Diversity of protein-crop management in western France

  • Matthieu CarofEmail author
  • Olivier Godinot
  • Aude Ridier
Research Article


In the European Union (EU), local production of protein crops (faba bean, field pea, lupins) is of primary interest to help farmers depend less on purchased feed, provide agronomic benefits to cropping systems, and increase the EU’s protein self-sufficiency. Nonetheless, farmers rarely grow protein crops, which currently represent less than 1% of the EU’s arable land. We assumed that exploration of farmers’ practices will bring focus on (i) their motivations for growing protein crops, so that extension programs can be improved based on these motivations, and (ii) the diversity of their crop management so that promising ones can be disseminated. In western France, a two-step survey was conducted among farmers who grew protein crops. The first step was an online survey of 127 farmers that aimed to characterize their farming systems. The second step was a face-to-face survey (69 volunteers from the 127 farmers) that aimed to collect precise data on management of protein crops. The main motivations of surveyed farmers for growing protein crops were related to (i) replacing imported soybean with farm-grown protein crops and (ii) pre-crop values of protein crops (i.e., benefits of protein crops for subsequent crops). Based on conventional farmers’ answers, we estimated a pre-crop value of 118 € ha−1, which notably contributes to gross profit at the crop-rotation scale. Moreover, in our study, yields of protein crops did not differ significantly between conventional and organic systems. This offers an interesting opportunity for conventional systems to integrate organic practices, such as complex intercropping, to reduce variable costs (costs of seeds, pesticides, regulators, and chemical fertilizers) and increase gross profits. This study shows for the first time that, in western France, pre-crop values of protein crops and their suitability for low-input systems are undervalued and could be emphasized more strongly to encourage their adoption.


Protein crops Faba bean Field pea Lupins Crop management systems Innovation Farm survey 



We thank the project partners and students of AGROCAMPUS OUEST who performed the face-to-face surveys. We also thank Michelle L. Corson and Michael S. Corson for proofreading the English. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive remarks.


This work was funded by two French regions, Brittany and Pays de la Loire, in the project SECURIPROT.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Angus JF, Kirkegaard JA, Hunt JR et al (2015) Break crops and rotations for wheat. Crop Pasture Sci 66:523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedoussac L, Journet E-P, Hauggaard-Nielsen H et al (2015) Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:911–935. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg J, Kiær LP, Lecarpentier C et al (2017) Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: a meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps. Field Crops Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bues A, Preißel S, Reckling M et al (2013) The environmental role of protein crops in the new common agricultural policy. European Parliament, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  5. Cernay C, Ben-Ari T, Pelzer E et al (2015) Estimating variability in grain legume yields across Europe and the Americas. Sci Rep 5:11171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambre régionale d’agriculture des Pays de la Loire (ed) (2017) L’agriculture biologique en Pays de la Loire. Résultats de rechercheGoogle Scholar
  7. Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  8. Corre-Hellou G, Dibet A, Hauggaard-Nielsen H et al (2011) The competitive ability of pea–barley intercrops against weeds and the interactions with crop productivity and soil N availability. Field Crop Res 122:264–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craheix D (2015) CRITER. Accessed 26 Aug 2016
  10. Duchene O, Vian J-F, Celette F (2017) Intercropping with legume for agroecological cropping systems: complementarity and facilitation processes and the importance of soil microorganisms. A review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 240:148–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eurostat (2015) Agriculture statistics at regional level. Accessed 26 Aug 2016
  12. Everwand G, Cass S, Dauber J et al (2017) Legume crops and biodiversity. In: Murphy-Bokern D, Stoddard FL, Watson CA (eds) Legumes in cropping systems. CABI, pp 70–87Google Scholar
  13. FAO (1961-2011) FAOSTAT Database. In: FAOSTAT. Accessed 22 May 2018
  14. FranceAgriMer (2016) Données économiques, agricoles et alimentaires. Accessed 10 May 2016
  15. GAB/FRAB (2015) Grandes cultures biologiques en Bretagne. In: Les fiches techniques du réseau GAB/FRAB. Synthèse Filières. Accessed 29 Mar 2017
  16. Gronle A, Lux G, Böhm H et al (2015) Effect of ploughing depth and mechanical soil loading on soil physical properties, weed infestation, yield performance and grain quality in sole and intercrops of pea and oat in organic farming. Soil Tillage Res 148:59–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Häusling M (2011) The EU protein deficit: what solution for a long-standing problem? (2010/2111(INI)). European Parliament, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  18. IBB (ed) (2015) Le point bio sur... la filière “Grandes Cultures Bio” en BretagneGoogle Scholar
  19. Kouwenhoven JK, Perdok UD, Boer J, Oomen GJM (2002) Soil management by shallow mouldboard ploughing in the Netherlands. Soil Tillage Res 65:125–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas MM, Stoddard FL, Annicchiarico P et al (2015) The future of lupin as a protein crop in Europe. Front Plant Sci 6:705. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Magrini M-B, Anton M, Cholez C et al (2016) Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system. Ecol Econ 126:152–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahé L-P, Laroche-Dupraz C (2000) La politique agricole dans les négociations internationales. Écon Rural 255:135–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meynard J-M, Charrier F, Fares M et al (2018) Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. Agron Sustain Dev 38:54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munier-Jolain NG, Salon C (2005) Are the carbon costs of seed production related to the quantitative and qualitative performance? An appraisal for legumes and other crops. Plant Cell Environ 28:1388–1395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy-Bokern D, Watson CA, Stoddard F, et al (2014) Outlook for knowledge and technology for legume-supported cropping systems. Legume Futures Report 5.3Google Scholar
  26. Peyronnet C, Lacampagne J-P, Le Cadre P, Pressenda F (2014) Les sources de protéines dans l’alimentation du bétail en France : la place des oléoprotéagineux. OCL 21:D402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pôle Agronomique Ouest (2016) PROGRAILIVE: context and objectives. Accessed 10 May 2016
  28. Preissel S, Reckling M, Schlaefke N, Zander P (2015) Magnitude and farm-economic value of grain legume pre-crop benefits in Europe: a review. Field Crop Res 175:64–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Preissel S, Reckling M, Bachinger J, Zander P (2017) Introducing legumes into European cropping systems: farm-level economic effects. In: Murphy-Bokern D, Stoddard FL, Watson CA (eds) Legumes in cropping systems. CABI, pp 209–225Google Scholar
  30. Quéré L (2015) Analyse des marges cultures 2014 en Bretagne. Terra 30–31Google Scholar
  31. Reckling M, Bergkvist G, Watson CA et al (2016) Trade-offs between economic and environmental impacts of introducing legumes into cropping systems. Front Plant Sci 7.
  32. Ridier A, Chaib K, Roussy C (2016) A dynamic stochastic programming model of crop rotation choice to test the adoption of long rotation under price and production risks. Eur J Oper Res 252:270–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmonds NW (1995) The relation between yield and protein in cereal grain. J Sci Food Agric 67:309–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SSP (2016) Agreste, la statistique agricole. In: Agreste, la statistique agricole. Accessed 10 May 2016
  36. Stockdale EA, Lampkin NH, Hovi M et al (2001) Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems. Adv Agron 70:261–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoddard FL (2017) Grain legumes: an overview. In: Murphy-Bokern D, Stoddard FL, Watson CA (eds) Legumes in cropping systems. CABI, pp 70–87Google Scholar
  38. Voisin A-S, Gueguen J, Huyghe C et al (2014) Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 34:361–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. von Richthofen J-SV, Pahl H, Bouttet D et al (2006) What do European farmers think about grain legumes? Grain Legumes 45:14–15Google Scholar
  40. Watson CA, Reckling M, Preissel S et al (2017) Grain legume production and use in European agricultural systems. Adv Agron 144:235–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zander P, Amjath-Babu TS, Preissel S et al (2016) Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 36:1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zimmer S, Liebe U, Didier J-P, Heß J (2016) Luxembourgish farmers’ lack of information about grain legume cultivation. Agron Sustain Dev 36:2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SASAGROCAMPUS OUESTRennes cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations