Between 1961 and 2021, global meat production increased from 69 million tons to 354 million tons, while raw milk output rose from 344 million tons to 918 million tons, according to the FAOSTAT data. This surge in production was accompanied by a significant expansion in the animal population, with the number of livestock units rising from 11.7 billion in 1961 to 23.5 billion in 2020. On one side, these processes resulted in a more considerable environmental burden, including the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from animal farms and the food industry [1,2]. On the other side, they initiated industrialization and intense farm concentration processes [3] with various potential negative impacts on rural communities [4].

As for the environmental impacts, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report [5], the agriculture sector, encompassing livestock production, is responsible for approximately 22% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from human activities. As estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the livestock sector contributes about 14.5% of global GHG emissions, which is equivalent to the entire transportation sector [6]. Gerber and colleagues [6] report that enteric fermentation from ruminants accounts for 39% of sector emissions, manure left on pastures accounts for 23%, manure management accounts for 10%, and feed production and processing account for 9%.

Carbon dioxide is another significant contributor to atmospheric pollution and is predominantly associated with the use of fossil fuels. Highly mechanized agricultural production systems also generate carbon dioxide, which typically account for approximately 5% of global emissions [7].

Gerber and colleagues [6] found that around 65% of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions can be attributed to livestock farming, which highlights its significant role in this type of pollution. This is mainly due to using nitrogen fertilizers for growing feed crops and handling and storing animal manure. In addition, nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential of almost 300 times that of carbon dioxide [8].

Besides the environmental impacts, the livestock sector also requires significant resources. The global livestock sector accounts for 70% of all agricultural land use [3]. In addition, the sector plays a crucial role in deforestation in Latin America and the degradation of grasslands because of overgrazing in dry areas [3]. Water use in animal husbandry is also an essential environmental burden, both locally and globally [9,10]. For example, Mekonnen and Hoekstra [11] reported that, on average, 1 kg of beef production necessitates 15,400 L of water, while 1 kg of sheep production requires 10,400 L of water, from which feed production accounts for about 99%.

Recurring diseases and epidemics further compound the difficulties of animal husbandry. The intensification of animal production and the globalization of trade have facilitated the spread of animal diseases across borders and continents [12]. Climate change could exacerbate this trend by creating conditions that favor the transmission and establishment of new diseases in areas where they were previously absent or rare [13].

Because of the above processes, several studies pointed out the severe sustainability issues associated with animal husbandry [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Due to this reason, researchers recommend reducing the volume of animal husbandry and dairy and meat consumption [16,17]. In addition, many people recognize that reducing meat consumption can positively impact the fight against climate change. This trend is consistent with the research findings that advocate for reducing meat-centric diets and promoting consumption regulation [14,19,21].

The challenge of reducing the number of animals and outputs in the livestock sector cannot serve as a universal solution due to the dynamic growth of the world’s population, which is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050 [22]. Additionally, it does not adequately address the issues impacting rural areas, including depopulation, aging, unemployment, and reduced living standards. These problems arise from industrialization and the concentration of farms, which increase the vulnerability of rural communities. Furthermore, this approach fails to address emerging concerns about food security, such as those arising from the COVID-19 pandemic or conflicts such as the war between Russia and Ukraine. These challenges underscore the significance of food sovereignty and security, locally produced food, and short supply chains [23,24].

According to D’Souza and Ikerd’s review [25], while small farms may be less efficient than large-scale operations, they are more sustainable from environmental and social perspectives. Small farms are less susceptible to issues such as leadership succession, which frequently affect large-scale farms. Moreover, large farms are often owned by absentee landlords or agribusiness corporations who may not reinvest their profits back into the local economy to the same extent as small, family-owned farms. Small-scale livestock production is linked to the rural economy in various ways, from food production to tourism and social farming [26,27]. Small farms can better respond to changing consumer preferences, for example, in the case of organic and bio products [28]. They operate with greater transparency and can produce high-quality, delicious products that bypass the conventional supply chains maintained by large corporations [29]. Overall, these advantages are favorable for rural regions’ environmental, economic, and social sustainability.

2. Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector in Focus