Amongst the breathtaking and mountainous landscapes of the Western Highlands is a highly indigenous Mayan population stricken with challenges of food insecurity and extreme poverty. Despite efforts by governmental and non-governmental organizations alike to combat these challenges, the results of chronic malnutrition have led to some of the highest child stunting rates in all of Guatemala, particularly in the department of Totonicapán, where this study took place. To date, information is limited regarding agricultural programs that utilize the rabbit as a model to reduce food insecurity in Guatemala. Thus, a novel agricultural education program, Guatemala Rabbit Project (GRP), was developed using a farm-to-fork and hands-on training approach to provide women with knowledge and skills needed to successfully raise rabbits for household consumption. The overarching purpose of this study is to evaluate the GRP as an agricultural intervention among women in three Western Highlands communities. The REAIM evaluation framework, developed for and widely utilized to evaluate public health interventions, was used to assess reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the GRP among participants. The first aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation utilizing reach, adoption, and implementation dimensions of RE-AIM. Findings suggest that the target population was reached, and adoption rates (84%) were promising. In general, GRP adopters adhered to the best management practices taught during the training, as reflected by observational scores across a variety of management topics indicating successful implementation. The second study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the GRP utilizing effectiveness and maintenance dimensions of RE-AIM. Findings suggest that the GRP could serve as a household agricultural intervention based on the reported benefits and positive unintended outcomes discovered. Participants provided feedback about challenges that will be used to expand training content. Overall, findings provide evidence that the GRP could be a sustainable agricultural intervention, increasing access to animal protein while also providing households with an additional source of income.

No description available.

The inaccessibility and cost of soil testing reduce effectiveness of fertilizer use on small-scale subsistence farms, and inadequate funding promotes adoption of soil tests in developing countries with minimal validation. For example, Mehlich-I extraction of phosphorus (P) currently used extensively in Guatemala may not be suitable for its broad range of soils. At least four alternatives are available but are relatively untested [Bray 1, Mehlich III, Olsen and pressurized hot water (PHW)]. Pressurized hot water is relatively simple and inexpensive, but is not yet tested against other extraction methods under variable P or potassium (K) fertilization levels. To determine whether PHW-extracted nutrients could be used to predict maize yield, as nutrient content and uptake, soil, plant tissue and grain samples were obtained from a multiple-site field study and calibration studies were conducted using five rates of P and three rates of K on soils incubated without plants or cropped with maize in greenhouse and field conditions. In the multiple-site field study, maize yield related significantly to PHW-extractable P (r2=0.36) and to leaf P concentration (r2=0.23), but Mehlich I did not. In the two soils used in the greenhouse study, maize yield, vegetative P concentration and total P uptake by maize were predicted by PHW extractable P (R2=0.72, 0.75 and 0.90, respectively). In the field experiment, grain yield was not improved by P or K application, but P content of maize leaf tissue did relate significantly with PHW-extracted P (R2=0.40), but Mehlich I did not. There were no yield responses to K application in any experiment, but relationships defined between extractable K for all five K-extraction procedures and soil applied K were similarly significant. In comparing P extraction methods, PHW was as good as or better than Olsen, Bray 1 and Mehlich III for relating soil P extraction to the parameters measured in these experiments, and these four alternative extraction methods were consistently better than Mehlich I. Mehlich I extraction should be replaced by one of the four alternatives tested, and PHW is the least expensive and, thus, most viable for use in Guatemala soils.

No description available.