Social Representations of Animal Health and Welfare in Rural Colombia: Implications for Sustainable Livestock Farming

Abstract

Animal health strategies in rural Colombia face significant challenges due to a gap between institutional technical approaches and the sociocultural contexts of local communities. This study examines the social representations of animal health and welfare among small- and medium-scale livestock producers in rural Huila. Through a qualitative methodology, semi-structured interviews were applied and focus groups were conducted in different municipalities with the objective of contrasting and enriching the findings obtained in the interviews. In total, the perceptions, knowledge, and practices of 263 small and medium livestock producers from 23 municipalities in Huila were explored with respect to animal vaccination campaigns and healthcare in rural settings. Findings indicate that health management is shaped not only by technical protocols but also by cultural values, collective imaginaries, and symbolic relationships with animals. Representations of animal welfare are diverse—ranging from emotional and economic to preventive and communal perspectives—and often diverge from scientific–technological frameworks. These differences influence the level of community adherence to national animal health programs. The study highlights the limitations of top–down approaches and underscores the need to incorporate local knowledge and practices into policy design. It concludes that promoting sustainable livestock farming requires acknowledging these varied representations, fostering intercultural dialogue, and adopting a territorial approach to integrated health. Recognising the sociocultural dimensions of animal care is essential for developing effective, inclusive, and context-sensitive animal health strategies.

1. Introduction

Social representations refer to a system of beliefs, values, and attitudes that people construct from their individual experiences, culture, and social interaction with their everyday environment [1]. These representations influence how social groups interpret specific phenomena within their contexts [2]. In the case of winners, their representations of animal health and welfare management do not correspond only to technical knowledge, but arise from a social construction shaped by cultural, economic, environmental, and cognitive factors [3]. These influence how producers understand the health and welfare of their animals, as well as the practices they carry out in their productive units [4].

In rural settings, these representations draw on both traditional and scientific knowledge, resulting in hybrid systems of health and welfare management [5]. Nevertheless, the influence of structural elements such as access to veterinary resources, biotechnology availability, and interaction with external regulations can create tensions and resistance in the implementation of contemporary practices [6].

Sanitary management in animal production is an important aspect to ensure animal health, the sustainability of farming systems, and food security. Globally, it has become a topic of growing interest due to its ethical implications and its sociocultural, ecological, and commercial impact [7]. Along these lines, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has worked to promote a multisectoral approach aimed at strengthening the relationship between humans and animals by supporting technical cooperation in veterinary public health [8].

In addition, in recent years, the “One Health” approach has gained special relevance by recognising the interdependence between environmental, human, and animal health. This approach seeks to promote a holistic view of collective well-being and to address the threats to health and ecosystem, which highlights the urgency of integrated health approaches in livestock management [9]. Its application is particularly strategic in rural areas, where the scarcity of veterinary resources requires effective and lasting health interventions.

However, in Latin America, small and medium-sized producers face several limitations that restrict their access to veterinary inputs, technical advice, and assisted reproductive technology [10,11]. Only a small number of low- and middle-income countries have managed to consolidate effective programs that integrate the human, animal, and environmental sectors in the face of health challenges. This situation highlights the urgency of different countries to implement a One Health approach in their public policies, especially in contexts where the vulnerability of the production system limits the capacity to respond to health risks [12].

Within this framework, recent research has analysed how zoonotic diseases directly affect the sustainability of livestock systems. A recent study identifies the risk factors associated with leptospirosis in dual-purpose cattle in the department of Huila, highlighting the need for integrated control and prevention strategies [13]. The presence of this zoonosis underscores the importance of strengthening health practices and promoting an interdisciplinary approach to mitigate risks to both animal and public health.

In addition to leptospirosis, other parasitic diseases pose a significant challenge to animal health in dual-purpose production systems. A recent study identified risk factors associated with haemoparasites in Colombian cattle, underlining how environmental conditions and management practices influence the spread of these infections [14]. Identifying these risks is essential to developing control strategies that not only benefit livestock productivity but also contribute to public health from a One Health perspective.

Another crucial aspect of dual-purpose cattle health is the presence of infectious diseases that affect productivity and animal welfare. In this regard, a study analyses the epidemiology of bovine neosporosis in Colombia, showing how socioeconomic, demographic, and transmission-related factors influence disease prevalence [14]. These results allow us to understand that sanitary management cannot only be limited to biological aspects, but also to socio-environmental variables that may favour the persistence of pathogens in production systems.

The lack of access to veterinary services in rural areas has led farmers to develop alternative strategies for disease control, often based on practical experience, generational knowledge, and the interpretation of local environmental cues [15,16]. While useful in certain contexts, these techniques can conflict with methods recommended by regulatory entities, which often promote standardised health management models that do not reflect rural realities [17].

Biotechnology in livestock farming, particularly in assisted reproduction and genetic selection, has become an essential resource for increasing productivity and animal health [18]. However, the implementation of these technologies in rural environments depends on factors such as cost, access to qualified technicians, and the perceptions farmers hold regarding their efficiency and usefulness within their production systems [19]. In many cases, biotechnology is perceived with mistrust or as an imposition on traditional knowledge, limiting its adoption in certain productive sectors [20].

Recent research indicates that the application of reproductive biotechnologies in livestock systems can increase productivity and animal welfare, adapting to local contexts [21]. Assisted reproductive technologies such as fixed-time artificial insemination, sex-sorted semen, and in vitro embryo production have significantly influenced genetic improvement and productive efficiency in South America [22].

In Colombia, reproductive biotechnologies have proven to be important tools for enhancing livestock productivity. Embryo transfer (ET) and fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) are used to introduce genetic improvements, increasing both productive and reproductive value in cattle [23,24]. These methodologies, along with advances in genetics and cell biology, have been effectively applied in buffalo breeding to optimise meat and milk production [25]. In the department of Huila, although there is no direct reference to livestock farming, production models have been implemented that use sustainable technologies to optimise crops such as cocoa [26]. This suggests a favourable potential for the adoption of similar strategies in regional livestock production and in this sense, the integration of biotechnologies with precision nutrition methods, reproductive effectiveness and business management, represents a viable way to strengthen the competitiveness of the livestock sector in rural contexts [27].

In addition to technological advances aimed at productivity, animal welfare is a fundamental pillar of livestock production and has attracted increasing interest in recent decades, from both a scientific and ethical perspective [28,29]. This interest has begun to occupy a place of greater visibility in the political agenda of several Latin American countries, driven by the growing demands of international trade and social movements that promote more responsible practices, which has led to the development of new laws and regulations aimed at animal protection [30].

However, the definition of animal welfare shows notable differences between intensive production systems and traditional rural practices [31]. In the former, standardised indicators of health and animal behaviour are emphasised, while in the latter, welfare is primarily assessed by productivity and the animal’s ability to fulfil its role in the production system [17,32]. The disparity in approaches can lead to clashes between producers and organisations seeking to promote animal welfare regulations without taking into account local production contexts [33].

For this reason, animal welfare is not only a moral issue but also affects the productivity and sustainability of livestock systems. In rural settings, resource scarcity may result in welfare perceptions focusing more on the functionality and survival of the animal than on its emotional or behavioural well-being.

Currently, sustainability in livestock farming has become a central theme in discussions of the future of the agricultural sector, not only from a production perspective, but also in environmental, health, and social terms. Verkuijl et al. [34] emphasised the need to move towards livestock systems that integrate the efficient use of resources, animal welfare, public health and resilience to climate change. However, most of the analyses are focused on technified models, without considering the particularities of rural livestock systems.

In the Colombian context, perceptions surrounding health management, the application of biotechnology, and animal welfare are significantly influenced by the structural inequalities that shape the agricultural sector. Land concentration, rural poverty, limited access to veterinary services, and tensions arising from armed conflict have created an environment where small- and medium-sized farmers face substantial barriers to accessing technology and technical assistance [35].

Health management in Colombia shows a blend of traditional knowledge and scientific methods, constrained by limited access to veterinary services [36]. In many areas, farmers have developed independent strategies for disease prevention and management, using empirical practices and traditional remedies due to the lack of resources to obtain medicines and technical support [37]. Additionally, the misuse of antibiotics in animal husbandry has raised concerns about the emergence of resistant pathogens, an issue that calls for greater regulation and training in animal health [38].

Regarding reproductive biotechnology, its implementation in Colombia has been uneven. In large agribusiness operations, methods such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer have been adopted to optimise livestock genetics and productivity, whereas in traditional livestock systems, economic and cultural barriers persist that hinder integration [39]. Mistrust of these technologies, coupled with a lack of specific training for their use, has generated resistance in some rural communities, where natural reproduction methods based on empirical criteria and traditional selection still predominate [6].

Animal welfare in Colombia faces significant challenges in its implementation, despite having a legal framework promoting standards in livestock production [40]. Although national regulations focus on good farming practices, implementation in rural areas has been limited [41]. On many occasions, small-scale producers perceive these regulations as external impositions that fail to consider the realities of rural agriculture and livestock farming [42]. This is partly due to the gap between international standards and local practices, as well as the lack of resources for their effective implementation [43].

The incorporation of animal welfare into Colombia’s health regulations, following the OIE guidelines, aims to enhance meat quality and reduce economic losses [44]. However, further research and additional efforts are needed to overcome obstacles to the implementation of these practices throughout the livestock production chain [43].

Regarding land use and capacity in the department of Huila, Colombia, a zoning model has been proposed for the municipality of Rivera, identifying areas with production potential and socio-economic development [45]. Studies on Huila’s agricultural vocation anticipate an increase in permanent and semi-permanent crops by 2030, while annual crops are expected to decrease [46]. The spatial variability of the soil’s physical characteristics in the lower Las Ceibas River basin was analysed to define areas suitable for various crops based on potential land use [47]. Although these studies provide valuable data on land use in Huila, none specifically mention the figures of 1,368,042 hectares for agricultural activities or 967,788 hectares for the livestock activities indicated in the original inquiry.

Regarding health management, small producers face the challenges linked to restricted access to veterinary services and resources for implementing proper sanitary practices. This situation has led to the adoption of tactics rooted in ancestral knowledge and local experiences, which may affect the effectiveness of disease management and livestock production [48].

This article aims to analyse how social representations surrounding health management, the use of reproductive biotechnology, and animal welfare are shaped by structural inequalities in rural contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a qualitative approach with an interpretative design [49] to analyse the social representations regarding health management, biotechnology use, and animal welfare in rural livestock systems in the department of Huila, Colombia. Various data collection techniques were used to capture the subjective perceptions of producers.

2.1. Participants

This study involved small and medium-scale livestock producers from various municipalities in the department of Huila. A non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was used to select 263 producers from 23 municipalities. The sample included 209 male and 54 female participants. The mean age of the participants was 53.48 (SD = 10.92). Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Being the owner or manager of a livestock production unit; (2) Having experience in health and reproductive herd management; and (3) Willingness to participate in the research.

2.2. Data Collection Techniques

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore livestock farmers’ social representations concerning (1) health management: vaccination strategies, disease diagnosis, and calf care protocols; (2) use of reproductive biotechnology: adoption of artificial insemination, embryo transfer, and challenges in their implementation; (3) peripartum calf management: neonatal care strategies, nutritional supplementation, health control, and postnatal handling; and (4) animal welfare practices: birthing management, postnatal protocols, infrastructure, and feeding systems.

Additionally, focus groups were held in different municipalities to compare and enrich the findings from the interviews, facilitating the identification of shared patterns and divergent views among producers.

2.3. Procedure

The study was carried out in several phases to ensure structured data collection and rigorous analysis:

• Study design and planning research objectives were defined and a qualitative interpretative methodology was established. A detailed data collection plan was designed, considering the characteristics of the livestock sector in Huila and the logistical constraints of the study.
• The Participant Selection A non-probabilistic convenience sampling approach was used to select 263 small- and medium-scale livestock producers from 23 municipalities in Huila. Inclusion criteria ensured participants were owners or managers of livestock units, had experience in herd health and reproduction, and agreed to participate in the study.
• Data collection information was gathered through semi-structured interviews and focus groups: (1) Semi-structured interviews: Individual interviews were conducted with producers, focusing on key aspects such as health management, adoption of reproductive biotechnology, calf care, and animal welfare; and (2) Focus groups: Sessions were held in various municipalities with local producers to compare perceptions, identify common patterns, and note divergent practices and social representations.
• Data analysis content analysis was used to process the data, categorising participants’ responses and identifying the thematic patterns related to health management, biotechnology, and animal welfare. For this purpose, ATLAS.ti v.25 software was used, a tool widely recognised for its ability to support inductive coding processes in a manner consistent with the objectives of qualitative research. The findings from this methodology provide an in-depth understanding of the dynamics influencing producers’ decision making, offering valuable insights for developing strategies to improve animal health and welfare in the region.

3. Results

This study facilitated the identification of the main social representations and practices associated with health management, the use of reproductive biotechnology, and animal welfare in rural livestock systems in Huila. Through interviews and focus groups, it became evident that producers face several challenges in implementing health and technological strategies, many of which are linked to economic factors, limited technical assistance, and lack of access to inputs. The following sections present the results classified into three main categories, along with the interpretation of the data and its connection to the productive context of the region.

3.1. Health Management

The study results show that the majority of farmers in the surveyed municipalities do not send samples for the diagnosis of reproductive diseases on their farms, indicating a low adoption of preventive health monitoring practices (see

Table 1. Health management practices in livestock systems in Huila (N = 263).

Municipality	Have You Sent Samples for the Diagnosis of Reproductive Diseases on Your Premises?						Do You Have a Vaccination Plan for Reproductive Diseases in Your Animals?						Do You Know of Any Diseases That Have Occurred in Your Region?
	Yes		No		No Answer		Yes		No		No Answer		Yes		No		No Answer
	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%
Acevedo	0	0%	19	8%	0	0%	4	4%	15	9%	0	0%	11	11%	8	5%	0	0%
Aipe	0	0%	15	7%	0	0%	4	4%	11	6%	0	0%	12	12%	3	2%	0	0%
Algeciras	0	0%	18	8%	0	0%	3	3%	15	9%	0	0%	10	10%	8	5%	0	0%
Altamira	4	12%	12	5%	0	0%	7	8%	9	5%	0	0%	1	1%	13	9%	2	17%
Baraya	1	3%	16	7%	0	0%	12	13%	5	3%	0	0%	5	5%	11	7%	1	8%
Campoalegre	0	0%	10	4%	0	0%	7	8%	3	2%	0	0%	2	2%	7	5%	1	8%
Colombia	4	12%	16	7%	0	0%	8	9%	12	7%	0	0%	13	13%	7	5%	0	0%
El Pital	2	6%	20	9%	0	0%	4	4%	18	10%	0	0%	8	8%	13	9%	1	8%
Garzón	0	0%	5	2%	0	0%	0	0%	5	3%	0	0%	0	0%	5	3%	0	0%
Gigante	3	9%	23	10%	0	0%	2	2%	24	14%	0	0%	6	6%	17	11%	3	25%
La Plata	3	9%	7	3%	0	0%	4	4%	6	3%	0	0%	4	4%	5	3%	1	8%
Nátaga	1	3%	6	3%	0	0%	1	1%	6	3%	0	0%	1	1%	5	3%	1	8%
Paicol	6	18%	7	3%	0	0%	5	6%	8	5%	0	0%	5	5%	8	5%	0	0%
Palermo	0	0%	5	2%	1	100%	4	4%	2	1%	0	0%	1	1%	5	3%	0	0%
Pitalito	4	12%	3	1%	0	0%	2	2%	5	3%	0	0%	3	3%	3	2%	1	8%
Rivera	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	2	2%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%
San Agustín	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%
Suaza	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%
Tarquí	2	6%	4	2%	0	0%	3	3%	3	2%	0	0%	3	3%	3	2%	0	0%
Tello	0	0%	20	9%	0	0%	10	11%	9	5%	1	100%	8	8%	12	8%	0	0%
Tesalia	1	3%	8	3%	0	0%	3	3%	6	3%	0	0%	2	2%	6	4%	1	8%
Timaná	2	6%	7	3%	0	0%	3	3%	6	3%	0	0%	5	5%	4	3%	0	0%
Villavieja	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%
Total	33	100%	229	100%	1	100%	89	100%	173	100%	1	100%	103	100%	148	100%	12	100%

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

). Nevertheless, there is a greater commitment to immunisation, as more than 50% of participants reported having a vaccination plan for reproductive diseases (see Table 1). However, notable differences were observed between municipalities, with some areas reporting vaccination coverage below 30%.

Table 1 shows notable differences in the implementation of health practices across the municipalities analysed. Regarding the submission of samples for the diagnosis of reproductive diseases, the municipalities of Paicol (18% Yes) and Gigante (10% No) report the highest rates, while most of the other municipalities did not provide information on this practice.

In terms of executing vaccination programmes for reproductive diseases, the municipalities with the greatest coverage are Baraya (13%), Tello (10%), and Paicol (6%), reflecting a stronger commitment to health prevention. However, localities such as Gigante, El Pital, Acevedo, and Algeciras show a complete lack of implementation of these strategies, which could pose a threat to regional animal health.

In contrast, an understanding of common diseases in the region also varies, with Colombia (13%), Aipe (12%), and Acevedo (11%) registering the highest percentages in disease knowledge relevant to their areas. These variations suggest that access to veterinary services, training, and a prevailing health culture are key factors in the sanitary management of livestock systems in Huila.

Table 2. Main diseases and clinical signs in cattle in the department of Huila (N = 263).

Municipality	Abortion	Placental Retention	Decrease in Milk Production	Difficulty in Getting Pregnant	Dystocic Births	Birth of Weak Calves	Evidence of Trauma and Joint Injuries	Vulvovaginitis	Diarrhoea	Fever	Secretions in the Mucous Membranes (Foreskin, Oral, Nasal, conjunctiva)	Foetal Death	Progressive and Irreversible Weight Loss
Acevedo	15	10	6	3	4	7	9	10	7	6	8	7	4
Aipe	11	13	7	8	4	4	3	2	7	8	8	6	7
Algeciras	10	8	11	10	6	11	4	4	10	9	5	9	3
Altamira	11	6	6	5	2	4	3	1	6	5	4	1	1
Baraya	7	3	5	1	2	7	1	3	6	3	5	3	2
Campoalegre	1	1	3	3	2	2	0	0	4	2	3	1	1
Colombia	12	12	12	9	8	8	7	7	11	12	6	6	8
El Pital	9	8	7	5	2	4	3	1	6	6	5	2	3
Garzón	0	2	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0
Gigante	9	7	9	6	2	4	3	2	6	7	4	5	3
La Plata	5	4	4	5	3	2	1	3	4	2	1	2	2
Nátaga	5	5	4	5	1	3	2	1	3	2	1	3	3
Paicol	5	6	8	3	1	3	5	1	9	7	0	2	1
Palermo	3	1	2	4	0	2	1	0	4	1	0	1	0
Pitalito	0	3	3	4	0	1	1	0	3	2	1	0	1
Rivera	0	2	1	2	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0
San Agustín	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0
Suaza	1	2	1	2	1	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	2
Tarquí	3	2	2	4	1	1	0	1	3	1	2	1	1
Tello	8	8	11	6	3	3	1	1	6	3	0	2	4
Tesalia	4	4	4	5	1	1	0	0	4	4	1	1	2
Timaná	5	6	7	4	0	1	1	0	3	2	0	0	3
Villavieja	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	125	114	113	97	43	69	46	37	107	86	56	52	51

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

shows that the most frequently mentioned reproductive problems vary by municipality. Acevedo reports the highest rate of abortions (15 cases), joint traumas and damage (9), and vulvovaginitis (10), indicating the need to optimise reproductive and sanitary surveillance. Aipe stands out for retained placenta (13 cases), suggesting potential deficiencies in postpartum management. In contrast, Colombia reports the highest figures for reduced milk production (12), fever (12), and diarrhoea (11), highlighting the importance of implementing strategies for controlling infectious and metabolic diseases.

Algeciras leads in cases of difficulty conceiving (10), complicated deliveries (11), and foetal deaths (9), which may be linked to hormonal or nutritional issues. Finally, mucosal discharge is most frequently reported in Acevedo, Aipe, and Colombia (eight cases each), while progressive and irreversible weight loss is more common in Colombia (eight cases). These findings underscore the urgency of strengthening technical assistance and preventive measures in the most affected municipalities.

Figure 1 presents a word cloud illustrating the most frequently mentioned diseases by livestock producers in the municipalities analysed. Among the most recurrent are brucellosis, mastitis, anthrax (carbón bovino), anaemia, and anaplasmosis, indicating a high perceived risk regarding these conditions. Diseases such as diarrhoea, foot-and-mouth disease, and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis were also noted, highlighting the diversity of illnesses affecting cattle in the region.

The presence of terms such as “anthrax”, “brucellosis”, and “mastitis” suggests that producers also associate nutritional and parasitic issues with animal health. These findings reinforce the need to strengthen training programmes and technical assistance efforts for disease prevention and control within the livestock sector.

3.2. Use of Biotechnology and Receptors

Table 3. Implementation of artificial insemination and/or embryo transfer plans by municipality (N = 263).

Municipality	Have You Ever Implemented an Artificial Insemination and/or Embryo Transfer Plan?
	Yes		No		No Answer
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Acevedo	0	0%	19	11%	0	0%
Aipe	2	2%	13	8%	0	0%
Algeciras	2	2%	15	9%	1	13%
Altamira	3	4%	13	8%	0	0%
Baraya	2	2%	15	9%	0	0%
Campoalegre	1	1%	9	5%	0	0%
Colombia	4	5%	16	9%	0	0%
El Pital	1	1%	20	12%	1	13%
Garzón	2	2%	3	2%	0	0%
Gigante	10	12%	12	7%	4	50%
La Plata	8	10%	2	1%	0	0%
Nátaga	4	5%	3	2%	0	0%
Paicol	11	13%	2	1%	0	0%
Palermo	4	5%	2	1%	0	0%
Pitalito	5	6%	2	1%	0	0%
Rivera	2	2%	0	0%	0	0%
San Agustín	2	2%	0	0%	0	0%
Suaza	2	2%	0	0%	0	0%
Tarquí	4	5%	2	1%	0	0%
Tello	7	9%	12	7%	1	13%
Tesalia	2	2%	7	4%	0	0%
Timaná	3	4%	6	3%	0	0%
Villavieja	1	1%	0	0%	1	13%
Total	82	100%	173	100%	8	100%

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

shows that the implementation of artificial insemination and/or embryo transfer plans is low in most municipalities of Huila. Paicol has the highest frequency of implementation with 11 affirmative responses, followed by Gigante (10) and La Plata (8), suggesting the greater adoption of these reproductive techniques in those areas.

On the other hand, El Pital (20), Colombia (16), Algeciras (15), and Baraya (15) recorded the highest frequencies of negative responses, indicating that artificial insemination and/or embryo transfer are not common practices in these municipalities.

Regarding municipalities with the highest number of non-responses, Gigante stands out with four unanswered cases (50%), possibly reflecting a lack of information or knowledge on the subject.

This information indicates that artificial insemination and embryo transfer have not yet been widely implemented across the department, which may be related to factors such as access to technology, producer training, or the costs associated with these practices.

Table 4. Limitations for the implementation of artificial insemination and/or embryo transfer plans.

Limitation	Example
Costs and economic resources	Synchronisation protocols, straws, embryos, etc.
Labour and training	Qualified personnel to provide advice and technical assistance; lack of local programmes.
Communication and logistics	Poor communication with farm managers.
Environmental and structural conditions	Excess rain or summer, very small farms.

outlines the main limitations encountered by producers when implementing or attempting to develop artificial insemination and/or embryo transfer plans. Among the most relevant factors are the high costs associated with inputs such as straws and embryos, which hinder accessibility. Likewise, the lack of trained personnel and the scarcity of technical training programmes represent significant obstacles to the adoption of these technologies.

Communication and logistics also emerge as challenges, as poor coordination with farm managers limits programme effectiveness. Furthermore, environmental and structural conditions play a key role: extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or prolonged droughts, along with the small size of some farms, affect the feasibility of these practices.

Taken together, these factors highlight the need for strategies that improve access to resources, training, and logistical conditions to strengthen the implementation of reproductive biotechnologies in the region.

Table 5. Implementation of practices in recipient females in assisted reproduction programs by municipality (N = 263).

Municipality	Written Records or Software	Nutritional Supplementation	Serological Evaluation of Reproductive Diseases	Multipurpose Vaccination for Reproductive Diseases	Clinical Assessment for Selection	Separation into a Selected Lot and Pastures	Deworming for Ectoparasites (Ticks, Flies)	Follow-Up by Palpation or Rectal Ultrasound	Specific Mineral Supplementation	Transfer to a Farrowing Lot
Acevedo	13	7	1	2	3	9	11	9	9	10
Aipe	8	6	0	2	2	8	9	10	5	6
Algeciras	0	2	0	0	2	1	4	0	1	0
Altamira	8	6	1	2	3	5	6	3	3	4
Baraya	7	10	4	5	5	6	8	7	6	3
Campoalegre	5	3	1	1	1	3	3	3	2	0
Colombia	11	10	5	3	5	7	9	2	5	7
El Pital	11	9	4	5	3	5	10	7	7	8
Garzón	5	5	2	1	2	3	4	4	3	4
Gigante	18	17	5	9	14	9	14	14	14	10
La Plata	4	8	0	2	4	4	5	7	6	4
Nátaga	4	2	0	3	3	0	4	3	4	1
Paicol	8	12	4	7	9	10	11	13	11	10
Palermo	1	2	1	4	1	3	5	5	5	3
Pitalito	2	2	0	0	2	3	3	3	2	2
Rivera	1	2	0	1	1	1	2	2	2	2
San Agustín	1	1	0	0	1	1	2	1	1	1
Suaza	1	2	0	0	0	1	2	2	1	1
Tarquí	2	4	0	2	2	1	4	4	3	2
Tello	7	8	0	5	3	8	12	5	5	10
Tesalia	0	7	1	3	2	6	8	2	5	4
Timaná	3	3	1	0	2	2	6	2	5	2
Villavieja	0	1	1	0	1	1	2	1	1	2
Total	120	129	31	57	71	97	144	109	106	96

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

presents an analysis of the practices implemented with recipient or inseminated females in assisted reproduction programmes across different municipalities. The most frequent practice observed is deworming, with 144 records, indicating a high priority placed on controlling internal and external parasites to ensure herd health. Other noteworthy practices include clinical evaluation for female selection (97 cases) and follow-up through rectal palpation or ultrasound (109 cases), suggesting a focus on identifying animals with higher reproductive potential and the continuous monitoring of the insemination process.

The municipality of Gigante stands out with high values in several categories, such as written management records (18), nutritional supplementation (17), grouping into separate lots (14), and deworming (14), indicating a more systematic approach in preparing females for reproductive programmes. In contrast, municipalities like Algeciras and Villavieja show the lower implementation of these practices, which may reflect limitations in resources or technical knowledge. Overall, the adoption of these practices varies considerably between municipalities, highlighting the need to strengthen training and access to supplies to improve the efficiency of assisted reproduction programmes in the region.

3.3. Handling of Calves at Periparturition

The analysis of

Table 6. Mortality of calves under 3 months of age by municipality (N = 263).

Municipality	Have You Had Any Calves Under 3 Months Die?
	Yes		No		No Answer
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Acevedo	11	11%	8	5%	0	0%
Aipe	8	8%	7	4%	0	0%
Algeciras	11	11%	7	4%	0	0%
Altamira	3	3%	12	8%	1	14%
Baraya	4	4%	13	8%	0	0%
Campoalegre	1	1%	6	4%	3	43%
Colombia	10	10%	10	6%	0	0%
El Pital	6	6%	15	9%	1	14%
Garzón	1	1%	4	3%	0	0%
Gigante	8	8%	18	11%	0	0%
La Plata	3	3%	7	4%	0	0%
Nátaga	3	3%	4	3%	0	0%
Paicol	7	7%	6	4%	0	0%
Palermo	3	3%	3	2%	0	0%
Pitalito	1	1%	4	3%	2	29%
Rivera	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%
San Agustín	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%
Suaza	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%
Tarquí	3	3%	3	2%	0	0%
Tello	7	7%	13	8%	0	0%
Tesalia	2	2%	7	4%	0	0%
Timaná	3	3%	6	4%	0	0%
Villavieja	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%
Total	96	100%	159	100%	7	100%

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

shows that mortality in calves under three months of age varies significantly across municipalities. Municipalities such as Acevedo and Algeciras report the highest number of affirmative responses, with 11% each, followed by Colombia with 10%. This suggests that specific factors in these areas may be affecting calf survival, such as sanitary conditions, management practices, or resource availability.

On the other hand, Gigante is the municipality with the highest proportion of negative responses, at 11%, which may indicate better calf-rearing conditions or a lower incidence of disease. Additionally, some municipalities show a considerable rate of unanswered responses, such as Campoalegre (43%) and Pitalito (29%), possibly reflecting difficulties in accessing information or a lack of mortality record-keeping.

The analysis of the

Table 7. Availability of protocols for newborn calves by municipality (N = 263).

Municipality	Do You Have a Newborn Protocol?
	Yes		No		No Answer
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Acevedo	13	11%	6	4%	0	0%
Aipe	6	5%	9	7%	0	0%
Algeciras	3	3%	15	11%	0	0%
Altamira	6	5%	9	7%	1	10%
Baraya	7	6%	9	7%	1	10%
Campoalegre	4	3%	3	2%	3	30%
Colombia	14	12%	6	4%	0	0%
El Pital	6	5%	15	11%	1	10%
Garzón	0	0%	5	4%	0	0%
Gigante	11	9%	14	10%	1	10%
La Plata	7	6%	3	2%	0	0%
Nátaga	2	2%	5	4%	0	0%
Paicol	7	6%	6	4%	0	0%
Palermo	6	5%	0	0%	0	0%
Pitalito	2	2%	3	2%	2	20%
Rivera	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%
San Agustín	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%
Suaza	1	1%	1	1%	0	0%
Tarquí	1	1%	5	4%	0	0%
Tello	13	11%	7	5%	0	0%
Tesalia	1	1%	8	6%	0	0%
Timaná	4	3%	4	3%	1	10%
Villavieja	2	2%	0	0%	0	0%
Total	117	100%	135	100%	10	100%

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

indicates that the implementation of protocols for newborn calves varies widely across municipalities. Colombia (12%), Acevedo (11%), and Tello (11%) are the municipalities with the highest proportion of farmers who have established protocols, which may reflect better training or access to resources for neonatal calf management. In contrast, El Pital and Algeciras show a high percentage of negative responses (11%), indicating that a significant number of producers in these areas do not implement newborn protocols, potentially increasing the vulnerability of calves during their first weeks of life.

A relevant finding is the proportion of municipalities with a high number of unanswered responses, such as Campoalegre (30%) and Pitalito (20%), which may reflect a lack of information or awareness regarding the existence of such protocols.

According to

Table 8. Practices implemented in calf management protocols.

Type of Protocol	Specific Behaviours
Navel care	* Disinfect the navel with iodine. * Heal the navel. * Check the navel periodically. * Heal the navel.
Feeding and breastfeeding	* Supply of colostrum in the first hours. * Breastfeeding at least three times a day. * Supplementation with vitamins. * Adequate nutrition for the calf and the mother.
Vaccination and deworming	* Vaccination for Pneumoenteritis. * Glandular plague vaccine. * Worming.
Postnatal management	* Isolate the calf from damp places. * Keep the calf in a suitable place for 15 days. * Check the navel and monitor the calf over the following days.
Management of the environment	* Keeping mothers in maternity paddocks. * Not bringing calves into the corrals. * Separating females more than 6 months pregnant and taking them to the best pastures.
Observation and general care	* Observe whether the calf is suckling correctly. * Be careful with the calf at the time of birth. * Make sure the calf is suckling and that the cows do not hurt them.

, the calf management protocol comprises a range of practices organised into six main categories: navel care, feeding and nursing, vaccination and deworming, postnatal care, environmental management, and general observation.

Navel care focuses on disinfection with iodine and regular inspection to prevent infections. In terms of feeding and nursing, the early administration of colostrum, vitamin supplementation, and balanced nutrition for both calf and dams are emphasised.

Vaccination and deworming measures include the administration of vaccines against diseases such as pneumonenteritis and bovine viral diarrhoea, as well as deworming strategies to prevent infections. For postnatal care, it is recommended to keep calves away from humid environments and provide them with appropriate space during their first days of life.

Environmental management stresses the separation of pregnant females into higher-quality paddocks and restricting calves’ access to pens to avoid sanitary risks. Finally, general observation highlights the importance of monitoring the nursing process and protecting the calf from potential aggression by other cows.

This protocol reflects a comprehensive approach to calf rearing, underlining the importance of hygiene, nutrition, and sanitary control to ensure healthy development.

3.4. Animal Welfare

Knowledge of Resolution 253 of 2020 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is low among survey respondents. Only 28 individuals (11%) reported being aware of it, while 218 (89%) indicated that they were unfamiliar with the regulation. The municipality with the highest level of awareness was Algeciras, with 21% affirmative responses. However, in most municipalities, the percentage of unawareness exceeded 85%, with cases such as Gigante, where 23 individuals (11%) stated they did not know the resolution (

Table 9. Knowledge of Resolution 253 of 2020 of the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (N = 263).

Municipality	Are You Familiar with Resolution 253 of 2020 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development?
	Yes		No		No Answer
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Acevedo	4	14%	15	7%	0	0%
Aipe	1	4%	14	6%	0	0%
Algeciras	6	21%	12	6%	0	0%
Altamira	0	0%	15	7%	1	6%
Baraya	1	4%	16	7%	0	0%
Campoalegre	0	0%	7	3%	3	19%
Colombia	2	7%	18	8%	0	0%
El Pital	3	11%	16	7%	3	19%
Garzón	1	4%	4	2%	0	0%
Gigante	2	7%	23	11%	1	6%
La Plata	2	7%	7	3%	1	6%
Nátaga	1	4%	6	3%	0	0%
Paicol	0	0%	10	5%	3	19%
Palermo	0	0%	6	3%	0	0%
Pitalito	0	0%	5	2%	2	13%
Rivera	0	0%	1	0%	0	0%
San Agustín	1	4%	1	0%	0	0%
Suaza	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%
Tarquí	0	0%	6	3%	0	0%
Tello	1	4%	18	8%	1	6%
Tesalia	2	7%	7	3%	0	0%
Timaná	1	4%	7	3%	1	6%
Villavieja	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%
Total	28	100%	218	100%	16	100%

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

).

Additionally, 16 individuals (7%) did not answer the question, with municipalities such as Campoalegre, El Pital, and Paicol showing non-response rates of 19%. These data highlight the limited dissemination of the regulation within the agricultural sector, suggesting the need for awareness campaigns and training efforts to ensure its effective implementation.

The analysis of

Table 10. Practices perceived as promoting animal welfare (N = 263).

Municipality	Keep Dining rooms and Drinking Fountains Clean	Have clean Water Available Continuously	Have a Specific Area for Calving and Calving	Inclusion of Trees in Paddock for Feeding	Inclusion of Trees in Paddock for Shade	Presence of Wounds in Animals	Animals with Lameness	Iron Marking Caliente	Dehorning Without Analgesia/Anaesthesia	Management of Dystotic Labor Sin Analgesia/Anaesthesia	Presence of Ectoparasites	Aerial Handling with Sticks or Kennel
Acevedo	19	19	18	18	18	1	0	2	1	2	3	2
Aipe	15	15	14	14	15	1	1	1	0	1	2	0
Algeciras	14	14	17	17	13	5	9	5	9	10	8	9
Altamira	15	15	14	14	13	0	1	3	1	1	2	0
Baraya	17	17	15	16	17	3	1	1	2	2	2	4
Campoalegre	7	7	3	6	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Colombia	19	19	19	19	19	3	2	1	1	2	2	3
El Pital	21	21	20	20	21	0	0	3	2	1	3	1
Garzón	5	5	5	4	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gigante	26	26	26	25	26	7	5	4	2	2	2	0
La Plata	10	10	10	9	8	0	0	0	0	1	2	1
Nátaga	7	7	7	7	6	0	0	1	2	1	0	0
Paicol	13	13	13	13	13	4	4	4	0	0	2	0
Palermo	6	6	6	6	6	1	0	5	2	0	3	2
Pitalito	5	5	4	5	5	1	2	3	0	0	3	0
Rivera	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
San Agustín	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Suaza	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tarquí	6	6	5	6	6	1	1	0	1	1	1	1
Tello	20	16	17	15	18	2	4	11	8	6	10	1
Tesalia	9	9	9	8	8	1	0	2	0	0	2	1
Timaná	8	8	6	6	7	0	2	3	2	2	5	2
Villavieja	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0
Total	250	246	236	236	236	30	32	50	34	33	53	28

Note: Variations in the total (N) are due to questions not answered by some participants. In addition, the highest frequency of the data is in bold.

shows that animal welfare practices in livestock systems in Huila focus on access to basic resources such as clean water and designated birthing areas. The most commonly adopted practices include keeping feeding and watering stations clean (250 records), continuous water availability (246 records), and the designation of specific areas for calving and neonatal care (236 records). These results reflect a general commitment to basic welfare conditions, although differences between municipalities were noted in the application of these measures.

However, practices that could negatively impact animal welfare were also identified, such as hot-iron branding (50 records), dehorning without anaesthesia (34 records), and managing dystocic births without analgesia (33 records). These findings highlight the need for further training on the impact of pain and stress in animals and the promotion of less invasive techniques.

On the other hand, the inclusion of trees in paddocks for both feeding and shade (236 records for each) indicates a growing awareness of the importance of environmental conditions in animal welfare. Nonetheless, problematic practices such as aggressive handling with sticks or dogs (28 records) and the presence of ectoparasites (53 records) persist in some municipalities.

Figure 2 reflects a perception of animal welfare centred on physiological and management needs, with a focus on ensuring optimal living conditions for animals through nutrition, access to clean water, and disease prevention. The results show that animal welfare is primarily associated with basic aspects such as feeding, hydration, and appropriate handling.

The most frequently mentioned word was “feeding” (32 mentions), indicating that participants consider nutrition to be a fundamental pillar of animal welfare. Additionally, terms like “water” (15 mentions) and “management” (16 mentions) reinforce the idea that an adequate supply of resources and good livestock handling practices are essential. Other important concepts include health, hygiene, and comfort, suggesting that the animals’ environment and overall health are also significant factors.

More specific mentions such as “shade,” “paddocks,” and “control” point to the importance of providing a suitable habitat and the continuous monitoring of the conditions in which animals are raised.

The data obtained in

Table 11. Weaning methods and strategies in calves.

Category	Process	Answers
Weaning method	Progressive	Gradual separation of the calf.
	Drawing table	Use of tools to facilitate weaning.
	Visual separation	Keep the calf in sight of the mother.
Calf age	Pregnancy considerations	The mother’s age and pregnancy status also influence the timing of weaning.
	Weaning at 5–12 months	It begins at 5 months and is completed at between 10 and 12 months.
Milk reduction	Gradual decrease	Progressive reduction in milk supply.
	Supplements	Complementary feeding during weaning.
Environmental conditions	Change of paddocks	Move calves to other paddocks.
	Shadow	Provide shade with trees in the paddock.
Veterinary interventions	Milking and health	Integrated milking and use of medications to prevent mastitis.

reveal that livestock producers in Huila use a variety of weaning methods, with a predominance of progressive and gradual strategies. Progressive weaning, which involves the gradual separation of the calf from its mother, is the most frequently reported practice. In addition, the use of tools such as weaning plates is noted, which help facilitate the process and reduce stress in the animals. The calf’s age and the mother’s condition are also key factors in the weaning decision. Weaning generally begins at five months and concludes at between 10 and 12 months, suggesting that most producers take into account animal welfare and readiness for nutritional transition.

To facilitate the process, many producers use nutritional supplements and gradually reduce milk supply. The environment also plays a key role, as some producers transfer calves to specific paddocks to minimise the impact of weaning. Veterinary interventions were also identified, such as the health monitoring of the calf and strategic milking to prevent issues like mastitis in the mother. This suggests that, while producers have adopted adequate weaning practices, there is still room for improvement in areas such as the use of nutritional supplements and veterinary supervision to ensure a healthy transition for the calf to its next stage of development.

The information presented in

Table 12. Producers’ knowledge of animal welfare and sustainability in cattle farming in Huila.

Municipality	What Are the Five Freedoms to Comply with in Cattle Breeding Farms?	Mention the Four Fundamental Aspects of Sustainable Livestock Farming
Acevedo	0	6
Aipe	0	4
Algeciras	7	11
Altamira	0	4
Baraya	7	1
Campoalegre	0	0
Colombia	3	7
El Pital	2	6
Garzón	0	1
Gigante	2	14
La Plata	2	1
Nátaga	1	0
Paicol	3	3
Palermo	2	1
Pitalito	1	2
Rivera	0	1
San Agustín	0	3
Suaza	2	0
Tarquí	2	3
Tello	10	1
Tesalia	7	0
Timaná	1	2
Villavieja	2	3

reveals a notable variability in livestock producers’ knowledge of animal welfare and sustainability in cow–calf cattle farming across Huila. Regarding the five freedoms of animal welfare, a low level of awareness was observed in most municipalities, with areas such as Acevedo, Algeciras, Baraya, and Campoalegre reporting no correct responses. This result suggests limited training in fundamental animal welfare concepts, which may negatively affect livestock handling conditions. However, municipalities like Tesalia and Tello showed higher levels of knowledge (10 and 7 correct responses, respectively), possibly due to greater access to training or specialised technical support.

On the other hand, knowledge of the principles of sustainable livestock farming showed a slightly more favourable trend, with municipalities such as Colombia, Gigante, and Acevedo recording relatively high scores (7, 4, and 6 correct responses, respectively). Nevertheless, consistently low scores in several municipalities reflect the need to strengthen the dissemination of sustainability practices. This disparity in knowledge levels suggests that although some producers may have access to training programmes, a significant gap remains in the understanding and application of these concepts.

The data presented in

Table 13. Importance of routine diagnosis of reproductive diseases in cattle farming.

Categories	Subcategories
Impacts on reproductive health	* Reduction in abortions and dystocic births * Decrease in open days and infertility * Avoid ovarian, uterine, and postpartum issues
Improvement in productive parameters	* Increases in the pregnancy and fertility rates * Major production of meat and milk * Reduction in the loss of milk and neonatal diseases
Prevention and control strategies	* Timely vaccination * Balanced diet with vitamin supplementation * Control of records and monitoring of health status
Social and economic impacts	* Reductions in economic losses related to disease * Improvements in the competitivity and the profitability of the herd * Organisation and efficient control of livestock production

underscore the importance of the routine diagnosis of reproductive diseases for the efficiency and sustainability of livestock systems. The results reveal that implementing regular diagnostics helps reduce the incidence of abortions and dystocic births—factors that directly affect herd productivity. Moreover, it contributes to shortening the open days and decreasing infertility, thereby improving reproductive efficiency. The early identification of ovarian, uterine, and postpartum issues is key to preventing complications and enhancing female recovery rates.

Proper reproductive control has direct effects on herd performance, increasing pregnancy and fertility rates. It also leads to higher milk and meat production, thereby optimising producer resources. In addition, reducing milk loss and neonatal diseases improves calf survival, positively impacting farm profitability. Prevention plays a fundamental role in reducing reproductive diseases. Timely vaccination, coupled with a balanced diet and vitamin supplementation, helps maintain herd health. Furthermore, maintaining accurate records and monitoring sanitary conditions are essential tools for decision making and preventing disease outbreaks.

From an economic perspective, routine diagnosis minimises the losses associated with disease, lowering veterinary costs and preventing productivity declines. This translates into the improved competitiveness and profitability of the herd. Additionally, efficient livestock production management facilitates the organisation of the production system, ensuring greater sustainability over time.

The selection of recipient females in reproductive biotechnology programmes must be based on criteria that ensure their proper adaptation to the process and maximise reproductive success. Firstly, body condition, physical development, and overall health are fundamental aspects, as females should have adequate weight, strong bone structure, and be free from disease. It is also essential that they comply with health and vaccination plans to avoid complications during gestation (

Table 14. Criteria for the selection of recipient females in reproductive biotechnology programs.

Category	Criterion
Body condition, physical development, and state of health	* Optimal body condition (score between 3.25 and 3.75). * Good body weight (minimum 70% of the mother’s weight). * Adequate development (heifers with at least 80% of their development). * Good poise and strong bone structure. * Free of diseases in general and reproductive diseases in particular. * Previous diagnosis of diseases and follow-up with clinical examinations. * Compliance with vaccination plans and health protocols.
Age and reproductive status	* Suitable age (minimum 16 months, ideal 23–24 months in heifers). * Have presented at least 3 cyclical heats. * Not be pregnant at the time of selection. * Internal and external reproductive system in good condition.
Handling and adaptability	* Good nutrition from birth and adequate nutrition. * Adaptability to the environment and the conditions of the program. * Meekness and docility to facilitate handling.
Genetics and reproduction	* Good genetics according to the objective of the program (meat or milk). * Previous maternal experience in young females. * Sufficient milk production to sustain the calf if necessary.

).

Reproductive status also plays a key role. It is recommended to select heifers that are at least 16 months old, preferably between 23 and 24 months, that have shown normal cyclic activity and possess a reproductive tract in optimal condition. The absence of pregnancy at the time of selection is an indispensable requirement.

In addition, adaptability and behaviour influence their capacity to integrate into the programme. They should have received good nutrition from birth, be docile, and adapt easily to the environmental conditions of the production system. Finally, genetics is another relevant factor, as it is desirable that recipients have genetic backgrounds aligned with the programme’s goal (meat or milk), experience with maternity, and sufficient milk production capacity for calf rearing if needed.

Altogether, these criteria ensure that recipient females are suitable for reproductive biotechnology, optimising the programme’s outcomes and improving herd reproductive efficiency.

Table 15. Proper handling of the newborn calf.

Category	Driving Route
Navel care and asepsis	* Disinfection of the navel with iodine immediately after birth. * Healing of the navel with iodine tincture within the first hours of life. * Keep the calf in a clean and dry environment to avoid infections. * Continuous monitoring for signs of umbilical infections.
Colostrum supply and initial feeding	* Ensure colostrum consumption in the first 6 h of life. * Offer between 4 and 6 L of colostrum in two daily doses (morning and afternoon). * In case the calf cannot suckle, administer it with a bottle. * Monitor the sucking reflex and stimulate it if necessary.
Newborn drying and stimulation	* Dry the calf completely after birth to prevent heat loss. * Stimulate blood circulation with massages. * Clean secretions from the mouth and nose to ensure proper breathing.
Environmental conditions and well-being	* Keep the calf in a clean, dry space protected from inclement weather. * Avoid humidity, mud, and extreme cold that can affect your health. * Ensure an area with good ventilation and free of infectious agents.
Monitoring and monitoring	* Observe that the calf gets up before 180 min after birth. * Ensure that he eats correctly and evaluate his general state of health. * Perform veterinary check-ups to prevent diseases and apply deworming when appropriate.

indicates that the management of newborn calves is a crucial process to ensure their survival and optimal development. In the first hours of life, hygiene and navel care are essential to prevent infections, for which immediate disinfection with iodine followed by proper treatment is recommended. Moreover, the environment must be kept clean and dry to reduce the risk of disease.

Initial feeding is another key factor. It is vital to ensure colostrum intake within the first six hours of life, providing between 4 and 6 litres in two daily feedings. In cases where the calf cannot nurse, colostrum should be administered via a bottle, with the supervision of the sucking reflex.

Drying and stimulating the calf contributes to thermal stability and blood circulation. Thorough drying after birthing helps prevent heat loss, while massaging promotes circulation. Additionally, cleaning the mouth and nose is key to ensuring proper breathing. Environmental conditions also play a fundamental role in well-being. It is important to keep the calf in a dry, clean, and temperature-controlled space, with good ventilation and free from infectious agents.

Finally, monitoring and follow-up are essential to assess the animal’s progress. It is necessary to confirm that the calf stands within 180 min of birth, feeds correctly, and shows no signs of disease. Veterinary check-ups and deworming when necessary contribute to the calf’s health and appropriate development.

4. Discussion

The findings of this research provide a clear view of the social perceptions and actions of livestock producers in Huila regarding health management, reproductive biotechnology application, and animal welfare. Patterns were identified showing the relationship between traditional knowledge and structural constraints in the agricultural sector, which impact producers’ decisions and the adoption of innovative technologies.

One of the study’s most important discoveries is the low implementation of preventive strategies for diagnosing reproductive diseases. The vast majority of respondents do not send samples for disease diagnosis, limiting the early identification and management of pathologies that affect reproductive efficiency. These results align with previous studies indicating that, in Latin America, small- and medium-scale producers face barriers to accessing specialised veterinary services, often relying on empirical health management strategies [10,11]. The shortage of veterinary infrastructure, high cost of inputs, and limited technical assistance programmes explain this trend [16].

In this regard, the findings are consistent with recent studies highlighting various health challenges in dual-purpose cattle in Colombia. For example, Falla-Tapias et al. [13] found that leptospirosis remains a major zoonotic disease in Huila, with risk factors linked to environmental conditions and poor management practices. These results reinforce the need to strengthen health strategies to reduce disease transmission between animals and humans, in line with the One Health approach.

Similarly, Murcia-Mono et al. [14] reported a high prevalence of haemoparasites in Colombian cattle, demonstrating how vector interaction, health management, and climatic conditions contribute to their spread. Identifying these factors is crucial to designing effective prevention programmes, particularly in extensive systems where disease control is often challenging.

The research by Murcia-Mono et al. [50] on bovine neosporosis epidemiology also suggests that, beyond biological factors, socioeconomic and demographic aspects play a key role in disease transmission. This comprehensive approach underscores the importance of animal health policies that consider both production conditions and the social context of producers, improving the effectiveness of interventions.

Nonetheless, a strong commitment to preventive vaccination was observed, with over 50% of respondents reporting having a vaccination plan for reproductive diseases. However, coverage varies between municipalities, with some areas showing less than 30% adoption. This variability highlights the impact of factors such as access to resources, proximity to veterinary supply centres, and producers’ level of training. The fact that the interaction between sanitary regulations and local knowledge can cause resistance to prevention protocols suggests the need for more context-sensitive strategies in rural Huila [6].

The research showed that the adoption of reproductive biotechnologies such as embryo transfer (ET) and fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) is limited in the region. In most municipalities, fewer than 10% of farmers have implemented these technologies, despite their proven positive impact on livestock productivity in previous studies [22,23]. Low adoption rates are linked to several factors: cost, lack of technical support, and beliefs that these technologies are incompatible with traditional livestock practices [19].

Furthermore, some producers perceive biotechnology with scepticism, which aligns with findings by Márquez and Márquez-Constán [20], who argue that acceptance in rural communities depends on cultural factors and the mistrust of external interventions. This suggests that promoting these technologies should be accompanied by awareness and training programmes highlighting their benefits for reproductive efficiency and economic returns.

A significant finding is that producers who adopt reproductive biotechnologies often integrate them with nutritional supplementation and health control strategies, indicating a more advanced livestock production approach. This supports the theory that combining multiple strategies enhances reproductive efficiency and livestock productivity [27].

Animal welfare is another key aspect examined in this study. The findings reveal that Huila producers hold a functionalist view of animal welfare, focusing on health and productivity rather than comfort and stress reduction. This is consistent with the results from Huertas [28] and De Acha et al. [31], who found that, in traditional livestock systems, welfare is assessed more in terms of productivity and work capacity than physical or emotional well-being.

Nevertheless, some beneficial practices were observed in Huila’s livestock systems, such as designated birthing areas and continuous access to clean water. However, significant welfare challenges persist, such as the performance of painful procedures without analgesia (dehorning and hot-iron branding) and the presence of ectoparasites in some municipalities. Research by Betancur [43] has shown that implementing animal welfare regulations in Colombia faces resistance due to beliefs that the rules do not reflect rural production realities. This emphasises the importance of creating strategies that incorporate welfare at the local level without imposing unsuitable approaches.

The findings also revealed that awareness of specific animal welfare regulations, such as Resolution 253 of 2020 from the Ministry of Agriculture, is low among survey participants. Only 11% of producers reported being aware of this regulation, indicating a lack of information and training. This aligns with previous research showing that animal welfare regulations in Colombia have been implemented with limited training and technical support [40].

This study shows some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, although the different dimensions of livestock production in rural areas were considered, the work focused on a specific territory, which partially limits the scope and generalisability of the findings to other regions. Second, the small number of participants may influence the representativeness of the data and, therefore, the generalisability.

5. Conclusions

This study enabled the identification and analysis of social representations and practices among livestock producers in Huila related to health management, the implementation of reproductive biotechnologies, and animal welfare. The findings show that, although there is awareness of the importance of health and disease prevention, diagnostic strategy implementation remains limited, which may adversely affect reproductive efficiency and herd productivity.

In terms of reproductive biotechnology, the results highlight the low acceptance of methods such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer, despite their proven effectiveness for genetic and production improvement. Factors such as costs, lack of technical support, and cultural resistance have restricted adoption in the region. This indicates a need to improve training and create incentives for implementing these strategies in rural livestock systems.

Regarding animal welfare, most producers adopt a functionalist perspective, placing more emphasis on animal health and productivity than on comfort or stress-related aspects. Despite the implementation of beneficial practices such as access to drinking water and designated birthing areas, challenges remain, including the performance of painful procedures without analgesia and the presence of ectoparasites in certain areas. Additionally, low awareness of animal welfare regulations such as Resolution 253 of 2020 indicates a need for more effective outreach and training strategies.

The findings of this research highlight the importance of implementing comprehensive training programmes that integrate technical knowledge with approaches tailored to the rural reality of producers. The adoption of public policies that expand access to veterinary services, reproductive biotechnology, and animal welfare programmes will be essential to improving the sustainability and effectiveness of the livestock sector in Huila.

Finally, further studies are recommended to examine the socio-economic and cultural barriers that influence the adoption of good livestock practices, as well as to analyse interventions that facilitate coordination among producers, academia, and government agencies. Only through a holistic and contextual approach can more sustainable, productive, and socially responsible livestock models be achieved.