Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:13:30.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2011

N. Hostiou  and
B. Dedieu
N. Hostiou*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1273 METAFORT, F 63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
B. Dedieu
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1273 METAFORT, F 63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
Get access

Abstract

Changes affecting livestock farming systems have made farm work a central concern for both the sector and for farmers themselves. Increased pressure on farms to be competitive and productive together with farmers’ demand for greater autonomy, holidays or time to spend on private activities and the family converge to underline the two key dimensions of work – productivity and flexibility – required for the assessment of work organization. This paper proposes a method called the QuaeWork (QUAlification and Evaluation of Work in livestock farms) to assess work productivity and flexibility on a farm, and its use to identify how livestock management can contribute to work organization on dairy farms. The QuaeWork method was set up through an iterative process combining surveys conducted with farmers in two regions of France, discussions with different experts and literature review. The QuaeWork was applied on a sample of seven dairy farms in the southern Massif Central in France to identify patterns of how livestock management contributes to work organization. The QuaeWork was used to analyse work organization over the year through a systemic approach to the farm, integrating interactions between herd and land management, workforce composition, equipment facilities and combinations of activities through a characterization of ‘who does what, when and for how long’. The criteria for assessing work productivity were work duration (routine work, seasonal work) and work efficiency (per livestock unit or hectare of utilized agricultural area). The criteria for assessing work flexibility were room for manoeuvre and adjustments to internal and external events. The three main patterns of livestock management practices to work organization were identified. In pattern-1, farmers used indoor stable feeding practices with delegated work, with moderate room for manoeuvre and efficiency. In pattern-3, farmers used simplified milking, reproduction and breeding practices to seasonalize work and make it efficient with consistent room for manoeuvre. The method suggests social sustainability criteria to assess work productivity and flexibility, which are important for making reasoned decisions on livestock farm changes, especially innovations. Researchers could usefully exploit the QuaeWork to integrate work objectives (productivity, flexibility) into technical and economic goals.

Keywords

work organizationlabourassessmentsustainabilitylivestock farming systems
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Special Issue 5: Symposium “Sustainable animal production in the tropics” (SAPT), Guadeloupe, France, November 15–18, 2010 , May 2012 , pp. 852 - 862
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Aubron, C, Cochet, H, Brunschwig, G, Moulin, CH 2009. Labor and its productivity in Andean dairy farming systems: a comparative approach. Human Ecology 37, 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertin, J 1977. La graphique et le traitement graphique de l'information. Flammarion, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Bewley, J, Palmer, RW, Jackson-Smith, DB 2001. Modelling milk production and labor efficiency in modernized Wisconsin dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 705–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bockstaller, C, Guichard, L, Keichinger, O, Girardin, P, Galan, MB, Gaillard, G 2009. Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture 29, 223–235.Google Scholar
Bonneviale, JR, Jussiau, R, Marshall, E 1989. Approche globale de l'exploitation agricole: une méthode pour la formation et le développement. INRAP, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
Card, SK, MacKinlay, J, Schneiderman, B 1999. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
Chia, E, Marchesnay, M 2008. Un regard des sciences de gestion sur la flexibilité: enjeux et perspectives. In L’élevage en mouvement – Flexibilité et adaptation des exploitations d'herbivores (ed. B Dedieu, B Leclerc, CH Moulin and M Tichit), pp. 23–36. Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Darnhofer, I, Bellon, S, Dedieu, B, Milestad, R 2010. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30, 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedieu, B 2009. Qualification of the adaptive capacities of livestock farming systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedieu, B, Servière, G 2011. Les modèles du travail en élevage : points de vue de zootechniciens des systèmes d’élevage. In Le travail en agriculture: son organisation et ses valeurs face à l'innovation (ed. P Béguin, B Dedieu and E Sabourin), pp. 155–171. L'Harmattan, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Dogliotti, S, Rossing, WAH, van Ittersum, MK 2004. Systematic design and evaluation of crop rotations enhancing soil conservation, soil fertility and farm income: a case study for vegetable farms in South Uruguay. Agricultural Systems 80, 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, A, Dedieu, B 2010. Rapports au temps de travail et modes d'organisation en élevage laitier. Cahiers Agricultures 19, 377–382.Google Scholar
Elad, RL, Houston, JE 2004. Seasonal labor constraints and intra-household dynamics in the female fields of Southern Cameroon. Agricultural Economics 27, 23–32.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, Frost, JP, Binnie, RC, Patterson, DC 2006. Dairy cows performance and labour inputs associated with two silage feeding systems. Grass and Forage Science 61, 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcıa-Martınez, A, Olaizola, A, Bernuès, A 2009. Trajectories of evolution and drivers of change in European mountain cattle farming systems. Animal 3, 152–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Girard, N, Bellon, S, Hubert, B, Lardon, S, Moulin, CH, Osty, PL 2001. Categorising combinations of farmers’ land use practices: an approach based on examples of sheep farms in the south of France. Agronomie 21, 435–459.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
Gleeson, D, O'Brien, B, O'Donovan, K 2008. The labour input associated with calf care on Irish dairy farms. Livestock Science 116, 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hervé, D, Genin, D, Migueis, J 2002. A modelling approach for analysis of agro-pastoral activity at the one-farm level. Agricultural Systems 71, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostiou, N, Dedieu, B 2009. Diversity of forage system work and adoption of intensive techniques in dairy cattle farms of Amazonia. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostiou, N, Pham Duy, K, Madelrieux, S, Vu Trong, B, Dedieu, B 2010. Relations entre organisation du travail et taille des exploitations laitières : une étude à Moc Chau (Vietnam). Cahiers Agricultures 19, 323–330.Google Scholar
Jouven, M, Baumont, R 2008. Simulating grassland utilization in beef suckler systems to investigate the trade-offs between production and floristic diversity. Agricultural Systems 96, 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, F, Béguin, E, Gedouin, M, Machefer, J 2010. Une action régionale pour accompagner les éleveurs sur le travail. Conference « Conseil en agriculture: acteurs, marchés, mutations », Dijon, France, 11pp.Google Scholar
Lacroix, A, Mollard, A 1991. Mesurer le travail agricole. De l'enregistrement à la reconstitution analytique. Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales 20, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madelrieux, S, Dedieu, B 2008. Qualification and assessment of work organisation in livestock farms. Animal 2, 435–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Martel, G, Dourmad, JY, Dedieu, B 2008. Do labour productivity and preferences about work load distribution affect reproduction management and performance in pig farms? Livestock Science 118, 96–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, JJ, Staal, SJ, Freeman, HA, Herrero, M, Van de Steeg, JA 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozières, MO, Moulin, CH, Dedieu, B 2011. The herd, a source of flexibility for livestock farming systems faced with uncertainties? Animal 5, 1442–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olaizola, AM, Chertouh, T, Manrique, E 2008. Adoption of a new feeding technology in Mediterranean sheep farming systems: implications and economic evaluation. Small Ruminant Research 79, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papy, F, Attonaty, JM, Laporte, C, Soler, LG 1988. Work organisation simulation as a basis for farm management advice (equipment and manpower, levels against climatic variability). Agricultural Systems 27, 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, RL, Luloff, AE, Hanson, GD 2004. Can we identify key characteristics associated with grazing-management dairy systems from data survey? Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2748–2760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, JL, Casasús, I, Bernués, A 2007. Sheep farming intensification and utilization of natural resources in a Mediterranean pastoral agro-ecosystem. Livestock Science 111, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reig-Martinez, E, Picazo-Tadeo, AJ 2004. Analysing farming systems with data envelopment analysis: citrus farming in Spain. Agricultural Systems 82, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotz, CA, Coiner, CU, Soder, KJ 2003. Automatic milking systems, farm size, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 4167–4177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipples, R, Verwoerd, N, Bewsell, D, Dalley, D, Turner, D 2007. Social impacts of Once-a-Day milking. Proceedings of the Once-a-Day Milking Conference, Tempero Centre, LIC, Newstead, Hamilton, 16–17 April, pp. 23–27.Google Scholar
Solano, C, Leon, H, Pérez, E, Herrero, M 2001. Characterising objective profiles of Costa Rican dairy farmers. Agricultural Systems 67, 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Calker, KJ, Berentsen, PBM, de Boer, IJM, Giesen, GWJ, Huirne, RBM 2007. Modelling worker physical health and societal sustainability at farm level: an application to conventional and organic dairy farming. Agricultural Systems 94, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vayssières, J, Vigne, M, Alary, V, Lecomte, P 2011. Integrated participatory modelling of actual farms to support policy making on sustainable intensification. Agricultural Systems 104, 146–161.CrossRefGoogle 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
Wagner, A, Palmer, RW, Bewley, J, Jackson-Smith, DB 2001. Producer satisfaction, efficiency, and investment cost factors of different milking systems. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1890–1898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Hostiou Supplementary Image 1

Hostiou Supplementary Image 1

Download Hostiou Supplementary Image 1(File)
File 1.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Hostiou Supplementary Image 2

Hostiou Supplementary Image 2

Download Hostiou Supplementary Image 2(File)
File 1.5 MB
Supplementary material: File

Hostiou Supplementary Image 3

Hostiou Supplementary Image 3

Download Hostiou Supplementary Image 3(File)
File 1.9 MB
Supplementary material: File

Hostiou Supplementary Material

Use of the QuaeWork method by advisors

Download Hostiou Supplementary Material(File)
File 27.1 KB