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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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