Variables used

Calculation of weighting factors

Type weighting factor

This weighting factor eased the homogenization of producers in different classes. The equation used to estimate the type weighting factor (PT, for initials in Spanish) is shown next:

where: PES, PSE, PBE, PNT and PVA are weighting factors for schooling, irrigation surface equivalent, equivalent bovines, technological level, and value of the productive assets, respectively. When the specifications and ranges defined by ^{López et al. (2007)} were not taken into account, but rather the adjustments according to the region, then the calculation of the weighting factors are described in the document.

Weighting factor for schooling (PES)

It was determined considering the data from the survey applied to producers as specified in Table 1.

Weighting factor for irrigation surface equivalent (PSE) and weighting factor for equivalent bovines (PBE)

The weighting factors considered for PSE and PBE were those used by ^{López et al. (2007)}. According to ^{COTECOCA (2002)}, the pasturelands in the Highlands region are classified as of good quality because they have pasturage of 8.26 ha/UA. For PBE the ranges of equivalent bovines are included, as well as the corresponding weighting according to the different stages of development or types of bovines in the animal units.

Weighting factor for technological level (PNT)

For the technological level, five main aspects were considered and a different weighting factor was given according to their relative importance: 10 % index of genetic quality (ICG), 25 % index of dietary management (IMA), 25 % index of reproductive management (IMR), 25 % index of sanitary management (IMS), and 15 % index of infrastructure and equipment (IIE) (all abbreviations for initials in Spanish). The formula used to calculate it was:

The range of levels (0 to 1) for NT, racial types for ICG (two types), and the facilities and equipment that each producer had for the IIE were determined based on the specifications by ^{López et al. (2007)} for those indexes.

Index of dietary sources (IMA)

The IMA indicates the source of food for the cattle which was associated to a weighting factor. The lowest technological level was considered, which is when the livestock fed on native grasses or agricultural residues without a supplement being offered, and ranging to the case when balanced meal was offered for each group of ages and physiological states of the bovines, as shown in Table 2.

Index of reproductive management (IMR)

The breeding method and control of important reproductive events was taken into account, such as the gestation diagnosis. The weighting factor for these characteristics is shown in Table 3.

The calculation of this index was carried out with the following equation:

Index of sanitary management (IMS)

Management activities for the prevention of diseases and general hygiene measures in the facilities were taken into account, as described in Table 4.

The calculation of this index is carried out with the following equation:

Once the general weighting factors are calculated, assigning the classes contemplated three types of producers, as presented in Table 5.

The classification performed proposes three types of producers which are presented in Table 6, where the values corresponding to each one of the variables used are shown.

To compare the averages of the variables studied between the types of producers found, the t-Student test was used, approximating the degrees of freedom through the method suggested by Satterthwaite (1964, cited by ^{Damon and Harvey, 1987}).

Weighting factors

In average, the value of the total weighting factor obtained by the producers in transition was 0.66, while for the entrepreneurial type it was 0.86, with variability between producers as shown in Table 7.

When differentiating the type of producers found in the study region, it was observed that the average of schooling of the producers in transition was seven years (secondary school), while for the producers of entrepreneurial type it was 16 years, which does not coincide with what was reported by ^{SAGARPA-SDR (2005a)} for the intermediate producers in Jalisco, for they identified that these producers have an educational level of high school. This can be because the study was carried out in a single region (Highlands), while SAGARPA established it for the whole state. ^{Allub (2001)} mentions that a higher educational level of the farmer contributes to reducing the level of uncertainty associated with innovation, which translates into a reduction in the degree of risk aversion, thus explaining the differences in the rates of technology adoption. ^{Pacheco (2006)} points out that the higher educational level can make a producer have a better willingness to apply technical recommendations that require a certain degree of instruction. This explains why the entrepreneurial producers have a higher technological weighting factor and make greater use of technology.

In terms of irrigation surface equivalent, 100 % of the producers own land; of these, 73 % of the ones who are in transition had a surface of agricultural use or rainfed grassland, 13 % agricultural surface or irrigation grassland, and 53 % pastureland of good quality; meanwhile, the entrepreneurial ones only had agricultural surface or rainfed grassland and 50 % of them only have pastureland surface. ^{Galindo (2001)} points out that in studies carried out in México and abroad it has been determined that among the factors that influence positively the adoption of innovations, the surface cultivated stands out. ^{Cervantes et al. (2001)} indicate that in the region of the Jalisco Highlands, 90 % of the family dairy producers own cultivation lands, which are destined primarily to the production of fodders, revealing that agriculture and livestock production are closely interwoven in this production system. This is adjusted to the transition producers; however, the entrepreneurial ranches keep their animals confined and use basically balanced meals to feed their animals; the pastureland is used for replacement breeding, but not for feeding production cows. Table 8 presents data for schooling, irrigation surface equivalent, and equivalent bovines per type of producer.

The entrepreneurial producers were statistically different (p≤0.05) in schooling and heads of livestock, surpassing the transition producers; not so in terms of the equivalent irrigation surface, since in that case the transition producers stood out compared to the entrepreneurial producers.

With regard to the constitution of the livestock herd, within the transition producers, 33 % had a stud to be used on females that are not expectant through artificial insemination; another 33 % had young bulls for fattening and 13 % steers, while the producers of entrepreneurial type sell the male offspring as soon as possible, conserving only replacement cows. These results agree with those presented by ^{Cervantes (2001)}, who points out that in the Jalisco Highlands region there is scarce livestock for meat, which reflects that the herds in the region are destined mainly to milk production.

The entrepreneurial producers had in average 123 more heads of livestock, 77 more production cows, 13 more heifers, and 39 more yearlings than the transition producers (p≤0.05).

Forming indexes of technological level

The PNT was made up by indexes directly related to the innovations that producers adopt. Table 9 presents the descriptive statistics of the forming indexes for the PNT.

When it comes to the technological level, only statistical differences were found (p≤0.05) corresponding to the index of reproductive management, which was lower in the transition producers than in those of entrepreneurial type.

Genetic quality

The genetic composition of the cattle that belongs to entrepreneurial producers was constituted by 98 % of animals of Holstein breed and the rest were crossbred animals, while 33 % of the transition producers had pure cattle herds; the herds or the remaining 67 % were constituted by 90 % of animals of Holstein breed and 10 % of crossbred animals. The prevailing animal crosses in the ranches of the producers interviewed were constituted by F1 animals of maternal Holstein breed crossed with some of the following paternal breeds: American Swiss, Jersey, Belgian Blue, Zebu and Hereford. ^{SAGARPA-SDRb (2005)} reported only animals of Holstein breed in the municipality of Acatic.

Diet

Within the transition producers, 60 % have semi-stabled systems, of which 7 % carried out grazing in grasslands cultivated during the rainy season, providing ensilage or tedded hay in dry times plus mineral supplementation throughout the year; 53 % carried out grazing on pastureland, offering their livestock ensilage or tedded fodders, balanced meal and mineral supplementation in a semi-stabled system; and 40 % with a stabled system, offering their livestock cut fodder and balanced meal. Half of the entrepreneurial producers offered their livestock cut fodder and balanced meal, and the rest an integral diet balanced by physiological state and production level, all of them under a completely stabled system.

Reproductive management

The producers of entrepreneurial type used artificial insemination for mating; 33 % of the transition producers also resort to artificial insemination and the others (67 %), in addition to this method, used a stud for mounting females that were not expectant after artificial insemination. ^{SAGARPA-SDR (2005a)} report that in the municipality of Acatic, Jalisco, 37.9 % of the rural enterprises perform insemination at 100 %. The mating plan is made by a consulting technician of a recognized semen distributing company, together with the technician from each production unit. Those from the producers’ organization are the ones in charge of performing the insemination and in some cases it is the producers themselves who fulfill this function. Both groups performed the gestation diagnosis through rectal palpation.

Sanitary management

The main diseases that affected the livestock, according to their order of importance, are mastitis, uterine infections, tumors, respiratory diseases, diarrhea, eye problems, anaplasmosis, interdigital dermatitis and tuberculosis. The survey respondents mentioned that the milking cows are retired due to mastitis, reproductive and low production problems; dry cows from abortions and problems during birth; heifers with problems during birth; and bull calves and yearlings from diarrhea and pneumonia. With the purpose of preventing some of these problems, the producers carried out sanitary activities such as the ones shown in Table 10.

About the nipple disinfection referred in the previous table, 80 % of the transition producers carry it out with a seal and pre-seal; the remaining 20 % does it only with seal. The whole population surveyed performs mixed deparasitation and vaccination against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), parainfluenza type 3 (PI3), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), viral bovine diarrhea (VBD) type 1 and 2, lepstospirosis, blackleg, hemoglobinuria, malign edema, anthrax, E. coli, etc.

As can be appreciated, mastitis is the most important problem in the agribusinesses, which agrees with ^{Correa et al. (2002)} and ^{Rabello et al. (2005)}, who point out that it is one of the main diseases present in dairy cattle globally affecting the dairy industry, for it causes large economic losses to milk producers and processors in the world, so it is considered the most expensive disease in the dairy stables. ^{Rodríguez (2006)} reported that mastitis can cause a reduction in the potential of milk production of the livestock of around 23 %, and that in addition, it could reach the extreme of having to eliminate the animal because of low production due to the grave damage suffered in the mammary gland. It has been identified that an adequate milking routine will be very useful to prevent clinical and subclinical mastitis, since it is one of the factors to take into account to have a better profitability from the ranch.

Infraestructure and equipment

The infrastructure that the transition producers have coincides with the type of production system; 7 % grazing, 53 % semi-stabled, and 40 % stabled, as well as the entrepreneurial producers whose production systems are completely stabled. In their stratification of agricultural and livestock producers, ^{Cervantes et al. (2005)} reported that the facilities that predominate in the livestock ranches were pen management and water tank, insofar as the most prevalent equipment was thermos for insemination and electrical fences.

The Productive Assets Weighting factor avoided for transition producers to be included in a lower technological level, since although their adoption of innovations was low, the value of their assets was high.

Main problematic considered by the producers

The general vision that producers have about the problems that limit the development of their production systems is described next, according to their order of importance: low milk prices, need for working capital, lack of infrastructure and equipment, bad conditions of the roads, high costs of inputs and medicines, commercialization problems, contamination of soil and water, insufficiency of water and fodder, administration problems, inefficient management techniques, recurring diseases, soil erosion, and loss of vegetation. As can be appreciated, most of the principal problems that producers consider are not related to more training for a better and efficient production, although they are related to threats that they cannot control, so improving the productivity of their enterprises through better management would be a relatively faster and more effective option.