Adaptation to Agenda 2000 (CAP reform) and optimisation of the farming system of French suckler cattle farms in the Charolais area: a model-based study

Self Cite

Mixed crop-livestock (MC-L) farming has gained broad consensus as an economically and environmentally sustainable farming system. Working on a Charolais-area suckler cattle farms network, we subdivided the 66 farms of a constant sample, for 2 years (2010 and 2011), into four groups: (i) 'specialized conventional livestock farms' (100% grassland-based farms (GF), n = 7); (ii) 'integrated conventional crop-livestock farms' (specialized farms that only market animal products but that grow cereal crops on-farm for animal feed, n = 31); (iii) 'mixed conventional crop-livestock farms' (farms that sell beef and cereal crops to market, n = 21); and (iv) organic farms (n = 7). We analyse the differences in structure and in drivers of technical, economic and environmental performances. The figures for all the farms over 2 years (2010 and 2011) were pooled into a single sample for each group. The farms that sell crops alongside beef miss out on potential economies of scale. These farms are bigger than specialized beef farms (with or without on-farm feed crops) and all types of farms show comparable economic performances. The big MC-L farms make heavier and consequently less efficient use of inputs. This use of less efficient inputs also weakens their environmental performances. This subpopulation of suckler cattle farms appears unable to translate a MC-L strategy into economies of scope. Organic farms most efficiently exploit the diversity of herd feed resources, thus positioning organic agriculture as a prototype MC-L system meeting the core principles of agroecology.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed crop–livestock farming systems: a sustainable way to produce beef? Commercial farms results, questions and perspectives

Veysset

Lherm

Bébin

et al. 2014

Self Cite

“…Beef is an important economic value in different countries such as the United States, Australia and France (Veysset et al, 2005). Consumers express an interest in high organoleptic meat quality, especially tenderness (Geay et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the abundance of 24 protein biomarkers of beef tenderness according to muscle and animal type

Guillemin

Jurie

Cassar-Malek

et al. 2011

Some proteins have been revealed as biomarkers for beef tenderness by previous studies. These markers could be used in immunological tests to predict beef tenderness, in living animals as well as in carcasses. It is well known that rearing practices modify the amounts of mRNA and proteins. Therefore, the reliability of protein tests could be affected by livestock and biological effects such as production systems, breed, muscle and animal type. This study analysed the effects of animal and muscle type on 24 proteins. The animals studied were 67 young bulls and 44 steers of the Charolais breed, and muscles were Longissimus thoracis and Semitendinosus. Protein amounts were determined by Dot blot, an immunological technique. Results showed that expressions of 20 proteins were influenced by animal and/or muscle type. These results could lead to modifications and adaptations of prediction tests according to rearing practice, bovine breed and beef cut.

“…To take a standard example of the 'Finding the economically optimal solution' type, the Opt'INRA model (Veysset et al, 2005) makes it possible to optimise the follow-up of See Table 1 for the descriptions of the modalities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the Opt'INRA model (Veysset et al, 2005) was built with a deep knowledge of the suckler farms of Central France acquired through the participation of nearly 90 Charolais farmers in a monitoring process carried out for more than 20 years. This monitoring made it possible to list all the existing activities in the area, to state the constraints and to determine the coefficients for the construction of Opt'INRA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They can be designed as standard decision support tools to be used by advisors to discuss the decisions to be made with farmers (Stonehouse et al, 2002;Castelan-Ortega et al, 2003;Cabrera et al, 2005b;Veysset et al, 2005;Crosson et al, 2006). They may also be conceived as tools for a participatory discussion among stakeholders of agricultural development questions in different production contexts (Bernet et al, 2001), or as prospective tools to support policy-making (Pacini et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modelling as a tool to redesign livestock farming systems: a literature review

Gouttenoire

Cournut

Ingrand

2011

Livestock farming has recently come under close scrutiny, in response especially to environmental issues. Farmers are encouraged to redesign their livestock farming systems in depth to improve their sustainability. Assuming that modelling can be a relevant tool to address such systemic changes, we sought to answer the following question: 'How can livestock farming systems be modelled to help farmers redesign their whole farming systems?' To this end, we made a literature review of the models of livestock farming systems published from 2000 to mid-2009 (n 5 79). We used an analysis grid based on three considerations: (i) system definition, (ii) the intended use of the model and (iii) the way in which farmers' decision-making processes were represented and how agricultural experts and farmers were involved in the modelling processes. Consistent rationales in approaches to supporting changes in livestock farming were identified in three different groups of models, covering 83% of the whole set. These could be defined according to (i) the way in which farmers' decisions were represented and (ii) the model's type of contribution to supporting changes. The first type gathered models that dynamically simulated the system according to different management options; the farmers' decision-making processes are assumed to consist in choosing certain values for management factors. Such models allow long-term simulations and endorse different disciplinary viewpoints, but the farmers are weakly involved in their design. Models of the second type can indicate the best combination of farm activities under given constraints, provided the farmers' objectives are profit maximisation. However, when used to support redesigning processes, they address neither how to implement the optimal solution nor its long-term consequences. Models of the third type enable users to dynamically simulate different options for the farming system, the management of which is assumed to be planned according to the farmers' general objectives. Although more comprehensive, these models do not easily integrate different disciplinary viewpoints and different subsystems, which limits their usefulness as support tools for redesigning processes. Finally, we concluded about what specific requirements should be for modelling approaches if farmers were to be supported in redesigning their whole livestock farming systems using models.Keywords: livestock farming systems, modelling, support tools, innovative process, redesign ImplicationsThis review analyses the strengths and weaknesses of published models of livestock farming systems to support farmers in redesigning their whole systems. It is a first step towards building more efficient tools to help farmers to switch towards more sustainable livestock farming systems. IntroductionLivestock farming has recently come under close scrutiny, in response especially to environmental issues (Steinfeld et al., 2006). There is increasing societal pressure for more sustainable livestock practices prompting, for example, the E...