Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:16:51.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qualification and assessment of work organisation in livestock farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

S. Madelrieux  and
B. Dedieu
S. Madelrieux*
Affiliation:
Cemagref, Development of Mountain Territories research unit, BP 76, 38402 St Martin d’Hères, France
B. Dedieu
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR Metafort, Theix 63122 St-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
E-mail: sophie.madelrieux@cemagref.fr
Get access

Abstract

Farmers have to cope with both society and market pressures in their working practices, as well as with the enlargement of farms, off-farm opportunities and profound changes in the workforce. Expectations in terms of working duration and rhythms are increasingly expressed by farmers, meaning that working conditions and the efficiency of work organisation are critical issues nowadays. The bibliography shows that work organisation is mainly discussed by social scientists, but that livestock scientists make a significant contribution to the debate. Indeed, technical changes modify working calendars, priorities between tasks and interchangeability among workers; technical adaptations are levers to solving problems of work with equipment, buildings and the workforce. We present here French approaches to work organisation that take into account livestock management and its implications in work organisation. The ‘Work Assessment’ method represents the work organisation and evaluates work durations and time flexibility for farmers. The ATELAGE model describes and qualifies work organisation with its various regulations and time scales, integrating the other activities – economic or private – that farmers can carry on. Three principles underpin them: not all workers are interchangeable; tasks have different temporal characteristics (rhythms, postponement, etc.); and the year is a succession of work periods that differ in their daily form of organisation. We illustrate with concrete examples how these approaches contribute to helping and guiding farmers in their thoughts about change.

Keywords

assessmentlabourlivestock farmingqualificationswork organisation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , March 2008 , pp. 435 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Attonaty, JM, Laporte, C, Papy, F, Soler, LG 1987. La simulation de l’organisation du travail comme outil de gestion de l’exploitation agricole. Application à la grande culture. Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement 10, 1–48.Google Scholar
Barthez, A 1996. Les relations de l’agriculteur avec son travail. Une longue histoire, de forts changements actuels. Travaux et Innovations 25, 15–17.Google Scholar
Brandth, B 2002. Gender identity in European family farming: a literature review. Sociologia Ruralis 42, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cellier, JM, Marquié, JC 1980. Systèmes d’activité et régulations dans l’exploitation agricole. Le Travail Humain 43, 321–336.Google Scholar
Cournut, S, Dedieu, B 2005. Simplification des conduites d’élevage en bovins laitiers. Cahiers Agricultures 14, 541–547.Google Scholar
Dedieu B, and Servière G 1999. Work organization and livestock management: lessons from ‘bilan travail’ studies. Proceedings of the fifth EAAP symposium on livestock farming systems, Posieux, Switzerland, pp. 374–377.Google Scholar
Dedieu, B, Servière, G 2001. Organisation du travail et fonctionnement des systèmes d’élevage. Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 8, 245–250.Google Scholar
Dedieu B, Coulomb S, Servière G, and Tchakerian E. 1993 [modified and reprinted in 2000]. Bilan travail pour l’étude du fonctionnement des exploitations d’élevage. Collection Lignes, Institut de l’Elevage/INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Dent, JB, Mc Gregor, MJ, et Edwards-Jones, G 1994. Integrating livestock and socio-economic systems into complex models. In The study of livestock farming systems in a research and development framework (ed. A Gibon and JC Flament), EAAP publication no. 63, pp. 25–36. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dent, JB, Edwards-Jones, G, McGregor, MJ 1995. Simulation of ecological, social and economic factors in agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 49, 337–351.Google Scholar
Dumont, R 1946. Le problème agricole français. Esquisse d’un plan d’orientation et d’équipement. Les Editions nouvelles, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Errington, A, Gasson, R 1996. The increasing flexibility of the farm and horticultural workforce in England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fafchamps, M, Quisumbing, AR 1998. Human capital, productivity, and labour allocation in rural Pakistan. FCND discussion paper no 48. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Ford, KM, Bradshaw, JM, Agnew, NM 1993. Knowledge acquisition as a constructive modeling activity. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 8, 9–32.Google Scholar
Gibon, A, Sibbald, AR, Flamant, JC, Lhoste, P, Revilla, R, Rubino, R, Sorensen, JT 1999. Livestock farming systems research in Europe and its potential contribution for managing towards sustainability in livestock farming. Livestock Production Science 61, 121–137.Google Scholar
Greenan N 1994. La représentation et la mesure de l’organisation de la production dans l’approche économique. In L’usage des méthodes statistiques dans l’étude du travail (ed. Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation Professionnelle), Cahiers Travail et Emploi, pp. 217–226. La Documentation Française, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Hermansen, J, Noe, E, Halberg, N 2006. Exploring the multifunctional role of farming systems. In Changing European farming systems for a better future (ed. H Langeveld and N Roling), pp. 242–246. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hervé, D, Genin, D, Migueis, J 2002. A modelling approach for analysis of agro-pastoral activity at the one-farm level. Agricultural Systems 71, 187–206.Google Scholar
Hostiou, N, Dedieu, B, Pailleux, JY 2007. Le salariat en élevage porcin et les régulations du travail. Journée de la Recherche Porcine 39, 193–199.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO) 1996. Wage workers in agriculture: conditions of employment and work. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jafry, T, O’Neill, DH 2000. The application of ergonomics in rural development: a review. Applied Ergonomics 31, 263–268.Google Scholar
Joannon, A, Papy, F, Martin, P, Souchère, V 2005. Planning work constraints within farms to reduce runoff at catchment level. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, S 2004. The redefinition of family farming: agricultural restructuring and farm adjustment in Waihemo, New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 419–432.Google Scholar
Jourdan, M 1997. Développement technique dans l’exploitation agricole et compétences de l’agriculteur. Performances Humaines et Techniques 90, 26–31.Google Scholar
Keating, BA, McCown, RL 2001. Advances in farming systems analysis and intervention. Agricultural Systems 70, 555–579.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Y 1995. Labor productivity measurement in Japenese agriculture, 1956–1990. Agricultural Economics 12, 55–68.Google Scholar
Leplat, J 1994. Collective activity in work: some ways of research. Le Travail Humain 57, 209–226.Google Scholar
Lesne, M, De Montlibert, C 1972. Formation et analyse sociologique du travail. Essai sur l’analyse qualitative des situations de travail, vol. 2. La Documentation Française, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Madelrieux S 2004. Ronde des saisons, vie des troupeaux et labeur des hommes. Modélisation de l’organisation du travail en exploitation d’élevage herbivore au cours d’une année. PhD thesis, Institut National Agronomique de Paris, France.Google Scholar
Mak, S 2001. Continued innovation in a Cambodian rice-based farming system: farmer testing and recombination of new elements. Agricultural Systems 69, 137–149.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H 1982. Structure et dynamique des organisations. Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Nicourt, C, Souron, O 1989. Incidences de quelques innovations techniques sur les conditions de travail des agriculteurs. Economie Rurale 192-193, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papy, F, Attonaty, JM, Laporte, C, Soler, LG 1988. Work organisation simulation as a basis for farm management advice (equipment and manpower levels against climatic variability). Agricultural Systems 31, 295–314.Google Scholar
Petit, M, Deffontaines, JP, Osty, PL 1975. Vos bonnes raisons de décider les connaissez–vous? Entreprises Agricoles mai 1975, 6–10.Google Scholar
Piel-Desruisseaux, J 1963. L’organisation du travail en agriculture, 2ème edition. Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Porcher, J 2002. Eleveurs et animaux: réinventer le lien. Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Ruthven, O, Kumar, S 2002. Moving mud, shifting soil: change and development in wage labour livelihoods in Utter Pradesh, India. Working paper 176. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.Google Scholar
Seegers J, Moreau JC, Chauvat S, and Beguin E 2004. Taille du troupeau et travail dans les exploitations laitières françaises. Seminar of the ‘Tour du monde laitier’ de la société Schering Plough, 15 septembre 2004, Dol de Bretagne, France.Google Scholar
Soriano, V 2002. Etre bien avec les animaux, ça s’apprend? Ethnozootechnie 68, 85–91.Google Scholar
Valax M-F 1986. Cadre temporel et planification des tâches quotidiennes: étude de la structure des plans journaliers chez les agriculteurs. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Toulouse Le Mirail, France.Google Scholar