Advertisement

Trade-offs among individual and collective performances related to crop–livestock integration among farms: a case study in southwestern France

  • J. Ryschawy
  • M. Moraine
  • M. Péquignot
  • G. Martin
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Integrating crops and livestock is an agroecological way of farming as it enables maintaining production levels while limiting negative environmental impacts. At the farm scale, crop–livestock systems declined due to globalized markets, policies, and limited availability of workforce and skills. Exchanges of manure and crops among already specialized farms are one option to overcome these limiting factors but are still underdeveloped in the reality. This study aimed to design reality-based agroecological scenarios of integrated crops and livestock systems within a collective of seven neighboring farmers. We focused on 7 farms in southwestern France already interested in developing exchanges to achieve self-sufficiency in fertilizer and animal-feed inputs. We applied a participatory method involving the collective of farmers and a group facilitator to define the problem and generate scenarios, as codesign increases the potential for adoption among farmers. The scenarios selected were evaluated using a supply–demand balance model and a multi-criteria framework including economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Among the four alternative scenarios evaluated, the selected scenario considered both (i) the insertion of cereal–legume mixtures into crop rotations of arable farms and (ii) transfers of manure from livestock farmers to crop farmers. In this scenario, individual gross margins increased and environmental impacts decreased, but workload, logistical, and social issues, such as knowledge development, increased. Compared to more ambitious scenarios, the trade-offs between individual and collective benefits appeared acceptable and resulted in greater autonomy in decision-making at the collective level. This methodology can be applied in other contexts, in particular with other farm collectives.

Keywords

Crop–livestock integration Scenario design Multi-criteria evaluation Collective organization Participative conception 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Bio82 association for contributing efficiently to this study.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the ANR National Research Agency under the project ANR-13-AGRO-0006 TATABOX.

References

  1. Agence bio (2018) Données départementales par espèce depuis 2011. Available at http://www.agencebio.org/les-donnees. Accessed on 10/01/18
  2. Andersson H, Larsen K, Lagerkvist CJ, Andersson C, Blad F, Samuelsson J, Skargren P (2005) Farm cooperation to improve sustainability. Ambio 34:383–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrieu N, Vayssières J, Corbeels M, Blanchard M, Vall E, Tittonell P (2014) From farm scale synergies to village scale trade-offs: cereal crop residues use in an agro-pastoral system of the Sudanian zone of Burkina Faso. Agric Syst 134:84–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artz G (2014) Equipment sharing in agriculture. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, pp 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_66-4
  5. Asai M, Langer V (2014) Collaborative partnerships between organic farmers in livestock-intensive areas of Denmark. Org Agric 4:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asai M, Langer V, Frederiksen P, Jacobse BH (2014a) Livestock farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for manure exchange: a study in Denmark. Agric Syst 128:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asai M, Langer V, Frederiksen P (2014b) Responding to environmental regulations through collaborative arrangements: social aspects of manure partnerships in Denmark. Livest Sci 167(644):370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asai M, Moraine M, Ryschawy J, de Wit J, Hoshidee AK, Martin G (2018) Critical factors for crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: a cross-analysis of worldwide case studies. Land Use Policy 73:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bammer G (2005) Integration and implementation sciences : building a new specialization. Ecol Soc 10(2) Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art6/
  10. Bell LW, Moore AD (2012) Integrated crop-livestock systems in Australian agriculture: trends, drivers and implications. Eur J Agron 57:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benz M (2006) Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity. Int Entrep Manag J 5:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernard T, Tafesse A, Gabre-Madhin E (2008) Impact of cooperatives on smallholders’ commercialization behavior: evidence from Ethiopia. Agric Econ 39:147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bockstaller C, Girardin P, Van Der Werf HMG (1997) Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. Eur J Agron 7:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bockstaller C, Feschet P, Angevin F (2015) Issues in evaluating sustainability of farming systems with indicators. OCL, 12 pp 22:D102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonaudo T, Bendahan AB, Sabatier R, Ryschawy J, Bellon S, Leger F, Magda D, Tichit M (2014) Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop-livestock systems. Eur J Agron 57:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg KH, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brody SD, Highfield W, Carrasco V (2004) Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landsc Urban Plan 69:33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carmona G, Varela-Ortega C, Bromley J (2013) Supporting decision making under uncertainty: development of a participatory integrated model for water management in the middle guadiana river basin. Environ Model Softw 50:144–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carvalho PCF, Anghinoni I, Moraes A (2010) Managing grazing animals to achievenutrient cycling and soil improvement in no-till integrated systems. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 88:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8086–8091.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Castoldi N, Bechini L (2010) Integrated sustainability assessment of cropping systems with agroecological and economic indicators in northern Italy. Eur J Agron 32(1):59–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Colson G (2008) Alternative approaches for sharing machinery, labor, and other resources among small- and medium-sized agricultural producers. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Paper 15326Google Scholar
  23. Corson MS, Avadí A (2015) Environmental assessment of diversification strategies of mixed farming at district and catchment levels. Deliverable D4.7 of the FP7 project crops and ANimals TOGETHERGoogle Scholar
  24. DDT82 (2018) DONNEES AGRICOLES ET RURALES - Fiche départementale 2013. Available at http://www.tarn-et-garonne.gouv.fr/content/download/3074/17630/file/fi_20130930_ddt82_fiche-departementale-2013.pdf. Accessed on 10/01/18
  25. de Wit J, Prins U, Baars T (2006) Partner farms: experiences with livestock farming systems research support intersectoral cooperation in the Netherlands. Livestock farming systems: product quality based on local resources leading to improved sustainability. EAAP publication No. 118. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 671 317–321Google Scholar
  26. Dedieu B, Servière G (1999) La méthode Bilan Travail et son application. Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens 38:353–364Google Scholar
  27. Deytieux V, Munier-Jolain N, Caneill J (2015) Assessing the sustainability of cropping systems in single- and multi-site studies. A review of methods. Eur J Agron 72:107–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feil JH, Anastassiadis F, Musshoff O, Kasten P (2015) Analyzing farmers’ preferences for collaborative arrangements: an experimental approach. Diskussionspapiere 1210, Göttingen, Germany, 39 pp. ISSN: 1865-2697Google Scholar
  29. FNAB (Fédération Nationale de l’Agriculture Biologique) (2014) Des échanges pour cultiver l’autonomie des fermes bio. Ed FNAB, Paris 42 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Franzluebbers AJ, Sulc RM, Russelle MP (2011) Opportunities and challenge for integrating North-American crop and livestock systems. In: Lemaire G, Hodgson J, Chabbi A (eds) Grassland productivity and ecosystem services. CAB Int., Wallingford, pp 208–218Google Scholar
  31. Hendrickson JR, Hanson JD, Tanaka DL, Sassenrath G (2008) Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definition. Renew Agr Food Syst 23:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hostiou N, Dedieu B (2012) A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms. Animal 6(5):852–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. INRA (2007) In: Agabriel J (ed) Bovine, ovine and caprine feeding. Feeding needs and feed values. Quae Editions, Paris 307 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. ITAB (Institut Tecnhique de l’Agriculture Biologique) (2011) La culture des associations céréales/protéagineux en AB. http://www.unip.fr/uploads/media/ficheassoc_vf_02.pdf
  35. Joannon A, Bro E, Thenail C, Baudry J (2008) Crop patterns and habitat preferences of the grey partridge farmland bird. Agron Sustain Dev 28(3):379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King R, Adler M, Grieves M (2013) Cooperatives as sustainable livelihood strategies in rural Mexico. Bull Lat Am Res 32:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamarque P, Quétier F, Lavorel S (2011) The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. C R Biol 334(5–6):441–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Legendre JE (2014) Le développement d’indicateurs d’hétérogénéité des paysages pour évaluer le potentiel de fourniture de services écosystémiques. Master 2 report. Université de Toulouse. 62ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemaire G, Franzluebbers A, Carvalho PCF, Dedieu B (2013) Integrated crop-livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric Ecosyst Environ 190:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Letourneau DK, Armbrecht I, Rivera BS, Lerma JM, Carmona EJ, Daza MC, Escobar S, Galindo V, Gutiérrez C, López SD, Mejía JL, Rangel AMA, Rangel JH, Rivera L, Saavedra CA, Torres AM, Trujillo AR (2011) Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol Appl 21:9–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Levi Y, Davis P (2008) Cooperatives as the “enfants terribles” of economics: some implications for the social economy. J Socio-Econ 37:2178–2188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin BB (2011) Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive Management for Environmental Change. Bioscience 61:183–193.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin G (2015) A conceptual framework to support adaptation of farming systems—development and application with forage rummy. Agric Syst 132:52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin G, Felten B, Duru M (2011) Forage rummy: a game to support the participatory design of adapted livestock systems. Environ Model Softw 26:1442–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Duru M (2013) Farming system design to feed the changing world. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin G, Moraine M, Ryschawy J, Magne MA, Asai M, Sarthou JP, Duru M, Therond O (2016) Crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review of prospects and issues. Agron Sustain Dev 36:53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0390-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moraine M, Duru M, Nicholas P, Leterme P, Therond O (2014) Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal 8(8):1204–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Moraine M, Melac P, Ryschawy J, Duru M, Therond O (2017) Participatory design to define and support a scenario of exchanges and coordination within a group of organic farmers. Ecol Indic 72:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muradian R (2013) The potential and limits of farmers’ marketing groups as catalysts of rural development. UNRISD Conference, 6–8 May 2013, Geneva; SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  50. Nowak B, Nesme T, David C, Pellerin S (2015) Nutrient recycling in organic farming is related to diversity in farm types at the local level. Agric Ecosyst Environ 204:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perrot C, Béguin E, Morhain B, Tchakérian E (2005) L’élevage dans les exploitations françaises. Écon rur (288):25–39Google Scholar
  52. Peyraud J-L, Taboada M, Delaby L (2014) Integrated crop and livestock systems in Western Europe and South America: a review. Eur J. Agron 57:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Regan J, Marton S, Barrantes O, Hanegraaf N, Ruane E, Berland J, Pellerin S, Nesmes T (2015) Does the recoupling of dairy and crop production at the district scale lead to environmental benefits? A case-study approach in Europe. Fifth International Symposium for Farming Systems Design. September 7–10, 2015. Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  54. Rufino MC, Dury J, Tittonell P, Van Wijk MT, Herrero M, Zingore S, Mapfumo P, Giller KE (2011) Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe. Agric Syst 104:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Russelle MP, Entz MH, Franzluebbers AJ (2007) Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock Systems in North America. Agron J 99:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ryschawy J, Choisis N, Choisis J, Joannon A, Gibon A (2012) Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6(10):1722–1730.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000675 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Ryschawy J, Choisis N, Choisis J, Gibon A (2013) Paths to last in mixed crop–livestock farming: lessons from an assessment of farm trajectories of change. Animal 7(4):673–681.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Ryschawy J, Choisis JP, Joannon A, Gibon A, Le Gal P-Y (2014) Participative assessment of innovative technical scenarios for enhancing sustainability of French mixed crop-livestock farms. Agric Syst 129(1–8):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ryschawy J, Guillaume J, Moraine M, Duru M, Therond O (2017) Designing crop-livestock integration at different levels: toward new agroecological models? Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 108(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sabatier R, Teillard F, Rossing WAH, Doyen L, Tichit M (2015) Trade-offs between pasture production and farmland bird conservation: exploration of options using a dynamic farm model. Animal 9:899–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Sadok W, Angevin F, Bergez JE, Bockstaller C, Colomb B, Guichard L, Reau R, Dore T (2008) Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28:163–174.  https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simon JC, Grignani C, Jacquet A, Le Corre L, Pagès J (2000) Typology of nitrogen balances on a farm scale: research of operating indicators. Agron Sustain Dev 20:175–195Google Scholar
  63. Soussana J-F, Lemaire G (2014) Coupling carbon and nitrogen cycles for environmentally sustainable intensification of grasslands and crop-livestock systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 190:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson PB, Nardone A (1999) Sustainable livestock production: methodological and ethical challenges. Livest Prod Sci 61:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Veysset P, Bebin D, Lherm M (2005) 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. Agric Syst 83:179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1268–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilkins RJ (2008) Eco-efficient approaches to land management: a case for increased integration of crop and animal production systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:517–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Zahm F, Viaux P, Vilain L, Girardin P, Mouchet C (2008) Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method—from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms. Sustain Dev 16:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AGIR, INPT, INP-Purpan, INRAUniversité de Toulouse, Université ToulouseAuzevilleFrance
  2. 2.UMR INNOVATION, INRA-CIRAD-SupAgroMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations