Livestock have long been integral to food production systems, often not by choice but by need. While our knowledge of livestock greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation has evolved, the prevailing focus has been—somewhat myopically—on technology applications associated with mitigation. Here, we (1) examine the global distribution of livestock GHG emissions, (2) explore social, economic and environmental co‐benefits and trade‐offs associated with mitigation interventions and (3) critique approaches for quantifying GHG emissions. This review uncovered many insights. First, while GHG emissions from ruminant livestock are greatest in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC; globally, 66% of emissions are produced by Latin America and the Caribbean, East and southeast Asia and south Asia), the majority of mitigation strategies are designed for developed countries. This serious concern is heightened by the fact that 80% of growth in global meat production over the next decade will occur in LMIC. Second, few studies concurrently assess social, economic and environmental aspects of mitigation. Of the 54 interventions reviewed, only 16 had triple‐bottom line benefit with medium–high mitigation potential. Third, while efforts designed to stimulate the adoption of strategies allowing both emissions reduction (ER) and carbon sequestration (CS) would achieve the greatest net emissions mitigation, CS measures have greater potential mitigation and co‐benefits. The scientific community must shift attention away from the prevailing myopic lens on carbon, towards more holistic, systems‐based, multi‐metric approaches that carefully consider the raison d'être for livestock systems. Consequential life cycle assessments and systems‐aligned ‘socio‐economic planetary boundaries’ offer useful starting points that may uncover leverage points and cross‐scale emergent properties. The derivation of harmonized, globally reconciled sustainability metrics requires iterative dialogue between stakeholders at all levels. Greater emphasis on the simultaneous characterization of multiple sustainability dimensions would help avoid situations where progress made in one area causes maladaptive outcomes in other areas.

The nitrogen (N) nutrition of dairy pasture systems in southern Australia has changed from almost total dependence on legumes in the early 1990s through to almost complete reliance on N fertiliser today. Although some tactical N fertiliser is applied to sheep and beef pastures to boost late winter growth, most N fertiliser usage on pastures remains with the dairy industry. Intensification of the farming system, through increased stocking rates and a greater reliance on N fertiliser, has increased N loading, leading to higher potential N losses through volatilisation, leaching and denitrification. With increasing focus on the environmental impact of livestock production, reducing N loading on dairy farms will become increasingly important to the longer-term sustainability of the dairy industry, possibly with the expectation that Australia will join most of the developed countries in regulating N loading in catchments. This paper examines N usage in modern pasture-based dairy systems, the N cycle and loss pathways, and summarises a series of recent modelling studies and component research, investigating options for improving N use efficiency (NUE) and reducing whole-farm N balance. These studies demonstrate that the application of revised practices has the potential to improve NUE, with increasing sophistication of precision technologies playing an important role. This paper discusses the challenge of sustainably intensifying grazing systems with regard to N loading and what approaches exist now or have the potential to decouple the link between production, fertiliser use and environmental impact.

Land managers are challenged with the need to balance priorities in production, greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement, biodiversity and social license to operate. Here, we develop a transdisciplinary approach for prioritising land use, illustrated by co-designing pathways for transitioning farming systems to net-zero emissions. We show that few interventions enhanced productivity and profitability while reducing GHG emissions. Antimethanogenic feed supplements and planting trees afforded the greatest mitigation, while revenue diversification with wind turbines and adoption of livestock genotypes with enhanced feed-conversion efficiency (FCE) were most conducive to improving profit. Serendipitously, the intervention with the lowest social licence—continuing the status quo and purchasing carbon credits to offset emissions—was also the most costly pathway to transition to net-zero. In contrast, stacking several interventions to mitigate enteric methane, improve FCE and sequester carbon entirely negated enterprise emissions in a profitable way. We conclude that costs of transitioning to net-zero are lower when interventions are bundled and/or evoke productivity co-benefits.

Strategies for improving resilience in African pastoral systems face increasing scrutiny, particularly in the context of climate shocks. Here, we explore the influence of gender dynamics in relation to resilience of dryland socio-ecological systems and pastoralist communities in northern Kenya. The findings challenge contemporary perspectives of women’s adaptive capacity and traditional gender roles, highlighting women’s nuanced understanding of household needs and ability to innovate during crises through community savings groups, fodder production and enterprise diversification. Men’s resilience, traditionally linked with their command of livestock mobility and herd management, is often undermined by recurring droughts, compounding psychological stress that emerges as a key concern. Our results highlight an urgent need for gender-sensitive approaches towards characterisation of resilience, including local constructs of adaptive capacity, together with the need to support relational forms of resilience in ways that bridge social, ecological and cultural systems. This article was published open access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .