Livestock is a major driver in most rural landscapes and economics, but it also polarises debate over its environmental impacts, animal welfare and human health. Conversely, the various services that livestock farming systems provide to society are often overlooked and have rarely been quantified. The aim of analysing bundles of services is to chart the coexistence and interactions between the various services and impacts provided by livestock farming, and to identify sets of ecosystem services (ES) that appear together repeatedly across sites and through time. We review three types of approaches that analyse associations among impacts and services from local to global scales: (i) detecting ES associations at system or landscape scale, (ii) identifying and mapping bundles of ES and impacts and (iii) exploring potential drivers using prospective scenarios. At a local scale, farming practices interact with landscape heterogeneity in a multi-scale process to shape grassland biodiversity and ES. Production and various ES provided by grasslands to farmers, such as soil fertility, biological regulations and erosion control, benefit to some extent from the functional diversity of grassland species, and length of pasture phase in the crop rotation. Mapping ES from the landscape up to the EU-wide scale reveals a frequent trade-off between livestock production on one side and regulating and cultural services on the other. Maps allow the identification of target areas with higher ecological value or greater sensitivity to risks. Using two key factors (livestock density and the proportion of permanent grassland within utilised agricultural area), we identified six types of European livestock production areas characterised by contrasted bundles of services and impacts. Livestock management also appeared to be a key driver of bundles of services in prospective scenarios. These scenarios simulate a breakaway from current production, legislation (e.g. the use of food waste to fatten pigs) and consumption trends (e.g. halving animal protein consumption across Europe). Overall, strategies that combine a reduction of inputs, of the use of crops from arable land to feed livestock, of food waste and of meat consumption deliver a more sustainable food future. Livestock as part of this sustainable future requires further enhancement, quantification and communication of the services provided by livestock farming to society, which calls for the following: (i) a better targeting of public support, (ii) more precise quantification of bundles of services and (iii) better information to consumers and assessment of their willingness to pay for these services.

Livestock farming systems provide multiple benefits to humans: protein-rich diets that contribute to food security, employment and rural economies, capital stock and draught power in many developing countries and cultural landscape all around the world. Despite these positive contributions to society, livestock is also the centre of many controversies as regards to its environmental impacts, animal welfare and health outcomes related to excessive meat consumption. Here, we review the potentials of sustainable intensification (SI) and agroecology (AE) in the design of sustainable ruminant farming systems. We analyse the two frameworks in a historical perspective and show that they are underpinned by different values and worldviews about food consumption patterns, the role of technology and our relationship with nature. Proponents of SI see the increase in animal protein demand as inevitable and therefore aim at increasing production from existing farmland to limit further encroachment into remaining natural ecosystems. Sustainable intensification can thus be seen as an efficiency-oriented framework that benefits from all forms of technological development. Proponents of AE appear more open to dietary shifts towards less animal protein consumption to rebalance the whole food system. Agroecology promotes system redesign, benefits from functional diversity and aims at providing regulating and cultural services. We analyse the main criticisms of the two frameworks: Is SI sustainable? How much can AE contribute to feeding the world? Indeed, in SI, social justice has long lacked attention notably with respect to resource allocation within and between generations. It is only recently that some of its proponents have indicated that there is room to include more diversified systems and food-system transformation perspectives and to build socially fair governance systems. As no space is available for agricultural land expansion in many areas, agroecological approaches that emphasise the importance of local production should also focus more on yield increases from agricultural land. Our view is that new technologies and strict certifications offer opportunities for scaling-up agroecological systems. We stress that the key issue for making digital science part of the agroecological transition is that it remains at a low cost and is thus accessible to smallholder farmers. We conclude that SI and AE could converge for a better future by adopting transformative approaches in the search for ecologically benign, socially fair and economically viable ruminant farming systems.

Animal production systems (APSs) have long been transformed through intensification, specialization and geographical concentration, leading them to become major anthropogenic drivers of pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Agroecology, organic farming and sustainable intensification have been proposed as alternative models to invert those trends. Diversity is highly valued in agroecology and organic farming, in which it is assumed not only to increase farm performance but also to strengthen farm resilience. Here, we examine how the diversity of system components and interactions among these components can increase productivity, resource-use efficiency and farm resilience in aquaculture, rabbit, monogastric and ruminant systems. In doing so, we reveal that the same processes can occur in very different systems. For instance, the higher performance of multi-species aquaculture or ruminant grazing systems results from (i) the complementary feeding habits of animal species that exploit resources from different ecological niches more efficiently; and (ii) facilitation or competitive exclusion, which results in a species increasing or decreasing resource availability for another species. The benefits of diversity are observed not only in relatively extensive systems but also in intensive indoor systems. For instance, genetic diversity is associated with herd and social immunity in rabbit production, while trade-offs between life functions play a major role in dairy herd performance. In the last section, we discuss how management options nested in system component diversity and their interactions can enhance system resilience. Strategic and tactical management of APS diversity can promote farm buffering and adaptive capabilities, respectively, via the abovementioned processes. By stabilizing the farm financial situation and facilitating access to short supply channels, transformative changes, such as a diversification of the animal species bred or development of a processing enterprise on farm, expand options for increasing the resilience of APSs to market price fluctuations and climatic shocks. However, the need for new technical skills and sometimes high initial investments can act as strong inhibitors of farm diversification. We conclude with a description of some of the research or action that is needed for these principles to be more widely implemented in commercial farms.

Livestock farming is criticized for negatively impacting the environment, concerns about animal welfare and the impact of excessive meat consumption on human health. However, livestock farming provides other underappreciated and poorly communicated benefits to society in terms of employment, product quality, cultural landscapes and carbon storage by grasslands. Few attempts have been made so far to simultaneously consider the services and impacts provided by livestock production. Here, we propose an integrated graphical tool, called the ‘barn’ to explicitly summarize the synergies and trade-offs between services and impacts provided by livestock farming. It illustrates livestock farming interacting with its physical, economic and social environment along five interfaces: (i) Markets, (ii) Work and employment, (iii) Inputs, (iv) Environment and climate, (v) Social and cultural factors. This graphical tool was then applied by comparing two contrasting livestock production areas (high livestock density v. grassland-based), and the dominant v. a niche system within a crop-livestock area. We showed the barn could be used for cross-comparisons of services and impacts across livestock production areas, and for multi-level analysis of services and impacts of livestock farming within a given area. The barn graphically summarizes the ecological and socio-economic aspects of livestock farming by explicitly representing multiple services and impacts of different systems in a simple yet informative way. Information for the five interfaces relies on available quantitative assessments from the literature or data sets, and on expert-knowledge for more qualitative factors, such as social and cultural ones. The ‘barn’ can also inform local stakeholders or policy-makers about potential opportunities and threats to the future of livestock farming in specific production areas. It has already been used as a pedagogical tool for teaching the diversity of services and impacts of livestock systems across Europe and is currently developed as a serious game for encouraging knowledge exchange and sharing different viewpoints between stakeholders.

Diversification of grassland‐based systems is highly valued in agroecology, organic farming and other forms of regenerative agriculture. For lowlands, mountain and Mediterranean areas, we illustrate that diversification of grassland types, livestock species, products and farm labour allows coping with market, climatic and workforce‐related risks. However, diversification is not a one‐size‐fits‐all strategy and the type of diversification strategy should be adapted according to socio‐economic, structural, technical and pedoclimatic conditions of each farm. Farmers' technical skills and ability to re‐organise and monitor the system must be considered to avoid ineffectiveness of the diversified system. Moreover, it is essential to account for site‐specific conditions so that the ecological processes to be optimised can provide the expected benefits. Diversification occurs on different levels, from grassland management to the entire farm activity. There may be trade‐offs among these different levels impairing grassland ecosystem services. For instance, if diversification of farm activities dilutes the workforce, simplified grassland management can lead to the loss of vegetation communities of high ecological value. In contrast, case‐adapted diversification benefits from local opportunities, available resources and external supports to secure the system and favour sustainable resource management. Diversification thereby preserves grassland ecosystem services and enhances farm socio‐economic resilience to withstand perturbations.

Strongyle infection is an important issue in horse breeding. It impairs horse health and performance, with young horses being the most sensitive. Strongyle control has long relied on the systematic use of chemical treatments. However, expanding anthelmintic resistance among strongyles calls for alternative options. Mixed grazing is assumed to reduce strongyle load on the pasture as the result of a dilution effect. This has been shown in small ruminants grazing with cattle, but the putative benefits of co-grazing between horses and cattle have not yet been evaluated. Here, we conducted field surveys and face-to-face interviews on 44 farms from two contrasted saddle-horse production areas, Normandy and northern Massif Central, to compare equine strongyle management practices between specialized systems and mixed horse-cattle systems. Our goals were (i) to quantify breeders’ awareness of the putative benefits associated with the co-grazing of horses and cattle, (ii) to establish whether mixed farming was associated with different strongyle management strategies and (iii) to test whether strongyle egg excretion was reduced in horses grazed with beef cattle. Every breeder relied on systematic calendar treatments, and only 8 out of the 23 mixed breeders were aware that co-grazing of horses with cattle could be used as part of their strongyle control strategy. Management practices were similar across both systems in Normandy. In Massif Central, mixed breeders formed a distinct cluster from their specialized counterparts: deworming was less frequent and stocking density was higher in mixed farms, while specialized breeders seemed more willing to integrate herd and plot management into control strategies. Faecal egg counts measured in horses from Massif Central were significantly reduced when horses were grazed with cattle. This was the result of an increased reliance on macrocyclic lactones in mixed farms (P < 0.01) and a significant dilution effect (P < 0.01). When considering a subsample of horses treated with macrocyclic lactones only, young horses grazed with cattle had 50% fewer strongyle eggs excreted in their faeces than horses grazed in equine-only pastures (P < 0.01). This is the first evidence of the benefits of mixed grazing with cattle as an alternative to control strongyle infection in horses, although this promising alternative remains largely unknown by horse breeders.