Technologies

Callejones de piñón con forrajes intercalados [Mexico]

No tiene nombre

technologies_3728 - Mexico

Completeness: 71%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

land user:

Mexico

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
FAOMEX-Protierras ( FAO México - GEF)

1.3 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 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Farmer Field Schools
approaches

Farmer Field Schools [Kenya]

A Farmer Field School (FFS) is a community-based practically-oriented field study programme.

  • Compiler: Philippe Zahner

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

La tecnología consiste en un sistema agrosilvopastoril con árboles de Pinus cembroides (pino piñonero) alineados een bordos ─en un terreno con suelos calizos previamente subsoleado─ conformando melgas (callejones) para con cultivos anuales para grano y forraje, con pastoreo libre eventual por períodos muy breves.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

La tecnología se desarrolla en un sitio denominado “La Joya” en el ejido Hermosillo por un productor que implementó el sistema agrosilvopastoril cuyo terreno no tenia aptitud agrícola por ser un suelo poco profundo, con presencia de calizas y una pendiente de 15%, La tecnología consiste en realizar paso de subsoleo para romper capas denominadas tepetates localmente (duripanes), Posteriormente se realizó cepas de 0.50 m de ancho x 0.50 m de largo y 0.40m de profundidad en forma manual. Se manejan dos diseños de plantación, siendo el primero de 8 m de ancho entre hileras y 2.00 m de distancia entre árboles; y, el segundo de 4.00m x 2.00 m respectivamente. En ambos diseños se plantaron árboles de Pinus cembroides (Pino piñonero), cuya especie es nativa de la micro región (MR). Respecto al diseño cuyas melgas son mas anchas, se siembra frijol para autoconsumo y maíz para forraje. En tanto en el diseño de melgas mas angostas se siembra cereales pequeños para forraje (cebada y avena) sin control químico. El sistema se cierra con el pastoreo libre en periodos cortos (de noviembre a diciembre) lo cual ayuda a tener un control de malezas. El objetivo principal del sistema es obtener ingresos de la producción del piñón como una meta a mediano y largo plazo. También como objetivos específicos; el productor señala beneficios ambientales tales como aire puro, humedad relativa, mejor calidad de suelo para producir y retorno de fauna.
El sistema demanda más mano de obra en épocas específicas en comparación a los sistemas tradicionales de producción agrícolas locales. Asimismo, el costo de la inversión inicial es alto; no obstante que disminuyen los gastos recurrentes en los años subsecuentes, debido a la preparación del suelo y establecimiento de la plantación. Los beneficios observados son el incremento y diversificación de la producción, concentración de actividades productivas en superficies reducidas, percepción de mejoras en los bienes y servicios ambientales (control de la erosión, humedad suelo, recreativos, etc.). Además el usuario tiene intenciones de incorporar a su sistema la sustitución de cultivos anuales por maguey pulquero (Agave salmiana). Se considera que esta tecnología es una innovación con apoyo familiar, sin haber recibido ningún subsidio gubernamental o privado, cuya asistencia técnica es proporcionada por los hijos. Es importante subrayar que los beneficios y costos señalados en esta sistematización son en 8 años desde la plantación, pudiendo tener una producción estable a partir de los 10 años, con eventuales oscilaciones en la producción conocidas como año semillero.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Mexico

Region/ State/ Province:

Microregión Valle del Mezquital/Hidalgo/Centro de México

Further specification of location:

Santiago de Anaya, Hidalgo.

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2010

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through land users' innovation

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • conserve ecosystem
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • create beneficial social impact

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • forest plantation management
  • integrated crop-livestock management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • A4: Subsurface treatment
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M6: Waste management (recycling, re-use or reduce)

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pk: slaking and crusting

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Julio Cesar Rangel

Date:

09/05/2018

Author:

Julio Cesar Rangel

Date:

09/05/2018

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

1.179 ha

other/ national currency (specify):

Pesos mexicanos

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

19.36

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

$150.00 por jornal o día

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour None None 26.0 150.0 3900.0 100.0
Equipment None None 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 50.0
Equipment None None 4.0 600.0 2400.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides None None 525.0 2.5 1312.5 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 13612.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 703.13

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour None None 15.0 150.0 2250.0 100.0
Labour None None 14.0 150.0 2100.0 100.0
Labour None None 30.0 50.0 1500.0 100.0
Equipment None None 1.0 700.0 700.0 100.0
Equipment None None 3.0 260.0 780.0 100.0
Equipment None None 2.0 260.0 520.0 100.0
Equipment None None 2.0 600.0 1200.0 100.0
Plant material None None 130.0 6.0 780.0 100.0
Plant material None None 2.5 15.0 37.5 100.0
Plant material None None 4.5 25.0 112.5 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides None None 1.0 150.0 150.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 10130.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 523.24

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

487.00

Agro-climatic zone
  • arid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

poor/ none

Water quality (untreated):

unusable

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • animal traction
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
  • elderly

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

crop quality

decreased
increased

fodder production

decreased
increased

fodder quality

decreased
increased

animal production

decreased
increased

wood production

decreased
increased

forest/ woodland quality

decreased
increased

non-wood forest production

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

product diversity

decreased
increased

production area

decreased
increased

land management

hindered
simplified
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased

excess water drainage

reduced
improved

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced

soil compaction

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

salinity

increased
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased

acidity

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased

invasive alien species

increased
reduced

animal diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased
decreased

impacts of cyclones, rain storms

increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

fire risk

increased
decreased

wind velocity

increased
decreased

micro-climate

worsened
improved

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change
Season increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase not known
seasonal temperature summer increase not known
annual rainfall decrease not known
seasonal rainfall summer decrease not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm well
extra-tropical cyclone not known
local rainstorm not known
local thunderstorm well
local hailstorm well
local snowstorm not known
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • single cases/ experimental
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
When were the data compiled (in the field)?

09/05/2018

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules