Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Adoption of maize conservation tillage in Azuero, Panama

By: Pereira de Herrera, A.
Contributor(s): Saint, G.
Material type: materialTypeLabelBookSeries: CIMMYT Economics Working Paper ; 99-01.Analytics: Show analyticsPublisher: Mexico : CIMMYT, 1999Description: 30 pages.Subject(s): Innovation adoption | Maize | Plant production | Research projects | Soil conservation | Sustainability | Conservation tillage | PanamaOnline resources: Open Access through Dspace Summary: An aggressive research and validation program launched in 1984 in Azuero, Panama, yielded a recommendation advocating zero tillage for maize production. Ten years later, maize farmers in Azuero use , land preparation methods: conventional tillage, zero tillage, and minimum tillage (an adaptation of the zero tillage technology). This study aimed to quantify the adoption of a zero and minimum tillage for maize in Azuero; identify factors influencing adoption of the different land preparation practices; and analyze the implications of the findings for future maize research and extension. Between 1985 and 1994, farmers in Region I of Azuero changed from conventional tillage to zero (33%) and minimum tillage (43%). In Regions II and III, most farmers still practiced conventional tillage in 1994, although 34 % had switched to minimum tillage. Across regions, adoption of conservation tillage was motivated by potential cost savings rather than longer term considerations such as reduced soil erosion. The factors that limit adoption of conservation tillage vary by region. In Region I, adoption of conservation tillage is limited by land rental rather than ownership and by lack of conservation tillage planting equipment. In Regions II and III, lack of information about conservation tillage technology limits the probability of adoption. Future research should examine soil compaction, a key variable for understanding differences between the adoption of minimum and zero tillage. Another area that merits further research is the link between weeds and conservation tillage: several farmers reported using the technology to obtain better weed control. The long-term effects of conservation tillage should also be assessed. Extension in Regions II and III should seek to accelerate adoption of conservation tillage. In Region I, extension should steer the change process from minimum to zero tillage.Collection: CIMMYT Publications Collection
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Item type Current location Collection Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode Item holds
Book CIMMYT Knowledge Center: John Woolston Library

Lic. Jose Juan Caballero Flores

 

CIMMYT Publications Collection Look under series title (Browse shelf) 1 Available 628722
Total holds: 0

Open Access

An aggressive research and validation program launched in 1984 in Azuero, Panama, yielded a recommendation advocating zero tillage for maize production. Ten years later, maize farmers in Azuero use , land preparation methods: conventional tillage, zero tillage, and minimum tillage (an adaptation of the zero tillage technology). This study aimed to quantify the adoption of a zero and minimum tillage for maize in Azuero; identify factors influencing adoption of the different land preparation practices; and analyze the implications of the findings for future maize research and extension. Between 1985 and 1994, farmers in Region I of Azuero changed from conventional tillage to zero (33%) and minimum tillage (43%). In Regions II and III, most farmers still practiced conventional tillage in 1994, although 34 % had switched to minimum tillage. Across regions, adoption of conservation tillage was motivated by potential cost savings rather than longer term considerations such as reduced soil erosion. The factors that limit adoption of conservation tillage vary by region. In Region I, adoption of conservation tillage is limited by land rental rather than ownership and by lack of conservation tillage planting equipment. In Regions II and III, lack of information about conservation tillage technology limits the probability of adoption. Future research should examine soil compaction, a key variable for understanding differences between the adoption of minimum and zero tillage. Another area that merits further research is the link between weeds and conservation tillage: several farmers reported using the technology to obtain better weed control. The long-term effects of conservation tillage should also be assessed. Extension in Regions II and III should seek to accelerate adoption of conservation tillage. In Region I, extension should steer the change process from minimum to zero tillage.

Socioeconomics Program

Text in English

LSLinks|9905|AGRIS 9902|Saín, G.|R98-99CIMPU|BUSQ|DSpace 1

CIMMYT Publications Collection

5519.jpg

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Click on an image to view it in the image viewer

baner

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2015. Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
Monday –Friday 9:00 am. 17:00 pm. If you have any question, please contact us at CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2015. Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
Lunes –Viernes 9:00 am. 17:00 pm. Si tiene cualquier pregunta, contáctenos a CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org