The Hindrances to Obtaining Protected Geographical Indications for Products in Mexico. Case Study of Dairy Farming in the Cienega de Chapala, Michoacan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Case Study Presentation
- (a)
- With the signing of the United States–Mexico–Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) in early 2020, it is still advantageous to import skim milk powder [42], which combined with vegetable fats or starches leads to a greater yield of industrialized dairy product for the parastatal company Liconsa and for the imitation of cheeses made by local companies. This is detrimental to the production of quality milk and cheese from the Cienega de Chapala.
- (b)
- In terms of regulations, in 2012, the Mexican official norm NOM-155 [43] was established, which defines the whole raw milk of animals as well as their variants, names and specifications. However, that same year, based on the CODEX Alimentarius 2006 [44], the Mexican official norm NOM-190 was also established; it defines mixtures of milk with vegetable fat [45], but in practice, it served to continue tolerating the use of the name “milk” for the imitation product. This made it easy for cheese companies to use these mixtures to also produce imitation cheese products, although in January 2019, the Mexican official norm NOM-223 confirmed that cheese could only be made with 100% animal milk [46].
- (c)
- Liconsa, with the implementation of the modification to the Mexican official norm NOM-051 [47], which defines practices for food labeling, declared that it had modified its industrial formulation and decreased the content of vegetable fats, but had not eliminated them, and will continue to use mixtures of imported skim milk powder and vegetable fat to maintain production volume and low prices for its milk formula called “Leche” Liconsa.
- (d)
- In 2019, the parastatal company Liconsa raised the official price of fresh milk that it collects directly from dairy farmers by an average of 30% (with respect to the current average price of 2018), without considering the sanitary quality. For this reason, dairy farmers have been favored, but this has not prevented some of them from continuing their bad environmental and safety practices in cheese production [48].
- (e)
- The change in government policy against obesity and overweight led to the aforementioned modification of the Mexican official norm NOM-051, which sets food labeling standards and forces manufacturers and sellers to indicate the real content of products and add warnings about excess sugars, carbohydrates and calories. On 1 July 2020, the Quality Infrastructure Law was published [49], which requires compliance with official product norms.
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Results of the Relationships between Categories by MFA
4.2. Results of the ATLAS.ti Analysis
- (a)
- Types of dairy farmers
- (b)
- Environmental conditions for dairy farming
- (c)
- Market and institutional failures
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. COVID-19 and the Role of Local Food Production in Building More Resilient Local Food Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1020en/ (accessed on 12 December 2020).
- Arfini, F.; Mancini, M.C. Local institutions and territorial competitiveness in the case of Parmigiano Reggiano localised production system. In Proceedings of the 2nd AIEAA Conference between Crisis and Development: Which Role for the Bio-Economy, Parma, Italy, 6–7 June 2013; Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA): Parma, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Akaki, P. Denominaciones de Origen e instituciones: Análisis de las experiencias mexicanas. In Saberes de Origen, Experiencias de México y Centroamérica; Pérez-Akaki, P., Gonzá-lez-Cabañas, A., Picado-Umaña, W.C., Eds.; UNAM-FES Acatlán: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018; pp. 41–68. [Google Scholar]
- Pensado-Leglise, M. Los cambios en la división internacional del trabajo agrícola y sus efectos en la dinámica espacial de los sistemas agroalimentarios: El caso de México. In Proceedings of the 116th EAAE seminar “Spatial Dynamics in Agri-food Systems: Implica-tions for Sustainability and Consumer Welfare”, Parma, Italy, 27–30 October 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Allaire, G.; Sylvander, B. Qualité spécifi que et innovation territoriale. Cah. Écon. Sociol. Rural. 1997, 44, 29–59. [Google Scholar]
- Ilbery, B.; Kneafsey, M. Niche Markets and Regional Speciality Food Products in Europe: Towards a Research Agenda. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 1999, 31, 2207–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feenstra, G.W. Local food systems and sustainable communities. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1997, 12, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renting, H.; Marsden, T.K.; Banks, J. Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rallet, A. L’économie de proximités. Etudes Rech. Syst. Agraires Dév. 2002, 33, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
- Chiffoleau, Y. Circuits courts alimentaires, dynamiques relationnelles et lutte contre l’exclusion en agriculture. Économie Rural. 2012, 332, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maréchal, G. Comercio justo y circuitos cortos de comercialización: El rol del estado en Brasil. In La comida de aquí. Retos y realidades de los circuitos cortos de comercialización; González-Cabañas, A., Nigh, R., Pouzenc, M., Eds.; CIMSUR: San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico, 2019; Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01502453 (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Loconto, A.; Jimenez, A.; Vandecandelaere, E.; Tartanac, F. Agroecology, local food systems and their markets. Mono-graphic Section: Territorial Governance of Short Supply Chain in Local Food Systems Rationale. Rev. Ager. Rev. Estu-Dios Sobre Despoblación Desarro. Rural. 2018, 25, 13–42. [Google Scholar]
- Sylvander, B.; Allaire, G.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A.; Barjolle, D.; Thevenod-Mottet, E.; Tregear, A. Qualité, origine et globa-lisation: Justifications générales et contextes nationaux, le cas des Indications Géographiques. Rev. Can. Sci. Rég. 2006, 29, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
- Buchanan, J.M. An Economic Theory of Clubs; Economica, R., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1965; Volume 32, pp. 1–14, New Series. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Kizos, T.; Vakoufaris, H. What is the extent of short food supply chains in Greece? Evidence from the cheese supply chains in the North Aegean Region. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2011, 9, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caswell, J.A. Uses of Food Labelling Regulations; OECD: Paris, France, 1997; Document: OCDE/DG (97) 150; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD(97)150&docLanguage=En (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Hirschman, E.C.; Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sylvander, B. La qualité: Du consommateur final au producteur. Etudes Rech. Syst. Agraires Dév. 1994, 28, 27. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01231571/document (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Belletti, G.; Casabianca, F.; Marescotti, A. Local food quality and local resources. In Local Agri-Food Systems in a Global World: Market, Social and Environmental Challenges; Arfini, M., Mancini, C., Donati, M., Eds.; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, 2012; p. 71. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01354016/document (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Barjolle, D.; Sylvander, B. Protected Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications in Europe: Regulation or Policy? Recommendations; European Commission, PDO and PGI Products: Market, Supply Chains and Institutions. European Comission. Project coordinator: France (INRA – UREQUA), Project partners: France (CRISALIDE) - Greece (NAGREF) - Italy (CRPA) - The Netherlands (WAU), Switzerland (EPFZ) - United Kingdorn (Wye College, University of London); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2000; FAIR 1-CT 95-Final Report. [Google Scholar]
- Linck, T. Patrimonialisation et Typification de Fromages Traditionnels: Une Approche Comparée de Démarches de Qualifica-tion. Ruralia 2005, 16, 1–15. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/ruralia/1086 (accessed on 22 December 2020).
- Bowen, S.; Zapata, A.V. Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: The case of tequila. J. Rural. Stud. 2009, 25, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barjolle, D.; Chappuis, J.-M. Transaction Costs and Artisanal Food Products. Actas de la 2000, 1, 1–17. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/3082771/Transaction_costs_and_artisanal_food_products (accessed on 9 February 2020).
- Vázquez, A.M. Acción colectiva y desarrollo rural: Las instituciones de organización de la calidad. Cooperativismo y Desarrollo 2016, 23. Available online: https://revistas.ucc.edu.co/index.php/co/article/view/1248 (accessed on 6 April 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tregear, A.; Arfini, F.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. Regional foods and rural development: The role of product qualification. J. Rural. Stud. 2007, 23, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pecqueur, B. Qualité et développement territorial: l’hypothèse du panier de biens et de services territorialisés. Économie Rural. 2001, 261, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alban, T.; Lamine, C.; Allès, B.; Chiffoleau, Y.; Doré, A.; Dubuisson-Quellier, S.; Hannachi, M. The Key Roles of Economic and Social Organization, Producer and Consumer Behaviour Towards a Health-Agriculture-Food-Environment Nexus: Re-cent Advances and Future Prospects; Toulouse School of Economics, INRAE: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2020/wp_tse_1068.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2020).
- Reyes-Aceves, F.; Vela-Reyna, J.B.; Muñoz-del, R.G. Los Retos de una Paraestatal Productora de Leche en el Posiciona-Miento de Marca; UANL: Nuevo León, Mexico, 2020; pp. 565–570. [Google Scholar]
- Filonov, A.; Tereshchenko, I.; Monzon, C.; Avalos-Cueva, D.; Pantoja-González, D. Climatic Change in a Large Shallow Tropical Lake Chapala, Mexico. In Lake Sciences and Climate Change; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Lara, P.D.L.; Sánchez, R.D.R.; Téllez, M.A.R. La Ciénaga de Chapala, Michoacán: Cambios y permanencias en la construcción regional. Relac. Estud. Hist. Soc. 2015, 36, 237–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreno, M.E.N.D. El surgimiento de la ganadería en la Ciénega de Chapala (Michoacán, México). El caso de la Hacienda Guaracha (siglos XVI-XIX). Hist. Rev. Hist. Reg. Local 2014, 6, 185–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brading, D. Haciendas y Ranchos del Bajío: León 1700–1860; Grijalbo: Mexico City, Mexico, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-García, H. Haciendas de tierra y agua en la antigua Ciénega de Chapala; El Colegio de Michoacán: Zamora, Mexico, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Rivera-Espinoza, P.; Álvarez-Macias, A. Reestructuración de la producción primaria de leche en el sur de jalisco ante el pro-ceso de globalización. Rev. Mex. Agronegocios 2005, 9, 479. Available online: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=14101607 (accessed on 14 October 2020).
- Torres, R.; Barragán-López, E. Hábitat de la cultura ranchera en la sierra de Jalisco y Michoacán, México. Potencial para el aprovechamiento de un turismo biocultural. Int. J. Sci. Manag. Tour. 2016, 2, 281. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5744224.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2020).
- Villagrana, P.U.; Contreras, M.; Ángel, I. Sociedades rancheras del occidente mexicano: Balance historiográfico. Relac. Estud. Hist. Soc. 2018, 39, 37–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vera, J.H.C.; Escoto, F.C.; Rangel, M.I.P.; Vargas, A.C.; Ledesma, J.O. Especialización de los sistemas productivos lecheros en México: La difusión del modelo tecnológico Holstein. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2017, 8, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semerena, R.E. El TLCAN en la agricultura de México: 23 años de malos tratos. Ola Financ. 2018, 11, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villegas de Gante, A.; de la Huerta Benítez, R. Naturaleza, evolución, contrastes e implicaciones de las imitaciones de que-sos mexicanos genuinos. Estud. Soc. 2015, 23, 213–236. [Google Scholar]
- González, M.; Rivadeneyra, F. La ley de un solo precio en México: Un análisis empírico. Gac. Econ. 2004, 10, 91. Available online: http://biblat.unam.mx/es/revista/gaceta-de-economia/articulo/la-ley-de-un-solo-precio-en-mexico-un-analisis-empirico (accessed on 9 June 2020).
- Arellano, J.D.J.E.; Hernández, A.M.F.; Chavarría, S.L.; Gómez, F.M. Impacto de las importaciones de leche en polvo y derivados lácteos en el precio al productor de leche de bovino en México. Agric. Soc. Desarro. 2019, 1, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DOF. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-155-SCFI-2012. In Leche-Denominaciones, Especificaciones Fisicoquímicas, Información Comercial y Métodos de Prueba; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012; Available online: http://dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/4692/seeco/seeco.htm (accessed on 25 March 2020).
- CODEX Alimentarius. Norma para Mezclas de Leche Desnatada (Descremada) y Grasa Vegetal en Polvo, Norma CXS251-2006, Adoptada en 2006. Enmendada en2010, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B251-2006%252FCXS_251s.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2020).
- DOF. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-190-SCFI-2012. In Mezcla de Leche con Grasa Vegetal-Denominaciones, Especificaciones Fisicoquímicas, Información Comercial y Métodos de Prueba; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012; Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5266143&fecha=31/08/2012 (accessed on 29 July 2020).
- DOF. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-223-SCFI/SAGARPA-2018. In Queso-Denominación, Especificaciones, Información Comercial y Métodos de Prueba; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2019; Available online: https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5549319&fecha=31/01/2019 (accessed on 8 September 2020).
- DOF. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-051-SCFI/SSA1-2010. In Especificaciones Generales de Etiquetado para Alimentos y Bebidas no Alcohólicas Preenvasados-Información Comercial y Sanitaria; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020; Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/2020/SEECO/NOM_051.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2020).
- Robledo Padilla, R. Política de producción y comercio de leche en México en el contexto actual. Abordajes Teór. Impactos Externos Políticas Públicas Din. Econ. Desarro. Reg. 2019, 1, 472. Available online: http://ru.iiec.unam.mx/4673/ (accessed on 3 May 2020).
- DOF. Ley de Infraestructura de la Calidad. Cámara de Diputados del h. Congreso de la Unión. Secretaría General. Secretaría de Servicios Parlamentarios; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020; Available online: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LICal_010720.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2020).
- Bartholomew, D. Principal Components Analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Education; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 374–377. [Google Scholar]
- Kassambara, A. Practical Guide to Principal Component Methods in R: PCA, M (CA), FAMD, MFA, HCPC, Factoextra; STHDA: Montpellier, France, 2017; Volume 2, Available online: http://www.sthda.com/english/articles/31-principal-component-methods-in-r-practical-guide/ (accessed on 13 February 2020).
- López-Roldán, P.; Fachelli, S. Análisis Factorial. Metodología de la Investigación Social Cuantitativa; Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; Available online: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/caplli/2016/163564/metinvsoccua_a2016_cap1-2.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Quesada, F.J.M. Mapas conceptuales a partir de entrevistas cualitativas: Integración de métodos mediante el uso conjunto de ATLAS/ti y SPSS. Pap. Rev. Sociol. 2010, 95, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Varguillas, C. El uso de ATLAS. Ti y la Creatividad del Investigador en el Análisis Cualitativo de Contenido UPEL. Instituto Pedagógico Rural El Mácaro. Rev; Laurus: Caracas, Venezuela, 2006; Volume 12, pp. 73–87. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/761/76109905.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2020).
- Moncada-Herrera, J. El Análisis Factorial Múltiple: Un Paso más en la Superación de la Dicotomía Cualitativo-Cuantitatvo. VI Congreso Chileno de Antropología. Colegio de Antropólogos de Chile A. G, Valdivia. Available online: https://www.aacademica.org/vi.congreso.chileno.de.antropologia/67 (accessed on 23 October 2020).
- Moraine, M.; Melac, P.; Ryschawy, J.; Duru, M.; Therond, O. A participatory method for the design and integrated assessment of crop-livestock systems in farmers’ groups. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaudin, Y.; Padilla-Pérez, R. Los intermediarios en cadenas de valor agropecuarias Un análisis de la apropiación y genera-ción de valor agregado. Estud. Perspect. Sede Subreg. CEPAL México 2020, 186, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
- Skilton, P.F.; Wu, Z. Governance Regimes for Protected Geographic Indicators: Impacts on Food Marketing Systems. J. Macromarketing 2013, 33, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, M.C.; Arfini, F. Short supply chains and Protected Designations of Origin: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano (Italy). Ager 2018, 25, 43–64. [Google Scholar]
- Arfini, F.; Cozzi, E.; Mancini, M.C.; Ferrer-Perez, H.; Gil, J.M. Are Geographical Indication Products Fostering Public Goods? Some Evidence from Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pensado-Leglise, M.D.R.; Cañada, J.S. Valorización de una Indicación Geográfica Protegida. El caso de la carne de la Sierra de Guadarrama, España. Rev. Mex. de Cienc. Pecu. 2018, 9, 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A.; Touzard, J.-M. Geographical Indications, Public Goods, and Sustainable Development: The Roles of Actors’ Strategies and Public Policies. World Dev. 2017, 98, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pensado-Leglise, M. Los Sistemas Agroalimentarios Sostenibles y los SIAL con Criterios Ambientales” Capítulo de Libro en Torres G. In Los Sistemas Agroalimentarios Sostenibles y el Consumo Local, ED; UNAM y Asociación Mexicana de Estudios Rurales: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014; pp. 69–91. [Google Scholar]
- Acemoglu, D.; Johnson, S.; Robinson, J. Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. In Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 386–472. [Google Scholar]
- Pensado-Leglise, M. Los Juegos de Poder. Marco Institucional y Conflictos Socioambientales a Nivel Territorial en México en Pensado-Leglise M. y L. García-Serrano Coords. In Los Retos Actuales de las Ciencias Ambientales y de la Sustentabilidad en México. Ed; Altres Costa-Amic Editores: Puebla, Mexico, 2017; pp. 60–80. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Volume | Values in 2019 Fixed Prices | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Years | 2006 | 2019 | AAGR | 2006 | 2019 | AAGR |
Jiquilpan | 6827.5 | 7235.7 | 0.4 | 41,868.5 | 47,466.0 | 1.0 |
Marcos Castellanos | 34,896.2 | 38,179.2 | 0.7 | 212,793.1 | 266,722.7 | 1.8 |
Sahuayo | 7586.1 | 13,745.9 | 4.7 | 46,116.7 | 9622.0 | 5.8 |
Venustiano Carranza | 7965.4 | 13,498.4 | 4. | 48,963.8 | 102,619.4 | 5.9 |
Territory: Sum of 4 municipalities | 57,275.3 | 72,659.2 | 1.8 | 349,742.0 | 513,029.1 | 3.0 |
Municipality | Livestock Farmers | Percentages | Respondents |
---|---|---|---|
Marcos Castellanos | 450 | 42.1 | 28 |
Jiquilpan | 120 | 11.3 | 8 |
Sahuayo | 241 | 22.7 | 16 |
Venustiano Carranza | 250 | 23.5 | 16 |
Total | 1061 | 100 | 68 |
No. and Type of Variable | Factor | Subject |
---|---|---|
Quantitative | ||
1 | Profile | Age |
2 | Profile | Schooling |
Qualitative | ||
3 | Profile | Cattle breed |
4 | Permanence | Years of breeder |
5 | Permanence | Continuity of the family |
6 | Permanence | Possible permeance or withdrawal of livestock |
7 | Permanence | Secondary activities compatible with livestock |
8 | Economic | Income from livestock is sufficient for the family |
9 | Economic | How can you obtain greater monetary gain with livestock |
10 | Economic | There is government aid to livestock |
11 | Economic | The import of powdered milk as a substitute for fresh milk |
12 | Environmental | Fertility of livestock soils |
13 | Environmental | Agriculture for livestock |
14 | Environmental | The sum of agriculture and livestock in the environment |
15 | Environmental | Impact on the environment, how to minimize it |
16 | Livestock Strategy | Subsistence in the dry season |
17 | Livestock Strategy | Density on land |
18 | Livestock Strategy | Management on land and its techniques |
19 | Livestock Strategy | Modernization of livestock |
Cheese Production Systems 38.1 | Integrated Farmers 39.1 | Collectors 13.6 |
---|---|---|
Milk purchase b16.8 | Sowing, corn 11.3 | Roads, gaps, highways 3.3 |
Cheese 13 | Land, rain, fertilizers 9 | Dairy industries 9 |
Milk quality 5 | Safe of milk 5.3 | Milk payment, 1.3 |
Milk collection 3.3 | Stubble, silo 3.6 | |
Grazing 9.8 | ||
Milk producers 65.5 | Forage producer 44.6 | Liconsa 41.5 |
Cattle breed 7.83 | Farmer 5.1 | Milk purchase 10.5 |
Water, livestock consumption 8.83 | Water, irrigation, rainfed land 6.6 | High quality 7.3 |
Forage, pasture 16.5 | Fertilizer 10 | Supports, subsidies 7.5 |
Government support 6.5 | Lands, parcels 12.6 | Best price 16.1 |
Equipment 6.1 | Alfalfa, sorghum, corn 10.1 | |
Milk price 19.6 | ||
Confectionary companies 3.8 | Milk Powder Trade 41 | Local sale of fresh milk 6.3 |
Milk purchase 2.1 | Fresh milk substitute 9.3 | Consumption at home 2 |
Cajeta, eggnog, sweets 1.6 | Low product quality 17.3 | Community buyout 2.1 |
Unfair competition 14.3 | Quality 2.1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Reyes-Chávez, P.P.; Pensado-Leglise, M.d.R.; Cruz-Cárdenas, G.; Flores-Magallón, R. The Hindrances to Obtaining Protected Geographical Indications for Products in Mexico. Case Study of Dairy Farming in the Cienega de Chapala, Michoacan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126701
Reyes-Chávez PP, Pensado-Leglise MdR, Cruz-Cárdenas G, Flores-Magallón R. The Hindrances to Obtaining Protected Geographical Indications for Products in Mexico. Case Study of Dairy Farming in the Cienega de Chapala, Michoacan. Sustainability. 2021; 13(12):6701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126701
Chicago/Turabian StyleReyes-Chávez, Peter Paul, Mario del Roble Pensado-Leglise, Gustavo Cruz-Cárdenas, and Rebeca Flores-Magallón. 2021. "The Hindrances to Obtaining Protected Geographical Indications for Products in Mexico. Case Study of Dairy Farming in the Cienega de Chapala, Michoacan" Sustainability 13, no. 12: 6701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126701