The agrarian system diagnosis aims to understand the evolution and the present situation of the agriculture in a region. The method is first based on an analysis of landscape and pedo-climatic conditions through landscape interpretation combined with analysis of geologic, topographic and weather maps, in order to delimitate sub-areas with the same agronomical potential. Within each of the three sub-areas identified 21 interviews of retired farmers were then conducted, in order to analyse in-depth the agrarian dynamics and the differentiation of production systems in each zone, taking into account that farmers’ decisions are strongly determined by the pedoclimatic conditions they deal with (Cochet and Devienne, 2006;
Devienne and Wybrecht, 2002). Finally, technical and economic interviews of 38 active farmers were held
in the sub-areas. For each type of production system, identified beforehand through the understanding of the agrarian dynamics, the aim was to understand how and why farmers combine several activities and practices on their farms, taking care of technical and economic constraints, and to assess their techno-economic performances (Devienne and Wybrecht, 2002). Data collected during the interviews allow modelling of inputs and outputs, thus enabling calculation of the net value added and revenue generated.
Results
The climate in the region is oceanic temperate. In the northern part, soils formed on mica schist substratum are wetter than those formed on granite in the southern part. Wheat and maize yields are consequently lower (respectively 55 q ha-1 and 10-12 t of dry matter (DM) ha-1, compared to 70 q ha-1 and 14-16 t DM ha-1) and grassland outputs higher (8 to 10 t DM ha-1 compared to 7-9 t DM ha-1). Historically, the farmers of the area were landowners with plots well grouped around the farm facilities. Until the ‘90s, farmers managed to buy plots around the farmstead so that dairy farms of the area have now around 35 to 50 ha (and up to 100 ha) close to the farmstead, with small plot size, due to the lack of land consolidation.
The Aven region was in the ‘60s a dairy and canned vegetables production basin. As vegetables are suited to precede grassland in rotations, they have incited farmers to combine both types of production on their farms. In the ‘80s, farm size increased, quota policy appeared and canned vegetable production decreased.
This led to the development of swine and poultry production. However, several crises have affected these productions in Brittany over the last twenty years. Therefore, in the area studied, the number of dairy farms only decreased by 8% between 2000 and 2010 with a total increase in the area they manage of 36%, whereas the number of other livestock farms decreased by 43% with a decrease of the area they managed of 36% (Agreste 2010). Moreover, on the northern part of the studied region, an agronomic advisor has been promoting grassland-based dairy systems for several years. Current dynamics are still oriented towards larger farm size and the dairy sector faces the increase of dairy production due to the end of quota system, aimed at the global market (by constructing a drying tower to produce milk powder). Within the dairy farms we have identified six systems, according to the respective role of grass and maize in animal feeding, the other productions on the farm, the milk production per cow and the farm localization in the area (Table 1). The economic modelling reveals that the production systems which generate the most net added-value per agricultural worker are the ones with the highest grass area per cow, with the highest fodder efficiency, which thus have a lower level of intermediate consumption, and use the least maize.
Discussion
Our results identify several factors explaining the increase of grassland: climate favours grass growth, farm size increases and plot configuration around the farm facilities allow grazing systems even in large Table 1. Main characteristics of dairy systems.
Criteria VL1 VL2 VL3 VL4 VL5 VL6
Feeding period without maize No Yes Yes No No Yes
Maize area (% of UAA1) 35 24 17 25 18 19
Maize autonomy No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Milk yield per cow (l) 7,500 7,000 8,000 8,000 7,500 7,500
Other productions No No Crops and vegetables Crops Beef Swine
Zone Micaschiste Micaschiste Granite Granite All Granite
LU ha-1 of grassland2 2.1 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.4
Grassland area (ha) /dairy cow 0.60 1.04 0.79 0.82 1.0 0.90
Net value added worker-1 (k€) 17 to 49 48 to 94 62 to 87 41 to 84 46 to 87 33 to 73
1 UAA: utilized agricultural area.
2 LU: bovine livestock unit.
dairy farms, the technical farm advisor promotes a grass feeding system and dairy systems have suffered fewer economic crises. If the plot organization of farms cannot be a lever to increase the grassland areas in other regions (due to land ownership and relationships between owner and tenant) and pedoclimatic characteristics are unchangeable, then two options can be identified from our case study to increase or maintain grassland areas at the farm scale. Agricultural crises could favour grassland areas, emphasizing the main role played by agricultural policy and evolution of prices. As demonstrated with the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) there is room for manoeuvre to promote grass-based systems (Chatellier and Guyomard, 2010). The second lever concerns advising and milk valorisation.
Dairy systems with a grass-based feeding system are complex to manage and they need specific advising to be supported (Coquil et al., 2014). Better milk valorisation implies a better milk quality which can be achieved with a grass-based feeding system (Borreani et al., 2013). Several quality labels already include a minimum quantity of grass in the cow regime. This study confirms also that the most economically sustainable systems are the ones taking the most advantage of grasslands. However, in the studied area, the end of milk quota is a source of tension between farmers, who want to keep their low feeding cost systems, and cooperatives, looking for larger volumes of milk. If the cooperative’s strategy prevails, farmers should increase the number of cows and/or the milk quantity per cow. But as farm size growth is now based on the acquisition of distant land, both options may lead to an increase of winter crops and maize in the feeding system and a decrease in the role of grassland in production systems.
Conclusions
This study shows the importance of historic and climatic conditions for explaining the share of grassland in a landscape. But it also places stress on the main role of socio-economic context (CAP, production system equilibrium, milk valorisation, advising) which can be considered in other areas in order to promotes grasslands.
References
Agreste (2010) Recensements agricoles. Données communales.
Borreani G., Coppa M., Revello-Chion A., Comino L., Giaccone D., Ferlay A. and Tabacco E. (2013) Effect of different feeding strategies in intensive dairy farming systems on milk fatty acid profiles, and implications on feeding costs in Italy. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 6840-6855.
Chatellier,V., Guesdon J.-C., Guyomard H. and Perrot C. (2010) Les producteurs d’ovins et les éleveurs laitiers extensifs sont les principaux bénéficiaires de l’application française du bilan de santé de la PAC. INRA Prod. Anim. 23, 243-254.
Chatellier V. and Guyomard H. (2010) Le bilan de santé de la PAC en France: une profonde redistribution budgétaire. Eval. CAP Reform Disaggregated Level Paris FRA OECD pp. 18.
Cochet H. and Devienne S. (2006) Fonctionnement et performances économiques des systèmes de production agricole: une démarche à l’échelle régionale. Cah. Agric. 15, 578-583.
Coquil X., Béguin P. and Dedieu B. (2014) Transition to self-sufficient mixed crop-dairy farming systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.
29, 195-205.
Couvreur S., Defois J., Petit T., and Ben Arfa N. (2016) Local spatio-temporal dynamics of grassland maintenance between 2000 and 2010 in French cattle areas. Grassland Science in Europe 21.
Devienne S. and Wybrecht B. (2002) Analyser le fonctionnement d’une exploitation., in: Mémento de L’agronome. CIRAD – GRET – Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Paris, pp. 345-372.
Le Féon V. (2010) Insectes pollinisateurs dans les paysages agricoles : approche pluri-échelle du rôle des habitats semi-naturels, des pratiques agricoles et des cultures entomophiles. Université de Rennes 1, Rennes.
Peyraud J.-L., Brunschwig P., Caillaud D., Delaby L., Faverdin P. and Le Gall A. (2009) Quels systèmes fourragers et quels types de vaches laitières demain? Fourrages 197, 47-70.
Raffray M. (2014) Diagnostic agraire dans le pays de l’Aven. Mémoire d’Ingénieur AgroParisTech, Paris, 85 pp.
Sabatier R., Durant D., Hazard L., Lauvie A., Lécrivain E., Magda D., Martel G., Roche B., De Sainte Marie C., Teillard D’eyry F.
and Tichit M. (2015) Towards biodiversity-based livestock systems: review of evidence and option for improvement. CAB Rev.
Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 10, 1-13.