Review: Associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming.
ecosystem services
food system
land use
sustainability
trade-offs
Journal
Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience
ISSN: 1751-732X
Titre abrégé: Animal
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101303270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
20
10
2018
medline:
31
10
2019
entrez:
19
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Livestock is a major driver in most rural landscapes and economics, but it also polarises debate over its environmental impacts, animal welfare and human health. Conversely, the various services that livestock farming systems provide to society are often overlooked and have rarely been quantified. The aim of analysing bundles of services is to chart the coexistence and interactions between the various services and impacts provided by livestock farming, and to identify sets of ecosystem services (ES) that appear together repeatedly across sites and through time. We review three types of approaches that analyse associations among impacts and services from local to global scales: (i) detecting ES associations at system or landscape scale, (ii) identifying and mapping bundles of ES and impacts and (iii) exploring potential drivers using prospective scenarios. At a local scale, farming practices interact with landscape heterogeneity in a multi-scale process to shape grassland biodiversity and ES. Production and various ES provided by grasslands to farmers, such as soil fertility, biological regulations and erosion control, benefit to some extent from the functional diversity of grassland species, and length of pasture phase in the crop rotation. Mapping ES from the landscape up to the EU-wide scale reveals a frequent trade-off between livestock production on one side and regulating and cultural services on the other. Maps allow the identification of target areas with higher ecological value or greater sensitivity to risks. Using two key factors (livestock density and the proportion of permanent grassland within utilised agricultural area), we identified six types of European livestock production areas characterised by contrasted bundles of services and impacts. Livestock management also appeared to be a key driver of bundles of services in prospective scenarios. These scenarios simulate a breakaway from current production, legislation (e.g. the use of food waste to fatten pigs) and consumption trends (e.g. halving animal protein consumption across Europe). Overall, strategies that combine a reduction of inputs, of the use of crops from arable land to feed livestock, of food waste and of meat consumption deliver a more sustainable food future. Livestock as part of this sustainable future requires further enhancement, quantification and communication of the services provided by livestock farming to society, which calls for the following: (i) a better targeting of public support, (ii) more precise quantification of bundles of services and (iii) better information to consumers and assessment of their willingness to pay for these services.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30333070
pii: S1751731118002586
doi: 10.1017/S1751731118002586
pmc: PMC6639720
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1773-1784Références
Animal. 2017 Oct;11(10):1861-1872
pubmed: 28490393
Animal. 2016 Apr;10(4):547-9
pubmed: 26689533
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 18;12(10):e0185809
pubmed: 29045418
Animal. 2014 Aug;8(8):1361-72
pubmed: 24622293
Animal. 2012 Jul;6(7):1129-38
pubmed: 23031474
Prev Vet Med. 2013 Nov 1;112(3-4):296-308
pubmed: 23998636
J Anim Sci. 2015 Oct;93(10):4967-76
pubmed: 26523589
Nat Commun. 2017 Nov 14;8(1):1290
pubmed: 29138387
Ecol Lett. 2006 Mar;9(3):243-54; discussion 254-7
pubmed: 16958888
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 3;11(11):e0165797
pubmed: 27812156
Ecol Lett. 2011 Feb;14(2):101-12
pubmed: 21087380
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 16;107(11):5242-7
pubmed: 20194739
Glob Chang Biol. 2005 Dec;11(12):2141-2152
pubmed: 34991279
Nature. 2009 Sep 24;461(7263):472-5
pubmed: 19779433
Food Policy. 2016 Jan;58:35-48
pubmed: 26949285