Introduction

The agricultural sector in Mexico is a key to sustaining social and economic development pillar. Its importance lies in the functions serves to achieve food security, preserving the environment, improving rural landscapes and to give viability to rural areas and communities to promote a more balanced territorial development (Crecente, 2002; ^{Ayala, 2009}), besides fighting poverty. To achieve the latter, it is important to boost agricultural productivity depends on many factors such as climate, the quality of agricultural land, availability of inputs and services for agriculture (for example: technical assistance and funding), among others.

In a study conducted in 2011 by the Ministry of Agriculture of Chile called "factors affecting the dynamics of labor productivity in agricultural employment" found that among other factors affecting agricultural productivity is the efficiency of temporary work, low level of education and poor training of agricultural workers. However, labor productivity is also determined in a percentage that varies by company and managing it. The productivity of an agricultural enterprise can be measured by specific achievements such as reducing pests, increase crop yield and reducing damaged fruit (^{Billikopf, 2008}, ^{Newman and Jarvis, 2000}).

^{Ball et al. (2010)} suggest that productivity is a reflection of the efficiency of production factors to give rise to a certain amount and quality of product. ^{Hovorka (2005)} classifies limiting the increase in productivity in two types. The first lies in the level of human capital, i.e., knowledge, education and skills that enable technology adoption and, in the background, access and ways of use of inputs, credit, land and technology packages.

In Mexico, they have implemented many public programs aimed at increasing agricultural productivity such as the Program of Direct Support to the Countryside (PROCAMPO), but many of these programs are not linked to agricultural research centers that generate the technologies to drive productivity or considered in its design their own socioeconomic conditions of the farmers and their remedies available. This separation has led to the implementation of programs that have not allowed the resources allocated to the agricultural sector will have a positive impact on productivity (^{Zuniga et al., 2003}).

PROCAMPO began operating in Mexico in 1994 as part of the new scheme of direct support to agriculture under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This type of support to agriculture has its background in the debt crisis occurred in 1982 which led to the cancellation of high subsidies for agriculture. Mexico's government launched a number of steps to reduce its intervention in the economy and integrate Mexico into the world economy reforms. As part of these structural reforms reductions to barriers to trade and foreign investment they were made; prevailing privatization of public enterprises including the “ejido” was made and there were changes to subsidy schemes which required agriculture NAFTA signed by Mexico, United States of America and Canada which entered into force in 1994 (^{Lustig, 2010}).

When the program was implemented PROCAMPO was scheduled for a period of 15 years; i.e., completed in 2008; however, for 2014 he remained in force now called PROAGRO Productive. The program still aims to support beneficiaries and beneficiaries to increase agricultural productivity in accordance with the provisions of the National Development Plan 2013-2018, which recognizes that it is essential to design strategies to strengthen productivity, profitability and competitiveness of the sector agriculture with a focus on environmental sustainability. The government of Mexico acknowledged that the agricultural sector requires investment in equipment and improvement of productive infrastructure to increase productivity, with an emphasis on small producers who are the most predominant, where about 80% of the units production have less than 5 ha (^{Peña, 2013}).

While PROCAMPO seeks to increase agricultural productivity, studies indicate that supports granted to producers are insufficient to increase productivity. ^{Ramirez and Ramirez (1998)} and Ramirez et al. (2006) conducted a survey among producers benefited from the PROCAMPO program in a region of the state of Puebla, among the results found by the authors report that the resource provided by the program is insufficient to cover the production costs of agricultural activities. They also highlight that while total subsidies PROCAMPO program aimed maize have been increasing in absolute terms, this increase has not happened fast enough to offset the increase in input prices, and that economic openness has negative effects among producers of corn imports are made.

In the same vein, ^{Quintanilla (2005)} points out in his study for the period 1994-2004, the program that subsidies have failed to meet the goal of increasing maize production among producers to compete with imports grain. This is because the support program is a simple direct-to-income beneficiaries who do not encourage productive activity and helps producers to insert them into national markets transfer. In addition, the author notes that the program does not have a mechanism to monitor that subsidies are used for agricultural activities.

It has been noted that small producers react increasing yields of corn when the price of grain is favorable for them, but in the new context of NAFTA where the price of corn has fallen, it is difficult for small farmers to increase their productivity, most keep their yields (^{Juarez and Ramirez, 2006}).

^{Juárez and Ramírez (2006)} reported that the PROCAMPO program did not increase maize productivity among small farmers, due to poor economic support they received per hectare and because the resource was not used for 50% of farmers in agricultural production activities. In addition, producers who received fertilizer PROCAMPO not applied in accordance with the technical recommendations. Therefore, the use of the program only allowed lessen their difficult socio-economic conditions and for them to continue planting staple crops year after year.

Materials and methods

The state of Puebla is located in the central part of the country. The company adjoins several states: the adjoins North with the state of Hidalgo, Veracruz east, to the west with Tlaxcala, Hidalgo and Mexico State, south to Guerrero and Oaxaca (^{INEGI, 2010}). The research was conducted in seven communities in the municipality of Zacatlan state of Puebla (Ayehualulco, Ayotla, Camotepec, Las Lajas, Nanacamila, Tepoxcuautla and Tomatlan). The municipality is located north of the state and ranked tenth first of the municipalities with the highest human population in the state of Puebla. The total population of the municipality in 2010 was 76 296 inhabitants, of which 47% were men and 53% women (^{INEGI, 2010}).

Of the total population of the municipality in 2010, 45% of the people speak indigenous languages, of which 90% also speak Spanish. The most widely spoken indigenous language was Nahuatl (80%), followed by totonaco (16%); other minority languages were spoken by the Otomi and Mixteco (^{INEGI, 2010}).

Fuente: elaboración con datos obtenidos del ^{INEGI (2010)}.

Figure 1 Geographical location of the study area in the state of Puebla. 

In 2014, the municipality had 47 localities with a total record of 1,814 farms for agricultural activity and a total of 1 659 beneficiaries being 65% male and 35% female, according to the census of beneficiaries spring- summer 2014 program PROAGRO Productive SAGARPA.

The research was carried out by the sample survey (n= 84) the list of beneficiaries PROAGRO Productive cycle program spring- summer 2014, simple random random sampling was used. The sample size was distributed proportionally in the studied (Table 1).

As part of the survey, a structured considering the variables of interest related to the objectives and hypotheses of the the research questionnaire it was designed. In addition, a survey was applied to a sample (n= 28) and women producers who did not receive support from the program, and two key informant interviews (Head of District Rural Development (DDR 02) and Head Support Center performed Rural Development (CADER)).

The sampled agricultural units included in the sample taking into account two criteria: 1) producers and producers beneficiaries who received support from program PROAGRO Productive for 2014; and 2) have made agricultural activities in the areas recorded during the spring-summer period 2014. The data collection was conducted during June 2015.

Results

Crop types

All respondents planted corn in the agricultural cycle 2014; 97.62% native seed used them selected their own harvest. The sow their own seed has the advantage that not only do not have to buy seed, but retain the germplasm that are better adapted to extreme weather conditions in the region. According to some producers who sow hybrid seeds in the agricultural cycle 2013, and did not apply the amount of fertilizer that usually applied for lack of resources, more forage harvested corn a low percentage of producers (2.38%) that have greater resources and agricultural machinery hybrid maize seed used for planting was found. In general, (as) producers (as) who planted corn in the agricultural cycle in 2014 did an average area of 4.2 ha.

About 50% of (as) producers (as) planted other crops besides maize types, as shown in the Figure 2. The average surface planting other crops was 2.6 ha in 2014.

Fuente: elaboración con datos obtenidos de trabajo de campo.

Figure 2 Type of crops planted and number of producers beneficiaries 2014 agricultural cycle. 

Although the locations where the study was conducted not have a high potential for maize production, all producers and grain producers planted this as this is a fundamental part of the daily diet of families in the region.

Among those who received the support of the program not all produced the amount of corn needed to meet their subsistence needs. A 28.5% did not produce the amount of grain needed to meet consumption needs in 2014. The deficit households produced only 65% of the required production, with an average deficit of 376 kg of maize; i.e., had to buy it for an average period of 4.2 months. Families who bought corn at a price they paid $8.00 kg^-1. This purchase price is twice that paid to producers at harvest time ($3.40 kg^-1). In addition, to meet the needs of corn consumption for integrated for 4.5 people require a total production of 1 075.5 kg of grain family; i.e., per capita consumption was 239 kg yr^-1.

Production costs of maize

Table 2 shows the cost of production of corn per hectare of the agricultural cycle 2014. The average cost was $5 382 ha^-1, with a minimum of $2 230 and a maximum of $13 900. In the cost structure, the highest category was represented by the purchase of fertilizer was the most applied input producers to corn (95.23%). The producers beneficiaries did not perform a soil analysis to know their fertility and thus apply adequate fertilizer that could allow optimum yields in their crops doses. This may be due to the lack of technical assistance to improve their agricultural practices.

Table 2 Cost structure per hectare of maize, spring-summer cycle, 2014. 

Núm.	Actividad	n	Promedio	Desvest	Min.	Max.
1	Estudio de suelo	-	-	-	-	-
2	Compra de semilla	7	531.43	486.57	70	1 300
3	Pago de jornales	33	1 206.67	1 561.65	240	9 000
4	Renta de maquinaria	54	1 097.22	336.80	450	2 000
5	Renta de yunta	40	816.75	462.59	260	2 000
6	Capacitación	-	-	-	-	-
7	Preparación del terreno	34	1 106.76	876.69	280	4 500
8	Siembra	38	631.55	401.96	150	2 000
9	Surcado	15	404.00	197.19	100	800
10	Abonos orgánicos	13	1 776.92	1 326.75	1000	5 200
11	Fertilización química	80	1 689.50	745.68	690	5 800
12	Control de plagas y enfermedades	26	648.08	549.63	300	3 000
13	Pago de jornales para cosecha	62	1 045.65	597.89	100	4 000
14	Otros costos	8	1 125.00	554.85	600	2 000

Fuente: elaboración con datos obtenidos de trabajo de campo.

The cost ha^-1 corn crop is a weighted average, since it varies from one locality to another, depending on their own socioeconomic conditions of farmers and agricultural practices carried out on its premises. About 80% of the sample labor hired to serve some agricultural activities in agricultural 2014. Hiring the wages conducted mainly those producers’ seniors (over 60 years) who no longer have the strength and necessary skills required farming.

Also, 82.1% of producer’s beneficiaries program PROAGRO Productive hired labor did for the corn crop. In this regard, a producer said he's missing family organization to support field activities. He said that in the past the householders motivating the entire family for agricultural activities, especially for the corn crop, but in the last 20 years, young people are losing interest in agriculture, although it remains the basis food of rural families.

The Figure 3 shows the percentage of different items of production costs maize, where three important items are highlighted in the structure of production costs. First, 95% of the cost was for purchases and application of fertilizers ($1 690 ha^-1), followed by 77% for hiring wages for the corn crop; and finally, 64% it represented payments for rent of machinery for farming.

Fuente: elaboración con datos obtenidos de trabajo de campo.

Figure 3 Percentage of the main activities in which the beneficiary invested during 2014. 

Agricultural production of basic grains (corn)

Among the reagents which included the questionnaire asked respondents beneficiaries program PROAGRO Productive on what would be their yields according to the quality of their land in conditions of a good time, a regular temporal and bad temporary. In Figure 4, we see that under good time yields are 1.5 t ha^-1, enough corn production to meet their own consumption needs with one hectare of crop and generate a production surplus of 43%. In a regular time as was the case in 2014, yields were 855 kg ha^-1, representing a deficit of 219.4 kg, requiring an effort of 25.66% on increasing yields to meet corn production for self-consumption among those producers whose production unit is one ha. Also, producers who had an area equal 0.5 has obtained a total production of 427.5 kg corn, so its deficit was 60.21%. Such producers need to increase their yield 151.32% to produce the amount of corn needed to meet their subsistence needs; i.e., need to increase their yields 2.5 times more compared to those with a hectare to achieve self-sufficiency in maize consumption.

Fuente: elaboracióna con datos obtenidos de trabajo de campo.

Figure 4 Comparison of corn yields under conditions of good, fair time, producers wrong beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries, 2014. 

According to the cost of corn production in 2014 ($5 382.01 ha^-1), with yields of 855 kg ha^-1 and the price of corn of $ 3.4 kg^-1, the value of production per hectare was of $ 2 907 ha^-1. So, the loss producers who planted corn was $ 2 475 ha^-1. Figure 3 shows a comparison of unit corn yields obtained producers beneficiaries considering a good time, regulate one (which was the case in 2014) and one bad. Of the 28 producers are not beneficiaries of the program met only 53.5% had a surplus in grain production in 2014.

This research found that producers beneficiaries program PROAGRO Productive had a yield of 16%, equivalent to 119.89 kg ha^-1, above yields producers non-beneficiaries program, considering a scenario of regular time in both cases that was what happened in the 2014 crop season.

Apparently, maize yields per hectare obtained by the beneficiaries of the program PROAGRO Productive in 2014 was higher than producers who did not receive support. However, when performing the nonparametric Mann-Whitney (U= 1044, p= 0.374) with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for its acronym in English (SPSS) version 22, no statistically significant difference was detected. Concluding that in communities where the study was conducted, there was insufficient evidence of a positive impact of program PROAGRO Productive to increase corn yields. This was confirmed with the comment that made some of the respondents who said that for years small farmers have no food self-sufficiency in corn, because they are limited in their access to technology and technical assistance to increase their yields. In addition the amount of support they received from PROAGRO Productive, was not even enough to make the purchase of fertilizer for growing corn.

Discussion

While the program PROAGRO Productive seeks to increase agricultural productivity between producers; however, arriving belatedly supports the program does not have a positive impact on achieving increases in agricultural yields among small producers where the study was conducted. This coincides with the findings found Garcia-Salazar (2001), Juarez-Sanchez, ^{Trujillo et al. (2005)} and Ramirez Valverde (2006). The agricultural activities are key to the implementation of inputs, especially in the application of fertilizers and when this activity is not made timely by the producer for lack of resources dates, application of inputs out of tempo has no effect on the yields. In addition, when the program supports not timely reach producers, they allocate the resource for other purposes than to the program's objectives as indicated ^{Quintanilla (2005)} and ^{Gomez Oliver (2008)}.

It was also found that the amount received beneficiaries was insufficient to cover production costs of their agricultural activities. In fact, the amount they received from PROAGRO Productive was not enough to make the purchase or the amount of fertilizer they need for growing corn. These findings are similar to those reported ^{Ramirez and Ramirez (1998)} and Ramirez et al. (2006). Another important aspect was that small productive are not organized, which prevents them from having access to training and technical assistance to improve their agricultural practices and enable them to increase yields per unit area. These results agree with those reported ^{Dixon Mueller (1985)}, ^{Quisumbing (1996)}, ^{Zarazua et al. (2011)} and ^{Arellano-Gonzalez (2015)}.

In the study communities, low maize yields earned by producers do not outweigh the costs of production per unit area, this leads to losses in net income of families in this crop, and therefore young people are losing interest to continue agricultural activities and production of basic grains. They prefer to emigrate in search of better employment and income opportunities off the field leaving the elderly in agricultural activities, this contrasts with the results of ^{Garcia-Salazar (2011)} and ^{Molina (2012)}.

Conclusions

Among the small producers corn communities study the municipality of Zacatlan, Puebla, not sufficient evidence of a positive effect of program PROAGRO Productive to increase productivity were found. This may be due to the low amount of support they received to buy fertilizers applied in their culture and also the delay that was to receive support, the latter led to deviations resource to finance other non-agricultural productive activities or to meet basic needs of the family.

The cash amount of support received beneficiaries represented only 69% of the amount per unit area which provides the program because, cost discounts and transaction costs of transportation, food, copies, among other expenses performing beneficiaries to carry out the process of updating the programming standard incurred beneficiaries.