Generic Relationships between Field Uses and Their Geographical Characteristics in Mountain-Area Dairy Cattle Farms
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Grazed-Only Fields
3.2. Cut-Only Fields
3.3. Grazed-and-Cut Fields
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Francart, C.; Pivot, J.M. Incidences de la structure parcellaire sur le fonctionnement des exploitations agricoles en régions de bocage. Ingénieries Eau-Agric.-Territ. 1998, 14, 41–54. [Google Scholar]
- Thenail, C.; Baudry, J. Variation of farm spatial land use pattern according to the structure of the hedgerow network (bocage) landscape: A case study in northeast Brittany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 101, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marie, M.; Delahaye, D. From Plot Shapes to Agricultural Uses. Comparison between the Organization of Agricultural Landscapes in Dairy and Bocage Areas (Galicia, Normandy, Southern England). In Proceedings of the 9th Rencontres de Théo Quant, Besançon, France, 4–6 March 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Agreste Les Dossiers. L’Agriculture en Montagne, Evolutions 1988–2010 d’Après les Recensements Agricoles. 2015, n°26, 75p. Available online: https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/disaron/Dos26/detail/ (accessed on 20 September 2021).
- Andrieu, N.; Josien, E.; Duru, M. Relationships between diversity of grassland vegetation, field characteristics and land use management practices assessed at the farm level. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 120, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunschwig, G.; Josien, E.; Bernhard, C. Geographical constraints and ways of utilizing the fields in the management of dairy cattle and suckler cattle. Fourrages 2006, 185, 83–95. [Google Scholar]
- Rapey, H.; Gueringer, A.; Gresset, F.; Houdart, M.; Josien, E.; Bigot, G. Diversity and adaptability of the spatio-temporal management of grazing farms: First learnings from case analysis in Cantal (Auvergne-France). Renc. Rech. Rumin. 2008, 15, 155–158. [Google Scholar]
- Bathfield, B.; Rapey, H.; Ingrand, S. Complex field patterns: A help or hindrance in reducing concentrate purchases by dairy farms in mountainous regions? Fourrages 2015, 222, 149–156. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-Launay, F.; Sibra, C.; Molénat, H.; Agabriel, C.; Brunschwig, G. Grassland use in mountain bovine systems according to a hierarchy of geographical determinants. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, G.; Hossard, L.; Theau, J.P.; Therond, O.; Josien, E.; Cruz, P.; Rellier, J.P.; Martin-Clouaire, R.; Duru, M. Characterizing potential flexibility in grassland use. Application to the French Aubrac area. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rapey, H. The diversity of land use spatial organization in mountain farms: Farm size and type are not the sole determining factors. Fourrages 2012, 210, 141–149. [Google Scholar]
- Hostiou, N.; Fagon, J. Simplification of livestock management: A analysis of simplified pratices developed in herbivore and grain-fed production systems. INRA Prod. Anim. 2012, 25, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morlon, P.; Benoit, M. Methodolgy for farm field pattern study. Agronomie 1990, 6, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agabriel, J.; Faure, B.; Lebreton, F.X.; Lherm, M.; Micol, D.; Garcia-Launay, F.; Pradel, P.; Angeon, V.; Martin, M. La race bovine Salers: Un atout pour le développement de son territoire d’origine par son identité forte et des produits qualifiés. Cah. Agric. 2014, 23, 138–147. [Google Scholar]
- Institut de l’Élevage. Résultats de Contrôle Laitier—Espèce Bovine—France 2019; Collection Résultats; Édité par l’Institut de l’Elevage: Paris, France, 2020; p. 115. [Google Scholar]
- Réseaux d’Élevage d’Auvergne et Lozère. Référentiel 2006 des Réseaux d’Elevage Auvergne et Lozère, Conjoncture 2005, Qualité de l’Herbe en Fonction de la Date de Récolte et de l’Altitude; Références. 2006, p. 197. Available online: http://www.grands-troupeaux-mag.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Les-r%C3%A9sultats-2019-du-contr%C3%B4le-laitier-dans-l%E2%80%99esp%C3%A8ce-bovine.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
- Perrot, C. Construction of a farm typology by aggregation around poles based on expert knowledge. Methodological proposals and first resulsts achieved in Haute-Marne (France). INRA Prod. Anim. 1990, 3, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Biometry: The Principles and Practices of Statistics in Biological Research, 3rd ed.; W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1969; pp. 380–896. [Google Scholar]
- Dubeuf, B.; Fleury, P.; Jeannin, B. Diversity of the working of the forage systems and consequences for advisory work. Fourrages 1995, 141, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
- Cocca, G.; Sturaro, E.; Gallo, L.; Ramanzin, M. Is the abandonment of traditional livestock farming systems the main driver of mountain landscape change in Alpine areas? Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 878–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturaro, E.; Marchiori, E.; Cocca, G.; Penasa, M.; Ralanzin, M.; Bittante, G. Dairy systems in mountainous areas: Farm animal biodiversity, milk production and destination, and land use. Livest. Sci. 2013, 158, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamarque, P.; Artaux, A.; Barnaud, C.; Dobremez, L.; Nettier, B.; Lavorel, S. Taking into account farmers’ decision making to map fine-scale land management adaptation to climate and socio-economic scenarios. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del Corral, J.; Perez, J.A.; Roibas, D. The impact of land fragmentation on milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 517–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carsjens, G.J.; van der Knaap, W. Strategic land-use allocation: Dealing with spatial relationships and fragmentation of agriculture. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 58, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, A. Landforms and The Shaping of Cultural Landscapes in Mountain Areas: A Methodology for The Analysis of Permanent Pastures Landscape of Alto Barroso Region (Northern Portugal). Landscape and Landscape Ecology. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Landscape Ecology, Nitra, Slovakia, 27–29 May 2015; pp. 150–161. [Google Scholar]
- Gibon, A.; Balent, G.; Alard, D.; Muntané, J.; Raich, Y.; Ladet, S.; Mottet, A.; Julien, M.P. The utilization of space by mountain livestock farms and the management of biodiversity. Fourrages 2004, 178, 245–263. [Google Scholar]
- Le Ber, F.; Benoit, M. Modelling the spatial organization of land use in a farming territory. Example of a village in the Plateau Lorrain. Agronomie 1998, 18, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malpel, L. Les Contraintes Relatives du Parcellaire dans le Fonctionnement des Systèmes Fourragers d’Exploitations Laitières du Massif Central. Propositions de Représentation et d’Analyse. Mémoire de fin d’Etudes; Enita Clermont: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2001; 47p. [Google Scholar]
- Gay, J.; Poix, C.; Brunschwig, G.; Reuillon, J.L. Development of a software for assisted forecasting of forage system evolutions in dairy cattle livestock farms: PASSYFOU. Renc. Rech. Rumin. 2012, 9, 73–76. [Google Scholar]
- Dufour, A.; Dedieu, B. Rapports au temps de travail et modes d’organisation en élevage laitier. Cah. Agric. 2010, 19, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cournut, S.; Hostiou, N. Adaptations des systèmes bovin laitier pour réduire la contrainte travail: Une étude en Ségala (France). Cah. Agric. 2010, 19, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agreste. Graph’agri 2020, l’Agriculture, la Forêt, la Pêche et les Industries Agroalimentaires; Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation: Paris, France, 2020; 215p.
- Delame, N.; Thomas, G. De Plus en Plus de Conjoints d’Agriculteurs Travaillent Hors de L’Exploitation. Les Agriculteurs in L’Agriculture, Nouveaux Défis; INSEE, Institut national de la statistique et des Études Économiques: Montrouge, France, 2007; pp. 231–244. [Google Scholar]
- Eychenne, C.; Lazaro, L. Summer pastures: Between “commons” and “public goods”. Representations of pastoral areas and forms of government intervention. J. Alp. Res. 2014, 102, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delanoue, E.; Roguet, C. Social acceptability of French livestock production: Identification and analysis of the main controversies to the viewpoints of different stakeholders. Inra Prod. Anim. 2015, 28, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nettier, B.; Dobremez, L.; Brunschwig, G. Taking into account the interactions between alpine pastures and farming systems in agro-pastoral systems: A literature review. Inra Prod. Anim. 2015, 28, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryschawy, J.; Tichit, M.; Bertrand, S.; Allaire, G.; Plantureux, S.; Aznar, O.; Perrot, C.; Guinot, C.; Josien, E.; Lasseur, J.; et al. How to assess the multiple services provided by livestock? A preliminary methodology applied on the French case-study. Inra Prod. Anim. 2015, 28, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Mean (SD) | Minimum–Maximum | |
---|---|---|
Farmstead altitude (m.a.s.l.) | 894 (182.1) | 430–1400 |
Agricultural area (ha) | 82 (40.0) | 27–243 |
Number of fields | 24 (9.9) | 8–54 |
Permanent grassland area (%) | 91 (15.5) | 35–100 |
Herd size (LU) | 89.7 (35.03) | 38.6–216.1 |
Stocking rate (LU/ha agricultural area) | 1.17 (0.29) | 0.53–1.85 |
Harvested forage 1 (t DM/LU) | 1.60 (0.65) | 0.30–4.70 |
Purchased forage 1 (t DM/LU) | 0.12 (0.20) | 0–0.91 |
Grazing duration (d/year) | 216 (21.1) | 140–257 |
Number of dairy cows | 47 (20.1) | 22–130 |
Dairy output (1000 L/year) | 132.1 (120.0) | 15–550 |
Milking duration (d/year) | 321 (51.8) | 135–365 |
All Fields (n = 2341) | Grazed-Only Fields (n = 1148) | Grazed-and-Cut Fields (n = 962) | Cut-Only Fields (n = 31) | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Use characteristics | |||||
Starting use date (calendar d) | 138 (33.9) | 127 (32.4) c | 145 (32.4) b | 167 (21.0) a | *** |
Ending use date (calendar d) | 285 (46.0) | 288 (44.4) b | 297 (33.6) a | 216 (39.1) c | *** |
Use duration (d) | 148 (61.4) | 162 (58.0) a | 153 (45.0) b | 50 (47.2) c | *** |
Difference between the 1st use date and the TDBE 1 (d) | −10 (33.3) | −22 (31.4) c | −3 (31.6) b | 20 (21.4) a | *** |
Number of cuts | 0.7 (0.83) | --- | 1.3 (0.54) b | 1.8 (0.78) a | *** |
Grazing intensity (LU × day/ha) by | |||||
All animals | 222 (220.4) | 317 (241.1) a | 161 (149.9) b | --- | *** |
Milked cows | 89 (151.0) | 111 (169.9) a | 84 (136.4) b | --- | *** |
Suckler cows | 23 (83.2) | 28 (91.1) | 32 (96.5) | --- | ns |
Dry cows | 14 (49.4) | 18 (61.7) | 13 (36.5) | --- | ns |
Young heifers | 29 (75.0) | 48 (96.9) a | 14 (40.4) b | --- | *** |
Old heifers | 30 (93.4) | 47 (124.6) a | 17 (44.7) b | --- | *** |
Calves | 22 (104.2) | 40 (144.5) a | 6 (27.7) b | --- | *** |
Distributed forage (kg DM/ha) | 258 (792.4) | 366 (1052.2) a | 191 (415.1) b | --- | *** |
Geographical characteristics | |||||
Area (ha) | 3.3 (4.09) | 3.7 (4.86) a | 3.1 (3.33) a | 1.9 (1.78) b | *** |
Distance from farmstead (km) | 2.5 (6.26) | 2.9 (8.05) b | 1.9 (3.46) b | 3.4 (4.92) a | *** |
Altitude (m.a.s.l.) | 877 (176.2) | 886 (180.4) a | 867 (172.7) b | 868 (165.9) ab | * |
Slope (% of area) | 31 (45.0) | 46 (48.1) a | 18 (37.4) b | 13 (32.8) b | *** |
Field Classes 1 | Ca | He1 | He2 | MC | SC | DC | DivG | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
numbers | 90 | 179 | 99 | 282 | 99 | 37 | 362 | p |
Use characteristics | ||||||||
Grazing intensity/animal category (% of total grazing intensity) | ||||||||
Milked cows | 4.8 (12.32) c | 0.2 (2.02) c | 0.9 (5.46) c | 91.3 (14.85) a | 5.4 (12.97) c | 0.4 (2.28) c | 29.6 (38.18) b | *** |
Suckler cows | 0.6 (3.50) c | 0.4 (3.05) c | 1.7 (6.96) bc | 1.1 (5.07) c | 70.7 (34.68) a | 0.0 (0) c | 10.0 (24.07) b | *** |
Dry cows | 0.1 (1.22) cd | 0.1 (0.80) d | 1.4 (5.96) cd | 4.0 (9.32) bc | 0.8 (3.13) cd | 90.4 (27.26) a | 6.2 (15.59) b | *** |
Young heifers | 0.9 (3.65) c | 93.9 (12.75) a | 2.0 (6.94) c | 0.5 (3.72) c | 0.6 (2.61) c | 1.0 (4.18) c | 18.0 (27.65) b | *** |
Old heifers | 0.9 (4.18) c | 4.6 (11.22) c | 93.9 (13.26) a | 1.1 (5.11) c | 5.9 (10.91) c | 0.0 (0.05) c | 18.6 (29.20) b | *** |
Calves | 77.0 (31.48) a | 0.0 (0.29) c | 0.0 (0) c | 1.8 (4.19) bc | 1.0 (5.54) c | 0.1 (0.76) c | 7.4 (20.46) b | *** |
Total grazing intensity (LU × day/ha) | 623 (152.1) a | 241 (118.3) c | 336 (243.7) b | 383 (168.3) b | 355 (176.4) b | 274 (152.1) bc | 216 (155.0) c | *** |
Distributed forage (kg DM/ha) | 2390 (2712.6) a | 91 (299.2) b | 124 (337.0) b | 373 (592.9) b | 258 (664.9) b | 23 (74.6) b | 124 (254.4) b | *** |
Date of first use (calendar d) | 123 (23.0) | 128 (27.4) | 122 (24.0) | 124 (32.9) | 124 (37.2) | 125 (37.4) | 132 (35.4) | ns |
Date of last use (calendar d) | 303 (39.0) a | 286 (41.5) bc | 285 (46.2) bcd | 297 (35.5) ab | 304 (35.7) a | 261 (57.7) d | 279 (48.9) cd | *** |
Use duration (d) | 181 (46.0) a | 157 (53.5) bc | 163 (53.0) abc | 174 (50.1) ab | 180 (57.3) a | 136 (75.7) c | 147 (62.6) c | *** |
Difference between date of 1st use and TDBE 2 (d) | −27 (19.6) | −21 (25.4) | −27 (24.2) | −22 (32.8) | −25 (35.7) | −24 (38.2) | −20 (34.6) | ns |
Geographical characteristics | ||||||||
Area (ha) | 1.2 (1.11) d | 2.8 (2.74) c | 2.6 (2.27) bc | 4.2 (3.97) a | 5.2 (6.76) a | 1.5 (1.32) cd | 4.4 (6.37) ab | *** |
Distance from farmstead (km) | 0.9 (2.66) d | 3.5 (4.71) bc | 7.8 (14.54) a | 0.7 (2.11) d | 2.5 (4.62) c | 4.0 (4.97) ab | 3.6 (10.62) c | *** |
Slope (% of area) | 39 (48.2) | 51 (48.4) | 44 (48.0) | 39 (48.0) | 46 (47.3) | 43 (46.1) | 50 (47.8) | ns |
Altitude (m.a.s.l.) | 888 (181.0) ab | 894 (173.0) a | 878 (146.3) ab | 840 (174.7) b | 888 (217.0) ab | 878 (91.8) ab | 921 (184.4) a | *** |
Field Classes 1 | lC | iC | eC | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number | 50 | 131 | 50 | |
Use characteristics | ||||
Date of first cut (calendar d) | 197 (7.6) a | 166 (11.4) b | 140 (4.8) c | *** |
Date of last use (calendar d) | 203 (29.5) a | 215 (43.2) a | 231 (30.5) b | ** |
Difference between date of 1st use and TDBE 2 (d) | 45 (17.5) a | 20 (12.9) b | −7 (6.0) c | *** |
Use duration (d) | 7 (26.6) a | 49 (43.4) b | 91 (32.6) c | *** |
Number of cuts | 1.0 (0) a | 1.7 (0.65) b | 2.7 (0.59) c | *** |
Geographical characteristics | ||||
Area (ha) | 1.5 (1.99) b | 1.8 (1.75) b | 2.4 (1.48) a | *** |
Distance from farmstead (km) | 1.4 (1.52) b | 4.5 (5.20) a | 2.6 (5.54) ab | *** |
Slope (% of area) | 17 (37.2) | 13 (31.8) | 11 (30.3) | ns |
Altitude (m.a.s.l.) | 966 (199.2) a | 844 (160.4) b | 838 (95.0) b | *** |
Field Classes 1 | GC | GCG | eCG | lCG | CCG | DivS | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
numbers | 33 | 260 | 170 | 177 | 206 | 116 | |
Use characteristics | |||||||
Date of first use (calendar d) | 113 (21.7) d | 110 (20.3) d | 157 (12.4) b | 185 (12.3) a | 152 (19.2) b | 141 (26.9) c | *** |
Date of last use (calendar d) | 195 (24.8) d | 309 (28.5) a | 310 (22.2) a | 299 (23.1) b | 301 (23.0) b | 268 (22.5) c | *** |
Date of 1st cut (calendar d) | 180 (20.0) ab | 180 (20.2) a | 156 (12.2) c | 184 (12.0) a | 154 (16.5) c | 174 (18.2) b | *** |
Difference between date of 1st use and TDBE 2 (d) | −38 (20.9) e | −37 (19.9) e | +13 (14.8) b | +32 (14.5) a | +4 (17.4) c | −7 (28.3) d | *** |
Use duration (d) | 83 (29.2) e | 199 (37.3) a | 153 (20.9) b | 114 (23.9) d | 149 (28.5) b | 127 (35.8) c | *** |
Number of cuts | 1.2 (0.61) b | 1.1 (0.37) b | 1.0 (0) c | 1.0 (0) c | 2.1 (0.39) a | 1.2 (0.43) b | *** |
Grazing intensity/animal category (% of total grazing intensity) | |||||||
Milked cows | 45 (49.0) ab | 50 (42.2) a | 47 (46.2) ab | 36 (45.4) b | 41 (47.0) ab | 49 (45.7) ab | * |
Suckler cows | 6 (24.0) ab | 14 (27.9) a | 17 (34.0) a | 18 (35.8) a | 3 (16.4) b | 18 (34.1) a | *** |
Dry cows | 3 (17.1) b | 7 (17.5) b | 9 (23.3) b | 11 (27.1) b | 20 (36.3) a | 4 (14.7) b | *** |
Young heifers | 12 (32.7) | 8 (21.3) | 13 (30.0) | 13 (30.4) | 16 (34.0) | 11 (26.8) | ns |
Old heifers | 30 (46.0) a | 12 (25.4) b | 8 (23.0) b | 15 (30.8) ab | 12 (27.9) b | 13 (30.7) b | ** |
Calves | 1 (3.1) | 4 (14.5) | 4 (17.2) | 3 (14.4) | 4 (17.4) | 4 (13.4) | ns |
Total grazing intensity (LU × day/ha) | 98 (101.0) c | 225 (151.9) a | 160 (121.2) b | 153 (192.1) bc | 110 (131.8) bc | 139 (87.5) bc | *** |
Distributed forage (kg DM/ha) | 130 (245.9) a | 271 (471.5) a | 223 (358.3) a | 149 (367.3) a | 114 (390.1) a | 181 (468.1) a | ** |
Geographical characteristics | |||||||
Area (ha) | 3.2 (2.91) ab | 4.2 (4.92) a | 2.6 (2.15) b | 2.9 (2.91) b | 2.6 (2.14) b | 2.5 (1.86) b | *** |
Distance from farmstead (km) | 1.2 (2.17) b | 1.1 (2.27) b | 1.5 (2.66) ab | 2.5 (4.20) a | 2.4 (3.34) a | 2.7 (5.10) ab | *** |
Slope (% of area) | 18 (38.5) ab | 26 (42.8) a | 20 (38.9) ab | 13 (32.5) b | 10 (28.3) b | 21 (38.7) ab | *** |
Altitude (m.a.s.l.) | 913 (157.2) ab | 850 (181.3) b | 797 (158.5) c | 953 (173.2) a | 866 (136.8) b | 867 (176.6) b | *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sibra, C.; Brunschwig, G. Generic Relationships between Field Uses and Their Geographical Characteristics in Mountain-Area Dairy Cattle Farms. Agriculture 2021, 11, 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100915
Sibra C, Brunschwig G. Generic Relationships between Field Uses and Their Geographical Characteristics in Mountain-Area Dairy Cattle Farms. Agriculture. 2021; 11(10):915. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100915
Chicago/Turabian StyleSibra, Cécile, and Gilles Brunschwig. 2021. "Generic Relationships between Field Uses and Their Geographical Characteristics in Mountain-Area Dairy Cattle Farms" Agriculture 11, no. 10: 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100915