Content uploaded by Michel Duru
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michel Duru on Dec 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Livestock system sustainability and resilience in intensive
production zones: which form of ecological modernization?
Michel Duru •Olivier Therond
Received: 10 January 2014 / Accepted: 3 November 2014
ÓSpringer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract Changes in agriculture during the twentieth
century led to high levels of food production based on
increasing inputs and specialization of farms and agricul-
tural regions. To address negative externalities of these
changes, two forms of ecological modernization of agri-
culture are promoted: ‘‘weak’’ ecological modernization,
mainly based on increasing input efficiency through crop
and animal monitoring and nutrient recycling, and
‘‘strong’’ ecological modernization, based on increasing
agrobiodiversity at different space and time scales and
within or among farms to develop ecosystem services and
in turn reduce industrial inputs even more. Because char-
acterizing the sustainability of these two forms of ecolog-
ical modernization remains an issue, we review the
literature on livestock systems to compare their advantages
and drawbacks. After defining the livestock system as a
local social–ecological system embedded in a complex
multi-level and multi-domain system, we characterize the
two forms of ecological modernization (weak vs. strong).
When sustainability is defined as a state that should be
maintained at a certain level and assessed through a set of
indicators (environmental, economic, and social), we
highlight that one ecological modernization form might
have an advantage for certain sustainability criteria, but a
disadvantage for others. When sustainability is viewed as a
process (resilience), we find that these two forms of eco-
logical modernization are based on different properties:
governance of the entire agri-food chain for weak ecolog-
ical modernization versus local governance of agriculture
and its biophysical and social diversity and connectivity,
and management of slow variables for strong ecological
modernization. The relevance of this sustainability-analysis
approach is illustrated by considering different types of
dairy livestock systems, organic agriculture and integrated
crop–livestock systems.
Keywords Agri-food chain Agroecosystem Dairy
farm Ecological principle Innovation Profitability
Introduction
The model of productivist agriculture, based on the use of
synthetic inputs and natural resources to minimize the
effects of limiting production factors and environmental
heterogeneity, and on genetic improvement of plants and
animals enabled a massive increase in agricultural pro-
duction. In most areas without strong environmental con-
straints, it is accompanied by mechanization, simplification
and standardization of production modes, a decreasing
diversity of crops and livestock breeds, and the creation of
uniform landscapes. It has often led to geographical sepa-
ration of cropping systems and livestock systems (Lemaire
et al. 2011). In the logic of economy of scale and expres-
sion of comparative advantages (e.g., for soil fertility, cli-
mate, knowledge, labor costs, infrastructure, and
regulations), it has led to the specialization of farms and
regions within countries (e.g., dairy farms in Brittany for
Editor: Nicolas Dendoncker.
Michel Duru and Olivier Therond are the Co-first authors.
M. Duru O. Therond
UMR 1248 AGIR, INRA, 31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
e-mail: therond@toulouse.inra.fr
M. Duru (&)O. Therond
INPT, UMR AGIR, Universite
´Toulouse, 31029 Toulouse,
France
e-mail: Michel.Duru@toulouse.inra.fr; mduru@toulouse.inra.fr
123
Reg Environ Change
DOI 10.1007/s10113-014-0722-9
France) or between countries (e.g., Europe imports South
American soybeans as animal feed). The objective of
increasing health safety and standardization of agricultural
production has strengthened this specialization process
(Horlings and Marsden 2011; Lamine 2011).
This model of productivist agriculture expanded greatly
after the Second World War in Western countries. How-
ever, in the 1980s, awareness emerged about its negative
effects on biodiversity and climate change, but also on
product quality, human health, and depletion of fossil and
water resources, which influences resource scarcity. More
particularly, livestock systems have been blamed for their
effects on water pollution, competition for food, and
emission of greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, methane)
(FAO 2006; Janzen 2011). At the same time, the devel-
opment of political concerns about sustainability and
multifunctionality has redefined the objectives assigned to
agriculture through agricultural policies. Good agricultural
practices reducing negative impacts of agriculture,
development of planned biological diversity, and conser-
vation of high-value natural systems, and areas have
become key targets of these policies. Regarding geo-
graphical specialization, the conservation and even the
development of livestock systems in crop-oriented zones
is becoming a challenge, at least in Western Europe and
the USA (Lemaire et al. 2014). Livestock can both stress
and benefit ecosystems. Environmental problems lie not
so much with the animals themselves but rather with how
they are integrated into agroecosystems and food systems
(Gliessman 2006). The current consensus seems to be that
agriculture that includes livestock production should adapt
to produce ecosystem services that benefit human well-
being (Janzen 2011). Provisioning services, such as supply
of plant and animal products, depend on supporting and
regulating services, also called input services (Lamarque
et al. 2011), such as soil fertility, nutrient cycling, water
provision, pest control, and pollination. They can also
favor provision of non-market services such as climate
change mitigation, wildlife habitat, and recreational
landscapes (Zhang et al. 2007; van Oudenhoven et al.
2012).
In the late 1990s, Morris and Winter (1999) advocated a
third path for European agriculture, called ‘‘Integrated
farming systems,’’ which is based on ecological principles
that could be used along with conventional and organic
practices. This analysis has recently been expanded, dis-
tinguishing two main forms of ecological modernization of
agriculture according to whether or not they are based on
agrobiodiversity and related ecosystem services (Horlings
and Marsden 2011). First, ‘‘weak’’ ecological moderniza-
tion of livestock system (‘‘weak-EMLS’’) primarily aims to
reduce their main negative impacts by increasing resource-
use efficiency. It is based on implementing good
agricultural practices (Ingram 2008) and recycling waste
(Kuisma et al. 2012). It may also be based on using new
technologies such as precision agriculture (Rains et al.
2011), biofertilizers (Singh et al. 2011), and genetically
modified organisms. It does not call into question the
specialization of farms and landscapes and the associated
drastic reduction in the number of cultivated species or
breeds. Second, ‘‘strong’’ ecological modernization of
livestock system (‘‘strong-EMLS’’), in addition to the
principles of waste recycling and input-use optimization,
aims to develop diversified farming systems (Kremen et al.
2012), developing and managing biodiversity in agroeco-
systems at different organizational levels to provide sup-
porting and regulating services that determine provisioning
services. Based on biodiversity development, strong-EMLS
also favors non-market services. These services depend on
practices implemented at the field and farm levels, but also,
importantly, at the landscape level (Power 2010). Usually,
these two forms of ecological modernization are not clearly
distinguished in the literature dealing with ‘‘ecology-based
alternatives’’ for livestock systems (e.g., Dumont et al.
2012). As underlying principles, which are detailed in the
following section, the nature of changes and, therefore, the
potential impacts of these two forms of EMLS are funda-
mentally different. We assert that they should be differ-
entiated when examining sustainability of future livestock
systems.
Sustainability has two traditional meanings: a (system)
state that should be maintained at a certain level and the
ability (of the system) to sustain. Regarding the former, for
agriculture, this often expresses the state in which agri-
cultural production levels are maintained within the
capacity of the ecosystem supporting it (Kajikawa 2008).
Used in this way, it converges with the WCED’s (1987)
definition of sustainable development as ‘‘development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’
Most often, methods that assess sustainability of a ‘‘snap-
shot’’ state of agricultural systems use sustainability indi-
cators covering the three pillars of sustainable development
(i.e., environmental, economic, and social). Conversely,
resilience thinking offers a vision of sustainability as a
process for examining how to maintain system functioning
in the face of perturbations (Folke et al. 2002). It is both
related to resistance to changes and maintenance of current
states, as well as adaptive renewal leading to new states
when new characteristics of the context (e.g., shocks)
require redirecting the system (Walker et al. 2004). While
sustainability focuses on reaching pre-defined outcomes,
resilience focuses on adaptive capacity (Anderies et al.
2013). Resilience is a conceptual framework for under-
standing how complex systems self-organize and adapt to
changes over time. Importantly, it is a system-level concept
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
that is useful for identifying human and material capitals
needed to cope with unknown futures. Assessing resilience
leads to answering two key questions: resilience of what
(which system and which properties) and resilience to what
(which perturbations). While most studies of resilience of
agricultural systems assess whether they are able to
maintain their essential attributes and functions within and
across organizational levels despite changes in specific
components or activities, Jackson et al. (2010) suggested
focusing on actors’ capacities to meet their needs in new
ways instead of remaining in current trajectories. However,
dynamic assessment of resilience is rarely explored for
livestock system, although it is the main way to examine a
system’s adaptive capacity and trade-offs among services
(Turner 2010).
The objective of this paper is to provide an integrated
analysis of livestock systems in regions where specializa-
tion and intensification of agriculture has led to negative
environmental impacts and that are now seeking forms of
ecological modernization to reduce these impacts while
maintaining or increasing agricultural production. Focusing
on ruminants, we compare throughout the paper, strong and
weak forms of EMLS considered as two archetypal forms
of ecological modernization corresponding to the two ends
of a continuum. First, based on the multi-domain and
multi-level (local vs. global) grid of Darnhofer et al.
(2010a,b), we define a livestock system as a local ‘‘social–
ecological’’ system and then present the main characteris-
tics of the two forms of EMLS. Second, we assess sus-
tainability of these two forms of ecological modernization
with sustainability indicators and analysis of governance
and properties of livestock systems, i.e., their resilience.
Finally, we illustrate our comparative analysis by applying
it to case studies (dairy farms and a variety of others) which
are akin to the two archetypes of livestock systems. To do
so, we examine whether those that exhibit the main fea-
tures of strong ecological modernization (management
principles and system performances) exist in these case
studies.
Characterizing the diversity of livestock systems
Livestock systems within a complex multi-level
and multi-domain hierarchical system
Livestock systems are embedded in multi-level and multi-
domain agricultural systems. They can be represented as a
complex hierarchical nested system structured by different
domain hierarchies: ecological and biological, economic,
and social. Nested organizational levels of these hierarchies
are composed of multiple subsystems (ten Napel et al.
2011) (Fig. 1).
At the bottom agricultural levels, farms and farmer
networks (the farm community) are the key subsystems
(Fig. 1, bottom line). They shape the ecosystem including
crops and animals (Fig. 1, left column), which are managed
to produce food for society and income for farm families
(Fig. 1, middle column). The cultivated ecosystem pro-
vides provisioning and non-market services according to
local-to-global biophysical dynamics and farmer manage-
ment practices. As for other economic actors, farmers’
behavior depends on the ecological context, agri-food
chain(s), and social and political contexts in which farmers
and their agricultural activities are embedded. All of these
shape farmers’ individual lifestyles (Vanclay 2004): val-
ues, preferences, representation of farming system state
and functioning, objectives, and associated strategies. The
extent to which farmers seek to change their farming sys-
tems through weak or strong ecological modernization
logic is represented in Fig. 1(right column).
Interactions between subsystems of the hierarchical
nested system occur within levels (e.g., farm level) and
between levels and domains via biophysical and socio-
economic processes (e.g., nutrient flows, management
practices, social interaction, and economic organization)
(Darnhofer et al. 2010a,b; Jackson et al. 2010; Ewert et al.
2011). For example, the status of the global sub-system
(e.g., climate change) depends on the aggregated effects of
land-use and management practices, which in turn affects
vegetation dynamics at the farm level and possibly envi-
ronmental policies at national or regional levels. At the
farm level, interactions across ecological, economic, and
social domains determine agricultural practices. Interac-
tions occur also across time scales at the field level (e.g.,
cumulative effect of soil management techniques on soil
fertility and structure) and at higher levels (e.g., nitrogen
cascade).
This representation of agricultural systems enables us to
define boundaries of livestock systems investigated here.
We follow Cabell and Oelofse (2012), who defined a
livestock system (hereafter called ‘‘agroecosystem’’) as ‘‘an
ecosystem managed with the intention of producing, dis-
tributing, and consuming food, fuel, and fiber. Its bound-
aries encompass the physical space dedicated to
production, as well as the resources, infrastructure, mar-
kets, institutions, and people that are dedicated to bringing
food to the plate, fiber to the factory, and fuel to the
hearth.’’ Given this definition, the system encompasses all
the complexity of a ‘‘social–ecological system.’’ Below, we
focus our analysis at the local level, where farmers, farmer
communities and, potentially, local market organization
determine land use and land cover and accordingly their
diversity and sustainability. In our approach, the levels
above the local level are the (external) environments of the
livestock systems. Of course, the livestock system is an
Livestock system sustainability
123
open system that exchanges energy, material resources, and
information (resources) with its environment. Livestock
systems involved in weak or strong ecological moderni-
zation differ greatly in the nature and intensity of internal
biophysical and socioeconomic processes and interactions
with their environment.
Weak and strong ecological modernization of livestock
systems
Over the past few decades, a general decrease in agricul-
tural market prices (and thus in profit per unit), especially
for animal products, and amortization of large farm
investments have pushed farmers to increase farm size and
seek the least expensive inputs from the world market (e.g.,
Argentine or Brazilian soybeans for European livestock
farms). Through economies of scale, the agri-food sector
has sought to decrease costs of inputs (e.g., seeds, animals,
and feeds), production collection (e.g., milk), and stock
(e.g., grain) and, consequently, has organized strong stan-
dardization and limitation of a variety of proposed agri-
cultural inputs and products by farmers. Consequently,
farming systems and practice specialization, standardiza-
tion, and simplification have been strongly influenced by
regional-to-world-scale markets and weakly influenced by
local issues and local farmer interactions. Over the past
several decades, agriculture has been perceived as a sepa-
rate and independent sector and not as integrated into the
local social–ecological system (Leat et al. 2011).
Weak-EMLS aims to limit negative effects of agricul-
tural activities on the environment and the depletion of
natural resources (Table 1, lines 2–5). Farmers implement
weak ecological modernization mainly to comply with
environmental regulations and ‘‘command and control’’
policies or to take advantage of policy incentives such as
agro-environmental measures of the European Common
Agricultural Policy. The weak ecological modernization
process does not modify the main logic that underpinned
farming system functioning. They are still greatly depen-
dent on and driven by regional and international markets:
‘‘Economic sustainability is the foremost concern for the
businesses involved, with progress on other dimensions of
sustainability being developed from positions of economic
viability’’ (Leat et al. 2011). This agricultural model tries
to address sustainability issues through intensive use of
‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ solutions (Table 1, last line).
In contrast, livestock systems that implements a strong
ecological modernization seeks to develop place-based
Fig. 1 Agriculture as a complex, hierarchical multi-domain system
whose emergent properties depend on interactions within and between
local, regional, and national/global levels (levels n1,2,3in lines) and
ecological, economic, and social domains (columns). Main features of
sub-systems by domain and organization level are presented. Gray
cells, the local level, correspond to the livestock system as defined in
the paper. It includes communities, farms, and ecosystems (crop,
animal, and habitat diversity). Adapted from Darnhofer et al. (2010a,
b)
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
agroecological systems that provide ecosystem services to
drastically decrease use of external inputs (Table 1, lines
2–5). These farming systems are based on diversification of
crop and sometimes animal species within farms. As
highlighted by Marsden (2012), this agriculture form
attempts to reposition agriculture into the heart of regional
and local systems of ecological, economic, and community
development. Strong-EMLS is based on economies of
scope at the farm and/or local levels and a traceable market
and take advantage of potential production complemen-
tarities of farms at the local level. Livestock farms may buy
some of the diversified production of local crop farms (e.g.,
protein crops) rather than raw materials from national or
world markets (e.g., industrial food, soybeans from other
continents). This diversified local market may support
development of more autonomous livestock systems
(including decision-making autonomy) than weak-EMLS,
insofar as they depend less on the global context for inputs
(due to ecosystem services or local exchange) and product
processing and marketing (Altieri et al. 2011). However,
since farmers implementing strong-EMLS must manage
biodiversity at different levels (field, surrounding fields,
and landscape), they encounter more complex adaptive
systems than those implementing weak-EMLS (Kremen
et al. 2012). To develop new place-based agroecological
practices with few preexisting references and the need for
social coordination at the landscape level, they must
implement renewed systems of agricultural innovations
and build grassroots networks (Klerkx et al. 2012).
Weak-EMLS farms are embedded into larger agri-food
chains more than strong-EMLS farms because the networks
of people, resources, infrastructure, markets, and institu-
tions that are dedicated to transporting natural resources
and synthetic inputs to farms, factories, and retailers are
potentially much larger. The more that inputs and natural
resources are difficult to access (due to high price or reg-
ulations), the more the context will be favorable for strong-
EMLS, which may cause sustainability problems for weak-
EMLS. In the same logic, regional-to-global policies that
mainly support either specific local markets or standardi-
zation of products for export will favor the emergence of
niches that are based on strong-EMLS principles (Geels
2002) or regimes that promote weak-EMLS.
Continuing the productivist model, weak-EMLS is the
dominant sociotechnical regime, i.e., a relatively stable
configuration of institutions, techniques, regulations, stan-
dards, production norms, practices, and actor networks
(Geels 2002). It is dominant because of its ability to create
technological, organizational, and institutional ‘‘lock-in’’
that ensures its persistence (Vanloqueren and Baret 2009).
In contrast, strong-EMLS can be considered as production
niches, i.e., unstable configurations of formal and informal
networks of actors in which radical innovations emerge
(Horlings and Marsden 2011). Depending upon biogeo-
graphical, economic (agri-food chains), social (actor net-
works), and political contexts, most livestock systems
follow either weak- or strong-EMLS, from confinement
systems to grassland-based and mixed crop–livestock sys-
tems. The form of ecological modernization followed
strongly determines the nature and degree of the connect-
edness of livestock systems to farmland. Each form of
ecological modernization may have strengths and
Table 1 Features of the two paradigms of ecological modernization
of livestock system (EMLS)
Feature Weak-EMLS Strong-EMLS Main
references
Main aim Reducing
negative
environmental
impacts
Producing
ecosystem
services for
saving
resources
Marsden
(2012)
Economical
integration
Agri-food chain
integration;
export
oriented; used
of external
resources
Locally
embedded in
the community
Horlings and
Marsden
(2011)
Governance
and
innovation
system
Top-down
steering and
regulation;
power
concentrated at
multinationals
and large
retailers based
on notions of
‘‘free-trade’’
New innovation
sharing and
collaboration;
self-
sufficiency in
the context of
fair trade; agri-
food networks
Horlings and
Marsden
(2011),
Klerkx
et al.
(2012)
Technological
and
ecological
principles;
land use
Top-down and
one-size-fits-
all: genetic
improvement,
good
management
practices,
precision
farming,
recycling
technologies
Limited number
of crops
Place-based and
biologically
diversified
farming
system;
multiple crops
or subsystems
interacting;
use and
reproduction
of local
resources
Ad hoc spatial
and temporal
«planned»
diversity
promoting
«associated»
diversity
Altieri et al.
(2011),
Duru et al.
(2014)
Main
necessary
capital
Financial and
material
Human and
material for
implementing
place-based
practices
Livestock system sustainability
123
weaknesses in sustainability and resilience at field-to-farm
and local-to-global levels.
Innovation rationales of weak and strong ecological
modernization of livestock systems
Weak-EMLS aims to continually improve crop and ani-
mal performances (quantity and quality) while reducing
undesirable emissions (Fig. 2) and sometimes sensitivity
to environmental hazards (e.g., drought, pests). It is based
on an industrial ecology paradigm that aims to optimize
exchange between subsystems of the entire production
system to improve resource-use efficiency and waste
recycling (Figuie
`re and Metereau 2012). A main objec-
tive is to improve the ‘‘degree of circularity’’ of material
and energy resources through recycling, which directly
reflects the level of resource-use efficiency. An increase
in the degree of circularity would be, for example, to
shift from using manure directly as fertilizer to using
biogas slurry as fertilizer (Tauseef et al. 2013). Some
innovations consist of organizing recycling at the land-
scape level, for example, by exchanging manure (Asai
et al. 2014) or by collecting complementary types of
waste for biogas production (Sorathiya et al. 2014).
Technology-based precision livestock farming is one
pathway to increase resource-use efficiency. In dairy
production, for example, radio-frequency identification
tags signal computer-controlled self-feeders to adjust
concentrated feed to optimize individual daily potential
milk production, while milking robots, which measure
actual milk production, allow cows to schedule their own
milking (Gebbers and Adamchuk 2010). Some innova-
tions based on remote sensing for operational crop
monitoring must be organized at a regional level to
process and disseminate information at low cost. Another
example is the possibility to reduce ammonia emissions
Fig. 2 Two forms of ecological modernization of conventional
livestock systems, focusing on land use. Weak ecological modern-
ization of livestock system (EMLS) is the current mainstream. Local
livestock systems and regional–global levels of the agri-food chain
are represented by light gray and dark gray trapezoids, respectively.
The figure at the top left represents a farm composed of one or more
activities symbolized by circles that overlap slightly (weak-EMLS) or
greatly (strong-EMLS) representing (C)rops, (G)rasslands, and
(A)nimals. Degrees of overlap represent degrees of temporal and
spatial interactions between these activities (e.g., grassland in rotation
with crops, grazing of grassland, and/or crop residues). In weak-
EMLS, technology-based practices increase input-use efficiency, and
recycling reduces input use and disservices [pollutant and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to the environment]. In strong-EMLS, species
mixtures (checkered circles) are grown in arable (crop) land and
grassland, exchanges between farms increase, and agroecological
practices provide input services that in turn can reduce use of
exogenous inputs. For readability, the fact that weak-EMLS and
strong-EMLS systems can coexist at the local level is not represented
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
by storing manure in sealed tanks and then covering it
after field application.
For strong-EMLS, the supply of ecosystem services
crucially depends on maintaining biodiversity through
adapted management in space, time, and intensity (Altieri
and Nicholls 2004; Hooper et al. 2005) (Table 1, last line).
Strong-EMLS is based on the management of planned
biodiversity (e.g., domestic plants and animals), the soil
and landscape matrix to promote beneficial nutrient cycling
and associated biodiversity (e.g., soil microbes, flora and
fauna, and insects) and, directly or indirectly, ecosystem
services. It is part of a middle- to long-term process in
which adapted soil and landscape properties are developed.
Farmers must manage biodiversity across spatial scales,
from fields (crop mixture), areas around crop fields (e.g.,
hedgerows, grass strips) to neighboring fields (e.g., mosaics
of crops and land-use practices) and the landscape (e.g.,
cropping system pattern, landscape matrix, woodlots,
seminatural areas). Across temporal scales, reduced soil
tillage, cover cropping, and crop rotations favor soil fer-
tility and within-field bioregulation. At the landscape scale,
asynchronous tilling, planting/sowing, harvesting, cover
cropping, and crop rotations contribute to maintaining the
heterogeneity that promotes associated biodiversity
(Shennan 2008). Regarding ruminants, diversity can be
promoted by raising different breeds of the same species or
different species. Mixed-species stocking offers potential
advantages for animal health (e.g., more effective parasite
management) and crops (e.g., more uniform use of plants)
(Anderson et al. 2012). Integrated crop–livestock systems
offer opportunities to increase ecosystem services via
spatial and temporal interactions between animals, crops,
and grassland (Fig. 2). For example, at the farm level,
grazing crop residues (Martens et al. 2011) or manure
application increases diversity of microbial and
invertebrate communities in soils, which in turn promotes
nutrient cycling (Reganold et al. 2010). Grazing of inter-
crops can enhance physical, chemical, and biological soil
fertility, especially in cropping systems where pastures are
grazed (Sulc and Franzluebbers 2013) or when combined
with no-till farming (Franzluebbers and Stuedemann 2013).
Crops and livestock can also be integrated at the local
level, through farm exchanges and interactions aimed at
creating local diversified marketing channels adapted to the
region and optimizing the use of individual farm resources
(i.e., to grow crops or animals best suited to a given
characteristic, such as soil conditions) (Sanderson et al.
2013). One of the great challenges of strong-EMLS is
developing local coordination for land use within a region
that best expresses biological regulations, pollination ser-
vices, and, if necessary, interactions and exchanges
between farms.
Sustainability of livestock systems
Sustainability of livestock systems as a state issue
We use well-identified sustainability indicators for live-
stock systems (e.g., Lebacq et al. 2012) to assess sustain-
ability performances of the two forms of ecological
modernization (Table 2). For environmental criteria,
strong-EMLS by nature performed better for biodiversity,
biological soil fertility, and C sequestration, due to char-
acteristics such as greater proportion of (semi-)permanent
grasslands and cover cropping on the farm and/or diversi-
fied crop sequences possibly including grasslands. For
nitrate losses, indoor cow feeding (weak-EMLS), in which
transformation of waste and its application to soil can be
fully or almost fully controlled, can perform better than
Table 2 Qualitative assessment
of sustainability of livestock
systems when shifting from
conventional to weak and strong
ecological modernization
(EMLS) over the current
context [adapted from Lebacq
et al. (2012)]
?,=,-Improving,
maintaining or deteriorating the
sustainability criterion
considered
Domain Criteria Weak-EMLS Strong-EMLS
Environment Biodiversity =/-??
GHG (chemical inputs, energy consumption) ???
GHG (methane) ??
Soil C storage =/-?
Soil quality
Economy Profitability ??
Autonomy -(market) ?(local governance)
Risk ?(dependency) -(due to diversity)
Transmissibility – ?/=
Social Internal (working condition; quality of life) ?/-?/-
External (multifunctionality of agriculture) =/??
Quality of products ? ?
Sovereignty – ?
Livestock system sustainability
123
grazing (strong-EMLS) in some situations (e.g., sandy soil
coupled with rainy weather and low temperatures). For
CH
4
emissions, a detailed description of practices is needed
to compare both forms of ecological modernization. For
example, feeding cows with silage maize and concentrated
feeds tends to have lower CH
4
emissions than grass-based
feeding systems, especially if linseed is added (Doreau
et al. 2011). Both forms of ecological modernization can
have a slightly negative or even positive energy balance
due to the balance between energy consumption and pro-
duction (e.g., biogas production or solar-energy capture).
Both forms of ecological modernization can be eco-
nomically profitable. Even though strong-EMLS may have
lower land productivity, its inputs are also lower (e.g.,
fewer antibiotics, exogenous feeds, pesticides, and fertil-
izers), so that profit per output unit can increase (Lebacq
et al. 2012). Less based on input use, autonomy (in terms of
external financing or inputs) is greater for strong-EMLS
farms. Income variability may be lower for strong-EMLS
farms because they are based on an economy of scope (i.e.,
diversified production) and thus can spread cash flow over
multiple markets. For weak-EMLS, insurance offered by
the agri-food chain can reduce risks. Financial capital is
generally higher on weak-EMLS farms due to the intensive
use of generic material innovations and the often greater
farm size necessary to ensure profitability, often with low
added value. The human capital required is larger in
strong-EMLS, since place-based systems are based mainly
on cognitive innovations.
For social criteria, working conditions and quality of life
may differ, but each form of ecological modernization may
be satisfactory because it depends greatly on farmer pref-
erences and/or lifestyles (Vanclay 2004). However, as
underlined by Tripp (2008), agroecological management,
which is context dependent, is much more complex and
accordingly requires more significant cognitive resources
and greater continuous learning. The multifunctionality of
agriculture, the capacity to deliver benefits beyond agri-
cultural production, is undoubtedly greater for strong-
EMLS (Wilson 2008). Product quality is not simple to
compare from a human health perspective. On the one
hand, it can be better controlled in specialized and sim-
plified food-chain production (weak-EMLS). On the other
hand, strong-EMLS often performs better from the orga-
noleptic viewpoint, especially if animals are fed from
natural grasslands (e.g., Coulon et al. 2004 for cheeses),
and has a better symbolic picture. To achieve a human-diet
profile well balanced in fatty acids, weak-EMLS may add
linseed to ruminant diets based on maize and soybean
(Glasser et al. 2008), whereas strong-EMLS may focus on
grazing-based ruminant diets (Dewhurst et al. 2006).
Strong-EMLS offers higher autonomy of farmers to pro-
duce healthy and culturally appropriate food through
ecologically sound and sustainable methods (Holt-Gime
´nez
and Altieri 2012).
Sustainability of livestock systems as a resilience issue
We address the resilience of livestock systems to changes
in social (e.g., consumer behavior, social expectations
about agriculture), political (e.g., regulations and norms),
economic (e.g., level and variability of input and output
prices), and ecological (e.g., climate change, animal health)
systems. These changes can correspond to shock, i.e., fast
and intensive changes (e.g., price volatility, strong drought,
and economic crises), or stressors, i.e., continuous, less
intensive changes (e.g., climate change). Defining the
livestock systems as a local social–ecological system, and
based on Biggs et al. (2012), who deal with principles of
ecosystem service resilience, we approach livestock sys-
tems resilience according to two key dimensions: gover-
nance of the livestock systems and its properties. Here,
governance means the social and political processes that
shape the management of farms, agri-food chains, and
agricultural innovation systems.
Governance of livestock systems
Weak-EMLS is embedded into the dominant regime based
on large well-structured networks, institutions, and lobbies
that defend its merits and claim the need to concentrate
money and effort into large companies with technological
developments that require significant monetary resources
(e.g., pharmaceuticals, genetic innovations). Farms are
usually managed through a planned process in which
necessary knowledge about the specific production situa-
tion is usually low or acquired through automated and
dedicated technologies. In these systems, innovation is a
top-down process in which public and private research and
development provide farmers with technologies (inputs and
materials) to be used in a standardized manner. In this form
of ecological modernization of agriculture, the agroeco-
system is mainly seen as a ‘‘technological system’’ of
production. Local interactions are often limited to sharing
material technology.
Managers following strong-EMLS have to cope with
uncertainty about biological and ecological processes that
generate ecosystem services and partial control (observa-
tional uncertainty) over the effects of practices on these
processes, especially input services (Williams 2011). The
agroecosystem is seen as a complex adaptive system
characterized by emergent and nonlinear behavior, a high
capacity for ecological and social self-organization and
adaptation based on past experiences, distributed social
control, and ontological uncertainties linked to incomplete
knowledge of managers. Farmers have to develop site-
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
specific practices and consider the local expression of the
processes involved, e.g., plant–animal interactions during
grazing (Hodgson 1985), soil–animal interactions to man-
age parasites during grazing (Dumont et al. 2012), and
plant–soil interactions for nutrients (Eviner and Hawkes
2008; Tomich 2010a,b). Most often, farmers incorporate
traditional cultivation techniques with modern knowledge
(Dore
´et al. 2011). They practice adaptive management,
which consists of active monitoring of and feedback from
the effects and outcomes of decisions. In this way, farmers
learn that consequential actions are always necessarily
specific (Jiggins and Roling 2000). Farmers are organized
into grassroots networks and institutions for reflexive
analysis and sharing of learning. The on-farm innovation
implemented in strong-EMLS is usually collaborative
(sharing information through field visits). It is based on
developing coordination between actors to co-produce
knowledge and technology, possibly supported by partici-
patory and interdisciplinary research (Knickel et al. 2009).
This so called agricultural innovation system supports
social involvement, i.e., engaging in social exchange.
At the local level, the resilience of weak-EMLS farms
depends strongly on the entire agri-food chain and techno-
science system, including research. Whether technical or
economic impasses appear, due to problems in the ecolog-
ical system (e.g., biological resistance, pollution, and
recurrent and significant diseases) or the social system (e.g.,
rejection of a technology such as genetic modified organ-
isms, insufficient profit for farmers), the resilience of the
livestock system depends fully on the agri-food chain to
provide acceptable alternatives. For example, the agri-food
chain can offer insurance to ensure the viability of farming
systems during abnormal weather years (Vermeulen et al.
2012). In the same vein, weak-EMLS farms can decrease
their sensitivity to the price volatility of inputs (e.g., soy-
bean) and outputs (e.g., meat) by signing contracts with pre-
defined prices with companies for supplying and with
retailers for selling (Gilbert and Morgan 2010). In the
strong-EMLS model, adaptations to perturbations may come
mainly from farming system diversification, farmers’ human
capital, and local ad hoc organizations. As mentioned above,
strong-EMLS spreads economic and production risks over
several different enterprises and thereby benefits from a
variety of agricultural markets (Darnhofer et al. 2010a,b;
Hendrickson et al. 2008). The grounded networks necessary
for sharing knowledge about adaptive management prac-
tices are essential for developing strong-EMLS and offer
opportunities to develop economies of scope at the local
level through local farmers’ markets and food cooperatives.
This enables organization of exchanges of protein and for-
age products between crop and livestock farms, for example
(Hendrickson et al. 2008). This high cooperation between
individuals at the local level also offers opportunities for
economies of scale, e.g., through sharing expensive equip-
ment such as direct-seeding machines. In contrast, the strong
connection of weak-EMLS to the regional-to-global market
often leads to weak local social exchanges and connectivity,
and in turn weak local capacity for adaptation to locally
grounded changes. In general, beyond a certain threshold of
disturbance, a specialized farm based on weak-EMLS may
become endangered because incremental technological
innovations may no longer maintain profitability or meet
environmental standards (e.g., Belgian blue cattle system in
Schiere et al. 2012).
More generally, resilience of the two forms of ecologi-
cal modernization at the local level will depend strongly on
trade-offs between economic and social/policy drivers at
regional and national-to-global levels (n3 in Fig. 1). In
developed countries, this is generally the level at which
norms, regulations, taxes, or incentives are established to
manage negative and positive externalities and scarce
resources.
Properties of livestock systems
Biological and social properties of LS that correspond to
the two contrasting forms of ecological modernization are
fundamentally different; strong-EMLS relies on developing
an agroecosystem with a high level of diversity, redun-
dancy, connectivity and long-term management of slow
variables (Biggs et al. 2012).
Diversity corresponds to the number, abundance, and
composition of genotypes, populations, species, functional
types, communities, and landscape units for the ecological
system and of individuals (e.g., farmers), social groups and
organizations for the social system. It determines the
potential for adaptations to social innovations of and
learning about the agroecosystem. Functional diversity and
redundancy determine the degree to which substituting one
set of components with another can meet a biological or
social function. Biological and social connectivity deter-
mine levels of possible circulation of material (including
organisms, actors and energy) as well as cognitive
resources in the system. For example, it determines spe-
cies’ dispersal capacities between habitats (Tscharntke
et al. 2005). However, there is a threshold above which
diversity can lead to a system whose functioning is cum-
bersome, complex, less efficient, and has low adaptation
capacity. Too much connectivity also can favor massive
propagation of initially local perturbations (e.g., diseases)
or individualist behavior harmful to the system (Biggs et al.
2012). In weak-EMLS, due to strong biodiversity homog-
enization, uniform practices (e.g., pesticide use) and the
strong links between components of the agri-food chain,
potential impacts of pests, diseases and other strong eco-
logical and socioeconomic perturbations (e.g., prion crisis,
Livestock system sustainability
123
price volatility, weed resistance) can have a significant
effect on sustainability of agricultural systems. In general
terms, strong-EMLS, being more autonomous and diver-
sified, has less ‘‘tightly coupled’’ systems and thus a lower
risk that accidents become catastrophes for the whole
system (Kirschenmann 2010) as well as for their social or
their ecological dimensions. Strong-EMLS may resist
strong perturbations, such as recurrent droughts, due to
complementarities between diversified organisms (e.g.,
equilibrium among species with differing drought sensi-
tivity in crop and grassland mixtures), increased biophys-
ical capacities (e.g., soil water-holding capacity in
conservation agriculture), or breeding of native livestock
breeds. By seeking to develop microbial, plant and animal
biodiversity, strong-EMLS aims to render crop and live-
stock systems less sensitive to environmental hazards and
change. In this ecological modernization form, production
and health processes are considered closely interconnected
and thus are jointly analyzed and managed to explain and
control multifactorial diseases (Dumont et al. 2012). Fur-
thermore, improving animal health reduces the risk of
emissions of pharmaceutical residues into the environment.
Dynamics of agroecosystems can also be determined by
the interaction between slow variables (e.g., soil organic
matter, farm size, state of water resources, management
agencies and social values) and fast variables (e.g., field
management, water withdrawals, authorization to access
resources). The former determines the conditions under
which the latter occurs (Biggs et al. 2012). Weak-EMLS
does not seek to manage slow biophysical and social
variables locally. It is based on the use of exogenous inputs
to meet requirements of the agroecosystem. The ecological
system is artificialized, while the local social system is
strongly embedded in the dominant supra-local agri-food
chain. Slow variables at stake in weak-EMLS are mainly
those in the entire agri-food chain, not those in the local
social–ecological system. Conversely, the management
principles involved in strong-EMLS aim to reach slow
variable states to provide typical ecosystem services. For
example, soil management seeks to develop high fertility
(high soil organic matter and biological activity), while
social-learning networks seek to improve individual and
collective human capital and, accordingly, adaptive
capacities.
Analysis of examples of conventional and emergent
livestock systems
Dairy farm dynamics in Brittany
Most farming systems in Brittany (France) are dairy farms
(17,000 out of 37,000 farms). Since the 1950s, local strong
concentration of intensive livestock systems has induced
strong economic and social development, but also public
concern about human health hazards, food security, and
environmental problems (Acosta-Alba et al. 2012). The
French Government have set targets and specific regula-
tions for decreasing environmental impacts based on sci-
entific recommendations and national, European (e.g., EU
Water Framework Directive), and global scales (e.g.,
Kyoto protocol) regulations and policies. Two main path-
ways corresponding to weak and strong-EMLS processes
are observed.
The main and more developed path, supported by the
dominant agricultural political movement, encourages
farmers to optimize their systems by providing relevant
tools such as planning and monitoring to manage grazing
and farm-gate nutrient budgets to manage nitrogen. An
alternative option is supported by farm networks called
CIVAM that promote sustainable agriculture by imple-
menting innovative ways to develop agriculture and rural
activities as a part of sustainable territorial development.
They promote and develop strategies to enhance the
autonomy of farmers and their integration into local com-
munities. They attempt to answer local questions from a
global perspective about the functions and place of agri-
culture in society (RAD 2013). Farmers in these networks
are more familiar with self-organization, reflexive analysis,
and sharing experiences than most farmers involved in
conventional dairy systems. Based on their personal
experiences and histories, farmers can identify their sus-
tainability priorities so as to improve their environment,
solidarity, product quality, economic efficiency, and qual-
ity of life. Each farmer has a personal vision of the progress
that he or she can accomplish. The agricultural innovation
system that sustains these farmer networks is completely
based on collective experimentation, organization, associ-
ated learning, and participation within the definition of
collective objectives and expected specifications of pro-
duction systems. For this, farmer networks organize local
exchanges and training during economic and technical field
trips. As for economic principles, farmers aim to be glob-
ally self-sufficient and locally interdependent. They seek to
organize adapted governance into their adaptive farming
systems and networks. However, since farm size is small,
most CIVAM farmers specialize in dairy production. In
addition to these principles, they contract for production
specifications, including 75 % of forage resources coming
from grasslands,\50 kg/ha of synthetic N fertilizer applied
to grasslands, no bare soil in winter, rotation length of at
least 4 years, only a small area in silage maize, and no
plastic film used to grow maize. These specifications fun-
damentally seek to develop soil fertility (slow variables).
Assessing classical criteria for economic and environ-
mental sustainability of these conventional livestock
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
systems (in weak-EMLS) and CIVAM one (in strong-
EMLS), crops and grasslands are more diversified in CI-
VAM farms (Table 3). Milk production per cow for CI-
VAM farms is lower, but economic results are higher due
to lower costs of mechanization and industrial inputs.
However, land required per cow is higher, and even more
so per kg of milk produced. Clear differences are found in
the number of pesticide applications, but differences in
GHG emissions are small. Clear advantages for the envi-
ronment appear for CIVAM farms only when assuming C
sequestration by their large areas of semipermanent
grasslands (Le Rohellec and Mouchet 2008; Le Rohellec
et al. 2011).
For farmers involved in CIVAM networks, we recover
the features of strong-EMLS: Owing to their limited use of
purchased inputs to be self-sufficient, they search for
autonomy in decision making, through developing their
own technical reference framework, and thus can also
contribute to alternative development pathways of rural
territories (Coquil et al. 2014).
Position of well-known livestock systems in the weak
to strong ecological modernization continuum
Organic agriculture: the example of beef farms
Organic farming, which excludes the use of synthetic fer-
tilizers, pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungi-
cides), livestock antibiotics, food additives, and GMO, is
considered as one form of sustainable agriculture (Francis
2009). General ecological principles promoted in organic
farming correspond to some of those that underpin strong-
EMLS (e.g., crop diversity, development of legumes, ani-
mal health). However, due to the diversity of farmer
viewpoints, two types of organic farmer organizations
coexist: those supporting weak-EMLS and those support-
ing strong-EMLS (Francis 2009). The former are often
organized as a subsector of the conventional agri-food
chain. They correspond to ‘‘industrial organic production.’’
The latter are generally organized in alternative networks
that defend a new model of agriculture and agri-food sys-
tem (e.g., based on local and short agri-food chains). In
general terms, in their recent review, Gomiero et al. (2011)
found that energy consumption and GHG emissions were
lowest for organic versus conventional dairy farms in
Europe, regardless of the functional unit of measure (per ha
or per kg of milk). These authors pointed out that multi-
criteria analysis based on key indicators is essential,
because some systems may have an advantage for one
criterion (e.g., fewer CH
4
emissions for conventional
livestock systems), but a disadvantage for another (e.g.,
nutrient losses). However, being based on contractual
obligations for inputs but not results, organic farming does
not explore all the possibilities offered by the agroeco-
logical principles of the strong-EMLS. To bridge the pro-
ductivity gap between organic and conventional
agricultures, experts involved in organic agriculture
recently suggested promoting ‘‘ecofunctional intensifica-
tion,’’ defined as stimulating more knowledge and using
more intensively biological regulations (Niggli et al. 2008),
both of which similar to the principles of strong-EMLS.
Comparison of productive, environmental, and eco-
nomic performances of organic versus conventional spe-
cialized suckler cattle farms in France showed the former
have lower meat production (by -18 to -37 %/ha), but
also lower GHG emissions per ha (and per kg of animal
live weight depending on system intensification) when
taking C sequestration into account (Veysset et al. 2010).
Operational costs of organic beef farms decreased due to a
Table 3 Comparison of conventional dairy farms and ‘‘sustainable
dairy farm network’’ (CIVAM, a type of weak-EMLS) in Brittany
(France)
Domain Criteria CIVAM Conventional
Structure Agricultural land (ha) 64 71
Animal unit (dairy
cows)
75 (49) 96 (48)
Land use and
management
Stocking rate (number
of animal units/ha)
1.28 1.61
Land use in percentage
(grassland/maize/
crops)
69/12/19 58/21/21
Maize for silage (% of
forage area)
12 37
Hedge (ml/ha) [150
linear
meter/
ha
No
obligation
Economy Inputs (euros/ha) 100 240
Milk/cow (kg) 5,749 6,636
Food cost
(euros/1,000 l)
78 120
Mechanization cost
(euros/ha)
400 500
Farm incomes (euros) 134,718 157,309
Gross operating profit
(euros)
53,365 42,291
Environment Pesticide treatment
frequency for maize
a
0.83–1.24 1.66
GHG emissions (CH
4
,
CO
2
,N
2
O (kg eq
CO
2
/1,000 l)
b
1,100 1,100
Net GHG emissions
(kg eq CO
2
/1,000 l)
874 1,018
a
Number of applications with standard approved dosages
b
Less CH
4
emissions for conventional farms; more C sequestered for
CIVAM farms due to grasslands and hedges
Livestock system sustainability
123
decrease in inputs (-9to-52 %), while organic farm
income decreased an average of approximately 20 %
(Veysset et al. 2010).
In USA, alternative beef-production systems (e.g.,
organic, grass fed) offer consumers and producers alter-
natives to conventional beef production, but their produc-
tion costs are usually higher (Matthews and Johnonson
2013). These beef systems have different properties (e.g.,
resource and other input use, GHG emissions, animal
welfare, processing and food safety/security concerns) that
may appeal to various consumers. In their analysis, Mat-
thews and Johnonson (2013) emphasized that the trade-offs
associated with each system can influence their attrac-
tiveness to consumers. For example, grass-based systems
can produce a better fatty acid profile for meat and
accordingly human health properties, while incentives for
livestock systems in marginal lands can increase GHG
emissions per unit of product.
What about integrated crop–livestock systems?
The number of mixed crop–livestock farming systems, in
which some of the crops are sold, has greatly declined in
Europe and North America since the Second World War.
However, integration of crops and livestock at the farm
level, as already mentioned, is expected to provide many
advantages (Wilkins 2008). Currently, mixed-farming
systems are concentrated in less favorable areas where soil
heterogeneity lead farmers to grow forage crops and
grasslands. In this context, the environmental and eco-
nomic performances of such systems are usually greater
than those of specialized farms (Ryschawy et al. 2012).
However, in specialized crop or livestock regions, many
authors claim that, given the economic context, area-wide
crop–livestock integration can be more successful than
only farm-level integration (Moraine et al. 2014; Entz and
Thiessen Martens 2009). Area-wide integration of crops
and livestock (i.e., at the local level) can be an option to
deal with a range of environmental and economic issues
(e.g., nutrient surplus, water shortage, and low forage self-
sufficiency of livestock farms) or challenges (e.g.,
decreasing industrial inputs of crop farms). It is based on
exchanges of forage, grain, by-products, and manure
between specialized crop and livestock farms and can be
implemented through weak- or strong-EMLS. For weak-
EMLS, it may consist of common facilities for producing
energy from crop residues as well as manure, straw, or
grain exchanges. It requires the proximity of crop and
livestock production or the dehydration and exchange of
products to limit the economic cost and environmental
impacts of transport (Bell and Moore 2012). For strong-
EMLS, it can occur by introducing legumes in rotations of
specialized cash crop farms to be sold as grain or forage.
This increases fertility and, if well distributed in the
landscape, may favor biological regulations. Both of these
ecosystem services could allow industrial inputs used in
crop farms to be decreased while providing fodder for
livestock farms (Sanderson et al. 2013). More broadly, crop
and livestock integration at different spatial and temporal
levels can constitute an ultimate form of strong-EMLS
when designed to enhance a large set of ecosystem services
(Lovell et al. 2010; Francis and Porter 2011; Moraine et al.
2014). However, when organized at the local/landscape
level, it must organize local governance that promotes
collective learning, experimentation and participation.
Concluding remarks
Focusing on livestock systems at the local level and their
land-use dimensions, we described and assessed the sus-
tainability of two archetypal forms of these systems: weak
and strong ecological modernization, which represent two
archetypal extremes of a continuum. To manage the sus-
tainability of these two types of livestock systems, we first
assess their environmental, economic, and social perfor-
mances and then their resilience by analyzing their gov-
ernance and related properties. In weak-EMLS, reducing
negative impacts of livestock systems on the environment,
the main objective of the ecological modernization, is
achieved by increasing input-use efficiency and waste
recycling, while strong-EMLS, in addition to these prin-
ciples, seeks to develop ecosystem services based on bio-
diversity. Our sustainability assessment demonstrates that
one ecological modernization form might have advantages
for certain criteria (e.g., fewer CH
4
emissions for weak-
EMLS), but disadvantages for others (e.g., nutrient losses).
Resilience is based on different properties. For weak-
EMLS, it depends on the entire agri-food chain and its
ability to provide technological and economical solutions
that help livestock systems manage changes. In contrast,
resilience of strong-EMLS is determined by characteristics
of the local governance of agriculture, its levels of bio-
physical and social diversity and connectivity, and the way
slow variables are managed.
In Western countries, organic agriculture can contribute
to strong-EMLS. However, since it is based on contractual
obligations for inputs but not results, it can fail to fully
exploit ecological and socioeconomic principles that
ground strong-EMLS. Crop and livestock integration can
constitute an ultimate form of strong-EMLS when designed
to enhance a large set of ecosystems and based on area-
wide integration.
Assessing sustainability and resilience of the many
existing and developing livestock systems in different
geographical areas within a country can help politicians
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
adapt their policies to meet their objectives. For example,
in Europe, it can help in choosing a balance between direct
payments to farmers for conditional observance of envi-
ronmentally friendly practices and return payments that
compensate additional costs and income losses when
implementing agroecological practices that go beyond
standard good farming practices. It can also help evaluate
the advantages and disadvantages of conservation ease-
ments (i.e., for long-term ecosystem services) or market
credits (e.g., for C sequestration). Furthermore, it can help
advisors identify which skills and tools to develop
according to the ecological modernization form they want
to initiate. To meet this end, politicians and advisors must
appreciate that the more pronounced forms of weak-EMLS
have strong path dependency when encountering change.
As Sutherland et al. (2012) demonstrate, this may limit
their ability to deal with radically new environmental
norms and market conditions.
Acknowledgments This paper has benefited of discussions that
occurred in three projects: O2LA (Locally Adapted Organisms and
Organizations; ANR-09-STRA-09) and TATABOX (Territorial Ag-
roecological Transition in Action: a tool-BOX for designing and
implementing a territorial agroecological system transition in agri-
culture; ANR-13-AGRO-0006), both funded by the French National
Agency for Research, and CANTOGETHER (Crops and ANimals
TOGETHER, FP7, Grant Agreement No. 289328), funded by the
European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (Food,
Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology).
References
Acosta-Alba I, Lope
´z-Ridaura S, van der Werf HM, Leterme P,
Corson MS (2012) Exploring sustainable farming scenarios at a
regional scale: an application to dairy farms in Brittany. J Clean
Prod 28:160–167. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.061
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2004) Biodiversity and pest management in
agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York
Altieri MA, Funes-Monzote FR, Petersen P (2011) Agroecologically
efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contribu-
tions to food sovereignty. Agron Sustain Dev 32:1–13. doi:10.
1007/s13593-011-0065-6
Anderies JM, Folke C, Walker B, Ostrom E (2013) Aligning key
concepts for global change policy: robustness, resilience, and
sustainability. Ecol Soc 18(2):8
Anderson DM, Fredrickson EL, Estell RE (2012) Managing livestock
using animal behavior: mixed-species stocking and flerds.
Animal 6:1339–1349. doi:10.1017/S175173111200016X
Asai M, Langer V, Frederiksen P, Jacobsen BH (2014) Livestock
farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for
manure exchange: a study in Denmark. Agric Syst. doi:10.1016/
j.agsy.2014.03.007
Bell LW, Moore AD (2012) Integrated crop–livestock systems in
Australian agriculture: trends, drivers and implications. Agric
Syst 111:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2012.04.003
Biggs R, Schlu
¨ter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S, Cundill
G, Dakos V, Daw TM, Evans LS, Kotschy K, Leitch AM, Meek
C, Quinlan A, Raudsepp-Hearne A, Robards MD, Schoon ML,
Schultz L, West PC (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the
resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour
37:421–448
Cabell JF, Oelofse M (2012) An indicator framework for assessing
agroecosystem resilience. Ecol Soc 17(1):18
Coquil X, Be
´guin P, Dedieu B (2014) Transition to self-sufficient
mixed crop–dairy farming systems. Renew Agric Food Syst.
doi:10.1017/S1742170513000458
Coulon J, Delacroix-Buchet A, Martin B, Pirisi A (2004) Relation-
ships between ruminant management and sensory characteristics
of cheeses: a review. Le Lait 84:221–241. doi:10.1051/lait
Darnhofer I, Moller H, Fairweather J (2010a) Farm resilience for
sustainable food production: a conceptual framework. Int J Agric
Sustain 8:186–198
Darnhofer I, Bellon S, Dedieu B, Milestad R (2010b) Adaptiveness to
enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agric
For Sustain Dev 30:545–555. doi:10.1051/agro/2009053
Dewhurst RJ, Shingfield KJ, Lee MRF, Scollan ND (2006) Increasing
the concentrations of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in
milk produced by dairy cows in high-forage systems. Anim Feed
Sci Technol 131:168–206. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.04.016
Dore
´T, Makowski D, Male
´zieux E, Munier-Jolain N, Tchamitchian
M, Tittonell P (2011) Facing up to the paradigm of ecological
intensification in agronomy: revisiting methods, concepts and
knowledge. Eur J Agron 34:197–210. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.
006
Doreau M, Martin C, Popova M, Morgavi DP (2011) Leviers d’action
pour re
´duire la production de me
´thane ente
´rique par les
ruminants. Productions Animales 24:461–474
Dumont B, Fortun-Lamothe L, Jouven M, Thomas M, Tichit M
(2012) Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for
animal production in the 21st century. Animal 1028–1043.
doi:10.1017/S1751731112002418
Duru M, Fare
`s M, The
´rond O (2014) Un cadre conceptuel pour penser
maintenant (et organiser demain), la transition agroe
´cologique de
l’agriculture dans les territoires (in French). A conceptual
framework for thinking now (and organising tomorrow) the
agroecological transition at the level of the territory Cahiers
Agricultures 23:84–97
Entz MH, Thiessen Martens JR (2009) Organic crop–livestock systems.
In: Francis CA (ed) Organic farming: the ecological system. ASA-
CSSA-SSSA Book & Multimedia, Madison, pp 69–84
Eviner VT, Hawkes CV (2008) Embracing variability in the
application of plant–soil interactions to the restoration of
communities and ecosystems. Restor Ecol 16:713–729. doi:10.
1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00482.x
Ewert F, van Ittersum MK, Heckelei T, Therond O, Bezlepkina I,
Andersen A (2011) Scale changes and model linking methods for
integrated assessment of agri-environmental systems. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 142:6–17. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.016
FAO (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. FAO collection: environmental
issues and options. FAO, Rome, 390 p
Figuie
`re C, Metereau R (2012) At the crossroads of industrial ecology
and Syal. Advance the sustainability of a localized rural
development. Communication au XXVIII journe
´es de l’ATM,
Orle
´ans, 11–13 juin
Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker
B (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building
adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio
31:437–440
Francis C (2009) Education in organic farming and food systems. In:
Francis CA (ed) Organic farming: the ecological system.
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin
pp 283–300
Francis CA, Porter P (2011) Ecology in sustainable agriculture
practices and systems. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:64–73. doi:10.1080/
07352689.2011.554353
Livestock system sustainability
123
Franzluebbers AJ, Stuedemann J (2013) Crop and cattle production
responses to tillage and cover crop management in an integrated
crop–livestock system in the southeastern USA. Eur J Agron.
doi:10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.009
Gebbers R, Adamchuk VI (2010) Precision agriculture and food
security. Science (New York, NY) 327:828–831. doi:10.1126/
science.1183899
Geels F (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfigu-
ration processes: a multi-level persepective and a case-study. Res
Policy 31:1257–1274
Gilbert CL, Morgan CW (2010) Food price volatility. Philos Trans R
Soc B Biol Sci 365:3023–3034. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0139
Glasser F, Ferlay A, Chilliard Y (2008) Oilseed lipid supplements and
fatty acid composition of cow milk: a meta-analysis. J Dairy Sci
91:4687–4703. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-0987
Gliessman SR (2006) Animals in agroecosystems. In: Agroecology:
the ecology of sustainable food systems, 2nd edn. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, pp 269–285
Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG (2011) Environmental impact of
different agricultural management practices: conventional vs.
organic agriculture. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:95–124. doi:10.1080/
07352689.2011.554355
Hendrickson JR, Hanson JD, Tanaka DL, Sassenrath G (2008)
Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to
processes and definition. Renew Agric Food Syst 23:265–271.
doi:10.1017/S1742170507001718
Hodgson J (1985) The significance of sward characteristics in the
management of temperate sown pastures, vol 15. In: Proceedings
of the XV international grassland congress, Kyoto, Japan,
pp 63–66
Holt-Gime
´nez E, Altieri MA (2012) Agroecology, food sovereignty
and the new green revolution. J Sustain Agric 37:90–102. doi:10.
1080/10440046.2012.716388
Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S,
Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Seta
¨la
¨
H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of
biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current
knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35
Horlings LG, Marsden TK (2011) Towards the real green revolution?
Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological
modernisation of agriculture that could ‘‘feed the world’’. Glob
Environ Chang 21:441–452. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.
004
Ingram J (2008) Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an
analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best manage-
ment practices in England. Agric Hum Values 25:405–418.
doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0
Jackson L, van Noordwijk M, Bengtsson J, Foster W, Lipper L,
Pulleman M, Said M, Snaddon J, Vodouhe R (2010) Biodiversity
and agricultural sustainagility: from assessment to adaptive
management. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 80–87. doi:10.1016/j.
cosust.2010.02.007
Janzen HH (2011) What place for livestock on a re-greening earth?
Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:783–796. doi:10.1016/j.
anifeedsci.2011.04.055
Jiggins J, Roling N (2000) Adaptive management: potential and
limitations for ecological governance. Int J Agric Resour Gov
Ecol 1:28–42
Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability
science. Sustain Sci 3:215–239. doi:10.1007/s11625-008-0053-1
Kirschenmann F (2010) Alternative agriculture in an energy- and
resource-depleting future. Renew Agric Food Syst 25:85–89
Klerkx L, Van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems
approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and
interventions. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B (eds)
Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new
dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 459–485
Knickel K, Brunori G, Rand S (2009) Towards a better conceptual
framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural
development: from linear models to systemic approaches.
J Agric Educ Ext 15:131–146
Kremen C, Iles A, Bacon C (2012) Diversified farming systems: an
agroecological systems-based. Ecol Soc 17(4):44
Kuisma M, Kahiluoto H, Havukainen J, Lehtonen E, Luoranen M,
Myllymaa T, Gro
¨nroos J, Horttanaine M (2012) Understanding
biorefining efficiency—the case of agrifood waste. Bioresour
Technol 135:588–597. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.038
Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD,
Szukics U, Schermer M, Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder percep-
tions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on
soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Chang 791–804.
doi:10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0
Lamine C (2011) Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization
of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from
organic farming and IPM. J Rural Stud 27:209–219. doi:10.1016/
j.jrurstud.2011.02.001
Le Rohellec C, Mouchet C (2008) Efficacite
´e
´conomique de syste
`mes
laitiers herbagers en agriculture durable (RAD): une comparai-
son avec le RICA. Fourrages 193:107–113
Le Rohellec V, Mouchet C, Boutin M, Brault J (2011) Analyse de
l’efficacite
´e
´conomique et environnementale des syste
`mes
laitiers herbagers e
´conomes et autonomes 2007–2010. Rencontre
Recherche Ruminants, Paris, pp 297–300
Leat P, Lamprinopoulou C, Revoredo-Giha C, KupiecTeahan B
(2011) Agri-food supply chains and sustainability-related issues:
evidence from across the Scottish agri-food economy. In: 85th
annual conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, 25 pp
Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D (2012) Sustainability indicators for
livestock farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:327–331.
doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x
Lemaire G, Hodgson J, Chabbi A (2011) Introduction: food security
and environmental impacts—challenge for grassland sciences. In
Grassland productivity and ecosystem services. CABI, Walling-
ford, pp xiii–xvii, Hardback, 312 pp
Lemaire G, Franzluebbers A, Carvalho PCDF, Dedieu B (2014)
Integrated crop–livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy
between agricultural production and environmental quality.
Agric Ecosyst Environ 190:4–8. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009
Lovell TS, DeSantis S, Nathan CA, Breton Olson M, Me
´ndez VE,
Kominami HC, Erickson DL, Morris KS, Morris WB (2010)
Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in
Vermont: an evolving framework to evaluate the design of
agroecosystems. Agric Syst 103:327–341. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.
2010.03.003
Marsden T (2012) Towards a real sustainable agri-food security and
food policy: beyond the ecological fallacies? Polit Q
83:139–145. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02242.x
Martens J, Thiessen R, Entz MH (2011) Integrating green manure and
grazing systems: a review. Can J Plant Sci 91:811–824. doi:10.
4141/CJPS10177
Matthews KH, Johnonson RJ (2013) Alternative beef production
systems: issues and implications/LDPM-218-01. Economic
Research Service/USDA. Alternative beef production systems:
issues and implications/LDPM-218-01, 34 pp
Moraine M, Duru M, Nicholas P, Leterme P, Therond O (2014)
Farming system design for innovative crop–livestock integration
in Europe. Animal 1–14. doi:10.1017/S1751731114001189
Morris C, Winter M (1999) Integrated farming systems: the third way
for European agriculture? Land Use Policy 16:193–205. doi:10.
1016/S0264-8377(99)00020-4
M. Duru, O. Therond
123
Niggli U, Slabe A, Schmid O, Halberg N, Schlu
¨ter M (2008) Vision
for an organic food and farming research agenda to 2025 organic
knowledge for the future iFOAM Regional Group European
Union (IFOAM EU Group) Technology Platform ‘Organics’,
45 pp
Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and
synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2959–2971. doi:10.
1098/rstb.2010.0143
RAD (2013) (sustainable agriculture network) www.agriculture-
durable.org/
Rains GC, Olson DM, Lewis WJ (2011) Redirecting technology to
support sustainable farm management practices. Agric Syst
104:365–370. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.12.008
Reganold JP, Andrews PK, Reeve JR, Carpenter-Boggs L, Schadt
CW, Alldredge JR, Ross CF, Davies NM, Zhou J, El-Shemy HA
(2010) Fruit and soil quality of organic and conventional
strawberry agroecosystems. PLoS One 5(9):e12346
Ryschawy J, Choisis N, Choisis JP, Joannon A, Gibon A (2012)
Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-
friendly way of farming? Animal 6:1722–1730. doi:10.1017/
S1751731112000675
Sanderson MA, Archer D, Hendrickson J, Kronberg S, Liebig M,
Nichols K, Schmer M, Tanaka D, Aguilar D (2013) Diversifi-
cation and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture:
outcomes from pastures and integrated crop–livestock systems.
Renew Agric Food Syst 1–16. doi:10.1017/S1742170512000312
Schiere JB, Darnhofer I, Duru M (2012) Dynamics in farming
systems: of changes and choices. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D,
Dedieu B (eds) Farming systems research into the 21st century:
the new dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 339–365
Shennan C (2008) Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and
agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363:717–739. doi:10.
1098/rstb.2007.2180
Singh JS, Pandey VC, Singh DP (2011) Efficient soil microorgan-
isms: a new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environ-
mental development. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:339–353.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.01.017
Sorathiya LM, Fulsoundar B, Tyagi KK (2014) Eco-friendly and
modern methods of livestock waste recycling for enhancing farm
profitability. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 3:50. doi:10.1007/
s40093-014-0050-6
Sulc RM, Franzluebbers AJ (2013) Exploring integrated crop–
livestock systems in different ecoregions of the United States.
Eur J Agron. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2013.10.007
Sutherland LA, Burton RJF, Ingram J, Blackstock K, Slee B, Gotts N
(2012) Triggering change: towards a conceptualisation of major
change processes in farm decision-making. J Environ Manag
104:142–151. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.013
Tauseef SM, Premalatha M, Abbasi T, Abbasi S (2013) Methane
capture from livestock manure. J Environ Manag 117:187–207.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.022
Ten Napel J, van der Veen AA, Oosting SJ, Groot Koerkamp PWG
(2011) A conceptual approach to design livestock production
systems for robustness to enhance sustainability. Livest Sci
139:150–160. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.007
Tomich TP (2010a) Agroecology. Annu Rev Environ Resour
36:193–222
Tomich TP (2010b) Agroecology. Annu Rev Environ Resour
36:110301095711090. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012110-
121302
Tripp R (2008) Agricultural change and low-input technology. In:
Snapp S, Pound B (eds) Agricultural systems: agroecology and
rural innovation for development. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp 129–160
Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C
(2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and
biodiversity- ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett
8:857–874. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x
Turner BL II (2010) Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or
paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Glob Environ
Chang 20:570–576. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003
Van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS
(2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess
effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic
21:110–122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012
Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist
in the promotion of natural resource management. Aust J Exp
Agric 44:213–223
Vanloqueren G, Baret PV (2009) How agricultural research systems
shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering
but locks out agroecological innovations. Res Policy
38:971–983. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.008
Vermeulen SJ, Aggarwal PK, Ainslie A, Angelone C, Campbell BM,
Challinir AJ, Hansen JW, Ingram JSI, Jarvis A, Kristjanson P,
Lau C, Nelson GC, Thornton PK, Wollenberg E (2012) Options
for support to agriculture and food security under climate
change. Environ Sci Policy 15:136–144. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.
2011.09.003
Veysset P, Lherm M, Be
´bin D (2010) Productive, environmental and
economic performances assessments of organic and conventional
suckler cattle farming systems. Org Agric 1:1–16. doi:10.1007/
s13165-010-0001-0
Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience,
adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems.
Ecol Soc 9(2):5
WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on environment and
development. NGO Committee on Education of the Conference
of NGOs from United Nations web sites
Wilkins RJ (2008) Eco-efficient approaches to land management: a
case for increased integration of crop and animal production
systems. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363:517–525. doi:10.
1098/rstb.2007.2167
Williams BK (2011) Passive and active adaptive management:
approaches and an example. J Environ Manag 92:1371–1378.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.039
Wilson G (2008) From ‘‘weak’’ to ‘‘strong’’ multifunctionality:
conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional path-
ways. J Rural Stud 24:367–383. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.
010
Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007)
Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ
64:253–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
Livestock system sustainability
123
