Why Study Transfarmation?

In recent decades, mounting evidence has revealed the high environmental, health, and ethical costs of livestock farming: greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, deforestation, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic disease risks, and health consequences of high meat consumption all point toward the need for systemic change.

Reducing demand for animal products is often discussed, but an often-overlooked side is what happens to the farmers themselves: how can livestock farmers transition out of animal production in a viable, sustainable, and just way? That’s the core question behind the concept of “transfarmation” (i.e. voluntarily quitting livestock farming and moving to post-livestock or alternative farming systems).

Nicolas Salliou qualitative study draws on 27 publicly documented “post-livestock” farm stories (mostly from the U.S. and Switzerland) to tease out motivations, pathways, and support mechanisms in these transitions. Through thematic coding, a few recurrent patterns emerge — which offer both hope and caution for scaling such transitions more broadly.

Key Findings: What Motivates Transfarmation?

Salliou identifies three central motives behind transfarmation, which often overlap in practice:

• Compassion / empathy for animals: This was the dominant motive in 19 out of the 27 cases. Many farmers report emotional distress in sending animals to slaughter, naming animals, forming attachments, and eventually experiencing a tipping point of moral discomfort.

• Economic pressures: For some, especially those in intensive systems (e.g. contract broiler chicken or pig farming in the U.S.), debt burdens, volatile markets, and exploitative contract terms pushed them toward exiting livestock production.

• Environmental concerns: In a smaller subset, environmental awareness (climate, land use, sustainability) played a role, sometimes reinforcing a compassionate decision. But rarely was environment the sole driver.

  
  

An interesting gender nuance emerges: among the compassion-driven cases, decisions often involved women (either alone or jointly), whereas purely economic-driven decisions were more often attributed to men.

Pathways: From Livestock to New Futures

The study breaks down the transitions into a few prototypical routes, differentiated by the origin (intensive vs. extensive livestock) and target system:

1. From intensive (poultry, pigs) → mushrooms / market gardening / horticultureBecause many intensive farms have infrastructure (buildings, barns) that can be repurposed (e.g. mushroom sheds, greenhouses), some transitions focus on plant-based production. These tend to be more economically driven transitions.

2. From extensive (cattle, goats) → sanctuaries or small-scale vegetable / orchard farmsMany compassion-motivated transitions from more extensive systems become sanctuaries (i.e. the farm now shelters animals long-term, funded via sponsorship, donations) or market gardening / small-scale diversified production.

3. Care / “green care” farmsSome farms combine human therapeutic services with animal care (e.g. animals used in therapy), integrating agriculture with the care economy. In such models, the farm shifts from pure production into human and animal well-being services.

   
   

The author frames some of these transitions as entering a care economy, where value lies not just in product outputs but in care, ethics, education and well-being. Yet, not all transitions are permanent or irreversible: those driven mainly by economic distress may risk reversal if animal production becomes profitable again.

The Role of External Support

A recurring insight is that transfarmation doesn’t happen in isolation. Farmer networks, peer support, and organizations established by transfarmers themselves play pivotal roles.

Key supports include:

• Matching or rehoming animals (especially when a farmer stops slaughter operations)

• Bridge funding (hay, feed, short-term operational costs)

• Technical guidance (what crops or systems to adopt)

• Grant or loan facilitation

• Emotional encouragement and moral support

• Connections to networks and markets

• 
  

Two organizations in particular — Rancher Advocacy Program (RAP, U.S.) and Hof Narr (Switzerland) — feature prominently in the stories, often acting as hubs in the support ecosystem.

The support from such groups is especially vital in compassion-driven transitions, where the emotional burden of ceasing animal slaughter may be high.

Reflections: Opportunities, Challenges, and Limitations

Opportunities & Potential

• Ethical innovation: Transfarmation offers a way to integrate ethics directly into the supply side, not just via consumer behavior or demand-side policies.

• Complementing demand-side change: If meat consumption does shrink, managing supply-side transitions is necessary — avoiding abrupt collapse or stranded farmers.

• Green care and new niches: The integration of care functions (therapeutic, educational) with farming offers new value models.

• Scalability in intensive settings: Intensive livestock operations pose the highest climate and environmental burdens. Transitions from such systems (e.g. converting poultry barns to mushroom farms) could yield disproportionate environmental gains.

  
  

Challenges & Cautions

• Niche scale: Transfarmation is still marginal. The number of documented cases is small. Scaling requires more robust institutional frameworks.

• Economic viability: Many stories gloss over detailed financial analyses or long-term sustainability (some mention debt, but not full business models).

• Risk of reversal: If new opportunities in animal production appear, economically motivated transitions may revert.

• Technical hurdles: For example, in veganic systems (no manure reliance), maintaining soil fertility without animal inputs is challenging.

• Emotional toll & decision biases: The accounts are published stories, often retrospectively rosy; they may mask struggles or failures.

• Selection bias: The study draws from public stories, meaning only more successful or ideologically aligned transitions may appear, not failed ones.

  
  

Methodological Caveats

• The author relies on published narratives, not interviews; thus, details may be selective or idealized.

• Comparability is limited because different stories vary in depth, framing, and motivations.

• The absence of negative or failed cases hampers understanding of barriers.

• The geographic focus (primarily U.S., Switzerland) limits global generalizability.

What This Teaches Us — And What to Watch

Salliou’s work offers a fascinating, grounded look into the lived journeys of farmers stepping away from livestock systems. For policymakers, NGOs, funders, and advocates, a few insights stand out:

• Support structures matter: Networks, organizations, peer mentors, funding mechanisms and emotional support are often the glue that permits transitions.

• Tailored pathways are crucial: There’s no “one-size-fits-all” route. Intensive farms will differ sharply from pastoral or mixed farms in what alternatives are feasible.

• Demand and supply must align: Transformations at the farm level are more viable when consumer demand, policy incentives, and alternative product markets converge.

• Ethics & identity shift: For many farmers, the decision is not just economic — it touches their identity, relationship to animals, and moral frameworks.

• Gender dynamics matter: The gendered patterns in decision-making suggest that support programs should better consider who leads or influences transitions.

  
  

Going forward, to scale up transfarmation as a meaningful lever in transforming food systems, we should:

1. Undertake empirical, interview-based research on both successful and failed transitions, across diverse geographies.

2. Develop business models and technical guidance tailored to new systems (veganic, care farms, horticulture) so that transitioning farmers can rely on viable operations.

3. Invest in institutional infrastructure (funds, extension, training) specifically for livestock-to-non-livestock transitions.

4. Promote alignment with demand-side policies (meat taxes, consumption corridors, labeling) to ensure that supply-side exits are socially acceptable and economically feasible.

5. Monitor and evaluate scalability thresholds — at what point do transitions meaningfully impact aggregate emissions, food security, and rural livelihoods?

   
   

Conclusion

The paper “Quitting livestock farming: transfarmation pathways and factors of change from post-livestock farmers’ accounts” offers a rich, human-scale window into a phenomenon that is still rare but full of promise. By listening to farmers’ stories, the study illuminates the motivations, supports, opportunities, and obstacles in moving away from animal farming.

If our food systems are to change — not just in what we eat, but how we produce — then understanding how producer identities can transform is essential. Transfarmation is not just an academic curiosity; it may become a critical piece in the turbulence of agricultural change.