C 2004 Cambridge University Press
Expl Agric. (2004), volume 40, pp. 257–268 DOI: 10.1017/S0014479703001583 Printed in the United Kingdom
E A R LY A D O P T I O N O F T H E T RO P I C A L F O R AG E L E G U M E
A R AC H I S P I N TO I I N H U E TA R N O RT E , C O S TA R I C A
By T. WÜNSCHER†‡, R. SCHULTZE-KRAFT†, M. PETERS§ and L. RIVAS§
†Institute for Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics (380), University of
Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 13, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany and §Centro Internacional de Agricultura
Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
(Accepted 9 October 2003)
SUMMARY
The legume Arachis pintoi has a number of characteristics which enable it to make a valuable contribution
to the development of sustainable and productive pastures in the tropics. It was introduced to Costa Rica
for this reason, in 1987. The objective of this study was to analyse the adoption of A. pintoi as a forage
legume in Huetar Norte, a region in the north of Costa Rica. The adoption process was analysed to identify
the contributory factors and to make recommendations for measures which could be taken to promote
the process. To collect the data, 115 randomly selected livestock holders and an additional 34 farmers
known to have planted A. pintoi were interviewed. Farmers see improved pastures to be the most important
technology to enhance forage and cattle production. It was confirmed that A. pintoi is a potential improved
pasture alternative. Although A. pintoi was well known, the adoption rate was low. Lack of availability of
seed, technical assistance and information about the use and management of A. pintoi hinder adoption.
Difficulties in establishment and maintenance were also recorded.
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Degradation of grass-only pastureland is a frequent problem in tropical America.
During recent decades, forage research centres in Central and South America have
made joint efforts in the identification of productive and persistent tropical legumes
(Argel and Villarreal, 1998). By providing soil cover and nitrogen fixation they not only
improve livestock feed but also help prevent soil degradation. The perennial legume
Arachis pintoi Krapovickas & Gregory has been shown to improve soil conservation and
animal production (Argel, 1994; Argel and Ramı́rez, 1996; Ibrahim et al., 1993; Lobo
and Acuña, 2001) as well as profitability ( Jansen et al., 1997) in Central America. This
is due to characteristics such as incorporation of nitrogen and organic matter into the
soil, a growth habit that results in dense stolon layers, deposition of seed in the soil
and intensive seedling recruitment from those seed banks, high quality feed, a degree
of drought tolerance due to deep-reaching roots, and flood tolerance. It can be mixed
with grasses or used in legume-only pastures (‘protein banks’). When mixed it supports
grass growth by providing nitrogen, but has also to compete with it and may sometimes
disappear (Argel and Villarreal, 1998). The forage peanut A. pintoi is an ‘improved
‡
Corresponding author: tobias.wunscher@web.de
258
T. W Ü N S C H E R
et al.
pasture’, a relative term generally used for pastures that have been sown or planted,
and are more productive than native pastures. In 1987 it was introduced to Costa
Rica for evaluation by CIAT and the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderı́a (MAG).
Since then it had been presented to extension workers and farmers via on-farm trials,
field days and workshops (Argel and Villarreal, 1998). The three so-called ‘Arachis
pintoi Centres’, namely Tecnológico of Upala, Estación Experimental Los Diamantes
and the Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica (ITCR), crucially participated in the
evaluation and presentation process.
In general, the process of adoption of new forage technologies is complex and
slow (Rivas and Holmann, 1997). Moreover, the concept of using legumes such as
A. pintoi as pasture plants is relatively new to farmers in tropical America and involves
new techniques in establishment and maintenance. It can thus be expected that the
adoption process of new forage legume technologies such as A. pintoi is even more
complex and slower than that of a new forage grass technology. In order to support a
continuous diffusion process it is necessary to identify and overcome initial difficulties
encountered by farmers. In a study on the early adoption of A. pintoi in Caquetá,
Colombia, an adoption rate of 9 % of interviewed farmers with a far lower percentage
of sown area was assessed. The authors identified lack of information about the use,
management and production potential of the forage peanut to be the major obstacle
to increasing adoption (Rivas and Holmann, 1997).
Little is known about the success or failure of the new ‘Arachis pintoi technology’ in
Huetar Norte, a region ideal for the use of the legume due to its climatic conditions
and livestock concentration. If the adoption rate in Huetar Norte proved to be low, an
analysis of the contributory factors would be required to formulate effective measures
to promote the adoption process. Due to circumstances specific to the region, such
factors can vary widely from those identified in, for example, Caquetá and those in
Huetar Norte will require further examination. This study aimed to identify these
factors and to answer the following questions:
1. What is the adoption rate of A. pintoi in Huetar Norte?
2. How do adopters and non-adopters differ and how do these factors influence
adoption?
3. What are the experiences of cattle farmers with A. pintoi?
4. What could be done to improve the continuity of the adoption process?
Huetar Norte is a region in the north of Costa Rica. It covers an area of 9804 km2 ,
which represents approximately 21 % of the land area of Costa Rica. High rainfall of
up to 5 000 mm per year, the majority of which falls in the wet season from June to
October, can cause waterlogging and production problems. A rainfall shortage in the
dry season can also impair production (IDA Huetar Norte, 1998). Of the farmed and
silviculturally-used land, 73 % is covered by pasture, 18 % by forest and 9 % is used
for agriculture (Pérez Gutiérrez, 1999).
Adoption of Arachis pintoi in Costa Rica
259
Figure 1. Interviews conducted and their application in the analysis.
METHODOLOGY
Structured personal interviews were conducted to collect the required data. The
questionnaire was based on that of the earlier study on adoption of Arachis in Caquetá,
Colombia (Rivas and Holmann, 1997). It was extended and modified for the specific
circumstances of the region. A simple random sampling was applied to a frame
population of 7121 livestock holders in Huetar Norte. From this sample, 115 farmers
were interviewed. As the number of adopters in the random sample was only four,
an additional 34 farmers known to have previously planted A. pintoi, were interviewed
(Figure 1). These farmers were not randomly selected, but located by information
from various sources.
All interviews were conducted between 4 January and 29 March 2000. The three
cases ‘adopter’, ‘non-adopter’ and ‘rejecter’ were distinguished.
An adopter in this study was defined as an individual or collective with A. pintoi
already planted for forage purposes at the time of the survey. This included cases in
which a substantial part of the pasture was planted with A. pintoi and those in which
a non-substantial part of the pasture was planted with A. pintoi, if the farmer clearly
intended to increase the planted area.
A non-adopter in this study was defined as an individual or collective with no
A. pintoi planted for forage purposes, at the time of the survey. This also included cases
in which a non-substantial part of the pasture was planted with A. pintoi when the
farmer did not clearly intend to increase the planted area.
A rejecter in this study was defined as an individual or collective with A. pintoi
already planted for forage purposes at the time of the survey if the farmer intended to
eliminate the legume from the planted area or not to maintain its production.
The phenomena ‘agreeing tendency’ and ‘social-desirability-response-set’ (Schnell
et al., 1999) were suspected to have occurred in the interviews and thus could have led
to the assessment of some farmers as adopters who otherwise would not have qualified.
However, it was impossible to determine the number of farmers to which this may
have applied and consequently no data adjustments were made.
260
T. W Ü N S C H E R
et al.
The data analysis consisted of a descriptive analysis with MS Excel and SAS, and
an econometric analysis with SAS using a binary logistic regression (Logit model). In
the descriptive analysis adopters and non-adopters were compared applying two-sided
t-tests for numeric factors and Fisher’s Exact Test for nominal factors. The appropriate
t-test for equal and non-equal variances was applied after testing the equality of
variance with the F-test. In addition, counts, means and percentages were used to
describe the adoption rate, as well as the adopters’ and rejecters’ experiences with
A. pintoi. In the econometric analysis ‘Adoption’ was used as the dependent variable,
the remaining factors as independent variables. A Backward Elimination Procedure
at the 10 % significant level was applied. A Wald test was used to test the statistical
significance of each coefficient in the model.
R E S U LT S
Adoption rate
Within the random sample of 115 farmers, 104 had already heard of A. pintoi and
of those, 29 had already sown the legume on their land. However, this was mainly for
ornamental purposes. Six farmers had sown it as forage. Of these, two had rejected
it. Thus, the adoption rate in the random sample is 3.5 % (four adopters). The four
adopters had planted a total area of 3.65 ha, which is only 0.0006 % of total pasture
land (6043 ha) in the group of 115 randomly selected farmers. In addition to the
four adopters in the random sample, 29 farmers were classified as adopters within
the group of 34 known to have planted the forage. Thus a total of 33 adopters were
interviewed. In total, these adopters had planted an area of 91.9 ha with A. pintoi.
Table 2 shows the accumulated increase of area sown with A. pintoi by these adopters
from 1987 to March 2000. The increase is particularly strong from 1997 onwards.
By 2005, 27 adopters intended to increase the total area planted with A. pintoi by
1679 ha. This is distorted by one particular farmer who planned an increase of 1500
ha, whereas all other farmers intended to increase the total area 179 ha.
Differences between adopters and non-adopters
In order to identify differences between adopters and non-adopters, the two groups
were compared in a descriptive analysis of factors, as displayed in Table 1. These
included socio-economic, production and financial aspects. The factors examined and
their statistical values are shown in Tables 3 and 4. It is interesting to note that with
the exception of ‘farm size’, all socio-economic and financial factors show significant
differences between the two groups, adopters and non-adopters. For example, adopters
have a significantly better education, a significantly better access to agricultural
information, live closer to the so-called ‘A. pintoi Centres’, already have a higher
proportion of their land sown with improved pasture and have a larger net income
than non-adopters. However, the problems facing the two groups in forage production
are not significantly different. For example, both experience equally severe problems
with lack of fertiliser for pastures (problem c) and with low production quantities
during the dry and wet season. As adopters and non-adopters face these problems
Adoption of Arachis pintoi in Costa Rica
261
Table 1. Variables examined in the Arachis pintoi adoption study.
Variable
Adoption
Age
Education
Meaning of variable (interview question in brackets)
Adoption of A. pintoi as a forage legume (for definition of adopter
see text)
Age of farmer (‘How old are you?’)
Educational level of farmer (‘Did you go to primary school (PS)?
If yes, did you complete it? Did you go to secondary school
(SS)? If yes, did you complete it? Did you go to technical
school/university (TS)? If yes, did you complete it?’)
Information access The following questions refer to an agricultural context. If one
of them was answered with ‘yes’, the farmer was defined
to have information access (‘In the past year: 1. Did you
go to a seminar? 2. Did you receive at least one visit by
an extensionist? 3. Did you regularly read an agricultural
journal? 4. Did you belong to an agricultural organisation?’)
Distance
Distance to nearest so-called ‘A. pintoi Centre’, i.e. Tecnológico
of Upala, Estación Experimental Los Diamantes and the
Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica (ITCR). Calculation with
maps, 1:100 000.
Farm size
Total farm size (‘What is the total size of your farmland?’)
Improved pasture Proportion of improved pasture land to total pasture land
(‘What is the total size of your pastureland? What are the
predominant pasture species and what is the size of area of
each species you have?’)
Dairy breed
Percentage of herd belonging to a dairy breed (‘What is the total
head count of your cattle herd? How many of these are of
dairy breed?’)
Net income
Annual net income of farm household in 1999, US$ (‘Could you
indicate the net annual income of your farm household on
this list of classes, please?’)
Off-farm income
Support
Problem a
Problem b
Problem c
Problem d
†
Percentage of household income not generated by farm activities
(‘Apart from on-farm generated income, what other sources
of income do you have? What percentage do these contribute
to your total income?’)
Financial support given to farmer by relatives or friends (‘Do you
receive any financial support from relatives or friends?’)
Farmer considers there is a problem with soil erosion in pasture
(‘Do you consider that you have a problem with soil erosion
in pasture?’)
Farmer considers there is a problem with low dry-season
production (‘Do you consider that you have a problem with
low dry-season forage production?’)
Farmer considers there is a problem with lack of fertiliser (‘Do
you consider that you have a problem with lack of fertiliser in
pasture production?’)
Farmer considers there is a problem with low wet-season
production (‘Do you consider that you have a problem with
low wet-season forage production?’)
m = metric, n = nominal.
Type†
n
m
m
n
Value (unit)
0 = no adoption
1 = adoption
Years
0 = no school
1 = PS not finished
2 = PS finished
3 = SS not finished
4 = SS finished
5 = TS not finished
6 = TS finished
0 = no
1 = yes
m
km
m
m
ha
%
m
%
m
1 = less than 333
2 = 333–1667
3 = 1667–3333
4 = 3333–6667
5 = 6667–10 000
6 = 10 000–16 667
7 = more than
16 667
%
m
n
n
0 = no
1 = yes
0 = no
1 = yes
n
0 = no
1 = yes
n
0 = no
1 = yes
n
0 = no
1 = yes
262
T. W Ü N S C H E R
et al.
Table 2. Accumulated area of A. pintoi sown from 1987 to March 2000 by 33 adopters.
Year
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Area added each year (ha) 0.7
Accumulated area (ha)
0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
8.5 1.2 5.6 14.4 17.2 37.2 5.7
10.6 11.8 17.4 31.8 49.0 86.2 91.9
Table 3. Specific differences between adopters and non-adopters.
Adopters
Factor
Age
Educational level
Information access
Distance
Farm size
% of improved pasture
% of dairy breed
Net income
% of off-farm income
Financial support
Problem a
Problem b
Problem c
Problem d
No. of
replies Number
33
33
33
33
33
33
32
33
33
33
33
31
33
31
n.a.
n.a.
31
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0
9
17
26
26
%
Non-adopters
Mean
s.d.
n.a.
44.0 11.9
n.a
3.6
2.2
93.9 n.a.
n.a.
n .a
3.4
2.1
n .a 128.2 287.0
n.a.
68.4 36.0
n.a.
41.2 47.0
n.a.
4.0
2.2
n.a.
8.0 18.1
0.0 n.a.
n.a.
27.3 n.a.
n.a.
54.8 n.a.
n.a.
78.8 n.a.
n.a.
83.9 n.a.
n.a.
No. of
replies Number
109
109
109
109
109
109
102
107
108
102
98
93
98
93
n.a.
n.a.
66
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
12
26
58
65
67
%
Mean
n.a.
n.a.
60.6
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
11.8
26.5
62.4
66.3
72.0
49.3
2.0
n.a.
4.6
69.9
38.0
23.7
2.6
23.1
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
s.d
p
11.7
0.025
1.4 <0.001
n.a. <0.001
2.5
0.010
211.6
0.285
40.9 <0.001
41.1
0.044
1.6
0.001
31.3
0.001
n.a.
0.038
n.a.
1.000
n.a.
0.198
n.a.
0.527
n.a.
0.236
n.a. = not applicable.
with equal intensity, it would be interesting to see if they use the same methods to solve
them. Table 4 shows the answers farmers gave to three questions concerning farm
production improvement.
As shown in Table 4, adopters and non-adopters do not differ significantly in
most of the methods that they said they would use to improve forage production.
It is particularly interesting to note that a large majority of both groups chose to
intensify production on existing land rather than to increase its area. Also interesting
is the fact that of the farmers who chose intensification, the majority would do so by
sowing improved pastures. When asked about the way that they would increase cattle
production, farmers again saw improvement of pasture as the most important method
Table 4. In contrast, genetic improvements to the herd were considered to be less
important. Adopters and non-adopters differed significantly in that adopters tended
to improve animal nutrition more frequently (e.g. with supplements) and to promote
animal health.
Factors influencing adoption
The descriptive analysis has shown significant differences between adopters and
non-adopters. It does not, however, tell us which factors influence adoption. In order
to determine the influence of individual factors a logistic regression analysis was
Adoption of Arachis pintoi in Costa Rica
263
Table 4. Measures adopters and non-adopters of A. pintoi would take to improve forage crop production.
Adopters
Questions/Answers
No. of replies
Non-adopters
% of farmers
No. of replies
% of farmers
p
1. Of the two options to enhance forage production: increasing the area or intensifying production in the existing
area, which would be better for you?
Intensify production
29
88
83
85
–
Increase area
3
9
12
12
–
Intensify and increase
1
3
3
3
–
Total
33
100
98
100
–
2. If intensifying the existing area would be better for you, how would you do so?
Sow improved pastures
18
60
Make silage or hay
3
10
Set up more paddocks
2
7
Other measures
7
23
(one answer only)
65
76
0
0
4
5
17
20
–
0.016
–
–
Total
86
0.028
30
100
100
3. How would you enhance cattle production? (more than one answer possible)
61 replies by 33 farmers
181 replies by 109 farmers
Improve pasture
Improve nutrition (e.g. supplements)
Improve herd (genetically)
Improve animal health
Other measures
21
11
9
5
15
64
33
27
15
46
74
12
46
1
48
68
11
42
1
1
–
0.005
–
0.003
–
Total
61
n.a.
181
n.a.
–
n.a. = not applicable.
conducted. The objective was to show with the computed model which methods
would be most effective in supporting the adoption process. Since not all the data
sets from the interviews were complete, the data sets of 98 non-adopters and 33
adopters were used to compute the following binary regression model (s.e. values in
brackets).
The probability of adoption,
P=
1
1 − e−z
where z = −4.04 – 0.18(0.061) × distance + 0.65(0.214) × education + 1.84(0.751) ×
problem c × 1.46(0.841) × information access + 0.39(0.191) × net income – 0.45
(0.014) ×% off-farm income.
‘Distance’, ‘education’ and ‘% of off-farm income’ influence adoption at the 1 %
significance level, ‘problem c’ and ‘net income’ at the 5 % level, and ‘information
access’ at the 10 % level. Even though ‘information access’ was not significant at the
5 % level it was decided to include it in the model as it was the major influencing
factor identified in a study in Caquetá, Colombia (Rivas and Holmann, 1997), and
thus of special interest to this research. The percentage of variation accounted for
by the model is 38 %, using adjusted sums of squares according to Mittelböck and
Schemper (2003).
264
T. W Ü N S C H E R
et al.
Table 5. Adopters and some of their experiences with A. pintoi.
Question/Answer
No.
% of farmers
1. What was the reason for planting A. pintoi? (up to three answers possible)
86 replies by 33 farmers
Improvement of forage quality
Increases forage quantity
‘They told me it is good.’
Improvement of soil fertility
Weed control
Increases cattle production
Erosion control
Other reasons
30
13
10
9
6
6
4
8
91
39
30
27
18
18
12
24
Total
86
n.a.
2. After having planted A. pintoi, what main advantages do you see today? (up to three answers possible)
82 replies by 33 farmers
Improvement of forage quality
Increases cattle production
Soil fertility improvement
Persistence
Weed control
Drought tolerance
Erosion control
Other advantages
30
13
9
9
6
6
4
5
91
39
27
27
18
18
12
15
Total
82
n.a.
3. After having planted A. pintoi, what main disadvantages do you see today? (up to three answers possible)
39 replies by 33 farmers
Maintenance difficult
Establishment complex
Attracts slugs
Other disadvantages
13
12
6
8
39
36
18
24
Total
39
n.a.
n.a. = not applicable.
Adopters and their experience with A. pintoi
In 65.0 ha (71 %) of the area sown with A. pintoi, it was mixed with grasses
like Brachiaria brizantha, Ischaemum indicum (Ratana), Cynodon nlemfuensis (African star
grass), Panicum maximum cv. Tanzania, Panicum maximum cv. Mombassa, and Pennisetum
purpureum. On 26.9 ha (29 %) of the land the legume was in pure stands. In general
the area was grazed. Only two adopters employed a cut-and-carry system. The great
majority of adopters (88 %) said they were satisfied with the results obtained so far. The
remaining adopters experienced very poor establishment or a problem they considered
to be a fungal disease.
The adopters were asked why they had planted A. pintoi and which advantages
and disadvantages they had experienced at the time of survey. The answers to these
questions are presented in Table 5.
The most frequently mentioned reason for planting the forage was the expectation
that it would improve forage quality or quantity. The improvement in soil fertility was
Adoption of Arachis pintoi in Costa Rica
265
Table 6. Reasons given by non-adopters for not using A. pintoi as forage legume.
Question/Answer
No.
% of farmers
What is the reason for not using A. pintoi? (up to three answers possible)
172 replies by 109 farmers
Lack of information
Seed not easily available
Other priorities
‘I have not had the idea/interest to plant it.’
Production quantity low
Other reasons
Total
63
23
16
13
11
46
58
21
15
12
10
42
172
n .a.
n.a. = not applicable.
also frequently mentioned. It is interesting to note that the reasons given coincide in
part with the adopters’ problems a–d (Tables 1 and 3), where the majority of adopters
state that they lacked fertiliser and have problems with low production in the wet
and dry seasons. The answers to question 2 in Table 5 show that after experience
with A. pintoi, improvements in forage quality and soil fertility were still seen to be
the most important advantages. Even though the assessment of A. pintoi by adopters
was favourable, problems in establishment and maintenance of the legume were
mentioned. Of the 13 adopters who considered maintenance to be difficult, eight
said that due to lack of aggressiveness A. pintoi would easily disappear when mixed
with grasses, four said that when mixed with grasses, broad-leaf weed control would
prove difficult, and one said that A. pintoi would not tolerate heavy rainfall. Of the 12
adopters who considered establishment to be complex, seven said that slow growth
would allow weeds to proliferate, making establishment difficult, and five said that it
was expensive due to the cost of seed and elaborate planting techniques.
The perception of A. pintoi by non-adopters
Of 109 interviewed non-adopters, ninety-eight (90 %) had already heard about
A. pintoi. Of those, twenty-two said they had already sown it on their farm, mainly for
ornamental purposes. Nearly half (47) knew that it could be used for cattle feeding.
With this large proportion of non-adopters aware of A. pintoi and having already
planted it for ornamental reasons, the question arises why they had not planted it for
forage use. The reasons given are displayed in Table 6.
The data show that a lack of information was most often seen as the reason for not
planting the legume. The second most frequent reason was that seed was not readily
available.
Reasons for rejecting A. pintoi as a forage legume
Altogether seven rejecters were identified and interviewed. They gave the following
reasons for rejection (number of entries in brackets): ‘lack of competitiveness’ (5),
266
T. W Ü N S C H E R
et al.
‘produces little quantity’ (3), ‘establishment expensive’ (2), ‘grows too low, makes
cutting it difficult’ (1), ‘does not improve growth of associated grass’ (1) and ‘dry
season performance worse than that of improved grass species’ (1).
D I S C U S S I O N A N D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
Even though the figures show a positive trend, the adoption rate for A. pintoi in Costa
Rica is, as yet, very low. According to the five adopter categories of Rogers (1958), the
majority of adopters in this study can be classified as ‘innovators’ and a minority as
‘early adopters’. Rogers (1958) defines the first 2.5 % of adopters to be ‘innovators’.
This would mean that in this study 1 % qualify as ‘early adopters’. Even though
farmers are aware of A. pintoi and its potential for forage production, few farmers are
actually prepared to use the legume.
A prerequisite for adoption would be that the forage presents a solution to existing
problems. Data suggest that A. pintoi has the potential to address the production
problems faced by farmers in Huetar Norte. This conclusion is based on the following
four findings: firstly, the majority of adopters and non-adopters experienced problems
with low forage production in the dry and wet seasons, and with lack of fertilizer
(A. pintoi tolerates floods, is to some degree drought tolerant and provides nitrogen).
Secondly, the adopters’ reasons given for planting the forage legume reflect the farmers’
problems (thus they might have chosen the legume to address existing problems).
Thirdly, the overwhelming majorities of adopters and non-adopters stated that they
would enhance forage production through intensification of existing pastureland and
by sowing improved pastures rather than through an increase of area (A. pintoi is an
improved pasture). Fourthly, the advantages which adopters attributed to the legume
reflected the reasons for which they had planted it in the first place (an indication that
their expectations were fulfilled).
As adopters and non-adopters face the same problems equally and would enhance
production (and thus address these problems) in similar ways, one would expect that
their behaviour in adopting innovations such as A. pintoi would be similar. However,
it is not. Other factors could therefore play a role in the adoption process. The
descriptive analysis shows that the two groups differ significantly in a number of ways.
For example, adopters tend to be younger, better educated, have better information
access, live closer to one of the three so-called ‘A. pintoi centres’ and to have larger
farms and higher incomes.
If these differences indicate that associated factors play a role in adoption behaviour,
then the question arises ‘why would they?’. Possible explanations include: younger
farmers might be more dynamic and open to technological innovations; more
highly educated farmers could be more open-minded and have more confidence
in innovations; better information access might increase the farmers’ ability and
confidence to deal with problems when implementing and using new technologies;
a shorter distance to an ‘A. pintoi Centre’ increases the availability of seed, technical
assistance and information; a larger farm might allow for more space for conducting
Adoption of Arachis pintoi in Costa Rica
267
tests; and a higher income level might enable a farmer to take the greater risks involved
in the implementation of new technologies.
In identifying the most efficient methods for supporting the adoption process and
increasing the adoption rate, data from the econometrical analysis suggest that some
of these factors significantly influence adoption. A shorter ‘distance’ is found to have
the effect that seed, information and assistance are more readily available to farmers.
The poor availability of seed is also confirmed by non-adopters who stated this to be
a reason for not planting the forage. Thus the introduction of better seed distribution
systems, the improvement of technical assistance and the provision of information
relating to A. pintoi might be the key elements of an adoption increase.
The significance of ‘education’ confirms findings by Empl (1968), who found that
the educational level of a farmer may have an influence on adoption. Addressing
‘education’ as a possible method of improving adoption would imply that the general
level of education in the area would have to be increased. Even though this would be
a project too large and therefore unsuitable in this context it could be a long term
objective of the region to promote development in other areas.
In the case of ‘problem c’, improving the supply of fertiliser cannot be regarded as
a solution unless further studies determine that a large number of farms have soil of
low fertility. If this is the case, it would be beneficial to increase the farmers’ awareness
of soil nutrients. This could then have the effect that more farmers find A. pintoi to be
a viable forage choice.
‘Information access’ is not significant in the regression model, but significant in
the descriptive comparison. When looking at the non-adopters, a majority stated
that a reason for not having sown A. pintoi was lack of information. Nevertheless,
information access might have some effect on adoption. An improvement in this area
may thus be considered a method of promoting adoption. This could be realised, for
example, with intensified extension programmes, seminars and improved access to
knowledge using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Findings by
Rogers (1962) could not be confirmed in the regression analysis but in the descriptive
analysis, Rogers stated that the information behaviour of adopters would be such that
they use sources of information more frequently and more competently than nonadopters. The increase of ‘net income’ and the decrease in ‘% of off-farm income’
are considered unsuitable methods for directing support to the adoption process.
However, they show that a generally high level of income and specialisation in the
farming business increase the innovative character of farmers.
Difficulties in establishment and maintenance were also noted. Not only did
adopters include such difficulties in their list of disadvantages, rejecters also said
that they were reasons not to adopt the technology.
CONCLUSION
The adoption process can be promoted by improving the provision of seed, technical
assistance and information about the use and management of A. pintoi. Raising the
educational level of farmers in the region should also be a general objective, as
268
T. W Ü N S C H E R
et al.
should measures which generally increase the farmers’ income. As problems most
frequently occur in the establishment and maintenance of A. pintoi, better techniques
should be developed to reduce establishment costs, improve weed control and general
management methods. This should help prevent the disappearance of the legume
when mixed with grasses.
Acknowledgements. The authors wish to acknowledge the support and co-operation
provided by Federico Holmann (CIAT, Colombia), Pedro Argel (CIAT, Costa Rica),
Franz Heidhues (University of Hohenheim, Germany) and Gertrud Buchenrieder
(University of Hohenheim, Germany).
REFERENCES
Argel, P. J. (1994). Regional experience with forage Arachis in Central America and Mexico. In Biology and Agronomy
of Forage Arachis, (Eds P. C. Kerridge and B. Harding). Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali,
Colombia. Publication no. 240.
Argel, P. J. and Ramı́rez, P. A. (Eds) (1996). Experencias regionales con Arachis pintoi y planes futuros de investigación y promoción
de la especie en México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.
Documento de trabajo no. 159.
Argel, P. J. and Villarreal, M. (1998). Nuevo Manı́ Forrajero Perenne ( Arachis pintoi Krapovickas et Gregory). Cultivar Porvenir
(CIAT 18744): Leguminosa herbácea para alimentación animal, el mejoramiento y conservación del suelo y el embellecimiento del
paisaje. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderı́a de Costa Rica (MAG), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
(CIAT). Boletı́n Técnico. Costa Rica.
Empl, F. (1968). Analyse der Anpassungsbereitschaft landwirtschaftlicher Betriebsleiter, dargestellt an der Entwicklung
des Körnermaisanbaues in Bayern. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 709–747.
Ibrahim, M., Mannetje, L. ‘t and Pezo, D. (1993). Grass-legume balance under grazing in the humid tropics of
Costa Rica. Proccedings of the XVIIth International Grassland Congress, 8–21 February 1993, New Zealand and Australia.
3:1934–1935.
IDA (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), Región Huetar Norte (1998). Informes de Talleres Diagnósticos Participativos
Región Huetar Norte. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderı́a, Dirección Regional Huetar Norte. Diagnóstico
Agropecuario, Problemática y Soluciones. Huetar Norte, Costa Rica.
Jansen, H., Nieuwenhuyse, A., Ibrahim, M. and Abarca, S. (1997). Evaluación económica de la incorporación de
leguminosas en pasturas mejoradas, comparada con sistemas tradicionales de alimentación en la Zona Atlántica
de Costa Rica. Agroforesterı́a en las Américas 4 ( July–September): 9–13.
Lobo, M. and Acuña, V. (2001). Producción de leche de vacas de doble propósito en pasturas de Brachiaria brizantha cv.
La Libertad sola y asociada con Arachis pintoi cv. Porvenir en el trópico subhúmedo de Costa Rica. In Sistemas de
alimentación con leguminosas para intensificar fincas lecheras: un proyecto ejecutado por el consorcio Tropileche. (Eds F. Holmann and
C. Lascano) Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), consorcio Tropileche, International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI). Cali, Colombia. Working Document no. 184:31–34.
Mittelböck, M. and Schemper, M. (2003). Computing measures of explained variation for logistic regression
models [Online] [Accessed 13 November 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.akh-wien.
ac.at/imc/biometrie/programme/evlogist.htm
Pérez Gutiérrez, E. (1999). Caracterización de sitios con potencial de adopción de germoplasma forrajero mejorado
por pequeños productores de doble propósito en Costa Rica. Informe de consultorı́a. Presentado al CIAT, Cali,
Colombia.
Rivas, L. and Holmann, F. (1997). Adopción temprana de Arachis pintoi en el trópico húmedo: El caso de los sistemas
ganaderos de doble propósito en el Caquetá, Colombia. Pasturas Tropicales 21:2–17.
Rogers, E. M. (1958). Categorising the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociology 23:345–354.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation, New York: The Free Press.
Schnell, R., Hill, P. B. and Esser, E. (1999). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 6th Edition. München:
Oldenbourg Verlag.