Introduction

Agriculture, particularly livestock farming, is currently experiencing a major crisis. Livestock farming is criticised for its environmental impacts, such as contribution to global warming through deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006), loss of biodiversity and eutrophication of water. Western societies are calling livestock farming into question for ethical reasons (e.g. animal welfare, the idea of livestock farming itself) (Lacroix and Gifford, 2019) and for its impacts on human health, related to excessive consumption of animal products. In most European countries, this is reflected by a decrease in individual meat consumption, particularly red meat (Sanchez-Sabate and Sabate, 2019; Wang and Basso, 2019) and by an increase in schools of thought that advocate reducing or stopping the consumption of animal products (e.g. flexitarianism, vegetarianism, veganism).

This crisis of acceptability is compounded by increasingly frequent climatic and economic hazards that influence production systems and their viability. In a context of globalisation, in which regulatory frameworks, socio-economic conditions and the societal environment vary greatly among countries, French and European agriculture is in a full identity crisis: What future does livestock farming have? What will future forms of livestock farming be? How can livestock farming remain competitive? How can livestock farming be made acceptable to society and livestock farmers and be sustainable? Livestock farming will have to reconfigure itself to meet these challenges.

This questioning of livestock farming by a small but growing and influential part of the public and consumers concerns all animal sectors. Returning grasslands to a central place in livestock farming could help solve these issues, particularly for the production of ruminants herbivores (e.g. cattle, sheep and goats). Indeed, the general public have a positive image of grasslands because they are associated with "natural" production and perceived as favourable for animal welfare, the quality of animal products and ecosystem services. These grassland qualities depend on the type of grassland, and this article discusses both temporary and permanent grasslands. Among permanent grasslands, semi-natural grasslands are more diversified and less intensified, according to an expert group of the European Grassland Federation (Peeters et al., 2014).

Despite the wishes of public authorities, the area under permanent grassland has declined sharply since the 1970s in both France and the rest of Europe, after having increased sharply during the 20th century. Although they still cover approximately one-third of agricultural area in France (Agreste, 2018), their continued existence in many areas is uncertain due to competition with fodder and cash crops or because they are threatened by changes in land use (e.g. urbanisation, fallowing, reforestation). Some livestock farmers have no interest in grasslands, mainly due to the lack of technical, scientific and economic reference data and the existence of social obstacles (Michaud et al., 2008). For example, for some livestock farmers and their agricultural advisers, permanent grasslands are an outdated and unsuitable technical model, and the fodder deficits associated with the droughts and heat waves of recent years further aggravate this assessment. There are certainly objective arguments against grasslands, such as having fodder yields that are generally lower than those of other fodder crops such as maize, unstable feed value, management complexity and the toxicity of certain grassland species. These arguments are often the only ones put forward, with no consideration or promotion of the benefits associated with permanent and/or diversified long-term grasslands and their use. This reality persists despite many studies conducted over several decades to provide more reference data on the agronomic and environmental value of grasslands, with the aim of optimising and promoting inclusion of grasslands in production systems (e.g. in France: Petit et al., 2004; Cruz et al., 2010; Launay et al., 2011; Hulin et al., 2012; Michaud et al., 2013; Couvreur et al., 2018; Petit et al., 2019; Hulin et al., 2019).

In this context, this article assess innovative knowledge and tools for grassland management, in light of the changing challenges of ruminant livestock farming in temperate zones. The grasslands considered in this article are permanent and temporary grasslands (Box 1). This summary identifies advantages that increase the interest of including grasslands in ruminant production systems (i.e. cattle, sheep and goats), as well as key points to be examined in greater depth to understand future challenges. This article is set in a French context, but its discussion has a wider scope, particularly for similar agro-climatic zones. We address the role of grasslands in milk and meat production, and in environmental conservation. We then discuss effects of grasslands on animal and human health and the role they can play in production systems in a context of climate change and economic hazards, while considering the main obstacles to their development.

1. Grasslands for milk and meat production

1.2 New knowledge and innovations to improve use of grasslands by ruminant livestock farming

Grassed areas, particularly permanent grasslands, are usually located where crop production is not possible for reasons of accessibility (e.g. mountains) or where yields are too low (e.g. soils of low fertility, harsh climate). They contribute to the development of animal production, which makes plant products from these areas "edible" for humans. The high diversity of temporary and permanent grasslands has made it difficult to acquire reference data for their production characteristics and the factors that determine them. Since the early 2000s, many studies have characterized the performance of certain types of grassland and developed more generic approaches, drawing in particular on concepts of functional ecology (Diaz et al., 1998; Duru et al., 2007; Cruz et al., 2010) (Box 1).

Box 1. Definitions and functioning of permanent and temporary grasslands and the assessment of their environmental and agricultural value (nutritive value and production).

Permanent, temporary and artificial grasslands

Grasslands are agricultural areas whose vegetation is used to produce fodder for harvest and/or for grazing livestock. The term "grasslands" includes permanent, temporary, and artificial grasslands (Allen et al., 2011; Peeters et al., 2014). In mainland France, the distribution of grasslands varies by administrative department, and grassland area has decreased in the main grassland regions since 1950 (figure 1).

Permanent grasslands

Permanent grasslands contain perennial or native species in an ecosystem managed over the long term (Allen et al., 2011; Couvreur et al., 2018). They are more complex to manage than other types of grasslands. Among permanent grasslands, semi-natural grasslands (the most diversified) that have been established for more than 10 years are distinguished from more recent grasslands, 5-10 years old or more intensively managed (Peeters et al., 2014). These grasslands contain grasses (Poaceae), legumes (Fabaceae) and other dicotyledons (i.e. "various species" in agronomy), proportions of grasses, legumes and other dicotyledons vary from one grassland to another. The floristic diversity of a permanent grassland in Europe ranges from 15-100 species (Plantureux et al., 1993; Tornambé et al., 2010) with averages of up to 30-60 species (Jeangros and Schmid, 1991).

Temporary grasslands

Temporary grasslands contain annual, multiannual or perennial seeded species less than 6 years old (Allen et al., 2011), mainly grasses and legumes. Other dicotyledons are used in mixtures sown for specific purposes (e.g. drought resistance). The floristic diversity of temporary grasslands can reach 12 species in a mixture.

Artificial grasslands

Artificial grasslands are areas less than 5 years old sown almost exclusively with fodder legumes. These grasslands are not detailed in this article.

Diversified grasslands

Diversified grasslands generally contain several species. They may be temporary (with more than 3 species) or permanent (with more than 35 species). They can be used for harvest and/or for grazing in production systems and are thus considered in the fodder system, the grazing system or, if they also contain woody species, the pastoral system.

Grassland dynamics depend on environmental conditions and management practices

The floristic composition of temporary or permanent grasslands depends on their environmental conditions and management practices. Several studies have shown effects of the environment (e.g. elevation, soil composition) and management practices (e.g. number of cuts, stocking rate) on the botanical or functional composition of vegetation (Hopkins, 1986; Plantureux et al., 1993; Diaz et al., 1998; Klimek et al., 2007; Batary et al., 2010; Michaud et al., 2011; Pierik et al., 2017; Roukos et al., 2017).

Assessing the environmental value of grasslands

Based on their botanical or taxonomic composition

Grassland species or the floristic composition of a grassland can be assessed based on their botanical or taxonomic composition (i.e. by considering vegetation as a set of species), with each species being an entity of its own (Maire, 2009). In this approach, the abundance and dominance of the species present is observed.

Based on their functional composition

Grasslands can also be assessed based on the functional composition of their species, in which species are grouped according to their functions (e.g. plants that use the wind for pollination) (Grime, 1977).

Assessing the agricultural value of grasslands (production, nutritional value)

Increased knowledge about relations among the environment, management practices and vegetation has increased understanding of the main factors involved in predicting production or nutritive value. In particular, this research has been extended to permanent grasslands, whose high diversity (e.g. multiple phenologies) makes it difficult to estimate their agricultural value. To date, prediction models with differing degrees of complexity of the nutritive value and production of permanent grasslands have been developed based on the functional composition, especially the functional types developed by Cruz et al. (2010), temperature and other vegetation components (Duru et al., 2008; Michaud et al., 2014; Pierik et al., 2017). In temporary grasslands, this allows sown species to adapt better to the environment (Simon et al., 1997; Litrico et al., 2016).

Figure 1. Percentage of grassland in the agricultural area of administrative departments of mainland France and changes in grassland area since 1950 in the main grassland regions of mainland France (Agreste, 2018).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

The factors that determine grassland species composition, growth and quality are now much better known (Plantureux et al., 1993; Klimek et al., 2007; Klimas and Balezentiene, 2008; Pakeman et al., 2009). The characteristics, functioning and forage value of most species that contribute to grassland yield are now known (Grime et al., 1979; Cruz et al., 2010). This refined knowledge of biological and agronomic mechanisms makes it possible to recommend adjustments to management practices for a given objective (e.g. maintaining grassland biodiversity, increasing productivity) (De Foucault, 1992; Petit et al., 2004; Cruz et al., 2010; Hulin et al., 2012). Knowledge about the sensitivity of grassland species to fertilisers or soil characteristics is also better known (Ebeling et al., 2008; Batary et al., 2010). The knowledge acquired in recent years, particularly about permanent grasslands (Michaud et al., 2011 and 2014; Hulin et al., 2019), has thus been applied to specific French grassland areas (Jeannin et al., 1991; Petit et al., 2004; Collectif, 2006; Galliot et al., 2019) or at the scale of France (Launay et al., 2011). Knowing grasslands' potential, seasonal distribution of production and feed value can contribute to the balance of the production system that uses them.

Thus, reference data exist for the production and feed value of vegetation cycles of temporary and permanent grasslands (figure 2; Table 1). Research in France (Launay et al., 2011) has characterised the diversity of grassland types by distinguishing permanent grasslands (intensive and semi-natural) at high elevation (5 types) and in semi-continental zones (6 types), oceanic zones (5 types) and coastal zones (3 types). For these 19 types, production and food-value reference data were estimated for the first vegetation cycle and regrowth (Launay et al., 2011). While permanent grasslands have mean annual production of 6.2 t DM/ha (Baumont et al., 2012), these reference data confirm that their production varies. Annually, permanent grasslands produce from 1 to more than 8 t DM/ha (Jeangros and Schmid, 1991; Baumont et al., 2012). In terms of feed value, the energy and nitrogen contents of most types of permanent grassland at high elevations and in semi-continental and oceanic zones are similar to those of pure species such as ryegrass, cocksfoot and fescue present in INRAE's tables of the feed value of fodder (Baumont et al., 2018).

Figure 2. Ecosystem services provided by and advantages and disadvantages of grasslands for animals and herds, farmers, consumers and citizens.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

Table 1. Production and nutritive-value benchmarks (in UFL, PDI and UEL) for temporary grasslands (Perennial ryegrass-white clover mixture) and three types of permanent grasslands common in France (Sources: Launay et al., 2011; Jeulin and Delaby, personal data).

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Benchmark	Temporary grasslands	Permanent grassland types
		High elevation PA2	Plains and hills PSC4	Oceanic PO2
Early spring (grazing stage) Production (t DM/ha) Feed value UFL (/kg DM) PDI (/kg DM) UEL (/kg DM)	1.8 1.00 105 0.97	1.9 0.97 102 0.97	1.6 0.99 102 0.97	1.9 1.04 105 0.95
Late spring (silage harvest stage ) Production (t DM/ha) Feed value UFL (/kg DM) PDI (/kg DM) UEL (/kg DM)	4.0 0.88 85 1.04	5.0 0.76 78 1.08	4.6 0.81 82 1.06	5.2 0.82 79 1.06
Summer regrowth (6 weeks) Production (t DM/ha) Feed value UFL (/kg DM) PDI (/kg DM) UEL (/kg DM)	1.5 0.90 105 0.98	0.8-1.0 0.92 105 0.98	1.0-1.2 0.83 93 1.03	0.6-0.8 0.88 98 1.00

PA2: Low-fertilised mixed grasslands at high elevations with sweet vernal grass and red fescue; PSC4: Low-legume grasslands in plains and hills with common bentgrass and perennial ryegrass;

PO2: Low-fertilised, grazed oceanic grasslands with perennial ryegrass and white clover.

UFL: unité fourragère lait (Net energy for lactation); PDI: protein digestible in the intestine; UEL: unité d'encombrement lait (Fill value for dairy cows and dairy goats).

This general and local scientific knowledge can be disseminated as such or in the form of an educational book (Couvreur et al., 2018) or as a tool to assist grassland management. Many of these tools exist at a national scale, and their starting points are vegetation or animals. Several analysis tools are available (figure 3):

i) at the scale of the herd, flock or field(s). The most traditional tools that provide general reference points for grasslands are grassland typologies. These tools reference the values of grasslands from an agricultural and/or environmental viewpoint based on their floristic diversity. These tools are based on the diversity of grass types (e.g. ABCD functional typology of grassland grasses) (Duru et al., 2010) or on the overall floristic diversity at a national (Launay et al., 2011) or local scale (Jeannin et al., 1991; Hubert and Pierre, 2003; Petit et al., 2004; Collectif, 2006; Galliot et al., 2020). This research has made it possible to develop, in particular, reference data for the feed value of grasslands at a national scale, which can then be applied at a local scale to refine recommendations. For farmers, better knowledge of the value of each type of grassland and its dynamics helps them allocate grasslands (pasture or harvested grass) better to different categories of animals, which may have different needs. A grassland is not good or bad but instead more or less adapted to a category of animal at a given time of the season; relations between grassland types and forage functions in this sense have been identified (Launay et al., 2011). Other tools, focussed on the herd or ration, make it possible to provide animals with fodder or a daily grassland ration that meets their needs (e.g. INRA 2018 feeding system, INRAtion® v.5 and RUMINAL® software developed with France Conseil Élevage (INRA, 2018)). In-depth knowledge about grassland types has made it possible to improve these tools.

(ii) at the scale of the grazing system. These tools are highly developed in France and concern the management of grazing systems with high stocking rates (e.g. Pâtur'Plan; Delaby et al., 2014), those that adopt rotational grazing or more extensive systems based on cover with woody plants (e.g. Grenouille method in Mediterranean environments; Agreil et al., 2004). A posteriori analysis tools that objectify the use of these grasslands, such as HerbValo (Delagarde et al., 2017), are also available.

(iii) at the scale of the fodder system. The fodder system includes fields for grazing or for winter storage. These tools can be simple to adopt, such as calculating the forage balance (Coleou, 1960), or more complex, such as considering the management of grazing and stocks in a grassland area (e.g. Dialog; Theau et al., 2018) or in a pastoral environment (e.g. Pâtur'Ajuste; Agreil et al., 2011). They provide an overall view of grazing and/or fodder stocks. Games are also available to simulate management of a forage system in an enjoyable way (e.g. Rami Fourrager; Martin et al., 2011) and complementarity between grasslands (e.g. AEOLE game; AEOLE program, INRAE, pers. comm).

(iv) at the scale of the production system. These tools take a wider view of the system: they include analysis of the fodder balance sheet and other farm performances related to the presence of grasslands, such as environmental performance (e.g. DIAM assessment; Farruggia et al., 2012; see section 2.2).

Farmers adopt these tools relatively easily, although training from agricultural advisers or tool developers is sometimes necessary. To facilitate the dissemination of innovations and exchanges, local and national groups of advisers and stakeholders in the field have been established (e.g. RMT Prairies Demain: Mixed Technological Network on the use of grasslands (2014-2019), whose expanded activities continue in the RMT Avenirs Prairies (2021-2025)).

Figure 3. Positioning of the main analysis tools and games for direct grassland management in France according to the scale of application (e.g. field) and the starting point (animal or vegetation).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

2. Grasslands to preserve and improve the environment

2.2. The capacity of grasslands to produce ecosystem services

The concept of “ecosystem services”, although little used by the general public, provides a framework for reflection that can highlight benefits of including grasslands in livestock farming systems; these benefits were previously described in part as “multifunctionality” (Béranger and Bonnemaire, 2008; Amiaud and Carrère, 2012). This concept, which appeared in the 1970s, was first defined in the early 2000s as a set of benefits (or advantages) that humans derive from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Fisher and Turner, 2008). The French EFESE study on the assessment of ecosystem services called this definition into question by defining them no longer as benefits in themselves but instead as ecological processes or elements of ecosystem structure from which humans derive benefits (Therond et al., 2017).

Grassland ecosystems provide many benefits from which humans benefit (figure 2). Permanent and temporary grasslands have many and varied environmental benefits: limiting erosion; regulating water flows (e.g. preventing floods, storing water); filtering mineral and organic pollutants; preserving floristic, faunal and microbial biodiversity (especially under extensive management); reducing net greenhouse gas emissions in livestock farming by sequestering nearly as much carbon as forests; and providing landscape benefits, especially permanent grasslands (Mauchamp et al., 2013).

Any benefits to humans from agricultural ecosystems are related to two types of factors: the ecosystem services themselves and the use of “human capital” (e.g. inputs, energy, labour) to provide these benefits. To produce 1 t of fodder, a grassland generally uses less human capital (e.g. fertilisers, pesticides, machinery, working time) than a fodder crop (Couvreur et al., 2018). In this sense, the benefits that humans derive from grasslands are interesting because they are based largely on ecosystem services.

Thus, the concept of ecosystem services can highlight the many positive effects of grasslands. Several studies have attempted to list ecosystem services provided at the landscape scale (Lavorel et al., 2011; Lasseur et al., 2018) or by permanent grasslands (Baumont et al., 2012; Michaud et al., 2013; Galliot et al., 2019) in differing degrees of detail (Therond et al., 2017; Lemaire et al., 2019). Some of them even estimate levels of services in a qualitative or quantitative manner (Therond et al., 2017). Qualitative assessments are admittedly not precise as they are often calculated indirectly, such as for pollination or carbon sequestration, but they do provide benchmarks for society. Quantitative assessments are rarer because they are more complex to perform but are relevant for discussing the fair value of these services.

This knowledge is beginning to be transferred into grassland management tools to better express the potential to provide ecosystem services. Recent grassland typologies have included several ecosystem services based on the floristic composition of grasslands (Launay et al., 2011; Theau et al., 2017; Galliot et al., 2020). A tool at the scale of the production system (DIAM; Farruggia et al., 2012) includes agricultural aspects and the ecosystem services provided by grasslands. This type of tool can show environmental benefits of grassland systems to a public of advisers, farmers and citizens (figure 4).

Figure 4. Example radar graphs generated by the DIAM tool (multifunctional assessment of forage area) for environmental benefits of permanent grasslands and benefits of cheese.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

DIAM quantifies advantages of permanent or diversified grasslands for the environment or for the quality of cheese for farms that produce it. The assessment is based characterising a farm’s permanent grasslands and makes it possible to discuss the potential to manage them in light of environmental issues. PC: protein content; FC: fat content.

3. Grasslands to improve consumer health, animal health and welfare and product quality

4. Grasslands to resist climatic and economic hazards and reduce production costs

5. The need to overcome farmers’ reluctance to use grasslands and to facilitate their work

Conclusion

In a world in which producing in quantity is no longer sufficient, and producing better with less is becoming necessary, grasslands have advantages that are increasingly better known due to the progress of scientific and technical knowledge and the availability of technological tools that are not sufficiently recognised. They have a rightful place in tomorrow's herbivore farming systems: the beneficial effects they have on the environment, as well as human and animal health and welfare, fully meet society's expectations. They also help improve society’s image of livestock farming. However, several challenges need to be addressed: help farmers consider grasslands more favourably, use them better and change the paradigm by abandoning the principle of "always more", but also to make the advantages of grasslands known and transform them into added value, following the example of PDO production. Doing so implies training farmers, supporting them and enabling them to have an acceptable quality of life with grassland of production. While grasslands fully meet society's expectations for farming, health and the environment, their place in the reform of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy must be defended so that these systems are recognised and remunerated for their multiple benefits.

Acknowledgments

This article was first translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator and the authors thank warmly Michelle and Michael Corson from “Editor du Jour” for English language editing.

References

• Agreil C., Meuret M., Vincent M., 2004. GRENOUILLE : une méthode pour gérer les ressources alimentaires pour des ovins sur milieux embroussaillés. Fourrages, 180, 467-481.
• Agreil C., Barthel S., Barret J., Danneels P., Greff N., Guérin G., Guignier C., Mailland Rosset S., Magda D., Meignen R., Mestelan P., De Sainte Marie C., 2011. La gestion pastorale des milieux naturels: mise en œuvre des MAE-t et gestion adaptative avec la démarche PATUR’AJUSTE. Fourrages, 208, 293-304.
• Agreste, 2018. Mémento de la statistique agricole. Édition 2018 de la forêt et des industries agroalimentaires. Direction Régionale de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Forêt, 1-40.
• Alard V., Béranger C., Journet M., 2002. Étude de systèmes Herbagers économes en Bretagne, INRA Éditions, 340p.
• Allen V.G., Batello C., Berretta E.J., Hodgson J., Kothmann M., Li X., McIvor J., Milne J., Morris C., Peeters A., Sanderson M., 2011. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass Forage Sci., 66, 2-28.
• Amiaud B., Carrère P., 2012. La multifonctionalité de la prairie pour la fourniture de services écosystémiques. Fourrages, 211, 229-238.
• Bareille N., Haurat M., Delaby L., Michel L., Guatteo R., 2019. Quels sont les avantages et risques du pâturage vis-à-vis de la santé des bovins ? Fourrages, 238, 125-131.
• Batary P., Baldi A., Saropataki M., Kohler F., Verhulst J., Knop E., Herzog F., Kleijn D., 2010. Effect of conservation management on bees and insect-pollinated grassland plant communities in three European countries. Agricult. Ecosys. Environ., 136, 35-39.
• Baumont R., Michaud A., Delaby L., 2012. Services fourragers des prairies permanentes : production d’herbe et valeur alimentaire pour les ruminants. Fourrages, 211, 219-228.
• Baumont R., Tran G., Chapoutot P., Maxin G., Sauvant D., Heuzé V., Lemosquet-Simon S., Lamadon A., 2018. Tables Inra de la valeur des aliments utilisés en France et dans les régions tempérées. In: Nozière P., Sauvant D., Delaby L., Inra, 2018. Alimentation des ruminants. Apports nutritionnels - Besoins et réponses des animaux - Rationnement - Tables des valeurs des aliments, 521-616. Versailles, France, Éditions Quae. 728p.
• Béral C., Andueza D., Ginane C., Bernard M., Liagre F., Girardin N., Emile J.C., Novak S., Grandgirard D., Deiss V., Bizeray D., Moreau J.C., Pottier E., Thiery M., Rocher A., 2018. Agroforesterie en système d’élevage ovin : étude de son potentiel dans le cadre de l’adaptation au changement climatique. Synthèse. INRA, ADEME, 20p.
• Béranger C., Bonnemaire J., 2008. Prairies, herbivores, territoires : quels enjeux ? Quae Éditions, Versailles, France, 188p. https://www.quae.com/produit/946/9782759214518/prairies-herbivores-territoires-quels-enjeux
• Bhatta R., Saravanan M., Baruah H., Malik P.K., Sampath K.T., 2017. Nutrient composition, rate of fermentation and in vitro rumen methane output from tropical feedstuffs. J. Agric. Sci., 155, 171-183. doi:10.1017/S0021859616000642
• Bruneton J., 2016. Pharmacognosie, phytochimie, plantes médicinales (5e Éd.). Éditions Lavoisier, Tec & Doc, 1504p. https://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/genie-pharmaceutique/pharmacognie-phytochimie-plantes-medicinales-5e-ed/bruneton/descriptif-9782743021658
• Caillaud D., Couéffé D., Georgel R., Moussu J.P., Zsitko J.M., 2013. Les systèmes laitiers herbagers de l'Est de la France: une réussite paradoxale. Fourrages, 213, 3-9.
• Cayre P., Michaud A., Theau J.P., Rigolot C., 2018. The coexistence of multiple worldviews in livestock farming drives agroecological transition. A case study in French PDO cheese mountain areas. Sustainability 10, 4, 1097. doi:10.3390/su10041097.
• Celi P., 2010. The role of oxidative stress in small ruminants' health and production. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39, 348-363.
• Chang J., Ciais P., Viovy N., Soussana JF., Klumpp K., Sultan B., 2017. Future productivity and phenology changes in European grasslands for different warming levels: implications for grassland management and carbon balance. Carbon Balance Management, 12, 1-11. doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0079-8.
• Chatelet A., Fournier A., Jurjanz S., Lerch S., Toussaint H., Delannoy M., Feidt C., Rychen G., 2015. L’épandage de matières fertilisantes d’origine résiduaire sur les prairies comporte-t-il des risques en termes de transfert de polluants organiques et inorganiques vers la chaîne alimentaire ? INRA Prod. Anim., 28, 383-298.
• Chen Y.D., Chappell N.A., 2009. Climate regulation of Southeast Asian hydrology. Critical states: environmental challenges to development in monsoon Southeast Asia. Gerakbudaya, Kuala Lumpur, 205-220.
• Chilliard Y., Glasser F., Ferlay A., Bernard L., Rouel J., Doreau M., 2007. Diet, rumen biohydrogenation and nutritional quality of cow and goatmilk fat. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol., 109, 828-855.
• Coleou J., 1960. Les références concernant le rationnement des animaux. Le bilan fourrager. Écon. Rurale, 43, 1, 33-54.
• Collectif, 2006. Le Massif Vosgien : Typologie des prairies naturelles. Document INPL-INRA/Chambres d’agriculture 67, 68, 88/ PNR des Ballons des Vosges/Institut de l’Élevage. Éditions Chambre d’Agriculture des Vosges. Brochure, 27p.
• Coppa M., Ferlay A., Monsallier F., Verdier-Metz I., Pradel P., Didienne R., Montel M.C., Pomies D., Martin B., Farruggia, A., 2012. Le système de pâturage influence-t-il les caractéristiques nutritionnelles et sensorielles des fromages ? Fourrages, 209, 33-41.
• Coquil X., Junior D.S., Lusson J.M., Miranda M., 2019. Les réseaux Rad et Rede Capa: la technique au service du projet politique d’un autre modèle agricole ? Natures Sci. Soc., 27, 53-62.
• Couvreur S., Delaby L., Doligez E., Mahmoudi P., Marnay L., Michaud A., Navelet C., Paulin S., Plantureux S., Puthod R., 2018. Les prairies au service de l’élevage. Comprendre, gérer et valoriser les prairies. Édition : Educagri, Dijon, France, 328p.
• Couvreur S., Petit T., Le Guen R., Ben Arfa N., Jacquerie V., Sigwalt A., Haimoud-Lekhald A., Chaib K., Defois J., Martel G., 2019. Déterminants techniques et sociologiques du maintien des prairies dans les élevages bovins laitiers de plaine. INRA Prod. Anim., 32, 399-416. doi:10.20870/productions-animales.2019.32.3.2940
• Couturier C., Charru M., Doublet S., Pointereau P., 2016. Afterres 2050-Un Scénario Soutenable Pour l’agriculture et l’utilisation. Des Terres En France à l’horizon 2050. https://afterres2050.solagro.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Afterres2050-Web.pdf
• Cruz P., Theau J.P., Lecloux E., Jouany C., Duru M., 2010. Typologie fonctionnelle de graminées fourragères pérennes: une classification multitraits. Fourrages, 201, 11-17.
• Darré J.P., Mathieu A., Lasseur J., 2004. Le Sens des pratiques: conceptions d'agriculteurs et modèles d'agronomes. Éditions Quae, Versailles, France, 320p.
• De Foucault B., 1992. Les apports de la phytosociologie au pastoralisme. Fourrages, 130, 211-221.
• Delaby L., Fiorelli J.L., 2014. Élevages laitiers à bas intrants: entre traditions et innovations. In : Numéro spécial, Quelles innovations pour quels systèmes d’élevage ? Ingrand S., Dedieu B. (Eds). INRA Prod. Anim., 27, 123-134.
• Delaby L., Duboc G., Cloet E., Martinot Y., 2014. Pâtur'Plan: Un outil dynamique pour favoriser la gestion anticipée des parcelles en système de pâturage tournant. Renc. Rech. Rum., 21, 387-390.
• Delagarde R., Roca-Fernández A.I., Peyraud J.L., 2014. Prairies multispécifiques avec ou sans chicorée: densité du couvert mesurée à l’herbomètre et composition chimique. Fourrages, 218, 177-180.
• Delagarde R., Caillat H., Fortin J., 2017. HerbValo, une méthode pour estimer dans chaque parcelle la quantité d’herbe valorisée par les ruminants au pâturage. Fourrages, 229, 55-61.
• Dernat S., Rigolot C., Cayre P., Vollet D., Dumont B., 2020. Knowledge sharing in practice: a methodology for the identification of a common prospective in a PDO cheese production area. J. Agric. Educ. Ext., submitted November 22, 2019.
• De Ponti T., Rijk B., Van Ittersum MK., 2012. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricult. Syst., 108, 1-9.
• De Sainte Marie C., Ba S.N., Barbier M., Gaunand A., Avelange I., 2018. Des Prairies Fleuries. Réconcilier production et conservation de la biodiversité sur les surfaces herbagères. Rapport de recherche, INRA SAD. hal-01923595
• Devienne S., Vertès F., Garambois N., Akkal-Corfini N., Durand P., Parnaudeau V., 2018. Supporting transition to low inputs production systems: economic and environmental assessment. Proc. 20th Nitrogen Workshop, Rennes, France, 466-467.
• Diaz S., Marcelo C., Casanoves F., 1998. Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. J. Veget. Sci., 9, 113-122.
• Dieulot R., Meyer A., 2018. L’observatoire technico-économique des systèmes bovins laitiers. Évolutions sur 10 ans. Réseau CIVAM, 16p.
• Dudonné D., Vitrac X., Coutiere P., Woillez M., Merillon J.M., 2009. Comparative study of antioxidant properties and total phenolic content of 30 plant extracts of industrial interest using DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, SOD, and ORAC assays. J. Agric. Food Chem., 57, 1768-1774.
• Durand J.L., 2016. Adaptation des prairies semées au changement climatique : amélioration génétique et intensification écologique. Rapport Métaprogramme ACCAF CLIMAGIE, INRA. 41p. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01594783/
• Durand D., Damon M., Gobert M., 2013. Oxidative stress in farm animals: general aspects. Cah. Nutr. Diet., 48, 218-224.
• Durand J.L., Andrieu B., Barillot R., Barr, P., Combes D., Enjalbert J., Escobar-Gutierrez A., Faverjon J., Lescarpentier C., Litrico I., Louarn G., Migault V., Sanchez L., 2016. Designing and improving mixed grasslands: advances made in modelling forage variety performance. Fourrages, 225, 21-28.
• Duru M., Cruz P., Theau J.P., Jouany C., Ansquer P., Al Haj Khaled R., Therond O., 2007. Typologies des prairies riches en espèces en vue d'évaluer leur valeur d'usage: bases agro-écologiques et exemple d'application. Fourrages, 192, 453-475.
• Duru M., Cruz P., Al Haj Khaled R., Ducouturieux C., Theau J.P., 2008. Relevance of plant functional types based on leaf dry matter content for assessing digestibility of native grass species and species-rich grassland communities in spring. Agron. J., 100, 1622-1630.
• Duru M., Cruz P., Theau J.P., 2010. A simplified method for characterising agronomic services provided by species-rich grasslands. Crop Pasture Sci., 61, 420-433.
• Duru M., Hazard L., Magrini M.B., 2016. La santé comme cadre d’analyse pour penser conjointement les questions agricoles, environnementales et alimentaires. 4p. Toulouse, France.
• Ebeling A., Klein A.M., Schumacher J., Weisser W.W., Tscharntke T., 2008. How does plant richness affect pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower visits? OIKOS 117, 1808-1815.
• Emile J.C., Barre P., Delagarde R., Niderkorn V., Novak S., 2017. Les arbres, une ressource fourragère au pâturage pour des bovins laitiers ? Fourrages, 230, 155-160.
• European Environment Agency (EEA), 2019. Indicator assessment: Global and European temperatures; https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature-9/assessment. Accessed August 2019
• Farruggia A., Martin B., Baumont R., Prache S., Doreau M., Hoste H., Durand D., 2008. Quels intérêts de la diversité floristique des prairies permanentes pour les ruminants et les produits animaux ? INRA Prod. Anim., 21, 2, 181-200.
• Farruggia A., Lacour C., Zapata J., Piquet M., Baumont B., 2012. DIAM, un diagnostic innovant déclinant les équilibres, production, environnement et qualité des fromages au sein des systèmes fourragers des zones AOP du Massif Central. Renc. Rech. Ruminants, 19, 13-16.
• Fisher B., Turner R.K., 2008. Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol. Conservation, 141, 1167-1169.
• Fraisse D., Carnat A., Viala D., Pradel P., Besle J.M., Coulon J.B., Felgines C., Lamaison J.L, 2007. Polyphenolic composition of a permanent pasture: Variations related to the period of harvesting. J. Sci. Food Agric., 87, 2427-2435.
• Frappat B., Lusson J.M., Beauchamp J.J., 2014. La prairie vue par les éleveurs, les conseillers et les futurs éleveurs en France: quelques pistes pour faciliter l’accès à des systèmes valorisant mieux la prairie. Fourrages, 218, 147-155.
• Galliot J.N., Hulin S., Bonsacquet E., Carrere P., 2019. Apprécier les compromis entre services à travers la typologie multifonctionnelle des prairies du Massif central. Fourrages, 237, 67-74.
• Galliot J.N., Hulin S., Le Hénaff P.M., Farruggia A., Seytre L., Perera S., Dupic G., Faure P., Carrère P., 2020. Typologie multifonctionnelle des prairies du Massif central. Edition Sidam-AEOLE, 284p.
• Gauly M., Bollwein H., Breves G., Brugemann K., Danicke S., Das G., Demeler J., Hansen H., Isselstein J., Konig S., Loholter M., Martinsohn M., Meyer U., Potthoff H., Sanker C., Schroder B., Wrage N., Meibaum B., Von Samson-Himmelsjerna G., Stinshoff H., Wrenzycki C., 2013. Future consequences and challenges for dairy cow production systems arising from climate change in Central Europe - a review. Animal, 7, 5, 843-859. doi:10.1017/S1751731112002352
• Gomas A.L., Laurent M., Rubin B., 2008. Alternatives au maïs ensilage: freins et perspectives dans les élevages bovins laitiers du sud des Deux-Sèvres. Fourrages, 196, 490-494.
• Graulet B., Piquet M., Duriot B., Pradel P., Hulin S., Cornu A., Portelli J., Martin B., Farruggia A., 2012. Variations des teneurs en micronutriments de l'herbe de prairies de moyenne montagne et transfert au lait. Fourrages, 209, 59-68.
• Grime J.P., 1977. Evidence for existence of 3 primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist, 111, 982, 1169-1194.
• Grime J.P., Hodgson J.G., Hunt R., 1979. Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. London : Unwin Hyman.
• GIEC, 2018. Résumé à l’intention des décideurs, Réchauffement planétaire de 1,5 °C, Rapport spécial du GIEC sur les conséquences d’un réchauffement planétaire de 1,5 °C par rapport aux niveaux préindustriels et les trajectoires associées d’émissions mondiales de gaz à effet de serre, dans le contexte du renforcement de la parade mondiale au changement climatique, du développement durable et de la lutte contre la pauvreté. Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pörtner H.O., Roberts D., Skea J., Shukla P.R., Pirani A., Moufouma-Okia W., Péan C., Pidcock R., Connors S., Matthews J.B.R., Chen Y., Zhou X., Gomis M.I., Lonnoy E., Maycock T., Tignor M., Waterfield T. (Eds). Organisation météorologique mondiale, Genève, Suisse, 32p.
• Habib G., Khan NA., Sultan A., Ali M., 2016. Nutritive value of common tree leaves for livestock in the semi-arid and arid rangelands of Northern Pakistan. Livest. Sci., 184, 64-70. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.12.009
• Herrero M., Wirsenius S., Henderson B., Rigolot C., Thornton P., Havlík P., De Boer I., Gerber P.J., 2015. Livestock and the environment: What have we learned in the past decade? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 40, 177-202, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-093503
• Hofer D., Suter M., Haughey E., Finn J.A., Hoekstra N.J., Buchmann N., Luscher A., 2016. Yield of temperate forage grassland species is either largely resistant or resilient to experimental summer drought. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 4, 1023-34. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12694
• Hopkins A., 1986. Botanical composition of permanent grassland in England and Wales in relation to soil, environment and management factors. Grass Forage Sci., 41, 237-246.
• Hoste H., Gaillard L., Le Fibreux Y., 2005. Consequences of the regular distribution of sainfoin hay on gastrointestinal parasitisme with nematodes and milk production in dairy goats. Small Rum. Res., 59, 265-271
• Huang D., Ou B., Prior R.L., 2005. The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assays. J. Agric. Food Chem., 53, 1841-1856.
• Hubert F., Pierre P., 2003. Guide pour un diagnostic prairial. Une méthode pour faire le diagnostic de vos prairies. Chambres d’agriculture Pays de Loire, pp235.
• Huguenin-Elie O., Delaby L., Le Clec’h S., Moreno G. M., Teixeira R.F.M., Schneider M.K., 2018. Optimising ecosystem services provided by grassland systems. Grass. Sci. Europe, 23, 520-534.
• Hulin S., Farruggia A., Carrère P., 2012. Valorisation de la diversité des prairies au sein des systèmes fourragers: une approche appliquée pour les territoires AOP du Massif Central. Innov. Agron., 25, 71-84.
• Hulin S., Galliot J.N., Carrere P., Le Henaff P.M., Bonsaquet E., 2019. Les prairies naturelles du Massif central : l’expression d’un terroir au service de produits de qualité. Fourrages, 239, 223-229.
• INRA, 2018. INRA Feeding System for Ruminants, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 643p.
• Institut de l’Élevage, 2019. Résultats économiques des fermes laitières de l’ouest : des repères pour se situer 2018/2019. 12p.
• Jeangros B., Schmid W., 1991. Production et valeur nutritive des prairies permanentes riches en espèces. Fourrages, 126, 131-136.
• Jeangros B., Troxler J., Conod D., Scehovic J., Bosset J.O., 1997. Relations entre les caractéristiques de l'herbe et celles du fromage. Présentation et premiers résultats d'une étude pluridisciplinaire. Fourrages, 152, 437-443.
• Jeannin B., Fleury P., Dorioz J.M., 1991. Typologie des prairies d’altitude des Alpes du Nord : méthode et réalisation. Fourrages, 128, 379-396.
• Klimas E., Balezentiene L., 2008. Fertilization impact on natural and sown grassland floristic improvement. Zemes ukio Mokslai, 15, 2, 41-45.
• Klimek S., Kemmermann A.R.G., Hofmann M., Isselstein J., 2007. Plant species richness and composition in managed grasslands: The relative importance of field management and environmental factors. Biol. Conservation, 134, 559-570.
• Knapp A.K., Briggs J.M., Koelliker J.K., 2001. Frequency and extent of water limitation to primary production in a mesic temperate grassland. Ecosystems, 4, 19-28.
• Koplan P., Bond C., Merson M., Reddy S., Rodríguez M., Sewankambo N., Wasserheit J., 2009. Towards a Common Definition of Global Health. The Lancet, 373, 1993‑1995. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60332-9
• Lacroix K., Gifford R., 2019. Reducing meat consumption: identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis. Appetite, 138, 233-241. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.002
• Laisse S., Baumont R., Dusart L., Gaudré D., Rouillé B., Benoit M., Veysset P., Rémond D., Peyraud J.L., 2018. L’efficience nette de conversion des aliments par les animaux d’élevage : une nouvelle approche pour évaluer la contribution de l’élevage à l’alimentation humaine. In : Ressources alimentaires pour les animaux d’élevage. Baumont R. (Ed). Dossier, INRA Prod. Anim., 31, 269-288.
• Lasseur R., Vannier C., Leverbre J., Longaretti P.-Y, Lavorel, S., 2018. Landscape-scale modeling of agricultural land use for the quantification of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Remote Sensing, 12, 4. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.12.046024
• Launay F., Baumont R., Plantureux S., Farrie J.P., Michaud A., Pottier E., 2011. Prairies permanentes : des références pour valoriser leur diversité, Institut de l’Élevage, 128p.
• Lavorel S., Grigulis K., Lamarque P., Colace M.P., Garden D., Girel J., Pellet G., Douzet R., 2011. Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. J. Ecol., 99, 135-147.
• Lee J.M., Hemmingson N.R., Minnee E.M.K., Clarck C.E.F., 2015. Management strategies for chicory (Cichorium intybus) and plantain (Plantago lanceolata): impact on dry matter yield, nutritive characteristics and plant density. Crop Pasture Sci., 66, 2, 168-183. doi:10.1071/CP14181
• Lemaire G., Carvalho P.C.D.F., Kronberg S., Recous S., 2019. Agroecosystem diversity: reconciling contemporary agriculture and environmental quality. Elsevier, Academic Press, 464p.
• Liagre F., 2007. Les haies rurales: rôles, création, entretien. France Agricole Éditions. 290p.
• Likkesfeldt J., Svendsen O., 2007. Oxidants and antioxidants in diseases: oxidative stress in farms animals. Vet. J., 173, 502-511.
• Lima M.A., Paciullo D.S.C., Morenz J.F., Gomide C.A.M., Rodrigues R.A.R., Chizzotti F.H.M., 2019. Productivity and nutritive value of Brachiaria decumbens and performance of dairy heifers in a long-term silvopastoral system. Grass Forage Sci., 74, 1, 160-170. doi:10.1111/gfs.12395
• Litrico I., Barkaoui K., Barradas A., Barre P., Beguier V., Birouste M., Bristiel P., Crespo D., Deléglise C., Durand JL., Fernadez L., Gastal F., Ghesquiere M., Godinho B., Hernandez P., Julier B., Louarn G., Meisser M., Mosimann E., Picon-cochard C., Roumet C., Volaire F., 2016. Utiliser les mélanges fourragers pour s’adapter au changement climatique: opportunités et défis. Fourrages, 225, 11-20.
• Lusson J.M., Coquil X., Frappat B., Falaise D., 2014. Itinéraires vers des systèmes herbagers: comprendre les transitions pour mieux les accompagner. Fourrages, 219, 213-220.
• Maire V., 2009. Des traits des graminées au fonctionnement de l'écosystème prairial: une approche de modélisation mécaniste. PhD thèses, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont Ferrand, France.
• Martin B., Graulet B., Uijttewaal A., Ferlay A., Coppa M., Rémond D., 2019. Contribution des produits laitiers aux apports nutritionnels selon la nature des fourrages distribués aux vaches laitières. Fourrages, 239, 193-202.
• Martin G., Felten B., Duru M., 2011. Forage rummy: a game to support the participatory design of adapted livestock systems. Environ. Model. Software, 26, 1442-1453.
• Mathieu A., 2004. Conceptions des agriculteurs et modèles agronomiques. Le pâturage des vaches laitières dans le Jura. Natures Sci. Soc., 12, 4, 387-399.
• Mauchamp L., Gillet F., Mouly A., Badot PM., 2013. Les prairies : biodiversité et services écosystémiques. CNAOL-UFC. Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, Pratiques et Techniques, 134p, ⟨hal-00768735⟩.
• Mee J.F., Boyle L.A., 2020. Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is “better” in pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems, N.Z. Vet. J., doi:10.1080/00480169.2020.1721034
• Meilhac J., Durand J.L., Beguier V., Litrico I., 2019. Increasing the benefits of species diversity in multispecies temporary grasslands by increasing within-species diversity. Ann Bot., 123, 5, 891-900.
• Michaud A., Havet A., Matthieu A., 2008. Reverting to grazing: farmer’s conception. In: Proc. 22rd Gen. Meet. Eur. Grass. Fed., Uppsala: Sweeden: Biodiversity and animal feed.
• Michaud A., Andueza D., Picard F., Plantureux S., Baumont R., 2011. The seasonal dynamics of biomass production and herbage quality of three grasslands with contrasting functional compositions. Grass Forage Sci., 67, 64-76. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00821.x
• Michaud A., Carrère P., Farruggia A., Jeangros B., Orth D., Pauthenet Y., Plantureux S., 2013. Construire des typologies pour évaluer le potentiel des prairies à rendre des services agro-environnementaux. Fourrages, 213, 35-44.
• Michaud A., Plantureux S., Pottier E., Baumont R., 2014. Links between functional composition, biomass production and forage quality in permanent grasslands over a broad gradient of conditions. J. Agricult. Sci., 153, 891-906. doi:10.1017/S0021859614000653
• Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Synthesis. In: A report of the Millenium Ecosystem Assesment, pp. 219. Island Press, Washington.
• Miller J.K., Brzezinska-Slebodzinska E., Madsen F.C., 1993. Oxidative stress, antioxidants, and animal function. J. Dairy Sci., 76, 2812-2823.
• Minh B.R., Barry T.N., Tattwood G.T., McNabb W.C., 2003. The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 106, 3-19.
• Mosimann E., Deléglise C., Demenga M., Frund D., Sinaj S., Charles R., 2013. Recherche agronomique suisse 4 (11+12), 468-475.
• Mottet A., Teillard F., Boettcher P., De’Besi G., Besbes B., 2018. Domestic herbivores and food security: current contribution, trends and challenges for a sustainable development. Animal, 12, 2, 188-198.
• Mulligan F.J., Doherty M.L., 2008. Production diseases of the transition cow. Vet J., 176, 3-9.
• Niki E., 2010. Assessment of antioxidant capacity in vitro and in vivo. Free Radical Biol. Med., 49, 503-515.
• Nozière P., Graulet B., Lucas A., Martin B., Grolier P., Doreau M., 2006. Carotenoids for ruminants: From forages to dairy products. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 131, 418-450.
• O'Donovan M., Delaby L., 2016. Grazed grass in the dairy cow diet–how this can be achieved better! In: 26. Gen. Meeting Eur. Grassland Fed., (EGF). Wageningen Academic Publishers.
• Paillard S., Dorin B., Treyer S., 2010. Agrimonde. Scénarios et défis pour nourrir le monde en 2050. Éditions Quae, Versailles, France, 296p.
• Pakeman R., Leps J., Kleyer M., Lavorel S., Garnier E., the VISTA consortium, 2009. Relative climatic, edaphic and management controls of plant functional trait signatures. J. Veget. Sci., 20, 148-159.
• Peeters A., Beaufoy G., Canals R.M., De Vliegher A., Huyghe C., Isselstein J., Jones G., Kessler W., Kirilov A., Mosquera-Losada M.R., Nilsdotter-Linde N., Parente G., Peyraud J.L., Pickert J., Plantureux S., Porqueddu C., Rataj D., Stypinski P., Tonn B., Van Den Pol – Van Dasselaar A., Vintu V., Wilkins R., 2014. Grassland term definitions and classifications adapted to the diversity of European grassland-based systems. 25th Gen. Meet. Eur. Grassland Fed. Aberystwyth, Wales, 8-11 septembre 2014.
• Petit S., Vansteelant J.Y., Plaige V., Fleury P., 2004. Les typologies de prairies : d’un outil agronomique à un objet de médiation entre agriculture et environnement. Fourrages, 179, 369-382.
• Petit T., Martel G., Vertès F., Couvreur S., 2019. Long-term maintenance of grasslands on dairy farms is associated with redesign and hybridisation of practices, motivated by farmers’ perceptions. Agricult. Sys., 173, 435-448.
• Pickworth C.L., Loerch S.C., Kopec R.E., Schwartz S.J., Fluharty Y.F.L., 2012. Concentration of pro-vitamin A carotenoids in common beef cattle feedstuffs. J. Anim. Sci., 90, 1553-1561.
• Picon-Cochard C., Bloor J., Zwicke M., Duru, M., 2013. Impacts du changement climatique sur les prairies permanentes. Fourrages, 214, 127-134.
• Pierik M.E., Gusmeroli F., Della Marianna G., Tamburini A., Bocchi S., 2017. Meadows species composition, biodiversity and forage value in an Alpine district: relationships with environmental and dairy farm management variables. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 244, 14-21. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.012
• Plantureux S., Bonischot R., Guckert A., 1993. Classification, vegetation dynamics and forage production of permanent pastures in Lorraine. Eur. J. Agron., 2, 11-17.
• Ponisio L.C., M’Gonigle L.K., Mace K.C., Palomino J., De Valpine P., Kremen C., 2014. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. Res. Soc., 282, 1799.
• Pottier E., Delaby L., Agabriel J., 2007. Adaptations de la conduite des troupeaux bovins et ovins aux risques de sécheresse. Fourrages, 191, 267-284.
• Pottier E., Roumiguie A., Jacquin A., Fougère M., 2017. Les nouvelles technologies au service de la prairie. In Journées AFPF : Le pâturage au cœur des systèmes d'élevage de demain. 21-22 mars 2017.
• Poutaraud A., Michelot-Antalik A., Plantureux S., 2017. Grasslands: A Source of Secondary Metabolites for Livestock Health. J. Agric. Food Chem., 65, 6535-6553.
• Reynaud A., Fraisse D., Cornu A., Farruggia A., Pujos-Guillot E., Besle J.M., Martin B., Lamaison J.L., Paquet D., Doreau M., Graulet B., 2010. Variation in content and composition of phenolic compounds in permanent pastures according to botanical variation. J. Agric. Food Chem., 58, 5485-5494.
• Rockström J., Steffen W., Noone K., Persson A., Chapin F.S.I., Lambin E.F., Lenton T.M., Scheffer M., Folke C., Schellnhuber H., 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc., 14, 2, 1-32.
• Roukos C.,Koutsoukis C., Akrida-Demertzi K., Karatassiou M., Demertzis G.P., Kandrelis S., 2017. The effect of altitudinal zone on soil properties, species composition and forage production in a subalpine grassland in northwest Greece. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res., 15, 1, 609-626. doi:10.15666/aeer/1501_609626
• Rubin B., Perrot C., Quenon J., 2017. Coûts de production et place du pâturage dans les systèmes fourragers bovins laitiers en France et chez nos compétiteurs. Fourrages, 230, 97-100.
• Rychen G., Jurjanz S., Toussaint H., Feidt C., 2008. Dairy ruminant exposure to persistent organic pollutants and excretion to milk. Animal: an international J. Anim. Biosci., 2, 2, 312.
• Ryschawy J., Dumont B., Therond O., Donnars C., Hendrickson J., Benoit M., Duru M., 2019. Review: An integrated graphical tool for analysing impacts and services provided by livestock farming. Animal, 13, 1760-1772.
• Saatkamp H.W., Vissers L.S.M., Van Horne P.L.M., De Jong I.C., 2019. Transition from Conventional Broiler Meat to Meat from Production Concepts with Higher Animal Welfare: Experiences from The Netherlands. Animals, 9, 483, 2-11. doi:10.3390/ani9080483
• Sanchez-Sabate R., Sabate J., 2019. Consumer attitudes toward environment concerns of meat consumption: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 16, 7, 1220. doi:10.3390/ijerph16071220
• Simon J.C., Leconte D., Vertès F., Le Meur D., 1997. Maîtrise de la pérennité du trèfle blanc dans les associations. Fourrages, 152, 483-498.
• Shalloo L., O’Donovan M., Leso L., Werner J., Ruelle E., Geoghegan A., Delaby L., O’Leary N., 2018. Review: Grass-based dairy systems, data and precision technologies. Animal, 12, 2, 262-271.
• Soussana J.F., Teyssonneyre F., Picon-Cochard C., Casella E., Besle J.M., Lherm M., Loiseau P., 2002. Impacts des changements climatiques et atmosphériques sur la prairie et sa production. Fourrages, 169, 3-24.
• Stassart P.M., Baret P., Grégoire JC., Hance T., Mormont M., Reheul D., Stimlant D., Vanloqueren G., Vissser M., 2012. L’agroécologie: Trajectoire et potentiel pour une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. Agroéocol. Entre Prat. Sci. Soc., 25-51.
• Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T.D., Caste V., De Haan C., 2006 Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environ. Issues Options; Food Agricult. Organization: Rome, Italy, pp390.
• Sulpice P., Manteaux J.P., Michaud A., Fauriat A., Ollivier A., Otz P., Longfellow H., 2019. Quels effets bénéfiques du pâturage sur la santé animale ? Première approche à partir de suivis d'élevages bovins laitiers par des vétérinaires conventionnés. Fourrages, 238, 133-138.
• Theau J.P., Pauthenet Y., Cruz P., 2017. Une typologie des espèces non graminéennes pour mieux caractériser la diversité et la valeur d’usage des prairies permanentes. Fourrages, 232, 321-329.
• Theau J.P., Malvoisin T., Faugeroux F., Pauthenet Y., 2018. Dialog’Alpes : Un outil pour valoriser la diversité des prairies permanentes dans les exploitations d’élevage bovin laitier. Fourrages, 234, 131-142.
• Therond O., Tichit M., Tibi A., Accatino F., Biju-Duval L., Bockstaller C., Bohan D., Bonaudo T., Boval M., Cahuzac E., Casellas E., Chauvel B., Choler P., Constantin J., Cousin I., Daroussin J., David M., Delacote P., Derocles S., De Sousa L., Domingues J.P., Dross C., Duru M., Eugene M., Fontaine C., Garcia B, Geijzendorffer I.R., Girardin A., Graux A.I., Jouven M., Langlois B., Le Bas C., Le Bissonnais Y., Lelievre V., Lifran R., Maigne E., Martin G., Martin R., Martin-Laurent F., Martinet V., Mclaughlin O., Meillet A., Mignolet C., Mouchet M., Nozieres-Petit M.O., Ostermann O., Paracchini M.L., Pellerin S., Peyraud J.L., Petit Michaut S., Picaud C., Plantureux S., Pomeon T., Porcher E., Puech T., Puillet L., Rambonilaza T., Raynal H., Resmond R., Ripoche D., Ruget F., Rulleau B., Rush A., Salles, J.M., Sauvant D., Schott C., Tardieu L., 2017. Biens produits par l'écosystème. In: EFESE, services écosystémiques rendus par les écosystèmes agricoles, 693-894, https://prodinra.inra.fr/record/421319.
• Tichit M., Dumont B., 2016. L’agroécologie : origines, bases scientifiques et déclinaisons en élevage. In L'agroécologie. Du nouveau pour le pastoralisme. Éditions INRA, AgroPArisTech, pp106.
• Tornambé G., Ferlay A., Farruggia A., Chilliard Y., Loiseau P., Pradel P., Graulet B., Chauveau-Duriot B., Martin B., 2010. Influence of the botanical diversity and development stage of mountain pastures on milk fatty acid composition, carotenoids, fat-soluble vitamins and sensory properties. In: Proc. 23rd General Meet. Eur. Grassland Fed., 589-591. Kiel, Germany: Grassland in a changing world.
• Tuba Z., Kaligaric M., 2008. Grassland ecology in changing climate and land use. Community Ecol., 9, 3-12.
• Tuomisto H.L., Hodge I.D., Riordan P., Macdonald D.W., 2012. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Management, 112, 309-320.
• Valnet J., 1972. Phytothérapie: traitement des maladies par les plantes. Editions Vigot, 639p.
• Vandermeulen S., Ramirez-Restrepo C.A., Beckers Y., Claessens H., Bindelle J., 2018. Agroforestry for ruminants: a review of trees and shrubs as fodder in silvopastoral temperate and tropical production systems. Animal Production Science, 58, 5, 767-777. doi:10.1071/AN16434
• Volaire F., Norton MR., Lelievre F., 2009. Summer drought survival strategies and sustainability of perennial temperate forage grasses in mediterranean areas, Crop Science, 49, 2386-2392.
• Volaire F., Ahmed L.Q., Barre P., Bourgoin T., Durand J.L., Gutiérrez A.E., Fakiri M., Ghesquière M., Julier B., Kallida R., Louarn G., Morvan-Bertrand A., Picon-Cochard C., Prud’homme P., Shaimi N., Zaka S., Zouhri L., Zwicke M., 2016. Quelle est la variabilité intra-et interspécifique des caractères d’adaptation des espèces prairiales pérennes aux variables du changement climatique? Fourrages, 225, 1-9.
• Volaire F., Lens F., Cochard H., Xu H., Chacon-Doria L., Bristiel P., Balashowski J., Nick R., Violle C., Picon-Cochard C., 2018. Embolism and mechanical resistances play a key role in dehydration tolerance of a perennial grass Dactylis glomerata L. Ann. Botany, 122, 325-336.
• Wang F.Y., Basso F., 2019. « Animals are friends, not food » : antropomorphism leads to less favorable attitudes toward meat consumption by inducing feelings of anticipatory guilt. Appetite 138, 153-173. https//doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.019
• Zeiler E., Sauter-Louis C., Ruddat I., Martin R., Mansfeld R., Knubben-Schweizer G., Zerbe H., 2010. Influence of vitamin E and selenium on udder health – a meta-analysis. Reprod. Domestic Anim., 61, 60-61.
• Zwicke M., Alessio GA., Thiery L., Falcimagne R., Baumont R., Rossignol, N., Soussana J.F., Picon‐Cochard C., 2013. Lasting effects of climate disturbance on perennial grassland above‐ground biomass production under two cutting frequencies. Global Change Biol., 19, 3435-3448.
• Zwicke M., Picon-Cochard C., Morvan-Bertrand A., Prud’homme M. P.,Volaire F., 2015. What functional strategies drive drought survival and recovery of perennial species from upland grassland? Ann. Botany, 116, 1001-1015.