Sustainable Intensification (SI) is a term that has been advanced to capture a concept that some consider as the 'third paradigm' for global agricultural development. However, the term has become subject to intense debates as well as scepticism and confusion regarding its meaning and the characteristics of production systems that could indicate SI (defined as "indicators"). This has resulted in a proliferation of literature. We have conducted a systematic review of a sample of this literature analysing the most commonly suggested indicators of SI in order to investigate the extent to which the critiques of SI are valid in their viewpoints that SI is an oxymoron, underpinned by a productivist agenda, and to identify the critical issues in the development of a comprehensive and unambiguous set of SI indicators. From 633 articles identified by a search of relevant databases, a sample of 75 articles were selected and analysed using the NVIVO™ software. The results were organised according to a Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework comprising seven sub-systems or components − resource system, resource units, governance system, resource users, interactions, outcomes, and environment. A total of 218 indicators (both positive and negative) were identified. Most of these indicators focused on the 'outcomes' of agricultural systems with the majority being related to agricultural production. Few indicators were identified as relating to the economic and societal dimensions of food systems. Whilst this potentially suggested a productivist bias in the current interpretation of SI it was difficult to draw a black and white conclusion, since for the other system components, the majority of the indicators suggested appeared to take a more holistic point-of-view and emphasised both productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems. Our analysis suggests that a key reason why SI may be viewed with scepticism is a lack of specificity and elucidation of the rationale, scale, and farm type for which SI is proposed. Moreover, a number of the indicators were so loosely defined that the interventions they imply could be enacted without due consideration of the social impacts of their adoption. We conclude that there is need to develop SI indicators according to specific farming types and scales and also with more consideration of the social and political dimensions of food systems in order to promote a constructive dialogue around the concept of SI to take place. Unless the concept of SI is described and measured in such a holistic and inclusive manner, it is unlikely to be accepted as a valid descriptor of sought-after agricultural practices by players in the Third Sector.

Why would the farmers in a developed, Western country, dominated by an industrialised agriculture, choose to grow a traditional crop variety? This study aimed to explore this question through an investigation of the reasons why a traditional landrace barley -known as Berewas still grown in the Scottish islands of Orkney and Shetland. Cultivated barley is one of the oldest and most widely grown cereals in the world and plays a significant role in global food security. However, since the beginning of the 20th century the genetic diversity in cultivated barley has been in decline as traditional varieties are replaced with modern cultivars. Traditional varieties, such as landraces, are an important genetic resource, and there is a growing interest in their in situ conservation, both in Europe and internationally. The success of such activities would benefit from a proper understanding of the factors that drive farmers' motivations to maintain barley landraces on their farms and this study intended to fill the knowledge gap that existed in this regard in a European context. Interviews were conducted with Bere growers and representatives of the food manufacturing industry on the islands to discover why they valued this crop. This was complemented by insights from agricultural calendars, preference ranking tasks and photographic data. Thematic analysis of the data yielded four broad drivers of Bere cultivation: market demand, cultural and traditional values, adaptation to conditions, and use as a low-input crop. Preference ranking of these drivers showed their perceived relative importance and the variations in such perceptions between Orkney and Shetland. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the findings for devising more effective in situ conservation strategies for barley landraces in Europe and further afield.

The concept of 'Sustainable Intensification' (SI) has been promoted as a potential solution to the many contemporary challenges facing agriculture, but has also received widespread criticism for being too narrow in scope and failing to address all aspects of sustainability. Despite this, there are few suggestions in the literature as to what a holistic, broad-based approach to SI should comprise and what issues and trade-offs are likely to arise in the adoption and operation of such a broadly-based approach. We report a suit of SI indicators suggested by UK stakeholders, evaluate the plausibility of these in terms of the commonly established principles of sustainability, and identify the critical issues that may arise in the adoption and operation of these indicators. The purpose of this paper is not to recommend a specific blueprint for SI but to raise issues and questions for dialogue amongst stakeholders. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 32 stakeholders from throughout the UK agrifood system. The data were analysed thematically and organised using a Social-Ecological Systems (SESs) framework. The interviewees suggested a total of 110 SI indicators, of which the most frequently suggested related to agricultural production and ecological considerations. There was less emphasis placed on social and cultural dimensions of agricultural systems. A number of the indicators suggested were poorly-defined and it was difficult to determine what particular aspects of sustainability they addressed. Many potential trade-offs between the indicators were also evident. The findings raise a number of questions. Is it appropriate to continue referring to SI as Sustainable Intensification when it fails to give equal consideration to all accepted aspects of sustainability? Would it be more appropriate to refer to the SI concept as 'Ecological Intensification'? Is a broad-based and all-encompassing definition of 'sustainability' always desirable, or should 'sustainability' be considered as context specific, with the weighting of the different dimensions varying according to operational circumstances? We argue that these questions need to be resolved through stakeholder dialogues in order for the concept of SI to become more widely accepted and implementable in practice.

Background This paper uses two endemic health conditions to explore farmer understandings of and responses to livestock health and welfare issues. Methods The findings are based on a survey of 42 livestock farmers in the north of England, exploring how they manage lameness in sheep and cattle and bovine viral diarrhoea in cattle. We identify similarities and differences in their approaches. Results Two themes emerge. (1) The importance of difference between animal types (i.e., beef cattle, dairy cattle and sheep), which highlights the ‘complex’ and ‘multifactorial’ nature of animal health and welfare. It is necessary to unpack this to understand the interplay of animal, resource and management issues in farmer responses. (2) Previous research has identified ‘lack of knowledge’ as a key welfare issue. Our findings reveal farmers are in fact seeking, acquiring and sharing knowledge on practices related to the management of animal health however individual circumstance and context influence how this translates in practice. Conclusion Our research highlights the importance of integrating different perspectives and knowledges as a way of understanding and responding to animal health and welfare concerns. Facilitating knowledge exchange both within and between different groups and sectors is vital in achieving this.

This paper engages with debates surrounding practices of care in complex situations where human and non-human lives are entangled. Focusing on the embodied practices of care involving farmers, their advisers and cows and sheep in the North of England, the paper explores how biosocial collectivities fabricate care around endemic health conditions in specific farming situations. Based on in-depth research with farmers and advisers, the paper examines how Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) and lameness are made ‘visible’ and become cared about, what practices are mobilised in response to an evident need to care, and how some animals are, paradoxically, made ‘killable’ in the practising of care for populations of cows and sheep. The paper discusses how the perspectives of farmers and advisers are aligned in developing practices of care for animals, although there are some tensions and differences between these groups. Advisers focus on making endemic diseases important to farmers, so that they become enrolled into taking prescribed action. However, the sets of competing priorities farmers have to address, in complex on-farm situations, along with some resistance to taking prescribed action, produces other perspectives on and practices of care. The paper concludes by emphasising the problematics of practising care in farming, showing how care for endemic disease coexists with harm to some animals and the reproduction of modes of farming which make it more likely that endemic conditions persist.