Adoption of maize conservation tillage in Azuero, Panama

dc.creatorPereira de Herrera, A.
dc.creatorSain, G.
dc.date2012-01-06T05:08:58Z
dc.date2012-01-06T05:08:58Z
dc.date1999
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-17T19:55:29Z
dc.date.available2023-07-17T19:55:29Z
dc.identifier0258-8587
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10883/977
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/7508304
dc.descriptionAn 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.
dc.description30 pages
dc.formatPDF
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherCIMMYT
dc.relationCIMMYT Economics Working Paper
dc.rightsCIMMYT manages Intellectual Assets as International Public Goods. The user is free to download, print, store and share this work. In case you want to translate or create any other derivative work and share or distribute such translation/derivative work, please contact CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org indicating the work you want to use and the kind of use you intend; CIMMYT will contact you with the suitable license for that purpose.
dc.rightsOpen Access
dc.subjectAGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
dc.subjectINNOVATION ADOPTION
dc.subjectMAIZE
dc.subjectCROP PRODUCTION
dc.subjectRESEARCH PROJECTS
dc.subjectSOIL CONSERVATION
dc.subjectSUSTAINABILITY
dc.subjectCONSERVATION TILLAGE
dc.subjectINNOVATION ADOPTION
dc.subjectMAIZE
dc.subjectCROP PRODUCTION
dc.subjectRESEARCH PROJECTS
dc.subjectSOIL CONSERVATION
dc.subjectSUSTAINABILITY
dc.subjectCONSERVATION TILLAGE
dc.titleAdoption of maize conservation tillage in Azuero, Panama
dc.typeBook
dc.coveragePanama
dc.coverageMexico


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución