Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:50:55.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Role of input self-sufficiency in the economic and environmental sustainability of specialised dairy farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2014

T. Lebacq ,
P. V. Baret  and
D. Stilmant
T. Lebacq*
Affiliation:
Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Croix du Sud 2, L7.05.14, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Centre wallon de Recherches agronomiques, Unité Systèmes agraires, Territoire et Technologies de l’information, Rue de Serpont 100, 6800 Libramont, Belgium
P. V. Baret
Affiliation:
Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Croix du Sud 2, L7.05.14, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
D. Stilmant
Affiliation:
Centre wallon de Recherches agronomiques, Unité Systèmes agraires, Territoire et Technologies de l’information, Rue de Serpont 100, 6800 Libramont, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Increasing input self-sufficiency is often viewed as a target to improve sustainability of dairy farms. However, few studies have specifically analysed input self-sufficiency, by including several technical inputs and without only focussing on animal feeding, in order to explore its impact on farm sustainability. To address this gap, our work has three objectives as follows: (1) identifying the structural characteristics required by specialised dairy farms located in the grassland area to be self-sufficient; (2) analysing the relationships between input self-sufficiency, environmental and economic sustainability; and (3) studying how the farms react to a decrease in milk price according to their self-sufficiency degree. Based on farm accounting databases, we categorised 335 Walloon specialised conventional dairy farms into four classes according to their level of input self-sufficiency. To this end, we used as proxy the indicator of economic autonomy – that is, the ratio between costs of inputs related to animal production, crop production and energy use and the total gross product. Classes were then compared using multiple comparison tests and canonical discriminant analysis. A total of 30 organic farms – among which 63% had a high level of economic autonomy – were considered separately and compared with the most autonomous class. We showed that a high degree of economic autonomy is associated, in conventional farms, with a high proportion of permanent grassland in the agricultural area. The most autonomous farms used less input – especially animal feeding – for a same output level, and therefore combined good environmental and economic performances. Our results also underlined that, in a situation of decrease in milk price, the least autonomous farms had more latitude to decrease their input-related costs without decreasing milk production. Their incomes per work unit were, therefore, less impacted by falling prices, but remained lower than those of more autonomous farms. In such a situation, organic farms kept stable incomes, because of a slighter decrease in organic milk price. Our results pave the way to study the role of increasing input self-sufficiency in the transition of dairy farming systems towards sustainability. Further research is required to study a wide range of systems and agro-ecological contexts, as well as to consider the evolution of farm sustainability in the long term.

Keywords

input self-sufficiencydairy farmingeconomic sustainabilityenvironmental sustainability
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 3 , March 2015 , pp. 544 - 552
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

Association Wallonne de l’Elevage 2012. Perception survey of the dairy farmers and their consultants. Optimir Interreg IVB. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://www.optimir.eu Google Scholar
Astigarraga, L and Ingrand, S 2011. Production flexibility in extensive beef farming systems. Ecology and Society 16, 1–13. Retrieved September 5, 2012, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art7/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, LW and Moore, AD 2012. Integrated crop-livestock systems in Australian agriculture: trends, drivers and implications. Agricultural Systems 111, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernués, A, Ruiz, R, Olaizola, A, Villalba, D and Casasús, I 2011. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and trade-offs. Livestock Science 139, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonny, S 2010. L’intensification écologique de l’agriculture: voie et défis. In Innovation and sustainable development in agriculture and food 2010 (ed. E Coudel, H Devautour, C Soulard and B Hubert), pp. 1–11. Cirad, Inra, Montpellier Supagro, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Farruggia, A, Martin, B, Pomiès, D and Dumont, B 2014. Towards an agroecological assessment of dairy systems: proposal for a set of criteria suited to mountain farming. Animal 8, 1349–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz-Castillo, JG, Ganeshanandam, S, MacKay, BR, Lawes, GS, Lawoko, CRO and Woolley, DJ 1994. Applications of canonical discriminant analysis in horticultural research. HortScience 29, 1115–1119.Google Scholar
Darnhofer, I 2010. Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Environmental Policy and Governance 20, 212–222.Google 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.Google Scholar
European Commission 2012. Agriculture, farm accounting data network, sample selection. Retrieved April 6, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/methodology2_en.cfm Google Scholar
European Commission 2014. Agriculture and rural development, European milk market observatory. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk-market-observatory/index_en.htm Google Scholar
Guerci, M, Knudsen, MT, Bava, L, Zucali, M, Schönbach, P and Kristensen, T 2013. Parameters affecting the environmental impact of a range of dairy farming systems in Denmark, Germany and Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 54, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B, Alrøe, HF and Kristensen, ES 2001. Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83, 11–26.Google Scholar
Havet, A, Coquil, X, Fiorelli, JL, Gibon, A, Martel, G, Roche, B, Ryschawy, J, Schaller, N and Dedieu, B 2014. Review of livestock farmer adaptations to increase forages in crop rotations in western France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 190, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschenmann, FL 2007. Potential for a new generation of biodiversity in agroecosystems of the future. Agronomy Journal 99, 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebacq, T, Baret, PV and Stilmant, D 2013. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33, 311–327.Google Scholar
Lherm, M and Benoit, M 2003. L’autonomie de l’alimentation des systèmes ’élevage allaitant: évaluation et impacts économiques. Fourrages 176, 411–424.Google Scholar
López-Ridaura, S, Masera, O and Astier, M 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators 2, 135–148.Google Scholar
MathWorks 2014. Quantile–quantile plot. Retrieved September 2, 2014, from http://www.mathworks.nl/help/stats/qqplot.html Google Scholar
Meul, M, Passel, SV, Fremaut, D and Haesaert, G 2012. Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 629–638.Google Scholar
Paccard, P, Capitain, M and Farruggia, A 2003. Autonomie alimentaire et bilans minéraux des élevages bovins laitiers selon les systèmes de production. Fourrages 174, 243–257.Google Scholar
Raveau, A 2011. Critère d’autonomie et comportement des exploitations agricoles face au choc économique de 2007. Commissariat général au développement durable. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ED46.pdf Google Scholar
Ripoll-Bosch, R, Díez-Unquera, B, Ruiz, R, Villalba, D, Molina, E, Joy, M, Olaizola, A and Bernués, A 2012. An integrated sustainability assessment of mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of intensification. Agricultural Systems 105, 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, R, Santamaria, P, Arandia, A, Del Hierro, O, Icaran, C, Intxaurrandieta, JM, Lopez, E, Mangado, JM, Nafarrate, L and Pinto, M 2011. Incorporating social and environmental indicators in technical and economic advisory programmes in livestock farming. In Economic, social and environmental sustainability in sheep and goat production systems (ed. A Bernués, JP Boutonnet, I Casasús, M Chentouf, D Gabiña, M Joy, A López-Francos, P Morand-Fehr and F Pacheco), pp. 9–15. CIHEAM, Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
Ryschawy, J, Choisis, N, Choisis, JP, Joannon, A and Gibon, A 2012. Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6, 1722–1730.Google Scholar
Ten Napel, J, van der Veen, A, Oosting, S and Koerkamp, P 2011. A conceptual approach to design livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability. Livestock Science 139, 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, MA, Dolman, MA, van Calker, KJ and de Boer, IJM 2009. Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms. Ecological Economics 68, 2278–2284.Google Scholar
Vanloqueren, G and Baret, PV 2008. Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural ‘lock-in’ case study. Ecological Economics 66, 436–446.Google Scholar
Veysset, P, Lherm, M, Bébin, D and Roulenc, M 2014. Mixed crop-livestock farming systems: a sustainable way to produce beef? Commercial farms results, questions and perspectives. Animal 8, 1218–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilain, L 2008. La méthode IDEA: indicateurs de durabilité des exploitations agricoles. Educagri Editions, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lebacq Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S5

Download Lebacq Supplementary Material(File)
File 111.1 KB