Classification, characterisation and strategies for improvement of cattle and sheep pasture systems in marginal areas of Southern Chile

240 http://dx.doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v9i2.4491 Artículo Classification, characterisation and strategies for improvement of cattle and sheep pasture systems in marginal areas of Southern Chile Clasificación, caracterización y estrategias para la mejora de los sistemas pastorales de bovinos y ovinos en áreas marginales del sur de Chile Juan P. Avileza Jorge Meyera José Nahedb Francisco A. Ruizc* Yolanda Menad José M. Castele a Facultad de Recursos Naturales. Universidad Católica de Temuco. Montt 56. Temuco, Chile. b El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México. c Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera de la Junta de Andalucía (IFAPA). Granada, España. d Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos (ETSIA), Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla, España. e Retired teacher. Sevilla, España. *Correspondence author: [email protected] Funding source: Innova-CORFO Project 11 NTEC 12793 “NODO RÍO IBÁÑEZ”. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 241 Abstract: Pasture-based livestock systems in farms with medium or low size are especially important in less favored areas and are valuable for society. For these systems to survive, it is necessary to obtain an acceptable level of productivity and ensure commercialization of the products. This study was carried out in the district of Rio Ibáñez, General Carrera Province, in the XI (Aysén) Region of Chile. The sample consisted of 28 small-scale livestock farmers with dualpurpose cattle production; 16 of them also produced sheep for meat. The empirical data produced 55 variables which were subjected to multivariate analysis; three main components were obtained which explain 72.1 % of the variance. By cluster analysis it was obtained four groups with characteristics which varied by farm size, age and personal situation of farmers, farm management and farm profitability. The principal problems found are low productivity in the herds and the poor marketing channels of animals produced. In two groups, due to the low size and poor management, the profitability of the farms is very low and this may compromise their future. To improve production systems, the training and advice of farmers should be strengthened, investment should be supported, especially for young people, and the farmer partnership should be promoted. There is also a need to diversify the families' sources of income (sale of other farm products or handicrafts and touristic activities). Key words: Multivariate analysis, Farmer sociological characteristics, Livestock farm management, Farm profit. Resumen: Los sistemas ganaderos basados en el pastoreo en granjas de mediana o pequeña dimensión tienen especial importancia en las áreas desfavorecidas, y son de gran interés para la sociedad. Para la supervivencia de estos sistemas es preciso obtener una productividad aceptable y asegurar una adecuada comercialización de las producciones. Este estudio se llevó a cabo en la comuna de Rio Ibáñez, provincia General Carrera, ubicada en la XI Región de Chile. La muestra fue de 28 pequeños ganaderos que disponían de bovinos de doble propósito y 16 de ellos también de ovinos de carne. A partir de los datos se obtuvieron 55 variables que fueron sometidas a un análisis multivariante, obteniendo tres componentes principales que explican el 72.1 % de la varianza. Tras un análisis clúster, se obtuvieron cuatro grupos cuyas características varían en cuanto al tamaño de la granja, edad y situación personal del ganadero y manejo y rentabilidad de la granja. Los dos principales problemas generales encontrados fueron la baja productividad de los hatos y los deficientes canales de comercialización de los animales producidos. En dos de los grupos, debido a la reducida dimensión y al mal manejo, la rentabilidad de las granjas es muy baja y ello puede comprometer el futuro de las mismas. Para mejorar los sistemas hay que fortalecer la formación y asesoramiento de los ganaderos, apoyar las inversiones sobre todo para jóvenes, y fomentar el asociacionismo. También interesa la diversificación de las fuentes de ingresos familiares (venta de otros productos de la granja o artesanía y actividades turísticas). Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 242 Palabras clave: Análisis multivariante, Características sociológicas, Manejo granja, Rentabilidad. Received 16/05/2017. Accepted 19/10/2017. Introduction There is a significant heterogeneity in terms of animal production systems in Latin America due among other reasons to the diversity of environments where they are located, the livestock species used or the objective and specialization of their production(1-4). During recent decades, livestock production has become more intensive worldwide; there is a tendency to see intensive farming as the only possible route to development(5,6). Nevertheless, pasture-based livestock farming systems (PBLFS) are still important(7). A large proportion of these grazing systems function with low inputs; in general they produce dual-purpose or exclusively meat animals and are located in less favoured areas, e.g. dry or mountainous zones(2,7,8). It is in the interests of society that PBLFS should be maintained: they make use of resources which otherwise would be wasted, they also help to prevent depopulation and maintain environmental equilibrium and produce high quality food(9,10). As it is explained by the literature, problems for the maintenance of PBLFS are various: i) low farm profit, ii) lack of generational relief, iii) difficulty accessing land ownership, iv) scarce technification and professionalization of farmers and v) lack of adequate commercialization channels(9,11,12). Classification and characterisation of livestock production systems allow to understand their functioning, limitations, potential and opportunities for development or improvement under existing circumstances. The object of the present work was to classify and characterise the PBLFS for cattle and sheep, either for meat or dual-purpose, in a less favoured zone of Southern Chile and to establish proposals for improving the different systems. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 243 Material and methods Study area, data collection and identification of variables for analysis The study was carried out in the Rio Ibáñez Commune located within the Region Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo of Chile, 48°16′00″ S, 71°56′00″ E (Figure 1). It is one of the biggest regions in Chile (14 % of the country), with almost one million ha devoted to farming, especially cattle and sheep-farming for meat and wool(13). The study region is cold steppe with average temperature 6.4 ºC and precipitation of 612 mm. The minimum temperature can fall to -37 ºC. Figura 1: Location of the study area within the Rio Ibañez Commune (Region Aisén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo of Chile) Rio Ibañez Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 244 In 2012, 28 producers with bovine presence were interviewed for the “Nodo Río Ibañez” programme, the object of which was to transfer technological knowledge to sheep and cattle producers. They were chosen at random from a total of 230 of the study area (SA), ie 12 %(14). The questionnaire used included the following aspects of the livestock production unit (LPU) survey: (i) Sociological; (ii) Infrastructures, facilities and farm size; (iii) Management variables (feeding, reproduction and health); and (iv) Commercialization and economic variables. From data obtained of this questionnaire, a database with a total of 55 variables was drawn up, being 30 quantitative and 25 qualitative. Of the qualitative variables, 22 are binary (yes= 1 or no= 0 answers), two have three options and one has four options. Each option of these last variables has been converted into binary. All variables are showed in Tables 1 to 4. Table 1: Sociological variables for the whole study sample and each group of farms or livestock production units (cluster) Variables All groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 No. farms 28 5 11 5 7 Producer's age, years ** 50 (±3) 51ab (±9) 39b (±1) 59a (±5) 60a (±2) Number of family members 4.2 (±0.3) 3.4 (±0.5) 4.5 (±0.6) 4.2 (±0.8) 4.3 (±0.6) Person in charge of the farm: Woman living alone, % + 39 (±9) 80a (±20) 45ab (±16) 20ab (±02) 14b (±14) Husband runs the farm, % 46 (±10) 20 (±20) 46 (±16) 60 (±25) 57 (±20) Wife runs the farm, % # 14 (±7) 0 9 (±9) 20 (±20) 29 (±18) Territorial base Owned, % 64 (±49) 80 (±20) 55 (±16) 60 (±25) 71 (±18) Rented, % 4 (±4) 0 9 (±9) 0 0 Belonging to family group, % 18 (±7) 0 18 (±12) 40 (±25) 14 (±14) Inheritance process, % 14 (±7) 20 (±20) 18 (±12) 0 14 (±14) Secondary or higher education, % ## * 54 (±10) 60ab (±25) 82a (±12) 40ab (±25) 14b (±14) There is hired labour, % * 18 (±7) 20ab (±20) 9b (±9) 60a (±25) 0b Has done training courses, % * 61 (±9) 60ab (±25) 64ab (±15) 100a 29b (±18) Farmers believe that the farm will continue in future generations, % * 86 (±7) 40b (±25) 91a (±91) 100a 100a Values with letters (a, b) in the same row indicate significant difference (*= P<0.05; **= P<0.01). + For this option there are no significant differences between clusters when applying the Duncan test, but they do exist when applying the LSD test (P=0.102). # Husband works in mining. ## In all other cases they have primary education, all farmers have received some schooling. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 245 Table 2: Infrastructures, Facilities and Farm size variables (mean and standard error) for the whole study sample and each group of farms Variables All groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 No. Farms 28 5 11 5 7 Electricity available, % 93 (±5) 100 (±0) 82 (±12) 100 (±0) 100 (±0) Water available : Well, % 25 (±8) 40 (±25) 18 (±12) 20 (±20) 29 (±18) Mains (drinking water), % 7(±5) 0 9 (±9) 20 (±20) 0 Spring, river or lake, % 68 (±9) 60 (±25) 73 (±14) 60 (±25) 71 (±18) Facilities (from 1 to 4) + 2.8 (±0.2) 2.4 (±0.4) 2.8 (±0.3) 3.4 (±0.2) 2.7 (±0.4) Total farm area, ha *** 257 (±56) 157b (±83) 201b (±55) 704a (±167) 96b (±51) Grazing area, ha *** 209 (±49) 123b (±90) 154b (±41) 593a (±145) 81b (±51) Scrubs and bushes, ha # 48 (±14) 34 (±18) 47 (±24) 110 (±51) 15 (±8) N of cows *** 28 (±4) 17bc (±8) 33ab (±4) 52a (±8) 10c (±2) N of ewes (all farms) ## 18 (±5) 33 (±21) 7 (±3) 29 (±16) 17 (±5) N of ewes (only farms with sheep) ### ** 32 (±7) 84a (±17 16c (±2) 49b (±19) 20bc (±4) There is sheep in the farm, % 57 (±10) 40 (±25) 45 (±16) 60 (±25) 86(±14) Total Livestock Units (LU) ** 30 (±4) 22 b (±11) 34 ab (±4) 56 a (±9) 13 b (±2) Stoking rate (LU/ha for grazing) 0.5 (±0.2) 1.2 (±1.0) 0.4 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0) 0.4 (±0.1) Values with letters (a, b, c) in the same row indicate significant difference (**= P<0.01; ***= P<0.001). + One point for each of following facilities: sleeves, sheds, corrals and barns. # Scrub and bushes are always used for firewood collection and never for animal fodder. ## It includes farms without sheep. ### It includes only farms with sheep. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 246 Table 3: Management variables (feeding and reproduction) for the whole sample and each group of farms (cluster) Variables All groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 No. farms 28 5 11 5 7 Cattle carry out short seasonal migration, % 86 (±7) 60 (±25) 91 (±9) 100 86 (±14) Uses leguminous plants in the meadows, % # 32 (±9) 20 (±20) 27 (±14) 60 (±25) 29 (±18) Grows oats for grain, % ## * 21 (±8) 0b 18ab (±12) 60a (±25) 14ab (±14) Makes hay, % *** 75 (±8) 0 b 82a (±12) 100a 100a Concentrate purchased per LU and year, kg 26 (±3) 19 (±6) 30 (±3) 17 (±6) 31 (±9) Bales of hay (25 kg) purchased per LU and year 8 (±1) 6 (±4) 7 (±2) 8 (±3) 9 (±3) Does soil analyses, % 64 (±9) 20 (±20) 64 (±15) 100 71 (±18) Fertilises meadows, % *** 75 (±8) 0b 82a (±12) 100a 100a Separates the rams, % 14 (±7) 20 (±20) 0 40 (±25) 14 (±14) Separates the bulls, % 21 (±8) 20 (±20) 27 (±14) 40 (±25) 0 Buys or exchanges males locally, % 54 (±10) 60 (±25) 64 (±15) 20 (±20) 57 (±20) Farmer desparasite animals, % 93 (±5) 80 (±20) 91 (±91) 100 100 Farmer vaccinates animals, % 29 (±9) 20 (±20) 27 (±14) 40 (±25) 29 (±18) Keeps production records, % 36 (±9) 40 (±25) 45 (±16) 40 (±25) 14 (±14) Keeps economic records, % 14 (±7) 20 (±20) 18 (±12) 20 (±20) 0 State and private advice, % + 21 (±8) 20 (±20) 27 (±14) 40 (±25) 0 Values with letters (a, b) in the same row indicate significant difference (*= P<0.05; ***= P<0.001). # Leguminous: white clover, red clover or alfalfa. ## The cattle are always on pasture, but sometimes some land is set aside to plant oats for grain. + In all other cases the advice is only from the State. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 247 Statistical analysis The data on the variables were subjected to multivariate analysis in two stages: principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis (CA)(15). PCA transforms the data on the diagnostic variables studied into a small set of new synthetic variables – principal components (PC) – with little loss of information. The purpose of PCA is therefore to reduce the number of variables and thus the dimensions of the problem(16,17). The method used for Table 4: Commercialisation and Economic variables (mean and standard error) for the whole study sample and each group of farms Variables All groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 No. farms 28 5 11 5 7 Concentrate cost, €/yr * 220 (±35) 132ab (±73) 317a (±62) 266ab (±84) 96b (±20) Farm hay cost, €/yr 1056 (±282) 1293 (±1209) 1125 (±405) 1606 (±604) 383 (±124) Total feed cost, €/yr 1275 (±300) 1425 (±1280) 1443 (±441) 1872 (±577) 479 (±109) Feed cost per LU, €/yr 40 (±6) 31 (±18) 40 (±10) 39 (±14) 48(±13) Rented pasture cost, € 35 (±35) 0 90 (±90) 0 0 Hired labour cost, €/yr * 732 (±303) 900ab (±900) 364b (±364) 2400a (±980) 0b (±0) Medication cost, €/yr 49 (±19) 0 (±0) 89 (±42) 17 (±17) 44 (±29) Total costs, €/yr * 2092 (±411) 2325ab (±1403) 1985ab (±487) 4289a (±1006) 523b (±122) T. costs per LU, €/yr 70 (±6) 91 (±61) 62 (±17) 88 (±29) 55 (±18) Trading through an association, % + 100 100 100 100 100 Nº calves sold ** ++ 22 (±4) 12b (±7) 27ab (±5) 41a (±9) 7b (±1) Nº calves sold per cow 0.76 (±0.05) 0.64 (±0.07) 0.79 (±0.09) 0.79 (±0.15) 0.78 (±0.13) Nº lambs sold ++ 7 (±3) 18 (±13) 3 (±1) 8 (±6) 5 (±2) Nº lambs sold per ewe 0.35 (±0.04) 0.52 (±0.16) 0.35 (±0.06) 0.33 (±0.23) 0.29 (±0.06) Total sales, €/yr ** 9399 (±1533) 6368b (±3926) 11074ab (±2181) 17333a (±3756) 3264b (±432) T. sales per LU, €/yr 296 (±21) 248 (±33) 316 (±34) 307 (±56) 290 (±49) Farm profit, €/yr * 7307 (±1377) 4043ab (±2963) 9089ab (±1998) 13044a (±4524) 2740b (±491) Profit per LU, €/yr 226 (±25) 156 (±70) 254 (±39) 220 (±78) 234 (±40) INDAP or private loans, % +++ 11 (±6) 20 (±20) 0 (±0) 40 (±25) 0 (±0) Values with letters (a, b) in the same row indicate significant difference (*= P<0.05; **= P<0.01; ***= P<0.001) + All farmers purchase feed and sell animals through a unique association (Asociación Gremial “Bajada Ibáñez”); ++ The animals are always sold after weaning; +++ INDAP: Intituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario. In all other cases the loan is only from INDAP Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 248 PCA was the optimal scaling analysis which is used when the variables analyzed are both qualitative and quantitative variables(15). Before the multivariate analysis the number of variables was reduced excluding those with a low variability coefficient (< 50 %) and therefore little discriminatory capacity(18), as were those which correlated with others considered by the authors to be more important for defining the production system(17). During the process of reducing variables, 31 of the 44 variables used in the study were discarded. Therefore, 13 variables were used to perform the discriminant analysis which was started checking the appropriate number of PCs, as well as the variables attached to these PCs, in order to obtain the best and most synthetic explanation of the existing variability. In order the PCs to be sufficiently representative of the set of variables, the eigenvalues were required to be greater than 1(16). After PCA, the farms were classified by K-means type CA. In this case, this type of CA is better than the hierarchical, because authors know what the number of cluster do not can be high. The PCs obtained in the first part of the multivariate analysis were used for the CA instead the conjoint of variables(17). Finally, once the different clusters are obtained, they can be described and afterward compared using one-way ANOVA for each of the original variables. With this analysis the multivariate analysis is confirmed(15). For all variables were calculated the mean and standard error. In the case of qualitative variables the mean coincides with the relative frequency of value 1, ranging the presented results from 0 to100 %. For variables with significant differences, the multiple comparison post hoc test was applied (Duncan). All the statistical analyses were carried out with the IBM SPSS Statistics 20 statistical package(19). Results Principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis (CA) From the optimal scaling analysis (PCA), three principal components were obtained, being the eigenvalues 3.125 for the first PC, 2.158 for the second and 1.210 for the third. The Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 255 Commercialisation and economic variables In studied farms the animals are always sold after weaning. Calves are sold to fatteners or in other areas, which results in a loss of potential income. The animal sales as well as the feed purchase are made by farmers through a unique association. Selling weaned animals is common practice in Chile(31); as well as other countries – for example both calves and lambs in Spain(7), lambs in Veracruz, Mexico(28); and calves in Chiapas, Mexico(32,33). Cattle are almost all sold, although some are kept for self-provisioning on the farm; in contrast an important part of the produced lambs are kept for family consumption. This type of selfprovisioning is common in Chile(31), just as in the state of Veracruz (Mexico)(28). Farmers sold a mean of 0.76 calves per cow and year (the lowest value is 0.64 in C1) and only 0.35 lambs per ewe and year (the highest is 0.52 in C1), there being no significant differences. In Chile's more intensified systems, lamb production can reach 1 lamb / ewe and year(3). Finally economic variables are discussed. It is interesting to compare the values of costs, sales and profit per LU in order to analyze the economic efficiency, and also the farm profit (i.e. the family incomes). The mean of total feed cost per LU is 40 €/yr, ranging from 31 and 48 €/yr in C1 and C4 respectively, without significant differences between groups, being medium values in C2 and C3 (40 and 39 €/yr respectively). This agrees with the discussion about the management variables. With respect to the hired labour cost is very high in C1 and C3 (900 and 2,400 €/yr respectively). These high values are due to a different raison for each two groups: in C3 farms had a much larger size than in the others groups and in 80 % of cases of C1 an alone woman runs the farm. By consequence, in C1 and C3 there are the highest total cost per LU (91 and 88 respectively being 70 €/yr the mean of study). In Colombian sheep production(24), the cost of labor is important with respect to the cost of feeding on farms that have fewer animals and the opposite occurs in those with more animals; but in general in the systems of production of ruminants the feeding is the most important cost(26). The total sales per LU ranged from 248 and 316 €/yr in C1 and C2 respectively; in C3 and C4 the value are similar that in C2 (307 and 290 €/yr respectively). These in general low values could be due, among other factors, to the familiar consumption of a part of produced animals, especially of lambs, or to the deficient farm management (reproduction or feeding). This last aspect is particularly important in C1 where as mentioned there is the most deficient feeding management of study (at the same time there are a high stocking rate, no production Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 256 of hay and little feed purchase). In the Mexican state of Morelos(22) with a similar number of dual-purpose cows per farm (45), the total income is similar to that found in the present study; however as the stocking rate area of pasture in the Morelos study is very small (only 9 ha/farm), the production costs are much higher. The profit per LU ranges from 156 to 254 €/yr in C1 and C2 respectively. The farm profit of the study is not very high, ranging from 2,740 to 13,044 €/yr in C4 and C3 respectively; however it is much higher than obtained in the cattle production of Chiapas (Mexico) (923 €/yr); having a mean of seven cows per farm and a profit per LU of 130 €/yr(33). In C4 the profit per LU is almost so high than in C2 (234 €/yr) but the very low quantity of LU (13 in average) lead to a very low farm profit (family income). This very low income obtained in C4 is compensated in 29 % of the cases with the income that the husband of the woman farmer obtains working in the mine. In C1, the farm profit is also quite low (4,043) by consequence of the low profit per LU and the deficient farm management which lead, as said, to a low proportion of farmers believing that the farm will continue for future generations (only 40 %). In C2 the farm profit is medium (9,089 €/yr) although the profit per LU is the highest because the LU value is also medium (34). Instead, in C3, the farm profit is the highest although the profit per LU is medium (220 €/yr) because the LU value is also the highest (56). Consequently in C2 and C3 there is a moderately adjusted economic activity, being more adjusted in C2 due mainly to in C3 the hired labour cost is very high. In 20 % of cases of this last group, this high hired labour cost could be explained by the fact that the husband works in the mine (thus complementing family income). The majority of farmers (89 %) only had public loans from the Intituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (INDAP) to pay for investments(34). Only in the larger farms (C3) which have better facilities some farmers also hold loans from private entities (40 %). Strategies for improving production systems The stoking rate could increase in C3, even goats could be introduced into the farms of this group to take advantage of scrubs and bushes (110 ha)(16). In the other groups it is not clear whether it is desirable to increase the stocking rate, especially in C1 (where the current value is 1.2 LU/ha). In order not to diminish the size of the farms, the farmers should try to accelerate the inheritance process and try to increase the farms belonging to the family group Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 257 (as in C3). It must be studied the convenience in some farms (those with better pastures) the production of milk destined to produce cheese for the market. Farmers in all the clusters need to improve their water infrastructure, since in 68 % of the cases they had only water of spring, river or lake. In all clusters, although less in C3, facilities should be improved; for instance better stables could favorise the giving births. In all clusters it would be necessary to plan the mating periods, so that when the majority of mothers have the highest nutritional needs (during lactation), there is a greater availability of natural pasture(16). In general, efforts should be made to increase productivity and therefore the number of animals sold, especially in C1(8). Also, farmers should increase the cultivated area destined to obtain hay or grain, especially in C1 where no farmer has these crops(16). The quality of pasture should also be improved (using more leguminous plants) in C2 and C4 and especially in C1; also in this last group would fertilize the pastures. In terms of sanitary management of livestock, it should be improved, especially by carrying out more vaccinations; the Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero of Chile (SAG) increased from 2013 the aid to apply vaccines and deworming to cattle in the Commune of Rio Ibáñez (SA)(35). In the present study, the INDAP (Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario) offered the majority of advice and training services and likewise the loans (Tables 4 and 5). As all marginal areas, these services (whether public or private) are essential(16). In addition, among the objectives of INDAP there are other aspects that are of interest for the improvement of the farms of this study(34): installation of young and women as farmers, marketing (including the added value of productions), off-farm activities (rural tourism and handicrafts)(1) and promotion of associationism in different aspects. The work of farmers in other economic activities could improve the family incomes; but, it is not always clear whether this employment is complementary and compatible with their own farm work or could suppose a threat and a loss of commitment, which could eventually lead them to abandon the farm(7). To improve commercialisation the only existing association needs to become more active, or other associations need to be created(8,33). It could be studied whether breeders could participate in some way in fattening weaned animals(7,32) or at least could have an animal typing centre that would allow them to obtain better sales prices. Sending the animals away for fattening is also an obstacle to obtain differentiated quality products sold if possible in short commercial circuits(12,32,34). In this sense, studies about the meat quality according the animal feeding, have been done in Chile(10). Policies and institutional arrangements should be strengthened to favorise the farm production commercialization(8); the creation of an Protected Area: public-private inter-institutional networks capable of promoting rural development processes(6) could be interesting to solve this commercialisation problem. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 258 Conclusions and implications The cattle and sheep farms of southern Chile located in difficult or marginal areas are integrated in pasture-based livestock systems, having a medium-low use of external resources. The groups obtained from the classification show that variations between groups are due to the farm size, age and personal situation of farmers, farm management and farm profitability. Farms in charge of young farmer having a good education level, with very low number of sheep, have the highest profitability (profit per LU and year) although without significant differences. The main problems found, in general, are the low productivity of the herds and the poor marketing channels of animal products. Smallest farms are the ones that have more difficulties in general, a poorer management and a lower profit, so that they have less possibility to continue in the future. To address these problems and ensure the viability and continuity of these production systems, Government help is required in the form of training, advice, financial support and promotion of associationism. Diversification of the farm's activities by all members of the farmer's family can contribute to the family economy. Acknowledgements To Innova-CORFO Project 11 NTEC 12793 “NODO RÍO IBÁÑEZ”, for funding. To the farmers who took part in the study for their cooperation. Literature cited Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 259 1. Vilaboa J, Díaz, P. Caracterización socioeconómica y tecnológica de los sistemas ganaderos en siete municipios del estado de Veracruz, México. Zootecnia Trop 2009;(27):427-436. 2. Sarria JA, Ruiz FA, Mena Y, Castel JM. Characterization of goat production systems of the Peruvian coast. Prospects for improvement. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2014;5(4):409- 427. 3. Toro-Mujica P, Aguilar C, Vera R, Rivas J, 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. 4. Ríos-Núñez S, Benítez-Jiménez D. Análisis del funcionamiento económico productivo de los sistemas de producción cárnica bovina en la Amazonía Ecuatoriana. Arch Zootec 2015;64(248):409-416. 5. Udo HMJ, Aklilu HA, Phong LT, Bosma RH, Budisatria IGS, Patil BR et al. Impact of intensification of different types of livestock production in smallholder crop-livestock systems. Livest Sci 2011;(139):22–29. 6. Paz R, Bruno R. The potential of family agriculture and protected spaces: guidelines for public policies design. Mundo Agrario 2013;(13):1515-5994. 7. Bernués A, Ruiz R, Olaizola,A, Villalba D, Casasús I. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and tradeoffs. Livest Sci 2011;(139):44-57. 8. Iñiguez L. The challenges of research and development of small ruminant production in dry areas. Small Rumin Res 2011;(98):12–20. 9. Acosta A, Díaz T (editor). Lineamientos de Política para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Sector Ganadero. Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá: Oficina Subregional de la FAO para Mesoamérica; 2014. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3764s.pdf. Consultado Sep 24, 2016. 10. Morales R, Folch C, Iraira S, Teuber N, Realini C. Nutritional quality of beef produced in Chile from different production systems. Chilean J Agric Res 2012;72(1):80-86. 11. ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias). Gobierno de Chile. Boletín carne bovina: tendencias de producción, precios y comercio exterior; 2016. http://www.odepa.cl/wp-content/files_mf/1464627671boletinCarne201605.pdf. Consultado Sep 24, 2016. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 260 12. Vilaboa J, Díaz P, Platas DE, Ruiz O, González, SS, Juárez F. Commercialisation structure of cattle destined for meat supply in the region of Papaloapan, Veracruz, Mexico. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio 2009;(31):831-854. 13. Gobierno de Chile. Estrategia Regional de Desarrollo de Aysén. Chile: Gobierno Regional de Aysén; 2009. http://www.subdere.gov.cl/documentacion/aysen-estrategia- de-desarrollo-regional-periodo-2009-2030. Consultado Abr 8, 2017. 14. INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). Encuesta de Ganado Bovino. Gobierno de Chile; 2007. http://nuevoportal.ine.cl/estadisticas/censos/censo-agropecuario-y-forestal-2007. Consultado Abr 8, 2017. 15. Madry W, Mena Y, Roszkowska-Madra B, Gozdowski D, Hryniewski R, Castel JM. An overview of farming system typology methodologies and its use in the study of pasturebased farming system: a review. Span J Agric Res 2013:11(2):316-326. 16. Ruiz FA, Castel JM, Mena Y, Camúñez J, González-Redondo P. Application of the technico-economic analysis for characterizing, making diagnoses and improving pastoral dairy goat systems in Andalusia (Spain). Small Ruminant Res 2008;(77):208- 220. 17. Lesschen JP, Verburg P, Staal S.J. Statistical methods for analyzing the spatial dimension of changes in land use and farming systems. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University; 2005. 18. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall International; 1998. 19. IBM. Manual del usuario del sistema básico de IBM SPSS Statistics 20. Armonk, New York, USA: IBM Corporation; 2011. 20. Cicarelli A. Caracterización agropecuaria de pequeños productores mapuches de la reducción indígena Francisco Paillal, Galvarino, Región de la Araucanía [tesis de grado]. Temuco, Chile: Universidad Católica de Temuco; 2011. 21. Villacrés J, Ortega L, Chávez D. Caracterización de los sistemas de producción caprinos, en la provincia de Santa Elena. Revista Científica y Tecnológica UPSE 2017;4(2):9-19. 22. Chalate-Molina H, Gallardo F, Pérez-Hernández P, Lang FP, Ortega E, Vilaboa J. Características del sistema de producción bovinos de doble propósito en el estado de Morelos, México. Zootecnia Trop 2010;28(3):329-339. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 261 23. Fawaz J, Vallejos R. Calidad de vida, ocupación, participación y roles de género: un sistema de indicadores sociales de sostenibilidad rural (Chile). Cuad Desarro Rural 2011;8 (67):45-68. 24. Parra RI, Magaña MA, Duarte JH, Téllez G. Caracterización técnica y rentabilidad de granjas ovinas con visión empresarial del departamento del Tolima. Rev Colombiana Cienc Anim 2014;7(1):64-72. 25. ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias). Gobierno de Chile; 2009. http://www.odepa.gob.cl/odepaweb/publicaciones/doc/2196.pdf. Consultado Sep 21, 2016. 26. Castaldo A, Acero R, Perea J, Martos J, Valerio D, Pamio J et al. Tipología de los sistemas de producción de engorde bovino en la Pampa Argentina. Arch Zootec 2006;55(210):183-193. 27. Catrileo, A. Producción y manejo de carne bovina en Chile. Chile: INIA (Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias). 2005. 28. Pérez-Hernández P, Vilaboa J, Chalate H, Candelaria B, Díaz-Rivera P, López-Ortiz S. Análisis descriptivo de los sistemas de producción con ovinos en el Estado de Veracruz, México. Revista Científica 2011;21(4):327-334. 29. Rodríguez-Rodríguez PR. Respuesta productiva en praderas a la aplicación de fertilizante Nutriterra en la comuna de La Unión, Región de Los Ríos – Chile [tesis de grado]. Valdivia, Chile: Universidad Austral de Chile; 2011. 30. SAG (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero). Gobierno de Chile. Boletin Veterinario Oficial. Región de Aysén; 2011. https://www2.sag.gob.cl/pecuaria/bvo/bvo_13_i_semestre_ 2011/PDF_articulos/uso_conocim_med_vet_TChacon.pdf. Consultado Sep 21, 2016. 31. Goic L, Rojas C. Sistema de crianza, de recría y engorda en la zona sur. Rojas C editor. Manual de producción de bovinos de carne para la VIII, IX y X regiones. Temuco, Chile: INIA; 2004:95 -135. 32. Calderón J, Nahed J, Sánchez B, Herrera O, Aguilar R, Parra M. Estructura y función de la cadena productiva de carne de bovino en la ganadería ejidal de Tecpatán, Chiapas, México. Avances en Investigación Agropecuaria 2012;16(2):45-61. 33. Aguilar JR, Nahed J, Valdivieso A, Sánchez B, Mijangos SJ. Análisis multidimensional de la ganadería bovina en la cuenca alta y media del río Grijalva. En: González EM, Brunel MC editors. Montañas, pueblos y agua: Dimensiones y realidades de la cuenca Grijalva. México: Juan Pablos editor/ECOSUR; 2015:378-405. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias Volumen 9 Número 2 2018 262 34. INDAP (Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario). Ministerio de Agricultura de Chile. Gobierno de Chile; 2014. http://www.indap.gob.cl/docs/default-source/Lineamientos- Estrat%C3%A9gicos/lineamientos-estrategicos-2014-2018-vf.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Consultado Sep 21, 2016. 35. SAG (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero). Gobierno de Chile; 2013. http://www.sag.cl/noticias/sag-extiende-programa-de-manejo-sanitario-bovino-las- comunas-de-chile-chico-e-ibanez. Consultado Sep 21, 2016.