Keywords:

Livestock

Typologies

Multivariate analysis

Agroecosystem

Characterization of bovine production system typologies on indigenous reservations

(Etnia-Pijao) at Natagaima-Tolima, Colombia

Caracterización de tipologías del sistema de producción bovina en los resguardos indígenas

(Etnia-Pijao) de Natagaima-Tolima, Colombia

Caracterização de tipologias de sistemas de produção bovina em reservas indígenas (Etnia-Pijao) no

Natagaima-Tolima, Colômbia

Ciro Ortiz-Valdes

José Guillermo Velázquez-Penagos

Gloria Estefanía Pastrana-Aguirre

Jorge Humberto Arguelles-Cárdenas

Hernando Flórez-Díaz

Yohaira Andrea Pérez-Guerrero

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(3): e254233

ISSN 2477-9407

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v42.n3.IV

Socioeconomics

Associate editor: Dra. Fátima Urdaneta

University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Investigador Independiente, Yopal, Colombia.

Investigador Independiente, Villavicencio, Colombia.

Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria

(AGROSAVIA), Centro de Investigación La Libertad,

Villavicencio, Colombia.

Universidad Internacional del Trópico Americano, Yopal,

Colombia.

Received: 13-03-2025

Accepted: 06-06-2025

Published: 07-07-2025

Abstract

In southern Tolima, Colombia, the Indigenous Reservations

(IR) of the Pijao ethnic group depend on cattle ranching, but their

productive dynamics are poorly understood, making it dicult

to design sustainable models. The objective of this study was to

characterize the emerging typologies of the bovine production

system of these IR by considering the sociocultural, techno-

economic, and environmental processes. In 2023, a semi-structured

interview was conducted in fteen production units (PU) of the

twenty-nine existing in the area. Indicators from each dimension

(techno-economic, sociocultural, and environmental) were analyzed

through multivariate analysis, identifying three typologies: G1

(46.6 %), composed by small IRs whith technology low level,

showing a small-scale production; G2 (26.7 %), also grouped small

IRs with small-scale production but moderately technied; and G3

(26.7 %) was integrated by large IRs, moderately technied and

with a medium scale production. G3 stood out for some indicators

of the techno-economic dimension. Although, all groups showed

a low level of technological adoption, which resulted in poor

productive and reproductive performance. The dierences in G3’s

better economic outcomes are due to its larger scale of production.

In the social sphere, female leadership stood out, especially in

groups with the highest proportion of trained people (G2 and G3).

Overall, the PUs showed soils with poor organic matter content,

low fertility level, little forest coverage and a moderate degree of

erosion, indicating some alterations of the agroecosystem.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(3): e254233 July-September. ISSN 2477-9409.

2-6 |

Resumen

En el sur del Tolima, Colombia, los Resguardos Indígenas (RI)

de la etnia Pijao dependen de la ganadería, pero sus dinámicas

productivas son poco conocidas, lo que diculta el diseño de

modelos sostenibles. El objetivo de este estudio fue caracterizar las

tipologías emergentes del sistema de producción bovina de estos

RI considerando los procesos socioculturales, tecnoeconómicos y

ambientales. En 2023, se realizó una entrevista semiestructurada en

quince unidades de producción (UP) de las veintinueve existentes

en la zona. Los indicadores de cada dimensión (tecnoeconómica,

sociocultural y ambiental) fueron analizados mediante análisis

multivariado, identicando tres tipologías: El G1 (46,6 %),

compuesto por RI pequeños, con bajo nivel tecnológico y producción

a pequeña escala; el G2 (26,7 %), agrupó también a RI pequeños

con producción a pequeña escala, pero moderadamente tecnicados;

y el G3 (26,7 %) estaba integrado por RI grandes, moderadamente

tecnicados y con una producción a mediana escala. El G3 se

destacó en algunos indicadores de la dimensión tecnoeconómica.

Sin embargo, todos los grupos mostraron un bajo nivel de adopción

tecnológica, lo que resultó en un pobre desempeño productivo y

reproductivo. Las diferencias en los mejores resultados económicos

del G3 se deben a su mayor escala de producción. En el ámbito social,

se destacó el liderazgo femenino, especialmente en los grupos con

mayor proporción de personas formadas (G2 y G3). En general, las

UPs mostraron suelos con pobre contenido de materia orgánica, bajo

nivel de fertilidad, escasa cobertura forestal y un moderado grado de

erosión, indicando algunas alteraciones del agroecosistema.

Palabras clave: ganadería, tipologías, análisis multivariado,

agroecosistema.

Resumo

No sul de Tolima, Colômbia, as Reservas Indígenas (RI) da

etnia Pijao dependem da criação de gado, mas suas dinâmicas

produtivas são pouco conhecidas, dicultando o desenho de modelos

sustentáveis. O objetivo deste estudo foi caraterizar as tipologias

emergentes do sistema de produção bovina dessas RI, considerando

os processos socioculturais, tecnoeconômicos e ambientais. Em 2023,

foi realizada uma entrevista semi-estruturada em quinze unidades de

produção (UP) das vinte e nove existentes na área. Os indicadores

de cada dimensão (tecnoeconômica, sociocultural e ambiental)

foram analisados por meio de análise multivariada, identicando três

tipologias: O G1 (46,6 %), composto por pequenas RI, com baixos

níveis de tecnologia e produção em pequena escala; o G2 (26,7 %),

também agrupava pequenas EIs com produção em pequena escala,

mas moderadamente tecnicadas; e o G3 (26,7 %) era integrado por

grandes RI, moderadamente tecnicadas e com produção em média

escala. O G3 destacou-se em alguns indicadores da dimensão tecno-

económica. No entanto, todos os grupos apresentaram um baixo

nível de adoção tecnológica, o que resultou num fraco desempenho

produtivo e reprodutivo. As diferenças nos melhores resultados

económicos do G3 devem-se à sua maior escala de produção. Na

esfera social, a liderança feminina destacou-se, sobretudo nos grupos

com maior proporção de pessoas formadas (G2 e G3). No geral, as

UPs apresentaram solos com baixo teor de matéria orgânica, baixo

nível de fertilidade, pouca cobertura orestal e um grau moderado de

erosão, indicando algumas alterações do agroecossistema.

Palavras-chave: pecuária, tipologias, análise multivariada,

agroecossistema.

Introducción

There are about 476 million indigenous peoples worldwide,

representing 6.2 % of the world’s population. Their territories cover

28 % of the planet’s surface and account for 11 % of the world’s

forests (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

[FAO], 2024). The ways of life and subsistence of these ethnic groups

integrate elements that allow food production in harmony with nature.

This is related to local ecological knowledge, forest conservation,

native crops and agricultural practices that are resilient to climate

change (FAO, 2024). These production models are considered to have

the potential to feed the world based on the structuring of sustainable

agrifood systems in the world.

There are 1.9 million indigenous people in Colombia, of whom

62,836 live in the department of Tolima and 6,845 in the Natagaima-

Tolima municipality. (Departamento Administrativo de Estadística

de Colombia [DANE], 2018). Most of this population belongs

to the Pijao ethnic group, native peoples of Tolima, who live and

develop their activities in rural areas, based on the interrelationship

of spirits, gods and mother earth; they are mostly organized as

Indigenous Reservations (IR) and use a large part of their territory

for cattle ranching, becoming one of their main economic activities

(Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia [ONIC], 2024).

However, there is very scarce information that allows a more precise

understanding of the dynamics and interrelationship of the socio-

cultural, technical-economic and environmental processes of these

productive units (UP), which is of utmost importance for planning

the care of these communities.

Some published references on the socioeconomic dynamics of

these livestock systems showed its realtionship to a low technological

adoption, production backwardness, limited development of the

value chain and low competitiveness (Arrieta-González et al., 2022).

These conditions are closely related to the conventional dual-purpose

bovine system (SDPBC) in Colombia, where more than 60 % of

the UPs develop forms of production focused on an animal feeding

model based on grazing, stocking rate of 0.5 AU.ha

-1

, in pastures with

predominantly gramineae cover, mostly overgrazed (Parodi et al.,

2022; González-Quintero et al., 2020). This management, leads to a

soil degradation and water contamination, and also favors indirectly

deforestation processes (Parodi et al., 2022). Finally, these conditions

are expressed in a poor agribusiness technical-economic performance

since they can barely produce 44.5 kg of meat.cow

-1

.year

-1

, 483.3 L

of milk.cow

-1

.year

-1

and the protability is below 14 % (Ortiz-Valdes

et al. 2023). In the same way, it is likely that IRs are immersed

in a production model far removed from their cultural identity,

contributing to the progressive degradation of their agroecosystems

and the deterioration of the quality of life of these ethnic groups.

Characterization and typication processes are important as

mechanisms to identify limitations and opportunities in order to

promote changes in the socio-cultural, technical-economic and

environmental components of UPs (Cuevas-Reyes and Rosales-Nieto,

2018). This favors the approach of viable production alternatives to

improve technical-economic performance, considering a reduction

in environmental impact and a better linkage with local ecological

knowledge (Arrieta-González et al., 2022). The objective of this paper

was to characterize the typologies of productive units considering the

socio-cultural, technical-economic and environmental processes of

the RI cattle production system (Pijao ethnic group) at Natagaima-

Tolima municipality, Colombia.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Ortiz-Valdes et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(3): e254231

3-6 |

Materials y methods

Study area

This study was carried out in the bovine productive units of

the indigenous reservations (Pijao ethnic group), Municipality of

Natagaima-Tolima, Colombia, located at coordinates 3°37’18.0 “N

75°05’36.2 ”W. This region corresponds to the tropical dry forest

life zone, between 0-1000 masl, with an average temperature of 32

°C. It is also characterized by precipitation between 1,000 and 1,500

mm per year, with a bimodal climatic regime, with two dry seasons

(December-March and July-September) and two rainy seasons

between April-June and October-December (Instituto de Hidrología,

Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM, 2024).

Sampling thecnique and sample size

A non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used (Otzen and

Manterola, 2017), given the need to have the voluntary participation

of the communities, the legally constituted indigenous reserves were

selected and they expressed their voluntary willingness to participate

in the research. The study included fteen IRs out of the twenty-nine

existing in the area (Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las

Comunicaciones de Colombia, 2024).

Data collection and related variables.

The eldwork was carried out in the rst half of 2023. Previously,

an informed consent form was signed explaining the objectives and

scope of the study. Data were obtained through semi-structured

interviews with the indigenous leaders (governors) of each community,

using a guide designed by three expert researchers, which addressed

socio-cultural, technical-economic and environmental aspects (Table

1). In addition, data were veried through eld visits and a review of

production records.

Table 1. Description of the dimensions and indicators studied in the cattle production systems of Pijao indigenous communities of

Natagaima-Tolima, Colombia.

Sub dimension Indicators by dimension

Socio-cultural dimension

1) Social and cultural

Number of families (NF), persons (NP) and persons per family (NPF) that make up the community, time of

experience in community cattle production (TE), sex of the indigenous leader (male, female), personnel trained

in cattle management (yes, no).

Técnico-económico dimension

2) Production unit management

Livestock management area (GA), number of paddocks (NP), stocking rate (CA), number of total cows (NVT)

and milking cows (NVO), milk production (PL), technology adoption index (IAT), infrastructure index (IINFRA

and machinery (IMAQ).

3) Productive performance

Milk production per day (PLD), milk production per cow (PLV), calf weight (PD) and age at weaning (ETD),

calf weight gain/day (GPD), milk production per lactation (PLL), and eective milk (PEL) and meat (PEC)

production.

4) Reproductive performance Age at rst calving (EPP), cow days open (DA), calving interval (IEP) and birth rate (TN).

5) Economic performance

Total gross income per year (IB), production cows per year (CPA), net income per year (BN) and per family

(BNF), return on cost.

Ambiental dimension

6) Environmental

Land cover and land use (dense forest, fragmented forest, gallery forest, crops and pastures). Soil characteristics;

depth (deep or shallow), pH (alkaline, acid and neutral), organic matter (high, medium and low) and fertility

(high, medium and low), soil erosion (light, moderate and severe).

The Animal Unit measure was considered as established by

González-Quintero et al (2020). The index of machinery (IMAQ)

and infrastructure (INFRA) was calculated using an adjustment of the

methodology proposed by Cuevas-Reyes and Rosales-Nieto (2018).

The analysis of fteen implements (plow, tractor, cooling tank,

harrow, mill, chopper machine, water pump, scale, straw thermo-

storage, mechanical milking machine, rennet vats, back pump, pickup

truck, trailer and scythe) and fteen facilities (animal handling pen,

milking parlor, administrative area, maternity paddock, feeding

troughs, drinking area, salting area, electric fences, input storage, calf

grazing paddocks, pharmacy, house, calf grazing paddock, manure

management area). The indexes were calculated by dividing the

amount of equipment or facilities found in the UPs by 15 x 100.

The technological adoption index (TAI) was estimated by

adjusting the methodology proposed by Valdovinos et al. (2015),

integrating twenty-one technological components (technical and

economic records, water harvesting, deworming and vaccination,

genetic selection and improvement, integrated management of

ectoparasites, disease diagnosis, good milking practices, animal load

adjustment, pasture rotation, electric fences, forage conservation,

supplementation with balanced diets, silvopastoral systems,

fertilization of grazing areas, irrigation systems, forage banks,

mineral supplementation, articial insemination, gestation diagnosis

and reproductive evaluation of the breeding male. In the calculation

of this index, a value of 0 was considered if the producer does not

apply the technology, 0.5 if it applies it deciently and 1 if it applies

it adequately, the total value of the index being the arithmetic sum of

what was found.

The birth rate was valued considering the number of calves born

per year. The PEC and PEL and the economic performance indicators

were determined by means of the methodology used by Ortiz-

Valdes et al. (2023). The environmental variables were evaluated by

analyzing geospatial information in ArcGIS Desktop version 10.8

(Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri, 2020). For this

purpose, the Shape type le corresponding to the Map of marine and

coastal continental ecosystems of Colombia-2017 (Ministerio de

Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia (Minambiente, 2024)

was used.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(3): e254233 July-September. ISSN 2477-9409.

4-6 |

Statistical analysis

To group the IRs, a principal component analysis (PCA) was

performed, considering only quantitative variables, which represented

more than 75 % of the variables linked to the study. The PCA was

applied by blocks of subdimensions, to reduce the dimensionality of

the information and multicollinearity between variables, maintain

the conceptual coherence of the indicators, and thus improve the

robustness of the analyses in view of the available sample size (n=15).

A hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s algorithm) was then

performed, integrating the components of each subdimension that

explained the greatest variance in the model (cut-o point greater

than 70 %). Basic statistics (means and frequency tables) were used

to characterize the groups. In addition, the eect of the groups found

on the quantitative variables was evaluated by analysis of variance

(ANOVA), considering the typologies as a xed eect, within a

general linear model. The analysis was complemented with Tukey’s

multiple comparison tests (α=0.10). All analyses were performed by

SAS Enterprise Guide 8.3 software (SAS Institute Inc., 2020).

Results and discussion

Principal Component Analysis

The principal component analysis made it possible to select the

following components: in subdimension 1 (social and cultural), the

rst 3 PCs were selected, which explained 99.9 % of the variability;

in subdimension 2 (management of the productive unit), the rst

3 PCs were chosen which explained 74.7 % of the variability; in

subdimension 3 (productive performance), were selected the rst 2

PCs, with 80.0 %; and for dimensions 4 (reproductive performance)

and 5 (economic performance), the rst 2 PCs were selected, with

88.4 % and 98.0 %, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Principal components retained by thematic subdimension,

variance explained and higher factor weights variables.

Sub dimension CP

Explained

variance

(%)

Variable

Factorial

weight

Social and

cultural

1 43.85

Number of persons

0.73

Number of persons per family

0.61

2 31.93

Number of families

0.84

3 24.07

Time of experience

0.97

Production unit

management

1 38.26

Number of paddocks

0.41

Number of milking cows

0.39

Number of animals

0.33

Infrastructure index

0.40

2 23.06

Area dedicated to livestock

0.59

Animal load

-0.44

3 13.35

Technology adoption index

0.68

Machinery index

0.54

Productive

performance

1 51.14

Milk production per day

0.42

Milk production cow day

0.45

Milk production per lactation

0.51

Eective milk production

0.51

2 28.78

Final calf weight

0.66

Eective meat production

0.66

Reproductive

performance

1 56.69 Age at rts birth 0.69

2 31.78 Interval between births -0.44

Economic

performance

1 81,53

Net income per family 0,45

Gross income 0,46

Net income 0,49

2 16,51

Production cost -0,52

Return on cost 0,67

PC: principal components

PCA did not imply a large reduction in the number of variables.

However, it allowed grouping redundant information into latent

components by subdimension block, improving the robustness of the

cluster analysis, compared to the sample size (n=15) available.

Ethnic agroecosystems Typology

Based on the CPs selected in the ve thematic areas, the IRs

were classied into three groups or types of UPs, according to the

following characteristics:

Group 1 (G1): small reservations, with reduced availability of

infrastructure and small production scale (n=7; 46.6 %); group (G2):

small reservations, with moderate availability of infrastructure and

small scale of production (n: 4; 26.7 %) and group 3 (G3): Large

reservations, with moderate availability of infrastructure and medium

scale of production (n=4; 26.7 %).

Characteristics of the production unit groups

The mean comparison test between groups showed statistically

signicant dierences (α=0.10) to the variables: number of families,

number of people, number of animals, number of milking cows,

infrastructure index, milk production per day, calving interval, birth

rate, eective milk production, gross income, production costs, net

income, income per family, and protability (Table 3).

Groups 1 (G1) y 2 (G2)

These two groups of UP have similarities in most of the studied

characteristics. However, G2 has 15.83 more families per community,

8.67 more infrastructure index and 69.61 more days of cows calving

interval than G1 (α=0.10). In these groups, women participate in

community leadership. G1 carries out productive activities in an

empirical way, while G2 has trained personnel.

Cattle raising activity is carried out in areas with a medium sized

surface area, also with medium sized herds with scarce availability

of milking cows (Table 3). These groups reect a small technological

adoption rate (<5.85 rated from 1 to 21). Animal feeding is mainly

based on grazing, with Bothriochloa pertusa forages, using a

rotational system with low stocking rate (<0.87 AU.ha

-1

). Nutritional

supplementation is based on the supply of mineralized salt and

little amounts of corn silage that were used during the dry season

(mainly for milking cows) in some UPs. G1 and G2 showed basic

infrastructure for the management of the production system. However,

the G2 infrastructure index is higher compared to G1 (α=0.10), since

there are approximately 20 and 25 % more UP that have a pharmacy

area and maternity paddocks in G2.

These groups are characterized by an average milk production

less than 51.37 L.day

-1

and an individual production per cow lower

than 3.21 L. day

-1

, reaching a lactation anual volume less than 730.95

L. At the same time, they showed an annual birth rate less than 0.57

calves.cow

-1

and an eective annual production that did not exceed

98 kg.cow

-1

of meat and 414.64 L.cow

-1

of milk. These groups are

statistically similar in most of the economic indicators, except for net

income per family, which is $32.4 USD higher in G1 compared to G2.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Ortiz-Valdes et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(3): e254231

5-6 |

Table 4. Socio-cultural characteristics by typology in the cattle

production system of indigenous reserves.

Variables Categoría

(n=7, %)

(n=4, %)

Indigenous leader

sex

Man 5 (71,4) 1 (25,0) 2 (50,0)

Female 2 (28,6) 3 (75,0) 2 (50,0)

Trained

personnel

Yes 0 (0,0) 3 (75,0) 3 (75,0)

No 7 (100,0) 1 (25,0) 1 (25,0)

Table 3. Socio-economic characteristics by typology of bovine

agrosystems on indigenous reservations.

Indicator G1 (n=7) G2 (n=4) G3 (n=4)

Social and cultural

Number of families

30.42 a 46.25 b 47.25 b

Number of persons

255.43 a 284.75 a 536.50 b

Number of persons per family

9.00 ab 6.06 a 11.5 b

Time of experience (years)

21 .71 a 23.50 a 20.75 a

Productive unit management

Livestock management area (ha)

136.3 a 73.25 a 12 .5 a

Stocking rate (AU.ha

-1

) 0.63 a 0.87 a 0.88 a

Number of total cows 66.85 a 85.25 a 153.75 b

Number of cows in milking 14.57 a 16.50 a 33.50 b

Technology adoption index (0-21) 5.85 a 4.25 a 7.25 a

Infrastructure index (0-100)

52.04 a 60.71 b 62.50 b

Machinery index (0-100) 21.9 a 28.33 a 30.00 a

Productive performance

Milk production per lactation (L) 730.95 a 709.48 a 1,108.03 b

Milk production (L.day

-1

) 39.1 a 51.37 a 133.12 a

Milk production per cow (L.day

-1

) 2.70 a 3.21 a 3.91 a

Weaning weight (kg)

172.8 a 163.75 a 176.5 a

Weight gain (kg.day

-1

)

0.54 a 0.63 a 0.52 a

Eective milk production ***

414.64 ab 362.73 a 607.17 b

Eective meat production ****

98.27 a 84.03 a 95.9 a

Reproductive performance

Age at rst birth (months) 36.80 a 37. 5 a 35.70 a

Birth interval (days)

643.19 a 712.80 b 674.41 ab

Birth rate

0.57 b 0.51 a 0.54 ab

Economic performance

Gross income (USD*) 11,973.55

11,241.90

25,364.46 b

Production costs (USD*) 10,263.70

10,139

.87 a

20,217.72 b

Net income (USD*)

1.709.85 a

1,102.03

5,146.74 b

Net income per family (USD*)

56.20 b 23.80 a 109.04 c

Return on cost (%)

16.0 ab 10.00 a 25.00 b

1 USD equals to $ 4,129.5 COP (exchange rate of October 29, 2023). ** (Calves. cow

-1

by year); *** (L.cow

-1

.year

-1

); **** (kg.cow

-1

.year

-1

). Dierent letters between rows indicate

signicant dierences (p<0.10), according to Tukey test.

The analysis of gross income and production costs of the two groups

showed a prot and a return on cost less than $ 1,709.85 USD and 16

%, respectively.

In these UPs, the predominant land use cover is pasture and crop

areas, with supercial soils in most of the farmlands. There was also a

predominance of soils with poor organic matter content, low fertility,

slightly acidic and acidic pH, with a predominantly moderate level of

erosion (Table 5). These physicochemical characteristics of the soil are

indicative of a degradation process. This condition can be attributed

mainly to the low forest cover, which limits water inltration capacity

and causes the soil to be more exposed to the sun. As a result, the soil’s

internal humidity is decient and its biological activity is altered. In

turn, the scarce forest cover restricts nutrient cycling and favors the

minerals washing from the soil by runo (Parodi et al., 2022).

Table 5. Environmental characteristics by typology on indigenous

reserves cattle production system.

Variables Categoría

(n=7, %)

(n=4, %)

(n=4,

Land Use

Coverage

Pasture and crops 7 (100.0) 4 (100.0) 4 (100.0)

Gallery forest 1 (14.4) 2 (50.0) 0 (0.00)

Dense forest 3 (42.8) 2 (50.0) 0 (0.00)

Fragmented forest 1 (14.4) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Soil depth

Deep 1 (14.3) 1 (25.0) 2 (50.0)

Supercial 6 (85.7) 3 (75.0) 2 (50.0)

Soil pH

Alkaline 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (50.0)

Acid 1 (14.4) 2 (50.0) 0 (0.00)

Neutral 3 (42.8) 0 (0.00) 1 (25.0)

Slightly acidic 3 (42.8) 2 (50.0) 1 (25.0)

Soil organic

matter level

High 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Medium 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Low 7 (100.0) 4 (100) 4 (100.0)

Soil fertility

level

High 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Moderate 3 (42.9) 1 (25.0) 4 (100.0)

Low 4 (57.1) 3 (75.0) 0 (0.00)

Soil erosion

level

Slight 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (25.0)

Moderate 2 (28.5) 1 (25.0) 2 (50.0)

Severe 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Slight to moderate 1 (14.4) 1 (25.0) 1 (25.0)

Moderate to severe 4 (57.1) 2 (50.0) 0 (0.00)

Grupo 3 (G3)

In this group, women also play a very important role in

community leadership processes, since half of the UPs are being

guided by women. These UPs are made up of a large population

size, with 281.07 and 251.75 more people per community than the

G1 and G2 groups (p<0.10), respectively. In addition, the size of

the family nuclei of G3 are larger compared to the previous groups.

These dierences could be due to historical, socio-political, economic

factors or settlement strategies, which have inuenced the dierential

growth of the communities (Ortiz-Gordillo et al., 2023; Velásquez,

2021).

The G3 UPs are slightly larger in area, but without statistically

signicant dierences compared to G1 and G2 (p>0.10). The

zootechnical characteristics of the G3 herd are similar to those of

the G1 and G2 groups. The technological adoption index of the G3

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(3): e254233 July-September. ISSN 2477-9409.

6-6 |

UPs is low (7.5 from 1 to 21), while, the index of infrastructure and

machinery are slightly higher than the previous groups. However, the

forms of production in these models are related to the characteristics

of the SDPBC (González-Quintero et al., 2020), where meat and milk

are produced in grazing systems, with predominantly Bos Taurus x

Bos Indicus animals and technological indexes that do not exceed

10.8 points as reported by Chuquirima et al. (2023).

Among the overall herd characteristics, G3 exceeds the number

of total animals by 86.9 and 68.5 compared to G1 and G2 UPs

respectively (α=0.10). Similarly, G3 UPs have 19 and 17 more

milking cows compared to G1 and G2 groups. In this sense, milk

availability per day was higher by 94.02 and 81.75 L in contrast to G1

and G2. These characteristics demonstrate a superior production scale

of G3 compared to G1 and G2. This condition may be associated

with a better availability of technology, machinery, infrastructure and

a more organized productive development in G3 (Arrieta-González

et al., 2022).

The individual productive performance of G3 analyzed by

milk production per day (3.91 L), calf weight gain (0.52 kg.day

-1

age at rst calving (35.7 months), annual calving rate (0.54 calves.

cow

-1

) and eective annual meat production (95.9 kg.cow

-1

) did not

dier statistically from those found in G1 and G2 UPs (α=0.10). In

contrast, eective annual milk production in G3 (607.17 L.cow

-1

)

was higher by 192.53 and 105.7 L. cow

-1

compared to indicators

found in G1 and G2, which were statistically dierent from G2, but

equal to G1. The economic performance analysis showed superiority

in all G3 indicators compared to G1 and G2, with the exception of

return on cost, which was similar to G1 (p>0.10). Thus, this group

expresses better economic performance and monetary benet per

family compared to the other two groups (Table 3). The superiority in

economic performance of G3 compared to G1 and G3 arises mainly

from technological superiority and larger scale of production. These

factors are associated as important contributors to the advantage in

individual and group milk yield, and consequently in gross income.

100 % of the UPs in G3 have only pasture and cropland areas

for land use. Fifty percent of the UPs develop their agricultural

activities on supercial soils and the rest on deeper soils. The soil pH

varies from farm to farm, ranging from alkaline, neutral and slightly

acidic (Table 5). The organic matter content is poor in all the UPs.

Fertility levels are moderate. The soil has a level of erosion that varies

between light, light to moderate, moderate and moderate to severe,

with variation between UP. These environmental characteristics, as

in G1 and G2, contrast with the worldview of the Pijao people, who

conceive of human beings as guardians of the balance between the

spiritual and the physical, which represent the resources of Mother

Earth (ONIC, 2024). Thus, it can be interpreted that these indigenous

communities have not congured their territory according to their

cultural principles.

Conclusions

The principal component and cluster analyses identied

three types of production units dierentiated by population size,

infrastructure index and scale of production. G3 stood out due to

some of its technical-economic performance indicators. However, all

groups present a small degree of technological adoption, a low index

of machinery and a reduced stocking rates management in similar

áreas size (α≥0.10), obtaining a weak productive and reproductive

performance; thus, the dierences in the best economic results of G3

are mainly related to a larger scale of production (greater number of

milking cows).

In the social sphere, female leadership stood out, particularly in

groups G2 and G3, that were also characterized by a higher proportion

of trained people, which may favor the adoption of practices oriented

towards the care and improvement of the productive process.

The environmental characteristics of the studied Ups, showed

predominant pasture and crop cover, with poor organic matter soil

content, low fertility, scarce forest coverage and a predominant

moderate level of erosion, indicating alterations in the agro-ecosystem.

Literature cited

Arrieta-González, A., Hernández-Beltrán, A., Barrientos-Morales, M.,

Martínez-Herrera, D. I., Cervantes-Acosta, P., Rodríguez-Andrade,

A., & Domínguez-Mancera, B. (2022). Caracterización y tipicación

tecnológica del sistema de bovinos doble propósito de la Huasteca

Veracruzana México. Revista MVZ Córdoba, 27(2), Artículo 2444.

https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.2444

Chuquirima, D., García, M. E, & Hidalgo, Y. (2023). Components of dual-purpose

cattle production system in the Nangaritza and Palanda Cantons, Zamora

Chinchipe province, Ecuador. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del

Perú, 34(4), artículo 23850. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v34i4.23850

Cuevas-Reyes, V., & Rosales-Nieto, C. (2018). Caracterización del sistema

bovino doble propósito en el noroeste de México: productores, recursos

y problemática. Revista MVZ Córdoba, 23 (1), 6448–6460. https://doi.

org/10.21897/rmvz.1240

Departamento Administrativo de Estadística de Colombia (DANE). (2018). Censo

Nacional de Población y vivienda 2018. https://sitios.dane.gov.co/cnpv/

app/views/informacion/chas/73483.pdf

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (2020). ArcGIS Desktop

(Versión 10.8). Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.

González-Quintero, R., Barahona-Rosales, R., Bolívar-Vergara, D. M., Chirinda,

N., Arango, J., Pantévez, H. A., Correa-Londoño, G., & Sánchez-Pinzón,

M. S. (2020). Technical and environmental characterization of dual-

purpose cattle farms and ways of improving production: A case study

in Colombia. Pastoralism: Research Policy and Practice, 10, Article 19.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-020-00170-5

Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM). (2024).

Catálogo Nacional de estaciones IDEAM. https://www.datos.gov.co/

Ambiente-y-Desarrollo-Sostenible/Catalogo-Estaciones-IDEAM/n6vw-

vkfe

Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia. (2024). Sistema

de Información Ambiental Colombiana-SIAC. http://www.siac.gov.co/

catalogo-de-mapas

Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de Colombia.

(2024). Resguardos indígenas a nivel nacional 2020. https://www.datos.

gov.co/dataset/Resguardos-Ind-genas-a-Nivel-Nacional-2020/epzt-

64uw/data_preview

Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia (ONIC). (2024). Pueblo Pijao.

https://www.onic.org.co/pueblos/2014-pijao

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO).

(2024). Los pueblos indígenas y sus sistemas alimentarios pueden ofrecer

respuestas frente a la inseguridad alimentaria y el cambio climático.

https://www.fao.org/newsroom/story/5-ways-Indigenous-Peoples-can-

help-the-world-eliminate-hunger/es.

Ortiz-Gordillo, A. F., Villalva-Yate, D. I., Guzmán, J. J., Guzmán-Yate, A. M.,

VillalvaYate, I., Villalva-Yate, I. Y., Patiño-Flores, P., Cespedes, N., &

Torres, J. E. (2023). “Ahí está la diferencia, en el joke…”: el joke Pijao

como actante en el proceso de recuperación de Ima. Boletim do Museu

Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 18, Artículo e20220062.

https://doi.org/10.1590/2178-2547-BGOELDI-2022-0062

Ortiz-Valdes, C., Barajas-pardo, D. P., Rangel, W. D., & Neira-rivera, E. (2023).

Estudio técnico-económico de tres alternativas de producción del sistema

doble propósito bovino en Meta, Colombia. Agronomía Mesoamericana,

34(3), Artículo 51254. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15517/

am.2023.51254

Otzen, T., & Manterola, C. (2017). Técnicas de Muestreo sobre una Población

a Estudio. International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 227-232. http://

dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022017000100037

Parodi, A., Valencia-Salazar, S., Loboguerrero, A. M., Martínez-Barón,

D., Murgueitio, E., & Vázquez-Rowe, I. (2022). The sustainable

transformation of the Colombian cattle sector: Assessing its circularity.

PLOS Climate, 1(10), Article e0000074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pclm.0000074.

SAS Insitute. (2020). SAS® enterprise guide 8.3. SAS Institute Inc.

Valdovinos Terán, M. E., Espinoza García, J. A., & Velez Izquierdo, A. (2015).

Innovación y eciencia de unidades bovinas de doble propósito en

Veracruz. Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios, 36, 1306-1314. https://

ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/200173?v=pdf

Velásquez Arango, J. J. (2021). Nuevas perspectivas para la historia del pueblo

pijao, siglos XVI y XVII. Fronteras de la Historia, 26(1), 256–279.

https://doi.org/10.22380/20274688.1125