text: UFDC Home | Help | RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS HIDE Front Cover Title Page Acknowledgement Dedication Table of Contents Preface Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: The small-scale family... Chapter 3: Economic characteristics... Chapter 4: Initial characterization... Chapter 5: Designing alternative... Chapter 6: Technology development... Chapter 7: Organization for... Copyright Title: Perspectives on farming systems research and extension CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT Full Citation STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072280/00001 Material Information Title: Perspectives on farming systems research and extension Alternate Title: Farming systems research and extension Physical Description: xiv, 167 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Language: English Creator: Hildebrand, Peter E Publisher: L. Rienner Place of Publication: Boulder Colo Publication Date: 1986 Subjects Subject: Family farms ( lcsh )Farms, Small ( lcsh )Agricultural innovations ( lcsh )Agricultural systems ( lcsh )Agricultural extension work ( lcsh )Agricultural systems -- Research ( lcsh ) Genre: bibliography ( marcgt )non-fiction ( marcgt ) Notes Bibliography: Includes bibliographies. Statement of Responsibility: edited by Peter E. Hildebrand. Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida. Record Information Bibliographic ID: UF00072280 Volume ID: VID00001 Source Institution: University of Florida Holding Location: University of Florida Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Resource Identifier: aleph - 000894800oclc - 13457045notis - AEK3365lccn - 86010029 isbn - 093147793X : Table of Contents Front Cover Front Cover Title Page Page i Page ii Page iii Acknowledgement Page iv Page v Page vi Dedication Page vii Page viii Table of Contents Page ix Page x Page xi Page xii Preface Page xiii Page xiv Page xv Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1 The need for new strategy Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Farming systems research and development Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Chapter 2: The small-scale family farm as a system Page 17 Human society Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Hierarchical agricultural systems Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Defining a farming system Page 32 Page 33 Prevailing farming systems by regions Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Characteristics of selected systems Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 The concept of "homogeneous systems" and its usefulness Page 52 Hierarchy of constraints to system productivity Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Chapter 3: Economic characteristics of small family-farm systems Page 57 Economic characteristics of small-scale, limited-resource family farms Page 57 Page 58 On the non-neutrality of scale of agricultural research Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 The puzzle: Panajachel, Guatemala Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Response to technological change Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Chapter 4: Initial characterization of farming systems: Comprehending and utilizing what we see and hear Page 81 Anthropological perspectives on contemporary human problems Page 81 Page 82 The art of the informal agricultural survey Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 The sondeo: A team rapid survey approach Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Comparing informal and formal surveys Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Chapter 5: Designing alternative solutions and improved practices Page 103 Necessary and sufficient conditions for adoption of improved practices Page 103 Human problems in technological change Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Prescreening potential technological components Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Infrastructural support for technological change Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Design of technology Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Examples of planning on-farm experiments Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Empirical results of farming systems research Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Chapter 6: Technology development and continuing characterization Page 133 Enterprise records (A form of multiple visit survey) Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Types of on-farm trials Page 137 Research to test the value of recommended practices Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Farmer-managed trials Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Chapter 7: Organization for development Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 FSR/E regions and field teams Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Copyright Page 168 Page 169 Full Text Perspe c t i v e s on FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH and EXTENSION Edited by Peter E. Hildebrand RI Pers p e c t i ves on FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH and EXTENSION Edited by Peter E. Hildebrand Perspectives on FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH and EXTENSION Published in the United States of America in 1986 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 948 North Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302 a 1986 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved Library of Cq ress atalogg-i'PbhliatHm Data Perspectives on farming systems research and extension. 1. Agricultural systems. 2. Agricultural systea-- Research. 3. Agricultural extension work. 4. Agricul- tural innovations. 5. Family farms. 6. Fanrs, snall. I. Hildebrand, Peter E. S494.5.S95P47 1986 631,5 86-10029 Distributed outside of North and South America and Japan by Frances Pinter (Publishers) Ltd, 25 Floral Street, London WC2E 916 aEgland UK ISN 0-86187-669-5 Printed and bound in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard far oPenmence of Paper for Printed Library Materials 239.48-1984. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chapter 1 Introduction Fro mhyte, Willian F. "Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Development: A State-of-the-Art Paper," vol. 3, no. 1. Ithaca, New York: Rural Development Caurittee, Center for International Studies, Carnell University (1981): 1-6. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. rom Hildebrand, Peter E., and R.K. Waugh. "Farning Systems Research and Development." SSP Newsletter vol. 1, no. 1 (1983): 4-5. By permission. Chapter 2 The Smal-Scale Family Farm as a System Excerpted from Shapiro, Harry L., ed. Man, Culture, and Society. Copyright o 1956, 1971 by Odford University Press, Inc.; renewed 1984 by Hary L. Shapiro. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Excerpted fram Shaner, W.W. Readings in Farming System Research. Copyright o1982 by Colorado State University. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Frcm Norman, D.W. "Dhe Farming Systems Approach: Relevancy for the Smll Farmer," MSU Rural Develo nt Paper No. 5. Fast lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University (19M0): 2-4. By permission. romn mcuoau, R. E., and P. E. Hildebrand. "Integrated Crop and Animal Production: Making the Mbst of Resources Available to Small Farns in Developing Countries." The Rockefeller Foudation Working Papers. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation (1980): 9-15. By penmisssion. Fran McDowell, R. E., and P. E. Hildebrand. 'Integrated Crop and Animal Production: Making the Most of Resources Available to Snall Farms in Developing Countries." The Rockefeller Foundation Working Papers. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation (1980): 17-25, 36-39, 51-56. By permission. Excerpted from Hildebrand, P. E. Working Paper, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), International Programs, Farming Systems Support Project. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida (1983). By permission. Excerpted front Hildebrand, P. E. The Farmin Systems Approach to Technology Development and Transfer. Water Managemet Synthesis II Project, International Irrigation Center. Logan, Utah: Utah State University (1983): 31-35. By permission. Chapter 3 Econaomc Qaracteristics of Snall Family Farm Systems First two readings front Hildebrand, P. E. IWrking Paper, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), International Prograns, Farming Systems Support Project. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida (1983). By permission. Excerpted from Schultz, Theodore W. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press (1964): 33-35, 41-44. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Fran Hildebrand, P. E., and Edgar G. Luna. Paper presented at Session No. 5, Public Investment in Research, Fducation, and Technology, Fifteenth Conference of Agricultural Economics. Sao Paulo, Brazil (1973). By peradession. Excerpted front Wharton, C. R., Jr., ed. Subsistence Agriculture and economic Develobent. Ocago: Aldine Publishing Copany (1969): Chapter 7. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Chapter 4 Initial characterization of Farming System Excerpted fran Bodley, J. H. Anthropoloy and Contenporary Humn Problems. Menlo Park, California: The Benjami/mOmJugs Publishing Company (1976): 10-12. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. From Rhoades, R. E. Training Document. Social Science Department, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru (1982). Fram Hildebrand, P. E. Cacbining Disciplines in Rapid Appraisal: The Sondeo Approach." Agricultural Administration 8. (1981): 423-432. From Franzal, Steven. paringig the Results of an Infornal Survey with Those of a Formal Survey: A Case Study of Farming Systems Research/Extension (PR/E) in Middle Kirinyaga, Kenya." Paper presented at the Farming Systes Research and Etension Symposium, Manhattan, Kansas (1984). Chapter 5 Designing Alternative Solutions and Improved Practices From Norman, D. W. "The Farming Systems Approach to Research." Paper presented at the Farming Systems Research Symposiun "Farmrng Systems in the Field," Kansas State University, Manhattan,. Kansas (1982): 5. Fran "Foreword and Introduction," by Alexander H. Leighton and Ediard H. Spicer, respectively, in HuIan Problems in Technological Change: A Casebook edited by Edward H. Spicer. 1952 by Russell Sage Foundation. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. From Planning Technologies Appropriate to Farmers: Concepts and Procedures. Mexico: CIfIY (1980): Chapter 11. By permission. Fran Zandstra, H., and K. Swanberg, C. Zulberti, and B. Nestel. Caque Living Rural Development. Ottawa: International Development Research Center (IRC) (1979): 255-258. Reprinted with pernlsssion of the publisher. From Gilbert, E. H., D. W. Norman, and F. E. Winch. IJ Rural DevelopIent Paper No. 6. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University (1980): 51-54. By permission. Fran Planning Technologies Appropriate for Farners: Concepts and Procedures. Mexico: CIMAYT (1980): Qhapter 12. By permission. Fran Norman, D. W. 'The Farming Systems Approach: Relevancy for the Small Farner," MSU Rural Development Paper No. 5. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University (1980): 10-20. By permission. Chapter 6 Technology Development and Continuing Characterization Excerpted froa Shaner, W. W., P. F. Phillip, and W. R. Schmehl. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries. Copyright 1982 by Consortium for International Development. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press: Appendix 5-x, 309-314. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Fran Hildebrand, P. E., and F. Poey. 'On-Farm Agroncmic Trials," Faming System Research and Extension. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. (1985): 6-8. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Excerpted from Zandstra, H., K. Swanberg, C. Zulberti, and B. Nestel. Caqueza: Living Rural Development. Ottawa: International Development Research Center (IIIC) (1979): Chapter 10, 160-189. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. From Hildebrand, P. E., and F. Poey. '"n-Farm Agronanic Trials," Faring Systems Research and Extension. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. (1985): 115-147. Reprinted with permnrssion of the publisher. Fran Hildebrand, P. E. 'b-Farm Research: Organized Camunity Adaptation, Learning and Diffusion for Efficient Agricultural Technology Innovation," FSSP Newsletter, vol.3, no.4 (1985): 6-9. By permission. Fran Hildebrand, P. E., E. Martinez, and R. Ortiz. generalizedd Organization of FSR/E Regions and Field Teams," FSSP Newsletter, vol.3, no.2 (1985): 1-3. By permisssion. To Maria and Annie with love Contents PREFACE xi 1. INTRODUCTION 1 The Need for a New Strategy William F. Whyte 1 Farming Systems Research and Development Peter E. Hildebrand and Robert K. Waugh 12 2. THE SMALL-SCALE FAMILY FARM AS A SYSTEM 17 Human Society Robert Redfield 17 Hierarchical Agricultural Systems Robert D. Hart 29 Defining a Farming System David W. Norman 32 Prevailing Farming Systems by Regions Robert E. McDowell and Peter E. Hildebrand 34 Characteristics of Selected Systems Robert E. McDowell and Peter E. Hildebrand 39 The Concept of "Homogeneous Systems" and Its Usefulness Peter E. Hildebrand 52 Hierarchy of Constraints to System Productivity Peter E. Hildebrand 53 3. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL FAMILY-FARM SYSTEMS 57 Economic Characteristics of Small-Scale. Limited-Resource Family Farms Peter E. Hildebrand 57 ix On the Non-Neutrality of Scale of Agricultural Research Peter E. Hildebrand 59 The Puzzle: Panajachel, Guatemala Theodore W. Schultz 66 Unforeseen Consequences of Introducing New Technologies in Traditional Agriculture Peter E. Hildebrand and Edgar G. Luna 69 Response to Technological Change John W. Mellor 74 4. INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION OF FARMING SYSTEMS: COMPREHENDING AND UTILIZING WHAT WE SEE AND HEAR 81 AnthropologicalPerspectives on Contemporary Human Problems J. H. Bodley 81 The Art of the Informal Agricultural Survey Robert E. Rhoades 83 The Sondeo: A Team Rapid Survey Approach Peter E. Hildebrand 93 Comparing Informal and Formal Surveys Steven C. Franzel 98 5. DESIGNING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND IMPROVED PRACTICES 103 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Adoption of Improved Practices David W. Norman 103 Human Problems in Technological Change Edward H. Spicer 104 Prescreening Potential Technological Components CIMMYT 107 Infrastructural Support for Technological Change Hubert Zandstra, Kenneth Swanberg, Carlos Zulberti, and Barry Nestel 117 Design of Technology Elon H. Gilbert, David W. Norman, and Fred E. Winch 121 Examples of Planning On-Farm Experiments CIMMYT 124 Empirical Results of Farming Systems Research David W. Norman 128 6. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUING CHARACTERIZATION 133 Enterprise Records (A Form of Multiple Visit Survey) William W. Shaner, Perry F. Phillip, and Willard R. Schmehl 133 Types of On-Farm Trials Peter E. Hildebrand and Federico Poey 137 Research to Test the Value of Recommended Practices Hubert Zandstra, Kenneth Swanberg, Carlos Zulberti, and Barry Nestel 138 Farmer-Managed Trials Peter E. Hildebrand and Federico Poey 148 7. ORGANIZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT 155 FSR/E in a Community Context Peter E. Hildebrand 155 FSR/E Regions and Field Teams Peter E. Hildebrand, Eugenio Martinez, and Ramiro Ortiz 162 Preface As this book goes to press, several important events related to farming systems research and extension have occurred. In February 1986, the International Agricultural Research Centers held a conference in Hyderabad, India, where they confirmed the importance of the farming systems concept as a method for reaching the majority of the world's farmers with new technology. In April 1986, the Office of Technology Assessment commissioned a paper to help the Congress of the United States evaluate farming systems as a means of solving rural poverty and hunger, particularly in Africa. The World Bank, after assessing the disappointing impact of the Training and Visitation extension system, has decided that farming systems must become a part of the technology innovation process in order to provide the technology necessary for the T and V system to be effective. In all, the Farming Systems Support Project has accumulated a current list of 253 farming systems projects in Asian, African, and Latin American countries. These are funded by many internation- al donors in combination with the national budgets of those countries. In addition, several of the land grant universities in the United States have initiated farming systems projects in their own states. This collection of readings is designed to provide back- ground and historical perspective cn farming systems research and extension. As the collection originated, it was much longer and contained both background and required readings for the farming systems. research and extension methods course offered at the University of Florida. It was also used for short courses, approximately one week in length, taught under the auspices of the USAID-funded Farming Systems Support Project at the University of Florida and several other U.S. campuses and foreign locations. In order to reduce the volume of reading required of the participants in these courses, the readings were reduced to a minimum set. It is difficult to put together a book of readings in a field that is developing as fast as is farming systems. Each year new basic readings appear that should be included. However, xiii it was thought that a book of background readings would be useful to provide a perspective on the development of the ap- proach. The majority of the articles appeared in the 1980s, although much of the information contained in them was developed during the 1970s, when farming systems began to gain momentum. Selections are taken from the biological, the social, and the economic sciences, as should be expected from an activity that requires multidisciplinary participation. Articles have been abbreviated or excerpted--in some cases only one or two key paragraphs are included. Some of the papers have been written specifically for this book. Grateful appreciation is expressed for the kind permission granted to use all the articles. I want to especially thank Jeanette Romero, who worked with me for several years and typed many drafts of the book, and Dorita Osorio, able replacement, upon whom fell the responsi- bility for typing the final version. Thanks also are due to all the students and fellow farming systems professionals who contributed many thoughts and suggestions on what to include or exclude. Their continuing interest has provided the incentive to complete this volume. Peter E. Hildebrand Perspectives on FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH EXTENSION EXTENSION CHAPTER 1 Introduction In the first reading, W.F. Whyte presents some of the more compelling arguments that led to the development of the approach now called farming systems. The reading gives some of the background for his 1983 book with Damon Boynton, Higher Yielding Human Systems for Agriculture, published by the University of Cornell Press. The title of the book expresses much of the spirit of the farming systems approach, a name applied by a person or persons unknown to this writer to several related but independent activities that were taking place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 1970s. The essence of these activities was, indeed, a human system in which farmers and scientists combined their knowledge and resources in order to be more productive in the eternal battle to maintain and improve the state of the human population of the earth. The second reading is a brief statement outlining farming systems research and development to lay the framework for the following chapters. THE NEED FOR A NEW STRATEGY William F. Whyte The organizational framework for agricultural research and development which has evolved over the past century, into the 1970s, has worked reasonably well for the now-industrialized nations. Students of agriculture development in increasing numbers, however, are coming to believe that this approach is not working and will not work so well any more in the developing nations. This conclusion has prompted a search for new agricultural R and D models of organization especially designed to improve the productivity and well-being of the rural majority who have so far been by-passed. The plant breeding breakthroughs of the "Green Revolution" of the 1960s, which produced new high-yielding grain varieties, supported some enormous advances in food production in a number CHAPTER 1 Introduction In the first reading, W.F. Whyte presents some of the more compelling arguments that led to the development of the approach now called farming systems. The reading gives some of the background for his 1983 book with Damon Boynton, Higher Yielding Human Systems for Agriculture, published by the University of Cornell Press. The title of the book expresses much of the spirit of the farming systems approach, a name applied by a person or persons unknown to this writer to several related but independent activities that were taking place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 1970s. The essence of these activities was, indeed, a human system in which farmers and scientists combined their knowledge and resources in order to be more productive in the eternal battle to maintain and improve the state of the human population of the earth. The second reading is a brief statement outlining farming systems research and development to lay the framework for the following chapters. THE NEED FOR A NEW STRATEGY William F. Whyte The organizational framework for agricultural research and development which has evolved over the past century, into the 1970s, has worked reasonably well for the now-industrialized nations. Students of agriculture development in increasing numbers, however, are coming to believe that this approach is not working and will not work so well any more in the developing nations. This conclusion has prompted a search for new agricultural R and D models of organization especially designed to improve the productivity and well-being of the rural majority who have so far been by-passed. The plant breeding breakthroughs of the "Green Revolution" of the 1960s, which produced new high-yielding grain varieties, supported some enormous advances in food production in a number of countries. Yet as many critics have noted, the new technology has tended to favor those rural producers already in relatively advantageous positions, doing much less to improve the lot of the rural majority, even in some cases having negative effects by spurring labor displacement or land concentration. This uneven impact of the new technology has not been a con- sequence simply of different sizes of landholdings. While on the average, larger farmers have benefited from it more than smaller farmers, studies sponsored by the International Rice Research Institute in Asia have found that where small farmers were cultivating irrigated land, they tended to adopt the new technology about as rapidly as the larger farmers and to reap substantial benefits. Indeed, their more intensive use of labor produced higher yields per acre than on larger, less intensively cultivated farms. The new technology, however, by concentrating on achieving the largest possible increases in yield, required good water control, application of chemical fertilizer, herbicides, pesti- cides, etc., even in some instances, mechanical power. Such conditions could not be generally met by smaller, poorer farmers. Indeed, worldwide we find that only about 15 percent of land under cultivation is served by irrigation systems, so this means that farmers on about 85 percent of the total area will benefit much less from innovations developed for irrigated land. Some of the agricultural research programs are broadening the objectives in their plant breeding programs. We find IRRI, CIMMYT, and other international research centers, as well as their national agricultural research counterparts, increasingly working on upland crops and on improvements like inbred pest and disease resistance, nitrogen fixation, etc. Yet even as these laudable new efforts are launched, there is reason to be concerned that the very style and organization of most current agricultural R and D will not adequately take account of the cir- cumstances of small farmers and improve their productivity, for reasons discussed later. We do not wish to discount the great achievements in agri- cultural science and technology to date or to underestimate the potential for economic and social gains through agricultural research in the future. We begin our review with a recognition that the agricultural sciences have been enormously successful in some important respects. Without the advance of the so-called "Green Revolution," worldwide production of cereal grains would be far less than it is today, and the brunt of shortfalls would surely fall on the poorest sectors of society. Existing agricultural R and D strategies have not given much direct support to those farmers who struggle to survive under conditions of climate, soil, and water which are much less favorable than assumed by the "Green Revolution" technology. Moreover, they labor and produce within systems of agricultural production far more complex than the "primitive" stereotype we usually have of "peasant" farming (Harwood 1979; also Wharton 1969; Loomis 1976; Scrimshaw and Taylor 1980, pp. 86-88). We need to come to terms with these circumstances if agricultural R and D is to assist the poor rural majority as LDC governments and donor agencies intend. We do not assume that a new agricultural R and D model will be able to transform all rural people into productive farmers able to feed their families and have some surplus to sell for cash income. In the first place, there are many millions of landless rural families. Among those who own no land at all, a substantial part of the rural population has access to land only under highly oppressive conditions of tenancy (Esman 1978; Rosenberg and Rosenberg 1978; Lassen 1979; Harik 1979). Research in the plant and animal sciences can hardly be expected to benefit them substantially unless land tenure conditions are changed. In the second place, there are millions of near- landless households -- minifundistas as they are called in Latin America -- who own so little land that they have no possibility of growing enough food to feed their families, let alone having any. surplus to market. Improvements in their well-being will also depend in large measure on the generation of new employment opportunities. While most of our attention here is focused on small farm- ers who are the next level up, owning enough land to have a possibility of becoming self-sufficient in food production and even producing a small surplus, we are also concerned with these minifundistas. While it may be impossible for this category to make their small farms produce enough to feed their families and also bring in a small cash income, we should not conclude that plant and animal sciences can do nothing for them. Around the world, there are millions of minifundistas who are at least able to meet some of their families' food consumption needs through their own farm work and at the same time have members of their families work off their farms, either for larger farmers elsewhere or in nonagricultural occupations, thus bringing in some income to buy food and some of the other necessities of life. Such families might profit significantly from increases in the efficiency of their farms; but changes in their practices which would require substantially more farm work (when they are already working a great deal off the farm), or a substantially greater expenditure on inputs (when cash is very scarce), might involve sacrifices of opportunities for off-farm employment or of consumption that would make the changes seem impractical to such farmers. This fact means that researchers and extensionists must go beyond dealing with one crop at a time, rather considering the pattern of the farming system as a whole and relating that farming system to the total economic and social environment of the rural family. Having opened up far larger problems than we can deal with in an introduction, we begin with discussion of deficiencies in conventional agricultural research and development strategies. Our purpose is not to make negative arguments but rather to determine what lessons can be learned from past experience for deriving more fruitful R and D models for the future. RECOGNIZING SHORTCOMINGS IN CONVENTIONAL STRATEGIES Agricultural research and development models have mostly been created in industrialized nations and then have been introduced into developing nations. Although some implications are involved, it is instructive to consider two general types of models that have been transferred. The first type, the European colonial model, was already introduced before World War II in the African and Asian colonies. The second type was developed after 1945 through U.S. technical and financial assistance in Latin America and some Middle Eastern and Asian nations. The European colonial model was based primarily upon large- scale plantations devoted to production of crops for export - and particularly for export to the mother country. In some cases, these plantations developed a high degree of productivity and efficiency, based on thorough farm management backed up by high quality research in the plant sciences. Until shortly before the end of the colonial period however, such research was concentrated largely upon export crops, thus providing for no technical assistance to the small farmers who were raising crops for home consumption and for local marketing. When researchers finally began experimentation on domestically consumed crops, the plantation system did not lend itself to effective work with small farmers. Thus, the Europeans and their African and Asian research counterparts were in need of a new agricultural research and development model. The structure of the European model, in its initial concep- tion and supporting philosophy, was distinctly "vertical." Research was carried out in the laboratories and sent "down" to the plantation, where production could be closely supervised and controlled, as in a traditional industrial organization. Any feedback was definitely "upwards" to the scientist who guided the operation. Naturally, adapting this model for work with small farmers proved difficult. With the passing of the colonial era, the U.S. model of agricultural research and extension gained in popularity and influence. Indeed, in the late 1940s, many U.S. experts assumed that transplantation of their model to developing nations could result in the same increase in productivity and farmer income as had occurred in the United States. The Point IV program, designed to bring technological and financial assistance to agriculture in developing nations, carried with it the model of American "land grant" universities linked to an extension service taking the results of university-based research "out" to farmers. If the system worked as intended, it brought farmers' experience and problems "back" to the researchers at the university or experiment station. This model was intended to be "horizontal," although in practice this second model can resemble the first by having essentially a one-way flow of initiatives and information. As is well known in studies of industry and government, in a vertical organization it is much easier to transmit information accurately downward than upward, and initiation of changes from below is likely to be especially difficult. The horizontal model was intended to overcome this imbalance in flow of communication and exercise of influence. In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States spent millions of dollars to expand and strenghten agricultural extension in Latin America and also in some Middle Eastern and Asian nations. Toward the end of this period, AID commissioned an evaluation (Rice 1971) to determine the effects of these expenditures in the Andean nations. The study sought evidence in concrete terms of increased yields or other quantitative indices of improvement. The author was not seeking to discredit agricultural extension. On the contrary, he made an exhaustive search for any solid indications that this enormous expenditure by the U.S. and by the host nations had produced measurable benefits, but with no success. As we examine the factors underlying the failure of the at- tempted U.S. transplant to become broadly effective, we should recognize that program planners focused mostly on one part of the model agricultural extension. Until the failure of this partial transplant became evident, they did not undertake to build in developing countries (or were not able to build) the other components, particularly the university- and experiment-station- based research programs, which were vital features of the U.S. model. The failure of the agricultural extension system to produce expected benefits cannot be attributed to any single cause. It will be instructive to describe some of the main fac- tors that were involved, however. LIMITATIONS IN EXTENSION STRATEGY The strategy employed in agricultural extension also in- volved the now discredited assumption still implicit in the commonly used phrase, "transfer of technology." The term is seriously misleading because it implies that small farmers have such inadequate knowledge about agriculture that they must depend upon the professionals to provide them with the information and ideas to improve production. We find many common deficiencies in knowledge and ability on the part of extension agents. In most developing countries, college education and even high school education had been confined largely to persons coming from urban families. Men of such background employed as extension agents often had little or no actual farming experience, and, furthermore, their education had been largely a matter of book learning. Therefore, one usually had a young and inexperienced extension agent dealing with a middle-aged farmer. That farmer was likely to discover rather quickly that the agent was without practical experience and might not know what he was talking about. The agent, lacking confidence in his own farming ability, would be inclined to compensate for his insecurity by emphasizing the superior importance of his book learning. Relationships built upon such a foundation could hardly lead to constructive outcomes. Even when the extension agent has been able to combine some practical knowledge with his formal learning, and has learned to relate well to peasant farmers, his effectiveness can be undermined by the scope of work he is expected to cover in tasks, territory, and population. In a study of the extension of high-yielding rice varieties in Tamil Nadu State of India, agents were responsible for supervising 30 or more other schemes, many of which had multiple operational components (one included promotion of five varieties, a loan program, and fertilizer distribution). In addition, the extension agent was to submit a 21-page monthly report which could take up to a week to complete (Heginbotham 1975 pp. 107-108). Superiors freely demanded still other reports and soil samples from hundreds of randomly selected locations, setting "targets" beyond any human capability to achieve (pp. 112-119). That the HYV program did not make more progress was at least partly due to the irrationality of extension administration, though the top administrators could blithely insist that all targets were "rationally decided." In neighboring Andhra Pradesh State, a study found extension officers spending 19 to 44 percent of their time in preparing and maintaining reports and returns, ana that District Agricultural Officers had about 125 reports (weekly, monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annual) to submit (Reddy 1981 p.103). In Kenya, where monthly work loads of extension staff were analyzed in terms of the targets already set, meeting all of them would require as much as 474 percent of the available staff time (Chambers 1974 p.66). In such situations, it becomes "rational" for the agents themselves to adopt strategies vis-a-vis farmers that protect their careers, giving precedence to reports over fieldwork, or in their fieldwork focusing on richer farmers who are more inclined to cooperate and who have larger holdings so they can take more of the proffered seeds and fertilizer and thereby make the agent's performance record look better. In a study of the Kenyan extension service's performance, it turned out to be "rational" for agents -- unable to serve all the hundreds of farmers in their assigned area -- to serve the richer, more "progressive" farmers disproportionately. Indeed such farmers were 42 times more likely to receive a visit from an extension agent during the year than a farmer who was not already using hybrid corn seed and raising a cash crop. This "bias" in extension services would minimize the likelihood of complaints against the agent by influential people which would make his personnel record look bad (Leonard 1977). The scope of the agent's responsibilities -- the number of activities and the number of farmers assigned to him -- thus often prevented him from undertaking the kind of follow-up on the results of his recommendations that would enable him to be a more effective change agent -- or they would keep him from engaging himself with the problems which face small farmers not yet part of a commercial system of production and marketing. If farmers did not accept the agent's recommendations or did not get the promised results, this should raise a number of questions, seldom answered. Did the farmer adopt the recommendations exactly as proposed by the agent? If not, why not? Because he did not understand the agent's explanations? Because he understood but did not believe that the recommendations would yield good results? Because he could not afford the cost of the necessary inputs? Or because the inputs were not available? If the farmer did attempt to apply the recommendations but achieved poor results, the following questions suggest them- selves. Did he apply the recommendations in accordance with the directions of the agent? If not, why not? This leads back to the questions raised above. If he did apply the recommendations faithfully, but still results were poor, were the recommendations simply wrong? None of these questions can be answered by the agent who works in the traditional top-down style of field operations. If an extension agent works closely with farmers throughout the agricultural cycle, he will have a good chance of learning the answers to most or all of these questions, and those answers will greatly enrich his learning and increase his effectiveness. However, such an intensive relationship cannot be developed and maintained if the agent is responsible for a large territory and a large number of farmers, as usually is the case. This might lead us to the conclusion that agricultural min- istries should multiply the number of agents so as to achieve more intensive relations between agents and farmers. Even if there were no other reasons to argue against this conclusion -- and indeed there are -- it is obvious that developing countries simply lack the money and the professional talent to provide for this more intense technical assistance relationship. Such a conclusion must lead us to recognize that the basic design of the relationship is faulty: if we think only in terms of a one-on-one relationship between the extension agent and the farmer, then it is impossible to develop a cost-effective system of agricultural research and extension. We therefore need to think of organizational strategies which will not only provide more useful information but will channel it more effectively and economically to those who need to use it. We also find almost universally a lack of integration among the various government agencies which have official respon- sibilities of serving the small farmers. It is rare indeed to find a country where there is an effective collaborative relationship between research and extension. We commonly find that research people look down upon extension agents, considering them incompetent and poorly trained. On the other hand, extension agents are often inclined to think that research people are out of touch with the practical realities of farming and simply pursuing esoteric projects designed to lend them profes- sional prestige. The problems are compounded by difficulties with agricul- tural credit and marketing. As various studies have shown, credit tends to go predominantly to the more affluent farmers. This bias cannot be explained in terms of credit risk, for research suggests that the failure of repayment is higher among large farmers, whose social position and political connections help them to avoid penalties for defaulting on their obligations. This social-class bias in the channeling of credit has been documented in various parts of the world. (For India, see Ames 1975; for Bangladesh, see Blair 1978.) The cost of credit for small farmers is also likely to be a major problem. In order to protect poor people from the exorbi- tant rates of money lenders, many governments have established special credit programs for small farmers. However, even if such programs do provide money at lower nominal interest rates than private lenders, the de facto rates may still be so high as to discourage borrowers. Or the cost, in terms of time, to obtain necessary certificates and signatures may be substantial and detract from the value of the loan. It is not just a question of the availability or unavailability of credit or even of rates of interest so high that loans are not attractive to farmers. There are problems in getting authorized credit to farmers in time for them to make the optimum use of that credit. ...now, more than ten years after the beginning of Pro- ject Puebla (in 1967) it is still impossible to get credit in the hands of the small farmers of Puebla earlier than one month after they need it to achieve best results. (Antonio Turrent, personal communica- tion ) Further, in industrialized nations, many farm families own trucks or pickups that they use to get their produce to the market. Few small farmers in developing countries can afford such vehicles. Unless they band together to form a cooperative -- a possibility we will discuss later they are at the mercy of their more affluent neighbors or of intermediaries from elsewhere for getting their produce to the market. The poor farmer often finds that he has to sell his produce on the spot at a fraction of what he could get for it if he himself were able to put it in the market. To deal with this marketing problem, some governments have established buying organizations, guaranteeing to buy what the farmer produces at prices designed to provide him a reasonable income. However, such government organizations often are so inefficient that they fail to provide help to small farmers. Nor is it just a matter of the difference in efficiency between the independent entrepreneur and the government agency. Even if he offers the farmer a price substantially below the government guarantee, the entrepreneur makes his decisions and pays cash on the spot. The driver of the government truck has no such freedom. Since he is dealing with money of the state, he can only weigh the produce and give the farmer a receipt for the amount he has delivered. The farmer then may have to wait several months before collecting in cash from the government agency and, even at that time, he may be disappointed in finding that the amount he had expected to receive has been reduced because of reported deficiencies in quality or presence of impurities. Such discounts, based upon judgments and calcula- tions made behind the scenes (and possibly incorrect) are beyond his control. Furthermore, sometimes a bribe must be paid to an official to redeem the receipt issued for the produce, a complaint among cocoa farmers in Ghana (Beckman 1976) and small farmers selling export crops in Jamaica (Goldsmith and Blustain 1980). Then, too, there may be serious storage problems for the small farmer. If he must sell his produce at the time of harvest, he finds himself going into the market when supplies are most bountiful and prices lowest. He knows he could get a substantially higher price if he could hold his produce off the market for several weeks or months, but, even if he could afford to delay the sale, his ability to do that depends upon having his own storage facilities or having access at reasonable cost to other facilities in his neighborhood. Without such support, the farmer is constantly entering the market under disadvantageous conditions. Finally there is the sex bias that has been built into agricultural R and D organizations from the beginning but which only recently has come to be recognized as a problem (Staudt 1975, 1978). In the past all over the world, agricultural extension has been a job for men. The extension activities provided for women have traditionally centered around the homemaker functions of cooking, sewing, and so on. This division of labor is based upon the implicit and incorrect assumption that farm women only take care of home and family. In many parts of the developing world, women are actively engaged in agricultural production. In fact, in some countries in Africa it is estimated that women do 70 percent of the farm work (E. Boulding 1977). Even in countries where most of the farm work is carried on by males, women participate at critical points. Then there is always a large number of farm households (20 to 30 percent in many countries) headed by widows or by women whose husbands are away seasonally or for extended periods in urban employment. In such cases, women can be severely disadvantaged if they receive no assistance from the agricultural professionals. Furthermore, even when the extension agent recognizes the woman's involvement in agricultural production, he is likely to find it difficult to work effectively with her because of communication problems or suspicions that would be aroused in some cultures by the outside professional spending time alone with the farm woman. While all of these factors add up to a general explanation of the ineffectiveness of the traditional agricultural extension system, we gain a more systematic picture of the problem if we place it in the context of the socioeconomic structure of a developing nation, compared to the United States. The U. S. model of land grant university and extension systems fits into a socioeconomic structure of relatively ample landholdings, in an affluent farm population with a high level of education so that farmers are able to read and study published material, and all of this set in a democratic culture which emphasizes status differences and promotes free exchange of opinion and ideas. Furthermore, the U. S. farmer is supported by a modern infrastructure for communication and transportation. There are many farmers who earn more money than do extension agents and many have had as much education as the agents themselves. The more successful farmers do not hesitate to bypass the extension agent to go to talk to a researcher in the university or seek out a specialist in a private company to get advice on their problems. The farmers also have a social position and organizational base which enables them to put pressure on the R and D system to respond to their interests. To be sure, all of this has led to what is coming to be recognized as a bias in the system in favor of serving the larger farmers and agribusiness, but still the system has served a much broader base in the United States than in developing countries. In the latter countries, there may be such a gap in social .status, education, and income between peasant farmers and extension agents that the farmers are hesitant to express their opinions and make demands upon the agent, while at the same time the difference in social positions tends to lead the agent to underestimate the intelligence and competence of peasant farmers. The gap between the two may be further accentuated by major differences in language and culture. In many countries, there are large populations of peasant peoples who speak an indigenous language and speak and understand the national language poorly if at all. "Language difficulties reinforce the negative view agents hold toward small farmers. That is, the small farmer may be fluent and eloquent in his indigenous language and yet be able to speak only at a primitive or crude level in the national lan- guage. Being addressed at this 'childish level', the agent often unconsciously assumes that the farmer has a childish mentality and limited intelligence. Such a demeaning view presents a major barrier against the building of mutual respect upon which satisfactory cooperation depends. "When the extension agent does speak the indigenous lan- guage, as is sometimes the case, this helps him to cross the communication barrier. But rarely is much competence in an indigenous language considered in making appointments of exten- sion agents, so often we find communication problems between 'two cultures' compounded by the language barrier. The basic differences in social status, education, affluence, language and culture do not make it impossible to establish effective communication between the professionals and farmers, but they do present formidable barriers which will not be overcome simply by applying a U.S. model of agricultural research and development." (Norman Uphoff, personal communication ) CONCLUSIONS We can sum up the main points in terms of the following general propositions: 1. Both the European colonial model and the U.S. agricul- tural extension model were based upon the implicit assumption characterized elsewhere as "the myth of the passive peasant" (Whyte 1975). 2. More effective organizational models must be based upon the assumption that the poor farmer is an intelligent individual, interested in changes that may improve the standard of living of his family, within the limits of his resources and the information available to him and taking into account the risks that may accompany change. 3. A one-on-one relationship between the small farmer and extension agent will not be cost-effective. More effective orga- nizational models will link agricultural professionals with organized groups of farmers, with farmers participating actively in change programs. 4. Small farmers face major problems in the number of uncoordinated agencies with which they must deal if they are to get help from the state. Therefore, more effective organiza- tional models will have to provide better coordination among these agriculture-related agencies. 5. Communication and cooperation between small farmers and agricultural professionals are influenced by the culture and social structure of the country in which they live and work. REFERENCES Ames, Glenn. 1975. Who benefits from credit programs and who repays? Large farmers in village level cooperatives in My- sore, India. Land Tenure Center Newsletter, January- March, pp. 16-22. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Beckman, Bjorn. 1976. Organizing the farmers: Cocoa politics and national development in Ghana. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Blair, Harry W. 1978. Rural development, class structure, and bureaucracy in Bangladesh." World Development, 6:1, pp. 65-83. Boulding, Elise. 1977. Women in the twentieth century world. New York: Wiley. Chambers, Robert. 1974. Managing rural development: experience in East Africa. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Esman, Milton, et al. 1978. Paraprofessionals in rural development. Ithaca: Cornell University, Rural Development Committee. Goldsmith, Arthur and Harvey Blustain. 1980. Local organization and participation in integrated rural development in Jamaica. Ithaca: Cornell university, Rural Development Committee. Harik, Iliya, with Susan Randolph. 1979. Distribution of land, employment and income in rural Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University, Rural Development Committee. Harwood, R.R. 1979. Small farm development: understanding and improving farming systems in the humid tropics. Boulder: Westview Press. Heginbotham, Stanley. 1975. Cultures in conflict: four faces of Indian bureaucracy. New York: Columbia University Press. Lassen, Cheryl. 1979. Landlessness and rural poverty in Latin America: conditions, trends and policies affecting income and employment. Ithaca: Cornell University, Rural Develop- ment Comnittee. Loomis, R.S. 1976. Agricultural systems in food and agriculture. Scientific American, 235:3. Reddy, G. Ram. 1981. Panchayati Raj and rural development in Andhira Pradesh India. In N. Uphoff (ed.), Rural devel- opment and local organization in Asia. Vol I: South Asia. New Delhi: MacMillan. Rice, E.B. 1971. Extension in the Andes: an evaluation of official U.S. assistance to agricultural extension service in Central and South America. Washington: U.S. Agency for International Development. Rosenberg, David, and Jean Rosenberg. 1978. Landless peasants and rural poverty in selected Asian countries. Ithaca: Cornell University, Rural Development Committee. Scrimshaw, Nevin, and Lance Taylor. 1980. Food. Scientific American, 243:3. Staudt, Kathleen. 1975. Women farmers and inequities in agri- cultural services. Rural Africana, Winter. Staudt, Kathleen. 1978. Male preference in government agri- cultural policy implementation. Development and Change, July. Wharton, Clifton (ed.). 1969. Subsistence agriculture and eco- nomic development. Chicago: Aldine. Whyte, William F. 1975. Organizing for agricultural develop- ment: human aspects in the utilization of science and tech- nology. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Peter E. Hildebrand and Robert K. Waugh The term "farming systems" was applied in the 1970s to several different activities being developed around the world. These activities had a common thread and general purpose, but the methods used to pursue the goals differed greatly. The threads that bound them all together and that are basic to the farming systems approach are these: A concern with small-scale family farmers who generally reap a disproportionately small share of the benefits of organized re- search, extension, another developmental activities. Recognition that thorough understanding of the farmers' situation gained firsthand is critical to increasing their productivity and to forming a basis for improving their welfare. The use of scientists and technicians from more than one discipline as a means of understanding the farm as an entire system rather than isolating the components within the system. FARMING SYSTEMS APPROACH In the 1980s, as the generic term "farming systems research" (FSR) came into more common use (for example, see Byerlee et al. 1982), it became evident that two basic components, when used together, comprise the farming systems approach to research and development. This concept is similar to that used by Shaner et al. (1982) who termed it FSR&D. This term will be adopted here. The two complementary components of FSR&D, recognized by Norman (1982) under slightly different terminology, are: The farming systems approach to infrastructural support and policy (FSIP). The farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) approach to technology generation, evaluation, and delivery. FSIP AND FSR/E DESCRIBED FSIP is more "macro" than is FSR/E. Since it deals with pol- icy, the variables it treats are mainly outside the farm gate and involve social scientists and economists more than agro- biological scientists. Methodologies frequently include surveys to provide the perspective on farming systems as a means of more accurately predicting farmer responses to different policy stimuli. FSIP is applied, farmer-oriented, socioeconomic research, supported by the agro-biological sciences in a team effort. The principal product is information. The primary clients are policymakers and managers of services and infrastructure. FSR/E is more "micro" in scope and deals mostly with conditions inside the farm gate. Because it is concerned with technology generation, evaluation, and delivery, more agro- biological scientists than socioeconomic scientists are involved and methodology is heavy in on-farm biological research with relatively little time devoted to surveys. FSR/E is applied, farmer oriented, agro-biological research, supported by the socio-economic sciences in a team effort which includes extension responsibilities. The principal product is technology. The primary clients are farmers. COMPONENTS ARE COMPATIBLE The two components use different mixes of scientists and methods. Their primary clients also are different. Still, they are highly complementary and compatible. FSR/E can have significant impact on policymakers because it can provide more detailed information on farms and farmers than FSIP can obtain. Similarly, FSIP can have significant impact on agricultural technology because it can provide FSR/E with more complete information on infrastructure and policy than it would otherwise be able to obtain. Taken together, then, FSR/E and FSIP comprise a complete development concept termed here FSR&D. FSR/E STEPS OUTLINED Although FSR/E is flexible to fit the agricultural and institutional conditions found in different country and cultural settings, it will usually involve a sequence of steps similar to the following: 1. Initial characterization and analysis of existing farming systems through close consultation with farmers. a. Tentative partitioning into homogeneous farming systems or recommendation domains. b. First estimation of problems and constraints. 2. Planning and design of first-phase work. a. Biological research. b. Continuing agro-socioeconomic characterization. 3. Selection, generation, and evaluation of technologies. a. Commodity and discipline research on experiment stations and in laboratories. b. Researcher-managed on-farm trials with farmer participation. Exploratory trials. Site-specific trials. Regional agronomic trials. Agro-socioeconomic trials c. Farmer-managed trials. Individual evaluation of acceptability by the farmers. Refined partitioning of recommendation domains by researchers. Initiation of technology transfer activities. 4. Information accumulation and analysis. a. Agro-technical data from on-farm trials. b. Economic records on farm enterprises from farmers. c. Other agro-socio-cultural-economic and political information through directed surveys of area residents. 5. Frequently programmed reevaluation of research information to do the following: a. Refine partitioning of recommendation domains. b. Make recommendations for mass transfer into specified recommendation domains of acceptable technology. c. Provide feedback into the sequential process. d. Serve as a basis for planning future work. 6. Extension of acceptable results throughout appropriate recommendation domain(s). FARMER MANAGES COMPLEX PROCESSES In many ways this sequence parallels what farmers have always done. The farmer manages a complex set of biological processes which transform the resources at his or her disposal into useful products, either for home consumption or for sale or trade. The choice of crop and livestock enterprises and the methods and timing of cultivation, husbandry and harvesting are determined not only by physical and biological constraints, but also by economic and sociopolitical factors, which make up the larger milieu within which the farmer operates. Within this complex milieu, through a process of trial and error and a number of seasons or generations, farmers move toward appropriate technologies and allocation of resources that make best use of those at their disposal given the objectives of each individual farm family. While the choices available to each farmer are different, those with similar sets of resources and constraints tend to make similar choices as to crops, livestock, and management practices. Those who have responded in similar ways can be grouped together into homogeneous farming systems (recommendation domains). FSR/E brings scientific method and additional expertise to bear on this process of problem identification and technology generation. Teams of scientists from different disciplines, working with farmers, can speed up the process and make it more efficient in responding to a rapidly changing world. REFERENCES Byerlee, D., L. Harrington, and D.L. Winkelmann. 1982. Farming systems research: issues in research strategy and technology design. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (No.5): 897-904. Norman, D. W. 1982. The farmimg systems approach to research. Farming Systems Research Paper No.3. Kansas State Univer- sity, Manhattan, Kansas. Shaner, W.W., P.F. Philipp, and W.R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming systems research and development: guidelines for developing countries. westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. CHAPTER 2 The Small-Scale Family Farm as a System The move toward a farming systems approach to technology development was spawned by concern with the social inequities in the distribution of the benefits of public investment in research and extension. Hence, most early farming systems work involved the need to understand more fully the small-scale, limited- resource, family farm. This chapter first looks at the broad question of human society as a system. The focus gradually narrows from agricultural systems to farming systems and finally to a specific farm case, which demonstrates the complexity of the small farm. The chapter expands again, looking at the concept of homogeneous farming systems and their usefulness in the FSR/E context and at the hierarchy of constraints within an agricultural system, showing how the constraints interact on the farm or on a particular crop. HUMAN SOCIETY Robert Redfield WHAT IS A SOCIETY? A society is people with common ends getting along with one another. A brawl in a barroom is not a society, nor is there yet a society when ten exhausted shipwrecked sailors clamber up on a lonely beach at least there is none until they begin to work out their common problems of getting a living and of living together. A society has, then, organization. It is people doing things with and to and for each other to the interests of each and all in ways that those people have come to accept. In this sense a group of boys organized to play baseball or to exchange postage stamps is a society, but here we have in mind those societies in which people are organized not for some special purpose or interest, but for all the business and pleasure of living. The societies that are the subject of this chapter are composed of men and women and children living CHAPTER 2 The Small-Scale Family Farm as a System The move toward a farming systems approach to technology development was spawned by concern with the social inequities in the distribution of the benefits of public investment in research and extension. Hence, most early farming systems work involved the need to understand more fully the small-scale, limited- resource, family farm. This chapter first looks at the broad question of human society as a system. The focus gradually narrows from agricultural systems to farming systems and finally to a specific farm case, which demonstrates the complexity of the small farm. The chapter expands again, looking at the concept of homogeneous farming systems and their usefulness in the FSR/E context and at the hierarchy of constraints within an agricultural system, showing how the constraints interact on the farm or on a particular crop. HUMAN SOCIETY Robert Redfield WHAT IS A SOCIETY? A society is people with common ends getting along with one another. A brawl in a barroom is not a society, nor is there yet a society when ten exhausted shipwrecked sailors clamber up on a lonely beach at least there is none until they begin to work out their common problems of getting a living and of living together. A society has, then, organization. It is people doing things with and to and for each other to the interests of each and all in ways that those people have come to accept. In this sense a group of boys organized to play baseball or to exchange postage stamps is a society, but here we have in mind those societies in which people are organized not for some special purpose or interest, but for all the business and pleasure of living. The societies that are the subject of this chapter are composed of men and women and children living together, generation after generation, according to traditional ways of life. Such societies are whole societies, in that they exist for all human needs and interests. They are enduring societies in that children are born and raised to become adults with ways of life much like those of their parents and grandparents. A nation is such a society, and so is an Indian tribe. So, too, is a town or village, and even a single family insofar as its members have traditions that are transmitted to each succeeding generation and make that family, through time, distinguishable from other families. On the other hand groups of nations taken together are great societies; one speaks of Western society in contrast to Oriental society. In some sense all the people of the world taken together constitute a single society. But it is of the separate tribes and nations that we are chiefly thinking here. Because there have been and still are so many and so various primitive societies, one learns a good deal about society in general by referring to one or another of these simple societies. A society is easily seen as people doing work. It has other aspects too. A society is also people sharing common convictions as to the good life. This is to say that it is not merely a system of production and of services an anthill is that but that a human society exists in the fact that its members feel that certain conduct is right and other conduct wrong, and act more or less accordingly. And a third aspect of human society is to be recognized in the sentiment its members have of belonging together as against other people who do not belong. A society is people feeling solidarity with one another. A SOCIETY AS PEOPLE DOING WORK In every society the work is divided. Everyone takes ad- vantage from work done by others of a kind which he does not do and in exchange serves those others by doing useful things that are not done by them. The division of labor between men and women is universal, in that everywhere what women do is on the whole different from what men do; on the other hand what each sex does varies with the society; in Polynesia the men did the cooking, among the Hisra Indians the women did the farming. Equally obvious is the division of labor that goes with differences in age. Beyond these bases for the organization of work, there are those which depend on differences in temperament, or on training, or on the accidents of opportunity, or on the variations in demand. In some small, isolated primitive societies there is almost no division of labor except between the sexes and the age-groups, and except some individuals who act as magicians or as leaders of ceremonies. Every adult man does about what every other does, and so it is with women. With the development of tools and techniques, with increase in population, and with the advancement of communication and transportation, the division of labor has become far more complete and complex. In the Guatemalan village of San Pedro de la Laguna, fifty-nine different kinds of specialists are to be recognized in a population of less than two thousand. A classified telephone directory suggests but by no means completely lists the thousands and thousands of kinds of specialists that make up a modern city. An obvious result of this increasing division of labor is the increasing ease in the number and kinds of commodities and services which people can enjoy. But another effect is to limit the view which any one individual has of the operations and goals of his society to a very small segment of the whole, with corresponding difficulties for industrial management, for dem- ocratic government, and for personal happiness. Another result is greatly to extend the number and distribution of people who divide labor with one another. Millions of people, from China to Congo to Akron, come to depend upon one another for services and products exchanged, and yet these people have no common purposes and understandings; they hardly know that one another exist. The organization of work tends to become world-wide while national and other local groups distrust, dislike, or fear one another. So men come to depend upon one another while yet without common sentiments and values. A SOCIETY AS PEOPLE SHARING CONVICTIONS ABOUT THE GOOD LIFE The organization of work takes place in ways other than the mere division of labor. Slavery is a way of organizing work. The market, to be discussed below, is another way. And a third, perhaps the basic form of the organization of work, arises from the fact that in a society people share common sentiments and beliefs as to what it is good to do. People work, not only because in most cases they are uncomfortable or even will starve if they do not, but because work is a part of the meaning of life. To the primitive agricultural Indian, farming is a nec- essary part of decent and appropriate human existence, an es- sential way of maintaining relationship with the supernaturals, a test and duty of honorable manhood. In such a society one prays as one works, and work is, in part, religion. In aristocratic societies of recent times on the other hand, work was appropriate only to the underprivileged masses; while in modern Western society work is again a general positive value, and men work for wealth and power and to excel their neighbors. The more general statement to make about society is that it consists of a plan of life. Society operates because its members have around them a universe which to them makes sense. Moreover, this plan is not merely a pattern without moral meaning: it is a plan for right conduct, an organization of conceptions as to the good, the true, and indeed the beautiful. The body of con- ventional meanings that are made known to us through acts and artifacts is by anthropologists called "the culture" of a community. In the primitive societies the "wholeness" of these meanings is more easily seen than in the case of large, complex, and rapidly changing societies. The customs and institutions fit together to make a single moral representation of the universe. The Papago Indians, for example, carry on warfare not as an opportunity for exploit separate from their other interests. The Apache scalp taken in a foray is the symbol of the supernatural power brought to the Papago camp by the warrior who killed, a source of spiritual strength, a form of divine power, solemnly to be welcomed into the camp, into the home of the killer. When the men are away on the expedition, the women and children, by abstaining from noisy or indecorous conduct, in effect share in the making of war, just as, in some primitive societies, men share in the importance and responsibilities of childbirth by "lying-in" by restricting their behavior for the welfare of the newborn child. Labor is divided, but all members of the society act in terms of common conceptions and ideals. Commonly the myths of such a society are narrative representations of its moral values, as its ceremonies are dramatic expressions that correspond. So every culture is a provider of a course of action for the individual, a source of his motives, and validator of his convictions. This is the way a simple and isolated society operates. But as societies have become larger and rapidly changing, with many different kinds of people in them, the customs and institutions no longer preserve this nation or town, but rather a great many incomplete cultures, so that what a man does at his office or in his factory is not always closely related to what he does when he plays or goes to church or visits the neighbors--if he does visit them. And what his children do and believe may be notably dif- ferent from what he himself was brought up to do and believe. Then the sense of the meaning of life tends to be lost; men experience uncertainty, insecurity, and confusion. On the other hand as this happens men more and more come to think rationally and critically about the life around them and to act inten- tionally to change and to guide it. Science develops, along with rational administrations and planning. The basis for the operation of society thus tends to shift, over the course of human history, from tradition to deliberate social invention and thoughtful choice.... (pp. 345-348) THE ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND CONSUMPTION In the first part of this chapter the division of labor was emphasized as a universal method for organizing work. This as- pect of the operation of society may now be examined more fully. The division of labor does bring it about that the whole society realizes the advantages of having some people do some things well through their freedom from necessity to do other things. But this is not all there is to social organization of economic activity. In every society it is also necessary to determine, somehow, what resources shall be used in producing what products. How shall products and consumable commodities be distributed and to whom? Who shall consume what commodities? The organized ways of accomplishing these ends may be called the economy of that society. The technology is the tools and techniques for producing and making useful things; the economy is the institutions and customs that get raw materials into products and that get both distributed and consumed. It is easy for us, who read these words, to think of factories, markets, and money as principal social machinery for getting these things done. But looking at primitive and ancient societies shows that these three are recent and special devices for bringing about production and distribution. In most societies raw materials and manufactured goods get around to producers and consumers without markets and money. The ancient and the basic form of economy is one in which goods are made and goods are distributed not by buying and selling at all, but by virtue of the traditional rights and obligations that custom recognizes to exist between one individual and another in that society, or be- tween one group in that society and another. This kind of economy is easily seen in most families. The product of the father's labor, whether it be meat from the hunt or a paycheck brought home from office or factory, is shared with his wife and children not because he sells something to them which they buy, but because it is recognized to be part of his role as father to share his product with his wife and children. The allocation of the father's labor to daily work, of the mother's labor to cooking and sewing, and perhaps of the small one's labor to fetching firewood or going to the store for lemons and soap, is a matter which requires no competitive bidding to determine and in most cases no payment of money to compensate. It is fixed by the very relationships of the members of the family to one another. The word "status" is conveniently used for all the rights and obligations which attach to an individual or a group, according to the customs of the society. The father's status in our society includes his right to choose the place to live, ac- cording to his need and ability to get work, and his duty to provide for his family, as well as to share in the practical and moral guidance of his children. The work he does and the sharing of what he earns are parts of his status, too. So we may speak of this kind of economy as a status economy. The basic form of economy in human societies is a status economy. In primitive societies most of the production - whether by hunting or by farming or by raising cattle or by handicraft manufacture is brought about not because somebody sees a chance to make a profit in some market, but because it is part of the traditional status of that man or woman to hunt or farm or make baskets. And what is made is shared with others according to status. In many South Pacific societies a man works, not to feed his own children, but to feed his sister's children; his own children will be fed by his wife's brother. In certain hunting tribes it is usual for the hunter to give certain parts of the slain animal to just certain relatives perhaps eight or nine different parts go, respectively, to eight or nine different relatives. So goods are distributed and consumed. These are reciprocal exchanges according to status: what a woman's brother gives to his sister's son is balanced by what that same man, as sister's son, gets from his own mother's brother, in the long run, and on the average. It is also common for goods to be distributed in status economies by the gathering of these goods in one place and by their distribution to all from this center. In a certain Melanesian community every gardener brings some of his best yams and puts them into the chief's yam house. They are "given" to the chief. As the large and beau- tiful yams pile up, the villagers take satisfaction in the richness and industry of their own community; the abundance of the chief's yams rebounds to the credit and glory of all. At a certain festival, the chief distributes these yams, some to visitors, and some to the villagers themselves. So everyone participates, in both the pride and the feasting. In many simple societies there is neither money nor market. The whole society is, in respect to this matter of the economy, like a family; the status relationships determine production and distribution. The medieval manor had an economy which was largely a matter of status. In contrast with this is that economy which depends upon the market. For the beginnings of the market economy in primitive societies we look outside of the local society to its relations with other societies. The beginnings of human social living must be thought of as taking the form of small groups scattered over a territory and pretty much isolated from one another. The re- lation between such groups is not ordinarily only of warfare. Organized aggressive violence against a neighboring society is not characteristic of the very simple societies. Many such so- cieties get along.with one another in a more or less friendly way: both societies recognize customary visits, without hostile intention, from one to another. An occasional invader from the outside may be killed, but the formal visit is expected and is received without violence. Many such visits are the occasion of the exchange of goods. More commonly, in primitive societies, people from one community pay a visit to another community, taking with them goods produced by the visitors and wanted by those visited. Then goods are exchanged, partly by barter and partly by exchange of gifts. Something is given in the expectation that something will be given to the giver by the one to whom he gives. It is an equivalence of good will, rather than of precise market value, that determines the transaction. So in such a market personal relations, and the status of guest and host, affect the exchange. In larger communities, where people do not know each other personally, and more goods and more kinds of goods appear, the market may be more fully a matter of an effort to sell at the highest price and to buy at the lowest; then buyer and seller alike "shop around," and who the man is who buys or sells does not matter as compared with the opportunity to get the best price. Such a market can to some degree operate by the exchange of one sort of good for another, but money, as a universal measure of value, is an enormous help in facilitation of market exchanges. In some societies incomplete money appears: in some Melanesian communities certain strings of shell beads are used only in payment for pigs or wives. But in other places metal hoes or copper axes or coined metal or engraved certificates of promises to pay both serve as tokens of value that measure the value of one article against all others in the market, and also provide a way of temporarily holding buying power from one market or opportunity to buy to another. In most societies of the world, and through most of human history, the production and distribution of goods has taken place chiefly as an aspect of the status relationships of the society: the market has been not the central mechanism for making society work, but a special or peripheral part of it. In modern times, and especially in the Western World, the market became much more important. In our society the effort of the laborer is to a considerable extent bid for and offered to the highest bidder, and the use of land, paid for as rent, also enters into market competition. Now markets are very wide; for some goods, like wheat and rubber and tin, the market is world-wide; and, with rapid and universal communication, and with the machinery of banking and credit, what goes into production where and what goes where to what consumer are matters that the market "decides," rather than status and moral custom. So, in our society, the operations of the market have a principal and even determining influence on all sorts of affairs. Many a worker must live where the opportunity to get a job determines, and if suddenly the produce he makes ceases to be wanted, he may have no livelihood at all, and perhaps cannot keep his family together; in parts of the world men starve because the market no longer needs their labor. Where a family goes to live, perhaps its own solidarity, perhaps even whether its members live at all, follow from what happens in an immense impersonal market, and the action of a na- tion, from its form of government to its remaining at peace or its going to war, may be shaped by what happens in markets. The operation of the economy may also be regarded from the point of view of the organization and regulation of productive effort. Even in the simple societies there is more to this than the mere separate work of single individuals. The household economy is in many cases under the leadership or direction of someone: the husband of several wives, as among the Hidatsa In- dians, an older woman in a large matrilineal family of the Iroquois. When the Chukehee of Siberia go to hunt seal or wal- rus, the builder of the boat is master: he gives the orders and he receives the largest share of the meat. In modern societies with highly developed markets, the enterpriser may be one or a group that brings together a very great amount of money and credit, labor and raw materials, in order that automobiles or steel plate may be made. Furthermore, with the development of the state as formal government, its own efforts enter largely into production and distribution. The state may itself be the principal producer, as in Russia, or it may supplement private enterprise, either to limit the operations of a free market, as in granting a monopolytoa single telegraph company, or in helping a freer market to operate, as in legislation against trusts. PROPERTY Among the common understandings which constitute the ul- timate basis of society are those which attach to things that may be used, enjoyed, or disposed of. Where the understandings limit or otherwise define such rights and obligations of one in- dividual or one group as to others, we speak of "property." Property operates to keep use and enjoyment and disposal in expected channels; it contributes to the working of society in wide and far-reaching ways; to confer and to limit power and the basis for getting more power; to serve as a criterion for status; to provide motives for effort. Wanting to own things, men may work, steal, or go to war. Owning things, men may enter social groups otherwise barred to them, exercise influence over polit- ical decisions, or assume correspondingly great responsibility for serving the common good. Property is thought of most immediately in connection with such tangible goods as tools, automobiles, houses, and land. It exists also with respect to such intangibles as magical spells, power-inducing songs addressed to supernaturals, hunting and fishing rights, patents and copyrights. In some societies personal names are owned in that they may be disposed of by sale or gift; in our society, a trade name may be registered and so owned. On the whole, the conceptions of ownership have become more complex with the developing complexity of society. Land, in particular, has become subject to private and exclusive own- ership, with rights of sale and disposition by will; in most primitive societies such precise and exclusive rights to land are not recognized; nevertheless, individual or familiar rights over hunting and fishing territories may be sanctioned in custom in some very simple societies. In primitive societies, and to an extent in modern society that is not always recognized, property does not consist of a single all-embracing bundle of rights held by one man as against all the world. On the other hand, thoroughly communal ownership of important goods, in the sense that every individual has the same right in most goods as has every other, is not to be found. What is usual, rather, is that every species of ownership turns out to be the exercise of certain rights as to the thing owned subject to other rights in that thing held by others, at least in possibility. The Melanesian canoe-maker does not completely "own" his canoe: he is expected to share it with certain others, and to share the catch it helps to bring about. The owner of land on Main Street may own it subject to zoning regulations, and to the right of the state to take it from him for certain public uses. Beyond this, furthermore, are the claims on property which are make outside of the law, but through expectations resting on custom. The primitive fisherman may share his catch with the whole settlement, as a matter of course. The rich American is expected to do something useful and generous with his riches; and everywhere the claims of the nearest of kin constitute a real limitation on ownership of many kinds of goods. And still further it is to be recognized that property rights are deeply associated with attachments that are sentimental and outside of the rights of control and disposal. It is not so much that the aborigine, long established on the desert or in the forest, owns the desert or the forest; he is attached to it, is a part of it, almost "is owned" by it. And the reader of these pages may feel similar about his home, if he happens to live in a home and not simply in a house, or about an heirloom of tender memories, or about a familiar old garment. (pp. 352-357) CUSTOM AND LAW The simplest answer that can be made to the question, how does society operate, is that it operates because on the whole people do what is expected of them. But why do people do what is expected of them? To this question there are a number of true answers. It is easier to do what one has done before than to do something else; a habit that everyone in a society has we call a custom. Further, the things that one has done, and that one's father's father has done, as well as some things that have been thought over and struggled for, have come to be so rooted in sentiments and in explanations and justifications that they have the force of what we speak of as conscience: they are felt to be right, ultimately and necessarily right. And still further, one does what is expected of one because it is often extremely in- convenient, even dangerous, if one does not. That is why I do not start out tomorrow to drive on the left-hand side of an American road. There is an efficiency, an ease, about doing what is expected of one. In a more special form, the expediency of doing what other people expect appears in the exchanges of services and benefits which help us all to get along. I do a thing helpful to another knowing that he is then more apt to do something helpful to me. If I pay my bills, lend my lawnmower, keep out of those of my neighbor's affairs which correspond to those of mine that I want him to keep out of, and yet listen to enough of his troubles so that I may tell him mine, we all get along pretty well. It is, however, to be emphasized that it is the nature of human society to regard these considerations of expediency, important as they are, as less worthy than those which are rooted in conscience and the sense of duty. Society is not, basically, so much a body of traffic rules and favors exchanged as it is a system of moral convictions. At a more obvious level society operates because conduct is sanctioned. A sanction is a consequence, pleasant or unpleasant, that follows the doing of something and is known to follow it. Some such consequences are internal the pangs of conscience - but others fall upon the transgressor from without. Of those that so fall, many are imposed by almost anybody in a diffuse and generalized way, as is illustrated by the looks I receive from the people who know me if I do something of which they disapprove. Perhaps what I do is not otherwise punishable. If a specific consequence follows through the exercise of same centralized authority, we begin to think of the transgression and its consequence as an affair of the law. Legal sanctions have a quality of preciseness about them: the misconduct is defined in advance in clear terms, and the consequence is also precisely known. Commonly the procedure for matching the transgression to its appropriate consequence complaint for arrest, charge, hearing, trial, judgement is specific and formal. Also, for the matter to be one of law and not just custom, the consequence, that is, the sanctions carried out not entirely, if at all by the particular person who suffered the transgression, but by someone who stands for the society as a whole and acts for it. Law is the whole society settling a local dispute or punishing or redressing a wrong in the interest of the whole society and according to its common conscience. When in a Plains Indian tribe a society of warriors finds a wrongfully wounded man and sees to it that the wrongdoer heals the wound and pays horses as a fine, law has begun. One may recognize law-making and law-administering in groups smaller than the whole society: there is something like law in some families; and there is certainly law in many gangs. But there is a tendency for that group which is the principal in-group, the tribe or the nation, to insist on its chief or exclusive power and right to make and enforce law. So law appears more clearly in the centralized and monopolizing force of the state. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS In the simplest societies there is nothing that is "polit- ical" if we use that word for institutions to express or enforce the common will or the ruler's will formally and publicly. In the Andaman Islands the natives lived in small bands without chief, council, law or administrative regulation. If a man lost his temper and smashed things, the rest of the people just let him alone until he got over it. No one exercised any general authority to rule or to decide or to negotiate on behalf of the community. In such a society there is no state, no political government. Political institutions do clearly appear, however, in many tribal societies; there is a chief who has power to decide issues or to lead in the making of decisions; there may be a council; there may be groups to police the people. The dependence of modern complex societies upon political institutions for their operations is obvious. The making, enforcing, and interpreting of law are the manifold business of thousands of individuals and hundreds of bodies: from leg- islatures, courts, and executives to the citizens who vote or discuss public issues with their neighbors or write letters to some newspaper. These political institutions keep people's be- havior more or less within the rules. They also are means to the reconsideration of the rules and the changing of the rules. They operate in that frontier of rule-making and rule-observing where conflicts occur, or at least differences of opinion, and the enforcement and interpretation of the rules helps to keep at least some of the people conscious of them, and so pushing to change them. Formal political institutions not only keep societies going in the good old ways; they also provoke a challenge of those ways. What is, then, not so obvious is that political and administrative acts have an effect upon moral custom. It is commonly said that the laws express the customs and grow out of them. This is true, but it is also true that the passage of a law or the making of an administrative decision has an impact upon the sentiments and convictions of the society. To punish a criminal is to make a solemn gesture renewing the collective moral judgement with regard to the conduct for which the criminal is punished. Sometimes the law stands for a sort of theoretical or ideal norm which the society does not really mean to have realized, at least without exception, as when a southern jury of white men finds confessed lynchers of a Negro not guilty. Then the decision expresses a moral judgement that is inconsistent with the letter of the law. At the same time such a decision sharpens the conflict between the general principles and the exception and helps either to remove the exception or to weaken the principle. The decision and act whereby American citizens of Japanese descent were locked up during the war had no effect in strengthening the prejudices of those who were prejudiced against Orientals, for by conspicuous and effective public action a discriminatory act was performed. On the other hand, it aroused or strengthened sentiments of condemnation of the act. It is true that the customs make the law. It is also true that legal and administrative acts help to change the moral judgements of the society. (pp. 359-362) THE EXPRESSIVE LIFE: PLAY, ART, CEREMONY, MYTH In many of the preceding pages the operation of society has been described as a matter of work and discipline. It has been suggested how people become and continue as a society by virtue of the fact that they labor together for common ends, and how they are kept at it by the convenience of cooperation and by the rewards and penalties which are provided by law, the general opinion, or the conscience of the individual. In this account the sober, the practical, and the constraining have perhaps been too strongly emphasized. Perhaps the impression that society gets along wholly or chiefly because people do what they are compelled to do, or that work is the sole or the basic form of activity. As a matter of fact, a very great part of human social behavior is quite the opposite of work. In work one does what a particular end demands in just the way it demands it and when the end requires it. To hoe corn effectively is usually work because one must move the hoe just so, one must do the hoeing just when the weather and the weeds make it necessary, and one may not stop when one would care to. But a very great deal of human activity is simply expressed. It is activity which responds to the impulse of the individual to be active; it is thinking and feeling; it is a fruit of the human impulse to create. Some expressive activity takes place at times fixed by the expectations and rhythms of society, but even then without having to meet the demands of practically useful effort. Laughing, joking, improvising with language, storytelling, praying, arranging flowers, painting pictures, enjoying or playing a ball game or Beethoven, and dancing are all forms of expressive activity. The expressive forms of behavior in large part give each society its own special character as they give special flavor to each personality. Different societies may have the same tools and the same work habits, but if their art and storytelling are different, the societies are then different. "What do you dance?" is the first inquiry a man of a certain Bantu tribe puts to a stranger. What a man dances in that part of Africa is the key to a man's whole life, the way to ask about a foreign society. The relations between expressive activity and work appear in considering magic. If a man has something immediate and practical to accomplish, he may do a little work to get the thing done. If the pipe leaks, I may unscrew the faucet and put in a new washer. If the pigs are eating the Melanesian's yams, he may fence the yam patch to keep out the pigs. What is done is done in just the way that the end requires. The putting in the new washer and the building of the fence are technically "correct" - in both cases what is done is responsive to the demands of the situation outside of thestateof mind of the worker. I may not express my anxieties or my annoyance too vividly and originally in putting in the washer or building the fence; if I attempt to express my sentiments I may not do a good job with the washer or the fence. These are practical actions appropriate to the mechanical solutions of the problems. But in some cases there is room for expressing the way one feels besides doing the appropriate practical acts, and in other cases no appropriate practical acts are known and one expresses the way one feels, believing that what is done is effective, instead of doing something really effective in getting the result desired. The Melanesian who wants his yams to grow may fence them in and cultivate them; he may also recite little spells expressive of his desire for a good crop. Tom Sawyer knew how to get rid of warts by putting water from a decaying stump on them while reciting a charm imploring the warts to go away. We call these actions "magical." Magic is that activity directed toward accomplishing some special limited end and done in a form which is determined not by the real effectiveness of the act to bring about the result but by the desires and fears and general thinking and feeling of the man who performs them. Magic is practical action in that it is done for a certain limited end, like work; but it is expressive action, and work is not. Magic is characteristically colorful, even dramatic. Magical rites are little pictures of what one wants. One sticks pins into a figure of one's enemy. One sacrifices not just any hen; it must be a black hen. If a problem bothers a deliberating assembly, it may appoint a committee; the result may be practically effective, or it may in part just express the concern and desire to do something about the problem; it is then not so different from many acts recognized as magical. (pp. 363-365) In ceremony and in mythology the expressive side of life appears in forms plainly related to the persistence of society. A ceremony is a meaningful formal act that signalizes an occasion of special importance. It is a little drama to underline the significance of a person or a moment that is out of the ordinary and that the society wishes to recognize. Some ceremonies are in ancient forms of deep religious meaning, like the Mass; others are unconnected with the church but yet are public and solemn, like the pledge of allegiance before the national flag; still others are domestic matters and not solemn at all, like the merry little ceremonies of a birthday party. All of them are representations of beliefs that the people hold; they are ways in which people together show that they care about something. Although not every society has well-developed myths and also well-developed ceremonies, myths are the stories that correspond to the ceremonies. Myths are ways in which the institutions and expectations of the society are emphasized and made dramatic and persuasive in narrative form. Myths show that what a people has to enjoy or endure is right and true-true to the sentiments the people hold. It does not so much matter whether or not little George Washington really cut down the cherry tree and told his father about it; what matters is that the story expresses some ideas the tellers had about telling the truth when it goes against you. The religious myths are true to the moral and sa- cred ideas that inspire them; they need not be true as legal evidence must be true. Myths and ceremonies, like much of art and some of play, are collective and traditional forms in which the people of a society remind themselves of what matters to them and why it matters. They are gestures made by a people to itself. Work and sanctions alone do not suffice to keep a so- ciety in operation. It is also needful that the tendencies of people to leap, move, shape and tell fall into representations that satisfy and intensify the conceptions which, held in common, make that people a society. This section suggests some of the answers to the question expressed in its title: How does a human society operate? In its first pages the answer given was that a society is kept in operation by arrangements whereby a number of people can do the work that needs to be done to keep them going and whereby they can feel that they belong together and share a kind of life which they believe to be good. There is a world of necessity into which people are born; to survive they must live together; to live together they must have tacit agreements as to who does what, and what is what. They must, in short, regulate their common life. The regulation is a matter of conventional understandings partly as to what each one should do and partly as to what is, generally and for everybody, the good life. The plan of the good life finds expression, it was then added, in religion, myth, and art. We can think of the operation of society as machinery for social control and also as a sort of charter or drama of a scheme of all things. But there is another way to think of the operation of soc- iety that is, probably, implicit in what has been written here. We may also think of society as operating so as to realize impulses and meet needs of human beings. Instead of asking, as we have, What operations keep this society going? we can ask, What is there about society that keeps human beings going? Any human being must have protection and food, and we can see society as providing for these necessities. Human beings have also sexual demands or needs, and every society provides some ar- rangement for meeting these. Moreover, beyond this, human be- ings have characteristics that are not shared with the animals but are peculiarly human. The foregoing discussion of the "Expressive Life" rests on the assumption that there is an "impulse of the individual to be active," that it is the nature of human nature to use the imagination and to shape things that please themselves. While it is perhaps not possible very definitely to describe the human impulses and needs beyond those that are shared with animals, it is hardly possible to deny that there are some; and society may thus be seen as a way of providing for the development and expression in everyone of human nature. In this sense, society operates by doing for us what our natures, given society, demand. (pp. 367-368) HIERARCHICAL AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS Robert D. Hart If the hierarchical ecological systems conceptual framework is applied to an agricultural production process, a set of hierarchically related agricultural systems emerge. As in the case of the ecological systems framework, agricultural systems exhibit not only vertical hierarchical system interaction, but also horizontal system interaction. Each hierarchical level is a functioning set of subsystems with the outputs of some subsystems acting as inputs to others. While it is possible to describe a. global level agricultural system, from the point of view of agricultural research and development the geographical region is probably the largest unit of interest. A regional agricultural system includes all the farms in the geographic region; the marketing, credit, and information cen- ters; and the infrastructure that ties these regional sub- systems together, Figure 2.1. A region can be analyzed as a system with materials, energy, money, and information flowing into and out of the region and between subsystems within the region. From an agricultural research point of view the farms within the region are the most important subsystems and form the next lower hierarchical level under the region. A farm is also a system made up of subsystems. A farm sy- stem can be viewed conceptually as a set of spatially definable areas in which either crops or animals, or both, are produced, and a homestead area where the farmhouse is located. The crop or animal production areas form units, analogous to the ecosystem unit in ecology, and can be defined as agroecosystems. The farmhouse area in which the farm family is fed and clothed and the economic transactions and management decisions that occur on a farm can be combined to form a socioeconomic subsystem of the farm system. The socioeconomic subsystem and the agroecosystems interact to form a farm system. If agricultural research is of primary concern, the agroecosystem of a farm system is the most logical next-lower hierarchical level to be analyzed in more detail. An agroecosystem is also a system made up of subsystems. As in the case of natural ecosystems, it is composed of a biotic community of plants, animals, and microorganisms and the physical environment in which the community functions. Energy flows be- tween trophic levels and materials are cycled. An agroeco- system differs from a natural ecosystem in that at least one plant or animal population is of agricultural value and that man plays an important management role. Soil, crops, weeds, insects and microorganisms can be defined as subsystems of crop-dominated agroecosystems. In a domesticated animal-dominated agroeco- system, soils, pasture, weeds, insects, microorganisms, and domesticated animals make up the subsystems that function as a unit in the agroecosystem. Agronomic research has been done on all of these subsystems, but crop systems and animal systems have received the most attention. A crop system is an arrangement of crop populations that process energy (solar radiation) and material inputs (soil nutrients, water) to produce outputs (crop yield). The crop population can be arranged both spatially (planting distances) and chronologically (date of planting). when more than one crop species is combined in space and time, the resulting assemblage can be exceedingly complex. The individual crop species are subsystems of the crop system and make up the next hierarchical level under the crop system. The individual crops can also be subdivided into hierarchically lower subsystems as physiological processes. In agronomy considerable attention has been given to this hierarchical level with the recent emphasis on the study of crop architecture and crop genetic systems as part of crop A Region Figure 2.1. Hierarchical relationship between agricultural systems breeding programs. A domesticated animal system is an arrangement of animal populations that processes energy and material inputs (pasture, feed supplements, etc.) to produce outputs (meat or animal products). An animal system is on the same hierarchical level as a crop system. Animal populations made up of individual animals composed of interrelated physiological systems form the next- lower hierarchical level. In applying the agricultural systems conceptual framework to a specific case, it is not always necessary or practical to use the entire hierarchy. Emphasis can be placed at one level, as for example in the case of a cropping systems project. In principle, however, it will always be necessary to study at least three levels: the unit of interest, and the next higher and next lower levels. The next higher system must be studied in order to measure the inputs into the system, and the next lower level must be studied in order to understand how the system functions. In the case of a cropping systems project, activities will need to be applied to the agroecosystem, crop system, and crop levels. A farming system project must study regions, farm systems, and agroecosystems. The first step in either a region, farm, agroecosystem, crop or animal system study is the construction of a qualitative model of the unit under consideration. In the context of this framework, model building involves identifying the inputs and outputs of the system of interest, the subsystems of the system, and the circuitry connecting these subsystems. The next step is to begin to quantify the relationships hypothesized in the qualitative model, and to construct a quantitative model of the system. The precision required depends upon how the model will be used. The qualitative models that would be developed by a multi- disciplinary team if the heirarchical agricultural systems model were used would vary with the ecological and socioeconomic conditions of a specific region, farm, agroecosystem, or crop or animal system. However, these systems have general inherent characteristics that make it possible to outline general qualitative models for each level of the heirarchy. I have as- sumed that these models would be used for research and development purposes. DEFINING A FARMING SYSTEM David W. Norman A system can be defined conceptually as any set of elements or components that are interrelated and interact among themselves. Thus, a farming system is the result of a complex interaction of a number of interdependent components. At the center of this interaction is the farmer himself; he is the central figure in FSR. Moreover, both farm production and household decisions of small farmers are intimately linked and should be analyzed in farming systems research. A specific farming system arises from the decisions taken by a small farmer or farming family with respect to allocating different quantities and qualities of land, labor, capital and management to crop, livestock, and off-farm enterprises in a manner which, given the knowledge the household possesses, will maximize the attainment of the family goalss. Figure 2.2 illustrates some of the underlying determinants of the farming system. The total en- vironment can be divided into two elements: technical and human (Institut d'Economie Rurale 1976). The technical element de- termines the types and physical potential of livestock and crop enterprises and includes physical and biological factors that have been modified to some extent by man often through technology development. Man has developed, for example, me- chanical techniques to improve the availability of water through Bonia Hanan Technical I --I C 1 -i 1 St C he. ca.,Chem ,cal. Factor Exogen dPhysical B oiolca Camuisy I Mschanical Norms, and uthP .A Belies Sid 1 i------- Income InsSutons B a s t Inputs Land Capital L Ag, PrFosses Ol-farm Livestock ir Farming System Broken hasrepresena reaJs of ns systems I---- ----- _ Figure 2.2. Schematic representation of some determinants of the farming system irrigation and chemical techniques to improve soil quality, etc. The farming system that actually evolves, however, is a subset of what is potentially possible as defined by the technical element. The human element is characterized by two types of factors: exogenous and endogenous. Exogenous factors (i.e., the social environment), which are largely outside the control of the individual farmer, influence what he will and/or is able to do. They can be divided into three broad groups: a. Community structures, norms and beliefs. b. External institutions. These can be subdivided into two main groups: inputs and outputs. On the input side, ex- tension credit and input distribution systems are often financed and managed by government agencies. On the out- put side, the government may directly (e.g., marketing boards) or indirectly (e.g, improved evacuation routes, transportation systems, etc.) influence the prices farm- ers recieve. c. Miscellaneous influences, such as population density and location. Unlike the exogenous factors, the endogenous factors are controlled by the farmer himself, who ultimately decides on the farming system that will emerge, given the constraints imposed by the technical element and exogenous factors. The farming system as defined above highlights the complex nature of the underlying determinants. An appreciation of these determinants can provide insights as to why small farmers have failed to adopt improved technology. Specifically, most conventional approaches to technology development, utilizing a "top-down" approach, tend to modify the technical element to fit crops or animals and to ignore the human element. The farming systems approach, on the other hand, potentially imparts greater reality to technology development and making technology a variable instead of a parameter. REFERENCES Institute d'Economie Rurale. 1976. Rapport de Synthese sur les Systems de Culture et d'elevage dans le context de Mali. Bamako: Institut d'Economie Rurale. PREVAILING FARMING SYSTEMS BY REGIONS Robert E. McDowell and Peter E. Hildebrand There has been a number of attempts to identify or systemize the prevailing farming systems of regions (Ruthenberg 1971) and of the world (Griss 1974; Kolars and Bell 1975; Whittlesey 1936). These classifications have been done on several bases, including geography (political and physical), climate, type of crop or animal, and the production method for that species. The panel took the position that farming systems could be more readily understood if the focus were directed toward crop/animal interactions. Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 show that the panel has attempted to identify and characterize the prevailing systems employed on small farms in Asia, Africa and Latin America with the dominant crops, the predominant animal species on the farms, and the main feed resources utilized by the animals. A farming-system type consists of a small number of major or dominant crops and numerous minor crops that fit around them. The systems given attention by the panel were those having an animal complement, with the dominant crops largely determining the feed source and, hence, being a major factor in selection of animals for the systems. Nutrient flow through the system is critical in limited-resource agriculture, and crop/animal rela- tionships are critical to its efficiency. Crop/animal rela- tionships have particular implications for labor use as well as requirements for social organization. For instance, security and social structure in the village largely determine the way in which animals are tended or looked after. The market structure must also be aligned to the needs of the farming system. These and many additional factors describe the complex of interrelated physical, environmental, and social elements which must interact in any particular system. The panel members felt that in order to understand mixed farming systems in small-farm agriculture, one should first look at a type of crop/animal interaction and be familiar with its essential elements. Then one can look at the range of conditions under which it is found. A final step is the understanding of change in the system across environments. The classification proposed here is not so much intended to present new information as it is to alter the traditional viewpoint of those studying the system. The panel is not attempting to give detailed descriptions and information on the specific systems, but rather suggesting a conceptual frame- work to guide further study. As an example, attention is drawn to the coastal fishing and farming complexes in Asia (Table 2.1). These systems are found across most countries of Asia and also represent the predominant systems in the smaller islands across the Pacific. They are adapted to areas of relatively high population density and are found on the extremely poor soils of the coastal areas. These systems are designed for intensive use of the scarce resources in the coastal environment. The major crops, determined to a large extent by soil type and fertility, are coconuts, cassava, and cacao, together with a range of minor crops. The coconut by- Sproducts are utilized for swine feed, while the marine by- products, such as fish trimmings, shrimp, or nonmarketable marine products taken along with the commercial catch, are fed to ducks. Cattle and goats are pastured under the coconut palms or in the more marginal land extending back onto the slopes of the hills, which are usually not far from the coast. The coastal fishing and farming complexes are highly specific to the physical and geographical environments in which they are found, but since these environments spread across the full length of Asia and Oceania, the system transects an extremely broad socioeconomic range. To know and understand the interaction of the system in the coastal area of southern Luzon in the Philippines is to feel familiar with it wherever it is found. The selection of animals to match food availability, the matching of crops to their spec- ific low-fertility environment, the use of animals to con- centrate nutrients for cycling into the limited but all- important food-crop areas, the suitability of animals and food crops for marketing over long distances, the high diversity of enterprises within the system, giving it both biological and economic stability, are all crucial points in understanding its function. The system is, in cases of extreme isolation, ideally suited to subsistence conditions. Where resources are somewhat more plentiful and markets available, the system becomes im- mediately commercialized. It is relatively self-sufficient and self-sustaining, requiring few new inputs and a minimum of rural infrastructure. One could go through each of the nine other farming systems listed for Asia (Table 2.1), the ten for Africa (Table 2.2), and the four for Latin America (Table 2.3) in a similar manner, studying social adaptability, biological stability, economic stability, nutrient recycling or energy flow characteristics, infrastructure required, the adaptability to commercialization, or a host of relevant features. It is suggested that this ap- proach be used not only to study and appreciate the complexity of farming systems in Asia, but also to structure research and de- velopment strategies for those systems. The major advantage of the approach is that it should increase the probability that the technology derived can become immediately adapted to the situations into which it is to fit. Such an approach would minimize the risk of developing a new and productive technology TABLE 2.1. PREVAMIIN SYSIT1 OF AGRICTUIMR CN SMALL FARMS, M~A RECCNS OF USE, MAJOR CIRPS D ANDBLM SPECIES, AND FE) SOURCES FOR ANIMALS OF ASIA Famning system Major crops Major animals Main regions* Fed sources 1. coastal fishing and Coonuts, cassava, Swine P, T Conut by-products, rice farming complexes, cacao, rice livestock relatively Important Vegetables 2. Low elevation intensive vegetable and swine, live- stock important Ducks Cattle, goats Swine TW, T, M, P, I SL, P, M, I C, IW, HK Swine, fish T, m1 3. Highland vegetables Vegetables, rice, sur- Buffalo, cattle P, T and mixed cropping cane, sweet potatoes, (intensive), live- Irish potatoes Sheep, goats I stock inmortant Vegetables Swin P Rice Cattle, buffalo Asia 4. Upland crops of Maize, cassava, Cattle, buffalo, IN, T semiarid tropics, sorghan, kenaf, wheat, goats, sheep, livestock important millet, plses, oilseeds, poultry, swine peanuts, etc. bran Marine products, rice bran Pastured with coOmuts HK Sweet potato residues, rice bran, fermented residues fan vegetable crops Crop residues, imported feeds Crop residues, rice bran Crop residues, rice bran, cut forage, sugarcane tops Same crop residues, waste vege- tables Crop residues Bran, oilseed cake, straw, ster, vines, hulls, hay 5. Humid uplands, livestock uiportant 6. Laoland rice, inten- sive livestock Rice, maize, cassava, wheat, kenaf, sorghum, beans Sugarcane Rice, vegetables, pulses, hick-peas, mug-bean, sugarcane 7. Multistory Coonuts, cassava, (perennial mixtures), bananas, mangoes livestck sane coffee iportane Pineapple Swine, poultry, Asia cattle, buffalo 01000 mn rain) Cattle, buffalo T, P, I Cattle, buffalo, Asia swine, ducks, fish Cattle, goats, P, IN sheen Cattle Stover, weeds, by- products, ugarcane tops Sugarcane tope, crop residues Crop esidues, ueds, by- products, sugarcane tope Cut and carry feeds from croplands P, I Crop residue, by-products 8. Tree crops (mixed orchard and rubber), livestock same importance orchard, trees, rubber, oil palm 9. Swidden, livestock Maize, rice, beans, important peanuts. vegetables 10. Animal based Fdder crops Cattle, goats, P, M, swine South T Swine, poultry, Asia goats, sheep Cattle, buffalo, I, M, IN goats, sheep Grazing or cut ad carry Animals scavenge Cut and carry foder, crop residue *C, Chinat ;I, Hong Kong; IN, India; I, Indonesia; M, Malaysia; P, Philippines; SL, Sri Lanka; T, Taiwan; T, Thailand. that would be unacceptable because it did not fit into the farming system for which it was intended. Where a lack of fit is predominant, the reason for nonacceptance is usually a net reduction in productivity of the system, due to the fact that interactions among components are not adequately understood by the technology developers. WABLE 2.2. PREVAILING SYSIS OF AGICULJTUE ON SULL FARI~ AIMN IEGICNS OF USE, MMJOR CIOS AND ANIMAL SPECIES, MAD E S=CURS FOR ANIMx S OF AFRICA Major crops Major animals Main regions eed sources 1. Pastoral herding 2 t Vegetables (Phase I, L = >10 ), P animals very important symbioticc relation- ships) 2. Bush fallow (shifting cultivation, Phase II, L = 5-10), animals not important 3. Rudinentary sedentary agriculture (shifting cultivation, Phase III, L = 2-4), animals important 4. Compound farming and intensive subsistence agriculture (shifting cultivation, Phase IV, L = <2), animals important 5. Highland agriculture, animals important 6. Flood land and valley bottom agriculture, animals of sane important Millet, vegetables Rie/Ya-s/ Plantains maize, cassava. vegetables, tree crops, cocoyMa, yanMs Sorhm/Millet maize, sesame, soybeans, cassava, sugarcane, tree crops, cowpeas, vegetables, yards Rie/Yamse/Plantains maize, cassava, vegetables, tree crops, mocyars SorgbumMillet maize, sesame, cotton, sugarcae, tree crops, cowpeas, yams, tobacot, ground- nuts, vegetables Rioe/Yams/Plantains maize, cassava, vegetables, tree crops, coooyam, yams Vegetables sugarcne, tcacx, sesame. maize, tree crops, groundnuts Vegetables/Millet cassava, oowpeas, taboo cttsn. groundnuts, tree crops Rice/Yaf /Plantains raie, cassava, vegetables, plantain, oo0yanse cowpeas, cassava, maize, millet, groundnuts Millet/Sorghum ianze, groundnuts, cowpeas, sesame, tobacco, ctton, vegetables, cassava, yans Rice/Yams/Plantains Mnaize, vegetables, sugarcane, rioe, yams, cooyarM, millet, groundnuts Rice vegetables, maize, millet, groudnuts, plantain, sugarcane, cocoyans Yane/Sugarcane maize, mopeas, cocyans, groundnuts, vegetables, plantains, rice, yams Cattle, goats, Savanna sheep (Southern Guinea) Cattle, goats. Savanna sheep (Northern Guinea and Sahel) Goats, sheep Humid tropics Cattle, goats. Transition sheep, poultry, forest/savana horses Southern Guinea Northern Guinea and Sahel Natural rangelands, tree forage Natural rangelands, tree forage, crop residues Fallow, crop residues Fallow, straws, stover, vines, cull roots, sesame cake Goats, sheep. Humid tropics ice bran, cull roots, poultry, swine straws, crop residues, vines, stover Cattle, goats, Transition sheep, poultry forest/savanna Savanna (Guinea and Sahel) Goats, sheep, Humid tropics swine, cpultry Goats, sheep, Transition poultry, swine forest/savanna Cattle Savanna (Guinea and Sahel) Goats, sheep, Hurmd tropics poultry, swine Cattle, goats, Transition sheep, poultry forest/savanna Cattle, goats, Savanna sheep, poultry, (Guinea and horses, donkeys Sahel) Stover, vines, sugarcane tops, cull roots or tubers, tree forage, groundnut cake, brans Rice straw, rice bran, vegetable waste, fallow, vines, cull roots or tubers, stover, tree- crop by-products, palm oil cake Vines, stover, tree-crop by-products, groundnut cake Vines, tree-crop by- products, cassava leaves, fallow Fallow, leaves, stover, rice by-produts, cull tubers, cassava leaves, vegetables, residues Stover, vines, groundnut cake Crop residues, sare oil cake, brans, stover, vines, cull tubers Goats, poultry Hunid trpics Crop residues, vines, grazing Cattle, goats, sheep, poultry, swine, horses, donkeys Transition Straw, stover, molasses, forest/savanna brans, groundnut cake Cattle, goats, Savanna sheep, poultry, (Guinea and swine, hrses, Sahel) donkeys Vines, brans, cull tubers, molasses, sgarcane tops Farming system TABLE 2.2. continued ) Farming system 7. Mixed fanning (farm size variable; animals important) 8. Plantation crops, East Africa smalll holdings), animals of sone importance 9. Plantation crops, (onpound fares, etc.), animals of soan inportanc 10. Market gardening (animals say or may not be present) Major crops Rice/aYm/Plantains Rime/Veetables yams, omysn= jil lU-s~ctton, tObcOn. Maite, nempeas. vegetables Coconuts rgeejes' maize, plantains, cscoy-n, cassava Cacao egetables, inmize, plantainns Tre crops sugarcane, plant-w Vegetables Transition forest/savanna Humid tropics Transition forest/savana tL C + F/C; L, land-se factor; C, area of cultivation; P, area in fallow. enclosed areas around household or village. Preset or absent, depends on area. TABLE 2.3. PREVAILING SYSMIS (OF AGRICWILUE FO SMALL FARS, MMN FIGICS OP USE, taCOR C3iPS AND AKMD SPECIES, AND Fr SOURS FOR ANIMD CP IATI PNERC Famnning system Major crops najor animals Main regions* Feed sources 1. Perennial fixtures Cocnuts, coffee, Cattle, aine All Natural pastures, by- (large fans; livesto cacaoo, plantains, products, cul lateral relatively uniportant) bananas, oil palm, sugarcane, rubber 2. Ccrcial annals l croe Rice, maize, sorgun Swine, cattle, All eept C Pasture, crop residues, mediann to large fans, soybeans, snall grains poultry grain livestock moderately important) 3. Conercial livestock a. Extensive Large- o very Nne are inortant Cattle (beef) C, V, Br, Bo, Natural grasslands large, livestock G, CA dominant b. Intensive iunm large, Inproved pasture, Cattle (dairy), All Natural and inprove livestock dominant sae grains swine, poultry pasture, feed grains, by-peducts 4. Mied cropping a. Smal size in Rice, maise, Cattle, poultry, All natural pastures, crop settled areas sorgFum, beans, goats, sheep, residues, cut feed b. Medium size in wheat, caao, donkeys, horses, frontier areas plantains, coffee, mules, wine c. Subsistence or tnbah mcnetized eamxny d. Livestodk relatively important *All, all countries; Bo, Bolivia; Br, Brazil; C, Colontia; CA, Central America; CI, Caribbean Islands; E, Ecador; G, Guyanas; P, Peru; V, Venezuela. Major animals Main regions T1W or pore Humid tropics species (widely variable) Sane cattle Transition forest/savarma Cattle, goats, Savanna sheep, poultry, (Guinea and horses, donkeys, Sahel) camels Cattle, horses, Humid tropics donkeys Transition forest/savanna Goats, sheep, Hunid tropics Feed sources Fallow, straw, brans, vines Fallow, vines, straw Stover, vines, fallow Grazing or cut and carry Grazing or cut and cazry, stower Grazing or cut and carry, sugarcane tops Natural rangelands, crop residues, brrose plants, range forbs poultry, swine Goats, sheep, poultry, swine Variable CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED SYSTEMS Robert E. McDowell and Peter E. Hildebrand The objective of this section is to direct attention to various levels of integration of crops and animals and portray the infrastructural dependence, within selected systems. Eleven systems are identified for Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and each system is discussed in terms of some of the physical constraints of the region, e.g., climate, soils, elevation, crops and cropping systems, the role of animals, and the panel's assessment of the prospects for expansion of benefits derived from animals. A standard format was used for ease in comparisons. The box identified as "Market," represents all off-farm activities and resources (except land); hence it includes products sold or labor going off the farm as well as purchased inputs and household items. The "household" is the core of the farm unit. In pre- paring the models of the systems, labor use, sources of human food, household income, animal feed, and the roles of animals were the main focus. The solid arrows (--- depict strong flows or linkages (e.g., more than 20 percent of total income arises from the sales of crops, animals, or household-processed products). Broken arrows (- are used when sales of crops or animals contributed less than 20 percent of household income, the interchange among functions was intermittent, or there was no routine pattern identifiable (Figure 2.3). Family labor applied on the farm was identified, but off-farm employment or the amount of hired labor was not quantified except generally and is indicated by broken or solid arrows. For most products there is a direct relation to market, absent in cases where little is sold or when the household changes the characteristics of the product before sale (e.g., wool to yarn, milk to cheese, or manure to dung cakes). Household modification is shown by solid arrows from crop or animal products to household to market. Even though all crops require some processing, a distinction was made only when the household modified or changed an already marketable product. Fuel is extremely important on small farms. Gathering of wood or other materials often constitutes a significant expen- diture of labor, or may represent an important source of income. In each system, the major fuel sources are identified. The models presented are by no means all-inclusive. Hun- dreds of models would be needed to characterize all small-farm systems. However, through an appreciation of the "interaction effects," the rationale of the "whole system" on small farms can be better understood and serve to explain why a single phase of technology, such a new variety of maize, may be rejected by small farmers. CROPS/ANIMAL SYSTEMS IN ASIA Swidden System The swidden system (Figure 2.3) is employed on 30 to 40 per- cent of all land in tropical Asia (Harwood and Price 1976). It Figure 2.3. Swidden farming system in Asia,shifting agriculture low integration of crops and animals (animals free- roving or tethered) centers around dispersed settlements employing slash-and-burn technology. A family or household cultivates approximately 2 hectares per year using manual labor. The main implements are hoe and dibble stick. Plant residues are usually left in the fields for mulch. Each family has pigs and chickens without controlled management (scavengers); thus there is no systematic recycling of nutrients, although some manure may be retrieved for certain crops around the household. After two to four years of cropping, there follows an extended fallow period. There is little animal/crop competition since the fields are ordinarily several hundred meters or more from the village. Fuel is a relatively minor problem in this system because of low population densities and the presence of forest or fallow. Farm infrastructure is low, i.e., few capital inputs and services are rendered from outside the village. Mutual as- sistance within the village is the main source of aid. There is no systematic plan for sale of livestock nor identifiable pattern of service use for animals. Most sales of animals are for emergency needs, with the greater proportion being consumed to celebrate cultural/religious events (De Boer and Weisblat 1978). The soils are generally marginal in fertility and on moderate to steep slopes; thereby serious problems often arise with erosion. Wildlife from forest fallow areas often prey on crops or even on the small animals. The system has several assets. The usually low population pressures permit long-term fallow. Diversified cropping is already widely practiced; therefore, soil conservation procedures should be acceptable. The constant shortage of labor slows expansion of cultivation and thereby risks of erosion. On the other hand, the system has serious liabilities, such as poor access to markets and inadequate power for tillage or transport. Increasing land pressure due to population growth and expansion of permanent ranching and timber harvest are causing the fallow system to break down in many areas (Harwood 1978). The opportunities for positive change are good. Returns from crops and environmental stability could be improved through the use of perennial crops, bunded paddies, terraces, and planned grazing areas in order that buffalo or cattle could be in- corporated into the system. Use of large ruminants would improve the opportunity to accumulate capital. These changes would require development of technology and guidance. To achieve these steps will necessitate a shift in attitude on the part of policymakers, most of whom see the swidden system as it is now practiced as wasteful and making little contribution to agri- cultural production. Humid-upland System The upland system (Figure 2.4) is widespread over the humid tropics of Asia. There are well-developed farmsteads with permanent, cleared fields but with no bunding and no irrigation. The major crops are rice, maize, cassava, wheat, kenaf, sorghum, and beans. Most households have small numbers of several species of animals, with swine and poultry dominating. Following these in popularity are cattle and buffalo. Sheep and goat numbers are normally low. Where tall-growing crops (maize and sorghum) are cultivated, cattle are kept to utilize crop residues. In rice areas buffalo predominate. Frequently, one or two buffalo or cattle are kept for use in land preparation and to provide transport for crops, crop residues, and to some extent members of the family. Swine are tethered or penned, and cattle or buffalo are tethered at night in order that manures can be collected and to avoid theft. The manures are frequently composted with crop residues. Poultry are usually free-roving. Fuel is not yet a severe problem in many of the humid-upland systems but is becoming increasingly so as more and more forests are cleared. The farm infrastructure is variable, developed for some areas but extremely limited for others. Land tenure and social services are also variable. Many upland areas are distant from markets. The land ranges from rolling hills to steep slopes. The soils have moderate fertility, and in general drainage is good. Erosion hazards are classed as moderate. The rainfall is sea- sonal and erratic within the rainy season, thus periods of Figure 2.4 Humid-upland farming system in Asia, permanent crop- ping, moderateintegration of crops and animals (ani- mals tethered or herded) moisture stress are frequent. Among the assets of this system are some possibility for multiple cropping, excellent potential for crop/ animal inte- gration, good potential for small-holder dairying with crop rotation, and feasibility of cooperative production and mar- keting. Rice is milled at the village level; therefore, rice bran and other by-products are available for supplementary feeding of animals. Some of the current limitations to increased output are inadequate or absent credit and animal health services, insufficient power for tillage (Duff 1978), and limited access to markets. In addition, farms are often so geo- graphically fragmented that much potential for grazing is lost. Considering the assets and liabilities, the potential appears good for change through increased cropping intensity, especially of fodder crops for animal feeding; increased animal holdings in order that farmers could have scheduled outputs for marketing; expanded farm infrastructure; extended use of draft power; and larger milk supplies. With time, the upland areas of Asia promise to meet a rising demand for milk and meat through greater crop/animal inte- gration. Integration on small farms will minimize the need for feed concentrates in animal production, and there is some potential for on-farm self-sufficiency in power gasoholl, biogas, and animal draft) based on conversion of sweet potatoes and cassava. Lowland Rice System The lowland rice system (Figure 2.5) is characteristic of traditional small-farm operations in the river valleys, first and second terraces, and coastal areas of Asia, including southern China. These areas have at least three months of rainfall above 200 mm and a dry season of two to six months. Length of dry season is a major factor in feeding animals. The areas are tropical (frost free). Population density is high for both humans and animals. Rice is the major crop, followed in importance by garden vegetables and food legume crops. The use of fertilizer and manures assures high crop yields. Rice is milled in the villages; therefore, rice bran and other by-products are available. Rice bran has a good level of crude protein (12 to 15 percent) and a significant amount of oil or fat; hence, rice culture/livestock integration adds to the intensification of this farming system (Maner 1978). Animals provide income and manure as well as fuel in south Asia (Figure 2.5). The major species are cattle, buffalo (swamp-type or carabao), swine, chickens, ducks, and geese. The bovines are kept to utilize crop residues and to supply manure and power for tillage and transport. Old draft animals are sold for meat. Rice by-products and cut grass are utilized for swine feeding. The pigs are sold for additional income. The ducks and geese feed on grains lost during harvest and on insects and weeds in and around the irrigation canals. Most of the eggs and meat from chickens, ducks and geese are consumed within the household or in the immediate community. The farms are small and fragmented, which makes for difficult control of grazing animals. As a result, the larger livestock are confined and hand-fed, which permits collection of manures. Another reason for teth- ering or confinement is security, as theft of animals is a problem. Animals, especially the buffalo, are a strong feature of the cultural system (ritual)(Barnett 1978). Because of high population pressures, no land is available for producing fuel. The high rate of use of manures on crops also precludes this as a source of fuel. Hence, in this system, the primary source of fuel is kerosene purchased at the market. The assets of the lowland systems are numerous. Multiple cropping can be expanded to reduce dependence on a single crop (Riley 1978). Farmers are experienced in the care of an- imals. Labor for use in livestock production is plentiful during long periods. Irrigation serves to reduce risks in cropping; thus farm capital is relatively easy to accumulate on the farms. There are certain restrictions to expansion of crop and livestock production. For example, the nutritive value of straw of the new, high-yielding varieties of rice is lower than in the traditional varieties (McDowell 1978). The low feeding value of straw may require supplementary feed for draft animals or their work efficiency will be low. Multiple cropping reduces the amount of grasses and weeds traditionally cut and fed to animals. off farm: Figure 2.5. Lowland rice system in Asia, permanent cropping, high integration of crops and animals (animals con- fined) Irrigation and multicropping may increase the value of labor to such an extent that interest in livestock will decline (Harwood 1978). Increased use of pesticides and herbicides in multicropping may limit fish and duck production in rice paddies. Increased mechanized harvesting may cause shifting of rice milling away from the villages. This may stimulate development of large commercial livestock operations which could monopolize markets. On the whole, the intensity and efficiency of crop/livestock (nonruminants) production are higher on small farms in the lowlands rice system than in any other system described in this report (Maner 1978). Even so, there is good potential for change. For example, fertilizer costs could be reduced by cropping of legumes on residual moisture in rice paddies. The legumes would complement low-quality rice straws for livestock feeding (Javier 1978). Other approaches which could be used to bring about institutional change include: 1. Securing land tenure to encourage accumulation of animals. 2. Introducing long-term technology for animal production, e.g., Figure 2.6. Central American highlands, permanent cropping, high- level integration of crops and animals (animals herd- ed or confined) use of forage legumes. 3. Adopting a multidisciplinary approach to maximize farm income. 4. Supplying market assistance to small-scale swine, chicken, and duck producers in order to overcome the high unit cost of marketing small numbers of animals. 5. Offering credit and extension services on a year-round basis. CENTRAL AMERICAN HIGHLANDS SYSTEMS There are a number of common features of the traditional farming systems of the highland regions (>1,000 m elevation) of Central America (Figure 2.6). The highlands have an annual rainfall of 1,200 to 2,000 mn, most of which falls from April to November. The rainfall and temperature conditions allow the choice of alternative food- and cash-crop enterprises. Fluc- tuations in temperature (two to six months of frost, depending on elevation) often restrict or inhibit maximizing the utilization of the precipitation. In general, soil fertility is not limiting, but topography is. Areas cultivated per family are usually small (1 to 2 ha), with cultivation done by hand or animal power. Maize is the primary crop, but because local varieties need nine months or more to reach maturity, the maize is intercropped with two to five other crops. Some diversified farms practice rotations. Livestock on a typical farm might consist of one or two pigs, four to five sheep (in higher areas), and one cow. In addition, there would be approximately one horse per three farms. Except during the dry or cold seasons, animals are tethered to avoid crop damage. Women and children are involved in both livestock and cropping enterprises. Men often work off-farm to supplement incomes, and the women and children must carry on the major tasks (Hildebrand 1978). There are many landless laborers in the highlands. Many of them farm small plots through an arrangement with a landholder and in return will then provide him with labor. Because of poor roads and/or distance to market, fertilizer costs are high, thus recycling of nutrients through composting is important to the system. Many farms have a "compost pit" where animal manures and crop residues are mixed. Materials are frequently gathered from off the farms to increase the amount of compost. Livestock feed sources are largely from unfarmed areas (fallow, forests, or communal grazing) and cut forages, e.g., maize leaves. Terraces are used to reduce erosion and to conserve water in a number of areas. Grass areas on the slopes of the terraces are a source of livestock feed. Wool from the sheep is of poor quality; nevertheless, it is used to weave clothing and handicrafts, which are sold (Fitzhugh 1978). Pigs are marketed at 9 to 12 months. Milk is used mainly for home consumption or made into cheese. Calves born on the farm are kept to maturity (4.5 to 5 years) before sale. Livestock may play only a minor role in family nutrition, as the primary foods are maize and beans. There is a high degree of interdependence between farm families and their livestock, especially since recycling of animal and crop wastes is such a major aspect of the system (Diaz 1978). With increasing population pressures and the resulting deforestation, fuel is becoming a more severe problem. Lack of capital, size of farm, limited access to additional land, and tenure status are all constraints in the highlands system. Since manual labor is the basis for most farm op- erations, seasonal availability of labor also becomes a constraint (Hildebrand 1978). Distance from market and lack of adequate access roads will limit ability to sell fresh products like milk. Meat production and wool are less dependent on infrastructure. There is some potential for further diversification in the highland system if maize yields could be increased. Expansion of crop production would provide opportunities for additional livestock production. Training in shearing and preservation of wool would improve quality and increase sales. WHEAT MAIZE GRASS POTA- MAIZE TOES WHEAT FARMSTEAD AND FRUIT LL MAIZE BUSH GAR - MAIZE WHEAT BEANDEN MAIZE WHEAT Figure 2.7. Land use of small farm typical of western highlands of Guatemala SPECIFIC SMALL-FARM EXAMPLE The objective of this section is to further illustrate "linkages" or "events" at the farm level in order to increase awareness of the complexity of a small-farm system. The farm under discussion is in an area near Quezaltenango in the western highlands of Guatemala where the Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas (ICTA) is conducting extensive investi- gations on small farms. The farm is larger than average in the Guatemala highlands; it has 5.25 ha, of which 0.35 ha are in grass and forest. Although all types of livestock are not represented, the farm has been chosen as an example because the relationships among the market, household, crops, and livestock well demonstrate the complexities of life on a small farm. Dogs have not been included in previous models, but are included here because the family considers the dog as having a strong role in the culture, and in addition, dogs are used to derive income. Puppies are sold, and they do consume a significant part of the food produced on the farm. The bee is the other animal found on the farm that has not been mentioned before; although bees are not too common as a farm enterprise, some farms in all areas of Guatemala do have them. The main crops are maize, a type of bean locally called piloy ( Phaseolus coccineous ), wheat, and potatoes. Produced in smaller amounts are fava or European broad beans, locally called haba ( Vicia faba ); fruits, vegetables, and medicinal herbs for teas or medicines. The primary livestock enterprises are cattle for milk, swine, and chickens. One-fourth of the farm surrounds the house (Figure 2.7), and the rest is scattered in various parcels. Two-thirds of the land is owned and one-third is rented from relatives. Land rent is half the value of the crop after I MAIZE I WHEAT MRAW LAT4NE c\ VM SSTOVER LA1ME - [IAG E W EA CO SWE CATTLE Figure 2.8. Family living quarters and animal keeping facil- ilities on farm in western highlands of Guatemala (See farmstead and fruit in Figure 2.7) deducting all costs. On the farmer's own land, he produces 75 percent of the maize, beans, and fava, 80 percent of the wheat, and 63 percent of the potatoes. Only 30 percent of the forest and grasslands are owned by him. On the land surrounding the house, including some forest land, a portion of all the crops cultivated are represented. The farmstead (Figure 2.8) contains several sheds for livestock and for forage and wood storage (both firewood and lumber). One bedroom of the house doubles as a weaving room for making sweaters, and another bedroom doubles as a carpentry shop. The distribution of labor, sale of products, purchases and sources of food for the Guatemala highland farm are shown in Figure 2.9. The farmer works 75 percent of the time on the farm and 25 percent off the farm. His wife works half time on the farm and half time off the farm. This latter situation is also not very typical of the region. Of the seven children, two work off the farm full time and are not counted in the farm picture, although they do consume eggs and send some money home. The other five, who are in school, work on weekends making sweaters and furniture. About 80 percent of the labor for the crops comes from off the farm. Of the family labor, most of it (43 percent) is used in the various activities within the household, including gath- ering firewood, about 20 percent is expended on animals, and 12 percent on the crops. Excluding the two children who work full time off the farm, about 25 percent of the family labor is used off the farm. The family at present has three cows, of which one or two are in production at one time. A small proportion of the milk is sold, but most of it comes into the household, where 10 percent is consumed fresh and the rest is used to make cheese and whey. Of the cheese, 20 percent is consumed in the household and 80 Figure 2.9. Distribution of labor, income (sales of products or off-farm labor), and purchases from exogenous sources for small crop/livestock farm in western highlands of Guatemala (Numbers are percent of total of that item ) percent is sold. Small amounts of whey are sold and consumed, but most is used to feed the pigs (60 percent) and the dogs (35 percent). All the cream removed from the milk is consumed in the household. There is usually one sow that has a litter of six to eight pigs at approximately six-month intervals. Two of the pigs are kept on the farm for fattening, while the rest are sold in the market or to other farmers at the time of weaning. The only meat produced for the household from two pigs is 2 to 3 kg each six months when the fat pigs are sold and butchered. This amount represents 3 percent of the total pork produced on the farm and about 10 percent of the pork meat consumed by the family. The family maintains both laying hens and young chickens. 49 All the old hens are sold for meat, and 58 percent of the young chickens are sold when they weign 1 to 2 kg. The feathers from chickens killed on the farm are used to make artificial flowers as a household industry (20 percent) or composted to make fertilizer (80 percent). Maize is the basic food staple of the family diet, and 20 percent of the wheat is consumed. (Most of the wheat grown in the highlands is marketed, but some is consumed in this particular area.) Of the maize produced, 40 percent is fed to the pigs, 20 percent to the chickens, 10 percent to the dogs, 19 percent is consumed in the household, 10 percent is sold at the end of the year when there is surplus, and 1 percent is used for seed. The maize stover is fed to the cattle. The parts rejected by the cattle (lower part of the stalks) is mixed with manure to produce compost. The same procedure is followed with the wheat straw. Potato vines are fed to livestock unless they were fumigated shortly before harvest, in which case they are left for incorporation into the soil. Of the vegetables, a wild turnip that grows as a weed in the maize (recently mixed with broccoli, which is allowed to reseed itself) is sold, consumed or fed to the animals. It is sold for human consumption and consumed in the house when the leaves are young but fed to the livestock when the leaves are older. Recently, a small garden patch was established with cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, and radishes, of which half is consumed and half is sold. Besides providing deciduous and other fruit, the fruit orchard also provides herbs for medicines, which account for 25 percent of the medicine used by the family. The forest (including the grasslands) provides leaf mulch, half of which is used for compost on the farm and the other half as payment for gathering the mulch. The forest also provides firewood and pinecones for fuel and raw materials for making implement handles and lumber. The lumber, which is sawed by off-farm labor, was used for building the house, and is used for constructing sheds, furniture, and boxes for seed potatoes. In addition to purchasing candles as a source of light, the family buys ocote, which is a special pitch-pine kindling used for starting fires. They buy cloth to make about 50 percent of their clothes and purchase the other half ready-made. Wool yarn is also bought for making sweaters, of which 7 percent is used for family needs and the rest sold. Food items which are purchased include tomatoes, garlic, onions, peppers, beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), coffee, sugar, chocolate, riceflour, oatmeal, cooking oil, lard, noodles, etc. Even though some piloy (beans) is produced on the farm, yields are' presently insufficient for food needs. Bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) are being tested as a means of decreasing dependence on purchase. The farm operation described is a very complex system. A wide variety of activities are carried on to maximize resource utilization and reduce risks. Due to the tedious balance of the system, interventions intended to produce change must be carefully evaluated; otherwise serious imbalances will be cre- ated. REFERENCES M.L. Barnett. 1978. Livestock, rice and culture. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference, reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. A.J. De Boer and A. Weisblat. 1978. Livestock component of small-farm systems in South and Southeast Asia. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. H. Diaz. 1978. Integrating an animal component into an agri- cultural development project. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference, reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. B. Duff. 1978. The potential for mechanization in small-farm production systems. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. P.A. Fitzhugh. 1978. Role of sheep and goats in small-farm systems. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. R.R. Harwood. 1978. Cropping systems in the Asian humid trop- ics. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference, reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. R.R. Harwood and F.C. Price. 1976. Multiple cropping in trop- ical Asia. In Multiple cropping, R.I. Papendick et al., eds. Madison, Wisc.: American Society of Agronomy. P.E. Hildebrand. 1978. Motivating small farmers to accept change. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. E.Q. Javier. 1978. Integration of forages into small farming systems. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. J.H. Maner. 1978. Nonruminants for small-farm systems. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. R.R. McDowell. 1978. Are we prepared to help small farmers in developing countries? J. Animal Sci. 47:1184-1194. J.J. Riley. 1978. Land, water, and man as determinants in small-farm production systems. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller Foundation. THE CONCEPT OF "HOMOGENEOUS SYSTEMS" AND ITS USEFULNESS Peter E. Hildebrand It is obvious from the preceding discussion that no two farms will be alike in all respects. Adding social, economic, cultural, and political influences to physical and climatic factors as constraints to adoption of new technology creates a situation which could seem to be impossible short of individual attention to each individual farmer. This, of course, is im- possible. Fortunately, it has been found that in any area, certain farming systems or portions of the system are similar in important characteristics. These systems or subsystems can be grouped into "homogeneous systems" (Hildebrand 1981, pp.425-426; Norman 1980, p.8) or "recommendation domains" (Byerlee et al. 1982, p. 899) which provide a convenient means for developing "location-specific" technologies. The premise on which the selection of a homogeneous cropping or farming system is based is that all the farmers who presently use it have made similar adjustments to a set of restrictions which they all face and that, since they made the same adjustments, they must all be facing the same set of agro-socioeconomic conditions (Hilde- brand). Once a homogeneous system is identified, it is necessary to discover what agro-socioeconomic characteristics or conditions all the farmers who use the system have in common and then to identify which are the most important to consider in any modifications to be made through changed technology. The homogeneous system or recommendation domain is a group of farmers with roughly similar practices and circumstances for whom a given recommendation will be broadly appropriate. It is a strat- ification of farmers, not area. Socioeconomic criteria may be just as important as agroclimatic variables in delineating domains. Thus, resulting domains are often not amenable to geographical mapping because farmers of different domains may be interspersed in a given area (Byerlee et al.). Although all farms in a geographic area may not (usually will not) fall into the same recommendation domain, it is still important to be able to geographically locate the boundaries for which a particular technology is appropriate. To be able to do this requires an understanding of the farming system itself, the characteristics or factors endogenouss or exogenous) that con- strain the system, and what factors change the system and its geographical boundaries. REFERENCES Byerlee, D., L. Harrington, and D.L. Winkelman. 1982. Farming systems research strategy and technology design. American Agricultural Economics Association, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp 899-904. Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid ap- praisal: the sondeo approach. Agricultural Administration 8, PR 423-432. Norman, D.W. 1980. The farming systems approach: relevancy for the small farmer. MSU Rural Development Papers, No. 5. East Lansing. HIERARCHY OF CONSTRAINTS TO SYSTEM PRODUCTIVITY Peter E. Hildebrand Hart highlights the different levels of systems and subsystems which form the environment within which farms operate. Each of these levels within the hierarchy is composed of its own set of resources and conditions, and therefore, of potential constraints to the productivity or efficiency of that particular system or subsystem. A constraint upon the productivity of any level of the systems hierarchy efficiently constrains the productivity of the entire hierarchy. If farmers in a country are capable, for whatever reason, of producing only so much of a product, then that will be the limit to availability of that product withinthe country's economic system. In the absence of imports, production constrains the amount of that product that can be processed in other levels of the in-country systems hierarchy or otherwise be made available as inputs or for consumption. Likewise, if processing is limiting because the only plant is antiquated and no others can be built because of other intervening governmental policies, then no matter how much of the product is produced by the farm level system, processing becomes the constraint to the productivity of the entire hierarchy. A common point of entry for agricultural development tech- nicians into the systems hierarchy of a country is at the crop level,Fig.2.10. Low productivity of one or more crops, that is, lack of self-sufficiency, is seen as a problem by policy makers. One or more projects are initiated in attempts to increase the productivity, or overall production, of the particular crop or crops. The problem is, that policy makers, just like professional scientists and technicians, are all influenced by disciplinary and experiential bias. This means that the individual policy maker or the individual technical consultant will influence the selection of the level within the hierarchy which will become the focus of the project for increasing the productivity or production of the crop or crops in question. The more narrow the training or experience of the individual, the more restrictive will be the focus of attention. A soil scientist will look for soil constraints. He may be concerned with general fertility problems, or more narrowly with micro or macro elements or pH. And, if he is looking for constraints in any of these particular areas, he is sure to find them. Any factor is constraining at some point, and when viewed in isolation, can easily be considered to be the constraining factor to the system. For a person with narrow training or experience, this is an honest assessment and should not be discounted out-of-hand. But the probability that an individual assessment of a person with narrow training and experience will discover the one or the few most limiting constraints, is small. A plant breeder will most assuredly be convinced that germplasm is the most limiting constraint and a farm management economist will be Figure 2.10. Hierarchy of constraints in an agricultural system sure that the problem is allocation of resources on individual farms. An irrigation engineer will view the inefficient use of water, if there is an irrigation system, or the lack of an irrigation system if there is not one, as the major constraint. A marketing economist will see product marketing and perhaps input marketing as the problem. An industrial engineer will see 54 product processing as the bottleneck, and a banker will see credit as the need. At the same time, each of these individuals, when his own solution is not effective, will readily see that the subsystem which falls in someone else's area of responsibility is not functioning as it should to "allow" his "solution" to be effective. A multidisciplinary team with varied experiences will inevitably have a higher probability of discovering which subsystems in the hierarchy and which constraints within the subsystems are the most limiting to the productivity of the entire hierarchical system. This does not guarantee, of course, that any particular team is assured that it will find the most critical constraints to an entire hierarchical system. But the use of such a team definitely will increase the probability that these constraints will be found. It is, of course, exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to plan or implement the kind of project that would be required to search for constraints at all levels within the systan hierarchy of a country and then to create solutions that would remove them as constraints. But also, this is not required. What is important is that before undertaking a project at any level in the hierarchy, an understanding of the other levels of the hierarchy is gained so that the constraints to the system from the other levels is appreciated. Then, if the lack of a market (either marketing mechanism or effective demand) for a perishable product exists, and this is known, there will be much less temptation on the part of the project design effort, to blindly search for ways to increase the production of that product. Or if credit is simply not available to target farmers, there will be less temptation to develop a technology that requires a source of credit in order to be acceptable to or usable by the clients. Developing the means for removing a constraint which is not one of the constraints limiting the system provides employment for the technicians involved in the process, but does not alleviate the problem nor increase the productivity of the system. If the productivity of the system is not increased as a result of the technicians' activities, in the long run, there will not be a means of paying for the services of those technicians nor the policy makers who authorize the projects. In the long run, it would, therefore, be beneficial to all concerned, to do a better job in searching for and alleviating the key or most limiting constraints to the system, at whatever level in the hierarchy they are found. CHAPTER 3 Economic Characteristics of Small Family-Farm Systems The nature of the small-scale, limited-resource family farm leads it to express economic characteristics that are quite different from large-scale commercial or plantation farms with full-time management and access to most resources. These characteristics can have a profound effect on the adoption of new technologies by small-scale family farmers. This chapter presents a series of readings that describe the characteristics of small-scale family farmers, the implications for technology innovation, and some of the responses to potential technology change that could be expected. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL-SCALE, LIMITED-RESOURCE FAMILY FARMS Peter E. Hildebrand The most important trait in defining the type of farm that will be treated here is that of being a family farm. Family farms are those which are first a home rather than first a business. Decisions are made from the point of view of the home. A farm is not a family farm by this definition if business decisions are made independently of family considerations. Rather, the well-being of the home and family override profit considerations. A second trait of small-scale family farms is usually the presence of a wide diversification of enterprises or activ- ities. These frequently include off-farm work by some of the labor force. SMALL-SCALE Small-scale is a relative term. This creates problems when only the concept of small is used as a means of identifying clientele. In many countries and areas, a farm of only a very few hectares can be a large, commercial farm. In other areas, CHAPTER 3 Economic Characteristics of Small Family-Farm Systems The nature of the small-scale, limited-resource family farm leads it to express economic characteristics that are quite different from large-scale commercial or plantation farms with full-time management and access to most resources. These characteristics can have a profound effect on the adoption of new technologies by small-scale family farmers. This chapter presents a series of readings that describe the characteristics of small-scale family farmers, the implications for technology innovation, and some of the responses to potential technology change that could be expected. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL-SCALE, LIMITED-RESOURCE FAMILY FARMS Peter E. Hildebrand The most important trait in defining the type of farm that will be treated here is that of being a family farm. Family farms are those which are first a home rather than first a business. Decisions are made from the point of view of the home. A farm is not a family farm by this definition if business decisions are made independently of family considerations. Rather, the well-being of the home and family override profit considerations. A second trait of small-scale family farms is usually the presence of a wide diversification of enterprises or activ- ities. These frequently include off-farm work by some of the labor force. SMALL-SCALE Small-scale is a relative term. This creates problems when only the concept of small is used as a means of identifying clientele. In many countries and areas, a farm of only a very few hectares can be a large, commercial farm. In other areas, 2,000 hectares can be considered a small farm. But in any of these areas, smaller farms can be identified. The type of farm being considered here is usually the smaller (as opposed to the larger) farms in an area. Diversification into several ac- tivities creates even smaller enterprises within the small farm. LIMITED RESOURCES Limited-resource is another relative term. All farmers will insist they have limited resources, and they are all correct. But, again, in any area, there will be obvious differences in the resource base of different farmers. This is particularly true if one considers resource quality and not just resource quantity. Land It is tautologous to argue that small farmers have less land. But the quality of land held by small-scale farmers is frequently, if not usually, inferior to that of large-scale commercial or plantation farms. Capital All farmers face some sort of limitations on capital, but many small-scale, family farmers have virtually no cash with which to operate and frequently do not have title to fixed capital (such as land) which could serve as collateral were it possible otherwise to borrow. Many farmers in this situation do borrow, but at very high interest rates, which in itself has the same effect of severely limiting operating capital. Labor Conventional wisdom conveys that small-scale family farms usually have an abundance of labor (large families, small holdings). Off-farm work and a large number of enterprises on the farm, however, can create situations for which labor can become scarce. Because of limited opportunity to hire additional labor, this resource can also be limited at critical times. Management Part-time farmers, who have many different types of enterprises on the farm, have much less time to devote to the management of each enterprise than managers of large-scale commercial or specialized farms. Lower levels of education and more limited access to information also reduce the quality of management on many small-scale family farms. Services Services, which many managers of large farms take for grant- ed, are also frequently limited for small-scale farmers. This is true of information services, product or input marketing services, transportation, storage and processing services and even communication services. All of these factors can be considered as resources to the farmer and have an impact on the productivity of the farm. Fixed Resources Not only is the small-scale farm faced with limited resources compared to a large commercial farm, but also the proportion of fixed to variable resources is different. In a large commercial farm with a relatively abundant capital base, additional resources of most kinds can be purchased when needed. In a small farm with very limited capital, this is not the case, and a relatively high proportion of the resources are fixed. Manure from existing animals may be the only source of fertilizer. The family may be the only source of labor and management. The only source of seed may be that left over after consumption, limited sales and losses in rustic storage. ON THE NON-NEUTRALITY OF SCALE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Peter E. Hildebrand Carter et al. reported in a recent study that most of the research carried out in the United States was considered by the research directors involved to be scale neutral, meaning it should demonstrate the same potential on small as on large farms. Hence, they argue that the research product was equally adoptable on large and small farms. Yet it has been amply demonstrated, even in the United States, that small farms have not adopted much of the newer technology and have not been able to compete with larger farms in the current economic environment. In this paper, it is argued that the majority of the research that is conceived as scale neutral by the research directors responding to the Carter study is, in fact, not scale neutral and is strongly biased toward large-scale commercial agriculture and against small limited-resource or low-volume family farms. This is true in the United States but even more true in developing countries. Three reasons are primarily responsible for this bias. These reasons are not recognized by most agricultural researchers and have not entered into the evaluation criteria regarding scale effect of the research directors who classified the research reported by Carter et al. The reasons, all interrelated, are: 1. The quality of resources is frequently lower on small farms than on largefarms. This has the effect of shifting a small farm production function downward in comparison with large farms so that response from a technology on a small farm is less than on a large farm. 2. Limited quantities of resources, fixed in a higher proportion for the firm, result in a concave opportunities curve for the low-volume farm. This results in a reduction in Income when enterprises are combined. Yet many small farmers are forced in- to diversification for subsistence or because they have little 59 confidence in support from normal market infrastructure. 3. Forced farm enterprise diversification and/or off-farm work reduce the quantity if not the quality of management in each enterprise on the low volume farm. This influences the time required to learn to use a new technology, shifts the learning curve to the right, and makes learning more expensive. Low-volume output prevents spreading the higher learning costs (loss of income from not achieving anticipated results) over a sufficient number of units to make complex learning situations profitable for the small farm. The combined effect of these three factors is to make it unprofitable for the low-volume farm to adopt more complex modern technology. The need under the conditions of low volume is for technology that is simple, as opposed to complex, and uses mostly resources already fixed on the farm, as opposed to purchased inputs. This is not the kind of technology being produced by the research directors polled by Carter et al., nor by most research establishments in developing countries. RESOURCE AND INPUT QUALITY Not universally, but frequently enough to make it a general rule, small farmers operate with inputs and resources of inferior quality compared to large or commercial farmers. It is common to see small farms pushed off onto steep or rocky hillsides with obviously poorer soils. Animals or power equipment, if they exist at all, are weaker or smaller and do a less effective job in soil preparation and cultivation. Purchased inputs are more apt to have been poorly stored or otherwise arrive at the farm with inferior quality. These and other reasons account for a lower quality input and resource base on a small farm. Combining these inputs with a new technology leads to lower responses than those achieved on farms with a higher quality resource base and reduces profit potential from adoption. It is not the size of the field in which an improved seed is plant-edthat-iiimTpo-ran-. It is the quality of the soil, the amount of moisture, the presence or absence of pest and disease control, and the losses between maturity and harvest, when combined with the improved seed, that influence response. Technical innovations that appear promising with high level production functions are much less so with lower level response surfaces. FIXED RESOURCES Undoubtedly the least understood effect of producing on a farm with a high proportion of fixed inputs or resources is the influence of fixed resources on the production possibilities or opportunities curve. Many economics texts cover the case of limited-resource firms combining products in Stage I of the production function. This produces an opportunities curve that is concave from the origin (Figure 3.1), for which spec- ialization and not diversification, maximizes income. But even Opportunities Curve X IX2 ...X, X1 I X2...Xn Figure 3.1. Combining enterprises with inputs limited to Stage I in this case, the effect of the resources fixed for the firm but variable between enterprises is usually ignored. Rather, it is assumed implicitly that the amount of the X2 to n fixed factors in each of the production functions in Figure 3.1 is equal. This implies that X2 to X are not interchangeable between Y1 and Y2. This clearly is not the case with a limited-resource firm. Consider the case of a firm choosing between two products, Y, and Y2' and with four units of a resource X2, fixed for the firm but variable between the two enterprises. If one input X1 is variable, there will be a family of production functions related to the levels of the fixed resource with which it is combined (Figure 3.2). Implicitly assumed in standard texts is that there are four units of the fixed resource available for each of the two enterprise possibilities. However, if rather than produce only one product, using all four units of the fixed resource, the farmer produces some of both, then some of the same four units of the fixed resource must be used in the production of the second product. The effect is to shift both production functions downward from X1 | X2 = 4, a consequence not considered in the standard explanation of enterprise combination. As a result, production possibilities are represented by a family of opportunity curves for which the envelope opportunity curve is again concave, not convex (Figure 3.2c). This effect exacerbates even more the consequences of forced diversification. COST OF LEARNING One of the most critical functions of management is learning to use new technology. Depending on the nature of the technology, it may take several attempts before its anticipated potential can be reached. The responses achieved at each different attempt form what can be called a learning curve. Most work dealing with learning curves has associated successful learning with reduction in unit cost. In Figure 3.3, learning is related to increase in yield, which is frequently the aim of a new agricultural technology. In this figure, yield potential MaxX1 X 1X2 Envelope Opportunities Curve MaxX1 XI)X2 2a 2b Figure 3.2 Combining enterprises with a limited fixed resource, x2 = 4 units. from the new technology is very high. However, it takes nearly five attempts before the full potential is achieved. Economically, present yield has an associated gross income, cost, and net income (Figure 3.4). A farmer with a relatively low level of yield and income is presented with a new technology that has high gross-income potential. However, associated with this potential high income is usually an increased cost, Figure 3.5. If a farmer decides to use the new technology, he invests at the higher cost level. If he does not achieve the potential response on the first or second attempt, as shown in Figure 3.5 net income can be negative for a period of time. In this figure it takes three years to break even. In a large-volume commercial operation, the future positive income stream can easily pay for the losses during the early stages of learning. However, on a small farm with low volume, this is more difficult, especially if a portion of that low volume is used for subsistence on the farm and does not enter the market. A person who has less time to devote to the learning process cannot achieve the potential from the new technology as rapidly as a person who has more time available for learning. Hence, for a manager of the small-scale family farm who has many enterprises to manage, the learning curve shifts to the right and more attempts will be required before potential is achieved (Figure 3.6). On the other hand, technology that is simpler to learn can shift the curve to the left. Fewer attempts are required before the full potential is reached. The conclusion is that simple rather than complex technology is more appropriate for the small-scale family farmer with little time available for learning how to use the new technology for each individual enterprise. However, simpler technology that would shift the learning curve to the left usually is associated with a lower potential benefit and net income (Figure 3.7). This leads to rejection of the simpler technology by scientists when evaluating alternative technologies in favor of more complex technologies with higher yield and income potential. For the scientist who assumes instantaneous learning, this is a logical decision. But for the small diversified farmer who does not learn instantaneously, the Yield Results with New Technology (Learning Curve) Yield with Present 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ATTEMPTS Figure 3.3. Responses achieved with a new technology related to number of times used $ PoFenial Fiomn Nev. Tcchnrolog Gross Income, present rechnolog ~----------------------- Net Income, present technology I- --------------------------------- Cost, present technoloMv 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ATTEMPTS Figure 3.4. Gross income from new technology related to the learning curve YIELD RESULT Figure 3.5. Gross Income Cost New Technology Cost New Technology Net Income SNew Technology 0 1 2 /3 4 5 6 Net Loss ATTEMPTS New Technology Negative and positive net income from using a new technology related to the learning curve simpler technology may be more acceptable and more adoptable than a higher-payoff technology tat takes several attempts to learn and may therefore be rejected. A rapid rate of learning, a large volume over which to amortize the learning cost, and a low discount rate would all enhance the adoptability of a proposed new technology. None of these are characteristic of a small farm. In their absence, a particularly high potential profit would be required to entice a small farmer to try the new technology. But high payoff technology is usually associated with a high proportion of purchased inputs requiring cash or credit, which the small farmer does not have, and/or increased risk to levels unacceptable to a person who would be risking his home and not just his business. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Low quality resources on small farms compared with large farms shift downward the response surfaces associated with a technological change, making the potential profit from the POTENTIAL RESULT PRESENT RESULT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ATTEMPTS Figure 3.6. YIELD Shifts in the learning curve related to complexity of new technology and facility or time for learning Potential Complex Technology Potential Simple Technology ------------Present Technology Present Technology --------- E -----_---- 0 1 Figure 3.7. 2 3 4 5 ATTEMPTS Frequent relationship of simpler (easier to learn to use) technology and potential productivity adoption of the technology less than for a large farm. Forced diversification on small farms, combined with a high proportion of fixed resources, reduces income rather than increasing it as it does on a larger capital base with a higher proportion of variable resources. Less management time available for each enterprise on small diversified farms makes learning more difficult and costly and further reduces the discounted present value of the response of a new technology that does not produce anticipated returns the first year. Any of the effects in- dividually reduces the acceptability of a high-cost or complex technology to the small farmer. When all effects are taken together, as is the case on most small farms, the result can be overwhelming rejection of much modern technology. And if small farmers are unable to adopt new research results (technology) because of these straightforward economic reasons, it is. not correct to argue that most of our agricultural research is scale neutral. The conclusion is that agricultural research designed for small farms must result in technology that is simple and not complex, to reduce learning costs; use mostly resources available on small farms with a minimum of purchased inputs, to reduce capital requirements; and be evaluated and tested under the resource conditions found on the farms of the clientele for whom they are designed, to reduce inflated estimates of potential response. It is critical that agricultural researchers com- prehend the economics of small farms if they intend to produce technology for them. Otherwise, agricultural research will continue almost inevitably with a bias, albeit unintentional, toward large commercial farms, and worldwide efforts to aid small farmers will continue to have only limited effects. REFERENCES Carter, H.O., W.W. Cochrane, L.M. Day, R.C. Powers, and L. Tweeten. 1981. Research and the family farm. Paper prepared for the Committee on Organization Policy. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. THE PUZZLE: PANAJACHEL, GUATEMALA Theodore W. Schultz THE PUZZLE Suppose it were true that not much additional income could be had from a better allocation of the existing stock of traditional factors of production. This assumption does not rule out some small gains from this source, but it does imply that growth opportunities in this direction are unimportant (Harberger 1959). Suppose, further, that it were also true that investment to increase somewhat the stock of traditional factors of production would produce a very low rate of return (Subcommittee 1962). Here, too, there could be some imperfections in the way the capital "market" functions, which could be corrected, and if this were achieved some additional investment would be forthcoming. Yet the increase in income from such measures would not open the door wide for economic growth. Lastly, then, suppose there were some reproducible factors of production in other communities that differ from the traditional factors on which a particular community is dependent and that these differences make them both more productive and profitable. Why is it that farm people now dependent upon traditional agriculture do not take advantage of these more productive and more profitable factors? The puzzle underlying this question is ever so perplexing in the case of Panajachel, Guatemala, a community to be examined in some detail. The people are obviously hard working, thrifty, and acute in selling their crops, renting land, and buying things for consumption and production. The community is not an isolated subsistence economy, but is closely integrated into a larger market economy. Yet, hoes, axes, and machetes are not replaced by better tools and equipment. There is not even a wheel. Coffee leaves used as fertilizer are not replaced or supplemented by chemical fertilizers. Traditional breeds of chickens are not replaced by better hens for producing eggs and broilers for producing meat. The traders and firms in the towns that serve this community are not offering for sale any of the superior factors. If one wanted to plan a community like Panajachel that would go on for decades without any change in the state of arts on which it was dependent, it would strike one as impossible within the market economy of Guatemala. Yet Panajachel has been doing the "impossible" in this respect for generations. That is the puzzle. PANAJACHEL, GUATEMALA: VERY POOR BUT EFFICIENT A classic study by Sol Tax, Penny Capitalism (1953), opens with these words: it is a "society which is 'capitalist' on a microscopic scale. There are no machines, no factories, no co-ops or corporations. Every man is his own firm and works ruggedly for himself. Money there is, in small denominations; trade there is, with what men carry on their backs; free entrepreneurs, the impersonal market place, competition these are in the rural economy." Tax leaves no doubt that this community is very poor, that it is under strong competitive behavior, and that its 800 people are making the most of the factors and techniques of production at their command. No one ought to be surprised that the people are very poor. Tax puts their poverty this way: they "live without medical aid or drugs, in dirt-floored huts with hardly any furniture, the light only of the fire that smokes up the room, or of a pitch-pine torch' or a little tin kerosene lamp; the mortality rate is high; the diet is meager and most people cannot afford more than a half-pound of meat a week. Schools are almost nonexistent; the children cannot be spared from work in the field. Life is mostly hard work." (Tax 1953 p.28) Tax presents many data measuring the consumer goods and the level and cost of living to support this poignant testimony on the poverty of the community. Competition is present everywhere in the way products and factors are priced. "All household utensils pottery, grinding stones, baskets, gourds, china, and so on and practically all household furnishings, such as tables and chairs and mats, must be brought in from other towns. So must many articles of wearing apparel, such as material for skirts and cloaks, hats, sandals, blankets, and carrying bags, as well as cotton and thread for weaving the other things. So must most of the essential foodstuffs: the greater part of the corn, all lime, salt and spices, most of the chile, and most of the meat. To get the money they depend upon the sale of agricultural produce. . Onions and garlic, a number of fruits, and coffee are the chief commodities produced for sale." (Tax 1953 pp. 11-12) Prices are in every respect highly flexible. Tax goes on to document the fact that the Indian is "above all else an entrepreneur, a business man," always looking for new means of turning a penny. He buys the goods he can afford with a close regard for price in various markets, he calculates with care the value of this labor in producing crops for sale or for home consumption against his working for hire, and he acts accordingly. He rents and pawns parcels of land with a shrewd eye to the return, and he does likewise in acquiring the few producer goods that he buys from others. All of this business, "may be characterized as a money economy organized in single households as both consumption and production units, with a strongly developed market which tends to be perfectly competitive." (Tax 1953 p.13) The economy has been geared to a stable, virtually sta- tionary, routine pattern. Not that the Indian is not always looking for new ways to improve his lot. Tax notes that "he is on the lookout for new and better seeds, fertilizer, ways of planting". But such improvements come along infrequently, and their effects upon production are exceedingly small. There was a growing demand by "foreigners" for some shore land along Lake Atitlan but this development was having very little effect upon the land Indians used for producing crops and on which they built their huts. Some buses and trucks had become available for transport to more distant towns and they were being used to go to and from markets in these towns because it was "cheaper" than walking and carrying the goods. There were more tourists in and about the lake but these too were having little or no discernible influence on the community. All the evidence revealed in the careful documentation of the behavior of the people in Penny Capitalism and in the many tables showing prices, costs, and returns strongly supports the inference that the people are remarkably efficient in allocating the factors at their disposal in current production. There are no significant indivisibilities in methods of production, none in factors, and none in products. There is no disguised unemploy- ment, no underemployment of either men, women, or children old enough to work, and for the least of them there is no such thing as a zero marginal product. Because even very young children can contribute something of value by working in the field, they cannot be spared the time to go to school. Product and factor prices are flexible. People respond to profit. For them every penny counts. REFERENCES Harberger, A.C. 1959. Using the resources at hand more effec- tively. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 49:134-46. Subcommittee on Inter-American Economic Relationships of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress of the United States. 1962. The rate of return on capital in Latin-American economies: with special reference to Chile. Hearings on Economic Development in South America, May 10-11. Tax, Sol. 1953. Penny capitalism. Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Publication No. 16 (Washington,: U.S. Government Printing Office). Reprinted by the University of Chicago Press. 1983. UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCING NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURE Peter E. Hildebrand and Edgar G. Luna Minifundios, or small subsistence or near-subsistence farms, normally absorb the majority of rural people in the developing countries of Latin America and elsewhere in the world. Although a great deal has been written about subsistence farms, and their inclusion in the development process is frequently considered, schemes to improve the individual economic situation of these farmers are mostly failures. Reasons for failure include various combinations of large numbers, isolation, low educational levels, lack of private resources, insufficient public resources, poorly planned or coordinated programs, and lack of information regarding economic constraints and requirements and optimum input and product combinations for feasible solutions to problems of the minifundistas. Schultz's "Economic Efficiency Hypothesis"(Shultz 1964 p. 16) proposes that farmers in traditional, but stable, agriculture have adjusted to their conditions in such a manner as to be eco- nomically efficient. We agree with this hypothesis, which implies that no changes in input or product mix from among the alternatives historically available will result in any sig- nificant improvement in the income of the farm. But more and more, traditional farms are being affected by new technologies. Even though many efforts are made to supply "packages" of improved techniques, it is virtually impossible to transform the traditional subsistence farm into a "micro commercial farm" with any sort of input package. The reason is that no such package can include all the required modernizing factors in the proportions in which they are required. It is logical to argue, as Schultz has done (pp. 162 ff.), that the introduction of a modern technique is not always profitable in any particular area, because it may not be adapted, the price conditions may not be similar, risk may be increased, etc. Again, we do not disagree with these considerations. But we would argue that a more important effect is that the introduction of one or more new factors in an otherwise stable 69 and traditional farm economy adversely influences the economic balance of the traditional factors that are not being changed. The introduction of a new variety, a high analysis fertilizer, or a potent insecticide singly, or in a package, can have unforeseen effects, such as shifting labor from Stage II of production to Stage I and land from Stage II to Stage III. These shifts are so unexpected that they are seldom if ever considered when attempting to analyze the reasons for the poor performance of otherwise well planned development programs. A study was conducted in a minifundio area of southern Colombia, near Pasto in the Department of Narino, which sheds some light on the nature of the problem and should be of wide interest to economists and other agriculturalists working in small-farm development. In the study area traditional agri- culture remains the predominant characteristic, but through the efforts of rigorous research, extension, and credit programs, many new technologies are finding their way into common use. Nevertheless, farm incomes remain low. The study that is presented in this paper discovered some of the reasons -- the unforeseen consequences that new technologies are not having the predicted effect on farm income. NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES AND FARM SIZE Apart from the usual classification of farms based on size, it was possible in the study to separate them into specialized and diversified farms. This was done in order to analyze one hypothesis: On small farms with few resources, diversification tends to force some resources into Stage I of production (and at the same time force others into Stage III). The implication is that any combination of enterprises would result in a lower income than specialization in only one crop at a time (owing to the concave nature of the opportunities curve). Of the 108 farms (of from 1 to 20 hectares) surveyed, it was found that from among those 1 to 5 hectares in size, two-thirds were specialized and one-third were diversified. For the farms from 5.1 to 20 hectares the proportion was reversed. This was evidence, though not conclusive, that the farmers themselves were finding our hypothesis to be true on the small farms, specialization tended to yield more income. The net income figures, both per hectare and per farm, corroborated this evidence. The dividing size was 10 hectares. The average net income per hectare and per farm was greater for specialized farms of 1 to 3, 3 to 5, and 5 to 10 hectares than for diversified farms. But net income was greater for diversified than for specialized farms of 10 to 15 and 15 to 20 hectares. The smaller (1 to 10 hectares) specialized farms yielded more net income than the smaller diversified farms, even though the diversified farms used more traditional (labor and seed) as well as modern (fertilizer and pesticide) inputs per hectare than the specialized farms. Considering the use of modern inputs as an indicator, the small diversified farms would be rated higher than the small specialized farms yet their performance on a net income basis was poorer. For farms larger than 10 hectares, the greater use of traditional and modern inputs on the diversified farms did produce more net income than on the larger specialized farms. FARM PRODUCTIVITY AND STAGES OF PRODUCTION In order to determine more precisely what the effects on factor productivity were, the area was studied on a crop by crop basis. Unfortunately, the survey was too small to allow the determination of factor productivity crop by crop for the specialized-diversified strata. Only the farm-size clas- sification could be used and this only for wheat, the most widely produced crop in the region. Contrary to what one would expect, the smaller farms were not using sufficient labor in the production of wheat. Addi- tional analysis revealed that the amount used during the growing of the crop was approximately correct, but the amount used during land preparation (which is closely tied to animal power) should be more than doubled. Although we found no indication that the average amount of labor used for land preparation fell in Stage I, it certainly must have been close to the edge of Stage II. The significant aspect of the insufficient use of labor in land preparation is that the farmers spend months in preparing land for seeding, and generally plow and harrow (with animals) three times each. Plowing usually begins in October or November and seeding is in February and March. Such a pattern probably was the most efficient, given the resources available before the introduction of new varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides. But these modern technologies have all been developed in association with adequate mechanized land preparation. Hence, the formerly adequate land preparation techniques become inadequate when combined with a partial "package" of modern technology. Apparently the productivity of the modern technology is also difficult to predict when transferred to a traditional agri- cultural setting. On small farms in the study area and for wheat, the quantity of seed and fertilizer used was insufficient to reach Stage II and pesticides were used in excess, the average quantity producing negative marginal productivities. On the larger farms, seed and fertilizer use was in Stage II but was excessive. An informed explanation of the underuse of seed on the small farms (even though the average use corresponds to current recommendations) was that the seed used by these farmers was not of the quality used for experiments or demonstrations or even by the larger farmers. Hence, the same quantity yielded fewer plants per hectare than anticipated in the recommendations. Although its use on the larger farms reached Stage II, the quantity of fertilizer used was very inadequate on both the small and large holdings. Attempts to separate pesticides were not entirely adequate but indications are that insecticides were used excessively while the small use of herbicides could be increased. Area seeded was another factor of interest in the study. The results indicate that for wheat, the average area seeded on small farms (2.36 hectares) is less than the optimum size, but the 7.91 hectare average on the larger farms is too large. The implications of this effect are discussed in the conclusions. In partial summary, it is evident that a reshuffling of tt proportions of the modern and traditional factors in use on thee farms could increase income substantially. An increase i fertilizer and seed use accompanied by more labor in lan preparation could increase production of wheat per hectare by 5 percent and the additional costs would have a 100 percent ne return. But an overriding problem with this solution is that it i doubtful that land preparation can be markedly improved b intensifying current traditional practices. As a minimum improved yokes for the bullocks and better implements for anima traction will have to be introduced to the area in order t achieve a more efficient balance with the other modern technique now being used. Possibly only mechanized land preparation wil suffice. In the Department of Narino potatoes are an important commercial crop, but in the study area (Municipio of Yacuanquer they rate much more as a subsistence crop (wheat is the mail commercial crop). Nevertheless, potato production is high ris) and requires more technology than wheat. Labor used in land preparation was found to be adequate foi potatoes but an increase in labor would be desirable during th( growth of the crop. Relatively large quantities of fertilizer were used (from about U.S. $20.00 to $125.00 per hectare with at average of $65.00) but an increase would be profitable. Pes- ticide use, while very common, was found to be quite inadequate as average insecticide use did not reach Stage II. Corn, another subsistence crop in the area, is considered inferior to potatoes and grown usually in small plots. Ir accordance with its stature in importance, it receives relatively poor care and few modern inputs. Indeed, our study indicated that labor, seed, fertilizer,.and pesticides were all used ir quantities too small to reach Stage II of production. Under the circumstances the farmers would certainly have been better off not raising corn, except that they did so as a form of insurance for home consumption. CONCLUSIONS This study, which was undertaken in a traditional agricultural area being subjected to modern technologies through rigorous research, extension, and credit programs, demonstrates that serious maladjustments have been created in resource combinations such that some factors of production are in Stage I and others are in Stage III. It is very likely that this maladjustment affects all traditional economies which are sub- jected to incomplete "packages" of modern or new techniques. But it is also very likely that it is not feasible to supply complete packages because too many factors would have to be included. One extremely important factor which is virtually impossible tc include in a package (except on a very small scale) is the management capability of the small farmer. The conclusion that must be reached is that maladjustments will always exist so long as traditional (or even nontraditional but poorly developed) agriculture is subjected to the development process. The same conclusion holds, of course, for any economy that is not static. The difference is that in a more developed economy the changes are expected, can be predicted, and are relatively short-run. Adjustment begins as soon as the maladjustment is felt. In a traditional economy, people may well be better off than before even if their resource combination is inefficient; so there is no feeling of being out of adjustment. Further, a traditional agricultural economy is seldom studied in this light; so, rarely is it determined that the factors of pro- duction are inefficiently allocated. In fact, there has never been any real need for such studies. It can be concluded that there is a tendency toward lesser incomes on small farms that are diversified than on those that are specialized. We were unable to demonstrate in the study that this was due to a concave opportunities curve resulting from combining enterprises in Stage I of production. However, there is substantial evidence that this is indeed what happens because many factors, even on specialized farms, were shown to be in Stage I in this traditional economy that is being subjected to the modernizing process. To be specialized does not mean that a farm can produce only one crop a year, such as wheat, in our study area. Nor does it mean only one crop each semester (either the same or a different crop). A few different but similar vegetables, for instance, could probably be raised by one farmer "specialized" in vegetables without his being affected by uneconomic enterprise combinations. But to combine the vegetables with corn or wheat or even potatoes would mean to feel the effect of the concave opportunities curve. Another conclusion of the study is that specialization of small farms can tend to reduce the pressure for expanding farm size in areas where population is high and land scarce. It is easier on a small farm to reach the optimum area planted for one crop farm than for each of two or more crops. Thus, specialization can be an important component of an agrarian reform program. RECOMMENDATIONS One of the recommendations deals with action programs and the other deals with research as a source of information for the action program. Any action program oriented toward the development of small, traditional farms in any particular area, must consider the desirability of developing specialized farms rather than diversified farms. Even though specialized farming bears a high risk to the producer, small farmers in our study area tended toward it. But it must be recognized that the risk factor is extremely important. When a farmer puts all his resources into the production of one crop he must be assured that a reasonable market exists for his product id that he can purchase his, other necessities at reasonable prices when he needs them. This requires a well-developed infrastructure (which was the case in our study area) and a degree of confidence in the stability of the economic system, at least in the short run. Without these assurances, it will be difficult to convince a traditionally self-sufficient farmer to specialize in the production of a single crop to increase his real income. Accompanying any successful development program must be a carefully planned and critical research program. Besides the normal research into varieties, pesticides, fertilizers, crop combinations, and other practices, the complete research program must include continuing studies of the nature of this study to ascertain the current status of the development process and help guide the rational introduction of new technologies into traditional agriculture. REFERENCES Luna T., Edgar G. 1972. Estudio de la productividad de los recursos agricolas en zonas de minifundio. Unpublished MS thesis. Program de Estudios para Graduados, Universidad Nacional, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). Bogota, Colombia. Schultz, Theodore W. 1964. Transforming traditional agricul- ture. Yale University Press. New Haven, Conn. RESPONSE TO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE John W. Mellor The record in regard to acceptance of technological change by subsistence farmers in traditional economies is mixed. On the one hand we have the generally poor record in this regard of major programs of community development and extension. Such programs have normally included an effort to gain farmer acceptance of a wide range of innovations said to increase production and incomes, and yet the acceptance of change and particularly the impact on production has generally been rather small. On the other hand we have-numbers of examples of individual innovations, including a number of mechanical in- novations, improved seed varieties, inorganic fertilizers, and so on, which have in certain specific situations spread very rapidly even without formal programs of farmer education and exhortation. In regard to the failures of community development and ex- tension, it is easy to demonstrate that a high proportion of what has been recommended has not been economically or even technically suitable, and hence failure of farmers to accept such innovation appears more as a recommendation of their economic acumen than of their non-economic drives. But on the other hand, a high proportion of the success stories tend to involve innovations which were very similar to practices already fol- lowed, which were simple and easy to apply, and which provided unusually high returns. The record for complex innovations providing some modest returns is not so clear. The record in regard to acceptance of innovation is further clouded by the wide range of factors which may inhibit acceptance of innovation. Innovation may be accepted by farmers, not because of direct economic benefits from the innovation itself, but because acceptance of innovation brings ancillary benefits of favor from personnel and agencies fostering the innovation. The tying of extension programs with programs of government subsidized inputs, including credit, is an important case in point. Innovation may also be accepted or rejected on basically non-economic grounds of traditionalism on the one hand or prestige of being an innovator on the other. Insofar as acceptance of innovation by subsistence farmers in traditional agriculture is based on the individual direct economic gains from the innovation, then three conditions must be met if innovation is to be accepted. There must be a desire for increased material welfare, there must be expectation that specific innovation will increase wealth, and there must be expectation that the farmer as innovator will participate in an increase in wealth from innovation. The desire for increased material welfare may be weak in a traditional agriculture. An apparent attitude of uninterest in improved material welfare may grow in a situation in which there has been a history of no possibility of improved welfare through increased production a condition carmon in traditional agriculture. Under such circumstances improvement in the position of one individual must come largely from taking income away from others that is, by redistribution of wealth . The alternative of increasing individual wealth through expanding production is not thought to exist. In such circumstances a stable society requires conventions which inhibit desire for increased material welfare. Lacking such restraints, society will be constantly torn by strife as each attempts to benefit himself by taking advantage of others. Thus it is likely that, the longer the stable cultural history of an economically traditional society, the more inhibitions to incentives for change will have become institutionalized. In such societies the first requisite to increasing incentives is development of an awareness of the possibility of change and an awareness that this possibility can be positively rewarding both to the individual and to society as a whole and not just at the expense of the welfare of others. In most parts of the world enough has already been done in effectuating political and social change, and to a certain extent in introducing economic change, to achieve the requisite awareness. A problem which was probably critical a few decades ago is probably now restricted in importance to scattered pockets of traditionalism. Judging from past history, it is likely that political fer- ment plays an important role in developing a favorable personal and institutional attitude toward change. The very act of change in political leadership, the emphasis upon man's control of his own destiny which accompanies political ferment, and the rapid development and dissemination of ideas, must all play a role in the process of loosening men's minds and encouraging an attitude favoring change and improvement. In most parts of the world recent decades have seen substantial political ferment and it is likely that this has broad impact upon the motivation of men and their attitude toward change. Given a general environment of ferment and change, the for- mal educational system may play an additional important role in shaping the development of broadened horizons. Education introduces a logic and rationale to many aspects of life, it opens up knowledge of different things, it demonstrates change, and, equally important, education itself provides one of the most important means of change by increasing mobility to other jobs and by providing a basis for understanding changes within agriculture which may improve welfare. In addition to the political framework and education, phys- ical health may play an important part in the development of positive motivation toward change. Where a population is heavily ridden with parasitic infections and debilitative disease, its physical energy is certainly sapped and it seems likely that an attitude of lethargy and inertia is created. It is difficult for persons ill and weak from such health conditions to develop an interest and enthusiasm for change. Indeed, in nations with substantial stock of unutilized manpower the favorable effect of control of disease on mental attitude may be much more important to the progress of development than its purely physical effect. Unfortunately little empirical study of this aspect of public health has been made, so we can do little more than speculate upon its significance. It is also likely that the variety and quantity of consumer goods available has an important influence on the extent of desire for improved material welfare. Even where the possibility of change is accepted and education and health have broadened horizons and ambitions, the desire for increased material welfare may be small because of the lack of availability of consumer items of the type and units which are suitable to existing incomes. It is probably correct that the longer the history of cultural development of a society, the more standardized and traditional will be consumption patterns and the greater the inhibitions to the introduction of new consumption patterns. Again, however, most societies have now had sufficient history of new forms of consumption patterns to have at least seriously weakened the hold of traditionalism on consumption patterns. The problem nowadays in most areas is more likely one of providing the consumer-goods incentives in the appropriate price, quality, and quantity ranges rather than in breaking the hold of traditionalism on consumption patterns. Thus, it is likely that subsistence farmers in a traditional economy are slow to innovate, even if innovation is highly profitable, because of various inhibitions to material im- provement. Contemporary political ferment, expansion of education, widespread marketing of consumer goods, improved health and other factors, have all contributed to a much more encouraging current attitude toward innovation in most of the world's peasant economies. Currently it is likely that a greater barrier to acceptance of technological change is that of the farmers' low expectations that specific technological changes will, in fact, increase wealth. Again there is a tendency in traditional agriculture with a long history of cultural development to have insti- tutionalized resistance to innovation. In a traditional agriculture the past evidence concerning innovation and change has generally been that it does not provide improvement. Until development of innovations (research) is institutionalized and based on a solid body of theory and tested thoroughly, the group which is most likely to survive is the one which puts decision-making power into the hands of senior persons who have had ample opportunity to see innovation fail and who will profit from that experience by extreme conservatism. Even initial efforts to institutionalize research are likely to include a relatively high proportion of failures. Hence, even as conscious development commences, the premium may still lie with the conservative rather than the innovative. It thus is important to the development of a desire for change, and motivation to change, that successful innovation be produced and demonstrated. And then a slow process of change in leadership patterns may be required. Particularly in early stages of agricultural development, innovation may require additional labor input if it is to be profitable (Mellor 1962). In such a case innovation may not be accepted for the simple reason that it requires a substantial labor input and yet does not generate sufficient income to return the labor enough to attract it into production. In such a case farmers' actions seem uneconomic only if it is assumed that the labor has no opportunity cost or reservation price a not uncommon error on the part of economists. On the other hand, technological advance may provide the basis for shifting the labor-input, crop-output schedule up to the right sufficiently to raise the level of returns to the requisite additional labor input enough to attract it into use (Mellor 1963). Indeed, the expectation of very high returns to technological advance in low-income countries is based in part on the premise that such an effect will be had. Farmers may, of course, also be inhibited from accepting innovation because of their reluctance to increase debt. In a subsistence economy special problems arise if innovation requires added cash expenditure and cash indebtedness and yet generates more output which is likely to be consumed in the farm household. The tendency for technological innovation to require increased monetary input also increases the problem of risk associated with price instability. Finally, the profitability of innovation is affected by the skill and knowledge with which it is executed. In traditional subsistence agriculture the background of education or experience with change is such that innovation is often poorly executed and hence provides poor returns. In the case of very simple innovation, involving simple substitution of one seed for another, this may prove of small restrictive importance. How- ever, with complex innovation, such as the complex package including hybrid maize, a major problem may exist which the standard institutions of a subsistence agriculture are not well adapted to meet. Even if farmers are motivated to change and innovation is profitable, there remains a requirement for expectation on the part of the innovator that he will himself participate in the net increase in wealth which accompanies successful innovation. The innovator may fail to participate in the benefits of innovation for three sets of reasons: he may not have sufficient control of the factors of production to channel benefits to himself; he may not have sufficient control of the marketing process to channel benefits to himself; and he may not have sufficient control of his own consumption patterns to allow increased income to be used to his own benefit. All three of these influences are likely to be closely related to the system .of land tenure, and all three are likely to represent a special problem in subsistence agriculture in traditional economies. Land represents the key case of a factor of production which may be controlled by someone other than the innovator in such a way as to draw a disproportionate portion of benefits away from the farmer-innovator. Where population pressure is heavy, the bargaining power of the landowner may be such that he can control the division of benefits from innovation. Of course it appears to be against the landlord's own economic interest to take so much of the benefit of innovations as to remove all incentive from the farmer to innovate. Such practice may arise, however, because in fact the landlord is, on the one hand, not himself strongly motivated to increase his income from agriculture and, on the other hand, more concerned with maintaining subjugation of the tenant class. Such subjugation is likely to be reduced by improved economic position of the tenant class, and hence the landlord class may even have a positive incentive to prevent such improvement. Such restrictive practice may also arise simply from the institutionalization of the landlord-tenant relationship so as to load the costs of innovation on the tenant and the benefits on the landlord. In a traditional agriculture land- lord-tenant relations may develop in a manner which is optimal for the given production conditions. Where purchased inputs are not important, there is unlikely to be an institutionalized means of dividing the cost of such inputs. With the introduction of change which requires substantial quantities of purchased inputs, the landlord may not understand the potential for return and may refuse to participate, even though he may still demand a full share of the total output, including that due to the purchased inputs. In commercial agriculture technological innovation has been accepted for so long that land tenure institutions, including landlord-tenant relationships, have generally adjusted in a manner to encourage innovation to the benefit of both landlord and tenant. Capital is another input over which the farmer may have little control but which is crucial to production. If capital is scarce and highly complementary with other inputs, the farmer may have to relinquish much of the benefit of innovation to the provider of capital. This problem is often tied to the problem of land tenure, since the capital input may be provided by the landowner. Where it is not tied in with land tenure, it is likely to be a limiting factor to incentives for only those farmers with relatively small holdings and lower-than-average incomes. These farmers are important from a welfare point of view but control too little land in the aggregate production. A problem very similar to the credit problem is that of marketing. If the marketing channels are limited and entry is difficult or impossible, then the marketing agencies may draw off most of the benefit from innovation and thereby discourage application of innovation. Again, of course, it is never to the advantage of the monopolist to squeeze so tight that he prevents income-increasing innovation, but institutionalization of pres- sures, ignorance, and even a desire to maintain control through restriction of incomes and maintenance of dependency may all work to provide pressure restrictive of innovation. However, entry into agricultural marketing in low-income countries is generally relatively easy; and therefore it is unlikely that monopoly power will be wielded for any considerable period of time. Again, the hold of credit and marketing agencies on the very small, very low-income farmer may be strong and exploitative. It is important here, however, to distinguish between the welfare problem and the production problem. Such restrictions are not restrictive of the total volume of production, even though they may inhibit improvement of conditions for a substantial number of people. Again it is likely that the worst abuses of market power occur in cases in which credit and marketing are tied to control of the land resource. Restriction of consumption patterns is a less obvious but nevertheless potentially important factor which may remove expectation on the part of the innovator that he will benefit from increased wealth. Again, important restriction in this regard is likely to be tied in with control by the landlord, or other power agents may restrict consumption from important outlets. A key example is schooling. In most low-income countries the drive to provide schooling is very high in rural areas. This continues from and grows out of the drive for providing alternative employment opportunities. If the political power structure, particularly including the landlord class, is opposed to the provision of rural schooling for fear that it will eventually upset the political power structure, then an important reason for generating additional income is lost. In a more general way, tight control of the availability of consumption goods and the general control of their own lives and destiny may lead to a sense of resignation which is discouraging to in- novation even when a significant portion of the monetary benefits of innovation may come to the farmer decision-maker. REFERENCES Bauer, P.T., and B.S. Yamey. 1959. A case study of response to price in an underdeveloped country. Economic Journal, Vol. LXIX, No. 276 (December 1959), pp. 300-305. Desai, D.K. 1963. Increasing income and production in Indian farming. Bombay: Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. Falcon, Walter P. 1964. Farmers' response to price in sub- sistence economy: the case of West Pakistan. American Economic Review, Vol. LIV, No. 3 (May 1964), pp. 580-591. Heady, E.O., and Narindar S. Randhawa. 1964. Inter-regional programming model for agricultural planning in India. Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 46, No. 1 (February 1964), pp. 137-149. Krishna, Raj. 1963. Farm supply response in India-Pakistan: a case study of the Punjab Region. Economic Journal Vol. LXXIII, No. 291 (September 1963), pp. 477-487. Mellor, John W. 1962. Increasing agricultural production in early stages of economic development, relations, problems and prospects. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 27, No. 2 (April/June 1962), pp. 29-46. Mellor, John W. 1963. The use and productivity of farm family labor in early stages of agricultural development. Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLV, No. 3 (August 1963), pp. 517-534. Mellor, John W. 1966. The economics of agricultural dev- elopment. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. Schickele, Rainer. 1966. Farm management research for planning agricultural development. ADC reprint (December). Agri- cultural Development Council. New York. Schultz, Theodore W. 1964. Transforming traditional agri- culture. Yale University Press. New Haven, Conn. Stevens, Robert D. 1959. Capital formulation and agriculture in some Lebanese villages. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York. Tax, Sol. 1953. Penny Capitalism: a Guatemalan Indian eco- nomony. Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Pub. No. 16. Washington D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office. Republished, University of Chi- cago Press, 1963. CHAPTER 4 Initial Characterization of Farming Systems: Comprehending and Utilizing What We See and Hear The last two chapters have discussed the nature and characteristics of small-scale, limited-resource family farms and farmers. This chapter is the first in a series devoted to the methods used in FSR/E to develop and disseminate technology to farmers with these characteristics. The first step is to characterize the farming system or systems in an area and de- termine the constraints to enhanced productivity and to improved welfare of the farm families. Rapid reconnaissance has become one of the trademarks of FSR/E. It is used as the means of obtaining an initial characterization of an area. It is also one of the phases of FSR/E most heavily influenced by the concepts and practices of the social sciences. ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CONTEMPORARY HUMAN PROBLEMS J. H. Bodley ANTHROPOLOGY'S CONTRIBUTION I hope to demonstrate that a clear understanding of the principles of anthropology illuminates the social processes of our times and may show us, if we are ready to listen to its teachings, what to do and what to avoid. (Boas 1928,11) We have defined the general nature of the world crisis and suggested some of the possible dangers and difficulties inherent in the slow response that is occurring -- now it must be argued that anthropology has something important to say to these issues. The problems facing us are unmistakable but complex, and ac- ceptable solutions are still neither obvious nor easily implemented. In recent years, there has been an enormous outpouring of crisis-related literature. Specialists in many disciplines have attacked isolated problems; unfortunately, however, overall results have been limited. For example, far Contact Us | Permissions | Preferences | Technical Aspects | Statistics | Internal | Privacy Policy © 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.All rights reserved. Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs