Protecting animals during harvest
Many actions help protect animals during harvests, which must be adapted according to the crops and the local endemic fauna.
Authors:
| Régis Wartelle | CRA Picardie | regis.wartelle(at)picardie.chambagri.fr | Amiens (80) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jacques Girard | CA 14 | jacques.girard(at)calvados.chambagri.fr | Caen (14) |
| Renaud Nadal | LPO | renaud.nadal(at)lpo.fr | Rochefort (17) |
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Epoisses (21) |
Presentation
Technique characterization
Technique description:
- Before the operation (volunteers can often be called upon): locate, mark and protect nests with an enclosure, keep birds away from alfalfa fields for dehydration using seeders, do not mow grassy strips before harvest.
- During the operation: scare animals (calls, carbide cannons, dogs), cutting bar height at least 15 cm, centrifugal mowing or harvesting, speed limited to 10-12 km/h (5 km/h in the last rounds), use of a flight bar, avoid night work, avoid working with several machines side by side.
- After the operation: chop then bale straw less than 48 hours after harvest.
- Additional measures: maintain a few square meters standing around nests previously located and protected by wire enclosures, collect eggs or flightless chicks, alternate spring and winter crops in space (alternative refuges), plant cover crops, arrange fields in narrow strips interspersed with fallows, leave unharvested patches of 40m² in large fields.
Implementation period During intercrop - On established crop.
Spatial scale of implementation Field - Farm - Territory.
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Easily generalizable
All soil types: Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Variable
Acidification: VARIABLE
Phytosanitary emissions: VARIABLE
GHG emissions: NEUTRAL
Particle emissions: VARIABLE
Effect on water quality: Variable
N.P.: VARIABLE
Pesticides: VARIABLE
Turbidity: VARIABLE
Erosion risk: Decrease
If the territory has enough hedges and grassy strips, which serve as refuges for birds and animals and limit erosion risks.
Animals protected by these actions can act as beneficial organisms (predation of insects, slugs, weed seeds) and thus contribute to crop protection. This effect may lead to reduced pesticide use. Moreover, hedges and grassy strips that serve as refuges for animals also help limit pollutant transfers to water and air.
Effect on fossil energy consumption: Variable
The diversity of actions makes this point difficult to assess. However, given the actions to be implemented, fossil energy consumption probably changes little. For example, planting cover crops saves fertilizer, but a smaller field size may involve more maneuvers and trips.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: No effect (neutral)
The presence of hedges generally has a positive effect on yield (but their establishment sometimes involves loss of productive area).
Soil fertility: Increasing
Soil fertility can be improved via diversified rotation (complementarity of root systems), as well as by sowing cover crops (green manure effect on structure, nutrient content, organic matter).
Water stress: Variable
It is advised to sow spring crops in the territory to spread out the harvest. These crops are more sensitive to water stress in spring.
Functional Biodiversity: Increasing
Animals (including birds) taking refuge in crops are protected, and some provide services to agricultural activities (beneficial organisms in particular).
Other agronomic criteria: Increasing
Control of certain pests: Increase
Preserved animals are often predators of crop enemies: insects, slugs, weed seeds, rodents (wood mice, voles, etc.).
"Economic" criteria
Operational costs: No effect (neutral)
Purchase of cover crop seeds. However, many motivations other than animal protection may encourage sowing cover crops (effects on soil fertility, regulations).
Mechanization costs: No effect (neutral)
Some possible purchases: flight bar, scaring devices, seeders.
Other economic criteria: No effect (neutral)
The diversity of actions makes this point difficult to assess. However, given the actions to be implemented, fuel consumption probably changes little.
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
Peak period: Variable
The proposed actions sometimes involve a workload increase: scaring before operations, nest locating, installing seeders. On the other hand, the proposal to sow a good proportion of spring crops helps spread the workload peak that the harvest usually represents.
Effect on farmer health: Increasing
Image quality of agriculture: Increasing
Protecting animals during harvest improves farmers' image (with hunters for game, with naturalists and the general public for other species).
Landscape quality: Increasing
If semi-natural elements are present (hedges, grassy strips), and if crops are diversified.
Observation time: Variable
Increase if nest locating is practiced.
Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Disadvantaged pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| rodent | MEDIUM | pest, predator or parasite | low if technique used alone, to be combined |
Favored beneficial organisms
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insectivorous birds | HIGH | Natural enemies of pests | medium if technique used alone, to be combined |
| Birds of prey | HIGH | Natural enemies of pests | medium if technique used alone, to be combined |
For further information
- Partridges and ground beetles for weeding fields - ARAD2, CER association Normandy France, ARAD2, CER association Normandy France, Website, 2011. link
- Estimation and analysis of weed seed predation by two biological communities - phasianidae and carabidae - Cella R. (University of Burgundy); Boursault A. (INRA); Petit S. (INRA); Chauvel B. (INRA). AFPP, 21st Columa conference. International days on weed control. Dijon, December 8-9, 2010, Conference proceedings, 2010
- Crop beneficial organisms - Conservatory of natural spaces of Languedoc-Roussillon, Geyser Association, Chambers of Agriculture of Aude, Gard, Hérault, Lozère, Regional Chamber of Agriculture Languedoc-Roussillon, Regional Hunters Federation, DIREN, Languedoc-Roussillon Region, Website, 2011. link
- Large-scale crops - Ducrot V.; Forestier G. LPO, FARRE, CIVAM, FNAB, Technical brochure, 2009.
- Threats, conservation, news on the protection of harriers, among others in large-scale crops - LPO-Raptor Mission LPO-Raptor Mission, Website, 2009. link
- Harvest works (excluding meadow) - Ibis, Technical brochure, 2011. link to brochure
Keywords
Pest control method: Cultural control
Mode of action: Action on initial stock
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Redesign
Appendices
Favorise les auxiliaires
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
