|
CENTRO INTERNATIONAL DE MEJORAMIENTO DE MAIZ Y TRIGO MAI/EANI)WHIA-1
CIMMYT Londres 40, Apdo. Postal 6-641, M6xico 6, D.F. M6xico
AN AGRO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF
MAIZE PRODUCTION IN THREE VALLEYS
OF THE PERUVIAN ANDES
by
Alan Benjamin*
1980 Working Paper
The author was working for CIMMYT at the time the research was conducted. He is currently a graduate student in economics in France. He acknowledges the active support of Ing. Ricardo Sevilla, head of PCIM, and the efforts of PC IM agronomist Roberto Contreras and PCIM economist Walter Lau. He also recognizes the contribution of CIMMYT colleagues and daily exchanges with numerous Peruvian associates and farmers. A special note of appreciation is due Ing. Efrain Franco who introduced the author to the Andes and led the research through its first phases. The views
expressed in this working paper are not necessarily those of CIMMYT.
INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER
Londres 40, ler, Piso, M6xico 6, D.F. Mdxico
P R EF ACE
In cooperation with researchers in many national agricultural research programs, CIMMYT has sought to develop procedures which help to focus agricultural research squarely on the needs of farmers. The process involves collaboration of biological scientists and economists to identify the groups of farmers for whom technologies are to be developed, determining their circumstances and problems, screening this information for research opportunities, and then implementing the resulting research program on experiment stations and on the fields of representative farmers.
CIMMYT's Economics Program has emphasized developing procedures for the first stage of this process, through to establishing research opportunities. The evolution of the procedures, now synthesized in a manual "Planning Technologies Appropriate to farmers: Concepts and Procedures" has been strongly influenced by collaborative research with many national programs and with CIMMYT's wheat and maize training programs. Our efforts with national programs began in 1974 with Zaire's national maize program, they moved to work in Tunisia, Pakistan, an Egypt. The pace of work accelerated notably in 1976 with assignment of regional economists stimulating similar work in Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, El Salvador and India. Cooperation with still other national programs is now underway. We believe that the resulting procedure offer cost effective and robust guidelines to national program.
We are now preparing reports that illustrate the implementation of these procedures in various national programs. While not all such work can be reported, we take this opportunity to thank all of those who have collaborated with US.
This report describes work undertaken with the national maize program of Peru. It emphasizes the formal survey and the formation of recommendation domains in three Andean maize producing regions.
Donald L. Winkelmann
Director, Economics Program.
AN AGRO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MAIZE PRODUCTION
IN THREE VALLEYS OF THE PERUVIAN ANDES
by
Alan Benjamin
I. INTRODUCTION
Maize research in the Peruvian Andes during the past
twenty-five years has been carried out mainly under experiment station conditions. Such research has had a limited effect on improving incomes of Andean maize producers, especially the small farm sector. This disappointing impact of research on small farm agriculture led Peruvian research administrators to institute a program of on-farm research as one component of a national strategy to increase maize production and improve the welfare of the rural Andean poor. Peru's program of research in farmers' fields is aimed at reducing the gap between most maize producers' yields and the yields reached on experiment stations. This concern led the National Maize Program of Peru (Programa Cooperativo de Investigaciones en Malz de la Universidad Nacional Agraria-PCIM) to associate with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in the development of a strategy to study agro-economic factors affecting maize production in three valleys of the Peruvian Andes.
Briefly, the research project was organized into the
following phases: tentative identification of agro-climatic regions based on secondary data and experience of researchers;, assignment of priorities to agro-climatic regions in terms of national goals; an exploratory survey of high priority regions with attention focused on informal discussion with farmers, traders, and others knowledgeable about production strategies and problems; a formal survey of a random sample of farmers; and on-farm trials oriented by survey findings and percept-ions of researchers.
The project, from the start, has been an interdisciplinary effort in which farmers, biological scientists, economists and government planners each have contributed insights. Three inter-Andean regions of Peru--the Callej6n de Huaylas Valley, the Mantaro Valley and production areas around Cuzco--were selected by PCIM staff as the first areas in which to conduct on-farm research (see map 1).
The purpose of this paper is to summarize findings of the integrated agro-economic studies undertaken in these three regions from September 1976 to May 1978. The value of these studies has been in detecting factors limiting production which might then be incorporated into biological research. The results also have provided government planners and international donors with a succinct knowledge of how, where, why, and by whom maize is produced in these three representative regions of the Peruvian Andes.
II. AGRO-CLIMATIC ZONES
Three valleys in the Peruvian Andes of special interest to PCIM were identified as the target agro-climatic zones for the project (see maps 2, 3 and 4). For each of these valleys, exploratory survey information suggested that initial zoning of the regions should be done on the basis of altitude and access to irrigation. These two natural factors were thought to greatly influence management strategies followed by maize producers.
In the Huaylas Valley, three distinct zones were mapped according to altitude. Most producers had access to irrigation except in the high zone where a significant number relied exclusively on rainfall. This led researchers to identify four tentative agro-climatic zones for the Huaylas region.
In the Mantaro Valley, a joint maize-potato exploratory survey effort identified four zones in terms of altitude.Producers in only one of these zones, the valley floor, cultivated significant amounts of maize. Within the valley floor were irrigated and non-irrigated areas, giving rise to two tentative zones for the Mantaro region.
The Cuzco study area was made up of three distinct noncontiguous areas: the Urubamba and Urcos-Tinta valleys, and a high altitude plateau, the Pampa de Anta. Over 90 per cent of the maize area in these valleys is irrigated, while less than 65 per cent of the plateau is irrigated. However, irrigated areas vary notably, from sporadic and complementary irrigation (once or twice before the rains come), to regular irrigations (sufficient for four to five applications). These considerations led to the delineation of four tentative agro-climatic zones in the Cuzco region.
III. RECOMMENDATION DOMAINS
The surveys confirmed earlier impressions that essentially three types of farmers live in the regions: small farmers who consume the bulk of their production on the farm; small farmers who sell most of their production (i.e. as "choclo", a soft corn destined for roasting or boiling and sold in regional or national markets); and large-scale producers, whether large individual farmers or members of agrarian reform communal enterprises, who sell most of their production as dry maize or as choclo. Survey results suggested that each class of farmer follows sufficiently distinct production practices to warrant the need for different technologies. Economic circumstances of farmers emanating from farm size and response to markets were integrated with natural circumstances conditioned by altitude and access to irrigation to form recommendation domains (RDs).
-2-
A few potential recommendation domains were eliminated from the studies because large farmers or choclo producers were unimportant in several zones. Also, the circumstances of large, commercial farmers in the Cuzco area were sufficiently similar that they could be combined with other large farmers into one recommendation domain. (For the complete set of 13 recommendation domains see Table 1.)
IV. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
(A) Farm Size
For each of the RDs defined in Table 1, estimates were made of average farm size and average area in maize per farm (shown in Table 2). In the study areas, maize occupied onethird to one-fourth of the average farm's area, with the exception of the Mantaro region where maize is of lesser importance. Farmers in the small/commercial class were more dependent on maize production than other farmers.
The above data, taken from formal surveys, were combined with data from the 1976 National Census and the 1978 Food Ministry "Diagnostic" data. A distribution of the number of farms by size was estimated on the basis of the average area in maize per farm in each domain as estimated in the surveys (see Table 3). This distribution shows that small farmers control the large majority of the maize area in these regions. In'Huaylas and Mantaro, 90 and 82 per cent of maize surface, respectively, are estimated to be cultivated by, small farmers, mostly for home consumption. In Cuzco, this percentage is 90. Large farms represent a low percentage of farm units and maize acreage. Thus, it is apparent that maize improvement research in the Peruvian Andes will have the greatest impact when directed towards the production problems of small farms.
(B) Income Sources!/
Off-farm employment is a key source of income for small
farmers. Small subsistence farmers work mostly as agricultural wage earners in the region during planting and harvesting seasons, and as industrial part-time wage earners outside the region during "off" months--August to September and February to March. Small commercial farmers often work as traders who transport agricultural products to regional and capital city markets. It should be noted that approximately one third of small farmers producing for home consumption doVote more time to~off-farm than to on-farm activities.
1/ As was the case for number of farms and total area in maize, the significant comparisons regarding income sources are between economic classes within regions.
Thus, the data will be presented in this fashion.
-3-
This percentage is slightly higher for small commercial farmers. Cooperative farm members also work in various nonfarm activities, but no data were gathered on these. Details on off-farm employment are shown in Table 4. Income earned from various sources by small subsistence farmers was estimated by four fairly gross categories. Agricultural revenues accounts for about 40 per cent of totally revenues, while offfarm livestock and "other" revenues account for some 25, and 10 per cent, respectively (see Table 5). Regional differences do exist, with small farmers in Cuzco depending to a greater extent on farm production.
Table 4 also shows that farmers in all size groups use
hired labor, mostly during planting, cultivation and harvesting of maize. However, fewer small farmers hired labor compared to larger farmers.
V. CULTURAL PRACTICES AND INPUT USE: EFFECTS OF REGION
AND ECONOMIC CLASS
(A) Land Use
Differences in land use tend to be determined by economic class and region. Specifically, small farmers producing for home consumption grow maize, potatoes, wheat and barley in about the same proportions whereas small commercial farmers tend to specialize in one crop (maize in Cuzco and Huaylas and potatoes in Mantaro). The cropping pattern of large farm units varies significantly from the previous two farmer types, as well as from one region to another (see Table 6).
(B) Use of Tractors, Sprayers, Improved Varieties, and
Fertilizers
In all three regions it was found that only small
commercial and large farmers till the soil with a tractor or own a back-pack sprayer used for insecticide application. The small subsistence farmer generally ploughs with oxen (often rented at high prices and difficult to obtain) and does not apply insecticides (see Table 7 for details).
Only the small commercial farmers in Huaylas use PCIM improved maize varieties (in this case PMC-561 and Opaco Huascaran). The Blanco Cuzqueio variety, which is in great demand in the cities, is adapted to the Urubamba valley where 40 per cent of the sampled maize plots and 50 per cent of the surface area in maize is planted to this variety. In other regions, however, Blanco Cuzquefio is only found in small areas. In the Callej6n de Huaylas, Blanco Cuzquefio can be grown with only moderate success in the intermediate altitude agro-climatic zone. Many farmers have attempted to grow Blanco Cuzquefio but have abandoned it because of its susceptibility to insect damage in Huaylas and because it has too long a vegetative cycle in frost-prone Huancayo, located in the Mantaro Valley.
-4-
Most farmers use their own seed year after year. Only in Cuzco did farmers report that their seed became "tired" after three to four years which required them to bring new seed in from different agro-climatic zones.
The varieties farmers plant are, incidentally, good indicators of agro-climatic zones within regions. For instance, in the Callej6n de Huaylas, over 10 local varieties are grown in significant quantities. The improved varieties cover a considerable proportion of the low zone; Blanco Cuzquefio is restricted to the intermediate zone; and yellow kerneled varieties of the Amarillo Ancash race are predominant in the intermediate and high zones. The Rojo Huarotambo variety is grown almost exclusively in the rainfed region of the Cordillera Negra.
In the Montaro Valley, a single homogeneous agro-climatic zone, the San Jer6nimo local, Blanco Cuzquefio, and a cross of both varieties, are grown for grain and choclo. Choclo-producing farmers want a variety with large kernels like those of Blanco Cuzquefio, and one that is at least one or two months earlier than the latter.
The Urubamba Valley in the Cuzco region is planted
principally with two varieties: Blanco Cuzqueio and Amarillo de Calca, both large kerneled varieties. In the Urcos-Tinta zone one finds Amarillo de Calca (Urqos region) and Amarillo Oro (Tinta region). In the Anta plateau, Amarillo Oro is the most widely planted variety.
Small subsistence farmers fertilize maize at lower
levels than small commercial and large farmers although, at least in the case of Huaylas, the use of nitrogen is much more widespread among small subsistence farmers than was generally believed. Irrigated maize generally receives larger doses of fertilizer than rainfed maize, even when planted by small farmers. In the Huaylas Valley, in recommendation domains H2 and H4, sampled farmers had average per hectare applications of 72-5-0 and 46-5-0 of NPK, respectively, whereas in the rainfed domain H5, farmers applied on the average only 20-0-0 per hectare. In the Anta plateau, NPK per hectare averages are 36-26-13 for the irrigated domain C3, and 25-9-6 for the rainfed domain C4. In the Huaylas Valley farmers use little manure (less is available in this area), but high levels of chemical fertilizer. In the Mantaro
(M2) and especially in the Cuzco regions (Cl, C2, C3 and C4), where cattle form an important component of the farmer's production system, manure is used by a high percentage of farmers in average doses of two to three metric tons per hectare.
-5-
VI. ROTATIONS, SEEDING PRACTICES AND PRODUCTION LIMITING
FACTORS
In previous sections, data were characterized exclusively by economic class and region. For further references, however, the full RD definition must be employed to explain differences of practices and problems among groups of farmers.
(A) Rotations and Intercropping
In the intermediate zone in Huaylas, small farmers want a faster maturing variety that enables them to plant two crops per year. Farmers in the Mantaro Valley apply little phosphorous to maize because a high percentage of maize is cultivated after a potato crop, and farmers believe that maize benefits from high doses of phosphorous applied to the potato crop. This residual fertilizer effect must be taken into account in the on-farm experiment stage.
Associated cropping is a common practice in Huaylas,
mainly among small subsistence farmers. Small commercial and large farmers who grow choclo for market do not intercrop because of additional cost involved at harvest. Ninety per cent of all associations are between maize and climbing beans. In other regions, the association is with broad beans or barley in the same plot as maize, but with little or no obvious interaction (see Table 8 for details).
(B) Planting Date and Method
Farmers determine when to plant on the basis of their objectives and the amount of risk they are willing to take. In general, small commercial farmers in the low or intermediate altitude zones that have irrigation tend to advance planting dates in order to secure a better price in the of fseason market, and to be able to plant a vegetable or potato crop immediately after maize. In the case of the Huaylas Valley, maize is usually in the ground throughout the year. However, a few years ago little maize was being cultivated in the Valley in July or August. This continuous cropping might have an effect on the general insect complex which is such a yield-limiting factor in the region.
Small subsistence farmers usually wait for planting
until the rains come, even if they have irrigated land. For instance, in the Huaylas Valley experimental research has proven that maize planted in October in the intermediate and high zones gives the highest yields. Even so, small farmers producing for home consumption in irrigated zones (much of which may only be supplementary) often plant in November and December. With this apparent anomaly, on-farm experimentation should include planting dates as an experimental variable to be studied in relation to insect, disease, and frost incidence.
-6-
In the Mantaro Valley, farmers are clearly sensitive to risk. Most maize is planted in October in order to avoid crop loss through frosts in December (the plant is still at its initial stages of growth and can recover from a 2C frost, which often occurs between December 8 and 24). Earlier plantings of maize are more susceptible to frost damage in December. However, most choclo is produced in the Pilcomayo and Chupaca districts where frosts are reported to be less severe. Planting dates by RD are shown in Table 9.
All maize research at Peruvian experiment stations uses the seeding technique known as "golpe", whereby two to three seeds are dropped in the furrow every 40 to 60 cms, resulting in seed rates of about 62,000 plants per hectare. However, a large proportion of small farmers (especially those in rainfed areas and high altitude domains) plant by "chorro", a continuous flow of seed every 5 to 10 cm, resulting in seed rates of 75,000 to 85,000 plants per hectare. One reason for this practice seems to be that in certain domains, such as Ml, M2, C and C4, farmers withdraw up to 30 per cent of all plants throughout the cycle to feed farm animals. Dried stalks also are used as fodder after harvest. The maize plant thus serves a dual purpose: grain for home consumption and feed for cattle (see Table 10).
(C) Production-limiting Factors
Maize in the Huaylas Valley suffers the most damage from earworms and fungus leaf diseases. Earworms damage roughly 40 per cent of the kernels of the average cob (estimated by Tardieu, 1977, and Contreras, after one year of trials, 1978). The "Eusesta" insect also seems to be responsible for much of the ear rot in this valley. Fungus diseases, identified as fusarium and cercospora, are also widespread. In the Cuzco region, Urubamba is also plagued by earworms, but to a lesser degree. Farmers in the region reported virus symptoms in early plantings. In the higher altitude regions, soil insects are often reported. It appears that high seed rates in the Mantaro and Cuzco region are partly a security against soil insects. An index of the incidence of various sources of direct damage to maize is shown in Table 11.
However, farmers reported many other limiting factors to maize production in addition to the sources of damage found in Table 11. This more exhaustive list of productionlimiting factors, together with their relative importance by RD, may be seen in Table 12.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The preceding report has delineated 13 tentative recommendations domains (RDs) for three regions of the Peruvian. Andes. In some cases, it was possible to group RDs in order to examine farmer characteristics and practices (e.g., farm farm size, income sources, fertilizer use and variety choice).
-7-
However, in the end RD distinctions were maintained in order to determine certain farmer practices (planting date and method, rotations) and to identify production-limiting factors).
The information from these studies has proven useful in the design of agronomic experiments on farmers' fields. It has been used in the following general ways:
1) To identify representative farmers and their
practices along with representative fields for carrying out experiments;
2) To identify factors suspected to limit production by representative farmers, with their eventual incorporation as experimental variables;
3) To establish levels, dates, and methods for nonexperimental variables in on-farm trials, thereby ensuring experimental relevance to farmers' conditions; and
4) To make an a priori-analysis or pre-screening of projected costs and returns associated with factors thought to limit production, and of the compatibility with farmer circumstances of proposed changes in technology in order to single out for on-farm experiments desirable and feasible components.
Specifically, the following elements either were introduced into the research program or given far greater importance:
1. Stronger emphasis in on-farm experimentation;
2. For relevant regions, a vigorous program of research on control of earworms;
3. Careful analysis of fertilizer response under representative conditions;
4. For relevant regions, a screening of varieties from internal and international sources for resistance to particular leaf diseases;
5. For relevant regions, an examination of elements of maize and bean associations incorporating varieties and husbandry;
6. Management of maize when it is both a source of grain and stover; and
7. A search for shorter season varieties and for cold tolerance for some regions.
It could be argued that 13 RDs are too numerous and
hence unmanageable for a maize improvement program, expecially considering that only 32,000 hectare of maize are cultivated in the three regions. Would not 13 different research programs necessarily follow from this classification? What'about the numerous unidentified domains in other inter-Andean valleys?
It has been shown that in many respects some RDs are
very similar to others. For example, the small farmer highland RDs are quite similar. One could almost speak of a
-8-
single RD encompassing all of these for the three regions studied. However, many variables crucial to on-farm experimentation such as the insect and disease complex, use of manure, system of associated cropping, etc., manifest regional differences which are significant. Therefore, to insure relevance the RDs must be treated separately in on-farm experiments and their distinct problems must be recognized. in organizing work on experiment stations.
Instead of aggregating current RDs, a more fruitful
approach might entail expansion of current RD definitions to other parts of the Andes. It is likely that identified recommendation domains correspond, grosso modo, to domains in other regions of the Peruvian Andes. For example, lower altitude regions of Cajamarca, Ayacucho and La Libertad are similar to Huaylas with respect to associated cropping (maize-climbing bean) and to earworm damage; and frosts are a major problem in the higher altitude agro-climatic zones of the Apurimac and La Libertad regions.
During its initial stages, on-farm maize research in the Peruvian Andes can only successfully deal with those components of the farmer's production system that directly affect the maize plant. Even so, this research work on maize explicitly recognizes the role of competing and complementary activities, e.g.,, bean intercropping, planting dates, fodder requirements. Although a limited research program, it may significantly increase yields (and fodder where required) for target farmers. In the future, as maize recommendations become better adjusted to recommendation domains, researchers will want to deal in greater depth with other components of the farmers! production systems. Future research 'can then be refocused and recommendations of new farm technologies for other crops in the system can be made. Thus, a broader farming system approach may be the logical outcome of a maize production technology research program, especially when directed to small farmers.
-9-
Table 1. Recommendation Domains Delineated in Three Highland Maize Producing Areas.
Region Agro-Climatic Zone Economic Considerations RD Code
Altitude Irrigation Markets and Farm Size-a
Callej6n de Low: 2,400-2,600 m Irrigated Commercial/small HI
Huaylas Int.: 2,600-3,000 m Irrigated Home Consumption/small H2
Irrigated Commercial/large H3
High: 3,000-3,500 m Irrigated Home Consumption/small H4
Rainfed Home Consumption/small H5
Mantaro Valley: 3,100-3,500 m Irrigated Commercial/small MI
Rainfed Home Consumption/small M2
Irrigated Commercial/large M3
Cuzco Urubamba: 2,700-3,200 m
Irrigated Commercial/small C1
Urcos-Tinta: 3,100-3,600 m
Irrigated Home Consumption/small C2
Anta: 3,300-3,600 m Irrigated Home Consumption/small C3
Rainfed Home Consumption/small C4
All zones Irrigated Commercial/large C5
a/ Small = less than 7.0 ha.
Large = greater than or equal to 7.0 ha.
Table 2. Farm Size and Area in Maize Per Farm by Recommendation Domain (RD)
RD Average Average Maize Area % of Farm
Farm Size Per Farm in Maize
(ha) (ha)
Hi 3.0 2.1 70
H2 1.9 .7 37
H3 37.2 8.2 22
1.5 .4 27
H5 1.2 .4 33
HMl 4.3 .4 9
M2 1.2 .2 17
M3 20.9 2.9 14
Cl 2.0 1.3 65
C2 1.6 .5 31
C3 2.9 .4 14
C4 2.5 .5 20
C5 24.0 6.2 26
Table 3. Total Number of Maize Farms and Total Area in Maize by Region and Economic Class
Huaylas Mantaro Cuzco
Small Small Large Small Small Large Small Small Large Subsis- Ccrmer Subsis- Commer- Subsis- Cornertence cial tence cial tence cial
Total number of
maize farms 7826 262 67 43,585 2748 753 11,354 5560 251
% Farms 96 3 1 92 6 2 66 32 2
Total area in
maize (000 ha) 4.4 .55 .55 8.7 1.1 2.2 6.9 7.2 1.6
% Maize area 80 10 10 73 9 18 44 46 10
Sources: Number of maize producing farms and cultivated area from II Censo Nacional Agrope
cuario, as well as the three regional maize studies, "Proyecto de Desarrollo de
Malz Amildceo en la Sierra, Diagn6sticos del Area" and Ministerio de Agricultura
y Alimentaci6n, 1978. The distribution of maize area per domain was done with the
Censo and Diagn6stico data. The distribution of number of farms was done on the
basis of the average area of maize per unit .in each domain, as identified in
the PCIM-CIMMYT surveys. Estimates were then regrouped by economic classes within
regions.
Table 4. Off-farm Employment and Use of Hired Labor by Region and Economic Class
Huaylas Mantaro Cuzco
Small Small Large Small Small Large Small Small Large
Subsis- Commer Subsis- Ccnrner- Subsis- Cormmertence cial tence cial tence cial
% Farmers who work
off-farm 67 70 NA 76 64 54 57 38 NA
% Farmers who work
off-farm more than
half time 38 50 NA 38 40 NA 30 12 NA
% Farmers who hire
laborers for maize
production 56 90 100 63 65 100 38 46 100
NA = not available.
Table 5. Total Yearly Gross Family Revenues for Small Subsistence
Farmers Surveyed: An Average of Three Regions Studied*
Income Source Quantity Value
1. Gross farm revenues:
Average surface in:
Maize 0.40 ha $ 80
Potatoes 0.32 II120
Wheat and Barley 0.51 "65 Vegetables 0.08i" 15
Other 0.29 "40
Average cultivated surface 1.60 ha $ 320
2. Off-farm revenues:
Daily regional work $ 85
Seasonal out-of-region work -.135
Total $ 220
3. Gross livestock revenues:
cattle 1 unit $ 80
pigs 3 units 60
other 8 units 40
oxen (rental) 20
Total $ 200
4. Revenues from other sources: $ 100
Total yearly estimated gross family revenues: $ 840
*The averages of survey data are utilized here. Gross farm revenue
is estimated by average yields per cultivated area times June 1978
farm prices. Off-farm revenues is calculated by number of days
worked times average regional and coastal wage rates. Animal and other revenues is a rough estimate on the basis of animal, handicraft, and small commerce value. All incomes have been converted
to US dollars at the exchange rate of S/200.00 to 1 US$.
-14 -
Table 6. Farm Size and Land Use by Region and Economic Class
Huaylas Mantaro Cuzco
Small Small Large Small Small Large Small Small Large
Subsistence Ccmaercial Subsistence Commercial Subsistence Ctcrcial
Average farm size
(ha) 1.5 3.0 37.2 1.2 4.3 20.9 2.2 2.0 24.0
Average area in
maize (ha) 0.6 2.1 8.2 0.2 0.4 2.9 0.6 1.3 6.2
Per cent area in;
maize 37 70 22 19 10 14 20 64 28
potatoes 15 8 43 28 52 14 23 10 19
wheat 23 2 24 12 17 19 9 8 25
barley 8 2 7 22 6 53 19 7 13
vegetables 9 18 4 5 5
other 8 4 15 10 29 6 15
Table 7. Input Use and Crop Disposition by Region and Economic Class
Huaylas Mantaro Cuzco
Small Small Large Small Small Large Small Small Large
Input Use and Crop Subsis- Commer- Subsis- Commer- Subsis- CommerDisposition tence cial tence cial tence cial
% Farmers plow
with tractor 2 40 80 10 36 85 0 14 80
%. Farmers own backpack sprayer 4 50 44 10 30 66 7 10 68
% Farmer bought maize
seed 8 12 NA 15 24 100 9 21 NA
% Plots planted in
PCIM varieties 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Plots planted in
Blanco Cuzqueio
variety 4 -- 5 15 0 20 16 0 --40 20
% Plots receiving N 63 82 100 32 59 77 48 82 96
% Plots receiving P 10 12 35 13 18 69 15 38 68
% Plots receiving K 0 0 11 7 7 54 7 19 58
% Plots receiving manure 5 0 NA 51 15 NA 85 78 NA
Average N dose (kg/ha) 55 85 120 20 52 70 24 73 78
Average P dose (kg/ha) 6 6 30 2 5 42 9 32 39
% Maize sold 16 88 76 12 25 99 16 60 90
NA = not available.
Table 8. Type of rotations by Recommendation Domain
RD Rotationa Number of crops % Plots maize % Plots maize per year aEter potato intercropped
H1 CH-V 2 easily 14 88
H2 M-B or M-P 2 tightly 34 82
H3 CH-P or
M-P-W 2 tightly 20 90
H4 M-P-W 3 in two years 7 72
H M-P-W 1 14 76
5
M1 P-M-P 1 50 80
M P-M-B 1 50 65
2
M3 CH-B or CH-P 2 tightly 46 77
C1 CH-V or M-P 1 or 2 13 30
C2 P-M-W 1 18 20
C3 P-W-M 1 20 30
C4 P-W-M 1 20 30
C5 CH-V or M-P 1 or 2 30 55
a/ CH = "choclo", M = Maize, P = Potatoes, W = Wheat, B = Barley,
V = Vegetables.
- 17 -
Table 9. Planting Dates by Recommendation Domain
Per-cent of plots planted in
RD July August September October November December
H1 18 30 15 20 17 0
H2 0 2 18 25 39 16
H3 0 0 23 11 59 7
H4 0 0 20 41 28 11
H5 0 0 0 38 26 26
M1 0 12 48 36 4 0
M2 0 0 9 79 12 0
M3 7 38 18 12 7 0
C1 11 32 52 5 0 0
C2 4 35 48 13 0 0
C3 0 63 32 5 0 0
C4 0 35 50 10 5 0
C5 0 40 45 12 3 0
- 18 -
Table 10. Planting Method and Length of Maize Cycle by RD
a
RD Seeding technique Plant density Length of maize cycle
(plants/ha) (months)
H1 Golpe 62,500 6.5
H2 Golpe 67,000 6.5
H3 Golpe 62,500 7.0
H4 Golpe 70,000 7.5
H5 Chorro 75,000 7.5
M1 Chorro 72,000 7.5
M2 Chorro 85,000 7.5
M3 Golpe 65,000 7.5
C1 Golpe 62,500 7.5
C2 Chorro 80,000 8.0
C3 Chorro 83,000 8.5
C4 Chorro 75,000 8.5
C5 Golpe 67,500 7.5
a) Golpe; planted 2-3 seeds/hill with 40-60 cms. between hills
Chorro; planted as a continuous flow of seed with 5-10 cms.
between seeds.
- 19 -
Table 11. Sources of Direct Damage to Maize Reported by
Farmers by Recommendation Domain
RD Earworm Soils or Stalk Fungus Leaf Virus
Insect Disease Symptoms
(Percent of Farmings Reporting Problems)
H1 100 NA 100 NA
H2 80 NA 72 15
H3 80 NA 45 NA
H4 74 NA 38 NA
H5 90 NA 38 15
M1 15 38 5 2
M2 18 50 NA NA
M NA NA NA NA
3
C1 52 40 14 34
C2 26 18 NA NA
C3 10 20 NA NA
C4 15 36 10 NA
C NA NA NA NA
5
- 20 -
Table 12. Limiting Factors in Maize Production Most Often Reported by Farmers by
Recommendation Domain/
Callej6n de Huaylas Mantaro Valley Cuzco Region
H1 I2 H3 H H5 M1 M2 M3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Drought *** *** ***
Frost ** ** ** *** ** ** *** *** *
Earworm *** *** *** ** *** *
Soil-stalk Insects ** *
Fungus -Disease ** ** ** *
Virus Disease *
Low Levels of
Fertility ** ** **
Technical Assistance *
Market Price ** ** *
* = Moderate, ** = High, *** = Very high.
1/ = Includes only the most important limiting factor reported by farmers.
Table 13. Results of PCIM Maize Study in Other Inter-Andean Valleys of Peru1
Cajamarca Apurimac Ayacucho Huancavelica La Libertad
Cultivated Surface in
Maize (ha) 10,000
Altitude Range 2,400-3,200 2,100-3,400 2,400-3,400 2,700-3,400 2,400-3,400
% Associated 70 11 45 10 57
Cropping
Limiting Factors
% Drought -602 30 37 34
I
IQ Frost 48 40
Earworm 68 20 51 43 51
Soil-stalk
Insects 17 20
Fungus 25 20
Disease
Virus
Disease
Low Levels of
Fertilizer ** ** ** ** **
Hail 47
1 "Factores de Producci6n y Nivel Tecnol6gico del Cultivo de Maiz en la Sierra de Peru" PCIM. Informativo de maiz,
2
2 Percentage of farmers who reported damage.
3 ** Limiting factor of first and second order.
MAP OF PLHU AND INTER -ANDEAN VALLEYS SELECTED FOR AGRO- ECONOMIC STUDIES.
CALLEJON DE
< AhF DfL ?IAN IlAfit
Cuzo
REGIONS STUDIED BY CIMhIYT'S ECONOMICS TEAM. dib. fauxiswossC.
-23-
A.G.RO-CLINIATIC ZONESIN CALLEJON ME HUAYLAS.
N
00 Oc, q- -,a
YLWA-goy
vn
Ti
-A 13 Cc z CD
cc
U3
Huo
I. Low 2,400 2,600 m
Intermediate 2,600 3,000m. 3. 3,000 3,500 M.
dib fronWCO (0409 c
C
24
AGRO -CLIMATIC ZONES HUANCAYO
iio
I~' ~N? I~.I lilt2I~j~
10
-~~ 1 > A! C?5
- t
HIE,
Li]INTEI,'MLDIAT L LLFT (!-,OO.03,95Um) II ERM EIAT E RIGHT (3,500-3,950m) E I M, HIG H (more Mhon 3,950m)
4dib. froncisco cosos C.
-25
6
AG'R. 0 IC L 1 'NIA T I C 0 N,'r_ S c u z c 0
DEPARTMENT OF CUZCO
oulfloto
PoLxa-tonibo
0
ubo Pi
o
Moto si
0'.10 vil Born) "Ole: im, Area of studyk
Cos 0)
N) (3 1 An! CUZCO
roy (3,382) uoayw 0
&jrile
Cusip6ta (3,345)
Checcacup!
URUBAMBA VALLEY URCOS TINTA ANTA comtxpofa Ftche
Tinto 0 Sictmni(3P)
dib. froncisco rosas c
|
