Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:40:59.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An individual-based model simulating goat response variability and long-term herd performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2010

L. Puillet ,
O. Martin ,
D. Sauvant  and
M. Tichit
L. Puillet*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France INRA, UMR 791 MoSAR, F-75231 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 791 MoSAR, F-75231 Paris, France
O. Martin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 791 MoSAR, F-75231 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 791 MoSAR, F-75231 Paris, France
D. Sauvant
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 791 MoSAR, F-75231 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 791 MoSAR, F-75231 Paris, France
M. Tichit
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Finding ways of increasing the efficiency of production systems is a key issue of sustainability. System efficiency is based on long-term individual efficiency, which is highly variable and management driven. To study the effects of management on herd and individual efficiency, we developed the model simulation of goat herd management (SIGHMA). This dynamic model is individual-based and represents the interactions between technical operations (relative to replacement, reproduction and feeding) and individual biological processes (performance dynamics based on energy partitioning and production potential). It simulates outputs at both herd and goat levels over 20 years. A farmer’s production project (i.e. a targeted milk production pattern) is represented by configuring the herd into female groups reflecting the organisation of kidding periods. Each group is managed by discrete events applying decision rules to simulate the carrying out of technical operations. The animal level is represented by a set of individual goat models. Each model simulates a goat’s biological dynamics through its productive life. It integrates the variability of biological responses driven by genetic scaling parameters (milk production potential and mature body weight), by the regulations of energy partitioning among physiological functions and by responses to diet energy defined by the feeding strategy. A sensitivity analysis shows that herd efficiency was mainly affected by feeding management and to a lesser extent by the herd production potential. The same effects were observed on herd milk feed costs with an even lower difference between production potential and feeding management. SIGHMA was used in a virtual experiment to observe the effects of feeding strategies on herd and individual performances. We found that overfeeding led to a herd production increase and a feed cost decrease. However, this apparent increase in efficiency at the herd level (as feed cost decreased) was related to goats that had directed energy towards body reserves. Such a process is not efficient as far as feed conversion is concerned. The underfeeding strategy led to production decrease and to a slight feed cost decrease. This apparent increase in efficiency was related to goats that had mobilised their reserves to sustain production. Our results highlight the interest of using SIGHMA to study the underlying processes affecting herd performance and analyse the role of individual variability regarding herd response to management. It opens perspectives to further quantify the link between individual variability, herd performance and management and thus further our understanding of livestock farming systems.

Keywords

simulationherdmanagementindividual variabilitydairy goat
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 12 , December 2010 , pp. 2084 - 2098
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, J, Pomiès, D, Nozières, M-O, Faverdin, P 2007. Principes de rationnement des ruminants. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux – Valeurs des aliments (ed. INRA), pp. 9–22. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Aubry, C, Papy, F, Capillon, A 1998. Modelling decision-making processes for annual crop management. Agricultural Systems 56, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, DE 1985. Sources of variation and prospects for improvement of productive efficiency in the dairy cow: a review. Journal of Animal Science 60, 583–592.Google Scholar
Bauman, DE, Currie, WB 1980. Partitioning of nutrients during pregnancy and lactation: a review of mechanisms involving homeostasis and homeorhesis. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1514–1529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackburn, HD, Cartwright, TC 1987. Description and validation of the Texas A&M sheep simulation model. Journal of Animal Science 65, 373–386.Google Scholar
Bosman, HG, Ayantunde, AA, Steenstra, FA, Udo, HMJ 1997. A simulation model to assess productivity of goat production in the tropics. Agricultural Systems 54, 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chardon, X, Rigolot, C, Baratte, C, Le Gall, A, Espagnol, S, Martin-Clouaire, R, Rellier, JP, Raison, C, Poupa, JC, Faverdin, P 2007. MELODIE: a whole-farm model to study the dynamics of nutrients in integrated dairy and pig farms. In MODSIM 2007 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (ed. L Oxley and D Kulasiri), pp. 1638–1645. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Coléno, FC, Duru, M 2005. L’apport de la gestion de production aux sciences agronomiques. Le cas des ressources fourragères. Nature Sciences Sociétés 13, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congleton, WR Jr 1984. Dynamic model for combined simulation of dairy management strategies. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 644–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournut, S, Dedieu, B 2004. A discrete events simulation of flock dynamics: a management application to three lambings in two years. Animal Research 53, 383–403.Google Scholar
Darnhofer, I 2009. Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 10pp.Google Scholar
French Livestock Institute 2008a. Les systèmes caprins en Poitou-Charentes et Pays de la Loire. Dossier de synthèse 2007. 7 nouveaux cas types. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.inst-elevage.asso.fr/html1/spip.php?article16773.Google Scholar
French Livestock Institute 2008b. Hausse du prix des aliments, des pistes pour alléger les charges. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.inst-elevage.asso.fr/html1/spip.php?article16615.Google Scholar
Friggens, NC, Newbold, JR 2007. Towards a biological basis for predicting nutrient partitioning: the dairy cow as an example. Animal 1, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, F, Guerrin, F, Martin-Clouaire, R, Rellier, JP 2005. The human side of agricultural production management – the missing focus in simulation approaches. In MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (ed. A Zerger and RM Argent), pp. 203–209. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia.Google 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.Google Scholar
Guérin, G, Bellon, S 1990. Analysis of the functions of pastoral areas in forage systems in the Mediterranean region. Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement 16, 147–156.Google Scholar
Guimaraes, VP, Tedeshi, LO, Rodrigues, MT 2009. Development of a mathematical model to study the impact of production and management policies on the herd dynamics and profitability of dairy goats. Agricultural Systems 101, 186–196.Google Scholar
Ingrand, S, Dedieu, B, Agabriel, J, Perochon, L 2002. Representation of the beef cattle herd functioning according to the combination of rearing rules: a modelling approach. Proceedings of the 9emes Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants, Décembre 4–5, 2002, Paris, France, pp. 61–64.Google Scholar
Malher, X, Seegers, H, Beaudeau, F 2001. Culling and mortality in large dairy goat herds managed under intensive conditions in western France. Livestock Production Science 71, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, G, Duru, M, Martin-Clouaire, R, Rellier, JP, Theau, JP, Therond, O, Hossard, L 2008. Towards a simulation-based study of grassland and animal management in livestock farming systems. In Proceedings of the iEMSs Fourth Biennial Meeting: International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software (ed. M Sànchez-Marrè, J Béjar, J Comas, AE Rizzoli and G Guariso), pp. 783–791. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.Google Scholar
Martin, G, Hossard, L, Theau, JP, Therond, O, Josien, E, Cruz, P, Rellier, JP, Martin-Clouaire, R, Duru, M 2009. Characterizing potential flexibility in grassland use. Application to the French Aubrac area. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 381–390.Google Scholar
Martin-Clouaire, R, Rellier, JP 2009. Modelling and simulating work practices in agriculture. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 4, 42–53.Google Scholar
McCown, RL 2002. Changing systems for supporting farmers’ decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects. Agricultural Systems 74, 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oltenacu, PA, Milligan, RA, Rounsaville, TR, Foote, RH 1980. Modelling reproduction in a herd of dairy cattle. Agricultural Systems 5, 193–205.Google Scholar
Peyraud, JL, Le Gall, A, Delaby, L, Faverdin, P, Brunschwig, P, Caillaud, D 2009. Quels systèmes fourragers et quels types de vaches laitières demain? Fourrages 197, 47–70.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC, Knap, PW 2003. Modelling stochasticity: dealing with populations rather than individual pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 178–186.Google Scholar
Puillet, L 2010. Modéliser la variabilité biologique en réponse aux pratiques de conduite. Application au troupeau caprin laitier. PhD thesis, AgroParisTech, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Puillet, L, Martin, O, Tichit, M, Sauvant, D 2008. Simple representation of physiological regulations in a model of lactating female: application to the dairy goat. Animal 2, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romera, AJ, Morris, ST, Hodgson, J, Stirling, WD, Woodward, SJR 2004. A model for simulating rule-based management of cow-calf systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 42, 67–86.Google Scholar
Sanders, JO, Cartwright, TC 1979. A general cattle production systems model. I: structure of the model. Agricultural Systems 4, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D 1994. Modelling homeostatic and homeorhetic regulations in lactating animals. Livestock Production Science 39, 105–113.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Giger-Reverdin, S, Meschy, F 2007. Alimentation des Caprins. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins (ed. INRA), pp. 137–148. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Sorensen, JT, Kristensen, ES, Thysen, I 1992. A stochastic model simulating the dairy herd on a PC. Agricultural Systems 39, 177–200.Google Scholar
Tess, MW, Kolstad, BW 2000. Simulation of cow-calf production systems in a range environment: I. Model development. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1159–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichit, M, Ingrand, S, Moulin, CH, Cournut, S, Lasseur, J, Dedieu, B 2004. Analyser la diversité des trajectoires productives des femelles reproductrices: intérêts pour modéliser le fonctionnement du troupeau en élevage allaitant. INRA Productions Animales 17, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichit, M, Ingrand, S, Moulin, CH, Cournut, S, Lasseur, J, Dedieu, B 2008. Capacités d’adaptation du troupeau: la diversité des trajectoires productives est-elle un atout? In L’élevage en mouvement. Flexibilité et adaptation des exploitations d’herbivores (ed. B Dedieu, E Chia, B Leclerc, CH Moulin and M Tichit), pp. 119–133. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalba, D, Casasus, I, Sanz, A, Bernues, A, Estany, J, Revilla, R 2006. Stochastic simulation of mountain beef cattle systems. Agricultural Systems 89, 414–434.Google Scholar
Woodward, SJR, Romera, AJ, Beskow, WB, Lovatt, SJ 2008. Better simulation modelling to support farming systems innovation: review and synthesis. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 51, 235–252.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 27.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Puillet Supplementary Material

AppendixB.pdf

Download Puillet Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 101.8 KB