a case study in a european context - eaap >...

Mixed crop-livestock farming : an economical and environmental-friendly way to intensify production?

A case study in a european context

J. Ryschawy*, Choisis N.*, Choisis J-P.*, Gibon A. *

*INRA Toulouse, UMR 1201 DynaforBP52627, 31326Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France

Corresponding author : [email protected]

EAAP Congress 2010 – Session 28 – 25 August 2010 Heraklion, Crete Island, Greece

A L I M E N T A T I O N

A G R I C U L T U R E

E N V I R O N N E M E N T

Study rationales A worldwide reconsideration of mixed crop-livestock systems (MCLS)

in relation to sustainable development of agriculture.

MCLS appear as 'eco-efficient' over the world (Wilkins, 2008), i.e. as a possible way to intensify production while :

- Generating higher economic efficiency & economies of scope 1st

(Herrero et al., 2010; Vermersch, 2007; Lapierre, 2004 ; de Wit et al., 2001)

- Improving land management & maintaining biodiversity 2nd

(Hendrickson, 2008 ; Wilkins, 2008)

- Having environmental-friendly practices & improving nutrient cycling 3rd

(Hendrickson et al., 2008 ; Russelle et al. 2007 ; Powell et al., 2004;)

A comparative assessment of specialized farms vs MCLS according to the three dimensions in a case-study.

Definition of MCLS :

'Integration of livestock and crop production for sale at the farm level' (Hendrickson et al., 2008 ; Wilkins, 2008 ; Russelle et al., 2007 ; Powell, 2004 ; Lhoste,2004)

EAAP Congress 2010 –Session 28 – Heraklion – 25 August 2010 ©J. Ryschawy, INRA

Objectives: To assess & compare farm economics and farmers' management practices

© INRA, UMR Dynafor

Study objectives and case study

© INRA, UMR Dynafor

Coteaux de Gascogne

FRANCE

Toulouse

A case-study : the 'Coteaux de Gascogne'- Upland area with frequent summer draughts

- Part of the European LTER Network

- Participative working with actors

- Limited specialization of agriculture

4%

10%14%

21%29% 24%

4% 14%

74%

57%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1950 1980 2010

Dairy farms

Beef farms

Crops farms

Mixed farms

Evolution of farms

structures since 1950

(on 58 farms of the case-study)

European region where MCLS maintained up to now.(47% of local farms in 2006)

An account of every farm working land in a continuous reference area (4000 ha) 93% of the UAA (Choisis et al., 2010)

A 'spatially-explicit' survey method 2006(Mottet et al., 2006; Choisis et al., 2010)

- Information on farm structure and technical-economical dimension

- Data on farmer's land-management practices from the parcel up to the farm level

Study methodology

Dairyfarms

Beeffarms

Cropfarms

Mixed farms

UAA (ha) 93 ± 52 89 ± 58 66 ± 58 118 ± 23

Nb of cows (ha) 48 ± 20 54 ± 36 n.a. 48 ± 37


55 54 50 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Crops farms Mixed farms Dairy farms Beef farms

CROP PRODUCTION (qx/ha)

1,681,12

0,820

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

Dairy farms Mixed farms Beef farms

STOCKING RATE (LU/ha)Intensity of production according to production systems

P= 0,034a

c

b

1. Animal production

Indicator used: Stocking rate (LU/ha MFA)

Relative intensity of cattle production in MCLS vs local LFS

2. Crop production

Indicator used: Wheat yield (ql/ha)

Relative intensity of crop production in MCLS

Hypothesis : MCLS are an economical and environmental-friendly way to intensify production.


a

ba

b

P= 0,04

Local systems efficientMCLS have the highest efficiency (NS) (use fewer inputs and diversify sold productions)

1st dimension : Economic performance of farms according to production systems (1/2)

Indicator 1: Economic Efficiency at the farm level= (Turnover - Operational Costs)/Turnover *100

60%

68%

69%

72%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75%

Dairy farms

Crops farms

Beef farms

Mixed farms


P= 0,34

Costs higher in dairy farms (P<0,05)/ MCLS close to beef farms

1st dimension : Economic performance of farms according to production systems (2/2)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Total cost per cow

Feed Cost per Cow

Global costs

Fertilizer cost

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Total cost per cow

(€/cow/year)

Feed Cost per Cow (€/cow/year)

Global costs (€/ha/year)

Fertilizer cost (€/ha/year)

Dairy farms

Beef farms

Mixed farms


Data from the survey 2006 on the area

Total cost per cow

Fertilizer cost

per ha UAA

Total cost per ha UAA

Feeding costs per

cow

P<0,05

P<0,001

P<0,05

P<0,001

MCLS intermediate in comparison with other production systems In total UAA, less grasslands and more crops vs beef farms Comparable to Dairy farms Conservation SN grasslands in MCLS : Biodiversity

2nd dimension : Land use at farm level according to production systems

87%

52% 47%

14%

7%

30%32%

55%

7%17% 21%

31%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Crop farms Dairy farms Mixed farms Beef farms

Semi-natural grasslands

Temporary grasslands

Crops

Proportions

of each type

of land use in

UAA


a bb c

1. Selection of qualitative indicators of crop management practices

Type of ploughing Type of organic fertilization Presence of mineral fertilization Level of mineral fertilization (on wheat) Herbicides treatments Fungicides treatments

2. Definition of types of crop management practices An MCA A K-means classification on the MCA (on 51 out of the 58 farms)

Projection of the 4 farms structures on the MCA factorial map to cross the information with the classification on practices

3rd dimension-1 : Characterization of farmers’ crop management practices


Projection of variables on the MCA factorial map

Variability explained by each axis F1-F2 = 42,3% of variability exp.

Explanation of axis

Projection of individuals on the MCA factorial map

Projection of variables on MCA factorial map d = 0.5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

29

30

32

34

35

36

37

38

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

54

55

56

WSOL.A

WSOL.B

WSOL.C

DESHCP.A

DESHCP.B

DESHCP.C

FONGCP.A

FONGCP.B

FONGCP.C FERO.A

FERO.B

FERO.C

AM.A

AM.B

FER.A

FER.B

FER.C

Low inputs High inputs

Conventional tillage

No tillage

F1 (24,6%)

F2 (

17,7

%)

24,6%

17,7%

13,7%11,1%

9,6% 9,0%6,3% 5,3%

2,2%0,6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Axis1 Axis2 Axis3 Axis4 Axis5 Axis6 Axis7 Axis8 Axis9 Axis10

Eigen values


1. New conservation systems- simplified tillage practices- low use of inputs(7 farms)

2. Conventional systems - conventional tillage- high use of inputs(17 farms)

3. Traditional systems : - conventional tillage - intermediate use of inputs(22 farms)

4. New conservation systems : - simplified tillage practices- intermediate use of inputs(5 farms)

d = 0.5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

29

30

32

34

35

36

37

38

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

54

55

56

d = 0.5

1

2

3

4

Low inputs High inputs


No tillage

4 Types of crop management practices


Beef farms : Type 3 (and 1) Rather traditional practices

d = 0.5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

29

30

32

34

35

36

37

38

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

54

55

56

Low inputs


No tillage

High inputs

Crossing the 4 types with farm structures

Crop farms : Type 3 and 4

Traditional or NCS

Mixed farms : Large diversity of practices: 4 Types

to study furtherEAAP Congress 2010 –Session 28 – Heraklion – 25 August 2010 ©J. Ryschawy, INRA

Dairy farms :Type 2 (and 3)

Rather conv. practices

3rd dimension-2 : ANNUAL APPARENT N FARM GATE BALANCE

NS = (N inputs – N outputs)/ UAA in kgN/ha of UAA on a year

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM

Animal activity

Plant & soil activity

Hyp 3 : a part of produced crops is used to feed the animals

Animal dejections

Hyp 1 : all dejections are used in the system

Straw, hay

Hyp 2 : all straw and hay are reused for animals

Animal products (meat, milk,…)

Crops

Methodology :

Simon J.-C. et Le Corre L., 1992

Concentrates

Straw, hay

N Fertilizersfor each type of crop

N Fixation by Legumes


(Legendre, 2007) (Sabatté, 2000)

60,5

37,9

-11,9

24,7

101

16

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Dairy farms Beef farms Crops farms Mixed farms Cattle farms in Midi-Pyrénées

Crop farms in France

Apparent farm-gate N balances of local farms in 2006

MCLS has the best N balance : N better recycled in MCLS than in specialized systems Dairy farms have surplus Crop farms have lacks of Nitrogen

Comparison with

other dataN sold (kgN/ha UAA) according to

production systems


a

c

b

b

P<0,001

Discussion / Conclusion

In the study area, MCLS appear to have a better economical efficiency and

less Nitrogen inputs than those with specialized LFS.

A result in line with literature (Herrero, 2010 ; Wilkins, 2008; Russelle et al., 2007;

Vermerch, 2007; Lenné et al. 2006 ; Lapierre, 2004).

Point of vue of economy of scope (Vermersch, 2007) versus economy of scale

Study should be strengthened on much years and other indicators like organic

matter in the soils (Russelle et al., 2007)

Farmers with MCLS appear however to have heterogeneous management

practices but locally more environmental-friendly than others (Russelle et al., 2007; Schiere et al., 2002)

Differences between conventional and traditional farming systems / NCS

Discussions between old (traditional knowledge) and new generations.

Still working with local actors about those scientific issues using those

reliable and originals methods of surveys and participative working


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !Some questions ?

A L I M E N T A T I O N

A G R I C U L T U R E

E N V I R O N N E M E N T

Bibliographic references (1/2)

Choisis J.P., Sourdril A., Deconchat, M., Balent, G., and Gibon A. Comprendre la dynamique régionale des exploitations de polyculture élevage pour accompagner le développement rural dans les Coteaux de Gascogne. Cahiers Agriculture 19(2):97-103 . 2010.

de Wit J., Prins U., and Baars T. 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 Publications N° 118, 317-322. 2006.

Hendrickson J.R., Hanson J.D., Tanaka D.L., and Sassenrath G.F. 2008. Principles of integrated agricultural systems : Introduction to processes and definition. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):265-271.

Herrero M., P.K.Thornton P.K., Notenbaert A.M., Wood S., Msangi S., Freeman H.A., Bossio D., Dixon J., Peters M., vandeSteeg J., Lynam J., ParthasarathyRao P., Macmillan S., Gerard B., McDermott J., Seré C., and Rosegrant M. 2010. Smart Investments in Sustainable Food production : Revisiting Mixed Crop-livestock systems. Science 327:822-825.

Lapierre,O. 2004. Culture et élevage : quelles relations, quelles synergies ? Oléagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides 11:261-267.

Lenné,J.M., andThomas D. 2006. Integrating crop-livestock research and development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Option, imperative or impossible? Outlook on Agriculture 35 (3):167-175.

Bibliographic references (2/2)

Lhoste P. 2004. Les relations agriculture-élevage. Oléagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides 11:253-255.

Mottet A. 2005. Transformations des systèmes d'élevage depuis 1950 et conséquences pour la dynamique des paysage dans les pyrénées. Thesis. INP Toulouse.

Powell J.M., Pearson R.A., and Hiernaux P.H. 2004. Crop-Livestock Interactions in the West African Drylands. Agronomy Journal 96:469-483.

Russelle M.P., Entz M.H, and Franzluebbers A.J. 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99:325-334.

Schiere J.B., Ibrahim M.N.M., and van Keulen H. 2002. The role of livestock for sustainability in mixed farming :criteria and scenario studies under varying resource allocation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90:139-153.

Simon J.-C., andLe Corre L. 1992. Le bilan apparent de l'azote à l'échelle de l'exploitation agricole : Méthodologie, exemple de résultats. Fourrages 129:94-102.

Vermersch P. L'éthique en friche. 2007. Quae, Paris 113 pp.

Wilkins,R.J. 2008. Eco-efficient approaches to land management: a case for increased integration of crop and animal production systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 363:517-525.

Apparent N farm-gate balances Our Aim : Identify management deficiency as regards N fertilization

Assessment of the method selected : Farm-gate apparent N balance

A method coined for the assessment of potential pollution risk due to surplus of Nitrogen inputs at the farm level Simon J.-C. and Le Corre L., 1992. Le bilan apparent de l'azote à l'échelle de l'exploitation agricole : méthodologie, exemple de résultats. Fourrages, 129, 79-94. Cited by Vayssières J., 2009 for evaluation of aspects of N dynamics.

Assets : Reliable method with a fast calculation based on a basic principle

(Chambaut H. and Le Gall A., 1998).

Limits : Balance only “apparent” on a year Processes like leaching are ignored.

Principle of the method : Annual apparent N farm Gate balances calculated at the whole-farm scale. Farm is considered as closed black box N surplus (in kgN/ha/year) calculated as follows:

NS = Nin- Nout/UAA

Description of each type of farm structure with means of characteristics

Dairy farms Beef farms Crops farms Mixed farms

Nb farms 6 12 7 23

UAA (ha) 93 ± 52 89 ± 58 66 ± 58 118 ± 82

MFA (ha) 48 ± 32 77 ± 53 13 ± 12 64 ± 56

WU 2.3 ± 1.1 1.3 ± 0.6 0.5 ± 0.4 1.8 ± 1.0

Nb of cows 48 ± 20 54 ±36 N.A. 48 ±37

Indicators Level of indicatorsType of ploughing Conventional None Both

Organic fertilization None Manure Slurry

Mineral fertilization Yes No

Level of Mineral fertilization (on wheat)

Low<90 UN/ha

Intermediate90-130 UN/ha

High > 130 UN/ha

Herbicides treatments NoneBroadleaf

killerBroadleaf and

grass killer

Fungicides treatments None 1 2

Description of indicators choosenfor the MCA

Characterisation of mineral fertilization for each types of crop management practice

Indicators Levels 1 2 3 4

Number of individuals 7 17 22 5

UAA Has 47 134 74 135

Crop area Has 39 61 36 53

Corn mineral fertilization UN/ha 0 104 60 68

Wheat mineral fertilization UN/ha 10 122 90 148

Artificial grasslands mineral fertilization UN/ha 30 57 47 14

SN grasslands mineral fertilization UN/ha 16 20 14 0

Characterisation of each types of crop management practice

Indicators Levels 1 2 3 4

Number of individuals 7 17 22 5

UAA 47 134 74 135

Crop area 39 61 36 53

No tillage (%) 71 18 9 100

Both (%) 70 36

Conventional (%) 29 12 55Manure (%) 57 82 82 40Slurry (%) 12

0 (%) 43 6 18 60No (%) 86 41 90 40Yes (%) 14 47 5 60n.a. (%) 12 5

Low 8 6 16 0Intermediate 6 6 20 2

High 0 22 8 8

Broadleaf killer (%) 18 27

Broadleaf and grass killer (%) 82 69 80

None (%) 100 4 20

1 treatment (%) 41 60

2 treatments (%) 59 100

None (%) 100 40

Level of Mineral fertilization

(on wheat)

Mineral fertilisation

Type of tillage

Organic fertilisation

Herbicides treatment

Fungicides

a case study in a european context - eaap >...

Documents