ofparticularimportanceinthisregardisthefeedingpracticeofpharmacologicalzinc(Zn)andcopper(Cu)dosesforthepurposeofperformance enhancement in pig, poultry, and cattle production. Pigs excrete approximately 80–95percent of Cu and Zn dietary supplements (Brumm 1998) producing metal-enriched manures(Jondreville etal. 2003). Adverse environmental effects include impairment of plant production,accumulationinedibleanimalproductsandthewatersupplychainaswellasthecorrelationbetweenincreasedtraceelementloadsandantimicrobialresistance(BruggerandWindisch,2015).Biodiversity(atdifferentlevels:species,ecosystem,agrobiodiversity)

3Source:FAO’sGlobalLivestockEnvironmentalAssessmentModel–GLEAMVersion2.0

10

The livestock sector affects biodiversity in multiple ways. Direct impacts occur through grazing andtrampling,changingvegetativecoverandnaturalhabitats.Indirectimpactsresultfromlivestockincludelandclearingforconversiontopasturesorarablelandforfeedoralterationofnutrientflows.Livestockproduction can drive the destruction of undisturbed habitats in biodiversity hotspots, such as in theconversionofprimaryforesttopasturesorsoybeanintheBrazilianAmazon(Nepstadetal.,2009).

In grasslands, the relationship between biodiversity and stocking density often follows a Gaussianfunction,withthehighestbiodiversity levelsfoundatmoderatestockingdensitieswherelivestockcanplaythesameroleaswildherbivores(suchasbisoninNorthAmerica,Collinsetal.,1996)inpromotingplantspeciesrichnessandmaintainingahigh-qualitygrasslandhabitatforothertaxa.Thetwoendsofthe stocking density gradient can result in biodiversity loss: abandonment because it leads to shrubencroachmentandthelossofgrasslandspeciesandoverstockingasitleadstolanddegradation(Asneretal.,2004).IntheUnitedStates,rangelandssupplyforagesthatsupportaround10%oftheruminants’needs, and with adequate livestock management they promote biodiversity conservation but alsoprovideotherecosystemservices- carbonsequestrationandwaterprovisioninparticular(Havstadetal.,2007). Grazingungulatesplaysakeyecologicalrole ingrasslands,andcancontributepositivelytonumerous ecosystem services. Grazing is one of the significant tools available for grasslandmanagementandisoftenthepreferredmanagementtooltoobtainmultiplegoals,includingvegetationmanagement to reduce wildfire fuel loads, control of invasive weeds, maintain grassland habitat forsensitivespecies,supportadiverseplantcommunitystructure,increasecarbonsequestration,regulatebeneficialnutrientcycling,controlencroachingbrushspeciesandenhancewildlifehabitat(DeRamusetal.2003).Intropicalenvironments,thereplacementofcomplexforesthabitats(dryandhumidforests)bypasturemonocultureshasalsoleadtohighbiodiversitylossandhabitatdestruction.Inthesecases,biodiversityconservationand recovery requireacombinationof forestpatchesandamorepermeableproductivematricwhere the tree coverplays an important role (Gardneret al., 2009;KremerandMerenlender,2018).

Through livestock’scontributiontoGHGemissions (Gerberetal.,2013), livestock indirectlycontributeto biodiversity loss caused by climate change – the second yet increasingly important driver ofbiodiversitylossafterhabitatchange(Leadleyetal.,2010).Nutrientpollutionistheothermaindriverofindirect impacts of livestock on biodiversity; it reduces species richness through eutrophication,acidification, direct foliar impacts, and exacerbation of other stresses (Diseet al2011, Bobbinketal2010).AstrikingexampleincludesnutrientrunofffromgrazingsystemsintheNortheasterncoastofAustraliahavinganimpactoncoralsintheGreatBarrierReef(AustralianGovernment,2014).Nutrientpollutionalsooccursat the stageof feedproduction. For instance,nutrient loading in theMississippidue to fertilizeruse in thecentralUScroplands (mainlyusedasanimal feed)has causedhypoxiaand‘deadzones’inthecoastalecosystem(Donner,2007).

Morethan8800livestockbreedshavebeenrecordedglobally;theyunderpinthecapacityoflivestocktoprovidediverseproductsandservicesacrossdiverseenvironments.Theproportionof livestockbreedsatriskofextinction increasedfrom15to17percentbetween2005and2014(FAO,2015).Nearly100livestock breeds worldwide have gone extinct between 2000 and 2014. Europe/Caucasus and NorthAmerica are the two regions with the highest proportion of at-risk breeds. Both regions arecharacterizedbyhighlyspecialized livestock industriesthattendtouseonlyasmallnumberofbreedsforproduction.IntheUS,outof284reportedbreedsoflivestock,110areatriskofextinction.Themaindrivers of loss of animal genetic resources include cross-breeding, changing market demands,weaknessesinanimalgeneticresourcesmanagementprograms,policiesandinstitutions,degradationof

11

naturalresources,climatechangeanddiseaseepidemics.Animalgeneticresourcesareessentialtocopewithclimatechange,diseases,changingmarketsandlimitednaturalresources.

1. InnovationstoenhancesustainabilityoflivestocksystemsDespitesubstantialprogressmade, today’sagri-foodsystemsfallsshortofmeetingpeople’snutrition,environmental and socio-economic needs. Billions of people are still poorly nourished, millions oflivestock producers live at subsistence level, enormous amounts of food go to waste and poorproduction practices are taking a toll on the environment and natural resource base. Innovations intechnology–aswellasinpolicy,financing,andbusinessmodels–areessentialtorealizingasustainablelivestocksector.

Globallivestockproductionhasalreadybenefittedfromawiderangeofinnovations.Advancesinanimalnutritionandhealth,improvedartificialbreedingtechniques,plantbreeding,useoffertilizersandcropprotectionchemicals,mechanizationandtherecentadditionofbiotechnologyaresomeexamples.

Providing sufficient, safenutritious food formore than9billionpeopleby2050,whileprotectingourplanet,presentsanenormoustask.Innovationwillbethefundamentalengineoflong-termgrowthandis crucial toenablingemergingeconomies togrowsustainably. Examplesofnew technologies includeadvanced precision livestock production technologies; digitalization and data enabled differentiationtechnologies e.g. big data, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence and robotics and block-chain;anddevelopmentofnovelproducts.

Newtechnologyisnotonlyaboutimprovingefficiency–itisalsohelpingmakeahugedifferencetothehealthandwell-beingofanimals.Anexampleofanintegratedprecisionlivestockfarmingframeworkisthe IOF20204. This EuropeanUnion funded project is using sensors to collect and link real-time farmdata of individual animals/animal groups to data from slaughter plants with the intent to providefarmers with feedback on their management strategies and help to optimize animal well-being andproductionprofits.Thesenewtechnologiesarealsotransforminghowinnovationsarebeingconceptualized,designedandcommercializedand,moregenerally,howbusinessesoperate.Technologyisalsobecomingincreasinglyconnected,andmergingwithotherdisciplinese.g.engineeringandbiology.Biologyandbiotechnologyoffer potential to improve the efficiency of food production from livestock; to reduce environmentalimpactperunit foodproduced; to reduce the impactofdisease; improveanimalwelfare; toenhanceproductqualityandnutritionalvalue,andtosafeguardhumanhealth.Innovativewaystoprotect,treatandtendtotheanimalsmeansthefieldofanimalhealthisnowevolvingtoparalleladvancesinhumancare.Forexample,theOneHealthInitiative5advocatesforcollaborationbetweenmedicaldisciplinestolinkhumanandanimalmedicines.

It is important to recognize that addressing the challenges outlined above requires changes andinnovations beyond the food system.Within the context of the food system, innovation canoccur inmanyrelevantareas.Withinthetechnologyarea,advancesinbigdataandanalytics,block-chain,mobileservices, internet of things and biotechnologies, among others, are all changing the way food isproduced,distributedandconsumed.Beyondthedevelopmentofnewtechnologysolutions,innovationencompasses social innovation: new economic and business models, new policy and governanceapproaches.Finally, innovationinthefoodsystemcantouchdiversepartsofthevaluechain(on-farm

4InternetofFoodandFarm2020:https://www.iof2020.eu/trials/meat5 OneHealthInitiative:http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

12

production or retail), different production sectors (crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry), productcategories(crops,meat,dairy,etc.),ormultiplebenefitareas(nutrition,livelihoods,biodiversity,soilorwaterquality,etc.).

Innovationsthatimprovetheefficiencyoflivestocksystems

Onepotentialsolutionistomakelivestocksystemsincrementallymoreproductiveandmoreefficientin resource use. Inmany parts of theworld, technological innovations have revolutionized livestockproduction and have helped to deliver considerable improvements in livestock productivity. Forexample,intheUSA,dairycowsproducefourtimesmoremilkthan75yearsago(Capperetal.,2009).This increased productivity is attributed to improved genetics, advanced technology, and bettermanagement practices, including advanced breeding innovations (artificial insemination, embryotransplants, and sexed semen) (Khanal and Gillespie, 2013). Blayney (2002) cites technologicalinnovationssubstitutionofmachineryandequipment(capitalinputs)forlaborincreasedtheefficiencyofproduction);changesinthemilkproductionsystem,andspecializationasthemainunderlyingforcesthatshapedthedirectionandmagnitudeofmilkproductionintheUSA.

However, there is a large yield gap between actual and potential productivity in many livestocksystems,andproductivityisstillstubbornlylowinlargepartsofsub-SaharanAfrica,LatinAmericaandSouth Asia. High income countries already enjoy the benefits of past innovations that have sharplyincreasedproductionandresourceefficiency.Newandemergingtechnologiescouldallowthemtogoeven further, while enabling developing nations to “leapfrog” to highly productive, low-carbonproductionsystems.With technologiessuchasgenomesequencing, semensexing,optimizedanimaldiets, animal health technologies (e.g. improved diagnostics and genomics applied to vaccinedevelopment) andembryo transfer, scienceand technology could soonbring someanimals topeakproductivity.

Farmers and agricultural companies are increasingly using ‘smart farming’ solutions to enhanceefficiency, productivity and decision making. Such technologies not only aid the monitoring andmanagement of production, but also generate large volumes of data that can be gathered, analyzed,andinterpretedtoinformcriticalfarmingdecisions.

Technologiesofprecision livestock farming (PLF)havethepotential tocontributetothewidergoalofmeeting the increasing demand for foodwhilst ensuring the sustainability of production, based on amorepreciseandresourceefficientapproachtoproductionmanagement–inessence‘producingmorewith less’.Withtheexplosion inthedigital revolution, technologies focusedon, forexample,BigDataand‘theInternetofThings’havealsoopenednumerousdoorsfortheadvancementofprecisionfarmingtechniques. The importance of PLF is growing globally, as evidenced by current agricultural researchagendas intheEU(EuropeanCommission,2018)andUS(NationalAcademiesofSciences,EngineeringandMedicine,2018).

PLFemergedfromtheneedtoinformfarmersmoreregularlyandinmoredetailonthehealth,welfareand productivity of their animals and to help themmake quick and evidence-based decisions on theanimals' needs (Norton and Berckmans, 2018). It is a management system for livestock throughcontinuous automated real-time monitoring of production/reproduction, health, the welfare oflivestock,andenvironmentalimpact.Farmprocessessuitableforprecisionlivestockproductionincludeanimalgrowth,milkandeggproduction,detectionandmonitoringofdiseasesandaspects related toanimalbehaviorandthephysicalenvironmentsuchasthethermalmicro-environmentandemissionsofgaseouspollutants.AdvancedprecisionmanagementtechnologiesthatcombineIT-basedmanagementsystems,andreal-timedatamonitoring,bigdataanalyticsandadvancedroboticscouldallowfarmersto

13

apply the optimal amount of inputs for each animal and crop and assist with the management oflivestock, thereby boosting yields and reducing resource use andwaste including GHG emissions.Bytrackinginputs,suchasfeed,waterandenergy,thesetechnologiesallowfarmerstomonitorresources,as well as the health, welfare and performance of their animals (Berckmans, 2014; Bell andTzimiropoulos,2018).

Livestockfarmersinhighincomecountrieshavebeenearlyadoptersoftechnologiessuchasrobotics,andrapidadvancesarebeingmadeineverythingfromautomaticmilking,tofeederstoherderbots,designedtoactlikeroboticshepherds.Thetake-upisarelativelysmallpercentageatthemoment,butan EU foresight studypredicts that around50percent of European cowswill bemilkedby robots by2025 (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2016) This technology is more than labor saving:automated milking robots enable cows to be milked according to their individual biorhythms,improving theirhealthandyield.At thesametime, robots capturevastamountsof information.Allthisdigitaldatacanbeusedtoprovidethefarmerwithanoverviewofthehealthofawholeherdaswellasspecificinformationforindividualanimals.

Supporting this is better nutrition, improving an animal’s conversion of feed into protein. Addingnaturalenzymesandorganicacidsincreasesthedigestibilityoffeeds,enablinganimalstodrawmorenutrition from a greater variety of poorer plants. A growing understanding of animals’ precisenutritional needs is producing feeds tailored to optimize their energy, protein, and vitamins whileimproving overall wellbeing—better yields and healthier herds. Precision feeding can be a highlyeffectivetoolinenablingareductionoffeedintakeperanimalwhilealsomaximizingindividualgrowthrates. Themonitoringofthegrowingherdwheremeasurementofgrowthinrealtimeisimportanttoprovideproducerswithfeedconversionandgrowthrates.Itenablestheprovisionoftherightamountoffeed,intherightnutrientcomposition,attherighttime,andforeachanimalindividually(WhiteandCapper,2014).

Maintenanceofhealthwillbeoneofthebiggestchallengesforefficientlivestockproductioninthenextfewdecades.Thetrajectoryofintensificationoflivestocksystemsraisesproductivitybutcanalsohaveadverse effects on animal health and welfare, and may increase the risk of rapid and far-reachingdiseaseoutbreaks.Tomeetthecurrentandemergingchallengesofdiseasesurveillance,diagnosticsandcontrol,earlydiseasedetectionandresponseareimperative.Thisinvolvestheabilitytoperformrapiddiagnosisonthefarmitself.ThroughICTandtheIoT,moreperformance-relateddatacanbecollectedfrom the animals, for example through cameras and image recognition software, sensors, as well asweightorsoundmonitoring.Inaddition,datafromlivestockfacilitiescanalsohelptoimproveanimalhealth,forexamplethroughclimate,airqualityandventilationmonitoring.AnexampleistheIndividualPigCareamanagementtool forpig farmers,basedonenhancingthedirectobservationof thepigs inthe nursery-growing phase, to allow early detection of health problems and therefore have thenecessaryinformationtoeffectarapidresponsetothem(Pineiroetal.,2014).Inaddition,newsystemsfordatamonitoring for feedandwaterconsumptioncanbeused for theearlydetectionof infections(Shietal.,2019).Acousticsensorscandetectanincreaseincoughingofpigsandcalves(Carpentieretal.,2018)asanindicatorofrespiratoryinfection.

While PLF potentially brings new information or data sources for enhanced farm level monitoring,awareness, and decision making, adoption by the farmer is reliant on the perceived benefits andinvestment needed, which may be influenced by the production system i.e., high versus low inputsystem.

Increasing production efficiency is essential to sustain socio-economic progress in a world of finiteresources and ecosystem capacity, but it is not sufficient. The aggregate impactwill depend on how

14

productivitygrowthwillbemet.There isan increasingbodyofevidenceshowingthat it ispossibletoreducestocknumbersandthusreduceGHGemissions,whilemaintainingorimprovingprofitability.Theflip side to efficiency gains is as farmers reduce emissions by becoming more efficient they will betemptedto increaseanimalnumbers tomakemoreprofit. Ifanimalnumberskeep increasing, there’slittleroomforloweringemissions.Moreanimalsmeansmorefeed,moreland,nutrientsandemissions.These types of feedback effects suggest that there is a need to look beyond isolated efficiencyimprovements and instead address in an integratedway theproductionof livestock products, such aperspectiveimpliesidentifyingthatoptimallevelofproductionthatdeliversenvironmentalbenefits.

InnovationstoenhancenaturalresourcestocksWhile efficient production remains necessary to reduce GHG emissions and other environmentalimpacts,itisnotsufficienttorealizeanabsolutereductioninthenaturalresourcedemandsoflivestockproduction.Naturalandmanagedecosystemsneedtobeharnessedascarbonsinkstooffsetemissionsthrough the potential offered by regenerative grazing. It includes strategies to regenerate the soil’snatural vigorandmicrobial capacity to sequester carbonandnitrogen.Regenerativegrazingpracticescanbeapplied insilvo-pastoral,agroforestryorpasture-basedsystems.Practices includemanagementof grazing to stimulate biomass growth andoverall pasture and grazingproductivity,while increasingsoil fertility,biodiversityand soil carbonsequestration.Grassland recovery canoffera solution to thegrowingpressureonlandandslowdownagriculturalexpansionintoforestsandothernaturalhabitats.Vegetative cover can increase, building carbon stocks both above ground and in the soil. Restoringgrasslandsalsoprotectsecosystems,improvingtheirresiliencetoachangingclimate.

The PLF approach has the potential to bring the benefits ofmonitoring and control of nutrition andhealthnormallyassociatedwithintensivesystemstorangelandsystems.Throughtechnologiessuchasuse of bioacoustics (virtual fences, sensors) or drones, the concept of precision farming has beenintroduced to grazing systems (Rutter, 2014; Elischer et al., 2013). Drones are increasingly used tomonitor the health andproductivity of both animals and the land they graze. Able to operate overvastareasofdifficultterrain,adronefittedwithinfraredsensorsandmulti-spectrum,high-definitioncamerascansendreal-timeimagesofherdsandflocks.Thiscanhelpfarmerstoquicklyandeasilyfindlostanimals,identifynewborns,anddiagnosesicknessinherdsandindividualanimals.Equally,dronescanshowtheconditionofpasture,informingdecisionsonmovinganimalsforfood,water,orsafety.

Notallimprovementsarehigh-tech.Forexamplesilvopastoralsystemsdonotnecessarilyrequirelargecapital investments,but relatively large investments in labourandknowledge.Theyneedhighqualityhumancapitalforefficientoperation.Althoughtechnologicalinnovationshaveplayedanimportantroleto improve animal production efficiency in the developed world, still a great percentage of animalproducts,mainlybeefandmilkisoriginatedfrompastureandmixedsystems.Forexample,accordingtoMottet et al. (2017) 87 to 93% of beef produced globally comes from diversified systems. In severalpartsoftheworldtheintroductionandmanagementoftreesandshrubshaveplayedanimportantrolein the development of integrated cattle production. Silvopastoral systems defined as the intentionalintegration of livestock, trees, shrubs and grasses on the same land unit (Jose et al. 2017) allow theintensification of cattle production based on natural processes, and promote beneficial ecologicalinteractionsthatmanifestthemselvesasincreasedyieldperunitarea,improvedresourceuseefficiencyand enhanced provision of environmental services. Globally, the main SPS include live fences,windbreaks, scattered trees in pasturelands, managed plant successions, cut-and-carry systems, treeplantations with livestock grazing, pastures between tree alleys and intensive silvopastoral systems(ISPS) (Murgueitio and Ibrahim 2008; Murgueitio et al. 2011, Chará et al. 2019). Businesses areleveragingregenerative livestocksystems,asthesourcingofrawmaterialshasthepotential tobea

15

gamechanger,e.g.leatherandfibersupplychainsthatcomefromgrazingsystems,suchaswoolandcashmerearegaininggroundinthefashionindustry.

InnovationsthatintegratelivestockinthecirculareconomyThelivestocksectorplaysamajorroleinfoodandnutritionsecuritybyprovidingprotein-richfoodwithhigh nutritional quality, by valorizing landscape and resources that cannot be otherwise used.Transforming livestock systems towards more sustainability is a crucial objective which requiresfosteringtheagro-ecological,socialandeconomicservicesprovidedbythelivestocksector.

Institutionalandtechnologicalinnovationinthefoodsystemcanplayanimportantroleinhelpingbuildthe circular bio-economy, a concept for integrated production and consumption systems that userenewable biological resources to produce food and feed, materials and energy. Circularity may beachieved by managing flows of nutrients and energy at various scales: within farms, atlandscape/regionallevel,withinthefoodsystem,andatglobalscale.Itisessentialtoexploresolutionsthatimproveefficiencyofresourcesandlandusebyreconnectinglivestockandplantproduction,makeuseoflocalproteinsources,implementrecyclingapproachestomakeuseofbiomassandunusedland,make use of by-products that are unfit for human consumption and develop new alternative feedsources.

Value chains also stand to benefit from innovations – improved collaboration, efficient supply chainsand enhanced traceability could dramatically improve food systems outcomes. The integration orcouplingofvaluechainscanfacilitatetheexchange,useandre-useofbiomassfeedstocksforlivestockproduction.Thevalorizationofwastestreamsofonesupplychaincanbetherawmaterialsforanother.Inthisscenario,animalswouldbefedfromfoodwaste,by-productsfromagro-industrialorbioenergyplants.This reduces theneed fornewresourcesandtheassociatedemissions.Addressing foodwasteandfoodlossatthefarmandconsumer levelsoffersopportunitiesforbio-innovationtocontributetomore circular models; for example, the safe and efficient conversion of post-harvest losses andbyproducts from farming and processing as a renewable energy source for fertilization or otherapplicationsisawin-winsituationforfarmersandtheenvironment.InJapan,theFoodWasteRecyclingLawallowed the Japanese food industry to reduce, reuse,and recycleanaverageof82percentof itsfoodwaste in2010.Methane,oilandfatproducts,carbonizedfuels,andethanolaccountedforsevenpercent,fertilizerfor17percent,andanimalfeedfor76percent—thelatterbeingtheprimaryrecyclingfinalproductbyfar.Akeydriverbehindthegovernment’spromotionoffoodwasterecyclinghasbeenthe country’s high dependency on imports of feed and livestock, and the underlying scarcity of landresources.Japan’sself-sufficiencyoffeedforlivestockwasaslowas26percentin2011.WiththeBasicPlan for Food,Agriculture, andRuralAreas, the Japanese government set theobjectiveof rising feedself-sufficiency to 38 percent by 2020 through the production of eco-feed via the implementation ofrecyclingloops(Marr,2013).

Thefoodsupplychaintodayisanetworkthatisglobal,dynamicandcomplexinnature.Keychallengingissues include globalization of the food supply chain, changing processes and consumer demands.Increasingly, public health concerns are demanding transparency. Traceability can build on manytransformative technologies and provide a foundation to address many issues facing today’s foodsystems.Recent advances inIoT sensors andnetworks, robotics,mobile computing, andhardware aremaking it possible to have data collection in new ways that were not possible before (Djedouboum,2018).Thismakesitpossibletocollectanddigitizefooddata,whichcanthenbepassedalongtootheractors across the supply chain. For example, sensors and blockchain technology will improve supplychain transparency, further reducing foodwaste and losswhile preventing tampering, counterfeiting,and mislabeling. Traceability can create improved supply-chain visibility to deliver food productiontransparency to consumers, reduce fraud, improve food safety, increase supply-chain efficiency and

16

reduce food loss and waste. Further, this visibility could make it possible to capture and calculateexternalities of food systems to support sustainability goals and help empower producers by linkingthemtomarkets.

InnovationsinanimalproductsubstitutesSeveralemergingtechnologieshavethepotentialtoshapeconsumerdietsandconsumptionbehaviorsinwaysthatcouldsignificantlyimpactfoodsystems.Withgrowingawarenessofenvironmental,animalwelfare and health issues, consumers are increasingly seeking alternatives to conventional animalproducts.Growingvoices(forexample,Willettetal.2019)arecallingforarethinkofourentirediet—limiting or even eliminating some animal protein, creating more sustainable versions of others, andstartingtoeatthingsthatnoteveryonecurrentlyconsidersedible.Alternativeproteinsthatcanactassubstitutesfortraditionalanimal-basedfoodareattractingconsiderablefinancial investment,researchattentionandconsumerinterestasapathwaytomeetingthenutritionalneedsandfooddemands.

Alternativestotypicallyconsumedanimalproteinproductscomefromavarietyofsources.Therehasbeen a surge of recent innovation involving new purely plant‑based alternatives, products based oninsectsandothernovelproteinsources,andtheapplicationofcutting‑edgebiotechnologytodevelopculturedmeat.MostconsumerinterestandinvestmentinalternativeproteinsiscurrentlyinEuropeandNorthAmerica. AccordingtoaFAIRRInitiativereport(FAIRR,2018)annualglobalsalesofplant-basedmeatalternativeshavegrownonaverage8percentayearsince2010.Currently,growthisabouttwicetherateofprocessedmeat,withannualsalesofabout$2billion.Europeisthelargestmarketformeatsubstitutes,accountingfor39percentofglobalsales.With8percentannualgrowthratesintheEUandflat consumption for traditional meat products. Plant-based products, such as soy and almond milksubstitute,nowmakeup10percentoftheoveralldairymarket,whileanimal-baseddairyproductshavestagnated.Worldwide sales of plant-based dairy alternatives more than doubled between 2009 and2015to$21billion.

Innovation is occurring across this spectrum from novel recipes and marketing to increase thedesirabilityoftheless-processedvegetablealternatives,throughadvancesinfoodprocessing,tohighlysophisticatedbiotechnologythatcombinesproductsfrommultipleplantsourcestocreateproductsthatenableconsumerstocontinueexperiencingthe‘sensorypleasures’ofconventionalmeat,dairyandeggproducts.

Althoughalreadyconsumedinsomecountries,therearedifferingopinionsonhowreadilyinsectswillbe welcomed by consumers. Aside from human consumption, insects could provide a valuablealternativesourceofanimalfeedandfreeupplant-basedfoodsforhumanuse.Insectproteinsareusedbyagrowingnumberofcompanies inEuropeandNorthAmerica inproducts forhumanconsumptionandinanimalfeed(Verbekeetal.2014).

One of the most radical possibilities for meeting future demand is cellular agriculture – growinganimal-basedproteinproductsfromcellsinsteadofanimals.Itis‘biologicallyequivalent’(Stephensetal., 2018) tomeatbut is notharvested froma living animal. Culturingmeat involvesbiotechnologicalprocessesborrowedfromregenerativemedicineandaimstoscaleuptheseapproachestomanufacturemeat through cellular and tissue culture, termed ‘cellular agriculture’ (Post, 2012). It’s argued thatgrowingmeatinlabswouldreducetheneedforfeed,water,andmedicineswhilefreeingupvaluableagricultural land. The science and the economics are still being worked out, but it could make avaluablecontributiontomeetingthechallenge,sinceitseemsthatthedemandformeat,isnotgoingaway.

17

Alternative proteins are still in an early stage of adoption and understanding and may come withancillary implicationsthatrequireasystemsperspective:there isaneedtoaccountfortrade-offsandexternalities associatedwith this demand shift. For example, Lynch andPierrehumbert (2019) arguedthat its climatic impact dependon the provision of decarbonized energy and in some cases could beevenhigherthanthatofbeefproduction.Westhoeketal.(2014)showthattheeffectsonthelivestocksectorwillmost likelybesevere,especially ifconsumerpreferenceschangerapidly.Finally, thehealthimplications of the novel processes and ingredients used in some of these products are not yetwellunderstood. To achieve a level of impact, consumer acceptancewill be vital. Alternativeproteinswillneedtobecomecommerciallyavailableatpricesequaltoorlowerthanotherproteinsandwithequalor better nutritional content, taste and texture. Regulations and incentiveswill be integral to ensurethatfeedandfoodaresafeforconsumption.

These examples illustrate the impact that innovative technologies could have on food systems.However,transformingfoodsystemsrequiresinterventionsthatgobeyondtechnologyinnovation.Forexample, creatingnewandboldpolicies thataddress the truecostsof food systems,establishing theinfrastructure and investment that allows technology innovations to thrive, influencing consumerbehaviors,buildingtrustandtransparency,andcollaboratingacrosssectorsandvaluechainsisrequired.

2. Synergiesandtrade-offsAddressing the challenges faced by the sector requires an evaluation of synergies and trade-offsbetweendifferentsustainabilitydomains(health,environmentandotherfunctionsofthefoodsystem)and within the domain itself. Specific sustainability outcomes are often interlinked with otheroutcomes, leading to trade-offs, even within and across the sustainability domains themselves. Forexample,achievingincreasedanimalhealthinthelivestocksectorcanleadtogrowthinglobaldemandand the supply of safe and affordable animal protein. At the same time, may result in potentialoverconsumption of animal protein and heightened pressure on water, land and other naturalresources.Inaddition,differentstakeholdergroupswillbeaffectedindifferentwaysdependingonwhatspecificsolutionsandoutcomesarebeingpursued.Evenapparent actions that are generally acceptede.g. the reductionof foodwaste and losses, thoseactionsmay imply some formof trade-offs. For example, setting up cold storage facilities for certainproducts in low income countries is often presented as one obvious way to improve productconservationandreducefoodwasteand losses (Parry, James,andLeRoux,2015).Yet,suchasolutionhasanenvironmentalimpact.Anysustainable foodsystemthinkingshouldnotonly focusonenhancingandbuildinguponpotentialsynergies but also be conscious of the presence of trade-offs. The limited consideration of thecompeting or conflicting interplay sustainability domains (between food security, nutrition, health,income,andenvironmentalsustainability),hasdefinedourfoodsystemsandhowtheyhaveevolved.Itisimportantthatthesectoridentifiesthepotentialrisksandtrade-offsandhowcantheybeaddressedoranticipated.

WithindomaintradeoffsandsynergiesGloballytheongoingtransition inthe livestocksectorhasbeenawayfromextensivesystemsthatrelyonbiomassfromrangelandsandgrasslandsandtowardsmoreintensivesystemsthataremorerelianton cropproduction for feed (Steinfeldet al., 2006;Davis andD’Odorico, 2015). This shift reflects theaccelerated growth in the production of monogastrics (e.g., chickens and pigs), the plateauingproductionofruminants,andtheincreasingroleofinternationaltradeand,asaresult,hassubstantiallymodifiedthemagnitudeandgeographyofnaturalresourcedemandsofthelivestocksector(Nayloretal., 2005). Increasing reliance on feed hasmeant that the volume of irrigationwater and amount offertilizerapplicationperunitofanimalproducthavesteadilyrisen(Davisetal.,2015).Atthesametime,

18

the transition from grassland-based to feedlot-based finishing systems is associated with increasedenvironmentalcosts,suchastheincreaseinsoilandwatercontaminationriskandinbiodiversity loss.Theintensificationofcattleproductionthroughfeedlotshasalsoledtospecializationoffarmingsystemsinwhichthebenefitsofanimal-crop-grasslandinteractionsthatarethemechanismsforerosioncontrol,carbonandnitrogencycling,regulationofpestsanddiseases,andbiodiversityconservation,arelost.Atthe same time, the shift away from extensive ruminant systems has meant reductions in the landrequirements and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of animal product. This intensification of thesectorhasalsopresentedbenefits forprotectingbiodiversity through ‘landsparing’, thereby reducingtheexpansionofagriculturalfrontiers(Phalanetal.,2011)–thoughtheconversionofnaturalsystemstopasturescontinuestooccursincertainregions(e.g.,theBraziliancerrado)(Spera,2017).Inaddition,the growing demand for irrigation to support feed production has led to substantial impacts onenvironmentalflows(Richteretal.,2019).Globalizationandthegrowingimportanceoftradehavealsomeantthattheresourcedemandsofproductionareincreasinglydisplacedalonglivestocksupplychains(Gallowayetal.,2007),sothat,forinstance,risingporkdemandinChinaismetbysoybeansproducedwith the natural resources of South America (Dalin et al., 2012; Carr et al., 2013). This presentsopportunities for better aligning places of productionwith areas of resource abundance but can alsoengenderunsustainableresourceuse.Thesetradeoffsbetweennaturalresourcesaretheresultofdifferingresourceuseefficienciesbetweenproductsaswellasbetweensystemsofproduction.Acrossenvironmentalefficiencies for land,water,fertilizer,andGHGemissions intheUS,beefproduction issubstantially lessefficientthanothermajorlivestockproducts(i.e.,chicken,pork,eggs,anddairy)(Esheletal.,2014)–apatternwhichholdstrueacross industrialproductionsystems ingeneral (ClarkandTilman,2017)but is lesswellunderstood inextensivesystems.Withinbeefproduction,forexample,grass-fedsystemstendtorequire lessenergythan grain-fed systems but producemore GHGs and requiremore land and nutrient inputs per unitoutput(ClarkandTilman,2017).Duetoavarietyoffactorsincludingfeeduse,productionsystem,andlocation, there isalsosubstantial inter-regionalvariation in the resourceuseefficienciesandemissionintensitiesofdifferentanimalproducts.Forinstance,thenon-CO2GHGemissionintensities(kgCO2eq.kgprotein-1)ofruminantproductioninEuropeandNorthAmericacanbeseveralordersofmagnitudelowerthaninmuchofsub-SaharanAfrica(Herreroetal.,2013).Inthecaseofwater,thevastmajority(90%)ofvariationinproductivityisattributabletofeedproduction(Pedenetal.,2007).Whilethisrangeinintensitieshighlightstheexistingenvironmentalinefficienciesinmanysystems,italsopointstolargeopportunities for reducing or eliminating tradeoffs between different environmental outcomes fromlivestock production. Solutions for mitigating pressures on land must be based on sustainablemanagement practices that will be different across production systems (Green et al., 2005). Forinstance, in intensive systems based on external feed, the best strategy may be to reduce negativeexternalities (pollution, GHG emissions) while increasing efficiency to achieve high output levels andsparing land for nature. On the contrary, extensive systems may have the opportunity to maximizebenefits to and from ecosystems; sustainable management practices could result in higher levels ofbiodiversitythatcouldalsoboostbiomassproductionandcarbonsequestration.

AcrossdomaintradeoffsandsynergiesAhostoftradeoffsandsynergiesalsoexistbetweenthenaturalresourceuseofthelivestocksectorandotherkeydomains.It isessential that innovationstoreducenatural resourceuseandgreenhousegasemissions fromthelivestocksectoraccountfortheimplicationsforfoodandnutritionsecurity,especiallygiventheglobalprevalenceof irondeficiency anemia andother deficiency diseases that canpotentially be addressed

19

through increasedconsumptionofanimalproducts.Efforts to improvetheefficiencyandresilienceoflivestockcanleadtoenhancedand/orstabilizedyieldsandtherebyincreasenutritionsecurityforlocalcommunities (Capper and Bauman, 2013). This can be complemented by interventions to minimizelossesandwastealonglivestocksupplychainsandtominimizethelossofembeddednaturalresources(e.g.,Kummuetal.,2012).Ongoingtransitionsinlivestockproduction(fromruminantstomonogastrics)canalsoproduceco-benefitsforreducingGHGemissionsandresourcedemandsfromthesectorandforloweringincidenceofnon-communicablediseasesassociatedwithoverconsumptionofanimalproducts–particularly indevelopedcountries (Davisetal.,2016;Springmannetal.,2018;Willettetal.,2019).However, animal production systems that dependheavily on feedmay increase competition for cropuse with other demands (e.g., direct human consumption, biofuels), thereby influencing commoditypricesandaffectingtheeconomicaccesstothesegoodsforcertainhouseholds.Inaddition,adecliningemphasis on ruminants can also reduce one of the key benefits of these systems, that of convertinglarge amounts of human-inedible biomass into protein and energywhich people can eat (White andHall,2017).Thus,emergingeffortstobetterintegratecropandlivestocksystemsthroughrotatinglanduse offer promise for realizing benefits related to food production, farmer livelihoods, and avoidedforestclearingandemissionsfromlandusechange(Nepstadetal.,2019).

Effortstoreducenaturalresourcedemandandimproveefficiencycanalsoproducetradeoffswithorco-benefits for animal health and welfare. Improving the dietary quality of ruminants can reduce GHGemissions per animal while also enhancing yields and improving animal health (Gerber et al., 2013).Becausethemostefficientsystemsareoftenindustrialinscale,theseoperationsfaceuniquechallengesin terms of animal welfare (Cronin et al., 2014; Shields and Orme-Evans 2015; Nordquist, 2017). Inaddition,breedingforproductivityandefficiencyalonehasbeenshowntoreducefertilityandgeneralhealth in certain cases (Lawrence et al., 2004) and to lead to higher overall health costs (Thornton,2010).Improvingthelongevityofanimalscanalsoreduceemissions,asthiswouldlowerthefrequencywithwhich resources are required to support a replacement animal (Shields andOrme-Evans, 2015).Intensivefarmingposesmanythreatstoanimalwelfare.Thisisparticularlytrueinthecaseofthekindofpigproductionwhere largenumbersofanimalsarekept indoorsallyear round inbarren,concreteflooredhousesandinunnatural,denselystockedsocialgroups.Theseissuesareexacerbatedbygeneticselectionforfastgrowthrate,leannessandlargelittersizeswhichplacespigsunderintensemetabolicpressure. More extensive systems also face heightened exposure to certain diseases, as ecosystemchangeanddeforestationarekeyproximatedriversofdiseasedynamicsinlivestock(Perryetal.,2013).Efforts to prevent land conversion for pasture and tominimize emissions from land use change cantherefore be made complimentary to animal health and may help in reducing incidence of certainanimaldiseases.

Avarietyofinterventionsandbestmanagementpracticesarealsoavailabletosimultaneouslyimprovelivelihoods and achieve environmental goals. Efforts at sustainable intensification can promotemoreefficientresourceuse, improvesoilhealth,avoidtheconversionofnaturalsystemstoagriculture,andenhanceanimalproductivityandfarmerincomes(McDermottetal.,2010).Nutrientrecyclingbetweencropandlivestockproduction(e.g.,cropresiduesforfodder)canreduceadditionalinputrequirementsand feed costs. For instance,manure is a key input for enhancing soil nutrients – particularly in sub-SaharanAfricawhereaccesstosyntheticfertilizersremainslow(Herreroetal.,2009)–andoffersclearbenefitsforboostingyieldsandforimprovingtheincomesofsmallholders.Technologieslikeanaerobicdigesterscanalsobeusedtoproducebiogasfrommanuretohelpmeeton-farmenergyneeds,thereby

20

reducing both GHG emissions and costs (Gerber et al., 2013). Other innovations such as automaticmilkingcanreducelaborcostswhileenhancingproductivityandresourceuseefficiency.Therearealsomoredirectpolicy leverssuchaspaymentsforecosystemservicesto increasecarbonsequestration inrangelands,enhanceecosystemservices,andaidinthediversificationofpastoralistincomes(Herreroetal.,2009).Researchhasalsoconsideredhowenvironmentalandpoliticaleconomiccontexts(includingpolicy responses toenvironmentalchange) intersect toshapeoutcomes inproductionssystems.Forexample,droughtandconcernsforwaterqualityandriverhealthhaveledtopoliciesinAustraliathatrestrict water usage on irrigated dairy farms, resulting in altered livelihood strategies and genderrelationsthat—togetherwiththeimpactsofclimatechange—havereducedfarmproductivity(Alstonetal.2017).

21

3. ImplicationsforpolicyFinding solutions to provide safe and nutritious food to nearly 10 billion people by 2050 withoutdestroyingourplanet isoneof thegreatestchallenges.The livestocksectorparticularly inmiddleandlowincomeregionsisstilldecadesbehindintermsoftechnology,policyandbusinessmodelinnovation.Itlagsfarbehindothersectorsinattractinginvestmentandfinance.Itisrarelynearthetopofprioritiesforpolicymakers.Yetitsimpactonthewellbeingofpeopleandthenaturalenvironmentisunrivaled.

Decades of increasing productivity and efficiency in the livestock sector have led to pressure on thenaturalenvironmentattheexpenseofwaterandsoilquality,biodiversity,ecosystemservicesandtheclimate ‒ among others. To prevent further depletion and over exploitation of natural resources, asystem change is necessary. Such a futurewill not be possiblewithout policy and regulation reform,accounting for externalities, new business model innovation, infrastructure development, massiveconsumer behavior changes and technology innovation. Most investments in innovative technologyapplications are currently concentrated in developed regions, highlighting both the risk of unequalaccess to new technologies but at the same time presents opportunities formiddle and low incomeregionsiftheycanbeeffectivelyscaled.

Policy tools can influence thebehavior of food systemactors by impacting on supply anddemand inmultiple ways. Supply-side policy instruments act upon producers, processors and distributors byaltering the conditions that determine prices and quantities supplied. The role of demand-sideinstruments is largely under-exploredwithin sustainable food policy. Demand-side policy instrumentsaffecttheconditionsofdemand.Forinstance,taxesonsaturatedfatareaimedatalteringrelativepricesamongfooditems;nutritionallabellingaimsatorientingconsumers’choice.

Regulation(standardsandregulatoryinstruments,voluntaryguidelines,bestpractices)Regulatorypolicies thatcurbharmfulpracticescould triggermajorshifts in theway food isproduced,handled,purchasedandconsumedand,subsequently,driveinnovation.Suchmechanismsandrulescaninclude hard governance tools (government policy and regulation), soft-governance tools (standards,guidelines,norms,codesofconduct).Directregulationisappliedtopermit,prohibitorregulatetheuseof given production or commercial practices or products. Examples of direct regulation in the foodsystemare:regulationonuseofpesticides,fertilizers,feedadditives,growthhormones,antibiotics,etc.Animportantcomponentofdirectregulationarestandards,technicalguidelinesappliedtoagriculturalproduction(fore.g.theNitratesDirectiveoftheEU6wherememberstatesshouldguaranteethatannualapplicationofnitratesbyanimalmanureatthefarmleveldoesnotexceed170kg/ha)andprocessing(asinthecaseofqualityschemesorinthecaseoflevelsofcontaminantsinfood).

Thedevelopmentandintegrationofrecommendationsthatpromotespecificfoodpracticesandchoiceshave been an obvious strategy for addressing sustainability, mainly in its nutrition and environmentdimensions. For example, in 2016, the Chinese health ministry released new dietary guidelines thatrecommend that the nation’s 1.3 billion population should consume less meat. In particular, theyintroducedadownward revisionof the lowerendof its recommendedmeatconsumption range.Thisimplied a maximum annual per capita meat consumption of 27 kg, which is 45% below the 2013consumptionfigureof49.7kgpercapita.Theguidelines,whicharereleasedonceeverytenyears,aredesigned to improve public health. However the reduction in meat consumption could also help to

6 TheEUNitratesDirectivehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/nitrates.pdf

22

significantly reduce China’s environmental footprint. The recent changes to the government’s dietaryguidelinesaresignificant,especiallygiventhebroaderculturalcontextsurroundingmeatconsumptionandtheexpectedgrowthinmeatconsumptioninChina.

The adoption of standards and their communication to usersmay imply labelling and/or certificationschemes.Standardscanbemandatory(inthiscaseallhavetoadoptthem)orvoluntary(inwhichcasetheadoptionisrewardedbybenefitssuchasimprovedreputationoraspecificpayment).

Market-basedInstrumentsMarketfailureforgoodsandservicesprovidedbynaturalresourcesisoneofthemainreasonsbehindtheir unsustainable use and degradation currently being experienced. The traditional response tomarketfailuresforpublicgoodshasbeentoprovidethegoodthroughthepublicsectorandplacelimitsontheamountsused. Intermsofthedifferentcategoriesofmarket-basedsolutions,fourmajortypescan be taken into account: taxes; tradable permits; market barrier reductions; payment forenvironmentalservices,andsubsidies(Stavins2003).Market based instruments are increasingly discussed in thepolitical debateover future strategies fornatural resourcemanagement. Forexample, food taxationmeasureshavebeen introduced in severalcountries to reduce the consumption of unhealthy food. Fats, sugars, salt are the targets of thesepolicies. Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, and Mexico have such taxes (Sautet, 2014). Severalgovernmentsaroundtheworldhavealreadybeguntoconsidertaxesorotherregulatoryactiononmeatordairy insomeform.Meattaxesarealreadyontheagenda inDenmark,SwedenandGermany,andalthough no proposals have advanced into actual legislation (FAIRR, 2017). Taxation is expected toimpact on consumption levels in relation to thewillingness to pay for a food product. However it isuncleartowhatextenttaxesshiftfoodbehaviour.Consumersarenotsolelymotivatedbyprice,sotheseimpactswillalwaysbedifficulttomeasure.Otherexamples includepollutiontaxes,wateruser fees,wastewaterdischargefees,etc.Forexample,theChinesegovernment introducednewtaxon larger farms to restoredamagedwaterways:The tax,introducedbytheChineseMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionbrought inanewchargeofRMB1.40($0.20)peranimalforlargerfarms.Theaimofthetaxprimarilyistoreducewastewateremissionsandgenerate revenue to clean up the country’s polluted waterways. In May 2017, Germany’s FederalEnvironmentAgencyproposedraisingtaxesonanimalproductssuchasliversausages,eggsandcheesefromsevento19%forenvironmentalreasons.Theincreaseinthepriceofanimalfoodsduetoapplyingthe full rate of value-added tax could motivate consumers to reduce their consumption of animalproducts and replace themwith vegetable products. The proposed tax rise is designed to offset theimpactofthesectoronclimatechangethroughhighmethaneemissions(GermanFederalEnvironmentAgency,2014).Environmental subsidiesand incentives (includinggreenpurchasing)arewidelyusedandeffective forsupporting the development and more rapid diffusion of new technologies and adoption of bestmanagementpractices.Incentivesmustbeputinplacethatlinktheadoptionofbestpracticestocredit,taxandotherfiscalincentives.Lessemphasisshouldbeplacedonprovisionofsubsidizedinputs.Tradable rights or permits can be exchanged among producers or landowners for the use of a givenresource,usuallyafterregulationshaveconstrainedfullpotentialuse.Paymentsforecosystemservices(PES)policiescompensateindividualsorcommunitiesforundertakingactionsthatincreasetheprovisionofecosystemservicessuchascarbonsequestration,waterpurificationorfloodmitigation.PESschemesrelyonincentivestoinducebehavioralchange,andcanthusbeconsideredpartofthebroaderclassofincentiveormarket-basedmechanisms forenvironmentalpolicy (Jacketal., 2008).Pappagallo (2018)outlines the risks and opportunities of operationalizing PES as a tool for sustainable rangelandmanagementandecosystemserviceprovision.

23

Awarenessandeducation(ofgeneralpublic,consumers,farmers,etc.)Sustainability objectives may be reached by ensuring that consumers and producers are betterinformed. This type of policy instrument includes information and publicity campaigns, training,guidelines, disclosure requirements. Policy instruments focused on information and education aim tochangebehaviourbymakingmore information available to allow consumers tomakemore informeddecisions. Themain tools for the provision of information and education are information campaigns,education and point-of-purchasing information (labels). Labelling rules for example regulate theinformationonfoodlabelstoconsumers.Itestablishesinformation,regulatesoptionalinformationandsetsterminology.Labellingrulescanbeanimportantfoodpolicytoolsinceitcandisplayinformationontheoriginoftheproduct,onmethodsofproductionandonthenutritionalcontentoffood.

PolicyprocessesandstakeholdersForpolicies tobesuccessful theyneedtobe inclusive (Steinfeldetal.,2006).Topromotefuture foodsecurity andhealth, an integrated, systematicpolicy response involving all levelsof government, plusfood industry and civil society, is needed across the entire food system. Stakeholders will need toengage in a dialogue on how best to accelerate the sustainability agenda, including identifyingtechnologies to be scaled, enabling innovations in policy and business models and determininggeographiesandmarketswherepilotscanbedesignedandimplemented.

Everystakeholdercanplayaroleinrealizingthispotential.Governmentscandeliverinfrastructureandinnovative policy. The livestock industry can collaborate to open newmarkets, business models anddevelopnewproducts.Forgovernmentstounlockprivatesectorinvestmenttheyneedtounderstandhowmarketsandcorporateinvestmentstrategiescanbeincentivizedtodeliverresultsconsistentwithsought after sustainability goals. Scaling technologies, however, requires more than just providingsupport to technology development and innovation. Support structures need to be put in place toenableproducerstoadoptthenewtechnologies.PublicInvestmentinbasicagriculturalandtechnologyinfrastructure(roads,storageandbroadbandorconnectivity,respectively)isimportant.

Growing consumer awareness, NGO campaigns and multi-stakeholder round-tables are pressing forstricter standards around expanding agriculture. Examples include commodity round table multi-stakeholder initiativessuchastheRoundTableonResponsibleSoy(RTRS),andGlobalRoundtableforSustainableBeef(GRSB)seekingtoinfluenceforestconversionbyapplyingsustainabilityprinciplesandlinking producers with other actors in the supply chain. For example, the Brazilian Amazon cattleagreementshavehelpedtochangethesourcingbehaviorofmeatpackers towards farmsthatcomplywith regulations against deforestation. These platforms demonstrate how public-private partnershipscanaddresstheinterfacebetweenlivestockandnaturalresources.

24

ReferenceList

Alston,M.,J.Clarke,andK.Whittenbury.2017.Genderrelations,livelihoodstrategies,waterpoliciesandstructuraladjustmentintheAustraliandairyindustry.SociologiaRuralis57:752–768.

Asner,G.P.,Elmore,A.J.,Olander,L.P.,Martin,R.E.&Harris,A.T.2004.GrazingSystems,EcosystemResponses,andGlobalChange.AnnualReviewofEnvironmentandResources,29:261–299.

AustralianGovernment,QueenslandGovernment.2014.GreatBarrierReefReportCard2014.

Bell,M.andTzimiropoulos,G.(2018).NovelMonitoringSystemstoObtainDairyCattlePhenotypesAssociatedWithSustainableProduction.FrontiersinSustainableFoodSystems.

Brugger,D.andWindisch,WM.(2015).Environmentalresponsibilitiesoflivestockfeedingusingtracemineralsupplements,AnimalNutrition(2015),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.08.005

Capper,JL.,andBauman,DE.(2013).Theroleofproductivityinimprovingtheenvironmentalsustainabilityofruminantproductionsystems.AnnRevAnimalBiosci1,469-489.

Carr,JA.,D’Odorico,P.,Laio,F.,andRidolfi,L.(2013).Recenthistoryandgeographyofvirtualwatertrade.PLoSONE8,e55825.

Cattaneo,A.(2008).Regionalcomparativeadvantage,locationofagriculture,anddeforestationinBrazilJ.Sustain.Forest.2725-42

Chee-Sanford,JC,Mackie,RI,Koike,S,Krapac,IG,Lin,Y-F,Yannarell,AC,Maxwell,S&Aminov,RI2009,FateandTransportofAntibioticResiduesandAntibioticResistanceGenesfollowingLandApplicationofManureWaste'JournalofEnvironmentalQuality,vol.38,no.3,pp.1086-1108.https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0128

ClarkM,TilmanD(2017)Comparativeanalysisofenvironmentalimpactsofagriculturalproductionsystems,agriculturalinputefficiency,andfoodchoice.EnvironResLett12,064016.

Collins,S.L.,Knapp,A.K.,Briggs,J.M.,Blair,J.M.,&Steinauer,E.M.1998.Modulationofdiversitybygrazingandmowinginnativetallgrassprairie.Science,280:745-747.

Conley,D.J.,J.Carstensen,J.Aigars,P.Axe,E.Bonsdorff,T.Eremina,B.-M.Haahti,C.Humborg,P.Jonsson,J.Kotta,C.La¨nnegren,U.Larsson,A.Maximov,M.R.Medina,E.Lysiak-Pastuszak,N.Remeikaite_-Nikiene_,J.Walve,S.Wilhelms,andL.Zille´n.2011.HypoxiaisincreasinginthecoastalzoneoftheBalticSea.EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology45:6777–83.10.1071/SR17031.

Cronin,G.,Rault,J,L.&Glatz,P.(2014).Lessonslearnedfrompastexperiencewithintensivelivestockmanagementsystems.10.20506/rst.33.1.2256.

DalinC,KonarM,HanasakiN,RinaldoA,IgnacioRodriguez-IturbeI(2012)Evolutionoftheglobalvirtualwatertradenetwork.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA109,5989-5994.

DavisKF,D’OdoricoP(2015)Livestockintensificationandtheinfluenceofdietarychange:Acalorie-basedassessmentofcompetitionforcropproduction.ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment538:817–823.

25

DavisKF,GephartJA,EmeryK,LeachA,GallowayJN,D’OdoricoP(2016)Meetingfuturefooddemandwithcurrentagriculturalresources.GlobEnvironChange39,125-132.

DeRamus,H.A.,T.C.Clement,D.D.Giampola,andP.C.Dickison.2003.Methaneemissionsofbeefcattleonforages:efficiencyofgrazingmanagementsystems.JournalofEnvironmentalQuality32:269-277.

DernerJD,BriskeDDandBouttonTW(1997)Doesgrazingmediatesoilcarbonandnitrogenaccumulationbeneathc4,perennialgrassesalonganenvironmentalgradient?PlantandSoil191,147-156.

Djedouboum,AssideC.;AbbaAri,AdoA.;Gueroui,AbdelhakM.;Mohamadou,Alidou;Aliouat,Zibouda.(2018)."BigDataCollectioninLarge-ScaleWirelessSensorNetworks."Sensors18,no.12:4474.

Donner,S.D.2007.Surforturf:AshiftfromfeedtofoodcultivationcouldreducenutrientfluxtotheGulfofMexico.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,17:105–113.

DrosJM2004ManagingtheSoyBoom:TwoScenariosofSoyProductionExpansioninSouthAmerica(Amsterdam:AIDEnvironment-WWF)pp1-65

EshelG,SheponA,MakovT,MiloR(2014)Land,irrigationwater,greenhousegas,andreactivenitrogenburdensofmeat,eggs,anddairyproductionintheUnitedStates.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA111,11996–12001

FAO.2015.TheSecondReportontheStateoftheWorld’sAnimalGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture,editedbyB.D.Scherf&D.Pilling.FAOCommissiononGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgricultureAssessments.Rome.

FAOandIPCC(2017).FAO-IPCCExpertMeetingonClimateChange,LandUseandFoodSecurity:FinalMeetingReport;January23-25,2017FAOHQRome.FAOandIPCC,2017.

FearnsidePM2005DeforestationinBrazilianAmazonia:history,ratesandconsequencesConserv.Biol.19680–8

GallowayJN,BurkeM,BradfordGE,NaylorR,FalconW,ChapagainAK,GaskellJC,McCulloughE,MooneyHA,OlesonKL,SteinfeldH,WassenaarT,SmilV(2007)Internationaltradeinmeat:thetipoftheporkchop.Ambio36,622-629.

GardenerT.,BarlowJ.,ChazdonR.,EwersR.,HarveyC.,PeresC.,SodhiN.2009.Prospectsoftropicalforestbiodiversityinahuman-modifiedworld.EcologyLetters12:561-582.

GerberPJ,SteinfeldH,HendersonB,MottetA,OpioC,DijkmanJ,FalcucciA,TempioG(2013)Tacklingclimatechangethroughlivestock–Aglobalassessmentofemissionsandmitigationopportunities(Rome,FAO).

Gerber,P.,Steinfeld,H.,Henderson,B.,Mottet,A.,Opio,C.,Dijkman,J.,Falcucci,A.&Tempio,G.(2013)TacklingClimateChangethroughLivestock:AGlobalAssessmentofEmissionsandMitigationOpportunities.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome.

Green,R.E.,Cornell,S.J.,Scharlemann,J.P.,&Balmford,A.(2005).Farmingandthefateofwildnature.science,307(5709),550-555.

26

H.W.Polley,D.D.Briske,J.A.Morgan,K.Wolter,D.W.Bailey,J.R.Brown(2013).ClimatechangeandNorthAmericanrangelands:trends,projections,andimplicationsRangelandEcol.Manage.,66(2013),pp.493-511

Havstad,K.M.,Peters,D.P.,Skaggs,R.,Brown,J.,Bestelmeyer,B.,Fredrickson,E.,&Wright,J.(2007).EcologicalservicestoandfromrangelandsoftheUnitedStates.EcologicalEconomics,64(2),261-268.

HerreroM,PetrHavlíkP,ValinH,AnNotenbaertA,RufinoMC,ThorntonPK,BlümmelM,WeissF,GraceD,ObersteinerM(2013)Biomassuse,production,feedefficiencies,andgreenhousegasemissionsfromgloballivestocksystems.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA110,20888–20893.

HerreroM,ThorntonPK,GerberP,ReidRS(2009)Livestock,livelihoodsandtheenvironment:understandingthetrade-offs.CurrOpinEnvironSust1,111–120.

Humer,E.,Schwarz,C.,Schedle,K.(2015).Phytateinpigandpoultrynutrition.JAnimPhysiolAnimNutr(Berl).2015Aug;99(4):605-25.JackBK,KouskyC,SimsKR.Designingpaymentsforecosystemservices:Lessonsfrompreviousexperiencewithincentive-basedmechanisms.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA.2008;105(28):9465–9470.doi:10.1073/pnas.0705503104

Janzen,H.H.2010.Whatplaceforlivestockonare-greeningearth?AnimalFeedScienceandTechnology166-167:783-796.

Khanal,A.R.andGillespie,J.(2013).Adoptionandproductivityofbreedingtechnologies:EvidencefromUSdairyfarms.AgBioForum.

KrausmannF,ErbK-H,GingrichS,LaukC,HaberlH.(2008).Globalpatternsofsocioeconomicbiomassflowsintheyear2000:Acomprehensiveassessmentofsupply,consumptionandconstraints.EcolEcon.2008;65:471–487.

KremenC.,MerendlenderA.Landscapesthatworkforbiodiversityandpeople.Science362,eaau6020.

KummuM,deMoelH,PorkkaM,SiebertS,VarisO,WardPJ(2012)Lostfood,wastedresources:globalfoodsupplychainlossesandtheirimpactsonfreshwater,cropland,andfertiliseruse.SciTotEnviron438,477-489.

Lacetera,N.(2019)Impactofclimatechangeonanimalhealthandwelfare,AnimalFrontiers,Volume9,Issue1,January2019,Pages26–31,https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy030

LawrenceAB,ConingtonJ,SimmG(2004)Breedingandanimalwelfare:practicalandtheoreticaladvantagesofmulti-traitselection.AnimWelfare13,S191–S196.

Le,Q.B.,Nkonya,E.,Mirzabaev,A.(2014).Biomassproductivity-basedmappingofgloballanddegradationhotspots.ZEF-DiscussionPapersonDevelopmentPolicyNo.193.UniversityofBonn.

Leadley,P.,Pereira,H.M.,Alkemade,R.,Fernandez-Manjarres,J.F.,Proenca,V.,Scharlemann,J.P.W.etal.(2010).Biodiversityscenarios:projectionsof21stcenturychangeinbiodiversityandassociatedecosystemservices.In:SecretariatoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity(ed.DiversitySotCoB).PublishedbytheSecretariatoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,Montreal,p.1–132.TechnicalSeriesno.50.

27

Liu,Q.,Wang,J.,Bai,Z.,Ma,L.Z.,&Oenema,O.(2017).Globalanimalproductionandnitrogenandphosphorusflows.LynchJ.andPierrehumbertR.(2019)Climateimpactsofculturedmeatandbeefcattle.Front.Sustain.FoodSyst.3:5.doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.0000

McDermottJJ,StaalSJ,FreemanHA,HerreroM,VandeSteegJA(2010)Sustainingintensificationofsmallholderlivestocksystemsinthetropics.LivestockScience130,95-109.

Mottet,A.,deHaan,C.,Falcucci,A.,Tempio,G.,Opio,C.,&Gerber,P.(2017).Livestock:Onourplatesoreatingatourtable?Anewanalysisofthefeed/fooddebate.GlobalFoodSecurity,14,1-8.

Nabuurs,G.J.(2004).Currentconsequencesofpastactions:howtoseparatedirectfromindirect.InC.B.Field&M.R.Raupach(Eds.),Theglobalcarboncycle(pp.317–326).

Nardone,AB.Ronchi,N.Lacetera,M.S.Ranieri,U.Bernabucci.(2010).Effectsofclimatechangeonanimalproductionandsustainabilityoflivestocksystems,Livest.Sci.,130pp.57-69NationalAcademiesofSciences,Engineering,andMedicine(2016)Nutrientrequirementsofbeefcattle(NationalAcademyPress,Washington,D.C.).

NationalResearchCouncil(2001)Nutrientrequirementsofdairycattle(NationalAcademiesPress,Washington,D.C.).

NaylorR,SteinfeldH,FalconW,GallowayJ,SmilV,BradfordE,AlderJ,MooneyH(2005)Losingthelinksbetweenlivestockandland.Science310,1621-1622

NepstadD,SticklerCMandAlmeidaOT2006GlobalizationoftheAmazonsoyandbeefindustries:opportunitiesforconservation.Conserv.Biol.201595–603

NepstadLS,GerberJS,HillJD,DiasLCP,CostaMH,WestPC(2019)PathwaysforrecentCerradosoybeanexpansion:extendingthesoymoratoriumandimplementingintegratedcroplivestocksystemswithsoybeans.EnvironResLett14,044029.

Nordquist,R.E.,vanderStaay,F.J.,vanEerdenburg,F.J.,Velkers,F.C.,Fijn,L.,&Arndt,S.S.(2017).MutilatingProcedures,ManagementPractices,andHousingConditionsThatMayAffecttheWelfareofFarmAnimals:ImplicationsforWelfareResearch.

P.K.Thornton,J.VandeSteeg,A.Notenbaert,M.Herrrero(2009).Theimpactsofclimatechangeonlivestockandlivestocksystemsindevelopingcountries:AreviewofwhatweknowandwhatweneedtoknowAgric.Syst.,101(2009),pp.113-127Parry,A.,James,K.,&LeRoux,S.(2015).Strategiestoachieveeconomicandenvironmentalgainsbyreducingfoodwaste.

PedenD,TadesseG,MisraAK,AwadAmedF,AstatkeA,AyalnehW,HerreroM,KiwuwaG,KumsaT,MatiBetal.:Chapter13.Livestockandwaterforhumandevelopment.InWaterforFood,WaterforLife:AComprehensiveAssessmentofWaterManagementinAgriculture.EditedbyMoldenD.Earthscan/IWMI;2007:485-514.

PerryBD,GraceD,SonesK(2013)Currentdriversandfuturedirectionsofgloballivestockdiseasedynamics.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA110,20871-20877.

28

Phalan,B.,Onial,M.,Balmford,A.,andGreen,R.E.(2011).Reconcilingfoodproductionandbiodiversityconservation:landsharingandlandsparingcompared.Science,333(6047)(2011),pp.1289-1291

RichterBD,BartakD,CaldwellP,DavisKF,DebaereP,HoekstraAY,LiT,MarstonL,McManamayR,MekonnenMM,RuddellB,RushforthRR,TroyTJ(2019)Ismyburgerkillingariver?Waterscarcityisdrivenbyourfoodchoices.(InReview).

Rojas-Downing,Maria,PouyanNejadhashemi,A,Harrigan,Timothy,Woznicki,Sean.(2017).ClimateChangeandLivestock:Impacts,Adaptation,andMitigation.ClimateRiskManagement.16.10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001.S.C.Chapman,S.Chakraborty,M.F.Dreccer,S.M.Howden(2012).Plantadaptationtoclimatechange:opportunitiesandprioritiesinbreeding.CropPastureSci.,63pp.251-268

SamsonFB,KnopfFL,OstlieWR.Grasslands.Washington,D.C.:UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey;1998.

SauvantD,DelabyL,NoziereP(2018)INRAfeedingsystemforruminants(WageningenAcademicPublishers,Wageningen,Netherlands).

SchlundtJ(2002).Newdirectionsinfoodbornediseaseprevention.IntJFoodMicrobio78,3-17.

SchumanGE,JanzenHH,HerrickJE(2002)Soilcarbondynamicsandpotentialcarbonsequestrationbyrangelands.EnvironmentalPollution116,391-396.

SchumanGE,ReederJD,ManleyJT,HartRH,ManleyWA(1999)Impactofgrazingmanagementonthecarbonandnitrogenbalanceofamixed-grassrangeland.EcologicalApplications9,65-71.

Shi,P.;Yan,P.;Yuan,Y.;Nearing,M.A.WinderosionresearchinChina:past,presentandfuture.Prog.Phys.Geogr.2004,28,366–386.ShieldsS,Orme-EvansG(2015).Theimpactsofclimatechangemitigationstrategiesonanimalwelfare.Animals5,361-394.

Shields,S.,andG.Orme-Evans.2015.Theimpactsofclimatechangemitigationstrategiesonanimalwelfare.Animals5:361–394.

Spera,S.(2017).AgriculturalintensificationcanpreservetheBrazilianCerrado:applyinglessonsfromMatoGrossoandGoiástoBrazil’slastagriculturalfrontier.Trop.Conserv.Sci.,10(2017),Article1940082917720662.

SpringmannM,ClarkM,Mason-D’CrozD,WiebeK,BodirskyBL,LassalettaL,deVriesW,VermeulenSJ,HerreroM,CarlsonKM,JonellM,TroellM,DeClerckF,GordonLJ,ZuraykR,ScarboroughP,RaynerM,LokenB,FanzoJ,GodfrayHCJ,TilmanD,RockströmJ,WillettW(2018)Optionsforkeepingthefoodsystemwithinenvironmentallimits.Nature562,519-525.

Teague,W.R.,F.Provenza,U.P.Kreuter,T.Steffens,andM.Barnes.2013.Multi-paddockgrazingonrangelands:Whytheperceptualdichotomybetweenresearchresultsandrancherexperience?JournalofEnvironmentalManagement128:699-717.

ThorntonPK(2010)Livestockproduction:recenttrends,futureprospects.PhilTransRSocB365,2853–2867.

29

WesthoekH., Lesschen J.P., LeipA., RoodT.,Wagner S.,DeMarcoA.,Murphy-BokernD., PallièreC.,HowardC.M.,OenemaO.&SuttonM.A.(2015)NitrogenontheTable:TheinfluenceoffoodchoicesonnitrogenemissionsandtheEuropeanenvironment. (EuropeanNitrogenAssessmentSpecialReportonNitrogenandFood.)CentreforEcology&Hydrology,Edinburgh,UK.Westhoek,H.,Lesschen,J.Peter,Rood,T.,Wagner,S.,DeMarco,A.,Murphy-Bokern,D.,Leip,A.,vanGrinsven,H.,Sutton,M.A,&Oenema,O.(2014).Foodchoices,healthandenvironment:EffectsofcuttingEurope'smeatanddairyintake.Globalenvironmentalchange,26,196-205.doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004

WhiteRR,HallMB(2017)NutritionalandgreenhousegasimpactsofremovinganimalsfromUSagriculture.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA114,E10301-E10308.

WillettW,RockströmJ,LokenB,SpringmannM,LangT,SonjaVermeulenS,TaraGarnettT,DavidTilmanD,FabriceDeClerckF,AmandaWoodA,MalinJonellM,ClarkM,GordonLJ,FanzoJ,HawkesC,ZuraykR,RiveraJA,DeVriesW,SibandaLM,AfshinA,ChaudharyA,HerreroM,AgustinaR,BrancaF,LarteyA,FanS,CronaB,FoxE,BignetV,TroellM,LindahlT,SinghS,CornellSE,ReddyKS,NarainS,NishtarS,MurrayCJL(2019)FoodintheAnthropocene:theEAT–LancetCommissiononhealthydietsfromsustainablefoodsystems.TheLancetCommissions393,447-492.