Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:22:34.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2012

J. Ryschawy ,
N. Choisis ,
J. P. Choisis ,
A. Joannon  and
A. Gibon
J. Ryschawy*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1201 Dynafor, INPT/ENSAT, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
N. Choisis
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1201 Dynafor, INPT/ENSAT, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
J. P. Choisis
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1201 Dynafor, INPT/ENSAT, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
A. Joannon
Affiliation:
INRA, UR 0980 SAD Paysage, F-35042 Rennes, France
A. Gibon
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1201 Dynafor, INPT/ENSAT, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Intensification and specialisation of agriculture in developed countries enabled productivity to be improved but had detrimental impacts on the environment and threatened the economic viability of a huge number of farms. The combination of livestock and crops, which was very common in the past, is assumed to be a viable alternative to specialised livestock or cropping systems. Mixed crop-livestock systems can improve nutrient cycling while reducing chemical inputs and generate economies of scope at farm level. Most assumptions underlying these views are based on theoretical and experimental evidence. Very few assessments of their environmental and economic advantages have nevertheless been undertaken in real-world farming conditions. In this paper, we present a comparative assessment of the environmental and economic performances of mixed crop-livestock farms v. specialised farms among the farm population of the French ‘Coteaux de Gascogne’. In this hilly region, half of the farms currently use a mixed crop-livestock system including beef cattle and cash crops, the remaining farms being specialised in either crops or cattle. Data were collected through an exhaustive survey of farms located in our study area. The economic performances of farming systems were assessed on 48 farms on the basis of (i) overall gross margin, (ii) production costs and (iii) analysis of the sensitivity of gross margins to fluctuations in the price of inputs and outputs. The environmental dimension was analysed through (i) characterisation of farmers’ crop management practices, (ii) analysis of farm land use diversity and (iii) nitrogen farm-gate balance. Local mixed crop-livestock farms did not have significantly higher overall gross margins than specialised farms but were less sensitive than dairy and crop farms to fluctuations in the price of inputs and outputs considered. Mixed crop-livestock farms had lower costs than crop farms, while beef farms had the lowest costs as they are grass-based systems. Concerning crop management practices, our results revealed an intensification gradient from low to high input farming systems. Beyond some general trends, a wide range of management practices and levels of intensification were observed among farms with a similar production system. Mixed crop-livestock farms were very heterogeneous with respect to the use of inputs. Nevertheless, our study revealed a lower potential for nitrogen pollution in mixed crop-livestock and beef production systems than in dairy and crop farming systems. Even if a wide variability exists within system, mixed crop-livestock systems appear to be a way for an environmental and economical sustainable agriculture.

Keywords

mixed crop-livestock farmingeconomic viabilityenvironmentpracticescomparative assessment
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 10 , October 2012 , pp. 1722 - 1730
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Agreste 2010. Agreste – Rapports Publics – RICA Réseau d'Information Comptable Agricole – Tableau standard RICA 2002–2008. Agreste, Montreuil, France.Google Scholar
Antrop, M 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future? Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassanino, M, Grignani, C, Sacco, D, Allisiardi, E 2007. Nitrogen balances at the crop and farm-gate scale in livestock farms in Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 122, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choisis, JP, Sourdril, A, Deconchat, M, Balent, G, Gibon, A 2010. Understanding regional dynamics of mixed crop-livestock agricultural systems to support rural development in South-western France uplands. Cahiers Agricultures 19, 97–103.Google Scholar
Cochet, H, Devienne, S 2006. Operation and economic performance of farming systems: a regional approach. Cahiers Agricultures 15, 578–583.Google Scholar
CORPEN 1988. Bilan global annuel à l'exploitation de l'azote. CORPEN, Paris, France.Google Scholar
de Koeijer, TJ, Renkema, JA, van Mensvoort, JJM 1995. Environmental-economic analysis of mixed crop-livestock farming. Agricultural Systems 48, 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union (EU) 2011. CAP Policy. Retrieved December 2, 2001, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_fr.htm Google Scholar
FADN Public database 2011. FADN Public Database. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/database Google Scholar
Fahrig, L, Baudry, J, Brotons, L, Burel, FG, Crist, TO, Fuller, RJ, Sirami, C, Siriwardena, GM, Martin, JL 2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 1995. Digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties. In Land and water digital media series 7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Gibon, A 2005. Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. Livestock Production Science 96, 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibon, A, Sibbald, AR, Flamant, JC, Lhoste, P, Revilla, R, Rubino, R, Sorensen, 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
Hendrickson, JR, Hanson, JD, Tanaka, DL, Sassenrath, GF 2008. Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definition. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23, 265–271.Google Scholar
Joannon, A, Bro, E, Thenail, C, Baudry, J 2008. Crop patterns and habitat preferences of the grey partridge farmland bird. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28, 379–387.Google Scholar
Kruska, RL, Reid, RS, Thornton, PK, Henninger, N, Kristjanson, PM 2003. Mapping livestock-oriented agricultural production systems for the developing world. Agricultural Systems 77, 39–63.Google Scholar
Lord, E, Anthony, S, Goodlass, G 2002. Agricultural nitrogen balance and water quality in the UK. Soil Use and Management 18, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazoyer, M, Roudart, L 2006. A history of world agriculture from the neolitic age to the current crisis. Earthscan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Mottet, A, Ladet, S, Coqué, N, Gibon, A 2006. Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: a case study in the Pyrenees. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114, 296–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russelle, MP, Entz, MH, Franzluebbers, AJ 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryschawy, J, Choisis, N, Choisis, JP, Gibon, A 2011. Understanding how farmers last over the long term: a typology of trajectories of change in farming systems. A French case-study. Proceedings of the 62nd EAAP Annual Meeting, 29 August–2 September 2011, Stavanger, Norway, 5pp.Google Scholar
Schiere, H, Kater, L 2001. Mixed crop-livestock farming: a review of traditional technologies based on literature and field experiences. In FAO Animal production and health paper 152. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Schiere, JB, de Wit, J 1995. Feeding of urea ammonia treated straw in the tropics. Part II: assumption on nutritive values and their validity for least cost ration formulation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 51, 45–63.Google Scholar
Schiere, JB, Ibrahim, MNM, van Keulen, H 2002. The role of livestock for sustainability in mixed farming: criteria and scenario studies under varying resource allocation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 90, 139–153.Google Scholar
Seré, C, Steinfeld, H 1996. World livestock production systems: current status, issues and trends. In FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 127. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Simon, JC, 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.Google Scholar
Simon, JC, Grignani, C, Jacquet, A, Le Corre, L, Pagès, J 2000. Typology of nitrogen balances on a farm scale: research of operating indicators. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20, 175–195.Google Scholar
Vayssières, J, Guerrin, F, Paillat, JM, Lecomte, P 2009. GAMEDE: a global activity model for evaluating the sustainability of dairy enterprises. Part I – Whole farm dynamic model. Agricultural Systems 101, 128–138.Google Scholar
Vermersch, D 2007. L’éthique en friche. Editions QUAE, collection update sciences and technologies, Paris, France.Google Scholar
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. Agricultural Systems 83, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, RJ 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.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ryschawy supplementary material

Ryschawy supplementary material

Download Ryschawy supplementary material(File)
File 950.8 KB