# data[].attributes.body
El cambio climático esta afectando el proceso fisiológico del cultivo de Fréjol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Temperatura base y tasa de extensión foliar en frijol

# data[].attributes.body
Con el pasar de los años la demanda de alimentos crece constantemente por lo cual la agricultura se ve forzada a crecer al paso del incremento poblacional de manera que la frontera agrícola sobrepase sus límites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The area available for nature conservation can be represented as:

This view asserts that to maximize the land allocated for nature conservation, the land area used to produce agricultural output must be minimized ( 7), taking into account geographic variations in ecological attributes, land quality, and the availability of production factors. At a global scale, the demand for a given agricultural product should be equal to its supply. The required agricultural area is given by the global food equation ( 8), for a product i:

On the supply side, one food product can be replaced by substitutes that decrease the consumption of product i (e.g., seafood or crops with high calories per unit of cultivation). Moreover, for a country c, imports and exports of that product i affect its supply:

Displacement (or Leakage) Effect.

Displacement of land use from a place occurs when there is a migration of activities to another place, therefore causing land change in the other locality. Leakage is a form of displacement due to land use policies aimed at reducing environmental pressure in a place. Land use zoning for nature conservation in a country may displace population and land use within that country or abroad, via migrations or by increasing imports of agricultural or wood products, thus shifting pressure on natural ecosystems elsewhere. When it is verified, the environmental Kuznets curve-i.e., a virtuous circle between economic growth and environmental quality beyond a particular level of per capita income-is in part explained by a spatial displacement of environmental costs to other territories ( 15). Trade redistributes environmental impacts of policies and economic activities at the global scale ( 16) because it is associated with virtual exchanges of natural resources embodied in commodities being traded-e.g., water, biomass, and land use ( 17, 18). International trade plays a rapidly increasing role in matching supply and demand for biomass-related products ( 19). Accounting for trade balances in land use quantifies both the land area appropriated by production abroad through imports, and the domestic land area embodied in exports ( 20). In 1994, 35% of food consumption needs in Sweden were satisfied based on agricultural areas outside the country ( 21). In 2001, the agricultural products imported by Switzerland corresponded in virtual land to more than 150% of the arable land cultivated in the country ( 20).

Countries apply different levels of land use restrictions to protect or conserve nature and its services, from strict nature reserves to protected landscapes. Protected areas are suspected to accelerate deforestation in their surroundings by displacing human populations or extraction activities outside reserves, by increasing the density of agents attracted by economic opportunities around parks ( 22), or through land market feedbacks ( 23). Forests are also assigned to different forest exploitation regimes specified by law. Restricting land use may "force the marketplace to look elsewhere to satisfy material needs ..." ( 24), unless demand for agricultural and forest products is shrinking because of a decrease in consumption or a substitution by other goods. Displacement of forest exploitation is a concern for climate change policies and carbon markets involving land use. With carbon crediting for afforestation and reforestation-as in Kyoto Protocole's Clean Development Mechanism-and avoided deforestation-as in the "Reducing Emissions for Deforestation and forest Degradation" (REDD) policy-the market creates an incentive for a leakage of timber harvest and deforestation from signatory countries to nonparticipatory countries. Such a negative externality would cause a loss of net carbon benefits ( 25). Leakage from developed to tropical countries may be detrimental to the environment because of the latter's overall weak environmental protection, logging practices that cause high collateral damages ( 26), and lower crop yields ( 27). Tropical forests have higher carbon densities but lower densities of commercial species ( 28), a richer biodiversity, and a greater role in mitigating climate warming ( 29) than higher latitude forests. Forest conservation in developed countries may therefore result in an "illusion of preservation" ( 30).

Several studies also demonstrate strong cross-border leakages. Between 1990 and 2004, developed countries that enacted conservation set aside policies increased their cereal imports per capita by 42.2% compared with an average 3.5% increase for countries that did not enact such policies ( 37). An economic modeling study estimated that protecting 20 ha of forests from harvest in North America and Europe induces the logging of ≈1 ha of primary forest in remote tropical places or in Russia ( 38). A general equilibrium model showed that forest conservation and environmental protection in countries with a significant forestry sector would be associated with a leakage-mainly to developing, tropical forest countries-of at least 65% of the timber stock being protected locally ( 39).

Increasing demand for wood products and new forest conservation programs in China and Finland have increased pressure on forests in neighboring Russia through wood imports ( 40). In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the shift from net deforestation to net reforestation-referred to as the forest transition ( 41)-that took place in Europe and New England was facilitated by imports of timber and food: For every region with cropland abandonment and forest regrowth, other regions experienced compensating cropland expansion and forest clearing ( 42, 43). Importing wood products is the economic equivalent of exporting ecological impacts ( 40). The national-scale reforestation of Vietnam since 1992 was achieved by the displacement of forest extraction to other countries equivalent to 39% of the regrowth of Vietnam's forests from 1987 to 2006 ( 44). About half of these wood imports were illegal. For most of the developing countries that recently experienced a forest transition, displacement of land use abroad accompanied the local reforestation ( 45). Additional global land use change embodied in their wood imports did offset 74% of their total reforested area, a figure that is reduced when taking into account their exports of agricultural goods. Economic globalization thus facilitates a forest transition in some countries through a displacement of demands overseas, but other countries absorb these demands and undergo large-scale agricultural expansion ( 45). In Latin America, increasing global food demand accelerates deforestation in high potential areas for intensive agriculture while marginal agricultural lands are abandoned ( 46). Brazil is facilitating forest regrowth elsewhere by contributing massive quantities of beef, soy, and timber to national and global markets ( 42), which makes the 2004-2010 decrease in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon even more remarkable.

Displacement of land use is also taking the form of large-scale, cross-border land transactions that are carried out by transnational corporations and sometimes initiated by foreign governments ( 47). In this "land grab," large agribusiness companies from countries rich in financial capital but poor in suitable land for agriculture are acquiring large tracts of land in countries with land reserves. In 2009, >50 Mha of farmland in Africa had been subject to recent negotiations or transactions of this kind, mostly with investors from oil- or capital-rich but food-poor Asian countries ( 48). The food and biofuel production grown on these plots is destined for export. This off-shore agricultural production is a result of the globalization of trade, liberalization of land markets, and the expansion of direct foreign investments in the agricultural sector ( 47).

Rebound (or Take-Back) Effect.

The rebound effect refers to a response of agents or of the economic system to new technologies or other measures introduced to reduce resource use. An increase in production efficiency lowers the cost of consumption of a good. Because of a lower price, more income available to spend, product substitutions, and an economy-wide effect through economic growth, the consumption of this good or of other goods and services increases, thus offseting the beneficial effects of the new technology ( 49, 50). A strong rebound effect is more likely in large and expanding markets with a potential for economic growth. Jevons ( 51) had already observed that technological improvements in 19th century England that led to an increase in the efficiency of coal use caused an increase rather than a decrease in coal consumption in most industries (the "Jevons paradox").

It is often assumed that intensifying agriculture will spare land for nature as, for a fixed demand, higher yields decrease the area that needs to be cultivated. However, more efficient agriculture is likely to be more profitable and could lead to an expansion of the cultivated area ( 52). In the short term, the magnitude of this direct rebound effect depends on the price elasticity-the ratio of the percentage change in resource demand to percentage change in resource price. If demand for a good is relatively elastic, the price decline expected from more efficient technologies will stimulate more demand. If demand is inelastic, a rebound effect can still take place through product substitutions. Although the demand for staple crops for human consumption is relatively inelastic ( 8), the global demands for biofuels, meat, and luxury goods such as coffee are elastic. In the long term, the magnitude of the rebound effect depends on the impact of technological progress on economic and population growth. A similar rebound effect in wood consumption can be associated with an intensification of silvicultural practices.

Aggregate global scale data suggest that past agricultural intensification did spare land for nature. If crop yields would have remained constant since 1961, an additional 1,761 Mha of cropland would have been required to achieve the same production level as in 2005 ( 53). This cropland expansion would have consumed all of the land reserve and caused massive deforestation. Absent agricultural intensification, large food producing countries would have required two to three times more cropland area to meet current food demands ( 54). These estimates ignore, however, a possible rebound effect as, with lower crop yields, food prices and mortality due to malnutrition would have been higher in the past decades, and meat consumption lower, as these variables are largely endogenous.

Cross-country data show that paired increases in yields and declines in cropland occurred infrequently during the 1990-2005 period ( 37), thus refuting the land sparing hypothesis. Nations with concomitant rising yields and diminishing or static cropland were characterized by land set-aside programs and increasing imports of cereals per capita ( 37)-thus showing a rebound effect through displacement in the latter case. Another study detected a weak land sparing effect for staple crops in developing countries: Only in this case did per capita cropland area decrease slightly with crop yield increases ( 55). The relationship was reversed in developed countries, where agricultural subsidies maintained a high level of production. The land sparing effect was nonexistent when all crops were taken into account, as nonstaple crops replaced staple crops when they were contracting ( 55). Such relationships may be confounded by population growth and food imports.

Intensive agriculture often fails to spare land for nature due to environmental off-farm impacts, displacement of marginal farmers toward the extensive margin, and in-migration of landless farmers attracted by the economic opportunities created by intensification ( 56). National and local scale studies show two contrasting effects of agricultural intensification on land conversion, depending on how the new technologies affect the labor market and migration, whether the crops are sold locally or globally, the profitability of farming, and the capital and labor intensity of the new technologies ( 52). In cases that mostly involved crops consumed locally, agricultural intensification relieved pressure from the land, leading to abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation on steep slopes in uplands as lowlands were irrigated more intensively ( 57, 58). In other cases involving cash crops for rapidly expanding global markets, agricultural intensification encouraged more cropland expansion, as observed for soybean in Brazil ( 59, 60) and oil palm in Indonesia and Malaysia ( 61). Intensification based on mechanization and chemical-based weed control frees up labor that may migrate and convert more land to low-input agriculture ( 52, 57, 62). Profits and government subsidies associated with intensive agriculture may also be reinvested by agribusiness enterprises in agricultural expansion.

Cascade Effects.

Land-use change is driven by multiple, interacting factors that originate from the local to the global scales, involve feedback loops, and cascades through land use systems ( 63). A cascade effect is a chain of events due to a perturbation affecting a system. In ecology, it refers to a series of secondary extinctions triggered by the primary extinction of a key species in an ecosystem. In land change, it occurs through indirect land use changes, a crucial issue when evaluating environmental impacts of biofuels, for example. The mechanism is similar to that of land use displacement, with an initial change in land use allocation causing multiple crop substitutions and land conversion in a place distant from the biofuel production site, thus leading to additional environmental effects that are not immediately measurable.

When a bioenergy crop replaces a natural ecosystem, there is a direct land conversion. When it replaces a food crop in a field already under cultivation, or when crop production is diverted from the food market to the bioenergy market, the supply of the food crop decreases-e.g., for corn, sugarcane, potato, or wheat used for ethanol, or palm or rapeseed oil used for biodiesel. The market price for the replaced crop increases, thus causing more land to be allocated to that crop ( 64), which could negate climate benefits from biofuels. Successive market responses trigger a cascade of crop-by-crop substitutions, which eventually cause land conversion at the margins and a loss in ecosystem services (e.g., carbon storage and sequestration potential). When cultivation expands on abandoned croplands, there is still an ecological loss as natural vegetation regrowth on these areas is prevented ( 64).

Indirect land-use changes are caused by the competition for prime croplands, the international trade in agricultural commodities, and agronomic innovations facilitating crop substitutions under specific agroecological conditions. Estimating the magnitude of indirect land-use changes requires simulation experiments with global economic models to isolate the impact of an expansion of bioenergy crops from other underlying causes of forest conversion ( 63). These models estimate production functions and price elasticities based on sparse data ( 65). Rules for land use allocation and conversion factors between the cropland area allocated to biofuels and the conversion of natural ecosystems need to represent such complexities as how much marginal land is used, the adoption of land-saving techniques such as multicropping, the use of crop wastes and residues as feedstocks or animal feed, and changes in consumption and yield increases induced by higher food and feed prices. New infrastructures, and traceability and certification systems for biofuels, will also affect decisions leading to indirect land use changes.

Remittance Effect.

Outmigration from rural regions affects land use through a decrease in labor force and in consumption needs, and an inflow of remittances. In 2009, 214 million international migrants in the world were sending back home an estimated 414 billion US$ as remittances ( 76). This massive transfer of funds may facilitate the reconversion of family members at home to the rural nonfarm economy, thus decreasing pressure on land. An increase in wealth of rural households is generally associated with a decreased engagement in agriculture and diversification toward rural nonfarm activities ( 77). Alternatively, remittances can favor investments in mechanization and agricultural intensification. Migrants also directly purchase land in their home country, as a safety net and to maintain ties with their place of origin ( 47). Outmigration affects how land use decisions are made and may give rise to "remittance landscapes" ( 78). Migrations interact with other factors associated with globalization that trigger a structural transformation of rural areas through land privatization, access to credit, nongovernmental organizations promoting social or environmental agendas, encroachment of largeholders or infrastructure projects (e.g., dams, mines, parks) on communal land, social mobility and expanded social networks, and the growth of urban aspirations. These trends result in a diversification of land use, with new crop varieties, home gardens, niche market production, or ecotourism, and the growth of off-farm activities ( 79).

Land Use Integration vs. Specialization.

In the land-use specialization view, nature and intensive agriculture are segregated spatially. When marginal regions are integrated into international labor markets, they benefit from new niche markets and environmental policies ( 91, 90), with positive impacts on ecosystems and livelihoods. International trade can improve the spatial adjustment between land use and the productive potential of regions ( 41). The globalization of the agricultural and forestry production systems therefore has the potential for relieving pressure from marginal ecosystems ( 9) as a regional specialization in the locally most appropriate land uses increases the global efficiency of land use. Differences in the availability of productive space, labor costs, and environmental legislation also drive a reallocation of land use. Productivity gains in agriculture and forestry, trade in land-based products, and displacing production from marginal to high potential regions is not a zero-sum game and can spare land for nature. Increasing deforestation locally in high potential areas could thus be beneficial at the global level ( 8). Access to global markets may also accelerate the diffusion of sustainable land management practices.

Learning from Recent Forest Transition Countries.

A few developing countries have recently achieved a land use transition with a simultaneous increase in food production and forest cover: China, Vietnam, India, Bhutan, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Chile ( 92). Understanding the conditions associated with these land use transitions is rich in policy lessons. The four cases (China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Vietnam) that most clearly qualify as recent forest transition countries ( Fig. 1 and Table 2) experienced a growing total population, with a decreasing or stable rural population, except for Vietnam, where agriculture still contributed a large share of the GDP. Crop yields, and crop and meat production, increased and the total agricultural area expanded, except in Costa Rica. Thus, forests did not encroach mainly on prime agricultural land but rather on abandoned or marginal land. Protected areas have generally expanded, mostly in Costa Rica and China. Forest reserves and other forms of zoning of forestry land helped to control the rebound effect of agricultural intensification. Forest plantations contributed a large share of the expanding forest cover in Vietnam and China. The roundwood production in these countries declined or remained stable. All these countries displaced some of their land use abroad as they were going through a land use transition ( 45). Most countries increased their imports of wood products and meat while shifting from net exporters to net importers of agricultural products. This shift caused cascade effects on land use systems abroad; e.g., China increased its imports of soybean from Brazil, with possible indirect effects on deforestation. China also outsourced part of its land use through large-scale land transactions in Africa. In Costa Rica, foreign private agents invested financial resources in nature conservation ( 93), whereas in El Salvador, remittances sent by migrants living abroad facilitated forest recovery ( 81).

The land use transition in these countries has thus been achieved through multiple interacting mechanisms including agricultural intensification, land use zoning, forest protection, increasing reliance on imported food and wood products, and foreign capital investments. The pathways leading to a land use transition rely to various degrees and combinations on off-farm employment, land use diversification by smallholders, state intervention in land management, and integration in the global economic system ( 92). Forest cover expansion is associated with various mixes of natural forest regeneration and plantations of exotic tree species, with a lower ecological value in the latter case. Numerous developing countries with conditions similar to that of the seven recent forest transition countries, however, have not achieved a net reforestation. Systematic analyses of these cases have not been undertaken. Pending them, a cautious assessment holds that forest transitions are highly contingent and not necessarily an inevitable consequence of economic globalization and modernization.

The global food equation ( Eq. 3) identifies the conditions for a global-scale forest transition. Each intervention option must be evaluated for its land-saving and other environmental impacts. Productivity increase only spares land for forests if it does not stimulate more demand for land-intensive commodities via the rebound effect. Substitutions of goods often displace environmental impacts across sectors (e.g., from land to oceans with a shift from meat to fish; from land to atmosphere with a shift from wood to cement). Outsourcing land use globally is not an option, but a cross-border displacement of land use that moves production to more productive lands and improves efficiency of land use is favorable for forest area, although transport is a source of pollution. Demand will continue to rise but could shift toward commodities that save land (e.g., away from meat) and that are associated with sustainable land use practices (e.g., as certified through labeling schemes).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A central challenge for sustainability is how to preserve forest ecosystems and the services that they provide us while enhancing food production. This challenge for developing countries confronts the force of economic globalization, which seeks cropland that is shrinking in availability and triggers deforestation.

# data[].attributes.body
El fréjol P. vulgaris es una leguminosa altamente consumida por la población ecuatoriana.
Entre las variedades seleccionadas está el fréjol Rojo moteado que es de tipo arbustivo sin guía y el fréjol negro de tipo arbustivo con guía.
https://www.fao.org/3/i5528s/i5528s.pdf
https://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/bitstream/41000/2712/1/iniapscpm146.pdf
http://repositorio.espe.edu.ec/bitstream/21000/10163/4/Manejo%20Cultivos%20Ecuador.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Cada uno de los integrantes estuvo a cargo de una de las dos variedades de fréjol (100) seleccionadas a experimentar en su respectiva ubicación.

Con un mismo sustrato (tierra de jardin)

Con dos reactivos ( Agua de llaves y agua destilada)

# data[].attributes.body
El fréjol negro regado con agua normal tuvo un mayor porcentaje de germinación con 84 semillas germinadas, mientras que, el frejol negro regado con agua destilada tuvo 70 semillas germinadas, no es tan grande la diferencia de germinación por lo cual se puede concluir que esta variedad es más viable en cuanto a la germinación, siendo el tipo de agua de riego un factor que no es significativamente determinante en su germinación.

# data[].attributes.body
https://culturaambientalista.com/agroecologia/como-sembrar-frijoles/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Los frijoles son considerados como una de las principales plantas si deseas entrar al mundo de las siembras y cosechas. Apartando esto, los frijoles también se caracterizan por ser unas poderosas fuentes de nutrientes. Es por este motivo y muchos más que el día de hoy hablaremos sobre cómo sembrar frijoles desde casa.

Cómo sembrar frijoles en maceta paso a paso

El primer paso consta en elegir nuestra maceta donde sembraremos los frijoles. Se recomienda una maceta o un contenedor que sea suficientemente espacioso y hondo para que crezcan sin dificultades. Evidentemente, esto dependerá también de la cantidad de frijoles que iremos a sembrar. De igual forma, nuestra maceta o contenedor dependiendo del caso deberá de contar con un buen conducto de drenaje, esto se debe a que los frijoles necesitan abundante agua.

El segundo paso se basa en llenar nuestra maceta con la suficiente tierra para la futura siembra. En este paso también tendremos la posibilidad de añadir abono y fertilizantes si tenemos la posibilidad. Se recomienda que el tipo de abono sea de estiércol o de origen vegetal para fortalecer la tierra con los nutrientes apropiados.

Continuando de esta forma empezaremos con la siembra de las semillas. En este tercer paso nos concentraremos en realizar diversos agujeros utilizando pulgadas como medida de profundidad. Es decir, a la hora de realizar una pulgada profunda, podremos depositar 2 o 3 semillas en dicho agujero. Seguiremos aplicando este mismo patrón sobre todas los hoyos realizados. Es importante que cada hoyo cuente con una separación de dos a tres pulgadas de distancia.

Ya después de haber aprendido sobre como sembrar frijoles en maceta pasaremos al cuarto paso. El cuarto punto de esta lista paso a paso consiste en el riego. Entre las recomendaciones más favorables mencionamos un riego constante con el fin de mantener la tierra húmeda durante el proceso de germinación.

Para finalizar, tocará ubicar nuestra maceta en un sitio donde reciba luz solar frecuente y esperaremos por la germinación y cosecha.

Tiempo de cosecha del frijol

Tras dominar los conceptos básicos de cómo sembrar frijoles pasemos a conocer el tiempo de cosecha.

En primer instante, los frijoles tienen un proceso de germinación rápido. Es por este motivo que podemos observar cómo nuestros frijoles comienzan a brotar en un estimado de una semana, cumpliendo como mínimo 5 días y máximo 8 días.

Mientras tanto, el tiempo de cosecha de los frijoles dependerá de dos a tres meses luego de haber sido sembrados. Sin embargo, en caso de querer obtener unos frijoles secos deberemos alargar la espera hasta 4 meses aproximadamente.

Cómo sembrar frijoles en el suelo

A continuación aprenderemos a como sembrar frijoles en el suelo o en los casos de tener un huerto en tu hogar.

Es importante hablar sobre los dos casos distintos que se presentan a la hora de la siembra. La primera situación se enfoca en los sitios de climas templados, por lo que si vives en estas áreas tu siembra debe de comenzar en marzo. Mientras tanto, si vives en sitios con climas fríos, la siembra de los frijoles deberá de esperar hasta el mes de mayo.

No está de más mencionar que los frijoles se caracterizan por tener un rápido y saludable crecimiento en los climas cálidos.

Riegos

Los frijoles son un tipo de siembra que exigen de constante humedad. Es por esto, que necesitaremos estar pendiente del estado de humedad del suelo a la hora de la siembra. Los frijoles siempre han contado con la fama de ser sumamente exigentes con respecto a la frecuencia y cantidad de agua otorgada mediante el riego.

Dentro de nuestro huerto con las futuras plantaciones de frijoles se deberá de tener una humedad considerable antes de la siembra. Si empleamos esta técnica podremos facilitar la germinación de las semillas y acelerar su crecimiento en el huerto.

Los primeros días de la siembra tendremos que mantener la tierra húmeda. Se estima que la humedad recomendada se basa entre un 60% y 75%.

Se recomienda aplicar el riego de tipo goteo, ya que de esta manera se mantendrá la tierra húmeda en todo el transcurso del día. De igual forma deberemos de contar con un excelente sistema de drenaje, ya que el exceso de agua tiende a transformarse en encharcamiento y afectar a gran escala nuestra siembra.

Cuidados

Los frijoles son siembras capaces de soportar y crecer en una gran cantidad de tipos de suelos. Sin embargo, los más óptimos para su desarrollo son los suelos ligeros. Estos suelos deberán de cumplir con un buen sistema de drenaje y de ser ricos en abono orgánico, preferiblemente humus.

Es importante destacar que si el suelo posee bajas características de nutrientes tendremos que abonar antes de la siembra. Para tener buenos resultados aplicaremos abono orgánico sumamente descompuesto sobre todo el suelo un mes exacto antes de la siembra. De esta forma podremos mejorar la calidad del suelo y de las plantaciones.

Otros de los cuidados que podemos darle a nuestra siembra de frijoles sobre el huerto es el uso de las mallas. Las mallas cumplen con una importante función de mantener alejados a las plagas y posibles animales que podrían molestar al huerto. Las mallas nos funcionarán para mantener a los animales tales como pájaros y roedores lejos de nuestras plantaciones para evitar que se las coman.

La planta medicinal llamada cola de caballo es considerada como una de las mejores herramientas para mantener unos óptimos cuidados sobre el huerto. Uno de los mejores beneficios que otorga la aplicación de esta planta es mantener lejos a plagas y enfermedades tales como el oídio y antracnosis.

Por otro lado, los jabones potásicos también formarán parte de los cuidados en la siembra. Estos jabones nos permitirán alejar a las moscas blancas y pulgones.

Recolección del frijol

Luego de haber aprendido sobre cómo sembrar frijoles pasaremos a hablar sobre su recolección y cosecha.

El tiempo de recolección de los frijoles sobre los huertos es el mismo tiempo de los frijoles sobre macetas: de dos a tres meses.

Mientras tanto, la recolección de los frijoles que haremos será de tipo manual. Esto lo haremos cuando se pueda observar que las vainas ya están completamente desarrolladas. Tendremos que evitar que permanezcan mucho tiempo sobre el huerto para así mantener la textura fibrosa en la vaina.

Con lo que respecta a los intervalos de recolección ya pasamos de una a dos semanas aproximadamente. Esto dependerá del tipo de frijol que hayamos sembrado.

Recordemos que las plantas de los frijoles son sumamente frágiles. Es por este motivo que a la hora de la recolección tratemos de no perjudicar las ramas ni las vainas. El método más adecuado para la recolección será tomar las vainas desde la parte superior sin fracturarlas.

Finalmente, puedes aprender sobre el cultivo de otras variedades en los siguientes artículos:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cómo sembrar frijoles en maceta fácilmente ¡Guía definitiva!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Los frijoles son considerados como una de las principales plantas si deseas entrar al mundo de las siembras y cosechas. Apartando esto, los frijoles también se caracterizan por ser unas poderosas fuentes de nutrientes. Es por este motivo y muchos más que el día de hoy hablaremos sobre cómo sembrar frijoles desde casa.

# data[].attributes.body
Se obtuvo un mejor rendimiento en fréjol rojo moteado con agua potable

Se determino un menor rendimiento en fréjol negro con agua destilada