The transition to a more sustainable livestock sector represents one of the major challenges of our time. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is recognised as the gold standard methodology for assessing the environmental impact of farming systems. Simultaneously, animal welfare is a key component of livestock production and is intrinsically related to human and environmental well-being. To perform an overall on-farm sustainability assessment, it would be desirable to consider both the environmental impact and the welfare of the animals. The present work aimed to summarise and describe the methodologies adopted in peer-reviewed papers published to date, that combine animal welfare evaluation with LCA. Citations, retrieved from four bibliographical databases, were systematically evaluated in a multi-stage approach following the JBI and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. The searches identified 1 460 studies, of which only 24 were compliant with the inclusion criteria. The results highlighted how the environmental LCA was undertaken with a much more homogenous and standardised method than animal welfare assessment. When studies were grouped based on the type of animal welfare assessment performed: 16.7% used single welfare indicators, 45.8% multiple indicators, 8.3% applied existing validated protocols (i.e., TGI-200 and TGI-35L), 16.7% used non-validated protocols and 12.5% employed other methods. The papers were further classified with respect to the "5 Animal Welfare Domains Model": the most assessed domain was "environment" (90.5% of the papers%), followed by "health" (52.4%), "nutrition" (33.3%), "behavioural interactions" (28.6%) and "mental state" (9.5%). None of the studies assessed all the domains simultaneously. In addition, 66.7% of papers (n = 16) aggregated the animal welfare indicators into a final score. Within these, only four papers proposed to associate the animal welfare scores with the LCA functional unit. An overall sustainability score, calculated with several different approaches to summarise the information, was provided by 46% of the papers. In summary, despite the topic's relevance, to date, there is neither a consensus on the animal welfare assessment approach to be carried out (indicators selection and their aggregation) nor on the standardisation of an integrated animal welfare-LCA evaluation. The present review provides a basis for the development of common future guidelines to carry out a comprehensive, true-to-life and robust farm sustainability assessment.

Endemic sheep and cattle diseases represent a constant strain and impact to animal health and welfare, the environment, public health, and the economy. Quantifying this impact helps to inform decisions on surveillance and control of livestock diseases. This systematic literature review had two objectives; to describe the economic impact of endemic sheep and cattle diseases in the United Kingdom using a broad conceptualisation of impact, and to investigate what variables (e.g. medication costs, loss of production) and methods are included in these calculations. The Prisma protocol for systematic literature reviews was followed. Searches were performed in Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science using selected and trialled search terms. A total of 1129 papers were identified and screened for relevancy; 38 papers were selected for full review extracting and analysing data on disease, impact and methods. From this final selection of papers it was found that; 1) research in this area is mainly focused on the dairy sub-sector, 2) the most mentioned diseases were mastitis and lameness in dairy cattle; bovine viral diarrhoea in beef cattle; and ectoparasites in sheep with reported animal-level costs of £ 77-£ 548/cow/year, £ 26-£ 185/bovine animal/year and £ 40-£ 47/ewe/year, respectively, 3) numerous methods and variables were used to calculate or estimate the economic impact with most studies focussing on the direct producer impacts and less on the wider implications and affected stakeholders; and 4) it was common for studies to look at one disease in isolation rather than consider disease impact on the farm as a whole. It is recommended that future economic impact calculations on livestock disease include wider implications to estimate the true cost of disease. To generate the necessary data, a wider, more inclusive conceptualisation of impact will be needed to support the collection of data and facilitate communication between stakeholders. Systematic health data recording combined with assessment calculations and metrics that allow comparability within or across livestock sub-sectors will increase the informative value of these impact calculations.

Food systems are increasingly under threat, with climate, biological, economic or policy shocks and stressors occurring at an increasing frequency and scale. Their complex and fragile nature has become even more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic review of news articles published globally between December 2019 and April 2020 was conducted to describe the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the chicken meat system and to identify key vulnerabilities and intervention points to build resilience. Most of the impacts identified were caused by a combination of the different mitigation measures implemented by the system actors such as movement restrictions rather than by the direct effects of the virus, thereby demonstrating the importance of interconnections and coordination in the system. Social media were found to have played a crucial role in amplifying, mitigating or mediating the impact of the pandemic. The findings highlight the importance of adopting a holistic approach that integrates the multiple dimensions of food systems for effective responses to systemic shocks.

This paper explores the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis as a disruptor to Britain’s beef and sheep supply chains. The assessment of COVID-19 impacts is based on the triangulation of farming and industry news reports, submissions to a government COVID-19 enquiry and interviews with industry experts. We find that livestock farming and farm services were least affected compared to processing, retailing, foodservice, or consumers. Primary and secondary processors continued to operate during the first COVID-19 lockdown but had to quickly become ‘COVID secure’. The most dramatic effect was the overnight closure of hospitality and catering and the redirection of supplies to the retail sector. This picture of a resilient British beef and sheep industry may also be conceptualised as relatively locked in and resistant to change. Red meat production is tied to the land it farms on and operates on 12–36-month production cycles, making it difficult to change trajectory if disruptions do not directly affect farming. Emerging changes in agricultural payments, trade post-Brexit, and societal and environmental pressures may well be the disruptors that have far-reaching impacts on the beef and sheep supply chains.

Grassland is grouped into temporary, permanent, and rough grazing types in the United Kingdom (UK), making up more than 60% of the national agricultural land area. It provides avenues for grazed fodder or ensiled forage contributing a large proportion of the diets consumed by cattle and sheep. The official agricultural census data in 2011 to 2020 showed that, on average, UK cattle and sheep farming can produce meat to satisfy 83.3 and 100.8% of domestic cattle beef and sheep meat consumption levels, respectively. Out of the large agricultural census datasets, we used the populations of cattle and sheep, as well as the UK definition of a standard livestock unit (SLU), to normalise the respective herd populations into a total standard livestock unit (TSLU). We then used the annual domestic meat production in dressed carcass weight to calculate cattle and sheep meat productivity per SLU. Using the potential herbal dry matter yields per year and areas of the different grassland types across the UK, the potential total available pasture feed was calculated. This potential production of herbal biomass was translated into the potential carrying capacity expressed in a TSLU. This total potential carrying capacity was partitioned into cattle and sheep sectors so that the routes of pasture-based-only options with which to produce ruminant meat to meet the current UK domestic consumption demands were assessed. The estimated mean potential annual pasture forage feed in 2011–2020 was approximately 82.0 million (M) metric tonnes (t), which can be translated into a potential carrying capacity of 17.9 M SLUs compared with the current mean 9.36 M SLUs in the survey data of the UK. With the ratio of sheep to cattle at 8.2:25 in the national TSLU, the UK national demands at present consumption levels of cattle and sheep meat can be arithmetically met with pasture grass utilisation rates at or above 65% and 50% by cattle and sheep farming systems, respectively.

The five-year UK antimicrobial resistance (AMR) National Action Plan (NAP) was published in 2019 focusing on reducing the need for, and unintentional exposure to antimicrobials (AMs); optimising the use of AMs; and investing in innovation, supply and access of AMs. This study aimed to evaluate the progress made in the beef cattle sub-sector in addressing specific NAP commitments related to improving animal health and welfare and responsible antimicrobial use (AMU). A thematic analysis was conducted of 21 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from government organisations, farms, veterinary practices, levy boards and livestock associations. The findings indicate substantial progress, with various initiatives implemented targeting data collection, farmer and veterinarian engagement, and herd health planning. However, there remain a number of challenges and barriers that need to be addressed in order to assess the impacts of these initiatives, such as the availability of AMU and AMR data. Ensuring the adequacy of resources was found to be critical for the sustainability of effective initiatives, considering competing demands on people’s time. Additionally, the importance of other outcomes from these initiatives such as developing and strengthening the farmer–veterinarian relationship should not be underestimated since it is fundamental to successfully addressing issues such as AMR.