Billie R. DeWalt, “Appropriate Technology in Rural Mexico: Antecedents and Consequences of an Indigenous Peasant Innovation,” Technology and Culture 19, no. 1 (Jan. 1978), 32-52.

Notes

• 32 – “My research in the Valley of Temascalcingo in the central highlands of Mexico was designed to be another contribution to the study of the spread of agricultural technology. During the 1960s and early 1970s the region was the site of a massive input of technology in the form of flood control and irrigation works linked to the Lerma River. In conjnction with this improvement of the water resources of the valley, a number of socioeconomic development projects were introduced, including aspects of the ‘Green Revolution.’ One expected to find considerable variability in modernization among formerly traditional farmers: some would be using tractors, fertilizers, hybrid seeds, insecticides, and other Green Revolution methods while others would be clinging to traditional techniques.”
• “Although this was the case, fieldwork indicated that the most significant ‘modernization’ (apart from the flood control and irrigation works) in the region was not due to the introduction of Western agricultural technology. Instead it resulted from an apparently indigenous innovation (using an external idea) of a new agricultural implement for planting corn, the seed plow (sembradora).”
• 33 – “. . . the majority of the population is now mestizo (of mixed Spanish and Indian descent).”
• 36-7 – “Since over 30 percent of the total cultivation costs revolved around the seeding operation, a major effort was made to reduce this input. The traditional method of planting in Temascalcingo, as in other areas of Mesoamerica, was with the pala (digging stick). Using this method, the field is furrowed in crisscross fashion using a team of animals and plow. Planters then use the digging stick to make a hole where the furrows cross; seeds are dropped into the hole and are covered using the other end of the pala, which can be used like a shovel. This method is very labor-intensive. Informants in Temascalcingo reported that between ten and eighteen person-days were needed to plant 1 hectare of corn. I have estimated twelve, the number most frequently cited by the informants.”
• 37 – “Two alternative sowing methods were utilized by ejidatarios experimenting with ways to reduce costs. The first was known as tapa pie (covering with the foot). This system involved one person’s using a team of animals to pull a wooden plow to create a furrow. Another individual followed dropping seeds into the depression and covering them by kicking dirt back into the furrow. The second method was called a rabo and involved the use of the metal plow. A furrow again was made by one person driving an animal-drawn plow while the second individual again dropped seeds into the furrow. In this case, however, the seeds were covered by driving the plow back across the field slightly to the side of the original furrow so that dirt was thrown onto the seeds.”
• “Although both of these mehtods reduced labor costs, ejidatarios reported that both failed to deposit the seed at the proper depth. This was not a serious drawback if the spring rains came early. However, in normal years the seeds did not germinate well because they did not recieve the benefit of the moisture contained in soils at the depth that a pala normally reached. In addition, young plants that were not anchored with deep roots were not able to withstand strong winds and heavy rains. Thus, only under ideal climatological circumstances, when rains came early but were not heavy, did the two methods discussed above produce satisfactory results.”
• 38 – “Nevertheless, the idea of an animal-drawn tool that oculd deposit seeds was introduced and was very appealing. Soon after the failure of the cup-feed drill, a modification of an existing implement was made. A tube was fashioned out of the leaves (pencas) of the maguey plant and attached to a plow with the moldboard (ala) removed. Corn seeds were fed by hand directly into the tube. As the plowshare cut into the soil, the seeds would fall down the tube and be deposited. The purpose of removing the moldboard was so the soil would not be turned; instead the dirt would fall back into the furrow to cover the seed.”
• 39 – “Although several informants reported that this implement was invented in the Temascalcingo region . . . I am now skeptical of their claims. William Sanders found such a device in general use in the Teotihuacan Valley in the early 1950s. He estimated that this technique of sowing (called al tubo) was in general use by about 1950. The characteristics of the implements in the two regions are so similar that it now seems probably that the idea reached the ‘inventors’ in Temascalcingo through diffusion.”
• 40 – “Approximately eight to ten years after the first use (ca. 1957) of these implements in the region, some farmers asked that local blacksmith to try to improve the sembradora. Although he was initially reluctant, contined prodding over a two-year period finally convinced the blacksmith to investigate the possibility of improving this tools. Since he built and repaired many of the other tools used by ejidatarios, he was well aware of the modifications that would be needed to make the sembradora more useful. The following improvements of the seeder plow were desirable: (a) it had to penetrate deeply into the soil; (b) it had to deposit the seed at that level; © it had to allow the soil to fall back to cover the seed; and (d) a tube had to be attached firmly so that it would be less susceptible to being pushed out of shape.”
• 41-42 – “However, the real takeoff point came after 1967 when the improved version began to be manufactured by the Temascalcingo blacksmith. He sold the first two sembradoras in that year for 160 pesos each. By 1973 his total sales had reached about 200 annually, and the selling price ranged from 200 to 250 pesos ($20). He reported that buyers came from as far away as 50 miles to buy a seeder plow from him. In addition, other blacksmiths in Temascalcingo and nearby communities also began to manufacture and market sembradoras.”
• 42 – “In spite of his advantages, he is still not able to manufacture enough of the plows to meet the demand. He reported that he could sell many more if he could make them. Although he would like to buy a machine to stamp out the parts, this investment (about 100,000 pesos) is beyond his resources. His greatest fear is that one of the large plow manufacturers in Monterrey will begin producing sembradoras in quantity and at a lower price.”
• “About half of the informants reported that they began to use the plow and tube between 1957 and 1967. By 1973 the other half had also adopted the use of the sembradora. Of the 146 people with land rights in the ejido, only one father and his son did not use this implement in 1973. These two men had managed to consolidate their holdings in one area of the ejido by trading plots with others. They rented a tractor to plow and seed their land.”
• [SECTION: THE ‘MODERN’ ALTERNATIVE: THE TRACTOR]
• 42-3 – “Development agents in the valley consistently have advocated mechanization of agriculture. There have been a number of different programs in the past two decades to promote the use of tractors. Some success toward this goal had been achieved; in 1973, 34 percent of the ejidatarios in Puerto de las Piedras did rent tractors to plow their lands. However, as previously mentioned, only one individual and his son used a tractor for planting the corn. It is instructive to explore why the sembradora is used instead of the tractor.”
• 43 – “Second, farmers question whether the tractor does an adequate job. Many ejidatarios reported that during 1970, when tractors did the planting as part of an integrated, comprehensive program to improve the corn crop, there were a number of areas in which the mechanized equipment apparently malfunctioned. These fields had to be partially reseeded by hand.”
• “With the sembradora, the farmers feel that they are in much better control of the operation. They are able to tell almost immediately if the tube becomes plugged. They are also able to alter the depth at which the seed is deposited by varying the pressure exerted on the plow handle. This is especially important when there are significant microdifferenes in soil composition within small areas.”
  • Emphasis on adaptability to locality, even microlocality, an impossibility for a universalizing machine both creating and requiring a homogenous landscape
• 44 – “Development agents recognize this last problem and have advocated the formation of cooperatives so blocks of land can be planted communally. In theory, this is a reasonable solution since economies of scale should result. However, the ejidatarios have already had several bad experiences with cooperatives. Each time there have been problems due to fraud, deceit, mismanagement, unequal work loads, and all the other difficulties that seem to plague cooperatives.”
• [SECTION: SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE SEMBRADORA]
• “This change in the method of sowing corn has had a significant impact on the Temascalcingo region in a variety of ways. The sembradora has reduced the costs of operation and has enabled many ejidatarios to return to cultivation of their own lands. This innovation also has affected the nonlanded population, a sector where the impact has not been nearly so positive.”
• 45 – “This reduction in the costs of corn cultivation means that more people are able to cultivate their own land. In contrast to the situation before 1957 when less than 10 percent of the ejidatarios were cultivating their own land, by 1973 the situation had almost been reversed.”
• “On the other hand, the sembradora has not had such positive consequences for those individuals without land rights. Many of these people depended on the cash and/or corn earned for employment during the planting and harvest seasons when demand for labor was high. The sembradora has almost completely eliminated the need for day laborers during the planting season.”
• 46 – [SECTION: THE SEMBRADORA – INDEPENDENT INVENTION AND APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY]
• 50 – “The seeder plow was analyzed as an example of intermediate technology. In contrast to the tractor, the sembradora is inexpensive, independent of foreign materials and technical abilities, capable of being produced by local labor-intensive methods, and dependent on renewable resources for its power. Finally, the implement is more appropriate for the type of land tenure currently prevalent in the Valley of Temascalcingo and other areas of Mexico.”
• 50-51 – “Irrespective of the future of this particular implement, the general lesson should not be ignored. Transplanting Western technology to a developing country may not be the best, and certainly is not the only, road to modernization. A technology that is suited to the particular needs and conditions of these nations must be developed.”
• 51 – “A third area that is extremely important is in the evaluation of various forms of technology. The decision about whether a tool or machine is really appropriate is very complex. Not only must we know whether the technology is efficient, but we should also be able to anticipate the changes in social organization that will occur, how it will affect social stratification, possible ecological impacts, and a variety of other important potential social, cultural and ecological effects.”