Citation
The Puebla Project

Material Information

Title:
The Puebla Project seven years of experience, 1967-1973 : analysis of a program to assist small subsistence farmers to increase crop production in a rainfed area of Mexico
Creator:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Place of Publication:
México
Publisher:
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 116, [2] : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Corn -- Mexico -- Puebla (State) ( lcsh )
Agricultural innovations -- Mexico -- Puebla (State) ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Bibliography: p. [117]-[118]
Funding:
Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
000336973 ( ALEPH )
03710057 ( OCLC )
ABW6632 ( NOTIS )
77376660 ( LCCN )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
SEVEN YEARS Of EXPERIENCE :1061-1913
Analsi of a Poua to Assist Small Subsstnc Farmer to Increase Crop Production in a Rainfed Area of Mexico




Correct citation: Centro I nternacional dle Mejoramiento dle Ma(z y Trigo. 1974 The Puebla Project: Seven years of experience :1967-1973. El Bat~n, M6xico.
CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE MEJORAMIENTO DE MAIZ Y TRIGO INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER L on d r as 4 0 Aparlado Postal 6-6A4I Mexico 6, D. F., M~xlco




THE PUELA PROJECT:
SEVEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 196881- 19713
Analysis of a Program to Assist Small Subsistence Farmers
to Increase Crop Production in a Rainfed Area of Mexico
PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS
EXECUTIVE
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Mexico Government of the State of Puebla
COORDINATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Graduate College, Chapingo, M6xico,
OPERATION (Fertilization Committee of the State of Puebla)
Ministry of Agriculture Government of the State of Puebla The national fertilizer company, "Guanos y Fertilizantes" Ministry of Water Resources Department of Agrarian Affairs and Colonization National Agricultural Credit Bank National Ejidal Credit Bank Agricultural Bank of the South League of Agrarian Communities Associationof Small Private Farmers National Agricultural Insurance Agency National Seed Producing Agency National Marketing Agency Fertilizer distributor, "Impulsora de Puebla" Fertilizer distributor, "Agr6nomos Unidos" Fertilizer distributor, "Fertilizantes Olmeca" Fertilizer distributor, "Fertiton de Puebla"
I




Preface
This report -documents the first seven years of the. Puebla Project its philosophy, objectives, organization, operation and accomplishments. It was prepared by staff members and advisors, most of whom have been associated with the Project since its beginning.
In analysing progress during these initial years, this report reflects the Project's multidisciplinary team approach. An introductory section states Project objectives, initial conceptualization, and the prerequisites for locating the Project area. The characteristics of the area its land and people are described next, followed by an overview of the evolvement, of Project operations from 1967 to 1973. Chapters 3 and 4 detail the methodologies, field operations, and accomplishments of the maize research programs; Chapters 5 and 8 describe the methodologies and field operations of the technical assistance and evaluation programs.
Subsequent discussion (Chapters 6, 7, 9, 10) provides an examination of Project activities in organizing farmers, improving the operations of service institutions, persuading farmers to adopt new technology, increasing maize yields, and improving the general well-being of the farmers. The benefits attributable to the Project are compared with costs in Chapter 11. The Puebla Project's role in getting similar programs underway in other parts of Mexico anti other countries is outlined in Chapters 12 and 13. In its final chapter
(14), the report seeks to summarize what has been learned about the organization and operations of successful regional agricultural development projects.
In terms of the Project's long-term goals, the operations at present are seen to be in mid-process, with contributions already extending far beyond the Puebla Valley. The initial focus on, increased maize production has widened, as originally envisioned, to encompass the broader development objectives of increased net income, greater employment opportunities, and improved general welfare of rural families.
During the period covered by this report, from 1967 though 1973, the Project was administered by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and operated jointly by that institution and members of the Chapingo Graduate College. In early 1974, responsibility for the Project passed to the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture where it is presently being operated by the Chapingo Graduate College. Members of the CIMMYT staff who were functioning as advisors to the Project in 1973 have moved to the Graduate College where they are continuing their advisory role to the Project and are participating in academic programs to train people in new approaches to increasing crop production and improving the quality of life in disadvantage rural areas.




Acknowledgments
The Project operations and accomplishments have depended upon the firm support of the highest authorities of the Mexican Government. The Ministry of Agriculture has(given strong backing at both the federal and state levels. The Government of the State of Puebla has supported the Project as an effective means for beginning an economic and social transformation of the area. The cooperation and support of governmental authorities and private enterprises has made it possible to improve credit facilities and to make more readily available the essential inputs and services.
The Chapingo Graduate College, through its Departments of Agricultural Communications, Statistics, Soils, and Genetics, has provided advice and direct service. The National Institute of Agricultural Research, through its Maize Department, has provided genetic materials for developing new high-yielding varieties for the area. CIMMYT has provided technical advice and direct assistance through its Maize Program and Communications Department and also has provided an administrative structure with a minimum of the bureaucratic impediments that might restrict the functioning of the Project.
The Rockefeller Foundation made the initial grant for the Project and contributed a total of $559,851 (see note below) to its support during the seven-year period, 1967-1973. During this period, CIMMYT contributed $332,737 for the operation of the Project, and $32,457 was provided by the Graduate College at Chapingo and institutions in Puebla. The total operating cost of the Project for the seven years was $925,045.
Other activities related to the Project and their costs were: (1) Consulting service for the Project team -$87,166; (2) Consulting service for similar programs in Mexico and other countries -$112,390; and (3) Training of staff for other programs -$168,158. These costs for the operation of the Project and related activities do not include a charge for indirect costs (overhead).
EDITORIAL NOTE: This report was prepared by Dr. Leobardo Jimenez Sinchez, Dr. Antonio Turrent Fernandez, Dr. Heliodoro Diaz Cisneros, Lic. Francisco Garcia Hernindez, Dr. Gregorio Martinez Vald6s, and Dr. Reggie J. Laird, with ample assistance from other members of the Puebla Project staff.
Dr. Alain de Janvry, Dr. John Pesek, Dr. Delbert Myren, and Dr. Ralph Cummings, Jr. reviewed the manuscripts and contributed significantly to improving their content.
All references to dollars in, this report are expressed in terms of United States currency.
III




Directors and Staff
Honorary Directors
LIC. LUIS ECHEVERRIA ALVAREZ President of Mexico
DR. OSCAR BRAUER HERRERA Secretary of Agriculture
SR. GUILLERMO MORALES BLUMENKRON Governor of the State of Puebla
Advisory Board
HECTOR PORRAS HOWARD, Ing. Agr. General Agent for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in the State of Puebla, 1967-1969.
RAFAEL TERRAZAS LOYOLA, Ing. Agr. General Agent for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in the State of Puebla, 1970-1971.
CARLOS TRILLO GUIDO, Ing. Agr. General Agent for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in the State of Puebla, 1972-1973.
ALFONSO VILLARREAL, Ing. Agr. Director General for Agriculture of the State of
Puebla.
OSCAR BRAUER HERRERA, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, Mexico
1967-1969.
LAURO BUCIO ALANIS, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, M6xico 19691972.
LEOBARDO JIMENEZ SANCHEZ, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, M4xico,
1972-1973.
EDWIN J. WELLHAUSEN, Ph. D. Director General CIMMYT 1967-1971. HALDORE HANSON, Director General, CIMMYT, 1972-1973. ROBERT D. OSLER, Ph. D. Associate Director, CIMMYT. JOHN H. LONNQUIST, Ph. D. Head of the Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1967-1969. ERNEST W. SPRAGUE, Ph. D. Head of the Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1970-1973. DELBERT T. MYREN, Ph. D..Head of the Communication Department, CIMMYT, 19671970.
GREGORIO MARTINEZ VALDES, Ph. D. Head of the Communication Department,
CIMMYT, 1971-1973.
ANTONIO TURRENT FERNANDEZ, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT,
1969-1973.
REGGIE J. LAIRD, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1967-1973.
General Coordinator
LEOBARDO JIMENEZ SANCHEZ, Ph. D. Professor of the Graduate College, Chapingo,
Mexico, and member of the CIMMYT staff, 1967-1970. HELIODORO DIAZ CISNEROS, Ing. Agr. 1970. MAURO GOMEZ AGUILAR, Ing. Agr. 1970-1973.
Technical Staff
ARMANDO PUENTE BERUMEN, Ph. D. In charge of agronomic research, 1967. J.C. DORANTES DE LA ROSA, Ing. Agr. Associate in agronomic research, 1967. ANTONIO TURRENT FERNANDEZ, Ph. D. In charge of agronomic research, 1968. ALVARO RUIZ BARBOSA, Ing. Agr. In charge of agronomic research, 1969-1973. NESTOR ESTRELLA CHULIN, Ing. Agr. Associate in agronomic research, 1969-1971. RAMON BARRAZA MADRID, Ing. Agr. Associate in agronomic research, 1971-1973. JOSE T. MORALES G. Associate in agronomic research, 1973. MARIO CASTRO GIL, Ph. D. In charge of genetic improvement, 1967. HERNAN CORTES MENDOZA, Ing. Agr. Associate in genetic improvement, 1967-1969.
IV




FACUNDO BARRIENTOS P., M.S. In charge.of genetic improvement, 1968. TARCICIO CERVANTES SANTANA, M.S. In charge of genetic improvement, 19691971.
FIDEL MARQUEZ SANCHEZ, Ph, D. Geneticist, Graduate College, Chapingo, M4xico,
Special Collaboration in genetic improvement, 1969.
HUGO MEJIA A., Ing. Agr. Associate in genetic improvement, 1969-1971. APOLINAR AGUILLON GALICIA, Ing. Agr. Associate in genetic improvement, 1971.
In charge of genetic improvement, 1972.
HELIODORO DIAZ CISNEROS, Ing. Agr. In charge of evaluation, 1968-1969. JUAN MANUEL RANGEL, Ing. Agr. In charge or evaluation 1970. FRANCISCO GARCIA HERNANDEZ, Lic. In charge of evaluation, 1971-1973. FELIPE RODRIGUEZ CANO, M.S. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 4, 1968-1971. FRANCISCO ESCOBEDO CASTILLO, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 2,
1969-1971.
GILDARDO ESPINOZA SANCHEZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 1,
1969-1971.
J. de JESUS GUERRA MARTINEZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3,
1969; Zone 5, 1970-1971.
ARISTEO ALVAREZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3, 1970. ROGELIO AGUIRRE RIVERA, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3,
1971-1972.
FELIPE DE LA FUENTE PEREZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 1,
1971-1972.
ESTEBAN LEAL ZAPATA, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 2, 1971-1972. EZEQUIEL SOLIS RUIZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 5, 1971-1972. LUCIANO VIDAL GARCIA, Ing. Agr. Associate in evaluation, 1971; Technical assistance
to farmers, Zone 4, 1972.
BENJAMIN BAUTISTA OREA, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3, 1972. OZIEL MONTAIEZ GONZALEZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 1,
1972-1973.
ARTURO CAMARENA MEDRANO, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone
4,1973.
JOSE MARCOS FRANCISCA, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 2,
1973.
MIGUEL SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone
3,1973.
ALFONSO MACIAS LAYLLE, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 5,
1973.
JOSE ZARAGOZA PULIDO, Sociologist, Special collaboration in the organization of
farmers, 1972-1973.
GIL OLMOS BARRERA, M.S., Special Collaboration in Visual Aids, 1968-1973.
Technical Advisors
LEOBARDO JIMENEZ SANCHEZ, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, M4xico,
1971-1973.
REGGIE J. LAIRD, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1967-1973. DELBERT T. MYREN, Ph. D. Head of the Communications Department, CIMMYT,
1967-1970.
ANTONIO TURRENT FERNANDEZ, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT,
1969-1973.
GREGORIO MARTINEZ VALDES, Ph. D. Head of the Communications Department,
CIMMYT, 1971-1973.
HELIODORO DIAZ CISNEROS, Ph. D. 1970.
V




Contents
Vill INTRODUCTION
I CHAPTER 1. THE PUEBLA AREA: ITS LAND AND PEOPLE
The physical environment climate, soils. Thefarming population number of farmers, size of holdings, type of land tenure, the family and the home, contact with ideas from outside the community. Local production technology genetic resources, production practices. Agricultural service agencies.
I CHAPTER 2. PROJECT OPERATIONS AND COORDINATION: AN OVERVIEW
Evolution of the Project. Project Operations 1967 through 1973. Coordination. Project Personnel. Consulting Services.
19 CHAPTER 3. AGRONOMIC RESEARCH
General strategy. Field research in 1967 results: 1967. Field research in 1968 and 1969 results: 1968 and 1969. Field research in 1970 results: 1970.
Field research in 197 1 -results: 197 1.
Field research in 1972 results: 1972.
An evaluation of the agronomic research program.
39 CHAPTER 4. MAIZE VARIETY IMPROVEMENT
Strategy of genetic improvement.. Program and results production of hybrids, production of varieties, evaluation of materials. Evaluation of the research program.
45 CHAPTER 5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS
Project program: 1968 location of the high-yield plots, credit, crop insurance, planting and care of the high-yield plots, result demonstrations, printed matter and audio-visual aids. Project program: 1969 organizing groups, radio usage, supervision of the high-yield plots, interchanges among farmer groups, results demonstrations. Project program: 1970. Project program: 1971. Project program: 1972. Project program: 1973 use of agua ammonia, more effective group action.
55 CHAPTER 6. ORGANIZATION OF THE FARMERS
Organization of the farmers prior to the Puebla Project. Action of the. Puebla Project in the organization of farmers. Benefits received by farmers through organized action better understanding of the new technology, access of small farmers to agricultural credit, greater efficiency in obtaining credit, prompt delivery of fertilizers, efficient and cheaper transport of fertilizers, prompt repayment of loans, greater efficiency in the repayment of loans, access to information on other activities, initiation of new production activities, greater effectiveness in solving community problems, greater interchange of experiences among farmers. Factors favoring group efficiency -- quality of leadership, legalization of the organization. Outlook for more advanced forms of organization. Summary.
V1




63 CHAPTER 7. THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCIES
The Impulsora de Puebla procedure followed in granting credit, changes in sales of 10-8-4, outlook for greater credit for small farmers from the Impulsora de Puebla. The Puebla Branch of the National Agricultural Credit Bank operating procedures of the Agricultural Bank, outlook for greater credit for small farmers from the Agricultural Bank. The Puebla Branch of the National Ejidal Credit Bank
- operating procedures of the Ejidal Bank, outlook for greater credit for ejidatarios from the Ejidal Bank. Agricultural Bank of the South. The Coxtocan Hacienda. Direct participation of Guanomex. The National Agricultural Insurance Agency operating procedures of ANAGSA, crop insurance related problems that limit farmer use of official credit. The National Marketing Agency.
73 / CHAPTER 8. EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Collection of existing information. Personal interview surveys survey: 1967, survey: 1970. Studies of agricultural institutions and the farm sector. Annual estimates of maize yields development of an indirect method for estimating yields, estimation of yields of all farmers in the area, estimation of yields of farmers on credit lists. Comment on the evaluation program.
79 CHAPTER 9. FARMER ADOPTION OF THE MAIZE RECOMMENDATIONS
Level of adoption of the maize recommendations all farmers in the area, farmers on credit lists. Changes in average maize yields. Factors influencing the adoption of the maize recommendations availability of information, adequacy of the new technology, risk in using the new technology, availability of credit, farmer organizaitons, other factors.
89 CHAPTER 10. IMPACT OF INCREASED PRODUCTION ON INCOME, EMPLOYMENT AND GENERAL WELFARE
Changes in family income. Changes in employment. Other changes that influence the general welfare-changes in the consumption of several foods, improvements in the family home, use of public services, changes in attitudes of farmers.
95 CHAPTER 11. A BENEFIT: COST ANALYSIS OF THE PUEBLA PROJECT
Classification of benefits and costs. Estimation of a benefit-cost ratio for seven years of operation of the Puebla Project direct gross benefits, derived gross benefits, associated costs, Project costs, adjustment of costs and benefits, benefitcost ratios, intangible benefits.
101 CHAPTER 12. TRAINING OF STAFF FOR REGIONAL PRODUCTION PROGRAMS
Practical training. Combined theoretical and applied training.
103 CHAPTER 13. PROMOTION OF REGIONAL PRODUCTION PROGRAMS IN OTHER
AREAS
East Antioqufa Project, Colombia. Cajamarca La Libertad Project, Peru. The Basic grains Program, Honduras. Maize Program, State of Mexico, Mexico. Tlaxcala Project, Mexico.
107 / CHAPTER 14. THE PUEBLA APPROACH: A SYNTHESIS
Essential elements of the Puebla approach agronomic research, technical .,ssistance to farmers, evaluations, coordination, technical backing for program staff, capable, highly-motivated, well-trained staff, incentives, an adequate budget. Program strategies influence of the physical environment, influence of infrastructure development, influence of the political environment, influence of size, diversity and accessibility of program area, high-yielding crop varieties. The regional agricultural program a first step in rural development.
114 APPENDIX A
117 Some Publications on the Puebla Project
VII




INTRODUCTION
World agriculture faces two problems of great urgency: the threat of an absolute shortage of food on a global scale, and the fact of continuing low incomes and malnutrition among most of the rural population.
The Puebla Project is an experiment designed to tackle both problems simultaneously by obtaining a large increase in yield of a basic food crop in this case maize among small farmers producing at subsistence levels with traditional methods.
Much of the world's food is now produced on small farms, where families produce mainly for human and animal consumption on the farm 'and have little or no surplus to sell. These families have usually been among the last to discard their traditional farming methods and few of them are quick to reap, the benefits of new technology. On a world-wide basis, however, they represent a vast potential for national development.
This potential is recognized by the governments of most developing countries; but, because of limited resources and lack of knowledge about how to reach these millions of smaller farmers, the national programs to increase crop yields have usually been aimed at a relatively small number of commercial farmers. Yet attention to these families of the traditional sector is crucial for at least three reasons: (a) their farms represent an important part 'of the arable land in many countries; thus, yields must be increased to satisfy total food requirements, (b) in many nations most of the human resources are employed in traditional agriculture and improved agriculture is a readily available source of increased capital from within, and (c) traditional farmers make up a large portion of the population of many countries and continuous improvement in their farming techniques is essential for over-all social development.
These considerations define the need for more efficient means of providing traditional farmers with better production methods. And it is this need that focused the two initial objectives of the Puebla Project: (a) to develop, field test, and refine a strategy for rapidly increasing yields of a basic fbod crop on small land holdings; and (b) to train technicians from other regions in the elements and successful use of this strategy.
PHILOSOPHY AND ORGANIZATION
The conceptual framework' of the Puebla Project was derived from several interrelated agricultural and social science disciplines, as well as from the working knowledge and field experience of the team members, It was conceived as An integrated plan of attack on the many problems limiting farmer use of adequate production technology. It was assumed that the following factors of change would need to be available in the Project area: (a) high-yielding maize varieties,, (b) information on efficient production practices, (c) effective communication of agronomic information to farmers and agricultural leaders, (d) adequate supplies of agronomic inputs at easily accessible, points when they are needed,
(e) crop 'insurance, (f) favorable relationships between input costs and crop values, (g) adequate production credit at a reasonable rate of interest, and (h) accessible markets with a stable price for maize.
When the Project began, several agricultural institutions responsible for providing inputs, credit, crop insurance and markets for maize producers were already operating in Puebla. Also, the relationships between the costs of production inputs and the price of maize were thought to be satisfactory. However, only very limited results were available from trials of maize varieties and production practices, and only one extension agent was working the area.
Vill




Thus, the action program of the Puebla Project was organized initially to include four
major components: (a) varietal improvement of maize, (b) research to develop efficient recommendations on maize production practices, (c) assistance to farmers in proper use of new recommendations, and (d) coordination of the activities of the service agencies, the Project team, and the farmers. Another component socio-economic evaluation- wasadded during the first year.
A key concept within the philosophy of the Project has been that the production and
dissemination of information are parts of a development continuum that should not be compartmentalized in program operations. Constant interaction among staff members and feedback of information have been viewed as integral functions of the Project from
planning of research through delivery of findings to farmers and evaluation of results.
Thus, it was planned that the staff consist of a small team of capable, well-trained
scientists with an adequate budget and freedom to operate at any political or technical level. The team lived and worked in the Project area, cooperating closely in conducting
the field trials, demonstrations, farmer meetings, etc.
The selection and training of team personnel was seen as the crucial element in determining success. The work of the team was expected to be exceptionally arduous due to heavy demands by the large numbers of farmers in the Project area. In making decisions, team members would have to take into account, simultaneously, knowledge and expectations related to weather, attitudes of farmers, institutional organization, the personal goals of individuals in key positions, and other factors. Great skill -is required in assessing and giving appropriate weight to these varied and interrelated factors. Thus, strong effort -was given to-acquiring, the services of well-trained, capable, and innovative young agriculturalists,
PREREQUISITES
Initially, the two conditions considered necessary in selecting the Project area were: an
ecological environment that would permit substantial yield increases, and a political
environment that would be favorable toward Project objectives.
The main requirements of the physical environment were: (a) rainfall and temperatures adequate for good-to-high maize yields. The total amount and distribution of rainfall should be such that maize would suffer severe drought damage in less than 10 percent of the years and moderate damage in no more than 30 percent of the years. There should be only light frosts, limited to the first quarter of the growing season; and (b)
reasonably deep, permeable soils free from toxic amounts of salts.
The essential aspect of the political environment was that government should strongly
support the Project operations and have the will and the power to modify existing policies and agencies as necessary. This factor was especially important in respect to
* availability of key inputs, orderly marketing of the grain, and the relationship between
the cost of principal inputs and the price of grain at the farm.
As the Project has evolved, these aspects of the ecological and, to some extent, the
political environments have been recognized, not as prerequisites, but as factors that influence the strategy to be used in a particular program. The basic approach used in Puebla should be applicable in most regions of the world, when adequate attention has been given to the specific environmental, social, and economic conditions in areas where
the 'approach is to be used.
Ix




43




1 THE PUEBLA AREA: ITS LAND AND PEOPLE
INTRODUCTION The Puebla area had two other characteristics that made
it appropriate for the Project: (a) it comprised about The area selected for the Project comprises 32 munici- 116,800 ha of cultivated land with about 80,000 ha used pios (counties) in the western part of the State of Puebla, for maize production it was felt that an area of this size Mexico (Fig. 1.1). In choosing the area, the primary consid- would be adequate for studying the effectiveness of a new erations were that it fulfill the ecological and political approach to rapidly increasing maize yields; and (b) proprerequisites cited in the Introduction to this report, and duction practices were traditional, farmer incomes were that the farming population should consist mainly of small low, and most of the harvest was consumed directly on the land holder.. farm.
TEXMEL'
........... ...... ......... ...' " ."" '
ZONA i UEJbT~b 'IIN .......... .
........ .-; /., "
......... :.. : .
_..- Z O N A .-.............
-'1 ............. B A .
Fig. 1.1. The project area covers about 117,000 hectares of crop land in 32 municipios of the State of Puebla. As the Project evolved, the area was dividedinto five zones with a technical assistance agent responsible for each.
1




Communications within the Project area are adequate, The average rainfall in the Puebla area during the maizeand most villages are connected by a network of all-weather growing season should be sufficient to satisfy the needs of roads. The Project area is a 2-hour drive from Mexico City the crop. However, drought damage to maize would be or the National Agricultural Center at Chapingo, and this expected when: (a) the total rainfall during the year is ready accessibility allowed consultants at both locations to considerably less than the average, or (b) the amounts of maintain close contact with the Project. precipitation are well below average during the critical
The remainder of this chapter describes the physical months of June, July, and August.
environment of the area, the farming population, local In 1967, drought intensities were estimated using
production technology, and agricultural agency services existing information on soil characteristics, evapotranspiraavailable. tion losses, and water needs of maize at critical growth
periods; and the daily rainfall data available at the four
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT weather stations in the Project area. The drought damage,
estimated for individual years, was classified as: zero or very
The Project area occupies much of the valley drained by slight; moderate; or severe. As an average for the four the Atoyac River and lies mostly between the rising slopes stations, it was estimated that there would have been zero of volcanos: Popocat6petl and Ixtaccihuatl to the west, and oraverysslit drouhtmage in 6pere o he yers La Malinche to the north and east. It is located between moderate damage in 30 percent, and severe damage in 10 latitudes 180 50' and 190 25' north and between longitudes percent. Maize growing on soils with a high moisture970 55' and 98040, west of Greenwich. The lowest part of supplying capacity would have suffered less from drought the valley lies southeast of the city of Puebla at an elevation than these percentages indicate, while maize on soils with a of 2,100 m above sea level. Most of the Project area lies low moisture-supplying capacity would have suffered more. between 2,150 and 2,700 m above sea level, although maize A moderate effect of drought would be expected to reduce is produced on the mountain slopes up to elevations of yields by 30-60 percent; a severe effect by 60 percent or 2,900 m. more.
Climate SoilS2
The climate over most of the region is temperate with The soils in the Project area have formed from volcanic mild winters. The warmest part of the year is in May and e/ecta, mainly from the three volcanos: Popocatpetl, Ixtacearly June. Temperatures remain fairly constant during the cilhuatl, and La Malinche. The parent material ranges in size last of June, July, and August, and gradually decline during from very fine ash to pumice particles several centimeters in September and October. Average monthly temperatures diameter. The coarser materials are found on the upper
during the maize-growing season vary from 18.60 C in May slopes of the volcanos and the finer materials near the to 16.10 C in October. center of the valley. The ejecta has probably been waterFrosts occur mainly during the winter months from reworked over much of the area; some of the ash and
October through March, when they cause little or no pumice, however, have been deposited directly on the land
damage to annual crops. However, a weather station located surface during eruptions of the volcanos, The parent materinear the center of the Project area reported frost on one or als are distinctly layered due to sorting during these more days during the month of April in 33 percent of the
year; i Ma, 1 perent an inJun, 5 ercnt.Weaher depositional processes.
years; in May, 17 percent; and in June, 5 percent. Weather On the upper slopes of the volcanos the streams are very stations at two other locations in the area reported no deep, and the land surface is being continuously eroded frosts during these months. Frosts in May and June can away. Little of the eroded material, however, reaches the seriously damage early plantings of maize. Atoyac River. Most of the material is deposited as alluvial
Three of the four weather stations in the Puebla area fan debris. Alluvial fan building is still occurring in the area reported an average of one hailstorm a month during July and is especially noticeable along the San Martin Texmeluand August, with about half that amount in September. can-Huejotzingo highway, where the stream beds are higher Severe hailstorms during these months would be expected than the adjacent land surface. to reduce maize yields significantly. The external drainage system is well-developed on the
The average rainfall reported by the four weather upper slopes of the volcanos but is poorly developed
stations for the 7-month period from April through toward the center of the valley where alluvial fans are formOctober varied from 777-863 mm. The rainfall during this
period represents approximately 94 percent- of the total for
the year. 2. The study of the genesis, morphology, and distribution
of the soils in the Puebla area was carried out during
1968-1970. Dr. B.L. Allen, soil morphologist, Texas Tech
1. For more information on the climate of the Puebla University, Lubbock, Texas, directed and personally convalley, see Jauregui, E.O. 1968. Mesoclima de la Regi6n ducted much of the field work. He carried out three field Puebla-Tlaxcala. Instituto de Geografia, Universidad Nacio- studies, each lasting about a week. Dr. Allen contributed nal Aut6noma de Mexico. Mexico, D.F. most of the ideas and information presented in this section.
2




DEEP SOILS OF POPOCATEPETL
PUMICEOUS SOILS OF POPOCATEPETL
SOILS OF LA MALINCHE
SODIC-LIKE SOILS
! :: HEAVY SOILS OF ZONE Y
E2J SOILS WITH A COMPACTED HORIZON
SOILS WITH A HIGH WATER TABLE
E UNMAPPED AREA
Fig. 1.2. The distribution of the seven most important kinds of soils in the project area. The regions shown in white are largely mountainous with little production of maize.
ing. This has resulted in the formation of soils with a high The deep soils of Popocatdpetl cover an area of about water table and deficient external drainage on both sides of 33,618 ha, of which 26,609 are currently under cultivation. the Atoyac River. A drainage system consisting of a net- These soils occupy an area extending from the intermediate work of open ditches was constructed in this region many slopes of Popocatdpetl and Ixtacciliuatl to the soils with a years ago and has been effective in maintaining the water high water table along the Atoyac River. The predominant table low enough for the soils to be farmed, parent material is a light-brown volcanic ash near neutral in
reaction. The texture of the upper 20-40 cm of these soils is loamy sand or sandy loam. This horizon usually contains The information accumulated on soils during the early less than 0.5 percent organic matter, has a pH around 6.5, is years of the Project permitted the preparation of a soils hightin potasiu an calciu as far high is map (Fig. 1.2) showing the approximate boundaries of the h phorus. Underlying this horizon is a layer about 2 m deep seven most important groups of soils in the Project area., with a loam or clay-loam texture that is largely responsible The total area and cultivated area corresponding to each for the high productivity of these soils. This lower horizon soil group were estimated from aerial photographs and are has a pH of about 7.0, a cation exchange capacity of shown in Table 1.1. around 15 miliequivalents/100 g of soil, and 8 percent of
available moisture when wet to the field capacity. These TABLE 1.1. Total area and cultivated area corresponding soils, when properly managed, can be planted in April and to seven groups of soils in the Puebla area. early, May with residual-moisture from the previous year'
The pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl cover an area of some 26,799 ha, of which 19,794 are currently under Total Cultivated cultivation. The parent material of these soils is largely Group area area pumice with some volcanic ash. According to Aeppli and
ha ha Schoenhals3, these materials were deposited at the time of
the most recent eruptiorns of Popocat6petl. The stratification observed in most of these soils probably resulted from Pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl 26,799 19,794 differences in the materials deposited at different times, not
Soils of La Malinche 34,602 25,298 from pedogenic processes.
Sodic-like soils 16,560 13,121
Heavy soils of Zone V 3,151 2,700
Soils with compacted horizon 28,912 22,403
Soils with high water table 7,527 6,871 3. Aeppli, Hans and Schoenhals, Ernst, 1973. Los suelos
de la Cuenca Puebla-Tlaxcala. Comunicaciones 7/1973 Proyecto Puebla-Tlaxcala. Eds. Wilhelm Lauer and ErdTotal 151,169 116,796 mann Gormsen. Fundaci6n Alemana para la Investigaci6n
Cientifica, M6xico. pp. 15-18.




The texture of the upper horizon of the pumiceous soils, The heavy soils of Zone V cover an area of some 3,151 which may extend to a depth of 80 cm, is gravelly sand. ha, of which 2,700 ha are under cultivation. The morpholDespite its coarse texture, this horizon contains about 6 ogy of these soils is similar to that of the sodic-like soils, percent available moisture when wet to the field capacity. except that the Bt horizon is less developed and the soils It usually contains less than 0.5 percent organic matter, has thus have better internal drainage. The heavy soils of Zone a pH of about 6.5, and a cation exchange capacity of V have a limited capacity to conserve moisture over the
around 6 meq/100 g. The lower horizon may be similar to winter months; thus, maize plantings usually can not be
the corresponding horizon in the deep soils of Popocatdpetl made until the rains begin. or it may be a loose, pumiceous gravel. This latter material The soils with a compacted horizon occupy an area of has a pH near 7.0, a cation exchange capacity of around 7 about 28,912 ha, with 22,403 ha presently under cultivameq/100 g, and contains about 6 percent available moisture tion. The compacted layer that limits both root penetration when wet to the field capacity. When properly managed, and water percolation lies at a depth of 20-60 cm from the
the pumiceous soils can be planted with residual moisture, surface. This layer can be: (a) fragipan, (b) claypan, or (c)
The soils of La Malinche cover some 34,602 ha with tepetate. The first two layers are genetic horizons; tepetate
about 25,298 ha under cultivation. These soils have formed is a partially consolidated volcanic ash. The surface horizon from volcanic ash that has been redeposited by water in contains 0.5-1.0 percent organic matter, has a pH of around
alluvial fans. The upper layer of these soils, about 30 cm in 6.5, is high in potassium, and contains moderate amounts depth, is usually a sand. This horizon contains 0.5-1.0 per- of phosphorus. Sufficient moisture to permit early plancent organic matter, has a pH of around 6.5, is high in tings of maize cannot be conserved through the winter in
phosphorus and potassium, and contains about 7 percent these soils.
available moisture when wet to the field capacity. A gravel- The soils with a high water table cover an area of some ly sand with a depth of a meter or more is usually found 7,527 ha, of which 6,871 ha are under cultivation. The
underlying this horizon, depth of the water table in these soils varies with their
Soils with an incipient B horizon are found on the inter- proximity to the Atoyac River, with the seasons, and with mediate slopes of La Malinche. This B horizon has a loamy the upkeep of the drainage canals. High yields of maize and sand to sandy loam texture and a cation exchange capacity alfalfa are obtained in soils with the water table more than
sand5tocsandyoloametextureeandhascationsexchangekcapacity
of about 15 meq/100 g, with a low base saturation percent- 50 cm below the surface. These soils are dark-colored age (around 35). On the lower slopes of La Malinche, the loams, high in organic matter, with little profile developlower soil horizon consists of sediments a meter or more in meant. They have pH values around 7.5, cation exchange depth, with a sandy loam to silty clay loam texture. These capacities of about 30 meq/100 g, and contain less than 5 soils are potentially very productive. When properly man- percent exchangeable sodium. aged, the soils of La Malinche also can be planted with
residual moisture. THE FARMING POPULATION
The. sodic-like.soils .occupy an area of about 16,560 ha,
with 13,121 ha currently under cultivation. The parent Most of the farmers in the region are descendents of the
material is a light-grey volcanic ash, alkaline in reaction, Indian populations present in the area at the time of the which is found essentially unaltered at a depth of 60-160 Spanish conquest. In certain villages, Nahuatl, or "Mexcm, depending upon the degree of weathering of the ican" as it is known in the area, is still spoken, although
profile. These soils are similar morphologically to Solonetz everyone understands Spanish. The information presented soils. The surface or A horizon is a loamy sand about 20 cm in this section comes mainly from personal interview deep. This overlies a Bt horizon some 60-100 cm in depth, surveys for 1967 and 1970 (refer to Chapter 8). which is black, contains around 60 percent clay, has a
columnar structure, and has a very firm consistency. This Number of Farmers horizon is very impermeable and greatly restricts the passage of water and the penetration of maize roots. A thin, The number of farm operators in the Project area was
greyislt-colored A2 horizon showing the effects of reduc- estimated to be 43,300. This value was calculated by tion processes, is usually distinguishable between the A and dividing the total cultivated area, 116,800, by 2.7, the averBt horizons, age number of cultivated hectares per farm operator. This
latter value is the average of the estimates of the number of
The Bt horizon has a cation exchange capacity of about
35 meq/100 g, a base saturation percentage of 80, and is
slightly alkaline. The content of exchangeable sodium varies surveys. from 4-14 percent of the cation exchange capacity; thus, According to the surveys, the average family consisted of
the soils are designated sodic-like rather than sodic. Suf- 5.54 members in 1967 and 6.17 members in 1971. Asficient moisture to permit early plantings usually cannot be suming there was no change during the 4-year period in the conserved through the winter months. The production number of farms in the area, this means the total populapotential of these soils is very low under rainfed conditions, tion included in the families of farm operators was approxbut relatively high when irrigation water is available. imately 240,000 in 1967 and 267,000 in 1971.
4




In addition, there are many families living in the villages Percent of Hectares
who do not operate farm land but depend heavily on Land Farm Operated Percent of
agriculture for employment and sustenance. Using 1960 Holders Operators Per Farmer Total Area
Census data for the 32 mun11iCipios that comprise the Project area, and the above estimate of the total population of the Ejidatarios 38.2 2.05 31.9
families of farm operators, there were estimated to be Private holders 27.5 2.74 30.3
13,300 landless rural families in the area in 1967. Ejido-private 33.5 2.76 37.2
Rented 0.4 3.00 0.5
Size of Holdings On shares 0.4 0.20 0.1
100.0 2.47 100.0
The average farm size, as mentioned earlier, was esti- -___________________________mated to be 2.7 ha. The amount of land per farm operator Of special interest is the frequency of combined private varied considerably as shown below, and ejidal holdings. L'/idatarios are farmers who received
Amount of Land Operated Percentage of Farmers land from the government as a result of the agrarian reform.
They have the use of the land while they live, but they .50 ha or less 9.2 cannot sell it. Also, private holders value their land very
*51 -1.00 17.5 highly and sell only under exceptional circumstances.
1.01 -1.50 18.7 Consequently, the land market in the area is essentially
1.51 -2.00 10.7 frozen.
2.01 -2.50 12.3 Farmers commonly have several parcels at various loca2.51 -3.00 8.4 tions on different kinds of soils and at varying distances
3.01 -3.50 44fromn the farmstead, as shown below.
3.51 -4.00 6.4 ____________________4.01 -5.00 4.4 No. of Parcels Percentage of Farmers
5.01 -7.50 4.0 per farmer
7.51 -10.00 2.8______________________10.00 or more 1.2 1 16.7
Type of Land Tenure 2 or 3 52.5
4 or 5 21.2
The prevalence of different land-holding systems in the 6 or 7 5.6
area is indicated by the following data from the 1967 8 or 9 4.0
survey: 10 or mnore 0.0
The average farm size in the project area is about 2.7 ha. Approximately 90% of the farms have 5 ha. or less.
5




At certain peak labor periods,
such as planting and harvest,
the whole family helps in the
70 field and additional workers
may be hired. As the fields
are often far from the village,
the women usually bring the
noon day meal.
This phenomenon is explained in part by the farmers' The impression is that at least half of those with some awareness of land quality. To be fair to all when the ejidos degree of literacy read and write with considerably difwere organized, the farmers frequently decided that each ficulty. The percentage of farmers with 3 years or more of ejidatario should have a piece of each of the two or three schooling, 45.9, is perhaps a reasonable estimate of those qualities of land, instead of a single block of land. A similar that are functionally literate. procedure is often followed by private owners in leaving It is customary in the area for farmers to live together in land to their children. villages. Homes are usually (76 percent) made of sun-baked
adobe bricks. The floors are frequently of brick, cement, or The Family and the Home tile, but 36 percent are of dirt. The dwellings are small as
The family provides both the management of the re- indicated in the next table (1967 survey). sources used in agricultural production and most of the labor used on the farm. Where labor is hired, it is usually Rooms (other than Kitchen) for short periods of peak activity, such as at harvest time in the Farm Home Percent
when there may, in fact, be a shortage of labor in the One which is also the kitchen 1.2
region. Much of this hired labor is offset by members of the One room 43.8
family working off the farm at other periods when labor Two rooms 32.3
needs on the farm are low. Three rooms 14.7
About 77 percent of the farm operators have some Four rooms 5.2
ability to read and write, as shown in the following data Five or more rooms 2.8
from the 1967 survey.
Schooling Percent of Farm Operators
Never attended school: Though most of these families live humbly, many have
Illiterate 22.7 some of the minimum comforts associated with modern
Self-taught, literate 4.3 living as can be seen in the following table (1967 survey).
Attended school for:
I year 10.0 Living Comforts Percent
2 years 17.1
3 years 22.3 Have electric lights 62.9
4 years 9.6 Have radio 59.8
5 years 4.4 Have a sewing machine 45.0
6 years 8.0 Cook with gas, electricity, or fuel oil 28.7
More than 6 years 1.6 Have piped water in home or street 13.1
Average years of schooling: Have television 8.0
All farmers 2.4 Have drainage 6.0
Farmers who attended school 3.2 Have refrigerator 1.6
6




In nearly every case, the family diet depends heavily on LOCAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY home produced food. The poorest families eat practically nothing besides maize and beans with small quantities of The percentages of the cultivated land used for different chiles, onions, and tomatoes for seasoning. Those with crops were estimated from survey data for 1967 and 1970: more resources occasionally consume wheat bread, eggs, Crop Cultivated Area
and meat, and their children drink milk.
The average total family income, estimated from the
information provided by the 251 farmers in the 1967 Maize 69.4
survey, was $666.80. As is shown below, the income came Beans 15.9
fro four main sources: Alf al e c.0
Vegetable crops 3.0
Fruit trees 0.9
Others 5.5
Sources of Family Income Percent
Most of the maize, beans, and fruit trees are produced Net income from crops 30.4 under rainfed conditions. Alfalfa and vegetable crops
Net income from animals 28.4 usually receive supplementary irrigation.
Off-farm wage income 23.7 The important cropping systems under rainfed condiOther non-farm income 17.0 tions in the Puebla area are: (a) maize alone, (b) the
maize-pole bean (Phaseohs vulgaris) association, (c) bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) alone, (d) maize interplanted in orchards, and (e) scarlet runner beans (Phaseolus cocAlthough most of the family income was derived from cineus), known locally as a'vocote. Pumpkin (ctcurbita farming activities, there was some non-farm income, mainly spp.) is interplanted in many of the maize fields with a from domestic, commercial, and industrial employment in population density of 300-1,000 plants/ha. nearby cities. Maize planted alone is the most important crop in the
Project area. The maize-bean association is the second most important cropping system in Zones 1, 11, and IV (see Fig. 1.2). Bush beans is the second most important crop in Zone III. Bush beans and aiocote follow maize in importance in Contact with Ideas from Outside the Community Zone V, yet occupy a small fraction of the total area. Bush
There exists an excellent opportunity for contact with beans is the third most important crop in Zones I, II, and the large urban society outside the villages. Local roads are IV. Maize interplanted in orchards is most common in Zone rough and eroded, but in most cases they are passable I
during the entire year. The local buses are battered with years of wear, but provide a regular and inexpensive means of transportation for both people and produce. Traveling outside the village, however, is not undertaken casually. According to the 1967 survey, only 24 percent of the farmers leave the village at least once a week. Another 14 percent leave every 2 weeks or every month, 43 percent rarely leave the village, and the remaining 19 percent /
reported that they never leave the village.
In spite of limited physical mobility, there is contact
with ideas from outside the villages, principally through
radio, as suggested by the following data from the 1967 survey. VA
Percent of farmers ,
Have a radio 59.8 J
Listen to it daily 50.2
Listen to a farm program 21.9
Have a television set 7.9 The staple food of the rural families in the Puebla area. as
See TV at home or elsewhere in the rest of Mexico, is maize. It is eaten mainly in the
at least once per week 12.4 form of a thin bread or tortilla. The average annual conRead farm magazines regularly 1.6 sumption of maize per person in the Puebla area is about
Read newspapers regularly 7.9 250 kilos.
7




The local production technology for these crops is the The length of the growing season of beans tends to be product of centuries of interaction among the farmers, their correlated with the growth habit and the size, form, color, environment, and external influences. There is solid evi- and flavor of the grain. Beans with a long growing season dence that primitive wild maize was domesticated as long have an indeterminate growth habit (pole beans), large as 7,000 years ago in the highland region of which the grains, light colors, and a flavor preferred by most conProject area is a part. When the Spanish conquerors arrived sumers. Beans with a shorter growing cycle have a deterat Cholula (near the center of the Project area) they found inate growth habit (bush beans), smaller grain, and a less the inhabitants cultivating maize. The historian Bernal Diaz popular flavor. (The yielding potential of the maize-pole del Castillo reports that the farmers in the valley of Mexico bean association is suggested by the results from a later at the time of the conquest were using human excrement field trial in which the association receiving both chemical and fish bones to fertilize maize. It is probable that knowl- fertilizers and chicken manure produced 4.5 tons of maize edge of these practices extended to the nearby Puebla and 3.0 tons of beans per hectare). valley. Little is known at present about local production technology for ay'ocotc and pumpkin. The experimental study
.Genetic Resources of the maize-pumpkin association was not undertaken until
1973.
Great phenotypical diversity is evident in the local
varieties of maize, bush beans, pole beans, and pumpkin. Production Practices Most of the local maize varieties belong to the Chalquefto
race. For early plantings in March and April, farmers use Most farmers manage their soils so that moisture present late-maturing varieties that flower in 100-120 days and in the profile at harvest time is conserved through the require about 180 days to reach physiological maturity, winter months; thus maize can be planted in March and These early plantings usually experience some moisture April, some 2 months before the rainy season begins. Farmstress during the first 2 or 3 months, but have adequate ers cut and shock their maize as soon as it reaches physmoisture during the rest of the growing season. The late iological maturity; they then plow immediately and smooth varieties are generally high-yielding; yields of 10 ton/ha of the surface with a wooden plank. This operation is usually grain have been reported in field trials, done in October and repeated in February or March. Maize
planted in these soils with residual moisture usually suffers
Farmers use early-maturing varieties with a biological frmdohtboetesu eraiseinTisosue
cycle of about 130 days for late plantings in June. These frmdoghbeoetesm rran bginhsmitr
varieties flower in 75-90 days after planting. Typical stress slows down or stops vegetative growth, but other
envionmnta coditins urig te erly rowh sage of physiological processes continue. As soon as the rains begin, laevnirnmenta coditionsradurigtes ealyw lgoth inesteso the maize continues its vegetative development. If drought late pluantig armooltprtures, ilowlihteintensitiesrl is not too prolonged, the maize has sufficient time to andtesil abudnmoistue he yhto ltaied otialofeal produce large plants and a good yield. By preparing their
varitie is nlyabou haf tat o lae vaietesland in this manner, farmers (under rainfe~d conditions) are
In addition to this relationship between earliness and able to use late varieties that require 180 days to reach yielding potential, the length of the growing cycle of maize maturity in an area where the period with rainfall and varieties tends to be correlated with the height of the without critical frosts lasts only 140 days. plants, shape, texture, and color of the grain, and (prob- Farmers who plant with residual moisture understand ably) tolerance to early drought. Late-maturing varieties are that agronomic risk in their plantings is due primarily to about 3 meters tall and have grain that is usually dented, drought during the period between planting and the beginhard, and light-colored. Early-maturing varieties are about 2 ning of the rainy season and to the midsummer or intrameters tall and produce large kernels that are usually floury estival drought (usually between July 15 and August 15). and dark-colored (red or blue). Those who plant early are betting that drought during the
Maize varieties with an intermediate growing season also period before the rains begin will not be severe; they stand are available in the area for May plantings. Most native to gain a high yield if early drought is slight. Farmers who varieties are susceptible to lodgi ng when produced under plant late are betting that early drought will be sev'ere; they favorable growing conditions, stand to gain yields less than those produced by early
plantings if early drought is slight-but will produce comData collected in the 1967 survey indicated that 54.6 paratively higher yields if early drought is severe. Thus, percent of the farmers knew about hybrid varieties of planting date is a variable that can be manipulated. The maize. About 15 percent of the farmers had planted hybrid usual practice is for farmers to use a mixed strategy in maize on at least one occasion, but only 0.8 percent of choosing the date of planting; that is, they distribute early them planted a hybrid in 1967. Of the farmers who knew plantings over a period of a month or so. of hybrid maize but had never planted it, 64.2 percent gave Present technology does not provide for the conservaas their reason that hybrids did not outyield their local tion of sufficient moisture during the winter months to varieties, or did so only under irrigation, permit early plantings of maize in. sodic-like soils, heavy
8




soils of Zone V. and soils with a compacted horizon. These method, the soil is turned with a single-moldboard plow, three groups of soils occupy 33 percent of the cultivated the seed is deposited at the bottom of the furrow, and then land in the Project area (Table 1.1.). In addition, some of it is covered by the following passage of the plow. Cultivathe farmers with soils capable of retaining sufficient mois- tions are made with a hoe. Population densities are about ture for early plantings are unable to plant early because 60,000/ha for the first method; 90,000/ha for the a barthey do not employ moisture conservation practices at the becho method. The a barbecho method is commonly used proper time. Furthermore, it is usually not possible to in soils with a high content of pumice in the plow layer, conserve sufficient moisture to permit early maize plantings possibly because of the ease of hand weeding. in soils where maize is interplanted in orchards. These three According to the 1967 survey data, 95.2 percent of the categories account for a sizeable area that is not planted farmers in the Project area knew of chemical fertilizer; 80.1 until the rains begin. Farmers use short-season varieties for percent had used it on at least one occasion; and 69.3 perthese late plantings. In the rare years when rains do not cent had used it in 1967. These farmers in 1967 used an begin until early July, farmers prefer not to plant maize average of 49.3 kg/ha N and 20.3 kg/ha P205. For the because of the frost hazard. According to 1967 survey data, entire cultivated area in 1967, the average amounts were 34 maize plantings for that year were spread over a three kg/ha N and 14 kg/ha P205 Of the farmers applying ferti month period, as shown below. lizers in 1967, 64 percent used the formula 10-8-4, 18 percent used ammonium nitrate or ammonium suifetc, and 15
Date of Planting Percentage of Lane percent used other formulas.
Chemical fertilizers have been used for several years in
Before March 1 3.8 the Puebla area as indicated in the survey data shown next.
March 1-31 34.6
April 1-30 37.4
May 1-31 17.8
After May 31 6.4 In What Year Did You
First Use Chemical Fertilizers? Percentage of Farmers
In their plantings of maize alone or in association, farmers use between 15,000 and 35,000 plants/ha, depending Have never used it 19.9
upon the fetility level of the soil and the amount of ferti- 1967 7.5
lizer to be used. If pole beans are grown with maize, the 1966 7.5
farmers sow sufficient seed on the same date to give a bean 1965 10.4
density of 5,000-20,000 plants/ha. A common rule-of- 1964 6.4
thumb is one bean plant for every two plants of maize. 1963 6.4
Maize plants that have no adjoining bean plant help support 1962 6.0
the weight of the beans and prevent lodging. The distance 1961 2.0
between rows of maize is about 90 cm. 1960 6.8
Farmers use two methods for planting and cultivating 1959 or before 27.1
bush beans: (a) planted in rows 70 cm apart and cultivated
with animal-drawn implements, and (b) planted in rows 50
cm apart, using the method called a barbecho. In this
When the Project began in
" 1967, 95%of the farmers
knew of chemical fertilizer
V and 80 %of them had used it
at least on one occasion. Most
- ,felt that some fertilizer was
needed, but did not know
which elements or how much
-~ ~ to apply.
9




Of the 251 farmers interviewed in 1967, 191 provided ---- N
information on time of applying fertilizers to maize as shown next. Most farmers applied fertilizer only once, at the time of the first cultivation.
Time of Fertilizer Application Percentage of Farmers
At planting 2.6
At first cultivation 63.4
At second cultivation 2.
At both 1st. and 2nd
cultivations9.
Maize planted alone or in association is usually cultivated twice: the first cultivation 30-40 days after planting, and the second cultivation 60-70 days after planting. Farmers take into account the amount of soil moisture, probability of frost, and size of the weeds, in deciding when to make the first cultivation in early plantings of maize using ~ residual moisture. Cultivating is postponed if a frost is7 thought likely. The second cultivation is made after the maize is 60 days old and when the soil is moist to a depth of at least 30 cm. Some weeds are allowed to grow in the maize and are harvested for forage as needed.
Farmers in Zone III practice a 2-year rotation of maize
and bush beans. Chicken manure (5-10 tons/ha) is applied Only 390/ of the farmers sold maize in 1967. Most of this to the maize immediately before the first cultivation. Bush maize was sold to local buyers who picked it up at the farm beans are then grown the following year without fertiliza- home, or it was retailed in the village on market days. The tion. Yields of both maize and beans are relatively high maize was marketed throughout the year, to cover various using this rotation, costs, especially medical care.
It is a common practice in Zones I and V (and to a lesser extent in the rest of the area) for farmers to top the maize plants when the grain is still in the milk stage and to cure Crop production iiiputs-fertilizers, improved seeds, the tops in the field and preserve them as high-quality insecticides, herbicides, etc.-were available to farmers in forage. The rest of the plant is cut and shocked as soon as 1967 through merchants in the principal cities of Puebla, the grain reaches physiological maturity. Later, the ear is San Martin Texmelucan, Huejotzingo, and Cholula. In harvested and the rest of the plant is preserved as forage of addition, there were 42 villages in which a total of 80 store aorers quseit fewn insetide ao d hebiids Fort-on keepers bought fertilizer and resold it at the local level.
perce ofste farer incide 1967 knerofchdemica iot-nsei According to survey data, only 38.8 percent of the farmpercnt f th famer in 967knewof hemcal nseti- ers sold maize in 1967. This maize was marketed throughcides and 22 percent had used them on some occasion, out the year, mainly to cover the costs of medical care.
principally to control insects on beans. About 30 percent of the maize was purchased by the
National Marketing Agency, CONASUPO, at the support price of $75.20/ton. The remainder of the maize was sold to local buyers at the official price or slightly less. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCIES A branch of the National Agricultural Insurance Agency
operated in Puebla in 1967 and provided crop insurance to farmers receiving credit from the official banks. An agency Two official credit banks, the National Agricultural of the National Agricultural Extension Service was located Credit Bank and the National Ejidal Credit Bank, were in the city of Puebla, with one extension agent in San
operating in Puebla in 1967. According to survey data, 6.4 Martin Texmelucan. There was no agricultural experiment percent of the farmers received credit from the Ejidal Bank station, but investigators of the National Agricultural that year and 0.4 percent from the Agricultural Bank. Research Institute occasionally conducted field trials in the
Another 5.2 percent of the farmers obtained credit from Project area. other sources, mainly private lenders. A third official bank, The characteristics of the service agencies, their the National Crop and Animal Production Bank, established activities during 1967-1973, and factors limiting their a branch in Puebla in 1967. effectiveness are discussed in Chapter 7 .
10




PROJECT OPERATIONS, AND COORDINATION:
2 AN OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION This exploration led to a better understanding of the
nature of the problem of increasing maize production in the
The Project area was selected in early 1967 after evalu- Project area. It brought clearly into focus the need for a ating information collected in visits to the area just prior to formal survey to gather more detailed information on the the maize harvest in 1966, reviewing the results from earlier characteristics of the farmer and his family, the production experiments, and studying weather data* from several loca- technology in use at the time, farmers' attitudes toward tions in the region. Members of the CIMMYT staff played a change, etc. As a result, the decision was made to add key role in the initial planning and setting up of operations. socioeconomic evaluation as another component of the
Finacia suportforthe rojct ws aproed i Mach, Project. An evaluation specialist was selected in late 1967, 1967, and a research agronomist and a maize breeder were and the first personal interview survey of the farmers was employed soon afterwards. The first field experiment was made in January and February of 1968. installed on April 18, 1967. Concurrent with the study of the Project area and the
This chapter is designed to highlight program operations farming population, the, coordinator proceeded to conas they evolved from 1967 to 1973, and to briefly describe solidate relationships with the agricultural institutions in the coordinating and staffing functions. Puebla. Interviews were held with the leaders of the different institutions, and they were informed about the
EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT philosophy, objectives, organization, and operation of the
Project. Discussion in these interviews emphasized the
Several agricultural service agencies were operating in the importance of the role of each institution in achieving the Puebla area when the Project was organized, as indicated in goals of the Project. Chapter 1. The role of the Puebla Project, as conceptualized The interviews also allowed the coordinator to become by its planners, was to complement the activities of these familiar with all national, state, and local institutions, as existing agencies by (a) providing those services that were well as private organizations, involved in agricultural devellacking, and (b) coordinating the total effort to assure opment in the area. A study was made of the objectives, adequate and accessible agricultural services for the small organization, and operating procedures of each institution, farmer. and an understanding was sought o f the decision-making
process and the responsibilities of key individuals of the
Project Operations: 1967 different organizations. This knowledge was helpful in
The nfomaton, vaiabl in arl 197 inicaed hat deciding how to proceed in seeking a solution to particular Thi e inf sormaio a ibe inrea rly 1967ci dcatd hat n problem s. aizue yields ie w oul be trgeatl ncsd bysp ors appling The fertilizer and maize breeding experiments were adgequt uant cities, ofd nitrong dd pophoryuin harvested as soon as the maize reached maturity. Then the highe plataesits and confirtyrln wes pnaroperly. results were analyzed and a general recommendation was Thusrc te iephaisy inuthfistadn yaevariasion arndic formulated for producing maize in the area. This recoieerchn topitifyl outtaige mapodie vaties. ardToe mendation called for a fertilizer treatment of 130-40-0, a detramin toptial pancagista outo prciers. The plant density of 50,000/ha, early control of weeds, pogrtpo pnilrvie tecnicalaisc ton famerowa chemical control of high infestations of rose chafer at potone unatile wre liable. m e dto s n mie po flowering, and the use of native maize varieties. ductog patceswerehfo avilabe tcodnto aeu The first Annual M eeting of the Puebla Project was held
Althughthesearh fr aProjct porinatr ws bgun at Puebla in December 1967. Representatives of all agriculin March 1967, four months elapsed before a qualified person tural institutions were invited, and the Project staff exwas found for the position (detailed discussion of the plained the experimental findings and the maize recomncoordinator's role is reserved for following section). On mendation for 1968. joining the Project in August 1967, the coordinator carried
out a general reconnaissance of the area, traveling over most Project Operations: 1968 of the all-weather roads, and observing the technology used
by the farmers in maize production. Farmers were ques- The package of recommended practices for 1968 implied, tioned about their production practices, average yields, three principal changes for the agricultural institutions:. (a) relationships with agricultural institutions, and possible. an increase in the amount of credit per hectare needed fo interest in participating in the Project. purchase fertilizers, (b) substitution of ammonium sulphate
11




At the end of each season,
after results had been evaluated, meetings were held at
which the members of the
Project team presented their
findings and recommendations to representatives of the
agricultural service institutions.
and ordinary superphosphate for the formula, 10-8-4, and The cost of the fertilizer for the high-yield plots could
(c) availability of the credit and fertilizer materials at the have been considered a demonstration cost and paid by the local level in March rather than in May. Project. However, because the plots of 0.25-1.0 ha repThe changes implied by the new recommendation were resented a large portion of the total area in maize of many
discussed individually with representatives of the different farmers, it was decided that free provision of fertilizer institutions. In general, it was found that the institutions would establish a difficult precedent. Also, procedures for accepted the findings of the Project, but were uncertain as obtaining credit required immediate testing, to facilitate to their participation. The three official banks were reluc- channeling of ciedit and fertilizers to more farmers in the tant to introduce changes of the suggested magnitude until area. their value had been demonstrated in a network of com- Two of the official credit banks decided not to provide
mercial plantings. The banks felt their credit programs to credit for the high-yield plots in 1968. The third official farmers were satisfactory. In their view, the changes recoin- bank agreed to finance about 20 percent of the high-yield mended by the Project would present additional risks plots. Another 20 percent of the plantings were financed by
because of the larger amounts of credit required, as well as the farmers. The remaining 60 percent were financed by a a possible loss of prestige should the new technology not private fertilizer distributor, Agr6nomos Unidos, which provide good results. made the fertilizer available on credit at an interest rate of
The crop insurance agency maintained that, after the 11/2 percent/month (these loans were quaraliteed by CIMnew recommendation had been accepted by the credit MYT). A total of 141 plots were provided for, far in excess
banks and their clients, the farms using the recommenda- of the 100 plots originally planned. tions could qualify for insurance. This agency, however, Field personnel of the credit banks provided suggestions
had rigid operating procedures that did not permit coverage for locating farmers to cooperate in the Project in 1967 and for individual small farmers. Again, change was necessary if early 1968. In conducting the socioecor,omic survey in the crop insurance agency were to participate; these early 1968, however, the evaluation team encountered
changes required the presentation of proposals to higher negative reaction, and sometimes open hostility, from the authorities and favorable action at that level, farmers in several villages. This experience, plus other obserThe Project plans drafted in early 1968 called for a vations in the area, strongly indicated that contact should
continuation of research on maize improvement and agron- be made directly with the local authorities of each comomic practices, and the initiation of the program of tech- munity. The coordinator proceeded to establish contact nical assistance to farmers. The assistance program was to with each village in the area and to hold meetings to explain consist of approximately 100 "high-yield" plots of 0.25-1.0 the objectives and operation of the Project and assess the ha. The farmers owning these plots would use Project interest of the farmers.
recommendations, and they would be supervised by a tech- The experimental plantings and the high-yield plots were
nical assistance agent who had been added to the Project used as demonstrations of the importance of the improved staff in early 1968. The experiments and high-yield plots production practices from the time the maize began to were limited to the western two-thirds of the Project area flower until harvest. Throughout this period, field days were (known later as Zones I through IV) in order to concentrate held for representatives of the agricultural institutions and the efforts of the available staff, for groups of farmers. The field days for institutions had
12




two principal objectives: (a) to convince the leaders of the fourths of the area would be divided into four zones (see institutions that recommendations, based on the field Fig. 1.2), and a technical assistance agent would be assigned
experiments, represented the most reliable information to each zone; and (c) a coordinated effort would be made
available for increasing yields, and (b) to acquaint these to enlist 5,000 farmers to use Project recommendations on
leaders with the capability of the Project staff. The field 10,000 ha of maize. days for farmers sought to demonstrate the results they The decision to promote the use of Project recommendacould expect through use of the recommended practices. tions so extensively in 1969 was made after careful study
During 1968, audio-visual materials were prepared, using and discussion by the Project staff and state representatives the results obtained in 1967 and the experimental plantings of national agricultural institutions. Expansion of the proand high-yield plots. These were prepared specifically for gram to reach 10,000 ha of maize would require credit
use iii reaching large numbers of farmers in subsequent needed for fertilizer alone amounting to about $560,000.
years. Discussions with the different institutions led to the proJust prior to harvest in 1968, the evaluation specialist posal that the National Ejidal Credit Bank would finance determined grain yields of the high-yield plots and of a 2,000 ha, the National Agricultural Credit Bank 1,500 ha,
sample of farmers' plantings Experimental plantings were the Agricultural Bank of the South 1,500 ha, and that the
harvested in October and November, the data were anal- Impulsora de Puebla, through its subdistributor, Agr6noyzed, and new maize recommendations were proposed. The mos Unidos, would finance 5,000 ha. This proposal was
Second Annual Meeting was held in December 1968, to approved at the national level.
inform representatives of the agricultural institutions of the The plan to reach 5,000 farmers in 1969 implied a accomplishments during the year. drastic change in operating procedures of the technical
By the end of 1968, several findings were clear: (a) assistance agents. In 1968, one technical assistance agent,
large increases in maize yields could be obtained through- assisted by the evaluation specialist, had given individual out the Project area; (b) after seeing the results of agronomic attention to 103 farmers. In 1969, four agents would have research, the technical assistance to farmers, and the evalua- to assist up to 5,000 farmers. Such assistance seemed postions, representatives of the agricultural institutions were sible only if the farmers organized into groups, convinced of the value of Project recommendations; (c) the The four technical assistance agents launched a program
farmers who had cooperated with a part of their land in to inform the farmers in the area about the maize recomhigh-yield plots were prepared to assist other farmers in mendations, and to assist them in organizing into groups
using the new technology; and (d) the Project staff, farm- and arranging for credit and fertilizers. The field personnel
ers, and agricultural agencies could be effectively coordi- of the credit banks, the National Marketing Agency, and nated in working to achieve the goals of the Project. the crop insurance agency, assisted in this work. In their
relationships with the farmers, the technical assistance
Project Operations: 1969 agents made sure that arrangements for credit and fertilizers
Plans for 1969 called for three major modifications in were always made between the credit institutions and the
the operation of the Project: (a) research activities would leaders of the farmer groups. Thus, the responsibility for be extended to cover the entire area; (b) the western three- procuring credit and fertilizers remained with the individual farmer or the group leader.
K During the cropping season,
field days were held for farmers and representatives of the
agricultural institutions. Here
the Minister of Agriculture,
the Governor of Puebla and
other dignitaries listen to an
explanation of the agronomic
research program.
13




Perhaps the most crucial period in the development of mainly in two activities: (a) the training of professional
the Project was in early 1969. Although the specific func- staff for new programs in the philosophy, organization, and
tions of the Project staff and participating institutions were operation of the Puebla Project (refer to Chapter 12); and defined well in advance of planting, the task remained of (b) technical assistance to the staff of new programs in
coordinating all activities so that the farmers would have organization and agronomic research. A group of techfertilizers when needed. The correct fertilizer materials had nicians from Colombia and Mexico were in training in Pueto be ordered early, freight cars had to be available to trans- bla during the second half of 1970. Project advisors traveled port the material to Puebla, the shipments had to be to Colombia and Peru on several occasions during the year
received by the distributors and dispatched to subdistri- to assist in planning and organizing programs in those
butors, and the farmers had to arrange for credit so they countries.
could pick up their fertilizers when needed. Problems Project staff and advisors participated in two internadeveloped at all points in this chain of events, and continu- tional conferences held in Puebla in August 1970, to discuss ous contact by the coordinator and a clear understanding of strategies for increasing agricultural production on small the operation of each institution provided the means to holdings. These conferences (English spoken at one,
reduce delays to a minimum and- to avoid the loss of Spanish at the other) drew participants from 15 Latin
prospective cooperators. American countries and 15 international development
A total of 2,561 farmers, organized in 128 groups, were organizations. I
assisted in using Project recommendations on 5,838 ha. Demonstrations at harvest time, estimations of yield,
Although the 'total fell short of the stated goal for 1969, and adjustment of maize recommendations were conducted some 5.4 percent of the farmers in the area did begin using as in previous years. In addition, recommendations for the the new technology that year. production of bush beans were formulated for parts of the
During the fall of 1969, regional demonstrations were Project area. The Fourth Annual Meeting was held in midheld at six locations in the area. The average maize yields of February 1971. organized farmers and all farmers in the area were estimated, agronomic trials were harvested, and the maize Project Operations: 1971
recommendations were refined. The Third Annual Meeting The operation of the Project in 1971 was similar to
was held in early January 1970, attended by political
leaders, representatives of agricultural institutions, farmers, 1970, with one principal difference: a second personal and Project staff. interview survey was conducted during the summer of 1971
to collect data for evaluating social and economic changes
in the Project area. Interviews were made of a sample of all
Project Operations: 1970 farmers in the area and a second sample of those farmers on
credit lists.
The technical assistance agents broadened their activities
A principal addition to the Project in 1970 was the in response to the requests from the farmers for assistance
initiation of technical assistance to farmers in Zone V (Fig. in improving other agricultural activities. Short courses for 1,2), A fifth technical assistance agent was assigned to this farmers on the management of orchards were given, with zone. the participation of specialists from other institutions.
The main thrust of the technical assistance program in Demonstrations were held to instruct farmers in the use of
1970 was to increase the use of Project recommendations small trench silos for preserving maize stover as silage.
by (a) informing farmers of the new technology through Several groups were assisted in arranging for long-term loans
village meetings and mass communications media, and (b) to finance the drilling of wells, or for purchase of farm'
assisting in the formation of new groups and in helping machinery.
organized farmers arrange for credit and fertilizers, A Technicians from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Mexico
special effort was made to increase the participation of the were trained in Puebla during 1971'. Project staff and public credit banks by counseling new groups to seek advisors provided technical assistance to regional producfinancing from these sources, and by assisting the groups in tion programs in Colombia, Peru, Honduras, and the States making the necessary arrangements. of Mexico and Tlaxcala in Mexico.
The agronomic research program was expanded in 1970 The Fifth Annual Meeting was held in Puebla in midto include studies on the production of beans and alterna- February 1972.
tive crops for late plantings. The investigations of the
production of these crops were made in response to re- Project Operations: 1972
quests from many of the farmer groups that had used the
maize recommendations the previous year.
In early 1970, CIMMYT signed an agreement with the In early 1972, the maize breeding component of the
United Nations Development Program that led to the par- Puebla Project was discontinued. Progress in developing
ticioation of the Puebla Project and its advisors in the higher-yielding varieties had been slow (refer to Chapter 4).
development of similar programs in other areas (refer to Moreover, the maize breeders in'CIMMYT felt that this
Chapter 13). The Project and its advisors participated type of research could best be done at a research center
14




with ecological conditions similar to the Project area. national fertilizer agency, Guanos y Fertilizantes, introVarietal testing continued and became a part of the agron- duced the idea of finding a way to enable small, traditional omic research program. farmers to use agua ammonia. The agency provided the
Results obtained in preliminary studies of the maize-pole agua ammonia, a source of phosphorus, applicators, credit,
bean association in 1970 and 1971 indicated that net and technical assistance. The Project technical assistance income might be greater with the combination of crops agents informed the farmers of the availability of credit for than with either maize or bush beans alone. Research was these fertilizers and assisted interested farmers in organizing
intensified on management practices for this association, to and in arranging for and applying the materials."
develop recommendations for its use. During the second half of 1973, the technical assistance
The effort to achieve a closer coordination of the activi- agents, after months of discussions about how to work more
ties of the farmers, agricultural institutions, and Project effectively with farmer organizations, began to work more staff in previous years had disclosed problems that required intensively with selected groups. A series of meetings was changes in the operating procedures of institutions. At held in which the farmers and the technical assistance agent times, through a careful exposition of the problem to the explored operations that could increase net income of the indicated institution, it had been possible to reach a sat- farmers. From these discussions, it could usually be agreed isfactory solution. In other cases, however, little or no that one activity should be given priority. A committee was progress had been made. It became clear from these experi- elected by the farmers to study how to proceed on the ences that a more detailed study was needed of the operat- priority undertaking. The technical assistance agent proing procedures of the agricultural institutions and of the vided information and guidance to these groups, but rereasons farmers have difficulty in using their services. Such sponsibiity for group action remained with the farmers.
aother iras ingde concr n of hePrjet taf asho A second seminar on rural development, with financial
Anoherinceasng oncrn f te Pojet saffwashow support from IDRC, was held at Chapingo, Mexico, in to develop the capacity of the farmer organizations to September 1973. The staff and advisors of the Puebla participate more actively in seeking solutions to their Project participated in the organization of the seminar and
production problems. In mid-1972, arrangements were intecfrnesadwkssio,
made to contract the services of a sociologist with years of In er17,the of rene n okc sssion disregnt
experience with farmer organizations, who would provide Inploearl 1973, plthealProject staf andsat advior bealt techica assstace o th Prjec staf i serchig fr a governmen ts, means for continuing the Puebla Project after more effective way of working with the farmer groups. CIMMYT had terminated its participation. Discussions and
CIMMYT decided in early 1972 to terminatc its partic- study at several levels proceeded during the year, and
ipation in the Puebla Project at the end of 1973. The shortly before the end of 1973, the Ministry of Agriculture Project had begun in 1967 as an experiment to learn .how to decided to continue the Project as an activity of the rapidly increase maize production among small, low-income Graduate College at Chapingo. Present expectations are that farmers. As the Project evolved, however, it became clear the Project will become a part of a new national program to
that the Project's objectives would shift to more efficient ices giutrlpouto nrifdaeso h
strategies for increasing production, net income, and the ionraearcluayrdcio.nrifdaeso h
general welfare of small farmers in rainfed areas. CIMMYT cuty
felt that its mandate was not broad enough to encompass all the activities that clearly should be incorporated in so extensive an undertaking. This position was made known to the Governor of Puebla and the Secretary of Agriculture, making clear CIMMYT's reasons for withdrawing support, as well as the conviction that the Project should continue.
A seminar on rural development was held in Bogota,
Colombia, in Sept~mber 1972, with the participation of representatives of the Puebla Project and similar programs in Colombia, Honduras, Peru, and Mexico. The Interna-tional Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada
* took the initiative in organizing the seminar and provided
financial support.
The Sixth Annual Meeting was held in Puebla in March
1973.
Project Operations: 1973
The program of technical assistance to farmers was,
broadened in 1973 to include promotion of the use of: (a) a new technology for the maize-pole bean association, and (b) agua ammonia as a source of nitrogen for maize. The
15




COORDINATION PROJECT PERSONNEL
The coordinator has been the central figure in the From the beginning it was recognized-that the quality of
operation of the Puebla Project. His function has been that the Project staff would be the most important factor in of coordinating activities of the farmers, agricultural institu- assuring the success of the undertaking. Screening procetions, and Project staff so as to enable small farmers to dures were followed which, hopefully, would assure the attain higher levels of production and net income. In prac- selection of the best candidates available. tice, his responsibilities have included three distinct (but The Project sought to provide working conditions and closely related) activities: (a) -administration of the pro- opportunities that would enable its staff to work hargram, (b) direction of the program, and (c) acquisition and moniously and effectively and to advance professionally maintenance of the full support of the agricultural institu- through (a) salaries and perquisites that were competitive tions. with other employment opportunities; (b) opportune availThe Project coordinator made- most of the decisions ability of the, necessities for getting the job done (adequate
affecting the administration of the Project. He was responsi- operating expenses for vehicles, prompt purchase of ble for locating candidates for staff positions, evaluating equipment and supplies, revolving funds for the purchase of their qualifications, and deciding whom should be hired. He small items, prompt repair of vehicles and equipment, etc.); recommended salary levels and perquisites for Project staff, (c) encouragement to use initiative and be innovative (the the purchase of vehicles and equipment, budget changes, staff could not be provided with an operations manual that
etc. He approved the local expenditure of funds for day would cover every exigency that might arise; thus, the team
laborers, supplies, gasoline, vehicle maintenance, etc. members were encouraged to work out their own solutions
The coordinator directed the activities of the Project when confronted with new problems and to seek advice staff in the: (a) preparation of operational plans, (b) from other staff and advisors as soon thereafter as possible);
execution of these plans, and (c) the summarizing and and (d) opportunities for advancement (outstanding team
reporting of accomplishments. Each program presented its members were given the opportunity to advance both in
plans for the yearat meetings of staff and advisors that salary and in professional position; also, staff members were generally held in January. The plans were discussed, interested in continuing their academic preparation were modified and finally approved. Weekly meetings were held assisted in doing so, after 2 to 3 years with the Project).
throughout the year to discuss progress and problems of the Because of the Project policy encouraging its staff memstaff, Adjustments in operational plans, as a result of new bers to continue their academic training, plus the availinformation, were made at these meetings. Important ability of other job opportunities, especially in regional
matters affecting the operation of the Project were discus- production programs in other parts of Mexico, there were sed fully at the weekly meetings before a decision was made frequent changes, in Project personnel. Figure 2,1 shows by the coordinator. The coordinator maintained contact diagrammatically the periods of employment of profeswith the field work by accompanying the members of the sional staff during the period 1967-1973. The shortest
staff, as time permitted, in their daily activities. At the end period of service was one cropping season; the longest of the year, the coordinator worked with the staff members service was,6 years and 4 months. in analyzing, evaluating, and reporting the results of their When possible, new staff members were hired I to 3 programs. months before the resignation of the person they would
A large part of the coordinator's time was dedicated to replace. Thus, it was possible for the departing staff memwork with the agricultural institutions. Initially he was ber to relay to the replacement much of the knowledge that involved in informing the institutions of the philosophy, had been gained of the area, farmers, and institutions. Also, objectives, and plans of the Project, and becoming familiar many departing staff members entered the Graduate Colwith thqir operating procedures. Then, as information lege at Chapingo and continued to be available for advice
flowed in from the field work, much of this data had to be and information. communicated to the institutions. For 2 or 3 months after The lines in Figure 2.1 show that there were 35 periods
harvest, the coordinator was in almost constant contact of employment in the Project. However, one staff member
with representatives of the institutions, explaining the plan served both in evaluation and coordination, and a second in of operations for the following season and working to both evaluation and technical assistance; thus, there was a
obtain their approval and support. When a problem arose total of 33 staff members during the 7-year period. The
due to the operating procedures of an institution, informa- total number of man-years of professional time varied from tion about the problem was prepared by the Project staff 2.2 in 1967 to 123 in 1971.
and communicated by the coordinator to the responsible Beginning in 1967, young farmers in the Project area
people. Generally this was followed by a series or meetings were hired to assist in the field activities. Initially they were and the gathering of additional data until a decision could hired as day laborers, but some of them were given permabe made, nent employment after a period of training and selection,
16




During 1967-1970, about 15 outstanding farmers were Project at the beginning of each year, (c) defining appropriselected as permanent field assistants. Other farmers were ate methodological procedures, (d) resolving problems that hired as day laborers during the planting and harvesting have obstructed progress, (e) analysing and interpreting
seasons. As an average for the 1967-1973 period, the research findings, etc. In addition, the advisors have
Project used approximately 25 man-years of the time of complemented the activities of the Project staff by: (a)
these employees. anticipating Project growth and requesting funds needed for
expansion; (b) giving wide distribution to Project findings
CONSULTING SERVICES through personal contacts, publications, and conferences;
(c) projecting the Puebla approach to other areas in
Specialists in agronomic research, maize breeding, and Mexico and Latin America by obtaining funds for travel, communications, at CIMMYT and the Graduate College at fellowships, equipment, etc.; (d) informing agricultural and
Chapingo, served as advisors to the Puebla Project. They political leaders of the Puebla experience; (e) planning and
drafted the original Project proposal, arranged for funding, participating in a training facility at Puebla; and (f) providselected the Project area, made the necessary arrangements ing assistance in the organization and operation of new with local institutions, prepared operational plans for 1967, programs. and employed the first members of the Project team. The total time provided by the advisors in direct asDuring the course of the Project, the advisors haie as- sistance in organizing and operating the Puebla Project sisted the Project staff in: (a) evaluating and modifying averaged approximately 172 man-days per year for the operational strategies, (b) preparing detailed plans for the 1967-1973 period.
Fig. 2. 1. Periods of employment of professional staff in the five programs of the Puebla Project. Each line represents the period of employment of a staff member.
PROGRAM 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
AGRONOMIC RESEARCH
MAIZE BREEDING
COORDINATION
EVALUATION
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS 2.2 6.0 10.8 10.2 12.3 9.9 10.5
17




Field experiments were closely supervised during the crop growing season, and observations on factors affecting yield were made periodically. Here the height of unfertilized maize plants is being measured. To the right is a plot showing a strong nitrogen response.
I15
-i44
18




3 AGRONOMIC RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION the physical environment was limited, and field experiments were distributed fairly evenly over the area. In 1969
Crop production on a given area depends on several and afterward, two or more producing systems were recogfactors, including soil and climatic conditions, plant variety, nized in the area, and the experiments were located to and production practices. The physical environment cannot sample these systems. (Note that a producing system is be changed readily and thus determines the yield potential defined as a part of a production universe in which 'the of a region. Varietal characteristics and management prac- -uncontrollable production factors for A crop are reasonably tice, hwevr, re oreeasly mniplatd, nd mprve- constant. These factors include: soil morphology, geomorment of these factors can provide higher yields and net phd ga lmtetrvouerpada.tms)patn income. Thus, agronomic research in the Puebla Project was De.) goIwn saoobevtos eemd
designed to provide information on soil management prac- uriiaong the rowin sleasn, obsra utions weremade, tices and varieties that would produce higher returns for the proial ntefcosifunigpouto tec
farmers' production investments. experimental site. The trials were harvested, data analyzed,
and results expressed as treatment means or production
GENERAL STRATEGY functions. Data on crop response to rates of fertilization
and plant density were expressed both as mathematical
Production practices that can greatly influence crop functions and as two-dimensional graphs, for greater ceryields in rainfed areas include: land preparation; planting -tainty and ease of interpretation. date; seeding rate; amount and kind of fertilizers applied; In 1967, the information available from the National time and method of applying the fertilizers; control Agricultural Research Institute was taken as a first approximeasures for weeds, insects, rodents, and diseases; and mation to the recommendations on crop production depth of plowing. As a first step in developing better practices for the Puebla area. (The recommendation for information on these agronomic practices, the Project rainfed maize in Puebla was: fertilize with 80 kg N and 40 sought to gather as much information as possible on farm- kg P205/ha, use the hybrid H-28 with 40,000 plants/ha, ers' production practices, soil and climatic characteristics, and plant at the beginning of the rainy season.) Data coland the experiences of other researchers in the area. This lected in 1967 were used to revise the existing recoininformation was gained by interviewing farmers and agron- mendations on maize production and to calculate a second omists residing in the area, by reviewing the research find- approximation to the recommended practices. The data ings of the National Agricultural Research Institute, by collected in subsequent years were used to generate third, analyzing the available climatic data, and by studying the fourth, fifth, etc., approximations. properties of the soils in the area. Through this process an Beginning in 1969, maize recommendations were forunderstanding was obtained *of the physical environment mulated for distinct producing systems. All available inforand the traditional technology of the farmers, as presented mation on climatic variability and prices for maize and in Chapter 1. inputs was taken into account in estimating the optimal
A list of technological questions to be investigated was levels of practices. Recommendations were made after prepared and arranged in or 'der -of priority by taking the carefully weighing: (a) the precision of the available inforinformation available at the beginning of a given cropping mation on the relationship between yield and the producseason and estimating: (a) probable deficiencies in existing tion factors, (b) the marginal productivity of the factors in technology, (b) probable improvements that could be made question, and (c) the risle~involved in making recommendaeconomically, (c) which improvements would most likely tions that might not be appropriate for the farmer. provide the largest increases in yield and net income, and The remainder of this chapter describes the agronomic
(d) which of these aspects of the technology should- be research in the Puebla area in each year, 1967-1973. A final investigated in the Puebla area. section seeks to evaluate the adequacy of the maize techNext field experimentsi were carried out to answer ques- nology and to estimate the potential benefits of the imtions of highest priority. The ecological diversity of the area proved technology, as compared with technology existing was taken into account in planning the research and in in 1967. Appendix A provides a benefit: cost analysis of locating the field trials. In 1967 and 1968, information on the agronomic research program in the Project.
19




emergence, and (c) high-yielding local varieties were available for use in the experiments.
A field experiment was designed and installed at 23
FIELD RESEARCH IN 1967 locations distributed throughout the Project area. TreatInformation available at the beginning of 1967 indicated ments were used to measure the response of maize to levels that maize production was the major agricultural activity in of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. The criteria of the the Project area, accounting for the greater part of the avail- cooperating farmers were used in deciding land preparation able land, labor, and capital. Preliminary findings suggested practices, the date and method of planting, and times of that maize yields could be increased substantially under cultivating each experimental site.
most farming conditions by: (a) increasing the rate of The field trials were begun between April 18 and May
fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus, (b) using higher 11. A composite soil sample was collected at each site. Rain plant densities, and (c) using better weed and insect control gauges were installed near each experiment and arrangemeasures. There was evidence that fertilization with potas- ments made for the cooperating farmers to maintain a sium, although a common practice, was not contributing to record of daily rainfall. The experiments were visited
regularly during the growing season and data were collected
higher yields. on: (a) dates of all farming operations; (b) phonological
Based on existing knowledge, the initial reasoning was dates; (c) vegetative response to treatments; and (d) damage
that optimal levels of fertilization with nitrogen and phos- due to drought, hail, frosts, lodging, excess water, weed and phorus would be greatly influenced by local conditions, insect infestations, and diseases. A pit was dug at each
thus should receive priority in the field research program in experimental site and a description was made of the soil 1967. It was also concluded that optimum levels of factors profile. such as time and method of applying fertilizers, plant den- The experiments were harvested between October 6 and
sity, genotype, and plant protection, which are generally 25. The ears were harvested from the center rows of each less affected by local variations in soils and climate, could plot, weighed, and the moisture content of the grain was be estimated a priori from experiences gained in similar determined. Observations were made on the percentage of
regions. rotten kernels, the pollination percentage, and the shelling
Thus, two hypotheses tested initially were: (a) produc- percentage. tion of rained maize in most of the area was being limited
by the rates of nitrogen and phosphorus commonly used by Results: 1967
farmers, and (b) fertilizing with potassium or zinc did not
increase maize yields. In designing the experiments to test The data collected during the growing season on factors
these hypotheses it was assumed that: (a) a population influencing maize development were summarized for four
density of 50,000 plants/ha would be near optimal for the distinct parts of the growth cycle: (a) from planting to 45 higher levels of fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus days prior to flowering, (b) the 45 days preceding flowerthat were thought to be needed, (b) the maize plantings ing, (c) the 45 days after flowering, and (d) the period from
should be kept free of weeds for the first 60 days after the 46th dav after flowering to physiological maturity.
Field experiments were con7,1 ducted in cooperation with
farmers at sites carefully
selected to sample the varia
tion in soils, climate and past
management existing in the
area. Here bags with different
V fertilizer treatments are being
placed in the experimental
piotsjust prior to application.
20




0
As soon as the maize reached
maturity, the ears were harvested from the experimental plots, weighed. and grain sampies were taken to determine
the moisture content. The
yield data from the field ex-I
periments were analyzed,.
interpreted, and used to de- ..
velop new recommendations
on crop production practices._The growth cycle was subdivided in this way because the were calculated for each experiment corresponding to the magnitude of the effect of most factors on maize yields has estimated optimal rates of nitrogen and phosphorus; these been shown to depend on the stage of development of the varied between 2,128 and 7,068 kg/ha grain, with an averplant at the time the damage occurs. The effect of drought, age of 4,137 kg/ha. The average yield without fertilizer in for example, is greatest when it occurs during the second or the 23 experiments was 1,326 kg/ha. Thus, the average third parts of the growing period. (Throughout this chapter, increase in yield produced by the estimated optimal levels data are presented for these four parts of the growth cycle of fertilization was 2,811 kg/ha. in their successive order, from planting through physiolog- Results of the 1967 experiments were used to arrive at a ical maturity.) second approximation to the recommended package of
For the 23 experiments conducted in 1967, on the aver- production practices for maize. Because a decision had been age there were 0, 7.3, 6.4, and 0.1 days with visible wilting made to limit promotional activities in 1968 and 1969 to during the first, second, third, and fourth parts of the Zones I through IV, however, a second approximation was growing period, respectively. The highest frequency of derived specifically for that portion of the Project area (see drought occurred precisely in the two periods when maize Figure 1.1). Fifteen of the experiments conducted in 1967 is most susceptible to damage. In general, there was little had been located in Zones I through IV. The optimal rates damage due to hail, high winds, and frost. of nitrogen for these 15 experiments varied from 60 to 221
Maize yields were increased significantly by the applica- kg/ha, with an average of 128 kg/ha. The optimal rates of tion of nitrogen and phosphorus in 21 of the 23 experi- phosphorus for the same experiments varied from 0 to 128 ments. Fertilizers did not increase yields in one experiment kg/ha, P,05, with an average of 37 kg/ha. where the soil was naturally very fertile, nor at a second Two conditions suggested that the recommended levels location where drought was severe and a poorly adapted of nitrogen and phosphorus should probably be slightly variety was used. greater than the average optimal levels calculated from the
Average treatment yields in each experiment were used 1967 results: (a) historical rainfall data and information to calculate a quadratic equation with maize yield ex- from farmers indicated that drought during the flowering pressed as a function of rates of nitrogen and phosphorus. period of the maize crop (July and August) had been These equations were used to estimate the optimal rates of unusually severe in 1967 it was probable that, in most fertilizer for each experiment. The partial derivatives of years, reductions in yield due to drought would be less than yield with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus were equated those observed in 1967; and (b) one of the varieties used in to the ratio of the cost of the corresponding fertilizer to the the experiments seemed poorly adapted in two locations-price of the maize. This resulted in two equations in two responses to fertilization at those sites would probably have unknowns whose simultaneous solution gave the optimal been greater with a better-adapted variety. rates of nitrogen and phosphorus for each experiment. It was decided, therefore, to recommend 130 kg/ha N
The estimated optimal rates of nitrogen in the 23 experi- plus 40 kg/ha P205 for maize plantings in Zones I through ments varied from 0 to 221 kg/ha, with an average of 109 IV in 1968. One-tenth of the nitrogen and all the phoskg/ha. Optimal rates of phosphorus varied from 0 to 128 kg phorus were to be applied at planting time; the rest of the P2 05 /ha, with an average of 30 kg/ha. The maize yields nitrogen was to be applied just before the second cultiva21




tion. A population density of 50,000 plants/ha was to be used, and the plantings were to be kept free of weeds during the 60 days following emergence. FIELD RESEARCH IN 1968 AND 1969
It was estimated that this revised recommendation
would produce an average increase in yield of 3,066 kg/ha. The experiments in 1967 suggested that under unfavorEstimated costs of this package of practices, mainly fertiliz- able conditions (severe drought, shallow soils), the populaer costs, were equivalent in value to 1,795 kg/ha maize. The tion density of 50,000 plants per hectare was probably too expected average net increase in grain production was 1,271 high. For certain favorable production conditions (little or kg/ha. Two additional sources of income would be associ- no drought, deep soils) the same plant density appeared to
ated with the use of the recommendation: (a) yields of be too low. Thus, it was decided to study levels of plant
stover would be increased proportionately to that of grain density along with levels of nitrogen and phosphorus.
and could be sold or used on the farm; and (b) the higher It was also decided that experimental verification was
labor requirements for applying fertilizers, harvesting, and needed for the hypothesis that significant amounts of shelling the maize would increase family employment and moisture were conserved by fall plowing.
family income. Observations of the traditional land preparation pracThe soil samples collected at the 23 experimental sites tices of the farmers during the winter of 1967-1968 led the
were analyzed for nitrifiable nitrogen and available phos- research staff to question the effectiveness of these pracphorus. The experiments were divided into four groups, tices for several reasons: (a) there is little weed growth
depending on whether the levels of nitrifiable nitrogen and during the winter, thus little moisture should be lost, even available phosphorus were less than, or greater than, 10 without plowing; (b) February and March are windy
parts per million parts of soil (ppm). The value of 10 ppm months, and leaving the surface bare might foster wind
was selected arbitrarily, to permit a comparison of soil test erosion; and (c) the organic matter contents of the soils are levels and average optimal rates of nitrogen and phos- very low, and plowing the soil would tend to accelerate the
phorus. The average optimal levels of nitrogen and phos- mineralization of the organic matter.
phorus for the experiments in each group are shown in Another question arose in 1967 about the way farmers
Table 3.1. made their last cultivation. Most farmers cultivated very
deeply with a double moldboard plow and pruned many of TABLE 3.1. The average optimal fertilizer rates for soils the lateral maize roots. This also seemed to be a factor for
containing different amounts of nitrifiable nitrogen and local study.
available phosphorus.
Available Weighted
phosphorus average
(ppm) N rate
(Bray P1 Method)
<10 v10
Nitrifiable < 10 141-49(10)* 130-9 (5) 137
nitrogen
(ppm) > 10 90-37(2) 44-12(6) 55 .
Weighted '"
average 47 10 .
P20rate F .
* The first number is the average optimal rate of nitrogen, the second is .- ,.
the average optimal rate of P205, and the third, in parenthesis, is the T .
number of experiments corresponding to the group. V
The average optimal rates of nitrogen were 137 kg/ha for '%*.r,. ,- ... ..
soils containing less than 10 ppm of nitrifiable nitrogen and : .
55 kg/ha for soils containing more than 10 ppm. The aver- :
age optimal rates of P205 were: 47 kg/ha for soils contain- , ..-.
ing less than 10 ppm of available phosphorus; and 10 kg/ha %
for soils containing more than 10 ppm. This promising '( -" 'U
relationship between optimal rates of fertilization and levels,. .
of available soil nutrients prompted the staff and consultants of the Puebla Project to explore the possibility of using soil analyses as an aid in determining fertilizer recommenda- Experiments on farmers' fields were used to obtain infortions for Puebla farmers. Unfortunately, it was not possible mation on rates of fertilization, time on applying nitrogen to provide an efficient soil testing service for the farmers, and phosphorus, dates of planting, methods of land prepaand the Puebla Project was not able to make use of this ration, residual effects of fertilizers and manures, and other
resource. production practices.
22




Deep, volcanic ash soils occupy about two-thirds of the
project area. By plowing in W. A $4
the fall, farmers are able to conserve much of the moisture present in the soils at harvest time. Just prior to
planting, the farmer plows al
deep furrows and plants the maize in holes opened with a spade in the bottom of the
furrows.
In parts of the Project area (particularly in Zone II), chemical fertilizers (140 or 160 kg/ha N plus 50 kg/ha
much of the maize is grown in fruit orchards in the space P205). It was assumed that this treatment would provide
between rows of trees. It seemed likely that the effect of all maize nutrition requirements.
the trees on the production of maize would vary depending A total of 47 field experiments were conducted in 1968
on: (a) the fruit specie, (b) the amount of space between and 1969 (Table 3.2). Composite soil samples were collectrows of trees, and (c) the size of the trees. Beginning in ed at each experimental site from the plow layer (0- 18 cm)
1968, experiments were conducted to determine optimal and from the subsoil (20-35 cm), for property characterizalevels of fertilization for maize growing in fruit orchards, tion. taking into account the distinct characteristics of the orchards. TABLE 3.2. Lines of research in maize and numbers of
As shown in Table 3.2, plant densities, methods of land field experiments conducted in the Puebla area in 1968 and
preparation, depth of the last cultivation, and rates of ferti- 1969. lization of maize in orchards were new lines of research in Number of
1968. Studies on dates of planting were added when it experiments
became evident in 1967 that farmers planted maize from Lines of research 1968 1969
mid-March until late June. The research staff also decided to include studies of times of applying fertilizers and the residual effects of fertilizers to develop more reliable infor- Rates of nitrogen, phosphorus mation about these factors. and plant density 8 12
The research program in 1969 (Table 3.2) was similar to
that of 1968. The principal new line of research was the Rates of nitrogen, phosphorus and
study of application rates for manure and fertilizers. In plant density in maize for forage 0 1
1968, it had been observed that farmers' plantings that had Rates of nitrogen, phosphorus received chicken manure that year, or chemical fertilizer and manure. 0 3
that year and chicken manure during the preceding threeyear period, were often more vigorous than the best experi- Dates of planting 4 2
mental treatments. This suggested the possibility of a Times of applying fertilizers 2 5
nutritional deficiency other than nitrogen and phosphorus. It was decided to include experiments in 1969 to determine Depth of the last cultivation 2 0
economically optimal combinations of nitrogen, phos- Rates of nitrogen and phosphorus
phorus, and chicken manure. In addition, the experiments for maize in orchards 2 2
were planned so that residual effects of the manure could be measured. Methods of land preparation 1 0
Two other lines of research were initiated in 1969: (a) Minimal tillage 0 1
optimal rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density for forage maize; and (b) effect of minimal tillage on maize Residual effects of fertilizers I I
yields. In addition, the use of a "potential yield" treatment T o t a 1 20 27
in many of the experiments was begun that year. This treatment consisted of 10 ton/ha of chicken manure, plus
23




The results obtained in 1968 indicated that the recomResults: 1968 and 1969 mended rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density
should be increased for the producing system with deep
Conditions in 1968 were favorable for the production of soils. However, because 1968 was a very favorable year, it maize. The average numbers of days per experiment with was decided to increase only the rate of phosphorus by 10 plant wilting were 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, and 0 days during the four kg/ha P205. successive parts of the growing cycle. In three of the 20 For the system with soils having a compacted horizon, experimental sites there was slight damage due to hail the revised recommendation was for 20 kg/ha less nitrogen during vegetative development, but no damage during the and 10 kg/ha more P205. Thus, the third approximation of grain-filling period. There was slight or moderate frost the maize recommendations was: (a) 130 kg/ha N, 50 kg/ha damage during the first part of the growing cycle in half of P205, and 50,000 plants/ha for deep soils; and (b) 110 the experiments, kg/ha N, 50 kg/ha P 2 OS and 50,000 plants/ha for soils
In contrast, 1969 was a poor year for maize production. with a compacted horizon. For the other production pracPlant wilting occurred on an average of 14.1, 14.1, 0.5, and tices, the recommendation remained the same as in the
0 days during the four parts of the growing cycle. In several previous year. of the experiments, the plants began to wilt two weeks Studies of soil morphology done in 1969 identified a after emergence and continued under moisture stress until a large area of sodic-like soils in Zone IV. It was also found week or so before tasseling. Slight to severe hail damage that most of the soils in Zone V had formed on volcanic ash occurrred in one-third of the experiments during the first, derived from the volcano, La Malinche. According to field second, or third parts of the growing period. Frost did not response to fertilizers, these soils were well supplied with affect the maize plantings in 1969. phosphorus. Thus, four producing systems were recognized
Studies of soil morphology done in 1968 revealed a large in the interpretation of experimental results in 1969, inregion in the northwestern part of the Project area in which cluding: (a) deep soils of Popocat4petl; (b) soils of La the subsoils were sufficiently dense and compacted to re- Malinche, and two other systems with soils having a comstrict water movement and the penetration of maize roots. pacted layer impeding root development; (c) those comprisTwo producing systems were thus recognized and taken ing parts of Zones I and II and recognized first in 1968; and into account in the interpretation of the experimental re- (d) the sodic-like soils in Zone IV. sults in 1968: (a) deep soils of Popocat6petl, comprising Even with the unfavorable rainfall regime in 1969, the Zones III, IV, and parts of I and II; and (b) soils with a deep soils of Popocat4petl yielded well and reflected the compact layer impeding root development comprising parts need for a high rate of nitrogen fertilization. The best yields of Zones I and II. obtained in 1969 on the soils with a compacted horizon in
The economically optimal rates of nitrogen for the Zones I and II were much lower than those obtained in experiments conducted in deep soils in 1968 varied from 1968. The soils of La Malinche showed a lower yielding 133-200 kg/ha, with an average of 187 kg/ha. The optimal potential than the deep soils of Popocat~petl under the rates of phosphorus varied from 50-100 kg/ha P205, with unfavorable climatic conditions in 1969. Even though an average of 81 kg/ha. Optimal population densities varied maize yields were increased by fertilization on the sodicfrom 42,000-70,000 plants/ha with an average of 64,400 like soils, maximum grain yields on these soils barely plants/ha. Grain yields, using these optimal treatments, reached 1,500 kg/ha. Maize yield on the sodic-like soils varied from 4,510-8,790 kg/ha, with an average of 7,462 were limited mainly by excess moisture during the first kg/ha. The average increase in grain yield above the control three parts of the growing season. treatment was 6,434 kg/ha. The studies on rates of fertilization of maize in orchards
For the producing system in which the soils have a showed that the two rows of maize on either side of the compacted horizon, the average optimal rates of nitrogen, rows of trees should receive less fertilizer than the other phosphorus, and population density were 106 kg/ha, 58 rows. The fourth approximation of the maize recommendakg/ha P2Os and 55,333 plants/ha, respectively. The average tions is presented in Table 3.3. yield obtained using the optimal treatments was 4,847 The study of the traditional method of land preparation
kg/ha grain; the average increase over the control treatment provided strong evidence that the moisture content of the was 3,443 kg/ha. Clearly, for a favorable year like 1968, the soil and the per cent emergence of maize planted the foltwo producing systems differ markedly both in their poten- lowing spring were lower when the soil was not plowed tial for maize production and in the optimal rates of nitro- during the late fall, than with traditional practices. The gen fertilization, study of depth of plowing detected no significant reduction
The overall average grain yield in 1968 using the optimal in yield due to deep plowing at the last cultivation.
treatments was 5,312 kg/ha more than that obtained with Date of planting and time of applying nitrogen showed the control treatment. This compares with an average in- contrasting effects on yield in 1968 and 1969. Maize plantcrease of 3,292 kg/ha in 1967 for the experiments con- ed during the first week of April in 1968 yielded 2,000 ducted in the same area. This difference was due primarily kg/ha more than maize planted three weeks later. In 1969, to more favorable rainfall in 1968 and the flexibility intro- maize planted on the later date yielded 1,000 kg/ha more duced by including plant density in the experimental ma- than that planted three weeks earlier. In 1968, maize yields trix. were 600 kg/ha higher when 150 kg/ha N were applied at
24




the second cultivation, rather than -at planting time. In 400 - 1--,968
1969, yields were 1,200 kg/ha higher when 150 kg/ha N .... ,9\9
were applied at planting time, rather than at the second 1941-1968
cultivation. 1 300These contrasting effects of date of planting and time of A/
applying nitrogen seem to stem from differences in the A
amount and distribution of rainfall during the two years. W 200The monthly rainfall for 1968 and 1969, and the monthly averages for the 1941-1968 period are shown graphically in Figure 3.1. 00In 1968, rainfall in May was average, and in June it was
20 percent above the average. Thus, adequate moisture was v
available in 1968 during the vegetative development of APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT.
early plantings of maize. In 1969, on the other hand, rainfall in May was 40 percent of the 1941-1968 average; in Fig. 3.1. Average montly rainfall in Zones I-IV of the Pue.
June, 27 per cent; and in July, 73 per cent of that average. bla Project for 1968, 1969, and the period 1941-1968. Thus, early plantings of maize suffered severe moisture stress during May, June, and early July. FIELD RESEARCH IN 1970
The higher yields from the later plantings in 1969 appear
to be due to the fact that these plantings had a longer The interactions observed between rainfall pattern and
period in which to produce a large plant than did the early date of planting, time of applying nitrogen, and maize varieplantings, after the rains began in July. The better response ty, in 1968 and 1969 suggested that it would be advantato nitrogen applied at planting time in 1969 was probably geous to make integrated studies of yield response to these
because moisture deficiencies delayed absorption of nitro- variables, plus rate of fertilization and plant density. Six
gen applied at the second cultivation until the plants' were such integrated studies were conducted in 1970, along with
too old to make maximum use of the nitrogen. studies of maize response to rates of nitrogen, phosphorus,
In 1969, it also was noted that certain maize varieties, and plant density in six experiments located to sample
after being under moisture stress for several weeks, were regions that had not been studied previously.
able to delay tasseling for one to two weeks, thereby devel- Research on bean production was initiated in 1970.
oping larger plants and producing higher yields. This char- Major emphasis was placed on bush beans (determinate
acteristic of "latency" was important in 1969, but not in growth habit) and lesser attention was given to the associa1968. tion of maize with pole beans (indeterminate growth habit).
TABLE 3.3. Fourth approximation of the maize recommendations for the Puebla area.
Kg/ha of fertilizers applied at: Total
fertilizers
Planting First Second applied Population
time cultivation cultivation (kg/ha) density
Producing system N P205 N P205 N P20, N P20, (Plants/ha)
1. Deep soils of Popocattpetl
1.1. Maizealone 30 50 0 0 100 0 130 50 50,000
1.2. Maize in orchards
1.2.1. Two rows
on either side
of the trees 30 50 0 0 50 0 80 50 50,000
1.2.2. Other rows 30 50 0 0 100 0 130 50 50,000
2. Soils of La Malinche 0 0 80 0 0 0 80 0 40,000
3. Soils with a compacted
layer impeding root
development.
3.1. Non-sodic 20 50 0 0 90 0 110 50 50,000
3.2. Sodic-like Do not grow maize
25




A collection was made of 24 local bush varieties and 18 second planting, and by only 575 kg/ha in the third plantpole varieties. The response of bush beans to rates of fertili- ing. A similar comparison of the Control Treatment (1) zation and plant density was studied at six locations. The and the "Potential Yield" Treatment (15) indicates that
varieties collected in Puebla were evaluated at three sites. Treatment I yields (no fertilizer) were 15 per cent of TreatThe maize-bean association was studied at one location. ment 15 yields for the first planting date, 12 per cent for
the second date; and 6 per cent for the third. This seems to
Results: 1970 imply that a given soil can supply more nutrients to early
plantings than to later plantings; (b) Planting Date x FertiliThe rainfall pattern in 1970 was quite favorable for both zation with Phosphorus: the magnitude of this interaction
maize and beans. In the several experiments, maize wilted can be-judged by comparing yields of Treatments 4 and 5,
an average of 6.2, 0.7, 0, and 0 days during the four parts Treatments 7 and 9, and Treatments 8 and 10, at the three
of the growing cycle. Hail damage occurred in one-third of dates of planting. The increase in yield due to phosphorus is
the experiments during the first part of the growing season; less than the least significant difference (LSD) for the first in the other three parts, hail. affected the maize in only planting date, and is clearly greater than the least significant
one-tenth of the experiments. In most of the plantings, difference for the second and third planting dates. In these
maize was damaged slightly by frost during the first part of experiments the same soil required less phosphorus and the growing period. produced higher yields in early plantings than in later plantTable 3.4 shows the average maize yields obtained at ings; (c) Planting Date x Genotype: comparison of treattwo locations using several combinations of fertilization, ments 15 and 16 shows that the yield obtained with the
plant density, genotype, and date of planting. The average Composite A x B was 91 percent of that produced by the
grain yields for the 16 treatments were 5,352 kg/ha for the hybrid maize for the first planting date, 120 per cent for
first planting date, 4,446 kg/ha for the second date, and the second date, and 135 per cent for the third; and (d)
2,029 kg/ha for the third. Planting Date x Kind of Fertilizer: comparisons of treatThere were large interactions between planting date and ments 14 and 15 for the first and second plantings, and
other factors, including: (a) Planting Date x Rates of Fer- Treatments 12 and 15 for the third planting, show that the
tilization and Plant Density: comparison of the yields best yield obtained with chemical fertilizers alone was 82'
obtained with Treatments 2 and 14 shows that the higher per cent of that obtained with chemical fertilizers plus
rate of fertilization and plant density outyielded the lower manure for the first planting date, 76 per cent for the rate by 3,703 kg/ha in the first planting, 3,166 kg/ha in the second date, and 54 per cent for the third.
TABLE 3.4. Average maize yields obtained at two locations using several combinations of fertilization, plant density, genotype, and date of planting.
Nitrogen (kg/ha) applied at: Phosphorus Population Yield in kg/ha
No. of Planting First Second (kg P205/ha) density Patn ae
Treatment 'time cultivation cultivation at planting (plants/ha) May 3 May 23 June 13
1 01 0 0 0 30,000 1306 932 234
2 .0 50 0 25 30,000 3315 2771 1469
3 0 80 0 0 30,000 3869 2264 875
4 0 105 0 0 30,000 4303 2749 1128
5 0 105 0 40 30,000 4253 3788 1912
6 0 105 0 40 50,000 5399 4103 2235
7 0 130 0 0 30,000 4592 2641 1240
8 0 130 0 0 50,000 5539 3511 1600
9 0 130 0 40 30,000 5006 4048 1794
10 0 130 0 40 50,000 5907 4788 -2358
11 30 0 100 40 50,000 6079 5311 1875
12 30 0 100 40 60,000 5989 4958 2179
13 30 0 130 40 60,000 6748 5946 2089
14 30 0 160 40 60,000 7018 5973 2044
15*30 0 130 40 60,000 8533 7872 4018
16** 30 0 130 40 60,000 7778 9475 5420
AVERAGES 5352 4446 2029
LSD 5/6 532 794 364
*The hybrid, H-129, was used for the May 3 planting. The hybrid, H-28, was used for the plantings on May 23 and June
13.
**These treatments include an application of 10 ton/ha of chicken manure. The composite variety A x B (see Chapter 4,
page 40) was used in treatment 16.
26




Results similar to those shown in Table, 3.4 were ob- Three experiments were conducted at a single location in
tained in the other integrated studies. Based on these data, 1971 to determine optmal production practices for late it was decided to make a separate recommendation for late plantings of maize. These experiments covered three topplantings. This recommendation would use 30 kg less nitro- ics, (a) exploration of the yielding ability of six varieties, gen per. hectare and 10,000 fewer planIts per hectare than (b) study of the response of a local maize variety to five, the recommendation' for early plantings, For soils with a minor eldrments, and (9) !stidy of the response of an introcompacted horizori, a small reduction in'the phosphorus 4Iuegl maize variety to fertilization with nitrogen, phosrate was also recommendedfor late plantirgs. :phoruis,,aridchicken nahtre, and to plant density.
A fifth approximation 6f the recommended production The responseof rn e to five rates of nitrogen and phospractices for maize was calculated at the end of 1970, phortis or nitrogen and plant density' was studied at 10
taking into account all? information available-at that time. locations to produce data for calculating the most adequate Distinct packages of practices consisting of rates of fertiliza- mathematical model to represent maize response to these tion and plant density were recommended for 16 producing factors (thesis research of a graduate student at Chapingo).
systems, varying mainly because of differences in soil Experiments at six locations studied optimal levels of
morphology, planting date, and use for fruit trees, fertilization and plant density for bush beans. Two experiBush bean yields in the six experiments were influenced ments compared net income from the maize-bean associaby rates of fertilization and plant density. Average optimal tion with that obtained from maize and beans grown alone levels were 67 kg/ha N, 53 kg/ha P205, and 112,500 (pole beans were used in one experiment and bush beans in
plants/ha. The average yield obtained with the optimal treat- the other). ments was 1,951 kg/ha beans. When no fertilizer was used, A series of experiments at two locations sought to
the average yield was 780 kg/ha. The cost of the average identify crops that might be grown instead of maize in
optimal treatment was equivalent to 605 kg beans with a years when the rains do not begin until July. Maize planted
price of $0.12/kg and to 363 kg beans with a price of as late as July runs a high risk of being damaged by frost in
$0.20/kg. Even at the lower price for beans, which rarely the fall. Included in this series were sunflowers for forage, occurs, the average increase in yield using the optimal treat- bush beans, horse beans, oats, barley, and maize. ments was almost double the cost of the treatments.
These data were used to arrive at a first approximation Results: 1971 of production practices for bush beans:- (a) for deep soils
of Popocatipetl 'and soils with a compacted horizon: 60 The rainfall pattern in 1971 was quite favorable for both
kg/ha N, 60 kg/ha P205, and 120,000 plants per hectare; maize and beans. In the maize experiments, the average
and (b) for the soils of La Malinche: 60 kg/ha N, 30 kg/ha numbers of days with plant wilting were 8.7, 0.4, 0, and 0 P205, and 120,000 plants per hectare. The recommenda- for the four parts of the growing cycle. Slight to severe hail
tions of the National Agricultural Research Institute for the damage occurred in the first, second, or third parts of the control of the bean beetle, Epilachnia varivestis (known growing cycle in 10 maize experiments. Slight to severe
locally as "conchuela") were to be followed, with the farm- frost damage occurred in the first part of the growing cycle er to select the variety, the date of planting, and the time to in four maize plantings. None of the bean experiments was cultivate. damaged by drought, hail ,or frost. Bush beans suffered
Results obtained in the study of the maize-bean associa- moderate leaf damage due to anthracnose disease at three tion indicated that this cropping system might provide sites.
greater net income to Puebla farmers than either maize or Only one of the early-maturing maize varieties studied in
beans grown alone. 1971, Rojo Salvatori, showed a reasonably high yielding
ability. Table 3.5 compares this variety with Zacatecas 58,
which had the next highest yields. The Rojo Salvatori yield
FIELD RESEARCH IN 1971 at the highest level of fertilization and plant density was
Integrated studies of the effects of planting date, fertilization, and plant density were continued at four locations TABLE 3.5. Grain yields obtained with two early-matur. TABLE 3.5. Grain yields obtained with two early-maturin 1971. It was decided to continue these experiments for
in 1971. It was decided to continue these experiments for ing maize varieties receiving different fertilization and plant several years to accumulate information on the interaction density treatments. between these factors and climatic conditions. py Cik
Population Chicken
Data from the integrated studies conducted in 1970 Nitrogen P205 density manure Grain yields (kg/ha)using:
indicated that investigations of efficient management prac- kg/ha kg/ha plants/ha ton/ha Zacatecas 58 Rojo Salvatori tices for late maize planting should take these factors into 60 50 40,000 0 1237 1448
60 50 40,000 0 1237 1448
account: (a) existing short-season varieties have a rela- 100 50 60,000 0 833 1840
tively low-yielding ability, as compared to long-season 150 80 80,000 0 1168 2870
varieties; (b) there are probably nutrient deficiencies other 120 80 80,000 10 2030 2537
than nitrogen and phosphorus; and (c) light intensities and 200 100 100,000 0 1098 1676
200 100 120,000 0 1563 1354
temperatures are relatively low, and available soil moisture 150 100 120,000 20 1491 3147
abundant, in the initial stages of plant growth. 150 100 150,000 20 2597 4317
27




three times that obtained at the lowest level of fertilization tions. It was expected that the technical assistance agents and plant density. would provide information to the farmers about costs,
The studies of the maize-bean association d ,emonstrated expected net incomes, and risks involved in the alternative that net income from the association was approximately recommendations. The farmer would decide which alternadouble that obtained with either maize or beans alone, five to adopt, or 'how much land to allot to each recoinHorse beans, bush beans, oats, and barley all showed some mendation, This innovation was designed initially for early advantage over maize for late plantings. The data obtained plantings (those made with residual moisture). in the study of the response of an early maize variety to
minor elements was inconclusive.
In 1971, the production of maize became somewhat FIELD RESEARCH IN 1972 more profitable for farmers, due to several factors: (a) the
price of nitrogen fertilizers was reduced by about 14 per- Results obtained with the maize-bean association in cent; (b) the maximum moisture content acceptable in 1970 and 1971 were promising; thus, more resources were grain purchased at the guaranteed price was increased from allotted to the study of this cropping system. Six experi12 to 14 percent; (c) the practice of paying less for colored ments in 1972 measured the response of the association to grains was discontinued, and (d) the CONASUPO, the several rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density of National Marketing Agency, agreed to purchase maize in maize. These experiments were located in the important small lots. producing systems of Zones I, II, and IV, where this
These changes prompted Project decisions to increase cropping system is commonly used.
the recommended rate of nitrogen fertilization in Zone V Beginning in 1968, average maize yields were estimated from 80 to 100 kg/ha and the population density from each year at harvest time on samples of two categories of 40,00b to 50,000 plants/ha. It was decided not to change farmers: (a) farmers on credit lists (who were organized in the recommendations for the rest of the Project area, but to groups, received credit from institutions participating in the develop alternative recommendations that would cost about Project, and could be expected to use the Project recomnone-half to two-thirds as much as the existing recommenda- mendations), and (b) all farmers in the area (see Chapter 8).
TABLE 3.6. Average yields, protein percentages, and net incomes for several treatments in maize-bean association experiments conducted at three locations in 1972.
Population Grain with Net income with
density 14%9/ moisture bean prices /ton at-:
Treatment Fertilizers (kg/ha) applied: of mnaize* Percent
No. N P205 plants/ha Maize Beans protein"* $240 $1601 120 40 30,000 2987 1300 8.6; 22.0 404.64 300.64
2 120 40 40,000 3306 1246 410. '88 311.20
3 120 80 30,000 2962 1548 440.72 316.80
4 120 80 40,000 3074 1393 8.3; 21.8 414.40 304.08
5 150 40 30,000 2796 1575 442.00 315.92
6 150 40 40,000 3758 1361 451.36 298.80
7 150 80 30,000 3006 1575 8.7; 22.4 441.44 317.84
8 150 80 40,000 3559 1398 8.7; 22.4 436.00 324.16
9 90 40 30,000 2619 1150 8.3; 21.0 357.60 265.60
10 180 80 40,000 3737 1488 9.0; 23.0 449.04 330.00
11 150 0 40,000 3156 1445 8.5; 22.9 440.48 324.88
12150 80 20,000 2217 1641 397.92 266.64
13 150 40 + CM + 40,000 4056 2446 9.4; 24.5 557.04 361.36
14 120 40 40,000 4634 0 8.5 244.24 244.24
15 60 60 0 0 1222 20.9 194.08 96.40
LSD 575 225
*Population of beans was constant at 60,000 plants per hectare.
**The protein percentage of maize appears first followed by that of beans. Each value is an average of 15 determinations.
The analyses were made by biochemist Francisco J. Rodriguez B. of the CIMMYT Protein Quality Laboratory.
+ Net income was calculated as gross income minus variable costs. The value of maize grain was calculated at $72.00 per ton
and the value of stover at $8.00 per ton.
STen tons per hectare of chicken manure.
28




In general, average yields of farmers on credit lists were and (c) an increase in net income per hectare of $166.64
only about two-thirds as large as they might have been, with beans priced at $240/ton, or $66.96 with beans priced
according to the results obtained in the field experiments. at $160/ton. This finding suggested studies to determine why the farmers Bean production increased remarkably when 10 ton/ha
on credit lists did not have higher yields, of chicken manure was added to the treatment consisting
In each of the Zones II and V, sixty parcels representing of 150 kg/ha N, 40 kg/ha P2C5, 40,000 plants/ha of maize, 60 farmers on credit lists were chosen at random. A repre- and 60,000 plants/ha of beans. Comparison of bean yields
sentative area was selected within each parcel consisting of obtained with Treatments 6 and 13 shows that the increase 12 rows, 10 meters long. One of the two alternative maize due to manure was 1,085 kg/ha. Part of this increase in
recommendations was used on six rows of each parcel in bean yield was probably due to the nitrogen and phosZone II, with the other alternative used on the other six phorus contained in the manure. Most of the increase,
rows. In Zone V, the more costly alternative was used on however, was apparently due to some different, undetersix rows of each parcel, with the same recommendation, mined cause. The net income from the maize-bean associaplus 50 kg/ha P205, used on the other six rows. The latter tion receiving both chicken manure and chemical fertilizers
treatment was included to test phosphorus needs of maize (Treatment 13) was 2.28 times that derived from maize
fields in Zone V. planted alone, with beans priced at $240/ton. The protein
These two plots in each of the selected parcels were percentage of the beans fertilized with chicken manure was
managed by Project research agronomists. In addition, the 1.5 percent points higher than that of the beans receiving
agronomists made regular observations of the production the highest rate of chemical fertilizers (24.5 versus 23.0
practices used by the owners of the parcels, supplementing percent).
this information with data collected directly from the farm- Table 3.7 compares the amounts of protein and lysine
ers. produced by common maize planted alone, and by the
Additionally in 1972, two field experiments were made maize-bean association, with the amounts produced by
to: (a) determine if weed problems were greater in fields opaque maize. Opaque maize produced nearly twice as
using Project recommendations than in fields using the much lysine per hectare as did common maize. The comtraditional technology, and (b) evaluate the profitability of mon maize-bean association, fertilized with nitrogen and the intensive weed control methods in the Project recom- phosphorus, produced 59 percent more lysine than did
mendations. It had been found that many farmers had the opaque maize alone. The common maize-bean association,
impression that weed control was more difficult in fields fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus, and chicken manure,
where the Project recommendations were used, and there produced 2.39 times as much lysine as opaque maize alone.
was concern that this feeling might discourage farmers from
adopting the new technology.
The weed control experiments consisted of 12 treat- TABLE 3.7. The amounts of protein and lysine produced
ments. Project recommendations were used in half the by" common and opaque maize planted alone, and by the
treatments and the traditional technology in the other half. common maize-bean association. Several weed' control measures were used with each of the Protein Lysine*
technologies. The more intensive weed control practices %of % of
,consisted of hand weeding at different growth stages, and kg/ha Opaque kg/ha Opaque
the use of herbicides. The experimental plot consisted of
six rows, each 5 meters long. A randomized complete block Common maize, planted alone 394 93 9.9 52
with six replication was used. Opaque maize, planted alone** 423 100 19.9 100
design wMaize-bean association with 150 kg/ha of N, 80 kg/ha of P205
Results: 1972 and 40,000 plants/ha of maize 623 147 30.3 159
Conditions in 1972 were excellent for maize and beans, Maize-bean association with
perhaps comparable to 1968. In 24 experimental plantings 150 kg/ha of N,
of maize, or of maize associated with beans, the average 10 ton/ha of chicken manure
numbers of days with wilting of the maize plants were 0.5, and 40,000 plants/ha of maize 981 232 45.5 239
1.0, 0, and 0.9 for the four parts of the growing cycle. The
corresponding averages for 1968 were similar: 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, In calculating the production of lysine per hectare, the protein of and 0. Hail and frost damage in 1972 were also slight, beans and common maize was assumed to have 7.2% and 2.5% lysine,
Table 3.6 shows average yields, protein percentages of respectively. For bean protein from the treatment with the chicken
the grain, and net incomes for treatments used in three manure, it was assumed that the percentage of lysine dropped to 6%.
Source: Mercedes HernAndez, et al., 1971. Valor nutritivo de los alimaize-bean association experiments conducted in the deep mentos; Tablas de uso pr~ctico. Publicaciones de la Divisi6n de Nutrisoils of Popocatdpetl. The inclusion of 60,000 plants/ha of cion-L- 12, 5a. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrici6n, M6xico. p. 20.
beans in a planting of maize with 40,000 plants/ha, fertil- ** Based on data from an experiment carried out on the deep soils of sized with 120 kg/ha N and 40 kg/ha P205 resulted in: (a) a Popocatipetl. The best opaque variety yielded 4,700 kg/ha with
decrase ith e m/aize yied of0 8 kg/ha Treltent () a50,000 plants/ha and fertilized with 130 kg/ha of nitrogen plus 50 decrease in the maize yield of 1,328 kg/ha (Treatment 14 kg/ha of P205. It was assumed that the grain contained 9% protein and
minus Treatment 2); (b) production of 1,246 kg/ha beans; that the protein had 4.5%lysine.
29




The opaque maize would have had to yield 11.3. ton/ha to rates of fertilizer, but used fewer plants than recommended.
equal the production of lysine by this maize-bean associa- In Zone V, 56.9 percent of the farmers in the study used at
tion in 1972. An association of pole beans with an opaque least three-quarters of the recommended amounts of nitromaize would seem certain to yield an even higher produc- gen, phosphorus and plant density, with an additional
tion of lysine per hectare. 37.2 percent falling short only in the use of the recomThe study of the use of technology by the farmers on mended plant density.
credit lists disclosed that farmers' yields on the average The data obtained in the weed-control experiments
were lower than those obtained in the parcels controlled by refuted the hypothesis that the maize technology recomthe research agronomists. The average yield of the farmers' mended by the Project results in greater weed infestations
parcels in Zone II was 3,444 kg/ha and for the control plots than traditional technology. When the more intensive weed
within these parcels it was 4,725 kg/ha. In Zone V, the control measures of the new technology were used, the
farmers' yields averaged 4,076 kg/ha versus a control yield weed population at' harvest time was lower than that ob4,841 kg/ha. The lower yields obtained by farmers can be gained with traditional methods, and increases in maize
attributed to failure to make full use of the recommended production were proportionately greater.
technology. Only 28.1 percent of the farmers studied in A sixth approximation of the recommended production
Zone II used at least three-quarters of the recommended practices was developed in early 1973. The recommendaamounts of all three main inputs: nitrogen, phosphorus, tions for several producing systems in Zone II are shown in
and plants per hectare. Another 19.3 percent of the Zone II Table 3.8, illustrating the type of information on producfarmers applied at least three-quarters of the recommended tion practices available to farmers in 1973.
TABLE 3.8. The seventh approximation of the recommended production practices for several producing systems in Zone II.
Producing system Fertilizer (kg/ha) to apply at:
____________________ Maize Bean Variety
First Second population population of beans
Planting Level of Planting cultivation cultivation density Maize density or other
Soil morphology date Crop capital* N P205 N N plants/ha variety plants/ha crops
1. Deep soils of Po- Apr. 1- Maize I 30-40 0 100 50,000 H-131
pocat6petl. May 15 II 0-- 80 0 40,000 H-131
1.2. Free of pumice Maize in oron the surface; chards:
less than 2350 m a) 2 rows on
altitude, each side
of trees 1 30-40 0 50 40,000 H-131
b) Other rows 1 30-40 0 100 50000 H-131
Apr. 25- Maize-bean I 30-40 0 120 40,000 native 60,000 native
May 15 association lI 30- 0 0 60 30,000 native 45,000 native
Bunch beans I 60 60. 0 0 120,000 native
Mayl6- Maize and
June 15 maize in orchards 1 30 40 70 0 40,000 -native
May 16- Maize-bean 1 30 -40 120 0 40,000 native 60,000 native
June 15 association II 30 -30 60 0 30,000 native 45,000 native
May 16- Bunch beans I 60-60 0 0 120,000 native
June 30
July 1- Bunch beans I 30 30 0 0 .... 90,000 native
July 15
June 16- Oats I 40-40 Use 90 kg of seed per hectare Cuauhtmoc
July 15 Barley 1 30 30 Use 60 kg of seed per hectare Apizaco
Horse beans 1 40-40 Plant density of 60,000 pts/ha INIA 15001
Recommendation I presupposes the availability to the farmer of unlimited capital for maize production; recommendation II presupposes limited capital of one-half to
two-thirds that required for the more costly recommendation.
30




of the INIA technology was underway, the Project staff would recognize this fact and quickly change the recommended date of planting). (b) the recommendation to plant H-28 was discarded. This change was made because native varieties (not H-28) were planted in most of the experiments whose results were used to compare the different AN EVA LUATI ON OF THE technologies. It was thought that this change would introAGRONOMIC RESEARCH PROGRAM duce little bias against the INIA technology, since local
varieties compare favorably with H-28 in their yielding ability (see Chapter 4).
This section seeks to evaluate the results of agronomic As indicated previously, the results obtained in the
research in terms of impact on maize yields, on net incomes experiments conducted in 1967 were used to develop a new
of farmers, and on the risks farmers take with input recommendation for maize, referred to here as the second
investments for maize production. A major difficulty in approximation to the maize production technology. Experimaking such an evaluation stems from the fact that in- mental results obtained in subsequent years were used to
creases in production and net income are generated by develop a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth approximation. The
many interacting factors (production credit, distribution of sixth approximation, available at the beginning of 1972,
inputs, markets, input cost: product price ratios, etc.), and included recommendations for 16 maize-producing systems.
not by improved technology alone. Nevertheless, it seems As shown in Table 3.9, these systems differed in soil
reasonable to examine the influence of project recoin- morphology, previous crop, elevation above sea level, or mendations by comparing increases in maize yields and net planting date. Alternative' recommendations for two levels
income -and changes in risk as well -- that can be expected of capital investment were available for each of the 16
if farmers adopt each of several production technologies systems. The recommendation for the lower level of capital,
presently available. referred to here as the limited capital recommendation, was
According to the 1967 survey, 69.3 percent of the farm- selected rather intuitively; however, it corresponds closely
ers applied fertilizers to their maize plantings that year. The to the factor combination that maximizes the rate of production technology of those farmers (on the average) return on capital.
consisted of approximately 50 kg/ha N, 25 kg/ha P20S, 10 The 16 pairs of recommendations, together with their
kg/ha K20 (potassium), 25,000 plants/ha, a local variety variable costs expressed in tons of maize grain per hectare,
and a planting date ranging from 0 to 75 days before the beginning of the rainy season. Each of these production factors showed variation across the -Project area, probably in response to the diversity of local producing conditions. Unfortunately, the 1967 survey was not designed to collect such information on the local production technology. Thus, TABLE 3.9. The 16 producing systems recognized in the
the average production technology of farmers is used here Project area since 1972.
to represent the traditional technology, allowing flexibility 111 De ol fPpctpt;eeain ewe ,0 n ,5
onlyforthelocl vriey ad th plntig dte.Theinfex-meters above sea level; plantings before May 15. ibility of the fertilizer treatment and the population density 1.1.2 Deep soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,100 and 2,350
assumptions is very probably biased against the traditional meters above sea level; plantings between May 16 and June 15.
technology in these comparisons. However, the assumption 1.2 Deep soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,351 and 2,800
that all farmers fertilized their maize should be a bias meters above sea level; plantings before April 30.
2.1.1 Pumiceous soils of Popocat~peti; elevations between 2,100 and favoring the traditional technology, since only 69.3 percent 2,350 meters above sea level; plantings before May 15.
of farmers applied fertilizer to their maize plantings in 2.1.2 Pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,100 and
1967. 2,350 meters above sea level; plantings between May 16 and
A maize technology, recommended by the National June 15.
2.2 Pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,351 and Agricultural Research Institute (INIA), was available to the 2,800 meters above sea level; plantings before April 30.
Puebla farmers in 1967. It consisted of 80 kg/ha N, 40 3 Soils of La Malinche; plantings before April 5.
kg/ha P205, 40,000 plants/ha, the hybrid H-28, and plant- 4 Heavy soils of Zone V; plantings at the start of the rainy season.
ing as soon as the rains began. This recommendation 5.1.1 Soils with a compacted horizon; plantings made in March and April.
5.1.2 Soils with a compacted horizon; plantings made in May.
applied to the entire Project area. 5.1.3 Soils with a compacted horizon; plantings made in June.
The INIA technology was modified in two ways to 6.1.1 Sodic-like soils; plantings made in March and April.
facilitate the comparison of technologies: (a) the recomn- 6.1.2 Sodic-like soils; plantings made in May.
mendation to plant at the beginning of the rainy season was 6.1.3 Sodic-like soils; planting made in June.
changed to "plant early (late March, April, early May) in 7.1 Soils with a high water table; plantings immediately after the
prodcin sytem wit adquae rsidal mistre. (I turning of alfalfa stubble; plantings before April 15. proucig sstes wth deqateresdua mostue."(Itis 7.2 Soils with a high water table or any irrigated soil; one or more
known, a posteriori, that early plantings of maize produce years after the turning of alfalfa stubble; plantings before April
higher yields. it was assumed that, once active promotion 1.5.
31




are shown in Table 3.10. Variable costs were calculated on small or the distribution among years was inadequate. As a
the assumption that the farming operation was a mixed group, however, the 13 systems were sampled quite satisfacenterprise. Hired labor was included as a cost, but labor by torily. The four production technologies are compared here
family members was not included. For the calculations-in for producing systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3; the combined 13
Table 3.10, it was assumed that hired labor included: one- systems; and the entire Project area.
third of the labor at planting and the first fertilization; Net increases in maize yields, A M, were calculated for
one-half of the labor at the second cultivation and second the different technologies and producing systems according
fertilization; three-fourths of the labor at harvest time; and to the formula: one-third of the labor for shelling. The expense of this labor
was included as a variable cost. AM =,Y- C T
Several aspects of the unlimited capital technologies
shown in Table 3.10 may be noted: (a) the recommended where Y is the estimated commercial yield, C is the variable
rates of nitrogen vary from 0 to 150 kg/ha with an average cost associated with a given technology above the cost of
of 108 kg/ha, weighted according to the area planted to the check expressed in ton/ha maize and T is the yield of
maize (Table 3.11). The zero value corresponds to maize the check treatment (no fertilizer, 30,000 plants/ha). As
planted immediately after turning under alfalfa stubble, in shown in Table 3.13, estimated average net increases using
soils with a high water table. The 150 kg/ha value is for the traditional, INIA, limited capital, and unlimited capital
maize plantings in both irrigated soils and soils with a high technologies were 0.74, 1.05, 1.12, and 1.44 tons/ha of water table, where one or more years have elapsed since the maize, respectively.
incorporation of alfalfa stubble; (b) the recommended rates
of phosphorus vary from 0 to 60 kg/ha P205, with a
weighted average of 32 kg/ha; (c) the recommended plant
densities vary from 30,000 to 60,000 plants/ha, with a
weighted average of 48,530 plants/ha; and (d) the variable
costs of these production formulas vary from 0.02 to 1.46
tons/ha of maize, with a weighted average of ,0.98 ton/ha. tAe 3.10. e producngstete ith
The ariblecoss ofthelimtedcapial echoloies their costs, recommended for 16 producing systems in the The variable costs of the limited capital technologies Poetae ic 92
vary from 0.02 to 0.92 ton/ha of maize, with a weighted Project area since 1972.
average of 0.64 ton/ha. The variable costs of the traditional
and INIA technologies are 0.54 and 0.82 ton/ha of maize, Recommended Cost of the technology** in
respectively, technology for: tons of maize in the field
Producing Limited Unlimited Limited Unlimited
Three assumptions were made in comparing the limited system capital capital capital capital
capital and unlimited capital technologies of the Project
with the traditional and INIA technologies: (a) the aver- 1.1.1 80- 0-40,000 130-40-50,000 0.60 1.19
1.1.2 60-20-30,000 100-40-40,000 0.55 0.96
ages of the experimental yields obtained from 1967 1.2 80-040,000 130-60-50,000 0.82 1.30
through 1972 are reasonable approximations of the average 2.1.1 80-40-40,000 130-60-50,000 0.82 1.30
yields that will be obtained in the future; (b) experimental 2.1.2 60-20-30,000 100-50-50,000 0.55 1.03
yields, when reduced by 20 percent, are reasonable approxi- 2.2 8040-40,000 130-60-50,000 0.82 1.30
3 80- 0-40,000 100- 0.50,000 0.60 0.75
mations to commercial yields; and (c) the areas planted to 4 80- 0-40,000 100- 0-50,000 0.60 0.75
maize,,costs of inputs and prices of grain and stover will not 5.1.1 80-30-40,000 130-50-50,000 0.76 1.25
soon change appreciably. 5.1.2 80-30-40,000 110-50-50,000 0.86 1.10
The basic data for comparing technologies were prod- 5.1.3 6020-30,000 '80-40-40,000 0.55 0.82
6.1.1 80-30-40,000 110-50-50,000 0.76 110
uced in 125 field experiments, which included fertilization, 6.1.2 60-20-30,000 80-40-40,000 0.55 0.90
plant density, and date of planting variables, conducted on 6.1.3 60-20-30,000 60-20-30,000 0.55 0.55
farmers' fields from 1967 to 1972. These experiments 7.1 0- 0-60,000 0- 0-60,000 0.02 0.02
sampled, with varying degrees of intensity, the 16 produc- 7.2 10030-50,000 150-60-60,000 0.92 1.46
ing systems -listed in Table 3.9. The areas plants to maize in
each of these systems were estimated from survey data and
the soils map shown in Figure 1.2. The number of experi- The three values refer to kilograms per hectare of nitrogen, kilograms
ments conducted in each producing system, areas planted in per hectare of P205 (phosphorus) and plants per hectare, respectively.
maize, and average commercial yields estimated for the four This is the total cost of fertilizer (price, transport, application, insurtechnologies are shown in Table 3.11. ance, interest) expressed in terms of grain, after costs of harvesting,
shelling, sacking, and transport have been discounted. The cost of the
Table 3.12 shows the distribution of the 125 experi- traditional and INIA technologies are equivalent to 0.54 and 0.82 tons
ments among years and among five producing systems. The of grain, respectively. If these values and the values in the table are
three largest systems (1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3) were sampled multiplied by $54.80, the costs of the technologies in U.S. dollars are
quite adequately in each of the six years. The remaining 13 obtained. This value for maize in the field is based on a price of U.S..
$72 per ton for maize with 14% moisture, placed at a warehouse of the
systems, taken individually, were much less adequately National Marketing Agency.
sampled, either because the number of experiments was + Weighted according to the areas planted to maize (See Table 3.11).
32




TABLE 3.11. The number of experiments conducted in 16 producing systems in the Puebla area, areas planted in maize, and estimated commercial yields* using various production technologies.
Area planted Project technologies
Producing No. of in maize Traditional INIA Limited Unlimited
system expts. ha Check** technology + technology + capital capital
1.1.1 27 10586 0.52 2.05 2.86 2.63 3.80
1.1.2. 16 7072 0.38 1.34 1.88 1.49 2.08
1.2 1 1019 0.68 1.88 2.37 2.37 3.36
2.1.1 18 8874 0.79 2.15 2.82 2.82 3.87
2.1.2 8 3642 0.20 1.09 1.54 1.20 1.97
2.2 4 1852 0.48 1.89 2.54 2.54 3.45
3 24 22739 1.00 2.56 3.29 3.20 3.64
4 7 2078 1.15 2.04 2.49 2.41 2.71
5.1.1 3 2817 0.88 2.12 2.66 2.58 3.66
5.1.2 5 4355 1.44 2.28 2.65 2.59 3.01
5.1.3 5 5636 0.15 1.26 1.61 1.35 1.62
6.1.1 1 1281 0.34 0.66 1 .64 1.60 2.21
6.1.2 1 1963 0.52 1.43 1.88 1.55 1.88
6.1.3 3 2540 0.44 0.90 1.08 1.04 1.04
7.1 1 893 4.00 4.00 4.96 5.41 5.41
7.2 2 2653 1.60 3.62 4.12 4.42 5.14
Total 125 80000
Average" 0.78 2.05 2.67 2.54 3.19
The commercial yield was estimated as 80 % of the yield obtained experimentally; expressed as tons per hectare of grain with 14% moisture.
* No fertilizer; 30,000 plants per hectare.
+ Traditional technology; 50 kg/ha of nitrogen, 25 kg/ha of P205 (phosphorus), 10 kg/ha of K20(potassium) and 25,000 plants per hectare.
INIA technology: 80 kg/ha of nitrogen, 40 kg/ha of P205, and 40,000 plants per hectare. ++ Weighted according to the areas planted in each producing system.
Estimated net increases for one producing system (6.1.3) TABLE 3.12. Distribution of the experiments conducted were:-0.08, -0.18, 0.05, and 0.05 ton/ha, respectively, for in the Project area among years and among five producing the traditional, INIA, limited capital, and unlimited capital systems. technologies. These values were calculated from data
obtained in two experiments conducted in 1969 and one in Area
planted
1970. The implication of these figures could be that it is Producing in maize irrational to plant maize in this system. However, due to system ha, 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Total the limited amount of data available (and to the probability 1.1.1 10,586 9 7 2 3 4 2 27 that farmers' experiences, covering a much longer period of 2.1.1 8,874 3 3 3 3 4 2 18 time than that studied experimentally, has demonstrated 3 22,739 2 0 6 8 4 4 24
the profitability of maize production), a tentative recom- 13 remaining systems 37,801 8 3 7 19 15 4 56
hmendation was made of 60 kg/ha N, 20 kg/ha P205), and all 16 30,000 plants/ha. systems 80,000 22 13 18 33 27 12 125
33




Table 3.14 shows the variable costs, net increases, risks, The value !A M .0 is used in the alternative definiand "adequacy indices" for the four technologies used in tion of risk, to examine the case in which the value of the systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3; the combined 13 systems; and increase in maize yield is equal to or less than the variable the total Project area. As used here, risk is defined arbi- costs of production. Information is available in Table 3.14 trarily in two ways: (a) *as the standardized probability to calculate risk using net increase values other than 0.5 or that the net increase in maize yield will be 0.5 ton/ha or 0 ton/ha. less, and (b) as the standardized probability that the net In the calculation of risk there is an implicit assumption increase in maize yield will be 0 ton/ha or less. In the that the 'net increase values belong to a population with a remainder of this chapter, the first criterion of risk will be normal distribution. This hypothesis was tested for tradiexpressed as R (0.5) and the second criterion as R (0) tional technology used in the entire Project area, and was
One of the definitions of risk as a net increase of 0.5 not rejected.
ton/ha or less of grain was based on 1970 survey data For the five systems in Table 3.14, calculations were
indicating that an average family consumed 1,546 kg/year made of the mean squares of the net increase values asof maize for food, and had an average area of 2.27 ha of sociated with the following: (a) years, with a degrees of maize. Thus from each hectare in maize, an average of 0.68 freedom; (b) total, with n-1 degrees of freedom; and (c) ton of grain was needed to feed the family. In this defini- residuals (sites confounded with the interaction sites x tion of risk, it was assumed that most of the yield obtained years), with n-i-a degrees of freedom. In 18 of the 20 with the check treatment would be used to cover the fixed cases (four technologies x five systems), the mean square costs of production, and that 0.5 ton/ha to feed the family associated with years was larger than that associated with would have to come from net increase in yield. sites plus the site x years interaction., In nine cases, the
difference was not significant; in six it was significant at the
5 percent level; and in three cases it was significant at the 1
percent level. The mean square associated with years was
selected as the estimator of the variance of the net increase
TABLE 3.13. Estimated net increases in tons of maize per values. This quantity appears in Table 3.14 as S2A Mhectare, AM*, using four production technologies in 16 The values of risk presented in Table 3.14 were obtained
producing systems, from a tabulation of areas corresponding to a normal
population with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. To use
_________________________________________ this table, the values 0.5 and 0 were standardized for each Producing Limited Unlimited technology and producing system by subtracting the value
systm Taditona INI caital captal of A M and dividing by the appropriate standard deviation,
1.1.1 0.99 1.52 1.51 2.10 The use of traditional technology in producing system
1.1.2 0.42 0.65 0.56 0.78 1.1.1 gave an average net increase in maize production of
1.2 0.67 0.88 0.88 1.37 0.99 ton/ha, with a risk represented by the number 0.213
2.1.1 0.82 1.19 1.19 1.77 for R(0.5) and the number 0.054 for R(0) (see Table
2.1.2 0.35 0.47 0.50 0.67 3.14). This level of risk indicates that the net increase will
2.2 0.87 1.24 1.24 1.67 be 0.5 ton/ha or less in four years out of 20, with one year
3 1.05 1.45 1.61 1.92 having zero or negative net increase. The estimated net
4 0.38 0.59 0.80 0.93 increase using traditional technology in system 1.11 was
5.1.1 0.73 0.96 0.96 1.53 more than that for system 2.1.1, and similar to that for
5.1.2 0.30 0.39 .0.39 0.47 system 3. The level of risk in using traditional technology in
5.1.3 0.57 0.64 0.65 0.65 systems 2.1.1 and 3 indicates that net increases of 0.5
6.1.1 -0.22 0.49 0.50 0.77 ton/ha or less can be expected in 6 years out of 20. In two
6.1.2 0.38 0.55 0.49 0.55 of the six years, the net increase will be zero or negative for
6.1.3 -0.08 -0.18 0.05 0.05 system 2.1.1, whereas in system 3, three of the six years
7.1 -0.54 0.14 1.39 1.39 will have a zero or negative net increase of yield. These
7.2 1.48 1.70 1.91 2.08 three systems are the most productive in the Project area
Overall"* 0.74 1.05 1.12 1.44 and account for 53 percent of the area planted to maize.
The use of traditional technology in the 13 remaining
systems gave an average net increase of 0.44 ton/ha with a
* The commercial yield obtained with a given technology, risk represented by the numbers 0.547 for R(0.5) and
less the check yield, less the variable costs associated 0.195 for R(0). That is, in 11 out of every 20 years a with the use of the technology. The commercial yield is net increase of 0.5 ton/ha or less can be expected; 4 of
estimated to be 800 %of the experimental yield, ex- these I11 years will show a zero or negative net increase.
pressed as grain with 14% moisture. -The average net increase for the whole area using tradi**Averages weighted according -to the areas planted in tional technology was 0.73 ton/ha with a risk represented
maize, by the numbers 0.399 for R(0.5) and 0.206 for R(O).
34




This means that in 8 out of 20 years the net increase of is defined as R(0), the limited capital technology becomes
yield will be 0.5 ton/ha or less; whereas in 4 of the 8 years slightly riskier in system 1.1.1 than the traditional techthe net increase will be zero or negative. nology: 0.065 versus 0.054. With the same definition of
risk, the unlimited capital technology is slightly riskier than Average net increases in production per unit of cost, the traditional technology in the total area (aggregated 16
expressed as kilogramst of maize, are shown in Table 3.14 producing systems).
as values of A M/C. These values were 1.83, 1.52 and 1.94 for traditional technology in systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3; The unlimited capital technology was superior to the
0.81 for the combined 13 systems; and 1.35 for the total INIA technology when compared in terms of net increase in
area. yield, or as risk defined as the probability that the net
When compared With the traditional technology, in all increase in yield be equal to 0.5 ton/ha or less, R (0.5), in
five individual and aggregated producing systems, the INIA, the five individual and aggregated producing systems. Using
limited capital, and unlimited capital technologies produced the same criteria, the unlimited capital technology was also
higher net increases in maize yields and lower risks, with better than the limited capital technology in systems 1.1.1,
two exceptions. These two exceptions were in relation to 2.1.1, and 3; whereas in the remaining systems, net inrisk and not in relation to net increases in yields. When risk creases in yield were larger with the unlimited capital techTABLE 3.14. Variable costs, net increases, risks, and "adequacy indices" for four production technologies used in several individual or aggregated producing systems.
Variable
Individual or cost
aggregated of Net
producing technology increase
system* Technology C A M * AM i2 + Risk, R + + Adequacy indices of the technologies
(ton/ha) (ton/ha) C AM P( AM 5 0.5)P( AM 50) Ia lb Ila lib Illa IlIb
1.1.1 (27) Traditional 0.54 0.99 1.83 0.3804 0.213 0.054 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.91
INIA 0.82 1.52 1.85 0.6932 0.110 0.034 2.97 2.45 1.96 1.61 1.26 1.44
Limited Capital 0.60 1.51 2.52 0.9967 0.156 0.065 2.09 1.25 1.88 1.13 1.18 1.37
Unlimited Capital 1.19 2.10 1.76 1.0200 0.056 0.019 8.01 6.06 3.63 2.75 1.91 2.04
2.1.1 (18) Traditional 0.54 0.82 1.52 0.3749 0.304 0.090 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0,70
INIA 0.82 1.19 1.45 0.3948 0.136 0.029 3.25 4.45 2.14 2.93 0.92 1.13
Limited Capital 0.82 1.19 1.45 0.3948 0.136 0.029 3.25 4.45 2.14 2.93 0.92 1.13
Unlimited Capital 1.30 1.77 1.36 1.1453 0.117 0.049 5.60 3.93 2.33 1.63 1.41 1.62
3 (24) Traditional 0.54 1.05 1.94 1.0190 0.295 0.149 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.81
INIA 0.82 1.45 1.77 1.7421 0.236 0.136 1.73 1.52 1.14 1.00 0.92 1.14
Limited Capital 0.60 1.61 2.68 2.0559 0.219 0.131 2.06 1.74 1.85 1.57 1.13 1.32
Unlimited Capital 0.75 1.92 2.56 3.3232 0.218 0.147 2.47 1.86 1.78 1.34 1.34 1.53
13 systems (56) Traditional 0.54 0.44 0.81 0.2644 0.547 0.195 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -0.10 0.25
(aggegated) INIA 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.1399 0.364 0.046 2.15 6.00 1.42 3.95 0.10 0.56
Limited Capital 0.64 0.68 1.06 0.0918 0.277 0.013 3.05 23.93 2.57 20.10 0.31 0.67
Unlimited Capital 0.99 0.86 0.87 0.5159 0.308 0.115 3.47 3.31 1.89 1.81 0.29 0.65
Overall (125) Traditional 0.54 0.73' 1.35 0.8021 0.399 0.206 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.47
INIA 0.82 1.06' 1.29 1.2194 0.306 0.168 1.89 1.78 1,24 1.17 Q.48 0.74
Limited Capital 0.64 1.11' 1.73 1.3319 0.298 0.168 2.03 1.86 1.71 1.56 0.59 0.82
Unlimited Capital 0.98 1.46' 1.49 3.4542 0.303 0.215 2.63 1.92 1.45 1.06 0.72 0.94
The number of experiments conducted in each system is given in parenthesis. * The commercial yield obtained with a given technology, less the check yield, less the variable costs associated with the use of the technology. + s AM is the estimator of the variance among years, of the net increase values (5 degrees of freedom). ++ The standardized probability of obtaining a net increase equal or smaller than 0.5 and 0 ton/ha.
RiAMt II=I Ci III=AM(1.R)-CR
AMt Rt C
The index i, indicates INIA, limited capital and unlimited capital technologies; t indicates traditional technology.
*0 Ia, Ila, and Ila refer to the case when R=P( AM- 0.5 ton/ha); Ib, Ilb and Illb refer to the case when R=P( AM 5 0 ton/ha). Unweighted averages.
35




nology, but risk was also higher. Using R (0) as the criterion ior the aggregated 13 systems (47 percent .of the area) of risk, the unlimited capital technology was riskier than shows a variable cost for the limited capital technology that both the limited capital and the INIA technologies in all was 22 percent less, a net increase in yield that was 8 perinstances, except in system 1.1.1. cent higher and a risk factor that was 24 percent lower
For the five individual and aggregated producing sys- using R(0.5) and 72 percent lower using R(0).
tems, the unlimited capital technology produced net in- Average net increases in production per unit of cost,
creases in yield about twice those obtained with the tradi- A M/C, were higher using the limited capital, as co 'mpared tional technology. The risk using unlimited capital tech- to the traditional technology in four of the five systems. nology was 26 to 76 percent of that using traditional tech- This was true in spite of the higher cost of the limited nology with R (0.5), and was 35 to 104 percent of that capital technology. The INIA technology was superior to using traditional technology with R (0). The variable costs the traditional technology in net increase per unit of cost of the unlimited capital technology were 1.39 to 2.41 times only in system 1.1.1. The unlimited capital technology was greater than those of the traditional technology, superior to the traditional technology, using the net in-,
Net increases in yield using the limited capital tech- crease per unit of cost as a measure of efficiency, in 76 nology and the INIA technology were equal for systems percent of the area (system 3 and the combined 13 sys1. 1.1 and 2. 1. 1. The risk using the two technologies was the tems) same in system 2.1.1, but was higher by 42 percent when The "adequacy indices" in Table 3.14 provide additional
using R (0.5) and by 91 percent when using R (0), for the criteria for comparing the four technologies. Index Ia limited capital technology in system 1.1.1 (13 percent of provides a measure of the relative net increase in yield per the area). Variable cost of the limited capital technology unit of risk for R (0.5), and lb provides a similar measure was 27 percent lower than that of the INIA technology in for R (0), using traditional technology as a base. According the same system. Compared to the INIA technology in to Index Ia, the unlimited capital technology in system
system 3 (29 percent of the area), the limited capital tech- 1.1.1 is eight times better than the traditional technology. nology had a. variable cost that was 27 percent less, a net Indices [a and lb, however, do not take into account the increase in yield 11 percent higher, and a lower risk factor differences in variable costs associated with distinct techthat was less by 7 percent using R (0.5), and less by 4 nologies. Indices Ila and Ilb do incorporate this concept, percent using R (0). The same comparison of technologies and, for system 1.1.1, Index Ila shows that the relative net
TABLE 3.15. Comparison of four technologies, assuming that each was used in the production of 80,000 hectares of maize.
Limited Unlimited
Traditional IN IA capital capital
Average yield (ton/ha) 2.05 2.67 2.54 3.19
Total production of grain (tons) 164 211 213 311 203 366 254 844
Average net increase (ton/ha of
grain)* 0.74 1.05 1.12 1.44
Total net increase in grain (tons) 59 204 84 244 89 769 114 821
Total net increase in stover (tons)"* 75 457 93 119 86 270 109 245
Value of net increase, A P + $3,666,928 $5,138,048 $5,402,432 $6,903,960
Fertilizers used:
Ammonium sulphate (tons) 20 000 32 000 29 823 43 003
Simple superphosphate (tons) 9 756 15 609 6 067 12 775
Potassium chloride (tons) 1 333 0 0 0
Total cost of fertilizers, F+ + $2,353,584 $3,550,704 $2,787,552 $4,267,176
A P/F ratio 1.56 1.45 1.94 1.62
*The increase is the commercial yield, less the check yield, less the variable costs expressed in ton/ha of grain. The average
net increase is weighted according to the area in each producing system.
**Net increase in stover is the yield with a given technology, less the check yield.
+ Value of the grain in the field was $54.80/ton; value of stover in the field was $5.60/ton. These are market prices less
costs associated with harvesting and marketing.
++ The cost of fertilizer was the market price plus costs of transport, application, interest on loan, and crop insurance.
36




increase in yield per unit of risk, adjusted for differences in tional and INIA technologies produces a gain of $1.56 and variable costs, is 3.63 times greater for unlimited capital $1.45, respectively. technology than for traditional technology. Index IIla is aThlitecatltcnogywudrqren18pmeasre f th oucomeof gae inwhih th famer cent larger investment in fertilizers than -would the tradiplays to win A~ M and has a probability of 1 -R (0.5) of tional -technology; would produce 24 percent more maize, doing so, but also has a probability, R (0.5), of losing C. and would yield a net increase worth 47 percent more.
A comparison will next be made of the impact of the Using the limited capital technology, farmers would invest four technologies on production, net increases, and ferti- $433,968 more in fertilizers than with the traditional lizer consumption, assuming each technology were to be technology, and would gain an additional $1,735,504. used on the 80,000 ha of land normally devoted to maize Thus, each additional dollar spent on fertilizers with the production in the Project area. The data needed for this limited capital technology would give a profit or $4.00. In a comparison are shown in Table 3.15. Estimated total global sense, each dollar invested in fertilizers using the production with the four technologies varies from 164,211 lmtdcptltcnlg ol il rfto 19
to 254,844 tons/year; the value of net increase varies from limited cptal tech6nlg wh aoul yie adoitofa $1.94 $3,666,928 to $6,903,960; and the cost of fertilizers varies comprdto$.6intecseoghytaiina.eh from $2,353,584 to $4,267,176.noo.
Compared with the traditional technology, the INIA The unlimited capital technology compared with the
technology would require a 51 percent larger investment in traditional, would require an 81 percent larger investment fertilizers and would produce 30 percent more maize with a in fertilizers, produce 55 percent more maize, and yield a net increase worth 40 percent more. That is, using the INIA profit worth 88 percent more. Farmers would invest technology, farmers could invest $1,197,120 moreinferti- $1,913,592 more in fertilizers with the unlimited capital lizers and gain an additional $1,471,120. Each additional technology as compared to the traditional, but could gain dollar spent on fertilizers would yield a profit of $1.23. $3,237,032 more. In this case, each additional dollar spent Globally, each dollar inVested in fertilizers using the tradi- on fertilizers would yield a profit of $1.69.
37




38




4 MAIZE VARIETY IMPROVEMENT
INTRODUCTION (d) The development of cryptic double-cross (S 1 x SI)
Prior to the Puebla Project, it was known that Chalque- hybrids and S 1 x double-cross hybrids. The decision
fio and C6nico were the predominant races of maize in the to use this breeding method was based on experiregion. The Mexican Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) ence in other areas indicating that it should be
had done some varietal testing, and two hybrids (H-28 and possible to develop a hybrid by the third year of the
H- 129) were recommended for the area. A limited survey in Project that would outfield the parental varieties by
the fall of 1966 indicated, however, that most farmers were 25 to 30 percent. This timetable was dependent on
growing native varieties. This finding was confirmed by a growing two crops per year, through winter plantfarm survey in early 1968 which revealed that, although 15 ings at lower altitudes. Since the proposed life of
percent of the farmers had used hybrid maize on at least the project was only 5 years, it was necessary to
one occasion, less than I percent of the farmers had grown have improved materials available by the end of the
hybrids in 1967. third year, if they were to significantly influence
It seemed reasonable to expect varieties that yield more, production within this time period.
particularly in unfavorable years, would be readily accepted (e) The development of open-pollinated varieties by farmers and would represent an economical way to in- through mass selection. This method was chosen on
crease production. Thus, maize improvement research the basis of research experience suggesting that inbecame an integral part of the Puebla Project. The research crease in yield could be expected, varying from 4 to
objective was to quickly develop improved varieties that 10 percent per year. In addition, since farmers
would yield more than the available hybrids and native would cooperate in the selection, they would have
varieties, and that would compare favorably in terms of improved seed available immediately and could
grain type, lodging, earliness, and disease resistance. continue to attain better yielding materials through
their own efforts after the Project ended.
STRATEGY OF GENETIC IMPROVEMENT
The maize improvement program. consisted of the following activities:
(a) The collection of information from farmers
throughout the Project area to establish farmer preferences as to grain type, earliness, and other
morphological characteristics.
(b) The collection of outstanding native varieties in the
area. It was expected that some of these might be useful for immediate distribution, and many would
be valuable as breeding materials.
(c) The testing of promising local varieties and exotic
materials at representative sites throughout the area.
Initially these varietal trials were to identify out standing genotypes, both for immediate use and as
breeding materials, and subsequently to compare Varietal trials were carried out each year at several locathe performance of e).dsting and newly produced tions, to compare the performance of native varieties, immaterials. proved varieties and hybrids, and experimental materials.
39




PROGRAM AND RESULTS During the summer of 1970, Comp A x Comp B was
As information was collected from fa it became included in varietal tests at 16 locations and was planted on
n areson wa semi-commercial scale at a few sites. From the results evident that length of the growing season was a major obtained in 1969 and 1970, it was evident that Comp A x concern of farmers in deciding which variety to plant. A obandi199nd97,twsevetthtCmAx maoern of flanngsarr in deciding wh vary tAprlan A Comp B was not superior to the parental Variety, and it was majority of plantings are made in late March, April, and dcddntt rmt h s fCm opBi
early May, in soils that conserve sufficient moisture from
the previous rainy season. Farmers use late-maturing varie- the Puebla area. ties for these early plantings. Early-maturing varieties make The five outstanding cryptic hybrids, the five best up the remainder of the maize planted in late May and Junecontinued after the rains begin. in the varietal trials in 1971 and 1972. The relative yields,
Faters e in b degn days to flowering, and lodging percentages of these hybrids Farmers find a wide range of kernel colors-white, yel- and other promising materials, are given in Table 4.1. low, red, blue, and mixes-acceptable for home consump- Several conclusions can be drawn from these data: (a tion. For the market, however, whites and yellows are Svrlcnlsoscnb rw rmteedt:()
ioefrd, thne maket, hoer ies andcryellow art compared to the parental variety Pinto Salvatori, Comp A x preferred, since local buyers sometimes discriminate against Comp B yields slightly less, has a slightly longer growing reds and blues.
season, and has the same tendency to lodge; (b) four of the
Overall, the maize improvement program has emphasized cryptic hybrids outyield Pinto Salvatori by 5 to 11 percent the production of high-yielding varieties, that are resistant (tofths,13ad26ldglesndavabute to diseases and lodging, for both early and late plantings. same owingesean as th e le) and (cb the
same growing season as the parental variety); and (c) the
Production of Hybrids five topcrosses with H-28 yield from 2 to 7 percent more
than H-28 (topcross 257 yields 7 percent more and flowers
During the summer of 1967, several local varieties were in 3 days less than H-28). examined, and the variety Pinto Salvatori was chosen as
geimplasm for the production of cryptic double-cross Production of Varieties hybrids. Five hundred crosses of selected plants were made Observation nurseries, including 41 composites of earlier and the second ears of each of the 1,000 parental plants collections from the Puebla area and 18 other promising were self-pollinated. Because of problems in obtaining suf- materials, were planted at two locations in the summer of ficient seed of the cross, as well as the self-pollinations, the 1967. The relative performance of the several entries program realized only 94 complete sets. provided guidance to select those materials to be used in
During the winter of 1967-1968, topcrosses were made the genetic improvement program. Two composites were at the experiment station of the National Seed Production formed at Tepalcingo during the following winter: (a) an Company near Tepalcingo, Morelos, by crossing H-28 and early composite by intercrossing Puebla groups 10, 11, 26, S I lines of several varieties that were outstanding in the and 30; Chapalote x C6nico; Chalquefio x C6nico; Harinoso summer varietal trials. Individual plants of the variety were de Ocho x C6nico; Colorado Salvatori; and H-28; and (b) a selfed at the same time they were crossed with 10 to 15 late composite by intercrossing Puebla groups 33, 44, and plants of H-28. 49; Batin E-CIV; Hidalgo 8 M-CI; Pinto Salvatori; and BlanThe 94 cryptic double-crosses from the variety Pinto co Salvatori.
Salvatori and 68 topcrosses from the winter program were During the summer of 1968, mass selection blocks were yield-tested in 1968 at four locations in the Puebla area. planted and carried through the first cycle of selection with Eleven of the cryptic double-crosses and eight of the the early and late composites. The first cycle of mass selectopcrosses to H-28 yielded significantly more than did the tion in an opaque-2 composite was also conducted. The best commercial hybrids. opaque-2 composite was formed by mixing seed that carThe S I parents of the five best cryptic hybrids were ied the opaque-2 gene from Mexico group 10, Hidalgo 8, planted for increase and to obtain more seed of the crosses Pinto Salvatori, and Blanco Rubin. at the Tepalcingo station during the winter of 1968-1969.
Also, these 10 parental lines were arbitrarily divided into The mass selection blocks were fertilized each year two groups to form two composites (A and B). The cross according to the recommendations of the Project. Plant between these two composites was made in detasseling densities of 24,000 plants/ha were used in 1968, 1969, and blocks and seed was produced for semi-commercial testing 1970. Densities were changed to 50,000 plants/ha in 1971 in the Puebla area. as a result of a study at Chapingo indicating that the plant
Comp A x Comp B, together with the five best topcros- density in mass selection blocks should be similar to that in ses to H-28 and other promising materials, was tested at commercial plantings. three locations in the Puebla area during the summer of Mass selection with the early composite was done at four 1969. Selected farmers were given small lots of Comp A x locations in 1968, five locations in 1969, and one location Comp B for comparison against their local varieties. The in 1970. Work with this composite was discontinued in results with Comp A x Comp B were not up to expecta- 1971 when it became clear that it was not sufficiently early tions. for late May and June plantings in the Puebla area.
40




TABLE 4.1. Relative yields, days to flowering (50%of CIMMYT opaques, and three normal hybrids. The opaque-2
tassels showing), and lodging percentages of selected maize composite of the Project produced 4 percent more opaque
varieties and hybrids studied in the area of the Puebla Proj- grain than the best INIA material and 16 percent more than ect. the best CIMMYT material. However, it still yielded well
below the hybrids with normal grain (85 percent of H-129
'2 .1 and 70 percent of H-131).
-, a c
Material Evaluation of Materials
H-28 84 228 100.0 95 4 A total of 163 varietal trials was done in the Project area
Colorado Salvatori 26 88 97.5 91 10 during the period 1967-1972. These trials included farmers'
Rojo Salvatori 45 96 85.4 87 7 varieties from the Puebla area and similar regions; improved
Pinto Salvatori 84 228 103.2 97 13 varieties and hybrids; and experimental materials from
H-129 82 224 102.6 106 7
H-129 (before Apr. 21) 30 78 106.9 CIMMYT, INIA, the Graduate College at Chapingo, and the
H-129 (after Apr. 20) 52 146 100.0 breeding program of the Puebla Project. Separate trials were
H-127 27 92 93.1 101 4 conducted for late materials, early materials, and opaques.
H-125 23 84 102.2 102 4 These trials were conducted at population and fertilization
H-131 19 56 119.5 106 7
CDC 358 1'4 40 112.7 102 12 levels similar to the unlimited capital recommendations of
CDC 275 14 40 108.7 100 13 the Project.
CDC 246 14 40 110.6 95 9 The relative yields of 21 of the most outstanding mateCDC 205 14 40 101.7 101 17 rials are shown in Table 4.1, along with days to flowering
CDC 113 14 40 114.1 97 9 .
Comp A x Comp B 28 86 102.4 100 13 and lodging percentages. Pinto Salvatori is an outstanding
H-28 x Pue gpo 44-309 15 44 105.0 97 5 native variety and should be used more widely in the area.
H-28 x Colorado -292 15 44 102.2 89 6 In yielding ability it compares favorably with H-129 and
H-28 x Colorado 257 15 44 -0-7.2 92 6 H-125 and is superior to H-28 and H-127. A recently reH-28 x Colorado 276 15 44 102.2 91 3
H-28 x Pue gpo 44- 333 15 44 105.1 90 3 leased INIA hybrid, H-131, is the highest-yielding material
Comp IT SMP 12 36 103.2 100 13 studied, outyielding Pinto Salvatori and H-129 by about 16
Comp 1500 35 92 97.2 100 15 percent. It should be recommended for March and April
Local variety 24 1 64 90.3 92 12 plantings in the Project area.
The varietal evaluations summarized in Table 4.1 include
* Average yield expressed as a percentage of H-28 (average yield of
H-28 at 84 sites = 5.47 ton/ha of grain with 14 % moisture). as s sampl of locA veties olythe eigh collete the spring of 1967). A second collection of native varieties
was made in the winter of 1970-1971, including 216 from
Puebla, 20 from Tlaxcala, 9 from Hidalgo, and 4 from
Veracruz. These were divided into early and late materials
and included in evaluation trials in 1971 and 1972.
In Table 4.2, the average yields and days to flowering of
20 of the best late native varieties are compared with Pinto
Salvatori, H-129, and H-131. Pinto Salvatori and H-131
Mass selection with the opaque-2 composite was realized outyielded all the native varieties. On the other hand, the
at one location in each of the years from 1968 to 1971. native varieties outyielded H-129. These findings indicate
Mass selection with the late composite was carried out at 22 that many of the native varieties in Puebla compare favorasites during the years 1968-1972, an average of 4.4 sites/ bly in yielding ability to the best improved materials
year. CIMMYT decided in 1972 to, discontinue the 'mass presently available. (It should be remembered that when a
selection work, as well as other breeding activities. This local variety and a hybrid yield almost equally and are
decision was based on the assumption that maize breeding similar in other respects, the local variety is preferred
activities could not be conducted successfully on farmers' because of the expense and other problems associated with
fields. the production and distribution of hybrid seed.)
The late composite was included in varietal trials in In Table 4.3, the average yields and days to flowering of
1970, 1971, and 1972; average yields of the late composite 18 of the best early native varieties are compared with the
in 1972 before mass selection and after the fourth cycle hybrids H-35E, H-30, and H-28. The materials are arranged
were 6.14 and 6.38 tons/ha, respectively. Apparently, four in order of earliness to facilitate the comparison of varieties
cycles of selection produced little or no improvement in the with similar growing seasons. Both H-30 and the experimenlate composite. Also, as seen in Table 4.1, the late com- tal hybrid, H-35E, outyielded all native varieties that had a
posite, Comp IT SMP, yields the same as Pinto Salvatori, is similar number of days'to flowering. H-30 flowered five slightly later, and has the same tendency to lodge., days earlier than H-28 and should be useful for May and
In 1972, the opaque-2 composite, after four cycles of early June plantings. H-35E flowered a week before H-30
selection, was compared with seven INIA opaques, three and might be suitable for mid-June plantings.
41




TABLE 4.3. Average yields and days to flowering of early
maturing local- varieties and introduced hybrids. The values
EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM are averages for four experiments carried out in 1971 and
1972.
The maize improvement program did not meet its goal Yield of grain Days to
of developing higher-yielding materials and putting them Material with 14ymoisture flowering
into commerical production by the seventh year of Project ton/ha.
operation. Two of the best cryptic hybrids outyielded the
best materials available in 1967 by about 10 percent. Tlax. 237 2.27 82
However, as the parental lines of these crosses yielded Pue. 178 2.35 83
poorly and lodged badly, it was not feasible to produce Pue. 153 2.59 84
these hybrids commercially. The Comp A x Comp B, Pue. 217 2.49 85
formed from the parental lines of the five best cryptic H-35E 3.14 86
hybrids, could have been produced at low cost, but un- Pue. 139 2.70 86
fortunately it did not retain the high yielding capacity of Pue. 175 2.52 87
the single crosses. Pue. 214 2.68 87
Pue. 184 2.75 88
Pue. 183 2.80 88
TABLE 4.2. Average yields and days to flowering of late Pue. 53 2.83 88
maturing local varieties and introduced hybrids. The values Pue. 216 2.90 89
are averages for seven experiments carried out in 1971 and Pue. 159 3.08 89
1972. Pe 5 .88
Pue. 210 2.78 90
Yield of grain Days to Pue. 200 3.26 90
Material with 14% moisture flowering Pue. 86 2.88 91
ton/ha. Pue. 91 2.92 91
Pue. 29 3.07 91
Pinto Salvatori 5.52 107 Pue. 195 3.01 92
Pue. 26 5.45 118 H.30 3.82 93
Pue. 66 5.36 107 H-28 3.60 98
Pue. 41 5.30 118
Pue. 77 5.30 ill Four years of mass selection in the late composite at a
Pue. 108 5.28 108 total of 19 sites produced little or no improvement in
Pue, 79 5.28 114 yielding ability. This result is not in accord with the
Pue. 27 5.21 120 experiences of many maize breeders and possibly was
Pue. 67 5.21 106 influenced by the following considerations: (a) the plant
Pue. 119 5.17 111 density in the selection blocks in 1968, 1969, and 1970 was
Tlax. 145 5.17 113 only about half that used in commercial plantings; there is
Pue. 69 5.17 113 some evidence that plants that are outstanding at low
Pue. 45 5.12 113 densities are not necessarily superior at high densities; (b)
Pue. 4 5.10 105 there were difficulties at many sites in achieving complete
Pue. 62 5.08 106 isolation of the selection block, because the adjoining plantPue. 2 5.07 104 ings could not be controlled; this may have resulted in the
introduction of undesirable germplasm into the composite;
Pue. 59 5.07 108 and (c) the land chosen for some of the selection blocks
Pue. 10 5.06 105
was quite variable; this made it difficult to select only those
Pue. 116 5.06 108 plants that were genetically superior.
Pue. 141 5.04 112 The major contribution of the maize improvement
Pue. 36 5.04 107 program has been in determining the usefulness of local and
H-131 5.60 120 introduced materials for early and late plantings in the area.
H'129 4.65 121 Pinto Salvatori is an outstanding local variety that should
be used more widely for plantings in March, April, and
42




early May. H-131 yields about 16 percent more than Pinto might be useful in producing such improved varieties. It Salvatori and is recommended for March and April plant- would determine the major conditions used for crop ings. H-30 is superior to local varieties for late May axn4 production in the area and conduct evaluation trials at sites early June plantings. H-35E shows promise for mid-June located so as to adequately sample these conditions.
plantings. In general, the maize improvement work demon- The crop improvement program at a neighboring restrated that: many local varieties are high-yielding when search center would have the responsibility for selecting the production conditions are favorable, materials and methods for producing improved varieties. It
Maize improvement experience in the Puebla Project would supervise all breeding activities, both in the regional
indicates that the development of improved varieties for a program and, at the research center. The selfing, crossing, regional program can perhaps best, be achieved in a coop- and selection of materials might be done either at the reerative effort with a nearby research center. The crop search center or at appropriate lQcations in the Project area.
improvement component of the regional program would The selection of plants tolerant to moisture stress, for
have the responsibility of collecting the information that is example, might best be made at appropriate sites in the necessary to clearly define the characteristics of the im- Project area. The most experienced personnel available proved varieties needed by farmers. The regional program should participate in any step involving a subjective evaluawould assist in the collection of local genetic materials that tion of materials.
43




Field demonstrations were held at harvest time, to show farmers how yield and net income were increased by using the new technology. Here the net returns from using the recommended number of bags of fertilizer are being discussed with the farmers.
44




5 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS'
* "high-yield" plots throughout the western three-quarters of
INTRODUCTION the Project area. Initially, the plans called for the customTechnical assistance to Puebla Project farmers began in ary procedure used for locating demonstrations; that is,
* early 1968, when new maize recommendations were devel- choosing of highly accessible locations with good -soils,
opedbasd onthe196 resarc resltsandcompemeta- where the largest possible number of farmers could see the
ry data. This new maize technology brought several changes loted fist anpocpid thet owner thncnieds oul tciae for its users, including (a) higher investment in fertilizers- owaevefr,n the xpriner otin byvic the evalutinptem the new fertilizer recommendation in 1968 cost about 130 inwer 1968 exience oaihne in traegy authen team
percent more than the average fertilizer treatment used in i al 98idctdacag nsrtg.Teta
1967 by the 70 percent of the farmers-who fertilized their encountered negative attitudes and, in some cases, hostility
maie; b) urhas ofiniviualferilzermatrils nstad among many farmers; thus plans were revamped to work
maiz; () prchse f iniviualferilier mteralsinsead through the existing power structure in each community.
of a formula, and the mixing of the materials at home; (c)ThpoicaadnsttveutinhePbaaraste
application of a part of the fertilizers at planting time and Theical rdcontahv ofi hih hs Pba rnia village the remainder at the second cultivation, instead of applying an eerlacilrypplain nt or commu ah fWih a rnita iaeTh
all the fertilizer at the first cultivation; (d) use of higher mncplreintand svrIaanilypolter municipalaomuthoities. live
plant densities- 50,000 plants/ha- instead of the 15,000 to muipaprsdnadotemncplathiislven
25,000 used earlier; and (e) control of weeds, with more the principal village with auxiliary authorities, responsible
complete and timely methods, plus control of the rose t h uiia rsdnrsdn nec ftecm
chafer at flowering time when necessary. munities.
Although these changes were largely quantitative, they As a first measure, the Project staff began to contact the
did imply wide-reaching changes in farm management and municipal presidents and explain the Project and its goals.
farming practices-for the Pueblan farm families. These initial visits provided a brief description of the
The ental im o th tehnicl asisanceproramwas Project, using the report prepared for the first annual meetTohroe very pimosibleteha assistance ees roga enabl sh ing, a map showing the locations of the experiments
farver toee nose astecg efeciey. toenalh conducted in 1967, and a list of the cooperating farmers.
farmrs o us th ne tecnolgy efecivey. Tchncal This basic information was attached to an official letter of
assistance agents sought rapid adoption of Project recom- prsnainigebyteG ealAntothMnsryf
mendations by concentrating on: (a) providing the farm- prsentatorgeb the eeraAg of giuthe, Minteo ers with information about the Project, including how the Agoriultrf the Stterector ofe Agttriculraind thee new recommendations were developed and the several coordbintors of the Project.a tholette epand the rcomponents of the new recommendations; (b) assisting the tap oblthes ol the i evlpn hePoet
farmrs n otaiingcreit nd i arangng or ertlizrs; The presidents were asked to arrange general meetings of
(c) instructing the farmers in the most efficient ways to use althmuiplatoriestatflinraincud
the recommendations; and (d) collecting information from albe munvicip abutheot so tht fulworatns ould68 the farmers about obstacles limiting their use of agricultural bumeid about thel Proec abund o the r planfo 1968
services in the area, transmitting the information to the Suh eeting whreorehlsnaln of the municipio inea members of the Project team and to representatives of Digthe ester th ee-futins of the rojectpa. toiis
service agencies, and assisting in finding ways to overcome Daeurielngth n firs meetin oft th uia l auroetotes
the difficulties, crflepaainwsmd fwa h rjc ol
provide and how the farmers might cooperate. At the
PROJECT PROGRAM: 1968 completion of each meeting, the participants were asked
which farmers in the locality might be interested in the
Location of the High-yield Plots Project. The authorities usually- asked for time to return to
their villages to explain the Project and find out who might
A demonstration program was planned for 1968 so that be interested. In a few cases, the local authority himself was
the farmers could have a first-hand look at the advantages ready to participate and to initiate Project work in his
of the new maize technology. Plans were made to locate village.
45




The next step was to schedule a series of meeting with actual loan time. This turned out to be an agreeable surprise farmers in the villages where authorities had expressed some with good will resulting for the distributor who provided interest. The local authorities took the initiative in organ- the credit. izing the meetings and inviting the farmers. At these meet- In contrast, there was occasional friction when the farmings, Project technicians explained the Project and sug- er arrived to pay his loan with the understanding that only gested how the farmers might participate by using the new the principal was to be paid as indicated in the letter of recommendations in a part of their maize plantings. A total credit. In such cases, when the interest was calculated, the of 31 such meetings were held, farmer often did not have enough money on hand to make
The farmers learned that they would have to provide the payment. One such farmer considered the interest a fraud. fertilizers and labor, and the Project technicians would Bad feelings often occurred, even among those farmers who assist in the field operations to assure that the recommenda- understood that the credit terms were very favorable tions were used correctly. For those who did not have compared to local lenders and had simply forgotten to money to purchase the fertilizers, help was offered in ob- calculate the interest. Because of these experiences, it was taining' credit from a private or official agency. After all decided that the total amount of the loan, principal plus aspects involved in using Project recommendations had interest, should be stated in the letter of credit, whenever been explained in detail and discussed at great length, a possible. small group of farmers gradually took the initiative. These
farmers generally had two characteristics: they were (a)
responsible workers of their land with a desire to progress, Crop I nsurance and (b) persons whose moral character and influence were
amply recognized in the community. After the plantings had been made, the crop insurance
In some communities, many farmers wished to partici- agency insured them. This was an experimental 'operation pate; in such cases, the final selection of participants was for the insurance agency, because their usual procedure was made by visiting the possible sites. Generally, no less than to insure plantings of only 5 ha or more. The plots financed two and no more than five sites were selected in each com- by Agronomos Unidos varied from 0.25 to 1.0 ha, and at munity, but in a few cases there were more than five. There the outset it was difficult for the insurance agency to were 25 sites around one village, and eight sites at another, include them. However, the risk aspects of rainfed plantings due principally to the enthusiasm of the farmers and the were of special interest to the Project, and the participation fact that the village land was very extensive. There were of the crop insurance agency was ultimately arranged. The only tWo instances where farmers were accepted and later insurance agency made the necessary inspections of the withdrew; these withdrawals were due to objections of the plantings, and discarded 14 plots that were considered wives, principally because the husband was planning to unacceptable. The remainder were fully insured. According obtain fertilizer on credit and they objected to going in to the yield levels obtained at the end of 1968, the insurdebt. ance agency had no indemnifiable losses whatsoever due to
hail, drought, wind, frost, and other risks covered by the
Credit program. There were reductions in yield due to these
A ttalof 41 ighyild lot, "varin insiz frm 025 causes, but none that would require payment under the to 1.0 ha, were established by 103 farmers. Each farmer vnalue eualetit .ons/b gre axin. oeae a o was given information about the availability of credit, the vleeuvln o11tn/agan interest rate, and what the role of crop insurance could be
in reducing risks from natural causes. Planting and Care of the High-yield Plots
In 1968, 60, percent of the farmers who participated
were financed by Agronomos Unidos, a private fertilizer The high-yield plots were planted on dates decided upon distributor. An additional 20 percent of the credit was by the farmer cooperators. The plantings were used as provided by the Agricultural Bank of the South, and 20 demonstrations, and the neighboring farmers were invited percent of the plantings were self-financed by the farmers. to watch the procedures. In some cases, the cooperating Credit was provided at an interest rate of 1-1/2 percent/ farmer made the fertilizer mixture several days before month. The credit was extended for 9 months, sufficient planting; in others, the mixing was part of the demonstratime to cover the long growing season and allow the farmer tion. to harvest and sell enough maize to repay the loan. The farmers were shown how and when to apply the
The letters of credit which the farmers signed on receiv- mixture so that the fertilizer would be evenly distributed at ing the fertilizers were prepared in two ways: most of them the bottom of the furrow. A convenient local measure was showed only the amount of the loan and the rate of inter- found for calibrating the fertilizer distribution. a 1-liter oil est; a few indicated the total amount of the loan plus can. When this can was filled to about one finger below the interest. In those cases where the interest was calculated in top and distributed over 20 meters, the appropriate amount the original loan agreement, and the farmer paid before the of the mixture was applied. For rapid measuring, a 9 months were up, he received a cash refund for interest 20-meter wire was used to locate stakes at 20-meter intercorresponding to the difference between 9 months and the vals along the row.
46




The program to promote farmer use of the new maize
technology was initiated in 4.
1968, with 103 farmers participating with 141 high-yield plots. Eighty percent of these farmers were provided credit by a fertilizer distributor and an official bank. Here farmers are seen signing loan agreements.
The traditional planting rate for maize required a full ment, printed circulars, and posters. Attendance ranged step distance between hills; however, the new planting rate from 11 to 75 farmers. was demonstrated in terms of a distance between hills of The demonstration consisted of three parts: (a) the
about one-half step. The higher population required learn- technical assistance agent's explanation of the Puebla ing a new rhythm of planting -inserting the shovel, opening Project, (b) the cooperating farmer's report of the practices and covering twice as many holes per hectare. used in the high-yield plot, and (c) open discussion led by
To assure an optimum population density, the farmers, the farmer and technician. An interesting aspect of the
at first, were taught to overplant and then thin to the discussion was the obviously greater self-confidence felt by
desired 50,000 plants/ha. In this way, the population could the visiting farmers when raising questions and making combe assured in spite of soil insects, inadequate germination, ments to the farmer-demonstrator. and other factors. However, the fertilizer applied at plant- Two regional demonstrations also were held just before ing time caused vigorous early growth. When told that it harvest at strategic locations where both a high-yield plot
was time to thin the plants, the farmers frequently replied: and an experiment could be seen. Farmers with high-yield "Here I have one of the most beautiful plantings of maize plots in each locality were asked to organize the event. In that I have ever grown, and you want me to pull out some meetings with these farmers to plan the demonstration, two
of the plants." To them, pulling of the superfluous plants aspects were noted: (a) the farmers lacked confidence in was a destructive act. As a result, before the planting season their ability to plan and carry out a demonstration, and (b) was far advanced, it was decided to reduce the planting rate they thought that no one would attend. They felt that the and eliminate the thinning operation. technical assistance agents should make the decisions. The
The technicians kept in contact with the high-yield plots technicians, however, encouraged the farmers and insisted throughout the growing season. As the plantings were that the farmers handle the arrangements.
completed, attention was given to weed control, and where The organizational approach which evolved was to name
necessary, to control of the rose chafer. Demonstrations for a committee of the most enthusiastic farmers with the neighboring farmers were held at the second cultivation formal title: Committee for Organizing the Agricultural
when the second fertilizer application was made. The Field Day. The committee took charge of: (a) inviting the
visiting farmers learned which fertilizer to apply, and how authorities, both of the federal and state governments, (b) much, as well as how to keep fertilizer out of the bud to inviting the neighbors, (c) naming a person to receive each avoid damaging plants. of the groups as they arrived from the different communities, and (d) naming members to look after the smooth
Result Demonstrations functioning of the demonstration to assure that there
would be an atmosphere of hospitality.
Local demonstrations were held just prior to harvest at The technical assistance agents invited farmers from
15 of the high-yield plots, and neighbors and farmers from other parts of the Project area, using personal contact, a adjoining communities were invited via local sound equip- poster, a printed circular, plus personal invitations to all farm47




ers with high-yield plots. General attendance was good at both events.
Through organization of the events, the farmers gained
experiences of lasting value, plus confidence in their ability AM
to conduct demonstrations of this type. Attendance was greater than they had imagined possible, and often included farmers from the more distant villages.
Other demonstrations were held throughout the growing season for representatives of various Mexican state and national institutions, including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Governor of Puebla, state directors of agriculture, directors of the official banks, and many other professionals interested in the Project. There were also numerous visitors from Latin America, Europe, and the United States.
Printed Matter and Audio-visual Aids
In meetings with farmers it was impressive to see that even those who were barely literate took notes on the recommendations on scraps of paper. Mimeographed and printed materials were prepared to ensure accurate recording of the information.
At the end of 1968, a pamphlet was published with
Project recommendations for increasing maize yields enti- Pamphlets were prepared ith the information farmers
tled: "Would You Like to Increase Your Maize Yields? ". w
needed to use project recommendations correctly. The text The text was minimal and essential data were shown in was kept to a minimum, and the essential data were presillustrations. Thus, farmers attending a meeting could first ented in illustrations. hear the recommendations and then take home a folder containing the same information. A 16 mm. film in color entitled "Would You Like to
During the 1968 maize growing season, farmers in the Increase Your Maize Harvest? was produced in 1968. The film
region also played a central role in the filming of a 16-mm has been very useful in demonstrating to farmers exactly color movie for use in promotional activities in subsequent how to obtain higher yields of maize. It also serves as an years, entitled: "Would You Like to Increase Your Maize attraction to bring farmers together to discuss common
Harvest? problems of credit and input availability.
44
41
48




A typical meeting began with an explanation of the
Project and presentation of the results obtained by farmers
with high-yield plots in 1968, followed by a showing of the
locally produced color film: "Would You Like to Increase
PROJECT PROGRAM: 1969 Your Maize Harvest? ". The film was extremely useful in
demonstrating how higher yields could be obtained. It lent
The Project began its 1969 program on an optimistic credibility to the recommendations by its careful documennote: successful contact had been made with the social tation of 1968 successes, using local names and places. network of the farming community in 1968, additional About halfway through the film, projection was stopped
research results were available, finances had been obtained and questions encouraged. During this intermission, a to expand the technical team of the Project, and the banks mimeographed map of the region was distributed, that gave and fertilizer distributors were ready to expand credit to recommendations for each community. Thus, each farmer make fertilizer more readily available Thus, the Project could identify his own land, and, on the back of the sheet, find team and service institutions decided to attempt to extend the specific fertilizer recommendation. The movie was the use of the improved technology to a total of 10,000 ha shown 71 times in 59 villages, with a total attendance of operated by about 5,000 farmers. 4,570 in 1969.
As in 1968, promotional activities were concentrated in After the advantages of the new maize technology had the western three-fourths of the Project area. This region been amply discussed at a meeting, and farmers had expreswas divided into four zones (Fig. 1.2) and a technical as- sed an interest in using it, the technical assistance agent sistance agent was given responsibility for each zone. suggested that the farmers consider forming a group. He stressed that organization would permit: (a) ready access
Organizing Groups to information about the recommendations and assistance
in using them correctly, and (b) easier arrangements for
If the four technical assistance agents were to provide credit and fertilizers.
guidance to 5,000 farmers in using the new maize recom- Two or more meetings and lengthy discussions were
mendations, it was clearly necessary that the farmers be sometimes necessary before the farmers were convinced of organized into groups. Beginning in early 1969, the tech- the advantages of organized action and decided to form a nical assistance agents began to hold meetings in the villages group. Once the group was formed, the members elected a to promote the formation of groups. These meetings were representative and proceeded to discuss operational often organized through farmers who had participated with procedures, acceptance of new members, credit arrangehigh-yield plots in 1968. Many of these farmers were al- ments, etc. The technical assistance agents devoted most of ready aware of the advantages of working together in their time to the formation of the groups, and to assisting
groups, particularly because of past problems encountered them in increasing their membership, learning about the in arranging for the transportation of small quantities of Project recommendations, and arranging for credit and fertilizer at a reasonable price. fertilizers.
W
Air-,
During the cropping season interchanges among farmer groups were organized. A representative of the host group welcomed the visitors and explained how the farmers in his group were trying to improve their crop production. Then the hosts and visitors made a walking tour of high-yield plots in the immediate vicinity.
49




Radio Usage The local farmers received the visitors at a convenient
A radio program about the Project was initiated in location for beginning the tour. The representative of the
March 1969 over a local radio station that transmits to all host group welcomed the visitors and explained what the the Project area. The program was aired Sunday mornings farmers in his group were doing to increase their maize
from 7:30 8:00-one of the most convenient hours for production. Hosts and visitors then made a walking tour of
farmers, according to data collected by the evaluation team. several high-yield plots in the immediate vicinity. The Individuals and groups were advised of the program via a owner of each plot gave a short explanation of the practices
printed flyer, which included the topics, the radio station, used in his planting. The other farmers were encouraged to the hour, and the date. Farmers were encouraged to tell ask questions, offer suggestions, and tell about their own
their neighbors of the program. maize production practices. As opportunities arose, the
The radio program content included recommendations technical assistance agent would point out examples of the
and news notes about happenings of the moment. For exam- correct or deficient use of the several components of the
ple, farmers were notified that fertilizers had arrived at improved maize technology. Refreshments were usually
some location, that farmers who had their land prepared served by the hosts at the close of the tour.
should mix their fertilizers to be ready for planting, that These events, referred to locally as interchanges among
they should mix simple super phosphate and ammonium farmer groups, provided opportunities for farmers from
sulphate in certain proportions and take certain precautions different parts of the Project area to exchange experiences to preserve it. Basically, the program attempted to provide and ideas about a wide range of subjects. While the tour was specific technical information about matters of current in progress, the conversation was usually centered on quesinterest to the farmers. In addition, popular local music was tions related to the production of maize, beans, and other included. crops. During meals and afterward, the farmers frequently
broke up into small groups and discussed a variety of farming and non-farming activities. A total of 570 farmers from
Supervision of the High-yield Plots 35 villages participated in these interchanges in 1969.
In all villages with one or more organized groups, a Result Demonstrations
demonstration was held at planting time to instruct the
farmers in the new fertilization and planting techniques. As The success of the demonstrations held just prior to
in 1968, the technical assistant agent first showed the farm- harvest in 1968 prompted planning in early 1969 to hold ers how to distribute the fertilizer and place the seed. Then six regional demonstrations in the fall of 1969. Convenient all farmers attending were invited to participate in the locations were selected for the demonstrations, and several
planting. agronomic trials plus a high-yield plot were installed at each
During the 60 days or so following the emergence of the site.
maize, the technical assistance agents accompanied the As in 1968, the local farmers organized the field days.
members of the organized groups on field inspections of Project technicians explained the experiments and the
their high-yield plots. The technicians called attention to importance of the findings. The owner of the high-yield any deficiencies in the way the fertilizer had been applied, plot described the practices that he used and gave a benefit: distance between hills of maize, weed control, etc., ex- cost analysis of the operation. Approximately 1, 200 farmers
plaining how such factors could reduce yields. It was attended the six regional demonstrations.
emphasized that greater care in employing the new technology would enable the farmers to realize higher yields
and net income.
Interchanges Among Farmer Groups
During the summer of 1969, after most of the maize had
received the last cultivation, the technical assistance agents
began to talk with several outstanding groups of farmers
about organizing a tour of their high-yield plots and inviting
farmers from other parts of the area to attend. In general,
the idea was received with enthusiasm, and I I of the groups ip
proceeded to organize such events.
The members of the group hosting the tour decided Beginning in 1969, technical assistance agents have encourwhen it should be held, how it should be organized, and aged farmers to organize into groups. This has facilitated
which groups should be invited to attend. The technical the flow of information on technology to the farmers and
assistance agent provided information about possible groups has enabled them to arrange for credit and fertilizers more to invite, and assisted in delivering invitations to the groups. easily.
50




PROJECT PROGRAM: 1971
In 1971, the technical assistance program continued to
promote greater use of Project recommendations by the
farmers, to instruct the farmers in the correct use of the
new technology, to assist organized groups in arranging for
PROJECT PROGRAM: 1970 credit and fertilizers, and to provide information on a variety of subjects of interest to, the farmers. Project recomThe technical assistance program was expanded in 1970 mendations were available in 1971 not only for maize, but to encompass the entire Project area, A fifth technical also for bush beans and alternative crops for maize (in years assistance agent was assigned the responsibility for Zone V, when plantings are delayed until late June or early July). the eastern part of the area. A total of 192 meetings were held in 91 villages with
The first 3 months of 1970 were devoted to an intensive 3,686 farmers in attendance in 1971. Movies were projected campaign to increase the number of farmers using Project for 1,576 farmers in 60 villages. Ninety-three demonstrarecommendations, Meetings were held in the villages tions of planting techniques were held in 75 communities,
throughout the area to explain Project recommendations with 1,389 farmers participating. Interchanges among and show the results obtained in previous years by farmers groups of farmers were arranged in two communities. Radio using the new technology. Again the Project-produced film, programs were broadcast each Sunday morning at 7:30 "Would You, Like to Increase Your Maize Harvest? ", was from March through December. very useful in this promotional effort and was projected in During 1971, the farmers continued to bring pressure on 116 communities with an attendance of 9,9.00 farmers. the technical assistance agents to assist them with a variety
The farmers were encouraged to form new groups and to of production activities. These requests were communicated increase the membership of groups already functioning. to the other members of the Project team. Most of the Groups with very large membership were urged to divide requests, however, required resources and expertise not into smaller groups, to simplify administration and allow available in the Puebla Project, which was funded primarily more farmers an opportunity to participate in a leadership to increase maize production. Thus, the technical assistance capacity. Operating procedures of the different credit agents began to search for ways to mobilize resources from agencies were explained to the groups and they were as- outside the Puebla Project for use in responding to the sisted in presenting their requests for credit and in comply- farmers' requests. ing with the requisites of the agencies. As a result of this work, short courses on the manageDuring the maize planting and vegetative development ment of fruit orchards were organized and were attended periods, the technical assistance agents concentrated on by about 1,000 farmers in six communities. These courses helping the farmers to use the new technology correctly. As were presented by specialists in fruit culture, employed by in previous years, demonstrations were held at planting the Mexican state and federal governments. Specialists of time and field inspections of high-yield plots were made the National Extension Service also participated in demonduring the early part of the growing season. During the strations held at four locations to show how small trench summer, there were eight interchanges among groups of silos are used to preserve maize stover in the form of silage.
farmers, with 610 farmers from 62 communities participating. PROJECT PROGRAM: 1972
Farmer meetings continued to be held throughout the
year to provide information on crop production practices, As in past years, the technical assistance program fothe organization of groups, the operating procedures of cused primary, attention on increasing the efficient use of service agencies, etc. Approximately 500 farmers were as- Project recommendations. A total of 382 meetings were sisted in attending a field day at the Chapingo research held in 107 villages, attended by 7,875 farmers. There were center of the National Agricultural Research Institute. 187 demonstrations of the planting techniques and the Regional demonstrations were held in Zones II, III, IV, and second application of nitrogen in 86 communities, with V just prior to the maize harvest, with an attendance of 3,121 farmers participating. Eight regional demonstrations 1,300 farmers. were held just prior to the maize harvest, with a total
By early 1970, the technical assistance agents were attendance of 771.
beginning to receive requests from the farmers for informa- The technical assistance agents- continued to assist farmtion and guidance in improving their production practices ers with other activities whenever possible. Farmers in 58 for crops other than maize, particularly from farmers who villages were assisted in constructing 119 trench silos for had used Project recommendations the previous season. the preservation of about 1,280 tons of stover. Farmers in
One of the first requests was for recommendations for the Zones I and II were given help in arranging for 3,600 fruit production of beans. This request was transmitted to the trees and establishing 12 ha of orchards. Women in a few rest of the Project team and research on bean production villages were aided in acquiring sewing machines and organwas initiated by Project technicians during the 1970 season. izing sewing centers.
51




A further difficulty was presented by the farmers themPROJECT PROGRAM: 1973 selves. They objected to the recommended plant density for
beans-60,000 plants/ha- contending that it was too high
The technical assistance program in 1973 continued to and would result in severe lodging before maturity. The center attention on increasing the adoption of Project Project agronomists agreed that their research data on plant recommendations. These recommendations, however, now density for beans was not conclusive and that it should be included packages of production practices for the maize- investigated further. They insisted, however, that farmers pole bean association as a result of research conducted use the recommended seeding rate for beans in at least a during 1970-1972. The results obtained in many exper- few rows of their maize-bean associations. iments had shown conclusively that net income from the Although these problems greatly reduced the effecassociation could be significantly greater than from either tiveness of the campaign promoting the new technology for maize or beans grown alone. Thus, the technical assistance the maize-bean association, it was possible to get farmers to agents began to tell the farmers about the advantages of the use the new recommendations on small plots at many sites new technology for the maize-bean association, encouraging throughout the area. them to try the association on a part of their land.
Several obstacles were encountered, h-owever, that limi- Use of Agua Ammonia ted farmer use of the new recommendations for the maizebean association. The information that previously had been A new source of fertilizer and credit became available in available to the service institutions recommended that 1973 to farmers in the Puebla area who made use of Project maize and beans should be grown alone, rather than in recommendations for maize. Guanomex, the decentralized association. Thus, the crop insurance agency was not pre- federal agency responsible for the production and distribupared to insure the association, and the official credit banks tion of chemical fertilizers, was interested in finding a way could not authorize credit for farmers who wished to grow to make fertilizers available to small farmers at a lower cost. it. The Project team arranged discussions with the repre- Guanomex decided that this objective could be achieved, sentatives of the banks and crop insurance agency, and using agua ammonia as the source of nitrogen. They offered explained the research results that clearly demonstrated the to provide agua ammonia to farmers, on credit, along with advantages of the association. The representatives of the the applicators, other equipment, and technical assistance institutions were convinced by the research findings, and required for its use. Ammonium phosphate, 18-46-0, also modified their operating procedures so that credit and was made available for application at planting time to insurance were available for the maize-bean association. farmers who planned to apply phosphorus.
In 1973, Guanomex promoted the use of aqua ammonia by small farmers in the
Puebla area. Although there
are problems in the design of
the applicator yet to be resolved, there is interest in this
source or nitrogen, because of
its lower cost.
52




The Puebla staff studied the proposal of Cuanomex and As Project technicians and advisors explored ways of
decided that the potential advantages for the small farmers developing the effectiveness of the groups, they were in Puebla of having this additional source of nitrogen avail- acutely aware of their lack of experience in such work. able at a lower cost outweighed the risks involved in moving Thus, arrangements were made for a sociologist with many ahead with a technology that had not been tested locally. years of experience in organizing small farmers in Mexico to
Therefore, the technical assistance agents began meetings devote a part of his time to providing technical assistance to in early April to inform farmers of the availability of the Project staff. new source of fertilizer and credit, and to explain that the
cost of nitrogen in the form of agua ammonia was expected A new strategy for working with the farmer organizato be about 60 per cent of that of solid materials. They also tions was not adopted until mid-i 973. Each of the techdescribed the characteristics of agua ammonia and the nical assistance agents then began to hold general meetings,
precautions to observe in its application, etc. Although inviting the members of the several groups in his zone. The many farmers were not convinced that agua ammonia was technician presented the proposition that many problems
equal to the solid sources of nitrogen, they were attracted prevented the farmers from improving their agricultural by the lower cost and seemed confident that it must be production, net income, and general welfare. He suggested
satisfactory, since the technical assistance agent was recoin- that the farmers themselves could best resolve these probmending it. More than 2,000 farmers signed up to use agua lems. He pointed out that people like himself and representammonia on some 5,000 ha of maize. atives of the service agencies could help, but, in order for
Guanomex made a horse-drawn applicator available in their help to be effective, the farmers would have to parlate April for testing in the Puebla area. It turned out to be ticipate more actively in deciding what needed to be done almost impossible to handle the applicator in the field, and how to do it. because of its excessive weight and high center of gravity. Several general meetings were held over a period of The farmers were invited to offer suggestions on how to several weeks at which the farmers discussed the problems improve it Several farmers agreed to assist in redesigning the which they felt to be the greatest obstacles to progress. applicator. Within a short time, a much lighter, better Gradually, they were able to define a small list of problems balanced, applicator was developed, although still not that were most pressing, and, of these, the one which they
totally satisfactory. felt should receive top priority.
It was late May before the redesigned applicators were
available to the farmers, and the plant for the production of The next step was to form a new organization of those agua ammonia was in operation. By that time, most of the farmers interested in working together to resolve common farmers iho had signed up to use agua ammonia had found problems, and, specifically, the problem they had given top it necessary to arrange for solid materials in order to make priority. These new organizations are still in the process of the sidedressing application of nitrogen at the proper time, development and consolidation. Guanomex had provided many of these farmers with urea
and ammonium sulphate through two of its local distribu- The Union of Progressive Maize and Bean Farmers of
tors. In total, agua ammonia was used by about 250 farmers Zone III is an example of these new farmer organizations. on approximately 500 ha. This organization held its first meeting in August 1973 and
has been meeting regularly every two weeks. It decided to
give top priority to finding means for members to obtain
chicken manure at a lower cost. After a few weeks of study,
the Union discovered that by eliminating the mark-ups by
two middle men-the truck driver and the administrator of
the chicken farm-the current price for manure (about
$11 2/truck load) could be cut in half. The Union began
negotiating directly with the owners of the chicken farms
to obtain this better price.
More Effective Group Action Although the Union has made some progress in its efforts to make manure available to its members at a lower
When Project technicians began to promote the organiza- cost, it has encountered many obstacles. Its lack of legal tion of farmer groups in 1969, they expected that these status, for example, has prevented the Union from negotiatgroups would gradually develop into strong farmer organ- ing long-term contracts with the manure producers. It is izations, with the capability of taking the leadership in expected that this problem can be resolved through legalizafinding solutions to many of their problems. By early 1972, tion as a Civil Society. such development had not occurred. Most farmers looked In 1973, the Union had 95 members from nine villages,
upon the groups solely as an instrument for obtaining credit with a Governing Board composed of 18 farmers, who are and fertilizers. Once this was accomplished, they had little the old group coordinators and their alternates from the interest in meetings or other group activities until it was nine villages. The affairs of the Union are administered by a again time to arrange for credit. president, secretary, and treasurer and their alternates.
53




Farmers in organized groups periodically hold meetings with the technical assistance agent. These meetings provide opportunities for the farmers to obtain information about production technology, credit, crop insurance, and other matters of interest to them.
71
Emil
54




6 ORGANIZATION OF THE FARMERS
INTRODUCTION Many of the villages in Puebla are efidos. These are communities of farmers who received land from the government
as a result of the agrarian reform. (The title to the land
The new maize recommendation promoted in 196&was remains with the efido. The ejidatario retains use rights to
used by 103 farmers located throughout most of the Pro- land within the ejido without paying rent as long as he ject area. Their average yield was 3.98 ton/ha on a total of farms it, and at the time of his death may will these rights 76 ha. These results were extremely favorable, and it was to a member of his/her immediate family.) The highest decided that the new technology should be promoted as authority within the efido is the comisariado, or executive rapidly as possible among all farmers in the area. committee. Its principal function is to represent the interest
In 1968, the technical assistance agents had worked of the ejidatarios in their relationships with higher authoridirectly with individual farmers. With an estimated 43,300 ties and service institutions. A second function is to particfarm operators in the area and only four technical assist- ipate in political actions at the community level and, ance agents and their assistants available in 1969, it was through the Agrarian Community League, at the regional clearly necessary to find a way to work with groups of and national levels. The comisariado consists of a president, farmers, rather than individuals. In addition to facilitating secretary, treasurer, and vigilance committee. the flow of information to and from farmers, organized Credit societies were functioning in several efidos at the
groups of farmers could better: (a) arrange for credit, time of the 1967 survey. An efidal credit society consists of inputs, and other agricultural services; (b) encourage favor- those ejidatarios who wish to receive credit from the able change in the operating procedures of the service National Ejidal Credit Bank, an official credit agency institutions; (c) secure more favorable prices in the purchas- formed with the express purpose of providing credit to the ing of inputs and the marketing of produce; and (d) plan ejidatarios. The society is represented in its transactions and conduct projects for community improvement, with the Bank by a delegate. A vigilance committee is
A review of organizational experiences in other parts of responsible for watching over transactions between the Mexico and other countries with many kinds of farmer ejidal authorities and the Ejidal Bank and for seeing that
organizations, produced no particular organizational model the credit received by the ejidatarios is used for production that seemed appropriate for the farmers in Puebla. As a purposes. The credit societies functioning in 1967 limited beginning, therefore, it seemed advisable to: (a) acquire as their action to arranging for credit; they were not involved much information as possible about farmers' experiences in acquiring better information on crop production pracwith, and attitudes toward, group action; (b) provide farm- tices or other activities to increase net income from agriculers with information about the advantages of working tural production.
together; and (c) assist farmers in organizing in the ways Small landowners in at least two villages in the area had they felt most appropriate, been organized in agricultural credit societies prior to 1967.
These societies consisted of landowners who wished to
obtain credit from another official bank, the National
Agricultural Credit Bank. Neither of these societies was
ORGANIZATION OF FARMERS PRIOR TO functioning at the time of the 1967 survey.
THE PUEBLA PROJECT
ACTION OF THE PUEBLA PROJECT
The political-unit in the State of Puebla is the municipio, IN THE ORGANIZATION OF FARMERS or county. It is governed by a council consisting of a president, secretary, and treasurer. The council is usually To obtain a better understanding of farmers' attitudes
housed in a central building in the principal town in the toward organized group action and their previous experimunicipio. Most of the legal and administrative actions ences in trying to work together, the interviews in the 1967 affecting the citizens of the various communities in the survey asked the farmers specific questions about matters municipio occur in that building, including: payment of of organization. The majority of farmers interviewed property taxes, civil wedding ceremonies, regrestration of showed no desire to belong to an organization. Few membirths and deaths, etc. Each village in the municipio has an bears of the community, even members of their own famiauxiliary council with the responsibility for less important lies, were considered worthy of their trust and confidence. transactions. This type of organization was introduced by Many of those interviewed declared that they preferred "to the Spaniards during the Colonia Era and has undergone work alone," "not to depend on anyone," and that "each few changes. person should do whatever his means permit."
55




The farmers also expressed distrust of the motives of the the farmers to secure credit and other services. It was also Puebla Project. When told that the services of the technical mentioned that they would be able to buy fertilizers at a assistance agents would be free, they replied that "no one lower price than could be obtained by individuals, after the ever came to the communities with the sole purpose of members of a group had accumulated sufficient reserves of doing good." They felt that, in one way or another, they capital. would have to pay for the assistance. Many farmers sus- The promotional activities of the technical assistance pected that the Project was a scheme to expropriate their agents in early 1969 led to the organization of 58 credit land to set up an industry, or to redistribute the land. Some groups with 1,556 members (Table 6.1) to receive credit farmers seemed to feel that the Project was the govern- and fertilizers from a local fertilizer distributor, Agr6nomos ment's way of finding out how much each farmer owned, Unidos. The Agricultural Bank of the South participated in so their taxes could be raised. And there were farmers who the organization of 55 groups with 542 farmers, and made declared that the interviewers must be Communists, credit available to them for maize production. The other
because "only Communists go around in groups and talk official credit banks provided credit to enable their regular about the necessity of organizing the poor." clients to use Project recommendations. As shown in Table
Clearly, in the early stages of the Project's implementa- 6.1, the National Ejidal Credit Bank authorized credit for tion, it would have been fruitless to talk to the farmers 413 efidatarios organized in 15 credit societies, and the about the advantages of organizing groups or credit socie- National Agricultural Credit Bank financed 50 individual ties for participation in the action program. Thus, the new farmers. maize recommendation in 1968. was promoted among The Impulsora de Puebla, the main fertilizer distributor
individual farmers on a voluntary basis. in the State, participated indirectly in 1969 by providing
Many of the farmers who participated in 1968 felt that financing and fertilizers to Agr6nomos Unidos. The Impulthe transportation of the fertilizers was both expensive and sora continued its funding of Agr6nomos Unidos in 1970 troublesome. If they chose to move the fertilizers by and, in addition, provided credit directly to 253 farmers in passenger buses, the sacks were often torn and the fertilizer 21 groups. In 1971, the Impulsora absorbed the clients of spilled. If an individual farmer hired a truck to transport his Agr6nomos Unidos and continued to provide credit to a fertilizer, it was costly to haul the small amounts. Farmers similar number of farmers in 1972 and 1973. who purchased their fertilizers from local stores found the The National Ejidal Credit Bank decided in 1970 to prices to be relatively high. reactivate many credit societies in the Puebla area that had
been suspended because a large proportion of their memacthes epns causowed the farmrs o di s g p bers had failed to repay their loans. Thus, the number of action as means of lowering the costs of the fertilizers and cei oite eevn rdti 90icesdt 9
of transporting them to the farm. The Project's technical
assistance agents encouraged the farmers to fully explore with 2,122 farmer members. Table 6.1 shows that the advantages of organized action and to discuss it with their number of credit societies receiving financing from the neighbors. Ejidal Bank has remained fairly constant since 1970.
During the promotion stage for the 1969 growing The National Agricultural Credit Bank began providing
season, the idea of organizing groups of farmers began to be credit to groups of farmers in 1970. It made credit available accepted in many villages. The technical assistance agents to credit societies with 10 or more members, and to solipointed out that, in addition to being able to transport darity groups with a minimum of three members and a fertilizers at lower cost, organizing would make it easier for maximum of nine. The solidarity group evolved as the most
TABLE 6.1. The numbers of groups and organized farmers receiving credit from several sources during the period 1969--1973
Agricultural
Impulsora de National Ejidal National Agricul- Bank All sources
Puebla Credit Bank tural Credit Bank of the South Others* credit
No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
Year groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers
1969 0 0 15 413 0 50 55 542 58 1556 128 2561
1970 21 253 59 2122 23 480 52 487 64 1491 219 4833
1971 41 1352 54 2199 58 1114 20 296 10 279 183 5240
1972 50 1514 52 2499 261 1774 13 183 9 232 385 6202
1973 62 1459 60 2410 314 1865 5 40 112 1420 553 7194
* The 58 groups in 1969 and 64 groups in 1970 received credit from Agr6nomos Unidos, a fertilizer distributor. The 10 groups in 1971 and 9 groups in 1972 received credit from the owner of the Hacienda Coxtocan. The 112 groups in 1973 received credit from Coxtocan and two fertilizer distributors, Agroquimica Olmeca and Guano-Mex.
56




attractive type of organization to the farmers, as it is very committees are composed of one member from each of the easy to form and only one member of the group has to file subgroups in the village. the title to his land with the bank as a guarantee. (The
members of a solidarity group accept common responsibility for debts incurred by the group.) As shown in Table 6. 1, BENEFITS RECEIVED BY FARMERS
the number of farmers receiving credit from the Agricul- THROUGH ORGANIZED ACTION tural Bank increased to 1,865 in 1973, and the number of
groups to 314.
Since 1970, the technical assistance agents have recom- When the technical assistance agents began to promote mended the subdivision of large credit groups or societies. the organization of farmers in 1969, it was assumed that In many villages, groups that receive credit from the Impul- organized action by farmers would be fruitful in many sora and have more than 20 members have divided to form ways. In 1973, selected farmers were asked whether they groups of about 10 members. Each of these subgroups has a were receiving benefits from working together in groups. leader or assistant representative. Coordinating the assistant Information was collected from 69 farmers in 35 groups representatives, there is a general representative or coordi- scattered throughout the Project area. Some of the impresnator who is elected by all the members and is responsible sions obtained from the farmers about the importance of for the organization at the village level. This subdivision of organized group action are cited in the following sections. large groups into smaller units facilitates administration, Better Understanding of the New Technology internal communication, and contact with the technical
assistance agents. The general impression of the farmers seems to be that
The solidarity groups that work with the Agricultural organization has given them greater access to information Bank have been encouraged to develop a similar organiza- about Project recommendations. Most of the meetings and tion at the village level. Many of the solidarity groups have demonstrations at which the technical assistance agents preferred to maintain their independence, however, and this provide information on production practices are organized has limited the effectiveness of their village coordinators. by the groups. Members of the groups are quite consistent
Beginning in 1973, vigilance committees have been in attending these sessions, and a better understanding of
formed in the villages with several subgroups receiving the new technology by the organized farmers should lead to credit from the Impulsora. or the Agricultural Bank. These a more effective use of the recommendations.
The difference between the average yields of farmers on
From 1969 onward, the technical assistance agents concen- credit lists and all farmers in the area (Table 9.8) has gradtrated their efforts on promoting the organization of the ually decreases over the years. This seems to indicate that farmers and in assisting the groups to use the improved an increasing number of farmers not on credit lists are using production technologies adequately. By 1973, 7,194 farm- the new technology. Perhaps, in terms of better informaers were organized in 553 groups and received credit from tion on technology, the advantages of being organized are seven different sources. most notable in the early years of the program.
57




Access of Small Farmers to Agricultural Credit In arranging for credit and picking up the fertilizers,
group representatives made an average of 5.6 trips to the credit agency in 1973. The other members of the groups, In practice, it is almost impossible for individual small however, made an average of only 1.7 trips. About 47 landholders to receive credit from an official bank or a percent of the group members did not go to the agency at
private institution. This is due to the high administrative all; the representatives, assisted by the bank inspectors or cost of a small loan, and to the fact that most small holders, the technical assistance agents, took care of all formalities. on an individual basis, cannot provide the guarantee re- The costs of the trips of the representatives to the agencies
quired by the credit agency. were covered by group funds.
Farmers organized in groups receive credit from the
Impulsora de Puebla without providing any guarantee. For Prompt Delivery of Fertilizers
the organized farmers to receive credit from the National Agricultural Credit Bank, it is sufficient that one member According to the farmers interviewed in 1973, the credit
of the group deposits the title to his land with the bank. By groups have been effective in reducing delays in the delivery organizing into groups, it was possible for the number of of fertilizers. Apparently the pressure brought by the
small farmers receiving credit in Puebla to increase from a groups, reinforced by the technical assistance agents, has few hundred in 1968 to 7,194 in 1973 (Table 6.1). created a new awareness on the part of the three credit
banks and the Impulsora of the importance of timely Greater Efficiency in Obtaining Credit delivery of the fertilizers. The delays in fertilizer deliveries
that have occurred in the last few years have been due to Farmers are convinced that group action greatly expe- deficiencies in the distribution of materials at the national
dites the arranging for institutional credit. The represent- level, not to faulty scheduling of farmers' needs by the atives of groups take care of most of the formalities re- agencies in Puebla.
quired in securing credit. After the necessary papers have been prepared by the credit agency, the group represent- Efficient and Cheaper Transport of Fertilizers
atives collect the signatures of the farmers on the individual documents that specify the debt of each client. Another reason organized farmers have been receiving
The National Agricultural Credit Bank is the only agency their fertilizers on time is that the groups themselves have that requires all members of the group to go to the bank to made the arrangements for the transportation of the materisign the individual documents specifying the amount of the als. After the group representative receives the delivery loan. Some groups require all members to assist in picking order, he and the other members of the group hire a truck up the fertilizers from the bank, or fertilizer distributor, to to haul the fertilizers at as low a cost as possible. If availreduce costs. able, a trucker from the local village is hired for the job.
In the past individual small landholders have found it almost impossible to obtain credit from an official bank or private institution. Small farmers in Puebla, by organizing, have been able to arrange for credit. Moreover, group representatives are able to handle many of the requirements for obtaining loans, thus simplifying for organized farmers the process
of arranging for credit.
58




Ordinarily, a group is able to arrange for the hauling of out the year.
fertilizers for $2.40/ton. If the members of the group load Greater Efficiency in the Repayment of Loans the fertilizers at the warehouse and unload them at their
houses, the cost is about $1.60/ton. Earlier, when farmers Many of the farmers receiving credit from the Agriculhad to arrange for transportation individually, the cost was tural Bank or the Impulsora de Puebla make payments on often as much as $4.80/ton., not including loading and their loans directly to the general representative or coordiunloading. nator. This coordinator travels once a week to the agency
concerned, delivers the payments, and obtains the necessary
Prompt Repayment of Loans receipts. Thus, members not only save money on travel and
meals, but also time and effort. Generally, the expenses of
Prior to the Puebla Project, only about 50 percent of the the representative are paid from a fund raised by the group short-term loans made by the official credit banks were specifically for this type of activity. repaid. In 1971 and 1972, the repayment rate to the Ejidal
and Agricultural Banks was over 90 percent; the rate was Access to Information on Other Activities about 98 percent to the Impulsora de Puebla. According to the 35 representatives interviewed in 1973,
Very probably, one of the reasons for the high level of 28 of the groups held an average of four meetings during repayment is the profitability of the new maize recom- the year; the other seven held no meetings. The technical mendations. An even more important reason, perhaps, is assistance agents participated in about 37 percent of these the fact that the majority of the organized farmers have gatherings. The principal themes discussed at these meetings accepted a common responsibility for the debts of all mem- were agricultural credit and the correct use of the new bers of the group. Each farmer knows that all members of maize technology. Other subjects of interest to the farmers, the group must repay loans on time in order for the group such as the pruning and grafting of fruit trees, were also to qualify for credit the following season. discussed in some group -meetings.
When one or more members of a group fail to repay
their loans, the rest of the group takes action to assure At harvest time in 1972, demonstrations were held in repayment. As a first step, in most cases, the group repre- many communities to show farmers how to construct small sentative calls on the defaulting farmer to ask him to pay trench silos for converting the maize plants into a palatable within a fixed period. If failure to pay was due to unusual silage after harvest of the ear but while still partly green. family problems, or a poor harvest due to uncontrollable The silo provides an- economical means of increasing the factors, then the other members of the group may cooper- supply of good quality animal feed during the dry season. ate to repay the debt and collect later when the farmer is Demonstrations of the pruning and grafting of fruit trees better able to make payment. were made in several communities. In 1971, a technical
In some groups, if a member fails to pay because of assistance agent arranged, for a group of farmers to attend a irresponsibility, the group takes firmer action to liquidate short. course on pruning and grafting. Farmers who took this debt. In a few instances, the group demands some item this course have been useful in assisting other farmers in the of property (mule, ox, plow, sewing machine, etc.) and Project area to use improved practices in the management does not return it until the offender pays his debt. If the of their fruit trees.
Meetings and demonstrations organized by farmer
defaulting member continues to refuse to pay, he is ex- groups have often stimulated interest in a new group pelled from the group, and the other members repay the activity, such as perforating a well, buying dairy cattle, or loan in order to obtain credit for the following season. acquiring a tractor. There seems to be an increasing awareOne group, after trying to convince three irresponsible ness among the farmers that the organizations should members to repay their loans in 1972, took the extreme expand their activities to include a broader spectrum of the measure of putting them in jail. Contrary to what might be problems affecting the community. expected as a result ofthis action (distrust and doubt on
the part of new members), membership in this group Initiation of New Production Activities
climbed from 111 in 197 2 to 200 in 1973. After a few days
in jail, the defaulting members repaid their loans and peti- At least 10 of the 385 groups functioning in 1972 were tioned the group to be readmitted, promising to be more involved during the previous 3 years in negotiating a longresponsible in the future. The group's decision, however, term loan for some new group activity. Most of these loans was for permanent expulsion of the three farmers. had been requested for deep well perforations to convert a
Another reason for the high repayment of loans in part of the rained land into irrigated fields. These wells
recent years is the fact that the credit agencies, with the make possible the production of higher-income crops, such exception of the Ejidal Bank, have initiated the practice of as alfalfa and vegetables, and they can be grown throughout discounting interest for those who repay their loans before the year. Interest in this organized activity began to develop they become due. Farmers with additional income during after the groups were successful in using short-term credit the year prefer to pay off their loans in installments, thus for maize production. saving money they would have paid out in interest. Approx- The technical assistance agents played a leading role in imately 45 percent of the farmers interviewed in 1973 this group work, from the formulation of the idea of a loan
liquidated their loans by making several payments through- to the reality of irrigated fields. They provided information
59




on the possibilities of long-term financing, helped the repre- technical assistance agent presented their complaint to the sentatives make contact with the credit institution that directors of the credit institutions, but could not obtain an
could grant the loan, and encouraged the members of the alteration in policy. It appeared that the merchant's scheme
groups to have confidence in their capacity to work had been successful.
together and in the honesty of their representatives. As the Nonetheless, the farmers named a commission to present
transactions for the loans progressed, the role of the tech- their complaint to the Governor and explain why the credit nical assistance agents tended to decline in importance, institutions had refused to accept new clients from their
while that of the representatives increased. community. The commission described the standards for
One of the groups that perforated a well and began to admitting new members into the groups to the Governor,
produce higher income crops used the profits for a down showing that only responsible people were accepted. The
payment on a tractor costing $7,200. The tractor is being Governor immediately summoned the directors of the
used for preparing the lands of the farmers of the group, institutions and asked them to attend to the farmers' petiand also for custom work for other farmers in the com- tion.
munity, to complete payments on the tractor more quickly.
In a section of the Project area where fruit production is
important, several groups have begun to use improved tech- Greater Interchange of Experiences
nology in the management of their orchards. Witt. the Among Farmers
assistance of a specialist in fruit culture, the farmers have As reported in Chapter 5, visits by groups of farmers to
obtained improved varieties and transplanted them to other communities in the area were beneficial in many
carefully prepared land. There is usually one man in the ways. The visitors were able to directly observe the farming
group, or in the community, who has learned the proper activities of the group sponsoring the interchange. An
techniques for pruning and grafting and can teach the other informal dialogue between visitors and hosts, with the techfarmers. nical assistance agent as mediator, helped members of all
groups exchange ideas and experiences about many farming
Greater Effectiveness in Solving and nonfarming activities. Farmers often returned home
Community Problems with new impressions about the possibilities for long-term
credit for perforating a well, or the establishment of a
Some credit groups that have functioned for several small-scale dairy enterprise, fattening of pigs, pruning and
years and have developed relatively strong organizations grafting of fruit trees, etc.
have been able to solve some of the other problems affect- In 1971, a technical assistance agent in one of the princiing the community. The traditional holders of power in the pal towns in the area organized another form of exchange
communities have come to view these groups as a threat to of ideas among farmers. Farmers who came to town for the
their position. Local fertilizer dealers fear that the organ- weekly market day were invited. to attend an afternoon ized farmers will buy outside the community, or demand meeting, after marketing activities had been completed. On
that the dealers respect prices fixed by the national fer- these occasions, about 50 farmers (mainly group representtilizer agency. atives) assembled for a lecture on a subject of current
In one community, a local merchant almost went bank- interest to the farmers. The presentation was made by the
rupt in 1971 when most of the farmers, organized in technical assistance agent or a specialist invited specifically
groups, began to purchase the recommended fertilizers for the occasion. When the specialists spoke, the technical
through one of the credit agencies. The following year, the assistance agent introduced the speaker and tried to clarify merchant switched from conventional fertilizers to those any parts of the talk which he felt the farmers might not
recommended by the technical assistance agent in hope of understand. Following the presentation, there was a discusregaining his clients. Since most of the farmers were organ- sion period with active participation by the farmers. This ized, however, few of them purchased fertilizers from the discussion period was essential in providing the participants
merchant. (According to several representatives, the mer- with new ideas and information to communicate to their
chant was prone to take advantage of temporary shortages groups on returning to their communities.
of fertilizers by increasing his prices, sometimes doubling
the official price.) In retaliation, the merchant began to try FACTORS FAVORING GROUP EFFICIENCY to discredit the credit groups. Among other actionshe
circulated the rumor that some groups were admitting Quality of Leadership
irresponsible farmers who were unlikely to repay their
loans. When this rumor reached the credit institutions in Groups that chose a good leader at the outset have
early 1973, some institutions decided not to accept new consistently maintained good cooperation from their memclients in groups from that community. bers and have been able to fulfill all their obligations.
When the farmers learned of the action of the credit Groups with' good representatives held the largest number
institutions, however, they solicited the help of the tech- of meetings in 1972. Ordinarily, the representatives of these nical assistance agent to find a way to convince the institu- groups sought out the technical assistance agent, or the tions to accept new clients. The group representatives and Project coordinator, and requested a talk on a specific
60




subject. Then the assistant representatives 'were notified of
the meeting and they, in turn, advised the members. Thus,
most members attended and maximum value was obtained
from the talk and subsequent discussion. OUTLOOK FOR MORE ADVANCED FORMS OF
In contrast, the representatives who were considered ORGANIZATION' unreliable rarely held a meeting of interest to the group.
They seldom took the initiative in presenting group prob- The information collected in the study of the farmer lems to the technical assistance agent, or in inviting him to organizations indicates that several of the groups have made give a talk in the community. outstanding progress in learning how to work together in
Three of the 35 representatives interviewed in 1973 had resolving problems of common interest. These groups are not repaid their loans on time. The members of these three now ready to move to higher forms of organization, such as groups recognized that they had made a mistake in electing cooperatives. the representatives. They pointed out, however, that it is The evolution from credit groups to more complex very difficult to select the right person. According to the organizational forms Will require the assistance of people members of the groups with the irresponsible represent- well trained in the theory and practice of- farmer organatives, these three individuals had previously had a good ization. It seems logical that the technical assistance agent record in the community; and, while the groups were being could best provide this assistance in a program such as the formed, they had been very active and had given the Puebla Project. The present agents in Puebla, however, are
impression they would diligently serve the interests of the not technically prepared to do this job. To remedy this group. situation, the technical assistance agents could receive
specialized training related to the operation of farmer
Legalization of the Organization organizations.
Two of the 35 groups studied in 1973 had drawn up
documents outlining the regulations governing the function- SUMMARY ing of the groups,, and the penalties that would be imposed
on violators. These documents had been signed by the The experiences gained in Puebla since 1969 support the
members of the groups, the assistant representatives, the thesis that a very simple organizational form, such as the general representative, and the municipal president, and had credit group, should be used in the initial stages of organbeen registered at the municipal headquarters. In this way, izing farmers who may often be distrustful and individualthe groups acquired legal power to take action against a istic, with limited managerial ability. After the farmers have member in case he should deliberately cause problems. gained confidence in the Project, and experience in colLegalization of the organizations at the municipal level is elective action, and have developed responsible leaders with viewed by most groups as a useful step in making' the administrative capacity, then higher forms of organization groups more efficient. In the future, it is expected that the may be achieved. It is expected that this second stage will technical assistance agents can guide other groups in draft- be much more complex than the first, and will require teching by-laws and in registering them with the municipal nical assistance agents well trained in the organization of authorities. farmers.
61




Three official credit banks National Agricultural Credit Bank, National Ejidal Credit Bank, Agricultural Bank of the South have made loans to enable organized farmers to use project recommendations. The total area financed by the first two of the these banks increased from 1,516 ha. in
1969, to 13,617 ha. in 1973.
11 rrA
62




7 THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCIES
INTRODUCTION accomplishments are described briefly. Changes in the
institutions that have contributed to improved services are
reported, as well as problems remaining to be resolved.
A part of the general strategy of the Puebla Project has
been to assure that the farmers have access to materials and THE IMPULSORA DE PUEBLA services essential for favorable change. Some of these services were being provided by public and private institutions The production and distribution of chemical fertilizers in Puebla at the time the Project began, including: (a) in Mexico is the responsibility of a decentralized agency of production credit, (b) agronomic inputs at a favorable the federal government, Guanos y Fertilizantes de M6xico price, (c) crop insurance, and (d) an accessible market for (Guanomex). When the Puebla Project began in 1967, farm produce, with a guaranteed price. Guanomex had three authorized dealers in the state, ImpulSince these services were available in Puebla in 1967, the sora de Puebla and two others, all private companies. In Project concentrated initially on agronomic research. Had addition, there was a network of local distributors in the some of these services not been available, it is unlikely that villages, mainly retail dealers who purchased fertilizers in the Project would have tried to provide them. Rather the the city of Puebla or Mexico City and resold them to the Project would have sought a solution through encourage- farmers. ment of government action to create the institutions Guanomex changed some of its operating procedures in
needed. early 1971 when the three authorized distributors in Puebla
The role of the Puebla Project in working with the were made official commission agents of Guanomex, each institutions (those involved in credit, the distribution of with the concession to distribute certain specific materials inputs, crop insurance, and marketing) has been that of at a fixed commission. Impulsora de Puebla became the assuring that these services are adequate for small farmers, principal agent with the concession to handle low-concenThe Project Coordinator assumed the major responsibility tration materials and mixtures. According to the new for this activity. policy, local distributors in the villages would no longer be
Planners of the Project felt it important that the Project permitted to purchase fertilizers from the official agents; be promoted as a joint effort of all the agricultural agencies, thus, they became less important in, the distribution netwith representatives of the different institutions to be fully work. informed of Project activities and the needs of the farmers. Impulsora de Puebla, since its establishment many years As greater experience was gained, however, it became ago, has functioned both as a fertilizer distributor and as a
evident that some of the operating procedures of some credit agency. Prior to 1968, the Impulsora had provided institutions were restricting farmer use of their services. It credit only to commercial or semi-commercial farmers who was clearly necessary that Project staff should more fully could offer security. In 1968, a sub-distributor of the understand the operations of these institutions and the way Impulsora, Agr6nomos Unidos, agreed to provide fertilizers they reached decisions on farmers' requests. Thus, the staff on credit to the first farmers who decided to use Project began a more systematic effort to assess these institution- recommendations on a part of their maize planting. These al procedures. were all small farmers and were not required to put up
After a problem had been fully analyzed, the Project collateral. Impulsora backed Agr6nomos Unidos in this staff proceeded to explain the nature of the problem to the credit operation. indicated agency, usually working through the coordinator. In 1969, Impulsora continued to back Agr6nomos UniFull cooperation was given to the agency in finding ways to dos in its financing of small farmers who used the Puebla improve its services to the farmers. This proved to be a Project maize recommendations. In 1970, Impulsora most difficult task, however, and progress in improving the continued its participation through Agr6nomos Unidos and, operating procedures of the service institutions has been in addition, provided credit directly to 253 farmers in 21 modest. groups. Impulsora absorbed the clients of Agrbnomos UniIn this chapter, certain characteristics of the service dos at the end of 1970, and has continued this credit proinstitutions in Puebla, their operating procedures, and their gram for small farmers.
63




Table 7.1 shows the number of hectares financed, total consolidates the lists of the different sub-groups and delivamount of credit, and percentage repayment of loans ers the request to the Impulsora; (c) the technical assistance
within the credit operation of Impulsora, both for credit agents of the Puebla Project give the Impulsora a list of all
obtained directly and that obtained through Agr6nomos the communities in their zones with groups requesting
Unidos in the years 1968-1973. Impulsora's credit program credit, along with the recommended fertilizer rates; (d) the
peaked, in 1970 and has remained quite static since then. secretaries of the Impulsora or the Puebla Project draw up
This has been true in spite of a growing demand from the documents for each farmer, specifying the amount of fertifarmers for more credit from Impulsora and an average lizers and credit requested; (e) these documents are given to
repayment rate of about 98 percent. the group coordinators, who, with the representatives,
obtain the signatures of the farmers; (f) the documents are
then signed by the group coordinators and returned to the
Procedure Followed in Granting Credit Impulsora; and (g) the delivery order is given, specifying the
date the farmers must pick up the fertilizers at the
company warehouse. In 1972, the average time required
was 36 days from the preparation of lists to the issuing of
The procedure followed by the Impulsora in granting the delivery order, with extremes Gf 3 days and 6 weeks.
credit to small farmers is very attractive, since it does not
require. any security from the farmers. All that the Impulsora requires is a guarantee of the total operation by a
responsible agency. CIMMYT provided this guarantee in Changes in Sales of 10-8-4
1968 when only $6,000 was loaned. Beginning in 1969, the
credit operation of the Impulsora was endorsed by the According to survey data, 64 percent of the farmers who
Agricultural Agent, who is the state representative of the applied chemical fertilizers in 1967 used the 10-8-4 mixMinistry of Agriculture. ture, containing 10 percent nitrogen (N), 8 percent phosIn 1969 and 1970, the endorsement of the Agriculture phorus (P205), and 4 percent potassium (K20). Agronomic
Agent was not backed up by adequate funds to fully research on farmers' fields, however, has not revealed
guarantee the credit operation. In 1971, however, a special important deficiencies of potassium; thus, the Project has
fund was formed by collecting a tax of $0.40/ton on all recommended that farmers apply only nitrogen and phosfertilizers sold on credit or for cash by the three official phorus. Moreover, the Project has suggested that farmers
agents of Guanomex and the official credit banks. This purchase nitrogenous and phosphatic materials separately
fund is administered by the State Fertilization Committee, and prepare their own mixtures, to obtain the right proporwhose chairman is the Agricultural Agent. Since the estab- tions of the two elements.
lishment of this fund, the guarantee of the credit program
of the Impulsora has been effective. When the Fertilization The relative importance of 10-8-4 in total sales of the
Committee reimburses the Impulsora for loans not repaid Impulsora declined markedly in 1969. The 10-84 mixture
on time, it receives the promissory notes of the indebted represented approximately 76 percent of the total nitrogen
farmers, with the expectation of repayment at a later date. sold by the Impulsora in the period 1966-1968, whereas
The Impulsora procedure for granting credit is as fol- only 27 percent of the nitrogen sold in the years 1969-1972
lows: (a) representatives of the sub-groups prepare lists of was in the form of 10-8-4. In general, there has been a shift
the members desiring credit, and of the number of hectares from 10-84 to ammonium sulfate, superhosphate, and nonfor which financing is requested; (b) the group coordinator potassic mixtures, (such as 12-8-0, 10-10-0, and 5-14-0).
TABLE 7.1. The credit provided by several agencies to enable farmers to use Project recommendations for maize during the years 1968-1973.
Impulsora de Puebla National Agricultural Credit Bank National Ejidal Credit Bank Agricultural Bank of the South Total
%
No, of Amount repay- No, of Amount repay. No. of Amount repay. No. of Amount repay- No. of Amount Year hectares of credit ment hectares of credit ment hectares of credit ment hectares of credit ment hectares* of credit 1968 76 6,000 100.0 76 6,000
i969 2,719 165,059 96.0 687 48,802 50.0 829 50,846 55.5 1,603 105,132 50.0 5,838 369,839
1970 4,682 191,163 97.5 1,788 148,250 51.2 4,522 282,256 72.0 1,609 123,175 60.0 12,601 744,844
1971 3,228 108,807 99.5 4,950 202,972 91.6 4,920 294,347 91.0 1,172 90,080 62.0 14,438 696,206
1972 4,108 153,953 98.5 7,499 383,282 93.9 5,105 398,722 90.0 822 39,854 50.0 17,533 975,811
1973 4,220 8,207 419,452 5,410 422,584 293 14,202 20,604
The total number of hectares for 1971 includes 168 with credit guaranteed by the Coxtocan Hacienda; the total for 1973 includes 2,474 ha that were financed by Guanomex
and the Olmeca fertilizer company.
64




The Puebla Project seems to have been largely respon- sales on credit in the future. Farmers should find Impulsora sible for this change from 10-8-4 to more adequate fertil- credit attractive, even with a higher interest rate, because of izers. Sales of ammonium sulfate and superphosphate have the simplicity of the credit-granting procedure. increased as a direct result of the growing demand for these materials by farmers using Project recommendations. THE PUEBLA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL
According to the manager of the Impulsora, his company AGRICULTURAL CREDIT BANK has given greater importance to the 10-10-0 and 12-8-0 mixtures since 1971, because the field trials conducted in The National Agricultural Credit Bank was founded in the area showed little response to potassium. 1926 as an integral part of the agrarian reform program of
the post-revolutionary governments. Branches of the bank were established throughout the country to: (a) promote
Outlook for Greater Credit for Small Farmers the organization of ejidatarios and small landholders, (b)
From the I mpulsora de Puebla make available production credit at locations accessible to
these farmers, and (c) provide for credit at an interest rate more attractive than that charged by local moneylenders. As mentioned earlier, the credit provided to small farm- The mandate of the Bank stipulated that possible social ers by the Impulsora has not increased since 1970, in spite benefits be considered as well as the solvency of the client, of a repayment rate of around 98 percent. This is due in deciding how to allocate its funds. mainly to the low interest rate which the Impulsora is The law regulating the National Agricultural Credit Bank
required to charge on fertilizer credit. According to the was modified in 1935 with the creation of the National modified Guanomex policy that became effective in 1971, Ejidal Credit Bank. Since then, the Agricultural Bank has 9 percent per year is the maximum interest that the Impul- provided credit exclusively to landowners, and the Ejidal sora can charge farmers receiving fertilizers on credit. Since Bank has worked with the eiidatarios. The law governing the Impulsora acquires the fertilizers from Guanomex at 6 the Agricultural Bank was again modified in 1956 in an percent interest, its income from interest on credit sales is 3 attempt to make its services more dynamic. percent per year. However, as credit is usually extended to The National Agricultural Credit Bank has branch banks farmers for a period of about 9 months, the effective in every state. Most branches have sub-branches or agencies income from interest is less than 3 percent. Under these that are located at strategic points. The zone corresponding conditions, the tendency of the Impulsora is to increase its to a given agency is divided into sub-zones, with a field cash sales and keep sales on credit to a minimum, inspector in charge of each of them. The Puebla Branch of
Perhaps permission to charge a higher interest rate is the the Agricultural Bank has six agencies, two of which proonly measure that will induce the Impulsora to increase its vide credit to farmers in the Project area.
The Project coordinator
works closely with the repre- M
sentatives of the agricultural service agencies. He provides information on the findings of the Project and obstacles limiting farmer use of the available services, and assists in finding ways to eliminate
such obstacles.
65




The National Agricultural Credit Bank makes three types With the change to solidarity groups in 1971, the Agriof loans to small farmers organized into solidarity groups: cultural Bank has greatly increased its credit to farmers
(a) short-term loans (maximum 12 months), mainly for using Project recommendations. Table 7.1, shows that the
purchase of inputs for annual crops at 10.5 percent/year Agricultural Bank provided credit for 4,950 ha in 1971;1 interest; (b) intermediate-term loans (1 to 5 years) to 7,499 ha in 1972; and 8,207 ha in 1973. Repayment of acquire work animals, farm machinery, dairy cattle, etc., at loans by solidarity groups exceeded 90 percent during this
9 to 10 percent/year interest; and (c) long-term loans (6 to period. 10 years) to purchase heavy machinery or construct farm
buildings at 7 to 10 percent/year interest. Operating Procedures of the Agricultural Bank
The majority of the farmers in the Project area are not
eligible for individual credit from the Agricultural Bank, Farmers in solidarity groups follow these steps in arrangbecause their holdings are too small. Although the regula- ing for credit with the Agricultural Bank: (a) the group tions of the Agricultural Bank provide for the organization representative prepares a list of the members that indicates of credit societies, none of these were operating when the their ages, beneficiaries in the case of death, and the areas Project began in 1967. As seen in Table 7.1 the Agricul- for which credit is requested; (b) one farmer with a clear tural Bank provided credit for farmers to use Project recoin- title to his property agrees to guarantee the group loanmendations on 687 ha in 1969 and on 1,788 ha in 1970. In both he and his wife must register their signatures with the 1969, credit was granted to individual farmers; in 1970, to legal department of the bank; (c) each member presents the 23 groups with a total of 480 farmers. These groups, receipt for his most recent property tax payment, or a
however, were poorly organized and there was little contact letter from the highest authority in the community certifywith the technical assistance agents. Repayment was made ing that he is a property owner; (d) the representative on only about 50 percent of the loans made in these two obtains a written statement from the technical assistance years. agent indicating the fertilizer rates recommended for the
In 1971, the Agricultural Bank and the Project technical group; (e) a credit application is drawn up for the group, assistance agents began to promote the organization of specifying the total area for which credit is requested and solidarity groups. These groups have a maximum member- the total amount of credit this application is signed by the ship of nine and a minimum of three. According to bank group representative, by the guarantor, and by the technical regulations each member of these groups must mortgage his assistance agent;- (f) based on the application, a special land to the bank in order to obtain credit. As most small form, called F-200, is prepared as a credit application from farmers do not have a clear title to their land, the Puebla the group to the Planning Council of the bank- -these Branch of the Agricultural Bank obtained authorization to F-200's have to be signed by five persons in the Credit, change this requirement. Now, the only requirement is that Legal, and Administrative Departments, as well as by the one member of the group has a clear title to his land and is bank manager; (g) the group signs a contract with the bank willing to mortgage it to the bank. This change in regula- for the amount of credit requested--the contract must be tions has made it possible for many farmers who were registered in the city of Puebla with the payment of a
previously unable to qualify for loans to obtain credit as registration fee of $8.00; the contract is good for 5 years, members of a solidarity group. provided there are no changes in the group; (h) all members
--- P, sign a formal charter, specifying that they assume a common responsibility for the obligations of the group--this
means that should any member fail to repay his loan, the
others are obligated to find a way to liquidate it; (i) each
Vo member signs a letter in which he agrees to repay his loan
AMNON& '14S with the produce from the land for which credit was
received; (j) multiple promissory notes are drafted showing
the cost of fertilizers, amount of interest, and other charges
for each member- -these documents are prepared with 18
copies and signed by all members of the group; and, finally
(k) the guarantor deposits a letter with the bank giving it
power to take possession of his property in case the group
fails to meet its obligations.
In 1972, this procedure required an average of 13 days
from the time the application was presented until the group
Organized farmers are encouraged to repay their loans as received the order to pick up the fertilizers. Some groups soon as possible. Many farmers liquidate their loans by were able to complete this process in 3 days; others remaking several payments throughout the year. In 1972. the quired as much as 4 weeks. percentage repayment on loans from the Impulsora de Pue- Some farmers felt this procedure for arranging for credit
bla was 98 % from the National Agricultural Credit Bank was too complicated and chose not to join a solidarity 94 % and from the National Ejidal Credit Bank 90% Y. group. Other farmers were discouraged from seeking credit
66




through the Agricultural Bank because of the requirement THE PUEBLA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL
that they take crop insurance. (This latter problem is EJIDAL CREDIT BANK
common for the three official banks and is discussed in a
later section.)
When the number of farmers seeking credit from the The National Ejidal Credit Bank was founded in 1935
Agricultural Bank increased sharply in 1971, the bank ran and since that time has granted credit to efidatarios, with short of personnel to handle the loan requests. The farmers the Agricultural Bank providing credit to landowners. In in solidarity groups suggested that the Bank use the 1 addition to extending credit to efidatarios, the Ejidal Bank
percent of their loans that is deducted by law for admin- objectives were: to organize the efidatarios to work their istrative costs to pay temporary personnel. The director of lands collectively, and to make credit more accessible by the Bank presented the proposal to the local administrative establishing state and regional branches. The Puebla Branch council and obtained the necessary approval, of the Ejidal Bank has seven agencies at strategic locations
in the state. Each agency has several field inspectors, each
Outlook for Greater Credit for Small Farmers of whom is responsible for attending the ejidatarios in a
From the Agricultural Bank given zone. Two agencies are located in the Project area and
have provided credit to ejidatarios using Project recomThe Agricultural Bank has become a strong supporter of mendations.
the Project strategy and has fostered close coordination of The Ejidal Bank, as in the case of the Agricultural Bank,
Bank and Project personnel in their relationships with the offers short, intermediate, and long-term loans. The Ejidal farmers. Both the Puebla Branch and the Central Office of Bank makes loans to credit societies and, rarely, to solidarthe Agricultural Bank are pleased with their credit program ity groups. Credit is not provided to individual ejidatarios. for solidarity groups using Project recommendations. All In 1969, the Ejidal Bank granted loans enabling 413
indications are that the Agricultural Bank will seek to ejidatarios in 15 credit societies to use Project recomincrease this credit operation. Prospects for this increase mendations on 829 ha of maize. Although only 55 percent were strengthened in 1973 when the Agricultural Bank of these loans were repaid (Table 7.1), the Ejidal Bank
received authorization to extend credit to efidatarios as well recognized the potential of the new technology and decided as landowners, to reinstate 44 ejidal societies that had lost their credit
Nevertheless, if the Agricultural Bank is to respond fully standing in the past due to failure of their members to to the growing demand for production credit in the Puebla repay loans. In 1970, the Bank provided credit for 2,122 area, it will be necessary to resolve several problems that ejidatarios in 59 credit societies with a total of 4,522 ha. presently limit the effectiveness of the bank's credit pro- Table 7.1 shows that the number of hectares of maize gram: (a) the work load of employees of the Legal and plantings financed by the Ejidal Bank has remained fairly
Administrative Departments has increased greatly since constant since 1970. About 90 percent of these loans have
1971-it seems reasonable their salaries should be adjusted been repaid. to compensate for this work, and to put their salaries in line
with those received by employees of the other official Operating Procedures of the Ejidal Bank
banks; (b) bank regulations require that a new contract be
signed with a solidarity group when members leave, when To qualify for loans from the Ejidal Bank, the ejidatarios
new members enter, or when there is a change in the area must organize a credit society. The requirements for char,
for which credit is requested. Since such changes are tering a society are: (a) at least 10 ejidatarios must request
frequent, it is necessary to sign a new contract almost every the founding of a society; (b) the ejidal executive commityear. Farmers feel that the bank should be more flexible tee must submit an application for the formation of a
and permit changes in membership and acreage without the society, along with a map of the ejido showing the location
trouble and expense of drawing up and registering a new of the parcels of the applicants; (c) each applicant must
contract; (c) the Agricultural Bank is the only official bank present his ejidal certificate, or proof that his name appears that deducts interest in advance. A farmer who requests on the most recent ejidal census list-this is necessary to
$100 at 11.5 percent interest, for example, receives $88.50 establish that each of the applicants has possession of an and has to pay back $100 at the end of the year. The ejidal parcel; (d) the field inspector of the Ejidal Bank
effective interest rate is 12.99 percent instead of 11.5 prepares a document specifying the socioeconomic condipercent. The farmers feel that this method of calculating tions of the applicants and the productive potential of their interest should be changed; and (d) the temporary person- soils; (e) the Puebla Branch of the Ejidal Bank sends the nel hired for the peak work periods are usually poorly paid application of the ejidatarios, the map of the ejido, and the and inefficient. Thus, many documents have to be redone, document prepared by the field inspector to the Central
causing delays and a great deal of frustration for the farm- Office; and (f) the Central Office approves or disapproves ers. the application.
67




There is at least a 6-month lapse from the time the In early 1973, by presidential decree it was stipulated
application for the formation of a credit society is sub- that debts contracted by ejidal credit societies between
mitted until the Central Office makes a decision. The Bank 1940 and 1965 would be pardoned at the rate of 20 perdoes provide, however, for the provisional establishment of cent for each year that the efidatarios repay new loans on a society under unusual circumstances and at the request of time. Thus, in 5 years, all ejidatarios with debts from that the manager of the Branch Bank. period could liquidate the old loans simply by repaying all
After the formation of a credit society has been author- new loans promptly. The presidential decree further speized, the field inspector holds a meeting, in the efido, of all cified that debts contracted between 1966 and 1972 would the ejidatarios who wish to become members and receive be combined into one account and repaid gradually without
credit from the Ejidal Bank. At this meeting, the efidatarios interest. The Bank suggested that each indebted ejidatario elect one member of their group, the delegate, to represent apply 10 percent of his harvest each year toward paying off the society in all transactions involved in arranging for his account until it was settled. This new policy for reinstatcredit. Once established, the credit society can function ing members of the credit societies should increase the
indefinitely. New members can be accepted on approval of amount of credit granted in 1974 to enable efidatarios to
the membership of the society. The Ejidal Bank is fairly use Project recommendations.
flexible in its relationships with the society and permits it
to continue operating even though there are changes in its Outlook for Greater Credit for Ejidatarios From
membership. the Ejidal Bank
The procedure followed by the credit society in arrang- Taking into account the 90-percent rate of loan repaying for loans from the Ejidal Bank involves several ment since 1971 by efidatarios using Project recommendasteps: (a) during September preceding the cropping sea- tions, it seems likely that the Ejidal Bank will be interested
son, the field inspector, with the assistance of the delegate, in expanding its credit operation in the Puebla area. To prepares a list of the credit requirements of each member; accomplish this, however, the Bank must examine a series
(b) the Puebla Branch consolidates the requests from the of problems that are believed to limit the effectiveness of
several societies, prepares a Plan of Operations, and sends it its credit program, including: (a) eight field inspectors to the Central Office; (c) the Central Office approves all or attended 52 societies with 2,499 efidatarios in 1972, an part of the request and returns it to the Branch Bank; at average of 6.5 societies and 312.4 ejidatarios per field
least one month before planting time, the Branch Bank noti- inspector. This is felt to be about the maximum number of fies the agencies of the amount of credit approved for their societies and members that can be attended efficiently by areas; (d) the field inspector prepares a final list for each one inspector with present operating procedures. It seems society, showing the credit requested by each member (last- clear, therefore, that more inspectors will be needed or minute changes in members requesting credit is permis- operating procedures must be simplified if the Ejidal Bank
sible); (e) the field inspector, assisted by administrative is to expand its credit operation successfully; (b) In 1969 personnel of the Bank, prepares a contract that specifies the and 1970, technical assistance agents of the Project focused amount of credit requested by the society, both for fer- their efforts on groups receiving credit from the Impulsora
tilizers and in cash. A new contract is necessary each year de Puebla. Since then, they have tried to work more closely for each type of credit. The ejidatarios, however, do not with the ejidal credit societies. In 1973, for the first time,
participate in the preparation and registration of the con- technical assistance agents and bank inspectors began to tracts. This is done by the Bank, which pays the registration hold meetings to coordinate their activities. Both groups fee from a special fund collected from society members for would benefit from strengthening this relationship in the
administrative expenses; (f) the field inspector draws up a future to improve their services to the ejidatarios; (c) when multiple promissory note showing the amount of each communicating with Bank administrators, the field inspecmember's loan, the interest, and other deductions; (g) the tors sometimes fail to transmit the nature of problems
Bank then sends a delivery order to the delegate-with this influencing the behavior of the ejidatarios. This lack of
order, the society members obtain their fertilizers and cash communication results in misunderstandings and strained from the Bank; and (h) each member, on receipt of materi- relationships among Bank employees. Recently, for examals or cash, signs the promissory note. In 1972, the average ple, field inspectors were blamed for the failure of many time between the preparation of the final list (step d) and e-ial parcels to qualify for crop insurance. However, there receipt of the delivery order was 28 days. was little the inspectors could do, because the problem
In an attempt to make the credit-granting process more arose primarily as a result of unrealistic operating polices of
dynamic, the National Ejidal Credit Bank introduced a the crop insurance agency, plus the tendency of some farmseries of administrative reforms in 1973. The central feature ers to encourage rejection (believing the cost of the insurof these reforms is the creation of Control Boards with an ance to be a useless expense). Regular meetings of field
assistant bookkeeper and secretaries, to relieve field inspec- inspectors and other bank personnel would permit a freer tors of most of their paper work. Its is hoped that this will flow of information and contribute to a smoother functionenable the field inspectors to devote more time to field ing of the institution; (d) in past years there have been an
activities. excessive number of changes in administrative personnel
68




and field inspectors. In one year, for example, the Bank lack of coordination between the Bank's field technicians manager was changed four times. Frequent changes in Bank and Project personnel; and (b) the Bank does not feel that personnel cause many deficiencies in the bank's services to short-term credit, especially for maize production, is an the ejidatarios; and (e) members of the ejidal credit soci- effective way of helping small farmers. The Bank feels that eties are poorly informed of their rights and obligations and such loans tend to perpetuate the vicious cycle of povertyfew participate in transactions with the Bank. Most mem- subsistence that is at the root of underdevelopment. In bers, for example, do not know what percentage of interest extending credit to a considerable number of farmers in they are paying, how much is deducted from their loans for 1969 and 1970, this Bank sought to introduce them to the crop insurance, or why other deductions are made. Society Bank's services with the aim of promoting long-term loans members are poorly informed mainly because they fail to to make the farmer's operations more productive. Few of attend the meetings held by the field inspector. According the farmers, however, reacted as the Bank had expected. to the ejidatarios, however, nothing of importance is discus- Since 1972, the Agricultural Bank of the South has sed at the meetings. This situation can be improved in the promoted a different form of organization, which consists future if the field inspector will devote more time to vis- primarily of consolidating the contiguous holdings of a iting the ejidos, perhaps soliciting the participation of the group of farmers and operating the land as a single unit. technical assistance agents. The bank expects to drill wells and convert most of the
land to higher-income, irrigated crops. This organizational
model is presently being tried with three societies in the
AGRICULTURAL BANK OF THE SOUTH Saeo uba
State of Puebla.
The National Crop and Animal Production Bank was In view of the present thinking of the Agricultural Bank
established in 1965, with the function of granting credit to of the South, it seems unlikely that the Bank will grant both ejidatarios and landowners. Its basic purposes are to significant amounts of credit in future years to enable farmassist the Agricultural and Ejidal Banks in serving more ers to use Project recommendations. farmers, and to seek new ways to make these services more
dynamic and efficient. THE COXTOCAN HACIENDA
The National Crop and Animal Production Bank has In 1969, the owner of the Coxtocan Hacienda give
four regional banks that function independently in admin- chemical fertilizers to many of the eidatarios who farmed istrative matters, each providing service in several states. the land adjacent to her property. The following year she One of these regional banks, the Agricultural Bank of the
ad was deluged with requests for fertilizers and was forced to South, was established in the city of Puebla in 1967 and
serves eight southeastern states, with agencies in each. coorior of the ua Po sugst th at, rThe
The pertingproedurs o th AgrculuralBan of coordinator of the Puebla Project suggested that, rather
The operating procedures of the Agricultural Bank of than give the fertilizers, the ejidatarios might request the the South are similar to those of the Ejidal Bank, the dif- fertilizer on credit from a distributor, and that she could ference being that farmers can organize solidarity groups (if serve as guarantor for the loans. The Project agreed to their membership is less than 10) or credit societies (if organize the ejidatarios and provide them with technical membership is 10 or more). The time required to found a assistance. society is about the same as in the case of the Ejidal Bank. Since 1971, the owner of the Coxtocan Hacienda has An important difference between the Agricultural Bank of guaranteed the loans for about 250 ejidatarios in 10 groups. the South and Ejidal Bank is that the Ejidal Bank field The credit was extended by the Olmeca fertilizer company inspectors collect payments on loans directly in the com- in 1971 and by the Impulsora de Puebla in 1972 and 1973. munities and, when necessary, from the efidatarios in their It is not expected that the owner of the Coxtocan Hacienda homes. The field inspectors of the Agricultural Bank of the will be equipped to guarantee the loans of larger numbers South do not collect loan payments, of ejidatarios in future years.
When the Puebla Project began to promote the use of
the new maize recommendations, the Project technicians DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF GUANOMEX and farmers felt that the potential of the Agricultural Bank
of the South for supplying production credit exceeded that As mentioned earlier, Guanomex is a decentralized of the other official banks. It was new, well-equipped, had federal agency with the responsibility for the production well-trained personnel, and was interested in new ap- and distribution of chemical fertilizers in Mexico. It iniproaches. tiated a pilot effort in 1973 to promote the use of agua
Table 7.1 shows that the credit provided by the Agricul- ammonia by organized farmers in the Puebla area. Guanotural Bank of the South peaked in 1969 and 1970 and mex feels that nitrogen in the form of agua ammonia can be
steadily declined in the following three years. This tenden- supplied to small farmers at a cost of only about 60 percent cy of the bank to reduce its credit program apparently of that of solid fertilizers. An important factor contributing stems from two causes: (a) the percent repayment on loans to this lower cost of liquid fertilizers is the feasibility of has been low, only 50 to 62 percent--this low repayment transferring the personnel and special equipment for handrate can be explained in part by the fact that the Bank's ling agua Iammonia presently assigned to irrigated areas of clients have received little technical assistance due to the the country to rainfed areas for a few months each year.
69




The Guanomex plan was to provide farmers with horse- The basic purpose of ANAGSA is to complement the
drawn applicators and deliver the agua ammonia to their agricultural credit service provided by the official banks, by communities in 55-kg tanks that fit directly on the appli- protecting: (a) the farmers against losses due to natural cators. The farmers had to sign a promissory note on causes, and (b) the official banks against losses due to the
receipt of the fertilizer and agree to repay Guanomex at inability of the farmers to repay their loans in unfavorable harvest time. years. ANAGSA expanded its program in 1972 to include
The Project technical assistance agents began to inform life insurance, which costs the farmer $2.00/year and the farmers about the Guanomex program in early April provides his family with $400 indemnization in case of
1973. Over 2,000 farmers volunteered to try the agua death.
ammonia on some 5,000 ha. Several problems arose, how- Table 7.2 shows the hectares of maize insured by
ever, including delays in installing the agua ammonia plant, ANAGSA in the Puebla area, the premiums paid, and the and numerous difficulties in adapting the horse-drawn amounts of indemnizations for the years 1966-197Lapplicator to the conditions in Puebla. Thus, the agua Although all farmers applying for official production credit ammonia was applied to only about 500 ha by about 250 must request crop insurance (except for one line of credit
farmers, of the Agricultural Bank), ANAGSA normally rejects some
Project technicians feel that agua ammonia can be an of the plantings. For example, in 1971, only about twoimportant source of nitrogen for farmers in the Puebla area, thirds of the area receiving credit for maize production was if the price can be maintained at around 60 percent of that approved for crop insurance. of solid materials. However, the horse-drawn applicator The average area of maize insured by ANAGSA in
used in 1973 still has many technical flaws and will have to 1970-1972 was more than double that of 1966-1969 (Table be improved significantly. 7.2). The premiums paid by the farmers accounted for less
than one-third of the total premiums; the remainder was
paid by the federal government. The area on which indemTHE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL nization was collected has fluctuated greatly, reflecting
INSURANCE AGENCY variations in climatic conditions over the years.
About 20 years ago, farmers of the Lagunera Region of Operating Procedures of ANAGSA Northern Mexico who received credit from the official
banks formed a mutual. crop insurance association. Each
member paid a fixed amount per hectare, and in the case of The procedure used by the official credit banks in crop damage, the money was distributed among those mem- requesting crop insurance for their clients is as follows: (a) bears suffering losses in accordance with the recommenda- each bank sends a multiple application to the insurance tions of an inspection committee named by the association. agency with the areas for which credit is requested and This mutual association was quite successful, and similar names of all farmers soliciting credit, and (b) as soon as the agencies were soon formed in other parts of the country. farmers have signed the contract and promissory notes, the The first mutual association in the State of Puebla was Bank sends a complementary report for each farmer to the established in 1956 and became a part of the National insurance agency, showing his age, beneficiary, and the
Agricultural Insurance Agency (ANAGSA) in 1961. number of parcels in his property that are separated by
TABLE 7.2. The insuring of maize plantings in the Puebla area in 1966-1972.
Area financed Area Amount Premiums Area
by official banks insured of paid by Indeminized Amount of
Year ha ha premiums farmers ha indemnization
1966 2,973 2723 42,832 - 271 4,421
1967 3,187 2740 45,161 1185 23,069
1968 3,545 2856 45,405 -- 710 10,130
1969 3,118 2672 45,048 12,456 1840 51,079
1970 7,920 6139 103,408 29,598 1186 34,762
1971 11,043 7068 176,538 45,914 1532 59,304
1972 13,426 5947 .
70




more than 1 kmn. The insurance agency uses the information ance is necessary in the region, the majority of them would in these reports to estimate the number of field inspectors not use it under present circumstances, if it were optional. needed and the approximate dates of peak field activities. As the farmers see it, the insurance agency is protecting the Three kinds of field inspections are made. The first banks against losses, but not themselves.
inspection is normally made a few weeks after emergence of To gain the confidence of the farmers in Puebla, changes
the crop. Its purpose is to verify that the insured crop was must be made in the insurance agency's operating proceplanted, and that plant density and general vigor are sat- dures. In addition, closer cooperation is needed with the isfactory. The group representative and the members credit banks and the Puebla Project, in coordinating effecneeded to locate the parcels must accompany the field tively the field activities of agency inspectors, bank inspecinspector. After each parcel is checked, the inspector draws tors, and technical assistance agents. Several activities that up a legal document specifying the conditions of the crop. could increase the effectiveness of the insurance agency are: The document is read to all those present and signed by (a) informing the farmers of the crop insurance law: Most
each. The inspector does not inform the farmers at this farmers have little or no knowledge of the crop insurtime whether the parcel is accepted or rejected; this ance law, even about essentials such as the time period
decision is made later by a higher agency official, for advising the insurance agency in case of crop damThe second kind of inspection is made when insured age. However, field inspectors of the agency and banks,
farmers report crop damage due to natural causes. The together with Project technicians, could provide infarmer must advise the insurance agency within 72 hours of structions about the role of crop insurance, rights and
the time the damage occurs. The agency must inspect the obligations of the insured, and other operating procedamaged crop within a period of time specified by the law dures.
governing ANAGSA. The damaged crop is inspected by the (b) defining the criteria for rejecting plantings because of
agency field inspector, accompanied by the bank inspector, "imminent risks": At the present time the insurance
group representative, and the farmer concerned. The inspec- agency rejects plantings because of "imminent risks."
tor draws up a legal document specifying the nature and Apparently, however, the reasons for rejecting such
extent of damage and has it signed by all present. plantings are not well-defined. This creates dissatisfacThe third kind of inspection is made just before harvest tions among farmers and can be avoided by precisely
All plantings that have been reported as being damaged defining the nature of "imminent risks."
during the year, are inspected to determine how much they (c) informing the farmers promptly about the acceptance should produce. The field inspector reports this informa- or rejection of their plantings and their right tb indemtion to a higher agency official who decides on indem- nization. After the field inspectors look over a planting
nization. and prepare a report, farmers usually conclude that the
Up until 1973, the inspection at harvest time was made planting is insured. This may or may not be the case,
on all parcels belonging to the farmer reporting damage, not however, since the decision to accept or- reject a plantjust the damaged, parcel. This was because the insurance ing is made in the Puebla office of the agency. Simagency did not consider the insured unit as a single parcel, ilarly, in the cage of inspections at harvest time, farmbut as all parcels of the farmer concerned. Field inspectors, ers may erroneously conclude that their claim has been therefore, estimated the yields of all the parcels and took accepted when the inspector makes no statement to
an average. If this yield was greater than the limit below the contrary. It is important that farmers fully underwhich indemnization was paid, the farmer received no stand how decisions are made on these matters and that
compensation, even though one of the parcels were a total they be advised within a few days following inspecloss. This procedure for determining indemnization has tions of the action taken by the insurance agency.
been the principal source of dissatisfaction with the service (d) developing a field inspection procedure that is more of the insurance agency among the farmers. efficient for a highly fragmented area such as Puebla.
Aware of the farmers' attitude toward the insurance Farmers in Puebla have an average of about 3 culti,agency's procedure for approving indemnization, the Puebla vated hectares distributed among three to four parcels
Project staff consulted with the agency's -director in 1972 that are often separated by a kilometer or more. Many
about ways to resolve the problem. The insurance agency of these parcels cannot be reached by vehicle; thus, the
agreed to treat parcels separated by more than 1 kmn as process of inspecting parcels is very laborious and
separate insured units. This modified policy went into expensive, resulting in long delays in making inspeceffect in 1973. tions and more problems for the farmer. Because of
delays in inspections at harvest time, for example, the
farmer may be required to postpone cutting and shockCrop Insurance Related Problems That Limit ing his maize and plowing the land. As a result of such
Farmer Use of Official Credit delays, .farmers may not be able to plant early with
residual moisture the following spring.
Crop insurance in Puebla is seen as a major factor limit- A procedure similar to that used by the original
ing farmer use of official credit. Although information mutual crop insurance associations might be a possible
collected in surveys indicates that farmers feel crop insur- solution to this problem. Each group would name a
71




committee to inspect members' parcels and render a The purchasing procedure of CONASUPO is relatively
report. The agency field inspectors would make spot simple. An employee receives the maize from the producer
checks periodically to assure that the committees were at the warehouse, weighs it, and determines the moisture observing the regulations of the insurance agency. A content. If the grain contains more than 14 percent moisprocedure similar to this is presently being used with ture, its weight is adjusted to that moisture content. A sales
good results by one group that receives credit from the slip is prepared showing the weight of grain received and its Impulsora de Puebla. value. The farmer presents the sales slip to the cashier and
(e) to cooperate more closely with the credit banks and receives his payment.
the Puebla Project. The bank managers and the Project One problem with this procedure, as far as farmers are
coordinator saw their relations with the director of the concerned, is that the, cashier is normally present at the crop insurance agency gradually deteriorate during warehouse only 2 days per week. This means that farmers
1.972 and 1973. The primary reason for this weakened often have to make a second trip to the warehouse in order
relationship seems to be the questions asked by the to get paid. For this reason, and the inconvenience of
Project staff regarding the operating procedures of the having to haul their grain to the warehouse, most farmers insurance 'agency. Near the end of 1972, for example, continue to sell their maize to the village grain merchant.
the Project coordinator invited the bank managers and The network of CONASUPO buyers, nontheless, serves to
the insurance agency director to work with him in keep the price paid by the local buyer from falling much
finding a way to modify certain procedures of the below the official price.
insurance agency that were very troublesome to the Table 7.3 shows the amounts of maize purchased in
farmers. The director of the insurance agency, how- 1971-1972 and 1972-1973 at the 15 rural warehouses, as
ever, showed little inclination to cooperate. The only well as the amounts sold to local consumers. Purchases in
accomplishment of the meeting was the decision to these 2 years account for a small part of the total maize
consider parcels separated by more than 1 km as dif- sold in the area, indicating that most farmers sold to local
ferent units for insurance purposes. Increased coopera- buyers. The amounts purchased in 1972-1973 were much tion between the agency director and the represent- lower than in 1971-1972, probably because the price
atives of other agricultural institutions in Puebla is offered by local buyers that year was above $75.20/ton,
essential to a more effective crop insurance program. due to a general shortage of maize throughout the country.
THE NATIONAL MARKETING AGENCY TABLE 7.3. Metric tons of maize purchased and sold by
Conasupo at the rural warehouses in the Puebla area.
The National Marketing Agency (CONASUPO) was
established in 1962 with the following objectives: (a) to Name of Purchases Sales
improve rural family income though support prices for warehouse 1971-72 1972-73 1971-72 1972-73
different agricultural products; (b) to maintain reserves of Magdalena 1463 675 7.4 18.7
basic foods with which to meet possible shortages; and (c) Ocotitlan 141 45
to regulate prices in consumer markets of basic foods to Tlaxco 6485 3606 14.9 74.9
protect the low-income population. Coatepec 742 192 56.6
ptt Malacatepec 191 105 96.8
Until 1971, CONASUPO purchased maize in the Puebla Benito Juirez 1077 343 .. 67.7
area and stored it in the central warehouses of the National Teotlalcingo 281 283 84.6 0.9
Storage Agency (ANDSA). During 1968-1970, however, Tlautla 2660 1932 13.1
CONASUPO constructed rural warehouses at 15 locations El Verde 751 73 4.5 34.3
Acozautla 590 34 2.6
throughout the Project area. Since 1971, CONASUPO has Tepeaca 3643 1278 210.7
purchased maize at these warehouses without restrictions as San Andr6s Cholula 1534 ...
to grain color or minimum quantity per producer. It has Emiliano Zapata -- 460 29.1
paid the official price of $75.20/ton for grain containing 14 Guadalupe Zaragoza -- 20 4.4
percent moisture or less. Prior to the harvest in 1973, the Santiago Coltzingo -- 7
official price was increased to $96/ton. Total 19,558 9,053 111.4 609.8
72




8 VALUATION PROC[DUR[S
INTRODUCTION data provided a general idea of the area, the number of
The ueba Pojec wa coceivd a anexpeimetal families living there, the total area planted to maize and the
apprachto dvelp ad tet sratgiesforrapdly ncras- amount produced, and the size of the holdings.
approach *o deelo an tet stateiesforrapily ncras-Yearly data on area, production, and yield wereavailable ing yields on small land holdings of subsistence farmers. Its b uiiisfo h iec~ eea eEoof
operational strategies were designed to be flexible and Agricola. The methods of data collection and yield estimasubject to modification as new information was generated. tion used by this agency were studied to determine whether Thus, provision was made for an evaluation unit with two such data would provide an adequate estimation of yield main objectives: (a) to measure the progress made by the changes. This analysis suggested that a more precise measProject over time, And (b) to identify obstacles and collect ueo il a eddt eetmnrya-oya
the information needed for modifying strategies. Immediate uraes.il a eee odtc inrya-oya
feedback of this information to Project staff was a crucial changes eneesrykns.fetiae o oh il
step in developing remedial actions. and characteristics of the farming population, a probability
Consideration was given to contracting an independent sample was chosen. This sample was used both for personal agency to make the evaluation. There were two principal interview surveys and for yearly estimates of maize yields. arguments in favor of this approach: (a) greater objectivity
could be expected, as those involved in evaluation would
have no direct personal interest in the success or failure of PERSONAL INTERVIEW SURVEYS the Project, and (b) these more objective findings would
probably carry more weight with policy makers. Sre:16
There were als 'o two important reasons for including Sre:16 evaluation as an integral part of the Project: (a) it would
assure a continuous feedback of information to the other
members of the Project team, and (b) obstacles limiting Fr prtr ftePoetae eetepplto
farmer participation could be identified and studied most of interest in this s tudy. Because the Census lists were 8 effectively by an evaluation team working side by side with years old, it seemed advisable to look for an alternative the members of the field staff, sampling frome. An area sampling technique, turned out to
After discussion of alternatives by Project members and be feasible' because of the availability of aerial photos taken advisors, evaluation was included as an integral part of the just 6 months earlier. Project. In regard to the question of objectivity, it was felt To keep costs at a reasonable level, a two-stage sample that the essential conditions were objective criteria and was drawn. The sample was selected as follows. Using a map adequate methodology, as in any research, of the region provided by the Mexican Defense DepartAfter the harvest of the fertilizer experiments in 1967, it ment, the Project area or was delineated. Next, 25 points became evident that the Project would begin promoting the were identified by locating coordinates with a list of ranuse of revised maize technology in 1968. Thus, it was domn numbers. These points were then transferred to the necessary to begin immediately to: (a) establish bench- aerial photos and a square 5 x 5 cm was drawn with the marks on yield, technology of the farmers, level of living, point-as the center. This 25 cm2 area was equal to 1,00 ha. etc. for future comparisons; (b) obtain information about These squares were then photographed and enlarged to a the farmers and their present level of technology for use in size which simplified identification of individual parcels and planning the action program; and (c) obtain information on permitted more precise measurements of area. the infrastructure of' the region -fertilizer distribution, The first stage of the field work involved locating the 25 agricultural. credit, crop insurance, and price support pro- segments and finding reference. points-trees, roads, gulleysgrams. that would help to identify individual parcels. Once the
segment boundaries were established, the next step was to
COLLECTION OF EXISTING INFORMATION obtain the names of those who had operated each piece of
land in 1967. The list of names of persons farming any land
Unpublished data for 1960 were obtained from the within the segment constituted the sampling frame for the
Census Bureau for the mnunicipios in the Project area. These second stage.
73




'4,
Random samples of the farmers iii the area were interviewed in early 1968 and in
mid-I 971. The information
collected in these surveys was
used to describe the conditions existing at the beginning
and to measure the changes
that had occurred after the
Project had been operating
for three years.
The number of segments to be included in the sample Survey: 1970
and the number of farmers needed in each segment were
estimated from the variability in two sets of data: (a)
yields from the fertilizer trials planted throughout the area A second personal interview survey was conducted in the in 1967, and (b) yields measured on a sampling of farmers' summer of 1971, referred to in this report as the 1970 fields in two municipios of the area in the fall of 1967. survey because the data corresponded to events of 1970. Based on these data, a 12 percent random sample was The main objectives of this study were: (a) to quantify
drawn among farmers in each segment to assure that 10 the changes occurring between 1967 and 1970, (b) to
percent would be scheduled for interviews. A total of 251 examine factors that might have influenced these changes, farm operators were interviewed in the 25 segments. and (c) to identify the factors that were favorable or
Interviewers used a questionnaire that was pretested in unfavorable to the progress of the Project. Because comDecember 1967. The questionnaire was designed to obtain parisons had to be made over time, the questionnaire
information on: (a) types of farm ownership, (b) crop included the questions used in 1967, plus questions about
production, (c) livestock production, (d) farming costs, (e) variables not previously studied. The information collected tools and equipment, (f) composition of family income and in 1971 was designed to serve as a new benchmark for its distribution, (g) crop production information at the future studies. farmers' disposal, (h) knowledge and use of modern agricul- Two categories of farmers were delineated in the Puebla tural inputs, (i) marketing of agricultural products, (j) exist- area in 1971: (a) farmers on credit lists who were organing organizations, (k) demographic and cultural character- ized in groups, had received credit in 1970 from the instituistics of the farmer and his family, (1) living conditions of tions participating in the Project, and had ready access to the farmer and his family, and (in) attitudes and expecta- information about the new maize recommendations; and tions of the farmers about the future of agriculture. (b) farmers not on credit lists who were not organized, did
After the 1967 pretest, the questionnaire was revised, not receive credit from the participating institutions, and Students, principally from the National School of Agricul- had limited access to information about the new recointure at Chapingo, conducted the bulk of the interviews mendations. Two samples of farmers were interviewed in
during the 6-week period from January 2 to February 15, the 1970 survey: (a) farmers on credit lists and (b) all
1968. farmers in the area (a random sample of farmers from both
The questionnaires were checked, and the information was the above categories).
coded and then punched on computer cards. The cards The survey of farmers on credit lists involved a stratified
were computer processed, using specially designed programs random sample in which each stratum was made up of to produce condensed tables. The card punching, pro- farmers who had received credit from one of the following:
gramming, and processing were done at the Statistics and the National Agricultural Credit Bank, the National Ejidal Computation Center of the Graduate College, Chapingo. Credit Bank, the Agricultural Bank of the South, and the
74




Impulsora do Puebla. This stratified sample was used
because it was thought that there might be significant
differences among the characteristics of the groups of
farmers receiving credit from the four institutions.
The components of variance among and within the strata STUD IES OF AG RICU LTU RAL INSTITUTIONS were estimated using the maize yields of farmers on credit AND FARM SECTOR lists in the 1970 season. (These yields had been estimated
using an indirect procedure described on page 76). These
components were used to determine the size of the sample Information relative to the infrastructure that had been
necessary to estimate averages in maize yields with a collected through interviews with farmers was supplemented
90-percent probability. There were 213 farmers in the with data obtained directly from the agricultural institusample. tions in special studies done in 1968 and 1973.
A sample design in two stages, similar to that of 1967, The 1968 study focused on the level of services provided
Was used for the survey of all farmers in the area. The by the credit banks, crop insurance company, and the
components of variance among and within segments-were marketing agency.. In addition, the fertilizer distribution
estimated using the 1970 maize yields of all farmers in the network was identified by compiling a list of all persons area. The size of the sample of segments and number of who sold fertilizer in the villages of the area.
farmers per segment were calculated using these compo- The objectives of the 1973 study were: (a) to obtain a
nents of variance, together with the quotient estimated in detailed understanding of the operating procedures and 1967 by dividing the average cost of identifying and taking policies of the three. official credit banks, the Impulsora do a census of a segment by the average cost of interviewing a Puebla, and the crop insurance company; (b) to tabulate farmer. The number of segments was calculated at 25, but the amount of services provided by these institutions during was increased to 31 to provide greater precision in the the period 1965-1973; (c) to observe changes that had
estimates. There were seven farmers per segment. occurred in the operating procedures of these institutions in
The sampling procedure used in M97 assumed an unre- recent years; and (d) to determine to, what extent such
stricted, random distribution of variables throughout the changes had been influenced by the Puebla Project. Project area. This random selection of segments, however, Changes in the operating procedures of the institutions,
produced a pattern in which some parts of the area were and the amounts of services which they provided to farmsampled with greater intensity than others. Between 1967 ers, were studied by gathering information directly from and 1970, geographical trends in the distribution of varia- the institutions. Interviews were held with decision-makers, bility were discerned in the area. These trends showed the both in the office and field, and additional information was assumptions of the 1967 sample to be faulty; the sample obtained from their files.
left large areas unrepresented, whereas other areas were The Project farmers were interviewed in 1973 to obtain
sampled quite intensively. a better understanding of why many farmers wore not folBecause of the above findings, plus the high costs lowing the Project recommendations. Among the specific
involved in taking the census of segments, the following issues covered in this study were: (a) the effect of farmer arbitrary scheme was developed for the first-stage sampling organizations on the adoption of the new technology, (b) in 1970. the level of understanding by the farmers of the maize
Twenty-one of the segments identified in 1967 were recommendations, and (c) the farmers' impressions of the
used in the 1970 survey. Ten new segments were added, efficiency of the services provided by' the agricultural located at random in parts of the area not adequately institutions.
covered in 1967. Information about the Project area col- The farmers interviewed in 1973 were located in 10
lected between 1967 and 1970 was used in delineating the communities distributed throughout the five Project zones. 10 zones in which the new segments were located. The new These 10 communities were selected because they appeared segments were located in the field and the individual parcels to represent the area adequately in terms of the attention identified. received from the Project technical assistance agents, and
A listing was made of all farmers who worked at least from the agricultural service institutions in Puebla. 'The first one parcel in the 31 segments. The sample of farmers was part of the study consisted of informal visits by the invesselected at random from these lists and interviews were tigator to the communities over a period of 6 months to made during the summer of 1971 by students from the establish rapport with the villagers. In the second phase of
National School of Agriculture at Chapingo, who had the study a structured questionnaire was used to interview
received 10 days of-specialized training, samples of: (a) farmers in organized groups, and (b) unorganThe completed questionnaires from the sample of farm- ized farmers. The first sample included 69 farmers, 35 of ers on credit lists and the sample of all farmers in the area whom were group representatives and 34 were group were checked, and the information transferred to coded members. The sample of unorganized farmers consisted of
sheets. Data processing was done at the Statistics and 29 heads of families in five communities where organized
Computation Center of the Graduate College, Chapingo. groups had functioned during the previous 3 or 4 years.
75




ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF MAIZE YIELDS The components of variance among segments, among
parcels, and within parcels were calculated annually, using A major goal of the Puebla Project was to increase the maize yields estimated in the evaluation of yields. There production per unit area of maize; thus, an accurate and were 25 sample segments in 1968, 36 segments in 1969 and continuing measurement of yields was crucial. Maize yields 1970, and 31 segments in 1971 and 1972. The number of could be measured by ,selecting a random sample of fields in locations within a parcel remained constant from year to the area each year, with subsequent harvesting and measur- year. The number of parcels per segment varied as a funcing of grain yields. This method required locating the fields, tion of the magnitudes of the variances calculated for the locating the farmers (who usually lived some distance away previous season. The selection of parcels was made using a in a neighboring village), obtaining permission to harvest the random systematic technique, with probability propornecessary sample area, harvesting in the presence of the tional to size; that is, a 4 ha parcel had four times as much farmer, and returning the grain to the farmer. All of the probability of appearing in the sample as a 1 ha parcel. sample fields had to be harvested within a brief period After the parcels had been selected, the field was samfrom maturity of the earliest plantings to the beginning of pled as follows. First, a coin was flipped to determine direcharvest by the farmers. These considerations prompted the tion of entry into the field. Then the number of rows was search for a simpler method for estimating maize yields. counted from left to right. Next, using a table of random numbers, the starting row was selected. In this row, 10 out of the first 20 meters were harvested, as shown in Fig. 8. 1. Development of an Indirect Method Then the sampling was moved five rows to the right, profor Estimating Yields gressively, until a total of 50 meters had been harvested. If
this procedure carried the sampling to the outer edge of the In 1968, an estimation of maize yields was designed and field, as shown in Fig. 8.1, the procedure was begun again conducted to provide data for developing a simple, indirect, on the opposite edge and the counting of rows was resumed reasonably precise method for estimating yields. In this toward the right. process, the length of ear filled with grain, diameter of the unshucked ear at the base, and weight of grain with 12 percent moisture were determined for each ear in the maize fields included in a random sample. A prediction equation was developed by regressing grain yield-per-ear on the diameter and length of the ear. This prediction equation was used to prepare a table in which ear lengths were listed as row headings, ear diameters as column headings, with grain yields composing the body of the table. A rapid and reasonably accurate estimate of yield can be made with this table, using measurements of lengths and diameters of all ears in a sample area of a maize field.
This table has been used since 1969 for making annual
estimates of maize yields in the Project area. A detailed 100 M
description of the statistical procedures used in developing the regression model is given in an unpublished paper (Heliodoro Diaz C., Delbert T. Myren, and Richard E. Lund, "Estimating Corn Yields in the Puebla Area with a Regression Model Based on Ear'Length and Diameter").
Estimation of Yields of All Farmers in the Area
An annual estimation of maize yields was made for two categories of farmers: (a), all farmers in the area and (b) farmers on credit lists. In 1971 and 1972, in addition to estimating yields, information was collected from the farm- o
ers on the use of technology in the parcels included in the samples. L
A three-stage sample was used for estimating average
yields of all farmers in the area. In the first stage, the Fg ..Tedarmsostewyi hc h il a
segments selected for the 1967 and 1970 surveys were used. Fig.le 8.1. Th diagam o 50mther way iniharte field wasm In the second stage, a random selection of parcels was made sampl0eedrs f totalotin of 5 meters havsec ws.rm within the segments. In the third stage, five locations of 10 sece 20 mesof otosctoson.etrahwr lineal meters each were chosen and distributed as shown in slce sson Fig. 8. 1.
76




In 1968, the yield estimate in each parcel was made by were selected as shown in Fig. 8.1. The number of farmers
harvesting all the ears of maize within the 50 lineal meters. per zone in the sample was determined from variances
From 1969 onward, the yield estimate in each parcel was calculated from estimates of yield made during the previous
made using the indirect procedure described above. year for each zone.
After the sites within parcels were selected, the estimaEstimation of Yields of Farmers on Credit Lists tion of yield was made using the indirect procedure described on page 76.
The average maize yield of the 103 farmers who used the
Project recommendation in 1968 was estimated from yield Comments on the Evaluation Program
measurements made on each farm. On farms where a farmer
used the recommendations in two or more parcels, one Some deficiencies in the operation of the evaluation proparcel was selected at random for sampling. gram are now apparent. As mentioned, a primary concern
In 1969 and 1970, a random sample in three stages was of evaluation was to quantify the Project's progress, and
used for estimating the average maize yields. In the first primary emphasis was placed on the socioeconomic surveys,
stage, the credit groups were the population, and a sample the annual estimates of yield, and the use of this informaof these groups was selected. In the second stage, a sample of tion for evaluating change. As a result, much less imporparcels within groups was drawn from among all the parcels tance was given to identifying obstacles limiting farmer use
in selected groups for which the farmers had received credit of the new technology and in studying means to overcome for using the new technology. In the third stage, sites these barriers. Thus, the Project was sometimes slow in
within the parcels were selected according to the scheme modifying its operational strategies, particularly with
illustrated in Fig. 8. 1. respect to farmer organizations and the service institutions.
In 1971 and 1972, the first step in estimating average This deficiency could be overcome by arranging for an
maize yields was to divide the Project area into the five evaluation staff to receive assistance from highly trained
work zones described in Chapter 5. Lists were prepared, by consultants with a broad understanding of evaluation. It
zones, of all farmers on credit lists; farmers were randomly may also be necessary to increase the resources allocated to selected from the five lists. Among those farmers in the evaluation and to provide the staff with additional training.
sample who received credit for using the recommendations Another evaluation deficiency related to the rate at
on only one parcel, this parcel was chosen for sampling. which the collected and processed data was fed back to the
Among farmers who received credit for two or more par- rest of the Project staff. Data on yield and the use of techcels, one parcel was selected at random. Sites within parcels nology collected each year at harvest time were generally
An indirect method was developed in 1968 for estimating the average maize yield in the project area just prior to harvest. Measurements of the lengths, diameters and weights of all ears from a large number of plots were used to calculate a regression equation. Using this relaW"
township, yields were estimated in subsequent years by measuring ear lengths and diame- 7f,
ters in a selected area of a
random sample of fields.
77




made available within 2 months after the surveys were 1970: (a) to consider only the 21 common segments of completed. Information from the 1970 socioeconomic the two surveys. In this case, variance estimation would be
survey, on the other hand, was not made available to the easy to compute and hypothesis testing would be straight staff until early 1973. This was due to a series of problems forward. However, the aggregated area of the 21 segments, related to coding, programming, and data processing that rather than the total Project area, would become the could probably have been avoided with additional technical population to which direct inferences could be made. assistance. Inferences about the total Project area would have to be
Two methodological problems arose in evaluation; one of guided by past experience and general knowledge; (b) to these stemmed from use of the variance of maize yields as consider all the information collected from the 25 segments the basis for estimating the sample size used in the surveys. in 1967 and the 31 segments in 1970 in making inferences Since the objective of the surveys was to measure many about the total Project area. In this case, it would not be characteristics of the farmer, his family, and farm, it would appropriate to test hypotheses about population paramehave been more appropriate to use the variance of a more ters. Again, past experience and general knowledge would inclusive variable, such as total family income, in estimating play a role in comparing the statistics. sample size. It was decided to adopt the second alternative for this
A second methodological problem arose in selecting the report. Thus, no variances or confidence intervals are segments for the 1970 survey of all farmers in the area. The presented in the chapters where data from the 1967 and arbitrary scheme that was followed was thought to offer a 1970 surveys are compared. better representation of the Project area. This scheme,
however, led to difficult theoretical problems in hypothesis As mentioned, methods used for selecting the segments testing, inasmuch as there"appeared to be no appropriate used in the estimation of yields of all farmers in the area way to estimate the variances of the'statistics of the 1970 differed from 1968 to 1969-1970, and to 1971-1972. This survey. Thus, two alternatives were available for analyzing should be taken into account in studying the yield data in the changes that occurred in the area from 1967 through Table 9.8.
78




FARMER ADOPTION Of MAIZE
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION plants/ha. The information collected for measuring adoption rate, however, was taken from a sample of farmers
As described in Chapter 3, new recommendations on the selected at random from the Puebla area as a whole, or production of maize were available at the beginning of from the five geographical zones where the technical as1968, and ,these recommendations wer 'e modified for sistance agents were assigned. Thus, information was not subsequent years, particularly for certain parts of the area available for individually evaluating the level of adoption of and for late dates of planting. Promotion of the use of these. the specific maize recommendations for the 16 producing recommendations was begun in 1968 with 103 farmers, systems.
and was extended throughout Zones I, II, III, and IV in Lacking the above information, it was decided to estab1969, and to the, remainder of the-area in 1970. lish arbitrary ranges in values of the several recommended
In general surveys in 1967 and 1970, the Project evalua- practices, corresponding to high, intermediate, and low tion team obtained information useful for estimating the levels of 'adoption and apply them to the entire project extent to which the recommendations of the Puebla Project area. These ranges are shown in Table 9.1. The lower limits have been used by the farmers in the area. Similar informa- for high levels of adoption of nitrogen, phosphorus, and tion was obtained for the 5 years from 1968 to 1972 when plant density--80 kg/ha, 30 kg/ha, and 40,000 plants/ha, the evaluation team estimated maize yields just prior to respectively- are the lowest rates of these inputs that were harvest and obtained interviews with the farmers whose being recommended in the area in 1973; except in the case fields were sampled. This chapter presents some of these of nitrogen, for one producing system with a very low data: (a) to show the degree to which farmers have used production potential and a second system with plantings the recommendations, and (b) to compare average maize made immediately following alfalfa; and, in the case of yields during 1967 to 1972. A final section discusses the phosphorus, for the two producing systems in Zone V for influence of certain factors on farmer adoption. which no phosphorus is recommended). (The limits between high and intermediate levels of adoption were estabLEVEL OF ADOPTION lished as a function of the- recommendations for unlimited
OF THE MAIZE RECOMMENDATIONS capital (Chapter 3). Thus, many of- the farmers in
intermediate category can be considered high adopters in
Quantitative discussion, of the level of adoption of the terms of Project recommendations for limited capital.) The new maize recommendations is complicated by several upper limits for the low levels of adoption correspond
factors: (a) there was an initial tendency for farmers to approximately to rates used by farmers who were making only partially adopt an individual production practice. For most intensive use of fertilizers in 1967. The phosphorus Example, instead of changing from a traditional level of ranges for Zone V are different from the rest of the area 30,000 plants/ha to a recommended level of 50,000, the because phosphorus has not been recommended for that farmer often changed to some intermediate level; (b) farm- rgo ic 90 ers often tended to accept some recommended practices
more readily than others; that is, they might increase their
rate of nitrogen fertilization before changing the way they TABLE 9.1. Ranges in rates of nitrogen, phosphorus and apply it; and (c) farmers often tended to use the new tech- plants per hectare corresponding.to high, intermediate and nology initially on only a portion of their land. low levels of adoption of the three practices.
Thus, the evaluation of the level of adoption became a
mat ter of determining the percentages of farmers who were Phosphorus (kg/ha of P205) Plant density
usig he. vrios ecomede prctcesindifernt Level of Nitrogen For Zones For Zone (thousands degrees at different times. Such, evaluation in the, Puebla aoto k/a ,IIlI e a
area was hampered by the diversity in recommendations Low' 0-50 0-20 > 30 0.30
that had evolved ove Ir the years. By 197, specific maize Inter. 51,-80 21-30 11.30 30-40
recommendations were available for 16 producing condi- High >80 > 30 0-10 > 40
tions. Recommended rates Iof nitrogen, varied, from 60 to *The ranges in rates of phosphorus corresponding to the thria levels of 130 kg/ha for rainfed maize, rates of phosphorus from 0 to adoption are reversed for Zone V, since phosphorus is not recoin60 kg.P20 /ha, and plant densities from 30,000-50,000 mended for maize in that region.
79




Most of the available information on the levels of use of From 1967 to 1972, the average increases were: nitrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density refers to a random 129 percent; phosphorus, 93 percent; and plants/ha, 10 sample of parcels for the Project area. In general, therefore, percent. The increase in nitrogen use is remarkable and the analysis made here refers to the percentage of parcels reflects the farmers' general awareness of the need to apply with a certain level of adoption of the recommended prac- large amounts of this fertilizer. The slightly smaller change
tices. If farmers were to use the new -technology uniformly in the average application of phosphorus is due in part to on all their parcels, then the percentage of parcels with a the recommendation that farmers use no phosphorus for given level of adoption should be similar to the percentage maize in Zone V. of farmers with the same level of adoption. However, in the The small change in average plant densities is believed to
Project, where the farmers had an average of slightly over be due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) farmthree parcels and tended to adopt the new technology ers are often uncertain at planting time whether they will
initially on only a part of their land, it was expected that obtain all the fertilizer they need; they use a rate of seeding percentages calculated in terms of parcels would be lower lower than that recommended with the idea that the maize
than percentages calculated in terms of farmers for a given will produce better at the lower plant density, should they level of adoption. This assumption was substantiated by not obtain sufficient fertilizer; (b) farmers are concerned
estimating (from the survey data for 1967 and 1970) the about drought'and believe their maize will do better, in case
percentages of farmers with a high level of adoption of of drought, if the plant density is low; and (c) the farmers'
nitrogen and phosphorus, and comparing them with per- major concern is in increasing their production of large ears,
centages of parcels with high levels of use of the two prac- and they feel this can best be achieved with plant densities tices.
Analysis here is in terms of the average amounts of below the recommended levels. All of these reasons have a
nitrogen, phosphorus, and plants per hectare and to the certain validity and provide an excellent example of how
percentages of parcels on which these practices were used at difficult it is to convince low-income farmers in rained high, intermediate, and low levels. The available informa- areas to radically change their technology, and how diftion. with respect to time of applying fertilizers, weed ficult it is to develop and deliver recommendations that are
control, and insect control was not sufficient for drawing adequate for the extremely variable production and
conclusions about changes in farmer use of these practices. economic conditions of the farmers.
The levels of adoption of the recommended rates of
All Farmers in the Area nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density can also be examined in terms of changes in the percentages of parcels with
The 1967 survey involved a random sample of all the high, intermediate, and low levels of use of these practices.
farmers in the Project area. The 1970 survey, as well as the Table 9.3 shows the information needed for this analysis for Yield evaluations for the years from 1968 to 1972, involved the period 1967-1972. During this time, the percentages of
a sample of all farmers in the area and another sample of parcels with a high level of adoption of the three practices
farmers on credit lists. (These farmers were organized into increased; whereas, the percentages of parcels with a low groups and were aided by the technical assistance agents in level of adoption decreased, and the percentages of parcels arranging for credit and in using the new technology in the intermediate category remained constant.
properly.) The data from the sample of all farmers provide In 1972, the percentages of parcels with a high level of
the relevant information on the level of adoption of the adoption of each of the three practices were about equal,
recommendations for the Project area and are presented first. varying from 44.8 percent for nitrogen to 39.4 percent for The use of the recommendations by the farmers on credit plant density.
lists is discussed later.
The average rates of nitrogen and phosphorus and From 1967 to 1972, the increase in the percentage of
average plant densities for maize plantings in the Puebla parcels with a high level of adoption of the nitrogen recomarea for the period 1967-1972 are shown in Table 9.2. mendation (37.4 percent) was much greater than the increases for the phosphorus (20.6 percent) and plant density
TABLE 9,2. The average amounts of nitrogen and phos- (25.4 percent). recommendations. This finding again sugphorus in kilograms per hectare and the average number of gests that the farmers in the area have accepted the nitrogen
plants in thousands per hectare used in maize plantings in recommendation more readily than the phosphorus and
the Project area from 1967 to 1972. plant density recommendations. The 25.4 percent change in
Practice 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1/ the percentage of parcels with a high level of adoption of
increase* the plant density recommendation indicates a greater
acceptance of this recommendation than was suggested by
Nitrogen 34 53 83 78 129 the increase of only 10 percent in the average plant density
Phosphorus 14 19 30 27 93 for all plantings in the area.
(P205)
Plant density -- 31 31 33 33 34 10 Since there is usually a positive interaction among the
production factors in their effects on maize yields, the
The difference between the values in 1972 and the first year with maximum increase from a package of production practices information, expressed as a percentage of the value for the first year. is obtained when all factors are used at the recommended
80




TABLE 9.3. Percentages of parcels in the Project area with high, intermediate and low levels of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density recommendations.
Level of Year
Practice adoption 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Change*
High 7.4 --33.1 33.6 44.8 + 37.4
Nitrogen Intermediate 11.0 -14.0 15.0 14.0 + 3.0
Low 81.6 -52.9 51.4 41.2 40.4
High 23.7 --38.4 44.4 44.3 + 20.6
Phosphorus Intermediate 7.7 -9.2 6.1 9.1 + 1.4
Low 68.6 --52.4 49.5 46.6 22.0
High 14.0 15.8 24.9 23.8 39.4 + 25.4
Plant density Intermediate -35.2 34.0 30.8 29.0 33.9 1.3
Low 50.8 50.2 44.3 47.2 26.7 24.1
*Change is the difference in the values for 1972 and the first year in'which information was available.
TABLE 9.4. Percentages of parcels in the Project area with individual recommended practices, a lower percentage of all combinations of high, intermediate and low levels of parcels with a high level of adoption of the nitrogen and adoption of the nitrogen and phosphorus recommenda- phosphorus recommendations, and a still lower percentage
tions. 1967 1970 1971 1972 of the parcels with a high level of adoption of the three
Levels of adoption (N=337)* (N=713) (N=214) (N=221) practices. This indicates that most farmers in the Puebla
Highforbot pratics 48 207 1.6 9.9 area are presently not realizing the full potential of the High for oheat; e 07 96 2. increased production that comes from using all the producintermediate for the tion practices at the recommended levels. Clearly, the job
other 7.7 10.5 12.2 6.8 of adjusting and delivering adequate technology, as well as
High for one; that of inducing farmers to use the recommended techlow for the other 13.9 19.4 26.6 22.6 nology, is very difficult, and is far from being accomplished'
Intermediate
for both practices 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.9 in the Puebla area.
Intermediate for one;
low for the other 10.4 10.8 8.9 14.5Low for both 62.9 37.6 32.7 25.3 TABLE 9.5. Percentages of parcels in the Project area with
* N is the number of parcels in the sample. different combinations of high, intermediate and low levels
levels. It is enlightening, therefore, to examine the degree to of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density which the nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density recoin- recommendations. mendations have been adopted simultaneously.
Information is available for 1967, 1970, 1971, and 1972 1971 1972
on the percentages of parcels with all combinations of the Levels of adoption (N = 214)* (N = 221)
three levels of adoption of the nitrogen and phosphorus ________________________recommendations. Table 9.4 shows the percentage of par- High for the three practices 34 10.4
cels with high levels of adoption of both nitrogen and phos-. High for-two; intermediate for one 6.5 11.3 phorus increased from 4.8 percent in 1967 to 29.9 percent in 1972. The percentage of parcels with a low level of adop- High for two; low for one 21.0 19.5
tion of both practices decreased during the same period by High for one; intermediate for two 3.72. a larger amount, from 62.9 percent down to 25.3 percent. High for one; intermediate for one; low for one 15.9 15.4
Information on the percentages of parcels with the three Intermediate for the three'practices 0.0 0.9 levels of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant Inemdaefrtolwfroe 3.59
density recommendations is available for 1971 and 19.72 itrmdt for wo; low for on 173 57.9 only. Table 9.5 shows a high level of adoption of the three Ighrmdt for one; low for two 17.3 17.6 practices on 10.4 percent of the parcels in 1972. There was Inemdaefro;lwfrto 1260.
a high level of adoption of at least two of the practices on Low for the three 15.9 5.9
41.2 percent of the parcels in the same year.
The data in Tables 9.3 through 9.5 show a relatively high *N is the number of parcels in the sample. percentage of the parcels with a high level of adoption of
81




Farmers on Credit Lists greater than the percentage of farmers receiving credit.
This, however, does not necessarily imply that the larger
Farmers on credit lists receive credit for purchasing the farmers have greater access to credit. It is known, for examinputs, mainly fertilizers, required for the recommendations ple, that some farmers include the needs of other members of the Puebla Project. The technical assistance agents of their family in their request for credit.) provide information about amounts of fertilizers to apply, Table 9.7 shows the percentages of parcels of farmers on when and how to apply them, the seeding rate, and other credit lists with high, intermediate, and low levels of adoprecommended practices. As a group, farmers on credit lists tion of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density recomwould be expected to use the recommendations of the mendations. The percentages for nitrogen and phosphorus
Puebla Project most efficiently. in 1971 and 1972, and the percentages for plant density for
Table 9.6 shows the numbers of farmers on credit lists all years refer specifically to parcels for which credit was and the corresponding areas of maize for which credit was received. The percentages for nitrogen and phosphorus in received during the years 1968 to 1973. As noted previ- 1970 refer to all parcels of the farmers on credit lists. The ously, both the number of farmers and the area for which differences between 1970 and 1971 in the adoption of the credit was received increased rapidly in 1969 and 1970, nitrogen and phosphorus recommendations probably overwith a slower rate recorded for the following 3 years. In state the change in adoption occurring that year; they also 1973, 16.6 percent of all the farmers in the Puebla area indicate that some of the farmers on credit lists apply the received credit for the production of maize according to recommended practices on only a part of their parcels. Project recommendations, representing 25.8 percent of the In 1971 and 1972, about 75 to 80 percent of the parcels total harvested area of this cereal. (Thus, the percentage of of farmers on credit lists for which credit was received the area for which credit was received is about 50 percent showed a high level of adoption of the nitrogen and phosphorus recommendations; judgment of the adequacy of this
level of adoption of the fertilizer recommendations by
TABLE 9.6, The number of farmers on credit lists and the farmers on credit lists should take into account that five areas of maize for which credit was received in 1968-1973. technical assistance agents were assisting 5,240 farmers in 1971 and 6,202 in 1972.
Year No. of 9/0 of Area 0/ o f In 1968, 82 percent of parcels of farmers on credit lists
farmers total* ha total** showed a high level of adoption of the plant density recommendation; this figure declined to 36.1 percent in 1970 and
1968 103 0.2 76 0.1 has remained fairly constant. The high level of use of the
1969 2561 5.9 5838 7.3 plant density recommendation in 1968 was due to the close
1970 4833 11.1 12601 15.8 supervision (particularly at planting time) of the 103 farm1971 5240 12.1 14438 18.0 ers on credit lists by one full-time and one part-time tech1972 6202 14.3 17533 21.9 nical assistance agent. The percentage drop in 1969 and
1973 7194 16.6 20604 25.8 again in 1970 probably reflects the rapid increase in the
number of farmers on credit lists and the resulting decline
Based on a total of 43,300 farmers. in the assistance that could be given to each farmer. The
Based on a total of 80,000 ha of maize. low percentage of parcels in 1970 through 1972 with a high
level of adoption of the plant density recommendation
TABLE 9.7. Percentages of parcels of farmers on credit lists with high, intermediate and low levels of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density recommendations.
Level of Year
Practice adoption 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Change
High 51.1 72.9 75.8 +24.7
Nitrogen intermediate 25.5 19.9 17.7 7.8
Low 23.4 7.2 6.5 16.9
High 64.4 82.3 76.6 + 12.2
Phosphorus Intermediate 7.6 5.0 9.7 + 2.1
Low 28.0 12.7 13.7 -14.3
High 82.0 55.7 36.1 29.8 37.1 -44.9
Plant density Intermediate 18.0 34.4 28.7 28.7 34.7 + 16.7
Low 0.0 9.9 29.0 41.5 28.2 28.2
Change is the difference in the values for 1972 and the first year in which information was available.
82




indicates the previously discussed (page 80) reluctance of the farmers in the Puebla area to use high plant populations. TABLE 9.8. Average maize yields* for all farmers in the Perhaps this reluctance is a reflection of the fact that Puebla area and for farmers on credit lists. information received by the farmer is imperfect, or that the farmers adjust the recommendations in terms of their perception of application to their local conditions. All farmers Farmers on
in the area credit lists
CHANGES IN AVERAGE MAIZE YIELDS Average % change Average % change
yield compared yield compared
Information on average maize yields in the Puebla area Year kg/ha to 1968 kg/ha to 1968
was available for the years 1967 through 1972. Estimations of yield were made directly in the field from 1968 to 1972, using the method described in Chapter 8. Maize yields also 1967 1330 were estimated for 1967 and 1970 from information col- 1968 2140 base 3985 base
lected from farmers in the surveys, taking into account all 1969 1832 -14.4 2829 -29.0
the parcels on which the interviewed farmers grew maize. 1970 1962** 8.3 2732 -31.4
The average maize yields for all farmers in the area and 1971 1927 9.9 2679 -32.8
for farmers on credit lists are shown in Table 9.8. Using 1972 2499 -682920 -26.7
1968 as a base, the changes in average yields for the following years were calculated and are shown in the table as *Grain with l49Yomoisture. The value for 1967 was calpercentages. The year 1968 was used as a base, rather thancuaefrmiomtonpvddbyamrsnth 1967, because it was felt that the Puebla Project could notsuvyvaesfrteohrerswecluaedrm
haveinfuencd te gnera avragefor196 andbecusefield measurements made just prior to harvest.
all estimations of yields were made in the same way begin- **The average yield for 1970, calculated from the survey ning in 1968.daawa184k/.
The average maize yields for farmers on credits listsdaws184k/. (Table 9.8) varied from 3,985 kg/ha in 1968 to 2,679 kg/ha in 1971. The high average in 1968 can be attributed to very yields in the area, because rainfall conditions were much favorable rainfall conditions, and to the fact that the yields more favorable in 1972 than in 1967. of only 103 carefully selected farmers (who received close In a rainfed area like Puebla, average maize yields in a supervision by the technical assistance agents) entered into given year are determined largely by the climatic conditions the calculation. The average yields of farmers on credit lists that prevail and the production technology that is used. To varied little from 1969 through 1972. estimate the effect of the new technology on average yields
The average maize yields for all farmers in the area have in the Puebla area, it is necessary to adjust the average varied from 1,330 kg/ha in 1967 to 2,499 kg/ha in 1972. yields in Table 9.8 by eliminating the effect of climate. Comparing only the average yields for the first and the last Two methods have been used to estimate the percent years, it is seen that the average yield increased by 88 per- increase in average maize yields of all farmers in the area cent. This, however, overestimates the real increase in maize due to use of the production practices recommended by the
Average maize yields for the
project area were adjusted for
the effects of climate using
yield data from fertilizer rate
experiments conducted each
year in the area. The yields of
N) plots receiving a uniform
treatment in the several experiments conducted each
year were averaged, and the
variation in these yearly averS ages was assumed to be due
to climatic differences.
83




TABLE 9.9. An estimation of the increase in average maize yields in the Puebla area due to the use of the recommended production practices, in which the effect of climate is calculated from experimental data.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Average Estimation of the Estimated yields Differences in 91 increase in
yield for effect of climate assuming no yield in kg/ha average yields
Year all farmer (%/change change due to attributable to attributable to
kg/ha compared to new technology** new technology new technology
1968)* kg/ha (a-c) d 10
x 00
1967 1330
1968 2140 2140 0
1969 1832 -18 1755 + 77 4.4
1970 1962 -15 1819 +143 7.9
1971 1927 -21 1691 +236 14.0
1972 2499 6 2011 +488 24.2
*These percentages were calculated from the average yields obtained in the field experiments with the treatment consisting of 50 kg/ha of nitrogen, 25 kg/ha of P205 and 30 thousand plants per hectare.
2140+(the value in column b) (2140), where 2140 is the average yield in 1968.
Puebla Project. The first of these involves the use of yield The second method for adjusting average yields for the data from the fertilizer rate experiments conducted each effect of climate used the information obtained in the year in the Project area. Data were available from 8 to 12 objective yield measurements of samples of farmers on experiments in each of the years from 1968 to 1972. credit lists. It was assumed that those farmers on credit lists Average yields were calculated for the plots in the several with yields in the upper third of the sample had used the experiments receiving 50 kg/ha N, 25 kg/ha P205, and recommended technology quite adequately, and that this 30,000 plants/ha. (This treatment was used because it level of use of the technology had been reasonably constant produced average yields similar to those for all farmers in over the years. It was further assumed that (for a given the area. Since an interaction can be expected between year, using 1968 as a base) the change, in the average yield production level and climatic effects, it was desirable that for the upper third of farmers on credit lists was a measure the average levels of production of the selected treatment of the relative favorableness of the climate for that year. and all the farmers be similar.) The changes in these average This method was used to estimate the effects of climate yields with respect to 1968 were calculated for the years for the years 1969-1972 with the results shown in column 1969-1972. Shown in column b, Table 9.9, these changes, b, Table 9.10. Data for farmers on credit lists in Zone V expressed as percentages; are estimations of the effect of were not included in this calculation, because the Puebla climate. These percentages were multiplied by the average Project did not begin to promote the use of new technology yield in 1968 to obtain the differences in yield due to in that region until 1970. The estimated combined effects climatic effects. Then, the differences in yield due to cli- of climate and use of the new technology (Table 9.8) are mate were added to the average yield in 1968 to obtain the reproduced as percentages in column c, Table 9.10. The average annual yields unaffected by the new technology, as percentage increases in yield with respect to 1968 atshown in column c, Table 9.9. tributable to the use of the recommended practices, shown
The differences between the average yields for all farm- in column d of Table 9.10, were calculated by subtracting ers and the estimated yields assuming no effect of the new the effect of climate, (column b) from the combined effects technology were considered to be the effects attributable to of climate and technology (column c). The estimated the use of the new technology. These differences are shown increases in yield due to use of the new technology (column as percentages in column e, Table 9.9. f) were calculated by multiplying the percentage increases
As shown in Table 9.9, estimated increases in average in column d by the average maize yield in 1968. The averyields of all farmers in the area varied from 4.4 percent in age yields without the new technology were estimated 1969 to 24.2 percent in 1972. This method for adjusting (column g) by subtracting the increases in column f from average yields for the effect of climate has obvious defi- the average yields for the area in column e. The increases in ciencies. The number of experiments that provided the data yield due to the new technology, expressed as a percentage for this calculation was too small to sample the area ad- of the average yields without the technology, are shown in equately. Also, these experiments were not distributed over column h. the Project area so as to give proper weight to the 16 pro- According to this second method of adjusting average ducing systems. yields for the effect of climate, estimated increases in aver84




TABLE 9.10. An estimation of the increase in average maize yields in the Puebla area due to the use of the recommended production practices, in which the effect of climate is calculated from the maize yields of farmers on credit lists.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (h)
Average yield Estimation of Estimation of the s Estimation of (e) Mf (g) %increase in average
of the upper the effect of effect of climate the effect of Average Estimated increase Estimated average yields attributable
1/3 of farmers climate plus technology technology (c-b) yields for in yield due to yield without the to technology
on credit lists (%change (%change (%change area technology"* technology (e-f) f
Year kg/ha compared to 1968) compared to 1968)* compared to 1968) kg/ha kg/ba kg/ha (- X 100)
g
1968 4965 base base 2140 -2140
1969 4090 .17.6 -14.4 3.2 1832 68 1 764 3.9
1970 4085 -17.7 8.3 9.4 1 962 201 1761 11.4
1971 4043 -18.6 9.9 8.7 1927 186 174 1 10.7
1972 4087 -17.7 *16.8 34.5 2499 738 1761 41.9
*From*Table 9.8
**Percentage in Colunsin (d) multiplied by the average yield in 1968.
age yields of all farmers in the area varied from 3.9 percent each system was adequately sampled. It should be possible in 1969 to 41.9 percent in 1972. This method also has at a later date (once the limits of the producing systems
obvious limitations. The average use of the new technology were defined) to reduce the number of sites to those necesby the upper third of farmers on credit lists may have been sary, based on the variability among sites and the level of higher in 1968, than in other years. Or, stated more general- precision desired. Annual differences in the average yields ly, there is no empirical basis for assuming that the use of for each of the treatments should provide a reliable estitechnology by the upper third of farmers on credit lists mate of the effects of climate. was reasonably constant. It is also possible that the upper FCOSIFUNIGTEAOTO third of farmers on credit lists does not provide a repre- FCO SI LUN NGT EA PIN
sentative sample of the producing conditions in the Puebla OF THE MAIZE RECOMMENDATIONS area.
The two methods for estimating the increases in maize Some information on the adoption of the maize recoinyields attributable to the use of the new technology give mendations, such as the number of farmers on credit lists similar percentages for 1969, 1970, and 1971, but differ (Table 9.6), suggests a rapid rate during 1969 and 1970 and
markdlyfor1972 Itis robbly easnabe toassme hat a somewhat slower rate for the next 3 years. The informathe true percentage increase in average yields due to the tinothicraeinvrgeyldatibaleote
new echoloy i somwhee nar he verae o th vaues new maize technology (Tables 9.9 and 9.10)., on the other obne techlg issehe r nw eards Thes avrgc ohalcuainwues hand, indicates an accelerated rate of adoption in 1972. obgtandw thataeae tomethoeds. Tis calcPulato wrapold Based on the available information, it seems reasonable to suggineasd hthvrag maie yelds inprthed Puebhnoarea prb- conclude that there has been a fairly continual rate of ablyt increse through 9 the ueo f im ro edtch olgy b increase in the use. of the Project recommendations since abou 30 ov p er en t s r o 1967to 1972. m az y edsf r h 1969. Thfe ov iaeffortsto adt aeae miyed for thrjctt eveo This increase in the use of the new maize technology has elsffetoflmaeict the eed for aolctn poe t devielop produced an increase in average maize yields that has been
plcan fromthent Eupetfrieclecing the datba reure for- estimated to be around 30 percent over the 4-year period gsch a adte nt.r Experiecean he Punebrae Proec sukig- 1969-1 972, or about 7.5 percent per year. There seem to be
gest tht te neesay dta cn b geeratd b maing no valid yardsticks for judging whether this is a reasonable simple plantings, consisting of three plots managed at low, rate of progress for a rainfed area with a moderate level of medium, and high production levels, at sites distributed agronomic risk. It is evident, however, that many farmers at throughout the Project area. The number of sites required the end of 1972 were not using the recommendations (41 would be determined as a function of the variability among percent of parcels with a low level of adoption of the sites, and these would be located adequately to sample the nitrogen recommendation, Table 9.3), and others were only different producing systems in the Project area. The same using them partially (75 percent of parcels with a low level general sites (but not the exact site) and plot treatments of adoption of one or more of the three main practices, would be used each year. If sufficient information were not Table 9.5). Thus, it seems appropriate to ask why, the rate available the first year to accurately establish the limits of of adoption has not been faster and to examine some of the the several producing systems, the number of sites should reasons farmers have continued to use their traditional be increases initially by perhaps 100 percent to assure that practices.
85




Availability of Information maize) had estimated average maize yields using the traditional technology of: 2.05 ton/ha (1.1.1); 2.15 ton/ha
In promoting the use of the Project's new recommend- (al;and 2.56 ton/ha (3). The estimated average yields ations, the technical assistance agents also told the farmers using the Project recommendations for unlimited capital how to apply them; what they would cost to use; the were 3.80 ton/ha (1.1.1); 3.87 ton/ha (2.1.1); and 3.64
expected increases in production and net income from their ton/ha (3). For the entire Project area, the estimated averuse in good, average, and poor years; and the importance of age yields were 2.05 ton/ha using traditional practices and using each practice at the recommended level. It was as- 3.13 ton/ha using the Project recommendations for unlimsumed that the farmers (particularly those who provide the ited capital. leadership for the community) would require full knowl- The estimated net incomes from using the traditional edge of the new technology to make accurate appraisals. and Puebla Project technologies, expressed in kg/ha of
In examining the extent to which information on the maize, are shown in Table 3.13. The estimated net incomes Project recommendations has been disseminated through- using the two Project recommendations are larger than, the out the Puebla area, it is important to distinguish be- estimated net incomes using the traditional practices in tween: (a) a simple understanding of what the recoin- each of the 16 producing systems. For the entire area, the mendations are and (b) full knowledge of how to use them estimated net incomes using the Project recommendations and of the expected returns in terms of increased produc- were 51 percent greater for limited capital and 95 percent tion and net income. greater for unlimited capital, as compared to the estimated
Relevant data on farmers' knowledge of the recoin- net incomes using the traditional practices.
mendations was collected in 1973, in a study of farmers not Another indication of the adequacy of the Project on credit lists in five communities where groups of farmers recommendations is that most farmers, after they have used organized by the Puebla Project had functioned for 3 or 4 the new technology, apparently, continue to use it in the years. Of the 29 farmers interviewed, 26 (90 percent) had following years. This is a reasonable conclusion to draw heard of the maize recommendations of the Puebla Project. from the findings that both the level of use of the recoinOnly 15 (52 percent) of the 29 farmers, however, were mendations and the average maize yield in the area have convinced that the use of the maize recommendations increased at a fairly constant rate during the period
would result in higher yields. 1969-1972. Had a significant proportion of the farmers in
These data suggest that by 1973 most of the farmers in the area realized lower net incomes because of .inadequacy the Puebla area had heard of the new maize recommenda- of the new technology, it seems reasonable that the use of tions. A much smaller percentage, however, perhaps around the recomendations and the average yields would have 50 percent, had received information sufficient to persuade leveled off or declined by 1972. them that the new technology would increase yields. The
low level of use of one or more of the three main practices
on 75 percent of the parcels in 1972 (Table 9.5) suggests Risk in Using the New Technology that perhaps 25 percent or less of the farmers understood
the more complex aspects of the new technology, such as In a rainfed area such as Puebla it can be argued that the
the importance of using all of the recommended practices average expected increases in yield and net income from the at the recommended levels. Clearly, the Project recoin- use of the new technology are not as important to the mendations have not been completely understood by the farmer as is the probability that net income using the farmers, thus preventing their full realization of the poten- Project recommendations may be less than with the traditial benefits of the new technology. tional practices in some years. It seems reasonable that the
major concern of many low-income farmers is to assure an
adequate food supply in very unfavorable years; i.e., their
Aeucofthe New Technology first concern is in maximizing the probability of covering
Adequcy offamily needs in poor years, rather than maximizing average
Another interpretation can be made regarding the 48 yields and net income.
percent of the farmers in the 1973 survey who were not To the extent that this sort of decision-making occurs, it
convinced of\ the usefulness of Project recommendations: can be expected that small farmers will accept or reject the that rather than an indication of the lack of adequate new technology in terms of their perception of how it will information, it could be that the new technology is, in fact, influence their net income in an unfavorable year. Although not superior to the traditional practices. Certainly, lack of the Project did not directly measure farmers' perceptions of adequate technology has been a notable weakness of many the risk involved, in adopting the new technology, some programs seeking to improve agricultural production in appreciation of the importance of such risk can be obtained rainfed areas, from information collected during the 6-year period
The adequacy of the maize recommendations of the 1967-1972.
Puebla Project was examined in some detail in Chapter 3. As described in Chapter 3, net incomes from the use of Table 3.11 shows that producing systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and several production strategies were calculated from the 3 (which account for 53 percent of the cultivated area in results obtained in 125 fertilizer rate-plant density experi86




ments conducted during 1967-1972. These net incomes seems reasonable to conclude that a certain percentage of
were used to estimate the risks farmers take in using the the farmers in the area, perhaps one-fourth, now feel that a several technologies. Risk was defined arbitrarily as the change from the traditional to the new technology would standardized probability of obtaining an increase in net mean a reduction in net income from their maize in the less income from the use of a given technology equal or inferior favorable years. in value to: (a) 0.5 ton/ha of maize grain or (b) 0 ton/ha
of maize grain.
As shown in Table 3.14 for traditional technology, risk Aalblt fCei
defined as the probability of a net income of 0.5 ton/ha or Aalblt fCei less,, was nearly four times as great in producing system As can be calculated from the information in Table 3. 10, 1.1;three times as great in system 2.1.1; and 32 percent the average cost involved in using the Project recommenda-. greater in the entire area-as compared with that using tions for limited capital is 19 percent greater than for the recommendations for unlimited capital. When defined as traditional technology; the average cost of the recointhe probability of a net income of 0 ton/ha or less, risks mendations for unlimited capital is 82 percent greater than using the traditional practices were nearly three tii ep as for the traditional technology. According to'the data colgreat in producing system 1.1.1; twice as great in system lce nteaeol bu 5preto h amr
2.1.1; and about 4 per cent less for the entire area-as have sufficient personal funds to purchase the inputs recompared with that of using Project recommendations for quired by the Project recommendations. Thus, in deciding unlimited capital. whether to use the new technology, the greater fertilizer
Comparison of net incomes and risks using Project cost and the necessity for credit to cover this expense is a
recommendations for unlimited capital and those for tradi- major consideration for most farmers. tional practices suggests several observations about the The discussion of the credit institutions in Chapter 7 relative risks involved: (a) for average and favorable years suggests that the supply of credit available through the there is a high probability of an attractive income from official banks for maize production has been equal to or using either technology; the expected net income is nearly greater than the demand in recent years. A study of 29 twice as large with the Project recommendations as with farmers not on credit lists from five communities in the traditional practices; (b) for less favorable years, the value Puebla area in 1973 indicated that there were two main of the net income will be equal to or less than 0.5 ton/ha reasons why more farmers did not request. credit from one of maize in many instances; the probability of these low of the official banks: (a) 15 of the farmers (52 percent) incomes is much higher with the traditional than with the feared. that they would not be able to pay back the loanrecommended technology; (c), for the least favorable years, they were particularly concerned about the possibility of an net incomes less than zero can be expected: the probability unfavorable year, and about their lack of understanding of of net losses is similar for the two technologies; and (d) net the whole process of obtaining credit; and (b) seven of the incomes using the traditional technology are sometimes (12 farmers (24 percent) were repelled by the number of repercent of the experiments during [967-72) larger than the quisites they had to meet to qualify for a loan-they were Project recommendations. Based on the available informa- particularly bothered by having to pay a premium for crop tion it appears that farmers, as a whole, would assume less insurance that they felt provided no real protection. risk by using the Project recommendations than by using From the standpoint of the farmer, it appears that the the traditional technology. There are instances, nonetheless, lack of satisfactory access to available credit is limiting his where farmers will lower their net incomes by switching adoption of the Project recommendations. Supporting from the traditional to the new technology. Hopefully, the evidence for this conclusion was presented in Chapter 7-the frequency of these latter situations can be gradually re- demand for credit from the Impulsora de Puebla, which can duced as agronomic knowledge of the area is improved, be arranged for very simply and without crop insurance, has been far greater than the supply. Hopefully, this obstacle'
It seems quite likely that the above evaluation of the can be overcome, both through favorable change in the significance of risk differs from farmers' perception of the credit institutions and by increasing farmers' knowledge of risk involved in using the new technology. The results the operation of the banks and the adequacy of the recoinfarmers have* obtained from using the Project recommenda- mendations. tions have been less favorable than those reported in the
experiments, which can be attributed to failure to use the
recommendations fully, as discussed earlier. The farmers Farmer organizations have probably encountered a higher percentage of cases
(higher than the 12 percent cited previously) where the Recognizing the farmers' credit needs for the purchase Project recommendations have been less profitable than the of fertilizers, as well as the difficulties individual farmers traditional practices. Also, the experience of the farmers have in securing loans from the banks, the Project team extends over a much longer span of years than the period began in 1969 to assist small farmers to organize ana wuLr, covered in this study, and almost certainly includes years together as organized groups. This activity of the Project less favorable than any of those of the 1967-1972 period. It team has been viewed as an essential part of the operational
87




strategy of an agricultural program where the ratio of small roads in the project area. farmers to technical assistance agents is very large. This Obviously, the more favorable the relationship between
emphasis on farmer organization has increased the number maize prices and fertilizer costs in Puebla, the more likely
of farmers in the area who have been able to obtain credit that farmers will adopt Project recommendations. It seems
for maize production. The questions can be asked, how- unlikely, however, that prices have been an important
ever: Are the requirements for becoming members of a factor restricting farmer use of the new technology. The
group too difficult Would adoption of the Project recom- relative prices of maize and fertilizers have remained fairly
mendations increase if such requirements were less restric- constant during the 1968-1972 period. Approximately 4 kg tive? of maize remained equal in value to I kg N; and 3 kg maize
Information relating to these questions was collected in to I kg P 2 05. As noted in Chapter 3, net income from the 1973 in interviews with 69 farmers belonging to 35 groups use of fertilizers is quite favorable in most of the producing
distributed throughout the area. Approximately 65 percent systems in the area, with this price relationship.
of the farmers indicated that the only requirement for Fertilizers were sold in some 46 towns and villages in the
becoming a mernber of their group was that the candidate area during the early years of the Project. Since 1971, most
be an honest, responsible person who fulfilled his obliga- fertilizers have been distributed through the official banks
tions. About 20 percent of those interviewed indicated that and franchised dealers in six major towns. In most in candidates had to deposit some piece of property with the stances, however, farmers have been able to purchase the
representative of the group to guarantee that they would quantities of fertilizers they need. On occasion, however,
pay back the loan at the end of the year. This latter require- they have had to wait several weeks for fertilizer deliveries ment at first appeared restrictive. However, investigation and have not always been able to buy the materials they
revealed that it was necessary only that the candidate, if prefer. Difficulties in purchasing fertilizers have probably
considered to be honest and responsible, sign a contract had some influence on the adoption of the maize recomwith the group in which he agreed to repay the loan at the mendations, because: (a) farmers who were lukewarm
end of the year. about the use of fertilizers, have decided to use less fertiClearly, those farmers who are judged by their neighbors lizer in the face of inconveniences in procurement, (b) to be dishonest and irresponsible are unlikely to become those who have been unable to purchase fertilizers prior to
members of the farmer organizations. Apart from these, planting have, at times, reduced their rate of seeding and
however, there was no clear evidence that the requirements thus have obtained lower returns from the fertilizers; and
for membership in the groups constitute a factor limiting (c) those who have received and applied fertilizers later
farmer adoption of the maize recommendations. than recommended have sometimes been disappointed with
the results.
Other Factors Difficulties in transporting fertilizers and produce have
Characteristics of the farmer, his family, and his land probably not influenced the rate of adoption of the Project
(such as level of education, size of the family, number of recommendations. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there is an
members of the family that work, family capital resources, adequate system of roads in the Puebla area.
farm size, quality of the land, etc.) probably influence the
farmer's decision to adopt or not adopt the Project recommendations. With the information available it was not
possible to determine the importance of the first four of
these factors on adoption.
The 1970 survey data, however, were used to study the
influence of farm size on farmer use of the maize recommendations. The amount of nitrogen used by the 50
percent of the farmers with the largest farms was compared
with the amount used by the 50 percent of the farmers
with the smallest farms. On the average, the farmers with VV
the larger holdings used 41 percent more nitrogen per
hectare than the farmers with the smaller holdings.
Quality of land almost certainly influences the adoption
of new technology. Farmers recognize differences in the
potential of lands to produce and are more likely to use
expensive technology on land with high-yielding potential.
It was not possible to study this factor in Puebla as information on land quality of the sampled individual holdings
was not available.
Other factors which often influence the adoption of new The organizing of farmers into groups has helped to intechnology are the relationships between input costs and crease the number of small farmers that have been able to
product prices, availability of inputs, and the network of use project recommendations.
88




Full Text

PAGE 1

B. Articles and Reports .Biggs, Huntley H. Dualism in Mexican Agricultural 12. G6mez Aguilar, Mauro. Plan Puebla: Programa Development: Irrigation Development and the Puebla Piloto para aumentar la productividad agricola en Project. Council of U.S. Universities for Soil and zonas de minifundio. In: Memorias del l er. SeminaWater in Arid and Sub-humid Areas. Water Managerio Internacional de Proyectos de Desarrollo Rural, ment Technical Report No. 21. Department of Sept. 10-19, 1972, Bogota, Colombia, (pp 9-12). EconOmics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1972. 13. G6mez Aguilar, Mauro. Plan Puebla: un programa para aumentar la productividad de agricultores de 2. Biggs, Huntley H. The Puebla Project, 1967-1969. bajos recursos. Paper presented at XL Convenci6n Progress and Problems. Water Management Technical Bancaria de la Asociaci6n de Banqueros de Mexico. Report: Department of Economics, Colorado State Acapulco, M6xico, March, 1974. University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1972. 14. Jim6nez Sinchez, Leobardo, Antonio Turrent, and 3. CIMMYT. The Puebla Project, 1967-1969. Progress Reggie J. Laird. The Puebla Project: A Model for Report of a Program to Rapidly Increase Corn Yields Accelerating Crop Production Among Small Farmers. On Small Holdings. Centro Internacional de MejoraPaper presented at the 1970 Annual Meeting of the miento de Mafz y Trigo. Mixico, D.F. 1969. American Society of Agronomy, CSSA, SSSA, August 23-26, 1970, Tucson, Arizona. 4. CIMMYT. CIMMYT Annual Reports 1967-68 (pp 1213); 1968-69 (pp 117-121); 1969-70 (pp 10, 11515. Jim6nez Sinchez, Leobardo, and Reggie J. Laird. 116); 1970-71 (pp 106-109); 1972 (pp 140-144). The Puebla Project: A Program to Increase Crop Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Production by Small Subsistence Farmers in Rainfed Trigo, M6xico, D.F. Areas. In: Strategies for Agricultural Education in Developing Countries. The Rockefeller Foundation, 5. CIMMYT. CIMMYT Review 1974. Centro InternaNew York, 1974. cional de Mejoramiento de Mafz y Trigo, M6xico, D.F. (pp 58-61). 16. Myren, Delbert T. (Ed). Strategies for Increasing Agricultural Production on Small Holdings. Centro 6. Bruner, Richard. "The Puebla Project". The Internacional de Mejoramiento de Mafz y Trigo, Rockefeller Foundation Quarterly 3, 1969. The M6xico, D.F., 1970. Rockefeller Foundation, New York, (pp 20-39). 17. Myren, Delbert T. The Puebla Project: A develop7. Cano, Jairo and Don Winkelmann. "Plan Puebla: mental Strategy for Low Income Farmers. Paper andlisis de beneficios y costos", El Trimestre Econ6presented at the Seminar on Small Farmer Developmico, Vol. XXXIX (40' Oct-Dic. 1972. No. 156. ment Strategies. The Ohio State University, SeptemM6xico, D.F. (pp 783-796). ber, 1971. 8. Dfaz Cisneros, Heliodoro, Delbert T. Myren, and 18. Myren, Delbert T. Potential in the Puebla Approach. Richard E. Lund. Estimating Corn Yields in the International Development Review, No. 1, 1973, Puebla Area with a Regression Model Based on Ear Washington, D.C. (pp 21-22). Length and Diameter. Plan Puebla, Puebla, Mexico. (Mimeographed). 19. Streeter, Carroll P.I. Mexico Puebla: A Prototype In: Reaching the Development World's Small Farmers. 9. Dfaz Cisneros, Heliodoro. Credit Among Small FarmA special report from the Rockefeller Foundation, ers: The Case of The Puebla Project of Mexico. In: New York. (pp 7-15). Small Farmer Credit in Mexico and Central America. A.I.D. Spring Review of Small Farmer Credit, Coun20. Plan Puebla. Plan Puebla internal annual reports try Papers, Vol. I, February 1973. No. SR 101. 1968-1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. Puebla Agency for International Development, Department M6xico. (mimeographed). of State, Washington, D.C. 20523. 21. Winkelmann, Don. Plan Puebla After Six Years. 10. Felstehausen, Herman. Methodology for Institutional Paper presented at the Ford Foundation Seminar of Change Studies. Land Tenure Center, University OLAC Program Advisors in Agriculture, Mexico of Wisconsin, Madison (mimeographed). City, November, 6-10, 1972. 11. Felstehausen, Herman. The Puebla Project: An 22. Winkelmann, Don. Factors Inhibiting Farmer ParticiAdditional Perspective. LTC Newsletter, No.39, pation in Plan Puebla. LTC Newsletter, No. 39. January-March 1973. Land Tenure Center, UniversiJanuary-March 1973, Land Tenure Center, University ty of Wisconsin. Madison (pigs. 6:8). of Wisconsin, Madison. (pp 1-5).



PAGE 1

Correct citation: Centro I nternacional dle Mejoramiento dle Ma(z y Trigo. 1974 The Puebla Project: Seven years of experience :1967-1973. El Bat~n, M6xico. CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE MEJORAMIENTO DE MAIZ Y TRIGO INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER L on d r as 4 0 Aparlado Postal 6-6A4I Mexico 6, D. F., M~xlco



PAGE 1

Of the 251 farmers interviewed in 1967, 191 provided ---N information on time of applying fertilizers to maize as shown next. Most farmers applied fertilizer only once, at the time of the first cultivation. Time of Fertilizer Application Percentage of Farmers At planting 2.6 At first cultivation 63.4 At second cultivation 2. At both 1st. and 2nd cultivations9. Maize planted alone or in association is usually cultivated twice: the first cultivation 30-40 days after planting, and the second cultivation 60-70 days after planting. Farmers take into account the amount of soil moisture, probability of frost, and size of the weeds, in deciding when to make the first cultivation in early plantings of maize using ~ residual moisture. Cultivating is postponed if a frost is7 thought likely. The second cultivation is made after the maize is 60 days old and when the soil is moist to a depth of at least 30 cm. Some weeds are allowed to grow in the maize and are harvested for forage as needed. Farmers in Zone III practice a 2-year rotation of maize and bush beans. Chicken manure (5-10 tons/ha) is applied Only 390/ of the farmers sold maize in 1967. Most of this to the maize immediately before the first cultivation. Bush maize was sold to local buyers who picked it up at the farm beans are then grown the following year without fertilizahome, or it was retailed in the village on market days. The tion. Yields of both maize and beans are relatively high maize was marketed throughout the year, to cover various using this rotation, costs, especially medical care. It is a common practice in Zones I and V (and to a lesser extent in the rest of the area) for farmers to top the maize plants when the grain is still in the milk stage and to cure Crop production iiiputs-fertilizers, improved seeds, the tops in the field and preserve them as high-quality insecticides, herbicides, etc.-were available to farmers in forage. The rest of the plant is cut and shocked as soon as 1967 through merchants in the principal cities of Puebla, the grain reaches physiological maturity. Later, the ear is San Martin Texmelucan, Huejotzingo, and Cholula. In harvested and the rest of the plant is preserved as forage of addition, there were 42 villages in which a total of 80 store aorers quseit fewn insetide ao d hebiids Fort-on keepers bought fertilizer and resold it at the local level. perce ofste farer incide 1967 knerofchdemica iot-nsei According to survey data, only 38.8 percent of the farmpercnt f th famer in 967knewof hemcal nsetiers sold maize in 1967. This maize was marketed throughcides and 22 percent had used them on some occasion, out the year, mainly to cover the costs of medical care. principally to control insects on beans. About 30 percent of the maize was purchased by the National Marketing Agency, CONASUPO, at the support price of $75.20/ton. The remainder of the maize was sold to local buyers at the official price or slightly less. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCIES A branch of the National Agricultural Insurance Agency operated in Puebla in 1967 and provided crop insurance to farmers receiving credit from the official banks. An agency Two official credit banks, the National Agricultural of the National Agricultural Extension Service was located Credit Bank and the National Ejidal Credit Bank, were in the city of Puebla, with one extension agent in San operating in Puebla in 1967. According to survey data, 6.4 Martin Texmelucan. There was no agricultural experiment percent of the farmers received credit from the Ejidal Bank station, but investigators of the National Agricultural that year and 0.4 percent from the Agricultural Bank. Research Institute occasionally conducted field trials in the Another 5.2 percent of the farmers obtained credit from Project area. other sources, mainly private lenders. A third official bank, The characteristics of the service agencies, their the National Crop and Animal Production Bank, established activities during 1967-1973, and factors limiting their a branch in Puebla in 1967. effectiveness are discussed in Chapter 7 10



PAGE 1

Access of Small Farmers to Agricultural Credit In arranging for credit and picking up the fertilizers, group representatives made an average of 5.6 trips to the credit agency in 1973. The other members of the groups, In practice, it is almost impossible for individual small however, made an average of only 1.7 trips. About 47 landholders to receive credit from an official bank or a percent of the group members did not go to the agency at private institution. This is due to the high administrative all; the representatives, assisted by the bank inspectors or cost of a small loan, and to the fact that most small holders, the technical assistance agents, took care of all formalities. on an individual basis, cannot provide the guarantee reThe costs of the trips of the representatives to the agencies quired by the credit agency. were covered by group funds. Farmers organized in groups receive credit from the Impulsora de Puebla without providing any guarantee. For Prompt Delivery of Fertilizers the organized farmers to receive credit from the National Agricultural Credit Bank, it is sufficient that one member According to the farmers interviewed in 1973, the credit of the group deposits the title to his land with the bank. By groups have been effective in reducing delays in the delivery organizing into groups, it was possible for the number of of fertilizers. Apparently the pressure brought by the small farmers receiving credit in Puebla to increase from a groups, reinforced by the technical assistance agents, has few hundred in 1968 to 7,194 in 1973 (Table 6.1). created a new awareness on the part of the three credit banks and the Impulsora of the importance of timely Greater Efficiency in Obtaining Credit delivery of the fertilizers. The delays in fertilizer deliveries that have occurred in the last few years have been due to Farmers are convinced that group action greatly expedeficiencies in the distribution of materials at the national dites the arranging for institutional credit. The representlevel, not to faulty scheduling of farmers' needs by the atives of groups take care of most of the formalities reagencies in Puebla. quired in securing credit. After the necessary papers have been prepared by the credit agency, the group representEfficient and Cheaper Transport of Fertilizers atives collect the signatures of the farmers on the individual documents that specify the debt of each client. Another reason organized farmers have been receiving The National Agricultural Credit Bank is the only agency their fertilizers on time is that the groups themselves have that requires all members of the group to go to the bank to made the arrangements for the transportation of the materisign the individual documents specifying the amount of the als. After the group representative receives the delivery loan. Some groups require all members to assist in picking order, he and the other members of the group hire a truck up the fertilizers from the bank, or fertilizer distributor, to to haul the fertilizers at as low a cost as possible. If availreduce costs. able, a trucker from the local village is hired for the job. In the past individual small landholders have found it almost impossible to obtain credit from an official bank or private institution. Small farmers in Puebla, by organizing, have been able to arrange for credit. Moreover, group representatives are able to handle many of the requirements for obtaining loans, thus simplifying for organized farmers the process of arranging for credit. 58



PAGE 1

PROJECT OPERATIONS, AND COORDINATION: 2 AN OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION This exploration led to a better understanding of the nature of the problem of increasing maize production in the The Project area was selected in early 1967 after evaluProject area. It brought clearly into focus the need for a ating information collected in visits to the area just prior to formal survey to gather more detailed information on the the maize harvest in 1966, reviewing the results from earlier characteristics of the farmer and his family, the production experiments, and studying weather data* from several locatechnology in use at the time, farmers' attitudes toward tions in the region. Members of the CIMMYT staff played a change, etc. As a result, the decision was made to add key role in the initial planning and setting up of operations. socioeconomic evaluation as another component of the Finacia suportforthe rojct ws aproed i Mach, Project. An evaluation specialist was selected in late 1967, 1967, and a research agronomist and a maize breeder were and the first personal interview survey of the farmers was employed soon afterwards. The first field experiment was made in January and February of 1968. installed on April 18, 1967. Concurrent with the study of the Project area and the This chapter is designed to highlight program operations farming population, the, coordinator proceeded to conas they evolved from 1967 to 1973, and to briefly describe solidate relationships with the agricultural institutions in the coordinating and staffing functions. Puebla. Interviews were held with the leaders of the different institutions, and they were informed about the EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT philosophy, objectives, organization, and operation of the Project. Discussion in these interviews emphasized the Several agricultural service agencies were operating in the importance of the role of each institution in achieving the Puebla area when the Project was organized, as indicated in goals of the Project. Chapter 1. The role of the Puebla Project, as conceptualized The interviews also allowed the coordinator to become by its planners, was to complement the activities of these familiar with all national, state, and local institutions, as existing agencies by (a) providing those services that were well as private organizations, involved in agricultural devellacking, and (b) coordinating the total effort to assure opment in the area. A study was made of the objectives, adequate and accessible agricultural services for the small organization, and operating procedures of each institution, farmer. and an understanding was sought o f the decision-making process and the responsibilities of key individuals of the Project Operations: 1967 different organizations. This knowledge was helpful in The nfomaton, vaiabl in arl 197 inicaed hat deciding how to proceed in seeking a solution to particular Thi e inf sormaio a ibe inrea rly 1967ci dcatd hat n problem s. aizue yields ie w oul be trgeatl ncsd bysp ors appling The fertilizer and maize breeding experiments were adgequt uant cities, ofd nitrong dd pophoryuin harvested as soon as the maize reached maturity. Then the highe plataesits and confirtyrln wes pnaroperly. results were analyzed and a general recommendation was Thusrc te iephaisy inuthfistadn yaevariasion arndic formulated for producing maize in the area. This recoieerchn topitifyl outtaige mapodie vaties. ardToe mendation called for a fertilizer treatment of 130-40-0, a detramin toptial pancagista outo prciers. The plant density of 50,000/ha, early control of weeds, pogrtpo pnilrvie tecnicalaisc ton famerowa chemical control of high infestations of rose chafer at potone unatile wre liable. m e dto s n mie po flowering, and the use of native maize varieties. ductog patceswerehfo avilabe tcodnto aeu The first Annual M eeting of the Puebla Project was held Althughthesearh fr aProjct porinatr ws bgun at Puebla in December 1967. Representatives of all agriculin March 1967, four months elapsed before a qualified person tural institutions were invited, and the Project staff exwas found for the position (detailed discussion of the plained the experimental findings and the maize recomncoordinator's role is reserved for following section). On mendation for 1968. joining the Project in August 1967, the coordinator carried out a general reconnaissance of the area, traveling over most Project Operations: 1968 of the all-weather roads, and observing the technology used by the farmers in maize production. Farmers were quesThe package of recommended practices for 1968 implied, tioned about their production practices, average yields, three principal changes for the agricultural institutions:. (a) relationships with agricultural institutions, and possible. an increase in the amount of credit per hectare needed fo interest in participating in the Project. purchase fertilizers, (b) substitution of ammonium sulphate 11



PAGE 1

Farmers in organized groups periodically hold meetings with the technical assistance agent. These meetings provide opportunities for the farmers to obtain information about production technology, credit, crop insurance, and other matters of interest to them. 71 Emil 54



PAGE 1

The local production technology for these crops is the The length of the growing season of beans tends to be product of centuries of interaction among the farmers, their correlated with the growth habit and the size, form, color, environment, and external influences. There is solid eviand flavor of the grain. Beans with a long growing season dence that primitive wild maize was domesticated as long have an indeterminate growth habit (pole beans), large as 7,000 years ago in the highland region of which the grains, light colors, and a flavor preferred by most conProject area is a part. When the Spanish conquerors arrived sumers. Beans with a shorter growing cycle have a deterat Cholula (near the center of the Project area) they found inate growth habit (bush beans), smaller grain, and a less the inhabitants cultivating maize. The historian Bernal Diaz popular flavor. (The yielding potential of the maize-pole del Castillo reports that the farmers in the valley of Mexico bean association is suggested by the results from a later at the time of the conquest were using human excrement field trial in which the association receiving both chemical and fish bones to fertilize maize. It is probable that knowlfertilizers and chicken manure produced 4.5 tons of maize edge of these practices extended to the nearby Puebla and 3.0 tons of beans per hectare). valley. Little is known at present about local production technology for ay'ocotc and pumpkin. The experimental study .Genetic Resources of the maize-pumpkin association was not undertaken until 1973. Great phenotypical diversity is evident in the local varieties of maize, bush beans, pole beans, and pumpkin. Production Practices Most of the local maize varieties belong to the Chalquefto race. For early plantings in March and April, farmers use Most farmers manage their soils so that moisture present late-maturing varieties that flower in 100-120 days and in the profile at harvest time is conserved through the require about 180 days to reach physiological maturity, winter months; thus maize can be planted in March and These early plantings usually experience some moisture April, some 2 months before the rainy season begins. Farmstress during the first 2 or 3 months, but have adequate ers cut and shock their maize as soon as it reaches physmoisture during the rest of the growing season. The late iological maturity; they then plow immediately and smooth varieties are generally high-yielding; yields of 10 ton/ha of the surface with a wooden plank. This operation is usually grain have been reported in field trials, done in October and repeated in February or March. Maize planted in these soils with residual moisture usually suffers Farmers use early-maturing varieties with a biological frmdohtboetesu eraiseinTisosue cycle of about 130 days for late plantings in June. These frmdoghbeoetesm rran bginhsmitr varieties flower in 75-90 days after planting. Typical stress slows down or stops vegetative growth, but other envionmnta coditins urig te erly rowh sage of physiological processes continue. As soon as the rains begin, laevnirnmenta coditionsradurigtes ealyw lgoth inesteso the maize continues its vegetative development. If drought late pluantig armooltprtures, ilowlihteintensitiesrl is not too prolonged, the maize has sufficient time to andtesil abudnmoistue he yhto ltaied otialofeal produce large plants and a good yield. By preparing their varitie is nlyabou haf tat o lae vaietesland in this manner, farmers (under rainfe~d conditions) are In addition to this relationship between earliness and able to use late varieties that require 180 days to reach yielding potential, the length of the growing cycle of maize maturity in an area where the period with rainfall and varieties tends to be correlated with the height of the without critical frosts lasts only 140 days. plants, shape, texture, and color of the grain, and (probFarmers who plant with residual moisture understand ably) tolerance to early drought. Late-maturing varieties are that agronomic risk in their plantings is due primarily to about 3 meters tall and have grain that is usually dented, drought during the period between planting and the beginhard, and light-colored. Early-maturing varieties are about 2 ning of the rainy season and to the midsummer or intrameters tall and produce large kernels that are usually floury estival drought (usually between July 15 and August 15). and dark-colored (red or blue). Those who plant early are betting that drought during the Maize varieties with an intermediate growing season also period before the rains begin will not be severe; they stand are available in the area for May plantings. Most native to gain a high yield if early drought is slight. Farmers who varieties are susceptible to lodgi ng when produced under plant late are betting that early drought will be sev'ere; they favorable growing conditions, stand to gain yields less than those produced by early plantings if early drought is slight-but will produce comData collected in the 1967 survey indicated that 54.6 paratively higher yields if early drought is severe. Thus, percent of the farmers knew about hybrid varieties of planting date is a variable that can be manipulated. The maize. About 15 percent of the farmers had planted hybrid usual practice is for farmers to use a mixed strategy in maize on at least one occasion, but only 0.8 percent of choosing the date of planting; that is, they distribute early them planted a hybrid in 1967. Of the farmers who knew plantings over a period of a month or so. of hybrid maize but had never planted it, 64.2 percent gave Present technology does not provide for the conservaas their reason that hybrids did not outyield their local tion of sufficient moisture during the winter months to varieties, or did so only under irrigation, permit early plantings of maize in. sodic-like soils, heavy 8



PAGE 1

two principal objectives: (a) to convince the leaders of the fourths of the area would be divided into four zones (see institutions that recommendations, based on the field Fig. 1.2), and a technical assistance agent would be assigned experiments, represented the most reliable information to each zone; and (c) a coordinated effort would be made available for increasing yields, and (b) to acquaint these to enlist 5,000 farmers to use Project recommendations on leaders with the capability of the Project staff. The field 10,000 ha of maize. days for farmers sought to demonstrate the results they The decision to promote the use of Project recommendacould expect through use of the recommended practices. tions so extensively in 1969 was made after careful study During 1968, audio-visual materials were prepared, using and discussion by the Project staff and state representatives the results obtained in 1967 and the experimental plantings of national agricultural institutions. Expansion of the proand high-yield plots. These were prepared specifically for gram to reach 10,000 ha of maize would require credit use iii reaching large numbers of farmers in subsequent needed for fertilizer alone amounting to about $560,000. years. Discussions with the different institutions led to the proJust prior to harvest in 1968, the evaluation specialist posal that the National Ejidal Credit Bank would finance determined grain yields of the high-yield plots and of a 2,000 ha, the National Agricultural Credit Bank 1,500 ha, sample of farmers' plantings Experimental plantings were the Agricultural Bank of the South 1,500 ha, and that the harvested in October and November, the data were analImpulsora de Puebla, through its subdistributor, Agr6noyzed, and new maize recommendations were proposed. The mos Unidos, would finance 5,000 ha. This proposal was Second Annual Meeting was held in December 1968, to approved at the national level. inform representatives of the agricultural institutions of the The plan to reach 5,000 farmers in 1969 implied a accomplishments during the year. drastic change in operating procedures of the technical By the end of 1968, several findings were clear: (a) assistance agents. In 1968, one technical assistance agent, large increases in maize yields could be obtained throughassisted by the evaluation specialist, had given individual out the Project area; (b) after seeing the results of agronomic attention to 103 farmers. In 1969, four agents would have research, the technical assistance to farmers, and the evaluato assist up to 5,000 farmers. Such assistance seemed postions, representatives of the agricultural institutions were sible only if the farmers organized into groups, convinced of the value of Project recommendations; (c) the The four technical assistance agents launched a program farmers who had cooperated with a part of their land in to inform the farmers in the area about the maize recomhigh-yield plots were prepared to assist other farmers in mendations, and to assist them in organizing into groups using the new technology; and (d) the Project staff, farmand arranging for credit and fertilizers. The field personnel ers, and agricultural agencies could be effectively coordiof the credit banks, the National Marketing Agency, and nated in working to achieve the goals of the Project. the crop insurance agency, assisted in this work. In their relationships with the farmers, the technical assistance Project Operations: 1969 agents made sure that arrangements for credit and fertilizers Plans for 1969 called for three major modifications in were always made between the credit institutions and the the operation of the Project: (a) research activities would leaders of the farmer groups. Thus, the responsibility for be extended to cover the entire area; (b) the western threeprocuring credit and fertilizers remained with the individual farmer or the group leader. K During the cropping season, field days were held for farmers and representatives of the agricultural institutions. Here the Minister of Agriculture, the Governor of Puebla and other dignitaries listen to an explanation of the agronomic research program. 13



PAGE 1

TABLE 4.3. Average yields and days to flowering of early maturing localvarieties and introduced hybrids. The values EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM are averages for four experiments carried out in 1971 and 1972. The maize improvement program did not meet its goal Yield of grain Days to of developing higher-yielding materials and putting them Material with 14ymoisture flowering into commerical production by the seventh year of Project ton/ha. operation. Two of the best cryptic hybrids outyielded the best materials available in 1967 by about 10 percent. Tlax. 237 2.27 82 However, as the parental lines of these crosses yielded Pue. 178 2.35 83 poorly and lodged badly, it was not feasible to produce Pue. 153 2.59 84 these hybrids commercially. The Comp A x Comp B, Pue. 217 2.49 85 formed from the parental lines of the five best cryptic H-35E 3.14 86 hybrids, could have been produced at low cost, but unPue. 139 2.70 86 fortunately it did not retain the high yielding capacity of Pue. 175 2.52 87 the single crosses. Pue. 214 2.68 87 Pue. 184 2.75 88 Pue. 183 2.80 88 TABLE 4.2. Average yields and days to flowering of late Pue. 53 2.83 88 maturing local varieties and introduced hybrids. The values Pue. 216 2.90 89 are averages for seven experiments carried out in 1971 and Pue. 159 3.08 89 1972. Pe 5 .88 Pue. 210 2.78 90 Yield of grain Days to Pue. 200 3.26 90 Material with 14% moisture flowering Pue. 86 2.88 91 ton/ha. Pue. 91 2.92 91 Pue. 29 3.07 91 Pinto Salvatori 5.52 107 Pue. 195 3.01 92 Pue. 26 5.45 118 H.30 3.82 93 Pue. 66 5.36 107 H-28 3.60 98 Pue. 41 5.30 118 Pue. 77 5.30 ill Four years of mass selection in the late composite at a Pue. 108 5.28 108 total of 19 sites produced little or no improvement in Pue, 79 5.28 114 yielding ability. This result is not in accord with the Pue. 27 5.21 120 experiences of many maize breeders and possibly was Pue. 67 5.21 106 influenced by the following considerations: (a) the plant Pue. 119 5.17 111 density in the selection blocks in 1968, 1969, and 1970 was Tlax. 145 5.17 113 only about half that used in commercial plantings; there is Pue. 69 5.17 113 some evidence that plants that are outstanding at low Pue. 45 5.12 113 densities are not necessarily superior at high densities; (b) Pue. 4 5.10 105 there were difficulties at many sites in achieving complete Pue. 62 5.08 106 isolation of the selection block, because the adjoining plantPue. 2 5.07 104 ings could not be controlled; this may have resulted in the introduction of undesirable germplasm into the composite; Pue. 59 5.07 108 and (c) the land chosen for some of the selection blocks Pue. 10 5.06 105 was quite variable; this made it difficult to select only those Pue. 116 5.06 108 plants that were genetically superior. Pue. 141 5.04 112 The major contribution of the maize improvement Pue. 36 5.04 107 program has been in determining the usefulness of local and H-131 5.60 120 introduced materials for early and late plantings in the area. H'129 4.65 121 Pinto Salvatori is an outstanding local variety that should be used more widely for plantings in March, April, and 42



PAGE 1

1 THE PUEBLA AREA: ITS LAND AND PEOPLE INTRODUCTION The Puebla area had two other characteristics that made it appropriate for the Project: (a) it comprised about The area selected for the Project comprises 32 munici116,800 ha of cultivated land with about 80,000 ha used pios (counties) in the western part of the State of Puebla, for maize production -it was felt that an area of this size Mexico (Fig. 1.1). In choosing the area, the primary considwould be adequate for studying the effectiveness of a new erations were that it fulfill the ecological and political approach to rapidly increasing maize yields; and (b) proprerequisites cited in the Introduction to this report, and duction practices were traditional, farmer incomes were that the farming population should consist mainly of small low, and most of the harvest was consumed directly on the land holder.. farm. TEXMEL' ........... ...... ......... ...' " ."" ZONA i UEJbT~b 'IIN ........... .. ........ .-; /., ......... -:.. .: _..Z O N A .-............. -'1 ............. .B A Fig. 1.1. The project area covers about 117,000 hectares of crop land in 32 municipios of the State of Puebla. As the Project evolved, the area was dividedinto five zones with a technical assistance agent responsible for each. 1



PAGE 1

63 CHAPTER 7. THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCIES The Impulsora de Puebla -procedure followed in granting credit, changes in sales of 10-8-4, outlook for greater credit for small farmers from the Impulsora de Puebla. The Puebla Branch of the National Agricultural Credit Bank -operating procedures of the Agricultural Bank, outlook for greater credit for small farmers from the Agricultural Bank. The Puebla Branch of the National Ejidal Credit Bank -operating procedures of the Ejidal Bank, outlook for greater credit for ejidatarios from the Ejidal Bank. Agricultural Bank of the South. The Coxtocan Hacienda. Direct participation of Guanomex. The National Agricultural Insurance Agency operating procedures of ANAGSA, crop insurance related problems that limit farmer use of official credit. The National Marketing Agency. 73 / CHAPTER 8. EVALUATION PROCEDURES Collection of existing information. Personal interview surveys -survey: 1967, survey: 1970. Studies of agricultural institutions and the farm sector. Annual estimates of maize yields -development of an indirect method for estimating yields, estimation of yields of all farmers in the area, estimation of yields of farmers on credit lists. Comment on the evaluation program. 79 CHAPTER 9. FARMER ADOPTION OF THE MAIZE RECOMMENDATIONS Level of adoption of the maize recommendations -all farmers in the area, farmers on credit lists. Changes in average maize yields. Factors influencing the adoption of the maize recommendations -availability of information, adequacy of the new technology, risk in using the new technology, availability of credit, farmer organizaitons, other factors. 89 CHAPTER 10. IMPACT OF INCREASED PRODUCTION ON INCOME, EMPLOYMENT AND GENERAL WELFARE Changes in family income. Changes in employment. Other changes that influence the general welfare-changes in the consumption of several foods, improvements in the family home, use of public services, changes in attitudes of farmers. 95 CHAPTER 11. A BENEFIT: COST ANALYSIS OF THE PUEBLA PROJECT Classification of benefits and costs. Estimation of a benefit-cost ratio for seven years of operation of the Puebla Project -direct gross benefits, derived gross benefits, associated costs, Project costs, adjustment of costs and benefits, benefitcost ratios, intangible benefits. 101 CHAPTER 12. TRAINING OF STAFF FOR REGIONAL PRODUCTION PROGRAMS Practical training. Combined theoretical and applied training. 103 CHAPTER 13. PROMOTION OF REGIONAL PRODUCTION PROGRAMS IN OTHER AREAS East Antioqufa Project, Colombia. Cajamarca -La Libertad Project, Peru. The Basic grains Program, Honduras. Maize Program, State of Mexico, Mexico. Tlaxcala Project, Mexico. 107 / CHAPTER 14. THE PUEBLA APPROACH: A SYNTHESIS Essential elements of the Puebla approach -agronomic research, technical .,ssistance to farmers, evaluations, coordination, technical backing for program staff, capable, highly-motivated, well-trained staff, incentives, an adequate budget. Program strategies -influence of the physical environment, influence of infrastructure development, influence of the political environment, influence of size, diversity and accessibility of program area, high-yielding crop varieties. The regional agricultural program a first step in rural development. 114 APPENDIX A 117 Some Publications on the Puebla Project VII



PAGE 1

In nearly every case, the family diet depends heavily on LOCAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY home produced food. The poorest families eat practically nothing besides maize and beans with small quantities of The percentages of the cultivated land used for different chiles, onions, and tomatoes for seasoning. Those with crops were estimated from survey data for 1967 and 1970: more resources occasionally consume wheat bread, eggs, Crop Cultivated Area and meat, and their children drink milk. The average total family income, estimated from the information provided by the 251 farmers in the 1967 Maize 69.4 survey, was $666.80. As is shown below, the income came Beans 15.9 fro four main sources: Alf al e c.0 Vegetable crops 3.0 Fruit trees 0.9 Others 5.5 Sources of Family Income Percent Most of the maize, beans, and fruit trees are produced Net income from crops 30.4 under rainfed conditions. Alfalfa and vegetable crops Net income from animals 28.4 usually receive supplementary irrigation. Off-farm wage income 23.7 The important cropping systems under rainfed condiOther non-farm income 17.0 tions in the Puebla area are: (a) maize alone, (b) the maize-pole bean (Phaseohs vulgaris) association, (c) bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) alone, (d) maize interplanted in orchards, and (e) scarlet runner beans (Phaseolus cocAlthough most of the family income was derived from cineus), known locally as a'vocote. Pumpkin (ctcurbita farming activities, there was some non-farm income, mainly spp.) is interplanted in many of the maize fields with a from domestic, commercial, and industrial employment in population density of 300-1,000 plants/ha. nearby cities. Maize planted alone is the most important crop in the Project area. The maize-bean association is the second most important cropping system in Zones 1, 11, and IV (see Fig. 1.2). Bush beans is the second most important crop in Zone III. Bush beans and aiocote follow maize in importance in Contact with Ideas from Outside the Community Zone V, yet occupy a small fraction of the total area. Bush There exists an excellent opportunity for contact with beans is the third most important crop in Zones I, II, and the large urban society outside the villages. Local roads are IV. Maize interplanted in orchards is most common in Zone rough and eroded, but in most cases they are passable I during the entire year. The local buses are battered with years of wear, but provide a regular and inexpensive means of transportation for both people and produce. Traveling outside the village, however, is not undertaken casually. According to the 1967 survey, only 24 percent of the farmers leave the village at least once a week. Another 14 percent leave every 2 weeks or every month, 43 percent rarely leave the village, and the remaining 19 percent / reported that they never leave the village. In spite of limited physical mobility, there is contact with ideas from outside the villages, principally through radio, as suggested by the following data from the 1967 survey. VA Percent of farmers --, Have a radio 59.8 J Listen to it daily 50.2 Listen to a farm program 21.9 Have a television set 7.9 The staple food of the rural families in the Puebla area. as See TV at home or elsewhere in the rest of Mexico, is maize. It is eaten mainly in the at least once per week 12.4 form of a thin bread or tortilla. The average annual conRead farm magazines regularly 1.6 sumption of maize per person in the Puebla area is about Read newspapers regularly 7.9 250 kilos. 7



PAGE 1

tion. A population density of 50,000 plants/ha was to be used, and the plantings were to be kept free of weeds during the 60 days following emergence. FIELD RESEARCH IN 1968 AND 1969 It was estimated that this revised recommendation would produce an average increase in yield of 3,066 kg/ha. The experiments in 1967 suggested that under unfavorEstimated costs of this package of practices, mainly fertilizable conditions (severe drought, shallow soils), the populaer costs, were equivalent in value to 1,795 kg/ha maize. The tion density of 50,000 plants per hectare was probably too expected average net increase in grain production was 1,271 high. For certain favorable production conditions (little or kg/ha. Two additional sources of income would be associno drought, deep soils) the same plant density appeared to ated with the use of the recommendation: (a) yields of be too low. Thus, it was decided to study levels of plant stover would be increased proportionately to that of grain density along with levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. and could be sold or used on the farm; and (b) the higher It was also decided that experimental verification was labor requirements for applying fertilizers, harvesting, and needed for the hypothesis that significant amounts of shelling the maize would increase family employment and moisture were conserved by fall plowing. family income. Observations of the traditional land preparation pracThe soil samples collected at the 23 experimental sites tices of the farmers during the winter of 1967-1968 led the were analyzed for nitrifiable nitrogen and available phosresearch staff to question the effectiveness of these pracphorus. The experiments were divided into four groups, tices for several reasons: (a) there is little weed growth depending on whether the levels of nitrifiable nitrogen and during the winter, thus little moisture should be lost, even available phosphorus were less than, or greater than, 10 without plowing; (b) February and March are windy parts per million parts of soil (ppm). The value of 10 ppm months, and leaving the surface bare might foster wind was selected arbitrarily, to permit a comparison of soil test erosion; and (c) the organic matter contents of the soils are levels and average optimal rates of nitrogen and phosvery low, and plowing the soil would tend to accelerate the phorus. The average optimal levels of nitrogen and phosmineralization of the organic matter. phorus for the experiments in each group are shown in Another question arose in 1967 about the way farmers Table 3.1. made their last cultivation. Most farmers cultivated very deeply with a double moldboard plow and pruned many of TABLE 3.1. The average optimal fertilizer rates for soils the lateral maize roots. This also seemed to be a factor for containing different amounts of nitrifiable nitrogen and local study. available phosphorus. Available Weighted phosphorus average (ppm) N rate (Bray P1 Method) <10 v10 Nitrifiable < 10 141-49(10)* 130-9 (5) 137 nitrogen (ppm) > 10 90-37(2) 44-12(6) 55 Weighted -" '" average 47 10 P20rate F The first number is the average optimal rate of nitrogen, the second is -.,. the average optimal rate of P205, and the third, in parenthesis, is the T number of experiments corresponding to the group. V The average optimal rates of nitrogen were 137 kg/ha for '%*.r,. ,... .. soils containing less than 10 ppm of nitrifiable nitrogen and : 55 kg/ha for soils containing more than 10 ppm. The aver* : age optimal rates of P205 were: 47 kg/ha for soils contain, ..-. • ing less than 10 ppm of available phosphorus; and 10 kg/ha % for soils containing more than 10 ppm. This promising '( -" -'U relationship between optimal rates of fertilization and levels,. of available soil nutrients prompted the staff and consultants of the Puebla Project to explore the possibility of using soil analyses as an aid in determining fertilizer recommendaExperiments on farmers' fields were used to obtain infortions for Puebla farmers. Unfortunately, it was not possible mation on rates of fertilization, time on applying nitrogen to provide an efficient soil testing service for the farmers, and phosphorus, dates of planting, methods of land prepaand the Puebla Project was not able to make use of this ration, residual effects of fertilizers and manures, and other resource. production practices. 22



PAGE 1

subject. Then the assistant representatives 'were notified of the meeting and they, in turn, advised the members. Thus, most members attended and maximum value was obtained from the talk and subsequent discussion. OUTLOOK FOR MORE ADVANCED FORMS OF In contrast, the representatives who were considered ORGANIZATION' unreliable rarely held a meeting of interest to the group. They seldom took the initiative in presenting group probThe information collected in the study of the farmer lems to the technical assistance agent, or in inviting him to organizations indicates that several of the groups have made give a talk in the community. outstanding progress in learning how to work together in Three of the 35 representatives interviewed in 1973 had resolving problems of common interest. These groups are not repaid their loans on time. The members of these three now ready to move to higher forms of organization, such as groups recognized that they had made a mistake in electing cooperatives. the representatives. They pointed out, however, that it is The evolution from credit groups to more complex very difficult to select the right person. According to the organizational forms Will require the assistance of people members of the groups with the irresponsible representwell trained in the theory and practice offarmer organatives, these three individuals had previously had a good ization. It seems logical that the technical assistance agent record in the community; and, while the groups were being could best provide this assistance in a program such as the formed, they had been very active and had given the Puebla Project. The present agents in Puebla, however, are impression they would diligently serve the interests of the not technically prepared to do this job. To remedy this group. situation, the technical assistance agents could receive specialized training related to the operation of farmer Legalization of the Organization organizations. Two of the 35 groups studied in 1973 had drawn up documents outlining the regulations governing the functionSUMMARY ing of the groups,, and the penalties that would be imposed on violators. These documents had been signed by the The experiences gained in Puebla since 1969 support the members of the groups, the assistant representatives, the thesis that a very simple organizational form, such as the general representative, and the municipal president, and had credit group, should be used in the initial stages of organbeen registered at the municipal headquarters. In this way, izing farmers who may often be distrustful and individualthe groups acquired legal power to take action against a istic, with limited managerial ability. After the farmers have member in case he should deliberately cause problems. gained confidence in the Project, and experience in colLegalization of the organizations at the municipal level is elective action, and have developed responsible leaders with viewed by most groups as a useful step in making' the administrative capacity, then higher forms of organization groups more efficient. In the future, it is expected that the may be achieved. It is expected that this second stage will technical assistance agents can guide other groups in draftbe much more complex than the first, and will require teching by-laws and in registering them with the municipal nical assistance agents well trained in the organization of authorities. farmers. 61



PAGE 1

Perhaps the most crucial period in the development of mainly in two activities: (a) the training of professional the Project was in early 1969. Although the specific funcstaff for new programs in the philosophy, organization, and tions of the Project staff and participating institutions were operation of the Puebla Project (refer to Chapter 12); and defined well in advance of planting, the task remained of (b) technical assistance to the staff of new programs in coordinating all activities so that the farmers would have organization and agronomic research. A group of techfertilizers when needed. The correct fertilizer materials had nicians from Colombia and Mexico were in training in Pueto be ordered early, freight cars had to be available to transbla during the second half of 1970. Project advisors traveled port the material to Puebla, the shipments had to be to Colombia and Peru on several occasions during the year received by the distributors and dispatched to subdistrito assist in planning and organizing programs in those butors, and the farmers had to arrange for credit so they countries. could pick up their fertilizers when needed. Problems Project staff and advisors participated in two internadeveloped at all points in this chain of events, and continutional conferences held in Puebla in August 1970, to discuss ous contact by the coordinator and a clear understanding of strategies for increasing agricultural production on small the operation of each institution provided the means to holdings. These conferences (English spoken at one, reduce delays to a minimum andto avoid the loss of Spanish at the other) drew participants from 15 Latin prospective cooperators. American countries and 15 international development A total of 2,561 farmers, organized in 128 groups, were organizations. I assisted in using Project recommendations on 5,838 ha. Demonstrations at harvest time, estimations of yield, Although the 'total fell short of the stated goal for 1969, and adjustment of maize recommendations were conducted some 5.4 percent of the farmers in the area did begin using as in previous years. In addition, recommendations for the the new technology that year. production of bush beans were formulated for parts of the During the fall of 1969, regional demonstrations were Project area. The Fourth Annual Meeting was held in midheld at six locations in the area. The average maize yields of February 1971. organized farmers and all farmers in the area were estimated, agronomic trials were harvested, and the maize Project Operations: 1971 recommendations were refined. The Third Annual Meeting The operation of the Project in 1971 was similar to was held in early January 1970, attended by political leaders, representatives of agricultural institutions, farmers, 1970, with one principal difference: a second personal and Project staff. interview survey was conducted during the summer of 1971 to collect data for evaluating social and economic changes in the Project area. Interviews were made of a sample of all Project Operations: 1970 farmers in the area and a second sample of those farmers on credit lists. The technical assistance agents broadened their activities A principal addition to the Project in 1970 was the in response to the requests from the farmers for assistance initiation of technical assistance to farmers in Zone V (Fig. in improving other agricultural activities. Short courses for 1,2), A fifth technical assistance agent was assigned to this farmers on the management of orchards were given, with zone. the participation of specialists from other institutions. The main thrust of the technical assistance program in Demonstrations were held to instruct farmers in the use of 1970 was to increase the use of Project recommendations small trench silos for preserving maize stover as silage. by (a) informing farmers of the new technology through Several groups were assisted in arranging for long-term loans village meetings and mass communications media, and (b) to finance the drilling of wells, or for purchase of farm' assisting in the formation of new groups and in helping machinery. organized farmers arrange for credit and fertilizers, A Technicians from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Mexico special effort was made to increase the participation of the were trained in Puebla during 1971'. Project staff and public credit banks by counseling new groups to seek advisors provided technical assistance to regional producfinancing from these sources, and by assisting the groups in tion programs in Colombia, Peru, Honduras, and the States making the necessary arrangements. of Mexico and Tlaxcala in Mexico. The agronomic research program was expanded in 1970 The Fifth Annual Meeting was held in Puebla in midto include studies on the production of beans and alternaFebruary 1972. tive crops for late plantings. The investigations of the production of these crops were made in response to reProject Operations: 1972 quests from many of the farmer groups that had used the maize recommendations the previous year. In early 1970, CIMMYT signed an agreement with the In early 1972, the maize breeding component of the United Nations Development Program that led to the parPuebla Project was discontinued. Progress in developing ticioation of the Puebla Project and its advisors in the higher-yielding varieties had been slow (refer to Chapter 4). development of similar programs in other areas (refer to Moreover, the maize breeders in'CIMMYT felt that this Chapter 13). The Project and its advisors participated type of research could best be done at a research center 14



PAGE 1

increase in yield per unit of risk, adjusted for differences in tional and INIA technologies produces a gain of $1.56 and variable costs, is 3.63 times greater for unlimited capital $1.45, respectively. technology than for traditional technology. Index IIla is aThlitecatltcnogywudrqren18pmeasre f th oucomeof gae inwhih th famer cent larger investment in fertilizers than -would the tradiplays to win A~ M and has a probability of 1 -R (0.5) of tional -technology; would produce 24 percent more maize, doing so, but also has a probability, R (0.5), of losing C. and would yield a net increase worth 47 percent more. A comparison will next be made of the impact of the Using the limited capital technology, farmers would invest four technologies on production, net increases, and ferti$433,968 more in fertilizers than with the traditional lizer consumption, assuming each technology were to be technology, and would gain an additional $1,735,504. used on the 80,000 ha of land normally devoted to maize Thus, each additional dollar spent on fertilizers with the production in the Project area. The data needed for this limited capital technology would give a profit or $4.00. In a comparison are shown in Table 3.15. Estimated total global sense, each dollar invested in fertilizers using the production with the four technologies varies from 164,211 lmtdcptltcnlg ol il rfto 19 to 254,844 tons/year; the value of net increase varies from limited cptal tech6nlg wh aoul yie adoitofa $1.94 $3,666,928 to $6,903,960; and the cost of fertilizers varies comprdto$.6intecseoghytaiina.eh from $2,353,584 to $4,267,176.noo. Compared with the traditional technology, the INIA The unlimited capital technology compared with the technology would require a 51 percent larger investment in traditional, would require an 81 percent larger investment fertilizers and would produce 30 percent more maize with a in fertilizers, produce 55 percent more maize, and yield a net increase worth 40 percent more. That is, using the INIA profit worth 88 percent more. Farmers would invest technology, farmers could invest $1,197,120 moreinferti$1,913,592 more in fertilizers with the unlimited capital lizers and gain an additional $1,471,120. Each additional technology as compared to the traditional, but could gain dollar spent on fertilizers would yield a profit of $1.23. $3,237,032 more. In this case, each additional dollar spent Globally, each dollar inVested in fertilizers using the tradion fertilizers would yield a profit of $1.69. 37



PAGE 1

The Puebla Project seems to have been largely responsales on credit in the future. Farmers should find Impulsora sible for this change from 10-8-4 to more adequate fertilcredit attractive, even with a higher interest rate, because of izers. Sales of ammonium sulfate and superphosphate have the simplicity of the credit-granting procedure. increased as a direct result of the growing demand for these materials by farmers using Project recommendations. THE PUEBLA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL According to the manager of the Impulsora, his company AGRICULTURAL CREDIT BANK has given greater importance to the 10-10-0 and 12-8-0 mixtures since 1971, because the field trials conducted in The National Agricultural Credit Bank was founded in the area showed little response to potassium. 1926 as an integral part of the agrarian reform program of the post-revolutionary governments. Branches of the bank were established throughout the country to: (a) promote Outlook for Greater Credit for Small Farmers the organization of ejidatarios and small landholders, (b) From the I mpulsora de Puebla make available production credit at locations accessible to these farmers, and (c) provide for credit at an interest rate more attractive than that charged by local moneylenders. As mentioned earlier, the credit provided to small farmThe mandate of the Bank stipulated that possible social ers by the Impulsora has not increased since 1970, in spite benefits be considered as well as the solvency of the client, of a repayment rate of around 98 percent. This is due in deciding how to allocate its funds. mainly to the low interest rate which the Impulsora is The law regulating the National Agricultural Credit Bank required to charge on fertilizer credit. According to the was modified in 1935 with the creation of the National modified Guanomex policy that became effective in 1971, Ejidal Credit Bank. Since then, the Agricultural Bank has 9 percent per year is the maximum interest that the Impulprovided credit exclusively to landowners, and the Ejidal sora can charge farmers receiving fertilizers on credit. Since Bank has worked with the eiidatarios. The law governing the Impulsora acquires the fertilizers from Guanomex at 6 the Agricultural Bank was again modified in 1956 in an percent interest, its income from interest on credit sales is 3 attempt to make its services more dynamic. percent per year. However, as credit is usually extended to The National Agricultural Credit Bank has branch banks farmers for a period of about 9 months, the effective in every state. Most branches have sub-branches or agencies income from interest is less than 3 percent. Under these that are located at strategic points. The zone corresponding conditions, the tendency of the Impulsora is to increase its to a given agency is divided into sub-zones, with a field cash sales and keep sales on credit to a minimum, inspector in charge of each of them. The Puebla Branch of Perhaps permission to charge a higher interest rate is the the Agricultural Bank has six agencies, two of which proonly measure that will induce the Impulsora to increase its vide credit to farmers in the Project area. The Project coordinator works closely with the repreM sentatives of the agricultural service agencies. He provides information on the findings of the Project and obstacles limiting farmer use of the available services, and assists in finding ways to eliminate such obstacles. 65



PAGE 1

DEEP SOILS OF POPOCATEPETL PUMICEOUS SOILS OF POPOCATEPETL SOILS OF LA MALINCHE SODIC-LIKE SOILS :: HEAVY SOILS OF ZONE Y E2J SOILS WITH A COMPACTED HORIZON SOILS WITH A HIGH WATER TABLE E UNMAPPED AREA Fig. 1.2. The distribution of the seven most important kinds of soils in the project area. The regions shown in white are largely mountainous with little production of maize. ing. This has resulted in the formation of soils with a high The deep soils of Popocatdpetl cover an area of about water table and deficient external drainage on both sides of 33,618 ha, of which 26,609 are currently under cultivation. the Atoyac River. A drainage system consisting of a netThese soils occupy an area extending from the intermediate work of open ditches was constructed in this region many slopes of Popocatdpetl and Ixtacciliuatl to the soils with a years ago and has been effective in maintaining the water high water table along the Atoyac River. The predominant table low enough for the soils to be farmed, parent material is a light-brown volcanic ash near neutral in reaction. The texture of the upper 20-40 cm of these soils is loamy sand or sandy loam. This horizon usually contains The information accumulated on soils during the early less than 0.5 percent organic matter, has a pH around 6.5, is years of the Project permitted the preparation of a soils hightin potasiu an calciu as far high is map (Fig. 1.2) showing the approximate boundaries of the h phorus. Underlying this horizon is a layer about 2 m deep seven most important groups of soils in the Project area., with a loam or clay-loam texture that is largely responsible The total area and cultivated area corresponding to each for the high productivity of these soils. This lower horizon soil group were estimated from aerial photographs and are has a pH of about 7.0, a cation exchange capacity of shown in Table 1.1. around 15 miliequivalents/100 g of soil, and 8 percent of available moisture when wet to the field capacity. These TABLE 1.1. Total area and cultivated area corresponding soils, when properly managed, can be planted in April and to seven groups of soils in the Puebla area. early, May with residual-moisture from the previous year' The pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl cover an area of some 26,799 ha, of which 19,794 are currently under Total Cultivated cultivation. The parent material of these soils is largely Group area area pumice with some volcanic ash. According to Aeppli and ha ha Schoenhals3, these materials were deposited at the time of the most recent eruptiorns of Popocat6petl. The stratification observed in most of these soils probably resulted from Pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl 26,799 19,794 differences in the materials deposited at different times, not Soils of La Malinche 34,602 25,298 from pedogenic processes. Sodic-like soils 16,560 13,121 Heavy soils of Zone V 3,151 2,700 Soils with compacted horizon 28,912 22,403 Soils with high water table 7,527 6,871 3. Aeppli, Hans and Schoenhals, Ernst, 1973. Los suelos de la Cuenca Puebla-Tlaxcala. Comunicaciones 7/1973 Proyecto Puebla-Tlaxcala. Eds. Wilhelm Lauer and ErdTotal 151,169 116,796 mann Gormsen. Fundaci6n Alemana para la Investigaci6n Cientifica, M6xico. pp. 15-18.



PAGE 1

Contents Vill INTRODUCTION I CHAPTER 1. THE PUEBLA AREA: ITS LAND AND PEOPLE The physical environment -climate, soils. Thefarming population -number of farmers, size of holdings, type of land tenure, the family and the home, contact with ideas from outside the community. Local production technology -genetic resources, production practices. Agricultural service agencies. I CHAPTER 2. PROJECT OPERATIONS AND COORDINATION: AN OVERVIEW Evolution of the Project. Project Operations 1967 through 1973. Coordination. Project Personnel. Consulting Services. 19 CHAPTER 3. AGRONOMIC RESEARCH General strategy. Field research in 1967 -results: 1967. Field research in 1968 and 1969 -results: 1968 and 1969. Field research in 1970 -results: 1970. Field research in 197 1 -results: 197 1. Field research in 1972 -results: 1972. An evaluation of the agronomic research program. 39 CHAPTER 4. MAIZE VARIETY IMPROVEMENT Strategy of genetic improvement.. Program and results -production of hybrids, production of varieties, evaluation of materials. Evaluation of the research program. 45 CHAPTER 5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS Project program: 1968 -location of the high-yield plots, credit, crop insurance, planting and care of the high-yield plots, result demonstrations, printed matter and audio-visual aids. Project program: 1969 -organizing groups, radio usage, supervision of the high-yield plots, interchanges among farmer groups, results demonstrations. Project program: 1970. Project program: 1971. Project program: 1972. Project program: 1973 -use of agua ammonia, more effective group action. 55 CHAPTER 6. ORGANIZATION OF THE FARMERS Organization of the farmers prior to the Puebla Project. Action of the. Puebla Project in the organization of farmers. Benefits received by farmers through organized action -better understanding of the new technology, access of small farmers to agricultural credit, greater efficiency in obtaining credit, prompt delivery of fertilizers, efficient and cheaper transport of fertilizers, prompt repayment of loans, greater efficiency in the repayment of loans, access to information on other activities, initiation of new production activities, greater effectiveness in solving community problems, greater interchange of experiences among farmers. Factors favoring group efficiency -quality of leadership, legalization of the organization. Outlook for more advanced forms of organization. Summary. V1



PAGE 1

There are approximately 35,600 farms in the region with an The Basic Grains Program, Honduras average size of 4.8 ha. Activities have been concentrated initially in six municipios near Medellin with a cultivated The Central Bank of Honduras and the National Develarea of 52,000 ha. opment Bank sponsor this program, which is conducted in The soils in the area have formed from volcanic ash and collaboration with the Rural Development Institute, the belong to the Andosol category. The average annual precipiDepartment of Agriculture, and the Panamerican Agricultation varies from 1,500-2,100 mm and falls mainly in the tural School. It was organized in late 1970 and began field period from April to November. Elevations above sea level operations in early 1971. vary from 2,000-2,400 m. The Project area consists of four municipios in the Due to high rainfall, high water-holding capacity of the Francisco Morazan department. There are approximately soils, and temperate climate, year-round crop production is 15,000 ha of cultivated land, with 50 percent planted in possible with a wide selection of crops. Thus, intensive maize and 32 percent in beans. There are around 3,200 cropping systems are used and the land generally produces farms with an average size of 4.6 ha and total population of two or three harvests per year. More than 20 different cropping systems have been observed in the area. The major The cultivated area is concentrated in the valleys of crops are maizei beans, and potatoes; Talanga and Siria, with soils varying from level to rolling Technical assistance was provided to 4,801 families with and from poorly drained planosolic types to well-drained 8,212 ha in 1972. alluvial soils. The climate is tropical with absolute minimum Five similar regional projects were initiated in Colombia temperatures of about 9' C. The average annual rainfall is during 1971-1972. These projects cover a wide range of around 1,100 mm, falling mainly from May through Ocboth agricultural and social activities and have been desigtober. The cultivated land lies at elevations from 500-700 m nated Rural Development Projects. Project plans call for above sea level. assistance to approximately 103,000 families. The ExtenThe Basic Grains Program expanded its activities in early sion Service in ICA was reorganized in early 1973 as the 1973 to include a second project in the department of El Division of Rural Development. Fourteen additional Rural Paraiso. A research program was conducted that year, Development Projects have been approved and are presently consisting of about 100 trials on farmers' fields to study being organized and staffed. varietal performance and production practices for maize, Cajamarca-La Libertad Project, Peru beans, and maize-bean associations. This project was organized in early 1971, as a joint Maize Program, State of Mexico, Mexico undertaking of the Agricultural Research Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Cooperative Maize Research This program was organized in early 1971 by the Program of the Agrarian University, and the Agro-Industrial Government of the State of Mexico and is operated by a Research Institute. Field activities were initiated in Septemstate institution known as DAGEM (organization for the ber 1971. development of crop and livestock production). This The Project area comprises the major part of the high institution includes the directors of 13 agencies involved in mountainous region of the departments of Cajamarca and government, credit, crop insurance, marketing, and organLa Libertad in northern Peru. The major crops are maize, izing of farmers. DAGEM is operated by an Executive Coinwheat, barley, and potatoes. Approximately 96,000 ha of mission and the coordinator of the Maize Program reports maize and wheat are grown in the area annually. The averdirectly to this Commission. age area of cultivated land per farm is 1.4 ha. The project area comprises the major part of the improThis area is very mountainous and has a very poor road tant maize producing regions in the state. It consists of system. Initially, therefore, actities were concentrated in a three well-defined zones: Valley of Toluca, covering 34 region about 10 km wide extending from 15 km north of municipios; Valley of Mexico, with 32 municipios; and the Cajamarca to 15 km south of Cajabamba. About 9,500 ha Southwestern Zone, with six municipios. About 430,000 ha of maize and 7,500 ha of wheat are grown in this region of maize are harvested annually in these 72 municipios. annually. There are approximately 240,000 farms with an average The climate of the region varies from sub-tropical in the cultivated area of 2.2 ha/farm. Condebamba Valley to temperate in the higher valleys and The soils used for growing maize in the Valleys of mountain slopes. Elevations vary from 2,000-3,500 m Toluca and Mexico were formed from volcanic materials above sea level. Average annual rainfall varies from 650-750 and lie at elevations between 2,240 and 2,800 m above sea mm. All of the wheat is rainfed and about one-half of the level. The cultivated area of the Southwestern Zone lies maize receives one or more irrigations, between 400 and 1,800 m above sea level. The average During the past two cropping seasons, applied research annual rainfall varies from 500 mm at the northern limits of on maize, wheat, and barley was conducted to develop the region to 1,100 mm at the southern tip of the Valley of reliable packages of production practices for the farmers in Toluca. Frost damaging to maize may occur in the valleys the area. There were 183 field trials in 1971-1972, and 100 of Toluca and Mexico in all months except June, July, and field trials in 1972-1973. August. 104



PAGE 1

the second cultivation, rather than -at planting time. In 400 --1--,968 1969, yields were 1,200 kg/ha higher when 150 kg/ha N .... ,9\9 were applied at planting time, rather than at the second 1941-1968 cultivation. 1 300These contrasting effects of date of planting and time of A/ applying nitrogen seem to stem from differences in the A amount and distribution of rainfall during the two years. W 200The monthly rainfall for 1968 and 1969, and the monthly averages for the 1941-1968 period are shown graphically in Figure 3.1. -00In 1968, rainfall in May was average, and in June it was 20 percent above the average. Thus, adequate moisture was v available in 1968 during the vegetative development of APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. early plantings of maize. In 1969, on the other hand, rainfall in May was 40 percent of the 1941-1968 average; in Fig. 3.1. Average montly rainfall in Zones I-IV of the Pue. June, 27 per cent; and in July, 73 per cent of that average. bla Project for 1968, 1969, and the period 1941-1968. Thus, early plantings of maize suffered severe moisture stress during May, June, and early July. FIELD RESEARCH IN 1970 The higher yields from the later plantings in 1969 appear to be due to the fact that these plantings had a longer The interactions observed between rainfall pattern and period in which to produce a large plant than did the early date of planting, time of applying nitrogen, and maize varieplantings, after the rains began in July. The better response ty, in 1968 and 1969 suggested that it would be advantato nitrogen applied at planting time in 1969 was probably geous to make integrated studies of yield response to these because moisture deficiencies delayed absorption of nitrovariables, plus rate of fertilization and plant density. Six gen applied at the second cultivation until the plants' were such integrated studies were conducted in 1970, along with too old to make maximum use of the nitrogen. studies of maize response to rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, In 1969, it also was noted that certain maize varieties, and plant density in six experiments located to sample after being under moisture stress for several weeks, were regions that had not been studied previously. able to delay tasseling for one to two weeks, thereby develResearch on bean production was initiated in 1970. oping larger plants and producing higher yields. This charMajor emphasis was placed on bush beans (determinate acteristic of "latency" was important in 1969, but not in growth habit) and lesser attention was given to the associa1968. tion of maize with pole beans (indeterminate growth habit). TABLE 3.3. Fourth approximation of the maize recommendations for the Puebla area. Kg/ha of fertilizers applied at: Total fertilizers Planting First Second applied Population time cultivation cultivation (kg/ha) density Producing system N P205 N P205 N P20, N P20, (Plants/ha) 1. Deep soils of Popocattpetl 1.1. Maizealone 30 50 0 0 100 0 130 50 50,000 1.2. Maize in orchards 1.2.1. Two rows on either side of the trees 30 50 0 0 50 0 80 50 50,000 1.2.2. Other rows 30 50 0 0 100 0 130 50 50,000 2. Soils of La Malinche 0 0 80 0 0 0 80 0 40,000 3. Soils with a compacted layer impeding root development. 3.1. Non-sodic 20 50 0 0 90 0 110 50 50,000 3.2. Sodic-like Do not grow maize 25



PAGE 1

INTRODUCTION World agriculture faces two problems of great urgency: the threat of an absolute shortage of food on a global scale, and the fact of continuing low incomes and malnutrition among most of the rural population. The Puebla Project is an experiment designed to tackle both problems simultaneously by obtaining a large increase in yield of a basic food crop -in this case maize -among small farmers producing at subsistence levels with traditional methods. Much of the world's food is now produced on small farms, where families produce mainly for human and animal consumption on the farm 'and have little or no surplus to sell. These families have usually been among the last to discard their traditional farming methods and few of them are quick to reap, the benefits of new technology. On a world-wide basis, however, they represent a vast potential for national development. This potential is recognized by the governments of most developing countries; but, because of limited resources and lack of knowledge about how to reach these millions of smaller farmers, the national programs to increase crop yields have usually been aimed at a relatively small number of commercial farmers. Yet attention to these families of the traditional sector is crucial for at least three reasons: (a) their farms represent an important part 'of the arable land in many countries; thus, yields must be increased to satisfy total food requirements, (b) in many nations most of the human resources are employed in traditional agriculture and improved agriculture is a readily available source of increased capital from within, and (c) traditional farmers make up a large portion of the population of many countries and continuous improvement in their farming techniques is essential for over-all social development. These considerations define the need for more efficient means of providing traditional farmers with better production methods. And it is this need that focused the two initial objectives of the Puebla Project: (a) to develop, field test, and refine a strategy for rapidly increasing yields of a basic fbod crop on small land holdings; and (b) to train technicians from other regions in the elements and successful use of this strategy. PHILOSOPHY AND ORGANIZATION The conceptual framework' of the Puebla Project was derived from several interrelated agricultural and social science disciplines, as well as from the working knowledge and field experience of the team members, It was conceived as An integrated plan of attack on the many problems limiting farmer use of adequate production technology. It was assumed that the following factors of change would need to be available in the Project area: (a) high-yielding maize varieties,, (b) information on efficient production practices, (c) effective communication of agronomic information to farmers and agricultural leaders, (d) adequate supplies of agronomic inputs at easily accessible, points when they are needed, (e) crop 'insurance, (f) favorable relationships between input costs and crop values, (g) adequate production credit at a reasonable rate of interest, and (h) accessible markets with a stable price for maize. When the Project began, several agricultural institutions responsible for providing inputs, credit, crop insurance and markets for maize producers were already operating in Puebla. Also, the relationships between the costs of production inputs and the price of maize were thought to be satisfactory. However, only very limited results were available from trials of maize varieties and production practices, and only one extension agent was working the area. Vill



PAGE 1

Thus, the action program of the Puebla Project was organized initially to include four major components: (a) varietal improvement of maize, (b) research to develop efficient recommendations on maize production practices, (c) assistance to farmers in proper use of new recommendations, and (d) coordination of the activities of the service agencies, the Project team, and the farmers. Another component -socio-economic evaluationwasadded during the first year. A key concept within the philosophy of the Project has been that the production and dissemination of information are parts of a development continuum that should not be compartmentalized in program operations. Constant interaction among staff members and feedback of information have been viewed as integral functions of the Project -from planning of research through delivery of findings to farmers and evaluation of results. Thus, it was planned that the staff consist of a small team of capable, well-trained scientists with an adequate budget and freedom to operate at any political or technical level. The team lived and worked in the Project area, cooperating closely in conducting the field trials, demonstrations, farmer meetings, etc. The selection and training of team personnel was seen as the crucial element in determining success. The work of the team was expected to be exceptionally arduous due to heavy demands by the large numbers of farmers in the Project area. In making decisions, team members would have to take into account, simultaneously, knowledge and expectations related to weather, attitudes of farmers, institutional organization, the personal goals of individuals in key positions, and other factors. Great skill -is required in assessing and giving appropriate weight to these varied and interrelated factors. Thus, strong effort -was given to-acquiring, the services of well-trained, capable, and innovative young agriculturalists, PREREQUISITES Initially, the two conditions considered necessary in selecting the Project area were: an ecological environment that would permit substantial yield increases, and a political environment that would be favorable toward Project objectives. The main requirements of the physical environment were: (a) rainfall and temperatures adequate for good-to-high maize yields. The total amount and distribution of rainfall should be such that maize would suffer severe drought damage in less than 10 percent of the years and moderate damage in no more than 30 percent of the years. There should be only light frosts, limited to the first quarter of the growing season; and (b) reasonably deep, permeable soils free from toxic amounts of salts. The essential aspect of the political environment was that government should strongly support the Project operations and have the will and the power to modify existing policies and agencies as necessary. This factor was especially important in respect to availability of key inputs, orderly marketing of the grain, and the relationship between the cost of principal inputs and the price of grain at the farm. As the Project has evolved, these aspects of the ecological and, to some extent, the political environments have been recognized, not as prerequisites, but as factors that influence the strategy to be used in a particular program. The basic approach used in Puebla should be applicable in most regions of the world, when adequate attention has been given to the specific environmental, social, and economic conditions in areas where the 'approach is to be used. Ix



PAGE 1

A collection was made of 24 local bush varieties and 18 second planting, and by only 575 kg/ha in the third plantpole varieties. The response of bush beans to rates of fertiliing. A similar comparison of the Control Treatment (1) zation and plant density was studied at six locations. The and the "Potential Yield" Treatment (15) indicates that varieties collected in Puebla were evaluated at three sites. Treatment I yields (no fertilizer) were 15 per cent of TreatThe maize-bean association was studied at one location. ment 15 yields for the first planting date, 12 per cent for the second date; and 6 per cent for the third. This seems to Results: 1970 imply that a given soil can supply more nutrients to early plantings than to later plantings; (b) Planting Date x FertiliThe rainfall pattern in 1970 was quite favorable for both zation with Phosphorus: the magnitude of this interaction maize and beans. In the several experiments, maize wilted can be-judged by comparing yields of Treatments 4 and 5, an average of 6.2, 0.7, 0, and 0 days during the four parts Treatments 7 and 9, and Treatments 8 and 10, at the three of the growing cycle. Hail damage occurred in one-third of dates of planting. The increase in yield due to phosphorus is the experiments during the first part of the growing season; less than the least significant difference (LSD) for the first in the other three parts, hail. affected the maize in only planting date, and is clearly greater than the least significant one-tenth of the experiments. In most of the plantings, difference for the second and third planting dates. In these maize was damaged slightly by frost during the first part of experiments the same soil required less phosphorus and the growing period. produced higher yields in early plantings than in later plantTable 3.4 shows the average maize yields obtained at ings; (c) Planting Date x Genotype: comparison of treattwo locations using several combinations of fertilization, ments 15 and 16 shows that the yield obtained with the plant density, genotype, and date of planting. The average Composite A x B was 91 percent of that produced by the grain yields for the 16 treatments were 5,352 kg/ha for the hybrid maize for the first planting date, 120 per cent for first planting date, 4,446 kg/ha for the second date, and the second date, and 135 per cent for the third; and (d) 2,029 kg/ha for the third. Planting Date x Kind of Fertilizer: comparisons of treatThere were large interactions between planting date and ments 14 and 15 for the first and second plantings, and other factors, including: (a) Planting Date x Rates of FerTreatments 12 and 15 for the third planting, show that the tilization and Plant Density: comparison of the yields best yield obtained with chemical fertilizers alone was 82' obtained with Treatments 2 and 14 shows that the higher per cent of that obtained with chemical fertilizers plus rate of fertilization and plant density outyielded the lower manure for the first planting date, 76 per cent for the rate by 3,703 kg/ha in the first planting, 3,166 kg/ha in the second date, and 54 per cent for the third. TABLE 3.4. Average maize yields obtained at two locations using several combinations of fertilization, plant density, genotype, and date of planting. Nitrogen (kg/ha) applied at: Phosphorus Population Yield in kg/ha No. of Planting First Second (kg P205/ha) density Patn ae Treatment 'time cultivation cultivation at planting (plants/ha) May 3 May 23 June 13 1 01 0 0 0 30,000 1306 932 234 2 .0 50 0 25 30,000 3315 2771 1469 3 0 80 0 0 30,000 3869 2264 875 4 0 105 0 0 30,000 4303 2749 1128 5 0 105 0 40 30,000 4253 3788 1912 6 0 105 0 40 50,000 5399 4103 2235 7 0 -130 0 0 30,000 4592 2641 1240 8 0 130 0 0 50,000 5539 3511 1600 9 0 130 0 40 30,000 5006 4048 1794 10 0 130 0 40 50,000 5907 4788 -2358 11 30 0 100 40 50,000 6079 5311 1875 12 30 0 100 40 60,000 5989 4958 2179 13 30 0 130 40 60,000 6748 5946 2089 14 30 0 160 40 60,000 7018 5973 2044 15*30 0 130 40 60,000 8533 7872 4018 16** 30 0 130 40 60,000 7778 9475 5420 AVERAGES 5352 4446 2029 LSD 5/6 532 794 364 *The hybrid, H-129, was used for the May 3 planting. The hybrid, H-28, was used for the plantings on May 23 and June 13. **These treatments include an application of 10 ton/ha of chicken manure. The composite variety A x B (see Chapter 4, page 40) was used in treatment 16. 26



PAGE 1

attractive type of organization to the farmers, as it is very committees are composed of one member from each of the easy to form and only one member of the group has to file subgroups in the village. the title to his land with the bank as a guarantee. (The members of a solidarity group accept common responsibility for debts incurred by the group.) As shown in Table 6. 1, BENEFITS RECEIVED BY FARMERS the number of farmers receiving credit from the AgriculTHROUGH ORGANIZED ACTION tural Bank increased to 1,865 in 1973, and the number of groups to 314. Since 1970, the technical assistance agents have recomWhen the technical assistance agents began to promote mended the subdivision of large credit groups or societies. the organization of farmers in 1969, it was assumed that In many villages, groups that receive credit from the Impulorganized action by farmers would be fruitful in many sora and have more than 20 members have divided to form ways. In 1973, selected farmers were asked whether they groups of about 10 members. Each of these subgroups has a were receiving benefits from working together in groups. leader or assistant representative. Coordinating the assistant Information was collected from 69 farmers in 35 groups representatives, there is a general representative or coordiscattered throughout the Project area. Some of the impresnator who is elected by all the members and is responsible sions obtained from the farmers about the importance of for the organization at the village level. This subdivision of organized group action are cited in the following sections. large groups into smaller units facilitates administration, Better Understanding of the New Technology internal communication, and contact with the technical assistance agents. The general impression of the farmers seems to be that The solidarity groups that work with the Agricultural organization has given them greater access to information Bank have been encouraged to develop a similar organizaabout Project recommendations. Most of the meetings and tion at the village level. Many of the solidarity groups have demonstrations at which the technical assistance agents preferred to maintain their independence, however, and this provide information on production practices are organized has limited the effectiveness of their village coordinators. by the groups. Members of the groups are quite consistent Beginning in 1973, vigilance committees have been in attending these sessions, and a better understanding of formed in the villages with several subgroups receiving the new technology by the organized farmers should lead to credit from the Impulsora. or the Agricultural Bank. These a more effective use of the recommendations. The difference between the average yields of farmers on From 1969 onward, the technical assistance agents concencredit lists and all farmers in the area (Table 9.8) has gradtrated their efforts on promoting the organization of the ually decreases over the years. This seems to indicate that farmers and in assisting the groups to use the improved an increasing number of farmers not on credit lists are using production technologies adequately. By 1973, 7,194 farmthe new technology. Perhaps, in terms of better informaers were organized in 553 groups and received credit from tion on technology, the advantages of being organized are seven different sources. most notable in the early years of the program. 57



PAGE 1

Table 3.14 shows the variable costs, net increases, risks, The value !A M .0 is used in the alternative definiand "adequacy indices" for the four technologies used in tion of risk, to examine the case in which the value of the systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3; the combined 13 systems; and increase in maize yield is equal to or less than the variable the total Project area. As used here, risk is defined arbicosts of production. Information is available in Table 3.14 trarily in two ways: (a) *as the standardized probability to calculate risk using net increase values other than 0.5 or that the net increase in maize yield will be 0.5 ton/ha or 0 ton/ha. less, and (b) as the standardized probability that the net In the calculation of risk there is an implicit assumption increase in maize yield will be 0 ton/ha or less. In the that the 'net increase values belong to a population with a remainder of this chapter, the first criterion of risk will be normal distribution. This hypothesis was tested for tradiexpressed as R (0.5) and the second criterion as R (0) .tional technology used in the entire Project area, and was One of the definitions of risk -as a net increase of 0.5 not rejected. ton/ha or less of grain -was based on 1970 survey data For the five systems in Table 3.14, calculations were indicating that an average family consumed 1,546 kg/year made of the mean squares of the net increase values asof maize for food, and had an average area of 2.27 ha of sociated with the following: (a) years, with a degrees of maize. Thus from each hectare in maize, an average of 0.68 freedom; (b) total, with n-1 degrees of freedom; and (c) ton of grain was needed to feed the family. In this definiresiduals (sites confounded with the interaction sites x tion of risk, it was assumed that most of the yield obtained years), with n-i-a degrees of freedom. In 18 of the 20 with the check treatment would be used to cover the fixed cases (four technologies x five systems), the mean square costs of production, and that 0.5 ton/ha to feed the family associated with years was larger than that associated with would have to come from net increase in yield. sites plus the site x years interaction., In nine cases, the difference was not significant; in six it was significant at the 5 percent level; and in three cases it was significant at the 1 percent level. The mean square associated with years was selected as the estimator of the variance of the net increase TABLE 3.13. Estimated net increases in tons of maize per values. This quantity appears in Table 3.14 as S2A Mhectare, AM*, using four production technologies in 16 The values of risk presented in Table 3.14 were obtained producing systems, from a tabulation of areas corresponding to a normal population with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. To use _________________________________________ this table, the values 0.5 and 0 were standardized for each Producing Limited Unlimited technology and producing system by subtracting the value systm Taditona INI caital captal of A M and dividing by the appropriate standard deviation, 1.1.1 0.99 1.52 1.51 2.10 The use of traditional technology in producing system 1.1.2 0.42 0.65 0.56 0.78 1.1.1 gave an average net increase in maize production of 1.2 0.67 0.88 0.88 1.37 0.99 ton/ha, with a risk represented by the number 0.213 2.1.1 0.82 1.19 1.19 1.77 for R(0.5) and the number 0.054 for R(0) (see Table 2.1.2 0.35 0.47 0.50 0.67 3.14). This level of risk indicates that the net increase will 2.2 0.87 1.24 1.24 1.67 be 0.5 ton/ha or less in four years out of 20, with one year 3 1.05 1.45 1.61 1.92 having zero or negative net increase. The estimated net 4 0.38 0.59 0.80 0.93 increase using traditional technology in system 1.11 was 5.1.1 0.73 0.96 0.96 1.53 more than that for system 2.1.1, and similar to that for 5.1.2 0.30 0.39 .0.39 0.47 system 3. The level of risk in using traditional technology in 5.1.3 0.57 0.64 0.65 0.65 systems 2.1.1 and 3 indicates that net increases of 0.5 6.1.1 -0.22 0.49 0.50 0.77 ton/ha or less can be expected in 6 years out of 20. In two 6.1.2 0.38 0.55 0.49 0.55 of the six years, the net increase will be zero or negative for 6.1.3 -0.08 -0.18 0.05 0.05 system 2.1.1, whereas in system 3, three of the six years 7.1 -0.54 0.14 1.39 1.39 will have a zero or negative net increase of yield. These 7.2 1.48 1.70 1.91 2.08 three systems are the most productive in the Project area Overall"* 0.74 1.05 1.12 1.44 and account for 53 percent of the area planted to maize. The use of traditional technology in the 13 remaining systems gave an average net increase of 0.44 ton/ha with a The commercial yield obtained with a given technology, risk represented by the numbers 0.547 for R(0.5) and less the check yield, less the variable costs associated 0.195 for R(0). That is, in 11 out of every 20 years a with the use of the technology. The commercial yield is net increase of 0.5 ton/ha or less can be expected; 4 of estimated to be 800 %of the experimental yield, exthese I11 years will show a zero or negative net increase. pressed as grain with 14% moisture. -The average net increase for the whole area using tradi**Averages weighted according -to the areas planted in tional technology was 0.73 ton/ha with a risk represented maize, by the numbers 0.399 for R(0.5) and 0.206 for R(O). 34



PAGE 1

families, had on at least one occasion visited a center in In addition to estimating the change in farmers' expectaanother community. That is, 70, or 29 percent, of the 239 tions with respect to farming, the change in their expectafarmers had used the services of the medical centers on at tions with respect to progress was also estimated. A nineleast one occasion. level scale was developed in which the first level represented One indicator of the health conditions of the farm famithe living conditions of the poorest farmers in the area, lies in the area is that 11 percent of the heads-of-families with the ninth level representing the farmers with the best were disabled for health reasons from 1 to 5 days during standard of living. When interviewed, the farmer was asked 1970, 10 percent from 6 to 30 days, and 12 percent from to select the level that best represented his present situation 31 to 90 days. and the situation he expected to attain within five years. The results are shown in Table 10.5. Changes in Attitudes of Farmers The percentage of farmers who located themselves in the lowest two levels decreased from 28.3 percent in 1967 to It is commonly thought that the attitudes of traditional 22.2 percent in 1970. A similar reduction is noted in the farmers toward agriculture tend to be pessimistic or fatalispercentage of farmers that expected to remain in the lowest tic, and that these attitudes should become more optimistic two levels after a period of five years. in order to achieve a continuous evolution of a traditional The change in expectations with respect to farming is agriculture toward a modern one. It seems reasonable to larger than the change in expectations with respect to assume that the attitudes of farmers toward agriculture are progress. This may be due to the fact that farmers, to date, the result both of their cultural heritage and their own have experienced mainly an increase in net income from experiences as farmers. If they are to change these atcrop production, thus, their attitudes toward farming have titudes, one of the means might be to prove to themselves been most affected. that new ideas or practices offer more advantages than the traditional ones. TABLE 10.5. The percentages of farmers whose living The availability of a new maize technology in the Puebla conditions, according to their own evaluations, correarea in 1968 offered farmers the opportunity to compare sponded to nine levels varying from the poorest (I) to the these new practices with traditional ones. Questions were best (9) in the area. asked in the 1970 survey to determine the extent to which 1967 (N=251) 1970 (N=239) farmers had found the new technology advantageous. Situation Situation Forty-four percent (104) of the 239 farmers interviewed in Present within Present within 1970 said that they had increased their maize production Levels situation five years situation five years between 1967 and 1970. Of this 44 percent, 82 farmers, or 1 and 2 28.3 13.6 22.2 7.5 79 percent, attributed the increase either directly or 3 and 4 33.0 19.6 39.7 21.7 indirectly to the use of the recommendations of the Puebla 5 and 6 25.9 24.3 25.5 31.0 Project. 7, 8 and 9 11.2 34.3 10.9 35.6 Of the 213 farmers on the credit lists who were interviewed in the 1970 survey, 154, or 72 percent, said they had increased their maize production during the previous three years. Ninety-three percent of these 154 farmers attributed the increase either directly or indirectly to the recommendations of the Puebla Project. It is very probable that these increases in maize production have modified the expectations of the farmers with respect to agriculture. Such changes in the expectations of the farmers were estimated by asking the farmers what activity they would engage in were they suddenly to receive an amount of money greater than their total annual income. Of the 251 farmers interviewed in 1967, only 53 percent said that they would continue to farm and would buy more fertilizers. Seventy-three percent of the 239 farmers interviewed in the 1970 survey indicated that they would continue to farm and would improve their production methods. Eighty percent of the 213 farmers on credit lists who were interviewed in the 1970 survey stated that they would continue to farm and would improve their Farmers that have increased their production and net production methods. These results indicate that the number income through the use of the new maize technologies, of farmers who feel that it is worth-while to make larger have become more optimistic about the future. This change investments in agricultural production increased from 1967 was reflected in the answers given by farmers when questo 1970. tioned in the 1967 and 1970 surveys. 93



PAGE 1

There is at least a 6-month lapse from the time the In early 1973, by presidential decree it was stipulated application for the formation of a credit society is subthat debts contracted by ejidal credit societies between mitted until the Central Office makes a decision. The Bank 1940 and 1965 would be pardoned at the rate of 20 perdoes provide, however, for the provisional establishment of cent for each year that the efidatarios repay new loans on a society under unusual circumstances and at the request of time. Thus, in 5 years, all ejidatarios with debts from that the manager of the Branch Bank. period could liquidate the old loans simply by repaying all After the formation of a credit society has been authornew loans promptly. The presidential decree further speized, the field inspector holds a meeting, in the efido, of all cified that debts contracted between 1966 and 1972 would the ejidatarios who wish to become members and receive be combined into one account and repaid gradually without credit from the Ejidal Bank. At this meeting, the efidatarios interest. The Bank suggested that each indebted ejidatario elect one member of their group, the delegate, to represent apply 10 percent of his harvest each year toward paying off the society in all transactions involved in arranging for his account until it was settled. This new policy for reinstatcredit. Once established, the credit society can function ing members of the credit societies should increase the indefinitely. New members can be accepted on approval of amount of credit granted in 1974 to enable efidatarios to the membership of the society. The Ejidal Bank is fairly use Project recommendations. flexible in its relationships with the society and permits it to continue operating even though there are changes in its Outlook for Greater Credit for Ejidatarios From membership. the Ejidal Bank The procedure followed by the credit society in arrangTaking into account the 90-percent rate of loan repaying for loans from the Ejidal Bank involves several ment since 1971 by efidatarios using Project recommendasteps: (a) during September preceding the cropping seations, it seems likely that the Ejidal Bank will be interested son, the field inspector, with the assistance of the delegate, in expanding its credit operation in the Puebla area. To prepares a list of the credit requirements of each member; accomplish this, however, the Bank must examine a series (b) the Puebla Branch consolidates the requests from the of problems that are believed to limit the effectiveness of several societies, prepares a Plan of Operations, and sends it its credit program, including: (a) eight field inspectors to the Central Office; (c) the Central Office approves all or attended 52 societies with 2,499 efidatarios in 1972, an part of the request and returns it to the Branch Bank; at average of 6.5 societies and 312.4 ejidatarios per field least one month before planting time, the Branch Bank notiinspector. This is felt to be about the maximum number of fies the agencies of the amount of credit approved for their societies and members that can be attended efficiently by areas; (d) the field inspector prepares a final list for each one inspector with present operating procedures. It seems society, showing the credit requested by each member (lastclear, therefore, that more inspectors will be needed or minute changes in members requesting credit is permisoperating procedures must be simplified if the Ejidal Bank sible); (e) the field inspector, assisted by administrative is to expand its credit operation successfully; (b) In 1969 personnel of the Bank, prepares a contract that specifies the and 1970, technical assistance agents of the Project focused amount of credit requested by the society, both for fertheir efforts on groups receiving credit from the Impulsora tilizers and in cash. A new contract is necessary each year de Puebla. Since then, they have tried to work more closely for each type of credit. The ejidatarios, however, do not with the ejidal credit societies. In 1973, for the first time, participate in the preparation and registration of the contechnical assistance agents and bank inspectors began to tracts. This is done by the Bank, which pays the registration hold meetings to coordinate their activities. Both groups fee from a special fund collected from society members for would benefit from strengthening this relationship in the administrative expenses; (f) the field inspector draws up a future to improve their services to the ejidatarios; (c) when multiple promissory note showing the amount of each communicating with Bank administrators, the field inspecmember's loan, the interest, and other deductions; (g) the tors sometimes fail to transmit the nature of problems Bank then sends a delivery order to the delegate-with this influencing the behavior of the ejidatarios. This lack of order, the society members obtain their fertilizers and cash communication results in misunderstandings and strained from the Bank; and (h) each member, on receipt of materirelationships among Bank employees. Recently, for examals or cash, signs the promissory note. In 1972, the average ple, field inspectors were blamed for the failure of many time between the preparation of the final list (step d) and e-ial parcels to qualify for crop insurance. However, there receipt of the delivery order was 28 days. was little the inspectors could do, because the problem In an attempt to make the credit-granting process more arose primarily as a result of unrealistic operating polices of dynamic, the National Ejidal Credit Bank introduced a the crop insurance agency, plus the tendency of some farmseries of administrative reforms in 1973. The central feature ers to encourage rejection (believing the cost of the insurof these reforms is the creation of Control Boards with an ance to be a useless expense). Regular meetings of field assistant bookkeeper and secretaries, to relieve field inspecinspectors and other bank personnel would permit a freer tors of most of their paper work. Its is hoped that this will flow of information and contribute to a smoother functionenable the field inspectors to devote more time to field ing of the institution; (d) in past years there have been an activities. excessive number of changes in administrative personnel 68



PAGE 1

indicates the previously discussed (page 80) reluctance of the farmers in the Puebla area to use high plant populations. TABLE 9.8. Average maize yields* for all farmers in the Perhaps this reluctance is a reflection of the fact that Puebla area and for farmers on credit lists. information received by the farmer is imperfect, or that the farmers adjust the recommendations in terms of their perception of application to their local conditions. All farmers Farmers on in the area credit lists CHANGES IN AVERAGE MAIZE YIELDS Average % change Average % change yield compared yield compared Information on average maize yields in the Puebla area Year kg/ha to 1968 kg/ha to 1968 was available for the years 1967 through 1972. Estimations of yield were made directly in the field from 1968 to 1972, using the method described in Chapter 8. Maize yields also 1967 1330 were estimated for 1967 and 1970 from information col1968 2140 base 3985 base lected from farmers in the surveys, taking into account all 1969 1832 -14.4 2829 -29.0 the parcels on which the interviewed farmers grew maize. 1970 1962** -8.3 2732 -31.4 The average maize yields for all farmers in the area and 1971 1927 -9.9 2679 -32.8 for farmers on credit lists are shown in Table 9.8. Using 1972 2499 -682920 -26.7 1968 as a base, the changes in average yields for the following years were calculated and are shown in the table as *Grain with l49Yomoisture. The value for 1967 was calpercentages. The year 1968 was used as a base, rather thancuaefrmiomtonpvddbyamrsnth 1967, because it was felt that the Puebla Project could notsuvyvaesfrteohrerswecluaedrm haveinfuencd te gnera avragefor196 andbecusefield measurements made just prior to harvest. all estimations of yields were made in the same way begin**The average yield for 1970, calculated from the survey ning in 1968.daawa184k/. The average maize yields for farmers on credits listsdaws184k/. (Table 9.8) varied from 3,985 kg/ha in 1968 to 2,679 kg/ha in 1971. The high average in 1968 can be attributed to very yields in the area, because rainfall conditions were much favorable rainfall conditions, and to the fact that the yields more favorable in 1972 than in 1967. of only 103 carefully selected farmers (who received close In a rainfed area like Puebla, average maize yields in a supervision by the technical assistance agents) entered into given year are determined largely by the climatic conditions the calculation. The average yields of farmers on credit lists that prevail and the production technology that is used. To varied little from 1969 through 1972. estimate the effect of the new technology on average yields The average maize yields for all farmers in the area have in the Puebla area, it is necessary to adjust the average varied from 1,330 kg/ha in 1967 to 2,499 kg/ha in 1972. yields in Table 9.8 by eliminating the effect of climate. Comparing only the average yields for the first and the last Two methods have been used to estimate the percent years, it is seen that the average yield increased by 88 perincrease in average maize yields of all farmers in the area cent. This, however, overestimates the real increase in maize due to use of the production practices recommended by the Average maize yields for the project area were adjusted for the effects of climate using yield data from fertilizer rate experiments conducted each year in the area. The yields of N) plots receiving a uniform treatment in the several experiments conducted each year were averaged, and the variation in these yearly averS ages was assumed to be due to climatic differences. 83



PAGE 1

TABLE 11.5. Benefit-cost ratios for the Puebla Project under alternative labor cost assumption. Alternative Direct benefits only Direct and derived benefits Intangible Benefits 1 2.54 4.03 The Project team contributed to important changes in 2 2.20 3.48 the area in -addition to increases in maize production and 3 2.15 3.37 net income. 4 1.77 2.70 An important intangible benefit derived from the Puebla Project is the progress that has been made in assisting Alternative 1: Excess rural labor in the project area. Labor farmers to organize in groups and resolve problems in a has a zero opportunity cost. collective manner. Many farmers in the area are now aware Alternative 2: Seasonal unemployment except at harvest. of the advantages in working together in arranging for Project recommendations require 5.3 mancredit, transporting fertilizers, and petitioning governmental days per hectare above traditional technoloofficials for changes in the operational procedures of service gy at harvest. Daily wage of hired labor is agencies. $1.28. The technical assistance program of the Project has Alternative 3: No seasonal unemployment. Family labor provided the farmers with a better understanding of the can provide the 12.1 man-days per hectare agricultural service institutions. In 1967, for example, most required by' recommended technology of. the farmers in the Puebla area did not know how to above traditional practices. The opportuarrange for credit from, the official banks. Today, however, nity cost of family labor is half that of many farmers understand the procedures for requesting hired labor or 64 cents per day. short-term credits for fertilizers etc.; some also know how Alternative 4: No seasonal unemployment. The 12.1 manto apply for long-term credit to purchase equipment, days per hectare of additional labor need animals, etc. be covered by hired labor at $1.28 per day. Over the long run, perhaps the most important intangible benefit attributable to the Puebla Project will be the favorable change that has occurred in the farmer's attitude seems to describe best the conditions of the area. toward modern technology and agriculture in general. The present values of derived net benefits in Table 11.2 Successful experience in the use of the new maize techwere summed over years and added to the present value of nology has given the farmers confidence that improved the stream of direct net benefits from Table 11. 1, assuming, technology can be useful to them in other farming enterexcess labor. The benefit-cost ratio thus obtained for the prises, and many have begun to seek new technical informaPuebla Project was 4.03, taking into account both direct tion about other activities, such as irrigation, improvement and derived benefits. The benefit-cost ratios under alterof fruit trees, and vegetable crop production. native assumptions were: Alternative 2, 3.48; Alternative 3, Many subsistence farmers have received another intangi3.37; and Alternative 4, 2.70. Again, Alternative 2, with a ble benefit in the form of greater certainty (because of the benefit-cost ratio of 3.48, seems to be the most plausible. higher yields) that their family will have sufficient maize Table 11.5 summarizes the values obtained. for the entire year. This represents an important contribuAccording to the ratios obtained, investments in goods tion to the general welfare of the subsistence farm family, and services in the Puebla Project during 1967-1973 generquite apart from the economic value of the increase in ated benefits with a value ranging from 2.70 to 4.03 times production. greater than that of the cost. The farmers now also know Additionally, as a result of the action of the Puebla how to arrange for credit and how to use the new techProject, problems in the operation of the credit banks and nology in future years. It can be expected, therefore, that crop insurance company have been identified and studied. benefits due to the Puebla Project will continue to accrue in Operational procedures of these institutions are being years to come: thereby giving a benefit-cost ratio well above changed so that greater use of these services can be made by 4.0 for direct and derived benefits. the farmers in future years. 100



PAGE 1

THE PUELA PROJECT: SEVEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 19688119713 Analysis of a Program to Assist Small Subsistence Farmers to Increase Crop Production in a Rainfed Area of Mexico PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS EXECUTIVE Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Mexico Government of the State of Puebla COORDINATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Graduate College, Chapingo, M6xico, OPERATION (Fertilization Committee of the State of Puebla) Ministry of Agriculture Government of the State of Puebla The national fertilizer company, "Guanos y Fertilizantes" Ministry of Water Resources Department of Agrarian Affairs and Colonization National Agricultural Credit Bank National Ejidal Credit Bank Agricultural Bank of the South League of Agrarian Communities Associationof Small Private Farmers National Agricultural Insurance Agency National Seed Producing Agency National Marketing Agency Fertilizer distributor, "Impulsora de Puebla" Fertilizer distributor, "Agr6nomos Unidos" Fertilizer distributor, "Fertilizantes Olmeca" Fertilizer distributor, "Fertiton de Puebla" I



PAGE 1

TABLE 9.9. An estimation of the increase in average maize yields in the Puebla area due to the use of the recommended production practices, in which the effect of climate is calculated from experimental data. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Average Estimation of the Estimated yields Differences in 91 increase in yield for effect of climate assuming no yield in kg/ha average yields Year all farmer (%/change change due to attributable to attributable to kg/ha compared to new technology** new technology new technology 1968)* kg/ha (a-c) d 10 x 00 1967 1330 1968 2140 2140 0 1969 1832 -18 1755 + 77 4.4 1970 1962 -15 1819 +143 7.9 1971 1927 -21 1691 +236 14.0 1972 2499 -6 2011 +488 24.2 *These percentages were calculated from the average yields obtained in the field experiments with the treatment consisting .of 50 kg/ha of nitrogen, 25 kg/ha of P205 and 30 thousand plants per hectare. 2140+(the value in column b) (2140), where 2140 is the average yield in 1968. Puebla Project. The first of these involves the use of yield The second method for adjusting average yields for the data from the fertilizer rate experiments conducted each effect of climate used the information obtained in the year in the Project area. Data were available from 8 to 12 objective yield measurements of samples of farmers on experiments in each of the years from 1968 to 1972. credit lists. It was assumed that those farmers on credit lists Average yields were calculated for the plots in the several with yields in the upper third of the sample had used the experiments receiving 50 kg/ha N, 25 kg/ha P205, and recommended technology quite adequately, and that this 30,000 plants/ha. (This treatment was used because it level of use of the technology had been reasonably constant produced average yields similar to those for all farmers in over the years. It was further assumed that (for a given the area. Since an interaction can be expected between year, using 1968 as a base) the change, in the average yield production level and climatic effects, it was desirable that for the upper third of farmers on credit lists was a measure the average levels of production of the selected treatment of the relative favorableness of the climate for that year. and all the farmers be similar.) The changes in these average This method was used to estimate the effects of climate yields with respect to 1968 were calculated for the years for the years 1969-1972 with the results shown in column 1969-1972. Shown in column b, Table 9.9, these changes, b, Table 9.10. Data for farmers on credit lists in Zone V expressed as percentages; are estimations of the effect of were not included in this calculation, because the Puebla climate. These percentages were multiplied by the average Project did not begin to promote the use of new technology yield in 1968 to obtain the differences in yield due to in that region until 1970. The estimated combined effects climatic effects. Then, the differences in yield due to cliof climate and use of the new technology (Table 9.8) are mate were added to the average yield in 1968 to obtain the reproduced as percentages in column c, Table 9.10. The average annual yields unaffected by the new technology, as percentage increases in yield with respect to 1968 atshown in column c, Table 9.9. tributable to the use of the recommended practices, shown The differences between the average yields for all farmin column d of Table 9.10, were calculated by subtracting ers and the estimated yields assuming no effect of the new the effect of climate, (column b) from the combined effects technology were considered to be the effects attributable to of climate and technology (column c). The estimated the use of the new technology. These differences are shown increases in yield due to use of the new technology (column as percentages in column e, Table 9.9. f) were calculated by multiplying the percentage increases As shown in Table 9.9, estimated increases in average in column d by the average maize yield in 1968. The averyields of all farmers in the area varied from 4.4 percent in age yields without the new technology were estimated 1969 to 24.2 percent in 1972. This method for adjusting (column g) by subtracting the increases in column f from average yields for the effect of climate has obvious defithe average yields for the area in column e. The increases in ciencies. The number of experiments that provided the data yield due to the new technology, expressed as a percentage for this calculation was too small to sample the area adof the average yields without the technology, are shown in equately. Also, these experiments were not distributed over column h. the Project area so as to give proper weight to the 16 proAccording to this second method of adjusting average ducing systems. yields for the effect of climate, estimated increases in aver84



PAGE 1

Availability of Information maize) had estimated average maize yields using the traditional technology of: 2.05 ton/ha (1.1.1); 2.15 ton/ha In promoting the use of the Project's new recommend(al;and 2.56 ton/ha (3). The estimated average yields ations, the technical assistance agents also told the farmers using the Project recommendations for unlimited capital how to apply them; what they would cost to use; the were 3.80 ton/ha (1.1.1); 3.87 ton/ha (2.1.1); and 3.64 expected increases in production and net income from their ton/ha (3). For the entire Project area, the estimated averuse in good, average, and poor years; and the importance of age yields were 2.05 ton/ha using traditional practices and using each practice at the recommended level. It was as3.13 ton/ha using the Project recommendations for unlimsumed that the farmers (particularly those who provide the ited capital. leadership for the community) would require full knowlThe estimated net incomes from using the traditional edge of the new technology to make accurate appraisals. and Puebla Project technologies, expressed in kg/ha of In examining the extent to which information on the maize, are shown in Table 3.13. The estimated net incomes Project recommendations has been disseminated throughusing the two Project recommendations are larger than, the out the Puebla area, it is important to distinguish beestimated net incomes using the traditional practices in tween: (a) a simple understanding of what the recoineach of the 16 producing systems. For the entire area, the mendations are and (b) full knowledge of how to use them estimated net incomes using the Project recommendations and of the expected returns in terms of increased producwere 51 percent greater for limited capital and 95 percent tion and net income. greater for unlimited capital, as compared to the estimated Relevant data on farmers' knowledge of the recoinnet incomes using the traditional practices. mendations was collected in 1973, in a study of farmers not Another indication of the adequacy of the Project on credit lists in five communities where groups of farmers recommendations is that most farmers, after they have used organized by the Puebla Project had functioned for 3 or 4 the new technology, apparently, continue to use it in the years. Of the 29 farmers interviewed, 26 (90 percent) had following years. This is a reasonable conclusion to draw heard of the maize recommendations of the Puebla Project. from the findings that both the level of use of the recoinOnly 15 (52 percent) of the 29 farmers, however, were mendations and the average maize yield in the area have convinced that the use of the maize recommendations increased at a fairly constant rate during the period would result in higher yields. 1969-1972. Had a significant proportion of the farmers in These data suggest that by 1973 most of the farmers in the area realized lower net incomes because of .inadequacy the Puebla area had heard of the new maize recommendaof the new technology, it seems reasonable that the use of tions. A much smaller percentage, however, perhaps around the recomendations and the average yields would have 50 percent, had received information sufficient to persuade leveled off or declined by 1972. them that the new technology would increase yields. The low level of use of one or more of the three main practices on 75 percent of the parcels in 1972 (Table 9.5) suggests Risk in Using the New Technology that perhaps 25 percent or less of the farmers understood the more complex aspects of the new technology, such as In a rainfed area such as Puebla it can be argued that the the importance of using all of the recommended practices average expected increases in yield and net income from the at the recommended levels. Clearly, the Project recoinuse of the new technology are not as important to the mendations have not been completely understood by the farmer as is the probability that net income using the farmers, thus preventing their full realization of the potenProject recommendations may be less than with the traditial benefits of the new technology. tional practices in some years. It seems reasonable that the major concern of many low-income farmers is to assure an adequate food supply in very unfavorable years; i.e., their Aeucofthe New Technology first concern is in maximizing the probability of covering Adequcy offamily needs in poor years, rather than maximizing average Another interpretation can be made regarding the 48 yields and net income. percent of the farmers in the 1973 survey who were not To the extent that this sort of decision-making occurs, it convinced of\ the usefulness of Project recommendations: can be expected that small farmers will accept or reject the that rather than an indication of the lack of adequate new technology in terms of their perception of how it will information, it could be that the new technology is, in fact, influence their net income in an unfavorable year. Although not superior to the traditional practices. Certainly, lack of the Project did not directly measure farmers' perceptions of adequate technology has been a notable weakness of many the risk involved, in adopting the new technology, some programs seeking to improve agricultural production in appreciation of the importance of such risk can be obtained rainfed areas, from information collected during the 6-year period The adequacy of the maize recommendations of the 1967-1972. Puebla Project was examined in some detail in Chapter 3. As described in Chapter 3, net incomes from the use of Table 3.11 shows that producing systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and several production strategies were calculated from the 3 (which account for 53 percent of the cultivated area in results obtained in 125 fertilizer rate-plant density experi86



PAGE 1

ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF MAIZE YIELDS The components of variance among segments, among parcels, and within parcels were calculated annually, using A major goal of the Puebla Project was to increase the maize yields estimated in the evaluation of yields. There production per unit area of maize; thus, an accurate and were 25 sample segments in 1968, 36 segments in 1969 and continuing measurement of yields was crucial. Maize yields 1970, and 31 segments in 1971 and 1972. The number of could be measured by ,selecting a random sample of fields in locations within a parcel remained constant from year to the area each year, with subsequent harvesting and measuryear. The number of parcels per segment varied as a funcing of grain yields. This method required locating the fields, tion of the magnitudes of the variances calculated for the locating the farmers (who usually lived some distance away previous season. The selection of parcels was made using a in a neighboring village), obtaining permission to harvest the random systematic technique, with probability propornecessary sample area, harvesting in the presence of the tional to size; that is, a 4 ha parcel had four times as much farmer, and returning the grain to the farmer. All of the probability of appearing in the sample as a 1 ha parcel. sample fields had to be harvested within a brief period -After the parcels had been selected, the field was samfrom maturity of the earliest plantings to the beginning of pled as follows. First, a coin was flipped to determine direcharvest by the farmers. These considerations prompted the tion of entry into the field. Then the number of rows was search for a simpler method for estimating maize yields. counted from left to right. Next, using a table of random numbers, the starting row was selected. In this row, 10 out of the first 20 meters were harvested, as shown in Fig. 8. 1. Development of an Indirect Method Then the sampling was moved five rows to the right, profor Estimating Yields gressively, until a total of 50 meters had been harvested. If this procedure carried the sampling to the outer edge of the In 1968, an estimation of maize yields was designed and field, as shown in Fig. 8.1, the procedure was begun again conducted to provide data for developing a simple, indirect, on the opposite edge and the counting of rows was resumed reasonably precise method for estimating yields. In this toward the right. process, the length of ear filled with grain, diameter of the unshucked ear at the base, and weight of grain with 12 percent moisture were determined for each ear in the maize fields included in a random sample. A prediction equation was developed by regressing grain yield-per-ear on the diameter and length of the ear. This prediction equation was used to prepare a table in which ear lengths were listed as row headings, ear diameters as column headings, with grain yields composing the body of the table. A rapid and reasonably accurate estimate of yield can be made with this table, using measurements of lengths and diameters of all ears in a sample area of a maize field. This table has been used since 1969 for making annual estimates of maize yields in the Project area. A detailed 100 M description of the statistical procedures used in developing the regression model is given in an unpublished paper (Heliodoro Diaz C., Delbert T. Myren, and Richard E. Lund, "Estimating Corn Yields in the Puebla Area with a Regression Model Based on Ear'Length and Diameter"). Estimation of Yields of All Farmers in the Area An annual estimation of maize yields was made for two categories of farmers: (a), all farmers in the area and (b) farmers on credit lists. In 1971 and 1972, in addition to estimating yields, information was collected from the farmo ers on the use of technology in the parcels included in the samples. L A three-stage sample was used for estimating average yields of all farmers in the area. In the first stage, the Fg ..Tedarmsostewyi hc h il a segments selected for the 1967 and 1970 surveys were used. Fig.le 8.1. Th diagam o 50mther way iniharte field wasm In the second stage, a random selection of parcels was made sampl0eedrs f totalotin of 5 meters havsec ws.rm within the segments. In the third stage, five locations of 10 sece 20 mesof otosctoson.etrahwr lineal meters each were chosen and distributed as shown in slce sson Fig. 8. 1. 76



PAGE 1

benefits using the INIA and unlimited capital technologies of adoption shown in Table A.2, would represent a saving is $3,078,467. This is the net benefits.attributable to the of 15,774 tons of ammonium sulphate and 69,141 tons of research carried out in generating project recommendations simple superphosphate. This amount of ammonium for maize production. The benefit: cost ratio for the agronsulphate is equal to 53 percent of that needed each year to omnic research on maize practices is 21.84. fertilize the 80,000 ha in the Puebla area, using the limited Beneitsas stiate inTabe A2 fr ulimtedcaptal capital technology. The 69,141. tons of simple superphosdonticudBl h enefits dsetmtenTberived forolmie anoica phate is sufficient to fertilize 1 according to limited capital reso uearch.thA benefits deeqalrimportnich technology all maize plantings in the Puebla area for a deealed informat on meaizeqa rdciorelanshis that period of 11 years. detaledinfrmaton n mizeprodctin rlatinshps hat A further benefit derived from agronomic research has has been produced, Such information has many usqs. At the bentefligocniecenthpatftePrjt present time, for example, there is an energy shortage in staff the repesntai of th fdne service instttons thejc most parts of the world and there are prospects of fertistfare, thatie yesnaives can bhe gereatly incsedios and wthe lizer rationing. The information that has been produced on frenmi benfts toiz teld fangrme. y Tiscniee n wth maize production relationships can be useful in deciding on eooi eeist h amrTi ofdnei h the most efficient way to employ a limited amount of maize technology has undoubtedly contributed signififertilizer in the Puebla area. cantly to a more rapid rate of adoption of Project recoinmendations by the farmers. The limited capital technology is an example of how a Finally, the educational benefits resulting from the scarce resource such as fertilizer can be allocated efagronomic research should be mentioned. The Project staff ficiently. The total adjusted net benefits using the limited that conducted the research and many Latin American capital technology, calculated as described earlier, were agronomists who received training in Puebla, benefited $3,038,683. The difference between this value and the total from their participation in the program. Professionals adj usted net benefits with the INIA technology is trained in Puebla have been responsible for'-agronomic $482,459; this is, the benefit attributable to agronomic research in similar regional programs in Honduras, Colomresearch. If the limited capital technology were the only bia, Peru, and the states of Mexico and Tlaxcala in Mexico. contribution of the research program, the benefit: cost In general, their experience in Puebla has enabled them to ratio would be 3.42. achieve greater efficiency in developing improved techThe use of the limited capital technology instead of the nology, as compared to that realized in the early years in INIA technology over the period 1967-1986, with the rate Puebla. 116



PAGE 1

nology, but risk was also higher. Using R (0) as the criterion ior the aggregated 13 systems (47 percent .of the area) of risk, the unlimited capital technology was riskier than shows a variable cost for the limited capital technology that both the limited capital and the INIA technologies in all was 22 percent less, a net increase in yield that was 8 perinstances, except in system 1.1.1. cent higher and a risk factor that was 24 percent lower For the five individual and aggregated producing sysusing R(0.5) and 72 percent lower using R(0). tems, the unlimited capital technology produced net inAverage net increases in production per unit of cost, creases in yield about twice those obtained with the tradiA M/C, were higher using the limited capital, as co 'mpared tional technology. The risk using unlimited capital techto the traditional technology in four of the five systems. nology was 26 to 76 percent of that using traditional techThis was true in spite of the higher cost of the limited nology with R (0.5), and was 35 to 104 percent of that capital technology. The INIA technology was superior to using traditional technology with R (0). The variable costs the traditional technology in net increase per unit of cost of the unlimited capital technology were 1.39 to 2.41 times only in system 1.1.1. The unlimited capital technology was greater than those of the traditional technology, superior to the traditional technology, using the net in-, Net increases in yield using the limited capital techcrease per unit of cost as a measure of efficiency, in 76 nology and the INIA technology were equal for systems percent of the area (system 3 and the combined 13 sys1. 1.1 and 2. 1. 1. The risk using the two technologies was the tems) same in system 2.1.1, but was higher by 42 percent when The "adequacy indices" in Table 3.14 provide additional using R (0.5) and by 91 percent when using R (0), for the criteria for comparing the four technologies. Index Ia limited capital technology in system 1.1.1 (13 percent of provides a measure of the relative net increase in yield per the area). Variable cost of the limited capital technology unit of risk for R (0.5), and lb provides a similar measure was 27 percent lower than that of the INIA technology in for R (0), using traditional technology as a base. According the same system. Compared to the INIA technology in to Index Ia, the unlimited capital technology in system system 3 (29 percent of the area), the limited capital tech1.1.1 is eight times better than the traditional technology. nology had a. variable cost that was 27 percent less, a net Indices [a and lb, however, do not take into account the increase in yield 11 percent higher, and a lower risk factor differences in variable costs associated with distinct techthat was less by 7 percent using R (0.5), and less by 4 nologies. Indices Ila and Ilb do incorporate this concept, percent using R (0). The same comparison of technologies and, for system 1.1.1, Index Ila shows that the relative net TABLE 3.15. Comparison of four technologies, assuming that each was used in the production of 80,000 hectares of maize. Limited Unlimited Traditional IN IA capital capital Average yield (ton/ha) 2.05 2.67 2.54 3.19 Total production of grain (tons) 164 211 213 311 203 366 254 844 Average net increase (ton/ha of grain)* 0.74 1.05 1.12 1.44 Total net increase in grain (tons) 59 204 84 244 89 769 114 821 Total net increase in stover (tons)"* 75 457 93 119 86 270 109 245 Value of net increase, A P + $3,666,928 $5,138,048 $5,402,432 $6,903,960 Fertilizers used: Ammonium sulphate (tons) 20 000 32 000 29 823 43 003 Simple superphosphate (tons) 9 756 15 609 6 067 12 775 Potassium chloride (tons) 1 333 0 0 0 Total cost of fertilizers, F+ + $2,353,584 $3,550,704 $2,787,552 $4,267,176 A P/F ratio 1.56 1.45 1.94 1.62 *The increase is the commercial yield, less the check yield, less the variable costs expressed in ton/ha of grain. The average net increase is weighted according to the area in each producing system. **Net increase in stover is the yield with a given technology, less the check yield. + Value of the grain in the field was $54.80/ton; value of stover in the field was $5.60/ton. These are market prices less costs associated with harvesting and marketing. ++ The cost of fertilizer was the market price plus costs of transport, application, interest on loan, and crop insurance. 36



PAGE 1

with ecological conditions similar to the Project area. national fertilizer agency, Guanos y Fertilizantes, introVarietal testing continued and became a part of the agronduced the idea of finding a way to enable small, traditional omic research program. farmers to use agua ammonia. The agency provided the Results obtained in preliminary studies of the maize-pole agua ammonia, a source of phosphorus, applicators, credit, bean association in 1970 and 1971 indicated that net and technical assistance. The Project technical assistance income might be greater with the combination of crops agents informed the farmers of the availability of credit for than with either maize or bush beans alone. Research was these fertilizers and assisted interested farmers in organizing intensified on management practices for this association, to and in arranging for and applying the materials." develop recommendations for its use. During the second half of 1973, the technical assistance The effort to achieve a closer coordination of the activiagents, after months of discussions about how to work more ties of the farmers, agricultural institutions, and Project effectively with farmer organizations, began to work more staff in previous years had disclosed problems that required intensively with selected groups. A series of meetings was changes in the operating procedures of institutions. At held in which the farmers and the technical assistance agent times, through a careful exposition of the problem to the explored operations that could increase net income of the indicated institution, it had been possible to reach a satfarmers. From these discussions, it could usually be agreed isfactory solution. In other cases, however, little or no that one activity should be given priority. A committee was progress had been made. It became clear from these experielected by the farmers to study how to proceed on the ences that a more detailed study was needed of the operatpriority undertaking. The technical assistance agent proing procedures of the agricultural institutions and of the vided information and guidance to these groups, but rereasons farmers have difficulty in using their services. Such sponsibiity for group action remained with the farmers. aother iras ingde concr n of hePrjet taf asho A second seminar on rural development, with financial Anoherinceasng oncrn f te Pojet saffwashow support from IDRC, was held at Chapingo, Mexico, in to develop the capacity of the farmer organizations to September 1973. The staff and advisors of the Puebla participate more actively in seeking solutions to their Project participated in the organization of the seminar and production problems. In mid-1972, arrangements were intecfrnesadwkssio, made to contract the services of a sociologist with years of In er17,the of rene n okc sssion disregnt experience with farmer organizations, who would provide Inploearl 1973, plthealProject staf andsat advior bealt techica assstace o th Prjec staf i serchig fr a governmen ts, means for continuing the Puebla Project after more effective way of working with the farmer groups. .CIMMYT had terminated its participation. Discussions and CIMMYT decided in early 1972 to terminatc its particstudy at several levels proceeded during the year, and ipation in the Puebla Project at the end of 1973. The shortly before the end of 1973, the Ministry of Agriculture Project had begun in 1967 as an experiment to learn .how to decided to continue the Project as an activity of the rapidly increase maize production among small, low-income Graduate College at Chapingo. Present expectations are that farmers. As the Project evolved, however, it became clear the Project will become a part of a new national program to that the Project's objectives would shift to more efficient ices giutrlpouto nrifdaeso h strategies for increasing production, net income, and the ionraearcluayrdcio.nrifdaeso h general welfare of small farmers in rainfed areas. CIMMYT cuty felt that its mandate was not broad enough to encompass all the activities that clearly should be incorporated in so extensive an undertaking. This position was made known to the Governor of Puebla and the Secretary of Agriculture, making clear CIMMYT's reasons for withdrawing support, as well as the conviction that the Project should continue. A seminar on rural development was held in Bogota, Colombia, in Sept~mber 1972, with the participation of representatives of the Puebla Project and similar programs in Colombia, Honduras, Peru, and Mexico. The Interna-tional Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada took the initiative in organizing the seminar and provided financial support. The Sixth Annual Meeting was held in Puebla in March 1973. Project Operations: 1973 The program of technical assistance to farmers was, broadened in 1973 to include promotion of the use of: (a) a new technology for the maize-pole bean association, and (b) agua ammonia as a source of nitrogen for maize. The 15



PAGE 1

The program to promote farmer use of the new maize technology was initiated in 4. 1968, with 103 farmers participating with 141 high-yield plots. Eighty percent of these farmers were provided credit by a fertilizer distributor and an official bank. Here farmers are seen signing loan agreements. The traditional planting rate for maize required a full ment, printed circulars, and posters. Attendance ranged step distance between hills; however, the new planting rate from 11 to 75 farmers. was demonstrated in terms of a distance between hills of The demonstration consisted of three parts: (a) the about one-half step. The higher population required learntechnical assistance agent's explanation of the Puebla ing a new rhythm of planting -inserting the shovel, opening Project, (b) the cooperating farmer's report of the practices and covering twice as many holes per hectare. used in the high-yield plot, and (c) open discussion led by To assure an optimum population density, the farmers, the farmer and technician. An interesting aspect of the at first, were taught to overplant and then thin to the discussion was the obviously greater self-confidence felt by desired 50,000 plants/ha. In this way, the population could the visiting farmers when raising questions and making combe assured in spite of soil insects, inadequate germination, ments to the farmer-demonstrator. and other factors. However, the fertilizer applied at plantTwo regional demonstrations also were held just before ing time caused vigorous early growth. When told that it harvest at strategic locations where both a high-yield plot was time to thin the plants, the farmers frequently replied: and an experiment could be seen. Farmers with high-yield "Here I have one of the most beautiful plantings of maize plots in each locality were asked to organize the event. In that I have ever grown, and you want me to pull out some meetings with these farmers to plan the demonstration, two of the plants." To them, pulling of the superfluous plants aspects were noted: (a) the farmers lacked confidence in was a destructive act. As a result, before the planting season their ability to plan and carry out a demonstration, and (b) was far advanced, it was decided to reduce the planting rate they thought that no one would attend. They felt that the and eliminate the thinning operation. technical assistance agents should make the decisions. The The technicians kept in contact with the high-yield plots technicians, however, encouraged the farmers and insisted throughout the growing season. As the plantings were that the farmers handle the arrangements. completed, attention was given to weed control, and where The organizational approach which evolved was to name necessary, to control of the rose chafer. Demonstrations for a committee of the most enthusiastic farmers with the neighboring farmers were held at the second cultivation formal title: Committee for Organizing the Agricultural when the second fertilizer application was made. The Field Day. The committee took charge of: (a) inviting the visiting farmers learned which fertilizer to apply, and how authorities, both of the federal and state governments, (b) much, as well as how to keep fertilizer out of the bud to inviting the neighbors, (c) naming a person to receive each avoid damaging plants. of the groups as they arrived from the different communities, and (d) naming members to look after the smooth Result Demonstrations functioning of the demonstration to assure that there would be an atmosphere of hospitality. Local demonstrations were held just prior to harvest at The technical assistance agents invited farmers from 15 of the high-yield plots, and neighbors and farmers from other parts of the Project area, using personal contact, a adjoining communities were invited via local sound equipposter, a printed circular, plus personal invitations to all farm47



PAGE 1

SOME PUBLICATIONS ON THE PUEBLA PROJECT A. Theses -Plan Puebla, Tesis de Maestria, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo 1 .Avila Dorantes, Jos6 Antonio. Evaluaci6n de Factores M6xico, 1972. que Actfian conto Restricciones en la Aplicaci6n de las Recomendaciones del Plan Puebla. Tesis de 12. Geymonat F61ix, Oscar R. Factors Asociados al Maestria, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional Liderazgo de Opini6n en dos Grupos de Campesinos. de Agriculture, Chapingo, M6xico, 1973. Tesis de Maestria, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela National de Agricultura, Chapingo, M6xico, 1973. 2. Blanco, Luis Martin. Funci6n de la Informaci6n y Algunos Factores Sico-sociales Asociados con el uso 13. Guerra Martinez, Jos6 de Jesfis. El Rastrojo de de Innovaciones Agrfcolas. Tesis de Maestria, ColeMafz y su Utlizaci6n como Subproducto en un gio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, M6xico, 1973. Program Regional de Alta Producci6n de Maiz. Tesis de Ing. Agr., Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, 3. Cano Gallego, Jairo. Un Sistema de Informaci6n Chapingo, M6xico, 1972.. para Elevarla Productividad Agricola: Conceptualizaci6n y AnAlisis Beneficio:Costo del Plan Puebla. 14. Jeddlica, Allen Dean. Technology Transfer at the Tesis de Maestrfa, Colegio, de Postgraduados, Escuela Village Level: A Study of Communication, Between National de Agricultura, Chapingo, M6xico, 1971. Agricultural R & D Sources and Peasant Users of Agricultural Technology. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern 4. Castro Garcia, N6stor. AIgunos Factores DeteffninanUniversity, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Evanston tes de la Coordinaci6n en Proyectos de Desarrollo Illionis, January, 1973. Agricola Regional: una metodologia para el andlisis estadistico de la coordinaci6n en un sistema social. 15. L6pez Genes, Marceliano. Esquemas de Seguro Tesis de Maestria. Colegio de Postgraduados, EscueUsados por los Agricultores de Coyotzingo, Puebla. la National de Agricultura, Chapingo, M6xico. 1974. Tesis de Maestrfa, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela National' de Agricultura, Chapingo, M6xico, 1970. 5. Diaz Cisneros, Heliodoro. An Institutional Analysis of a Rural Development Project: The case of the 16. Martin del Campo, Antonio. La Capacidad del AgriPuebla Project in Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, University of cultor para Adoptar Tecnologfa: Un caso de studio Wisconsin, 1974. con productores de maiz de temporal en el irea del Plan Puebla. Tesis de Maestria, Colegio de Post6. Diaz Hernindez, Mois6s. La Toma de Decisiones graduados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapincon el Empleo de Nueva Tectiologia. y su Efecto go, M6xico, 1972. Sobre los Rendimientos Unitarios de Maiz de Temporal. Un studio de a1gunos factors sociosicol6gi17. Moscardi, Edgardo. Riesgo y Transferencia de cos y ffsicos que intervienen en el process, en una Tecnologfa: studio para el caso del Plan Puebla ,comunidad del Plan, Puebla. Tesis de Maestria, ColeTesis de Maestria, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela gio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional de AgricultuNacional de Agricultura, Chapingo, M6xico, 1972. ra,.Chapingo, M6xico, 1971. 18. Novoa Borrero, Andr6s Ricardo. Sistemas de Comuni7. Diaz Hemindez, Mois6s. Validez de los Dittos Agrocaci6n e Interacci6n entre T6cnicos y Agricultores: pecuarios Obtenidos por Encuesta. Tesis de Ing. un studio en el Plan Puebla. Tesis de Maestria, Agr., Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional de AgriM6xico, 1972. culture Chapingo, M6xico, 1972. 8. Diaz Guti6rrez, Romin. Algimos Pfoblemas de la 19. Peters, Jeffrey. The Objective Strategies and Tactics Comercializaci6n del Maiz en San Lucas el Grande, of Integrated Communications System of Change Municipio El Verde, Estado de Puebla. Tesis de in Rural Development. A field research paper. Licenciatura eff Economfa. Escuela de Economia, Dept. of Education, University of The Americas, Universidad Aut6noma de Puebla. Puebla, Pue. 1972. Cholla, Puebla, M6xico, 1973. 9. Diaz Vargas, H6ctor. Una Estrategia para Mejorar la 20. Puente Berumen, Jesfis Armando. Fertilizer Element Eficiencia del Grupo T6cnico en Proyectos de DesarroRates, Soil Properties and Environmental Conditions Ho Agricola. Tesis de Maestria, Colegio de PostgraAffecting Corn Yield in Puebla, M6xic.o. Ph.D. duados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo, Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 1969. M6xico, 1974. 21. Romin Caballero, Margarita. Model de Distribuci6n '10. Flor Montoya, Carlos Arturo. Enfoques Metodol6gide la Cosecha de Maiz en Distintos Niveles de Produccos para la Toma de Decisiones en Agricultura de Temci6n. Tesis de Maestria. Escuela de Antropologia, poral: la aplicaci6n de models de teoria. de juegos, el Universidad Iberoamericana, Mdxico, 1968. model de Bayes y la programaci6n lineal en una zona del Plan Puebla. Tesis de Maestrfa, Colegio de Post22. Tello Diago, Rodrigo. AIgunos Factores Determinangraduados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo tes de la Adopci6n de Tectiologia Agricola. Tesis M6xico, 197i. de Maestria, Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo, M6xico, 1974. 11. 'Forero Rubio, Gustavo Adolfo. La Funci6n de los Grupos Rurales en un Programa de Asikencia Tdcnica



PAGE 1

TABLE 10.3. Labor requirements for growing one hectare multiplied by 12.1 man-days (the increase in labor requireof maize using traditional and recommended practices. ments per hectare in using the new technology) the resultant is 9.0 man-days, or the approximate labor increase-per farm family due to use of the recommendations. That is, Planting using each farm family on the average increased the number of recommendations Traditional of the days spent in growing maize from 85.3 in 1967 to 94.3 in planting Puebla Project. 1972, or by 11 percent. Activity man-days man-days These increases in employment, although important, are Land preparation in fall relatively small compared with the level of seasonal unemPlowing 3.0 3.0 ployment in the Project area. Clearly, it is important to Smoothing 0.4 0.4 promote other activities in the area that will complement Second land preparation the effect of the improved maize technology in increasing Plowing 3.2 3 2 the level of employment during those periods of the year Smoothing 0.4 0.4 when labor requirements for farming are not high. Third land preparation Plowing 1.8 1.8 Smoothing 0.3 0.3 OTHER CHANGES THAT INFLUENCE Planting THE GENERAL WELFARE Rowing out 1.7 1.7 Planting 2.6 4.2 As noted previously in this report, the Project planners Fertilizing -1.8 expected that higher family incomes would lead to imFirst cultivation provements in the general welfare of the farmers. The folCultivating 1.7 1.7 Fertilizing 0.8 -lowing data provide a description of changes in food conUncovering plants 2.1 2.5 sumption and improvements in the home between 1967 Second cultivation and 1970. Cultivating 1.8 1.8 Family welfare can also be influenced by many other Fertilizing 0.4 2.4 factors, including the availability of public services such as Straightening plants 1.8 1.8 potable water, electricity, schools and health centers; such Harvest availability can be affected by action by the farmers on the Cutting the stalks 2.0 3.3 Shocking the stalks 1.6 2.2 institutions that provide these services. Information on Shucking the ears 8.6 12.0 changes in the availability of these services is presented Shelling the grain 6.4 8.2 here with no attempt to assess how such changes were Total 40.6 52.7 brought about. These differences in the labor requirements between the traditional and new technology can be used to estimate the change in the average level of employment in maize production per farm family that can be attributed to the adoption of the recommended practices from 1967 to 1972. An ilk. assumption can be made that the labor requirements for traditional plantings of maize shown in Table 10.3 represent the average level of employment per hectare in maize production in 1967. It can also be assumed that the new technology was used in 35 percent of the area planted to 6 maize in 1972 .The average area that each farmer planted in maize was approximately 2.1 ha in 1972. Multiplying this value by 35 percent gives 0.74 ha, the average area in which farmers used the recommended practices. When this area is 6. As discussed in Chapter 9, the several recommended According to the 1967 survey, 44 %of the farm families production practices have been adopted at different rates, lived in houses with only one room besides the kitchen. By and there is no way to quantify precisely the level of adop1971, thirteen percent of the farmers had added another tion of the new technology. room to their houses. 91



PAGE 1

PROJECT PROGRAM: 1971 In 1971, the technical assistance program continued to promote greater use of Project recommendations by the farmers, to instruct the farmers in the correct use of the new technology, to assist organized groups in arranging for PROJECT PROGRAM: 1970 credit and fertilizers, and to provide information on a variety of subjects of interest to, the farmers. Project recomThe technical assistance program was expanded in 1970 mendations were available in 1971 not only for maize, but to encompass the entire Project area, A fifth technical also for bush beans and alternative crops for maize (in years assistance agent was assigned the responsibility for Zone V, when plantings are delayed until late June or early July). the eastern part of the area. A total of 192 meetings were held in 91 villages with The first 3 months of 1970 were devoted to an intensive 3,686 farmers in attendance in 1971. Movies were projected campaign to increase the number of farmers using Project for 1,576 farmers in 60 villages. Ninety-three demonstrarecommendations, Meetings were held in the villages tions of planting techniques were held in 75 communities, throughout the area to explain Project recommendations with 1,389 farmers participating. Interchanges among and show the results obtained in previous years by farmers groups of farmers were arranged in two communities. Radio using the new technology. Again the Project-produced film, programs were broadcast each Sunday morning at 7:30 "Would You, Like to Increase Your Maize Harvest? ", was from March through December. very useful in this promotional effort and was projected in During 1971, the farmers continued to bring pressure on 116 communities with an attendance of 9,9.00 farmers. the technical assistance agents to assist them with a variety The farmers were encouraged to form new groups and to of production activities. These requests were communicated increase the membership of groups already functioning. to the other members of the Project team. Most of the Groups with very large membership were urged to divide requests, however, required resources and expertise not into smaller groups, to simplify administration and allow available in the Puebla Project, which was funded primarily more farmers an opportunity to participate in a leadership to increase maize production. Thus, the technical assistance capacity. Operating procedures of the different credit agents began to search for ways to mobilize resources from agencies were explained to the groups and they were asoutside the Puebla Project for use in responding to the sisted in presenting their requests for credit and in complyfarmers' requests. ing with the requisites of the agencies. As a result of this work, short courses on the manageDuring the maize planting and vegetative development ment of fruit orchards were organized and were attended periods, the technical assistance agents concentrated on by about 1,000 farmers in six communities. These courses helping the farmers to use the new technology correctly. As were presented by specialists in fruit culture, employed by in previous years, demonstrations were held at planting the Mexican state and federal governments. Specialists of time and field inspections of high-yield plots were made the National Extension Service also participated in demonduring the early part of the growing season. During the strations held at four locations to show how small trench summer, there were eight interchanges among groups of silos are used to preserve maize stover in the form of silage. farmers, with 610 farmers from 62 communities participating. PROJECT PROGRAM: 1972 Farmer meetings continued to be held throughout the year to provide information on crop production practices, As in past years, the technical assistance program fothe organization of groups, the operating procedures of cused primary, attention on increasing the efficient use of service agencies, etc. Approximately 500 farmers were asProject recommendations. A total of 382 meetings were sisted in attending a field day at the Chapingo research held in 107 villages, attended by 7,875 farmers. There were center of the National Agricultural Research Institute. 187 demonstrations of the planting techniques and the Regional demonstrations were held in Zones II, III, IV, and second application of nitrogen in 86 communities, with V just prior to the maize harvest, with an attendance of 3,121 farmers participating. Eight regional demonstrations 1,300 farmers. were held just prior to the maize harvest, with a total By early 1970, the technical assistance agents were attendance of 771. beginning to receive requests from the farmers for informaThe technical assistance agentscontinued to assist farmtion and guidance in improving their production practices ers with other activities whenever possible. Farmers in 58 for crops other than maize, particularly from farmers who villages were assisted in constructing 119 trench silos for had used Project recommendations the previous season. the preservation of about 1,280 tons of stover. Farmers in One of the first requests was for recommendations for the Zones I and II were given help in arranging for 3,600 fruit production of beans. This request was transmitted to the trees and establishing 12 ha of orchards. Women in a few rest of the Project team and research on bean production villages were aided in acquiring sewing machines and organwas initiated by Project technicians during the 1970 season. izing sewing centers. 51



PAGE 1

are shown in Table 3.10. Variable costs were calculated on small or the distribution among years was inadequate. As a the assumption that the farming operation was a mixed group, however, the 13 systems were sampled quite satisfacenterprise. Hired labor was included as a cost, but labor by torily. The four production technologies are compared here family members was not included. For the calculations-in for producing systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3; the combined 13 Table 3.10, it was assumed that hired labor included: onesystems; and the entire Project area. third of the labor at planting and the first fertilization; Net increases in maize yields, A M, were calculated for one-half of the labor at the second cultivation and second the different technologies and producing systems according fertilization; three-fourths of the labor at harvest time; and to the formula: one-third of the labor for shelling. The expense of this labor was included as a variable cost. AM =,YC -T Several aspects of the unlimited capital technologies shown in Table 3.10 may be noted: (a) the recommended where Y is the estimated commercial yield, C is the variable rates of nitrogen vary from 0 to 150 kg/ha with an average cost associated with a given technology above the cost of of 108 kg/ha, weighted according to the area planted to the check expressed in ton/ha maize and T is the yield of maize (Table 3.11). The zero value corresponds to maize the check treatment (no fertilizer, 30,000 plants/ha). As planted immediately after turning under alfalfa stubble, in shown in Table 3.13, estimated average net increases using soils with a high water table. The 150 kg/ha value is for the traditional, INIA, limited capital, and unlimited capital maize plantings in both irrigated soils and soils with a high technologies were 0.74, 1.05, 1.12, and 1.44 tons/ha of water table, where one or more years have elapsed since the maize, respectively. incorporation of alfalfa stubble; (b) the recommended rates of phosphorus vary from 0 to 60 kg/ha P205, with a weighted average of 32 kg/ha; (c) the recommended plant densities vary from 30,000 to 60,000 plants/ha, with a weighted average of 48,530 plants/ha; and (d) the variable costs of these production formulas vary from 0.02 to 1.46 tons/ha of maize, with a weighted average of ,0.98 ton/ha. tAe 3.10. e producngstete ith The ariblecoss ofthelimtedcapial echoloies their costs, recommended for 16 producing systems in the The variable costs of the limited capital technologies Poetae ic 92 vary from 0.02 to 0.92 ton/ha of maize, with a weighted Project area since 1972. average of 0.64 ton/ha. The variable costs of the traditional and INIA technologies are 0.54 and 0.82 ton/ha of maize, Recommended Cost of the technology** in respectively, technology for: tons of maize in the field Producing Limited Unlimited Limited Unlimited Three assumptions were made in comparing the limited system capital capital capital capital capital and unlimited capital technologies of the Project with the traditional and INIA technologies: (a) the aver1.1.1 800-40,000 130-40-50,000 0.60 1.19 1.1.2 60-20-30,000 100-40-40,000 0.55 0.96 ages of the experimental yields obtained from 1967 1.2 80-040,000 130-60-50,000 0.82 1.30 through 1972 are reasonable approximations of the average 2.1.1 80-40-40,000 130-60-50,000 0.82 1.30 yields that will be obtained in the future; (b) experimental 2.1.2 60-20-30,000 100-50-50,000 0.55 1.03 yields, when reduced by 20 percent, are reasonable approxi2.2 8040-40,000 130-60-50,000 0.82 1.30 3 800-40,000 1000.50,000 0.60 0.75 mations to commercial yields; and (c) the areas planted to 4 800-40,000 1000-50,000 0.60 0.75 maize,,costs of inputs and prices of grain and stover will not 5.1.1 80-30-40,000 130-50-50,000 0.76 1.25 soon change appreciably. 5.1.2 80-30-40,000 110-50-50,000 0.86 1.10 The basic data for comparing technologies were prod5.1.3 6020-30,000 '80-40-40,000 0.55 0.82 6.1.1 80-30-40,000 110-50-50,000 0.76 110 uced in 125 field experiments, which included fertilization, 6.1.2 60-20-30,000 80-40-40,000 0.55 0.90 plant density, and date of planting variables, conducted on 6.1.3 60-20-30,000 60-20-30,000 0.55 0.55 farmers' fields from 1967 to 1972. These experiments 7.1 00-60,000 00-60,000 0.02 0.02 sampled, with varying degrees of intensity, the 16 produc7.2 10030-50,000 150-60-60,000 0.92 1.46 ing systems -listed in Table 3.9. The areas plants to maize in each of these systems were estimated from survey data and the soils map shown in Figure 1.2. The number of experiThe three values refer to kilograms per hectare of nitrogen, kilograms ments conducted in each producing system, areas planted in per hectare of P205 (phosphorus) and plants per hectare, respectively. maize, and average commercial yields estimated for the four This is the total cost of fertilizer (price, transport, application, insurtechnologies are shown in Table 3.11. ance, interest) expressed in terms of grain, after costs of harvesting, shelling, sacking, and transport have been discounted. The cost of the Table 3.12 shows the distribution of the 125 experitraditional and INIA technologies are equivalent to 0.54 and 0.82 tons ments among years and among five producing systems. The of grain, respectively. If these values and the values in the table are three largest systems (1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3) were sampled multiplied by $54.80, the costs of the technologies in U.S. dollars are quite adequately in each of the six years. The remaining 13 obtained. This value for maize in the field is based on a price of U.S.. $72 per ton for maize with 14% moisture, placed at a warehouse of the systems, taken individually, were much less adequately National Marketing Agency. sampled, either because the number of experiments was + Weighted according to the areas planted to maize (See Table 3.11). 32



PAGE 1

TABLE 4.1. Relative yields, days to flowering (50%of CIMMYT opaques, and three normal hybrids. The opaque-2 tassels showing), and lodging percentages of selected maize composite of the Project produced 4 percent more opaque varieties and hybrids studied in the area of the Puebla Projgrain than the best INIA material and 16 percent more than ect. the best CIMMYT material. However, it still yielded well below the hybrids with normal grain (85 percent of H-129 '2 .1 and 70 percent of H-131). -, a c Material Evaluation of Materials H-28 84 228 100.0 95 4 A total of 163 varietal trials was done in the Project area Colorado Salvatori 26 88 97.5 91 10 during the period 1967-1972. These trials included farmers' Rojo Salvatori 45 96 85.4 87 7 varieties from the Puebla area and similar regions; improved Pinto Salvatori 84 228 103.2 97 13 varieties and hybrids; and experimental materials from H-129 82 224 102.6 106 7 H-129 (before Apr. 21) 30 78 106.9 -CIMMYT, INIA, the Graduate College at Chapingo, and the H-129 (after Apr. 20) 52 146 100.0 --breeding program of the Puebla Project. Separate trials were H-127 27 92 93.1 101 4 conducted for late materials, early materials, and opaques. H-125 23 84 102.2 102 4 These trials were conducted at population and fertilization H-131 19 56 119.5 106 7 CDC 358 1'4 40 112.7 102 12 levels similar to the unlimited capital recommendations of CDC 275 14 40 108.7 100 13 the Project. CDC 246 14 40 110.6 95 9 The relative yields of 21 of the most outstanding mateCDC 205 14 40 101.7 101 17 rials are shown in Table 4.1, along with days to flowering CDC 113 14 40 114.1 97 9 Comp A x Comp B 28 86 102.4 100 13 and lodging percentages. Pinto Salvatori is an outstanding H-28 x Pue gpo 44-309 15 44 105.0 97 5 native variety and should be used more widely in the area. H-28 x Colorado -292 15 44 102.2 89 6 In yielding ability it compares favorably with H-129 and H-28 x Colorado -257 15 44 -0-7.2 92 6 H-125 and is superior to H-28 and H-127. A recently reH-28 x Colorado -276 15 44 102.2 91 3 H-28 x Pue gpo 44333 15 44 105.1 90 3 leased INIA hybrid, H-131, is the highest-yielding material Comp IT SMP 12 36 103.2 100 13 studied, outyielding Pinto Salvatori and H-129 by about 16 Comp 1500 35 92 97.2 100 15 percent. It should be recommended for March and April Local variety 24 1 64 90.3 92 12 plantings in the Project area. The varietal evaluations summarized in Table 4.1 include Average yield expressed as a percentage of H-28 (average yield of H-28 at 84 sites = 5.47 ton/ha of grain with 14 % moisture). as s sampl of locA veties olythe eigh collete the spring of 1967). A second collection of native varieties was made in the winter of 1970-1971, including 216 from Puebla, 20 from Tlaxcala, 9 from Hidalgo, and 4 from Veracruz. These were divided into early and late materials and included in evaluation trials in 1971 and 1972. In Table 4.2, the average yields and days to flowering of 20 of the best late native varieties are compared with Pinto Salvatori, H-129, and H-131. Pinto Salvatori and H-131 Mass selection with the opaque-2 composite was realized outyielded all the native varieties. On the other hand, the at one location in each of the years from 1968 to 1971. native varieties outyielded H-129. These findings indicate Mass selection with the late composite was carried out at 22 that many of the native varieties in Puebla compare favorasites during the years 1968-1972, an average of 4.4 sites/ bly in yielding ability to the best improved materials year. CIMMYT decided in 1972 to, discontinue the 'mass presently available. (It should be remembered that when a selection work, as well as other breeding activities. This local variety and a hybrid yield almost equally and are decision was based on the assumption that maize breeding similar in other respects, the local variety is preferred activities could not be conducted successfully on farmers' because of the expense and other problems associated with fields. the production and distribution of hybrid seed.) The late composite was included in varietal trials in In Table 4.3, the average yields and days to flowering of 1970, 1971, and 1972; average yields of the late composite 18 of the best early native varieties are compared with the in 1972 before mass selection and after the fourth cycle hybrids H-35E, H-30, and H-28. The materials are arranged were 6.14 and 6.38 tons/ha, respectively. Apparently, four in order of earliness to facilitate the comparison of varieties cycles of selection produced little or no improvement in the with similar growing seasons. Both H-30 and the experimenlate composite. Also, as seen in Table 4.1, the late comtal hybrid, H-35E, outyielded all native varieties that had a posite, Comp IT SMP, yields the same as Pinto Salvatori, is similar number of days'to flowering. H-30 flowered five slightly later, and has the same tendency to lodge., days earlier than H-28 and should be useful for May and In 1972, the opaque-2 composite, after four cycles of early June plantings. H-35E flowered a week before H-30 selection, was compared with seven INIA opaques, three and might be suitable for mid-June plantings. 41



PAGE 1

38



PAGE 1

Field demonstrations of technology: new practices Developing group capability: leaders of the groups demonstrated to the farmers directly in the field. were encouraged to accept responsibility as rapidly Demonstrations were held at planting time and at as possible for all activities of the groups, including the second application of nitrogen. A group of transactions with the credit banks. The technician farmers met in a field farmed by a group member; continued to provide the groups with information the technician demonstrated the new way to plant, and ideas, but the decision-making was done by the fertilize, etc.; and all farmers then participated in groups. The Puebla Project experiences indicate that the operation. Demonstrations were particularly this effort by the technical team to. develop the useful in convincing farmers to use the technology capability of the groups needs to be strengthened, It correctly. is clearly necessary to plan and carry out a systemInterchange offarmer groups: farmers of one village atic training program for the farmers, particularly invited farmers from other villages to visit their the group leaders, that will assist them in obtaining plantings during the crop growing season. Farmers the knowledge and skills they need in resolving their from the different villages exchanged experiences common problems more effectively. about maize production and other farming and (c) Farmers would be assisted in resolving other pronon-farming activities. The technician accompanied blems that prevent them from using effectively the the farmers on a walking tour of several adjoining crop recommendations. Such problems may arise fields. Deficiencies and favorable aspects of each due to dissatisfaction with the requirements of the planting were pointed out and discussed. These credit banks, the operating procedures of the crop group interchanges contributed to A better underinsurance agency, the way their farmer organization standing of maize production and also generated is functioning, etc. These problems can often be discussion about many other activities. eliminated, if fully understood and properly presField demonstrations at harvest: included local ented to the people with authority to resolve them. demonstrations (attended by farmers from a few The Puebla technical assistance agents were in daily villages) and regional demonstrations (attended by contact with the farmers, learning about their farmers from the entire Project area). The effects of needs, limitations, and problems. This information, different combinations of production practices on collected from farmers in many villages, was transyield were demonstrated, along with costs and emitted back to the other members of the Project returns obtainable from different technologies. The team. The team studied the information and defarmer owning the demonstration field assisted in cided what action to take. Usually it was necessary presenting the results. to collect additional information from farmers, (b) Farmers would be assisted in arranging for the inputs services agencies, or both before deciding on a needed to use the new technology. Many farmers course of action. The Project coordinator would can purchase seed, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. with then take the initiative in promoting the necessary their own money, or they can obtain funds from a action for bringing about change. lending agency. Others, however, are able to use technology involving expensive inputs only if credit Evaluations is made available, Technicians in the Puebla Project assisted in arranging for credit and fertilizers by: The specific respond sibility for identifying problems and Organization of farmers into groups: individual suggesting solutions is assigned to one member of the small farmers normally can not qualify for credit Project team, the evaluator. He takes the leadership in from a public or private bank. However, a properly synthesizing the information that flows from the farmers organized group of small farmers can qualify. Thus, through the technical assistance agents to the team. This in addition to promoting the new technology, techleads to the identification of questions, often with respect nicians encouraged farmers who needed credit to to both farmers and institutions, that need further study organize into groups, Information was provided and clarification. The evaluator plans and conducts studies about organizational requirements to obtain credit to obtain the information needed. from different institutions. After all. the available information about a given problem Establishing relationships between groups and credit has been assembled, the evaluator, assisted by the rest of banks, organization, of the farmers and instructions the team, plans a strategy for working out a solution to the on how to present their request for credit were problem. This may involve action primarily by the technical complemented by the technicians' initial accomassistance agents in providing new information to the farmpaniment of the group to the bank to support their ers or assisting them with organizational changes. In other application for credit. Without such support, groups cases, it may be necessary for the team, usually represented of small farmers often made numerous trips to, the by the coordinator, to interact directly with the representabank before completing arrangements for credit, or tives of one or more of the service agencies in finding a decided that the credit process was too troublesatisfactory way to modify -operating procedures. These some. strategies represent a major source of new ideas for the 108



PAGE 1

The Puebla Project has been oriented primarily toward The values of the increases in maize production were increasing maize production, and secondarily toward incalculated using the price guaranteed by the official Mexicreasing the production of beans, fruits, forages, and vegcan purchasing agency, CONASUPO. Over the years, the etable crops. Information was available, however, only on market price of maize has deviated somewhat from the annual changes in maize yields; thus, only benefits derived guaranteed price, depending on amounts harvested; howfrom maize production are considered here. ever, $75.20 per ton seems a reasonable approximation to Two alternatives were available to estimate the direct the average price that farmers received for their maize benefits accrued from maize production: (a) to consider between 1967 and 1972. The price paid by CONASUPO only increases in production obtained by farmers on credit was increased to $96.00 in 1973, and this value was used in lists, as direct benefits due to the Project, or (b) to similarly estimating benefits for that year. The direct gross benefits consider the increases in production obtained by all farmers are shown in Table 11.,1. in the area. It was decided to consider only increases in maize production obtained by farmers on credit lists as Derived Gross Benefits direct benefits, and to treat increases in production obTedrvdgosbnft eecniee ob h tained by the rest of the farmers in the area as derived Thle dfte iearss bnmeft wreductonider ed b the benefits.vau ofheinraeinm zepouto oband yal farmers in the area not on credit lists. Since there probably would have been a small increase in maize production in the area in the absence of the Puebla Project (as has occurred in D irect Gross Benefits parts of Mexico), it is possible that this method of calculating derived benefits overestimates the true values. For the For the farmers on credit lists, the annual increase in purposes of this analysis, however, it was assumed that the maize yields attributable to the new technology was calincreases in maize production during the 1967-1973 period culated by taking the difference between the observed due to effects exogenous to the Project were insignificant average annual yield and the average annual yield assuming and could be ignored.no change due to the new technology. These yields have As a compensating factor, the derived benefits have been been estimated in Chapter 9 using two alternative proceunderestimated by considering only the value of the indures. The average yields assuming no change in technology creases in maize production obtained by the farmers not on estimated in Table 9.9 were used instead of those estimated credit lists. As mentioned earlier, the Project has provided in Table '9.10 because they lead to a more conservative some assistance to farmers in improving their production of estimate of the direct benefits of the Project. These annual beans, fruits, forages, and vegetable crops. Benefits derived increases in maize yields were multiplied by the number of from these secondary activities have not been included in hectares cultivated by farmers on credit lists to obtain the the analysis, because no quantitative information was colincreases in production attributable directly to the Project. lected on changes in the production of these crops. TABLE 11.1. The calculation of the direct gross benefits attributable to the Puebla Project, associated costs, direct net benefits, project costs, present value of net benefits and preseilt value of project costs for seven years of operation of the project. Estimated average Average increase Increase in proPresent Present Average maize maize yield in the in maize yield atArea benefited duction attributDirect Direct value value of yield* of farmers area without the tributable to the directly by the able directly so gross Associated net Project of net project on reitliss uela roec**'Publ Prjet ueba roectth Pebl Pojctbenefits costs + benefits costs0* benefits-0 costs0I Year kg/ba kg/ha kg/ha ha kg $ $ $ $ 1967$ 1967 $ 1967 52,939 52,939 i968 3894 2091 1803 76 137,028 10,304 3,023 7,281 130,141 6,268 112,031 1969 2765 1715 1050 5838 6,129,900 460,969 213,694 246,275 169,271 182,084 124,645 1970 2670 1777 893 12601 11,252,693 846,202 307,i90 539,012 199,380 328,666 121,573 1971 2618 1652 966 14438 13,947,108 i,048,823 286,344 762,479 228,190 393,261 117,693 1972 2920 2011 909 17533 15,937i497 1,198,500 364,056 834,444 219,231 366,986 96,417 19731 2920 2011 909 20604 18,729,036 1,797,987 430,344 1,367,643 195,253 488,321 69,716 Total 1,765,586 695,014 *All yields in the table are with 121/ moisture for 1967.1971 and 1494 moisture for 1972-1973. CONASUPO, theofficial Mexican marketing agency,used 129/ as the maximum mo isture consent without a discount in price during 1967.1971 and 14% during i972-1973. C*Information from Column c, Table 9.9. The values for 1967-1971 were adjusted to 12% moisture. +A price of $75.20 per ton was used for the years 1968.1972 and $96.00 per ton for 1973. + o Assuming zero labor costs. 0 Includes an M6i overhead charge. 00 Adjusted for the expected change in value due to income from interest and the change in the price index using 1967 as the reference (See formula, page 95). t Yields for 1973 were estimated in September, just prior to harvest. B 1,765,586 25 C 65,014 96



PAGE 1

At the end of each season, after results had been evaluated, meetings were held at which the members of the Project team presented their findings and recommendations to representatives of the agricultural service institutions. and ordinary superphosphate for the formula, 10-8-4, and The cost of the fertilizer for the high-yield plots could (c) availability of the credit and fertilizer materials at the have been considered a demonstration cost and paid by the local level in March rather than in May. Project. However, because the plots of 0.25-1.0 ha repThe changes implied by the new recommendation were resented a large portion of the total area in maize of many discussed individually with representatives of the different farmers, it was decided that free provision of fertilizer institutions. In general, it was found that the institutions would establish a difficult precedent. Also, procedures for accepted the findings of the Project, but were uncertain as obtaining credit required immediate testing, to facilitate to their participation. The three official banks were relucchanneling of ciedit and fertilizers to more farmers in the tant to introduce changes of the suggested magnitude until area. their value had been demonstrated in a network of comTwo of the official credit banks decided not to provide mercial plantings. The banks felt their credit programs to credit for the high-yield plots in 1968. The third official farmers were satisfactory. In their view, the changes recoinbank agreed to finance about 20 percent of the high-yield mended by the Project would present additional risks plots. Another 20 percent of the plantings were financed by because of the larger amounts of credit required, as well as the farmers. The remaining 60 percent were financed by a a possible loss of prestige should the new technology not private fertilizer distributor, Agr6nomos Unidos, which provide good results. made the fertilizer available on credit at an interest rate of The crop insurance agency maintained that, after the 11/2 percent/month (these loans were quaraliteed by CIMnew recommendation had been accepted by the credit MYT). A total of 141 plots were provided for, far in excess banks and their clients, the farms using the recommendaof the 100 plots originally planned. tions could qualify for insurance. This agency, however, Field personnel of the credit banks provided suggestions had rigid operating procedures that did not permit coverage for locating farmers to cooperate in the Project in 1967 and for individual small farmers. Again, change was necessary if early 1968. In conducting the socioecor,omic survey in the crop insurance agency were to participate; these early 1968, however, the evaluation team encountered changes required the presentation of proposals to higher negative reaction, and sometimes open hostility, from the authorities and favorable action at that level, farmers in several villages. This experience, plus other obserThe Project plans drafted in early 1968 called for a vations in the area, strongly indicated that contact should continuation of research on maize improvement and agronbe made directly with the local authorities of each comomic practices, and the initiation of the program of techmunity. The coordinator proceeded to establish contact nical assistance to farmers. The assistance program was to with each village in the area and to hold meetings to explain consist of approximately 100 "high-yield" plots of 0.25-1.0 the objectives and operation of the Project and assess the ha. The farmers owning these plots would use Project interest of the farmers. recommendations, and they would be supervised by a techThe experimental plantings and the high-yield plots were nical assistance agent who had been added to the Project used as demonstrations of the importance of the improved staff in early 1968. The experiments and high-yield plots production practices from the time the maize began to were limited to the western two-thirds of the Project area flower until harvest. Throughout this period, field days were (known later as Zones I through IV) in order to concentrate held for representatives of the agricultural institutions and the efforts of the available staff, for groups of farmers. The field days for institutions had 12



PAGE 1

3 AGRONOMIC RESEARCH INTRODUCTION the physical environment was limited, and field experiments were distributed fairly evenly over the area. In 1969 Crop production on a given area depends on several and afterward, two or more producing systems were recogfactors, including soil and climatic conditions, plant variety, nized in the area, and the experiments were located to and production practices. The physical environment cannot sample these systems. (Note that a producing system is be changed readily and thus determines the yield potential defined as a part of a production universe in which 'the of a region. Varietal characteristics and management prac-uncontrollable production factors for A crop are reasonably tice, hwevr, re oreeasly mniplatd, nd mprveconstant. These factors include: soil morphology, geomorment of these factors can provide higher yields and net phd ga lmtetrvouerpada.tms)patn income. Thus, agronomic research in the Puebla Project was De.) goIwn saoobevtos eemd designed to provide information on soil management pracuriiaong the rowin sleasn, obsra utions weremade, tices and varieties that would produce higher returns for the proial ntefcosifunigpouto tec farmers' production investments. experimental site. The trials were harvested, data analyzed, and results expressed as treatment means or production GENERAL STRATEGY functions. Data on crop response to rates of fertilization and plant density were expressed both as mathematical Production practices that can greatly influence crop functions and as two-dimensional graphs, for greater ceryields in rainfed areas include: land preparation; planting -tainty and ease of interpretation. date; seeding rate; amount and kind of fertilizers applied; In 1967, the information available from the National time and method of applying the fertilizers; control Agricultural Research Institute was taken as a first approximeasures for weeds, insects, rodents, and diseases; and mation to the recommendations on crop production depth of plowing. As a first step in developing better practices for the Puebla area. (The recommendation for information on these agronomic practices, the Project rainfed maize in Puebla was: fertilize with 80 kg N and 40 sought to gather as much information as possible on farmkg P205/ha, use the hybrid H-28 with 40,000 plants/ha, ers' production practices, soil and climatic characteristics, and plant at the beginning of the rainy season.) Data coland the experiences of other researchers in the area. This lected in 1967 were used to revise the existing recoininformation was gained by interviewing farmers and agronmendations on maize production and to calculate a second omists residing in the area, by reviewing the research findapproximation to the recommended practices. The data ings of the National Agricultural Research Institute, by collected in subsequent years were used to generate third, analyzing the available climatic data, and by studying the fourth, fifth, etc., approximations. properties of the soils in the area. Through this process an Beginning in 1969, maize recommendations were forunderstanding was obtained *of the physical environment mulated for distinct producing systems. All available inforand the traditional technology of the farmers, as presented mation on climatic variability and prices for maize and in Chapter 1. inputs was taken into account in estimating the optimal A list of technological questions to be investigated was levels of practices. Recommendations were made after prepared and arranged in or 'der -of priority by taking the carefully weighing: (a) the precision of the available inforinformation available at the beginning of a given cropping mation on the relationship between yield and the producseason and estimating: (a) probable deficiencies in existing tion factors, (b) the marginal productivity of the factors in technology, (b) probable improvements that could be made question, and (c) the risle~involved in making recommendaeconomically, (c) which improvements would most likely tions that might not be appropriate for the farmer. provide the largest increases in yield and net income, and The remainder of this chapter describes the agronomic (d) which of these aspects of the technology shouldbe research in the Puebla area in each year, 1967-1973. A final investigated in the Puebla area. section seeks to evaluate the adequacy of the maize techNext field experimentsi were carried out to answer quesnology and to estimate the potential benefits of the imtions of highest priority. The ecological diversity of the area proved technology, as compared with technology existing was taken into account in planning the research and in in 1967. Appendix A provides a benefit: cost analysis of locating the field trials. In 1967 and 1968, information on the agronomic research program in the Project. 19



PAGE 1

In general, average yields of farmers on credit lists were and (c) an increase in net income per hectare of $166.64 only about two-thirds as large as they might have been, with beans priced at $240/ton, or $66.96 with beans priced according to the results obtained in the field experiments. at $160/ton. This finding suggested studies to determine why the farmers Bean production increased remarkably when 10 ton/ha on credit lists did not have higher yields, of chicken manure was added to the treatment consisting In each of the Zones II and V, sixty parcels representing of 150 kg/ha N, 40 kg/ha P2C5, 40,000 plants/ha of maize, 60 farmers on credit lists were chosen at random. A repreand 60,000 plants/ha of beans. Comparison of bean yields sentative area was selected within each parcel consisting of obtained with Treatments 6 and 13 shows that the increase 12 rows, 10 meters long. One of the two alternative maize due to manure was 1,085 kg/ha. Part of this increase in recommendations was used on six rows of each parcel in bean yield was probably due to the nitrogen and phosZone II, with the other alternative used on the other six phorus contained in the manure. Most of the increase, rows. In Zone V, the more costly alternative was used on however, was apparently due to some different, undetersix rows of each parcel, with the same recommendation, mined cause. The net income from the maize-bean associaplus 50 kg/ha P205, used on the other six rows. The latter tion receiving both chicken manure and chemical fertilizers treatment was included to test phosphorus needs of maize (Treatment 13) was 2.28 times that derived from maize fields in Zone V. planted alone, with beans priced at $240/ton. The protein These two plots in each of the selected parcels were percentage of the beans fertilized with chicken manure was managed by Project research agronomists. In addition, the 1.5 percent points higher than that of the beans receiving agronomists made regular observations of the production the highest rate of chemical fertilizers (24.5 versus 23.0 practices used by the owners of the parcels, supplementing percent). this information with data collected directly from the farmTable 3.7 compares the amounts of protein and lysine ers. produced by common maize planted alone, and by the Additionally in 1972, two field experiments were made maize-bean association, with the amounts produced by to: (a) determine if weed problems were greater in fields opaque maize. Opaque maize produced nearly twice as using Project recommendations than in fields using the much lysine per hectare as did common maize. The comtraditional technology, and (b) evaluate the profitability of mon maize-bean association, fertilized with nitrogen and the intensive weed control methods in the Project recomphosphorus, produced 59 percent more lysine than did mendations. It had been found that many farmers had the opaque maize alone. The common maize-bean association, impression that weed control was more difficult in fields fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus, and chicken manure, where the Project recommendations were used, and there produced 2.39 times as much lysine as opaque maize alone. was concern that this feeling might discourage farmers from adopting the new technology. The weed control experiments consisted of 12 treatTABLE 3.7. The amounts of protein and lysine produced ments. Project recommendations were used in half the by" common and opaque maize planted alone, and by the treatments and the traditional technology in the other half. common maize-bean association. Several weed' control measures were used with each of the Protein Lysine* technologies. The more intensive weed control practices %of % of ,consisted of hand weeding at different growth stages, and kg/ha Opaque kg/ha Opaque the use of herbicides. The experimental plot consisted of six rows, each 5 meters long. A randomized complete block Common maize, planted alone 394 93 9.9 52 with six replication was used. Opaque maize, planted alone** 423 100 19.9 100 design wMaize-bean association with 150 kg/ha of N, 80 kg/ha of P205 Results: 1972 and 40,000 plants/ha of maize 623 147 30.3 159 Conditions in 1972 were excellent for maize and beans, Maize-bean association with perhaps comparable to 1968. In 24 experimental plantings 150 kg/ha of N, of maize, or of maize associated with beans, the average 10 ton/ha of chicken manure numbers of days with wilting of the maize plants were 0.5, and 40,000 plants/ha of maize 981 232 45.5 239 1.0, 0, and 0.9 for the four parts of the growing cycle. The corresponding averages for 1968 were similar: 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, In calculating the production of lysine per hectare, the protein of and 0. Hail and frost damage in 1972 were also slight, beans and common maize was assumed to have 7.2% and 2.5% lysine, Table 3.6 shows average yields, protein percentages of respectively. For bean protein from the treatment with the chicken the grain, and net incomes for treatments used in three manure, it was assumed that the percentage of lysine dropped to 6%. Source: Mercedes HernAndez, et al., 1971. Valor nutritivo de los alimaize-bean association experiments conducted in the deep mentos; Tablas de uso pr~ctico. Publicaciones de la Divisi6n de Nutrisoils of Popocatdpetl. The inclusion of 60,000 plants/ha of cion-L12, 5a. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrici6n, M6xico. p. 20. beans in a planting of maize with 40,000 plants/ha, fertil** Based on data from an experiment carried out on the deep soils of sized with 120 kg/ha N and 40 kg/ha P205 resulted in: (a) a Popocatipetl. The best opaque variety yielded 4,700 kg/ha with decrase ith e m/aize yied of0 8 kg/ha Treltent () a50,000 plants/ha and fertilized with 130 kg/ha of nitrogen plus 50 decrease in the maize yield of 1,328 kg/ha (Treatment 14 kg/ha of P205.It was assumed that the grain contained 9% protein and minus Treatment 2); (b) production of 1,246 kg/ha beans; that the protein had 4.5%lysine. 29



PAGE 1

The Guanomex plan was to provide farmers with horseThe basic purpose of ANAGSA is to complement the drawn applicators and deliver the agua ammonia to their agricultural credit service provided by the official banks, by communities in 55-kg tanks that fit directly on the appliprotecting: (a) the farmers against losses due to natural cators. The farmers had to sign a promissory note on causes, and (b) the official banks against losses due to the receipt of the fertilizer and agree to repay Guanomex at inability of the farmers to repay their loans in unfavorable harvest time. years. ANAGSA expanded its program in 1972 to include The Project technical assistance agents began to inform life insurance, which costs the farmer $2.00/year and the farmers about the Guanomex program in early April provides his family with $400 indemnization in case of 1973. Over 2,000 farmers volunteered to try the agua death. ammonia on some 5,000 ha. Several problems arose, howTable 7.2 shows the hectares of maize insured by ever, including delays in installing the agua ammonia plant, ANAGSA in the Puebla area, the premiums paid, and the and numerous difficulties in adapting the horse-drawn amounts of indemnizations for the years 1966-197Lapplicator to the conditions in Puebla. Thus, the agua Although all farmers applying for official production credit ammonia was applied to only about 500 ha by about 250 must request crop insurance (except for one line of credit farmers, of the Agricultural Bank), ANAGSA normally rejects some Project technicians feel that agua ammonia can be an of the plantings. For example, in 1971, only about twoimportant source of nitrogen for farmers in the Puebla area, thirds of the area receiving credit for maize production was if the price can be maintained at around 60 percent of that approved for crop insurance. of solid materials. However, the horse-drawn applicator The average area of maize insured by ANAGSA in used in 1973 still has many technical flaws and will have to 1970-1972 was more than double that of 1966-1969 (Table be improved significantly. 7.2). The premiums paid by the farmers accounted for less than one-third of the total premiums; the remainder was paid by the federal government. The area on which indemTHE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL nization was collected has fluctuated greatly, reflecting INSURANCE AGENCY variations in climatic conditions over the years. About 20 years ago, farmers of the Lagunera Region of Operating Procedures of ANAGSA Northern Mexico who received credit from the official banks formed a mutual. crop insurance association. Each member paid a fixed amount per hectare, and in the case of The procedure used by the official credit banks in crop damage, the money was distributed among those memrequesting crop insurance for their clients is as follows: (a) bears suffering losses in accordance with the recommendaeach bank sends a multiple application to the insurance tions of an inspection committee named by the association. agency with the areas for which credit is requested and This mutual association was quite successful, and similar names of all farmers soliciting credit, and (b) as soon as the agencies were soon formed in other parts of the country. farmers have signed the contract and promissory notes, the The first mutual association in the State of Puebla was Bank sends a complementary report for each farmer to the established in 1956 and became a part of the National insurance agency, showing his age, beneficiary, and the Agricultural Insurance Agency (ANAGSA) in 1961. number of parcels in his property that are separated by TABLE 7.2. The insuring of maize plantings in the Puebla area in 1966-1972. Area financed Area Amount Premiums Area by official banks insured of paid by Indeminized Amount of Year ha ha premiums farmers ha indemnization 1966 2,973 2723 42,832 --271 4,421 1967 3,187 2740 45,161 -1185 23,069 1968 3,545 2856 45,405 -710 10,130 1969 3,118 2672 45,048 12,456 1840 51,079 1970 7,920 6139 103,408 29,598 1186 34,762 1971 11,043 7068 176,538 45,914 1532 59,304 1972 13,426 5947 70



PAGE 1

three times that obtained at the lowest level of fertilization tions. It was expected that the technical assistance agents and plant density. would provide information to the farmers about costs, The studies of the maize-bean association d ,emonstrated expected net incomes, and risks involved in the alternative that net income from the association was approximately recommendations. The farmer would decide which alternadouble that obtained with either maize or beans alone, five to adopt, or 'how much land to allot to each recoinHorse beans, bush beans, oats, and barley all showed some mendation, This innovation was designed initially for early advantage over maize for late plantings. The data obtained plantings (those made with residual moisture). in the study of the response of an early maize variety to minor elements was inconclusive. In 1971, the production of maize became somewhat FIELD RESEARCH IN 1972 more profitable for farmers, due to several factors: (a) the price of nitrogen fertilizers was reduced by about 14 perResults obtained with the maize-bean association in cent; (b) the maximum moisture content acceptable in 1970 and 1971 were promising; thus, more resources were grain purchased at the guaranteed price was increased from allotted to the study of this cropping system. Six experi12 to 14 percent; (c) the practice of paying less for colored ments in 1972 measured the response of the association to grains was discontinued, and (d) the CONASUPO, the several rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density of National Marketing Agency, agreed to purchase maize in maize. These experiments were located in the important small lots. producing systems of Zones I, II, and IV, where this These changes prompted Project decisions to increase cropping system is commonly used. the recommended rate of nitrogen fertilization in Zone V Beginning in 1968, average maize yields were estimated from 80 to 100 kg/ha and the population density from each year at harvest time on samples of two categories of 40,00b to 50,000 plants/ha. It was decided not to change farmers: (a) farmers on credit lists (who were organized in the recommendations for the rest of the Project area, but to groups, received credit from institutions participating in the develop alternative recommendations that would cost about Project, and could be expected to use the Project recomnone-half to two-thirds as much as the existing recommendamendations), and (b) all farmers in the area (see Chapter 8). TABLE 3.6. Average yields, protein percentages, and net incomes for several treatments in maize-bean association experiments conducted at three locations in 1972. Population Grain with Net income with density 14%9/ moisture bean prices /ton at-: Treatment Fertilizers (kg/ha) applied: of mnaize* Percent No. N P205 plants/ha Maize Beans protein"* $240 $160_ 1 120 40 30,000 2987 1300 8.6; 22.0 404.64 300.64 2 120 40 40,000 3306 1246 410. '88 311.20 3 120 80 30,000 2962 1548 440.72 316.80 4 120 80 40,000 3074 1393 8.3; 21.8 414.40 304.08 5 150 40 30,000 2796 1575 442.00 315.92 6 150 40 40,000 3758 1361 451.36 298.80 7 150 80 30,000 3006 1575 8.7; 22.4 441.44 317.84 8 150 80 40,000 3559 1398 8.7; 22.4 436.00 324.16 9 90 40 30,000 2619 1150 8.3; 21.0 357.60 265.60 10 180 80 40,000 3737 1488 9.0; 23.0 449.04 330.00 11 150 0 40,000 3156 1445 8.5; 22.9 440.48 324.88 12150 80 20,000 2217 1641 397.92 266.64 13 150 40 + CM + 40,000 4056 2446 9.4; 24.5 557.04 361.36 14 120 40 40,000 4634 0 8.5 244.24 244.24 15 60 60 0 0 1222 20.9 194.08 96.40 LSD 575 225 *Population of beans was constant at 60,000 plants per hectare. **The protein percentage of maize appears first followed by that of beans. Each value is an average of 15 determinations. The analyses were made by biochemist Francisco J. Rodriguez B. of the CIMMYT Protein Quality Laboratory. + Net income was calculated as gross income minus variable costs. The value of maize grain was calculated at $72.00 per ton and the value of stover at $8.00 per ton. STen tons per hectare of chicken manure. 28



PAGE 1

soils of Zone V. and soils with a compacted horizon. These method, the soil is turned with a single-moldboard plow, three groups of soils occupy 33 percent of the cultivated the seed is deposited at the bottom of the furrow, and then land in the Project area (Table 1.1.). In addition, some of it is covered by the following passage of the plow. Cultivathe farmers with soils capable of retaining sufficient moistions are made with a hoe. Population densities are about ture for early plantings are unable to plant early because 60,000/ha for the first method; 90,000/ha for the a barthey do not employ moisture conservation practices at the becho method. The a barbecho method is commonly used proper time. Furthermore, it is usually not possible to in soils with a high content of pumice in the plow layer, conserve sufficient moisture to permit early maize plantings possibly because of the ease of hand weeding. in soils where maize is interplanted in orchards. These three According to the 1967 survey data, 95.2 percent of the categories account for a sizeable area that is not planted farmers in the Project area knew of chemical fertilizer; 80.1 until the rains begin. Farmers use short-season varieties for percent had used it on at least one occasion; and 69.3 perthese late plantings. In the rare years when rains do not cent had used it in 1967. These farmers in 1967 used an begin until early July, farmers prefer not to plant maize average of 49.3 kg/ha N and 20.3 kg/ha P205.For the because of the frost hazard. According to 1967 survey data, entire cultivated area in 1967, the average amounts were 34 maize plantings for that year were spread over a three kg/ha N and 14 kg/ha P205 Of the farmers applying ferti month period, as shown below. lizers in 1967, 64 percent used the formula 10-8-4, 18 percent used ammonium nitrate or ammonium suifetc, and 15 Date of Planting Percentage of Lane percent used other formulas. Chemical fertilizers have been used for several years in Before March 1 3.8 the Puebla area as indicated in the survey data shown next. March 1-31 34.6 April 1-30 37.4 May 1-31 17.8 After May 31 6.4 In What Year Did You First Use Chemical Fertilizers? Percentage of Farmers In their plantings of maize alone or in association, farmers use between 15,000 and 35,000 plants/ha, depending Have never used it 19.9 upon the fetility level of the soil and the amount of ferti1967 7.5 lizer to be used. If pole beans are grown with maize, the 1966 7.5 farmers sow sufficient seed on the same date to give a bean 1965 10.4 density of 5,000-20,000 plants/ha. A common rule-of1964 6.4 thumb is one bean plant for every two plants of maize. 1963 6.4 Maize plants that have no adjoining bean plant help support 1962 6.0 the weight of the beans and prevent lodging. The distance 1961 2.0 between rows of maize is about 90 cm. 1960 6.8 Farmers use two methods for planting and cultivating 1959 or before 27.1 bush beans: (a) planted in rows 70 cm apart and cultivated with animal-drawn implements, and (b) planted in rows 50 cm apart, using the method called a barbecho. In this When the Project began in 1967, 95%of the farmers knew of chemical fertilizer V .and 80 %of them had used it at least on one occasion. Most -,felt that some fertilizer was needed, but did not know which elements or how much -~ ~ to apply. 9



PAGE 1

Table 7.1 shows the number of hectares financed, total consolidates the lists of the different sub-groups and delivamount of credit, and percentage repayment of loans ers the request to the Impulsora; (c) the technical assistance within the credit operation of Impulsora, both for credit agents of the Puebla Project give the Impulsora a list of all obtained directly and that obtained through Agr6nomos the communities in their zones with groups requesting Unidos in the years 1968-1973. Impulsora's credit program credit, along with the recommended fertilizer rates; (d) the peaked, in 1970 and has remained quite static since then. secretaries of the Impulsora or the Puebla Project draw up This has been true in spite of a growing demand from the documents for each farmer, specifying the amount of fertifarmers for more credit from Impulsora and an average lizers and credit requested; (e) these documents are given to repayment rate of about 98 percent. the group coordinators, who, with the representatives, obtain the signatures of the farmers; (f) the documents are then signed by the group coordinators and returned to the Procedure Followed in Granting Credit Impulsora; and (g) the delivery order is given, specifying the date the farmers must pick up the fertilizers at the company warehouse. In 1972, the average time required was 36 days from the preparation of lists to the issuing of The procedure followed by the Impulsora in granting the delivery order, with extremes Gf 3 days and 6 weeks. credit to small farmers is very attractive, since it does not require. any security from the farmers. All that the Impulsora requires is a guarantee of the total operation by a responsible agency. CIMMYT provided this guarantee in Changes in Sales of 10-8-4 1968 when only $6,000 was loaned. Beginning in 1969, the credit operation of the Impulsora was endorsed by the According to survey data, 64 percent of the farmers who Agricultural Agent, who is the state representative of the applied chemical fertilizers in 1967 used the 10-8-4 mixMinistry of Agriculture. ture, containing 10 percent nitrogen (N), 8 percent phosIn 1969 and 1970, the endorsement of the Agriculture phorus (P205), and 4 percent potassium (K20). Agronomic Agent was not backed up by adequate funds to fully research on farmers' fields, however, has not revealed guarantee the credit operation. In 1971, however, a special important deficiencies of potassium; thus, the Project has fund was formed by collecting a tax of $0.40/ton on all recommended that farmers apply only nitrogen and phosfertilizers sold on credit or for cash by the three official phorus. Moreover, the Project has suggested that farmers agents of Guanomex and the official credit banks. This purchase nitrogenous and phosphatic materials separately fund is administered by the State Fertilization Committee, and prepare their own mixtures, to obtain the right proporwhose chairman is the Agricultural Agent. Since the estabtions of the two elements. lishment of this fund, the guarantee of the credit program of the Impulsora has been effective. When the Fertilization The relative importance of 10-8-4 in total sales of the Committee reimburses the Impulsora for loans not repaid Impulsora declined markedly in 1969. The 10-84 mixture on time, it receives the promissory notes of the indebted represented approximately 76 percent of the total nitrogen farmers, with the expectation of repayment at a later date. sold by the Impulsora in the period 1966-1968, whereas The Impulsora procedure for granting credit is as folonly 27 percent of the nitrogen sold in the years 1969-1972 lows: (a) representatives of the sub-groups prepare lists of was in the form of 10-8-4. In general, there has been a shift the members desiring credit, and of the number of hectares from 10-84 to ammonium sulfate, superhosphate, and nonfor which financing is requested; (b) the group coordinator potassic mixtures, (such as 12-8-0, 10-10-0, and 5-14-0). TABLE 7.1. The credit provided by several agencies to enable farmers to use Project recommendations for maize during the years 1968-1973. Impulsora de Puebla National Agricultural Credit Bank National Ejidal Credit Bank Agricultural Bank of the South Total % No, of Amount repayNo, of Amount repay. No. of Amount repay. No. of Amount repayNo. of Amount Year hectares of credit ment hectares of credit ment hectares of credit ment hectares of credit ment hectares* of credit 1968 76 6,000 100.0 76 6,000 i969 2,719 165,059 96.0 687 48,802 50.0 829 50,846 55.5 1,603 105,132 50.0 5,838 369,839 1970 4,682 191,163 97.5 1,788 148,250 51.2 4,522 282,256 72.0 1,609 123,175 60.0 12,601 744,844 1971 3,228 108,807 99.5 4,950 202,972 91.6 4,920 294,347 91.0 1,172 90,080 62.0 14,438 696,206 1972 4,108 153,953 98.5 7,499 383,282 93.9 5,105 398,722 90.0 822 39,854 50.0 17,533 975,811 1973 4,220 8,207 419,452 5,410 422,584 293 14,202 20,604 The total number of hectares for 1971 includes 168 with credit guaranteed by the Coxtocan Hacienda; the total for 1973 includes 2,474 ha that were financed by Guanomex and the Olmeca fertilizer company. 64



PAGE 1

Three official credit banks -National Agricultural Credit Bank, National Ejidal Credit Bank, Agricultural Bank of the South -have made loans to enable organized farmers to use project recommendations. The total area financed by the first two of the these banks increased from 1,516 ha. in 1969, to 13,617 ha. in 1973. 11 rrA 62



PAGE 1

106



PAGE 1

7 THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCIES INTRODUCTION accomplishments are described briefly. Changes in the institutions that have contributed to improved services are reported, as well as problems remaining to be resolved. A part of the general strategy of the Puebla Project has been to assure that the farmers have access to materials and THE IMPULSORA DE PUEBLA services essential for favorable change. Some of these services were being provided by public and private institutions The production and distribution of chemical fertilizers in Puebla at the time the Project began, including: (a) in Mexico is the responsibility of a decentralized agency of production credit, (b) agronomic inputs at a favorable the federal government, Guanos y Fertilizantes de M6xico price, (c) crop insurance, and (d) an accessible market for (Guanomex). When the Puebla Project began in 1967, farm produce, with a guaranteed price. Guanomex had three authorized dealers in the state, ImpulSince these services were available in Puebla in 1967, the sora de Puebla and two others, all private companies. In Project concentrated initially on agronomic research. Had addition, there was a network of local distributors in the some of these services not been available, it is unlikely that villages, mainly retail dealers who purchased fertilizers in the Project would have tried to provide them. Rather the the city of Puebla or Mexico City and resold them to the Project would have sought a solution through encouragefarmers. ment of government action to create the institutions Guanomex changed some of its operating procedures in needed. early 1971 when the three authorized distributors in Puebla The role of the Puebla Project in working with the were made official commission agents of Guanomex, each institutions (those involved in credit, the distribution of with the concession to distribute certain specific materials inputs, crop insurance, and marketing) has been that of at a fixed commission. Impulsora de Puebla became the assuring that these services are adequate for small farmers, principal agent with the concession to handle low-concenThe Project Coordinator assumed the major responsibility tration materials and mixtures. According to the new for this activity. policy, local distributors in the villages would no longer be Planners of the Project felt it important that the Project permitted to purchase fertilizers from the official agents; be promoted as a joint effort of all the agricultural agencies, thus, they became less important in, the distribution netwith representatives of the different institutions to be fully work. informed of Project activities and the needs of the farmers. Impulsora de Puebla, since its establishment many years As greater experience was gained, however, it became ago, has functioned both as a fertilizer distributor and as a evident that some of the operating procedures of some credit agency. Prior to 1968, the Impulsora had provided institutions were restricting farmer use of their services. It credit only to commercial or semi-commercial farmers who was clearly necessary that Project staff should more fully could offer security. In 1968, a sub-distributor of the understand the operations of these institutions and the way Impulsora, Agr6nomos Unidos, agreed to provide fertilizers they reached decisions on farmers' requests. Thus, the staff on credit to the first farmers who decided to use Project began a more systematic effort to assess these institutionrecommendations on a part of their maize planting. These al procedures. were all small farmers and were not required to put up After a problem had been fully analyzed, the Project collateral. Impulsora backed Agr6nomos Unidos in this staff proceeded to explain the nature of the problem to the credit operation. indicated agency, usually working through the coordinator. In 1969, Impulsora continued to back Agr6nomos UniFull cooperation was given to the agency in finding ways to dos in its financing of small farmers who used the Puebla improve its services to the farmers. This proved to be a Project maize recommendations. In 1970, Impulsora most difficult task, however, and progress in improving the continued its participation through Agr6nomos Unidos and, operating procedures of the service institutions has been in addition, provided credit directly to 253 farmers in 21 modest. groups. Impulsora absorbed the clients of Agrbnomos UniIn this chapter, certain characteristics of the service dos at the end of 1970, and has continued this credit proinstitutions in Puebla, their operating procedures, and their gram for small farmers. 63



PAGE 1

94



PAGE 1

PROGRAM AND RESULTS During the summer of 1970, Comp A x Comp B was As information was collected from fa it became included in varietal tests at 16 locations and was planted on n areson wa semi-commercial scale at a few sites. From the results evident that length of the growing season was a major obtained in 1969 and 1970, it was evident that Comp A x concern of farmers in deciding which variety to plant. A obandi199nd97,twsevetthtCmAx maoern of flanngsarr in deciding wh vary tAprlan A Comp B was not superior to the parental Variety, and it was majority of plantings are made in late March, April, and dcddntt rmt h s fCm opBi early May, in soils that conserve sufficient moisture from the previous rainy season. Farmers use late-maturing variethe Puebla area. ties for these early plantings. Early-maturing varieties make The five outstanding cryptic hybrids, the five best up the remainder of the maize planted in late May and Junecontinued after the rains begin. in the varietal trials in 1971 and 1972. The relative yields, Faters e in b degn days to flowering, and lodging percentages of these hybrids Farmers find a wide range of kernel colors-white, yeland other promising materials, are given in Table 4.1. low, red, blue, and mixes-acceptable for home consumpSeveral conclusions can be drawn from these data: (a tion. For the market, however, whites and yellows are Svrlcnlsoscnb rw rmteedt:() ioefrd, thne maket, hoer ies andcryellow art compared to the parental variety Pinto Salvatori, Comp A x preferred, since local buyers sometimes discriminate against Comp B yields slightly less, has a slightly longer growing reds and blues. season, and has the same tendency to lodge; (b) four of the Overall, the maize improvement program has emphasized cryptic hybrids outyield Pinto Salvatori by 5 to 11 percent the production of high-yielding varieties, that are resistant (tofths,13ad26ldglesndavabute to diseases and lodging, for both early and late plantings. same owingesean as th e le) and (cb the same growing season as the parental variety); and (c) the Production of Hybrids five topcrosses with H-28 yield from 2 to 7 percent more than H-28 (topcross 257 yields 7 percent more and flowers During the summer of 1967, several local varieties were in 3 days less than H-28). examined, and the variety Pinto Salvatori was chosen as geimplasm for the production of cryptic double-cross Production of Varieties hybrids. Five hundred crosses of selected plants were made Observation nurseries, including 41 composites of earlier and the second ears of each of the 1,000 parental plants collections from the Puebla area and 18 other promising were self-pollinated. Because of problems in obtaining sufmaterials, were planted at two locations in the summer of ficient seed of the cross, as well as the self-pollinations, the 1967. The relative performance of the several entries program realized only 94 complete sets. provided guidance to select those materials to be used in During the winter of 1967-1968, topcrosses were made the genetic improvement program. Two composites were at the experiment station of the National Seed Production formed at Tepalcingo during the following winter: (a) an Company near Tepalcingo, Morelos, by crossing H-28 and early composite by intercrossing Puebla groups 10, 11, 26, S I lines of several varieties that were outstanding in the and 30; Chapalote x C6nico; Chalquefio x C6nico; Harinoso summer varietal trials. Individual plants of the variety were de Ocho x C6nico; Colorado Salvatori; and H-28; and (b) a selfed at the same time they were crossed with 10 to 15 late composite by intercrossing Puebla groups 33, 44, and plants of H-28. 49; Batin E-CIV; Hidalgo 8 M-CI; Pinto Salvatori; and BlanThe 94 cryptic double-crosses from the variety Pinto co Salvatori. Salvatori and 68 topcrosses from the winter program were During the summer of 1968, mass selection blocks were yield-tested in 1968 at four locations in the Puebla area. planted and carried through the first cycle of selection with Eleven of the cryptic double-crosses and eight of the the early and late composites. The first cycle of mass selectopcrosses to H-28 yielded significantly more than did the tion in an opaque-2 composite was also conducted. The best commercial hybrids. opaque-2 composite was formed by mixing seed that carThe S I parents of the five best cryptic hybrids were ied the opaque-2 gene from Mexico group 10, Hidalgo 8, planted for increase and to obtain more seed of the crosses Pinto Salvatori, and Blanco Rubin. at the Tepalcingo station during the winter of 1968-1969. Also, these 10 parental lines were arbitrarily divided into The mass selection blocks were fertilized each year two groups to form two composites (A and B). The cross according to the recommendations of the Project. Plant between these two composites was made in detasseling densities of 24,000 plants/ha were used in 1968, 1969, and blocks and seed was produced for semi-commercial testing 1970. Densities were changed to 50,000 plants/ha in 1971 in the Puebla area. as a result of a study at Chapingo indicating that the plant Comp A x Comp B, together with the five best topcrosdensity in mass selection blocks should be similar to that in ses to H-28 and other promising materials, was tested at commercial plantings. three locations in the Puebla area during the summer of Mass selection with the early composite was done at four 1969. Selected farmers were given small lots of Comp A x locations in 1968, five locations in 1969, and one location Comp B for comparison against their local varieties. The in 1970. Work with this composite was discontinued in results with Comp A x Comp B were not up to expecta1971 when it became clear that it was not sufficiently early tions. for late May and June plantings in the Puebla area. 40



PAGE 1

The opaque maize would have had to yield 11.3. ton/ha to rates of fertilizer, but used fewer plants than recommended. equal the production of lysine by this maize-bean associaIn Zone V, 56.9 percent of the farmers in the study used at tion in 1972. An association of pole beans with an opaque least three-quarters of the recommended amounts of nitromaize would seem certain to yield an even higher producgen, phosphorus and plant density, with an additional tion of lysine per hectare. 37.2 percent falling short only in the use of the recomThe study of the use of technology by the farmers on mended plant density. credit lists disclosed that farmers' yields on the average The data obtained in the weed-control experiments were lower than those obtained in the parcels controlled by refuted the hypothesis that the maize technology recomthe research agronomists. The average yield of the farmers' mended by the Project results in greater weed infestations parcels in Zone II was 3,444 kg/ha and for the control plots than traditional technology. When the more intensive weed within these parcels it was 4,725 kg/ha. In Zone V, the control measures of the new technology were used, the farmers' yields averaged 4,076 kg/ha versus a control yield weed population at' harvest time was lower than that ob4,841 kg/ha. The lower yields obtained by farmers can be gained with traditional methods, and increases in maize attributed to failure to make full use of the recommended production were proportionately greater. technology. Only 28.1 percent of the farmers studied in A sixth approximation of the recommended production Zone II used at least three-quarters of the recommended practices was developed in early 1973. The recommendaamounts of all three main inputs: nitrogen, phosphorus, tions for several producing systems in Zone II are shown in and plants per hectare. Another 19.3 percent of the Zone II Table 3.8, illustrating the type of information on producfarmers applied at least three-quarters of the recommended tion practices available to farmers in 1973. TABLE 3.8. The seventh approximation of the recommended production practices for several producing systems in Zone II. Producing system Fertilizer (kg/ha) to apply at: ____________________ Maize Bean Variety First Second population population of beans Planting Level of Planting cultivation cultivation density Maize density or other Soil morphology date Crop capital* N -P205 N N plants/ha variety plants/ha crops 1. Deep soils of PoApr. 1Maize I 30-40 0 100 50,000 H-131 pocat6petl. May 15 II 0-80 0 40,000 H-131 1.2. Free of pumice Maize in oron the surface; chards: less than 2350 m a) 2 rows on altitude, each side of trees 1 30-40 0 50 40,000 H-131 b) Other rows 1 30-40 0 100 50000 H-131 Apr. 25Maize-bean I 30-40 0 120 40,000 native 60,000 native May 15 association lI 300 0 60 30,000 native 45,000 native Bunch beans I 60 -60. 0 0 120,000 native Mayl6Maize and June 15 maize in orchards 1 30 -40 70 0 40,000 -native May 16Maize-bean 1 30 -40 120 0 40,000 native 60,000 native June 15 association II 30 -30 60 0 30,000 native 45,000 native May 16Bunch beans I 60-60 0 0 -120,000 native June 30 July 1Bunch beans I 30 -30 0 0 .... 90,000 native July 15 June 16Oats I 40-40 Use 90 kg of seed per hectare Cuauhtmoc July 15 Barley 1 30 -30 Use 60 kg of seed per hectare Apizaco Horse beans 1 40-40 Plant density of 60,000 pts/ha INIA 15001 Recommendation I presupposes the availability to the farmer of unlimited capital for maize production; recommendation II presupposes limited capital of one-half to two-thirds that required for the more costly recommendation. 30



PAGE 1

constant improvement of the plan of operations of the These young technicians will need guidance from more agricultural program. experienced people in preparing detailed plans of operation, The Puebla Project has had one member of the team, selecting the best procedures for their work, resolving social well-qualified to carry out socioeconomic evaluations, who and technical problems that arise during the execution of has assumed 'the responsibility for identifying, studying, programs, and analyzing and interpreting the results of their and helping resolve problems limiting farmer use of the new endeavors. technology. In larger, programs, this function may require In Puebla, the Project staff received technical assistance more than one person. -from specialists at the Graduate College at Chapingo and A second major responsibility of the Puebla Project CIMMYT, and from a sociologist working with a private evaluator was the collecting, analyzing, and interpreting of organization. Countries that choose to undertake regional the data needed to measure progress in the Project. This agricultural programs of the Puebla type will need to involved the collection of data on the socioeconomic develop a corps of highly trained and experienced techcharacteristics of the farming population and their agronnicians who can provide backing to the staffs in the regional omic practices at the beginning of the program, and at least programs. Initially, this technical backstopping might be one other similar study after the program had been operatprovided by a corps of experts from another country that ing for an appropriate period. are familiar with local problems. As the regional program It can be argued that the function of evaluating progress staffs in a country become more experienced, however, the in an agricultural program should be assigned to an outside country can organize its own team of technical advisors. agency. Regardless of how this evaluation function is handThe advisory team should be a part of the national research led, however, it is necessary that the socioeconomic data and extension organization or of a national institution of collected in the surveys be made available to the program higher education in agriculture. It is expected that the team evaluator as promptly as possible. of advisors'will both provide assistance to program teams and participate in the training of staff for such programs. Coordination As the number of regional programs in a country bePerhaps the most complex function in a regional agriculcomes larger, it will probably be necessary to part ition the tural program is the coordination of the activities of farmcountry into two or more zones, and to organize a team of ers, program staff, and service institutions. In Puebla, the advisors for each zone. Again, it is expected that these coordinator performed three distinct but closely related teams will have the responsibility for both technical assistance and training within their corresponding zones. roles: (a) Administration of the program: was responsible for the hiring of Project staff, participated in defining policy on personnel matters, approved the expendiCapable, Highly Motivated, Well-Trained Staff ture of funds, etc. Successful regional agricultural programs require a (b) Direction of the program: personally directed the dedication of time and effort by the staff far above that activities of the staff in the preparation of detailed necessary in most technical and professional careers, due to plans of operation, the execution of these plans, the large number of farmers and groups served. The personand the summarizing and reporting of accomplishnel selected for these programs should be highly motivated ments. Important matters affecting the functioning to know and understand the farmer, his family, and comof the program were fully discussed by the members munity; and to assist them to improve their production, net of the team before the coordinator made a decision. income, and general welfare. (c) Acquisition and maintenance of the support of the In addition, the team members of a small farmer proinstitutions that can assist in achieving the goals of gram should have personalities enabling them to gain and the program: informed the representatives of the hold the confidence of the farmers and to work harmoinstitutions of the plans of the program, its accomniously with their coworkers. They should have the acaplishments, and the needs of the farmers. When demic background and capability for rapidly learning the problems arose that required action by the institutechnology corresponding to their jobs, for applying this tions, he provided relevant information and Worked knowledge effectively, and for identifying new problems closely with them in finding a solution. and proposing ways to solve them. New team members should be instructed in the general Technical Backing for Program Staff aspects of the program (philosophy, objectives, characteristics of the area, accomplishments, etc.) and the specific The staff members in a regional agricultural program techniques that each will employ in his particular part of should interact on a continuing basis with highly trained the undertaking. Some of this training can be given in and experienced technicians who are active in their respecformal classes and discussions, although most of it should tive fields. The field staff will normally be composed of be done in the field, with the trainees assuming direct capable young people with good fundamental preparation responsibilities in the program (closely supervised by but with little specialized training or previous experience. experienced people). 109



PAGE 1

APPENDIX A A BENEFIT: COST ANALYSIS OF THE AGRONOMIC RESEARCH PROGRAM The question, has been raised as to whether or not the technology from net benefits using the limited or unlimited Puebla Project has placed too much emphasis on agronomic capital technologies. research. A partial answer to this question is provided in A net benefit, as used here, is the value of the net inthis section in the form of a summary of costs and somecrease in yield (both grain and stover) with one of the benefits associated with this program. improved technologies, less the value of the net increase in The costs involved in producing the limited capital and yield using the traditional technology, with both estimated unlimited capital technologies are summarized in Table for the same area. That is, net benefits using an improved A. 1. These include all costs of operation -salaries, equiptechnology are benefits over and above those obtained with ment, materials, vehicles, etc. -plus consulting services, the traditional technology. In calculating benefits it was assumed that the rate of TABLE A -1, The cost of generating the maize technology adoption of INIA and project recommendations would be of the Puebla Project. the same. This assumption tends to favor the INIA tech___________________________________________ nology inasmuch as the efficiency of this technology, as discussed earlier, is inferior to that of the Project recoinCosts of Consulting mnain.Tevle ftenticessi il e Yearopertio coss Toal* dollar invested in fertilizers, for example, are 1.45, 1.94, 196718,24 6,45 2,956 and 1.62 for the INIA, limited capital, and unlimited 1967 18,52 5624 28,956 capital technologies, respectively, as shown in Table 3.15. 1968 25,95 5,600 36,7131 To estimate total net benefits with the three technol196928,95 9,93 4,121 ogies, it was further assumed that benefits would accrue 1970** 30,534 5,230 42,201 over the 20-year period 1967-1986, and that adoption of 1971** 32,039 3,142 41,513 the technologies would occur in the following manner: (1) Tota 135324 9,51 194504 for the years 1968-1973, the areas of adoption would be Tota 135324 9,51 194504 equal to those planted to maize by farmers on credit lists (see Table 9.6); and (2) for the period 1974-1986, the area *Includes anoeha diitaiecag f1V.of adoption would increase each year by 3.3 percent, the an oerhad dminstrtiv chage f 189iaverage increase in adoption by farmers on credit lists in **Eighty percent of operating costs and 64%voof consulting 197 1-1973. costs were assigned to agronomic research on maize. Maize prices paid by the National Marketing Agency at The remaining costs were allocated to research on beans their warehouses were $75.20 per ton in 1968-1972 and and the maize-beans association. $96.00 per ton in 1973. It was assumed that the Agency Agronomic research in 1970 and 1971 included, in addition would continue to purchase maize at the latter price during to field trials with maize, work with beans and the maizethe years 1974-1986. The prices for maize used in estimatbeans association. In these, years, therefore, only 80 percent ing benefits were calculated by discounting the above prices of the operating costs of the agronomic research program for costs of harvesting, shelling, sacking and transport. and 64 percent 'of the consulting expenses were considered These prices for maize in the field were $54.80 for the as costs of generating the maize technologies. 1968-1972 period'and $78.80 for 1973-198.6. A price of When we refer in the following paragraphs to the bene$5.60 per ton was assigned to maize stover. fits associated with the project technologies, it must be The net benefits attributable to the INIA and unlimited kept in mind that what we call benefits, are really the capital technologies for the 1967-1968 period are shown in confounded effects of the production technologies plus the Table A.2 as unadjusted additional benefits. The annual interaction between these technologies and the other benefit values were adjusted to their corresponding values components of the project (coordination, technical asin 1967, assuming that capital would grow at an annual rate sistance, and evaluation), of 14 percent, and that the currency would decrease in In estimating the benefits associated with the project value at a rate represented by the price indices published by technologies,, it was assumed that the Puebla Project might the Bank of Mexico. This adjustment was made by multihave adopted either of two strategies: (1) use the informaplying the unadjusted values for a given year by the aption on improved maize production practices available in propriate discount factor (Table A.2) and dividing the 1967, the INIA technology, and devote its resources product by the relative price index. Research costs were exclusively to technical assistance, coordination, and adjusted to 1967 values in the same manner. evaluation: or (2) choose, as it did, to include agronomic The total adjusted cost of the research for producing research as an integral part of its activities. The difference project recommendations for maize was $140,930. The in cost of the two strategies is $194,504, as shown in Table total adjusted net benefits using the INIA and unlimited A, 1. The difference in benefits with the two strategies is capital technologies were $2,556,224 and $5,634,691, obtained by subtracting the net benefits using the INIA respectively. The difference between the total adjusted net 114



PAGE 1

0 As soon as the maize reached maturity, the ears were harvested from the experimental plots, weighed. and grain sampies were taken to determine the moisture content. The yield data from the field ex-I periments were analyzed,. interpreted, and used to de.. velop new recommendations on crop production practices.__ The growth cycle was subdivided in this way because the were calculated for each experiment corresponding to the magnitude of the effect of most factors on maize yields has estimated optimal rates of nitrogen and phosphorus; these been shown to depend on the stage of development of the varied between 2,128 and 7,068 kg/ha grain, with an averplant at the time the damage occurs. The effect of drought, age of 4,137 kg/ha. The average yield without fertilizer in for example, is greatest when it occurs during the second or the 23 experiments was 1,326 kg/ha. Thus, the average third parts of the growing period. (Throughout this chapter, increase in yield produced by the estimated optimal levels data are presented for these four parts of the growth cycle of fertilization was 2,811 kg/ha. in their successive order, from planting through physiologResults of the 1967 experiments were used to arrive at a ical maturity.) second approximation to the recommended package of For the 23 experiments conducted in 1967, on the averproduction practices for maize. Because a decision had been age there were 0, 7.3, 6.4, and 0.1 days with visible wilting made to limit promotional activities in 1968 and 1969 to during the first, second, third, and fourth parts of the Zones I through IV, however, a second approximation was growing period, respectively. The highest frequency of derived specifically for that portion of the Project area (see drought occurred precisely in the two periods when maize Figure 1.1). Fifteen of the experiments conducted in 1967 is most susceptible to damage. In general, there was little had been located in Zones I through IV. The optimal rates damage due to hail, high winds, and frost. of nitrogen for these 15 experiments varied from 60 to 221 Maize yields were increased significantly by the applicakg/ha, with an average of 128 kg/ha. The optimal rates of tion of nitrogen and phosphorus in 21 of the 23 experiphosphorus for the same experiments varied from 0 to 128 ments. Fertilizers did not increase yields in one experiment kg/ha, P,05, with an average of 37 kg/ha. where the soil was naturally very fertile, nor at a second Two conditions suggested that the recommended levels location where drought was severe and a poorly adapted of nitrogen and phosphorus should probably be slightly variety was used. greater than the average optimal levels calculated from the Average treatment yields in each experiment were used 1967 results: (a) historical rainfall data and information to calculate a quadratic equation with maize yield exfrom farmers indicated that drought during the flowering pressed as a function of rates of nitrogen and phosphorus. period of the maize crop (July and August) had been These equations were used to estimate the optimal rates of unusually severe in 1967 it was probable that, in most fertilizer for each experiment. The partial derivatives of years, reductions in yield due to drought would be less than yield with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus were equated those observed in 1967; and (b) one of the varieties used in to the ratio of the cost of the corresponding fertilizer to the the experiments seemed poorly adapted in two locations-price of the maize. This resulted in two equations in two responses to fertilization at those sites would probably have unknowns whose simultaneous solution gave the optimal been greater with a better-adapted variety. rates of nitrogen and phosphorus for each experiment. It was decided, therefore, to recommend 130 kg/ha N The estimated optimal rates of nitrogen in the 23 experiplus 40 kg/ha P205 for maize plantings in Zones I through ments varied from 0 to 221 kg/ha, with an average of 109 IV in 1968. One-tenth of the nitrogen and all the phoskg/ha. Optimal rates of phosphorus varied from 0 to 128 kg phorus were to be applied at planting time; the rest of the P2 05 /ha, with an average of 30 kg/ha. The maize yields nitrogen was to be applied just before the second cultiva21



PAGE 1

FACUNDO BARRIENTOS P., M.S. In charge.of genetic improvement, 1968. TARCICIO CERVANTES SANTANA, M.S. In charge of genetic improvement, 19691971. FIDEL MARQUEZ SANCHEZ, Ph, D. Geneticist, Graduate College, Chapingo, M4xico, Special Collaboration in genetic improvement, 1969. HUGO MEJIA A., Ing. Agr. Associate in genetic improvement, 1969-1971. APOLINAR AGUILLON GALICIA, Ing. Agr. Associate in genetic improvement, 1971. In charge of genetic improvement, 1972. HELIODORO DIAZ CISNEROS, Ing. Agr. In charge of evaluation, 1968-1969. JUAN MANUEL RANGEL, Ing. Agr. In charge or evaluation 1970. FRANCISCO GARCIA HERNANDEZ, Lic. In charge of evaluation, 1971-1973. FELIPE RODRIGUEZ CANO, M.S. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 4, 1968-1971. FRANCISCO ESCOBEDO CASTILLO, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 2, 1969-1971. GILDARDO ESPINOZA SANCHEZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 1, 1969-1971. J. de JESUS GUERRA MARTINEZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3, 1969; Zone 5, 1970-1971. ARISTEO ALVAREZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3, 1970. ROGELIO AGUIRRE RIVERA, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3, 1971-1972. FELIPE DE LA FUENTE PEREZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 1, 1971-1972. ESTEBAN LEAL ZAPATA, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 2, 1971-1972. EZEQUIEL SOLIS RUIZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 5, 1971-1972. LUCIANO VIDAL GARCIA, Ing. Agr. Associate in evaluation, 1971; Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 4, 1972. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA OREA, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3, 1972. OZIEL MONTAIEZ GONZALEZ, Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 1, 1972-1973. ARTURO CAMARENA MEDRANO, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 4,1973. JOSE MARCOS FRANCISCA, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 2, 1973. MIGUEL SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 3,1973. ALFONSO MACIAS LAYLLE, Pas. Ing. Agr. Technical assistance to farmers, Zone 5, 1973. JOSE ZARAGOZA PULIDO, Sociologist, Special collaboration in the organization of farmers, 1972-1973. GIL OLMOS BARRERA, M.S., Special Collaboration in Visual Aids, 1968-1973. Technical Advisors LEOBARDO JIMENEZ SANCHEZ, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, M4xico, 1971-1973. REGGIE J. LAIRD, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1967-1973. DELBERT T. MYREN, Ph. D. Head of the Communications Department, CIMMYT, 1967-1970. ANTONIO TURRENT FERNANDEZ, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1969-1973. GREGORIO MARTINEZ VALDES, Ph. D. Head of the Communications Department, CIMMYT, 1971-1973. HELIODORO DIAZ CISNEROS, Ph. D. 1970. V



PAGE 1

5 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS' "high-yield" plots throughout the western three-quarters of INTRODUCTION the Project area. Initially, the plans called for the customTechnical assistance to Puebla Project farmers began in ary procedure used for locating demonstrations; that is, early 1968, when new maize recommendations were develchoosing of highly accessible locations with good -soils, opedbasd onthe196 resarc resltsandcompemetawhere the largest possible number of farmers could see the ry data. This new maize technology brought several changes loted fist anpocpid thet owner thncnieds oul tciae for its users, including (a) higher investment in fertilizersowaevefr,n the xpriner otin byvic the evalutinptem the new fertilizer recommendation in 1968 cost about 130 inwer 1968 exience oaihne in traegy authen team percent more than the average fertilizer treatment used in i al 98idctdacag nsrtg.Teta 1967 by the 70 percent of the farmers-who fertilized their encountered negative attitudes and, in some cases, hostility maie; b) urhas ofiniviualferilzermatrils nstad among many farmers; thus plans were revamped to work maiz; () prchse f iniviualferilier mteralsinsead through the existing power structure in each community. of a formula, and the mixing of the materials at home; (c)ThpoicaadnsttveutinhePbaaraste application of a part of the fertilizers at planting time and Theical rdcontahv ofi hih hs Pba rnia village the remainder at the second cultivation, instead of applying an eerlacilrypplain nt or commu ah fWih a rnita iaeTh all the fertilizer at the first cultivation; (d) use of higher mncplreintand svrIaanilypolter municipalaomuthoities. live plant densities50,000 plants/hainstead of the 15,000 to muipaprsdnadotemncplathiislven 25,000 used earlier; and (e) control of weeds, with more the principal village with auxiliary authorities, responsible complete and timely methods, plus control of the rose t h uiia rsdnrsdn nec ftecm chafer at flowering time when necessary. munities. Although these changes were largely quantitative, they As a first measure, the Project staff began to contact the did imply wide-reaching changes in farm management and municipal presidents and explain the Project and its goals. farming practices-for the Pueblan farm families. These initial visits provided a brief description of the The ental im o th tehnicl asisanceproramwas Project, using the report prepared for the first annual meetTohroe very pimosibleteha assistance ees roga enabl sh ing, a map showing the locations of the experiments farver toee nose astecg efeciey. toenalh conducted in 1967, and a list of the cooperating farmers. farmrs o us th ne tecnolgy efecivey. Tchncal This basic information was attached to an official letter of assistance agents sought rapid adoption of Project recomprsnainigebyteG ealAntothMnsryf mendations by concentrating on: (a) providing the farmprsentatorgeb the eeraAg of giuthe, Minteo ers with information about the Project, including how the Agoriultrf the Stterector ofe Agttriculraind thee new recommendations were developed and the several coordbintors of the Project.a tholette epand the rcomponents of the new recommendations; (b) assisting the tap oblthes ol the i evlpn hePoet farmrs n otaiingcreit nd i arangng or ertlizrs; The presidents were asked to arrange general meetings of (c) instructing the farmers in the most efficient ways to use althmuiplatoriestatflinraincud the recommendations; and (d) collecting information from albe munvicip abutheot so tht fulworatns ould68 the farmers about obstacles limiting their use of agricultural bumeid about thel Proec abund o the r planfo 1968 services in the area, transmitting the information to the Suh eeting whreorehlsnaln of the municipio inea members of the Project team and to representatives of Digthe ester th ee-futins of the rojectpa. toiis service agencies, and assisting in finding ways to overcome Daeurielngth n firs meetin oft th uia l auroetotes the difficulties, crflepaainwsmd fwa h rjc ol provide and how the farmers might cooperate. At the PROJECT PROGRAM: 1968 completion of each meeting, the participants were asked which farmers in the locality might be interested in the Location of the High-yield Plots Project. The authorities usuallyasked for time to return to their villages to explain the Project and find out who might A demonstration program was planned for 1968 so that be interested. In a few cases, the local authority himself was the farmers could have a first-hand look at the advantages ready to participate and to initiate Project work in his of the new maize technology. Plans were made to locate village. 45



PAGE 1

A further difficulty was presented by the farmers themPROJECT PROGRAM: 1973 selves. They objected to the recommended plant density for beans-60,000 plants/hacontending that it was too high The technical assistance program in 1973 continued to and would result in severe lodging before maturity. The center attention on increasing the adoption of Project Project agronomists agreed that their research data on plant recommendations. These recommendations, however, now density for beans was not conclusive and that it should be included packages of production practices for the maizeinvestigated further. They insisted, however, that farmers pole bean association as a result of research conducted use the recommended seeding rate for beans in at least a during 1970-1972. The results obtained in many experfew rows of their maize-bean associations. iments had shown conclusively that net income from the Although these problems greatly reduced the effecassociation could be significantly greater than from either tiveness of the campaign promoting the new technology for maize or beans grown alone. Thus, the technical assistance the maize-bean association, it was possible to get farmers to agents began to tell the farmers about the advantages of the use the new recommendations on small plots at many sites new technology for the maize-bean association, encouraging throughout the area. them to try the association on a part of their land. Several obstacles were encountered, h-owever, that limiUse of Agua Ammonia ted farmer use of the new recommendations for the maizebean association. The information that previously had been A new source of fertilizer and credit became available in available to the service institutions recommended that 1973 to farmers in the Puebla area who made use of Project maize and beans should be grown alone, rather than in recommendations for maize. Guanomex, the decentralized association. Thus, the crop insurance agency was not prefederal agency responsible for the production and distribupared to insure the association, and the official credit banks tion of chemical fertilizers, was interested in finding a way could not authorize credit for farmers who wished to grow to make fertilizers available to small farmers at a lower cost. it. The Project team arranged discussions with the repreGuanomex decided that this objective could be achieved, sentatives of the banks and crop insurance agency, and using agua ammonia as the source of nitrogen. They offered explained the research results that clearly demonstrated the to provide agua ammonia to farmers, on credit, along with advantages of the association. The representatives of the the applicators, other equipment, and technical assistance institutions were convinced by the research findings, and required for its use. Ammonium phosphate, 18-46-0, also modified their operating procedures so that credit and was made available for application at planting time to insurance were available for the maize-bean association. farmers who planned to apply phosphorus. In 1973, Guanomex promoted the use of aqua ammonia by small farmers in the Puebla area. Although there are problems in the design of the applicator yet to be resolved, there is interest in this source or nitrogen, because of its lower cost. 52



PAGE 1

and field inspectors. In one year, for example, the Bank lack of coordination between the Bank's field technicians manager was changed four times. Frequent changes in Bank and Project personnel; and (b) the Bank does not feel that personnel cause many deficiencies in the bank's services to short-term credit, especially for maize production, is an the ejidatarios; and (e) members of the ejidal credit socieffective way of helping small farmers. The Bank feels that eties are poorly informed of their rights and obligations and such loans tend to perpetuate the vicious cycle of povertyfew participate in transactions with the Bank. Most memsubsistence that is at the root of underdevelopment. In bers, for example, do not know what percentage of interest extending credit to a considerable number of farmers in they are paying, how much is deducted from their loans for 1969 and 1970, this Bank sought to introduce them to the crop insurance, or why other deductions are made. Society Bank's services with the aim of promoting long-term loans members are poorly informed mainly because they fail to to make the farmer's operations more productive. Few of attend the meetings held by the field inspector. According the farmers, however, reacted as the Bank had expected. to the ejidatarios, however, nothing of importance is discusSince 1972, the Agricultural Bank of the South has sed at the meetings. This situation can be improved in the promoted a different form of organization, which consists future if the field inspector will devote more time to visprimarily of consolidating the contiguous holdings of a iting the ejidos, perhaps soliciting the participation of the group of farmers and operating the land as a single unit. technical assistance agents. The bank expects to drill wells and convert most of the land to higher-income, irrigated crops. This organizational model is presently being tried with three societies in the AGRICULTURAL BANK OF THE SOUTH Saeo uba State of Puebla. The National Crop and Animal Production Bank was In view of the present thinking of the Agricultural Bank established in 1965, with the function of granting credit to of the South, it seems unlikely that the Bank will grant both ejidatarios and landowners. Its basic purposes are to significant amounts of credit in future years to enable farmassist the Agricultural and Ejidal Banks in serving more ers to use Project recommendations. farmers, and to seek new ways to make these services more dynamic and efficient. THE COXTOCAN HACIENDA The National Crop and Animal Production Bank has In 1969, the owner of the Coxtocan Hacienda give four regional banks that function independently in adminchemical fertilizers to many of the eidatarios who farmed istrative matters, each providing service in several states. the land adjacent to her property. The following year she One of these regional banks, the Agricultural Bank of the ad was deluged with requests for fertilizers and was forced to South, was established in the city of Puebla in 1967 and serves eight southeastern states, with agencies in each. coorior of the ua Po sugst th at, rThe The pertingproedurs o th AgrculuralBan of coordinator of the Puebla Project suggested that, rather The operating procedures of the Agricultural Bank of than give the fertilizers, the ejidatarios might request the the South are similar to those of the Ejidal Bank, the differtilizer on credit from a distributor, and that she could ference being that farmers can organize solidarity groups (if serve as guarantor for the loans. The Project agreed to their membership is less than 10) or credit societies (if organize the ejidatarios and provide them with technical membership is 10 or more). The time required to found a assistance. society is about the same as in the case of the Ejidal Bank. Since 1971, the owner of the Coxtocan Hacienda has An important difference between the Agricultural Bank of guaranteed the loans for about 250 ejidatarios in 10 groups. the South and Ejidal Bank is that the Ejidal Bank field The credit was extended by the Olmeca fertilizer company inspectors collect payments on loans directly in the comin 1971 and by the Impulsora de Puebla in 1972 and 1973. munities and, when necessary, from the efidatarios in their It is not expected that the owner of the Coxtocan Hacienda homes. The field inspectors of the Agricultural Bank of the will be equipped to guarantee the loans of larger numbers South do not collect loan payments, of ejidatarios in future years. When the Puebla Project began to promote the use of the new maize recommendations, the Project technicians DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF GUANOMEX and farmers felt that the potential of the Agricultural Bank of the South for supplying production credit exceeded that As mentioned earlier, Guanomex is a decentralized of the other official banks. It was new, well-equipped, had federal agency with the responsibility for the production well-trained personnel, and was interested in new apand distribution of chemical fertilizers in Mexico. It iniproaches. tiated a pilot effort in 1973 to promote the use of agua Table 7.1 shows that the credit provided by the Agriculammonia by organized farmers in the Puebla area. Guanotural Bank of the South peaked in 1969 and 1970 and mex feels that nitrogen in the form of agua ammonia can be steadily declined in the following three years. This tendensupplied to small farmers at a cost of only about 60 percent cy of the bank to reduce its credit program apparently of that of solid fertilizers. An important factor contributing stems from two causes: (a) the percent repayment on loans to this lower cost of liquid fertilizers is the feasibility of has been low, only 50 to 62 percent--this low repayment transferring the personnel and special equipment for handrate can be explained in part by the fact that the Bank's ling agua Iammonia presently assigned to irrigated areas of clients have received little technical assistance due to the the country to rainfed areas for a few months each year. 69



PAGE 1

Acknowledgments The Project operations and accomplishments have depended upon the firm support of the highest authorities of the Mexican Government. The Ministry of Agriculture has(given strong backing at both the federal and state levels. The Government of the State of Puebla has supported the Project as an effective means for beginning an economic and social transformation of the area. The cooperation and support of governmental authorities and private enterprises has made it possible to improve credit facilities and to make more readily available the essential inputs and services. The Chapingo Graduate College, through its Departments of Agricultural Communications, Statistics, Soils, and Genetics, has provided advice and direct service. The National Institute of Agricultural Research, through its Maize Department, has provided genetic materials for developing new high-yielding varieties for the area. CIMMYT has provided technical advice and direct assistance through its Maize Program and Communications Department and also has provided an administrative structure with a minimum of the bureaucratic impediments that might restrict the functioning of the Project. The Rockefeller Foundation made the initial grant for the Project and contributed a total of $559,851 (see note below) to its support during the seven-year period, 1967-1973. During this period, CIMMYT contributed $332,737 for the operation of the Project, and $32,457 was provided by the Graduate College at Chapingo and institutions in Puebla. The total operating cost of the Project for the seven years was $925,045. Other activities related to the Project and their costs were: (1) Consulting service for the Project team -$87,166; (2) Consulting service for similar programs in Mexico and other countries -$112,390; and (3) Training of staff for other programs -$168,158. These costs for the operation of the Project and related activities do not include a charge for indirect costs (overhead). EDITORIAL NOTE: This report was prepared by Dr. Leobardo Jimenez Sinchez, Dr. Antonio Turrent Fernandez, Dr. Heliodoro Diaz Cisneros, Lic. Francisco Garcia Hernindez, Dr. Gregorio Martinez Vald6s, and Dr. Reggie J. Laird, with ample assistance from other members of the Puebla Project staff. Dr. Alain de Janvry, Dr. John Pesek, Dr. Delbert Myren, and Dr. Ralph Cummings, Jr. reviewed the manuscripts and contributed significantly to improving their content. All references to dollars in, this report are expressed in terms of United States currency. III



PAGE 1

emergence, and (c) high-yielding local varieties were available for use in the experiments. A field experiment was designed and installed at 23 FIELD RESEARCH IN 1967 locations distributed throughout the Project area. TreatInformation available at the beginning of 1967 indicated ments were used to measure the response of maize to levels that maize production was the major agricultural activity in of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. The criteria of the the Project area, accounting for the greater part of the availcooperating farmers were used in deciding land preparation able land, labor, and capital. Preliminary findings suggested practices, the date and method of planting, and times of that maize yields could be increased substantially under cultivating each experimental site. most farming conditions by: (a) increasing the rate of The field trials were begun between April 18 and May fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus, (b) using higher 11. A composite soil sample was collected at each site. Rain plant densities, and (c) using better weed and insect control gauges were installed near each experiment and arrangemeasures. There was evidence that fertilization with potasments made for the cooperating farmers to maintain a sium, although a common practice, was not contributing to record of daily rainfall. The experiments were visited regularly during the growing season and data were collected higher yields. on: (a) dates of all farming operations; (b) phonological Based on existing knowledge, the initial reasoning was dates; (c) vegetative response to treatments; and (d) damage that optimal levels of fertilization with nitrogen and phosdue to drought, hail, frosts, lodging, excess water, weed and phorus would be greatly influenced by local conditions, insect infestations, and diseases. A pit was dug at each thus should receive priority in the field research program in experimental site and a description was made of the soil 1967. It was also concluded that optimum levels of factors profile. such as time and method of applying fertilizers, plant denThe experiments were harvested between October 6 and sity, genotype, and plant protection, which are generally 25. The ears were harvested from the center rows of each less affected by local variations in soils and climate, could plot, weighed, and the moisture content of the grain was be estimated a priori from experiences gained in similar determined. Observations were made on the percentage of regions. rotten kernels, the pollination percentage, and the shelling Thus, two hypotheses tested initially were: (a) producpercentage. tion of rained maize in most of the area was being limited by the rates of nitrogen and phosphorus commonly used by Results: 1967 farmers, and (b) fertilizing with potassium or zinc did not increase maize yields. In designing the experiments to test The data collected during the growing season on factors these hypotheses it was assumed that: (a) a population influencing maize development were summarized for four density of 50,000 plants/ha would be near optimal for the distinct parts of the growth cycle: (a) from planting to 45 higher levels of fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus days prior to flowering, (b) the 45 days preceding flowerthat were thought to be needed, (b) the maize plantings ing, (c) the 45 days after flowering, and (d) the period from should be kept free of weeds for the first 60 days after the 46th dav after flowering to physiological maturity. Field experiments were con7,1 ducted in cooperation with farmers at sites carefully selected to sample the varia tion in soils, climate and past management existing in the area. Here bags with different V fertilizer treatments are being placed in the experimental piotsjust prior to application. 20



PAGE 1

committee to inspect members' parcels and render a The purchasing procedure of CONASUPO is relatively report. The agency field inspectors would make spot simple. An employee receives the maize from the producer checks periodically to assure that the committees were at the warehouse, weighs it, and determines the moisture observing the regulations of the insurance agency. A content. If the grain contains more than 14 percent moisprocedure similar to this is presently being used with ture, its weight is adjusted to that moisture content. A sales good results by one group that receives credit from the slip is prepared showing the weight of grain received and its Impulsora de Puebla. value. The farmer presents the sales slip to the cashier and (e) to cooperate more closely with the credit banks and receives his payment. the Puebla Project. The bank managers and the Project One problem with this procedure, as far as farmers are coordinator saw their relations with the director of the concerned, is that the, cashier is normally present at the crop insurance agency gradually deteriorate during warehouse only 2 days per week. This means that farmers 1.972 and 1973. The primary reason for this weakened often have to make a second trip to the warehouse in order relationship seems to be the questions asked by the to get paid. For this reason, and the inconvenience of Project staff regarding the operating procedures of the having to haul their grain to the warehouse, most farmers insurance 'agency. Near the end of 1972, for example, continue to sell their maize to the village grain merchant. the Project coordinator invited the bank managers and The network of CONASUPO buyers, nontheless, serves to the insurance agency director to work with him in keep the price paid by the local buyer from falling much finding a way to modify certain procedures of the below the official price. insurance agency that were very troublesome to the Table 7.3 shows the amounts of maize purchased in farmers. The director of the insurance agency, how1971-1972 and 1972-1973 at the 15 rural warehouses, as ever, showed little inclination to cooperate. The only well as the amounts sold to local consumers. Purchases in accomplishment of the meeting was the decision to these 2 years account for a small part of the total maize consider parcels separated by more than 1 km as difsold in the area, indicating that most farmers sold to local ferent units for insurance purposes. Increased cooperabuyers. The amounts purchased in 1972-1973 were much tion between the agency director and the representlower than in 1971-1972, probably because the price atives of other agricultural institutions in Puebla is offered by local buyers that year was above $75.20/ton, essential to a more effective crop insurance program. due to a general shortage of maize throughout the country. THE NATIONAL MARKETING AGENCY TABLE 7.3. Metric tons of maize purchased and sold by Conasupo at the rural warehouses in the Puebla area. The National Marketing Agency (CONASUPO) was established in 1962 with the following objectives: (a) to Name of Purchases Sales improve rural family income though support prices for warehouse 1971-72 1972-73 1971-72 1972-73 different agricultural products; (b) to maintain reserves of Magdalena 1463 675 7.4 18.7 basic foods with which to meet possible shortages; and (c) Ocotitlan 141 45 to regulate prices in consumer markets of basic foods to Tlaxco 6485 3606 14.9 74.9 protect the low-income population. Coatepec 742 192 .56.6 ptt Malacatepec 191 105 .96.8 Until 1971, CONASUPO purchased maize in the Puebla Benito Juirez 1077 343 .. 67.7 area and stored it in the central warehouses of the National Teotlalcingo 281 283 84.6 0.9 Storage Agency (ANDSA). During 1968-1970, however, Tlautla 2660 1932 -13.1 CONASUPO constructed rural warehouses at 15 locations El Verde 751 73 4.5 34.3 Acozautla 590 34 2.6 throughout the Project area. Since 1971, CONASUPO has Tepeaca 3643 1278 210.7 purchased maize at these warehouses without restrictions as San Andr6s Cholula 1534 ... to grain color or minimum quantity per producer. It has Emiliano Zapata -460 29.1 paid the official price of $75.20/ton for grain containing 14 Guadalupe Zaragoza -20 4.4 percent moisture or less. Prior to the harvest in 1973, the Santiago Coltzingo -7 official price was increased to $96/ton. Total 19,558 9,053 111.4 609.8 72



PAGE 1

The texture of the upper horizon of the pumiceous soils, The heavy soils of Zone V cover an area of some 3,151 which may extend to a depth of 80 cm, is gravelly sand. ha, of which 2,700 ha are under cultivation. The morpholDespite its coarse texture, this horizon contains about 6 ogy of these soils is similar to that of the sodic-like soils, percent available moisture when wet to the field capacity. except that the Bt horizon is less developed and the soils It usually contains less than 0.5 percent organic matter, has thus have better internal drainage. The heavy soils of Zone a pH of about 6.5, and a cation exchange capacity of V have a limited capacity to conserve moisture over the around 6 meq/100 g. The lower horizon may be similar to winter months; thus, maize plantings usually can not be the corresponding horizon in the deep soils of Popocatdpetl made until the rains begin. or it may be a loose, pumiceous gravel. This latter material The soils with a compacted horizon occupy an area of has a pH near 7.0, a cation exchange capacity of around 7 about 28,912 ha, with 22,403 ha presently under cultivameq/100 g, and contains about 6 percent available moisture tion. The compacted layer that limits both root penetration when wet to the field capacity. When properly managed, and water percolation lies at a depth of 20-60 cm from the the pumiceous soils can be planted with residual moisture, surface. This layer can be: (a) fragipan, (b) claypan, or (c) The soils of La Malinche cover some 34,602 ha with tepetate. The first two layers are genetic horizons; tepetate about 25,298 ha under cultivation. These soils have formed is a partially consolidated volcanic ash. The surface horizon from volcanic ash that has been redeposited by water in contains 0.5-1.0 percent organic matter, has a pH of around alluvial fans. The upper layer of these soils, about 30 cm in 6.5, is high in potassium, and contains moderate amounts depth, is usually a sand. This horizon contains 0.5-1.0 perof phosphorus. Sufficient moisture to permit early plancent organic matter, has a pH of around 6.5, is high in tings of maize cannot be conserved through the winter in phosphorus and potassium, and contains about 7 percent these soils. available moisture when wet to the field capacity. A gravelThe soils with a high water table cover an area of some ly sand with a depth of a meter or more is usually found 7,527 ha, of which 6,871 ha are under cultivation. The underlying this horizon, depth of the water table in these soils varies with their Soils with an incipient B horizon are found on the interproximity to the Atoyac River, with the seasons, and with mediate slopes of La Malinche. This B horizon has a loamy the upkeep of the drainage canals. High yields of maize and sand to sandy loam texture and a cation exchange capacity alfalfa are obtained in soils with the water table more than sand5tocsandyoloametextureeandhascationsexchangekcapacity of about 15 meq/100 g, with a low base saturation percent50 cm below the surface. These soils are dark-colored age (around 35). On the lower slopes of La Malinche, the loams, high in organic matter, with little profile developlower soil horizon consists of sediments a meter or more in meant. They have pH values around 7.5, cation exchange depth, with a sandy loam to silty clay loam texture. These capacities of about 30 meq/100 g, and contain less than 5 soils are potentially very productive. When properly manpercent exchangeable sodium. aged, the soils of La Malinche also can be planted with residual moisture. THE FARMING POPULATION The. sodic-like.soils .occupy an area of about 16,560 ha, with 13,121 ha currently under cultivation. The parent Most of the farmers in the region are descendents of the material is a light-grey volcanic ash, alkaline in reaction, Indian populations present in the area at the time of the which is found essentially unaltered at a depth of 60-160 Spanish conquest. In certain villages, Nahuatl, or "Mexcm, depending upon the degree of weathering of the ican" as it is known in the area, is still spoken, although profile. These soils are similar morphologically to Solonetz everyone understands Spanish. The information presented soils. The surface or A horizon is a loamy sand about 20 cm in this section comes mainly from personal interview deep. This overlies a Bt horizon some 60-100 cm in depth, surveys for 1967 and 1970 (refer to Chapter 8). which is black, contains around 60 percent clay, has a columnar structure, and has a very firm consistency. This Number of Farmers horizon is very impermeable and greatly restricts the passage of water and the penetration of maize roots. A thin, The number of farm operators in the Project area was greyislt-colored A2 horizon showing the effects of reducestimated to be 43,300. This value was calculated by tion processes, is usually distinguishable between the A and dividing the total cultivated area, 116,800, by 2.7, the averBt horizons, age number of cultivated hectares per farm operator. This latter value is the average of the estimates of the number of The Bt horizon has a cation exchange capacity of about 35 meq/100 g, a base saturation percentage of 80, and is slightly alkaline. The content of exchangeable sodium varies surveys. from 4-14 percent of the cation exchange capacity; thus, According to the surveys, the average family consisted of the soils are designated sodic-like rather than sodic. Suf5.54 members in 1967 and 6.17 members in 1971. Asficient moisture to permit early plantings usually cannot be suming there was no change during the 4-year period in the conserved through the winter months. The production number of farms in the area, this means the total populapotential of these soils is very low under rainfed conditions, tion included in the families of farm operators was approxbut relatively high when irrigation water is available. imately 240,000 in 1967 and 267,000 in 1971. 4



PAGE 1

strategy of an agricultural program where the ratio of small roads in the project area. farmers to technical assistance agents is very large. This Obviously, the more favorable the relationship between emphasis on farmer organization has increased the number maize prices and fertilizer costs in Puebla, the more likely of farmers in the area who have been able to obtain credit that farmers will adopt Project recommendations. It seems for maize production. The questions can be asked, howunlikely, however, that prices have been an important ever: Are the requirements for becoming members of a factor restricting farmer use of the new technology. The group too difficult Would adoption of the Project recomrelative prices of maize and fertilizers have remained fairly mendations increase if such requirements were less restricconstant during the 1968-1972 period. Approximately 4 kg tive? of maize remained equal in value to I kg N; and 3 kg maize Information relating to these questions was collected in to I kg P 2 05. As noted in Chapter 3, net income from the 1973 in interviews with 69 farmers belonging to 35 groups use of fertilizers is quite favorable in most of the producing distributed throughout the area. Approximately 65 percent systems in the area, with this price relationship. of the farmers indicated that the only requirement for Fertilizers were sold in some 46 towns and villages in the becoming a mernber of their group was that the candidate area during the early years of the Project. Since 1971, most be an honest, responsible person who fulfilled his obligafertilizers have been distributed through the official banks tions. About 20 percent of those interviewed indicated that and franchised dealers in six major towns. In most in candidates had to deposit some piece of property with the stances, however, farmers have been able to purchase the representative of the group to guarantee that they would quantities of fertilizers they need. On occasion, however, pay back the loan at the end of the year. This latter requirethey have had to wait several weeks for fertilizer deliveries ment at first appeared restrictive. However, investigation and have not always been able to buy the materials they revealed that it was necessary only that the candidate, if prefer. Difficulties in purchasing fertilizers have probably considered to be honest and responsible, sign a contract had some influence on the adoption of the maize recomwith the group in which he agreed to repay the loan at the mendations, because: (a) farmers who were lukewarm end of the year. about the use of fertilizers, have decided to use less fertiClearly, those farmers who are judged by their neighbors lizer in the face of inconveniences in procurement, (b) to be dishonest and irresponsible are unlikely to become those who have been unable to purchase fertilizers prior to members of the farmer organizations. Apart from these, planting have, at times, reduced their rate of seeding and however, there was no clear evidence that the requirements thus have obtained lower returns from the fertilizers; and for membership in the groups constitute a factor limiting (c) those who have received and applied fertilizers later farmer adoption of the maize recommendations. than recommended have sometimes been disappointed with the results. Other Factors Difficulties in transporting fertilizers and produce have Characteristics of the farmer, his family, and his land probably not influenced the rate of adoption of the Project (such as level of education, size of the family, number of recommendations. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there is an members of the family that work, family capital resources, adequate system of roads in the Puebla area. farm size, quality of the land, etc.) probably influence the farmer's decision to adopt or not adopt the Project recommendations. With the information available it was not possible to determine the importance of the first four of these factors on adoption. The 1970 survey data, however, were used to study the influence of farm size on farmer use of the maize recommendations. The amount of nitrogen used by the 50 percent of the farmers with the largest farms was compared with the amount used by the 50 percent of the farmers with the smallest farms. On the average, the farmers with VV the larger holdings used 41 percent more nitrogen per hectare than the farmers with the smaller holdings. Quality of land almost certainly influences the adoption of new technology. Farmers recognize differences in the potential of lands to produce and are more likely to use expensive technology on land with high-yielding potential. It was not possible to study this factor in Puebla as information on land quality of the sampled individual holdings was not available. Other factors which often influence the adoption of new The organizing of farmers into groups has helped to intechnology are the relationships between input costs and crease the number of small farmers that have been able to product prices, availability of inputs, and the network of use project recommendations. 88



PAGE 1

The 30 percent of the total family income derived from TABLE 10.2. Distribution of annual family incomes animal production in 1970 was unequally distributed among five ranges in 1967 and 1970. among the farmers in the area. Gross income from milk Ranges in 1967 1970* (94.4 percent of which was sold) accounted for 66.5 perannual % % of families cent of the total gross income from animal products and family of all of all of farmers the change in inventory of animals. Forty-two percent of income families families on credit lists the gross income from milk went to a single family and 81 (N=251) (N=239) (N=213) percent went to four families. Gross income from eggs 400 or less 55.8 43.5 39.9 (11.7 percent of which were sold) accounted for only 2 401 to 600 12.3 20.1 17.4 percent of the total gross income from animal production. 601 to 1000 16.3 18.0 18.8 As mentioned in earlier chapters, "farmers on credit 1000 to 2000 10.0 11.3 18.8 lists" refers to the farmers organized in groups who receive 2000 or more 5.6 7.1 5.1 credit for purchasing the inputs needed to follow the recommendations of the Puebla Project. The average total Family incomes in 1970 were adjusted to 1967 prices. family income for this category of farmers was $771.20 in 1970, about 6.6 percent less than the average for all farmers in the area. CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT Table 10.1 shows that the composition of the income of farmers on credit lists differs from that of all farmers in the area, mainly in that a larger percentage of the income of the There is a high level of unemployment andundercredit-listed farmers is derived from crop production with a employment in most rural areas of Mexico due to the: (a) smaller income percentage from animal production. In rapid growth in population, (b) low productivity of the 1970, for example, the average family net income from traditional agriculture, and (c) small number of job opcrops was $399.48 for farmers on credit lists compared portunities outside of agriculture. The Puebla Project has with $293.06 for all farmers in the area. The average gross worked to increase the level of employment by developing income from milk production in 1970 was $53.42 for farmand promoting a new technology for maize production that ers on credit lists versus $253.00 for all farmers in the area. requires more labor per hectare and enables the farmers to The value of the milk production of the largest single increase their net income. It is hoped that higher incomes producer in the credit-list category was $2,308; for the allwill permit farmers to gradually build up capital reserves farmers category the comparable value was $25,344. that can be used to increase the productive capacity of their Perhaps of greater significance than the change in the resources. If farmers invest this capital in activities that average total family income is the decrease in the percentincrease the use of labor, such as a shift from maize to age of families with very low incomes. Table 10.2 shows the alfalfa or vegetable crop production, the effect on employdistribution of family incomes among five income ranges in ment, catalyzed by the Puebla Project, should be much 1967 and 1970. From this information it is seen that the greater than the initial effect resulting from the use of the percentage of all families in the lowest income category new maize technology. 5 decreased from 55.8 percent in 1967 to 43.5 percent in Table 10.3 shows the labor requirements for producing 1970. These results show that many families in the income one hectare of maize using the traditional practices and the category of $400 or less realized increases in income during requirements for the practices recommended by the Puebla the three year period. Project. The average number of man-days required to produce one hectare of maize is increased from 40.6 manmade from the traditional to the new technology. The Z, days to 52.7 man-days, or by 30 percent, when a change is higher labor requirements of the new technology occur at planting, at the second cultivation, and at harvest. A, 5. There is no clear indication in the Puebla area that new 7: capital from the use of the improved maize technology \ ill be invested so as to increase employment. On the one hiuld, there is a tendency to slowly diversify land use in the small areas where irrigation is available. Oil the other hand, there are cases %\,here farmers have purchased animal-drawn The average total family income for all farmers in the Projimplements, such as cultivators, planters, and fertilizer ect area increased from $666.80 in 1967 to $825.52 in distributors, that reduce labor requirements. The inain 1970. Farmers are using this higher income both for home Justification for increasing the use of laborsaving farming improvements and production investment. Some are beginimplements is that farm labor becomes scarce at times of ning small animal production enterprises. such as this hog peak demand -at planting, time of fertilizing, and at unit. harvest. 90



PAGE 1

Influence of Infrastructure Development The number of technical assistance agents will be determined more by the number of farm families than by the The ackof oad, mrkes, npus, r afavrabe iput amount of cultivated land. In Puebla, each technical ascost: produce price relationship in a Project area would itneanassedboetowo iewsrspsbl indicate that the regional agricultural program should for about 10,000 farm families. concentrate its initial action on developing these essentials. .The diversity of the area -variability. in soils, physiograUnder such conditions, technical assistance and agronomic phy, temperature, and rainfall-mainly influences the proresearch would, to some extent, be supplanted, temporarily blem of developing reliable technological packages. For a by seciic atio todeveop oad, maket, adistibuion given size of area, the number of agronomic research techby seciic atio todeveop oad, maket, adistibuion nicians will generally increase as the diversity of the area system for inputs, or favorable change in the prices of increases. inputs and produce. The absence of credit would not I h rvoseape twsasmdta h ra postonenorml pogrm aciviiesbutwoud imly hat were easily accessible by mechanized transport. Under such the coordinator may have to devote considerable effort to conditions, a technical assistance agent will be able to reach making credit available in the area. the most remote village in his area in about an hour. For areas with poor communication, relatively larger staffs will Influence of the Political Environment b edd The political entity, state or nation, sponsoring a reHigh-yielding Crop Varieties gional agricultural program should be convinced of its merit High-yielding maize varieties, both native and improved, before it approves the budget necessary for its operation. were available in Puebla when the Project was initiated. It Political support for the program may become inadequate, seems unlikely, however, that this will always be the case. however, when two situations arise: (a) political leaders When crop varieties are not available that will permit farmmay accept the importance of the program but fail to grasp ers to greatly increase yields (e.g, double average yields in a the magnitude of the problem and become disillusioned Category B area), agronomic research should support when short-term accomplishments do not measure up to development of such varieties. The central role of the expectations, and (b) there is a change in the political regional program might be that of assisting a plant breeding leadership. Thus, it is necessary for the program strategy to team at a research center by collecting genetic materials include continuing action by the coordinator to keep the from the program area, providing information on farmer political leaders well-informed about program activities, and market preferences, and testing promising materials in difficulties, and accomplishments. The effort required will the area. be greater when political support for the program is low. THE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM influence of Size, Diversity, and AS A FIRST STEP IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT Accessibility of Program Area & It was recognized from the beginning of the Puebla The size of the staff and budget of a regional agr Project that the long-range objective was to improve net program will generally be proportional to the ci income, employment, and the general welfare of the rural area and the number of farmers to be serviced by people. That is, action to increase basic food crop producgram. The experience in Puebla suggests the f tion was seen as an initial step in the development of the examples of staff assignments for programs with (rural population. sizes of project areas: The experiences in, Puebla support the proposition that (a) 25,000 ha would require a coordinator wh rural development can be initiated effectively through an responsible for technical assistance in a pai action program aimed at increasing the production of one area, one technical assistance agent, one te or more basic crops. With a given amount of resources, a responsible for agronomic research, and on, program for small, subsistence farmers is more likely to be cian in charge of socioeconomic evaluations successful if it concentrates its efforts on one or a few (b) 50,000 ha would require a coordinator, farming enterprises. By proving that the use of new techthree technical assistance agents, one ag nology leads to higher yields and net income, the program research technician, and one evaluator, establishes its credibility and gains the confidence of the (c) 100,000 ha would require a coordinator, f: farmers. Once the program is accepted by the rural people, nical assistance agents, two agronomic they become more receptive to the entrance of other protechnicians, and one evaluator, grams that can contribute to a better way of life. The (d) 200,000 ha would require a coordinator initiative for starting new programs may often come from sistant coordinator, 10 technical assistance the farmers themselves. Thus, step by step, an agricultural three or four agronomic research technici; program is transformed into an integrated rural, developone or two evaluators. ment program. 112



PAGE 1

Field demonstrations were held at harvest time, to show farmers how yield and net income were increased by using the new technology. Here the net returns from using the recommended number of bags of fertilizer are being discussed with the farmers. 44



PAGE 1

By -early 1970, the Puebla staff felt that it would be tion effort has been lost due to the inability of the Project appropriate to begin to give attention to other farming to respond to these other production concerns. activities. The need to broaden the scope of Project activities was felt most acutely by the technical assistance agents, Thus, the Puebla experience indicates that a rural develwho sensed the eagerness of the farmers, to improve all of opment program can be launched effectively by concentrattheir farming enterprises. Because the Puebla Project was ing initially on rapidly increasing the production and, net programmed and financed specifically to increase maize income from an important basic food crop. After a portion production, however, other activities could not be exof the farmers have successfully used the new cropping panded greatly (except for a small effort in bean producpractices, the program should proceed immediately to tion). Since 1970, the farmers have steadily increased presexpand to other activities. The rate at which an agricultural sure for the Puebla Project to provide assistance in fruit program is gradually transformed into an integrated rural culture, the production of vegetable crops, the perforation development program may differ from village to village, and of wells for irrigation, animal production, etc. The Puebla should reflect the desire and readiness of the rural people to staff is in agreement that momentum in the maize producundertake new activities. 113



PAGE 1

Results similar to those shown in Table, 3.4 were obThree experiments were conducted at a single location in tained in the other integrated studies. Based on these data, 1971 to determine optmal production practices for late it was decided to make a separate recommendation for late plantings of maize. These experiments covered three topplantings. This recommendation would use 30 kg less nitroics, (a) exploration of the yielding ability of six varieties, gen per. hectare and 10,000 fewer planIts per hectare than (b) study of the response of a local maize variety to five, the recommendation' for early plantings, For soils with a minor eldrments, and (9) !stidy of the response of an introcompacted horizori, a small reduction in'the phosphorus 4Iuegl maize variety to fertilization with nitrogen, phosrate was also recommendedfor late plantirgs. :phoruis,,aridchicken nahtre, and to plant density. A fifth approximation 6f the recommended production The responseof rn e to five rates of nitrogen and phospractices for maize was calculated at the end of 1970, phortis or nitrogen and plant density' was studied at 10 taking into account all? information available-at that time. locations to produce data for calculating the most adequate Distinct packages of practices consisting of rates of fertilizamathematical model to represent maize response to these tion and plant density were recommended for 16 producing factors (thesis research of a graduate student at Chapingo). systems, varying mainly because of differences in soil Experiments at six locations studied optimal levels of morphology, planting date, and use for fruit trees, fertilization and plant density for bush beans. Two experiBush bean yields in the six experiments were influenced ments compared net income from the maize-bean associaby rates of fertilization and plant density. Average optimal tion with that obtained from maize and beans grown alone levels were 67 kg/ha N, 53 kg/ha P205, and 112,500 (pole beans were used in one experiment and bush beans in plants/ha. The average yield obtained with the optimal treatthe other). ments was 1,951 kg/ha beans. When no fertilizer was used, A series of experiments at two locations sought to the average yield was 780 kg/ha. The cost of the average identify crops that might be grown instead of maize in optimal treatment was equivalent to 605 kg beans with a years when the rains do not begin until July. Maize planted price of $0.12/kg and to 363 kg beans with a price of as late as July runs a high risk of being damaged by frost in $0.20/kg. Even at the lower price for beans, which rarely the fall. Included in this series were sunflowers for forage, occurs, the average increase in yield using the optimal treatbush beans, horse beans, oats, barley, and maize. ments was almost double the cost of the treatments. These data were used to arrive at a first approximation Results: 1971 of production practices for bush beans:(a) for deep soils of Popocatipetl 'and soils with a compacted horizon: 60 The rainfall pattern in 1971 was quite favorable for both kg/ha N, 60 kg/ha P205, and 120,000 plants per hectare; maize and beans. In the maize experiments, the average and (b) for the soils of La Malinche: 60 kg/ha N, 30 kg/ha numbers of days with plant wilting were 8.7, 0.4, 0, and 0 P205, and 120,000 plants per hectare. The recommendafor the four parts of the growing cycle. Slight to severe hail tions of the National Agricultural Research Institute for the damage occurred in the first, second, or third parts of the control of the bean beetle, Epilachnia varivestis (known growing cycle in 10 maize experiments. Slight to severe locally as "conchuela") were to be followed, with the farmfrost damage occurred in the first part of the growing cycle er to select the variety, the date of planting, and the time to in four maize plantings. None of the bean experiments was cultivate. damaged by drought, hail ,or frost. Bush beans suffered Results obtained in the study of the maize-bean associamoderate leaf damage due to anthracnose disease at three tion indicated that this cropping system might provide sites. greater net income to Puebla farmers than either maize or Only one of the early-maturing maize varieties studied in beans grown alone. 1971, Rojo Salvatori, showed a reasonably high yielding ability. Table 3.5 compares this variety with Zacatecas 58, which had the next highest yields. The Rojo Salvatori yield FIELD RESEARCH IN 1971 at the highest level of fertilization and plant density was Integrated studies of the effects of planting date, fertilization, and plant density were continued at four locations TABLE 3.5. Grain yields obtained with two early-matur.TABLE 3.5. Grain yields obtained with two early-maturin 1971. It was decided to continue these experiments for in 1971. It was decided to continue these experiments for ing maize varieties receiving different fertilization and plant several years to accumulate information on the interaction density treatments. between these factors and climatic conditions. py Cik Population Chicken Data from the integrated studies conducted in 1970 Nitrogen P205 density manure Grain yields (kg/ha)using: indicated that investigations of efficient management prackg/ha kg/ha plants/ha ton/ha Zacatecas 58 Rojo Salvatori tices for late maize planting should take these factors into 60 50 40,000 0 1237 1448 60 50 40,000 0 1237 1448 account: (a) existing short-season varieties have a rela100 50 60,000 0 833 1840 tively low-yielding ability, as compared to long-season 150 80 80,000 0 1168 2870 varieties; (b) there are probably nutrient deficiencies other 120 80 80,000 10 2030 2537 than nitrogen and phosphorus; and (c) light intensities and 200 100 100,000 0 1098 1676 200 100 120,000 0 1563 1354 temperatures are relatively low, and available soil moisture 150 100 120,000 20 1491 3147 abundant, in the initial stages of plant growth. 150 100 150,000 20 2597 4317 27



PAGE 1

In addition, there are many families living in the villages Percent of Hectares who do not operate farm land but depend heavily on Land Farm Operated Percent of agriculture for employment and sustenance. Using 1960 Holders Operators Per Farmer Total Area Census data for the 32 mun11iCipios that comprise the Project area, and the above estimate of the total population of the Ejidatarios 38.2 2.05 31.9 families of farm operators, there were estimated to be Private holders 27.5 2.74 30.3 13,300 landless rural families in the area in 1967. Ejido-private 33.5 2.76 37.2 Rented 0.4 3.00 0.5 Size of Holdings On shares 0.4 0.20 0.1 100.0 2.47 100.0 The average farm size, as mentioned earlier, was esti-____________________________ mated to be 2.7 ha. The amount of land per farm operator Of special interest is the frequency of combined private varied considerably as shown below, and ejidal holdings. L'/idatarios are farmers who received Amount of Land Operated Percentage of Farmers land from the government as a result of the agrarian reform. They have the use of the land while they live, but they .50 ha or less 9.2 cannot sell it. Also, private holders value their land very *51 -1.00 17.5 highly and sell only under exceptional circumstances. 1.01 -1.50 18.7 Consequently, the land market in the area is essentially 1.51 -2.00 10.7 frozen. 2.01 -2.50 12.3 Farmers commonly have several parcels at various loca2.51 -3.00 8.4 tions on different kinds of soils and at varying distances 3.01 -3.50 44fromn the farmstead, as shown below. 3.51 -4.00 6.4 _____________________ 4.01 -5.00 4.4 No. of Parcels Percentage of Farmers 5.01 -7.50 4.0 per farmer 7.51 -10.00 2.8_______________________ 10.00 or more 1.2 1 16.7 Type of Land Tenure 2 or 3 52.5 4 or 5 21.2 The prevalence of different land-holding systems in the 6 or 7 5.6 area is indicated by the following data from the 1967 8 or 9 4.0 survey: 10 or mnore 0.0 The average farm size in the project area is about 2.7 ha. Approximately 90% of the farms have 5 ha. or less. 5



PAGE 1

The results obtained in 1968 indicated that the recomResults: 1968 and 1969 mended rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density should be increased for the producing system with deep Conditions in 1968 were favorable for the production of soils. However, because 1968 was a very favorable year, it maize. The average numbers of days per experiment with was decided to increase only the rate of phosphorus by 10 plant wilting were 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, and 0 days during the four kg/ha P205. successive parts of the growing cycle. In three of the 20 For the system with soils having a compacted horizon, experimental sites there was slight damage due to hail the revised recommendation was for 20 kg/ha less nitrogen during vegetative development, but no damage during the and 10 kg/ha more P205.Thus, the third approximation of grain-filling period. There was slight or moderate frost the maize recommendations was: (a) 130 kg/ha N, 50 kg/ha damage during the first part of the growing cycle in half of P205, and 50,000 plants/ha for deep soils; and (b) 110 the experiments, kg/ha N, 50 kg/ha P 2 OS and 50,000 plants/ha for soils In contrast, 1969 was a poor year for maize production. with a compacted horizon. For the other production pracPlant wilting occurred on an average of 14.1, 14.1, 0.5, and tices, the recommendation remained the same as in the 0 days during the four parts of the growing cycle. In several previous year. of the experiments, the plants began to wilt two weeks Studies of soil morphology done in 1969 identified a after emergence and continued under moisture stress until a large area of sodic-like soils in Zone IV. It was also found week or so before tasseling. Slight to severe hail damage that most of the soils in Zone V had formed on volcanic ash occurrred in one-third of the experiments during the first, derived from the volcano, La Malinche. According to field second, or third parts of the growing period. Frost did not response to fertilizers, these soils were well supplied with affect the maize plantings in 1969. phosphorus. Thus, four producing systems were recognized Studies of soil morphology done in 1968 revealed a large in the interpretation of experimental results in 1969, inregion in the northwestern part of the Project area in which cluding: (a) deep soils of Popocat4petl; (b) soils of La the subsoils were sufficiently dense and compacted to reMalinche, and two other systems with soils having a comstrict water movement and the penetration of maize roots. pacted layer impeding root development; (c) those comprisTwo producing systems were thus recognized and taken ing parts of Zones I and II and recognized first in 1968; and into account in the interpretation of the experimental re(d) the sodic-like soils in Zone IV. sults in 1968: (a) deep soils of Popocat6petl, comprising Even with the unfavorable rainfall regime in 1969, the Zones III, IV, and parts of I and II; and (b) soils with a deep soils of Popocat4petl yielded well and reflected the compact layer impeding root development comprising parts need for a high rate of nitrogen fertilization. The best yields of Zones I and II. obtained in 1969 on the soils with a compacted horizon in The economically optimal rates of nitrogen for the Zones I and II were much lower than those obtained in experiments conducted in deep soils in 1968 varied from 1968. The soils of La Malinche showed a lower yielding 133-200 kg/ha, with an average of 187 kg/ha. The optimal potential than the deep soils of Popocat~petl under the rates of phosphorus varied from 50-100 kg/ha P205, with unfavorable climatic conditions in 1969. Even though an average of 81 kg/ha. Optimal population densities varied maize yields were increased by fertilization on the sodicfrom 42,000-70,000 plants/ha with an average of 64,400 like soils, maximum grain yields on these soils barely plants/ha. Grain yields, using these optimal treatments, reached 1,500 kg/ha. Maize yield on the sodic-like soils varied from 4,510-8,790 kg/ha, with an average of 7,462 were limited mainly by excess moisture during the first kg/ha. The average increase in grain yield above the control three parts of the growing season. treatment was 6,434 kg/ha. The studies on rates of fertilization of maize in orchards For the producing system in which the soils have a showed that the two rows of maize on either side of the compacted horizon, the average optimal rates of nitrogen, rows of trees should receive less fertilizer than the other phosphorus, and population density were 106 kg/ha, 58 rows. The fourth approximation of the maize recommendakg/ha P2Os and 55,333 plants/ha, respectively. The average tions is presented in Table 3.3. yield obtained using the optimal treatments was 4,847 The study of the traditional method of land preparation kg/ha grain; the average increase over the control treatment provided strong evidence that the moisture content of the was 3,443 kg/ha. Clearly, for a favorable year like 1968, the soil and the per cent emergence of maize planted the foltwo producing systems differ markedly both in their potenlowing spring were lower when the soil was not plowed tial for maize production and in the optimal rates of nitroduring the late fall, than with traditional practices. The gen fertilization, study of depth of plowing detected no significant reduction The overall average grain yield in 1968 using the optimal in yield due to deep plowing at the last cultivation. treatments was 5,312 kg/ha more than that obtained with Date of planting and time of applying nitrogen showed the control treatment. This compares with an average incontrasting effects on yield in 1968 and 1969. Maize plantcrease of 3,292 kg/ha in 1967 for the experiments coned during the first week of April in 1968 yielded 2,000 ducted in the same area. This difference was due primarily kg/ha more than maize planted three weeks later. In 1969, to more favorable rainfall in 1968 and the flexibility intromaize planted on the later date yielded 1,000 kg/ha more duced by including plant density in the experimental mathan that planted three weeks earlier. In 1968, maize yields trix. were 600 kg/ha higher when 150 kg/ha N were applied at 24



PAGE 1

ments conducted during 1967-1972. These net incomes seems reasonable to conclude that a certain percentage of were used to estimate the risks farmers take in using the the farmers in the area, perhaps one-fourth, now feel that a several technologies. Risk was defined arbitrarily as the change from the traditional to the new technology would standardized probability of obtaining an increase in net mean a reduction in net income from their maize in the less income from the use of a given technology equal or inferior favorable years. in value to: (a) 0.5 ton/ha of maize grain or (b) 0 ton/ha of maize grain. As shown in Table 3.14 for traditional technology, risk Aalblt fCei defined as the probability of a net income of 0.5 ton/ha or Aalblt fCei less,, was nearly four times as great in producing system As can be calculated from the information in Table 3. 10, 1.1;three times as great in system 2.1.1; and 32 percent the average cost involved in using the Project recommenda-. greater in the entire area-as compared with that using tions for limited capital is 19 percent greater than for the recommendations for unlimited capital. When defined as traditional technology; the average cost of the recointhe probability of a net income of 0 ton/ha or less, risks mendations for unlimited capital is 82 percent greater than using the traditional practices were nearly three tii ep as for the traditional technology. According to'the data colgreat in producing system 1.1.1; twice as great in system lce nteaeol bu 5preto h amr 2.1.1; and about 4 per cent less for the entire area-as have sufficient personal funds to purchase the inputs recompared with that of using Project recommendations for quired by the Project recommendations. Thus, in deciding unlimited capital. whether to use the new technology, the greater fertilizer Comparison of net incomes and risks using Project cost and the necessity for credit to cover this expense is a recommendations for unlimited capital and those for tradimajor consideration for most farmers. tional practices suggests several observations about the The discussion of the credit institutions in Chapter 7 relative risks involved: (a) for average and favorable years suggests that the supply of credit available through the there is a high probability of an attractive income from official banks for maize production has been equal to or using either technology; the expected net income is nearly greater than the demand in recent years. A study of 29 twice as large with the Project recommendations as with farmers not on credit lists from five communities in the traditional practices; (b) for less favorable years, the value Puebla area in 1973 indicated that there were two main of the net income will be equal to or less than 0.5 ton/ha reasons why more farmers did not request. credit from one of maize in many instances; the probability of these low of the official banks: (a) 15 of the farmers (52 percent) incomes is much higher with the traditional than with the feared. that they would not be able to pay back the loanrecommended technology; (c), for the least favorable years, they were particularly concerned about the possibility of an net incomes less than zero can be expected: the probability unfavorable year, and about their lack of understanding of of net losses is similar for the two technologies; and (d) net the whole process of obtaining credit; and (b) seven of the incomes using the traditional technology are sometimes (12 farmers (24 percent) were repelled by the number of repercent of the experiments during [967-72) larger than the quisites they had to meet to qualify for a loan-they were Project recommendations. Based on the available informaparticularly bothered by having to pay a premium for crop tion it appears that farmers, as a whole, would assume less insurance that they felt provided no real protection. risk by using the Project recommendations than by using From the standpoint of the farmer, it appears that the the traditional technology. There are instances, nonetheless, lack of satisfactory access to available credit is limiting his where farmers will lower their net incomes by switching adoption of the Project recommendations. Supporting from the traditional to the new technology. Hopefully, the evidence for this conclusion was presented in Chapter 7-the frequency of these latter situations can be gradually redemand for credit from the Impulsora de Puebla, which can duced as agronomic knowledge of the area is improved, be arranged for very simply and without crop insurance, has been far greater than the supply. Hopefully, this obstacle' It seems quite likely that the above evaluation of the can be overcome, both through favorable change in the significance of risk differs from farmers' perception of the credit institutions and by increasing farmers' knowledge of risk involved in using the new technology. The results the operation of the banks and the adequacy of the recoinfarmers have* obtained from using the Project recommendamendations. tions have been less favorable than those reported in the experiments, which can be attributed to failure to use the recommendations fully, as discussed earlier. The farmers Farmer organizations have probably encountered a higher percentage of cases (higher than the 12 percent cited previously) where the Recognizing the farmers' credit needs for the purchase Project recommendations have been less profitable than the of fertilizers, as well as the difficulties individual farmers traditional practices. Also, the experience of the farmers have in securing loans from the banks, the Project team extends over a much longer span of years than the period began in 1969 to assist small farmers to organize ana wuLr, covered in this study, and almost certainly includes years together as organized groups. This activity of the Project less favorable than any of those of the 1967-1972 period. It team has been viewed as an essential part of the operational 87



PAGE 1

TABLE 9.3. Percentages of parcels in the Project area with high, intermediate and low levels of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density recommendations. Level of Year Practice adoption 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Change* High 7.4 --33.1 33.6 44.8 + 37.4 Nitrogen Intermediate 11.0 -14.0 15.0 14.0 + 3.0 Low 81.6 -52.9 51.4 41.2 -40.4 High 23.7 --38.4 44.4 44.3 + 20.6 Phosphorus Intermediate 7.7 -9.2 6.1 9.1 + 1.4 Low 68.6 --52.4 49.5 46.6 -22.0 High -14.0 15.8 24.9 23.8 39.4 + 25.4 Plant density Intermediate -35.2 34.0 30.8 29.0 33.9 -1.3 Low -50.8 50.2 44.3 47.2 26.7 -24.1 *Change is the difference in the values for 1972 and the first year in'which information was available. TABLE 9.4. Percentages of parcels in the Project area with individual recommended practices, a lower percentage of all combinations of high, intermediate and low levels of parcels with a high level of adoption of the nitrogen and adoption of the nitrogen and phosphorus recommendaphosphorus recommendations, and a still lower percentage tions. 1967 1970 1971 1972 of the parcels with a high level of adoption of the three Levels of adoption (N=337)* (N=713) (N=214) (N=221) practices. This indicates that most farmers in the Puebla Highforbot pratics 48 207 1.6 9.9 area are presently not realizing the full potential of the High for oheat; e .07 96 2. increased production that comes from using all the producintermediate for the tion practices at the recommended levels. Clearly, the job other 7.7 10.5 12.2 6.8 of adjusting and delivering adequate technology, as well as High for one; that of inducing farmers to use the recommended techlow for the other 13.9 19.4 26.6 22.6 nology, is very difficult, and is far from being accomplished' Intermediate for both practices 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.9 in the Puebla area. Intermediate for one; low for the other 10.4 10.8 8.9 14.5Low for both 62.9 37.6 32.7 25.3 TABLE 9.5. Percentages of parcels in the Project area with N is the number of parcels in the sample. different combinations of high, intermediate and low levels levels. It is enlightening, therefore, to examine the degree to of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density which the nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density recoinrecommendations. mendations have been adopted simultaneously. Information is available for 1967, 1970, 1971, and 1972 1971 1972 on the percentages of parcels with all combinations of the Levels of adoption (N = 214)* (N = 221) three levels of adoption of the nitrogen and phosphorus _________________________ recommendations. Table 9.4 shows the percentage of parHigh for the three practices 34 10.4 cels with high levels of adoption of both nitrogen and phos-. High for-two; intermediate for one 6.5 11.3 phorus increased from 4.8 percent in 1967 to 29.9 percent in 1972. The percentage of parcels with a low level of adopHigh for two; low for one 21.0 19.5 tion of both practices decreased during the same period by High for one; intermediate for two 3.72. a larger amount, from 62.9 percent down to 25.3 percent. High for one; intermediate for one; low for one 15.9 15.4 Information on the percentages of parcels with the three Intermediate for the three'practices 0.0 0.9 levels of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant Inemdaefrtolwfroe 3.59 density recommendations is available for 1971 and 19.72 itrmdt for wo; low for on 173 57.9 only. Table 9.5 shows a high level of adoption of the three Ighrmdt for one; low for two 17.3 17.6 practices on 10.4 percent of the parcels in 1972. There was Inemdaefro;lwfrto 1260. a high level of adoption of at least two of the practices on Low for the three 15.9 5.9 41.2 percent of the parcels in the same year. The data in Tables 9.3 through 9.5 show a relatively high *N is the number of parcels in the sample. percentage of the parcels with a high level of adoption of 81



PAGE 1

SEVEN YEARS Of EXPERIENCE :1061-1913 Analsi of a Poua to Assist Small Subsstnc Farmer to Increase Crop Production in a Rainfed Area of Mexico



PAGE 1

PROMOTION Of REGIONAL PRODUCTION 13 PROGRAMS IN OTHER AREAS INTRODUCTION In mid-1969, a more formal plan was drafted, suggesting From the beginning of the Project the staff has assumed use of the Puebla staff and experience for promoting similar a reponibiityforcomuniatin th Prjec's rogess regional agricultural programs in, other areas of Latin a rsposiblit fo comuncaingtheProects pogrss America. At that time, CIMMYT was exploring ways to and experience to agricultural and political leaders in intensify research on high-quality maize varieties, and the Mexico and other countries. For those countries that might United Nations Development Program (UNDP) was contemwish to launch similar projects, the Puebla Project planners plating provisions for financial support of global research have felt that the Project should be prepared to assist by prgasThinecto am gteetreitrss training of staff and provision of technical assistance. culminated in a proposal by CIMMYT, and its approval by By mid-1969 there was agreement among the staff of the UND? to establish an international program to: (a) conduct Puebla Project that its strategies were proving to be highly reachndbeigncsaytopvdeaagefmiz effective. This assurance grew out of several developments research and rieineess to roidbe aig ran oftrmaize india that mosjet armsercfdns in he7 araaouddoul maize value, have improved yield and agronomic characteristics, indiate tht mst frmes i th ara cold oube mize and have grain types acceptable for a wide range of local yields and realize comparable increases in net income; (b) conditions; and (b) assist government agencies in Central the average yield obtained by 103 farmers who used the and South America in developing regional maize production recommended practices on a part of their land in 1968 was prgastenuehtmiz-ouigsbitncfr3.98ton/haof gain abut dubl th aveageforthe ers and their families would benefit from the discovery of area; (c) as a result of promotional Activities during the fall "high lysine" maize. CIMMYT began operations under this land winter of 1968-1969, 2,561 farmers organized in credit UNDP Global Project Number 1 in March 1970. groups and agreed to use Project recommendations on The Director of CIMMYT, accompanied by Puebla staff, 5,838 ha of maize; and (d) despite an exceptionally dry visited Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia during the spring in 1969, by midsummer it was evident that acfirst half of 1970 to inform political and agricultural leaders ceptable maize yields and returns on investments in fertiof the Puebla experience, and of the opportunity provided lizers would be obtained by farmers using the recommendaby the UNDP Project for CIMMYT to cooperate in developtions. Thus, plans were made to offer these encouraging -n iia rgasi azepouigaeso hi findings to other parts of Mexico and the world where they igsmlrporm nmiepouigaeso hi might prove useful. countries. At the invitation of agricultural leaders in ArgenThisinfrmaionwasdisemintedthrughvarous tina, Venezuela, and Honduras, similar visits were made to Thisinfrmaionwasdisemintedthrughvarous those countries during 1971. The Puebla staff also met with media: (a) exchanges of ideas and experiences with the representatives of Mexican institutions to repor It on the hundreds of people visiting the Puebla Project each year. exrinsinPbladtonicesafitrstnaThese visits also provided opportunities' for the staff to expeince win Puheb andgr t indeicato tffitrsti.s encourage more concern for developing effective agriculSting w ithoer proamsin Mexio.rmiflecdi tural programs in areas of small, subsistence farmers; (b) a some degree by the Puebla experience, have been initiated report published in late 1969 describing the Project and its a euto hs ciiis h ubasafhsbe operational strategies and accomplishments in 1967, 1968, a euto hs ciiis h ubasafhsbe and arl 199. I th yer folowng ubliatin, ver involved both in training technicians and in providing techand arl 199. I th yer folowng ubliatin, ver nical assistance. These programs and activities are briefly 4,000 copies each in English and Spanish were distributed dsrbdi h olwn etos to all parts of the world; and (c) two international conferdsrbdi h olwn etos ences held in the city of Puebla in August 1970, to discuss strategies for increasing agricultural production on small holdings. The first conference, with discussions in Spanish, East Antioqu fa Project, Colombia was attended by more than 120 agricultural technicians from Mexico and 14 other Latin American countries. Organized in late 1970, this project was an activity of Participants from 15 international development organizathe Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA), a national tions attended the second conference, with discussions in organization with responsibility for agricultural research English. A report on the two conferences was published in and extension. It is located in the eastern part of the late 1970, and over 4,000 copies each in both English and department (state) of Antioqufa. The project area consists Spanish were distributed during 1971. of 22 municipios with a total cultivated area of 172,800 ha. 103



PAGE 1

Radio Usage The local farmers received the visitors at a convenient A radio program about the Project was initiated in location for beginning the tour. The representative of the March 1969 over a local radio station that transmits to all host group welcomed the visitors and explained what the the Project area. The program was aired Sunday mornings farmers in his group were doing to increase their maize from 7:30 -8:00-one of the most convenient hours for production. Hosts and visitors then made a walking tour of farmers, according to data collected by the evaluation team. several high-yield plots in the immediate vicinity. The Individuals and groups were advised of the program via a owner of each plot gave a short explanation of the practices printed flyer, which included the topics, the radio station, used in his planting. The other farmers were encouraged to the hour, and the date. Farmers were encouraged to tell ask questions, offer suggestions, and tell about their own their neighbors of the program. maize production practices. As opportunities arose, the The radio program content included recommendations technical assistance agent would point out examples of the and news notes about happenings of the moment. For examcorrect or deficient use of the several components of the ple, farmers were notified that fertilizers had arrived at improved maize technology. Refreshments were usually some location, that farmers who had their land prepared served by the hosts at the close of the tour. should mix their fertilizers to be ready for planting, that These events, referred to locally as interchanges among they should mix simple super phosphate and ammonium farmer groups, provided opportunities for farmers from sulphate in certain proportions and take certain precautions different parts of the Project area to exchange experiences to preserve it. Basically, the program attempted to provide and ideas about a wide range of subjects. While the tour was specific technical information about matters of current in progress, the conversation was usually centered on quesinterest to the farmers. In addition, popular local music was tions related to the production of maize, beans, and other included. crops. During meals and afterward, the farmers frequently broke up into small groups and discussed a variety of farming and non-farming activities. A total of 570 farmers from Supervision of the High-yield Plots 35 villages participated in these interchanges in 1969. In all villages with one or more organized groups, a Result Demonstrations demonstration was held at planting time to instruct the farmers in the new fertilization and planting techniques. As The success of the demonstrations held just prior to in 1968, the technical assistant agent first showed the farmharvest in 1968 prompted planning in early 1969 to hold ers how to distribute the fertilizer and place the seed. Then six regional demonstrations in the fall of 1969. Convenient all farmers attending were invited to participate in the locations were selected for the demonstrations, and several planting. agronomic trials plus a high-yield plot were installed at each During the 60 days or so following the emergence of the site. maize, the technical assistance agents accompanied the As in 1968, the local farmers organized the field days. members of the organized groups on field inspections of Project technicians explained the experiments and the their high-yield plots. The technicians called attention to importance of the findings. The owner of the high-yield any deficiencies in the way the fertilizer had been applied, plot described the practices that he used and gave a benefit: distance between hills of maize, weed control, etc., excost analysis of the operation. Approximately 1, 200 farmers plaining how such factors could reduce yields. It was attended the six regional demonstrations. emphasized that greater care in employing the new technology would enable the farmers to realize higher yields and net income. Interchanges Among Farmer Groups During the summer of 1969, after most of the maize had received the last cultivation, the technical assistance agents began to talk with several outstanding groups of farmers about organizing a tour of their high-yield plots and inviting farmers from other parts of the area to attend. In general, the idea was received with enthusiasm, and I I of the groups ip proceeded to organize such events. The members of the group hosting the tour decided Beginning in 1969, technical assistance agents have encourwhen it should be held, how it should be organized, and aged farmers to organize into groups. This has facilitated which groups should be invited to attend. The technical the flow of information on technology to the farmers and assistance agent provided information about possible groups has enabled them to arrange for credit and fertilizers more to invite, and assisted in delivering invitations to the groups. easily. 50



PAGE 1

of the INIA technology was underway, the Project staff would recognize this fact and quickly change the recommended date of planting). (b) the recommendation to plant H-28 was discarded. This change was made because native varieties (not H-28) were planted in most of the experiments whose results were used to compare the different AN EVA LUATI ON OF THE technologies. It was thought that this change would introAGRONOMIC RESEARCH PROGRAM duce little bias against the INIA technology, since local varieties compare favorably with H-28 in their yielding ability (see Chapter 4). This section seeks to evaluate the results of agronomic As indicated previously, the results obtained in the research in terms of impact on maize yields, on net incomes experiments conducted in 1967 were used to develop a new of farmers, and on the risks farmers take with input recommendation for maize, referred to here as the second investments for maize production. A major difficulty in approximation to the maize production technology. Experimaking such an evaluation stems from the fact that inmental results obtained in subsequent years were used to creases in production and net income are generated by develop a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth approximation. The many interacting factors (production credit, distribution of sixth approximation, available at the beginning of 1972, inputs, markets, input cost: product price ratios, etc.), and included recommendations for 16 maize-producing systems. not by improved technology alone. Nevertheless, it seems As shown in Table 3.9, these systems differed in soil reasonable to examine the influence of project recoinmorphology, previous crop, elevation above sea level, or mendations by comparing increases in maize yields and net planting date. Alternative' recommendations for two levels income -and changes in risk as well -that can be expected of capital investment were available for each of the 16 if farmers adopt each of several production technologies systems. The recommendation for the lower level of capital, presently available. referred to here as the limited capital recommendation, was According to the 1967 survey, 69.3 percent of the farmselected rather intuitively; however, it corresponds closely ers applied fertilizers to their maize plantings that year. The to the factor combination that maximizes the rate of production technology of those farmers (on the average) return on capital. consisted of approximately 50 kg/ha N, 25 kg/ha P20S, 10 The 16 pairs of recommendations, together with their kg/ha K20 (potassium), 25,000 plants/ha, a local variety variable costs expressed in tons of maize grain per hectare, and a planting date ranging from 0 to 75 days before the beginning of the rainy season. Each of these production factors showed variation across the -Project area, probably in response to the diversity of local producing conditions. Unfortunately, the 1967 survey was not designed to collect such information on the local production technology. Thus, TABLE 3.9. The 16 producing systems recognized in the the average production technology of farmers is used here Project area since 1972. to represent the traditional technology, allowing flexibility 111 De ol fPpctpt;eeain ewe ,0 n ,5 onlyforthelocl vriey ad th plntig dte.Theinfex-meters above sea level; plantings before May 15. ibility of the fertilizer treatment and the population density 1.1.2 Deep soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,100 and 2,350 assumptions is very probably biased against the traditional meters above sea level; plantings between May 16 and June 15. technology in these comparisons. However, the assumption 1.2 Deep soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,351 and 2,800 that all farmers fertilized their maize should be a bias meters above sea level; plantings before April 30. 2.1.1 Pumiceous soils of Popocat~peti; elevations between 2,100 and favoring the traditional technology, since only 69.3 percent 2,350 meters above sea level; plantings before May 15. of farmers applied fertilizer to their maize plantings in 2.1.2 Pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,100 and 1967. 2,350 meters above sea level; plantings between May 16 and A maize technology, recommended by the National June 15. 2.2 Pumiceous soils of Popocat~petl; elevations between 2,351 and Agricultural Research Institute (INIA), was available to the 2,800 meters above sea level; plantings before April 30. Puebla farmers in 1967. It consisted of 80 kg/ha N, 40 3 Soils of La Malinche; plantings before April 5. kg/ha P205, 40,000 plants/ha, the hybrid H-28, and plant4 Heavy soils of Zone V; plantings at the start of the rainy season. ing as soon as the rains began. This recommendation 5.1.1 Soils with a compacted horizon; plantings made in March and April. 5.1.2 Soils with a compacted horizon; plantings made in May. applied to the entire Project area. 5.1.3 Soils with a compacted horizon; plantings made in June. The INIA technology was modified in two ways to 6.1.1 Sodic-like soils; plantings made in March and April. facilitate the comparison of technologies: (a) the recomn6.1.2 Sodic-like soils; plantings made in May. mendation to plant at the beginning of the rainy season was 6.1.3 Sodic-like soils; planting made in June. changed to "plant early (late March, April, early May) in 7.1 Soils with a high water table; plantings immediately after the prodcin sytem wit adquae rsidal mistre. (I turning of alfalfa stubble; plantings before April 15. proucig sstes wth deqateresdua mostue."(Itis 7.2 Soils with a high water table or any irrigated soil; one or more known, a posteriori, that early plantings of maize produce years after the turning of alfalfa stubble; plantings before April higher yields. it was assumed that, once active promotion 1.5. 31



PAGE 1

TABLE 11.2. The calculation of the derived gross benefits attributable to the Puebla Project, associated costs, derived net benefits, and present value of net benefits for seven years of operation of the project. Change in yield Change in yield Change in yield Increase in Increase in producPresent Average yield* Average yield Average yield of of farmers not attributable to attributable to yield attribArea of maize tion attributable Derived Derived value of of all farmers of farmers in farmers not on credit lists climate the Puebla Project table to the farmers not on indirectly to the gross Associated net net in the area credit lists on credit lists** (%compared (%compared (%compared Paebla Proj. credit lists Puebla Project benefits costs benefits benefits Year kg/ha kg/ha kg/ha to 1968) to 1968) to 1968) kg/ha ha kg $ $ $ 1967+ 1967 1300 1300 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 1968 2091 3894 2089 base base -79,924 0 0 0 0 0 1969 1790 2765 1713 -18.0 -18.0 0 0 74,162 0 0 0 0 0 1970 1917 2670 1776 -15.0 -15.0 0 0 67,399 0 0 0 0 0 1971 1883 2618 1721 -17.6 -21.0 + 3.4 71 65,562 4,654,902 350,049 321,516 28,533 14,716 1972 2499 2920 2381 +11.3 -6.0 +17.3 370 62,467 23,112,790 1,738,082 522,724 1,215,358 534,510 19732499 2920 2353 + 9.2 -6.0 +15.2 325 59,396 19,303,700 1,853,155 497,026 1,356,129 484,210 Total 1,033,436 All yields in the table are with 12S4 moisture for 1967-1971 and 14% moisture for 1972-1973. (See footnote, Table 11.1). The average yield of farmers not on credit lists was calculated using the following relatior ship: Average yield of all farmers hectares of farmerson credit lists ) (average yield of farmers on credit lists) 80,000 + (80,000-hectares of farmers on credit lists ) (average yield of farmers not on credit lists). 80,000 + A price of $75.20 per ton was used for the years 1968-1972 and $ 96,00 per ton for 1973. + + Assumuing zero labor costs. See footnote, Table 11.1. Yields for 1973 were estimated in September, just prior to harvest. Benefit: cost ratio including derived benefits : B = 1,765,586 + 1,033,436 = 4.03. C 695,014 Table 11.2, shows that the first step in estimating the in production, expressed as tons, were multiplied by the derived gross benefits was to calculate the average yields of price of maize to obtain the derived gross benefits. farmers not on credit lists. The following relationship was Associated Costs used for this calculation: Average yield of all farmers The associated costs are the costs of fertilizers, transHectares of farmers portation, interest, crop insurance, and labor in excess of on credit lists (Average yield of farmer those incurred by farmers using the traditional technology. 80,000 Ion credit lists / It was recognized that the use of the recommended technology requires a more intensive use of farm implements + and work animals than the traditional technology, but these (80,000 -hectares of increases Were considered negligible. Labor requirements farmers on credit lists Average yield of farmer calculated in Table 10.3 show that the recommended tech(80,000 / not on credit lists nology requires some 12.1 man-days per hectare more than It was assumed that the total harvested area of maize in the traditional technology. Several alternative assumptions the Project area was 80,000 ha. can be made to calculate the associated cost of this inThe average yields of farmers not on credit lists, calcreased labor requirement. culated according to the above relationship, are shown in Alternative 1 assumes that there is excess rural labor in Table 11.2. The differences between the average yields of the area. In this case, there is no associated cost to infarmers not on credit lists in 1968 and such yields in the creased labor requirements. following years are shown as percentages in Table 11.2. Alternative 2 assumes that there is seasonal unemployThese values estimate the changes in yield due to climate meant in the area, but that labor is fully employed at harvest and the use of the new technology. These values, less the time in cutting and shocking the stalks and shucking the ears. changes in yield due to climate (Table 9.9, column b), This assumption is consistent with the remark (footnote 5, represent the changes in yield attributable to the Project, Chapter 10) that labor scarcities occur at specific times of expressed as percentages.' These percentages were multhe year. In this case, hired labor must be found for these tiplied by the average yield of farmers not on credit lists in activities that imply 5.3 man-days per hectare more than 1968 to obtain the increases in kg/ha attributable to the with the traditional technology. Following Cano and Project. Increases in yield were multiplied by the number of Winkelmann 2, the daily wage of hired labor can be set at hectares of maize corresponding to farmers not on credit $1.28. lists to obtain the annual increases in production. Increases In Alternative 3, an opportunity cost is charged for family labor so that all 12.1 additional man-days per hectare are accounted for in the associated costs. Again 1. The decrease in nitrogen prices by about 14 percent at following Cano and Winkelmann, a reservation price can be the national level in 1971 may have contributed to an in1assumed for family labor at half the wage of hired labor. crease in fertilizer use, and, in turn, in maize yields. The effective decrease in nitrogen prices at the local level was less than 14 percent, due to shortages of fertilizer at periods 2. J. Cano and D. Winkelmann, "Plan Puebla: Anilisis de of peak demand and, consequently, increases in prices by B eneficios y Costos," El Trimestre Econbmico, Vol. local distributors. XXXIX (4). No. 156, pp. 783-796, 1972. 97



PAGE 1

A typical meeting began with an explanation of the Project and presentation of the results obtained by farmers with high-yield plots in 1968, followed by a showing of the locally produced color film: "Would You Like to Increase PROJECT PROGRAM: 1969 Your Maize Harvest? ". The film was extremely useful in demonstrating how higher yields could be obtained. It lent The Project began its 1969 program on an optimistic credibility to the recommendations by its careful documennote: successful contact had been made with the social tation of 1968 successes, using local names and places. network of the farming community in 1968, additional About halfway through the film, projection was stopped research results were available, finances had been obtained and questions encouraged. During this intermission, a to expand the technical team of the Project, and the banks mimeographed map of the region was distributed, that gave and fertilizer distributors were ready to expand credit to recommendations for each community. Thus, each farmer make fertilizer more readily available Thus, the Project could identify his own land, and, on the back of the sheet, find team and service institutions decided to attempt to extend the specific fertilizer recommendation. The movie was the use of the improved technology to a total of 10,000 ha shown 71 times in 59 villages, with a total attendance of operated by about 5,000 farmers. 4,570 in 1969. As in 1968, promotional activities were concentrated in After the advantages of the new maize technology had the western three-fourths of the Project area. This region been amply discussed at a meeting, and farmers had expreswas divided into four zones (Fig. 1.2) and a technical assed an interest in using it, the technical assistance agent sistance agent was given responsibility for each zone. suggested that the farmers consider forming a group. He stressed that organization would permit: (a) ready access Organizing Groups to information about the recommendations and assistance in using them correctly, and (b) easier arrangements for If the four technical assistance agents were to provide credit and fertilizers. guidance to 5,000 farmers in using the new maize recomTwo or more meetings and lengthy discussions were mendations, it was clearly necessary that the farmers be sometimes necessary before the farmers were convinced of organized into groups. Beginning in early 1969, the techthe advantages of organized action and decided to form a nical assistance agents began to hold meetings in the villages group. Once the group was formed, the members elected a to promote the formation of groups. These meetings were representative and proceeded to discuss operational often organized through farmers who had participated with procedures, acceptance of new members, credit arrangehigh-yield plots in 1968. Many of these farmers were alments, etc. The technical assistance agents devoted most of ready aware of the advantages of working together in their time to the formation of the groups, and to assisting groups, particularly because of past problems encountered them in increasing their membership, learning about the in arranging for the transportation of small quantities of Project recommendations, and arranging for credit and fertilizer at a reasonable price. fertilizers. W Air-, During the cropping season interchanges among farmer groups were organized. A representative of the host group welcomed the visitors and explained how the farmers in his group were trying to improve their crop production. Then the hosts and visitors made a walking tour of high-yield plots in the immediate vicinity. 49



PAGE 1

TABLE 3.11. The number of experiments conducted in 16 producing systems in the Puebla area, areas planted in maize, and estimated commercial yields* using various production technologies. Area planted Project technologies Producing No. of in maize Traditional INIA Limited Unlimited system expts. ha Check** technology + technology + capital capital 1.1.1 27 10586 0.52 2.05 2.86 2.63 3.80 1.1.2. 16 7072 0.38 1.34 1.88 1.49 2.08 1.2 1 1019 0.68 1.88 2.37 2.37 3.36 2.1.1 18 8874 0.79 2.15 2.82 2.82 3.87 2.1.2 8 3642 0.20 1.09 1.54 1.20 1.97 2.2 4 1852 0.48 1.89 2.54 2.54 3.45 3 24 22739 1.00 2.56 3.29 3.20 3.64 4 7 2078 1.15 2.04 2.49 2.41 2.71 5.1.1 3 2817 0.88 2.12 2.66 2.58 3.66 5.1.2 5 4355 1.44 2.28 2.65 2.59 3.01 5.1.3 5 5636 0.15 1.26 1.61 1.35 1.62 6.1.1 1 1281 0.34 0.66 1 .64 1.60 2.21 6.1.2 1 1963 0.52 1.43 1.88 1.55 1.88 6.1.3 3 2540 0.44 0.90 1.08 1.04 1.04 7.1 1 893 4.00 4.00 4.96 5.41 5.41 7.2 2 2653 1.60 3.62 4.12 4.42 5.14 Total 125 80000 Average" 0.78 2.05 2.67 2.54 3.19 • The commercial yield was estimated as 80 % of the yield obtained experimentally; expressed as tons per hectare of grain with 14% moisture. •* No fertilizer; 30,000 plants per hectare. + Traditional technology; 50 kg/ha of nitrogen, 25 kg/ha of P205 (phosphorus), 10 kg/ha of K20(potassium) and 25,000 plants per hectare. INIA technology: 80 kg/ha of nitrogen, 40 kg/ha of P205, and 40,000 plants per hectare. ++ Weighted according to the areas planted in each producing system. Estimated net increases for one producing system (6.1.3) TABLE 3.12. Distribution of the experiments conducted were:-0.08, -0.18, 0.05, and 0.05 ton/ha, respectively, for in the Project area among years and among five producing the traditional, INIA, limited capital, and unlimited capital systems. technologies. These values were calculated from data obtained in two experiments conducted in 1969 and one in Area planted 1970. The implication of these figures could be that it is Producing in maize irrational to plant maize in this system. However, due to system ha, 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Total the limited amount of data available (and to the probability 1.1.1 10,586 9 7 2 3 4 2 27 that farmers' experiences, covering a much longer period of 2.1.1 8,874 3 3 3 3 4 2 18 time than that studied experimentally, has demonstrated 3 22,739 2 0 6 8 4 4 24 the profitability of maize production), a tentative recom13 remaining systems 37,801 8 3 7 19 15 4 56 hmendation was made of 60 kg/ha N, 20 kg/ha P205), and all 16 30,000 plants/ha. systems 80,000 22 13 18 33 27 12 125 33



PAGE 1

8 VALUATION PROC[DUR[S INTRODUCTION data provided a general idea of the area, the number of The ueba Pojec wa coceivd a anexpeimetal families living there, the total area planted to maize and the apprachto dvelp ad tet sratgiesforrapdly ncrasamount produced, and the size of the holdings. approach *o deelo an tet stateiesforrapily ncras-Yearly data on area, production, and yield wereavailable ing yields on small land holdings of subsistence farmers. Its b uiiisfo h iec~ eea eEoof operational strategies were designed to be flexible and Agricola. The methods of data collection and yield estimasubject to modification as new information was generated. tion used by this agency were studied to determine whether Thus, provision was made for an evaluation unit with two such data would provide an adequate estimation of yield main objectives: (a) to measure the progress made by the changes. This analysis suggested that a more precise measProject over time, And (b) to identify obstacles and collect ueo il a eddt eetmnrya-oya the information needed for modifying strategies. Immediate uraes.il a eee odtc inrya-oya feedback of this information to Project staff was a crucial changes eneesrykns.fetiae o oh il step in developing remedial actions. and characteristics of the farming population, a probability Consideration was given to contracting an independent sample was chosen. This sample was used both for personal agency to make the evaluation. There were two principal interview surveys and for yearly estimates of maize yields. arguments in favor of this approach: (a) greater objectivity could be expected, as those involved in evaluation would have no direct personal interest in the success or failure of PERSONAL INTERVIEW SURVEYS the Project, and (b) these more objective findings would probably carry more weight with policy makers. Sre:16 There were als 'o two important reasons for including Sre:16 evaluation as an integral part of the Project: (a) it would assure a continuous feedback of information to the other members of the Project team, and (b) obstacles limiting Fr prtr ftePoetae eetepplto farmer participation could be identified and studied most of interest in this s tudy. Because the Census lists were 8 effectively by an evaluation team working side by side with years old, it seemed advisable to look for an alternative the members of the field staff, sampling frome. An area sampling technique, turned out to After discussion of alternatives by Project members and be feasible' because of the availability of aerial photos taken advisors, evaluation was included as an integral part of the just 6 months earlier. Project. In regard to the question of objectivity, it was felt To keep costs at a reasonable level, a two-stage sample that the essential conditions were objective criteria and was drawn. The sample was selected as follows. Using a map adequate methodology, as in any research, of the region provided by the Mexican Defense DepartAfter the harvest of the fertilizer experiments in 1967, it ment, the Project area or was delineated. Next, 25 points became evident that the Project would begin promoting the were identified by locating coordinates with a list of ranuse of revised maize technology in 1968. Thus, it was domn numbers. These points were then transferred to the necessary to begin immediately to: (a) establish benchaerial photos and a square 5 x 5 cm was drawn with the marks on yield, technology of the farmers, level of living, point-as the center. This 25 cm2 area was equal to 1,00 ha. etc. for future comparisons; (b) obtain information about These squares were then photographed and enlarged to a the farmers and their present level of technology for use in size which simplified identification of individual parcels and planning the action program; and (c) obtain information on permitted more precise measurements of area. the infrastructure of' the region -fertilizer distribution, The first stage of the field work involved locating the 25 agricultural. credit, crop insurance, and price support prosegments and finding reference. points-trees, roads, gulleysgrams. that would help to identify individual parcels. Once the segment boundaries were established, the next step was to COLLECTION OF EXISTING INFORMATION obtain the names of those who had operated each piece of land in 1967. The list of names of persons farming any land Unpublished data for 1960 were obtained from the within the segment constituted the sampling frame for the Census Bureau for the mnunicipios in the Project area. These second stage. 73



PAGE 1

The practical training in agronomic research included academic preparation after work experience in a regional training in these activities and many others that are basic production program for one or more years. Thus, it is procedures in the process of collecting existing information expected that countries promoting regional production and generating new information to define the production programs could rapidly develop a nucleus of highly trained, technology recommended for a given area. well-equipped professionals. Trainees have learned the practical skills needed in their Table 12.1 shows the numbers of professionals who have specialties by working directly with the appropriate memreceived training in Puebla at the two levels. These techbers of the Puebla Project team. In addition, they have nicians are now participating in the operation of 10 regional learned selected basic skills by working with the other production programs in four countries. members of the Puebla team. While in Puebla the trainees also have participated in other activities with group interacTABLE 12.1. The numbers of professionals who have tion and discussion. They have attended weekly meetings of received training in the Puebla Project. the Puebla Project team to discuss problems affecting the operation of the Project and have participated as a group in Level of Year training was initiated activities such as the installation of demonstration plots, Country training* 1967-1969 197 0 1971 1972 1973 Total field days, etc. Colombia 1 0 3 3 3 0 9 Il 0 5 0 2 0 7 COMBINED THEORETICAL Subtotal 16 AND APPLIED TRAINING Ecuador 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 Il 0 0 0 0 0 0 A second level of training has covered both scientific Subtotal 2 preparation in a discipline and practical experience in the Honduras 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 1 use of methodological skills. This training involves an acSubtotal 2 ademic program leading to a M.S. degree at the Graduate Mexico 1 9 5 7 2 5 28 College at Chapingo, with a thesis problem investigated in 11 8 5 0 0 0 13 the Puebla area. These graduate programs have been worked Subtotal 41 out in coordination with professors at the Graduate ColPeru 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 lege. In general, this second level of training has covered a 1 0 0 0 0 1 period of about two years, with the first year devoted entirely Subtotal 5 to course work at the College and the second year to practiTOTAL 66 cal training in Puebla (including thesis research). The Puebla Project team has felt that the professionals The numerals I and 11 refer to the first (practical) and second (theoretiwho receive both levels of training should continue their cal and applied) levels of training, respectively. A 01, 14% J ri 102



PAGE 1

TABLE 9.10. An estimation of the increase in average maize yields in the Puebla area due to the use of the recommended production practices, in which the effect of climate is calculated from the maize yields of farmers on credit lists. (a) (b) (c) (d) (h) Average yield Estimation of Estimation of the s Estimation of (e) Mf (g) %increase in average of the upper the effect of effect of climate the effect of Average Estimated increase Estimated average yields attributable 1/3 of farmers climate plus technology technology (c-b) yields for in yield due to yield without the to technology on credit lists (%change (%change (%change area technology"* technology (e-f) f Year kg/ha compared to 1968) compared to 1968)* compared to 1968) kg/ha kg/ba kg/ha (X 100) g 1968 4965 base base 2140 -2140 1969 4090 .17.6 -14.4 3.2 1832 68 1 764 3.9 1970 4085 -17.7 -8.3 -9.4 1 962 201 1761 11.4 1971 4043 -18.6 9.9 8.7 1927 186 174 1 10.7 1972 4087 -17.7 *16.8 -34.5 2499 738 1761 41.9 *From*Table 9.8 **Percentage in Colunsin (d) multiplied by the average yield in 1968. age yields of all farmers in the area varied from 3.9 percent each system was adequately sampled. It should be possible in 1969 to 41.9 percent in 1972. This method also has at a later date (once the limits of the producing systems obvious limitations. The average use of the new technology were defined) to reduce the number of sites to those necesby the upper third of farmers on credit lists may have been sary, based on the variability among sites and the level of higher in 1968, than in other years. Or, stated more generalprecision desired. Annual differences in the average yields ly, there is no empirical basis for assuming that the use of for each of the treatments should provide a reliable estitechnology by the upper third of farmers on credit lists mate of the effects of climate. was reasonably constant. It is also possible that the upper FCOSIFUNIGTEAOTO third of farmers on credit lists does not provide a repreFCO SI LUN NGT EA PIN sentative sample of the producing conditions in the Puebla OF THE MAIZE RECOMMENDATIONS area. The two methods for estimating the increases in maize Some information on the adoption of the maize recoinyields attributable to the use of the new technology give mendations, such as the number of farmers on credit lists similar percentages for 1969, 1970, and 1971, but differ (Table 9.6), suggests a rapid rate during 1969 and 1970 and markdlyfor1972 Itis robbly easnabe toassme hat a somewhat slower rate for the next 3 years. The informathe true percentage increase in average yields due to the tinothicraeinvrgeyldatibaleote new echoloy i somwhee nar he verae o th vaues new maize technology (Tables 9.9 and 9.10)., on the other obne techlg issehe r nw eards Thes avrgc ohalcuainwues hand, indicates an accelerated rate of adoption in 1972. obgtandw thataeae tomethoeds. Tis calcPulato wrapold Based on the available information, it seems reasonable to suggineasd hthvrag maie yelds inprthed Puebhnoarea prbconclude that there has been a fairly continual rate of ablyt increse through 9 the ueo f im ro edtch olgy b increase in the use. of the Project recommendations since abou 30 ov p er en t s r o 1967to 1972. m az y edsf r h 1969. Thfe ov iaeffortsto adt aeae miyed for thrjctt eveo This increase in the use of the new maize technology has elsffetoflmaeict the eed for aolctn poe t devielop produced an increase in average maize yields that has been plcan fromthent Eupetfrieclecing the datba reure forestimated to be around 30 percent over the 4-year period gsch a adte nt.r Experiecean he Punebrae Proec sukig1969-1 972, or about 7.5 percent per year. There seem to be gest tht te neesay dta cn b geeratd b maing no valid yardsticks for judging whether this is a reasonable simple plantings, consisting of three plots managed at low, rate of progress for a rainfed area with a moderate level of medium, and high production levels, at sites distributed agronomic risk. It is evident, however, that many farmers at throughout the Project area. The number of sites required the end of 1972 were not using the recommendations (41 would be determined as a function of the variability among percent of parcels with a low level of adoption of the sites, and these would be located adequately to sample the nitrogen recommendation, Table 9.3), and others were only different producing systems in the Project area. The same using them partially (75 percent of parcels with a low level general sites (but not the exact site) and plot treatments of adoption of one or more of the three main practices, would be used each year. If sufficient information were not Table 9.5). Thus, it seems appropriate to ask why, the rate available the first year to accurately establish the limits of of adoption has not been faster and to examine some of the the several producing systems, the number of sites should reasons farmers have continued to use their traditional be increases initially by perhaps 100 percent to assure that practices. 85



PAGE 1

'4, Random samples of the farmers iii the area were interviewed in early 1968 and in mid-I 971. The information collected in these surveys was used to describe the conditions existing at the beginning and to measure the changes that had occurred after the Project had been operating for three years. The number of segments to be included in the sample Survey: 1970 and the number of farmers needed in each segment were estimated from the variability in two sets of data: (a) yields from the fertilizer trials planted throughout the area A second personal interview survey was conducted in the in 1967, and (b) yields measured on a sampling of farmers' summer of 1971, referred to in this report as the 1970 fields in two municipios of the area in the fall of 1967. survey because the data corresponded to events of 1970. Based on these data, a 12 percent random sample was The main objectives of this study were: (a) to quantify drawn among farmers in each segment to assure that 10 the changes occurring between 1967 and 1970, (b) to percent would be scheduled for interviews. A total of 251 examine factors that might have influenced these changes, farm operators were interviewed in the 25 segments. and (c) to identify the factors that were favorable or Interviewers used a questionnaire that was pretested in unfavorable to the progress of the Project. Because comDecember 1967. The questionnaire was designed to obtain parisons had to be made over time, the questionnaire information on: (a) types of farm ownership, (b) crop included the questions used in 1967, plus questions about production, (c) livestock production, (d) farming costs, (e) variables not previously studied. The information collected tools and equipment, (f) composition of family income and in 1971 was designed to serve as a new benchmark for its distribution, (g) crop production information at the future studies. farmers' disposal, (h) knowledge and use of modern agriculTwo categories of farmers were delineated in the Puebla tural inputs, (i) marketing of agricultural products, (j) existarea in 1971: (a) farmers on credit lists who were organing organizations, (k) demographic and cultural characterized in groups, had received credit in 1970 from the instituistics of the farmer and his family, (1) living conditions of tions participating in the Project, and had ready access to the farmer and his family, and (in) attitudes and expectainformation about the new maize recommendations; and tions of the farmers about the future of agriculture. (b) farmers not on credit lists who were not organized, did After the 1967 pretest, the questionnaire was revised, not receive credit from the participating institutions, and Students, principally from the National School of Agriculhad limited access to information about the new recointure at Chapingo, conducted the bulk of the interviews mendations. Two samples of farmers were interviewed in during the 6-week period from January 2 to February 15, the 1970 survey: (a) farmers on credit lists and (b) all 1968. farmers in the area (a random sample of farmers from both The questionnaires were checked, and the information was the above categories). coded and then punched on computer cards. The cards The survey of farmers on credit lists involved a stratified were computer processed, using specially designed programs random sample in which each stratum was made up of to produce condensed tables. The card punching, profarmers who had received credit from one of the following: gramming, and processing were done at the Statistics and the National Agricultural Credit Bank, the National Ejidal Computation Center of the Graduate College, Chapingo. Credit Bank, the Agricultural Bank of the South, and the 74



PAGE 1

FARMER ADOPTION Of MAIZE 9 RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION plants/ha. The information collected for measuring adoption rate, however, was taken from a sample of farmers As described in Chapter 3, new recommendations on the selected at random from the Puebla area as a whole, or production of maize were available at the beginning of from the five geographical zones where the technical as1968, and ,these recommendations wer 'e modified for sistance agents were assigned. Thus, information was not subsequent years, particularly for certain parts of the area available for individually evaluating the level of adoption of and for late dates of planting. Promotion of the use of these. the specific maize recommendations for the 16 producing recommendations was begun in 1968 with 103 farmers, systems. and was extended throughout Zones I, II, III, and IV in Lacking the above information, it was decided to estab1969, and to the, remainder of the-area in 1970. lish arbitrary ranges in values of the several recommended In general surveys in 1967 and 1970, the Project evaluapractices, corresponding to high, intermediate, and low tion team obtained information useful for estimating the levels of 'adoption and apply them to the entire project extent to which the recommendations of the Puebla Project area. These ranges are shown in Table 9.1. The lower limits have been used by the farmers in the area. Similar informafor high levels of adoption of nitrogen, phosphorus, and tion was obtained for the 5 years from 1968 to 1972 when plant density--80 kg/ha, 30 kg/ha, and 40,000 plants/ha, the evaluation team estimated maize yields just prior to respectivelyare the lowest rates of these inputs that were harvest and obtained interviews with the farmers whose being recommended in the area in 1973; except in the case fields were sampled. This chapter presents some of these of nitrogen, for one producing system with a very low data: (a) to show the degree to which farmers have used production potential and a second system with plantings the recommendations, and (b) to compare average maize made immediately following alfalfa; and, in the case of yields during 1967 to 1972. A final section discusses the phosphorus, for the two producing systems in Zone V for influence of certain factors on farmer adoption. which no phosphorus is recommended). (The limits between high and intermediate levels of adoption were estabLEVEL OF ADOPTION lished as a function of therecommendations for unlimited OF THE MAIZE RECOMMENDATIONS capital (Chapter 3). Thus, many ofthe farmers in intermediate category can be considered high adopters in Quantitative discussion, of the level of adoption of the terms of Project recommendations for limited capital.) The new maize recommendations is complicated by several upper limits for the low levels of adoption correspond factors: (a) there was an initial tendency for farmers to approximately to rates used by farmers who were making only partially adopt an individual production practice. For most intensive use of fertilizers in 1967. The phosphorus Example, instead of changing from a traditional level of ranges for Zone V are different from the rest of the area 30,000 plants/ha to a recommended level of 50,000, the because phosphorus has not been recommended for that farmer often changed to some intermediate level; (b) farmrgo ic 90 ers often tended to accept some recommended practices more readily than others; that is, they might increase their rate of nitrogen fertilization before changing the way they TABLE 9.1. Ranges in rates of nitrogen, phosphorus and apply it; and (c) farmers often tended to use the new techplants per hectare corresponding.to high, intermediate and nology initially on only a portion of their land. low levels of adoption of the three practices. Thus, the evaluation of the level of adoption became a mat ter of determining the percentages of farmers who were Phosphorus (kg/ha of P205) Plant density usig he. vrios ecomede prctcesindifernt Level of Nitrogen For Zones For Zone (thousands degrees at different times. Such, evaluation in the, Puebla aoto k/a ,IIlI e a area was hampered by the diversity in recommendations Low' 0-50 0-20 > 30 0.30 that had evolved ove Ir the years. By 197, specific maize Inter. 51,-80 21-30 11.30 30-40 recommendations were available for 16 producing condiHigh >80 > 30 0-10 > 40 tions. Recommended rates Iof nitrogen, varied, from 60 to *The ranges in rates of phosphorus corresponding to the thria levels of 130 kg/ha for rainfed maize, rates of phosphorus from 0 to adoption are reversed for Zone V, since phosphorus is not recoin60 kg.P20 /ha, and plant densities from 30,000-50,000 mended for maize in that region. 79



PAGE 1

IMPACT Of INCREASED PRODUCTION ON' 1 0 INCOME EMPLOYMENTg GENERAL WELFARE INTRODUCTION 10.1. The percentage of the total family income derived from crop production of all farmers in the area increased The objectives of the Puebla Project have been stated in from 30.4 percent in 1967 to 35.5 percent in 1970. The terms of production; not because the primary concern was percentage of the total income generated from animal in producing ,more maize, but because higher yields of production remained almost constant during this period. maize appeared to be an important first step in increasing The relative contribution of off-farm income declined from net income that, in turn, would provide farmers with new .40.7 percent in 1967 to 27.7 percent in 1970. opportunities to improve'their general welfare. .The average family net income from crop production Empirical evidence indicates that there is an abundant increased from $202.57 in 1967 to $293.06 in 1970, or by labor supply in the rural areas of Puebla. Emphasis, there4.7pretThaviblinominidctstaths fore, has been on developing and promoting new techinraenavagnticoefmcoprduinws nologies that can be used effectively with animal-drawn inraenavagnticoefmcoprduinws equimen andhan laor, nd hat illten to ncrase due to an increase in average net income per hectare. The the level of employment. gross income per hectare from maize production (grain plus Datafro th sureysin 967 nd 970are ompred stalks) increased by 44.7 percent from 1967 to 1970, while Datafro th sureysin 967 nd 970are ompred the gross income from other crops increased by 41.0 perin this chapter to show changes in income, employment, cent.4 The large increase in gross income from other crops aun other facrst infue ncn ther wlar the hPrfarmer, may have been due in part to a shift from maize to higher durig te frstthre yers f te Pojet.1value crops by those farmers who have some irrigation CHANGES IN FAMILY INCOME facilities, and by a tendency for farmers who are using-the new maize technology to increase their rates of fertilization The average total family income 2 for all farmers in the of. other cr-ops. Project area was $666.80 in 1967 and $825.52 3 in 1970. The increase in real income over the three year period was 23.8 percent. TABLE 10.1. The percentage contribution of four comThe contributions of four components to the total fainponents to the total farm family income. ily income, expressed as percentages, are shown in Table 1970 All Farmer on 1. As discussed in Chapter 8, page 78, the segments used Component 1967 farmers credit lists in the 19 70 survey did not represent a random sampling of the Project area. Thus it is not possible to test hypotheses Net income from crops* 30.4 35.5 51.8 about changes in population parameters'that might have Net income from animals 28.4 30.0. 16.1 occurred between 1967 -1970. The information presented Off-farm income 40.7 27.7 27.1 in this chapter is intended to indicate the direction of Miscellaneous income"* 0.5 6.8 5.0 change, rather than the magnitude ofchange. 2. The following concepts were considered in calculating *The value of the grain, and stalks of maize accounted for the total family income: (1) value of crop production, (2) 60.9 V of the gross income from -props of all farmers in value of the change in inventory of animals, (3) value of 1967 and 6 1.5%V in 1970; it accounted for 79.6%?/ of the animal products, (4) family income from off-farm work, (5) gross crop income of farmers on credit lists in 1970. miscellaneous income, (6) costs of crop production, (7) This component includes income from the rental of. costs of animal production, and (8) costs of hired labor. machinery, implements and work, animals, sale of irriga3. The average total family income in 1970 was $913.84. tion water, gifts, and capital gains. This income was deflated, taking 1967 as the base, using the price index of Mexico City (19 70=110.7) as reported by "Indicadores Economicos", Gerencia, de Investigaciones Economicas. Banco de Mexico, S.A. Vol. 1, Dec. 1972. All 4. Maize accounted for 71.0 percent of the cultivated area incomes mentioned in this chapter have been adjusted to in 1970 and 61,.5 percent of the total value of crop produc1967 values, tion. 89



PAGE 1

Changes in the Consumption of Several Foods Use of Public Services Table 10.4 shows the frequencies with which farm fami Of the 251 farmers interviewed in the 1967 survey, 63 lies consumed ten selected foods in 1967 and 1970. Certain percent had electricity in their homes, 13 percent had changes in the pattern of consumption are evident. As potable water, 'and 6 percent had plumbing. Of the 239 shown in columns 1 and 2, the frequency with which farm farmers interviewed in the 1970 survey, 77 percent had families were eating fish, cheese, chicken, eggs, fruit, vegelectricity in their homes, 21 percent had potable water, etables and rice increased between 1967 and 1970. Column and 6 percent had plumbing. Eighty-three percent of the 5 shows a decline in the number of families that never ate farmers who had none of these services indicated that they fish, chicken, eggs, fruit and vegetables, would cooperate with either work or money to bring these Frequencies of consumption of maize and beans were services to the community and to their homes. This finding not recorded in the surveys, as it was assumed that all farm suggests that the majority of the farmers value these servfamilies ate these foods daily. The total annual consumpices very highly. tion of maize per person was estimated to be 223 kilos in 'Sixty-seven percent of the farmers interviewed in the 1967 and 253 kilos in 1970. The total annual consumption 1970 survey stated that their children could study through of beans per person was estimated to be 11 kilos in 1967 and 17 the sixth grade in their communities, 21 percent stated they kilos in 1970. Although considerable error is involved in could study through secondary, and 2 percent indicated estimating average levels of consumption from survey data, that they could finish high school. The farmers who stated the above figures do suggest that farm families were eating that their children could only finish primary school were" more maize and beans in 1970 than in 1967. almost unanimous in their belief that this amount of education was insufficient to enable their children to find jobs Improvements in the Family Home away from the farm. Nevertheless, nearly all the farmers Forty-four percent of the farm families in 1967 lived Iin indicated that money spent on the education of their houses with, only one room plus a kitchen; 36 percent lived children was a good investment, as it would improve their in houses with earth floors. According to the surveys in chances of finding better jobs. 1967 and 1970, the average number of members per family Of the 239 farmers interviewed in the 1970 survey, 12 increased from 5.5 to 6.2 during the three-year period. In percent (28) stated there was a medical center of the light of these conditions and the seasonal unemployment in Ministry of Health and Welfare in their communities, 86 the area, it would be expected that an increase in family percent indicated there was no medical center in their comincome would be reflected immediately in improvements in munities, and 2 percent did not know. Only 11 of the 28 the farm home. farmers that knew of the existence of a medical center in Seventy of the 239 farmers in the 1970 survey, or 29 their communities indicated that they, or some member of percent, reported improvements in their homes. The most their families, had visited the center on at least one ocfrequent improvement, realized by 32 of the farmers, was casion. Fifty-nine of the farmers with no medical center in the addition of a room to the home. their communities said that they, or some member of their TABLE 10.4. Frequencies of consumption of 10 selected foods by farm families. Percentage of farm families that consume the food Percentage al least once every: ta ee 1 to 3 days 4 to 7 days Month Year eat the food ()(2) (3) (4) (5) Foods 1967* 1970* 1967 1970 1967 1970 1967 1970 1967 1970 Fish 0.8 0.8 3.2 11.3 8.8 15.9 72.9 66.5 13.9 4.2 Beef or pork 8.4 9.6 43.0 43.9 17.1 28.0 26.7 14.6 3.2 2.9 Milk 29.1 27.6 7.6 7.9 0.4 10.5 20.7 9.6 38.2 4. Cheese 1.6 4.6 17.5 23.5 8.8 27.6 <36.6 12.1 31.1 30.5 Chicken 0.4 1.7 5.6 14.6 13.1 40.2 59.0 29.7 17.5 12.5 Eggs 29.1 59.4 25.9 32.6 8.0 11.3 25.1 3.3 9.2 2.5 Wheat bread 33.5 38.5 35.4' 30.5 4.0 9.6 15.9 6.3 8.4 13.8 Fruit 11.6 30.5 32.7 37.2 9.2 15.5 35.4 10.9 8.0 5.0 Vegetables 14.4 34.3 31.5 38.5 6.8 12.6 30.7 4.12 12.0 9.2 Rice 16.8 30.6 44.2 46.9 11.6 14.2 19.1 2.5 4.4 5.0 *The number of farmers interviewed was 251 in 1967 and 239 in 1970. 92



PAGE 1

through the Agricultural Bank because of the requirement THE PUEBLA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL that they take crop insurance. (This latter problem is EJIDAL CREDIT BANK common for the three official banks and is discussed in a later section.) When the number of farmers seeking credit from the The National Ejidal Credit Bank was founded in 1935 Agricultural Bank increased sharply in 1971, the bank ran and since that time has granted credit to efidatarios, with short of personnel to handle the loan requests. The farmers the Agricultural Bank providing credit to landowners. In in solidarity groups suggested that the Bank use the 1 addition to extending credit to efidatarios, the Ejidal Bank percent of their loans that is deducted by law for adminobjectives were: to organize the efidatarios to work their istrative costs to pay temporary personnel. The director of lands collectively, and to make credit more accessible by the Bank presented the proposal to the local administrative establishing state and regional branches. The Puebla Branch council and obtained the necessary approval, of the Ejidal Bank has seven agencies at strategic locations in the state. Each agency has several field inspectors, each Outlook for Greater Credit for Small Farmers of whom is responsible for attending the ejidatarios in a From the Agricultural Bank given zone. Two agencies are located in the Project area and have provided credit to ejidatarios using Project recomThe Agricultural Bank has become a strong supporter of mendations. the Project strategy and has fostered close coordination of The Ejidal Bank, as in the case of the Agricultural Bank, Bank and Project personnel in their relationships with the offers short, intermediate, and long-term loans. The Ejidal farmers. Both the Puebla Branch and the Central Office of Bank makes loans to credit societies and, rarely, to solidarthe Agricultural Bank are pleased with their credit program ity groups. Credit is not provided to individual ejidatarios. for solidarity groups using Project recommendations. All In 1969, the Ejidal Bank granted loans enabling 413 indications are that the Agricultural Bank will seek to ejidatarios in 15 credit societies to use Project recomincrease this credit operation. Prospects for this increase mendations on 829 ha of maize. Although only 55 percent were strengthened in 1973 when the Agricultural Bank of these loans were repaid (Table 7.1), the Ejidal Bank received authorization to extend credit to efidatarios as well recognized the potential of the new technology and decided as landowners, to reinstate 44 ejidal societies that had lost their credit Nevertheless, if the Agricultural Bank is to respond fully standing in the past due to failure of their members to to the growing demand for production credit in the Puebla repay loans. In 1970, the Bank provided credit for 2,122 area, it will be necessary to resolve several problems that ejidatarios in 59 credit societies with a total of 4,522 ha. presently limit the effectiveness of the bank's credit proTable 7.1 shows that the number of hectares of maize gram: (a) the work load of employees of the Legal and plantings financed by the Ejidal Bank has remained fairly Administrative Departments has increased greatly since constant since 1970. About 90 percent of these loans have 1971-it seems reasonable their salaries should be adjusted been repaid. to compensate for this work, and to put their salaries in line with those received by employees of the other official Operating Procedures of the Ejidal Bank banks; (b) bank regulations require that a new contract be signed with a solidarity group when members leave, when To qualify for loans from the Ejidal Bank, the ejidatarios new members enter, or when there is a change in the area must organize a credit society. The requirements for char, for which credit is requested. Since such changes are tering a society are: (a) at least 10 ejidatarios must request frequent, it is necessary to sign a new contract almost every the founding of a society; (b) the ejidal executive commityear. Farmers feel that the bank should be more flexible tee must submit an application for the formation of a and permit changes in membership and acreage without the society, along with a map of the ejido showing the location trouble and expense of drawing up and registering a new of the parcels of the applicants; (c) each applicant must contract; (c) the Agricultural Bank is the only official bank present his ejidal certificate, or proof that his name appears that deducts interest in advance. A farmer who requests on the most recent ejidal census list-this is necessary to $100 at 11.5 percent interest, for example, receives $88.50 establish that each of the applicants has possession of an and has to pay back $100 at the end of the year. The ejidal parcel; (d) the field inspector of the Ejidal Bank effective interest rate is 12.99 percent instead of 11.5 prepares a document specifying the socioeconomic condipercent. The farmers feel that this method of calculating tions of the applicants and the productive potential of their interest should be changed; and (d) the temporary personsoils; (e) the Puebla Branch of the Ejidal Bank sends the nel hired for the peak work periods are usually poorly paid application of the ejidatarios, the map of the ejido, and the and inefficient. Thus, many documents have to be redone, document prepared by the field inspector to the Central causing delays and a great deal of frustration for the farmOffice; and (f) the Central Office approves or disapproves ers. the application. 67



PAGE 1

Ordinarily, a group is able to arrange for the hauling of out the year. fertilizers for $2.40/ton. If the members of the group load Greater Efficiency in the Repayment of Loans the fertilizers at the warehouse and unload them at their houses, the cost is about $1.60/ton. Earlier, when farmers Many of the farmers receiving credit from the Agriculhad to arrange for transportation individually, the cost was tural Bank or the Impulsora de Puebla make payments on often as much as $4.80/ton., not including loading and their loans directly to the general representative or coordiunloading. nator. This coordinator travels once a week to the agency concerned, delivers the payments, and obtains the necessary Prompt Repayment of Loans receipts. Thus, members not only save money on travel and meals, but also time and effort. Generally, the expenses of Prior to the Puebla Project, only about 50 percent of the the representative are paid from a fund raised by the group short-term loans made by the official credit banks were specifically for this type of activity. repaid. In 1971 and 1972, the repayment rate to the Ejidal and Agricultural Banks was over 90 percent; the rate was Access to Information on Other Activities about 98 percent to the Impulsora de Puebla. According to the 35 representatives interviewed in 1973, Very probably, one of the reasons for the high level of 28 of the groups held an average of four meetings during repayment is the profitability of the new maize recomthe year; the other seven held no meetings. The technical mendations. An even more important reason, perhaps, is assistance agents participated in about 37 percent of these the fact that the majority of the organized farmers have gatherings. The principal themes discussed at these meetings accepted a common responsibility for the debts of all memwere agricultural credit and the correct use of the new bers of the group. Each farmer knows that all members of maize technology. Other subjects of interest to the farmers, the group must repay loans on time in order for the group such as the pruning and grafting of fruit trees, were also to qualify for credit the following season. discussed in some group -meetings. When one or more members of a group fail to repay their loans, the rest of the group takes action to assure At harvest time in 1972, demonstrations were held in repayment. As a first step, in most cases, the group repremany communities to show farmers how to construct small sentative calls on the defaulting farmer to ask him to pay trench silos for converting the maize plants into a palatable within a fixed period. If failure to pay was due to unusual silage after harvest of the ear but while still partly green. family problems, or a poor harvest due to uncontrollable The silo provides aneconomical means of increasing the factors, then the other members of the group may coopersupply of good quality animal feed during the dry season. ate to repay the debt and collect later when the farmer is Demonstrations of the pruning and grafting of fruit trees better able to make payment. were made in several communities. In 1971, a technical In some groups, if a member fails to pay because of assistance agent arranged, for a group of farmers to attend a irresponsibility, the group takes firmer action to liquidate short. course on pruning and grafting. Farmers who took this debt. In a few instances, the group demands some item this course have been useful in assisting other farmers in the of property (mule, ox, plow, sewing machine, etc.) and Project area to use improved practices in the management does not return it until the offender pays his debt. If the of their fruit trees. Meetings and demonstrations organized by farmer defaulting member continues to refuse to pay, he is exgroups have often stimulated interest in a new group pelled from the group, and the other members repay the activity, such as perforating a well, buying dairy cattle, or loan in order to obtain credit for the following season. acquiring a tractor. There seems to be an increasing awareOne group, after trying to convince three irresponsible ness among the farmers that the organizations should members to repay their loans in 1972, took the extreme expand their activities to include a broader spectrum of the measure of putting them in jail. Contrary to what might be problems affecting the community. expected as a result ofthis action (distrust and doubt on the part of new members), membership in this group Initiation of New Production Activities climbed from 111 in 197 2 to 200 in 1973. After a few days in jail, the defaulting members repaid their loans and petiAt least 10 of the 385 groups functioning in 1972 were tioned the group to be readmitted, promising to be more involved during the previous 3 years in negotiating a longresponsible in the future. The group's decision, however, term loan for some new group activity. Most of these loans was for permanent expulsion of the three farmers. had been requested for deep well perforations to convert a Another reason for the high repayment of loans in part of the rained land into irrigated fields. These wells recent years is the fact that the credit agencies, with the make possible the production of higher-income crops, such exception of the Ejidal Bank, have initiated the practice of as alfalfa and vegetables, and they can be grown throughout discounting interest for those who repay their loans before the year. Interest in this organized activity began to develop they become due. Farmers with additional income during after the groups were successful in using short-term credit the year prefer to pay off their loans in installments, thus for maize production. saving money they would have paid out in interest. ApproxThe technical assistance agents played a leading role in imately 45 percent of the farmers interviewed in 1973 this group work, from the formulation of the idea of a loan liquidated their loans by making several payments throughto the reality of irrigated fields. They provided information 59



PAGE 1

Incentives which participating farmers employ the recommendations correctly, increase in average yield, etc.). The strategy of a One of the principal incentives for young professionals given program is the particular way in which the essential to participate in small farmer programs is the, opportunity atvte r raie n odceadtksit to se hei taent fo imrovng he elfre f tis isaccount both the amount of resources allocated for each advantaged sector. Nonetheless, the agricultural program atvt n o hyaeue.Apormmyvr t shoud povid wokin conitins ad oporunites hat strategy from year to year, and even from one season of the' enable its staff to work effectively and advance profesert aohr sioalyIncuig Thus, a successful regional agricultural program should (a) Salaries and perquisites that are competitive with combine all essential elements with an efficient strategy for other employment opportunities. employing the essential activities. Experiences in the Puebla (1) Timely availability of the necessities for getting the Project provide some insight into how the choice of a projob done (adequate operating expenses for vehicles, promt prchse, f euipent nd uppiesrevlvgram strategy is influenced'by the characteristics of the prompts orh purchase of eqimetand suies, prvompv physical environment, stage of development of the infrarepair of vehicles and equipment, etc.) structure, political environment, size, diversity, and acces(c)Enourgeenttouse their own initiative and sibility of the program area, and the existence of highinnovativeness. The staff cannot. be provided with a yilngvrees manual of operation that covers every exigency that Influence of the Physical Environment may arise. The team members must be encouraged to work out their own solutions when confronted Intuitively, program planners can agree that the characwith a new problem, and to follow up, when necesteristics of the physical environment should 'be taken into sary, by'seeking appropriate advice from the rest of account in selecting program strategies. Needs of an irrithe staff and advisors.' Decisive problem-solving gated area, for example, are obviously different from those should be encouraged, with some mistakes to be of a semi-arid region. Although experience is too limited to expected as part of the process:. provide the expression of these relationships in quantitative (d) Opportunities for advancement: outstanding team terms, the experiences in Puebla and other programs can be members 'should have the opportunity to advance used to suggest ways in which strategies may differ in proboth in salary and responsibilities either in the same grams conducted under several ecological conditions. Some or a different program. Also, those so inclined of these suggestions are cited next. should be assisted in continuing advanced academic A large part of the agriculture in Central Mexico is practraining after participating for a few years in an ticed in valleys and plains that lie between 1,500 and 2,800 agricultural program. m above sea level. The average annual precipitation in these areas varies from less than 500 mim to over 1,000 mm and An Adequate Budget falls largely in the period from May to October. For illustrative purposes, these agricultural lands have Agricultural programs for small farmers should be been partioned into four categories as shown in Table 14. 1. adequately funded, with budgets that provide for: Drought frequencies for maize and levels of risk for maize (a) Adequate staff, competitive salaries, mobility of and forage grasses shown here were based largely on studies staff, supplies and equipment, etc. conducted in the Bajio region of central Mexico during the (b) Availability of funds when needed, a measure that period from 1962 to 1966. can be expedited by delegating the responsibility Category A in Table 14.1 includes irrigated lands and and authority for dispensing funds to the program areas with favorable rainfall. Drought in maize is infrequent coordinator, and the levelof agronomic risk is low. A satisfactory level of precision in crop recommendations can often be obPROG RAM STRATEGIES tained by extrapolating from experiences in similar areas. In other cases, one year of research in the area may be needed Efficiency of the regional agricultural, programs will to provide reliable agronomic information. depend on their success in properly focusing the four Category B consists of rainfed areas receiving 750-900 essential activities (research, technical assistance, evaluamm of precipitation annually. In a 10-year period, severe tion, coordination) and allocating to each the appropriate drought in maize can be expected 1 to 2 years, with modamount of resources to produce the greatest marginal re-, erate drought in another 2 to 3 1/2 years. These drought turns. The term focus is defined as the way a given activity effects produce a level of risk for the maize producer that employs its resources (for example, technical assistance can be expressed qualtitatively as int'nnediatc or moderate may choose to devote widely varying degrees of effort to risk. The Puebla Project is located in a category B region. organizing farmers and assisting them to obtain credit). Depending upon the initial yield levels, it is expected that *Returns are measured in units of progress toward the goals improved technology can increase average maize yields of the program (number of participating farmers, degree to something like 100 percent in areas of this category; Pro110



PAGE 1

This means that in 8 out of 20 years the net increase of is defined as R(0), the limited capital technology becomes yield will be 0.5 ton/ha or less; whereas in 4 of the 8 years slightly riskier in system 1.1.1 than the traditional techthe net increase will be zero or negative. nology: 0.065 versus 0.054. With the same definition of risk, the unlimited capital technology is slightly riskier than Average net increases in production per unit of cost, the traditional technology in the total area (aggregated 16 expressed as kilogramst of maize, are shown in Table 3.14 producing systems). as values of A M/C. These values were 1.83, 1.52 and 1.94 for traditional technology in systems 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 3; The unlimited capital technology was superior to the 0.81 for the combined 13 systems; and 1.35 for the total INIA technology when compared in terms of net increase in area. yield, or as risk defined as the probability that the net When compared With the traditional technology, in all increase in yield be equal to 0.5 ton/ha or less, R (0.5), in five individual and aggregated producing systems, the INIA, the five individual and aggregated producing systems. Using limited capital, and unlimited capital technologies produced the same criteria, the unlimited capital technology was also higher net increases in maize yields and lower risks, with better than the limited capital technology in systems 1.1.1, two exceptions. These two exceptions were in relation to 2.1.1, and 3; whereas in the remaining systems, net inrisk and not in relation to net increases in yields. When risk creases in yield were larger with the unlimited capital techTABLE 3.14. Variable costs, net increases, risks, and "adequacy indices" for four production technologies used in several individual or aggregated producing systems. Variable Individual or cost aggregated of Net producing technology increase system* Technology C A M * AM i2 + Risk, R + + Adequacy indices of the technologies (ton/ha) (ton/ha) C AM P( AM 5 0.5)P( AM 50) Ia lb Ila lib Illa IlIb 1.1.1 (27) Traditional 0.54 0.99 1.83 0.3804 0.213 0.054 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.91 INIA 0.82 1.52 1.85 0.6932 0.110 0.034 2.97 2.45 1.96 1.61 1.26 1.44 Limited Capital 0.60 1.51 2.52 0.9967 0.156 0.065 2.09 1.25 1.88 1.13 1.18 1.37 Unlimited Capital 1.19 2.10 1.76 1.0200 0.056 0.019 8.01 6.06 3.63 2.75 1.91 2.04 2.1.1 (18) Traditional 0.54 0.82 1.52 0.3749 0.304 0.090 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0,70 INIA 0.82 1.19 1.45 0.3948 0.136 0.029 3.25 4.45 2.14 2.93 0.92 1.13 Limited Capital 0.82 1.19 1.45 0.3948 0.136 0.029 3.25 4.45 2.14 2.93 0.92 1.13 Unlimited Capital 1.30 1.77 1.36 1.1453 0.117 0.049 5.60 3.93 2.33 1.63 1.41 1.62 3 (24) Traditional 0.54 1.05 1.94 1.0190 0.295 0.149 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.81 INIA 0.82 1.45 1.77 1.7421 0.236 0.136 1.73 1.52 1.14 1.00 0.92 1.14 Limited Capital 0.60 1.61 2.68 2.0559 0.219 0.131 2.06 1.74 1.85 1.57 1.13 1.32 Unlimited Capital 0.75 1.92 2.56 3.3232 0.218 0.147 2.47 1.86 1.78 1.34 1.34 1.53 13 systems (56) Traditional 0.54 0.44 0.81 0.2644 0.547 0.195 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -0.10 0.25 (aggegated) INIA 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.1399 0.364 0.046 2.15 6.00 1.42 3.95 0.10 0.56 Limited Capital 0.64 0.68 1.06 0.0918 0.277 0.013 3.05 23.93 2.57 20.10 0.31 0.67 Unlimited Capital 0.99 0.86 0.87 0.5159 0.308 0.115 3.47 3.31 1.89 1.81 0.29 0.65 Overall (125) Traditional 0.54 0.73' 1.35 0.8021 0.399 0.206 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.47 INIA 0.82 1.06' 1.29 1.2194 0.306 0.168 1.89 1.78 1,24 1.17 Q.48 0.74 Limited Capital 0.64 1.11' 1.73 1.3319 0.298 0.168 2.03 1.86 1.71 1.56 0.59 0.82 Unlimited Capital 0.98 1.46' 1.49 3.4542 0.303 0.215 2.63 1.92 1.45 1.06 0.72 0.94 • The number of experiments conducted in each system is given in parenthesis. •* The commercial yield obtained with a given technology, less the check yield, less the variable costs associated with the use of the technology. + s AM is the estimator of the variance among years, of the net increase values (5 degrees of freedom). ++ The standardized probability of obtaining a net increase equal or smaller than 0.5 and 0 ton/ha. RiAMt II=I -Ci III=AM(1.R)-CR AMt Rt C The index i, indicates INIA, limited capital and unlimited capital technologies; t indicates traditional technology. *0 Ia, Ila, and Ila refer to the case when R=P( AM0.5 ton/ha); Ib, Ilb and Illb refer to the case when R=P( AM 5 0 ton/ha). Unweighted averages. 35



PAGE 1

A -BENEFIT : COST ANALYSIS Of THE 11 PUEDLA PROJECT INTRODUCTION Costs of a project can be classified as: (a) operational Calculation of the relationships between benefits and costs, the value of the goods and services used to establish costs of the Puebla Project required several initial decisions and operate the project; and (b) associated costs, the value and assumptions with respect to: (a) the type of benefits of the goods and services that are necessary to perform the to be included, (b) the assignment of values to the resources activities of the project-maize production, in this case. used and benefits produced, (c) the adjustment of costs and (Should there be an activity similar to that of the project in benefits for different years to the values prevailing during a an area, then the associated costs charged to a project reference year, and (d) the number of years to be considwould be the difference between costs that would have ered. been incurred had the project not existed and costs inThe problem of assigning values to the goods and servcurred within the project.) ices used in the Project, and to the resulting benefits, arises For agricultural projects, the net direct benefit is the from the fact that market prices may not represent acgross value of the project's agricultural production, less the curately the social value of the alternative use of the regross value of estimated agricultural production without the soures or te pefeence ofsocety or he enefts.For project, less the estimated difference in the associated costs this report, however, it was assumed that, with the eventual icre ihadwtottepoet exception of farm labor, market values approximate both the alternative costs of the resources employed and the preferences of society for the benefits. -ESTIMATION OF A BENEFIT-COST RATIO Costs and benefits corresponding to a given year were FOR SEVEN YEARS OF OPERATION OF adjusted to the values prevailing in a reference year for two THE PUEBLA PROJECT reasons: (a) the value of money generally increased from year to year due to inflation, and the same monetary The benefit-cost ratio was calculated using the following benefits received in different years had different real value; formula: and (b) benefits received at a given time could be reinvested, thereby permitting the generation of additional i = 7 (bi -ai) benefits. Thus, the difference in value of a dollar of benefits Z______ obtained in different years was determined by the change in i = 1 (I + r)i (P-) monetary prices between these years and by the rate of B _____________ return that the reinvested benefits could produce. C The cost-benefit analysis presented here covers only the i = 7 C1 seven year period, 1967-1973, although it is clear that benefits will continue to accrue well beyond 1973. whe1 (I + r)i (Pi) CLASSIFICATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS i=1 2,..., 7 The most common practice in defining the type of benefits to include in a benefit-cost study is to consider B present value of the stream ofreal benefits only those quantifiable benefits directly attributable to the of the Project for the seven-year period project. Although seldom considered because of the difC = present value of the stream of real costs of ficulty in identifying or quantifying effects, two additional the Project for the seven-year period benefits can be included: (a) quantifiable economic bi=gross benefit attributable to the Project in effects indirectly induced by the operation of the project; the ith~ year and (b) intangible benefits generated by the project, includai = associated cost attributable to the Project in ing changes in attitudes ,and expectations of the individuals the ith year who participate in the project, changes in organization, and C i = cost of the Project in the ith year gains in knowledge through learning-by-doing in the use of r = discount rate new technology and in arranging for institutional services Pi= price index for the Pth year using 1967 as such as credit. the base period 95



PAGE 1

The farmers also expressed distrust of the motives of the the farmers to secure credit and other services. It was also Puebla Project. When told that the services of the technical mentioned that they would be able to buy fertilizers at a assistance agents would be free, they replied that "no one lower price than could be obtained by individuals, after the ever came to the communities with the sole purpose of members of a group had accumulated sufficient reserves of doing good." They felt that, in one way or another, they capital. would have to pay for the assistance. Many farmers susThe promotional activities of the technical assistance pected that the Project was a scheme to expropriate their agents in early 1969 led to the organization of 58 credit land to set up an industry, or to redistribute the land. Some groups with 1,556 members (Table 6.1) to receive credit farmers seemed to feel that the Project was the governand fertilizers from a local fertilizer distributor, Agr6nomos ment's way of finding out how much each farmer owned, Unidos. The Agricultural Bank of the South participated in so their taxes could be raised. And there were farmers who the organization of 55 groups with 542 farmers, and made declared that the interviewers must be Communists, credit available to them for maize production. The other because "only Communists go around in groups and talk official credit banks provided credit to enable their regular about the necessity of organizing the poor." clients to use Project recommendations. As shown in Table Clearly, in the early stages of the Project's implementa6.1, the National Ejidal Credit Bank authorized credit for tion, it would have been fruitless to talk to the farmers 413 efidatarios organized in 15 credit societies, and the about the advantages of organizing groups or credit socieNational Agricultural Credit Bank financed 50 individual ties for participation in the action program. Thus, the new farmers. maize recommendation in 1968. was promoted among The Impulsora de Puebla, the main fertilizer distributor individual farmers on a voluntary basis. in the State, participated indirectly in 1969 by providing Many of the farmers who participated in 1968 felt that financing and fertilizers to Agr6nomos Unidos. The Impulthe transportation of the fertilizers was both expensive and sora continued its funding of Agr6nomos Unidos in 1970 troublesome. If they chose to move the fertilizers by and, in addition, provided credit directly to 253 farmers in passenger buses, the sacks were often torn and the fertilizer 21 groups. In 1971, the Impulsora absorbed the clients of spilled. If an individual farmer hired a truck to transport his Agr6nomos Unidos and continued to provide credit to a fertilizer, it was costly to haul the small amounts. Farmers similar number of farmers in 1972 and 1973. who purchased their fertilizers from local stores found the The National Ejidal Credit Bank decided in 1970 to prices to be relatively high. reactivate many credit societies in the Puebla area that had been suspended because a large proportion of their memacthes epns causowed the farmrs o di s g p bers had failed to repay their loans. Thus, the number of action as means of lowering the costs of the fertilizers and cei oite eevn rdti 90icesdt 9 of transporting them to the farm. The Project's technical assistance agents encouraged the farmers to fully explore with 2,122 farmer members. Table 6.1 shows that the advantages of organized action and to discuss it with their number of credit societies receiving financing from the neighbors. Ejidal Bank has remained fairly constant since 1970. During the promotion stage for the 1969 growing The National Agricultural Credit Bank began providing season, the idea of organizing groups of farmers began to be credit to groups of farmers in 1970. It made credit available accepted in many villages. The technical assistance agents to credit societies with 10 or more members, and to solipointed out that, in addition to being able to transport darity groups with a minimum of three members and a fertilizers at lower cost, organizing would make it easier for maximum of nine. The solidarity group evolved as the most TABLE 6.1. The numbers of groups and organized farmers receiving credit from several sources during the period 1969--1973 Agricultural Impulsora de National Ejidal National AgriculBank All sources Puebla Credit Bank tural Credit Bank of the South Others* credit No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Year groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers groups farmers 1969 0 0 15 413 0 50 55 542 58 1556 128 2561 1970 21 253 59 2122 23 480 52 487 64 1491 219 4833 1971 41 1352 54 2199 58 1114 20 296 10 279 183 5240 1972 50 1514 52 2499 261 1774 13 183 9 232 385 6202 1973 62 1459 60 2410 314 1865 5 40 112 1420 553 7194 The 58 groups in 1969 and 64 groups in 1970 received credit from Agr6nomos Unidos, a fertilizer distributor. The 10 groups in 1971 and 9 groups in 1972 received credit from the owner of the Hacienda Coxtocan. The 112 groups in 1973 received credit from Coxtocan and two fertilizer distributors, Agroquimica Olmeca and Guano-Mex. 56



PAGE 1

Alternative 4, which is introduced essentially to obtain It was estimated that the cost of fertilizer would have the extreme lowest value of the benefit-cost ratio, consists been $23.10/ha if applied according to traditional practices. of imputing all 12.1 additional man-days of labor requireThis estimate included a $20.88 fertilizer cost (320 kg/ha ments to the associated costs, at the full opportunity cost of 1018-4 at $65.28/ton, including transportation) plus of hired labor. (By using 12.1 days per hectare as the $2.22 in interest. The associated costs used in the calculaadditional labor requirement of farmers employing the tion of the direct net benefits in Table 11.1 were obtained recommended technology, the true increases in labor costs by subtracting the estimated fertilizer cost using the tradihave probably been overestimated. Many farmers on credit tional practices from the fertilizer cost using the Project lists did not use project recommendations fully and obrecommendations. gained increases in yield less than those used in making the The average fertilizer costs (including interest) for all calculations in Table 10.3. Consequently, their additional farmers in the area and for farmers on credit lists were labor requirements were less than 12.1 days per hectare.) estimated from data collected in surveys at harvest time in Other inputs (insecticides, herbicides, improved seeds, 1971-1972. Estimates of the average fertilizer cost for those etc.) are seldom used; thus, failure to include them in the farmers not on credit lists were made using the following estimation of associated costs should not affect the global relationship: value significantly. Average fertilizer cost of all farmers = The calculation of the costs associated with the direct ( /Hectares of farmers benefits varied somewhat over the 1968-1973 period. The Average fertilizer cost of I on credit lists fertilizer costs per hectare, using the Project recommendafarmers on credit lists, 80,000 / tions, were as follows for the years 1968-1973: + Fertilizer Costs Year ($ha) Average fertilizer cost of) (80,000he res of )farmers on credit lists farmers not on credit lists -80,000 1968 62.88 These average per hectare fertilizer costs (including a 1969 57.92 1970 45.41 6.21-percent transportation charge) for farmers not on 1970 45.41 credit lists were $28.01 in 1971, $31.47 in 1972, and 1971 40.42 $24.69 in 1973. These average costs, less the $23.10 ferti1972 40.87 1973 41.38 lizer cost using traditional practices, gave the associated These fertilizer costs include charges for transportation and costs used in calculating the derived net benefits in Table interest. The value for 1968 is an average cost of fertilizer 11.2. for the high-yield plots conducted that year.3 The 1969 figure was calculated from data obtained from the fertilizer distributor, Agr6nomos Unidos, which distributed fertilizer Calculations of the annual costs of the Project took into for 2,719 ha of high-yield plantings.4 The values for consideration: (a) the costs of vehicles, equipment, and 1970-1-973 were calculated from data provided by the other durable items, were charged to the year in which they fertilizer distributor, Impulsora de Puebla, on its fertilizer were purchased, even though they continued to be used for sales to farmers on credit lists. several years, even beyond 1973; (b) an estimation of There was no expenditure for crop insurance in 1968. charges for the rental of offices and work areas, which were For 1969-1973, the calculation of the cost of crop insurmade available at no cost; (c) an estimation of charges for ance was based on the average premium of $6.57/ha paid services and materials provided by the Graduate College at by farmers in the five Project zones. It was assumed that Chapingo at no cost; and (d) an estimation of the cost of the area covered by crop insurance corresponding to farmconsulting services to the Puebla Project team from speers on the credit lists represented 50 percent of the total cialists in CIMMYT, the Graduate College at Chapingo, and holdings receiving credit from the official banks. For these USAID. farmers on the credit lists, the estimated number of insured Table 11.3 shows the annual costs of operating the hectares was: 1,560; 3,969; 5,528; 8,009; and 8,186 ha in Puebla Project, listed by program. Information on individ1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973, respectively.5 ual program costs provides an indication of the relative emphasis placed on the several components of the Project. 3. Jairo Cano and Delbert T. Myren, "Benefit-Cost AnalyProgram expenses included: costs of salaries, perquisites, sis of the Puebla Project," Strategies for Increasing Agricultravel expenses, equipment, materials, operation and tural Production on Small Holding4 CIMMYT, M6xico, D.F.. maintenance of vehicles, and miscellaneous materials and services. 4. Ibid An estimation of the costs of the consulting services 5. According to the data in Table 7.2, the total received provided for the five programs is shown in Table 11.4. The by farmers in the Puebla area as indemnization in toid ed n the calcuation t be ratio 1969-1971 exceeded total premiums paid to the insurance total cost used in the calculation of the benefit-cost ratio agency. This suggests that perhaps no charge should have was the sum of the operating expenses in Table 11.3 and been made for crop insurance, the consulting services in Table 11.4. In addition, the total 98



PAGE 1

Impulsora do Puebla. This stratified sample was used because it was thought that there might be significant differences among the characteristics of the groups of farmers receiving credit from the four institutions. The components of variance among and within the strata STUD IES OF AG RICU LTU RAL INSTITUTIONS were estimated using the maize yields of farmers on credit AND FARM SECTOR lists in the 1970 season. (These yields had been estimated using an indirect procedure described on page 76). These components were used to determine the size of the sample Information relative to the infrastructure that had been necessary to estimate averages in maize yields with a collected through interviews with farmers was supplemented 90-percent probability. There were 213 farmers in the with data obtained directly from the agricultural institusample. tions in special studies done in 1968 and 1973. A sample design in two stages, similar to that of 1967, The 1968 study focused on the level of services provided Was used for the survey of all farmers in the area. The by the credit banks, crop insurance company, and the components of variance among and within segments-were marketing agency.. In addition, the fertilizer distribution estimated using the 1970 maize yields of all farmers in the network was identified by compiling a list of all persons area. The size of the sample of segments and number of who sold fertilizer in the villages of the area. farmers per segment were calculated using these compoThe objectives of the 1973 study were: (a) to obtain a nents of variance, together with the quotient estimated in detailed understanding of the operating procedures and 1967 by dividing the average cost of identifying and taking policies of the three. official credit banks, the Impulsora do a census of a segment by the average cost of interviewing a Puebla, and the crop insurance company; (b) to tabulate farmer. The number of segments was calculated at 25, but the amount of services provided by these institutions during was increased to 31 to provide greater precision in the the period 1965-1973; (c) to observe changes that had estimates. There were seven farmers per segment. occurred in the operating procedures of these institutions in The sampling procedure used in M97 assumed an unrerecent years; and (d) to determine to, what extent such stricted, random distribution of variables throughout the changes had been influenced by the Puebla Project. Project area. This random selection of segments, however, Changes in the operating procedures of the institutions, produced a pattern in which some parts of the area were and the amounts of services which they provided to farmsampled with greater intensity than others. Between 1967 ers, were studied by gathering information directly from and 1970, geographical trends in the distribution of variathe institutions. Interviews were held with decision-makers, bility were discerned in the area. These trends showed the both in the office and field, and additional information was assumptions of the 1967 sample to be faulty; the sample obtained from their files. left large areas unrepresented, whereas other areas were The Project farmers were interviewed in 1973 to obtain sampled quite intensively. a better understanding of why many farmers wore not folBecause of the above findings, plus the high costs lowing the Project recommendations. Among the specific involved in taking the census of segments, the following issues covered in this study were: (a) the effect of farmer arbitrary scheme was developed for the first-stage sampling organizations on the adoption of the new technology, (b) in 1970. the level of understanding by the farmers of the maize Twenty-one of the segments identified in 1967 were recommendations, and (c) the farmers' impressions of the used in the 1970 survey. Ten new segments were added, efficiency of the services provided by' the agricultural located at random in parts of the area not adequately institutions. covered in 1967. Information about the Project area colThe farmers interviewed in 1973 were located in 10 lected between 1967 and 1970 was used in delineating the communities distributed throughout the five Project zones. 10 zones in which the new segments were located. The new These 10 communities were selected because they appeared segments were located in the field and the individual parcels to represent the area adequately in terms of the attention identified. received from the Project technical assistance agents, and A listing was made of all farmers who worked at least from the agricultural service institutions in Puebla. 'The first one parcel in the 31 segments. The sample of farmers was part of the study consisted of informal visits by the invesselected at random from these lists and interviews were tigator to the communities over a period of 6 months to made during the summer of 1971 by students from the establish rapport with the villagers. In the second phase of National School of Agriculture at Chapingo, who had the study a structured questionnaire was used to interview received 10 days of-specialized training, samples of: (a) farmers in organized groups, and (b) unorganThe completed questionnaires from the sample of farmized farmers. The first sample included 69 farmers, 35 of ers on credit lists and the sample of all farmers in the area whom were group representatives and 34 were group were checked, and the information transferred to coded members. The sample of unorganized farmers consisted of sheets. Data processing was done at the Statistics and 29 heads of families in five communities where organized Computation Center of the Graduate College, Chapingo. groups had functioned during the previous 3 or 4 years. 75



PAGE 1

14 THE PUEDLA APPROACH SYNTHESIS INTRODUCTION IThis chapter briefly describes the Puebla approach for (b) Analyze existing technology for modifications that are rapily ncrasig crp podutio onsmal ranfe fams, most likely to produce increases in production and net. rail nras in teole ro p prodtio n 9 3 o sattrned ase income, and list in order of priority the technological quesa i evolv fro16 tos 193 Neiso atntep has been tions for investigation. madheving Puoebca toatest atserie of alnativeaproc waysfo (c) Plan and carry out field trials based on above priorities, acievin Prmojexoas.in Rathe ana apoaifchtiws taking into account the ecological diversity of the area. defiemd e in er ofe e rsn kowg a ndnemoificationsm (d) Harvest the trials, analyze the data, and express the werei ae oe h er s n w ifr ai n bc m results as production functions, response curves, or treatment means. (e) Estimate the risks farmers take in using different levels of costly inputs, using the information that is available on ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS climatic variability and the fluctuation in prices. OF THE PUEBLA APPROACH (f) Develop recommendations for different levels of investment in inputs and for different ecological conditions, taking into account the expected risk in production and marketing. The experiences in the Puebla Project, supplemented by Recommendations produced after 1 year of research are findings of similar programs elsewhere, indicate that such an approximation to those needed in the area. In regions regional agricultural programs must function effectively in with irrigation or very favorable rainfall, this first approxiat least four major activities: (a) agronomic research, (b) mation may have an acceptable level of precision. For raintechnical assistance to farmers, (c) socio-economic evaluafed regions with greater ecological diversity, continued tions, and (d) coordination of all activities touching directly agronomic research for one or more years will usually be on crop production. A team of specialists from related necessary. disciplines also should be available to advise Project technicians on a continuing basis. The regional agricultural Technical Assistance to Farmers program structure should have certain basic characteristics, including: (a) capable, highly motivated, well-trainedWhnaeutcrprocinifrminisvilb, staff; (b) incentives that make the work professionally heeina adequtrp prouctio l nfomatopi availabe, rewarding to the staff; and (c) a budget that is adequate the proea fariclra preogra she eholgy d eve byste both in amount and ease of administration of funds. Each to ) po tFarmer wue ire of the new tehooy hrey: of these essential elements is discussed briefly in the fol(a mertswudb ire of the epcdinrasine d reond lowig setion. Inet income, and of the necessity for using all Agronomic Research components of the. technology precisely to obtain maximum results. Major communication media used Agronomic research serves the regional program in for this purpose in Puebla were: testing the performance of crop varieties, and in determinRadio and pamphlets: particularly useful in coning the appropriate packages of production practices for vincing the more advanced farmers to use the new different conditions in the area. In general, the amount of technology. Television and newspapers were little research required is proportional to the ecological yarused in Puebla as they reach a very small fraction of iability in the area. For example, more research will be the rural population; required in rainfed areas where the frequency and intensity Village meetings: effective in .reaching the less of drought are high and variable within and among years, advanced farmers. The new recommendations were, than in areas with irrigation or very favorable rainfall. explained in detail. Movies were used to attract Major steps in conducting agronomic research: people to the meetings, to strengthen the presenta(a) Gather and evaluate materials and information related tion on technology, and to provide farmers with to the technology used by the farmers in the area, information on related areas of interest. 107



PAGE 1

The Puebla staff studied the proposal of Cuanomex and As Project technicians and advisors explored ways of decided that the potential advantages for the small farmers developing the effectiveness of the groups, they were in Puebla of having this additional source of nitrogen availacutely aware of their lack of experience in such work. able at a lower cost outweighed the risks involved in moving Thus, arrangements were made for a sociologist with many ahead with a technology that had not been tested locally. years of experience in organizing small farmers in Mexico to Therefore, the technical assistance agents began meetings devote a part of his time to providing technical assistance to in early April to inform farmers of the availability of the Project staff. new source of fertilizer and credit, and to explain that the cost of nitrogen in the form of agua ammonia was expected A new strategy for working with the farmer organizato be about 60 per cent of that of solid materials. They also tions was not adopted until mid-i 973. Each of the techdescribed the characteristics of agua ammonia and the nical assistance agents then began to hold general meetings, precautions to observe in its application, etc. Although inviting the members of the several groups in his zone. The many farmers were not convinced that agua ammonia was technician presented the proposition that many problems equal to the solid sources of nitrogen, they were attracted prevented the farmers from improving their agricultural by the lower cost and seemed confident that it must be production, net income, and general welfare. He suggested satisfactory, since the technical assistance agent was recointhat the farmers themselves could best resolve these probmending it. More than 2,000 farmers signed up to use agua lems. He pointed out that people like himself and representammonia on some 5,000 ha of maize. atives of the service agencies could help, but, in order for Guanomex made a horse-drawn applicator available in their help to be effective, the farmers would have to parlate April for testing in the Puebla area. It turned out to be ticipate more actively in deciding what needed to be done almost impossible to handle the applicator in the field, and how to do it. because of its excessive weight and high center of gravity. Several general meetings were held over a period of The farmers were invited to offer suggestions on how to several weeks at which the farmers discussed the problems improve it Several farmers agreed to assist in redesigning the which they felt to be the greatest obstacles to progress. applicator. Within a short time, a much lighter, better Gradually, they were able to define a small list of problems balanced, applicator was developed, although still not that were most pressing, and, of these, the one which they totally satisfactory. felt should receive top priority. It was late May before the redesigned applicators were available to the farmers, and the plant for the production of The next step was to form a new organization of those agua ammonia was in operation. By that time, most of the farmers interested in working together to resolve common farmers iho had signed up to use agua ammonia had found problems, and, specifically, the problem they had given top it necessary to arrange for solid materials in order to make priority. These new organizations are still in the process of the sidedressing application of nitrogen at the proper time, development and consolidation. Guanomex had provided many of these farmers with urea and ammonium sulphate through two of its local distribuThe Union of Progressive Maize and Bean Farmers of tors. In total, agua ammonia was used by about 250 farmers Zone III is an example of these new farmer organizations. on approximately 500 ha. This organization held its first meeting in August 1973 and has been meeting regularly every two weeks. It decided to give top priority to finding means for members to obtain chicken manure at a lower cost. After a few weeks of study, the Union discovered that by eliminating the mark-ups by two middle men-the truck driver and the administrator of the chicken farm-the current price for manure (about $11 2/truck load) could be cut in half. The Union began negotiating directly with the owners of the chicken farms to obtain this better price. More Effective Group Action Although the Union has made some progress in its efforts to make manure available to its members at a lower When Project technicians began to promote the organizacost, it has encountered many obstacles. Its lack of legal tion of farmer groups in 1969, they expected that these status, for example, has prevented the Union from negotiatgroups would gradually develop into strong farmer organing long-term contracts with the manure producers. It is izations, with the capability of taking the leadership in expected that this problem can be resolved through legalizafinding solutions to many of their problems. By early 1972, tion as a Civil Society. such development had not occurred. Most farmers looked In 1973, the Union had 95 members from nine villages, upon the groups solely as an instrument for obtaining credit with a Governing Board composed of 18 farmers, who are and fertilizers. Once this was accomplished, they had little the old group coordinators and their alternates from the interest in meetings or other group activities until it was nine villages. The affairs of the Union are administered by a again time to arrange for credit. president, secretary, and treasurer and their alternates. 53



PAGE 1

on the possibilities of long-term financing, helped the repretechnical assistance agent presented their complaint to the sentatives make contact with the credit institution that directors of the credit institutions, but could not obtain an could grant the loan, and encouraged the members of the alteration in policy. It appeared that the merchant's scheme groups to have confidence in their capacity to work had been successful. together and in the honesty of their representatives. As the Nonetheless, the farmers named a commission to present transactions for the loans progressed, the role of the techtheir complaint to the Governor and explain why the credit nical assistance agents tended to decline in importance, institutions had refused to accept new clients from their while that of the representatives increased. community. The commission described the standards for One of the groups that perforated a well and began to admitting new members into the groups to the Governor, produce higher income crops used the profits for a down showing that only responsible people were accepted. The payment on a tractor costing $7,200. The tractor is being Governor immediately summoned the directors of the used for preparing the lands of the farmers of the group, institutions and asked them to attend to the farmers' petiand also for custom work for other farmers in the comtion. munity, to complete payments on the tractor more quickly. In a section of the Project area where fruit production is important, several groups have begun to use improved techGreater Interchange of Experiences nology in the management of their orchards. Witt. the Among Farmers assistance of a specialist in fruit culture, the farmers have As reported in Chapter 5, visits by groups of farmers to obtained improved varieties and transplanted them to other communities in the area were beneficial in many carefully prepared land. There is usually one man in the ways. The visitors were able to directly observe the farming group, or in the community, who has learned the proper activities of the group sponsoring the interchange. An techniques for pruning and grafting and can teach the other informal dialogue between visitors and hosts, with the techfarmers. nical assistance agent as mediator, helped members of all groups exchange ideas and experiences about many farming Greater Effectiveness in Solving and nonfarming activities. Farmers often returned home Community Problems with new impressions about the possibilities for long-term credit for perforating a well, or the establishment of a Some credit groups that have functioned for several small-scale dairy enterprise, fattening of pigs, pruning and years and have developed relatively strong organizations grafting of fruit trees, etc. have been able to solve some of the other problems affectIn 1971, a technical assistance agent in one of the princiing the community. The traditional holders of power in the pal towns in the area organized another form of exchange communities have come to view these groups as a threat to of ideas among farmers. Farmers who came to town for the their position. Local fertilizer dealers fear that the organweekly market day were invited. to attend an afternoon ized farmers will buy outside the community, or demand meeting, after marketing activities had been completed. On that the dealers respect prices fixed by the national ferthese occasions, about 50 farmers (mainly group representtilizer agency. atives) assembled for a lecture on a subject of current In one community, a local merchant almost went bankinterest to the farmers. The presentation was made by the rupt in 1971 when most of the farmers, organized in technical assistance agent or a specialist invited specifically groups, began to purchase the recommended fertilizers for the occasion. When the specialists spoke, the technical through one of the credit agencies. The following year, the assistance agent introduced the speaker and tried to clarify merchant switched from conventional fertilizers to those any parts of the talk which he felt the farmers might not recommended by the technical assistance agent in hope of understand. Following the presentation, there was a discusregaining his clients. Since most of the farmers were organsion period with active participation by the farmers. This ized, however, few of them purchased fertilizers from the discussion period was essential in providing the participants merchant. (According to several representatives, the merwith new ideas and information to communicate to their chant was prone to take advantage of temporary shortages groups on returning to their communities. of fertilizers by increasing his prices, sometimes doubling the official price.) In retaliation, the merchant began to try FACTORS FAVORING GROUP EFFICIENCY to discredit the credit groups. Among other actionshe circulated the rumor that some groups were admitting Quality of Leadership irresponsible farmers who were unlikely to repay their loans. When this rumor reached the credit institutions in Groups that chose a good leader at the outset have early 1973, some institutions decided not to accept new consistently maintained good cooperation from their memclients in groups from that community. bers and have been able to fulfill all their obligations. When the farmers learned of the action of the credit Groups with' good representatives held the largest number institutions, however, they solicited the help of the techof meetings in 1972. Ordinarily, the representatives of these nical assistance agent to find a way to convince the institugroups sought out the technical assistance agent, or the tions to accept new clients. The group representatives and Project coordinator, and requested a talk on a specific 60



PAGE 1

Field experiments were closely supervised during the crop growing season, and observations on factors affecting yield were made periodically. Here the height of unfertilized maize plants is being measured. To the right is a plot showing a strong nitrogen response. I15 -i44 18



PAGE 1

43



PAGE 1

made available within 2 months after the surveys were 1970: (a) to consider only the 21 common segments of completed. Information from the 1970 socioeconomic the two surveys. In this case, variance estimation would be survey, on the other hand, was not made available to the easy to compute and hypothesis testing would be straight staff until early 1973. This was due to a series of problems forward. However, the aggregated area of the 21 segments, related to coding, programming, and data processing that rather than the total Project area, would become the could probably have been avoided with additional technical population to which direct inferences could be made. assistance. Inferences about the total Project area would have to be Two methodological problems arose in evaluation; one of guided by past experience and general knowledge; (b) to these stemmed from use of the variance of maize yields as consider all the information collected from the 25 segments the basis for estimating the sample size used in the surveys. in 1967 and the 31 segments in 1970 in making inferences Since the objective of the surveys was to measure many about the total Project area. In this case, it would not be characteristics of the farmer, his family, and farm, it would appropriate to test hypotheses about population paramehave been more appropriate to use the variance of a more ters. Again, past experience and general knowledge would inclusive variable, such as total family income, in estimating play a role in comparing the statistics. sample size. It was decided to adopt the second alternative for this A second methodological problem arose in selecting the report. Thus, no variances or confidence intervals are segments for the 1970 survey of all farmers in the area. The presented in the chapters where data from the 1967 and arbitrary scheme that was followed was thought to offer a 1970 surveys are compared. better representation of the Project area. This scheme, however, led to difficult theoretical problems in hypothesis As mentioned, methods used for selecting the segments testing, inasmuch as there"appeared to be no appropriate used in the estimation of yields of all farmers in the area way to estimate the variances of the'statistics of the 1970 differed from 1968 to 1969-1970, and to 1971-1972. This survey. Thus, two alternatives were available for analyzing should be taken into account in studying the yield data in the changes that occurred in the area from 1967 through Table 9.8. 78



PAGE 1

At certain peak labor periods, such as planting and harvest, the whole family helps in the 70 field and additional workers may be hired. As the fields are often far from the village, the women usually bring the noon day meal. This phenomenon is explained in part by the farmers' The impression is that at least half of those with some awareness of land quality. To be fair to all when the ejidos degree of literacy read and write with considerably difwere organized, the farmers frequently decided that each ficulty. The percentage of farmers with 3 years or more of ejidatario should have a piece of each of the two or three schooling, 45.9, is perhaps a reasonable estimate of those qualities of land, instead of a single block of land. A similar that are functionally literate. procedure is often followed by private owners in leaving It is customary in the area for farmers to live together in land to their children. villages. Homes are usually (76 percent) made of sun-baked adobe bricks. The floors are frequently of brick, cement, or The Family and the Home tile, but 36 percent are of dirt. The dwellings are small as The family provides both the management of the reindicated in the next table (1967 survey). sources used in agricultural production and most of the labor used on the farm. Where labor is hired, it is usually Rooms (other than Kitchen) for short periods of peak activity, such as at harvest time in the Farm Home Percent when there may, in fact, be a shortage of labor in the One which is also the kitchen 1.2 region. Much of this hired labor is offset by members of the One room 43.8 family working off the farm at other periods when labor Two rooms 32.3 needs on the farm are low. Three rooms 14.7 About 77 percent of the farm operators have some Four rooms 5.2 ability to read and write, as shown in the following data Five or more rooms 2.8 from the 1967 survey. Schooling Percent of Farm Operators Never attended school: Though most of these families live humbly, many have Illiterate 22.7 some of the minimum comforts associated with modern Self-taught, literate 4.3 living as can be seen in the following table (1967 survey). Attended school for: I year 10.0 Living Comforts Percent 2 years 17.1 3 years 22.3 Have electric lights 62.9 4 years 9.6 Have radio 59.8 5 years 4.4 Have a sewing machine 45.0 6 years 8.0 Cook with gas, electricity, or fuel oil 28.7 More than 6 years 1.6 Have piped water in home or street 13.1 Average years of schooling: Have television 8.0 All farmers 2.4 Have drainage 6.0 Farmers who attended school 3.2 Have refrigerator 1.6 6



PAGE 1

Most of the available information on the levels of use of From 1967 to 1972, the average increases were: nitrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density refers to a random 129 percent; phosphorus, 93 percent; and plants/ha, 10 sample of parcels for the Project area. In general, therefore, percent. The increase in nitrogen use is remarkable and the analysis made here refers to the percentage of parcels reflects the farmers' general awareness of the need to apply with a certain level of adoption of the recommended praclarge amounts of this fertilizer. The slightly smaller change tices. If farmers were to use the new -technology uniformly in the average application of phosphorus is due in part to on all their parcels, then the percentage of parcels with a the recommendation that farmers use no phosphorus for given level of adoption should be similar to the percentage maize in Zone V. of farmers with the same level of adoption. However, in the The small change in average plant densities is believed to Project, where the farmers had an average of slightly over be due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) farmthree parcels and tended to adopt the new technology ers are often uncertain at planting time whether they will initially on only a part of their land, it was expected that obtain all the fertilizer they need; they use a rate of seeding percentages calculated in terms of parcels would be lower lower than that recommended with the idea that the maize than percentages calculated in terms of farmers for a given will produce better at the lower plant density, should they level of adoption. This assumption was substantiated by not obtain sufficient fertilizer; (b) farmers are concerned estimating (from the survey data for 1967 and 1970) the about drought'and believe their maize will do better, in case percentages of farmers with a high level of adoption of of drought, if the plant density is low; and (c) the farmers' nitrogen and phosphorus, and comparing them with permajor concern is in increasing their production of large ears, centages of parcels with high levels of use of the two pracand they feel this can best be achieved with plant densities tices. Analysis here is in terms of the average amounts of below the recommended levels. All of these reasons have a nitrogen, phosphorus, and plants per hectare and to the certain validity and provide an excellent example of how percentages of parcels on which these practices were used at difficult it is to convince low-income farmers in rained high, intermediate, and low levels. The available informaareas to radically change their technology, and how diftion. with respect to time of applying fertilizers, weed ficult it is to develop and deliver recommendations that are control, and insect control was not sufficient for drawing adequate for the extremely variable production and conclusions about changes in farmer use of these practices. economic conditions of the farmers. The levels of adoption of the recommended rates of All Farmers in the Area nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density can also be examined in terms of changes in the percentages of parcels with The 1967 survey involved a random sample of all the high, intermediate, and low levels of use of these practices. farmers in the Project area. The 1970 survey, as well as the Table 9.3 shows the information needed for this analysis for Yield evaluations for the years from 1968 to 1972, involved the period 1967-1972. During this time, the percentages of a sample of all farmers in the area and another sample of parcels with a high level of adoption of the three practices farmers on credit lists. (These farmers were organized into increased; whereas, the percentages of parcels with a low groups and were aided by the technical assistance agents in level of adoption decreased, and the percentages of parcels arranging for credit and in using the new technology in the intermediate category remained constant. properly.) The data from the sample of all farmers provide In 1972, the percentages of parcels with a high level of the relevant information on the level of adoption of the adoption of each of the three practices were about equal, recommendations for the Project area and are presented first. varying from 44.8 percent for nitrogen to 39.4 percent for The use of the recommendations by the farmers on credit plant density. lists is discussed later. The average rates of nitrogen and phosphorus and From 1967 to 1972, the increase in the percentage of average plant densities for maize plantings in the Puebla parcels with a high level of adoption of the nitrogen recomarea for the period 1967-1972 are shown in Table 9.2. mendation (37.4 percent) was much greater than the increases for the phosphorus (20.6 percent) and plant density TABLE 9,2. The average amounts of nitrogen and phos(25.4 percent). recommendations. This finding again sugphorus in kilograms per hectare and the average number of gests that the farmers in the area have accepted the nitrogen plants in thousands per hectare used in maize plantings in recommendation more readily than the phosphorus and the Project area from 1967 to 1972. plant density recommendations. The 25.4 percent change in Practice 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1/ the percentage of parcels with a high level of adoption of increase* the plant density recommendation indicates a greater acceptance of this recommendation than was suggested by Nitrogen 34 53 83 78 129 the increase of only 10 percent in the average plant density Phosphorus 14 19 30 27 93 for all plantings in the area. (P205) Plant density -31 31 33 33 34 10 Since there is usually a positive interaction among the production factors in their effects on maize yields, the The difference between the values in 1972 and the first year with maximum increase from a package of production practices information, expressed as a percentage of the value for the first year. is obtained when all factors are used at the recommended 80



PAGE 1

6 ORGANIZATION OF THE FARMERS INTRODUCTION Many of the villages in Puebla are efidos. These are communities of farmers who received land from the government as a result of the agrarian reform. (The title to the land The new maize recommendation promoted in 196&was remains with the efido. The ejidatario retains use rights to used by 103 farmers located throughout most of the Proland within the ejido without paying rent as long as he ject area. Their average yield was 3.98 ton/ha on a total of farms it, and at the time of his death may will these rights 76 ha. These results were extremely favorable, and it was to a member of his/her immediate family.) The highest decided that the new technology should be promoted as authority within the efido is the comisariado, or executive rapidly as possible among all farmers in the area. committee. Its principal function is to represent the interest In 1968, the technical assistance agents had worked of the ejidatarios in their relationships with higher authoridirectly with individual farmers. With an estimated 43,300 ties and service institutions. A second function is to particfarm operators in the area and only four technical assistipate in political actions at the community level and, ance agents and their assistants available in 1969, it was through the Agrarian Community League, at the regional clearly necessary to find a way to work with groups of and national levels. The comisariado consists of a president, farmers, rather than individuals. In addition to facilitating secretary, treasurer, and vigilance committee. the flow of information to and from farmers, organized Credit societies were functioning in several efidos at the groups of farmers could better: (a) arrange for credit, time of the 1967 survey. An efidal credit society consists of inputs, and other agricultural services; (b) encourage favorthose ejidatarios who wish to receive credit from the able change in the operating procedures of the service National Ejidal Credit Bank, an official credit agency institutions; (c) secure more favorable prices in the purchasformed with the express purpose of providing credit to the ing of inputs and the marketing of produce; and (d) plan ejidatarios. The society is represented in its transactions and conduct projects for community improvement, with the Bank by a delegate. A vigilance committee is A review of organizational experiences in other parts of responsible for watching over transactions between the Mexico and other countries with many kinds of farmer ejidal authorities and the Ejidal Bank and for seeing that organizations, produced no particular organizational model the credit received by the ejidatarios is used for production that seemed appropriate for the farmers in Puebla. As a purposes. The credit societies functioning in 1967 limited beginning, therefore, it seemed advisable to: (a) acquire as their action to arranging for credit; they were not involved much information as possible about farmers' experiences in acquiring better information on crop production pracwith, and attitudes toward, group action; (b) provide farmtices or other activities to increase net income from agriculers with information about the advantages of working tural production. together; and (c) assist farmers in organizing in the ways Small landowners in at least two villages in the area had they felt most appropriate, been organized in agricultural credit societies prior to 1967. These societies consisted of landowners who wished to obtain credit from another official bank, the National Agricultural Credit Bank. Neither of these societies was ORGANIZATION OF FARMERS PRIOR TO -functioning at the time of the 1967 survey. THE PUEBLA PROJECT ACTION OF THE PUEBLA PROJECT The political-unit in the State of Puebla is the municipio, IN THE ORGANIZATION OF FARMERS or county. It is governed by a council consisting of a president, secretary, and treasurer. The council is usually To obtain a better understanding of farmers' attitudes housed in a central building in the principal town in the toward organized group action and their previous experimunicipio. Most of the legal and administrative actions ences in trying to work together, the interviews in the 1967 affecting the citizens of the various communities in the survey asked the farmers specific questions about matters municipio occur in that building, including: payment of of organization. The majority of farmers interviewed property taxes, civil wedding ceremonies, regrestration of showed no desire to belong to an organization. Few membirths and deaths, etc. Each village in the municipio has an bears of the community, even members of their own famiauxiliary council with the responsibility for less important lies, were considered worthy of their trust and confidence. transactions. This type of organization was introduced by Many of those interviewed declared that they preferred "to the Spaniards during the Colonia Era and has undergone work alone," "not to depend on anyone," and that "each few changes. person should do whatever his means permit." 55



PAGE 1

The National Agricultural Credit Bank makes three types With the change to solidarity groups in 1971, the Agriof loans to small farmers organized into solidarity groups: cultural Bank has greatly increased its credit to farmers (a) short-term loans (maximum 12 months), mainly for using Project recommendations. Table 7.1, shows that the purchase of inputs for annual crops at 10.5 percent/year Agricultural Bank provided credit for 4,950 ha in 1971;1 interest; (b) intermediate-term loans (1 to 5 years) to 7,499 ha in 1972; and 8,207 ha in 1973. Repayment of acquire work animals, farm machinery, dairy cattle, etc., at loans by solidarity groups exceeded 90 percent during this 9 to 10 percent/year interest; and (c) long-term loans (6 to period. 10 years) to purchase heavy machinery or construct farm buildings at 7 to 10 percent/year interest. Operating Procedures of the Agricultural Bank The majority of the farmers in the Project area are not eligible for individual credit from the Agricultural Bank, Farmers in solidarity groups follow these steps in arrangbecause their holdings are too small. Although the regulaing for credit with the Agricultural Bank: (a) the group tions of the Agricultural Bank provide for the organization representative prepares a list of the members that indicates of credit societies, none of these were operating when the their ages, beneficiaries in the case of death, and the areas Project began in 1967. As seen in Table 7.1 the Agriculfor which credit is requested; (b) one farmer with a clear tural Bank provided credit for farmers to use Project recointitle to his property agrees to guarantee the group loanmendations on 687 ha in 1969 and on 1,788 ha in 1970. In both he and his wife must register their signatures with the 1969, credit was granted to individual farmers; in 1970, to legal department of the bank; (c) each member presents the 23 groups with a total of 480 farmers. These groups, receipt for his most recent property tax payment, or a however, were poorly organized and there was little contact letter from the highest authority in the community certifywith the technical assistance agents. Repayment was made ing that he is a property owner; (d) the representative on only about 50 percent of the loans made in these two obtains a written statement from the technical assistance years. agent indicating the fertilizer rates recommended for the In 1971, the Agricultural Bank and the Project technical group; (e) a credit application is drawn up for the group, assistance agents began to promote the organization of specifying the total area for which credit is requested and solidarity groups. These groups have a maximum memberthe total amount of credit -this application is signed by the ship of nine and a minimum of three. According to bank group representative, by the guarantor, and by the technical regulations each member of these groups must mortgage his assistance agent;(f) based on the application, a special land to the bank in order to obtain credit. As most small form, called F-200, is prepared as a credit application from farmers do not have a clear title to their land, the Puebla the group to the Planning Council of the bank-these Branch of the Agricultural Bank obtained authorization to F-200's have to be signed by five persons in the Credit, change this requirement. Now, the only requirement is that Legal, and Administrative Departments, as well as by the one member of the group has a clear title to his land and is bank manager; (g) the group signs a contract with the bank willing to mortgage it to the bank. This change in regulafor the amount of credit requested--the contract must be tions has made it possible for many farmers who were registered in the city of Puebla with the payment of a previously unable to qualify for loans to obtain credit as registration fee of $8.00; the contract is good for 5 years, members of a solidarity group. provided there are no changes in the group; (h) all members ---, P, sign a formal charter, specifying that they assume a common responsibility for the obligations of the group--this means that should any member fail to repay his loan, the others are obligated to find a way to liquidate it; (i) each Vo member signs a letter in which he agrees to repay his loan AMNON& '14S with the produce from the land for which credit was received; (j) multiple promissory notes are drafted showing the cost of fertilizers, amount of interest, and other charges for each member-these documents are prepared with 18 copies and signed by all members of the group; and, finally (k) the guarantor deposits a letter with the bank giving it power to take possession of his property in case the group fails to meet its obligations. In 1972, this procedure required an average of 13 days from the time the application was presented until the group Organized farmers are encouraged to repay their loans as received the order to pick up the fertilizers. Some groups soon as possible. Many farmers liquidate their loans by were able to complete this process in 3 days; others remaking several payments throughout the year. In 1972. the quired as much as 4 weeks. percentage repayment on loans from the Impulsora de PueSome farmers felt this procedure for arranging for credit bla was 98 % from the National Agricultural Credit Bank was too complicated and chose not to join a solidarity 94 % and from the National Ejidal Credit Bank 90% Y. group. Other farmers were discouraged from seeking credit 66



PAGE 1

During 1967-1970, about 15 outstanding farmers were Project at the beginning of each year, (c) defining appropriselected as permanent field assistants. Other farmers were ate methodological procedures, (d) resolving problems that hired as day laborers during the planting and harvesting have obstructed progress, (e) analysing and interpreting seasons. As an average for the 1967-1973 period, the research findings, etc. In addition, the advisors have Project used approximately 25 man-years of the time of complemented the activities of the Project staff by: (a) these employees. anticipating Project growth and requesting funds needed for expansion; (b) giving wide distribution to Project findings CONSULTING SERVICES through personal contacts, publications, and conferences; (c) projecting the Puebla approach to other areas in Specialists in agronomic research, maize breeding, and Mexico and Latin America by obtaining funds for travel, communications, at CIMMYT and the Graduate College at fellowships, equipment, etc.; (d) informing agricultural and Chapingo, served as advisors to the Puebla Project. They political leaders of the Puebla experience; (e) planning and drafted the original Project proposal, arranged for funding, participating in a training facility at Puebla; and (f) providselected the Project area, made the necessary arrangements ing assistance in the organization and operation of new with local institutions, prepared operational plans for 1967, programs. and employed the first members of the Project team. The total time provided by the advisors in direct asDuring the course of the Project, the advisors haie assistance in organizing and operating the Puebla Project sisted the Project staff in: (a) evaluating and modifying averaged approximately 172 man-days per year for the operational strategies, (b) preparing detailed plans for the 1967-1973 period. Fig. 2. 1. Periods of employment of professional staff in the five programs of the Puebla Project. Each line represents the period of employment of a staff member. PROGRAM 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 AGRONOMIC RESEARCH MAIZE BREEDING COORDINATION EVALUATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS 2.2 6.0 10.8 10.2 12.3 9.9 10.5 17



PAGE 1

Table 14.1. Estimated drought frequencies for maize, and levels of agronomic risk for maize and forage grasses, for four categories of land in central Mexico. Drought in maize Level of agronomic risk Frequency Maize and Forage Category* (% of years) Intensity"* similar crops grasses A. Irrigated land and 0190svr rainfed areas with more 0-209/6 severae LwVr o than 900 mm of annual rainfall0-09moeaeLwVrlw B. Rainfed areas with 750-900 mm of annual 10-209/6 severe Moderate Low rainfall 20-35 9/6 moderate C. Rainfed areas with 600-7 50 mm of annual 20.4090/ severeHihMdrt rainfall ~35-40 % moderateHihMdrt D. Rainfed areas with less>4 osvr than 600 mm of >40ide I severae Very High High annual rainfall rmidrmdrt *These categories are defined for deep soils (medium and heavy soils more than 50 cm in depth; light soils more than.75 cm in depth). In general, with a given amount of rainfall, the effect of drought is inversely proportional to the altitude. **Severe drought is arbitrarily defined as drought that reduces the potential yield by 60 9/6 or more; moderate drought as that which reduces the potential yield by 30 to 60 Y%. gram strategy should place major stress on local research research. During these. years, the principal effort should be during the first year or so, and later on technical assistance devoted to explaining the nature of the program, organizing with emphasis on work with farmer groups. the farmers into groups, and preparing them to accept new Category C of the same table includes rainfed areas practices once they have been defined. Afterwards the receiving 600-750 mm of precipitation annually. In a resources devoted to technical assistance will be similar to 10-year period, the expected frequency of severe drought in those in a Category B area. maize is 2 to 4 years, with moderate drought in about 4 Category D consists of rainfed areas receiving less than additional years. Farmers who grow maize in Category C 600 mm of precipitation annually. Maize can be expected regions assume a high level of risk, to suffer moderate or severe drought damage every year. *Present indications are that average maize yields in a The level of risk in growing maize is too high to permit the Category C region can be increased relatively little, perhaps use of costly inputs such as fertilizers. Agronomic research by no more than 50-75 percent. Thus, agronomic research shudbcoenrtdnfraerpsornilpoushould give special attention to improved production of should bej cnentrated sonl foae plcrops foreaial prouc other species, such as beans, sorghum, millets, and forage ino. Major emphasisn hou beoplaedoicrelasigtnet grasses. Rsaconmiesolemhszthbrdng such as cottage industries, arts and crafts, public works, etc. of drought-tolerant varieties and the use of moisture conservation practices (early fall plowing, planting on contour, It seems reasonable to assume that agricultural areas in mulches, low plant densities, wide row spacings, weed other parts of Mexico and other countries can be grouped control, etc.). Research on animal production also should into four similar categories. The amounts of rainfall or assume greater importance. Applied research in Category C levels of other ecological variables that mark the limits areas will require relatively more resources for a longer between the several categories will have to be determined period of time than in Category B areas. Hopefully, howlocally. ever, much of the research findings will be applicable. in The Puebla approach seems to be applicable in regions similar areas with little additional testing. corresponding to the four categories, but is not essential for Technical assistance in a Category C area will probably Category A areas. It is expected that strategies used in prohave little importance during the first few years while grams within a given category will be similar, but may vary technological packages are being developed through local greatly among programs in different categories.



PAGE 1

more than 1 kmn. The insurance agency uses the information ance is necessary in the region, the majority of them would in these reports to estimate the number of field inspectors not use it under present circumstances, if it were optional. needed and the approximate dates of peak field activities. As the farmers see it, the insurance agency is protecting the Three kinds of field inspections are made. The first banks against losses, but not themselves. inspection is normally made a few weeks after emergence of To gain the confidence of the farmers in Puebla, changes the crop. Its purpose is to verify that the insured crop was must be made in the insurance agency's operating proceplanted, and that plant density and general vigor are satdures. In addition, closer cooperation is needed with the isfactory. The group representative and the members credit banks and the Puebla Project, in coordinating effecneeded to locate the parcels must accompany the field tively the field activities of agency inspectors, bank inspecinspector. After each parcel is checked, the inspector draws tors, and technical assistance agents. Several activities that up a legal document specifying the conditions of the crop. could increase the effectiveness of the insurance agency are: The document is read to all those present and signed by (a) informing the farmers of the crop insurance law: Most each. The inspector does not inform the farmers at this farmers have little or no knowledge of the crop insurtime whether the parcel is accepted or rejected; this ance law, even about essentials such as the time period decision is made later by a higher agency official, for advising the insurance agency in case of crop damThe second kind of inspection is made when insured age. However, field inspectors of the agency and banks, farmers report crop damage due to natural causes. The together with Project technicians, could provide infarmer must advise the insurance agency within 72 hours of structions about the role of crop insurance, rights and the time the damage occurs. The agency must inspect the obligations of the insured, and other operating procedamaged crop within a period of time specified by the law dures. governing ANAGSA. The damaged crop is inspected by the (b) defining the criteria for rejecting plantings because of agency field inspector, accompanied by the bank inspector, "imminent risks": At the present time the insurance group representative, and the farmer concerned. The inspecagency rejects plantings because of "imminent risks." tor draws up a legal document specifying the nature and Apparently, however, the reasons for rejecting such extent of damage and has it signed by all present. plantings are not well-defined. This creates dissatisfacThe third kind of inspection is made just before harvest tions among farmers and can be avoided by precisely All plantings that have been reported as being damaged defining the nature of "imminent risks." during the year, are inspected to determine how much they (c) informing the farmers promptly about the acceptance should produce. The field inspector reports this informaor rejection of their plantings and their right tb indemtion to a higher agency official who decides on indemnization. After the field inspectors look over a planting nization. and prepare a report, farmers usually conclude that the Up until 1973, the inspection at harvest time was made planting is insured. This may or may not be the case, on all parcels belonging to the farmer reporting damage, not however, since the decision to accept orreject a plantjust the damaged, parcel. This was because the insurance ing is made in the Puebla office of the agency. Simagency did not consider the insured unit as a single parcel, ilarly, in the cage of inspections at harvest time, farmbut as all parcels of the farmer concerned. Field inspectors, ers may erroneously conclude that their claim has been therefore, estimated the yields of all the parcels and took accepted when the inspector makes no statement to an average. If this yield was greater than the limit below the contrary. It is important that farmers fully underwhich indemnization was paid, the farmer received no stand how decisions are made on these matters and that compensation, even though one of the parcels were a total they be advised within a few days following inspecloss. This procedure for determining indemnization has tions of the action taken by the insurance agency. been the principal source of dissatisfaction with the service (d) developing a field inspection procedure that is more of the insurance agency among the farmers. efficient for a highly fragmented area such as Puebla. Aware of the farmers' attitude toward the insurance Farmers in Puebla have an average of about 3 culti,agency's procedure for approving indemnization, the Puebla vated hectares distributed among three to four parcels Project staff consulted with the agency's -director in 1972 that are often separated by a kilometer or more. Many about ways to resolve the problem. The insurance agency of these parcels cannot be reached by vehicle; thus, the agreed to treat parcels separated by more than 1 kmn as process of inspecting parcels is very laborious and separate insured units. This modified policy went into expensive, resulting in long delays in making inspeceffect in 1973. tions and more problems for the farmer. Because of delays in inspections at harvest time, for example, the farmer may be required to postpone cutting and shockCrop Insurance Related Problems That Limit ing his maize and plowing the land. As a result of such Farmer Use of Official Credit delays, .farmers may not be able to plant early with residual moisture the following spring. Crop insurance in Puebla is seen as a major factor limitA procedure similar to that used by the original ing farmer use of official credit. Although information mutual crop insurance associations might be a possible collected in surveys indicates that farmers feel crop insursolution to this problem. Each group would name a 71



PAGE 1

TRAINING DI STAFF FOR REGIONAL 1 2 PRODUCTION PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION about the activities of the other four members of the team. As experience was gained in training, it became apparent In 1970, the Puebla Project initiated a training program that the practical preparation needed by soils specialists to prepare professional staff for the operation of regional and plant breeders was similar and that needed by technical production programs to assist subsistence-level farmers in assistance agents and coordinators was also similar. Thereareas having: (a) physical environments that would permit fore, the distinct areas in which practical training was given substantial increases in crop yields, and (b) political enviwere reduced to: (a) agronomic research, (b) technical, ronments that were favorable toward increasing crop proassistance and coordination, and (c) evaluation. duction. It was recognized that countries interested in initiating During the process of developing the training program, regional production programs would have an immediate specific training activities were discussed and general guideneed for trained teams of professionals for operating these lines were adopted for these programs. The basic premises prgas nadtoi a xetethwiinarwere that (a) joint action of professionals from several aiey'hr ie uhntoswudne oehgl disciplines (agronomy, communications, economics, organtrained scientists who could provide competent leadership ization, etc.) would be necessary in the problem-solving in the p lanning and operation of regional programs that process-the training program was designed to provide a would be oriented to their own national needs. These teams philosophy for trainees in which the overall goals of increasofpfesnaswtmrec plesitfcpeaain ing production and net income of the farmers would tranwould also form the basic staff for implementing the nascend disciplinary goals, with trainees working together as a tional training programs. Considering these two needs, it. team in achieving these overall goals; (b) since the profeswas decided that the training of staff for .r .egional producsional staffs trained in Puebla would have responsibility for tion programs should be given at two levels. organizing and' operating production programs in their .The first level of training has been given by the Puebla countries, it was important that the trainees develop abiliProject team in the Project area. The primary objective of ties for effective program planning, as well as i n methodthsrangisopeaetcncastowktgtersa ological skills; and (c) since staff trained in Puebla were team in all activities. Greater emphasis has been placed on expected to participate in national programs as trainers, the prainthtanesntesklseddinhiratcur selection ofe peoplee for tranin inll Puebda, as wellr asrtthea slcinopepefrtraining prora itself, shul bedrc e l oad the programs, than in teaching them the theoretical bases of the traiingproramitsef, houd b dircte toardthe methodology. This practical training has required 6 to 8 preparation of professionals with the capacity both to months of the trainee's time. organize and operate production programs and to train W ithin the practical training, the trainees were expected other nationals for similar activities. The training role of the torahslceIeeso roiiny o xmlse Puebla Project was viewed as that of preparing one or two cialists in agrono Imic research were expected to become teams of professionals for each interested country, with proficient in: (a) knowledge of soil charactistics such as additional training to be the parent country's responsibility. pyigahcpstontr ftesi oios n previous management practices, with the ability to locate PRACTICAL TRAINING sites for an experiment, and to arrange with the owner of the farm for the experiment at that location; (b) defining The experiences in the Puebla Project initially indicated the materials necessary for the experiments (fertilizers, that professionals should be selected and trained for five herbicides, insecticides, cord, stakes, chains, etc.), calculatdistinct activities: soil improvement, plant breeding, teching the amounts of materials needed, and preparing the nical, assistance to farmers, evaluation, and coordination, fertilizers, seed, herbicides, etc. for each plot, replication, Thus, at first, the Project adopted the idea of selecting five or experiment; and (c) staking out the experiment, coltechnicians, one in each of the five disciplines, and training lecting soil samples for analysis, applying the correct fertithem together as a team. Each of the trainees spent twolizer treatments to the individual plots, plus the plantings, thirds of his time learning the specific skills of his disciapplication of herbicides, and other operations involved in pline; the remainder of his time was devoted to learning the installation of the experiment. 101



PAGE 1

TABLE 11.3. Annual costs of the operation of the Puebla Project and each of its five programs* Agronomic Genetic Technical Year research improvement Coordination assistance Evaluation Total 1967 18,294 8,826 8,201' --35,321 1968 25,512 24,918 11,964 18,337 19,315 100,046 1969 28,945 29,079 11,144 46,891 15,401 131,460 1970 38,167 37,852 18,036 51,666 10,851 156,572 1971 40,049 33,209 17,930 58,874 29,880 179,942 1972 45,204 22,935 19,349 64,221 18,648 170,357 1973 45,339 7,973 21,351 59,070 17,614 151,347 Total 241,510 164,792 107,975 299,059 111,709 925,045 *Including goods and services not paid by CIMMYT. cost of operating expenses and consulting services was these circumstances. increased by 18 percent to cover overhead administrative To compare costs and benefits corresponding to difexpenses.6 ferent years, it is necessary to take into account the added benefits that may be derived from reinvesting capital. The Adjustment of Costs and Benefits costs and benefits in this analysis were adjusted for added benefits from reinvestment, using a discount rate of 14 The general index of wholesale prices for Mexico City percent. The present value of the net benefits and project was used to deflate the nominal costs and benefits, taking costs were calculated using the formula on page 95 and are 1967 as a base period.' (See Table A.2 in the Appendix.) shown in Tables 11. 1 and 11.2. This adjustment was made because as average prices of other goods increase while the price of maize remains constant-the exchange value of the farmer's maize deBenefit-Cost Ratios creases, even though he continues to produce the same Tepeetvleo e eeisadpoetcss Theun prcande services to indcehw uc the exchomna ange. calculated in Table 11.1 under the assumption of excess vale ofrice decrveaseso in relatio o outhe goodsane labor, were summed for the seven years, 1967-1973. The valu ofmaie dcresesin elaton o ohergoos uder present value of the stream of net benefits was divided by the present value of the stream of project costs to obtain a 6. The normal overhead charge made by CIMMYT is 18 benefit-cost ratio of 2.54 for the Project when only direct percent. benefits are taken into account. Under alternative assump7. Indicadores Econ6micos, Gerencia de Investigaciones tions (Table 11.5), the benefit-cost ratios were: Alternative Econ6micas, Banco de Mexico, S.A., Vol. 1, No. 6 (May 2, 2.20; Alternative 3, 2.15; and Alternative 4, 1.77. The 1973). ratio of 2.20, corresponding to seasonal unemployment, TABLE 11.4. Estimation of the costs of the consulting services provided for the five programs of the Puebla Project. Agronomic Genetic Technical Year research improvement Coordination assistance Evaluation Total 1967 6,245 1,299 -599 1,399 9,542 1968 5,601 749 --1,169 2,728 10,247 1969 9,293 -809 1,888 11,990 1970 8,172 -1,165 1,490 1,567 12,394 1971 4996,028 1,664 839 13,440 1972 6,515 -7,815 1,101 -.15,431 1973 6,838 -6,715 569 .-14,122 Total 47,573 2,048 21,723 7,401 8,421 87,166 99



PAGE 1

Directors and Staff Honorary Directors LIC. LUIS ECHEVERRIA ALVAREZ -President of Mexico DR. OSCAR BRAUER HERRERA -Secretary of Agriculture SR. GUILLERMO MORALES BLUMENKRON -Governor of the State of Puebla Advisory Board HECTOR PORRAS HOWARD, Ing. Agr. General Agent for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in the State of Puebla, 1967-1969. RAFAEL TERRAZAS LOYOLA, Ing. Agr. General Agent for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in the State of Puebla, 1970-1971. CARLOS TRILLO GUIDO, Ing. Agr. General Agent for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in the State of Puebla, 1972-1973. ALFONSO VILLARREAL, Ing. Agr. Director General for Agriculture of the State of Puebla. OSCAR BRAUER HERRERA, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, Mexico 1967-1969. LAURO BUCIO ALANIS, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, M6xico 19691972. LEOBARDO JIMENEZ SANCHEZ, Ph. D. Director, Graduate College, Chapingo, M4xico, 1972-1973. EDWIN J. WELLHAUSEN, Ph. D. Director General CIMMYT 1967-1971. HALDORE HANSON, Director General, CIMMYT, 1972-1973. ROBERT D. OSLER, Ph. D. Associate Director, CIMMYT. JOHN H. LONNQUIST, Ph. D. Head of the Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1967-1969. ERNEST W. SPRAGUE, Ph. D. Head of the Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1970-1973. DELBERT T. MYREN, Ph. D..Head of the Communication Department, CIMMYT, 19671970. GREGORIO MARTINEZ VALDES, Ph. D. Head of the Communication Department, CIMMYT, 1971-1973. ANTONIO TURRENT FERNANDEZ, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1969-1973. REGGIE J. LAIRD, Ph. D. Soil Scientist, Maize Program, CIMMYT, 1967-1973. General Coordinator LEOBARDO JIMENEZ SANCHEZ, Ph. D. Professor of the Graduate College, Chapingo, Mexico, and member of the CIMMYT staff, 1967-1970. HELIODORO DIAZ CISNEROS, Ing. Agr. 1970. MAURO GOMEZ AGUILAR, Ing. Agr. 1970-1973. Technical Staff ARMANDO PUENTE BERUMEN, Ph. D. In charge of agronomic research, 1967. J.C. DORANTES DE LA ROSA, Ing. Agr. Associate in agronomic research, 1967. ANTONIO TURRENT FERNANDEZ, Ph. D. In charge of agronomic research, 1968. ALVARO RUIZ BARBOSA, Ing. Agr. In charge of agronomic research, 1969-1973. NESTOR ESTRELLA CHULIN, Ing. Agr. Associate in agronomic research, 1969-1971. RAMON BARRAZA MADRID, Ing. Agr. Associate in agronomic research, 1971-1973. JOSE T. MORALES G. Associate in agronomic research, 1973. MARIO CASTRO GIL, Ph. D. In charge of genetic improvement, 1967. HERNAN CORTES MENDOZA, Ing. Agr. Associate in genetic improvement, 1967-1969. IV



PAGE 1

Farmers on Credit Lists greater than the percentage of farmers receiving credit. This, however, does not necessarily imply that the larger Farmers on credit lists receive credit for purchasing the farmers have greater access to credit. It is known, for examinputs, mainly fertilizers, required for the recommendations ple, that some farmers include the needs of other members of the Puebla Project. The technical assistance agents of their family in their request for credit.) provide information about amounts of fertilizers to apply, Table 9.7 shows the percentages of parcels of farmers on when and how to apply them, the seeding rate, and other credit lists with high, intermediate, and low levels of adoprecommended practices. As a group, farmers on credit lists tion of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density recomwould be expected to use the recommendations of the mendations. The percentages for nitrogen and phosphorus Puebla Project most efficiently. in 1971 and 1972, and the percentages for plant density for Table 9.6 shows the numbers of farmers on credit lists all years refer specifically to parcels for which credit was and the corresponding areas of maize for which credit was received. The percentages for nitrogen and phosphorus in received during the years 1968 to 1973. As noted previ1970 refer to all parcels of the farmers on credit lists. The ously, both the number of farmers and the area for which differences between 1970 and 1971 in the adoption of the credit was received increased rapidly in 1969 and 1970, nitrogen and phosphorus recommendations probably overwith a slower rate recorded for the following 3 years. In state the change in adoption occurring that year; they also 1973, 16.6 percent of all the farmers in the Puebla area indicate that some of the farmers on credit lists apply the received credit for the production of maize according to recommended practices on only a part of their parcels. Project recommendations, representing 25.8 percent of the In 1971 and 1972, about 75 to 80 percent of the parcels total harvested area of this cereal. (Thus, the percentage of of farmers on credit lists for which credit was received the area for which credit was received is about 50 percent showed a high level of adoption of the nitrogen and phosphorus recommendations; judgment of the adequacy of this level of adoption of the fertilizer recommendations by TABLE 9.6, The number of farmers on credit lists and the farmers on credit lists should take into account that five areas of maize for which credit was received in 1968-1973. technical assistance agents were assisting 5,240 farmers in 1971 and 6,202 in 1972. Year No. of 9/0 of Area 0/ o f In 1968, 82 percent of parcels of farmers on credit lists farmers total* ha total** showed a high level of adoption of the plant density recommendation; this figure declined to 36.1 percent in 1970 and 1968 103 0.2 76 0.1 has remained fairly constant. The high level of use of the 1969 2561 5.9 5838 7.3 plant density recommendation in 1968 was due to the close 1970 4833 11.1 12601 15.8 supervision (particularly at planting time) of the 103 farm1971 5240 12.1 14438 18.0 ers on credit lists by one full-time and one part-time tech1972 6202 14.3 17533 21.9 nical assistance agent. The percentage drop in 1969 and 1973 7194 16.6 20604 25.8 again in 1970 probably reflects the rapid increase in the number of farmers on credit lists and the resulting decline Based on a total of 43,300 farmers. in the assistance that could be given to each farmer. The Based on a total of 80,000 ha of maize. low percentage of parcels in 1970 through 1972 with a high level of adoption of the plant density recommendation TABLE 9.7. Percentages of parcels of farmers on credit lists with high, intermediate and low levels of adoption of the nitrogen, phosphorus and plant density recommendations. Level of Year Practice adoption 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Change High --51.1 72.9 75.8 +24.7 Nitrogen intermediate --25.5 19.9 17.7 -7.8 Low --23.4 7.2 6.5 -16.9 High --64.4 82.3 76.6 + 12.2 Phosphorus Intermediate --7.6 5.0 9.7 + 2.1 Low --28.0 12.7 13.7 -14.3 High 82.0 55.7 36.1 29.8 37.1 -44.9 Plant density Intermediate 18.0 34.4 28.7 28.7 34.7 + 16.7 Low 0.0 9.9 29.0 41.5 28.2 28.2 Change is the difference in the values for 1972 and the first year in which information was available. 82



PAGE 1

Communications within the Project area are adequate, The average rainfall in the Puebla area during the maizeand most villages are connected by a network of all-weather growing season should be sufficient to satisfy the needs of roads. The Project area is a 2-hour drive from Mexico City the crop. However, drought damage to maize would be or the National Agricultural Center at Chapingo, and this expected when: (a) the total rainfall during the year is ready accessibility allowed consultants at both locations to considerably less than the average, or (b) the amounts of maintain close contact with the Project. precipitation are well below average during the critical The remainder of this chapter describes the physical months of June, July, and August. environment of the area, the farming population, local In 1967, drought intensities were estimated using production technology, and agricultural agency services existing information on soil characteristics, evapotranspiraavailable. tion losses, and water needs of maize at critical growth periods; and the daily rainfall data available at the four PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT weather stations in the Project area. The drought damage, estimated for individual years, was classified as: zero or very The Project area occupies much of the valley drained by slight; moderate; or severe. As an average for the four the Atoyac River and lies mostly between the rising slopes stations, it was estimated that there would have been zero of volcanos: Popocat6petl and Ixtaccihuatl to the west, and oraverysslit drouhtmage in 6pere o he yers La Malinche to the north and east. It is located between moderate damage in 30 percent, and severe damage in 10 latitudes 180 50' and 190 25' north and between longitudes percent. Maize growing on soils with a high moisture970 55' and 98040, west of Greenwich. The lowest part of supplying capacity would have suffered less from drought the valley lies southeast of the city of Puebla at an elevation than these percentages indicate, while maize on soils with a of 2,100 m above sea level. Most of the Project area lies low moisture-supplying capacity would have suffered more. between 2,150 and 2,700 m above sea level, although maize A moderate effect of drought would be expected to reduce is produced on the mountain slopes up to elevations of yields by 30-60 percent; a severe effect by 60 percent or 2,900 m. more. Climate SoilS2 The climate over most of the region is temperate with The soils in the Project area have formed from volcanic mild winters. The warmest part of the year is in May and e/ecta, mainly from the three volcanos: Popocatpetl, Ixtacearly June. Temperatures remain fairly constant during the cilhuatl, and La Malinche. The parent material ranges in size last of June, July, and August, and gradually decline during from very fine ash to pumice particles several centimeters in September and October. Average monthly temperatures diameter. The coarser materials are found on the upper during the maize-growing season vary from 18.60 C in May slopes of the volcanos and the finer materials near the to 16.10 C in October. center of the valley. The ejecta has probably been waterFrosts occur mainly during the winter months from reworked over much of the area; some of the ash and October through March, when they cause little or no pumice, however, have been deposited directly on the land damage to annual crops. However, a weather station located surface during eruptions of the volcanos, The parent materinear the center of the Project area reported frost on one or als are distinctly layered due to sorting during these more days during the month of April in 33 percent of the year; i Ma, 1 perent an inJun, 5 ercnt.Weaher depositional processes. years; in May, 17 percent; and in June, 5 percent. Weather On the upper slopes of the volcanos the streams are very stations at two other locations in the area reported no deep, and the land surface is being continuously eroded frosts during these months. Frosts in May and June can away. Little of the eroded material, however, reaches the seriously damage early plantings of maize. Atoyac River. Most of the material is deposited as alluvial Three of the four weather stations in the Puebla area fan debris. Alluvial fan building is still occurring in the area reported an average of one hailstorm a month during July and is especially noticeable along the San Martin Texmeluand August, with about half that amount in September. can-Huejotzingo highway, where the stream beds are higher Severe hailstorms during these months would be expected than the adjacent land surface. to reduce maize yields significantly. The external drainage system is well-developed on the The average rainfall reported by the four weather upper slopes of the volcanos but is poorly developed stations for the 7-month period from April through toward the center of the valley where alluvial fans are formOctober varied from 777-863 mm. The rainfall during this period represents approximately 94 percentof the total for the year. 2. The study of the genesis, morphology, and distribution of the soils in the Puebla area was carried out during 1968-1970. Dr. B.L. Allen, soil morphologist, Texas Tech 1. For more information on the climate of the Puebla University, Lubbock, Texas, directed and personally convalley, see Jauregui, E.O. 1968. Mesoclima de la Regi6n ducted much of the field work. He carried out three field Puebla-Tlaxcala. Instituto de Geografia, Universidad Naciostudies, each lasting about a week. Dr. Allen contributed nal Aut6noma de Mexico. Mexico, D.F. most of the ideas and information presented in this section. 2



PAGE 1

ers with high-yield plots. General attendance was good at both events. Through organization of the events, the farmers gained experiences of lasting value, plus confidence in their ability AM to conduct demonstrations of this type. Attendance was greater than they had imagined possible, and often included farmers from the more distant villages. Other demonstrations were held throughout the growing season for representatives of various Mexican state and national institutions, including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Governor of Puebla, state directors of agriculture, directors of the official banks, and many other professionals interested in the Project. There were also numerous visitors from Latin America, Europe, and the United States. Printed Matter and Audio-visual Aids In meetings with farmers it was impressive to see that even those who were barely literate took notes on the recommendations on scraps of paper. Mimeographed and printed materials were prepared to ensure accurate recording of the information. At the end of 1968, a pamphlet was published with Project recommendations for increasing maize yields entiPamphlets were prepared ith the information farmers tled: "Would You Like to Increase Your Maize Yields? ". w needed to use project recommendations correctly. The text The text was minimal and essential data were shown in was kept to a minimum, and the essential data were presillustrations. Thus, farmers attending a meeting could first ented in illustrations. hear the recommendations and then take home a folder containing the same information. A 16 mm. film in color entitled "Would You Like to During the 1968 maize growing season, farmers in the Increase Your Maize Harvest? was produced in 1968. The film region also played a central role in the filming of a 16-mm has been very useful in demonstrating to farmers exactly color movie for use in promotional activities in subsequent how to obtain higher yields of maize. It also serves as an years, entitled: "Would You Like to Increase Your Maize attraction to bring farmers together to discuss common Harvest? problems of credit and input availability. 44 41 48



PAGE 1

4 MAIZE VARIETY IMPROVEMENT INTRODUCTION (d) The development of cryptic double-cross (S 1 x SI) Prior to the Puebla Project, it was known that Chalquehybrids and S 1 x double-cross hybrids. The decision fio and C6nico were the predominant races of maize in the to use this breeding method was based on experiregion. The Mexican Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) ence in other areas indicating that it should be had done some varietal testing, and two hybrids (H-28 and possible to develop a hybrid by the third year of the H129) were recommended for the area. A limited survey in Project that would outfield the parental varieties by the fall of 1966 indicated, however, that most farmers were 25 to 30 percent. This timetable was dependent on growing native varieties. This finding was confirmed by a growing two crops per year, through winter plantfarm survey in early 1968 which revealed that, although 15 ings at lower altitudes. Since the proposed life of percent of the farmers had used hybrid maize on at least the project was only 5 years, it was necessary to one occasion, less than I percent of the farmers had grown have improved materials available by the end of the hybrids in 1967. third year, if they were to significantly influence It seemed reasonable to expect varieties that yield more, production within this time period. particularly in unfavorable years, would be readily accepted (e) The development of open-pollinated varieties by farmers and would represent an economical way to inthrough mass selection. This method was chosen on crease production. Thus, maize improvement research the basis of research experience suggesting that inbecame an integral part of the Puebla Project. The research crease in yield could be expected, varying from 4 to objective was to quickly develop improved varieties that 10 percent per year. In addition, since farmers would yield more than the available hybrids and native would cooperate in the selection, they would have varieties, and that would compare favorably in terms of improved seed available immediately and could grain type, lodging, earliness, and disease resistance. continue to attain better yielding materials through their own efforts after the Project ended. STRATEGY OF GENETIC IMPROVEMENT The maize improvement program. consisted of the following activities: (a) The collection of information from farmers throughout the Project area to establish farmer preferences as to grain type, earliness, and other morphological characteristics. (b) The collection of outstanding native varieties in the area. It was expected that some of these might be useful for immediate distribution, and many would be valuable as breeding materials. (c) The testing of promising local varieties and exotic materials at representative sites throughout the area. Initially these varietal trials were to identify out standing genotypes, both for immediate use and as breeding materials, and subsequently to compare Varietal trials were carried out each year at several locathe performance of e).dsting and newly produced tions, to compare the performance of native varieties, immaterials. proved varieties and hybrids, and experimental materials. 39



PAGE 1

Preface This report -documents the first seven years of the. Puebla Project its philosophy, objectives, organization, operation and accomplishments. It was prepared by staff members and advisors, most of whom have been associated with the Project since its beginning. In analysing progress during these initial years, this report reflects the Project's multidisciplinary team approach. An introductory section states Project objectives, initial conceptualization, and the prerequisites for locating the Project area. The characteristics of the area -its land and people -are described next, followed by an overview of the evolvement, of Project operations from 1967 to 1973. Chapters 3 and 4 detail the methodologies, field operations, and accomplishments of the maize research programs; Chapters 5 and 8 describe the methodologies and field operations of the technical assistance and evaluation programs. Subsequent discussion (Chapters 6, 7, 9, 10) provides an examination of Project activities in organizing farmers, improving the operations of service institutions, persuading farmers to adopt new technology, increasing maize yields, and improving the general well-being of the farmers. The benefits attributable to the Project are compared with costs in Chapter 11. The Puebla Project's role in getting similar programs underway in other parts of Mexico anti other countries is outlined in Chapters 12 and 13. In its final chapter (14), the report seeks to summarize what has been learned about the organization and operations of successful regional agricultural development projects. In terms of the Project's long-term goals, the operations at present are seen to be in mid-process, with contributions already extending far beyond the Puebla Valley. The initial focus on, increased maize production has widened, as originally envisioned, to encompass the broader development objectives of increased net income, greater employment opportunities, and improved general welfare of rural families. During the period covered by this report, from 1967 though 1973, the Project was administered by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and operated jointly by that institution and members of the Chapingo Graduate College. In early 1974, responsibility for the Project passed to the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture where it is presently being operated by the Chapingo Graduate College. Members of the CIMMYT staff who were functioning as advisors to the Project in 1973 have moved to the Graduate College where they are continuing their advisory role to the Project and are participating in academic programs to train people in new approaches to increasing crop production and improving the quality of life in disadvantage rural areas.



PAGE 1

The Project area is divided into five zones with a RegionTlaxcala Project, Mexico al Coordinator in charge of each zone. Several "farmer programs" are coordinated by each Regional Coordinator. Each farmer program is headed by an outstanding farmer of Organized in early 1971, this project is a cooperative the area who promotes the organization of groups of farmundertaking of the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and the ers. Each group of farmers then elects a leader who is Government of the State of Tlaxcala. The Project area responsible for maintaining communications between the comprises 18 municipios in the southern part of the state. group and the head of the farmer program. Within this The total cultivated area is 46,000 ha, with nearly 90 peroverall organization, a small team of agronomists can cent planted in maize each year. About 40,000 farm famiprovide technical assistance to a large number of farmers, lies live in the area. The Maize Program reported 32 farmer programs funcThsolfremanyrm-vcniahreeeln tioning in 1972, with a total of 1,277 groups and 19,160 the soitrls prfoe maifrom vocanah are letyt oevaely farmers, These farmers used the recommended production thein cenapro the areoa, Malnae gelcntly te moderae yrie o 356 nha (The zetha estimated averagemazyilfo annual precipitation is 700-800 mm. Most of the cultivated yiel of3.5ton/a. Theestmate avrag maie yeldfor area lies between 2,200 and 2,400 m above sea level. the total area was 1.9 ton/ha.) In 1972, the Project reported that technical assistance Beginning in 1970, the field staff and advisors of the Puebla was provided to 972 farmers who used the recommended Project assisted in the development of similar programs in production practices on 2,300 ha of maize. About threeColombia, Per6j, Honduras, and in the States of Mexico and fourths of these farmers were organized in groups (82 Tlaxcala, Mexico. Here one of the farmers participating in groups in 37 communities). The average maize yield of the Maize Program of the State of Mexico is shown with his farmers using the recommendations was estimated at 2.4 wife harvesting their maize. ton/ha. IX 105



PAGE 1

COORDINATION PROJECT PERSONNEL The coordinator has been the central figure in the From the beginning it was recognized-that the quality of operation of the Puebla Project. His function has been that the Project staff would be the most important factor in of coordinating activities of the farmers, agricultural instituassuring the success of the undertaking. Screening procetions, and Project staff so as to enable small farmers to dures were followed which, hopefully, would assure the attain higher levels of production and net income. In pracselection of the best candidates available. tice, his responsibilities have included three distinct (but The Project sought to provide working conditions and closely related) activities: (a) -administration of the proopportunities that would enable its staff to work hargram, (b) direction of the program, and (c) acquisition and moniously and effectively and to advance professionally maintenance of the full support of the agricultural instituthrough (a) salaries and perquisites that were competitive tions. with other employment opportunities; (b) opportune availThe Project coordinator mademost of the decisions ability of the, necessities for getting the job done (adequate affecting the administration of the Project. He was responsioperating expenses for vehicles, prompt purchase of ble for locating candidates for staff positions, evaluating equipment and supplies, revolving funds for the purchase of their qualifications, and deciding whom should be hired. He small items, prompt repair of vehicles and equipment, etc.); recommended salary levels and perquisites for Project staff, (c) encouragement to use initiative and be innovative (the the purchase of vehicles and equipment, budget changes, staff could not be provided with an operations manual that etc. He approved the local expenditure of funds for day would cover every exigency that might arise; thus, the team laborers, supplies, gasoline, vehicle maintenance, etc. members were encouraged to work out their own solutions The coordinator directed the activities of the Project when confronted with new problems and to seek advice staff in the: (a) preparation of operational plans, (b) from other staff and advisors as soon thereafter as possible); execution of these plans, and (c) the summarizing and and (d) opportunities for advancement (outstanding team reporting of accomplishments. Each program presented its members were given the opportunity to advance both in plans for the yearat meetings of staff and advisors that salary and in professional position; also, staff members were generally held in January. The plans were discussed, interested in continuing their academic preparation were modified and finally approved. Weekly meetings were held assisted in doing so, after 2 to 3 years with the Project). throughout the year to discuss progress and problems of the Because of the Project policy encouraging its staff memstaff, Adjustments in operational plans, as a result of new bers to continue their academic training, plus the availinformation, were made at these meetings. Important ability of other job opportunities, especially in regional matters affecting the operation of the Project were discusproduction programs in other parts of Mexico, there were sed fully at the weekly meetings before a decision was made frequent changes, in Project personnel. Figure 2,1 shows by the coordinator. The coordinator maintained contact diagrammatically the periods of employment of profeswith the field work by accompanying the members of the sional staff during the period 1967-1973. The shortest staff, as time permitted, in their daily activities. At the end period of service was one cropping season; the longest of the year, the coordinator worked with the staff members service was,6 years and 4 months. in analyzing, evaluating, and reporting the results of their When possible, new staff members were hired I to 3 programs. months before the resignation of the person they would A large part of the coordinator's time was dedicated to replace. Thus, it was possible for the departing staff memwork with the agricultural institutions. Initially he was ber to relay to the replacement much of the knowledge that involved in informing the institutions of the philosophy, had been gained of the area, farmers, and institutions. Also, objectives, and plans of the Project, and becoming familiar many departing staff members entered the Graduate Colwith thqir operating procedures. Then, as information lege at Chapingo and continued to be available for advice flowed in from the field work, much of this data had to be and information. communicated to the institutions. For 2 or 3 months after The lines in Figure 2.1 show that there were 35 periods harvest, the coordinator was in almost constant contact of employment in the Project. However, one staff member with representatives of the institutions, explaining the plan served both in evaluation and coordination, and a second in of operations for the following season and working to both evaluation and technical assistance; thus, there was a obtain their approval and support. When a problem arose total of 33 staff members during the 7-year period. The due to the operating procedures of an institution, informatotal number of man-years of professional time varied from tion about the problem was prepared by the Project staff 2.2 in 1967 to 123 in 1971. and communicated by the coordinator to the responsible Beginning in 1967, young farmers in the Project area people. Generally this was followed by a series or meetings were hired to assist in the field activities. Initially they were and the gathering of additional data until a decision could hired as day laborers, but some of them were given permabe made, nent employment after a period of training and selection, 16



PAGE 1

Deep, volcanic ash soils occupy about two-thirds of the project area. By plowing in W. A $4 the fall, farmers are able to conserve much of the moisture present in the soils at harvest time. Just prior to planting, the farmer plows al deep furrows and plants the maize in holes opened with a spade in the bottom of the furrows. In parts of the Project area (particularly in Zone II), chemical fertilizers (140 or 160 kg/ha N plus 50 kg/ha much of the maize is grown in fruit orchards in the space P205). It was assumed that this treatment would provide between rows of trees. It seemed likely that the effect of all maize nutrition requirements. the trees on the production of maize would vary depending A total of 47 field experiments were conducted in 1968 on: (a) the fruit specie, (b) the amount of space between and 1969 (Table 3.2). Composite soil samples were collectrows of trees, and (c) the size of the trees. Beginning in ed at each experimental site from the plow layer (018 cm) 1968, experiments were conducted to determine optimal and from the subsoil (20-35 cm), for property characterizalevels of fertilization for maize growing in fruit orchards, tion. taking into account the distinct characteristics of the orchards. TABLE 3.2. Lines of research in maize and numbers of As shown in Table 3.2, plant densities, methods of land field experiments conducted in the Puebla area in 1968 and preparation, depth of the last cultivation, and rates of ferti1969. lization of maize in orchards were new lines of research in Number of 1968. Studies on dates of planting were added when it experiments became evident in 1967 that farmers planted maize from Lines of research 1968 1969 mid-March until late June. The research staff also decided to include studies of times of applying fertilizers and the residual effects of fertilizers to develop more reliable inforRates of nitrogen, phosphorus mation about these factors. and plant density 8 12 The research program in 1969 (Table 3.2) was similar to that of 1968. The principal new line of research was the Rates of nitrogen, phosphorus and study of application rates for manure and fertilizers. In plant density in maize for forage 0 1 1968, it had been observed that farmers' plantings that had Rates of nitrogen, phosphorus received chicken manure that year, or chemical fertilizer and manure. 0 3 that year and chicken manure during the preceding threeyear period, were often more vigorous than the best experiDates of planting 4 2 mental treatments. This suggested the possibility of a Times of applying fertilizers 2 5 nutritional deficiency other than nitrogen and phosphorus. It was decided to include experiments in 1969 to determine Depth of the last cultivation 2 0 economically optimal combinations of nitrogen, phosRates of nitrogen and phosphorus phorus, and chicken manure. In addition, the experiments for maize in orchards 2 2 were planned so that residual effects of the manure could be measured. Methods of land preparation 1 0 Two other lines of research were initiated in 1969: (a) Minimal tillage 0 1 optimal rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and plant density for forage maize; and (b) effect of minimal tillage on maize Residual effects of fertilizers I I yields. In addition, the use of a "potential yield" treatment T o t a 1 20 27 in many of the experiments was begun that year. This treatment consisted of 10 ton/ha of chicken manure, plus 23



PAGE 1

early May. H-131 yields about 16 percent more than Pinto might be useful in producing such improved varieties. It Salvatori and is recommended for March and April plantwould determine the major conditions used for crop ings. H-30 is superior to local varieties for late May axn4 production in the area and conduct evaluation trials at sites early June plantings. H-35E shows promise for mid-June located so as to adequately sample these conditions. plantings. In general, the maize improvement work demonThe crop improvement program at a neighboring restrated that: many local varieties are high-yielding when search center would have the responsibility for selecting the production conditions are favorable, materials and methods for producing improved varieties. It Maize improvement experience in the Puebla Project would supervise all breeding activities, both in the regional indicates that the development of improved varieties for a program and, at the research center. The selfing, crossing, regional program can perhaps best, be achieved in a coopand selection of materials might be done either at the reerative effort with a nearby research center. The crop search center or at appropriate lQcations in the Project area. improvement component of the regional program would The selection of plants tolerant to moisture stress, for have the responsibility of collecting the information that is example, might best be made at appropriate sites in the necessary to clearly define the characteristics of the imProject area. The most experienced personnel available proved varieties needed by farmers. The regional program should participate in any step involving a subjective evaluawould assist in the collection of local genetic materials that tion of materials. 43



PAGE 1

TABLE A-2. Cost of agronomic research and estimated benefits from using the INIA and unlimited capital technologies, in addition to those produced by the traditional technology. Percentage Additional benefits Discount Price Research costs of area using INIA Unlimited capital Year factors* indices*" Unadjusted Adjusted* technology + + Unadjusted Adjusted + Unadjusted Adjusted, 1967 1.0000 1.000 28,956 28,956 0 0 0 0 0 68 0.8772 1.019 36,713 31,604 0.1 1,471 1,266 3,237 2,787 69 0.7695 1.045 45,121 33,226 7.3 107,392 79,080 236,801 174,003 70 0.6750 1.107 42,201 25,733 15.8 232,437 141,730 511,446 311,857 71 0.5921 1.148 41,513 21,411 18.0 264,802 136,576 582,660 300,517 72 0.5194 1.181 0 0 21.9 322,175 141,692 708,903 311,773 73 0.4556 1.276 0 0 25.8 534,576 190,872 1,179,576 421,171 74 0.3996 1.276 0 0 29.1 602,952 188,824 1,330,452 416,653. 75 0.3506 1.276 0 0 32.4 671,328 184,457 1,481,328 407,017 76 0.3075 1.276 0 0 35.7 739,704 178,259 1,632,204 393,341 77 0.2697 1.276 0 0 39.0 808,080 172,012 1,783,080 376,878 78 0.2366 1.276 0 0 42.3 876,456 162,515 1,933,956 358,600 79 0.2076 1.276 0 0 45.6 944,832 153,720 2,084,832 339,194 80 0.1821 1.276 0 0 48.9 1,013,208 144,597 2,235,708 319,061 81 0.1597 1.276 0 0 52.2 1,081,584 135,368 2,386,584 298,697 82 0.1401 1.276 0 0 55.5 1,149,960 126,261 2,537,460 278,604 83 0.1229 1.276 0 0 58.8 1,218,336 117,346 2,688,336 258,931 84 0.1078 1.276 0 0 62.1 1,286,712 108,705 2,839,212 239,864 85 0.0946 1.276 0 0 65.4 1,355,088 100,463 2,990,088 221,679 86 0.0829 1.276 0 0 68.7 1,423,464 92,481 3,140,964 204,064 Total 140,930 2,556,224 5,634,691 Calculated using the formula for compound interest: f -1 where i = 0,1 .... 19. (1+ 0.14)i ** The price indices for 1967 through 1973 were taken from Indicadores Econ6micos, Gerencia de Investigaci6n Econ6mica, Banco de M6xico, S.A. Vol. I, No. 6. May 1973. Since price of maize was assumed to be constant in the period 1973-1986, no addition corrections for changes in price indices were made after 1973. The adjusted cost or benefit was calculated by multiplying the unadjusted value by the discount factor and dividing the product by the price index. + -The values for 1967-1973 are the percentages of the total area in maize, 80,000 ha, planted by farmers on credit lists. It was assumed that from 1974 onward, there would be an annual increase in the area of adoption of 3.3 %, the average yearly increase in 1971-1973. 0 The unadjusted benefits are the differences between the net increase values using the INIA or unlimited capital technology and the net increase values using the traditional technology.



PAGE 1

The next step was to schedule a series of meeting with actual loan time. This turned out to be an agreeable surprise farmers in the villages where authorities had expressed some with good will resulting for the distributor who provided interest. The local authorities took the initiative in organthe credit. izing the meetings and inviting the farmers. At these meetIn contrast, there was occasional friction when the farmings, Project technicians explained the Project and suger arrived to pay his loan with the understanding that only gested how the farmers might participate by using the new the principal was to be paid as indicated in the letter of recommendations in a part of their maize plantings. A total credit. In such cases, when the interest was calculated, the of 31 such meetings were held, farmer often did not have enough money on hand to make The farmers learned that they would have to provide the payment. One such farmer considered the interest a fraud. fertilizers and labor, and the Project technicians would Bad feelings often occurred, even among those farmers who assist in the field operations to assure that the recommendaunderstood that the credit terms were very favorable tions were used correctly. For those who did not have compared to local lenders and had simply forgotten to money to purchase the fertilizers, help was offered in obcalculate the interest. Because of these experiences, it was taining' credit from a private or official agency. After all decided that the total amount of the loan, principal plus aspects involved in using Project recommendations had interest, should be stated in the letter of credit, whenever been explained in detail and discussed at great length, a possible. small group of farmers gradually took the initiative. These farmers generally had two characteristics: they were (a) responsible workers of their land with a desire to progress, Crop I nsurance and (b) persons whose moral character and influence were amply recognized in the community. After the plantings had been made, the crop insurance In some communities, many farmers wished to particiagency insured them. This was an experimental 'operation pate; in such cases, the final selection of participants was for the insurance agency, because their usual procedure was made by visiting the possible sites. Generally, no less than to insure plantings of only 5 ha or more. The plots financed two and no more than five sites were selected in each comby Agronomos Unidos varied from 0.25 to 1.0 ha, and at munity, but in a few cases there were more than five. There the outset it was difficult for the insurance agency to were 25 sites around one village, and eight sites at another, include them. However, the risk aspects of rainfed plantings due principally to the enthusiasm of the farmers and the were of special interest to the Project, and the participation fact that the village land was very extensive. There were of the crop insurance agency was ultimately arranged. The only tWo instances where farmers were accepted and later insurance agency made the necessary inspections of the withdrew; these withdrawals were due to objections of the plantings, and discarded 14 plots that were considered wives, principally because the husband was planning to unacceptable. The remainder were fully insured. According obtain fertilizer on credit and they objected to going in to the yield levels obtained at the end of 1968, the insurdebt. ance agency had no indemnifiable losses whatsoever due to hail, drought, wind, frost, and other risks covered by the Credit program. There were reductions in yield due to these A ttalof 41 ighyild lot, "varin insiz frm 025 causes, but none that would require payment under the to 1.0 ha, were established by 103 farmers. Each farmer vnalue eualetit .ons/b gre axin. oeae a o was given information about the availability of credit, the vleeuvln o11tn/agan interest rate, and what the role of crop insurance could be in reducing risks from natural causes. Planting and Care of the High-yield Plots In 1968, 60, percent of the farmers who participated were financed by Agronomos Unidos, a private fertilizer The high-yield plots were planted on dates decided upon distributor. An additional 20 percent of the credit was by the farmer cooperators. The plantings were used as provided by the Agricultural Bank of the South, and 20 demonstrations, and the neighboring farmers were invited percent of the plantings were self-financed by the farmers. to watch the procedures. In some cases, the cooperating Credit was provided at an interest rate of 1-1/2 percent/ farmer made the fertilizer mixture several days before month. The credit was extended for 9 months, sufficient planting; in others, the mixing was part of the demonstratime to cover the long growing season and allow the farmer tion. to harvest and sell enough maize to repay the loan. The farmers were shown how and when to apply the The letters of credit which the farmers signed on receivmixture so that the fertilizer would be evenly distributed at ing the fertilizers were prepared in two ways: most of them the bottom of the furrow. A convenient local measure was showed only the amount of the loan and the rate of interfound for calibrating the fertilizer distribution. a 1-liter oil est; a few indicated the total amount of the loan plus can. When this can was filled to about one finger below the interest. In those cases where the interest was calculated in top and distributed over 20 meters, the appropriate amount the original loan agreement, and the farmer paid before the of the mixture was applied. For rapid measuring, a 9 months were up, he received a cash refund for interest 20-meter wire was used to locate stakes at 20-meter intercorresponding to the difference between 9 months and the vals along the row. 46



PAGE 1

In 1968, the yield estimate in each parcel was made by were selected as shown in Fig. 8.1. The number of farmers harvesting all the ears of maize within the 50 lineal meters. per zone in the sample was determined from variances From 1969 onward, the yield estimate in each parcel was calculated from estimates of yield made during the previous made using the indirect procedure described above. year for each zone. After the sites within parcels were selected, the estimaEstimation of Yields of Farmers on Credit Lists tion of yield was made using the indirect procedure described on page 76. The average maize yield of the 103 farmers who used the Project recommendation in 1968 was estimated from yield Comments on the Evaluation Program measurements made on each farm. On farms where a farmer used the recommendations in two or more parcels, one Some deficiencies in the operation of the evaluation proparcel was selected at random for sampling. gram are now apparent. As mentioned, a primary concern In 1969 and 1970, a random sample in three stages was of evaluation was to quantify the Project's progress, and used for estimating the average maize yields. In the first primary emphasis was placed on the socioeconomic surveys, stage, the credit groups were the population, and a sample the annual estimates of yield, and the use of this informaof these groups was selected. In the second stage, a sample of tion for evaluating change. As a result, much less imporparcels within groups was drawn from among all the parcels tance was given to identifying obstacles limiting farmer use in selected groups for which the farmers had received credit of the new technology and in studying means to overcome for using the new technology. In the third stage, sites these barriers. Thus, the Project was sometimes slow in within the parcels were selected according to the scheme modifying its operational strategies, particularly with illustrated in Fig. 8. 1. respect to farmer organizations and the service institutions. In 1971 and 1972, the first step in estimating average This deficiency could be overcome by arranging for an maize yields was to divide the Project area into the five evaluation staff to receive assistance from highly trained work zones described in Chapter 5. Lists were prepared, by consultants with a broad understanding of evaluation. It zones, of all farmers on credit lists; farmers were randomly may also be necessary to increase the resources allocated to selected from the five lists. Among those farmers in the evaluation and to provide the staff with additional training. sample who received credit for using the recommendations Another evaluation deficiency related to the rate at on only one parcel, this parcel was chosen for sampling. which the collected and processed data was fed back to the Among farmers who received credit for two or more parrest of the Project staff. Data on yield and the use of techcels, one parcel was selected at random. Sites within parcels nology collected each year at harvest time were generally An indirect method was developed in 1968 for estimating the average maize yield in the project area just prior to harvest. Measurements of the lengths, diameters and weights of all ears from a large number of plots were used to calculate a regression equation. Using this relaW" township, yields were estimated in subsequent years by measuring ear lengths and diame7f, ters in a selected area of a random sample of fields. 77