































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 4, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Jose A. Molina, Doctoral Student, University of Florida, Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32603, j.molinagonzalez@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0946-7024 
2. Renzo Ceme, Doctoral Student, University of Florida, Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32603, rcemevinces@ufl.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1232-9001 
3. Pablo Lamino, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Bryant Space Center, Gainesville, FL 32603, pablo.lamino@ufl.edu

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3941-4935 
 

50 

 

Sustainable Livestock Projects in Honduras: Specialists' 
Insights on Current Challenges, Effective Strategies, and 

Successful Experiences 
 

J. A. Molina1, R. Ceme2, P. Lamino3 
 

 
Article History 
Received: August 8, 2025 
Accepted: November 7, 2025 
Published: November 17, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
sustainable livelihoods framework; 
farmer field schools; institutional 
capacity building; participatory 
development; SDG 12: Responsible 
Consumption and Production   

Abstract 
In Honduras, sustainable livestock practices [SLPs] are gaining attention 
as strategies to address environmental degradation and improve rural 
livelihoods. However, their implementation and scaling remain uneven. 
This qualitative case study explores the perspectives of ten development 
specialists engaged in national livestock projects, examining how human 
and social capital influence program success. Guided by the Sustainable 
Livelihoods Framework [SLF], data were collected using a combination of 
semi-structured interviews, document reviews, and field observations. 
Data analysis highlighted the challenges, strategies, and contextual 
factors shaping the outcomes of sustainable livestock interventions. 
Findings reveal persistent barriers to adoption, including limited producer 
engagement, resource constraints, and market-related challenges. 
Despite these obstacles, participants described effective approaches such 
as Farmer Field Schools (FFS), participatory training methods, and strong 
institutional partnerships. Technical expertise and collaborative networks 
were key factors contributing to positive outcomes. Producer 
organizations also played a vital role in facilitating market access and 
strengthening collective action. The study concludes that sustainable 
livestock development must go beyond technical training to institutional 
strengthening, value chain integration, and local adaptation. 
Recommendations include expanding participatory learning methods, 
enhancing access to financial and technical support, and fostering 
inclusive decision-making for long-term sustainability. 

 

mailto:j.molinagonzalez@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0946-7024
mailto:rcemevinces@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1232-9001
mailto:pablo.lamino@ufl.edu
mailto:pablo.lamino@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3941-4935


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   51 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing remain pillars of Honduras, contributing 2.82 billion USD, or 
12.4%, to the country’s GDP in 2019. Within this sector, livestock production represents about 
13% of the agricultural value (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 2021). Despite its 
economic importance, productivity challenges persist. For instance, milk yields and income per 
cow decrease by 41% during the dry season compared to the rainy season, highlighting the 
vulnerability of livestock systems (Lentes et al., 2010). 
 
Small producers manage 56% of the national herd but face challenges, with 46% of farms under 
five hectares and 90% operating at low productivity. Additionally, 80% lack access to formal 
credit, and poor land management practices contribute to 32% of the nation’s greenhouse gas 
emissions (Canu et al., 2018; Flores Agreda et al., 2020; Sandoval et al., 2025). 
 
Sustainable livestock practices [SLPs], such as improved forages, rotational grazing, and 
silvopastoral systems, offer inclusive solutions that boost productivity and soil fertility while 
supporting Net-zero goals (Davies et al., 2013; Moran & Blair, 2021; Rosen et al., 2025). In 
contrast, non-SLPs like overstocking, continuous grazing, and excessive chemical use degrade 
soil, reduce biodiversity, and threaten long-term productivity (Robinson, 2024). 
 
Adopting SLPs requires more than technical availability; knowledge transfer, producer 
engagement, and contextual adaptation are critical (Pandey et al., 2021). Specialists, including 
agronomists, veterinarians, and extension professionals, play a pivotal role, as their ability to 
design relevant interventions and promote adoption often determines project success (Peters 
& Hoffmann, 2010; Yusuf et al., 2020) 
 
Although SLPs exist in Honduras, their scaling and long-term impact remain limited (Hameleers 
et al., 2020; Mitigation Action Facility, n.d.). This study addresses that gap by examining how 
specialists involved in livestock development projects understand and support adopting 
sustainable practices in the field. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study is guided by the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework [SLF], a comprehensive approach 
for understanding and enhancing people's livelihoods to reduce poverty (Ashley & Carney, 
1999). The SLF is based on six core principles: it prioritizes people, is responsive and 
participatory, operates at multiple levels, involves partnerships, focuses on sustainability, and is 
dynamic. These principles align with the research aim of understanding the perspectives of 
Honduran specialists from various organizations working on SLPs, particularly their insights on 
challenges, successes, and future directions (Serrat, 2017). 
 
SLF categorizes livelihood assets into five key types: human, social, natural, physical, and 
financial capital. These assets are shaped by transforming structures and processes, where 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   52 
 

structures include government agencies and the private sector, and processes refer to 
institutions, policies, and power relations that influence access to and use of resources (Serrat, 
2017). These components shape livelihood strategies and affect important outcomes, including 
enhanced well-being, reduced vulnerability, increased income, and more sustainable resource 
use. 
 
Applications of SLF in other sectors have demonstrated its value in identifying factors that 
influence the success of development interventions. In rural tourism and conservation, the 
framework has helped highlight barriers to participation, equity, and livelihood capabilities 
(Munanura et al., 2016). Smallholder farmers have diverse household needs, allowing for more 
targeted and inclusive interventions (Cramb et al., 2004). Aquaculture systems have served as a 
diagnostic tool to understand how access to various livelihood assets shapes farming strategies 
and outcomes, providing insights into pathways for strengthening rural livelihoods (Ahmed et 
al., 2008). 
 
In Honduras, the livestock sector supports thousands of rural families but faces structural and 
environmental barriers to transformation (Mitigation Action Facility, n.d.). Using the SLF as a 
guiding lens, this study examines how development practitioners navigate these challenges and 
leverage their human and social capital to promote SLPs. This framework supports a deeper 
understanding of the contextual and structural dynamics that influence program 
implementation and contributes to identifying actions for improving livestock systems in 
resource-limited settings. 
 

Purpose 
 
This qualitative study aims to understand specialists' perspectives on SLPs in Honduras. It 
explores specialists’ insights regarding challenges, practical farmer engagement, training 
strategies, and successful experiences in implementing SLPs. Three objectives guided the study 
aims: (a) to understand the challenges of implementing SLPs; (b) to examine effective strategies 
for engaging and training livestock farmers; and (c) to explore successful experiences in 
implementing SLPs. 
 

Methods 
 
This qualitative case study explored specialists’ experiences with SLPs in Honduras, focusing on 
contextual factors and individual perspectives (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Guided by a 
constructivist interpretative lens, the research emphasized knowledge as socially constructed 
through participants’ experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Before data collection, the 
University of Florida's Institutional Review Board [IRB] approved the study (IRB 202401362).  
 
Data Collection  
In this research, a specialist is defined as an individual with expert knowledge and practical 
experience in SLPs, recognized through formal training and professional roles in developing, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   53 
 

implementing, or evaluating related initiatives. Additional qualifications, such as affiliation with 
government agencies, development organizations, or universities, further reinforced their 
recognition as experts (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2025; 
Kahan, 2013). Ten male specialists were purposively selected and invited to participate via 
email based on their roles in a current national SLPs. Inclusion criteria required at least two 
years of experience in SLPs in Honduras, direct work with farmers or extension agents, and a 
technical degree in agriculture or related fields, ensuring representation of different 
institutional perspectives in SLPs (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).  
 
A 15-question interview guide based on the SLF was created to explore the challenges, 
strategies, and successes in SLPs (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Questions were reviewed by two 
specialists who did not participate in the interview. They supported the study by reviewing, 
clarifying, and ensuring the relevance of the topics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted 
in person, via Zoom, and via WhatsApp. The lead researcher used follow-up probes to explore 
context-specific examples and clarify responses during the interviews. The interviews ranged 
from 20 to 40 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed in Spanish to preserve 
participants’ original expressions and meanings (Archibald et al., 2019; Creswell & Creswell, 
2017; Saldaña, 2021).  
 
The lead researcher reviewed internal documents and training materials to triangulate the data. 
Participatory and non-participatory observations supplemented this during interviews and 
training sessions. The three researchers also provided analytical memos reflecting on potential 
themes, which were cross-checked during two debriefing sessions to validate interpretations 
and reduce bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Saldaña, 2021). 
 
Data Analysis 
Open coding was first applied to capture key concepts without preset categories, followed by 
pattern coding to group related codes into broader themes aligned with research objectives 
(Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2021). The first and second authors independently reviewed 
transcripts, developed initial codes manually, and iteratively refined them through collaborative 
meetings. This process resulted in themes reflecting specialists’ core insights on project 
development, training strategies, and implementation challenges in SLPs. 
 
Trustworthiness  
Trustworthiness was accomplished by addressing credibility, dependability, confirmability, and 
transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility was established by triangulating the 
transcripts with documents and observations (Patton, 2014). Dependability was supported by a 
detailed audit trail and code reviews during data analysis (Nowell et al., 2017). Confirmability 
was accomplished by involving multiple researchers in coding and cross-verifying findings 
(Shenton, 2004). Transferability was achieved through purposive sampling, enabling readers to 
evaluate applicability to other settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).  
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   54 
 

Researcher's Subjectivity Statement  
The research team has a shared background in agricultural education and extension in Latin 
America, especially Honduras. All three researchers studied at a Honduran agricultural 
university, providing strong regional expertise. The lead author participated in multiple local 
extension programs. Although some contextual nuances may have been missed, the team’s 
deep knowledge of local practices, institutions, and culture likely minimized gaps, enabling a 
more informed interpretation of the data and livestock professionals’ needs. 
 

Findings  
 
Objective 1: Implementation Challenges  
 
Engagement Barriers 
One of the main challenges in implementing SLPs relates to producers' varying attitudes, levels 
of motivation, and past experiences with external support. Six participants noted that a lack of 
trust in projects due to unmet expectations from previous initiatives has hindered producer 
engagement. P1 stated, "Later, it's about awakening people's interest. Many organizations have 
come into the communities and raised false expectations among people. So much so that some 
no longer believe in the projects." Past project failures have fostered skepticism among 
producers, hindering trust and engagement in new initiatives. 
 
P2 emphasized the difficulty of helping producers understand the broader transformation 
needed in livestock systems, especially concerning environmental issues. He mentioned: "The 
other challenge has been getting livestock producers to understand the transformation the 
system needs to undergo, since on the environmental side, I think they have felt it more." This 
perspective aligns with P3, who reflected on the challenges of introducing sustainable practices 
to new communities: "Initial challenges are related to adoption, because in the end we work 
with people, [...], arriving in an area and talking to them about an agroecological practice or 
about climate-friendly practices is not always well received at first..."This reflection highlights 
the need for gradual approaches when introducing new practices, especially in communities 
unfamiliar with sustainability concepts. 
 
Another barrier to implementation is the lack of initiative and openness among some 
producers. P5 described this dynamic by stating, "First of all, the idiosyncrasy of the human 
being. Not all producers have the vision to improve. You try to help some of them, and they 
won’t let you help; they don’t have the initiative to improve." In addition to individual attitudes, 
weak organizational structures among producers further limit progress.  
 
Resource Constraint 
Participants identified limited financial access and weak technical support as key challenges to 
implementing SLPs. P1 explained, “Securing financing that fits the sector has been difficult. In 
Honduras, there is the FIRSA [Trust Fund for the Honduran Agri-Food Sector Reactivation 
Program], but access is available only to large-scale livestock producers. Medium or small-scale 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   55 
 

producers don’t have the same access.” This quote highlights the financial access gap; small and 
medium producers are often excluded from programs meant for larger operations.  
 
Moreover, a decline in technical assistance was emphasized as an important factor affecting 
producers. P2 stated, “Lack of technical assistance has been an important factor. In Honduras, 
technical assistance and research in recent years have declined, right? And the producers have 
been somewhat neglected, which has had an impact.” This quote shows that reduced 
institutional support leaves producers without guidance to improve their practices. 
 
P5 described how some producers receive temporary aid from projects or donations but fail to 
maintain changes once the support ends: “Projects come in, donations, and sometimes the 
producer receives that help, and suddenly they just take advantage of the movement. Once the 
help is gone, they go back to the same. They didn’t know how to take advantage of it.” Finally, 
the cost of technical assistance was raised as a limiting factor by P10, who said, “The cost of 
technical assistance is quite limiting.” This quote shows how high technical assistance costs 
prevent producers from accessing support to implement SLPs. 
 
Commercial Challenges 
Challenges related to market dynamics and commercialization emerged as significant obstacles 
for producers. Seasonal fluctuations in production and prices create instability that affects 
producers’ incomes and investment capacity. P1 noted, “Of the 100% of production in the 
winter, it drops to 60% in the summer, due to the lack of forage, so the milk price is much 
better in the summer.” This insight reveals how seasonal variability in forage availability 
impacts production levels and market prices, complicating financial planning for producers. 
 
Specialists also described issues related to market structure and the role of intermediaries. P4 
explained, “So the intermediaries are basically the ones who benefit from the producer’s hard 
work.” Economic survival is another concern, with some producers operating without detailed 
knowledge of their costs. As P5 shared, “There are some who don’t even calculate their costs; 
they’re producers who survive, as they say. Just living by God’s hand, as we say here in 
Honduras.” This quote highlights the fragile nature of small-scale livestock production, where 
poor financial literacy and planning threaten sustainability. 
 
Product quality was also identified as a critical challenge. P7 stated, “There are product quality 
challenges. Most products, especially milk, do not meet the accepted quality or safety 
standards to be competitive. So, there’s a lot of work to do at the product quality level as well.” 
Lastly, P10 highlighted the difficulty that price fluctuations pose for investment, saying, “That 
fluctuation in prices is a problem when we think in terms of investments that livestock 
producers can make.” This quote shows how market volatility hinders long-term investments, 
limiting producers’ ability to adopt new technologies. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   56 
 

Objective 2: Effective Training Strategies 
 
Farmer Field School [FFS] Methodology 
Participants emphasized the FFS as a significant approach for training and technology transfer 
in the Honduran context, especially for Sustainable livestock training. P2 stated:  
“Well, in Honduras, the FFSs are well-known [...] I believe it's currently the most effective 
system for technology transfer and training in the country, when it is well understood, well 
managed, and clearly conceptualized.” This quote highlights the perceived effectiveness of FFS, 
positioning it as a leading method for agricultural extension. 
 
P3 also supported the FFS approach, particularly highlighting the inclusion of community 
leadership: “I think the best strategy is the FFS approach, especially with the added component 
that Heifer includes: the training of a promoter in each FFS.” The practical application of FFS 
was also described based on outreach and producer engagement. P7 said:  

Through the FFS, which is a methodology promoted by the FAO and which we, as a 
university, have put into practice here in Honduras, we can provide training and 
technology transfer to groups of producers from one or more communities, usually with 
common problems, and we conduct the training out in the field. 

 
P8 reflected on a participatory, hands-on model of extension work conducted within producers’ 
environments. He mentioned: 

Well, I believe what the Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza 
(CATIE) is doing, starting the design of these FFS and reintroducing them at the producer 
level, is an important first step. Because it must start that way, by spreading the word 
and teaching the producer. Reaching out to them as well so they can become familiar 
with what sustainable livestock farming is all about. 

 
P10 offered a broader reflection on the evolution and adaptation of FFS methods across sectors 
and institutions:  

With the Pasture team, it took us a year and a half to philosophize and honestly talk 
much crap about how to do extension in livestock. CATIE conducted experiences using a 
version of FFS for coffee growers, although they didn’t call it FFS. We were also looking 
at what FAO was doing, FFS in agriculture specifically, and what Zamorano was doing 
through Programa de Manejo Integrado de Plagas in Central America, with horticulture 
field schools. 

This quote illustrates FFS development's iterative and cross-sectoral nature, showing how 
lessons from other agricultural domains inform livestock extension strategies. 
 
Practical and Contextualized Learning 
Participants expressed the importance of delivering training in a practical and context-specific 
manner that enables producers to apply knowledge to their own farms. P1 explained: 

Another way to motivate them is to do the workshops and training sessions in a hands-
on, practical way. If there’s a workshop on planting improved pasture, then the practice 
is done, and everyone gets the same materials to replicate it themselves. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   57 
 

 
P3 also stressed the importance of implementation and demonstration: "Taking them to learn 
about these topics related to SLPs, so they can implement them on their own farms and 
demonstrate the changes, becomes a great way to make sure the methodology works.” Such 
demonstrations ensure that producers learn new methods and gain confidence in applying 
them effectively. 
 
As part of the lead researcher's notes, he wrote that during the planning meeting, experts 
prioritized the development of training materials tailored to the specific needs and contexts of 
the regions they aimed to serve. This observation aligned with participants’ descriptions of how 
training was adapted to local realities. 
 
Active Participation of Producers 
Participants emphasized that producer engagement is most effective when the training is 
grounded in local realities and shaped by the producers’ needs and experiences. P1 noted: “The 
other thing is, for trainings to be engaging, the topics must be relevant and related to the 
problems the producers are facing. So usually, the training is based on issues they identified in 
their region.” P3 described how field days and demonstration sites are used to promote 
learning through observation and peer influence:  

During a field day, several topics are covered at a demonstration farm that hosts a field 
school. The field school members attend, the promoter is a facilitator, and a Heifer 
livestock technician is present. They observe how the farmer has made changes, which 
inspires others to implement similar changes. 

 
These insights were further supported by an FFS guidebook provided to the researcher, which 
clearly recommended active participation by incorporating local knowledge. P7 supported this 
analysis, he stated: “We also take into account the local knowledge, the producers’ own 
knowledge.” Participant 10 further explained how structured group engagement supports 
producer participation: “FFS is the middle ground. A full-time facilitator working exclusively 
with FFS can work with about 100 producers; they can manage five schools of 20 participants 
each [...], allowing them to provide a level of group support that facilitates change.” Finally, P10 
raised a concern about ensuring active participation in training; otherwise, it will not create 
change in the producers. He noted: 

When the approach becomes about designing a curriculum and rewarding changes on 
the farm based on that curriculum, it loses efficiency. Because we end up gathering 
producers under a tree so we can say we're in the field, but we’re basically giving them a 
regular lecture, we're just informing them, not promoting change. 

 
Objective 3: Successful Experiences 
 
Producer Organization and Collective Structures 
Specialists shared successful experiences in project design that highlighted the long-term 
benefits of organizing producers into formal and collaborative structures. P1 cited the 
Federation of Livestock Farmers and Agricultural Producers of Southern Honduras (FEGASUR) as 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   58 
 

an example of institutional development that has emerged directly from project work. During 
our analysis of online sources, we examined the official FEGASUR website, noting its 
significance for governance and ongoing livestock initiatives that support small farmers. P1’s 
explanation clearly illustrates this analysis: 

The first one is the organization I’m currently working with, FEGASUR. It’s a success 
story because it emerged from a project. It has grown to the point that it now has legal 
status, its own office, and it elects a new board of directors every two years. 

 
P6 described a long-term effort to build producer capacity through the FFS model, facilitated by 
the National University of Agriculture (UNAG): “They were called FFS through UNAG. We 
worked for about eight years, around six of them continuously, training producers under the 
FFS methodology systematically and uninterruptedly, organizing them, training them with a 
multidisciplinary team, going to their communities, and bringing them to specialization levels 
through certificate programs, exchange visits to other farms, even in other countries, and 
promoting business incubation.” This highlights the value of sustained, systematic training in 
building producer skills, networks, and entrepreneurial capacity. 
 
Technical Innovations for Sustainability 
Six specialists emphasized the value of technical innovations that improve ecological outcomes 
and farm efficiency as core components of successful livestock projects. P2 described the 
Biosfera case as a transformative example of integrating sustainable land management into 
livestock systems:  

The Biosfera case is interesting. Farmers with large farms and a well-diversified system 
that includes forest, water catchment areas, grazing land, pastures, and crops. The area 
previously used for intensive cropping is now being transitioned into intensive livestock 
systems; they need less pasture to maintain the same number of animals. So, these 
pastures are being converted into what the project calls ‘transition paddocks’, areas 
moving into regeneration, with more trees and greater ground cover. This is truly 
impactful; we’re talking about over 600 hectares that are at least starting to be 
transformed. And what’s most interesting is that producers aren’t talking about 
increasing herd size but transforming the land. 

 
To support this quote, a review of Biosfera’s official communication documents confirmed the 
region's ongoing efforts to improve land use through regeneration practices and silvopastoral 
systems, reinforcing the specialist’s perspective. 
 
Other technical innovation examples included milk quality improvements through cold chain 
management. P7 noted that farms delivering chilled milk achieve better prices:  

For example, after Hurricane Mitch, work was done with the U.S. cooperative, and at 
this point, we can say that the establishment of the milk collection and cooling centers, 
known as CRELs, of which there are more than a hundred in the country, is a success 
story. These are groups of producers who bring their milk to a single location, cool it, 
right?, and sell it, in this case, to the industry.  They can negotiate based on volume by 
pooling the milk together, right? It’s not the same for one producer to offer a hundred 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   59 
 

liters as for the CREL to offer three or four thousand liters, right? So, volume becomes a 
negotiating power. 

 
P9 reinforced the role of grazing management practices as a technical solution with major 
productivity benefits: “Rational grazing, I've worked on it before with International Center for 
Tropical Agriculture, increases pasture area efficiency threefold, if not fivefold.” Such 
innovations show how technical strategies, when implemented effectively, can increase 
resource efficiency and contribute to the broader goals of sustainable livestock systems. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
This study concludes that while SLPs are gaining traction, their implementation is hindered by 
persistent barriers such as limited producer engagement, resource constraints, and market-
related challenges. However, this study also explored strategies such as FFS methodology and 
specific training approaches that have effectively promoted adoption. Successful experiences, 
including producer organizations and technical innovations, demonstrate the potential for 
sustainable livestock systems when supported by human and social capital. 
 
The results highlight the need to understand socio-cultural and institutional contexts for SLPs. 
The SLF provided a valuable lens for analyzing how specialists leverage human and social capital 
to navigate complex development environments. Human capital was reflected in technical 
expertise and training, while social capital is manifested through networks and partnerships (He 
& Zhang, 2025).  
 
The study also confirms that participatory and experiential learning approaches are particularly 
effective in the Honduran context. These methods facilitate knowledge transfer and empower 
producers by valuing local knowledge and fostering learning (Gómez et al., 2025; Paleologo et 
al., 2025). However, the success of such approaches depends on sustained institutional support, 
adequate funding, and the presence of trained facilitators. 
 
Moreover, this research emphasizes producer organizations and collective action, as seen in the 
cases of FEGASUR and CRELs, which illustrate how structural support can enhance market 
access, improve product quality, and increase bargaining power. These examples suggest that 
sustainable livestock development must go beyond technical training to institutional 
strengthening and value chain integration. 
 
To improve the effectiveness of SLPs, it is crucial to rebuild trust and foster active engagement 
among producers by involving them in project planning and decision-making (Kazanski et al., 
2025). Expanding the FFS methods is recommended because it is an effective, participatory 
approach for training and technology transfer, especially when adapted to local conditions.  
 
Enhancing access to financial and technical resources is also essential, particularly for small and 
medium-scale producers who often face economic challenges. This might include developing 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   60 
 

credit programs and revitalizing public technical assistance through partnerships with 
universities and NGOs. In addition, supporting producers’ associations or cooperatives can 
strengthen collective action, improve market access, and increase bargaining power. 
 
Future research should assess the long-term impact of participatory training models, such as 
FFS, on sustaining behavioral change and improving productivity among small-scale producers. 
Comparative studies of extension approaches could help identify context-specific strategies 
that enhance adoption. Additionally, research should explore the governance, leadership, and 
financial sustainability of producer organizations, and emphasize inclusive practices that 
support the meaningful participation of women and youth across the SLP chain, including 
specialists, helping to identify barriers and opportunities for equitable involvement. 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Funding Information: The research was self-funded. 
 
Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest. 
 
Previous Dissemination: Information from this article was previously presented in the 2025 
Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education Conference as an Oral 
Presentation 
(https://www.aiaee.org/resources/Documents/2025%20AIAEE%20Conference/Documents%20f
or%20calls/2025%20AIAEE%20FINAL_iii.pdf). 
 
Artificial Intelligence: Grammarly, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and ChatGPT were used as AI tools to 
assist with language refinement and grammar correction during manuscript preparation. 
 
Author Contribution Statement: J.A. Molina – conceptualization, data collection, coding, 
formal analysis, writing-original draft, and editing; R. Ceme – data curation, writing-review and 
editing; P. Lamino – conceptualization, supervision, data collection, coding, formal analysis, 
writing-review and editing. 
 

References 
 
Ahmed, N., Allison, E. H., & Muir, J. F. (2008). Using the sustainable livelihoods framework to 

identify constraints and opportunities to the development of freshwater prawn farming 
in southwest Bangladesh. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 39(5), 598–611. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00198.x  

Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom 
videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of 
researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00198.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   61 
 

Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience (Vol. 7, 
No. 1). Department for International Development. 

Canu, F. A., Wretlind, P. H., Audia, I., Tobar, D., & Andrade, H. J. (2018). Nama for a low-carbon 
and climate-resilient livestock sector in Honduras. Tropical Agricultural Centre for 
Research and Higher Education; Universidad del Tolima. 
https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/nama-for-a-low-carbon-and-climate-resilient-
livestock-sector-in-h/  

Cramb, R. A., Purcell, T. C. S. H., & Ho, T. C. S. (2004). Participatory assessment of rural 
livelihoods in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Agricultural Systems, 81(3), 255–272. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.11.005  

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed 
methods approaches. Sage Publications. 

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among 
five approaches. Sage Publications. 

Davies, J., Niamir-Fuller, M., Kerven, C., & Bauer, K. (2013). Extensive livestock production in 
transition. Livestock in a Changing Landscape: Volume One, 285–308. 

Flores Agreda, R., Muñoz, G., De Salvo, C. P., & Alcaraz Rivero, A. (2020). Análisis de políticas 
agropecuarias en Centroamérica y República Dominicana (IDB-MG-844). Banco 
Interamericano de Desarrollo. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002942  

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). Innovation in the 
livestock sector and transformation of livestock food systems in Eastern 
Africa (TCP/SFE/3904). FAO Subregional Office for Eastern 
Africa. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cd6394en  

Gómez, M., Humphries, S., Kindsvater, S., Jiménez, J., Orellana, P., Wyngaarden, S., & Dodd, W. 
(2025). Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals through participatory research: 
Long-term impacts of farmer participation on sustainable land use and livelihoods in 
Honduras. Agriculture & Food Security, 13(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-
00513-0 

Hameleers, A., Polastri, R., & Mc Grenra, D. (2020). Republic of Honduras country strategic 
opportunities programme. International Fund for Agricultural Development.  
https://webapps.ifad.org/members/eb/130/docs/EB-2020-130-R-18.pdf   

He, D., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Revitalization of traditional villages oriented to SDGs: Identification 
of sustainable livelihoods and differentiated management strategies. Buildings, 15(7), 
1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071127  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653
https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/nama-for-a-low-carbon-and-climate-resilient-livestock-sector-in-h/
https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/nama-for-a-low-carbon-and-climate-resilient-livestock-sector-in-h/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002942
https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cd6394en
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00513-0
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00513-0
https://webapps.ifad.org/members/eb/130/docs/EB-2020-130-R-18.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071127


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   62 
 

Kahan, D. (2013). The role of the farm management specialist in extension. Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/i3325e/i3325e.pdf  

Kazanski, C. E., Balehegn, M., Jones, K., Bartlett, H., Calle, A., Garcia, E., Hawkins, H., Mayberry, 
D., McDonald-Madden, E., Odadi, W. O., Zionts, J., Clark, M., Garnett, T., Herrero, M., 
VanZanten, H., Ritten, J., Mallmann, G., Harrison, M. T., Bossio, D., & Gennet, S. (2025). 
Context is key to understand and improve livestock production systems. Global Food 
Security, 45, 100840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100840  

Lentes, P., Holmann, F., Peters, M., & White, D. (2010). Constraints, feeding strategies, and 
opportunities to improve productivity and income in milk production systems in 
Olancho, Honduras. Tropical grasslands, 44, 33-46. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/42700 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. 

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods 
sourcebook. Third Edition. Sage Publications. 

Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, España. (2021). Sectores agroalimentario y 
pesquero Honduras 2021. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, España 
https://www.mapa.gob.es/dam/mapa/contenido/ministerio/mapa-en-el-
exterior/costa-rica-y-caribe/honduras/fichasectors_hn.pdf     

Mitigation Action Facility. (n.d.). Honduras – Transforming the livestock sector. 
https://mitigation-action.org/projects/honduras-transforming-the-livestock-sector/ 

Moran, D., & Blair, K. J. (2021). Sustainable livestock systems: Anticipating demand-side 
challenges. Animal, 15(Supplement 1), 100288. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100288  

Munanura, I. E., Backman, K. F., Hallo, J. C., & Powell, R. B. (2016). Perceptions of tourism 
revenue sharing impacts on Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: A sustainable livelihoods 
framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(12), 1709-1726. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1145228  

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to 
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 
1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847  

Paleologo, M., Acampora, M., Barello, S., & Graffigna, G. (2025). Uncovering the landscape of 
participatory research in agricultural innovation: A scoping review. Citizen Science: 
Theory and Practice, 10(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.767 

Pandey, N., De Coninck, H., & Sagar, A. D. (2021). Beyond technology transfer: Innovation 
cooperation to advance sustainable development in developing countries. Wiley 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653
https://www.fao.org/3/i3325e/i3325e.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100840
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/42700
https://www.mapa.gob.es/dam/mapa/contenido/ministerio/mapa-en-el-exterior/costa-rica-y-caribe/honduras/fichasectors_hn.pdf
https://www.mapa.gob.es/dam/mapa/contenido/ministerio/mapa-en-el-exterior/costa-rica-y-caribe/honduras/fichasectors_hn.pdf
https://mitigation-action.org/projects/honduras-transforming-the-livestock-sector/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100288
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1145228
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.767


Molina et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653   63 
 

Interdisciplinary Reviews Energy and Environment, 11(2), e422. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.422  

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and 
practice. Sage Publications. 

Peters, P., & Hoffmann, V. (2010). Promotion and adoption of silage technologies in drought-
constrained areas of Honduras. Tropical Grasslands, 44, 231-245. 
https://www.tropicalgrasslands.info/public/journals/4/Historic/Tropical%20Grasslands
%20Journal%20archive/PDFs/Vol_44%20(1_2_3_4)/Vol%2044%20(4)%20Reiber%20et%
20al%20231.pdf  

Robinson, G. M. (2024). Global sustainable agriculture and land management systems. 
Geography and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2024.09.001    

Rosen, A. R., Kioumarsi, H., & Gholipour Fereidouni, H. (2025). Climate action and net-zero 
emissions. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 9(4), em0334. 
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/16864  

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Limited 

Sandoval, D., Burkart, S., Van der Hoek, R., Chandler, M., & Tabora, C. (2025, September). 
Livestock farming in Honduras: Adoption levels, challenges, and gender gaps in the 
transition toward sustainable systems. Presented at Tropentag 2025, Bonn, Germany. 
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b1238a87-8aff-47d9-a110-
3c145cd19edf/content    

Serrat, O.  (2017). The sustainable livelihoods approach., In O. Serrat (Ed.) Knowledge solutions: 
Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance (pp. 21-26). 
Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_5  

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research 
projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-
22201  

Yusuf, A. S., Adeyemi, T. O., Adeleye, A. S., Bakpolor, V. R., Adegboyega, D. A., & Adetola, O. O. 
(2020). Impacts of agriculture and forestry in the control of climate change: The role of 
extension services. International Journal on Integrated Education, 3(10), 71-75. 
https://doi.org/10.31149/ijie.v3i10.681      

 
 
© 2025 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i4.653
https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.422
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2024.09.001
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/16864
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b1238a87-8aff-47d9-a110-3c145cd19edf/content
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b1238a87-8aff-47d9-a110-3c145cd19edf/content
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_5
https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
https://doi.org/10.31149/ijie.v3i10.681

