Residue management of anual crop of maize/bean association [Mexico]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Christian Prat
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
Manejo de rastrojo de cultivo anual de la asociación maiz/frijol
approaches_2579 - Mexico
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD) - France1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies
Sistemas de prácticas de MST en suelos con … [Mexico]
El sistema de prácticas de MST en planicie con pendiente no mayores del 5%, la cual consiste en la rotación de cultivos en dos ciclos denominados primavera-verano y otoño-invierno, donde en una parcela de 5 hectáreas se combinan frijol-avena y maíz-calabaza y triticale. Para el caso de la rotación frijol-avena, …
- Compiler: Alejandra Castillo
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
Maize residue management with high input of crop residues and annual crop instead of year one crop and fallow in year 2
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
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
2.3 Photos of the Approach
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Mexico
Region/ State/ Province:
Mexico/Michoacán
Further specification of location:
Morelia
2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
2002
Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):
2008
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.8 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
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- hindering
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
- hindering
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
- hindering
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
workload, availability of manpower
- hindering
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
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- 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)
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities | Specify who was involved and describe activities | |
---|---|---|
initiation/ motivation | external support | |
planning | external support | |
implementation | external support | |
monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | |
Research | interactive |
3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies
Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
- mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Ja
Specify who was trained:
- land users
- field staff/ advisers
- Institutions
Form of training:
- on-the-job
- farmer-to-farmer
- demonstration areas
- public meetings
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Ja
Describe/ comments:
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Ja
Comments:
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
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
Ja
Specify topics:
- ecology
- technology
- Agronomy, hydrology, soil sciences
Give further details and indicate who did the research:
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
5. Financing and external material support
5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach
If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
- < 2,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
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%
5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users
Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?
Nee
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- none
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
mitigate water erosion effects and increase yields
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Few land users due to the obligation to have new plough system, more work to manage the harvest residues
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
Sistemas de prácticas de MST en suelos con … [Mexico]
El sistema de prácticas de MST en planicie con pendiente no mayores del 5%, la cual consiste en la rotación de cultivos en dos ciclos denominados primavera-verano y otoño-invierno, donde en una parcela de 5 hectáreas se combinan frijol-avena y maíz-calabaza y triticale. Para el caso de la rotación frijol-avena, …
- Compiler: Alejandra Castillo
Modules
No modules