EARLY ADOPTION OF THE TROPICAL FORAGE LEGUME ARACHIS PINTOI IN HUETAR NORTE, COSTA RICA

Transcription

1 Expl Agric. (2004), volume 40, pp C 2004 Cambridge University Press DOI: /S Printed in the United Kingdom EARLY ADOPTION OF THE TROPICAL FORAGE LEGUME ARACHIS PINTOI IN HUETAR NORTE, COSTA RICA 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, 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 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 knownto have planteda. 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. INTRODUCTION 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 Ramírez, 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

2 258 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 Ganadería (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 km 2, which represents approximately 21 % of the land area of Costa Rica. High rainfall of up to 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).

3 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 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.

4 260 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. RESULTS 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 % 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 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

5 Adoption of Arachis pintoi in Costa Rica 261 Table 1. Variables examined in the Arachis pintoi adoption study. Variable Meaning of variable (interview question in brackets) Type Value (unit) Adoption Adoption of A. pintoi as a forage legume (for definition of adopter see text) n 0= no adoption 1 = adoption Age Age of farmer ( How old are you? ) m Years Education 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? ) m 0= no school 1 = PS not finished 2 = PS finished 3 = SS not finished 4 = SS finished 5 = TSnotfinished 6 = TS finished Information access Distance 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 to nearest so-called A. pintoi Centre, i.e. Tecnológico of Upala, Estación Experimental Los Diamantes and the Instituto Tecnológico de CostaRica (ITCR). Calculationwith maps, 1: n m 0= no 1 = yes Farm size Total farm size ( What is the total size of your farmland? ) m ha Improved pasture Proportion of improved pasture land to total pasture land m % ( 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 m % 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? ) m 1= less than = = = = = = more than Off-farm income Percentage of household income not generated by farm activities m % ( Apart from on-farm generated income, what other sources of income do you have? What percentage do these contribute to your total income? ) Support Financial support given to farmer by relatives or friends ( Do you receive any financial support from relatives or friends? ) n 0= no 1 = yes Problem a Problem b Problem c Problem d m = metric, n = nominal. 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? ) n n n n km 0= no 1 = yes 0= no 1 = yes 0= no 1 = yes 0= no 1 = yes

6 262 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 Area added each year (ha) Accumulated area (ha) Table 3. Specific differences between adopters and non-adopters. Adopters Non-adopters No. of No. of Factor replies Number % Mean s.d. replies Number % Mean s.d p Age 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Educational level 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a <0.001 Information access n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. <0.001 Distance 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Farm size 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a %ofimprovedpasture 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a <0.001 % of dairy breed 32 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Net income 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a % of off-farm income 33 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Financial support n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Problem a n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Problem b n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Problem c n.a. n.a n.a. n.a Problem d n.a. n.a n.a. n.a 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

7 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 Non-adopters Questions/Answers No. of replies % 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 Increase area Intensify and increase Total If intensifying the existing area would be better for you, how would you do so? (one answer only) Sowimproved pastures Make silage or hay Set up more paddocks Other measures Total 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 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 = (0.061) distance (0.214) education (0.751) problem c 1.46(0.841) information access (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).

8 264 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 9 27 Weed control 6 18 Increases cattle production 6 18 Erosion control 4 12 Other reasons 8 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 9 27 Persistence 9 27 Weed control 6 18 Drought tolerance 6 18 Erosion control 4 12 Other advantages 5 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 6 18 Other disadvantages 8 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

9 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 Seednoteasilyavailable Other priorities I have not had the idea/interest to plant it Production quantity low Other reasons Total 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),

10 266 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). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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

11 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

12 268 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 Argel, P. J. and Ramírez, 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 Argel, P. J. and Villarreal, M. (1998). Nuevo Maní 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 Ganadería de Costa Rica (MAG), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Boletín Técnico. Costa Rica. Empl, F. (1968). Analyse der Anpassungsbereitschaft landwirtschaftlicher Betriebsleiter, dargestellt an der Entwicklung des Körnermaisanbaues in Bayern. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 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: IDA (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), Región Huetar Norte (1998). Informes de Talleres Diagnósticos Participativos Región Huetar Norte. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, 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. Agroforestería en las Américas 4 ( July September): Lobo,M.andAcuña, 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: 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: / 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 consultoría. 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: 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.