## 2 Framework of the Methodological Approach
### Identification of innovations

Table 2: _Cont._In addition, the technical, financial and human requirements of each innovation were evaluated [34]. Later, the experts assessed each identified innovation by a Likert scale with values from one to five, where one was the least important and five the most important (Appendix 1). In the first round of assessment, those technologies which obtained the maximum score (five) in the opinion of nine or more experts were selected and the technologies with a minimum (one) qualification from nine experts were discarded. In the second round, descriptive information from the set of responses (concordance index and mean) was sent to each expert for re-examination and reconsideration of their judgment. The Ishikawa index was utilized considering a concordance level where the livestock innovations with greater than 60% of the concordance level and an average score over 3.5 were selected [35]. In Table 3, the innovations selection survey is shown. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
42. Internal deworming control & 0. Internal deworming was not used; 1. Internal deworming was used in different kinds of animals in the herd \\ \hline
43. External parasite control & 0. External parasite control was not used; 1. External parasite control was used \\ \hline
44. Mastitis diagnosis & 0. Mastitis diagnosis was not done; 1. Mastitis diagnosis was done. \\ \hline
45. Sanitary milking program & 0. A sanitary milking program was not done; 1. Sanitation practices in milking were done: cleaning and drying of the udder and teats, calf stimulation, utilization of disposable materials, control of health hazards, others. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Step 1. Identification of Livestock Innovations** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Step 2. Innovation Areas**} \\ \hline
**Livestock Innovations** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Ishikawa Index (\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Innovation Areas**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Kendall’s W**} \\ \hline
1 & Animal identification & 100.0 & & \\
2 & Record system & 100.0 & & \\
3 & Breeding management & 92.8 & & \\
4 & Grazing native pasture & 92.7 & & \\
5 & Grazing planting & 64.2 & & A1. Management & 0.576 ** \\
6 & Grazing of crop residues & 78.5 & & \\
7 & Milking season & 64.2 & & \\
8 & Type of milking & 71.4 & & \\ \hline
9 & Green fodder & 64.2 & & \\
10 & Silage & 92.8 & & \\
11 & Hay making & 71.4 & & \\
12 & Processed feed & 64.2 & & \\
13 & Concentrate making & 100.0 & & \\
14 & Molasses/urea & 100.0 & & \\
15 & Grains and oilseeds & 100.0 & & A2. Feeding & 0.377 * \\
16 & Multi nutritional blocks processed & 71.4 & & \\
17 & Manufacture of multi nutritional blocks & 64.2 & & \\
18 & Common salt & 100.0 & & \\
19 & Mineral salts & 64.2 & & \\
20 & Mineral blocks & 92.8 & & \\
21 & Vitamin provided & 64.2 & & \\
22 & Agro-industrial by-products & 85.7 & & \\ \hline
23 & Using male breeds & 64.2 & & \\
24 & Using male crosses & 64.4 & & \\
25 & Using female breeds & 64.2 & & \\
26 & Using female crosses & 64.2 & & \\
27 & Use of genetically tested bulls & 64.2 & A3. Genetics & 0.349 * \\
28 & Calves selection criteria & 100.0 & & \\
29 & Female selection criteria & 85.7 & & \\
30 & Sire selection criteria & 85.7 & & \\
31 & Crossbred system & 78.6 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Selection of livestock innovations and innovation areas. **Step 2. Grouping of livestock innovations in areas**  
In this stage, the selected livestock innovations from step 1 were grouped in areas according to [3; 15; 17] and following the methodology proposed by [9] in mixed systems. The proposed areas could be internationally useful in tropical places with dual-purpose bovine and small-scale farms, so over 50 experts from several countries were consulted online.