Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

The purpose of this case-study is to find out, how the agronomists specialized in Animal husbandry perceive and respond to the ongoing debate initiated by ‘Livestock‘s long shadow’ report about the risks with global livestock production. Moreover, to investigate also their perspective regarding different attempts to reduce the risks as well as the nature of the reactions shown by the farmers and general citizens.

The research study is based on the qualitative semi-structured interviews with fourteen agronomists regarding the research questions about how they understand and evaluate the above mentioned debate concerning the expansion of livestock activities and the related problems. The results are interpreted through the interview quotes of the respondents rather than using any direct statistical data.

The results show that the interviewed agronomists are aware of the ongoing debate and confirm that many of the problems raised in ‘Livestock‘s long shadow’ report are relevant and need to be addressed on a global level. Whereas, they do not consider any need for substantial changes in the Swedish production system. However, they indicate that Sweden is indirectly responsible for deforestation and expansion of the ongoing livestock activities of Brazil and other South American countries because of importing soyabean and red meat from those countries.

The agronomists argue that decrease in red meat consumption side by side with increase in livestock production within the safe limits in Sweden would help to decrease risks for the society and reduce the import of red meat in the country, as well. Moreover, they give suggestions for giving incentives to the farmers by the Swedish government to provide the relief for rearing cattle in higher number and for change of the food habits of people to decrease red meat consumption in the country. The agronomists being animal husbandry experts are aware of and to a large extent agree with the criticism about global livestock production system. However, they do not perceive themselves as adopting the role of ‘coordinating risks’ through their expert knowledge, rather they consider the politicians and consumers for contributing to make such changes.