Publicado

2014-01-01

Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability

Caracterización de los Sistemas de Producción de Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) en el Departamento de Norte de Santander y evaluación de su sostenibilidad

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635

Palabras clave:

Cocoa, characterization, indicators, systemic approach, agricultural systems, sustainability (en)
Cacao, caracterización, indicadores, enfoque sistémico, sistemas agrícolas, sostenibilidad (es)

Autores/as

  • Jesús Arturo Ramírez Sulvarán Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander
  • Alina Katil Sigarroa Rieche Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander
  • Rómulo Alberto Del Valle Vargas Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira

The cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) based economy has been considered a valid alternative to support sustainable development in northeastern Colombia. However, there is a lack of information about the cocoa production systems in the region which is needed for the implementation of effective plans to improve their performance and sustainability. Four of the main cocoa producing municipalities in the Norte de Santander department were considered for this study: Teorama, Bucarasica, Cúcuta and San Calixto. These entities were selected due to their adequate security conditions, availability of field assistants and departmental representativeness in cocoa production. The objective was to obtain basic information for local, specific and participatory actions for the sustainability of the cocoa production systems and to improve the living conditions of farmers. The methodology used was based on the farming system approach, considering the socioeconomic, technological and agro-ecological components, and their relationships, and evaluating them according to the principles of sustainable agriculture. The phases covered were: (1) analysis of secondary data, (2) formulation and evaluation of sustainability indicators, (3) design, implementation and analysis of survey data and (4) validation by the farmers of the obtained information and the prioritization of problems. The results indicate that there is only one cocoa production system of a family-mercantile type, with low technology. Most farmers have low incomes and basic needs such as health, education and public services are not met. They do not employ the agronomic and post-harvest practices recommended by specialists. The water and soil resources are being degraded. In general, the farming system leans towards unsustainability and it is vital that integrative actions be taken to change this situation.

Se considera que el desarrollo de una economía basada en el cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) constituye una alternativa válida para impulsar el desarrollo sostenible en el noreste colombiano. Sin embargo, se carece de la información básica necesaria sobre los sistemas de producción de cacao para la instrumentación de planes que permitan mejorar su desempeño y sostenibilidad. Para este estudio, se consideraron cuatro municipios del departamento de Norte de Santander: Teorama, Bucarasica, Cúcuta y San Calixto, los cuales fueron seleccionados debido a que poseen condiciones adecuadas de seguridad, asistentes de campo y son representativos del departamento en cuanto a producción de cacao. El objetivo fue obtener información básica para la toma de acciones locales, específicas y participativas hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción de cacao, considerando los componentes socio-económicos, tecnológicos y agroecológicos, y sus relaciones, evaluándolos de acuerdo a los principios de la agricultura sostenible. Se realizaron cuatro etapas: (1) análisis de datos secundarios, (2) formulación y evaluación de indicadores de sostenibilidad, (3) diseño, instrumentación y análisis de los datos de la encuesta y (4) validación por los agricultores de la información obtenida y priorización de problemas. Los resultados indican que hay un solo sistema de producción de cacao del tipo familiar-mercantil de baja tecnología. La mayor parte de los productores reciben bajos ingresos y las necesidades básicas de salud, educación y servicios públicos no están satisfechas. Los recursos de suelo y agua se están degradando. En general, el sistema de producción tiende a la insostenibilidad y se requieren acciones integrales para cambiar esta situación.

Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment of Their Sustainability

Caracterización de los Sistemas de Producción de Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) en el Departamento de Norte de Santander y evaluación de su sostenibilidad

 

Jesús Arturo Ramírez Sulvarán1; Alina Katil Sigarroa Rieche2 and Rómulo Alberto Del Valle Vargas3

 

1 Licenciado en Biología y Química. Grupo de Investigación Ambiente y Vida GIAV, Centro de Investigación y Fomento del cacao CIFCA, Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander. Av. Gran Colombia 12E-96 Colsag, Cúcuta, Norte de Santander. Colombia.
2 Ingeniera Agrónoma. Investigadora Grupo de Investigación Ambiente y Vida GIAV, Centro de Investigación y Fomento del cacao CIFCA, Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander. Av. Gran Colombia 12E-96 Colsag. Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, Colombia. <asigarroa@ufps.edu.co>
3 Ingeniero Agrónomo. Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira. Departamento de Ingeniería Agronómica. Av Universidad, Paramillo. San Cristóbal, Estado Táchira. Venezuela. <rvalle@unet.edu.ve>

 

Received: May 05, 2012; accepted: January 15, 2013.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Licencia Creative Commons

 


Abstract. The cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) based economy has been considered a valid alternative to support sustainable development in northeastern Colombia. However, there is a lack of information about the cocoa production systems in the region which is needed for the implementation of effective plans to improve their performance and sustainability. Four of the main cocoa producing municipalities in the Norte de Santander department were considered for this study: Teorama, Bucarasica, Cúcuta and San Calixto. These entities were selected due to their adequate security conditions, availability of field assistants and departmental representativeness in cocoa production. The objective was to obtain basic information for local, specific and participatory actions for the sustainability of the cocoa production systems and to improve the living conditions of farmers. The methodology used was based on the farming system approach, considering the socioeconomic, technological and agro-ecological components, and their relationships, and evaluating them according to the principles of sustainable agriculture. The phases covered were: (1) analysis of secondary data, (2) formulation and evaluation of sustainability indicators, (3) design, implementation and analysis of survey data and (4) validation by the farmers of the obtained information and the prioritization of problems. The results indicate that there is only one cocoa production system of a family-mercantile type, with low technology. Most farmers have low incomes and basic needs such as health, education and public services are not met. They do not employ the agronomic and post-harvest practices recommended by specialists. The water and soil resources are being degraded. In general, the farming system leans towards unsustainability and it is vital that integrative actions be taken to change this situation.

Key words: Cocoa, characterization, indicators, systemic approach, agricultural systems, sustainability.

Resumen. Se considera que el desarrollo de una economía basada en el cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) constituye una alternativa válida para impulsar el desarrollo sostenible en el noreste colombiano. Sin embargo, se carece de la información básica necesaria sobre los sistemas de producción de cacao para la instrumentación de planes que permitan mejorar su desempeño y sostenibilidad. Para este estudio, se consideraron cuatro municipios del departamento de Norte de Santander: Teorama, Bucarasica, Cúcuta y San Calixto, los cuales fueron seleccionados debido a que poseen condiciones adecuadas de seguridad, asistentes de campo y son representativos del departamento en cuanto a producción de cacao. El objetivo fue obtener información básica para la toma de acciones locales, específicas y participativas hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción de cacao, considerando los componentes socio-económicos, tecnológicos y agroecológicos, y sus relaciones, evaluándolos de acuerdo a los principios de la agricultura sostenible. Se realizaron cuatro etapas: (1) análisis de datos secundarios, (2) formulación y evaluación de indicadores de sostenibilidad, (3) diseño, instrumentación y análisis de los datos de la encuesta y (4) validación por los agricultores de la información obtenida y priorización de problemas. Los resultados indican que hay un solo sistema de producción de cacao del tipo familiar-mercantil de baja tecnología. La mayor parte de los productores reciben bajos ingresos y las necesidades básicas de salud, educación y servicios públicos no están satisfechas. Los recursos de suelo y agua se están degradando. En general, el sistema de producción tiende a la insostenibilidad y se requieren acciones integrales para cambiar esta situación.

Palabras clave: Cacao, caracterización, indicadores, enfoque sistémico, sistemas agrícolas, sostenibilidad.


 

Sustainable development has been accepted as a major common goal around the world. This should involve social, economic and environmental issues, and their relationships, in order to satisfy human needs in the present and the future. Additionally, it has been recognized that rural communities play an essential role in economic development, especially in developing countries (Organización de Naciones Unidas, 2012). In northeastern Colombia, there are around 300,000 ha with potential for cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) production and only 30% of this area is under cocoa cultivation. Crop yields are low, around 0.2 t-1. ha-1 year, with more than 94% of the production units being small farms, so the increments in area and productivity are a big challenge for sustainable development based on the cocoa economy (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2007). The Norte de Santander department has ranked third in production in this region, but production levels have been decreasing for the last 15 years from 6,000 tn in 1995 to 1,600 t in 2010 (Espinal et al., 2005; Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros, 2012). In 2002, the Consejo Nacional Cacaotero proposed technological agroforestry guidelines to increase yields to 1.8 t-1 ha-1 year, but only 20% of the cocoa farmers have adopted the changes (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2007; Preciado et al., 2011). On the other hand, the Norte de Santander department contains a scenario with important social conflicts and illicit crops which form a more complex situation (Espinal et al., 2005).

The Farming System Research and Development (FSR/D) approach emerged in the seventies as an alternative holistic option to the failed attempts of modernizing peasant agriculture in developing countries through "top-down" vertical technology transfer from researches to farmers. The FSR/D methodology used began with the characterization of farming systems considering ecological, technological and social components and their relationships in the social-economical and ecological contexts (Butler et al., 1987; FONAIAP - Junta Acuerdo de Cartagena, 1988; Villota and Rodríguez, 1993; Jiménez, 1997; Lopera, 1997; Malagera and Prager, 2001; Gibbon, 2012). Afterwards, the agricultural systems research considered other levels of analysis, such as the production chain or region, to get a more complete vision of the farming systems context (Berdegué and Ramírez, 1995; Darnhofer et al., 2012). The Farming System approaches included the move from disciplinary to trans-disciplinary thinking and practices, rapid survey techniques, farmer participatory learning and actions, farmer experimentation and new linkages between research and extension (Gibbon, 2012). This would convey to agricultural innovation systems which combined technological, social, economic and institutional change. Therefore, production and exchange of knowledge should be combined with additional factors, such as policy, legislation, infrastructure, funding, market developments and alternative ways of organizing labor, land tenure and distribution of benefits (Klerkx et al., 2012).

In the nineties, the sustainability paradigm was incorporated into the FSR/D approach and since then considerable efforts have been made to develop theoretic and operational frameworks for the assessment of this multidimensional and dynamic property of farming systems (Astier et al., 2012, Marta-Costa and Silva, 2013). At present, to evaluate agricultural sustainability is considered an essential prerequisite for promoting sustainable agriculture and many methods and procedures have been proposed for this objective, including: Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health (AMESH), Arbre de l'Exploitation Agricole Durable (ARBRE), Framework for the Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management (FESLM), Indicator-based Sustainability Assessment Framework (MESMIS, Spanish acronym for Marco para la Evaluación de Sistemas de Manejo de Recursos Naturales mediante Indicadores de Sustentabilidad), Indicateur de Durabilité des Exploitacions Agricoles (IDEA), Indicator of Sustainable Agricultural Practice (ISAP), Multiscale Methodological Framework (MMF), diagnostic de durabilité du Réseau de l'Agriculture Durable (RAD), Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE), Sustainability Assessment of the Farming and the Environment (SAFE), and the Sustainability Solution Space for Decision Making (SSP) method. All of which are indicator-based methods and include economic, environmental and/or social dimensions of sustainability (reviewed by Astier et al., 2008; Binder and Feola, 2010; Marta-Costa, 2010; Marta-Costa and Silva, 2013).

Sustainability assessment methods can be grouped in three categories, according to their structure and measurement methods: (1) sustainability indicators; (2) sustainability indexes; and (3) frameworks for sustainability assessment. The sustainability indicators are selected parameters that can be isolated or interconnected and reflect conditions of the analyzed systems. The sustainability indexes aggregate, or synthesize, in one numerical value the relevant information for system sustainability from various indicators. The sustainability assessment frameworks have a more complex and rigorous structure. They integrate elements from different evaluation strategies, because indicators and indexes are used to elaborate iterative and participative analysis of farming systems (Astier et al., 2008).

It should be highlighted that a large number of indicators have been developed but they do not cover all dimensions and levels. Therefore, indicators used for agricultural sustainability should be location-specific. They should be constructed within the context of the contemporary socioeconomic and ecological situation (Hayati et al., 2011). All this requires interdisciplinary efforts using multi-criteria and multi-scale frameworks considering qualitative and quantitative variables (Astier et al., 2008). In this sense, the MESMIS framework is considered a very robust and flexible methodological guide based on the systemic approach and multidimensional assessment (environmental, social and economic dimensions), it permits ex-ante (previous to implementation of changes) and ex-post (after changes) evaluations, the indicators are generated in a "bottom-up" process through a previous characterization of farm systems. MESMIS integrates indicators and there is vast experience using it in the Latin American context (Astier et al., 2008, Marta-Costa y Silva, 2013). There is no other framework that integrates all these advantages. Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) applied the MESMIS framework to compare sustainability in two cocoa farms in Mexico and it was helpful to determine that organic production contributes to improved cocoa farming sustainability.

This paper shows the methods and results obtained in the characterization of cocoa farming systems in four municipalities, Teorama, Bucarasica, Cúcuta and San Calixto, of the Norte de Santander department, northeastern Colombia; and an assessment of the system sustainability as a contribution to building participatory sustainable development in the region. The specific objectives were to generate basic information about the cocoa farming systems and to assess their sustainability using relevant indicators.

 

METHODS

Cocoa farming systems characterization. The characterization of the cocoa farming systems was carried out through a survey. For which it was necessary to first compile secondary data and a preliminary recognition of the cocoa producer zones. This allowed to gather general data of the cocoa farmers and gatherers.

The survey issues were organized, according to the Jimenez (1997) methodology, in three subsystems: social-economical, ecological and crop system (technological). Afterwards, the questionnaire was designed including social-economical, ecological and technological related variables. This tool had a set of questions that varied in nature and was expressed in different formats for the purpose of getting truthful answers. The analysis of the data collected in the sources determined the framework to guide decision-primary information, giving input data about the structure, function and evolution of cocoa production systems (Ávila et al., 2000).

The data collection instrument was validated by applying the questionnaire to two agricultural technicians and two cocoa farmers from the municipality of Cúcuta. The sample was opinatic, and the sample size was adjusted according to the feasibility of access to the area, representativeness of selected farmers and public policy conditions. The final sample size was 182 respondents, which was distributed by town as follows: Teorama, with 80 respondents; Bucarasica, with 52 respondents; Cúcuta, with 32 respondents; and San Calixto, with 18 respondents. The survey was conducted during 2007 and 2008.

The analysis of the survey results was performed following the procedure of Dávila (2000) and Ramírez (2009), which consisted of adjusting the categories of each of the variables and putting the data in a table. Then mean values and frequency were calculated. Thereafter, the most significant variables in determining the farming systems were identified. This approach gave more weight to the socioeconomic variables which were considered as higher classification variables to define the farming systems of small farmers.

The results of the survey were validated by cocoa farmers from the Campo Alegre village in the municipality of Cúcuta, which is representative of cocoa production systems in Norte de Santander. This validation was performed in two workshops, as recommended by Cárdenas et al. (2007). The workshops followed this process: (1) presentation of the objectives and working techniques to farmers group; (2) study, analysis and discussion by subgroups of the collected data; (3) brainstorming; (4) building a map of characterization of cocoa farming systems in the village; (5) conducting a plenary in which conclusions were reached by consensus.

Formulation and categorization of the indicators of sustainability of cocoa farming systems. First, a literature review was carried out for sustainability indicators for small farmers, especially in Latin America. Considering the advantages and flexibility of the MESMIS framework (Astier et al., 2012), we used some of its indicators, according to the limitations of the zones. To develop sustainability indicators, the characteristics of the production units obtained from the survey of farmers and representatives of farmers associations were considered. Key informants of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and cooperation agencies in the Norte de Santander department were also considered. In the formulation of the sustainability indicators, variables of three subsystems were considered: (1) socioeconomic subsystem; (2) ecological subsystem; and (3) the cropping - postharvest subsystem (technological aspects). The indicators used are presented in Table1.

Sustainability evaluated by biogram. The biogram is a graph that represents the degree of sustainable development of the unit of analysis, its apparent imbalances between different dimensions and, therefore, potential levels of conflict. Additionally, it generates a "state of the current situation" of the unit. The biogram is a very helpful tool to visualize an image of the sustainable development of rural areas, allowing a comparative analysis of the system at various times in its history, i.e. their evolution (Sepúlveda et al., 2005).

Identification and analysis of limiting factors for cocoa production in Norte de Santander. For the ranking of production system problems, a Vester matrix and problem tree were used as planning tools to identify and list the factors that affect the configuration of the problems. These tools allowed us to establish the hierarchical relationships of the causal factors and the degree of impact on the analyzed problem (Malagera and Prager, 2001).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The characteristics and criteria of sustainable cocoa production system in the municipalities of Teorama, San Calisto, Bucarasica and Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5. In general, the indicators point to a similar situation of low or very low sustainable cocoa farming in the four municipalities. The trend continued in the three subsystems evaluated: socioeconomic, ecological and crop-postharvest. This situation emphasizes the need to attend very diverse aspects to achieve sustainable cocoa farming in this region and calls to an integrative efforts from public and private sectors. This should involve the main actors: farmers, including youth and woman, extension agencies, universities and research organizations, finance services and agroindustries. Successful colaborative programs around cocoa production have been developed in Santander department in Colombia (Sierra, 2012), Zulia State in Venezuela (Portillo and Portillo, 2012) and other Latin American countries (World Cocoa Foundation, 2013). Farmers associations have demonstrated to be a powerful platform to a improve the yields and quality of cocoa, get environmental and other certifications and to improve quality of life of communities (Sierra, 2012). Given the industrial market of cocoa, national and international associations of agroindustries should be involved in the cocoa sustainability goal too (Page, 2013).

In the socieconomic subsystem notable values include very low (0-11%) access to finance and the high values, above 61%, of land tenure as owner. The latter can be considered as an important strength; however, it is necessary to improve all other indicators in order to transform this condition into a real opportunity to progress towards sustainability. It is also noteworthy that there is a perception from 60% of the respondents in the municipalities of Bucarasica and Cúcuta of having a good quality of services. This, in turn, corresponds to the highest values of 53 to 63% of respondents with diversified revenue in those municipalities, which confirms the advantages of economic diversification and non-exclusive dependence on cocoa. Diversification has been proposed as an essential feature of sustainable farms (Kremen et al., 2012). The socioeconomic subsystem is a key factor to change the small-scale cocoa farms, being the appropriate public policies in education, health, finance, infrastructure, markets and public services, necessary to promote the conditions for that change (Bacon et al., 2012; Bowman and Zilberman, 2013; Forero, 2013). Cocoa processing by rural women enterprises, to obtain chocolate and other products, has been an alternative option that has improved incomes and sustainability of cocoa systems in Dominican Republic and other countries (World Cocoa Foundation, 2013).

Regarding the ecological indicators, the four municipalities have a low or very low value, which implies the need to increase conservation practices to move towards a more sustainable condition. Considering the crop-postharvest subsystem, the San Calixto municipality had the highest percentage of farmers who perform two or more farming practices (56%) and two or more cultural practices (42%). However, in the post-harvest stage, the four municipalities had low percentages of respondents, <38%, performing FEDECACAO recommended practices, resulting in the production of poor quality cocoa for processing, low price of dry grain and low bargaining power of farmers. The agroecological management have been proposed as a desirable model for cocoa farming in Colombia since 2002 (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2007) but its adoption have been very low. Increasing biodiversity over and under the soil, increasing the biomass in the soil, reducing of pesticides residues and nutrient and water losses, promoting the interactions between components of the agroecosystem and efficient crop and animal schemes are all important process in this kind of management (Kremen, 2012; Nicholls and Altieri, 2012; Sierra, 2012).

According to FONAIAP-Junta del Acuerdo de Cartagena (1988), Jiménez (1997) and Forero (2013), the profile of cocoa production units determined through data analysis, allows to define them as a single Family-mercantile system, given the prevailing social relations of production with extensive use of family labor, low hired labor, low level of capital accumulation and low technology. These results are similar to other cocoa farming system studies in Colombia (Mantilla et al., 2000; Espinal et al., 2005; Preciado et al., 2011) and they should be the basis of any program to improve or expand cocoa production in the northeastern Colombia region.

Smallholder cocoa farmers represent 94% of Colombian cocoa production (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2010) and, to involve them in the achievement of a more sustainable cocoa economy, it will be essential to determine if they can make the desired changes and how they will make them, given their situation and their vision of growing cocoa. Cocoa farming on a small scale and in the current social-economical context does not seem to be a sustainable development option in this region. However these family systems have important strengths that could be taken in advantage to promote sustainable scenarios (Maletta, 2011; FAO, 2012, Forero, 2013). The negative trend in cocoa production in the last 15 years in Colombia is an unequivocal signal that very important changes should be made to building a real viable economy based on cocoa.

Biogram of the cocoa farming system of the municipality of Cúcuta. Figure 1 shows the biogram of the cocoa farming systems of the municipalities Teorama, Bucarasica, Cúcuta and San Calixto, representative of the Norte de Santander department. Most variables are under 3 in the range of 5, which indicate a very low sustainability of the systems. The situation is similar in the four municipalities, which suggest a similar management to make the changes. This biogram illustrates the current status of farming systems, shows the strengths and weaknesses and facilitate the monitoring of the evolution of sustainability, as changes are made (Priego-Castillo et al., 2009; Merma and Julca, 2012).

Identification and analysis of limiting factors in the crop-postharvest sub-system. As a result of the workshops held with the farmers, using the tools mentioned in the methodological section, the nesting trouble of the Crop- Post-harvest subsystem was performed in the Campo Alegre village, municipality of Cúcuta. The following major asset problems were determined: low frequency of agricultural and cultural practices, low frequency of postharvest practices, and little technical assistance. Problem liabilities are low cost, high incidence of diseases, and poor grain quality. The low frequency of cultural practices, farming and postharvest asset is the biggest problem, to which should be given special attention to improve crop productivity and strengthen the socio-economic component of these production systems. The low profitability is considered the biggest liability problem. This problem requires special consideration due to the significant impact it has on the stability of the system, being both a problem that influences and that is influenced by others. As it was pointed out, the socioeconomic subsystem is the key for the changes in the system toward sustainability and this involve to take internal and external actions (Bacon et al., 2012; Bowman, 2013).

 

CONCLUSIONS

The cocoa farming system of Norte de Santander is at high risk of unsustainability and comprehensive measures must be implemented to change this scenario. It is necessary to address a range of socio-economic, ecological and technical issues, detailed in this paper, in order to ensure the sustainability of these systems. Particularly, the crop-postharvest subsystem requires the implementation of good agricultural practices and the improvement of postharvest processing to obtain a dry grain that is competitive, nationally and internationally, increasing the price of the product and increasing the bargaining power of farmers.

The system approach allowed for the characterization of cocoa production units of the family-mercantile type in the Norte de Santander department and the sustainability indicators yielded important data, which were validated by farmers in the municipality of Cúcuta, that provided useful information for farmers and for the generation of planning policies aimed at sustainable development of the region.

The methodology proposed in this paper can be applied to other cocoa farming systems and other production systems of small farmers because this method takes into account the particularities of each production system, the complexity of agricultural production processes and emphasizes the socioeconomic component, which allow for a better analysis of the reality of production systems, in order to design appropriate instruments and alternative economic policies and techniques. Farmers and government agencies should jointly search for strategies that contribute to a trend of sustainability in cocoa farming systems.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Astier, M., L. García, Y. Galván, C. González and O. Masera. 2012. Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural resource management systems. A critical analysis of the MESMIS program (1995-2010). Ecology and Society 17(3): 25.

Astier, M., O. Masera y Y. Galbán-Miyoshi. 2008. Evaluación de sustentabilidad. Un enfoque dinámico y multidimensional. Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica, Valencia, España. 200 p.

Ávila, L., M. Muñoz y B. Rivera. 2000. Tipificación de los sistemas de producción agropecuario en la zona de influencia de programa UNIR. Universidad de Caldas. Departamento de Sistemas de Producción. Programa UNIR, Manizales, Caldas. 18 p.

Bacon, M., C. Getz, S. Kraus, M. Montenegro and K. Holland. 2012. The social dimensions of sustainability and change in Diversified Farming Systems. Ecology and Society 17(4): 41.

Berdegué, J.A. y E. Ramírez. 1995. Investigación con Enfoque de Sistemas en la Agricultura y el Desarrollo Rural. Rimisp - Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural, Santiago, Chile. 370 p.

Binder, C. and G. Feola. 2010. Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. pp. 801-811. In: Proceedings 9th European IFSA Symposium. Vienna, Austria.

Bowman, M. and D. Zilberman. 2013. Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society 18(1): 33.

Butler, W., T. Schriefer and J. Diamond. 1987. Farming systems research and development an alternative to conventional Ag Extension. NACTA Journal 03-87: 20-33.

Cárdenas, G., H. Giraldo, A. Idárraga y L. Vásquez. 2007. Desarrollo y validación de metodología para evaluar con indicadores la sustentabilidad de sistemas productivos campesinos de la Asociación de Caficultores Orgánicos de Colombia-ACOC. En. http://www.javeriana.edu.co/fear/m_des_rur/documents/Cardenas-presentacion.pdf; 37 p.; consulta: agosto 2008.

Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu. 2012. Farming Systems Research: An approach to inquiry. pp. 3-31. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (eds.). Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer, London. 490 p.

Dávila, K. 2000. Identificación y caracterización de los sistemas de producción mora de castilla (Rubus glaucus Benth) en el Estado Táchira, municipio Rafael Urdaneta. Trabajo de grado Ingeniero Agrónomo. Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. 69 p.

Espinal, C., H. Martínez y L. Ortíz. 2005. La cadena del cacao en Colombia. Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Bogotá. 49 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. Agricultura Familiar en América Latina y el Caribe. FAO, Rome. 45 p.

Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros. 2012. Guía técnica para el cultivo del cacao. Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros, Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Bogotá. 186 p.

FONAIAP - Junta Acuerdo de Cartagena. 1988. Metodología para el estudio de los sistemas de producción agrícola con fines de desarrollo rural. Programa Andino de Desarrollo Tecnológico para el Medio Rural (PADT_Rural), Venezuela. 365 p.

Forero, J. 2003. Economía campesina y sistema alimentario en Colombia: Aportes para la discusión sobre seguridad alimentaria. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. 44 p.

Forero, J. 2013. The economy of family farming production. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 10(70): 27-45.

Gibbon, D. 2012. Methodological themes in farming systems research and implications for learning in higher education. pp. 95 - 115. In: Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (eds.). Farming systems research into the 21st century: The New dynamic. Springer, London. 490 p.

Hayati, D., Z. Ranjbar and E. Karami. 2011. Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Lichtfouse, E. (ed.). Biodiversity, Biofuels, agroforestry and conservation agriculture. Springer, Dijon, France. 394 p.

Jiménez, P. 1997. Un enfoque alternativo para el estudio de la agricultura: su reproducción desde una concepción sistémica. Universidad Centro Occidental Lisandro Alvarado. Fondo Editorial UCLA, Barquisimeto. 350 p.

Klerkx, L., B. van Mierlo and C. Leeuwis. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. pp. 457-483. In: Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (eds.). Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer, London. 490 p.

Kremen, C., A. Iles and C. Bacon. 2012. Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, system-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4):44.

Lopera, 1997. Economía campesina y economía empresarial en la selección y adopción de tecnología. pp. 51-58. En: Memorias Taller "El enfoque de Sistema de Producción y Los Proyectos De Investigación Y Desarrollo". Villavicencio, Colombia.

Malagera, R. y M. Prager. 2001. El enfoque de sistemas: Una opción para el análisis de las unidades de producción agrícola. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. 193 p.

Maletta, H. 2011. Tendencias y perspectivas de la agricultura familiar en América Latina. Rimisp - Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural, Santiago, Chile. 33 p.

Mantilla, J., A. Argüello y H. Méndez. 2000. Caracterización y tipificación de los productores de cacao del departamento de Santander. CORPOICA, Bucaramanga. 40 p.

Marta-Costa, A. 2010. Agricultura Sustentavel II: Avaliacao. Revista de Ciencias Agrarias 33(2): 75-89.

Marta-Costa, A. and E. Silva. 2013. Approaches for sustainable farming systems assessment. pp. 21-29. In: Marta-Costa, A. and E. Silva (eds.). Methods and procedures for building sustainable farming systems: application in the European context. Springer, London. 273 p.

Merma, I. y A. Julca. 2012. Tipología de productores y sostenibilidad de cultivos en Alto Urubamba, La Convención - Cusco. Scientia Agropecuaria 2: 149-159.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural 2007. Agenda prospectiva de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico para la cadena productiva de cacao-chocolate en Colombia. Bogotá. 174 p.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. 2010. Boletín de análisis por producto. Cacao (4): 20 p.

Nicholls, C. y M. Altieri. 2012. Modelos ecológicos y resilientes de producción agrícola para el siglo XXI. Agroecología 6: 28-37.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas 2012. Documento final Río+20, Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible, Río de Janeiro. 59 p.

Page, G. 2013. Sustainability and food security - sustaining the smallholder. pp. 9. In: World Cocoa Foundation, 23rd Partnership Meeting and Roundtable Sessions in Washington, D.C.

Portillo, E. y A. Portillo. 2012. La producción de cacao en el estado Zulia: impacto socioeconómico en los cacaocultores "Ruta del Chocolate". Opción 28(68): 303-323.

Preciado, O., C.I. Ocampo y W. Ballesteros 2011. Caracterización del sistema tradicional de producción de cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) en seis núcleos productivos del municipio de Tumaco, Nariño. Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas 28(2): 58-69.

Priego, G., A. Galmiche, M. Castelán, O. Ruiz y A. Ortiz. 2009. Evaluación de la sustentabilidad de dos sistemas de producción de cacao: estudios de caso en unidades de producción rural en Comalcalco, Tabasco. Uciencia 25(1): 39-57.

Ramírez, J.A. 2009. Caracterización de los sistemas de producción de banano (Musa AAA) del municipio de Lourdes, departamento Norte de Santander. Trabajo de Grado de Maestría. Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira, San Cristóbal. 116 p.

Sepúlveda, S., H. Chavarría y P. Rojas. 2005. Metodología para estimar el nivel de desarrollo Sostenible de los territorios rurales (El Biograma). IICA, San José, Costa Rica. 109 p.

Sierra, A. 2012. APROCAFRUM: Una crónica sobre el cacao, el alimento de la paz y el bienestar. pp. 97-111. En: Sostenibilidad y Legalidad: Buenas prácticas ambientales en los programas de desarrollo alternativo. Unidad Administrativa para la Consolidación Territorial y Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito, Bogotá. 130 p.

Villota, M. y E. Rodríguez. 1993. Identificación y caracterización de los sistemas de producción agrícola y pecuario. ICA, Santafé de Bogotá, 135 p.

World Cocoa Foundation. 2013. Partnership Meetings. In: http://worldcocoafoundation.org/category/knowledge-center/partnership-meetings. Farmer Aggretation Models in Latin America: The Power of Working Together; Farm Economics: The Pro's and Con's of Growing Cocoa in Small Caribbean Countries; Women's Role in Latin American Cocoa; accessed: October 2013.

Referencias

Astier, M., L. García, Y. Galván, C. González and O. Masera. 2012. Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural resource management systems. A critical analysis of the MESMIS program (1995-2010). Ecology and Society 17(3): 25.

Astier, M., O. Masera y Y. Galbán-Miyoshi. 2008. Evaluación de sustentabilidad. Un enfoque dinámico y multidimensional. Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica, Valencia, España. 200 p.

Ávila, L., M. Muñoz y B. Rivera. 2000. Tipificación de los sistemas de producción agropecuario en la zona de influencia de programa UNIR. Universidad de Caldas. Departamento de Sistemas de Producción. Programa UNIR, Manizales, Caldas. 18 p.

Bacon, M., C. Getz, S. Kraus, M. Montenegro and K. Holland. 2012. The social dimensions of sustainability and change in Diversified Farming Systems. Ecology and Society 17(4): 41.

Berdegué, J.A. y E. Ramírez. 1995. Investigación con Enfoque de Sistemas en la Agricultura y el Desarrollo Rural. Rimisp - Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural, Santiago, Chile. 370 p.

Binder, C. and G. Feola. 2010. Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. pp. 801-811. In: Proceedings 9th European IFSA Symposium. Vienna, Austria.

Bowman, M. and D. Zilberman. 2013. Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society 18(1): 33.

Butler, W., T. Schriefer and J. Diamond. 1987. Farming systems research and development an alternative to conventional Ag Extension. NACTA Journal 03-87: 20-33.

Cárdenas, G., H. Giraldo, A. Idárraga y L. Vásquez. 2007. Desarrollo y validación de metodología para evaluar con indicadores la sustentabilidad de sistemas productivos campesinos de la Asociación de Caficultores Orgánicos de Colombia-ACOC. En. http://www.javeriana.edu.co/fear/m_des_rur/documents/Cardenas-presentacion.pdf; 37 p.; consulta: agosto 2008.

Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu. 2012. Farming Systems Research: An approach to inquiry. pp. 3-31. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (eds.). Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer, London. 490 p.

Dávila, K. 2000. Identificación y caracterización de los sistemas de producción mora de castilla (Rubus glaucus Benth) en el Estado Táchira, municipio Rafael Urdaneta. Trabajo de grado Ingeniero Agrónomo. Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. 69 p.

Espinal, C., H. Martínez y L. Ortíz. 2005. La cadena del cacao en Colombia. Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Bogotá. 49 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. Agricultura Familiar en América Latina y el Caribe. FAO, Rome. 45 p.

Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros. 2012. Guía técnica para el cultivo del cacao. Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros, Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Bogotá. 186 p.

FONAIAP - Junta Acuerdo de Cartagena. 1988. Metodología para el estudio de los sistemas de producción agrícola con fines de desarrollo rural. Programa Andino de Desarrollo Tecnológico para el Medio Rural (PADT_Rural), Venezuela. 365 p.

Forero, J. 2003. Economía campesina y sistema alimentario en Colombia: Aportes para la discusión sobre seguridad alimentaria. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. 44 p.

Forero, J. 2013. The economy of family farming production. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 10(70): 27-45.

Gibbon, D. 2012. Methodological themes in farming systems research and implications for learning in higher education. pp. 95 - 115. In: Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (eds.). Farming systems research into the 21st century: The New dynamic. Springer, London. 490 p.

Hayati, D., Z. Ranjbar and E. Karami. 2011. Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Lichtfouse, E. (ed.). Biodiversity, Biofuels, agroforestry and conservation agriculture. Springer, Dijon, France. 394 p.

Jiménez, P. 1997. Un enfoque alternativo para el estudio de la agricultura: su reproducción desde una concepción sistémica. Universidad Centro Occidental Lisandro Alvarado. Fondo Editorial UCLA, Barquisimeto. 350 p.

Klerkx, L., B. van Mierlo and C. Leeuwis. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. pp. 457-483. In: Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (eds.). Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer, London. 490 p.

Kremen, C., A. Iles and C. Bacon. 2012. Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, system-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4):44.

Lopera, 1997. Economía campesina y economía empresarial en la selección y adopción de tecnología. pp. 51-58. En: Memorias Taller "El enfoque de Sistema de Producción y Los Proyectos De Investigación Y Desarrollo". Villavicencio, Colombia.

Malagera, R. y M. Prager. 2001. El enfoque de sistemas: Una opción para el análisis de las unidades de producción agrícola. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. 193 p.

Maletta, H. 2011. Tendencias y perspectivas de la agricultura familiar en América Latina. Rimisp - Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural, Santiago, Chile. 33 p.

Mantilla, J., A. Argüello y H. Méndez. 2000. Caracterización y tipificación de los productores de cacao del departamento de Santander. CORPOICA, Bucaramanga. 40 p.

Marta-Costa, A. 2010. Agricultura Sustentavel II: Avaliacao. Revista de Ciencias Agrarias 33(2): 75-89.

Marta-Costa, A. and E. Silva. 2013. Approaches for sustainable farming systems assessment. pp. 21-29. In: Marta-Costa, A. and E. Silva (eds.). Methods and procedures for building sustainable farming systems: application in the European context. Springer, London. 273 p.

Merma, I. y A. Julca. 2012. Tipología de productores y sostenibilidad de cultivos en Alto Urubamba, La Convención - Cusco. Scientia Agropecuaria 2: 149-159.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural 2007. Agenda prospectiva de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico para la cadena productiva de cacao-chocolate en Colombia. Bogotá. 174 p.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. 2010. Boletín de análisis por producto. Cacao (4): 20 p.

Nicholls, C. y M. Altieri. 2012. Modelos ecológicos y resilientes de producción agrícola para el siglo XXI. Agroecología 6: 28-37.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas 2012. Documento final Río+20, Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible, Río de Janeiro. 59 p.

Page, G. 2013. Sustainability and food security - sustaining the smallholder. pp. 9. In: World Cocoa Foundation, 23rd Partnership Meeting and Roundtable Sessions in Washington, D.C.

Portillo, E. y A. Portillo. 2012. La producción de cacao en el estado Zulia: impacto socioeconómico en los cacaocultores "Ruta del Chocolate". Opción 28(68): 303-323.

Preciado, O., C.I. Ocampo y W. Ballesteros 2011. Caracterización del sistema tradicional de producción de cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) en seis núcleos productivos del municipio de Tumaco, Nariño. Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas 28(2): 58-69.

Priego, G., A. Galmiche, M. Castelán, O. Ruiz y A. Ortiz. 2009. Evaluación de la sustentabilidad de dos sistemas de producción de cacao: estudios de caso en unidades de producción rural en Comalcalco, Tabasco. Uciencia 25(1): 39-57.

Ramírez, J.A. 2009. Caracterización de los sistemas de producción de banano (Musa AAA) del municipio de Lourdes, departamento Norte de Santander. Trabajo de Grado de Maestría. Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira, San Cristóbal. 116 p.

Sepúlveda, S., H. Chavarría y P. Rojas. 2005. Metodología para estimar el nivel de desarrollo Sostenible de los territorios rurales (El Biograma). IICA, San José, Costa Rica. 109 p.

Sierra, A. 2012. APROCAFRUM: Una crónica sobre el cacao, el alimento de la paz y el bienestar. pp. 97-111. En: Sostenibilidad y Legalidad: Buenas prácticas ambientales en los programas de desarrollo alternativo. Unidad Administrativa para la Consolidación Territorial y Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito, Bogotá. 130 p.

Villota, M. y E. Rodríguez. 1993. Identificación y caracterización de los sistemas de producción agrícola y pecuario. ICA, Santafé de Bogotá, 135 p.

World Cocoa Foundation. 2013. Partnership Meetings. In: http://worldcocoafoundation.org/category/knowledge-center/partnership-meetings. Farmer Aggretation Models in Latin America: The Power of Working Together; Farm Economics: The Pro's and Con's of Growing Cocoa in Small Caribbean Countries; Women's Role in Latin American Cocoa; accessed: October 2013.

Cómo citar

APA

Ramírez Sulvarán, J. A., Sigarroa Rieche, A. K., & Del Valle Vargas, R. A. (2014). Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability. Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín, 67(1), 7177-7187. https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635

ACM

[1]
Ramírez Sulvarán, J.A., Sigarroa Rieche, A.K. y Del Valle Vargas, R.A. 2014. Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability. Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín. 67, 1 (ene. 2014), 7177-7187. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635.

ACS

(1)
Ramírez Sulvarán, J. A.; Sigarroa Rieche, A. K.; Del Valle Vargas, R. A. Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellín 2014, 67, 7177-7187.

ABNT

RAMÍREZ SULVARÁN, J. A.; SIGARROA RIECHE, A. K.; DEL VALLE VARGAS, R. A. Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability. Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín, [S. l.], v. 67, n. 1, p. 7177-7187, 2014. DOI: 10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/refame/article/view/42635. Acesso em: 4 dic. 2021.

Chicago

Ramírez Sulvarán, Jesús Arturo, Alina Katil Sigarroa Rieche, y Rómulo Alberto Del Valle Vargas. 2014. «Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability». Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín 67 (1):7177-87. https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635.

Harvard

Ramírez Sulvarán, J. A., Sigarroa Rieche, A. K. y Del Valle Vargas, R. A. (2014) «Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability», Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín, 67(1), pp. 7177-7187. doi: 10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635.

IEEE

[1]
J. A. Ramírez Sulvarán, A. K. Sigarroa Rieche, y R. A. Del Valle Vargas, «Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability», Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellín, vol. 67, n.º 1, pp. 7177-7187, ene. 2014.

MLA

Ramírez Sulvarán, J. A., A. K. Sigarroa Rieche, y R. A. Del Valle Vargas. «Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability». Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín, vol. 67, n.º 1, enero de 2014, pp. 7177-8, doi:10.15446/rfnam.v67n1.42635.

Turabian

Ramírez Sulvarán, Jesús Arturo, Alina Katil Sigarroa Rieche, y Rómulo Alberto Del Valle Vargas. «Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability». Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín 67, no. 1 (enero 1, 2014): 7177-7187. Accedido diciembre 4, 2021. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/refame/article/view/42635.

Vancouver

1.
Ramírez Sulvarán JA, Sigarroa Rieche AK, Del Valle Vargas RA. Characterization of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Farming Systems in the Norte de Santander Department and Assessment Their Sustainability. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellín [Internet]. 1 de enero de 2014 [citado 4 de diciembre de 2021];67(1):7177-8. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/refame/article/view/42635

Descargar cita

CrossRef Cited-by

CrossRef citations5

1. Raquel Villamizar-Gallardo, Johann Osma, Oscar Ortíz-Rodriguez. (2019). Regional Evaluation of Fungal Pathogen Incidence in Colombian Cocoa Crops. Agriculture, 9(3), p.44. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9030044.

2. Andrés Zabala, Juan Fuentes, Jorge Castillo, Santiago Roa-Ortiz. (2019). The importance of non-monetary cost in start-up and annual cacao (Theobroma cacao L) production activities in Santander, Colombia. Agronomía Colombiana, 37(1), p.73. https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v37n1.71681.

3. C Mulyani, Iswahyudi, B R Juanda. (2021). Threat of ecology aspect towards people’s cocoa plantations management sustainability at Aceh Timur Regency. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 644(1), p.012055. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/644/1/012055.

4. GESINALDO DE ATAÍDE CÂNDIDO, MARIANA MOURA NÓBREGA, MARILIA TAYNAH MARTINS DE FIGUEIREDO, MÔNICA MARIA SOUTO MAIOR. (2015). AVALIAÇÃO DA SUSTENTABILIDADE DE UNIDADES DE PRODUÇÃO AGROECOLÓGICAS: UM ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DOS MÉTODOS IDEA E MESMIS. Ambiente & Sociedade, 18(3), p.99. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOC756V1832015.

5. José María Martínez, Eliana Martínez Pachón. (2021). Multivariate analysis of the adoption of cacao productive technologies: Evidence from a case study in Colombia. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales, 21(1), p.79. https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2021.01.04.


Dimensions

PlumX

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo

1177