Dairy calf and replacement heifer mortality in France was assessed by calculating mortality rates at 0 to 2d (calves), 3d to 1 mo (calves and heifers), 1 to 6 mo of age, and 6 mo of age to first calving (heifers) using the national identification database. Between birth and 2-d-old, 261,000 and 251,000 of the 3.56 and 3.43 million calves born in 2005 and 2006, respectively, died. The overall 0- to 2-d-old calf mortality rate was around 6.7%, which is similar to the low range of values reported in the literature. Among the 2.38 and 2.39 million calf-month, 139,000 and 133,000 died between 3d and 1 mo of age in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Among the 3d to 1 m of age group, dairy calf mortality rate was around 5.7%. Such a rate has not been reported previously because of the great differences in age classes between studies. For the 0- to 2-d-old and 3-d- to 1-mo-old calves, annual mortality was zero on 26 and 44% of the farms, respectively. Calf mortality during the first month of life increased in winter (to 12-17%) and decreased in summer (to 8-12%), with a small peak in June or July. Mortality during the first month of life is higher in males than in females, with a mortality odds ratio of 1.20 (and 95% confidence interval of 1.19-1.21). Such a difference is also found within the noncrossed or beef-crossed calf subpopulations. Disregarding the sex, the mortality of beef-crossed calves is slightly less than that of noncrossed dairy calves, with a mortality odds ratio of 0.98 (and 95% confidence interval of 0.98-0.99) before 1 mo of age. In heifers, around 51,000, 35,000, and 40,900 out of the 1.2 million 3-d- to 1-mo-old, 1.1 million 1- to 6-mo-old, and 950,000 6-mo-old to first calving heifers died, respectively. The respective mortality rates were 4.5, 3.1, and 4.1%; these rates are similar to the low range of values previously published. The proportions of farms with no heifer mortality during a year were higher than for calves, between 60 and 70%. The mortality probability for heifers was very high for the first day of life (95% survival between 2-30 d of age), then decreased during the first year of life and became constant up to around 3 yr of age (88% survival at 36 mo of age). The risk of mortality is higher in Montbéliarde and Normande heifers compared with Holstein. In conclusion, and beyond the average mortality rates, farmers and farm advisors should keep in mind the broad range of mortality values, which shows that very low mortality (1-2%) can be achieved, even in animals with a known high risk of mortality, such as beef-crossed dairy calves.

Dairy cow mortality causes financial loss and is increasing over time; it indicates suboptimal herd health or welfare. To describe the herd-level and contextual factors affecting cow mortality, the French National Bovine Dataset Identification was used to create dairy, beef, or fattening units within farms, for 2005 and 2006. Mortality rate (MO-RA, outcome variable) and most variables were calculated at the unit level, whereas contextual variables were defined at the municipality level [cattle density, inhabitant density, agricultural land always with grass on overall agricultural land (ALWG/OAL)]. The localization (11 dairy production areas, representative of the farming systems) was also included. The statistical analysis was performed with a probit regression model (MO-RA=0 or>0) and with a linear model corrected by the Heckman method for bias sample selection. For 2005 and 2006, 3.8 and 3.7 million dairy cow-years, 101,445 and 96,954 dairy units, and 141,677 and 143,424 deaths were recorded, respectively. Over one-third of the units had no dairy cow mortality in 2005 or 2006. Overall MO-RA was 3.7 and 3.8% for 2005 and 2006, respectively. Restricted MO-RA (farms without death excluded) was 5.8% for 2005 and 2006. The correlation of MO-RA among units between the 2 yr was 0.25. The same effects and close estimate values were reported for 2005 and 2006 with both models. Mortality rate was positively associated with the number of cow-years, having a beef unit in addition to a dairy unit, the proportion of purchased cows, the proportion of first-calving cows, the average calving interval, being a Milk Control Program member, inhabitant density, not being in dairy production area Grand-Ouest, and ALWG/OAL. Negative associations were reported for breed other than Holstein, being a Good Breeding Practices member, having a calving peak in autumn, culling rate, and municipal cattle density. This study reports an average mortality rate for the French dairy cows. It suggests that the farmer's management style highly influences mortality. In addition, farming system has an effect on the mortality. A possible association between municipal intensification of production and decreased mortality was also reported.

Livestock farming is an essential activity in many rural areas, where it contributes to the maintenance of soil fertility and farmland biodiversity, as well as to a set of social public goods including food security, rural vitality and culture. However, livestock sustainability assessments tend to focus primarily on environmental and economic dimensions; therefore, these valuations might be limited because they do not consider the complete set of associated goods and services (GS). Hence, a need exists to recognise the multiple contributions provided by livestock to human well-being and society. The objective of this study was to analyse the provision of multiple GS derived from livestock across regions in France and empirically demonstrate sets of GS that repeatedly appeared together. We designated these multiple GS provided by livestock as contributions to productive, environmental, rural vitality and cultural benefits that human populations derive directly or indirectly from livestock agroecosystems. First, we combined expert knowledge with results of a literature review to define a bundle of GS provided by livestock. We then described indicators that quantified each good or service and screened national databases to determine the availability of supporting data. Finally, we assessed the GS and their relationships (synergies or trade-offs) on a nation-wide gradient in France at the department level (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 3). Four main categories of GS were considered: provisioning (e.g. food quantity and quality), environmental quality (e.g. biodiversity, landscape heterogeneity, water quality), rural vitality (e.g. employment, rural dynamism) and culture (e.g. gastronomy and landscape heritage). Four major types of GS bundles were identified, which suggested strong contrasts among French rural areas in terms of the nature of the GS that occurred together and their levels of provision. GS bundles in France had a non-random spatial distribution. This study represents an initial step towards developing a methodology to consider GS bundles provided by livestock. Nonetheless, further research is needed to understand socio-economic, environmental, political and geographic determinants of the composition of GS bundles.

Product differentiation has emerged as a central dynamic in contemporary agrofood systems. Departure from the mode of standardization emblematic of agrofood modernization raises questions about future technical trajectories and the ways in which learning will be sustained. This article examines two innovation trajectories: (1) the rapid coupling of biotechnologies and information technologies to yield products differentiated by constituent components—a model based on a cognitive logic of decomposition/ recomposition—and (2) the proliferation of product networks that mobilize distinctive, localized resources to create complete identities—a model based on a cognitive logic of identity. The article analyzes the information structures—institutional mechanisms that support information exchange and learning—in each of these opposed development paradigms. We find that knowledge creation under each of the logics occurs through mechanisms not recognized within the respective paradigms. On this basis, we derive institutional hybridity as a fundamental resource in systems of innovation.

No abstract