Search

The livestock sector is under increasing pressure to respond to numerous sustainability and health challenges related to the production and consumption of livestock products. However, political and market barriers and conflicting worldviews and values across the environmental, socio-economic and political domains have led to considerable sector inertia, and government inaction. The processes that lead to the formulation of perspectives in this space, and that shape action (or inaction), are currently under-researched. This paper presents results of a mixed methods exploration of the influence of environmental worldviews, values, and demographic factors on perspectives towards the future of the livestock sector. The approach combines survey and interview data derived from a sample of livestock representatives (N = 307). Respondents with higher pro-environmental, ecocentric and relational worldviews and values favour more behaviour-oriented solutions. Those with lower pro-environmental and higher techno-centric worldviews and values favour technological solutions to improve the efficiency of production and to enable continued patterns of meat consumption. Demographic variation and qualitative data emphasise the need to recognise cultural and geographic nuance in narratives. This study improves our understanding of the processes that lead to the formulation of perspectives, enabling the development of more holistic solutions that acknowledge all voices in an increasingly polarised debate. Adopting more pluralistic, relational methodologies will therefore be paramount in developing solutions for sustainable livestock futures.

Background: Veterinary professionals operate at the human-animal-environment interface and are concerned about sustainability issues. This study examined the extent to which sustainability is represented in policy and enacted in veterinary practice settings, as reported by practice representatives.Methods: An online survey was completed by 392 veterinary centre representatives in the UK and Republic of Ireland, to identify existing policies and practises around the environmental impacts of veterinary services and animal husbandry, responsible medicine use, animal welfare and social wellbeing. Results: A minority of respondents were aware of an environmental policy at their practice (17%, 68/392). Many others were undertaking waste reduction initiatives, but wider environmental interventions were infrequently reported. The majority were aware of medicine stewardship and animal welfare policies or guidelines, but a minority reported social wellbeing policies (40%, 117/289) and the provision of advice to clients on the environmental impacts of animal husbandry (31%, 92/300). Conclusion: Results depict a value-action gap between the concern of veterinary professionals towards sustainability, and the policies and practises at their workplaces. Building on progress in the sector, wider adoption of comprehensive policies and practises, with guidance, could enhance veterinary contributions to the sustainability agenda, in particular to mitigate the environmental externalities of veterinary services and animal care, and ensure safe, fair and inclusive workplaces. Limitations: The bias arising from the small convenience sample of practice representatives, and potential discrepancies between the claims of survey respondents and their practices’ policies and activities, are acknowledged.