Case Study: Sheep Production System as a Sustainable Alternative
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Case Study: Sheep Production System as a Sustainable Alternative
Juan Manuel Vargas Romero1, José Cortés Zorrilla1, Jorge Eduardo Vieyra Durán1,
Viridiana Alemán López1, Hermenegildo Román Losada Custardoy1, Carla Sofía García
Barrera2, Tammy Unger Cancela2, Lorena Luna Rodríguez*1
1
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa, Ciencias Biológicas y de la Salud, Área de
Sistemas de Producción Agropecuarios. Avenida San Rafael Atlixco 186, Colonia Vicentina,
09340 Iztapalapa, Ciudad de México
2
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa, Licenciatura en Producción Animal. Avenida
San Rafael Atlixco 186, Colonia Vicentina, 09340 Iztapalapa, Ciudad de México, México.
Abstract
Despite technological development, the current economic system has generated exclusion from
work and extreme poverty persists socially. That’s why, now and in the future, new production
and consumption models that must be viable for all are inevitable.
In recent years, sheep's milk production in some regions has been an essential part of these
development models, proving to be an interesting model of business activity for those seeking
new agricultural alternatives. In America, sheep farming has 87 million heads, which represent
little more than 7% of the world population and less than 0.5% is used for milk production. The
dairy sheep production units have peculiarities, such as the high price of dairy products, low
investment, minimal infrastructure and facilities, and job creation.En consecuencia, la
producción de ovino lechero puede ser una alternativa para establecer las prácticas ganaderas
como una propuesta innovadora y un modelo productivo que puede prosperar en zonas rurales
desfavorecidas. Además, estos sistemas de producción pueden tener solidez ecológica,
aceptación social y viabilidad económica.The objective of the present study was to describe dairy
sheep production and cheese production as a sustainable production strategy.
Keywords: Sheep, Dairy, Agricultural, Cheese, Sustainable
1. Introduction
Despite technological development, the current economic system has generated exclusion from
work and extreme social poverty persists. For this reason, now and in the future, new production
and consumption models that must be viable for all are inevitable. Given this perspective, an
alternative model that favors equity and fosters the foundations of local strategies as well as the
solidarity economy to achieve development is of interest (Tapia et al., 2017). Since tacitly, the
social economy generates dynamics of self-employment and strengthens solidarity among
economic actors to face new needs or those that could not been satisfied, particularly those of
1American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
populations with fewer resources, developing actions that benefit the environment with a
cooperative value of democratization and responsibility (Gaiger, 2004). In recent years, the
production of sheep milk in some regions is a fundamental part of development models, proving
to be an interesting model of business activity for those looking for new agricultural alternatives.
FAO (2020) statistics indicate that worldwide the number of dairy sheep is 251,034,215 and that
the Asian continent has the most dairy sheep (126,352,527 heads) and sheep milk production
(4,924,398 t). In America, sheep farming has 87 million+ heads, which represent 7.2% of the
world population and only 0.42% is used for milk production (SAGARPA, 2016).
The dairy sheep production units (UPP) have particularities (high-price dairy products, low
investment, a minimum of infrastructure and facilities, and job creation) for which, dairy sheep
production can be an alternative to establish the livestock practices, an innovative proposal and a
productive model that can flourish in disadvantaged rural areas (Mantecón and Lavín, 2000;
Nava et al., 2019). Furthermore, these production systems can have ecological robustness, social
acceptance, and economic viability. In this context, the objective of the present study was to
describe dairy sheep livestock production and cheese production as a sustainable production
strategy.
2. Materials & Methods
2.1. Generalities of the Livestock Production Unit
2.1.1 Location
The Livestock Production Unit (UPP) is at the Incalli Ixcahuicopa Center for Sustainability
(CENTLI). This center is the physical space to carry out research on the sustainable management
of natural resources of the Sierra Nevada Research Program (PISN) of the Autonomous
Metropolitan University (UAM).
The UPP is located in the municipality of Tlalmanalco in the State of Mexico. In the
geographical coordinates: latitude 19 ° 12 '32' 'N, longitude 98 ° 47' 01 "W, and an altitude of
2,300 m (INEGI, 2009). The climate is semi-cold sub humid, with rains in summer, average
annual precipitation of 1,092 mm and an average annual temperature of 13.2 ° C (Noyola and
Méndez, 2018).
2.1.2. Characteristics
In this production system there are animals of the East Friesian breed, this breed has high rates of
fertility and prolificacy, precociousness (age at first calving 14-16 months), good maternal
instinct and milk production (700 to 1,000 L per day) for a period of 200 to 250 days a year
(Aguilar, 2017).
2American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
The UPP herd is free of brucellosis, zoo technical activities are registered and identified with the
earring of the National Individual Identification System for Livestock (Sistema Nacional de
Identificación Individual de Ganado: SINIIGA).
The food provided we formulated based on the nutritional requirements of each stage of growth
and fattening of the animals, to achieve high performance, both in milk and meat. Their water
needs are also (Luna et al., 2020).
The registration of the mating of the ewes (July), the births (January) and the weight at birth of
the lambs is carried out. Milking starts in early February (800 mL at 1 L for 200 days a year),
following good milking practices and monitoring with the California test to identify subclinical
mastitis.
2.1.3. Cheese making
In the production process, pasteurized milk is used, calcium, ferments (lactic culture composed
of Lactobacillus sp strains), and rennet are added. In the case of the cheeses made at CENTLI-
PISN, after obtaining the curdled milk, it is molded and pressed (24 hours), salted by immersion
(18 hours) and matured (3 months) at 15ºC and 85% of relative humidity (Luna et al., 2019).
2.2. Sustainability assessment
2.2.1 Components
With the data obtained through a survey applied in the UPP and with the data and characteristics
of the UPP, the components were determined. In each dimension (Social, economic and
environmental) two components were considered; for the environment: resource management
and herd and health management; economically: economic viability and efficiency of the
production process and social: satisfaction of basic needs and social integration.
2.2.2 Indicators
The indicators were constructed and described, modifying the methodology of Losada et al.
(2009). We consider the variable that sets a trend in the field of UPPs (Sarandón, 2002) as an
indicator. Subsequently, the indicators they grouped into the aforementioned components were
based on Vences et al. (2015).
We transform the value of each indicator, regardless of the original unit, to allow its integration.
The transformation was performed on a scale of 2 to 20, where 20 is the highest sustainability
value and 2 the lowest (Table 1).
2.2.3. Description of the indicators of the environmental dimension
Resource management
a) Destination of wastewater:
3American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Directly to streams or rivers (2), Sewerage (8), Water recycling (14), No wastewater
generation (20)
b) Excreta Treatment:
Without management (2), Insipient management (8), Collection and direct application in
pasture (14), Compost production (20)
c) Soil conservation:
Lack of conservation practices (2), Use organic compost or live fences (8), Use organic
compost and live fences (14), Use organic compost, live fences and plant cover (20)
Herd health and management
d) Appearance of the herd:
Bad (2), Fair (8), Good (14), Excellent (20)
e) Synthetic products and medicines:
Frequent use (2), Occasional use (8), Low (14), No use (20)
2.2.4. Description of the indicators of the economic dimension
Economic feasibility
a) Employee salary:
Null (2), Bad (8), Fair (14), Good (20)
b) Market Access:
Competitive price (20), Medium competitive price (14), Unsatisfactory competitive price
(8), Uncompetitive price (2).
Production process efficiency
c) Origin of animals:
Local (20), Regional (14), National (8), Import (2)
d) Facilities and milk quality (compliance with space for animal welfare and hygiene):
Inadequate (2), Bad (8), Fair (14), Good (20)
e) SINIIGA certificate and identifier:
No certificate or identifier (2), Identifier (8), Brucellosis certificate (14), Brucellosis-free
herd certificate and SINIIGA identifier (20).
2.2.3 Description of the indicators of the social dimension
Satisfaction of basic needs
a) Schooling:
4American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Does not have (2), Primary (8), Baccalaureate (14), Professional (20)
b) Access to Services:
Null (2), Bad (8), Fair (14), Good (20)
c) Learning of production:
Less than a year (2), Between 2 and 3 years (8), Between 4 and 10 years (14), More than 10
years (20)
Social integration
d) Collective work (Association of producers):
Null (2), Bad (8), Fair (14), Good (20)
e) Future as a producer:
Good future of the dairy with generational change (20), Regular future of the dairy without
generational change (14), Regular future of the dairy without generational change (8), Bad
future of the dairy without generational change (2)
3 Results
The methodology used and the evaluation of the set of indicators established for the CENTLI
dairy sheep UPP, allowed obtaining the degree of sustainability of the dimensions:
environmental, economic and social (Tables 2, 3 and 4).In the environmental dimension, there
are values with equivalence at medium and high levels; consequently, this dimension obtained a
higher level (82) of sustainability.
In the case of the economic dimension (76), the indicator - origin of the animals - obtained a low
value because the animals in the herd did not acquire locally; the indicator -Certificate and
SINIIGA identifier- reached a medium value due to the fact that we carried out studies to
determine ‘brucellosis-free cattle’, but the receipt of the certificate is pending.
4 Discussions
Access to the market with competitive prices allows the commercialization of differentiated
sheep cheeses with a good profit margin. This agrees with what was reported by García-Díaz et
al. (2012), who indicated that sheep milk production is of great economic importance, presents a
productive and agro-industrial model at a regional level (Castilla y León in Spain) and in turn,
constitutes an important alternative for agricultural business in disadvantaged rural areas.
On the other hand, in the social dimension (58), the indicators -education, access to services and
learning of production-, give us uniform results with medium and high levels. In contrast to the
indicators of -association of producers and future as a producer-, present low results, which
projects a low sustainability in this dimension compared to the environmental and economic
5American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
one? It is necessary to disseminate information on the qualities of sheep cheeses and to know the
tastes of consumers to adapt technological processes.
5 Conclusions
The UPP for dairy sheep is environmentally and economically sustainable, since there is a proper
livestock correct management and has economic benefits from the sale of weaned lambs or from
obtaining milk for the production of semi-mature or mature cheeses. Although the dairy sheep
production system is little known in Mexico, it has potential for regional development.
6 Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the Incalli Ixcahuicopa Center for Sustainability (CENTLI)
for the facilities provided. This work is part of the research line "The role of animals in the
production of benefactors for the sustainable rural development of the metropolitan area of
Mexico City".
References
1) Aguilar, Luis, 2017. Reproductiva de ovejas Dorset importadas de Nueva Zelanda
tratadas con dos niveles de eCG inseminadas por laparoscopía (Tesis de Ingeniero
Agrónomo Zootecnista). Universidad Autónoma Del Estado De México Centro
Universitario Uaem, Temascaltepec, pp. 1-84.
2) FAO, 2020. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura.
Datos sobre alimentación y agricultura. http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#home
3) García-Díaz, L.K., Mantecón, A.R., Sepúlveda, W.S., M.T. Maza (2012). Producciónde
leche ovina como alternativa de negocio agropecuario : modelo de producción en Castilla
y León (España). Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios, 2012. 31: p. 6-18.
4) Gaiger L.I. (2004). Emprendimientos económicos solidarios. En la otra economía.
Altamira. Argentina.
5) González M.V., M.M. Tapia, Manual de manejo ovino (N° 03). Santiago: Instituto de
Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA). 2017.
6) INEGI, 2009. Prontuario de información geográfica municipal de los Estados Unidos
Mexicanos. Tlalmanalco, México, en:
http://www3.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/app/mexicocifras/datos_geograficos/15/15103.pdf,
consultado en septiembre de 2020.
7) Luna, Lorena, Hermenegildo Losada, José Cortés, Juan Manuel Vargas, Viridiana
Alemán, Jorge Vieyra, Alma Vicuña, 2019. Respuesta sensorial para el queso de leche de
oveja. International Multilingual Journal of Science and Technology, 4(12).
8) Luna, Lorena, Hermenegildo Losada, José Cortés, Juan Manuel Vargas, Viridiana
Alemán, Jorge Vieyra, Alma Vicuña, Guillermo Moreno, Francisco Bartolo, 2020. A
6American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Sheep Production System for Milk in The Izta-Popo Region. Scholars Middle East
Publishers, 6(1): 26-31.
9) Losada, H., Cortés, J., Rivera, J., Vieyra, J., Castillo, A., González, R. 2009. Evaluación
de la sustentabilidad de sistemas de engorda de ganado de carne de pequeña escala que
contribuyen al abasto de la Ciudad de México. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 21(1).
10) Mantecón Ruiz, Ángel, Lavín González maría Paz, 2000, Producción de leche de oveja:
la región de Castilla y León (España) como modelo. Cuadernos del Ceagro. no.2. pp.139-
151.
11) Nava, Alejandro, Rubén Martínez, Ángel Mastache, Raúl Ulloa, 2019. Curva de
rendimiento y composición de leche en ovejas criollas de la Montaña de Guerrero,
México. Ecosistemas y recursos agropecuarios, 6(17).
12) Noyola Jaime y Méndez Guadalupe 2018. Enciclopedia de los Municipios y
Delegaciones de México. Estado de México.
13) SAGARPA, 2016. Plan rector sistema producto ovinos (2015-2024).
14) Sarandón, S. J., Flores, C. C. 2009. Evaluación de la sustentabilidad en agroecosistemas:
una propuesta metodológica. Agroecología, (4): 19-28.
15) Tapia P.E.P., Tapia P.S.M., Moscoso C.J.L., Ortíz R.H.D. (2017). Economía solidaria:
estrategia alternativa para el desarrollo local. Visión Gerencial, 2.
16) Vences, P. J., Nájera, G. A., Albarrán, P. B., Arriaga, J. C. M., Rebollar, R. S., García, M.
A. 2015. Utilización del método idea para evaluar la sustentabilidad de la ganadería del
Estado de México. In: Iglesias P. D., Carreño, M. F., Carrillo A. A. N. (coord.)
Sustentabilidad productiva sectorial. Algunas evidencias de aplicación. CEDeS, 15-39.
Tables and figures
Table 1. Values used in the levels of sustainability for the UPP*
levels of sustainability Value
Wrong 2
Low 8
Medium 14
High 20
*UPP: Livestock Production Unit
7American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Table 2. Sustainability of the livestock production unit in the environmental dimension.
Components Indicators Value in UPP* Maximum value
Resource management
Destination of
wastewater 14 20
Excreta treatment 20 20
Soil conservation 14 20
Herd health and management
Appearance of the herd 20 20
Synthetic products and
medicines 14 20
Total 82 100
*UPP: Livestock Production Unit
8American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Table 3. Sustainability of the livestock production unit in the economic dimension.
Components Indicators Value in UPP* Maximum value
Economic feasibility
Employee salary 14 20
Market access 20 20
Production process efficiency
Origin of animals 8 20
Facilities and milk
quality 20 20
SINIIGA certificate
and identifier 14 20
Total 76 100
*UPP: Livestock Production Unit
9American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
Table 4. Sustainability of the livestock production unit in the social dimension.
Components Indicators Value in UPP* Maximum value
Satisfaction of basic needs
Schooling 14 20
Access to Services 20 20
Learning of production 14 20
Social integration
Collective work 2 20
Future as a producer 8 20
Total 58 100
*UPP: Livestock Production Unit
10American Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology (AJEST) Volume 7, 2021
List of abbreviations used
Livestock Production Unit (Unidad de Producción Pecuaria: UPP)
Incalli Ixcahuicopa Center for Sustainability (CENTLI).
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA)
Sierra Nevada Research Program (PISN)
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM)
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI)
Sistema Nacional de Identificación Individual de Ganado: SINIIGA
11You can also read
