The development of livestock production systems in the Andean region;

Implications for smallholder producers1

Carlos U. León-Velarde 2, Roberto A. Quiroz1

Introduction

The Andean region is a mountainous area within the 2,000 and 4,000 m of altitude above sea
level with variations of form and width throughout the Andes. In Colombia, the width ranges
between the 100 and 300 km and includes three mountainous chains separated by the Cauca
Valley and the Magdalena River. They are united in the Pasto node, initiating a higher and
homogeneous mountainous chain that runs throughout Ecuador up to the Loja node,with a width
varying between 150 and 200 km. The chain continues in Peru to the Pasco node, and then to
the Vilcanota node. Then it reaches the large and wide area of the Altiplano spanning parts of
Peru and Bolivia.

The crop-livestock production systems in the Andes are complex and comprise biological,
economic and social factors. They are located at the lower and intermediate highland Andean
areas, which can be divided in altitude ranges from 2,000 to 4,000 masl, from 4,001-4,500 and
more that 4,500 masl. These areas represent 0.97, 0.22 and 0.20 million of square kilometers,
respectively, representing 71.3, 15.9, and 12.8 % of the total Andean areas without correction for
any potential agricultural areas. An estimation of population density of main Andean countries
(Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia), over the total populated area (below 4,500 masl.) shows
39.3 inhabitants per square kilometer; being the lower altitudes more densely populated. This
density is expected to increase to 56.7 people/km2 by the year 2010.

Most of the farming systems in the high Andes are crop-livestock. Livestock production system
plays an important role in the sustainability of these diversified farming systems, which are less
susceptible to widespread climatic risks than crop alone systems. Within the crop-livestock
system, animals perform important roles: food supply, feed bank, farm work, source of energy in
the system, source of fertilizer, and transport to local markets. Livestock production is
intrinsically associated with environmental quality. Crop productivity on hillsides is directly
associated with soil erosion and affects the supply and quality of the water used downstream.
However, when the soil is covered by grasses in rotational systems the soil erosion decreases
compared to crops alone.

However, due to the lack of appropriate technologies, and increased population growth, the
deterioration of natural resources -mainly soil and water- and the loss of soil fauna and valuable
species of the native grasslands is evident. This degradation threatens the land capacity to sustain
the human population in the medium term and threatens to perpetuate the rural poverty and
migration to urban areas, which can contribute to unemployment and urban poverty increases.

1
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Dr. Victor Mares M.
2
International Potato Center; Division of Natural Resource Management. Lima, Peru
Livestock production systems in the Andean region

Grassland resources

Several particular features of the region influence the Andean production systems. These can be
summarized in terms of ‘the mountain specificities’, which characterize all mountain areas:
fragility, marginality, inaccessibility, diversity of adaptation mechanisms and niche (Jodha, 1990).

In this context, it is important to recognize the existence of different types of grassland and their
present condition when considering the development of livestock systems. Table 1 shows the main
grasslands associations found in the Andean region, together with an indication of their present
stocking rate (sheep/ha/year). The stoking rate is given in sheep units, because some areas, like
‘bofedales’ and ‘tolar’ are not commonly grazed by cattle. Recovering grasses and shrubs in
degraded pastures is a necessary prerequisite for restoring the balance of plants biodiversity
(Paladines 1995).

Table 1. Main Andean grassland associations - current carrying capacity and condition
Stocking rate,
Main grassland associations Condition
sheep units*
Chillliguar rangelands (Festuca 2-6 Partially overgrazed,
dolichophylla) palatable species
disappearing
Bofedales; spring-fed year-round irrigated 3-4 Mostly overgrazed. Seasonal
rangelands in the Puna
use
Pajonal; middle and short bunch grasses of 0.5 -1.5 Mostly overgrazed
the Puna
Tolar, shrubs; (Parastrephia. Bacharis) 0.5 - 1.2 Process of Deforestation

Paramo rangelands O.5 -1.0 Partially overgrazed

*Sheep unit, 35 kg. head/ha/year; Source, Tapia, 1996, Paladines, 1995.

Crop-livestock production systems

Considerable differences in crop-livestock production systems are found both among and within
different agroecological zones where these systems operate. This variability occurs as a result of
differences in water availability, risk of frost, slope, and access to markets. The main features of
these different systems are summarized in Table 2.

Livestock production in the Andes is based on grasslands grazing, supplemented with crop
residues, particularly stovers, or agricultural by-products and, in certain cases, with improved
feed resources. Thus, rangelands constitute the main feed resource for ruminants in crop-
livestock systems. Native species dominate grasslands across the region (Leon-Velarde and
Izquierdo-Cadena, 1993). The species found in both native and introduced pastures vary greatly
according to agro-ecological zones. There is a considerable scope for improved pasture
management and forage conservation techniques, combined with better use of agricultural by-
products, to contribute to livestock development.

Table 2. The major crop-livestock production systems of the Andes

Agro- a.Altitude (m)

Crops-livestock Livestock
ecological b.Rainfall(mm) Feeding system
Composition products
Zone c.Slope (%)
Inter- a.200 - 2700 Potato, maize, faba Milk, cheese, Grazing, protected
Andean b.250 - 700 bean, rye grass, meat, dung forages,
Valleys c.5 - 40 white clover, alfalfa agricultural by-
Cows, sheep, goats products,
commercial feed
supplements
Hillsides a.2700 - 3500 Potato, maize, Milk, cheese, Grazing, crop
b.500 - 800 wheat, barley, other meat, weaned or residues, protected
c.20 - 90 root and tuber crops mature animals, forages
Triple-purpose wool, dung
cattle, sheep and
goats
Suni a.3400 - 4000 Potato, quinoa, faba Milk, cheese, Grazing, crop
b.500 - 600 bean, oat, barley, meat, residues, protected
c.0 - 80 wheat, Wool, fibre, forages
Sheep,camelids, weaned or mature
triple-purpose cattle animals, dung

Jalca a.3400 - 4000 Potato, barley, oat, Milk, cheese, Grazing, crop
b.700 - 1300 Sheep, triple- meat, wool, residues, protected
c.30 - 90 purpose cattle weaned or mature forages
animals, dung

Puna a.3800 - 4500 Bitter potato, Wool, fibre, Grazing, crop

b.600 - 1200 quinoa, Kañihua, weaned or mature residues, protected
c.20 - 60 cereals, animals, milk, forages
Sheep, camelids, cheese, meat,
triple-purpose cattle dung
Source: Quiroz et al, 1997; C.Leon Velarde et al, 2000)

Weather conditions in the inter-Andean valleys are similar to those in temperate areas. Although
they are favorable for milk production, the available feed resources are not used optimally at
present. The availability and quality of feed resources in the other four zones - hillsides, suni,
jalca and puna – are quite different to those in the inter-Andean valleys. Seasonality is more
evident as affecting both the quantity and quality of forage. Crop residues are a buffer during the
dry season, which may last from four to six months (Quiroz et al 1991). In general, animals not
only constitute the main source of income, they are also the ‘savings account’ of most rural
households (PISA, 1993; PROMSA, 2003). This highlights the importance of using crop
residues to reduce mortality rates. Crop residues and by-products are fed mainly to large
ruminants, but, after a good harvest, they are also given to small ones. With the introduction of
new types of pasture such as rye grass, alfalfa and white clover, practices are changing. Cattle
and sheep are now favored, with lower quality feedstuffs being left to camelids, which are more
able to digest them (San Martin and Bryant, 1987).

Although local National Agricultural Research Stations and universities have a history of
research on feed resources, most investigations have been conducted at specific sites (research
stations, peasant communities, and farming systems). The impact of research on feed resources
has been limited and localized. The main constraints are factors such as altitude, climate, soils,
quality and quantity of feed resources, and ethnic background; lack of any methodology for
integrating research results into technological alternatives to solve the different problems
encountered; and inappropriate incorporation of socioeconomic aspects into the technology
development and transfer process. There is still considerable potential for increasing sustainable
crop-livestock productivity and household income if these constrains are taken into account
during the design phase of research and development programs. What is needed is an integrated
research and development approach oriented to meet producers and market demands.

Nearly all of the existing technologies have been generated with the single objective of
increasing crop-livestock productivity. They should now be tested to see whether they could be
used both to increase production efficiency and to enhance the natural resource base. This
requires careful analysis of the farming systems and the natural resources. Moreover, it needs a
clear in-depth understanding of the crop-livestock systems in mountain areas and the interaction
of farmers with the environment. This interaction must be looked at not only at the farm level –
the scale often used to generate and validate technology for crop-livestock production – but on
larger scales, so that the impact on the environment can be adequately assessed. Production
systems and ecosystems need to be documented with an emphasis on both determining
vulnerable areas and on the potential contribution of crop-livestock production systems to
solving the problem of feeding an increasing human population without causing deterioration of
the natural resources.

Agro-pastoral production systems

The agro-pastoral production systems in the Andean region have developed as a result of
environmental factors, type of forage, size of holdings, and land tenure, as well as existing
policies. Livestock, especially ruminants, play an important role in most highland areas (Li Pun
and Paladines 1993). The principal feed resource is natural grass, especially at high altitude
where severe restrictions to growing agricultural crops exist. The most important livestock
species are camelids, cattle and sheep. They play several roles: as assets; animal traction; source
of meat, fiber and wool; and a source of cash income. Livestock production and the management
of grasses are important factors in the economy of Andean farmers, but they have received little
interest or support for research and the use of new technologies (Li Pun and Sere 1993).
Livestock productivity

The main types of animals kept in the Andean region, and their average productivity are
summarized in Table 3

In general, the production of milk, meat, and wool are declining as a result of poor management,
low use of inputs and the lack of adequate breeding and selection. Low nutrition, parasite
infestation and infectious diseases, and the lack of adequate breeding and selection also affect the
productivity. However, research results indicate that there are considerable possibilities for
improving the levels of animal production in the Andean region.

Table 3 The main animal production systems in the Andean region: species, feeding practices and
productivity
Species Type Feeding practice Livestock Production
Cattle1 I Forage/concentrate Holstein-Brown Swiss 1,880 – 3,600 kg
Milk SI Forage/residues Crossbreed 800 – 2,100 kg
(210 – 310 days, milking
2X per day)
EX Grazing (dual Creole 600 – 1,200kg
purpose)
Meat
Calf-cow EX Grazing/residues Creole 220 – 320 kg per head
Fattening SI Concentrate/forage Creole, crossbreed 280 – 370 kg per head

Sheep EX Grazing-forages Corridale – others 3.8 - 5.2 kg wool

10.2 – 21.8 kg meat/head

EX Grazing – residues Creole, crossbreed 1.8 –3.6 kg wool

13 – 15 kg meat/head
Alpacas2 EX Grazing – residues Huacaya - Suri 1.1 – 3.6 kg fleece
26.4 – 31.4 kg meat/head
Swine I Concentrate- Duroc/Landrace/Yorkshire 65-92 kg per heaf
residues
EX Grazing –residues Creole, crossbreed 45-70 kg per head

Goats EX Grazing – residues Anglo-Nubian/ crossbreed 11 – 15 kg per head

Poultry3 I Concentrate Hybrid 150-190 eggs
0.8-1.2 kg meat per head
EX Household Creole, crossbreed 20-130 eggs
0.8-1.4 kg meat/head
Source: Leon Velarde et al, 2000
I = Intensive; SI = Semi-intensive; EX = Extensive;
1
milk is total per lactation; 2wool/fleece is per head per year; 3eggs are total per year

The main production and productivity parameters for each of the four countries in the Andean
region are shown in Table 4. Cattle play an important role. Colombia has the largest population
of cattle and the greatest total production of meat and milk. Peru has more sheep than the other
countries, although not as many as Argentina and Uruguay thus cannot compete with them on
wool production. Peru and Bolivia have similar-sized populations and similar production levels
of goats. Pigs and poultry are considered to be “short-cycle” food production, but these animals
compete for feed grains with people and more research is needed on alternative feed resources
for them.

Alpacas have a unique comparative advantage in the production of fiber. Although only three per
cent of the total volume of fiber is marketed at an international level, the demand is high and the
fleece commands a competitive price. Moreover, alpaca and llama meat constitute the main
source of protein for the inhabitants of the Altiplano. Improvement in the traditional processing
practices for alpaca meat, and selection and breeding of alpacas for good quality fiber, are key
challenges for future research (Leon-Velarde and Guerrero, 1999).

Table 4 Description and trends of production and productivity parameters of the main animal species
related to crop-livestock production systems in the Andean region.
Species Ecuador Peru Bolivia Colombia
1990 2003 1990 2003 1990 2003 1990 2003
Cattle (m) 4.4 5.8 4.1 5.0 5.5 6.6 24.4 25.3
Meat total (1000t) 100 197 117 145 130 165 746 680
(kg/head) 129 170 136 145 169 172 192 197
Milk total (1000 t) 1,538 2,431 776 1,200 113 240 4,037 6,050
(kg/head) 2,167 1,918 1,311 1,935 1,396 1,600 961 1043
Sheep (m) 1.4 2.4 12.3 14.1 7.7 8.9 2.5 2.1
Meat total (1000 t) 3.2 6.8 23.8 32 14.0 16.0 9 10
(kg/.head) 14.0 14 9.4 12.5 7.7 8.3 15 14
Wool (1000 t) 1.3 1.9 9.9 11.9 7.6 8.9 1.6 1.7
Alpacas (m) ---- 3.1 3.5 0.2 0.4 ----
Llamas (m) ---- 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.8 ----
Goat (m) 0.3 0.28 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.5 0.95 1.2
Meat total (1000t) 1.5 1.4 8.7 6.3 4.3 5.8 4.2 6.5
(kg/head) 15 15 11.7 12.5 11.0 11.0 16.0 15.7
Milk (1000 t) 2.5 2.5 19.0 20.2 11.0 11.5 10 12
Pigs (m) 2.2 3.1 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.6 2.3
Meat total (1000t) 70 122 66.5 84.9 65 70 133 110
kg/head) 45 48 48.6 51.5 50 50 68 82
Poultry (m) 51 142 62 95 23 75 53 118
Source: Data from FAO 2003; m = millions; t = tonnes

The production and productivity of the main animal species in the four countries of the Andean
region (Table 4) showed positive indicators, but the growth rate is slow and not sufficient for
future demands to be met. The population growth rate is high, and people are demanding more
food at lower prices. For example, it is estimated that the demand for meat in Lima (Peru) will be
74,840 tonnes. At current rates, only 15,450 tonnes will be available with a deficit of 59,390
tonnes. Other animal products show a similar trend. Thus it seems likely that the regional market,
indicating good opportunities for crop-livestock systems in the region, can absorb any increase in
production of animal products.

Figure 1 shows the average levels of livestock production in the Altiplano separately for lead
farmers and for communities as a whole. Most Altiplano farmers are producing at levels below
their potential. With existing technologies, lead farmers have shown that it is possible to increase
milk, wool, and fiber production, increase animal birth rates and average weight, and reduce
mortality rates, which are seen as indicators of inadequate management. In order to increase
production overall, it will first be necessary to analyze the sociocultural factors involved, as well
as the impact of existing policies, access to credit, and land tenure, and consider ways to improve
these.

80

6
60
Fiber Wool Milk
Percent

kilogram
40 4

20 2

0 0
Alpaca

Cattle
Alpaca

Alpaca

Sheep
Cattle

Cattle
Sheep

Sheep

Sheep

Cattle

Community
Birth Rate Mortality Weight (kg)
Lead farmer
Figure.1 Current potential of livestock production in the Altiplano.

At the level of the household economy, livestock are a source of protein, energy, shelter,
fertilizer, draught power, and savings. In general, the gross margin at the level of the small
producers is very low, however, the animal production contributes around 73% of income and
crops 27%. Nevertheless, 20% of the animal production and 80% of crop production are used for
family consumption (PISA, 1993).

Most dairy intensive and extensive herds producing milk and derivatives in the inter-Andean
valleys of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, are linked to international corporations, whereas most of
the Andean producers are grouped into communities.

Small farmers have access to both private and communal land. Some of them raise “vicuñas”
(Lama vicunae), whose fiber has a high demand. Productions are around 250-400 g per animal
year. Usually, the communities have rules for the management of crops and animals; there is an
established crop rotation and agreed upon grazing management systems. The crop cycle is
“potato quinoa barley (for forage) fallow for three to four years”. Animals graze the native grass
on fallow plots; facilitating nutrient recycling thus contributing to improving the soil fertility,
which is more evident by using improved pastures like alfalfa.
Communities in the Andean Altiplano include a large number of families. Studies show that
communities have an average gross margin of some US$ 67,000 per year, which represents an
annual gross margin of US$1,015 per year per family. Adequate land-tenure policies that
facilitate growth of production need to be developed and introduced. The source of income and
expenses for a typical small farmer family in Puno, Peru, are shown in Table 5. Recent studies
(PRODASA/CIP, 1996) indicate that livestock systems have an average income of US$ 1,130
per year with assets of US$ 8,150, and US$ 876 per year with an asset of US$ 4,000. For
cropping systems, the average income is about US$ 678 per year with an asset of US$ 3,800.
Farming families in the Andes participate in a range of activities, including growing crops and
raising livestock, handicrafts, and work outside the farm, which help them diversify their sources
of income and manage the risk. Livestock help reduce the climatic and economic risks from
frosts and drought.

Table 5 Sources of income and expenses for a small farmer of a crop-livestock

production system in the community of Santa Maria, Ilave, Puno, Peru. (1992)1
Subsystem US$ per per cent
year

Income
Livestock production 458 45.8
Processing (handicrafts, animal products, jerk meat) 107 10.7
Crops (Potato, quinoa, oca, barley, others) 214 21.4
Migration and trading 60 6.0
External support (food aid, others) 162 16.1
Total gross income 1001
Expenses
Own consumption of products 393 44.4
Food and supplies 110 12.4
External support (food aid and others) 162 18.3
Other cash expenses 220 24.9
Total gross expenses 885
Gross margin 116
1
Adapted from PISA 1993; PRODASA 1993

Integrating knowledge to improve livestock production in the Andean region

Evaluating a livestock production system implies time and economic resources. However, the
knowledge on types of production, management, production and productivity can be integrated to
solve many problems encountered in the region. Thus, during the last years the existing knowledge
on livestock production systems has been integrated in simulation models. Dairy, beef, and others
ruminant (Leon Velarde et al, 2003, 1999) as well as swine (Cañas, R. 2003) models have been
designed and validated. They constitute powerful tools to analyze and estimate production
considering different management thus reducing time and economic resources in the search for
solutions. Figure 2 shows the simulation of the use of mixtures of pastures in the north of Ecuador
(Carchi) with different carrying capacity and forage availability with a minimum use of
concentrate (0.930 kg/day during the first 90 days of lactation. With this type of tools, the
combination of management options that could maximize profit could be effectively screened at
low cost in time and resources (Leon Velarde, Barrera 2003).
3000

2500
Milk production, kg

2000

1500

1000

500

0
2564 li ty
0.93
a bi
1.6 l
2000 ai a
Carry 3.2 v h
i ng ca 4.8 1436 e a M/
pacit g
y, hea 5.5 ra g D
d /ha Fo k

Figure 2. Response Surface of milk production obtained by simulation. Carchi, Ecuador.

Concluding remarks

It is difficult to solve the issues raised throughout this document, because the biophysical and
socioeconomic conditions are changing rapidly. However, technical interventions and
accumulated knowledge on crop-livestock systems can be used in specific sites. Appropriate
systems analysis methods and procedures have been tested in a wide range of conditions and can
be used as decision support tools to improve production and productivity without degrading
natural resources.

It is necessary to consider that the process of degradation of the natural resource base is dynamic
and is affecting a large part of the Andean region. The population in large urban cities is
increasing, and demanding more services and food. Although livestock is growing both in
number and in productivity, the actual rates are not enough to cover the increments in the
demand of meat and milk. Consequently, importation of products is expected, unless required
adjustment in land tenure, size of operations, use of appropriate technology etc. takes place. In
situ transformation of products with clear market demand is highly recommended. In all this
processes, research must play a key role.
References

Cañas, R., León-Velarde, C. U., Quiroz, R., Guerrero, J., Osorio, J. Murillo, E. and Pezo, D.
(2003). Swine-production simulation model to predict body weight gain. In: Proceedings of the
IX World Conference on Animal Production Association, October 26-31, Porto Alegre, Brazil. .
(CD-ROM and Scientific poster)

FAO (1994). La política agrícola en el nuevo estilo de desarrollo Latinoamericano. Oficina

Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 675 pp.

FAO (2003). FAOSTAT, Statistical Data base. FAO, Rome , Italy

Jodha, N.S. (1990). Some conceptual issues of livestock farming in the mountains. MFS
Discussion paper series No. 4, 18 p. Kathmandu, Nepal:ICIMOD,.

León-Velarde, C. U., Cañas, R., Quiroz, R., Murillo, E., Osorio, J. and Pezo D. (2003).
Computer simulation models to estimate milk and meat production from cattle and buffaloes
under different bio-economic scenarios. In: Proceedings of the IX World Conference on Animal
Production Association, October 26-31, Porto Alegre, Brazil. (CD-ROM and Scientific poster

Leon Velarde, C.U and Barrera, V. 2003. Métodos bio-matemáticos para e; análisis de sistemas
agropecuarios en el Ecuador. INIAP – CIP. Quito, Ecuador. 187 p.

Leon Velarde, C.U. Quiroz, R. Zorogastua, P and Tapia, M. 2000. Sustainability concerns of
livestock based livelihoods in the Andes. In Contribution of livestock to mountain livelihoods;
research and development issues. ICIMOD, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development, Kathmandu, Nepal. 183-202 pp.

Leon-Velarde, C. and Guerrero, J. 1999. Improving quantity and quality of Alpaca fiber; using a
simulation model for breeding strategies. SAAD-III. Lima, Peru. 18 p.
León-Velarde, C.U. and Quiroz, R. (1999). ‘Selecting optimum ranges of technological
alternatives by using response surface designs in system analysis’. In CIP, Program Report 1997-
98. Lima Peru. 387-393 pp.

León-Velarde, C.U. and Quiroz, R. (1994). Análisis de sistemas agropecuarios: Uso de métodos
bio-matemáticos. Centro de Investigación de Recursos Naturales y medio ambiente, CIRNMA-
CIP/CONDESAN. EFI-GRAF, La Paz, Bolivia. 255p.

León-Velarde, C., and Izquierdo-Cadena, F. (1993). Producción y utilización de los pastizales de

la zona Andina: Compendio. Red de Pastizales Andinos (REPAAN). Quito, Ecuador. 228 p.

Li Pun H. and Sere C. (1993). Animal production systems research in developing countries:
Overview and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the VII World Conference on Animal Production.
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. pp. 329-348.

Li Pun, H.H. and Paladines O.,(1993). El Rol de las Pasturas y la Ganaderia en la Sostenibilidad
de los Sistemas de Produccion Andina. En : Centro Internacional de la Papa. El Agroecosistema
Andino: problemas, limitaciones, perspectivas. CIP, Lima. Anales del Taller Internacional sobre
el Agroecosistema Andino, Lima, marzo 30 - abril 2, 1992. p. 187-212.

PISA 1993. Informe Final de Proyecto de investigación de Sistemas Agropecuarios Andinos,

PISA. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, INIA-Puno, Peru. 417 p.

PRODASA, 1995. Informe final del “Proyecto de desarrollo agropecuario sostenido en el

Altiplano. Centro internacional de la Papa, CIP, Centro de Investigación de Recursos Naturales y
Medio Ambiente, CIRNMA, Puno, Perú. 120 p

Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, INIAP, 2003. Proyecto de mejoramiento del

los sistemas de producción ganadería-cultivos. Unidad deValidación y Transferencia
Tecnológica, UVTT-INIAP/PROMSA. Informe final. 210 p.

Paladines, O. (1995). Red de Pastizales Andinos (REPAAN). Proyecto REPAAN. Annual report.
Quito, FUNDAGRO. 45 0p

Quiroz, R.A.; Pezo, D.A.; Rearte, D.H., and San Martin, F. (1997). Dynamics of feed resources
in mixed farming systems of Latin America. In Renard, C. (ed). Crop residues in sustainable
mixed crop-livestock farming systems. CAB International. 322 p

Quiroz, R.; Mamani, G.; Revilla, R.; Guerra, C.; Sánchez, J.; Gonzalez, M.; Pari, G. (1991).
Perspectivas de investigación pecuaria para el desarrollo de las comunidades de Puno. In
Arguelles, L. and Estrada, R.D. (eds), Perspectivas de la investigación agropecuaria para el
Altiplano. Centro Internacional de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo (CIID) - Proyecto de
Investigación de los Sistemas Agropecuarios Andinos (PISA). Lima, Perú. Pp 357 - 406.

Quiroz, R.; Estrada, R.D.; Leon-Velarde, C.U.; Zandstra, H.G. (1995). ‘Facing the challenge of
the Andean Zone: the role of modeling in developing sustainable management of natural
resources’. In Bouma J.; Kuyvenhoven A.; Bouman B.A.M.; Luyten, J.C.; Zandstra, H.G. (eds)
Ecoregional Approaches for Sustainable Land Use and Food Production: proceedings of a
Symposium on Eco-regional Approaches in Agricultural Research. 12 - 16 December 1994,
ISNAR, The Hague. pp. 13-31.

San Martin, F. and Bryant, F.C. (1987). Nutrición de los Camélidos Sudamericanos: Estado de
nuestro conocimiento. Technical Report T-9-505. College of Agricultural Sciences. Lubbock,
USA:Texas Technical University (TTU).

Tapia, M.E. (1996). Ecodesarrollo en los Andes altos. Fundación Friedrich Ebert. Lima, Perú.
196 p.