Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:50:40.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards an agroecological assessment of dairy systems: proposal for a set of criteria suited to mountain farming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2014

R. Botreau ,
A. Farruggia ,
B. Martin ,
D. Pomiès  and
B. Dumont
R. Botreau*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
A. Farruggia
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
B. Martin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
D. Pomiès
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
B. Dumont
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
†E-mail: raphaelle.botreau@clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Ruminant production systems have been facing the sustainability challenge, namely, how to maintain or even increase production while reducing their environmental footprint, and improving social acceptability. One currently discussed option is to encourage farmers to follow agroecological principles, that is, to take advantage of ecological processes to reduce inputs and farm wastes, while preserving natural resources, and using this diversity to increase system resilience. However, these principles need to be made more practical. Here, we present the procedure undertaken for the collaborative construction of an agroecological diagnostic grid for dairy systems with a focus on the mountain farming relying on the use of semi-natural grasslands. This diagnosis will necessarily rely on a multicriteria evaluation as agroecology is based on a series of complementary principles. It requires defining a set of criteria, based on practices to be recommended, that should be complied with to ensure agroecological production. We present how such agroecological criteria were identified and organized to form the architecture of an evaluation model. As a basis for this work, we used five agroecological principles already proposed for animal production systems. A group of five experts of mountain production systems and of their multicriteria evaluation was selected, with a second round of consultation with five additional experts. They first split up each principle into three to four generic sub-principles. For each principle, they listed three to eight categories of state variables on which the fulfilment of the principle should have a positive impact (e.g. main health disorders for the integrated health management principle). State variables are specific for a given production, for example, dairy farms. Crossing principles with state variables enabled experts to build five matrices, with 75 cells relevant for dairy systems. In each cell, criteria are specific to the local context, for example, mountain dairy systems in this study. Finally, we discuss the opportunities offered by our methodology, and the steps remaining for the construction of the evaluation model.

Keywords

agroecologymulticriteria evaluationdairy cattlecollaborative processenvironment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Special Issue 8: Agroecology: integrating animals in agroecosystems , August 2014 , pp. 1349 - 1360
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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, J, Pomiès, D, Nozière, MO and Faverdin, P 2010. Principes de rationnement des ruminants. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux – Valeurs des aliments. Tables INRA 2007. Mise à jour 2010 ((ed. INRA), pp. 9–22. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Altieri, MA 1995. Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP), London, UK.Google Scholar
Altieri, MA 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93, 1–24.Google Scholar
Auldist, MJ, O'Brien, G, Cole, D, Macmillan, KL and Grainger, C 2007. Effects of varying lactation length on milk production capacity of cows in pasture-based dairying systems. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3234–3241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aviron, S, Herzog, F, Klaus, I, Schupbach, B and Jeanneret, P 2011. Effects of wildflower strip quality, quantity, and connectivity on butterfly diversity in a Swiss arable landscape. Restoration Ecology 19, 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R, Dulphy, JP, Sauvant, D, Tran, G, Meschy, F, Aufrère, J, Peyraud, JL and Champciaux, P 2010. Les tables de la valeur des aliments. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux – Valeurs des aliments. Tables INRA 2007. Mise à jour 2010 (ed. INRA), pp. 185–279. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Blanc, F, Bocquier, F, Agabriel, J, D’hour, P and Chilliard, Y 2006. Adaptive abilities of the females and sustainability of ruminant livestock systems. A review. Animal Research 55, 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, JMG, Jay-Robert, P, Le Morvan, A and Fleurance, G 2012. Déjections des herbivores domestiques au pâturage: caractéristiques et rôle dans le fonctionnement des prairies. INRA Productions Animales 25, 45–55.Google Scholar
Bolan, NS, Saggar, S, Luo, JF, Bhandral, R and Singh, J 2004. Gaseous emissions of nitrogen from grazed pastures: processes, measurements and modelling, environmental implications, and mitigation. In Advances in Agronomy vol. 84, (ed. DL Sparks), pp. 37–120. Elsevier Academic Press Inc, San Diego, USA.Google Scholar
Botreau, R 2012. Some considerations about multicriteria evaluation of farm sustainability. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (EAAP), 27 to 31 August 2012, Bratislava, Slovakia, p. 141.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228.Google Scholar
Bouyssou, D 1990. Building criteria: a prerequisite for MCDA. In Readings in multiple criteria decision-aid (ed. CA Bana e Costa), pp. 58–80. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Butler, ST, Shalloo, L and Murphy, JJ 2010. Extended lactations in a seasonal-calving pastoral system of production to modulate the effects of reproductive failure. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1283–1295.Google Scholar
Caillaud, D, Fagon, J and Seegers, J 2013. Résultats 2011 et estimations 2012 pour les exploitations bovins lait – Synthèse annuelle des réseaux d’élevage. Institut de l’Elevage, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Casabianca, F, Sylvander, B, Noël, Y, Béranger, C, Coulon, JB, Roncin, F, Flutet, G and Giraud, G 2011. Terroir et typicité: Un enjeu de terminologie pour les indications géographiques. In La mode du terroir et les produits alimentaires (ed. C Defosse), pp. 101–117. Les Indes Savantes, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Chan, KY 2001. An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity – implications for functioning in soils. Soil & Tillage Research 57, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charbonneau, E, Chouinard, PY, Allard, G, Lapierre, H and Pellerin, D 2006. Milk from forage as affected by carbohydrate source and degradability with alfalfa silage-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 283–293.Google Scholar
Daudet, B 2005. Des céréales en montagne – Un réel potentiel. Retrieved 22 August 2013, from http://www.haute-loire.chambagri.fr/Fiches-techniques,39.html.Google Scholar
Díaz, S, Tilman, D, Fargione, J, Chapin, F III, Dirzo, R, Kitzberger, T, Gemmill, B, Zobel, M, Vila, M, Mitchell, C, Wilby, A, Daily, G, Galetti, M, Laurance, W, Pretty, J, Naylor, R, Power, A, Harvell, D, Potts, S, Kremen, C, Griswold, T and Eardley, C 2005. Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. In Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends (ed. R Hassan, R Scholes and N Ash), pp. 297–329. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Dollé, JB, Delaby, L, Plantureux, S, Moreau, S, Amiaud, B, Charpiot, A, Manneville, V, Chanseaume, A, Chambaut, H and Al, Gall 2013. Impact environnemental des systemes bovins laitiers francais. INRA Productions Animales 26, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Jouven, M, Thomas, M and Tichit, M 2013. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7, 1028–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Farruggia, A, Garel, JP, Bachelard, P, Boitier, E and Frain, M 2009. How does grazing intensity influence the diversity of plants and insects in a species-rich upland grassland on basalt soils? Grass and Forage Science 64, 92–105.Google Scholar
Farruggia, A, Dumont, B, Scohier, A, Leroy, T, Pradel, P and Garel, JP 2012. An alternative rotational stocking management designed to favour butterflies in permanent grasslands. Grass and Forage Science 67, 136–149.Google Scholar
Forster, B, Boxall, A, Coors, A, Jensen, J, Liebig, M, Pope, L, Moser, T and Rombke, J 2011. Fate and effects of ivermectin on soil invertebrates in terrestrial model ecosystems. Ecotoxicology 20, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franzen, M and Nilsson, SG 2008. How can we preserve and restore species richness of pollinating insects on agricultural land? Ecography 31, 698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gliessman, SR 1998. Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Gliessman, SR 2007. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC Press, Boca-Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
Goulson, D, Hanley, ME, Darvill, B, Ellis, JS and Knight, ME 2005. Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biological Conservation 122, 1–8.Google Scholar
Harrington, LW 1992. Measuring sustainability: issues and alternatives. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 3, 1–20.Google Scholar
Harrison, PA, Vandewalle, M, Sykes, MT, Berry, PM, Bugter, R, de Bello, F, Feld, CK, Grandin, U, Harrington, R, Haslett, JR, Jongman, RHG, Luck, GW, da Silva, PM, Moora, M, Settele, J, Sousa, JP and Zobel, M 2010. Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 2791–2821.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, P, Burgos, MS, Petermann, R, Munger, A, Blum, JW, Thomet, P, Menzi, H, Kohler, S and Kunz, P 2011. Does body size of dairy cows, at constant ratio of maintenance to production requirements, affect productivity in a pasture-based production system? Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 95, 717–729.Google Scholar
Hoover, WH and Stokes, SR 1991. Balancing carbohydrates and proteins for optimum rumen microbial yield. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3630–3644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F and Rath, M 2005. The interaction of strain of Holstein-Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield, body weight, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.Google Scholar
INRA. 2012. Rapport du chantier Agro-écologique. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Iwasa, M, Maruo, T, Ueda, M and Yamashita, N 2007. Adverse effects of ivermectin on the dung beetles, Caccobius jessoensis Harold, and rare species, Copris ochus Motschulsky and Copris acutidens Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), in Japan. Bulletin of Entomological Research 97, 619–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanneret, P, Baumgartner, D, Freiermuth, R and Gaillard, G 2006. Méthode d’évaluation de l’impact des activités agricoles sur la biodiversité dans les bilans écologiques. Agroscope Fal Reckenholz, Suisse. Retrieved 9 October 2013, from http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agrarlandschaft-biodiversitaet/03750/03752/index.html.Google Scholar
Jeong, H and Chi, MTH 2007. Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science 35, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, E, O’Donovan, M, Murphy, JP, Delaby, L and O’Mara, F 2005. Effects of grass pasture and concentrate-based feeding systems for spring-calving dairy cows in early spring on performance during lactation. Grass and Forage Science 60, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, KM and Oetzel, GR 2006. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruk, M, Noordervliet, MAW and ter Keurs, WJ 1996. Hatching dates of waders and mowing dates in intensively exploited grassland areas in different years. Biological Conservation 77, 213–218.Google Scholar
Martineau, R, Sauvant, D, Ouellet, DR, Cortes, C, Vernet, J, Ortigues-Marty, I and Lapierre, H 2011. Relation of net portal flux of nitrogen compounds with dietary characteristics in ruminants: a meta-analysis approach. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2986–3001.Google Scholar
Milchunas, DG, Sala, OE and Lauenroth, WK 1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. American Naturalist 132, 87–106.Google Scholar
Miller, GA 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
Moreau, P, Ruiz, L, Mabon, F, Raimbault, T, Durand, P, Delaby, L, Devienne, S and Vertès, F 2012. Reconciling technical, economic and environmental efficiency of farming systems in vulnerable areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 147, 89–99.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TTH, Doreau, M, Corson, MS, Eugene, M, Delaby, L, Chesneau, G, Gallard, Y and van der Werf, HMG 2013. Effect of dairy production system, breed and co-product handling methods on environmental impacts at farm level. Journal of Environmental Management 120, 127–137.Google Scholar
Oppermann, R and Krismann, A 2001. Naturverträgliche Mähtechnik und Populationssicherung: Ergebnisse eines Workshops am 24.10.2000 im Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) in Bonn und Kurzfassung der Ergebnisse der E & E-Voruntersuchung “Naturverträgliche Mähtechnik für das Feuchtgrünland”. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Paz, A, Jareno, D, Arroyo, L, Vinuela, J, Arroyo, B, Mougeot, F, Jose Luque-Larena, J and Antonio Fargallo, J 2013. Avian predators as a biological control system of common vole (Microtus arvalis) populations in north-western Spain: experimental set-up and preliminary results. Pest Management Science 69, 444–450.Google Scholar
Pywell, RF, Bullock, JM, Tallowin, JB, Walker, KJ, Warman, EA and Masters, G 2007. Enhancing diversity of species-poor grasslands: an experimental assessment of multiple constraints. Journal of Applied Ecology 44, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rémond, B, Aubailly, S, Chilliard, Y, Dupont, D, Pomiès, D and Petit, M 2002. Combined effects of once-daily milking and feeding level in the first three weeks of lactation on milk production and enzyme activities, and nutritional status, in Holstein cows. Animal Research 51, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuillon, JL, Dervillé, M, Crouzet, M, Forray, L and Perrot, C 2012. La filière française de laits et de fromages de montagne. Institut de l’Elevage, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Oteros-Rozas, E, Ripoll-Bosch, R, Tichit, M, Martín-López, B and Bernues, A 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal, first published online 12 March 2014. doi:10.1017/S1751731114000421.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J 1992. Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2, 235–276.Google Scholar
Roy, B 1996. Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Saaty, TL and Vargas, LG 2012. How to make a decision. In Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (ed. TL Saaty and LG Vargas), pp. 1–21. Springer, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Santini, F, Guri, F and Gomez, y Paloma, S 2013. Labelling of agricultural and food products of mountain farming European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Schon, NL, Mackay, AD and Minor, MA 2012. Vulnerability of soil invertebrate communities to the influences of livestock in three grasslands. Applied Soil Ecology 53, 98–107.Google Scholar
Sjödin, NE 2007. Pollinator behavioural responses to grazing intensity. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 2103–2121.Google Scholar
Skripsky, T and Hoffmann, S 2010. Assessment of risk of monepantel faecal residues to dung fauna. Australian Veterinary Journal 88, 490–496.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and Cd, Haan 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Suttle, N 2010. Mineral nutrition of livestock. Cabi, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Theodoridou, K, Aufrère, J, Andueza, D, Pourrat, J, Le Morvan, A, Stringano, E, Mueller-Harvey, E and Baumont, R 2010. Effects of condensed tannins in fresh sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) on in vivo and in situ digestion in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160, 23–38.Google Scholar
Tichit, M, Puillet, L, Sabatier, R and Teillard, F 2011. Multicriteria performance and sustainability in livestock farming systems: functional diversity matters. Livestock Science 139, 161–171.Google Scholar
Tscharntke, T, Clough, Y, Wanger, TC, Jackson, L, Motzke, I, Perfecto, I, Vandermeer, J and Whitbread, A 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation 151, 53–59.Google Scholar
van Eekeren, N, de Boer, H, Bloem, J, Schouten, T, Rutgers, M, de Goede, R and Brussaard, L 2009. Soil biological quality of grassland fertilized with adjusted cattle manure slurries in comparison with organic and inorganic fertilizers. Biology and Fertility of Soils 45, 595–608.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R, Calus, M and de Haas, Y 2012. Selection for feed intake in dairy cattle using genomic selection. In Proceedings of the 38th International Committee for Animal Recording Session, 28 May to 1 June 2012, Cork, Ireland. Retrieved April 15, 2014 from http://www.icar.org/Cork_2012/ Google Scholar
von Keyserlingk, MAG, Martin, NP, Kebreab, E, Knowlton, KF, Grant, RJ, Stephenson, M, Sniffen, CJ, Harner, JR, Wright, AD and Smith, SI 2013. Invited review: sustainability of the US dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 5405–5425.Google Scholar