• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main
 Summary
 Reference






Group Title: integrated approach to the improvement of farm production systems
Title: An Integrated approach to the improvement of farm production systems
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095080/00001
 Material Information
Title: An Integrated approach to the improvement of farm production systems
Physical Description: 15 p. : ill. ; 30 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hildebrand, Peter E
Donor: unknown ( endowment )
Publisher: Sector Público Agrícola, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agricolas
Place of Publication: Guatemala
Publication Date: February, 1972
Copyright Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Integrated agricultural systems   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Guatemala
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Peter E. Hildebrand.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 15).
General Note: "Presented at the Seminar on the Improvement of Farm Production Systems, ... Bamako, Mali, 20 Febr.-1 Mar, 1978."
General Note: "February 1978."
General Note: Typescript (photocopy).
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095080
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 433605809

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 10a
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Summary
        Page 14
    Reference
        Page 15
Full Text











AN liJTFC.TFTED A.I''ROACH TO THE

IMPROVEMENT OF FARM PRODUCTION SYSTEMS






Peter E. Hildebrand




Presented at the Seminar on
the Irnrovement of Farm Production Systems
SpoC.Ogred by the Club du Sahel-
Bamako, Mali
20 Feb 1 Mar, 1978














Socioeconoiia Rural

INSTITUTE DE CIENCIA Y TECHNOLOGIA AGRICOLAS
SECTOR PUBLIC AGRICOLA
GUATEMALA, CENTRAL AMERICA
FEBRUARY 1978












Al INTE6.A TF) AFP',)ACH TO THE


IITrP':V .i ET' OF FAri': PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Peter E. Hildebrand



The it.:provement of the production systems of
traditional of subsistence farmers as opposed to more
modern and commercial farmers, presents unique challenges.
Traditional farmers continue to use historic production
practicesboth because they have proven satisfactory
over many year's time in both feast and famine
f-=-ia and because-no newer or more modern technology
has been madeavailable-to themin a form which is
acceptable. Research, or technology generation, based on
the needs of.modern, commercial agriculture mostly fails
to produce appropriate alternatives for traditional
farmers. Inturn, technology transfer fails because what
is being presented as alternatives is not, in fact,
appropriate. The traditional farmer, many times, is being
sold a product he does not want and cannot use.

The historic use of experiment stations as research
facilities in areas of advanced agriculture functioned
well because the resources of the clients were similar
to those utilized on the stations. In addition, commercial
farms operate as a business-, so criteria on which to
judge new practices are easy to define. Furthermore,
tractors act as an efficient homogenizing force, so that
new technologies can have wide spread applicability.

The traditional farmer operates in a completely
different .environment. He has goals and criteria on which
to judge alternate technologie-swhich differ greatly
from our traditionally used concept of profitability.
Many times these goals are difficult for technicians
to understand, and equally difficult to define. An
even more complex factor to conquer is a high degree
of site specificity which complicates both the gene-
ration and transfer.of improved technology for tradi-
tional farmers.

1. Agricultural Economist, TheRockfeller Foundation,
assigned..as Coordinator de Socioeconomia Rural,
Institute de Ciencia y "eemnologia Agricolas -
ICTA, Guatemala.











- 2 -


We cannot hope to generate technology which will
in fact improve farm production systems until we do
understand the agro-socioeconomic conditions under
which traditional farmers operate and unless we
explicitly take them into account in our technology
generation and transfer process.

In this paper, I will first discuss some concepts
helpful in understanding the criteria used by tradi-
tional farmers in judging their farming systems.
Then I will describe an integrated methodology for
studying.the agro-socioeconomic conditions of farmers
so .technicians can utilize farmers' criteria in judging
alternatives, and in which the farmers, themselves,
are integrated into the generation a.nd evaluation
process. Finally, some examples of cropping systems
designed for specific agro-socioeconomic conditions
will be presented.

MEASURES OF PRODUCTIVITY

Measures of productivity in multiple ,product
systems is a particularly bothersome issue both because
more than one product is involved and because the
most usual concepts of productivity may: not be the
most relevant to the farmer for whom the system is
being generated. In common agricultural dialogue,
productivity of crops frequently refers only to yield,
or production per unit of land. Technically, producti-
vity can refer to the amount of a product .,(total,
average or additional) for any of the inputs used
in the production process. Hence, in order to describe
productivity, accurately, one must be specific with
respect to product (numerator), input (denominator),
and whether total, average oradditional (marginal)
production is bein- .considered.

No one measure of productivity is necessarily
the best for any particular farming system or class of
farmer. The. most relevant inputs will depend on the
situation found in each area and are usually very
site specific. It will make no sense to a farmer to
measure productivity in terms of land if this is not
the..most limiting factor of production in his situation.
Rather, productivity should be measured in terms of
the resources which most limit the capability of the
farmer to produce or increase his income. To mention
some specific cases, water (West Pakistan, 1967), potato
seed (Andrew, 1969), labor at planting time (Reiche,
et.al, 1976) and land (Duarte, et.al., 1977) all have











- 3 -


been found to be the most important inputs or resources
for measuring productivity for different agro-socio-
economic situations.

Error: in the choice of resources with which to
measure productivity can lead to the .i-neration of
cropping systems unacceptable to the farmers for whom
they were being designed simply because productivity
of the most important factor from the farmers point
of view may actually be less, even though when mea-
sured in the technician's terms, productivity may have
improved over the traditional system. In the Colombian
case (Andrew, 1969), researchers and extension workers
were frustrated because farm yields (or productivity)
per hectare were not increasing in accordance with
known potential even though farmers were adopting many
of the recommendations being given. Because potato seed
was the most limiting resource for the farmers, they
were planting in such a manner that the productivity
of the seed was increasing significantly, yet because
they were planting less than the recommended amount of
seed per hectare, productivity per hectare, or yield,
was not so great as expected by the scientists based
on their.erroneous (in this case) concept of productivity.

In the above example, only potatoes were considered.
In multiple cropping systems, when more than one crop
is being produced, another type of problem arises. This
has to do with the choice of the "product" in which to
measure productivity. If one measures the productivity
,of a maize-bean system only in terms of maize production
then increases in bean productivity are forfeited.
On the other hand, it does not make sense to .sum the
production of maize plus beans, because they are two _
completely different products (especially, for instance,
if the beans are harvested as green beans).

In order to be useful, the unit for measuring
productivity must satisfy several criteria (Hildebrand,
1976, p. 349). First, it must be common to all the
products, a criterion that energy, dry matter or protein
would fulfill. Second, it should be relatively easy to
measure, particularly in practical or applied situa-
tionsas opposed to laboratory conditions. Third, it
must reflect quality differences between the products,
and fourth: it must provide a means of comparing
different cropping systems. But the most important
criterion of all is that the manner of measuring












- 4 -


productivity must make sense to the farmer for whom
the system is designed. If the farmer cannot understand
the productivity unit or it is not meaningful to him,
it will not be useful in helping him judge potential
benefits of the system nor in allocating- his resources
on the farm.

Probably the most useful unit that meets all five
criteria is market value of the products. Even though
market value varies with price changes over time,
this is also a means of keeping productivity measures
current. Seasonal price changes can, and should be
considered in designing cropping? systems, as can and
should longer term price trends. Energy or dry matter
differences between crops or products will be constant
(or nearly so) over time but if the value which the
market places on the quality differences of these units
varies, this must be reflected in judging the system.
Location differences can also be reflected when market
value of the product is used. This last factor reflects
net price at the farm gate.

Notice that market price as used here is not the
net price after deducting costs of production. Another
little understood economic concept of cropping systems
is that it is not possible to determine the cost of
production per unit of each crop produced. Assuredly
some of the cost items, such as seed, are specific
to only one of the products. But the majority of inputs,
for examples fertilizer, are utilized by more than one
of the crops and any method of allocating costs of
these joint inputs among the different crops would be
purely arbitrary and serve little useful purpose.
Hence, net income of multiple'product systems must
be 'ust: that -- net to the system. The only means
of determining the contribution of a particular crop
to the profitability of the system is to grow the
system with and without that crop and calculate the
net income for each of the systems as a whole.














GENi R'.TllN1J FAil, SYSTEM I TECHNOLOGY


It has been demonstrated, albeit briefly, that
multiple product systems are significantly more
difficult to analyze than monoculture or sole cropping.
Because relevant factors in judging these systems
are more complex and because many times the critical
ones are unknown to the researchers and can be very
site specific, a specialized methodology must be created
to serve as the basis for generating appropriate
technology for traditional farmers.

In Guatemala, the effort of the Institute of
Agricultural Science and Technology (ICTA) is primarily
oriented toward the small and medium', traditional and
subsistence farmers who are the most important producers
of basic grains in the country. Because the methodology
starts with a study of the specific agro-socioeconomic
conditions of the farmers in a specific area and
technology generation is oriented toward these conditions.
it is very appropriate to discuss it at this time as a
means of showing the feasibility of incorporating socio-
economic factors in the generation and transfer of farm
system technology. The integrated, multidisciplinary
system (Hildebrand, 1977) is flexible and modifications
are still being made, but a definite format has emerged
and is being utilized at the present time: hence, it is
practical and fits within a national program budget,
so is not merely a theoretical exercise.

The majority of the technical personnel in the
institute work at the regional, or more specifically
the sub-regional or project area level and here they
form an integrated and multidisciplinary team whose work
- the generation and promotion of technology is
divided into five broadly defined activities:

1. Agro-socioeconomic studies
2., Germplasm selection
3. Farm trials
4. Farmers' tests
5. Evaluation.

Except for the early stages of germplasm selection and
some basic work in agronomic practices, which is
conducted at the regiona-l experiment stations, all of
the activities are conducted on farms and mostly with
farmer participation.












- 6 -


AGRO-SOCIOECONOHIIC STUDIES

As a project team is formed to work in a new
areas the first activity is a reconnaissance to define
a target group of farmers homogeneous with respect to
their traditional farming systems and technology (agro-
socioeconomic characteristics) and delimit the zone
within which this group is an important section of the
farm population. The theoretical premise for selection
of the -target farmers and work area on this basis is
that farmers who are homogeneous with respect to their
traditional cropping systems have been selected by a
long, natural process into a group with common agro-
s,ocioeconomic characteristics and are responding in a
similar manner to the most important limiting factors
they face. The task of the project team is to identify
the common factors or agro-socioeconbmic characteristics
and then assess the relative importance of each of the
generation of improved technology. The obvious advantage
of this procedure over choosing a target group by farm
size., political boundary or other artificial parameter,
is that the factors the, "homogeneous group' have in com-
mon ace those that affect their agricultural technology
-- and those are the ones with which the team must be
concerned. ;In many cases these will be the sane resources
or inputs by which the farmers measure productivity
(i.e., the denominator in the productivity ratio).

The reconnaissance and survey are usually completed
in ,the period between crop seasons,and depth of interview
rather than number of interviews is stressed. The
purpose of the .survey is not to obtain benchmark
information but to identify factors and problems
important in generating technology. Although some
preliminary cost information is obtained in the survey,
it is based on recall and is not sufficiently accurate
to use in economic analyses of farm trial data. For this
and other reasons,af:arm records, project is initiated
immediately after the survey is completed. The infor-
mation serves as a basis for npnitoring change and
the acceptance of technology. The farm records are
simple forms on which the farmer notes each day, for
each crop, the work he has done, on what area, with
what contracted and family labor, and the inputs which
were used. Other information such as planting distances
populations, varieties, etc., are o-btained in discussions
on the frequent visits made by ICTA personnel.Through
these periodic visits, the farmers become p.rmancnt











- 7 -


contacts for the technicians, are useful sounding
boards on which to test new ideas dr to provide
information o-n general .problems which in -les's personal
situations ray never be.discussed.

FARM :PIALS

The survey information is analyzed by the regional
team, who use it to plan farf trials in which existing
varieties are tested and agronomic practices and
cropping systems are explored and to orient plant breed-
ers in their gernplasm selection process. In the first
year, one of the primary purposes of the farm trials,
for which ICTA and the farmers share expenses, is for
the members of the team to familiarize themselves
first hand with the farjicrs' svetens and to continue the
process of identifying $and 1 imitations. For this reason,
the number of trials is small, the design is flexible
to permit changes.when they seem desirable, and the
technicians work very closely with farmers from the
target group, using them as advisors and not just workers.
A limited number of the most promising varieties can
be screened in the first year and preliminary fertilizer
response work can also be included. But the nature
of these latter activities should not interfere with the
primary purpose of the first year's trials --- becoming
thoroughly familiar with the target farmers, their
traditional technology and the project area.

Two different types of Farm Trials are used. The
first, which could be termed Technical Trials, are used
when the treatments need to be replicated to provide
information on response for each specific site. These
are usually, though not necessarily, conducted in more
than one location within the zone and include variety
trials as well as work on agronomic practices. One check
treatment, is a representative, traditional technology
of the region, and another is the practice of the
farmer on whose land the trial is located.

Before a practice or 'technology" can be passed
to.farmers for Farmers' Tests, ICTA technicians must bi
satisfied that the practice works, that it is practical
for the target farmers of the area, and that it is
economical (in the broad sense of the term). To
satisfy tjiesd criteria, promising practices, crop systems
or materials usually will be subjected to Agroeconomic
Trials. These are designed to provide economic as well
as agronomic information on a region (rather than a site)













basis; hence, there are many trials, well distributed
throughout the area but they are not replicated at
each location. The number of treatments is limited and
one of then, again, is the technology of each farmer.
Economic as well as agronomic records are maintained
and both economic and apronomic analyses are made.
Estimates of risk associated with each treatment or
practice are calculated to aid in assessing potential
effect on farmers who may adopt the technology.


FR! E"S' TESTS

In the Farm Trials, the ICTA technicians evaluate
the technology being produced based on their under--
standing of the farmers' criteria and needs. A critical
aspect of the Farmers' Tests is that the farmer is the
prime evaluator, The technician who cannot fully
substitute for the farmer, becomes an interested
spectator who obtains what information he can from
the trial, but the information obtaining procedure
should not interfere with the farmer's capability tn
judge the practice for himself. It is important that
the practice be conducted strictly by the farmer with
only the technical advice of the technician. This is
different from the Farm Trial in which it is the
technician who is responsible for conducting the work.
Another very important aspect of Farmers' Tests is
that the farmer pays for all costs except technical
assistance. In other words,, he is a full partner in
the testing procedure.

The ideal Farmersv Tests includes two, three or
at most four 'eual and similar sites on the fari. Each
should be large enough to be-significant for the
farmer, to insure he gives them the attention they
merit. .On one,. the farmer plants, in his .accustomed
manner' and on the other or others he plants according
to the technology being tested. This technology must be
simple enough that he can comprehend conduct it
himself. 2/
2/ This simple technology is a choice of one; two or
at most three alternatives such as a new variet-
alone or a simple modification of his cropping sys-
teo. We 'have found in testing cor.clete and complex
'technological packages that the .farncr may select
two or three not- necessarily complementary parts,
ahd ,may be worse off than before. SimDlified techno-
logy can also h-ave an important influence on credit
policy. Technological packages are sufficiently
complex that credit programs tend to lend for almost
all expanses. With simple technology chances only
ths small additional costs, if any, need. to be
considered.









S9 -


Where possible, differences in time requircomnts
and inputs used, both on the farmer's own plot as well
as actual use on the "ICTA" plot, should be determined
and recorded. Yield information should also be obtained.
These data provide much more realistic information or how
the practice or technology will work in the hands
of the farmers and, in particular, Provide much better"
estimates of the risk factor than is available from the
Farn Trials. But if the farmer indiscriminately harvests
the two plots and yield data are not available, the t-At
should rot be considered 1.st, because the farmer
obviously has made up his miind about the practice.
Whether his decision is positive or negative, he has
evaluated the technology and the following planting
season his decision will be evident in what he does.

Although ICTA .does not have extension responsibi-
litics. it is obvious that Farrers' Tests (and to some
extent Farm Trials) initiate the procdss of t-echnology
transfer. Recognizing that the 'Institute must pro-ote
the use of its technology over a sufficiently wide
number of cases to validate its evaluation proccsss,
this amount of transfer is considered appropriate for
research purposes. The coordination of this activity
with extension is covered in another section.


EVALUATION

It-is in the year following the Farners' Tests,
that ICTA again becomes the evaluator. This time,
the evaluation is with regard to the acceptance or
rejection of the technology by the farmers who conducted
the Tests. If a high proportion put the technology
into practice over a large part of their land., it can
be considered well accepted. In this case, it can be
recommended to the Extension Servbce as a technology
that will be readily received. When the farmers reject
the practice, attempts are made-to' determine why, and thz
then if it still looks promising, it will go back
to one of the previous steps in the technology generat-
ing process for further development. If the practice
has been rejected for reasons which cannot immediately
be corrected, it joins the pool of basic information
for future use and reference.










-- 10--


The farm records provide information which is used
for longer run evaluation on changes in practices and
yields and comprise a more representative sample than
of only those farmers .who participated in Farmers'
Tests. Ultimately, a completely randomized senple of ill
target farmers will need to be conducted to dctcruine
adoption of technologies, but this has not been under-
taken in anii area to date.


COORDI;P.TION WITH OTHER ENTITIES

Figure 1 shows schematically this integrated,
multidisciplinary approach to the generation and
promotion of technology for small, traditional farmers.
Three factors in this figure were not discussed previous-
ly; 1) the inputs to the system from international
centers, universities, industry, etc.' 2) the product
from the agro-,sociocconomic studies which goes to the
other entities within the Public A-.ricultural Sector-
and 3) the relationship to other entities, both public
and private, with respect to the transfer of the
technology to the target farmers and for other purposes.

The two public agencies with which ICTA has the
closest relationship are DIGESA (extension and credit
assistance) and BANDESA (credit). Coordination at the
inter-institutional level has been weak, but is now
strengthening. The area of greatest emphasis is to
create closer cooperation between ICTA's Farmers' Tests
and initial extension tests or demonstration plots.
Beginning in 1973, some DIGESA personnel will work under
ICTA supervision in Farners' Tests so they are familiar
with the technology before it is placed in their control.
At the same tine, the DIGESA personnel will be familiar-
ized with the technology generating process and the new
technology being evaluated in the Farm Trials.

EXAMPLES FROI;: GUL..T iL'L.\

In an area in eastern Guatemala, the agro-socioccon.
omic survey provided information indicating that the tw'
controllable factors most important in limiting product-
ion of the traditional farmers on the steeD hillsides
were the availability of labor in the short planting







AGRO SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION


- F U L!C
,; .RiCULTURAL
S._._ECTOR j


TRANSFER


FA 2i, ERS'
TESTS


EV.LU ATIOl
BY THE
FARMER
AT HIS
EXPENSE


''~~-2 ~ IU cu_- I1~~~-I<1 I


PROMOTING


PUBLIC
ICU LTU!P.
SECTOR


ORGANIZED
GROUPS


OTHERS


PRODi.CTnO.


FARMERS


GENE


ttf ,, ^N ";''u' ;d!
A Q T 71.l T U L.













11 -
season and the amount of bean seed the farmer had left
to plant. 3/ The system o fthe subsistence farmers in
this area includes maize, beans and sorghum planted
together at the same tinecin a number of similar arrays.
Through the use of twin or double rows of maize and
sorghum 4/ and a reduction in the nopolation of begins
which consume the majority of planting time, productivity
of planting labor and of bean seed was raised signifi-
cantly by allowing each farmer to plant nore land
than he previously had been able to with his traditional
cropping system. This non-traditional technology is
possible because amount of land is not a limiting factor
for most farmers in the area.

Results from the Farmers' Tests in 1976 indicate
that on the average, each farmer could plant about 40%
more land using the same amount of planting labor and
somewhat less bean seed and produce 75% more maize,
40% more sorghum;- the:samie. amount of beans and 33% more
income (Hildebrand and Cardona, 1977). The system allows
,him to work about 60 more days on his farm than other--
wise would be the case and earn about.$1.25 per day
which is slightly under what he has to pay for hired
labor. The productivity of labor for planting and bean
seed (the scarcest resources) rose from $5.40 per dollar
invested to $8.73, an increase of nearly 60%. Risk of
loss is very low and there is no requirement for pesti-
cides or fertilizer that the farmer normally does not us.
in. these conditions.

In the Central Highlands, another survey showed that
land was the most limiting factor and capital was very
scarce, but labor was relatively abundant throughout th;
year. In addition, three strata of subsistence farmers
were defined (Duarte, et.al., 1977). One aroup cannot
produce enough maize to sustain the family for the year,
a second stratum achieves self sufficiency at tines, but
not always, and the third always produces enough to
satisfy family needs. Each of these three groups has
different requirements even though their cropping systc;
is basically the same, and a special technology was
designed for each.
3/ In this case, the most frequent response farmers mad,
with respect to bean yields was so-many pounds per
pound of seed used.
4/ Details on the use of double rows can be found in:
Hildebrand, 1976: Hildebrand, ct.al. 1977 Hildcbrand
and Cardona, 1977; and French and Hildebrand 197C.









12


For the first stratum, and .~igain, using the concept of double
rows, the population of maize was increased 50t/ without changing the
form of :. .-l~ing within each row and using the same amount of fertili-
zer and seed per hill that the farmers are accustomed to using. The
system, in effect, gives them 50% more land on which to plent, but
because of some economies in labor utilization, such as not needing
to '-r o:re the extra land, labor costs increase only 30c0. Maize
production increased 45- and profit, after charging cF;:rtunity cost
for all labor, rose from $7 per hectare to (j0) (Hillr i, et. al.,
1977). More important, it wo Id permit the .*:-r:.-. farmer in this
group to achieve self sufficiency in the production of maize.

For the farmer in the second category who desires to diversify
and has a little capital to invest (mostly earned by his wife weaving
local cloth) we were able to plant 40/o of the land to wheat (the least
risky alternative) and at the same time plant the normal population
of maize on the same land using the double rows. This system, with a
one meter bed of wheat 'r- : :.t by hand between each set of twin maize
rows, presents some very useful labor efficiencies and also increases
labor use only a!:pr-. :i;., ely jC: over the traditional maize system used
in the area. Maize .- htion ir,:.- slightly (though it was not
statistically -i iFiceat) but 1266 :.:/ha of wheat was produced and
profit increased to "219 per hectare. This multiple cropping system
:.mp-:res with $124 per hectare if each of the crops had been seeded
alone.

In another system, c 1_,,:-.: were lastedd in the -.*..h.- about two
weeks before the wheat was planted, and provide a great possibility for
the third class of farmer who has some risk capital to invest in
crops with more income e.-ri: potential (and risk). '.r. ly 14,0se
c-.1: -. --' can be planted per hectare without having a ,,-. :.ive effect
on the wheat. Although demand does not cxist for large '..itional
amounts of cabbage nor could they be absorbed by the present marketing
system, thereiP potential for the production of broccoli and cauli-
flower for freezing n well ,s the incoJ -. -..tion of other crops into
the system.

In all three systems, only the traditional amounts of fertilizer
were used and no insecticides were applied, in accordance with the
findings of the survey. Additional advances can, of course, be ac>hived,
with the incorporation of these factors as well as the use of improved
varieties, all of which can be included in the longer run. However,
we are finding th-.t even in these components of cropping systems, we
need to differentiate between subsistence and commercial cropi even
on the same farm and for the same farmers.
















This is most easily soon with rospoct to varieties in the
Highlands, where maize and beans have boon the subsistence crops
of the area for hundreds of years and wheat is relatively recent
introduction and almost never consumed in the home. iTh re is a
much greater tendency to accept new technolc,- for the commercial
crops than for the maize c ,I beans. E'i..::i,.: of this is available
from the evaluation stae-l. made in the ;'.::torn HiL-!L-hinii, (Ruano, et,
al., 1976). ',.:.r,, the collaborators, 7;., of the wheat was improved
varieties while only 31/j of the maize w..s one of the recommended
varieties even though there is a high response from maize variety
in the area (Schmook, et. al., 1976). ',o have also established that
on the South Coast where maize is primarily a commercial crop sold at
harvest, farmers readily accept y-bridst while in the Ilighleads,
where they have historically saved their own .seed, open pollinated
varieties are necessary.

Th- availability of water i sufficient qu--.;titi- and uindecr safe
conditions to be able to use liquid pesticides is a limiting factor for
many small farmers that has previously been overlooked. On the South
Coast, where little liquid insecticide had been used, we f:.:d. a
rapid .*A:'...i..+,?.e of Granulated insecticides that can be applied easily
with .'iri u-11r no ,-,1lZ:hased equipment and without the neod for water
except for washing hands after use, This sname area faces an acute and
increasing shortage of labor, and herbicides should be very advai .aE oas
However, herbicide uoe is not common, partially because of the diffi-
culty of application and the need for sources of water and equipment,
I *' recommendations for the use of granulated herbicides can be dove--
loped, it should be a i':..- 1i r accepted technology, because the yield
potential has already been demonstrated, nd. the need ;.s a substitute
for labor exists.

Another cultural factor is very L ._.e. :.t.t in maize technology in
the Highlands. jA,-:_ the tr-.'lit onal farmers, young maize plants arc
almost never ].n::.in1r destroyed until they can proVide a ".'..-eLl
product, Hence, the f;~rmrs plant only a few seeds and then reseed
if the number of plants drops too low in any hill. Ti-.-1 net result is
a less t an optimum .i -ive population. The usual technical solu-
tion is to plant a hit:hher than :!.. -...r' number of seeds and thin -' :r
,.r.i;:.tion to the desired number of plants per hill. But for obvious
reasons, this meets a tremendous cultural resistance on the part of
these farmers, and will probably not be adopted on any 1 -.. :- scale
in this area.













- ,


SUIUkARY


multiple product systems for small and medium traditional and
subsistence far;,mrs involve the production of several different
crops eac;' year with two or more usually .- :t.qing the lcnd at the
same timo. T;- sociaJ and economic ooals of these farmers, many of
whom historico-1- lhave utilized multiple :rop-i-i, systems, are
,difforont from t..oce of commercial f rners and may b( difficult for
..-icultural technicians to understjan As a result of these factors,
the usual measures by ihich e-ie judge crop technol:. "-, arr not always
applicable. In order to determine .whic.- social, cultural and economic
factors are -ti:l a,-j i:'. the croi.-! in. systems of. the foriers for whom
tochnol,-;, is beini- generated, a specialized methodology muirt be creotctd.
'Pi'. Guatemalan Institute of Science and T.hj- -.: :y (ICTA) ha-s dovolo .1
such a mcthodolo- in which the farmers themselves play an important
and intrc -- .tod role. i ..: use of this methodology has led to the crea-
tion of multiple cropping systems designed for the conditions of
farmers with site-specific agro-sociooconomic conditions.

Perhaps the key concept presented in this r p-.i is that for the
small and medium, traditional and subsistence farmer, inclusion of
social, cultural and economic factors can be as important in designing
successful multiple cropping systems as the agro-climatic factors,
which too frequently are the only ones considered.











- 15-


References Cited

Andrew, C.O. 1969 Improving performance of the production di-tribution
system for potatoes in Coloroia. Institute Color.biano Agropecuaria,
Departamento de Economia ALgricola, Boletin N;o. 4, Tibaitata, and
PhD thesis, Dept of Agricultural Economics, .ic.li State Univ.,
Jast iansing.

Duarte 1,. Rolanda, Peter E. Hildebrand y Sergio Ruano 1977. Tecnclogia
y estructura agro-socioecononica del minifundio del occidente de
Chimaltenango. ICTA, Guatemala.

r.e..h, Edwin C. and Peter E. Hildebrand. 1970 Dynamic multiple
cropping systems for small farmers of El Salvador. Food and Resource
Economics Department and Vegetable Crops Department. University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida (in process).

Hildebra-iid, Poter E. 1977. Generating small farm technology: an integrated
multidisciplinary system Invited paper, 12th West Indian Agricultural
Economics Conference. Caribbean Agro-Economic Society. Antigua,
West I..-es.

Hildebrand, Peter 1. 1976. multiplee cropping *::;.ems are dollars and
"sense" agronomy. Chap. I In multiple Cropping. American Society
of Agronomy. Special Publication '. her 27. iadison, 'isconsin.

Hildebrand, Peter E., Sergio Ruano, 2tec;oro Lopez, eisau Samayoa y
Rolando Duarte. 1977. Sisteras de cultivos para los agricultores
tradicionsles del Occidente de Chimaltenango. ICTA, Guatemala.

Hildebrand, Peter E. y Daniel Cardona. 1977.Sisteras de cultivos do
ladera para pequenos y medianos agricultores La Barranca, Jutiapa,
1976. ICTA, Guatemala.

Reiche C., Carlos L., Peter E. Hildebrand, Sergio Ruano y Jaime T. 7.yyl.
1976. El pequeno agricultor y sus sistemos de cultivos en ladera:
Jutiapa, Guatemala, ICTA, Guatomala.

Ruano, Sergie., Valerio aiacz Pacay y Peter E. Hildebrand. 1976.
Evaluation de la aceptacion de la tecnologia generada por ICTA para
el cultivo de maiz, en la Region 1, 1975. ICTA, Guatemala

Schmooci F., 'Werner J. 1976. Informe Anual 1976-76 .o .quipo de Produc-
cion A. Irueba de Tecnologia. ICTA, Guatemala.

:t Pakistan Water and iowcr Development Authority, and Ti-ton and -
back Inc., Engi icra. 1976. Regional Flan Lorthrn Indus Plains.
Vol. II, Lconomics, Appendix B. Value of water in the northern Ind.s
Plains. Lahore, Pakistan an Denver, Colorado.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs