Introduction

In Latin America, contrasting visions and contradicting goals coexist regarding how to achieve sustainable agrifood systems. The region is recognized as an early adopter of agricultural biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs), bioenergy generation, and the transformation of technological capacities for attending export markets (^{Hodson de Jaramillo et al., 2021}), a seemingly modernizing progression developed upon the “Green Revolution” premise that food security would be attended to through technological innovation. However, critics argued that modernization has been made at the expense of people and the environment through resource plunder, dispossession, and labor exploitation (^{Levidow et al., 2021}).

An expert review of rural extension in Colombia from 2016 concluded that the main obstacle to enabling innovation in the agricultural sector was “that actors building knowledge on rural extension in Colombia have a limited intra and inter-institutional articulation” (^{Rodriguez et al., 2016, p. 393}). Agriculture innovation experts recommended reforming the institutional framework for innovation and agricultural technology transfer to facilitate interaction between biological sciences and other areas of knowledge and strengthen the relationship between scientific research and local knowledge systems (^{Hodson de Jaramillo et al. 2021}).

Santos’s administration proposed and obtained parliamentary approval to reform the National Innovation System for Agriculture (^{SNIA, for its acronym in Spanish; Law 1876/2017}). The government’s primary aspiration was to reduce the inequality that disproportionally affects rural Colombia. For this, it committed to close the development gap between urban and rural areas following the Acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera (^{Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Enabling a Stable and Durable Peace between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] in 2016}). With the SNIA reform, the government of Colombia aimed to address the science and technology studies’ larger critique that technocentric approaches to innovation in the agricultural sector had continued protecting the interests of biotechnology corporations at the expense of local farmers, making agriculturists from developing countries dependent and controllable (^{Logan, 2017}; ^{Patel, 2012}).

Compared to other Latin American countries such as Brazil and Mexico, where different rural extension models were piloted and reformed during the last twenty years (^{Rendon et al., 2015}; ^{Sette & Ekboir, 2013}), in Colombia, rural extension was nonexistent before 2017. Law 1876 ordered transitioning from providing “technical assistance” to providing rural extension services. Transitioning to rural extension implies considering the landscape instead of simply advising farm-scale production system development. Unlike technical advice, the rural extension should consider social, environmental, and economic interacting factors of agrifood systems (^{Garrido-Rubiano et al., 2021}). To facilitate reaching agreements between local communities, civil servants, research institutions, and private industry over innovation routes, the SNIA ordered the creation of practical coordination settings called Territorial Innovation Systems (TIS).

The study aimed to fill the knowledge gap regarding effective transitioning from technical advice to rural extension through the guinea pig production chain (GPPC) in Southern Colombia. It was hypothesized that farmers have continued receiving mainly or exclusively technical assistance and technological advice. The decision to focus on the GPPC in Southern Colombia was made due to its social significance and economic importance in Colombia.

The rearing of guinea pigs is a cultural tradition of Andean peoples dating from precolonial times. Local communities consider these practices identity markers, making the livelihood representative of indigeneity. Considering its cultural significance, it may seem evident that technology adoption to better small animal husbandry, although essential to the livelihood, would likely not be the main factor to consider for improving its sustainability. Nevertheless, the research revealed that advisers, including those from the agencies endorsed by the government to provide rural extension services, continued to ignore non-technical considerations when offering expert advice.

Family agriculture (FA) in Latin America accounts for 60% of the region’s total bovine, porcine, and poultry production. FA also accounts for 99% of the production of ovine, rabbits, and guinea pigs. Production of guinea pigs is strategically crucial to combating the prevalent chronic malnutrition of infants in South America (^{Salcedo & Guzman, 2014}).

In Colombia, the legal criteria for FA are that family members must produce more than 50% of labor inputs and reside on a farm or very close by. Legal recognition entitles small-scale farmers to lower-than-market average credit rates and technical advice with a differential focus. “Differential focus” implies that technical advice should be appropriate to the age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disabilities of the targeted population (Resolution 464/2017).

The Nariño Province is Colombia’s leading producer and consumer of guinea pigs. It accounts for 85.3% of national production. Records from the Nariño Governor’s office show that 89% of FA units produce, consume, and/or commercialize guinea pigs as part of their livelihoods. In 2019, the GPPC benefited approximately 30,000 families. As consumer demand continues to increase in the South of Colombia, the importance of the GPPC is growing by the day (^{Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura [FAO] & Agencia de Desarrollo Rural [ADR], 2019}). Not surprisingly, the Nariño Governor’s office asked for collaboration from research and development institutions to characterize the GPPC to gather the documentation required to obtain its legal recognition (^{Gobernación de Nariño, 2019}).

In Nariño, the GPPC is integral to the livelihood strategies of 30,000 indigenous and peasant households, providing income to 86% of farms in the province. Pasto municipality, the capital of Nariño, accounts for 50.4% of production, with 1,269,982 animals commercialized annually (^{Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, República de Colombia, & Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2014}). UPRA, the rural agricultural planning agency, documented that small animal husbandry, mainly the GPPC, is a priority for farmers of Nariño (^{Organización Internacional para las Migraciones [OIM] et al., 2018}).

A factor that makes guinea pig culture (i.e., the rearing, consumption, and commercialization of guinea pigs) so attractive is the low costs of infrastructure and inputs. Guinea pig culture is also a primary source of income for women, who can attend to the rodents without leaving the household. Women are used to foraging grasses from abandoned plots, public spaces by roadside, and forest reserves to complement feed. According to local producers, another appealing feature of guinea pig farming is sufficient genetic variability amongst breeds to maintain low-rate susceptibility to most diseases.

A 2019 study by FAO and ADR suggested that to make the GPPC sustainable in Nariño, the organizational model must suit small-scale producers. Such a model should consider income generation and other factors contributing to FA’s increased well-being (^{FAO & ADR, 2019}; ^{Garcia & Garavito, 2016}). The impact assessment of programs for technical assistance must consider technology adoption metrics and their effective contribution to improving long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability.

The Putumayo Governor’s office had suggested that a limiting factor for GPPC expansion amongst family agriculturalists was that most agribusinesses never get legalized. Producers from Sibundoy (Putumayo) began organizing in 2019 to push for official recognition of the GPPC to receive the benefits they would be entitled to (^{Alcaldía de Sibundoy, 2019}). The Governor’s office speculated that the benefits available to small agribusiness were reaching very few guinea pig entrepreneurs (^{Gobernación del Putumayo, 2016)}.

The research team assembled hoped that the characterization of the GPPC and the assessment of the process of transitioning from technical advice to extension would facilitate civil servants and stakeholders along the GPPC to speed the legalization process of the GPPC and develop an informed strategy to advance rural extension along the chain. The objectives of the research were to characterize the GPPC in southern Colombia and to identify the advances and barriers that facilitate or prevent GPPC transitioning from receiving technical assistance to having rural extension services.

Materials and methods

The National Government, the Ministry of Agriculture (MADR, for its acronym in Spanish), and the Nariño Governors’ office have called private industry and agriculture experts to guide the implementation of a rural extension to the GPPC focusing on family agriculturalists. Amongst those called was the Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research – Agrosavia. A team of professionals, technicians, and researchers from Agrosavia (i.e., animal health experts, agronomists, veterinarians, and social scientists), who were already investigating the efficiency of guinea pig production systems, formulated a proposal to advance inter-institutional cooperation in defining how research and rural extension programs were to advise stakeholders along the GPPC. Mixed, quantitative (survey), qualitative (focus groups, interviews), and specialized (in farm animal husbandry and technology appraisal) tools and instruments were outlined in the proposal that successfully bid for funding. A key component of the proposal that informed all activities was that the research team was to encourage significant participation from all stakeholders along the GPPC: producers, traders, restaurateurs, and farming organizations.

The research was conducted in several stages. First, through desk research, we reviewed previous interventions to strengthen the production chain. The few articles on animal husbandry and guinea pig culture referenced in the proposal were further scrutinized. The chapters of reports from the Putumayo and Nariño Governors’ offices regarding the guinea pig value chain or the role assigned to guinea pig agribusiness in province plans were handy. Besides, dispersed web pages and press releases provided helpful information for preparing surveys and sketching interview scripts.

In the second stage, the survey was tested and conducted, and farm visits were made to observe and record the animal husbandry routine on-site. The desk research, a broader literature review on guinea pig rearing and commercialization in the Andean region, and the priorities established by municipal secretaries of agriculture allowed the research team to determine the themes of paramount concern that informed the survey design and interview scripts. Data to be collected would refer to (a) producers, including identity and cultural affiliation; (b) the production unit, including geographical location, infrastructure, management of farming areas, and environmental management; (c) management of production systems, including nutrition, reproduction, health, and sanitation; (d) promotion and commercialization; (e) technical knowledge and technology adoption through the production chain.

In the third stage, interviews and focus groups were conducted. The sketched interview scripts were related to themes of interest to stakeholders along the production chain. The interview scripts were reformed and edited after the survey to approach participants willing to expand and clarify responses or issues that surveyors annotated and that could help qualitative data generation. Reflectivity occurred following activities at stages two and three. No specialized software was used to analyze qualitative information; coding and categorization were done manually, and data interpretation and summary narrative were a collective effort coordinated by an experienced ethnographer.

Three focus group workshops were held to critically discuss previously identified challenges (through the survey and interviews) to providing rural extension service in the GPPC. Participants in workshops included representatives from the Nariño Governor’s office, FAO, Colombian Farming Institute (Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario [ICA, for its acronym in Spanish]), Agrosavia, Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia (UNAD), Universidad de Nariño, National Learning Services (SENA, for its acronym in Spanish), Pasto Secretary of Agriculture, Center for Social Innovation of Nariño (CISNA, for its acronym in Spanish), producers, traders, and restaurateurs.

Survey

The following formula was used to estimate an adequate sample number:

Where n: sample size; z: percentage value to achieve 95% statistical reliability related to standard distribution; Wh: strata relative weight; Sh: estimated standard deviation per strata; h: number of strata; 𝜀 : estimation error; N: number of production units.

Considering the total number of guinea pig producers in Nariño and Putumayo, we estimated that to obtain high reliability, 204 producers must be surveyed from Pasto (Nariño) and 200 from Alto de Sibundoy (Putumayo). The survey was then tested and administered.

Guinea pig producers surveyed in Nariño included those from the Pasto and eight adjacent corregimentos (administrative units ascribed to municipalities). The number of participants per corregimiento in Nariño was as follows: Cabrera (13), Catambuco (29), El Encano (66), Gualmatán (7), Mapachico (8), La Laguna (37), Morasurco (24), Obonuco (11). Surveys were administered in four towns of Putumayo: Colon, Santiago, San Francisco, and Sibundoy. The overall number of participants and their percentage weight were: Pasto and eight corregimientos of Nariño, 204 (50.5%); Sibundoy, 109 (26.98%); Colon, 54 (13.37%); Santiago, 22 (5.45%), and San Francisco, 15 (3.71%).

Results

Responses to the survey were clustered into 11 categories (strata) and input to Microsoft Excel to obtain a descriptive statistical analysis (data processing through IBM® SPSS® Statistic 20.0.0, 2011). The results showed that:

Discussion

Annotated observations when applying the survey, notes from farm visits, interviews, focus group discussions, and reflective analysis sessions were coded, categorized, and reassembled into the following summary narrative.

For GPPC stakeholders, maintaining cultural traditions is equally vital to accessing technology and acquiring business competencies. Research participants related to different links of the production chain confirmed that guinea pig culture favors income generation for rural women. Therefore, they insisted that extension services, planning for economic development, and capacity-building programs related to this production chain should consider women’s specific needs and circumstances.

Analysis revealed consensus amongst stakeholders along the GPPC that modernization is not, as suggested by experts, enabled by technology adoption alone. Instead, adaptation and adoption must ensure that local knowledge and traditions are integral to such processes and conducive to increased sustainability of their livelihoods.

Producers surveyed and interviewed, and stakeholder participants in workshop discussions highlighted that those who have become specialized traders were producers of humble origin. These traders, it was recalled, like to maintain a low profile in their communities, sharing knowledge and expertise, which makes other traders and producers listen to their advice. Some stakeholders and coordinators of the workshop suggested that this type of experience should be systematized and considered when designing rural extension programs.

Reflectivity notes revealed consensus amongst participants who have personally benefitted from specializing in marketing and, more importantly, that the communities they belong to have also been helped. In effect, they said, profits have been reinvested in family farms and FA organizations. When reflecting on the socio-political impact of promoting technology adoption, it was the view of most stakeholders that assessing and developing strategies for increasing collective benefits has been neglected by advisers and that it has been of no concern to investors.

Representatives of producers and FA organizations agreed that investors, rural extension providers, and even researchers have focused their investigations and interventions on advising individuals to increase economic gains. Representatives of FA and farmers’ organizations called researchers, technology advisers, and rural extensionists to participate in the focus group workshops to advise on developing strategies that would benefit families and communities instead.

Qualitative data analyses, including summary narratives from reflective practice, revealed a common interest of stakeholders in the production chain obtaining legal recognition. However, it appears that different actors/links of the chain are uncertain about how, or to what extent, they would benefit from such recognition. Reflecting on the discussion about this issue during focus groups, the research team agreed that producers have yet to realize that government investment in developing chain goods is limited. It was noted that some stakeholders, particularly family farmers, seem unaware that organizational costs in planning, asset mobilization, and investment would need to be footed by stakeholders of the production chain.

A significant concern reflected in the discussions of workshops is that most family agriculturalists are said to be disappointed that their children and grandchildren show no interest whatsoever in production know-how or in getting involved in the guinea pig business. However, the data collected through the survey and interviews, as well as that generated through workshop discussions, is insufficient to assert that this lack of interest is exclusive to guinea pig culture or is generalized toward FA livelihoods.

One important finding is that researchers, rural extensionists, and FA organizations agreed that guinea pig culture is a resilience strategy. Interviewees explained that when facing (environmental or economic) shocks, they cannot rely upon income from cultivars such as potatoes and peas, as larger agriculturalists do. Some interviewees illustrated resilience with some examples. For instance, they have experienced environmental shock due to droughts; following drought, their cultivars grow to a lower standard than what is required by retailers. They also experienced economic shock when the national government allowed the suspension of levies to imports of basic food supplies, in which case retailers’ buying prices of FA products were lower than production costs (agricultural inputs, labor, and transactional costs). During these crises, family agriculturalists have sold available guinea pigs and increased production to attend to urgent necessities or pay credits. Available guinea pigs are sold when extra expenses are incurred following personal emergencies. In all these cases, family agriculturists have managed to absorb shock and adapt through increasing guinea pig sales. In some cases, they have increased the guinea pig volume using available farm space or by aggregating numbers of animals through small landholder associations.

During interviews and workshops, it was discussed how to make production systems more sustainable and efficient. Small animal husbandry experts and technicians departed from proposing improving communication strategies to promote modernization. In their view, the challenge was to make producers understand the importance of technology adoption to achieve productivity gains. Although aware that producers have sometimes questioned or ignored some of the advice offered, these experts and professionals seem to have failed to understand the rationale of stakeholders. Social scientists from the Agrosavia team encouraged producer participants to reply to experts in the workshops. As a result, some stakeholders argued that advice of modernization contradicted traditions and that some types of technology adoption were not economically worthy, considering low return over investment. It was revealed that animal husbandry experts and technology adoption advisers, including extensionists, have continued claiming that the current production systems suffer from varied deficits: investment deficit that prevents modernization, knowledge deficit in food safety, and interest deficit from producers.

Reflecting over the way argumentation developed regarding the modernization of the GPPC suggested that the technical/technology adoption advice provided incorporates no assessment of the sustainability of livelihood strategies of family agriculturalists. This analysis revealed that experts and professionals who provided technical assistance or technology advice during the study found it difficult to address the challenge of increasing the sustainability of livelihood differently than by advising technology adoption.

Although some producers agreed with technicians and experts that they could benefit from reaching technological optimal, they said they are restricted in adopting new technology due to a lack of financial capital and high credit rates. Therefore, the modernization promoted by experts and rural extensionists is not business-optimal. They argued that technology-optimal does not equate to sustainability optimal for livelihood, which needs to consider social context and cultural appropriateness. Evaluating all these considerations and the amount of work necessary to reach the advised technology optimal has caused some producers to desist from modernizing.

Following the workshop discussions, farmers, experts, and technicians agreed that financial burden significantly restricts technology adoption. The research team believes this agreement is vital to improving expert advice and facilitating a transition to rural extension. The research team also noted that promoting technological adoption and adaptation will encounter other obstacles related to local beliefs or cultural adequacy. However, it should be considered a significant advance, having producer organizations acknowledge that cultural inadequacy is less challenging than financial hurdles. The team anticipated that the agreement has the potential to positively influence planning for rural extension programs targeted to family agriculturalists.

It was revealed that advice from animal husbandry experts to replace traditional medicine with allopathic medicine for the treatment of animals has been, and more likely will continue to be, ignored by peasants and indigenous peoples. Stakeholders agree that such advice disregards cultural practices fundamental to most family agriculturalists. Before focus group workshops, in the questionnaire responses, most producers had already highlighted that traditional medicine is better for them not only because it is far cheaper or readily available for free but also because of the bitter taste guinea pig meat acquires when animals have been treated with “Western medicine.” Participant traders and restaurateurs in workshop discussions agreed with producers that they should use allopathic medicine only when unavoidable—particularly considering their efforts to attract environmentally conscious consumers. These traders and restaurateurs are said to be willing to collaborate with producers to obtain organic certificates. The representatives from producers immediately agreed and corroborated that this effort also aligns with recommendations made by traditional authorities and the elders. They asserted that taking the advice of using “Western medicine” will only increase dependency, diminishing the resilience of family agriculturalists’ livelihood strategies. In their view, embracing Western medicine would harm guinea pig culture traditions. Besides, they argued that guinea pigs’ morbidity and mortality rates are already low.

In summary, the case study of guinea pig culture seems to suggest that in the provision of technical advice and current rural extension services, advisers continue to aim at reaching the technology optimal instead of focusing, as stakeholders demand, on increasing sustainability (environmental, economic, socio-political) and resilience of livelihoods.

Worryingly, at present, the notion of technical innovation deficit is a joint base of public policy for advancing rural development. This ubiquitous discursive trope legitimizes institutional biases by both government and research institutions (^{Pfotenhauer et al., 2019}). Such prejudice has the pervasive effect of marginalizing non-Western epistemologies, traditional knowledge, and social functions that do not prioritize technical innovation when aiming to enhance sustainability and increase resilience.

This analysis confirmed that livelihoods’ economic, environmental, and cultural sustainability increases when an integrated approach considers technological adoption, local knowledge, and traditions. The main lesson learned from the reflectivity of this research is that professionals, experts, and those currently providing technical advice and rural extension services have found it very challenging to accept that decision-making regarding production systems and innovation paths must consider variables that they have been ignoring until now. It has been difficult for advisers to accept that what they deem “technically optimal” is informed by a rationale that is embedded within a system of values (culture and traditions), that such rationale may differ significantly compared to that of technology end-users, and that it cannot be deemed as superior or unbiased. The tendency to intuitively or unconsciously deem a technoscientific system of knowledge as superior has been found in many other technical adoption and adaptation studies. The case of guinea pig culture seems to corroborate that expert advice continues with pro-innovation prejudice (^{Pfotenhauer et al., 2019}).

Conclusions and recommendations

Linear technology transfer models mistakenly conceive knowledge as a unidirectional process from experts to clients. So-called users/clients resent approaches based on that premise. Our study showed that in the case of the GPPC, stakeholders are unlikely to follow expert advice if their interests, knowledge, and expertise are not considered. It has been made explicit from our findings that any strategy for transitioning from technical advice to rural extension needs to enable meaningful participation of all stakeholders and ensure knowledge exchange. Knowledge exchange was possible in this research because non-hierarchical dialogue was encouraged. Acknowledging that animal husbandry experts and those providing technical advice have found it challenging not to focus mainly (or exclusively) on technology adoption, it is recommended that rural extension programs include training to enable teams to have a systemic approach that carefully considers identity and cultural context in the design of knowledge exchange and capacity building programs. Agronomists, veterinarians, and animal husbandry experts, who have until now provided technical advice, are ill-prepared to provide rural extension services. They need improving capacities and capabilities to assess livelihood resilience, understand and characterize cultural traditions, and enable co-innovation.

Our study confirmed that rural extension end-users would be willing participants in the design of culturally appropriate paths. For this to happen, research and development practices must acknowledge that other epistemic must be considered to broaden co-innovation possibilities. Therefore, it is advised that those currently involved in defining how entities providing rural extension services will be accredited to conduct a systemic review and learn from accreditation experiences in countries where extension services have been functioning for longer.

Further research

It was learned that flexibility in rural extension programs is needed, allowing for research on agroecosystems particularities and sociocultural context to inform the implementation of programs. There is a need for further research regarding the adaptation and development of pedagogical tools and instruments for facilitating the implementation of rural extension programs.

Regarding the challenge of epidemiological management of the production systems of guinea pigs, a long-term study comparing management with a plan for disease treatment without genetic improvement against one with introduced genetic variability needs to be conducted. To this aim, it is important to document and systematize information regarding conservation initiatives to preserve the native genetic line of guinea pigs from Nariño.

As highlighted in the results and discussion sessions, producers, distributors, and restaurateurs indicated that two principal challenges to making the GPPC sustainable relate to marketing competencies and overcoming obstacles preventing legal recognition of the guinea pig value chain. Having obtained the legal recognition of the GPPC, the second challenge remains. Therefore, rigorous, long-term research is needed to implement long-term commercialization strategies.

Contributions from authors

Rocio E. Patiño designed the research “Escalonamiento de la investigación regional y de la innovación de pequeños productores de cuyes en la escala de valor,” coordinated research bidding, and administered research grant after funds were awarded. Paola A. Portilla and Luz Dary Carlosama conducted and analyzed a survey/questionnaire and evaluated animal husbandry performance on sites. Oscar A. Forero led qualitative data generation (interviews, focus groups, workshops) and coordinated qualitative data analyses. Presentation and dissemination of results and writing up of the reports and the current manuscript comprised a collective effort coordinated by Oscar A. Forero.

Ethics approval

The authors declare that ethics approval was obtained and that IFAD and Agrosavia ethical procedure guidelines were consistently followed during the research process. We, the authors, hereby confirm that that manuscript does not contain any data from a person; therefore, consent for publication is not applicable.

Consent to participate

We, the authors, hereby confirm that research participants attending workshops, responding to the survey, or being interviewed participated voluntarily, were informed of the objective of the research, and completed the standard consent form that Agrosavia requests in compliance with all the laws and regulations of Colombia, where the research activities took place.