Document type: scientific article published in Agricultural Systems
Authors: Larissa Mysko, Claire Mosnier, Patrick Veysset, Isabelle Veissier, Jean-Joseph Minviel
BACKGROUND Economic, environmental, and animal welfare performance targets are often not all achieved at once due to conflicting relationships associated with livestock management practices.
GOAL We seek here to 1) understand which performance targets are in conflict with each other in suckler cow operations and 2) examine how these conflicts can be managed.
METHODS We first determine the relationships between the various performance indicators using a bioeconomic model that focuses on the variables that influence feed and feeding. We then analyze the conflicts between these indicators. Last, we explore how compromises can be managed using a trade-off analysis approach.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The trade-off solutions arrived at show that, measured against an optimization process focused on feed margins, environmental and animal welfare performance can be significantly improved, when feed margins are sacrificed by approximately 15% relative to optimal values. The trade-offs can be achieved by reducing herd size and the degree of animal fattening, by increasing the proportion of pasture in agricultural land, and by reducing the quantity of concentrated feed purchased.
IMPORTANCE This combination of bioeconomic modeling and trade-off analysis represents a promising first step toward being able to provide farmers with guidance on ways to achieve good performance across multiple objectives, and to give policymakers the tools they need to develop policies that support these goals.
Preview:
CONTEXT Economic, environmental and animal welfare performance objectives are often not achieved simultaneously due to antagonistic relationships related to farming practices.
OBJECTIVE Here, we aim to 1) understand which performance objectives are in conflict on suckler cattle farms and 2) examine how these conflicts can be managed.
METHODS We first determine the relationships between the different performance indicators via a bioeconomic model focusing on variables impacting feeding and analyse the conflicts between performance indicators. We then explore how the trade-offs can be managed via a compromise programming approach.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The obtained compromise solutions show that, compared with feed margin-driven optimisation, environmental and animal welfare performance can be substantially enhanced, with foregone feed margins of approximately 15% of the optimum values. These compromises can be achieved by reducing herd size and animal fattening, increasing the share of grassland in farmland and reducing the purchase of concentrate feed.
SIGNIFICANCE Combining bioeconomic modelling with compromise programming is a promising first step in providing farmers with guidance on how to ensure good performance in multiple objectives and in providing public policy-makers with the means to develop policies along these lines.
