Technological change in goat production systems in northwestern Córdoba, Argentina
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper focuses on the process of adoption of commercial veterinary products by peasants in NW Córdoba (Argentina). A semi-structured questionnaire was answered by 20 of the goat-raising peasants in the community (70% of the universe). The data was classified into 26 variables, which were analysed using different statistical techniques (cluster analysis, principal component analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis). This allowed to identify the 6 main variables explaining the process of technological adoption: i) size of the farm; ii) number of goats; iii) relative importance of goat production within the farm; iv) stage of development of the family cycle; v) former use by peasants of indigenous techniques to eliminate parasites; and vi) frequency of visits of extensionists to peasants. Path analysis and path diagram techniques allowed to characterise the relationship among the main variables identified, and to model the process of technological adoption. The paper shows that the adoption of veterinary products is related not only to productive variables, but also to some other socio-economic variables not directly related to the farming system.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Biggs, S.D., 1990. A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion. World Development, 18(11): 1481-1499.
Cáceres, D.M., 1993. Peasant Strategies and Models of Technological Change: A Case Study from Central Argentina. Tesis de Maestría, Universidad de Manchester, 259 pp.
Cáceres, D.M., 1994. Estrategias campesinas y riesgo. Desarrollo Agroforestal y Comunidad Campesina, 3(12): 2-6.
Cáceres, D.M., 1995a. Estrategias campesinas en sociedades rurales contemporáneas. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía (Universidad de Buenos Aires), 15(1): 67-72.
Cáceres, D.M., 1995b. Pequeños productores e innovación tecnológica: un abordaje metodológico. AgroSur, 23(2): 127-139.
Cáceres, D.M. and P. Woodhouse, 1995. Not all improvements make sense. ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, 11(4): 20-21.
Cáceres, D.M. y P. Woodhouse, 1996. Algunos factores que limitan la adopción tecnológica: un estudio de caso. Desarrollo Agroforestal y Comunidad Campesina, 25: 2-7.
Cáceres, D.M. y P. Woodhouse, 1998. Technological change among central Argentina peasants. Development in Practice, 8(1): 21-29.
Cáceres, D.M., G.S. Soto, F. Silvetti, G. Ferrer y G. Saal, 1995. Heterogeneidad interna y vulnerabilidad diferencial de campesinos del Noroeste de Córdoba. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía (Universidad de La Plata), 71(2): 245-253.
Cáceres, D.M., G.S. Soto, F. Silvetti, W. Robledo y H. Crespo, 1997. La adopción tecnológica en sistemas agropecuarios de pequeños productores. AgroSur, 24(2): 123-135.
Doorman, F., 1991. A framework for the rapid appraisal of factors that influence the adoption and impact of new agricultural technologies. Human Organization, 50(3): 235-244.
Feder, G., R. Just and D. Zilberman, 1982. Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries: A survey. World Bank Working Papers Number 542. The World Bank, Washington, 70 pp.
Ferrer, G., 1996a. Extensión agroforestal y adopción negociada de tecnologías. Desarrollo Agroforestal y Comunidad Campesina, 5(24): 2-5.
Ferrer, G., 1996b. Agroforestry ties in with local knowledge. ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, 12(1): 22.
Forni, F.H. y R. Benencia, 1988. Asalariados y campesinos pobres: el recurso familiar y la producción de mano de obra. Estudios de casos en la Provincia de Santiago del Estero. Desarrollo Económico, 28(110): 245-290.
Frank, B.R., 1995. Constraints limiting innovation adoption in the North Queensland beef industry. I: A socio-economic means of maintaining a balanced lifestyle. Agricultural Systems, 47: 291-321.
Fujisaka, S., 1994. Learning from six reasons why farmers do not adopt innovations intended to improve sustainability of upland agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 46: 409-425.
Gartrell, D.C. and J.W. Gartrell, 1985. Social status and agricultural innovation: A meta-analysis. Rural Sociology, 50(1): 38-50.
Hossain, S.M.A. and B.R. Crouch, 1992. Patterns and determinants of adoption of farm practices: Some evidence from Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems, 38: 1-15.
Johnston, M., 1990. Dilemmas in introducing applied technology: The plough and the cattle lords in Timor. Community Development Journal, 25(3): 243-251.
Levene, H., 1960. Robust tests for equality of variance, in Contribution to Probability and Statistics, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp. 278-292.
Li, C., 1977. Path analysis - A primer. The Boxwood Press, California.
Montgomery, D., 1991. Design of experiments. John Willey, New York, 589 pp.
Nowak, P., 1992. Why farmers adopt production technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47(1): 14-17.
Polson, R.A. and D.S.C. Spencer, 1991. The technology adoption process in subsistence agriculture: The case of cassava in Southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems, 36: 65-78.
Ridgley, A.M. and S. Brush, 1992. Social factors and selective technology adoption: The case of integrated pest management. Human Organization, 51(4): 367-378.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.
Searle, S.R., 1971. Linear Models. John Willey, New York.
Shannon, D.A. and M.K. Mwamba, 1994. Adoption of soybean in Sub-Saharan Africa: A comparative analysis of production and utilization in Zaire and Nigeria. Agricultural Systems, 46: 369-384.
(Continúa en el siguiente mensaje debido a límite de caracteres).
Shapiro, B.I., J.H. Sanders, K.C. Reddy and T.G. Baker, 1992. Evaluating and adapting new technologies in a high-risk agricultural system - Niger. Agricultural Systems, 42: 153-171.
Shapiro, S.S. and M.B. Wilks, 1965. An analysis of variance tests for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52: 591-611.
Shultz, S., J. Faustino and D. Melgar, 1997. Agroforestry and soil conservation: Adoption and profitability in El Salvador. Agroforestry Today, 9(4): 16-17.
Silvetti, F., D. Cáceres, G. Ferrer, G. Saal y S. Díaz, 1991. El proceso de producción en unidades de pequeños productores de las localidades de Copacabana y Toyos (Depto. Ischilín, Pcia. de Córdoba). Informe Académico, CONICOR y CONICET, 92 pp.
Silvetti, F. y G.S. Soto, 1993. Los campesinos del noroeste de Córdoba: Una perspectiva teórica y metodológica. Desarrollo Agroforestal y Comunidad Campesina, 2(8): 11-14.
Silvetti, F. y G.S. Soto, 1994. Sistemas campesinos del noroeste de Córdoba. Agriscientia, 11: 69-78.
Silvetti, F., 1997. Campesinos y educación no formal: El caso de las comunidades del Departamento Ischilín. Centro de Estudios Avanzados, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 202 pp.
Sonnet, F.H., 1994. Educación y adopción de tecnología agropecuaria en zonas con distinto grado de desarrollo relativo. Revista de Economía, 45: 107-158.
Soto, G.S., 1996. Análisis sociopolítico de las tecnologías de transferencia agropecuarias. AgroSur, 24(2): 126-136.
Sperling, L. and M.E. Loevinsohn, 1993. The dynamics of adoption: Distribution and mortality of bean varieties among small farmers in Rwanda. Agricultural Systems, 41: 441-453.
Thomas, J.K., H. Ladewig and W.A. McIntosh, 1990. The adoption of integrated pest management practices among Texas cotton growers. Rural Sociology, 55(3): 395-410.
Wadsworth, J., 1995. Adoption of innovations by Costa Rican livestock producers under different levels of extension intensity: Predicted versus observed behaviour. Agricultural Systems, 49: 69-100.
Warren, K.M., 1997. Estudios de adopción y adaptación de tecnologías por parte de los agricultores en Ichío y Sara. Centro de Investigación Tropical, Santa Cruz, 55 pp.
Wright, S., 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20: 557-585.