Select one or more regions of interest
by clicking on the filter elements
Drag the filter elements horizontally,
and select one or multiple
thematic areas of interest.
Co-Constructing a Step-by-Step Design Approach in a Multi-Skill Group on Adapting to Climate Change in the Dairy Sector in the North of the Nouvelle-Aquitaine Region!
France
Atlantic region subject to summer drought
Benefits of the practice
- Step by step design
- Reduced age at calving
- Multi-stakeholder co-innovation
Production system(s)
Thematic Area(s)
The French Living Lab (LL) is working on adapting to climate change in the dairy sector in the north of the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region. At the end of 2024, the participants wanted to focus the LL’s activities on a case study. We therefore initiated a step-by-step design approach. The principle is to carry out a diagnosis of one of the farms taking part in the LL, and then to propose measures for improvement. The farmer then chooses to implement one or more changes in his practices. A few months later, the group meets again for a progress review and a collective analysis of the results. The group then suggests new measures for improvement.
One of the farmers in the group agreed to take part. The workshop took place over one day. The morning session began with a presentation by the farmer of his farm, followed by work in three sub-groups, who were asked to complete an ‘astonishment report’ on the situation presented, and then to list possible adaptations. Following these proposals, the farmer identified several relevant levers to be explored, but for which he was encountering technical obstacles: reducing turnover, reducing the age at first calving, and integrating a greater diversity of forages. We therefore chose to focus the afternoon farm visit on these themes.
At the end of the day, we debriefed all the observations. The group’s comments led the farmer to refine his strategy, but the need for technical support and reassurance to be able to implement new practices became apparent. LL’s technical partners undertook to work with him on these points between now and the next meeting.
At the end of the meeting, the participants expressed great satisfaction with the way the workshop had gone and were keen to meet up again for ‘the next episode’ to continue to support this process over the long term.
Le Living Lab (LL) français travaille sur l’adaptation au changement climatique de la filière laitière du Nord de la Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Fin 2024, les participants ont souhaité orienter les travaux du LL sur une étude de cas. Nous avons donc initié une démarche de conception pas-à-pas. Le principe est de réaliser un diagnostic de l’un des élevages participant au LL, puis de proposer des leviers d’amélioration. L’éleveur choisit alors de mettre en place un ou plusieurs changements de pratique. Quelques mois plus tard, le groupe se réunit à nouveau pour un point d’étape et une analyse collective des résultats. Le groupe propose alors de nouveaux leviers d’amélioration.
L’un des éleveurs du groupe a accepté de se prêter au jeu. L’atelier s’est déroulé sur une journée. La matinée en salle a démarré par une présentation par l’éleveur de son exploitation, suivi d’un travail en trois sous-groupes, qui devaient compléter un “rapport d’étonnement” sur la situation présentée, puis lister des pistes d’adaptation. Suite à ces propositions, l’éleveur a identifié plusieurs leviers pertinents à creuser mais pour lesquels il rencontre des freins techniques : réduction du renouvellement, diminution de l’âge au 1er vêlage, et l’intégration d’une plus grande diversité de fourrages. Nous avons donc choisi d’axer la visite d’exploitation organisée l’après-midi sur ces thèmes.
A la fin de la journée, nous avons débriefé de l’ensemble des observations. Les remarques du groupe ont amené l’éleveur à affiner sa stratégie, mais est apparu le besoin d’être accompagné et rassuré techniquement pour pouvoir mettre en place de nouvelles pratiques. Les partenaires techniques du LL se sont engagés à travailler ces points avec lui d’ici la prochaine réunion.
Lors du bilan, les participants ont exprimé une grande satisfaction sur le déroulement de l’atelier, et sont pressés de se revoir pour “le prochain épisode” pour continuer à accompagner cette réflexion dans la durée.
In the French Climate Farm Demo Living Lab, we are working on climate change adaptation of dairy sector in the North of Nouvelle-Aquitaine.Our LL represents all types of stakeholders in the dairy sector: farmers, advisors, researchers, dairy represents.
After two meeting dedicated to initiate the group’s dynamic (with an agenda balanced between a technical focus, discussion about climate adaptation and the works to start in the living lab), the group decided to focus on a concrete case study.
So, we initiated a step-by-step design workshop. The principle is to choose a voluntary member in a group, and to carry out a joint diagnosis in relation to an issue, and then to propose some levers to improve. The farmer can then implement one or more changes in his practices. A few months later, another workshop is dedicated to analyse the changes in practice. Does the lever meet the issue or not? Does it create new problem(s)? The group can then suggest news changes in practice.
The step-by-step design takes a long time (5 or 6 years), which makes it compatible with the Climate Farm Demo project.
A farmer of the LL has agreed to implement the process in his farm. This farm is representative of the farms in the area for several reasons. First, one of the two partners will be retiring in the next year or two. Secondly, the forage system is highly vulnerable to climatic hazards, with fragmented and very clayey land parcels and no irrigation. But the herd is managed very intensively to meet high financial expectations. Finally, the partners have a very heavy workload, and every task must be optimised.
The workshop took place over one day, in the morning in the meeting room and in the afternoon on the farm. A great deal of preparatory work was carried out, including a meeting with the farmer to define his expectations and the problem, and then in the office to prepare the elements of the diagnosis (crop rotation, land parcels, forage system, rations, etc.). We chose to focus the day on adapting the forage system to climatic hazards.
The morning session began with the farmer presenting his farm, with the support of the facilitators. Before this, we took care to set out the framework for the group’s operation, as diagnosis by peers can be destabilising for the host farmer, so it’s essential that it takes place in an atmosphere of listening and caring. We made sure that the presentation was as factual as possible on the part of the farmer, so as not to lead the discussion.
We then divided the participants into three sub-groups. Each group had to complete an ‘astonishment report’ on the situation presented and then list ideas for adaptations.
After the sub-groups feed backs, the farmer was able to provide additional information to explain some of the ‘astonishments’ and to rule out some ideas that were too far removed from the current reality of his farm.
He then identified several measures that he felt should be explored, but for which he was encountering technical obstacles: reducing the age at calving of heifers and integrating a greater diversity of forages. We therefore chose to focus the farm visit on these two themes to discuss these obstacles.
In the afternoon, part of the group went on a tour of the plots to see the constraints linked to the plot structure, which limit forage diversification. The other group stayed at the dairy barn to look at the constraints linked to fodder storage, and the herd in relation to calving age.
At the end of the day, we debriefed all the observations.
The age at calving seems inconsistent as it is over 30 months in an intensive system where the heifers do not go out to pasture at all. In addition, the turnover rate is high. The farmer explained this for two reasons. Firstly, he has a large surface of permanent grassland, which means he has hay that cannot be used in the ration of lactating cows. So the rearing phase, even if it’s a long one, isn’t very costly because it allows him to make use of fodder that would otherwise be surplus. In addition, late calving allows the farmer to obtain sufficient size for the animals. He has noticed that ‘small cows’ find it difficult to get through the milking robot, and that this penalises attendance, especially in the case of a very saturated milking robot as his. As for the renewal rate, it helps to secure milk production in the event of health problems.The farm suffered from gingival haemorrhagic disease a few years ago and was only able to maintain its herd thanks to the large number of heifers present.The farmer wants to maintain this security.
In the general opinion, forage diversification is complicated to implement now because the farmer does not have a silage storage platform with alley silos. The farmer needs to improve his financial capacity before implementing this lever.
The group’s comments led the farmer to question the relevance of his renewal strategy (age at calving and number of heifers). He therefore is now thinking of trying to reduce the age at calving but needs technical support to ensure that the animals’ size at calving does not deteriorate.
The farmer also questioned the high level of security at all levels of his system. He was afraid that a drop in the level of security would lead to a drop in production, and therefore financial difficulties. It was suggested that, between now and the next meeting, one or more simulations would be carried out to assess the impact of a more far-reaching system change (e.g. ‘can I reduce the production of my cows, what is the threshold below which the fall in income will be greater than the fall in costs?)
At the end of the workshop, the participants expressed great satisfaction with the way the workshop had gone and were keen to participate in ‘the next episode’ so that they could continue to support this process over the long term.