The concept of ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ is multi-dimensional, encompassing economic, environmental, social, and institutional governance aspects. The theoretical framework for this article on sustainability in poultry production is built on this multi-dimensional understanding of the concept, acknowledging that it is complex and contested. It is challenging to analyse or discuss the sustainability of one single sector within agriculture, because this sector is part of a global food system, and a systems approach is necessary. This article gives examples of elements which link to one or more of the four aspects, e.g., pollution and antibiotic use, biodiversity (environmental aspects), conditions for farm workers and animal welfare (social aspects), governance of the food chain (institutional aspects), and the development of poultry from a valuable food to a cheap staple food throughout major parts of the world (economic aspects). There are numerous potential pathways for sustainable development of poultry production. Poultry are living, sentient animals that can be well integrated into many different types of urban and rural farming systems, where they benefit from and contribute to such systems and to the livelihood of households around the globe, with special emphasis on women. Furthermore, local production provides potential for production with minimum transport and, concomitantly, minimum usage of fossil fuels. Among the terrestrial animals, poultry has the best conversion rate of feed to human food and the smallest environmental footprint in terms of energy and water use per kg meat or eggs produced.

A qualitative research study was conducted to describe and analyze farmers' perspectives on their own choices regarding decisions to have cows treated for mastitis. Through qualitative research interviews of 16 Danish dairy farmers, four levels of the decision-making process used by farmers to decide whether or not to treat a cow with antibiotics were identified. Those levels were: 1) symptom level (seriousness of the mastitis case), 2) cow level (to the extent a cow fulfilled goals of the farmer and the herd), 3) herd level (the situation of the herd, e.g., in relation to milk quota), and 4) level of alternatives (whether the farmer regards such practices as blinding of teats or homoeopathy as serious alternatives to antibiotic treatment). All four levels could be recognized in all herds, but with differing weights and relative importance across herds. Directions of different possibilities within each level also varied among farmers. By identifying those four levels, a model for understanding the farmers' choices is provided. This provides background for dialogue with each farmer about choices in the context of each specific herd. It also provides insight into implications of mastitis treatments for effective treatment versus issues of antibiotic resistance when discussing choices on a more general level. Communication and understanding between farmers and their veterinarians and cattle-oriented advisors is essential. Farmers were shown to be coherent in their choices of treatment, but their decisions often seemed to differ from normal veterinary recommendations. Such differences have to be understood and implemented into effective decisions for the whole farm.

Due to increasing public concern regarding separation of the dairy cow and calf within the first days after birth, alternative systems, where cows and calves stay in contact for an extended period, are receiving increasing interest from a broad array of researchers and other stakeholders. With more research in the area, there is a risk of inconsistencies emerging in the use of terminology. To create a better consensus in further discussions, the aim of this Research Reflection is to provide definitions and propose a common terminology for cow-calf contact in dairy production. We also suggest definitions for various systems allowing cow-calf contact and describe the distinct phases of cow-calf contact systems.

Based on urgent needs for food security compounded by a changing climate which impacts and is impacted by agricultural land-use and food distribution practices, we explore the processes of action in implementing agroecological food systems. We identified the following characteristics for an agroecological food system: 1. Minimizing use of external inputs, 2. Extent of internal resource recycling, 3. Resilience, 4. Multifunctionality, 5. Building on complexity and incorporating greater systems integration, 6. Contextuality, 7. Equity and, 8. Nourishment. We focus on the city-region food systems context, concluding with practical drivers for realizing more agroecological food systems in city-region contexts. Agroecological food systems are widely diverse, shaped by context, and achieved through multi-actor planning in rural, peri-urban and urban areas. Application of agroecological food systems in rural–urban contexts emphasize the necessity of diversification, zoning rural–urban landscapes, planning for seasonality in a food systems context, and producing at scale. Rural–urban food systems are a relevant and challenging entry point that provides opportunities for learning how food systems can be shaped for significant positive change. Social organization, community building, common learning, and knowledge creation are crucial for agroecological contextualized food systems, as are the supports from appropriate governing and institutional structures.

The farmer field school (FFS) is a concept for farmers' learning, knowledge exchange, and empowerment that has been developed and used in developing countries. In Denmark, a research project focusing on explicit non-antibiotic strategies involves farmers who have actively expressed an interest in phasing out antibiotics from their herds through promotion of animal health. One way of reaching this goal was to form participatory focused farmer groups in an FFS approach, which was adapted to Danish conditions and named "stable schools." Four stable schools were established and went through a 1-yr cycle with 2 visits at each of the 5 or 6 farms connected to each group. A facilitator was connected to each group whose role was to write the meeting agenda together with the host farmer, direct the meeting, and write the minutes to send to the group members after the meeting. Through group focus interviews and individual semistructured qualitative interviews of all participants, the approach of the farmers' goal-directed work toward a common goal was judged to be very valuable and fruitful and based on a common learning process. Complex farming situations were the focus of all groups and in this context, problems were identified and solutions proposed based on each farmer's individual goals. In this article, we describe the experiences of 4 stable school groups (each comprising farmers and a facilitator), and the common process of building a concept that is suitable for Danish organic dairy farming.