Serviços Personalizados
Journal
Artigo
texto em 
Inglês (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Referências do artigo
Tradução automática
Enviar este artigo por emailIndicadores
-
Citado por SciELO -
Acessos
Links relacionados
-
Similares em
SciELO
Compartilhar
Permalink
Agrociencia
versão On-line ISSN 2521-9766versão impressa ISSN 1405-3195
Agrociencia vol.50 no.6 Texcoco Ago./Set. 2016
Animal Science
Changes in dual purpose livestock farming system in the dry tropic of Estado de Mexico
1Centro Universitario UAEM Temascaltepec, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Km. 67.5, Carretera Toluca-Tejupilco. 51300. Colonia Barrio de Santiago S/N, Temascaltepec, Estado de México. México. (angama.agm@gmail.com).
Livestock farming is an important economic activity in rural areas, although it has presented changes due to socioeconomic adjustments. One of these changes is to raise livestock to achieve two production goals, rather than one. The aim of this study was to analyze the changes in production units (PU) with dual-purpose (DP) livestock in Southern Estado de Mexico. In 2006, with technical and economic follow-ups, information was obtained from 50 livestock farmers chosen by random sampling. Fourteen structure and management variables were evaluated (abandonment of livestock activity, labour availability, feeding, surface and size of herd), along with 14 economic variables, all of which were obtained with structured surveys. All the livestock farmers provided reliable information for the validation of the data, which were also contrasted with the records in the PU and with key informers and official statistics for the economic variables. Such variables were evaluated in the same sample in 2013. The statistical method used was a Student t test, for the comparison of average values of the 28 variables between dates. During the seven-year period, 56 % of the livestock farmers abandoned the activity and labour fell by 42 % (p≤0.05). The surface and size of the herd remained equal (p>0.05). The changes in the feeding and total income per cow and surface (ha) were significant (p≤0.05). The PU DP changed their structure, land use, feeding, management of the PU’s and therefore, the organization and orientation of livestock production. Tendencies indicate that the changes in livestock farming in southern Estado de México will continue.
Key Words: Bovines; production units; changes; dry tropic; dual-purpose
La ganadería es una actividad económica importante en zonas rurales, aunque en años recientes ha presentado cambios importantes, debido a ajustes socioeconómicos. Uno de estos cambios es criar ganado para cumplir dos metas de producción en lugar de una. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar los cambios en unidades de producción (UP) con ganado doble propósito (DP) en el sur del Estado de México. Mediante seguimientos técnico-económicos, en 2006 se obtuvo información de 50 ganaderos elegidos con muestreo aleatorio. Las variables evaluadas fueron 14 de estructura y manejo (abandono de la actividad ganadera, disponibilidad de mano de obra, alimentación, superficie y tamaño de hato) y 14 económicas obtenidas con encuestas estructuradas. Todos los ganaderos aportaron información confiable para validar los datos que fueron contrastados con los registros en la UP y con informantes clave y estadísticas oficiales para las variables económicas. Las mismas variables se evaluaron en la misma muestra en 2013. El método estadístico usado fue una prueba t de Student para la comparación de valores promedio de las 28 variables entre las fechas. Durante el periodo de siete años 56 % de los ganaderos abandonaron la actividad y la mano de obra disminuyó 42 % (p≤0.05). La superficie y el tamaño del hato se mantuvo (p>0.05). Los cambios en la alimentación y en el ingreso total por vaca y superficie (ha) fueron significativos (p≤0.05). Las UP DP cambiaron su estructura, el uso de la tierra, la alimentación, el manejo y la gestión de las UP y, por tanto, la organización y orientación de la producción del ganado. La tendencia indica que los cambios en la ganadería del sur del Estado de México continuarán.
Palabras clave: Bovinos; unidades de producción; cambios; trópico seco; doble propósito
Introduction
Some of the most important threats facing the continuity of livestock farming and its production units (PU) are a result of the marginalization in more disadvantaged areas (Baldock et al., 1996). The aging of livestock farmers, the low generational takeover, migration (Vilaboa et al., 2009; Bernués et al., 2011), instability in prices of beef and dairy products when sold to retailers or in critical periods or periods of lower demands, the competitiveness between the PU (Rebollar et al., 2011), the dependence on external inputs (Shamsuddin et al., 2006), and the deterioration of natural resources (Gibon, 2005) are also factors that promote abandonment.
This scheme presents itself in numerous rural areas (McDonald et al., 2000; Romo-Bacco et al., 2014) and it affects the capacity of production of the UP’s and the way of life of rural populations (Fratkin and Mearns, 2003). Under these circumstances, families have to seek other sources of income to satisfy their needs (García-Martínez et al., 2009; Ayantunde et al., 2011).
However, these factors also favored the diversification of livestock farming, adjustments and restructuring of land use, labour, and changes in production strategies (Nardone et al., 2010; Tittonell et al., 2010), as well as the incorporation of diverse animal breeds and important changes in the orientation of production (Bernués et al., 2011). These changes and adjustments are a result of the demands that the socioeconomic context imposes on it (García-Martínez et al., 2011) and the guidelines established by farming policies (Laurent et al., 2003).
Livestock farming is a strategic economic activity in rural areas, which allows access to capital and the products it generates (López et al., 2001; Rojo-Rubio et al., 2009). It also plays an important economic cohesion, social, and environmental role (Laurent et al., 2003; Ayantunde et al., 2011), despite the rapid growth of other economic activities such as tourism and a rural population with increasingly scarce farming activities (Gibon et al., 2004; Lasanta-Martínez et al., 2007).
Tropical areas in Mexico are related to low production costs, due to the strategic use of available resources (Absalón-Medina et al., 2012b), family labour (García-Martínez et al., 2011), low meat and dairy production, and seasonal production of fodder (Pech et al., 2002; Aguilar-Pérez et al., 2011). In the southern region of the Central Highlands, livestock production is carried out under harsh topography conditions, extreme temperatures (28-35 °C), and water scarcity (SIAP-SAGARPA, 2013). Dual-purpose livestock farming (DP) in the region characteristically includes breeds Bos indicus (Brahman, Nelore, Guzerat, Gyr) or crossed with the breeds Bos taurus such as Holstein and Brown Swiss, for milk production, and Charolais and Simmental for beef production (Pech et al., 2002; Aranda-Ávila et al., 2010), and incomes produced by the sale of meat and milk (Rojo-Rubio et al., 2009; Absalón-Medina et al., 2012a). The aim of this investigation was to analyze the changes undergone from 2006 to 2013 in the structure and management of PU’s with DP bovines in Tejupilco, Estado de México.
Materials and methods
The study was carried out in the municipal area of Tejupilco, in the southeast of Estado de Mexico (18° 45’ 30” and 19° 04’ 32” N and 99° 59’ 07” and 100° 36’ 45” O, 1, 330 masl, Cwa subtropical climate, with temperatures between 15 and 30 °C, average annual rainfall of 1 200 mm and rainfall in the summer). The surface of the municipal area is 66 912 ha, covering 3 % of the total of the state (IGECEM, 2009); 6.6 and 78 % of the territory are allocated for agriculture and livestock production (Plan de Desarrollo Municipal de Tejupilco 2013-2015), its bovine population is 21 865 (19 457 for meat and 2409 for dairy), which account for 18.6 % of the state total, and 4.26 % of the national total (INEGI, 2014).
The information for 2006 was taken from technical and economic follow-ups with structured surveys to 50 livestock farmers with Holstein cows, chosen by random sampling with 95 % reliability using the equation:
where: n is sample size, N is population size, and 0.12 is the standard error determined by the researcher, described by Hernández et al. (2004). The sample was taken from the livestock farmer census in two local associations, General Puerta del Sur and Local General de Tejupilco, with a census on 100 dairy PU’s, registered in eight locations of the municipal areas: Rincón de Aguirre, Rincón del Carmen, Rio Grande, Almoloya de las Granadas, Las Mesas de Ixtapan, El Campanario de Ixtapan, El Saus, and Tenería. The sample evaluated was representative of the sample of dairy PU’s in both associations.
In 2013, the same PU sample of 2006 was followed up with the same instrument for obtaining information on the structure, management and economy of PU’s to evaluate the changes in the period of seven years. The variables evaluated were 28: 14 were related to structure, on the management of PU’s (abandonment of livestock activity, labour availability, surface and number of animals, feeding, production and reproduction of the herd), out of which seven were expressed as %, and 14 economic variables (four expressed as %). The information was analyzed with a Student t test for comparison of averages of the variables between dates (p≤0.05), using STATISTICA 9.0. All 28 variables were validated using exploratory analysis to identify lost or abnormal data, and the data were rectified and validated with the technical and economic follow-up, with the records in the PU, and with key informers and official statistics (retail prices of the products obtained and costs of inputs) for the economic variables.
Results and discussion
Abandonment of livestock activity
Twenty two of the 50 PU’s studied in 2006 were found in 2013, that is, 56.0 % of the PU’s abandoned livestock production in seven years. The main causes were the reduced number of animals sustained and sales of lands. According to Gibon et al. (2004), this takes place when there is total abandonment, or abandonment of a significant portion of land, or when there is a change in the use of farming activities. Other key factors were the high cost of the production and the old age or death of the farmers and a low generational takeover, as highlighted by Baldock et al. (1996) and García-Martínez et al. (2009). These changes also reflect the dynamics of the PU and their ability to adapt to the surrounding in which they develop (García-Martínez et al., 2011) and to the diversity in the conditions of PU management (Ruben and Pender, 2004; Veysset et al., 2005).
Availability of labour
Labour for livestock farming decreased 42 % (p≤0.05), the availability in year work units (YWU-1) changed from 2.4±0.16 to 1.7±0.25 from 2006 to 2013. During 2006 the labour hired (% UTA-1 was 0.4±0.2) was of little importance; however, in 2013 it increased (11.3±2.1) (p≤0.05). According to Romo-Bacco et al. (2014), family labour (% UTA-1 from 99.6±0.2 in 2006 and 88.7±2.1 in 2013) is crucial (p≤0.05) in small scale PU’s (Posadas-Domínguez et al., 2013). Among the factors that influence the hiring of labour are the multiple family activites and the increase of herd surface, induce an intensive use of labour (García-Martínez et al., 2011).
Land surface and herd size
In terms of surface there were no significant differences (p>0.05), although the total surface increased by 30.0 % (Table 1). The surface allocated for fodder production (SF) did not change (p>0.05); however, agricultural crops (AC) increased, and the highest importance of land rent was significant (p≤0.05). Although no significant differences were observed between dates (p>0.05) surfaces with grass increased 21 % and with maize 12 % (p≤0.05).
Table 1 Average results on structural changes and management of PU’s in the municipal area of Tejupilco, Estado de Mexico.
| 2006 n=50 | 2013 n=22 | Promedio n=72 | EEM † | p ¶ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superficie (ha) arable útil (SAU) | 18.4 | 26.3 | 20.8 | 3.1 | 0.245§ |
| Superficie forrajera (SF)/SAU (%) | 80.9 | 78.5 | 80.2 | 2.4 | 0.640§ |
| Cultivos agrícolas (CA)/SAU (%) | 19.1 | 21.5 | 19.8 | 2.4 | 0.634§ |
| SAU propia (%) | 92.9 | 71.5 | 86.4 | 3.2 | 0.000Þ |
| SAU alquilada (%) | 7.1 | 28.5 | 13.6 | 3.2 | 0.000Þ |
| Pastos, ha | 15.6 | 21.6 | 17.4 | 2.9 | 0.349§ |
| Vacas, número | 7.3 | 10.5 | 8.3 | 0.9 | 0.107§ |
| Carga ganadera (UGB¤ ha-1) | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.914§ |
| EPP†† de vaquillas (meses) | 30.2 | 31.3 | 30.6 | 0.7 | 0.522§ |
| Becerros destetados por vaca | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.03 | 0.063§ |
| UP que ensilan (%) | 46.0 | 18.2 | 37.5 | 5.7 | 0.025 Þ |
†Standard error of the mean; ¶Probability. §Student’s t test are not significant (p>0.05). Student’s t test are significant (p≤0.05); ¤Livestock Units. ††Age at first birth.
The increase in surface, according to García-Martínez et al. (2009) and Tittonel et al. (2010), was due to active PU’s renting or purchasing lands from the PU’s that abandonment livestock farming partially or entirely. This surface is used mostly for grazing (García-Martínez et al., 2011) and, therefore, the extensive management of livestock is evident.
In herd size there were no differences (p≤0.05), although the number of cows increased 29 % (Table 1). This showed that the PU’s undergo structural changes that are enhanced by the increase in surface; beign is crucial for development for the activity (Tittonell et al., 2010).
The PU’s with small herds and limited surface availability abandon livestock farming activity (García-Martínez et al., 2009). In this scheme there is a tendency towards the growth of large and consolidated PU’s, the maintenance of medium PU’s, and the abandonment of smaller ones.
Livestock management
In the management of livestock there were no differences (Table 1). The livestock units per area unit (UGB ha-1) remained constant (p>0.05), due to the proportional increase of surface and herd. This was also observed by Bernués et al. (2005) and García-Martínez et al. (2009).
There was no evidence of change in age at the first birth in heifers or calves weaned (p>0.05). Cuevas-Reyes et al. (2013) indicated that in small DP PU there are no programs to improve reproductive indicators. Likewise, finding heifers of over 24 months of age at first birth is due to deficiencies in nutrition during growth (Arriaga-Jordán et al., 2003). Both cases are factors that contribute to the abandonment of the activity.
Significant changes (p≤0.05) were observed in nutrition. During 2006, 46.0 % of the PU’s fed maize silage to cattle, and this indicator decreased in 2013, which is related to the PU productive orientation. All 50 PU’s produced milk in 2006 (Hernández-Morales et al., 2013); therefore silage was important fodder. In 2013, livestock production displayed a higher tendency towards meat production and maize silage lost importance in nutrition. This change increased fodder costs by 5% in regard to 2006 (p≤0.05). As a result, 68.0 % of the PU’s showed a greater tendency towards DP, 23.0 % to meat production, and only 9 % to milk production. In this way, PU’s in changing rural contexts are highly dynamic and a result of simultaneously planning and obtaining several strategic objectives (Tittonel et al., 2010) which may be productive-economic, social-family or environmental (García-Martínez et al., 2011).
Economic indicators
In the annual total income (TAI) no differences were observed (p>0.05) (Table 2). However, TAI increased 15.0 % due to the higher number of animals and change in productive orientation. For TAI per cow and TAI ha-1 there were significant differences (p≤0.05). Incomes for the sale of milk and meat also changed (p≤0.05) as a factor of adjustment of the PU’s to the socioeconomic context in which they are developed (García-Martínez et al., 2011).
Table 2 Average changes in the main economic indicators (000 thousands of pesos ) of the production units in the Municipal area of Tejupilco, Estado de Mexico.
| 2006 | 2013 | Promedio | EEM † | p ¶ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingreso total (IT por año) | 68.8 | 80.7 | 72.5 | 7.4 | 0.466§ |
| Ingreso leche (%) | 77.3 | 58.3 | 71.5 | 3.5 | 0.012Þ |
| Ingreso carne (%) | 19.7 | 36.0 | 24.7 | 3.3 | 0.022Þ |
| Otros ingresos (%) | 3.1 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 0.527§ |
| IT por vaca | 9.1 | 38.9 | 18.2 | 3.9 | 0.000Þ |
| IT ha-1 | 10.1 | 22.3 | 13.8 | 2.3 | 0.015Þ |
| Costo total (CT por año) | 15.5 | 26.1 | 18.7 | 1.2 | 0.000Þ |
| CT vaca-1 | 3.2 | 6.0 | 4.1 | 0.4 | 0.002Þ |
| CT SF-1 | 3.0 | 12.4 | 5.9 | 1.3 | 0.001Þ |
| Costo alimentación (%) | 73.3 | 78.01 | 74.8 | 1.2 | 0.048Þ |
| Margen neto (MN por año) | 53.4 | 54.7 | 53.8 | 7.2 | 0.473§ |
| MN por vaca | 7.6 | 4.8 | 6.7 | 1.0 | 0.025Þ |
| MN SF-1 | 7.4 | 8.2 | 7.6 | 1.8 | 0.430§ |
| MN UTA-1 | 28.8 | 29.5 | 29.0 | 4.5 | 0.156§ |
†Standard error of the mean; ¶Probability; §Student’s t test are not significant (p>0.05). ÞStudent’s t test are significant (p≤0.05); ¤Monetary data were expressed in real or constant prices (Banco de México, 2014).
Sale of milk decreased 19 % over TAI, whereas meat sales increased 16 % (p≤0.05). This situation appeared in other regions of Estado de México, in which the sales of fattened males and calved are main source of incomes of PU’s (Rebollar et al., 2011), as well as in other regions with similar production conditions (Veysset et al., 2005; García-Martínez et al., 2011).
Milk production and sale is the most important support for families in PU’s of the region (Hernández-Morales et al., 2013). In 2013, 9 % of the PU’s were provided for by producing milk, and its sale was the main family economic support, as in other municipal areas in the south of Estado de Mexico (Albarrán-Portillo et al., 2015). This evidence shows that in time the Mexican central highlands, milk production prevail because it provides daily income and jobs in rural areas (Espinoza-Ortega et al., 2007; Albarrán-Portillo et al., 2015).
Significant differences were observed in the total cost per cow and ha (p≤0.05). In 2013 it was greater, despite the greater use of grazing surfaces; this was shown by Albarrán-Portillo et al. (2015). According to García-Martínez et al. (2011), this tendency is due to the increase in the size of the herd, the greater surface with AC, and the increase in the use of commercial concentrates, when cattle are finished in the PU.
In total net margin (NM), NM ha-1 and MN WU-1 there were no changes (p>0.05), but in NM per cow changes were observed (p≤0.05). This indicator decreased (36.9 %) in 2013 due to the reduction of weaned calves (19.6 %) and of incomes for milk sales.
The cost of feed increased between 2006 and 2013, which shows that the greater use of surfaces for grazing is inefficient. García-Martínez et al. (2011) observed an increasing tendency in the use of surfaces for grazing in order to reduce the use of external inputs and production costs. In this regard, Pech et al. (2002) and Shamsuddin et al. (2006) show that feeding cost can be reduced by 10.0 % when increasing the surface for grazing.
Conclusions
The number of Dual Purpose Production Units in the south of Estado de Mexico decreased significantly in a period of 7 years, mainly in those with small herds, reduced land availability, and low labour. There are the factors that limit their development. In contrast, there is a tendency towards growth in the PU’s that maintain activity, herd size, and surface area. Besides, there is evidence of structural changes in the management of PU’s, which have an influence on the definition of a new scheme for meat production, although milk production is still a source of income.
Literatura citada
Absalón-Medina, V. A., R. W. Blake, D. G. Fox, F. I. Juárez-Lagunes, C. F. Nicholson, E. G. Canudas-Lara, and B. L. Rueda-Maldonado. 2012a. Economic analysis of alternative nutritional management of dual-purpose cow herds in central coastal Veracruz, Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44: 1143-1150. [ Links ]
Absalón-Medina, V. A. , C. F. Nicholson, R. W. Blake, D. G. Fox, F. I. Juárez-Lagunes, E. G. Canudas-Lara., and B. L. Rueda-Maldonado. 2012b. Limitations and potentials of dualpurpose cow herds in Central Coastal Veracruz, Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44: 1131-1142. [ Links ]
Aguilar-Pérez, C., J. C. Ku-Vera, and J. G. Magaña-Monforte. 2011. Energetic efficiency of milk synthesis in dual-purpose cows grazing tropical pastures. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 43: 767-772. [ Links ]
Albarrán-Portillo, B., S. Rebollar-Rebollar, A. García-Martínez, R. Rojo-Rubio, F. Avilés-Nova, and C. M. Arriaga-Jordán. 2015. Socioeconomic and productive characterization of dual-purpose farms oriented to milk production in a subtropical region of Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 47: 519-523. [ Links ]
Aranda-Ávila, I., J. G. Magaña-Monforte, and J. C. Segura-Correa. 2010. Effects of breed type and age at first calving on length of productive life in a cow-calf system in Southeastern Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 42: 1737-1741. [ Links ]
Arriaga-Jordán, C. M., A. García-Martínez, B. Albarrán-Portillo, A. Espinoza-Ortega, and O. A. Castelán-Ortega. 2003. Feeding strategies for rearing replacement heifers in smallscale dairy production systems in the highlands of Central Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 35: 259-269. [ Links ]
Ayantunde, A. A., J. de Leeuw, M. D. Turner, and M. Said. 2011. Challenges of assessing the sustainability of (agro)-pastoral systems. Livest. Sci. 139: 30-43. [ Links ]
Banco de México. 2014. http://www.banxico.org.mx/SieInternet/consultarDirectorioInternetAction.do?accion=consultarDirectorioCuadros§or=20§orDescripcion=%CDndices%20de%20Precios%20Productor%20y%20de%20Comercio%20Exterior&locale=es (Consulta: diciembre 2014). [ Links ]
Baldock, D., G. Beaufoy, F. Brouwer, and F. Godeschalk. 1996. Farming at the margins: Abandonment or Redeployment of Agricultural Land in Europe. Institute for European Environmental Policy Agricultural Economics Research Institute, London/The Hague. 202 p. [ Links ]
Bernués, A., J. L. Riedel, M. A. Asensio, M. Blanco, A. Sanz, R. Revilla, and I. Casasus. 2005. An integrated approach to studying the role of grazing livestock systems in the conservation of rangelands in a protected natural park (Sierra de Guara, Spain). Livest. Prod. Sci. 96: 75-85. [ Links ]
Bernués, A. , R. Ruiz, A. Olaizola, D. Villalba, and I. Casasús. 2011. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livest. Sci. 139: 44-57. [ Links ]
Cuevas-Reyes, V., M. J. Baca, F. E. Cervantes, G. J. A. Espinosa, A. J. Aguilar, and M. A. Loaiza. 2013. Factores que determinan el uso de innovaciones tecnológicas en la ganadería de doble propósito en Sinaloa. Rev. Mex. Ciencias Pec. 4: 31-46. [ Links ]
Espinoza-Ortega, A., E. Espinosa-Ayala, J. Bastida-López, T. Castañeda-Martínez, and C. M. Arriaga-Jordán. 2007. Small-scale dairy farming in the highlands of central Mexico: Technical, economic and social aspects and their impact on poverty. Exp. Agr. 43: 241-256. [ Links ]
Fratkin, E., and R. Mearns. 2003. Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia. Hum. Organ. 62: 112-122. [ Links ]
García-Martínez, A., A. Bernúes, and A. Olaizola. 2011. Simulation of mountain cattle farming system changes under diverse agricultural policies and off-farm labour scenarios. Livest. Sci. 137: 73-86. [ Links ]
García-Martínez, A. , A. Olaizola , and A. Bernués. 2009. Trajectories of evolution and drivers of change in European mountain cattle farming systems. Animal 3: 152-165. [ Links ]
Gibon, A. 2005. Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. Livest. Prod. Sci. 96: 11-31. [ Links ]
Gibon, A., G. Balent, D. Alard, J. Muntane, Y. Raich, S. Ladet, A. Mottet, et M. P. Lulien. 2004. L’usage de l’espace par les exploitations d’élevage de montagne et la gestion de la biodiversité. Fourrages 178: 245-263. [ Links ]
Hernández-Morales, P., J. G. Estrada-Flores, F. Avilés-Nova, G. Yong-Angel, F. López-González, A. D. Solís-Méndez, y O. A. Castelán-Ortega. 2013. Tipificación de los sistemas campesinos de producción de leche del sur del Estado de México. Rev. Mex. Ciencias Pec. 29:19-31. [ Links ]
Hernández, S. R., C. C. Fernández, y L. P. Baptista. 2004. Metodología de la Investigación. 3a ed. McGraw-Hill Interamericana. México. 705 p. [ Links ]
INEGI. 2014. Censo Agrícola, Ganadero y Forestal 2007. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. [ [http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/agro/ default.aspx (Consulta: Junio 2012). [ Links ]
Lasanta-Martínez, T., M. Laguna, and S. M. Vicente-Serrano. 2007. Do tourism based ski resorts contribute to the homogeneous development of the Mediterranean mountain? A case study in the Central Spanish Pyrenees. Tourism Manage. 28: 1326-1339. [ Links ]
Laurent, C., F. Maxime, A. Mazé, and M. Tichit. 2003. Multifunctionality of agriculture and farm models. Economie Rurale 273/274: 134-152. [ Links ]
López, C. M., F. G. Jiménez, B. Jong, G. S. Ochoa, and T. J. Nahed. 2001. El sistema ganadero de montaña en la región norte-tzotzil de Chiapas, México. Vet. Méx. 32: 93-102. [ Links ]
McDonald, D., J. R. Crabtree, G. Wiesinger, T. Dax, N. Stamou, P. Fleury P, L. J. Gutiérrez, and A. Gibon. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manage. 59: 47-69. [ Links ]
Nardone, A., B. Ronchi, N. Lacetera, M. S. Ranieri, and U. Bernabucci. 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest. Sci. 130: 57-69. [ Links ]
Pech, M. V., J. F. Santos, y M. P. Montes. 2002. Función de producción de la ganadería doble propósito en la zona oriente del estado de Yucatán, México. Téc. Pec. 40: 187-192. [ Links ]
Posadas-Domínguez, R. R, C. M. Arriaga-Jordán, and F. E. Martínez-Castañeda. 2013. Contribution of family labour to the profitability and competitiveness of small-scale dairy production systems in central Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 46: 235-240. [ Links ]
Rebollar-Rebollar, S., R. R. D. Posadas, J. M. Hernández, R. R. Rojo, F. J. R. González, and E. Guzmán S. 2011. Technical and economic optimum in feedlot cattle. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosys. 14: 413-420. [ Links ]
Romo-Bacco, C. E., G. V. Arturo., R. G. Carranza T., C. J. Cámara., A. M. Zavala P., A. E. Flores, y J. A. Espinosa G. 2014. Brechas de rentabilidad económica en pequeñas unidades de producción de leche en el altiplano central mexicano. Rev. Mex. Ciencias Pec. 5: 273-290. [ Links ]
Rojo-Rubio, R, J. F Vázquez-Armijo, P. Pérez-Hernández, G. D. Mendoza-Martínez, A. Z. M Salem, B. Albarrán-Portillo, A. González-Reyna, J. Hernández-Martínez, S. Rebollar-Rebollar, D. Cardoso-Jiménez, E. J. Dorantes-Coronado, and J. G. Gutiérrez-Cedillo. Dual purpose cattle production in Mexico. 2009. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 41: 715-721. [ Links ]
Ruben, R, and J. Pender. 2004. Rural diversity and heterogeneity in less-favoured areas: the quest for policy targeting. Food Policy 29: 303-320. [ Links ]
Shamsuddin, M., W.J. Goodger, M. Hossein, S. Azizunnesa, T. Bennett, and K. A. Nordlund. 2006. Survey to identify economic opportunities for smallholder dairy farms in Bangladesh. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 38: 131-140. [ Links ]
SIAP-SAGARPA. 2013. Población Ganadera, avícola y apícola. Resumen Nacional 2001-2010”. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. http://www.siap.gob.mx/index.php/ganaderia/poblacion-ganadera.html (Consulta: Junio 2012). [ Links ]
STATISTICA 9. 2013. StatSoft. Statistica. http://www.statsoft.com/Products/STATISTICA-Features/ [ Links ]
Tittonell, P., A. Muriuki, K. D. Shepherd, D. Mugendi, K. C. Kaizz., J. Okeyo, L. Verchot, R. Coe, and B. Vanlauwe. 2010. The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa - A typology of smallholder farms. Agr. Syst. 103: 83-97. [ Links ]
Veysset, P., M. Lherm, and D. Bébin. 2005. Evolution, scatters and determinants of the farm income in suckler cattle Charolais farms. A study over 15 years (1989-2003) from a 69 farm constant sample. Prod. Anim. 18:265-275. [ Links ]
Vilaboa, A. J., R. P. Díaz, O. R. Ruiz, D. E. Platas R., S. González M, and F. Juárez L. 2009. Socioeconomical and technological characterization of agroecosystems with dualpurpose cattle in the Papaloapan region, Veracruz, Mexico. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosys. 10: 53-62. [ Links ]
Received: March 01, 2015; Accepted: March 01, 2016
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons
