Razas autóctonas caprinas andaluzas en el Siglo XXI: diversidad de sistemas productivos como estrategia de viabilidad
Abstract
El sector caprino andaluz ha experimentado en las últimas décadas un proceso de evolución continua que le han permitido situarse como una actividad económica de primer orden. Pese a la intensificación de los sistemas y el abandono del pastoreo, ha sido capaz de mantener un elevado grado de diversidad, con las razas autóctonas como eje central. En la actualidad, se enfrenta a un escenario diferente, con nuevos retos que exigen una aproximación innovadora a los problemas planteados. El objetivo general de esta Tesis es contribuir a la viabilidad del sector caprino andaluz mediante el conocimiento de la diversidad de sus sistemas productivos y su puesta en valor como fortaleza y fuente de oportunidades. La consecución de este objetivo general se articula a través de cuatro objetivos específicos: i) analizar la situación general de los sistemas caprinos tradicionales de orientación cárnica; ii) caracterizar los diferentes sistemas caprinos de producción de leche; iii) determinar el impacto ambiental, a partir del Análisis de Ciclo de Vida, de los diferentes sistemas y; iv) analizar, desde una perspectiva energética y monetaria la eficiencia de los diferentes modelos. Metodológicamente se ha procedido a la monitorización de una muestra de 25 ganaderías que mantienen razas autóctonas puras obteniendo diferentes indicadores técnico-económicos y ambientales que han permitido analizar diferentes aspectos de la actividad, desde la eficiencia técnica o monetarios hasta energéticos, pasando por el cálculo de la Huella de Carbono (HC). El desarrollo de metodologías participativas junto a expertos del sector permitió, además, la obtención de información cualitativa que ha enriquecido los resultados obtenidos. El análisis de los sistemas tradicionales de producción de carne muestra una actividad no rentable que corre el riesgo de desparecer. La escasa cotización del cabrito y la falta de remuneración de los servicios ecosistémicos están en el origen del problema y deben ser corregidos de manera urgente, vía remuneración por parte de los mercados o de las administraciones competentes, vía incentivos, ayudas u otros. Por lo que respecta a los sistemas caprinos lecheros, se han identificado cuatro sistemas: i) estabulación permanente sin superficie asociada para las cabras; ii) estabulación permanente con superficie asociada para las cabras; iii) pastoreo con alto aporte de concentrados; y iv) pastorales. Estos sistemas presentan diferencias significativas desde el punto de vista técnico-económico, pero no en cuanto a eficiencia técnica, que no estuvo determinada por el sistema de producción como tal, sino por las adecuadas prácticas de manejo aplicadas en cada caso. Esos sistemas presentan elementos comunes junto con importantes diferencias, lo que justifica la utilización de un enfoque específico para cada uno de ellos. Desde la óptica económica, los sistemas intensivos ofrecen mejores resultados frente a los pastorales, pues los mercados penalizan las estrategias de manejo sostenible de estas últimas, sin tener en cuenta los costes ocultos de las primeras. Aun así, todos los sistemas son capaces de remunerar la mano de obra familiar y de generar empleo local. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto los moderados valores de HC asociados a la producción de leche de cabra, en comparación con otros estudios, sin diferencias entre los sistemas. El uso de una evaluación estandarizada de la HC, que incluya valores de capacidad sumidero de carbono de la vegetación y el empleo de una fórmula de ponderación específica para el caprino, son aspectos relevantes que permiten una visión realista del impacto ambiental de estos sistemas y la propuesta de actuaciones específicas. Por último, desde el punto de vista energético, y bajo un enfoque agroecológico, las ganaderías pastorales son más eficientes. Este hecho puede contribuir a dar un apoyo más activo a los sistemas pastorales, evitando la tendencia a aumentar las producciones y a intensificar los sistemas.
Full text
Tesis doctoral Razas autóctonas caprinas andaluzas en el Siglo XXI: diversidad de sistemas productivos como estrategia de viabilidad Eduardo Matías Morales Jerrett Sevilla, diciembre 2023 Directores/as Dña. Yolanda Mena Guerrero D. Juan Manuel Mancilla Leytón
Tesis Doctoral Razas autóctonas caprinas andaluzas en el Siglo XXI: diversidad de sistemas productivos como estrategia de viabilidad EDUARDO MATÍAS MORALES JERRETT Ingeniería Agraria, Alimentaria, Forestal y del Desarrollo Rural Sostenible 2023 DE SEVILLA UNIVERSIDAD
Tesis Doctoral Razas autóctonas caprinas andaluzas en el Siglo XXI: diversidad de sistemas productivos como estrategia de viabilidad EDUARDO MATÍAS MORALES JERRETT Ingeniería Agraria, Alimentaria, Forestal y del Desarrollo Rural Sostenible Conformidad de los Directores: La conformidad de los Directores/as de la tesis consta en el original en papel de esta Tesis Doctoral Fdo. Yolanda MENA GUERRERO Fdo. Juan Manuel MANCILLA LEYTON 2023 DE SEVILLA UNIVERSIDAD
Los trabajos realizados en esta Tesis Doctoral se han ejecutado en el marco del proyecto Implementación de un sistema de asesoramiento para la gestión sostenible del caprino andaluz (Ref. GOP21-GR-16-0016), financiado por la Medida 16 del Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Andalucía 2014-2020, incluida en las subvenciones para la creación y funcionamiento de los Grupos Operativos de Productividad y Sostenibilidad Agraria de la Asociación Europea para la Innovación (AEI-Agri), y cofinanciada por la Unión Europea a través del Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (90%) y la Junta de Andalucía (10%).
AGRADECIMIENTOS A mi madre, Julie Marian, recientemente fallecida. Gracias a su esfuerzo en solitario durante tantos años he podido recorrer este camino. A mi familia, Olga y Javier, que han tenido la confianza y paciencia suficientes. A mis Directores/as Juan Manuel y Yolanda, por su capacidad, apoyo y, sobre todo, paciencia infinita para desarrollar una Tesis “atípica” en cuanto a tiempos y objetivos. A todas las personas que, de una manera u otra, me han acompañado durante este camino.
6 Tabla IV.1. Inputs and outputs for each dairy goat production system monitored in 2018……………………………………………………… 133 Tabla IV.2. Total emissions, carbon sequestration by vegetation, and carbon footprint values (kg CO2 -eq kg−1 FPCM) obtained for each farming system studied………………………………………………... 134 Tabla V.1. Energy outputs of the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia (GJ LSU-1)………………………………….. 161 Tabla V.2. Energy inputs of the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia (GJ LSU-1)…………………………………. 162 Tabla V.3. Energy efficiency indicators of the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia............................................................ 165 Tabla V.4. Economic indicators of the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia........................................................................... 167 Tabla VI.1. Diferentes clasificaciones de los sistemas de producción caprina en España y Andalucía………………………………………………... 184
7 ÍNDICE DE FIGURAS Figura 0.1. Censos de ganado caprino (izq.) y producción de leche de cabra (der.) en Europa y Resto del mundo en 2021, expresado en porcentaje. Fuente FAOSTAT………………………………….. 15 Figura 0.2. Evolución de la producción de leche de cabra en Europa (1.000 t) durante los años 2012 y 2021. Fuente EUROSTAT………….. 16 Figura I.1. Natura 2000 network (dark areas) and distribution of the area of study (highlighted with lines) in Andalusia (Spain)………..... 42 Figura I.2. Distribution of the area devoted to feeding the goats (%)……... 48 Figura I.3. Contribution to total emissions (%) from different sources….... 51 Figura I.4. Graphic representation of the structural analysis of the problems/limiting factors listed in Table I.4. Motricity (yaxis): higher values indicate greater influence; Dependence (xaxis): higher values indicate greater dependence……………....... 53 Figura II.1. Geographical distribution of the twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018. Andalusia (Spain)………………………......... 81 Figura II.2. Dendrogram of the sample of twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018. The vertical continuous line determines the ideal cut-off distance between subsequent cluster distances (= 17)………………………………………………………………………. 88 Figura III.1. Relationship between the energy content (EC) values of milk measured directly with a bomb calorimeter and those obtained indirectly from the regression equation…………………………… 117 Figura IV.1. Comparison of the real kg of milk production data with respect to the values obtained (kg of fat and protein corrected milk, FPCM) from each of the standardization equations for goat milk used……………………………………………………................. 132 Figura IV.2. Contribution of the different pollutant sources of each goat farming system activity to the total greenhouse gas emissions (A). Contribution of different land uses of each goat farming system in carbon sequestration (B)……………………………........ 135 Figura V.1. Main characteristics of the dairy goat production systems analysed................................................................................................... 155 Figura V.2. System boundaries of the energy analysis……………………....... 156 Figura V.3. Proportion of the components of the total energy output (TEO) in the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia, excluding accumulated biomass and reused milk inside the farm………………………………………………................ 163 Figura V.4. Proportion of the components of the cumulative energy demand (CED) in the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia......................................................................... 163
8 Figura V.5. Energy metabolism of the four dairy goat production systems identified in Andalusia......................................................................... 164 Figura V.6. Gross value added (GVA); Net value added (NVA) and Goat family farm income with aid (GFFICAP aid) for each production system................................................................................. 168
9 RESUMEN El sector caprino andaluz ha experimentado en las últimas décadas un proceso de evolución continua, adaptándose a situaciones cambiantes y ofreciendo respuestas, más o menos acertadas, que le han permitido situarse como una actividad económica de primer orden. Pese a la intensificación de los sistemas y el abandono progresivo del pastoreo, lo cierto es que esta actividad ha sido capaz de mantener un elevado grado de diversidad fruto de su proceso evolutivo, con las razas autóctonas como eje central. En la actualidad, el caprino andaluz se enfrenta a un escenario diferente, con nuevos retos que exigen una aproximación innovadora a los problemas planteados. En este contexto, el objetivo general de la presente Tesis Doctoral es contribuir a la viabilidad del sector caprino andaluz basado en el uso de razas autóctonas a través del conocimiento de la diversidad de sus sistemas productivos y su puesta en valor como fortaleza y fuente de oportunidades. La consecución de este objetivo general se articula a través de los siguientes objetivos específicos: i) analizar la situación general de los sistemas caprinos tradicionales de orientación cárnica; ii) caracterizar los diferentes sistemas caprinos de producción de leche; iii) determinar el impacto ambiental, a partir del Análisis de Ciclo de Vida, de los diferentes sistemas caprinos de producción de leche y, en último lugar; iv) analizar, desde una perspectiva energética y monetaria la eficiencia de los diferentes modelos de producción caprina lechera. Metodológicamente se ha procedido a la monitorización de una muestra de 25 ganaderías de caprino que mantienen razas autóctonas puras (4 de orientación cárnica y 21 de producción láctea) obteniendo diferentes indicadores técnico-económicos y ambientales que han permitido realizar un análisis de diferentes aspectos de la actividad, desde la eficiencia técnica o monetarios hasta energéticos, pasando por el cálculo de la Huella de Carbono. El desarrollo de metodologías participativas junto a operadores y expertos del sector permitió, además, la obtención de información cualitativa que ha enriquecido los resultados obtenidos. El análisis de los sistemas tradicionales de producción de carne muestra una actividad no rentable que corre el riesgo de desparecer. La escasa cotización del cabrito y la falta de remuneración de los servicios ecosistémicos están en el origen del problema y deben ser corregidos de
10 manera urgente, vía remuneración por parte de los mercados o de las administraciones competentes, vía incentivos, ayudas u otros mecanismos. Por lo que respecta a los sistemas caprinos lecheros, se han identificado cuatro sistemas bien definidos: i) estabulación permanente sin superficie asociada para las cabras (IS); ii) estabulación permanente con superficie asociada para las cabras (ISC); iii) pastoreo con alto aporte de concentrados (GS); y iv) pastorales (PS). Estos sistemas presentan diferencias significativas desde el punto de vista técnico-económico, pero no en cuanto a la eficiencia técnica, que no estuvo determinada por el sistema de producción como tal, sino por las adecuadas prácticas de manejo aplicadas en cada caso. Esos sistemas de producción presentan elementos comunes junto con importantes diferencias, lo que justifica la utilización de un enfoque específico para la realidad de cada uno de ellos. Desde una óptica estrictamente económica, los sistemas intensivos (IS e ISC) presentan los mejores resultados monetarios frente a los pastorales (PS), pues los mercados penalizan las estrategias de manejo sostenible de estas últimas, sin tener en cuenta los costes ocultos de las primeras. Aun así, todos los sistemas son capaces de remunerar la mano de obra familiar e incluso de generar empleo local en zonas rurales desfavorecidas donde se desarrolla la actividad caprina. Los resultados obtenidos ponen de manifiesto los moderados valores de Huella de Carbono asociados a la producción de leche de cabra de razas autóctonas andaluzas, en comparación con otros estudios, sin diferencias entre los modelos de producción analizados. El uso de una evaluación estandarizada de la Huella de Carbono, que incluya valores de capacidad sumidero de carbono por la vegetación y el empleo de una fórmula de ponderación específica para el caprino, es un aspecto relevante que permite una evaluación adecuada, una visión más realista del impacto ambiental de estos sistemas y la propuesta de actuaciones específicas. Por último, desde el punto de vista energético, y adoptando un enfoque agroecológico, las ganaderías pastorales (PS) son más eficientes que el resto. El análisis mediante el empleo de indicadores energéticos bajo este nuevo enfoque es indispensable y puede contribuir a dar un apoyo más activo a los sistemas pastorales, evitando la tendencia habitual a aumentar las producciones y a intensificar los sistemas de gestión. Los resultados obtenidos en la presente Tesis Doctor deben ser puestos en valor y ser tenidos en cuenta en la adopción de estrategias sectoriales.
Capítulo 1. Introducción
1.1 Introducción general
Capítulo 1. Introducción 15 La ganadería caprina está presente preferentemente en países pobres y en vías de desarrollo [1]. En estas regiones, la cría de cabras se orienta principalmente hacia la producción cárnica y el establecimiento de una cadena láctea eficiente constituye un serio desafío debido a: i) las dificultades para establecer un sistema viable de recogida y transporte de la leche; ii) la estacionalidad del suministro; iii) la escasa infraestructura de transporte; iv) la deficiencia de tecnología y conocimientos en la recogida y transformación del producto; v) la mala calidad higiénico-sanitaria de la leche cruda; vi) las distancias desde los lugares de producción hasta las unidades de transformación y las personas consumidoras; y vii) las dificultades para establecer instalaciones de refrigeración [2]. Frente a esta realidad predominante, en otras regiones más desarrolladas económicamente existen sistemas industriales de producción de leche de cabra con altos rendimientos. Así, los países europeos producen el 15% de la leche de cabra mundial con sólo el 1,39% del censo caprino total [3]. Figura 0.1. Censos de ganado caprino (izq.) y producción de leche de cabra (der.) en Europa y Resto del mundo en 2021, expresado en porcentaje. Fuente FAOSTAT. A pesar de su alta capacidad productiva, cabe destacar que existe una importante diversidad en el sector caprino europeo; 187 razas que suponen el 33% de las razas caprinas a nivel mundial, como resultado de la pluralidad de ecosistemas presentes en el territorio europeo. En este contexto, podemos encontrar una amplia heterogeneidad de explotaciones lecheras, desde aquellas en las que las cabras se mantienen permanentemente estabuladas, cada vez más frecuentes, hasta aquellas en las que el ganado aprovecha los recursos naturales con diferentes tiempos de pastoreo [4]. La caprinocultura europea, localizada preferentemente en el área mediterránea, ha experimentado en los últimos años un incremento de las producciones,
Capítulo 1. Introducción 22 identificando y cuantificando todos los factores externos e internos que influyen en los balances finales. El desarrollo de programas digitales específicos para el caprino andaluz ha evolucionado muy rápidamente en los últimos dos años y contribuirá a obtener datos sobre la gestión de las ganaderías y sobre la viabilidad medioambiental de las mismas, analizando su contribución a la conservación del entorno natural, por un lado, y permitiendo mejorar la producción de carne y leche de las explotaciones caprinas al ofrecer un valor añadido a los productos derivados de las mismas, por otro. Tal y como se ha descrito en apartados anteriores, el sector caprino andaluz ha experimentado en las últimas décadas un proceso de evolución continua, adaptándose a situaciones cambiantes y ofreciendo respuestas, más o menos acertadas, que le han permitido situarse como una actividad económica de primer orden en nuestro territorio. Este sector se enfrenta a partir de ahora a un escenario diferente, con nuevos retos que exigen una aproximación innovadora a los problemas planteados. Éstos están relacionados con las consecuencias del cambio climático y la crisis energética global en un escenario de agotamiento de las fuentes de energía no renovable, pero también con la propia percepción social de una actividad cada vez más puesta en entredicho por varias razones de tipo ambiental, social, de salud o incluso éticas. En este contexto, el trabajo desarrollado a través de la presente Tesis pretende dotar al sector de herramientas que contribuyan a su viabilidad, partiendo de la hipótesis de que la diversidad de sistemas existentes, lejos de constituir una amenaza puede ser una fuente de oportunidades. En ese sentido, el conocimiento de los diferentes sistemas de producción puede facilitar aproximaciones específicas a cada uno de ellos, poniendo en valor las características y capacidades de cada uno de ellos, haciéndolos más resilientes ante el nuevo escenario que se plantea.
1.2 Objetivos
Capítulo 1. Introducción 25 La presente Tesis tiene como objetivo general contribuir a la viabilidad del sector caprino andaluz a través del conocimiento de la diversidad de sus sistemas productivos y la puesta en valor de la misma como fortaleza y fuente de oportunidades. La consecución de este objetivo general se articula a través de los siguientes objetivos específicos: 1. Analizar la situación general de los sistemas caprinos tradicionales de orientación cárnica en Andalucía. 1.1 Realizar una caracterización del sector que incluya una recopilación de los principales servicios ambientales asociados al mismo. 1.2 Determinar el conjunto de factores limitantes de la actividad y la priorización de los mismos. 1.3 Proponer actuaciones concretas a nivel de la toma de decisiones en relación al reconocimiento de estas razas como “ambientales”. 2. Caracterizar los diferentes sistemas caprinos de producción de leche basados en el uso de razas autóctonas en Andalucía. 2.1 Realizar una clasificación de los mismos atendiendo a las prácticas de manejo alimentario y su productividad. 2.2 Analizar, en base al cálculo de indicadores técnicos y económicos, las diferencias entre estos sistemas y los factores que determinan su eficiencia técnica. 3. Determinar el impacto ambiental, a partir del Análisis de Ciclo de Vida, de los diferentes sistemas caprinos de producción de leche basados en el uso de razas autóctonas en Andalucía. 3.1 Desarrollar un algoritmo específico para la normalización de la producción de leche de cabra para ser utilizado en Análisis de Ciclo de Vida. 3.2 Identificar sistemas productivos y de manejo que hagan mejor uso de los recursos disponibles y reduzcan el impacto ambiental de la actividad.
Capítulo 1. Introducción 26 4. Analizar, desde una perspectiva energética y monetaria la eficiencia de los diferentes modelos de producción caprina lechera basados en el uso de razas autóctonas en Andalucía. 4.1 Incorporar indicadores energéticos no habitualmente utilizados en los sectores ganaderos utilizando un abordaje agroecológico. 4.2 Generar indicadores económicos para evaluar la dimensión económica de los diferentes modelos de producción. 4.3 Analizar, en términos de ecoeficiencia los diferentes sistemas de producción identificados.
1.3 Estructura de la presente Tesis Doctoral
Capítulo 1. Introducción 29 Esta Tesis Doctoral se presenta en forma de compendio de publicaciones científicas. A este capítulo introductorio (Capítulo 1), que incluye una introducción general, objetivos y estructura de la presente Tesis, le sigue el Capítulo 2 donde se presentan los resultados obtenidos, los cuales han dado lugar a cinco trabajos de investigación que abordan los diferentes objetivos citados anteriormente. Estos trabajos reproducen los contenidos de los artículos publicados o en revisión en diferentes revistas científicas, por lo que se presentan en inglés. Los artículos están escritos con la finalidad de que puedan ser leídos de modo independiente, conteniendo toda la información necesaria para su comprensión. Los dos primeros trabajos abordan el análisis y caracterización de los diferentes sistemas de producción caprina en Andalucía, tanto de orientación cárnica (primer artículo) como lechera (segundo artículo), teniendo en cuenta que, por sus especificidades, requieren un abordaje diferenciado. En el tercer trabajo se desarrolla una fórmula específica de normalización para la leche de cabra, con el objeto de ser utilizada en el Análisis de Ciclo de Vida. Ello corrige una laguna que existía para el caprino en este ámbito, a diferencia de lo que ocurría en otros sectores. El cuarto y quinto trabajos abordan el análisis de los diferentes sistemas de producción del caprino andaluz desde una visión que va más allá de la estrictamente económica, en consonancia con los retos y exigencias actuales. El primero de ellos analiza la Huella de Carbono generada por los diferentes sistemas de producción, teniendo en cuenta no sólo las emisiones producidas, sino también la capacidad de sumidero de carbono de las superficies destinadas a la alimentación de las cabras. El segundo incorpora un análisis biofísico de la actividad mediante el cálculo de diferentes indicadores energéticos, pero también económicos, que permiten analizar la actividad desde una óptica diferente y más enfocada a la búsqueda de sistemas más sostenibles y resilientes. En el Capítulo 3 se expone la discusión general, y, por último, en el Capítulo 4 las conclusiones de esta Tesis Doctoral. Cabe reseñar que las referencias bibliografía de cada capítulo que conforman la presente Tesis Doctoral, han sido elaboradas de forma independiente con el objeto de facilitar su consulta.
Capítulo 1. Introducción 30 Referencias 1. Nastic, L.; Markovic, T.; Ivanovic, S. 2017. Economic efficiency of extensive lovestock production in the European Union. Economics of Agriculture 3/2017, 1219-1230. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO. Gateway to dairy production and products. Available online: http://www.fao.org/dairyproduction-products/socio-economics/the-dairy-chain/en/ (Last accessed on march, 12 2021). 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QL (Last accesed on march, 1 2021). 4. Ruiz, F.A.; Castel, J.M.; Mena, Y. 2019. Current status, challenges and the way forward for dairy goat production in Europe. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1256–1265. 5. Castel, J.M.; Mena, Y.; Ruiz, F.A.; Camúñez‐Ruiz, J.; Sánchez‐Rodríguez, M. 2011. Changes occurring in dairy goat production systems in less favoured areas of Spain. Small Rumin. Res. 2011, 96, 83–92. 6. MAPA, 2021a. Anuario de Estadística 2021. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/estadistica/pags/anuario/2019/CAPITULOSPDF/ CAPITULO08/pdfc08_3.1.1.pdf (Last accessed on october, 28 2021). 7. MAPA, 2021b. Renta Agraria Nacional. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticasagrarias/economia/cuentas-economicas-agricultura/ (Last accessed on april, 12 2021). 8. MAPA, 2023a. Sistema Integral de Trazabilidad Animal, SITRAN. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/trazabilidadanimal/registro/de fault.aspx (Last accessed on april, 12 2023). 9. Isanta Muñoz, F. 2019. Análisis integral del sistema de trazabilidad de la leche de cabra y oveja en Andalucía. Doctoral Thesis. University of Cordoba. 2019. Available on: https://helvia.uco.es/bitstream/handle/10396/18858/2019000001947.pdf?se quence=1. (Last accessed on September, 21 2023) 10. Mena, Y.; Ruiz-Mirazo, J.; Ruiz, F.A.; Castel, J.M. 2016. Characterization and typification of small ruminant farms providing fuelbreak grazing services for wildfire prevention in Andalusia (Spain). 2016. Science of The Total Environment. Vol. 544, 15 February 2016, 211-219.
Capítulo 1. Introducción 31 11. García de Tena, A.; Gámiz, P. y Barba, C. 2018. Manual técnico sobre controles de la cadena alimentaria en el sector lácteo de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Desarrollo Sostenible. 175 pp. ISBN: 978-84-09-04845-8 12. Pulina, G.; Milán, M. J.; Lavín, M. P.; Theodoridis, A.; Morin, E.; Capote, J.; Thomas, D. L.; Francesconi, A. H. D.; Caja, G. 2018. Invited review: Current production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat sectors, Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 101, Issue 8, 2018, Pages 6715-6729, ISSN 0022-0302, 13. MAPA, 2023b. Declaraciones de contratos en el sector lácteo. Ovino y caprino. Enero 2023. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/produccion-y-mercados- ganaderos/1_informecontratos_ovinoycaprino_enero2023_tcm30- 571914.pdf (Last accessed on march, 21 2023) 14. Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Mena, Y. 2020. The contribution of traditional meat goat farming systems to human wellbeing and its importance for the sustainability of this livestock subsector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1181. 15. Henry, B.K.; Eckard, R.J.; Beauchemin, K.A. 2018. Review: Adaptation of ruminant livestock production systems to climate changes. Animal 2018, 12, 445-456. 16. Zucali, M.; Lovarelli, D.; Celozzi, S.; Bacenetti, J.; Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L. 2020. Management options to reduce the environmental impact of dairy goat milk production. Livest. Sci. 2020, 231, 103888. 17. PINEDA, F.D. 2001. ‘Intensification, rural abandonment and nature conservation in Spain’, in Examples of European agri‐environment schemes and livestock systems and their influence on Spanish cultural landscapes. Alterra Rapport 309, eds. R.G.H. Bunce, M. Pérez‐ Solba, B.S. Elbersen, M.J. Prados, E Andersen, M. Bell and P.J.A.M. Smeets, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 23–38 18. MAGRAMA, 2021 19. Miller, B.A.; Lu, C.D. 2019. Current status of global dairy goat production: an overview. Asian- Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1219-1232. 20. Bernués, A.; Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Alfnes, F. 2014. Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLOS ONE 2014, 9, e102479.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 38 freedom of choice and action [1]. Achievement of this objective is contingent on the availability and quality of the social capital, technology, and institutions of that society—but also, and very intimately, on the services provided by its ecosystems [2]. The former are easily identified, but this is not the case with the latter, which are usually disregarded, especially in economically developed societies, despite the fact that the whole system is built upon nature. On the one hand, ecosystems are the source of all the materials and energy that are processed and transformed into consumption goods and services. On the other, they are the sink for all the waste generated by economic activities [3]. Therefore, ecosystems may be analyzed from an economic-ecological perspective as natural capital, a term that was coined in the 1990s and represents the goods and services provided by ecosystems that help improve people’s quality of life [4]. Understanding ecosystems as natural capital, Gómez-Baggethun and De Groot [3] define the “products of their structure and functioning that have a potential or real incidence on human wellbeing” as ecosystem functions and services. Functions are elements that are potentially capable of generating services that contribute to the improvement of people’s quality of life. Services are specific benefits with a real impact on the citizens. According to De Groot et al. [5], mainstreamed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem services (ES) are classified into four categories: Provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural. Provisioning services are products directly obtained from the ecosystems (for instance, food, fresh water, wood, cellulose or genetic resources). Regulating services are benefits indirectly obtained from ecosystem processes (for instance, climate regulation, flood control or water purification). Cultural services are immaterial and intangible contributions made by the ecosystems to human experience (for instance, spirituality, recreation and tourism, esthetic enjoyment, education, sense of identity or cultural heritage). Supporting services category has been questioned because it could lead to double counting since its value is reflected in the other three types of services. The various contributions of the ecosystems to human wellbeing are not adequately acknowledged or valued; consequently, they are not considered in commercial circuits or political decision-making processes [6]. This fact is an enormous competitive disadvantage for those activities that create frameworks—in this specific case, agroecosystems—favoring the provision of beneficial services to people. These services are neither remunerated in
Capítulo 2. Resultados 39 the market or via policies, nor included in the cost structure of other less sustainable activities. In the last decades, the disappearance of many pastoral uses of the territory has revealed the importance of sustainable livestock management for environmental conservation. The abandonment or progressive decline of pastoralism has had negative consequences for biodiversity and ES, especially in marginal areas traditionally used for that activity [7]. In many ecosystems, with a deep-rooted grazing tradition, the complete exclusion of livestock rearing has brought about changes in the richness and diversity of species, favoring an increase of woody vegetation, and consequently, biomass fuel [8,9,10]. In addition, the abandonment of livestock farming has led to the modification of certain interspecies interactions (affecting, for instance, pollinators, herbivorous insects, parasitoids, etc.) [8,11,12,13]. In this sense, a recent report of the European Commission pointed to the decline of traditional grazing activities as one of the main threats, in large areas of Europe, to the objectives of the Natura 2000 network concerning the conservation of agricultural habitats [14]. There is an increasing number of studies showing that good management practices in livestock husbandry are key for the resilience, sustainability and preservation of biodiversity in pastoral ecosystems, especially in rural and mountain areas, where goat production plays a relevant role. Goat husbandry has had its own evolution in this period. This livestock subsector did not participate in the first great revolution in European agriculture and livestock farming, which took place in the 19th century. During this period, agricultural activities were intensified in order to meet the demands of the growing urban population. Milk and dairy products were mainly supplied by dairy cow farms, while the goat sector remained active in marginal and usually poorer areas [15]. In these regions, many of which (including Andalusia) were located in the Mediterranean basin, where arable land is quite limited, food derived from livestock production was very important [16]. Goat rearing, based on grazing and the use of natural resources, was essentially limited to the production of one 30–40 kg kid, as well as cheese for self-consumption [17]. From the 1980s onwards, interest in the production of goat milk increased, especially in developed countries, such as France and Spain. However, a series of socioeconomic and legislative changes took place
Capítulo 2. Resultados 40 following Spain’s and other Mediterranean countries entry into the European Common Market, in order to adapt to the European framework. In fact, the strict European legislation on food quality and food security issues and the concern of obtaining growing volumes of milk per farm led to the intensification of production and the decline of grazing livestock systems [17]. As a result, despite the fact that pastoral goat husbandry is nowadays the main feasible economic and productive activity in Mediterranean mountain areas of Spain and elsewhere, where the climatic and soil conditions hinder the development of other agricultural and/or livestockrearing activities, the above-mentioned process of milk specialization has progressively broken the link between this sector and the territory where it is based. For example, the findings of Mena et al. [18], indicated that, in the 1990s, most of the goat farming systems in central-western Andalusia were highly extensive, but Castel et al. [19] affirmed that in 2010 up to 47% of the farms were intensively or semi-intensively managed. On the other hand, Pulina et al. [20] have revealed that the grazing livestock population in Spain has dropped by almost 50% in the last 25 years. One part, albeit small, of the goat-rearing sector in Andalusia has not undergone the milk specialization or management intensification processes. This part is represented by the traditional meat-producing systems, based on the use of very rustic endangered breeds that are less apt for milking than the rest of the autochthonous Andalusian breeds. Among these breeds, the Blanca Serrana Andaluza or Serrana (hereinafter Blanca Serrana), the Negra Serrana or Castiza (hereinafter, Negra Serrana), and to a lesser extent, the Blanca Celtibérica deserve to be highlighted [17]. In Andalusia, most meat goat farms are located in areas that belong to the Andalusian Network of Protected Natural Areas, mainly in the sierras of Jaen, Granada and Huelva. Many of them are managed following a certified organic production model. These goat farms are faced with a serious problem concerning the commercialization of its main product: The kid, which has to compete in the market with kids from dairy goat breeds. The total per capita consumption of fresh meat in Spain amounted to 33.8 kg in 2018 [21]. However, domestic consumption of fresh sheep and goat meat (which are combined in the statistics) is still the sector’s primary challenge. This segment has performed quite poorly in recent years. In 2008, the per capita consumption reached 3.4 kg, but ten years later, in 2018, it had dropped to 1.36 kg. As regards kid meat, the estimated per capita consumption is 0.3–0.5 kg. Lamb/kid meat is
Capítulo 2. Resultados 41 considered expensive (6.8 on a 0 to 10 scale), and is mostly consumed on family gatherings at special occasions [22]. Suckling kid meat is the preferred goat carcass in Spain; it originates from animals fed only on milk and slaughtered aged 35–45 days at 8-10 kg live weight [23,24,25]. In contrast to the loss of importance as meat suppliers, pastoral meatoriented goat farms are considered important providers of “environmental services”. However, this has rarely been the object of study by the scientific community. The literature devoted to describing the activity, analyzing its contribution to the conservation and management of the territory, identifying its challenges, and proposing specific actions, is very limited. The low selling price of kids and the lack of remuneration of other ecosystem services has resulted in a lack of profitability, and in the progressive reduction of the number of livestock farms implementing traditional meat production models. In addition, there are other complex and multifactorial problems contributing to the disappearance of this livestock subsector. In brief, the main objective of this work is to analyze the general situation of traditional meat goat systems in Andalusia, focusing on their relationship with human wellbeing, and to define proposals that can contribute to guaranteeing profitability and continuity. For the achievement of this general objective, the article suggests to fill the existing void of information through: (i) The description of the subsector, including the identification of the main environmental services provided by it; (ii) the analysis and hierarchization of the factors limiting the activity; and (iii) the proposal of specific actions aimed at obtaining the acknowledgement of these breeds as “environmental”. 2.1.2 Materials and Methods 2.1.2.1 Study Area and Breeds Andalusia, the southernmost autonomous region in Spain (36° N–38°44′ N and 3°50′ W–0°34′ E), covers an area of 87,600 km2 and is structured around four geomorphological units: The Guadalquivir river valley; the coast; Sierra Morena-Los Pedroches; and the Baetic mountains and valleys [26]. The Baetic depression has fertile soils and is characterized by its high agricultural production. The mountains comprise a heterogeneous system with different states of ecological maturity and grazing as its main economic activity. Andalusia has a population of 8.4 million, 23% of which is considered rural.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 42 This percentage, which is higher than the national average of 16%, has significantly decreased during the last decade [27]. Up to 32% of the Andalusian area (2,670 km2) belongs to the Natura 2000 network (European Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and includes 243 protected areas (Figure I.1), which are the outcome of an intricate relationship between social and ecological systems [28]. Many of those protected areas are located in mountain and difficult access areas, which are the natural habitat of the goat breeds studied in this work. The Negra Serrana breed is exclusively found in the province of Jaen, particularly within the Sierras de Cazorla, Segura y Las Villas Natural Park. The Blanca Serrana breed is distributed throughout Andalusia, but lives preferably in mountain areas [29]. Thus, it is found in the Dehesa de Sierra Morena Biosphere Reserve, the Sierras de Cazorla, Segura y Las Villas Natural Park, and in neighboring areas of the province of Granada, such as, for instance, the Sierra de Castril Natural Park (Figure I.1). Figure I.1. Natura 2000 network (dark areas) and distribution of the area of study (highlighted with lines) in Andalusia (Spain).
Capítulo 2. Resultados 43 The Sierras de Cazorla, Segura y Las Villas Natural Park (province of Jaen, southeastern Spain) is characterized by its great extension (2143 km2) and a wide variety of landscapes: River valleys and meadows, mid-mountain areas, high plateaus and high mountain areas [30]. Extension and diversity also condition the climatic variability within the park and its high rainfall levels, which are among the highest in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. It is the second natural park in Europe in terms of plant biodiversity, being the home of 35 endemic species and 110 exclusively Andalusian species [31]. The tree story is mostly made up of pinewood (Pinus nigra), but there are relics of Mediterranean forest and formations of singular deciduous species (Corylus avellana, Quercus faginea, Q. rotundifolia and Q. pyrenaica). Plant communities are generally dominated by sclerophyllous woody plants with an herbaceous or shrubby understory [32], the exploitation of which is especially important to maintain goat farming. The Dehesas de Sierra Morena Biosphere Reserve (4244 km2) (southwestern Spain) comprises the Aracena and Picos de Aroche Natural Park (in the province of Huelva), the Sierra Norte Natural Park (in the province of Seville), and the Sierra de Hornachuelos Natural Park (in the province of Córdoba). The most representative and common landscape of the reserve is the dehesa, a unique model of sustainable development and an example of popular wisdom, which over the centuries has provided access to multiple natural resource uses—combining in a harmonious and balanced way agricultural uses with stockbreeding, hunting and forestry [33]. The reserve includes large areas of chestnut forests (Castanea sativa) and cork oak forests (Q. ilex and Q. suber), surrounded by pastures, meadows and Mediterranean scrub, creating an exceptional mosaic of landscapes [34,35]. These landscapes contain very high biodiversity, including some of the most emblematic species of the Mediterranean ecosystems, such as the Iberian Lynx, the Spanish Imperial Eagle, or the Eurasian Black Vulture [36,37]. The current Andalusian population of the Negra Serrana breed is 814 animals (46.6% of the total population in Spain), according to the herd-book. They are distributed among seven farms (all of them within the province of Jaen), with average flocks of 117 goats. As regards the Blanca Serrana breed, its population in Andalusia is estimated at 7176 goats (93% of the total national population), distributed among 38 farms with average flocks of 176 animals [29].
Capítulo 2. Resultados 44 2.1.2.2 Technical-Economic Characterization of the Monitored Farms and Calculation of the Carbon Footprint From the above-mentioned 45 meat goat farms based in Andalusia (Negra Serrana and Blanca Serrana breeds), a sample of five (10% of the total farms) was selected: Three of them rearing the Blanca Serrana breed and the other two rearing Negra Serrana flocks. The selection of those farms was made according to the following criteria: (i) Representativeness of the production model, management practices and variety of ecosystems; (ii) data gathering and registration routine; (iii) training of the farm’s manager; and (iv) good disposition and collaborative spirit. According to the authors’ previous experience [38,39,40], the farms selected were monitored monthly during 2018 in order to collect technicaleconomic and environmental information, as well as to calculate relevant indicators. Among the indicators, the following two deserve highlighting: (i) Net margin: Incomes for market plus coupled aid minus Total cost excluding family labor cost; and (ii) Net Economic Margin: Net margin minus family labor cost. For their estimation, neither the income from decoupled aid nor the differences in the inventory of the current stock were taken into account. The carbon footprint was determined in the way described by Gutiérrez- Peña et al. [40]. For the calculation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the scope of the study was defined as “from cradle to gate”, and all the emissions produced at the farm, including livestock emissions, managed soil emissions, etc., were considered. The emissions associated with the manufacturing and transportation of every input of the system (fertilizers, feed, etc.) were also taken into account. Machinery, buildings, medicines and other minor stable supplies were excluded from the assessment. The IPCC [41] guidelines have been followed. The emissions are expressed in CO2 equivalents calculated using the IPCC 100-year global warming potentials (GWP) for CH4 and N2O, which are, respectively, 25 and 298. In addition to GHG emissions, the carbon sequestration by the vegetation of pastoral ecosystems was calculated with the methodology developed by Petersen et al. [42], which takes into account a 100-year perspective to allocate soil C changes, as well as the GWP of the livestock emissions. The values have been calculated for two different functional units: (i) One kilogram of live weight at slaughter (LWS) for kid goats; and (ii) 1 ha of usable land for grazing (ULG) at the goat farm [40]. The principles of allocation applied were economic, based on the sale
Capítulo 2. Resultados 45 of kids of around one month of age and 10 kg live weight. No other income sources were evident within the scope of the study (animals and manure sale), and the allocation of the carbon footprint to meat varied by farm and year from 88% to 100%, with an average of 97%. For the technical-economic and carbon footprint variables, descriptive statistics (mean, minimum and maximum values) were determined using SPSS software for Windows (version 26.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). 2.1.2.3 Structural Analysis of the Problems Affecting the Meat-Oriented Goat Subsector For the purpose of developing a problem resolution methodology in an orderly and efficient manner, a structural analysis of a set of factors limiting the activity has been carried out following the proposal elaborated by Godet [43] and adapted by Mojica [44]. Structural analysis is a tool designed to structure collective reflection. It offers the possibility of describing a system with the help of a matrix that relates all the problems (hereinafter referred to as variables) to each other. Based on that description, the method aims at revealing the main influential and dependent variables, i.e., those that are essential to the evolution of the system. According to Godet [45], the analytical method is divided into the following phases: (i) Elaboration of a list of variables; (ii) description of the relationship between variables; and (iii) identification of the key variables. The implementation and development of those phases in relation to the present work are described below: (i) In order to identify the variables, a focus group was conducted in Cordoba (Spain) as part of a training workshop organized by ABLANSE (National Association of Blanca Serrana Goat Breeders) under the title “Analysis of the Evolution of Breeds and Future Prospects”. A round table and a group dynamic were included in the program and joined by a small group of people (20): Academic staff of the University of Seville and the University of Cordoba, as well as technicians and farmers belonging to ABLANSE and ANCCA (National Association of Negra Serrana Castiza Goat Breeders). The discussion focused on the identification and analysis of the factors limiting meat goat husbandry and conditioning its continuity. A selection of the factors considered to be most relevant was then made. In parallel, consultations were held with expert operators within the subsector.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 46 (ii) For the description of the relationship between the different variables, the direct effects that some of them have on others were identified. Treating each variable independently, they were all confronted with the rest. If an influence was observed, the variable was assigned the value 1; otherwise, it was assigned the value 0. Thus, a binary table was created where the variables were confronted, and the scoring was registered. (iii) Finally, the key variables of the system were identified through the calculation of the motricity index (MI, indicating the number of times one variable has influenced the others), and the dependence index (DI, indicating the number of times one variable has been affected by the others). These key variables were grouped into four areas or types of problems (Power, Conflict, Exit and Independence). Later on, a chart was designed to show the distribution of the variables on the plane. The chart was divided into four zones limited by the average value, calculated using the 100/n formula, n = 25 being the number of variables considered. Each quadrant corresponded to a type of problem or limiting factor: Power Zone: This zone comprises factors that have an influence on the rest, but are not affected by them. They are hardly vulnerable, but their resolution would have a positive impact on the whole system (MI > 4% > DI). Conflict Zone: The problems included herein have an influence on the others, but are also very dependent on them. They are influential, as well as vulnerable. As stated by Mojica (44), any variation in these factors would have a great impact on the exit problems, but also on themselves (MI > 4% < DI). Exit Zone: The problems in this zone will only be reduced or solved if actions are taken in relation to the two previous categories. They are the outcome of those two groups, and are therefore, dependent on them (MI < 4% < DI). Independence Zone: These are autonomous factors that are not clearly part of the system. They have very little influence or dependence on the rest. Their resolution may be important, but will have no effect on the system (MI < 4% > DI).
Capítulo 2. Resultados 47 Once this classification was made, the key variables (hierarchized limiting factors) that need to be analyzed for the development of action plans were identified. 2.1.3 Results 2.1.3.1 Technical-Economic and Environmental Analysis of the Sample of Farms Table I.1 reflects the general characteristics of the farms analyzed. The size of the flocks varies by farm: In two of the farms, it is below the average set by the corresponding association of breeders (117 goats for the Blanca Serrana breed, and 176 goats for the Negra Serrana breed), while in the remaining three it is above that average. The amount of work associated with the activity is small and established for these five farms at an average of 0.43 annual work units (AWU), which, if expressed in the number of goats, corresponds to 546/AWU. It is important to underline that there are no women working on these farms and that most of the labor is provided by the family (69.3%), while hired labor is mainly used temporarily during the kidding season. Table I.1. General characteristics of the monitored farms. Item Mean Minimum Maximum Goats (No.) 217 118 366 Area used by the goats (ha) 285.4 51.0 630.0 1 Goat stocking density (LSU ha–1) 0.25 0.09 0.78 2 Associated work (AWU) 0.43 0.15 0.67 Kids born goat–1 0.86 0.66 1.07 1 LSU: Livestock standard unit, one goat equals 0.15 LSU; 2 AWU: Annual work unit. Livestock density is low (0.25 LSU ha−1), and the presence of other species on the farm is frequent, mainly sheep and cattle, sometimes also pigs. In these systems, the main source of feed is grazing. The area of natural vegetation is large, with an average of 1.29 ha goat−1, most of which are covered by shrub pasture (52%) (Figure I.2). The surfaces devoted to crops destined to feed the goats are small. Oats and vetch or clover are usually grown in those areas, as a supplement for the summer, when the availability of natural resources is limited. Two of the monitored farms do not have such areas, and the other three only grow crops to be grazed, rather than to produce
Capítulo 2. Resultados 54 argued by Cooper et al. [46], given that those services have no market price, farmers have little or no incentive to produce them, regardless of the high societal demand. Rodríguez-Ortega et al. [47] and Cooper et al. [46] identified five of those ecosystem services (ES) among the most relevant non-market functions of European agriculture: Maintenance of sustainable agricultural landscape, biodiversity conservation, forest wildfire prevention, regulation of climate change through carbon sequestration, and production of local quality products. Provisioning Services The results of our study show that 71% of the market income of the farms analyzed comes from the sale of kids for slaughter. This service is virtually the only remunerated one among those supplied by the farms, but it is insufficient to guarantee the profitability of the activity. This is mainly due to three causes: (i) The low productivity per animal; (ii) the current marketing model, focused on the commercialization of undifferentiated suckling kids; and (iii) the low selling price of kids during most of the year, which does not cover the costs of production. In Greece, Hadjigeorgiou et al. [48] found values for kids produced by goat and year ranging between 0.89 and 1.09, i.e., higher than those obtained in the five farms monitored in this study (0.86). In 2007, Luque [49] found, for a sample of 57 extensive goat farms in Castilla La Mancha and Andalusia (Spain), that the number of kids sold per doe reached 1.19, a much higher value than that of 0.62 established in this work. In Spain, the market preference is for suckling kids, rather than larger animals. In 2018, 1.06 million suckling kids with an average weight of 5.17 kg carcass−1 were slaughtered, in contrast with only 67,410 larger kids weighing an average of 12.98 kg carcass−1 [50]. The sale of kids at 9.7 kg live weight, which is the average of the farms studied, hinders the creation of the value added, associated with raising a larger kid, as well as the development of the differential characteristics, mainly functional quality and organoleptic properties, that are typical of pasture-raised goat meat. The idea that the quality of a product needs to be taken into account in order to properly appreciate the value of an agricultural system for society is finding increasing support [51]. In this sense, kid meat is a first-rate provisioning ES, which contributes to people’s wellbeing. According to the Spanish Database of Food Composition [52], the meat of suckling ruminants in Spain contains high protein, phosphorus, zinc and vitamins B6 and B12; it is also a
Capítulo 2. Resultados 55 source of potassium, selenium and vitamin B3, and has a low content of sodium. Lately, there is an increasing demand for food that provides human health benefits through the presence of certain compounds, like fats. Unsaturated fatty acids (FA), such as n-3 FAs and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), and fat-soluble antioxidants (e.g., α-tocopherol, carotenoids) are claimed to have benefits for human health [53,54]. In addition, some recommendations have been made on the basis of the n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) ratio: An n-6/n-3 ratio of up to 4 is recommended in the human diet to help maintain good cardiovascular health [55]. The meat of Spanish autochthonous goat breeds reared in grazing-based production systems has a low content of fat and a healthier profile of FAs, especially in relation to the content of PUFAs and the n-6/n3 PUFA ratio [56,57,58]. Circumstantial evidence supports the hypothesis that phytochemical richness of herbivore diets that are high in plants (such as the farming systems studied in this work) enhances the biochemical richness of meat and dairy, which is linked with human health [59]. Among many roles they play in health, phytochemicals in herbivore diets protect meat and dairy from protein oxidation and lipid peroxidation that causes low-grade systemic inflammation implicated in heart disease and cancer in humans. However, future studies should elucidate how plant diversity influences biochemical richness of meat and dairy and how to affect the health of people [59]. The additional problem is that it is not easy for the consumer to identify and have access to differentiated pasture-based products. All this has an influence on the low selling price of the product and the little acknowledgement given to it by the consumers. The experts who were consulted include the low selling price of kids as one of the three main problems affecting this sector, although this factor is located in the exit zone and its resolution would require previously addressing the problems within the power zone that are directly related to it: (i) Competition with suckling kids reared in dairy farms; (ii) the preferences of live goat kid purchasers; and (iii) the lack of knowledge of or regard for the healthier lipid profile of grazing goat kids, among other positive characteristics of this kind of meat. Another ES supplied by goat husbandry is the preservation of animal genetic resources. Despite the fact that the five farms analyzed belong to the corresponding association of pure-bred breeders and that their animals are
Capítulo 2. Resultados 56 registered in the herd-book of each breed, the sale of live animals is a commercial option developed by only two of those farms, probably because the income derived from it is small (an average of 7.4 € goat−1). There is nevertheless an enormous potential in it, so the sale of live animals should be increased, as an additional source of income on farms. Regulating Services Pastoral goat farming also plays an important role as a supplier of ecosystem regulation and maintenance services, in addition to provisioning ES. As described above, the goat breeds studied are mainly fed with natural resources, a management practice that decreases the number of external inputs and promotes closed systems in relation to energy and matter flows. These are completely extensive management systems where grazing is possible all year long, and in many cases, practiced on a transhumance basis, thus, enormously contributing to the management and maintenance of ecosystems with a high environmental value [8,60]. There is increasing scientific evidence that grazing in mountain areas is a key tool for the resilience, sustainability and conservation of biodiversity [61,62,63,64]. Through good practices in pastoral goat farming, appropriate management of the ecosystems is possible. These practices include: Control of accumulated biofuel, dispersion of Mediterranean species, decomposition of plant litter, the balance between native and invasive species, and preservation of the landscape [8,60,65,66]. Blanca Serrana and Negra Serrana goat flocks graze on wide extensions of Mediterranean mountain land, which are usually protected and would otherwise be exposed to abandonment. In addition to making good use of shrubby vegetation [67], the presence and activity of goats improve the access of other species to herbaceous pastures and increase the productivity of the latter. As stated by Osoro et al. [68] and Mena et al. [39], goats could easily complement the grazing activity of sheep and cattle in certain ecosystems where the shrubland is predominant, increasing the global productivity per hectare. This, linked to the fact that traditional meatproducing systems require less labor (which can, therefore, be employed in other activities), explains the abundance of multi-species farms. The farms monitored in this work have a ratio of 546 goats AWU−1, in contrast with the 210 goats AWU−1 of the dairy goat farms of the Sierra de Grazalema, in the province of Cádiz (Spain), found by Mena et al. [39].
Capítulo 2. Resultados 57 Prevention of forest fires is a well-acknowledged regulating ES. Unfortunately, the frequency and intensity of forest fires in the Mediterranean basin are increasing and the interval between years of large wildfire events is shortening [67], a fact very much related to the abandonment of stockbreeding in those ecosystems. In recent years, there has been a shift in focus on long-term prevention policies: The processing of combustible biomass is now considered a key factor for their implementation. Preventive silviculture, and as part of it, supervised goat and sheep grazing are especially relevant tools [67]. Climate change, caused by an increment in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG), is another serious social concern. In this sense, the importance of evaluating farming systems in terms of GHG emissions has never been greater [51]. Pastoral goat husbandry is a production system that can positively contribute to the implementation of mitigation strategies, although some authors advocate the intensification of farming as the best solution, favoring specialized and more productive breeds rather than the rustic and traditional ones [69]. They argue that intensive systems have a smaller carbon footprint (CF), even though the evidence provided is partial because it only takes into consideration GHG emissions. When intensive and extensive stockbreeding are compared, carbon sequestration in ecosystems with the presence of livestock is generally disregarded. However, Batalla et al. [70] for sheep and Gutiérrez-Peña et al. [40] for goats have found that, when carbon sequestration is included in the estimation of the CF of extensive systems, the value obtained is similar to that of more intensive systems. Another element potentially distorting the results is that the CF is often calculated in relation to the output (number of kilograms produced), thus, significantly reducing the value in the most productive livestock farms. Finally, the deforestation resulting from the cultivation of crops for intensive livestock farms, located thousands of kilometers away, is not—although it should be—taken into account. As grazing animals basically feed on forage, most GHG emissions come from the methane produced through enteric fermentation [71]. However, as observed in the farms studied, the emissions of CO2 and N2O are reduced to the minimum and represent, respectively, 18.4% and 16.9% of the total GHG emissions. Consequently, the GHG emissions per hectare are low (220.2 kg CO2-eq ha−1), in fact, substantially lower than those of the intensive grazing systems (8629.57 kg CO2-eq ha−1) analyzed by Gutiérrez-Peña et al. [40]. On
Capítulo 2. Resultados 58 the other hand, the value of the CF in the pastoral farms monitored in this work is, when expressed in emissions per kilogram of meat produced, distorted by the methodology employed for the calculation. In the case of farms that only sell kids, all the GHG emissions are allocated to the meat product, and given the above-mentioned low productivity rate, the value obtained is relatively high (52.9 kg CO2-eq kg−1 LWS), compared to the 25.9 kg CO2-eq kg−1 LWS for grazing lamb meat estimated by Ripoll-Bosch et al. [72]. No CF values have been found in the scientific literature for meat goat livestock. Therefore, in order to obtain results that are closer to the reality of extensive meat goat farming, it is necessary: (i) To include carbon sequestration in the estimation of the CF, which will reduce the value of the total GHG emissions by 38.8% to 44.8%, depending on the functional unit used; and (ii) to quantify other services provided by the farms and make the correct allocation to each of them, as suggested by Ripoll-Bosch et al. [72]. Just like in farms producing both meat and milk these products are allocated their share of GHG emissions, which is calculated according to their economic value [40], in pastoral goat farms like the ones here studied, the regulating and cultural ES provided should also be economically valued and allocated their share of the GHG emissions generated by the production system. Another challenge for the sustainability of the current agrifood model is the high use of non-renewable energy sources despite the actual threat of oil depletion [73], and the pollution associated with them. From this point of view, low-input pastoral goat farms have several advantages. In contrast to intensive models, the practices implemented in grazing systems translate into important reductions in the use of non-renewable energy, because this type of energy is mainly related to the production and transportation of feed concentrates. Pérez-Neira et al. [74] made a comparative analysis of various pastoral dairy goat farms in the Sierra de Cádiz (Andalusia, Spain), and revealed the potential environmental benefits derived from land-based stockbreeding, and more specifically, grazing activities. Those benefits include gains in energy efficiency, reduction of dependence on nonrenewable energy, and avoidance of the environmental costs associated with the use of energy in other types of grazing systems. In addition, the low consumption of animal health and phytosanitary products completes the picture of low dependence on external inputs in these farms, thus, confirming
Capítulo 2. Resultados 59 that grazing is an effective, nearly carbon-neutral, and therefore, costeffective, non-toxic and non-polluting weed control technique [67]. Even though traditional meat-producing systems have a high degree of feed autonomy, which is one of their strengths, it is also true that the area devoted to growing crops for animal feed should be moderately increased when the circumstances allow it. This would provide a supplement for the animals in times of natural pasture shortage, which would, in turn, have an effect on the above-mentioned low productivity rates. Cultural Services Access to a pleasant environment and to leisure activities is another service offered by the farms monitored in this study. Many cultural services are associated with traditional agriculture landscape, and there is strong evidence that their biodiversity plays a positive role in enhancing human well-being, especially in the case of agro-tourism, eco-tourism and educational activities inspired by the local ecosystems and taking place in the landscape [75]. Despite the negative effects that the pressure of tourism may have on the primary sector in certain mountain areas, some subsectors have made the most of the implementation of this kind of activities. The FAO [76] has argued that a holistic approach to food production in protected areas is required to achieve a successful integration of agriculture, livestock husbandry and ecosystem conservation. This idea underlines the importance of cultural landscapes within protected areas as food suppliers playing a significant role in food security [26]. In Andalusia, for instance, the so-called “oil tourism” is an opportunity to explain the true relevance of olive oil and to create a channel for economic diversification in rural areas [77]. Extensive goat production has enough ecological, cultural, heritage-related and gastronomical relevance to justify the development of this kind of activities. However, none of the farms analyzed receives any income from visits or tourist activities, a situation that should be corrected by introducing such activities into the agro-tourism circuits. 2.1.4.2 Proposals for Acknowledgement and Valuation of the Ecosystem Services Associated with Pastoral Goat Farming Despite the multiple ES provided by goat pastoral farms, few of them are a source of income for farmers. The main remunerated service is related to the provision, more specifically to the supply of goat meat. However, as
Capítulo 2. Resultados 60 mentioned before, the income derived from the sale of kids does not in any way cover the costs of production. In order to revert this situation, it would be necessary to undertake certain actions connected to: (i) The differentiation, via labelling and information, of pasture-based products; and (ii) further research on the possible functional quality of meat produced in grazing systems, as well as on the development of traceability systems to guarantee authenticity. In other words, more research applied to the sector is required, a limiting factor identified in the structural analysis within the power zone. The creation of a specific brand for pasture-raised goat products would contribute to enhance pastoral farming systems and could be the basis for a differentiated payment that would cover the costs of production, bringing the weight at slaughter closer to the required profitability threshold. Presently, there is no Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) for kid meat and only a regional quality brand has been registered, although a national regulation on the marketing of products from autochthonous animal breeds has already been passed [78], and implemented to various degrees. The lack of acknowledgement of the environmental and cultural services provided by pastoral goat farms is a problem located within the power zone and one of the three major limiting factors highlighted by the consulted experts. Indeed, those services have no economic compensation, with one exception: The payment to farmers for using their animals to prevent forest fires. In Andalusia, a grazed fuelbreak network called RAPCA (Red de Áreas Pasto-Cortafuegos de Andalucía) was created in 2005, and two years later, it began remunerating farmers for the environmental services provided for the prevention of forest fires [79,80]. This network prioritizes the use of autochthonous sheep and goat flocks, well-adapted to the landscape and guided by shepherds, to overgraze certain areas under supervision, mainly firebreaks and the surrounding areas, thus, contributing to the selective and controlled reduction of the accumulated combustible biomass and the prevention of fires. This service, which entails an extra effort, is remunerated, and therefore, encourages participation. According to Ruiz- Mirazo et al. [79], the grazing service contract offered to shepherds usually comprises several firebreaks, which are priced 42 to 90 € ha−1 year−1 in proportion to the estimated grazing difficulty. According to the data provided by Mena et al. [80], the payment for firebreak grazing was 8.60 € animal−1. This payment for the provision of a specific ES should be extended to more
Capítulo 2. Resultados 61 livestock farms that are already actively participating in the prevention of forest fires in Andalusia, thus, increasing the area protected. Even though progress has been made in recognition of regulating and cultural ecosystem services, little has been achieved in relation to the remuneration of the farmers’ work and investment. Some authors like Baylis et al. [81] have argued that EU agri-environmental policies (AEPs) are examples of payments for environmental services intended to reduce the negative externalities of agricultural production, while transferring public funds to farmers. In this sense, Ripoll-Bosch et al. [72] have established, for sheep farms, a relationship between the agri-environmental aid of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the value of certain ecosystem services, but they have also underlined the difficulties in establishing such relationship, because the amount subsidized is based on political decisions and the loss of agricultural production rather than on empirical observations for valuing cultural ES. They also insist that the variability of subsidies among regions and countries could be the result of arbitrary political decisions rather than of production as such. According to Gouriveau et al. [82], CAP aid is defined within a complex and restrictive political and regulatory framework. They were mainly designed to address the environmental problems faced by intensive farms, whereas, the design and implementation of policies responding to the needs of extensive livestock farms were given much less weight. It was expected that, after the last reform of the CAP, land-based livestock husbandry would be given some special attention, but the way the reform has been implemented in Spain has hindered the redistribution of aid from the First Pillar, negatively affecting extensive livestock systems [83]. This has been brought to light by the structural analysis performed in the present study, with the experts consulted underlining the inadequate design of CAP aid and the bureaucracy associated with it (both problems are included within the power zone). Regardless of the design of the aid, the difficulties in meeting environmental commitments and the corresponding penalties, as well as the lack of regularity in the reception of those aids, are serious problems, classified into the exit zone by the experts. Some authors, such as Pulina et al. [20], have argued that EU agrifood and agri-environmental policies favor those systems that are better integrated with the environment, but they also admit that the grazing livestock
Capítulo 2. Resultados 62 population is drastically decreasing in Spain. Other authors consider that EU policies have damaged small-ruminant pastoral husbandry in Spain, because the direct payment system applied since 2006 has been detrimental for local Spanish farmers and not for their colleagues in other EU countries [83]. An example of this is the restrictive application of the coefficient of admissibility of pastures in Andalusia, which reduces the area that is, in fact, eligible for the reception of CAP aid [83], and affects goats more intensely than other ruminants, because they are usually raised in mountain areas. It is then possible to ask whether European aid (56% of the income of the farms analyzed) is indeed designed as a payment for the provision of certain ES. The payments for environmental and climate services included in the Second Pillar of the CAP have an unquestionable environmental objective, because they pursue the maintenance of activities that are beneficial for the environment in order to avoid the risk of abandonment, and encourage the introduction of production systems that allow a more sustainable use of the natural resources. However, it is not possible to affirm that these aids actually remunerate the provision of ES because the calculation is based on other elements. Thus, the aid for the maintenance of endangered native breeds aims at compensating the loss of profit associated with the lower yields of this activity compared to those of more commercial production alternatives. In addition, the design of those payments has proved to be detrimental for meat goat breeds, which receive a lower amount per animal than meat sheep breeds. As for the aid intended for the maintenance of organic agriculture and livestock husbandry practices and methods, it aims at compensating the additional costs of meeting the commitments concerning the transition to organic production systems, as well as the differences in production. These subsidies contribute to the development of management systems that may involve the provision of certain services, but they do not pay for the services as such, thus, opening a relevant debate around the challenge of monetizing those other services supplied by livestock-rearing systems [47]. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the direct payments included in the First Pillar of the CAP have a different spirit and objectives. In Spain, there is a subsidy for goat-rearing initiatives that aims at guaranteeing the economic viability of the farms and reducing the risk of abandonment [84]. This aid is 25.8% higher for farms located in mountain areas or islands (8.83 € animal−1, compared to 7.02 € animal−1 for farms in other types of areas), which, however, do not need to be grazing-based.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 63 The European HNV-Link project, which has analyzed the CAP support policies and measures [82], has pointed that, even though certain aspects of the CAP have positively evolved and measures, such as the direct support to areas facing natural or other specific constraints (ANCs), the agrienvironmental and climate measures (AECMs), and the payments related to the operation of the Natura 2000 network and the creation of Operational Groups (OG) has been developed, other steps are still missing. The CAP must provide the degree of protection that extensive livestock farming demands, through both the First Pillar (via direct payments and fairer ecoschemes) and the Second Pillar (via specific and well-resourced agrienvironmental measures). In this model, the new basic payment would, thus, be intended to compensate the farmers’ loss of income; eco-schemes would incentivize the ecosystem services already provided by pastoralism; and agri-environmental measures would encourage the development of additional practices, which are essential for the global sustainability of grazing livestock farms [85]. The decline in traditional livestock practices can be observed in worldwide, in special in European mountain areas, with large implications for the sustainability of grazing agro-ecosystems [86,87], so that future policy measures must pay more attention to local characteristics and needs that could help develop future scenarios to address imminent challenges in ecosystem service provide. 2.1.5 Conclusions This work, which is the first assessment study of the sustainability of meatoriented autochthonous goat farming and its impact on human wellbeing, has been carried out in a context characterized by the risk of disappearance of the activity in Andalusia. The traditional systems associated with the Blanca Serrana and the Negra Serrana breeds should not be linked exclusively to the production of meat, because this is not the only service they provide. These pastoral models create a framework, in this case, an agroecosystem, which favors the provision of services that benefit people and are mainly environmental, but also social, cultural or heritage-related. These services are neither properly acknowledged, nor valued or quantified, and are therefore, excluded from commercial circuits and political decision-making processes, a situation that creates an enormous competitive disadvantage. In
Capítulo 2. Resultados 70 54. Willcox, J.K.; Ash, S.L.; Catignani, G.L. 2004. Antioxidants and prevention of chronic disease. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2004, 44, 275–295. 55. Molendi-Coste, O.; Legry, V.; Leclercq, I.A. 2011. Why and how meet n-3 PUFA dietary recommendations? A review. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2011, 2011, 364040. 56. Horcada, A.; Ripoll, G.; Alcalde, M.J.; Sañudo, C.; Teixeira, A.; Panea, B. 2012. Fatty acid profile of three adipose depots in seven Spanish breeds of suckling kids. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 89–96. 57. De La Vega, F.; Guzmán, J.L.; Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Zarazaga, L.A.; Argüello, A. 2013. Fatty acid composition of muscle and internal fat depots of organic and conventional Payoya goat kids. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 11, 759–769. 58. De La Vega, F.; Guzmán, J.L.; Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Zarazaga, L.A.; Argüello, A. 2013. Fatty acid composition of muscle and adipose tissues of organic and conventional Blanca Andaluza suckling kids. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 11, 770–779. 59. Provenza, F.D.; Kronberg, S.L.; Gregorini, P. 2019. Is Grassfed Meat and Dairy Better for Human and Environmental Health? Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 26. 60. Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Vicente, A.M.; Parejo-Farnés, C.; Fernández-Ales, R.; Leiva, M.J. 2014. A vegetation management experiment: Goats grazing shrublands in Doñana Natural Park. Russ. J. Ecol. 2014, 45, 384–390. 61. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; González, J.A.; Plieninger, T.; López, C.A.; Montes, C. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1269–1289. 62. López-Santiago, C.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; Plieninger, T.; González Martín, E.; González, J. 2014. Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: The case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 27. 63. Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Tichit, M.; Martin-López, B.; Bernués, A. 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal 2014, 8, 1361–1372. 64. Bernués, A.; Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Alfnes, F. 2014. Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102479.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 71 65. Nikolov, S.C.; Demerdzhiev, D.A.; Popgeorgiev, G.S.; Plachiyski, D.G. 2011. Bird community patterns in sub–Mediterranean pastures: The effects of shrub cover and grazing intensity. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 34, 11–21. 66. Van Zanten, B.T.; Verburg, P.H.; Espinosa, M.; Gómez-y-Paloma, S.; Galimberti, G.; Kantelhardt, J.; Kapfer, M.; Lefebvre, M.; Manrique, R.; Piorr, A.; et al. 2014. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 309–325. 67. Loverglio, R.; Meddour-Sahar, O.; Leone, V. 2014. Goat grazing as a wildfire prevention tool: A basic review. Forest 2014, 7, 260–268. 68. Osoro, K.; Ferreira, L.M.M.; García, U.; Martínez, A.; Celaya, R. 2017. Forage intake, digestibility and performance of cattle, horses, sheep and goats grazing together on an improved heathland. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 102–109. 69. Balmford, A.; Amano, T.; Bartlett, H.; Chadwick, D.; Collins, A.; Edwards, D.; Waters, H. 2018. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 477–485. 70. Batalla, I.; Knudsen, M.T.; Mogensen, L.; del Hierro, Ó.; Pinto, M.; Hermansen, J.E. 2015. Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 121–129. 71. McAllister, T.; Newbold, C. 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 7–13. 72. Ripoll-Bosch, R.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Bernués, A.; Vellinga, T.V. 2013. Accounting for multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: A comparison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems. Agric. Syst. 2013, 116, 60–68. 73. Sorrell, S.; Speirs, J.; Bentley, R.; Brandt, A.; Miller, R. 2010. Global oil depletion: A review of the evidence. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 5290–5295. 74. Perez-Neira, D.; Soler-Montiel, M.; Gutiérrez-Peña, R.; Mena-Guerrero, Y. 2018. Energy Assessment of Pastoral Dairy Goat Husbandry from an Agroecological Economics Perspective. A Case Study in Andalusia (Spain). Sustainability 2018, 10, 2838. 75. Špulerová, J.; Petrovič, F.; Mederly, P.; Mojses, M.; Izakovičová, Z. 2018. Contribution of Traditional Farming to Ecosystem Services Provision: Case Studies from Slovakia. Land 2018, 7, 74.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 72 76. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Protected Areas, People and Food Security. FAO Contribution to the World Parks Congress, Sidney, Australia; Technical Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4198e.pdf (Last accessed on September, 15 2019). 77. Ruiz, I.; Molina, V.; Martín, M. 2011. El oleoturismo como atractivo turístico en el medio rural español. Pap. Tur. 2011, 49–50, 89–103. 78. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 505/2013, de 28 de junio, por el que se Regula el uso del Logotipo “Raza Autóctona” en los Productos de Origen Animal; BOE: Madrid, Spain, 2013; pp. 54321–54328. (In Spanish) 79. Ruiz-Mirazo, J.; Robles, A.B.; González-Rebollar, J.L. 2011. Two-year evaluation of fuelbreaks grazed by livestock in the wildfire prevention program in Andalusia (Spain). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 13–22. 80. Mena, Y.; Nahed, J.; Ruiz, F.A.; Sánchez-Muñoz, J.B.; Ruiz-Rojas, J.L.; Castel, J.M. 2011. Evaluating mountain goat dairy systems for conversion to the organic model, using a multicriteria method. Animal 2011, 6, 693–703. 81. Baylis, K.; Peplow, S.; Rausser, G.; Simon, L. 2008. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 753–764. 82. Gouriveau, F.; Beaufoy, G.; Moran, J.; Poux, X.; Herzon, I.; Ferraz de Oliveira, M.I.; Gaki, D.; Gaspart, M.; Genevet, E.; Goussios, D.; et al. What EU Policy Framework Do We Need to Sustain High Nature Value (HNV) Farming and Biodiversity? Policy Paper Prepared in the Framework of HNV–Link, 2019 (Project Funded by the H2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement no 696391). Available online: http://www.hnvlink.eu/download/D4.3.HNV-Link_Policy- Brief_v2019-3-25.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2020). 83. Beaufoy, G.; Ruiz-Mirazo, J. 2013. Ingredients for a new Common Agricultural Policy in support or sustainable livestock systems linked to the landscape. Pastos 2013, 43, 25–34. 84. MAPA. Ayuda Asociada Para las Explotaciones de Caprino 2019. Available online: https://www.fega.es/sites/default/files/NOTA_WEB_Ayuda_Asocia da_Caprino_C_2019.pdf?token=vXiN_kIA (Last accessed on September, 25 2019). (In Spanish) 85. Plataforma por la Ganadería Extensiva y el Pastoralismo. Los Ecoesquemas en el Contexto de la Nueva PAC. Available
Capítulo 2. Resultados 73 online: http://www.ganaderiaextensiva.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/EcoesquemasFinal-1.pdf (Last accessed on January, 3 2020). (In Spanish). 86. García-Martínez, A.; Olaizola, A.; Bernués, A. 2009. Trajectories of evolution and drivers of change in European mountain cattle farming systems. Animal 2009, 3, 152–165. 87. Nadal-Romero, E.; Lasanta, T.; Cerdà, A. 2018. Integrating Extensive Livestock and Soil Conservation Policies in Mediterranean Mountain Areas for Recovery of Abandoned Lands in the Central Spanish Pyrenees. A Long- Term Research Assessment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 262–273.
Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mena, Y.; Camúñez-Ruiz, J.A.; Fernández, J.; Mancilla- Leytón, J.M. 2022. Characterization of dairy goat production systems using autochthonous breeds in Andalusia (Southern Spain): Classification and efficiency comparative analysis, Small Ruminant Research, Volume 213, 2022, 106743, ISSN 0921-4488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2022.106743 2.2 Characterization of dairy goat production systems using autochthonous breeds in Andalusia (Southern Spain): Classification and efficiency comparative analysis
Capítulo 2. Resultados 77 Characterization of dairy goat production systems using autochthonous breeds in Andalusia (Southern Spain): Classification and efficiency comparative analysis Eduardo Morales-Jerrett 1, Yolanda Mena 1, *, José Antonio Camúñez Ruiz 2, Javier Fernández 3 and Juan Manuel Mancilla-Leytón 4 1 Departamento de Ciencias Agroforestales, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla. 41013, Seville, Spain 2 Departamento de Economía Aplicada I, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Sevilla, 41018 Seville, Spain 3 National Association of Breeders of Murciano-Granadina Goat Breed, Fuente Vaqueros, 18340 Granada, Spain 4 Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de Sevilla. 41012, Seville, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34 954486449 Abstract: The main characteristic of caprine production in southern Spain is its heterogeneity, which has prevented a proper classification of the different systems. This leads to lack of knowledge and difficulties in the decisionmaking processes and in the adoption of sectorial strategies. In this context, this article aimed to characterize and classify the different dairy goat systems using autochthonous breeds in Andalusia, according to their feed management practices and productivity. Based on this classification, this work intended to define the technical and economic characteristics of those dairy goat systems by analyzing their differences, performing a comparative analysis of their technical efficiency and assessing the current framework within which the activity takes place. For this purpose, twenty-one farms were monitored during 2018. The technical-economic information obtained allowed the performance of a Cluster Analysis to segregate different groups with common characteristics. Subsequently, an input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis was also performed, followed by a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. The work carried out made it possible to identify four well-defined dairy goat systems: Pastoral systems; Grazing systems with high feed supply; Indoor systems with associated crops; and Indoor systems without associated crops. They displayed significant differences from a technical-economic point of view, but not in terms of technical efficiency, which was not determined by the production system as such, but by the appropriate management practices implemented in each case. The SWOT analysis revealed the existence of many common elements together with important differences, which justified the use of a specific approach to the reality of each system.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 78 Keywords: Caprine, Feed management, Data Envelopment Analysis, SWOT analysis 2.2.1 Introduction European Union (EU) countries produce 15 % of the world’s goat milk with 1.5 % of the total goat census [1]. It is possible to find a wide range of dairy farms in their territories, from those where goats are kept permanently indoors, which are even more frequent, to those where goats are raised on pasture under different grazing times [2]. Spain is the second largest goat milk producing country in Europe (520 million liters in 2019). There are around 15,700 registered dairy farms with a population of 2.13 million head of livestock. Goat milk production has an economic value of EUR 383.3 million and represents 1.7 % of the final livestock production and 10.7 % of the dairy income. Andalusia is the most important producing region (219 million liters produced in 2019, 40.9 % of the total Spanish production). There are 8000 registered farms with a census of 800,000 goats [3-5]. The Andalusian goat production has undergone deep changes since the 1980s. The entry into the European Common Market caused important socioeconomic and legislative transformations, and the need to obtain growing volumes of milk per farm led to the intensification of production and the decline of grazing livestock systems [6]. Grazing goat systems in central-western Andalusia went from being the majority in the 1990s to only 47 % in 2010 [7,8]. In contrast with the situation in other livestock sectors, this evolution has caused a great heterogeneity in terms of: i) the breeds used, which are always autochthonous: Florida, Malagueña, Murciano-Granadina and Payoya [9]; ii) the territory where the activity is carried out, ranging from marginal mountain areas to countryside or crop areas; iii) the different management systems established, from purely intensive to various levels of grazing [10]; iv) the ecosystem services (ES) provided, from provisioning, in all cases, to regulatory or cultural services in grazing goat systems [11]; and v) the processing and marketing models, including the manufacture of artisanal products or the sale of milk or dairy derivatives to third countries [12]. In a context of climate change and depletion of non-renewable energy sources, this heterogeneity, far from being a weakness, constitutes a strength and a source of opportunities but it is not, from a legislative or a stakeholder’s point of view, reflected in a clear and coherent classification of dairy goat production systems. This lack of definition is particularly evident in relation to the concept of extensive or pastoral livestock farming and hinders, for
Capítulo 2. Resultados 79 instance, the implementation of specific policies to support pastoralism because of the practical complications of differentiating the various production systems [13]. In order to survive, modern livestock farming, needs to be efficient from a technical point of view, irrespective of the production system established. Efficiency is understood as the capacity of production units to generate the maximum level of product (output) from an optimal use of resources (inputs). It should not be confused with productivity, which is the number of output units obtained from one unit of input [14]. Both are close concepts; therefore, the best known approaches to efficiency assessment are those using productivity indices, such as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). In contrast with what happens in other economic sectors, the use of DEA is not widespread in the analysis of mixed or pastoral livestock systems, but it is more frequent in studies on intensive dairy or swine systems [15]. It is mainly purposed for economic/production analyses, but it can also be useful to classify production systems [16], analyzing the effects of certain decisions [17] or, increasingly, calculating efficiency from an ecological or energy perspective [18,19]. In Europe, few efficiency analysis using DEA have yet been performed to study caprine activity, including those carried out in the eastern Mediterranean area [20-22] or Spain [23]. The principal aims of this paper were: i) to characterize the different dairy goat systems using autochthonous breeds in Andalusia and classify them according to their feed management practices and productivity; and ii) based on this classification and the corresponding indicators, to analyze the differences between the systems and the factors that determine their technical efficiency. 2.2.2 Materials and methods 2.2.2.1 Study area and breeds With an area of 87,600 km2 and a population of 8.4 million, Andalusia is the southernmost region in Spain (36ºN – 38º44′N and 3º50′W – 0º34′E). It is divided into four different geomorphological units: the Guadalquivir River valley; the coast; Sierra Morena-Los Pedroches; and the Baetic mountains
Capítulo 2. Resultados 86 Table II.3. Main technical indicators of the sample of twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018 grouped in clusters. GS: Grazing Systems with high feed supply; IS: Indoor Systems without associated crops; PS: Pastoral Systems; ISC: Indoor Systems with associated Crops. Values represent mean ± S.E. Mean Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Item Unit (n=21) GS (n=5) IS (n=8) PS (n=5) ISC (n=3) p Herd size Number of goats 428 (±42) 254b (±20) 388b (±60) 501ab (±46) 699a (±109) * Grazed surfaces (*) ha goat -1 0.24 (±0.08) 0.29b (±0.10) 0.00b (±0.00) 0.74a (±0.16) 0.00b (±0.00) ** * Fodder crop surfaces (*) ha goat -1 0.01 (±0.01) 0.00b (±0.00) 0.00b (±0.00) 0.00b (±0.00) 0.07a (±0.06) ** Purchased fodder supply (*) kg goat-1 239.81 (±47.09) 191.59b (±11.47) 485.32a (±29.58) 16.98c (±16.98) 36.83c (±36.83) ** * Cultivated fodder supply (*) kg goat-1 51.35 (±24.96) 0.00b (±0.00) 5.30b (±5.30) 23.96b (±23.96) 305.41a (±59.17) ** * Purchased concentrate supply (*) kg goat-1 453.29 (±27.67) 567.93a (±9.04) 499.35a (±25.59) 258.21b (±19.51) 464.53a (±19.43) ** Milk sold (*) l goat-1 472.43 (±24.96) 492.64a (±36.24) 560.71a (±19.78) 309.98b (±21.62) 474.05a (±35.90) ** Milk sold during the first semester (*) % 54.48 (±1.81) 54.85ab (±4.76) 49.72b (±1.42) 63.65a (±2.85) 51.23ab (±1.18) ** Work associated with the activity(1) goats AWU-1 224 (±18) 164 (±23) 207 (±27) 280 (±41) 272 (±48) ns Concentrate consumption index(2) 0.99 (±0.05) 1.26a (±0.11) 0.90b (±0.03) 0.84b (±0.05) 1.00ab (±0.10) ** a,b,c Values with different letters on the same row are different (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001) (*) Variables included in the cluster analysis. (1) AWU: Annual Work Unit. (2) Kg of concentrates supplied per liter of sold milk.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 87 Table II.4. Main economic indicators of the sample of twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018 grouped in clusters. GS: Grazing Systems with high feed supply; IS: Indoor Systems without associated crops; PS: Pastoral Systems; ISC: Indoor Systems with associated crops (EUR goat - 1). Values represent mean ± S.E. Mean Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Item (n=21) GS (n=5) IS (n=8) PS (n=5) ISC (n=3) p Income from the activity Sale of milk 279.76 (±16.05) 305.78a (±25.69) 324.93a (±9.17) 172.02b (±14.30) 295.47a (±35.87) *** Sale of goat kids 21.04 (±1.41) 21.26 (±0.81) 21.18 (±3.12) 21.80 (±2.78) 19.03 (±4.30) ns Sale of animals for rearing 10.40 (±5.89) 9.36 (±5.43) 21.09 (±14.80) 0.00 (±0.00) 0.93 (±0.50) ns Other incomes 8.38 (±1.14) 5.40bc (±1.56) 12.60a (±0.98) 2.66c (±0.61) 11.60ab (±3.09) *** Total market income 319.57 (±18.99) 341.80a (±26.87) 379.80a (±17.74) 196.48b (±17.50) 327.03a (±31.24) *** Income from aid(1) 22.17 (±3.81) 24.60a (±5.53) 9.31b (±2.85) 32.28a (±10.02) 35.57a (±10.22) * Total incomes 341.74 (±17.87) 366.40a (±27.58) 389.11a (±19.02) 228.76b (±21.73) 362.60a (±22.45) *** Cost of the activity Feed(2) 181.78 (±12.22) 201.82ab (±8.28) 225.40a (±9.26) 104.17c (±18.77) 161.41bc (±12.35) *** Health 11.27 (±1.25) 12.74 (±1.34) 10.03 (±2.34) 7.64 (±1.68) 18.17 (±2.03) ns Energy 13.31 (±1.48) 14.06ab (±2.72) 18.54a (±1.63) 6.40b (±2.43) 9.67ab (±0.55) ** Hired labor 23.30 (±4.90) 28.32 (±16.69) 18.04 (±5.70) 25.34 (±7.58) 25.60 (±13.84) ns Other costs 30.11 (±2.54) 27.88 (±2.72) 38.33 (±4.48) 21.57 (±2.41) 26.15 (±7.62) ns Family labor(3) 40.96 (±4.61) 50.24 (±11.96) 47.59 (±7.50) 29.36 (±5.40) 27.13 (±6.94) ns Amortization 9.77 (±2.67) 7.20 (±3.02) 15.26 (±5.99) 2.30 (±0.50) 11.83 (±6.18) ns Total costs 310.50 (±17.12) 342.26ab (±13.91) 373.18a (±11.96) 196.78c (±17.92) 279.97b (±11.95) *** Activity net margin(4) 49.99 (±9.41) 49.59 (±19.35) 54.23 (±13.08) 29.08 (±11.47) 74.22 (±47.24) ns a,b,c Values with different letters on the same row are different (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001). (1) Income from aid: includes coupled aid and the proportional caprine part of decoupled aid. (2) Feed: includes purchase of concentrates and fodder, land rent and crop expenses. (3) Salary estimated at 1,024 EUR/month. (4) Net margin: (Income from market) – (Total cost – Family labor cost)
Capítulo 2. Resultados 88 Figure II.2. Dendrogram of the sample of twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018. The vertical continuous line determines the ideal cut-off distance between subsequent cluster distances (= 17). Different clusters are identified in 1 to 4: 1. Grazing Systems with high feed supply -GS- (Cluster 1); 2. Indoor Systems without associated crops -IS- (Cluster 2); 3. Pastoral Systems -PS- (Cluster 3); 4. Indoor Systems with associated Crops -ISC- (Cluster 4). Table II.3 shows the main technical indicators of the dairy goat farms monitored. In grazing and pastoral systems (GS and PS), the natural pasture area was large and represented 93.60% of the total area (the remaining 6.40% were cultivated grazing surfaces). Forest/woodland areas made up 55.40% of the total natural surface; shrubland represented 26.40 % and grassland, 11.80 %. Only indoor systems with associated crops (ISC) included cultivation of representative crops for fodder, mainly oatmeal and pees. No grain was grown for the goats in the monitored farms. The largest use of purchased fodder corresponded to indoor systems without associated crops (IS), although it was noteworthy that, despite
Capítulo 2. Resultados 89 regular grazing, the farms in the GS group spend much more on purchased fodder than those with pastoral systems (PS) and holdings with associated crops (ISC). As regards the external concentrate supply, the level in pastoral farms was significantly lower than in the rest of farms. Paradoxically, the other group with grazing herds (GS) was the one with the highest level of external concentrate supply (Table II.3). As for milk sales, the clear differences between pastoral systems (PS) and the rest of the groups were worth highlighting. This group marketed 34.39 % less milk than the mean of the four groups. Also, seasonality in pastoral farms was remarkable compared with that of both indoor systems (IS and ISC), where sales were uniformly distributed (Table II.3). Finally, there were significant differences in the size of herds between the four systems (Table II.3), but not in associated work, where the results were similar. When economic indicators were analyzed (Table II.4), it was found that milk sales were the main income of these farms representing 87.54 % of the total market sales. Goat kids sales were the second largest market income of dairy farms, making up 6.58% of the total; in this case, there were no significant differences between the various groups (p ≥ 0.05). The sale of animals for further rearing were not important and accounted only for 3.25 % of the market incomes. Other incomes, such as those obtained from manure sales, were significant only in intensive farms, where was destined to off-farms crops. There were no incomes derived from tourism or other activities. The percentage of income from aid ranged from 2.39 % to 14.11 % of the total income, which was indicative of a variable dependence on public support among the different systems, more evident in pastoral systems due to the development of organic production or the maintenance of endangered breeds. Within the cost structure, feed was the most important expenditure, representing 58.54% of the total. While in the IS group 100 % of the feed cost corresponded to the purchase of concentrates and fodder, this was not the case in the other groups. Pastoral farms (PS) spent 24.80 % of the feed costs on land rent, 6.80 % on cultivation and only 68.50 % on buying concentrates and fodder (Table II.4). The GS and ISC groups destined 98.20 % and 92.20 %, respectively, to buying concentrates and fodder. The GS group did not spend any money on land rent, and farms in the ISC group, which included crop areas, used 5.40% of their budget to cover cultivation costs (Table II.4). Caprine activity is a family activity, but there is also an expenditure on hired labor. There were no significant differences among groups in the total work associated with the activity, nor in the ratio between
Capítulo 2. Resultados 90 hired and family labor. On the other hand, no important differences were found in the expenditure on health and energy among clusters (p ≥ 0.05), or in the net margin of the different dairy systems (p ≥ 0.05). For its estimation, neither income from aid nor the differences in the inventory of the current stock were taken into account. 2.2.3.2 Results of the input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) The results of the DEA are presented in Table II.5, as a synthesis of the main global results, and Table II.6, which includes the indexes calculated for the twenty-one farms and the corresponding inputs and outputs. Table II.5. Overall results of the input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) grouped in clusters. GS: Grazing systems with high feed supply; IS: Indoor systems without associated crops; PS: Pastoral systems; ISC: Indoor systems with associated crops. Mean Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Item (n=21) GS (n=5) IS (n=8) PS (n=5) ISC (n=3) p CRSTE(1) Mean 0.882 (±0.02) 0.896 (±0.03) 0.930 (±0.02) 0.804 (±0.05) 0.857 (±0.08) ns Minimum 0.677 0.788 0.818 0.677 0.725 Maximum 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 % of efficient farms (2) 23.80 20 25 20 33.33 VRSTE(3) Mean 0.932 (±0.02) 0.985 (±0.02) 0.972 (±0.02) 0.854 (±0.05) 0.864 (±0.08) ns Minimum 0.736 0.925 0.897 0.767 0.736 Maximum 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 % of efficient farms (4) 52.38 80 45.45 20 33.33 SCALE(5) Mean 0.947 (±0.01) 0.911 (±0.04) 0.957 (±0.02) 0.940 (±0.02) 0.992 (±0.00) ns Minimum 0.788 0.788 0.818 0.881 0.985 Maximum 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 No. of irs farms(6) 14 4 5 3 2 No. of drs farms(7) 2 0 1 1 0 CRSTE: global technical efficiency; (2) % Efficient farms at constant return of scale, CRSTE=1; (3) VRSTE: pure technical efficiency; (4) % Efficient farms at variable return of scale, VRSTE=1; (5) SCALE= CRSTE/VRSTE; (6) irs farms: operating under increasing returns to scale; (7) drs farms: operating under decreasing returns to scale.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 91 Table II.6. Results of the input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) of the sample of twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018 grouped in clusters. GS: Grazing Systems with high feed supply; IS: Indoor Systems without associated crops; PS: Pastoral Systems; ISC: Indoor Systems with associated Crops. Farms Inputs Output DEA results (1) Code Nº of goats Hours worked(2) Feed cost (EUR)(3) Energy cost (EUR) Milk produced (l) CRSTE VRSTE Scale >;< Cluster 1 GS (n=5) CA5 304 2,304 71,349 8,421 164,453 0.915 1.000 0.915 irs CA10 200 6,719 38,480 1,280 113,306 1.000 1.000 1.000 .-. CA17 228 4,483 43,457 3,488 105,637 0.788 1.000 0.788 irs CA20 294 6,927 57,389 3,763 158,040 0.907 0.925 0.981 irs CA26 246 2,701 48,270 3,370 126,206 0.871 1.000 0.871 irs Mean 254b 4,626.71 51,788.90b 4,064.52 133,533.60c 0.896 0.985 0.911 SE 20 969.28 5,800.34 1,175.49 11,822.93 0.03 0.02 0.04 Cluster 2 IS (n= 8) CA1 350 2,400 60,935 5,460 158,254 0.818 1.000 0.818 irs CA6 390 2,880 92,703 8,736 226,758 0.985 1.000 0.985 irs CA7 768 2,880 176,717 13,056 435,637 1.000 1.000 1.000 .-. CA9 283 4,380 68,854 5,320 181,479 1.000 1.000 1.000 .-. CA18 324 4,800 78,732 5,540 180,889 0.885 0.897 0.987 irs CA19 219 6,912 44,129 4,424 119,874 0.914 0.950 0.962 irs CA21 456 6,912 115,414 7,798 276,673 0.962 1.000 0.962 drs CA22 315 3,552 69,426 7,880 167,322 0.879 0.930 0.946 irs Mean 388b 4,339.50 88,363.60a 7,267.78 218,360.75b 0.930 0.972 0.957 SE 60 628.08 14,698.11 986.03 35,193.75 0.02 0.02 0.02 Cluster 3 PS (n=5) CA2 626 6,566 79,439 5,509 237,295 0.751 0.785 0.958 irs CA11 376 5,067 21,507 3,572 130,504 1.000 1.000 1.000 .-. CA14 507 7,040 79,447 2,789 189,952 0.677 0.767 0.882 irs CA24 423 8,760 48,294 2,200 163,439 0.812 0.922 0.881 irs CA25 573 6,868 37,761 8,767 158,852 0.780 0.795 0.981 drs Mean 501ab 6,860.13 53,289.62b 4,567.16 176,008.40bc 0.804 0.854 0.940 SE 46 589.24 11,498.34 1,189.20 17,990.91 0.05 0.05 0.02 Cluster 4 ISC (n=3) CA3 656 6,009 120,927 7,019 271,893 0.725 0.736 0.985 irs CA4 536 9,245 84,634 5,628 251,458 0.846 0.855 0.989 irs CA12 905 6,912 128,510 2,082 487,390 1.000 1.000 1.000 .-. Mean 699a 7,388.80 111,357.15a 4,909.50 336,913.67ab 0.857 0.864 0.992 SE 109 964.23 13,539.50 1,469.96 75,469.07 0.08 0.08 0.00 p ** * ** a,b,c Values with different letters on the same row are different (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001). (1) CRSTE: technical efficiency under constant returns to scale; VRSTE: technical efficiency under variable returns to scale; Scale: scale efficiency = CRSTE/VRSTE. (2) Hours worked: including hired and family labor hours. (3) Feed costs: including purchase of concentrates and fodder, land rent and crop expenses. CRSTE is understood as the ability or capacity of the DMU to obtain the maximum level of output given certain levels of inputs. There were five fully efficient holdings (Table II.6), with a value of 1.000 (CA10 in the GS group; CA7 and CA9 in the IS group; CA11 in the PS group; and CA12 in the ISC
Capítulo 2. Resultados 92 group), but there were also five farms with values over 0.900. The aggregate of both groups amounts to 47.62% of the farms analyzed (Table II.6). VRSTE is the ability or capacity of the DMU to use the inputs in optimal proportions, given their respective prices. The holdings were not able to achieve their highest efficiency level (in comparative terms) as they were not operating on the most productive scale possible. As per this indicator, the number of efficient farms was eleven, 52.38% of the total. If the four farms with values higher than 0.900 are added, this percentage rises to 71.42 % (Table II.6). The result of the division between the above-described two indices is Scale Efficiency (CRSTE/VRSTE). Five farms work under constant returns to scale (.-.), fourteen farms operated under increasing returns to scale (irs), and only two did it under decreasing returns to scale (drs) (Table II.5). Finally, when the bootstrap technique was applied, it was found that three of the selected inputs were significant to explain efficiency through the scale index: number of goats (z = 5.28, p = 0.00), feed cost (z = 4.07, p = 0.00) and energy cost (z = −6.31, p = 0.00). The number of hours worked was not significant in terms of explaining efficiency (z = −0.28, p = 0.779). Once the efficiency values were obtained, ten farms were grouped into two clusters according to their CRSTE index: one for the five most efficient ones (CRSTE=1), and the other for the five least efficient ones (CRSTE<0.800) (Table II.7). Significant differences were found in milk sold, total market income and total incomes, energy cost and net margin of the activity.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 93 Table II.7. Main technical and economic indicators of the most and least efficient farms grouped by technical efficiency level, CRSTE CRSTE 1.000 0.600-0.799 p Number of farms 5 5 Herd size Number of goats 506 (±125) 518 (±77) ns Purchased fodder supply kg goat-1 260.70 (±90.81) 59.08 (±41.26) ns Cultivated fodder supply kg goat-1 85.83 (±67.69) 91.80 (±66.05) ns Total fodder supply kg goat-1 346.53 (±95.91) 150.87 (±57.92) ns Total concentrate supply kg goat-1 443.30 (±53.54) 365.78 (±70.59) ns Milk sold during the first semester % 49.72 (±1.33) 59.28 (±5.01) ns Work associated with activity(1) goats AWU-1 228 (±46) 291 (±40) ns Concentrate consumption index (2) 0.83 (±0.04) 1.05 (±0.14) ns Sale of milk income EUR goat-1 309.14 (±30.73) 191.24 (±19.64) ** Sale of goat kids income EUR goat-1 23.12 (±3.31) 22.90 (±2.88) ns Sale of animals for rearing income EUR goat-1 2.40 (±2.40) 0.46 (±0.28) ns Other incomes EUR goat-1 10.46 (±1.99) 6.68 (±2.84) ns Total market income EUR goat-1 345.12 (±32.50) 221.28 (±24.47) ** Income from aid(3) EUR goat-1 23.84 (±7.51) 27.52 (±7.91) ns Total incomes EUR goat-1 368.96 (±28.94) 248.80 (±30.67) ** Feed cost(4) EUR goat-1 173.00 (±33.87) 144.89 (±22.75) ns Health cost EUR goat-1 11.62 (±3.70) 9.94 (±2.31) ns Energy cost EUR goat-1 14.82 (±2.98) 7.48 (±2.28) ** Hired labor cost EUR goat-1 31.70 (±17.42) 14.76 (±5.02) ns Other costs EUR goat-1 33.00 (±6.11) 22.59 (±2.92) ns Family labor cost(5) EUR goat-1 33.36 (±9.50) 35.50 (±9.14) ns Amortization cost EUR goat-1 10.18 (±4.13) 3.98 (±2.01) ns Total costs EUR goat-1 307.68 (±40.04) 239.14 (±28.13) ns Activity net margin(6) EUR goat-1 70.57 (±24.76) 17.66 (±6.20) ** (1) AWU: annual work unit; (2) Kg of concentrates supplied per liter of sold milk; (3) Income from aid: includes coupled aid and the proportional caprine part of decoupled aid. (4) Feed cost: includes purchase of concentrates and fodder, land rent and crop expenses. (5) Salary estimated at 1,024 EUR/month. (6) Net margin: (income from market) – (total cost – family labor cost). 2.2.3.3 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis The results of the SWOT analysis are shown in Table II.8. For each item (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), several factors were identified, whether general or particular to each system.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 94 Table II.8. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis of caprine activity, based in information obtained of the sample of twenty-one dairy goat farms monitored in 2018 and the focus group conducted. All: all systems; GS: Grazing Systems with high feed supply; IS: Indoor Systems without associated crops; PS: Pastoral Systems; ISC: Indoor Systems with associated Crops. STRENGTHS All - Homogeneous, medium-high level of efficiency - Almost exclusive use of autochthonous breeds, with high adequate productivity according to the production system - High standards of health, infrastructure and the technology associated to it - Family-based farms and capacity for employment generation in disadvantaged areas GS, IS,ISC - Homogeneity of the milk supply throughout the year with high quality and food safety standards IS - Little dependency on aid IS,PS,ISC - Optimization of the labor force PS - High degree of food autonomy WEAKNESS All - High average age of farmers in the sector and lack of qualified labor force within the sector - Lack of income diversification - Low, albeit progressing, level of formation of cooperative associations, with Little bargaining and supply concentration power GS,IS,ISC - Excessive dependency on raw material markets for the manufacture concentrates GS,PS - Lack of a territorial basis for pasturing and/or Mediterranean natural pastures limited in quantity and quality PS - Lack of differentiation of the pastoral products OPPORTUNITIES All - Capitalize the good corporative image of caprine livestock and its identification with functional foodstuff with healthy properties u others - Possibility for income diversification (genetic material, tourism, manure, other forms of agricultural and livestock-farming production, etc.) - Recognition as a strategic activity capable of generating local income and employment in disadvantaged areas. - The role of local production systems in strategies to combat the climate change. GS,PS - New Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) design and valorization of certain environmental services through eco-schemes THREATS All - High cost of land and of the required investments - Volatility of the international raw material markets - Climate change impacts on livestock rearing activities. - Social perception of the relation between livestock farming and global warmth PS - Lack of recognition and valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the sector 2.2.4 Discussion Goat rearing has a high economic and social significance in those rural areas where it is performed, particularly in marginal territories where alternative economic activities are difficult to develop [43]. Despite its eminently family-based nature, it is also a source of hired and secondary employment, to the extent that it is considered a driver for population retention and
Capítulo 2. Resultados 95 attraction in disadvantaged rural areas fighting depopulation [44]. But these contributions are only possible within a framework of profitability, supported by the proper technical and economic management. Within this context, technical-economic information on dairy-oriented goat farming is scarce and dispersed, and has been generated using different methodologies, which makes it difficult to compare [29, 45,46]. The importance of this study lies in the fact that it has been carried out in collaboration with Cabrandalucía technicians and farmers, and that it implements a methodology already proven in previous works, providing complete and reliable information on the technical and economic results of the dairy goat activity in Andalusia, which due to its representativeness (38 % of the Spanish census) can be extrapolated to the rest of Spain. The technical and economic results obtained reflect a clearly marketoriented activity with a relatively low dependence on public subsidies, which only make up 6.49 % of the total income. Obviously, a high dependence on the milk sales is observed in the context of a market characterized by relative stability, far away from the 2008–2010 milk price crisis, which caused the closing-down of 27% of the goat farms in Spain [47]. The implementation of the measures included in the so-called Dairy Package [48], together with the ongoing improvement of livestock farms based on the above-described use of pure breeds, the growing demand of goat products and a favorable economic situation have contributed to this stability. Despite this favorable situation, efforts must be done to diversify income streams, particularly through the sale of kids, animals for rearing or, to a lesser extent, manure. In a context of declining consumption of goat and lamb meat, dropping from 2.67 kilos per capita in 2006–1.40 in 2021 [49], the commitment to quality and differentiation offered by labeling systems is one of the keys to increasing awareness and consumption of kid meat. However, these systems are still poorly represented in Andalusia by the “Logotipo 100% Raza Autóctona” (100 % Autochthonous Breed Logo”) developed by the Spanish Government [50] or the quality brand “Chivo Lechal Malagueño” [51]. It must be highlighted that, even though all the farms analyzed belong to breeders’ associations and raise pure specimens, the sale of animals for further rearing is not important, so there is ample room for improvement in that sense. Finally, despite the progress made in recent years, the value of manure is not well known or recognized by farmers. In a
Capítulo 2. Resultados 102 References 1. FAOSTAT. 2021. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QL (accessed on 1 March 2021). 2. Ruiz, F. A.; Castel, J. M.; Mena, Y. 2019. Current status, challenges and the way forward for dairy goat production in Europe. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 32, 1256–1265. 3. MAPA. 2019a. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Anuario de Estadística 2019. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/estadistica/pags/anuario/2019/CAPITULOSPDF/ CAPITULO08/pdfc08_3.1.1.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2021). 4. MAPA. 2019b. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Renta Agraria Nacional. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticasagrarias/economia/cuentas-economicas-agricultura/ (accessed on 12 April 2021). 5. SITRAN, 2018. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Sistema Integral de Trazabilidad Animal, SITRAN. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/trazabilidadanimal/registro/de fault.aspx (accessed on 30 April 2021). 6. Castel, J. M.; Mena, Y.; Ruiz, F. A.; Camúñez-Ruiz, J.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M. 2011. Changes occurring in dairy goat production systems in less favored areas of Spain. Small Ruminant Research, 96, 83–92. 7. Castel, J. M.; Ruiz, F. A.; Mena, Y.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M. 2010. Present situation and future perspectives for goat production systems in Spain. Small Ruminant Research, 89, 207–210. 8. Mena, Y.; Castel, J. M.; Caravaca, F. P.; Guzmán, J. L.; González‐Redondo, P. 2005. Situación actual, evolución y diagnóstico de los sistemas semiextensivos de producción caprina en Andalucía Centro‐Occidental. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía: Seville, Spain. ISBN.: 84-8474-160-5. 9. Isanta Muñoz, F. 2019. Análisis integral del sistema de trazabilidad de la leche de cabra y oveja en Andalucía. Doctoral Thesis. University of Cordoba. 2019. 10. Mena, Y.; Ruiz-Mirazo, J.; Ruiz, F. A.; Castel, J. M. 2016. Characterization and typification of small ruminant farms providing fuelbreak grazing
Capítulo 2. Resultados 103 services for wildfire prevention in Andalusia (Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 544, 211–219. 11. Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J. M.; Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Mena, Y. 2020. The contribution of traditional meat goat farming systems to human wellbeing and its importance for the sustainability of this livestock subsector. Sustainability, 2020, 12, 1181. 12. García de Tena, A.; Gámiz, P.; Barba, C. 2018. Manual técnico sobre controles de la cadena alimentaria en el sector lácteo de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Desarrollo Sostenible. 175 pp. 13. Urivelarrea, P.; Linares, L. 2020. Propuesta de caracterización de la ganadería extensiva. Aproximación a la diferenciación del grado de extensividad. WWF España, Trashumancia y Naturaleza, Sociedad Española de Pastos y Plataforma por la Ganadería Extensiva y el Pastoralismo. Available online: https://wwfes.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/propuesta_de_caracterizacio n_de_la_ganaderia_extensiva__aproximacion_a_la_diferenciac.pdf?55564/ Propuesta-de-caracterizacion-de-la-ganaderia-extensiva-Aproximacion-a- la-diferenciacion-del-grado-de-extensividadj (accessed on 28 May 2021). 14. Angón, E.; Perea, J.; Barba, C.; García, A. 2017. La evaluación de la eficiencia técnica como herramienta para la mejora de la sustentabilidad: Caso práctico en sistemas pastoriles. Monografías do Ibader – Serie Pecuaria 4: Lugo, Spain. 15. Gaspar, P.; Mesías, F.; Escribano M.; Pulido, F. 2009. Assessing the technical efficiency of extensive livestock farming systems in Extremadura, Spain. Livestock Science, 121, 7–14. 16. Gomes, E. G.; Abreu, U. G. P. D.; Mello, J. C. C. B. S. D.; Carvalho, T. B. D.; Zen, S. D. 2012. Unitary input DEA model to identify beef cattle production systems typologies. Pesquisa Operacional, 32 (2), 389–406. 17. García-Cornejo, B.; Pérez-Méndez, J. A.; Roibás, D.; Wall, A. 2020. Efficiency and sustainability in farm diversification initiatives in Northern Spain. Sustainability 12.10 (2020): 3983. 18. Ilyas, H. M. A.; Safa, M.; Bailey, A.; Rauf, S.; Khan, A. 2020. Energy efficiency outlook of New Zealand dairy farming systems: An application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Energies, 13 (1), 251. 19. Soteriades, A. D.; Faverdin, P.; Moreau, S.; Charroin, T.; Blanchard, M.; Stott, W. 2016. An approach to holistically assess (dairy) farm eco-efficiency
Capítulo 2. Resultados 104 by combining life cycle analysis with data envelopment analysis models and methodologies. Animal, 2016, 10 (11), 1899–1910. 20. Gül, M.; Demircan, V.; Yilmaz, H.; Yilmaz, H. 2016. Technical efficiency of goat farming in Turkey: a case study of Isparta province. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 45 (6), 328–335. 21. İkikat Tümer, E.; Ağır, H. B.; Aydoğan, İ. 2020. Evaluating technical efficiency of hair goat farms in Turkey: The case of Mersin Province. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 52, 3707–3712. 22. Papadopoulou, A.; Ragkos, A.; Theodoridis, A.; Skordos, D.; Parissi, Z.; Abraham, E. 2021. Evaluation of the contribution of pastures on the economic sustainability of small ruminant farms in a typical Greek area. Agronomy 2021, 11, 63. 23. Mesías, F. J.; Gaspar, P.; Escribano, A.; Pulido, F.; Escribano, M.; Pulido, A. 2010. Evaluación de la eficiencia en explotaciones caprinas en zonas de montaña de Andalucía. International Meeting on Regional Science. The future of cohesion policy. Badajoz-Elvas, Spain, 17-19 November, 2010. 24. Maldonado, A. D.; Ramos‐López, D.; Aguilera, P. A. 2019. The role of cultural landscapes in the delivery of provisioning ecosystem services in protected areas. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2471. 25. MAPA. 2019c. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Informe Anual de Indicadores. Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación 2019. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/servicios/analisis-y prospectiva/informeanual2019_online_tcm30-547983.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). 26. ARCA. 2021. Sistema Nacional de Información de Razas, ARCA. Available online: https://servicio.mapama.gob.es/arca/flujos.html?_flowId=explotaDatosCen sosRazaExcel-flow&isMapa=1 (accessed on 30 April 2021). 27. Gutiérrez‐Peña, R.; Mena, Y.; Ruiz, F. A.; Delgado‐Pertíñez, M. 2016. Strengths and weaknesses of traditional feeding management of dairy goat farms in mountain areas. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40, 736–756. 28. Gutiérrez-Peña, R.; Mena, Y.; Batalla, I.; Mancilla-Leytón, J. M. 2019. Carbon footprint of dairy goat production systems: A comparison of three contrasting grazing levels in the Sierra de Grazalema Natural Park (Southern Spain). Journal of Environment Management, 232, 993–998.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 105 29. Mena, Y.; Gutiérrez‐Peña, R.; Ruiz, F. A.; Delgado‐Pertíñez, M. 2017. Can dairy goat farms in mountain areas reach a satisfactory level of profitability without intensification? A case study in Andalusia (Spain). Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41, 614–634. 30. Mena, Y.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J. M.; Fernández, J.; González, O.; Lara, C.; López, M. D.; Rey, S.; López, F.; Díaz, C. 2020. Implementación de un sistema de asesoramiento para la gestión sostenible del caprino andaluz. Tierras de Caprino, 30, 24–29. 31. Theodoridis, A.; Ragkos, A.; Roustemis, D.; Galanopoulos, K.; Abas, Z.; Sinapis, E. 2012. Assessing technical efficiency of Chios sheep farms with data envelopment analysis. Small Ruminant Research, 2012, 107, 85–91. 32. Restzlaff-Roberts, D. L.; Morey, R. C. 1993. A goal-programming method of stochastic allocative data envelopment analysis. European Journal Operational Research, 1993, 71, 3, 379–397. 33. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decisions making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429– 444. 34. Farrell, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 120, 45–67. 35. Coelli, T.; Lawrence, D. 2006. Performance measurement and regulation of network utilities. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK. 36. Coelli, T. J. 1996. A guide to DEAP version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer) program. No. 8/96 CEPA Working Papers. Department of Econometrics, University of New England. Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. 37. Alarcon, P.; Fèvre, E. M.; Murungi, M. K.; Muinde, P.; Akoko, J.; Dominguez-Salas, P.; Kiambi, S.; Ahmed, S.; Häsler, B.; Rushton, J. 2017. Mapping of beef, sheep and goat food systems in Nairobi — A framework for policy making and the identification of structural vulnerabilities and deficiencies. Agricultural Systems, 152, 1–17. 38. Dhehibi, B.; Cheikh M’hamed, H.; Frija, A.; Djender Ghallem, Z.; Rekik, M.; Idoudi, Z. 2021. A SWOT analysis on profitable and sustainable integrated crops–livestock farming systems under conservation agriculture in North Africa. Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). 39. Ward, J. H. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963, 58, 236–244.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 106 40. Ruiz, F. A.; Castel, J. M.; Mena, Y.; Camúñez, J.; González-Redondo, P. 2008. Application of the technico-economic analysis for characterizing, making diagnoses and improving pastoral dairy goat systems in Andalusia (Spain). Small Ruminant Research, 2008, 77, 208–220. 41. Ruiz, F. A.; Castel, J. M.; Mena, Y.; Camúñez, J.; Guinamard, C.; Bossis, N. Caramelle-Holtz, E.; Contu, M.; Sitzia, M.; Fois, N. 2009. Dairy goat grazing systems in Mediterranean regions: A comparative analysis in Spain, France and Italy. Small Ruminant Research, 2009, 85, 42–49. 42. Simar, L.; Wilson, P. W. 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage semiparametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 2007, 136, 31–64. 43. Gaspar, P.; Escribano, A. J.; Mesías, F. J.; Escribano, M.; Pulido, A. F. 2011. Goat systems of Villuercas-Ibores area in SW Spain: Problems and perspectives of traditional farming systems. Small Ruminant Research, 2011, 97, 1–11. 44. Ruiz-Morales, F. A. 2012. Analysis, diagnosis and proposals for improvement Andalusian dairy goat grazing systems. Doctoral Thesis. University of Seville. March, 2012. 45. ECREA, 2017. Subdirección General de Análisis, Coordinación y Estadística. Subsecretaría. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Resultados técnico-económicos del Ganado Caprino de leche en 2017. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/servicios/analisis- y-prospectiva/ganadocaprinodeleche_tcm30-509538.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2021). 46. RENGRATI. 2019. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Red Nacional de Granjas Típicas. Caprino de leche. Informe de base de datos económica, ejercicio económico de 2019. Ed. MAPA. 26 pp. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/produccion-y- mercados ganaderos/informebbdd_caprino_publicacionweb_2020_tcm30- 502871.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2021). 47. Mena, Y.; Camúñez-Ruiz, J. A.; Falagán, A.; Caballero, J. R. 2014. Elaboración de un sistema de índices de evolución del precio de la leche de cabra a partir de los factores asociados. Tierras Ganadería, 191. 48. Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No. 922/72, (EEC) No. 234/79, (EC) No. 1037/2001 and (EC) No. 1234/2007. OJ L 347
Capítulo 2. Resultados 107 20.12.2013, p. 671. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02013R1308-20201229 49. MAPA. 2021. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. El sector ovino y caprino de carne en cifras. Principales Indicadores Económicos. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/estadisticas/indicadoreseconomicos delsectorovinoycaprino_carne_2021_tcm30-511496.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2022). 50. Jordana, J.; Delgado, J. V. 2015. Una visión socio-económica de la conservación de las razas y sistemas locales basada en sus productos diferenciados. Actas Iberoamericanas en Conservación Animal, 6, 1–15. 51. Juárez, M.; Micheo, J. M.; García, E.; Peña Blanco, F.; Polvillo, O. 2009. Efecto del peso de la canal sobre la calidad de la carne de “chivo lechal malagueño”. ITEA – Información Técnica Económica Agraria, 105: 28–35. 52. Yilmaz, H.; Lauwers, L.; Buysse, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2019. Economic aspects of manure management and practices for sustainable agriculture in Turkey. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 13(1), 249– 263. 53. Gómez-Zaglavia, A.; Mejuto, J.C.; Simal-Gandara, J. 2020. Mitigation of emerging implications of climate change on food production systems. Food Research International, 134, 109256. 54. Benedict, M. R.; Tolley, H. R.; Elliott, F. F.; Taeuber, C. 1944. Need for a new classification of farms. Journal of Farm Economics, 26, No. 4 (Nov. 1944), 694–708. 55. Idele. 2021. Coût de production par système alimentaire. Repères techniques et économiques 2019/2020. Inosys – Résaeau d’élevage caprin – Region Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Pays-de-la-Loire et Bretagne. Available online: http://idele.fr/filieres/caprin/publication/idelesolr/recommends/cout-de- production-par-systeme-alimentaire.html (accessed on 13 July 2021). 56. Ley 8/2003, de 24 de abril, de sanidad animal. BOE n.º 99, de 25 de abril de 2003. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A- 2003-8510. 57. Real Decreto 479/2004, de 26 de marzo, por el que se establece y regula el Registro general de explotaciones ganaderas. BOE n.º 89, de 13 de abril de 2004. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A- 2004-6426.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 108 58. Real Decreto 947 /2005, de 29 de julio, por el que se establece un sistema de identificación y registro de los animales de las especies ovina y caprina. BOE n.º 181, de 30 de julio de 2005. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2005-13120. 59. Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Gutiérrez-Peña, R.; Mena, Y.; Fernández-Cabanás, V. M.; Laberye, D. 2013. Milk production, fatty acid composition and vitamin E content of Payoya goats according to grazing level in summer on Mediterranean shrublands. Small Ruminant Research, 114, 167–175. 60. Roncero-Díaz, M.; Panea, B.; Argüello, A.; Alcalde, M. J. 2021. How management system affects the concentration of retinol and α-tocopherol in plasma and milk of Payoya lactating goats: Possible use as traceability biomarkers. 2021. Animals, 11, 2326. 61. Ruiz, J.; Herrera, P.; Barba, R.; Busqué, J. 2017. Definición y caracterización de la extensividad en las explotaciones ganaderas en España. Catálogo de publicaciones de la Administración General del Estado, Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain. 62. European Commission. 2020. Farm to Fork Strategy. For a fair, healthy and environment-friendly food system. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action- plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2021). 63. Gobierno de España. 2020. Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia. Presidencia del Gobierno de España. Octubre de 2020. NIPO: 089-20-023-7. Available online: https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/temas/fondosrecuperacion/Documents/30042021- Plan_Recuperacion_%20Transformacion_%20Resiliencia.pdf. (accessed on 1 September 2021). 64. Cabrandalucía. 2021. Objetivos de la Federación. Available online: https://www.cabrandalucia.com/presentaci%C3%B3n/ (accessed on 3 January 2022). 65. González, F.; Castel, J. M.; Mena, Y. 2002. Organization and coordination of technical support services for sheep and goat farms: The case of health associations (ADS) in Andalusia. Options Méditerranéennes. Série B: Études et Recherches (CIHEAM). 66. Arzubi, A.; Berbel, J. 2002. Un análisis no paramétrico de eficiencia en explotaciones lecheras de Argentina. REEAP 2002, 193, 1–24.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 109 67. Vidaurreta, I.; De la Fe, C.; Orengo, J.; Gómez-Martín, A.; Benito, B. 2020. Short-term economic impact of Covid-19 on Spanish small ruminants flocks. Animals, 2020, 10, 1357. 68. Henry, B. K.; Eckard, R. J.; Beauchemin, K. A. 2018. Review: Adaptation of ruminant livestock production systems to climate changes. Animal, 2018, 12, 445–456. 69. Zucali, M.; Lovarelli, D.; Celozzi, S.; Bacenetti, J.; Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L. 2020. Management options to reduce the environmental impact of dairy goat milk production. Livestock Science, 231, 103888. 70. Miller, B. A.; Lu, C. D. 2019. Current status of global dairy goat production: An overview. Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 32, 1219–1232. 71. Heil, K.; Döring, T.; Garske, B.; Stubenrauchy, J.; Ekardt, F. 2020. The Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2020: A critical review in light of global environment goals. RECIEL. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 30, Issue 1, 95–106. 72. Muñoz-Vallés, S.; Mancilla-Leytón, J. M.; Morales-Jerrett, E. Mena, Y. 2021. Natural carbon sinks linked to pastoral activity in S Spain: A territorial evaluation methodology for Mediterranean goat grazing systems. Sustainability, 2021, 13, 6085.
Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Delgado-Pertiñez, M.; Mena, Y. Fat-and protein-corrected milk formulation to be used in the life-cycle assessment of Mediterranean dairy goat systems. Livest. Sci. 2021, 253, 104697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104697 2.3 Fat and protein-corrected milk formulation to be used in the life-cycle assesment of Mediterranean dairy goat systems
Capítulo 2. Resultados 118 Table III.2. Fat and protein contents of milk and census of the different groups studied: i) representative breeds with fat content of milk below 4% (FCB4), and ii) representative breeds with fat content of milk above 4% (FCA4). Goat breed Fat (%) Protein (%) Census (%) 3 FCB4 group 1 Alpine 3,76 3,31 60.40 Saanen 3,6 3,21 36.33 Croisée 3,71 3,25 2.84 Pointevine 3,43 3,07 0.21 Massif Central 3,84 2,95 0.03 Other minority breeds 3,69 2,96 0.19 Weighted mean 3.70 3.27 FCA4 group 2 Murciana-granadina 5.1 3.6 55.68 Florida 4.70 3.50 13.03 Malagueña 4.61 3.61 12.97 Payoya 4.60 3.60 6.35 Del guadarrama 4.90 3.60 4.33 Majorera 4.68 3.97 2.70 Tinerfeña 5.14 4.06 2.24 Verata 4.52 3.47 2.18 Palmera 5.35 4.31 0.52 Weighted mean 4.92 3.61 1 Data obtained from L’Institut de l’Élevage (The French Livestock Institute, IDELE, France). 2 Data obtained from the Sistema Nacional de Información de Razas Ganaderas (National Information System on Livestock Breeds, ARCA, Spain). 3 Percentage of lactations completed and valid in 2019 with respect to the national total. In France, according to the National Technical Regulations for Dairy Control, and, in Spain, according to Royal Decree 368/2005. The EC found for the FCB4 group (FC = 3.70 and PC = 3.27) was 728.11 kcal kg−1, while that of the FCG4 group (FC = 4.92 and PC = 3.61) was 860.69 kcal kg−1. After substituting the EC values obtained before, the resulting FPCM equations to calculate specific FC and PC by unit of mass, according to each group, are shown below: Equation 1, for the FCB4 group: FPCM (FC=3.70, PC=3.27)=M*[(0.12*FC+0.10*PC+0.23)] Equation 2, for the FCA4 group: FPCM (FC=4.92, PC=3.61)=M*[(0.10*FC+0.08*PC+0.20)] where:
Capítulo 2. Resultados 119 FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk M = milk yield (kg); FC = milk fat content (%); PC = milk protein content (%). Finally, the variation between the FPCM values calculated using the specific equation obtained for goats and those previously published for other species was evaluated. In the case of the FCB4 group, for a unit of milk (1 kg of milk FC = 3.70 and PC = 3.27), FPCM production decreased by 32% when the equation developed by Pulina et al. (2005) [2] was used, and increased by 14% when the equation developed by Robertson et al. (2015) [5] was used. For the FCA4 group, for a unit of mass (1 kg of milk FC = 4.92 and PC = 3.61), FPCM production decreased by 21% when the equation developed by Pulina et al. (2005) was used and increased 35% when the equation developed by Robertson et al. (2015) was used. In conclusion, the results found in the present study show the need to use a specific FPCM formulation in the LCA equation for goat's milk.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 120 References 1. Baldini, C., Gardoni, D., Guarino, M. 2017 A critical review of the recent evolution of Life Cycle Assessment applied to milk production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 421-435. 2. Pulina, G., Macciotta, N., Nudda, A., 2005. Milk composition and feeding in the Italian dairy sheep. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 4, 5-14. 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT). Statistics database, crop statistics. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (archived on 18th june 2021). 4. Rezaei R. Wu Z. Hou Y. Bazer F. W. Wu G. 2016. Amino acids and mammary gland development: Nutritional implications for milk production and neonatal growth. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol.7:20. 5. Robertson, K., Symes, W., Garnham, M., 2015. Carbon footprint of dairy goat milk production in New Zealand. J. Dairy Sci. 98, 4279-4293. 6. Clark, J., D. K. Beeded, and R. A. Erdman. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 7. Gutiérrez-Peña, R.; Mena, Y.; Batalla, I.; Mancilla-Leytón, J. M. 2019. Carbon footprint of dairy goat production systems: A comparison of three contrasting grazing levels in the Sierra de Grazalema Natural Park (Southern Spain). Journal of Environment Management, 232, 993–998. 8. Marcos, C. N., Carro, M. D., Yepes, J. F., Haro, A., Romero-Huelva, M., Molina-Alcaide, E. 2020. Effects of agroindustrial by-product supplementation on dairy goat milk characteristics, nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation, and methane production. Journal of dairy science, 103(2), 1472-1483. 9. Molina-Alcaide, E., Morales-García, E. Y., Martín-García, A. I., Salem, H. B., Nefzaoui, A., Sanz-Sampelayo, M. R. 2010. Effects of partial replacement of concentrate with feed blocks on nutrient utilization, microbial N flow, and milk yield and composition in goats. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(5), 2076-2087. 10. Romero-Huelva, M., Ramos-Morales, E., & Molina-Alcaide, E. 2012. Nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation, microbial abundances, and milk yield and composition in dairy goats fed diets including tomato and cucumber waste fruits. Journal of dairy science, 95(10), 6015-6026. 11. Sanz Sampelayo, M., Pérez, M. L., Extremera, F. G., Boza, J. J., Boza, J. 1999. Use of different dietary protein sources for lactating goats: milk
Capítulo 2. Resultados 121 production and composition as functions of protein degradability and amino acid composition. Journal of dairy science, 82(3), 555-565. 12. Rapetti, L., Crovetto, G. M., Galassi, G., Sandrucci, A., Succi, G., Tamburini, A., Battelli, G. 2002. Effect of maize, rumen-protected fat and whey permeate on energy utilisation and milk fat composition in lactating goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 1(1), 43-53. 13. Tovar-Luna, I., Puchala, R., Sahlu, T., Freetly, H. C., Goetsch, A. L. 2010a. Effects of stage of lactation and dietary concentrate level on energy utilization by Alpine dairy goats. Journal of dairy science, 93(10), 4818- 4828. Tovar-Luna, I., Puchala, R., Sahlu, T., Freetly, H. C., Goetsch, A. L. 2010b. Effects of stage of lactation and level of feed intake on energy utilization by A
Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Muñoz-Vallés, S.; Mena, Y. A Comparative Analysis of Carbon Footprint in the Andalusian Autochthonous Dairy Goat Production Systems. Animals 2023, 13, 2864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182864 2.4 A Comparative Analysis of carbon Footprint in the Andalusian Authoctonous Dairy Goat Production Systems
Capítulo 2. Resultados 125 A Comparative Analysis of carbon Footprint in the Andalusian Authoctonous Dairy Goat Production Systems Juan Manuel Mancilla-Leytón 1,*, Eduardo Morales-Jerrett 2, Sara Muñoz-Vallés 2; Yolanda Mena 2, 1 Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de Sevilla. 41012, Sevilla (España) 2 Departamento de Ciencias Agroforestales, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla. 41013, Sevilla (España); * Correspondence: jmancil[email protected]; Abstract: The small ruminant livestock sector faces the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon footprint (CF) studies on dairy goats, the most widely used indicator to quantify the impact of livestock farming on global warming, are still few. The aim of this study was to calculate the CF of the different production systems of autochthonous dairy goat breeds presently occurring in Andalusia (S Spain) and identify systems and practices that can minimize their environmental impact in these terms. Twenty-one farms were monitored during a year, obtaining valuable information that allowed the CF calculation on a “cradle-to-gate” approach, taking into account both GHG emissions at the farm level and carbon sink by vegetation associated with land-based systems. Results showed similar CF values for the analyzed systems (1.42, 1.04, 1.15, and 1.17 kg CO2-eq kg−1 fat–protein corrected milk for indoor systems without associated crops, indoor systems with associated crops, grazing systems with high feed supply, and pastoral systems, respectively). To minimize their environmental impact, specific actions must be developed for each system, particularly regarding genetic improvement, reproductive and feeding management, including pasture management, and the integration of livestock activity into the bio-circular economy with the help of professional advice. Keywords: carbon sink; feed management; standardization equations; environmental sustainability 2.4.1 Introduction Climate change is a real fact affecting the entire planet through dangerous effects such as rising average temperatures and sea levels, melting ice in the Arctic, or an increase in extreme events such as heat waves, floods, or droughts. This climate change is promoted by the increasing phenomenon of global warming, which is motivated by the emission of so-called
Capítulo 2. Resultados 126 “greenhouse gases” (GHG) as a result of human activities, which have the ability to increase the capacity of the Earth’s atmosphere to retain heat [1]. Since 2014, climate change has been one of the nine specific objectives against which the European Commission assesses the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy. The current EU policy framework (2030 Climate Target Plan) aims to reduce GHG emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 55% by 2050, thus achieving net zero emissions by that date [2]. In this context, it is recognized that some of the current livestock production models contribute to the emission of the main greenhouse gases responsible for global warming (sheep and goats are responsible for about 6.5% of the global livestock sector’s emissions [3]). In recent years, the livestock sector has been faced with the difficult challenge of reducing GHG emissions while, at the same time, responding to the significant increase in demand for livestock products, mainly driven by the growth of the world’s population, improved economic well-being, urbanization, poor dietary habits, and current marketing models, among other factors [4]. The production and processing of food, together with emissions during enteric fermentation in the case of ruminants, are the two main sources of GHG emissions linked to the livestock sector, being, respectively, responsible for 45% and 39% of the total emissions from the activity. Additionally, manure storage and processing represents 10%, the remaining part being attributed to the processing and transportation of livestock products [5]. On the other hand, the livestock sector also has to deal with a number of other issues, including economic viability and the threat posed by the growing social perception that livestock farming, in general, and ruminant farming, specifically, is a major contributor to the phenomenon of climate change. In this background, the most prominent method for quantifying the total GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent; CO2-eq) associated with a product is the carbon footprint (CF). The process of calculating the CF additionally allows the evaluation of the main emission processes and the identification of needs for the implementation of mitigation strategies. However, there are major methodological difficulties in calculating the CF for a small ruminant farm due to the lack of information on its management and the complexity of such systems in terms of extension and boundaries, use of the appropriate functional unit, type of allocation, etc. [6,7]. To date, CF studies on small ruminants, particularly dairy goats, are still few and far between in terms of approach, methodology, and results
Capítulo 2. Resultados 127 interpretation, even more so in their consideration of natural carbon sinks in the CF calculation. These studies often involve production systems that are not always representative of the sector, or the results obtained cannot be compared between studies because of the methodology used (e.g., different standardization of milk) or due to a lack of information (identifying the scope of the system, allocating GHG emissions to by-products, etc.) [7]. As a result, GHG emission intensity (expressed as emissions per unit of animal product) can vary considerably between production units, even in similar production systems. To all this must be added the difficulty of taking into account the carbon sink ability of the soil and vegetation during the CF calculation, in particular in those farms that have a territorial basis for the use of livestock [8,9]. Southern Europe, and more specifically Andalusia (southern Spain), is particularly threatened by climate change (a general increase in temperature with maximum values of +6.5 °C and a 20–30% reduction in annual rainfall are predicted) [10], where agricultural productivity would be significantly severely compromised. In this sense, livestock systems (mainly ruminants) able to adapt and use endogenous resources, for example, through grazing, can provide an opportunity for sustainable food production in such arid contexts [11]. Recent studies have also shown that the production of wheat crops dedicated to low-yielding animals such as buffaloes significantly affects the category of Agricultural Land Occupation [12]. On the other hand, soil health and fertility and carbon sink ability by both soil and vegetation can be favored by properly managed ruminant grazing. In this sense, pasture-based carbon sequestration can mitigate, to varying degrees, the GHG emitted by the livestock it feeds as well [13,14]. Previous studies have shown that taking carbon sinks into account in the net GHG emission balance significantly reduces emissions per unit of product on farms with land-based grazing [6,8,15]. Andalusia is the most important goat milk producer region in Spain, with around one million goats [16]. Contrary to the situation in other livestock sectors, the evaluation of goat production in Andalusia has undergone profound changes since the 1980s, and the development of this sector has led to great heterogeneity in terms of the breeds used, the area in which the activity is carried out, and the different management systems that have been established (from the stabled system to the grazing system, in which more than 70% of the feed is taken from grassland and shrubland) [17]. These
Capítulo 2. Resultados 134 reported by Pardo et al. [27] (0.93 kg CO2-eq kg−1 FPCM, based on results by Robertson et al. [25]) and were lower, for the same systems, than those found by Pardo et al. [27] (1.41–1.73 kg CO2-eq kg−1 FPCM). The CF values obtained in the present study for the grazing systems (GS and PS), based on the equation of Robertson et al. [25] and taking into account the carbon sink ability, are very similar to those obtained by Gutiérrez-Peña et al. [6] for the goat grazing systems located in the same study area (1.04–1.40 kg CO2-eq kg−1 FPCM). Table IV.2. Total emissions, carbon sequestration by vegetation, and carbon footprint values (kg CO2 -eq kg−1 FPCM) obtained for each farming system studied. The results are presented according to the standardization equation used to calculate the functional unit (kg fat and protein-corrected milk). Equation 1: proposed by Mancilla-Leytón et al. [7]; Equation 2: proposed by Robertson et al. [25]; and Equation 3: proposed by FAO [24]. IS: Indoor systems without associated crops (n = 8); ISCs: indoor systems with associated crops (n = 3); GSs: grazing systems with high feed supply (n = 5); and PSs: pastoral systems (n = 5). In the same row, different letters indicate significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). Mean ± S.E. IS ISC GS PS F p-Values Total Emission Equation 1 1.42 ± 0.05 1.43 ± 0.14 1.58 ± 0.25 1.61 ± 0.27 1.19 0.34 Equation 2 1.04 ± 0.03 1.04 ±0.11 1.15 ± 0.18 1.17 ± 0.20 1.24 0.33 Equation 3 1.20 ± 0.04 1.21 ± 0.12 1.33 ± 0.08 1.36 ± 0.17 1.38 0.37 Carbon Sequestration Equation 1 -- 0.09 ± 0.06 c 0.27 ± 0.09 b 0.66 ± 0.14 a 7.38 0.01 Equation 2 -- 0.07 ± 0.04 c 0.20 ± 0.07 b 0.48 ± 0.10 a 7.39 0.01 Equation 3 -- 0.08 ± 0.05 c 0.23 ± 0.08 b 0.58 ± 0.12 a 7.42 0.01 Carbon footprint(1) Equation 1 1.42 ± 0.05 1.34 ± 0.09 1.31 ± 0.23 0.95 ± 0.22 3.02 0.58 Equation 2 1.04 ± 0.03 0.97 ±0.07 0.95 ± 0.17 0.69 ± 0.16 2.95 0.63 Equation 3 1.20 ± 0.04 1.13 ± 0.10 1.08 ± 0.17 0.78 ± 0.18 3.01 0.57 (1) Carbon footprint= Carbon emission-Carbon sequestration
Capítulo 2. Resultados 135 Figure IV.2. Contribution of the different pollutant sources of each goat farming system activity to the total greenhouse gas emissions (A). Contribution of different land uses of each goat farming system in carbon sequestration (B). IS: Indoor systems without associated crops (n = 8); ISCs: indoor systems with associated crops (n = 3); GSs: grazing systems with high feed supply (n = 5); and PSs: pastoral systems (n = 5). In practice, the difficulty and complexity of measuring carbon sinks related to livestock activities have led to their exclusion from most published CF studies, providing a biased view of reality [6,30,33,34]. In addition, current regulation does not provide enough guidance on how sinks need to be A B
Capítulo 2. Resultados 136 included in a methodological and standardized way. Including sink values in the calculation of the CF is an aspect that allows the real impact of farms on global GHG emissions to be better assessed by offsetting and reducing total emissions, often significantly [35]. The studied farms differed in their level of land use for pasturing, which was also inversely related to intensification level; carbon sink values found ranged between 1 and 2.9 t CO2 ha−1, which represented a considerable carbon compensation (Table IV.2). The values found in the PS system were significantly higher than in ISC and GS (86% and 70% higher, respectively, Table IV.2). The contribution of the different land uses in carbon sequestration was different according to the system studied: crops were responsible for 100% in the ISC; woodland + shrubland (>85%) in the GS; and mainly shrubland (>80%) in the PS (Figure IV.2B). The inclusion of carbon sink values had a significant effect on the CF values, so grazing systems (GS and PS groups) had lower values compared to intensive systems (12–32%, Table IV.2). Despite this reduction, the differences between the grazing systems were not significant due to the high variability between the farms that make up these systems (Table IV.2). Gutierrez-Peña et al. [6] also found differences between systems according to intensity, which were lower in the more pastoral systems. 2.4.3.3 Identification of Practices Which Contribute to the Environmental Sustainability of Dairy Goat Farming System Study The CF is, at present, one of the most widely used indicators to quantify and reduce the impact of livestock on global warming [36]. Based on the obtained results, it can be stated that the use of the CF to assess farming must be subjected to certain considerations, particularly (i) the need to use the same milk standardization equation, being specific for each livestock species; (ii) preferably using the CF to analyze the evolution of each productive unit, during wide periods of time, with the aim of verifying the suitability of management strategies applied in terms of contribution to the reduction of farm GHG emissions; (iii) the need to promote the use of specific, reliable, and easy-to-use tools and software for farmers and technicians, allowing the assessment of CF evolution associated with changes in livestock management; and (iv) including carbon sink by vegetation in the CF of land-based systems for animal feeding, where appropriate.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 137 Our results showed similar CF levels in the four analyzed groups, with room for improvement in each case. These models require management and operation strategies adapted to their differential characteristics in order to not only guarantee the profitability of the activity but also reduce its environmental impact. Such strategies cannot be generic and need to be adapted to the reality of each territory and productive model; nevertheless, they must consider, at least, the following elements: (i) genetic improvement as a means to obtain more efficient and adapted units to the territory; (ii) reproductive control as a basic element to minimize the unproductive periods of the goats; (iii) proper nutritional management, based on specialized advice, training of technicians and farmers, and optimization of the use of available resources; and (iv) the integration of livestock activity in the bioeconomy of the territory, through the adequate management of manure and other by-products, or the preferential use of local resources, both in the manger and through rational use of grazing surfaces. Thus, the recommendations of the FAO for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions in livestock production are fulfilled: (i) an increase in productivity and food efficiency, (ii) carbon sink through grazing, and (iii) integration into the circular bio-economy [37]. Every analyzed model, but particularly the pastoral system (PS), needs to improve their milk productivity through genetic improvement, the elimination of unproductive animals, and the improvement of reproductive management, with the aim of shortening the periods in which the goats remain dry off [38]. This increase in productive efficiency and optimization of breeding goats would lead to a significant decrease in methane emissions resulting from enteric fermentation. The implementation of digitization in the goat sector (smart farming), as has already been carried out in other sectors through tools that contribute to precision farming, represents a great opportunity for farmers in this sector. In Andalusia, the autochthonous goat breeds associations comprising Cabrandalucia have been working for years on the comprehensive management of their farms, being pioneers in its digitization through the implementation of a modern enterprise resource planning (ERP) system and the development of specific computer tools, such as RUMIA [27] and AMALTEUS [22], the latter developed together with the University of Seville. It should be highlighted that the use of these technologies is easier to implement in stabled systems due to their greater
Capítulo 2. Resultados 138 homogeneity in animal management. These results are evident in the farms studied that have used these tools (mainly IS and ISC). Technical, professional advice and training in the management of animal feed are key elements for the reduction of GHG emission levels in goat farming. Strategies based on optimizing the use of inputs through correct rationing, eliminating the excessive and unnecessary use of concentrates, together with the creation of batches providing differentiated diets adapted to the productive level of animals, are necessary for the different production models studied, particularly for stabled systems (IS and ISC). The application of these measures leads to the reduction in the amount of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (F), thus adjusting the contribution of crude protein, improving digestibility, and reducing the impact of livestock due to a decrease in N and total P excreted and in total NH4 emissions [39]. Another main element is the adequate choice of the origin of the raw materials used for animal feeding. The use of local agricultural production, through agreements with cooperatives and producers in the territory and the use of by-products from the area (e.g., bran, molasses, oilseed cakes, olive grove by-products, etc.) contribute to the circular economy without reducing the production and quality of the milk obtained [40]. Particularly, in the case of stabled production systems (IS and ISC), stored manure is an important source of GHG emissions. Although the management and impact of slurry are conditioned by the application of current legislation and, thus, farm facilities (tanks, pits, or storage ponds), a correct subsequent use can contribute to reducing GHG emissions into the atmosphere. Traditionally, slurry has been used as an organic amendment in crops [41], both one’s own and from local farmers, although the increase in its production and the progressive restrictions on its use have accelerated its participation in alternative processes such as anaerobic digestion, which can significantly decrease the emission, combustion and/or storage of methane on the farm [42]. The use of small anaerobic digesters at the farm level that take advantage of the slurry generated can contribute to its energy independence, since biogas can be used as a renewable energy source instead of the use of fossil fuels [43]. This option could be complementary to the use of vegetable biomass (i.e., olive husk) or to the installation of photovoltaic energy on farms, thus reducing emissions linked to fossil fuels [27]. In the case of pastoral systems (GS and PS), actions contributing to the increase in availability and quality of natural and cultivated grasslands are
Capítulo 2. Resultados 139 recommended, such as (i) adopting controlled grazing techniques [44], allowing the optimization of pasture production, and controlling spatial and temporal mobility of livestock with new technologies (e.g., tracking collars); (ii) improving the recycling and cycling of nutrients in crops; and (iii) introducing quality autochthonous herbaceous species (e.g., legumes) that contribute to balancing the forage supply. These actions contribute to pastoral systems reaching maximum food autonomy, reducing dependence on external food that has higher environmental costs due to their production and transportation system. Likewise, they would contribute to reducing the GHG emitted into the atmosphere by increasing the carbon sink ability of the ecosystems grazed, giving rise to low-carbon livestock production [37]. In this sense, the lack of consensus on a reference method and data to explain changes in carbon sinks and stocks in vegetation and soil remains a major barrier to their evaluation. New tools, methodologies, and protocols must be developed to assess the contribution of pastoral livestock in the regulation of ecosystem services and compute them when allocating GHG emissions for the calculation of the CF. Despite the widespread concern for reducing GHG emissions to mitigate climate change, the contribution of each production system to environmental sustainability cannot be measured solely in terms of the value of the CF. In this sense, Knietzko [45] indicates the need to move beyond the carbon tunnel vision with a sustainability data strategy. There are many other elements that determine this contribution and place grazing systems on a different level, which must be supported and protected, given the fragility of these systems. Designing compensation regimes for the ecosystem services provided by pastoral systems could be a tool to improve the competitiveness of these systems [46], which are otherwise at a disadvantage compared to permanently establishing intensive systems, both from an economic and productive point of view [47]. Areas with low cropping potential (e.g., arid or mountainous areas), such as the farms studied, depend on grazing [14,17]. While vegetation plays a critical role in mitigating climate change, it also plays an important role in supporting global biodiversity and providing many goods and services to humans [9,48]. Grazing livestock contributes not only to the production of high-quality livestock products linked to the territory (provisioning services) but also to the prevention of forest fires, the improvement of biodiversity, the improvement of pastures through organic fertilization, the dispersal of seeds, the maintenance of rural populations, etc.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 140 (regulation and cultural services) [48]. In these areas, therefore, the abandonment of grazing can have serious consequences. 2.4.4 Conclusions The obtained results bring to light the moderate carbon footprint values associated with the production of goat’s milk from Andalusian autochthonous breeds, compared to other studies, with no differences among the production models analyzed. The lack of consensus on the use of specific milk standardization equations is an obstacle to carrying out comparisons on the impact of goat farming in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the lack of consensus regarding a reference method and a suitable database to explain changes in carbon sink and storage through vegetation and soil remains a major barrier to correctly estimating the impact of land-based livestock systems. Even more, including sink values in the carbon footprint calculation is a relevant aspect that allows an adequate assessment and a more realistic view of the environmental impact of these systems. The need for dairy goat farming to be environmentally sustainable turns out to be an undeniable fact in the present global background, and one of the keys, although not the only one, is minimizing greenhouse gas emissions at the farm level. In this sense, the use of a standardized carbon footprint assessment results in a relevant tool for quantifying these emissions and for, particularly, identifying and understanding the elements of livestock management that contribute to their reduction. In this regard, the use of management tools at the farm level (such as AMALTEUS) allows the joint generation of technical, economic, and environmental indicators for decision making, resulting in a really useful approach. Finally, the genetic improvement and the efficiency of reproductive and feeding management, including grazing, the optimal use of farm resources, proper management of manure, or the use of local products for animal feed, depending on the production model in question, contribute to moving towards a low-carbon goat production
Capítulo 2. Resultados 141 References 1. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ (accessed on 3 July 2023). 2. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Stepping up Europe’s 2030 Climate Ambition. Investing in a Climate-Neutral Future for the Benefit of Our People. EU COM/2020/562 Final. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/ALL (accessed on 3 July 2023). 3. Feeding Ruminants Against Climate Change. Available online: https://www.lifemiclifeed.eu/ (accessed on 1 September 2023). 4. Niloofar, P.; Francis, D.P.; Lazarova-Molnar, S.; Vulpe, A.; Vochin, M.C.; Suciu, G.; Balanescu, M.; Anestis, V.; Bartzanas, T. Data-driven decision support in livestock farming for improved animal health, welfare and greenhouse gas emissions: Overview and challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 190, 106406. 5. Key Facts and Findings. Available online: https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ (accessed on 3 July 2023). 6. Gutiérrez-Peña, R.; Mena, Y.; Batalla, I.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M. Carbon footprint of dairy goat production systems: A comparison of three contrasting grazing levels in the Sierra de Grazalema Natural Park (Southern Spain). J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 993–998. 7. Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Delgado-Pertiñez, M.; Mena, Y. Fat-and protein-corrected milk formulation to be used in the life-cycle assessment of Mediterranean dairy goat systems. Livest. Sci. 2021, 253, 104697. 8. Muñoz Vallés, S.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mena, Y. Natural Carbon Sinks Linked to Pastoral Activity in S Spain: A Territorial Evaluation Methodology for Mediterranean Goat Grazing Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6085. 9. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis; Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J., Eds.; Ecological Reviews; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 110–139.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 142 10. AR5. 2020. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal/docume nts/20151/41019046/AnalisisEscenariosClimaAndalucia_0.pdf/355ff846 -5a1a-8172-0789-7de5716646a0?t=1648035943771 (accessed on 20 July 2023). 11. Opiyo, F.; Wasonga, O.; Nyangito, M.; Schilling, J.; Munang, R. Drought adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists of northern Kenya. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 295–309. 12. Romano, E.; De Palo, P.; Tidona, F.; Maggiolino, A.; Bragaglio, A. Dairy buffalo Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) affected by a management choice: The production of wheat crop. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11108. 13. Escribano, M.; Horrillo, A.; Mesías, F.J. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration in organic dehesa livestock farms. Does technicaleconomic management matters? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 372, 133779. 14. Pardo, G.; Casas, R.; del Prado, A.; Manzano, P. Carbon footprint of transhumant sheep farms: Accounting for natural baseline emissions in Mediterranean systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023, 1–16. 15. de Figueiredo, E.B.; Jayasundara, S.; de Oliveira Bordonal, R.; Berchielli, T.T.; Reis, R.A.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; La Scala, N., Jr. Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of beef cattle in three contrasting pasturemanagement systems in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 420–431. 16. FAOSTAT. 2022. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 12 July 2023). 17. Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mena, Y.; Camúñez-Ruiz, J.A.; Fernández, J.; Mancilla- Leytón, J.M. Characterization of dairy goat production systems using autochthonous breeds in Andalusia (Southern Spain): Classification and efficiency comparative analysis. Small Rumin. Res. 2022, 213, 106743. 18. Zucali, M.; Lovarelli, D.; Celozzi, S.; Bacenetti, J.; Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L. Management options to reduce the environmental impact of dairy goat milk production. Livest. Sci. 2020, 231, 103888. 19. Navarro Cerrillo, R.M.; Palacios Rodríguez, G.; Clavero Rumbao, I.; Lara, M.Á.; Bonet, F.J.; Mesas-Carrascosa, F.J. Modeling major rural land-use changes using the GIS-based cellular automata metronamica model: The case of Andalusia (Southern Spain). ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 458. 20. López Ontiveros, A. Geografía de Andalucía. Rev. Estud. Reg. 2004, 70, 235–242.
Capítulo 2. Resultados 143 21. Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; Marín-García, D.; Carretero-Ayuso, M.J.; Rodríguez-Jiménez, C.E. Climate classification for new and restored buildings in Andalusia: Analysing the current regulation and a new approach based on k-means. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102829. 22. Mena, Y.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Fernández, J.; González, O.; Lara, C.; López, M.D.; Rey, S.; López, F.; Díaz, C. Implementación de un sistema de asesoramiento para la gestión sostenible del caprino andaluz. Tierras Caprino 2020, 33, 24–29. 23. IPCC Updates Methodology for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/05/13/ipcc-2019-refinement/ (accessed on 24 June 2023). 24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fossil Energy Use from Small Ruminant Supply Chains: Guidelines for Assessment; Ledgard, S., Henry, B., Benoit, M., Devendra, C., Dollé, J., Gac, A., Mitloehner, F., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; pp. 1–81. 25. Robertson, K.; Symes, W.; Garnham, M. Carbon footprint of dairy goat milk production in New Zealand. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 4279–4293. [ 26. Clark, J.H. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. 27. Pardo, G.; del Prado, A.; Fernández-Álvarez, J.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R.; Belanche, A. Influence of precision livestock farming on the environmental performance of intensive dairy goat farms. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131518. 28. Pulina, G.; Macciotta, N.; Nudda, A. Milk composition and feeding in the Italian dairy sheep. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 4, 5–14. 29. ARCA. Official Breeds Catalogue. Available online: https://servicio.mapa.gob.es/en/ganaderia/temas/zootecnia/razas -ganaderas/razas/catalogo-razas/ (accessed on 10 July 2023). 30. Batalla, I.; Knudsen, M.T.; Mogensen, L.; del Hierro, Ó.; Pinto, M.; Hermansen, J.E. Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in Northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 121–129. 31. Eldesouky, A.; Mesias, F.J.; Elghannam, A.; Escribano, M. Can extensification compensate livestock greenhouse gas emissions? A study of the carbon footprint in Spanish agroforestry systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 28–38.