Assessing Sustainability in Cattle Silvopastoral Systems in the Mexican Tropics Using the SAFA Framework
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Native Silvopastoral (NS) system: pastures with unmanaged native shrubs and trees (Gómez-Cifuentes et al., 2019). The NS farms were: Roble in Tzucacab (NS1); Santa Teresa in Merida (NS2); Xhopel in Tizimin (NS3)
- Intensive Silvopastoral System (IS): integration of fodder shrubs at high densities (>10,000 plants ha−1), productive pastures and trees (Murgueitio et al., 2011). The IS farms were: Kakalnah in Tzucacab (IS1); Kampepem in Merida (IS2); Golondrinas in Tizimin (IS3)
- Monoculture System (MS): conventional grazing system based on monoculture of grass (Mancera et al., 2018). The IS farms were: Ramonal in Tzucacab (M1); UADY in Merida (M2); Escalera in Tizimin (M3)
2.1. Description of SAFA Methodological Framework
2.2. Theme and Subtheme Exclusion
- Subtheme: Stability of production. Theme: Vulnerability; Dimension: Economic Resilience. The units evaluated here work as their own providers by producing their own forage.
- Subtheme: Air quality. Theme: Atmosphere; Dimension: Environmental Integrity. Farms did not have formal plans to reduce air contaminants nor considered it a specific goal and it was unfeasible to measure standard pollution values.
- Subtheme: Water quality. Theme: Water; Dimension: Environmental Integrity. Empirical measures to preserve water quality are unfeasible and residual water samples were not possible to obtain.
- Subtheme: Material use. Theme: Materials and Energy; Dimension: Environmental Integrity. The use of construction material is minimal and the use of materials to calculate nutrient balance was unfeasible to obtain due to the lack of records.
- Subtheme: Product information. Theme: Product Quality and Information; Dimension: Economic Resilience. The final product of these farms is calves. Traceability of calves after sell was impossible under the Mexican trading rural system.
2.3. Evaluation of Indicators
- Questionnaire A was applied to the unit manager and was composed of 164 questions and eleven sections: productive activity, infrastructure, animal inventory, reproductive and productive indicators, calf handling, herd handling, health control, feeding, paddock/pen characteristics, operational costs, and soil characteristics. This questionnaire was applied once in each farm (n = 9)
- Questionnaire B was also applied to unit managers and comprised 12 questions addressing: mission statement, number of employees, working conditions and benefits, characteristics of employment, health and safety plans, emergency procedures and training. This questionnaire was applied once in each farm (n = 9)
- Questionnaire C was applied to 30 farm workers and comprised 66 questions divided in two sections. Section I included questions about gender, age, years working for the farm, work situation (permanent or temporal worker) and highest level of education completed. Section II included questions on biological contaminants, work schedule and environment, training and development, health risks related to their job, work organization and working rights, legislation, leadership style and participation and job position and salary.
- Questionnaire D was applied to members of the local community where farms were located and included 30 questions on the following topics: commitment to sustainability-related themes, commitment with the community and citizen participation, health and security in relation to the farm, relationship between the farm and the community and animal welfare. This questionnaire was applied to a total of 290 subjects. The number of questionnaires applied to the local communities where farms were located were: NS1 = 21, IS1 = 63, MS1 = 63, NS2 = 38, IS2 = 44, MS2 = 12, NS3 = 25, IS3 = 51, MS3 = 36.
- Indicator Animal Health Practices, subtheme Animal Health = Good Feeding principle which includes the evaluation of:
- ○
- Body condition
- ○
- Water provision
- Indicator Animal Health, subtheme Animal Health = Good Health principle which includes the evaluation of:
- ○
- Lameness.
- ○
- Integument alterations (injuries, inflammation, and alopecia)
- ○
- Presence or absence of each health indicator (nasal discharge, ocular discharge, hampered respiration, diarrhea, vulvar discharge and ectoparasites)
- ○
- Coughing and sneezing
- ○
- Disbudding/dehorning, tail docking
- Indicator Humane Animal Handling Practices; subtheme Freedom of stress = combination of the following criteria:
- ○
- Body condition
- ○
- Water
- ○
- Cleanliness of udder, flank/upper legs and lower legs
- ○
- Time needed to lie down in pens: Focal observations of time
- ○
- Lameness
- ○
- Integument alterations (injuries, inflammation and alopecia)
- ○
- Presence or absence of each health indicator
- ○
- Coughing and sneezing
- ○
- Disbudding/dehorning, tail docking
- ○
- Agonistic behaviors
- ○
- Avoidance distance
- Indicator Appropriate Animal Husbandry; subtheme Freedom of Stress = Appropriate Behavior principle, which includes the evaluation of:
- ○
- Agonistic behaviors
- ○
- Access to pasture: hours of the day herd spent in the paddock
- ○
- Qualitative behavior assessment (observation of herds with assignation of an emotional state previously standardized by the observer (active, relaxed, uncomfortable, nervous, happy, etc.)
- ○
- Avoidance distance
- Indicator Freedom of Stress; subtheme Freedom of Stress = final farm score obtained with the combination of all criteria
2.4. Graph Interpretation for Dominant Dimension and Sustainability Performance
- I.
- For each farm, the percentage of themes rated as best, good, moderate, limited, and unacceptable were calculated by counting the number of themes per rating classification and considering the total number of themes evaluated in each farm (21) as 100%
- II.
- Percentages of themes in each rating category were later labeled as “positive” (best and good rating percentages) and “negative” (limited and unacceptable rating percentages). The themes found at the category “moderate” were eliminated as they did not provide relevant information for the interpretation
- III.
- Percentages of themes in rating categories labeled as “positive” and “negative” were added up, resulting in percentages of “positive valuations”, and “negative valuations”
- IV.
- Once calculated, farms were listed according to the calculated percentages of positive valuations: the highest positive valuation percentage was assigned to the top of the list while the lowest to the bottom. If two farms had the same percentage of positive valuation, the highest ranked was the one with the lowest percentage of negative valuation
- V.
- Positive and negative valuation percentages were rated according to the SAFA system (best = dark green; good = light green; moderate = yellow; limited = orange; and unacceptable = red). To assign classification colors, the highest percentage of positive valuations was divided by five to obtain the lowest possible percentage which was deemed as “unacceptable”. The values for the rest of the ratings were obtained by multiplying the minimum value by the factors 2 (limited), 3 (moderate), 4 (good) and 5 (best). Percentages were rounded down when decimals were ≤0.5 and rounded up when decimals ≥0.6.
- VI.
- For negative valuations, the highest percentage of negative valuations was divided by five, to obtain the lowest possible percentage which was deemed as “best”. The values for the rest of the ratings were obtained by multiplying the minimum value by the factors 2 (good), 3 (moderate), 4 (limited) and 5 (unacceptable) factors. Percentages were rounded down when decimals were ≤0.5 and rounded up when decimals ≥0.6.
3. Results
3.1. Good Governance
3.2. Environmental Integrity
3.3. Economic Resilience
3.4. Social Well-Being
3.5. Sustainability Performance of Farms and Utility of SAFA Framework for the Evaluation of Silvopastoral Systems
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UN. World Population 2015; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA): New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. World livestock 2011—Livestock in Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gerber, P.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Enfrentando el Cambio Climático a Través de la Ganadería–Una Evaluación Global de las Emisiones y Oportunidades de Mitigación; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. FAO Statistical Yearbook: Latin America and the Caribbean Food and Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bonilla-Moheno, M.; Aide, T.M. Beyond deforestation: Land cover transitions in Mexico. Agric. Syst. 2020, 178, 102734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murgueitio, E.; Chará, J.D.; Solarte, A.J.; Uribe, F.; Zapata, C.; Rivera, J.E. Agroforestería Pecuaria y Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensivos (SSPi) para la adaptación ganadera al cambio climático con sostenibilidad. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2013, 26, 313–316. [Google Scholar]
- Murgueitio, E.; Chará, J.; Barahona, R.; Cuartas, C.; Naranjo, J. Los sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos (SSPi), herramienta de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2014, 17, 501–507. [Google Scholar]
- Broom, D.; Galindo, F.; Murgueitio, E. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 280, 20132025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Murgueitio, E.; Calle, Z.; Uribe, F.; Calle, A.; Solorio, B. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1654–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahed-Toral, J.; Valdivieso-Pérez, A.; Aguilar-Jiménez, R.; Cámara-Cordova, J.; Grande-Cano, D. Silvopastoral systems with traditional management in southeastern Mexico: A prototype of livestock agroforestry for cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 57, 266–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacab, H.; Madera, N.; Solorio, F.; Vera, F.; Marrufo, D. Los sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos con Leucaena leucocephala: Una opción para la ganadería tropical. Av. Investig. Agropecu. 2013, 17, 67–81. [Google Scholar]
- Gasso-Tortajada, V. Assessing Sustainability of Agricultural Systems: Balancing Context Specificity and Generality. Ph.D. Thesis, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Butti Al Shamsi, K.; Guarnaccia, P.; Cosentino, S.L.; Leonardi, C.; Caruso, P.; Stella, G.; Timpanaro, G. Analysis of Relationships and Sustainability Performance in Organic Agriculture in the United Arab Emirates and Sicily (Italy). Resources 2019, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sustainability Evaluation: Challenges Smallholding Coffee Farmers Confronting in Colombia. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1375236/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2019).
- Soldi, A.; Aparicio Meza, M.J.; Guareschi, M.; Donati, M.; Insfrán Ortiz, A. Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Systems in Paraguay: A Comparative Study Using FAO’s SAFA Framework. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonisoli, L.; Galdeano-Gómez, E.; Piedra-Muñoz, L.; Pérez-Mesa, J.C. Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: Evidences from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heredia, M.; Bravo, C.; Torres, B.; Alemán, R. Innovación para el fortalecimiento de capacidades sobre sostenibilidad de los recursos naturales en poblaciones indígenas y mestizas—Colonas: Reserva de Biosfera Yasuní. Rev. Iber. Sist. Technol. Inform. 2020, 1, 103–116. [Google Scholar]
- Heylen, C.; Meunier, F.; Peeters, A.; Ek, S.; Neang, M.; Hean, S.; Peanh, S. Multidimensional Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture Practices of Cambodian Smallholder Farmers. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2020, 9, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gayatri, S.; Gasso-tortajada, V.; Vaarst, M. Assessing sustainability of smallholder beef cattle farming in Indonesia: A case study using the FAO SAFA framework. J. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 9, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanisch, A.L.; Negrelle, R.R.; Bonatto, R.A.; Nimmo, E.R.; Lacerda, A.E.B. Evaluating Sustainability in Traditional Silvopastoral Systems (caívas): Looking Beyond the Impact of Animals on Biodiversity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schader, C.; Grenz, J.; Meier, M.S.; Stolze, M. Scope and precision of sustainability assessment approaches to food systems. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Améndola, L.; Solorio, F.; Ku-Vera, J.; Améndola-Massiotti, R.; Zarza, H.; Galindo, F. Social behaviour of cattle in tropical silvopastoral and monoculture systems. Animal 2016, 10, 863–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galindo, F.; Williams, D.; González-Rebeles, C.; Zarza, H.; Ávila-Flores, R.; Olea-Perez, R.; Suzán, G. Conservation and livestock production in tropical Mexico. In Tropical Conservation: Perspectives on Local and Global Priorities; Aguirre, A.A., Sukumar, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; p. 371. [Google Scholar]
- Mancera, K.F.; Zarza, H.; de Buen, L.L.; García, A.A.C.; Palacios, F.M.; Galindo, F. Integrating links between tree coverage and cattle welfare in silvopastoral systems evaluation. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orellana, R.; Espadas, C.; Nava, F. Climas. In Biodiversidad y Desarrollo Humano en Yucatán; Duran, R., Méndez, M., Eds.; CICY, PPD-FMAM, CONABIO, SEDUMA: Mérida, Mexico, 2010; pp. 10–11. [Google Scholar]
- Perez-Lombardini, F. Valoración de Indicadores de Sustentabilidad en Sistemas de Pastoreo de Monocultivo y Silvopastoriles de Bovinos de Doble Propósito en el Trópico Subhúmedo de Yucatán, México. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems SAFA. Guidelines. Version 3.0; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- WQ. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle; Welfare Quality (WQ): Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- de Olde, E.M.; Bokkers, E.A.; de Boer, I.J. The choice of the sustainability assessment tool matters: Differences in thematic scope and assessment results. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 136, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welfare Quality Network. Available online: http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=simul&new=1 (accessed on 22 July 2019).
- SEMARNAT. Protección Ambiental. Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestres. Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones Para su Inclusión, Exclusión o Cambio. Lista de Especies en Riesgo. Available online: https://www.profepa.gob.mx/innovaportal/file/435/1/NOM_059_SEMARNAT_2010.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2019).
- Alvarado-Figueroa, L. Servicios, Externalidades y Multifuncionalidad en Sistemas de Producción Ganadera del Estado de Yucatán. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Arellano, L.; León-Cortés, J.L.; Halffter, G.; Montero, J. Acacia woodlots, cattle and dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in a Mexican silvopastoral landscape. Rev. Mex. Biodiver. 2013, 84, 650–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calle, A.; Montagnini, F.; Zuluaga, A.F. Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois For. Trop. 2009, 300, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cofre-Bravo, G.; Engler, A.; Klerkx, L.; Leiva-Bianchi, M.; Adasme-Berrios, C.; Caceres, C. Considering the farm workforce as part of farmers’innovative behaviour: A key factor in inclusive on-farm processes of technology and practice adoption. Exp. Agric. 2018, 55, 723–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ssebunya, B.R.; Schmid, E.; van Asten, P.; Schader, C.; Altenbuchner, C.; Stolze, M. Stakeholder engagement in prioritizing sustainability assessment themes for smallholder coffee production in Uganda. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 32, 428–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckley, K.J.; Newton, P.; Gibbs, H.K.; McConnel, I.; Ehrmann, J. Pursuing sustainability through multi-stakeholder collaboration: A description of the governance, actions, and perceived impacts of the roundtables for sustainable beef. World Dev. 2018, 121, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assessing the Relationship between Certifications and Farm Sustainability. Available online: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/9924/1/saludas_cohi_m_170124.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2020).
- Tazeze, A.; Haji, J.; Ketema, M. Climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers: The case of Babilie District, East Harerghe Zone of Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. J. Econo. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Cuartas Cardona, C.A.; Naranjo Ramírez, J.F.; Tarazona Morales, A.M.; Murgueitio Restrepo, E.; Chará Orozco, J.D.; Ku Vera, J.; Solorio Sánchez, F.J.; Flores Estrada, M.X.; Solorio Sánchez, B.; Barahona Rosales, R. Contribution of intensive silvopastoral systems to animal performance and to adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pec. 2014, 27, 76–94. [Google Scholar]
- Villamil, J.A.E. Silvopastoral System for Sustainable Cattle Production in the Tropics of Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Golan, E.H.; Krissoff, B.; Kuchler, F.; Calvin, L.; Nelson, K.E.; Price, G.K. Traceability in the US Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies; Agricultural economic report No. 830; Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
- Plazo de Aretado para Ganado Vence en Febrero 2017. Available online: https://www.milenio.com/negocios/plazo-aretado-ganado-vence-febrero-2017 (accessed on 19 December 2019).
- Sandoval-Ramírez, C.Y. El sector pecuario y la tecnificación fiscal. Las tribulaciones de un productor. Rev. Analis. Plur. 2018, 3, 71–81. [Google Scholar]
- Iunes, R.F. Occupational safety and health in Latin America and the Caribbean: Overview, Issues and Policy Recommendations; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Rojas, P.; González, M.; Benedetti, S.; Yates, P.; Sotomayor, A.; Dube, F. Silvopastoral systems in arid and semiarid zones of Chile. In Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America; Peri, P.L., Dube, F., Varella, A., Eds.; Springer International Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 169–181. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems SAFA. Smallholders App Users Manual Version 2.0.0 (For Androind 4.0 and Higher); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Dimensions | Themes | Number of Indicators |
---|---|---|
Good Governance: participation of stakeholders and ability to resolve conflicts in relation to other parties affected by farm activities. | Corporate Ethics: effective implementation and verification of explicit, public and accessible sustainability objectives | 19 |
Accountability: appropriate corporate behavior responsibility and regular, transparent and public reporting of sustainable performance | ||
Participation: involvement and identification and invitation to the decision-making process of all interested parties affected by the farm | ||
Rule of Law: commitment with justice and legitimacy with explicit rejection of corruption, extortion and the use of resources that are legally disputed. Protection of the environment and vulnerable workers using robust and applicable codes and laws | ||
Holistic Management: Production and supply appropriately managed considering all sustainability dimensions | ||
Environmental Integrity: preservation of the essential live sustenance systems for human beings while minimizing negative impacts and improving positive environmental outcomes | Atmosphere: actions that farms undertake to reduce as much as possible the liberation of greenhouse gases and those air contaminants that could threaten ecosystem health | 52 |
Water: use of freshwater extraction methodologies that do not interfere with natural cycles, create pollution or have a negative impact on ecosystem health | ||
Land: prevention of arable land or grasslands loss by the implementation of practices to preserve and improve soil fertility | ||
Biodiversity: implementation of sustainable management to promote the conservation of flora and fauna | ||
Materials and Energy: use of renewable energy sources and methods to dispose, recycle or reuse waste materials to reduce ecosystem damage | ||
Animal Welfare: presence of conditions that allow animals to express their natural behaviour, as well as the absence of thirst, hunger, pain distress and sickness | ||
Economic Resilience: implementing measures to promote the recovery capacity of a system when adversities and eventualities arise | Investment: financial endowment of capital goods, human resources or ecosystems, either internally, in associated communities or long-term investment for sustainable development | 26 |
Vulnerability: resilience of production, supply and commercialization in terms of environmental, economic and social challenges | ||
Product Quality and information: abstaining from generating any kind of pollution that could produce harmful substances. Ability to have product traceability | ||
Local Economy: contributions that farms make to local economic development | ||
Social Well-Being: satisfaction of basic human needs and provision of rights to satisfy aspirations for a better life | Decent Livelihood: provision of capacities and activities that increase the sustenance and the security of the personnel and the neighboring community | 19 |
Fair Trading Practices: presence of fair-trade practices for the buyers and sellers with prices reflecting the true cost of the maintenance and regeneration of an ecological system including the welfare of workers | ||
Labor Rights: employment compliancy with national and international law, | ||
Equity: strict pursue of equity and provision of support to vulnerable groups | ||
Human Safety and Health: provision of a healthy, hygienic and safe work environment with the necessary elements to satisfy human needs (clean water, food, proper facilities, etc.) | ||
Cultural Diversity: respect of intellectual property and rights of indigenous groups |
Safa Indicator for Soil Quality | Soil Characteristic Evaluated |
---|---|
Soil Physical Structure | Texture and percentage of organic matter |
Soil Chemical Quality | NO3–NO4 relation and total organic phosphorus content |
Soil Biological Quality | NO3–NO4 relation and total organic carbon content |
Soil Organic Matter | Total organic carbon content |
Farm | Valuations | Safa Category |
---|---|---|
Roble NS1 | +67% −14% | best |
good | ||
Kampepem IS2 | +62% −19% | best |
moderate | ||
Santa Teresa NS2 | +57% −14% | best |
good | ||
Xhopel NS3 | +48% −14% | good |
good | ||
UADY M2 | +48% −14% | good |
good | ||
Kakalnah IS1 | +48% −19% | good |
moderate | ||
Escalera M3 | +33% −10% | moderate |
good | ||
Las Golondrinas IS3 | +33% −14% | moderate |
good | ||
Ramonal M1 | +24% −38% | limited |
unacceptable |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Pérez-Lombardini, F.; Mancera, K.F.; Suzán, G.; Campo, J.; Solorio, J.; Galindo, F. Assessing Sustainability in Cattle Silvopastoral Systems in the Mexican Tropics Using the SAFA Framework. Animals 2021, 11, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010109
Pérez-Lombardini F, Mancera KF, Suzán G, Campo J, Solorio J, Galindo F. Assessing Sustainability in Cattle Silvopastoral Systems in the Mexican Tropics Using the SAFA Framework. Animals. 2021; 11(1):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010109
Chicago/Turabian StylePérez-Lombardini, Fernanda, Karen F. Mancera, Gerardo Suzán, Julio Campo, Javier Solorio, and Francisco Galindo. 2021. "Assessing Sustainability in Cattle Silvopastoral Systems in the Mexican Tropics Using the SAFA Framework" Animals 11, no. 1: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010109