Characterizing beef and sheep farming systems to customize sustainability interventions and policy implementation.

Agricultural systems tend to be characterised by large diversity, therefore, solving socio-economic and environmental problems in agriculture requires targeted and contextualised policies. However, policies often fail to recognize this heterogeneity in their design or implementation. This can result in the use of sector-wide characteristics and, consequently, generic policies that are not tailored to specific farming systems. In this context, farm typologies can be a useful tool, as they help to identify differences and commonalities in highly heterogeneous groups. In this study, we focused on the Irish beef and sheep farming sectors and used a wide range of structural, socio-economic, and environmental indicators to develop a farm typology. This resulted in the identification of six distinct farm types: Small Cattle Farms, Extensive Sheep Farms, Medium-size Sheep Farms, Medium-size Cattle Farms, Medium-size Mixed Farms, and Intensive Cattle Farms. We then analysed the socio-economic and environmental performance of these six farm types and discussed the potential variation of the implementation and impact of currently proposed policies and interventions among farm types. We argue that failing to consider different farm types within policies can make their farm-level implementation unsuccessful and thus hinder the achievement of sector-wide sustainability goals. The approach we developed in this manuscript could also be applicable to other sectors and locations, and could help guide the design of more successful targeted policies.

Review: Make ruminants green again - how can sustainable intensification and agroecology converge for a better future?

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.

Quantification of motility of carabid beetles in farmland.

Quantification of the movement of insects at field and landscape levels helps us to understand their ecology and ecological functions. We conducted a meta-analysis on movement of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), to identify key factors affecting movement and population redistribution. We characterize the rate of redistribution using motility µ (L2 T-1), which is a measure for diffusion of a population in space and time that is consistent with ecological diffusion theory and which can be used for upscaling short-term data to longer time frames. Formulas are provided to calculate motility from literature data on movement distances. A field experiment was conducted to measure the redistribution of mass-released carabid, Pterostichus melanarius in a crop field, and derive motility by fitting a Fokker-Planck diffusion model using inverse modelling. Bias in estimates of motility from literature data is elucidated using the data from the field experiment as a case study. The meta-analysis showed that motility is 5.6 times as high in farmland as in woody habitat. Species associated with forested habitats had greater motility than species associated with open field habitats, both in arable land and woody habitat. The meta-analysis did not identify consistent differences in motility at the species level, or between clusters of larger and smaller beetles. The results presented here provide a basis for calculating time-varying distribution patterns of carabids in farmland and woody habitat. The formulas for calculating motility can be used for other taxa.

Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework.

In the last decade the multifunctional agriculture (MFA) concept has emerged as a key notion in scientific and policy debates on the future of agriculture and rural development. Broadly speaking, MFA refers to the fact that agricultural activity beyond its role of producing food and fibre may also have several other functions such as renewable natural resources management, landscape and biodiversity conservation and contribution to the socio-economic viability of rural areas. The use of the concept can be traced to a number of wider societal and political transformation processes, which have influenced scientific and policy approaches in different ways amongst countries and disciplines. This paper critically discusses various existing research approaches to MFA, both from natural and social sciences. To this aim different strands of literature are classified according to their focus on specific governance mechanisms and levels of analysis into four main categories of research approaches (market regulation, land-use approaches, actor-oriented and public regulation approaches). For each category an overview of the state-of-the-art of research is given and an assessment is made of its strengths and weaknesses. The review demonstrates that the multifunctionality concept has attracted a wealth of scientific contributions, which have considerably improved our understanding of key aspects of MFA. At the same time approaches in the four categories have remained fragmented and each has limitations to understand MFA in all its complexity due to inherent constraints of applied conceptualizations and associated disciplinary backgrounds. To go beyond these limitations, we contend, new meta-level frameworks of analysis are to be developed that enable a more integrated approach. The paper concludes by presenting the main lines of an integrative, transitional framework for the study of MFA, which analyses multifunctional agriculture against the background of wider societal change processes towards sustainability and identifies a number of key elements and research challenges for this.