LL»:

"It‘f‘

than. m

’1}

HENRI

J

 

, . -r’.-.v:- .;.; «mfg-:12

 

I?!
- L“:

51':

,. N ,

a' fig: 1!"
'h

Ida"

v

 

J

51..”

:-

‘ ‘
a

W uk‘.‘_
“0

4.. ‘
iii-Nb,
T? 35:44: “ a“.

J»

l‘ ”' ff:
. N. .
a "7.314"
. q fl
"rev:

:'
f

' 1i. 2 r;

. v
'. if? ,1.“ i, ~ -—u
A- .r..-

22..
‘fLm- J‘vu

#2 ,
"A"

j?
a“.
a 1

W ,1. ‘
M 13.54%?
” fl". 3 . ’

L1
.aL

~

r.
A,

2’...”— '

‘7’: fiat-zl fir _”__

11%;. n)

”1... ~
.—...-.._.‘
m :
fig. 4 v. ..
.1“. G. ::u‘ :' ~

0.:

‘-
{ix :2»: 3' ‘ _=
." ‘E-jfzv 3:22"
.. ‘TRZM-‘q; "G
. .T‘1fi‘a‘ag‘.

“1%;wa
a, 15‘s: '5‘ ‘5’“

‘1
an;
EVE:
.EEJE‘Is “HF

.13
3?:

_ I
1

Mr
1- w
n .4135 art“

£52“... I u %?':’v" 4"“?

:2; 1133'

,.,v. g :3;
h ¢"'l’5;£;‘.

335411,“

24:5: 735*?!“

TV- ”.1":

:5 “in: I.
"T,

.c»
min.

(”13%.

4.
' "rag“

"my;

‘W “l
'I‘Jrr~_-:-4’<_;;~—I: a)"; ‘

-. .fr,

_._...g\—.1.r.:.-.~ an“: v:

{’14:
“:31J.’:.
"‘41-; n

7'??? 5:” gm!
’7';- 315‘ g u: a """
" gargadzffir':
In; '2'- 3,53"!
var I
kit—ram ,.
"v I“)
4..

I —- 0 v ‘ l l ‘ 1’ M
35““ $1211} :3? J.'-‘—' _- ---~m-.I!/‘_u.‘a~<-fi~ ‘-

 

I ms“

MlCHlG lGANS

l Ill(IllUllll‘lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

3009116884

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Indigenous Knowledge Relating to Fodder Trees
and Silvo-Pastoral Management Systems
of Small-Scale Farmers in Jamaica

presented by
Bruce J. Morrison

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Master' 3 degree in . Forestry

Wage

Major professor

Michael A. Gold
Date—ALLM

0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

F
LIBRARY
Mich! can State
University

K A

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before dde due.

{DATE DUE ‘DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J
J

V—lF—j

MSU le An Affirmetlve Action/Equal Opportunity Inditutlon
cumulus-pa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE RELATING TO FODDER TREES
AND SILVO-PASTORAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
OF SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN JAMAICA

By

Bruce J. Morrison

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry

1991

é [JV/L— g)“. ‘

ABSTRACT
INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE RELATING To FODDER TREES
AND SILVO-PASTORAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
OF SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN JAMAICA
By

Bruce J. Morrison

A study of indigenous knowledge relating to fodder trees and silvo-pastoral
management systems of small-scale farmers in Jamaica was conducted. The
objectives of the study were to 1)explore small farmers’ indigenous knowledge
relating to fodder trees and silvo-pastoral management systems in a tropical
dry climate; 2)conduct a preliminary investigation of the social/cultural
environment of the proposed target area; 3)examine pastoral land-use systems
and technologies in current use. One fodder tree species (Brosimum
alicastrum, Breadnut), valued as an important charcoal source, is on the verge
of local extinction. Reasons behind the conflict over this species and possible
solutions are discussed. Recommendations for introducing improved silvo-
pastoral management systems are presented. These include increasing the
production of indigenous fodder tree species, introducing improved tree fodder

species, and planting improved pasture grasses at the same time as cash trees.

Key words: Indigenous knowledge, fodder trees, Silva-pastoral management

system, living fences, Breadnut (Brosimum alicastrum).

Dedicated to
my grandfather, who introduced me to trees,
my parents, who allowed me to explore,

and my wife, who encouraged me to persevere.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have assisted me in my research quest. I would like to
thank Dr. Michael Gold for his inspiration, guidance, support, and friendship
throughout my program of study. Drs. Maureen McDonough and Douglas
Lantagne offered me guidance and words of support and wisdom when needed
the most. Barb Anderson, Beth Chipchase, and Jean Ecker were most helpful
with printing and logistics; I thank them for sharing their indigenous
knowledge relating to the university systems.

I would like to thank Drs. George Wilson and Lyndon McLaren of the
Jamaica Agricultural Research Programme for their support and
accommodation. Hats off to the support staff: Valerie, Dulcie, and Clifford.

I could not have accomplished my research without the cooperation of
the Falmouth Agricultural Office. Mr. Underhill, Mr. Charlie Brooks, and Mrs.
Hyacinth Hall were all instrumental in finding me housing, keeping supplies
coming, and seeing that I received the all-important letter from home. I am
grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Gordon for sharing their house, meals, and stories
with me.

A heart-felt thank you to Mr. Rupert Brown of Green Park for assisting
me in the research. Without his help I would not have been able to interview
the majority of cattle farmers nor understand completely what Green Park was
all about. He is a great logistician, a super networker, and a good friend to
those in Green Park, whether they have spent a day or a lifetime there. I wish
him all the best.

I am grateful for the cooperation of the farmers who took part in the
study. Hopefully with their vision, sweat, and perseverance, one day Green
Park will be just that.

Thanks to Eric Rusten, Jim Roshetko, Todd Chirko, and Susan
Andreatta, who instilled the enthusiasm it took to carry me through the hard
times.

Finally, I would like to thank my then-fiancee now-wife, who supported
me when I first conceived of doing research in Jamaica, and then tolerated the
separation long enough to realize the strength of our individual selves as well
as the bond between us.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY SITE
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Overview of the Study Site

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Climate and Natural Resources
2.2 Agroforestry Systems and Fodder Trees
2.3 Indigenous Knowledge
Rural Development
Fodder Trees
2.4 Project Development
2.5 Methods
Informal Observation
Informal Interviewing
Snowball Sampling
2.6 Study Objectives

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3. 1 Materials
3.2 Methods
Informal Observation
Informal Interviewing
Snowball Sampling

4. RESULTS

4.1 Detailed Description of the Study Site
The Green Park Community
Past Projects in the Area
Farming Practices
Raising Cattle

4.2 Indigenous Knowledge Relating to Fodder Trees

and Silva-Pastoral Management Systems

Using Trees as Alternative Fodder Resources
Uses of Living Fences '

é:

Es

cacao: IFHl-I

11

l3
16
18
18
20
22
22

23
23
24
26
26
29

3O
3O
30
32

40

44
55

4.3 Investigation of the Social/Cultural Environment
Underemployment in the Area and Residents’ Options
Risks Involved in Raising Cattle
Farmers’ Perspectives on Raising Cattle to Generate Income
Impediments to Expansion of Cattle Herds
Lack of Land for Cattle Grazing
Lack of Capital
Loans
Labor
Praedial Larceny
Selling Cattle
Government Policies
Failings of Government Institutions
Trust Within the Farming Community
4.4 Pastoral Land Use Systems and Technologies
Pasture Establishment/Improvement and Maintenance
Methods of Planting Trees
Technologies Utilized in Providing Fodder to Cattle
4.5 Summary

5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Making the Transition from Pastoral to Silvo-Pastoral
Management Systems
Changing to a Silva-Pastoral System
Planting Trees in the Fenceline
Planting Trees in Fields with Crops or Grasses
Planting Trees in Pastures
Other Systems
5.2 Constraints to Improving Pastoral Systems
Governmental Programs
Limits to Income Generation
Means of Obtaining Capital
Securing Labor and Equipment
Community Cooperation
Summary of Constraints
5.3 Summary

6. RECOMMENDATIONS, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Recommendations
6.2 Summary and Conclusion

APPENDIX A. RESEARCH INTERVIEW GUIDE
BIBLIOGRAPHY

56
56
58
59

61 ‘
62

67
71
75
78
83

87
87
90

92

92
92
92
95
96
98
102
102
163
104
1(5
107
103
109

110
110
115

119

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Data Categories and Collection Modes Used 25
Table 2. Vegetable Crops Grown by Cattle Farmers in

Green Park (by number of cattle farmers

stating actual recent plantings) 37
Table 3. Fruit Trees Grown by Cattle Farmers in Green Park

(by number of cattle farmers stating actual

ownership or rights) 38
Table 4. Local Fodder Tree Species by Number of Farmers and Location 46
Table 5. Local Fodder Tree Species by Number of Farmers

and Parts of Tree Used 47
Table 6. Local Trees Used as Fenceposts by Number of Farmers and Location 53
Table 7. Reasons Why Farmers Raise Cattle 59
Table 8. Tree Planting Information 87
Table 9. Time Spent Cutting and/or Collecting All Fodder per

Day in Dry Season by Farmers 89
Table 10. Time Spent Cutting and/or Collecting All Fodder per

Head of Cattle per Day in Dry Season by Farmers 89
Table 11. Botanical Names and Local Names of Species Referred

to in the Text and Tables 117
Table 12. Local Names and Botanical Names of Species Referred

to in the Text and Tables , 118

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Jamaica

Figure 2. Map of Trelawny Parish-Northwest Portion

Figure 3. Orange Valley Average Rainfall Distribution, 1870-1960

Figure 4. Land Use in the Green Park Research Area

Figure 5. Tasks of Green Park Cattle Farmers by Month
(percentage of farmers involved)

viii

8401M

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY SITE
1.1 Introduction

The Jamaican Agricultural Development Foundation (JADF) has
targeted the Green Park area of Trelawny Parish, Jamaica (Figure 1), as a
possible on-farm research/demonstration site for introducing silvo-pastoral
innovations among small-scale farmers. Planting trees for cattle fodder is one
innovation under study. An in-depth survey of area cattle farming was
undertaken in order to examine the validity and increase the potential success
of such an innovation. It was the intent of the researcher to gather indigenous
knowledge about cattle farming in the area, but also to observe Green Park
activities, behaviors, and relationships in trying to determine how these play
a part in the bio-physical/social/economic milieu of the area. The success of
research activity should be evaluated not only in terms of the number of trees
planted or the amount of increased fodder available to animals, but in terms
of "social acceptability by the farmer and the people, and how it fits into their
socio-economic framework" (Titilola et al, 1989).

While indigenous knowledge relating to silvo-pastoral management
systems was being gathered, concurrent research was conducted by an
agroforestry scientist in Moneague (Figure 1) to test different methods of
integrating fodder trees into the pastoral system on small-scale farms in
Jamaica. In September 1990, a year-long in-depth socio-economic study was

started in Green Park by an anthropologist. In late 1991, a second

888mm .Lo 93% A 8:qu

 

mom cm

 

AV 1/
SE 930 4.

          
    

mnnflemu

Ex mm

 

 

[In\\ll\‘ ’f\.

“5.0m
mflmum

     

       

    

.iiI.-1:1.
chaoeflm

 

cmflema
>czmflmah

xema cameo

g

“ >Lmucsom Hmafluflcsz nu _
38:25 22.51))
mme< Laommm.l|.
>mzcmflx cam: in.
mcflflommou./\I

A ucmmmm

 

 

 

 

fiflemmz v

 

smegma

D

   

233.3: omm
Exec: .32....

 

 

3
agroforestry scientist will begin incorporating management techniques and

monitoring activities based on farmers’ knowledge and the previous projects’

findings.

1.2 Overview o_f the SM! _S_i_t_e_

Green Park, Jamaica (Latitude 18°27’ N, Longitude 77°42’ W) is located
between 6.4 and 9.6 kilometers from the northern coastal town of Falmouth
(Figures 1 and 2). Green Park is a valley subdivided into three areas: one
farming area known as Green Park proper and two residential areas known
as Hammersmith and Lime Skill; the Green Park/Hammersmith/Lime Skill
areas will be collectively referred to as "Green Park."

The study site is situated in a rolling valley, comprising five square
kilometers with the elevation ranging between 70 and 232 meters above mean
sea level. It is bounded on the north by a coastal foothill (of the Cockpit Hills),
on the east by Granville and Carrick Foyle (a commercial chicken farm), on the
south by another hill and a village called Bounty Hall, and on the west by
Georges Valley, a commercial beef cattle ranch incorporated into the Orange
Valley Ranch (to the west) many years ago. There are no rivers and only one
intermittent creek in the immediate vicinity; the Martha Brae River is over

five kilometers away from the area.

:omfiom umoBfiqu--£mEmm moose—oi. mo Q32 .N 9:55

 

 

QHOHMOXMB 09
mag“: cw mfimum
_ fl oflmfiazmzum

« mxfi o \\\ Hmvw
ucaom

—4 \\\Y\\\////////Ii \llll

cLflEmLmEEmI/

 

    
 
 

fiv mm>om \
.e 22>:me x.-. ECLSL / \
a e I‘ll-'6 .‘\
v x X \ , E. 1 .\
n x .-<\ l
to \ .00 «one .s/ \
.x \/ / \
:Ca 2.: i x a .325,
\ .IiI/Illl I \ someone
\ , \
/..l f
:2. :5 1! I- l l /
\(fluocso / l
m a ~
\ QQQV COL / / >®Hmm~>
oomflu .\ mocmeo
/, \
.. rm
t/IX QHJOE

HI< munoc

5853’s”

 

mom coonofiemu

 

 

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Climate and Natural Resources

The climate in northern Jamaica is heavily influenced by orographic
rain. From November to March, strong northeast winds bring periodic rains
and occasional cooler temperatures lasting less than a week (Regional
Research Centre, 1970). Green Park has a climate similar to the adjacent
Orange Valley ranch, where rainfall data was collected for 91 years through
1960 (Figure 3). The area is prone to drought between the months of January
and August, with more than 6 months of the year averaging less than 100
millimeters rainfall per month. In contrast to the average of 1140 mm of
annual precipitation recorded at Orange Valley, annual precipitation over a
four year period (1977-81) averaged 1880 mm at Allsides (in the Cockpit
country), 40 kilometers inland from the coast in southeast Trelawny Parish,
(IICA, 1988).

Minimum temperatures at Orange Valley vary between 18° C and
22° C and maximum temperatures vary between 29° C and 33° C; humidity is
high at all times, particularly at night (Regional Research Centre, 1970).

In addition to varied rainfall and temperature patterns, area soils partly
determine the dominant vegetation. Surface soils are generally loams with
limestone subsoils suitable for timber production, improved pasture, sugar

cane, and vegetables (Regional Research Centre, 1970). Nearby forests have

Millimeters
200

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

Annual Preclp-1140mm
- Precipitation Amount

Figure 3. Orange Valley Average Rainfall Distribution: 1870 - 1960.
From: Soil and Land Use Surveys, Regional Research Centre, Soil Science Department, UWI, Trinidad

8
been classified as severely disturbed dry limestone vegetation (Kapos, 1986).

Cleared dry limestone forests "are not especially productive for agriculture
because of their shallow soil and the scarcity of water and nutrients."
23 may LS tens 9951 m M

In drought-susceptible regions such as Green Park, it is often dimcult
for cattle farmers to feed their livestock on fodder grasses alone. During
droughts, grass production slows or ceases. Although there may be other
alternatives available, increasing the tree fodder resource is an inexpensive
way to help farmers better bridge the dry-season fodder gap (Von Carlowitz,
1989). Murgueitio (1990) reported promising results from three years of
testing an agroforestry model based on utilizing sugar cane and protein-rich,
nitrogen-fixing trees and shrubs as an alternative to extensive cattle-grazing
systems. Rusten (1989) found that farmers in the middle hills of Nepal relied
on fodder trees for up to 50% of the intake needs of livestock throughout the
year. Farmers cut tree branches and either take the leaves to their animals
or bring the animals to the trees where they eat the leaves ofi‘ of the branches.
Other methods of augmenting tree fodder are to introduce woody plants into
the pasture system either as hedgerows or living fences.

A silvo-pastoral hedgerow system might include growing fodder grass
between alleys bordered by rows of fodder trees planted a specified distance
apart (Atta-Krah and Sumberg, 1988; Wilson et at, 1986). These trees are
trimmed back periodically. The use of a woody perennial nitrogen fixing

hedgerow species might increase grass production. Succulent, protein-rich

9
regrowth would be fed to the cattle. Deep-rooted woody perennials withstand

periodic drought better than shallow-rooted grasses, and provide multiple
benefits including: nitrogen fixation (when appropriate species are used),
generation of organic matter, improved nutrient cycling, amelioration of the
microclimate (flora and fauna), protection of soil against erosion, better use of
available phosphorus reserves, and enhanced phosphorus cycling (via
mycorrhizal fungi). Francis and Atta-Krah (1989) reported that 10 of 14
farmers at 1 of 2 on-farm research stations in Nigeria have had success with
alley cropping using Gliricidia septum (Quickstick); part of the reason for
failure at the other station was due in part to farmers’ insecurity of land
tenure.

Quickstick can be established easily, grows quickly, fixes nitrogen, is not
a prolific seeder, and provides leaf fodder for cattle, goats, and pigs. Crude
protein content ranges from 20-27%, providing up to 25% of cattle feed input
(Atta-Krah and Sumberg, 1988 ; Budowski, 1987). Addition of cassava to the
diet can raise the dry matter digestibility of Quickstick leaves alone from 54-
57% to 70-74% (Ademosum et al, 1985; Reynolds and Adeoye, 1986).

Farmers in many countries often do not realize the potential of
Quickstick as an alternative fodder source. Farmers in Nigeria were surprised
and suspicious when informed that Quickstick can be used as fodder (Atta-
Krah and Sumberg, 1988). Getting ruminants to eat Quickstick can be
difficult since it takes some days before they develop a taste for the leaves

(Atta-Krah and Sumberg, 1988). But once the repulsion is overcome, animals

10

browse it in preference to other sources. Nigerian farmers have been known
to add a salt solution to the fodder to make it more palatable before giving it
to animals. Another method used in Nigeria is to bring an animal from a
household where Quickstick was eaten by animals to help introduce the
unfamiliar animals to the feed (Atta-Krah and Sumberg, 1988).

Budowski (1987) describes four main tree species that are planted as
living fences in the Caribbean and Central and South America: Gliricidia
sepium (Quickstick), Bursera simaruba (Bujgum), Spondias pumurea, and
Erythrina berteroana.

There are many advantages of using living fences. These include: lower
cost for initial material (if nearby and easily accessible); low cost of increasing
post density along fences; long durability; possible organic matter production,
nitrogen fixation, and beneficial effects on soil fertility; wind and rain erosion
is decreased; protection of grasses and animals against wind and sun; added
multipurpose benefits of food, feed, medicine, firewood, sticks for growing
vegetables, and more live fence posts (species dependent) (Budowski; 1987).

There are disadvantages of living fences over wooden (dead) fences.
First, leaves of some trees are not palatable to cattle. Second, generally trees
require pruning or else they become too big. Third, trees used with barbed
wire that have been blown over in heavy winds are difficult and costly to
replace. Fourth, soils may not be adequate to support the species of choice.
Finally, the woody plant may compete for water, nutrients, and light with

nearby crops or grasses (Budowski; 1987 ).

11

There are two systems (active and passive) involved in increasing tree
fodder for animals. In active fodder tree management systems (e. g. in Nepal).
farmers take their livestock near selected trees along the roadside or in the
forest and cut off branches or allow the animals to graze on the lower branches
(Panday, 1982). In addition, farmers plant trees for fodder in pastures or on
other private property, either specifically for fodder or as a secondary benefit.
The extent of a passive systems is to allow livestock to graze upon fruits and
leaves of existing woody plants without much input from the farmer.

2.3 mg gengjg Knowledge

Gathering indigenous knowledge (local knowledge and experience) of
fodder trees in the Green Park area of Jamaica was the major focus of this
research. This section centers on indigenous knowledge. In particular, how
has indigenous knowledge been overlooked when designing projects, what are
the reasons for and examples of its inclusion in project design, and what is the
current state of indigenous knowledge specific to fodder trees.

B_u_r_al_ Development

Cernea (1985) contends that if goals involving technical innovations are
to be achieved, social and cultural factors, among others, need to be included
as project plans are formulated. Brokensha and Riley (1980) claim that a
successful agricultural development plan should "emphasize both local
vegetation and local knowledge of plants." One way to do this is to explore
indigenous knowledge of small-scale farmers (Brokensha et al, 1980, Howes,

1980; Rusten, 1989).

12

Although it may seem innately obvious to incorporate indigenous
agricultural knowledge into the design of research projects and extension
programs in developing countries, it is seldom done (Schafer, 1989). This
oversight has contributed to the failures of many development plans. The
oversight is mated in a "top-down" approach to development, i.e. project
planners and administrators, armed with specialized disciplines and
information, create and implement plans that afi’ect farmers without consulting
them (Chambers, 1983). Development from above has been a common pattern
when designing projects, where indigenous knowledge is neglected by both
administrators and researchers (Brokensha and Riley, 1980; Rusten, 1989).
Many of the mistakes attributed to international development efforts are a
result of a "lack of appreciation for the depth and empirical accuracy of much
of indigenous knowledge" (McClure, 1989).

Brokensha and Riley (1980) stress the need to combine some aspects of
"development from below" with those of administrators and researchers who
generally have access to information about farming systems that is generally
unattainable by local farmers. "Science" should not oppose "custom", but
compliment it. Therefore, if administrators and researchers take advantage
of indigenous knowledge and combined it with their own knowledge and
experiences, the "international development mistakes" might be reduced.

There are two more reasons why indigenous knowledge should be used
in international development projects. McClure (1989) maintains that

indigenous knowledge research related to agricultural systems has low costs

13
and potentially high benefits: the knowledge can serve as a basis for new

initiatives in project plans. Finally, Brokensha and Riley (1980) state that
"even if most beliefs proved to be empirically unverifiable, it would still be
courteous, and efficacious, to find out what people believe, before trying to
persuade them to adopt new beliefs."

£935.19; ire—88.

There is little information available to date regarding actual fodder
productivity and yield of trees and shrubs (Von Carlowitz, 1989). But studies
have been done that demonstrate the wealth of information available from
indigenous knowledge of farmers. Brokensha and Riley (1980) discuss the
comprehensive knowledge base of the Mbeere people of Kenya relating to their
surrounding vegetation. They describe how implementation of Mbeere
knowledge of indigenous species of fodder trees helps to reduce shortages of
animal fodder in the region. The authors maintain that without such
knowledge, the Mbeere’s very survival would have been threatened, given the
dry environment in which they live. Continuing studies in the region
(spanning fifteen years) have armed the authors with so much information that
they have published two volumes of a book which examine the Mbeeres’
extensive knowledge base related to the use of plants and crops as well as
trees (Riley and Brokensha, 1988).

Carloni (1984) reported that farmers in a hillside project in Jamaica
were highly adept in traditional mixed farming and could be very articulate

about their reasons for allocating their land, labor, and capital. Such

14
knowledge can be a useful tool in designing an on-farm research project.

Knowledge that is borrowed from farmers, developed by foresters and
agronomists, and returned to the farmers is more likely to be adopted than
outside knowledge (Richards, 1975).

More recently, Rusten (1989) carried out research involving indigenous
knowledge of fodder tree resources by small-scale farmers in Nepal. He
discovered that farmers in one area in the middle hills of Nepal have
sophisticated knowledge of fodder trees and tree fodder, nutritional content of
leaves, changes in leaf nutrition that occur over time, and the impact of feeding
specific tree fodder admixtures on animal health. Exposing this information
is invaluable to foresters throughout the middle hills of the Himalayas who
decide which tree species to grow in local nurseries for distribution to
interested farmers, and who must learn to "communicate" with farmers based
on a clear understanding of the way farmers perceive and use fodder trees.

Bayer (1990) reported that Fulani pastoralists were able to identify 39
shrub and tree fodder species, many of them indigenous. Pastoralists’ ranking
of the fodder species reflected both the plants’ relative abundance and nutritive
value when chemical analysis of the plants was completed.

Collymore (1986) described how small-scale farmers in St. Vincent have
demonstrated an abundance of local lmowledge and environmental awareness
that is skillfully used in managing their farming resources despite
governmental intervention. Their decision-making centers around the extent

of cultivation, crop types and combinations, fertilizer use, and market outlets.

15
Although the intervention strategies are designed to guide farmers and

stimulate development and improvement in the system, these have had little
influence on farmers’ decision-making processes. Collymore maintains that
this failure is due to inappropriate reference and attention to the farmers’
working environment: inaccessible farms, rugged and marginal terrain, labor
constraints, and market uncertainty. He goes on to say that the situation will
persist "as long as agricultural planners adhere to the ’cold rationalism’ which
is entrenched in their normative models." It is important to understand the
dynamics of existing indigenous farming systems before planning changes that
may or may not benefit the targeted group and their customs (McClure, 1989).

Although indigenous knowledge is often disregarded in project
development, there are instances where assimilation of indigenous knowledge
into project design has resulted in increased success. Scott and Gormley (1980)
describe how pastoral development projects in the Sahel have often resulted
in additional degradation of the resource base. These problems emerged
because projects have often ignored traditional mechanisms of survival
practiced by pastoral people of this region. In contrast, the authors describe
an Oxfam project that was based on an understanding of pastoralists’ survival
strategies, specifically the custom of "animal of friendship" relations. Planners
incorporated the indigenous system of lending animals into the project design,
resulting in improved productivity, larger herds, and for the most part, repaid
loans. The project administrators were able to respond to pastoralists’ needs

without generating new dependencies.

16
2.4 m Development '

Green Park is a non-irrigated, drought-susceptible region comprised of
small-scale farms. It was selected as the research site as it provides the
opportunity to explore on-farm agroforestry innovations of pastoral land use
systems’. Such areas are often ignored in development because harsh
environmental conditions often limit the production and yield of commercial
crops or cattle. Less risky research endeavors in higher rainfall regions may
result in more fruitful outcomes, but the majority of small-scale farmers in low
rainfall/higher risk areas often do not benefit from such research (Chambers,
1983).

Many technological advances in agriculture have been developed through
research, particularly on-station research. Although this type of research is
important, if the end effect is to transfer the technology to local farmers, it is
equally important that local technologies be studied on-farm as well, in order
to discover what viable technologies already exist (Titilola et al, 1989). In
Nigeria, many of the new technologies developed through on-station research
involving exotic crop varieties often proved inappropriate for low resource
agriculture on surrounding farms. In some cases, the improved crops failed to
outyield local varieties, and even where they have done very well, social
resistance to change was still a problem to be resolved.

Rather than disrupting a farming system by introducing inappropriate

technology or replacing a fodder resource which is adequate with one that is

 

‘Wilson, George 1990. Personal communication. Dr. George Wilson, Director of Research, Jamaican
Agriwltural Development Foundation.

17
unfamiliar to the farmers, it is more beneficial to include local technology in

the project (Chambers, 1983; Rusten, 1989). Unless all of the available
technology is implemented (including management of the plant), results of any
forestry project cannot be guaranteed; "simply getting a tree into the ground
does not necessarily mean it has value" (Fortmann, 1988).

Effectively gathering and utilizing indigenous knowledge and technology
is realized only through the cooperative effort of four groups: farmers,
agricultural scientists, extension agents, and ethnoscientists (Schafer, 1989).
Cooperation and integration of knowledge into the project design are the keys
to successfully moving technology from on-station controlled experiments,
which are replicated in rectangular blocks, to the village, where farmers have
carved out all types of field shapes and developed multiple cropping systems.

When designing a development project, especially one that will affect
people day in and day out, planners need to be aware of the socio-cultural
elements as well as bio-physical elements in the targeted area (Casley and
Kumar, 1988). LeFranc (1986) reported that the "importance of local
participation in project planning and implementation cannot be
overemphasized. Any project must therefore of necessity expend time and
efi'ort in identifying the most appropriate ways of ensuring its social and
economic acceptability."

Exploratory research is one technique used in attempting to get a better
picture of residents’ perceptions of farming, institutional constraints, and social

interaction patterns (Casley and Kumar, 1988). In this type of research,

18
residents are encouraged to introduce and expand on topics in which they are

intereswd. By using the results of this exploratory research, planners should
be better able to pinpoint barriers to and limitations of success during the
project’s conception.

2.5 Methods

Data was gathered through informal observation and informal topic-
focused interviewing (including ethnbgraphic analysis) based on snowball
sampling (information gathering and building) (Casley and Kumar, 1988;
Knoke and Kuklinski, 1982; Patton, 1990; Rusten, 1989). Using multiple
techniques as a means to gather information is more reliable, adds depth of
understanding, and reduces the margin of error compared to the use of only
one technique (Webb et al, 1966). Crane and Angrosino (1984) claim that "no
single approach to field data collection is fool-proof."

Data can be collected quantitatively using an interview guide; other data
can be collected qualitatively through informal observation and field note
descriptions (Monette et al, 1986).

Informal Observation

Informal observation is an open method of observing the behavior of
people (Patton, 1990). The observer is direct about the intentions of the
research and communicates this openly to those being observed. The role of

the observer is one of "onlooker." Observations take place unpredictably and

are of limited duration.

19
There are advantages and disadvantages to informal observation. One

advantage is that "observers see a fuller picture beyond the actual interview:
they observe actual behavior" (Casley and Kumar, 1988). Informal observation
also enables the researcher to acquire a more holistic view of the program
being studied (Patton, 1990). Third, Patton contends that if there are time
constraints involved (i.e. the researcher does not plan to stay in the area for
over a year), informal observation is preferred over a more formal method of
observation, such as participant observation.

One disadvantage of field observation is that it is subject to control effect
(Webb et al, 1966). This means that the initial observation of abnormal
activity becomes everyday activity and as the research proceeds, the
investigator becomes complacent. This may have been true of the research in
Green Park as the researcher became more familiar with daily activities or
responses to interview questions. But while observations of general activity
may have decreased over time, Barrett (1984) contends that the increased
knowledge of the researcher "increases his capability to formulate penetrating
questions, thereby eliciting new information."

Finally, Webb et al (1966) contend that a biased viewpoint may occur
when the principal observer "selectively exposes himself to the data, or
selectively perceive them, and shift over time the calibration of his observation
measures." This can be minimized by: 1)checking and comparing observations
against interview responses; 2)countering with disinformation during

interviews as a validity check (Douglas, 1985); 3)re-interviewing farmers for

20
verification; and 4)discussing questionable behavior or actions with the

facilitator or other trusted informants (Barrett, 1984).
Informal Interviewing

The appearance, style, and manner of introduction are crucial in gaining
acceptance into the community and in developing trust between the
interviewees and the researcher, allowing him to better accomplish his
objectives (Casley and Kumar, 1988). The intent is to establish a role as a
"conspicuous visitor" rather than a "spy" (Barrett, 1984). By living in the
study area, the researcher is considered less of an outsider and able to learn
more about the area (Chambers, 1983).

When interviewing farmers, it is important that the researcher word
questions in a manner that elicits responses that are crucial to understanding
the whole farming situation (Casley and Kumar, 1988; Crane and Angrosino,
1984). When given the chance it is more important to probe deeper into new
"pay dirt" (Douglas, 1985).

There are advantages and disadvantages of conducting semi-structured
interviews. Casley and Kumar (1988) note some of the advantages. First,
information obtained is specific to the needs of project planners. Second, the
information from various respondents is comparable enough to determine the
simple frequency of responses, although the main emphasis continues to be
placed on the in-depth understanding provided by the respondents. Third, this
type of interview can be conducted more rapidly than formal surveys. Finally,

compared with other types of qualitative interviews, success is less dependent

21

upon the interviewer’s interpersonal communication skills and grasp of the
subject.

There are also disadvantages to conducting open-ended interviews. The
most outstanding disadvantage is that if respondents are given liberty to talk,
they may end up conversing about irrelevant information. Webb et al (1966)
refer to this as dross rate. If this happens and the interviewer has to
constantly "pull" the conversation back, the respondent may be offended and
alter his/her answers or refuse to continue.

Another disadvantage of an open-ended interview is that the researcher
may determine that questions should be deleted or added based on the
relevance of the shared information after beginning the interview process
(Casley and Kumar, 1988).

Logistics are critical to the interviewing process. Interviews should start
with the most trustworthy and the most experienced informant and proceed
from there to the less trustworthy and less experienced (Douglas, 1985). Only
one question should be delivered at a time to avoid confusion on the part of the
respondent (Casley and Kumar, 1988). Whenever possible, the researcher
should volunteer information about himself (or herself) or the topic at hand in
order to help the informant place the researcher in a familiar social category.
Once the respondent feels at ease, the researcher can move on to more in-
depth and more sensitive questions, being careful not to offend the respondent
or cause him to suspect that the researcher is anyone else (e.g. a government

worker or someone who would raise their taxes).

22
Snowball Sampling

This method of sampling occurs when one farmer refers the interviewer
to another farmer until all farmers in a study area have been contacted (Knoke
and Kuklinski, 1982). Research boundaries are established according to the
study objectives, the time allotted for the study, and the expected number of
respondents who can be interviewed within the specified time-frame.

2.6 My Objectivgg

The objectives for the study in Green Park were to: 1)explore small-scale
farmers’ indigenous knowledge relating to fodder trees and silvo-pastoral
management systems; 2)conduct a preliminary investigation of the
social/cultural environment of the proposed target area; and 3)examine
pastoral land use systems and technologies currently being used by farmers.

Research was carried out between April and July, 1990.

Chapter 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Materials

A three-page interview guide was developed to elicit candid verbal
responses and allow the researcher to record non-verbal communication of
farmers during interviews (the guide was created before the study, and
revisions were made during the initial weeks of the study). A portable cassette
recorder was used to record verbal responses during interviews in case there
were any discrepancies when transferring responses to more permanent
records. Finally, the researcher. used a bicycle to aid in observation of the
study area and its inhabitants.

The researcher had fifteen weeks to gather as much relevant
information as possible. He worked closely with one farmer who knew the
community well and served as a logistician, facilitator, and as an interpreter
at times (when the researcher was unclear about interviewees’ responses). The
facilitator "opened the door" to Green Park and its residents for the researcher.
This farmer was perhaps the most important key to the researcher’s success
at having interviewed over 90% of the cattle farmers in Green Park at a time
when their perceptions concerning development projects were less than
positive. 4

During the fifteen week study, the researcher lived with a retired couple
within the community. He wore clothes that were acceptable in appearance,

without "over-dressing." In meeting Green Park residents, he made attempts

23

24
to greet them cordially and relate with them openly in order to minimize

suspicion and rumors. Like most of the farmers in the area, the researcher
was on foot when meetings took place; at other times he was either on foot or
on a bicycle.

3.2 Methods

Data was gathered using informal observation and informal topic-
focused interviewing based on snowball sampling. Most data was collected
quantitatively using the interview guide (Appendix A.). Other data was
collected qualitatively through informal observation and field note descriptions.
Data categories and collection modes used are listed in Table 1. Information
from some data categories was collected using both modes. For example,
during the survey, farmers indicated that praedial larceny was one of the
impediments to raising animals (quantitative data), but the researcher also
observed the affect praedial larceny had on farmers and the degeneration of
trust that ensued between victims and suspicious residents (when warranted)
as a result of the offense (qualitative data).

It would be pointless to claim that there were not any factions among
the farmers in Green Park. The researcher realized this when he arrived and
made attempts to remain open-minded. It should be noted that there were
instances where some farmers were suspicious of the research, the researcher,
or possibly of initial meetings with farmers other than themselves. In the end,
only two farmers refused interviews. Suspicion diminished as the study

progressed and the intent of the research became known by way of meetings,

25

 

Table _1_. Data Categories and Collection Modes Used

 

 

Collected
Data Quantitatively Qualitatively

General Information

Farmer’s age; gender; occupation

Years in Green Park; years raising cattle

Means of transportation

Underemployment in the area

Farmers’ involvement in projects

Farmers’ knowledge about p owing with animals
Animals other than cattle raised by farmers
Impediments to raising other animals

Vegetable cro s raised b farmers

Problems wit securin abor for farm work
Problems with praedi larceny

Farmers’ outlook on government policy & programs
Trust within the farming community

General Cattle-Related Information

Time spent doing tasks

Reasons for raising cattle

Impediments to raising cattle

Interest in continuing raising cattle

Number of cattle; number that died during drought
Acreage available to raise cattle

Service bull information

Methods of cattle and paddock management

Costs involved with cattle/paddock management

>4 NNNNN NNN

NNNN

NNNNNNNNN

Selling Cattle

Who is involved in selling cattle
Price Paid for selling cattle

Age 0 cattle when selling
Steps involved in a feasible sale X

Fodder Information
Fodder available with/without adequate precipitation
Methods of and time and cost involved in retrieval

Tree Fodder Information

Techniques related to tree fodder management
Knowledge of tree species used for tree fodder
Fodder tree reproduction and seasonality of fruiting
Process involved in planting trees

NN NNN

NNNX

 

26

interviews with acquaintances of the suspicious farmers, and conversions
between farmers.
Informal Observation

Informal observation was carried out in Green Park through the
following activities: 1)easual conversations between residents; 2)cxamination
of everyday activities, especially those concerning farming in and around the
research site; and 3)researcher participation in various farming activities,
including: driving and watering cattle, "cleaning" pastures (removing or setting
back unwanted vegetation), and working with other farmers in "field day"
projects. It was through these activities that the researcher began to
understand some of the socio-economic problems that endsted in the
community. For example, there is a tree species in Green Park and environs
that is highly valued as fodder by cattle farmers and as a source of fuel by
charcoal producers. By observing a short, but intense, conversation between
members of the two groups one day, it became apparent that a verbal
agreement over rights to certain trees had been violated. '
Informal Interviewing

Informal. topic-focused interviews were conducted to gather baseline
information and indigenous knowledge relating to cattle farming in Green
Park. The researcher, not previously trained to conduct interviews, had four
years of international forestry experience in lesser developed countries where
he communicated readily with farmers involved with social forestry projects.

During interviews in Green Park, knowledge about local politics and
socio-economic situations, as well as cattle and fodder information, was
conveyed to the interviewer. Cattle farmers were encouraged to talk about
matters which they deemed important. While conducting interviews, the
researcher had few problems with dross rate. In the few instances when it

27
happened, the researcher brought the respondent back on task by
acknowledging concern but then posing the next question.

As it turned out, a few of the guide questions were added and a few
were dropped. With respect to the latter, the deleted questions did not
jeopardize attainment of the stated objectives. The added questions were
posed to all but one of the initial farmers before the researcher left the area,
so the data collected 18 virtually complete.

The researcher started his interviewing with the facilitator and
continued with others using a snowball sampling method. Not only did the
facilitator know a lot about cattle farming in the area, but he also had worked
with outside interviewers before. He was capable of offering alternative ways
of stating questions, thus enabling informants to share their knowledge with
the researcher more easily. Once minor revisions were made, other informants
were interviewed. -

Informal interviews were carried .out in the following manner.
Generally, interview meetings were arranged ahead of time by the facilitator,
the researcher, or both; Before beginning the interview, the researcher
introduced himself, explained why he was doing the study, and that any
responses would only be used by the researcher and aggregated so that there
would not be any way for outsiders to associate the data with the respondent.
Depending on the reaction of the respondent, further explanations were offered
until the farmer understood what the study was about and felt comfortable
with being interviewed. Then the researcher asked if he could use a tape
recorder during the interview. If respondents were amenable, the interview
started. If they were not, they were told that only the researcher would use
the recorded responses to clarify any points or anomalies that arose while

going over the responses during the post-interview data processing.

28

A few respondents did not want to be recorded, and their wish was
granted outright. One farmer stated that he would be willing to be recorded,
but wanted to hear the whole interview played back after completion.
Nightfall was imminent and it was important to interview the farmer while he
was available, so the researcher abandoned use of the recorder in lieu of
manually recording the responses.

Interviews were started by asking general questions: e. g. where the
respondent grew up, when they started raising cattle, how many people were
involved in raising the cattle. Only one question was delivered at a time.
Whenever possible, the researcher volunteered information about himself or
the topic at hand. Once the respondent felt at ease, the researcher moved on
to more in-depth and more sensitive questions, being careful not to offend the
respondent or cause him to suspect that the researcher was anything other
than a student doing research. All but two interviews were completed once
they began. Information from these incomplete interviews were not aggregated
with other responses.

Initially, a few of the researcher questions were posed in different ways
by the facilitator. Once the researcher discovered the means by which
respondents understood these questions without second-guessing, he posed
them himself.

Rather than asking "what do you do when you plant a tree?," the
statement put forward was "describe to me the steps involved in planting trees
around your house or in your field." Probing for answers was not that
necessary in Green Park. Most interviewees were quite open and willing to

divulge their successes and hardships.

29
Snowball Sampling

Attempts were made to interview all small-scale farmers who have cattle
in the Green Park valley within the 15 week time-frame using snowball
sampling. Initially, a short list of small-scale farmers’ names were collected
during an introductory meeting with the farmers. Other qualified farmers in
the valley were added when they were mentioned during interviews with
farmers or during meetings with the facilitator. The research area boundary
was established based on the 15-week time-frame and the goal of interviewing
all of the farmers with cattle in Green Park (the primary zone). There was not
enough time to interview farmers in other zones, so names of these farmers
were eliminated. Also, since results of the research were intended to be used
in a project design for small-scale farmers, those valley farmers with over 40
head of cattle (large-scale farmers) were eliminated.

From a list of 45 names, 40 farmers agreed to be interviewed; 1 farmer
refused to be interviewed, but still talked about barriers to development; 1
farmer refused to continue the interview under the suspicion that the
researcher was a government spy. Three farmers either could not be contacted

or were too busy to participate in the interview process.

Chapter 4
RESULTS

Introduction

Information collected during the study is listed in Table 1. A detailed
description of Green Park appears in section 4. 1. Indigenous knowledge of
local fodder trees appears in section 4.2. Information related to the
social/cultural environment appears in section 4.3. Finally, pastoral land use
systems and technologies in Green Park are described in section 4.4.
4.1 Detailed Description o_f i9. fitu_dy Si_te
13 £322 Lirk ____t100mmuni

Thirty-five (39%) of the approximately 90 households in the Green Park
valley had at least one member who was engaged in raising cattle. Thirty-two
of these 35 individuals, plus 8 cattle farmers living outside of the area (who
had cattle in Green Park), were interviewed during the field research. None
of the farmers belonged to the Jamaican Livestock Association or any other
organized group. All of the farmers in the study have secure tenure of, or have
access to, some land and tree resources: With regard to land holdings, three
out of 40 cattle farmers had access to land over 100 acres; the remaining 37
held claim to an average of 13.9 acres (range 3—55), with an average of 11.4
acres (range 1.5-50) available for raising cattle (82.2% of total acreage).

Unlike most Jamaicans, most Green Park farmers have not acquired
their holdings through ancestral inheritance. Historically, Green Park was a

sugar cane estate with facilities and equipment to process cane into sugar.

30

31
This sugar was sold on the world market out of Falmouth, the fourth most

important town in Jamaica in the early 1800s (due to wet sugar exports) and
a major shipping port through the mid-19008 (Clarke and Hodgkiss, 1974). In
1955, the estate was closed, the equipment auctioned off, and the Kaiser
Bauxite Mining Company acquired the estate property and nearby forested
hills. The mining company divided up the land into parcels and used them for
resettlement purposes. In the 19608 and 19703, in various areas throughout
Jamaica where Kaiser Bauxite wanted to mine, farmers were given the
opportunity to acquire a parcel of land and relocate elsewhere. Green Park
was set aside as one area for relocation. A few farmers opted to relocate to
Green Park from other areas, while others sold their acquired Green Park
parcels to nearby inhabitants or to Jamaicans who had been working overseas,
returned, and were in search of a place to settle. As such, the general makeup
of the Green Park population today is quite varied. The cattle farmers who
were interviewed were represented as follows: 10% were relocated from nearby
parishes, 10% worked overseas and resettled in Green Park, 12.5% grew up in
the area, and 67.5% lived outside of the valley and purchased parcels in Green
Park from residents who were moving out or from resettled farmers who did
not move to Green Park from mining areas.

All of the cattle farmers in the study live in their own homes. Older
houses have a wooden-frame construction, while those that were built in the
past 10-20 years have either wooden-frame or cement block/concrete

construction. About half of the houses have protective bars over the windows

32

or surrounding the verandas, a consequence of increased reports of larceny in
the past decade. Most houses have been connected to the public water supply
and electric power, although cutoffs are common if residents fail to pay their
bills or if they have attempted to make illegal connections. Power outages
were not uncommon during the research period due to malfunctioning
generators in the capital city, Kingston. There are no phones (private or
public) in the valley.

A few children go to private schools. There is an all-age (grades 1-8)
school in Granville, 1-3 kilometers away, and a high school in Martha Brae, 5-
6.5 kilometers away. Both schools are just off the road leading to Falmouth.
Almost all of the children in the area go to school, regardless of their economic
background.

The only church (Catholic) in the research area is located near
Hammersmith. Other religions in Trelawny Parish include: Baptist, Anglican,
Methodist, Presbyterian, and Mormon (Clarke and Hodgkiss, 1974). There are
at least 6 stores in the immediate area, and 3 of these carry more than the
basic amenities of soaps and canned goods. Some of these stores serve as
outlets for farm produce. There are at least 5 bars in the valley.

I’m! P_r9.iac_t_§ in. $1.19 ALBA.
There have been a few projects in the area. Some were private ventures

between Americans and J amaicans”, but these did not affect farming practices

 

'Brooks, Charles 1990. Personal Communication. Mr. Brooks is an Extension Agent in Trelawny Parish and
is in charge of sctivities in the Gwen Park District (the boundaries extend beyond those of the research area).

33
in Green Park. One of the biggest projects that did influence farming in Green

Park was the Agricultural Marketing Corporation (AMC).

Created by an Act of Parliament in 1963, the AMC originally had two
objectives: l)to encourage local food production as a means of reducing imports
by providing farmers an assured market and guaranteed prices; 2)to provide
food to consumers at the lowest possible price (Lewars, 1981). In the 19708,
Prime Minister Michael Manley (People’s National Party) gave increased
support to the program and also established agricultural cooperatives (Stone,
1989). Farmers enjoyed many benefits from the AMC program, including a
guaranteed market for their crops. But in 1980, Edward Seaga (Jamaica
Labour Party) took over as Prime Minister and essentially dismantled the
corporation, citing losses stemming from stiff competition with higglers3 and
losses from spoilage. Farmers looked for alternative methods of raising
income.

Through the 19708, the Agricultural Office in Trelawny Parish had a
number of extension programs that transferred the latest technical know-how
by holding "field days," a variation of "morning sport" where the host farmer
feeds those who assist him (Henry, 1980). Extension officers would plan a day
when farmers would assemble at one farm and transfer new technology via
short introductions and direct farmer involvement. These would include
planting fruit trees, grafting demonstrations, or planting improved varieties

of crops or pasture grasses. Women often participated in the activities. Food

 

' People who generally buy from farmers and sell to shop owners or vendors along streets or in the local
markets.

34
was prepared, and after a few hours of labor, the farmers would have a feast.

According to two farmers, everybody looked forward to and enjoyed the field
days. These demonstration programs and most of the field extension oflicers’
positions were phased out in the late 19708 and 19808.

There was a soil conservation project in the southern part of Trelawny
Parish from 1985 to 1987 called the Pilot Hillside Agricultural Project,
sponsored by the International Institute of Caribbean Agriculture (IICA, 1988).
The focus of the project was to install erosion barriers along the contour of the
hills (terracing). Between 1977-1980, growing fodder grasses on risers was
explored. IICA reported that zero-grazed Napier grass was successfully grown
on risers totalling 0.07 ha (0.18 acres), feeding 2 head of cattle and 4 goats.
As long as the grass was not grazed, Napier served a dual purpose: stabilizing
the risers and feeding animals.

Another project called JAMGIS analyzed deforestation in the Cockpit
country in 1987 using geological information from satellite imagery data, but
this had no impact on farmers (Eyre, 1989).

Farmipg Practices

Cattle paddocks surround Green Park proper (Figure 4), and are usually
sectioned off with barbed wire attached to naturally decay-resistant wooden
posts that are cut nearby. Houses dot the rolling landscape. There is a
centralized water trough for cattle, with water being supplied at no charge to
the farmers through an agreement with the water commission. The water

cannot be used for irrigation of surrounding paddocks or fields. If improved

35

00?me n 2.8m

A.

5:24am o9

no.8 accommom Siam Combo on... 5 33.653 .v warm

Soc??? o8

      

mmzwfm “M mahflumflnm
51mm :moow

 

       

 

 

  

\ \d_ucow.mom .
/ /a, .%\a\ a an _
/ lei. aw: salsstsf tear
raccoom e34 sarcasm (I. r .

36

pasture grasses become overgrazed or revert back to less productive indigenous
species, farmers often choose to interplant improved grasses with vegetable
crops in the months when rainfall is adequate. Most paddocks are under
pressure from the proliferation of Haematoxylum campechianum (Logwood),
a thorny pioneer tree species.

The parcels of land in and around Lime Skill and Hammersmith are
smaller, with more houses and less land set aside for pasture. Fruit trees and
gardens are more plentiful in these areas than around Green Park proper, and
some residents opt to use collected rainwater or household water to sustain
these crops during dry times. Throughout the valley, there are pockets of land
that are not in production, and most of the vegetative cover is made up of
Logwood.

Remnant patches of forest in the Green Park research area belong to
private individuals or the Kaiser Bauxite Company. This forest resource is
under pressure from: 1)natural forces, i.e. hurricanes and strong winds;
2)removal of trees for charcoal production; 3)elearing hillsides for expansion of
pasture land; and 4)clearing of hillsides to plant crops. Like many forested hill
areas in Jamaica, these pressures are resulting in the degradation of the forest
resource and eventual erosion of soils (Government of Jamaica, 1987; Kapos,
1986).

Vegetable crops and fruit trees that are grown and harvested by the
cattle farmers in the Green Park area are listed in Tables 2 and 3. In general,

cattle farmers plant the first three crops listed (pumpkin, red pea, and corn)

37

 

of cattle farmers stating actual recent plantings; from: Adams, 1972;
Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, 1986).

Local Name Genus 9E1 Species mp pf Farmers Plan_t1_ng'
Pumpkin Cucurbita maxima 17
Red Pea (Kidney Bean) Phaseolus vulgaris 16
Corn Zea mays 13
Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum 12
Calaloo Amaranthus sp. 12
Potato Solanum tuberosum 10
Sugar Bean Phaseolus lunatus 8
Yam Dioscorea sp. 8
Cucumber Cucumis sativus 6
Cassava Manihot esculenta 6
Pakchow (Popchow) Brassica chinensis 5
Carrot Daucus carota 4
Onion Allium cepa 3
Okra Abelmoschus esculentus 2
Cane Saccharum officinarum 2
Cabbage Brassica oleracea var capitata 2
Gungo (Pigeon Pea) Cajanus cajan 1
Melon Citrullus lanatus 1

 

38

 

Table _3_. Fruit Trees Grown p1 Cattle Farmers i_n_ Green Park (by number of
cattle farmers stating actual ownership or rights).

Local Name Genus flip Species _Np pf Farmers Owning
Orange Citrus sinensis 34
Mango Mangifera indica 32
Coconut Cocos nucifera 20
Banana M usa sapientum 18
Ackee Blighia sapida 16
Pear (Avocado) Persea americana 15
Breadfruit Artocarpus altilis 12
Grapefi'uit Citrus paradisi 14
Star Apple Chrysophyllum cainito 5
Pimenta (Allspice) Pimento dioica 5
June Plum Spondias dulcis 4
Lime Citrus aurantifolia 4
Naseberry Manilkara zapota 4
Sweetsop Annona squamosa 4
Cherry Malpighia punicifolia 3
Plantain M usa paradisiaca 3
Soursop Annona muricata 2
Almond Terminalia catappa 1
Anatto Bixa orellana 1
Coffee Coffee sp. 1
Eggfruit Pouteria campechiana 1
Guava Psidium guqiava 1
Guinep Melicoccus biiugatus 1
J ackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus 1
Pawpaw (Papaya) Carica papaya 1
Tamarind Tamarindus indica 1

 

39
as cash crops. These grow well in Green Park as long as there is adequate

rainfall. Many of the other vegetables are grown for home consumption. If
yields are good, surplus vegetables are sold to neighbors, in the Falmouth
market, or along sidewalks near the center of town. Eleven of the 26 farmers
(42%) who had been living in the area for 15 years or more indicated that
vegetable crop yields were favorable in the early 19708, but have since
diminished, making it difficult for Green Park farmers to grow crops
throughout the year.

Based on the survey, fruit trees play a minor role in providing additional
income to cattle farmers. Since hurricane Gilbert destroyed many of the
coconut palms (Cocos nucifera, already weakened by a disease epidemic), as
well as mango (Mangifera indica) and pimenta (Pimento dioica) trees on the
island, the market prices for these fruits have remained strong (based on
personal observations and conversations with farmers). Coconut is an
especially good income generator, and six farmers have taken advantage of a
re-planting program offered by the Coconut Industry Board soon after the
hurricane. Many of the mango and pimenta trees that were ruined have not
been replaced, although there were six farmers who said that they would plant
more if they had some incentive besides the strong market prices (e.g.
subsidized seedlings and/or extension workers who would give timely advice
and provide information about fertilizers and pesticides). Grafted mango
seedlings reportedly cost as little as US$0.07 fifteen years ago, whereas now

they cost US$2.85. Other trees listed in Table 3 generally are grown around

40

houses for home consumption, although, like vegetables, if there is surplus,
these are sold to neighbors or in Falmouth.
BM 9.8.813

Of the 40 small-scale farmers in the formal survey, 37 males (92.5%) and
3 females (7.5%) were primary caretakers of cattle. Ages ranged from 37 to 77
years, averaging 60 years. Thirty-one (77.5%) lived and raised cattle in Green
Park Valley; 8 (20%) lived outside but raised their cattle within; 1 (2.5%) lived
in the valley, but usually kept his cattle outside the area. The farmers
collectively had almost 400 head of cattle: 11 bulls, 193 cows, and 194 calves.
Eight (20%) farmers had automobiles; 5 (12.5%) had pickups or trucks. Other
means of transportation included motorbikes, bicycles, donkeys, and walking.

Twenty-seven of 40 farmers (68%) said that one of the reasons they raise
cattle is to generate income. Two of the farmers referred to their cattle as
"walking banks," gaining higher interest and involving less risk than any other
investment within their means. With options for liquidation on short notice,
they had control over their assets, rather than the bank or some other
institution, public or private.

Farmers devote varying levels of attention to raising cattle, depending
on the number in their herds and other time-consuming tasks (Figure 5).
These tasks include raising vegetable crops for consumption, for market sale,
or raising other animals. Although these endeavors may be profitable at one

time or another, varying market conditions result in fluctuating prices. In

41

 

Aoo>ao>cfl muoEnnw mo omoucouuonv none: xn mumfiucm wauumu xaom compo no mxmce .m madman

cocoa

mmm 246 own >02 Boo mmm 034 ASH ZDH wax Mmfi m4:
_ _ _ _ u Ll _ _ _ _ _

 

 

Awomv MOHm 02¢ .Aacwv mzmqumu .Awm.va MB<OU 44mm 024 mom mmdu

 

 

Awooav mmuzmm demmm “QOWS mmDBmdm mdmdu umdbfidu mB¢ZHUU<> .xUHBNQ ~ZMOZHD umdBB<U mm943

 

Awooav KMBM¢DO mBm W>MHmBmm .mqfibdo Admm “MABhdu MUH>mmm

 

 

 

 

Awooav mNHm mam: mmammozH Aum.mmv mmmmoq oHo>< op mum: mono
«em.nne QMHN can «am.mme macs nzeu Hosea
~am.ame mn<¢o «um.nee when
mnembomuz eunuch usuaezeuaq< «on momeum no
acausoauuman

 

Awomv maomo a mm<mo ozH9244m

Hosccd
mom mQAmHm w mmmbfimdm mmdmmma _

 

 

 

Aum.mu. mszmzom emm>m<m xam.mvv mszazom omm3\ez¢qm _
Awovv zmoo 024 Awovv zmoo oz¢
awn omm emm>ma= «mm 0mm ommz\ezaqm

 

 

Auovv mmxo< .Aamvv <z<z<m .Awomv eozoooo .Awom. ooze: .Awmmv mozamo "mamas 20mm eHamm emm>m¢m

 

 

 

 

. _ filll _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
mmm z¢h Own >02 900. mmm UDd ADb 25h >¢2 mad mm:

 

42
contrast, the local demand for beef has been steady over the past few years, so

raising cattle remains one of the best alternatives for income generation.

Cattle farmers in the Green Park valley have private pastures where
their animals graze on succulent grasses as long as rainfall amounts are
suficient. These grasses include: Cynodon plechtostachyus (African Star),
Panicum maximum (Guinea), Andropogon pertusus (Seymour), and Panicum
muticum (Brachiaria). African Star (introduced in the mid-19708) and Guinea
grasses hold up well under the pressures of drought and grazing. Seymour
grass survives lengthy drought periods, but takes a longer time for new growth
to emerge when the rains begin than African Star and Guinea grasses.
Brachiaria (also introduced) has not proven to be a choice species in Green
Park, as it does not survive well under pressure of grazing and drought.
Pennisetum purpureum (Napier grass) is managed like Saccharum oflicinarum
(Sugar Cane). It is not grazed by cattle, but cut and carried.

When rains taper off, grass production slows or ceases. This causes a
gap in the fodder supply. Even though the majority of farmers have mixed
breeds (Jamaican Red Poll X Local or Jamaican Black X Local) that hold up
well under drought conditions, they are forced to look for alternatives. Sugar
Cane tops‘ and local roadside Guinea grass are used extensively until the cane
harvest is over and the summer drought strikes hard, generally in June or
July. In 1975, a drought occurred for 12 consecutive months; more recently in

1989, a drought lasted for 6 months. It is not uncommon during weeks of

 

'Known localb' as cane burn ("cane bean"). It is the top part of the stalk that is cut and discarded during
harmsting. Usually the field is burned a few days beforehand to expedite the harvest process.

43
drought for Green Park farmers to observe rain falling every day or two just

south of the valley.

During extended droughts, farmers have four alternatives to keep their
cattle fed. One alternative is to procure sugar cane tops. Another is to travel
further inland where rainfall is sufficient for year round growth of Guinea
grass. A third is to obtain bag feed, but this is quite expensive, ranging from
J$50-60 for a 50-pound bag (US$6.30-7.55 for a 20 kilo bag)“. The fourth
alternative is to use tree fodder. In actuality, farmers use a combination of all

four, but trees are the only local resource available to fill the fodder gap.

 

‘At the time of the study, the conversion factor was J87 a US$1.

44
4.2 Indigpnous flogledge Relating pp deder Trees all Silvo- as

Managpment Systems
Usipg Trgs pg Algrnative Fodder Resources

"When cattle cannot find adequate pasture grass to graze," one farmer

 

said, "they look up, and what do they see? Trees!" Cattle will eat leaves
and/or fruits from certain species of trees with or without coaxing from their
caretakers. If these tree leaves/finite are within reach of the cattle in the
pasture, they will browse on them. Trees are found growing in the fenceline
or free-standing in the pasture. Cattle will also nibble at tree leaves or fruit
when they are being moved from one pasture to another or to a source of water
and back again. These management systems can be considered passive,
meaning that the farmer does not actively pursue, plant, or manage these trees
as fodder sources. The extent of active management systems in Green Park
to date is exemplified by farmers who take their cattle outside of their pastures
to graze on trees along the roadside and in the nearby forests and those who
search for tree fodder resources.

Twenty-nine (72.5%) of the forty interviewed farmers said that they
collect tree fodder when needed. Thirty-eight farmers (95%) mentioned at least
one fodder tree species that they currently use or that could be used as an
alternative to grass. One of the two farmers who did not mention any fodder
trees recently moved his cattle from an area where there was sufficient year-

round grass production, and the other had helpers who do most of the

45
collection of roadside fodder grass when dry conditions reduce grass production

in his own pastures.

Thirty-eight farmers described 17 tree species that were or could be used
for fodder. Species most often mentioned were Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar),
Samanea saman (Guango), Brosimum alicastrum (Breadnut), and Gliricidia
sepium (Quickstick) (Table 4). Other trees used for fodder include:
Haematoacylum campechianum (Logwood), Bursera simaruba (Bujgum),
Piscidia piscipula (Dogwood), and Bambusa vulgaris (Bamboo).

Guazuma ulmitolia

Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar) provides one of the best fodder sources.
Both leaves and fruit are fed to cattle (Table 5). It is indigenous to Jamaica
and a medium size tree, growing up to 16 m high (Adams, 1972). The fruit
falls from November through April; leaves are obtained by cutting branches
with a machete, usually in late summer when other fodder resources have
diminished due to drought. Most Bacedar trees are found in pastures and
along roadsides. ’

Bacedar trees in Green Park are not numerous. General observation of
paddocks reveal an average of 1 to 3 trees per hectare, usually found alongside
the fenceline. Every observed tree had been lopped. Leafy branches are
immediately eaten by animals beneath the tree where the farmer has
selectively lopped. Although farmers focus on Bacedar leaves, the fruit is also
eaten by animals. The black subglobose fruit measures 3 cm long and 2 cm
broad, about the size and shape of a black olive (Adams, 197 2).

46

 

.gcmwh 00.5 SONG Mom damn—8°" QQO 55 EOE MO 305 %NE whwgm H

 

 

 

 

 

ovuz
H H a. seam
H H a. 495m
N N dam 38833 Honing? an?
H H N Seton Succumb cope Song
N N ESLESSHES SESDH o5 .852
N N dam owes“: anon—H2
a N 8S5 Beans: can“:
H . H N dam .383 vooerm
N N SE33 cassettes H.582
H N m SEES: oesofiom confiem
H m Ht 33383 338.5 @83qu
H H m m conceswm Sconces imam
H m w Eaeoweooogeo SEARSSESSE H.853
H m a sales secures tsetse
3 m H Enhance»? ESSEEMH Homeroom
H N on mm defies sarcasm 093:6
NH N m N N on 33525: 3:3ng 838m
slag and 3 an 3 are and a?
sage -85 «a
sings sum
angered
awcogeh mo conch—Z A memos m coca. coupon H83 .v 03am.

 

47

 

H
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
H.
m
w
m
m 3
oH NN H
“N N CH

 

3 E 3:3

 

“womb 8.5. no Scam

womb once we 3.8m Home

a.

m

dam 33.33

SEER 63880
SEBSSHES Shfibfl
5% 668.»:

8S5 creases:

dam gawk

Sagas ESSESE

$833: 33355

3333.5 3383

canteens Sufism
Eseeweoemsoo SEASEESN
83.38 c.6838

83:33? 253.395

mm :eEom accustom.
mm. cachet? ~83:qu

floats-ovaNNNNNNHH

 

moose momogm d memo-.0.
«gas
3% fl

 

ovuZ

33mm

Mon—Hm
Huntsman. ES?
coon. gong
o5 .852
«8:52
omcmz
253me
6582
oohEemH
wooBMoQ
Edam
$8ij
Marissa
grandam
omega
advooem
we?

 

 

48
M ma my.

Samanea saman (Guango) is a fast-growing, multipurpose, nitrogen
fixing tree found throughout the tropics (NFTA, 1987), providing fruit and
leaves for fodder. It is indigenous to Jamaica. The dark brown, slightly sweet,
pulpy pods measure 10-25 cm long and 15-18 mm wide and are available from
December to May (Adams, 1972). When drought is severe, the leaves are also
used for fodder. Thirty of the thirty-three farmers who mentioned Guango as
a fodder species have the tree in their pastures, although it also occurs along
the roadside and in nearby forests. It can grow to be a huge tree (up to 20 m)
and is native to grass savannas. It rarely grows in forested areas (NFTA,
1987). Guango seeds germinate easily after passing through the digestive
tracts of cattle. Some germinate directly from cow dung, a readily-available
natural fertilizer. NFTA reported that Guango tolerates a broad range of soil
types. Many of Green Park’s Guango trees were blown over by the winds (up
to 170 mph) of hurricane Gilbert in September of 1988.

NFTA (1987) reported that mature Guango pods have a crude protein
content of 12- 18% (dry matter). Farmers perceive the pods as one of the best
fodder sources in Green Park. A medium size tree (10-15m) might yield
enough pods to fill one 50-pound (22.7 kg) sack (holding about 5 kg) per week.
Two farmers were observed doing this. Vigorous regrowth from lopped or
pollarded trees is also used as fuelwood. Guango is used in multi-layered
agroforestry systems in the tropics, providing shade for cacao, coffee, vanilla,

and nutmeg (pimenta). Pimento, an export cash crop in Jamaica, was

49
cultivated in Green Park. Hurricane Gilbert killed many trees, so this multi-

layered system was not in evidence at the time of the study.

Farmers like Guango trees in their pastures and along the roadside for
four reasons. The first three reasons are documented elsewhere (NFTA, 1987).
First, cattle eat accessible nutritious pods and leaves without input from
farmers. Second, cattle are attracted to the shade of Guango trees, offering a
cool place to rest in the heat of the day. Third, grass grows better around and
under Guango trees than in the open. Fourth, three farmers in Green Park
inferred that cattle eating Guango pods drink more water, and in turn eat
more grass, than those cattle that do not. They concluded that the cattle are
healthier and better able to maintain their weight during times when fodder
grasses are dry.

The improved grass growth under Guango is thought to be due to
increased nitrogen levels under the canopy and nyctinastic leaf movement
(Halliday, 1984; NFTA, 1987; Palmer and Asprey, 1958). Although nitrogen
fixation is confirmed, nodules were found below the grass root zone; it is
suggested that recycled leaf litter is the enrichment source (NFTA, 1987).
Cattle dung also add nutrients to the soil, demonstrating the symbiotic
relationship between tree and animal. Guango leaf movement benefits plants
growing beneath it: "At night and on cloudy days, branches hang down and the
leaves fold inward, allowing rain to fall directly on the ground and promoting
cooling through unrestricted ground radiation to the sky. In the morning

leaves unfold and resume a horizontal position, giving full shade and helping

50
preserve moisture" (NFTA, 1987). NFTA also reported that grass dry matter

production under Samanea saman was not significantly reduced and had a
higher protein and lower fiber content than unshaded grass in a control plot.
In spite of its benefits, farmers want to limit the number of Guango
trees in their pastures. Too many trees create a closed canopy, limiting
penetration of sunlight, thereby reducing or eliminating grass production. One
farmer girdled most of the trees along the fence bordering his paddocks. Given
the benefits, a heavy pruning of Guango trees is more beneficial than complete
removal.
Brosimum alicastrum

Green Park farmers reported that Brosimum alicastrum (Breadnut) is
a good fodder species. This species grows slower than Bacedar or Guango,
measures 10-30 m high, and is indigenous to Jamaica, as well as Cuba, Central
America, and northern South America (Adams, 1972; Pardo-Tej eda and Munoz,
1980). The few remaining Breadnut trees in Green Park are found primarily
in the forest on hillsides surrounding the valley, although a few trees are found
in pastures.

Fifteen farmers mentioned that Breadnut leaves are cut and fed to cattle
as fodder. Three farmers said that the fruits are used. As Breadnut is mainly
in the hillside forest, branches are cut and carried to the cattle or dropped to
the animals beneath the tree. The drupaceous, yellow fruits are relatively
small, measuring 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter (Adams, 1972). Only three farmers

use the fruit, although Pardo-Tejeda and Mufioz (1980) reported that on the

51
basis of amino acid content, seeds of Breadnut compare favorably with other

animal feeds currently in use.

Breadnut is also a valuable tree for making charcoal, used as a means
of income generation for a few people in Green Park. Breadnut is on the verge
of local extinction in the Green Park valley, due to hurricane Gilbert, lapping
for fodder, and charcoal production. Only a few Breadnut trees remain in
pastures and fields, and the research facilitator reported that the numbers of
large trees in the forests surrounding the valley were dwindling. Most of the
remaining forest-grown Breadnut were saplings under 5m, not yet large
enough to provide fodder or charcoal.

The main reason for the decline is debatable, but there was visible
friction between farmers and charcoal producers. The latter group has few
means of survival, and has little alternative but to cut trees that make the best
charcoal, regardless of the damaging impact (Eyre, 1987). Although charcoal
producers work primarily in the forest, there have been instances of illegal
trespassing onto private land. When permitted to "trim" some Breadnut trees
in private pastures, charcoal producers have removed whole trees, failing to
comply with local laws or agreements with farmers. Farmers are at a
disadvantage when dealing with charcoal producers. They are often left with
a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition and settle for some charcoal or work out an
agreement for selective cutting if at all possible. Involved farmers have done

little to ameliorate the problem, partly because they fear repercussions.

52

Although no farmer said what these may be, reports of larceny and vandalism
in the area abound (Section 4.3).
Gliricidia 8.8M

Gliricidia septum (Quickstick) is known and used in Jamaica as an
alternative fodder resource. The recently introduced exotic species is also
known in the Green Park area as: St. Vincent Bush, Quick Catch, and El
Maranga. Farmers plant Quickstick as living fence posts (Table 6). The fast-
growing tree reaches heights of 5-6 m, producing 10-12 cm long pods (Adams,
197 2).

Nine farmers mentioned that Quickstick leaves are used for fodder, but
only six farmers have planted it, and only two have done so on a scale that
would provide them with a resource for more than a day or two every three or
four months. None of the Green Park farmers were aware of the highly
nutritious value of Quickstick fodder, but three farmers mentioned that cattle
need to acquire a taste for the leaves before it becomes a part of their diet.

It was not clear why or when Quickstick was introduced into the area.
Besides the two farmers who have significant numbers of Quickstick, the other
seven farmers who mentioned it referred to it more as a living fence post,
adding strength to the fence. If this was the reason for introduction, it may
provide insight into why the tree has not been planted on a larger scale in
Green Park. Quickstick was susceptible to the damaging winds of hurricane
Gilbert, and tended to blow over. Wind-damaged Quickstick growing in the

fenceline made it difficult to repair the barbed wire around farmers’ pastures.

53

 

H

 

 

.Smon oodom mag: com Home: E can 33330»? Hugoumnoan mm #033639 a
demon cocoa mg:

was ooflgfiov com com: um HE.» 333.3%? monomeaoaa mm o5 .8362 a

.8382 ooh zone com 5533 one 55 coca 26: ~38 messiah _

r-i

33.52:» 3.38.33m
3353333 333N33O
$383333 mESSHomH
«33.339338 oaomek

dam «3o:

. 39.8.33 3.38::

3.283.: 333.830
83.38 3.6.8.236
E3moo§3cx 533883330
535903 3.33.3an

ENE 3.3355
83.335333... 33.25%pr
H a 3832.3 assessed
mH HN mm 3333338955... EEGSSESQ

”F‘HHH

[\CDCDLGC‘OC‘ONHHHHH

co
Hv-uoco-o

 

endow Smooch .ofillfi locSImwnH mecca. Il3ll|momo m on macaw

are

 

touch Managua:
@8ng mo .fl

3383884

 

ovuz

stem
popcorn

cam Elem
magnum Bozo»
HoocBmHnH
358E

sous 03mph
harassed
@8308va
wooBmoQ

soap. oozom
«ca .852
Rhiannon
H.853
3433

 

 

54
Haematmlum gmmghg’ num

Haematoxylum campechianum (Logwood) was mentioned as a fodder
resource by 15% of the farmers, but they manage it differently than other
species. Cattle are permitted to nibble on its small leaves while in their
paddocks. The fast-growing Logwood is viewed as a nuisance by Green Park
farmers because it invades their pastures, crowding out preferred grass and
tree species. It is a naturalized exotic species, grows to a height of 10 m, and
is a prolific seeder (Adams, 1972). Unless farmers keep it cut back, it will
start producing thin 3-5 cm long pods, within 3 years. Logs from the tree are
used for fenceposts (Table 6).
$1311: fine—fig

Bursera simaruba (Bujgum) was mentioned by 5 farmers (12.5%) as a
viable fodder species. It is indigenous to Jamaica, grows up to 15 m and
produces fruits 1 cm long (Adams, 1972). Three farmers allow Bujgum to grow
in their paddocks, but it was also observed to be growing along roadsides and
in the forest.

Piscidia piscipula (Dogwood) was reported as a fodder species by 10%
of the sample population. Only the leaves are fed to cattle. It is an indigenous
species, grows up to 20 m high (Adams, 1972), and is found in both pasture
and forest.

Bambusa vulgaris (Bamboo) was mentioned as a dry season fodder by
three farmers (7.5%). Bamboo is a naturalized exotic species, grows in groves

to 10 m, and is propagated by transplanting culms (Adams, 1972). Two

55

farmers have this growing in their pastures, and one of them mentioned that
cattle will not eat the coarse bamboo stems until the finer grasses are finished.
U_;Ie_s o_f L132: Esme;

As part of raising cattle on private pastures, farmers have need for
fenceposts. Farmers’ species preferences for fenceposts are listed in Table 6.
Two species, Erythrina corallodendrum (Never Die) and Gliricidia sepium
(Quickstick) are used as living fence posts; both are propagated by cuttings,
but Never Die establishes itself more easily than Quickstick“.

Never Die is indigenous and has been used traditionally as a
demarcation post, usually planted at the point where one farmer’s pasture
boundary meets another’s. As a recently introduced exotic, Quickstick is used
more generally along the fenceline, adding strength to the fence. Never Die

withstood the high winds of hurricane Gilbert much better than Quickstick.

 

' Brown, Rupert, Research Facilitator 1990. Personal communication.

56
4.3 Investigation 91% Social/Cultural Enmnmemt

The focus of this section centers on the economic, social, and cultural
aspects of Green Park, residents and farmers. Most of the information came
from interviews with farmers or observation of their behaviors or activities
during the study. Topics include the area’s underemployment and options
available to residents, farmers’ perspectives on raising cattle as a means of
income generation, and impediments to cattle herd expansion.

Although Green Park is located near the north shore of Jamaica, most
people in the area have not benefitted from the tourism boom of the past two
decades. Falmouth, the largest coastal town in Trelawny Parish (6.4
kilometers from Green Park), is located between the tourist areas of Montego
Bay, in St. James Parish to the west, and Ocho Rios, in St. Ann’s Parish to the
east (Figure 1). Tourism development in Trelawny Parish is lagging, due in
part to its coastline. Much of Trelawny’s coastline is mangrove swamp, while
the other two parishes have vast stretches of sandy beach that lure thousands
of tourists yearly (Government of Jamaica, 1987). Trelawny Parish has only
one large tourist hotel and is much less densely populated than the other two
parishes. As Montego Bay becomes more densely populated, construction of
new tourist facilities moves eastward toward Trelawny Parish and Falmouth.
However, few people from the parish help construct these newer facilities or
work in the service sector within these completed facilities. According to three

cattle farmers in Green Park, if one has reached the age of forty (95% of the

57
interviewed farmers are in this category), it is very difficult to find work at a

hotel or factory.

Employment opportunities in the area are limited. One cattle farmer
works part-time at a large chicken farm in Green Park where broilers are
produced, processed, and packaged. A few farmers work at one of two large
sugar factories: Hampden (10 kilometers southwest of Green Park) and Long
Pond (29 kilometers east of Green Park). All together, 21 of the 40 interviewed
farmers held an additional job. Thirteen farmers (32.5%) were working off-
farm full-time and 8 (20%) part-time. Farmers were employed in mills (7),
government (3), retail stores (2), schools (1), or were involved in trades (5) or
gardening/cane (3). Virtually all of the cattle farmers have raised crops at one
time or other.

Although farmers in the Green Park area still make attempts at growing
sugar cane, pumpkins, or other vegetables, without a guaranteed market for
their crops, some of them have placed more emphasis on rearing animals. .
Animals raised in the area for income generation or home consumption include:
cattle, goats, pigs, chickens (both broilers and egg-laying), turkeys, guinea
hens, and donkeys (raised for hauling heavy loads). Raising pigs and goats has
become a risky undertaking. In the former case, pig prices have fluctuated
drastically (as observed during the study). Eight farmers have taken losses
after market prices fell years later. Raising goats was a favorite choice of
income-generating activities through the 19808, netting a good price on the

local market without much farmer input (i.e. watering, feeding, rearing, and

58
caring for the goats). But available rangeland has diminished as more parcels

of land become developed or are put into crop production. Also, praedial
larceny' has increased, despite farmers’ attempts at finding the offenders.
Seventeen of the farmers (42.5%) reported having lost goats to thieves; every
farmer reported being concerned about losing goats. Nine of the farmers
(22.5%) have stopped raising goats because of thefts.
Bi_sk_§ Involved Q Mg M

Raising cattle may be profitable in Green Park, but there are inherent
risks. First, cattle have health problems. Most cattle in Green Park are
exposed to a number of diseases and ailments. These include: ticks, intestinal
parasites, and black leg (an often fatal disease which affects cattle between the
ages of 6 months and 3 years) (Jamaica Livestock Association, 1983). Second,
there is a possibility of larceny of cattle, although this has not occurred to a
degree where it has caused farmers to consider getting out of cattle farming.

Prices for beef cattle are not guaranteed, although farmers reported that
prices have remained stable or have increased slightly in the past few years.
Hypothetically, price guarantees could be secured by farmers who are close to
tourism centers if they could locate steady buyers. But all too often, this is not
an option for the farmers in Green Park. Those who want to sell crops or
cattle are often limited to local markets. This is because first, small-scale
farmers in Green Park lack resources and irrigation equipment that would

otherwise allow them to produce a steady supply of grain-fattened cattle or

 

’The willful act of tahng and carrying away personal property on or attached to land or farms without the owner’s
consent (McKechnie, 1983).

59
crops. Second, restaurants are required to serve food that has been inspected;

it is not clear that farmers themselves could employ an inspector on a part-
time basis without any kind of guaranteed market.

Finally, pasture grass production decreases during the drier periods to
the point where it is insufficient to satisfy the intake needs of the cattle. As
a consequence, the overall health and weight gain of Green Park cattle can not
compete with animals produced elsewhere in Jamaica.

Farmers’ Perspectives 9g Raising 92M _t_q Generate m

Farmers raise cattle in Green Park for a number of reasons. Income
generation was a primary reason (mentioned by 67.5% of the farmers) (Table
7). Although they usually do not sell cattle every 2 weeks (as they would when

selling vegetable crops), they net a substantial profit when they do. Raising

 

Table 1. Reasons Why Farmers Rais_e_ Cattle
Farmers Responding

Reasons {9; Raising Cattle Number1 Percentage

Income Generation 27 67.5
General Interest 12 30.0
Inheritance ' 5 12.5
Efficient Use of Land 4 10.0
Project-Related 1 2.5

N=40; fi'om data collected during interviews.

1Farmers could give more that one response.

 

60
cattle assures them instant income when needed, as much as J $2000 (U S$285)

when selling a three-year old bull.

Farmers also mentioned that during drought periods there is less
financial risk involved in raising cattle than growing crops or raising other
animals. If a short drought period sets in, cattle tend to be resilient. Almost
all of them survive and net a profit when sold (during the six-month long
drought of 1989, 29 cattle. died (about 7% of the total of around 400)). The
same cannot be said for vegetable crops, which can be adversely afl'ected by as
little as two or three weeks of drought.

General interest and inheritance are two other reasons farmers raise
cattle. Cattle farmers in Green Park have been raising herds for an average
of twenty-four years. Thirty-four farmers (85% of the total) have been raising
cattle for eight years or more. Nineteen (47.5%) have been doing it for twenty-
five years or more. Many. cattle farmers have years of experience, often
without any outside assistance. Thirty-eight farmers (95%) foresee raising
cattle in the next 5 to 10 years. One farmer said "I think I love raising cattle"
and that he would prefer to stay in cattle for life. Yet not all of the farmers
in Green Park are content. As one farmer phrased it, "the small [-scale]
farmer can’t make a big living raising cattle...just enough to help yourself.”
Imm’ments to Eggansion o_f M _Ilfllg

Almost all small-scale cattle farmers would like to make a bigger profit,
but there are many impediments to herd expansion. These include: 1)lack of

land for cattle grazing; 2)lack of capital to invest in improving existing

61
paddocks; 3)difliculty in obtaining bank loans; 4)inability to secure labor; 5)fear

due to praedial larceny; 6)less-than-optimal prices for cattle sold on the open
market; 7 )government policies focused on tourism rather than farming during
the past decade; 8)lack of trust with government institutions; and 9)varied
trust between farmers in the Green Park area.

One way for cattle farmers to increase income is to expand the number
of paddocks to enlarge their herds. Ten farmers pointed out that they need
more land. Yet land is at a premium in Green Park. Most of the good
pastures in the area are already owned or leased and remaining pasture land
is expensive. Farmers are taxed for their paddocks, but because the land is
not being used intensively, taxes are not a significant part of any farmer’s
income.

If farmers decide to improve their existing paddocks, expenses for
plowing and fencing add up quickly. For each acre, it costs J $500-600 (US$71-
85) for a tractor to come in and plow (though it is difficult to secure one).
During and after this operation, other tasks need to be done: overturned rocks
removed, scrub gathered and burned, roots cut out; farmers generally do this
themselves or hire laborers. Depending on the workload, this totals 1-2 person
days per acre at a cost of J$30-60 (US$4.30-8.60 per acre). Installing 3
chains8 (almost one side of a square acre) of fencing would require posts
(J$132, US$19), wire (J$387 per roll, US$55), staples (J$6 a pound, US$1.90

 

‘0nechain:66feet(-20.lm)

62
per kilogram), and an installation charge of J $ 100 (US$14). The total cost per

acre would therefore be approximately J$1150-1300 (US$165-185).
Leek. 5! M

Green Park farmers generally do not have the financial resources to
cover these costs. Often, they would have to make certain sacrifices in the
short run in order to make gains in the future, e.g. selling a few head of cattle
from their stock. But not everyone has a large herd from which they could sell
cattle. The cattle they sell do not always net a profit sufiicient to allow for all
of the necessary changes. One farmer explained the difference between
management of herds at a commercial farm, such as Orange Valley, and his
own: "the big man can take on large investments, make for them cow look nice.
They have plenty water, and they can buy rock salt and molasses. But the
small man cannot do that. When we sell a little cow, we can’t get cash for all
of those things."

What little cash they earn often goes towards outside obligations or one
of the many other cattle-related expenses such as vaccinations, worm and tick
medicine, paying laborers to clear weeds from paddocks, and fence-mending.
One farmer said "as a small [-scale] farmer, I do not have the money to look
out for the cattle as I am supposed to. The medication is so dear, sometimes
I cannot afford to buy things to use on them. We have to go on with what we
have." Another said that "you have to make sacrifices, self denial, to carry on,
to keep up. I had a nice piece of 4 acre and a quarter land up there [outside

of the Green Park valley}. and I have to just sell it out cheap, cheap."

63
According to the farmers, they have less available capital now than in

the past. This is partly due to increasing electric and water bills, higher taxes,
and the ever-present costs for those farmers who have children or
grandchildren in school. There are also unexpected costs. Sometimes cattle
get loose, break through fences, and cause hundreds of dollars (Jamaican) in
damage to vegetable crops in gardens. Hurricane Gilbert not only caused
much damage to houses, but also to fruit trees and zinc roofs of chicken coops
and pig pens. And of course, when droughts hit and fodder sources diminish,
cattle farmers are often left without any choice but to buy supplemental feed
in bags, which is becoming more expensive every year. Still, concessions have
to be made. One farmer contends that "there are many people who lose cows
to the drought. But some of the time you really have to think of the animal
as yourself. You might have a few dollars and you have to sacrifice and buy
them feed. So I never lose one."
Eggs

If farmers lack capital, but have a means of generating income by
raising cattle, it might be hypothesized that they could easily get a loan to
increase their paddocks or to plant improved fodder grasses in the paddocks
that they have. Generally, this is not the case as it is difficult for small-scale
farmers to get loans for a variety of reasons.

First, lending institutions generally do not consider giving loans to older
farmers who do not have younger members of the family living at home (Stone,

1985). Three farmers said that they were turned down due to their age.

64
Second, a farmer may have outstanding loans. Two farmers mentioned that

they are still paying back loans for pig-raising ventures fi'om AMC days (10
years earlier). Third, the credit rating may be poor. Three farmers reported
that they were not able to pay back loans in a timely manner, but also felt
misled into undertakings that resulted in losses, without any lenience on the
part of lenders. Fourth, loans are often targeted for enterprises other than
raising cattle, such as growing crops or raising pigs. Two farmers claimed that
lending institutions are willing to lend money for quick-return enterprises such
as raising pigs, but as the market is easily glutted and pig feed expensive, it
is not a viable means of raising income. One prominent farmer contends that
they were once told to plant cassava because a factory was going to open. They
secured a loan, planted cassava, but the factory was not built and their crop
was not purchased. They had to payback the loan. He retorted: "small
farmers have been BURNED."
M

Even if farmers were able to secure capital, through banks or other
means, they often need help to realize their paddock improvement or expansion
plans. This usually involves hiring laborers or getting other farmers to
participate. If farmers are on good terms and can work out some arrangement,
they sometimes help each other when needed in a "day for day" or "morning
sport" agreement. Sometimes farmers need to hire outside help. According to
seven farmers, there are plenty of laborers who want money but do not want

to work. One of these farmers said "after one week, they say ’it’s not enough

65
money; I’m tired.’ Then they go." Another farmer who could no longer depend

on outside labor elaborated: "they ask for tea, work a couple of hours, and then
leave." Finally, one farmer recalled the following: "workers need an advance
and tools before beginning. I bought a machete and a file for them. They
worked for a couple of days and then left, taking the tools with them. I cannot
trust them now. I did up to two years ago."

basis; Larsen!

Concern over losing cattle to thieves also makes cattle raising risky. As
previously mentioned, increased larceny has caused 9 out of 30 farmers to stop
raising goats. Although cattle larceny does not occur that often, it does happen
and is cause for concern. Bulls are especially vulnerable as they can be sold
for quick cash or rented out as studs elsewhere. Two farmers had their service
bulls stolen in the last three years. They did not replace them for fear of
repeated larceny. Because of their losses, two others sold their service bulls
because they could not watch over their herds as often as they wished. Five
farmers said they no longer allow their cattle to roam as they too are afraid of
larceny. Four farmers stated they have reduced their herds for one or both of
the following reasons. In the case of larceny of multiple heads, they would not
have to absorb heavy losses. Second, after culling marketable animals,
remaining cattle would not be as prone to thievery because of their age (too old
or too young).

Farmers gave various theories about who is stealing goats and cattle,

but they revolved around two scenarios. The offenders are people who do not

66
live in the Gmen Park area and steal on impulse. Or they are people who live

or wdrk in the area, are familiar with the movements of certain herds, and
carry out their acts when they are least at risk of getting caught, usually at
night. In the former case, sometimes the outsiders are caught and dealt with,
either with police or with a machete. In the latter case, often there is not
enough evidence to prosecute a worker or "neighbor." A false accusation can
be considered a crime in itself, which makes the matter difficult to deal with.
But suspicion lingers on for months or even years and causes friction within
the community.

During the study, there were reports of recent larceny. One incident
involved the theft of a farmer’s young bull in broad daylight. A couple of
people saw a man walking out of a nearby town with the young bull.
Suspecting the farmer had not sold it to the man, they contacted the farmer,
and all of them assaulted the thief with machetes.

In another incident, a worker at a nearby sugar mill was going to work
and noticed that a bull being raised at a local school was being readied for
slaughter. He went to get the police and five men were arrested, including a
butcher who claimed that he had no part of it. However, the butcher could not
produce a written permit signed by the police saying the bull was purchased
from the school. To avoid this dilemma, farmers have the option of filling out
a bill of sale with the police when selling to another farmer to avoid future
confrontations (the bill of sale includes markings of cattle so that old bills

might not be used repeatedly). One farmer said that most farmers do not

67
exercise this option because it would take up too much time. Whether the

police were interested in promoting this option was not clear.
_Se_11_in£ Slams

Prices of certain commodities are regulated by the government, though
this is not true of beef prices, so there is room for bargaining. Generally, retail
beef prices on the local market have remained consistent or have risen slightly
over the past few years (all cattle sold for beef by the Green Park small-scale
farmers fall into this category). When prices of other goods rise, beef prices
also tend to rise. Two Green Park farmers said that the price farmers net for
selling beef cattle is affected minimally by outside factors, such as a mild
drought. Prices did not fall during the six-month drought in 1989, though they
did during the harsh drought during twelve months in 1975. Prices are mainly
affected by the cattle’s appearance and weight. Outside elements such as
drought may cause cattle to lose weight if they do not consume enough fodder
or water, but for those cattle who have access to both, weight gain or ability
to reproduce is largely unaffected. When selling cattle, two-to-three year old
bulls and cows that have had six or seven calves are generally culled. Older
cows do not net a good price because consumers complain about the meat being
tough.

In general, the farther the distance farmers go in seeking a butcher (e.g.
from Green Park towards Montego Bay), the higher the price they will receive.
The local butcher in Green Park paid J $700 per hundred-pound-weigbt

68
(US$100/100)9 to butcher a bull or cow. Farmers reported getting between

J$750~800l100 (US$107-110100) from a butcher in Falmouth and up to
J$900/100 (US$128/100) from a Montego Bay/St.James butcher. When
butchers outside of Green Park deal with small-scale cattle farmers for the
first time, they will initially offer the same rate as the country butchers
(J$700/100). .

Once certain agreements are made, most farmers regularly deal with
one to three butchers. When farmers are' ready to sell, they will try to get in
touch with the butcher who offers the best price, but this is not always possible
given their own time constraints or the butcher’s low demand for beef at that
time. They will then go to the second or third butcher.

When farmers have cattle to sell, they will exercise one of many options
available to them to let others know of their intent to sell. Farmers will
sometimes cantact the butchers themselves. Other times butchers come to
Green Park expressing their desire to buy. They either contact farmers
directly or inform one or more key farmers” of their intent to buy through an
informed network of small-scale farmers. Finally, farmers may inform one of
the key farmers of their wish to sell; the key farmers then notify other" farmers
and butchers of the intent to sell.

Cattle are usually sold by weight, but sometimes by sight, especially if

another farmer is buying. Ifbutchers are buying, once a meeting is set up for

 

'Or US$45 per hundred-kilo-weight (1 pound a 2.2 kilograms).

l"'l‘hoae who are able to notib' other {antlers of the butcher’s desire to buy. Generally, these key farmers move
around during the day carrying out tasks, but also acting as messengers in the network of small-scale farmers.

69
the sale of cattle, they or other buyers come in a truck to get the animal.

Either they butcher it on the farmer’s premises or take it away to their
facilities for butchering and processing.

During the meeting between farmer and butcher, they haggle over the
price and the fifth quarter (parts of the animal that the farmer keeps). At
times, the exchange becomes quite animated. Technically the fifth quarter
includes the tail, two feet, most of the entrails, and a few pounds of meat. But
the fifth quarter is used as a bargaining tool. According to one Green Park
farmer, he usually receives the tail, only one of two feet, 1-1/2 pounds (0.68
kilograms) of liver and a little meat, although he stated that "they do not want
to give you this." If farmers ask for more of the fifth quarter, the butcher may
lower the price he is offering to pay. As one farmer explained, "they beat it
down." If farmers are dissatisfied with the outcome, they always have the
opportunity to sell to another butcher. One farmer mentioned that if he
approaches town butchers with a good attitude and works at building a
relationship with them, he will get more of the fifth quarter without
compromising the price.

Sometimes the butcher sees that the farmer has a good business going.
The research facilitator reported that if a butcher wants to encourage farmers
to call him back, he will give them a better deal or more of the fifth quarter.
Sometimes the haggling becomes more of a game. One farmer recalled a
recent exchange with a butcher:

"Me tell im dat me wanted to sell it on scale, and when he come
look on it, he say ’well he small’, so he priced it, and buy it down

70

from $800 (per 100 pounds). We never have too much a problem

either, because what me expect to get for it, he give me about $50

less. Me tell im ’No’, he have to give me piece of the meat for me

dinner because me want to sell it on scale. And he say ’Y es.’ So

me and im, me canno complain about im, me and im get on all

right."

There are times when farmers want to get the best rate, but feel they
are being patronized when butchers who supposedly pay higher rates come to
work out a deal. One farmer who took pride in her cattle management
practices complained that when buyers come from Montego Bay, they "believe
that the country people are idiots. When they come here, they think that we
are a hungry people, that we are not people that think." Recognizing the fact
that Montego Bay butchers will generally charge their customers J$12- 14 per
pound (US$1.70-2.00 per pound), it might be expected that they would pay
much more than local butchers, but often they pay only a little more. But one
farmer said that one of the advantages of selling to the Montego Bay butchers
is that they divide the meat and provide payment right on sight, so that the
farmer does not have to go into town to get the fifth quarter.

One farmer said that he would not mind it if the butchers paid fifty
cents less than the retail rate. But when he sells cattle for J $7 per pound
(US$2.20 per kilogram), it bothers him that the butcher turns around and sells
the beef for J$8 per pound (US$2.52 per kilogram). In his mind, the profit
margin of J$300 for a 300 pound bull in one day (US$45 for a 140 kilogram
bull) is too much after he has raised the cow for two or three years. "I ask

them to return the fifty cents per pound difference" he said with a smile.

7 1
Government ELIE?!

During interviews, twelve farmers commented on the government and
its policies even though there were no such questions posed. Topics included
non-support of small-scale farmers, binding contracts that import food
products, favoritism, and clientelism.

As previously mentioned, the AMC was essentially liquidated during the
1980s. In 1990, five farmers were still bitter about the program’s cancellation.
One farmer said "Uncle Henry [Seaga] wrecked the farmers. Those banana
farmers with 20 acres or so, they just chew it up. The larger farmers with over
50 acres did okay. But we’re just living fi'om hand to mouth." One farmer did
concede that such a vast program as the AMC will probably not be started
again because the initial inputs at this point would be astronomical, given the
costs of setting up the infi'astructure and the poor condition of the soils after
years of neglect in places such as Green Park. Still, despite the major costs to
the government, many feel that something should be done to help out the
small-scale farmer.

One farmer talked about how producing food for the country. made him
feel proud:

"Farming is a great thing. As a farmer, you are feeding the

nation. It’s something which is worthwhile. Once you are

producing something, that’s one of the greatest things for the
economy of the country--food! Small-scale farmers that are old

could have been a strong backbone of this country. But you find
that they don’t bother about them anymore."

72
Another spoke about farming as a foundation for the country as a whole. "We

really need government help to bring back this country to what it was." For
those in government, the farmer had this message:

"I understand how the past made me see something. I went to
the country and it’s people, exploring what farming was...it was
wonderfully good until they turned it down and import; not
export, IMPORT. And that’s what killed Jamaica. Jamaica is not
supposed to import corn for bag feed! We should HAVE that
here."

One farmer was quite upset about all of the hype of politicians of late:
"In Kingston, every day them talking about farming, farming,
farming. And nobody give you no help about that. If a farmer is
going to do anything, he should do a feasibility study himself.
Don’t you ever go by what the minister (of agriculture) said,
because all they do is yap, yap, yap. No one looks on what the
government do."
He pointed out that government price regulations do not work; items are sold
above the set prices on the open market. He also noted that small-scale
farmers are not exporting products because they do not get the loans to plant
banana, cane, coffee as the government wants them to. The large-scale
farmers get the loan.
"The small farmers are being used as guinea pigs. The only
advice I can give to a small farmer is this. Do your own
feasibility study. After you arrive at your conclusion, make a
decision that you are going to do this, because there is a market

for this on the local scene. Check with the hotels; then tell the
farmers what to plant. "

Another farmer expressed his displeasure at the "leftover’s" policy dictated by
the Ministry of Agriculture. "Anything that the big farmers do not plant, the
government tells the small farmers to take out a loan and plant that crop."

The first farmer concluded that "our problem is too heavy," meaning it is

73
difiicult for small-scale farmers to make a profit given the government’s

misguidance and lack of support.

One farmer was quite open about his bewilderment upon discovering
that an in-depth agricultural research project was underway in Green Park.
"Why are they choosing Green Park?" he demanded. "They have been doing
nothing. And then to see you come out of the blue to find out about the way
that we are doing farming here... I don’t know how to talk about it." After
some probing, it became apparent that the farmer was convinced that the only
way for small-scale farmers to benefit from projects like the silvo-pastoral
scheme planned for farmers in Green Park would be to satisfy the politicians
and large-scale farmer first. "Mr. Big’s belly has to be full before the farmers
can get a little. And if he is not satisfied, then there is no chance for us."

Since the AMC program was revoked, the only time that cattle farmers
have received support is during long periods of drought, but not all of them
benefit. Truckloads of supplementary bag feed are sent to Falmouth
Agriculture Office. But there are problems with distribution. Supposedly the
feed is available to all small-scale cattle farmers in drought-stricken areas and
is allocated according to the herd size. But nine of the Green Park farmers
said that they were not able to secure any bags in 1989. They gave one or
more of these reasons: they did not hear about it. They heard about it, but by
the time they went to find out, there was none left. Some people who do not
have cattle received it and reportedly used it for other animals or gave it to

their friends. Two farmers said bag feed was given to people farming in areas

74

where grass fodder was plentiful. Ironically, these areas were the same places
where Green Park farmers were cutting grass to take back to their cattle. In
reality, bag feed was made available on a first-come, first-serve basis for
farmers and non-farmers alike. The means of distribution are quite upsetting
to the 12-15 farmers who would have benefitted from the allocations.

Nineteen of the farmers interviewed (47 .5%) reported buying their own
bag feed whether they received allocations or not. They have had to rethink
their strategy for getting their cattle through drought periods because feed is
becoming more expensive every year. In 1990, the feed costs were J $50-60 for
a 50-pound bag (US$6.30-7.55 for a 20 kilo bag). It also costs J$4 (US$0.57)
per bag to transport it fiom Falmouth to Green Park. Because of costs and
time, farmers search for other alternative resources first.

One farmer points out that members of parliament have neglected
farmers and others living in Trelawny Parish:

"The MP has not been responsive to farmers’ needs. Trelawny is

a forgotten parish. Brownstown (in St. Ann’s Parish) is a busy

area, with tourists going through morning to night. Look at

Falmouth. It’s degrading. Nobody seems to care. Falmouth

needs a lot of input, a lot of investment. "
Another farmer thinks that the government should stay out of farming
matters:

"They want to bring politics into everything. Every time you

arrange this, now here comes our representative in our area,

saying that he’s supposed to know about it. And then they use it

as a measure to go onto political platform. They'll tell them that

’See, I got that for Green Park farmers!’ So we want to get rid of
them permanently. We don’t want them to even mention at all."

75
Failir_rg§ o_f @vernment Institutions

Government institutions have influenced much of the activity in rural
Jamaica, and Green Park is no exception. One institution, the Ministry of
Agriculture, has sponsored projects, offered services, provided extension, and
made policy that affected many area farmers. Although there have not been
any major projects since the AMC, the Ministry office in Falmouth has
maintained very basic services and extension to farmers throughout Trelawny
Parish. From conversations with farmers in the Green Park area it is
apparent that they have not benefitted much from this and have become quite
distrustful. Although many problems were disclosed during the study, two
basic concerns surfaced fi'equently: extension, and services available to small-
scale farmers.

Extension

Six farmers indicated that local extension workers were inept at
providing valuable information. Two farmers complained about how little the
extension workers help out although the farmers understood that extension
agents are taxed with extra work. Two other farmers mentioned that they
need someone who can research their questions and follow up with useful
information, respond to their concerns, and inform the farmers about pesticides
and disease that are related to raising vegetable crops or animals. They
mentioned that the agricultural extension worker often gave out bogus
information rather than admitting his ignorance on a given subject and make

attempts to find out.

76
There was also an accessibility problem. One farmer said that the

agricultural extension worker was not regularly available. "If one extension
worker cannot come out, then another assistant should be nearby to help out."
Another felt that extension workers should go on foot to visit farmers and seek
out answers to the farmers’ questions rather than driving around to an area
of his choice.

Two farmers were unaware of certain programs open to area farmers.
One remarked that "in the 708 there used to be extension officers that would
chat with farmers and let you know what was going on." Another farmer did
not know that there was a coconut tree program started in the area and that
farmers could be updated with the status of current projects.
Services Available _tg Small-Scale Farmers

Every cattle farmer in Green Park benefits from one service made
available through the agriculture office: administration of vaccinations against
Black Leg and worm medicines. This is usually administered during one or
two days in March or April. Cattle farmers take advantage of this in lieu of
losing cattle to Black Leg disease. Two other services available are securing
free or subsidized bag feed (already discussed) and hiring the services of an
operator (employed by the Ministry of Agriculture) to clear their land with a
bulldozer or plow their fields with a tractor and a disc. In 1990, the subsidized
fee for this was J $500 per acre. But continued problems are in evidence.

Ten farmers reported making recent attempts to secure the Ministry of

Agriculture’s clearing/plowing services to make improvements to their land.

77
Only two had been successful, although not without great difliculty.

Supposedly, these services are available to all farmers in Trelawny Parish.
Herein lies halfof the problem. Since the area is large, moving the equipment
is a logistical problem, and there are limited numbers of working machines at
any given time. But there are other reasons too.

Green Park cattle farmers concede that the tractor is in high demand
a few weeks before the beginning of the fall planting season, but they believe
that they should be able to get it at other times of the year. Three farmers
said that when the equipment is in the area, often the work that is done is not
necessarily related to agriculture. In fact, for three weeks during the study,
the tractor was used for non-agricultural purposes by an influential resident
in plain sight of Green Park farmers. At least two farmers expressed their
displeasure with this predicament, especially after having heard from
Agriculture Office personnel that the machine was reserved by a nearby
neighbor. The farmers could clearly see that their neighbor’s work was
unrelated to agriculture. One remarked that "Mr. Big had the Ministry tractor
for three weeks. We needed it for only two days and could not get it."

One member of the Agriculture Office staff claimed that the reason
farmers were complaining was because the cost of the service had increased
since the 19708 when it was available at a highly subsidized rate, and farmers
were expecting more of the same. He also mentioned that some of the
concerned farmers did not pay for past work, and were not willing to pay in

advance, which was the practice. But two farmers said that even after paying,

78
the job was not completed before the tractor went off to plow the land of

another, more influential farmer.

Without access to the Agricultural Office services, farmers are left with
few options. Five farmers said that they are faced with using private tractor
operators at a higher rate than with the Agriculture Office. When asked about
farmers forming a cooperative and buying and maintaining their own
equipment, two farmers thought that it might work, but the thought of
political intervention stalled the idea. "The banks are so manipulized
[manipulated] by politics that they are going to say ’We need the MP [Member
of Parliament] signature, parliamentary signature, permits, everything.’ That
even makes it worse."

:I‘_ruit M E Farming Community

Relationships among farmers in Green Park vary between the close and
the very distant. Some farmers work with others in a "day for day" system
whereby farmers lend their labor or work animals for a work day to another
person, who then returns the day when he is called upon (Henry, 1980). A few
farmers are very independent, having little reason to associate with or depend
on others. How cattle farmers execute their daily activities is often a matter
of personal choice, but there are also certain factors that help determine their
strategy. Whether they solicit the help of another farmer depends on mutual
trust between farmers. Trust is partially affected by actions and reactions
within a community. By focusing on various actions concerning cattle farmers

and the reactions to them, one can get a sense for trust, or lack thereof, within

79
the community. Discussion includes the following topics: cooperation, conflict,

and perceptions of other Green Park farmers/residents.

One way in which farmers cooperate is through stud servicing, either
borrowing fiiends’ bulls or paying a fee. Ten farmers have bulls, and six of
them use their bulls for stud service. Of the 30 farmers who do not have bulls,
12 of them have privileges to borrow bulls from friends for servicing their cows.
The remaining 18 reportedly pay a stud fee to owners of the bulls. One farmer
conceded that half of the time he takes his cows to the service bull and pays,
but if a bull appears at the watering trough, he gets free service. The fi‘ee
service may actually be the norm in Green Park. Stud fees reportedly were
J$100 (US$14.30) in 1990, although one farmer said that no one had paid him
any fees in the two years since his bull has been used for services. Two
farmers reported that most of the farmers who pay for service get two chances
for their cows to become pregnant, but one farmer said that he knew some
farmers who demanded payment for each servicing.

Farmers help each other with some of the tasks involved with keeping
cattle. If cattle break out of their paddocks, some farmers will escort the herd
back, fix the fence temporarily, and notify the owner. Three farmers said that
they help each other mend fences, especially those that are shared between
paddocks or fields. At least four farmers share their paddocks with others, and
three graze their animals on others’ property (squatting) in exchange for
keeping the area clear of weeds. One farmer said that if someone’s cattle die,

sometimes other nearby farmers help to bury them or burn them (if they have

80
suffered from Black Leg disease). One farmer who has donkeys lends them to

other farmers who are in need.

In 1975, there was a 12-month drought period where cattle farmers
faced extreme hardships. It was difficult for farmers to find fodder for the
cattle, but even more so to find adequate water resources. Some farmers took
their cattle to the Martha Brae River, over five kilometers away. But farmers
also relied on water in large holding tanks near the center of what was the
Green Park Estate. Besides the river, this was the only source of water large
enough to support the cattle in the area. Farmers worked together, scooping
out buckets of water and passing them up to the cattle, often for hours at a
time. Although the task was difficult, especially given the imminent threat of
losing cattle to disease brought on by the drought, this was an opportunity for
farmers to work together.

The next year, six to eight concerned farmers made attempts to solicit
funds finm all Green Park cattle farmers to build a new water trough in a
centralized area where farmers would be able to get water at any time. This
was somewhat unsuccessful (due in part to the lack of financial resources of
some households), but farmers with large herds in nearby pastures went ahead
with the plan anyway and built a trough after getting permission to tap into
a water supply line from the appropriate authorities. The trough has doubled
as the main meeting place for farmers since 1976. It is still the farmers with

the larger herds, sometimes acting alone, who maintain the tank.

 

81
Two farmers stated openly that there is minimal cooperation between

farmers. One reported that some farmers will take advantage of overseeing
other farmer’s cattle (e.g. grazing their own cattle in the other’s paddocks).
Both farmers stated that farmers need to be more trusting, explaining that a
more relaxed environment would relieve them of the stress caused by the day-
today concerns that they harbor.

Praedial larceny and vandalism are two such concerns. One farmer
remarked that "thieves have taken the wind out of my sails." Another said
that larceny is perhaps the biggest deterrent to farming and is a major cause
of distrust in the area. Three farmers who have independent water tanks or
rain catchments for their cattle reported that youngsters had smashed them,
leaving them no other option but to bring their cattle home or to the main
water trough. Two of these farmers suspected local kids of the crime, and one
took them to court, but to no avail. Such accusations, whether justified or not,
cause fiiction within the community.

More than half of the forty farmers reported losing their zinc roofs
during hurricane Gilbert in 1988 and many of these claim that they could have
reused their old roofs had they not been confiscated by junk scavengers. All
but one received some of the relief material that was sent from other countries.
It is common belief that a lot of the material was absconded and sold on the
open market for large profits. But there were at least ten farmers who
strongly believed that most of the other farmers received this material for free

and that they received none. There was no method to verify these claims, but

82
it did indicate that either these farmers believed that they had somehow been

excluded from benefits that were available to other farmers or that others were
somehow involved in the scandal and could not be trusted. Such beliefs have
only increased fiiction and decreased trust between residents.

Even though Gilbert did a lot of damage, two farmers reported that the
disaster made people more aware of others’ desperate situations. "Even if you
were okay, you knew someone who suffered," one said. "It taught people to be
more loving."

Three farmers were quite concerned with the over-harvesting of trees by
some people living in the area. They said that as a result of this, less rain was
falling in Green Park. It has already been mentioned that Breadnut is on the
verge of local extinction partly because it is used for charcoal production.
Many other trees have also been cut out of nearby hillsides and the forest has

become degraded.

83
4.4 M La_ng Use Systems gag Technologies

Every farmer with cattle in Green Park has at least one paddock or
large area around the house where their cattle can graze on grasses and tree
leaves. Farmers do not stall-feed their cattle as this would place greater
demands on time spent doing regular farming activities. Thirty-one Green
Park farmers (77.5%) have more, than one paddock and have the option of
moving their cattle between them. Two of these farmers and 7 farmers with
only one paddock tie their cattle to a stake or tree and move them around from
day to day. Two farmers had access to unlimited pasture areas just outside of
Green Park. It was not apparent that the 29 farmers with over 2 paddocks
were following any rotation management scheme. Instead they would move
their cattle between paddocks when the grass was low or every few days if
they had only two paddocks. For the 27 farmers who rotate their cattle every
60 days or less, the average number of days cattle spent grazing any 1 paddock
decreased from 24 to 10 when grasses became desiccated. As drought
extended, cattle were seen to overgraze their paddocks.

When paddocks are overgrazed, preferred fodder grasses diminish, and
other grasses and unwanted vegetation grow in its place. Farmers have the
option of upgrading their paddocks or converting vegetable fields into pasture
by planting improved grasses, such as Cynodon plechtostachyus (African Star
Grass) or Panicum maximum (Guinea Grass). Many of the vegetable fields
were converted into pasture when the AMC project ended as farmers became

more involved in raising animals.

84
Upgrading paddocks or converting vegetable fields to paddocks and

maintaining them as such is not an easy task. Decisions need to be made
regarding labor, land preparation, fencing, which trees to remove and which
to retain, grass species to plant, whether to plant vegetables or trees along
with the grass, and the time involved in maintaining the paddock once
established. Discussion in this section will focus on the tasks involved with
pasture establishment/improvement and maintenance, and the technologies
utilized in providing fodder to cattle.
My; Establishment/Improvement Ed Maintenance

When farmers acquire land or make a decision to improve their
paddocks, they first assess the work that needs to be done in the conversion.
Trees may have to be removed, especially if the area has remained fallow for
a number of years. One tree in particular, Haematoxylum campechianum
(Logwood), is known to flourish in open, disturbed areas, and to grow into a
thicket in 3 to 5 years. If this is the case or there are large unwanted trees,
a bulldozer may be needed to remove them. Otherwise, the farmer will try to
obtain a tractor and plow to turn the soil while the farmer and/or laborers cut
back the small trees with an axe or machete. Roots are usually burned out.
Securing labor and equipment is discussed in section 4.3.under "Labor" and
"Services Available to Small-Scale Farmers."

Assuming farmers have made arrangements for plowing and labor, they
are faced with the prospect of transforming the physical landscape. They cut

out small to medium trees (Logwood and other unwanted species), and leave

85
certain trees that provide shade for animals. If fence posts are needed,

sections of 3- to 5cinch diameter logs are often installed or set aside for future
installation. Species used for fenceposts by farmers are listed in Table 6.
Trees that they leave standing tend to be multi-purpose species, improving the
micro environment or providing fodder. These would include any of fodder
trees mentioned by farmers during the study (Tables 4 and 5 in section 4.2).
The species observed most often in existing paddocks included Samanea saman
(Guango) and Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar). Both of these trees provide fruits
that cattle eat as a supplement to fodder grasses.

Once it is determined which trees will remain, clearing and plowing
begins. During one observation of plowing, the Agriculture Office tractor
operator cut a swath around the outside perimeter of the farmer’s area, moving
in smaller circles until he was finished. When approaching a small tree, he
signaled to the farmer to remove it. The farmer and laborers out small
trees/scrub and removed overturned rocks, tossing them in separate piles. The
farmer burned the brush if the winds were not too high. Sometimes the
farmer placed the brush against trees or stumps that were difficult to remove
and burned it. He said that it was the only way to keep unwanted species (e.g.
Logwood) fi'om re-sprouting.

When the area has been plowed and conditions are right (rainy periods
begin), the farmer will plant grass, often with a vegetable crop or tree crop.
Farmers in Green Park usually plant Cynodon plechtostachyus (African Star

Grass) after obtaining cuttings from other farmers. Panicum muticum

86
(Brachiaria Grass) had been introduced into the area in the 19708, but it does

not withstand drought well in the area. Live Afiican Star runners are placed
in furrows every couple of feet and covered with nearby soil. Usually the
farmers cannot afford to fertilize the area. If the soil is rich, rains are
plentiful, and the area is not grazed, the area will be covered with grass in six
months. The research facilitator reported that farmers could start to graze
their cattle at that time, but usually wait another six to eighteen months so
that the grass can become well established. During the wait, farmers may cut
the grass by hand and carry it to their cattle. Once paddocks are established
with improved grass, farmers have only to maintain fences and keep unwanted
species fi'om growing (using a machete).

Farmers attempt to reduce the risk of losing their investment of time
and work into the operation by planting both grass and vegetable or tree crops
together. Most farmers plant pumpkins, red peas, or corn. If the rains are
good in the first six months, both the vegetable crop and grass do well. If
drought sets in after the third or fourth month, the grass may become
desiccated before establishment.

Six of the 40 farmers interviewed (15%) have planted or have firture
plans to plant Afiican Star grass among their coconut, orange, pimenta, and
mango trees. These farmers cut grass or tie up goats or cattle to graze the
grass as the saplings grow in the area. Once trees are established, the animals
are he to graze under the trees, while at the same time providing a natural

fertilizer for the trees.

87

Methods o_f Planting TM

Since the main goal of JADF is to introduce the idea of using tree fodder
as a means of coping with the fodder gap, farmers were interviewed about
methods of planting trees. Thirty-four (85%) farmers had planted trees at
some time in their lives, although most of these were fruit trees around their
houses. Information about planting appears in Table 8; farmers said that they
would use the same methods, regardless of the species planted (except for
Gliricidia, where a cutting was planted at a depth of 61cm). Of the farmers
who planted trees, 26 (79%) watered them, although these were near houses,
not in plantation areas. Gliricidia is usually planted in fencelines and is

dependent upon rainfall for water.

 

Table 8. Tree Planting Information (with number pf farmers in parentheses)

Species Planted Tools Used1 M13 Depth Fertilized Mulched
Mangifera indica (14) pitchfork (26) 15-29 cm (6) Bag (11) Leaves (8)
Citrus sinensis (14) pickaxe (11) 30-44 cm (23) Manure (7) Manure (2)
Cocos nucifera (3) hoe (4) 45-61 cm (4) None (15) Grass (3)
Musa sapientum (1) machete (3) Stones (1)
Persea americana (1) mattuck (1) None (19)
Gliricidia sepium (1) crowbar (l)

digger (1)

N=34; from data collected during interviews

1Farmers may have used more than one tool

 

Technolog’es Utilized _ip Providing Fodder to; Cattle
When pasture grass production decreases during drought periods,

farmers seek alternatives: grass growing outside of paddocks, sugar cane tops,

88
supplemental feed, or tree fodder. The focus of this section centers on the

latter alternative, specifically how farmers acquire tree fodder.

When farmers face severe shortages of cattle fodder, twenty-nine (72.5%)
of the farmers collect or use tree fodder when needed. Sixteen (55%) of these
farmers procure the help of others when collecting fodder, half of them getting
aid from family members, half fi'om helpers or hired workers. Initially, they
will search for fodder within the valley, but some venture further inland
towards Wakefield or west toward Orange Valley. Time spent cutting and/or
collecting all supplemental fodder varies between 0 and 14 person-hours per
day, averaging 3.2 person-hours per farmer (Table 9). Hours reflect totals for
all participating, farmers plus family members, helpers, or laborers. Time
spent conducting the task per head of cattle per day appears in Table 10.

Fruits and leaves of trees are cut or collected by farmers (Table 5). Only
three fruits are eaten by cattle: Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar), Samanea saman
(Guango), and Brosimum alicastrum (Breadnut). Cattle usually pick these up
from the ground, eating them on site, so farmers need only to take their cattle
to an area where the fi'uits are available. Sometimes farmers collect them and
bring them to the animals. Only one farmer mentioned storing fruit for a
future date.

Based upon interviews with the 40 farmers, leaves of all 17 tree species
mentioned in Tables 4 and 5 are eaten by cattle. Again the farmers may take
their cattle to a nearby area where the leaves are, or if the area is far from the

cattle (over 1 km), the farmers transport the fodder leaves back to the paddock

89

 

 

 

 

Farmers
Time Sgnt Number o_f
Person-Hours/da Farmers

0.0 6

1.0 8

2.0 9

3.0 6

4.0 2

5.0 1

6.0 1

7.0 1

8.0 2

9.0 2
10.0 1
14.0 1
x = 3.2

N=40; from interview data.

Table 10. Time mm and/or
Collecting _A_l_l_ Fodder mi;
Head o_f Cattle pgD_a1.i_p
I_)_r_'y Season by Farmers

 

Tim__e_ S nt N_u__mber 9_f

(Person-Hours/Head/Daz)_ Farm__Lrs

|

l

l

|

|

|

|

|

I 0.0
l 0.1
I 0.2
l 0.3
I 0.4

| 0.5

l 0.6

I 0.7

I 0.8

I 0.9

I 1.0+
|

l

|

l

|

NHNOOQIFNQhOIO)

x=0.4

N =40; from interview data.

 

90
or house. The means of transportation vary: truck/pickup (7), automobile (5),

bus (5), donkey (4), walk (4), tractor (1), motorbike (1). Once at the site of the
trees, farmers cut the branches, drop them to the cattle grazing beneath, or
collect and transport them to the cattle. Some of the older farmers said that
they would get help to do this as they were not able to climb trees easily.
4-5 m

Thirty-five of the approximately 90 households in the Green Park valley
had at least one member who was engaged in raising cattle. Each had their
own home and tenure of or access to land for raising crops and animals. The
AMC was instrumental in providing a market for selling crops, but was
rescinded in the late 19708, leaving farmers with few options to sell their
goods. Cattle farmers generally graze their animals in sectioned-off paddocks.
When drought strikes, grass production slows, and farmers have to search for
alternative fodder sources: cut grass, bag feed, and tree fodder.

Thirty-eight farmers (95% of those sampled) mentioned at least 1 of 17
species that they used or that could be used as an alternative to grass. Species
most often mentioned were Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar), Samanea saman
(Guango), Brosimum alicastrum (Breadnut), and Gliricidia sepium
(Quickstick). Breadnut was also a valuable species for making charcoal. Logs
from 14 difl'erent trees were used as fenceposts.

Employment opportunities in the Green Park area are limited. Few
residents work in tourism sectors, and many have only to raise crops or

animals as a means of generating income. Raising cattle is one of the best

91

means for this. Some farmers would like to improve their paddocks and
expand their herds. They are constrained (among other things) by insufficient
capital, difficulty in obtaining loans and securing equipment, lack ofconsistent
labor, and government policies that generally do not support the small-scale
farmer.

Finally, if farmers are able to improve their paddocks, they plow up
their fields, plant Cynodon plechtostachyus (African Star) or Panicum
maximum (Guinea Grass) alone or with crops, and wait 6-18 months for the
grass to establish itself. Methods of planting trees are described and farmers’

technologies in providing tree fodder to cattle are outlined.

Chapter 6
DISCUSSION

Management Systems
Changipg Q _a_ Silvo-Pastoral m

Green Park cattle farmers utilize several fodder resources through
various silvo—pastoral management systems in their attempts to feed their
cattle. With the information gathered during the study, project planners
will not have to "reinvent the wheel" in trying to determine how to
ameliorate the situation. There are a number of possible methods whereby
trees can be introduced into or expanded in the existing pastoral system.
These include: planting trees in the fenceline, in fields with crops or
improved grasses, in pastures, or in other sites. These methods will be
explored in detail and each will be analyzed to determine its feasibility,
given the constraints outlined by the farmers.
Planting kegs i_n_ Q2 Fenceline

One area where trees could be planted is along the fenceline. This is
very common throughout Central America whereby barbed wire is attached
to trunks of trees acting as posts or the woody plants are established as
hedgerows (Budowski, 1987). In Costa Rica alone, 92 woody plant species
(of which 21 produce fodder) have been identified in living fences

(Budowski, 1987).

92

93
There are instances of using fodder trees that grow in or along the

fenceline in Green Park. Some trees have regenerated naturally, while
others have been planted. Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar) and Samanea
saman (Guango) are two species in the former group, while Gliricidia
sepium (Quickstick) and Erythrina corallodendrum (Never Die) fall in the
latter category, primarily to strengthen the fence and for demarcation.

Nine of 40 farmers (22.5%) in Green Park mentioned using
Quickstick as a fodder tree, but only 6 (15%) of the farmers have actually
planted it, albeit 1 or 2 trees. And only one other farmer manages
Quickstick intensively, even though they had already been planted on the
land when he moved into the area 3 years prior. One farmer did mention
that Quickstick is used as a charcoal in preparing jerk seasoning in
Portland Parish. Also, intensive agroforestry and silvo-pastoral innovations
involving Quickstick and other species are being tested in St. Catherine and
St. Elizabeth Parishes“. Given the fact that it is such a good fodder
source and possibly a good charcoal species, it might be hypothesized that it
would be planted more intensely in Green Park, but this is not the case.
There are several reasons for this.

First, fi'om conversing with farmers, trees that can be used as fodder
have not been promoted to the extent of other fodder sources (such as
improved grasses), either by formal or informal means of extension. The

reason for and method of introduction of Quickstick into Green Park is

 

"Wilson, George 1990. Personal Communication (see footnote 1).

94
unclear. Many innovations in Green Park have evolved through informal

extension systems whereby farmers will visit other farmers and bring a
"successful" technology back to their own farm.

Second, since only a few trees are available, there may be too long a
period between feeding for the cattle to maintain the taste. It is possible
that the composition of the leaves change over time, and are no longer
palatable to the cattle (Borel, 1991). Green Park farmers said that even the
best fodder tree leaves dried out to some degree and/or fell off of the trees
during the dry season and were no longer viable as fodder. Rusten (1989)
found this phenomenon to be true in the middle hills of Nepal.

Third, most Quickstick trees in Green Park are not being managed in
a way that is maximally compatible with other systems or lifestyles. The
one farmer who intensely manages his Quickstick said that he has not
planted any more of it because "it grows to be too much of a big tree."
Indeed, some farmers have cut down large trees on or near pastures,
presumably to increase grass production during periods of rain. Large
Quickstick trees cast shade over other plants, and are susceptible to high
winds. If Quickstick trees that have been planted in the fenceline blow
over, the farmer has to untangle the wire and fix the fence, resulting in
many hours of work.

A management technique that would keep the branches from growing
too large without cutting down the tree would be the lopping of branches

with a machete. If the branches were lopped back to the trunk (pollarding)

95
periodically (every 3 to 6 months), Quickstick would not grow to the point

where it would blow over easily or be a problem for other plants growing
underneath. Farmers in the area are familiar with lopping branches when
they need poles for crude construction, so it may take only a simple
demonstration of this technique before they would realize the potential
benefits involved: nitrogen fixation, stronger fences, free fodder, and small
poles (depending on the size of branches at the time of lopping). The time
spent lopping might be less than or comparable to maintaining traditional
fencing or the time and energy involved in searching for and cutting fodder
elsewhere.

Planting 1.31%. ip _Fi_elds wi_th_ Qrpps g Improved (_}_r_°_a_sse_s_

In order to reduce the risk of losing crops fi‘om drought, it is common
practice, when upgrading grazing grasses from the indigenous Seymour
grass to the drought-tolerant African Star grass, to plant crops along with
the grass in pastures that have been recently plowed. But this practice is
also being used when farmers plant cash trees either in or near their
pastures. Farmers in Brazil, among other places, use a similar system,
initially using cash trees with cash crops; as the tree canopies close, fodder
grasses are planted and animals are allowed to graze after a few years
(Johnson and Nair, 1985).

This concept could be used to establish fodder trees in Green Park.
As long as farmers can keep their cattle away fi‘om the plants and trees for

a specified time (6 months to 3 years, depending on the crop or tree species),

96
the trees should grow well. Once it is safe to let animals graze freely,

farmers can let their animals roam the area. Eventually, the trees will
shade the crops or grass during the hotter months, reducing incoming solar
radiation and moderating soil temperatures and plant transpiration rates.
Once the trees become well established, if farmers opt to keep growing crops
or grass, they will have to prune the tree crown if orange, pimenta, or
mango trees are used. This may be accomplished using a machete to thin
the crown.

Finally, Liyanage et at (1990) reported that attempts were made to
incorporate Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala with pasture
grasses inside of coconut groves in Sri Lanka in order to alleviate dry
season feed shortages for cattle. Leucaena became susceptible to the L.
psyllid during the dry season, but Gliricidia results were rather promising.
In comparison with gains during the wet season, "reduction in mean total
and daily liveweight gains per head during the dry season was only 33.6%
and 21.2%, respectively." They also reported dry season daily milk yield
increases of 14.8% over wet season daily yields, attributing part of the
increase to the integration of Gliricidia fodder into the diet of the cattle.
Planting M jp Pastures

It may be feasible to plant trees directly into pastures, possibly using
a silvo-pastoral hedgerow system. African Star could be grown in alleys
bordered by rows of fodder trees. During the study, about a dozen farmers

were told about the possibility of introducing an alley cropping/hedgerow

97
system technology. Three of the farmers responded negatively. Farmers

depend on grass to "carry their cattle through," meaning that as long as the
grass is in production, the farmers have little to do besides watering the
cattle and checking to see that they are in good health. Some farmers said
that they prefer grass over anything else, and even have cut down Guango
trees in pastures because the trees "take too much sun and nutrients from
the grass."

At present, in pastures where the Guango tree canopies are touching
and grazing takes place, fodder grasses were in poor condition. It is unclear
whether the condition is caused by overgrazing, reduction of light
penetration, or both. Farmers tend to believe the second hypothesis.
Therefore, to captivate farmers initially, if trees were planted in rows in the
pasture, they would have to be either trees that cast little shade or trees
that cast shade but would require periodic maintenance by the farmer (e.g.
Guango branches could be thinned out to allow light penetration to the
pasture). In the second case, farmers would have to be made aware of the
labor needed for maintenance. ’

Another option would be to plant trees in pastures where grass
currently is not growing due to the spread of pioneer shrubs and trees. For
instance, due to lower numbers of goats in the pastures, the thorny
Haematoxylum campechianum (Logwood) is proliferating and becoming
difficult to control. Because of this and the fact that good laborers are hard

to secure, it is usually the farmer who cleans the pasture with a machete,

98
either continuously or occasionally. If Logwood is allowed to go to seed, it

seriously threatens future grass production in the pasture. If specific
"useful" trees were introduced to help keep Logwood in check, this might
appeal to the farmer. The farmer could cut down the existing trees and use
the thorny branches to protect newly planted trees from cattle or other
animals. This could be done on an individual basis. If the Logwood trees
occupied a corner of the pasture, the outer perimeter of the invading trees
could be left as a temporary fenceline where the thorny branches hour the
cut trees could be piled, creating an impenetrable barrier, protecting newly
planted seedlings.
m Sfitems

A few farmers with smaller herds mentioned using trees around
houses for fodder. This practice stems fi'om either a marked dry spell when
fodder resources are minimal or to the fact that cattle will try anything
growing close to where they are grazing. In general, good fodder trees are
not planted nor encouraged to grow around houses. It can be seen in Table
4 that 5 fodder species were mentioned as growing around houses.
Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar) and Bursera simaruba (Bujgulm around
houses were a result of natural regeneration; Gliricidia sepium (Quickstick),
Terminalia catappa (Almond), Mangifera indica (Mango) were planted.

In the Green Park area, almond trees are planted almost exclusively
for shade or ornamental purposes; mango trees, as well as many other fruit

trees, are planted for their fruit. Most likely, this practice will continue into

99
the future. Therefore, the possibility of planting many trees around houses

exclusively for fodder would not be a viable alternative. If a selected tree
species served a dual purpose, providing fi'uit for human consumption or
sale and fodder for animals, it might be considered valuable when planting
and caring for trees around houses; Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit) or
Ficus spp. (Fig) (well known in Nepal) might be species to investigate.
Since trees around houses are more accessible for management and cutting,
establishing a few multipurpose fodder trees there might yield some benefit,
especially for those farmers with only a few head of cattle (Francis and
Atta-Krah, 1989).

There was no evidence indicating that any farmer had planted trees
along the roadside (defined here as an area along roads which includes a 1.5
to 6 meter wide strip between the road and fenced-in pastures). Generally
the roadside is a commons area, used by all, cared for by few. There was no
incidence of private ownership of trees in this area. Since local roads are
major travel routes for scores of cattle being transferred to other pastures or
to the watering trough and back, these roadside areas sustain much
pressure on the grass and tree resources and contributes to soil compaction
and erosion. The area is important for some farmers who have limited
pasture resources and are forced to tie up their cattle along the roadside for
all or part of the day.

The thought of planting fodder trees along an unproductive roadside

is intriguing, considering the potential increase of available fodder and the

100
secondary effects of windbreaks on protecting nearby vegetative resources.

But unless there is an increase in cooperation among all of the farmers who
use the roadside areas, not much thought should be given to roadside
planting at this time, since cattle damage unprotected trees while they are
in their early years of growth.

It may be possible to plant trees in nearby forests, but this would be
perhaps the least viable means to implement a fodder tree initiative. First
of all, the sloped land in the nearby forest is leased, rented, or privately-
owned. It would be difficult to get various owners and users to agree on
how the land should be managed. The parcels of land generally are not
large enough to warrant such tree planting endeavors (using heavy
machinery) without influencing neighbors lands. Second of all (and this is
perhaps the most significant reason not to plant), there are people who
make charcoal out of forest trees, both alive and dead. The controversy over
whether Breadnut should be used for charcoal or fodder is a case in point.
The perception of some farmers is that people cutting trees for charcoal are
doing so illegally or over and above the limits that are set by land owners
and farmers who are leasing or renting. Since these people have few
income generating options other than selling charcoal and often compete
with each other, it may be difficult to control their movement or restrict
their access to parts of the forest. It may be possible to involve them in a
planting-managing—cutting program whereby certain species of trees would

serve both the cattle farmers searching for alternative sources of fodder

101
while the trees are growing and the people making charcoal once the trees

attain a certain diameter which makes it easy to produce charcoal.
Whether or not a silvo-pastoral project is to be implemented in the
area, it is important that this management issue be dealt with and all
party’s concerns are woven into the development plans. If the charcoal
producers are not involved in decisions relating to management of existing
forest resources, they could undermine activities that only benefit cattle

farmers.

102

5.1 Constraing Q Impgpving Pastofl m

Green Park cattle farmers have made various attempts over the years
to improve conditions that would allow them to increase their income.
Mixing improved breeds with local varieties, upgrading paddocks, and
intermixing crops with fodder grass have been the main focus of the
improvements. By examining current pastoral land-use systems and
technologies in Green Park, further improvements might be made in the
future. Before attempting to do this, it would be advantageous to pinpoint
constraints to improving the system.
Governmental Proggams

Since the AMC was retracted in the early 19808, no new major
agricultural programs have been launched. Also, during Prime Minister
Seaga’s and the Jamaica Labour Party’s dominance in the 19808, private
sector led development was promoted, agricultural cooperatives were
discontinued, and farming policies were changed to benefit the large-scale
farming operations much more than small-scale operations like those in
Green Park (Beekhuis, 1981; Stone, 1989). Essentially, there has been
minimal governmental support in the small-scale farm sector in the past
decade and few farmers in this sector have benefitted from any agricultural
program. At the end of the study, major reorganization of the Agricultural
Department was taking place, but it was not clear on how this might affect
small-scale farmers.

103

Even if the government created a program to aid small-scale farmers,
success could not be guaranteed, given the responses of some of Green
Park’s farmers towards governmental programs (e.g. the bag feed
distribution program). LeFranc (1986) reported that small-scale hillside
farmers in Jamaica have "fairly high levels of cynicism and skepticism
towards officialdom--and it is an attitude which is the result of long years of
broken promises, official inefliciency and clientelism." This dilemma has
seriously jeopardized the working relationship between Green Park farmers
and Agriculture Office staff in Falmouth, the very people hired to help the
farmers.

Emits _tp Mg Generation

Raising cattle in Green Park appears to be a viable option in
generating income. Many farmers have attempted raising other livestock
and various crops over the years, but without a steady market, prices can
not be guaranteed. The market demand for cattle has been constant over
the past few years. Also, the mixed breed of cattle are more resilient to
drought than crops. Therefore, farmers will continue to focus on raising
cattle to generate income. Raising goats could also be a profitable
undertaking if the risk of larceny could somehow be decreased.

Cattle farmers would like to increase their cattle herds as a means of
increasing their income, but generally have not been able to do so. Farmers
talked about improving or increasing their paddocks so that they could

enlarge their herds, but they need capital to initiate changes.

104
Mm. 9.! __KObtainin 991mg

One method of securing capital would be to use some of the income
from selling cattle, but it has already been determined that most of the
farmers have little left after they cover expenses for the health and well-
being of the herd and their own personal expenses.

Changing the marketing system for selling cattle could be one way to
increase income. Although there are many butchers in the area, most cattle
farmers have few options when it comes to selling their cattle. Hotels buy
only from commercial cattle farms because the cattle have to be healthy and
large. Farmers hiring their own butcher would also be out of the question
for a number of reasons. First, the liability costs (in case of a lawsuit)
would be too expensive. Second, farmers would have to get a licensed
butcher to slaughter the cattle, process the meat, and get a government
inspector to approve sales to the public. Third, the farmers would have to
transport cattle to the slaughterhouse themselves. All told, it might be
difficult to compete with established butchers. In the end, butchers have
better means of generating income than farmers.

Securing a loan to make improvements is another method. Yet few of
the Green Park farmers have been unable to obtain loans lately. Beckford
and Witter (1982) described the difficulties faced by small-scale Jamaican
farmers in securing loans. Since the 19608, land and finance "has been
monopolized by agrarian capitalists, foreign monopolies, and banks. Banks

maintain their attentiveness towards large-scale farmers while neglecting

105
small-scale farmers." Securing a small amount of capital to improve

paddocks may seem viable to a small-scale cattle farmer, but to banks, it
may not be worthy of consideration in light of the number of applications
they receive and the number of past loans that farmers have been unable to
repay. In a Jamaica Small Hillside Farmer Project survey, it was
determined that most of the credit problems of small-scale farmers lie in the
bureaucratic delivery systems of banks and other lending institutions
(Carloni, 1984).

Lest it be thought that little can be done for small-scale farmers,
there are instances where credit has been granted to people who never
before could secure loans. In Nepal, low-caste women developed a
successfirl fruit tree nursery (among other projects) with loans from a
production credit program (Axinn, 1988). It was reported that the
percentage of loans repaid by these women (and others in similar programs)
was higher than average for the area. If the farmer’s incentive is there and
the loan is applied towards a reasonable project, the outcome can be
successful.

Securing Laps; a_n_d Equipment

Farmers with adequate capital still face the prospect of acquiring
labor and equipment. It is clear from interviews with farmers that outside
labor is dificult to obtain for any given period of time. Farmers tend to rely
on neighbors and people that they know, but this limits the number of

laborers available and the amount of work that can be accomplished.

106
Farmers sometimes help each other when the need arises in a "day for day"

arrangement.

During interviews with farmers, it was apparent that securing a
tractor~drawn plow or bull-dozer was perhaps the most limiting factor to
making major improvements in their paddocks. Private tractor operators
charge more than the Agriculture Department, so farmers are limited in
how much land they can plow at one time. It was not apparent at the time
of the study that any changes in the Agriculture Department’s lending
system were imminent in the future.

One alternative to using these machines is the use of animal traction.
Eight farmers had either used or had heard of using animals for plowing.
One said that mules were used to plow cane fields in Green Park in the
19308. Five farmers mentioned that there was one farmer who would lend
both his mules and a man to plow farmers’ fields or paddocks in Green Park
through the late 19708. Another said that he knew of using oxen for
plowing in Clarendon and using donkeys or mules in Westmoreland and St.
Elizabeth. One farmer said that one of the advantages of using animal
traction over heavy equipment is that soil is compacted less, allowing the
grass roots to become strong.

Given the inaccessibility of heavy equipment, this method of plowing
might seem feasible in Green Park. But there would be problems with

implementation. Six of the eight farmers were somewhat skeptical of the

107
idea. They were not sure of the of the viability and thought the method

"old-fashioned."

But this belief might be just the means of keeping the idea apolitical,
rebufling the influential farmers who might otherwise take advantage of it.
Yet even if the idea caught on, there remains the problem of who would
oversee the service and care for the animals. One farmer was responsible
for his own animals and equipment in the 19708, but has since passed
away. There is the possibility of the Agriculture Office overseeing the
effort, but this option should be avoided, given the skepticism of the farmers
towards institutions. JADF could be in a position to demonstrate the
feasibility of and oversee implementation of reintroducing animal traction.
Finally, a group of farmers might consider taking on the task, but this
would depend on the degree of farmers’ cooperation within the community.
Community Cooperation

Cooperation in the community is mixed. Some cattle farmers meet
daily and work together when the need arises. Some of the farmers work
independently, and therefore do not seek out the company or help of others.
It was apparent during the study that there is a certain amount of distrust
between some farmers and others. Results from the socio-economic study
being carried out in 1991 might reveal some of the reasons why this is so.

Relations between farmers could improve if the means were present.
Before leaving the area, the principal researcher decided that he wanted to

"repay" the farmers for their help, openness, and candid remarks by holding

108
a field day. At least half of the forty farmers participated in cleaning the

central water trough, preparing food, and engaging in conversation among
themselves. A few farmers later remarked that they enjoyed talking with
farmers they never really knew before. Such activities can help "break the
ice" and compel farmers to talk about similar activities.
SM o_f Constraints

Although cattle farmers in Green Park have made attempts at
increasing income through expansion of their cattle herds, they have been
met with limited success. One reason is that small-scale farmers have to
work within institutions that do not necessarily cater to them. Another is
that they have few options in selling their cattle to anyone but local
butchers. Finally, they have limited access to equipment and labor to make

improvements to their paddocks.

109
5.3 Summa_ry
Methods of increased tree integration are discussed. Planting trees in

the fenceline, in fields with crops or improved grasses, or scattered
throughout pastures appear to be the most viable options, since they would
interfere least with the existing pastoral grazing system.

Making improvements to the existing pastoral system appears
feasible if constraints are taken into account. Governmental programs have
not supported small-scale farming for over a decade. Farmers are restricted
to dealing with local butchers and therefore do not always obtain the best
price when selling cattle. Securing loans, labor, and equipment to improve
paddocks is difficult. Community cooperation varies according to
established relations and need of the farmers, although it might be

improved if the means were present (e.g. field days).

110
Chapter 6

RECOMMENDATIONS, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
6.1 R_e_cpmmendations

One of the biggest constraints to development of an improved silvo-
pastoral system in Green Park is the farmers’ inability to obtain credit.
Since the problem is mated in the breakdown of the institutional delivery
system, much could be accomplished if JADF could help alleviate this,
either by establishing a independent lending institution geared towards
small-scale farmers, or by convincing nearby banking institutions to be
more lenient.

In the same vein, it is obvious that Jamaican Government policies are
not oriented towards small-scale farming. It would be in the interest of the
government to reorient priorities toward this sector as small-scale farmers
are weary of politicians’ jargon.

The method of marketing cattle might be improved. One option for
the farmers is to form some sort of cooperative whereby prices for Green
Park cattle and contents of the fifth quarter would be established ahead of
time. Although the butchers might have to pay more, the time spent
haggling over prices would be diminished. The higher prices would benefit
farmers who want to maintain their investment in cattle, one of the best
means of income generation in Green Park. This arrangement would
require more uniform cattle quality. Such quality was not apparent during
the study.

111
If the risk of goat larceny could be decreased in Green Park, raising

both goats and cattle would provide better means for increasing income
generation. Goats tend to be generalists when it comes to consuming tree
fodder, whereas cattle are more specific. There are fodder niches in Green
Park for both animals. Raising both animals concurrently would utilize
more of the available tree fodder resources.

In light of the dificulties experienced by farmers attempting to rent
tractors and bulldozers from governmental institutions or other farmers,
investigating alternative means for land preparation is warranted.
Although farmers were unreceptive to the idea of using animal traction
(used in Green Park through the late 19708), it would allow them more
freedom in scheduling, save them money, inspire them to work
cooperatively, and provide a reason to hold field days. Animal traction may
be considered "old fashioned," but this reason could be used to ward off
large-scale farmers and politicians who otherwise might jeopardize the
project.

Problems related to the overharvesting of Brosimum alicastrum
(Breadnut) must be addressed. One option is to plant more of it as well as
alternative species. One species that might prove successful is Calliandra
calothyrsus. Small-scale plantation trials of fast-growing fuelwood trees
sponsored by the Jamaican Forestry Department began in mid-1980, and a
more recent project in Moneague has tested a variety of fodder tree species,

so some information would be available. If trees are planted for fuelwood in

112
Green Park, it is of utmost importance that the charcoal producers be given

some sort of tree tenure. Without it, fiiction in the Green Park community
will only increase as valuable species are removed without permission.

At present, in pastures where the Guango tree canopies are touching
and grazing takes place, fodder grasses were in poor condition. It is unclear
whether the condition in Green Park is caused by overgrazing, reduction of
light penetration, or both. Also, the optimal number of Samanea saman per
hectare (in pastures) is unknown. Further studies are warranted in these
areas.

Guazuma ulmifolia (Bacedar) fi'uit production is not as prolific as
Samanea saman (Guango), and there were no reports of collections for
future use. It would be worthwhile to investigate the amount of tree fruit
(fodder) that these species produce and how long the fruit could be stored
for future use (both species cease fruit production by May although the hard
drought generally takes place in July and August).

Rather than cut down the "extra" Guango growing in pastures, it
might be worthwhile to investigate lopping off branches when crowns
become full, thereby allowing sunlight through to grass growing
underneath.

One Ficus tree was mentioned by Green Park farmers. The genus is
reported to be a choice fodder tree species in Jamaica (Jamaica Livestock
Association, 1983). Ficus species are well-known and highly-prized in Nepal

as a fodder source (Panday, 1982). Although a species screening trial of

1 13
introduced and exotic fodder species was conducted concurrent to this

indigenous knowledge research, a larger trial of indigenous multipurpose
tree species is warranted.

If Quickstick or other tree species (both indigenous and introduced)
are to be planted in fencelines in Green Park, different establishment
methods need to be reviewed or tested to determine if transplanted
seedlings or different types of rooted cuttings are less susceptible to strong
winds.

The most viable options of incorporating or further expanding silvo-
pastoral initiatives are in fencelines, in fields with crops or grasses, or in
pastures. Whichever option or options are developed, it is important to
keep a few points in mind.

First, concurrent efforts should be made to develop a complete
management package to optimize the positive aspects of trees in Green Park
while minimizing the negative impacts. It is fortunate that JADF has
sponsored this study, as well as a species trial and a socio-economic study of
Green Park residents. In the end, the data collected in all three studies
should help project planners identify the possible negative outcomes of silvo-
pastoral designs, thereby increasing the chances of success.

Second, efforts should be made to introduce small-scale cattle farmers
to new technologies being considered for introduction into Green Park. For

example, farmers generally do not have access to tractors. Rather than

1 14
attempting to change the system that would allow them to gain access to

tractors, animal traction might be more appropriate.

Third, attempts should be made to have the farmers assume some of
the responsibility for the innovations. Nothing would lift spirits or
maintain enthusiasm more than successful co-developed technologies, i.e.
technologies developed between academians and farmer/consultants. For
example, a farmer could participate in on-station research at Bodles
Agricultural Research Station, help determine what would work in Green
Park, and disseminate the technology upon return. In a study of small-
scale farmer adoption of soil conservation practices in the Dominican
Republic, one of the farmers suggested that a local farmer be sent for
additional training (Erbaugh, 1983). There were farmers in Green Park
who would be willing to partake in such training. Upon returning, they
would act as a para-technicians, helping out others in Green Park.

Fifth, farmers should be given some latitude to modify suggested
technologies as they see fit during the implementation stage. Green Park
farmers appear to be quite innovative when coping with drought situations.
In Haiti’s Agroforestry Outreach Project, farmers were given leeway in their
decision-making and played a major part in the outcome’s success (Gow et
at, 1989). When local farmers are consulted and given a chance to explore
new technologies, "there have been some stunning successes even when

orthodox forestry practice was violated" (Fortmann, 1988). Therefore, input

1 15
from Green Park farmers should be incorporated into the planning and

immementation phases of any silvo-pastoral project.

Finally, when possible, field days should be scheduled so that farmers
can learn about new technologies, talk about similar concerns, and build
positive relations with their neighbors.

m a_nd Conclusion

The focus of this study was to gather indigenous knowledge relating
to fodder trees and silvo-pastoral management systems of farmers in Green
Park, Jamaica. Cattle farmers mentioned 17 tree species that produce leaf
and fruit fodder. Tree fodder, along with cut grass, cane tops, and
supplemental feed, help fill gaps resulting fi'om occasional drought due to
bimodal rainfall. Although there are fodder trees growing in paddocks, only
6 of the 40 farmers interviewed had planted and managed an introduced
fodder tree (Gliricidia sepium). One fodder tree species (Brosimum
alicastrum, Breadnut), also valued as an important charcoal source, is on
the verge of local extinction.

Pastoral innovations in the area have occurred, but have been
limited. Cattle farmers have upgraded paddocks by planting improved
grasses, managed certain pasture trees to provide fodder and shelter for
cattle, and have established living fences (albeit limited). Raising cattle has
become one of the best means of raising income in Green Park, but
expansion innovations have been repressed due to a number of reasons. A

change in government policy in the 19808 has shifted the focus of

1 16
development away from farming and small-scale farmers. There is a lack of

land, financial resources, and equipment needed to implement innovations.
Problems with securing labor exist as does praedial larceny. Marketing
favors butchers over farmers. Extension is inadequate and mistrust exists
within the farming community.

No single me species will be the total solution for the fodder
shortage. It will only be part of the silvo-pastoral system. Farmers will
still have to reduce the size of their large herds as the drier weather
approaches and will still have to rely on outside inputs of cane tops, cut

grass, and bag feed.

117

Tabls .11. Botanifl Names 9&1 M Names sf: Smcies Referred Q is
sh; Text ins Tables (From Adams, 1972 and Jamaica
Livestock Association, 1983)

has

Genus Q smcies
?

?

Bambusa vulgaris
Brosimum alicastrum
Bumelia nigra

Bursera simaruba
Cecropia peltata

Cedrela odorata
Chlorophora tinctoria
Citharexylum fruiticosum
Citrus sinensis

Cocos nucifera

Erythrina corallodendrum
Fagara elephantiasis
Ficus spp.

Gliricidia sepium

Guazuma ulmifolia
Haematoxylum campechianum
Helicteres jamaicensis
Leucaena spp.
Mangifera indica
Mimosa spp.
Peltophorum linnaei
Pimenta dioica
Piscidia piscipula
Samanea saman
Tamarindus indica
Terminalia catappa

Emacs

Genus §_r_ smcies

Andropogon pertusus

Cynodon plechtostachyus
Panicum maximum

Panicum muticum (purpurascens)
Pennisetum pumureum
Saccharum ofiicinarum

Lesa _a_N e

Huuk

Sydney

Bamboo

Breadnut

Bullet Tree

Buj gum, Beechgum

Trumpet Tree

Cedar

Fustic Tree

Fiddlewood

Orange

Coconut

Never Die, Grow Stick, Grow Tree

Yellow Sanders
Figwood

Quickstick, Quick catch,
St. Vincent Bush, El Maranga
Bacedar, Bastard Cedar
Logwood

Blind Eye

Wild Tamarind

Mango

Mimosa

Braziletta

Pimenta

Dogwood

Guango

Tamarind

Almond

Local Name
Seymour Grass
African Star Grass
Guinea Grass
Brachiaria Grass
Napier Grass
Sugar Cane

 

 

Table 12. Local Names in}; Botanical Names o_f Smcies Referred _tp is
me; Is}; aid Tables (From Adams, 1972 and Jamaica
Livestock Association, 1983)

Trees

Local Name Geng s species

Almond Terminalia catappa

Bacedar, Bastard Cedar Guazuma ulmifolia

Bamboo Bambusa vulgaris

Blind Eye Helicteres jamaicensis

Braziletta Peltophorum linnaei

Breadnut Brosimum alicastrum

Bujgum, Beechgum Bursera simaruba

Bullet Tree Bumelia nigra

Cedar Cedrela odorata

Coconut Cocos nucifera

Dogwood Piscidia piscipula

Fiddlewood Citharexylum fruiticosum

Figwood Ficus spp.

Fustic Tree Chlorophora tinctoria

Guango Samanea saman

Hunk ?

Logwood Haematoxylum campechianum

Mango Mangifera indica

Mimosa Mimosa spp.

Never Die, Grow Stick, Grow Tree Erythrina corallodendrum

Orange Citrus sinensis

Pimenta Pimenta dioica

Quickstick, Quick catch,
St. Vincent Bush, El Maranga
Sydney
Tamarind
Trumpet Tree
Wild Tamarind
Yellow Sanders

Grasses

Local Name
African Star Grass
Brachiaria Grass
Guinea Grass
Napier Grass
Seymour Grass
Sugar Cane

118

Gliricidia sepium

?

Tamarindus indica
Cecropia peltata
Leucaena spp.
Fagara elephantiasis

Genus §_r_ spscies
Cynodon plechtostachyus

Panicum muticum (purpurascens)
Panicum maximum

Pennisetum purpureum
Andropogon pertusus

Saccharum officinarum

Appendix A. Research Interview Guide

General Information about the Cattle Farmer
Area name: Age:
How long have you lived here: Elsewhere:

Did you have cattle at the previous location?

Household Composition and Time Involved with Tasks
You: Spouse (M/F): # of Sons: # of Daughters: Others:
Who works with cattle?

How much time do you/others spend with cattle when grass is available?
How much time do you/others spend with cattle during the dry time?
How much free time do you have during the day? On a seasonal basis?
Do you work elsewhere? Part-time or Full-time? Where?

What do you use for farm transportation?
Walk Donkey Bicycle Bike(Motor) Tractor Pickup gagflgps
Is this mode:
Borrow/Share/Pay
/GivePetrol/Own

General Cattle Information
How long have you been raising cattle?
Why a a a a a ?:
Resettlementlncentive IncomeGenert'n Inheritance Interest Project Other

# of cattle you started with?
How many now? Bulls: Cows: Bullkin: Heifer:
Pedigree of cattle: RedPoll JamaicanBlack Brahman Dairy

Last year during the drought how many died?
-> Why do you think they died?

For servicing, whose bull do you use? Own Borrowed Leased $
How many of your (#) cows dropped during the past year?
-> Why do you think (# - those that failed to drop) did not drop?

To whom do you sell your cattle?
Neighbor Butcher --> Where? GreenPark Falmouth BountyHall Mbbay

At what age do you sell bullkins?
What is the price/unit? /
Has the price recently: Increased Decreased

Can you make a living raising cattle?
-> If not, why?

Would you like to continue raising cattle for 5/10 more years?

—> If not, what would you like to do otherwise?

-> If so, what else would you like to do and what would you need to do
that?

120

121

Fodder Resources
What do cattle eat when: A)there's enough rain? B)During dry time?
Code: I
AS=African Star grass
BR=BRachyaria grass
GU=GUinea grass
NA=NApier grass
SE=SEymour grass
CT=Cane Tops
TR=TRee component

C=Cut
CC=Cut & Carry

Do you use outside inputs? MO=MOlasses BF=BagFeed Other:

-> Where do you get them?

-> What are costs?

-> Do costs and benefits balance? (Costs < = > Benefits)
Do you sell cattle to reduce herd size BeFore/DUring the drought in

order to conserve fodder resources for the remaining animals?
Which grasses grow best when rainfall is adequate?

- - ' ' during the drier times?

Management gg'Paddocks and Cattle
Do you have improved grasses?
-> If not, why?
-> Did you at one time? -> What happened?

-> If so, how did introduce it into your paddocks?

Acreage:Tot: Forcattle: Lease: Squat: Share: Lease to Others?
#Paddocks: Condition: Rotate Cattle Every days
Do you: FErtilize, IRrigate, WEedicide, CLean your pastures?

How often?

What medicines do you use for cattle? VAcinate DRench TIck OTher
Code: #Times/yr AN=AsNeeded
You/VET
$/head

122

General Tree Information

If You/Family cut/collect tree leaves/pods, how much is done by

family members?

You: Spouse: Sons: Daughters: Other:
Where are the sources?

How long does it take to get there?

Have you planted trees on your land?(if others in family have, ask them)

What kind of trees?

-> Explain to me the process you went through in planting trees:

-> Did you use any special treatment WHEN planting?

Dig w/
Tractor Fork Machete Pickax Stake None (Depth Width )

 

 

 

Water (with Bucket Hose Pan Irrigation)

Fertilzer (from )

Mulch (from _ )

Weedicide (from )

Protection from: Animals Rain Sun Wind

-> Did you use any special treatment AFTER planting?

Weed w/
Mulch Machete None (Depth Width

_____ )

 

 

Water(with Bucket Hose Pan Irrigation)
_____ )

Fertilzer(from

Mulch(from )

 

Weedicide(from )
Protection from: Animals Rain Sun Wind

Are there/have there ever been projects in area in which you
participated?

-> was outside funding involved (loan, formal or otherwise)?

Have you heard about or experienced plowing with animals?

123

Use of Trees If you use trees/vines, tell me their names,

ca
where each is found, how you use it or parts of it, when, & if planted.

81

Code

Code

 

 

Spp.P

 

 

Spp.G

 

 

Spp.H
Spp.I

 

 

 

 

Spp.J

 

|l|I||'||lllll'lllll'll'll'lfil'lllllll'l'-‘

COnstruction
CUlt'l belief
WInd prot'n
Yam Sticks
around HOuse
FenceLine/side

Animal Feed
BEdding
FEncing
FRuit
FUelwood
HEalth
LEgume
MEdlClne
MUlch
SHade
OTher
FIelds
FOrest
RoadSide

01 Jan 02 Feb ..

. Natural Regeneration PLanted

Codes:

124

Other Farm-Related Information
Do you or others in your family have other animals? (list using codes)

If not, did you at one time? Why not now?
Chicken Donkey Duck Goat Horse Pig Turkey

Do You/Family consume

' share w/others

' sell to others
(Code: B4=Before CU=Currently BO=Started B4 & Quit; Currently Raise)
Do you or others have a vegetable garden/raise crops? (list using codes)
If not, did you at one time? Why not now?

Calaloo Corn RedPeg Pumpkin SugarBean Tomato Yam

Do You/Family consume

' share w/others
' sell to others

(Code: B4=Before CU=Currently BO=Started B4 & Quit; Currently Raise)

Are there other Vegetables/Crops that you would like to grow but cannot?
-> Why not?

Information about Other Animals
What do eat when: A)there’s enough rain? B)During dry time?

—> Species :_Code
|
I
II :

Do you use outside inputs? What are they?
-> Where do you get them?
-> What are costs?
-> Do costs and benefits balance? (Costs < = > Benefits)

What are the best feeds for ?

What medicines do you use for ?

Code: #Times/yr AN=AsNeeded
You/VET
S/head

125

What do ______ eat when: A)there's enough rain? B)During dry time?
-> Species i_Code

 

Do you use outside inputs? What are they?
-> Where do you get them?
-> What are.costs?

-> Do costs and benefits balance? (Costs < - >

Benefits)

What are the best feeds for ?

What medicines do you use for ?

Code: #Times/yr AN=AsNeeded
You/VET
$/head

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, CD. 1972. Flowering Plants of Jamaica. University of the West
Indies, Mona, Jamaica.

Ademosum A.A., H.G. Jansen, and V. van Houtert 1985. "Goat
Management Research at the University of Ife," Sheep and Goats in
Humid West rica. Eds. J .E. Sumberg and K. Cassadayz,
International ivestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, thiopia.

Atta-Krah, AN. and J .E. Sumberg 1988. "Studies with Gliricidia sepium
for Crop/Livestock Production Systems in West Africa." Agroforestry
Systems 6:97-118.

Axinn, Nancy W. 1988. "Gender Related Issues in International
Development Assistance for Agriculture and Rural Life." Agriculture
and Human Values 5(1-2):69-76.

Barrett, Richard A. 1984. Culture and Conduct; An Excursion in
Anthropology. Wadsworth, Inc.

Bayer, Wolfgang 1990. "Use of Native Browse by Fulani Cattle in Central
Nigena." Agroforestry Systems 12:217-228.

Beckford, George, and Michael Witter 1982. Small Garden, Bitter Weed;
the Political Economy of Stru le and Change in Jamaica. 2nd
edition. Jamaica Maroon Pu 'shing House, Morant Bay, Jamaica.

Beekhuis, Jeanne V. 1981. "Tourism in the Caribbean: Impacts on the
Economic, Social and Natural Environments." Ambio 10(6):325-331.

Borel, Rolain 1991. "Implications of Variations for Research." Farm
Forestry News 4(4):6.

Brokensha, David and Bernard W. Riley 1980. "Mbeere Knowledge of
Their Vegetation and Its Relevance for Development: A Case-Study
from Kenya," Indigenous Knowledge S stems and Develo ment. Eds.
David Brokensha, D.M. Warren, and swald Werner. niversity
Press of America.

Brokensha, David, D.M. Warren, and Oswald Werner 1980. "Introduction,"
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Eds. David
Brokensha, D.M. Warren, and Oswald Werner. University Press of

America.

127

128

Budowski, Gerardo 1987. "Living Fences in Tropical America, a
Widespread Agroforestry Practice," Agroforestry: Realities,
Possibilities and Potentials. Ed. H.L. Gholz. Martinus Nighoff
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute 1986. Edible Fruits and Vegetables
of the Erglish-Speaki Caribbean. Ed. P.V. Devi Prasad, Illustrated
by Noel waby. In col aboration with Pan American Health
Organization and the Regional Office of the World Health
Organization. Kingston, Jamaica.

Carloni, A. 1984. "Jamaica Small Hillside Farmer Pro'ect--Findin s of the
Socio-zgconomic Survey." FAO Working Paper, 14/84 [F AM 13,
pp. - -

Casley, Dennis J. and Krishna Kumar 1988. "Qualitative Interviewing of
Individual Informants" and "Participant Observation," The Collection,
Analysis, and Use of Monitoring and Evaluation Data. Chs.2 and 4.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

Cernea, Michael M. 1985. "Sociological Knowledge for Development
Projects" and "Alternative Units of Social Organization--Sustainin
Afl‘orestation Strategies," Putting People First: Sociological Variab
in Rural Development. Chs.1 and 9. Oxford University Press.

Chambers, Robert 1983. "Rural Poverty Unperceived" and "The New
Professionalism: Putting the Last First," Rural Development - Putting
the Last First. Chs.1 and 7. Longman Group, Ltd., London.

Clarke, Dolin G. and Alan G. Hod kiss 1974. "Soils and Vegetation," "Race
and Religion," and "Selecte Small Towns," Jamaica in Maps:
Graphic Pers ectives of a Develops}? Country. Chs.6, 11, and 22.
Africana Pub ' shing, New York, .

Collymore, Jeremy 1986. "Small Farmers as Resource Managers: A Note
from St. Vincent," Caribbean Geography 2(2):92-99.

Crane, Julia G. and Michael V. Angrosino 1984. Field Projects in
Anthropology: A Student Handbook. 2nd ed. Waveland Press, Inc.

Douglas, Jack D. 1985. Creative Interviewing. Sage Publications.

Erbau h, J. Mark 1983. "Small Farmer Adoption of Soil Conservation
ractices in the Ocoa Watershed, Dominican Republic." MS. Thesis,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Eyre, Lawrence A. 1987. "Jamaica: Test Case for Tropical Deforestation?"
Ambio 16(6):338-343. .

1989. "JAMGIS, the First Jamaican Government Comprehensive
Multi-data Geographical Information System: Achievements and
Problems." International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems 3(4):363-371.

129

Fortmann, Louise, 1988. "Great Planting Disasters: Pitfalls in Technical
Assistance in Forestry." Agriculture and Human Values 5(1-2):49-60.

Francis, PA and AN. Atta-Krah 1988. "Sociological and Ecological
Factors in Technology Adoption: Fodder Trees in Southeast Nigeria."
Exploratory Agriculture 25:1-10.

Government of Jamaica 1987. Jamaica Country Environmental Profile.
Pre d b Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
an Ralph . Field Associates, Inc., (on behalf of International

Institute for Environmental and Development). Kingston, Jamaica.

Gow, David, Christine Haugen, Alan Hoben, Michael Painter, Jerry
VanSant, Barbara Wycoff-Baird 1989. "Where Social Analysis Has
Made a Difference: Selected Case Studies," Social Analysis for Third
World Development: Guidelines for the Nineties. Ch.3. Development
Alternatives and Institute for Development Anthropolo . Prepared
for the US. Agency for International Development, Was 'ng'ton, D.C.

Hallida , Jake 1984. "Re 'stration of Nodulation Reports for Leguminous
rees and Other Ar real Genera with Nitrogen Fixing Members."
Nitrogen Fixing Trees Research Reports 2:38-45.

Henry, Lancelot 1980. Traditional Systems in Hillside Farming, gpper
Trelawny. IICA, Ministry of Agriculture Special Collection, amaica.

Howes, Michael 1980. "The Uses of Indi enous Knowledge in
Develo ment," Ind' enous Knowledge Systems and Development. Eds.

David rokensha, .M. Warren, and Oswald Werner. University
Press of America.

IICA (International Institute of Caribbean Agriculture) 1978. Brief Overall
Diagnosis of Hillside Farming in Jamaica. Ed. Daniel Henry,
Extension Specialist. Ministry of Agriculture Special Collection,

amaica.

1988. The Experiences of Jamaica in the Management of ricultural
groduction on Hillsides. Ministry of Agriculture, Special ollection,
ammca.

Jamaica Livestock Association Limited, The 1983. Livestock Manual for
the Tropics. Newport East, Kingston, Jamaica, West Indies. Printed
by M.O.M. Printing, Ottawa, Canada.

Johnson, Dennis V. and P.K.R. Nair 1985. "Perennial Crop-Based
ggz'golfozrggtry Systems in Northeast Brazil." Agroforestry Systems

Kapos, Valerie 1986. "Dry Limestone Forests of Jamaica," Forests of
Jamaica. Eds. D.A. Thompson, P.K. Bretting, and Marjorie
Humphreys. A collection of papers from the Caribbean Regional
Seminar on Forests of Jamaica held in Kingston, Jamaica 1983.

130

Knoke, D. and J .H. Kuklinski 1982. Network Analysis. Sage Publications:
Beverly Hills, California.

LeFranc, E. 1986. "Small Hillside Farmers in Jamaica: A Social Analysis."
Report Prepared for USAID/Jamaica, pp.1-58.

Lewars, Gladstone 1981. "Domestic Food Marketin : The Role of the
A.M.C.," Strategies or Organization of Small- arm Agriculture in
Jamaica. Ch.6. E 8. Harvey Blustain and Elsie LeFranc. A joint
Buincation of the Institute of Social and Economic Research,

niversity of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica and Rural Development
Committee, Center for Intentional Studies, Cornell University.

Liyanafie, M. de 8., H.P.S. Jayasundara and W.S.M.A. Femanado 1990.
itrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports 8:138- 139 (August). Coconut
Research Institute, Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.

McClure, Gail 1989. "Introduction," Indigenous Knowled e Systems:
Implications for Agriculture and International Deve pment. Eds. D.
Michael Warren, L. Jan Slikkerveer, and S. Oguntunj-i Titilola.
Studies in Technology and Social Change, N o. 11, Technology and
SAgncial (Ilhange Program, Iowa State Umversity Research Foundation.

es, owa.

McKechnie, Jean L. (ed.) 1983. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged
eicti‘iona . 2nd edition. Simon and Schuster Publications, ew
or , .

Monette, Duane R., Thomas J. Sullivan, and Cornell R. DeJong 1986.
"Data Analysis and Statistics," plied Social Research: Tool for the
Human Services. Ch.14. Publis ed by Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., New York, NY.

Murgueitio, Enrique 1990. "Intensive Sustainable Livestock Production:
An Alternative to Tropical Deforestation." Ambio 19(8):397-400.

NFTA (Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association) 1987. "NFT Highlights." 2pp.,
October. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii.

Nowak, P.J. 1983. "Adoption and Diffusion of Soil Water Conservation
Practices." The Rural Sociologist 3(2):83-91.

Palmer, J .H., and G.F. Aspre 1958. "Studies in the Nyctinastic Movement
of the Leaf Pinnae of manea Saman (Jacq.) Merrill--A General
gfgcgpgggn of the Effect of Light on the Nyctinastic Rhythm." Planta

PandaB KK 1982. Fodder Trees and Tree Fodder in Nepal. Swiss
evelopment Cooperation, Berne, Switzerland.

Pardo-Tejeda, Enrique, and Cecilia Sanchez Mufioz 1980. Recurso Silvestre
Tropical Desaprovechado. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Sobre Recursos Bioticos. Xalapa, Ver.

131

Patton, Michael uinn 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods. GE Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Regional Research Centre 1970. Soil and Land-Use Surveys, No. 25,
Jamaica, Parish of Trelawn , Department of Soil Science, University
of the West Indies, Trinida , West Indies.

Reynolds L. and S.A.O. Adeoye 1986. "Alle Farming in the Humid and

Subhumid Tropics." Paper prepared or the International Workshop

on Alley Farming for Humid and Subohumid Re 'ons of Tropical

finica, International Institute of Tr0pical Agri ture, Ibadan,
lgena.

Richards, P. 1975. "Alternative Strategies for the African Environment:
’Folk Ecologies’ as a Basis for Community-Oriented Agricultural
Development," African Environment Special Report No. 1: Problems
and Perspectives. International African Institute, London.

Riley, Bernard W., and David Brokensha 1988. The Mbeere in Kenya--
Changi Rural Ecolo and Botanical Identities and Uses.‘ Vols. 1
and 2. nited Press 0 America, Lanham, Maryland.

Rusten, Eric 1989. An Investigation of an Indigenous Knowledge S stem
and Management Practices of Tree Fodder Resources in the iddle
Hills of Central Nepal. PhD. dissertation, Dept. of Forestry,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Schafer, John 1989. "Utilizin Indigenous Agricultural Knowled e in the
Planning of Agricultur Research Projects Designed to Ai Small-
Scale' Farmers", Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for
Agriculture and International Development. Eds. D. Michael Warren,
L. Jan Slikkerveer, and S. O tunji 'I‘itilola. Studies in Technology
and Social Change, No. 11, echnology and Social Change Program,
Iowa State University Research Foundation. Ames, Iowa.

Scott, Michael and Bredan Gormley 1980. "The Animal of Friendship: An
Indigenous Model of Sahelian Pastoral Development in Niger,"
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Eds. David
mkensha, D.M. Warren, and Oswald Werner. University Press of

enca.

Stone, Carl 1989. "Power, Policy, and Politics in Inde endent J amaica,"
Jamaica in Independence; Essays on the Early ears. Ed. Rex
N ettleford. Heinemann Publishers, Kingston, Jamaica.

Stone, Lee D. 1985. People’s Coo rative Banks, Facilities for Title Act and
Land Titling in Jamaica. flice of International Agricultural
Development, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, California.

Titilola, 80., AD. Phillips, E.O. Adeniyi, and V.A. Adeyeye 1989.
"Changing Values of Nigerian Agricultural Scientists and
Government Officials Towards Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge",
Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and

132

International Develo ment. Eds. D. Michael "Warren, L. Jan
Slikkerveer, and S. guntunji 'I‘itilola. Studies in Technology and

Social Change, No. 11, Technolo and Social Change Program, Iowa
State University Research Foun ation. Ames, Iowa.

Von Carlowitz, Peter G. 1989. "Agroforestry Technologies and Fodder
Production--Concepts and Examples." Agroforestry Systems 9:1- 16.

Webb, Eugene J ., Lee Sechrest, Donald T. Campbell, and Richard Schwartz
1966. "Approximations to Knowled e" and "Simple Observation,"
Unobtruswe Measures; Nonreactive search in the Social Sciences.
lst ed. Chs.1 and 5. Houghton-Mifllin, Boston, Massachusetts.

Whyte, Anne V.T. 1977. Guidelines or Field Studies in Environmental

Perception. United Nations E ucational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, Paris.

Wilson G.F., B.T. Kang, and K. Mulongoy 1986. "Alley Cro ping: Trees as
Sources of Green Manure and Mulch in the Tr0p1cs." n Biological
Agriculture and Horticulture 3:251-267.

"lllll‘llllllllll