Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review

Abstract

Paradoxically, the number of crop-livestock farms is declining across Europe, despite the fact that crop-livestock farms are theoretically optimal to improve the sustainability of agriculture. To solve this issue, crop-livestock integration may be organized beyond the farm level. For instance, local groups of farmers can negotiate land-use allocation patterns and exchange materials such as manure, grain, and straw. Development of such a collective agricultural system raises questions, rarely documented in the literature, about how to integrate crops and livestock among farms, and the consequences, impacts, and conditions of integrating them. Here, we review the different forms of crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level, their potential benefits, and the features of decision support systems (DSS) needed for the integration process. We identify three forms of crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: local coexistence, complementarity, and synergy, each with increasingly stronger temporal, spatial, and organizational coordination among farms. We claim that the forms of integration implemented define the nature, area, and spatial configuration of crops, grasslands, and animals in farms and landscapes. In turn, these configurations influence the provision of ecosystem services. For instance, we show that the synergy form of integration promotes soil fertility,

A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review

“…The local level is the level at which individual or groups of municipalities or administrative districts implement rural development projects. The regional level lies between local and global levels and usually corresponds to areas within countries or across neighbouring countries economic issues (market stability) can be managed directly by farmers or other economic agents, such as agricultural cooperatives (Martin et al 2016;Moraine et al 2016). Trading can also be developed between farming systems and other operators of the food supply chain (e.g.…”

“…4.2). As for circular economies in general (Ghiselli et al 2014), organising exchanges between farms raises important governance and social organisation issues for socio-economic research (Martin et al 2016;Moraine et al 2016).…”

Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: Current knowledge and remaining uncertainty

“…This de-coupling has engendered major changes in production practices and agricultural supply chains and numerous social and environmental externalities (Naylor et al, 2005). It has been suggested that re-integrating crop and livestock systems at the field or territorial level (by co-locating them in space and over time) (Bell and Moore, 2012) could help solve many of the social, economic, and environmental challenges that our global food system now faces (FAO, 2010;Martin et al, 2016;Wilkins, 2008). Some governments have even developed programs and policies to promote the re-integration of commercial scale crop and livestock systems in their countries (e.g.…”

“…Examples of field level integration of crop and livestock systems include: i) grazing livestock on crops, crop residues, or forage cover crops, ii) phase farming, i.e., rotating pastures and cropland over several years, and iii) grazing of understory vegetation in vineyards or orchards. Examples of territorial integration include: i) cooperative arrangements between different farms to allow temporary grazing on crop residue, ii) regional planning to match supply and demand for livestock feed, and iii) trading animal wastes and crop residues between farms (Martin et al, 2016).…”

“…This work builds on the results of a global consultation on ICLS (FAO, 2010) and several other comprehensive reviews of current knowledge related to ICLS in commercial systems in Australia, Brazil, Europe, and the United States (Bell and Moore, 2012;Bonaudo et al, 2014;de Moraes et al, 2014a;Lemaire and Franzluebbers, 2013;Martin et al, 2016;Peyraud et al, 2014;Russelle et al, 2007;Sulc and Franzluebbers, 2014). Most of these reviews focus on the benefits of ICLS within a single geographic region, although some also touch on challenges for their adoption.…”