This study investigates how the ecosystem services (ES) linked to livestock grazing are perceived across countries. A total of 82 case studies collected from 42 countries via survey (53.7% cases from Europe and 46.3% from outside of Europe) have been analysed through a multivariate approach. In all, 18 non-provisioning ES were considered. Overall, the reported impacts of livestock grazing on the different ES were much more positive than negative. Notably, a large proportion of respondents reported either positive or very positive impacts for some cultural ES, namely cultural, historic and natural heritage (84%), knowledge systems and educational values (77%), landscape values (74%), and for some supporting and regulating ES, namely habitat provision (66%), nutrient cycling (65%), and bush encroachment/fire control (66%). Based on multiple regression analysis, geographic origin, stakeholder type and species category, as well as protection status of the grazing area, had significant effects on the perception of the impacts. Respondents reported those impacts as more positive in Europe, in protected areas and where several species were present in the grazing area. A significantly larger proportion of respondents reported recognition of ES provided by the grazing livestock population in European countries (40.9%) compared with non-European countries (23.7%). Based on the survey responses it appears that in non-European countries absence of formal recognition, especially by policy makers, is a major challenge for the continued provision of ES in grazing systems. In Europe, where such recognition is already often included in legislation, the long-term sustainability of related policies and incentives to provide such services is viewed as a major issue by the respondents.

In beef cattle, feeding behaviour and activity are associated with feed efficiency and methane (CH4) emissions. This study aimed to understand the underlying traits responsible for the contribution of cattle behaviour to individual differences in feed efficiency, performance and CH4 emissions. A total of 84 steers (530±114 kg BW) of two different breeds (crossbreed Charolais and Luing) were used. The experiment was a 2×2×3 factorial design with breed, basal diets (concentrate v. mixed) and dietary treatments (no additive, calcium nitrate or rapeseed cake) as the main factors. The individual dry matter intake (DMI; kg) was recorded daily and the BW was measured weekly over a 56-day period. Ultrasound fat depth was measured on day 56. Based on the previous data, the indexes average daily gain, food conversion and residual feed intake (RFI) were calculated. The frequency of meals, the duration per visit and the time spent feeding per day were taken as feeding behaviour measures. Daily activity was measured using the number of steps, the number of standing bouts and the time standing per day. Agonistic interactions (including the number of contacts, aggressive interactions, and displacements per day) between steers at the feeders were assessed as indicators of dominance. Temperament was assessed using the crush score test (which measures restlessness when restrained) and the flight speed on release from restraint. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression models. Steers that spent more time eating showed better feed efficiency (P=0.039), which can be due to greater secretion of saliva. Feeding time was longer with the mixed diet (P<0.001), Luings (P=0.009) and dominant steers (P=0.032). Higher activity (more steps) in the pen was associated with poorer RFI, possibly because of higher energy expenditure for muscle activity. Frequent meals contributed to a reduction in CH4 emissions per kg DMI. The meal frequency was higher with a mixed diet (P<0.001) and increased in more temperamental (P=0.003) and dominant (P=0.017) steers. In addition, feed intake was lower (P=0.032) in more temperamental steers. This study reveals that efficiency increases with a longer feeding time and CH4 emissions decrease with more frequent meals. As dominant steers eat more frequently and for longer, a reduction in competition at the feeder would improve both feed efficiency and CH4 emissions. Feed efficiency can also be improved through a reduction in activity. Selection for calmer cattle would reduce activity and increase feed intake, which may improve feed efficiency and promote growth, respectively.

Automatic milking systems (AMS), or milking robots, are becoming widely accepted as a milking technology that reduces labour and increases milk yield. However, reported amount of labour saved, changes in milk yield, and milk quality when transitioning to AMS vary widely. The purpose of this study was to document the impact of adopting AMS on farms with regards to reported changes in milking labour management, milk production, milk quality, and participation in dairy herd improvement (DHI) programmes. A survey was conducted across Canada over the phone, online, and in-person. In total, 530 AMS farms were contacted between May 2014 and the end of June 2015. A total of 217 AMS producers participated in the General Survey (Part 1), resulting in a 41% response rate, and 69 of the respondents completed the more detailed follow-up questions (Part 2). On average, after adopting AMS, the number of employees (full- and part-time non-family labour combined) decreased from 2.5 to 2.0, whereas time devoted to milking-related activities decreased by 62% (from 5.2 to 2.0 h/day). Median milking frequency was 3.0 milkings/day and robots were occupied on average 77% of the day. Producers went to fetch cows a median of 2 times/day, with a median of 3 fetch cows or 4% of the herd per robot/day. Farms had a median of 2.5 failed or incomplete milkings/robot per day. Producers reported an increase in milk yield, but little effect on milk quality. Mean milk yield on AMS farms was 32.6 kg/cow day. Median bulk tank somatic cell count was 180 000 cells/ml. Median milk fat on AMS farms was 4.0% and median milk protein was 3.3%. At the time of the survey, 67% of producers were current participants of a DHI programme. Half of the producers who were not DHI participants had stopped participation after adopting AMS. Overall, this study characterized impacts of adopting AMS and may be a useful guide for making this transition.