IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p7054-d1458061.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Assessment of Sustainability of Dual-Purpose, Dairy and Beef Cattle Production Systems in the Cundinamarca Department (Colombia) Using the MESMIS Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Fabián Cruz

    (Animal Production Department, Veterinary Faculty, Antonio Nariño University, Cra 3 este # 47ª 15., Sede Circunvalar, Bogota 110231, Colombia)

  • Dolly Pardo

    (Animal Production Department, Veterinary Faculty, Antonio Nariño University, Cra 3 este # 47ª 15., Sede Circunvalar, Bogota 110231, Colombia)

  • Alberto Horcada

    (Agronomy Department, School of Agricultural Engineering, University of Seville, Ctra, Utrera km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain)

  • Yolanda Mena

    (Agronomy Department, School of Agricultural Engineering, University of Seville, Ctra, Utrera km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain)

Abstract

The Cundinamarca Department is located in the Colombian Andean region, and features a variety of bovine production systems dedicated to milk, beef or dual-purpose production in cold, warm and temperate climate areas, respectively. This paper analyses the sustainability of a sample of 35 farms (12 dual-purpose, 13 milk production and 10 beef production) located in some of its municipal areas using MESMIS methodology, which evaluated indicators related to social, environmental and economic factors of the systems during 1 year, grouping them by their productivity, adaptability, equity, self-management and resilience. For productivity, adaptability and equity, the dairy systems scored higher than dual-purpose and beef systems, whereas for the indicators of self-management, stability and resilience, the dairy systems scored lowest, while dual-purpose systems were the best. The indicators of economic sustainability increased in proportion to the intensification of the production system, availability of agricultural machinery and added value, resulting in the best scores being obtained by the dairy system and the worst by the beef system. For social sustainability indicators, the best score was obtained by dual-purpose systems, with dairy systems scoring the lowest, while dairy systems scored highest for environmental indicators. The results could be used to endorse public policies to promote the generation of sustainable agricultural systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabián Cruz & Dolly Pardo & Alberto Horcada & Yolanda Mena, 2024. "An Assessment of Sustainability of Dual-Purpose, Dairy and Beef Cattle Production Systems in the Cundinamarca Department (Colombia) Using the MESMIS Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:7054-:d:1458061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/7054/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/7054/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernandes, Lúcio André de O. & Woodhouse, Philip J., 2008. "Family farm sustainability in southern Brazil: An application of agri-environmental indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 243-257, June.
    2. Pannell, David J. & Glenn, Nicole A., 2000. "A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 135-149, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agnieszka Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska & Anna Kłoczko-Gajewska & Piotr Sulewski, 2019. "Between the Social and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability in Rural Areas—In Search of Farmers’ Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Farnaz Pourzand & Mohammad Bakhshoodeh, 2014. "Technical effici ency and agricultural sustainability–technology gap of maize producers in Fars province of Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 671-688, June.
    3. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    4. Shamsheer Haq & Ismet Boz, 2020. "Measuring environmental, economic, and social sustainability index of tea farms in Rize Province, Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2545-2567, March.
    5. Herrera, Gabriel Paes & Lourival, Reinaldo & da Costa, Reginaldo Brito & Mendes, Dany Rafael Fonseca & Moreira, Tito Belchior Silva & de Abreu, Urbano Gomes Pinto & Constantino, Michel, 2018. "Econometric analysis of income, productivity and diversification among smallholders in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 455-459.
    6. Jollands, Nigel & Harmsworth, Garth, 2007. "Participation of indigenous groups in sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and examples from New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 716-726, May.
    7. Ranjan Roy & Ngai Weng Chan, 2012. "An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: review and synthesis," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 99-110, March.
    8. Pacini, Cesare & Giesen, G.W.J. & Vazzana, V. & Wossink, Ada, 2002. "Sustainability of Organic, Integrated and Conventional Farming Systems in Tuscany," 13th Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 7-12, 2002 6956, International Farm Management Association.
    9. Pouria Ataei & Hassan Sadighi & Mohammad Chizari & Enayat Abbasi, 2020. "In-depth content analysis of conservation agriculture training programs in Iran based on sustainability dimensions," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7215-7237, December.
    10. S.P. Dissanayake & L.H.P. Gunaratne & T. Sivananthawerl & G.A.S Ginigaddara, 2021. "Is Agricultural Sustainability Positively Related with Technical Efficiency? A Case of Paddy-Cattle Integration Farming Systems, Anuradhapura District, Sri Lanka," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(12), pages 968-976, December.
    11. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    12. Michalopoulos, T. & Hogeveen, H. & Heuvelink, E. & Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2013. "Public multi-criteria assessment for societal concerns and gradual labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 97-108.
    13. Alessandro SCUDERI & Luisa STURIALE, 2016. "Multi-criteria evaluation model to face phytosanitary emergencies: The case of citrus fruits farming in Italy," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(5), pages 205-214.
    14. Kristina Šermukšnytė-Alešiūnienė & Rasa Melnikienė, 2024. "The Effects of Digitalization on the Sustainability of Small Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-12, May.
    15. Gao, Yang & Zhang, Xiao & Wu, Lei & Yin, Shijiu & Lu, Jiao, 2017. "Resource basis, ecosystem and growth of grain family farm in China: Based on rough set theory and hierarchical linear model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 157-167.
    16. Irina Santiago-Brown & Andrew Metcalfe & Cate Jerram & Cassandra Collins, 2015. "Sustainability Assessment in Wine-Grape Growing in the New World: Economic, Environmental, and Social Indicators for Agricultural Businesses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-27, June.
    17. M.A. Quaddus & M.A.B. Siddique, 2013. "Application of decision support tools in sustainable development planning: review and analysis," Chapters, in: M. A. Quaddus & M. A.B. Siddique (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development Planning, chapter 1, pages 3-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Brownson, Katherine & Fowler, Laurie, 2020. "Evaluating how we evaluate success: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management in Payments for Watershed Services programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Luhede, Amelie & Yaqine, Houda & Bahmanbijari, Reza & Römer, Michael & Upmann, Thorsten, 2024. "The value of information in water quality monitoring and management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    20. Aleksander Grzelak & Jakub Staniszewski & Michał Borychowski, 2020. "Income or Assets—What Determines the Approach to the Environment among Farmers in A Region in Poland?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:7054-:d:1458061. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.