Differentiation of peach producers according to their socioeconomic characteristics

The first group identified as ‘business’, concentrated 30.8% of the producers surveyed (63 producers). These had an average age of 56 years and a schooling up to secondary. Half of the producers in this group had some kind of credit and in general, they were producers who have assumed risks in their management.

The producers of this group had a high production and presented a high technological management index, because they had the infrastructure to carry out the necessary activities for an optimal management of the crop ^{Hernández (2007)} (Table 1).

The previous results coincide with what was found by ^{Flores et al. (2018)}, where he mentions that the use of technologies is associated with other factors, such as cultivated area, tenure and schooling as essential components is for greater profitability. The second group called ‘subsistence producers (backyard)’ represented 13.2% of the sample (27 producers). The members of this group had an average age of 53 years. The age of the producer is determinant in the execution of the agronomic practices and, therefore, in the yield of the crop (^{Ruiz et al., 2001}). In general, they had a low technological index, which was negatively reflected in production in the units and they had never had credit or agricultural insurance.

These producers registered a maximum level of primary education, which according to ^{Vargas et al. (2015)}, it is imperative for the good performance of agricultural activities within the UP (Table 1). The third group called ‘producers without objective’ was the largest group with 38.2% of the sample (78 producers). This group of producers considered peach production as a source of income to recapitalize. They had an average age of 54 years, an elementary school education and had not had credit or agricultural insurance.

These producers were characterized by having the lowest economic income, which limited the acquisition of inputs and infrastructure that would have improved the productive capacity of the UP (Table 1). The fourth group identified as ‘part of their production system’ represented 17.6% of the sample (36 producers). In general, this group had an average age of 54 years, an elementary school education and they had never had credit or agricultural insurance. The results agree with ^{Vilboa and Díaz (2009)}, where it indicates that the producers of greater age, low schooling and greater experience, have ingrained knowledge, with respect to the form of production.

Typification of producers by quality attributes of peach

The analysis of the surveys by the DC method indicated that Wilks’ lambda multivariate test did not detect significant differences (F= 1.1; p< 0.2855) between producer groups; however, there was a clear trend of differentiation between types of peach producers (TPD) that merited exploration with the first two canonical functions (FC), which explained 82% of the separation between TPD (Table 2).

The first FC (FC 1) was designated as ‘fruit conditions’, because the standardized canonical coefficients (SCC) positive for the external color of the fruit, fruit flavor, pigmentation in the skin, absence of damage and type of packaging, contrasted negatively with injuries or fruit hits and shelf life. The individual contribution of each variable was supported with the correlation between the original variables and the FC 1 (r) (Table 2).

In the second FC (FC 2) the positive SCC for fruit aroma, sugar content, harvest time and price per kilogram, contrasted with the packing size, fruit type and geographical area (Table 2), the individual contribution of each variable was supported with the correlation between the original variables and the FC 2 (r) (Table 2). Therefore, this FC was distinguished as ‘marketing attributes’.

The producers defined as entrepreneurs had controlled the part of producing a quality peach, without physiological damages, or physical injuries, but they were not worried about the shelf life of the fruit, perhaps because it was marketed in terms of hours and therefore, did not require infrastructure for the proper storage of the product. On the other hand, this group prioritized aspects of the fruit requested in the market by both the buyer and the consumer, but gave less importance to the size of packaging, type of fruit and geographic area as important marketing aspects in other fruits (Figure 1) quadrant I.

Figure 1 Dispersion of peach producers by its typology based on the two canonical functions.  

Therefore, the strategy for these producers are projects aimed at segmenting markets, defining marketing strategies and developing new agro-industrial products. The subsistence producers, as well as the business producers, gave importance to the conditions of the fruit; however, they neglected the marketing attributes, which is due to a rapid commercialization of the fruit to avoid investment in selection and packaging processes (Figure 1) quadrant II.

Therefore, the strategy for this group of producers would be projects aimed at satisfying the needs of the market through the development of infrastructure that allows them to store, select and pack the fruit, and thus add value to the fresh product focused on the search for new customers. that improve the purchase price. The location of the producers without objective suggested that they did not pay attention to any of the aspects evaluated in the survey, but also, it was perceived that they considered that these aspects were controlled and covered satisfactorily (Figure 1) quadrant III; therefore, to move this group of producers from the state of retraction in which it was found, to a sustainable one, it would be necessary to develop a strategy to strengthen technical, mercantile and administrative capacities of these UP.

In contrast, the group of producers who grow this fruit species as part of their agricultural production system, did not worry about the price aspects per kg, packing and type of fruit since this aspect had already been controlled, but it would be recommended to give more attention to the attributes of the fruit (Figure 1) quadrant IV. Then, to guide this group of producers towards a sustainable system (quadrant I), the strategy would be through projects aimed at strengthening the development of technical skills in the aspects of harvest and post-harvest of the fruit. ^{Kyriacou and Rouphael (2018)} mention that the absence of damage and the homogeneity of the fruit are determining factors of visual quality for the peach.

Conclusions

Based on the study, it was concluded that the peach producers of the state of Zacatecas were grouped into four groups: a) those producers who planted peach without objective; b) those who established peach at the backyard level; c) in producers where the peach was part of an agricultural production system; and d) peach business producers. The characterization detected that approximately 31% of the producers cultivated peach business, this explained, in part, the low competitiveness of the crop before other product systems. To encourage crop productivity, it will be necessary for public policies to be more efficient for this, decision makers will have to consider the heterogeneity between producers and the characteristics that differentiate them.

Additionally, it is important that agriculture be more competitive, therefore, exploring new forms of packaging, type of fruit, development of post-harvest infrastructure and geographic area could strengthen the commercialization of the product and adequately position the Zacatecan creole peach in the national market. Although this research represents the first focus on the characterization of peach producers based on quality attributes, their field of study has been limited to a specific geographic area and their extrapolation must be done with caution.