Next Article in Journal
Are Australian Food Companies Using Nature Imagery as a Marketing Strategy? A Content Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Whether Quality Policies Can Promote the High-Quality Development of China’s Manufacturing Industry and Its Configuration Paths in the Context of Sustainable Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 21
10.3390/su16219540
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perception of the Sustainable Cattle Ranching Concept Among Producers, Extension Specialists, and Chief Officers in Oaxaca, Mexico

by
Pedro Cisneros-Saguilán
1,*,
Felipe Gallardo-López
2,*,
Silvia López-Ortiz
2,
Octavio Ruiz-Rosado
2,
José G. Herrera-Haro
3 and
Rafael Ruiz-Hernández
2
1
Posgrado en Producción Agroalimentaria, Tecnológico Nacional de México Campus Instituto Tecnológico de Pinotepa, Oaxaca 71600, Mexico
2
Posgrado en Agroecosistemas Tropicales, Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Veracruz, Veracruz 94690, Mexico
3
Programa de Ganadería, Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Montecillo, Texcoco 56230, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(21), 9540; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219540
Submission received: 22 August 2024 / Revised: 25 October 2024 / Accepted: 29 October 2024 / Published: 1 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The sustainability concept has acquired a variety of meanings according to different currents of thought and the context in which it is used. The aim of this research was to characterize the perception of cattle producers, extension specialists, and chief officers regarding sustainable cattle ranching (SCR) in an area where tropical cattle ranching is practiced. A survey was carried out among cattle producers using stratified random sampling and among extension specialists and chief officers chosen using the snowball technique. The perception of SCR was determined under two contexts: (1) the idea or interpretation and (2) the assessment (positive or negative). The idea that producers have about SCR is centered on healthy and adequate food, higher production, and better marketing of livestock. The perception of extension specialists and officials is based on greater business vision and environmental conservation. Producers oriented their perception towards the economic (48.4%) and environmental (21.3%) dimensions, similar to extension specialists (52.2% and 47.8%, respectively), while chief officers related it more exclusively to the environmental dimension (71.4%). It is concluded that the overall perception of SCR is positive, but its conceptualization is differentiated according to the role the individuals play in the activity, their academic training, and their expectations.

1. Introduction

Cattle ranching is an activity of socioeconomic and environmental importance globally. It is estimated that 1.3 billion people in the world are directly or indirectly involved in this economic activity, of which 800 million are smallholder producers located in developing countries [1]. FAO statistics indicate that in 2020, 337 million tons of meat and 887 million tons of milk were produced in the world; thus, this activity contributes to global food security [2].
Despite this socioeconomic importance, this activity has been judged to be the main contributor to environmental deterioration, due to using largely unsustainable technologies highly dependent on external inputs and carrying out inappropriate practices leading to deforestation, landscape fragmentation, desertification, degradation of natural resources, and biodiversity loss [3,4,5]. In addition, other causes that have led to the above effects are changes in land use, inadequate grazing management, irrational use of agrochemicals, uncontrolled burning, absence of plant cover in paddocks, and lack of training and economic incentives appropriate for ranching [4,5,6,7]; however, a deterioration in the culture and ethics of the social actors involved, from livestock producers to political decision-makers, is also pointed out [8,9,10].
In the Mexican tropics, the development of traditional livestock systems was achieved at the cost of the destruction of large areas of forests and jungles to increase monoculture pastures, which led to a severe reduction in plant and animal biodiversity [5,11,12,13]. Currently, this type of cattle ranching (rainfed, with a low stocking rate and limited use of modern technologies) has a low productivity per animal and per land unit because of various biological, environmental, and socioeconomic limitations that restrict the expression of the maximum productive potential. The result is low profitability and competitiveness and the consequent importation of animal products from abroad to cover the demand for animal protein of the Mexican population [6,14,15].
Another issue is the almost non-existent technical assistance that does not start from technological development based on research designed to solve the problems of the agroecosystem. The practices of reproductive and preventive medicine, genetic improvement, and the management of forage resources have a great margin for improvement [16,17,18]. There is a high degree of polarization between the small sector of large producers and the large population of small cattle ranchers with limited and fragile links to the market, who face difficulties in maintaining their profitability, for example, accessing government credits and subsidies [6,14,15]. On the other hand, research on technological development is generally disconnected from social research and often from environmental issues, as well as from aspects related to food safety; it also tends to oversee the knowledge of the producer and to favor the reductionist over the integral approach [6,15,19].
On the other hand, notions of sustainability have been considered since ancient times by philosophers and scientists interested in a utopian world and concerned with population growth, the appropriation of nature, and human survival on the planet [20]. More recently, in the context of the environmental debate, there have been various versions of the concept of sustainability: institutional, ideological, and academic, and its various interpretations (e.g., as an ideology, a set of strategies, the ability to meet goals, and the ability to continue over time) [19,20,21,22]. Other interpretations of agricultural sustainability, in particular, consider it as the reconciliation of two basic future needs (increased food production and greater environmental protection), which implies developing new strategies that take advantage of ecological interactions in agroecosystems [19,23]. In the case of sustainability in cattle ranching, Vavra [24] pointed out that this can mean the ability to indefinitely obtain the same amount of meat, milk, or fiber from the base of a given soil, satisfying current production goals, without compromising the future in terms of deterioration of natural resources. Based on our experience and an exhaustive literature review [1,6,20,24,25,26,27], for the purpose of this study, we define sustainable cattle ranching as a set of appropriate practices and technologies for cattle management that contribute to the permanent productivity of the ranch based on the rational use of natural resources that support this economic activity. This form of production contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, fosters livestock agroecosystems that are resilient to the effects of global climate change [5,12,28,29].
Despite its ambiguity and operational vagueness, the concept of sustainability has been accepted since the 1990s as a guide for the development of various industry sectors [30]. In particular, the application of the sustainability paradigm to cattle ranching to assess economic viability, environmental conservation, and social benefits dates from the 1990s, using various approaches and methodologies attributed to a diversity of schools of thought [19,20]. According to an analysis of research carried out with a focus on sustainable cattle ranching, four epistemological perspectives (neo-economical, ecological–environmental, socio-anthropological, and technical–biological) were identified. The main topics addressed in these studies were the evaluation of economic sustainability, feasibility of renewable energy production, payment for environmental services, evaluation of negative impacts on the environment, energy efficiency, effects of overgrazing, methane emission, local knowledge in the use of natural resources, comparative and longitudinal profiles of sustainability, compliance with organic regulations, silvopastoral systems, and the behavior of ruminants in diversified grazing environments [20].
These studies are important for making decisions and taking actions that allow for the transition to sustainable cattle ranching; however, few studies have focused on characterizing the knowledge, opinion, and perception of sustainable cattle ranching by the producer and other social actors as a whole, given that the sustainability process implies not only the use of appropriate agronomic practices but also the challenge for producers and the society to change their attitude and behavior to implement them [8,10,31]. In this sense, there is a need to know the following: how the concept of sustainability has permeated the culture of these social actors and if there are differences in their perspectives, given that perceptions are constructed according to the frame of reference of each individual, which is influenced by their convictions, values, norms, knowledge, and particular interests [32,33,34]. In this study, we hypothesized that the perception of sustainable cattle ranching is comprehensive and positive, mainly among extension specialists, followed by chief officers and producers. Therefore, the aim of this research was to characterize the perception of cattle producers, extension specialists, and chief officers about the concept of sustainable cattle ranching in an area where dual-purpose cattle farming is practiced.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location and Description of the Study Area

This research was conducted from February to July 2013 in Santiago Pinotepa Nacional municipality, Oaxaca, Mexico, located between the parallels 16°06′ and 16°29′ NL and 97°57′ and 98°20′ WL, in an elevation range between 0 and 800 masl (Figure 1). This municipality covers a 719.56 km2 area, which represents 0.75% of the state of Oaxaca, and has an Aw1 climate (warm subhumid with rain in summer), with an average annual rainfall of 1237.5 mm distributed in the period from June to October. The average annual temperature is 27 °C, with June being the warmest month and February the coldest. The type of vegetation is low deciduous forest, and the dominant soil types are regosol, gleysol, and phaeozem [35].
In 2020, this municipality had a total population of 55,840 inhabitants, and the proportion of the economically active population was 64.4%. Regarding the educational level, the population aged 15 years and older is distributed as follows: 11% without schooling, 53.8% have basic education, 21.1% hold mid-school education, and only 13.9% have university studies [36]. In the coastal region of Oaxaca, 57.8% of the population is economically active and works in the agricultural (31.7%), industrial and construction (19.9%), and commerce and service (48.4%) sectors [37]. It should be noted that the agricultural sector has experienced a reduction in its economically active population, going from 40.9% in 2000 to 27.2% in 2015, in contrast to the trade and services sector, which increased from 37.9% in 2000 to 52.5% in 2015 [38]. Regarding the income level of people working in the agricultural sector in the region, it is reported that more than 53.2% receive no income, 26.1% receive up to a minimum wage, 14.1% receive between 1 and 2 minimum wages, and the rest receive between 2 and 5 minimum wages. Regarding the level of schooling, the majority of this population (94.9%) only has basic education (elementary and mid-school), while 4.3% have high school, and only 0.6% have university education [37].
In the livestock context, the state of Oaxaca reported an inventory of 1,844,891 heads of cattle for the year 2023, which represents 5.1% of the national inventory [39]. Dual-purpose cattle farming is mainly carried out in the Costa, Istmo, and Papaloapan regions (dry and sub-humid tropics) [6,40,41]; this type of ranching is characterized by minimal use of technology and continuous grazing, with strategic supplementation in the dry or flood season. The types of cattle most used in these systems are crossbreeds of Zebu with the Holstein, Brown Swiss, and Simmental breeds. Milking is carried out in rustic facilities, generally by hand in the morning with the support of the calf. The milk sold is the main source of income and is mainly used to cover the operation costs; milk production has three main uses: for consumption as raw milk, for the production of artisan cheese, and for processing in agro-industrial companies [17,18,42].
The Costa region of the state of Oaxaca is an important livestock area; in 2018, it was ranked third in milk production and second in carcass meat production at the state level. It produces 15,701 t of carcass beef annually, with a value of MXN 1,278,635,950.00. Regarding milk production, 25,082,770 L of bovine milk are generated annually, representing MXN 175,906,280.00 [43]. By 2023, the municipality of Santiago Pinotepa Nacional registered an inventory of 6880 heads and had a production of 2,845,204 t of live cattle, with a value of MXN 121,656,973.00, representing 6th place in the state of Oaxaca and 3rd place in the Costa region of Oaxaca, after the municipalities of San Pedro Mixtepec and Villa de Tututepec de Melchor Ocampo [39].

2.2. Sampling and Information Gathering

To obtain information, three types of agents (units of analysis) involved in the cattle ranching productive process in the study area were identified and interviewed (Table 1).
The sample size was estimated based on a sampling frame consisting of the Sustainable Livestock Production and Livestock and Beekeeping Management (PROGAN) program’s registry of beneficiaries in 2012 for the municipality under study (N = 1084). The number of cattle owned by each producer (S2 = 846.9) was considered as the associated sampling variable, and stratified random sampling with Neyman allocation was used [44] in order to increase the accuracy of the estimators (Equations (1) and (2)).
n = ( ∑ i L N i S 2 N i ) 2 N 2 D 2 + ∑ i L N i S N i 2
where n is the sample size, N is the total population, Ni is the population in stratum i, S2 is the variance in the number of cattle owned by each producer, and D = d2/4 is utilized for estimate mean, including error and 95% reliability. Once the sample size was obtained (n = 155), the selected producers were assigned to one of four strata according to the number of cattle they own: small (n1 = 66), medium (n2 = 23), large (n3 = 43) and very large (n4 = 23) (Table 2). For this procedure, we used Neyman Allocation, whose distribution of the sample to the strata is proportional to the size and variance of the strata.
n i = N i S N i ∑ i L N i S N i . n
where ni is the sample size in each stratum, N is the total population, Ni is the population in stratum i, S is the standard deviation of the number of cattle owned by each producer, and n is the sample size.
A survey was conducted with the selected cattle producers in each stratum on a random basis, visiting 25 communities and performing field visits to the corresponding ranches. The selection of the extension agents surveyed was carried out using the snowball technique [45], in which the producers and the representatives of the livestock organizations of the municipality were asked to identify the extension specialists (private and public institutions) that have worked with producers in the study area, obtaining a sample of n = 23 technicians. The chief officers were the representatives (director, coordinator or department head) of the main agricultural institutions involved in the livestock activity of the study area: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA), Financiera Rural, Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación a la Agricultura (FIRA), Módulo Regional de Desarrollo Social, Instituto de Capacitación y Productividad para el Trabajo del estado de Oaxaca (ICAPET), Unión Ganadera Regional de la Costa de Oaxaca (UGRCO), Asociación Ganadera Local (AGL), Instituto Tecnológico de Pinotepa, and Centro de Bachillerato Tecnológico Agropecuario No. 10 (CBTA No. 10) (Table 1). According to their willingness to participate in the survey, a response rate of 64% of the invited institutions was obtained.
The main variable evaluated was the perception about the sustainability of cattle ranching, and this was considered under two contexts: (1) the idea or image that the individual forms about sustainable cattle ranching in a comprehensive manner that includes social, economic, and environmental aspects [46,47,48] and (2) the assessment or importance (positive or negative) given by the person to the sustainability process, based on the advantages and disadvantages perceived from a series of positive and negative statements in the social, economic, and environmental dimensions [33,49,50].
To collect the information, questionnaires with open questions and with statements for dichotomous answers were used to obtain the original interpretation of the social actors on sustainable cattle ranching and its assessment given its technical–productive characteristics in positive and negative statements for each sustainability dimension (Table 3 and Table 4). The characteristics in the statements and dimensions of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental) were based on the principle of intergenerational solidarity of the popular definition used for sustainable development as “that development that satisfies the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own needs” [30], as well as considering some analyses, concepts, criteria, and indicators that incorporate the political dimension [19,51,52] and that underpin the approach of sustainable cattle farming [23,24,50,52].
The data were analyzed with the Statistica Version 7.1 program [53], generating descriptive statistics and frequency tables for quantitative variables. A net perception index [50] was constructed for each social actor by counting the positive and negative characteristics perceived about SCR, classified in the social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This index is equal to the total number of positive responses in one dimension, minus the total number of negative responses in the same dimension. The values ranged from −3 to +3 depending on the result of the sum of affirmations (3 positive vs. 3 negative) in each sustainability dimension. Once the information and the respective averages were obtained, an overall net perception index (ONPI) was calculated using the equation
O N P I = N P I S o c + N P I E c o n + N P I E n v 3
where NPISoc is the net perception index in the social dimension, NPIEcon is the net perception index in the economic dimension, and NPIEnv is the net perception index in the environmental dimension.
The ONPI value ranged from −3 to +3, depending on the result of the sum of the index values of the sustainability dimensions, where −3 represents the rating conferred to the total of negative attributes and +3 represents the rating conferred to the total of positive attributes that could have been perceived by social actors from the list of items (Table 3 and Table 4). The values of the indices were analyzed using the Kruskal and Wallis H test [54], contrasting the responses between social actors. Additionally, the Spearman rank correlation test was applied to observe the association between the indices and the variables herd size, subsidies received (extraordinary financial aid granted by an official institution), and additional income (obtained from off-farm activities, e.g., wage earner). The criteria for selecting these variables were the arguments in the literature that establish that there is a greater willingness for organic and sustainable production in large and subsidized producers [52,55,56], and the purpose was to verify whether the theory of post-materialism applies in this context. This theory maintains that only the satisfaction of basic needs enables the emergence of other secondary needs; people assign greater subjective value to the things that they lack the most, and as their socioeconomic conditions improve, their priority values change to concerns about quality of life [57].
With the qualitative information obtained from all social actors, a text analysis was performed to identify emerging analytical categories. For this purpose, NVivo 11 Pro software for Windows was used, and the content analysis technique was applied to textual citations, according to Kaefer et al. [58]. The total number of textual citations and the analysis suggested the emerging analytical categories; then, the results and discussion arose from the systematization and qualitative analysis of the textual citations, including the results as an example, which contextualized the results in qualitative terms.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of the Social Actors

Of the producers interviewed, 94.2% were men and the other percent were women, with an average of 57 years of age, 22 years of cattle ranching experience, and 5 years of schooling. Leos-Rodríguez et al. [59] reported similar data (55.5 years of age and 6.4 years of schooling) from a sample of 977 producers in the national registry of PROGAN beneficiaries, information that is true for most of the country’s livestock producers. These schooling averages are far from the national average (9.9 years) for the population aged 15 and over [60], which is considered a constraint for livestock industry development because the level of education, as well as the average age of these producers (over 50 years), are key factors that could influence their availability and interest in proposals for technological change, training, and the use of innovations [61,62,63].
The total area of these farmers’ ranches ranged from 2 to 300 ha, with an average of 33.4 ha, predominantly ejidal land tenure (89.7%). The main activity of the ranches was 40% combined agriculture and livestock production, 32.9% dual-purpose (meat and milk) cattle ranching, 25% exclusive production of calves, and only 2% dairy farms. In these systems, the cattle types mainly used are Swiss × Zebu (79.4%), Zebu Brahman (12.3%), and some undefined genotypes. These characteristics of zootechnical purposes and breed patterns are similar to those generally reported for cattle ranching in the Mexican tropics [15,17,64].
Of the 23 extension technicians interviewed, 15 were Veterinarians and 8 were Agronomists. Age, years of professional experience, and monthly income (mean ± SD) were 32.7 (±6.6), 8.4 (±5.6), and USD 670.04 (±448.7) (the exchange rate used during this study was MEX 13.4 per USD 1). All of these professionals reported having a bachelor’s degree as their highest degree of studies; two said they also had a diploma, and one reported having completed a major in animal production. This maximum degree of studies differed when comparing it to the distribution of this variable (8.9% bachelor’s degree, 62% master’s degree, and 29.1% doctorate) in a sample of extension technicians (n = 79) who participated in a study on the perception of the concepts of sustainable agriculture in Iran [65]. However, it is within the education level range of a sample of rural extension agents from 10 Latin American countries, including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay [66].
Chief officers from seven institutions that collaborate in regional livestock development participated: (1) ICAPET, (2) Módulo Regional de Desarrollo Social, (3) H. Ayuntamiento of Santiago Pinotepa Nacional, (4) Instituto Tecnológico de Pinotepa, (5) CBTA No. 10, (6) FIRA, and (7) Financiera Rural. These governmental institutions are located in the city of Pinotepa Nacional, except for FIRA, which operates from the city of Puerto Escondido. The average age of these officials was 41 years, their average professional experience was 19 years, and their average monthly income was USD 1202.33.

3.2. Perception of Sustainable Cattle Ranching (Idea)

The perception of sustainable cattle ranching was the main variable in this study, and the producers struggled to express their ideas or interpret this concept. However, 76% of them were able to respond when asked, how do you understand sustainable cattle ranching? In this regard, it should be noted that these people were not previously aided or prompted to elicit a particular response. Some of the comments recorded are presented in Figure 2.
Their comments revealed a general idea about SCR, prioritizing the implementation of appropriate management practices based on healthy and adequate feeding of cattle during the year to obtain higher production and better sales, resulting in improved family subsistence (Figure 3). However, no one had a complete and clear concept that simultaneously expressed expectations in the basic dimensions of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental). One of the most revealing things among their statements was that producers having large operations did not express concern or interest in issues such as “good production and better market”, possibly because they had already resolved this situation. In addition, neither was it a priority for them to establish “best management practices” nor that sustainability means “better cattle feeding”. However, these producers did emphasize a greater integration of their perception of the concept of sustainability by stating that “the ranch is maintained with its own resources” and that it is “profitable and with good management of its natural resources”. In the case of small and medium producers, they considered the sustainability of cattle ranching as “best management practices”, “good production and better market”, and “better cattle feeding” in their perceptions, possibly because it is something that they have yet to achieve in their production units. A similar situation was reported by Gargiulo et al. [67], who found that Australian dairy farmers with larger herds adopted more precision technologies compared with those with smaller herds, which could reflect these farmers’ attempts to address labor issues (availability, cost, skill level, and efficiency) as well as ensure routines and protocols to monitor and manage larger scales of operation. The authors concluded that the use of new technologies presents an opportunity to improve livestock productivity and address future challenges related to environmental, animal care, and socio-ethical issues. Meanwhile, Zanin et al. [68] reported that the investment and implementation of new technologies in rural dairy farmers in Brazil play a positive role in the sustainability of dairy businesses. They also found that, from the perception of these producers, who have abundant natural resources on their farms, issues related to the sustainability of the supply chain as a whole are not as important or intelligible.
The main ideas about sustainable cattle farming among extension specialists and chief officers are expressed in Table 3. These differ in terms of economic profitability and environmental conservation, with a business vision for extension workers and a more environmental vision for officials.
Considering the dimensions of sustainability, Figure 4 shows that producers orient their perception of SCR more towards economic (48.4%) and environmental (21.3%) aspects. Extension specialists are also more oriented towards economic (52.2%) and environmental (47.8%) aspects, while chief officers relate it more to the environmental dimension (71.4%). In this sense, the producers stated that for cattle ranching to be sustainable, it must be productive and have a favorable market performance to generate income. The extension specialists revealed a more comprehensive notion, recognizing that productivity and conservation of natural resources should be considered simultaneously.
For their part, the chief officers expressed a more environmentalist notion for this type of cattle ranching. It was observed that the producers with a profession, like the extension specialists and chief officers, formulated more comprehensive ideas about SCR, by simultaneously indicating production, environmental conservation, and ranch self-sufficiency. This result is consistent with that reported by Borroto et al. [69], whose study identified greater environmental vision in groups of university students and managers compared with workers, peasants, housewives, retirees, and students. This can be explained by the fact that individuals with more schooling tend to think about other aspects of life once they satisfy their primary needs [57], in addition to having a greater basic knowledge of ecology and the environment, as well as aspects of global competence [48].

3.3. Perception of Sustainable Cattle Ranching (Assessment)

Positive perceptions in the social dimension were accepted by almost all the respondents. Only a few cases of producers and extension specialists disagreed mainly with the statement “A sustainable ranch is more beautiful and ordered in its landscape” (Table 4), stating that a sustainable ranch can not necessarily be beautiful and ordered in its landscape since a conventional ranch can also have the same appearance. In the economic dimension, the affirmative response percentage was not very high for producers and extension agents, particularly in the items “SCR is more profitable than conventional cattle ranching” and “SCR provides a diversity of income sources in the ranch”. In the environmental dimension, for most of the items and all social actors, the affirmative response percentage was higher than 95.7%, except for the item “In SCR, wild animals and plants are conserved and increased”, which was 92.9% for the producers, whereas the rest were not convinced of such an assertion.
Although the results in positive perceptions are not so unfavorable, in order to promote greater knowledge among the social actors in the study area, we recommend establishing some demonstration plots with basic elements of sustainable cattle farming, such as silvopastoral systems (living fences, trees dispersed in pastures, forage banks, riparian forests, etc.), intensive rotational grazing, integrated crop and livestock systems, and animal welfare criteria, and reducing the carbon footprint on ranches. We also recommend conducting studies to validate the profitability [5,64,70] and the provision of ecosystem services of this type of cattle ranching [71,72,73].
The case of negative SCR perceptions (Table 5) shows a high percentage of responses affirmed the disadvantages of this type of cattle ranching, mainly in the economic and social dimensions. For example, all social actors identified two items as social disadvantages: “SCR requires more organization and training” and there are “few technicians trained in SCR in the region”. The three items of negative perception in the economic dimension were affirmed as a disadvantage, mainly by the producers and to a lesser extent by the extension agents and officials. In the environmental dimension, no major disadvantages were noted by the social actors, except for the items “With more trees in paddocks, more snakes abound” and “Dry branches and trees fall and hurt cattle” on the part of the producers.
In general, the social actors observed social constraints to develop SCR and also contended that this type of cattle ranching could not be economically profitable because it demands more investment and has productive limitations, attributing more environmental than socioeconomic benefits (Table 6). A positive assessment was found in all sustainability dimensions (social, economic, and environmental); however, there were significant statistical differences among the social actors, with the officials assigning lower values in the social dimension and the producers in the economic dimension. The extension specialists assigned high positive values to all dimensions, although they placed more emphasis on the environmental dimension, as did the chief officers.
These results can be explained by the scope of the components in each individual’s perceptual frame of reference (values, norms, knowledge, interests, and convictions). Why did extension specialists and chief officers attribute greater absolute value to the importance of SCR compared with producers? According to Vanhonacker et al. [33], this occurs in the case of opinion questions rather than questions based on facts or knowledge. Therefore, it is assumed that the extension specialists and chief officers responded from a perceptual perspective, while the producers possibly based their answers on their work experience within the cattle ranching activity.
A positive relationship was observed between the producers’ overall net perception index and the variables herd size (r = 0.222), PROGAN subsidy (r = 0.248), and additional income outside the ranch (r = 0.467) (p < 0.01). These associations were not seen in the extension specialists or chief officers with their respective socioeconomic variables, which suggests that the positive perception of SCR is independent of their socioeconomic status. These findings can be explained by the sociological theory of post-materialism, which states that only the satisfaction of basic needs enables the emergence of other secondary ones. In this sense, people assign greater subjective value to those things that they lack the most, and as their socioeconomic conditions improve, their priority values change from needs linked to physical sustenance to concerns about quality of life [57]. Herein lies the importance of promoting incentives aimed at encouraging producers to think about and act with sustainable practices [34,74].
In a joint analysis of the producers’ SCR ideas and assessments, compatibility was observed by revealing that as an idea, the SCR system is mainly seen providing more socioeconomic benefits (greater productivity, good market performance, and a decent life), while in the assessment, it was precisely those same elements that were identified, through a score, as the disadvantages to this type of cattle ranching. In this sense, all the social actors pointed out the expectation in the idea component of this study and SCR deficiencies in the assessment component. This reveals that the expectation concerning SCR, mainly among producers, is oriented towards socioeconomic aspects rather than environmental benefits.
In summary, the order of importance in terms of the expected impact of SCR on the producers was first economic benefits, followed by social and finally environmental benefits; the opposite result was true for the extension specialists and chief officers, where the order was the inverse (environmental rather than economic and social benefits). These results differ slightly from those reported by Zanin et al. [68], who observed that the economic dimension contributes 60% to the perception of sustainability in dairy farming in the West region of Santa Catarina, Brazil, followed by the social dimension. These drivers mostly refer to management practices, followed by improvements in production techniques and public policies. It is seen that the producers’ concern with the application of management control tools is important in promoting sustainability. The environmental dimension makes a much smaller contribution.
In addition, Silici et al. [75] describe that while farmers understand and agree on the need to preserve the natural resource base, they may not be fully motivated to pursue these approaches if other priorities, such as irrigation, access to credit, and infrastructure, are more pertinent to them. As the increase in yield may take some time to realize, farmers may not appreciate these benefits against the investments in time and resources that are due upfront. Similarly, unless they are severely affected by any environmental pressure, it is difficult for farmers as individuals to take into consideration the positive externalities and the social benefits that sustainable agriculture brings about for the environment and society.
In relation to the hypothesis raised in this study, it was partially accepted since the results show that social actors (producers, extension agents, and officials) have a positive perception of sustainable cattle farming due to the benefits that they identify as mainly environmental rather than economic and social. In addition, it was confirmed that the extension agents have a more comprehensive conceptualization compared with the producers and officials, the latter having a more exclusive environmental vision.

4. Conclusions

A mixed approach (quantitative and qualitative) for exploring the perception of the concept of sustainable cattle farming in a Mexican cattle-raising territory allowed for delineating differences in the conceptualization and assessment of this concept among the social actors involved (producers, extension specialists, and officials) in the development of dual-purpose cattle farming. Particularly, the producers associated sustainable cattle farming with implementing good management practices, a means to provide adequate and healthy feeds to livestock, leading to higher yields and better market conditions for their produce. The extension specialists related sustainable cattle farming with a business vision and environmental conservation, while the officials perceived this concept as productive cattle farming with appropriate management and the efficient use of natural resources.
These findings, although collected a few years ago, may be important in the design of public policies to promote sustainable cattle farming in Mexico and other developing countries where this activity is practiced. In this way, directly or indirectly, those policies could contribute to the achievement of six sustainable development goals (2, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 15). New studies should be carried out on the cognitive psychology of the social actors involved in various agricultural activities, and other experimental research may allow the evaluation of the different sustainable technologies that are proposed in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.C.-S. and F.G.-L.; methodology, P.C.-S. and F.G.-L.; software, P.C.-S. and F.G.-L.; formal analysis, P.C.-S., F.G.-L. and J.G.H.-H.; investigation, P.C.-S.; resources, P.C.-S.; data curation, P.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.C.-S., F.G.-L. and S.L.-O.; writing—review and editing, S.L.-O., O.R.-R., J.G.H.-H. and R.R.-H.; visualization, P.C.-S. and F.G.-L.; supervision, F.G.-L.; project administration, P.C.-S. and F.G.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías from Mexico granted a scholarship (48003) to the first author, for pursuing a PhD degree.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was non-interventional and did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable. The respondents gave informed consent for inclusion in this study and were assured anonymity.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank thee Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Veracruz, thee Tecnológico Nacional de México Campus Pinotepa, and the cattle producers who participated in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Singh, R.; Maiti, S.; Garai, S. Rachna Sustainable Intensification—Reaching Towards Climate Resilience Livestock Production System—A Review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2023, 23, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. FAO. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Pocketbook 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-136931-9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Guevara-Hernandez, F.; Pinto, R.; Rodríguez, L.A.; Gómez, H.; Ortiz, R.; Ibrahim, M.; Cruz, G. Local Perceptions of Degradation in Rangelands from a Livestock Farming Community in Chiapas, Mexico. Cuban J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 45, 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chávez-Fuentes, J.J.; Capobianco, A.; Barbušová, J.; Hutňan, M. Manure from Our Agricultural Animals: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis Focused on Biogas Production. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 1749–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andrade, H.J.; Vega, A.; Martínez-Salinas, A.; Villanueva, C.; Jiménez-Trujillo, J.A.; Betanzos-Simon, J.E.; Pérez, E.; Ibrahim, M.; Sepúlveda, L.C.J. The Carbon Footprint of Livestock Farms under Conventional Management and Silvopastoral Systems in Jalisco, Chiapas, and Campeche (Mexico). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1363994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rosales, M.V.; Bautista, V.Á.D.J.; Peláez, E.; Urfila, V.; Valenzuela, L.J.L.; Herrera, G.B.; Cisneros, S.P. A Comprehensive Case Study on the Sustainability of Tropical Dairy Cattle Farming in Oaxaca, Mexico. Ciênc. Rural 2023, 53, e20210026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Douglas, G.; Mackay, A.; Vibart, R.; Dodd, M.; McIvor, I.; McKenzie, C. Soil Carbon Stocks under Grazed Pasture and Pasture-Tree Systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Meijer, S.S.; Catacutan, D.; Ajayi, O.C.; Sileshi, G.W.; Nieuwenhuis, M. The Role of Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions in the Uptake of Agricultural and Agroforestry Innovations among Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2015, 13, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hidano, A.; Gates, M.C.; Enticott, G. Farmers’ Decision Making on Livestock Trading Practices: Cowshed Culture and Behavioral Triggers Amongst New Zealand Dairy Farmers. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Neethirajan, S. The Significance and Ethics of Digital Livestock Farming. AgriEngineering 2023, 5, 488–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bonilla-Moheno, M.; Aide, T.M. Beyond Deforestation: Land Cover Transitions in Mexico. Agric. Syst. 2020, 178, 102734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Williams, D.R.; Alvarado, F.; Green, R.E.; Manica, A.; Phalan, B.; Balmford, A. Land-use Strategies to Balance Livestock Production, Biodiversity Conservation and Carbon Storage in Yucatán, Mexico. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 5260–5272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Špirić, J.; Ramírez, M.I. Silvopastoral Systems in Local Livestock Landscapes in Hopelchén, Southern Mexico. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 98, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bautista-Martínez, Y.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; Herrera-Haro, J.G.; Martínez-Castañeda, F.E.; Vaquera-Huerta, H.; Estrada-Drouaillet, B.; Granados-Rivera, L.D. Óptimos Técnicos Para La Producción de Leche y Carne En El Sistema Bovino de Doble Propósito Del Trópico Mexicano. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2019, 10, 933–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cuevas-Reyes, V.; Loaiza, A.; Gutiérrez, O.; Buendía, G.; Rosales-Nieto, C. Typology of production units and livestock technologies for adaptation to drought in Sinaloa, Mexico. Rev. Fac. Agron. Univ. Zulia 2024, 41, e244106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ríos Utrera, Á.; Villagómez Amezcua Manjarrez, E.; Zárate Martínez, J.P.; Calderón Robles, R.C.; Vega Murillo, V.E. Análisis Reproductivo de Vacas Suizo Pardo x Cebú y Simmental x Cebú En Condiciones Tropicales. Rev. MVZ Córdoba 2019, 25, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rangel, J.; Perea, J.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Espinosa-García, J.A.; Mujica, P.T.; Feijoo, M.; Barba, C.; García, A. Structural and Technological Characterization of Tropical Smallholder Farms of Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico. Animals 2020, 10, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Villarroel-Molina, O.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Barba, C.; Rangel, J.; García, A. Does Gender Impact Technology Adoption in Dual-Purpose Cattle in Mexico? Animals 2022, 12, 3194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. González-Márquez, I.; Toledo, V.M. Sustainability Science: A Paradigm in Crisis? Sustainability 2020, 12, 2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cisneros-Saguilán, P.; Gallardo-López, F.; López-Ortíz, S.; Ruiz Rosado, O.; Herrera-Haro, J.G.; Hernández-Castro, E. Current Epistemological Perceptions of Sustainability and Its Application in the Study and Practice of Cattle Production: A Review. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2015, 39, 885–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mebratu, D. Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1998, 18, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hansen, J.W. Is Agricultural Sustainability a Useful Concept? Agric. Syst. 1996, 50, 117–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vavra, M. Sustainability of Animal Production Systems: An Ecological Perspective. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paul, B.K.; Mutegi, J.K.; Wironen, M.B.; Wood, S.A.; Peters, M.; Nyawira, S.S.; Misiko, M.T.; Dutta, S.K.; Zingore, S.; Oberthür, T.; et al. Livestock Solutions to Regenerate Soils and Landscapes for Sustainable Agri-Food Systems Transformation in Africa. Outlook Agric. 2023, 52, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Heitschmidt, R.K.; Short, R.E.; Grings, E.E. Ecosystems, Sustainability, and Animal Agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oltjen, J.W.; Beckett, J.L. Role of Ruminant Livestock in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jose, S.; Dollinger, J. Silvopasture: A Sustainable Livestock Production System. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lovarelli, D.; Bacenetti, J.; Guarino, M. A Review on Dairy Cattle Farming: Is Precision Livestock Farming the Compromise for an Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainable Production? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. Sustainable Development: Our Common Future Revisited. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Noguera-Méndez, P.; Molera, L.; Semitiel-García, M. The Role of Social Learning in Fostering Farmers’ pro-Environmental Values and Intentions. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 46, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Price, J.C.; Leviston, Z. Predicting Pro-Environmental Agricultural Practices: The Social, Psychological and Contextual Influences on Land Management. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 34, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Do Citizens and Farmers Interpret the Concept of Farm Animal Welfare Differently? Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marroquín-Pugas, O.; Montero-Solís, F.M.; Luis-Santiago, M.Y.; Cruz-Gallegos, E.; Cisneros-Saguilán, P. Limitantes y Oportunidades Para Implementar Sistemas Silvopastoriles En La Costa de Oaxaca, México. Rev. Mex. Agroecosistemas 2022, 9, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  35. INEGI. Anuario Estadístico y Geográfico de Oaxaca 2016, 1st ed.; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geográfica: Aguascalientes, México, 2016; ISBN 978-607-739-966-7.
  36. INEGI. Panorama Sociodemográfico de Oaxaca—Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020, 1st ed.; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía: Aguascalientes, México, 2021.
  37. SIAP-SAGARPA. Oaxaca Infografía Agroalimentaria 2016, 1st ed.; Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria: Ciudad de México, México, 2016.
  38. INEGI. Principales Resultados de la Encuesta Intercensal 2015, 1st ed.; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía: Aguascalientes, México, 2015.
  39. SIAP-SADER. Sistema de Información Agroalimentaria de Consulta; Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria: Ciudad de México, México, 2024.
  40. Martínez-Castro, C.J.; Ríos-Castillo, M.; Castillo-Leal, M.; Jiménez-Castañeda, J.C.; Cotera-Rivera, J. Sustentabilidad de Agroecosistemas En Regiones Tropicales de México. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2015, 18, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  41. SIAP-SADER. Oaxaca, Infografía Agroalimentaria 2023, 2023rd ed.; Infografías Agroalimentarias; Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria: Ciudad de México, México, 2023.
  42. Arrieta-González, A.; Hernández-Beltrán, A.; Barrientos-Morales, M.; Martínez-Herrera, D.I.; Cervantes-Acosta, P.; Rodríguez-Andrade, A.; Dominguez-Mancera, B. Caracterización y Tipificación Tecnológica Del Sistema de Bovinos Doble Propósito de La Huasteca Veracruzana México. Rev. MVZ Córdoba 2022, 27, e2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. SIAP-SADER. Sistema de Información Agroalimentaria de Consulta; Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria: Ciudad de México, México, 2020.
  44. Scheaffer, R.L.; Mendenhall, W.; Lyman Ott, R. Elementos de Muestreo, 6th ed.; Ediciones Paraninfo, SA: Madrid, Spain, 2007; ISBN 84-9732-493-5. [Google Scholar]
  45. Noy, C. Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2008, 11, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boogaard, B.K.; Oosting, S.J.; Bock, B.B. Elements of Societal Perception of Farm Animal Welfare: A Quantitative Study in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 2006, 104, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lorenzoni, I.; Nicholson-Cole, S.; Whitmarsh, L. Barriers Perceived to Engaging with Climate Change among the UK Public and Their Policy Implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marchand, A.; Walker, S.; Cooper, T. Beyond Abundance: Self-Interest Motives for Sustainable Consumption in Relation to Product Perception and Preferences. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1431–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dolisca, F.; McDaniel, J.M.; Teeter, L.D. Farmers’ Perceptions towards Forests: A Case Study from Haiti. For. Policy Econ. 2007, 9, 704–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Frey, G.E.; Fassola, H.E.; Pachas, A.N.; Colcombet, L.; Lacorte, S.M.; Pérez, O.; Renkow, M.; Warren, S.T.; Cubbage, F.W. Perceptions of Silvopasture Systems among Adopters in Northeast Argentina. Agric. Syst. 2012, 105, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Duru, M.; Therond, O. Livestock System Sustainability and Resilience in Intensive Production Zones: Which Form of Ecological Modernization? Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 1651–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Boogaard, B.K.; Oosting, S.J.; Bock, B.B.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. The Sociocultural Sustainability of Livestock Farming: An Inquiry into Social Perceptions of Dairy Farming. Animal 2011, 5, 1458–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Statsoft Inc Statistica 2003. Available online: https://www.statsoft.de/en/data-science-applications/tibco-statistica/ (accessed on 25 October 2024).
  54. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Murgueitio, E. Incentivos Para Los Sistemas Silvopastoriles En América Latina. Av. En Investig. Agropecu. 2009, 13, 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  56. Petrzelka, P.; Korsching, P.F.; Malia, J.E. Farmers’ Attitudes and Behavior toward Sustainable Agriculture. J. Environ. Educ. 1996, 28, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Inglehart, R.; Abramson, P.R. Measuring Postmaterialism. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1999, 93, 665–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kaefer, F.; Roper, J.; Sinha, P. A Software-Assisted Qualitative Content Analysis of News Articles: Example and Reflections. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2015, 16, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Leos-Rodríguez, J.A.; Serrano-Páez, A.; Salas-González, J.M.; Ramírez-Moreno, P.P.; Sagarnaga-Villegas, M. Caracterización de Ganaderos y Unidades de Producción Pecuaria Beneficiarios Del Programa de Estímulos a La Productividad Ganadera (PROGAN) En México. Agric. Soc. Desarro. 2008, 5, 213–230. [Google Scholar]
  60. INEGI. Anuario Estadístico y Geográfico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2013, 1st ed.; Anuario Estadístico; Instituo Nacional de Estadistica y Geografía: Aguascalientes, México, 2014.
  61. Mendez Cortes, V.; Mora Flores, J.S.; García Salazar, J.A.; Hernández Mendo, O.; García Mata, R.; García Sánchez, R.C. Tipología de Productores de Ganado Bovino En La Zona Norte de Veracruz. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2019, 22, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chuquirima, R.D.; García, S.M.E.; Hidalgo, V.Y. Componentes Del Sistema de Producción de Bovinos Doble Propósito En Los Cantones Nangaritza y Palanda, Provincia Zamora Chinchipe, Ecuador. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú 2023, 34, e23850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. García, C.G.M.; Dorward, P.; Rehman, T. Farm and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Smallholder Milk Producers and Their Influence on Technology Adoption in Central Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 1199–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Albarrán-Portillo, B.; García-Martínez, A.; Ortiz-Rodea, A.; Rojo-Rubio, R.; Vázquez-Armijo, J.F.; Arriaga-Jordán, C.M. Socioeconomic and Productive Characteristics of Dual Purpose Farms Based on Agrosilvopastoral Systems in Subtropical Highlands of Central Mexico. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 1939–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Allahyari, M.S.; Chizari, M.; Homaee, M. Perceptions of Iranian Agricultural Extension Professionals toward Sustainable Agriculture Concepts. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. 2008, 4, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  66. Landini, F.; Bianqui, V. Socio-Demographic Profile of Different Samples of Latin American Rural Extensionists. Ciênc. Rural 2014, 44, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gargiulo, J.I.; Eastwood, C.R.; Garcia, S.C.; Lyons, N.A. Dairy Farmers with Larger Herd Sizes Adopt More Precision Dairy Technologies. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 5466–5473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zanin, A.; Dal Magro, C.B.; Kleinibing Bugalho, D.; Morlin, F.; Afonso, P.; Sztando, A. Driving Sustainability in Dairy Farming from a TBL Perspective: Insights from a Case Study in the West Region of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Borroto, P.M.; Rodríguez, P.L.; Ramírez, A.R.; Vázquez, A.B.L. Percepción Ambiental En Dos Comunidades Cubanas. M+A Rev. Electron. Medioambiente 2011, 10, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Orefice, J.; Smith, R.G.; Carroll, J.; Asbjornsen, H.; Howard, T. Forage Productivity and Profitability in Newly-Established Open Pasture, Silvopasture, and Thinned Forest Production Systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Molina-Botero, I.C.; Villegas, D.M.; Montoya, A.; Mazabel, J.; Bastidas, M.; Ruden, A.; Gaviria, H.; Peláez, J.D.; Chará, J.; Murgueitio, E.; et al. Effect of a Silvopastoral System with Leucaena Diversifolia on Enteric Methane Emissions, Animal Performance, and Meat Fatty Acid Profile of Beef Steers. Agrofor. Syst. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Valencia Salazar, S.S.; Piñeiro Vázquez, A.T.; Molina Botero, I.C.; Lazos Balbuena, F.J.; Uuh Narváez, J.J.; Segura Campos, M.R.; Ramírez Avilés, L.; Solorio Sánchez, F.J.; Ku Vera, J.C. Potential of Samanea Saman Pod Meal for Enteric Methane Mitigation in Crossbred Heifers Fed Low-Quality Tropical Grass. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 258, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Smith, M.M.; Bentrup, G.; Kellerman, T.; MacFarland, K.; Straight, R.; Ameyaw, L.; Stein, S. Silvopasture in the USA: A Systematic Review of Natural Resource Professional and Producer-Reported Benefits, Challenges, and Management Activities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Menozzi, D.; Fioravanzi, M.; Donati, M. Farmer’s Motivation to Adopt Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2015, 4, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Silici, L.; Bias, C.; Cavane, E. Sustainable Agriculture for Small-Scale Farmers in Mozambique; Internationa Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 09540 g001
Figure 1. Geographic location of Santiago Pinotepa Nacional municipality, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Figure 1. Geographic location of Santiago Pinotepa Nacional municipality, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Sustainability 16 09540 g001
Sustainability 16 09540 g002
Figure 2. Idea or interpretation of the sustainable cattle ranching concept by producers.
Figure 2. Idea or interpretation of the sustainable cattle ranching concept by producers.
Sustainability 16 09540 g002
Sustainability 16 09540 g003
Figure 3. Perception of sustainable cattle ranching by livestock producers in the study area.
Figure 3. Perception of sustainable cattle ranching by livestock producers in the study area.
Sustainability 16 09540 g003
Sustainability 16 09540 g004
Figure 4. Importance of sustainable cattle ranching dimensions perceived by producers (n = 155), extension specialists (n = 23), and chief officers (n = 7).
Figure 4. Importance of sustainable cattle ranching dimensions perceived by producers (n = 155), extension specialists (n = 23), and chief officers (n = 7).
Sustainability 16 09540 g004
Table 1. Description of the units of analysis evaluated in this research.
Table 1. Description of the units of analysis evaluated in this research.
Unit of AnalysisDescription
Cattle producerDairy, beef, or dual-purpose cattle.
Extension agentExtension specialist (Veterinarian or animal science specialist) who advises farmers, as a private or a governmental agent.
Chief officerExecutives of institutions related to cattle farming in the study area, for example, SAGARPA, Financiera Rural, FIRA, Módulo Regional de Desarrollo Social, ICAPET, UGRCO, and AGL.
Table 2. Total of producers and herd average according to the classification into strata.
Table 2. Total of producers and herd average according to the classification into strata.
Stratum Number of Producers Mean (No. of Cattle) Standard Deviation ni
Small (1–20)7049.865.2166
Medium (21–40)22829.395.6523
Large (41–100)13066.4918.3243
Very large (>100)22154.1657.8823
Total/Average108464.9721.76155
Table 3. Perception of sustainable cattle ranching by extension specialists and chief officers in the study area.
Table 3. Perception of sustainable cattle ranching by extension specialists and chief officers in the study area.
Extension Specialist (n = 23)%Chief Officer (n = 7)%
A company that is self-sufficient and does not affect its environment27.1Cattle ranching that is practiced without damaging the environment28.5
Cattle ranching that takes advantage of local resources17.4Cattle ranching with appropriate stocking rate, local resources, and productivity14.3
Cattle ranching with profitability and conservation of natural resources17.4Cattle ranching for highly developed European countries14.3
Cattle ranching in harmony with the environment13.0Cattle ranching that is neither invasive nor extensive14.3
A profitable, self-sufficient, and innovative cattle ranching13.0Cattle ranching with efficient use of natural resources14.3
Cattle ranching that meets production standards8.7Cattle ranching with environmentally friendly technologies 14.3
Table 4. Response of social actors for positive SCR perceptions.
Table 4. Response of social actors for positive SCR perceptions.
DimensionPositive Perception ItemPEO
%%%
SCR meat and milk are healthier98.795.7100
SocialTrees in paddocks provide shade and a pleasant climate for the cattle and producer100100100
A sustainable ranch is more beautiful and orderly in its landscape98.187.0100
SCR is more profitable than conventional cattle ranching77.465.285.7
EconomicTrees in paddocks provide fruits, forage, firewood, and posts99.491.385.7
SCR provides a diversity of income sources on the ranch87.182.6100
Trees help control soil erosion and protect rivers98.110085.7
Trees help clean the air97.4100100
EnvironmentalIn SCR, wild animals and plants are conserved and increased92.995.7100
P: producer (n = 155), E: extension specialist (n = 23), O: chief officer (n = 7), SCR: sustainable cattle ranching.
Table 5. Response of social actors for negative SCR perceptions.
Table 5. Response of social actors for negative SCR perceptions.
DimensionNegative Perception ItemsPEO
%%%
SCR requires more organization and training96.878.385.7
SocialFew technicians trained in SCR81.352.285.7
In SCR, cattle management in more difficult33.530.457.1
SCR requires high capital investment73.513.028.6
EconomicTrees in paddocks limit the growth of the grass66.530.442.9
With many trees on the ranch, people steal firewood, fruits, and wood76.165.228.6
With more trees in paddocks, there are more pests and diseases on the ranch29.04.30.0
EnvironmentalWith more trees in paddocks, more snakes abound53.534.814.3
Dry branches and trees fall and hurt the cattle59.434.828.6
P: producer (n = 155), E: extension specialist (n = 23), O: chief officer (n = 7), SCR: sustainable cattle ranching.
Table 6. Net perception index in each sustainability dimension of cattle ranching and each social actor.
Table 6. Net perception index in each sustainability dimension of cattle ranching and each social actor.
Net Perception IndexProducer
(n = 155)		Extension Specialist
(n = 23)		Chief Officer
(n = 7)
x - SDMinMax x - SDMinMax x - SDMinMax
Social *0.9 b0.7−1.03.01.2 a1.0−1.03.00.7 b0.80.02.0
Economic **0.5 b1.1−2.03.01.3 a1.3−1.03.01.7 a1.00.03.0
Environmental **1.5 b1.1−2.03.02.2 a1.0−1.03.02.4 a0.52.03.0
ONPI **0.9 b0.7−1.03.01.6 a0.9−0.72.71.6 a0.50.72.0
ONPI = overall net perception index; SD = standard deviation. *, ** Different letters between columns indicate significant difference with p < 0.10 and p < 0.01, respectively.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cisneros-Saguilán, P.; Gallardo-López, F.; López-Ortiz, S.; Ruiz-Rosado, O.; Herrera-Haro, J.G.; Ruiz-Hernández, R. Perception of the Sustainable Cattle Ranching Concept Among Producers, Extension Specialists, and Chief Officers in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219540

AMA Style

Cisneros-Saguilán P, Gallardo-López F, López-Ortiz S, Ruiz-Rosado O, Herrera-Haro JG, Ruiz-Hernández R. Perception of the Sustainable Cattle Ranching Concept Among Producers, Extension Specialists, and Chief Officers in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability. 2024; 16(21):9540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219540

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cisneros-Saguilán, Pedro, Felipe Gallardo-López, Silvia López-Ortiz, Octavio Ruiz-Rosado, José G. Herrera-Haro, and Rafael Ruiz-Hernández. 2024. "Perception of the Sustainable Cattle Ranching Concept Among Producers, Extension Specialists, and Chief Officers in Oaxaca, Mexico" Sustainability 16, no. 21: 9540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219540

APA Style

Cisneros-Saguilán, P., Gallardo-López, F., López-Ortiz, S., Ruiz-Rosado, O., Herrera-Haro, J. G., & Ruiz-Hernández, R. (2024). Perception of the Sustainable Cattle Ranching Concept Among Producers, Extension Specialists, and Chief Officers in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability, 16(21), 9540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219540

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop