CURRENT POTENTIAL PRODUCTION OF IRRIGATED MAIZE (Zea mays L.) IN SOUTHEASTERN MEXICO IN THE FALL-WINTER SEASON: II. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF FOUR TECHNOLOGICAL FORMULAS

Abstract

Over two million farmland hectares remain idle during the Fall-Winter “dry” season in Southeastern Mexico every year, where irrigation infrastructure is scarce. The growing national deficit in food production might change public policies concerning investment on irrigation projects in the near future. Twenty-six 3 to 5 ha fields of irrigated maize as a second crop were established in the Fall-Winter season in six southeastern states. Four maize technological formulae (FTM), were evaluated: (1) H-INIFAP, with hybrids H-512, H513 and H-515; (2) VPL-INIFAP, included open pollinated varieties VS-535, VS-536, V-528 and V-532; (3) H-ECS included 21 hybrids of the Ceres, Asgrow, Cargill, Dekalb and Pioneer seed companies; and (4) FTM-Global comprehended the sum of the three previously defined FTM. Agronomic and irrigation practices followed INIFAP’s locally defined technology. The economic performance is analyzed in the present publication. Fixed production costs per metric ton were composed of land rent and costs of tillage, seeding operation, agrochemicals, irrigation, and labor; financial costs of capital were equal to those of Government Treasury bonds plus two percentage points; insurance cost was equal to 9 % of working capital. Seed and harvest expenditures were considered as variable costs. Harvest costs were considered for both manual and mechanized operations. For manual harvest, production costs per metric ton and net profit were respectively equal to $1248 and $ 1303 (pesos of 1997) for FTM-Global (N=186 yield observations); $1023 and $2512, for H-INIFAP (N=36); $1320 and $1009, for H-ECS (N=107); and $1252 and $1063, for VPL-INIFAP (N=43). For an assumed $ 1300 price per metric ton of grain plus a $540/ha government subsidy, the “net gain profile” for FTM-Global was as follows: 48 % of the observations had either a loss or a poor profit, while 52 % had profits that ranked from attractive to very high. Net profit profiles for other FTM’s were 23 % to 77 % for HINIFAP; 57 % to 43 % for H-ECS; and 54 % to 46 % for VPL-INIFAP. Net profit profiles for mechanized harvest were 14 % to 86 % for HINIFAP; 46 % to 54 % for H-ECS; 35 % to 65 % for VPL-INIFAP; and 38 % to 62 % for FTM-Global. When compared with other technological formulas, H-INIFAP has a superior economic performance.