Evolving Dairy Cattle Systems in Chile: Structural Shifts and Adaptation Strategies
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Description of the Bovine Population and National Distribution
3.1.1. Farms Number
3.1.2. Animal Stocks
3.1.3. Cattle Stocking Rate and Herd Size
3.1.4. Grassland Use
3.2. Categorization of Farms
3.2.1. Herd Size
3.2.2. Stocking Rates
3.3. Relationship between Categories of Bovine Stocking Rates and Types of Pasture
3.4. Multivariable Analysis
Variable Selection
3.5. Factor Analysis
3.6. Cluster Analysis
3.7. Discriminant Analysis and Group Definition
3.8. Group Evolution
3.8.1. Structural Changes
3.8.2. Geographic Changes
3.8.3. Future Implications
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
1997 | 2007 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | p Value | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | p Value | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | p Value |
XV | 2 (5.7%) * | 2 (5.7%) * | 0 (0%) * | 31 (88.6%) * | <0.01 | 0 (0%) * | 11 (26.2%) | 1 (2.4%) * | 30 (71.4%) * | <0.01 | 3 (12%) * | 2 (8%) * | 0 (0%) * | 20 (80%) * | <0.01 |
I | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (75%) * | 2 (20%) | 5 (50%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (30%) * | |||
II | 1 (2.1%) * | 0 (0%) * | 2 (4.3%) * | 44 (93.6%) * | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (100%) * | 2 (14.3%) * | 3 (21.4%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (64.3%) * | |||
III | 16 (21.1%) * | 32 (42.1%) | 0 (0%) * | 28 (36.8%) * | 5 (20%) | 6 (24%) | 0 (0%) * | 14 (56%) * | 3 (8.3%) * | 13 (36.1%) | 0 (0%) * | 20 (55.6%) * | |||
IV | 254 (36.5%) | 265 (38.1%) | 16 (2.3%) | 161 (23.1%) | 89 (33.1%) | 67 (24.9%) | 44 (16.4%) * | 69 (25.7%) * | 99 (41.6%) * | 75 (31.5%) | 3 (1.3%) * | 61 (25.6%) * | |||
V | 575 (32.5%) | 442 (25%) * | 60 (3.4%) * | 694 (39.2%) * | 249 (39.3%) | 143 (22.6%) | 64 (10.1%) * | 178 (28.1%) * | 93 (41.7%) * | 56 (25.1%) | 5 (2.2%) * | 69 (30.9%) * | |||
XIII | 816 (30.5%) * | 353 (13.2%) | 497 (18.6%) * | 1012 (37.8%) * | 209 (32%) * | 97 (14.8%) * | 141 (21.6%) * | 207 (31.7%) * | 99 (39.4%) * | 36 (14.3%) * | 27 (10.8%) | 89 (35.5%) * | |||
VI | 924 (36.3%) | 508 (19.9%) * | 334 (13.1%) * | 782 (30.7%) * | 329 (45.2%) * | 134 (18.4%) * | 80 (11%) * | 185 (25.4%) * | 195 (47.2%) | 78 (18.9%) * | 17 (4.1%) * | 123 (29.8%) * | |||
VII | 1262 (29.8%) * | 1152 (27.2%) * | 1158 (27.4%) * | 662 (15.6%) * | 472 (35.9%) | 230 (17.5%) * | 435 (33.1%) * | 179 (13.6%) * | 567 (52.8%) | 206 (19.2%) * | 162 (15.1%) | 138 (12.9%) * | |||
VIII | 3016 (36.2%) * | 3650 (43.8%) * | 1004 (12.1%) * | 654 (7.9%) * | 1065 (42.8%) * | 565 (22.7%) | 511 (20.5%) * | 346 (13.9%) * | 1292 (59%) * | 579 (26.5%) | 101 (4.6%) * | 216 (9.9%) * | |||
IX | 3182 (37.5%) * | 4317 (50.8%) * | 624 (7.3%) * | 367 (4.3%) * | 1338 (42.5%) * | 1047 (33.2%) * | 553 (17.6%) * | 211 (6.7%) * | 2689 (57.5%) * | 1587 (33.9%) * | 187 (4%) * | 216 (4.6%) * | |||
XIV | 2652 (41.9%) * | 1952 (30.8%) | 1265 (20%) * | 463 (7.3%) * | 1351 (37.5%) | 811 (22.5%) * | 1274 (35.4%) * | 165 (4.6%) * | 832 (41.2%) * | 539 (26.7%) | 561 (27.8%) * | 87 (4.3%) * | |||
X | 3093 (28.3%) * | 3212 (29.4%) * | 4122 (37.7%) * | 511 (4.7%) * | 1842 (31.9%) * | 1253 (21.7%) * | 2521 (43.6%) * | 162 (2.8%) * | 1096 (39%) * | 671 (23.9%) * | 977 (34.8%) * | 63 (2.2%) * | |||
XI | 375 (52.2%) * | 308 (42.8%) * | 19 (2.6%) * | 17 (2.4%) * | 271 (49.9%) * | 210 (38.7%) * | 45 (8.3%) * | 17 (3.1%) * | 136 (59.6%) * | 69 (30.3%) | 16 (7%) * | 7 (3.1%) * | |||
XII | --- | --- | --- | --- | 31 (68.9%) * | 14 (31.1%) | 0 (0%) * | 0 (0%) * | 13 (72.2%) | 4 (22.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) |
References
- Beaver, A.; Proudfoot, K.L.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Symposium review: Considerations for the future of dairy cattle housing: An animal welfare perspective. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 5746–5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lucas-Palacios, L.; Trabajo-Rite, M.; Delgado-Algarra, E.J. Heritage education in initial teacher training from a feminist and animal ethics perspective. A study on critical-empathic thinking for social change. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 129, 104153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soder, K.J.; Brito, A.F. Enteric methane emissions in grazing dairy systems. Presented as part of the Joint ADSA Midwest Branch/Forages and Pastures Symposium: Grazing to Improve Profitability of Midwest Dairy Farms held at the ADSA Annual Meeting, June 2022. JDS Commun. 2023, 4, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gaspar, P.; Díaz-Caro, C.; del Puerto, I.; Ortiz, A.; Escribano, M.; Tejerina, D. What effect does the presence of sustainability and traceability certifications have on consumers of traditional meat products? The case of Iberian cured products in Spain. Meat Sci. 2022, 187, 108752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qian, J.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Fan, B.; Robla Villalba, J.I.; McCarthy, U.; Zhang, B.; Yu, Q.; Wu, W. Food traceability system from governmental, corporate, and consumer perspectives in the European Union and China: A comparative review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 99, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Qiao, J.; Chen, Y. Influencing factors of consumer willingness-to-buy traceable foods: An analysis of survey data from two Chinese cities. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2010, 1, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.; Oxley, L.; Rae, A.; Fan, C.; Huang, J.; Rozelle, S. The evolution of productivity performance on China’s dairy farms in the new millennium. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 7074–7085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zorn, A.; Zimmert, F. Structural change in the dairy sector: Exit from farming and farm type change. Agric. Food Econ. 2022, 10, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roche, J.R.; Berry, D.P.; Bryant, A.M.; Burke, C.R.; Butler, S.T.; Dillon, P.G.; Donaghy, D.J.; Horan, B.; Macdonald, K.A.; Macmillan, K.L. A 100-Year Review: A century of change in temperate grazing dairy systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10189–10233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqaisi Shawabkeh, O.; Ndambi, O.; Hemme, T. Global view on feed cost and feed efficiency on dairy farms. All About Feed 2011, 2, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- Veerkamp, R. Selection for Economic Efficiency of Dairy Cattle Using Information on Live Weight and Feed Intake: A Review. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 1109–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Astigarraga, L.; Ingrand, S. Production Flexibility in Extensive Beef Farming Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rjili, H.; Muñoz-Ulecia, E.; Bernués, A.; Jaouad, M.; Martin-Collado, D. Evolution of pastoral livestock farming on arid rangelands in the last 15 years. Animal 2023, 17, 100748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riveiro, J.A.; Alvarez, C.J.; Pereira, J.M.; Miranda, D. Profitability and Production Requirements for Land Use Allocation of Farming and Forestry Land. Biosyst. Eng. 2005, 90, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novoa, S.R.; Del Canto, S.P.; Del Pozo, L.A. Mapa Agroclimático de Chile; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA): Santiago, Chile, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Zúñiga, F.; Jaime, M.; Salazar, C. Crop farming adaptation to droughts in small-scale dryland agriculture in Chile. Water Resour. Econ. 2021, 34, 100176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Martínez, A.; Olaizola, A.; Bernués, A. Trajectories of evolution and drivers of change in European mountain cattle farming systems. Animal 2009, 3, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toro-Mujica, P.; Vera, R.; Pinedo, P.; Bas, F.; Enríquez-Hidalgo, D.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E. Adaptation strategies based on the historical evolution for dairy production systems in temperate areas: A case study approach. Agric. Syst. 2020, 182, 102841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toro-Mujica, P.; Aguilar, C.; Vera, R.; Rivas, R.; García, A. Sheep production systems in the semi-arid zone: Changes and simulated bio-economic performances in a case study in Central Chile. Livest. Sci. 2015, 180, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jelinski, M.D.; LeBlanc, S.; Kennedy, R. Demographics of the Canadian dairy industry from 1991 to 2011. Can. Vet. J. 2015, 56, 701–708. [Google Scholar]
- Ibidhi, R.; Frija, A.; Jaouad, M.; Ben Salem, H. Typology analysis of sheep production, feeding systems and farmers strategies for livestock watering in Tunisia. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 160, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bánkuti, F.I.; Prizon, R.C.; Damasceno, J.C.; De Brito, M.M.; Pozza, M.S.S.; Lima, P.G.L. Farmers’ actions toward sustainability: A typology of dairy farms according to sustainability indicators. Animal 2020, 14, s417–s423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 18 April 2024).
- Ley 20285. Sobre Acceso a la Información Pública. Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia. Available online: https://bcn.cl/2ep0z (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas. Censo Agropecuario. Difusión Resultados Finales. Available online: https://www.ine.gob.cl/estadisticas/economia/agricultura-agroindustria-y-pesca/censos-agropecuarios (accessed on 10 October 2023).
- Schütte, J. Typology of German sheep farms-Differences in structure, characteristics, challenges and the provision of goods and services. Small Rumin. Res. 2023, 226, 107022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazzarini, B.; Baudracco, J.; Tuñon, G.; Gastaldi, L.; Lyons, N.; Quattrochi, H.; Lopez-Villalobos, N. Review: Milk production from dairy cows in Argentina: Current state and perspectives for the future. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2019, 35, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonet, R.M.; Bánkuti, F.I.; Damasceno, J.C.; Siqueira, T.T.d.S.; Bouroullec, M.D.M.; Loddi, M.M. Typology of Brazilian dairy farms based on vulnerability characteristics. Anim. Open Space 2023, 2, 100040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beber, C.L.; Theuvsen, L.; Otter, V. Organizational structures and the evolution of dairy cooperatives in Southern Brazil: A life cycle analysis. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2018, 6, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koutouzidou, G.; Ragkos, A.; Melfou, K. Evolution of the Structure and Economic Management of the Dairy Cow Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medeiros, I.; Fernandez-Novo, A.; Astiz, S.; Simões, J. Historical Evolution of Cattle Management and Herd Health of Dairy Farms in OECD Countries. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Díaz, A.; Pérez-Morales, A.; Marín-Sanleandro, P. Prevalence, causes, and consequences of agricultural land abandonment: A case study in the Region of Murcia, Spain. CATENA 2024, 241, 108071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raggi, M.; Sardonini, L.; Viaggi, D. The effects of the Common Agricultural Policy on exit strategies and land re-allocation. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clay, N.; Garnett, T.; Lorimer, J. Dairy intensification: Drivers, impacts and alternatives. Ambio 2020, 49, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marín, S.L.; Nahuelhual, L.; Echeverría, C.; Grant, W.E. Projecting landscape changes in southern Chile: Simulation of human and natural processes driving land transformation. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 2841–2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojo, O.M.; Adenuga, A.H.; Lauwers, L.; Van Meensel, J. Unraveling the impact of variable external input use on the cost efficiency of dairy farms in Europe. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2020, 8, 100076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas, C.; Cáceres, L.; Tapia, B. Análisis de los Resultados del VIII Censo Agropecuario y Forestal; Oficina de Estudios y Politicas Agrarias–ODEPA, Ministerio de Agricultura: Santiago, Chile, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Fariña, S.R.; Chilibroste, P. Opportunities and challenges for the growth of milk production from pasture: The case of farm systems in Uruguay. Agric. Syst. 2019, 176, 102631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemme, T.; Deeken, E. IFCN Dairy Report, International Farm Comparison Network; IFCN Dairy Research Center: Kiel, Germany, 2007; Volume 25. [Google Scholar]
- Batzios, A.; Theodoridis, A.; Bournaris, T.; Semos, A. Technical indicators and economic performance of dairy goat farms in Greece: An efficiency analysis. Livest. Sci. 2023, 271, 105210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resultados Preliminares del VIII Censo Agropecuario y Forestal. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias. Available online: https://www.odepa.gob.cl/contenidos-rubro/estadisticas/estadisticas-productivas/resultados-preliminares-del-viii-censo-agropecuario-y-forestal (accessed on 9 October 2023).
- Garreaud, R.D.; Alvarez-Garreton, C.; Barichivich, J.; Boisier, J.P.; Christie, D.; Galleguillos, M.; LeQuesne, C.; McPhee, J.; Zambrano-Bigiarini, M. The 2010–2015 megadrought in central Chile: Impacts on regional hydroclimate and vegetation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 6307–6327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roco, L.; Engler, A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.; Jara-Rojas, R. Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 44, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez, A.; Reyes, R.; Nelson, H. Linking perceptions of climate change impacts with adaptation: Insights from landowners in Southern Chile. Trees For. People 2024, 16, 100557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendonça, B.S.; de Istvan Bánkuti, F.; Soares dos Santos Pozza, M.; Leal Perez, H.; Teixeira da Silva Siqueira, T. A typology of corporate and family dairy farms in eastern Goiás, Brazil Tipologia de sistemas produtivos leiteiros familiares e patronis na regiáo leste de Goiás. Cienc. Rural. 2020, 50, e20190285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito, L.F.; Bedere, N.; Douhard, F.; Oliveira, H.R.; Arnal, M.; Peñagaricano, F.; Schinckel, A.P.; Baes, C.F.; Miglior, F. Review: Genetic selection of high-yielding dairy cattle toward sustainable farming systems in a rapidly changing world. Animal 2021, 15, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdonald, K.A.; Penno, J.W.; Lancaster, J.A.S.; Roche, J.R. Effect of Stocking Rate on Pasture Production, Milk Production, and Reproduction of Dairy Cows in Pasture-Based Systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 2151–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudracco, J.; Lopez-Villalobos, N.; Holmes, C.W.; Macdonald, K.A. Effects of stocking rate, supplementation, genotype and their interactions on grazing dairy systems: A review. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 53, 109–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerssen-Gondelach, S.J.; Lauwerijssen, R.B.G.; Havlík, P.; Herrero, M.; Valin, H.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Wicke, B. Intensification pathways for beef and dairy cattle production systems: Impacts on GHG emissions, land occupation and land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 240, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renault, B.; Agumba, J.; Ansary, N. An exploratory factor analysis of risk management practices: A study among small and medium contractors in Gauteng. Acta Struct. 2018, 25, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelasakis, A.I.; Rose, G.; Giannakou, R.; Valergakis, G.E.; Theodoridis, A.; Fortomaris, P.; Arsenos, G. Typology and characteristics of dairy goat production systems in Greece. Livest. Sci. 2017, 197, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gökdai, A.; Magrin, L.; Sakarya, E.; Contiero, B.; Gottardo, F. Characterization and typologies of dairy goat farms in the Mediterranean region: A case of Italy and Turkey. Small Rumin. Res. 2020, 191, 106196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silveira, R.M.F.; Silva, V.J.D.; Ferreira, J.; Fontenelle, R.O.D.S.; Vega, W.H.O.; Sales, D.C.; Sales, A.P.; Castro, M.S.M.; Toro-Mujica, P.; Vasconcelos, A.M.D. Diversity in smallholder dairy production systems in the Brazilian semiarid region: Farm typologies and characteristics of raw milk and water used in milking. J. Arid Environ. 2022, 203, 104774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufman, L.; Rousseeuw, P.J. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Amamou, H.; Sassi, M.B.; Aouadi, H.; Khemiri, H.; Mahouachi, M.; Beckers, Y.; Hammami, H. Climate change-related risks and adaptation strategies as perceived in dairy cattle farming systems in Tunisia. Clim. Risk Manag. 2018, 20, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubbage, F.; Balmelli, G.; Bussoni, A.; Noellemeyer, E.; Pachas, A.N.; Fassola, H.; Colcombet, L.; Rossner, B.; Frey, G.; Dube, F.; et al. Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, I. Praderas Para Chile, 2ed ed.; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias: Santiago, Chile, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, L.W.; Moore, A.D.; Thomas, D.T. Diversified crop-livestock farms are risk-efficient in the face of price and production variability. Agric. Syst. 2021, 189, 103050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toro-Mujica, P. Effect of the hydrological keyline design on the growth and quality of the naturalized grassland in the dry central zone of Chile. In Proceedings of the XXV International Grassland Congress Proceedings, Covington KY, USA, 14–19 May 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Lowder, S.K.; Skoet, J.; Raney, T. The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Dev. 2016, 87, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gauly, M.; Ammer, S. Review: Challenges for dairy cow production systems arising from climate changes. Animal 2020, 14, S196–S203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arias, R.A.; Mader, T.L. Determination of potential risk of heat stress of cattle in four locations of Central and Southern Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 2010, 42, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jara, I.E.; Keim, J.P.; Arias, R.A. Behaviour, tympanic temperature and performance of dairy cows during summer season in southern Chile. Austral J. Vet. Sci. 2016, 48, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimbelman, R.B.; Rhoads, R.P.; Rhoads, M.L.; Duff, G.C.; Baumgard, L.H.; Collier, R.J. A re-evaluation of the impact of temperature humidity index (THI) and black globe humidity index (BGHI) on milk production in high producing dairy cows. In Proceedings of the 24th Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference, Tempe, AZ, USA, 21–23 April 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Melo, O.; Foster, W. Agricultural and Forestry Land and Labor Use under Long-Term Climate Change in Chile. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalaugher, E.; Beukes, P.; Bornman, J.F.; Clark, A.; Campbell, D.I. Modelling farm-level adaptation of temperate, pasture-based dairy farms to climate change. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendricks, J.; Mills, K.E.; Sirovica, L.V.; Sundermann, L.; Bolton, S.E.; von Keyserlingk, M.G. Public perceptions of potential adaptations for mitigating heat stress on Australian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 5893–5908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranasinghe, R.D.A.K.; Korale-Gedara, P.M.; Weerasooriya, S.A. Climate change adaptation and adaptive capacities of dairy farmers: Evidence from village tank cascade systems in Sri Lanka. Agric. Syst. 2023, 206, 103609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Region | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N° | % | N° | % | N° | % | |
XV | 35 | (0.07%) | 42 | (0.18%) | 25 | (0.18%) |
I | 6 | (0.01%) | 4 | (0.07%) | 10 | (0.07%) |
II | 47 | (0.1%) | 5 | (0.1%) | 14 | (0.1%) |
II | 76 | (0.16%) | 25 | (0.25%) | 36 | (0.25%) |
IV | 696 | (1.48%) | 269 | (1.67%) | 238 | (1.67%) |
V | 1771 | (3.78%) | 634 | (1.57%) | 223 | (1.57%) |
XIII | 2679 | (5.71%) | 654 | (1.76%) | 251 | (1.76%) |
VI | 2549 | (5.43%) | 728 | (2.9%) | 413 | (2.9%) |
VII | 4234 | (9.03%) | 1316 | (7.54%) | 1073 | (7.54%) |
VIII | 8325 | 17.75%) | 2487 | 15.38%) | 2188 | (15.38%) |
IX | 8490 | (18.1%) | 3149 | (32.9%) | 4679 | (32.9%) |
XIV | 6333 | (13.5%) | 3601 | (14.2%) | 2019 | (14.2%) |
X | 10,940 | (23.33%) | 5778 | 19.74%) | 2807 | (19.74%) |
XI | 719 | (1.53%) | 543 | (1.6%) | 228 | (1.6%) |
XII | 0 | (0.00%) | 45 | (0.13%) | 18 | (0.13%) |
Total | 46,900 | 100% | 19,280 | 100% | 14,222 | 100% |
Region | Stocking Rate (LU/ha) | Herd Size (LU/farm) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | |
XV | 1.3 ± 1.1 a | 1.8 ± 2 b | 2.1 ± 2.0 b | <0.01 | 21.0 ± 17.6 a | 15.3 ± 18.5 b | 18.9 ± 25.9 c | <0.01 |
I | 13.4 ± 20.0 * | 4.5 ± 3.7 | 3.6 ± 3.1 | 0.25 | 4.4 ± 2.7 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 5.2 ± 3.4 | 0.513 |
II | 1.8 ± 3.0 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 1.3 | 0.46 | 4.8 ± 4.4 | 4.8 ± 3 | 4.7 ± 7.5 | 0.989 |
III | 0.9 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 2.0 | 1.4 ± 1.5 | 0.11 | 26.5 ± 37.1 a | 64.3 ± 101.5 b | 33.9 ± 72.5 ab | 0.03 |
IV | 1.1 ± 1.8 a | 2.3 ± 6.6 b | 2.5 ± 7.5 b | <0.01 | 9.9 ± 19.5 a | 15.2 ± 44.2 b | 9.3 ± 41.5 ab | 0.04 |
V | 2.8 ± 6.1 | 2.6 ± 6.6 | 3.6 ± 7.4 | 0.12 | 13.1 ± 46.9 a | 20.3 ± 76 a | 57.9 ± 273.7 b | <0.01 |
XIII | 2.3 ± 5.2 | 2.2 ± 4.4 | 2.7 ± 6.0 | 0.40 | 21.7 ± 78.5 a | 37.1 ± 109.7 b | 49.4 ± 157.8 b | <0.01 |
VI | 1.8 ± 7.6 | 1.7 ± 7.1 | 2.0 ± 5.8 | 0.82 | 13.5 ± 49.4 a | 16.9 ± 53.5 ab | 20.4 ± 79 b | 0.03 |
VII | 0.8 ± 1.6 a | 1.1 ± 2.0 b | 1.2 ± 2.4 b | <0.01 | 15.6 ± 40.7 b | 15.4 ± 32.7 b | 11.9 ± 23.1 a | 0.01 |
VIII | 0.7 ± 1.2 a | 1.1 ± 2.1 b | 1.1 ± 2.1 b | <0.01 | 21.9 ± 71.7 a | 30.8 ± 119.5 b | 24.7 ± 174.4 a | 0.01 |
IX | 0.7 ± 0.9 a | 0.8 ± 0.9 b | 0.8 ± 1.5 b | <0.01 | 20.3 ± 64.7 b | 30.8 ± 123.8 b | 15.1 ± 73.5 a | <0.01 |
XIV | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 1.0 ± 0.7 | 1.2 ± 1.0 | <0.01 | 41.7 ± 123.2 a | 66.3 ± 201.7 b | 104.3 ± 399.1 c | <0.01 |
X | 0.7 ± 0.7 a | 0.9 ± 0.9 b | 1.0 ± 1.0 c | <0.01 | 42 ± 190.5 a | 67.3 ± 247 b | 112.4 ± 993.6 c | <0.01 |
XI | 0.2 ± 0.4 a | 0.4 ± 0.7 b | 0.5 ± 0.9 b | <0.01 | 56.7 ± 93.2 a | 43.1 ± 53.5 b | 33.4 ± 44.6 b | <0.01 |
XII | ----- | 0.9 ± 1.8 | 3.0 ± 10.5 | 0.19 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 49.2 ± 59.7 a | 134.2 ± 194.1 b | <0.01 |
National | 1.0 ± 2.7 a | 1.1 ± 2.5 b | 1.1 ± 2.4 b | <0.01 | 27.9 ± 114.8 a | 46.8 ± 177.6 b | 50.0 ± 477.2 b | <0.01 |
Reg. | Natural Grassland (%) | Improved Grassland (%) | Sown Grassland (%) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | |
XV | 0 ± 0 | 3.4 ± 13.9 | 0.3 ± 1.3 | 0.19 | 0.4 ± 2.4 | 2.4 ± 15.4 | 0 ± 0 | 0.56 | 48.3 ± 24.9 | 50.7 ± 33.9 | 63.4 ± 31.8 | 0.142 |
I | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | ---- | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | --- | 56.5 ± 33.2 b | 25.8 ± 24 ab | 9.4 ± 19.4 a | <0.01 |
II | 0.3 ± 1.7 a | 0 ± 0 a | 11.6 ± 23.7 b | <0.01 | 2.9 ± 12.7 | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | 0.61 | 60.9 ± 23.1 | 57.9 ± 22.9 | 36.5 ± 25 | <0.01 |
III | 6.7 ± 14.1 | 9 ± 21.4 | 3.2 ± 8.7 | 0.297 | 0.7 ± 3.6 | 1 ± 3.5 | 0 ± 0 | 0.4 | 15.2 ± 16 a | 33.8 ± 28.5 b | 30.4 ± 26.4 b | <0.01 |
IV | 8.9 ± 22.2 a | 18.9 ± 28 b | 9.8 ± 21.5 a | <0.01 | 1.6 ± 7.4 a | 14.3 ± 27.4 b | 0.8 ± 5.8 a | <0.01 | 10.2 ± 17 a | 14.5 ± 23.8 b | 12.2 ± 20.1 ab | <0.01 |
V | 16.1 ± 29.3 | 18.8 ± 29.9 | 15 ± 28.8 | 0.08 | 2.6 ± 11.7 a | 7.9 ± 20.9 b | 1.1 ± 6.8 a | <0.01 | 14 ± 22.9 | 13.6 ± 23.7 | 13.9 ± 24.6 | 0.912 |
XIII | 13.2 ± 26.2 a | 14.6 ± 28 a | 20.2 ± 32.5 b | <0.01 | 13.7 ± 26.2 | 17.2 ± 30.2 | 8.4 ± 23.1 | <0.01 | 18.3 ± 26.5 | 18.9 ± 25.4 | 22 ± 29.1 | 0.1 |
VI | 16.3 ± 29 a | 19.9 ± 30.2 b | 20.4 ± 31.5 b | <0.01 | 7.7 ± 18.6 b | 8.1 ± 22.2 b | 3.6 ± 14.9 a | <0.01 | 14 ± 22.7 a | 14.7 ± 23.4 a | 19.8 ± 28.4 b | <0.01 |
VII | 22.4 ± 28.4 a | 22.6 ± 31.4 a | 30.5 ± 34.8 b | <0.01 | 18.6 ± 27.4 b | 24.1 ± 32.7 c | 11.7 ± 25.4 a | <0.01 | 9.7 ± 18.5 | 11.1 ± 21.5 | 9.8 ± 20.8 | 0.06 |
VIII | 37.2 ± 30 b | 33.8 ± 31.4 a | 36.2 ± 31.5 b | <0.01 | 8.2 ± 18.1 b | 15.4 ± 25.2 c | 4.4 ± 14.2 a | <0.01 | 5.1 ± 11.3 a | 10.5 ± 16.8 c | 8 ± 17.7 b | <0.01 |
IX | 46.8 ± 26.4 c | 38.3 ± 30.8 a | 42.4 ± 28.6 b | <0.01 | 6 ± 16.3 b | 13 ± 23.5 c | 4.3 ± 13.3 a | <0.01 | 4.4 ± 9.6 a | 7 ± 14.1 b | 4.5 ± 12.5 a | <0.01 |
XIV | 43.2 ± 30.1 b | 34.6 ± 32.1 a | 36.2 ± 32.1 a | <0.01 | 16.6 ± 24.1 a | 28.9 ± 31.7 c | 24.2 ± 31.7 b | <0.01 | 6.6 ± 13.6 b | 5 ± 12.1 a | 4.3 ± 12 a | <0.01 |
X | 30.3 ± 29.2 b | 28 ± 28.7 a | 32.8 ± 31.4 c | <0.01 | 27.9 ± 29.7 b | 31.9 ± 30.1 c | 26.1 ± 31 a | <0.01 | 4.6 ± 10.7 c | 3.6 ± 9.4 b | 2.9 ± 8.6 a | 0.11 |
XI | 43.3 ± 26.8 c | 39 ± 25.9 b | 33.6 ± 28.3 a | <0.01 | 4.3 ± 12 a | 9.3 ± 17.7 b | 5.9 ± 15 a | <0.01 | 2.3 ± 8.8 a | 4 ± 11 b | 2.5 ± 9.4 a | <0.01 |
XII | 0 ± 0 | 63.7 ± 30.2 | 71.5 ± 30.5 | 0.36 | 0 ± 0 | 2.5 ± 7.6 | 1.9 ± 6.7 | 0.76 | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 1 | 0.12 |
Total | 33.1 ± 30.7 b | 30.4 ± 31 a | 35.4 ± 31.5 c | <0.01 | 14.4 ± 24.5 b | 22.3 ± 29.5 c | 11.9 ± 24.2 a | <0.01 | 7.2 ± 15.4 b | 7.4 ± 15.9 b | 6.3 ± 15.9 a | <0.01 |
Herd Size (CLU/Farm) | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | Variation (1997–2021) |
---|---|---|---|---|
≤10 | 34,841 (74.29%) * | 12,234 (63.45%) * | 10,551 (74.19%) * | −69.7% |
11–50 | 9273 (19.77%) * | 5027 (26.07%) * | 2553 (17.95%) * | −72.5% |
51–200 | 2250 (4.8%) * | 1380 (7.16%) * | 631 (4.44%) * | −72.0% |
201–500 | 473 (1.01%) * | 522 (2.71%) * | 296 (2.08%) * | −37.4% |
501–1000 | 54 (0.12%) * | 95 (0.49%) * | 132 (0.93%) * | 144.4% |
>1000 | 9 (0.02%) * | 22 (0.11%) | 59 (0.41%) * | 555.6% |
Total | 46,900 (100%) | 19,280 (100%) | 14,222 (100%) | −69.7% |
Herd Size (CLU/Farm) | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
≤10 | 0.96 ± 2.33 a | 1.05 ± 1.93 b | 0.97 ± 1.68 a | <0.01 |
11–50 | 0.92 ± 3.88 a | 1.09 ± 2.84 b | 1.58 ± 3.97 c | <0.01 |
51–200 | 0.99 ± 2.69 a | 1.1 ± 0.85 a | 1.49 ± 3.08 b | <0.01 |
201–500 | 1.09 ± 0.82 a | 1.29 ± 0.85 b | 1.45 ± 0.88 c | <0.01 |
501–1000 | 1.12 ± 0.57 | 3.21 ± 17.93 | 2.43 ± 6.01 | 0.55 |
>1000 | 1.39 ± 0.95 | 1.5 ± 0.71 | 2.63 ± 7 | 0.66 |
Total | 1.0 ± 2.7 a | 1.1 ± 2.5 b | 1.1 ± 2.4 b | <0.01 |
Herd Size (CLU) | Number of Farms | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socking Rate (BLU/ha) | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | Variation (1997–2021) |
Less than 1 BLU/ha | 14 ± 65 b | 21 ± 100 c | 14 ± 51 a | 0.00 | 35,470 (72.5%) * | 12,679 (59.6%) * | 9287 (57.2%) * | 0.00 | −73.8% |
1–2 BLU/ha | 26 ± 70 a | 52 ± 128 c | 84 ± 683 b | 0.00 | 7795 (15.9%) * | 4807 (22.6%) * | 3340 (20.6%) * | −57.2% | |
2–3 BLU/ha | 15 ± 71 a | 34 ± 96 b | 61 ± 189 b | 0.00 | 1754 (3.6%) * | 1012 (4.8%) * | 869 (5.3%) * | −50.5% | |
3–4 BLU/ha | 16 ± 64 a | 40 ± 187 ab | 44 ± 318 b | 0.05 | 626 (1.3%) * | 273 (1.3%) * | 302 (1.9%) * | −51.8% | |
4–5 BLU/ha | 9 ± 22 a | 19 ± 63 ab | 40 ± 156 b | 0.00 | 339 (0.7%) * | 153 (0.7%) | 134 (0.8%) * | −60.5% | |
5–10 BLU/ha | 9 ± 30 a | 16 ± 59 ab | 39 ± 189 b | 0.00 | 603 (1.2%) | 238 (1.1%) | 190 (1.2%) | −68.5% | |
More than 10 BLU/ha | 8 ± 15 a | 16 ± 57 ab | 45 ± 164 b | 0.00 | 313 (0.6%) | 118 (0.6%) | 100 (0.6%) | −68.1% |
Bovine Stocking Rate (BLU/ha) | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 | 36.3 ± 30 a | 33.7 ± 30.2 b | 36.6 ± 30.1 a | <0.01 |
1–2 | 25.3 ± 30.8 a | 24.7 ± 31.1 a | 34.8 ± 33.6 b | <0.01 |
2–3 | 21.3 ± 31.1 a | 24 ± 32.4 a | 30.5 ± 33.4 b | <0.01 |
3–4 | 14.6 ± 27 a | 20.6 ± 31.1 a | 33.3 ± 36.1 b | <0.01 |
4–5 | 15.9 ± 29.1 a | 23.1 ± 33 b | 23.8 ± 34 b | <0.01 |
5–10 | 15.5 ± 29.6 a | 21.5 ± 33.2 a | 30.3 ± 36.2 b | <0.01 |
More than 10 | 12.6 ± 28.9 a | 20.7 ± 33.6 ab | 18.8 ± 29.9 a | <0.01 |
Total | 33.1 ± 30.7 b | 30.4 ± 31 a | 35.4 ± 31.5 c | <0.01 |
Bovine Stocking Rate (BLU/ha) | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 | 12.4 ± 22.1 b | 18.1 ± 26.2 b | 7.1 ± 17.5 a | <0.01 |
1–2 | 23.9 ± 30.8 a | 33.8 ± 32.9 b | 22.4 ± 31.3 a | <0.01 |
2–3 | 16.3 ± 28.3 a | 26.5 ± 33.5 b | 23.2 ± 33.7 b | <0.01 |
3–4 | 13.8 ± 28.5 a | 21 ± 32.3 b | 15.6 ± 30.8 a | <0.01 |
4–5 | 10.4 ± 25.6 a | 14.8 ± 31.1 ab | 16.9 ± 31.3 c | 0.05 |
5–10 | 8.9 ± 23.5 a | 13.3 ± 29.8 | 6.6 ± 21.8 a | 0.01 |
More than 10 | 7 ± 21.5 a | 10.4 ± 25 b | 2.8 ± 14.4 a | 0.01 |
Total | 14.4 ± 24.5 a | 22.3 ± 29.5 b | 11.9 ± 24.2 a | <0.01 |
Bovine Stocking Rate (BLU/ha) | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 | 4.9 ± 11.1 b | 4.8 ± 11.5 b | 4.3 ± 12 a | <0.01 |
1–2 | 12.6 ± 19.9 c | 11.5 ± 19.1 b | 8.9 ± 18.9 a | <0.01 |
2–3 | 17.1 ± 26.5 c | 15 ± 24.5 a | 11.8 ± 22.9 a | <0.01 |
3–4 | 20.8 ± 29.8 b | 16.9 ± 25.7 ab | 13.5 ± 26.3 a | <0.01 |
4–5 | 14.8 ± 27.8 | 17.7 ± 29.6 | 11.7 ± 21.7 | 0.17 |
5–10 | 18.4 ± 30.5 | 14.7 ± 26.5 | 14.3 ± 27.6 | 0.12 |
More than 10 | 15.9 ± 29.5 | 10.7 ± 25.2 | 12 ± 27 | 0.18 |
Total | 7.2 ± 15.4 b | 7.4 ± 15.9 b | 6.3 ± 15.9 a | <0.01 |
Variable | Abbreviation | Description | Calculation Formula |
---|---|---|---|
Bulls | Bulls | Number of bulls in the herd | |
Cows | CLU | Livestock units corresponding to cows | |
Size herd | SH | Bovine livestock units | |
Total bovine | NBT | Number of bovines | |
Total livestock units | TLU | Livestock units of all animal species on the farm | |
Farm area | Farm area | Total farm area | |
Relative presence of cows in the herd | CLUB | Percentage of bovine livestock units that correspond to cows | |
Relative presence of cows in the farm | CLUT | Percentage of total livestock units that correspond to cows | |
Bovine stocking rate | BSR | Bovine stocking rate | |
Farm stocking rate | FST | Farm stocking rate | |
Relative presence of natural pasture | RPNP | Percentage of the property area occupied by natural grassland | |
Relative presence of improved pasture | RPIP | Percentage of the property area occupied by improved grassland | |
Relative presence of sown pasture | RPSP | Percentage of the property area occupied by planted meadow | |
Relative presence of forest species | RPF | Percentage of the property area occupied by forest species | |
Relative presence of orchard | RPO | Percentage of the property area occupied by fruit species | |
Relative presence of crops | RPC | Percentage of the property area occupied by crops |
Component | Eigenvalues | % of Variance | % Cumulative |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.438 | 34.4 | 34.4 |
2 | 1.885 | 18.9 | 53.3 |
3 | 1.255 | 12.6 | 65.9 |
4 | 1.1 | 11 | 76.9 |
Principal Component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Bulls | 0.705 | −0.065 | 0.031 | −0.025 |
Cows | 0.945 | 0.137 | 0.073 | 0.042 |
CLUB | −0.051 | 0.908 | 0.034 | 0.093 |
CLUT | 0.105 | 0.904 | 0.11 | 0.071 |
SH | 0.971 | 0.033 | 0.076 | 0.04 |
BSR | −0.028 | 0.07 | −0.016 | 0.621 |
TLU | 0.967 | 0.008 | 0.06 | 0.038 |
RPNP | −0.044 | −0.01 | −0.802 | −0.382 |
RPIP | 0.123 | 0.141 | 0.864 | −0.199 |
SPP | 0.089 | 0.059 | 0.087 | 0.812 |
Group | Farm Number (% of Farms) | Variation (1997–2021) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | 2007 | 2021 | ||
I: Extensive System | 16,168 (34.5%) * | 7251 (37.6%) | 7121 (50.1%) * | −9047 (−56.0) |
II: Dual-purpose extensive system | 16,193 (34.5%) * | 4589 (23.8%) * | 3923 (27.6%) * | −12,270 (−75.8%) |
III: Specialized semi-intensive system | 9101 (19.4%) * | 5669 (29.4%) * | 2056 (14.5%) * | −7045 (−77.4) |
IV: Intensive system | 5432 (11.6%) * | 1771 (9.2%) * | 1122 (7.9%) * | −4310 (−79.3) |
Variables | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bulls (number) | 0.5 ± 2.3 a | 0.7 ± 12.3 a | 0.9 ± 2.3 b | 0.6 ± 1.4 a | <0.01 |
Cows (LU) | 18.8 ± 92.2 b | 8.5 ± 232.5 a | 42.6 ± 103.8 d | 36.6 ± 157.9 c | <0.01 |
CLUB (%) | 73 ± 13.7 d | 42.0 ± 14.0 a | 64.8 ± 15 b | 68.1 ± 16.3 c | <0.01 |
CLUT (%) | 57 ± 17.3 c | 27.8 ± 10.4 a | 55.0 ± 17.0 c | 52.7 ± 19.5 b | <0.01 |
SH (bovine LU) | 27.1 ± 122.8 b | 19.7 ± 332 a | 65.9 ± 155.1 d | 56.5 ± 247.5 c | <0.01 |
TLU (total LU) | 31.1 ± 125.5 a | 26.9 ± 335.4 a | 69.8 ± 157.5 c | 62.2 ± 261.1 b | <0.01 |
Bovine stocking rate (bovine LU/ha) | 0.8 ± 0.8 a | 0.6 ± 0.7 a | 1.0 ± 0.8 | 3.1 ± 6.5 | <0.01 |
Farm stocking rate (total LU/ha) | 1.0 ± 1.8 a | 1.0 ± 1.5 a | 1.3 ± 1.2 b | 4.6 ± 11 c | <0.01 |
Total bovine (number) | 36.6 ± 160.9 a | 27.7 ± 438.4 a | 91.5 ± 217.1 d | 78.3 ± 345.1 c | <0.01 |
RPNP (%) | 50.6 ± 29.6 d | 38.2 ± 27.2 c | 5.6 ± 10.2 a | 6.7 ± 14.3 a | <0.01 |
RPIP (%) | 3.8 ± 8.8 a | 4 ± 9.5 a | 59.8 ± 20.7 c | 6.3 ± 12.9 b | <0.01 |
RPSP (%) | 2.5 ± 5.7 a | 2.6 ± 6 a | 4.6 ± 7.5 b | 42.4 ± 24.9 c | <0.01 |
RPF (%) | 0.14 ± 0.21 b | 0.23 ± 0.26 c | 0.1 ± 0.14 b | 0.05 ± 0.11 a | <0.01 |
RPO (%) | 0.008 ± 0.044 b | 0.007 ± 0.039 a | 0.008 ± 0.027 b | 0.007 ± 0.044 ab | <0.01 |
RPC (%) | 0.15 ± 0.22 b | 0.16 ± 0.21 b | 0.12 ± 0.15 a | 0.23 ± 0.25 c | <0.01 |
Farm area (ha) | 72.9 ± 471.6 b | 82.2 ± 635.9 c | 72 ± 144.8 b | 50.1 ± 441.9 a | <0.01 |
Variable | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | 1997 | 2007 | 2021 | p Value | |
Bulls (number) | 0.47 ± 1.14 a | 0.56 ± 1.48 b | 0.54 ± 4.27 b | <0.01 | 0.55 ± 1.64 a | 0.86 ± 4.98 ab | 1.16 ± 30.19 b | 0.014 | 0.73 ± 1.35 a | 0.97 ± 2.32 b | 1.42 ± 4.31 c | <0.01 | 0.53 ± 1.16 a | 0.71 ± 1.68 b | 0.65 ± 1.77 b | <0.01 |
Cows (LU) | 16 ± 45 a | 21 ± 67 b | 24 ± 165 b | <0.01 | 7 ± 23 | 9 ± 52 | 15 ± 579 | 0.18 | 27 ± 56 a | 47 ± 99 b | 97 ± 208 c | <0.01 | 24 ± 62 a | 59 ± 264 b | 59 ± 233 b | <0.01 |
CLUB (%) | 71.5 ± 12.7 a | 72 ± 13 b | 77.5 ± 15.4 c | <0.01 | 41.4 ± 13.9 a | 44.3 ± 13.3 b | 41.6 ± 14.5 a | <0.01 | 63.7 ± 14.7 a | 64.7 ± 15.1 b | 69.8 ± 15.5 c | <0.01 | 67.3 ± 15.6 a | 68 ± 16.4 a | 72 ± 19 b | <0.01 |
CLUT (%) | 54.3 ± 16 a | 57.1 ± 16 b | 62.8 ± 19.8 c | <0.01 | 27.3 ± 10.1 a | 29.4 ± 10.6 c | 28.2 ± 11.2 b | <0.01 | 53 ± 16.1 a | 55.3 ± 17.1 b | 63.4 ± 18.1 c | <0.01 | 51.6 ± 18.5 a | 54.4 ± 19.5 b | 55.4 ± 23.4 b | <0.01 |
SH (bovine LU) | 23.2 ± 68.4 | 30.8 ± 101.1 | 32.3 ± 208.8 | <0.01 | 17.6 ± 58.5 | 21.4 ± 114.1 | 26.5 ± 815.5 | 0.304 | 44.4 ± 90.5 a | 74.2 ± 154.2 b | 138 ± 296.2 c | <0.01 | 39.8 ± 106.1 a | 90.8 ± 429.8 b | 83.7 ± 323.7 b | <0.01 |
TLU (total LU) | 27.5 ± 73.5 a | 35 ± 104.9 b | 35.3 ± 209.9 b | <0.01 | 24.7 ± 71.8 | 29.5 ± 125.8 | 33 ± 817.7 | 0.31 | 48.4 ± 93.8 a | 78.5 ± 157.4 b | 140.9 ± 297.5 c | <0.01 | 44.9 ± 111.3 | 98.8 ± 461.2 | 88.4 ± 325.6 | <0.01 |
Bovine stocking rate (bovine LU/ha) | 0.69 ± 0.74 a | 0.83 ± 0.87 b | 0.86 ± 0.93 b | <0.01 | 0.55 ± 0.63 a | 0.68 ± 0.81 b | 0.74 ± 0.86 c | <0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.8 a | 1.08 ± 0.78 b | 1.33 ± 0.86 c | <0.01 | 2.91 ± 5.93 a | 3.14 ± 7.43 a | 3.9 ± 7.61 b | <0.01 |
Farm stocking rate (total LU/ha) | 0.94 ± 1.29 | 1.1 ± 1.46 | 1.12±2.85 | <0.01 | 0.89 ± 1.5 a | 1.07 ± 1.6 b | 1.16 ± 1.64 c | <0.01 | 1.17 ± 1.21 a | 1.31 ± 1.11 b | 1.49 ± 1 c | <0.01 | 4.38 ± 10.43 | 4.7 ± 11.34 a | 5.77 ± 12.85 b | <0.01 |
Total bovine (number) | 32 ± 95 a | 42 ± 142 b | 42 ± 264 b | <0.01 | 25 ± 91 | 31 ± 166 | 36 ± 1069 | 0.304 | 62 ± 129 a | 104 ± 219 b | 187 ± 407 c | <0.01 | 56 ± 155 a | 126 ± 599 b | 113 ± 439 b | <0.01 |
RPNP (%) | 51 ± 29.3 b | 51.8 ± 28.8 b | 48.6 ± 30.7 a | <0.01 | 39.4 ± 27 c | 37.1 ± 27.3 b | 34.7 ± 27.6 a | <0.01 | 6 ± 10.5 b | 5.1 ± 9.7 a | 5.1 ± 10.1 a | <0.01 | 6.2 ± 13.6 a | 6.7 ± 14.7 a | 9.7 ± 16.7 b | <0.01 |
RPIP (%) | 3.5 ± 8.2 b | 5.1 ± 9.9 c | 3.2 ± 8.7 a | <0.01 | 3.7 ± 9.4 | 5.7 ± 10.7 | 2.8 ± 8 | <0.01 | 57.2 ± 21 a | 62.4 ± 19.9 b | 64.4 ± 19.9 c | <0.01 | 6.4 ± 12.6 b | 7.9 ± 14.4 b | 3.2 ± 10.8 a | <0.01 |
RPSP (%) | 2.4 ± 5.2 a | 2.8 ± 6.2 b | 2.4 ± 6.1 a | <0.01 | 2.4 ± 5.5 a | 3 ± 6.7 c | 2.8 ± 6.9 b | <0.01 | 4.8 ± 7.3 b | 4.7 ± 8 b | 3.2 ± 6.7 a | <0.01 | 39.5 ± 24.5 a | 46.8 ± 23.6 b | 49.1 ± 26.8 b | <0.01 |
RPF (%) | 0.13 ± 0.21 a | 0.13 ± 0.19 a | 0.15 ± 0.23 b | <0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.26 b | 0.22 ± 0.24 a | 0.25 ± 0.27 c | <0.01 | 0.1 ± 0.15 a | 0.1 ± 0.14 a | 0.11 ± 0.15 b | <0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.11 | 0.04 ± 0.1 | 0.05 ± 0.12 | 0.625 |
RPO (%) | 0.0085 ± 0.041 c | 0.0003 ± 0.011 b | 0.015 ± 0.065 a | <0.01 | 0.0064 ± 0.0376 b | 0.0004 ± 0.0068 a | 0.0164 ± 0.0611 c | <0.01 | 0.0129 ± 0.033 c | 0.0001 ± 0.0011 a | 0.0084 ± 0.0321 b | <0.01 | 0.0054 ± 0.0295 b | 0.0004 ± 0.056 a | 0.0278 ± 0.0013 c | <0.01 |
RPC (%) | 0.19 ± 0.24 c | 0.13 ± 0.2 b | 0.09 ± 0.17 a | <0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.22 c | 0.13 ± 0.2 b | 0.1 ± 0.17 a | <0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.17 c | 0.09 ± 0.12 b | 0.04 ± 0.1 a | <0.01 | 0.27 ± 0.25 c | 0.21 ± 0.23 b | 0.08 ± 0.16 a | <0.01 |
Farm area (ha) | 74.6 ± 336.8 | 73.1 ± 290.3 | 69 ± 781.4 | 0.71 | 83.1 ± 527.7 b | 96.5 ± 953.8 b | 61.9 ± 576.7 a | 0.42 | 59.8 ± 112.3 a | 77.9 ± 154.5 b | 110.3 ± 218.6 c | <0.01 | 38.4 ± 101.5 a | 86.3 ± 927.4 b | 49.5 ± 197.3 a | <0.01 |
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. |
© 2024 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
Toro-Mujica, P.; Vera-Infanzón, R. Evolving Dairy Cattle Systems in Chile: Structural Shifts and Adaptation Strategies. Animals 2024, 14, 2245. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152245
Toro-Mujica P, Vera-Infanzón R. Evolving Dairy Cattle Systems in Chile: Structural Shifts and Adaptation Strategies. Animals. 2024; 14(15):2245. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152245
Chicago/Turabian StyleToro-Mujica, Paula, and Raúl Vera-Infanzón. 2024. "Evolving Dairy Cattle Systems in Chile: Structural Shifts and Adaptation Strategies" Animals 14, no. 15: 2245. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152245