**4.1. Different levers according to scale**

Aaker and Mascarenhas [37] focusing on the means to enhance organizational flexibility outlined the following four levers centred on products, resources and management: (i) diversification of processes, business activities and products, running from broadening the range but also including activity in different marketplaces and extended use of different process technologies. In Ref. [38], the authors assert their notion of "relational flexibility" to account for the sources of adaptive capacity employed by livestock farmers through their marketing networks and the circuits they build or exploit to sell livestock; (ii) increasing inter‐ independence between production units; (iii) developing a base of potentially useful resources that are deployed not continually but on a case‐by‐case basis "should the need arise": func‐ tional redundancies, latent competencies, room for manoeuvre; (iv) minimizing workflow specialization, steering away from situations where tasks are accomplished by staff who have competencies deemed "necessary and sufficient" to complete the task. For example, Madel‐ rieux et al. [39] clearly illustrate the flexibility achievable by a more collective workplace organization and workload breakdown in livestock farming systems.

Using two examples of farm systems (crop and livestock), we illustrate how these flexibility leverages can be deployed to minimize vulnerability to changes in the systems' environments. These two examples were chosen to demonstrate how the internal organization of the system (the sequencing of the system's structural components) and the system manager's perception of the environment act as complementary leverage for lending flexibility to farm production systems.

## **4.2. Animal contribution (plasticity) to system flexibility in an organic dairy system**

The Mirecourt (INRA) research team prototypes sustainable dairy systems focused on agro‐ environmental sustainability. One system, tested since 2004, is a low‐input grass‐only system, in accordance with the specifications governing organic farming and based on the hypothesis that pasture‐based systems are more sustainable [40].

This system is designed to introduce rulesets and animal and farmland management modes for achieving the objectives assigned to the system at the outset. In other words, the system aims to define how to achieve a result targeted at the outset without having to run through the conventional pattern of conducting experimental trials to measure results from different management condition sets established at the outset. Systems employing this strategy are designed to be sustainable in agro‐environmental terms. More operationally, we posit that in order to cope with these objectives, the systems have to be self‐sufficient (no importation of fertilizers or pesticides) and able to cope with unanticipated events, especially climatic events, since self‐sufficiency can render systems more sensitive to natural variations in farmland properties.

The herd breed is split equally between two breeds (Holstein and Montbeliarde) in order to test the capacities of each breed to enable the system to achieve the objectives set. Maximizing grazed grass in the cow diet led to grouped calvings in late winter (February to April) in order to match the animals' energy requirements with grass availability. Under this management policy, cows produced 5132 kg milk/cow/year on average in 2005 and 2006: Holstein cows milked on average 400 kg milk/cow/year higher than Montbéliarde cows (respectively 5347 and 4947 kg milk/cow/year). However, at the end of the breeding period, 65% of dairy cows were pregnant in 2005 but only 27% at the corresponding timepoint in 2006. These very poor ratios affected herd sustainability, even though performance levels for replacement heifers were better (**Table 1**).


Hn: Holstein; Mo: Montbeliarde; AI: artificial insemination.

1 Percentage of pregnant cows served once or twice.

**4. Leverages to enhance flexibility in livestock systems**

organization and workload breakdown in livestock farming systems.

that pasture‐based systems are more sustainable [40].

Aaker and Mascarenhas [37] focusing on the means to enhance organizational flexibility outlined the following four levers centred on products, resources and management: (i) diversification of processes, business activities and products, running from broadening the range but also including activity in different marketplaces and extended use of different process technologies. In Ref. [38], the authors assert their notion of "relational flexibility" to account for the sources of adaptive capacity employed by livestock farmers through their marketing networks and the circuits they build or exploit to sell livestock; (ii) increasing inter‐ independence between production units; (iii) developing a base of potentially useful resources that are deployed not continually but on a case‐by‐case basis "should the need arise": func‐ tional redundancies, latent competencies, room for manoeuvre; (iv) minimizing workflow specialization, steering away from situations where tasks are accomplished by staff who have competencies deemed "necessary and sufficient" to complete the task. For example, Madel‐ rieux et al. [39] clearly illustrate the flexibility achievable by a more collective workplace

Using two examples of farm systems (crop and livestock), we illustrate how these flexibility leverages can be deployed to minimize vulnerability to changes in the systems' environments. These two examples were chosen to demonstrate how the internal organization of the system (the sequencing of the system's structural components) and the system manager's perception of the environment act as complementary leverage for lending flexibility to farm production

**4.2. Animal contribution (plasticity) to system flexibility in an organic dairy system**

The Mirecourt (INRA) research team prototypes sustainable dairy systems focused on agro‐ environmental sustainability. One system, tested since 2004, is a low‐input grass‐only system, in accordance with the specifications governing organic farming and based on the hypothesis

This system is designed to introduce rulesets and animal and farmland management modes for achieving the objectives assigned to the system at the outset. In other words, the system aims to define how to achieve a result targeted at the outset without having to run through the conventional pattern of conducting experimental trials to measure results from different management condition sets established at the outset. Systems employing this strategy are designed to be sustainable in agro‐environmental terms. More operationally, we posit that in order to cope with these objectives, the systems have to be self‐sufficient (no importation of fertilizers or pesticides) and able to cope with unanticipated events, especially climatic events, since self‐sufficiency can render systems more sensitive to natural variations in farmland

The herd breed is split equally between two breeds (Holstein and Montbeliarde) in order to test the capacities of each breed to enable the system to achieve the objectives set. Maximizing

**4.1. Different levers according to scale**

systems.

6 Livestock Science

properties.

2 Percentage of animals calving after being served during the breeding period.

**Table 1.** Reproductive performances of dairy cows in 2005 and 2006, according to breed.

An analysis of individual animal management within the cow herd highlighted different groups. Each group corresponds to a specific calving date, which, in relation to turnout date, determines the feed diet at the beginning of lactation: a switch from winter feed to pasture grass.

The milk production of dairy cows calved after turnout increased very quickly (2–4 weeks) to maximum daily production, generating high energy requirements, which is detrimental to reproduction. The milk production of dairy cows calving at least one month before turnout showed a slower increase to maximum daily production (taking 8–12 weeks), with a smoother effect on energy balance and reproduction. Within these two configurations, Montbeliarde cows gave smoother lactation curves than Holstein cows (**Figure 3**). They were able to limit milk production, even when stimulated by turnout to grass, and thus gave better reproduction performances than Holstein cows.

In the grass‐based systems, Montbeliarde cows offer more plasticity than Holstein cows. Secondly, shifting the calving period (January to March instead of February to April) should maximize the number of calvings before turnout to grass, thus lending the system more flexibility by enhancing reproductive performance.

**Figure 3.** Individual lactation curves (milk yield in kg/cow/day throughout time after calving, in weeks) of Montbe‐ liarde (Mo) and Holstein (Ho) dairy cows in 2005, according to the parity and to the calving period (February = at least 1 month before turnout vs. April = after turnout). On the right side, the average shape of curves for each period.

#### **4.3. The collective workflows lever: flexibility in response to market uncertainty**

The flexibility of suckler cattle farms is induced by commercial circuits: one of the features of suckler cattle farms is that they offer the possibility of selling livestock, and particularly females, at virtually any age. There are potentially over 15 different categories, with some breeders selling a minimal number of animal categories (n = 3: male calves, female calves and cows), whereas other systems offer a broader range comprising four or more different categories. Some systems always produce the same types of animal, whereas others gear themselves with options to change in response to climate events or market openings. There is also a heavy and practically range‐independent variability in the number of buyers for the animals produced (**Figure 4**): a 2005 survey sampling livestock farmers ranged from one buyer for all animals up to seven different partners. Over and above buyer numbers, buyer status is also a critical criterion for livestock breeders. We have identified two different sets of strate‐ gic choices:

**•** Cooperatives vs. private buyers: some livestock farmers are convinced that cooperatives rob them of their freedom to market their products and thus refuse to help finance the running costs (premiums), in contrast to other farmers who strongly believe the cooperative represents their best interests, offering them a voice and a channel through which they can take action if problems arise. Finally, there is another category of livestock farmers who attach little importance to buyer status and who choose to sell their animals based on the prices they can get and how well they know and trust the buyer;

**•** Single buyer vs. several buyers: for farmers who work with a single buyer, the driving factor is the relationship of trust: the buyer understands how the farmer works and knows what animals are produced: negotiations are relatively straightforward, and sometimes a phone call is all that is needed. While the cattle farmer does need to make efforts to protect this special relationship (trust‐system payments, sales spread across the year, etc.), in return they can expect the buyer to step in and make priority purchases when business is bad (security factor). In contrast, other farmers see the option of juggling between buyers as a way to take advantage of competition. If the market goes through a crisis, the farmer hopes to weather the storm by having a number of available buyers in order to sell their total livestock.


**Figure 3.** Individual lactation curves (milk yield in kg/cow/day throughout time after calving, in weeks) of Montbe‐ liarde (Mo) and Holstein (Ho) dairy cows in 2005, according to the parity and to the calving period (February = at least 1 month before turnout vs. April = after turnout). On the right side, the average shape of curves for each period.

The flexibility of suckler cattle farms is induced by commercial circuits: one of the features of suckler cattle farms is that they offer the possibility of selling livestock, and particularly females, at virtually any age. There are potentially over 15 different categories, with some breeders selling a minimal number of animal categories (n = 3: male calves, female calves and cows), whereas other systems offer a broader range comprising four or more different categories. Some systems always produce the same types of animal, whereas others gear themselves with options to change in response to climate events or market openings. There is also a heavy and practically range‐independent variability in the number of buyers for the animals produced (**Figure 4**): a 2005 survey sampling livestock farmers ranged from one buyer for all animals up to seven different partners. Over and above buyer numbers, buyer status is also a critical criterion for livestock breeders. We have identified two different sets of strate‐

**•** Cooperatives vs. private buyers: some livestock farmers are convinced that cooperatives rob them of their freedom to market their products and thus refuse to help finance the running costs (premiums), in contrast to other farmers who strongly believe the cooperative represents their best interests, offering them a voice and a channel through which they can

**4.3. The collective workflows lever: flexibility in response to market uncertainty**

gic choices:

8 Livestock Science

**Figure 4.** Different farmer (F) strategies for animal sales in livestock farming systems, combining range and number of purchasers (P); (one arrow corresponds to one specific category of animals sold, i.e. culled cows, weaned calves, hei‐ fers, bulls and steers).

The components of biophysical systems (plants, animals and soils; **Figure 5**) confer a relatively greater level of system‐wide flexibility through their own, intrinsic properties: (i) delayed differentiation process: unicity, particularly for females from suckler cattle breeds, regardless of their end purpose and their age at sale [41]; (ii) plasticity, breed diversity and ability to adapt to different management strategies [42, 43]. Gaillard et al. [44] showed how Simmental breed diversity offered dairy farmers options to take up a more or less marked position on the intensified fodder system gradient, ranging from extensive 100% grassland systems to intensive corn silage‐based systems.

Depending on the flexibility leverage deployed by the farmer [7], both the system compo‐ nents (structural dimensions) and their interplays (functional dimensions) will take on a certain measure of specificity. Furthermore, this distinction picks up on the distinction made by Alcaras and Lacroux [16] between the stability of an organization's structure and the stability of an organization's target objectives: (i) the "size" lever: reproductive capaci‐ ties, useful lifespan and carcass yield, for animals that farmers can no longer select to work with once they opt to increase the size of their holding through internal growth (zero buy‐ in); (ii) the "responsiveness" lever (short‐range opportunity‐taking): versatility, ability to handle change (feed type and volume), malleability, breed mix, capacities for out‐of‐season production; (iii) the "collective workflows/technicity" lever: quantitative performance, standardized high‐tech information system, records; (iv) the "room for manoeuvre" lever: versatility, simplicity, hardiness.

**Figure 5.** Descriptors assigned to adaptive capacities according to level of organization in the functional analysis of production systems.
