Structural and Technological Characterization of Tropical Smallholder Farms of Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico
Abstract
Simply Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Livestock Innovation Level
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Smallholder Dual-Purpose Cattle Farms
3.2. Smallholder’s Dual-Purpose System Typology
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Software and Data Repository Resources
References
- FAO-FEPALE. Situación de la Lechería en América Latina y el Caribe en 2011, Observatorio de la Cadena Lechera; Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe, División de Producción y Sanidad Animal: Santiago, Chile, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rangel, J.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Rivas, J.; Perea, J.; Angón, E.; García, A. Is the increase of scale in the tropics a pathway to smallholders? Dimension and ecological zone effect on the mixed crop-livestock farms. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 15, e0109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojo-Rubio, R.; Vázquez-Armijo, J.F.; Pérez-Hernández, P.; Mendoza-Martínez, G.D.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Albarrán-Portillo, B.; González-Reyna, A.; Hernández-Martínez, J.; Rebollar-Rebollar, S.; Cardoso-Jiménez, D.; et al. Dual purpose cattle production in Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2009, 41, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamamoto, W.; Dewi, I.A.; Ibrahim, M. Effects of silvopastoral areas on milk production at dual-purpose cattle farms at the semi-humid old agricultural frontier in central Nicaragua. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urdaneta, F.; Peña, M.A.; Rincón, R.; Romero, J.; Rendón-Ortín, M. Gestión y tecnología en sistemas ganaderos de doble propósito (Taurus-Indicus). Rev. Cient. Vet. 2008, 18, 715–724. [Google Scholar]
- Albarrán-Portillo, B.; Rebollar-Rebollar, S.; García-Martínez, A.; Rojo-Rubio, R.; Avilés-Nova, F.; Arriaga-Jordán, C. Socioeconomic and productive characterization of dual purpose farms oriented to milk production in a subtropical region of Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Espinosa García, J.A.; Vélez Izquierdo, A.; Góngora González, S.F.; Cuevas Reyes, V.; Vázquez Gómez, R.; Rivera Maldonado, J.A. Evaluación del impacto en la productividad y la rentabilidad de la tecnología transferida al sistema de bovinos de doble propósito del tropico mexicano. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2018, 21, 261–272. [Google Scholar]
- Salas-González, J.M.; Leos, J.A.; Sagarnaga, L.M.; Zavala, M.J. Adopción de tecnologías por productores beneficiarios del programa de estímulos a la productividad ganadera (PROGAN) en México. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2013, 4, 243–254. [Google Scholar]
- Rivas, J.; Perea, J.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Morantes, M.; Angón, E.; Barba, C.; García, A. Role of technological innovation in livestock breeding programmes: A case of cereal-sheep system. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 1049–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Montes-Botella, J.L.; García, A. Sustainability in Smart Farms: Its Impact on Performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Arias, A.I.; Vázquez-González, I.; Sineiro-García, F.; Pérez-Fra, M. Farm diversification strategies in northwestern Spain: Factors affecting transitional pathways. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco-Penedo, I.; Sjöström, K.; Jones, O.; Krieger, M.; Duval, J.; Van Soest, F.; Sundrum, A.; Emanuelson, U. Structural characteristics of organic dairy farms in four European countries and their association with the implementation of animal health plans. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández-Castellano, L.E.; Nally, J.E.; Lindahl, J.; Wanapat, M.; Alhirdary, I.A.; Frangueiro, D.; Grace, D.; Ratto, M.; Bambou, J.C.; Almeida, A.M. Dairy science and health in the tropcis: Callenges and opportunities for the next decades. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- INEGI. Características Edafológicas, Fisiográficas, Climáticas e Hidrográficas de México; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía: Aguascalientes, Mexico, 2013; pp. 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- Torres, Y.; García, A.; Rivas, J.; Perea, J.; Angón, E.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C. Socioeconomic and Productive Characterization of Dual-Purpose Farms Oriented to Milk Production in a Tropical Region of Ecuador. The Case of the Province of Manabí. Rev. Cient. Vet. 2015, 25, 330–337. [Google Scholar]
- Rangel, J.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Barba, C.; Vélez, A.; Rivas, J.; García, A. Adoption of innovations and organizational practices in management, animal feeding and reproduction in dual-purpose bovine of small farms in Mexico. Rev. Cient. 2017, 27, 44–55. [Google Scholar]
- García, A.; Rivas, J.; Rangel, J.; Espinosa, J.A.; Barba, C.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C. A methodological approach to evaluate livestock innovations on small-scale farms in developing countries. Future Internet 2016, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toro-Mujica, P.; Aguilar, C.; Vera, R.; Rivas, J.; García, A. Sheep production systems in the semi-arid zone: Changes and simulated bio-economic performances in a case study in Central Chile. Livest. Sci. 2015, 180, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenacre, M. Tying up the loose ends in simple, multiple, joint correspondence analysis. In Compstat 2006—Proceedings in Computational Statistics; Rizzi, A., Vichi, M., Eds.; Physica-Verlag HD: Rome, Italy, 2006; pp. 163–185. [Google Scholar]
- George, D.; Mallery, M. Using SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 350–365. [Google Scholar]
- Köbrich, C.; Rehman, T.; Khan, M. Typification of farming systems for constructing representative farm models: Two illustrations of the application of multi-variate analyses in Chile and Pakistan. Agric. Syst. 2003, 76, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rangel, J.; Rivas, J.; Torres, J.; Perea, J.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Barba, C.; García, A. Effect of flock size and ecological area in the technological level of dual-purpose cattle system from Ecuadorian tropics. Rev. Cient. 2016, 26, 164–172. [Google Scholar]
- SPSS. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS); Guía breve de IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011; pp. 56–70. [Google Scholar]
- Juárez-Barrientos, J.M.; Herman-Lara, E.; Soto-Estrada, A.; Ávalos-De La Cruz, D.A.; Vilaboa-Arroniz, J.; Díaz-Rivera, P. Tipificación de sistemas de doble propósito para producción de leche en el distrito de desarrollo rural 008, Veracruz, México. Rev. Cient. 2015, 25, 317–323. [Google Scholar]
- Cuevas-Reyes, V.; Baca del Moral, J.; Cervantes-Escoto, F.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; Aguilar-Ávila, J.; Loaiza-Meza, A. Factors which determine use of innovation technology in dual purpose cattle production units in Sinaloa, México. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2013, 4, 31–46. [Google Scholar]
- Magaña-Monforte, J.G.; Ríos-Arjona, G.; Martínez-González, J.C. Los sistemas de doble propósito y los desafíos en los climas tropicales de México. Arch. Latinoam. Prod. Anim. 2006, 14, 105–114. [Google Scholar]
- Oros, V.; Díaz, P.; Vilaboa, J.; Martínez, J.P.; Torres, G. Caracterización por grupos tecnológicos de los hatos ganaderos doble propósito en el municipio de las Choapas, Veracruz, México. Rev. Cient. 2011, 21, 57–63. [Google Scholar]
- Chalate-Molina, H.; Gallardo-López, F.; Pérez-Hernández, P.; Lang-Ovalle, F.P.; Ortega-Jiménez, E.; Vilaboa-Arroniz, J. Características del sistema de producción bovinos de doble propósito en el estado de Morelos, México. Zootec. Trop. 2010, 28, 329–339. [Google Scholar]
- Cuevas-Reyes, V.; Loaiza-Meza, A.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; Vélez-Izquierdo, A.; Montoya-Flores, M.D. Typology of dual-purpose cattle production farms in Sinaloa, Mexico. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2016, 7, 69–83. [Google Scholar]
- Vilaboa-Arroniz, J.; Díaz-Rivera, P. Caracterización socioeconómica y tecnológica de los sistemas ganaderos en siete municipios del Estado de Veracruz, México. Zootec. Trop. 2009, 27, 427–436. [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson, B.G.; Diemont, S.A.; Alfaro-Arguello, R.; Martin, J.F.; Nahed-Toral, J.; Álvarez-Solís, D.; Pinto Ruíz, R. Sustainability of holistic and conventional cattle ranching in the seasonally dry tropics of Chiapas. Mexico. Agric. Syst. 2013, 120, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udo, H.M.J.; Aklilu, H.A.; Phong, L.T.; Bosma, R.H.; Budisatria, I.G.S.; Patil, B.R.; Samdup, T.; Bebe, B.O. Impact of intensification of different types of livestock production in smallholder crop-livestock systems. Livest. Sci. 2011, 139, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Class | n |
---|---|---|
Provinces or State | ||
Campeche | 1 | 45 |
Chiapas | 2 | 440 |
Colima | 3 | 52 |
Michoacán | 4 | 206 |
Morelos | 5 | 36 |
Oaxaca | 6 | 36 |
Quintana Roo | 7 | 55 |
Sinaloa | 8 | 560 |
Tabasco | 9 | 45 |
Grazing surface, ha | ||
I | ≤13 | 371 |
II | 14–22 | 376 |
III | 23–42 | 361 |
IV | ≥43 | 367 |
Total animal unit, UA | ||
I | ≤14.9 | 372 |
II | 15–24.5 | 369 |
III | 26.6–39.6 | 367 |
IV | ≥39.7 | 367 |
Milk per cow, L/cow/year | ||
I | ≤456.2 | 372 |
II | 456.2–774.2 | 366 |
III | 774.2–1200.0 | 378 |
IV | ≥1200.0 | 359 |
Milk production per ha, L/ha | ||
I | ≤15.4 | 369 |
II | 15.4–38.0 | 369 |
III | 38.0–90.0 | 369 |
IV | ≥90.0 | 368 |
Dimension cows in production | ||
Very small | <9 cows | 410 |
Small | <20 cows | 538 |
Medium | 20–50 cows | 527 |
Total milk yield, L/farm/year | ||
I | ≤5400 | 377 |
II | 5401–11,250 | 361 |
III | 11,251–18,100 | 369 |
IV | ≥18,101 | 368 |
Agroecological zone | ||
Dry tropic | 1 | 1109 |
Wet tropic | 2 | 366 |
Herd size, heads | ||
I | ≤19 | 369 |
II | 20–33 | 379 |
III | 34–53 | 367 |
IV | ≥54 | 360 |
Milk yield per worker, L/worker | ||
I | ≤3000 | 388 |
II | 3001–6600 | 352 |
III | 6601–12,960 | 368 |
IV | ≥12,961 | 367 |
Total production cows, heads | ||
I | ≤9 | 410 |
II | 10–14 | 333 |
III | 15–23 | 377 |
IV | ≥24 | 355 |
Grazing crops residues | ||
No | 0 | 698 |
Yes | 1 | 777 |
Item | Mean | Median | SD 1 | CV 2 | Min 3 | Max 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grazing surface, ha | 35.6 | 22.0 | 48.8 | 137.0 | 0.0 | 600.0 |
Total of animal unit, UA | 29.9 | 24.5 | 20.0 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 133.6 |
Herd size, n° cattle | 39.8 | 33.0 | 26.9 | 67.8 | 6.0 | 183.0 |
Stocking rate, UA/ha | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 61.7 | 0.0 | 6.2 |
Milk production, L/year | 14,688 | 12,000 | 15,241 | 103.8 | 0.0 | 150,000 |
Milk per cow, L/cow/year | 891.2 | 810.4 | 603.5 | 67.7 | 0.0 | 3842.1 |
Calves sold, n° calves | 6.1 | 3.0 | 6.8 | 110.9 | 1.0 | 55.0 |
Unproductive animals, heads | 3.1 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 180.8 | 0.0 | 90.0 |
Cheese yield, kg/farm/year | 304.3 | 0.0 | 850.5 | 279.5 | 0.0 | 10,000.0 |
Milk yield per worker, L/worker | 9882 | 7200.0 | 11,597 | 117.4 | 0.0 | 150,000.0 |
Milk production per ha, L/ha | 86.6 | 39.9 | 158.6 | 183.2 | 0.0 | 2.140.0 |
Stakeholders age, year | 51.5 | 51.0 | 13.9 | 26.9 | 18.0 | 85.0 |
Economics dependents, n | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 67.2 | 1.0 | 36.0 |
Employments, workers | 1.8 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 96.8 | 1.0 | 19.0 |
Total production cows, heads | 17.1 | 14.0 | 11.1 | 64,9 | 6.0 | 50.0 |
Total technological level (%) | 47.0 | 48.9 | 11.6 | 24.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Management (%) | 61.0 | 50.0 | 15.5 | 25.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Feeding (%) | 27.6 | 21.4 | 16.5 | 59.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Genetics (%) | 59.8 | 55.6 | 16.0 | 26.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Reproduction (%) | 27.2 | 28.6 | 20.2 | 74.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Animal health (%) | 72.9 | 71.4 | 15.9 | 21.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Cluster | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farms, % | 26.0 | 20.5 | 24.0 | 16.7 | 12.7 |
Grazing surface, ha | 27.2 ± 38.7 b | 37.4 ± 39.5 c | 16.5 ± 33.1 a | 74.6 ± 77.4 d | 34.5 ± 19.8 c |
Total of animal unit, UA | 19.3 ± 4.0 b | 32.1 ± 6.5 c | 10.9 ± 4.8 a | 60.2 ± 17.5 e | 43.7 ± 16.5 d |
Herd size, n° cattle | 25.5 ± 6.3 b | 43.1 ± 9.4 c | 14.3 ± 7.2 a | 80.7 ± 23.4 e | 57.6 ± 21.9 d |
Stocking rate, UA/ha | 1.1 ± 0.6 a | 1.2 ± 0.7 a | 1.1 ± 0.8 a | 1.2 ± 0.8 a | 1.4 ± 0.6 b |
Milk production, L/year | 11,229 ± 6824 b | 15,346 ± 9753 c | 6168 ± 5771 a | 27,968 ± 22,724 d | 19,267 ± 20,576 c |
Milk per cow, L/cow/year | 987.7 ± 591.7 b | 831.4 ± 500 a | 937.3 ± 678 b | 876.8 ± 609 a,b | 722.9 ± 579 a |
Calves sold, n° calves | 4.9 ± 5.8 b | 6.6 ± 5.9 c | 3.6 ± 4.1 a | 10.8 ± 8.8 d | 6.2 ± 7.6 b,c |
Unproductive animals, heads | 2.5 ± 4.5 a | 2.7 ± 3.6 a | 2.5 ± 6.8 a | 5 ± 6.2 b | 3.2 ± 5.9 a |
Cheese yield, kg/farm/year | 245.2 ± 733.7 a,b | 317.5 ± 689.6 b,c | 130.4 ± 350.5 a | 539.8 ± 1184.8 c | 421.5 ± 1266.6 b,c |
Milk yield per worker, L/worker | 8572 ± 6827 b | 10,559 ± 9430 c | 4581 ± 4613 a | 17,144 ± 19,649 d | 11,899 ± 11,921 c |
Milk production per ha, L/ha | 107.8 ± 186.8 c | 72.7 ± 119.7 b | 132.2 ± 194.8 c | 44.1 ± 120.2 a,b | 35.8 ± 56.8 a |
Stakeholders age, year | 51.1 ± 14.5 a,b | 53.4 ± 13.4 b | 49.8 ± 13.9 a | 53.1 ± 13.2 b | 50.7 ± 13.8 a,b |
Economic dependents, n | 2.9 ± 1.8 | 3.1 ± 1.9 | 2.8 ± 1.8 | 3.4 ± 2.8 | 2.9 ± 1.6 |
Employees, workers | 1.5 ± 1.1 a | 1.8 ± 1.5 b | 1.5 ± 1.5 a | 2.5 ± 2.4 c | 2.1 ± 2.2 b,c |
Total production cows, heads | 11.8 ± 2.9 b | 18.9 ± 5.2 c | 6 ± 2.3 a | 32.4 ± 9.2 e | 25.6 ± 10.3 d |
Item | Class | Overall 1 | Group 1 | p | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
Grazing crops residues | No | 47.3 | 43.9 | 32.3 * | 48.3 | 39.3 * | 87.2 * | 0.000 |
Yes | 52.7 | 56.1 | 67.7 * | 51.7 | 60.7 * | 12.8 * | ||
Hay | No | 49.6 | 49.9 | 34.7 * | 53.1 | 43.3 * | 74.5 * | 0.000 |
Yes | 50.4 | 50.1 | 65.3 * | 46.9 | 56.7 * | 25.5 * | ||
Ecological zone | Dry | 75.2 | 73.1 | 96.4 * | 78 | 98.4 * | 9.6 * | 0.000 |
Wet | 24.8 | 26.9 | 3.6 * | 22 | 1.6 * | 90.4 * |
Technological Area | Group | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Mean level, % | 47.4 ± 10.6 b,c | 48.4 ± 12.3 c | 43.7 ± 10.0 a | 46.5 ± 11.9 b | 50.2 ± 12.5 c |
Management, % | 60.7 ± 17.1 a,b,c | 64.9 ± 14.4 c | 57.4 ± 15.9 a | 64 ± 13.9 c | 58.4 ± 13.3 a,b |
Feeding, % | 27.4 ± 16.1 a,b,c | 30.1 ± 16.4 c | 25 ± 15.4 a | 29.6 ± 15 b,c | 26.5 ± 19.5 a,b |
Genetics, % | 59.2 ± 14.7 a | 61 ± 15.4 b | 54.7 ± 17.6 a | 62.3 ± 14.7 b | 65 ± 15.5 b |
Reproduction, % | 27 ± 19.6 a | 26.7 ± 20.9 a | 27.2 ± 19.6 a | 23.3 ± 16.3 a | 33.7 ± 24.3 b |
Animal Health, % | 72.5 ± 16.0 a,b,c | 73.2 ± 14.6 a,b,c | 70.2 ± 17.2 a | 74.3 ± 14.1 b,c | 76.1 ± 16.8 c |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rangel, J.; Perea, J.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; Mujica, P.T.; Feijoo, M.; Barba, C.; García, A. Structural and Technological Characterization of Tropical Smallholder Farms of Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico. Animals 2020, 10, 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010086
Rangel J, Perea J, De-Pablos-Heredero C, Espinosa-García JA, Mujica PT, Feijoo M, Barba C, García A. Structural and Technological Characterization of Tropical Smallholder Farms of Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico. Animals. 2020; 10(1):86. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010086
Chicago/Turabian StyleRangel, Jaime, José Perea, Carmen De-Pablos-Heredero, José Antonio Espinosa-García, Paula Toro Mujica, Marisa Feijoo, Cecilio Barba, and Antón García. 2020. "Structural and Technological Characterization of Tropical Smallholder Farms of Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico" Animals 10, no. 1: 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010086
APA StyleRangel, J., Perea, J., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Espinosa-García, J. A., Mujica, P. T., Feijoo, M., Barba, C., & García, A. (2020). Structural and Technological Characterization of Tropical Smallholder Farms of Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico. Animals, 10(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010086