• Energy Research
• GB close
• Animal close

A sustainable livestock economy depends on both production and consumption, inextricably linked in local, national and global markets. At each scale, technical innovation and production practices need to respond to evolving demand for both market and non-market attributes of livestock systems. This review considers recent and evolving demand-side challenges focussing on emerging preferences related to environmental, dietary and health impacts, arising from both production and consumption. It suggests that these attributes need to be integral to any definition of high-producing animal systems. This discussion is mostly framed using neoclassical economic theory, which highlights market failure and the role of negative and positive external effects or social costs. It examines how our understanding of the demand for these attributes is evolving, leading to market segmentation in some cases, and an existential threat to livestock production as consumption decisions change, investors seek to avoid potential liabilities related to greenhouse gas emissions and potentially antimicrobial resistance, and governments intervene to control other undesirable social costs. The discussion distinguishes between market imperatives in high- and lower-income countries, and how income and consumption trajectories may be less deterministic in a more hyperlinked world where product information may accelerate the evolution of preferences towards and away from livestock products. The review acknowledges the limits of a neoclassical approach, drawing attention to more fundamental concepts of biophysical limits to growth and value pluralism, which indicates values (e.g. intrinsic) that lie beyond the neoclassical framing of demand and value.

A sustainable livestock economy depends on both production and consumption, inextricably linked in local, national and global markets. At each scale, technical innovation and production practices need to respond to evolving demand for both market and non-market attributes of livestock systems. This review considers recent and evolving demand-side challenges focussing on emerging preferences related to environmental, dietary and health impacts, arising from both production and consumption. It suggests that these attributes need to be integral to any definition of high-producing animal systems. This discussion is mostly framed using neoclassical economic theory, which highlights market failure and the role of negative and positive external effects or social costs. It examines how our understanding of the demand for these attributes is evolving, leading to market segmentation in some cases, and an existential threat to livestock production as consumption decisions change, investors seek to avoid potential liabilities related to greenhouse gas emissions and potentially antimicrobial resistance, and governments intervene to control other undesirable social costs. The discussion distinguishes between market imperatives in high- and lower-income countries, and how income and consumption trajectories may be less deterministic in a more hyperlinked world where product information may accelerate the evolution of preferences towards and away from livestock products. The review acknowledges the limits of a neoclassical approach, drawing attention to more fundamental concepts of biophysical limits to growth and value pluralism, which indicates values (e.g. intrinsic) that lie beyond the neoclassical framing of demand and value.

Breeding objectives of livestock and other agricultural species are usually profit maximising. The selection emphasis placed on specific traits to achieve a breeding objective is often informed by the financial value of a trait to a farm system. However, there are alternative, and complementary approaches to defining both the breeding objective and the selection emphasis placed on traits that are included in associated selection tools. These are based on the preferences of stakeholders, which are often heterogeneous and include broader values and motivations than profit. In this regard, stated preference methods are useful when considering traits that have either no discernible market value or whose value is not fully transferred via the market. Such approaches can guide more appropriate breeding decisions that are amenable to changing societal values, for example with reduced negative environmental externalities. However, while stated preference methods offer promising conceptualisations of value in genetic improvement programmes, there is still a substantial knowledge gap in terms of the current state of research and a catalogue of publications to date. This paper reviews publications of stated preference approaches in the field of livestock breeding (and some relevant crop breeding examples), providing a knowledge base of published applications and promoting their continued development and implementation towards the formulation of appropriate breeding objectives and selection indices. A systematic review of 84 peer-reviewed publications and an aggregate ranking of traits for the most commonly studied subject (cattle) reveals uncertainty in preference estimates which may be driven by (i) a diverse set of non-standardised methodologies, (ii) common oversights in the selection, inclusion and description of traits, and (iii) inaccurate representations of the respondent population. We discuss key considerations to help overcome these limitations, including avoiding methodological confinement to a disciplinary silo and reducing complexity so that the values of broader respondent groups may be accounted for.

Breeding objectives of livestock and other agricultural species are usually profit maximising. The selection emphasis placed on specific traits to achieve a breeding objective is often informed by the financial value of a trait to a farm system. However, there are alternative, and complementary approaches to defining both the breeding objective and the selection emphasis placed on traits that are included in associated selection tools. These are based on the preferences of stakeholders, which are often heterogeneous and include broader values and motivations than profit. In this regard, stated preference methods are useful when considering traits that have either no discernible market value or whose value is not fully transferred via the market. Such approaches can guide more appropriate breeding decisions that are amenable to changing societal values, for example with reduced negative environmental externalities. However, while stated preference methods offer promising conceptualisations of value in genetic improvement programmes, there is still a substantial knowledge gap in terms of the current state of research and a catalogue of publications to date. This paper reviews publications of stated preference approaches in the field of livestock breeding (and some relevant crop breeding examples), providing a knowledge base of published applications and promoting their continued development and implementation towards the formulation of appropriate breeding objectives and selection indices. A systematic review of 84 peer-reviewed publications and an aggregate ranking of traits for the most commonly studied subject (cattle) reveals uncertainty in preference estimates which may be driven by (i) a diverse set of non-standardised methodologies, (ii) common oversights in the selection, inclusion and description of traits, and (iii) inaccurate representations of the respondent population. We discuss key considerations to help overcome these limitations, including avoiding methodological confinement to a disciplinary silo and reducing complexity so that the values of broader respondent groups may be accounted for.

Pasture management that considers pasture growth dynamics remains an open question. Conceptually, such management must allow for grazing only after the recuperation of the pasture between two separate timely grazing periods when pasture reaches optimum recovery, as per the first law of Voisin's rational grazing system. The optimum recovery period not only implies a pasture with better nutritional value and higher biomass yield but one that also reduces the production of enteric methane (CH4) to improve the grazing efficiency of cattle. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate three different recovery periods (RP) of mixed grasses on the grazing behaviour of heifers, as well as herbage selectivity, herbage yield and nutritional value, in vitro degradability and CH4 production. Based on these criteria, three pasture RPs of 24 (RP24), 35 (RP3) and 46 (RP46) days were evaluated in six blocks using a randomized block design. At each predetermined RP, samples of the pasture were taken before the animals were allowed to graze. Right after collecting the pasture samples, heifers accessed the pasture during 4 h consecutively for grazing simulation and behavioural observations. We also measured the bite rate of each animal. The pasture growing for 24 days had the highest biomass production, best nutritional value, best efficiency of in vitro CH4 relative emission (ml) per DM degraded (g) and bite rate of the three RPs. Heifers all selected their herbage, irrespective of RP, but with different nutritional value and higher in vitro degradability. However, this did not change the production of in vitro CH4. Considering the growth conditions of the area where the study was performed, we recommend the shorter RP24 as the most suitable during the summer season. The study's findings support the idea of management intervention to increase the quality of grazing systems.

Pasture management that considers pasture growth dynamics remains an open question. Conceptually, such management must allow for grazing only after the recuperation of the pasture between two separate timely grazing periods when pasture reaches optimum recovery, as per the first law of Voisin's rational grazing system. The optimum recovery period not only implies a pasture with better nutritional value and higher biomass yield but one that also reduces the production of enteric methane (CH4) to improve the grazing efficiency of cattle. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate three different recovery periods (RP) of mixed grasses on the grazing behaviour of heifers, as well as herbage selectivity, herbage yield and nutritional value, in vitro degradability and CH4 production. Based on these criteria, three pasture RPs of 24 (RP24), 35 (RP3) and 46 (RP46) days were evaluated in six blocks using a randomized block design. At each predetermined RP, samples of the pasture were taken before the animals were allowed to graze. Right after collecting the pasture samples, heifers accessed the pasture during 4 h consecutively for grazing simulation and behavioural observations. We also measured the bite rate of each animal. The pasture growing for 24 days had the highest biomass production, best nutritional value, best efficiency of in vitro CH4 relative emission (ml) per DM degraded (g) and bite rate of the three RPs. Heifers all selected their herbage, irrespective of RP, but with different nutritional value and higher in vitro degradability. However, this did not change the production of in vitro CH4. Considering the growth conditions of the area where the study was performed, we recommend the shorter RP24 as the most suitable during the summer season. The study's findings support the idea of management intervention to increase the quality of grazing systems.