Mountain Livestock Farmers and Their Encounter with an Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén, Chile

Wageningen University – Department of Social Sciences Rural Development Sociology (RDS) Social transformation and new technologies: Mountain livestock farmers and their encounter with an artificial insemination project in Paihuén, Chile.

August 2013

Yenni Valentina Astete Salazar Reg. No. 810527-020-030 MSc Development and Rural Innovation

Supervisor: Alberto Arce Second reader: Stephen Sherwood Thesis code: RDS-80430

“…Y no hay belleza como esta belleza de América extendida en sus infiernos,

en sus cerros de piedra y poderío,

y en sus ríos atávicos y eternos...”

Pablo Neruda

Summary This thesis explores the process of social transformation experienced by mountain livestock farmers, in their encounter with a project of artificial insemination at the rural foothill community of Paihuén, in the central area of Chile. In a broader contemporary process of transformation, the everyday life of the livestock farmers of Paihuén is surrounded by new technologies, institutional policies and market requirements. This new reality has generated a conflicting interaction between the growth of these techno scientific resources –in this case the artificial insemination project- and the development of social and cultural progress in the everyday life of the mountain livestock farmers.

To understand the process of social transformation, the mountain livestock farmers’ subjectivity is studied through their cattle management and other livelihoods practices, to later focus the attention in their encounter with the artificial insemination project in Paihuén. The study used actor oriented approach as a guideline to explore the development field, in addition to a conceptual framework to unpack policies. As methods, the research is based on ethnographic evidence: observation/ participant observation, situated conversation, autobiographic interviews and group interviews, complementing these evidences with secondary data analysis. The main result highlight that, although the artificial insemination project in Paihuén did not have the technical expected results by the livestock farmers, it transforms their subjectivity through a change in their relation with public actors and the acquisition of new materialities. This relational shift makes the livestock farmers of Paihuén institutionally visible, creating new relations through the involvement of technical assistance actors in the community. Thus, the artificial insemination project can be claimed to be part of on-going technological realities that are indubitably transforming people, things and their relations. In this on-going process of transformation, the study highlights the needs of further research related to the everyday practices of the rural people as knowledge that make them able to build their livelihoods (human action) in a reality of agro-climatic transformation, complex gender dynamics, policies regarding the protection of wild life, disconnection in different levels of policy process and a political administrative categorization of territories.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the livestock producers of Paihuén and their families, who opened their homes to allow me share their precious time and everyday practices that build this research.

A special gratitude I give to the Livestock Committee members of Paihuén for allowing me to follow them in their various mountain cattle management practices.

Also, I want to thank the participants of my various forms of ethnographic interviews: livestock farmers of Paihuén and Petorca, the consultant, public servants, the representatives of the private company, veterinarian colleagues and lectures of the University of Chile.

Thanks to my colleagues, bosses and friends at job, who ‘waited for me’ while I was studying this Master.

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, for his useful comments and remarks through the learning process of this master thesis. He introduced me to the complexity of the multiples realities and their ‘blur boundaries’, inspiring me to see beyond the obvious and clear ‘facts’.

Finally and foremost, I would like to thank my loved ones, family and friends, who have supported me through the entire process, both emotionally and helping me with the logistic of this research. Thanks for always give me love and the power to continue working for my dreams.

Thanks for trusting in my ‘crazy’ idea to mix veterinarian and social science, tangling them in the pursuit of a better quality of life for people in the rural areas.

Table of Contents Summary...... 3 Acknowledgement ...... 4 Table of Contents ...... 5 Table of Pictures ...... 6 Table of Figures ...... 6 Table of Annexes ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Background ...... 8 2.1. National Policy ...... 8 2.2. Peasant Family Agriculture in Chile (in numbers) ...... 11 2.2.1. The rural locality of Paihuén ...... 12 2.3. The Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén ...... 12 3. Problem Statement ...... 13 4. Research Question ...... 14 5. Theoretical framework...... 15 5.1. Actor Oriented Approach ...... 15 5.2. Unpacking Policy ...... 16 5.3. The practices in contemporary theories ...... 17 5.4. The three-fold model of rural space ...... 18 5.5. Livelihood ...... 18 5.6. Interfaces ...... 20 6. Methodology ...... 21 6.1. Data collection ...... 21 6.1.1. Ethnographic evidence ...... 22 6.2. Data analysis ...... 24 7. The mountain livestock farmers ...... 25 7.1. La Arena Corral ...... 26 7.2. Paihuén Corral ...... 34 7.3. Cattle management in the mountain ...... 38 8. Paihuén and its history ...... 43 8.1. The Society ...... 44 8.1.1. The transfer ...... 45 8.2. The Livestock Committee ...... 47 9. The diversity of livelihood in Paihuén ...... 51 9.1. The farmer...... 52 9.2. The livestock farmer ...... 61 9.3. The avocado producer ...... 67 9.4. The miners ...... 69 9.5. Women Activities ...... 70 10. The Project of Artificial Insemination in Paihuén ...... 77

10.1. Using social relations and creating new ones ...... 78 10.2. The implementation of the project ...... 82 10.3. After the project ...... 92 10.4. Beyond the project ...... 98 11. Discussion ...... 103 12. Conclusion...... 111 13. Recommendations ...... 114 References ...... 115 Annexes ...... 120

Table of Pictures Picture 1 Participant observation with the farmer ...... 22 Picture 2 Observation with the livestock farmer ...... 22 Picture 3 Cattle in La Arena Corral ...... 26 Picture 4 Primary herders ...... 28 Picture 5 ‘Manga’ or bullpen of weaned calves ...... 29 Picture 6 Transport of calves to their respective localities ...... 30 Picture 7 Young bull resultant of the first artificial insemination...... 31 Picture 8 Health management bullpen ‘el arenal’ ...... 32 Picture 9 The new avocado plantation of the Society ...... 44 Picture 10 The Livestock Committee leader, the Secretary ...... 48 Picture 11 Lettuce transplantation 1 ...... 55 Picture 12 Lettuce transplantation 2 ...... 56 Picture 13 Foreman showing the boundaries of the ‘Invernada’ ...... 63 Picture 14 The saddler ...... 65 Picture 15 The saddle ...... 66 Picture 16 The laundry ...... 72 Picture 17 Women participation in cattle practices ...... 75 Picture 18 The offer of the consultant ...... 80 Picture 19 The fence ...... 83 Picture 20 The offer of ABS: ‘Above Beyond’ ...... 85 Picture 21 The first artificial insemination in ‘La Arena´ ...... 86 Picture 22 INDAP talks with livestock producers in La Arena Corral ...... 98 Picture 23 The warehouse of Mr. Soliciano ...... 100

Table of Figures Figure 1 Valparaíso region ...... 12 Figure 2 Cattle management in the mountain ...... 38

Table of Annexes Annex 1 Invitation form for a Paihuén Livestock Committee meeting ...... 120 Annex 2 General background and Strategic Focus of the Artificial Insemination Project ...... 121 Annex 3 Beef Catalogue ...... 123

1. Introduction Today, the everyday life of people in rural areas is surrounded by technological transformation, institutional policies and market requirements. This new reality has generated a new form of conflicting interaction between the growth in techno-scientific resources and the social and cultural progress of the people in their everyday life. To understand this interaction under the sphere of ‘development studies’, is necessary to study the complex and diverse social processes that occur when actors encounter ongoing technological realities (Arce and Long, 2010), which in the present thesis are part of a broader policy processes that is indubitably transforming people, things and their relations. The aim of my research is to understand how the encounter with an Artificial Insemination Project transformed (or not) the subjectivity and social relations of the mountain livestock farmers of Paihuén, a rural foothill community in the central area of Chile, as a result of an on-going contemporary process of transformation. In order to answer this question, first I needed to study the subjectivity of the mountain livestock farmers through their practices and their livelihoods, to later understand their process of social transformation in their encounter with the Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén. I used the actor oriented approach (Long, 1989, 1992, 2001; Arce and Long, 1994, 2010; Arce 2003) as a guideline to explore the development field, and McGee´s (2004) conceptual framework to unpack policies. As methodology, I based my research on ethnographic evidence: observation/ participant observation, situated conversation, autobiographic interviews and group interviews, complementing these evidences with secondary data analysis. With this thesis I expect to contribute in making visible the mountain livestock farmers’ reality, moving them from their ‘marginalized corner’ to the central debate about the actual policies to modernize livestock farming in Chile. I start my study presenting background information introducing the national policy of Chilean State regarding livestock; the Peasant Family Agriculture in Chile and a brief introduction to the Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén. After this background, I present my problem statement, research questions, theoretical framework and methodology. The results are presented in four chapters: the first one aims to introduce the mountain livestock farmers and their cattle management practices in the Andes Mountains. The second chapter is a brief review of Paihuén history, facilitating the understanding of their actual organization as livestock farmers. The third chapter presents the diversity of livelihoods in Paihuén through their daily practices. The last chapter of the results connects the Project of Artificial Insemination with the livestock farmers in order to comprehend how their diverse set of practices -old and new- expressed as knowledge, are pragmatically used and (mis) understood while implementing and reflecting on the artificial insemination project in Paihuén. The discussion is focuses in the main results and their connection with the ideas and concepts coming from the theoretical framework. In the conclusion I answer how the encounter with an Artificial Insemination Project transformed (or not) the subjectivity and social relations of the mountain livestock farmers of Paihuén. Finally I develop some recommendation of further research.

2. Background My research was built under the sphere of ‘development studies’, defined as the ‘differential outcomes of various types of developmental intervention engineered by the state, international or non-governmental/charitable organizations, and modes of action deployed by social actors affected by such projects’ (Arce & Long, 2010:2). Within this new sphere, the authors argue that it is mainly through detailed ethnographic research that one can grasp processes related to policy intervention, accumulation of power, commoditization and values.

Rather than analysing knowledge as a binary opposition between Western and non-Western epistemologies and practice, one should attempt to deal with the intricate interplay and joint appropriation and transformation of different bodies of knowledge. The ‘development studies’ should highlight the emergent character between those interactions as well as depict the positions of the different parties within the broader process of change (Arce & Long, 2010).

2.1. National Policy Immersed in these continuous transformations, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Chilean State is in charge of developing, guiding and coordinating the agriculture, livestock and forestry activity of Chile.

One of the commitments of the current government is to transform Chile in one of the 10 leading countries in food exports (Chile, Gobierno de Chile, 2009). In pursuing that, the Ministry of Agriculture argues that Chile is actually advancing in the path of becoming a global agro-food power: `Chile Potencia Alimentaria y Forestal` (Chile, Gobierno de Chile, 2013), slogan of the Ministry of Agriculture since 2006.

National livestock Sector

Within this policy, the national livestock sector defined a strategy of ‘competitive development’ through the introduction of its products into the international market. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, this strategy requires the improvement of the competitiveness of the producers and their ability to remain in those markets.

According to Mario Maino, lecturer of ‘Universidad de Chile’, competitiveness means to be profitable and permanent on time. He argues that beef cattle is a national productive system that has a lot of positive elements: first, the beef cattle sector can achieve certain levels of profitability; second, with 3.789.697 bovines at a national level (Chile, Sistema Estadístico Territorial 2013), the beef cattle sector is ‘democratic’, meaning that ‘big’ and ‘small’ producers have cows along all the regions of the country; third, this productive sector concentrates the ‘less skilled labour’. That means, the beef cattle production gives an opportunity (of development) to the Peasant Agriculture (interview with Mario Maino, Lecturer of Universidad de Chile, 05 April 2013. pers. comm.).

Cattle genetic improvement

In 2006, three actors discussed about the main gaps on national beef cattle production: ‘Universidad de Chile’, ‘Universidad Austral’ and a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, that soon shifted to work for ‘Fundación Chile’. One of the main gaps was the genetic one. Genetic was considered a central element to improve both productivity and products of beef cattle, in order to finally enhance the competitiveness of the beef cattle sector.

Mario Maino argues that genetic improvement is a matter of information management. Information allows you to select the best animals, through the selection of specific genetic parameters. Thus, genetic improvement is to select the best animal. These three actors discussed the need to have a national production of highly genetically improved bulls, to use them as the fathers of a huge part of the total national herd.

They started to deal with the Ministry of Agriculture requesting authorization and funding to invest in their ideas.

In 2006 and 2007, they obtained public funding for an international tour to visit and learn about different genetic improvement experiences.

After that, during 2008 and 2009, they created and implemented a mega project for genetic improvement. According to Mario Maino, Chile doesn’t have an institution in charge of cattle production itself, so this program was conducted under the umbrella of the National Institute for Agricultural and Livestock Development (INDAP).

This mega project had three main areas: artificial insemination (as a technique within the broader genetic improvement plan); to buy new bulls; and to select the best of them, calculating genetic parameters through ‘rendimiento propio’ (‘own performance’) and ‘prueba de progenie’ (‘progeny testing’) in research stations for two cattle breeds: ‘Normand’ and ‘Clavel’ (interview with Mario Maino, Lecturer of Universidad de Chile, 05 April 2013. pers. comm.).

Artificial Insemination

Artificial Insemination (AI) refers to a technique used in cattle breeding within a broader genetic improvement plan. By definition, AI is the deposition of sperm or spermatozoa in the female genitalia by artificial rather than by natural means. Bulls that are used for AI are primarily proven sires or bulls that have produced good calves from breeding with other cows. In the centre for selection and recollection of semen, the semen from a selected bull is collected with an artificial vagina. In the laboratory, the semen is examined to detect and eliminate strange materials and undesirable characteristics. They choose semen with a high quantity and high mobility of spermatozoids. If the semen is accepted, it is frozen, it is marked with the code of the bull, and then it is ready for sale and distribution.

The livestock farmers get the frozen semen, and they (or a technician) have to thaw it and deposit it in the cow’s uterine cervix. It is expected that 60% of the cows get pregnant with this technique (American Breeders Service, no date).

Coming back to the experience of the three previously mentioned actors (Universidad de Chile, Universidad Austral and Fundación Chile) regarding genetic improvement, they realized the need for institutional support. Consequently, they proposed a ‘National Genetic Improvement Commission`.

In 2007, the ‘National Genetic Improvement Commission` was created to advise the Minister regarding this policy. Many agriculture governmental and academic institutions participated in this commission (involving Mario Maino, the Lecturer of the University of Chile). Its president was the maximum representative of INDAP (Chile, 2007).

As Mario Maino argues, that commission stopped working during its early stages, mainly because of lack of funding. It was carried out under the umbrella of the mega project of genetic improvement, but it didn’t have specific funding destined for the functioning of the commission. In 2010, the two years program was finished.

That same year, there was a change in the Chilean political context: a new government (from the opposition parties) came to ‘govern’. This new government didn’t continue with the program of genetic improvement as it was. From 2012, it was decided to continue with the genetic improvement program, but not at a national level as it was before: each region had the possibility, and different amounts of money, to generate their own cattle genetic improvement program. According to Mario Maino, the main element of this reformulated program was the insemination technique, leaving the selection of the best animals as part of the genetic improvement outside. Despite these changes, the program remained under the umbrella of INDAP (interview with Mario Maino, Lecturer of Universidad de Chile, 05 April 2013. pers. comm.).

INDAP

INDAP is a public service of the Ministry of Agriculture. Its aim is to develop and support sustainable production of a particular sector of Chilean agriculture: smallholder agriculture, formed by peasants and their families. By means of different programs and services, it seeks to promote technological development of the sector to enhance their commercial, business and organizational capacities (Chile, INDAP, 2013a).

This objective followed one of the Ministry’s strategic lineaments: ‘to promote research and technological development, so that all producers, including the universe of peasant family agriculture, can access these through the strengthening of technological transfer’ (Chile, Ministerio de Agricultura, 2013)

Within the scope of INDAP, there is a program called ‘Programa de Desarrollo e Inversiones’, PDI, (Investment Development Programme) that is available to individual and collective members or `beneficiaries` of other INDAP programs. The objective of this programme is to give co-funding for the implementation of productive investment projects, aimed at modernizing production processes of small entrepreneurial farmers to make them more competitive in the market and sustainable over time (CHILE, INDAP, 2013b).

In 2012 INDAP started a ‘Cattle Genetic Improvement Plan’ (PMG). The program’s objective is to improve the genetic quality of beef, dairy and double purpose cattle, ‘through the implementation of appropriate technologies, building capacities and conditions to improve the productivity, to increase cattle population and to encourage a vertical integration of meat and dairy products in the market chain’ (Chile, INDAP, 2013c). This program is focussed in INDAP peasant family agriculture from the Metropolitan Area of Chile (with 108,388 cattle heads in 12, 805 farms) to the south of the country. This leaves the northern regions of Chile and the Valparaiso region (where I focused my research) out of the program (Chile, INDAP, 2013c; Chile, Sistema Estadístico Territorial 2013).

2.2. Peasant Family Agriculture in Chile (in numbers) The Chilean Peasant Family Agriculture sector is supported by the state since they are categorized as poor, vulnerable and with a lack of opportunities. It consists of about 1.2 million people, involving 270,000 farms who control about a third of the national agricultural resources. They generated 6.2% of national employment and participate with 25% of the agricultural GDP. This makes this sector the economic and social base of rural areas. Leporati (2004) describes their distribution throughout the country, focusing them between the IV and the X regions. He added that almost half of these families are concentrated in areas of low agricultural potential, while 52.8% are located in areas of high agricultural potential and less fragile ecology. According to Acosta (2004), this sector ‘is not very different, in terms of their productive social and cultural characteristics from the rest of the peasant economies of Latin America’. Leporati (2004) argues that the predominance of elderly farmers and a low level of education are barriers to technological innovation and entrepreneurial development of ‘this segment of the population’. They have modest endowments of land, often of poor quality; little access to credit, technical assistance, and market. Moreover, Schatan (2004) argues that ‘their organizations are fragmented and weak’. Regarding livestock, the peasant family agriculture in Chile has the control of a significant proportion of the national stock. From a total of 329,705 livestock farms, 84% are in charge of peasant family agriculture farmers, contributing with the 42% of the national cattle livestock (Chile, ODEPA, 2002), based on the ‘mothers herd’ (female cattle for reproduction). From a technological point of view, Leporati (2004) states they are characterized by a low use of external inputs, poor provision of infrastructure and poor farm equipment. It focuses on the exploitation of traditional items such as annual crops, livestock production and horticulture. From the point of view of the economic and commercial objectives, it is possible to find groups comparable with the most dynamic segment of the agricultural sector, with profit maximization objectives and business strategies aimed at a competitive insertion into the markets, and also groups with family survival strategies through minimizing risk, oriented to family consumption and trading the surplus production. The latter group is usually associated with marginal and/or ancient local culture. Nagel (2006) argues that often, just as the promotion of production, significant activities could be aimed to increase ‘human capital’, ‘social capital’ and the ‘organization’. Rojas (1986), who became Minister of Agriculture between 2006 and 2008, states that more important than recognizing their evident poverty and marginalization, it is to recognize that they have ‘significant economic, social and productive potential’. It is for these reasons that the incorporation of this ‘group’ to development becomes a target of public programs designed in a broader perspective of the on-going social changes.

2.2.1. The rural locality of Paihuén Farmers who are considered as ‘peasant family agriculture’ live in the rural locality of Paihuén. Paihuén is situated in the central area of Chile, Municipality of Cabildo, Petorca Province, Valparaíso Region.

Valparaíso Region is a central area of Chile, where the main productive activities are agriculture, livestock, fishery, mining and tourism. According to the Municipality of Cabildo, livestock production is not as developed as agriculture, so its importance in the regional economy is lower. Also, its potentiality to develop is decreasing because of the agro-climatic conditions, and actually, they argue, the activity is in a critical moment (PLADECO, 2009). According to the national survey, there are 100, 314 cattle heads in the region, in 15, 373 farms (Chile, Sistema de Consulta Estadístico Territorial, 2013).

Figure 1 Valparaíso region

The Petorca Province is situated to the northeast of Valparaíso region, including municipalities from the Pacific Ocean to the Andes Mountains. The Andes Mountains in this area are relatively high, with snow retention during the winter season. The main activity is agriculture, which develops along La Ligua and Petorca rivers. The mining activity is the second in importance, highlighting the copper exploitation. The total number of cattle in the Province is 22,636 in hands of 3,201 farms (Chile, Sistema de Consulta Estadístico Territorial, 2013).

Cabildo is one of the five municipalities of the Petorca Province, with 18, 926 inhabitants, from which a 34.27% are rural. Like the province, Cabildo has an economic development strategy based on agriculture and mining (PLADECO, 2009). Regarding cattle, according to the national census, in the municipality of Cabildo there are 5,149 cattle heads, in 925 farms (Chile, Sistema de Consulta Estadístico Territorial, 2013).

Paihuén is a rural locality situated 33 km from Cabildo.

2.3. The Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén In 2009, in a year of presidential elections, the livestock farmers of Paihuén applied to a ‘Programa de Desarrollo e Inversiones’ (Investment Development Programme), in order to improve the genetic quality of their herd. The estimate funding from INDAP to implement this program was $6, 000, 000 Chilean pesos (10, 000 euro approximately) to hire an external company for the management of the herd and the artificial insemination of 100 cows. Moreover, the construction of a fence was included in the project. Two more million Chilean pesos were contributed by the cattle owners themselves, in the form of working days (Chile, INDAP, 2009).

In December of 2010, 100 cows were already inseminated. After nine months, only one calf was born. This apparent disjunction between the objective of national policies regarding the promotion of technological development and the complex reality on the field, regarding the creation, implementation and results of this project, made me reflect on how the process of continuous transformation of actors and their relationships take place in their encounter with these on-going technological realities.

3. Problem Statement The everyday life of the livestock farmers of Paihuén is surrounded by technological revolution, institutional policies and market requirements that have forced them to engage with a new reality that is addressed with their knowledge and experiences, while a mountain livestock group in a process of transition. This new reality has generated a new form of conflicting interaction between the growth in techno- scientific resources –in our case the technique of artificial insemination- and the social and cultural development of livestock farmers in their everyday life. Furthermore, politicians and authorities appear to be incapable of understanding the full implications of these issues (Guattari, 2005) and the nature of the social change transforming these actors, their relationships with themselves and the society, but also the re-organisation of their environment in their pursuit of progress. Given the above, the aim of my research is to understand how the encounter with this Artificial Insemination Project transformed (or not) the subjectivity and social relations of the mountain livestock farmers of Paihuén. To answer this question I need to understand first how practices of livestock farmers of Paihuén and their livelihood strategies are the constructed knowledge of the encounter of their experiences as mountain livestock farmers with a reality constituted by the technological revolution, institutional policies and market requirements, which are propelling the arrival of new technology oriented actors as the ones involved in the artificial insemination project.

Justification

In spite of the observed conflicting interactions between the growth in techno-scientific resources and the development of social and cultural progress, this study argues that the intervention contributed to make institutionally visible a sector of livestock farmers that exists in a complex reality not totally bygone in the contemporary process of transformation. Their tribulations to adopt new technologies, their eagerness to make sense of new technologies, their impossibilities to forget their knowledge and their willingness to reenact their memories and livelihood under conditions of change is moving them from their ‘marginalized corner’ to the central debate about the actual policies to modernize livestock farming in Chile. The study does not intend to romanticize ‘pre-modern lifestyles’, but to explore the process of social change incorporating the significance, in policy making and implementation, of actors’ subjectivity and their social relations resulting from this ongoing technological realities that are indubitably transforming people, things and their interrelations.

4. Research Question How the encounter with the Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén is transforming or not the subjectivity and social relations of the mountain livestock farmers?

In order to answer this question, first I needed to understand the subjectivity of the mountain livestock farmers through their practices and their livelihoods, in order to understand their process of social transformation in their encounter with the Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén:

Specific research questions

1. How are the mountain livestock farmers’ experiences in a process of transition? 1.1. What are the main mountain livestock farmers’ practices? 1.2. How do they create the physical space to raise cattle? 1.3. How are they organized to raise cattle in Los Andes Mountains?

2. How are they able to create a diversity of livelihoods in Paihuén? 2.1. What practices, as constructed knowledge, represent their diversity of livelihood? 2.2. What are the key aspects to explain the diversity of their livelihoods and the variability of their practices? 2.3. How do women participate in the creation and maintaining of their livelihoods? 2.4. Why do the cattle livestock practices persist over time?

3. How their diverse set of practices -old and new- expressed as knowledge are pragmatically used and (mis) understood to implement and reflect on the artificial insemination project in Paihuén? 3.1. How did the livestock producers of Paihuén get involved in the Artificial Insemination project? 3.2. What were the main practices the different actors do for its implementation? 3.3. How do the different actors explain the results of the project? 3.4. What are social and physical foot prints of the project?

5. Theoretical framework Actor oriented approach is used to build the theoretical framework as a guideline to explore the development field, for which ´the main element is the human action…, explaining differential responses to similar structural circumstances…´ (Long, 2001). For unpacking policies I used the conceptual framework developed by McGee´s (2004) which ‘unpacks policy’ through the study of ‘Actors, Knowledge and Space’.

McGee’s conceptual framework connects concepts of knowledge (Long, 1992; Arce and Long, 1994, 2010), agency and power (Giddens, 1979, Long 2001); practices in contemporary theory (Swidler, 2001); practices as collective action (Barnes, 2001); practices creating subjectivity (Swidler, 2001; Solomon, 2005); the importance of the physical space of the three-fold model of rural space (Halfacree, 2006); livelihood, (Hebink, 2007; Ellis, 1998; Arce, 2003; Chamber, 1989). Finally, I return to the concept of policy space of McGee, where the different actors meet, highlighting the concept of Interface (Arce and Long, 1987; Long, 1989).

5.1. Actor Oriented Approach The Actor Oriented Approach focuses on knowledge and knowledge encounters through the practices of everyday life, the different actors’ strategies and transformations in their subjectivity, social relations, discourses, narratives, and how knowledge is internalized, used and reconstructed by different actors (Long, 2001). In this sense, all forms of external intervention necessarily come into the everyday life affecting individuals and social groups. This means that we need to recognise the interaction and mutual determination of internal and external factors and relationships (Arce, 2011). In others words, Arce and Long (2010) argue that the actor-oriented approach centres upon the diverse and discontinuous configurations of knowledge, highlighting: * The strategic importance and re-construction of bureaucratic practice and ideology AND * The active engagement of ´local beneficiaries´, not as passive subjects, but as 'knowing' agents in their own right. This approach highlights actors as active participants of their own development, their knowledge, agency and power. Giddens (1979) says that humans are always knowledgeable in some degree, of what they are doing. They are not always conscious of what they are doing, but people have a practical consciousness. In this sense, he says that it is important to study life style. He claims that people have agency, they have the capacity and ability to create something, to make changes, and to produce and reproduce knowledge. In the development field, Arce & Long (1994) recognized that only recently have the social components of knowledge processes been ‘rescued from the margins of sociological analysis to become a central concern in the field of rural development’. Arce (2011) argues that although human agency might appear to be embodied in the individual person, particular individuals are not the only entities that reach decisions, act accordingly and monitor outcomes: capitalist enterprises, state agencies, political parties and church organizations are examples of social actors that exercise agency. Regarding power, Giddens (1979) claims power is the capacity of trying to get what a person wants. But, ´agency and power depend crucially upon the emergence of a network of actors (Long, 2001).

Consequently, the main task of the Actor Oriented Approach is to identify and characterise different actor practices, strategies and rationalities, the conditions under which they arise, how they interlock, their viability or effectiveness to solve problems, and their wider social ramifications (Arce, 2011).

5.2. Unpacking Policy Following these premises of Actor Oriented Approach, McGee (2004) gives us a new way to understand policy, more complex and less lineal than just the rational formulation of objectives and its subsequent implementation. She argues that the interplay of actors, knowledge and policy space is dynamic and complex, and their interaction generates the policy process, making and doing policy.

Actors

As McGee (2004) says, actors hold opinions and interests, they have a particular history, they are embedded in an institutional and political culture, they exercise agency and power, and they have the capacity of interaction, negotiation, making changes and transformation.

Each actor belongs to one or more networks that cut across different spaces in the policy process. Consequently, all the different actors have a role in the policy process (McGee, 2004).

Knowledge

In the process of making policy, McGee (2004) argues that it is important to recognize knowledge as an instrument of power and a political tool.

Important kinds of knowledge are: ´official knowledge´ or discourses, constructed from national survey-based statistics, produced by certain actors; and ‘constructed knowledge’ or narrative knowledge about a specific issue; this incorporates the popular knowledge based on people´s own experience. Thus, knowledge is not just what we can explain, but also incorporates what we do in our everyday life (McGee, 2004). In this sense, Long (2001) and Arce (2011) say that ´the Knowledge encounters involve struggles between actors who aim to enroll others in their ´projects´, getting them to accept particular frames of meaning and winning them over to their points of view. If they succeed, then other parties ´delegate power to them´.

Arce (2011) highlights that knowledge and power are not just something that can be possessed and stored neither can be measured in terms of quantity or quality. ‘It emerges out of processes of social interaction and is essentially a joint product of the encounter and fusion of horizons. Knowledge and power must be looked at relationally and not treated as if it could be depleted or used up’.

In that sense, the issue of power and its interactions are important to understand the complex relationship and dynamics between actors, knowledge and their space.

Policy Space

Given that the policy process involves complex interactions, knowledge encounters may occur at different levels and moments of the process, with different outcomes. In this line, the concept of space is the area of life that is delimited by actions of people themselves; what people created like a boundary where they interact (McGee, 2004). This concept is useful to view the everyday politics and practices of actors who are doing the policy process, and to examine how their power to act is enabled and constrained.

The importance to analyze policy spaces is their transformative potential observable through the opportunities, behaviors, actions and interactions that created them (McGee, 2004).

She argues that all those spaces are configured by their history, their access, mechanisms, dynamics, and the learning dimensions that overlap, co-evolve and constitute the policy space. The ‘history’ of the policy space is related to how long it has existed, how and by whom it was created, and with impetus from where. To analyze ‘access’ to the policy space, you have to answer questions as what actors come into the space, what freedom of action they have, and what they achieve. The ‘mechanisms’ of the policy space are related to what actually happens there, who did what, in what physical context.

The ‘dynamics’ of the policy space are very important because they include the relationship between the actors, power relations, past histories and the remembered experiences of the participants. Both, mechanisms and dynamics, are part of the ‘rules’ of the policy spaces, and are shaped by the rules that are carried within historic and access dimensions. The last dimension of the policy space is the ‘learning dimension’. Within this learning dimension the different actors reflect, and these reflections make the learning process possible. She states that ‘and actor´s experience of engagement can –but not necessarily- generate learning, and thus, transform the actor, so that any subsequent engagements in this or other policy spaces will never start from quite the same point’(McGee, 2004).

Policy process

McGee´s contribution helps to understand the policy process in development. McGee (2004) explains that the issues of representation (to whom and why we are represented?), accountability (for whom we are doing this?, responsibility, connections and disconnections between the different levels of the policy process (How discourses and knowledge distributed in our society); and the location and use of power (how different actors use different power) are important, because they are key determinants of a possibility for change in development context, identifying multiple entry points and pressure points in the policy process.

5.3. The practices in contemporary theories I used the concept of practices to study actors and how they generate their constructed knowledge. The description of the practice provides us with a direct tool in which the knowledge and its logic can be observed directly: the practices are action, an organized action according to a more or less visible logic (Swidler, 2001).

There are some practices that encode, without describing explicitly as a rule, the nature of the community that they created. Swidler (2001) calls these practices ‘events’. These events are critical in the creation, formation and reproduction of the subjectivity of a being.

In addition, these practices anchor other practices and discourses, coordinating different actors. According to Swidler (2001), the practices that coordinate different actors are most likely to resist over time because they structure large domains of social life. These practices are key to understand the real meaning of being a subject.

The author argues that the events and the practices that anchor other practices are part of the constitutive rules that define the subject itself. The constitutive rules are what make a subject count as a subject in a particular context.

The practices as collective action

Collective action can be understood as an ‘agreement of practices’ or ‘shared practices’ that form a sociological account of social life: ‘human beings cannot be understood as independent calculative individuals (because) they stand revealed in their practices as profoundly interdependent, mutually susceptible social agents’ (Barnes, 2001: 26).

In this sense, subjectivity is inherently social through innumerable interactions within a particular experience or organization of the reality. As much as subjectivity is a process of individuation, it is likewise a process of socialization; the individual is never isolated, but endlessly engaging in interactions with the surrounding world. In this sense, the subjectivity of any ‘being‘ from any given society is constantly undergoing transformation (Solomon, 2005).

5.4. The three-fold model of rural space When I realized that practices of the livestock producers were taking place in a specific physical space –The Andes Mountains-, I decided to add some concepts of Halfacree´s (2006) ‘three folds model of rural space’. He argues that rural localities, the everyday practices of the rural and the formal representations of the rural collectively create the rural space. These three facets are not necessarily coherent to produce one unified rurality. Tensions exist permanently between the forces of permanence and forces of flow, as well as between the autonomy of the three folders.

For my research, I emphasized his argument regarding material space: ‘the material space of a rural locality only exists through the practices of their structural processes’ (Halfacree, 2006), thus, the physical space is created by the practices.

5.5. Livelihood Continuing with the understanding of the subjectivity of the livestock producers, the concept of livelihood was useful to comprehend part of their subjectivity through their practices, narratives and daily experiences.

The concept of livelihood is useful to understand and give us an idea of the many ways in which people create their lives, using a variety of resources as social networks, salary, land, capital, knowledge, technologies and markets to produce food, harvest their products and generate income (Hebinck, 2007).

In addition to these multiple livelihood strategies, in each family there is a diversification of activities to survive. Ellis (1998) defined this livelihood diversification as ‘the process through which a rural family built a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in order to survive and improve their living standards’.

Criticizing Ellis and other ‘policy-oriented sustainable literature’, Arce (2003) argues that the concept of (sustainable) livelihood should not be narrowed down to different ‘capitals’ that the people have, but it is necessary to highlight the different relationships and value contestation of actors coping with any kind of intervention and the everyday life in continuous transformation. From the author’s perspective, the starting point of a sustainable livelihoods approach should be the actors’ reality, as Chambers (1989) emphasized.

Chambers (1989) used an actor-oriented approach to advocate ‘sustainable livelihood security’. He stated that the priorities of the poor are the starting point. He criticised the poverty reduction policies concerned only with ‘flows’-income and outlays- because they exclude the reserves to meet contingencies, that according to him are what is important for the poor. He argues that the first priority for them is not the environment or production but livelihoods, stressing both short-term satisfaction of basic needs and long term security. He argues that reducing vulnerability was linked to improving net assets; meanwhile reducing poverty was linked to increasing low income. However, Arce (2003:203) argues that Chambers’ analysis is not complete because ‘it focuses on the internal dynamics of net assets at the expense of contests over social value and actors’ understanding of their own reality.

Returning to his criticism of the use of the term ‘capital’, Arce (2003) says that the sustainable livelihoods ‘should not be negated by reducing actors to different types of capital, which falls back upon the individual strategies of actors and their livelihood’. He argues that even though the term ‘capital´ could be useful when talking about private property, in societies where livelihoods are organized around complex mixtures of collective and private property, the analysis of the ‘individual capital assets’ may not be useful because it can ignore how the actors understand their own reality, and how they use and create institutions and their social relations.

He suggests a more dynamic approach to understanding local livelihoods, highlighting ‘the interplay and mutual determination of contestations of values and relationships and which recognizes the central place played by human action and identity...’ (Arce, 2003:204). Furthermore, in the ‘real’ context there are ‘contests over social value including the co-existence of several, seemingly incompatible, interpretations of social value within the same set of social relations or institutions (Arce, 2003:2006).

Even the diversity and variability of practices determine these livelihoods, at the same time they are determined by the time and space they create, and where they develop. Thus, the economic, social, political and historical contexts where these practices are inserted generate vulnerabilities, risks and/or opportunities. The space, usually understood as 'arenas', is then constantly changing and is recreated and renegotiated by the same people, sometimes generating struggles for their survival and conflicts among different actors. The time dimension can be understood as the livelihood’s 'path'. This 'trajectory' through time makes visible the changes in their livelihoods as well as their capabilities, illuminating that these changes take place through negotiations, struggles and (mis) understandings (Hebinck, 2011).

Within the diversity of livelihoods that are present in the community and in the different practices that a family carries out to build their life, I gave special attention to the activities of women, highlighting the triple role of women regarding their participation in reproductive, communitarian and productive practices. While communitarian and productive activities can be easily understood, reproductive activities, as contraposition to ‘productive activities’ are related to ‘the care and attention needed both for sustaining life and human survival: food, physical care and health, education, vocational, social, emotional and psychological support to the maintenance of spaces and household goods' (EUSTAT, 2013).

The practices that women and men exercise every day for their own survival make the actors visible as protagonists of their own history, knowledgeable and active participants of their own development.

5.6. Interfaces Coming back to McGee’s concept of ‘policy space’ as multiple points in time or space in a policy process, I realised that there are multiples interfaces in her policy space. Arce & Long define interfaces ‘as the central points of intersection between different social fields or domains of actors’ practices where discontinuities, based upon differences of existing life worlds, values and social interests are most likely to be found’ (Long, 1989, Long, 1992, Arce & Long, 1994).

The authors argue that the creation and transformation of knowledge ‘can only effectively be studied and analysed through an appreciation of how knowledgeable and capable actors are to build bridges and manage critical knowledge interfaces that constitute the points of intersection between their diverse life words’ (Arce & Long, 1994:77). They argue that these interactions must be analysed as part of the on-going processes of negotiation, adaptation and transfer of meaning that take place between specific actors.

Although interfaces have a potential for cooperative endeavour and sharing knowledge and experiences, they can also lead to a further separation of the different worlds, with the consequent reinforcement and legitimation of each body of knowledge, and thus, excluding or neutralizing ‘new information that prevents merging or transformation of existing bodies of knowledge, thus, perpetuating structural contradictions, power differentials an uneven development’ (Arce and Long, 1987: 245)

As Arce & Long (1994) argue, a planned intervention should be studied as a negotiated ordering of interests and relationships; the social construction of power in rural development practice; the interlocking of discourses in local development; the meaning and political significance of people’s struggles for survival and the role of diversity, fluidity and translation of knowledge in the implementation of rural policies. Consequently, the analysis of these interfaces is central to understand the intended and unintended results of planned intervention as a policy space within a policy process.

The policy space of McGee (2004) gives us the ‘room to manoeuvre’ created through many interfaces, encounters and misunderstandings amongst different actors, making visible the significant transformative potential –hopefully- for a positive change for the actors wellbeing.

I have presented the different concepts that helped me build the theoretical framework of my research in a separated, linear way, mostly to make them clearer. However, the boundaries of these concepts are blurred; they interweave and coexist in the complex and multiple realities.

6. Methodology In developing studies the Actor Oriented Approach is based on the understanding that social change is heterogeneous, unpredictable and affected by complex alliances that link together different actors. Consequently, these complex and diverse local realities require an analysis of the everyday lives of the people in the form of narratives (ethnography) that go beyond quantifiable measures of survey- based interviews and statistics (Arce & Long, 2010). Ethnography creates a more humanistic representation of the process of change. In this sense, ethnography is not imposed; it is ‘unstructured’ because the ethnographer does not have the control of the setting that he/she is studying (Hannersley and Atkinson, 2007). These argumentations provided me the basic guidelines to build my methodology.

In this research, I collected my data following the actors involved in the Artificial Insemination Project of Paihuén, focusing in the members of the Paihuén Livestock Committee as an entry point to others actors. As methods, I based my research on ethnographic evidence: observation/ participant observation, situated conversation, autobiographic interviews and group interviews, complementing these evidences with secondary data analysis. Finally, I analysed my ethnographic evidence following the steps of qualitative research analysis.

6.1. Data collection The data collection took place between March 12th and May 3th of 2013. I decided to start my fieldwork participating in an event called ‘Rodeo La Arena’ (see page 25) because it gave me access to the livestock farmers of the locality of Paihuén, other members of the community and to the ‘external actors’ involved with them.

Following their networks related with the Artificial Insemination Project and my own networks as a veterinarian that worked in the area, I ended up working with 6 different actors:

- livestock farmers of Paihuén who participated in the Artificial Insemination Project - the consultant who designed the project - INDAP, the governmental institution who provided the funding for the project - the private company who provided the artificial insemination technique - livestock farmers of the neighboring commune of Petorca, and - Lecturers of the University of Chile as the academic precedent.

I settled down in the surrounding areas of Paihuén to collect my data. However, I had to be constantly moving to follow not only the livestock farmers of Paihuén in daily practices, but all the other actors involved in this policy process.

In this sense, I travelled to ten different villages/cities to investigate their practices, narratives and discourses regarding this project and policy process: I went to the neighbouring localities of Petorca and Chincolco, to the locality of Longotoma and to the cities of Cabildo and La Ligua in the same Province of Petorca; I went to others localities and cities within the Valparaiso region, such as Quillota and Casablanca; and also I travelled to the Metropolitan region visiting the locality of Casablanca and the capital city of Santiago.

6.1.1. Ethnographic evidence The ethnographic fieldwork I used in this study allowed me to have everyday interactions with the actors that provide plenty of opportunities to use a variety of research methods, from participant observation through situated conversations to semi-structures interviews (Svašek & Domecka, 2012):

Observation/ participant observation

The observation and participant observation methods were used to get access to people’s knowledge through their everyday life practices. This access enabled me to have an insight into the livestock farmers’ subjectivity, to familiarize myself with the setting, and to gain confidence from the different actors:

Picture 1 Participant observation with the farmer

Following the livestock farmers practices I participated in four different rodeos (or rodeo activities) for a total of 7 days, and I lived with two families in the community of Paihuén for 4 days each.

Picture 2 Observation with the livestock farmer

Regarding the consultant, I observed one training meeting with the livestock producers of Paihuén. I shared one complete day of work with the new salesman of the private company. In addition, I observed one workshop related with other Insemination Program in the Peasant Agriculture organized by the University of Chile.

Situated Conversation

The situated conversations were made side by side with the (participant) observation methods, in the everyday contact with the different actors involved in the project, specially the members of the Paihuén Livestock Committee. With this method, I aimed to get access to unprovoked information (also referred as ‘unsolicited oral accounts’) or ‘solicited account’ (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007:99) useful to recognize, to visualize and to understand the social practices and its transformations.

Seven situated conversations were relevant for my study: two with the livestock producers of Paihuén; two with the livestock producers of Petorca; two with the consultant and one with a veterinarian of the University of Chile participating in a different Insemination Project.

Semi structured interview

The interviews provided me with access to detailed dates useful to fill up gaps, clarification, validation, and answers to questions that arose during the review of documents, (participant) observations and situated conversations. The interview with more open-ended questions was conducted more as a conversation than a fixed questionnaire, suggesting that there is a give-and- take. That means that the outcome of the conversations is the ‘coproduction of knowledge’ between the interviewer and the subject (Skinner, 2012).

Three semi structured interviews were done with livestock farmers of Paihuén; three with representatives of the public institution INDAP; and I interviewed two lecturers of the University of Chile.

Autobiographic narrative interview

The autobiographical narrative interview provided valuable understanding into the way in which individual experiences and emotional trajectories, partially shaped by relationship dynamics, socioeconomic and political processes, can influence the subjectivity of actors. This method frequently generates a valuable reflective space for interviewees, letting them work through past experiences (Svašek & Domecka, 2012). I did two autobiographic interviews to livestock farmers representatives.

Group interview

A group discussion was organized during a meeting of the Paihuén Livestock Committee. The aim of the group discussion was to get general reflections of the Artificial Insemination Project and its results from the Livestock Farmers of Paihuén. As the meeting was done at the end of my fieldwork, I split the group in two subgroups: the first group with the producers I had more contact with during my field work, and the other group with the farmers I didn´t know so deeply. Both of them answered four questions: positives results of the project, negative results of the project, what would they do differently if the project came again, and more generally, how to improve their cattle production.

I complemented these ethnographic evidences with the analysis of secondary data

Secondary data analysis

There was documentation taking place throughout the Artificial Insemination Project as well as through the functioning of the Paihuén Livestock Committee and their management of cattle in the mountains. Hammersley & Atkinson’s (2007:121) discussion of the importance of documents highlights that ‘documentary sources construct facts, records, diagnoses, decisions and rules that are crucially involved in social activities’. By analysing these documents I got a better understanding of the project and how the technical adviser, governmental institutions and livestock farmers are involved in the social process of constant transformation through their discourses and narratives. It was crucial to review those documents in order to understand the complex reality context, fill up gaps, open new questions or to verify/validate some of the information.

The main secondary resources were provided by one of the leaders of the Paihuén Livestock Committee, the consultant and the private company.

The documents related with the Livestock Committee allowed me to gain insight on the mechanism of organization and the different practices they carry out to raise cattle. I also got a film done by one son of the livestock producers about the management of the cattle in the mountains.

The consultant provided me with the Artificial Insemination Project itself, as it was presented to get the funding, in addition to several photos and other documents related to the project in Paihuén, as well as to the project in the neighbouring area of Petorca.

The private company that provided semen for the artificial insemination gave me a book explaining how the process is done, plus a catalogue with their offer.

Other secondary resources were collected from the internet, mainly to confirm data regarding the policy process of genetic improvement in Chile, population data, history of the community, their conflicts, among others.

6.2. Data analysis The analysis of the ethnographic evidence was done following the steps of a qualitative research analysis.

First I used field notes, recorder and photos to remember what I had seen, heard and felt during the (participant) observation, situated conversations, semi-structured, autobiographic and group interviews.

Second, I used this ethnographic evidence to build my own narrative of this research. Third, I labelled this narrative based on both the conceptual framework theory and some important concepts that came from de field. Fourth, I started labelling and coding, giving some meaning from the theory and the different actors practices.

Finally, I was able to answer the specific questions and the main research question of my research.

7. The mountain livestock farmers This first introductory chapter aims to present the livestock farmers from the rural locality of Paihuén and the physical space they use, through their relatively distinctive practices of cattle management in the mountains. I have chosen to describe ethnographically these farmers´ practices in the physical mountain space they use, since their description gives us a direct way in which knowledge and its logic can be directly observed (Swidler, 2001). In this regard, 'material space of the rural town only exists through the practices of their structural processes' (Halfacree, 2006: 51)

I focused my attention specifically on the practices during the ‘rodeos’ (rounds-up) at the Corral (big pens) of La Arena and Paihuén. These practices are carried out once a year as the culmination of the cattle management process in the mountains, which encodes the nature and significance of the community, being one of the key practices for the creation, formation and reproduction of the mountain livestock farmer’s subjectivity.

In this sense, the practices that constitute this ‘event' are part of the constitutive rules that define a mountain livestock farmer, and it is a central part of a wide domain of other practices and discourses, coordinating actions of different actors, persisting in time and structuring large domains of social life (Swidler, 2001).

Thus, during the description of these rodeos, both ‘livestock farmer’ actors from Paihuén and 'external' actors will appear intertwined in their everyday actions. All of them have participated from different logics in the Artificial Insemination Project held in this locality in 2009: the Paihuén Livestock Committee, INDAP and the consultant of the Technical Assistant Service (SAT).

As a summary of 'keywords', this rodeo plays a key role in the reproduction of the whole system of cattle management in the mountain, which will be described by the end of this chapter: it is as if we have a map on the table – the cattle management in the mountains- and a magnifying glass -the ethnographic description of practices-. Thus, focusing our attention with the magnifying glass in the box explaining the codes and 'scale' used in the map -the rodeo- we can understand the deep meaning of being a mountain cattle farmer.

7.1. La Arena Corral Located in the foothills of the Andes Mountain in the central area of Chile, the corrals of La Arena receive in March of each year roughly 3,000 cattle coming down from so called 'veranadas', the season in which these foothill communities take their animals up to the Andes Mountains; between November and March, the Chilean summer. This rodeo is held every year by communities of Paihuén and Alicahue, mountain localities of the Municipality of Cabildo, Petorca Province, Valparaíso Region of Chile.

The main objective of this rodeo is to wean calves that were born during the previous season. As Humberto told me -the treasurer of Paihuén Cattle Committee and producer of lettuce and potatoes- this moment is like the harvest time, when you know how many calves were produced.

Accompanying them in this activity is where I started this research. To reach this place, we went along La Ligua River. When we arrived to La Arena around 10.30 am, about 3,000 cattle were already in the stone corral.

Picture 3 Cattle in La Arena Corral

The 'criollo' cattle, as the farmers call their livestock, is an animal that has adapted over the years to the mountains. They are different than most continental cattle breeds (milk, meat or dual purpose), with a rather rustic and lightweight format that allows them to graze in the irregular mountainous geography. Rather than for they breed, the animals are identified by their colors: there are ‘overas’ (mixed black and white), ‘colorados’ (red), stained and brindle, among others. Most animals were thin -the best with a body condition of 2.7, on a scale where 1 is very thin and 5 is heavy weight-

26 taking into account that there has been a declared drought in the area since 2008. Those are the Alicahue and Paihuén cattle.

Before these animals reached the La Arena corral, there was an important job for both communities in the mountains, as Ms. Natalia explained to me – the only female participating in the Livestock Committee - 'men go up to get the animals in the mountains 8 days before the rodeo '. On Sunday, the first group left: 13 riders from Alicahue and 13 riders from Paihuén; one representative per family to look for the animals. Some families (the least) installed 'the ramadas1' at that same time.

On Tuesday, a second group goes up to support those who are already searching for the animals in the mountains. Since Thursday, the families of those riders and other members of both communities go up to the area around the corral to build their tents in 'camping areas': 'every family has its own Quillay2 ', Humberto explains several weeks later.

The riders divide themselves among the different streams in the mountain, in groups of 3 or 4, and they go slowly herding the animals starting from the top, to finish their work in La Arena corral, as it shown in a video made by Felipe -cattle foreman's son and mining foreman- in 2011. The arrival of the riders and animals occurs during Friday morning, and all families are installed and waiting.

Before the stone corral is the area of tents/camping. This area has two subsectors: I counted about 15 tents on the top of the hill, and the others are at the level of the pens. There are some modern tents, and there is a central 'ramada' where three big planks are used as tables: foods are sold there.

Passing the tents, the stone corrals start, with several cattle pens inside.

I see (only) men separating animals in the largest pen, where all the animals are. Manolo - Paihuén Livestock Committee secretary and manager of a private farm- tells me that they 'are receiving animals' and the 'work' will be held in the afternoon. A single woman rider, Ms. Damaris, from Alicahue, goes around recognizing their animals.

After the stone corrals there is a third area of camping where there are many trucks for cattle transportation. I call it the transport area. There is a ramp to load the animals.

Around noon, the movement in the corrals slows down and there is more movement in the tents:

To my right, there is a group of young adults singing ‘rancheras’ (Mexican music), to the rhythm of an accordion. It's time for lunch. All men women/animals (are) in the shade. The singing men drink and drink beers. Three riders did not even get off their horses.

Then a ‘cueca’ (the traditional Chilean music) comes. The atmosphere is getting 'cheerful’.

A second ‘cueca’ comes.

1According to the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language (RAE) a ‘ramada’ is a 'shed made of branches of trees', in this case, rather than the branches of the trees, tree trunks are used as poles, from which walls and ceiling made of plastic mesh are fixed.

2 Quillay or ‘Quillaja saponaria’ is an endemic tree that grows mainly in Chilean central zone extending from Coquimbo to Los Rios (IV to XIV region). It is characterized as resistant to drought conditions and tolerates temperatures up to -12 ° C (Stark, 2009).

And the live music ends ... in the distance you hear a slow ‘cumbia’ (tropical music) from one of the vans. There is a party atmosphere.

At each site, or Quillay, I see several women cooking, watching the fire, and men at the table. A man is lighting a fire. Other women get water. Some children help to prepare salads.

During the day I recognized Nancy- INDAP former executive in charge of Paihuén-, she was in her spare time, accompanying four people, two of them wore the logo of the government. I see them moving, talking to Humberto, and to other livestock farmers inside the corral.

After 13.30 pm I heard a noise made by horsemen. It means that the movement began in the corral. After a tour around the surrounding area I decided to go into the corrals; I wanted to understand the animal management practices carried out by farmers from Paihuén and Alicahue inside the corral. Soon everyone is working. Amid the tangle, I look and look for the beginning of the stream of animals in different corrals and I got surprised:

The first working group is in the largest cattle pen, where all the animals that came from the mountains are located. There are about 20 riders on their horses, all adult men (and one child).

They enclose the cattle, guiding them to some wood sticks which act as a funnel to direct the animals to the first 'bullpen' or 'manga3'. I call them 'primary herders'. In that big pen I also see three men and a woman who appear to be watching the animals.

Picture 4 Primary herders

3 ‘Manga’ is used as a synonym for 'bullpen', a passage to drive and to treat animals.

A second group of riders received the animals herded from the first cattle pen, making them go through this 'funnel', keeping some of the riders at the back for animals not to return. Some children joined this group of 'primary fasteners' in the afternoon. Their mission is to take animals to the bullpen and not let them go back.

Two riders from the second group go towards the bullpen and stay at its entrance, constituting a third group. More adults and some children get together to form a group of 10 people. Their job is to get the animals into the bullpen. I name this group as the 'guiders'.

A fourth group are the people who are working on the first bullpen. All animals that come down from the mountain pass through the first pen, built of wood. People who 'prodded’ (picanean4) animals to move through the bullpen are older compared to the previous three groups. They are separating the calves from the adult cows while they going through the bullpen. Hence I call them the 'cow weaning men'. Within this group, and with a key activity, is the doorman, who is standing on the stone cairn that separates the pens, and opens a wooden door when calves come, blocking the passage through the bullpen and forcing calves to turn left, towards 'the pen of calves'. When male or female adult cows pass through the first bullpen, that door remains closed and cows, heifers and bulls go directly to a second cattle pen.

A fifth group is the calves’ separators. They are located along the bullpen of weaned calves, smaller in size than the other bullpens, and they separate calves from Paihuén and Alicahue. This time a woman, the door woman, opened a wooden door when calves were from Paihuén, blocking the passage of calves and forcing them to turn left. The 'Alicahuino' calves continued right to another pen. In this bullpen, 6 people worked recognizing calves and helping the calves to move forward.

Picture 5 ‘Manga’ or bullpen of weaned calves

4 ‘Picanear’: to whip, to stir with a long wooden rod the animals to go forwards. Many times reason of ethical considerations related to animal welfare.

Inside the Paihuén calves pen, I see a woman, two children and an adult man. They lassoed and herded animals -'lasso-men´ and ´calve-herders´- to a corridor ending in a ramp where the trucks were ready and waiting for calves.

Therefore, a seventh working group is composed by ‘carriers of calves’. They place their trucks and waited for a group of about 25-30 calves to take them to each of the communities, where they will be together for a couple of days, until Sunday, when they will be delivered to each of their owners.

Picture 6 Transport of calves to their respective localities

Returning to the weaning bullpen, adult cows, heifers, bulls and small bulls have passed through this bullpen and now are in a second pen broad as an 'L', which serves as a corridor. Throughout this 'L' I see four children and one adult herding adult cattle towards the next pen.

From that pen where the children are, you can go to a large pen, which gives access to others five cattle pens: two pens for health management, the ‘neighbors’ pen for the neighboring localities, and two pens for lean or saleable cows, one for Alicahue and one for Paihuén. The separation of the animals in each of these pens is done by fifteen riders, acting as a mobile wall leading animals to one pen or another. If an animal takes a wrong way, two or three riders go to search for it and take it back to the pen where they belong (the origin of ‘rodeo’, the Chilean national sport).

There is a small triangular pen that connects this 'entrance hall' with the first health management bullpen. As I do not understand what the purpose of that small pen is, a man around 70 years old explains me that adult animals remaining for vaccination- after separating calves, lean cattle, those for sale and the ‘neighbor’ animals - pass to that triangular pen, as a funnel to direct them to the health bullpen. In his role of doorman –without a door this time, himself on his horse acted as door, he let certain animals go into the bullpen for health management. In this triangular pen there were several older men, about 60 years old or more- I recognize from previous years: Osvaldo, who has the largest number of animals in Alicahue and Eduardo, the cattle foreman, in charge of watching animals in the mountains. As children guide adult animals to the 'entrance hall' pen, the age composition of older adults in this small triangular pen is notorious, as they work as funnel to get the animals into the health management bullpen.

In both health-management bullpens, the health management is performed: vaccination and deworming, both for those from Alicahue as for those from Paihuén -. In one of the bullpen management called 'el arenal' (sandy area) there were at least eight people working, four from each community:

- Recognizers: they must identify who owns each animal within each community through their 'sign' in the ear, a cut made with a knife with different shapes.

-Vaccinators: both from Alicahue and Paihuén, who were using vaccines and deworming drugs.

- Secretaries: two women, one teenager daughter of the President of the Agricultural Society of Alicahue, and a young woman, wife of the President of the Paihuén Agricultural Society.

- Two representatives of the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG): One identifying the animals that still do not have an Official Identification Device, DIIO, and another person writing this number in a registration form which is stored in a national database.

Knowing that I was interested in the Artificial Insemination Project where members of the Paihuén Livestock Committee had participated, Humberto calls me to show me to his 'improved bull´, the only calve born after the first artificial insemination, in 2009. More robust than its peers, without horns and a red color, its physiognomy confirms its genetic 'Angus' breed.

Picture 7 Young bull resultant of the first artificial insemination.

I asked if this bull has required any different management 'no, nothing' Humberto tells me, 'just like all the other animals'

Picture 8 Health management bullpen ‘el arenal’

The other health management bullpen has similar characteristics, except for the least amount of dust in the air, and because it is more visible to the 'public'. The procedures are the same as for the other health management bullpen. A young teenager works as secretary for Alicahue. There is a secretary man for Paihuén in that bullpen.

From these health management bullpens, the animals go 'free' to a foothill area called 'Encierra´ (see page 37). I came to account around 83 people including men, women and children who were carrying out some of the described practices in the various pens that compose the corral of La Arena. This work lasted from 13:30 pm to 18.00 pm. It stopped, and the remaining work continued the next day, Saturday morning.

Friday afternoon, the party gradually begins. Some, like a group of young people, only come for party, drinking beer all day long. Women once again are the protagonists, I see them cooking. The men, after bathing in the river, begin to come to the table. Women also go to get water from the river. Children give water to the horses while some others carry beers. By nightfall, festive music is heard, there's a kind of 'central ramada', where I see a couple dancing, but most people stay near their 'Quillay'.

On Saturday morning, they continued working until they finished with all the animals. Now, all the calves are in their respective communities, and adult animals are vaccinated and dewormed in the ´Encierra´.

Then they start working with the animals that had been separated earlier: the lean and saleable cattle. This is done in the same health management bullpen 'Arenal'. The lean animals are vaccinated and dewormed, and owners decide if they prefer to keep them near home or to leave them in the ‘Encierra’ with the others. Animals for sale are evaluated by buyers. I identify at least two buyers; there may be more of them that I do not recognize. One of them stands among horses, trading with riders. A second buyer is looking at the animals that go through the bullpen. If there is agreement on the price, animals go to the ramp to be loaded on the buyer’s truck. If there is no agreement, the animals will go together with the rest of the cattle to the ‘Encierra’. All animal owners are present at that time, along the bullpen or on horseback in the pen.

The last animals that go through the bullpen are the 'neighbors' animals. Representatives of neighboring mountain communities 'El Sobrante', 'Los Patos' and 'El Tártaro' are watching the animals that go through the bullpen to recognize them, gather them and then take them -by truck or on foot through the mountains- to their localities. It is always like this: for each 'coming down from mountains' rodeo, they call the 'neighbors' to recognize and seek their animals. As an example of this practice I accompanied, a few weeks after this rodeo, representatives of Paihuén to recognize their animals in the neighboring rodeo of 'Los Patos'.

Once this activity with 'neighbors' animals is finished, near lunchtime, everyone begins to dismantle their tents; the leaders use the opportunity to relax. Then I had my first meeting with Fernando- consultant of the Technical Assistant Service (SAT), who told me his story regarding the artificial insemination project.

Later on, we dismantled our own tent and headed towards Paihuén, where the work with the calves began the next day.

Astete, field notes (15th and 16th/03/2013)

7.2. Paihuén Corral The corral of Paihuén is located 15 km from La Arena, in front of the houses of Paihuén, across the road to the north. First you have to cross the medialuna5 to the left, until you reach a corral or a stone cairn.

Smaller than the corral of La Arena, the outside stone wall is subdivided into two large cattle pens, each with its own front door. These two pens are divided by a stone cairn that at the same time conforms one of the walls of the management bullpen. The bullpen has a door that can be used to send animals to one or other area. The second cattle pen is also divided in two: separated again by a cairn. The calves are there, and the 'lasso men' and 'herders' lead them into the bullpen. The cattle pen which is further south has direct access to the management bullpen.

It is in this last pen where all the people are located. It has a small wooden building that provides shade and a giant tree in the middle. In the shadow of the tree, two people were already preparing lunch: roasted beef. One lit the fire and the other prepared the meat. A van was used as a warehouse. Even a table was installed directly under the shade of the tree.

Early in the morning, Manolo brings the people together. He asks who will vaccinate all the calves and who will vaccinate females only. The 'vaccine', as Manolo explained later, corresponds to a vaccine against Clostridium, a deworming drug to treat ‘Fasciola hepatica’, and vitamins -three elements highly recommended by technicians in the area-. They answer one by one: some want to treat all their animals and others only the females -not technically recommended; ideally you should treat the whole herd-.

The movement starts in the bullpen. Many men are looking the calves in the pen. I recognize their jobs: there are at least one recognizer, a secretary who writes the name of the owner and the treatment that was applied, three 'vaccinators', some push the animals to go forwards the bullpen, there is a person at the end of bullpen preventing animals from going back, and my former-partner from SAG writing down earring numbers of newly identified animals.

A buyer was also present all morning long. He told me that he had finally bought 22 animals, but he wanted 30. And he would continue buying during these days up to 100. The average price is around $70,000. Mr. Hernán – Cattle Committee Chairman and former cattle foreman- tells me that he sold the most expensive one for $100,000 and the cheapest for $60,000, prices that match what the buyer tells me. They explained later that the trader comes to buy calves and heifers; they keep them and then lease them to the sport-rodeos in September. Then they sell them: they are fatteners.

Each of these people is watchful to their calves and negotiations that occur there. For example, in a conversation between the son of Ms. Natalia and the buyer, it became clear that Ms. Natalia got a big steer, but she did not want to sell it, preferring to fatten it, to sell it at a better price in September,

5Sports circular infrastructure that houses ‘the rodeo’, the national sport of Chile, which is a 'collera' (couple of riders) who achieve to stop a steer in the medialuna area called 'atajada’ (stop area). In recent years there have been increasing animal welfare ethical considerations involved in this sport, especially in the urban-student circles. In my own observation, this questioning is present also in a tentative way among farmers within Paihuén.

34 as demand for meat increases due to the national custom of eating meat in different preparations during the celebration of the 'Fiestas Patrias6-.

Calves already have in their ear the 'sign', enabling identification. Regarding how to recognize that animals belong to Paihuén, Manolo and Mr. Hernán taught me that the 'bun' is the hallmark of all Paihuén animals since it became a Society: Manolo says, recognizing that this practice is a bit 'strong' they did not do it during the previous days in La Arena because there were too many people. Only one calf was 'marked' that day. And I was stopped from taking a picture by Mr. Hernán, who, while I focused my camera, 'gently' came to talk to me on his horse, blocking my view. I showed my hands free and directly asked permission to look at how this was done7. With his permission, I managed to get close to the calf that was on the floor, fully drawn by ties moored to the four legs, supported by men who pulled these ties. The owner proceeded to take a 'slice' of the animal's skin in the forehead, from top to bottom, leaving that piece of skin hanging. Then they put a little dirt to the muscle- the bone is exposed. Once healed, as seen in other animals, this mark is as a 'nice bun' in the head of the animals. The owner himself signals the animals using different shapes of cuts in the ears, and he puts the fire-brand in the rump. With these three practices (bun, sign and fire-brand); the animal is identified as both an individual property of this farmer and as a Paihuén belonging animal.

They worked from 9.00 am to 14.00 pm in this activity (health management and marking). Manolo explains that they will stop for lunch and then everyone should returns to work. All animals have passed through the management bullpen for identification, deworming, vaccination and vitamins. At the same time in Alicahue, the surrounding community, the same activity is being done. The SAG has also finished their work, they identified 250 females.

During lunch -meat, bread and beer or soft drink- all of them talk to each other and rest in the shade. The work restarts an hour later:

The animals are passed back through the bullpen, this time separated by owner. Small trucks will distribute groups of calves at each of their homes.

Accompanying a group of these calves I went on a truck from Putaendo, a mountainous municipality to the south of Paihuén. I accompany Victor, a relative of Humberto, to his house: a closed site that actually includes many homes. A teenager and a boy around 10 years old were waiting. The boy anxiously asked for his calf. The teenager tells him he has to wait to see if dad knew anything about it. The three of them (driver, Victor and teenager) help install the ramp to get the animals out from the truck. In the corral that receives the calves there is water, some shade, a cut tire to put the feed, and there was already a calf tied to a central post.

On the way back the truck driver tells me that he has been doing a ‘paletía’ (a favour) for some years to the people from Paihuén -although he charges them-.

6The ‘Fiestas Patrias’ or ‘El Dieciocho’ (‘Independence Day’ or ‘The 18th ’) is a national holiday commemorating the First Governing Body of 1810, marking the beginning of the Chilean independence process. It is held annually on 18th and 19th of September, including 17th or 20th if it's Monday or Friday. Usually the 'mood' party extends for entire month. 7The five principles of an animal welfare are: 1. Freedom of thirst and hunger; 2. Freedom of discomfort; 3. Freedom of pain, injury and disease; 4. Freedom to express normal behavior and 5. Freedom of fear and distress. In this sense, the Paihuén ‘sign’ and the fact that they prohibit me the action to record, can be interpreted as recognition by farmers of non-compliance to the third and fifth principle.

During the afternoon I spoke more extensively to Humberto. Humberto says that he is not a real livestock farmer. He tells me that Eduardo is a livestock farmer. He is a farmer, he produces lettuce, so he has not much time for the animals. He says that up to 90% of their household income comes from the farm. I asked him if his time is also divided into 90 and 10, and he replies 'noooo, 50 and 50 ', the cows are not giving anything, 'worse now' (with dry years).

After this, we went to eat again and I talked a while with Felipe and his friend. Both were not 100% dedicated to animals. Felipe is the foreman of a group of miners, but comes whenever he can to the rodeos. They joke about how dirty and tired they were after separating calves. The friend of Felipe lives in an urban area and only came that Sunday to participate in the rodeo. Two daughters were with him, he told us that the child was in the car, because he told her she was all dirty and she did not like that. In the morning, I had already seen them; there were not so many women in the corral: they were thin, wearing jeans, sneakers, well 'covered'. The smallest one had a lot of makeup, ‘pretty’, which caught my attention. The man tells us that the older one is more 'all terrain' and points at her. She was sitting talking to Ms. Natalia. Both at lunch time and in this hour of 'tea', Ms. Natalia is separated from the rest and only at the end, after the girl was gone, she approached the group.

When I see Ms. Natalia finally joining the other participants, while her son was drinking with the other livestock farmers, I approach her. She tells me about her son who is a policeman in Tierra del Fuego (Southern Chile); he has shifts of 20 working days per 5 days of rest, but now he had pooled 40 days working together to get 10 days off, so he could come to the rodeo. Ms. Natalia tells me that when he was young he had expressed he did not want to work in the field, and they had looked for other possibilities, until he became a policeman. His Mom tells me that he will retire soon and that he wants to return (to Paihuén) and start a business close to the village. Finally, they take me to my new home. The three-day rodeo ended.

After the three days of hard work I arrived to my new temporary home, tired and with my head a little crazy with so much information, these 'no livestock farmers' were spinning in my head: Humberto who describes himself as a farmer; Manolo who works as manager of a farm, Felipe, foreman of a group of miners, the policeman from Tierra del Fuego, the friend of Felipe with his two teenage girls already installed in the city...

[And I wonder:]

What moves them to continue participating, more or less, in these cattle raising practices? I also feel that 'charm' which keeps me coming back to this area.... my 'spell' I've been unraveling: it is the collective work that grabs my attention, which I love, it is the community organized for a common purpose, as an example that practices different from the individualist system do exist there, from long ago, and they remain.

Astete, field notes (17th/03/2013)

The importance of this ethnographic narrative of the rodeo in La Arena and Paihuén is that it makes visible the knowledge that livestock farmers construct through their everyday actions, their variety of social relations, and (sometimes) their divergent values and interests.

In this relational process (Arce, 2011), the subjectivity of the livestock farmers is inherently social (Solomon, 2005), highlighting the significance of the community: the subjectivity is a process of individuation as equally as a process of socialization (Solomon, 2005) in constant transformation.

Practices undertaken during the rodeos of Paihuén and La Arena implicitly define the ‘livestock farmers in the Andes Mountains’, as a space or domain of social action. The rodeo is a social reality where practices coordinate basic social relationships. In these rodeo, it is easy to visualize these practices, for example between sellers and buyers, relations with 'neighbors' livestock farmers, relations with institutions such as INDAP, SAG, SAT, among others. According to Swidler (2001), the practices that persist over time, are those that coordinate actions with different actors, structuring broad domains of social life.

Based on this ethnographic description, I would argue that one constitutive rule that defines ‘mountain livestock farmer’ as such -what makes the 'mountain livestock farmer' count as a 'livestock farmer' in a particular context, in the Andes Mountains - is the collective action, understood as an agreement on practices from a sociological perspective of social life. The human beings cannot be understood as being independent predictors, as their practices, -and that is the case of the practices described in these rodeos- reveal a deep interdependence, as social agents mutually susceptible (Barnes, 2001), creating the community.

Livestock farmers work collectively, they organize and distribute tasks, with the common goal of raising animals in the mountains. This collective action is essential to raise the animals in the mountains, getting them together at the end of the summer and bringing them down, to wean the cows and get the calves, their ‘harvest’, which they will sell or not according to their own discretion.

On the other hand, there are various, divergent and sometimes antagonistic values and interests (Arce, 2003) of those who participate in this rodeo. As Swidler (2001) argues, the antagonist relationship could reproduce the structure more precisely than friendly collaboration. In the rodeos of La Arena and Paihuén, this antagonist social relationship is represented by the relationship between livestock farmers and buyers of the calves and cows.

Collective work and the antagonist relationship with buyers are essential social relationships to create the subjectivity of mountain livestock farmers and to reproduce this ‘scheme’ of cattle management in the mountains. Furthermore, I can argue based of my ethnographic data, that the participation of children during the rodeo is also an essential part of the creation, reproduction and constant transformation of the subjectivity of the (mountain) livestock farmers.

In agreement with Razeto (2007), the significance of the mountain livestock farmers communities of the Aconcagua Valley is based on the diversity of knowledge that are practiced associated to the management of cattle in the mountains. There, a relational set of cooperative and individual activities creates synergistic and antagonistic relationships that account for a complex social reality in a constant process of transformation, that create the subjectivity of the mountain livestock farmers with strong senses of identity .

The seasonal use of the mountain is even more visible if we look at how, during the year, the farmers are organized to handle cattle on the mountain.

7.3. Cattle management in the mountain In the physical territory created by mountain livestock farmers from Paihuén, five movements of animals are carried out during the year: animals are transferred from the ‘Encierra’ (semi-closed foothills area), to the 'Invernada’ (wintering), then to ‘Las lluvias’ (the rains), after that to the ‘Precordillera’ (the foothills), to finally arrive, during the summer time, to the ‘Cordillera’ (the Mountain). Manolo explains the management of the animals with a drawing (Figure 2):

Figure 2 Cattle management in the mountain

Encierra

The animals arrive at the 'Encierra' about March 15th, after the aforementioned 'Rodeo of La Arena'. They remain in this area until May 15th.

The ‘Encierra’ has fences on the east and west sides; bordering the ‘Cordillera’ and along the boundary with '‘Las lluvias’', but it doesn’t have fences to the north side (which separates the adjacent community of 'El Sobrante', or neither at the south side, which borders with the ‘Precordillera’.

At this time of the year the animals are not going to the ‘Precordillera’, because even if there is grass, there is no water.

The ‘Encierra’ is the smallest area, but it is also doughy. Within the ‘Encierra’ is the ‘potrero’ 8, that still in bad years, without water, the grass grows 80 cm long. This is the only area which grows until the grass matures, without intervention, except for the passing cattle which is always rotating.

Invernada

The ‘Invernada’ area is from Los Perales, almost in line until Bartolillo, on the south side of Paihuén. There is a fence border with the ‘Hacienda El Manzano’ (south-west border), but there is no closure towards the ‘Precordillera’.

On May 15th the animals are transferred to the ‘Invernada’. The dates are relative, depending on the changes in climate. For example, this year they were waiting for the first rain to get some water in the ‘Invernada’ (wintering) before moving the animals.

The first animals to use the ‘Invernada’ area are the calves and cows that came in the rodeos (La Arena and neighbors rodeos):

'Because you cannot return them to the ‘Encierra’, since they would go back together with the cows you’ve already weaned... and for those who came from neighboring herds, it is crazy to leave them for a month, with all the walking (they have to do to arrive to the ‘Encierra’). So everyone leaves those cows over here. Calves alone cannot be taken over here, because when the calves are alone they start walking and they will stop, I don’t know, up to Putaendo (far away)...; however, when they are together with older animals, they don’t do that. Then, you'll see that the cattle are in this part (‘Invernada’). There is a lot of grass, there is not much water, but there is a lot of grass.

When I asked Manolo why this area is the choice for the winter period, he explains that 'this is the only part where you can keep the cattle in the winter' because there's snow in the ‘Cordillera’, in the ‘Precordillera’ if there is grass, it is covered with snow also, in the ‘Encierra’ the animals just ate the grass, and in ‘Las lluvias’ (which interested me as a possibility for the winter) he explains in detail:

‘Las lluvias’ (the rains) has a lot of vegetation in the winter, but it is a very cold place... on this side, if an animal comes out of the road you have just lost it, as it will be in the middle of the bushes (and you see nothing). Here, I cannot take them because it is very cold (in winter), lots of shade, lots of trees. They could be eating a bit better, but I cannot let them here, because the cold will kill them and it will make them run away...

In the ‘Invernada’ (wintering) instead, there are not so many shrubs except for the dark parts, and in fact it is warmer,... and you can see the animals. This is the part where I could take them (in winter): this sector does not have a lot of vegetation, so is warmer.

And then, to ensure grass through the winter in this area, they 'save' the grass from last year:

So when we take out the cattle in this sector (‘Invernada’) ... nobody uses this grass...no animals remain here... The grass is green and the terrain is generally clay. It grows up to September, October, which is the grass that is eaten when the cattle arrive in this area.

8 In this case, a potrero can be define as flat terrain naturally enclosed, that at one end slopes upward to higher terrain, the Andes Mountain. Historically, the ‘potreros’ have been used as pasture for livestock.

The transfer of the animals from the ‘Invernada’ to 'Las lluvias’ is done slowly, starting with newly calving cows approximately August 5th, because there is no cattle in ‘Las lluvias’ and therefore, they - that need of good nutrition for the lactation stage- are going to start eating the green grass.

The following week, on August 10th, you have the wintering rodeo in the high area of the ‘Invernada’. You get the cattle that were in the bottom of the ‘Invernada’. Therefore, it ends with a rummage on September 16th. It's a whole month of movement of animals

'Because it is all the productive part, all cows are calved... therefore you cannot do all the movement at once, you should to do it by parts. First, get all the cows that are calved, and then the rodeo’.

Las lluvias

We make a rodeo and move them to the north side, called ‘Las lluvias’ (the rains) on August 5th. There, the cattle are held until November 10th ...when the grass get dry... In ‘Las lluvias’, the grass grows fast but it is a small sector. The ‘Invernada’ (wintering) is much larger than ‘Las lluvias’. Therefore, we have a large amount of cattle in a smaller space, so (they stay) August, September, October (...) they are two months and a half (there)... and they take full advantage (of pasture).

When the pasture has dried, the cattle are taken up to the ‘Precordillera’. They start to go up alone because they start to find green grass when the snow melts. Cattle reach the west fence of the ‘Encierra’ and stop there. The livestock farmers get them there.

They get out in the Arena ... we catch them there (and) we bring them to Alicahue, and from there we take them by Los Perales (to the ‘Precordillera’).

Precordillera

The animals are in the ‘Precordillera’ (the foothills) from November 10th until January 5th:

When they get out from ‘Las lluvias’ they come to ‘the ‘Precordillera’. And it's the same that happened to the cattle in ‘Las lluvias’, snowmelt begins in the mountains and cattle begin to rise on their own: if you do the rodeo on January 5th, in this part you see 30% of cattle. The other 70% already came alone to the ‘Cordillera’.

Cordillera

The cattle are in the ‘Cordillera’ (Mountain) from January 15th to March 15th. According to comments from Manolo and Humberto:

There is no way to have grass here, because, although there are no animals, we have a strong competition with the guanaco (Lama guanicoe), that causes problems in ‘las vegas’ (very humid terrain in the mountain).

Around March 15th the rodeo of eight days is held in the ‘Cordillera’, with one representative per family. The objective is to gather the animals and bring them to La Arena, where I began this research.

Regarding the reproductive management, Manolo tells me that they have never separated the bulls - a technical advice to make more effective the pregnancy -. He tells me:

'Well, we've never done it. That it is was what they told us, to separate the bulls, but it is almost impossible ... I mean, in the open field is impossible, we would have to have them in an enclosed place... because bulls start moving ... it will cost more effort for the bulls to arrive where the cows are, but I think in the end they will arrive.

There's an issue, I do not know if it is related to the ´Criollo´ breed that we have-, but although we keep the bulls with cows, our production is concentrated, it is not concentrated in a month, but calving happens between July, August and September, three months.

Now, he exemplifies a ‘reproductive management’ they have been doing:

For example, in Alicahue and Paihuén, and that happens to us together, we put aside 200 heifers for the rodeo (the national ‘sport’), which we have enclosed for a couple of weeks, with a bull...that is how we synchronize the estrus, but not because we want to synchronize bulls with cows, but ... for the rodeo. We have come to an agreement: ‘let leave some bulls, but they are not going to be run (or played in the sport rodeo), let the bulls to ensure fecundation’....That is the closest (management) to synchronizing the cows’ estrus ....so they are born in June... I think it's a good date because in June, there is some green grass and a bit of dry grass, so they gain a month because in August they have green grass everywhere...the best calves are those born in May, but not because there is more grass, but because they are just a few, and from May to March you wean a calf of 11 months...

In dry years, some management changes have been tried:

'what has been happening over the years... because of dry years and the problem of water: three years ago we began to do the following: as the ‘waters’ were few, people began to distribute (their animals in other parts of the Mountain)...there were people who took them over here, over there, but once it started raining, they have to take care of them, to take them down so that the animals do not stay in the snow... What is the problem? The problem is that a snowstorm came and they were stuck, so 15 -20 animals died together there.

In June, in July actually, there is no date here (in the drawing), we did a rodeo here and got them together to continue the cycle.

And he concludes later, -in response to my insistence about exploiting the natural curve of pasture-:

I've tried many times to improve the issue of how we could make it better, by making changes. And believe me, no way, that is, old people are not fools ... there is no way to change it.

Cattle management performed by Paihuén community visualizes, in my point of view, that there is a deep understanding of the Andes Mountains territory, its potential and weaknesses. With their practices and arrangements they organized their territory (Halfacree, 2006).

They are able to use their knowledge, they have agency, using specific areas of the mountains according to the availability of grass, water and agro-climatic conditions. That is, taking into consideration humidity, rain, snow, shadow and sun, and moving the animals according to those conditions.

This knowledge of the territory, this BEING a livestock farmer, in the particular context of the Andes Mountain, may be associated with the occupation of mountains for thousands of years by native people, both nomadic and sedentary, as the first inhabitants of the Mountains: 'since thousands of years ago it is still the same pattern of mobility and temporary settlements, i.e., the same occupational logic has been associated with the Inka culture'(Razeto, 2007: 27).

Continuing with this argument, there is consensus that the first groups who occupied the Andes Mountains in central Chile (11,000 -7000 BC), occupied them in small numbers called 'bands' consisting of no more than 25 people each, mostly blood relatives (Pavlovic, 2007) who distributed tasks with the ultimate goal of their own subsistence. Centuries later (500 AD), the author describes the so-called 'task forces' of sedentary communities, who were absent from camp for short periods (to higher lands at 2000 over the sea level) and then returned.

In agreement with Razeto (2007), I visualize in the story of Ms. Natalia, Felipe (page 26) and Manolo, a similar pattern of 'mobility and temporary settlements' in the mountain, adding the importance of collective action and the significance of the community -as in the ‘bands’ and the ‘task forces’ of our ancestors– as shaping the mountain livestock farmer’s being.

Following Arce (2011), it is important to recognize the interaction and mutual determination of internal and external factors –as the drought and the possible competition for resources with wildlife- that come into the everyday life of the livestock farmers, transforming the same actors and its structures.

Trying to cope with the actual drought as an ongoing environmental transformation, they have tried some changes in cattle management as individuals –not as Livestock Committee-. Even though they haven’t found a new way (as Manolo told me: ‘believe me, the elders know how to do it’), they are willing to find a way to continue breeding cattle in the mountain under the current dry climatic conditions.

Acknowledging the importance of the external factors (drought and competition with wildlife), they will not be assessed in detail on this research, since a more comprehensive analysis and a whole new research would be required.

Continuing with the search for the meaning of being a mountain livestock farmer and to understand them as a subject in continuous transformations, Humberto and his family, farmer and the owner of the ' improved bull ' obtained by Artificial Insemination; Ms. Natalia, the only woman belonging to the Paihuén Livestock Committee; Eduardo, cattle foreman and his son Felipe, mining foreman; Manolo, leader of the Paihuén Livestock Committee; Nancy, former official of INDAP; Fernando, the consultant; Mr. Hernán, ex- animals foreman of the Paihuén Agricultural Society, all who I have been gradually presenting in this introductory chapter, among others, who will appear on the following pages, are those who will continue giving life to this research through their practices, history and narratives.

8. Paihuén and its history Paihuén is a rural foothills locality composed by 218 houses, inhabited by a total of 851 people9, 441 men and 410 women (INE, 2005). It is located 27.3 km (30 min) from Cabildo, and 9.6 km (11 min) from 'Los Perales', belonging to neighboring rural locality of Alicahue, the last village with permanent residents before the Andes Mountains.

We can reconstruct the history of the Paihuén community through the life story of Mr. Hernán, a former cattle foreman of Paihuén Agricultural Society, Humberto, 'the farmer', and some clarifications of others Paihuén inhabitants:

'My father was not a big cattle farmer, but he always had animals. Not many, because his resources did not allow him to: he always worked for an employer, for the owners of this ‘fundo’ (a huge farm), (who) were the ‘Silva’.... The first one was Mr. Jorge Silva Ureta, later on he married. The children were Silva Matte10. Two sons were born: Mr. Ignacio and Mr. Jorge Silva, former owners (of the ‘fundo’) before their land was expropriated by the Agrarian Reform … and after expropriation, the settlements were formed.

About my father, as he was a tenant farmer, he could not raise too many cattle, just enough for our living... at that time, about 15 or 20 animals. He (also) had some sheep, but bovines (of workers) were just a few...

(In total) in the ‘fundo’, there were around 6000 cattle... yes, it was another reality in terms of rainfall, more water fell, there were better pastures ... and old people raised a lot (of cattle) .... '

The story that Humberto tells matches with the Economic and Political History of Chile (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional, 2013). Paihuén, along with the towns of Los Perales, Alicahue, Bartolillo, Pililén, La Viña, La Vega and San Lorenzo, were part of the former Hacienda Alicahue (Cerda, 2007) (or the ‘fundo’), until 1969.

After the Agrarian Reform Process –a transformation process of the Chilean agriculture that developed between 1962 and 1973 which resulted in the redistribution of a significant percentage of national lands - Paihuén became a Settlement11 'and finally, in 1978, it started to be administered by the Paihuén Agricultural Society (The Society).

Regarding cattle, at the time of the expropriation and settlement formation, most of the animals were sold so they did not become part of the newly formed settlements (Silva and Cosio, 2011). Mr. Hernán corroborates the above, telling me that they had to buy animals:

9 According to the National Statistics Institute (INE), Paihuén is considered a village: human settlement with a population ranging between 301 and 1,000 inhabitants

10 In my review of secondary literature, this story is missing a middle generation: Jorge Silva Somarriva, son of Jorge Silva Ureta and father of the Silva Matte brothers.

11 The Agrarian Reform Settlements were a type of organization for production, created in order to manage the land acquired by the farmers during the process of expropriation. A state institution called CORA, granted land and other resources needed for the effective cultivation process. Farmers contributed with their work and experience. This transformation process was interrupted definitively with the military coup of 1973. The following year, CORA and other related institutions had dissolved (Gonzalez and Reyes, 2009).

'The directive decided and asked the members. They bought about 80 cows and bulls. They were Hereford breed. They had to pay CORFO, which was the one who offered them.... '.

In addition, each member had few animals individually. In total, there were about 1000 cattle.

8.1. The Society 'In the year 78' (settlement members) refused the parceling process, preferring to buy La Hijuela (the land area of the ex-‘fundo’ redistributed to them). There were 40 members in Paihuén, 28 of them wanted to buy the land and 12 of them preferred their part in cash. Therefore, they acquired a debt with the bank to buy the land and to be able to pay the 12 people that wanted to sell12'.

As Humberto explains, they decided to maintain the land of the former settlement on behalf of Paihuén Agricultural Society. Nevertheless, they partitioned part of land into smaller plots for each member to live and farm, while the Andean and mountainous surroundings remained, until today, as a common good.

The animals of the now ex-settlement contributed to the payment of debts as Manolo told me:

‘The Society had a lot of cattle, but when they divided the land, they didn’t have any money to work (the land), so, they began to take loans and then they paid them with cattle’.

Currently, the President of The Society is paid a salary, since, as Ms. Natalia explained: 'he left his plantation' (to manage The Society). The Society also has workers. Humberto tells me that Paihuén Agricultural Society today has:

'40 hectares of avocado ... they have them since 97 and 98 ... the first part of them dates from 99... And the second part was planted this year, more than 20 hectares ...’

Picture 9 The new avocado plantation of the Society

While I am amazed by the fact that they had taken the 'risk' to plant more avocados with the current water shortage in the area, Humberto explains:

'Yes, that’s because we have at least two registered wells... one that we did not use, it was only made and left unused ... as the first avocado trees were irrigated with a natural spring. The flow of that slope got lower because of the fewer rains. Thus, we thought the rain was not coming, the guys previewed that, and placed an adductor from here towards the sector where the first avocados are located.'

12 After the Agrarian Reform process was interrupted by the military coup, the Governing Board embarked on the issue of regularization of the process, which included it review , the return of lands ‘illegally expropriated’ and the delivery of definitely expropriated land. In 1982 the implementation of Agrarian Reform was ended (Henriquez, 1987)

The Paihuén Agricultural Society is the result of their struggle, immersed and creating the socio- political-economic context. Currently it has 28 members, and it is the most important organization of the Paihuén community. They have incorporated new items such as avocados, investing and taking advantage of them, which may explain its persistence.

8.1.1. The transfer Unlike the production of avocado, in 2008, the leaders of the Society felt it was not cost effective to have cattle as The Society, which led to the distribution of the animals back to each of the 28 members, as Humberto tells me during a conversation:

H: It must have been around 2008 (when) the Society´s cows were distributed among members. There must have been about 300 cows. We took the decision being the new directive board of The Society (which started working in 2007 - 2008). I was involved already.

We believed that the way cattle had been handled in The Society was not useful. In addition, the land had been divided, (so) you couldn´t feed the animals: there was no land, because as society plots had passed to their members. There must be about 15 or 20 hectares of farmable land down here. Now, they are leased for potato production ... Thus, we saw it was not cost- effective to have cattle as a society, and we proposed the idea to the people...

Y: Why was it not ‘cost-effective?

H: The management was not correct...

Y: How was the management?

H: Imagine that ... the foremen did not leave bulls for mating

Y: And what did they do ... did they sell them?

H: Look, they were lost, sold, not renewed, imagine that sometimes, out of 400 females that they had, they harvested 70 calves. Then you said: what did I work for? 70 calves, let's value them at 100 thousand pesos: so, that makes 7 million pesos, and how much did you spend in a year? You have 2 foremen, Mr. Hernán was one, and Espinoza was the other. Both had a monthly salary during the year; think that they earn 150 thousand pesos: 300 thousand monthly...

And: For how long did that happen?

H: (for) 2 or 3 consecutive years...

Y: But how long did they have cattle as Community?

H: Nooo, since this was a settlement. A foreman was always in charge. But when I started to study business and all that, I realized that every item should be self-sustaining: each one must deliver cash flows. It is not right if cattle give me loss, and then, avocados cover me. Each item must ‘rescue’ itself. Not all the eggs in one basket. And we saw that it was not profitable as it was, so I proposed to members...

Y: It was more expensive to have 400 cows than having nothing...

H: Sure, nothing happened regarding generating money from cattle, and I told people. And people agreed, but they said 'you have to study what is the most transparent way of distributing them, a way where no one is unhappy: ‘I got one smaller or a larger one, my neighbor got one calved and mine is not '... Then we did it, team work...

And: Who were in the team?

H: ...(we were) five. And what we did: we started to separate them in the rodeos: there are so many pregnant cows, we leave them apart; those who are close to giving birth and postpartum, we separate them in a batch; the heifers of two years and under: apart; dry cows: apart.

Y: And the bulls?

H: Those with dry cows, at random luck. Then we put all the animals together and numbered them. Before numbering them, we told people what we were doing. Suppose we have 220 dry cows: we numbered them from 1 to 220, and then we put the numbers in a raffle from 1 to 220 and we mixed them. (We did) the same with the calving and pregnant cows. We raised the idea and people liked it because at least it was at pot luck.

Y: But within homogeneous groups...

H: Sure. We started the distribution; we calculated how many cows are dry. For example, Benito Araya, the first on the list, drew a number. There were 28 members and they all took an equal number, everyone took five dry cows for example. And so forth.

Y: Were those consecutive numbers?

H: Yes, from 1 to 220: 220 numbers in a raffle, and then the guy came and pulled out a random number, drew his number. We completed the 28 and now, ‘let’s take them into the pen, the 85: whose is it?’... ‘Mine’.... if you got number 85, that cow is yours. Then we took it out of the bullpen, we put it the mark (of the new owner), we fixed the signal and right away it went out. And so on. We ended up with dry cows and then we started with the calved, I think they were like 22, they were few, then we went to pregnant cows, until we completed 28, so we got 1 for each member. Then the same, so the ones with bad luck got only one pregnant cow, the others got a calved cow; but randomly, so they all knew.

Y: But that (cow) 1 was the 1, the 2 was the 2 ... that was random?

H: Yes, once we had them in the pen we marked them all, all the cows; we painted a number in all 220 cows. They were marked first, and later the draw was made. Then they were distributed, they got the dry ones and then the heifers. And there were people who lacked 1 or 2 (cows); I remember they were like 7 in total. We did a rummage around the mountains and more animals appeared, so they were completed, it seems that each of the members got about 9. About 258 animals were distributed. The bulls were in the same group that the dry cows, but by being more stout and all that, it was a matter of luck because it was September, and that's when the price of the cattle is better. People who got bulls sold them right away, some big bulls they got...

Y: Didn’t they save any bull for reproduction?

H: No. Some of them did, but others just sold them all ... and that’s it… you asked me how did I started as a livestock farmer, ha! And I told you the story of the society, ha!.

The transfer of the animals from the Society to each of the members visualizes an economic thinking of the leaders of the Society, who choose to withdraw the cattle management from The Society.

This story also enhances the knowledge about handling animals, through the review of the previous management and the separation of cattle in four categories, which sometimes opposes itself and the technical logic when those who got bulls chose to sell them, instead of leaving them as reproductive bulls.

In addition, the ability of members to agree on a way to distribute the animals randomly, and therefore transparently and fairly, reflects the confidence and power that members delegate in this team and the organizational capacity of the team to solve problems.

8.2. The Livestock Committee After the distribution of animals to each of the members, they created another organizational form to continue raising cattle on the mountains. Humberto tells me about this event:

‘What happened is that (each of the livestock farmers) took responsibility for what each one had. We were like bees without a queen. Previously, the costs were assumed by the Society, with 2 foremen; they did not only look after the animals of the Society, but they also took care of the animals of each of the members. To put it in simple words, the members just had to work for the rodeo, but they would not put a penny. All costs were assumed by society. Then, a way to reduce costs was just eliminating the foreman; two salaries that wouldn´t be paid anymore: full time, full month, unlimited contract, vacations, all royalties that an employee can have’.

Manolo tells the whole history:

‘So when The Society distributed the cattle, we were forced to say 'ok, we have to organize ourselves as livestock farmers' ... 'this has to continue, how are we going to organize ourselves?'

Me, Humberto, Mr. Hernán called a first meeting... in 2008 and we said: 'now, we have to make an investment and hire a foreman, it was paid by the Society before, but now we have to fund it' ... someone who can be in charge of the cattle...

And, using the same allegory of Humberto, he explains the need for organization with a honeycomb:

‘Because… this is the same as a honeycomb without a queen. Who is there watching (and saying): ‘hey! You have to get those cattle out of there’, we need someone who is leading that issue...

Then, what happened, we said ‘we have to hire a foreman, we do not have many resources or anything, so what do we do?’, we hired a person for 10 days a month... that was $ 100,000 [150 Euros], and we gave him feed (for his animals)’.

At that first meeting they elected Eduardo as foreman 'for his experience, someone who wanted to work, and who was interested because he was also a livestock farmer', Humberto tells me. When I asked him how he was elected, he said that 'elections are wide open here, in the sense that if they give me the word, (I say) what I think, and who I like.

Manolo also comments on the election of representatives:

‘At that time Mr. Hernán was elected as President, Humberto as the treasurer and I, Manolo, was the secretary, and we also had two directors .... (The role of) the president (was) to have a direct relationship with the foreman, to organize things. The treasurer looks after the issue of money and accounting, and the secretary takes notes ... and the two directors, they are to support the board when someone is absent. Ok, that was agreed during the meeting, and how it should have been. It never worked in such way: .... the one who was closer was Humberto, but due to working reasons Humberto began to move away, he could not support me much. Mr. Hernán always supported me on the mountain. Then, I started doing the work that the President does, the Secretary, the Treasurer and everything.... In fact, until today’...

Picture 10 The Livestock Committee leader, the Secretary

Regarding funding, Manolo explains:

‘When we started as a Livestock Committee we had no funding, nothing, so that year, we said 'now, let's start making rodeos for the Livestock Committee ... We did the rodeo of September 18th ... the issue was that all farmers had to contribute with cattle for this ... for example, September 18th we do it with ‘The Huasos Club’ ...

Then, we started doing small (sport) rodeos for the day ... a one-day rodeo or two days, they are not formal rodeos... That money was used for everything: to repair the fences, to pay the Foreman....

In addition, we set a fee of $1,000 per animal a year [1, 5 euro]... for example, when we started there were around 900 animals, (thus) we collected $ 900,000 [1350 Euros]. We had nine months of funding for the foreman, and the rest we were taking it from the funds that we were getting through the Livestock Committee ... Later the number of cattle increased... I'm talking about the years 2010-2011, with $1,000 per animal we had for 12 months, there were about 1200 animals (...) but at that time

Eduardo resigned, and Mr. Hernán came until November 2012. Mr. Hernán, because of his knee problems said 'I cannot go on', so we had to name another (foreman). We returned to Eduardo, but for Eduardo it was not profitable, because $100,000 [150 euro] in 2008 was fine, but now, in this time, he said 'I work, but with the condition that it has to be for at least 20 days'. So, it was not $100,000, now it was $200,000 [300 euro] plus the issue of feed, so we pay $250,000 per month, which were 20 working days plus $50,000 [to feed his horse as a working tool]...Because of that, we made a two day rodeo, so we could pay the Foreman... Independent of the foreman issue, we continued with the amount of $1000, this has not changed ... (the idea) is to always keep a fund, to go forward’.

The Livestock Committee members meet every two months more or less, and they decide future actions related to cattle management. Payments are usually made in these meetings. Manolo explains how the process of summons is done:

‘To call for a meeting, first I start reviewing who has not paid, what he hasn’t paid, and we have to clear him, like (Annex 1):

- Freight from El Sobrante for 2 animals: such amount

- Vaccines pending September 2012: such amount

... Not all the members come to the meetings to pay, some of them do not go to the meetings... meetings attendance is always around 65-70%’.

Finally, Manolo clarifies that from the 28 members of Paihuén Agricultural Society who received animals, four of them sold their cattle within a couple of years. Therefore, there are 24 members of the Livestock Committee. However, those 24 members are representatives at the same time of several other animal owners as Manolo tells:

That is what happens to many of them, if we divided into everyone that has animals, there would be about 50 and something (owners) ... the child, the wife, the uncle ...’

In summary, the Livestock Committee was born in response to the Society´s economic decision to stop taking care of cattle. It was necessary to continue raising cattle in the mountains. To achieve that, besides choosing representatives -in an 'open' system that lets me ask about their 'democracy and representation’- the organization has a sophisticated financial system that mixes individual direct payments for a collective purpose ($ 1,000/animal/year for the foreman), individual direct payments for individual aims (vaccines, freight), non-monetary cooperation (animals for rodeos, working days) and collaborative work with other existing organizations (The ‘Huasos’ Club).

These practices are clearly investments (or costs) that farmers assumed to raise cattle in the mountain - which refutes what is usually thought in technical entities, as the one I come from, where it is said that mountain livestock farmers 'low productivity' is related to fact that they do not make investments-. To accomplish its objective, the Livestock Committee has a high degree of organization and collaboration, in addition to a good -but lonely- leadership.

This new organizational space, autonomous and self-managed, created by the same livestock farmers from Paihuén, allows them to maintain and to decide on animal management practices in the mountain.

Although livestock activities are not the most important economical/productive activities in Paihuén, this organization is significant at community level. Therefore, the purpose of the next chapter is to understand how livestock farmers are able to create their life integrating their livestock practices within a diversity of livelihoods in Paihuén, through their everyday experiences and practices as part of their subjectivity.

9. The diversity of livelihood in Paihuén The objective of this chapter is to understand, through the description of their practices, both the various livelihoods that are present in the community of Paihuén and the various activities taking place within families and the community, which made them able to build and maintain their life.

The concept of 'livelihood' is useful as it helps to get an idea of the many ways in which people build their lives. Trying to build their lives, people use a variety of resources such as social networks, wage labor, land, capital, knowledge, technology and markets to produce food, harvest crops and generate incomes (Hebinck, 2007). However, it is important to take into consideration Arce’s (2003) critics about the use of ‘capital’, and the separation of resources into different ‘boxes’ to analyze how they build their life. The author argues that in communities that are organized around a complex mixture of collective and private property, like Paihuén, the analysis of their livelihood based on individual ‘capital assets’ may not be useful. That kind of analysis could hide what is important: how actors understand their own reality (Arce, 2003; Chambers 1989) and how they created and use their relations within the community and with other actors.

As examples of the variety of strategies used to create their lives, I will introduce a 'farmer', a 'livestock farmer', other practices such as ‘avocado production’ and ‘mining’, and finally the practices of women within their families and in the community. I intend to emphasize that cattle is NOT as important as other production practices in the area, but nevertheless, it REMAINS parallel to the main activities such as vegetables and avocado production, and mining.

In that sense, besides the existence of various livelihoods within the community, within each family there is a diversification of survival activities. Ellis (1998) defines this diversification of activities within the family 'as the process through which a rural family builds a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in order to survive and improve their living standards‘.

This diversity and variability of practices determine these livelihoods and yet they are determined by the time and space they create and where they develop. Thus, the economic, social, political and historical context where these practices are inserted can generate vulnerabilities, risks and/ or opportunities and may also vary according to the seasons and agro-ecological conditions. The space, usually understood as 'arenas', is then constantly changing and is recreated and renegotiated by the same people. The time dimension in turn, can be understood as the 'path' of livelihood. This 'trail' through time visualizes the changes in their livelihoods as well as their capabilities, illuminating how these changes take place through negotiations, struggles and (mis) understandings (Hebinck, 2011).

I hope that at the end of this chapter, we will be able to understand why the diversity of activities within families and Paihuén community is important to create and maintain their lives, - and in that sense part of their subjectivity, including the livestock activities. In addition, I note that to build their diverse livelihoods, the different actions of the inhabitants of Paihuén are not simply determined by social structures; on the contrary, they are social actors, constantly maneuvering to improve their lives (Long, 2001). In this sense, they have knowledge, they use it, and they innovate in their day to day, mixing and re- assembling ancient knowledge with new technologies.

9.1. The farmer Home and family

I know Humberto since 2008, working as a veterinarian in the area where he lives. In the Rodeo La Arena he introduced his little 'Angus' bull, the single calf born from the first insemination process. I was interested to live with his family because, in addition to having the only 'improved' bull, he describes himself as a 'farmer', i.e. his main economic input is vegetables. He has a very active personality; he is chatty and very sociable, always willing to help.

Humberto married Nadia on 87' and they have two children: Sthepania is around 25 years old and Javier, who is 17, and a granddaughter. Humberto and Nadia come from 'Paihuenian' families and have lived in this community all of their lives. They live passing the Paihuén church in the first alley to the right. Arriving at the place where they live, I first see the brick house of his daughter Sthepania, separated from the rest of the site by a fence. Sthepania’s site has an area of green grass, very well kept. Between Sthepania´s house and her parents, there are two greenhouses (without plastic, meaning there are in production) that are used by Sthepania during the tomato season. Nadia and Humberto’s house is behind this first house. It's a relatively large house which was built little by little, beginning with a couple of rooms when they got married to the current house that has a big living room, kitchen, bathroom and three bedrooms.

To the right side of the house, there is a covered room where Humberto works for a few hours. On the left side of the house there is a small space of land, where lettuce seedlings are already sown, protected with mesh and where the first day I'm with them, they begin to sow barley. They explained later that the barley belongs to another family. Leaving the house from the kitchen backwards, there is a laundry area and even more to the back, a clay oven. Following the courtyard towards the end of the site, there is a wooden structure, like a warehouse, - where we baked some bread later-, then a grape arbor, a bathroom of draw-well, a second mud oven and at the end of the site, where a canal crosses without water - when I went to see it -, a small water tank arrives every week, as they explained to me.

In relation to labor, Humberto tells me that he worked in corn production for the 'Society': first he was working in irrigation, then planting and he finally participated in harvest. At that time, Mr. Matías was advising them on production issues and after a while, he offered Humberto $70,000 to administer his property -rather than the $27,000 he earned working for the Society-. Thus, he then began working with Mr. Matías in 93', and later he switched to work as the administrator of another property: La Cabaña. He worked as an administrator for 17 years. But 'I came home sick' he says, because he arranged one thing in a property (of avocado production), and then something got wrong at the other side. Until one day he got a rash on his skin. Humberto and Nadia agree that it was due to stress. Then, in 2009, he decided to become independent, and he has been dedicated to farm: mainly potatoes and lettuce production.

Practices: lettuce production

I shared four days with Nadia and Humberto’s family. At that time, the entire family focused on lettuce production. To produce them, a series of practices that involve (almost) all members of the family were made.

Since the first day I was with them, the lettuce seedlings were already planted. One of the activities was to water the seedlings: Humberto did it in the morning, while Nadia changed the water from a row to another later, as requested by Humberto. Scare the birds away is also a constant in the seedling: the scarecrow system to scare away the birds from the seedlings is a long wire, which makes a loud noise when you shake it, and it scares them.

Concerning the preparation of the irrigation system for planting lettuce, it is the first time that Humberto is using the drip irrigation system. He says that they are innovating: they are going to put tapes to make full use of the water that they have.

The first morning Sthepania was watching her father, who was assembling tubes. Sthepania takes one and asks what they were for. Humberto explains and tells me that in order to save money, instead of a big filter, he bought two small filters, and thus, he has to stick some tubes together with others. Sthepania helps a bit and around 12.00 she disappears. Humberto finished the job. Now he has to let the whole assembly to dry. In the meanwhile the godfather comes, Mr. Ricardo, and asks him what he is doing; Humberto explains and talks about some wires that we went to look for after a while.

During the afternoon we went to work on the farm, 'the down side'. In the 'higher side' Paihuén houses are located, and across the road to the north, there is a mini gully, and we get to the ‘low side' where I saw the footprint of the river (now dry). Passing the river farther north are the growing lands. Humberto, Leonardo (Caroline’s couple), Mr. Ricardo and I stretch a giant hose called 'planzas’, part of the drip irrigation system.

Later, Humberto cuts the wires he got from his godfather and re-uses them: he makes stakes with them. We continued doing this job the second day. That day, some other practices related to the cultivation of lettuce were carried out: Humberto went to the field during the morning to dredge the land with a horse –he went to level the land, which was with 'mounds' after plowing it with a machine - and to apply a herbicide recommended by the same buyer of lettuce from the other years, as Humberto explained 'it does not affect the lettuce'.

The third day of my visit I went with Humberto and Mr. Ricardo to the plot, to check and get the irrigation system ready: when I get there I notice that the entire filtering system that Humberto was preparing is already installed, the water tank (mini dam) with the hoses (planzas) that are along each growing area within the plot. This system includes three main keys that will close or open the flow of water from the accumulator to the hoses, and then to the little hose pipes. A small pump takes water from the tank, which was filled with water shifts that each of the plot owners has every 8 days.

The plot has 3 areas of farmable land and a non-cultivable one, according to Humberto, because it is full of stones-: only the first area has the land ready for farming and the hoses stretched along with holes and connectors. The second area has the hose pipes already installed. We went to the third area, where the lettuces are already planted! They are rigid. Humberto explains that one has to take into account all the changes that occur with temperature, both in lettuce and in irrigation system materials:

'They are stiff due to the cold temperature in the morning', but with the heat 'they get limp'. The opposite happens with the plastic materials, which budge a little with the sun '.

We work in the latter portion of the third area that the hose did not reach. Threw some hosepipes, some terminals and ‘T’; we connected them to hosepipes that were already placed in the ground. To connect these hoses to hose pipes you have to make a hole in the pipe with heat. To do that, we took a tube of liquefied gas, a welder, and a copper tube, which once heated in the fire (and when you get the above plastic plug out from the hole) is ready to pierce the hose pipe. Mr. Ricardo cleaned the hole with a razor. We then used a rubber band and a connector that 'connects' the hosepipe with the hose.

Once the whole system is connected, Humberto turns the water on. Let’s see how the system works, the hoses work, all the third area was watered, but there is more water dropping between the joints than it should be. Humberto tells me that they will have to put elastic joints.

We go to the second area. The water is still running in the third area for about 20 minutes. In this second area we checked that the hose pipes are straight (the double blue line one with its drip holes faced down). We tightened some hose pipes and then Humberto closes the water for the third area and opens the key to the second area. He and Mr. Ricardo check the area between the hose pipes and the stopcocks. At the junction of the keys there is water being wasted, they rise this complete union with a stone and seal it with black elastic band, Humberto wires the elastic (reused) and they joke saying that it is 'new' .... Then they put down the union and open water again. There is less water loss. Humberto (and I do the same) is tightening the junctions one by one between hoses and hose pipes and then he is going for a walk around the second area to see how the DRIP is working.

He comes back happy, he says

'Is working right ... we’re ready'

Then we worried about a small portion of the second area where hoses could not reach. From the hose that takes water to the first area, Humberto decides to make a connection; and to that hose he connects four hose pipes. We repeat the process we did in the third area: a hole in the hose with heat, hose connection and 'T' and a terminal to attach the hose to the hose pipes. For the first time I see how hose pipes are thrown. The tapes come in big rolls; - these rolls say USA, Italy and Australia-. He places both crossed on a pike (which I was already wondering what it was for) and the pike with rolls is installed with two wooden supports (one used in sideways to match the height of the smallest). Humberto takes the ends of the hose pipes, one in each hand, giving the width of the rows and walks pulling the tape to the other end. He asks me to tense them, to pull them, so they are straight, while Mr. Ricardo places the wires that we were bending the other day with Humberto. In the end the hosepipes are tied with some kind of stake. We finished putting those hosepipes and Humberto turns off the watering once it was tested.

We go to the third area. The hose already has the holes. The hosepipes aren’t ready, but there are not enough stakes. While I'm going to scare the birds of the first area, Humberto and Mr. Ricardo make some wooden stakes. Then I see Humberto pulling the stakes. Mr. Ricardo finds me; he is looking for the measure: a stick that is 0.75 cm long, to measure the distance between rows so you can place the stakes. I start working with Mr. Ricardo for a while: I measure de distance and he puts the stakes. We go back to the place where Humberto has already extended four hosepipes. I imitate Mr. Ricardo, who is putting the curved wires (like a reverse U) to fix the hosepipes. When we got there, I stayed next to the tapes to tense them. Humberto walks stretching them. He comes back and tells Mr.

Ricardo where to put the wires. They arrive; now I go with Humberto, and Mr. Ricardo stays stretching the hosepipes.

Humberto wants to go see the birds. He explains to me that a little bird is the most problematic of all; the ´diuca´, which never goes away.

We roll out a couple of hosepipes more, but THERE IS WIND, it´s too strong to place the hose pipes in the right place. Humberto decides to stop. The fog is thick down the road. He says that if it is bad, it will come up and will not let us work in the afternoon. It's almost noon, time for lunch.

During the afternoon of the third day, Humberto and Leonardo (his son-in-law) are pulling out the lettuce seedlings. Nadia and I help: 'reinforcements arrived' Humberto says.

I stick to Humberto to learn; he briefly explained and I observed: with a shovel, Humberto (and sometimes Leonardo) loosens the soil. He takes a handful of lettuce by the stem and gently hits the soil to loosen it; the idea is to save the root. They are putting the lettuces with some soil in boxes. Javier, the teenage son of Humberto and Nadia join shortly afterwards. Even Benji (or bear), the new dog brought by Humberto last weekend joins us, falling asleep next to the lettuce box. The granddaughter, is also with us, and after a while she goes back home. Sthepania does not appear. We laughed a lot with Javier, me and Leonardo. Humberto is quieter and time goes fast while laughing, making the green of lettuce disappear from the ground and the boxes get quickly filled. From Humberto´s position (standing) I bow on my knees just as Nadia and Humberto do, I took several lettuces at a time and then scraped off the soil as Humberto does. Nadia does it differently; she takes two or three lettuces, and with less soil. We changed rows (plants are not even, there are smaller ones which Humberto wants to give more time). For the rest of the afternoon, the family was pulling out seedlings to transplant the next day.

The fourth day I was with the family, I went to transplant lettuce to Humberto´s plot. When I got to the plot they were working the second area already, which is the largest area. Nicole is a 37 years old woman; Cristian, a Nadia´s blood niece and also Manolo´ cousin; and there was also another man named Claudio, who, they explained to me later, was in the next plot and went to take a walk around and stayed. Leonardo, Humberto´s son-in-law and Humberto himself were also working. There were five of them, and they had done already a lot.

Picture 11 Lettuce transplantation 1

I watched how Humberto worked: he took the seedling stem with his thumb and middle finger and with the index finger he pushed the root; at the same time he made a hole up to his second knuckle on the soil. Then he presses the lettuce plant to the ground. Lettuces were planted every 20 cm, we had to skip a dropper, and to walk with feet on each side of the hosepipe, with legs slightly bent. He had a bag made with a potatoes or flour sack tied to his waist, where he stored all seedlings to be transplanted. Then I went to watch Nicole, to see if she was doing anything different, and yes, she walked on the side of the hosepipes, like Cristian, with her legs a little bent too, but not much. The lettuce seedling is held also using her index finger to make the hole. Leonardo worked like Humberto, the only difference was that he walked sideways. All of them transplanted and made the hole on the ground with their right hand, and with the left, they held the lettuce seedlings. They don’t pull them one by one from a bag, but they hold several of them in their hand. As Humberto recommended me, you must be careful when you accidentally break the root, because you can feel it, and in that case it is better to change the plant immediately.

Picture 12 Lettuce transplantation 2

Humberto invited us to stop at noon. He handed the truck keys to Cristian and gave Nadia the instruction to get more seedlings out, since they run out of them earlier than they thought.

There wasn´t plenty of resting time, in less than an hour we were back to work. Leonardo and Humberto were already working with their bags on. At four, all seedlings ran out. Cristian counted how many were missing; there were 40 rows missing, long ones, and Humberto counted how many were ready; 90, and we calculated how many were per box: 13. Then they calculated that we needed three small boxes, that is, two small ones and a big one.

Back in the house, after tea time, Javier began to separate the soil, and we get more seedlings together with Nadia. Then, Leonardo and Humberto joined. That was my last day with them. The next few days they continued transplanting lettuce until they had all three areas ready. It was a hard work; I experienced it in my own body.

Astete, Field Notes (09th, 10th, 18th and 19th/04/2013)

It is important to highlight that Humberto´s practices for planting lettuce, changing the 'surfaced' traditional irrigation system to a 'drip' irrigation system, are related to the space as a context where drought conditions generate vulnerabilities and challenges. In looking at these Humberto´s transformation practices over time (his ‘path)', I visualize Humberto ´s capacity to INNOVATE, in his own words. But this innovation is not only knowing and using this new technology, it is also taking this new technical knowledge and transform it, adapting it to their own reality: lower costs (two small filters rather than a large one), raising the stopcocks system with one stone, re-using wires for stakes, making wooden stakes when they were not enough, scaring the birds, being more careful, stop working because the day is getting bad. This knowledge, built during his life story as a Paihuén inhabitant from birth, as well as in his earlier work as an employee for the Society and Private Farms, allows that after the 'rash’ on his skin, Humberto decides to work independently, taking his previous experiences and knowledge, putting it into practice, daring to experiment, to innovate.

Even in the context of drought, Humberto´s family has water resources available, limited, but available, and the technology to use them. This is visualized in the green grass in the garden of his daughter (rare in the area), the small water tank at the end of the site, the water storage tank (mini dam) on the field or the small pump. In addition to these technological resources related to water, those specific to lettuce production are added, such as herbicides or hosepipes for drip irrigation. Obviously, the availability of land, both for housing and farming, are very important to build their livelihood.

Thus, new technology, knowledge, water resources, land and social networks highlighted the resources that Humberto and his family have. To make use of these resources, the social relationship they have and use become indispensable, starting with the participation of members of the nuclear family, then blood relatives and in-laws, and finally Paihuén community neighbors. Here, relations of non-monetary collaboration (family members and a neighbor) and monetary exchange with salary workers (community members of Paihuén) are mixed to produce lettuce.

In addition, these relationships are also use to transfer knowledge: when Sthepania is sitting with her father and helps him assemble the filter system, when Mr. Ricardo appears and reappears and asks Humberto what he is doing, when Claudio stays working all day long in transplanting lettuce, and especially when these practices are a gathering point for the whole family (in the seedlings for example). This 'new global technology' represented for example with hosepipes coming from 'USA, Italy and Australia' –this 'innovation'-, it is a new knowledge that is located in Humberto´s hands, feet, body, and at the same time it is transformed, it becomes spread/expanded and transforms again among the Paihuén community.

Practices: the cattle

Although the main activity for Humberto is farming, he also raises cattle, and therefore he performs livestock practices: his animals are raised together with his brother Victor, with who he shares all the activities necessary to raise them. During this period, Humberto is responsible for releasing the calves to pasture early in the morning (8.00 AM) and his brother brings them in during the afternoon.

I ask him how he began to raise animals, and we started a long talk:

G: '... I expend enough time devoted to the administration of farms, the cattle issue did not attract me very much; it seemed like it was not profitable.

(for my father) the animal issue was about using them to get some extra income, he used to sell an animal and use the money to buy clothes for us, because we were 9 siblings, and living on a salary with 9 children was hard. I have two children and I live a reality that is different from what my father lived. I know it was hard, and suddenly when the children were in school he had to manage to make them accomplish ... I am the second to last son, the last of the men, and the second youngest of the family, because the youngest is a woman... and as I told you, my dad continued to breed animals and I could tell it was not very profitable, or I saw that the sacrifice was too much for such little gain ...

Y: But you had to support your Dad in any way?

G: For the rodeos I didn’t have to ... my brother Victor did ... because he was older, and he had to help when my dad had to go to a rodeo ... my brother used to go, and my dad stayed working in the farm. And then, when time passed ... my father-in-law gave me ... or gave my wife, to Nadia ... a calved cow...

And: do they still live? Were they from this place?

G: No, they died ... yes, they were from here ... and my father-in-law had animals too, since I was a child ... they were similar, he was a bit older than my father, my father-in-law ... and he gave a calved cow to my wife. .. That cow gave birth, and the next year it had a calf… so that cow gave birth and finally I got to have about 8 animals...

Y: Only with that cow? ... 8...

G: Yes, 8 because the daughters were also giving birth...

Y: ok, but in a long time ... when was that? ...

G: It must have been in the eighties ... the same year 87 when I got married

Y: A marriage gift

G: Something like that ... he thought... my son-in-law does not have a cow so I‘ll give him a cow. Then a dry year came and it was kind of complicated, and I sold the animals because actually some of them were lost ... and I sold them... I thought: I won’t breed anymore because I have no luck...

Y: What year did you sell them?

G: We're talking about 94, 95 ... something like that...

Y: You worked with Mr. Matías...

G: Yes, with Mr. Matías during those years ... 92 '... and I had no time to devote to the animals, because you also have to spend time with animals... as I was there at the farm as an administrator, I had to be everywhere and always there.

Y: Did you have them all in the mountain, those 8 animals?

G: Yes, in the mountain... just like that, and then it must have been ... wait ... around 2006, 2007 when I got to start breeding again...

Y: Why?

G: Because it was like having money in the bank...

Y: How did you start? ...

G: I bought. I started buying, I first bought a heifer from my sister, who was going to sell it and I said, 'sell it to me' and then I bought from a cousin and so I started ... and the year, it must have been around 2008, (that) the society gave out the cows ... and people sold the cows immediately ... and then I got tempted to buy ... and at that time I bought 10 cows.

Y: You had 9 from the society, a little from before, and you bought...

G: Yeah ... no, those 9 belonged to my father because he was the society member. I bought the vast majority of my animals, I bought them. And I started to buy over and over and over ... and so far I've made ... I formed a good group of animals: mine, my animals should be about 45 or so.

Y: And why did you decide during 2007 to have animals again ... that change, from not wanting to … to wanting to breed animals?

G: What happened is this: I tried to become independent, so I could someday stop working as an administrator of fruit farms and all that; I wanted to try on my own, then I said 'shit, animals are like having money in the bank, if I am in trouble, I sell 1... 2, 3, whatever necessary, and I will have money. And it's also another way to invest and keep money ... I remember I bought at 130, 140 thousand pesos, some calved cows and some dry cows … in the end, those that I bought had big calves; I sold the calves at 120, 130 thousand pesos, a calf, and I kept the cow. That’s a profit. And the next year they give birth again, and the next year its daughters give birth and so on. In the end, it is an investment in the medium to long term, not for a short term.

Y: ... And who do you buy from??

G: From people here that sometimes have a money rush, and you have resources available: instead of taking the animals to the fair, I offer to buy them and they stay right here. The issue is that an animal from this area is accustomed to all the movements. It's not like buying elsewhere; you buy animals, even of the best breeds, but things change ... you lose half of what you can bring...

Y: And has it been good as a savings account? When you need it...?

G: Look, what happens is that ... you can change the way you think during the way, because now I am reluctant to sell the animals. Well … because I have not actually been in the economic need ... so I have to sell this to cover that ... no, thank god I have not seen that ... but sometimes, in order to renew the old cows, I sell some... older cows that can die the following year... those go for sale, but just to renew the cows....

In Humberto‘s story we can rescue that cattle breeding has a family history behind: Humberto's father raised animals and his brother helped with the raising; the first cow he had was a gift, a resource, which was given to him by his father-in-law at the time of his marriage.

Although at first he considered that it was 'economically unprofitable', after a while he started to see the raising of cattle more 'like having money in the bank', even if 'it is necessary to dedicate some time'. Thus, now he claims that ‘animals are like savings and an investment' in the medium and long term, not short'. Working together with his brother in the mountains allows him to raise animals. His economic rationality changed over the years, from believing that mountain cattle breeding were 'unprofitable', to being a form of 'saving and investment'.

He also explains that animals purchased in the same area are better for him, because 'they are used to the movements', i.e. there is a memory in animals, giving them an advantage over other animals 'even of better breeds'.

Humberto and his family have shown us one of the livelihoods in the community of Paihuén through their practices and narratives, which are part of their subjectivity. We were able to visualize the diversity of his activities and the resources they have -land, water, capital, knowledge, technology, markets and social networks -, how they use them through their relationship with family and community members, which allows them to build their life.

In addition, the context of drought as an agro-climatic condition and his path of life, explains his ‘innovation’, using and re assembling new technologies as one of the ways people in Paihuén build their lives.

9.2. The livestock farmer Eduardo and his family will show us another way to build life in the locality of Paihuén. He is now the Paihuén Livestock Committee foreman. He is 62 and got married to Alejandra 38 years ago. They have three children, Margarita, Felipe and Florencia. They also have two grandchildren, Margarita’s children.

With a personality to some extent difficult, he explains that he likes things at once. For example, the Livestock Committee’s meeting was moved to the following day. Just because of that change, he said he was not going to attend the meeting. But in the end he participated anyways.

His exaggerated sense of manliness or ‘machismo’ is manifested in everyday life. For example, according to what his daughter tells me, he doesn’t like women to ride horses. Therefore, he made an exception with me, when I accompanied him on a full day horseback journey through the mountains. In addition, he shouts to the air 'I want a fried egg' and Alejandra cooks fried egg for tea time. His way of dealing is not smooth: ‘shit you’re wrong' he tells Margarita‘s mom; or to her granddaughter (jokingly): 'oh, you are bad student', or 'hey, you know less than me, that I had no studies'.

This 'sweet' and ‘bitter’ way to treat people creates a dynamic that I got to know in the four days that I joined his family.

Home and family

Alejandra told me that when they got married, they went to live with Felipe’s parents for six or seven years … and how were it like? I asked. 'As the broomstick (so bad) .... First, it was fine, but then the problems started, but I cannot say anything about his Dad, he was a good man. When this land was handed to him, he said ‘you go and live over there, and here we came'.

Then, when he died in 2002 (both Alejandra and Eduardo tell me this process), mom died first, in April, and the father the following year, also in April, and the next year, a sister.... Eduardo told me yesterday: 'The following year we were waiting to see who was going to die next ... every year we ask the priest for a special Mass for them, in April, that was last Saturday '.

After he died (parents), the land was divided among the nine siblings, getting about one hectare each. First they fought, (Alejandra tells me placing her hands against each other) and then they reached an agreement and Eduardo kept this house.

Astete, Fields Notes (26th /04/2013)

Eduardo and Alejandra’s home lies in the Church of Paihuén alley, passing through the Cooperative upwards. You see many flowers, a large black gate and an open fence. The main house is made out of wood, uncoated, with four bedrooms and a living room. A bedroom for Eduardo and Alejandra, another for Felipe and the other two are now for visits. There are several windows but it is still a little dark. It is tidy and with many ornaments that make reference to horses.

Before the main house, there is a covered part, with a large table, that is used for the 'Eighteenth', - the holiday celebration of Chile´s independence, in September– and also in the summer. Reaching the flower garden there is a large aviary built by Felipe. On the right side of the main house is the kitchen, made of wooden planks. It is equipped with a microwave, kettle, fridge and stove. Leaving

61 the new kitchen towards the right is the chicken coop, where chickens and ducks live. Further along is Margarita’s house, Eduardo and Alejandra‘s eldest daughter, about 38 years old, who lives with her couple and two sons; a teenager who is in his first year of secondary school and a girl, nearly eight years, attends third grade. Between the house of Margarita and the chicken coop, in the middle of the courtyard, there is a hole in the ground to burn trash.

Back from the main house, just behind the 'new' kitchen is 'the room' or 'old kitchen' as Alejandra calls it, an adobe building where there is a wood stove and I see jerky and onions hanging. Also corn for chickens is stored here. Around the courtyard there are two clay ovens, one large and one small, and between them there is the wood – from neighbor's avocado trees that dried. Facing the 'old kitchen' and the rear of the main house there is a small room where Eduardo works with leather (saddler): he makes 'pellones' - hairy or woolly leather that goes over the saddle -for saddle horses.

Following the site to the hill is the warehouse: it is a new construction made of zinc plates on a cement floor ' that is the best thing (Eduardo) has done,' Alejandra says, 'there you can put things so they do not get damaged '. Grass and animal saddles are stored in this warehouse.

Following the warehouse is the pen of calves. There are 7. Further back I see a horse, in another mini paddock another horse and back, in the last pasture, a pregnant mare, and the pens for goats: two small castrated males and an adult goat that was saved from death because 'it was a sin': it was pregnant, Alejandra tells me.

From there backwards is the hill, corresponding to ‘Invernada’ of the animals.

The materiality of Eduardo and Alejandra’s house, from the ornaments with horses, corn for chickens, the room where Eduardo works the leather and the presence of calves, horses, mare, goats, chickens and ducks in the same place where the main house is, gives us a brief idea of their livelihood, different from Humberto and his family, which also reaffirms the practices performed by Eduardo as a foreman and livestock farmer.

Practices: the foreman

After a series of meetings with Eduardo -not always casual- in various activities related to cattle management, and some insistence to accompany him, I arrive to his home. I find him saddling a horse to go for a ride to the 'Invernada’ (wintering). The ‘Invernada’ was already receiving the first animals: calves and thin cows, belonging to people who would not/could not have them in their plots and so they released them immediately to the wintering.

The route we took is part of the daily practices that Eduardo has to perform as a foreman of the Livestock Committee. Since the animals passed from the Society to the members and the subsequent formation of the Livestock Committee, Eduardo was chosen because of his experience and availability to be in charge of the animals.

On our way to the ‘Invernada’, Eduardo observes the amount of grass in each area: no grass, dry, but long. He explains that the pasture is dry because it comes from the previous year - corroborating Manolo explanations about the management of cattle in the mountains-, it is left as a reserve for animals to spend the winter, and with the first rains it will immediately sprout green again.

We also crossed through three ‘aguadas13’ (watery), one with a bit of water, one dry and one with water. The ‘aguadas’ come from natural springs that run generally along the mountain streams, allowing vegetation to grow throughout its course. Livestock farmers have transformed these streams, causing water to accumulate through the construction of cement troughs for animals, the 'aguadas', and for humans who visit the area. If the slope is enough, as in the case of the third one and like in most normal years, it will continue its flow after providing water to animals. With wooden sticks placed on the cement trough, they prevent animals from getting into the drinking water-and soiling it-, leaving enough space for the animals to drink. In the latter ‘aguada’, we find some calves chewing under the shade of trees. On the second day, Eduardo is also concerned about the state of the ‘aguada’. If it needs to be repaired, a group of volunteers goes up and makes it suitable for the cattle coming from the ‘Encierra’.

When we reached the highest point of the ‘Invernada’, Eduardo shows me from a distance the fence that separates the ‘Invernada’ (wintering) and lands of the neighboring community ‘El Manzano'. He explains that within his tasks, he also has to check the status of the fences, since its deterioration may cause that neighbor animals 'eat' forage from this area, which is saved for their own animals.

If it is necessary, Eduardo warns the Committee and a group of volunteers -or not so volunteers if they do not show up – go up and fix the fence.

Picture 13 Foreman showing the boundaries of the ‘Invernada’

As a foreman, Eduardo must also ensure that the animals graze in places where there is enough fodder and water, and that there are no animal deaths. If a cow is at risk, very thin for example, he should try to move it to a better place, or call the owner so that he takes it to his land - to provide better feeding.

13 In this case ‘aguada’ defines the system they use to water the animals in the mountains through the channelization of the watersheds and incorporating a small storage tank.

To perform all of these tasks, Eduardo spends 20 days a month for the care of animals in the hill. Thus, he receives a monthly salary and fodder for his horse ´that is not enough', as he tells me.

Other tasks involving Eduardo is asking for people to rummage - after the rodeo La Arena-so they can go back to look for more animals in the same area. In the rummage, thin and weak animals come out, as Manolo and Mr. Hernán explained. Eduardo and Manolo, with the advice of Mr. Hernán, distribute the participants of the rummage along different hills. Manolo tells Mr. Hernán: 'Eduardo asked for four (persons) for Friday, but we got 6. Two volunteers'

Eduardo is also present at the rodeo performed by the neighboring community of Los Patos, with Manolo and other livestock farmer’s representative. As they explained to me:

‘To send people to the neighboring rodeo, they must have special qualities: not good for drinking, and able to recognize Sobrante and Paihuén’s animals'

Sobrante is not neighboring Los Patos; therefore, if there are any animals from Sobrante or Paihuén, then their representatives must recognize them and get their owners.

Los Patos Rodeo means three days of work and a strong coordination with the neighboring towns of Alicahue and Los Patos. In this rodeo, Eduardo and two other representatives of Paihuén identify their cattle; they pool and transfer them (by truck) to the Paihuén medialuna. In the pen, animals are received by representatives of the community, they are vaccinated, and then every owner decides whether to take it to his own parcel or to send it directly to the wintering area.

Besides working with the animals of the community, Eduardo also has his own animals at home. Every day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, Eduardo or Alejandra (when he is up on the hill), feed or 'forage' the animals: they distribute bundles of grass for the calves, 'beasts' (horses) and goats.

From both this description and the conversations with Eduardo and Alejandra, we can rescue the family support. When Eduardo's father welcomes the newlyweds in his home and allows them to live on the site, it is of utmost relevance for the construction of his own life. The land-resource scarcity in Eduardo´s family-because of the layout of land that belonged to his father and nine brothers-, gives them the opportunity to own the 'site', which is where the houses and animals currently are.

The daughters, in this case Margarita-and Sthepania in Humberto’s Family-, built their homes in the property of their fathers, connected to the family.

The presence of a variety of animal species on the site, confirms livestock as a life strategy for this family, as they represent a capital resource available to generate both food and income. In addition, the monthly salary of Eduardo is added to the resources this family has to generate to build their lives.

Moreover, the daily journey through the hills to watch the reserve of grass, the ‘aguada’, the fences, and the condition of the animals, as well as the participation in the neighbor rodeo, make visible that both Eduardo and other farmers have a constructed knowledge based on practice and experience. This knowledge is incorporating technologies to use water resources, and making animal troughs in an intervention of the 'nature', with the common goal of raising cattle on the mountain.

In this tour, it was also possible to corroborate that drought–as an agro-ecological condition generates vulnerabilities and challenges-is faced through complex social relations where the 'livestock farmers' organize, negotiate and perform-besides practices related to water supply as the arrangement and construction of drinking fountains-, other practices such as moving animals and getting them together or fixing the fences. Here, again, as a characteristic of being a mountain livestock farmer, cattle breeding is achieved through the collaborative relationship and collective action of the community.

Practices: saddler

During the evenings, Eduardo works more or fewer hours, making tanned leather for saddles. Margarita tells me that Eduardo learned by watching his dad, looking and looking. He does this when he has no more tasks to do, to avoid boredom. She adds that it is his winter job, when it rains and he cannot go to the hills. It is a skill that few people know, transmitted from generation to generation.

Eduardo receives orders from the same community riders. For this, they give Eduardo dry sheepskins. To transform this sheepskin into covering leather for a saddle (‘pellón’), a series of consecutive steps are necessary:

1. The dry leather is kneaded to soften it. To knead the leather you rub it using a stick as a 'Y' where you hang the leather. With your hands you hold the leather loose edges and then you get your leg up high and down in a sort of 'scissors' that goes rubbing the leather every time you get up and down your leg. Care must be taken so that the leather does not break, because it is fragile, as Eduardo and Margarita explain: 'they are very bad leathers' Eduardo says, 'that is because they dry it in the sun’ Margarita explains.

2. Then the leather is stretched, nailing it well stretched on the floor. Then it is washed with soap and water.

3. Once kneaded, stretched and washed, he proceeds to cut the quarters or halves of the future saddle cover according to a model of cardboard or paper: Eduardo measures them with a cardboard, marks them with a red pencil, he cuts the leather following the drawing along with his knife, and re measures to match the model. He repeats that with all four quarters.

Picture 14 The saddler

The back half is longer and ends in toes. The front half is shorter and slightly squared. Eduardo works in quarters.

4. He sews the quarters and the halves. For that, he threads a little curved needle, with an unknotted end. He passes the thread through a wax. When the leather is not enough, even for one quarter, he uses two pieces by sewing them diagonally.

Then he links the two quarters, from the edges to the middle. The halves are sewn from the center to the edge (so that you can cut the leather if left over), with a sewing machine, wide, large point. The two halves make a body, which is joined to another body, backwards, with the same first diagonal point, but from the center toward the edges.

5. Then, carefully you turn and cut the wool, and finally you comb it with a small comb. You can re- cut some wool after combing.

Picture 15 The saddle

The saddle craft that Eduardo makes glimpses seasonality in his practices, because in the winter you cannot go out to the hills to watch the animals. It is also an extra income, receiving payments for his sheepskins. To carry out this task, you must use a series of more or less traditional tools such as a Y- shaped stick where the leather is rubbed, nails, cardboard, paper, pencil, razor, thread, needle, and a small comb among others, which allows the transformation of rawhide into saddle leather.

The knowledge of this saddler craft is the product of the transmission of ancestral knowledge that has passed on from generation to generation. I believe that this process of transmission of knowledge and its transformation and adaptation to current circumstances, is part of the explanation for the permanence/resistance of cattle activities in the area: it is something beyond the time, it is a STRONG past that becomes present whenever Eduardo works a leather piece, every time someone in the community needs a saddle leather. And for that, force of history is that it is likely to be future.

9.3. The avocado producer A third form of life present in Paihuén community is built by those engaged in the production of avocados.

Avocados in recent years have become the 'engine' of the economy of Petorca Province. Alejandro, Head of Production Development from INDAP in the Valparaíso region explains:

`This province is not an area where (cattle) is considered: its overall economic impact is not relevant. (In) the 80's and 90’'s it was the fruit, in 2000 the avocado. Cattle remains, but it does not move the engine ... the fruit is relevant '.

Avocado as an industry is one of the most common in the area, both in small production and large avocado plantation extensions. The Governor of the province indicates that, 'in the Province of Petorca, the main economic activity is agriculture, which develops around river valleys of La Ligua and Petorca. Fruit production, as avocados and lemons, is the most important for the province, going to become one of the most exported products' (CHILE, Ministry of Interior and Public Security, Petorca Province Governance, 2013c).

A representative of people who make avocado production his livelihood is the 'Devil':

'The Devil is a good person' Alejandra tells me, and says 'the communist devil ' oh yeah? Why? I ask. 'It's like the lawyer of the poor' they reply. Ah! I say, how is that?, lawyer for the poor or devil?, 'both' they replied': 'the poor´s devil lawyer ... he knows a lot, but he was not long at school, but when somebody has a problem, he helps´.

Astete, Field Notes (25th /04/2013)

He is Carlos, better known as 'the Devil'.

We agreed to meet around 13.00 and 15.00 pm. He calls me at 13.15 and asks me what time I will come, 'soon', I reply, 'because at 15.00 hrs. I have to do something', and I say, I’ll leave in 15 minutes. I meet him in his alley, smoking a cigarette. 'I'm here' I say. 'No, this is not my house; my house is towards the hill'. And we walked to his house. 'I live with my mother and my sister,' he said. He is 44 years old.

During the interview, I ask him about the insemination project, and he compared it with grafts of avocados, as he has already explained to me that he is an avocado producer; I take this opportunity to ask him to explain to me how avocados grafts work (some of his domain and not mine), to understand his comparison and also to make him feel safer. He relaxes, he explains step by step what it is; I insist that I know nothing of avocados, so go slowly. And he keeps explaining.

Astete, Field Notes (25th /04/2013)

The main activity of Carlos, as shown in the above notes, is the production of avocados. He works as self-employed, and he even buys water to the neighbors to water the trees. He explains that since he was a child, he has always worked 'private'. He has never worked for someone else.

Along with other members of the community they work a plant breeding, he shows it to me. It is facing his home, but it no longer works. He also worked with potatoes, avocado (current activities), and since the age of 14, he has animals:

'My father died when I was 17 and left me the animals. He left 10 animals’...

The 'devil' first represents him, as Margarita and Alejandra explained to me, a social support to the community and that "when anyone has a problem, he helps'.

Regarding his livelihood based on the production, harvesting and sale of avocados, his narrative regarding the avocado grafting process reveals the knowledge that he has of the entire production process and new technologies applied to it.

In addition to this knowledge, Carlos has 3 acres of land and water as essential resources, and also the money necessary to buy water from neighbors, which makes visible an emerging complex "market" regarding this vital element.

Finally, his time path displays a continuity of self-employment, with changes in what he produces: plant nurseries, potatoes, avocados. The animals could also be counted as a resource, but the 'Devil' explains that cows are currently a loss for him, a money drain. It is precisely this critical look towards cattle, although he belongs to the Paihuén Livestock Committee, which made me approach him:

'To me, (cattle) is boring, it is a lot of expense, it is not profitable ... (it’s) $ 15,000 a day per worker, for 45-50 days a year, repairs, the rodeo in March ... (fix ‘aguada’ or fences). That's $ 750,000 day / workers a year. (In addition there is the issue of) grass, I cannot reap grass, as I am in a succession, I have 3 hectares of mine. (So, not having enough land to cultivate) I have to buy grass: $ 3 thousand each ram, I buy 300 forage packages ... at 3000 each, make 900 thousand till September, for calves and beasts (horses)

(And third), vaccines plus horseshoes...

I have about 60 animals, 20-22 animals are born per year (the harvest). 10 calves (I send) to the pastures and 10 l sell. (Those 10 calves are equivalent to) $ 900,000...I do not finish them because I was told not to sell them, but it is a leak of money to me. ´A very big leak'.

Later, he said that he has tried to sell them, but that he still has them:

'For fun, because I live in the countryside, in the end I like it, it is a hobby, a sport'. 'There are more expensive hobbies' I say, 'as the rodeo' he said, `I am an enemy of the rodeo because I don’t like them to hit the animals'...

I got away from cattle. Now it's about having fun '.

Astete, Field Notes (25th /04/2013)

Thus, even if rationally and in numbers cattle is not economically viable for Carlos, he continues for 'pleasure' or as a 'hobby', for 'fun', making visible the social importance that collective work with cattle breeding generates in those who participate in it. Also, when he says 'I was told not to sell them', he leaves the door open to infer that other members of his household (probably women) also have influence in terms of keeping bovines.

9.4. The miners Another activity of great importance for the community of Paihuén is mining. In the province of Petorca mining is the second largest activity after agriculture, emphasizing the exploitation of copper concentrate and gold. Moreover, it has also significant reserves of non-metallic resources such as: Kaolin, Feldspar, Quartz, Calcium Carbonate, Limestone and marble stone for ornamental purposes (CHILE, Ministry of Interior and Public Security, Petorca Province Governance, 2013c).

Although none of the Paihuén Livestock Committee members is a miner as main title, children of members, like Javier (Humberto’s son) and Felipe (Eduardo’s son), represent the importance of this activity within the area:

Javier is a 17 years old teen, he is a senior in high school at the Cabildo High School. He is studying the Metallurgy specialization. He performs tests (as in a laboratory) to see the value of the minerals extracted in the mine. He wants to go for an internship in ´Andina´, in the Andes, for a period of 3-4 months. They pay him the internship, but here (in Cabildo) in Las Cenizas they pay like 30 thousand pesos (too low). He tells me that here the main mines are Las Cenizas and Cerro Negro. Both of them are copper producers, they also produce other minerals, but in less quantities.

Astete, Field Notes (18th /04/2301)

On a tour through Cabildo (communal head) during my first weeks in the community, I also found a fair, where youth attending the same High School than Javier attends, explained to the community the processes of mineral extraction.

Felipe, Eduardo’s son, told me that he was working in the mine as a foreman. He explains that he has a group of people in charge. That has allowed him to slowly possess some material goods as a modern and small car and a place where in the near future he plans to build his own home.

The importance of mining that Javier, the Cabildo exposing students fair and Felipe transmit, shows the diversity of practices in the younger generation of Paihuén towards non-agricultural and cattle activities. The High School in the communal head, specializing in mining, corroborates mining practices as a livelihood in the town, which is also reflected in the 'Policy Development for the town of Cabildo', where the strategy:

'For the mining sector (it is) to strengthen and train the craft miners, so they continue to be a source of employment in the municipality. All this ought to achieve a more permanent employability, and not seasonal work offered by the services sector and large investors’ (CHILESTUDIOS, 2009).

On the other hand, with respect to cattle, both Felipe and Javier, directly or indirectly - through their parents - have responsibilities in the breeding of cattle: Javier must help his father when requested, - to bring cattle home -, while Felipe participates in Paihuén calves Rodeo and collects animals belonging to his family from the neighbor rodeo of Los Patos with his nephew. This shows that, although far from its core business, cattle are also part of their livelihoods.

9.5. Women Activities With regard to women – representing 49% of the local population of Cabildo according to PLADECO (2009) - with whom I lived during my research, primarily conduct the reproductive work14 at home. Besides, some of them participate in community activities, such as the Water Committee and also some of the household production practices under their responsibility, with varying degrees of control over production.

Reproductive work

Nadia and Alejandra exemplify reproductive work among Paihuén women through their activities within their homes:

Nadia gets up at 05:45 am. She prepares breakfast for his son Javier, who goes to High School, and then to her husband. Close to 09:00 am she walks her grandaughter to the bus stop, her granddaughter:

8:50 am: Nadia invites me to walk her granddaughter to the bus stop. I go with her. We're late. Takes a cigarette, she invites me to smoke. I explained that she should not (smoke), but it is an inheritance from her mother (or father). We went through her house, the house of her daughter (in the same terrain), the house of the one that will help me (Nadia’s brother), and another house (all inside) before we got to the main street. There was her granddaughter, and also her daughter Sthepania, another woman (her sister), a little boy and his grandmother. They ask things to children, they are the same age. The child plays and plays. The granddaughter is in the arms of her mother. A lady in a private car picks them up; I think it's a school´s teacher. They pay $ 15,000 per month. She takes them and brings them back. It's a relaxed atmosphere, as children are the central point. Before they go, another older lady comes...

12:00 pm (Everyday Nadia prepares lunch and) serves. Humberto prepares the dishes (I asked if Humberto helps at home, he laughs). Humberto catches up, he says what we're saying (he answers that), but not to making beds or sweeping, because he has to work out in the field.

We have lunch....

4:50 p.m.: Nadia goes to buy vegetables from a passing truck.

Astete, Field Notes (09th /04/2013)

The moment that Nadia walks her granddaughter can be understood both as a contribution to strengthening of social relationships, as well as an emotional and psychological support for her granddaughter and daughter, contributing to the education of the latter. On the other hand, passing through several houses, the space where Nadia moves is visualized; these houses are connected through affinity. This space used and built by Nadia is also displayed when Humberto mentions that

14 I use the term 'reproductive work' to refer to 'the attention and care needed to sustain human survival: food, physical care and health, education, vocational, social, emotional and psychological support , up to the maintenance of spaces and household goods' (EUSTAT, 2013)

70 he has to work 'outside', which can be interpreted – and it is corroborated based on my daily contact with Nadia-, that her space is 'INSIDE'.

Truck shopping and food preparation - three times a day - is necessary to sustain her household. With respect to the latter, once a week, Nadia applies her knowledge transferred from generation to generation and makes bread in a clay oven. This time she is helped by her daughter Sthepania, her sister and I:

8:15 am: Nadia gets coal to prepare the oven.

10:45 am. Bread:

1. in a pot there is water, butter (1/2 kg.) yeast, and flour (5 kg.)

2. We carry everything to another room (I did not know this before)

3. We knead: Nadia mixes everything in the large pot and kneads hard to mix all the ingredients, and then Sthepania distributes the dough to each one of us. We must continue kneading it, then cut it into small pieces and each little piece, round it and crush it to the shape of bread.

4. Waiting a little, we drank coffee

5. To bake, light the oven (with lots of tools: to sweep ashes, to push ashes, etc… all unknown to me).

6. Wait 10-15 ': BREAD READY! (I'm watching the second round, because all of it will be baked)

Then we tried the bread with butter, we finished preparing lunch and ... LET’S HAVE LUNCH!

Astete, Field Notes (10th /04/2013)

During the afternoon, between lunch and tea time (afternoon tea), Nadia relaxes, watches a little TV, visits her sister or daughter. She also worries about the health of family members, beyond its core: every evening, a woman, apparently Humberto’s niece goes for her medicines to Nadia, who is responsible to offer a glass of water so that she takes them.

At a time when Nadia is hanging the laundry, I ask her if she ever hand washed. Nadia tells me:

'When we got married (year 87) I had to wash diapers and everything by hand, and I had to draw water from the canal, because by that time water was still coming! and in the dark: we had no electricity or water'... disposable diapers only when they had doctor controls.

Astete, Field Notes (10th /04/2013)

This brief explanation of Nadia visualizes the trajectory and the rapid transformation of rural localities in that area: in 26 years (1987-2013) she went from washing by hand, not having water or electricity, to their current situation where you have access to drinking water (even in the dry season) and electricity. According to the PLADECO (2009), 90.69% of the houses in the town of Cabildo have drinking water, corresponding to the urban area of the municipality including the nearest rural locations. The remaining 9.31% satisfies this need through the river, shed or estuary and well or pump. Regarding the electricity supply, 95.44% of households have access to the public

71 network, 1.08% get this service through other means, while 3.46 % indicated that do not have the service.

Alejandra, like Nadia, performs home maintenance tasks like housework, cleaning the yard, laundry (with her daughter Margarita), and she is also responsible for the food supply of the entire family. She also incorporates her daughter´s family (daughter, her couple and two grandchildren), and she walks her granddaughter to school every day, favoring her education.

I arrived at 8:00 am and she was going to walk Almendra (the granddaughter) to school. I went with her. Almendra is in third grade. Waiting for the teacher, who is also the Principal, they explained that they are only a few at school; 13 children from first to sixth grade, and they all have classes together in Alicahue.

Astete, Field Notes 26th /04/2013)

Picture 16 The laundry

Almendra’s education is further enhanced by the contribution of her mother, Margarita, who works as a kindergarten assistant, contributing to the generation of income for the family, and helps Almendra with homework during weekends. This confirms the strong role of women (Nadia, Sthepania, her neighbors, Alejandra and Margarita) in the education of children.

Communitarian Role

Unlike Nadia who does not participate in community activities, Alejandra represents the family in the Drinking Water Committee15:

15 The Drinking Water Committees are functional CBOs result of 'Rural Drinking Water Program in Chile' which is born in 1964 with the adoption of the Rural Sanitation Master Plan, arising from international commitments outlined in the World Health Assembly 1959, which established as a priority the public water supply (Villarroel, 2012). Today 'the Rural Drinking Water Program (APR) is in charge of the Directorate of Water (DOH) under the Ministry of Public Works (MOP). Its objectives are: to provide drinking water to the rural population, according to quality, quantity and continuity; to obtain from benefit inhabitants a permanent and responsible participation, so that the community itself organized, be the one who perform service management once it is built (CHILE, Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección de Obras Hidraúlicas, 2013). These community

At 6.00 pm. (Alejandra) had a Drinking Water Committee meeting. There are more than 300 people. There was an election recently, and they had a problem: it is assumed that the one with the most votes is the president, the second one is the vice-president, the third and the fourth are the secretary and the treasurer (or vice versa), and then the two directors. One who had to be secretary or treasurer was left as a director (I had heard, I believe from Cony, Manolo’s wife that the vote had been carried out effectively, but then they had taken the positions according to their abilities). Eduardo confirms the mess that they have, and he told me that he left his position in favor of his wife, because he does not like to go to meetings.

Astete, Notes from the Field (10th /04/2013)

In Paihuén, drinking water arrived 24 years ago. Today the Rural Drinking Water Committee is a relevant social network built as community organization: every house has a representative, often women. During the year 2013, the Committee has had to solve many problems to ensure a continuous supply due to the water shortage in the area, which, in the critical summer months, 'has made the community suffer from supply problems' (CHILE, Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública, Gobernación Provincia de Petorca 2013a, 2013b). Thus, that it is the importance of the participation of Alejandra, Cony and Humberto (who represents his family) in this organization.

The water shortage in the area during recent years has generated community social movements, constant communication with the authorities and, above all: It visualizes the inequality of access to this vital resource between the large avocado production for exports and the community itself (MODATIMA, 2013; Periodico el chasqui, 2013; Romero, 2013; EN LA MIRA, Capítulo 8, La guerra del agua: con sed de Justicia, 2013), which certainly deserves a more detailed analysis that would give rise to a whole new research, outside the scope of this study.

This is the view of the various ways of life in the community, its history and the space in which these practices are carried out, as the context of drought conditions as a change, that show the struggles, negotiations and (mis) understandings.

Production practices

Paihuén Women also participate in some of the household production practices. Sthepania, Nadia and Humberto’s daughter have two greenhouses with tomatoes:

Between Sthepania, Nadia and Humberto’s house there are two greenhouses, I remember Humberto pointed out to me that her daughter had two tomato greenhouses

Astete, Notes from the Field (09th /04/2013)

Although they were not in production at the time I was in his parents´ house, making visible the seasonality of these practices, they explained that during tomato season she is responsible for its production and sale, and therefore she is the one who has access and control over production.

organizations in rural drinking water then, whose mission is to manage, operate and maintain water services (Villarroel, 2012).

Regarding the production of lettuce, Nadia works in production and seedlings transplant, irrigating and scaring the birds away. She also works looking for people to work in transplanting lettuces within her social networks.

Nadia has access to the production of lettuce as a partner, but she has no control over their production. Her collaboration may be related to the area where the production of seedlings is inserted: very close to the house, unlike the plot for example, where Nadia did not appear, but Nicole did, as an employee for lettuce transplant. Nicole makes visible women working in the fields for a daily wage as one of their strategies to generate income.

Women and cattle

Women also make cattle-related practices. Their proximity to animals is related to their childhood.

Alejandra grew up with her grandparents. She lived with her uncles and cousins who 'are like brothers', from Los Perales. She loves goats. Her mother returns to the conversation: 'I saw her about once a year, she wanted to sell everything, but my dad (grandfather) would not let her. And when I got married, he gave mine: 11 cattle and goats'.

Astete, Field Notes (26th /04/2013)

Currently, Alejandra is responsible for the chickens, ducks and goats (access and control of these resources) and assists in feeding calves and horses.

In Ms. Natalia's life story, we also find the source that connects her to the animals:

´I was a working girl'. There were six children in total and I was the oldest of women. I worked since I was 11. My daddy died...

In the past, we didn’t have much money, but we had 14 cows and I made delicacies. I was a very young girl. I worked and bought things...

I lived in Alicahue, and then in front of the barn (Paihuén). My brothers left home.

´I got married at 18. Now I am 58´. (He) loved me, he was a quiet man and (after his death) I kept fighting, watching babies, raising pigs, having animals and looking after the little kids ...

I had no support, with four children, and then Segundo (former leader of the Society) said, 'Ms. Natalia I will give you a job that makes money': the Drinking Water Workers came 24 years ago, people began to come and I said 'I give you the meals, but bed is for heads only'. One year it was like that. I cooked.

(Now) I continue with my animals and as a member of the society, from the side of my husband, as a succession. Mr. Segundo and Osvaldo made the papers. I have no idea. In the first meeting I was shy, I cannot read, it sticks in my head.... within the following two months I was started to feel more confident, I started giving ideas, I was getting more involved ... in the society, there are 6 or 7 more women.

Later, the Society got rid of the animals. The girls whose moms gave them power, sold right away. I got in the Livestock Committee, paying $ 1,000 per adult animal to pay for the foreman. I had about 12-15 and now I have 10. In good years I had a heifer and three calves.

I have animals because it is a tradition, because we the 28 (members) have the right... I get up and talk to animals: and how did the girls wake up? (For example) I got up early yesterday, when the sons of the couple that I have now came. I left the fire burning and I gave feed to the animals. I have that calf.

Astete, Field Notes (29th /04/2013)

Picture 17 Women participation in cattle practices

Through Ms. Natalia's life story and the story of Alejandra, we see that there is continuity of cattle in time, so Ms. Natalia concludes that she has animals 'because it's a tradition', but also because she makes use of her RIGHT to have them. In her life story, changes are also made visible in the way they build their lives, incorporating wage labor as a way to generate income.

Both Alejandra and Ms. Natalia are involved in cattle production, like the practices described for Nadia, Sthepania and Alejandra, both in the reproductive, productive and community fields (triple role of women) – they make visible the contribution of women as agents of their own history, knowledgeable and active participants of various practices, both within the family and in community organizations- who create and characterize the various forms of life present in Paihuén.

In this chapter we have reviewed some of the practices used by landholders, livestock farmers, avocado producers, miners and Paihuén community women. Through their daily practices and social relations, Paihuén inhabitants build their lives, revealing their knowledge and agency, being able to use that knowledge to their advantage, transmitting it and transforming it if necessary, re assembling ancient knowledge with new technologies to maintain and, at times, improve their quality of life. In addition to their knowledge and technologies, the people of Paihuén combine and use other resources such as land, water, animals, money, wage labor and market through their social relations.

Cattle breeding, even though is not (always) the main activity at Paihuén community, is parallel to these activities, remaining in time for reasons ranging from economic rationality -saving and investment for Humberto- , through life maintenance, Eduardo, the farmer-, tradition and the right to in the case of Ms. Natalia, up to the maintenance of the animals for 'pleasure' or 'hobby' as in the case of Carlos. Felipe and Javier - who show the importance of mining in the area, and the women, with various responsibilities, are also part of the livelihoods found in Paihuén.

The diversity and variability of the practices of these livelihoods are determined and simultaneously determine the time and place where they are found. That's how relevant the variability of these practices is, with yearly seasons and changes that have occurred due to the current drought conditions, which have generated struggles, negotiations and (mis) understandings with other actors beyond the local. Also, through life stories and stories present in this chapter, we can visualize the importance and strength of the story in the transmission of knowledge and the maintenance of some of these activities, among them the cattle. Its retention in time cannot be understood (only) in economic terms, as their subjective, historical and collective assessments are added and intertwined, which creates and shapes this mountain space organization.

10. The Project of Artificial Insemination in Paihuén This chapter aims to explain how the diversity of practices of the livestock farmers from Paihuén, as constructed knowledge, were (mis) understood and used (or not) to create, implement and reflect on the Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén.

I understand the Artificial Insemination Project of Paihuén as a ‘policy space’. I use the concept of policy space as a useful lens to view the everyday politics and practices of the actors that are engaged in a policy process, and to examine how their power to act is enabled and constrained (McGee, 2004).

In the first part of this chapter, I analyse how livestock farmers get involved in this policy space using existing social relations and creating new ones. I describe the ‘history’ of the policy space: how long it has existed and how and by whom it was created (McGee, 2004). Also the ‘access’ to this space is explained, that is, which actors come into it, what freedom of action they have, and what they achieve there.

Long (2001) states, ´agency and power depend crucially upon the emergence of a network of actors´: using and creating these networks, the leaders of the livestock producers prove their agency, they have the capacity and ability to create, to make changes, and to produce and reproduce knowledge (Giddens, 1979).

An important process appears during the history and access of this policy space: the notion of ‘interfaces’. These are ‘central points of intersection between different social fields or domains of actors’ practices where discontinues, based upon differences of existing life worlds, values and social interests are most likely to be found’ (Arce & Long 1987, Long, 1989, Long, 1992, Arce & Long, 1994). I recognize at least three different interfaces before the implementation of the project: between the leaders and the field agronomist of the public entity; between the leaders and the Head of the same institution; and finally between the livestock producers and the technicians.

In the second part of this chapter I describe how the process of implementation of the project was carried out. By means of such description, I am analysing the ‘mechanisms’ of the policy space, i.e. what actually happened, who did what, and in what physical context (McGee, 2004). These mechanisms are visible through the main practices of the different actors of the project. As McGee (2004) highlighted, behind the mechanisms are the ‘dynamics’, which affect the behaviour that results from it. The dynamics are very important since they include the relationship between the actors, power relations, past histories and the remembered experiences of participants. Both, mechanisms and dynamics, ‘form part of the rules of the space, and are shaped by the rules that are carried within historic and access dimensions’ (McGee, 2004:20). The implementation of the project involves: the building of a fence; a first artificial insemination; the results of this first process and the agreements made by the involved actors; and finally a second artificial insemination. The third part of this chapter addresses the different explanations that the actors have about the results of the project, highlighting the encounters and (mis) understandings among livestock producers, the private company, the consultant and the representatives of the public sphere. According to McGee (2004), within these reflections is where the room for learning takes place. She states that ‘an actor experience of engagement can –but not necessarily- generate learning, and thus,

77 transform the actor, so that any subsequent engagements in this or other policy spaces will never start from quite the same point’. In this sense, I argue that all the actors learned, mainly based in their encounters with the others actors. Consequently, I highlight that there are some unintended effects beyond the project. These effects become visible through the participation of the same livestock producers in other institutional programs, as well as with some materiality such as ‘aguadas’ and warehouses. These effects, together with the ‘new improved bull’ and new fences, represent the footprints of the Artificial Insemination Project.

10.1. Using social relations and creating new ones In 2007, Humberto, the farmer, was studying in a professional institute called ‘AIEP’. Within the course of ‘Continuous improvement’ he decided to explore the possibility of increasing cattle production by means of genetic improvement. He didn’t put his new knowledge into practice until he discussed it with the current leader of the livestock Committee, Manolo. They decided to try out a veterinarian tool used to increase the efficiency of reproduction with a hormone injection16. They tried it in their own cows, as well as in the cows of the president of the livestock Committee, Mr. Hernán, and his brother. The results were satisfactory: 60% of the cows treated with that hormone were pregnant the following year, 2008. Due to the positive experience, Humberto and Manolo thought that they could improve the productivity of their cattle combining the use of that hormone with a ‘genetically improved bull’, that is, a bull of a breed with ‘better traits’ than their cows. Both of them had known Nancy since 2007. Nancy was working for INDAP in Paihuén and other areas of Cabildo as an ‘Ejecutivo Integral’17 (Integral Executive). She knew them because of the individual credits they got from INDAP for potatoes, lettuce or avocado production. Although she is currently working only in vegetable production issues, during her bachelor studies Nancy was interested in livestock. Manolo and Humberto had informal conversations with Nancy during her visits, regarding their ideas and challenges to improve their cattle production. Together, they decided to talk to Alejandro, the Head of INDAP Area La Ligua18. Although Alejandro was not working in livestock issues as INDAP representative, he is an agronomist and lecturer of livestock production including anatomy, physiology and nutrition in an agronomist bachelor program. In addition, as a student he volunteered in the neighbouring area of Petorca trying to find alternative feed for animals.

16 Although Humberto told me they used follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), that stimulates the growth and recruitment of immature ovarian follicles in the ovary; according to veterinarian colleagues, the most probably it is that they use Lutalyse®, a natural prostaglandin for use in estrus synchronization in cattle. 17 In her own words ‘Integral Executive’ means ‘if a peasant came to you, you are able to coordinate him with any program of INDAP, the peasant tell you I have this problem, ahh! For that I have this irrigation program, and for irrigation I financed 90% and do you have the 10%?...no.., so we also have credit...In this government now it was divided, now there are not any more ‘ejecutivos integrales’, but ‘promotion’ and ‘credit’ executives’. 18 INDAP have a territorial organization of their offices. Area La Ligua involve the Municipalities of La Ligua and Cabildo, were Paihuén is part of.

I emphasize the technical background of Nancy, Alejandro, Humberto and Manolo, because I think it was a relevant factor that allowed them to connect and to talk ‘in the same frequency’ -or at least in a similar one-, as we will discuss later on. Humberto, Manolo, Nancy and Alejandro talked about possible alternatives to improve the production of their herd. The INDAP representatives suggested Manolo and Humberto to try the artificial insemination technique for the genetic improvement of their herd, based on a positive previous experience in the neighbouring area of Petorca. Manolo and Humberto found the idea interesting, and consequently, INDAP put them in contact with the consultant that was in charge of the successful project in Petorca. Humberto told me: ‘We went to talk to Nancy, to see if we could get any credit to buy a bull...so they told us...’you know, there are some livestock producers in Frutillar19 that last year applied for an Artificial Insemination Project ... it is much better’, and we were convinced. I found it quite interesting, and they gave us the names of 2 consultants. They said ‘Fernando is one of them’ and we got his phone number. I do not remember who the other consultant was. So, finally we called Fernando’ The idea of the Artificial Insemination Project comes from INDAP. This was corroborated by the consultant, Fernando, who said: ‘The idea of inseminating came from INDAP, based on my good experience in Frutillar Alto and in Los Comunes’ In the meeting, the INDAP representatives encouraged them to apply for INDAP funding. They told them that the local office had received money to spend in livestock issues, but they would have to return it since there was no demand for funding. After that meeting, Manolo and Humberto called the consultant and they met for the first time in La Ligua. The consultant told them about the process in the neighbouring area. They decided to apply for the project. The same week, Manolo and Humberto met with the other producers of the Paihuén Livestock Committee ‘to inform the people’. They told them that, in order to participate in the project, they had to make a small contribution of money and/or working days. One hundred cows would be inseminated. The livestock producers agreed to apply for the project, as Humberto confirmed: The same week we organised a meeting to inform the people what we wanted to do...and the old men (the others livestock producers), in order to innovate, were immediately enthusiastic. In that meeting, they discussed about the need to include a fence for 90 has of a pasture area in the project, since they didn’t have a place to keep the cows during the process of insemination. The fence was negotiated with the governmental institution, as Manolo explained: The project was divided in two parts: the government (INDAP) was interested in the technology, the issue of the genetic improvement, but we said ‘how will we improve genetics if we don’t have an area to keep the animals?’ That was how we connected the issue of fencing the ‘potrero’. After that, the consultant had a meeting with the Paihuén Livestock Committee to explain his previous successful experience.

19 Frutillar Alto and Los Comunes are small rural villages within the neighbouring Province of Petorca

In addition, the consultant invited Manolo and Humberto to talk with the livestock producers of the neighbouring area of Petorca, and to see the ‘new improved cattle’ they obtained through the artificial insemination technique (Picture 18).

Picture 18 The offer of the consultant

Afterwards, Fernando invited a representative of a private company –ABS-, specialist in genetic improvement via artificial insemination. The company veterinarian finally convinced the livestock producers to use the artificial insemination procedure, as Humberto explained: The veterinarian convinced the people that artificial insemination could be done. He said that the genetic traits of the traditional breed prevailed; consequently, it was better to use artificial insemination if they wanted to quickly change genetics. He explained what would happen if they brought an adult bull to this area. (Before) we were asking for the price of bulls through INDAP, (even) we got the prices of some bulls that people were selling in the surrounding area: young bulls of (an specific) breed, these ´Claveles´. This man told them that (the bulls) were not very convenient, because: what happens if they do not adapt to this environment? … We would lose a huge amount of money. It was easier to use the insemination because the mothers of the calves would teach them where to feed, the movements, everything...and we found he was right. In addition, the private company’s representative, together with the consultant, presented a film to the livestock producers. This film showed how the process of artificial insemination was done, as Mr. Soliciano told me: ‘The idea came from a Sir that had a meeting (with us). They told us what they did in Chincolco20 and that they got good results...

20 Chincolco is also a neighbour small village were the consultant worked in Petorca Province.

They showed us a film about how the thing was done. After that, a lot (of us) said yes. In the movie, they showed how the thing was (done), how they do it, what they put to the cows...’ As Mr. Soliciano expressed, he thinks the project came from an external actor -the consultant- and not from his own leaders. His story of access of the project contradicts the story that the leaders told me. They said that they were the starting actors of the project. These contradicting stories make visible the interface between producers, the consultant and the public world, where leaders act as a meeting point for different life worlds. Regarding the film, Humberto highlighted that the film was like a ‘stamp’ to close their agreement in order to get involved in the project. He added: ‘At the beginning, they (the others livestock producers) didn’t believe it. We showed a video and after that, they became enthusiastic. They didn’t believe that the cows could be pregnant without a bull. But after (the film) they were enthusiastic about it!’ I argue that the film made it possible to reach the final agreement because it ‘made visible’ something that, until that moment, was ‘invisible’ to the livestock producers: the process of how to get ‘improved calves’ through artificial insemination. Finally, they applied for two related projects. The first one was carried out during 2009 considering the perimeter fence of 90 has of pasture and the artificial insemination of 100 cows (Annex 2). The second one, as a continuation of the first project, was carried out during 2010 in order to finalize the construction of the fence, in addition to the artificial insemination of another 50 cows As Manolo told me, as soon as the projects were ready, the funding was approved by INDAP.

I conclude from this narrative that the background of the different actors and their previous experiences were a key aspect for the acceptability and the decision of the livestock producers to undertake this challenge: Humberto and Manolo tried to improve cattle reproductive production with hormone injections in their own cows; INDAP representatives had a technical background in livestock issues; the consultant had a good experience in the neighbouring area; and the private company showed their ‘expertise’ in the film. The leaders were able to use their existing relations with the governmental institution in charge of agronomic issues, and to modify it around the production of cattle. At the same time, they created and use a new relation with the consultant and the private company. They used this re-created relationship for they own benefit, making their agency visible. In the use and creation of this network I visualize three interfaces of knowledge: the first one between the field agronomist and the producers. This interface allowed the producers to gain access to the Head of INDAP Area La Ligua. With the Head of the INDAP area, a second interface took place. He used his knowledge and power position to convince the leaders to turn from the original idea of buying a new bull into the artificial insemination procedure. In this process of negotiation with the governmental entity, the livestock producers got funding for the fence, showing again their agency.

The idea of using artificial insemination generated a third interface; between the livestock producers and the technicians (the consultant and the veterinarian). These two new actors involved in this policy space used their knowledge and power to reaffirm the option of using artificial insemination by placing their knowledge above the knowledge of producers. In other words, the livestock producers delivered power to the technicians. This delivery of power made the technicians able to convince the livestock producers that the artificial insemination project was possible, and that it was the best option for them. They started to implement the first project by the end of 2009.

10.2. The implementation of the project According to all relevant actions that the different actors carried out for the implementation of the project, I hereby answer the questions about mechanisms and dynamics of the project: what actually happen there, who did what, in what physical context, related with mechanisms; the relationships between actors, issues of power relations, past histories and the remembered experiences of participants, related with dynamics. Both mechanisms and dynamics created the rules of the project of artificial insemination, and these rules are created by the histories and access of this project.

The implementation of the project involved building a fence, a first artificial insemination, the results of this first stage that led to agreements between actors, and a second artificial insemination.

The fence

The fence was built by the livestock producers near La Arena corral. Manolo explained the importance of fencing that specific pasture area that they called ´potrero’.

We fenced a ‘potrero´ of 90 has only with public funding, through INDAP. We only had to contribute with the labour.

This ‘potrero’ is where we take the calving cows in November, so, instead of taking them through Las Mostazas to the ´Precordillera´ [a long way], we drove them there and we kept them until de second week of December when we drove them directly to the ´Cordillera`. The rest of the herd used another, longer route.

(This ´potrero’) is like a pen to keep all recently born calves. It is a ‘potrero’ since it was ‘FUNDO’, it had water for the animals and it is in the precise point to move the animals to the ´Cordillera`.

Fernando, the consultant, added:

‘The Society gave them that piece of land in comodato21. That ‘potrero’ was an ‘alfalfal’ (not only natural grass; it had once alfalfa to feed the animals), so it has watercourses, it had water.

In the interview with Mr. Soliciano, he told me how they fenced the 90 has of pasture:

B: A ‘potrero’ was done up there...A project came to make a ‘potrero’ up there.

Y: and how this project came to be?

21 Comodato is a legal contract to give or receive something in order to use it without destroying it, with the previous agreement to give it back.

B: That one came, I do not remember, that one came and they said: ‘let’s fence the ‘potrero’ and let´s benefit from it’, and then we got money for the wire.

Y: and who proposed that project?

B: the same Manolo. We agree and we went on a Saturday up there: we carried a tractor, a truck with stick, wire, all the things... All of us went there, to make holes, to plant sticks, others wiring... the 24 livestock producers that we are now. All of us went there.

Y: and why do you want to fence that pasture area?

B: A lot of grass grew in that ‘potrero’ during the good years. The grass grows until here [showing me with his hand how high the grass grew]. So, we put the calved cows there for some days. After the calves grew a bit, we drove them into (the mountains).

Two years ago we started to fence the area, when we went there for the first time...and a part of it remained to be fenced … and that part we fenced now...

Picture 19 The fence

From their narrative and from the information given in the previous chapter, where they explained how they manage the cattle in the mountains, I conclude that fencing the ´potrero´ in this strategic point of the beginning of the Andes Mountains was a key practice for the livestock producers. They were using it before, it was half fenced (with the project they replaced the old fence where it existed), and they used it not only for the process of artificial insemination (in fact that was not relevant for them), but to improve the already existing management of the calving cows.

The first artificial insemination

Regarding the first process of artificial insemination, as the consultant told me, (almost) all of the livestock producers of the Paihuén Committee participated.

Before the implementation as such, some arrangements between the veterinarian coming from the private company and the livestock farmers were needed.

First, an agreement was needed regarding the bull that they were going to choose to improve the genetic traits of their herd. During an interview with the Manager of the private Company in Chile, he explained how this process is most likely to occur:

It is a conversation carried out in such a way that they feel like they are choosing the bulls...If I don’t like it, I say ‘look, this one is not good for you because this or that...and despite one is labelled as ‘a seller’ I try to be as honest as possible. They see the picture [see annex 3] , and you explain it to them, sometimes they are not going to understand...Manolo [the leader] does...I told them… ‘you have to choose one that is negative at birth22, this number has to be negative’....’yes, that picture is better (but), no, it doesn’t work for you’...and we try to lead. Then we choose the bulls...

So, as part of the dynamics of the project, as experts, the private company should ask the producers what bull they prefer, but at the same time, since ‘sometimes they are not going to understand’, they ‘try to lead’ the process of choosing the bull being ‘as honest as possible’. This practice highlights the power of the ‘experts’ above the producers. Thus, I asked the Manager of the private company, as an expert, for his recommendations:

The parameters (to choose the right bull) for them are: first, easy parturition; second, maternal ability; and third, a decent growth test. Easy parturition so you do not have any problems at birth, maternal ability because they are going to keep the female calves, and growth test if they have male calves that they want to keep as bulls, so they grow faster than they contemporaneous.

(In others words) for the guy that keeps the female calves, the maternal ability is always a key factor; we have to have a good mother. And if I am going to inseminate heifers, the bull that I am going to use has to have easy parturition traits. If I sell the calves at weaning, then the calves’ growth after weaning it is not very interesting for me...but I will want them to be heavier at weaning. (Thus) for the peasant agriculture [producing mainly calves to sell, rather than young bulls to be slaughtered] these three characteristics are the most relevant: easy parturition; maternal ability and good weight at weaning.

After this process, one of the bulls that the Livestock Producers of Paihuén ‘chose’ –following the ABS salesman’s advice- as provider of semen for their cows was the so called ‘Above Beyond’ (Picture 20), that fulfilled the three main characteristics advised by ABS for this ‘kind’ of beef cattle production.

22 Negative at birth imply easy parturition

Picture 20 The offer of ABS: ‘Above Beyond’

After this selection, they received some recommendations on how to choose the cows to be inseminated. The Manager of the private company explained these recommendations:

M: (We need) to choose the cows, and why? you need to have as many heifers as you can because they are easier to get pregnant, since they haven’t had any uterine problems. If they don’t complete 100 heifers, then we start to choose cows, and the cows have to have a ‘postpartum resting’ (of) 60... until 50 (days) at the most ...and with good body conditions...

Y: and what body conditions they have to have?

M: You can accept between 3.25 and 3 in a scale from 1 to 5....

Y: Are you going to find these in the mountains? [Remembering how thin the cows were in La Arena rodeo this March, the best with a corporal condition of 2.7 according to my opinion]

M: Remember that was in November, or December [November actually]-, that means that it is supposed to be the best minute...or it was October? I think it was October the first time...

Those are the criteria...these are cows that you have to have in the bullpen to treat them.

Afterwards, in November 2009, the management of the herd was carried out in the semi-closed ‘potrero’ in La Arena.

The external company used a combined protocol of ‘estrus synchronization’23, in order to induce ovulation (so the cows became fertile) in all the cows at the same time, followed by ‘artificial insemination’, introducing the semen of improved breed bulls –as Above Beyond-. More technically, the Manager explained:

The protocol is...I don’t know it by heart because it has been some time ...but it is:

Day 1: oestrogen (an injection) and progesterone implant (a vaginal device that releases hormones)

Day 7: we take out the progesterone (implant) and we put prostaglandin (an injection)

23 Estrus synchronization is a reproductive technique that can be done through several methodologies, using hormones to induce cows (or other animals) ovulation. In this particular case, it was used with the objective of inseminating the cows at the same time.

We wait for 56 hours and: we inseminate adding a dose of estradiol cypionate and GnRH.

It (the specific hormones and time) depends of the protocol, but roughly (it is like that). And when we talk about this protocol, we are talking about a 50% success rate; that is the average, with 2 inseminations, 1 pregnancy.

After the artificial insemination the livestock producers let the cows go to the mountains.

Mr. Soliciano explained how he lived the experience of the first artificial insemination:

First, we had to separate a number of cows, so, we were assigned 5 cows each more or less...a supposition...we separated them and we moved them to the rodeo (La Arena).

We had to keep the cows there, and to stay like 3 days, because there they were going to see if they were pregnant or not, the following day (they had) to palpate them and put them something, inside the cow, and leave it (the device for estrus synchronisation) for three days. And only after all these, they came to put that (the semen)

Picture 21 The first artificial insemination in ‘La Arena´

Ms. Natalia summarized her experience:

I think they took two of my cows that time, or three. They told me they were going to do the thing...that thing with the animals...to get them pregnant. And Manolo was up there following all the process. I knew that they were waiting to see if the ‘heat’ (signs of oestrus) was appearing in the cows to put them the thing, that thing of the bull to get them pregnant. Then, they took them to the mountain...

The first results and the following agreements

Mr. Soliciano told me the results of this first experience with artificial insemination:

B: When they came the first time, when they did the chat, I thought it was good, and I said ‘it is going to be good, ok., I will not enter now, but then there will be sons (improved calves) and then young bulls...young bulls for later, to get more calves of the same breed...and that was good. I couldn’t go, otherwise I would have participated. But it didn’t happen, after a year, when the cows had to be give birth, every one said ‘that cow is dry’24...my (cow) also...

Y: dry? but weren’t they covered with the bull at least?25

B: Some of them, but they came to give birth later...in the date that they didn’t have to give birth, from August onwards26 ... Nothing happened. Lots of them said that Humberto got one, but I have never seen it, I don’t know, I have never seen it....I don’t know if it will be from a bull or from that insemination...because there were bulls there also...

After all the process of oestrus synchronization and artificial insemination, only one bull was born from the 100 cows that were inseminated. Mr. Soliciano didn’t see this bull and he had some doubts, nevertheless, Manolo, Humberto, Fernando and I agree that a new bull of improved breed was born (see page 30).

In addition to the results of the first insemination, after Mr. Soliciano explained how the process was done step by step, he exclaimed:

...the cow was mistreated so much, you see?

Mr. Soliciano was not the only producer that told me that the cows were mistreated during the first artificial insemination. Carlos, the avocado producer, and Fernando, the foreman of the cattle, said the same. Digging deeper into the issue, I asked Mr. Soliciano to explain why he thought the cow was mistreated, and he said:

They had to put a thing and then they had to leave it inside (the cow)...because they left a thing inside! And then they drew it out and they put in what they were bringing (the semen).

He is talking about the progesterone implant, a vaginal device that releases progesterone as part of the oestrus synchronization technique. This procedure, that can be labelled as safe and harmless by veterinary technical standards –that I agree with- crushed with the livestock producers different life world values regarding the cows welfare. They even asked me: ‘can you imagine?’, ‘do you see that?’... and even more, I remembered the foreman´s words related to the procedure: ‘nunca les vuelvo a hacer tanto mal a mis vacas’ (I will never do such a harm to my cows again).

24 The Livestock producer of Paihuén used the category of ‘vaca seca’ (dry cow) to describe the cows that are not pregnant, not in oestrus, so, they are not in a productive phase of their reproductive cycle. 25 Because the maximum % you can get from an artificial insemination is a 60% of pregnancy, it is a common practice to use a bull during the following oestrus period of the cows to make sure that the cow will get pregnant, and avoid ‘losing the year’ of calves production. 26 Because the Artificial insemination was done in November of 2009, after nine months of pregnancy, the ‘new improved calves’ were supposed to be born during August of 2010.

This crush between two life worlds is an additional cause for the negative vision of the results of this project in Paihuén. Ms. Natalia told me her own explanation about what had happened:

R: Everyone said that it was a thing (semen) that you throw to the cows and they get pregnant ...but for that to work, the animals have to be held quiet in a ‘potrero’ right?

Y: And did you believe when they told you that the cow was going to get pregnant without a bull?

R: Yes, I did believe it. And then they told me that no, that they didn’t get pregnant; the cows appeared ‘dry’. It was a year that we lost.

Y: Did you participate with 3 cows? Did these three cows give birth later at least?

R: They didn’t give birth, not even.

Y: Why do you think it didn’t work?

R: They lacked tranquillity. (After the process) they drove them to the mountain, and you know, with that thing that they applied to them ... (The cows) didn´t stop, to get pregnant. So, I said maybe in the ‘potrero’ the cows could have gotten pregnant with that liquid.

Here I have to mention that calmness, even considering that it would be positive for the cows after artificial insemination to avoid embryonic death, technically can’t explain the failure of 99% of an artificial insemination procedure. However, keeping the cows more time in the ‘potrero’ would have been good for an early monitoring of the results –for example, checking after a month if the cows were pregnant or not; a common practice that I had seen in similar projects with peasant agriculture-

During the first rodeo in La Arena, Fernando, the consultant, explained to me:

There was no process of selection (of the cows) the first time. They (the livestock producers) had to gather 100 cows with more than three months calving (calves older than 3 months old), but it look like they were not able to gather them, so they arrived with cows with ‘terneros al pie’ [very small calves, probably less than three months old]. Then they released them to the mountains...with the calves behind. By the middle of September the results were seen. Only one calve was born.

However, he suspects that there could have been more, because first they told him that the cows were pregnant, but afterwards, they said that the cows had become pregnant later on. He couldn’t know this with certainty. They told him that the cows became pregnant with bulls later on, because the calves were not similar (to what he offered them)

Astete, Field Notes, 15 and 16/03/2013

The fact that the livestock producers weren’t able (or didn’t want) to follow the recommendations to select cows with more than three months calving is a key issue, both technically and socially, that will be analysed later in this chapter.

Besides the issues related to the management of the herd mentioned by Mr. Soliciano, Ms. Natalia and Fernando, Humberto told me that during the first process of insemination two (female)

88 veterinary students participated as part of their professional internship. He mentioned that they had recently finished their studies. Thus, some of the livestock producers said: maybe it was the girls? But others said: Ok, but the girls didn’t do all the work, only a part of it (so, it wasn’t a complete explanation for what happened).

Nancy –the governmental representative of INDAP- also agreed with the fact that allowing the girls to practice the insemination technique with the cows was not a good idea, and that it could have affected the final result.

Because of the evident failure –even considering that the producers didn’t follow the advice to use only cows with more than three months calving, or that the cows were soon send to the mountains- Humberto explained –as a dynamic of this policy space- the agreement that they made with the private company:

When we realized that (in the first insemination process) nothing had happened, Manolo -because he was the link- got in contact with the man from ABS (the private company), and he told him what happened. Then, when we saw that only one calve was born -we are talking about March of the following year- the answer that this man gave us was that for the next season we had to had 150 cows. Yes, they returned the doses (of semen).

Therefore, as another interface within this policy space -where the different life worlds are most likely to meet- the livestock producers, in alliance with the consultant, demanded an answer from the private company. This reflects that the livestock producers and the consultant have the power to negotiate. As a result from this encounter, the private company decided to return the doses of semen. That meant a second procedure of artificial insemination.

In addition, the veterinarian in charge of the first insemination was fired from the company –not only for that reason, but it was one of the reasons-. The new salesman of the company for that area, told me that they assumed the responsibility of the failure:

‘The company didn’t want to look bad, and also, there was no way to prove that we didn’t make mistakes’. And he added:

‘It is a challenge to work with small producers’

The Manager of this company in Chile, explained why they took that decision in technical terms: they didn’t respect the timing established in the protocol that they used for oestrus synchronization and/or artificial insemination. In addition, they didn’t carry out the selection of the cows and, even though this was a job for the producers, the final responsibility lays in the hands of the technician in charge:

M: The negative aspect of the first time was the bad job done by our side

Y: what do you mean?

M: When you carry out an ‘inseminación a tiempo fijo ‘(fixed- timed insemination), the schedules are absolute. If you move 8-10 hours, the whole system fails. And that was it. (It is) my diagnosis after talking to Fernando.

Y: Didn’t they respect the timing?

M: (If) I told you, I will arrive at 10:00 (am) … and I arrive at 6:00 in the afternoon to inject...that kills all the procedure.

Y: that... in the oestrus synchronization?

M: yes, when you are removing the implant (the internal device)...I guess, because the first day it can’t be, but to remove the implant and then to put prostaglandin...or to put cypionate and then to inseminate...if any of them aren’t done at the time that you have to...you have fertilities between 10 to 0%.

Y: That means that technically you didn’t respect the timing...in either of the two phases....implant plus prostaglandin or cypionate plus insemination...

M: exactly. And the second mistake was not doing a rigorous selection of the cows. You have 100 doses (of semen), so, the guys (the livestock producers) expected you to use the 100 doses, but I made it clear [the second time, when he decided to be in charge] that the fertility was going to be a disaster....

The second artificial insemination

Consequently, the second artificial insemination was done as a way to give the money back to the producers, considering the failure of the first time.

Even though the company asked them to gather 150 cows (100 doses from the first insemination plus 50 doses for the second project), it was difficult for the farmers to reach this number. Humberto explains what happened this time:

The people didn’t want (to participate) anymore, they said ‘what am I going to get if I leave the cows and at the end that thing is not going to work? And most of them didn’t want to participate. Mainly the young producers didn’t want to...they said ‘to continue loosing time… no, no, no’. And some of the elders kept their animals, but it was not on purpose, it was because we did a ‘rebusque’ [looking for some animals that didn’t appear in the main rodeo to move them from one place to other]. I didn’t want to let mine neither, but two heifers appeared, so, we said ‘if last year we had calving cows’...’bring me heifers, said that man (the manager of ABS), ‘bring me heifers’ he was telling us ‘and with these ones he was sure that we were going to get a percentage of pregnancy’...so, we left two heifers. I got them inseminated and none got pregnant.

Mr. Soliciano confirmed the negative vision that the producers had of the results of the second insemination:

I went there when they put that thing (internal device of progesterone) and they let them go to a small ‘potrero’, because they were just a few. When they had to put the other thing (semen) that they have to put, I didn’t go. And after they left the cows (in the ‘potrero’) for two days more and then they drove them to the mountains... I said, if they are to become pregnant… it will be now, but no, they didn’t.

The two veterinarians that were present during the second insemination –the Manager of ABS and the new salesman of semen doses- carried out a strong selection, and chose only 16 cows to be inseminated, as the Manager told me:

The second time...the first time that I went, we arrived to the kraals and I started to note calving cows, and many didn’t have the resting period that they have to have. So, I told them: ‘all (the cows) with less than 60 days of parturition OUT!’ They started to take them out and take them out; we kept 50... Perfect. We kept the heifers immediately, and then we took out the cows with bad body conditions, the older cows, the cows with Metritis27. Thus, from 150, we kept 30 animals [actually less, 16]. That is part of the educational process. I’m sure that if they had done the same the following year, we would have had more cows and less to select. They would know what they need...

Besides the negative view that the producers have of the second process –without an agreement in the numbers- some calves of improved breed were born: from a total of 16 cows, Manolo told me that they got 5 calves, but some of them died in the mountains; the consultant told me that (the producers told him they got) 8 –because the manager of ABS promised a barbecue if they didn’t get at least 9 calves (25%), so, because the producers are crafty and they wanted the barbecue, they said that they only got 8-; Humberto told me they got 3 or 4….

The Manager of the private company got a more positive impression:

‘After all, there was credibility, because we gave them an answer. And as far as I know, during the second season they were within the expectations’

Discussing the issue with the new salesman of the company, I mentioned that I think there are some ‘not recognized calves’ from the second insemination, because maybe they don’t have the same colour of the improved breed (red colour). He agreed, although colour genes are dominant, the calves do not always have the same colour that the bull has.

In the end, without a reliable traceability from both inseminations, the results in numbers don’t make sense. All actors had their own explanations regarding the results of the project, based on their experience during both procedures of artificial insemination.

27 Metritis is the inflammation of the wall of the uterus, common in cattle after parturition. It is caused by several bacteria, and occasionally viruses.

10.3. After the project

The Livestock farmers

Humberto summarizes the perception of the Livestock Producers of Paihuén about their experience in this policy space and its results:

Last time I had a small discussion with the consultant: ‘and the bull? how is the bull going?’ he asked me... Good (I replied), and then he said:

‘Now I know why the (first) insemination failed’.

’Why?

‘You didn’t tell me the cows were calving cows’ he told me.

‘Mr. Fernando’ I replied, ‘you saw (them), how many times did you come when we were doing the project? , and you knew they were calving cows, now you are not going to start with this joke’.

‘No, I didn’t know, because you didn’t tell me...yes, because the fact is that your cows ovulate after one year (after get birth). And I told him:

‘But the second time they were heifers...why didn’t they get pregnant? He said:

‘In fact, calves were born’, and I said:

‘But 4 more or less were born, and at the end they got lost’...they were like 3 or 4

And he replied:

‘It is true, but they were born’

‘But three’ I replied...’at the end, what percentage are 3 out of 36? when you guaranteed 30 or 40%’.

Thus, I didn’t talk to Mr. Fernando anymore, because sometimes, it is bad to justify yourself that much: if you failed, you failed. Maybe the insemination was badly done, I don’t know what happened, but the result was not as expected.

As Humberto said, the results were not as expected for the Paihuén Livestock Committee. Their vision about the first, and even the second insemination process, is that the insemination didn’t work because of a ´technical failure´. Manolo, Humberto, Mr. Soliciano...almost everyone that I talked to had the same answer. However, in a different context, and without the presence of the consultant, Humberto recognized during our first conversation a ´contribution´ of the farmers to these negative results:

According to Humberto, ´a big part of the guiltiness came from the ´old men´ [referring to all the livestock producers, even if they are not old], because they left calving cows, and the recommendation was (cows) with more than three months calving.

Astete, Field Notes, 17/03/2013

I can relate these two narratives of Humberto: in the first one (when he is talking with the consultant) he took a defensive attitude; in the second one he assumes the bad management: in a Chilean expression, ´la ropa sucia se lava en casa´ (the dirty laundry is to be washed at home), meaning that internally they can assume some ´mistakes´, but externally they defend each other.

An alternative explanation coming from the producers was provided by Angelo, who told me:

The artificial insemination didn´t work because cows like with bulls ´as women´, thus, they (the technicians) excited them to introduce it (the semen) but it didn´t work because they like it with the bulls. Thus, the cows would prefer to have bulls instead the ´artificial insemination´. That is why they didn´t get pregnant.

Astete, Field Notes 17/03/2013

This alternative explanation, in addition to the vision of mistreatment of the cows because of the use of intravaginal devices,- should not be understood as a refusal to use more advanced technology to increase/improve de production of calves, rather, they point to a different conception of the reproductive management of cattle. There is a gap to be filled between the technical procedures used to achieve genetic improvement of the herd –in this case oestrus synchronization and artificial insemination- and what the livestock producers always have experienced in life, both ´with women´ and with the reproductive management of the herd.

Whatever the explanation they provided, this ‘technical failure´ didn’t affect them internally as Livestock Committee, as Humberto –amongst other participants- told me:

‘It was something that failed and at the end all of us were affected...that’s all. And there is no other option but to continue.

The private company

From a strictly technical point of view, the manager of the private company summarized his final opinion:

The first time, they bought 100 doses and we did not get pregnant cows. The second time, they bought 100 doses [I understand that there were 50] and we used between 25 and 30 [I understand they used 16]...and now nobody knows (what happened)...because then the cows went to the mountains...

(Thus), the first time was a disaster, did they tell you that? We did a bad job...and the second time they used 25. Until now, we still keep some (of their) doses … and the rest? Thus, there is not continuity. I understand why, but there is no continuity. If Manolo (the leader) was not there they would not have done anything … That is my opinion with my only visit to the field (second insemination).

After saying that he didn’t like the fact that the group didn’t understand the process of cows’ selection, he emphasized the issue of (dis) continuity:

‘I don’t like the fact that there is no continuity. Yes, it pisses me off...to do it once and never again...everything is then cut. Now, I understand the reason, because of the drought, I have been there to see...our heifer daughters … and poor animals! They are very skinny.

From his words, I understand three key points of reflection: 1. There is no continuity (also related to the educative process that he mentions during the second process of insemination); 2. There is a strong leadership commitment, but the commitment it is not same in the rest of the livestock producers; 3. There is a lack of follow-up of the results.

The new salesman of the company that participated in the second insemination, highlighted that training was not considered for Paihuén:

‘A very basic thing was done here. There was not too much money, so there was not too much support. If the company has to go there 3 or 4 times, it is not profitable. It would be different if Jaime went there [the company veterinarian in charge of insemination courses]’

Despite this criticism, the Manager highlights the relationship that was generated with the farmers:

(The positive aspect of this process) was the encounter...these excited guys. The encounter we had with them: ‘how many are going to get pregnant?’, ‘half’, ‘but how? Here, when we use the bull, all of them get pregnant’. ‘Yes, but the bulls spend a lot of months with the cows’, ‘ahh! Ok’. So to explain that … and the guy believes you...either we are excellent salesmen...or a relation of trust is created. Think that the guy is putting money on it...how much is their income?, and they are spending 10 or 12 ‘lukas’ (15 to 18 euro) for each cow...no ...the good mood, ‘have a fruit’, very cool.

Although I don’t believe that true trust was created in this specific case between the private company and the livestock producers, I find very interesting that ‘the encounter’ is a highlighted result. I can relate this ‘encounter’ with the interface of knowledge between different worlds; the livestock producers and the experts in genetic improvement, the real challenge in this kind of intervention.

The consultant

The consultant was constantly challenged trying to connect the different actors. Actually, he was the one that had more contact with all the actors: livestock producers of Paihuén, the private company and the public institution. Thus, his opinion about the results aims in different directions:

The explanation of the consultant regarding the bad (or not) selection of the cows during the first artificial insemination was:

´They only put calving cows, even though the recommendation was to have heifers or ´dry cows´, but they didn´t have. Thus, they brought only calving cows! With one or two months old calves, that was what they had! ´

He provided some other factors that contributed to the bad results:

The person that performed the artificial insemination didn´t has much experience. (In addition) he had psychological problems...thus, he was not concentrated.

Moreover, the consultant argued that (trying to say that the results were not that bad for the producers): first, the producers did not lose calves, they just got their calves late (opposed to what the livestock producers told me); second, they didn´t lose the doses of semen, because they still have some remaining; third, the (veterinarian) man was fired (not only for this), which contributed to the self-criticism of the private company. He claimed that the private company did some bad management, comparing his experiences in Paihuén and in the neighbouring area:

In Los Comunes, 7 calves out of 11 cows were born the first time; the second time 0 out of 20, and the third time 11 out of 20. The second insemination was done at the same time of the second insemination in Paihuén. Therefore, if it didn´t work in Los Comunes, where (producers) had earlier training in contrast with Paihuén, it was most probably an issue of bad management.

Astete, Field Notes 16 and17/ 03/2013

Continuing with the key issue of the previous training for the neighbouring group, he said:

I developed the project, but it did not include technical assistance. This is a difference with Frutillar and Los Comunes, where a ´SAT` was created first and we (Fernando and his vet) gave them Technical Assistance. First, we studied the animal health problems of the herd, and then we implemented a quick and perceptible solution (related with the treatment of a common parasite called ´Hepatic Fasciola´). Only after this ´successfully´ joint experience, we succeeded and convinced them, explaining the cow reproductive cycle, and the option of using artificial insemination.

That was a slow process, different from the process in Paihuén, where they started the project without previous training or awareness raising:

These are the ridiculous things of INDAP, (it) has not been a solution for the peasants...I told them: I advise people, not cows, how I can help the person to do his /her job.

Nowadays, Fernando is in charge of providing technical assistant to some of the same livestock producers in Paihuén through a SAT (Technical Assistant Service). Fernando explained his difficulties providing them with technical assistant after these artificial insemination projects, and concluded:

I don´t have credibility...I have spent all the first year explaining this failure...If we had been successful, we would be talking about others things.

I should have had a stronger position with INDAP (and tell them): ´I am not interested in your job, I don´t work like this´

I am just another project that failed... (But) it is not my failure, it is a policy failure…

The public sphere: INDAP

To my surprise, once I confronted the latter sentence regarding the failure of INDAP policy with its representative, he agreed and explained:

What happens is that INDAP has a short-term view, thus, the programs have a short-term view. INDAP is 50 years old, it is still young. It still doesn’t know where it is going. The country is 200 hundred years old, (so) there are lot of falls still to come, and the country has to find the best path.

After this (important and hopefully visible) self-criticism, the field agronomist and her boss at the time of the artificial insemination project also carried out their own analysis of the results of the projects.

Nancy, agreeing with the consultant and one of the leaders of the livestock producers said:

(The results were) terrible. The peasants didn’t do a good management: there were calving cows...They (the consultant and the private company) advised them, but when we went to the insemination, there were calving cows! Do you understand? they will have cero option (to get pregnant), even if they injected them with hormones.

That was a fact that all actors recognized, thus, I wanted to go further, asking her why she thinks that they didn’t follow the advice, and she replied:

Ok, but all of this is just my perception, because first it was a lot of work. When I went (to the first insemination), it meant that they had to have 100 animals, and to carry 100 animals meant at least 3 or 4 days of work, (to) gather them and to carry them (to La Arena), because they were ‘below’ (in ‘Las lluvias’). At least, they supported (these activities) a lot, but it meant several days of work for a project that they didn’t know if it was going to succeed... they perform only a few managements, so for them, this (project) means a huge amount of work, to carry those 100 animals. I think that was the reason.

Even though it is true that moving 100 cows implies a huge effort for the producers, as I have seen and I have shown in the previous chapters, they are able to carry out that effort. Furthermore, they are used to move the cattle in November –when the first project was done- from ‘Las lluvias’ to the ‘Precordillera’. In this case, keeping the cows for three or four days in the semi-closed ‘potrero’ was the most difficult part. Despite that, I can argue that with the actual level of organization and management that the livestock producers have in place to raise cattle in the mountains, such an effort it is completely plausible. As we will see below, other (social) factors could explain why they didn’t follow the technical advice.

Nancy also added that Fernando, the consultant, pointed out the technical procedures as the main cause of the failure in the results, but she doesn’t know about that. In addition, she thought that having those two girls practicing during the artificial insemination was not correct.

And she concluded:

I feel bad because it didn’t work, since in some way, I feel that we wasted a huge opportunity. If we had ‘dado el palo al gato’ (literally: ‘hitting the cat with a stick’, that is, to have succeeded) the peasants would now be open to everything, but to play...no, that it is not word....to do all these things, and then to get only one animal...we played a bit with their illusions...we disappointed them... I have that feeling...

Continuing with her personal feelings, she expressed:

(However) it was a nice experience, very nice, I feel sorry to have given them hope and, at the end, it didn’t work. But I think I did a great effort, I was very committed. Relationships were created, a degree of friendship… with some more than with others. To improve the quality of their life, you give 100%, almost fighting for some issues. They still call me, I feel a huge...huge...that they are very grateful to me.

Avoiding talking about ‘failure’, her boss at that moment told me:

The truth is that these (artificial insemination) are programs with a limited rate of success...We did it with a private company that at the end, came to inseminate, but with people that, I think, weren’t the most appropriate technical team. And also, we did it during difficult times concerning the cows body conditions: we tried to choose a certain number of cows with the best body conditions, but... the cows were having drought problems almost since 2007, there have been no normal years in this period, so we had a very low percentage (of pregnancy). Practically, we didn’t carry out any follow-up of the success of these programs...it was an activity within the group, but we don’t....we didn’t perform a test the following month to see the conditions (of pregnancy or not pregnancy) of the cows. We didn’t do anything like that.

So, there is a general agreement regarding the technical failure of the external company (producers, consultant, public institutions and the private company itself).

Summarizing Alejandro´s technical vision of the results of the project: first, the staff of the external company was not the most appropriate; second, the body condition of the cows was not appropriate; and third, they (INDAP) didn’t follow-up the results.

However, he highlighted that:

The program itself doesn’t interest us, what interests us is how to break their constraints. It is not a problem of having money, or a technical matter. I could solve the technical problem, and I could even have the money. It is difficult, it is never enough for all of them, but I could finally have it and I could have the technical abilities to solve it. But what is the problem? It is that we don’t have the ability to convince these ‘old men’ [the nickname for all the livestock producers within the peasant agriculture], the constraint is social, rather than technical or economical. In the end, it is a constraint regarding how to make the ‘old man’ trust you and adopt that technology...

And he continues:

...that is why the insemination, the bull, the colt...all these things reach them (they like them), so you can generate quick transformations. But when the horse is not working anymore, and (or) you don´t have the success you wanted … everything easily collapses, and you are back to the starting point again.

I believe, in agreement with Alejandro, that visible (more than quick) results help technicians generate quick transformations, but on the other hand, I don’t believe that these quick transformations -usually based on the technicians´ vision on how to give solution to ‘a problem’- are

97 sustainable over time. In my opinion, it is necessary to generate a double understanding, to arrive to the INTERFACE of knowledge between producers and technicians –and hopefully politicians- where different kinds of knowledge meet. To achieve that, complex social dynamic take place, and both time and availability of the different actors to know each others are necessary, and none of these were present in the implementation of these projects.

In that sense, Alejandro argued that (his or INDAP´S) the objective was not to have animals, but to engage with that group (the livestock producers of Paihuén); to be present (as an institution); and to generate credibility...and concluding, he said:

‘We are still there’

10.4. Beyond the project Nowadays, new relations have been created between this public institution and the livestock producers of Paihuén. This situation opposes to what happened before the project was implemented, when the producers were linked to INDAP through agronomist issues, this new (re) created relationship made institutionally visible what was invisible at that moment: the livestock producers of Paihuén, recognizing that they are not ONLY livestock producers, but livestock practices are part of their livelihoods. Humberto stated it very clear: The first jump that we made was the project of (Artificial) Insemination. Before, the ‘INDAP’ was ‘INDA’: National Institute of Agriculture Development, without ‘Pecuario’ (livestock).

Picture 22 INDAP talks with livestock producers in La Arena Corral

And he added:

Since we have had more projects after the first one, our relation with INDAP has changed. There have been (several) projects: the insemination; the fence; the fence again (to finish the first one); warehouses; and now, just now, they told Manolo about the ‘aguada’ (watering)...Nowadays, there is more contact, we have done well with INDAP

The first program that incorporated livestock producers into the INDAP institutional tasks, after the Artificial Insemination Project, was the livestock SAT (Technical Assistant Service).

SAT

There is no agreement related to when this SAT was created. Livestock producers and the consultant told me that it was created after the first artificial insemination project. On the other hand, the representative of INDAP told me that SAT was created before.

After reading the ethnographic evidence got it from different actors, I argue that SAT was created after the insemination process: all actors agree that the first insemination was done in November 2009, meanwhile the SAT ‘technical proposal’ was ready on May 2011 (copy from original INDAP register ‘Propuesta Técnica y Económica de Servicios de Asesoría Técnica de INDAP Modalidad SAT Emprendedores’, during interview with INDAP representatives, 16 April 2013.)

Fernando, the consultant, is now days in charge of this SAT, explained:

The technical assistance has four elements: animal health, a good health program; animal nutrition, to have alternative feed, to teach them about nutrition, not about feeding, to teach them what nourishes the cow, what are the things that the cows are going to need, balanced feed that you find in nature, to do ‘silos’ (to keep feed)...in Petorca, for example (he already had a SAT in the neighbouring area of Petorca) we did ‘silos’, improved maize...we have those two elements. Improving the infrastructure is the third element, because I saw a lot of ‘fardos’ (bales) under the sun during the summer. So, they need to improve the infrastructure, a place to keep the grass, so they can buy grass not in winter, when it is more expensive, but in the summer … and to have a safe place to keep it. And the fourth element was the genetic improvement, for what? To improve the cattle that they can offer, because I saw that they were selling at very low prices, so the only solution was to improve the genetic traits of the herd. ...

Recognizing Fernando’s experience in the neighbouring area of Petorca (he has lived there for many years), and that (in my opinion) Paihuén has similar characteristics regarding the objectives of this SAT (selling at low prices; no feed conservation; not a good infrastructure), this ‘copy and paste’ project has the limitation that it does not recognize the different relationships existing between Fernando and the livestock producers of Paihuén, as Fernando told me:

Alejandro (INDAP representative) called me and told me: we have money and we want to do a project: we want to do an insemination, as you did in Petorca. Thus, I came to Paihuén, and the only ones that I knew, I had seen them only once, were Humberto and Manolo. I didn’t know anybody else...

In addition, I recognize in his words many ‘teach them’. This was actually a constant phrase during our many conversations, reminding me about the lack of recognition for the knowledge of the livestock producers themselves, as active participants of their own development.

Nevertheless, some very concrete results of this SAT project, indirectly related to the insemination process, are the several warehouses (see page 61, when Eduardo’s wife, Alejandra, recognizes that the best thing he has done is the warehouse)

Picture 23 The warehouse of Mr. Soliciano

This SAT had several members at the beginning, almost all the Committee of Livestock Producers of Paihuén, but for several reasons some of them did not continue. Manolo explained why:

Not all of them (are SAT), because of the issue of ‘legalización de actividades’ … not all of them are there [a condition of INDAP regarding enrolment in the Internal Revenue Service as a condition to keep receiving technical assistance]. A lot of them were in the SAT, but now some are in PRODESAL (another program of INDAP aimed at farmers with more ‘vulnerabilities’), and some do not participate in neither of them.

When I went to one of the SAT training meetings, there were not many producers participating, however, some of them are still interested.

Aguadas

In addition to the SAT program and the building of the warehouses, as Humberto mentioned, they have also been working with INDAP in order to get funding for their ‘aguadas’. During March, after La Arena rodeo, Manolo explained what the ‘aguadas’ are:

Generally, the streams are very close, so it is difficult for the animal to go there. Thus, sometime there is an intervention there, in the same stream: A water trough is made, it is closed with wooden bars to keep the animal out and avoid the formation of mud, and from the overflow, connections are made with hoses to try to take out (the water)… to have the water closer to the pasture. Basically, it is that.

100

And he continues:

Now, what we are fighting with INDAP is the funding, because we have some areas in the mountains where we have a lot of grass, but we don´t have water, so it is an area where you are not taking advantage. (So, we need) a one inch hose to conduct the water through a gradient to the pasture. We are talking about a distance of 3 or 4 kilometres, so it is an investment of 2 million (3000 euro).

Even though ‘fighting’ can sound very rude, it is a very common expression when you are trying to get something that is a bit hard to get. When I was living with Humberto, one day a representative of INDAP went with them to look at the ‘aguada’, in order to check if such a project was possible. As Humberto told me later, after one month from my first conversation with Manolo, INDAP was able to provide funding for their ‘aguadas’:

First we talked about this with Manolo, and we went to see some of them. And we talked with Nancy, but it didn’t work because there was no money. (Now) we talked with Nancy and the Boss (the new one) in la Arena [actually I saw them talking], and now Manolo told me that they called him, and they said it was ready.

Astete, Field notes (10/04/2013)

Finally, just as a remainder, Paihuén got two –very valuable- direct materialities results from these projects that are still in the Andes Mountains: Humberto´s new improved bull and the fences.

In my opinion, the ‘technical failure’ of this project started from the very beginning: the solutions given by public and private actors were no related to the problem that livestock farmers were trying to solve: first, they wanted to increase the number of calves (that is why they first tried to buy a bull)28, and second, to improve the genetic traits of the herd (that can also be done by selecting their best animals, instead of introducing new genetics through artificial insemination). I can argue that the specific practices that different actors carried out for the implementation of the artificial insemination project as a policy space showed the agency and power of the livestock producers of Paihuén, but it didn’t change their specific practices of cattle breeding. Regarding the interfaces generated in this policy space between the different actors, communication flows and later negotiations were developed. However, since there were difficulties and incompatibilities that exacerbated the bad results of this project, there was a further separation between the technicians´ and the producers’ worlds, and the reinforcement and legitimation of their own body of knowledge regarding reproductive management and specific technical tools for genetic improvement of the herd (see Arce and Long, 1987). On the other hand, the specific practices of getting access, the mechanism and the dynamics of this policy space, DO modify and reinvent the ways in which livestock farmers interact with the governmental institution INDAP. This is not only materially visible through the new bull or the fence,

28 I am not saying that to buy a bull it is the best solution, but you can first try other reproductive techniques to increase the possibility that a cow gets pregnant and thus, improve the number of calves. Furthermore, there are others areas of cattle management, like nutrition, that were more relevant to increase the productivity of their cows.

101 but also through their participation in different INDAP programs, warehouses to store feed, and through the improvement of the ‘aguadas’ for cattle in the mountains. It is this external social relation transformation that -for good or bad-, is finally the ‘room to manoeuvre’ generated by this policy space, created through many interfaces, hopes and disappointments amongst different actors.

102

11. Discussion The everyday life of the livestock farmers of Paihuén is surrounded by technological developments, institutional policies, market requirements and agro-ecological transformations. As Guatarri (2005) argue, this new reality has generated a conflicting interaction between the growth in techno- scientific resources and the development of social and cultural process.

Livestock farmers of Paihuén have addressed this new reality using their knowledge, experiences and social relations. That is the case of their engagement with the Artificial Insemination Project, intervention that transformed their subjectivity through a change in their relation with other actors and the acquisition of new materialities.

Through this Project, the mountain livestock farmers got a ‘new technical knowledge’ regarding the existence and use of the Artificial Insemination technique. This technique did not have the expected results because of a mixture of social-technical reasons. They got a new improved bull as a result of the first insemination and an undetermined number of calves after the second insemination.

The livestock farmers kept their practices of cattle management in the Andes Mountains. I agree with Arce (2003) and Long (2001) about the importance of highlight the differential relationship and value contestation of actors coping with any intervention. In that sense, the livestock farmers understanding that Artificial Insemination doesn’t fit with their reality can be interpreted as a value contestation regarding this specific technology.

Taking into consideration the example of the separation of two bodies of knowledge in Mexico (Arce, 1987), I have reasons to believe that the private company’s knowledge and the livestock farmers understanding of the reproductive management of the herd were separated even further, as consequence of the encounters between livestock farmers and that new technology. Furthermore, each of them reinforced its own set of knowledge, values and practices.

I agree with Giddens (1979), Long (1992, 2001), Arce and Long (1994, 2010) and Arce (2011) about recognizing livestock farmers as an active actor of their own development, with knowledge, agency and power: they were able to create and to implement this Artificial Insemination Project as a policy space, re-creating the relation with INDAP, shifting from being only farmers to being livestock farmers and farmers, making visible their diversities of livelihoods.

The negotiation with the institution generated an agreement to build a fence for the artificial insemination of cattle. However, the real importance of that fence is keeping and feeding the calving cows before being moved to the mountains, incorporating this materiality to their established practices.

The relational shift with the institution created new relations through the involvement of technical assistant actors (SAT-PRODESAL) in the community. In addition, it generated new materialities, transforming the environment (warehouse, ‘aguadas’). Thus, the Artificial Insemination Project can be considered as part of the on-going transformation of their subjectivity.

103

Mountain livestock farmers experience in a process of transition

I argue that the experience of the mountain livestock farmers is based on their practices and their relational way of action in a process of continuing transformation. These relational ways of action through their practices created their subjectivity.

To build that argument, I took into consideration the recognition of the central role played by the human action (Long, 2001; Arce 2011); that the subjectivity of any being is a constantly undergoing transformation (Solomon, 2005) and that practices create and reproduce the subjectivity of a being (Swidler, 2001).

Following the arguments of Swidler (2001) and Barnes (2001) about practices in contemporary theories and the practices as collective action, I found that the variability of practices that the mountain livestock farmers perform range from mutual collaboration to antagonism and divergence. The collective action enables them to be cattle farmers in the mountain, while the antagonist relation with buyers allows them to continue with their cattle raising practices. Both create the subjectivity of the mountain livestock farmers.

There are practices in the rodeo and the management of the cattle in the mountains that represent ancient and elder’s knowledge. This knowledge is transmitted, processed and re-created from generation to generation. In this sense, the rodeo of La Arena and Paihuén are a key space where children practice and develop that knowledge.

Thus, in addition to the idea of Swidler (2001) about the importance of collaborative and antagonist practices, I believe that the practices of children for knowledge transfer, are as important as the collaborative and antagonist relationships in the mountain livestock experience.

Their way of addressing the continuous transformations in their everyday experience is visible through actions that bring together some technological changes, for instance, the health management (deworm and vaccinations), the identification of the animals with the Official Identification Device (DIIO) in addition to their ‘traditional’ way of identifying animals (cuts and signs), or when they are trying to cope with the drought changing the movement of the animals in the mountains. Moreover, they address this continuous transformation through their willingness and involvement in projects that bring ‘new technology’, as the Artificial Insemination one.

Regarding the physical space, I share the opinion of Halfacree (2006) about the creation of physical space through practices. The mountain livestock farmers create their physical rural space through the distinctive practices of cattle management in the Andes Mountains.

In complete agreement with Giddens (1979), Arce and Long (1994), Long (2001) and Arce (2011), these practices in the Andes Mountain highlight the knowledge and agency that livestock farmers have and use regarding their mountain territory. As Pavlovic (2007) and Razeto (2007) argue, this knowledge can be related with the first occupation of central Andes Mountains of Chile for thousands of years by ancient cultures. They divide their mountain territory into five ‘areas’: during summer they use the high mountains of Los Andes, the ‘Cordillera’; then they move the cows to a semi-closed foothills area called ‘Encierra’; in winter they move the cows to the ‘Invernada’; at the end of the winter they move the animals to ‘Las lluvias’, and finally at the end of the spring they move the cows to the foothill space called ‘Precordillera’.

104

The movements are done based on the availability of grass, water and agro climatic conditions, taking into consideration humidity, rain, snow, shadow and sun.

Regarding organization, the mountain livestock farmers of Paihuén are organized as a Livestock Committee to decide on animal management practices, in order to continue raising cattle in the mountains. Taking into account Arce (2003) arguments about the importance of the value contestation of actors among intervention/transformation in their realities, this organizational space (complex, autonomous and self –managed) was created as a contestation to the economic decision taken by Paihuén Agricultural Society to withdraw cattle management since it was not a profitable activity.

The Livestock Committee was created and implemented through multiple relationships among the Livestock Farmers of Paihuén that allowed them, in this relational way, to create and give life to the Livestock Committee. They have a high degree of organization, with their own election system resulting in a good -but lonely- leadership. In addition, they have a sophisticated financial system to invest in their animals, involving individual payments for a collective objective (foreman), individual direct payments for individual aims (vaccinations, freight), non-monetary cooperation (animals for rodeos, working days) and collaborative work with other existing organizations (the ‘Huasos’ club).

This organizational space created by the livestock farmers from Paihuén allows them to maintain their management practices to raise cattle in the mountains.

The diversity of livelihood in Paihuén

The livestock farmers are able to create and sustain their life through a diversity of practices and social relations that represent a diversity of livelihood in the community.

I agree, up to a point, with Ellis (1998) explanation of livelihood diversification as a ‘portfolio’ of activities and resources. He, in addition to Hebinck (2007), divides resources in social networks, salary, land, capital, knowledge, technologies and markets. This separation helped me to identify and to give attention to the resources that people have, such as land, water, animals, wage labor and market.

However, as a blind spot, I didn’t understand how these different resources were mixed and assembled to build their life. After restudying Arce (2003) and the Actor Oriented Approach (Long, 2001; Arce 2011, Arce and Long 1994, 2010), I realized that they were able to create an use their resources (Ellis, 1998, Hebinck 2007) through a relational process (Arce, 2003) within the members of the family, the community and outsiders.

In agreement with Hebinck (2011), it is in those relations that their knowledge, agency and capacity to innovate are illuminated through negotiations, struggles and (mis) understandings. They innovate in their day to day, mixing and re- assembling ancient knowledge with new technologies.

105

In this sense, following Long (2001), they are social actors, constantly maneuvering to improve their lives.

The main practices that represent the diversity of livelihood in Paihuén are avocado and vegetables production, mining and livestock practices.

The avocado, lettuce and potato production is carried out mainly by the owner of the farm, giving work to other members of the community during specific periods of the production. The harvest is sold. There are other members of the community that work in bigger farms as remunerated workers. During the time of my field work avocado production was a competing activity with lettuce or potato, as I didn’t see both practices in one household. Land and water were the main resources in competition for both activities

Mining is the main non-agriculture activity that represents the diversity of practices within a household. The livestock farmers included in my research didn’t participate themselves as miners, but members of their family work in the main mines of the geographical space. In addition, young members of Paihuén families and the neighboring rural communities study in a technical mining school. This highlights the importance of mining activities in the area. In this sense, I disagree with the current Communal Development Plan for Cabildo (CHILESTUDIOS, 2009), that argues that mining is not attractive for Communal Development. In Paihuén, there is a synergistic relationship between mining and agriculture that makes livestock farmers’ families able to build their life.

Regarding livestock practices, they remain parallel to the main economic activities of the community. However, livestock production alone is not enough to build the life of any of the families.

In addition to the relations created and used for productive action, there are relations of support within the members of the community, as the role of the ‘devil’.

Regarding the key aspects to explain the diversity of livelihoods and the variability of their practices, in agreement to Arce (2003), it is necessary to comprehend how they understand their life, recognizing that there are different persons within a community, thus, they create and use different values, knowledge, skills and relations.

Adding and mixing the arguments of Hebinck (2011), Ellis (1998) and Arce (2003), I argue that other aspects to consider in order to explain the diversity of livelihoods are the resources they have (Hebinck, 2011; Ellis, 1998), and the relational use of them through social relationship and contestation (Arce, 2003) of any kind of intervention/transformation in ‘time’ and ‘space’ (Hebinck, 2011).

Following Hebinck (2011), time and space determine the diversity and variability of the livestock farmers’ livelihoods in Paihuén, and at the same time they are created through their practices in continuous transformation. Regarding the space, or ‘arenas’, the drought, as an agro ecological condition, generates vulnerabilities and challenges, thus, it generates transformations. Based on Arce (2003) and the explanation of Hebinck (2011) about ‘space’, I argue that the drought has been contested through complex relationships (Arce, 2003), involving negotiations, struggles and (mis) understandings (Hebinck, 2011). At provincial level, the drought has been contested through social movements, making visible the inequality of access to this vital resource between large avocado production for exportation and the community itself. At community level, the Rural Drinking Water

106

Committee had had to solve many problems to ensure the continuity of supply due to the water shortage in the area. Among the livestock farmers, they have organized, negotiated and performed practices related to water supply, as the arrangement and construction of drinking fountains for the animals in the mountains. The ‘innovation’ of the farmer regarding his irrigation system is also a contested practice against the currently ‘space’ drought conditions.

The seasonality as a space also explains the variety of their practices. For instance, the farmer produces lettuce and then potatoes; or that the livestock foreman is a saddler during winter.

Regarding time, the life story of Nadia helps to visualize the trajectory and the rapid transformation of rural areas: in 26 years she shifted from the lack of ‘basic needs’ to having access to drinking water and electricity. Another example is the ‘trajectory’ on time of ‘the farmer’, that highlights how he became an independent farmer after being a wage-earning worker for the Society and an administrator of private-entrepreneurial farms.

On one hand I tend to agree with Chambers (1989): Paihuén inhabitants first priority is not environment or production, but livelihoods, so they need and create both, short-term satisfaction of needs, and long term security. In my opinion, avocado, lettuce, potatoes production and mining are related to income increasing for short-term satisfaction, while livestock practices are related to long term security. Thus, they are important to reduce their vulnerability.

On the other hand, not all members of Paihuén community see livestock as a resource. For example, for the ‘devil’ the cows were a waste of money, a hobby. Thus, it is important to analyze the understanding of people about ‘their resources’.

Consequently, the key aspects to understand their diversity of livelihood and practices are to take into consideration how the people understand their own reality and how they address the continuous transformation in time and space through their created relations and knowledge.

Following the ideas of EUSTAT (2013) on women practices, the women of Paihuén participate in the creation and maintaining of the diversity of livelihoods through their reproductive work at home, their participation in community activities and some practices of production, with different degree of responsibility and control.

Regarding reproductive work, the women of Paihuén carry out all the household activities related with the attention and care needed to sustain human survival. In addition, they have a key role strengthening the social relationships, they are an emotional and psychological support for the family members and they contribute to the education of children. In general, the physical space that women use is closer to home than men’s.

There is seasonality in their productive practices. Women participate in the production of tomatoes, lettuce and livestock activities. Even though it was not tomatoes season, I learned that women are responsible for its production and sale. In addition, women participate in the production and seedlings transplant of lettuce, in their irrigation and daily care. However, women do not have the control over lettuce production. Women’s contribution to lettuce production is also related to their role of strengthening the social relationships within the community, looking for people to work in transplanting lettuce. Women also participate as labor in the production of lettuce.

107

Concerning livestock -related practices, they are responsible for the chicken, ducks and goats having access and control of these resources. They also help in feeding calves and horses.

The triple role of women in reproductive, productive and communitarian practices, make visible their contribution in the creation, maintenance and transformation of the various forms of life present in Paihuén as active participants of their own development.

Although I visualized women’s participation in everyday life, this study is far from being a gender- study. There are complex intra-house and intra –communitarian relations that involve power dynamics that have not been analyzed. This could be one of the topics for future research.

Regarding the persistence of cattle practices over time, I share Swidler’s (2001) opinion: I argue that livestock practices persist over time because they are strongly interconnected practices within the same ‘scheme’ of raising cattle in the Andes Mountains. In others words, livestock practices persist because the concept of ‘mountain livestock farmers’ is highly resilient, even when technological changes transform some of their practices. The understanding of being a livestock farmer in the mountain is able to resist challenges as the drought, the project of artificial insemination or the transfer of livestock from the Society to the Livestock Committee. They absorb these challenges in their discourse of identity transforming their subjectivity, but at the same time, they are still ‘mountain livestock farmers’.

In addition, cattle practices remain in time for a diversity of reasons: economic rationality -saving and investment-; life maintenance; tradition and the right to have them; and for 'pleasure' or 'hobby'. This makes visible the heterogeneous character of ‘a’ community. Cattle livestock practices resilience cannot be understood (only) in economic terms, but it has to be understood through subjective, historical and collective values that create and give shape to cattle livestock management in the Andes Mountains.

Use and (mis) understanding of practices and knowledge in the artificial insemination project

In agreement with the conceptual frameworks introduced by McGee (2004), I analyzed the Artificial Insemination Project as a policy space. Even though I didn’t follow her framework step by step (regarding history, access, mechanism, dynamics and learning dimensions), I tried to consider them in the study of the creation, implementation and latter reflection about the Project. I see the point of view of McGee (2004) regarding the importance of studying mechanisms and dynamics of the policy process in the everyday life of the different actors involved. However, it was not possible to follow her suggestions for my research because the project was already finished. Although I recognize that it would have been useful, I believe that through ethnographic interviews and the actor oriented approach, I was able to get, not everything, but enough mechanisms and dynamics processes for the purpose of my research.

Livestock farmers got involved in the Artificial Insemination project as a policy space using existing social relations and creating new ones. The leaders of the livestock farmers were able to use their existing relations with INDAP, and to modify it around the production of cattle. At the same time, they created and used a new relation with the consultant and the private company. Sharing the opinion of Long (2001) and Giddens (1979), I believe that by using and creating these relationships,

108 the leaders of the livestock producers prove their agency, being able to make changes and to produce and reproduce knowledge.

Taking into consideration the understanding of Arce & Long (1987, 1994) and Long (1989, 1992) I have a reason to believe there were three main interfaces during the creation of the project.

The first interface was created between the leaders and the field agronomist of INDAP. This interface finally provided access to the Head of INDAP Area in La Ligua.

The second interface created struggles and negotiations between the leaders and the Head of INDAP. The public servant used his position and power to convince the leaders to turn from the original idea of buying bulls into the use of the artificial insemination procedure. In this process of negotiation with the governmental entity, the livestock producers got funding for a fence.

The third interface was between the livestock producers and the technical entities; the consultant and the private company. The livestock producers delivered power to technicians, who used their ‘scientific’ knowledge and power to reaffirm the option of using artificial insemination.

Regarding the main practices the different actors did for the implementation of the project, the implementation of the project considered the building of a fence, a first artificial insemination, the results of this first process, the agreements made by the involved actors, and finally a second artificial insemination.

In agreement to Swidler (2001), when the management scheme of mountain livestock is transferred to a different reality with different assumptions, irrationalities appear. These irrationalities appeared during the implementation of the Artificial Insemination Project when the technician asked to have 100 cows with more than two months calving and to keep them in a paddock to be inseminated. In mountain cattle management, it is difficult to get 100 cows in dates different than those previously established for the rodeos; second, it is random if these cows are going to have more than 2 months calving or not in November and third: there were no paddocks before the implementation of this project.

Analyzing McGee’s (2004) dynamic of this policy space, another interface appeared after the evident failure of the first insemination: the agreement between the livestock producers, the consultant and the private company. This negotiation resulted in the return of the doses of semen by the private company. This reflects that the livestock producers and the consultant have the power to negotiate. Consequently, this interface leads to a second procedure of artificial insemination

Livestock farmers didn’t want to participate in the second artificial insemination, mainly because of their negative opinion regarding the previous results. On the other hand, this time there was a strong involvement of the private company, with the participation of the national manager and a new veterinarian/salesman. There was not follow-up of results.

The different actors explain the results of the project based on their own experience of encounters with other actors during both procedures of artificial insemination. All actors involved in this project - livestock committee, private company, the consultant and INDAP- perceive the first insemination procedure as a failure, mainly caused by improper handling by the technicians coming from the private company.

109

In addition, taking into account both insemination procedures, livestock farmers leaders, the private company, the consultant and the public institution agree that livestock farmers didn’t ‘follow’ the technical recommendations regarding the selection of cows with more than two months calving, contributing to the bad results of the project.

An alternative explanation given by livestock farmers about negative results is related to the reproductive management of the herd. They argue the cows didn’t get pregnant because the cows prefer to breed with bulls. In addition, they thought the cows were mistreated because of the use of intravaginal devices. These arguments highlight a gap between the understanding of cattle reproductive management between livestock farmers and technicians. In concordance with the case study shown by Arce and Long (1987), this encounter lead to a further separation of these two bodies of knowledge.

Regarding encounters, the leaders of the livestock producers, the private company and the public representatives highlighted the generation of social relationships as part of the positive results of the project.

I share the opinion of Swidler (2001) about the fact that the establishment of new practices do not seem to require time or repetition, but to be VISIBLE. In this sense, the ‘new improved bull’ and the other calves produced as a result of the inseminations were not visible for the community of livestock farmers, which can be related to the continuity of their practices.

I disagree with McGee (2004) about the ‘possibility of learning’ during the creation of the policy space. I argue that all actors learn, mainly based on their encounters with other actors. The point is that sometimes their learning process lead to conclude that ‘you do not want or you do not need the new knowledge you got’. I argue that this was the learning process of the livestock farmers: they learned that this new technical knowledge is not compatible with their reality.

Regarding the social footprints of the project, this new (re)created relation with the public institution made institutionally visible the livestock farmers of Paihuén. There are direct and indirect physical footprints of the project: a new ‘improved’ bull, a fence, warehouses and ‘aguadas’. The livestock farmers of Paihuén nowadays participate of other INDAP technical programs such as SAT and PRODESAL.

Concerning policies, although I realize that more research is needed to understand the whole policy process about genetic improvement in Chile, I can visualize a huge disconnection between the different levels of the policy process. The creation and latter implementation of the artificial insemination project in Paihuén is completely disconnected from the National Policy of Genetic Improvement. I can argue that this disconnection is strongly related to the classification of this region of Chile as ‘NOT LIVESTOCK REGION’. This situation threatens to leave families, or at least part of the survival strategies of these families, invisible to these national policies. In this sense, this created policy space generated a new relationship with INDAP, making the livestock farmer producers of Paihuén institutionally visible.

110

12. Conclusion Research Question

How the encounter with the Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén is transforming or not the subjectivity and social relations of the mountain livestock farmers?

The Artificial Insemination Project in Paihuén transforms the subjectivity of mountain livestock farmers through a change in their relation with public actors and the acquisition of new materialities. This relational shift with the public institution makes institutionally visible the livestock farmers of Paihuén, creating new relations through the involvement of technical assistance actors in the community. Thus, the Artificial Insemination Project can be claimed to be part of the ongoing transformation of their subjectivity.

Specific research questions

1. How are the mountain livestock farmers’ experiences in a process of transition?

The experience of the livestock farmers is based on their cattle management practices in the mountains and their relational way of action in a process of continuous transformation.

The main mountain livestock farmers’ practices are their ‘rodeos’. The rodeos highlight that collective action; antagonist relationships and transmission of knowledge through the involvement of the whole community, are the main relations that allow them to raise cattle.

They create their physical rural space through the distinctive practices of cattle management in Los Andes Mountains. They divided their territory into five areas. The movement of the animals is done based on their knowledge of agro climatic conditions, recognizing the interaction and mutual determination of internal and external factors, as the drought and the possible competition for resources with wildlife.

They are organized as a Livestock Committee, a complex and self-managed organization created and implemented through multiple relationships among the livestock farmers. It has a high degree of organization, with their own election and financial system.

2. How are they able to create a diversity of livelihood to build their life in Paihuén?

The livestock farmers are able to create and sustain their life through a diversity of practices and social relations that represent a diversity of livelihoods in Paihuén. They are able to create and use their resources through relational processes between members of their family, the community and outsiders. In those relations, their knowledge, agency and capacity to innovate are highlighted through negotiations and struggles. They reassemble ancient knowledge with new technologies, as active social actors constantly maneuvering to maintain and improve their life.

The main productive practices that represent the diversity of livelihoods in Paihuén are the production of avocado, lettuce and potatoes, mining, and livestock practices. There are a diversity of resources and activities within a household that they use through collaborative relationships with family and the community.

111

The key aspects to explain the diversity of their livelihoods and the variability of their practices is first, to recognize that people understand their own reality in different ways and second, to understand how they contested continuous transformation in time and space through the use of their resources, relations and knowledge.

Women participate in the creation and maintenance of the diversity of livelihoods in Paihuén through their reproductive work, their participation in community activities and practices of production with different degrees of responsibility and control. Their contribution visualizes them as active participants of their own development.

Livestock practices persist over time because they are interconnected in multiple ways in the same ‘scheme’ of raising cattle in Los Andes Mountains. They reabsorb challenges in their discourse of identity, transforming their subjectivity but continuing with their practices. There are different reasons why people raise cattle: saving and investment, life maintenance, tradition and rights, and for pleasure. In this sense, cattle livestock practices resilience cannot be understood (only) in economic terms, but it has to add subjective, historical and collective values that create and give shape to cattle management in Los Andes Mountains.

3. How their diverse set of practices -old and new- expressed as knowledge are pragmatically used and (mis) understood to implement and reflect on the artificial insemination project in Paihuén?

The livestock farmers of Paihuén used their existing social relations and created new ones through multiples interfaces. They were able to implement the project through the building of a fence, two inseminations and their posterior reflection. There were three main misunderstandings that finally lead to a further separation of the body of knowledge of the technicians and the livestock farmers. This project left social and physical footprints. The most important one is that livestock farmers of Paihuén are now ‘institutionally ‘visible for the public actors.

Regarding the creation of the Project, livestock farmers got involved in the Artificial Insemination project using existing relations and creating new ones through three main interfaces. The first one provided them access the Head of the public office; the second one provide them funds for a fence, and the third one reaffirmed the option of using Artificial Insemination.

The implementation of the project involved the practices of building a fence, a first artificial insemination, the negotiations and agreements after the first insemination and a second artificial insemination.

The different actors explain the results of the project based on their own experiences of encounters with other actors during the creation and implementation of the Artificial Insemination Project. All of them agree on the fact that the failure of the first project was caused by improper handling by the technicians. However, there are other technical-social reasons that actors take into consideration to explain the results of the overall project.

There were three main misunderstandings, the first one is related to the different ‘solutions’ the actors gave for the livestock farmers ‘problem’: livestock farmers wanted to increase the number of calves through the acquisition of bulls, meanwhile public and technical actors used their power and positions and shift the ‘solution’ into the use of artificial insemination technique.

112

The second misunderstanding is related to irrationalities that appear when the management scheme of mountain livestock is transfer to a different reality with different assumptions: these irrationalities were visible in the difficulty of livestock farmers to get 100 cows with more than 2 months calving and to keep them to be inseminated.

The third misunderstanding is related to a different conception in relation with cattle reproductive management. There is a gap to be filled between the technical procedures used to achieve genetic improvement of the herd and what the livestock producers always have experienced in life, both ´with women´ and with the reproductive management of the herd.

The diverse interfaces and misunderstandings among actors during the formation and implementation of the project, finally lead to a further separation between technicians´ and producers’ worlds, and the reinforcement and legitimation of their own body of knowledge regarding reproductive management and specific technical tools for genetic improvement of the herd.

Finally, regarding the footprints of the project, there are direct and indirect physical footprints of the project: a new improved bull, a fence, warehouses and ‘aguadas’. Regarding the social footprints, the livestock farmers of Paihuén nowadays participate of other public programs such as SAT and PRODESAL. The footprints of this project are the result of the shift in the relationship with the public institution that made livestock farmers of Paihuén ‘institutionally’ visible.

113

13. Recommendations Following the Actor Oriented Approach I decided to divide the recommendations chapter in two parts. The first one explores the recommendations given by the actors about how to improve the cattle mountain management practices in Paihuén. The second part highlights the need of further research into the development studies.

To improve the cattle mountain management practices in Paihuén it is necessary a comprehensive and holist view. There is an agreement among all the actors (livestock farmers, private company, consultant, public servants and an academic lecture on beef cattle production) on the need to improve the nutritional status of the herd. The most commented suggestion is to close a pasture area, to irrigate it and to cultivate fodder (or improve the natural pasture). They recognized that water management is needed in order to create this ‘potrero’, in the actual drought agro climatic conditions.

Reproductive management is another expressed recommendation by the actors, as part of a holistic systems of practices (perhaps due to the influence of my research topic), although there was not agreement of how to do/change the reproductive practices, ranging the options from: buying ‘improved’ bulls (by the livestock farmers, the expert, and public representatives), inducing ovulation, selecting the best animals, separating bulls and the use of artificial insemination (by the private company, consultant, public sphere).

These recommendations were given by the different actors in different times and spaces during my research, and represent a possible point of ‘encounter’ of the different bodies of knowledge among the nutritional needs of cattle. I suggest this knowledge encounter as a starting point for a new interface, in this new reality of on- going transformations.

Regarding future research, this study highlights the need of further research in the development field:

 To gain understanding about how people deal with the actual drought in Petorca Region through their everyday practices and discourses in a broader context of policies on water regulations and agro-climatic transformation.  To understand better the contribution of women, through an analysis on gender inequalities and household dynamics that could be affecting their quality of life within the community of Paihuén.  To study the ‘conflict’ between the discourse and policy regarding the protection of the wild life in the Andes Mountain –specifically the protection of guanacos (Lama guanicoe)- and the practices of mountain livestock farmers in the Petorca Province.  To explore the disconnection between everyday practices of policies, such as the implementation of this Artificial Insemination Project and broader policy process as the national policy on livestock genetic improvement.  To understand how political categorization, generalization and labeling of territories as ‘not livestock region’, like at Valparaiso, affect (or not) the everyday life of people.

114

References ACOSTA, J. (2004). Agricultura Familiar Campesina y Exportaciones: El caso de Interpac. In: La Pequeña Empresa Agrícola y los desafíos de la Globalización. INDAP. Santiago, Chile. 281-292

AMERICAN BREEDERS SERVICE (no date). Manual de Inseminación Artificial. Segunda Edición

ARCE, A. (2003). Value contestations in development interventions: Community development and sustainable livelihoods approaches. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal

ARCE, A. (2011). An actor-oriented analysis. Lecture 4 Friday 16 September 2011 Sociology of Development: actor oriented analysis. Master Rural Development and Innovation. University of Wageningen.

ARCE, A., and Long N. (1987). The dynamics of knowledge interfaces between Mexican agricultural bureaucrats and peasants. Boletín de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe 43, pp. 5 -30.

ARCE, A., and Long N. (1994). Re-positioning knowledge in the study of rural development. In: Agricultural restructuring and rural change in Europe, vol. Wageningen studies in sociology. Edited by D. Symes and A. Jansen, pp. 75-86. Wageningen: Agricultural University

ARCE, A, and Long N. (2000). Reconfiguring Modernity and development from an anthropological perspective. In: Arce and Long (eds.) Anthropology, Development and Modernities. Routledge

ARCE A. and Long N. (2010). The Rise and Challenges of Anthropology of Development. [FINAL DRAFT].

BARNES B. (2001). Practice as collective action. The practice turn in Contemporary Theory, 17-27

BIBLIOTECA DEL CONGRESO NACIONAL (2013). Reseñas Parlamentarios. Last access 08 July 2013 at: http://historiapolitica.bcn.cl/resenas_parlamentarias/index_html#p=1,f=0,r=3

CERDA, J. (2007). Capítulo VII Zonas Geográficas de la Alta Montaña. Desde Alicahue al Glaciar Juncal. Cordillera Central de Chile. Estudios de la Vida en las Montañas de Aconcagua. Corporación CIEM Aconcagua. I.S.B.N 978-956-8127-21-3. Primera edición. Noviembre 2007. San Felipe. 239-271.

CHAMBERS, R. (1989). Editorial introducción: Vulnerability, coping, and policy, IDS Bulletin 20 (2), 1-7

CHILE (2007). Decreto n° 30, de 20 de Abril de 2007, Crea comisión del Ministro de Agricultura para el Mejoramiento Genético

CHILE, Gobierno de Chile (2009). Chile, Potencia Agroalimentaria. Programa de Gobierno. Oportunidades. [Online]. Last access 12 August 2013 at: http://www.gob.cl/programa-de- gobierno/oportunidades/agricultura/.

CHILE, Gobierno de Chile (2013). Chile como potencia alimentaria y forestal. Blog. [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at http://www.gob.cl/blog/2013/06/17/chile-como-potencia-alimentaria-y- forestal.htm

115

CHILE, INDAP (2009). Portal INDAP: ´Gracias a apoyo de INDAP ganaderos de Cabildo podrán mejorar genéticamente sus especies´ 22 de diciembre de 2009. [on line] Last access 12 August 2013 at: http://portal.indap.cl/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=6687

CHILE, INDAP (2013a). Quienes Somos. [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at: http://www.indap.gob.cl/que-es-indap

CHILE, INDAP (2013b). Objetivos del Programa. [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at http://www.indap.gob.cl/programas/programa-de-desarrollo-de-inversiones-pdi

CHILE, INDAP (2013c). Plan de Mejoramiento Genético Bovino (PMG). [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at http://www.indap.gob.cl/extras/btn-descargar/mejoramiento-genetico-bovino-pmg.pdf

CHILE, Ministerio de Agricultura (2013). Lineamientos Estratégicos. [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at: http://www.minagri.gob.cl/institucion/institucional/lineamientos_estrategicos/

CHILE, Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección de Obras Hidráulicas (2013). Acerca del Programa de Agua Potable Rural. [on line]. Last accessed 08 July 2013 at http://www.doh.gov.cl/APR/AcercadeAPR/Paginas/acercaAPR.aspx.

CHILE, Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública, Gobernación Provincia de Petorca (2013a). Gobernador de Petorca comienza el año fiscalizando obras en terreno. Noticias. [on line]. Posted 03 January. Last access 08 July 2013 at http://www.gobernacionpetorca.gov.cl/n466_03-01-2013.html

CHILE, Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública, Gobernación Provincia de Petorca (2013b). Información Geográfica. [online]. Last access 08 July 2013 at http://www.gobernacionpetorca.gov.cl/geografia.html

CHILE, ODEPA (OFICINA DE ESTUDIOS Y POLÍTICAS AGRARIAS) (2002). Documento de Trabajo Nº 8. AGRICULTURA CHILENA. Rubros según tipo de productor y localización geográfica. Análisis a partir del VI Censo Nacional Agropecuario, 1997. Ministerio de Agricultura. Santiago, Chile. 175 p.

CHILE, Sistema de Consulta Estadístico Territorial (2013). 5649: Cuadro Comunal-Ganado Bovino-Año 2007. VII CENSO NACIONAL AGROPECUARIO Y FORESTAL: Ganado Bovino. [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at: http://icet.odepa.cl/.

CHILESTUDIOS (2009). Actualización Plan de Desarrollo Comunal de Cabildo 2010-2014. [online]. Last access 08 July 2013 at http://municipiocabildo.cl/PLADECO.pdf.

ELLIS, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies. Volume 35, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 1-38

EN LA MIRA, Capítulo 8, La guerra del agua: con sed de Justicia (2013). Chilevision. 04 July. Last access 08 July 2013 at http://www.chilevision.cl/2013/en-la-mira/capitulos/3085-capitulo-8-parte-full-la- guerra-del-agua-con-sed-de-justicia.html

EUSTAT (2013). Trabajo reproductivo. Igualdad de mujeres y hombres. Instituto Vasco de Estadística [on line]. Last access 08 July 2013 at http://www.eustat.es/estadisticas/tema_260/opt_0/tipo_10/temas.html#axzz2Ftzf0YDh

116

GIDDENS, A. (1979). Agency, Structure. In: Calhoun et al. (eds.) (2007), Contemporary Sociological Theory, London: Blackwell, pp. 217-219, pp. 231-243

GONZÁLEZ J., REYES R.(2009). De la Hacienda al Asentamiento: Historia de la Reforma Agraria Durante la Unidad Popular (1970-1973).El Devenir. [on line]. Posted 02 September. Last access 08 July 2013 at: http://eldevenirsf.blogspot.nl/2009/09/de-la-hacienda-al-asentamiento-historia.html

GUATTARI, F., PINDAR, I., & SUTTON, P. (2005). The three ecologies. Continuum

HALFACREE, K. (2006). Rural space. Handbook of Rural Studies. IN Approaching the Rural. RURAL. 2011. Taylor and Francis Group. London and New York

HAMMERSLEY, M. and P. ATKINSON (2007). Ethnography : principles in practice. London ; New York, Routledge.

HEBINCK P. (2007). Investigating rural livelihoods and landscapes in Guquka and Koloni: An introduction. Livelihoods and landscapes: The people of Guquka and Koloni and their resources. Livelihoods and Landscapes. Last access 17 July 2013 at: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14743/ASC-075287668-271- 01.pdf?sequence=2

HEBINCK, P. (2011). Livelihoods: dynamics and complexity. Lecture 7 September 2011 Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge and Development. Master Rural Development and Innovation. University of Wageningen.

HENRIQUEZ, M. (1987). Reforma Agraria en Chile. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 14: 61-65. Instituto Geografía Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile [on line]. Last access at 06 July 2013 at http://www.geo.puc.cl/html/revista/PDF/RGNG_N14/art07.pdf

INE (INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICAS) (2005). Chile: ciudades, pueblos, aldeas y caseríos 2005. [on line]. Last access at 17 July 2013 at: http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/demografia_y_vitales/demografia/demografia.php

LEPORATI, M. (2004). Estrategias de inserción de las pequeñas empresas agrícolas en los mercados globalizados: antecedentes para su contextualización. In: La Pequeña Empresa Agrícola y los desafíos de la Globalización. INDAP. Santiago, Chile, 121-151.

LONG, N. (1989). Encounters at the interface: a perspective on social discontinuities in rural development. Vol. 27. Wageningen: Agricultural University

LONG, N. (1992). From paradigm lost to paradigm regained? The case for an actor oriented sociology of development. In: Battlefields of knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research and development. Edited by N. Long and A. Long, pp. 16-43. London [etc.]: Routledge

LONG, N. (2001). The case for an actor-oriented sociology of development. In: Rural Development Sociology. Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 9-30

MCGEE, R. (2004). Unpacking Policy: Actors, Knowledge and Spaces. In: Brock, K., McGee, R. and Gaventa, J. (eds.) 'Unpacking Policy: Knowledge, Actors and Spaces in Poverty Reduction in Uganda and Nigeria', Fountain Publishers, Kampala

117

MODATIMA, (2013). ¿De dónde sacan agua para regar?. From YouTube last access 08 July 2013 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZN9cVPSZD0

NAGEL, J. (2006). Chile: Crecimiento agrícola, pobreza rural y agricultura familiar campesina. En: Agricultura, pobreza y crecimiento económico en la ruralidad. Santiago, Chile. Septiembre, 2005. Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (INDAP), Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias de la Universidad de Chile. pp. 187-220.

PLADECO (Plan de Desarrollo Comunal) (2009). Actualización Plan de Desarrollo Comunal de Cabildo 2010-2014. [on line] Last accessed 12 August 2013 at: http://municipiocabildo.cl/PLADECO.pdf

PAVLOVIC, D. (2007). Capítulo II Ocupación Humana Prehispánica en la montañas de Aconcagua y Chile Central. Estudios de la Vida en las Montañas de Aconcagua. Corporación CIEM Aconcagua. I.S.B.N 978-956-8127-21-3. Primera edición. Noviembre 2007. San Felipe. 47-80.

PERIODICO EL CHASQUI (2013). Bartolillo: El drama de una localidad y la lucha de su gente por el agua. General. RADIO PAIHUEN FM ONLINE ‘Mr.de vive la música de américa’. [online]. Posted 21 April. Last accesed at http://radiopaihuen.fullblog.com.ar/bartolillo-el-drama-de-una-localidad-y-la- lucha-de-su-gente-por-el-ag.html

RAZETO, J. (2007). Capítulo I Hacia una gestión comunitaria y sustentable de Ecosistemas de Montaña en el Valle del Aconcagua. Estudios de la Vida en las Montañas de Aconcagua. Corporación CIEM Aconcagua. I.S.B.N 978-956-8127-21-3. Primera edición. Noviembre 2007. San Felipe. 9-44.

ROMERO (2013). Comunicado sobre los cortes de agua potable en Bartolillo y Paihuén. El Chasqui, información autónoma e independiente. [on line]. Posted 12 June. Last accesed at: http://periodicoelchasqui.cl/?p=288

ROJAS, A. 1986. La Agricultura y el Desarrollo del Sector Agrícola Nacional. Revista Universum Año 1-1986. [on line]. Last access 12 August 2013 at: http://universum.utalca.cl/contenido/index- 86/marin.html

SCHATAN, J. (2002). La Agricultura Familiar Campesina en Chile: Contexto económico, social y político. In: Confederación Nacional Sindical Campesina y del Agro El Surco. Santiago, Chile. July 2002. Centro de Estudios Nacionales de Desarrollo Alternativo (CENDA).

SKINNER, J. (2012). A Four- part Introduction to the Interview: Introducing the Interview; Society, Sociology and the Interview; Anthroppology and the Interview; Anthropology and the Interview- Edited. In: The Interview: An Ethnographic Approach. London. UK.

SILVA A., COSIO F. (2011). Entrevista Sr. Juan Toro, Encargado de Ganadería Soc. Agrícola Paihuén. Cabildo. Instituto de Geografía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. [online]. Last access at 08 July 2013 at http://www.fpa.mma.gob.cl/archivos/2012/proyectos/Entrevista_Mr._Juan_Toro_de_Paihuen.doc

SOLOMON, R. (2005) "Subjectivity," in Honderich, Ted. Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.900. [on line]. Last access 12 August: http://www.isnare.com/wp/Subjectivity#sthash.F2r5Jgiq.dpuf

118

STARK, D. (2009). Enciclopedia de la Flora Chilena [online]. Last accessed 08 July 2013 at: http://www.florachilena.cl/Niv_tax/Angiospermas/Ordenes/Fabales/Quillajaceae/Quillay.htm/

SVAŠEK M. & DOMECKA M. (2012). The Autobiographical Narrative Interview: A potential Arena of Emotional Remembering, Performance and Reflection. In: The Interview: An Ethnographic Approach. Edited by Jonathan Skinner, London. UK.

SWIDLER A. (2001). What anchors cultural practices?. The practice turn in Contemporary Theory, 74- 92.

VILLAROEL, C. (2012). Asociaciones Comunitarias de Agua Potable Rural en Chile: Diagnósticos y Desafíos. Programa Chile Sustentable. ISBN: 978-956-8299-01-9. Santiago. Chile. [on line]. Last access 08 July 2013 at http://www.boletinvertientes.org/documentos/docs/Publicacion_Final_[Asoc._Agua_Potable_Rural_ en_Chile].pdf

119

Annexes

Annex 1 Invitation form for a Paihuén Livestock Committee meeting

CITACION COMITÉ GANADERO PAIHUEN

EL COMITÉ GANADERO PAIHUEN CITA A REUNION DE ASAMBLEA A ______; EL DIA SABADO 01 DE MAYO DE 2010 A LAS 18:00 HORAS EN SEDE COMUNITARIA PAIHUEN. PUNTOS A TRATAR : 1. COORDINACIÓN RODEO DE MAYO. 2. APROBACION DE PROYECTOS DE INDAP 3. PUNTOS VARIOS 4. PAGOS QUE DEBEN ASERCE EN REUNION, 5. TOTAL DE VACUNAS REGISTRADAS EN MARZO 2010.------(PARA EFECTOS DE PAGO DE CAPATAZ FUERON DESCONTADOS TODOS LOS TERNEROS MACHOS Y REPRODUCTORES)

- VACUNAS DE SEPTIEMBRE 2009 ------FLETES ATRASADOS 2009 ------INSEMINACION 2009 ------FLETE TERNEROS MARZO 2010 ------PASTO TERNEROS MARZO 2010 ------FLETES REBUSQUE MARZO 2010 ------FLETE RODEO LOS PATOS 2010 ------REBUSQUE RODEO LOS PATOS ------PRIMERA CUOTA CAPATAS ------VACUNAS MARZO 2010 ------VARIOS ------TOTAL ------

SE RUEGA SU ASISTENCIA Y PUNTUALIDAD EN LOS PAGOS POR VENCIMIENTOS DE PLAZOS DE FLETES Y VACUNAS

ATTE COMITÉ GANADERO

120

Annex 2 General background and Strategic Focus of the Artificial Insemination Project

ANTECEDENTES GENERALES29

NOMBRE DEL Cierro de invernada de 90 ha. asociada a mejoramiento genético a través de PROYECTO un servicio de Inseminación Artificial para cien vacas en la zona de Paihuen AGENCIA(S) DE PROVINCIA 10 COMUNA (S) Cabildo Petorca AREA (S) POSTULANTE RUT -

DOMICILIO SECTOR Paihuen

NOMBRE DEL RUT - OPERADOR DOMICILIO COMUNA Petorca

CORREO FONO-FAX CORREO e POSTAL N° INSCRIPCIÓN EN DIRECTORIO PROVEEDORES SERVICIOS FOMENTO

TIPO DE POSTULACIÓN Grupo de Empresas Individuales (ORGANIZACIÓN/GRUPO/INDIVIDUAL) TIPO DE PARTICIPA EN SAT SI NO X CONTABILIDAD TIPO DE PARTICIPA EN PRODESAL SI NO TRIBUTACIÓN ACTIVIDAD TIENE INICIACIÓN DE SI NO X ECONÓMICA ACTIVIDADES INCENTIVOS A LOS QUE POSTULA ACTUALMENTE:

DESARR. AGRÍC. Y DESARROLLO DESARROLLO X AGROINDUSTRIAL PECUARIO DEL RIEGO

INCENTIVOS A LOS QUE POSTULÓ EN 2006, 2007ó 2008

DESARROLLO DESARROLLO DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA y GANADERO DEL RIEGO AGROINDUST.

29 It have been omitted personal antecedents

121

ENFOQUE ESTRATEGICO DEL PROYECTO

FOCALIZACION: Coherencia con los énfasis de la Política de Fomento. Se deberá indicar si el postulante tiene como orientación comercial rubros (negocios)articulados a: a) Mercado exportador b) mercado interno mas exigente (donde se incluye el turismo rural y las especialidades campesinas) c) rubros tradicionales como arroz, maíz y viñas Los productores de Paihuen se dedican a la crianza de ganado bovino, con un sistema de pastoreo extensivo y de rotación dentro de un predio que cuenta con aproximadamente 29,000 ha. A futuro pueden insertarse en la red exportadora de la carne, ya que cumplen con todos los registros de trazabilidad obligatorios determinados por el SAG, además las actividades de campo que realizan, tienen un potencial turistico, como son los arreos de ganado a la cordillera y los rodeos de campo.Los productores actualmente venden a mercado interno. La venta se realiza en el predio,generalmente a la vista y a intermediarios que posteriormente venden en Ferias. Cuentan con una masa ganadera de 1183 cabezas, de las cuales 629 son vacas, 245 vaquillas, 338 terneros y 17 toros reproductores.

JUSTIFICACION DEL PROYECTO. Se deberá indicar si las inversiones están asociadas a la remoción de los puntos críticos y/o cierre de brechas tecnológicas que surjan de los Planes de Intervención de las Unidades de Negocio que participan en el SAT Predial y/o de las Estrategias y planes de Competitividad por Rubro. La baja cantidad de reproductores atenta contra el objetivo de una mayor producción de terneros, ya que el porcentaje de pariciones es de un 40 a un 60% anual. A través de la inseminación artificial, se pretende aumentar la cantidad de reproductores, además de introducir razas de carne, como la raza Angus, que por sus caracteristicas de rusticidad, precocidad y fertilidad son más recomendadas para esta zona. En esta primera etapa, se pretende aumentar en un 10% la producción de terneros, manteniendo la cantidad de vientres. El Balance Forrajero que se adjunta señala que un aumento en la producción es perfectamente posible para sostener este incremento.

122

Annex 3 Beef Catalogue

123

124

125