Change and Adaptation of Family Dairy Farming in the Context of Global Capitalism

Abstract

Since the 1980s, Mexico has undergone profound economic and political transformations grounded in neoliberalism, reflected in the opening of the agri-food sector. As a result, imports of powdered milk increased, consolidating a corporate agri-food regime that has exerted structural pressure on small-scale dairy producers, promoting processes of de-peasantization and proletarianization. This study analyzes the evolution of family dairy farming in Santa Elena, Michoacán, México, with the aim of identifying and analyzing the principal components of family structure, economic and productive rationality that have been maintained over time, and how they are modified to adapt the family dairy farming to the context of contemporary capitalism. It hypothesizes that changes in the main components of family structure, and productive and economic rationality of family dairy households are the result of strengthened peasant characteristics. Based on the analysis of census data of household production units (HPUs) in 2002 and 2018, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted to characterize and identify changes in the productive and economic structure of these units. The component with variables linking family dairy farming to the market was the most significant and consistent over time. The remaining components varied. Feeding variables formed the second most important component in both studies, which changed its structure in 2018, focusing on minimizing operating costs and utilizing crop residues for feed. It is concluded that family dairy farming in Santa Elena, Michoacán, has adapted to the conditions of global agri-food capitalism without a clear transition toward productive intensification or specialization. Instead, family dairy farming has persisted through diversification strategies, self-management, and access to local markets, demonstrating the persistence of peasant economic rationality.

1. Introduction

In the mid-1980s, Mexico began a process of economic and political transformation, aligning with global changes in the production, distribution, and consumption of goods [1]. This shift implied a transition from a mixed economy model with strong state participation to another one based on a free market, promoting privatization, deregulation of markets, and free movement of goods and capital [2].

In the agri-food sector, this transition manifested in its reorganization, detaching from the environmental and cultural conditions that once defined it to adopt a logic of capital accumulation, giving way to a corporate agri-food regime [3]. This regime became established in developed capitalist countries, where the state acted as a subsidiary of corporations. Biotechnology and supermarkets also played crucial roles, intensifying Green Revolution paradigms and facilitating mass food consumption. This regime internationalized food dependence for countries in the Global South [3,4,5].

In 1987, the agricultural sector was integrated into neoliberalism through the Economic Solidarity Pact (PSE), with actions such as reduced state participation and the sector’s inclusion in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) [6]. In 1992, Article 27 of the Constitution was reformed, allowing the commercialization of communal and ejido lands [7]. The central thesis of these reforms argued that they were necessary to modernize the Mexican countryside, provide legal security to ejido and communal landholders, encourage investment and productive association, reduce the state’s burden on land distribution, and incorporate the ejido into the land market [8]. These reforms failed to transform rural areas as expected and led to urbanization of social lands [9,10].

The results of these reforms have been mixed. Until 2014, Mexico had a trade deficit in the agri-food sector. Since 2015 Mexico’s agri-food trade balance has been in superplus and has grown at a rate of up to 8.8%, placing the country in 7th place worldwide in agricultural exports, standing out in the export of products such as beer, berries, avocados, and tomatoes [11]. This commercial success contrasts with the loss of food sovereignty, rural social stagnation, and high dependence on maize imports from the U.S. [12,13,14].

In relation to the dairy market, Mexico became an importer of powdered milk, becoming the world’s leading importer in 2019 [15], falling to fifth place in 2023 [16]. Milk prices fell 1.5% in real terms. Imports of powdered milk and dairy products increased by 425% during the neoliberal period; 95% of imports came from the U.S., where the dairy industry is dominated by three heavily subsidized corporate groups in a market with a high tendency toward oligopoly/monopoly [17,18].

Structural and technological inequalities between the U.S. and Mexican dairy industries have widened the gap, particularly between small and medium-sized domestic producers and large global dairy companies, particularly harming small producers [19]. The current global configuration of the dairy industry has had local impacts, pushing rural areas toward de-peasantization and proletarianization [20].

Despite these pressures, Mexican dairy farming shows a conservative yet positive outlook. In 2021, milk production reached 12.85 billion liters with 2,642,246 cattle heads, covering 80% of domestic demand [21]. Over the last ten years milk production had an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.02% [21]. Its value totaled MXN $79.6 billion, ranking as the third most important livestock product nationally, contributing 16.6% of livestock production value [14].

The state of Jalisco is the country’s leading producer, primarily using semi-specialized systems, contributing 20.7% of national production. The Lagunera region (Durango and Coahuila), with intensive systems, contribute 22% of milk production, reflecting geographical concentration [11]. However, dairy farming is widespread across the country, including dual-purpose and family-based systems. The latter system presents the greatest inequalities compared to agri-food empires, since production is carried out under conditions of low productivity, with family labor and low intensification in the use of capital and technology. Milk is used for household consumption, local markets, and regional processors. Family dairy systems represent 9.8% of production and include 77% of the nation’s production units [22].

The state of Michoacán ranks ninth in national milk production, relying primarily on semi-specialized and family-based systems [16]. In Maravatío, 80% of milk production comes from family systems, particularly in the communities of El Tejero, Dolores, Santa Elena, Campo Hermoso, and Casa Blanca [23,24]. Between 2002 and 2018, Maravatío’s dairy sector grew at a CAGR of 0.27%, lower than the state (0.45%) and national (1.65%) averages [16]. Despite slow growth, the number of production units increased, suggesting that the activity has not been abandoned. Santa Elena increased from 52 units in 2002 to 72 in 2018 [25,26]. The dynamics of agricultural capitalism—global, financial, and characterized as an agri-food empire—interact with peasant communities at various scales and with different levels of interdependence [13]. Jiménez et al. [24], evaluated the opportunity costs of using family labor in dairy farming in Maravatío, revealing the international-level interaction between peasant communities and capital. However, given the adverse economic effects on family-based production, a reduction in production units would be expected.

Family farming (FF) is a rural way of life based on agriculture closely linked to domestic activities. Family production depends almost exclusively on family labor and does not rely on permanent hired labor. Productive assets and family wealth are deeply linked to agricultural production. It is also understood as an agricultural production system whose economic rationale is domestic and peasant in nature. The basis of this economy is family labor and the use of resources from the household production unit (HPUs). Its economic rationality differs from capitalist agriculture, both in its purpose and productive logic. Economic and productive decisions are of a familiar nature, oriented toward the domestic sphere and the production of use values, relying on family labor, and therefore not aimed at generating surplus value [27,28]. Its expression depends on territorial conditions, family decisions, and domestic structures [29,30]. Peasants generate wealth through the use of unpaid labor, producing with varying degrees of integration into market economies and under diverse and unequal power relations. Bartra [31] argues that the contemporary peasantry arises from non-capitalist socio economic relations reproduced within current capitalism.

FF and capitalist agriculture coexist and interact within a context of domination, subordination, and unequal, but necessary interrelation for the operation of both systems [32,33]. The frictions between capitalist agriculture and other forms of farming result in a diverse and multidirectional mixture of production models, fluctuating between processes of industrialization, re-peasantization, and deactivation [34].

One widely described form of family farming is the analytical category of peasantry. A peasant is understood as the social subject that forms a complex and dynamic system of organization in rural society [35]. It is the group of people with a cultural identity and historical context, which can be understood through their interactions and parallels with the dominant economic system [31]. They belong to a social class parallel to those generated by capitalism; that is, capitalism creates two social classes: the owners of the means of production, or bourgeoisie, and the workers, or proletarians. The peasant owns the means of production but does not seek to accumulate capital, but rather to provide goods for his family. They provide labor, but without the characteristics of the proletariat. Their decisions are typical of consumer units, but they do not have wage labor as the only source of income for the family [31]. This model is studied and debated theoretically and holds political significance globally [36].

The peasantry is approached from different perspectives: as a social class [37], as a non-capitalist economy [27,32], as a peculiar way of life [38], or as a non-capitalist economy articulated with capitalism and interdependent on this system [39]. These approaches highlight the complexity of the peasantry, encompassing worldview, religion, morals, customs, traditions, politics, economics, markets, exchange systems, and forms of governance [35]. All these components are dynamic and adapt to the historical context, currently influenced by the development of capitalism in the agricultural sector. There are theoretical approaches that have been developed to explain the adaptability and persistence of the peasantry in the face of the unequal interaction with capitalism. Three dominant paradigms are considered:

(1)

Chayanovian Paradigm: Peasant production is subsistence-based, grounded in rural family economy, and organized according to the family structure. It does not seek surplus value or profit, but rather the fulfillment of household needs. The dynamics of the family life cycle define peasant economic activities [27].

(2)

Marxist Paradigm: The peasantry disintegrates due to the development of capitalism and market competition. Capitalist relations emerge through land commodification. The transformation of peasants into wage laborers, that is, their proletarianization, or into agricultural capitalists or bourgeoisification, is considered inevitable as a result of the domination of industrial capital over agriculture [40,41]. In other words, this paradigm proposes that the power of the capitalist system will absorb the peasant, as a social class, and transform it into one of the two classes that are proper to capitalism.

(3)

Interactionist Paradigm: Proposes an interaction between peasants and capital marked by interdependence that shapes livelihood strategies [34,37,39,42,43]. Peasants are not fully absorbed by capitalism but rather adapt their practices to coexist and benefit from market opportunities. Their defining traits include: ownership and decision-making over their ecological capital (i.e., land); they have the capacity to provide the goods that the household requires through their own means. At the same time, in its various facets, it can actively construct a distancing from the markets. Their productive processes are non-linear, multidirectional, and resilient, characterized by pluriactivity, multifunctionality of agriculture, and the use of marginal lands as a form of resistance [34,39]. This paradigm acknowledges the capacity of peasants to resist, adapt, and even thrive in capitalist settings, entering cycles of tension between industrialization, re-peasantization, and stagnation [39].

In the case of family dairy farming in Mexico, it is not clear whether its persistence and the behavior of its structural, technological, and productive characteristics in HPUs are attributable to peasant features or to the process of transformation toward industrialization (reflected in the proletarianization or bourgeoisification of peasants). Given the complexity of the social and economic phenomena surrounding family dairy farming—and the influence of many external factors—this study does not aim to determine cause-and-effect relationships, but rather to understand how small producers adapt to their environment.

Based on the above, the study’s approach, from an interactionist perspective, seeks to show that global processes, such as structural reforms in the agricultural sector, are not represented homogeneously in local territories; they adapt and manifest themselves in specific ways in local contexts, recognizing the relationship between both scales. Thus, case studies of small rural communities give meaning and are representative to understand how global hegemonic discourses and practices are re-localized seeking to strengthen local identities or rationalities [44], and allow obtaining empirical evidence of the strategies and practices of adaptation and change that are currently being developed from the local level so that social groups persist as a way of life.

Therefore, based on the case study of the community of Santa Elena in Maravatío, Michoacán, the objective of this article is to identify and analyze—within the framework of theoretical perspectives on the peasantry—the main components of family structure, economic rationality, and productive rationality that have persisted over time, and how these are modified to allow the family dairy farming to adapt to the context of contemporary capitalism. The hypothesis proposed is that changes in the main components of family structure, productive and economic rationality within dairy HPUs in Santa Elena are the result of strengthened peasant characteristics, stemming from the interaction of family dairy farming with contemporary capitalism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Maravatío is located in the north of the state of Michoacán de Ocampo, between parallels 19°46′ and 19°58′ north latitude, and meridians 100°12′ and 100°38′ west longitude, at an altitude of 2020 m above sea level [45]. The municipality of Maravatío has been recognized for its tradition of dairy farming, practiced almost entirely under a family-based system [46]. Despite accounting for only 1.18% of the state’s territory, it produced an average of 5,037,880 L of milk over the past five years—equivalent to 1.3% of the state’s dairy production [47].

The study was conducted in the community of Santa Elena, within the municipality of Maravatío, Michoacán. Santa Elena comprises 691.55 km² of ejido land and is located 6 km from the municipal seat, at coordinates longitude −100.408333 and latitude 19.858611, next to the Maravatío–Atlacomulco highway, at 2020 m above sea level [45].

2.2. Data Source

Data were obtained from two cross-sectional studies designed as census to dairy production units, conducted in 2002 and 2018 in Santa Elena. These studies were part of research projects from the Program for Research and Technological Innovation (PAPIIT), IN301303 and IN309317, from UNAM.

To analyze technical, economic, productive, and family structure aspects that influence the decisions of the UDPLs, the variables to be analyzed were grouped into two groups: categorical and numerical.

Categorical variables include sociodemographic and technical aspects such as sex, education, producer’s main occupation, land tenure, hiring of labor outside the HPU, production support, milking type, insemination, udder cleaning and disinfection prior to milking, California testing, brucellosis and tuberculosis diagnosis, vaccination and deworming, mineral supplementation, use of balanced feed, grazing, grazing practices (cut grass and stubble), as well as the use of economic and production records.

Numerical variables include quantifiable data related to the milk production and the household: producer’s age, family size, number of sources of family income, family members working in the milk production, cultivated area, number of agricultural and livestock activities, herd size and structure, daily milk production, quantity of milk intended for family and livestock consumption, and the selling price of the milk.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

For each study period, a Principal Components Analysis was performed. This analysis was designed to reduce the dimensionality of a data set by creating uncorrelated variables that maximize their variability [48]. This analysis was aligned with the study’s objective, which was to identify the structural and rational components that persist or change between two study periods, without assuming a priori how they are organized.

To perform the principal components analysis (PCA) with the 52 HPUs in 2002, a maximum of 17 categorical and numerical variables were required; while in 2018, 20 variables were required. Variables with very weak variations and those with high classification were eliminated from the statistical analysis to avoid redundancy between variables. For this purpose, the Spearman classification test was performed.

To identify the main sets of variables that explain the behavior of family dairy farming and observe their change over time, PCA was performed. Its application is based on the Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) test to determine its feasibility and Bartlett’s test of sphericity to determine its suitability. PCA was considered adequate when KMO was greater than 0.4; while Bartlett’s test of sphericity remained, suitability was considered when significance was less than 0.05 [49]. The KMO test also takes communalities into account, with variables with communalities greater than 0.75 being accepted as valid for the principal components.

All tests were performed using the SPSS statistical package version 22 [50].

3. Results

The KMO test for PCA adequacy yielded a value of 0.430, thus the analysis was considered viable. Bartlet’s test of sphericity showed a significance level of 0 in both measurements, less than 0.05, confirming the adequacy of PCA. From a total of 17 variables in the 2002 census, PCA resulted in a reduction to six principal components (PCs), which explain 65.49% of the variance. In the 2018 census, PCA yielded seven PCs, which explain 69.743% of the variance.

In 2002, the first component contained 17.29% of the information, the second 12.96%, and the third 10.09% (

Table 1. Principal components in Household Production Units of Santa Elena, Maravatío 2002.

Component	Eigenvalues	Variance (%)	Cumulative Variance (%)	Variables	Correlation of the Variable with the Component
1	2.939	17.290	17.290	Vol. Production	0.939
				Vol. Sold	0.934
2	2.204	12.965	30.255	Grazing	0.745
				T. California	0.679
				N. Agricult. Act.	−0.664
3	1.716	10.093	40.348	Production records	−0.717
				Artificial insemination	−0.669
				Type of milking	0.515
				Form of sale	0.441
4	1.650	9.706	50.055	Cutting grass	0.774
				Self-consumption of milk	−0.716
				Stubble	0.560
5	1.375	8.089	58.143	Deworming	0.877
				Mineral salt sup.	0.655
6	1.249	7.347	65.491	Size of family	0.894
				Herd Size	0.512

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Source: Own elaboration.

). The remaining components retain very small portions of the information and should therefore be judged with caution. It should be noted that no single component has a significant impact on explaining the phenomenon, which can be explained by the high cultural and productive diversity of the HPUs, a phenomenon unique to the peasantry (Table 1).

The PCs identified in 2002 are as follows (Table 1):

(1)

Consisting of the variables, production volume, and sales volume. This component relates dairy production to the link between production and the market. It contains 17.29% of the information.

(2)

Includes the variables grazing, California test, and number of agricultural activities. This set of variables is indicative of productive diversity. It contains 12.96% of the variance.

(3)

Includes the practices of keeping production records, artificial insemination, the type of milking, and the method of selling milk. This set of variables, which refers to the various technologies adopted by the HPUs, indicates the method of production. It contains 10.09% of the variance.

(4)

Consisting of crop cultivation, milk consumption, and crop residue use. It contains 9.7% of the variance.

(5)

Contains variables related to production practices such as deworming and mineral salt supplementation. It includes 8.08% of the variance.

(6)

Combines family size and herd size into the same component. It contains 7.34% of the variance.

On the other hand, in 2018, the first PC accounted for 14.55% of the variance, the second 12.63%, and the third 11.99%; while, as in 2002, PCs four through six contain low values of variance (

Table 2. Principal components in Household Production Units of Santa Elena, Maravatío 2018.

Component	Eigenvalues	Variance (%)	Cumulative Variance (%)	Variables	Correlation of the Variable with the Component
1	2.766	14.558	14.558	Vol. Sold	0.970
				Vol. Production	0.967
2	2.401	12.637	27.195	Stubble	0.925
				Cutting grass	0.891
3	2.279	11.996	39.191	California Test	0.839
				Brucella and tuberculosis Test	0.610
				Artificial insemination	0.549
				Form of sale	0.529
				Number of livestock activities	0.460
4	1.691	8.901	48.092	Schooling	0.809
				Deworming	0.539
				Productive records	0.487
5	1.671	8.793	56.885	Size of family	−0.711
				Self-consumption of milk	0.622
				Grazing	−0.598
6	1.324	6.968	63.853	Number of sources of income	0.915
				Herd Size	0.418
7	1.119	5.890	69.743	Mineral salt sup.	0.756
				N. Agricult. Act	−0.641

Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Source: Own elaboration.

). The composition of the PCs is shown below: (Table 2).

(1)

Consisting of sales volume and production volume. It accounts for 14.56% of the variation.

(2)

It refers to variables related to animal feeding, such as the use of stubble and cut grass. It represents 12.64% of the variation.

(3)

This component consists of five technological variables: the use of California tests, Brucella and tuberculosis tests, as well as artificial insemination, the method of selling milk, and the number of livestock activities in the HPU. It accounts for 11.99% of the variation.

(4)

This component consists of three variables: the producer’s education level, cattle deworming practices, and production record keeping. They account for 8.9% of the variation.

(5)

This component consists of the variables: family size, self-consumption of milk, and grazing. The variation is 8.79%.

(6)

Includes the number of income sources in the HPU and herd size. This represents 6.97% of the variation.

(7)

Includes mineral salt supplementation and the number of agricultural activities carried out in the HPU. This represents 5.89% of the variation.

4. Discussion

Differences Between Principal Components in Santa Elena in 2002 and 2018

It is observed that the principal components (PCs) do not represent the same variance across the analyzed periods, despite the formation of six and seven components (Table 1 and Table 2). The set of PCs accounts for 68.49% and 69.43% of the data, respectively. Overall, the composition of the PCs changed over time. The fact that only the first PC remained unchanged suggests a certain stability in dairy production practices and their connection to the local market. This PC is made up of variables associated with milk marketing, which indicates that market connection is a central adaptive strategy for producers in Santa Elena. This strategy is explained, in part, by the very nature of the product: since milk is a highly perishable good, it requires daily sales, generating a constant cash flow for household production units (HPUs) and ensuring a certain level of family liquidity. This pattern coincides with what Van der Ploeg [39] identifies as an expression of peasant logic, in which producers develop a set of strategies and cultural repertoires that allow them to maintain a certain autonomy from the dominant agro-industrial model. In this sense, daily market involvement does not necessarily imply a subordinate insertion, but rather a form of active resistance, as it allows peasant families to reproduce themselves socially and economically without completely depending on long, volatile, or agri-food empire-dominated circuits.

The second PC of the same year highlights the strategy producers used to maintain their production system, which is based on feeding cows through grazing, performing California tests to diagnose subclinical mastitis, and carrying out a variety of agricultural activities. From this second PC, grazing and agricultural activities are understood as elements that are linked to peasant rationality, since they are ways of self-providing inputs for production.

These elements allow us to understand how HPUs continue to maintain livelihoods oriented toward agriculture and livestock, family labor within the dairy production unit, and the continuation of agricultural activities, which according to Bernstein [51], are signs of peasantization. This situation is also observed in family dairy farming in the State of Mexico, where dairy farming has been part of the conversion of corn production to milk [52], and where, especially for lower-income producers, the use of stubble becomes essential for production at certain times of the year [53]. The study by Shah et al. [54] presents an analysis in subtropical areas of the world, where the use of stubble is essential for small-scale farms to withstand the environmental pressures resulting from dry seasons.

In this regard, there have been some changes in the nutritional management of cows in Santa Elena. In 2002, it was based on grazing and stubble, while by 2018, stubble was already being used, although crop residues continued to be an important part of the cattle’s diet. The use of agricultural by-products and forage production in the same HPU shows that self-sufficiency remained the pattern of peasant production, coinciding with what was described by Toledo and Barrera-Bassols [55], Van der Ploeg [34] and Espinoza-Ortega et al. [52], who point out that crop-livestock integration constitutes a structural strategy in peasant agriculture to sustain production with domestic resources and reduce market dependence. The incorporation of stubble reflects a process of adaptive intensification in the face of climate variability and rising input costs. According to studies by García-Martínez et al. [56] and Espinoza-Ortega et al. [52], these transformations are common in family dairy systems in the Mexican highlands, where producers gradually replace free grazing with cultivated forage or conserved agricultural residues, seeking stability in the food supply and greater control over their diet.

In 2018, as a result of government technology transfer programs, the importance of adopting a technological package is observed in the third component, along with a variable on the use of resources. In this sense, Van der Ploeg [34] states that peasant economy tends to minimize the use of external inputs, so health control tests would contradict this rationale. In this sense, the herd economy is directly linked to that of the family; spending more on diagnostic tests, as well as all purchasing habits for livestock, will modulate household consumption. In addition, federal government spending on animal health declined at an average annual rate of 3.42% since 2002. In contrast, spending by livestock producers increased at an average annual rate of 24% [57], reflecting a reduction in support for livestock production by official institutions.

However, the technology used is still not oriented toward capital accumulation and are likely linked to the capabilities of family members. This is confirmed by the study by Chávez-Pérez et al. [58], which indicates that low levels of technological development is a strategy that allows for greater adaptability to economic adversity in dairy farming in Maravatío.

Labor and agriculture: Finally, agricultural work and activities have decreased in relevance in the PCA when comparing the 2022 analysis with that of 2018; these two elements are essential in understanding the peasantry [39]. If livestock farming had undergone specialization as a sign of capitalist transformation, the importance of this component would have decreased. However, this decreased relevance could also suggest that dairy farming in Santa Elena may have experienced a certain degree of specialization, as an indicator of a shift toward capitalism. According to the principal components, this did not happen; on the contrary, more variables and components were incorporated, demonstrating the strengthening of peasant traits, coinciding with the observations of Chávez et al. [23] for Maravatío, attributing to this productive behavior the persistence and reproduction of the system without capital accumulation taking place.

In 2002, Santa Elena was home to 52 dairy HPUs, rising to 72 in 2018. Despite the increase in the number of dairy HPUs, no PC was found that concentrated a large amount of information, a sign of the complexity and diversity of peasant production systems. That is, the variation in the phenomenon is explained and diluted among many other elements. This is a sign of greater diversity in peasant culture (Toledo, 1993; Van der Ploeg, 2010) [39,59].

This diversity is linked to the culture and social structure of the rural environment, which according to Bartra [37] is a characteristic of peasant and family economies. Likewise, production, as a cultural practice, does not respond solely to market factors, but also to the complex network of relationships among various social actors and subjects. Therefore, production is not carried out exclusively for material or economic reasons but is also influenced by immaterial aspects such as social relations and culture [60]. This leads to the strengthening of pluriactivity as an adaptive strategy of peasant economies [61]. Additionally, Ferré and Serra [62] recognize that as women’s participation in livestock has increased, so too has pluriactivity in non-agricultural activities. Similarly, Soler [63] observes this historical trend in Michoacán, suggesting a potential area for further study. Additionally, Guzmán and León [64] report that pluriactivity serves as a kind of “economic buffer” for peasant households, allowing them to better endure tough times in one activity by relying on others. This aligns with Bartra [28], who states that diversification is a key peasant strategy for adapting to both natural and capitalist cycles.

In contrast to Santa Elena, Chávez et al. [58] note that dairy farming in Maravatío tends to concentrate more information in the PC related to milk production, this being 33.5%, nearly double that of Santa Elena (14.56%). The fact that all the components in both times (2002 and 2018) have less weight in relation to the general dairy industry of the municipality indicates that Santa Elena preserves different peasant strategies that do not tend towards specialization and that, on average, it differs from the dairy HPU of the municipality by maintaining more rooted peasant forms of production.

According to Cháve-Pérez et al. [58], Maravatío has HPUs categorized as specialized, semi-specialized, and subsistence. The lower concentration of data in the productive component in Santa Elena suggests that its activity falls under the semi-specialized category. It is observed that, over the time, this community appears to persist by not committing all resources to a single activity. This explains the reduced weight of the technology component and the increased weight of agriculture.

Dairy farming has grown in importance within the peasant dynamic. If this dynamic represents the household economy, then under prevailing conditions—including agri-food empires, unfavorable conditions for agriculture, and the presence of a local milk market—dairy production in Santa Elena facilitates peasant adaptation. According to Van der Ploeg [39], peasant production has found market niches where agroindustry has no interest or possibilities. In these, communal, cultural, and environmental values are exchanged through food. Santa Elena’s dairy sector aligns with this trait.

Likewise, it is worth highlighting to emphasize that the relevance of peasant-based components only becomes clear within the symbolic framework of economic and social domination imposed by the neoliberal agro-food regime. That is, production under unfavorable competitive conditions represents a form of resistance, as described by Van der Ploeg [39], speaks of as characteristic of the peasant. It also shapes and gives meaning to rural culture, allowing peasants to be the stewards of natural resources and to shape livestock production in ways consistent with cultural values, rather than industrial productivity standards. In other words, beyond technical efficiency, dairy farming plays a significant role in processes of territorial appropriation [61]. As with the case of tomato growers in Morelos [64], dairy farming in Santa Elena persists and resists because it provides families with control over resources. Thus, the combination of agricultural and livestock activities enables peasants to become “owners” of the territory and supports their diversification strategies.

Furthermore, the persistence and growth of family dairy farming can be explained in part by material and socio-cultural conditions of municipality. Regarding material aspects, we can mention the increasing population in the municipal seat and the resulting demand for milk, which represents an opportunity for the dairy HPUs to have a steady income, and the relationship between dairy farming and agricultural activities, which provide a use for agricultural products and byproducts. Regarding the socio-cultural perspective, the theoretical frameworks proposed by Schejtman [32], Van der Ploeg [39], and Scott [61] concerning the peasantry help to understand the persistence of these components as part of local peasant culture and the unique characteristics of the peasantry. These more intangible aspects explain the continued presence of family dairy farming in Santa Elena.

The very permanence and growth of peasant rationality and the HPUs are indicative of their capacity to endure over time, recover from adversity, and adapt to changes in local and global social and economic structures. This resilience is linked to the sustainability of production systems [65]. In Santa Elena, the method of milk marketing allows for effective flow, providing families with resilience to market fluctuations and contributing to the economic sustainability of domestic production units [66]. At the same time, the integration of agricultural and livestock activities, the use of stubble and cut grass, and the diversification of production practices reinforce the environmental aspect of sustainability by optimizing the use of local resources and reducing dependence on external inputs [55]. This production method strengthens the social axis of sustainability, preserving the autonomy and pluriactivity of peasant rationality as adaptive strategies in the face of variable socioeconomic and environmental conditions [37,61]. Taken together, the persistence of these practices and the increase in dairy HPUs in Santa Elena indicate that family dairy farming is an activity that promotes stable livelihoods; is part of a resilient system; and is capable of adapting to technological, climatic, and market changes while preserving elements of peasant culture.

5. Conclusions

In Santa Elena’s dairy sector, peasant-like economic traits have remained dominant over time. These characteristics and their underlying rationale grant them the adaptability to environmental conditions in which they operate. These traits do not strictly conform to theoretical peasant models studied, indicating that such models are merely orientative. These are dynamic, time-sensitive systems influenced by interaction with other systems. It should be noted that the development of global capitalism is a systemic and contextual factor influencing changes within the family dairy system.

Decisions concerning the herd economy focus on increasing milk production by enlarging herd size to raise total output, rather than improving productivity. More cows mean increased land and family labor use, serving as a strategy to reduce reliance on financial capital. However, this results in lower economic efficiency.

Technologies in use favor family labor and avoid those that could affect household liquidity or increase dependence on external inputs. Thus, the use of California tests and brucellosis/tuberculosis controls has declined.

Changes in the economic and social organization of HPUs have not altered their family-based nature. Family labor and natural resources under household control remain the production foundation.

The diversity of cultural repertoires and low capital intensity show no clear trend toward either peasantization or de-peasantization. Without major investments in a single productive activity, it is easier to adjust the intensity and allocation of various resources, yet such practices do not lead to capital accumulation. This limits economic growth.

Nonetheless, the economic-administrative component persisted over time, alongside productive components related to herd size, structure, and management. This demonstrates that even in the absence of capital accumulation, the system fosters capabilities associated with entrepreneurship, though without full professionalization or specialization, but allowing for the application of knowledge acquired outside the HPUs.

Peasant economic principles in the studied production units manifest through the predominant use of family labor and the division of work across various HPU activities. However, this production logic interacts with capitalism through the milk market, which is a key source of cash. Thus, some resource-use decisions are made independent of market considerations. Given the nature of family production, compensation for labor and land rent is diverse and complements the different income generated within HPUs.

Therefore, the changes observed in Santa Elena are more technical than economic. Dairy farming plays a key role by providing raw materials to the local dairy industry. Its significance lies in its role in supporting the social, biological, and labor-force reproduction needed by capitalism. More targeted research is necessary to determine whether capital accumulation occurs, and under what conditions, or whether the formation of a new HPU by a departing family member represents capital reproduction rather than accumulation.