Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) ISSN: 2616-4477 (Versión electrónica) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21704/pja.v3i3.1342 http://revistas.lamolina.edu.pe/index.php/jpagronomy/index © The authors. Published by Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Received for publication: 13 October 2019 Accepted for publication: 11 November 2019 Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru Caracterización de fundos productores de palto y espárrago en la Irrigación Chavimochic, en la Libertad, Perú Apaza, W.(1)*; Quiroz, P.(2); Julca-Otiniano, A.(3) *Corresponding author: wapaza@lamolina.edu.pe Abstract The Chavimochic irrigation project is one of the leading projects in Peru. In this project, irrigation water is derived from the Santa river to irrigate the valleys of Chao, Viru, and Moche, including desert zones between valleys. In this study, we aimed to characterise the Hass avocado and asparagus farms in desert areas of the Chavimochic irrigation project. Social, economic and environmental information was collected through structured surveys of 12 asparagus and 17 avocado farms. Four groups of asparagus farms and three groups of avocado farms were identified based on principal component and cluster analyses. Profitability of the avocado crop was higher than that of the asparagus crop, and irrigation caused more significant variability in the crop yield of avocado than that of asparagus. From the social perspective, the income of farm personnel was related to the level of education, and female personnel showed more participation in the Chavimochic irrigation project than in other agroecosystems of Peru. Keywords: Avocado, asparagus, characterisation, farms, Chavimochic irrigation Resumen La Irrigación de Chavimochic es uno de los proyectos más importantes realizados en el Perú. Esta irrigación usa el agua derivada del rio Santa para irrigar los valles de Chao, Virú y Moche. Incorporando las zonas de desierto entre valles. El presente trabajo tuvo como objetivos caracterizar los fundos productores de palto Hass y espárrago en las zonas de desierto de la Irrigación de Chavimochic. Información social, económica y ambiental fue recolectada mediante encuestas estructuradas realizadas a los 12 fundos de espárrago y 17 fundos de palto. Mediante la técnica de análisis de componentes principales y de agrupamientos de conglomerados se identificó 4 grupos de fundos de espárrago y tres grupos de fundos de palto. La rentabilidad del cultivo de palto es mayor que la de cultivo de espárrago, el uso del recurso hídrico por los fundos tiene mayor variabilidad en el cultivo de palto que el espárrago. En la parte social el nivel de ingresos del personal de los fundos tiene relación con el grado de instrucción, la participación del género femenino es mayor que en otros agroecosistemas del Perú. Palabras Claves: Palto, Espárrago, Caracterización, fundos, Irrigación Chavimochic 1 Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM). PhD Student of Sustainable Agriculture. Lima, Perú. 2 Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM). Faculty of Agronomy. Lima, Perú. 3 Universidad Nacional Agraria. La Molina (UNALM). Grupo de Investigación Agricultura y Desarrollo Sustentable en el Trópico Peruano. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Fitotecnia. Lima, Perú. Introduction The Chavimochic irrigation project consists of the derivation of water from the Santa river for irrigating the valleys of Chao, Virú, Moche, and Chicama, including the desert zones between each valley. This irrigation has made possible to incorporate desert areas into agriculture. In this area, intensive agriculture has been developed under pressurised irrigation with agro-export crops. Crops grown in this area include avocado (8,402 ha), asparagus (5,528 ha), sugarcane (3,183 ha), blueberries (3,270 ha), and others, adding up to a total area of 21,297 ha (Junta de riego presurizado de Chao, Virú y Moche, 2016). Chavimochic is one of the leading centres of agro- exports of Peru and generates substantial incomes for the development of La Libertad and the country in general. Recently, there has been a major change in the crop cultivation scheme in Chavimochic. Ten years ago, the main crop was asparagus (two types: white and green) reaching an area of 11,000 ha. Most of this area has subsequently been replaced by avocado, which is now the Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru September - December 2019 92 most important crop, with an area of 8,400 ha. Thus, with the increase in avocado cultivation area, the asparagus cultivation area is decreasing, leading to the decline of yield and profitability. Currently, avocado and asparagus are the most important crops in Chavimochic; therefore, the impact of Chavimochic on the agroecosystem is significant. Multivariate statistical analysis is used in the typification of producer farms. This exploratory analysis makes it possible to classify, summarise and order all of the variables measured. These variables allow the farms with common characteristics to be grouped into sets (Escobar & Berdegué, 1990; Ortuño & Coronel de Renolfi, 2005). The objective of this study was to characterise avocado and asparagus farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru. Materials and methods This research was carried out in the Chavimochic irrigation project located in La Libertad along the northwestern coast of Peru. Avocado and asparagus farms are located in the desert areas in this region. Crops are produced using a pressurised irrigation system, with the intention of agro- export. All farms have a social name and are grouped in the Pressurised Irrigation Board of Chao, Virú and Moche. This Irrigation Board administers and charges the consumption of irrigation water in the Chavimochic irrigation project. The farms have a high technological production level. This research was carried out in all avocado (17) and asparagus farms (12) of the Chavimochic irrigation project. To characterise the avocado and asparagus farms, data were collected on several by handing out structured surveys to managers or heads of avocado and asparagus farms and to the workers on these farms. Soil samples were also collected to analyse soil microbiota. Additionally, data were collected on water consumption and area of the Pressurised Irrigation Board of Chao, Virú and Moche via in-situ visits. Structured surveys Visits were made to all producer farms, and structured surveys were carried out at different levels: managers or heads of farms and workers on each farm. Managers or heads of farms are the people who make the technical and administrative management decisions for the avocado and asparagus crops. Managers of all 17 avocado farms and 12 asparagus farms were included in the survey. Additionally, 10 workers were randomly selected from each farm, totalling 170 surveys on avocado farms and 120 surveys on asparagus farms. All surveys focused on social, economic and environmental variables. Soil samples Soil samples were taken from all avocado and asparagus production fields. A representative plot was selected at each farm, and 20 sub-samples were collected from each plot. Each sample was composed of 2 kg of soil. A total of 29 samples (17 avocado and 12 asparagus) were processed. All samples were collected from the root zone and used to analyse soil characteristics. Soil characterisation Samples were sent to the soil laboratory of the Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, and soil organic matter content, acidity, electrical conductivity, N, P2O5, and K2O contents and cation exchange capacity were quantified. Analysis of fungal flora Fungal flora in soil samples were analysed in the laboratory of the Clínica de Diagnosis de Fitopatología. Six serial dilutions of soil samples were prepared using sterile water in test tubes and streaked in Petri dishes containing potato dextrose agar medium with oxytetracycline, as described previously (French & Torres, 1980). The Petri dishes were incubated at 25°C for 7 days, and the growing fungi were quantified and identified. The identification of fungi was performed according to the keys of Barnett and Hunter (1998), which differentiates among fungal genera based on morphological features. To perform diversity analysis, the number of identified species per gram of soil was determined. In-situ visits In-situ visits were made to all avocado and asparagus farms to validate the data generated in the surveys and to collect additional information on crop management practices from the farm managers or production chiefs. The data collected during the in-situ visits included vegetable crop coverage and diversity per farm, conservation zone percentage in the farms, and incidence of pests per crop and farm. Data analysis Data collected from the surveys (total of 65 variables per avocado and asparagus field), soil sample analysis, in-situ visits, and primary sources of the Pressurised Irrigation Board were analysed by multivariate analysis based on principal component and cluster analyses. Variables with less than 30% variation coefficient were discarded, as these were not discriminatory, according to Escobar and Berdegué (1990). The results of cluster analysis were displayed in a dendrogram (Valerio et al., 2004; Escobar & Berdegué, 1990). Distance between the farms was expressed as Euclidean distance squared and using the Ward method, the most recommended combination for perennial fruit trees (Miranda & Carranza, 2013). Results and discussion Characterisation of asparagus and avocado production farms Farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project investigated in Apaza, W.; Quiroz, P.; Julca-Otiniano, A. Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) 93 this study are listed in Table 1. Asparagus was cultivated over an area of 3,688.7 ha in 12 farms, while avocado was cultivated on an area of 8,515.2 ha in 17 farms. All farms were irrigated via drip irrigation. All avocados and asparagus produced on these farms are exported. Thus, intensive farming systems are employed with high technological level. Table 1. Production areas of asparagus and avocado fields of the Chavimochic irrigation project in December 2017. Characterisation of asparagus farms Principal component analysis separated the 29 farms into four groups (Figure 1). The results of cluster analysis (Ward-Euclidian distance) also revealed the same grouping of farms (Figure 2). The first group comprised farms not linked to the market (MILAG, SCARLOR, IANSAC, UPAO, and MAUEL), i.e. companies that do not directly export their products but sell it to other companies that export asparagus. The companies that constitute this group showed lower yield and usually smaller area of cultivation than companies in other groups. The second group comprised farms that produce asparagus both for canning and fresh export (ALIMA, GREEN, TALSA and DANPER). These companies process their produce and export it directly to different markets. These companies also grow other crops in addition to asparagus, such as avocado and blueberry, and have different quality certifications and good agronomic practices. The third group comprised companies of medium size (YUGOS and MORAV). These companies produce fresh green asparagus, which is used for processing and export. These companies also produce white asparagus. The fourth group comprised a large canning company (SAVSA), with diverse crops, various certifications and quality assurance. SAVSA is the largest cannery in the Chavimochic irrigation project and is currently diversifying its production with the avocado crop. Figure 3 shows the relationship between variables used for principal component analysis. The variables were as follows: red label pesticides (pestroj), number of applications (nroapplica), exportable, organic matter (MO), microorganisms (microorg), another crops (otroscul), processing (procesa), biodiversity (biodiver), incomes (ingresos), yield (rto), certifications (certificaciones), area (area) and Blanco (blanco). The analysis suggests that companies with the highest asparagus production area, most considerable number of certifications, yields, Asparagus farm areas Avocado farm areas Farm code White asparagus (ha) Green asparagus (ha) Farm code Avocado (ha) SCARLOS 57.00 0.00 ALPAM 410.93 ALIMA 553.41 0.00 BEGGIE 1120.34 YUGOSL 0.00 172.00 SIMON 567.94 DANPE 399.20 598.80 ARENA 68.71 MAUEL 50.00 50.15 AGRON 14.00 MILAG 35.00 0.00 LIMA 150.00 GREEN 884.71 0.00 ARATO 604.93 INSAC 55.08 0.00 YUGOS 360 MORAV 0.00 66.00 AVOP 512.76 TALSA 480.00 0.00 CAMPO 2523.61 SAVSA 1003.47 0.00 DESHI 149.20 UPAO 170.91 0.00 GREEN 216.91 HASS 331.76 INVER 18 NORTE 56.20 TALSA 60 SAVSA 1350 12 farms 3688.78 886.95 17 farms 8515.29 Source: Junta de Riego presurizado de Chao, Virú y Moche. Figure 1. Biplot graph of the main components of the asparagus fields of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Figure 2. Dendrogram showing the similarity among asparagus producing farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru September - December 2019 94 incomes, and highest biodiversity are those that apply the least number of applications and do not make use of highly toxic pesticides. It is important to note that a number of the smaller companies that do not process their production use highly toxic pesticides (red label) because they do not have certifications that limit the use of these products. Farms with extensive areas are highly likely to leave areas for increased biodiversity. Characterisation of avocado farms Principal component analysis of 17 avocado farms is shown in Figure 4. In general, the analysis of the relation between the variables was not as defined as in the case of asparagus; therefore, component 1 explained 32.1% of the variability, and component 2 explained only 16.9% of the variability, i.e. between the two reaches 43.7%. The results of cluster analysis of these 17 avocado farms are shown in Figure 5. The grouping of avocado farms showed higher dispersion than asparagus farms, indicating greater variability in each of the components evaluated in the estates than in asparagus. Three large groups were differentiated using the two methods. Group 1 comprised SIMON, AGRON and ALP farms, which sell their fruit to third parties, do not have many quality certifications, and apply high levels of pesticides, especially those with red labels. The second group comprised NORTE, TALSA, INVER, YOGOS. DESH, and AREN farms with medium-sized areas that sell their produce to third parties, do not have a processing plant, and require third party service. The third group comprised large companies, such as HASS, ARATO, BEGGIE, AVOP, CAMPO and SAVSA, with high fruit processing capacity that export their produce directly to different markets and have the highest number of quality certifications. Figure 6 shows the quantity of red label pesticide applications plotted against the number of certifications, biodiversity and farm area. The higher the area of the avocado plantations, the smaller the use of red label Figure 3. Variables analysed by principal component analysis of the asparagus farms. Figure 4. Biplot graph of the main components of the avocado plantation of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Figure 5. Dendrogram showing the similarity among avocado plantations of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Figure 6. Variables analysed by main principal component analysis of the avocado plantations. Apaza, W.; Quiroz, P.; Julca-Otiniano, A. Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) 95 more than 25 years in asparagus cultivation in that area, unlike avocado, whose intensive cultivation dates back to only 12 years. Over time, the water consumption of the avocado crop has decreased. In both crops, all farms use at least one method for calculating the irrigation requirement, with the largest farms using a greater number of methods for calculating the irrigation requirements. In the Chavimochic irrigation project, the Pressurised Irrigation Board of Chao, Virú and Moche manages the pesticides. Thus, large farms have less environmental impact, as their certifications are very restrictive in the use of red label pesticides (Li, 2018; Ambrus & Yang, 2015). Analysis of the dimensions of characterisation Environmental dimension Tables 2 and 3 show the environmental indicators for the asparagus and avocado farms. One of the critical indicators for arid agroecosystems, as in the case of the Chavimochic irrigation project, is the use of water resources. Asparagus requires an average of 9,433.3 m3 of water per hectare per year, while avocado crop requires 16,941.2 m3 water. The average water requirement of asparagus in Chavimochic is generally lower than that reported previously by other authors (Salazar, 2012; Muñoz, 2016) in other agroecosystems such as Ica, where the expenditure reaches 15,000 m3/year. In the region of Ica, evapotranspiration is low, and the area of asparagus is exclusively used for fresh green production, which has higher water requirement than white asparagus, which is mostly produced in Chavimochic. Figure 7 shows the water requirement of avocado and asparagus farms. The volume of water required for avocado cultivation per hectare per year showed greater variability between farms [standard deviation (SD) of 2,236.3] compared with asparagus whose variability was lower (SD of 290 for green asparagus and 568.9 for white asparagus). This is because the farmers who manage asparagus cultivation have a significant experience of Table 2. Environmental indicators at asparagus farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in December 2017. Farm code Soil life conservation Water resource use Diversity management Contamination Plant cover (%) Organic matter use (tm/ ha) Water use (m3/ ha/ año) Irrigation calculation methods (number) Number soil fungi species 1 Plant diversity 2 Conser- vation areas 3 Number of pesticide applica- tions Number of red label pesticides Biological control method uses (N° of applications) Number of certifica- tions SCARLOS 0 0 8000 2 1 0 2 26 5 0 1 ALIMA 25 0 9000 3 3 0 2 19 4 1 2 YUGOSL 0 25 10400 2 4 0 1 18 4 0 3 DANPE 25 0 11000 4 3 0 2 17 3 2 6 MAUEL 0 0 10400 3 2 0 0 25 5 0 1 MILAG 0 10 8400 2 2 0 0 19 6 0 1 GREEN 25 0 8700 3 1 0 1 17 3 1 4 INSAC 0 0 9000 2 3 0 0 18 6 0 2 MORAV 0 15 10900 2 3 0 1 15 4 1 2 TALSA 25 30 9000 3 4 0 2 22 3 2 6 SAVSA 0 10 10000 4 3 0 2 23 3 1 6 UPAO 25 0 8400 3 1 0 1 29 6 1 1 Average 10.4 7.5 9433.3 2.8 2.5 0.0 1.2 20.7 4.3 0.8 2.9 Notes 1Soil fungi diversity scale: 0, less than 2 species; 1, 2–4 species; 2, 5–7 species; 3, 8–10species; 4, more than 10 species. 2Plant cover scale: 0, monoculture; 1, low; 2, medium; 3, high; 4, total. 3Farm areas for conservation scale: 0, none; 1, 0.1–0.5% of the total farm area; 2, 0.51–1%, 3, 1.1–2.5%; 4, more than 2.5%. Figure 7. Water consumption (m3 ha−1 year−1) in avocado and asparagus farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in December 2017. Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru September - December 2019 96 distribution and cost of water used, based on the volume (m3) of water used. The tariff is 0.114 Peruvian nuevos soles per m3, if the water expense is between 10,000 and 13,000 m3; and 0.218 Peruvian nuevos soles per m3, if the water expense is higher than 13,000 m3. Therefore, if an avocado plantation spends 16,000 m3 ha−1 year−1, the cost is S/.3488 Peruvian nuevos soles. Thus, companies try to use the water resource as efficiently as possible. The use of water resources is one of the main factors affecting the sustainability of arid agroecosystems. Regarding the production diversity, asparagus is grown in a monoculture system, which does not allow other plant species to prosper. Cultivation of white asparagus involves tasks such as hilling and deshelling, which prevent the development of other plant species. In the case of avocado, several companies have managed to place crops such as legumes (beans) or Gramineae (barley) in the root development zone because the avocado crop requires no soil removal below the top of the plant. The use of associated crops is very low compared with other agroecosystems such as in the mountains (Pinedo, Gómez & Julca, 2018) and jungle (Tuesta, Julca, Borja, Rodríguez, & Santistevan, 2014), where the association with other crops is widespread because the production system is more familiar and extensive, whereas the avocado and asparagus farms are intensive systems that do not allow this type of management. The relationship between yield and water consumption (m3 ha−1 year−1) in the avocado crop was tested via regression analysis, and the results were non-significant, implying that higher water consumption does not equate to a higher yield. There are other factors, besides water, that influence the yield of avocado (Teliz, 2006). The number of fungal species was higher in asparagus farms than in avocado farms. However, this indicator is quite relative, as the high biomass that has the asparagus in the soil allows the proliferation of fungi that develop on the crown (Delgado de la Flor, Montauban, & Hurtado, 1987), whereas in avocado, the highest biomass of the crop is in the aerial part. The application of pesticides was more frequent in the asparagus crop (average 20.7 times) than in the avocado crop (12.8 applications). One of the major insect pests in the farms is Prodiplodis longifilia, which affects not only the yield of asparagus because of its effect on shoots but also the quality of green asparagus (Castillo, Table 3. Environmental indicators of avocado farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in December 2017. Farm code Soil life conservation Water resource use Diversity management Contamination Plant cover (%) Organic matter use (tm/ ha) Water use (m3/ ha/año) Irrigation calculation methods (number) Number of soil fungi species1 Plant diver- sity 2 Conser- vation areas3 Number of pesticide applications Number of red label pesticides Biological control method uses (N° of applica- tions) Number of certifica- tions ALPAM 25 0 18000 1 1 1 1 15 5 2 2 BEGGIE 25 0 14500 4 1 2 2 14 2 4 7 SIMON 5 0 18000 1 0 0 0 13 5 0 2 ARENA 25 0 15000 3 1 1 0 9 4 2 2 AGRON 7 0 18200 3 1 1 1 15 6 2 1 LIMA 35 0 16000 2 1 0 2 13 4 2 3 ARATO 35 5 16500 4 1 1 2 15 2 4 7 YUGOS 7 15 15200 2 2 2 1 12 3 2 2 AVOP 35 15 17000 3 2 3 4 14 2 4 5 CAMPO 25 0 16500 3 1 3 3 13 1 4 8 DESHI 0 10 14500 2 1 1 2 13 4 2 2 GREEN 10 0 20000 3 2 1 1 13 3 2 2 HASS 35 0 20000 2 1 2 3 10 3 3 4 INVER 5 15 15200 3 1 1 0 13 5 2 2 NORTE 5 0 15000 2 2 1 1 14 6 3 1 TALSA 40 0 16000 3 1 2 2 10 4 4 2 SAVSA 5 0 22400 3 1 2 2 12 2 3 7 Average 19.1 3.5 16941.2 2.6 1.2 1.4 1.6 12.8 3.6 2.6 3.5 Notes 1Soil fungi diversity scale: 0, less than 2 species; 1, 2–4 species; 2, 5–7 species; 3, 8–10 species; 4, more than 10 species. 2Plant cover scale: 0, monoculture; 1, low; 2, medium; 3, high; 4, total. 3Farm areas for conservation scale: 0, none; 1, 0.1–0.5% of the total farm area; 2, 0.51–1%, 3, 1.1–2.5%; 4, more than 2.5%. Apaza, W.; Quiroz, P.; Julca-Otiniano, A. Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) 97 2006). The use of red label pesticides is higher in the cultivation of asparagus than in avocado, and Methomyl is the most highly used red label pesticide. Figure 8 shows the results of the assessment of different diseases encountered during the cultivation of asparagus and avocado. In asparagus cultivation, Prodiplosis was the biggest problem, followed by foliar spot caused by Stemphylium vesicarium and Lepidoptera because these disease problems can directly affect the commercial product as well as have a high impact on the harvest. Therefore, these are the two main phytosanitary problems accounting for most of the pesticide applications, consistent with Castillo (2019) and Delgado (2016). In the avocado crop, scales is the most important disease that needs to be controlled. Although this pest does not affect avocado yield, it limits access to markets in United States and China, where tolerance levels are very low (SENASA, 2014). Mites are the second most crucial pest for avocado producers that account for most of the pesticide application. These two pests are widespread in arid agroecosystems lacking rainfall, which facilitates their development. All avocado and asparagus production farms have at least one certification. Larger farms have more certifications because of their connection with the market and the demand of their buyers. Many of the certifications require less use of pesticides, especially red label pesticides (Rain forest, Tesco and Fair for Life). In all cases, the high requirement of food safety implies that no residues are permitted in the destination markets to comply with the indications on labels, and a maximum limit of residues is compulsory for the farms of both crops. Regression analysis of the percentage of red label pesticides and number of certifications of each farm revealed a significant relationship in avocado farms (r = 0.754). However, in both crops, an inverse relationship was detected between the number of certifications and use of red label pesticides (Figure 9). Figure 8. Main sanitary problems of the asparagus and avocado fields in 2017. Figure 9. Relationship between the percentage of red label pesticides and number of certifications used in asparagus and avocado farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru September - December 2019 98 Sarandón and Flores (2014) reported that modern agriculture is based on the intensive use of pesticides, resulting in numerous problems of contamination and insecticide resistance in pests. Farm certifications and market restrictions with respect to the use of certain pesticides and their maximum residue limits exert pressure on the use of pesticides by the avocado and asparagus farms. Greater care is taken in avocado than in asparagus because the avocado fruit is directly exposed to pesticides, and the high fat content of avocadoes retains lipophilic pesticides (Gilbert, García, & Molina, 2009). Economic dimension analysis Tables 4 and 5 show the economic indicators of the asparagus farms. Variation was observed in the yield of asparagus because the farms had different ages of asparagus and different technical management, and several farms were dedicated to green and white asparagus. The cost of cultivation also varied between farms because some farms produce fresh white asparagus, which increases their cost, Table 4. Economic indicators of asparagus farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in December 2017. Farm code Yield (kg/ ha/year) Cost (USD/ ha/year) Gross income (USD/ha/year) Cost per kg Net income (USD/ha/ año) Export quality (%) Other crops1 Pest incidence (%) SCARLOS 7500 5250 8325 0.70 3075 76 0 18 ALIMA 8200 6150 13120 0.75 6970 79 1 15 YUGOSL 9000 7830 12150 0.87 4320 76 1 22 DANPE 13200 8400 12880 0.64 4480 80 3 14 MAUEL 11200 4410 5175 0.39 765 84 0 14 MILAG 7800 4960 6882 0.64 1922 80 0 18 GREEN 4500 6650 12825 1.48 6175 79 2 14 INSAC 6200 5780 7480 0.93 1700 80 1 13 MORAV 9500 8500 13500 0.89 5000 75 2 22 TALSA 7500 8250 15400 1.10 7150 80 2 21 SAVSA 10000 7350 11550 0.74 4200 82 1 20 UPAO 11000 5823 7603.5 0.53 1781 83 0 23 Average 8800.0 6612.7 10574.2 0.75 3961.5 79.5 1.1 17.8 Note 1Only asparagus (0), other crop (1), two crops (2), three crops (3). Table 5. Economic indicators of the avocado farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in December 2017. Farm code Yield (kg/ ha/year) Cost (USD/ha/ year) Gross income (USD/ha/ year) Cost per kg Net income (USD/ha/ año) Export quality (%) Other crops1 Pest incidence (%) ALPAM 14000 4000 24750 0.29 20750 95 0 9 BEGGIE 16700 6000 27720 0.36 21720 96 1 5 SIMON 10000 6000 16500 0.60 10500 88 1 5 ARENA 19500 7200 32175 0.37 24975 96 0 3 AGRON 12500 6000 20625 0.48 14625 85 1 7 LIMA 13300 7000 21945 0.53 14945 91 0 8 ARATO 16200 6000 26730 0.37 20730 98 1 10 YUGOS 15500 6500 24750 0.42 18250 90 0 10 AVOP 15000 6100 24750 0.41 18650 92 1 8 CAMPO 17000 6000 28050 0.35 22050 98 1 5 DESHI 16500 7000 27225 0.42 20225 93 0 10 GREEN 18000 5000 29700 0.28 24700 88 1 5 HASS 15000 7500 24750 0.50 17250 94 1 8 INVER 16000 6500 26400 0.41 19900 90 0 8 NORTE 14000 6500 23100 0.46 16600 94 0 7 TALSA 15200 6200 23430 0.41 17230 90 0 10 SAVSA 16500 7200 27225 0.44 20025 92 0 8 Average 15347.1 6276.5 25283.8 0.41 19007 92.4 0.5 7.4 Note 1Only avocados (0), other crop (1), two crops (2), three crops (3). Apaza, W.; Quiroz, P.; Julca-Otiniano, A. Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) 99 especially during harvest, but leads to higher incomes. Figure 10 shows comparative yields (kg ha−1) of both avocado and asparagus; although avocado showed higher yield, it also showed greater dispersion between farms. The dispersion of avocado and asparagus yield was very similar (Figure 10), with avocado showing higher biomass yield than asparagus. Therefore, the production of avocado (kg ha−1) was substantially higher than that of asparagus. Larger farms showed higher net incomes, mainly because of higher returns owing to connections with the external market (Figure 11). Additionally, fresh white asparagus was exported, which is highly profitable, and the returns are greater than those obtained from white asparagus used for canning. Small companies do not have the logistics or connections to directly enter into exportation. Ortiz (2018) alluded to the reconfiguration of the asparagus market: fresh green asparagus companies in Peru maintain intense competition with producers in Mexico (with cheaper costs and no restrictions on quarantine and pest fumigation). This has decreased the commercial window of Peru, thus reducing prices and consequently the area of cultivation in Peru. This is why large companies that export directly have higher incomes, while companies with smaller areas suffer losses. In recent years, increase in the cost of production and reduction in prices obtained in the market have created economic problems for small companies with high costs for the cultivation of asparagus. The average incidence of pests is high, reaching 17.5%. This is mainly due to the attack of P. longifilia, which affects the crop and the harvest of green asparagus (Castillo, 2019). This pest causes an average reduction of 79.5% in export. Figure 11 compares the net income of all asparagus and avocado farms. The profitability of asparagus farms was higher in the larger farms. Although avocado farms showed a similar tendency, it was not as marked; the smaller avocado farms showed high income. Tables 4 and 5 show that the profitability of avocado was higher than that of asparagus. In contrast to asparagus, avocado growers have not diversified their crops, which explains why the vast majority of grower only produce avocado. Pest incidence was lower in avocado (Table 5) (7.4%), being the pests of more significant presence the scales which do not affect the yield, but the quality of exportable. Markets such as the United States and recently China require that pest damage showed be less than 5%. Social dimension analysis The gender distribution and ages of workers in the asparagus and avocado fields of the Chavimochic irrigation project are shown in Figure 12. Males showed more participation (61%) than females (39%). However, the participation of females in the Chavimochic irrigation project is higher than that reported; for example, 13% in Cañete in crops such as citrus and avocado (Collantes & Rodríguez, 2015) and 20% in Chanchamayo in the pineapple crop (Maraví et al., 2018). Relatively young adults of both genders (26– 40 years old) showed greater participation than other age groups. Figure 10. Yield (kg ha−1 year−1) of avocado and asparagus farms in 2017. Figure 11. Net income per hectare per year from the asparagus and avocado farms in 2017. (A, B) Net income from the asparagus farms (A) and avocado farms (B). Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru September - December 2019 100 Figure 13 shows that 44% of the families of farmworkers comprised 3–4 members, while 34% of the farmers comprised 1–2 members. This shows that families of farmworkers were small in size in comparison with families in other areas such as jungles and mountains, where the families are larger in size with more than 5 members. Figure 14 shows that everyone had access to health services, mainly in the nearest cities of Chao, Virú and Moche, which have social security health services. Additionally, water, electricity, and sewage were available to 75% of the workers. Most of the workers had their own houses. Figure 15 shows the educational level of the personnel working on asparagus farms. Approximately 65% of the managerial personnel and farm chiefs had a master’s degree, while the remaining 35% were engineers. At the plot chief level, 50% were technicians, and 34% had a professional title. Among the specialised workers, 61% were technicians. Among the workers, 71% possessed secondary education. This indicated that the higher the level of responsibility, the higher the level of education. The level of education was also related to the level of income. Figure 16 shows the wage scale of farmworkers. Workers at a higher position earned higher income, and farm managers and personnel with specialised jobs, who possessed a higher level of education, earned the highest income. Thus, at the farms, the level of income of farmworkers depends on the level of their education. Figure 12. Gender and age distribution of workers in asparagus and avocado farms in 2017. (A) Percentage of workers by gender. (B) Gender and age of workers on asparagus and avocado farms. Figure 13. Family size of avocado and asparagus farmworkers of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Figure 14. Access of farmworkers of avocado and asparagus farms to various services. (A) Access to health. (B) Access to services at the place of residence. (C) Home ownership of workers. Apaza, W.; Quiroz, P.; Julca-Otiniano, A. Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) 101 Conclusions In the Chavimochic irrigation project, four groups of asparagus farms were identified, which showed a strong correlation with the type of processing, access to market, handling of pesticides and quality certifications. Additionally, three groups of avocado farms were identified, where farm size, quality certifications and crop management were the most critical factors. The income level of farmworkers showed a direct correlation Figure 15. Level of education of the different types of workers of the asparagus and avocado fields of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Figure 16. Income level in Peruvian nuevos soles of the different types of workers of asparagus and avocado farms of the Chavimochic irrigation project in 2017. Characterisation of avocado and asparagus farms in the Chavimochic irrigation project in La Libertad, Peru September - December 2019 102 with the education level. The participation of females in asparagus and avocado farms was higher than that in other agricultural areas. Acknowledgements We want to thank Junta de Riego presurizado de Chao Viru and Moche for the support provided in the collection of information and data; Farms of asparagus and avocados in the Chavimochic irrigation project, and MINEDU grants for laboratory analysis. References Ambrus, Á., & Yang, Y. Z. (2015). Global harmonization of maximum residue limits for pesticides. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 64(1), 30–35. Barnett, H. L., & Hunter, B. (1998). Illustrated genera of imperfect fungi. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company. USA. 218 p. Castillo, J. (2006). Prodiplosis longifilia Gagné en la Irrigación Chavimochic La Libertad. Arenagro 2, 10–19. Castillo, J. (2019). Desarrollo de un Programa de Manejo Integrado de Plagas para Espárrago (Asparragus officinalis L.) en la Irrigación de Chavimochic. Thesis of Doctorado en Agricultura Sustentable. Escuela de Posgrado Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina. 214 pp. Collantes, R., & Rodríguez, A. (2015). Sustentabilidad de los agroecosistemas de palto (Persea americana Mill.) y mandarina (Citrus spp) en cañete, Líma, Perú. Revista Tecnología y Desarrollo, 13(1), 027– 034. Delgado de la Flor, F. L., Montauban R., & Hurtado F. (1987). Manual Del Cultivo De Espárrago. ICE. Lima- Perú. 130 pp. Delgado, M. A. (2016). Manejo Integrado de Enfermedades de Espárrago en el Perú. Universidad Nacional Antenor Orrego, pp 170. Escobar, E., & Berdegué, J. A. (1990). Conceptos y metodologías para tipificación de sistemas de finca: La experiencia de RIMISP (Red Internacional de Metodologías de Investigación de Sistemas de Producción). In, E. Escobar & J.A. Berdegué (Eds) Tipificación de Sistemas de Producción Agrícola. Rimisp-Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural. Santiago de Chile. (p. 13–44). Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/americas/representante/ publicaciones-libros/es/ French, E., & Torres, H. (1980). Métodos de Investigación Fitopatológica. Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agrícolas. San José. Costa Rica. 289 pp. Gilbert-López, B., García-Reyes, J. F., & Molina-Díaz, A. (2009). Sample treatment and determination of pesticide residues in fatty vegetable matrices: A review. Talanta, 79(2), 109–128. Junta de Riego Presurizado de Chao, Virú y Moche. (2016). Registro de cultivos de la Irrigación de Chavimochic. Boletín Anual. 25 p. Li, Z. (2018). Evaluation of regulatory variation and theoretical health risk for pesticide maximum residue limits in food. Journal of Environmental Management, 219, 153–167. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.067 Maraví, J., Buendía, O., Alvarado, L., Borjas, R., Castro-Cepero, V., & Julca-Otiniano, A. (2018). Characterization of pineapple farms (Ananas comosus var. comosus) in Cuyani Microbasin, Pichanaki District, Chanchamayo Province (Junín, Perú). Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 2(1), 20–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.21704/pja.v2i1.1130 Miranda, D., & Carranza, C. (2013). Caracterización, Clasificación y Tipificación de los Sistemas Productivos de Caducifolios con énfasis en duraznero, manzano, ciruelo y peral . In D. Miranda, G. Fisher and C. Carranza (Eds): Los frutales caducifolios en Colombia. Situación actual, sistemas de cultivo y plan de desarrollo.. Sociedad Colombiana de Ciencias Hortícolas. Primera Edición. Bogotá. Retrieved from: https://repository.agrosavia.co/ bitstream/handle/20.500.12324/33528/67946. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y-page=23 Muñoz, I. (2016). Agroexportación y sobreexplotación del acuífero de Ica en Perú. Antropológica, 34(37), 115–138. Ortiz, M. (2018). Reconfiguración del negocio del espárrago. Revista Cultura Orgánica, 28–35. Ortuño, S., & Coronel de Renolfi, M. (2005). Tipificación de los sistemas productivos agropecuarios en el área de riego de Santiago del estero, Argentina. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía 36(140), 63–88. Pinedo, R., Gómez, L., & Julca, A. (2018). Sostenibilidad de sistemas de producción de quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) Ecosistemas y Recursos Agropecuarios 5(15), 339–409. http://dx.doi. org/10.19136/era.a5n15.1734 Salazar, B. (2012). El secreto del boom del espárrago: la sobreexplotación del agua. La Revista Agraria, 139, 10–11. Lima: CEPES. Sarandón, S., & Flores, C. (2014). Agroecología: bases teóricas para el diseño y manejo de agroecosistemas Apaza, W.; Quiroz, P.; Julca-Otiniano, A. Peruvian Journal of Agronomy 3(3): 91-103 (2019) 103 sustentables. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. 467 pp. SENASA. (2014). Protocolo de requerimientos fitosanitarios para la exportación de palta del Perú a China.. [On line] [30 Setiembre 2018]. Retrieved from: https://www.senasa.gob.pe /senasa / descargasarchivos Tuesta, O., Julca, A., Borja, R., Rodríguez, P., & Santistevan, M. (2014). Tipología de fincas cacaoteras en la subcuenca media del río Huayabamba, distrito de Huicungo (San Martin, Perú). Ecología Aplicada 13(2), 71–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.21704/rea.v13i1- 2.457 Valerio, D., García, A., Acero, R., Castaldo, A., Perea, J. M., & Martos, J. (2004). Metodología para la caracterización y tipificación de sistemas ganaderos [On line]. Curso Producción animal y gestión. Documentos de trabajo. Dpto. Producción Animal. Universidad de Córdoba. DT 1, Vol. 1. Retrieved from: http://www.uco.es/zootecniaygestion/img/ pictorex/14_19_10_sistemas2.pdf Teliz, D. (2006). El Aguacate y su Manejo Integrado. Mundi Prensa. Mexico. 219 pp.