Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:53:49.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies to mitigate economic hardship among family dairy farms of Central Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2021

Carlos Galdino Martínez-García Open the ORCID record for Carlos Galdino Martínez-García [Opens in a new window] ,
Claire Clugston ,
Carlos Manuel Arriaga-Jordán ,
Jesús Olmos-Colmenero  and
Michel André Wattiaux
Carlos Galdino Martínez-García*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Rurales (ICAR), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM), Campus UAEM El Cerrillo, Toluca, C.P. 50090, Estado de México, México
Claire Clugston
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI53706, USA
Carlos Manuel Arriaga-Jordán
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Rurales (ICAR), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM), Campus UAEM El Cerrillo, Toluca, C.P. 50090, Estado de México, México
Jesús Olmos-Colmenero
Affiliation:
Centro Universitario de Los Altos (CUALTOS), Universidad de Guadalajara, Carretera a Yahualica, Km. 7.5, C.P. 47600, Tepatitlán de Morelos, Jalisco, México
Michel André Wattiaux
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI53706, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The economic hardship of dairy producers has worsened in the last decade because of increasing costs of production. A field survey with 51 dairy farmers was conducted to explore strategies to mitigate economic hardship. Factor and cluster analyses were conducted to characterize the farmers and their farms. Differences among groups regarding changes adopted to increase incomes, to reduce costs, and to pay bills were tested using Fisher’s exact test. Four factors explained 76.2% of the cumulative variance and four groups were identified: “stagnant farms” were in group 1, with the lowest daily income over concentrate feed cost (DIOCFC) and the least number of changes, “effectively management farms” were in group 2, with the highest DIOCFC and the highest number of income-increasing changes, the “cost reducing farms” were in group 3, with the smallest in size with a focus on cutting cost, and the “mixed strategy farms” were in group 4, with the largest herd size. Most prevalent income-increasing strategies included attempts to improve cow nutritional balance and milk composition, whereas the most prevalent cost-reducing strategies included reductions in input purchases of inputs (concentrates and fertilizers) and selected household expenses. Selling cows was a common strategy to generate cash in acute hardship situations. In conclusion, responses to economic hardship varied substantially among groups of farms, cost-reducing strategies were linked to lower cow productivity and lower technological levels, but income-increasing strategies were linked to higher cow productivity and higher DIOCFC. Our findings may contribute to the design of extension initiatives to promote useful strategies to help mitigate economic hardship on dairy farms.

Keywords

Multivariable analysisDairy farmersEconomic hardshipMexico
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 103 - 112
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banco de Mexico. (2019). Portal mercado cambiario. Available at http://www.anterior.banxico.org.mx/portal-mercado-cambiario/ (accessed 9 July 2019).Google Scholar
Berman, D.K., Hernandez, G. and Salcido, V. (2012). Dairy and products annual: High input prices continue to pressure domestic production: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.Google Scholar
Brambila-Paz, J. J., Mora-Flores, S., Rojas-Rojas, M.M. and Pérez-Cerecedo, V. (2013). Minimun price for milk primarey producers to reduce dairy imports in Mexico. Agrociencia 47, 511–522. https://agrociencia-colpos.mx/index.php/agrociencia/article/view/1036 Google Scholar
Casián, M.M.A. and Castillo, M.A. (1987). Algunas reflexiones sobre los estudios por muestreo en la actividad agropecuaria. México: Editorial Talleres Gráficos de la Nación. Colegio de Postgraduados. México.Google Scholar
Cervantes, E.F., Alvarez, M.A. and Pérez, S.S.L. (2002). El proceso de desintegracion de grupos lecheros en la region de Los Altos de Jalisco, Mexico. Contradicciones y tendencias. Sociedades rurales, produccion y medio ambiente 3, 23–37. http://srpma.xoc.uam.mx/tabla_contenido.php?id=60 Google Scholar
Espinoza-Ortega, A., Espinosa-Ayala, E., Bastida-López, J., Castañeda-Martínez, T. and Arriaga-Jordán, C.M. (2007). Small-scale dairy farming in the highlands of Central Mexico: Technical, economic and social aspects and their impact on poverty. Experimental Agriculture 43, 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479706004613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBMSPSS Statistics, 4th Edn. Great Britain: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, J.B. and Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edn. USA: Pearson New International Edition.Google Scholar
Herrero, M., Grace, D., Njuki, J., Johnson, N., Enahoro, D., Silvestri, S. and Rufino, M.C. (2012). The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001954 Google ScholarPubMed
García-Hernández, L.A., Martínez-Borrego, E., Salas-Quintanal, H. and Tanyeri-Abur, A. (2000). Transformation of dairy activity in Mexico in the context of current globalization and regionalization. Agriculture and Human Values 17, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007691125382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrera, B., Gerster-Bentaya, M., Tzouramani, I. and Knierim, A. (2019). Advisory services and farm-level sustainability profiles: an exploration in nine European countries. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 25, 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1583817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INEGI (2015). Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografía. Población, Hogares y Vivienda. Acailable at http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/temas/default.aspx?s=est&c=17484 (accessed 28 June 2017).Google Scholar
Kuivanen, K.S., Alvarez, S., Michalscheck, M., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Descheemaeker, K., Mellon-Bedi, S. and Groot, J.C.J. (2016). Characterising the diversity of smallholder farming systems and their constrains and opportunities for innovation: A case of study from the Northern Region, Ghana. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Science 78, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LACTODATA (2013). Padrón ganadero nacional: Estadísticas básicas. SINIIGA. Available at http://www.lactodata.info/indicadores/cuadros-y-graficos/ (accessed 20 March 2020).Google Scholar
Manly, B.F.J. and Navarro, A.J.A. (2017). Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer, 4th Edn. USA: Taylor and Francis Group, Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Martínez-García, C.G., Janes-Ugoretz, S., Arriaga-Jordán, C.M. and Wattiaux, M.A. (2015). Farm, household and farmer characteristics associated with changes in management practices and technology adoption among dairy smallholders. Tropical Animal Health and Production 47, 311–316. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-014-0720-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Gómez, G. (1999). Weaving quality and power: the domestication of global conventions among dairy farmers in Western Mexico. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 28, 327–371. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40553364 Google Scholar
SIAP (2019). Avance de producción pecuaria por producto, leche de bovino 2019, miles de litros. Available at http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx/repoAvance_siap_gb/pecAvanceProd.jsp (accessed 20 March 2020).Google Scholar
Stroebel, A., Swanepoel, F.J.C. and Pell, A.N. (2011). Sustainable smallholders livestock systems: A case study of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Livestock Science 139, 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.L., Glewen, L.K., Elmore, W.R., Rees, J., Pokal, S. and Hitt, D.B. (2019). Farmers as researchers: In-depth interviews to discern participant motivation and impact. Agronomy Journal 111, 2670–2680. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.09.0626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valeeva, N.I., Lam, T.J.G.M. and Hogeveen, H. (2007). Motivations of dairy farmers to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4466–4477. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0095 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, W.P. and Johnson, R.B. (2016). The SAGE Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Non-Technical Guide for the Social Sciences, 5th Eds. USA: Sage publications.Google Scholar