E lements shared by farmers referred on different dimensions of the livestock farming systems.

Table 1 lists the results of the collective discussion aimed at reaching an agreement on what the farmers’ systems had in common. The three dimensions of the farming systems reported in the table are the same as those used to organize the workshop, and correspond to the three topics.

The shared elements listed in Table 1 are phrased in a way that is as close as possible to the way they were expressed by the group of farmers. “Grazing-based systems” and “free-range (quasi integral)” refers directly to the characteristics of the livestock farming systems. “Orientation toward autonomy” refers to the shared desire to move towards livestock feed autonomy, even if the farmers underlined this is more difficult with some species than with others. Alongside their aim to achieve feed autonomy, they pointed out that if they had to buy feed, they avoided buying industrially processed feed. Some of the shared elements concerned the farm ecosystem and how it is valorized: “use of hedges”, “floristic diversity” of the pastured areas was considered important. More generally, they underlined the consistency between the breed and the farm agroecosystem: “match between the choice of environment and the choice of breed”. They also mentioned they all pay attention to “animal health and animal wellbeing”. The only principle linked with genetic management they share is that they consider themselves responsible for the “management of a genepool”. Several shared principles refer to what farm gate sales enable: “farmers can make their animals and activities visible”, there is a “direct link with the customer”, there may be an “association between market relations and friendship”, “trust [is] based on mutual knowledge and not on a label”, “the taste of products is co-build and shared with the consumers”. Another principle linked with farm gate sales is that “proximity can be interpersonal and/or geographical”, as in some cases farmers sell their products at a distance from the farm but where they know the customers. Finally, the last two principles are values shared by the farmers: “Everything is used”, is a declaration of their desire to avoid waste, and “farmers seek equilibrium balance and not expansion”.

S hared principles refer to both practices and values

The elements the farmers consider as shared are expressed in different ways, and may be of a different nature. Some are formulated as generic practices (e.g. “when feed is purchased it is not industrially processed”). When principles are expressed as a shared generic practice, they may include different ways of expressing the practice. Some are not expressed as practices (e.g. “farmers seek balance and not expansion”) but as values, i.e. they refer to elements that are important in the farmers’ views, something they care about. When principles are expressed as values, the values can also be expressed through different practices.

S hared principles associated with a diverse range of practices

We inventoried the diversity of practices expressed during the roundtables. Linking them to the corresponding shared principle revealed the diversity of farmers’ practices as illustrated in Table 2.

Several shared principles refer to relational values and practices

All farmers who attended the workshop practised direct sales (farm gate sales), but when talking about what they have in common, the farmers did not mention this practice per se as a shared principle; instead, they mentioned the values associated with the practices that were not focused on economic but on relational values such as “direct link with the client” and “proximity that can be interpersonal and/or geographical”.

The shared principle “the taste of products is co-built and shared with the consumers” also refers to relational values and interactions. Indeed, the interactions with consumers lead to better mutual knowledge: farmers learn about consumers’ preferences, while the customers learn about the farming activity and the animals. For instance, one farmer mentioned that customers became accustomed to watching the animals they will eat in the end, grow, and two farmers mentioned people who had given up eating meat and started eating meat again. Several farmers mentioned receiving feedback about their products, and two farmers who process milk explained that when they develop a new product, they have some customers taste it, and they take the feedback they receive into account when adjusting the recipes.

The shared principle “farmers make their animals and activities visible” refers to a diversity of relational practices and to the description of individual practices illustrating how farmers interact with the public: organizing barbecues or dinners and shows on the farm with the possibility to visit the farm, opening their farm to visits on demand, receiving a helping hand from customers who have become friends, holding art exhibitions on the farm through the intermediary of an association.

Identifying shared principles underlying livestock farming systems through collective approaches

The approach we present in this paper consisted of identifying shared principles that underpin livestock farming systems. We show that these principles can be expressed both as practices and values. Agroecology is a scientific field in which the principles underpinning farming systems are widely acknowledged.Wezel et al. (2020) reviewed the different agroecological principles reported in the literature with the aim of proposing consolidated principles. These authors defined principles as actionable statements that contain both normative aspects (that assert values) and causative aspects (that explain relationships) (Wezel et al., 2020). Agroecological principles are generally defined by scientists and experts to provide a permanent generic scope that can be used to guide analysis, support transition and evaluate systems. The principles are generically formulated but can be applied locally through a range of practices suited to local conditions (Wezel et al., 2020). In this context, some agroecological studies aim to establish links between generic agroecological principles and the diversity of practices and ways of acting on agroecosystems (Toffolini et al., 2018). The principles we identified in this study are actionable statements that can be expressed through a diversity of practices depending on the farm. However, these principles are formulated as statements shared by a group of farmers, to support work to achieve better recognition of their activities and products. The shared practices and values identified are consequently the result of bringing together diverse views – the product of a collective process within a group, the contours of which may change. Therefore, in contrast to generic agroecological principles, these principles may change over time. As the identification of shared principles necessarily results from the views of a group, a participatory approach is required.

The need for a collective process leads to a methodological challenge. The workshop reported in this paper involved only a small number of farmers. Although this study confirms that this group of farmers who use local breeds share more than genetic resources, it is impossible to conclude what all farmers using local breeds share at the Federation scale. The Federation has many members, and it would be impossible to include all the farmers of the member associations in a face-to-face collective reflection. One possible way to proceed would be to design a collective form of governance to enable each farmer to monitor the process and give their view, even if they do not participate actively in the workshop discussions.

The shared principles of livestock farming systems concern several dimensions.

This study showed that farmers who use local breeds not only share the genetic resources they use but also other elements of their farming systems. Those elements are expressed as values and practices, and are interrelated, as values are related to “how farmers ‘make sense’ of their practices” (Darnhofer, Gibbon, & Dedieu, 2012). This calls for further developments in the field of genetic resources management to better understand what farmers who use local breeds do share.

We have shown that principles shared by all the farmers are reflected in practices that vary with the farm. Diversity among farming systems is indeed a key research object of livestock farming systems, and is often tackled through the use of different kinds of typologies depending on the aim of the study (Alvarez et al., 2018). Here, in accordance with the aim of our study, our approach was more focused on the identification of common principles than on the characterization of the diversity of possible practices that each principle covers.

Our work also shows that shared principles of livestock farming systems using local breeds are not only linked with breeding and genetics but with other dimensions, including feeding and sanitary systems. The systemic approach to livestock farming considers several dimensions and their associated practices in a given farming system. Although feeding, sanitary, reproduction and renewal practices are at the core of the livestock farming systems approach, whatLandais (1994) termed the “valorization practices” of animal products (processing, sales, etc.) are also an integral part. Our study confirms the importance of the processing and sale of farm products in the overall functioning of the system. Few studies of livestock farming systems pay sufficient attention to the sale of farm products (Nozières, 2014), even though it may play an important role. Indeed, here we have shown the key role of farm gate sales or short supply chains. Although direct sales strategies are important in terms of the farm’s overall economic strategy as well as work organization, our results show that the relations established with consumers are also very important and interact with other dimensions of the system. Milk and meat processing, for instance, can be influenced by direct sales, as the range of products and the recipes can evolve in response to consumer feedback about the products. The relational dimension of short supply chains is studied in social and economic sciences (Chiffoleau, Millet-Amrani, Rossi, Rivera-Ferre, & Merino, 2019), and livestock farming system approaches also consider this relational dimension increasingly relevant, as underlined by Darnhofer et al. (2012).

More generally, this work underlines the importance of the different relationships created by the farmers around their farms, not only through direct sale, but also farm visits or other activities. These different interactions could be the subject of further studies in livestock farming system approaches.

Challenges: how to recogniz e specifics of farming systems that use local breeds without excluding diversity?

Gaining recognition for the products and activities of farms using local breeds is a challenge. This is fully consistent with the wider challenge of adding value to local breeds and helping ensure their continued viability (Ligda & Casabianca, 2013). Several studies focused on products made from local breeds, with or without specific labelling, showing the advantages of adding value to breeds by adding value to products, particularly in an approach focused on economic value. (Mathias et al., 2010; Verrier, Tixier-Boichard, Bernigaud, & Naves, 2005). However, other kinds of value may also be at play, and an approach focused on products and activities could broaden the perception of adding value to one or several local breeds. This would include the interrelated strategies identified by Ligda et al. (2013):

"1. linkage of local breeds to traditional products and/or tourism/agritourism; 2. promotion of local breeds in specific farming systems, such as organic production, conservation grazing, sylvopastoral systems and small-scale low-input farms and hobby farms; and 3. general strategies focusing on the promotion of local breeds (marketing, legislation, organizational issues and raising public awareness) (Papachristoforou, Koumas, & Hadjipavlou, 2013)."

The desire to better recognize the products and activities of farms that use local breeds also reflects a general need to raise awareness of local animal biodiversity. In a previous study on the motives for buying products, conducted with short supply chain consumers who buy products from five French rare local breeds, it appeared that the breed was not spontaneously mentioned as a reason for the purchase. This was considered interesting from a global perspective for consumers to better understand the origin of the food they eat (Couzy et al., 2017). Although the conclusion of this study cannot be extrapolated, it illustrates the dual need to improve awareness of local biodiversity and provide information about the breeds raised, along with additional information on the production process.

Identifying the principles shared by farming systems based on the use of local breeds is a first step towards better recognition of the activities and products of farms using local breeds. Achieving recognition could be inspired by existing strategies (e.g. labels on products, labels on farms, labels on sales outlets, logos, charters, specifications) or designed ad hoc. In a study of participatory guarantee systems for organic agriculture, Lemeilleur and Allaire (2018) provide insights into the different dimensions of recognition setups. They distinguished three types of shared resources in such setups: ideas (shared principles, shared knowledge about practices etc.), equipment (frames of reference, e.g. specifications or charters, guarantee mechanisms, e.g.participatory guarantees or third party certification, etc.) and artefacts (logos, denominations, etc.) (Lemeilleur et al., 2018). The results of the present study offer more possible ideas for such a setup. However, as we explained earlier, it is a challenge to develop a collective governance that would allow each farmer, who cannot be directly involved in a discussion held to define common principles, to nonetheless be able to follow the process and give their views.

Diversity is a key notion for farmers who use local breeds. As shown in a previous study (Lauvie, Couix, & Sorba, 2014), diversity is considered not only in terms of genetic resources but also in terms of the farmers involved, the different farming systems, farm products, etc. Identifying the activities and products of farmers who use local breeds to make them easier to recognize without reducing the existing diversity is a challenge. Finding a balance between diversity inclusion and differentiation and/or protection, depending on the final aim of such a setup, questions the degree to which products and activities should be specified.