1. Sustainability
Many members of the public are now concerned about whether or not a food production system is
sustainable. A definition of sustainability is: a system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable
now and if its expected future effects are acceptable, in particular in relation to resource availability,
consequences of functioning and morality of action (Broom 2014). There has been a change from
a push to a pull society in that, whereas producers used to determine methods of production,
consumers now choose to buy products that they regard as ethical so they have much more
control over methods of production. The ethics of food production is now included in consumers’
evaluations of product quality (Broom 2010). If production methods are not acceptable, retail
companies, production companies and countries that do not produce good quality, sustainable
products are likely to be boycotted and hence forced to change (Bennett et al 2002, Broom 2014).
If the consequences of genetic selection, feeding or housing result in the product being avoided by
consumers, the production method is not efficient. The development of new, sustainable systems is
urgently needed.
2. Factors that affect sustainability
World resources should be used efficiently. At present there is much waste of food.
Herbivores, such as ruminants and carp, that eat leaves or other food that humans cannot eat, are
much more important than pigs, poultry or salmon which compete with humans for food or eat
other animals (Broom et al 2013). Land and soil should be carefully conserved and improved.
Foods which are good for the health of the consumers are more acceptable to them.
In all aspects of farming, antimicrobial use will have to decrease because of the development of
antimicrobial resistance.
Poor welfare of animals is probably the third most important reason for livestock production to
be unsustainable. There are concerns about all animals but especially about sentient animals: all
vertebrates, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans.
Many agricultural methods result in low biodiversity in farmed areas because of widespread
herbicide and pesticide use. A combination of land-sparing, where areas are fully conserved,
and land-sharing, where the biodiversity of the farmland itself is maximised, is needed. Livestock
production can result in pollution locally and in greenhouse gas production which should be
reduced but may have to be balanced against efficiency of use of world resources (Broom et al
2013).
Many people in the world are unwilling to accept the use of genetically modified plants and few
people accept the use of genetically modified or cloned animals. All cloning of farm animals results
in poor welfare while genetically modified animals may have welfare problems so there should be
checks using a wide range of welfare indicators before they are used for any purpose (Broom 2008,
2014).
In recent years, consumers in many countries have been appalled to find that producers of food in
poor countries are often not properly rewarded for their work and large profits go to distribution
companies. Hence products like coffee, cocoa and fruit are among those that are independently
checked and have a Fair Trade label.
When small-scale rural farmers are out-competed by large-scale production, local communities
may disappear. The general public often find this unacceptable so schemes are introduced by
governments to safeguard such communities. In the European Union, subsidies to preserve rural
communities have minimised migration from the countryside and prevented large cities from
becoming ever larger.
3. Animal welfare
The animals that are legally protected are generally those that are sentient (Broom 2014, 2016 ).
The term welfare is used for individual animals of all kinds, including humans, but not for plants
or inanimate objects. Welfare is the state of the individual as regards its attempts to cope with its
environment (Broom 1986) so can be measured scientifically. For most species, consideration of
needs is the first step in considering the welfare of an animal.
Topics that lead to changes in purchasing by consumers include close confinement of animals in
conditions that do not meet their needs and painful procedures such as slaughter without stunning
and hot-iron branding. Poor welfare may be a result of genetic selection procedures, for example
fast-growing broiler chickens, dairy cows with high milk yields and dogs with compressed faces.
Hence some widely-used animal housing systems management procedures and breeding methods
are unsustainable (Broom 2017).
Organic standards are generally good in relation to sustainability but if welfare were not included
in the standards, the system might not be sustainable. Some early organic standards prohibited
chemicals for disease treatment so animal welfare was sometimes very poor. In India, cows are
revered by many people. However, they are often not cared for so their welfare may be poor in that
they may starve, eat plastic or have untreated disease. If old animals that have stopped producing
milk can’t be sold, owners have no money to replace the cows and can’t produce milk at all. The
answer would seem to me to be for older animals to be killed by people whose religion permits
it. The money obtained from this would allow Hindu farmers to continue to produce milk. At
present neglect means extreme cruelty to many cows. There is also illegal trade in which animals
are sent out of the country, often in very bad conditions. I believe that neither of these practices is
acceptable, either to Hindus or to other people in India.
4. Sustainable livestock systems for the future
An example of an animal whose management could be changed to be sustainable is the dairy cow.
Dairy cattle can utilise pasture plants, a resource unavailable to humans as food. However, many
are fed concentrates that humans could utilise and have poor welfare due to lameness, mastitis or
reproductive disorders. Some high-producing cows are fed 40% concentrates with up to 96% of
their dietary protein usable by humans. This system results in a net loss of nutrients for humans but
if the cows were given a diet with 70% or more forage plants and 30% or less concentrates, the
system would involve a net food benefit for humans. Cows selected for lower milk production, fed
less concentrates and fed more forage plants have few welfare problems.
Three level plant production, including pasture, shrubs with edible leaves and trees that may also
have edible leaves, is an example of a silvopastoral system. Semi-intensive silvopastoral cattle
production systems are more productive than fertilised pasture systems, use less water, manage
the soil taking account of worms and water retention, encourage predators of harmful animals,
minimise greenhouse gas emissions improve job-satisfaction for stock-people, reduce injury and
stress in animals and maximise good welfare (Murgueitio et al 2008, Broom et al 2013). Semiintensive silvopastoral systems for beef production use one fifth of the land and between one
quarter and one sixth of the conserved water that fertilised pasture or feedlot systems use.
Table 4. Summary of benefits of silvopastoral systems for animal welfare.
(Broom 2016)
Nutritional improvement because of shrub and tree intake
Thermal comfort resulting from more shade
Less risk of dehydration because more water in plants and soil
Less fear because of concealment
Health better because more predators of ticks and flies
Body condition better because of nutrients, shade and less disease
Food intake and social behaviour improved
Better human-animal interactions
References
Bennett, R.M., Anderson, J. and Blaney, R.J.P. 2002. Moral intensity and willingness to pay
concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, 187–202.
Broom, D.M. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142, 524-526
Broom, D.M. 2008. Consequences of biological engineering for resource allocation and welfare. In:
Resource allocation theory applied to farm animal production, ed. W. M. Rauw, 261-275.
Wallingford: CABI.
Broom, D.M. 2010. Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the
public. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37, 83-88.
Broom, D.M. 2014. Sentience and Animal Welfare. pp. 200, CABI, Wallingford.
Broom, D.M. 2016. Sentience, animal welfare and sustainable livestock production. In Indigenous,
eds K.S Reddy, R.M.V. Prasad and K.A. Rao, 61-68. Excel India Publishers: New Delhi.
Broom, D.M. 2017. Animal Welfare in the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament Policy
Department, Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Study for the PETI Committee, pp 75. ISBN
978-92-846-0543-9, doi: 10-2861/891355.
Broom, D.M., Galindo, F.A. Murgueitio, E. 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high
biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280, 20132025. doi.
org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025.
Murgueitio, E., Cuartas, C.A. & Naranjo, J.F. 2008. Ganadería del Futuro, Fundación CIPAV, Cali
Colombia.