Geoderma 111 (2003) 267 – 287

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Exploring farmer knowledge of soil processes in

organic coffee systems of Chiapas, Mexico
J.M. Grossman *
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, USA

Abstract

More than any other Mexican state, Chiapas dedicates the most hectares to certified organic
coffee production, providing a means of survival for indigenous Mayan peasants. Organic coffee
producers are restricted from using agrochemicals such as synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, thus depend
upon soil management techniques to provide nutrients to their coffee crop. This study assesses
farmer understanding of soil fertility enhancement processes that organic coffee producers use as a
basis for decision-making and experimentation. Such processes include knowledge of leaf litter
decomposition, composting, soil biology, and biological nitrogen fixation (BNF). Research for this
study was executed in March through August 1999. Information was collected through 31 semi-
structured interviews conducted in three coffee-producing communities, Majosik, Tenejapa;
Poconichim, Chenalhó; and Tziscao, Trinitaria. Transcribed texts were coded and analyzed for
content to uncover patterns in the farmer’s responses. Farmers’ hybridized knowledge system
included visible phenomena and information retained from organic training workshops. Farmers had
an excellent understanding of the transformation from leaf material to soil and a good understanding
of mineralization; however, the role of moisture influence, nutrient uptake, and soil organisms was
not well understood. Nearly half of farmers thought that compost addition improved coffee plant
growth. The significance of soil biology in decomposition was restricted to organisms farmers could
see, especially earthworms. Soil microorganisms were rarely mentioned, and a lack of understanding
of their role in soil processes was evident. Although more than half of interviewed farmers had seen
root-nodules, farmer knowledge of legumes and the process of biological nitrogen fixation were
limited. Results indicate that despite training attempts, farmers still possess knowledge gaps
regarding phenomena that they cannot see, and future training should address unobservable
ecosystem processes.
D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Farmer knowledge; Mexico; Shaded coffee; Organic coffee; Nutrient cycling; Soil biology; Nitrogen
fixation

* Fax: +1-612-625-1268.
E-mail address: grossman@soils.umn.edu (J.M. Grossman).

0016-7061/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 0 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 8 - 9
268 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

1. Introduction

1.1. Organic coffee in Chiapas

Organic coffee production in Chiapas, Mexico is a means of survival for many

indigenous Mayan peasants. Mexico is the fourth largest producer of coffee worldwide
(Moguel and Toledo, 1999). Coffee production provides the main source of income for more
than 2 million Mexicans (Nolasco, 1985). Chiapas is the most active coffee-producing state
in Mexico in terms of number of producers, area of land used for coffee, and tons of coffee
produced annually (Nestel, 1995). Eighty-seven percent of the state’s coffee producers farm
less than 2 ha, the majority indigenous peoples (CNOC and COOPCAFE, 1995). In terms of
organic coffee production, Mexico is again a major producer with approximately 45,000 ha
producing certified organic coffee in 1998 (Rice, 1998). This ties with Peru for the highest in
the world. More than any other Mexican state, Chiapas has the most hectares dedicated to
organic coffee and the highest production (Gómez Cruz et al., 2000).
Profits from organic coffee production exceed those for conventional (non-organic)
gourmet coffee by 15– 20% (Janssen, 1997). Organic coffee producers are restricted from
using agrochemicals and depend upon soil management techniques to provide critical
nutrients to their crop. Farmer training in organic practices necessitates agronomists to
develop soil management practices required by organic certification organizations (Table
1). This study assesses the understanding of soil fertility enhancement processes that
organic coffee producers in the highland and lake regions of Chiapas use as a basis for
decision-making and experimentation, and provides recommendations on how current
training should be modified to fill knowledge-gaps.

1.2. Coffee agroecosystems in Chiapas

The word ‘traditional’ will here be defined as a system that has been in existence for at
least 100 years (Kass et al., 1997). Small-scale traditional coffee farmers in Chiapas have
developed a complex agroecological system that includes intercropping of coffee with fruit
crops and leguminous shade trees. Use of the latter to add nitrogen to coffee systems has
been reported in Venezuela (Escalante, 1997, 1995; Aranguren et al., 1982), Costa Rica
(Babbar and Zak, 1994; Linblad and Russo, 1986), Mexico (Greenberg et al., 1997;
Roskoski, 1982, 1980), Cuba (Rodriguez et al., 1991), Guatemala (Munoz, 1997),
Honduras (CIDICCO, 1995), and Sri Lanka (Ranasinghe, 1995; Kathirgamathaiyah et
al., 1993). Leaf litter in coffee systems shaded by leguminous trees is known to have a
high rate of mineralization (Fassbender, 1989), with averages of 14.8 g m 2 of nitrogen
released annually (Babbar and Zak, 1994). However, farmer knowledge of nitrogen-fixing
tree fertilization potential in traditional agricultural systems is poorly understood (Budow-
ski and Russo, 1997).

1.3. Local knowledge of soil fertility enhancement processes

Small-scale farmers are commonly left out of the formal agricultural research process as
sources of information and innovation. This can result in inaccurate diagnosis of
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 269

Table 1
Organic coffee certification soil management practices explicitly stated as required by IFOAMa and Naturlandb
Practice and requirement IFOAM Naturland
Fertilizers should be derived from biodegradable X X
materials of microbial, vegetative or animal origin
Special consideration should be given to adequate Ca X
supply as recommended for local conditions
Fertilizer management should minimize nutrient losses X X
Synthetic N fertilizer use is prohibited X
Following soil testing and agronomist consultation, use X
of certain slow-release mineral fertilizers is allowed
(MgSO4, raw phosphates low in heavy metals,
Thomas phosphate, CaSO4)
Non-synthetic mineral fertilizers and biological fertilizers X
imported from other farms should be considered
supplementary to, and not replacement for recycled
on-farm nutrients.
All organic matter from the farm should be recycled in X
the form of compost and returned to the land
Application of composts and manures should be done only X
to increase soil humus content, and not for direct crop
nutritional benefit. Avoid over-fertilization.
Burning of any organic matter is prohibited X
Methods that enhance organic matter and soil microorganisms X
should be employed, such as legume cultivation, compost
addition, manure fertilization, and pruned shade tree branch
supplementation
Animal excrement should be prepared as not to harm soil. X
Urine should be aerated, mixed with straw, or diluted.
Excrement storage periods should reduce nutrient losses.
Adequate soil pH levels should be maintained X
Salinization should be minimized X
Terraces, cover crops, crop residues, and other appropriate X X
means should be used to reduce erosion
Coffee should be grown beneath shade trees X X
a
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements: Sets international minimum standards for all
independent agencies certifying for organic production (Gómez Tovar et al., 1999).
b
Independent organic certification agency certifying farmers interviewed in this study (Naturland, 2000).

agricultural problems and creation of technologies that neither meet the needs of the farmer
nor are suitable for their production environment (Bunders et al., 1996; Hall and Clark,
1995; Chambers, 1983). Knowledge is often created by a combination of education and
experience. Farmers use knowledge to arrive at decisions that influence agricultural
management practices (Mangan and Mangan, 1998; Barrera-Bassols, 1988; Brosius et
al., 1986). It is often argued that researchers should build upon local knowledge in order to
generate timely solutions to agricultural research questions, and that its evaluation through
rigorous field and laboratory analysis is essential (Bentley and Thiele, 1999; Sinclair and
Walker, 1999; Mathias, 1995). By basing agricultural development work on local knowl-
edge, farmers and agronomists can create ecologically sustainable and economically
efficient agroecological systems (DeWalt, 1994; Pawluk et al., 1992; Vanek, 1989;
270 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

Gliessman, 1981). Moreover, this type of development is essential for the empowerment of
farmers at the local level (Morales and Perfecto, 2000; Thrupp, 1989). If agricultural change
agents do not understand the knowledge and priorities of producers, improved management
will be difficult, if not impossible, to realize (Morales and Perfecto, 2000).
Recently, the importance of local knowledge has become strikingly apparent in the field
of soil science. As soil is a non-renewable resource in the short term, it is imperative that
farmer knowledge and management of this resource be understood if agricultural scientists
are to work together with local farmers towards its conservation (Warkentin, 1999; Pawluk
et al., 1992). In order to help coffee producers develop certifiable organic management
systems, agronomists and other agricultural change agents must first understand farmers’
local knowledge systems.
In many cases agricultural management systems have evolved from limited access to
external supports. This is the situation in Chiapas where synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are
expensive and in organic systems are prohibited, and an understanding of soil biological
processes such as leaf litter decomposition and biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) can be
important for crop yield maintenance. In complex agroecosystems such as traditionally
grown shaded coffee, it is vital that farmers understand intricate interactions between the
biological and physical factors in the ecosystem, especially plant/soil interactions. An
understanding of soil fertility interactions can offer farmers a tool with which to make
management decisions (Deugd et al., 1998) and engage in their own experimentation
regarding mulching, pruning of shade trees, and compost application.

1.4. Literature review: ethnopedology and soil fertility enhancement processes

Despite the importance of plant/soil interactions, most recent ethnopedological reports

focus on soil classification (e.g. Cervantes, 1997; Sandor and Furbee, 1996; Bellon, 1995;
Furbee, 1989), and physical processes like erosion and water management (Hagmann et
al., 1997; Sandor and Eash, 1995; Bocco, 1991; Reij et al., 1988). There are currently no
published ethnopedological studies that consider below-ground soil processes and soil
biology, soil characteristics that are difficult for a farmer to see and perceive. Such research
is needed to evaluate the current state of farmer knowledge for the development of
sustainable land management practices (Sherwood and Uphoff, 2000; WinklerPrins,
1999), especially with regards to soil biota (Zeiss, 2000; Deugd et al., 1998).
Existing papers that document the effect of management practices on the soil biological
community do not include research describing the farmer knowledge base on which
management decisions were made. In the Chinapa agricultural system studied by Lumsden
et al. (1987), plant pathogenic Pythium spp. were found to be less prevalent than in
modern production systems. Similarly, Dick et al. (1994) used soil enzymes to quantify
microbial changes in 1500-year-old cultivated soils of the Colca Valley in Peru. They
found higher enzyme activity in the cultivated soils, indicating a more active soil biota
than in non-farmed areas.
Studies citing direct farmer manipulation of plant addition to enhance nutrients in
traditional cropping systems demonstrate that farmers are aware of this technique to
improve crop health. Lamers et al. (1998) documented the economic value of farmer
application of crop residues to poor-producing micro-sites in millet production in the West
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 271

African Sahel, and Ellis and Wang (1997) summarized elaborate fertilizer preparations in
the highly productive and longstanding rice-producing area in the Tai Lake region of
China. Likewise, long-term agricultural production of the Kayapó Indians in the Brazilian
Amazon through complex management of ash and organic matter (Hecht, 1990, 1989;
Hecht and Posey, 1989), and the use of indigenous plant materials as fertilizers among hill
farmers in Nepal (Maskey and Bhattarai, 1984) have been recorded.
A deeper documentation of the relationship between farmer knowledge of soil fertility
and decision-making would improve the development of low-input agricultural strategies
in the field. Studies by Sandor, Eash, and Furbee could serve as a model for such research.
Working in the Colca Valley of Peru, Sandor and Eash (1995) reported significantly higher
soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in ancient cultivated terraced plots compared with
uncultivated areas, and inferred that this was the result of long-term farmer management
practices. In a follow-up study, Sandor and Furbee (1996) demonstrated that farmer
knowledge of soil physical properties influenced planting density, seed-bed preparation,
and crop selection.
The goals of this research are to (1) document the ethnopedological knowledge of
organic coffee farmers in Chiapas as a basis for farmer-centered studies investigating soil
fertility enhancement processes, and (2) improve methodology used by agronomists who
teach organic techniques to help fill farmer’s knowledge-gaps regarding below-ground soil
processes. Information gathered during this research is being utilized in separate studies
assessing activity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria and quantifying the level of nitrogen fixation
occurring in Chiapas organic coffee farms. It is hoped that by incorporating local
knowledge of soil processes with conventional scientific knowledge the success and
productivity of organic coffee systems can be sustained for the long term.

2. Methods and study sites

Research for this study was executed in March through August 1999 in the highland
and lake regions of the Mexican state of Chiapas. Chiapas is a poor and uneducated state,
with the average adult illiteracy rate in the study regions estimated at 40% (Secretarı́a de
Hacienda, 1999). Study sites were located between 16j05V –16j56V North latitude and
91j40V –92j31VWest longitude in the Greenwich meridian. Elevation in the region ranges
from 900 to 1800 m above sea level with a mean annual temperature of 18-22 jC (Perez-
Grovas et al., 1997). Annual rainfall is between 2000 and 2500 mm, the majority of which
falls June – October (Garcı́a, 1973). Slopes in the region range from 10% to 45% and
erosion control is of major importance to agricultural production. Local soils are classified
in the Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Educational Scientific and
Cultural Organization (FAO/UNESCO) system as luvisols or anidsols (INEGI, 1993).
Soils in study sites are acidic (average pH 5.8), with an average N content of 0.25%, and P
of 9.49 ppm (Grossman, unpublished data, 2001). Coffee is produced on 39.5% of the
cultivated land, equivalent to 20,300 ha (Perez-Grovas et al., 1997).
The author collected the information through 31 semi-structured interviews conducted in
three coffee-producing communities, Majosik, Tenejapa (highland region, 10 interviews);
Poconichim, Chenalhó (highland region, 10 interviews); and Tziscao, Trinitaria (lake
272 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

region, 11 interviews). Native languages in the three study areas were respectively the
Mayan languages of Tzeltal and Tzotzil, and Spanish. Interviews in Mayan languages were
conducted using a translator. The study sites were chosen on the basis of (1) presence of
shaded coffee, and (2) number of years as an organic coffee-producing community (1, 5, 10
years, respectively). El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) in San Cristobal de Las Casas,
and Unión Majomut, an association of small coffee producers, assisted in communication
with, selection of, and placement in communities. In an initial rapid reconnaissance visit in
1998, farmers and agronomists of Union Majomut were asked about various problems they
were encountering in their shaded organic coffee systems. Farmers responded that they knew
little about soil biology and were interested in learning more. All communities included in
this study had community level co-operative grower associations, which were invited to
participate in the interviews and successive research. This initial solicitation included a focus
group meeting with the community members, and a subsequent assemblage of names of
farmers who were interested in participating in the study, using the following criteria:

1. The farms have coffee growing under shade.

2. The farm has been used for coffee production for at least 3 years.
3. The person interviewed falls into the category of either male household head, female
household head or son/daughter that tends the farm (>12 years old).
4. The farmer has managed the farm for at least 3 years.

An effort was made to include women cooperative members in the study (3 of the total 30
interviews conducted), but the fact that most co-operative members were men was an
obvious constraint. Inasmuch as possible, women heads of household were involved in the
interviewing process when interviewing men. Three pilot interviews were conducted, and
problematic questions altered.
The 1 –3-h interview consisted of a basic framework of questions (Appendix A).
Interviews were largely informal as the researcher allowed the conversation to flow in
directions the farmer felt were important. Other collected information included basic farm
data such as size, elevation, management practices, pest problems, and farm history. Each
farmer interviewed also completed a farm map (Mukherjee, 1995, 1993), which offered an
idea of what aspects of the farm were most important to the farmer by decisions of
placement or non-placement on the map.
All interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed. Each transcribed text, ranging
from 7 to 12 pages, was then coded (Appendix B) and analyzed for content (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). The code list was not static, and evolved as an increasing number of
sub-codes became evident. After coding was complete, similar coded responses were then
grouped by theme. Data was then analyzed by code heading to uncover patterns in the
farmer’s responses to each thematic area. To alleviate problems presented by the small
sample size and by differences in the author’s/interviewer’s interpretation of the tran-
scripts, results are often presented as categories of extensiveness of knowledge (Table 2)
instead of direct percentages.
Problems were encountered early on in the recording of information during the
interview. Interviews often needed to be translated from the producer’s native language
of Tzotzil or Tzeltal to Spanish. The translation process was initially difficult, as local
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 273

Table 2
Terms used in text to describe extensive of knowledgea
Percent of farmers with Terms used to describe:
knowledge of concept
Range of knowledge Farmer number
0 – 16.6 Extremely limited Almost no
16.7 – 33.6 Limited Several
33.7 – 50.2 Fair Almost half
50.3 – 66.8 Basic More than half
66.9 – 83.4 Good Most
83.5 – 100 Excellent Almost all
a
Due to limited sample size, results in text and diagrams are presented in percentage ranges. The table
describes category terms used to describe ranges of farmers demonstrating a knowledge of a given concepts or idea.

technical assistants serving as translators were interested in expressing their own knowl-
edge of the subject matter, instead of translating that of the interviewee. After the author
increased orientation for the translators as to the importance of translating the exact words
of the producer as much as possible this problem was alleviated.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Training and current management practices

The first step in organic training in Chiapas typically includes parallel (1) community
self-identification of problems that exist within the coffee system, and (2) recognition by
agronomists of areas where changes need to be made in order to have farms that comply
with organic regulations (Table 1). The organic certification agency Naturland certifies
almost 11,000 coffee producers in Mexico (Gómez Tovar et al., 1999), including all
interviewed communities. All farmers were found to be using practices listed in Table 1.
Individual communities, made up of 10– 50 farmers each, are assembled under a larger
umbrella co-operative that organizes organic training and external certification. A team of
organic production agronomist trainers employed by the co-operative teaches workshops
on methods such as compost preparation and soil conservation using terraces. Such
workshops consist of a theoretical lecture portion including information such as the
importance of soil fertilization with compost, and a subsequent on-farm demonstration of
the technique (Perez-Grovas et al., 1997). In some cases, co-operatives may also have
technical assistants that help disseminate information to other farmers. These ‘promoters’,
as they are known, are usually capable farmer – members of the co-operative and are
bilingual, therefore able to teach methods learned in Spanish to the community using their
mother tongue. Promoters have successfully been used in various agricultural systems
throughout Mexico to link rural producers to the research sector (Castillo and Toledo,
2000). All interviewed farmers had participated in at least one organic training workshop
or farmer-to-farmer exchange.
This system of organic training, while it indeed enlightens particularly skilled farmers,
may be misguided if agronomists are not aware at the start of the knowledge level of the
274 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

farmers with whom they are working. For example, a theoretical lecture portion of a
workshop may use words that are unknown to the farmer, especially if the lecture is
presented in Spanish. It is clear that the use of ‘key words’ as codes for this study to
describe extent of knowledge of a given farmer group could be extremely problematic. We
found that farmers lacked the ability to describe processes in any great detail, and thus we
are left only with a collection of words adopted by farmers from language of the
agronomists from which we attempt to gauge knowledge. This perhaps lends support to
the claim that increasing farmer knowledge cannot be accomplished solely on the basis of
verbal lectures—active learning must be incorporated into the process (Deugd et al.,
1998). Consequently, if careful steps are not taken by agronomists to understand if farmers
comprehend entire processes or only vocabulary, difficult-to-observe processes in agro-
ecosystem function may remain as knowledge-gaps in farmer understanding of complex
ecosystem interactions.
Current organic coffee management practices include weeding the coffee parcels (2–
3 times annually), pruning the coffee (once annually, February – May), pruning the shade
trees to regulate light availability to coffee, and applying compost (once annually June –
August). Compost application occurs by placing varying amounts of the finished
compost around the base of the coffee bushes. All interviewed farmers chopped the
pruned shade and coffee tree branches and left them on the soil surface after removing
the usable firewood for home cooking. Four farmers placed a portion of the chopped
Inga in the compost pile. More than half (64.5%) of interviewed farmers stated that they
left prunings specifically for their fertilization potential. Prior to organic transition,
farmers did not prepare compost nor prune the shade trees with current annual
frequency.

3.2. Decomposition

3.2.1. From leaf litter to soil

Overall farmer understanding of associated decomposition processes is shown in Fig. 1.
Farmers had an excellent understanding that soil was partially derived from leaf litter,
especially from the Inga sp. trees that defoliate during the dry season each year. Farmers had
a good understanding that leaf material decomposed, releasing nutrients into the soil
substrate. Without indicating a knowledge of relatively advanced concepts used by the
scientific community, farmers were quick to describe the observable improvement in health
of coffee plants that were found beneath leguminous shade trees that deposit great amounts
of decomposing litter, in this case Inga sp. However, despite this understanding of nutrient
release and observation of improved coffee plant growth, farmer’s ability to describe the
concept of nutrient uptake by the coffee was limited. Many references to farmer observation
of plant improvement after fertilization with leguminous tree mulch can be found in the
literature (Ahmed and Stoll, 1996; Rajasekaran and Warren, 1995; Budowski et al., 1984).
However, it is comments such as the following that describes the depth of coffee farmer
understanding of leaf litter decomposition, nutrient release and uptake:

Everything decomposes, especially the (Inga) leaves. This is what functions to give the
plants nourishment.—Isidoro Morales Mauricio
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 275

Fig. 1. Farmer knowledge of associated decomposition processes on organic coffee farms. Knowledge or belief of
a given process is presented as both a descriptive term of knowledge extensiveness (presented in Table 1) and
actual percent of the total farmers interviewed (n=31). Arrows link ecosystem physical components, presented in
rounded boxes, to perceived soil processes, contained within sharp-cornered boxes.

(Inga) drops it leaves. They build up underneath the tree. Over time they will die and
rot, leaving behind good soil. After one year the leaves are no longer there, only soil. —
Julio Mauricio Ramires

Below (Inga) a lot of leaves fall and there the soil is very fertile. Then the leaves rot and
they act as a fertilizer. And that is why the soil is very black. There was no one who
taught us this. I learned it with my eyes. I saw what happens from the trees. I saw what
happens when the leaves fall. — Miguel Perez Guzman

The leaves stay on the soil as a fertilizer. There they rot and combine with the soil. I
don’t know how or why. — Daniel Velazco Sántiz

The (soil below Inga) is moister. It has fertilizer in order to maintain the roots and give
the coffee food. — Vincente Morales Mauricio

The farmer’s comprehension of the role of leaf litter in soil formation is most likely due to
their ability to see the decomposition process in action over time, as opposed to other
processes that cannot be observed with the naked eye. Farmer knowledge of above ground
276 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

ecosystem characteristics is likely to be more extensive than below-ground soil processes.

In Nepal, farmers were shown to have an excellent understanding of various above-ground
tree attributes, however, their understanding of below-ground processes was limited to a
basic identification of soil-enhancing species, based on rooting depth and rate of leaf litter
decomposition (Thapa, 1994). In perennial organic coffee systems, farmers are allowed the
time to observe the change from leaf litter to soil organic matter. Transformation is
facilitated by the shade tree and coffee roots that penetrate the litter layer (Cuenca et al.,
1983), however the uptake of mineralized nutrients takes place below-ground, thus is an
abstract concept that farmers observe indirectly through a change in the coffee-plant
health. In Veracruz, Mexico, Roskoski (1982) found nitrogen fixation in Inga jinicuil
shading unfertilized coffee systems to be 40 kg N ha 1 year 1. This estimate, although
relatively low, lend support to the idea that farmers’ observations of improved coffee
health when grown beneath Inga shade may be due to nitrogen contributions via BNF. All
farmers that had been organic for 10 years demonstrated an improved understanding of
decomposition (100% of farmers understood the process) than did those who were organic
for 3 or 1 year(s) (90% and 60%, respectively). This suggests that training in organic
production aids farmers in understanding decomposition, but is not entirely necessary due
to farmers’ ability to observe this process over time.

3.2.2. Role of soil moisture

Soil moisture helps to increase the rate of decomposition of leaf litter in agroforestry
systems utilizing leguminous trees (Vanlauwe et al., 1997). Farmers stated a limited
understanding (Fig. 1) of moisture’s effect on decomposition. Due to the distinct wet and
dry season in Chiapas, coffee farmers are able to see changes in the growing environment
during each season. Although rain and moisture were most commonly linked to changes in
the physical condition of the soil, such as erosion, several farmers with a particularly astute
understanding of the role of moisture in decomposition had responses such as the following:

I see that when it rains the leaves rot more. When an orange falls the water makes it rot
faster. When it is dry it doesn’t rot. — Alonzo Guzman Lopez

The coffee grows well when it is below (Inga) where there are a lot of leaves. The
leaves rot. They make little pieces when they are dry. When the rain comes, it mixes
with the soil, roots, and rotten wood. This becomes soil. If it rains a lot, the leaves rot.
When it is the dry season, the leaves stay. — Jose Perez Guzman

The farmer’s limited knowledge about moisture’s effect on decomposition of leaf litter
could again be attributed to the abstract and virtually ‘invisible’ nature of the concept over
the short term. Almost all farmers saw the change from leaf litter to soil over time,
however, the influence of factors in increasing or decreasing the rate of this process might
be more challenging to observe.

3.2.3. Role of soil biology

Of the many remaining factors influencing decomposition rate, including temperature,
oxygen level, and biological activity, coffee farmers included in this study emphasized
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 277

only the biological aspects. Farmer knowledge of the biological component of the soil was
basically limited to organisms that were visible with the human eye and included
earthworms, centipedes, white grubs, ants, and crickets. In Fig. 1, macrofauna listed as
‘‘other’’ included all organisms other than earthworms. More than half (55%) of the
farmers interviewed mentioned that soil was superior where soil macrofauna were present.
Earthworms were the most commonly mentioned macrofauna in the soil (Fig. 1) with
farmers noting that they ‘‘build tunnels’’, ‘‘mix’’, ‘‘make fertilizer’’, or ‘‘eat’’ the soil.
Almost all farmers who mentioned earthworm presence mentioned seeing the ‘‘tunnels’’ or
‘‘paths’’ created by the earthworms, and several reasoned that the roots of the coffee grew
into these tunnels, facilitating growth of the coffee.

Worms eat black soil then leave to find yellow soil. When they defecate in the yellow
soil they mix it and this makes good fertilizer. You shouldn’t kill the worms. — Alfonso
Hernandez Perez

The leaves rot and the little animals come, like the worms. Where the Inga leaves fall
they pile up, and when they are rotting it calls the little soil animals to eat. They destroy
the leaves and leave the wastes. They protect the coffee a lot. They protect the soil.
They protect us. They help the coffee roots absorb the soil. — Rosenberg Hernandez
Morales

If there are earthworms, the coffee always grows well. — Lorenzo Arias Sántiz

Coffee farmers in Chiapas are well justified in their observations that soil macrofauna,
especially earthworms, can positively influence soil properties. Earthworms have been
shown to act as ecosystem engineers in various agroecosystems by ingesting soil particles
and producing casts (Fragoso et al., 1997), increasing macroporosity and hydraulic
conductivity (Francis and Fraser, 1998), and positively influencing N mineralization
below leguminous surface mulch (Subler et al., 1998). In contrast to coffe farmer’s
positive views of earthworms, farmers in Papua New Guinea reported high earthworm
populations leading to decreased sweet potato yields (Sillitoe, 1995).
Soil microorganisms were, for perhaps obvious reasons, almost never mentioned when
farmers were describing soil biological activity. Farmers had a limited understanding of the
existence of soil microorganisms, and almost no farmers could articulate the role of
microorganisms in decomposition of vegetative matter (Fig. 1). All of the farmers in Fig. 1
who stated a knowledge of microorganism presence in the soil demonstrated this knowl-
edge by using the word ‘‘microorganism’’ in their description of soil biology. Rather than
indicating an understanding of the decomposition process, this perhaps only indicates a
partially successful outcome of organic training workshops in that these farmers lacked the
ability to describe the actual function of such microorganisms; their knowledge was
portrayed by a single vocabulary word only—‘‘microorganism.’’ Also contained in the
category of those that knew of microorganism presence, but not of function, were an
extremely limited number of farmers who had heard that they existed, or had been lucky
enough to see them in a teaching laboratory. One farmer mentioned that there were
‘‘microorganisms’’ in the soil. When asked if you could see them, the farmer responded
278 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

that yes, you could, perhaps referring to the fact that microorganisms are indeed visible
with special tools, or perhaps not understanding the meaning of the word.

3.3. Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF)

In general, farmer’s responses indicated that they knew, perhaps from organic training
workshops, to associate certain vocabulary words with the concept of BNF, however again
lacked an ability to describe details of the actual process. During the interview, farmers
were asked if they were aware of the meaning of the word ‘legume’ (planta leguminosa),
with the interviewer’s understanding that farmers had been involved in organic training
sessions where they were presumably taught the meaning of the word. The word ‘legume’
is commonly used to denote a plant or tree that is capable of BNF. However, this definition
is misleading, as more accurately legumes are a taxonomic family of plants that may or
may not fix nitrogen. Although most farmers did not assert to understand the common
meaning of the word ‘‘legume’’, several (19%) had a limited knowledge of legumes,
stating what were basically correct examples such as ‘‘beans’’, ‘‘a plant that has root
nodules’’, or even ‘‘a plant that feeds the coffee’’ or ‘‘provides nitrogen’’ (Table 3). Several
other farmers identified legumes as plants that had special qualities apart from other plants,
such as being ‘‘caring and tender’’, ‘‘very pretty’’, ‘‘not very big’’, that ‘‘decomposes
rapidly’’, ‘‘helps the coffee’’, and that ‘‘you can eat’’, perhaps deriving from the Spanish
word legumbre, meaning vegetable. Many non-leguminous plants were also identified by
farmers as being ‘legumes’, including chayote (Sechium edule), tatamin (a ground cover of
the family Commelinaceae), and Tomatillo (Physalis sp.). Although more than half of
farmers had seen root nodules (51%), their knowledge regarding function was extremely
limited, with few farmers offering words that accurately described the BNF process.
Sample responses to the question ‘‘what do the root nodules do?’’ are presented in Table 4.
Several (25%) of those who had seen the root nodules thought that they were a plant
disease. All farmers with accurate responses had obtained this information from agrono-
mists. Of those who had seen nodules, but gave inaccurate responses, 100% were from the
community who had been certified organic for only 1 year and hence had the least organic
training. Thus, this perhaps demonstrates that organic training can serve to inform
producers in regard to BNF and other difficult-to-see processes.
These results relative to soil decomposing microorganisms and BNF are hardly surpris-
ing, as farmers around the world have been shown to possess limited knowledge about
microbial functions and phenomena that they cannot see. Sillitoe (1995) showed that the

Table 3
Common responses to question ‘‘What is a leguminous plant (planta leguminosa)?’’ (n=31)
Common responses Percent responding
‘‘I don’t know’’ 52
Examples: beans, Inga, peas 16
Plant with ‘‘special qualities’’ 16
Provides nitrogen or fertilizes coffee 13
Examples: non-leguminous plants 10
‘‘Has balls on the roots’’ 6
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 279

Table 4
Sample responses to question ‘‘What do the balls on the roots do?’’ (n=14)
Accurate responses Inaccurate responses
There are bacteria that live in the roots below (Inga). These are what the I thought it was sickness.
plant needs. The roots of beans also have them. We didn’t know. Now that
we are better organized
(as a cooperative) we will
learn!
The fertile soil makes the balls We don’t know what they
do, we just knew they
were there.
The soil is blacker where there are (nodules). They make the soil fertile. I didn’t think about what
Not all of the trees have them—where the soil is more fertile there are they were—I thought it
(nodules). The (nodules) could be what feed the tree. was sickness.
They help the cafetal because they have nitrogen. Type of fertilizer. They The roots come out of them.
help the coffee. They rot and when they build up they conserve the soil.
I think that they give food to the cafetal. They have nitrogen.
I think that they give food to the cafetal. They have nitrogen. The (nodules) I have seen them in peanuts
help the coffee. They make it fertile. that I used to have.
The bean is a plant where you find the ‘Nitrogens’, the little balls they carry I don’t know if they are
on their roots that help to conserve the soil well. good or bad.
We have heard that they bring nitrogen. During the day they rest, and at night I thought that they were bad.
they work. The leaves bring the N from the air and it goes to the (Inga)
roots. They help the coffee roots.
They have the nitrogen in their roots.

Wola of New Guinea are unaware of pathogenic microorganisms that exist in agricultural
systems yet are highly aware of the diseases that they induce. Similarly, in a detailed
literature review of microorganismal causal agents of plant disease, Bentley and Thiele
(1999) identify at least eight articles suggesting that farmers are unaware of such microbes.
The importance of farmer understanding of microbial processes cannot be overstated, as
management practices have the ability to affect soil microbial populations, and thus can
change subsequent ecosystem functions that such microorganisms regulate. For example,
in the state of Puebla, Mexico, farmer management practices have been shown to change
the genetic diversity of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia bacteria present in similar soils (Souza et
al., 1997). Furthermore, applications of chemical fertilizers and pesticides may alter BNF
and nitrogen uptake processes (Budowski and Russo, 1997). Farmers who do not grasp
details of complex processes are also less likely to promote either their own or external
research. In Thailand, farmers believed that research regarding inoculation of beans with
efficient nitrogen-fixing bacteria was not necessary because they have seen nodule
formation occur without inoculation (Hall and Clark, 1995). This idea prevails despite
the fact that the indigenous rhizobia forming the nodules may fix less nitrogen than the
inoculant. More common are studies reporting farmer’s understanding of the visible
beneficial effects of legumes when used in rotation (Barrios et al., 1994; Phillips-Howard
and Lyon, 1994), as is reported by Bellon (1995) who worked with corn farmers in
Chiapas. It is therefore essential that efforts be placed on farmer training and education
with regard to the more difficult-to-see processes. Such information will be especially
valuable in encouraging farmers in their own experimentation.
280 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

3.4. Compost addition

Organic certification requires that farmers construct compost piles as a fertilizer

amendment. All farmers interviewed had a compost pile and had learned methodology
from agronomists or promoters. Compost was made entirely of easily obtainable and
inexpensive materials. Composted materials included livestock manure, Inga leaves, pulp
from coffee berries, grass clippings, calcium carbonate, ashes, weeds, soil, and corn stalk
residue. Through community workshops, agronomists presented compost ingredients and
techniques to farmers, who then developed piles according to ingredient availability.
Ingredients were layered in a constructed crate in contact with the soil, the pile watered,
covered with banana leaves, and left for 3 months. Piles were aerated manually every 2– 3
weeks.
More than half of those interviewed thought that compost application was beneficial to
the soil and/or the coffee plants, despite apparent constraints in time, energy and sometimes
money. Farmers built compost piles using labor of 3– 5 family members and friends, an
activity that took from 1 to 6 days depending on the size of the pile. Similar numbers of
farmers felt that collecting the material and preparing the pile was easy (22%) and difficult
(29%). Of the total farmers who felt it was easy, almost all (86%) came from the community
of Majosik, who were producing compost for the first time that year. Majosik farmers’
enthusiasm for compost was made clear through the interviews, suggesting that these results
were possibly due to the positive reports from other farmers or agronomists. Almost all
(90%) farmers who had prepared compost for >1 year felt its preparation was difficult.
Purchased compost inputs included CaCo3, nylon if it was used instead of banana leaves
to cover the pile, and manure (US$2 –4 per 20 kg bag). Farmers often chose to collect
manure for the pile themselves. Difficulty and labor cost of collecting manure for soil
organic matter supplementation has been previously documented in Chiapas (Bellon, 1995).
Farmers had a fair understanding of nutrient removal from soil due to coffee production,
and the subsequent replacement of those nutrients via compost. Of the community who had
been applying compost for over 10 years, several (27%) mentioned that compost was only
needed where the soil was ‘‘tired’’ or ‘‘old’’, and that certain parts of the farm did not need
compost because the soil was still ‘‘fertile’’. The relationship of farmer knowledge of organic
amendments to improved vegetation has been widely recognized and documented. Farmers
in the Philippines do not intentionally put manure on their fields, however, they are
cognizant of the positive effect that it has on the fields where cattle roam (Conklin,
1975). Malaysian farmers actually go so far as to rank manure-types by preference according
to their value in crop performance (Weinstock, 1984).
Of the farmers who had applied compost in past years, several (21%) felt that compost
made the soil healthier, and almost half (43%) felt the compost made the coffee greener or
produce better. All farmers presented detailed descriptions of technical composting methods,
but almost no farmers (13%) verbally acknowledged the decomposition process and change
from the original ingredients to compost. Even the word most commonly used to describe
leaf litter decomposition, ‘rot’, was absent when describing compost. Decomposition would
be obvious to farmers actively maintaining compost. Hence, the surprisingly low percentage
of farmers recognizing decomposition was most likely not due to a lack of observing the
material’s physical change, but possibly to a lack of vocabulary to describe the process.
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 281

Overall, farmers were found to be innovative with regards to compost ingredients and
compost management, and were interested in the results that compost application might
bring to coffee plant and soil health.

4. Conclusions

Organic coffee farmers in Chiapas have a dual knowledge system about their soil,
made up of experiences and phenomena that they can visualize and information retained
from organic training workshops. Socioeconomic factors such as monetary value of
various management techniques also influence which techniques farmers implement after
training. Farmers were found to have an excellent understanding of the transformation of
leaf material to soil over time and a good understanding of mineralization, however, their
understanding of the various factors and steps involved (moisture, nutrient uptake, role of
soil organisms) was limited. The influence of soil organisms in this process was basically
limited to those they could see, especially the role of earthworms. Soil microorganisms
were almost never mentioned, and when they were, a lack of understanding of their role
in soil transformation was evident. Although more than half of interviewed farmers had
seen root-nodules, farmer knowledge of legumes and the process of nitrogen fixation was
also limited. Almost half of farmers thought that compost addition improved both coffee
plants and soil, however, understanding of the mineralization process was extremely
limited.
Results of this and previous studies indicate that perhaps despite outreach and training
attempts, farmers still possess rather large knowledge-gaps regarding phenomena that they
cannot see. As farmers obviously have the capacity to understand processes that are
visible, for example earthworm tunneling, they would perhaps be best served by work-
shops specifically focusing on ‘invisible’ ecosystem processes, such as microorganism
activity that affects their soil systems. Training and research that includes hands-on
activities where farmers can visualize complex or difficult-to-observe topics in a controlled
setting (Bentley, in press; Mangan and Mangan, 1998; Sinclair and Walker, 1999), and
formalized linkage of research institutions to rural producers via change agents (Castillo
and Toledo, 2000) have been shown to be successful. Hands-on activities might include
videotapes showing soil microbial activity, use of simple microscopes in farmer commun-
ities, laboratory tours, inoculation and liter bag experiments, and ‘bottle biology’
decomposition experiments (NSTA, 1996).
In future research involving the biological component of the soil farmed by relatively
uninformed producers, specific efforts should first be made to understand the level of
farmer understanding of the process under study, and to place vocabulary and training in the
farmer’s own context, and not in that of the scientist. Examples of complex plant/soil
interactions of which farmer understanding could be extremely helpful in improving
organic coffee production and other agricultural areas include BNF for nitrogen addition
(currently being assessed using information from this study), or manipulation of leaf litter
decomposition rates in an attempt to synchronize it with time of plant uptake. Additionally,
as in many agroecosystems, the need exists for increased understanding of how information
such as organic methodology flows from farmer to farmer (Staver, 1999), how farmers
282 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

adapt taught technologies to their own informal knowledge system (Hall and Clark, 1995),
and how farmers use knowledge to conduct on-farm experiments. Increasing agronomists’
awareness of existing knowledge-gaps and promotion of research that answers farmer’s
questions would be meaningful activities for those who are working with producers to
develop certified organic systems.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the MacArthur Interdisciplinary Program on Global Change,

Sustainability and Justice; Fulbright-Garcı́a Robles/US – Mexico Commission for Educa-
tional and Cultural Exchange; and the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota for
providing the funding that made this project possible. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
(ECOSUR) in San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, provided me with essential
institutional support in Mexico, especially David Alvarez-Solis, Luis Garcı́a-Barrios,
Miguel Angel Lopez-Anaya, and Lourdes Herrera. Unión Majomut, notably Walter
Anzueto-Anzueto and Victor Perez-Grovas-Garza, arranged invaluable communication
with the study communities. James Abbott, Peter Graham, Helda Morales, Helene Murray,
Michael Russelle, plus numerous anonymous reviewers contributed valuable criticism for
this publication. Most of all, I offer my greatest sincere gratitude to the producers of Unión
Majomut and Cooperative Lagos de Colores for allowing me to become acquainted with
their production systems and their thoughts about organic production of coffee. Without
their valuable insights and perceptions, this project could not have been carried out.

Appendix A . Selected interview questions related to soil biology and soil health

 What is the soil like on your farm?

 What is good soil like? How do you know it is good?
 Are there places on your farm where the soil is better than other places?
 Is there a difference in soil that is found below (Inga) and soil that is not below (Inga)?
 What happens to the leaves that fall from (Inga)?
 Do you use pesticides or chemical fertilizers on your farm? If so, which ones?
 What types of fertilizers do you use on your farm? Cover crops? Green manures?
Compost? Manure?
 Why are you using these particular fertilizers? How did you first hear about them?
 What types of organic training have you had? Workshops?
 What methods do you use to assure a good harvest?
 Why does the coffee grow well?
 What provides the food/nutrients to the coffee plants?
 Is there a fertilizer that is more important than the others?
 Are there animals in your soil? What do they look like? What do they do?
 Are animals in the soil good or bad for your coffee harvest?
 Have you ever heard of the word ‘‘leguminous plant?’’ What is it?
 Have you seen the balls on the roots of (Inga)? What do they do? How are they made?
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 283

Appendix B. Codes for interviews

P PROCESSES—SOIL
P.mac macroorganisms
P.mic microorganisms
P.BNF N-fixation
P.deg degradation

H HEALTH—SOIL
H.c color
H.t texture
H.om organic matter
H.m moisture
H.pq plant quality
H.pd physical damage (chemicals,erosion)

I INGA
I.ll leaf litter
I.p problems
I.w wood
I.f fruit
I.sp species/types
I.r regulation of shade (pruning)

OS OTHER SHADE TREES

OS.l legumes
OS.f fruit producing
OS.b bosque(forest) species

R RESOURCES
R.m money
R.t time
R,l labor
R.tl tierra/land

E EDUCATION AND TRAINING

E.at agricultural technicians
E.se self-experience
E.oo other groups organizations
E.INM INMECAFE

F FERTILIZER
F.vm vegetative matter
F.cp compost pile
F.ch chemicals

M MANAGEMENT
M.p pruning/poder
M.w weeding
M.h harvest
(continued on next page)
284 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

Appendix B (continued)
M.i insects
M.s shade
M.c other crops
C.c coffee crops
M.o organic

References

Ahmed, S., Stoll, G., 1996. Chapter 4: Biopesticides. In: Bunders, J., Haverkort, B., Hiemstra, W. (Eds.), Bio-
technology: Building on Farmer’s Knowledge. MacMillan, London, and Basingstoke, England, pp. 52 – 79.
Aranguren, J., Escalante, G., Herrera, R., 1982. Nitrogen cycle of tropical perennial crops under shade trees. Plant
and Soil 67, 247 – 258.
Babbar, L.I., Zak, D.R., 1994. Nitrogen cycling in coffee agroecosystems—net N mineralization and nitrification
in the presence and absence of shade trees. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 48 (2), 107 – 113.
Barrera-Bassols, N., 1988. Etnoedafologı́a purhépecha. Mexico Indı́gena VI (24), 47 – 52.
Barrios, E., Herrera, R., Valles, J.L., 1994. Tropical floodplain agroforestry systems in mid-Orinoco river basin,
Venezuela. Agroforestry Systems 28 (2), 143 – 157.
Bellon, M.R., 1995. Farmers’ knowledge and sustainable agroecosystem management: an operational definition
and an example from Chiapas, Mexico. Human Organization 54 (3), 263 – 272.
Bentley, J.W., in press. The Mothers, Fathers and Midwives of Invention: Zamorano’s Natural Pest Control
Course. Draft manuscript for book: Natural Crop Protection. 15 pp.
Bentley, J.W., Thiele, G., 1999. Bibliography: farmer knowledge and management of crop disease. Agriculture
and Human Values 16, 75 – 81.
Bocco, G., 1991. Traditional knowledge for soil conservation in central Mexico. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 46 (5), 346 – 348.
Brosius, P.J., Lovelace, G.W., Marten, G.G., 1986. Ethnopedology: an approach to understanding traditional
agricultural knowledge. In: Marten, G.G. (Ed.), Traditional Agriculture in Southeast Asia: A Human Ecology
Perspective. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, United States, pp. 187 – 198.
Budowski, G., Russo, R., 1997. Nitrogen-fixing trees and nitrogen fixation in sustainable agriculture: research
challenges. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 29 (5/6), 767 – 770.
Budowski, G., Kass, D.C.L., Russo, R.O., 1984. Leguminous trees for shade. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira
19, 205 – 222.
Bunders, J., Haverkort, B., Hiemstra, W., 1996. Introduction. In: Bunders, J., Haverkort, B., Hiemstra, W. (Eds.),
Biotechnology: Building Farmer’s Knowledge. Macmillan, London, England, pp. 1 – 11.
Castillo, A., Toledo, V.M., 2000. Applying ecology in the Third World: the case of Mexico. BioScience 50 (1),
66 – 76.
Cervantes, T.E., 1997. La Clasificación Tzotzil de Suelos. In: Para Vázquez, M.R., Diáz Hernández, B.M. (Eds.),
Los Altos de Chiapas: Agricultura y Crisis Rural. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristobal de Las Casas,
Chiapas, Mexico, pp. 23 – 42.
Chambers, R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First Longman, New York, United States.
CIDICCO (Centro Internacional de Informacion sobre Cultivos de Cobertura), 1995. The Use of Gliricidia
sepium as a Cover/Shade Tree in Coffee Plantations CIDICCO, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
CNOC (Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones), COOPCAFE (Cafetaleras Coordinadora de Pequeños Pro-
ductores de Café de Chiapas), A.C., 1995. Proyecto de capacitación y asistencia técnica en agricultura
orgánica. Chiapas, Mexico.
Conklin, H.C., 1975. Hanunoo Agriculture Elliot’s Books, Northford, CT.
Cuenca, G., Aranguren, J., Herrera, R., 1983. Root growth and litter decomposition in a coffee plantation under
shade trees. Plant and Soil 71, 477 – 486.
Deugd, M., Roling, N., Smaling, E.M.A., 1998. A new praxeology for integrated nutrient management facilitat-
ing innovation with and by farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 71, 269 – 283.
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 285

DeWalt, B., 1994. Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management. Human
Organization 53 (2), 123 – 131.
Dick, R.P., Sandor, J.A., Eash, N.S., 1994. Soil enzyme activities after 1500 years of terrace agriculture in the
Colca Valley, Peru. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 50, 123 – 131.
Ellis, E.C., Wang, S.M., 1997. Sustainable traditional agriculture in the Tai Lake region of China. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 61, 177 – 193.
Escalante, E., 1995. Utilización de árboles fijadores de nitrógeno en suelos ácidos venezolanos. In: Evans, D.O.,
Szott, L.T. (Eds.), Nitrogen Fixing Trees for Acid Soils. Winrock International: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Asso-
ciation, Morrilton, AR, pp. 77 – 84.
Escalante, E., 1997. Café y agroforesteria en Venezuela. Agroforesteria en las Americas 4 (13), 21 – 24.
Fassbender, H.W., 1989. Circlos de los elementos nutritivos en sistemas agroforestales de cafe con arboles de
sombra en el ‘experimento central’ de CATIE. In: Beer, J.W., Fassbenderm, H.W., Heuveldop, J. (Eds.),
Avances en la Investigacion Agroforestal. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CAT-
IE), Turrialba, Costa Rica, pp. 177 – 186.
Fragoso, C., Brown, G.G., Patrón, J.C., Blanchart, E., Lavelle, P., Pashanasi, B., Senapati, B., Kumar, T., 1997.
Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function: the role of earthworms. Applied
Soil Ecology 6 (1), 17 – 35.
Francis, G.S., Fraser, P.M., 1998. The effects of three earthworm species on soil macroporosity and hydraulic
conductivity. Applied Soil Ecology 10 (1 – 2), 11 – 19.
Furbee, L., 1989. A folk expert system: soils classification in the Colca Valley, Peru. Anthropology Quarterly 62
(2), 83 – 102.
Garcı́a, E., 1973. Modificaciones al sistema de classificación climática de Koeppen Instituto de Geografia,
UNAM, Mexico. 246 pp.
Gliessman, S., 1981. The ecological basis for the application of traditional agricultural technology in the manage-
ment of tropical agroecosystem. Agro-Ecosystems 7, 173 – 185.
Gómez Cruz, M.A., Schwentesius, R.R., Gomez Tovar, L., 2000. La Agricultura Orgánica de Mexico en Cifras
Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Sociales, y Techonológicas de la Agroindustria y la Agricultura
Mundial and La Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderı́a y Desarrollo Rural (SAGAR), Mexico City, Mexico.
Gómez Tovar, L., Gómez Cruz, M.A., Schwentesius Rindermann, R., 1999. Desafı́os de al Agricultura Oragan-
ica. Mundi-Prensa, Mexico City.
Greenberg, R., Bichier, P., Sterling, J., 1997. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of
eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 29 (4), 501 – 515.
Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., Gundani, O., 1997. From teaching to learning: tools for learning about soil and water
conservation. ILEIA 13 (3), 26.
Hall, A., Clark, N., 1995. Coping with change, complexity and diversity in agriculture—the case of rhizobium
inoculants in Thailand. World Development 23 (9), 1601 – 1614.
Hecht, S.B., 1989. Indigenous soil management in the Amazon basin: some implications for development.
In: Browder, J.O. (Ed.), Fragile Lands of Latin America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, United States,
pp. 166 – 181.
Hecht, S.B., 1990. Indigenous soil knowledge in the Latin American tropics: neglected knowledge of native
peoples. In: Altieri, M.A., Hecht, S.B. (Eds.), Agroecology and Small Farm Development. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, United States, pp. 151 – 157.
Hecht, S.B., Posey, D., 1989. Preliminary results on soil management techniques of the Kayapó Indians. In:
Posey, D.A., Balée, W. (Eds.), Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk StrategiesAdvances
in Economic Botany, vol. 7. The New York Botanical Garden, New York, United States, pp. 174 – 188.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica), 1993. Carta Edafologica 1:250,000, Tuxtla
Guiterrez E15-11.
Janssen, R., 1997. Making sense of sustainability: practical paths to socially responsible coffee. Fresh Cup,
February/March, 16 – 27.
Kass, D., Sylvester-Bradley, R., Nygren, P., 1997. The role of nitrogen fixation and nutrient supply in some
agroforestry systems of the Americas. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 29 (5/6), 775 – 785.
Kathirgamathaiyah, S., Wickramasinghe, P.J., Abeykoon, A.M.D., 1993. Effect of shading by Acacia mangium,
Calliandra calothyrsus, Erythrina subumbrans and Gliricidia sepium on canopy development and fruiting of
286 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287

two coffee cultivars. In: Westley, S.B., Powell, H.H. (Eds.), Erythrina in the New and Old Worlds. Nitrogen
Fixing Tree Association, Paia, HI, pp. 125 – 128.
Lamers, J., Bruentrup, M., Buerkert, A., 1998. The profitability of traditional and innovative mulching techniques
using millet crop residues in the West African Sahel. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 67, 23 – 35.
Linblad, P., Russo, R., 1986. C2H2-reduction by Erythrina poeppigianna in a Costa Rican coffee plantation.
Agroforestry Systems 4, 33 – 37.
Lumsden, R.D., Garcı́a-E, R., Lewis, J.A., Frı́as-T, G.A., 1987. Suppression of damping-off caused by Pythium
spp. in soil from the indigenous Mexican Chinampa agricultural system. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 19 (5),
501 – 508.
Mangan, J., Mangan, M.S., 1998. A comparison of two IPM training strategies in China: the importance of
concepts of the rice ecosystems for sustainable insect pest management. Agriculture and Human Values 15,
209 – 221.
Maskey, S.L., Bhattarai, S., 1984. Use of indigenous plant materials as nutrient source for rice. Nepalese Journal
of Agriculture 15, 191 – 192.
Mathias, E., 1995. Framework for enhancing the use of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor 3 (2), 17 – 18.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications,
London, England.
Moguel, P., Toledo, V.M., 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conservation
Biology 3 (1), 11 – 21.
Morales, H., Perfecto, I., 2000. Traditional knowledge and pest management in the Guatemalan highlands.
Agriculture and Human Values 17, 49 – 63.
Mukherjee, N., 1993. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methodology and Applications. Concept Publishing Com-
pany, New Delhi, India.
Mukherjee, N., 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Questionnaire Survey. Concept Publishing Company,
New Delhi, India.
Munoz, G., 1997. Importancia de la sombra en el cafetal. Agroforesterı́a en Las Americas 4 (13), 25 – 27.
Naturland, 2000. Normas para la Agricultura Organica. Asociación Alemana para la Agricultura Ecologı́ca,
Grafelfing, Germany.
Nestel, D., 1995. Coffee in Mexico: international market, agricultural landscape and ecology. Ecological Eco-
nomics 15, 165 – 178.
Nolasco, M., 1985. Café y Sociedad en Mexico Centro de Ecodesarrollo, Mexico D.F., Mexico.
NSTA (National Science Teachers Association), 1996. Bottle Biology: an idea book for exploring the world
through soda bottles and other recyclable materials. National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington,
VA, United States.
Pawluk, R.R., Sandor, J.A., Tabor, J.A., 1992. The role of indigenous soil knowledge in agricultural develop-
ment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47 (4), 298 – 302.
Perez-Grovas, V., Marvey, R.L., Anzueto, W.A., Rodriguez, F.L., Gomez, E.H., 1997. El Cultivo de Café
Orgánico en la Unión Majomut: Un Proceso de Rescate, Sistematizació, Evaluación y Divulgación de
Technologı́a Agrı́cola. Red de Gestión de Recursos Naturales, Fundación Rockefeller, Mexico City, Mexico.
Phillips-Howard, K.D., Lyon, F., 1994. Agricultural intensification and the threat to soil fertility in Africa:
evidence from the Jobs plateau, Nigeria. Geographical Journal 160 (3), 252 – 265.
Rajasekaran, B., Warren, D.M., 1995. Role of indigenous soil health care practices in improving soil fertility:
evidence from South India. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50, 146 – 149.
Ranasinghe, H., 1995. Traditional tree-crop practices in Sri Lanka. Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor 3 (3), 7 – 9.
Reij, C., Mulder, P., Bogemann, L., 1988. Water Harvesting for plant production. Paper No. 91. World Bank,
Washington, DC, United States.
Rice, R.A., 1998. La situacion del café orgánico certificado en el mundo. Agricultura Orgánica 4 (3), 18 – 20.
Rodriguez, V., Cortez, S.L., Ortiz, S.L., 1991. Coffee seedlings growing under Gliricidia spium and Leucaena
leucocephala: dry and fresh weights of seedlings organs. Cultivos Tropicales 12 (2), 35 – 41.
Roskoski, J., 1980. Importancia de la fijación de nitrógeno en la economı́a del cafetal. In: Jiménez-Avila, E.,
Goméz-Pompa, A. (Eds.), Estudios Ecológicas en la Ecosistema Cafetalero. Xalapa, Mexico, pp. 32 – 38.
 J.M. Grossman / Geoderma 111 (2003) 267–287 287

Roskoski, J.P., 1982. Nitrogen fixation in a Mexican coffee plantation. Plant and Soil 67, 283 – 291.
Sandor, J.A., Eash, N.S., 1995. Ancient agricultural soils in the Andes of southern Peru. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 59, 170 – 179.
Sandor, J.A., Furbee, L., 1996. Indigenous knowledge and classification of soils in the Andes of southern Peru.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 60, 1502 – 1512.
Secretarı́a de Hacienda, 1999. Agenda Estadı́stica Chiapas. Geografı́a y Estadı́stica de la Secretarı́a de Hacienda.
Tuxtla Guitiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico.
Sherwood, S., Uphoff, N., 2000. Soil health: research, practice and policy for a more regenerative agriculture.
Applied Soil Ecology 15, 85 – 97.
Sillitoe, P., 1995. Ethnoscientific observations on entomology and mycology in the southern highlands of Papua
New Guinea. Science in New Guinea 21 (1), 3 – 26.
Sinclair, F.L., Walker, D.H., 1999. A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry
research and extension. In: Buck, L.E., Lassoie, J.P., Fernandez, E.C.M. (Eds.). Agroforestry in Sustainable
Agriculture Systems. CRC Press, London; Lewis Publishers, London, pp. 245 – 275.
Souza, V., Bain, J., Silva, C., Bouchet, V., Valera, A., Marquez, E., Eguiarte, L.E., 1997. Ethnomicrobiology: do
agricultural practices modify the population structure of the nitrogen fixing bacteria Rhizobium etli biovar
Phaseoli? Journal of Ethnobiology 17 (2), 249 – 266.
Staver, C., 1999. Managing ground cover heterogeneity in coffee (Coffea arabica L.) under managed tree shade:
from replicated plots to farmer practice. In: Buck, L.E., Lassoie, J.P., Fernandez, E.C.M. (Eds.), Agroforestry
in Sustainable Agriculture Systems. CRC Press, London; Lewis Publishers, London, pp. 67 – 96.
Subler, S., Parmelee, R.W., Allen, M.F., 1998. Earthworms and nitrogen mineralization in corn agroecosystems
with different nutrient amendments. Applied Soil Ecology 9 (13), 299 – 306.
Thapa, B., 1994. Farmers ecological knowledge about the management and use of farmland tree fodder resources
in the mid-hills of eastern Nepal. PhD thesis, University of Wales, Bangor, UK.
Thrupp, L.A., 1989. Legitimizing local knowledge: from displacement to empowerment for Third World people.
Agricultural and Human Values 6 (3), 13 – 24.
Vanek, E., 1989. Enhancing resource management in developing nations through improved attitudes towards
indigenous knowledge systems: the case of the World Bank. In: Warren, D., Slikkervear, L., Titilola, S. (Eds.),
Indigenous Knowledge Systems for Agriculture and International Development, Technology and Social
Change Program, vol. 11. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Vanlauwe, B., Sanginga, N., Merckx, R., 1997. Decomposition of four Leucaena and Senna prunnings in alley
cropping systems under subhumid tropical conditions: the process and its modifiers. Soil Biology & Bio-
chemistry 29 (2), 131 – 137.
Warkentin, B.P., 1999. The return of the ‘other’ soil scientists. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 79, 1 – 4.
Weinstock, J., 1984. Getting the right feel for soil: traditional methods of crop management. The Ecologist 14 (4),
146 – 149.
WinklerPrins, A.M.G.A., 1999. Local soil knowledge: a tool for sustainable land management. Society and
Natural Resources 1 (2), 151 – 161.
Zeiss, M.R., 2000. Introduction, special issue on soil health: managing the biotic component of soil quality.
Applied Soil Ecology 15 (1), 1 – 2.