Employment and farmers’ work in European ruminant livestock farms: A review

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Employment and farmers’ work in European ruminant livestock farms: A review N. Hostioua,∗, D. Volleta, M. Benoitb, C. Delfossec b

Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Université de Lyon, Laboratoire d’Etudes Rurales (EA3728), F-69363, Lyon, France a Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, AgroParisTech, VetAgro Sup, UMRTerritoires, F-63170 Aubière, France c

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Labour Farm work Attractiveness Employment Multiplier effect

Agricultural employment, in sharp decline in Europe, is the subject of little recent scientific work, and few studies focus specifically on livestock farming. Labour and employment factors must be considered to respond appropriately to the livestock farming “crisis” in Europe and to assess the room to manoeuvre of public policies to adapt this sector to the diverse challenges facing it. We have conducted a review to assess the combined effects on ruminant livestock employment and famers' work at the European level. In the first section, employment in ruminant livestock farms is quantified and the main differences between livestock sectors and regions are identified. We have showed that in France, livestock activities mobilize 41% of the French agricultural workforce at the national level, but due to territorial diversity, there are significant variations across the country. In Europe, while all countries are affected by a reduction in the livestock workforce, employment trends also vary depending on the animal sector. In the second section, we analyse trends in farmers’ work that could explain the evolution of agricultural employment in terms of slowing or accelerating the reduction in the livestock workforce. Our results highlighted supply-driven factors and demand-driven factors tend to increase the number of livestock workers. Some structural and institutional changes play a greater role as both an accelerator and moderator of the decline in livestock workers. The third section focuses on the effects of livestock employment on other industries. We show that the indirect and induced effects of livestock farming vary according to activity sector. Dairy farms have higher induced effects, especially at the national level. The development of processing activities can be limited locally by the low appeal of most of the jobs. In the conclusion, we highlight four major issues concerning employment and work in the livestock sector at the European level.

1. Introduction Due to the importance of public subsidies allocated to agriculture, especially in Europe, all agricultural production sectors are being asked to justify this support, especially during this period of reflection on how the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should evolve after 2020. Livestock production in particular is being called into question for a range of reasons: drop in meat consumption, increasing attention to animal welfare and the harmful effects on the environment of certain forms of livestock farming. Some authors even speak of a “livestock crisis” (D'Silva and Webster, 2010). Another element of this livestock farming “crisis” is the decline of the agricultural employment. In the European Union, employment in livestock farming represented over 4 million people in 2012, mainly concentrated in the new Member States. The agricultural sector in the

European Union has been marked by a drop in the agricultural workforce with the disappearance of 19% of agricultural employment between 2007 and 2013. This decline can be explained in part by the significant productivity gains achieved in recent decades (Charroin et al., 2012). Since the end of the Second World War, European livestock farms have expanded by increasing their capital (mechanization, livestock, land), while maintaining an essentially family-based workforce whose productivity has increased substantially (Neuenfeldt et al., 2018). But changes in employment and farmers work conditions could also be considered to respond appropriately to this livestock “crisis” in The European Union. While the effects of ruminant livestock on the environment have been the subject of many studies, few recent scientific studies have focused on agricultural employment, and even fewer on ruminant livestock production (Lang et al., 2015). The need for a better

Corresponding author. Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, AgroParisTech, VetAgro Sup, UMRTerritoires, F-63170, Aubière, France. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Hostiou), [email protected] (D. Vollet), [email protected] (M. Benoit), [email protected] (C. Delfosse). ∗

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.008 Received 23 January 2019; Received in revised form 20 December 2019; Accepted 11 January 2020 0743-0167/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: N. Hostiou, et al., Journal of Rural Studies, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.008

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

understanding of the current situation and latest development in employment and farmers’ work conditions in the ruminant livestock sector appears particularly pressing given that these effects constitute an important element to be considered by both professional actors and policy-makers, especially in this context of preparing the post-2020 CAP. Nonetheless, the role of agriculture, and especially ruminant livestock farming, in the rural economy is often questioned and has important policy implications (OECD, 2009). The crisis in the sector has prompted fresh efforts to examine the spill-over effect of livestock farming on employment. Employment constitutes an argument regularly put forward to justify public support in a context marked by high unemployment in some European countries (Spain, Greece), for example the multifunctional character of agriculture in public policies (OECD, 2003). An assessment of livestock-related jobs is therefore particularly important, distinguishing between agricultural jobs stricto sensu and jobs linked to the livestock sector more broadly. Differences between livestock farming could be important between types of livestock, regions and countries: so, public policies design could be also different. Employment in livestock farms can also be affected by farmers’ working conditions and the lack of social recognition which can degrade the attractiveness of the profession and may explain the disengagement of the younger generation from livestock farming. Family labour continues to decline with an increased use of contract work and wage labour (Blanc et al., 2008). Work (duration, organization, workload, etc.) is also affected by changes such as the adoption of simplified practices (Ferris et al., 2006), agro-ecological practices (Coquil et al., 2018) or the use of precision farming and automation (Schewe and Stuart, 2015). Livestock farmers are particularly affected by health problems (physical and suicides) (Spoljar, 2014), and health problems are nowadays a critical factor with regard to leading livestock farming towards more sustainable forms. This paper aims to better understand the current situation and main changes of employment and work in ruminant livestock farming in the EU member states. In this study we consider that “labour” refers to the agricultural workforce while “work” is defined by the combination of the workforce, livestock management practices and equipment, these three dimensions evolving with livestock dynamics (Madelrieux and Dedieu, 2008). Agricultural employment includes farmers and other farm workers (full time and part time) (Blanc and Perrier-Cornet, 1999), even if all are in Full Time Employment (FTE). To analyse relations between employment and work, we used a specific framework that distinguishes on one hand supply and demand driven factors for livestock products and structural and institutional changes, which are important for livestock farming (Blanc and Perrier-Cornet, 1999). In the first section, employment in ruminant livestock farms is quantified and main differences between livestock sectors and regions in the EU member states are identified. In a second section, factors related to work on ruminant livestock farms that could favour employment or contribute to the continuing strong decline in livestock employment are analysed. The third section focuses on the effects on livestock employment on agri-food industries at the national and regional level. Finally, the conclusion explores the prospects to promote the development of employment in livestock farms in France and Europe.

Input-Output Model (SAM), Economic or Export Base Model (EBM)) (Richardson, 1985) in the title, abstract or keywords. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles, book and book chapters. Articles with the language “English” and “French” were considered. Furthermore, the time frame was restricted to articles published between 1998 and December 2018. The search was made for ruminant livestock farms and agri-food industries. Only commercial ruminant farms were considered. The geographic scope focuses on European members countries. Some regions were excluded to our search (Latin America, Caribbean, Asia). References to other countries (USA, Canada, New Zealand for example) were sometimes used to illustrate key issues when no reference was available for the chosen geographic scope: i) for comparative purposes to show if European results are similar to those elsewhere in the world, ii) for illustrative purposes based on the hypothesis that a result from elsewhere in the world could be relevant to the European Union situation. Upon applying these restrictions, the first broad article search resulted in 1369 hits as follows: for the “work” topic (180 articles from the Web of Science, 349 articles from Econolit), for the “employment” topic (204 articles from the Web of Science, 636 articles from Econolit). In the next step we eliminated articles that were either duplicates or proved to be substantively irrelevant given the focal topics, screening the titles. Then, the selected sample was examined more closely by reading the articles. 3. Employment in ruminant livestock farms: quantification and differences according to animal sectors and territories 3.1. Employment at the European level In Europe (25 countries without Bulgaria and Romania), between 2004 and 2012, the farms which showed the largest employment decline were mixed livestock and mixed crop-livestock farms (−3.8%), highlighting an increased specialization of livestock farms and the role of economies of scale (Duvaleix-Tréguer and Gaigné, 2016) (Table 1). The total workforce increased on farms specialized in goats and sheep. Only farms specializing in dairy and beef cattle experienced lower-thanaverage declines for all farms (−2.2%) (Table 1). The European average masks very different trends in different countries. In all countries, the number of livestock farmers fell, except in Spain (+32 000) and the Netherlands (+3000). The largest decreases occurred in Poland (−157 000) and to a lesser extent in Italy (−65 000), followed by Ireland, France and Germany (between −30 000 and −35 000) (Table 2). 3.2. Employment in France as a case-study According to the 2010 agricultural census, over half of agricultural jobs in France were on farms with a livestock activity. However, not all of these jobs correspond exclusively to ruminant livestock farming activities since farmers often have several associated activities: cash crops, contract work, tourism, on-farm processing, direct sales, etc. Within the same technical-economic farm type, farms often combine Table 1 Evolution of the total workforce in % in livestock farming between 2004 and 2012 according to the techno-economic orientations in the 25-member European Union (Source: FADN data processed by SMART-LERECO Rennes).

2. Material The search has been organized into two sub-sets for each of the two main subjects (work and employment). We searched two databases, Web of Science and Econolit, using the following research terms. For the “work” topic, the keywords used for the ruminant animal sectors included “work”, “working conditions”, “living conditions”, “labour” in the title, abstract or keywords. For the “employment” topic, the keywords used included the names of the main methods used to estimate direct and induced effects of an industry (Social Accounting Matrix, 2

Technical-economic orientations

evolution/year (%)

Specialized dairy cattle Specialized beef cattle Specialized sheep and goats Specialized granivorous Mixed-livestock farming, mixed crop-livestock farming All farming

−1.8 −0.5 +0.2 −2.3 −3.8 −2.2

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

Alps (Cocca et al., 2012), and the existence of Less Favoured Area payments in areas with low stocking rates (Jones et al., 2014).

Table 2 Evolution of the total workforce (1000 Annual Work Unit) in livestock farming between 2004 and 2012 in the 25-member European Union (Source: FADN data processed by SMART-LERECO Rennes). Country

AWU1 (1000)

Spain The Netherlands Belgium Denmark France Ireland Germany Italy Poland United Kingdom EU 25

+32 +3 −5 −6 −30 −32 −35 −65 −157 −291 −555

4. Explanatory factors of the evolution of employment in livestock farming: the working conditions of livestock farmers In this second section, we analyse trends in livestock farmers’ work that could explain the evolution of workforce in farms, and thus increase or decrease in agricultural employment. We have distinguished supply and demand driven factors for livestock products and structural and institutional changes, which are important for livestock farming. 4.1. Supply-driven factors of livestock products Two supply driven factors affect workforce on livestock farms: the evolution of the workforce composition and farmers’ health.

AWU1: Annual Work Unit.

4.1.1. Evolution of the workforce composition In Europe, around three-quarters of farm labour force comes from family (holders and family members) (Eurostat, 2017). But workforce composition in ruminant livestock farming is being affected by three main changes: a gradual substitution of family labour with salaried labour, women's labour becoming more visible and new collective livestock farmer organizations. First, non-family wage labour is gradually replacing family labour on farms. For example in France, in dairy cattle farming, non-family labour is more recent and less prevalent (13.6% of total employment) than for pig production (40.9%) (Table 5). However, there has been a greater increase in the non-family employment in dairy cattle (+3% between 2010 and 2015) compared with a 1.8% increase in the pig farms. Livestock farmers are sometimes confronted with high turnover among employees and difficulties to retain them on their farms (Malanski et al., 2018). Employee turnover is related to the seasonality of farm activities and mainly to employees' low qualifications and skills (Durst et al., 2018). The second factor affecting the workforce composition in livestock farms is the change of women contribution in farm labour. In the EU28, women account for 35.1% of the agricultural workforce (Eurostat, 2017). Women accounted for more than 40% of the agricultural workforce in only five Member States, namely Austria (44.5%), Romania (43.1%) Poland, Greece and Slovenia (41.1% in each of three countries). By contrast, the lowest proportions of women farmers were reported in Denmark (19.9%) and Ireland (11.6%) (Eurostat, 2017). However, women's labour is more recognized: their role change in farms becoming owners or wage earners. For example in France, the proportion of female farm as owners or co-owners (from 14,7% in 1988 to 24,1% in 2010) or wage earners (from 15,7% in 1988 to 38% in 2010) (Dahache, 2014). The feminization of livestock labour has consequences such as greater reliance on outside labour, mechanization, and replacement services, all corollaries of a different relationship with work that leaves more room for family life (Contzen and Forney, 2017). The third factor are the new methods of organization and cooperation between farmers being set up with the emergence and development of different forms of collective arrangements organized by farmers around their production activities such as joint cropping plans, processing/marketing products, and forms of agricultural cooperation (Thomas et al., 2015). While support arrangements between families are regressing, the provision of services is developing and contributing to a separation of the three main dimensions defining a family farm: ownership, working capital and labour. Agricultural contractors and cooperatives for the use of agricultural equipment are two delivery mechanisms that favour the maintenance of farming activities and the transmission of farms within families (Anzalone and Purseigle, 2014).

different productions and activities in very different proportions. These farm types are defined by government statistical offices based on a fairly vague notion of ‘specialization’: a farm is considered to be specialized if two thirds of its revenue are earned from a specific type of production. The workforce involved in each activity on a farm is particularly tricky to assess as agriculture employment data only provides information on the scale of the farm, and all production units combined. The agricultural census provides no indication about how the workforce is divided between different production units. To assess this distribution of labour between ruminant livestock and other activities, and to disaggregate it among the different potential livestock units, specific methods are required. The most recent livestock sector study was conducted in France (Lang et al., 2015) and used a multiple linear regression method. Lang et al. (2015) used a model with no constant term where Y, the variable to be explained, corresponds to the total Annual Work Units (AWU) of the farm, and X, the explanatory variables, are the technical variables (hectares, Livestock Units or Standard Gross Production) conditioned to the types of units. Lang et al. (2015) estimated that 312 000 full-time equivalents (FTE) corresponded to the livestock workforce in 2010 (all productions excluding equine production). This means that livestock activities mobilize 41% (or even 45% if farm equine and equestrian activities are included) of the French agricultural workforce at the national level. However, this percentage varies greatly at the local level due to the territorial diversity in France. The highest values for the relative weight of livestock in agricultural employment (from 95 to almost 100%) are found in mountain areas (Massif Central, Pyrenees, Jura mountains, Northern Alps) but also in certain lowland areas with specific characteristics: 95% in the Cotentin marshes, 92% in Avesnois (Thiérache of the North), etc. In the main lowland livestock areas (Brittany, Poitou-Charentes), between 75% and 80% of agricultural jobs are linked to livestock farming. In terms of trends, total French agricultural employment has been declining less rapidly over recent periods than during the 2000–2010 decade. The slowdown in the decline is particularly pronounced in dairy cattle, mixed cattle and goats (Table 3). Strong interregional differences are evident (Table 4). Firstly, the rate of decline in the number of dairy farmers is particularly low in the regions dominated by highly remunerative PDOs (Protected Designation of Origin) (as in Burgundy Franche-Comté). Secondly, throughout the European Union, the concentration of livestock farms (especially pig farms) makes it easier to achieve economies of scale in areas where monogastric (pigs and poultry) farming is widespread and located in close proximity to ports and downstream processing industries (Marquer et al., 2014). The number of beef cattle farmers is better maintained in mountain regions (as in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes) than in other regions for two main reasons: the existence of off-farm employment opportunities, particularly in southern European mountain areas (Bernues et al., 2011) and the

4.1.2. Health in livestock farms: a question which is no longer taboo Livestock farmers are particularly affected by health problems: they are exposed to a variety of physical, chemical and biological hazards, 3

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

Table 3 Average annual change in agricultural employment in France (Source: Annual Review of Agricultural Employment (BAEA)) (Agreste, 2017, p.8, p.8). Technical-economic orientation of “specialized” farms

Number AWU1 in 2010

2010/2000 (%)

2015/2010 (%)

Slowing of the reduction

Dairy cattle Beef cattle Mixed cattle Sheep and goats Pigs Poultry Cereals, oilseeds and protein crops Other field crops Market vegetables Flowers Viticulture Fruit Other herbivores Other intensive industrial livestock production Polyculture, mixed livestock Total agricultural workforce

95 382 70 118 21 028 34 292 13 856 26 050 8020 49 384 23 264 33 737 132 525 36 623 25 454 14 655

−3.5 −2.3 −4.6 −2.4 −2.0 −1.7 −0.5 −2.4 −1.5 −3.0 1.4 −2.6 −0.6 −4.2

−2.3 −2.1 −2.3 −1.2 −0.9 −1.1 −1.2 −0,5 +0.5 −2.5 −0.1 +0.3 −0.5 −1.7

X

94 976 751 365

−3.6 −2.4

−1.3 −1.1

X X

X X X X

Reduction rate similar between the 2 periods X

X

X X X X

Acceleration of the reduction

X X

AWU1: Annual Work Unit.

directly linked with the production system. For example, workers in animal confinement buildings are exposed longer and more intensely to indoor dust and gases, unlike traditional herdsmen (Kouimintzis et al., 2007). Data on suicide, which is the third leading cause of death in agriculture, has been discussed little in the scientific literature (Spoljar, 2014). For example, farmers in France have the highest suicide mortality rate among all social categories. The same phenomenon has been observed in other European countries and elsewhere in the world (Australia, Canada, Korea) (Bossard et al., 2016). In France, suicide rates are higher among individuals 45–64 years old and in the dairy cattle and beef cattle sectors. Some studies have identified the factors explaining the high rates of depression and suicide in livestock farms: bureaucracy, geographic isolation, extreme physical phenomena, decrease of the margin of profit over the last decades, increase of production cost and unexpected disasters due to the spread of mortal zoonoses (Gregoire, 2002; Kolstrup et al., 2013). Nevertheless, it remains difficult to estimate the number of suicides (undervaluation, opaque forms of suicide) and to identify the causes (Kouimintzis et al., 2007). There are multiple sources of ill-being at work that are not all related to the worker alone because they are related to the relationship to work of individuals, work organization and collectives (Spoljar, 2014).

Table 5 Weights and evolution 2010–2015 of salaried employment (Source: Annual Review of Agricultural Employment, Agreste, 2017).

4.2. Demand-driven factors

livestock farms: a demand for tourism services in livestock farming areas, leading to a diversification of farm activities, and a demand for more environmentally-friendly livestock products.

Dairy cattle Beef cattle Pigs Poultry Cereals, oilseeds and protein crops Other field crops Market vegetables Flowers Viticulture Fruit Other herbivores Other intensive industrial livestock production Polyculture, mixed livestock Total France

Two types of demand-driven factors affect the workforce on

Share salaried employment/total employment in 2015

Evolution 2015/2010 of salaried employment (%)

13.6 10.3 40.9 34.0 18.8

+3.0 +2.9 +1.8 +0.2 +1.9

40.8 73.9 68.2 57.6 63.1 31.8 20.1

+1.2 +2.2 −3.4 +2.1 +2.2 +1.2 +2.7

34.4

+1.8

34.5

+0.3

Table 4 2010/2015 developments in some French regions (Source: Annual Review of Agricultural Employment, Agreste, 2017).

Dairy cattle Beef cattle Mixed cattle Sheep and goats Pigs Poultry Cereals, oilseeds and protein crops Other field crops Market vegetables Flowers Viticulture Fruit Other herbivores Other intensive industrial livestock production Polyculture, mixed livestock Total agricultural workforce

Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (%)

Bretagne (%)

Nouvelle-Aquitaine (%)

Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (%)

−2.4 −1.5 −2.6 −0.6 −0.3 −1.2 −1.6 0.3 +2.1 −1.7 −0.8 +0.7 −1.1 −1.3 −1.1 −1.3

−2.5 −3.1 −2.3 −1.3 −1.4 −2.0 −1.8 +0.8 +2.8 −1.4 – +4 +0.3 −1.9 −0.1 −1.3

−3.1 −2.5 −3.3 −2.5 −2.6 −1.9 −2.6 −0.1 +3.3 −2.6 +0.1 +1 −0.4 −2.4 −2.1 −1.2

−1.2 −1.9 −2.6 −0.9 −2.1 −0.7 −1.0 −1.1 −0.6 −2.5 +0.7 −0.6 −1.1 −1.2 −1.1 −0.8

4

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

the workers carrying out routine work) and per year1 (Cournut and Chauvat, 2012). However, these labour time requirements vary greatly between farms according to the animal sector. Yet Cournut and Chauvat (2012) showed that there was no difference between mixed and specialized farms. Goat cheese farms are distinguished by routine work requirements that are double the average for the sample due to the large numbers of animals to be milked, cheese processing and sometimes direct sales.

4.2.1. Diversification/off-farm activities The review of the literature has highlighted competition between farm and non-farm activities for labour. The farm workforce can be mobilized for non-agricultural activities (for example, tourism), and consequently have less involvement in on-farm livestock related activities. The appeal of pluriactivity is all the greater in tourist areas. In Spain, where numerous livestock farmers engage in pluriactivity (Garcia-Martinez et al., 2009), the slightest reduction in the farm workforce leads to reduced livestock activity with smaller herd sizes. Grazing areas also are reduced because they require a larger workforce. These changes in land use are the first step towards the abandonment of farmland. However, other authors emphasize that a combination of livestock activities and pluriactivity also can enable families to continue livestock farming due to the additional income supplementing farm revenues (López-i-Gelats et al., 2011).

4.3.2. Simplification of practices in livestock farming systems Different factors explain work time requirements, and highlight possible changes that farmers could use to reduce work duration. The technical management implemented explains work time requirements (Meul et al., 2012; Cournut et al., 2018; Deming et al., 2018). Animal management practices are affected by simplifying farming practices (reducing time in sheepfolds with late grazing periods, reducing the frequency of feed distribution or introducing self-service) would reduce the amount of work due to farmers’ expectations regarding work, especially free time and to make labour more efficient (Ferris et al., 2006; Gleeson et al., 2008). In some studies simplifying farming practices is linked with reduced productivity losses (Bernues et al., 2011). However, other authors show that the reduction of working time on livestock farms, linked to farmers' expectations to work less, sometimes leads to a reduction in profits, such as with the practice of once-daily milking on dairy farms (Lazzarini et al., 2018) or changes in feeding rates (Olaizola et al., 2008). In some cases, for example in beef farms in France, simplification of practices could lead to an increase of herd sizes (Veysset et al., 2017). The same was observed in sheep farms in France and Spain with the adoption of simplified feed practices (Olaizola et al., 2008; Moulin et al., 2004). Thus the economic gains (current income) are not obtained in all cases. In the suckler cattle sector, gains in labour productivity, leading in particular to an increase in inputs (proportional or structural costs, for example equipment), have been captured by some upstream actors but above all by downstream sector actors (Veysset et al., 2017).

4.2.2. Consumer demand for more agro-ecological livestock systems The transition to more agro-ecological forms of livestock systems, expected by consumers, affects farmers' working conditions. The use of fewer inputs and a search for autonomy should lead to improved farmers' work (Aubron et al., 2016) with fulfilling and honourable means to earn a living (Gliessman, 2007). However, the reduction of the workload is not systematic and there is the possibility of an increase in the amount, technicality, complexity, and even difficulty of work (Jansen, 2000; Timmermann and Félix, 2015). However, Timmermann and Félix (2015) argue that agro-ecological farming systems can be more labour-intensive and complex but this disadvantage is compensated by the fact that the work is considered more meaningful than work in conventional systems. For example, the nature of agro-ecological systems requires an increased development of social skills and cognitive capacities than in conventional agriculture, and would stimulate more peer recognition of farmers’ work (Timmermann and Fé;lix, 2015). Depending on how farm labour is organized and the household tasks are attributed, the implementation of ecological practices can have different impacts on work activities and working conditions of farmers.

4.3.3. Use of precision livestock farming The quest for improved efficiency and productivity in response to the current economic and structural context is motivating the adoption of precision farming on farms. Most authors highlight the time saved when precision livestock farming is associated with automations that ensure milking, feed distribution, animal monitoring, and regulating the internal building environment instead of the farmer (Schewe and Stuart, 2015; Morgan-Davies et al., 2018). The time gained can be reinvested in production or management tasks, but also in personal activities. Precision technologies replace physical work with management tasks, consisting notably in verifying, often several times a day, the information produced, using previously set alerts, which reduces the physical strain of work in livestock farming (Butler et al., 2012). However, these new tasks can sometimes reduce the time savings resulting from the removal of the task itself (Schewe and Stuart, 2015). New technologies can have a positive effect on reducing the mental workload on livestock farmers because they help to anticipate physiological or sanitary signs that are sometimes barely visible to the human eye (temperature change, heart rate, etc.) (Hansen, 2015). Yet the mental workload can also increase, as a large amount of information is regularly produced by certain sensors, rendering it difficult to select the information useful for decision-making (Hansen, 2015). While precision livestock farming is likely to make the profession more attractive, especially for young people in search of modernity, it may also prove to be a source of failure if it is not adapted to livestock farmers’ needs and

4.3. Structural and institutional changes for livestock farming Five types of structural and institutional changes affect the evolution of livestock workforce: work durations, changes in livestock management, use of precision livestock farming, low appeal of livestock-related professions and institutional changes and CAP evolution. 4.3.1. High work durations in livestock farming systems with a large variability between animal sectors Livestock farming involves long working hours (Deming et al., 2018). Livestock farmers are burdened with a particularly heavy workload: a reported 61 h a week, compared to 46 h for cereal farmers (INSEE, 2018). While working hours in agriculture are unquestionably long, it is difficult to compare the duration of farmers' work with that of other professions. As farmers generally live and work on the same site, it is harder than in other professions to distinguish time spent on agricultural work from that devoted to domestic activities. However, in 2016 French farmers had the highest average number of working hours in France, clocking 53 h per week (compared to 47 h for artisans, shopkeepers and company heads, 41 h for managers, 38 h for all salaried employees) (INSEE, 2018). Studies show the variability of labour time requirements and labour productivity on livestock farms (Cournut et al., 2018; O'Brien et al., 2018; Poulopoulou et al., 2018). Daily work including animal care (milking, feeding, etc) is the most consuming task in livestock farms (Cournut et al., 2018). In France, a study of 630 farms in livestock sectors (milk and meat cattle, milk and meat sheep, dairy goat and cheese) shows average work routines of 2800 h per farm (including all

1 The routine work is done almost daily. It usually covers daily animal care (milking, feeding, treatments, etc.) and is quantified in hours per day (Cournut et al., 2018).

5

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

Table 6 Summary of factors having an effect on the evolution of the livestock farming workforce.

Factors favouring an increase of the livestock farming workforce

Factors favouring the acceleration of the decline of the livestock farming workforce

Supply driven factors

Demand driven factors

Structural and institutional changes

Evolution of workforce: - gradually substituting family labour with salaried labour - women's labour more visible - new collective livestock farmers organizations Occupational health in agriculture

Diversification (tourism) Consumer demand for more agroecological livestock systems

Simplification of practices in livestock farming systems Use of precision livestock farming

skills (Hostiou et al., 2017).

High work durations in livestock farming systems Use of precision livestock farming Low appeal of livestock-related professions Evolution of the CAP

employment or incomes). The multiplier designates a more general link between an expenditure considered to be autonomous or independent (changes in final demand, public expenditure, exports, a category of agents, etc.) and income or employment. In regional economics, authors usually distinguish two sets of methods which are generally used to assess the indirect and induced effects of a sector: input-output analyses and models (IOM) and economic or export base models (EBM) (Richardson, 1985; OECD, 2009). The type of processing and addedvalue activities, as well as the location of these activities (possible delocalisation), play a determining role in the characterization of these effects. Finally, processing activities may be constrained by their limited attractiveness, which may lead to a reconsideration of their organization and the tools implemented. Usually, we distinguish “open” input-output (concentrated purely on inter-industry dependence), “closed” input-output multipliers and Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers (capable of analysing the effects of exogenous injections on all endogenous accounts) (Midmore, 1991; Roberts, 1995).

4.3.4. Low appeal of livestock-related professions Studies in different European countries highlight that working conditions lead to a disengagement of younger generations from farming in the different animal sectors. For example, studies in Italy (Battaglini et al., 2014) and Spain (Bernues et al., 2011) point out that the continuation of traditional livestock systems with positive environmental impacts is threatened because younger generations are not replacing livestock farmers when they retire. Pastoralism is declining in some rural areas as lifestyles evolve. In Italy, herd owners are obliged to appeal to immigrants from the Balkans who accept the living conditions involved but who are not always declared and are considered illegal workers (Huband et al., 2010). Nonetheless, all types of livestock farming systems are concerned by the low appeal of the farming profession due to the predominance of physical tasks carried out with little autonomy, and an associated image of precariousness, low qualifications and low wages (Zagata and Sutherland, 2015).

5.1. Important indirect effects on agri-food industries at the national level especially in France and Spain

4.3.5. Institutional changes and CAP evolution Recent developments in the CAP have played an important role in the evolution of employment and the conditions of employment on livestock farms. The elimination of milk quotas in 2015 has increased the concentration of dairy farms and thus reduced employment. However in other countries as in Ireland, in some cases herd sizes have increased leading to an increased demand for dairy farm workers (Kelly et al., 2017). The effects of agro-environmental measures are more difficult to assess. On the one hand, they favour extensive systems which require less manpower; on the other hand, certain types of ecosystem services need to be supported by more manpower. In fact, “The heterogeneous effects of the CAP on agricultural employment of various member states illustrates the diverse impact of CAP measures and also the contradictory effects of Pillar I and Pillar II upon local economies” (Papadopoulos, 2015). Supply-driven factors and demand-driven factors tend to increase workforce, and thus employment, in livestock farms. Some structural and institutional changes play a greater role as an accelerator of the decline in livestock workers (Table 6).

At the European level (EU 28), in 2013, the indirect effects of livestock farming on agri-food industries involved over one million employees (source: Eurostat2). The largest numbers of workers are located in France, Germany and Poland (about 150 000, 180 000 and 200 000 employees for each country). As a percentage of total employment, they are the largest in France and Spain (just under 1% of total employees). Nethertheless, in Spain, the growth of livestock, meat and dairy output has little impact in terms of employment in agri-food industries (Cardenette et al., 2014). The most recent, precise and nation-wide study of the indirect effects of livestock-related jobs in France is that of Lang et al. (2015). They estimated the indirect effects by using the concept of ‘dependence’ (an approach that is very different from the multiplier method usually used in economics). They defined the dependence of a firm on livestock farming by the fact that “a change in livestock farming has consequences for its level of activity, its existence and its jobs, etc. The degree of dependence corresponds to the potential importance of these consequences”. Lang et al. (2015) drew from the contributions of Mentzer et al. (2001) to identify the different criteria to be taken into account to estimate the “degree of dependence” (flexibility, adaptability, specificity of resources and constraints) and to assess it through a survey of companies.3

5. Indirect and induced effects of ruminant livestock employment on the rest of the economy The indirect and induced effects of ruminant livestock farming vary across sectors and should be examined differently at the national and local levels. The direct effects correspond to employment in the studied sector. Indirect activity is that occurring in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to direct activities. Induced activity is that which results from successive rounds of expenditure out of incomes generated from direct and indirect activity (Miller and Blair, 2009). The multiplier concept is used to estimate indirect and induced effects (in terms of

2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Farm_ structure_statistics#The_farm_labour_force. 3 The “degree of dependence” is estimated using an analysis grid and a notation common to all of the companies surveyed, which allows comparisons between sectors and regions. The comparisons of results obtained through this approach are therefore precise and rich. However, comparisons with results

6

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

tourism (about 2.5 and 3), in particular because of the greater need of local intermediate consumption and the larger share of work in final production (Sorenson, 2007). Second, estimations obtained through SAM at a local level lead to the same types of conclusions and at the same level, for example 1.21 (employment multiplier) for beef cattle in East Wales (Lindberg et al., 2012) (Table 7). The SAM “describe the full circular flows of money and goods in an economy” (Miller and Blair, 2009). At the national level, the multiplier effects obtained through SAM are higher (1.38 for beef cattle) (Roberts, 1998) (national level multipliers always being higher than local level ones due to more limited leakages). As noted by the OECD (2009), “One important observation is that the national multiplier for a sector is not necessarily a good indicator of the regional multiplier for that sector in a particular region." The local effects of livestock farming in terms of employment were generally estimated with EBM in France (because of lack of regional accounting) except Daucé and Léon (Input Output) and SAM (income or employment demand-driven multipliers) in other European countries (Table 7). Lindberg et al. (2012) used a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) to estimate specific multipliers disaggregated by livestock type in two small areas of Sweden (Ostergotland) and the United Kingdom (East Wales). In both areas, the SAM multipliers, which are superior for beef cattle operations compared to dairy farming, range between 1.18 and 1.40. Due to the extent of leakages at the regional level, multipliers estimated at this geographic level remain well lower than those estimated as the national level using the same method: in the range of 1.2 at the regional level and 2 and the national level using a SAM (employment and demand-driven multiplier) (Lindberg et al., 2012). Roberts (1995) found that livestock commodities have higher employment multipliers (SAM) than the arable commodities in United Kingdom. The only estimation involving an input-ouptut model was carried out in France (Daucé and Léon, 2003); although the results obtained by input-output models are generally lower than those by SAM. “The fundamental information used in IO analysis concerns the flows of products from each industrial sector considered as a producer to each of the sectors itself and others considered as consumers. The basic information from which an IO model is developed is contained in an interindustry transaction table. The additional columns labelled “Final demand” record the sales by each sector to final markets for their products … The IO ignores the flows for products sectors to factors of productions (value added) (Miller and Blair, 2009). Despite these limitations, the results obtained in the case of a small Brittany region are among the strongest at this geographic level. The Brittany region has indeed a significant concentration of agri-food activities, which limits leakages. In fact, for a same geographical level, the multiplier effects of agri-food processing industries and tourism on the regional economy are often higher than those of dairy or meat farms.

The Lang et al. (2015) study led to the definition of four employment groups linked in varying degrees to livestock farming: jobs with high, medium, low, and no dependence on this activity. This study estimated the jobs dependent on French livestock farming to be 703 000 FTE (Full Time Equivalents), corresponding to the activity of 882 000 people with permanent employment (full-time or part-time). When temporary employment in the indirect sectors is added, the figure amounts to 724 000 FTEs related to livestock, or 3.2% of total employment in France. This figure includes direct jobs on livestock farms (312 000 FTE), and low, high and very dependent jobs (52 000, 210 000 and 207 000 FTE respectively). This means that for each FTE on farms, there are 1.25 additional FTE in other sectors of the economy. International comparisons of the effects induced by livestock farming highlight two elements: first, the weakness of induced effects (in comparison with other sectors), and secondly, the large disparities between livestock sectors. With a large sample of organic and non organic farms in England, Lobley et al. (2009) shows that for each FTE on livestock farms, there is 0.55 additional FTE in others sectors (few differences exist in fact between organic and non organic farms). Using a same method, Morison et al. (2005) found 0.63 additional FTE. These results show low level of indirect employment in England than in France. 5.2. Higher multiplier effects of agri-food processing industries and tourism than those of farms at a local level Table 7 contains all employment, output and income multipliers concerning livestock farming and the agri-food processing linked to livestock from a literature search. It is very difficult to compare the estimates because of differences in the type of multiplier (IOM, SAM, EBM) and the methodology used for the same type of multiplier (for example, survey methods, minimum requirements or assignment method for EBM). It is possible to compare the open inter-industry output multipliers for meat industries between zone 5b in Brittany (Bossard and Daucé, 2004) and the entire Brittany region (Mahé et al. reported by OECD, 2009). These are the same types of output multipliers. It is logical that the multipliers for the entire Brittany region (2.04) are higher than those for zone 5b (1.7), which is smaller and less economically integrated. In contrast, it is impossible to make a comparison with the employment multipliers estimated by Daucé and Léon (2003) for the meat industry in the Brittany zone of Lamballé (3.2). A comparison of the level of all of the multipliers used for the estimation of indirect and induced effects (in terms of employment or income) of livestock farming in Europe (all published studies) with those of other activity sectors (agri-food industry, tourism) shows that the multiplier effects of livestock farming are low. As previously stated, comparisons should be made by multiplier type. First, with regard to economic base multipliers, only one regression-specific and sectorspecific multiplication on cross-section data (employment) has been carried out in Europe (Vollet, 1998). EBM “separate the economy into two components: activities that satisfy demand from outside the region (economic base) and those that mainly supports goods and services to local residents … The economic base multiplier of employment gives results such as an increase of one job in the economic base leads to an extension of X jobs in the total employment within the region” (Droff and Paloyo, 2015). The only other works that have estimated regression-specific and sectorspecific multipliers were carried out in North America (Vias and Mulligan, 1997; Sorenson, 2007) (Table 8). At a local level (counties), the multipliers obtained for livestock farming are all much lower (1.29 in Vollet (1998) and 1.21 in Vias and Mulligan (1997)) than those of

5.3. Very different effects of livestock farming on local employment according to territories and type of livestock: a French case study In France, the effects are estimated with EBM (employment multiplier) may vary widely depending on the area, even between two neighbouring areas which are developing the same type of livestock farming. For example, the two territories of Semur en Auxois and Avallon (in the Burgundy region in France) have very similar livestock farming systems but the direct effects of livestock farming are very different. They are responsible for about half of total employment in Semur, and one quarter in Avallon because of differences in the economic integration of the areas (Vollet, 1998) (Table 9). Moreover, the multiplier effects specific to the agricultural sector (estimated by econometric regression of the economic base) are very different due to differences in the economic integration of the areas. In total, direct, indirect and induced effects account for almost 85% of total employment in Semur compared with 27% for Avallon (Vollet, 1998). The results obtained in other suckler livestock farming areas also highlight

(footnote continued) obtained through other types of multipliers (IOM, SAM, EBM) are more difficult to interpret. 7

8

East Wales East Wales East Wales East Wales Grampian

National

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Region Region Region Region

1990

2000 1993 1993 2004 2012

Meat Industry Dairy Industry Meat Industry Dairy Industry Meat industry Suckler cattle farm Suckler cattle farm Dairy farm Breeders (horse) Riding schools Boarding enterprises Breeders (horse) Riding schools Boarding enterprises Beef cattle Dairy farm Beef cattle Sheep Dairy farms Cattle and sheep farms (Lowland) Meat products Milk products Cattle Sheep 1998

2004 2004 2004 2004 1991

2012

1990

1999

Year of estimate

Suckler cattle farm

Types of livestock farming or industry

(1) EM: Employment Multiplier; IM: Income Multiplier; OM: Output Multiplier.

National

Area of Lamballe (Côtes d’Armor) Area of Semur-en-Auxois (Côte d’Or) Area of Avallon, (Yonne) Östergötland region National

Norway

Sweden

County of Pont de Montvert (Lozère) Programms 5b region in Brittany

France

Brittany

Geographic level

Country

Table 7 The multiplier effects of various types of livestock farming in Europe (all studies).

1.51 (OM) 1.44 2.0 1.49

1.7 (OM) 1.8 (OM) 2.06 (OM) 2.21 (OM) 3.2 (EM)

Interindustry multipliers Interindustry Open

Interindustry clode

1,32 (IM) 1,38 (IM)

1.18 (IM) 2.00 (IM) 2.15 (IM) 1.47 (IM) 1.91 (IM) 1.76 (IM) 1.46 (IM) 1.21 (IM) 1.26 (IM) 1.40 (IM) 1.41 (IM) 1.32 (OM) 1.24 1.86 1.83

SAM

1.16 (EM)

1.29 (EM)

1.3 (EM)

Economic base multipliers

Roberts (1998)

Lindberg et al., Lindberg et al., Lindberg et al., Lindberg et al., Roberts (2000)

2012 2012 2012 2012

Lindberg et al., 2015

Vollet (1998) Lindberg et al., 2012 Lindberg et al., 2015

Vollet (1998)

Mahé et al. reported in OECD, 2009 Daucé and Léon (2003)

Bossard et al. (2000)

Bono and Touzard (1999)

Authors

N. Hostiou, et al.

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

Table 8 The multiplier effects of agriculture, manufacturing and tourism in Europe and North America (some case studies) with Economic Base Models (multiplier employment, regression, cross section data). Country

Geographic level

Agriculture

Manufacturing

Tourism

Type of multiplier

Authors

USA USA Europe

County County County

1.21 0.97 1.29

1.46 3.94 –

2.52 3.06 2.52

EBM EBM EBM

Vias and Mulligan (1997) Sorenson (2007) Vollet (1998)

(1)EMB = Export Base Model: The economic or export base models (EBM) “separate the economy into two components: 1) activities that satisfy demand from outside the region (economic base), 2) activities that mainly supports goods and services to local resident. The economic base multiplier of employment gives results such as an increase of one job in the economic base leads to an extension of X jobs in the total employment within the region” (Droff and Paloyo, 2015).

this wide range of situations. For example, in Pont de Montvert (Lozère, France), only 0.3 of indirect employment is linked to an agricultural job (Bono and Touzard, 1999). These results can be explained in several ways, such as localization of services and type of livestock (extensive suckler). Firstly, most of the jobs associated with downstream, upstream, household consumption and administration are located outside of the district. Secondly, the area is dominated by extensive suckler livestock farms and downstream sales operations have not been well developed. Under these conditions, the same public policy concerning the same suckling sector will have very different economic effects on local employment. The effects on territories are all the more differentiated because livestock farming can be the source of true clusters associating public and private actors enabling the emergence of learning processes and economies of scale (Debresson, 1989). Few geographical indications are success stories. While some local production systems involving PDOs (example of Comté in France or Parmiggiano in Italy) are rather dynamic, others are experiencing certain difficulties (example of Cantal in France) (Barjolle and Jeanneaux, 2012). Some sectors may be behind employment generating clusters such as the agro-tourism cluster of Périgord (De Soucey, 2010), as well as the equine sector in France (cluster Hippolia in the department of Calvados) and Kentucky (UnitedStates) (Garkovich et al., 2008). Some Polish clusters raise questions about the relationship between forms of subsistence farming (the productivity of which remains low) and agro-industries employing lowpaid migrant (and even illegal) workers which need large quantities of agricultural products to generate economies of scale (Dannenberg and Kulke, 2005).

issues concerning employment and work in the livestock sector at the European level. Firstly, although there is a wide range of impacts on employment depending on the sector and type of livestock, the induced effects of livestock farming activities remain low compared to other activity sectors (for example tourism). Across countries, the dairy sector is one of the animal sectors most likely to generate backward and forward linkages or multiplier effects on the local economy (Papadas and Dahl, 1999; Hilgemberg and Hilgemberg, 2014), but it also has among the highest rates of ill-being at work and suicide due to structural (work stress, isolation) and cyclical factors (financial difficulties, consequences of milk quota reforms) (Kolstrup et al., 2013). The equine sector shares with the dairy sector a strong spill-over capacity on the regional economy, mainly in Western Europe where demand for equestrian leisure activities has increased sharply over the past 20 years (France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Norway) (Lindberg et al., 2015). A geographical differentiation was demonstrated in the criteria observed: the strongest multiplier effects were noted in the most heavily dairy and integrated areas (notably in western France). Secondly, initial analyses of the joint effects on volumes and types of jobs held and their effects (positive or negative) on the environment are emerging (Flemmer, 2012). In a context of widespread competition and market liberalization, this type of analysis can profoundly modify the terms of competition for example, the dairy sector in New Zealand (Gallagher, 2008). Thirdly, supply-driven factors, demand-driven factors, structural and institutional factors that explain the slowdown or acceleration of the decline in the agricultural workforce differ in nature, some involving changes in the agricultural labour force, others associated with changes in farming practices and even livestock farmers’ health. Public policies must be able to accompany these evolutions of farming systems to move towards more sustainable and socially acceptable forms by promoting new collective organizations between livestock farmers and even encouraging wage labour. They also must support transformations of livestock farms to aim for agro-ecological or digital transition (Britt et al., 2018). While health often remains in the shadows, it is today a critical factor with regard to leading livestock farming towards more sustainable forms. Finally, there have been few scientific studies of the extent, scope and reasons for the disenchantment with, and the lack of appeal of livestock professions and more generally livestock farming. Scandals related to the slaughter and rearing of animals in the media have had a very negative impact on livestock farmers and slaughterhouse staff who feel stigmatized in their work. Strengthening the attractiveness of livestock professions must pay attention to three factors including the image of the professions (making new generations want to become a livestock farmer or employee, enhancing the image), the conditions for exercising the trade (viable and livable profession) and access to the profession (setting up). Consequently, the room for manoeuvre of public agricultural policies regarding work and employment is all the more differentiated, as public support for livestock farming varies greatly in nature and extent depending on the livestock production. There are many sectoral factors explaining the acceleration of the decline in employment in livestock

5.4. Downstream industries face health problems for employees and low attractiveness of trades In agri-food industries, particularly slaughterhouses, the working conditions of operators, mainly low skilled workers, are addressed in the scientific literature in France and Europe (Hasle and Moller, 2007; Caroli et al., 2009). Various types of health problems are identified without estimating the number of workers affected. Examples include musculoskeletal disorders, back and joint pain, gastrointestinal problems, bronchitis and rheumatism, and mental overload (Neupane et al., 2014). The negative impacts of the automation of slaughterhouse tasks are also noted by authors (Caroli et al., 2009) due to the increased pace of work. Different strategies to improve working conditions in slaughterhouses have been identified focusing on training needs (for example, to sharpen the knife) or the automation of tasks such as cutting (Caroli et al., 2009; Hinrichsen, 2010). For most slaughterhouse workers, the job was not their first choice (Hinrichsen, 2010). 6. Conclusion The overview presented in this article shows that labour and employment factors should be considered in order to respond appropriately to the livestock farming “crisis” in Europe and to assess the room to manoeuvre for public policies covering this sector. With regard to the general context, this literature review highlights four major 9

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al.

Table 9 The direct, indirect, and induced effects of different types of livestock farming in France. Geographic level (France)

Types of livestock farm or industry

Year of estimate

Direct employment in FTE (% total employment)

Indirect and induced employment in FTE (% total employment)

Authors

National

All livestock sectors combined Agriculture Suckler cattle farm Suckler cattle farm

2010

312 000 (1.3%)

703 000 (3.2%)

Lang et al. (2015)

2000 1993 1993

5900 (48%) 10 363 (53%) 8193 (25%)

7085 (86%) 2280 (27%)

Daucé and Léon (2003) Vollet (1998) Vollet (1998)

County of Lamballe (Côtes d’Armor) Semur-en-Auxois region (Côte d’Or) Avallon region, (Yonne)

FTE = full time equivalent.

farming (workloads, livestock practices, etc.). However, certain factors should not be neglected because they have a significant impact (livestock farmers’ desire to have more free time) (Hostiou and Dedieu, 2012). Overall, agricultural policies have thus far remained fairly targeted and relatively poorly integrated with other rural development policies (with the exception of some integrated rural development policies such as LEADER). It therefore seem appropriate that a larger share of public support for livestock farming be implemented as part of integrated rural development policies linking agricultural policy more closely with other sector policies, such as training policy (to better manage the issues at stake in training and the attractiveness of livestock-related jobs), policy of maintaining services in rural areas to increase the multiplier effects of livestock farming (veterinary services for example), cultural policy to develop attractive images of livestock professions. This type of integrated rural development policy should be designed in a way that complements specific support for certain productions (pig and poultry meat benefit only from favourable export tariffs).

02.013. Barjolle, D., Jeanneaux, P., 2012. Raising rivals' costs strategy and localised agro-food systems in Europe. J. Food Syst. Dynam 3, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd. v3i1.312. Battaglini, L., Bovolenta, S., Gusmeroli, F., Salvador, S., Sturaro, E., 2014. Environmental sustainability of Alpine livestock farms. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 13, 431–443 doi.org/ 10.4081/ijas.2014.3155. Bernues, A., Ruiz, A., Olaizola, D., Villalba, D., Casasús, I., 2011. Sustainability of pasturebased livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and trade-offs. Livest. Sci. 139, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.018. Blanc, M., Cahuzac, E., Elyakime, B., Tahar, G., 2008. Demand for on- farm permanent hired labour on family holdings. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 35, 493‐518. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/erae/jbn032. Blanc, M., Perrier-Cornet, P., 1999. Emploi agricole : les cadres d’analyse à l’épreuve des dynamiques actuelles. Econ Rural 253, 8–14. Bono, P., Touzard, J.M., 1999. La contribution de l'agriculture à l'emploi régional, questions de méthodes et application à la région Languedoc-Roussillon. Écon. Rurale 253, 71–79. Bossard, C., Santin, G., Canu, I.G., 2016. Suicide among farmers in France: occupational factors and recent trends. J. Agromed. 21, 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1059924X.2016.1211052. Bossard, P., Daucé, P., 2004. Mesures des effets économiques de la politique européenne de développement durable. Le cas de la Bretagne (programme Morgane 2). Final report, Inra, Rennes, France. Bossard, P., Léon, Y., Quinqu, M., Surry, Y., 2000. La filière bovine en Bretagne et la crise de la ‘vache folle’ de 1996 : une analyse interindustrielle. Cahiers Economie et Sociologie Rurales 57, 51–93. Britt, J.H., Cushman, R.A., Dechow, C.D., Dobson, H., Humblot, P., Hutjens, M.F., Jones, G.A., Ruegg, P.S., Sheldons, I.M., Stevenson, J.S., 2018. Invited review: learning from the future—a vision for dairy farms and cows in 2067. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 3722–3741. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14025. Butler, D., Holloway, L., Bear, C., 2012. The Impact of Technological Change in Dairy Farming: Robotic Milking Systems and the Changing Role of the Stockperson, vol. 173. Royal Agricultural Society of England/research and development, pp. 1–6. Cardenette, M., Boulanger, P., Delgado, M., Ferrari, E., M'Barek, R., 2014. Agri-food and bio-based analysis in the Spanish economy using a key sector approach. Rev. Urban Reg. Dev. Stud. 26, 113–134. Caroli, E., Gautié, J., Lamanthe, A., 2009. The French food-processing model: high relative wages and high work intensity. Int. Labour Rev. 148, 375–394. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2009.00069.x. Charroin, T., Veysset, P., Devienne, S., 2012. Productivité du travail et économie en élevages d’herbivores : définition des concepts, analyse et enjeux. INRA Prod Anim 25, 193–210. Cocca, G., Sturaro, E., Ramanzin, M., 2012. Is the abandonment of traditional livestock farming systems the main driver of mountain landscape change in Alpine areas? Land Use Policy 29, 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.005. Contzen, S., Forney, J., 2017. Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations. Agric. Hum. Val. 34, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016- 9687-2. Coquil, X., Cerf, M., Auricoste, C., Joannon, A., Barcellini, F., Cayre, P., Chizallet, M., Dedieu, B., Hostiou, N., Hellec, F., Lusson, J.M., Orly, P., Prost, L., 2018. Questioning the work of farmers, advisors, teachers and researchers in agro-ecological transition. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0524-4. Cournut, S., Chauvat, S., Correa, P., Carneiro dos Santos Filho, J., Dieguez, F., Hostiou, N., Pham, D.K., Servière, G., Sraïri, M.T., Turlot, A., Dedieu, B., 2018. Analyzing work organization on livestock farm by the Work Assessment Method. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0534-2. Cournut, S., Chauvat, S., 2012. L’organisation du travail en exploitation d'élevage : analyse de 630 Bilans Travail réalisés dans huit filières animales. INRA Prod Anim 25, 101–112. Dannenberg, P., Kulke, E., 2005. The importance of agrarian clusters for rural areas – results of Case studies in eastern Germany and Western Poland. Erde 136, 291–309. Dahache, S., 2014. L'évolution de la place des femmes en agriculture au prisme des rapports familiaux de production. In: Gasselin, P., Choisis, J.P., Petit, S., Purseigle, F. (Eds.), 2014. L’agriculture en famille : travailler, réinventer, transmettre. EDP Sciences, France. Daucé, P., Léon, Y., 2003. Analyse d'un mécanisme de polarisation économique dans une région rurale, L'exemple de la région de Lamballe en Bretagne. Rev. Écon. Rég. Urbaine 5, 325–950.

Funding This study was funded by French ministries responsible for Agriculture and the Environment, in cooperation with the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments This work is part of the collective scientific assessment of the ‘Role, impacts and services provided by European livestock production’ that was carried out by INRA at the request of the French ministries responsible for Agriculture and the Environment, in cooperation with the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). Compliance with Ethical Standards: Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.008. References Agreste, 2017. Le Bilan Annuel de l'Emploi Agricole (BAEA), Résultats 2015 et estimations 2016. Agreste Chiffres et Données Agriculture 238, 18. Anzalone, G., Purseigle, F., 2014. Délégation d’activités et sous-traitance : au service de la transmission de l’exploitation ou d’un patrimoine? In: Gasselin, P., Choisis, J.-P., Petit, S., Purseigle, F. (Eds.), L’agriculture en famille : travailler, réinventer, transmettre. EDP Science, Les Ulis, pp. 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1051/978-2-75981192-2.c018. Aubron, C., Noël, L., Lasseur, J., 2016. Labor as a driver of changes in herd feeding patterns: evidence from a diachronic approach in Mediterranean France and lessons for agroecology. Ecol. Econ. 127, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.

10

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al. Debresson, C., 1989. Breeding innovation clusters : a source of dynamic development. World Dev. 17, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(89)90218-0. Deming, J., Glesson, D., O'Dwyer, T., Kinsella, J., O'Brien, B., 2018. Measuring labor input on pasture-based dairy farms using a smartphone. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 9527–9543. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14288. De Soucey, M., 2010. Gastronationalism. Food traditions and authenticity politics in the European union. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75, 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0003122410372226. Droff, J., Paloyo, A.R., 2015. Assessing the regional economic impacts of defense activities: a survey of methods. J. Econ. Surv. 29, 375–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes. 12062. D'Silva, J., Webster, J., 2010. Meat Crisis Developing a More Sustainable Production and Consumption. Earthscan, London. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000197. Durst, P.T., Moore, S.J., Ritter, C., Barkema, H.W., 2018. Evaluation by employees of employee management on large US dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 7450–7462. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14592. Duvaleix-Tréguer, S., Gaigné, C., 2016. On the nature and magnitude of cost economies in hog production. Agric. Econ. 45, 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12245. Eurostat, 2017. Statistical Books, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics. pp. 170. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/8538823/KS-FK-17-001-EN-N. pdf/c7957b31-be5c-4260-8f61-988b9c7f231. Ferris, C.P., Frost, J.P., Binnie, R.C., Patterson, D.C., 2006. Dairy cows performance and labour inputs associated with two silage feeding systems. Grass Forage Sci. 61, 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.2006.00534.x. Flemmer, C., 2012. Environmental input-output analysis of the New Zealand dairy industry. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 15, 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2012. 050030. Gallagher, L.M., 2008. Suicide and occupation in New Zealand, 2001-2005. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 14, 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2008.14.1.45. Garcıa-Martınez, A., Olaizola, A., Bernues, A., 2009. Trajectories of evolution and drivers of change in European mountain cattle farming systems. Animal 3, 152–165. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108003297. Garkovich, L., Brown, K., Zimmerman, J.N., 2008. Conceptualizing the Kentucky industry as an economic cluster. Community Dev. 39, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15575330809489671. Gleeson, D., O'Brien, B., O'Donovan, K., 2008. The labour input associated with calf care on Irish dairy farms. Livest. Sci. 116, 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007. 08.019. Gliessman, S.R., 2007. Agroecology: the Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA, pp. 405p. Gregoire, A., 2002. The mental health of farmers. Occup. Med. 52, 471–476. https://doi. org/10.1093/occmed/52.8.471. Hansen, B.J., 2015. Robotic milking-farmer experiences and adoption rate in Jæren, Norway. J. Rural Stud. 41, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08. 004. Hasle, P., Moller, N., 2007. From conflict to shared development: social capital in a tayloristic environment. Econ. Ind. Democr. 28, 401–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0143831X07079355. Hilgemberg, C.T., Hilgemberg, E.M., 2014. Brazilian Dairy Products Sector in the 1990s: an Input-Output Analysis of its Economic Impact. Transnational Corporations and Development in Brazil. Challenges and Opportunities. pp. 175–195. Hinrichsen, L., 2010. Manufacturing technology in the Danish pig slaughter industry. Meat Sci. 84, 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.03.012. Hostiou, N., Dedieu, B., 2012. A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms. Animal 6, 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002084. Hostiou, N., Fagon, J., Chauvat, S., Turlot, A., Kling-Eveillard, F., Boivin, X., Allain, C., 2017. Impact of precision livestock farming on work and human- animal interactions on dairy farms. A review. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement 4, 1–8. Huband, S., McCracken, D.I., Mertens, A., 2010. Long and short-distance transhumant pastoralism in Romania: past and present drivers of change. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 1, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.3362/2041-7136.2010.004. INSEE, 2018. Formations et emploi. Coll. INSEE Références, INSEE, Montrouge. Jansen, K., 2000. Labour, livelihoods and quality of life in organic agriculture in Europe. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 17, 247–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2000.9754845. Jones, N., De Graaf, J., Duarte, F., 2014. Farming systems in two less favoured areas in Portugal: their development from 1989 to 2009 and the implications for sustainable land management. Land Degrad. Dev. 25, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2257. Kelly, P., Shalloo, L., O'Dwyer, T., Horan, B., French, P., Dillon, P., 2017. The People in Dairy Project. A Report on the Future People Requirements of Irish Dairy Farming to Support Sustainable and Profitable Dairy Expansion. Teagasc, pp. 33. Kolstrup, C., Kallioniemi, M., Lundqvist, P., Kymäläinen, H.R., Stallones, L., Brumby, S., 2013. International perspectives on psychosocial working conditions, mental health, and stress of dairy farm operators. J. Agromed. 18, 244–255. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1059924X.2013.796903. Kouimintzis, D., Chatzis, C., Linos, A., 2007. Health effects of livestock farming in Europe. J. Public Health 15, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-007-0130-4. Lang, A., Dupraz, P., Tregaro, Y., Rosner, M., 2015. Les emplois liés à l'élevage français. GIS Elevage demain. https://www.gis-elevages-demain.org/Media/fichiers/ Rapport- final-Emplois-lies-a-l-elevage, Accessed date: 4 October 2018. Lazzarini, B., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Lyons, N., Hendrikse, L., Baudracco, J., 2018. Productive, economic and risk assessment of grazing dairy systems with supplemented cows milked once a day. Anim 12, 1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731117002853. Lindberg, G., Midmore, P., Surry, Y., 2012. Agriculture's inter-industry linkages, aggregation bias and rural policy reforms. J. Agric. Econ. 63, 552–575. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00354.x. Lindberg, G., Spissoy, A., Surry, Y., 2015. Input-output analysis of the Swedish and Norwegian horse sectors: modelling the socio-economic impacts of equine activities. In: Vial, C., Evans, R. (Eds.), The New Equine Economy in the 21st Century. EAAP publication, Wageningen Academix Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 33–44. https:// doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-824-7. Lobley, M., Butler, A., Reed, M., 2009. The Contribution of Organic Farming to Rural Development: an Exploration of the Socio-Economic Linkages of Organic and Nonorganic Farms in England. Land Use Policy, pp. 723–735. López-i-Gelats, f., Milán, M.J., Bartolomé, J., 2011. Is farming enough in mountain areas? Farm diversification in the Pyrenees. Land Use Policy 28, 783–791. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.005. Madelrieux, S., Dedieu, B., 2008. Qualification and assessment of work organization in livestock farms. Anim 2https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110700122X. 453-446. Malanski, P., Ingrand, S., Hostiou, N., 2018. A new framework to analyze changes in work organization for permanent employees on livestock farms. 39. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0557-3. Marquer, J., Rabade, T., Forti, R., 2014. Pig Farming in the European Union: Considerable Variations from One Member State to Another, Eurostats, Statistics in Focus, vol. 12. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/3688.pdf, Accessed date: 26 October 2018. Mentzer, J., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J., Nix, N., 2001. Defining supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 22, 1–25. Meul, M., Van Passel, S., Fremaut, D., Haeseaert, G., 2012. Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 629–638. Morison, J., Hine, R., Pretty, J., 2005. Survey and analysis of labour on organic farms in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 3, 24–43. Midmore, P., 1991. Input-Output Models in the Agricultural Sector. Avebury, Aldershot. United Kingdom, pp. 124. Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009. Input Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 746p. Morgan-Davies, C., Lambe, N., Wishart, H., Waterhouse, T., Kenyon, F., McBean, D., McCracken, D., 2018. Impacts of using a precision livestock system targeted approach in mountain sheep flocks. Livest. Sci. 208, 67–76. Moulin, C.H., Pluvinage, J., Bocquier, F., 2004. Les relations entre agrandissement des troupeaux et changements de conduite : exemple des élevages d’ovins allaitants en Crau. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, Paris, France, pp. 145–148. Neuenfeldt, S., Gocht, A., Heckelei, T., Ciaian, P., 2018. Explaining farm structural change in the European agriculture: a novel analytical framework. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 46, 713–768. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jby037. Neupane, S., Virtanen, P., Luukkaala, T., Siukola, A., Nygård, C.H., 2014. A four-year follow-up study of physical working conditions and perceived mental and physical strain among food industry workers. Appl. Ergon. 45, 586–591. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.apergo.2013.08.010. O'Brien, B., Deming, J., Shalloo, L., 2018. Irish studies on farm labour issues. In: Teagasc (Ed.), International Agricultural Workforce Conference, Cork, Ireland, 10 July 2018, pp. 17–24. OECD, 2003. Multifunctionality, the Policy Implications. pp. 108. OECD, 2009. The Role of Agriculture and Farm Household Diversification in the Rural Economy Evidence and Initial Policy Implications. pp. 144. Olaizola, A.M., Chertouh, T., Manrique, E., 2008. Adoption of a new feeding technology in Mediterranean sheep farming systems: implications and economic evaluation. Small Rumin. Res. 79, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.07. 022. Papadas, C.T., Dahl, D.C., 1999. Supply-driven input-output multipliers. J. Agric. Econ. 50, 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00813.x. Papadopoulos, A., 2015. The impact of the CAP on agriculture and rural areas of EU member states, agrarian south. J. Political Econ. 22–53. Poulopoulou, I., Nock, M.C., Steinmayer, S., Lambertz, G., Gauly, M., 2018. How can working time analysis contribute to the production efficiency of dairy farms in mountain regions? Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X. 2017.1363638. Richardson, H.W., 1985. Input-Output and economic base multipliers: looking backward and forward. J. Reg. Sci. 25, 607–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1985. tb00325.x. Roberts, D., 2000. Spatial diffusion of secondary impacts: rural-urban spillovers in Grampian, Scotland. Land Econ. 76 (3), 395–412. Roberts, D., 1998. Rural-urban interdependencies: analysis using an inter-regional SAM model. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 25, 506–527. Roberts, D., 1995. UK agriculture in the wider economy: the importance of net SAM linkage effects. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 22, 495–511. Schewe, R.L., Stuart, D., 2015. Diversity in agricultural technology adoption: how are automatic milking systems used and to what end? Agric. Hum. Val. 32, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9542-2. Sorenson, D.J., 2007. Assessing economic base relationships in south Dakota. J. Reg. Anal. Policy 37, 165–182. Spoljar, P., 2014. Problématique suicidaire en agriculture : une difficile évaluation. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, vols. 16–3. http://pistes. revues.org/3650, Accessed date: 15 October 2018. Timmermann, C., Félix, G.F., 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agric. Hum. Val. 32, 523–538. Thomas, F., Vaquié, P.F., Lucas, V., Gasselin, G., 2015. Coopération agricole de production : renouvellement des modalités de coopération de proximité entre agriculteurs. In: Proceedings of the Structures d’exploitation et exercice de l’activité agricole : Continuités, changements ou ruptures, 12-13 february 2015, Rennes, France.

11

Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

N. Hostiou, et al. Veysset, P., Lherm, M., Boussemart, J.P., Natier, P., 2017. Formation et répartition des gains de productivité en élevage bovin viande. Qui sont les gagnants et les perdants entre 1980 et 2015 ? Econ Rural, vol. 361. pp. 71–91. Vias, A.C., Mulligan, G.F., 1997. Disaggregate economic base multipliers in small communities. Environment and Planning A Economy and Space 29, 955–974. https://doi. org/10.1068/a290955.

Vollet, D., 1998. Estimating the direct and indirect impact of residential and recreational functions on rural areas: an application to five small areas of France. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 25, 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/25.4.528. Zagata, L., Sutherland, L.A., 2015. Deconstructing the ‘young farmer problem in Europe’ : towards a research agenda. J. Rural Stud. 38, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2015.01.003.

12