Small ruminant production systems in Mexico and their effect on productive sustainability

Sistemas de producción de pequeños rumiantes en México y su efecto en la sostenibilidad productiva

In the small ruminant sector, there is a great interest in measuring and improving their production systems and their environmental performance, since its great adaptability and inhabits a wide variety of ecosystems, with a great biodiversity of food resources, grazing in turn, generates economic-productive and environmental benefits. However, unplanned management and overexploitation of the natural resources of these areas have caused erosion, water depletion and even desertification, in the same manner intensive production systems and intensive agriculture that feeds these farming systems. To compare scientific innovations in the sustainability of the different production systems of small ruminants a bibliometric analysis was carried out to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the management of extensive, semi-intensive and intensive-stable production systems in the sustainability of small ruminants. There is concern in society about the environmental impact of animal production systems and that these have been carried out in a sustainable way. This trend influences the production of sheep, goats, and white-tailed deer, which are develop in intensive, semi-extensive and extensive systems. Due to the pressure to increase the volume and efficiency of production and to cope with demand, intensive systems are best suited, but face greater environmental such emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which contribute to global warming and animal environmental problems. On the other hand, semi-extensive and extensive systems also emit GHGs, however are associated with greater animal welfare and cleaner production. However, are affected by seasonal variations for forage production to maintain production levels.

1. Haenlein GFW. Past, present, and future perspectives of small ruminant dairy research. J Dairy Sci. 2001; 84(9):2097–2115. https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74655-3
2. Pulina G, Milán MJ, Lavín MP, Theodoridis A, Morin E, Capote J, et al. Invited review: Current production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat sectors. J Dairy Sci. 2018; 101(8):6715–6729. https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14015
3. Marino R, Atzori AS, D’Andrea M, Iovane G, Trabalza-Marinucci M, Rinaldi L. Climate change: Production performance, health issues, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies in sheep and goat farming. Small Rumin Res. 2016; 135:50–59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2015.12.012
4. Aréchiga F, Aguilera JI, Rincón RM, Méndez de Lara S, Bañuelos VR, Meza-Herrera CA. Situación actual y perspectivas de la producción caprina ante el reto de la globalización. Trop Subtrop Agroecosys. 2008; 9(1):1–14. https://www.ccba.uady.mx/publicaciones/journal/vol-9-amca/Arechiga1.pdf
5. Díaz-Sánchez CC, Jaramillo-Villanueva JL, Bustamante-González Á, Vargas-López S, Delgado-Alvarado A, Hernández-Mendo O, et al. Evaluation of the profitability and competitiveness of sheep production systems in the region of Libres, Puebla. Rev Mex de Cienc Pecu. 2018; 9(2):263–277. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v9i2.4495
6. Herrera-Haro JG, Alvarez G, Bárcena-Gama R, Núñez-Aramburu JM. Caracterización de los rebaños ovinos en el sur de Ciudad de México, México. Acta Universitaria. 2019; 29:1–15. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2019.2022
7. Gallina S, Mandujano S, Villarreal-Espino-Barros OA. Monitoreo y manejo del venado cola blanca: Conceptos y métodos. Instituto de Ecología: Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla: México; 2014.
8. López-Soto JH, Badii MH. Depredación en crías de venado cola blanca (Odocoileus virginianus texanus) por coyote (Canis latrans) en una unidad de manejo y aprovechamiento del norte de Nuevo León, México. Acta Zool Mex. 2000; (81):135–138. https://doi.org/10.21829/azm.2000.81811877
10. Monteiro ALG, Faro AMC da F, Peres MTP, Batista R, Poli CHEC, Villalba JJ. The role of small ruminants on global climate change. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2018; 40:1–11. https://dx.doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v40i1.43124
12. Villarruel-Sahagúna L, Troyo-Diéguez E, Gutiérrez-Ruacho OG, Nieto-Garibay A, Esqueda M, Ffolliot P, et al. Valoración hidro-ambiental y evaluación de coeficientes de agostadero mediante indicadores termo-pluviométricos. Rev Mex de Cienc Pecu. 2014; 5(2):143–156. https://cienciaspecuarias.inifap.gob.mx/index.php/Pecuarias/article/view/3221/3088
13. El Aich A, Waterhouse A. Small ruminants in environmental conservation. Small Rumin Res. 1999; 34(3):271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(99)00079-6
15. Zervas G, Tsiplakou E. An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. Atmos Environ. 2012; 49:13–23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.039
16. Herrera PZ, Bermejo JVD, Henríquez AA, Vallejo MEC, Costa RG. Effects of extensive system versus semi-intensive and intensive systems on growth and carcass quality of dairy kids. R Bras Zootec. 2011; 40(11):2613–2620. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011001100045
17. Echavarría-Chairez FG, Gutiérrez-Luna R, Ledesma-Rivera RI, Bańuelos-Valenzuel R, Aguilera-Soto JI, Serna-Pérez A. Influencia del sistema de pastoreo con pequeños rumiantes en un agostadero del semiárido Zacatecano. I Vegetación nativa. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. 2006; 44(2):203–217.
19. Azuara-Morales I, López-Ortiz S, Jarillo-Rodríguez J, Pérez-Hernández P, Ortega-Jiménez E, Castillo-Gallegos E. Forage availability in a silvopastoral system having different densities of Leucaena leucocephala under Voisin grazing management. Agroforest Syst. 2020; 94:1701–1711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00487-5
21. Pent GJ, Fike JH. Lamb productivity on stockpiled fescue in honeylocust and black walnut silvopastures. Agroforest Syst. 2019; 93(1):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0264-0
22. Ramírez-Torres J. Caracterización de un método de crianza intensiva de cervatillos (Odocoileus virginianus texanus). Rev. Chapingo ser. 2011; 10(2):141–145.
24. Niderkorn V, Martin C, Rochette Y, Julien S, Baumont R. Associative effects between orchardgrass and red clover silages on voluntary intake and digestion in sheep: Evidence of a synergy on digestible dry matter intake. J Anim Sci. 2015; 93(10):4967–4976. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9178
26. Bonilla-Cárdenas JA, Lemus-Flores C. Emisión de metano entérico por rumiantes y su contribución al calentamiento global y al cambio climático. Revisión. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. 2012; 3(2):215–246. https://cienciaspecuarias.inifap.gob.mx/index.php/Pecuarias/article/view/1241/1236
28. Gallo CS, Tadich TG. Perspective from Latin America. In: Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare. Science and Practice: Elsevier Ltd; 2017. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101215-4.00011-0
29. Montossi F, Font-i-Furnols M, del Campo M, San Julián R, Brito G, Sañudo C. Sustainable sheep production and consumer preference trends: Compatibilities, contradictions, and unresolved dilemmas. Meat Sci. 2013; 95(4):772–789. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.048
30. Yusuf A, Aruwayo A, Muhammad I. Characterisation of Small Ruminant Production Systems in Semi-Arid Urban Areas of Northern Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manage. 2018; 22(5):725–729. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v22i5.18
31. Fernández M., Castillo-Juárez H., González-Montaña J. R., Fernández F. J., Castañeda Vázquez H., Saltijeral-Oaxaca J. A. Somatic cell counts and quality of goat milk produced in the central region of Mexico. Res J Dairy Sci. 2008; 2(2):45–50. https://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=rjdsci.2008.45.50
32. Peacock C, Sherman DM. Sustainable goat production-Some global perspectives. Small Rumin Res. 2010; 89(2–3):70–80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.12.029
33. Rúa B C, Rosero N R, Posada O S. Efecto del sistema de producción sobre producción de leche y consumo de alimento en cabras. Rev MVZ Córdoba. 2017; 22(3):6266–6275. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1131
34. Estell RE, Havstad KM, Cibils AF, Fredrickson EL, Anderson DM, Schrader TS, et al. Increasing shrub use by livestock in a world with less grass. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2012; 65(6):553–562. https://dx.doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-11-00124.1
35. Retana-Guiascón ÓG, Lorenzo C. Valor cinegético y cultural del venado Cola Blanca en México. Etnobiología. 2016; 14(3):60–70. https://revistaetnobiologia.mx/index.php/etno/article/view/147
37. Assouma MH, Lecomte P, Hiernaux P, Ickowicz A, Corniaux C, Decruyenaere V, et al. How to better account for livestock diversity and fodder seasonality in assessing the fodder intake of livestock grazing semi-arid sub-Saharan Africa rangelands. Livest Sci. 2018; 216:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.07.002
39. Leahy SC, Kearney L, Reisinger A, Clark H. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand pasture-based livestock farm systems. J NZ Grassl. 2019; 81:101–110. https://doi.org/10.33584/jnzg.2019.81.417
41. Foroughbakhch R, Hernández-Piñero JL, Carrillo-Parra A, Rocha-Estrada A. Composition and animal preference for plants used for goat feeding in semiarid Northeastern Mexico. J Anim Plant Sci. 2013; 23(4):1034–1040. https://www.thejaps.org.pk/docs/v-23-4/14.pdf
42. Chávez-Espinoza M, González-Rodríguez H, Cantú-Silva I, Cotera-Correa M, Estrada-Castillón AE, Bernal-Barragán H, et al. Foliar mineral content of five shrub species with nutritional potential for small ruminants in semiarid regions in northeastern Mexico. Ciênc Rural. 2020; 50(10):1–11. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20200202
44. Chávez-Espinoza M, Bernal-Barragán H, Vásquez-Aguilar NC, Cantú-Silva I, Cotera-Correa M, Estrada-Castillón AE, et al. Cell-wall composition and digestibility of five native shrubs of the Tamaulipan Thornscrub in Northeastern Mexico. Trop Subtrop Agroecosys. 2021; 24(1):15. https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/3447/1506
45. Guerrero M, Cerrillo-Soto MA, Ramírez RG, Salem AZM, González H, Juárez-Reyes AS. Influence of polyethylene glycol on in vitro gas production profiles and microbial protein synthesis of some shrub species. Anim Feed Sci Technology . 2012; 176(1–4):32–39. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.005
46. Camacho LM, Rojo R, Salem AZM, Mendoza GD, López D, Tinoco JL, et al. In vitro ruminal fermentation kinetics and energy utilization of three Mexican tree fodder species during the rainy and dry period. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010; 160(3–4):110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.008
48. Belachew Z, Yisehak K, Taye T, Janssens GPJ. Chemical composition and in sacco ruminal degradation of tropical trees rich in condensed tannins. Czech J Anim Sci. 2013; 58(4):176–192. https://doi.org/10.17221/6712-CJAS
49. Pal K, Patra AK, Sahoo A, Kumawat PK. Evaluation of several tropical tree leaves for methane production potential, degradability and rumen fermentation in vitro. Livest Sci. 2015; 180:98–105. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.07.011
50. Gaviria X, Rivera JE, Barahona R. Calidad nutricional y fraccionamiento de carbohidratos y proteína en los componentes forrajeros de un sistema silvopastoril intensivo. Pastos y Forrajes. 2015; 38(2):194–201. https://payfo.ihatuey.cu/index.php?journal=pasto&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1838
52. Molina IC, Donney's G, Montoya S, Rivera JE, Villegas G, Chará J, et al. The inclusion of Leucaena leucocephala reduces the methane production in lucerne heifers receiving a Cynodon plectostachyus and Megathyrsus maximus diet. Livest Res Rural Develop. 2015; 27(5):1–8. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/5/moli27096.html
54. Augustine DJ, Derner JD, Fernández-Giménez ME, Porensky LM, Wilmer H, Briske DD. Adaptive, Multipaddock Rotational Grazing Management: A Ranch-Scale Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Livestock Performance in Semiarid Rangeland. Rangeland Ecol Manag. 2020; 73(6):796–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.07.005
55. Nahed-Toral J, Valdivieso-Pérez A, Aguilar-Jiménez R, Cámara-Cordova J, Grande-Cano D. Silvopastoral systems with traditional management in southeastern Mexico: A prototype of livestock agroforestry for cleaner production. J Clean Prod. 2013; 57:266–279. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.020
56. de Oliveira BR, Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Maia-Barbosa PM. Rio Doce State Park buffer zone: forest fragmentation and land use dynamics. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021; 23, 8365–8376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00969-7
57. McDermott JJ, Staal SJ, Freeman HA, Herrero M, Van de Steeg JA. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livest Sci. 2010; 130(1–3):95–109. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.014
58. McKeon GM, Stone GS, Syktus JI, Carter JO, Flood NR, Ahrens DG, et al. Climate change impacts on northern Australian rangeland livestock carrying capacity: A review of issues. Rangel J. 2009; 31(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ08068
59. Ebrahimi A, Milotić T, Hoffmann M. A herbivore specific grazing capacity model accounting for spatio-temporal environmental variation: A tool for a more sustainable nature conservation and rangeland management. Ecol Model. 2010; 221(6):900–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.12.009
60. Johnston P, Tannock P, Beale I. Objective `Safe’ Grazing Capacities for South-West Queensland Australia: Model Application and Evaluation. Rangel J. 1996; 18(2):259–269. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ9960259
61. Holechek JL, Pieper RD. Herbel CH. Range management: principles and practices. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey USA; 1995.
62. Ruiz-Mirazo J, Robles AB. Impact of targeted sheep grazing on herbage and holm oak saplings in a silvopastoral wildfire prevention system in south-eastern Spain. Agroforest Syst. 2012; 86:477–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9510-z86(3):477–91
63. Store R, Jokimäki J. A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modeling. Ecol Model. 2003; 169(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00203-5
64. Bernués A, Ruiz R, Olaizola A, Villalba D, Casasús I. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livest Sci. 2011; 139(1–2):44–57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.018
65. Kara K. The in vitro digestion of neutral detergent fibre and other ruminal fermentation parameters of some fibrous feedstuffs in Damascus goat (Capra aegagrus hircus). J Anim Feed Sci. 2019; 28(2):159-168. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/108990/2019
66. Ramírez RG, Quintanilla JB, Aranda J. White-tailed deer food habits in northeastern Mexico. Small Rumin Res. 1997; 25(2):141–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(96)00960-1
67. Navarro-Cardona JA, Olmos-Oropeza G, Palacio-Núñez J, Clemente-Sánchez F, Vital-García C. Dieta, población y capacidad de carga del venado cola blanca (Odocoielus virginianus) en dos condiciones de hábitat en Tlachichila, Zacatecas, México. AP. 2018; 11(6):15-23. https://revista-agroproductividad.org/index.php/agroproductividad/article/view/421
68. Jose S, Dollinger J. Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforest Syst. 2019; 93(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8
69. Asante BO, Villano RA, Battese GE. Integrated crop-livestock management practices, technical efficiency and technology ratios in extensive small-ruminant systems in Ghana. Livest Sci. 2017; 201:58–69. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.03.010
70. O’Mara FP. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in the near future. Anim Feed Sci Techn. 2011; 166–167:7–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.074
71. Hristov AN. Historie, pre-European settlement, and present-day contribution of wild ruminants to enteric methane emissions in the United States. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90(4):1371–1375. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4539
72. Piñeiro-Vázquez AT, Canul-Solís JR, Alayón-Gamboa JA, Chay-Canul AJ, Ayala-Burgos AJ, Aguilar-Pérez CF, et al. Potential of condensed tannins for the reduction of emissions of enteric methane and their effect on ruminant productivity. Arch Med Vet. 2015; 47(3):263–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2015000300002
73. Patra AK. Trends and projected estimates of GHG emissions from indian livestock in comparisons with GHG emissions from world and developing countries. Anim Biosci 2014; 27(4):592-599. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13342