Estrategias de Vida y Producción de Ganaderos

14/4/24, 09:51 Estrategias de vida y producción de ganaderos y sus percepciones sobre el cambio climático en los Andes centrales peruanos -…
Investigación sobre pequeños rumiantes

Volumen 215, octubre 2022 , 106763
Estrategias de vida y producción de ganaderos y sus percepciones

sobre el cambio climático en los Andes centrales peruanos.
Marlene Radolf a,María Wurzinger a b ,Gustavo Gutiérrez b.
Mostrar más
Describir Compartir Citar
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2022.106763
Obtener derechos y contenidos
Reflejos
• Mantener ganado diferente es una estrategia para aumentar la resiliencia
económica.
• Los agricultores identificaron el cambio climático como una importante

limitación a la producción.
• El empleo no agrícola contribuye sustancialmente a los ingresos de los

agricultores.
Abstracto
Las duras condiciones climáticas siempre han marcado las condiciones de vida de los pequeños agricultores en los Andes peruanos. Hoy
en día, los agricultores ven sus medios de vida cada vez más desafiados por los cambios ambientales y económicos. Estos factores resultan
en adaptaciones de sus estrategias de subsistencia que pueden clasificarse en estrategias de producción agrícola y de generación de
ingresos. El objetivo del estudio fue investigar las estrategias de producción y generación de ingresos de los ganaderos en los Andes
centrales del Perú. Se investigaron las percepciones de los agricultores sobre su ganado y los efectos percibidos del cambio climático . Para
ello se entrevistó a 46 ganaderos de las provincias de Pasco y Daniel Carrión. La mayoría de los agricultores diversifican su ganado,
manteniendo llamas, alpacas , ovejas y ganado vacuno en diferentes combinaciones a la vez. Sólo unos pocos agricultores están
especializados y crían alpacas en grandes cantidades. Una estrategia de producción diversificada disminuye la vulnerabilidad frente a
crisis ambientales y económicas. Las principales razones para cambiar la composición del rebaño fueron razones económicas y
ambientales, como la falta de pastos y la caída de los precios de la lana de oveja. Todos los agricultores ven el cambio climático como una
limitación de la producción, y aquellos que pueden permitírselo ya han intentado afrontarlo mediante la adopción de diversas estrategias
de adaptación. Los agricultores parecen planear un cambio hacia un mayor número de llamas, ya que se considera que son más resistentes
al cambio climático. Sin embargo, el mercado de productos de llama es pequeño y los precios son bajos, por lo que los agricultores no
pueden contar con ingresos suficientes criando únicamente llamas. Más de la mitad de los agricultores trabajan en actividades no
agrícolas. Los agricultores experimentan una gran presión económica para buscar trabajo fuera de sus explotaciones. Se deben realizar
inversiones en infraestructura, mejores servicios de extensión y programas de creación de capacidad para ayudar a los agricultores a
mejorar sus medios de vida. Estas estrategias pueden ayudar a garantizar que se ofrezca a los agricultores una perspectiva para su futuro
en los Altos Andes.
anterior siguiente
Palabras clave
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448822001523 1/15
Andes; Pequeños agricultores; Camélidos sudamericanos; Sostenibilidad; Cambio climático
1 . Introducción
Livestock production systems in developing countries are heterogeneous and dynamic and are undergoing dramatic changes due to
various drivers (Thornton et al., 2009). The interactions of these drivers and the magnitude of impact on livestock production is still not
well understood (Thornton et al., 2009, Escarcha et al., 2018). Various authors emphasized that there are still knowledge gaps on how
climate change will impact different livestock production systems and which adaption strategies should be implemented (Escarcha et al.,
2018, Herrero et al., 2015, Weindl et al., 2015).
Globally rangeland production systems are under high pressure due to climate change and 74% of rangeland are projected to experience a
declined productivity (Goode et al., 2020). Herrero et al. (2015) further explained that their contribution to global food supply is not high,
but they cover most of the land and play a key social role especially in extensive production systems. According to the ICCP report, the
Andes are particularly affected by climate change with severe consequences for livestock farming, as reduced rainfall impacts grazing land
productivity (ICCP, 2021). As an unstable climate with many frost episodes does not favor crop farming in the high Andes, livestock
husbandry is crucial (Anderson, 2003, Trejo, 2004).
In their systematic review Escarcha et al. (2018) identified five production areas reported to be affected mainly by climate change: feeds,
diseases, economics of households, production (e.g. reduced milk production), and water and land usage. Furthermore, the authors listed
already identified adaptation strategies and highlighted that most of these strategies are only incremental adaptation strategies, but no
transformational ones. This means that livestock keepers make smaller adjustments in their current practices, but don´t change
fundamentally their livelihood strategies.
In the ICCP report It has been recognized that adaptation is a multi-scale process that needs to consider not only different sources of
knowledge but also societal and cultural values, objectives and risk perceptions of different involved actors (IPCC, 2014). Huggel et al.
(2015) argue that adaptation strategies are always place- and context-specific and that the participation of local governments and
communities are important in this process. Nevertheless, the limited capacity of vulnerable groups to respond and adapt has been
reported as a major concern (Vidaurre de la Riva et al., 2013). The lack of reliable climate data for remote mountains areas is an additional
problem for planning and decision-making (Salzmann et al., 2009).
The role of local knowledge has been recognized as important to adapt to changing situations (Nassef et al., 2009, Newsham and Thomas,
2011, Herreo et al., 2016, Carrasco-Torrontegui et al.,), but with ongoing changes this knowledge will be less accurate and useful and new
scientific knowledge has to be generated to support farmers (Kirkland, 2012). In the same line, Paerregaard (2018) argues that
participation of local communities and their viewpoints and experiences have to be included in formulating adaptation strategies. It has
been widely recognized that adaptation is a multi-scale process that needs to consider different sources of knowledge and societal and
cultural values, objectives, and risk perceptions of different involved actors (IPCC, 2021). Accordingly, it is essential to adequately consider
the diversity of motivations for ecosystem change, management, protection, or restoration (Muhar et al., 2017). These motivations, in turn,
are context-sensitive and rooted in different understandings of human-nature relationships (Braito et al., 2017).
Scoones (1998) identified three main livelihood strategies for rural communities: Agricultural intensification/extensification, livelihood
diversification, or migration. Through processes of intensification or extensification, communities can either earn more from agriculture
and livestock, or they can diversify to a range of non-farm income activities, or they migrate to urban areas. Non-farm activities must be
understood as complementary to agriculture; both are linked through investment, production, and consumption throughout the rural
economy (Davis et al., 2010).
The traditional farming system in the Andes is based on diversification of resource exploitation to minimize risks, increase resilience, and
assure farmers' survival in the harsh mountainous climate. Adaptation to stress and shock is an important dimension of family welfare
(Valdivia, 2001). Tichit and Genin (1997) showed in their study that different factors affect the herd structure in a mixed sheep-llama
production system in Bolivia. Besides ecophysiological differences between llamas and sheep, historical developments of communities,
economic opportunities and socio-ecological aspects also play a role.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the income-generating and production strategies of small livestock keepers in two provinces the
Central Peruvian Andes, which differ in altitude and market access. Besides, farmers' choices and perceptions of livestock species and the
perceived effects of climate change were studied.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area

The study was carried out in the Pasco province (study region 1, latitude and longitude: 10°41′11″S 76°15′45″W) and Daniel Carrión
province (study region 2, latitude and longitude 10°29′29″S 76°30′49″W) of Pasco region. Due to the high altitude of both study regions
(4000–4380 masl), the climate is cold with an annual average temperature of 5 °C with a minimum temperature of − 11 °C and a maximum
temperature of about 15 °C. The rainy season is between November and March, the other months are relatively dry, and the annual mean
precipitation is about 900–1000 mm (Ministerio de la Producción, 2015).
The province Daniel Carrión is marked by a more favorable climate for crop production due to a lower altitude, but road access to primary
markets is worse, explaining the economic disadvantage.
The Pasco region is characterized by a high incidence of chronic malnutrition, especially for women and children under five. About 52% of
the population is classified as poor, and within this 52%, about 19% are classified as extremely poor according to Peruvian standards (INEI,
2012). According to INEI (INEI, 2012), the Pasco region has a negative migration balance with people moving to Lima.
2.2. Data collection and analysis

A qualitative study based on farmers´ point of view was conducted to answer the research question. Test interviews with farmers from
both study regions were conducted to check the comprehensibility of the questions (Atteslander, 2008). All interviews, using a semi-
structured questionnaire with open and closed questions, were carried out in Spanish. The following topics were covered: general
information about respondent (gender, age, education level), on-farm and non-farm income (contribution of income of livestock to
household economy, type of non-farm activities), perception of climate change and livestock's adaptability (perceived climate change,
farmer´s perception about different livestock species´ adaptability, comparison of llama, alpaca, sheep and cattle), livestock production
strategies (focus on one species or diversification by keeping multi-species herds and reasons), and future plans.
Participants were randomly selected from a database comprising 281 farmers, a representative group for the predominant livestock
production in both study regions, of a previous study carried out by Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina in 2011 and 2012 (Gutierrez et
al., 2013).
Forty-six interviews were carried out, 22 and 24 in regions 1 and 2, respectively. All interviewees gave free prior consent for the
interviews to be recorded and analyzed.
The data obtained were anonymized, coded, and entered into MS Excel 2010. For age of respondent mean and standard deviation was
calculated. The respondents´ proportion in the different education levels (illiterate, primary school, secondary school, higher education)
was calculated. Livestock contribution to household income was categorized in 4 groups (100%, 99–51%, 50%, <50%) and presented in
proportion of number of households in the different categories. For open questions, the answers as given by the farmers were put into the
database. In a second step categories were developed and answers were assigned to these categories.
For herd composition, the mean and standard deviation of different species (llama, alpaca, sheep, cattle) were calculated.
As the sample size of 46 farmers was very small, many variables did not fulfill the conditions for statistical tests.
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of interviewees

Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of the respondents. The majority of the respondents were males. Except for two elderly
females, all respondents had at least attended primary school. In region 1, 13.6% and 25.0% of respondents in region 2 had even completed
higher education.
Table 1. General characteristics of respondents.
Region 1 (n = 22) Region 2 (n = 24)
Gender
Number of male respondents 12 21
Number of female respondents 10 3
Age (years, mean ± sd) 49.9 ± 14.4 43.5 ± 12.5
Level of education (%)

Illiterate 9.1 0
Primary school 18.2 42.0
Secondary school 59.1 33.0
Higher education 13.6 25.0
3.2. Income-generating strategies

Table 2 shows the livestock production's share of the total household income. 8 respondents (36.4%) of region 1 and 12 (50%) of region 2
stated that their household income depends entirely on their livestock production. In addition, 22.7% of interviewees of region 1% and 25%
of region 2 indicated that livestock contributes still to a large share to the household income (51–99%). Considering the two groups
together, it can be observed that there is a higher proportion of farmers in region 2 who derive a large share of their household income
from livestock farming (region 1 =59.1%, region 2 =75%).
Table 2. Share of livestock production to total household income (%).
Share of livestock production (%)
100 99–51 50 < 50
Region 1 (n = 22) 36.4 22.7 22.7 18.2
Region 2 (n = 24) 50.0 25.0 16.7 8.3
13% of the households specified that the importance of non-farm income was rising within the last five years. This trend was explained by
income through livestock production declined over the last years and market prices for livestock products changed unfavorably in the
study area.
12 respondents indicated that they only had an occasional non-farm employment, whereas others had a permanent income. As non-farm
employment, many activities such as working in transport (n = 5), on construction sites (n = 3), working in the local cooperative (n = 2),
having a small business (n = 3), working as a teacher (n = 3), and handicraft (n = 1) were mentioned. Additional and continuous income from
non-farm activities contributing to the household income was a major reason for engaging in additional activities. Some farmers specified
that they needed more income as their children studied.
Volatile market prices for livestock products were seen as a limiting factor. In llamas, missing formal marketing channels for meat and
fiber were also mentioned as a drawback.
3.3. Motives for keeping livestock and production strategies

Motives, as reported by farmers, for keeping different livestock species are presented in Table 3. All four species fulfill a multi-functional
role by providing meat, manure, and hides. Llama fiber is used to a lower extent, but some farmers still use llamas as pack animals. Cattle
are highly valued as milk sale ensures regular income. Only a low number of study participants mentioned tradition as a reason for
keeping a specific species.
Table 3. Motives for keeping livestock, in percentage.
Species Meat Fiber/wool Milk Manure Pack animal Hide Tradition
Llama (n = 42) 100.0 69.0 0.0 64.3 69.0 76.2 14.3
Alpaca (n = 44) 100.0 100.0 0.0 56.8 0.0 63.6 13.6
Sheep (n = 40) 100.0 100.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 72.5 15.0
Cattle (n = 24) 100.0 0.0 100.0 20.8 0.0 45.8 25.0
In Table 4 the herd composition and the number of animals of each livestock species are presented. The high standard deviation in all four
species indicate a large variation between farmers. Alpacas were most common, followed by sheep, llamas, and cattle. In addition, some
farmers also raised guinea pigs, ducks, chicken, and horses in smaller numbers.
Table 4. Number of herds and their composition per livestock species in two study regions.
Region 1 Region 2
N of herds Llama Alpaca Sheep Cattle Total N of Llama Alpaca Sheep Cattle Total
mean±sd mean±sd mean±sd mean±sd mean±sd herds mean±sd mean±sd mean±sd mean±s mean±sd
5 38 ± 35.0 130 ± 74.5 136 ± 132.3 5 ± 1.7 310 ± 111.8 12 33 ± 23.2 92 ± 68.6 74 ± 37.1 13 ± 13.6 212 ± 82.2
11 30 ± 17.6 85 ± 86.8 63 ± 49.3 178 ± 99.0 8 55 ± 33.2 74 ± 46.8 63 ± 49.5 192 ± 89.4
2 18 ± 10.6 91 ± 83.4 3 ± 1.4 112 ± 71.4 1 32 40 12 84
1 6 15 3 24
2 350 ± 70.7 36 ± 12.7 386 ± 83.4
1 60 150 10 220
1 50 45 95
1 25 12 37
Region 1 Region 2
1 280 6 286
All four species were kept by 17 farmers (5 in region 1, 12 in region 2). Furthermore, 19 farmers raised (11 in region 1, 8 in region 2) the
three species llamas, alpacas, and sheep. Another 5 farmers (4 in region 1, 1 in region 2) had different combinations of 3 species. The
remaining 5 farmers (2 in region 1, 3 in region 2) had kept only two species, but in different combinations. None of the interviewees
specialized in only one species.
The principal reason mentioned by interviewees (n = 21) combining different livestock species was an improvement of income, as keeping
various types of livestock broadens the range of products that can be offered and sold. Other reasons were continuing the tradition of
keeping various species at once, better usage of pasture, and a wider range of products for auto-consumption to a lower extent.
We could not find any correlation between the number of livestock species kept or the herd size (Table 4) and the additional income from
other activities (Table 1). In region 1, all farmers who reported 100% household income from livestock had between 3 and 4 species and
the herd size varied between 24 and 226 heads. However, there were also farms (4 out of 5) that kept four species, but where animal
husbandry was of little importance for the overall household income.
In region 2, 9 out of 12 farmers who kept 4 species said that they lived exclusively from livestock. The remaining 3 interviewees reported a
contribution of livestock as 50%, 60% and 80% respectively. For the 8 farmers in region 2 keeping the 3 species llamas, alpacas and sheep,
the income varied between 50% and 100%.
3.4. Farmers' perceptions towards llamas, alpacas, sheep, and cattle

The majority of the farmers stated that llamas show certain advantages over the other species. The interviewees mentioned that llamas
show a higher tolerance to cold, can better cope with low-quality forage and water scarcity, show better disease resistance, are generally
easy to manage, and have low production costs. Nevertheless, farmers complained that there is currently no good market for llama
products. While alpaca fiber is in demand by the textile industry, there is currently no market for llama fiber, and it is therefore primarily
used in handicrafts. Llama meat is also hardly marketed and is therefore frequently used for own consumption.
The respondents explained that the sheep wool has lost its value over the last years as the price for coarse wool has steadily declined.
Therefore, they decided to reduce their sheep flock. One argument in favor of sheep farming that was repeatedly mentioned by the
farmers is the regular income that can be generated through the sale of meat. Whereas soil erosion caused by sheep farming was
identified as a problem by all respondents. A small number of farmers rears dual-purpose cattle. The constant income from milk sales was
seen as advantageous, but higher management demands and related costs for improving pastures were considered limiting factors.
3.5. Expected future development of livestock

There were no clear trends what livestock is favored by farmers. In both study regions, some farmers wanted to increase, whereas, at the
same time, others wanted to reduce the number of one given species. The majority (68%) of farmers wanted to increase their llama herds.
No information was provided by the farmers on whether an increase in the number of llamas could lead to a reduction in other animal
species. Reasons for the planned increase were primarily due to expected economic benefits. Other advantages recognized were llamas
being more resistant against bronchopneumonia or diarrhoea than other livestock, their meat was considered healthier (compared to
sheep and cattle), and they were easier to handle. More than half of the interviewees (53%, n = 46) planned to rise the number of alpacas as
better economic benefits were anticipated. Arguments against increasing the number of alpacas were lack of pasture and water, perceived
lack of resistance against diseases, and not being well adapted to the changing environmental conditions in the long term.
Sheep herd sizes seem to be declining in the future, as two-thirds mentioned reducing their sheep herds. The same trend could be
observed for cattle, where 55.3% of farmers planned to reduce the numbers. For both species, lack of adequate pasture was seen as the
major constraint.
3.6. Perceived impact of climate change and adaptation mechanisms

All interviewed farmers noticed changes in the climate. 63% of them mentioned noticeable changes in the seasons (rain during the dry
season, less or no rain during the wet season). 33% of the farmers said that there is less rainfall over the whole year, whereas 33% stated
that they observed an increase in the last ten years. There were also different perceptions of temperature changes as 30% of the farmers
mentioned an increase, whereas 70% claimed a decline. An increase in frost and snow was reported by 65%, whereas 7% observed the
opposite. In addition, stronger wind was also reported by 9% of the interview partners. More than half of the interviewees said that the
pasture was affected negatively by the weather conditions.
Almost all farmers (98%) observed more diseases in their livestock and related higher mortality and linked these observations with
climate change. To adapt to the negative consequences of climate change, some farmers (60%) applied different coping strategies to reduce
the mortality of their livestock. Adaptation strategies were: shelters for protection (43% of farmers), administration of medication or
vitamins (17%), more drinking troughs (4%), use of sown pasture (7%), blankets for animals to keep them warm (4%) and trees or other
constructions as wind protection (4%).
3.7. Future perspectives and farm development

Thirty-five out of forty-six interviewees stated that they wanted to change their income sources to increase the household income. The
majority of them (n = 24) wanted to invest in non-farm activities and mentioned setting up a business, work in construction or extension,
doing and selling handicrafts on markets, carry out occasional jobs, work as a teacher, work in politics, agricultural processing, work in the
mining industry or as a herder as possible options. Those, who wanted to invest more in their farms, wanted to change to a more
promising livestock species. Farmers, however, had different views on which species could be successful in the future. This is also reflected
in the data on planned reduction or increase of different livestock species in the future.
12 out of 46 farmers could imagine leaving their farms due to economic hardship and stop working in animal husbandry. This potential
emigration is linked to poor livestock productivity and pasture quality leading to insufficient income or limited market access. Farmers
living only from on-farm income are somewhat more prone to stay; only 20% of them (9 out of 46) could imagine migrating. Considering
these results, only 11 farmers out of 46, representing 24%, can be regarded as satisfied with their economic situation, meaning that they
only work on-farm, do not plan to diversify their livelihood strategy via non-farm income, and did not think about migrating to other
places. No differences between the two study regions were observed regarding the decision to stay on the farm or to give up livestock
keeping.
Asked about their wishes for the future, 80% of the farmers mentioned needing more support from the regional governments or other
external institutions. Half of the farmers wished for a better extension service (e.g. having access to better genetics), followed by better
infrastructure (30%) and better access to technologies, machines, and tools (17%). Less frequently named were access to cheaper
medicaments and supplements (9%), better market access (4%), more research about alpacas (7%), better access to credits (2%), better
housing conditions (2%), or set up a small company (2%) and a promising future for their children (2%).
4. Discussion
4.1. Income-generating strategies

As main life goals, farmers in the high Andes want to maximize animal and economic performance, avoid economic and environmental
risks, mitigate effects of climate change and improve their living conditions (Valdivia et al., 1996). In order to achieve their goals, the
interviewees showed a diverse range of strategies – combining non-farm and on-farm activities, but also diversification of livestock
production. In region 2, where access to markets and job opportunities outside the farms are less, farmers reported a higher importance of
livestock production to generating household income. This finding is in accordance with Kristjanson et al. (2007) and Valdivia et al.
(1996), who highlighted the importance of economic diversification for Andean peasant households of crop/livestock production and
wage labor. The aim is to smooth both predictable and unpredictable income fluctuations. According to Hussein and Nelson (1998), most
rural producers have historically diversified their productive activities to encompass a range of other productive areas. Also, other authors
(Barrett et al., 2001, Davis et al., 2010, Deininger and Olinto, 2001) argue that diversification is the norm, stating that very few farmers
collect all their income from only one source. Non-farm activities are widely recognized as a crucial way of income diversification for rural
communities, especially in risky environments as the High Andes, where this is a common practice (Reardon et al., 2000). Diversification
of pastoral livelihoods is widely observed in different regions, and options include crop cultivation, off-farm activities, trade or a business
(Herrero et al., 2016, Thornton et al., 2014, Weindl et al., 2015).
Diversification, in general, can be seen as a common means to achieve sustainable livelihoods (Escobal, 2001, Hazell et al., 2010, Reardon
et al., 2001).
Our findings show that more than half of the interview partners relied on a combination of income from livestock and non-farm income.
This diversification can be seen as a response to the lower revenues from livestock farming. These findings affirm that farmers diversify to
non-farm employment because they simply have the economic need to do so (Haggblade et al., 2010, HLPE, 2013). Motivations for
economic diversification always deal with a higher and more reliable income that can be achieved with only livestock-related activities,
and, to spread the financial risk and become more resilient (Darnhofer, 2010, Valdivia et al., 1996). Also, in some cases, non-farm
employment can be seen as a strategy that detains farmers from abandoning their farms (Darnhofer, 2010). Our study results show a
different picture, as farmers who live only from animal husbandry were more willing to continue farming. Kristjanson et al. (2007) found
in their study about poverty dynamics and the role of livestock in the Peruvian Andes that 59% of households that had escaped poverty
mentioned income from non-farm diversification as an important factor.
It has to be pointed out that all data in our study are the farmers' estimations and could not be further verified.
4.2. Livestock production

Farmers see their future as unpredictable, facing external changes they cannot influence but need to adapt to (Darnhofer, 2010). This
situation is also reflected in the chosen production strategy. No farmer only kept one type of livestock. Most farmers kept three or four
main livestock types. In addition, most farmers (87%) also kept other livestock species as chicken, guinea pigs, rabbits, and others, usually
in small numbers. These results show a high degree of livestock diversification. This finding is in accordance with van’t Hooft (2002) for
similar ecosystems in Bolivia. Also, Ellis-Jones and Mason (1999) found a diverse array of livestock in their study in the Andes. Diversifying
the herd composition or shifting from one species to another have been reported as possible adaptation strategies also for other regions
(Herrero et al., 2016, Megersa et al., 2014, Seo et al., 2010).
There is no clear trend between the decision of what main livestock species and how many of them are kept and the engagement in non-
farm activities. This again indicates the broad differences among the applied strategies. Even farmers being neighbors diversify in different
ways. Uncertainty, missing information on future climate scenarios at a local scale and data on climate change impact and therefore
missing policies and recommendations for farmers has been reported as a major challenge for livestock production systems in developing
countries (Salzmann et al., 2009, Huggel et al., 2015, Thornton et al., 2009).
The given advantages for diversification were mainly linked to a broader range of products, better market access, and an increased
resilience towards external shocks (Van’t Hooft, 2002). Sheep have a higher reproductive rate (earlier age of puberty, shorter gestation
interval, twin birth) than llamas and this favors a higher culling rate in sheep and more marketable products (Tichit and Genin, 1997).
The unstable and unpredictable price developments make it necessary for farmers to lower vulnerability by preventing economic losses
due to unexpected price changes of livestock products (Darnhofer, 2010). The effects of climatic variability lead to unstable environmental
conditions and losses of livestock productivity, so also under this condition, diversification pays off more. This is also expressed by the fact
that only 15% of farmers see, in the long term, more economic sense in specializing their production system to only one species. The main
species that were named to focus on in the future were llamas and alpacas, reflecting the market opportunities or environmental
adaptations these species offer.
The reasons for specialization given mainly were related to less work in the husbandry of only one species. Van't Hooft (2002) underlines
this and also found that in specialized systems, mortality of animals is low, as animals receive extra attention due to the high individual
value of the animal and the specialized knowledge. Also, there is a high dependence on external conditions such as markets, diseases, and
natural resources in the specialization. If changes of external factors happen, the flexibility of these systems is low.
Van't Hooft (2002) concludes that most livestock development initiatives aim to change the diversified systems into more specialized
ones. However, this does not fit into the livestock production logic and the farmer's mindset. Optimizing the diversified system of family-
level livestock keeping within its context is an under-utilized niche for poverty reduction.
4.3. Perceptions about the suitability of different livestock species
4.3.1. Llamas
Llamas are multi-purpose animals and have always been used for sale or consumption of fresh or dried meat, sale or domestic use of fiber,
transportation, manure as an energy source or soil fertilizer, or, as some farmers answered, kept out of tradition (Rodriguez et al., 2021).
The big disadvantage of llama keeping is the currently missing formal markets. This problem is also reflected in the low earnings farmers
get from their livestock and the past development of livestock numbers, as many people lowered their llama numbers in the last 5–10
years. Many consumers still fear sarcocystosis-infected meat (Rooney et al., 2013), or generally consider llama-meat as "food of the poor"
or "Indian food". The only way to sell llama meat for a reasonable price is to sell it as alpaca meat if the carcass comes from a young
animal or mixing llama meat with minced beef (Wolfinger, 2012).
Also, the llama fiber is considered coarse and uncomfortable to wear, and market production is of minor importance. Llama fiber quality
depends very much on the type of llama. In the study regions, there are mostly K′ara type which have no fleece for fiber production.
Studies show that llama fiber can have good quality for fine fleece production and potential in international markets (Markemann et al.,
2009). Keeping more Chaku types (Wooly llama types) and rising awareness could help to create another income source.
Transportation and packing (primarily of crops) were declining, as better roads are being built and accessibility by motorized transport
increases (Camino, 2002, Wolfinger, 2012, Rodriguez et al., 2021). Still, 70% of farmers said that they used their llamas from time to time
as pack animals.
Llamas are seen to be very robust and persistent, with undemanding and limited needs for pasture, water, health care, and attention.
These findings are in accordance with data from Rodríguez and Quispe (2007); Sumar and Camino (1992); Flores, Gutiérrez (1995).
Interviewees thought that llamas could handle the effects of changing environmental conditions. Therefore, almost 70% of farmers want
to increase the number of llamas. In addition, llama keeping is seen as less work-intense and a resource-saving activity with expected
economic benefits in the long term.
The use of manure, especially from llama, was mentioned as being a critical livestock product. Manure is next to peat, the primary energy
source for cooking. It is also used to ensure and improve soil fertility (Gade, 1999).
Llamas of both provinces are sold as breeding animals to other parts of Peru, as these animals are known for their excellent physical
characteristics (Wurzinger et al., 2013, Rodriguez et al., 2021). Interestingly, financial functions as wealth accumulation and financial
security were never mentioned as livestock functions by the farmers. Other authors (Flores and Bryant, 1989, Markemann et al., 2009)
stated these reasons as the main ones for llama rearing.
4.3.2. Alpacas
Alpacas are relatively new livestock in this zone. Traditionally, mainly sheep were kept for wool and meat production on a large scale.
Governmental programs promoted the husbandry of alpacas in 1990 because of high prices for fiber and prospects of good income, but
fiber prices are volatile and depend on international demand. Another problem, repeatedly mentioned by farmers, is that a few fiber
processing factories and intermediaries have power over pricing decisions.
Apart from fiber production, the other primary purpose of alpaca husbandry was auto-consumption and the sale of their meat. Compared
to llama products, alpaca meat and fiber have a better image in society and were promoted to tourists as a Peruvian specialty (MINAGRI,
2017).
In the interviews farmers mentioned that alpaca hides were more valuable than those of llamas, selling for double the price.
Many of the interviewees stated that they got their highest earnings through alpaca production. This might be reflected in the high herd
size numbers of alpacas, and also two farmers were specialized in alpacas. At the same time, the farmers mentioned that the veterinary
costs of alpaca rearing are relatively high.
Alpacas on the sample farms were increasing in the last five years due to good economic benefits. Nevertheless, a little bit less than half of
the farmers thinks about declining the numbers again in the future, as expectations were not always met.
Alpacas were not seen as robust as llamas as they need more water than llamas but less than sheep. They are also seen as very feed-
efficient.
4.3.3. Sheep
In the study regions, the sheep population consists mainly of the local “Criollo” sheep, which are being kept in the area for several
centuries already (Hunefeldt, 2004, Vivanco, 1986). Farmers rear them for their meat and their wool. Sheep meat is more popular than the
meat of llamas and alpacas and it is sold at every market. Meat prices for sheep are higher than alpacas, but wool prices are much lower.
Farmers reported that wool prices also are volatile with a declining trend over the last years.
Other common uses for sheep products were manure, especially as a fertilizer, and the use and sale of hides. Milk production was not
observed in the case study area.
Valdivia (2000) found that sheep husbandry is an important cash-generating activity in Peru, enabling the household to purchase
products from the market. However, this was never mentioned in the interviews. In Bolivia, Valdivia (2004) observed that sheep were
used as a buffer when food shortages occurred.
Sheep used to be seen as a highly productive and reasonable means of income generation, but this view has changed among the
interviewed farmers who showed a stronger preference towards alpacas. The environmental disadvantages of sheep are that they are
more demanding with forage and water, need more management, and are more susceptible to diseases. They are also known to cause soil
erosion, which was confirmed by the farmer's perceptions. More and more farmers question their economic benefits because of the
decreasing market demand for the relatively coarse wool of dual-purpose sheep.
4.4. Cattle
Farmers kept their cattle for meat and milk production. Cattle manure as fuel for cooking was not seen to be as valuable as the one from
the other main livestock species.
The numbers of cattle were lower than for other species and remained stable in the last years. Keeping cattle was seen as being costlier
and management-intense, as they usually graze on cultivated pasture. Many farmers, especially in the higher zone 1, complained about
declining pasture quality and lack of water. Still, results show that cattle seemed to be good assets for earning income through milk
production. Milk sales gave farmers a relatively stable daily income (Valdivia, 2001). Therefore, some farmers in zone 2, where pasture
and water were more suitable for cattle husbandry, thought about increasing cattle numbers.
4.5. Climate change

Bearing in mind that farmers usually base their decisions on local knowledge systems that have been developed through years of
observation and experience (Gilles and Valdivia, 2009, Valdivia et al., 2010), it is interesting that all interviewed farmers knew the term
"climate change" and answered that they noticed effects on their production systems. Changes in temperature, annual and seasonal
rainfall patterns, and an increased frequency of extreme events were often mentioned. The most common effect observed was a colder
environment. Temperatures were lower than they used to be and more frequently below 0 °C, leading to more snow and frost (Flores,
2016). In an already quite cold environment, this climatic change is not helpful for animal production. Many farmers said that the
temperatures were rising and falling simultaneously, meaning that the seasons shifted noticeably. A common observation was that during
the rainy season, there was less rain, and during the dry season, there was more rain than expected, making seasonal livestock activities
difficult to schedule. As a consequence, farmers complained about the lack of water reliability. Kirkland (2012) raised the concern that
with ongoing changes in the climate, the traditional knowledge might not be suitable to adapt to future conditions. In a similar line,
Thornton et al. (2009) stated that adaptation to climate change requires changes or modification of behavior and asked for collaborative
learning processes. In our study a majority of farmers asked for support from government institutions to improve their livelihoods.
To decrease vulnerability, almost 60% of farmers applied strategies to mitigate the adverse effects on their livestock and on their income.
Several authors (Vidaurre de la Riva et al., 2013, Pandey et al., 2016, Ballesteros and Isaza, 2021) mentioned that farmers often lack the
capacity to adapt to climate change due to missing economic resources or knowledge.
Farmers openly demanded governmental support to prepare for and mitigate the negative consequences of climate change on the health
of their livestock. This was also reflected in the wish to improve the genetics and health of the animals to enhance animal productivity.
The limited capacity of resource-poor farmers to adapt to the changing environment suggests the need for governmental and institutional
support to ensure rural resilience and the long-term sustainability this farming system. As in many other Latin American countries, past
government policies favored urban consumers at the expense of rural producers (Vera, 2006). Also, adaptation to climate change has been
subordinated to the economic interests of the state (Lynch, 2012), so room for improvement is given. Within this context, the adaptive
capacity of livestock farming systems in the Andes to adjust to new restrictions becomes crucial. Climatic variability is a reason for
diversification to ensure economic sustainability (Hussein and Nelson, 1998). The need to work off-farm will probably be increased in the
future also by climate change, as a means to decrease vulnerability.
When we compare the results of the two study areas, we find only very slight differences. The income-generating strategies non-farm
activities and livestock production and their contribution to the household income varied in the two regions. It can be noticed that in
region 2 there are more full-time farms and farms that generate a high proportion of their income from livestock farming. In region 2, the
farms have an advantage due to a lower altitude and associated milder climate. This climatic advantage increases the pastures
´ productivity and also allows cattle rearing. Therefore, 62.5% of the farmers in region 2 keep cattle, whereas in region 2 there are only 40%
farmers with cattle. Also, the size of cattle herds is larger in region 2. Although market access was more difficult in study area 2 than in
area 1, we could not see any differences in the strategy orientation of the farms in our survey. None of the respondents in both regions
mentioned access to markets as a particular problem.
For the other topics such as motivation for keeping different species, perception on livestock´s suitability, climate change and possible
consequences, we could not document any differences between the areas.
5. Conclusion
The results confirm that smallholder farmers in the Pasco and Daniel Carrión provinces face multiple stresses and increasing threats to
their livelihoods.
In response to these factors, livestock farmers use different strategies. Income from livestock and from other sources are combined to
varying degrees. However, this possibility depends on a local labor market where labor is sought. Diversification of livestock production
by keeping different species was seen as a strategy to minimize risks. Farmers considered llamas to be more adaptable to future farming
conditions compared to alpacas, sheep and cattle, but acknowledged the current poor marketability of products from llama rearing as a
major problem.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Marlene Radolf: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Gustavo Gutiérrez: Investigation, Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – review & Editing. Maria Wurzinger: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank all livestock keepers who openly shared information with the research team.
Artículos de números especiales Artículos recomendados
References
Anderson, 2003 S. Anderson
Animal genetic resources and sustainable livelihoods
Ecol. Econ., 45 (3) (2003), pp. 331-339, 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00088-0
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar
Atteslander, 2008 Atteslander, P., 2008. Methods of empirical social research [in German]. Berlin, Germany, Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Google Scholar
Ballesteros and Isaza, 2021 J. Ballesteros, C. Isaza
Adaptation measures to climate change as perceived by smallholder farmers in the Andes
J. Ethnobiol., 41 (3) (2021), pp. 428-446
CrossRef View in Scopus Google Scholar
Barrett et al., 2001 C.B. Barrett, T. Reardon, P. Webb

Non-farm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy
implications
Food Policy, 26 (4) (2001), pp. 315-331, 10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00014-8
Braito et al., 2017 M.T. Braito, K. Böck, C. Flint, A. Muhar, S. Muhar, M. Penker
Human–nature relationships and linkages to environmental behaviour
Environ. Values, 26 (3) (2017), pp. 365-389
View in Scopus Google Scholar
Camino, 2002 Camino, A., 2002. An untapped potential for cooperation in science and technology for mountain conservation and
sustainable development: The case of the Andes and the Himalayas. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Mountains,
Kathmandu, Nepal March 2020 (pp. 6–8).
Google Scholar
Carrasco-Torrontegui et al., Carrasco-Torrontegui, A., Gallegos-Riofrío, C.A., Delgado-Espinoza, F., Swanson, M.. Climate Change, Food
Sovereignty, and Ancestral Farming Technologies in the Andes. Curr Dev Nutr 5:nzaa073.
Google Scholar
Darnhofer, 2010 I. Darnhofer

Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience
Env Pol. Gov., 20 (4) (2010), pp. 212-222, 10.1002/eet.547
Davis et al., 2010 B. Davis, P. Winters, G. Carletto, K. Covarrubias, E.J. Quiñones, A. Zezza, K. Stamoulis, C. Azzarri, Di, S. Giuseppe
A cross-country comparison of rural income-generating activities
World Dev., 38 (1) (2010), pp. 48-63, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.01.003
Deininger and Olinto, 2001 K. Deininger, P. Olinto

Rural non-farm employment and income diversification in Colombia
World Dev., 29 (3) (2001), pp. 455-465, 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00106-6
Ellis-Jones and Mason, 1999 J. Ellis-Jones, T. Mason

Livelihood strategies and assets of small farmers in the evaluation of soil and water management practices in the
temperate inter-Andean valleys of Bolivia
Mt Res Dev. (1999), pp. 221-234
〈http://www.jstor.org/stable/25164028〉
Escarcha et al., 2018 J.F. Escarcha, J.A. Lassa, K.K. Zander

Livestock under climate change: a systematic review of impacts and adaptation
Climate, 6 (3) (2018), p. 54, 10.3390/cli6030054
Escobal, 2001 J. Escobal

The determinants of non-farm income diversification in rural Peru
World Dev., 29 (3) (2001), pp. 497-508, 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00104-2
Flores and Gutiérrez, 1995 Flores, E.R., Gutiérrez, G.A., 1995. Ingestive Mastication and Forage Fragmentation in Sheep, Alpacas and Llamas.
5th International Rangeland Congress, Salt Lake City, USA, July 23 – 28, 1995.
Google Scholar
Flores and Bryant, 1989 Flores, Martínez, A., Bryant, F., 1989. Manual de pastos y forrajes. Texas Teach University. Lima, Perú.Flores, E., 2016.
Cambio climático: Pastizales altoandinos y seguridad alimentaria. Revista de glaciares y ecosistemas de montaña, 73–80.
Google Scholar
Gade, 1999 D.W. Gade

Nature and Culture in the Andes
University of Wisconsin Press, USA (1999)
Google Scholar
Gilles and Valdivia, 2009 J.L. Gilles, C. Valdivia

Local forecast communication in the Altiplano
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90 (1) (2009), pp. 85-91
Goode et al., 2020 C.M. Goode, R.B. Boone, A.J. Ash, K. Waha, L.L. Sloat, P.K. Thornton, M. Herrero
Global rangeland production systems and livelihoods at threat under climate change and variability
Environ. Res. Lett., 15 (2020), Article 044021, 10.1088/1748-9326/ab7395
Google Scholar
Gutierrez et al., 2013 Gutierrez, G., Wurzinger, M., Flores, E. 2013. Final technical report of KEF-project 186 “Design and implementation of
community-based breeding strategies for llamas in the Peruvian Andes”. Commission for Development Studies at the OeAD-GmbH,
Vienna, Austria.
Google Scholar
Haggblade et al., 2010 S. Haggblade, P. Hazell, T. Reardon

The rural non-farm economy: prospects for growth and poverty reduction
Hazell et al., 2010 P. Hazell, C. Poulton, S. Wiggins, A. Dorward

The future of small farms: trajectories and policy priorities
Herrero et al., 2015 M. Herrero, S. Wirsenius, B. Henderson, C. Rigolot, P.K. Thornton, P. Havlík, I. De Boer, P.J. Gerber
Livestock and the environment: what have we learned in the past decade?
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 40 (2015), pp. 177-202, 10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-093503
Herrero et al., 2016 M. Herrero, J. Addison, C. Bedelian, E. Carabine, P. Havlik, B. Henderson, J. Van De Steeg, P.K. Thornton
Climate change and pastoralism: impacts, consequences and adaptation
2016
Rev. Sci. Tech. . Int. Epiz., 35 (2) (2016), pp. 417-433, 10.20506/rst/35.2.2533
HLPE, 2013 HLPE. 2013. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
Google Scholar
Huggel et al., 2015 C. Huggel, M. Scheel, F. Albrecht, N. Andres, P. Calanca, C. Jurt, N. Khabarov, D. Mira-Salama, M. Rohrer, N. Salzmann, Y. Silva, E.
Silvestre, L. Vicuna, M. Zappa
A framework for the science contribution in climate adaptation: experiences from science-policy processes in the
Andes
Environ. Sci. Policy, 47 (2015), pp. 80-94, 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.11.007
Hunefeldt, 2004 Hunefeldt, C., 2004. A brief history of Peru. Infobase Publishing.
Google Scholar
Hussein and Nelson, 1998 Hussein, K., Nelson, J., 1998. Sustainable livelihoods and livelihood diversification. Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Google Scholar
INEI, 2012 INEI [Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática] 2012. IV National Agricultural Census 2012 [in Spanish]. Lima, Peru.
Google Scholar
IPCC, 2014 IPCC, [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] 2014. Summary for Policymakers. Working Group II.
Google Scholar
IPCC, 2021 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC

Summary for Policymakers
V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy,
J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press (2021)
Google Scholar
Kirkland, 2012 Kirkland, E., 2012. Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change Adaptation in the Peruvian Andes, INTL1450: Political
Economy of the Environment in Latin America.
Google Scholar
Kristjanson et al., 2007 P. Kristjanson, A. Krishna, M. Radeny, J. Kuan, G. Quilca, A. Sanchez-Urrelo, C. Leon-Velarde
Poverty dynamics and the role of livestock in the Peruvian Andes
Agric. Syst., 94 (2) (2007), pp. 294-308, 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.09.009
Lynch, 2012 B.D. Lynch

Vulnerabilities, competition and rights in a context of climate change toward equitable water governance in Peru’s
Rio Santa Valley
Glob. Environ. Change, 22 (2) (2012), pp. 364-373, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.02.002
Markemann et al., 2009 A. Markemann, A. Stemmer, M. Siegmund-Schultze, H.P. Piepho, A. Valle Zárate
Stated preferences of llama keeping functions in Bolivia
Livest. Sci., 124 (1) (2009), pp. 119-125, 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.01.011
Megersa et al., 2014 B. Megersa, A. Markemann, A. Angassa, J.O. Ogutu, H.P. Piepho, A. Valle Zárate
Livestock diversification: an adaptive strategy to climate and rangeland ecosystem changes in Southern Ethiopia
Hum. Ecol., 42 (2014), pp. 509-520, 10.1007/s10745-014-9668-2
MINAGRI, 2017 MINAGRI (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego). 2017. Diagnóstico de Crianzas Priorizadaspara el Plan Ganadero 2017–2012,
Lima. Peru.
Google Scholar
Ministerio de la Producción, 2015 Ministerio de la Producción, 2015. Estudio de diagnóstico de crecimiento Región Pasco. 218 p. Accessed: 15
abril 2021. 〈http://demi.produce.gob.pe/Content/files/EstRegionales/Reporte%20Pasco%20PXP%20221116%20ALTA.pdf〉 .
Google Scholar
Muhar et al., 2017 A. Muhar, C.M. Raymond, R.J.G. van den Born, N. Bauer, K. Böck, M. Braito, A. Buijs, C. Flint, W. de Groot, C.D. Ives, T. Mitrofanenko, T.
Plieninger, C. Tucker, C.J. van Riper
A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural
systems
J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 61 (5–6) (2017), pp. 756-777, 10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424
Google Scholar
Nassef et al., 2009 M. Nassef, S. Anderson, C. Hesse

Pastoralism and climate change: enabling adaptive capacity
Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, London (2009)
(Available at)
〈www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4317.pdf〉
Google Scholar
Newsham and Thomas, 2011 A.J. Newsham, D.S. Thomas

Knowing, farming and climate change adaptation in North-Central Namibia
Glob. Environ. Change, 21 (2) (2011), pp. 761-770, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.003
Paerregaard, 2018 K. Paerregaard
The climate-development nexus: using climate voices to prepare adaptation initiatives in the Peruvian Andes
Clim. Dev., 10 (4) (2018), pp. 360-368, 10.1080/17565529.2017.1291400
Pandey et al., 2016 R. Pandey, N. Maithani, R. Aretano, G. Zurlini, K.M. Archie, A.K. Gupta, V.P. Pandey
Empirical assessment of adaptation to climate change impacts of mountain households: development and
application of an adaption capability index
J. Mt. Sci., 13 (8) (2016), pp. 1503-1514, 10.1007/s11629-015-3499-5
Reardon et al., 2000 T. Reardon, J.E. Taylor, K. Stamoulis, P. Lanjouw, A. Balisacan

Effects of non-farm employment on rural income inequality in developing countries: an investment perspective
J. Agric. Econ., 51 (2) (2000), pp. 266-288, 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01228.x
Reardon et al., 2001 T. Reardon, J. Berdegué, G. Escobar

Rural non-farm employment and incomes in Latin America: overview and policy implications
World Dev., 29 (3) (2001), pp. 395-409, 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00112-1
Rodríguez et al., 2021 A.R. Rodríguez, G.A. Gutiérrez, M. Wurzinger

Caracterización de la crianza de llamas en Pasco
Perú. Rev. De. Investig. Vet. Del. Peru., 32 (3) (2021), Article e18030, 10.15381/rivep.v32i3.18030
Google Scholar
Rodríguez and Quispe, 2007 C.T. Rodríguez, J.L. Quispe

Domesticated camelids, the main animal genetic resource of pastoral systems in the region of Turco
FAO Inter-Departmental Working Group on Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture,, Bolivia (2007)
Google Scholar
Rooney et al., 2013 A.L. Rooney, G. Limon, H. Vides, A. Cortez, J. Guitian

Sarcocystis spp. in Llamas (Lama glama) in Southern Bolivia: a cross sectional study of the prevalence, risk factors
and loss in income caused by carcass downgrades
Prev. Vet. Med., 116 (3) (2013), pp. 296-304, 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.014
Google Scholar
Salzmann et al., 2009 N. Salzmann, C. Huggel, P. Calanca, A. Díaz, T. Jonas, C. Jurt, T. Konzelmann, P. Lagos, M. Rohrer, W. Silverio, M. Zappa
Integrated assessment and adaptation to climate change impacts inthe Peruvian Andes
Adv. Geosci., 22 (2009), pp. 35-39, 10.5194/adgeo-22-35-2009
Scoones, 1998 Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working paper 72. Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton, UK.
Google Scholar
Seo et al., 2010 S.N. Seo, B.A. McCarl, R. Mendelsohn

From beef cattle to sheep under global warming? An analysis of adaptation by livestock species in South America
Ecol. Econ., 69 (2010), pp. 2486-2494, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.025
Sumar and Camino, 1992 J. Sumar, A. Camino

The Andean camelids, llama and alpaca- the Potentials and Prerequisites for introducing these animals into other
mountain environments. Mountain Farming Systems
Discussion Paper No. 33, ICIMOD, Nepal (1992)
Google Scholar
Thornton et al., 2009 P.K. Thornton, J. van de Steeg, A. Notenbaert, M. Herrero
The impacts of climate change on, livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: a review of what we
know and what we need to, know
Agric. Syst., 101 (3) (2009), pp. 113-127, 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002
Tichit and Genin, 1997 M. Tichit, D. Genin
Factors affecting herd structure in a mixed camelid-sheep pastoral system in the arid Puna of Bolivia
J. Arid Environ., 36 (1997), pp. 167-180
Trejo, 2004 Trejo, W. 2004. South American Camelids: Bases for a Macro-regional Science, Technology and Innovation Program [in
Spanish]. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología y Consejo nacional de Camélidos Sudamericanos.
Google Scholar
Valdivia, 2001 C. Valdivia

Gender, livestock assets, resource management, and food security: lessons from the SR-CRSP
Agric. Hum. Values, 18 (1) (2001), pp. 27-39, 10.1023/A:1007613031102
Valdivia, 2004 C. Valdivia

Andean livelihood strategies and the livestock portfolio
Cult. Agric., 26 (1–2) (2004), pp. 69-79
CrossRef Google Scholar
Valdivia et al., 1996 C. Valdivia, E.G. Dunn, C. Jetté

Diversification is a risk management strategy in an Andean agropastoral community
Am. J. Agric. Econ., 78 (5) (1996), pp. 1329-1334
Valdivia et al., 2010 C. Valdivia, A. Seth, J.L. Gilles, M. García, E. Jiménez, J. Cusicanqui, F. Navia, E. Yucra
Adapting to climate change in andean ecosystems: landscapes, capitals, and perceptions shaping rural livelihood
strategies and linking knowledge systems
Ana. Asociación. Soy. Geogr. , 100 ( 4 ) ( 2010 ) , págs. 818 - 834 ,10.1080/00045608.2010.500198
Ver en Scopus Google Académico
Van't Hooft, 2002 K. Van't Hooft

Optimización de estrategias ganaderas en sistemas agrícolas mixtos bolivianos
Leisa Mag. , 18 ( 1 ) ( 2002 ) , págs. 10 - 11
〈http://www.metafro.be/leisa/2002/181-10-11.pdf/〉
Google Académico
Vera, 2006 RR Vera

Perfiles de recursos de pastos/forrajes por país: Perú
FAO , Roma, Italia ( 2006 )
Google Académico
Vidaurre de la Riva et al., 2013 M. Vidaurre de la Riva , A. Lindner , J. Pretzsch

Evaluación de la adaptación: cambio climático y medios de vida indígenas en los Andes de Bolivia
J. Agr. Desarrollo rural. tropo. Subtropo. , 114 – 2 ( 2013 ) , págs. 109 - 122
Google Académico
Vivanco, 1986 HW Vivanco

Avances recientes en técnicas reproductivas de ovejas y cabras.
Rumino pequeño. Pinchar. Desarrollo. Intenta. ( 1986 ) , pág. 25
Google Académico
Weindl y otros, 2015 I. Weindl , H. Lotze-CAmpen , A. Popp , C. Müller , P. Havlik , M. Herrero , C. Schmitz , S. Rolinski
Ganadería en un clima cambiante: transiciones de sistemas de producción como estrategia de adaptación para la
agricultura
Reinar. Res. Letón. , 10 ( 2015 ) , Artículo 094021 ,10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094021
Ver en Scopus Google Académico
Wolfinger, 2012 Wolfinger, B., 2012. Caracterización del sistema de producción de llamas y descripción de estrategias de reproducción de
pequeños agricultores de los Andes centrales peruanos. [Tésis de maestría]. Viena, Austria: Universidad de Recursos Naturales y
Ciencias de la Vida, Viena.
Google Académico
Wurzinger y otros, 2013 Wurzinger, M., Rodríguez, A., Gutiérrez, G., 2013. Diseño de un programa comunitario de cría de llamas en Perú: un
proceso de múltiples partes interesadas. Sexto Simposio sobre camélidos sudamericanos y Segunda reunión europea sobre
animales fibrosos, (Ed. por D. Allain), en: 64.ª reunión anual de la EAAP, 25-30 de agosto, Nantes, Francia.
Google Académico
Citado por (1)
Medios de vida y percepciones del cambio climático entre los productores lecheros de los Andes: implicaciones para la
educación climática
2023, Sostenibilidad (Suiza)
Ver resumen
© 2022 Elsevier BV Todos los derechos reservados.
Todo el contenido de este sitio: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier BV, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Todos los derechos están reservados, incluidos los de extracción de textos y datos, capacitación en inteligencia artificial y tecnologías
similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia Creative Commons.

Estrategias de Vida y Producción de Ganaderos

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Estrategias de Vida y Producción de Ganaderos

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Estrategias de Vida y Producción de Ganaderos

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

14/4/24, 09:51 Estrategias de vida y producción de ganaderos y sus percepciones sobre el cambio climático en los Andes centrales peruanos -…

Investigación sobre pequeños rumiantes

Estrategias de vida y producción de ganaderos y sus percepciones

Describir Compartir Citar

• Los agricultores identificaron el cambio climático como una importante

• El empleo no agrícola contribuye sustancialmente a los ingresos de los

2. Material and methods

2.1. Study area

2.2. Data collection and analysis

3.1. Characteristics of interviewees

Table 1. General characteristics of respondents.

Region 1 (n = 22) Region 2 (n = 24)

Number of male respondents 12 21

Number of female respondents 10 3

Age (years, mean ± sd) 49.9 ± 14.4 43.5 ± 12.5

Level of education (%)

3.2. Income-generating strategies

Table 2. Share of livestock production to total household income (%).

Share of livestock production (%)

100 99–51 50 < 50

Region 1 (n = 22) 36.4 22.7 22.7 18.2

Region 2 (n = 24) 50.0 25.0 16.7 8.3

3.3. Motives for keeping livestock and production strategies

Table 3. Motives for keeping livestock, in percentage.

Species Meat Fiber/wool Milk Manure Pack animal Hide Tradition

Llama (n = 42) 100.0 69.0 0.0 64.3 69.0 76.2 14.3

Alpaca (n = 44) 100.0 100.0 0.0 56.8 0.0 63.6 13.6

Sheep (n = 40) 100.0 100.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 72.5 15.0

Cattle (n = 24) 100.0 0.0 100.0 20.8 0.0 45.8 25.0

2 18 ± 10.6 91 ± 83.4 3 ± 1.4 112 ± 71.4 1 32 40 12 84

2 350 ± 70.7 36 ± 12.7 386 ± 83.4

3.4. Farmers' perceptions towards llamas, alpacas, sheep, and cattle

3.5. Expected future development of livestock

3.6. Perceived impact of climate change and adaptation mechanisms

3.7. Future perspectives and farm development

4.1. Income-generating strategies

4.2. Livestock production

4.3. Perceptions about the suitability of different livestock species

4.5. Climate change

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Artículos de números especiales Artículos recomendados

Barrett et al., 2001 C.B. Barrett, T. Reardon, P. Webb

Darnhofer, 2010 I. Darnhofer

Deininger and Olinto, 2001 K. Deininger, P. Olinto

Ellis-Jones and Mason, 1999 J. Ellis-Jones, T. Mason

Escarcha et al., 2018 J.F. Escarcha, J.A. Lassa, K.K. Zander

Escobal, 2001 J. Escobal

Gade, 1999 D.W. Gade

Gilles and Valdivia, 2009 J.L. Gilles, C. Valdivia

Haggblade et al., 2010 S. Haggblade, P. Hazell, T. Reardon

Hazell et al., 2010 P. Hazell, C. Poulton, S. Wiggins, A. Dorward

IPCC, 2021 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC

Lynch, 2012 B.D. Lynch

Nassef et al., 2009 M. Nassef, S. Anderson, C. Hesse

Newsham and Thomas, 2011 A.J. Newsham, D.S. Thomas

Reardon et al., 2000 T. Reardon, J.E. Taylor, K. Stamoulis, P. Lanjouw, A. Balisacan

Reardon et al., 2001 T. Reardon, J. Berdegué, G. Escobar

Rodríguez et al., 2021 A.R. Rodríguez, G.A. Gutiérrez, M. Wurzinger

Rodríguez and Quispe, 2007 C.T. Rodríguez, J.L. Quispe