Food animal production, a vital enterprise in the U.S. rural economy, plays a critical role in food security in the U.S. and globally. Nutritionally, animal sources provide about 70% of the protein in the U.S. diet as meat, eggs, and dairy products (Smit et al., 1999), and contribute almost 11% of caloric intake (Shan et al, 2019). As a leading exporter of animal proteins, the U.S. contributes to a protein supply in many regions of the world. Recent disruptions in protein supply chains worldwide due to COVID-19, African Swine Fever and Avian Influenza have emphasized the critical need for a sustainable food supply resilient to unforeseen vulnerabilities and threats. Projected growth in the global population to 9.7 billion by 2050, a 20% increase compared to 2023 (UNFPA , 2023), will add pressure to current animal food systems to meet the demand for animal proteins. In addition, increased awareness of the environmental impacts associated with human activities, including food animal systems, on climate and water resources have introduced a challenge to food animal systems, i.e., to ensure the preservation of ecosystem services. The need to meet growing demand (with increased productivity) while minimizing the impacts of disruptive events on productivity (with resiliency) and preserving ecosystem services (with environmental sustainability) define the attributes of sustainable intensification. As defined by Pretty and Bharucha (2014), the term “sustainable intensification” describes the ability to increase agricultural output (productivity) with no land-use conversion or adverse environmental impacts. Pursuing sustainable intensification is a continuous, interdisciplinary process that involves various stakeholders with different priorities, perceptions, and needs. Sustainable development was defined, by the United Nations Brundtland Commission (1987), as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” and publications have often cited the dimensions of sustainability as the environment, economics, and society. Sustainable development continues to be a global priority. In 2015, The United Nations established 17 sustainable development goals (UN SDGs) as a shared blueprint to guide the 2030 sustainable development agenda (Lee, 2016). Similarly, the US Department of Agriculture strategic plan (Fiscal years 2022-2023) emphasizes environmental, economic, and social sustainability as key to many of the goals identified by the agency (USDA, 2022). Simultaneously addressing these various dimensions and interactions is a “wicked” problem, which Rittel and Webber (1973) describe as a problem that has “no ‘solution’ in the sense of definitive and objective answers.” This is not to say there cannot be advances to creating or finding solutions. However, making these advances requires intentional collaboration integrating multiple disciplinary skill sets, regional perspectives, and organizational priorities. Bottom line - Intentional collaboration is necessary to pursue advances in sustainable intensification of livestock production in the U.S.

Food animal commodity groups have recognized the need for sustainable intensification and pursued the development and adoption of sustainability benchmarking tools - most notably, life cycle analyses (LCAs) - to quantify environmental impacts. The LCA methodology is internationally standardized (ISO, 2016a, 2016b). Environmental impact categories common to livestock-associated LCAs include global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, energy use, land use, and biodiversity. LCA-based impact comparisons are valid for demonstrating reductions in environmental impact measures over time within livestock industries, like analyses by Capper and Cady (2020) for the U.S. dairy industry, Thoma et al. (2018) for U.S. pig production, and Putman et al. (2017) for the poultry industry. Previous studies of egg production systems have variously addressed economic (Matthew et al, 2015), social (Pelletier, 2018), and environmental considerations (Pelletier, 2017; Wiedemann, 2011), but did not effectively integrate the assessment for these three pillars of sustainability. These studies, and others, were national in scale yet considered regional practices and were used to evaluate industry impacts and inform methodical goal-setting for the future. Similarly, these assessments have been integrated into decision-support tools (DSTs) whereby users can quantify potential impacts of management changes on sector-wide performance. Generally speaking, multi-criteria sustainability assessment and DSTs are critical to support the animal industries in successfully navigating the complex problems that emerge at the intersection of environmental, socio-economic, and animal welfare concerns. Inevitably, however, sector-wide assessments and decision-making rely on abstractions and averaging of both input data and impacts. Relying on sector-wide, aggregated observations from sector-wide LCAs to inform farm-level decisions is not always appropriate. As such, different commodity groups have relied on the LCA approach to develop calculators and tools that operate at the farm level. These tools are aimed at facilitating farm-level data collection to aid sector-wide benchmarking as well as informing and empowering farm-level decision making to achieve reductions in environmental impacts. Examples of such tools include COMET-FARM (USDA-NRCS) and Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (F.A.R.M.) Environmental Stewardship module (FARM, 2020). The uptake of these tools and calculators by farmers is usually not high. Some of the reasons include time and training requirements to ensure their correct and sustained use, distrust in how assessments are made, i.e., modeling calculations and coefficients, as well as concern over the interpretation and use of generated assessments. Bottom Line - Trust and representation in farm-level sustainability metric calculation methods are critical to advancing adoption and achieving sector-level goals.

 Sustainable advances in animal agriculture can use existing, innovative, or future technologies at the field, barn, or (the farm) system level. However, in the interconnected system that is a farm, rarely are there solutions that wholly reduce environmental impacts and are economically viable. For example, Beauchemin et al. (2008) reviewed enteric methane abatement strategies for dairy cows and demonstrated positive and negative consequences within the broader farm system, including production efficiency, manure characteristics, and cost, but also noted a general lack of long-term research. A multi-year assessment of technologies to advance swine manure management in the Southeastern U.S. (North Carolina) (Williams, 2009) identified several potential technologies and quantified environmental gains and related economic costs associated with their adoption. However, the diffusion and adoption of proven or promising technologies and practices on farms depend on many factors, as Rogers (2003) noted. Kuehne et al. (2017) developed ADOPT, a model that predicts the speed and peak level of adoption by farmers of new practices based on 22 variables related to the practice, population, learning, and relative advantage. In investigating willingness to adopt precision farming tools, Vecchio et al. (2020) stressed respective contexts for involved groups in informing their willingness to change practices. Furthermore, they highlighted the successes of a bottom-up approach, i.e., a participatory model, in agricultural innovation. This is particularly relevant to food animal systems, where diverse stakeholder groups with diverging backgrounds and contexts are involved in shaping perceptions, practices, and outcomes. As such, outreach and extension efforts need to be cognizant of these intricacies and the critical need for a safe space to allow multiple perspectives to be articulated and integrated into consensus-based innovation process. Bottom Line - A participatory model of engagement is critical to incorporate multiple perspectives and disciplines into the process of designing for sustainability in food animal systems.

 In summary, these needs prompt the development of a nimble, intentional collaboration with a focus of advancing sustainability at the farm level by increasing access, trust, and opportunities for innovative technologies and practices. The mission of this project team remains similar to past projects: to ensure the growth of sustainable agricultural systems by fostering the development of inter‐ and trans‐ disciplinary networks of scientists and professionals (biologists, sociologists, economists, engineers, etc.) who embrace the multitude of perspectives offered. These networks are better positioned to forecast potential trajectories and agricultural outcomes in an environment that allows for vetting of competing perspectives and approaches. Building on past experiences, the team proposes new objectives aligned with this mission.