Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:34:58.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landscape characterization of integrated crop–livestock systems in three case studies of the tropics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2014

Rene Poccard-Chapuis ,
Livia Navegantes Alves ,
Marcia Mascarenha Grise ,
Alassane Bâ ,
Doubangolo Coulibaly ,
Laura Angelica Ferreira  and
Philippe Lecomte
Rene Poccard-Chapuis*
Affiliation:
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), France.
Livia Navegantes Alves
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPa), Brazil.
Marcia Mascarenha Grise
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agronômica (Embrapa Amazônia Oriental), Brazil.
Alassane Bâ
Affiliation:
Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER), Mali.
Doubangolo Coulibaly
Affiliation:
Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER), Mali.
Laura Angelica Ferreira
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPa), Brazil.
Philippe Lecomte
Affiliation:
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), France.
*
*Corresponding author: renepoccard@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrated crop–livestock systems in the tropical region are diverse and not well characterized. To better understand the conditions and potential of these systems, we characterized the spatial and social arrangement of integrated systems within a landscape context. Integrated systems are defined by biomass and nutrient flows, linking crop, livestock and human components of agriculture. The landscape is defined within a spatial framework of these flows. To understand the diversity of integrated systems in the tropics, we characterized three case study areas: Southern Mali, Brazilian Cerrados and Amazon frontier. Methodology was based on historical and descriptive approaches of these cases, mobilizing interdisciplinary knowledge of a large research team. This provided a retrospective view to discuss four key points about the future of integrated systems in the tropics: (i) importance of landscape structure for conception and adaptation of the integrated systems; (ii) key role of local institutions in managing such integrated systems; (iii) trade-offs between external and internal resources; and (iv) role of nitrogen to improve system efficiency. This paper concludes with the relevance of social sciences in the further development of integrated systems.

Keywords

integrated crop–livestock systemslandscape characteristicsmulti-scale analysisbiomass flowssustainabilitytropical region
Type
Themed Content: Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 29 , Issue 3: Special Section: Themed Content: Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems , September 2014 , pp. 218 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

1Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001. Mixed Crop–Livestock Farming: A Review of Traditional Technologies based on Literature and Field Experience. Animal Production and Health Papers 152. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
2Russelle, M.P., Entz, M.H., and Franzluebbers, A.J. 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99:325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Tanaka, D.L., Karn, J.F., and Scholljegerdes, E.J. 2008. Integrated crop/livestock systems research: Practical research considerations. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23:80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Steinfeld, H., Mooney, H.A., Schneider, F., and Neville, L.E. 2010. Livestock in a Changing Landscape. Drivers, Consequences and Responses. Vol. 1. Island Press, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
5Sumberg, J. and Thompson, J. 2013. Revolution Reconsidered: Evolving Perspectives on Livestock Production and Consumption. STEPS Working Paper 52. STEPS Centre, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
6Belém, M., Manlay, R., Muller, J.P., and Chotte, J.L. 2011. CaTMAS: A multi-agent model for simulating the dynamics of carbon resources of West African villages. Ecological Modeling 222:3651–3661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Kante, S. 2006. Gestion de la Fertilité des Sols par Classe d'Exploitation au Malisud. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
8Poccard-Chapuis, R., Coulibaly, D., Ba, A., Sissoko, S., Bengaly, M., and Coulibaly, J. 2007. Analyse affine des pratiques et des strategies des paysannes. Rapport technique final, Mali.Google Scholar
9Coutinho, C. 2010. Dinâmicas territoriais e Sustentabilidade: Impactos dos setores avícola e sucroalcooleiro no município de Rio Verde—Goiás, a partir de 1990. Masters thesis, University of Brasilia, Brazil.Google Scholar
10Bonaudo, T., Coutinho, C., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Lescoat, P., Losouarn, J., and Tourrand, J.F. 2010. Poultry Industry and the Sustainable Development of Territories: What Links? What Conditions? ISDA, France.Google Scholar
11Poccard-Chapuis, R. 2004. Les réseaux de la conquête. Filières bovines et structuration de l'espace sur les fronts pionniers amazoniens. PhD thesis, University Paris X—Nanterre, France.Google Scholar
12Poccard-Chapuis, R., Nahum, B., Ferreira, L., Carvalho, S., and Tourrand, J.F. 2010. Cattle production in the Amazon Rainforest: Reasons of the success, challenges for ecological intensification. SAPT Conference, Guadeloupe.Google Scholar
13Riou, G. 1989. L'eau et les Sols dans les Géosystèmes Tropicaux. Masson—Collection Géographie, Paris, France.Google Scholar
14Dufumier, M. 2004. Agriculture et Paysanneries des Tiers Mondes. La Crise des Agricultures Sahélo—Soudaniennes. Editions Karthala, Paris, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Riou, G. 1995. Savanes. L'herbe, l'Arbre et l'Homme en Terres Tropicales. Masson/Arman Colin, Paris, France.Google Scholar
17Vall, E., Dugue, P., and Blanchard, M. 2006. Le tissage des relations agriculture-élevage au fil du coton. Cahiers Agricultures 15:72–79.Google Scholar
18Gigou, J., Giraudy, F., Doucouré, C.O.T., Healy, S., Traoré, K.B., and Guindo, O. 2004. L’âge des champs: Un indicateur du passage de la culture itinérante à la culture permanente dans le bassin cotonnier du Mali. Cahiers Agricultures 13:467–472.Google Scholar
19Crétenet, M., Rabi, H.M., and Moussa, A.A. 2006. L'aléa pluviométrique dans la prise de décisions en culture cotonnière pluviale. Cahiers Agricultures 15:109–115.Google Scholar
20Bosma, R., Bengaly, K., Roeleveld, A., and Traore, M. 1996. L’élevage en Voie d'Intensification; Synthèse de Recherche sur les Ruminants au Mali-Sud. Institut Royal des Tropiques, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
21Blanc-Pamard, C. and Boutrais, J. (eds). 1994. Dynamique des Systèmes Agraires—à la Croisée des Parcours: Pasteurs, Éleveurs, Cultivateurs. ORSTOM, Paris, France.Google Scholar
22Blanchard, M. 2010. Gestion de la fertilité des sols et rôle du troupeau dans les systèmes coton-céréales-élevage au Mali-Sud, savoirs techniques locaux et pratiques d'intégration agriculture élevage. Thèse de doctorat, Créteil (UPEC), France.Google Scholar
23Ba, A. 2006. Analyse des stratégies de gestion de la matière organique dans les unités de production de la zone cotonnière au Mali-Sud. Etude de cas dans les villages de Dentiola, Nankorola, Pala et Zoumana Diassa. Mémoire de Master, UMR ERRC, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
24Lemaire, G., Hodgson, J., and Chabbi, A. (eds). 2011. Grassland Productivity and Ecosystem Services. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Djouara, H., Belieres, J.F., and Kebe, D. 2006. Les exploitations agricoles familiales de la zone cotonnière du Mali face à la baisse des prix du coton graine. Cahiers d'Etudes de Recherches Francophones, Agricultures 15:64–71.Google Scholar
26Ba, A., Lesnoff, M., Poccard-Chapuis, R., and Moulin, C.H. 2011. Demographic dynamics and off-take of cattle herds in southern Mali. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43:1101–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Deffontaines, P. 1957. L'introduction du bétail en Amérique Latine. Les cahiers d'Outre Mer 10:5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Haddad, P. 1999. A Competitividade do Agronegócio e o Desenvolvimento Regional no Brasil: Estudos de Clusters. CNPq—Embrapa, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
29The Economist. 2010. Brazilian Agriculture: The Miracle of the Cerrados. Brazil has Revolutionized its Own farms. Can it do the same for others? 5/9/2010, The Economist, London, UK.Google Scholar
30França, L.R. 2006. A reestruturação produtiva da cadeia produtiva da avicultura de corte: Rio Verde (GO) e Videira (SC). PhD thesis, Jaboticabal, Brazil.Google Scholar
31Rodrigues, D.M.T. and MIZIARA, F. 2008. Expansão da fronteira agrícola: A intensificação da pecuária bovina no estado de Goiás. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 38:14–20.Google Scholar
32Hébette, J. 2004. Crusando Fronteira: 30 anos de Estudo do Campesinato na Amazônia. Eudfpa, Belem, Brazil.Google Scholar
33Schmink, M. and Wood, C. 1992. Contested Frontiers in Amazônia. Columbia University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
34Pacheco, P. and Poccard-Chapuis, R. 2012. The complex evolution of cattle ranching development amid market integration and policy shifts in the Brazilian Amazon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(6):1366–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Villemaine, R., Sabourin, E., and Goulet, E. 2012. Limites à l'adoption du semis direct sous couverture végétale par les agriculteurs familiaux en Amazonie brésilienne. Cahiers Agricultures 21:242–247.Google Scholar
36Tourrand, J.F., Veiga, J.B., Ferreira, L.A., Ludovino, R.M.R., Poccard-Chapuis, R., and Simão-Neto, M. 1999. Cattle ranching expansion and land-use change in the Brazilian Eastern Amazon. Proceedings of the 48th conference of the Center of Latin American Studies Patterns and Processes of Land use and Forest change in the Amazon. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. p. 234–242.Google Scholar
37Margulis, S. 2003. Causas do desmatamento na Amazônia brasileira. World Bank Paper, World Bank, Brasilia, Brazil.Google Scholar
38Dias-Filho, M.B. 2003. Degradação de Pastagens: Processos, Causas e Estratégias de Recuperação. EMBRAPA—Amazônia Oriental, Belém, Brazil.Google Scholar
39Hostiou, N. 2003. Pratiques et stratégies de gestion des ressources herbagères cultivées par des éleveurs laitiers sur un front pionnier en Amazonie brésilienne: Cas du municipe de Uruará. PhD thesis, Agroparitech, Paris.Google Scholar
40Navegantes-Alves, L.F., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Ferreira, L., and Moulin, Ch. 2012. Grassland deterioration linked to the farms trajectories in eastern Amazon. Outlook on Agriculture 41:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Greenpeace. 2008. Slaughtering the Amazon. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
42Maia, H., Hragrave, J., Gomez, J., and Roper, M. 2011. Avaliação do plano de ação para prevenção e controle do desmatamento na Amazônia legal. Documento do Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada—IPEA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
43Poccard-Chapuis, R., Bonaudo, T., Tourrand, J.F., and Lossouarn, J. 2011. Élevage, filières et territoires en régions chaudes. INRA Productions Animales 24(1):129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Vigne, M., 2012. Flux d’énergie au sein de systèmes d’élevage laitier contrastés: Élaboration d'indicateurs et analyse de la diversité inter et Intra-territoire. PhD thesis, Université Européenne de Bretagne, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
45Almeida, C.A., Valeriano, D.M., Escada, M.I.S., and Rennó, C.D. 2010. Estimativa de área de vegetação secundária na Amazônia Legal Brasileira. Acta Amazonia 40(2):289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar