From the Editor

The value of livestock production

systems and ecosystem services
J. Bret Taylor
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Dubois, ID, USA

As humans, we are obligated to ensure that our methods to achieve and Tolleson and Meiman (2015) provide a global overview of various
maintain a food-security infrastructure are compatible with the landscapes situations where land use by livestock agriculturalists is in conflict or

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/af/article/5/4/4/4638745 by guest on 17 December 2022

that we use. We are aware and reminded daily that carelessly implemented competition with other land-use needs (agricultural and nonagricultural),
agricultural practices can permanently harm landscapes and the inherent eco- ideologies, and governmental actions. The authors demonstrate that some
system services (benefits). Therefore, we must always strive to create those land-use challenges are the direct result of livestock producers’ choices
agricultural systems that balance the need to ensure adequate food produc- and production practices while other issues are due to the views of the
tion to meet the nutrition demands of a growing population with the duty to populace and consumers about the role and place of grazing livestock pro-
value and maintain the land’s ecological attributes. But, herein we find the duction in today’s world. The authors also present areas where grazing
dilemma. To what extent do we utilize a landscape for food production at the livestock production could expand by integrating or establishing partner-
expense of other ecosystem services? Furthermore, should humans abandon ships with nonagricultural groups or agencies to use livestock as tool for
long-proven sustainable agricultural systems to return popularized ecosys- land management. Complementary to the article of Duru et al. (2015),
tem services to the landscape? These are but a few of the many related ques- Tolleson and Meiman (2015) further highlight the necessity for livestock
tions that challenge the world’s political systems and leaders in determining producers to engage, consider, and/or interact with society by conclud-
how to feed a growing world population in years to come. ing that “The need to mitigate negative impacts, enhance positive impacts,
I invite you to reflect on these questions as you read this issue of Ani-
mal Frontiers, which focuses on “Land-Use Challenges for Animal Ag-
riculture.” What we know to be constant across the world is the need for
nutritious foods and the importance of ecological benefits inherent to the
grazing lands we use. However, the political views within and across the
world’s nations of how these questions should be answered are controver-
sial and diverse, which posed some challenge in addressing land use and
animal agriculture on a worldwide basis in this issue of Animal Frontiers.
Therefore, in our approach, we begin with a broad introductory view of
land-use solutions and challenges of animal agriculture worldwide and
then focus in on regional and national issues.
We start with Duru and colleagues (2015), where the authors present an
analytical framework that considers livestock system complexity and facili-
tates identification of critical relationships between social dynamics, land use,
environmental impacts, and ecosystem services. In the framework, livestock
systems are conceptualized as social-ecological systems to account for how
the social system determines land use and ecosystem services. Furthermore,
the framework emphasizes two main pathways of ecological modernization
of livestock systems: managing input efficiency to decrease negative environ-
mental impacts or managing biodiversity to increase ecosystem services. The
authors summarize the framework as “…an intermediary object to support
stakeholders in structured design and assessment processes to identify main
issues of current livestock systems and the characteristics of possible sustain-
able pathways” (Duru et al., 2015). As you read the subsequent articles, I
encourage you to reflect on this paper and the emphasis that Duru et al. (2015)
place on cooperative-stakeholder input, biodiversity, and ecosystem services
as components of sustainable livestock systems.

© Taylor
doi:10.2527/af.2015-0040 Spring flowers on sagebrush steppe livestock grazing lands (source: Jacob Taylor).

4 Animal Frontiers
and discover new innovative contributions to society from animals is at a
critical juncture. Despite all of the change in the world, the fact remains
that those who live here require food, fiber, and a great many products from
animal agriculture and ecosystem services from the lands that support it.”
Philipp and colleagues (2015) direct the focus towards national and
local issues, relating to urbanization and governmental regulations, that
challenge how and when livestock producers use grazing lands. The
authors present the effects of urban encroachment on the persistence of
smaller, privately owned livestock enterprises and the difficulty of main-
taining livestock on the landscape as producers struggle with governmen-
tal regulations relating to water quality and endangered species. The com-
bination of increased land prices due to urban development and greater
production costs to meet regulatory standards often pressure producers to
sell their lands. But, the authors then challenge us to consider other mar-
ketable products from livestock grazing that are not specifically related
to “food output.” Building on the framework presented by Duru et al.
(2015) and concepts discussed by Tolleson and Meiman (2015), Philipp
et al. (2015) state “…grassland agriculture needs to be analyzed not only
as a food supply chain but as an integral part of society due to its many
ecosystems services. ...reimbursement for ecosystem services could open
new opportunities for producer income. Valuing the natural resource in
additional and different ways than just food output may help improve the
sustainability of ruminant production on the naturalized grasslands…”.
We complete this issue on Land-Use Challenges for Animal Agriculture
with two articles focusing on the federally owned public lands of the west-
ern US. Unlike livestock systems described by Philipp et al. (2015) where
production is on private lands, the last two articles focus on the challenges,
economic and political, for the livestock systems that are partly dependent
upon public lands. Rimbey et al. (2015) begin our public-lands discussion
by presenting the costs of grazing on public lands compared with grazing
on private lands and explaining how the public-land grazing costs have
been influenced by political pressures over time. As also mentioned in the
papers of Tolleson and Meiman (2015) and Philipp et al. (2015), Rimbey
et al. (2015) further explore the current and predicted negative economic
impacts of governmental regulations (environmental based) on public-land
grazing and how such impacts may affect the viability of livestock sys-
tems. Consistent with an underlying theme of this Animal Frontiers issue
concerning the value of ecosystem services, Rimbey et al. (2015) conclude
with the statement that “There appears to be a growing recognition that
grazing by domestic livestock on public lands can be done in a way that
delivers an ecosystem service that society desires and in a way that can
maintain or improve the condition of the land.”
In the second public land-focused paper and the last article of this Ani-
mal Frontiers issue, Hendrickson (2015) delves into land-use challenges
relating to permanent removal of US public lands from long-standing
livestock production. Building on the discussion of Rimbey et al. (2015)
about the economic impact of federal regulations on livestock grazing, the
author describes how public-land management policies and goals have
been altered because of issues relating to endangered species and spe-
cies of interest. Hendrickson (2015) presents examples of how various
US Congressional Acts have been leveraged through litigation to pres-
sure federal land-management agencies to permanently remove livestock
grazing as a component of some land management plans. This discus-
sion presents an unfortunate and serious event of land-use challenges of
animal agriculture in the US, where it may be too late to emphasize the
ecosystem-service value of livestock systems as presented by Duru et.
October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 4
al (2015) and Philipp et al. (2015). Hendrickson (2015) summarizes that
“Permanent closure of federal public-land livestock grazing allotments in
the western US removes a long-standing component of the US food-secu-
rity infrastructure.... Once these agricultural systems disappear, the likeli-
hood of ever returning them to the landscape is minimal given the fact that
it took more than 100 years to...build the western US livestock industry.”
In closing, products from livestock grazing are an important source of
quality nutrition for humans. World consumption of animal products is on
the rise and is predicted to continue significantly, especially in developing
countries (Henning and Steinfeld, 2003). As the distribution and popula-
tion of humans expanded in the last 200 years, total land area used for
grazing livestock production increased from approximately 3% to nearly
20% (Steinfeld et al., 2006). This demonstrates the importance of grazing
landscapes as a core component of the food-security infrastructure on a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/af/article/5/4/4/4638745 by guest on 17 December 2022
local, regional, and worldwide basis. However, this also demonstrates the
added and significant demand that we now expect from the land, an ex-
pectation that puts at risk essential ecological benefits and products. As we
progress in our discovery, awareness, and recognition of nonagricultural
benefits of the lands that we use for livestock production, we are faced
with the challenge of how best to balance the use of the earth’s grazing
resources for food production with the need to preserve, in whole or in
part, the multitude of natural benefits that these lands provide.
Literature Cited
Duru, M., M. Moraine, and O. Therond. 2015. An analytical framework for struc-
turing analysis and design of sustainable ruminant livestock systems. Anim.
Front. 5(4):6–13 (this issue).
Hendrickson, A.W. 2015. A paradigm shift in use and management of United States
public lands for livestock grazing. Anim. Front. 5(4):36–42 (this issue).
Philipp, D., M. P. Popp, E. R. Rumley, M. C. Savin, and K. P. Coffey. 2015. Regu-
latory, production, and consumer-based challenges of forage-based cattle pro-
duction systems in the southeastern United States. Anim. Front. 5(4):24–31
(this issue).
Rimbey, N. R., J. A. Tanaka, and L. A. Torell. 2015. Economic considerations of
livestock grazing on public lands in the United States of America. Anim. Front.
5(4):32–35 (this issue).
Steinfeld, H., and J. Otte. 2003. Livestock production. In: J. Bruinsma, editor, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Agriculture: towards
2015/2030, an FAO Perspective. Earthscan Publications Ltd. London, UK. p.
159.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Hann. 2006. Live-
stock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy. p. 32.
Tolleson, D. R., and P. Meiman. 2015. Global effects of changing land-use on ani-
mal agriculture. Anim. Front. 5(4):14–23 (this issue).
About the Author
J. Bret Taylor is an Acting Research
Leader and Supervisory Scientist with
the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
He conducts research relating to livestock
production and health and rangeland man-
agement. He has served as president of the
Western Section of ASAS and associate
editor and division editor for the Journal
of Animal Science. He is also a member of
the Society for Range Management and In-
ternational Society for Selenium Research.
Correspondence: bret.taylor@ars.usda.gov
5