Adoption of innovations by producers

To document the degree of adoption of innovations by the producers, 30 interviews were applied at the end (after) of the training carried out in the corn-school plot and the information was captured in Excel (2016). Each innovation implemented was assigned a value of 0.5= to simple innovations; 1= moderately elaborated innovations and 1.5= very elaborate and complex innovations for the producer. According to the methodology described by ^{Merino (2018)}.

Where: K_n= percentage constant of innovation domain indicator. ∑lnx = number of technological innovations that occurred in the ECA sessions. y= value of each innovation that contributes to the total mastery of technology; Z= value of the indicators of mastery of agricultural technology. Once the contribution of each innovation and the weighting value were defined, the maximum score for each component was obtained to obtain 100% adoption (Table 2).

Statistical analysis was performed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon test. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v. 19.0 in Spanish. To test the null hypothesis H_o: it was suggested that the adoption of technological innovations by the producer-promoters does not differ after having received the training and performance courses in corn. The hypothesis H₁: there are statistically significant differences regarding the adoption of technological innovations by the producer-promoters after having received the training and performance courses in corn.

Diagnosis of the current situation of the producer group

It was determined that 100% of the respondents are male, 50% of the producers own common land and the rest of the community with an average of 3.2 ha per producer, 93.3% of the producers are dedicated to agriculture, 6.6% to livestock and they have complementary activities such as day laborers, plumbers and bakers.

100% of the agricultural producers grow corn from which 30% is associated and 70% is monoculture; 60% use creole corn varieties and 40% use improved varieties they receive from productive programs, no producer selects his seed for the next cycle and only 10% practices crop rotation with sesame seeds. For planting corn, 27% use the tractor for the fallow and 77% the yoke, 100% use the yoke to furrow the land; 80% of producers apply chemical fertilizer, 30% use herbicides and control pests.

The production cost of one hectare is $9 457.00. On average they obtain a yield of 0.9 t ha^-1 of corn grain and a B/C ratio of 0.43, which indicates that they have economic losses due to water stress in the area. The production volume was 2.1 t of corn per family per year in 2.3 ha, of which they consume 1.52 t per family and the rest they use for sale; however, families that only plant one hectare need to acquire 0.62 t per year. Therefore, they sell their animals, fish in the river, borrow, workday laborers, hunt wild animals and get support from social programs.

Implementation of the corn school plot under the field school model

With the implementation of the seven technological innovations in the school plot, 2 036 t ha^-1 was obtained, corresponding to 126% increase in corn grain yield in two years of evaluation with respect to the baseline survey (Table 3). The result obtained was reflected by the timely monitoring of the activities by the producer-promoter and the support of the technician who lived in the community as part of the technology transfer process of the field school method.

^{Damian et al. (2016)} with the producer-innovative model (MPI) found that corn producers with low, medium and high productive potential obtain yields of 500 and 2 200 kg ha^-1 and an average of 1 700 kg ha^-1 with the implementation of ten innovations. Results similar to that obtained in the present investigation with a group of corn producers in marginalized areas and in situations of extreme poverty.

Degree of adoption of innovations by producers

The Wilcoxon test indicated that all the technological components implemented in corn cultivation had statistically significant differences (p< 0.01) in the knowledge and adoption of technological innovations by the producer-promoters before and after receiving the training and accompaniment courses technician under the field schools model (Table 4). ^{Orozco et al. (2011)} observed significant increases in the level of knowledge of the producers at the end of the training with the ECA regarding the initial evaluation of knowledge on the different training topics.

Figure 1 shows an increase in knowledge and use of technological innovations before and after the training process, where the creole corn selection component had 47% adoption by producers, meanwhile ^{Barros (2017)}, points out that work must continue; promotion, valuation, use, exchange and conservation of native or creole seeds.

Figure 1 Use of technological innovations and degrees of adoption with corn producers in Tlalcozotitlan, Copalillo, Guerrero. 

^{Orozco et al. (2011)} found a level of technological knowledge of 7.29% in the producers before the training and 46.64% at the end of the training of field schools, show that the increase in the level of technological knowledge does not increase the food availability of corn. ^{Orozco et al. (2009)} point out that the peasants with greater participation in the Field School (EC) sessions had greater knowledge and technological adoption compared to those who were not trained.

^{Mendola (2007)} found that the adoption of agricultural technology contributes to the welfare and overcoming of poverty in rural producers. 39% adoption was achieved in the components organic fertilizers, plant extracts and mineral broths, this favored because the majority of inputs for its elaboration is in the community and the cost for its preparation is minimal and family labor is used. ^{López y Lozano (2016)} found that the application of organic bocashi fertilizer in the soil significantly increases their fertility, improving organic matter by 2.92%, nitrogen 352 ppm, phosphorus 114.8 ppm and potassium 202.55 ppm, with the application of 40 kg of fertilizer in one 3 m² surface.

37% knowledge and adoption of the 236P variety (pepitilla), sex pheromones and trichogramma, ^{Kuniyoshi et al. (2003)} when using pheromones to control and monitor Spodoptera frngiperda, they found fewer cobs with worm damage in pheromone plots, resulting in a marginal rate of 83% with respect to not using pheromones. There was only 36% adoption in fractional chemical fertilization, this was mainly due to the fact that this component is already delivered to the producers through the fertilizer program that the state government has.

Conclusions

The seed inoculation component with mycorrhizae and metarhizium was less adopted by the producers with only 31%, this component is little known and commercial and its application requires certain care by the producer. The training and dissemination of technological innovations under the field schools model has influenced the increase in corn yield per unit area. The degree of adoption of technologies was good, for the interest of the producers in participating in the training sessions and the timely follow-up of the technician to the producer-promoters.