Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 47, Issue 7, pp 1271–1278 | Cite as

Work organization on smallholder dairy farms: a process unique to each farm

  • Nathalie Hostiou
  • Nathalie Cialdella
  • Vincent Vazquez
  • Artur Gustavo Müller
  • Pierre-Yves Le Gal
Regular Articles


The way smallholder farms organize and carry out work impacts their ability to secure their livelihoods and meet growing demand for agricultural products. This study investigates the way dairy family farms in Brazil manage their workforce to achieve their objectives of production and income. Fifteen smallholder farms were surveyed using the QuaeWork method to understand the work organization on each farm. A high diversity of workloads was found, but these do not appear to be strictly related to the farms’ production systems. The high variability of workloads is linked to the available workforce, technical choices, and the delegation of tasks to an external workforce. Farmers can decrease their workload by adopting milking mechanization, silage, hiring labor, and increasing the duration of the work day. Work organization depends on a farmer’s personal choices, rendering the whole issue of workforce management a process unique to each farm.


Labor Brazil Task duration Workload Variability 



The authors would like to thank the 15 livestock farmers from Unaí-MG who participated in the study and Grace Delobel for translating the paper into English. This work was funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the Systerra Program: ANR-08-STRA-10 (Ecological, technical and social innovation processes in Conservation Agriculture).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Altafin, I., Pinheiro, M.E.F., Valone, G.V., and Gregolin, A.C., 2011. Produção familiar de leite no brasil: um estudo sobre os assentamentos de reforma agrária no município de Unaí (MG). Revista UNI 1, 31–49.Google Scholar
  2. Astigarraga, L., and Ingrand, S., 2011. Production Flexibility in Extensive Beef Farming Systems. Ecology and Society 16, 1.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, J., Le Gal, P.Y., Triomphe, B., Hostiou, N., and Moulin, C.H., 2011. Involvement of small-scale dairy farms in an industrial supply chain: when production standards meet farm diversity. Animal 5, 961–971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, D.A., Phyn, C.V.C., Tong, M.J., Collis, S.J., and Dalley, D.E., 2006. A systems comparison of once- versus twice-daily milking of pastured dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Sciences 89, 1854–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darnhofer, I., Bellon, S., Dedieu, B., and Milestad, R., 2010. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30, 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dedieu, B., 2009. Qualification of the adaptive capacities of livestock farming systems, Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 and Forage Science 61, 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guilhoto, J., Azzoni, C.R., Silveira, F.G., Ichihara, S.M., Diniz, B.P., and Moreira, G. R. In : PIB Da Agricultura Familiar: Brasil – Estados. 2011. or 10.2139/ssrn.1803225. Accessed on 18 Apr 2015.
  9. Hemme, T., and Otte, J., 2010. Status and Prospects for Smallholder Milk Production. A Global Perspective. FAO-PPLFP, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Hostiou, N., and Dedieu, B., 2012. A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms. Animal 6, 852–862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, F., Carvalho, P., and Dedieu, B., 2014. Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 190, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martel, G., Dourmad, J.Y., and Dedieu, B., 2008. Do labour productivity and preferences about work load distribution affect reproduction management and performance in pig farms? Livestock Science 116, 96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Novo, A.M., Jansen, K., and Slingerland, M., 2012. The sugarcane-biofuel expansion and dairy farmers’ responses in Brazil. Journal of Rural Studies 28, 640–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sraïri, M.T., Bahri, S., and Kuper, M., 2013. Le travail et sa contribution aux stratégies d’adaptation de petites exploitations agricoles familiales mixtes d’élevage bovin/polyculture au Maroc. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement 17, 463–474.Google Scholar
  15. Stup, R.E., Hyde, J., and Holden, LA. 2006. Relationships between selected human resource management practices and dairy farm performance. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1116–1120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagner, A., Palmer, R.W., Bewley, J., and Jackson-Smith, D.B., 2001. Producer satisfaction, efficiency, and investment cost factors of different milking systems. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1890–1898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wiggins, S., Kirsten, J., and Llambí, L., 2010. The Future of Small Farms. World Development 38, 1341–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wright, I.A., Tarawali, S., Blümmel, M., Gerard, B., Teufel, N., and Herrero, M., 2011. Integrating crops and livestock in subtropical agricultural systems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 92, 1010–1015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Hostiou
    • 1
  • Nathalie Cialdella
    • 2
    • 4
  • Vincent Vazquez
    • 3
  • Artur Gustavo Müller
    • 4
  • Pierre-Yves Le Gal
    • 2
  1. 1.INRA, UMR 1273 MétafortSaint Genès ChampanelleFrance
  2. 2.CIRAD, UMR InnovationMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.EMBRAPA Amazonia OrientalBelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations