CONTEXT: Biodiversity loss caused by livestock production is a key environmental issue. Biodiversity-friendly livestock systems aim to favour biodiversity mainly for its own sake. Environmental impacts of biodiversity-friendly livestock systems have not been studied, nor have trade-offs between higher productivity and lower environmental impacts of these systems.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (i) assess the productivity and environmental impacts of a sample of cattle -oriented production systems representing a wide range of external inputs, productivity and consideration of biodiversity; (ii) identify trade-offs among the objectives of lower input use, higher productivity, lower envi-ronmental impacts and higher energy return on investment (EROI); (iii) relate the systems' production strategies to the trade-offs identified and (iv) identify perspectives for biodiversity-friendly livestock systems.METHODS: This study assessed the productivity and environmental impacts of a sample of seven cattle-oriented production systems: an agricultural rewilding system (biodiversity-friendly, in England), three suckler beef systems (two of them considered biodiversity-friendly, in France) and three dairy systems (one biodiversity-friendly and one conventional, in France). Life cycle assessment (LCA) was applied to assess six environ-mental impacts (i.e. terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, land occupation, and in particular, climate change and energy demand) and was combined with calculation of EROI.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Per hectare of land occupied to produce livestock and their feed, production of human-edible animal protein and environmental impacts of these systems increased as energy demand (i.e. input use) increased. Per hectare, human-edible animal protein production, energy demand and climate change impact (considering carbon dynamics) ranged from 5 kg, 90 MJ and-5.5 t CO2-eq., respectively, for the agricultural rewilding system to 239 kg, 20,496 MJ and 8.3 t CO2-eq., respectively, for the conventional French dairy farm. Patterns of trade-offs varied among the production strategies of the farms. The four biodiversity-friendly farms in the sample had low productivity but also low environmental impacts per ha, especially for climate change and energy demand, due to being extensive systems with relatively high self-sufficiency. Biodiversity-friendly farms also had higher EROI than other farms that produced the same products. Using LCA to assess biodiversity-friendly systems, in particular agricultural rewilding, challenges its ability to consider natural baseline emis-sions and non-provisioning ecosystem services.SIGNIFICANCE: These results emphasise the need to consider the multiple functions of these systems and their overall environmental performances and sustainability. Current economic and social trends may provide op-portunities for biodiversity-friendly livestock systems as a possible future for livestock systems.

In recent years, interest in studying the climate and environmental impact of organic food has grown. Here, we compared the environmental impacts of organic and conventional food using data from 100 life cycle assessment studies. Most studies focused on climate impacts, with fewer addressing biodiversity loss and ecotoxicity. Findings revealed no significant differences in global warming, eutrophication potential, and energy use per mass unit. However, organic food showed lower global warming, eutrophication potential, and energy use per area unit, with higher land use. Additionally, organic farming showed lower potential for biodiversity loss and ecotoxicity. Challenges in life cycle assessment include evaluating biodiversity, toxicity, soil quality, and carbon changes. The choice of functional units influences results, highlighting the importance of considering multiple units in assessing organic food's environmental footprint. This study emphasizes the necessity for comprehensive assessments at both product and diet levels to support informed decisions. Organic and conventional farming exhibit no significant disparities in global warming potential, eutrophication, and energy usage per unit of product mass, according to a quantitative review of life cycle assessment studies.

A shift in food intake towards more plant-based options such as vegetables is emphasised for lowering the environmental impact of food consumption, and organic farming is promoted as a tool to meet European policy goals related to sustainability, environment and biodiversity. However, the current environmental impact of organic vegetable production is not well explored. Here we address the knowledge gap of environmental impacts from organic vegetable production in a life cycle perspective, locate primary impact sources and investigate potential mitigation option scenarios. The assessment focussed on pointed cabbage, cos lettuce and yellow onion in a mixed crop rotation, as common under commercial Danish conditions, and include estimation of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) pools. The system boundary was set from cradle to farm gate, and included inputs to cultivation, soil C and N dynamics in the crop rotation, post-harvest cooling, packaging and storage. The data for modelling was collected from growers, consultants and the scientific literature. We report estimated global warming potential, marine eutrophication potential, land use, water consumption, mineral and fossil resource scarcity and cumulative energy demand from production. The analysis shows that environmental impacts stemmed from several activities dependent on the crop-specific characteristics of production. For summer-grown pointed cabbage, nitrous oxide emissions from high amounts of fertiliser and crop residue was responsible for 40 % of climate impacts, for cos lettuce the production of seedlings with peat as a substrate was responsible for 40 % of climate impact, and for transplanted yellow onion the post-harvest drying and storage was responsible for 27 % of climate impacts. The identified major mitigation options were an increase in harvest shares of handharvested vegetable crops, lower post-harvest loss from onion storage, optimised residue management and substitution of peat as substrate for seedling production. These are promising avenues for lower environmental impact.

Comprehensive but interpretable assessment of the environmental performance of diets involves choosing a set of appropriate indicators. Current knowledge and data gaps on the origin of dietary foodstuffs restrict use of indicators relying on site-specific information. This Personal View summarises commonly used indicators for assessing the environmental performance of diets, briefly outlines their benefits and drawbacks, and provides recommendations on indicator choices for actors across multiple fields involved in activities that include the environmental assessment of diets. We then provide recommendations on indicator choices for actors across multiple fields involved in activities that use environmental assessments, such as health and nutrition experts, policy makers, decision makers, and private-sector and public-sector sustainability officers. We recommend that environmental assessment of diets should include indicators for at least the five following areas: climate change, biosphere integrity, blue water consumption, novel entities, and impacts on natural resources (especially wild fish stocks), to capture important environmental trade-offs. If more indicators can be handled in the assessment, indicators to capture impacts related to land use quantity and quality and green water consumption should be used. For ambitious assessments, indicators related to biogeochemical flows, stratospheric ozone depletion, and energy use can be added.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use and land-use change (LULUC) are major contributors to the climate change impact of agricultural products. The widely used method recommended by PAS 2050 when the previous land use is unknown has several limitations. The aim of this study was to develop a method to estimate GHG emissions from both direct land-use change (LUC) and land management changes (LMC), to be implemented in the French agricultural and food life cycle inventory database Agribalyse. The proposed method uses 50 m × 50 m spatially explicit land conversion data at the departmental scale with a shared-responsibility approach and regionalised carbon (C) stocks, in line with recent advances in LULUC accounting. It also includes GHG emissions associated with changes in hedgerow area and CO2 removals by the soil and biomass. We calculated reference values for five agricultural land-use categories (field crops and temporary grassland, vegetables and flowers, permanent grassland, vineyards, and orchards) in 94 departments of metropolitan France and mean national results for 26 agricultural products. Total net GHG emissions from LULUC at the national scale were calculated for the aggregate land-use category cropland per previous land-use category: cropland, grassland, forest, settlement, hedgerow, and others. Total net GHG emissions of LULUC from cropland in France in 2020 were equivalent to those estimated by the French National Emissions Inventory Agency, with a large contribution from grassland conversions, followed by forest and hedgerow conversions. Large CO2 removals by the soil were also estimated, associated mainly with LMC. GHG emissions per hectare varied widely among land-use categories and departments, ranging from − 2570 to 4969 kg CO2-eq∙ha−1∙year−1. For products assessed at the national scale, including LMC GHG emissions decreased total net GHG emissions per kilogramme without LULUC by 8–46

La conservation et la restauration de la biodiversité impliquent généralement des interventions humaines. En comparaison, le ré-ensauvagement est une approche radicalement différente qui propose de s’appuyer sur les processus écologiques spontanés pour restaurer les écosystèmes. Le ré-ensauvagement, y compris celui des systèmes agricoles, a été examiné d’un point de vue écologique et social, mais peu d’un point de vue agricole. Dans cette revue de la littérature et d’études de cas, nous i) analysons si et comment le ré-ensauvagement des systèmes d’élevage peut contribuer à conserver et restaurer la biodiversité et offrir de nouvelles perspectives, principalement en Europe, et ii) identifions des questions de recherche sur le ré-ensauvagement des systèmes agricoles. Nous avons recherché la littérature portant à la fois sur le ré-ensauvagement et l’agriculture. Nous avons également identifié des projets de ré-ensauvagement agricole établis depuis au moins cinq ans au Royaume-Uni afin d’analyser leurs approches et leurs caractéristiques. Le ré-ensauvagement agricole est une forme émergente d’utilisation des terres que nous positionnons conceptuellement entre l’agroécologie et le ré-ensauvagement. Il combine la restauration des processus écologiques avec un certain degré de production agricole, le plus souvent d’herbivores. Une sélection de 11 projets de ré-ensauvagement agricole au Royaume-Uni portait sur des surfaces allant de 121 à 4 402 ha. Les principales actions visant à favoriser le ré-ensauvagement étaient le pâturage extensif et la restauration d’habitats. Les principales activités économiques étaient la vente d’animaux, le tourisme et l’éducation. Le ré-ensauvagement agricole peut constituer un modèle multifonctionnel vers lequel les systèmes d’élevage herbivore peuvent évoluer pour mieux répondre aux préoccupations environnementales.

In response to the sustainability issues that agriculture faces in advanced economies, agroecology has gained increasing relevance in scientific, political, and social debates. This has promoted discussion about transitions to agroecology, which represents a significant advancement. Accordingly, it has become a growing field of research. We reviewed the literature on and in support of farm transitions to agroecology in advanced economies in order to identify key research challenges and suggest innovative research paths. Our findings can be summarized as follows: (1) Research that supports exploration and definition of desired futures, whether based on future-oriented modeling or expert-based foresight approaches, should more explicitly include the farm level. It should stimulate the creativity and design ability of farmers and other stakeholders, and also address issues of representation and power among them. (2) Research that creates awareness and assesses farms before, during or after transition requires more holistic and dynamic assessment frameworks. These frameworks need to be more flexible to adapt to the diversity of global and local challenges. Their assessment should explicitly include uncertainty due to the feedback loops and emergent properties of transitions. (3) Research that analyzes and supports farms during transition should focus more on the dynamics of change processes by valuing what happens on the farms. Research should especially give more credence to on-farm experiments conducted by farmers and develop new tools and methods (e.g., for strategic monitoring) to support these transitions. This is the first review of scientific studies of farm transitions to agroecology. Overall, the review indicates that these transitions challenge the system boundaries, temporal horizons, and sustainability dimensions that agricultural researchers usually consider. In this context, farm transitions to agroecology require changes in the current organization and funding of research in order to encourage longer term and more adaptive configurations.

Livestock farming systems are criticised for their environmental impacts, but they can also provide various ecosystem services to society, especially permanent grasslands. This study aimed to develop a method to assess impacts of permanent grasslands and their management on the supply of regulation and maintenance ecosystem services applicable at the field and/or farm level. To this end, an existing framework, the Ecological Focus Areas Calculator, was adapted to (i) consider attributes and location parameters of permanent grasslands and (ii) integrate impacts of permanent grassland management on the provision of ecosystem services, which yielded a score for each ecosystem service. The method developed was tested with two farms. Analysis of mapping results, which calculated a score for each ecosystem service for each permanent grassland field on each farm, highlighted the direct relation between the novel approach and the underlying ecological theory of impacts on ecosystem services. On each farm, management practices influenced ecological processes differently, which led to different changes in ecosystem service scores. Applying this novel approach directly with farmers can help them identify win–win situations and trade-offs and target their management, by identifying the fields where it may be more optimal to focus certain management practices to decrease the farm’s overall impacts based on trade-offs at the individual-field scale. The novel approach combined representation of the complexity of interactions between management practices and ecological processes with the ability to provide results that are easy to use and interpret. Future development could help increase the accuracy of estimated impacts of management practices on ecosystem services, such as by adding additional practices or considering their long-term effects on ecological processes. The novel approach could also be updated to assess impacts of other types of land use, such as arable land, or management practices. The final goal of such a tool is to support decision-making to optimise the ecosystem services supplied by farming systems, which has advantages for society and for farmers.

Biodiversity conservation and restoration generally involve human intervention. In comparison, rewilding, a radically different approach, aims to increase the ability of ecological processes to restore ecosystems. Rewilding, including that of agricultural systems, has been examined from ecological and social perspectives but rarely from an agricultural perspective. In this review of the literature and case studies, we i) analyse whether and how rewilding of agricultural systems, particularly livestock systems, can help conserve and restore biodiversity and offer new prospects, primarily in Europe, and ii) idewntify research questions about rewilding of agricultural systems. We researched literature on rewilding, agriculture, and interactions between them. We also identified agricultural rewilding projects established for at least five years in the United Kingdom (UK) to analyse their approaches and characteristics. Agricultural rewilding is an emerging form of land use that we conceptually position between agroecology and rewilding. It combines restoration of ecological processes with some degree of agricultural production, most often of herbivores. A selection of 11 agricultural rewilding projects in the UK had areas of 121-4 402 ha. The main actions to enhance rewilding were extensive grazing and habitat restoration. The main economic activities were animal sales, tourism and education. Agricultural rewilding may provide a multifunctional model to which livestock systems with herbivores may transition to respond better to environmental concerns.

Urgent action is needed to ensure humanity's future under climate change. Agriculture faces major challenges as it is both influenced by and contributes to climate change. Conservation agriculture sequesters carbon (C) in the soil due to practices such as reduced tillage and planting of cover crops. This study assessed effects of an innovative conservation agriculture popcorn (Zea mays) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop rotation in south-western France on soil C sequestration, GHG emissions and several environmental impacts. Two complementary approaches were used: i) a comparison based on field data and expert judgement to assess short-term effects and ii) modelling of three scenarios to quantify long-term outcomes. In both approaches Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to compare popcorn and wheat rotations. The conventional rotation used ploughing, and its soil was bare between wheat harvest and popcorn sowing. Conservation agriculture used reduced tillage, cover crops, and compost of green waste. Impacts of compost production were allocated mainly to its waste treatment function, based on waste treatment cost and compost price. Simulation modelling of soil C was used to estimate the amount of C sequestered by the conservation and conventional crop rotations. LCA was combined with soil C modelling over 100 years to assess the long-term climate change impact of three scenarios for the popcorn and wheat rotation. These scenarios were 1) Conventional agriculture, 2) Conservation agriculture with cover crops only, 3) Conservation agriculture with cover crops + compost. Mean annual C sequestration and net climate change impact were -0.24 t/ha and 3867 kg CO2-eq./ha, respectively, for the conventional rotation and 0.91 t/ha and 434 kg CO2-eq./ha, respectively, for the conservation rotation. The climate change impact of the conservation rotation depended strongly on the allocation of composting impacts between the waste treatment and compost production functions. Compared to the conventional rotation, the conservation rotation had a lower marine eutrophication impact (-7%) but higher impacts for terrestrial acidification (+9%), land competition (+3%), and cumulative energy demand (+2%). Modelling over 100 years revealed that, at near soil C equilibrium, a conventional scenario lost 9% of soil C, whereas conservation agriculture scenarios gained 14% (only cover crop) and 26% of soil C (cover crop + compost). Conservation agriculture resulted in soil C sequestration over several decades, until a new soil C equilibrium was reached.

The loss of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is caused mainly by intensive agricultural production, especially livestock farms. However, certain farms that favor biodiversity attempt to decrease this loss, and the biodiversity hosted by these farms needs to be assessed. To this end, certain methods assess integrated variables of the overall state of an ecosystem. Among them, the “rewilding score” is based on assessing human forcing (i.e. inputs used in the ecosystem and products exported from the ecosystem) and ecological integrity to consider short-term and long-term effects of human activities on ecosystems. This study aimed to adapt the rewilding score for cattle-oriented farms, apply the method, and compare its results to observed biodiversity in order to discuss the relevance of the adapted rewilding score for assessing the biodiversity potential of livestock farms. Two adapted rewilding scores were tested with seven farms by combining one assessment of human forcing with two approaches for estimating ecological integrity. Biodiversity indices based on bird species inventories were calculated and compared to the adapted rewilding scores. Their moderate correlations with the adapted rewilding scores (r = 0.54–0.69) supported using this score to assess one type of biodiversity potential of agroecosystems. Nonetheless, the correlation between the adapted rewilding score and biodiversity remains to be confirmed by using biodiversity indices for other taxonomic groups and for a larger set of farms. This method could be used as a decision aid by farmers or as a tool to help governments calculate subsidies by considering short-term and long-term effects of livestock farms on biodiversity.

Biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes due to intensification of agriculture and degradation and loss of semi-natural habitats is a major issue that life cycle assessment (LCA) methods intend to address. No current LCA method is able to assess and compare impacts on the biodiversity of vegetable production systems as a function of farming practices and the local context. Based on a literature review and consultation with experts, the SALCA-BD expert system, originally designed to assess impacts on the biodiversity of cropland and grassland at field, rotation, and farm levels, was adapted to vegetable production systems. SALCA-BD is based on an inventory of the habitats found on a farm and a list of practices that can be implemented in these habitats. We distinguished an open field and a greenhouse as two distinct “level I” habitats, as a habitat’s openness favours the exchange of species with surrounding habitats. These two habitats were subdivided into “level II” habitats that corresponded to vegetable crops. Given the many types of vegetables, we used a clustering method to create a few categories that grouped vegetables that had similar potential to host biodiversity. We created a category for intercropped vegetables for fields in which multiple vegetables are grown at the same time, which is common on microfarms. We tested the expert system at field and farm levels using scenarios and a farm case study. We quantified effects of changes to individual practices and practice intensities at the field level on biodiversity. The results highlighted the importance of semi-natural habitats for preserving biodiversity, in addition to low-intensity practices, which indicates that assessment at the farm level is more informative than that at the field level. Because it considers habitats and practices in detail, SALCA-BD is useful for assessing biodiversity at field and farm levels and for comparing farming systems with the same land use and type of management (organic or conventional), which other LCA methods for assessing biodiversity cannot do. Field size, which is a driver of biodiversity, is considered indirectly only when semi-natural habitats are included. As SALCA-BD does not consider impacts of the background system, combining SALCA-BD with comprehensive methods for assessing impacts on biodiversity is a promising perspective for more complete assessment.

The imperative of carbon neutrality requires a drastic, rapid, and sustained reduction in fossil energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The Russia-Ukraine war has led to a major energy crisis, whose end does not seem imminent. The sudden and major increase in energy prices resulting from this crisis has major impacts on many sectors of the societies. This is especially true for agriculture, a direct consumer of energy that also has considerable indirect consumption through the manufacture, transport, and distribution of chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. Taking the example of France, from July 2021 to July 2022, farmers were challenged with price increases as high as 48% and 111% for energy and fertilizers, respectively (Agreste, 2022). At the global scale, in 2018, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil energy consumption in agriculture represented 0.9 Pg CO2 eq. (against 9.3 Pg CO2 eq. due to agriculture, excluding emissions due to this energy consumption) and those emissions have increased by 23% since 2000 (FAO, 2020). This context calls for in-depth transformation of agriculture, which is currently overly dependent on non-renewable energy in high-income economies. While research on the subject continues to grow (Box 1), this large body of work focuses more on assessing the energy consumption of current agricultural systems using multiple metrics (Box 2) than on developing supply- or demand-side alternatives that use less energy. In response to these trends, Ramankutty and Dowlatabadi (2021) suggested pathways to sustainable food systems. However, while their recommendations included energy reduction options on the food consumption side, their focus on farming practices was restricted to improving the energy efficiency of current agricultural systems and missed the necessary redesign of farming and food systems. In this article, we look back to understand how agricultural systems came to progressively depend on non-renewable energy. We then briefly review agricultural practices and systems reducing energy consumption without compromising energy efficiency. Finally, we propose future research avenues to explore pathways for reducing energy consumption without compromising food security and sustainability challenges.

French organic vegetable farms are diverse, ranging from complex biodiversity-based systems, with many vegetables, to simple input-based systems with few vegetables, suggesting potentially different impacts on the environment. We used life cycle assessment (LCA) to assess the impact of three contrasted farms: MF, a microfarm with a high crop diversity and a low input level, SP, a medium-sized farm specialized in sheltered production with a low crop diversity and a high input level, and OP, a large farm specialized in outdoor production with intermediate input level and crop diversity. To cope with the complexity of organic vegetable farms, we opted for a system LCA, based on farm inputs and outputs for a one-year period. Using mass-, and area-based functional units, we analyzed the impacts on climate change, land competition, biodiversity, and the use of plastic. Per ha, differences between the systems were large for climate change. SP had the highest impacts, whereas OP had the lowest impacts. Expressed per kg, differences between the systems for climate change were much smaller, even ranking differently. OP used much less plastic but performed worse on biodiversity and land competition. Despite its higher yield, SP did not perform better than other farms on impacts per kg for climate change, and plastic use. The impact on on-farm biodiversity showed contrasting results compared to the other impacts. It highlighted the importance of semi-natural habitats. The quantification of plastic use echoed growing concerns on (micro-)plastic pollution in agricultural soils and landscapes.

There is an urgent need for agriculture in general, and for viticulture in particular, to reduce their impacts on the environment. Doing so requires an approach that supports transitioning to more environmentally friendly practices. Involving farmers and agricultural advisors is key to lifting technical, economic, and social barriers to this transition. Participatory methods can help to consider specific contexts and concerns, but few suitable tools are available. We developed a methodological framework to address both environmental and economic dimensions at the field and farm scales in three participatory ecodesign workshops with winegrowers. We applied our framework to the ecodesign of pathways of technical operations in the Middle Loire Valley, France. The first two workshops focused on the field scale, and group interactions were facilitated using a serious game and a "live" assessment of the environmental performance of the ecodesigned system. The third workshop focused on implementation at farm level. The aggregated environmental impact of the ecodesigned farm decreased by 4%, while the economic performance of its four pathways of technical operations improved. We showed that combining environmental and economic assessment tools, suitable for use in participatory workshops, addresses most mechanisms for and barriers to changing practices at the farm scale. The typology of activities at the farm scale allows farm characteristics and the diversity of production systems to be represented in the ecodesign without over-complicating the process. The use of farm maps takes advantage of the collective expertise of the group and increases participant involvement. This process highlighted the need to continue to extend the scope and criteria of ecodesign to decrease environmental impacts even more. Here, we show for the first time the need to quantify the influence of a farm's environmental practices on its economic performance to reduce the perception of risk and facilitate adoption of these practices.

Agriculture’s primary function is the production of food, feed, fibre and fuel for the fast-growing world population. However, it also affects human health and ecosystem integrity. Policymakers make policies in order to avoid harmful impacts. How to assess such policies is a challenge. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework to help evaluate the impacts of agricultural policies on the environment. Our framework represents the global system as four subsystems and their interactions. These four components are the cells of a 2 by 2 matrix [Agriculture, Rest of the word]; [Socio-eco system, Ecological system]. We then developed a set of indicators for environmental issues and positioned these issues in the framework. To assess these issues, we used four well-known existing approaches: Life Cycle Assessment, Ecosystem Services Analysis, Yield Gap Analysis and Agro-Environmental Indicators. Using these four approaches together provided a more holistic view of the impacts of a given policy on the system. We then applied our framework on existing cover crop policies using an extensive literature survey and analysing the different environmental issues mobilised by the four assessment approaches. This demonstration case shows that our framework may be of help for a full systemic assessment. Despite their differences (aims, scales, standardization, data requirements, etc.), it is possible and profitable to use the four approaches together. This is a significant step forward, though more work is needed to produce a genuinely operational tool.