ARTICLE IN PRESS

G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9

Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Agronomy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eja

Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock

systems
Thierry Bonaudo a,∗ , Amaury Burlamaqui Bendahan b , Rodolphe Sabatier a ,
Julie Ryschawy a , Stéphane Bellon c , François Leger a , Danièle Magda d , Muriel Tichit a
a
AgroParisTech, umr 1048 SADAPT, Paris, France
b
EMBRAPA Roraima, Boa Vista, RR, Brazil
c
INRA, ur 767 Ecodéveloppement, Avignon, France
d
INRA, umr 1248 AGIR, Toulouse, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Combining crops and livestock within integrated crop–livestock systems (ICLS) represents an opportunity
Received 2 April 2013 to improve the sustainability of farming systems. The objective of this paper is to analyse how agroeco-
Received in revised form 2 August 2013 logical principles can help farmers to redesign and improve the resilience, self-sufficiency, productivity,
Accepted 18 September 2013
and efficiency of ICLS. Relying on case studies from Brazil and France, we examine how the transforma-
tion of two conventional, specialised systems into more integrated-production systems illustrates the
Keywords:
different dynamics towards agroecological ICLS. The French case study, based on self-sufficient farming
Integrated crop–livestock systems
systems belonging to a sustainable agriculture network, highlights that cost-cutting management led to
Agroecology
Brazil
a win–win strategy comprising good economic and environmental performances. The farms decreased
France their dependence on external inputs and had only a limited loss of production. The past trajectories of the
Transition farms illustrate how increasing the interactions between subsystems improved the self-sufficiency and
efficiency of the farms. The Brazilian case study compares slash-and-burn agriculture in the Amazonian
region with the recovery of degraded grazing area by ICLS. A small increase in chemical inputs linked to a
diversification of productions led to a large increase in production and a large decrease in environmental
impacts (deforestation). The Brazilian case study also illustrates how the diversification of production
increased the resilience of the system to market shocks. Reconstructing the links among soil, crops, and
animals following agroecological principles could improve the different performances of ICLS. New agroe-
cological ICLS, benefiting from diversified productions and increased interactions between subsystems,
are likely to offset the trade-off between agricultural production and environmental impacts observed
in current ICLS.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction entails the use of nonfarming areas, promoting fertility transfer

Integrated crop–livestock systems (ICLS) are considered an effi-
cient design for sustainable, ecologically based farming systems
(Gliessman, 2006; Russelle et al., 2007; Hendrickson et al., 2008a).
The sustainability of ICLS relies on the complementarities between
crops and livestock and the connectedness of livestock to the land
(Naylor et al., 2005; Wilkins, 2008). The complementarities first
correspond to animal abilities to valorise natural and cultivated
vegetal resources, especially nonfood biomass (Schiere et al., 2002).
Animals eat and convert products, by-products, and residues that
are not suitable for human consumption; and they maintain soil
fertility and crop production by recycling faeces. Animal mobility
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 1 44 08 18 00; fax: +33 1 44 08 18 53.
E-mail address: thierry.bonaudo@agroparistech.fr (T. Bonaudo).
across diverse and heterogeneous landscapes. In such systems,
animals play a key role in recycling and increasing the efficiency
of resource usage (Schiere and Kater, 2001; Schiere et al., 2002).
Beyond the interactions between crop and livestock, the elabo-
ration of diversified production is likely to favour economies of
scope and minimise the need for external inputs (Ryschawy et al.,
2012; Vermersch, 2007; Wilkins, 2008). Integrating complemen-
tary activities and promoting functional diversity (Tichit et al.,
2011) are also acknowledged to increase the self-sufficiency of ICLS
compared with specialised farming systems (e.g. farms specialised
producing for livestock feed, human food, and/or economic bene-
fits) (Vermersch, 2007; Wilkins, 2008).
The potential benefits of ICLS entail strong interactions between
the plant and animal components of the system; but under a unique
definition of ICLS, a wide variety of contrasting mixed-farming sys-
tems exist worldwide (Schiere and Kater, 2001). Ewing and Flugge

1161-0301/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010

Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9
2 T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
(2004) link the wide variety of ICLS to contrasting social and pae-
doclimatic contexts. ICLS are among the major and most diversified
types of farming systems in the world (Herrero et al., 2010). There is
also a gradient of ICLS ranging from low external input agriculture
(LEIA) to high external input agriculture (HEIA). LEIA corresponds
to a high level of integration between crops and livestock, which
allows a high rate of recycling of natural resources and requires
a low amount of input; but LEIA provides little economic profit
and low production volumes (Schiere et al., 2002). On the other
hand, HEIA corresponds to high production levels achieved with
high inputs. In HEIA, both components crops and livestock coex-
ist independently. The non-ecological diversification of production
units is achieved with low integration, overuse of natural resources,
and high rates of consumption of external inputs. LEIA and HEIA
correspond to the two extremes in a wide range of the produc-
tive and environmental efficiencies of ICLS (quantity of external
inputs/quantity of agricultural production).
The development of sustainable ICLS comprises a wide port-
folio of designs (Schiere and Kater, 2001; Darnhofer et al., 2010).
We study a variety of existing mixed systems to better understand
the links between integration and ecoefficiency. Such studies are
a first step towards understanding the process of transition from
conventional to ecological systems (Mc Rae et al., 1990). In this
paper, we use the conceptual framework of agroecology to ana-
lyse ICLS and reveal combinations of practices that reinforce the
integration of crops and livestock. First, we present the conceptual
framework, based on six agroecological principles, for analysing
and designing more sustainable ICLS. We apply the framework to
two contrasting case studies from Brazil and France. Finally, we
discuss the main drivers that either favour or work against the
development of ICLS. We conclude with some questions for the
development of a research agenda.
2. Conceptual framework
To analyse the variety of ICLS, we utilise the conceptual frame-
work of agroecology. Agroecology was defined, in a broad sense,
as ‘the ecology of sustainable food systems’ (Francis et al., 2003).
In this paper we consider a more restrictive definition: ‘the appli-
cation of ecological concepts and principles to the design and
management of sustainable agroecosystems’ (Gliessman, 1998). In
this definition, the key concept is the ecosystem: ‘. . . a functional
system of complementary relations, between living organisms and
their environment. Natural ecosystems reflect a long period of evo-
lution in the use of local resources and adaptation to local ecological
condition’ (Gliessman, 2005). We consider three key functions of
an ecosystem: production, metabolic function, and immune func-
tion. The organic analogy of the metabolic function is the process of
degradation and synthesis of materials and energy in ecosystems.
The metabolic function refers to the nutrient cycling and energy
flow in ecosystems that occur through a complex set of biotic and
abiotic interactions (e.g. hydrogeochemical processes and trophic
interactions). The immune function refers to the health mainte-
nance and the resistance to disturbance of the ecosystem (Holling,
1973). The immune function refers to the mechanisms of popula-
tion regulation (Pretty, 2013) and nurturing proper functioning of
natural pest control (Altieri, 2002a; Dumont et al., 2013). The pro-
duction function refers to the quantities of primary and secondary
production. In the ecological literature, ‘complex natural ecosys-
tems’ are considered to be simultaneously productive, efficient, and
resilient (Tilman et al., 2001).
The design of local, sustainable agricultural systems with simi-
lar properties should, therefore, mimic the structure and functions
of natural ecosystems (Pretty, 1994; Gliessman, 1998, 2005; Altieri,
2002a,b). Designing such systems entails shifting from systems that
Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
rely on external input supplies to increase the production function
to systems that rely on the management of metabolic and immune
functions to boost the production function with minimised exter-
nal inputs (Fig. 1). A significant share of the production can be
exported while maintaining the functional integrity of the agroe-
cosystem (Thompson and Nardone, 1999). Thus, self-sufficiency
becomes the fourth property determining agroecosystem
sustainability.
Based on this conceptual framework and the ecological prin-
ciples proposed by Altieri (2002a), Altieri and Nicholls (2005),
Dumont et al. (2013), and Pretty (2013), we consider six princi-
ples for the analysis and design of sustainable ICLS (Fig. 2). Two of
the principles refer to the structure of the farming system:
(i) Diversity, i.e. heterogeneity, in land-use patterns and biotic and
abiotic components.
(ii) Maximisation of ecological (e.g. predator–prey) or production-
based (e.g. complementarities between production cycles)
interactions.
Diversifying the components of the system and increas-
ing the interactions among them are crucial to maintain the
metabolic, immune, and production functions. As in ecosystems,
the functional diversity, rather than the absolute diversity, of the
components sustains the three key functions of the farming system
(Tichit et al., 2011).
The four other principles refer to the management of the farming
system:
(iii) Consider the production, immune, and metabolic functions
simultaneously to preserve the functional integrity of the
agroecosystem (Thompson and Nardone, 1999).
(iv) Close the energy and material cycles; i.e. minimise losses and
external inputs, and substitute chemical inputs with natural
inputs.
(v) Optimise the nutrient availability for crops and animals.
Nutrient availability is more often a question of temporal
settlement between supply and demand than a question
of absolute availability. The temporal dimension of man-
agement must therefore be at the center of the redesign
process.
(vi) Develop the collective management at the landscape level,
including seminatural elements. Ecological processes like pest
control or pollination depend on the landscape scale. ICLS man-
agement has to extend beyond farm boundaries, which leads
to collective landscape management among farmers and other
users, including both farmed and seminatural elements. The
questions behind landscape scale management are as much
related to biotechnical aspect as they are to the issue of collec-
tive management.
3. Case studies
3.1. Case studies in context
The combination of the six principles for the analysis and
design of sustainable ICLS supports the productivity, efficiency,
self-sufficiency, and resilience of the farming system. In the case
studies, we analyse the links between practices, principles, and
properties and illustrate multiple redesign paths and agroeco-
logical trajectories. We compare two contrasting ICLS with their
relative conventional systems. We focus the analysis on the
structure of the system components (livestock, crops, etc.) and the
links among the components through different flows and inter-
actions. The various technical–economic performance indicators
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9

T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

Agroecosystem
METABOLIC
FUNCTION
management
External METABOLIC
inputs FUNCTION

IMMUNE
FUNCTION
IMMUNE
FUNCTION
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
FUNCTION FUNCTION

a b
Fig. 1. Production, metabolic and immune functions of (a) a conventional agroecosystem, with the production function based on external inputs (fertiliser and pesticide), in
which immune and metabolic functions are not supported, or are even externalised from the agroecosystem; (b) a sustainable agroecosystem with beneficial effects among
the production, metabolic, and immune functions.

are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. For both systems, we calculate the
level of intensity, as the quantity of inputs per hectare of utilised
agricultural area (inputs in US $/ha), and the efficiency of input
use (inputs/agricultural production). We obtained the data from
published literature on conventional systems and monitoring
schemes of ICLS farms.
We present two contrasting case studies. The first case study
is representative of the specialised and intensive systems of a
temperate area (Brittany, France). The second case study is rep-
resentative of the extensive systems of a tropical area (Amazonia,
Brazil). In both areas, the farms are mixed in the sense of Schiere
et al. (2002): most of the feed for livestock is produced on the farms,

a
Feed cost: $660/ha Index of pesticide application: 0.66
Mechanization expenses: $429/ha Impacts Total N load: 161 kg N/ha
Total inputs: $1080/ha Total energy consumption: 65 Eqf/1000 l milk

Inputs Commercial
Crops Animals products
Pasture
Crops
Prim-Holstein
Grasslands High yielding
Milk production:
Fodder Manure 4403 l/ha
Ecosystems Income: $775/ha
services

b Feed cost: $376/ha

Mechanization cost: $344/ha
Total inputs: $720/ha
Index of pesticide application: 0.21
Total N load: 121 kg N/ha
Impacts
Total energy consumption: 43 Eqf /1000 l milk

Inputs Crops Pasture, corn, … Animals Commercial

Crops products
Prim-Holstein
Fodder Moderate yielding
Milk production:
Grasslands 4255 l/ha
Manure
& Legume
Income: $1087/ha
Ecosystems
services

Flow (materials and energy / year) Agroecosystem

Interactions (space /time) Ecosystem

Fig. 2. (a) French conventional ICLS: Farm size is 71 ha, with 22% arable and 78% main fodder area. Main fodder area comprises 72% grasslands and 28% maize silage. The herd
is made up of 48 Prim-Holstein cows with high milk potential (6300 l/cow/year). Reproductive management relies on artificial insemination only. First calving occurs at 28
months; 60% of calving occurs in autumn and winter and there is no calf suckling. The farmer aims at maximising the expression of the genetic potential of the cows; the feed
ration is made of 60% maize silage, 30% grazed herbage, and 10% grass hay with 800 kg of concentrate feed/cow/year, 60% of which are produced on the farm. Average milk
production is 4403 l/ha and average stocking rate is 1.36 livestock unit/ha. Eqf (equivalent liter fuel) is a unit of measurement corresponding to 35 MJ; (b) French sustainable
agriculture farm: Farm size is 64 ha, with 18% arable and 82% main fodder area. Main fodder area comprises 85% grasslands and 15% maize silage. The herd is made up of
49 Prim-Holstein with moderate milk potential (5700 l/cow/year). Reproductive management combines artificial insemination and natural mating. First calving occurs at 28
months, 70% of calving is grouped in spring, and there is calf suckling during weeks 3 to 4. The farmer limits his expectations of the expression of the genetic potential of the
cows; the feed ration is made of 60% grazed herbage, 30% grass hay, and 10% maize silage with 450 kg of concentrate feed/cow/year, 80% of which are produced on the farm.
Average milk production is 4255 l/ha and average stocking rate is 1.09 livestock unit/ha. Eqf (equivalent liter fuel) is a unit of measurement corresponding to 35 MJ.

Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9

4 T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

a
Free environmental resources Impacts
Loss biodiversity, GHG, …
Slash and burn, for new agricultural land
and fertility
Forest
Crops Animal
Inputs Commercial
Corn Rice Pasture products
Mineral salt, Zebu Nelore
Veterinary products, … Beans
beef
Herbicide
Total inputs: $54-240/ha Cattle meat,
B. brizantha Manure Income: $12-80/ha
Ecosystems
Services
Climate and low pest pressure

b
Free environmental resources Impacts Use of pesticide
wood
Crops Commercial
Inputs Pasture, corn, Animals products
Orchard Cassava, … Poultry Ovine
Mineral salt, …
veterinary products, Fish Manure
Pigs
pesticide, seed, feed, Corn Cassava Milk by- Fish, cattle, cheese,
Total inputs: $178/ha Manure product milk, chicken, eggs,
B. brizantha pigs, ovine, manure
Manure Zebu beef
Ecosystems B. humidicula orange
and milk
Services Income: $153/ha

Climate and low pest pressure

Flow (materials and energy/year) Agroecosystem

Interactions (space/time) Ecosystem

Fig. 3. (a) An Amazonian conventional model of slash-and-burn cattle ranching: Farm size is between 100 and 400 ha, with 17% arable and 83% grasslands. The farmer aims
to maximise the area of grasslands. The small farmers burn 3 to 6 ha of forest per year, to plant annual food crops (rice, bean, cassava, corn) for human consumption (Bonaudo
et al., 2007). With this practice, he benefits from two free environmental resources: land and the associated forest rent. After 30 or 40 days, the pasture is sowed with the annual
crops, to be well developed and cover all the soil after harvesting. The large holders can deforest over 100 ha and plant pasture directly. The B. brizantha produces between 8
and 20 tons DM/ha/year (Heuzé et al., 2013). The Nelore breed has medium or low production potential. The average stoking rate is 1 head/ha of grassland; the reproductive
management is natural mating, and calving occurs all year round. The first calving occurs at more than 28 months, and the calving interval is around 20 months. Cattle gain
between 400 and 550 kg carcass weight (CW), are slaughtered between 36 and 48 months (Poccard-chapuis et al., 2011; Cederberg et al., 2011). The meat production is
between 25 and 80 kg CW/ha/year (Poccard-chapuis et al., 2011; Veiga and Tourrand, 2001). Cederberg et al. (2011) have estimated the average production in Amazonia at
42 kg CW/ha/year in 2006. Barros et al. (2002) calculated that mineral supplementation corresponds to 77% of the production cost. We calculated an input cost from 54 to 240
US$/ha/year. Barros et al. (2002) calculated production comparable costs. Barros et al. (2002) calculate a profitability of $19 to 41/ha/year. With an economic model, Bowman
et al. (2012) estimated the annual profit of cattle ranching to be $12 to 80/ha. Siegmund-Schultze et al. (2010) estimated the annual return at $8.7/ha for small holders; (b) the
Amazonian ICLS model: Farm size is 332 ha, composed of 189 ha of primary forest and 15 ha of permanent preservation area. The agricultural area of 143 ha was established
in 20 years. Each year a small plot of forest was cleared for implanting annual crops followed by pasture. There are currently 89 ha of B. brizantha and 34 ha of B. humidicula,
2.5 ha of annual crops, 1.5 ha for the orchard and some farm buildings and housing, and 1 ha dedicated to fish farming. The animal subsystems are composed of poultry
production (380 head corresponding to 650-700 kg Live weight/year and 700 eggs/year), sheep (225 kg Live weight/year), pigs (620 kg Live weight/year), fish production (21
tons Live weight/year), and a herd of mixed cattle (130 head) producing calves, cows (13 tons Live weight/year), and milk to make cheese (1.12 tons/year). Integration of crop
and pasture requires herbicide (6 l/ha glyphoosate, 2 l/ha 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 1.5 l/ha nicosulforon, 0.2 l/ha tricolpir), 98 kg/ha/P2O5, 126 kg/ha/K2O, and mineral
fertilisation (N 140 kg/ha). The production is 5.5 t/ha of grain (versus less than 1 t/ha with deforestation). Before this technique, the work was only manual; we measured
more than 27 h labor/ha of annual crop production. Today the manual work is estimated at 8 h/ha with 6 additional hours of tractor per hectare. We estimate the production
cost at $178/ha/year and the income of all activities at $331/ha/year. The profit is $153/ha (before tax, debt repayment, and payment of family labor).

and a small share of the gross margin comes from the crop com-
ponent. The environmental impact in the first case study is the
nitrogen excess resulting from the concentration of zero-grazing
livestock systems. The environmental impact in the second case
study is the deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change
resulting from agricultural and cattle expansion (Laurance et al.,
2001; Nepstad et al., 2009; Bowman et al., 2012). The case studies
reflect two agriculture-farming integration strategies, one based on
self-sufficiency of the herd and the other based on diversifying the
system components and maximising the interactions among the
components. For the Brazilian case, we explore how system diver-
sification can increase the production per hectare and potentially
reduce deforestation and land competition between crop and live-
stock. For the French case, we analyse how the reconnection of the
livestock to the land-base can close the nutrient cycles. Although
the systems seem far from one another, international trade fluxes
make them interdependent. The Brittany concentrate feed uses
the soybean cropped in Brazil. Such global interdependency is
one of the drivers of deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado
biome.
3.2. Shifting from high external input dairy systems to
self-sufficient ICLS in Brittany
The general goal of the farms belonging to the Réseau Agricul-
ture Durable1 (RAD) is to sustain the level of added value derived
from dairy production without necessarily maximising outputs per
animal or per unit area (Alard et al., 2002). Farm management
thus gives priority to gross margin, rather than gross product,
and to the internal resources of the farm, rather than external
resources. The overall production strategy combines two priorities:
self-sufficiency and parsimony in external input use. Both priorities
apply to the chemical and feed inputs used in both the plant and
the animal production processes.
To use inputs sparingly in the production processes, priority is
given to maximising the use of grazed herbage, at the expense
of maize silage, and to reducing the use of concentrate feeds as
1
Sustainable agriculture network: This organization gathers farmers from western
France, mostly middle sized dairy farms, with a mean of 50 cows in 2010.

Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9
T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4. Agroecosystems: properties, principles, and practices for design. Ecological and management principles support the four emergent properties and depend on a diversity
of agro-ecological practices.
much as possible (Fig. 3a and b). Several management practices
enable the minimisation of inputs in the production processes.
First, the farmer does not seek the full expression of the genetic
potential of the animals. The herd is made up of moderate-yield
cows (5700 l/cow/year), with heifers first mated at 19 months of
age. The lower milk production per cow is compensated for by
reduced metabolic stress, fewer health problems and reproduc-
tive failures, and higher lifetime production. The animal production
cycle is organised according to herbage seasonal dynamics. Sev-
enty percent of calving occurs in the spring. The animals thus have
high nutritional requirements during the period of high grass avail-
ability. The main fodder area comprises a very large share of the
grasslands (>80%), and a limited area is dedicated to maize silage.
The cows receive low levels of concentrate feed (c. 450 kg of con-
centrate/cow/year), 80% of which is produced on the farms. Such
a configuration of the feeding system implies a moderate stocking
rate (1.09 livestock units/ha) and a moderate rate of milk produc-
tion (4255 l/ha).
The grassland plots comprise a high proportion of long-duration
(5 to 15 years) grass–legume mixtures. The plots are primarily
exploited by grazing. The grazing of the cows on the functionally
diverse mixtures brings several advantages for the optimisation of
the agroecosystem functioning. First, the efficient photosynthetic
capacities of the grasses optimise the conversion of carbon diox-
ide, water, and minerals into biomass. Second, as an alternative
to mineral fertilisation, the legume species fix nitrogen. Synergies
between the grasses and the legumes benefit biomass production.
Third, the grazing animals fulfil three functions. They harvest (and
distribute) their own feed; return nutrients to the soil; and help
to control weeds, thus minimising mechanical interventions (har-
vesting, ploughing) and fuel costs. The grazing on long duration,
multispecies grasslands is an essential key for the design of self-
sufficient and sparing systems. Maximising the share of grassland
Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
5
in the feeding strategy helps to cut both harvesting costs and dis-
tribution costs. Relying on long-term grasslands decreases the cost
of grassland renovation (seeds and establishment); it also limits
ploughing and the need for mineral fertiliser in the subsequent
crop. Finally, the use of long-term grasslands globally impairs the
development of weeds in the crop rotation and improves the poten-
tial for organic carbon sequestration in the soil.
The use of complex grass-legume mixtures brings several
advantages. It allows a drastic reduction in the use of min-
eral fertilisers and herbicides, and the increased complementarity
between the nitrogen and water uptake of the different species
reduces the risks of nitrate leaching. The mixtures improve the
feeding value and stability of the pastures over time and reduce
the need for concentrates. Because grass–legume mixtures are usu-
ally integrated in crop rotations, the legumes allow a reduction in
fertiliser inputs.
Grazing management is the key to the efficiency of the system.
The grassland is divided in two parts. The base area, located close
to the milking parlour, is dedicated only to grazing. The base area
is divided into six to eight plots, the sizes of which are calculated
to fit with the herd size. The complementary area is mowed in the
spring and used as security pasture in other seasons when grass
production on the base area is less predictable. The system guaran-
tees adequate fodder availability throughout the year, enables the
grazing season to be extended in the summer, autumn, and winter,
and minimises animal movements.
RAD farms involved in the ‘low-input fodder system’ agrien-
vironmental scheme demonstrate significant environmental
improvements (Le Rohellec et al., 2009); the total nitrogen load
(i.e. excreta, mineral and organic fertilisers, and manure) is 33%
lower than in conventional farms. The frequency index of pes-
ticide applications fell by two-thirds 3 years after the scheme
was adopted. The improvement is mainly due to the increase in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9
6 T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
grassland area and the thresholds imposed for maize and wheat
management. RAD farms report 33% lower energy consumption
per 1000 l of milk than conventional farms because of less fertilisa-
tion, less fuel use for mechanisation, and savings on concentrate
feeds. The moderate decrease in productivity (−200 l of milk/ha
in RAD vs. conventional farms) is largely compensated for by an
overall reduction in input costs (feed costs are nearly halved and
mechanisation expenses are lower), which leads to a higher net
income per ha.
The general approach of the RAD farms is to find an optimal rela-
tionship between the animal component and the on-farm resource
component. There is no attempt to optimise animal production
independently of the resources available on the farm. The optimised
component is thus the relationship between the animal demand
and the available on-farm feed resources. Several management
practices help to close nutrient cycles and optimise nutrient avail-
ability. The high share of grazed grassland in the feeding strategy
contributes to input minimisation and thus consolidates farm self-
sufficiency. It also improves farm efficiency, because it is combined
with a limited expectation for milk production (e.g. not seeking
the full expression of the genetic potential of the cows). The limit
on the farmers’ expectations is important, because it maintains the
level of production within the limits at which marginal costs remain
economically viable. Another important advantage of RAD farms is
their lower sensitivity to input-price fluctuations; the systems are
expected to be more resilient to market uncertainties, because they
have a lower dependency on external inputs. The lower depend-
ency on nonrenewable energy offers a potential advantage in light
of expected higher energy prices in the future. The grassland-based
feeding strategy does not increase the sensitivity of the systems
to climate change, because the lower stocking rate of the farms
amounts to a buffering strategy to compensate for interannual vari-
ability in grass growth. These self-sufficient ICLS systems open up
new options for existing farming systems, because they display
a win-win relationship between environmental performance and
economic performance.
3.3. Shifting from cattle ranching on one-species grasslands to
ICLS in Amazonia
There is a huge agricultural variety of designs and practices
in Amazonia between small, medium, and large holders. They all,
however, share the same general goal: occupy and valorise land
while developing low-risk and low-cost agricultural productions.
Farm management gives priority to cattle ranching (Bonaudo et al.,
2007). The grazing system is based on Brachiaria brizantha, which
represents 90% of the sown grass in Amazonia (Poccard-chapuis
et al., 2011). This species has a good ability to cover the soil, which
prevents the development of invasive weeds. It has good pro-
ductivity without fertiliser, even in relatively poor soil, and good
resistance to drought (Veiga and Tourrand, 2001; Heuzé et al.,
2013). To valorise pasture with low feed quality, farmers use the
Nelore zebu cattle breed, which is well adapted to tropical regions.
The Amazonian ranching system is adapted to marginal regions
with little infrastructure. The only inputs are basic equipment like
corral and fences made with local wood, mineral salt, and some
veterinary products. Pasture maintenance is achieved through good
management of grazing pressure. Weeds are removed either by
hand or by regular fires. Even with low production costs, the income
per hectare is very low (Arima and Uhl, 1996) The solution to the
low income levels is farmland expansion by forest slash and burn
(Arima and Uhl, 1996; Bommel et al., 2010).
Even if some individual practices (e.g. no tillage, overlapping
crop and grass cycles, permanent grassland, choice of locally-
adapted breeds and varieties, low use of pesticides and veterinary
products) have potentially low impact, the whole system does not
Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
support any ecological or management principle (Fig. 4a). Produc-
tion is the unique objective, based on a very poor agrobiodiversity.
The only interaction between crops and animal subsystems is ani-
mal defecation during grazing. The system is based on free natural
resources (forest rent). The forest is perceived only as a stock of
space and fertility to exploit. The externalities of deforestation, low
production levels and high impacts on the environment (degraded
land, loss of biodiversity, climate change), remain ignored or
denied.
The goal of the Amazonian ICLS is to intensify agricultural land
to generate higher income per ha and stop deforestation. The farm-
ers combine a wide variety of species in the crop and livestock
components, leading to many interactions within and between
the components. The property area of 332 ha comprises 60% pri-
mary forest and ‘permanent preservation area’ on river banks and
steep slopes, corresponding to ecological infrastructures. Grass-
lands (37% of the total farm) are composed of B. brizantha (73%)
and Brachiaria humidicula (27%), exploited through rotational graz-
ing. Less than 3% of the area is dedicated to field crops (e.g. corn
and cassava for the family and farmyard animals) and tree crops.
Given the impossibility of continued deforestation, the low yields
of annual crops and the degradation of the old pastures (plots 15 to
20 years old), ICLS farmers implement long-term rotations between
pastures and annual crops. As a first step, they make a mulch of the
pasture to improve the soil. In the second step, the farmers directly
sow annual crops with mineral fertilisation. After 30 or 40 days, the
farmers sow grass along with the annual crops. After harvesting the
annual crops, cattle graze at high density for one or two days and
harvest the crop residues and grass biomass. The grazing promotes
tillering and pasture regrowth. After a rest period of 20 to 30 days,
livestock graze on the plot for 6 to 8 months before an annual crop
is replanted via the same procedure. The strategy is to practice 2
to 3 years of direct seeding (with input) and 5 to 10 years of pas-
ture (with no input). The system produces approximately five times
more grain than the slash-and-burn system and may increase the
average stocking rate of 1 head of livestock per hectare of grassland
to more than 2 heads per hectare of grassland.
Production diversification and the design of complementarities
are the founding characteristics of the system. The animal sub-
system comprises poultry, sheep, pigs, fish (tambaqui, Colossoma
macropomum), and a herd of mixed cattle producing calves and milk
to make cheese. The family on the farm consumes a small share of
chickens, pigs, sheep, and cow’s milk and sells the other products.
There are multiple synergies within and between the subsystems.
The manure produced by the pigs, poultry, and cattle is used to fer-
tilise the fish pond, the pasture, and the orchard (Fig. 4b). Maize
and cassava are used to feed poultries and pigs. The pigs also bene-
fit from the by-products of cheese making. Cattle feeding depends
on grazing with only a mineral salt complement.
There is a relatively good efficiency in the use of inputs. Even
with higher input use, profits per ha of agricultural land are 2 to 20
times higher than in regional studies (Barros et al., 2002; Siegmund-
Schultze et al., 2010; Bowman et al., 2012). Another advantage is
diversifying and securing sources of family income. The poultry,
milk, and fruits provide regular income, while fish farming and
cattle ranching provide a more important income once per year.
The farmers also have a commercial business in town to sell their
products directly, aggregate value, and thus increase their self-
sufficiency.
The system responds partly to the ecological principles of bio-
logical diversification and the maximisation of interactions mainly
through the number of animal species (ruminant, monogastric,
and fish). A diversity of animals in interaction within the farm-
ing system partially addresses some management principles, such
as closing nutrient cycles, via the production of feed, recycling
of by-products, and organic fertilisation of cultures. The system
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9
T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
could still be greatly improved, especially by reducing the purchase
of feed for the fish. A number of agricultural practices also con-
tribute to the principle of closing cycles: direct seeding, mulching,
no tilling, and especially the introduction of long crop rotations
to avoid deforestation. The principle of optimising nutrient avail-
ability is practiced by overlapping crop cycles and by high-density
sowing. These practices contribute to the control of erosion and
weeds, the objective being to ensure a high soil cover year round.
The soil covering helps to reduce the use of herbicides, which
remains the main negative output. Finally, farmers manage the
seminatural elements of the landscape by keeping areas of per-
manent preservation, maintaining landscape heterogeneity, and
avoiding diffuse pollution of rivers. In this way, the farmers man-
aging such ICLS consider the three functions of the agroecosystem
simultaneously.
This ICLS, through the spatial and temporal integration of several
crops and livestock, achieves high yield and income, stops defor-
estation, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The ICLS produces
more and is more efficient, self-sufficient, and resilient than spe-
cialised livestock systems. The ICLS is an alternative to land-sparing
strategies (Green et al., 2005) and promotes long-term thinking on
the roles of forests and farming in the provision of essential ecosys-
tem services (e.g. soil fertility, low pest pressure, stable climate).
4. Discussion
4.1. Positive and negative drivers for the development of
sustainable ICLS
Although mixed crop–livestock systems could have important
contributions to a number of key ecological processes, they have
been highly marginalised worldwide. Three major groups of fac-
tors favour the specialisation of farming systems and could thus
explain the decline in ICLS over time (Ryschawy et al., 2013; Veysset
et al., 2005). The general economic and political environment
explains a part of farm specialisation. Since the 1960s, economies of
scale, favoured by specialisation and farm enlargement to respond
to mass-production objectives, have caused a strong decrease in
the number of ICLS worldwide (Wilkins, 2008; Vermersch, 2007;
Ryschawy et al., 2013). Economies of scope, achieved through prod-
uct diversification, were limited relative to the economies of scale
(Gaigné, 2012). Increases in work productivity and the decline of
the relative energy prices (e.g. feed and pesticides) have favoured
such economies of scale. Thus, worldwide economic tendencies
limited the development of ICLS. Nevertheless, increasing mar-
ket uncertainties could contribute to the redevelopment of ICLS
farming systems, which are more resilient to market instabilities
(Ryschawy et al., 2012).
In Europe, incentives of the Common Agricultural Policy
contributed to specialisation through output-based subsidies
(Chatellier and Guyomard, 2008). The externalisation of environ-
mental costs also contribute to the highly-specialised reductionist
agriculture. The dominance of a reductionist approach in research
and development led to policies focused on single-criterion per-
formances. Such approaches limited the potential to promote ICLS
and led mostly to high external-input agricultural systems, as
shown in both case studies. New political incentives favouring
a systemic approach could enable the new development of ICLS.
For example, in Brazil, researchers and political stakeholders are
considering the intensification of deforested areas as an option
enabling limits to deforestation without compromising the fur-
ther growth of agricultural production. Public policies, including
payments for ecosystem services and the creation of a market for
alternative agriculture, are also needed to fund advisory systems
that promote the development of ICLS.
Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
7
Farm structure is a second factor in the development of ICLS.
The general tendency for farm enlargement has limited the sur-
vival or the redevelopment of ICLS. Scale economies were enabled
only through specialisation to achieve work productivity gains on
enlarged farms (Hendrickson et al., 2008b). Furthermore, farm-
ers need specific skills to understand not only crop or livestock
management but also potential interactions between crops and
livestock. As observed in the RAD case study, farmers can learn and
test new ways of producing while limiting input use. Adaptive man-
agement, for example, is a learning-by-doing process that involves
an increased dedication to system observation. The complexity of
integration can limit the adoption of integrated crop–livestock sys-
tems, as agricultural education is currently focused on single-crop
or livestock production. As observed in the Brazilian case study,
smart management can combine diversified production with the
limited use of inputs. Nevertheless, these drivers of change condi-
tion farmers’ choices and could thus allow the development of ICLS
when a specific tradition or dynamic of ICLS is involved (Ryschawy
et al., 2013). As we observed through our case studies, some farm-
ers can develop ICLS even if major drivers promote conventional
specialised farming systems.
The third driver of ICLS development concerns the regional loca-
tion, determining market, and soil–climatic contexts. The survival
of ICLS is mostly observed in intermediate areas, where cash-
crop production is possible but does not enable high-production
yields. In the most favourable regions where higher yields are
achieved, farming systems are specialised for cash crop produc-
tion. Agricultural sectors have thus been reorganised: downstream
and upstream industries enable the low-price provisioning of min-
eral fertiliser and pesticides, as in the Brazilian Mato Grosso. Such
a concentration of production leads to specific farmer networks
developed according to geographical proximity. In particular, some
livestock production sectors are concentrated in specific regions
of the world (Gaigné, 2012). Geographical location thus leads to
lower prices for a specific type of production within a specific area.
For instance, in Brittany, the concentration of pork, poultry, and
dairy-milk production and industries enable low prices for live-
stock feed and low transportation prices for products, reinforcing
the agglomeration process and farm specialisation.
4.2. The transformation of both systems led to more integration
between the plant and animal components
Our case studies illustrate that there are several paths to greater
sustainability. Starting from LEIA and HEIA systems, increased
crop–livestock integration caused two opposed trajectories to con-
verge on an agroecological ICLS (Fig. 5). The French case illustrates
how the combination of moderate deintensification with increased
crop–livestock integration can drastically reduce external inputs
(fertilisers, pesticides, feed, etc.) via better recycling of crops and
livestock by-products (straw, manure, etc.). The strategy mitigates
environmental externalities and causes a limited production loss.
On-farm integration, as practiced by RAD farmers, enables excreta
to be recycled and limits the use of fuel and fossil fuel, while feed-
ing animals in a way that allows them to produce efficiently. Such
systems, which give strong attention to the conservation of the
resource base via trade-offs with production levels, square with
agroecological thinking. The Amazonian case illustrates how the
combination of moderate intensification and increased crop live-
stock integration can substitute for a high level of natural inputs
(forest rent) with a moderate level of chemical inputs (herbicide
and fertilisers), leading to an increase in production while mitigat-
ing environmental impacts.
Both trajectories took advantage of the agroecological princi-
ples favoured by crop–livestock integration and maintained the
systems on more sustainable space of the set of possible outcomes
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9
8 T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Trajectories of different ICLS in the set of feasible systems. HEIA and LEIA stand for High External Input Agriculture and Low External Input Agriculture, the two
extremes of a gradient of old forms of ICLS. Arrows 1 and 2 illustrate the dynamics on the continuum of systems between the two extremes: arrow 1 corresponds to
conventional intensification and arrow 2 corresponds to ecologisation. Red arrows illustrate the amazonian and the RAD (Réseau Agriculture Durable; a network of sustainably
managed French farms) case studies. Arrow 3 corresponds to orthogonal dynamics: agroecological transition that do not necessarily optimizes production but decreases the
input/production ratio.
represented by Fig. 5. The integrations that we described are par-
tial. We hypothesise that better crop–livestock integration and the
further application of agroecological principles can further improve
the performances of both systems, which are already on their way
to what agroecological ICLS could be.
5. Conclusion
Sustainability challenges require simultaneous progress in pro-
duction and environmental performance. ICLS offer good potential
for the design of systems that base their productivity on ecosystem
function and services. Hence, six questions arise:
– How is diversity related to ecosystem function services in land-
scapes dominated by ICLS?
– What are the synergies and trade-offs among ecosystem ser-
vices?
– Which indicators are best for monitoring temporal and spatial
synergies, synchronisms, or offsets among crop and animal com-
ponents?
– What are the action levers for optimising these synergies?
– Do the different ecosystem services show trade-offs or synergies?
These questions invite collaborative research comprising agron-
omy, ecology, economics, and the social sciences. Matching
different kinds of knowledge, scientific and empirical, is also
required, as agroecology attempts to adapt solutions, e.g. ICLS con-
figuration, to the local ecology of contexts. The codesign of models
by scientists and stakeholders (Lamanda et al., 2012; Voinov and
Bousquet, 2010) can facilitate knowledge integration, formalisa-
tion, transparency, and a shared view. Modelling could be the link
between local situations and generic thinking (Sterk et al., 2007).
The usefulness of multiple-objective optimisation was recently
emphasised for the design of mixed farming systems (Groot et al.,
2012; Groot and Rossing, 2011). Models can explore the synergies
and trade-offs among different ecosystem services (Teillard et al.,
2012; Sabatier et al., 2013).
In the debate surrounding sustainable production, we show the
importance of reconstructing links among soils, crops, and animals.
We conclude that crop–livestock systems could be agroecological
Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
paragons in the future. Further research should compare ICLS struc-
ture and function, degree of integration, and performance, using a
set of technical, economical, environmental, and social indicators.
Finally, crop–livestock systems can help the redesign of both indus-
trial and specialised systems by demonstrating empirical ways of
dealing with agroecological complexity and diversity. We believe
that the empirical study of ICLS diversity could serve as a source
of data, knowledge, and inspiration for the necessary regreening of
conventional systems.
References
Alard, V., Béranger, C., Journet, M., 2002. A la recherche d’une agriculture durable.
Etude de systèmes herbagers économes en Bretagne. INRA Editions, Paris.
Altieri, M.A., 2002a. Agroecological principles and strategies for sustainable agri-
culture. In: Uphoff, N.T. (Ed.), Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food
Production with Participatory Development. Earthscan publication Ltd., London,
pp. 40–46.
Altieri, M.A., 2002b. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for
poor farmers in marginal environments, Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environ-
ment 1971, 1–24.
Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., 2005. Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustain-
able Agriculture. In: United Nations Environment Programme, first ed. United
Nations, Mexico D.F., pp. 291.
Arima, E., Uhl, C., 1996. Pecuária na Amazônia Oriental: desempenho atual e per-
spectivas. Imazon, Belém, pp. 96.
Barros, G.S.C., Zen, S., Bacchi, M.R.P., Ichibara, S.M., Osaki, M., Ponchio, L.A., 2002.
Economia da pecuária de corte na região norte do Brasil. Centro de Estudos
Avançados em Economica Aplicada (CEPEA)-ESALQ/USP, Piracicaba, pp. 76.
Bommel, P., Bonaudo, T., Barbosa, T., Veiga, J.B. da, Pak, M.V., Tourrand, J.F., 2010.
La relation complexe entre l’élevage et la forêt en Amazonie bresilienne:
une approche par la modelisation multi-agents. Cahiers Agricultures 19 (2),
104–111.
Bonaudo, T., Tourrand, J.F., Lossouarn, J., Poccard-chapuis, R., les 5 et 6 Decembre
2007. Elevage bovin et espace forestier sur les fronts pionniers amazoniens:
D’une opposition historique vers une nécessaire complémentarité. In: 14emes
Recontres autour des recherches sur les ruminants, Paris.
Bowman, M.S., Soares-Filho, B.S., Merry, F.D., Nepstad, D.C., Rodrigues, H., Almeida,
O.T., 2012. Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial
analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29, 558–568.
Cederberg, C., Persson, U.M., Neovius, K., Molander, S., Clift, R., 2011. Including carbon
emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environ-
mental Science and Technology 45, 1773–1779.
Chatellier, V., Guyomard, H., 2008. Le bilan de santé de la PAC, le découplage et
l’élevage en zones difficiles. INRA Sciences Sociales Recherches en Economie et
Sociologie Rurales 6, 1–8.
Darnhofer, I., Bellon, S., Dedieu, B., Milestad, R., 2010. Adaptativeness to enhance the
sustainability of farming systems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Develop-
ment 30, 545–555.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EURAGR-25216; No. of Pages 9
T. Bonaudo et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Dumont, B., Fortun-Lamothe, L., Jouven, M., Thomas, M., Tichit, M., 2013. Prospects
from agroecology and industrial ecology for animalproduction in the 21st cen-
tury. Animal 7 (6), 1028–1043.
Ewing, M.A., Flugge, F., 26 Sept. to 1 Oct 2004. The benefits and challenges
of crop–livestock integration in Australian agriculture. In: Fisher, T., et al.
(Eds.), New Directions for a Diverse Planet. Proc. fourth Int. Crop Sci.
Congr. The Regional In-stitute, Gosford, NSW, Available at www.cropscience.
org.au/icsc2004/symposia/6/3/2005 ewingma.htm.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R.,
Salomonsson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons,
S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C., Poincelot, R., 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of
food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3), 99–118.
Gaigné, C., 2012. Organisation des filières animales et environnement. Vingt ans
après la directive nitrates. INRA Productions Animales 25, 375–388.
Gliessman, S.R., 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture.
Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI., pp. 384.
Gliessman, S.R., 2005. Agroecology and agroecosystems. In: Pretty, J. (Ed.), The earth-
scan reader in sustainable agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK.
Gliessman, S.R., 2006. Animals in agroecosystems. In: Agroecology: The Ecology
of Sustainable Food systems, second ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp.
269–285.
Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Balmford, A., 2005. Farming and the
fate of wild nature. Science 307, 550–555.
Groot, J.C.J., Oomen, G.J.M., Rossing, W.A.H., 2012. Multi-objective optimization and
design of farming systems. Agricultural Systems 110, 63–77.
Groot, J.C.J., Rossing, W.A.H., 2011. Model-aided learning for adaptive management
of natural resources—an evolutionary design perspective. Methods in Ecology
and Evolution 2, 643–650.
Hendrickson, J.R., Hanson, J.D., Tanaka, D.L., Sassenrath, G.F., 2008a. Principles
of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definition.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23 (4), 265–271.
Hendrickson, J.R., Liebig, M.A., Sassenrath, G.F., 2008b. Environment and integrated
agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23 (4), 304–313.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Notenbaert, A.M., Wood, S., Msangi, S., Freeman, H.A.,
Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Peters, M., van de Steeg, J., Lynam, J., Parthasarathy Rao, P.,
Macmillan, S., Gerard, B., McDermott, J., Seré, C., Rosegrant, M., 2010. Smart
investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop–livestock
systems. Science 327, 822–825.
Heuzé, V., Sauvant, D., Tran, G., 2013. Bread grass (Brachiaria brizan-
tha). In: Feedipedia.org.: A Programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO,
http://www.feedipedia.org/node/490, Last updated on March 19, 2013.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23.
Lamanda, N., Roux, S., Delmottec, S., Merot, A., Rapidela, B., Adamd, M., Werye, J.,
2012. A protocol for the conceptualisation of an agro-ecosystem to guide data
acquisition and analysis and expert knowledge integration. European Journal of
Agronomy 38, 104–116.
Laurance, F.W., Cochrane, M.A., Bergen, S., Fearnside, P.M., Delamônica, P., Barber,
C., D’Angelo, S., Fernandes, T., 2001. The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science
291, 438–439.
Le Rohellec, C., Falaise, D., Mouchet, C., Boutin, M., Thiebot, J., 2009. Ana-
lyse de l’efficacité environnementale et énergétique de la mesure agri-
environnementale Système fourrager économe en intrants (SFEI) à partir de
l’analyse de pratiques de quarante-quatre signataires. Rencontres Recherches
Ruminants 16, 109–112.
Mc Rae, R.J., Hill, S.B., Mehuys, F.R., Henning, J., 1990. Farm scale agronomic and
economic conversion from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Advances in
Agronomy 43, 155–198.
Please cite this article in press as: Bonaudo, T., et al., Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron.
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.010
9
Naylor, R., Steinfeld, H., Falcon, W., Galloway, J., Smil, V., Bradford, E., Alder, J.,
Mooney, H., 2005. Losing the links between livestock and land. Science 310,
1621–1622.
Nepstad, D., Soares-Filho, B., Merry, F., Lima, A., Moutinho, P., Carter, J., Bowman, M.,
Cattaneo, A., Rodrigues, H., Schwartzman, S., 2009. The end of deforestation in
the Brazilian Amazon. Science 326, 1350.
Poccard-chapuis, R., Bonaudo, T., Tourrand, J.F., Lossouarn, J., 2011. Élevage, filières
et territoires en régions chaudes. INRA Productions Animales 24 (1), 129–144.
Pretty, J.N., 2013. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 363, 447–465.
Pretty, J.N., 1994. Regenerating Agriculture. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
Russelle, M.P., Entz, M.H., Franzluebbers, A.J., 2007. Reconsidering integrated
crop–livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99, 325–334.
Ryschawy, J., Choisis, N., Choisis, J.P., Gibon, A., 2013. Paths to last in mixed
crop–livestock farming: lessons from an assessment of farm trajectories of
change. Animal 7 (4), 673–681.
Ryschawy, J., Choisis, N., Choisis, J.P., Joannon, A., Gibon, A., 2012. Mixed
crop–livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farm-
ing? Animal 6, 1722–1730.
Sabatier, R., Doyen, L., Tichit, M., 2013. Heterogeneity and the tradeoff between
ecological and productive functions of agrolandscapes: a model of cattle/bird
interactions in a grassland landscape. Agricultural Systems (Available online 25
March 2013).
Schiere, J.B., Ibrahim, M.N.M., van Keulen, H., 2002. The role of livestock for sustaina-
bility in mixed farming: criteria and scenario studies under varying resource
allocation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90, 139–153.
Schiere, J.B., Kater, L., 2001. Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming: A Review of Traditional
Technologies Based on Literature and Field Experiences. In: FAO Animal Produc-
tion and Health, Papers 152. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Siegmund-Schultze, M., Rischkowsky, B., da Veiga, J.B., KingValuing, J.M., 2010. Cat-
tle on mixed smallholdings in the eastern Amazon. Ecological Economics 69,
857–867.
Sterk, B., van Ittersum, M.K., Leeuwis, C., Wijnands, F.G., 2007. Prototyping and
farm system modeling—partners on the road towards more sustainable farm
systems? European Journal of Agronomy 26, 401–409.
Teillard, F., Allaire, G., Cahuzac, E., Léger, F., Maigné, E., Tichit, M., 2012. A novel
method for mapping agricultural intensity reveals its spatial aggregation: impli-
cations for conservation policies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 149,
135–143.
Thompson, P.B., Nardone, A., 1999. Sustainable livestock production: methodologi-
cal and ethical challenges. Livestock Production Science 61, 111–119.
Tichit, M., Puillet, L., Sabatier, R., Teillard, F., 2011. Multicriteria performance and sus-
tainability in livestock farming systems: functional diversity matters. Livestock
Science 139, 161–171.
Tilman, D., Reich, P.B., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Mielke, T., Lehman, C., 2001. Diversity
and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294, 843–845.
Veiga, J.B. da, Tourrand, J.F., 2001. Pastagens cultivadas na Amazonia Brasileira:
situacao atual e perspectivas. Documentos Embrapa Amazonia Oriental 83, 36.
Vermersch, D., 2007. L’éthique en friche, QUAE INRA ed. QUAE, Paris, pp. 117, Col-
lection update sciences and technologies.
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 83, 179–202.
Voinov, A., Bousquet, F., 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Mod-
elling and Software 25, 1268–1281.
Wilkins, R.J., 2008. Eco-efficient approaches to land management: a case for
increased integration of crop and animal production systems. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 363, 517–525.