Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp 611–618 | Cite as

Improvement of small dairy producers in the central coast of Peru

  • C. GomezEmail author
  • M. Fernandez
  • I. Salazar
  • I. Saldaña
  • H. Heredia
Original Paper


The objective of this study was to characterize a group of small dairy producers in the central coast of Peru and determine the most important limiting factors that affect animal productivity, using Participatory Rural Appraisal methodologies. The information collected during a year included biological and socio-economic characteristics. Inappropriate nutrition, management, health and reproduction were observed in most farms. The average number of animals per family was 17.3, of which 40% were bulls and growing calves. Milk production and net cash income were reduced in the summer. The feeding programme for lactating and growing females of forage exchanged for labour and purchased concentrates did not theoretically or practically meet the cows’ needs. All water was carried to the site on donkeys from one kilometre distance. All cows were negative for a number of potential infectious diseases. By California Mastitis Test of routine samples 7.1% of cows had clinical mastitis and 66.1% subclinical. Taking notional labour and forage costs into account, milk production was at a loss but the farmers considered neither and were satisfied with a net cash income from milk sales three times the average agricultural wage.


Management Nutrition Small dairy productivity Socio-economics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alegre Gómez J. 2007. Sistema de alimentación de vacunos de pequeños productores en costa del Perú. Thesis Ing. Zootecnista. UNALM, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. AOAC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. FAO Statistic Database. 2006. Agricultural data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferguson J.D., Galligan, D.T. and Thomsen, N. 1994. Principal descriptors of body condition in Holstein dairy cattle, J. Dairy Sci. 77, p 2695–2703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Flamenbaum I., Wolfenson, D., Kunz, P.L., Maman, M. and Berman, A. 1995. Interactions between body condition at calving and cooling of dairy cows during lactation in summer, J. Dairy Sci. 78, p 2221–2229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gomez, A, Vargas, J. and Fernandez, M. 2006. Dairy Report, International Farm Comparison Network, Global Farm GbR, BraunschweigGoogle Scholar
  7. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica. 2005. Compendio Estadistico. Sistema Nacional de Estadistica. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, PeruGoogle Scholar
  8. Ministerio de Energía y Minas del Perú. 2003. Estudio de impacto ambiental y social de los sistemas de transporte de gas natural y transporte de los líquidos de gas de camisea, Lima — Variante Cañete. EIA variante CañeteGoogle Scholar
  9. Mdegela R.H., Karimuribo, E., Kusiluka, L.J.M., Kabula, B., Manjurano, A., Kapaga, A.M. and Kambarage, D.M. 2005. Mastitis in small dairyholder dairy and pastoral cattle herds in the urban and peri-urban areas of the Dodoma municipality in Central Tanzania, Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 17, N° 11Google Scholar
  10. Mellenberger R. and Roth, C. 2000. California Mastitis Test (CMT) Fact Sheet. Milk Quality Resource, Department of Dairy Science, University of WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  11. National Dairy Testing Program. 2003. Annual results, Agraria La Molina University, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, sixth revised Ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, seventh revised Ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Office International des Epizooties. 2000. Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis/infectious pustular vulvo-vaginitis, En: Manual of standards diagnostic tests and vaccines, p 322–328Google Scholar
  15. Rocha Rejas J. 1999. Mejora de los sistemas de alimentación con uso de follaje de camote en vacunos lecheros del valle de Cañete, Thesis MSc. Nutricion, UNALM, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  16. Shamsuddin M., Goodger, W.J., Hossein, M.S., Azizunnesa, Bennett, T. and Nordlund, K. 2006. A survey to identify economic opportunities for smallholder dairy farms in Bangladesh. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 38, p 131–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SAS® Statistic Version 8 Edition. 1999. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  18. Werbrouck P. 2004. Designing a rural development strategy for Peru’s sierra. program of the World Bank’s Latin America and Caribbean Region, En breve, technical notes No. 54Google Scholar
  19. World Bank. 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Washington, D. C., USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Gomez
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Fernandez
    • 1
  • I. Salazar
    • 1
  • I. Saldaña
    • 1
  • H. Heredia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nutrition, Faculty of ZootecniaAgraria La Molina UniversityLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations