IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v159y2018icp21-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Yield gap analysis of feed-crop livestock systems: The case of grass-based beef production in France

Author

Listed:
  • van der Linden, Aart
  • Oosting, Simon J.
  • van de Ven, Gerrie W.J.
  • Veysset, Patrick
  • de Boer, Imke J.M.
  • van Ittersum, Martin K.

Abstract

Sustainable intensification is a strategy contributing to global food security. The scope for sustainable intensification in crop sciences can be assessed through yield gap analysis, using crop growth models based on concepts of production ecology. Recently, an analogous cattle production model named LiGAPS-Beef (Livestock simulator for Generic analysis of Animal Production Systems – Beef cattle) was developed, which allows yield gap analysis in beef production systems. This paper is the first to assess yield gaps of integrated feed-crop livestock systems, to analyse underlying causes of yield gaps, and to identify feasible improvement options. We used grass-based beef production in the Charolais area of France as a case study. To this end, we combined LiGAPS-Beef with crop growth models that simulate grass production (fresh grass under grazing, grass silage, hay) and wheat production (concentrate). Feed crop and cattle production were integrated to simulate potential and resource-limited live weight (LW) production per hectare. Potential production is defined as the theoretical maximum LW production per ha, in the absence of resource or management limitations. Resource-limited production is determined by availability of one or several resources: water and nutrients for crops, and feed quality and quantity for animals. Potential production of a cattle herd with an ad libitum diet of grass silage was 2380kgLWha−1year−1 and resource-limited production was 664kgLWha−1year−1. Actual LW production (354kgLWha−1year−1) was 15% of the potential production, implying a relative yield gap of 85%, and 53% of the resource-limited production, implying a relative yield gap of 47%. Applying yield gap analysis disentangled the major biophysical causes of these yield gaps: feeding diets other than the ad libitum grass silage diet, water-limitation in feed crops, and sub-optimal management. These yield gaps suggest scope to intensify beef production. We demonstrate, however, that yield gap mitigation decreased the operational profit per kg LW under the European regulations for bovine and grassland premiums operational in 2014. Hence, as expected, the premiums aiming to support farmers' income and to promote sustainable agriculture and rural development were not conducive to narrow yield gaps at the same time. The current common agricultural policy (CAP, 2015–2020) provides more scope for intensification, such as increasing stocking density via better grassland management.

Suggested Citation

  • van der Linden, Aart & Oosting, Simon J. & van de Ven, Gerrie W.J. & Veysset, Patrick & de Boer, Imke J.M. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2018. "Yield gap analysis of feed-crop livestock systems: The case of grass-based beef production in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 21-31.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:159:y:2018:i:c:p:21-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16308150
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.09.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veysset, P. & Bebin, D. & Lherm, M., 2005. "Adaptation to Agenda 2000 (CAP reform) and optimisation of the farming system of French suckler cattle farms in the Charolais area: a model-based study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 179-202, February.
    2. van Dijk, Michiel & Morley, Tom & Jongeneel, Roel & van Ittersum, Martin & Reidsma, Pytrik & Ruben, Ruerd, 2017. "Disentangling agronomic and economic yield gaps: An integrated framework and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 90-99.
    3. van de Ven, G. W. J. & de Ridder, N. & van Keulen, H. & van Ittersum, M. K., 2003. "Concepts in production ecology for analysis and design of animal and plant-animal production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 507-525, May.
    4. Smit, H.J. & Metzger, M.J. & Ewert, F., 2008. "Spatial distribution of grassland productivity and land use in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 208-219, October.
    5. de Koeijer, T. J. & Wossink, G. A. A. & van Ittersum, M. K. & Struik, P. C. & Renkema, J. A., 1999. "A conceptual model for analysing input-output coefficients in arable farming systems: from diagnosis towards design," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 33-44, July.
    6. van der Linden, Aart & Oosting, Simon J. & van de Ven, Gerrie W.J. & de Boer, Imke J.M. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2015. "A framework for quantitative analysis of livestock systems using theoretical concepts of production ecology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 100-109.
    7. Bouman, B. A. M. & van Keulen, H. & van Laar, H. H. & Rabbinge, R., 1996. "The `School of de Wit' crop growth simulation models: A pedigree and historical overview," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 52(2-3), pages 171-198.
    8. Morel, Kevin & Farrié, Jean-Pierre & Renon, Julien & Manneville, Vincent & Agabriel, Jacques & Devun, Jean, 2016. "Environmental impacts of cow-calf beef systems with contrasted grassland management and animal production strategies in the Massif Central, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 133-143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van der Linden, Aart & Oosting, Simon J. & van de Ven, Gerrie W.J. & de Boer, Imke J.M. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2015. "A framework for quantitative analysis of livestock systems using theoretical concepts of production ecology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 100-109.
    2. Viet-Ngu Hoang, 2011. "Analysis of Productive Performance of Crop and Animal Production Systems: An Integrated Analytical Framework," School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 268, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.
    3. Mosnier, Claire & Duclos, Anne & Agabriel, Jacques & Gac, Armelle, 2017. "Orfee: A bio-economic model to simulate integrated and intensive management of mixed crop-livestock farms and their greenhouse gas emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 202-215.
    4. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Sterk, B. & van Ittersum, M.K. & Leeuwis, C. & Rossing, W.A.H. & van Keulen, H. & van de Ven, G.W.J., 2006. "Finding niches for whole-farm design models - contradictio in terminis?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 211-228, February.
    6. van der Linden, Aart & de Olde, Evelien M. & Mostert, Pim F. & de Boer, Imke J.M., 2020. "A review of European models to assess the sustainability performance of livestock production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    7. Zhiqi Sun & Ruifa Hu & Yu Hong, 2022. "Does yield gap still matter? Evidence from rice production in China," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(3), pages 829-840, June.
    8. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    9. Farnaz Pourzand & Mohammad Bakhshoodeh, 2014. "Technical effici ency and agricultural sustainability–technology gap of maize producers in Fars province of Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 671-688, June.
    10. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Lina Peng & Yan Hu & Jiyun Li & Qingyun Du, 2017. "An Improved Evaluation Scheme for Performing Quality Assessments of Unconsolidated Cultivated Land," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-21, July.
    12. Dismas Said Shija & Okeyo A. Mwai & Perminus K. Migwi & Raphael Mrode & Bockline Omedo Bebe, 2022. "Characterizing Management Practices in High- and Average-Performing Smallholder Dairy Farms under Contrasting Environmental Stresses in Tanzania," World, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-19, October.
    13. McGee, M. & Lenehan, C. & Crosson, P. & O'Riordan, E.G. & Kelly, A.K. & Moran, L. & Moloney, A.P., 2022. "Performance, meat quality, profitability, and greenhouse gas emissions of suckler bulls from pasture-based compared to an indoor high-concentrate weanling-to-beef finishing system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Lescourret, F. & Blecher, N. & Habib, R. & Chadoeuf, J. & Agostini, D. & Pailly, O. & Vaissiere, B. & Poggi, I., 1999. "Development of a simulation model for studying kiwi fruit orchard management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 215-239, February.
    15. Hampf, Anna C. & Carauta, Marcelo & Latynskiy, Evgeny & Libera, Affonso A.D. & Monteiro, Leonardo & Sentelhas, Paulo & Troost, Christian & Berger, Thomas & Nendel, Claas, 2018. "The biophysical and socio-economic dimension of yield gaps in the southern Amazon – A bio-economic modelling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-13.
    16. Adam, M. & Wery, J. & Leffelaar, P.A. & Ewert, F. & Corbeels, M. & Van Keulen, H., 2013. "A systematic approach for re-assembly of crop models: An example to simulate pea growth from wheat growth," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 258-268.
    17. Confalonieri, Roberto & Acutis, Marco & Bellocchi, Gianni & Donatelli, Marcello, 2009. "Multi-metric evaluation of the models WARM, CropSyst, and WOFOST for rice," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(11), pages 1395-1410.
    18. S.P. Dissanayake & L.H.P. Gunaratne & T. Sivananthawerl & G.A.S Ginigaddara, 2021. "Is Agricultural Sustainability Positively Related with Technical Efficiency? A Case of Paddy-Cattle Integration Farming Systems, Anuradhapura District, Sri Lanka," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(12), pages 968-976, December.
    19. Lu, Yang & Chibarabada, Tendai P. & Ziliani, Matteo G. & Onema, Jean-Marie Kileshye & McCabe, Matthew F. & Sheffield, Justin, 2021. "Assimilation of soil moisture and canopy cover data improves maize simulation using an under-calibrated crop model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    20. Myrgiotis, Vasileios & Blei, Emanuel & Clement, Rob & Jones, Stephanie K. & Keane, Ben & Lee, Mark A. & Levy, Peter E. & Rees, Robert M. & Skiba, Ute M. & Smallman, Thomas Luke & Toet, Sylvia & Willia, 2020. "A model-data fusion approach to analyse carbon dynamics in managed grasslands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:159:y:2018:i:c:p:21-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.