L’article présente les systèmes de récolte des fourrages d’un groupe d’éleveurs de bovins allaitants charolais du Centre France, dans lesquels l’utilisation de l’herbe est dominante. Huit combinaisons sont identifiées, du foin seul à l’association des quatre modes de récolte : foin, ensilage d’herbe classique ou enrubanné et ensilage de maïs. Une cohérence apparaît avec le choix du système d’élevage des bovins mâles et femelles et avec les niveaux d’intensification des surfaces fourragères et du troupeau, en tenant compte de la main d’oeuvre et de la surface disponible, mais aussi de la localisation de l’exploitation et de son environnement associatif. Le foin reste toujours présent, conforté par l’utilisation des presses à balles rondes. L’enrubannage, apparu en 1989, revêt une importance croissante et remplit plusieurs types de fonction selon qu’il est associé ou pas à l’ensilage d’herbe classique et/ou à l’ensilage de maïs. Il peut remplacer celui-ci dans certaines exploitations. De nouvelles techniques comme les presses à haute densité pour le foin se font jour, entraînant de nouvelles interrogations. Les éleveurs doivent en permanence arbitrer entre des innovations technologiques sans cesse renouvelées et leurs objectifs qui sont de plus en plus multiples.

From 2004 to 2015, 2 organic, autonomous, and cost-effective dairy systems were designed, step by step, at the INRA ASTER-Mirecourt experimental facility. One was a grazing-based system, and the other was a mixed crop-livestock system. Posteriori analysis of the economics and work patterns of the 2 systems showed that there was a marked decrease in operational and structural costs compared to the non-cost-efficient system that preceded them. The 2 new systems were highly economically specialised on milk production. On average, the grassland based system (80 ha) was able to remunerate 1.9 workers (at 1.5 times the minimum wage). The mixed crop livestock system (140 ha) could remunerate 3.0 workers. During the transition, there was a clear shift in what the experimenters were doing, what they worked on, and what their issues of importance were, as well as in the distribution of tasks within the team.

L’ambition de cet article est de dresser un bilan environnemental de l’élevage de bovins pour la viande en France, aussi exhaustif que possible, à partir des données scientifiques et statistiques disponibles. Les impacts environnementaux abordés sont les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, la pollution de l’eau et des sols, l’utilisation des ressources naturelles (énergie, phosphore, eau), l’utilisation des terres et la biodiversité végétale et animale. Les méthodologies d’évaluation et les indicateurs utilisés sont justifiés et discutés. Lorsque l’unité d’expression est le kg de viande, l’essentiel des impacts environnementaux provient de l’atelier naisseur en raison de la longue phase d’élevage pour obtenir un broutard. Les résultats sont très différents lorsque les impacts sont calculés par unité de surface, que le stockage de carbone dans les prairies est pris en compte et que les impacts positifs de ces systèmes sur la biodiversité et sur le paysage sont intégrés à l’analyse. Bien qu’ayant des atouts pour aborder la transition agroécologique du fait de la part importante de prairies permanentes leur permettant de tirer avantage des régulations biologiques, les systèmes naisseurs sont cependant engagés depuis 20 ans dans un processus d’agrandissement au détriment de leur durabilité.

Surplus accounting is a method for evaluating trends in how a firm’s productivity factors (intermediate inputs, capital, land, labour) are performing and how the productivity gains are redistributed between agents in the economy. Here the surplus accounting method was applied on a database of 164 Charolais-area suckler cattle farms running from 1980 to 2015. Over this 36-year period – with differences per sub-period – the cumulative productivity surplus (PS) increased at a low rate of +0.17%/year (i.e. cumulative volume of outputs produced increased slightly more than cumulative volume of inputs used). This timid increase in PS is linked to the constant expansion in labour productivity whereas other factor productivities have shrunk. The observable period-wide macrotrends are that commercial farm businesses struggle to protect their revenues, we also observe a slight fall in input prices, land rent and financing costs, and a huge climb in direct support-policy payments. The bulk of the cumulative economic surplus has been captured downstream – 64% downstream of the cattle value chain as a drop in prices, and 22% downstream of other value chains (chiefly cereals). It emerges that the productivity gains in beef cattle farming mostly benefit the downstream value chain (packers–processors, distributors and consumers), whereas it is mainly government money backing this drop in prices of agricultural output. Here we see the principal of the 1992 ‘MacSharry’ reform at work, with a transfer from the taxpayer through direct support-policy payments through to the consumer via lower prices. The simple fact that farmers’ incomes are stagnating is a clear indication that they are net losers in this distribution of productivity gains, despite the improvement in labour factor productivity.

Mixed crop-livestock systems are highly diverse, especially in their ways of coupling crop and livestock. Here, to characterise this diversity, we used 10 criteria adapted to data from 3 databases. A PCA was carried out using information on 1,190 farms. A couplage score, reflecting the degree of couplage, was calculated for each farm and was then related to farm economic and environmental performance. On average, organic farms had higher degrees of couplage than did conventional farms. Farms with greater couplage displayed better environmental performance and greater economic efficiency (thanks to lower operating expenses). However, operating revenue per farm labour unit was independent of the couplage score. The degree of couplage and transition to organic farming had additive effects.

In 2017, it is clear that organic livestock systems in France have experienced recent growth. Agricultural advisors in Normandy, Brittany, Vosges, and the Massif Central (Cantal and Aveyron) have confirmed this trend. Growth in dairy systems (e.g., cattle and sheep) over the last few years has led to a net increase in meat systems (e.g., cattle and poultry) in 2017. The emergence of new commercial outlets in these industries and the stability of economic performance have been determinant factors when the decision is made to switch from conventional to organic farming. In most cases, farmers are looking for a renewed sense of purpose in their work (e.g., respect for the environment, greater product quality) and do not regret their choice. For livestock farms to be viable, it is essential to consider forage systems in their entirety, diversify forage resources, and enhance farm autonomy.

This paper is aimed at providing a comprehensive review of environmental issues related to beef cattle farming in France, including available scientific knowledge and statistics. Greenhouse gas emissions, water and soil pollution, use of natural resources (energy, phosphorus, water), land use, and animal and plant biodiversity are addressed. Methodology and indicators for evaluation are presented and discussed. When the results were expressed as kg beef, most impacts were due to suckling cow farms (calf-to-weanling) due to the long breeding time necessary to produce weanlings. The results were, however, very different when they were expressed per hectare, when carbon storage by soil was taken into account and when the positive impacts of these systems on biodiversity were included in the analysis. Despite a certain advantage for making a transition towards agroecology due to the large part of permanent grasslands, weanling cow farms have been evolving for 20 years towards the expansion of their structures at the expense of their sustainability.

Crop-livestock production is claimed more sustainable than specialized production systems. However, the presence of controversial studies suggests that there must be conditions of mixing crop and livestock productions to allow for higher sustainable performances. Whereas previous studies focused on the impact of crop-livestock interactions on performances, we posit here that crop-livestock organization is a key determinant of farming system sustainability. Crop-livestock organization refers to the percentage of the agricultural area that is dedicated to each production. Our objective is to investigate if crop-livestock organization has both a direct and an indirect impact on mixed crop-livestock (MC-L) sustainability. In that objective, we build a whole-farm model parametrized on representative French sheep and crop farming systems in plain areas (Vienne, France). This model permits simulating contrasted MC-L systems and their subsequent sustainability through the following indicators of performance: farm income, production, N balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (/kg product) and MJ consumption (/kg product). Two MC-L systems were simulated with contrasted crop-livestock organizations (MC20-L80: 20% of crops; MC80-L20: 80% of crops). A first scenario - constraining no crop-livestock interactions in both MC-L systems - permits highlighting that crop-livestock organization has a significant direct impact on performances that implies trade-offs between objectives of sustainability. Indeed, the MC80-L20 system is showing higher performances for farm income (+44%), livestock production (+18%) and crop GHG emissions (-14%) whereas the MC20-L80 system has a better N balance (-53%) and a lower livestock MJ consumption (-9%). A second scenario - allowing for crop-livestock interactions in both MC20-L80 and MC80-L20 systems - stated that crop-livestock organization has a significant indirect impact on performances. Indeed, even if crop-livestock interactions permit improving performances, crop-livestock organization influences the capacity of MC-L systems to benefit from crop-livestock interactions. As a consequence, we observed a decreasing performance trade-off between MC-L systems for farm income (-4%) and crop GHG emissions (-10%) whereas the gap increases for nitrogen balance (+23%), livestock production (+6%) - MJ consumption (+16%) - GHG emissions (+5%) and crop MJ consumption (+5%). However, the indirect impact of crop-livestock organization doesn't reverse the trend of trade-offs between objectives of sustainability determined by the direct impact of crop-livestock organization. As a conclusion, crop-livestock organization is a key factor that has to be taken into account when studying the sustainability of mixed crop-livestock systems.

Over the past 23 years (1990 to 2012), French beef cattle farms have expanded in size and increased labour productivity by over 60%, chiefly, though not exclusively, through capital intensification (labour-capital substitution) and simplifying herd feeding practices (more concentrates used). The technical efficiency of beef sector production systems, as measured by the ratio of the volume value (in constant euros) of farm output excluding aids to volume of intermediate consumption, has fallen by nearly 20% while income per worker has held stable thanks to subsidies and the labour productivity gains made. This aggregate technical efficiency of beef cattle systems is positively correlated to feed self-sufficiency, which is in turn negatively correlated to farm and herd size. While volume of farm output per hectare of agricultural area has not changed, forage feed self-sufficiency decreased by 6 percentage points. The continual increase in farm size and labour productivity has come at a cost of lower production-system efficiency - a loss of technical efficiency that 20 years of genetic, technical, technological and knowledge-driven progress has barely managed to offset.

The nitrogen efficiency is the ratio between the output of nitrogen in the animal products and the input required for the livestock production. This ratio is a driver of the economic profitability and can be calculated at various levels of the production system: animal, field or farm. Calculated at the scale of the animal, it is generally low with less than half-ingested nitrogen remaining in the milk, the eggs or the meat in the form of proteins; the major part of the nitrogen being rejected in the environment. Significant gains were achieved in the past via the genetic improvement and the adjustment of feed supply. At the farm level, the efficiency increases to 45% to 50%, thanks to the recycling of animal excreta as fertilisers. From excretion to land application of manure, the losses of nitrogen are very variable depending on the animal species and the manure management system. Considering the risks of pollution swapping, all management and handling steps need to be considered. Collective initiatives or local rules on agricultural practices allow new opportunities to restore nitrogen balances on local territory.

Efforts to assess the environmental performances of beef production systems often culminate in mitigation strategies without factoring in farm economics. The objective of this study was to co-assess the environmental impacts and economic performances of French suckler-beef production systems based on commercial farm data. We coordinated a technical-economic survey on 59 Charolais suckler-cattle farms in order to calculate GHG emissions and non-renewable energy (NRE) consumption over the years 2010 and 2011. Using real-world data from a farm network instead of modeled or experimental data enabled us to analyze the variability of the results and its determinants. The main variables impacting GHG emissions and NRE consumption per kg of beef (live weight) produced are (i) animal productivity (kg of live weight produced per LU), (ii) farm size (area and herd), and (iii) degree of specialization in beef production (share of cattle revenue in total farm revenue). The large, diversified farms (mixed crop-livestock farming systems) have a more negative environmental impact than the moderate-sized, specialized (beef production) farms. Animal productivity performances decrease with increasing herd size, and inputs use is below-optimal in the most strongly diversified farms. A comparison of the group of farms with the lowest and highest GHG emissions per kg beef (50% difference on GHG emissions per kg of live weight) confirmed these correlations. Through better animal productivity performances and lower use of inputs, the less-GHG-emitting farms also generate higher income per worker (+30%) while consuming less NRE. Our findings argue against the idea that size and diversification bring economic and environmental economies of scale and scope in suckler-beef production systems. (c) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Au cours des vingt dernières années, les réformes de la Politique Agricole Commune (PAC) se sont succédées avec, au départ, des aides attribuées en compensation de la baisse des prix garantis. Un soutien a été accordé aux élevages herbagers et/ou extensifs. Malgré cela, les revenus des exploitations d’élevages allaitants, bovins et ovins, sont restés, en moyenne, parmi les plus faibles de l’ensemble des exploitations agricoles françaises. Une des réponses à la PAC, mais également aux signaux du marché et aux aléas, a été un accroissement constant de la taille de ces exploitations et de la productivité du travail (de + 45 à + 60% en 20 ans selon les régions), accompagnée d’une simplification des pratiques, pour une quasi-stagnation des revenus par travailleur en euros constants. Ces observations réalisées sur le long terme, à partir des réseaux ovins et bovins allaitants de l’INRA de Clermont-Theix, amènent à se poser des questions sur les notions d’économie d’échelle, sur l’efficacité des systèmes de production et sur les évolutions futures des structures de ces exploitations.

Mixed crop–livestock (MC–L) farming has gained broad consensus as an economically and environmentally sustainable farming system. Working on a Charolais-area suckler cattle farms network, we subdivided the 66 farms of a constant sample, for 2 years (2010 and 2011), into four groups: (i) ‘specialized conventional livestock farms’ (100% grassland-based farms (GF), n=7); (ii) ‘integrated conventional crop–livestock farms’ (specialized farms that only market animal products but that grow cereal crops on-farm for animal feed, n=31); (iii) ‘mixed conventional crop–livestock farms’ (farms that sell beef and cereal crops to market, n=21); and (iv) organic farms (n=7). We analyse the differences in structure and in drivers of technical, economic and environmental performances. The figures for all the farms over 2 years (2010 and 2011) were pooled into a single sample for each group. The farms that sell crops alongside beef miss out on potential economies of scale. These farms are bigger than specialized beef farms (with or without on-farm feed crops) and all types of farms show comparable economic performances. The big MC–L farms make heavier and consequently less efficient use of inputs. This use of less efficient inputs also weakens their environmental performances. This subpopulation of suckler cattle farms appears unable to translate a MC–L strategy into economies of scope. Organic farms most efficiently exploit the diversity of herd feed resources, thus positioning organic agriculture as a prototype MC–L system meeting the core principles of agroecology.

Over the past twenty years the Common Agricultural Policy reforms succeeded one another with, initially, subsidies provided to compensate the erosion of farm meat prices. Support was given to grassland or extensive farming systems. Despite this, the farm income of these farms remained on average among the lowest of all French farms. One response to the CAP, but also to market signals and hazards, has been a constant increase in the size of farms and labor productivity (by 30-80% in 20 years according to the regions) accompanied by a simplification of practices, for a near stagnation in the net income per worker, in constant euros. These observations from sheep and suckler cattle networks over the long term from the INTRA Clermont-Theix lead to questions about the economies of scale concepts, and about the direction of future agricultural policies.

The “Organic Farming Massif Central” hub and fifteen partners lead a program on sustainability and on the technical and economic operation of OF livestock systems in the Massif Central. This systemic and multi-year study (2008-2011) is based on data from a constant sample over four years, from 56 farms comprising four types of products: cattle and sheep, dairy and meat. Over 4 years, the technical and economic results are quite stable, and at a good level, but with great variability inter-farms. With lower labor productivity, but with a more diversified crop rotation, a good food self-sufficiency and good technical skills, the farms with the highest income get an income more than four times higher than the farms with the lowest income .

Four complete beef-production systems consisting each of two stages were compared. The systems were formed by combining two diets for the cow-calf herd with finishing heifers stage – St (Standard) and O3 (maximising omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) using wrapped grass silage) – with four diets for the bull-fattening herd stage — SM (silage maize starch), SML (silage maize starch plus linseed, rich in omega-3 FAs), FC (fibre-based concentrate), and SCL (starch-based concentrate plus linseed): St-SM, O3-SML, St-FC and O3-SCL. Life Cycle Assessments applied to these systems (from cradle to farm gate for a one-year period) estimated that their environmental impacts, per kg of carcass mass, ranged from 27.0 to 27.9kg CO2 equivalents (eq), 64.8–73.4MJ, 94–98g PO43− eq, 168–173g SO2 eq, 47–48m2year for climate change (CC, not including effect of land use and land-use change, LULUC), cumulative energy demand (CED), eutrophication potential, acidification potential and land occupation, respectively. Consideration of LULUC decreased CC from 8 to 10%. Minor impact differences between these systems were observed, except for CED of St-FC, mainly because more energy was needed to dehydrate beet pulp and lucerne. CC of O3-SCL was 3% lower than CC of St-SM. Most of the environmental impacts of beef-production systems originated from the cow-calf herd with finishing heifers (73–97%), which indicates that research on the reduction of environmental impacts of this type of beef-production system should focus on this herd. For the cow-calf herd with finishing heifers, comparison of several allocation methods revealed that allocation method strongly affected the impacts per kg of carcass mass of the breeding bull and finished cull cows and, to a much lesser extent, those of fattened bulls and finished heifers. Consideration of both products (several animal types) and the ecosystem services supplied by these systems seems a promising perspective. This concept needs to be discussed and developed as an approach to consider the multi-functionality of farming systems.