AN INTEGRATED AIIPROACH TO THE
IMPROVEMENT OF FARI PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Peter E. Hildebrand
Presented at the Seminar on
the Iwnrovement of Farm Production Systems
S(j'red by the Club du SahelBamako, Mali
20 Feb - 1 Mar, 1978
INSTITUTO DE CIENCIA Y TECHNOLOGIA AGRICOLAS
SECTOR PUBLICO AGRICOLA
GUATEMALA, CENTRAL AMERICA
Al INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE
IH1PROVE11ENT OF FAR'I PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Peter E. Hildebrand
The improvement 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 Droduction practices both because they have proven satisfactory over many year's time in both feast and famine
and because no newer or more modern technology has been made available to them in 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. In turn, 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 sirailar to those utilized on the stations. In addition, commercial farms operate asia business; so criteria on which to judge new practices are easy to define. Furthermore, tractors act as anteffieient homogenizing force, so that new technologies can have widespread applicability.
The traditional farmer operates in a compl-ctely
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 bot-h the generation and transfer of improved technology for traditional farmers.
1. Agricultural Economist, The Rockfeller Foundation,
assigned as Coordinator de Socioeconomia Rural.
Institute de Ciencia y -ecnologia Agricolas
- 2 -
We cannot hope to generate technology which %7ill 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 traditional 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 and evaluation process. Finally, some examples of cropping systems designed for specific agro-socioeconomic conditions will be presented.
IiEASURES OF PnODUCTIVITY
K'easures 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, productivity can refer to the amount of a product ,(total, average or additional) for any of the inputs used in the pro dh1ction process. Hence, in order to describe prodVctivity accurately, one must be specific with respect to product (numerator), input (denominator). and whether total, average oradditional (marginal) production is being considered.
Uo 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 farnzer 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, 197E) 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-socioeconomic situations.
Error: in the choice of resources with which to measure productivity can lead to the generation of cropping systems unacceptable to the farmers for whom they were being designed simply because productivity of the most important factor from the farmer's point of view may actually be less, even though when measured 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 ipany 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 differen-t, 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 (1Hildebrand, 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 situations.as 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 judgc 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 Droducts. 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 Droduction. 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 exampls 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.
GENERATING FARM SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY
It has been demonstrated, albeit briefly, that multiple product systems nre 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. Becaus-e 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 socioeconomic 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
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 -
As a project team is formed to work in a new
area, the first activity is a reconnaissance to define a target group of farmers homogeneous with respect to their traditional farming systems and technology (agrosocioeconomic 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 thnir traditional cropping systems have been selected by a long, natural process into a group with common agrosocioeconomic 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 a!ro,-socioeconbmic characteristics and then assess the relative importance of each of th-, generation of improved technology. The obvious advanta-,c of this procedure over choosing a target group by farm size: political boundary or other artificial parameter, is that the factors the Thomogeneous group' have in cormon ac. those that affect their agricultural technology
and those are the ones with which the team ;:ust 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 inthe 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 In recall and is not sufficiently accurate to use in economic analyses of farm trial data. For this and other reasons,afarm records project is initiated immediately after the survey is completed. The information serves as a basis for monitoring 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 obtained 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 or to provide information on general p-roblcms which in :ess personal situations rey never be- discussed.
The survey information is analyzed by the regional team, who use it to plan farn trials in which existing varieties are tested and agronomic practices and cropping systems are explored and to orient plant breeders in their germplasm 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 farjqr s systems and to continue the process of identifyingp7endelmitations. 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 those 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.
S -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 bZ 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 tjles criteria, promising practices, crop systcll s 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 miny trials, well distributed throughout the area but they are not replicated at each location. The number of treatments is limited fnd 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.
In the Farm Trials, the IOTA technicians evaluate the technology being produced based on their under-standing of the farmers' criteria and needs. A critical aspect of the Farmers7 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 resDonsible 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 ecual and similar sites on the far. Each should be large enough to be significant for the farmer, to insur& he gives them the attention they merit. On one, the; farmer plants in his accustomed manner and on the other or others he plants accordin? to the technology belng tested, This-technology must 1t. simple enouh that he can cor-prehend ccndunct it hiymse'Lf . 2/
2/ This simple technology is a choice of one; two or
at most three alternatives such as a new varietalone-or a simple modification of his cropping systen. We 'have found in testing COmiete and cocrnlex
"technological packages - that the farmer may select
two or three not necessarily complementary parts,
and xmay be worse off than before0 SimolificL1 technology can also hve. an important influence on credit
policy. Technological packages are sufficiently
ccmlex that credit programs ten to lend fnr almost
all expenses. With simple technology chanv's only
ths small additional costs, if nny_ need, to b
- 9 -
Where possible, differences in time requirements and inputs used both on the farmer's own plot as well as actual use on the 7ICTA" plot, should be deterriined and recorded. Yield information should also be obtained. These data provide much iore realistic information or hw 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 Farm Trials. But if the farmer indiscriminately harvests the two plots and yield data are not available: the t'-t should rot be considered !Oist, because the farmer obviously has made up his ,iind 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 responsibilitics. it is obvious that Farners^ Tests (and to some extent Farm Trials) initiate the procdss of technology transfer. Recognizing that the Institute must promote the use of its technology over a sufficiently wide number of ases to validate its evaluation process, this amount zf transfer is considered appropriate for research purposes. The coordination of this activity with extengion is covered in another section.
It is in the year following the Farmers' Tests, that ICTA again becomes the evaluator. This time, the evaluation is with regard to the icceptance 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 Servbcc as a technology that will be readily received. When the farmers reject the practice, attempts are rade -to Jeteriaine why. and thz then if it still looks promising, it will go back to one of the previous stops in the technology generating 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.
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 cotipletely randomized scrmp of -1i target farmers will need to be conducted to determine adoption of tochnclogics, but this has not been undertaken in anj' area to date.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES
Figure 1 shows schematically this integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the generation 2nd promotion of technology for small, traditional farmters. Three factors in this figure were not discussed previouslye 1) the inputs to the s stem from international centers, universities, industry, etc.*. 2) the product from the agro-,sociocconomic studies which goes to the other entities within the Public Agricultural Sectorand 3) the relationship to other entities, both public and private, with respect to the transfer of tho 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 Farmers' Tests so they are familiar with the technology before it is placed in their control, At the same tine, the DIGESA personnel will be familiarized with the technology generating process and the new technology being evaluated in the Farm Trials.
EXAMPLES FROM GUATEMALA
In an area in eastern Guatemala_ the agro-sociocon 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
F- PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL
iN TERNATIONA \ CENTERS UNIVERSITIES
AGRO SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION
ECONOMIC EVALUATION BY ICTA
FARMERS AND ICTA
BY THE FA RMER AT HIS EXPENSE
OF FARMER ACCEPTANCE BY ICTA
F-3. &4N AGRICULTURAL
- - ------ --- L ---- ---
P ROMOT ION
season and the amount of bean seed the farmer had left to plant. 3/ The system ofthe subsistence farmers in this area includes maize, beans and sorghum planted together at the same ti4e-in a number of similar arrays. Thr(.ugh the use of twin or double rows of maize and sorghum 4/ and a reduction in the n6pulaton of-beans 7hich con'sune the majority of planting time, productivity of planting labor and of bean seed was raised significantly by allowing each farmer to plant more 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 fact r for most farmers in the area.
Results from the Farmers' Tests in 1976 indicate that- on the average, each farmer could plInt about 40% more land using the same amount of planting labor and somewhat less bean seed and produce 75% more maize,
410% more sorghum>o the :snme. .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.$.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 $5.42 per dollar invested to $8.73, an increase of nearly 60%. Risk of loss is very low and there is no requirement for pesticides 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 groupp cannot produce enough maize to sustain the family, for the year, a second stratum achieves self sufficiency at times but not always, and the third always produces enough to satisfy family needs. Each of these three grous has different requirements even though their croppin- systcis basically the same, and a special technology was designed for each.
3/ In this case, the most frequent response frmcrs mad:
with respect to bean yields was so-many pounds par
pound of seed used,
4/ Details on the use of double rows cn bc. found in
Hildebrand, 1976' Hildebrand, ct.al. 1977 iildchr-and
and Cardona 1977, and French and Ilildcbrand 197C.
For the first stratum, and again, using the concept of double rows, the population of maize was increased 50/ without ohanjin,,, the form of planting within each row and using the same amount of fertilizer and seed per hill that the farmers are accustomed to using. The system, in effect, gives them 50% nore land on which to plent, but because of some economies iii labor utilization, such as not needing to prepare the extra land, labor costs increase only 30%. Maize production increased 45,11 and profit, after charging opportunait"- cost for all labor, rose from $7 per heotare to G60 (Hildebrad et. C al. 1977). More important, it we ld permit tie average 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'' of the land to wheat (the least risky alternative) anid at the same time plont the normal population of maize on the same land using the double rows. This system, with a one meter bed of wheat broadcast by hand between each set of twin maize rows, presents some very useful labor efficiencies and also increases labor use only approximately 30% over the traditional maize system used in the area. Maize production dropped slightly (though it was not statistically significant) but 1266 kg/ha of wheat was produced ancd profit increased to 0219 per hectare. This multiple cropping system Compares with 0124 per hectare if each of the crops had been seeded alone.
In another system, cabbages were ,lcated in the wheat acout two
weeks before the wheat was Dlanted, and provide a great possibility for the third class of farmer who has some risk capital to invest in crops with more incom:,e earning potential (and risk). Nearly 14,000 cabbages can be planted cr hectre without having a negative effect oii the wheat. thoughg Ue .eme id does not exist for large ,-dlitional amounts of cabbage nor could they be absorbed by the present marketing system, thereli potential for the production of broccoli en-d cauliflower for freezing ell s the inoorporcion of other cro-)s into the system.
In all three systems, only the traditional amounts of fertilizer were used and no insecticides were applied, in accordance w.it>' the findings of the survey. Additional advances can, of course, be ac]:ioved, with the incorporation of these factors as w.,ell as thc use of ilmprcved varieties, all of which cani be included in tihe longer ru,. However, we are finding th .t even ir these components of croppin: sysem sY wO need to differentiateo between subsistenc. Eand commercial croPs even on the same farm ane. for the same farmers.
This is most easily son with respec-t to varieties in the Highlands, where mzize aid beans have been the subsistence crops of the area for hunclrods of years and whoae is relay tively recent introduction and almost ever consumed in the home. There is a much greater tendency to accept new tollology for the commercial crops than for the maize avd beans. Evidence of this is available from the evaluation study made in the Western Highlands (Ruan , et. al., 1976). &ong the collaborators 971 of the wheat wcs improved varieties while only 31,' of the maize w.,s one of the recoiendned varieties even thov ,h there is a high response from maize variety in the area (Schook, ot. al., 1976). Jo have also established that on the South Coast where maize is primarily a commercial crop sold at harvest, farmers reo.dily accept hybrids1 while in the nighlaids, whore they have historically saved their oin1 . seed, open pollinated varieties are necessary.
The availability of water in sufficient quantity cnd urnor safe
conditions to bc 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 found a rapid acceptance of r-anulaeted insecticides that can be applied easily with virtually no purchased equipment and without the neo for w ster except for washing hands after use. This seome area faces an , ncute and increasing shortae of labor, and herbicides should be very advantagcoas However, herbicide use is not common, poatially because of the difficulty of application aad the need for sources of water and equipment, If * recommendations for the use of granulated herbicides can be dovehloped, it should be a readily accepted toch'ology, because the yield potential has already been demonstrated, ind. the need ;s a substitute for labor exists.
Other cultural factor is very important in maize technology in the Highlands. AmenS the traditional farmers, young maize plants arc almost never knowingly destroyed until they can prorido a useful product, Hence, the farmers plant only a few seeds and then reseed if the number of ple;ato drops too low in any hill. The net result is a less than optimu-! reductiveve population. The usual tcohnicel soiu tion is to plant a ircher than necessary number of seeds and thin aft: r germination to th,. 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 large scal--e in this area.
hiultiple product systems for small avd medium traditional and subsistence fan;,xrs involve the production of several different crops eace,, yeor with Lwo or more. usviclL- occupying the lc jd a-t the same timo. The social and economic oai of these for.vors, many of whom historically h.ive utilized multi-le cropping systems, are ,'ifforont from t aoe of cornmi.rciea f rmers and may b(; difficult for ogSricultural t-chnicioxis to undorstan,. As a result of h:so factors, the usual measures by-Jhich e-ic judgc. crop technology, arc not Laways applic-Ibi. In or"-er to determine who social, cultural an-d -conomic factors are impozrtaut i'. th( croppin.5 systems of. the fanmnrs for whom technology is bcin! Tenrated, a spcia-lized mcthodologj mu t be croct d. The Guatemalan Institute of Science and Teocnology (ICTA) has dovelopol such a methodoloGy in which the farmers themselves playr a important and integrated role. TLe mse of this methodolog- has led to the creation of multiple cro)ping systems designed for the conditions of farmers with site-specific agro-socioeconomic conditions.
Perhaps the key concept presented in this paper is that for thc small and medium, traditional and subsistence famer, inclusion of social, cultural and economic factors can be as important in designin[; successful multiple cropping systems as the agro-clim tic factors, which too frequently .re the only ones considered.
Andrew, C.O. 1969 Inproving performance of the production distribution
system for potatoes in Color,ia. Institute Colobiano 1igropecuaria,
Departamento de aconomia Agricola, Boletin .To. 4, libaitata, and PhD thesis, Dept of Agricultural Economics, _iclligan State Univ.,
Duarte .L. Tolanda, Peter L. Hildebrand y Sergie Ruaio 1977. Tecnclogia
y estructura agro-socioecononica del minifundik dol occidente do
Chimalt enango. ICJA, Guat maila.
French, Ldwin C. and Peter 1. Hlildebrand. 1972 Dynamic .ulti-ie
cropping systems for s=all far-iers of El Salvador. Food and Resource
Economics Department an,, Vegetable Crops Dep-artm it. University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida (in process).
Hildebrand, Peter L. 1977. Generation small farm t chiolo-y: an integrated
multidisciplinary system. Invited paper, 12th \,lst Indian Ag:ricultural
Economics Conference. Caribbean Agro-Economic Society. Antiga,
Hildebrand, Peter L;. 1976. ,ultiple cropping systems are dollars and
"sense" agronomy. Chap. I . In i,.ultiple Cro-,ping. American Socicty
of Agronomy. Special Publication Number 27. iadison9, 'isconsin.
Hildebrand, eter L., Sergio Rluano, 2eodoro Lopez, -sau Samayoa y
Rolando Duarte. 1977. Sisternas de cultivos para los agricultores
tradicioneles del Occidente do Chimaltenango. ICTA, Guatemala.
Hildebrand, Peter E. y Daniel Cardona. 1977.-isteras de cultivos dC
ladera para pequenos y medianos aricultores La Barranca, Jutiapa,
1976. ICTA, Guatemala.
Reiche C., Carlos ., Peter . Hildebrand, Scrgio Ruano y Jaime T. 77_&
1976. L pequeno airicultor y sus sistemos de cultivos en ladora.
Jutiapa, Guatemala, ICTh, Guatenmala.
Ruano, Serie., Valerio iï¿½acz Pacay y TPeter L. Hilderand. 1976.
valuacion de la aceptacion de la tecnologia .n.ra.a per 1h para
el cultivo de maiz, en la Rueion 1, 1975. ICTA, Guatemala
Schmoocic F., 'ierner J. 1976. Inforvs Anual 1976-76 "'L -quipo do froduccion A. ï¿½rueba de Tcnolgia. ICTA, Guatemua,
West Pakistan Water and fowcr Development Authority, ., Ti.to. an
back Ienc . ngi io s. 1976. Te.-io;Iaj Flan - -T T" lhir Indus Flains Vol. II, economics, ADpendix B. Value of wa ter i t northn>n 1 i,
Plains. Lahorc, Pakistani .n. r, Cetkra o.