Another way is possible

Alternatives to conventional livestock systems can though be developed. These alternatives require a paradigm change. They are based on significant reductions of fixed and especially variable costs, on quality production, on product processing, and on short and local marketing chains. Cost reductions are always desirable; the two last possibilities are dependent on local situations and possibilities. At these conditions, farms do not need to grow in size anymore or can even become smaller. They become more independent from the world market.

Their income is more stable because they develop trust relationship with clients which allows higher price stability than that of the traditional market. Farmers get higher prices compared to prices paid by the industry and clients pay lower prices compared with supermarket prices. It is thus a win-win solution.

Important cost reductions can sometimes induce yield and production reduction but it should not provoke

Anais da 54a. Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia | Foz do Iguaçu 2017 | ISSN 1983-4357 188

income reduction. Income should be higher and more stable on the medium and the long term.

3.1. Arable land and temporary grasslands

After a long episode of conventional arable farming involving aggressive and frequent tillage, low organic matter soil restitution, nitrogen fertilizer and pesticide use, soil fertility is felt down to a low or very low level.

The transition towards agroecological systems requires soil fertility and soil life restoration on the long-term, and on the short-term to sustain crop and grassland yields by the inclusion of legumes in crop rotation. These legumes can fix nitrogen that boost crop growth. The most efficient nitrogen-fixing legumes are perennial forage species such as lucerne and red clover. They can fix annually from 200 to 400 kg N/ha (Deprez et al., 2004; Peeters et al., 2006). Legume-based temporary grasslands can fix much more nitrogen than the two other nitrogen sources: annual pulses and legume-based intercrops. These annual crops can only fix annually about 100 and 60 kg N/ha respectively (Peeters et al., 2006; Jensen et al., 2010 in Murphy-Bokern et al., 2017;

Baddeley et al., 2013; Gebhard et al., 2013).

Legume-based temporary grasslands are the only crops that can significantly and relatively rapidly increase soil organic matter content, boost soil life and leave large amounts of nitrogen in the soil for the following crops of the crop rotation. The ideal proportion of these grasslands in crop rotation was estimated in practice at about 50%. After one or two-year grassland, the yield of a cereal is typically twice the yield of that of a cereal following another cereal. Legume-based temporary grasslands are also essential for controlling weeds and to a lower extent crop pests and diseases (Wilkins, 2008). Legume-based temporary grasslands are thus one of the pillars of agroecological systems.

The existence of a high proportion of temporary grassland in cropping pattern implies large amount of forage production. Agroecological systems require thus almost automatically the combination of crop and livestock production in mixed systems. If livestock is not present in a farm at the beginning of a transition period, livestock should be (re-)introduced. Ruminants should be the first choice since monogastrics are less efficient for using grass. That in turn restores a new balance in meat consumption at the advantage of red meat (beef, sheep) compared to white meat (pig and poultry). Monogastrics can though be easily integrated in grass- based systems. They can graze temporary grasslands that could be periodically renovated or included in crop rotations, or be integrated in rotational stocking systems on permanent grasslands, for instance as followers of a first grazer group of ruminants. All livestock types have thus the potential to improve a lot the efficiency of mixed agroecological systems.

3.2. Permanent grassland and grazing

For the same reasons than on arable land, production costs should be reduced in permanent grassland management by using better and more grassland forages instead of concentrates and green maize (Peyraud et al., 2010). The objective is thus to increase forage self-sufficiency and reduce external input use. This objective can be achieved in several ways.

It can consists in giving priority to feed compared to food: grazed grass is the cheapest feed compared to all others; grass and maize silage costs are usually similar; concentrate feed (food) such as cereals and soybean the most expensive (Deprez et al., 2005; Finneran et al., 2012).

Extending the grazing season in spring and autumn is also a very efficient means since it allows to reducing the consumption of conserved forages that are more expensive than grazed grass. Producing the best possible quality of conserved and grazed forages reduces the need to buy expensive protein-rich concentrate feed.

Temporary grasslands, in particular Italian ryegrass/red clover mixture starts growing faster than permanent grasslands in spring. It can be lightly grazed for about two weeks before permanent grasslands start growing.

Anais da 54a. Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia | Foz do Iguaçu 2017 | ISSN 1983-4357 189

In autumn, temporary grasslands such as lucerne/cocksfoot or Italian ryegrass/red clover mixtures can be grazed until November and even December in the Northern Hemisphere, when permanent grasslands have stopped growing. In this case, grazing on usually wet soils must be done with extreme care to not degrade soil structure, by very short grazing periods on small fresh grass plots. These techniques combined may save one to three months of expensive conserved winter-feeding thanks to cheap grazed grass. This can also be achieved by starting grazing permanent grassland early in March compared to a traditional start in Mid-April. An early part-time start of grazing in March during 3 to 4 hours per day for instance, not only reduces conserved forage feeding, it facilitates the subsequent management of grassland plots and produces a more leafy and digestible grass for the following stocking cycles (Peyraud, 2010).

Alignment of the calving period with the beginning of the grass growth period allows to produce more milk and meat from grazed grass, and thus reduce production costs (Dillon et al., 1995).

A French study (Peyraud et al., 2014) compared average data of grassland-based and more intensive dairy farms. Grassland-based farms are on average smaller than the intensive farms (56 versus 78 ha), use more grass (87 vs 67% of their Main Forage Area) and thus less silage maize (11 vs 32%) and produce less cereal (8 vs 20 ha). In spite of a lower quota (266,500 vs 349,900 l yr-1) and a smaller total value of products per agricultural working unit (AWU) (88,454 vs 104,840 €/AWU), grassland-based farms produce an income before tax that is higher (21,907 vs 17,261 €/AWU) than the average of intensive farms, because of savings on the production costs (248 vs 568 €/ha). These savings relate mainly to the purchases of concentrated feed (154 vs 320 €/ha) and inorganic fertilizers (21 vs 92 €/ha).

Grazing systems have several strengths compared to housing systems. They are more resilient especially in times of price variability. They have lower variable costs (e.g. for concentrates). They are more forage self- sufficient. They have similar income per agricultural working unit (AWU), are sometimes more profitable whatever the economic context and always more profitable in a low milk price context than ‘more intensive’

systems (Oostindie et al., 2013; Peeters et al., 2015). They provide better opportunities for cows to express natural behaviour. Animal health and cow fertility are usually better in grazing than in housing systems for instance regarding hoof condition, wound healing and infection risks.

Grazing systems provide also a good image of dairy farming because citizens associate grazed grasslands to landscape naturalness, product quality and animal welfare (Jaffrès, 2007).

3.3. Livestock and design of farming systems

There are possibilities to change the logic of the production system by a holistic approach. Priority should not be given for instance to high genetic merit dairy cows and then adapting the production system to the high requirements of these cows. Instead, the approach should consist in designing a sustainable system and then choosing a cow type adapted to this system. This cow type should be adapted to grazing and able to graze effectively and ingest large amounts of green fodder. It should be able to move on relatively long distances. It should be robust and autonomous for calving for instance. It should be more flexible, have improved health and fertility, and higher milk and beef value per litre or kg compared to highly specialized breeds (Coleman et al., 2009; Prendiville et al., 2009; Delaby et al., 2014). These cow types are often cross-bred (e.g. ‘Jersey × Holstein-Friesian’ crosses) and double-goal cows (e.g. ‘Normande’ or ‘Fleckvieh’ breeds). It may be possible that this cow type is less productive in milk production than very high-yielding ‘Holstein-Friesian’ cow.

However, more income can result from meat and feeding costs can be reduced. In total, the system should be more profitable and more resilient.

In case of restricted feed availability, during a period of slow grass growth for instance, the organisms of highly productive dairy or beef breeds such as ‘Holstein-Friesian’ and ‘Belgian Blue’ continue giving absolute

Anais da 54a. Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia | Foz do Iguaçu 2017 | ISSN 1983-4357 190

priority to milk or meat production. This characteristic of this animal type induces health and fertility problems, reduces animal welfare and lifetime expectation (Delaby et al., 2010). In contrast, animals adapted to grazing and more rustic maintain adequate body reserves. This physiological feature prevents them from reproduction and health problems.