Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias
Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Tomo 57(1). ISSN (en línea) 1853-8665.
Año 2025.
Original article
Characterization
of the pork sector in the productive core of Argentina: a look at small
producers
Caracterización del sector
porcino en el núcleo productivo de Argentina: una mirada hacia los pequeños
productores
Carlos Figueroa1,
Gabriela Fernández1,
1Universidad Nacional del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.
Centro de Bioinvestigaciones (CeBio). CIC/ Centro de Investigaciones y
Transferencia del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (CITNOBA)
UNNOBA-UNSAdA-CONICET. Av. Presidente A. Frondizi 2650. C. P. 2700. Pergamino.
Buenos Aires. Argentina.
2Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
(CONICET). Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina. Godoy Cruz 2290. CABA.
C. P. C1425FQB.
3Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas de la Provincia de
Buenos Aires (CICPBA). Ciudad de La Plata. Buenos Aires. Argentina. Calle 526
e/ 10 y 11. CP 1900.
* mariano.merino@nexo.unnoba.edu.ar
Abstract
Pros and cons of
pork production in Argentina underscore the need to have information to empower
pork producers. This study characterizes three pork production strata (Small,
Medium, and Large) in north Buenos Aires using surveys (n=40). We provide information
on farms, management practices, infrastructure, technology and commercial
activities. We found significant differences (p-value < 0.05) between strata
in the use of artificial insemination and effluent treatment (mainly through
lagoons and soil application) regarding infrastructure and technology.
Additionally, there was a trend towards breeding in confined systems as the
size of the production increased. Furthermore, despite 72.50% of surveyed
producers having reported access to professional veterinary advice, we found a
significant difference (p-value = 0.0167) in access between the Small (45.45%)
and Large (100%) strata. Regarding commercialization, data indicated piglet
sales as the predominant activity, with pig farming serving as a supplementary
source of income for most producers. These findings show the need for
professional intervention in smaller-scale pig farms to overcome structural
barriers and access to the production chain.
Keywords: pig production,
strata, Buenos Aires, infrastructure, health
Resumen
Las fluctuaciones
que presenta el sector porcino en Argentina resaltan la necesidad de disponer
de información para potenciarlo. El objetivo de este estudio fue caracterizar
tres estratos productivos porcinos (pequeño, mediano y grande) en el norte de
la provincia de Buenos Aires mediante encuestas (n=40) proporcionando
información sobre manejo, infraestructura, tecnología y comercialización. En
términos de infraestructura y tecnificación, se identificaron diferencias
significativas (p-value < 0,05) entre los estratos en el uso de la
inseminación artificial y el tratamiento de efluentes (lagunas y aplicación al
suelo), además de una tendencia hacia la cría en sistemas confinados a medida
que el tamaño del estrato aumenta. Por otro lado, a pesar de que el 72,50% de
los productores indicó contar con asesoramiento veterinario, se constató una
diferencia significativa (p-value = 0,0167) entre el estrato pequeño y el
grande en el acceso al servicio. En cuanto a comercialización, los datos evidenciaron
que la venta de lechones es la actividad predominante, siendo la actividad
porcina una fuente de ingresos económicos complementaria para la mayoría de los
productores. Estos datos manifiestan la necesidad de intervención profesional
en las explotaciones porcinas para superar barreras estructurales y aumentar el
acceso a la cadena productiva.
Palabras clave: producción porcina,
estratos, Buenos Aires, infraestructura, sanidad
Originales: Recepción: 01/11/2023 - Aceptación: 22/10/2024
Introduction
Global pork
consumption ranks second only to poultry, with an average of 11.7 kg per capita
annually. China is the leading producer, accounting for 41.3% of the total,
followed by the European Union with 22.3% (23). In South America,
Brazil is the largest producer, contributing 4.1% of global production, and
ranking fourth in global exports. Argentina produces 0.7% of the world’s pork,
with 697 thousand tons destined mainly for domestic consumption, and to a
lesser extent for export (22).
Pork production in
Argentina has fluctuated over time, currently reaching 5 million heads, peaking
at 8 million in the 1940s (10). This stock is
concentrated in three provinces: Buenos Aires (23.7%), Córdoba (23.5%), and
Santa Fe (14.1%), aligning with the agricultural core region (22). According to data
from the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA,
2022),
there are 97,680 productive units (UP) in the country, with 90% having fewer
than 50 mother sows. Only 3,313 UP reported slaughter activity in 2022 (26),
highlighting the large number of small-scale producers not fully engaged in the
production chain.
Currently, there is
limited information on technical, health, and infrastructure development of
small-scale producers. This sector faces several challenges, with most
production relying on pasture, using traditional methods and low technological
investment (11). Additionally, the
prices of imported meat and fat from Brazil and Europe, place Argentina at a
competitive disadvantage. Moreover, there is a lack of coordination between the
production and processing sectors within the pork supply chain (9). However, the
sector also presents opportunities, such as rising beef prices and the sharp
decrease in China’s pig stock due to African swine fever (26,
28).
In this context, understanding the current status of small-scale
pork production is essential for increasing its involvement in the production
chain. This study characterizes pork establishments in the north of the Buenos
Aires province by providing information on herd composition, management,
infrastructure, technology, and commercial activities, categorizing them by sow
stock size.
Materials
and methods
Study
area
The study area is located in the Undulating Pampa region, from
33°42’43” to 34°47’75” S latitude and 61°52’30” to 60°20’38” W longitude. It is
located in northwestern Buenos Aires province, the country’s leading
pork-producing region (figure
1)
(30).
Los
círculos verdes, azules y rojos indican las producciones del estrato Pequeño,
Mediano y Grande, respectivamente. En el mapa de referencia (arriba, a la
izquierda) se muestran las tres provincias que conforman el núcleo productivo
porcino de Argentina, y la zona de muestreo.
Figure
1.
Geographic location of the productions analyzed in this study.
Figura
1. Ubicación geográfica de las producciones analizadas en el
estudio.
Data
collection
Data were collected through semi-structured and face-to-face
surveys with pork producers or establishment managers (n=40). The process
followed the guidelines outlined by Albuquerque et al. (2014). Establishments
were classified into three strata following the methodology of Argentina’s
Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA,
2022),
grouping production units by the number of sow mothers (7): the ‘Small’ (S,
n=11), ‘Medium’ (M, n=22), and ‘Large’ (L, n=7) strata included herds of 0-10,
11-100, and over 101 sow mothers, respectively. The survey had four sections:
(a) Farm Size, (b) Technology and Personnel, (c) Health, and (d) Marketing.
The Farm Size
section provided information about the number of females and males in the herd.
Mean and standard deviation for each stratum were calculated using GraphPad
Prism software version 6.01 (GraphPad Software, Boston, MA, USA).
The Technology and
Personnel section collected data about the use of Artificial Insemination (AI)
and effluent disposal and treatment processes to reduce contaminants (lagoons,
watercourses, or irrigation) (24). Data was analyzed
with a Pearson Chi-squared test (25). Information on
the breeding system (outdoor, confined, or mixed systems) and workforce size
(expressed as the number of individuals working either part-time or full-time)
was also gathered (25). Paired
differences between strata were calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with the Tukey test in R software (27).
The Health section
included questions on veterinary advisory services received in the past year
and the main health issues affecting the herd. Statistically significant
differences were analyzed using the Pearson Chi-squared test in R software (27).
The Marketing
section gathered information on the products sold during the survey, including
piglets, market pigs over 100 kg, and processed products. The destination of
these products included private buyers, slaughterhouses, aggregators, or
personal consumption. Data on the level of cooperation with other producers (e.g.
membership in producer groups or organizations) and the role of pig farming
in family income was also collected. The term ‘piglets’ referred to animals up
to 4/5 weeks old and under 15 kg, while “market pigs over 100 kg” were defined
as castrated males and non-breeding females weighing more than 100 kg (12). ‘Processed
products’ referred to the production of preserves, cured meats and salted
products, including fresh, dried, or cooked sausages (7).
Results
Farm
size
The study surveyed a total breeding stock of 2,759 individuals,
averaging 68.98 ± 133.04 sow mothers and 2.66 ± 2.00 boars. The distribution of
breeding stock across the Small, Medium and Large strata was 2.68%, 29.72%, and
67.60%, respectively (table
1).
Table 1. Mean,
Standard deviation (±SD), 75% percentile (75%-per), maximum, and minimum number
(Min/Max) of sow mothers and boars per stratum.
Tabla
1. Media, Desvío estándar (±SD), 75% percentil (75%-per),
número máximo y mínimo (Min/Max) de cerdas madres y padrillos por estrato.
Technology
and personnel
Producers using Artificial Insemination (AI) as a reproductive
method accounted for 17.95%, while 82.05% relied on natural mating for
breeding. A statistically significant difference was found between the Large
stratum, where the majority of respondents used the technique, and the two
smaller strata (figure
2).
N/D: no data
available. References are indicated in the figure. * p-value
< 0.05, ** p-value < 0.01, *** p-value < 0.001.
N/D:
sin datos. Las referencias se indican en la figura. * p-value
< 0,05, ** p-value < 0,01, *** p-value < 0,001.
Figure
2.
Grouped bar graph showing the percentage of productions using the Artificial
Insemination (AI) technique across different strata.
Figura
2. Gráfico de barras agrupado donde se representa el número de
criaderos que emplean la técnica de Inseminación artificial (IA) en los
diferentes estratos.
The primary
breeding method was the outdoor system (37.50%), followed by the mixed system
(35%), and the confined system (27.50%). In the Small stratum, the outdoor
breeding system was used to a greater extent (54.55%), followed by mixed
systems (36.36%), and confined systems (9.09%). In the Medium stratum, 36.36%
of the breeders used an outdoor system, 45.46% opted for mixed systems, and
18.18% employed a confined system. In the Large stratum, 85.71% used a confined
rearing system, while 14.29% employed an outdoor approach.
Regarding effluent
management, 52.50% of producers did not implement any treatment, 17.50%
disposed of effluents directly onto the soil, 12.50% used settling lagoons, 10%
combined both methods (lagoon and soil application), and 7.50% did not respond.
In the Small
stratum, 81.82% of the producers did not treat effluents. In contrast, the
Medium stratum decreased to 50%. These results differ from the Large stratum,
where 85.71% of producers implemented some treatment.
Soil application
and lagoons were the predominant treatments in the Medium and Large strata. In
the Small stratum, two producers reported using treatment methods: one used
lagoons, and the other disposed of waste through soil application (figure 3).
N/D:
sin datos.
Figure
3. Pie charts showing the proportion of producers by
effluent treatment method across different strata.
Figura
3. Gráficos de tortas que representan
la proporción de productores según el método de tratamiento de efluentes por
estrato.
The average number
of workers per breeding facility (n= 38) (full-time or part-time) was 2.05. In
the Small stratum, the average was 1.36 ± 0.50 workers (with a maximum of 2),
increasing to 2 ± 0.63 workers (with a maximum of 3) in the Medium stratum. The
average was 3.50 ± 1.98 in the Large stratum (with a maximum of 7). The latter
differed statistically from the other two strata (p-value < 0.05). The ratio
of sow mothers per personnel (operators) per stratum was 4.95, 18.6, and 76.11
sow mothers per person in the Small, Medium, and Large strata, respectively.
Health
Of the total producers surveyed, 72.50% received professional
veterinary advice. Small, Medium and Large strata, had 45.45%, 77.27% and 100%,
respectively. The pairwise Chi-squared test showed a significant difference
between the Small and Large strata (p-value = 0.0167).
Regarding the most
frequent diseases in the herds, 47.50% of the producers reported no frequent
diseases. The remaining 52.50% identified pneumonia as a recurrent disease,
with other issues such as parasites, diarrhea, and pre-weaning mortality being
less common (figure
4).
When disaggregated by stratum, the trend of pneumonia remained the primary
concern across all groups, while a notable percentage of producers in the Small
and Medium strata reported having no recurrent problems.
Figure 4. Frequency
of recurrent diseases grouped by stratum.
Figura
4. Frecuencia de enfermedades
recurrentes agrupadas por estrato.
Marketing
Sixty-five percent (65%) of pig producers reported selling
piglets. Additionally, 20% sold both piglets and market pigs over 100 kg,
12.50% sold piglets and processed products, and 2.50% sold only market pigs
over 100 kg. Piglets were the predominant product across all three strata (table 2). These products
were mainly marketed privately (60%).
Table 2. Proportion
of final product marketed by stratum.
Tabla
2. Proporción del producto final
comercializado por estrato.
S= small stratum, M= medium
stratum, L= large stratum.
S= estrato pequeño, M= estrato
mediano, L= estrato grande.
A smaller proportion of producers (22.50%) exclusively targeted
slaughterhouses as their end customers, while 7.50% raised pigs for personal
consumption. Five percent (5%) engaged in joint marketing with slaughterhouses
and private sales, while the remaining 5% was split between bulk purchasers and
private sales. Stratified data revealed that private sales were predominant in
the two smaller strata, while the Large stratum was dominated by sales to
meatpacking plants (table
3).
Table 3. Destination
of final products by stratum.
Tabla
3. Destino de los productos finales
por estrato.
S= small stratum, M= medium stratum,
L= large stratum.
S= estrato pequeño, M= estrato
mediano, L= estrato grande.
Furthermore, 82.50% reported that pig production serves as a
supplementary source of income, typically alongside grain production, while
17.50% considered pig production as their primary source of income.
In the Small,
Medium and Large strata, pig farming represented supplementary income for 100%,
90.91% and 71.43% of respondents, respectively. Regarding the level of
cooperativeness or association among producers, 7.50% (n=3) responded
affirmatively, with all positive responses coming from breeders in the Medium
stratum.
Discussion
The information
presented in this study highlights the vulnerability and limited access to
technology and infrastructure faced by small-scale producers, which makes it
difficult for them to participate in the national pig production chain.
The animal stock
recorded in this study confirms the trend of sow herd concentration in a few
establishments at the national level (table 1). In Argentina,
productions with fewer than 50 sows account for only 4% of the total sow stock (29). Despite
representing the majority of productions, the two lower strata retain only
32.40% of the total sow stock. Within comparison, data from Buenos Aires
province show that the proportion of producers unable to scale up between strata
over the past decade has remained unchanged. Benéz and Cendon (2013) reported that
farms with fewer than 50 sows, although the largest sector, retain only 41% of
the stock.
To understand the
cause of this disparity, it is essential to closely examine the production
state. One approach in this study was quantifying artificial insemination (AI)
as an indicator of technological adoption. The obtained data aligns with the
2018 agricultural census, where approximately 20% of commercially oriented
productions use AI (18). These figures are
discouraging, as AI usage in Argentina’s core production regions does not
exceed 18%. In contrast, leading pork-producing countries such as the United
States and those in the European Union report AI usage in 60% to 90% of their
productions (31, 32). Furthermore, the
results vary among strata, with significantly greater access to AI in the Large
stratum (figure
2).
This stratum shows percentages similar to previous reports, which estimate that
85% of sows in intensive operations in Argentina are artificially inseminated (3). The technological
gap between strata is clear. Although reproductive techniques like AI could
become more accessible to family or small-scale producers in the near future.
In many developing countries, this technique has been adopted despite
significant infrastructure limitations (19, 20). In Brazil, for
example, the use of AI in pigs increased by more than tenfold between the 1990s
and 2000, reaching 70% today (13). The widespread
adoption of IA in these countries was driven by research programs, education,
and financial support provided by universities, governments, and commercial
enterprises. These initiatives promoted the benefits of AI and made the
technology more accessible to the community (15,
19).
In terms of breeding
systems, there is a general trend toward outdoor pig farming, which decreases
as the number of sows increases. This is partially explained by the capital
requirements, as maintaining an extensive pig production system typically
requires 40-70% less capital than a confined system (21).
Manure accumulation in pens is one of the most significant
contributors to soil contamination (17). Although there is
limited national-level data, methods such as stabilization lagoons, irrigation,
and composting appear to be the most commonly used waste management approaches (5). In the study
area, producers actively participate in effluent treatment. This contrasts with
the province of Santa Fe, where, although 75% of producers have some form of
organic waste storage, only 12.50% treat the effluents (16). In this province,
the primary methods for waste disposal are ditches or pits, which contrasts with
the use of lagoons and direct soil application reported in this study. As the stratum (sow stock) increases, producers’ participation
in effluent treatment becomes more common (figure 3). Effluent control
requires substantial planning and investment, which may explain why many
producers choose lagoons as a more cost-effective alternative (1,
21). These lagoons are less expensive and require less maintenance,
while also allowing for the management of a large load and concentration of
organic material (8). On the other
hand, disposal through irrigation (direct soil application) is common because
many pig producers largely engage in agriculture, and the investment in irrigation
equipment or manure spreaders is relatively affordable.
Similarly to the
lack of data on effluent treatment, there is no information available on
workforce registration in the pig sector, making the data obtained in this
study a first approximation. In many establishments, particularly in the Small
stratum, the work is performed entirely by one person, which presents a
disadvantage due to the occupational risks involved (e.g., injuries, and
zoonotic diseases) (6). The survey data
allows us to calculate the relationship between the average number of sows and
the number of personnel per stratum. It is observed that each worker in the
Large stratum manages more animals than recommended for this type of activity.
Typically, swine operations require 1.9 direct jobs for every 50 sow mothers in
operations with 51 to 100 mothers and 1.7 jobs for every 50 sow mothers in
operations with 101 to 500 mothers (14).
Animal health is an
important factor impacting the economics and production performance, which
accounts for 4% to 7% of the cost per kilogram of meat produced in a pig farm (32). Previous reports
indicate that 93% of pig producers in Argentina do not have routine veterinary
guidance or only consult a veterinarian sporadically (32). The results of
this study differ from these previous findings, as 72.50% of producers reported
receiving veterinary advice. These differences may be attributed to estimation
scale and suggest a high level of access to professional consultation among
regional producers. However, 27.50% of these producers lack veterinary advice,
which is detrimental from a production standpoint and raises concerns for human
health. According to Braun (2016), the production conditions in the
small or subsistence stratum lead to health vulnerabilities for the overall pig
population, due to the absence of a systematic approach and limited knowledge
of good production practices. One recommended solution is for small-scale or
family-owned production establishments to organize under the guidance of a
single professional, which could help reduce costs (23). The importance of
guidance lies in the ability to plan and manage a health program tailored to
the specific circumstances of each establishment. In this context, all three
strata identified pneumonia as a recurrent disease (figure 4). According to Bencomo
(2010),
pneumonia is present in 90% of pig farms and affects 80% of pigs globally,
making it the most prevalent and economically impactful disease in pig
production. Aside from the regular epidemiological surveillance conducted by
government agencies, there are no formal records of recurrent pig diseases in
the region.
The data on the
commercialization of the pig farming enterprise not only provide insights into
the current economic characteristics of each stratum but also serve as a basis
for potential marketing strategies. In the Small stratum, 81.82% of producers
sell their products, primarily piglets, through private sales. These figures
highlight the limited access that producers in the Small and Medium strata have
within the production chain. This is particularly relevant when considering
that Buenos Aires is the province with the highest number of meat processing
plants in the country (22). Furthermore,
alternative markets, such as the production of processed products, can offer
growth opportunities for smaller strata (4). As the results
show, these strata have a higher percentage of manufacturing compared to the
Large stratum, which can serve as an initial step towards expanding or
developing their activities. The production of cured and salted meats accounts
for 3.20% of the value of the food and beverage industry in the country (7).
The fragility is
evident in the need for producers to rely on other rural activities for their
livelihoods. The vast majority (82.50%) use pig production as a supplementary
source of income alongside other agricultural activities. In this context,
cooperatives or producer associations offer a viable way to achieve common
goals, such as veterinary guidance, use of artificial insemination, acquisition
of effluent treatment equipment, and the purchase of high-value genetic
material, and to attain levels of competitiveness comparable to larger
companies (21).
According to the data, over 90% of the surveyed producers are
not part of any network or association. Cooperatives or associations are some
of the powerful tools for overcoming individual limitations and achieving
production levels comparable to those of large enterprises.
Conclusions
The results
presented here reveal that small producers have limited access to technological
resources (such as artificial insemination), operate with precarious
infrastructure (with less use of intensive confinement systems and low
investment in effluent treatment), and face challenges in sanitary control and
access to the production chain or meatpacker sales.
It is crucial to counterbalance a concentrated pig production
model, where a few producers dominate the entire stock, by promoting a
diversified national production system that includes small producers in the
production chain, allowing them to grow within the sector. Achieving this
requires the involvement of competent authorities to develop national-level
plans that provide financial assistance and training in proper health and herd
management practices.
1.
Acosta Sosa, M. A. 2018. Instalaciones porcinas orientado
al pequeño y mediano productor del NEA y NOA. Ediciones INTA. Colonia Benítez.
Chaco. p 10.
2.
Albuquerque, U. P.; Paiva de Lucena, R. F.; Machado de Freitas Lins Neto, E.
2014. Selection of research participants. In: Albuquerque, U. P.; Fernandes
Cruz da Cunha, L. V.; Farias Paiva de Lucena, R.; Nóbrega Alves, R. R (eds).
Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Humana press. New
York. USA. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4614-8636-7
3.
Arisnabarreta, E. R.; Allende, R. A. 2017. Manual de inseminación artificial en
porcinos. Buenos Aires. 130 p.
4.
Bautista-Martínez, Y.; Granados-Rivera, L. D.; Jimenez-Ocampo, R.;
Maldonado-Jáquez. 2024. Morphostructural composition and meat quality in local
goat kids from the northeastern region of Mexico. Revista de la Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza. Argentina. 56(1):
127-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.39.129
5.
Beily, M. E. 2005. Caracterización de efluentes de cerdo, con énfasis en su
degradabilidad anaeróbica. Tesis de Maestría en Gestión Ambiental. Escuela de
Posgrado. Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires.
6.
Bencomo, A. B. G. 2010. Instituto Nicaragüense de Tecnología Agropecuaria.
INTA. Managua. Instituto Nacional Tecnológico. Managua. Nicaragua.
7.
Benés, G.; Cendon, M. 2013. La cadena de la carne porcina en la provincia de
Buenos Aires. In: Iglesias, D. H.; Ghezan, G. (eds). Análisis de la cadena de
la carne porcina en Argentina. Estudios socioeconómicos de los sistemas
agroalimentarios y agroindustriales N°12. Argentina. 55-69.
8.
Braun, R. 2016. Producción porcina: el complejo educativo-productivo de la
actividad en Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Santa Rosa. La Pampa.
pp. 213-225.
9.
Braun, R. O.; Cervellini, J. E.; Muñoz, M. V. 2017. Potencialidades y
restricciones del sector porcino en Argentina. Revista Negocios
Agroalimentarios. 2(2): 28-33.
10.
Campagna, D. 2005. Caracterización de los principales componentes de los
sistemas de producción de cerdos a campo en Argentina. III Encuentro
Latinoamericano de especialistas en sistemas de producción porcina a campo.
Marcos Juárez. Argentina. 6 y 7 de noviembre 2003.
11.
Campagna D. 2011. Instalaciones. En Brunori J.; Rodriguez Fazzone M.; Figueroa
M. E. (Eds.). Buenas Prácticas Pecuarias (BPP) para la producción y
comercialización porcina familiar. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 105-138.
12.
Fages, S.; Williams, S.; Valette E. 2021. Producción de lechones. In: Williams,
S. I. (ed). Manual de producción porcina: Cadena de valor de la producción
sustentable en Argentina. La Plata, Argentina. 104-117.
https://doi.org/10.35537/10915/130187
13.
Fávero, J. A.; Pereira de Figueiredo, A. 2009. Evolução do melhoramento
genético de suínos no Brasil. Revista Ceres. 58(4): 420-427.
14.
Garzón, J. M.; Moncarz, P.; Rosetti, V.; Torre, N.; Bullano, F.; Fiant, S.;
Agusto, G. 2015. El aporte del campo a la economía de Córdoba. Instituto de
estudios sobre la realidad argentina y latinoamericana - IERAL-Bolsa de
Cereales de Córdoba. 117-120.
15.
Gregoretti, G.; Baudracco, J.; Dimundo, C.; Lazzarini, B.; Scarel, J.; Alesso,
A.; Machado, C. 2024. Traditional cow-calf systems of the northern region of
Santa Fe, Argentina: current situation and improvement opportunities. Revista
de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza.
Argentina. 56(1): 106-116. DOI: https://doi. org/10.48162/rev.39.127
16.
Guardatti, S.; Huerga, I. R.; Magnano, L.; Martinez, C.; Porfiri, F. 2017.
Sistemas de producción de porcinos. Tamaño de los emprendimientos y disposición
final de residuos y efluentes en tres grupos de productores del sur de la
provincia de Santa Fe. In: Longo, A. (ed) Desarrollo Territorial: abordaje de
procesos complejos en la nueva ruralidad. Santa Fe. 120 p.
17.
Herrero M.; Gil S. 2008. Consideraciones ambientales de la intensificación en
la producción animal. Ecología Austral. 18: 273-289.
18.
INDEC. 2020. Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2018: resultados preliminares,
ganadería. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Ciudad Autónoma de
Buenos Aires. 94 p.
19.
Knox, R. V. 2016. Artificial insemination in pigs today. Theriogenology. 85(1):
83-93. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.07.009
20.
López Parra, J. C.; Marini, P. R.; Macagno, A. J.; Bó, G. A. 2024. Effect of
three different fixed-time AI protocols on follicular dynamics and pregnancy
rates in suckled, dual-purpose cows in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Revista de la
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza. Argentina.
56(1): 138-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.39.130
21.
Millares, P.; Odetto, S.; Pietrantonio, J.; Denegri, D. 2011. Planificación y
gestión productiva-comercial de la actividad porcícola familiar. In: Brunori,
J.; Rodriguez Fazzone, M.; Figueroa, M. E. (eds). Buenas Prácticas Pecuarias
(BPP) para la producción y comercialización porcina familiar. Argentina. 35-54.
22.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca. 2021. Anuario porcino 2021. 41 p.
23.
OECD. 2023. Meat consumption (indicator). Accessed on 07 February 2023. DOI: 10.1787/
fa290fd0-en
24.
Panichelli, D. 2011. Manejo medioambiental. In: Brunori, J.; Rodriguez Fazzone,
M.; Figueroa, M. E. (eds). Buenas Prácticas Pecuarias (BPP) para la producción
y comercialización porcina familiar. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 237-260.
25.
Pearson, K. 1900. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the
probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be
reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophical Magazine
Series. 50(302): 157-175. https://doi. org/10.1080/14786440009463897
26.
Pouiller, C. 2019. Maíz. In: Siutti, E. (ed). Revista Mercados Agropecuarios
N°11. Subsecretaría de Mercados Agropecuarios. Ministerio de Agricultura,
Ganadería y Pesca de la Nación. Argentina. 22 p.
27.
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
http://www.R-project.org/
28.
Rearte, D. 2011. Situación actual y prospectiva de la ganadería argentina, un
enfoque regional. Asociación Latinoamericana de Producción Animal. 19(3-4):
46-49.
29.
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca. 2022. Boletín porcino, noviembre
2022. Ministerio de Economía de Argentina.
30.
SENASA. 2022. Caracterización de existencias porcinas. Marzo 2022. Coordinación
General de Sistemas de Gestión Sanitaria. Dirección de Ejecución Sanitaria y
Control de Gestión. Dirección Nacional de Sanidad Animal.
31.
Singleton, W. L. 2001. State of the art in artificial insemination of pigs in
the United States. Theriogenology. 56: 1305-1310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00631-8
32.
Weitze, K. F. 2000. Update on the worldwide application of swine AI. In:
Johnson, L. A.; Guthrie, H. D. (eds). IVth International
Conference on Boar Semen Preservation. Beltsville. Maryland. USA. 141-146.
Supplemmentary
material