Study area

The mountainous zone in the state of Guerrero is one of the poorest in México, part of the depression of the Balsas River and Pacific Ocean (^{Martínez, 2008}). The study was carried out in the dry tropical zone of the Mountain of Guerrero and located between coordinates 17° 20’ 25” and 17° 42’ 29” of latitude north and 98° 26’ 48” and 98° 48’ 37” of longitude west. The vegetation is low deciduous rainforest and pine-live oak forests (^{Gobierno del estado de Guerrero, 2012}).

The municipalities where the study took place were: Alpoyeca, Atlixtac, Cualác, Huamuxtitlán, Tlalixtaquilla, Tlapa and Xochihuehuetlán (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Localization of the study area. 

Information registry

Goat production is part of the way of life of families in the region, described as an activity that generates income, savings and is a source of protein (^{Bustamante et al., 2011}). In order to promote the development of goat production, in 2010, the staff at the Regional Mountain Council (Consejo Regional de la Montaña) and Colegio de Postgraduados-Campus Puebla founded the Association of Goat Breeders of the Mountain of Guerrero (Asociación de Criadores de Caprinos de la Montaña de Guerrero). As part of the work plan, it was proposed to register the productive, socioeconomic and access to market information of goat producers to characterize the production system and identify the potential of goat production. The population of study was 112 goat producers from the organization. The technique employed to gather information was the direct survey to the producer with the support of technicians from the region for data registry in a questionnaire.

Variables evaluated

From producers, the following were recorded: experience, age, workdays, schooling, members of the family, land ownership, and type of land (^{Perevolotsky, 1990}). In the productive part, information was obtained about the flock, grazing management, health and reproduction. In the economic part, the costs of food, workforce, medicine, the type of goat sold, and sales price were recorded (^{Somda et al., 2005}; ^{Gaspar et al., 2011}). The questionnaire included in addition 48 variables of qualitative type to register the perception of producers about the management of pastureland, genetic improvement, market and commercialization, as indicated by Perevolotsky (1990), ^{Wurzinger et al. (2008}) and ^{Budisatria and Udo (2013}).

Statistical analysis

The information from the questionnaires was captured in an Excel worksheet. The quantitative variables were analyzed with descriptive statistics with the PROC UNIVARIATE and PROC MEANS procedures from the SAS^® statistical package, version 9.4, for Windows. The categorization of the production units was carried out with a multivariate analysis (PROC CLUSTER) and the ^{Ward group method (Ward, 1963}), with the statistical package SAS (^{SAS, 2003}), which allowed to form groups of homogeneous production units hierarchically; for these analysis the methodology proposed by ^{Paz et al. (2008}) was followed. The characterization of groups with quantitative variables was performed following the methodology by ^{Somda et al. (2005}) and the GLM procedure was used, as well as the means comparison with the adjusted Tukey test to determine the characteristics of the groups of producers. The qualitative variables were analyzed with the X² (square-chi) procedure to build contingency tables with groups of producers, as was done by ^{Gaspar et al. (2011}). In addition, an analysis of simple correspondence was carried out with the groups of producers, with the CORRESP procedure (^{SAS, 2003}), for language of the families, type of land property, mode of goat selection, knowledge of pastureland deterioration, and goat production problems.

Caprine flock

The caprine flock of the region has an average of 46.6±45.3 heads, mean of 36.5 goats, of which 28 are adult goats, 21 growing offspring and two studs. The producers aimed at goats have an average herd of 90 goats and mean of 86 goats (Table 1), the size of the flock is larger compared to Group 2 and 3 (p<0.05). The size of the flock is similar to what was found in other subsistence areas with use of smallholding terrains (^{Hernández et al., 2011}; ^{Dorantes et al., 2012}; ^{Atuesta et al., 2012}). ^{Chamdi (2004)} and ^{Dobi et al. (2011}) suggest increasing the size of the flock for a greater welfare of the production unit.

Management of flocks

In the management of the goats, the following are used: pens, grazing, safety, genetic improvement and reproduction. The infrastructure for their handling consists only of pens for nocturnal confinement, with differences between groups of producers (p<0.05). The agricultural and livestock producers have an average pen of 230.9 m² and mean of 150 m²; in producers aimed at goats and subsistence, the handling pens do not exceed the square meter per animal (Table 1). This is related to breeding goats in freedom in the region, and as established by ^{Castel et al. (2003}) and ^{Gaspar et al. (2011}), for other regions, the scarce infrastructure is common in traditional systems.

Grazing is the main mode of feeding goats. The producers aimed at goats and the agricultural and livestock graze longer: 8.1 and 8.2 hours, respectively (Table 1). The displacement to grazing areas was not different between groups, with an average of 2.3±1.9 km, mean of 2 km, and is covered in 1.3 hours. As ^{Cortés (2011}) pointed out for other regions, the producers in the Mountain of Guerrero practice goat mobility as a way to stock up on fodder. The producers aimed at goats rent grazing lands and pay up to $80.00 per goat per year.

The results from the analysis of grazing management with qualitative variables indicate that the type of shepherd, the care of the pastureland, the use of slash-and-burn, the supplementation, the application of vitamins, and the sources of water are independent from the groups of producers. In the three groups the shepherds are family members (77.7 %) and the rest are the owners and employees, similar to what is mentioned in the studies by de ^{Bhatta and Doppler (2010}), ^{Gaspar et al. (2011}) and ^{Dorantes et al. (2012}). Regarding the use of slash-and-burn, 92.9 % of the producers mention that they do not do it, although 7.1 % does, and this can have a negative effect on the grazing areas. Supplementation (13.4 %) and application of vitamins (51.8 %) did not vary between the groups and are the practices that are still being introduced as part of the updating in the way of producing goats. The most common source of water is the drinking trough (70.5 %) and natural sources of running water.

The knowledge that producers have about pastureland plants used for fattening goats, flavoring meat, and about toxic plants, were independent from the groups of producers. The producers (66.0 %) mentioned that cubat (Acacia cochliacantha) is useful to fatten goats, and 79.4 % mentioned that the plum tree (Spondias sp.) gives good flavor to the meat. Likewise, 80.3 % of the producers point out that the toxic plants are: frijolillo (Sophora secundiflora) and, of less importance, cazahuate (Ipomea pauciflora), capulincillo (Karwinskia humboldtiana), cresta de gallo (Celosia sp.) and soliman (Thevetia sp.). This reaffirms the broad knowledge of native vegetation and the grazing habit of the goats that producers have. For other regions it is mentioned that this knowledge is acquired through cohabitation with the environment (^{Calvo-Iglesias et al., 2006}) and based on traditional practices (^{Suárez et al., 2006}). The knowledge that producers have about native vegetation is an opportunity to name goat products with quality of origin from the Mountain of Guerrero. Also, the native plants used by goats can be reproduced to be used in pastureland reforestation or rehabilitation programs.

The qualitative variables of grazing management associated (p<0.05) to the groups of goat producers were the type of grazing areas, the perception of overgrazing, the damage to the pastureland, the payment over damage to crops, and the effect of rainfall on fodder production (Table 2). The producers aimed at goats use zones of shrub vegetation (40 %) and those of subsistence use the forest zones (83.3 %). A low proportion of producers mentioned understanding what is overgrazing (25 %) and recognize that the goats cause damage to the pastureland (25.9 %). Figure 2c shows that producers aimed at goats perceive deforestation as the main cause for deterioration of pasturelands; the agricultural and livestock ones, the presence of pests; and subsistence ones to pests and the high animal load. However, it is understood that the moderate use of vegetation determines the potential of fodder production, as was indicated for other conditions by ^{Marton et al. (2016}). An alternative to counteract the low perception of damage to the pastureland is by providing information for the use of sustainable management practices of vegetation and as Baraza and Estrella-Ruiz (2008) point out, goats have a negative effect on the vegetation when grazing is not regulated or when complementary foods are not used to reduce the pressure from grazing.

The payment over damage by goats on crops has been performed by 69.6 % of the interview respondents and the highest frequency was observed in the groups of agricultural and livestock (32.1 %) and subsistence (60.3 %) producers (Table 2), which is due to the cohabitation of goats with agricultural activities.

In the perception of how rainfall affects fodder production, most indicated that there is an effect (59.8 %) and the subsistence producers were the ones that had the highest perception of this effect (73.1 %). In other zones the effect of rainfall on the seasonality of the fodder production has been related to times of excess and scarcity (^{Lieffering et al., 2016}).

The health of goat flocks is the most important problematic for producers aimed at goats and subsistence ones (Figure 2e). The sanitary practices which are independent from groups of producers were the use of deworming agents (68.8 %), use of laboratory tests (2.7 %), presence of abortions in the herd (62.5 %), presence of Oestrus ovis (sheep bot fly, 20.5 %), and respiratory problems (18.8 %). It is an indicator of the high health risks of goats in the region and requires urgent attention plans. In order to control internal parasitism, 80 % of the producers in the study apply antihelminthics, although, as ^{Min and Hart (2003}) mention, it can be an error to apply deworming agents because goats have the genetic capacity of tolerating low parasite loads and the consumption of plants with high content of tannins helps to carry out a natural deworming. Also, as ^{Bath and Van Wyk (2009}) point out, not all animals require being dewormed and those that do require it need optimal doses, as well as the use of appropriate deworming agents to avoid parasite resistance.

The use of vaccines (17 %), the presence of digestive problems (10.7 %), and the mortality in the herd (24.1 %) were associated with the groups of producers; the production units aimed at goats had the highest incidence of these problems. The high mortality in the herd registered coincides with what was found in other production systems (^{Martínez-Partida et al., 2011}).

In genetic improvement and the use of improved goats, the groups of producers are independent in selection of studs, type of goats they like, and goat milking. Stud selection is the basis for the development of the flock; however, for the producers this aspect is not important and can be related to the taste for goats with improved breed phenotype (68.8 %). In the region, there is not a goat milk consumption culture and only 7.1 % of the producers milk their goats; one of the reasons is the use of milk for the good development of the kids, although goat milking in the study region represents a mode of diversifying the goat products.

Goat selection, experience and benefits with introduced goats are associated to the groups of producers (p<0.05). Figura 2d shows that the producers aimed at goats select their goats because of the phenotype of the improved breed; the agricultural and livestock ones do it by size and adaptation to the region; and the subsistence ones, by body size and a higher production. These two latter groups have experience in the management of Creole goats, which coincides with ^{Gutiérrez and Obregón (2011}) for the same study region. In addition, other authors characterize the Creole goats as more resistant to diseases and that they adapt to the scarcity of fodder during the drought (^{Mignon-Grasteau et al., 2005}; ^{Scintu and Piredda, 2007}). However, 76.9 % of those interviewed in this study mentioned that that they would like to change their studs and showed willingness to pay $ 2065 per improved stud, which is double the price for a Creole stud in the region; this type of cross-breeding that they plan to carry out will place at risk the extinction of Creole goats.

Goat market and commercialization

Table 1 presents the total earnings for the groups of production units. The producers aimed at goats had an average income of $19 645.5 and median of $20 000.00; they did not consider that low production is a limitation (Figure 2e). With this income, the cost of the annual rural food basket of two family members is covered (^{CONEVAL, 2016}) and, likewise, it covers the salary of a person during 163 days ($120.00 day^-1), which is important for the study zone because of the scarcity of sources of employment. In this sense, ^{Ramírez and Foster (2003}) indicated for other regions that the la labor used in goat breeding is as competitive as paid work and contributes to the family economy with the input of resources with opportunity costs equal to zero (^{Rebollar-Rebollar et al., 2012}). In other groups of producers, the income is marginal, which can be explained by the reduced size of the flock.

The producers aimed at goat production had total food costs of $3952.8 and different from the other groups (p<0.05), and are higher than the ones found by ^{Cruz et al. (2011)} in Venezuela. The analysis of the market and commercialization with qualitative variables is simple (Table 2); only the perception of the market problems is associated to the groups of producers. The subsistence producers do not have goat commercialization problems (81.3 %), in contrast with groups 1 and 2, which perceived low sales as a problem. Meanwhile, the place and the best time of sale are independent from the groups of producers. The highest goat sale is in the same community for the three groups of producers (71.4 %) and at the level of corral, mainly the agricultural and livestock producers sold. Goat sales are for the festivities of school graduation among agricultural and livestock, and subsistence producers: 44.8 % and 47.2 %, respectively. The producers aimed at goats had more sales during the festivities of the towns (45.5 %). Annually, the family consumes one goat of 30.0 kg per year, and there is no consumption of kids, as was mentioned for Estado de México (^{Dorantes et al., 2012}). In Argentina, the scarce consumption of kids is explained because they use grown goats as savings (^{Bedotti, 2008}); however, for the Mountain of Guerrero, kid sales represent an area of opportunity to diversify the caprine activity.