Post-emergence weeding by horse on maize/bean field with high crop residue inputs and organic fertilizers (Prat, Christian)

Residue management of anual crop of maize/bean association (Mexico)

Manejo de rastrojo de cultivo anual de la asociación maiz/frijol

Description

Maize residue management with high input of crop residues and annual crop instead of year one crop and fallow in year 2

Aims / objectives: The objetive is to evaluate the influence of different agronomic systems including conventional system (one year tillage and one year fallow), conservation system (high input of crop residues) with mineral fertilizers every year, conservation system (high input of crop residues) with organic fertilizer every year on: water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, carbon capture, soils characteristics and their interactions with the production of the maize/bean crop association on Acrisol

Methods: Primary tillage for maize/beans it consisted in moldboard ploughing and furrowing, and one post-emergence weeding was done manually. Depth of tillage for moldboard plow was about 0.20m and for rototill, about 0.15 m. 3 seeds of corn or beans are planted and covered by foot. Fertilizer is put on the depression just after seeding and one month later during the post emergence weeding. This experiment have been done on Acrisol

Stages of implementation: The experiment is finished. Dissemination to the stakeholders and policy makers has been done. Policy makers took the results and are disseminating it to the other stakeholders

Role of stakeholders: Active. Visit to the field experiment site during the experimentation, workshops, etc...but the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need thei fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change.

Other important information: Important results to understand and measure the soil erosion and run-off with this kind of soil (Acrisol) with the traditionnal and improaved cultural system

Location

Location: Morelia, Mexico/Michoacán, Mexico

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 2002

Year of termination: 2008

Type of Approach
Post-emergence weeding by horse on maize/bean field with high crop residue inputs and organic fertilizers (Prat, Christian (christian.prat@ird.fr))
Maize/bean field with high crop residue inputs and organic fertilizers ready to be harvested with H-flume (Prat, Christian (christian.prat@ird.fr))

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused on SLM only (Soil conservation, water conservation, crop residue management, organic fertilizers, maize/bean association)

The area is strongly eroded and it was necessary to understand which factors could explain this situation and try agronomic alternatives to proposed to farmers to reduce it. In fact soil erosion is mainly due to the cattle free grazing in the field during the fodder and in commune land use for other part. The elimination of fodder year reduce presence of animals and increase production/productivity which can be given to the cattle. But this means to have less animals, more works and normally, more beneficits!

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Culivating every year means less space for the cattle which are the base of the agricultural system. the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need the fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change. New practice generates psychological resistance
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: New practice generates psychological resistance Treatment through the SLM Approach: Visit farmers using the new practice is very effective to convince other farmers
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Actually, farmers need the fallow year for their animals. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Follow research to complete the whole agricultural system to be able to make a global proposal which will give much more money to live, and not to survive
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Means to work the double because farmers will have all their land to work, without any fallow Treatment through the SLM Approach: Follow research to complete the whole agricultural system to be able to make a global proposal which will give much more money to live, and not to survive

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Atecuaro community Men are more involucrate in tillage activities. Men perform hard labor job in the land, while women participate in the household tasks. Nearly all the farmers of the communities are poor!
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
national government (planners, decision-makers) INIFAP (Mex. Agronomic Res.Inst.), COLPOS (Col. Postgraduate of agriculture), UNAM-CIEco, SEMARNAT (Sec. Environment)
international organization UE project (REVOLSO then DESIRE), IRD (France), CSIC (Spain)
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
planning
implementation
monitoring/ evaluation
Research
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • Institutions
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology
  • Agronomy, hydrology, soil sciences

Measures water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, soils characteristics, carbone capture, production of maize and beans by INIFAP, IRD (France), COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco and CSIC (Spain)

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Atecuaro communities): 5.0%; government (INIFAP, COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco, SEMARNAT): 30.0%; international (UE project (REVOLSO, then DESIRE), IRD, CSIC): 65.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

mitigate water erosion effects and increase yields

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Few land users due to the obligation to have new plough system, more work to manage the harvest residues

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • n.a.
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

References

Compiler
  • Christian Prat
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Nov. 7, 2011
Last update: Julie 10, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International