Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T07:35:49.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consequences of the inscription of local breeds in protected designation of origin cow cheese specifications for the genetic management of the herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2010

A. Lambert-Derkimba ,
S. Minéry ,
A. Barbat ,
F. Casabianca  and
E. Verrier
A. Lambert-Derkimba
Affiliation:
INRA, UR45 Laboratoire de Recherche sur le Développement de l’Elevage, Quartier Grossetti, 20250 Corte, France
S. Minéry
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Département de Génétique, 149 Rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris 12, France
A. Barbat
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
F. Casabianca
Affiliation:
INRA, UR45 Laboratoire de Recherche sur le Développement de l’Elevage, Quartier Grossetti, 20250 Corte, France
E. Verrier*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France AgroParisTech, UMR1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
*
†E-mail: etienne.verrier@agroparistech.fr
Get access

Abstract

In the mountainous areas of Europe with a humid climate, dairy cattle production is a major agricultural activity, and the milk is often processed into cheese according to protected designation of origin (PDO) specifications. We analyzed the extent to which PDO specifications and/or a mountain environment influence the spatial distribution of estimated breeding values (EBVs) of cows and the herd–year effects (HYEs) for milk yield (kg/lactation) and protein and fat contents (g/kg), as well as lactation ranks and calving months. The study focused on the northern French Alps. A total of 37 023 lactations, recorded in 2006, in 1153 herds were analyzed. The cows belonged to the Montbéliarde (21 516 lactations), Abondance (10 346 lactations) and Tarentaise (5161 lactations) breeds. The two factors of variation considered were the status of the commune where the farm was located in relation to PDO (three categories: area with no PDO, area with a PDO with no milk yield limit, area with a PDO with a milk yield limit) and ‘mountain’ environment (four categories based on the European regulation: plain, piedmont, mountain and high mountain). In the Abondance breed, the average lactation rank increased with an increase in production constraints due to the PDO or to a mountain environment. In the Abondance and Tarentaise breeds, grouping of calving in winter was most marked in the ‘PDO with a milk yield limit’ and ‘high-mountain’ categories. In the Tarentaise breed, no significant effect on any trait and any variable was found in the ‘PDO’ or ‘mountain’ categories. In the other two breeds, the average EBV for milk yield decreased with an increase in the constraints due to PDO, with differences of 226 and 93 kg between extreme values in the Abondance and Montbéliarde breeds, respectively. The average HYE for milk yield was higher in the Abondance breed in the ‘PDO with no milk yield limit’ category than in the other categories (+740 and +1110 kg, respectively); HYE was not affected by the ‘PDO’ factor in the Montbéliarde breed or by the ‘mountain’ factor in either breed. Concerning the protein and fat contents, the effect of the ‘PDO’ and ‘mountain’ factors depended on the trait, the variable and the breed. The proportion of individual decisions (the farmer makes the decision) v. collective decisions (breed management) concerning herd dynamics in the face of existing constraints is discussed.

Keywords

geographical indicationmountainestimated breeding valuesherd–year effectsdairy cattle
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 12 , December 2010 , pp. 1976 - 1986
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agabriel, C, Coulon, JB, Marty, G 1991. Facteurs de variations du rapport des teneurs en matières grasses et protéiques du lait de vache: étude dans les exploitations des Alpes du Nord. INRA Productions Animales 4, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agabriel, C, Coulon, JB, Marty, G, Bonaïti, B 1993. Changes in fat and protein concentrations in farms with high milk production. Journal of Dairy Sciences 76, 734–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agabriel, C, Coulon, JB, Journal, C, de Rancourt, B 2001. Composition chimique du lait et systèmes de production dans les exploitations du Massif central. INRA Productions Animales 14, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubry, C, Capillon, A, Papy, F 1998. Modelling decision-making processes for annual crop management. Agricultural Systems 56, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béranger, C, Vissac, B 1994. An holistic approach to livestock farming systems: theoretical and methodological aspects. In The study of livestock farming systems in a research and development framework (ed. A Gibon and JC Flamant), pp. 5–17. EAAP Publication 63, Wageningen Pers.Google Scholar
Cardellino, RA, Boyazoglu, J 2009. Research opportunities in the field of animal genetic resources. Livestock Science 120, 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coléno, F, Duru, M 1999. A model to find and test decision rules for turnout date and grazing area allocation for a dairy cow system in spring. Agricultural Systems 61, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleau, JJ, Regaldo, D 2001. Définition de l’objectif de sélection dans les races bovines laitières. Rencontres Recherche Ruminants 8, 329–332.Google Scholar
Coulon, JB, Hauwuy, A, Martin, B, Chamba, JF 1997. Pratiques d’élevage, production laitière et caractéristiques des fromages dans les Alpes du Nord. INRA Productions Animales 10, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danchin-Burge, C 2009. Estimation de la variabilité génétique de 19 races bovines à partir de leurs généalogies. Institut de l’Elevage, Compte-rendu n° 0009 72 125, 74pp.Google Scholar
Doré, T, Sebillotte, M, Meynard, JM 1997. A diagnostic method for assessing regional variations in crop yield. Agricultural Systems 54, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubeuf, B 1995. Relations entre les caractéristiques des laits de troupeaux, les pratiques d’élevage et les systèmes d’exploitation dans la zone de production du Beaufort. INRA Productions Animales 8, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibon, A, Sibbald, AR, Flamant, JC, Lhoste, P, Revilla, R, Rubino, R, Sørensen, JT 1999. Livestock farming systems research in Europe and its potential contribution for managing towards sustainability in livestock farming. Livestock Production Science 61, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, N, Duru, M, Hazard, L, Magda, D 2008. Categorising farming practices to design sustainable land-use management in mountain areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28, 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauwuy, A, Delattre, F, Roybin, D, Coulon, JB 2006. Conséquences de la présence de filières fromagères bénéficiant d’une Indication Géographique sur l’activité agricole des zones considérées: l’exemple des Alpes du Nord. INRA Productions Animales 19, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institut de l’Elevage and INRA, 2007. Bilan génétique de l’insémination en races bovines laitières, résultats 2005. Compte rendu IE n° 010679097, 55pp.Google Scholar
Keown, JF 1988. Relationship between herd management practices in the Midwest on milk and fat yield. Journal of Dairy Sciences 71, 3154–3165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert-Derkimba, A 2007. Inscription des races locales dans les conditions de production des produits animaux sous AOC: enjeux et conséquences pour la gestion collective des races mobilisées. PhD, AgroParisTech.Google Scholar
Lambert-Derkimba, A, Casabianca, F, Verrier, E 2006. L’inscription du type génétique dans les règlements techniques des produits animaux sous AOC: conséquences pour les races animales. INRA Productions Animales 19, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert-Derkimba, A, Astruc, JM, Barbat, A, Boulanger, P, Casabianca, F, Verrier, E 2007. PDO and sustainable development: targeting the average production as a way to question productivity? 58th Annual EAAP Meeting, Dublin, Ireland, 4pp.Google Scholar
Leroy, G, Verrier, E, Wisner-Bourgeois, C, Rognon, X 2007. Breeding practices of French dog breeders: results from a large survey. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 158, 496–503.Google Scholar
Madelrieux, S, Dedieu, B, Dobremez, L, Girard, N 2009. Patterns of work organisation in livestock farms: the ATELAGE approach. Livestock Science 121, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattalia, S, Barbat, A, Danchin-Burge, C, Brochard, M, Le Mézec, P, Minéry, S, Jansen, G, Van Doormaal, B, Verrier, E 2006. La variabilité génétique des principales races bovines laitières françaises: quelles évolutions, quelles comparaisons internationales? Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 13, 239–246.Google Scholar
McCown, RL 2002. Changing systems for supporting farmers’ decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects. Agricultural Systems 74, 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarrete, M, Le Bail, M, Papy, F, Bressoud, F, Tordjman, S 2006. Combining leeway on farm and supply basin scales to promote technical innovations in lettuce production. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 26, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ONERC (Observatoire National sur les Effets du Réchauffement Climatique) 2008. Changements climatiques dans les Alpes : impacts et risques naturels. Rapport Technique n°1 de l’ONERC, Paris, 99pp.Google Scholar
Rapey, H, Lifran, R, Valadier, A 2001. Identifying social, economic and technical determinants of silvopastoral practices in temperate uplands: results of a survey in the Massif Central region of France. Agricultural Systems 69, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricard, A 1994. Les montagnes fromagères en France. PhD, University of Clermont-Ferrand, CERAMAC Eds.Google Scholar
Robert-Granié, C, Bonaïti, B, Boichard, D, Barbat, A 1999. Accounting for variance heterogeneity in French dairy cattle genetic evaluation. Livestock Production Science 60, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrier, E, Tixier-Boichard, M, Bernigaud, R, Naves, M 2005. Conservation and values of local livestock breeds: usefulness of niche products and/or adaptation to specific environments. Animal Genetic Resources Information 36, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar