Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:59:08.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing the transition from purebred to rotational crossbred dairy cattle herds: three technical pathways from a retrospective case-study analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2020

J. Quénon Open the ORCID record for J. Quénon [Opens in a new window] ,
S. Ingrand  and
M.-A. Magne
J. Quénon*
Affiliation:
Université de Toulouse, INRAE, UMR AGIR, F-31320Castanet-Tolosan, France
S. Ingrand
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, AgroParisTech, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Territoires, F-63000Clermont-Ferrand, France
M.-A. Magne
Affiliation:
Université de Toulouse, INRAE, ENSFEA, UMR AGIR, F-31320Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: julien.quenon@inrae.fr
Get access

Abstract

The growing interest in rotational crossbreeding in Western countries is due to its potential to improve reproductive and health performances of cows. Although a large amount of research focuses on assessing crossbred cows’ performances, how to manage the transition from purebred to rotational crossbred herds is under-explored. Based on a retrospective analysis of French dairy herd case studies, we aimed to identify and characterise technical pathways to make such a transition. In 2018, we performed semi-directive interviews on 26 commercial dairy farms. Data were collected to describe changes in breeding, replacement and culling management practices from the first crossbred mating with purebred cows to the management of a mainly crossbred herd in 2018. Based on a multivariate analysis, we identified two main guidelines structuring technical pathways to move towards rotational crossbred herds: (i) the depth and scale of change (i.e. farm v. herd) associated with the introduction of rotational crossbreeding in the whole-farm dynamics and (ii) the changes in herd replacement and breeding practices to adapt to the evolution of herd demographics induced by the evolution of the dairy crossbred mating rate over time (high from the beginning v. distributed over time). Hierarchical clustering discriminated three groups of farmers differing in their technical pathway to move towards a rotational crossbred herd. In pathway 1, farmers customised one or several rotational crossbreeding schemes to support whole-farm transition towards an organic or grass-based system. Once the scheme stabilised, they quickly implemented it and had to readjust replacement and culling practices to regulate imbalance in herd demographics induced by the improvement in cow fertility. In pathway 2, farmers also customised one or several rotational crossbreeding schemes to support whole-farm redesign but they implemented it more gradually in the herd, which induced no major imbalance in herd demographics. In pathway 3, farmers predefined a relatively well-known rotational crossbreeding scheme to correct fertility issues of purebred cows without any changes at the farm level. They implemented it quickly from the beginning and had to adapt herd replacement and culling to regulate imbalance in herd demographics induced by the improvement in cow fertility. These first empirical evidences on how dairy farmers manage the transition from a purebred to rotational crossbred herd provide original scientific and operational contributions.

Keywords

dairy crossbreedingagrobiodiversitylivestock farming systemdiversified farming systemsfarm trajectory
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1293 - 1303
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Abdi, H and Valentin, D 2007. Multiple correspondence analysis. In Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (ed. Salkind, N.), pp. 1–14. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Biernacki, P and Waldorf, D 1981. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research 10, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brussaard, L, Caron, P, Campbell, B, Lipper, L, Mainka, S, Rabbinge, R, Babin, D and Pulleman, M 2010. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, F, Lopez-Villalobos, N and Heins, BJ 2014. Crossbreeding: implications for dairy cow fertility and survival. Animal 8, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chantre, E, Cerf, M and Le Bail, M 2015. Transitional pathways towards input reduction on French field crop farms. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 13, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, JB, Fogh, A and Kargo, M 2019. Differences between performance of F1 crossbreds and Holsteins at different production levels. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 436–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coquil, X, Dedieu, B and Béguin, P 2017. Professional transitions towards sustainable farming systems: the development of farmers’ professional worlds. Work 57, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crowe, S, Cresswell, K, Robertson, A, Huby, G, Avery, A and Sheikh, A 2011. The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 11, 100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezetter, C 2015. Evaluation de l’intérêt du croisement entre races bovines laitières. PhD thesis, Nantes-Angers-Le Mans University, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
Dezetter, C, Bareille, N, Billon, D, Côrtes, C, Lechartier, C and Seegers, H 2017. Changes in animal performance and profitability of Holstein dairy operations after introduction of crossbreeding with Montbéliarde, Normande, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 8239–8264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezetter, C, Leclerc, H, Mattalia, S, Barbat-Leterrier, A, Boichard, D and Ducrocq, V 2015. Inbreeding and crossbreeding parameters for production and fertility traits in Holstein, Montbéliarde, and Normande cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4904–4913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferris, CP, Purcell, PJ, Gordon, AW, Larsen, T and Vestergaard, M 2018. Performance of Holstein and Swedish-Red × Jersey/Holstein crossbred dairy cows within low- and medium-concentrate grassland-based systems. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 7258–7273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FranceAgriMer 2016. La filière du lait de vache biologique en France. Les Etudes de FranceAgriMer, édition Décembre 2016. FranceAgriMer, Montreuil, France.Google Scholar
Girard, N, Duru, M, Hazard, L and Magda, D 2008. Categorising farming practices to design sustainable land-use management in mountain areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28, 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, E, Norman, HD and Wright, JR 2006. Survival rates and productive herd life of dairy cattle in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3713–3720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, SB and MacRae, RJ 1995. Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 7, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL, Dewhurst, RJ and Friggens, NC 2003. On the relationship between lactational performance and health: is it yield or metabolic imbalance that cause production diseases in dairy cattle? A position paper. Livestock Production Science 83, 277–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labatut, J and Tesnière, G 2019. The Holstein cow as an institution of the agricultural modernisation project. Commodity or common good ? In Ecology, capitalism and the new agricultural economy the second great transformation (ed. Allaire, G and Daviron, B), pp. 163–180. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Google Scholar
Lucy, MC 2001. Reproductive loss in high-producing dairy cattle: where will it end? Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1277–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magda, D, Girard, N, Angeon, V, Cholez, C, Raulet-Croset, N, Sabbadin, R, Salliou, N, Barnaud, C, Monteil, C and Peyrard, N 2019. A plurality of viewpoints regarding the uncertainties of the agroecological transition. In Agroecological transitions: from theory to practice in local participatory design (ed. Bergez, J-E, Audouin, E and Therond, O), pp. 99–120. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magne, M-A and Cerf, M 2010. How information becomes a resource for action in an uncertain and complex world. Outlook on Agriculture 38, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magne, M-A, Nozières, M-O, Cournut, S, Ollion, E, Puillet, L, Renaudeau, D and Fortun-Lamothe, L 2019. Managing animal diversity in livestock farming systems: which diversity? Which forms of management practices? For which benefits? INRA Productions Animales 32, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawois, M, Vidal, A, Revoyron, E, Casagrande, M, Jeuffroy, M-H and Le Bail, M 2019. Transition to legume-based farming systems requires stable outlets, learning, and peer-networking. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, AJ 2002. Is crossbreeding the answer to questions of dairy breed utilization? Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2352–2357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nauta, WJ, Groen, AF, Veerkamp, RF, Roep, D and Baars, T 2005. Animal breeding in organic dairy farming: an inventory of farmers’ views and difficulties to overcome. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 53, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roschinsky, R, Kluszczynska, M, Sölkner, J, Puskur, R and Wurzinger, M 2015. Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: from introduction to impact. Animal 9, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shonka-Martin, BN, Hazel, AR, Heins, BJ and Hansen, LB 2018. Three-breed rotational crossbreds of Montbéliarde, Viking Red, and Holstein compared with Holstein cows for dry matter intake, body traits, and production. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, GE 2006. Major advances in determining appropriate selection goals. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1349–1361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solano, C, León, H, Pérez, E and Herrero, M 2001. Characterising objective profiles of Costa Rican dairy farmers. Agricultural Systems 67, 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, MK, Norberg, E, Pedersen, J and Christensen, LG 2008. Invited review: crossbreeding in dairy cattle: a danish perspective. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4116–4128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, LA, Burton, RJF, Ingram, J, Blackstock, K, Slee, B and Gotts, N 2012. Triggering change: towards a conceptualisation of major change processes in farm decision-making. Journal of Environmental Management 104, 142–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vance, ER, Ferris, CP, Elliott, CT, Hartley, HM and Kilpatrick, DJ 2013. Comparison of the performance of Holstein-Friesian and Jersey × Holstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cows within three contrasting grassland-based systems of milk production. Livestock Science 151, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermersch, P 2009. Describing the practice of introspection. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16, 20–57.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Quénon et al. supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Quénon et al. supplementary material(File)
File 19.1 KB