bfllHF-nlnlhlhlllllllllll' lHleUUHMIUIHHHIIIIIINHWNHHHIHHM 12 10396 0849 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled FARM LEVEL STUDY OF THE RICE PRODUCTION SYSTEM AT THE OFFICE DU NIGER IN MALI: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS presented by Mulumba Kamuanga has been accepted towards fulfillment _ r . of the requirements for ‘ , Doctoral degree in Agricultural Economics 2/ /” ' /. I K¢\ Major professor Date January 20, 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 MSU LIBRARIES $395. Piace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiii - be charged if book is returned after.the date stamped beiow. Wot. mum . :fifé‘iififlg FARM LEVEL STUDY OF THE RICE PRODUCTION SYSTEM AT THE OFFICE DU NIGER IN MALI: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS By Muiumba Kamuanga A DISSERTATION Submitted to _ Michigan State University in partiai fuifiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1982 ABSTRACT FARM LEVEL STUDY OF THE RICE PRODUCTION SYSTEM AT THE OFFICE DU NIGER IN MALI: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY Mulumba Kamuanga The study was designed to provide information on the economics of rice and livestock production in the Office du Niger settlement in Mali. Currently 5,000 settlers produce 70 percent of the marketable surplus of rice in Mali on this gravity irrigation scheme. The objectives were to describe the socio-economic environment, estimate incomes and expenditures of the settlers, evaluate farm labor use, develop models of improved rice farming and study the special problem of undercapitalization of settlers. The results of the survey revealed that there was substantial hetero- geneity in the natural resource endowments and rice yields in the three representative zones, i.e. Kolodogou, Sahel and Kolongo. The average yield of sample farmers was l.7 mt per hectare, approximately 30 percent lower than official estimates. The survey also revealed that the gross income per man-equivalent was 42,300 MP in Kolongo and l00,800 MP in Kolodogou and Sahel. The real cost of producing one kilo of paddy was 25 percent higher than the official farm gate price. This explains why settlers sell rice in black markets. Off-farm revenues were higher than on-farm reve- nues, particularly for Kolongo settlers. Gross cash income from livestock averaged 31,000 MF per farm. Analysis of labor utilization showed that 55 percent of the total labor inputs in rice production was contributed by adult males and 27 percent by adult females but females provided one-half the labor for harvest. Peak season demand for labor was found to be a constraint on increasing rice production. A linear programming model was developed to test the profitability of improved practices. The results suggest that the optimum farm size was 3 to 7 hectares and that farm incomes could be increased if row-seeding and mechanical weeding were adopted by farmers. However, these innovations will require the support of an expanded credit program. The policy recommendations stress the need (l) for the government to increase the farmgate price of rice from the present 60 MF per kilo to 90 MF, (2) invest in land improvements in Kolongo, (3) initiate on-farm re- search to test improved technologies, (4) replace interest-free loans with loans reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, (5) expand the credit pro- gram, (6) replace the fixed land tax per hectare with a variable land tax which reflects the differences in yield potential of land and (7) develop special incentives to assist the impoverished farmers in the Kolongo zone. To my family, for the painful separation we had to endure as this work was being completed ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many individuals and institutions and wish to take this opportunity to extend my sincere appreciation for the assistance and cooperation I received throughout my graduate program. Above all, I have been most fortunate to have the support of a man always ready to walk the extra mile. During my entire stay at Michigan State University, his assistance and help came in quantity and quality beyond measurment. His example of dedication will forever remain among the most cherished of my memories. And in his current capacity as major professor and chairman of the Guidance Committee, Dr. Carl K. Eicher deserves my profound gratitude and deepest appreciation. A special thanks goes to Dr. Sherrill Nott who supervised the thesis, providing intellectual stimulation and invaluable guidance. I am also grateful to Dr. Eric Crawford for reviewing much of the work with patience and for his suggestions and constructive criticisms. The study benefited also from the suggestions and insights of Dr. Lindon Robison, Dr. Carl Liedholm and Jim Bingen. I am appreciative of their individual contributions. Earlier in my graduate program, Dr. Derek Byerlee now at CIMMYT (Mexico) and Dr. Warren Vincent performed succes- sively as major professors, both in name and deed. Dr. Eric Tollens, of the European Common Market initiated me to farm level data collec- tion. I am deeply grateful to all of them. Field work at the Office du Niger in Mali may never have been a success without my two year association with and financial support from iii the West Africa Rice Development Association (NARDA) in Monrovia, Liberia. There, I was surrounded by excellence, generosity and African hospitality. Deserving my deepest gratitude is Dr. Dunstan S. C. Spencer, director of NARDA's Development Department, for his faith in my ability and for refusing to let me settle for mediocrity. His good scholarship and good human nature were the most valuable in- centives of my performance. My sincere thanks and appreciation also go to Mr. Sidi Coulibaly, the Executive Secretary of WARDA and Mr. Djibril Aw, for their genuine assistance at difficult moments. I have a special word of appreciation for my 10 enumerators and 8 coders who perservered in what, at times, must have seemed a very strange enterprise. At the Office headquarters in Segou, Mr. Ely Fall and Toumani Traore of the Bureau of Economic Affairs will be remembered for their goodwill and moral support even when things appeared impos- sible. Mustapha Cissoko as a personal friend was instrumental in many administrative arrangements which facilitated the conduct of the survey in the Office area. I am thankful for his help. Financial support has come from a variety of sources. The Ford Foundation bore the cost of my graduate program with seemingly endless renewals. WARDA and the Rockefeller Foundation financed the field work. USAID mission in Bamako extended me a personal Services Contract which paid for my living expenses while in Mali. Computer work at Michigan State was funded by the Department of Agricultural Economics which later provided me with an assistantship to complete the disser- tation write up. I am wholeheartedly grateful to officials of all the above institutions. iv At the Michigan State University Computer Center, I am very grate- ful to Paul Winder for his assistance in adapting the program. Secre- tarial help also came from many. A special thanks to Cindy Spiegel who typed much of the manuscript. Lucy Wells and Pat Eisele kept up with unexpected deadlines. Linda Todd and Debbie Greer typed the final copy of the thesis. Many thanks to each and everyone of them. To Dr. Amani Haidari, this is a tribute to our friendship and mutual moral support. Finally and not the least of all, to my wife Anna Mulanga wa Tshitshiabi, to my children Tshitshi, Papy and Nana, for their sacri- fices, love and understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .' ......................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................... LIST OF TABLES ........................ LIST OF FIGURES ........................ GLOSSARY OF FARM MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS ............. CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION ................... Background ....................... l.l Mali's Past and Current Economic Standing ...... 1.2 The Agricultural Sector ............... Rice in Malian Economy ............... Rice Policy and Role of the O.N ........... 1.3 Problem Setting and Need for the Study ....... 1.4 Objectives of the Study ............... CHAPTER 2: THE OFFICE DU NIGER: ORGANIZATION AND SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ............... 2.1 Introduction: A Historical Perspective ....... 2.1 The Physical Environment .............. 2.3 Organization of the Office du Niger ......... 2.4 The Settlement Policy and the Structure of Farm Production of Rice .............. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............... 3.1 Organization and Sampling Procedures ........ 3.2 Data Preparation .................. CHAPTER 4: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION AND LABOR UTILIZATION AT THE O.N. .......... 4.1 Introduction ..... ‘ ............... 4.2 Farm Income Analysis ................ Defining the Farm .................. Budget Concepts and Derivation of Input Costs. . . . Farm Budgets for Niono and Kolongo ......... Case Studies of Farms Larger than 15 ha ....... 4.3 The Pattern of On-Farm Labor Use at the O.N ..... Introduction .................... Profile of the Sample Population .......... Percentage Distribution by Type of Labor in Rice and Nonrice Activities ........... 'vi x xvi xviii CHAPTER 5: 5 .1 5.2 5. 5. 5. CHAPTER 6: mm mm 3 4 5 .1 .2 .3 .4 Seasonality of Labor Use .............. Total Household Labor Demand and Intensification of Production ............ Summary ....................... ANALYSIS OF THE RICE ENTERPRISE .......... Introduction .................... Resource Utilization on Rice Farms ......... Labor Use and Average Labor Productivities ..... Farm Equipment and Animal Power Use ........ Use of Hired Labor on Rice Farms .......... Seed and Fertilizer Use .............. Other Major Costs of Rice Production in the O.N. . . Rice Enterprise Budgets for Selected Farms in the O.N ...................... Labor Use by Field Activity ............ Composition of Variable and Fixed Costs in Rice Production ................... Net Enterprise Incomes and Returns to Land, Family Labor and Management ................ Management Income .................. Rice Fields "Hors-Casier": Performance and Discussion of Issues .............. Introduction .................... Labor Use ...................... Cash Expenditures and Net Returns on HC Fields . . . Financial and Economic Cost of Producing One Metric Ton of Rice in the O.N ............ Introduction .................... Financial Costs of Rice Production ......... Economic Costs of Production ............ Net Economic Returns by Location and Size of Holding ..................... Summary ...................... THE LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISE ............. Introduction .................... Distribution of Livestock Ownership Among Selected Farmers .................. Costs and Revenues in Animal Husbandry ....... The Herd Inventories: A Store of Wealth and its Variation Among Sample Farms ............ CHAPTER 7: PROSPECTS FOR INTENSIFICATION AT THE O.N.: ASSESSMENT OF THE PILOT PROJECT AND RESULTS OF A LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL OF THREE REPRESENTATIVE FARMS ............... Preamble ......................... 7.1 Results of the Pilot Project at Foabougou ...... vii Page 102 115 120 126 126 128 128 133 135 139 145 148 148 154 156 159 161 161 165 172 174 174 177 177 184 190 192' 192 193 199 204 206 206 207 7.2 7.3 CHAPTER 8: Prospects for Intensification: Improved Techniques and their Implications for Resource Requirements and Outputs ..................... Introduction .................... Delineation of Techniques and Expected Resource Demand ................... Synthesis ...................... Prospects for Intensification: A Linear Programming Analysis of Three Representative Farm Situations. . . Introduction .................... The Basics of LP and its Applications to African Agriculture ..................... The LP Model for Three Representative Farm Situations at the O.N ...................... The Base Plans ................... Evaluation of LP Results of the Base Plans ..... Feasibility and Practicability of Alternative Intensification Techniques ............. Land Restriction Runs Under CT and IT2 ....... Sensitivity of the Optimal Plans to Change in Prices ........................ Side Issues ..................... Summary ....................... THE OFFICE DU NIGER ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT: UNDERCAPITALIZATION, RISK MANAGEMENT AND INDEBTEDNESS .................... 8.1 Introduction .................. . . 8.2 Analysis of the Net Benefit to Investment in Farm Equipment ................... 8.3 Settlers' Undercapitalization and Risk Management Strategies ...................... 8.4 Settlers' Investment Decisions and Repletion - of Farm Equipment: Application of the Decision Tree Model ...................... 8.5 Development of Settlers' Indebtedness ........ Summary ....................... CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............. 9.1 Summary and Conclusions ............... 9.2 Policy Implications and Recommendations ....... APPENDIX A .......................... APPENDIX B .......................... APPENDIX C .......................... Page 214 214 216 227 232 232 233 235 241 249 252 261 262 264 268 273 273 275 279 287' 293 297 299 299 308 315 321 323 APPENDIX 0 APPENDIX E APPENDIX F BIBLIOGRAPHY ix Page 327 328 332 333 1-1 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-1 2-2 2-4 2-5 2-6 3-1 4-1 4-2 4-4 LIST OF TABLES Mali's Economic Development Planning 1961-78 ...... Area Planted, Yields and Production of Major Crops . . . Rice Availability and Consumption ........... Characteristics of Major Rice Production Systems in Mali ......................... Production, Yields and Marketing of Paddy at Major Rice Project in Mali (1979-80) .......... The Five Year Plan's Objectives and Actual Production of Paddy at the Office du Niger ....... Population and Production Trends at the O.N. 1961-1980 ........................ Agricultural Equipment of the Settlers, Situation in 1961, 1969 and 1979 ................. Size Distribution of Water Canals at the O.N ....... Number of Farm Families by Sector at the O.N ....... Size Distribution of Rice Farms at the O.N. (1979-80) ........................ O.N. Crop Calendar for Rice ............... Productive and Draft Animals Kept on Farms at the O.N. in 1977 and 1980 .................. Structure of the Sample of Selected Farmers ....... Market Price Range for Major Livestock Products in the O.N. Area in the 1979-80 Season ......... Average Budget for 19 Farms of Zero to 5 Hectares .Sector of Niono (Kolodogou and Sahel) .......... Average Budget for 21 Farms of 5 to 10 Hectares Sector of Niono ..................... Average Budget for 12 Farms of 10 to 15 Hectares Sector of Niono ..................... X 15 a: weak 10 12 16 17 29 30 33 42 44 47 50 56 65 69 70 71 4-8 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-l3a 4-13b 4-18a 4¥18b Average Budget for 18 Farms of Zero to 5 Hectares Sector of Kolongo .................... Average Budget for 14 Farmers of 5 to 10 Hectares Sector of Kolongo .................... Average Budget for 6 Farms of 10 to 15 Hectares Sector of Kolongo .................... Relative Share of Rice and Livestock in the Total Value of Production for Niono and Kolongo ........ Output per Man-Equivalent in Niono and Kolongo ...... Comparison of Gross Margins for Rice and Livestock Activities in Kolongo and Niono ............. Financial Test Ratios for Sample Farms in the O.N. Survey Area ....................... Cash Flow Statement and the Distribution of Family Earnings in the Survey Area ............... Average Budget for 4 Farms of Size Above 15 Hectares- Case Study for Sector of Niono .............. Average Budget for 2 Farms of Size Above 15 Hectares- Case Study for Sector of Kolongo ............. Correlation of Family Size Variables With Farm Sizes for the Sample Population ............. Sample Population: Distribution by Age and Sex and Labor Force Ratio .................. Percentage DiStribution in Rice, Livestock, General Farm and Off-Farm Activities by Type of Labor ...... Percentage Distribution in Rice Activities by Types of Labor ...................... Derivation of Monthly Labor Inputs Available for Agricultural Intensification for Small Households in the O.N. Survey Area ................. Derivation of Monthly Labor Inputs Available for Agricultural Intensification for Medium Families in the O.N. Survey Area ................. xi Page 72 73 74 77 79 81 83 85 88 89 94 96 99 101 121 122 4-18c 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-11b 5-llc 5-12 5-13 5-14 Derivation of Monthly Labor Inputs Available for Agricultural Intensification for Large Households in the O.N. Survey Area ................ Stratification of Rice Holdings in the O.N. Survey Area ...................... Labor Inputs and Available Manpower on Rice Fields. . . . Average Products of Labor on Rice Farms in the Survey Area ...................... Density and Average Productive Life of Farm Equipment in the Survey Area .............. Hours of Animal Power Use per Hectare in the O.N. Survey Area .................... Proportion of Hired Labor and Average Wage Paid on Rice Farms by Survey Zone ............... Area Coverage of Mineral Fertilization in the 1979-80 Season at the O.N ................ Frequency Count of Rates of Fertilization and Seeding in the Survey Area ............... Actual Versus Recommended Level of Fertilization and Seeds Application in the Survey Area ........ Cross-Tabulation of Average Gross Yields by Rates of Seeding and Fertilization in the Survey Area . . . . Rice Enterprise Budgets per Hectare for Kolodogou Casier (Sector of Niono) ................ Rice Enterprise Budgets per Hectare for Sahel (Sector of Niono) ................... Rice Enterprise Budgets per Hectare for Kolongo . . . . Man-days of Labor Use per Hectare on Rice Farms by Activity ...................... Hours of Animal Power per Hectare by Field Activity in the Survey Area ................... Comparison of per Hectare Variable and Fixed Costs in Rice Production by Casier .............. xii Page 123 129 130 132 134 136 138 141 143 144 146 149 150 151 152 153 155 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-19 5-20 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 7-1 7-2 Repair and Maintenance Expenses and Hours of Equipment Use ...................... Gross Margins and Returns per Hectare in Rice Production by Casier and Farm Size Group ......... Returns per Man-day of Family Labor and Market Wage Rate for Unskilled Workers in the Survey Area. . . Area Planted in H.C. and Percentage of Total Sample Area for the Surveyed Farms ............ Labor Utilization on Hors-Casier Fields ......... Typical Rice Enterprise Budget for an H.C. Field in Kolodogou or Sahel .................. Total Financial Cost of Rice Production per Metric Ton in the O.N. Survey Area by Size of Holding ...... Estimation of Economic Cost of Ownership of Farm Equipment in the O.N. Survey Area ............ Calculation of the Economic Cost of Rice Production per Metric Ton. . . ., .................. Import Substitution Price of Paddy for the 1980-85 Horizon at the O.N .................... Estimated Net Economic Returns by Size Group in the Survey Area ..................... Size Distribution of Livestock Ownership in the Sample at the O.N ..................... Correlation Between Farm Sizes and Number of Animals Kept on Farms .................. Labor Use by Stratum of Animal Stock Owned ........ Net Household Cash Income from Livestock ......... Inventories of Productive Animals by Size of Herds in the O.N. Sample ................. Enterprise Budget and Labor Utilization for the Average Farm at Foabougou ................ Per Hectare Resource Use and Productivity Differences Between Old and New Colonists at Foabougou ........ xiii Page 157 158 160 164 167 173 178 182 185 187 188 195 198 201 202 205 210 213 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-12a 7-126 7-12c 7-13 7-14 7-15a 7-15b 7-16 7-17 Estimation of Cost of Utilization of Farm Equipment Under CT .................... Feed Ration Composition and Cost for Draft Animals Under Intensification ................... Per Hectare Cost of Utilization of Farm Equipment Under IT2 .................... Rice Enterprise Budget per Hectare Under Alternative Intensification Techniques ................ Labor Requirements per Activity Under Alternative Intensification Techniques for Rice Cultivation at the O.N .......................... Monthly Labor Demands Under Alternative Intensification Techniques ........................ Upper Limits of Family Labor Available for Rice Activities for Three Representative Farm Situations at the O.N ................... Per Hectare Animal Power Required for Rice Cultivation and Upper Limits Available by Size Group of Farms ..... Activities and Resource Constraints of the Farm Level LP Model at the O.N ................. Base Plan for the Small Sized Farm ............ Base Plan for the Medium Sized Farm ............ Base Plan for the Large Sized Farm ............ Optimal Plan 3: Resource Allocation and Net Income Hith ITS at Zero Level ............... Optimal Plan 4: Resource Allocation and Net Incomes With 1T4 and IT5 at Zero Level .......... Land Restriction Runs: Decreasing the Portion of Land Under CT ..................... Land Restriction Runs: Increasing the Portion of Land Under ITl ..................... Sensitivity of PLAN 1 and PLAN 4 to Changes in Prices of Output and Selected Inputs ........... Family Resources and Optimal Size of Holding ....... xiv Page 218 221 222 228 229 231 238 239 242 246 247 248 253 255 258 259 263 267 7-18 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-5 Net Cash Incomes Under Alternative Price Assumptions for Paddy .................. Multi-period Farm Budget With Financing of Farm Equipment ...................... Distribution of Equipment Among Selected Underequipped Farmers .................. Risk Management Strategies of Underequipped ' Settlers in Kolongo (O.N.) ................ Illustration of Financial Obligations for a Representative Farmer at Different Levels of Yields . . . Development of Settlers' Indebtedness by Sector at the O.N ........................ XV 'Page 269 277 282 286 294 296 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Republic of Mali: Administrative Division ....... 4 2-1 Office du Niger: Project Area Location ......... 26 2-2 Office du Niger Irrigation Scheme ............ 34 2-3 Office du Niger Administrative Organization ....... 36 2-4 Organizational Chart of the O.N. Bureau of Economic Affairs ................... 38 4-la Labor Profile in Rice Production for Small Families. . . 103 4-1b Labor Profile in Rice Production for Medium Sized Families ..................... 104 4-1c Labor Profile in Rice Production for Large Families. . . 105 4-2a Labor Profile in Livestock Activities for Small Families ..................... 108 4-2b Labor Profile in Livestock Activities for Medium Sized Families. .' ................ 109 4-2c Labor Profile in Livestock Activities for Large Families ..................... 110 4-3a Seasonality of Labor in Rice, General Farm and Off-Farm Activities for Large Households ........ 112 4-3b Seasonality of Labor in Rice, General Farm and Off-Farm Activities for Medium Sized Households ..... 113 4-3c Seasonality of Labor in Rice, General Farm and Off-Farm Activities for Small Households ........ 114 4-4a Seasonality and Demand for Total Household Labor in Small Families ................... 116 4-4b Seasonality and Demand for Total Household Labor in Medium Sized Families ................ 117 4-4c Seasonality and Demand of Total Household Labor in Large Families ..................... 118 xvi Page Production Function of Rice Involving Hors- Casier Cultivation .................. l7O Distribution of Cattle and Small Ruminants Owned by Settlers in the O.N. Survey Area .......... 197 Decision Tree Model: Investment and Disinvestment in Farm Equipment ................... 289 xvii GLOSSARY OF FARM MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS This glossary contains definitions of some farm management concepts used in this thesis. Capital turn over ratio: financial test ratio calculated by dividing total gross income by the average value of farm capital. Decision tree: a diagrammatic representation in tree form of a risky decision problem. Family earnings (total household net income): equal net farm earnings plus other household income; it represents the total income available to the farm family for all purposes. Farm cash flow: farm payments or receipts in the form of cash (includ- ing transactions conducted through a bank); farm net cash flow - if adjusted for loan received and interest and principal payments. Fixed ratio: financial test ratio calculated by dividing total fixed costs by the gross income. Gross farm income (gross farm returns, revenues or earnings): the value of total output of a farm over some accounting period. Gross margin: gross income minus the variable expenses attributable to that enterprise or farm. Gross ratio: financial test ratio calculated by dividing total expenses (fixed plus variable) by the gross income. Income, revenues or earnings: represent value of output in general terms. Terms used interchangeably. Input-output coefficients: technical coefficients specifying the quantity of some particular input per unit of output or the amount of output produced per unit of input. Labor budget: a budget comparing labor requirements with labor avail- able, constructed on a seasonal basis. Labor profile: the seasonal pattern of labor requirements for a given activity. Management income: the residual return after all fixed factors are compensated at their opportunity cost. xviii Man-day: a unit of measurement of labor input, assumed to represent the work accomplished by an adult worker in eight hours. Net farm income, net enterprise income: gross income minus the variable and fixed costs attributable that enterprise or farm. It represents the reward to the farm family for their labor and management together with the return on all the capital invested in the farm or enterprise, whether borrowed or owned. Operating ratio: financial test ratio calculated by dividing total operating (or variable) costs by the gross income. Returns to family labor: net farm income minus an imputed interest charge on farm equity capital. xix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The principal objective of the Malian government cereals policy in the 1970s has been to regain self-sufficiency and to maintain it against crop failures. Rice has remained for a long time the basis of cereals policy for one main reason: its production in irrigated and flooded zones is more secure against subnormal rainfall and drought than is the rainfed cultivation of millet and sorghum. Recent orientation of the Malian government toward increased investments in the Office du Niger (O.N.) has to be examined in light of this objective. The Office du Niger remains the largest rice production scheme with full water control in West Africa. It currently irrigates some 40,000 hectares (ha) of improved land and realizes an average yield of 2.2 met- ric tons (mt) per hectare. The Office contributes 40 percent to the do- mestic production of paddy (rough rice) and provides 60 to 70 percent of the volume of milled rice marketed through Malian official channels. Originally designed to serve all the countries of the Niger River "loop", the O.N. has at least remained the basis of Mali's comparative advantage in domestic rice production as a substitute for imports and also for ex- port to other West African countries. The Office is also a settlement for nearly 5,000 farm families who make their living planting rice and delivering the harvest to the scheme management. They also keep productive animals and some cultivate small plots for the production of vegetable and dryland crops. For the Office to continue to increase productivity and contribute to the accomplishment of the national objective of food security, the Malian government had to choose in recent years between intensification and extension of cultivated areas to utilize more fully the existing irrigation network. The first option has been retained, partly in view of the fact that the Office major development costs are sunk and that aid donors are now willing to pay for the rehabilitation projects. This study looks at the Office production system from a farm level perspective. It was conceived as part of the preliminary phase of the intensification program now being implemented. Its broad objective was to fill in some important gaps in the present knowledge base in the Office. First, Mali's economic standing and the role of rice in the agricultural economy are briefly reviewed; second, the specific objec- tives of the study are outlined. 1.1 Mali's Past and Current Economic Standing Mali, former French Soudan, is the largest country in Sahel with a total area of about 1,204,000 square kilometers. According to the 1976 census, its population was to 6.3 million, 90 percent of which lives in the southern half. As much of the territory is flat, Mali has a natural advantage in the utilization of water resources embedded in the meanders of the Niger and Senegal Rivers. Mali's mineral reserves are still being assessed and principally include phosphates, bauxites, manganese, iron-ore and natural gas [Platon, 1979]. Oil and uranium have also been traced. However their full exploitation depends on important infrastructural investments which would allow cheap transportation and a low-cost supply of energy to its land locked territory (Figure l). Comparatively Mali experienced a very low economic growth (0.5 percent per year) during the first de- cade after its independence in 1960. From 1972 to 1979, however, its Gross National Product (GNP) sustained a remarkable upward trend which averaged 4.3 percent annually [Platon, 1979].1 The main thrust of economic policy of Mali has remained its ad- herence to development plans to achieve a number of economic objectives. Between 1961 and 1979 the Government of Mali enacted four economic de- velopment Plans or Programs. Table 1-1 summarizes the main features of three of the major Plans. The first Plan was prepared in 1960-61. The objectives were to in- tensify agricultural production, improve Mali's export potential, build processing industries and achieve an effective state control of the economy. As Jones [1976] points out, however, the first Plan failed to match planned and actual expenditures because prescribed investments and support policies did not succeed in generating the output the plan- ners had expected. The 1970-73 “Program of Economic and Financial Rehabilitation" was aimed at correcting a disastrous economic situation. The main economic indicators over this Plan's period reveal a less spectacular improvement 1The most comprehensive study to date of Mali's past and current economic performances is presented by Pierre Platon in the December 21, 1979 issue of Marches Tropicaux et Méditerranéens. This 100 page paper contains useful details concerning the trend in macro-economic aggre- gates. Out-u O Analgm ..0 n... . P? Rouln on more!“ print-931a» Am a'ird floods h— C" d. I" Rat/way ‘"""-"-- Linmo do rig-on Regional boundary + Amped International Inlet-national airport Republic of Mali: Administrative Division FIGURE 1 .ALoe see. we» ..e== page. a_ emmmmw m=.m:o: seamsee_ aeacomm m~-4~a_ =e_a tea» a>.a gem xeee.evceem-c—em Lee: .ee_ue=eece poeceu pe.eem sm—Lee» Loren .ee_e.: .ecez Am~--mpv em+ "ee_eeeeece xeeeee ee.ae_Le> u ee_uee.eee=ee lea mesa eueeeaav Au: ee_p_.ev meeesume>e. we exeexeeem Aceuueuv um.mv be omeegue— ee em>evsee Leueem aeeeeeuem o.m m.m_ _.em . m.om m.e~ umo “aefiueee—u eeL.eeee\—e:uu< ~ mcosuo mee.>eem uLeemeeLh a Leueem Leaeem nuieuo— segue»; eerweu_P»ae;eu u_m "mouse—eeeexe eee:e_e\—e:ae< — "even: .e.eem .uecumecue_ Aceeeeeem xgee.cm —e_eeee_u eee e.Eeeeem AL: =c....a .~.~e+ gauged .oe-e meseeeaccu .Aam~+v o~_.s .m.~.-. sagacom\ea__.a .Ae.n_-. au.¢ ee_eueeece pageapeu.cae e— ee_ue.ge> u mceguo moo—>Lem use» NHMmeee_ ceueem ecu—em. mmdmieeemanmm.mwm ace "mega“.eeoexe eeeee—e\_e=ue< "e_ue¢ .e.eem -eecumecue_ xces.ca eAmeeeLu ee—pa: we ee—__,ev meeeae>e_ge< meceo.eeeexu emcee—e we ee_u=a.eum.o .e.u—e_ ee.Lem eepuee.eeeee cape geesuuaeu mNa—upoo— aepeeepm u:0£:e—~>mc uvteeeew m..—e: .—-— uam

no.9mvueum oe_¢ .A¢c¢¢:. ee_ueveemm< ueeaee_e>ee eepx ee_cc< “we: "eeeeem «~— ~_.. e__ e_a ...= ea. .e.= eam .e.= aka. ¢__ 4... ea. eNe ...= n__ .e.: e- .e.= use. a.— ._.. Ne. one. ...= co. ...= can ...= Nam. co. m... so new _~.e e-_ mew me.e evN ee~ e... .NN cam. .N ve._ we ewe .a.= ea. .e.= m.~ oe.. em. mam. mm ee.e am one ...= Na. ...= ea ae.e me. «so. as we.e we Mme oe.e eea mm. qe.e co. co. ee.e Ne. aka. .5 ea.e on . m.“ ~m.e em~. Nm. Le.e .2. mm. m... so. Nam. an e~.e ma mpa mm.e m- cm. eo.e we. no. ma.e -_ _~a_ e. .e.e es «en .e.e m.“ on. m... e__ we. -._ mm. cam. mm ee.e .a “mm ee.e ~no ea .~.e aw. mm. me.e Ne. aeo— Ln a..e es emu ee.e mne_ a.. me.e e.. «A. Ne.e ma. mea— e~ a..e we an“ .e.e e_o om. m~._ QN. em. ae.e ea. see. a. o~.e es .«N ~e.e can an. m~.. Nmp Ne. em.e me. Gee. an an.e as can o~.e «me ee— me._ cc. em. ma.e an. mee— ...= ...= one ...= ~e. ...= me. en._ MN. .ea. ...= ...: eue ...c so. ...= ea. m¢.e ee~ nee. ...c ...= eNe ...= en. .a.= mm. ~e.. Ne. Neo— .a.e ...= emu ...= -. ...= me. me._ ea. .eo. .ea eee. Aegxea. Aug eee. .e- eee. A~;\.n. Aug eee. Au: eee. .asxea. .ag eeev .32 eee. .e=\ea. Ag: eee. .Laa> ee.ue:eeca «ape.» ooc< ee_ue:eece nape.» eoc< ee..e=eeca me_0.> eoc< ee.ue=eeca me—e.» euc< eeuaeu negasem ecu 00...: meeeeee oe.¢ neecu gene: we ee.ue:eece eee «ups.» .eeuee.e eec< .~-p uem.e ..e3m eo~.~ m.. ec=.e Aemmex_m. eeeee.. wee 9.5.5 2.3.5.... ex ex ex .eeeex .eeee: one: ee~.n— ~.. ace... eee=.ec eee eeezm .eee.a.eecp ez we» we» .eeee: eoxc see ee.mco>.e eoee.me em.~ e¢¢.ee Aceu.z :e we...e. :e.uee.cc. >..>ecc e: o.»... no» _e:eet eoxo emcee—u mmo.mp m... eese.e_ A.ueo: .Lee_ea. ea..o..=co ...e..t~a eaeoc.c ea..o..=ce ez o..u_. we» .ueeex eexo emcee—u neee.mm em._ ceo.mm Aeeaaw .Loe_ea. eo..ea.eeu a.....aaa eaeoo.. ee..ec.=oe ex ea we» peeeez .eeesa eeeee.» eu>ece1.e: ece.mm em.o eeco.c.. Ace—ea. eee eexe emcee—e .eee.u.eecp mee.e..mee ce~.—.»Leu meoom Acute; me oeceem. as egxae Aug. -:111.1;11:-1:c::1.111|1.mwmwmwm_ umo>ce= ee.ueceeeca .eceeeu Laue: .m~-o~a. oaeco><. me_o.> eec< o:e.egeep ee..eeeece ee om: eee. be can» :e.ueeeece nova; mmeca ..a: a. aza.msm co..o=eoca ao.¢ Lowe: .5 au..a.coeuecege .o-. u.a<. 13 unique irrigation and drainage canal5 and delimited by an earth dike retaining the floods along the river bank. With no capacity to fill the polder when floods are late, this system is still not free from the vagaries of the weather. Yields are known to be higher than the tradi- tional system and vary from 1.2 to 1.5 mt per hectare. Animal traction is practiced but fertilizer use is limited. The gravity irrigation system at the Office du Niger supplies 40 percent of the doemstic production of paddy in Mali and virtually 70 percent of the quantities of milled rice marketed through government channels. The basis of the system is a diversion dam at Markala, and a main canal serving two feeder canals. Although the Markala dam cannot store water, it raises the river's level and so provides full control of water to all the rice fields. The Office is a very extensive system with average holding of 9 to 10 hectares (in the recent past). Office settlers are more specialized in rice production than are rice farmers in the adjacent Operation Riz Segou. In some sectors of the O.N. rice yields can reach 2.5 mt per hectare and above. The fourth production system is the rainfed/swamp cultivation en- countered in southern Mali where rice is grown in rotation with maize,’ sorghum and peanuts, and where cotton remains the main cash crop. Im- proved variants of the system using fertilizer and animal traction are 5The unique irrigation and drainage canal was recently built only for the Operation Riz Segou to allow some level of control of the floods toward greater security. In the past partial control systems of the Rice Operations were totally at the mercy of the level to which the rivers rise. This was clearly illustrated when Operation Riz Segou harvested only 21 percent of the area sown in the drought year Of 1972-73 [CRED, 1976. pp. 9-10]. l4 represented in the zones sponsored by the Operation Riz Pluvial and Riz de Bas Fond in the Sikasso region. Yields are reported to range from 1.5 to 1.8 mt per hectare. Rice Policy and Role of the O.N. Historically rice has remained for a long time the basis for the Government of Mali's cereals policy. In years of deficient cereal pro- duction as millet is unavailable on the world market and imported sor- ghum lacks the organoleptic qualities of locally produced sorghum, rice must then be imported to make up for the grain deficit [WARDA, 1977]. In 1974 as the drought was ending, the government's import of’rice reached their maximum ever (71,000 mt of milled rice). But the main thrust of the government cereals policy is the maintenance of self- sufficiency, the increase in rural incomes and the improvement of the general level of nutrition of the population. This policy is mainly built on the incorrect assumption that rice is more nutritive than coarse cereals6 and the argument that rice production in irrigated and and flooded zones is more reliable and secure against both subnormal rainfall and drought than is rainfed cultivation of coarse cereals. 6This assumption is maintained in the "Bilan Ceralier", a June 1972 publication of the Ministry of Rural Development (Institut d'Economie Rurale). It is known objectively, however, that rice is not more nutritious than millet, at least in terms of grams of protein and fats per kilogram of grain. See FAO Food Comsumption Table for use in Africa, 1969, pp. 16-22. However consumer prices for rice are higher per thousand calories than consumer prices for sorghum and millet [Humphreys and Pearson, 1979]. This is consistent with rice's position as a preferred prestige cereal. 15 In fact in accordance with its second Five Year Plan (1974-78) the government of Mali has emphasized public investments and interventions to take advantage of the possibility of large scale, low-cost rice land de- velopment in the flood plains of the Niger and Bani rivers. This has been the orientation of the government in the last 5 to 6 years with in- creased investment in the Office du Niger's irrigated system and the em- poldered Rice Operations at Segou and Mopti. Growth in global terms has been achieved more at the Office than in the other Rice projects, parti- cularly because output from the latter depend to some degree upon the patterns of rainfall. The Office du Niger has kept a leading role in Mali's rice produc- tion and marketing for more than 30 years. Table 1-5 compares relative performances and clearly demonstrates the contribution of the Office du Niger among major rice projects in Mali over the past decade. Paddy production from the Office is shown to range from an average of 40 percent of the total Malian production during normal rainfall years to as high as 90 percent in drought years, when output from other major rice projects has failed. Official marketing of paddy appears to be drawn most entirely from the O.N. during bad years but it averages ' 65 percent in normal rainfall years. By the 1977-78 crop year, produc- tion targets set forth by the government for the O.N. in the framework of the Five Year Plan (1974-78) were already fully surpassed without much of the planned investments for infrastructure development being realized [O.N., 1980]. This is illustrated in Table 1-6. Thus yield 1E5 .mcoo» meevce> .maceeez .e:ee< .eeaem ~.¢ ee.ueceec "eso. Leeeeeec .meeweeecee—eex em x:ee.eecp wwguce: “em. .e .mse. M\o~\om\<:¢<: :. oc.u:_e: .e .mc.eu»< p.5eeeeu he sneeze .Lem_z ee ee.».c "eeceem ...: ...: ...: .a.= ...: ...: ...: ...: ...: e... a.. m..e e¢-a.a. ~.~e ...: e.~ ...: ...: ...: ..e ...: m.en a.~m m.~ e.ma a.-e.o. ..eo ...: oNN .a.= ...: ...: m.. ...: ..N. e.em e.~ e..e. e.-..o_ e.no ...: emn a.m ... ..mw . «.m. ... m.n. m.me ..N ...a ..-e.a. e.mm ~.. ee~ e.e ... ..e. a.e~ ... ..mm e.me ~.~ e.ea o.-m.a. e.ne ... m.~ 9.. 0.. ..o. .... ... e.mc e.mo ..~ e.ee m.-..m. e..m m.o ea -- o.e a.” ..n m.. ..a o..m ..N ..no .~-n.a. e.em e.e ee. -- e.e m.. e.e n.. N.. n.a. 9.. .... a.-~.o. e..m ~.. ma. -- -- o.. -- -- n.a. n.a. e.. e.oe ~a-..a. e.~. o.e no. -- -- -- -- -- ...: ..en a.. ..ae ..-e.m. e.a. ~.. ~e. -- -- -- -- ~.. e.a ..en e.. ~..m e.-mea. We: eee. ..g\ee. ..e eee. .e eee. ..e\.e. ..n eee. an eee. ..g\.e. .e- eee. .3 eee. .e=\ue. ..e eee. Lea. =..o.a.: we.o.. co..u=eoaa c.3aaaax me.u.. co..u=eoca =..o...z «n.a.. eo.eu=eoca :.eo.aax me.o.. co..u=eaaa Leuuemaem eu_¢ m.._ex _eoeb 111 11 ..ao: ~.¢ so..acoee :emem ~.¢ ee_uecoee eem.z ee ee.eee Aoma—uaso_v ——u: c. mavenecm ou.¢ team: an hence .0 oe—aoxeex e:- mt—0.» .:e_au:eeca .mnp mdc

e u a a e . w . .7/ ... 83...)... . W N {H \— >ua<§ ./. cool... 51.... /./ filiasasg . e u e . z \ .- ‘1, \(.\. - ...-”den. . .. ..... p ... . ..... .u we . .IL ./..\...\ its!!! 1.1 ...v 1.\¢.z:_¢eaa .... ....-. . i... a b. ... \. .3133... .2 9 16. fl _ ea. 1---: ... use... .liaaii... @ ’ a .\ (g . In. \1 I :3 one-oat at}... .11-...ouaohuza-lu- . .31.} use. .0. a“ :3 3.1-6.. 0 .x .. lie .5. I... iiiiii a. e . i. ...}: 0"---" -... u. I 6.2.16 11111111 .03: m. .u .U‘IUCIEIIIIIII I e . .. . $9.1“... .\I. » .\\\ M . . . f. 1;: 1‘. V l I 1’ L- g 27 The Office du Niger in the 1960's From the beginning the Office has been concerned with both the development of land for irrigation and the settlement of the population that could undertake the necessary farm work. By 1961 the O.N. com- prised more than 45,000 hectares of irrigated land on which a popula- tion of 37,000 persons produced 41,000 tons of paddy and 7,000 tons of seedcotton. That year the administration until then in the hands of the French, was turned over to the government of Mali. Until the end of the 60's the Office as an enterprise, however, has never been capable of amortizing or earning a return on the public capital invested in it, which in terms of CFA francs of constant value amounted in 1960 to about 44 billion (or $175 million) [de Wilde, op. cit.]. When Malians took over the administration of the scheme in 1961 the operating deficit amounted to 276,383,000 CFA francs.2 Still the government embarked the Office on an ambitious expansion program within the framework of the first Five Year Plan (1961-66) targeted at 87,000 tons of paddy and 30,000 tons of seed- cotton [O.N., 1979]. However, the difficulty in recruiting new settlers in the early sixties restricted the labor supply at a time when a massive exodus (the second) of settlers of Voltaic origin was 2The source of information is a mimeo by the Direction Generale presented at the “Conference Speciale Consacree aud Problemes de 1' Office du Niger“ November 1979. The deficit was broken down as follows. 142,381,000 CFA francs in the Agricultural sector (rice and cotton), 127, 487, 000 CFA francs from marketing activities and 6,515,000 CFA francs from the industrial and associated activities. 28 underway, particularly in the Kolongo sector. This prompted the O.N. management to proceed with direct farming using wage labor on large 3 As shown scale in order to attain the plan production objectives. in Table 2.1 and 2.2 however, the decline in production of both rice and cotton went hand in hand with the decline of the population, but was also precipitated by a substantial reduction of the number of 4 By 1969 there were 26 agricultural equipment owned by farmers. percent fewer work oxen, 18 percent fewer plows and 20 percent fewer harrows in the settlement. Only the number of carts seemed to have increased slightly. The Seventies The new decade practically began in 1969 and saw drastic changes in the orientation and objectives of the O.N. As a result of drainage problems cotton cultivation was suspended and its land converted to rice. The move also prompted the Office management to reduce the size of its administration to some 1,700 employees.5 Direct farming using wage labor was still practiced on 42 percent of the rice land and contributed 48 percent to the Office rice output. Although this type of farming had shown in the past relatively better 3The approach even received more impetus because it was in accordance with the desire of the socialist government then in power to demonstrate the efficiency and superiority of collective farming as an instrument of both modernity and progress [Jones, 1967, p. 306]. 4Much of the drop in the density of farm equipment was due to smuggling consequent to the departure of Voltaic nationals and desertion of Some Malian farmers. 5The number of employees increased again with expansion of rice and sugar production, over much of the 1970's. 29 .e_ee_.e>e eee n.a.: .A—ee coca eeumosceze .Lee» .ega :. eeeeeemem w. ee..eeeece eeuueuo .ee..e:eece eee. mcoeee oeee somem a .eemeom eece es. .e Leo» me.e=ue .wc.eee< e.eeeeeu .e eeeceo .z.e ”eeceem ..e. ..eNN m...~ m... ...... me... e..... gee. ..e. ....N mn..~ a... new... n.a.. ewe.~m a... ...: ...e~ ....N e..e. e..... .m... Nee... e... ...: .... eoe.. .... ...... N.... .N.... ce~.ne .... ...: m.em an. e.e. ...... Ne... e..... e... ...e ..~m .m... e.ee ...... mm... ”on... m... ...e m... on. .... on..e. Na... ...... .... ...e N... eme.. .... eNe... Non.” Nee... m... ...e m.~m Ne. n.a.. mm...” .em.m mm...“ N... ...e m.ee ..... .... one... a...” Nan... .... ...e ~.me ... -- -- ~..m e~e.~m oe~.m emn.en oe... ... .... me. e.. m.~.n e... e.e..~ mn~.. Nee..~ a... ... e..~ me. ..~ n.a.. ..en .....w -- nae.en a... mo.e ... N. ... ..... e..~ ome.e~ -- e_~..n n.a.. n.~ .o... ~..~ .....N -- can... eee. ... .e... ..- ..~.e~ -- ...... m... ... .m... o.e~ ea...~ -- -e..~ com... .... ... ..n.. e.n~ oee.- -- ...... nee. ... ....e m.n~ n~...~ -- e.~..n ~ea. ... ....m a... .m...~ ...e .~m.e. can... .... ..s eee. ..e eee. ..e. ..e eee. ..e. ..s eee. .... ae.eeo.=e: ...e. ..e. area. semen ee.wunweca eeoc< ee.ue:eece eeL< ee.au:eega eoc< he Lee-:2 one. eege-o>ee eeee cams. ee...>...=e eo..ee ee...>...=e oo.. ee..e.seea eo...om owa—ipoa— .z.o 0:» «a mecoch co.ue:vesm we. :e—uepaaem .piw mam=o< 3:26... 3.83 ...o.eEEou axe—03 .e.==.—.23< 5:230 , .9200 luv—....Iaw .oavan 3......3 5:25... 39 It has integrated economic and social activities and performed as a public autonomous enterprise with the responsibility to achieve profitable operations and, at the same time, satisfy the social needs of a large farming population entrusted to its administration. 2.4 The Settlement Policy and the Structure of Farm Production of Rice 1. The Settlement Contract The idea of settling independent farmers has been an important part of the French colonial doctrine for rural development before the O.N. was established [Jones, 1976]. In the l920's experiences with both family and wage labor had shown the advantages of having the developed land assigned to tenant farmers who would face the risks and reap the benefits of their work after payment of a fee for services rendered to them. However with forced labor laws then a part of the “colonial institution over much of Africa, the decision to settle on the Office land has not always been that of the colonists themselves [Magasa, 1978; Zahan, 1963]. Forced recruitment practices were abolished and a liberal policy was introduced since l952. At present the Office processes applications from prospective settlers at a rate of about 3,000 a year during the last 5 years or 50.8 Of the more than 3,000 admission requests processed in 1978-79 only 350 were retained. In fact an admission rate of 15 percent seems to have been maintained in recent years. 8Personal communication from the Bureau de Paysannat, l979. 40 As delay in the delivery of farm equipment is common, the Office usually proceeds with land plowing and sowing for the farmer during his first year on the settlement. The head of the household (usually referred to as the colonist) is also entitled to foodstuffs for the nourishment of his family before the first harvest. Although the norm used in allocating land to incoming settlers has changed over time, it has been maintained at 2 to 3 ha per working man in recent years. The first statutes of the O.N. provided that the colonists should become the owners of their land after ten years' cultivation. This clause was never applied and indeed was later repealed [WARDA, 1977]. At present, the settler has a cultivation right that is transferable by inheritance. Still this right can be withdrawn if he makes bad use of the land or if he does not abide by the obligations imposed by the Office administration. Major contract obligations between the Office and its settlers are spelled out below. 41 Office du Niger Colonist 1. To supply irrigation water T. To cultivate the land allocated to him 2. To repair and maintain pri- 2. To abide by the O.N. recommended mary and secondary level agricultural practices canals for irrigation and drainage 3. To supply fertilizer and 3. To maintain field level supply improved seeds and drainage canals 4. To provide mechanical thresh- 4. To deliver the harvest entirely ing of the rice harvest to the Office management after allowances for home consumption and seeds 5. To provide extension services 5. To pay in kind a fee of 400 kg of paddy per hectare as partic- ipation in amortization, upkeep of the infrastructure and supervision Source: O.N. Bureau de Paysannat. 2. The Settlement Population Table 2-4 depicts the number of farm families by sector in l979. The 1979-80 O.N. records indicate a population of 54,llO people in 4,985 farm families. This is an all time peak which supports an ever increasing trend since the early 40's despite two successive waves of departures in the late 40's and early 60's. For the last 20 years however, the attractiveness of the Office settlement has suffered from an emergence of opportunities elsewhere in Mali. The most conspicuous of these has been the rapid development of profitable cotton growing in the dryland farming area now sponsored by the Companie Malienne de Developpement de Textiles (CMDT) [de Wilde, 1967]. In the late 60's and early 70's the development of empoldered rice cultivation on the Niger Valley at comparatively modest cost constituted another setback. 42 TABLE 2-4. Number of Farm Families by Sector at the O.N. Sectors Number of Families Niono 61l Sahel 305 Molodo 7l8 N'Debougou l,O32 N-Dogofry 590 Kourouma 589 Kolongo 479 Kokry 390 Total 1978-79 4,7l4 1979-BO 4,985 Source: O.N. Annual report l978-79; O.N. Service Agricola, Annual Report 1979-80. 43 An overall average rate of growth of about 2 percent per year since l96l is implied in the trend depicted early in Table 2-l. The highest rate of growth in the 70's (nearly 8 percent) is attributed to two main reasons: first, the discontinuance of cotton cultivation and suppression of direct farming turned many full-time wage laborers into rice farmers as colonists. Second, the Sahelian drought demonstrated the vulnerability of empoldered rice cultivation and the impredictable nature of harvest in dryland farming. These factors increased the number of applications for settling in the Office du Niger. As to the origin of settlers, recent statistics at the Office show that 62 percent of the colonists come from the 4th Region (Segou) and 18 percent originate from the Sikasso Region. Voltaic nationals currently make up only l6 percent of the Kolongo sector population. Major ethnic groups are Bambara (42 percent), Minianka (21 percent), Mossi and Samogo (12 percent) and 24 percent originate from different minor ethnic groups. About 60 percent of the colonists have between l0 and 40 years of settlement. This seems to indicate that many farmers have a long lived tradition of cultivating rice and have accumulated a considerable amount of experience. 3. Characteristics of the Farming Unit Family and Rice Farm Size The average family has 9 people although the range is known to 9 extend from 1 to 30 people or more. The actual mode of the distribu- 9For instance, one of our selected households had 48 members. The family was made up of 5 distinct heads of household living within the same compound. Only the oldest member was registered as the colonist. 44 tion is 7 members per household. Recent O.N. statistics show that the average size of the active population (age 8 to 55) is 7.3 per house- hold with a spread of O to 20 and a mode of 4. The Office uses the number of working men (w.M.) as an indication of the potential labor force available in the family. In l979 there were 2.5 N.M. per family on the average, with a spread of O to 5 and a modal value of 2. The average farm size at the O.N. has been steadily moved down from lO.5 hectares in l975-76 to nearly 7.0 hectares in l979-BO. The reduction is due to a 7 percent drop in total area planted to rice in conformity with the current policy'of consolidating the existing infrastructure. However, abandonment of some 5,000 ha of improved land in Kolongo for defective drainage and weed infestation also contributed to lowering the Office average holding size. The size distribution of rice farms during the l979-80 season is given in Table 2-5. TABLE 2-5. Size Distribution of Rice Farms at the O.N. (1979-80) Size of farms (ha) Number of farms Percentage of total less than 5 1246 25 5 - 10 2542 51 10 - 15 748 15 over 15 449 9 Total 4985 lOO Source: O.N. Bureau of Economic Affairs. 45 Thus 76 percent of farmers have holdings of less than 10 hectares. However this overall distribution of frequencies conceals a wide disproportion in the total amount of land by stratum. For instance, the group with holdings above 15 hectares occupy 25 percent of total cultivated land. This is in part attributable to the O.N. land allocation policy whereby large families obtain holdings of size proportionate to the number of working men available. In recent years, however, the Office managemnt has agreed to allocate land to a limited number of its employees, private traders and agencies. All of them are absentee settlers and some have holdings as large as 80 ha where the work is performed by wage laborers. Farm Equipment All incoming settlers are provided a pair of oxen, a plow and a harrow for a three year repayment schedule.10 In general the loan is interest free. This initial endowment of farm equipment remains the same for all settlers regardless of the number of hectares of rice land they are allocated. Many settlers increase the size of their equipment lot on their own, either by directly purchasing additional equipment in local markets or as is sometimes the case for oxen, by raising and training young steers. The Office may provide additional farm equipment or even re-equip some settlers on credit; the conditions under which such allotments are made are not specified. 1oIn recent years the Office management seems to require that new settlers be equipped on their own before joining the scheme. However, no written rules exist on the matter and its enforcement has been difficult. 46 As of 1979-80 the density of equipment in the settlement was evaluated as follows: one pair of oxen per 4.5 hectares, one plow per 5.2 hectares, one harrow per 7.0 hectares and one donkey-trailed cart per 14 hectares [O.N., BAE, 1979]. The positive correlation known to exist between the density of equipment11 and average rice yields has been empirically established at the O.N. both in cross section and time series data. This point will be emphasized later in Chapter 8. In 1978, 21 percent of the settlers had one or no oxen at all. 4. Organization of Production at the Farm Level Cultivation Practices Nith direct farming reduced to 600 hectares for seeds development and multiplication, more than 95 percent of the rice output is produced on settlers' fields. A typical crop calendar for rice is shown in Table 2-6. Many activities are staggered over time and across the entire physical area of the Office. Field work begins in April with a shallow pre-irrigation to permit plowing before the first usable rains arrive in late May. Plowing, broadcast seeding and harrowing are done through- out May and June, and sometimes as late as the first week of August. Hand and hoe weeding are done in July and August. Fertilizer is used on roughly 50 percent of the rice land and recommended rates per hectare are respectively 50 kg of urea, 50 kg of ammonium phosphate 11The density is sometimes expressed in terms of number of pair of oxen, number of plows and number of harrows per farm unit. In 1979, the average farm owned 1.6 pair of oxen, 1.40 plow and 1.6 harrow. 47 TABLE 2-6. O.N. Crop Calendar for Rice Date Field Activities Earliest Latest First shallow pre-irrigation April 1 May 15 First plowing April 30 June 5 Second pre-irrigation May 1 June 15 Second plowing May 15 June 30 First harrowing, sowing and May 20 June 30 second harrowinga Shallow field inundationb May 21 June 30 Second inundationc May 31 July 15 Hoe weeding June 15 July 31 Hand weeding June 15 October 31 Fertilizer application (mineral) June 20 October 31 Deep and final inundation July 10-15 August 31 Draining of fields October 25 December 15 Harvesting (cutting and binding) November 5 January 5 Stacking December 10 March lO Mechanical threshing December 20 March 31 Paddy collection and transport December 20 June 30 Source: O.N. Service Agricole. aFor effective seeds burial. b cTo provide maintenance water. To allow for initial plant sprouting. 48 and 200 kg of Tilemsi phosphate.12 One application of 25 kg of urea and 50 kg of phosphate is required at the time of tillering, a second application of urea has to be made after plant heading. Fields are inundated in mid-August and drained after the first of November. Harvesting is manual and done with sickles; it begins in late November but may continue as late as the end of January. The Office threshes more than 80 percent of the paddy mechanically with stationary threshers, using its own machine and crews of hired labor. The farmer is charged 120 kg of paddy per metric ton threshed. About one fifth of the harvest is manually threshed by settlers and household members. Rice Fields in "hors casier" (H.C.) A number of settlers privately cultivate some additional plots of paddy outside the legal holdings conceded to them by the Office. These 13 are irrigated by deviating the illegal fields known as "hors casiers" water stream from drainage canals, or through leaks from earth dikes that are part of the supply channel structures. In any case the colonist uses the enterprise's means of production for a clandestine activity to evade payment of land fees.14 12This is a rock phosphate domestically produced and used as build up fertilizer. It is not always required, but is considered as part of the recommended package given the sandy nature of some soils. 13By contrast, with fields in "casier" or legally cultivated. Casier is the French word commonly used to describe a unit of crop land delimited by a network of main irrigation/drainage canals in a specified area. 14Howeverwhen discovered the Office management charges an amount of 240 kg of paddy per hectare. Many H.C. fields are in fact hidden and some are inaccessible to extension agents. 49 The total area planted in H.C. has never been estimated with accuracy, partly for reason of survey costs involved. The O.N. own ‘5 It estimates in 1979-80 for the area under H.C. were 2,958 hectares. is believed that twice as much land may be devoted to that activity. Much of the Office concern for farmers' involvement in H.C. springs from the foreseable competition in the utilization of family labor between the two types of holdings. This issue will be treated at some length in Chapter 5. Stock Raising on Farms The majority of settlers keep a number of productive animals on farms for production of meat, dairy and poultry products, for speculative reproduction and sale, and quite commonly also for tradition. Stock raising is also viewed by farmers as a means of capital accumulation and an insurance against crop failure. The relative importance of productive versus draft animals present in the settlement is depicted in Table 2-7. Calculation of density reveals that there were 3.2 draft animals and 3.5 productive animals per farm in 1977 compared to 3.9 and 3.6 respectively in 1980. For draft animals, this increase reflects a sustained demand for farm equipment which has characterized much of the post drought period. For productive animals, stock densities have increased partly in response to the development of market opportunities in neighboring countries. 15The source is O.N., annual report 1979-80. 16Office du Niger: Feasibility study (non-dated) p. 34. 50 TABLE 2-7. Productive and Draft Animals Kept on Farms at the O.N. in 1977 and 1980 1977 1980 Draft animals Oxen 11,071 16,013 Donkeys 2,810 3,159 Horses 82 78 Total 13,963 19,250 Productive animalsa Cattle: cows 6,381 7,832 heifers and bulls 4,611 5,093 Sheep and goats 4,421 5,148 Total ' 15,413 18,073 Source: O.N. Bureau of Economic Affairs. aExcluding poultry. 51 Other Agri-Activities, Off-farm Occupations and Incomes In addition to rice and livestock, farmers in the Office derive extra income from the cultivation of garden plots for vegetable and the planting of millet/sorghum in small plots, in this case often outside the O.N. zone. In a 1974-75 survey made by the Office16 it was found that settlers' revenues from non rice and livestock activities amounted to 22 percent of the revenue from rice production. Nothing is still known on revenues they derive from non-agricultural activities. The Structure of the Household Decision Making Rice production takes place under the sole authority and respon- sibility of the senior head of household known as the colonist. He is generally the father, the uncle or the eldest brother of all members of the extended family. The decision making process in the Office settle- ment follows the traditional pattern of family interrelationships known to exist elsewhere in rural Mali.17 In a typical traditional farming system production choices as a result of the extended family concept are determined by status within the family. For instance young bache- lors may be involved in cash crop production such as peanuts and . dependent heads of households may combine food and cash crop production on plots allocated to them by the head of the family. Women will usu- ally grow vegetables. 16 17Across ethnic groups in Mali family relationships with regard to the authority of the head of household are much the same. For more information see N'Diaye [1970] in "Groupes Ethniques du Mali." Office du Niger: Feasibility study (non-dated) p. 34. 52 Except for garden plots production and because rice is the only crop grown, the O.N. settler family has no production choice and fragmentation of technical decisions is thus absent. Decisions con- cerning food production and major financial matters are made by one single individual. This situation simplifies the analysis of the decision making process to be discussed in Chapter 8. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY It was pointed out in Chapter 1 that the agro-economic survey was proposed by WARDA in order to fill in some important gaps in the present knowledge base in the O.N. While the study fitted in the preliminary phase of the intensification program now being implemented with assis- 1 tance of the World Bank, it was also from WARDA's standpoint, a part of its on-going socio-economic analysis of rice development strategies in West Africa.2 3.1 Organization and Sampling Procedures The author arrived in Monrovia (Liberia) in mid October 1978 to gain familiarization with the headquarters of WARDA and to plan the implementation of the research project at the O.N. in Mali. In late October a WARDA mission accompanied the author to Segou, headquarters of the O.N. to introduce him to officials of the Office and make 1The Bank is assisting the O.N. in engineering studies and designs for field testing and selection of the most economic procedures and equipment for land levelling, and in the upgrading of the Office's blurred accounting system. 2Similar studies have been or are underway on floating rice in Mali, Upland and Mangrove rice in Sierra Leone, the Gambia, Ivory Coast and Liberia. WARDA's approach is broader in perspectives and addresses the whole range of issues from analysis of costs and returns to the use of international trade policies, prices and investment policies and household consumption studies. 53 54 necessary arrangements for launching the survey. In the original research proposal presented by WARDA [August, 1978], the survey was also to cover the zone of the Operation Riz Segou. However practical difficulties in making administrative arrangements at the time the study began prevented the team from extending the study beyond the O.N. area. Sampling The survey was limited to Niono and Kolongo sectors which represent conditions along the Sahel and Macina Canals. This was purposively done to account for the difference in the potential of the irrigation works between the two main zones of the Office. As settlement villages in the O.N. are virtually similar, they became less relevant as sampling units. Thus in delineating the three clusters from which the sample of farmers was drawn, other considerations had to be accounted for. The most important criterion was the difference in expected yields as depicted in Figure 2-2 (Chapter 2). Other considerations included (1) the state of the irrigation/drainage network and the degree of weed infestation (to allow for variation within clusters, (2) the distances from villages to the administrative centers in order to limit enumerators' travel time and (3) the ethnic composition. Two c1usters--Kolodogou and Sahe1--were delineated in Niono along the Sahel canal, with expected yields of 1.5 and 2.0 mt per hectare, respectively. A total of 56 farmers were selected from the two clusters. An additional 25 farmers were purposively selected in Niono to represent the special case of Foabougou village whose fields were set aside for the pilot intensifi- 55.. cation program. In Kolongo, along the Macina canal, a sample of 40 settlers was retained from the unique cluster delineated there, and where the expected yield was around 1.0 mt per hectare. In each cluster stratification by size group preceded a proportionate random sampling of farmers. The composition of the sample is depicted in Table 3-1. In summary 96 farmers in three clusters were randomly selected to represent existing conditions while 25 farmers were purposively chosen to provide information on the expected new conditions after intensification. With a delineation by ecological zone and stratifi- cation by size groups, each cluster3 had the opportunity to be a miniature representation of the universe as discussed by Raj [1972]. In addition to the farm management survey sample, the survey on farmer's risk attitudes and undercapitalization prompted the selection of-a separate sample of 31 settlers in the Kolongo sector. The sampling procedures used for that study are discussed in Chapter 8. Selection of Enumerators The original questionnaires for the farm management study were prepared in January and February 1979. In March enumerators were selected and trained. The training emphasized the knowledge of agricultural practices, the terminology in use at the Office and more importantly a detailed understanding of the questionnaire schedules. 3Each cluster also represented a particular casier from which it was delineated. 56 .mumv zm>cam "woczom mN cop oe cop FN cop mm Pouch m N m N m N mp cm>o m_ o m— a up m mp . op mF mm «P me o_ em NP op . m op me m_ «N m me up m can» mam, mgmscmw page“ mo a mgmsgnm page» we a mcmsemm page» No a mewsgmw mo conga: wmucnpg mmc< mo conga: umucmpa cmg< mo conszz coacmpa mmc< mo cmnszz Amsv Azomzonmomv omcopox Apmgmmlocowzv Azomouopoxuocomzv azocu mNPm pumnoca mumpwa u cmumapu m cmumzpu < cmumapo mcmsemu coaumpom mo «Fascm as» mo mczaoacum .Fum m4m<~ 57 An initial and intensive 8 day training was later supplemented with field practices after a final team of 9 enumerators4 was selected. Field practices dealt with interviewing methods and the establishment of rapport between enumerators and farmers. Two supervisors were selected among the enumerators. In addition to their normal work as enumerators (with a lesser load relative to others), the supervisors dealt with administrative tasks, supervised and coordinated the work of other enumerators and also served as contact men with the Office administration in their respective zones. Conduct of the Survey Actual data collection began in April 1979 with the collection of resource stock data, which was repeated two more times to update the information and account for variations in the stocks. Resource utilization was obtained in twice weekly interviews. This cost-route method was justified by the need to collect the labor and income- expenditures data in as much detail as possible. Our approach to data collection followed that of Norman [1973], Spencer [1972], Tollens [1975] and others who used multiple visits to generate input-output coefficients and investigate the efficiency of farm operations. This approach contrasts with the farm business survey technique in which a large number of statistically selected farmers are visited only once or twice to complete a questionnaire [Spencer, 1972]. 4One more enumerator was added to the team in August 1979. 58 The fundamental difference in the two approaches lies not so much in the degree of representativeness that is achieved, but rather in the types and the cost of the trade-offs involved, as well as the objectives of the study. A farm business survey (often conducted on a large sample, for instance 300 or more farms) has the advantage of being more representative of the wide differences existing within the population. It can be used when contemplating the introduction of new technology. There is however a great deal of observational errors stemming from the very limited number of visits made and the reliabil- ity on secondary data. A cost-route survey deals with relatively small samples but help reduce measurement errors at the farm level by increasing the frequency of visits paid to respondents. This improves the quality of input-output coefficients derived in farm operation. Sampling errors, however, can be quite large particularly if the population is heterogenous. In both approaches the size of the budget available may be the most constraining factor in attempting to reduce the two types of errors. 3.2 Data Preparation The Farm Management Data Collection and Analysis System (FMDCAS) developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was used in coding and in the preliminary analysis of the survey data. FMDCAS was conceived as a tool for researchers in collecting and analyzing farm level data. It was also expected to promote a systematic approach to concepts and procedures which would facilitate interregional compar- ison of results [Friedrich, 1977]. FMDCAS also includes a group of integrated computer programs in Fortran IV that accept farm management 59 data at varying levels of aggregation and produce a variety of fixed fbrmat printouts of farms, crop and livestock tables.5 The package presents a number of advantages including (1) rapid checking and validation of the survey data, (2) the possibility of storing the original data in an easily retrievable standard format, thus facilitating its use in benchmark surveys prior to project develop- ment and implementation, (3) quick primary analysis that would make results available to policy makers at an early time and (4) in depth analysis of the data fer a variety of uses. FMDCAS, however, lacks the flexibility to handle qualitative data and is cumbersome and in- efficient. This led to the development of a second version of the package, FARMAP6 which has also been conceived with the advantage of running on microcomputers. The output of FMDCAS (farm, crop and livestock tables) was used to prepare farm budgets and analyze rice and livestock enterprises with emphasis on performance magnitudes in various groups of rice holdings and by ecological zones. For rice this was possible because FMDCAS delivers the situation on a per farm and per field basis, thus facilitating selective aggregation and improving the degree of repre-‘ sentiveness of farm situations. Additional results of the study were generated through statistical analysis and linear programming. 5Examples of farm and crop tables are shown in Appendix A and B. 6FARMAP stands for Farm Management Analysis Package. It was developed after widespread experience with FMDCAS. It incorporates a wide range of codes and has a modular design that introduces some flexibility in the printouts and allows also for additional programs to be incorporated. CHAPTER 4 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION AND LABOR UTILIZATION AT THE O.N. 4.1 Introduction An overview of the economics of production in the O.N. is presented here to set the stage for a detailed analysis of each of the two main enterprises i.e. rice and livestock. The farm is viewed as a whole and the relationships between various activities are stressed. Emphasis is put on the allocation of resources among rice, livestock, other farm and nonfarm activities. The contribution of off-farm revenues in the making of total family earnings is also examined. Analysis of labor utilization on.farm is carried out in some detail. Seasonality and percentage dis- tribution of family labor by sex and age group in the performance of ag- ricultural activities are examined with the view to derive some implica- tions for the intensification of production in the Office. The analyses carried out in Chapter 4 and 5 have used to some extent the terminology and the concepts derived from the FAO package. Some con- cepts however, were more elaborated and others restricted in their mean- ing in order to justify their applicability to the Office du Niger farm— ing environment. 4.2 Farm Income Analysis 4.2.1 Defining the Farm We have defined farm activities in the context of the Office du Niger to include two main enterprises, rice and livestock, plus a group 60 61 of general activities undertaken by household members. Although the Office management reconizes the importance of livestock activities as a source of additional incomes to settlers, no data has ever been collect- ed to estimate its contribution to the total farm income. Livestock activities compete with rice in the use of farm labor and farmers' finan- cial resources. But the interaction between the two enterprises is also mutually beneficial because animal traction is linked to animal husband- ry and cattle manure can be used as fertilizer on rice fields with the latter providing straw and rice by-products to be used as feeds for live- stock. For the sake of simplicity, resource utilization was analyzed for the livestock enterprise as a whole with no distinction as to dif- ferent species of productive animals kept on farms. General farm activities are somewhat an ambiguous category to de- fine.1 Clearly it comprises all farm activities not directly attribut- able to rice or livestock, as yet not outside the farm. Examples of such activities are tranSportation of rice by-products for feeding animals, repairs and general maintenance of farm buildings, marketing of farm products, construction, etc. Off-farm activities are defined broadly to include productive and' nonproductive occupations (e.g. social activities, small scale indus- tries). In general reference is made to activities other than rice and/or livestock that use household resources to produce marketable or non- marketable output. Vegetable production in garden plots and dryland 1Certain categories of household activities were counted as general farm activities. Fishing was considered an off-farm activity but trans- portation of wood fell in the category of general farm activities. 62 cultivation of maize and sorghum/millet on small plots have also been included as part of off-farm activities.2 This is because these activi- ties are neither official or widespread and generate incomes that set- tlers consider as a supplement to their farm incomes. Therefore off- farm revenue here is not necessarily nonagricultural, but rather any revenue generated outside the farm as defined above, including renumera- tion of services performed for others. 4.2.2 Budget Concepts and Derivation of Input Costs Farm income analysis looks at the structure of costs and returns associated with all farm operations to allow the researcher to determine whether or not in a specific production system farmers are recovering their costs and earning a return out of their capital investment [Brown, 1979]. The objective in this subsection is twofold: (l) to study the efficiency of farms in different ecological zones at the Office du Niger; and (2) to gain awareness of the current distribution of farm incomes across the settlement and analyze its causes. The comparative analysis for the global farm situation has been re- stricted to the two sectors of Niono and Kolongo which represent two dif- ferent ecological settings along the Sahel and Macina canals. Niono is made up of two rice casiers, namely Kolodogou and Sahel,3 where two 2The distinction between farm and off-farm activities is somewhat arbitrary here, but it is meant to focus on what the Office management considers as official versus unofficial activities. For instance some settlers cultivate dryland crops in small plots outside the O.N. area. 3Also referred to as Casier Blanc. 63 separate subsamples were investigated, but the data were lumped to- gether for the farm analysis in order to provide a meaningful represen- tation of the area along the Sahel canal in the vicinity of the Niono center. First, budget concepts are presented and the way in which the magnitudes of certain farm variables were calculated is shown. a. Value of Production The value of production (also referred to as gross return or value of gross output) represents the sum of values of rough rice or paddy, milled rice, by-products and livestock products produced on the farm during the 1979-80 season. For budget calculations, however, only the total disposable output of paddy was used to account for field losses.4 Inventory changes for paddy production were taken into account only for those farms (mostly large farms) with some amount of grain left over from the previous harvest. In general the majority of settlers in the 4Disposable (or net) output of paddy is defined as the difference between the total achievable output (that we estimated for each farm using the yield plot method) and the total field losses plus adjustments (upward) that accounted for the quantities family members gleaned on fields after harvest and the average amount they recovered from the standing stacks after machine threshing. For practical reasons the disposable output was easily obtained by adding 8 percent of achievable output to the total amount farmers market through the O.N. channel, as this amount was known with certainty. This adjustment was decomposed as follows: total family gleanage of 3 percent [Kamuanga and Spencer, 1981] and a 5 percent recovery from standing stacks known as "fond de gerbier." The latter figure was calculated on the basis of the O.N. estimate and the author's field experience. A second alterntive in the presentation of budgets would have been to value the total achievable output of paddy at the official price and enter field losses as a pro- duction cost. This however would have put undue emphasis on operating costs and was so avoided. 64 sample had their granaries depleted long before the beginning of the new season.5 The output of paddy was valued at the official farmgate price of 60 MF per kilo. But additional sales of paddy or milled rice from the farmers' stores were valued at the retail sale price, usually higher than the official producer price.6 Livestock products were also valued at their market prices often re- flecting seasonal variations.7 Inventory changes were ignored because the magnitudes involved were negligible or difficult to measure. Table 4'1 provides the price range for major livestock products sold in the O.N. area. 5Source is [Kamuanga and Spencer, 1981]. 6Stored rice was sold later on during the year either in the form of paddy or milled rice, in which case the per kilo price would go as high as 200 MP, depending on the period of the year. Although quantities ~involved were small relative to the output sold as harvest, double count- ing was avoided. The average price of output per kilo in the budget is higher than 60 MF per kilo in some cases for the above reasons. 7In particular, goat and sheep prices were twice as high during the Muslim season of Tabaski in October-November as compared to other periods of the year. 65 TABLE 4-1. Market Price Range for Major Livestock Products In the O.N. Area in the 1979-80 Season Item Unit Price MFa Live animals (adults) cattle - 50,000-100,000 goat/sheep - 20,000-S0,000 poultry - SOD-1,000 Livestock products cow milk liter SO-lOO goat/sheep meat kg BOO-1,500 eggs 50-80 butter variable Source: Survey by the author. aThe exchange rate in 1979-80 season was $1/420-44O MF. b. Variable Costs and the Gross Margin The farm gross margin is derived by deducting all variable costs from the composite total value of rice and livestock productions. The details on the type of variable costs in rice and livestock production are given in Chapter 5 and 6 where each enterprise is separately tackled. Briefly, major variable cost components for rice include seeds and ferti- lizer, a paddy threshing charge of 120 kg per metric ton and paid season- al labor. Feeds, veterinary care and animal replacement were the most common variable expenses found for livestock production in the area. Wage rates for hired labor varied from 500 to 1,000 MF per day or more depending on the task, the period of the year and the location. 66 c. Overhead Costs and Net Farm Earnings The most important fixed charge of rice production is the O.N. land and water utilization fee of 400 kg of paddy per hectare levied at har- vest time. This fee theoretically represents farmers' participation in amortization and upkeep of the installations, as well as in the cost of organization and supervision. Linear depreciation was estimated for only three of the pieces of equipment (plows, harrows and carts), including all draft animals. The total amount of money tied up in this investment is about 350,000 MF per average farm at current purchase prices. Other fixed charges include the salaries to permanent laborers on farms where they were found and miscellaneous expenditures of a fixed nature such as rents and harnessing charges for draft animals. . A measure of the year after year profitability of the farm is given by the net farm earnings, a term interchangeably used with net farm in- ggmg_in this study because no interest was charged on borrowed capital by farmers [Dillon and Hardaker, 1980]. Net farm income stands as a reward to the farmer's labor, his unpaid family labor, operating capital and management contributed by the farm family during the year [Brown, ‘ 1979]. d. Family Earnings Settlers at the O.N. show various degrees of involvement in off-farm activities (as defined in Section 4.1), some with opportunities for sub— stantial income generation. Family earnings are calculated by adding 67 off-farm incomes to the net farm earnings, hence they represent the source of funds that cover all household expenditures and the value of home consumed products. e. Cash Flow Statement Family cash earnings are derived from family earnings by adding to the latter the values of depreciation and sales of farm equipment, and then subtracting the value of livestock appreciation. The magnitude left after deducting the value of equipment purchases and household expendi- tures (including the value of home consumption) from family cash earnings represent the amount of cash income including "cashable" products,8 which the family has the option to use for either replacement of capital goods, for investments, for savings and/or increased consumption. This magnitude (referred to in the FMDCAS printout as "balance") is very im- portant in the case of the O.N. farm families because it indicates wheth- er or not their sources of cash are adequate to cover cash expenses.9 It is.a useful indicator throwing light on the general living conditions of the settlers and the viability of their farm business [Friedrich, 1977]. The cash flow statement is a less useful efficiency criterion. compared to gross margin and farm earnings. 8Assuming that any stored amount of paddy and livestock products such as meat and milk can be sold for cash at any time. 9Such expenditures as fertilizer and the land fee which are paid in-kind are considered as cash to the extent that they are directly de- ducted from the harvest. 68 4.2.3 Farm Budgets for Niono and Kolongo 1. Presentation The budgets reported here have been rearranged from the initial farm tables derived by the FMDCAS program as shown by the example of computer printout in Appendix A. As said earlier, Kolongo and Niono sectors re- present two different ecological and infrastructural settings well known to the Office management. Aggregation by size groups of holdings was introduced as a proxy for differences in resource endowments among farm- ers. The group size stratification is also in accordance with the prac- tice in use in the O.N. reports. This, however, does not take into ac- count the relative "size" of the livestock enterprise which varies across the strata. However it will be shown later that large herds are associ- ated with large farms. Financial budgets representing mean physical resource utilization are shown in Tables 4-2 through 4-7. Total labor use per unit of enter- prise income and expenditures is examined. Labor inputs are calculated in man-days whereby a man-day relates to a person working 8 hours. The stock of labor is expressed in man-equivalents (ME) following FMDCAS conversion scale. Only one such budget for an average farm in Niono in the group of 5 to 10 ha is briefly discussed below. All farms of size 15 ha and above in Niono and Kolongo have been excluded from the compara- tive analysis because of the small number of observations available. Two such'bversized'farms (one in each sector) are treated only as case studies to shed light on the order of the financial magnitudes involved, and also as a reference for any future comparative evaluation. (59 TABLE 4-2. Average Budget for 19 Farms of Zero to 5 Hectaresa Sector of Niono (Kolodogou and Sahel) LABOR USE Manpower available: 4.6 man-eq. l.l Farm activities Amount (man-days) 1.2 Source rice 579 farmer livestock 24 family general farm activities 348 seasonal community Total farm 951 Amount (man-days) 235 681 32 3 951 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES 2.1 Production Amount Value (MF) rice 5670 kg 357,236 (128,506)P livestock 21,538 (47,051)b Total 373,774 2.2 Operating g§penses hired labor 32 man-days 21,920 non-labor expenses 162,123 Total 184,043 2.3 Gross margin 194,731 2.4 Overhead costs land fee 1600 kg 96,000 depreciation 22,600 repairs and maintenance 1,958 others 4,826 Total 125,384 2.5 Net farm earnings 69,347 aThe average farm size for this group was 4.0 ha (SD=O.87). bStandard deviation in brackets. 70 TABLE 4-3. Average Budget for 21 Farms of 5 to 10 Hectaresa Sector of Niono (Kolodogou and Sahel) LABOR USE Manpower available: 6.7 man-eq. l.l Farm activities Amount(nmn-days) 1.2 Source rice 892 farmer livestock 36 family general farm activities 513 seasonal community Total farm 1,441 Amount(man-days) 271 1,054 106 10 1,441 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES 2.1 Production Amount Value (MF) rice 12,530 kg 833,571 (340.5731b livestock 51.021 (122,773)b Total 884,592 2.2 Operating expenses hired labor 106 man-days 72,610 non-labor expenses 331,988 Total 404,598 2.3 Gross maggin 479,993 2.4 Overhead costs land fee 3,080 kg 184,800 depreciation - 39,300 repairs and maintenance 4,663 others 6,203 Total 234,966 2.5 Net farm earnings 245,027 3The average farm size for this group was 7.7 ha (SD-1.44). bStandard deviation in brackets. TABLE 4-4. Average Budget for 12 Farms of 10 to 15 Hectares 71 a Sector of Niono (Kolodogou and Sahel) LABOR USE Manpower available: 13.4 man eq. l.l Farm activities Amount (man days) 1.2 Source Amount (man-days) rice 1,454 farmer 266 livestock 78 family 1,832 general farm activities 749 seasonal 164 community 19 Total farm 2,281 2,281 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES 2.1 Production Amount Value (MF) rice 17,205 kg 1,187,201 (373,900)g livestock 72,241 (85,720) Total 1,256,442 2.2 Operating expenses hired labor 164. man-days 112,340 non-labor expenses 564,061 Total 676,401 2.3 Gross margin 583,041 2.4 Overhead costs land fee 5,040 kg 303,120 depreciation 82,200 repairs and maintenance 13,441 others 56,893 Total 455,653 2.5 Net farm earnings 127,388 aThe average farm size for this group was 12.6 ha (SD=1.95). bStandard deviation in bracket. '72 TABLE 4-5. Average Budget for 18 Farms of Zero to 5 Hectaresa Sector of Kolongo Source farmer family seasonal community LABOR USE Manpower available: 4.7 man-eq. l.l Farm activities Amount (man-days) 1.2 rice 374 livestock 15 general farm activities 55 Total farm 445 Amount (man-days) 125 317 3 O 445 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES 2.1 Production Amount rice 2,532 kg livestock Total 2.2 Operating expenses hired labor 3 man-days non-labor expenses Total 2.3 Gross margin 2.4 Overhead costs land fee 1,400 kg depreciation repairs and maintenance others Total 2.5 Net farm earnings Value (NF) 151.896 (12.442) 9 18.778 (50,894) b 170.675 1.740 85.456 87,196 83,240 84,240 17,200 3,279 1.867 106.585 ~23,107 aThe average farm size for this group was 3.5 ha (SD-0.8) bStandard deviation in brackets. 73 TABLE 4-6. Average Budget for 14 Farms of S to 10 Hectaresa Sector of Kolongo LABOR USE Manpower available: 6.1 man-eq. l.l Farm activities Amount (man-days) 1.2 Source Amount (man-days) rice 461 farmer 91 livestock 5 family 429 general farm activities 55 seasonal 2 community 0 Total farm 522 522 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES 2.1 Production Amount Value (MF) rice 5.014 kg 300,844 50,470)b livestock 11.535 44,1322)b Total 312,378 2.2 Oggrating exgenses hired labor 2 man-days 1.400 non-labor expenses 171,902 Total 173,302 2.3 Gross margin 139,076 2.4 Overhead costs land fee 2.820 kg 169,200 depreciation 34,200 repairs and maintenance 6,330 others 3,902 Total 212,922 2.5 Net farm earnings -73,846 aThe average farm size for this group was 7.05 ha ($081.2). bStandard deviation in brackets. 741 TABLE 4-7. Average Budget for 6 Farms of 10 to 15 Hectaresa Sector of Kolongo LABOR USE Manpower available: 10.0 man-eq. l.l Farm activities Amount (man-days) 1.2 Source Amount (man-days) rice 821 farmer 120 livestock 4 family 792 general farm activities 90 seasonal Z (ammunity 1 Total farm 915 915 INCOME AND EXPENDITURES 2.1 Production Amount Value (HF) rice 5,975 kg 358,500 (15,557) b livestock 37.547 (88.473) b Total 396,047 2.2 Ogerating exgenses hired labor 2 man-days 1.400 non-labor expenses 330,228 Total 331,628 2.3 Gross maggin 64,419 2.4 Overhead costs land fee 4,720 kg 283,920 depreciation 82,000 repairs and maintenance 9,538 others 5,339 Total 380,797 2.5 Net farm earnings -316,378 aThe average farm size for this group was 11.8 (5084.4). bStandard deviation in brackets. 75 Budget for a Medium Sized Farm in Niono Table 4-2 displays the budget for an average farm of 7.7 ha assumed to represent conditions which prevail for settlers with holdings between 5 and 10 ha. The mean age of settlers in this group was found to be 49.7 years, and there were 6.7 man-equivalents of available manpower. Of the 1,441 man-days of total on-farm labor use 892 man-days were de- voted to the cultivation of rice, 36 man-days in livestock, and 513 man- days in general farm activities. The mean percentage contribution of farm labor was allocated ' as follows: 19 percent from the colonist settler, 73 percent from the rest of the family, 7 percent from hired seasonal workers and 1 percent from nonpaid community labor. The gross value of rice output per farm was estimated at 108,256 MF per hectare. The standard deviation reflects the variation in holding size within the group. The value of livestock production amounted to . 6,626 MF per hectare with a wide standard deviation caused by larger dif- ferences in both the size of the stock and the value of sales of live- stock products per farm. With per hectare mean operating expenditures of 52,545 MF and a mean overhead cost of 30,515 MF, the net farm earnings per hectare were evaluated at 31,822 MF. Details on the cashflow state- ment are discussed later in this subsection. 2. Comparative Analysis and Overview of Costs and Returns As a research technique, comparative analysis of current or past results is used to facilitate the comparison between different groups of farms in the sample in order to be able to generalize the results to the 76 the larger population they represent and in the process provide a feed- back for reorientation of research.10 Comparison of farm efficiency criteria for the O.N. settlers is particularly valid for the following reasons: (1) they all face the same kind of institutional constraints and respond to the same set of factor and product prices; and (2) they have access to similar services. Thus differences in farm productivity are very likely to reflect the difference in the potential of local hydraulic structures as well as farmers' own varying levels and quality of management. The main economic characteris- tics of farms and their distribution across holdings of different sizes are compiled in Tables 4-8 through 4-12. a. Rice and Livestock Shares of the Gross Return Despite the wide variation in gross returns from livestock in each size group as indicated by the ratio of the mean value to its standard deviation in the budget tables, the livestock share of the total value of production is relatively constant at 6 percent in Niono in all size groups (Table 4‘8). It is higher on small sized farms in Kolongo but but lower among farms with holdings between 5 to 10 ha. For the 10As Dillon and Hardaker [1980] point out, this use of comparative analysis should be distinguished from its use as an extension technique. In the latter case it describes the process of comparing the performance of an individual farm with some standard which may be any of the follow- ing: (a) previous performance for the same farm; (b) average perfor- mance for the group of broadly similar farms; (c) some synthetic or benchmark farm based on experimental and other data; or (d) budgeted performance for the farm in question. 77 .gsocm wNwm some c? macaw mo conga: ecu an uoazmvmz mew mmmecw>wg em «Nm.PmN pm cam.mmm em .0N.Nmp.p unease poem as mpiop HHH cop mme.mmm cop mum.Npm cop pmm.¢ww _euoh m mNN.Pm e mmm.PP o FNc.pm xoopmm>w4 Nm NON.Nmm om eem.oom em pnm.mmm uaauzo worm a; opim HH cop mNN.eNN cop mum.oup cop eNN.mNm Peach N mmp.oN PP mm~.m~ o mmm._N xooumm>w4 mm www.cmN mm mam.pm_ em emN.Nmm psauao «ova a: mic H . .. . .. . .. a...“ cameo >w>c=m omco—ox ocowz com mmecm>< Louumm omcopox use o=o_z so» copuuauoce to m:—e> peach as» c. xuopmm>_4 new coax 4o ocegm w>Puepmm .wiv u4m< N.NH e.N w.m m.HH O.N m.m o.NH N.N o.¢ Hazy mNHm new: HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H masocc m~Hm manage oNHm masoca «NHm EauH omen Ao>e=m omcoHox oonz m omcoHox new ocon cH pcmHm>Hacmicez so; aaayao .mae m4mHH :H umeszocH mumou mHaeHgm> cmcmH; on mac gzoem mwsu coH cmon mH :Hmcma mmocm ms» .coHHoauoca a .azocm mNHm some :H mscme mo conszc may Ha umusmHmz mew: amen am>ssm on» com mchcms mmocm mmecm>< HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H mazocw m~Hm manage mNHm masocw mNHm EmuH muse am>s=m omcoHox ocon m ocon one omcoHox :H mmHuH>Huu< xuoumw>H4 use muHm Low mchcmz mmocw Ho cocheasou m4m

egg :8 moo=eHaa mcHuco can aeHeono so umecu>o «:8 m. aeoeHmo>=H Hag—goo ooeco>=H Hmeaeu mmeco>o 8506.. pave“ 9:35 395 u oHuuc cosocgsu HaaHaau v momequo Hugo“ oeoueH mecca a oHuuc mmoeun mumou vmxHH Heuou n oHuoc H39sz osoucH mmoco mumou mcHHacmao Heuou u oHuac mcHuccoao H HoavH>HecH ecu N.¢-N.e meamp seem eo>Hcoa "oucaom , Hoc.HH Hmm.NH mongo>o couuwm ~m.— NM.~ Ho.H mm.H mo.— op.— cm.~ om.~. Nc.~ vo-«ag Lu>o cgzu Hue—ace HNm.HH Hew.cH ooecm>a couuom mm.— mm.o mm.o om.H n~.— mH.H om.o mu.c Nm.o moHuag mmogw HNa.oH Ham.oH mmugm>a coaumm Hm.o m¢.o we.c om.o mo.o No.c mm.c ~N.¢ mm.o NoHucg tux—m Has.cH HHm.cH omocm>e couuom ac.o Hm.c om.¢ em.o mm.o Hm.o em.c ov.c me.° HcHuaL acHuoLwac ~.N— v.m w.m a.—H O.N m.m o.~— ~.~ o.¢ Hazy oNHm Ego» cam: HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H coca zo>czm omen—ax ocon souH eoc< >m>c=m .z.o mgu cH macaw «Hasem to» mcHuez amok HeHueecHH .HHie uHmHHov aHouogeamm moaHe>e .N.Q1N.Q U—QQH Ssh mCO—ufl—HHU—mu ten cage EEC-Hm “09...:va emm.omn- -e.eHH- mem.nH- eco.HH- 8mm... ”mo.oe- :eHc emae Haz occ.m . ooe.v mammagugaa HeusaHacu no azHe> mam. Nee.mmH mee.~cH eme.ee 8.8.34. eem.nen maH.em~ meceHHeeeaxe eHeeeaeee ameH meo.m HHa.HH Hee.m HmH.~e e~e.~m HNe.eH eeHHaeeaeae age; He eeHas ameH He~.amH- emo.m em~.mm mee.ene 883.83” one.eeH ameHecae gaewinHEaH emm.ae ooe.me ne~.He H~m.~m~ Hme.eHH one.mHH maeHecae scac-ceo aaH.mm~- eem.em- Hoe.m- ae~.~m. Hwe.eH~ eem.eH asaeeH eaau sea. “a; He... oo~.o. eHe.mH com.H~ 88H.m~ aan.nH aeeHHeHeeeaae HeeHaesHH He eeHa> nae. ooe.~e oo~.em ce~.HH oc~.~m oem.mm ooe.- eeHeaHeecaae aeHa oom.~H eHm.mH ace.mH eeeHaa eeeeaHaee co eeHa> meHa mHn.eHm- eee.nH- HcH.n~- eem.H~H H~8.me~ Hem.oe ameHeeae eLeH “a: HHH HH H HHH HH H cups—ox 93—: Emu— Hmucccu :aHHa: cHH coc< auscsm ogu e. mueHccam 2:5 He 532.233 2: Hz; 298:; 3e: 58 .mpic uHm

Huoe seemieeo :H acmsm>Ho>cH wEHu so» ago: umpmanum ac: mH mucwHe>H=cmicme mo League as» .mH.o n eeHHHm.N + m.m + eoHv 3H m eHHee eee Hm.c u eeHHem 3H meHaeemso; HHeeA tee < aHHee eaeeemeH tea .Hevm an eaeHsHe Have new HeHN eH mesHes gee eHae msHa Hevm 3H m eHHag .HUHHHHaHN mH e eHHaea NNcH Nm New cmH NNN Haeoe Hey me 8N eHm ON mmN 4H NmH meHaeeH He mom NH oNN 8H HmH maHee Ha :oHumHaaom mHaEmm Heuoh NHe H eCN ee HeH Heeae Hcv mm MN NHN m NoH em me meHaeaa Hav eON N mm on eH maHas Hay muHozmmao; mmsmH mme ON NeN me NNH Haeee Hey ee eN QNN NH omH Nm em meHaeee Hey mNN m NHH Hm we maHae Hay muHocmmno; Ezwnmz 84H m eoH HH oN Haeee HUH NH Hm NH m cm N HH aeHeeac Hey eH N am a a maHae Hev mcHocmmzo; HHmEm N < ema HH< 8e ease oe-eH mH-oH o. 238:: N Hwy Hev HHH HNH HoHH eoHums muse» cone; one an eeHesaHeHmHo opuam ousom coan new xom wee "coHumHzaoe «Hasem .mHie uHm e6 Tm H.N 9n ad 93 H4 N4 TN cé H._ H.N 5H: TON To o... 50 O.N. H6 :6 SSH: $5.52; mica v.3 To. n.an Han Ton m.Nm 5mm 1mm NHn Nam cgm H6 c6 5m 56 TN v.3 93 73 co 3 ....H moHsSH 2:3 ¢.nm Nm 53 n.3, v.3 N.Nm can 9?. n.a.: mdm 0.3 9.3 NI: 0.3 HHH NHHH mar. mm om mém on 3 2 3H5: .233 H3 2; rd H: H3 H2 HNH H: H3 HNH H: H. H8 HNH H: H3 H2 .2 H: mozHluuu meat—Hum Hod—ileum 523.3 .5: H33 .52 35:3 33mg: out. H9555 3.9892,: .3... E .5335me 00359.0; .223 ..a 3.5 3 83:22 E233 e; 67' ~35. 100 preparation, sowing, cultivation including weeding and thinning, har- 23 All remaining tasks were grouped as miscellane- vesting and stacking. ous activities. As illustrated in Table 4-l7 some degree of specialization in rice activities can be inferred. For instance, land preparation, sowing and cultivation appear to be typical males' activities. This is substantiat- ed by a high proportion of labor they contribute to these activities and the low degree of variation implied in the ratio of means to their stan— dard deviations. Adult women contribute the most in harvesting and re- lated activities with nearly 50 percent of the total labor required. When labor inputs from youth females is accounted for, the overall female involvement in harvesting raises to 56 percent. Low_percentage values and high standard deviations in all pre-har- vest activities strongly indicate that adult females' participation in these activities is casual. For instance their involvement in cultiva- tion/weeding is only 4 percent. This is contrary to what has been re- cently reported for southern Mali where women's labor in weeding is 19 percent higher than of males [Cohen, 1980]. Whether this is linked to g a particular tradition in the O.N. cannot be substantiated here. Table 4-l7 also singles out the individual contribution of the head of household (colonist) in rice activities. There is a declining trend in the colonist participation in all field activities as family sizes increase. Thus the importance of the colonist as a contributor to 23Including transportation of the harvest, manual threshing, gleaning of fields and post-harvest treatment. 101 :. mu.ogom:og .9 Loans: as» as eo.ga.oz oaa.o>u ..oca»o u ..oaepuo. a mu tone—:u—ou we: x—gve.o use an =o_.:a.su=ou a . .naogm u~.m sumo Av. .A—o>—Nuoamoc me—ogoaaac «asap ten n:.eus ...unm o» NuNu. an. ego Aw. .... «Lactate co. co. cc. ca. co. co. co. co. co. ca. cc. co. ac. co. co. ac. cc. cc. cc. oo. ...o. ... --- --- ... --- N.N a N.. ... --- a.” --- . ... --- as. a»... ......H ...N. ...N. Na... .N... ...N. ...N. ...N. ...N. ..... A - . ..... .m... .N... ...... ..... ... N.N ... N.m ... N.N ... c.N ... c.N N.N N.. ..n a N.. m.N N.N N.N N... ... o. cone: =o...... .N... .m... ...N. Na... ...N. ..... ..... .N... ...a. .N... .N.N. ...e. .N... ..... .9... ..N N.. ... ... ... N.m ... ..N ... ... ... ... ..N N.o N.N ... ... N.. ... m.N m. o. c. ”...... ..ao. .N. ... .N. .w. .N. c.. .M. .m. .N. .. .N. .. .N... Na... ..... ...c. .N... .m... ...o.. ...N. No... ¢.N a... ... ... m. N a. . ... N.N. ... ... N.N ... ..N N.N ... .... N.o n.N m. a. o. . mo_o: gaze. .N... ...... ...... ...... .N.... ....N. ...n. ...N. ...... .c.N. .N.N.. ...... .N. .w. .e. .. ... ... .... N.. N.NN N... .... o... N... .... N.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... N.N N. m N. N. o. a. .. mo—Qsob 2.3—Z .... ...N ...N N... m.N. N... N.N. n.oN a... NN N... ..N. N... m... N... m.N. a... ..NN ..NN N. ...:o... ... £9.32 .o ...... ...... .o.N.. ...... ...... ...... ....N. ...... .N.N.. ...... ....N. .m.NN. .c.NN. .N..N. ...Nm. N... mN .... ..cN .... N.N. a... N.Nn a... .... a.Na .... a... N... a... a... ..cN N... a... ...N o. a. e. 9...... :2... ... ... .N. ... ... .mw..uanm. ... ... Na”: .N. ... ... ... .N. ... ... ... .N. ... ....a maoocap—uum_: -mc.umo>.a: -go.uu>_._:u m:_zam Lena. .o moaxh ha map._>_au< mu.¢ r. =o.u:a.gum-c amoucuugua .n—uv u4=-(£> 105 u.-. um:¢.u mm._.smm am... No. copuuacocg muPa :. m...oga Lona. mmlmnmu 2 Nu w A. z . . . ..-. mzhzoz o .w c N. w '3:F§' o 1.. .0 o. .0 N .o 1 .0. o. r. I; race-L .0 0. recon; fine... w o. on o. a. ‘r—v 0.0.. .00.. A- V “.0000! 4 O A A A A A A ! A A. A —————-__————--——-——_— 0 A - ‘ O A ram new 6... row 1&9. new. 15v. tom. -mmfi imam [@NN ream IEZ-OD 106 in June and July which correspond to an increased demand for labor in land preparation and second, during the harvesting months of November through January. Thus harvesting can be considered the most critical of rice activities in terms of both the amount of labor demanded and the duration of the peak period. The highest labor demand occurs in Decem- 25 The mean labor requirements for this month were estimated at ber. 55.6, l09.8 and 221.5 man-days respectively for small, medium and large families. This translates into an average of 5 hours daily per adult in small families, 6 and 5.5 hours in medium and large families, respec- tively. As to the duration of the harvesting period, guidance and recommen- dation from the Office extension service call for harvesting to be start- ed at three-quarters maturity of the paddy which occurs usually in mid- November. However with the work carried out manually and because hold- ings are large compared to those of farm families outside the Office, a good part of the crop ends up being harvested after December, at a time when much of the hired labor also becomes available. A third peak period may occur in August, September or October depend- ing on the frequency of weeding, thinning and other care cultivation practices by family members. This appears to be the case for large households as shown in Figure 4alc. 25Except for small sized families where the highest demand occurs in June (57.2 man-days), which is slightly above the December peak of 55.6 man-days. 26Most laborers are coming from millet-growing areas and migrate to the Segou rice zones after they finish harvesting their own fields. 107 The slack period in rice cultivation occurs during the months of February, March and April, as families use much of their labor in general farm activities and/or nonrice activities, some with opportuni- ties for income generation. b. Monthly Distribution of Labor in Livestock Activities Figure 4.2 (a, b, and c) depicts the seasonality and the mean month- ly labor requirements in livestock activities on O.N. farms. Contrary to rice activities, there is a greater seasonality in the use of farm labor for livestock activities, for small and large households alike. Although the single most important factor determining the seasonal nature of demand for labor is rainfall and its distribution, the pattern of la- bor demand in rice activities also has an influence on the seasonality in livestock labor demand, as explained below. At the beginning of the rainy season in May through July, longer grazing of the animals is practiced by most households. This period corresponds to the peak labor demand for land preparation, raising oppor- tunity for conflicts in the allocation of labor despite the fact that livestock production takes a secondary role in the Office. It is how- ever the labor demand for rice in weeding, and harvesting from August through January which cause a drastic decline in the amount of time allo- cated to cattle. A second peak in the demand for labor in livestock activities occurs shortly after January, which corresponds to slack periods in rice cultivation. The extra time worked with the cattle and small ruminants during this dry period usually involves on-farm care of animals (for instance feeding, veterinary care, milking and so on) as grazing becomes limited due to lack of green grass (gramineas). 108 .N-. mmau.. m....s.. ...s» .o. no...>..u< .uo.ma>.. c. «...... 2o... omlmnmfi mzhzoz N. Egg v0.00. .. 4:... G van-.- roOIOo woo-o; 7.0.0- on _ _ rluoil _wooI-. fiIIIoo “ ~00... woooo4 to... _ vii-IQ 1000!. v0.00. v0.0.4 vol... “an“ VIICIL v0.00. v0.0.4 to... v0.0- vIIIOU r000.” vol-O. vino-A vol... r00.- vloooA 10000 voice; i wont-L vol... wI-ooJ woo... r00... “woo-0;" v0.0.4 veal-4 run-In rIOOI- noun woo-I. 0000“ “rue..." _ uuuu you... _vooooo _wooo.4— _uuooo# vane-L _roIIIo _r|ouo.— _toooug +0.00. “nun “nun“ “mun” nun woo-Io on... otoo. ran... _‘uoooo _fiouoIN— _vloooL rune-4 -r I — I — — II II. _ no. a —v I..;— _w 00. '0 4 —100000 _ro.oI.— _vooo|J r000.- _vooooo _vuooog— _voooo; Too-0L I 1 m v0.0.0 Colo; _voaoo; v0.0.4 _Luu _Lur__hup n:: “roan-o “Hoe-0L race-L IIIIII no... «no» _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tutu-4 ric-nu Z I Inca—co Ed 109 aN-. n.a..a mm...e.N .mN.m 53...: ... m.......u< ......>.. c. a...o.a zone. omlmnmfi mzhzoz r. n. 95 Nu q. flu .. a. Mw nu q. q. “3%”... ”We... .. a.” . ...”... N.N . W... rooooL IITI ea i=3... 8 E: ric-o. coo-o r0000. r0000; r0000. vooouL IQOOI voOIIN roe... fine... .00... wool-L Too... woo... VUCIIJ v.0... VIOIIA fiIOIOL — "'-I "'| ‘I“‘ l"' - -I-I” UCIOOA 100.0. VOCIOL you... .00... IIIII you-o. vIOIo; rot-I. run... woo-o. voice. fine-o. VIC-CA 0.... ‘IICCL you... woooou in... llllll woo-o; vol... .0...; woo-OI v0.00; tloooA V "'I run... ...... ...... ...... nu mm mm r5.:5.:5. Ira“ vol... v.0... foo-I4 vol-Io r0000. 1.0-OI v00... ‘00..- II-III. vogue; .000; ...... ...-o4 IOII; '00... E I I O C J loam Edi: I OED-U) llO umue manoHN mmwpwsmm magm. co. mm.u.>.uu< xuoumo>Ng :. m—N.o.a Loom. smimnmg mzhzoz .... ... 0 z o m. ...... ... ... z in“. ”HT-n.a. u.” .. “w ._ in in ...Nuw__....nw._..._n»u__..... o It») 00000 no... on... :00... ran... _vooooa— :0000— :00...— ooooo noon- 10:00 “To... “To... _0000— “0000— "unnu— nunnm I...” :IHHHH finance 10...;— _voooog— inane: u”. _.. a.“ an. an“. in. ...-I II... n "‘0'... “filo...“ “VIIIILn “viilign um um _ Mm mm.“ mm. “nu" an M“ “an “in “Hm" “an. F... .... Nnu fin. fin. Nu: is. _uuuuu :000L— :ooo-N— :0...”— “rIOOOQ “...-o.“ “no...” “v0.0.4" ...I an. an”. an. _uuuu— “r00..." “To..." “nun“ “nu" fin: _WHHHHU— _ 0000 — “"0000;— —vIOIOL“ an. .... “r...“ SN any “a“. —vo.COL— FL IEECEIEE ii234323-433 lll In any case when compared to mean labor used for rice production, fami- lies' involvement in livestock is minimal. For instance for large house- holds, the highest labor demand for livestock in July amounts only to 25.7 man-days, nearly one hour of work, daily and per adult member. c. Monthly Distribution of Labor in General Farm and Nonrice Activities General farm activities were defined earlier as those which could not be directly credited to either rice or livestock enterprise, but which contributed to the profitability of the farm business. In the O.N. context, such groups of activities include transportation of farm supplies, building maintenance and repairs, marketing of farm produce, fishing, hunting as well as some typical household activities. As illustrated in Figure 4~3 (a, b, and c), there is a steady increase in general farm activities from the beginning of the season and a unique peak period occurs after January, the slackest period in rice production. In terms of magnitudes of monthly labor demand, general farm activities constitute after rice the second most important group of occupations to which households devote their time. Off-farm occupations include all nonrice activities and household members' involvement in garden plots and vegetable production. The trend shown in Figure 4-3 illustrates the constancy of the demand for labor in off-farm occupations with no perceptible seasonality. Monthly labor re- quirements for off-farm activities however are higher than those for livestock activities in all three size groups of households. 112 .223253 09.... 3. 3:250. 8.3.30 new E...“- .£o:oo .00.: c. .33 .0 3:23.08 on... manor. Op II ’ 0...... ...OOOONOJO’OI a, 00...... oo .0 nu. On «03.2%; Eatio llllll 1 8a 003.3%! Stat .3230 2 .. . . . . . . . .. 1 can 23.7.3! 113 832.025: can? E2303 .3. 33.3.“: .5335 can .50.... .8230 .00.: c. .393 .0 3:23.08 ané No.30.“— ( I "— ... a 2 O a < a n. I q - _ _ d d - — q J _ L o. lllnlllliluIIIIlllliIIIIIIII:IIII!I:IIIIIlllUlllclelIIIIIIIIll IIIIIIIZJRI ’ “ I'llliIIIIIIIIIJJWIIIIIIII.IIII .000 .0000... no no. 00.000.00.00 0 O 0.0... 0.... 0.0.0.0... .0 O .0. .0. no_~.>..o< 83“....0 ... l I .I I. I ..—=,—~°‘ Eb.“ .‘bccgo oo o. 000 o o o o o. 114 3.2.02.0: =0...» .2 no.:>=o( Shani—O tel gou— -80:OO .00.: :— 53: .0 3:23...” 00.? “‘35-“- < .- ... . .. a z 0 a < a a a — _ q A _ d _ . a . _ ---- " 0000.000... o'c‘o“""'--""- -""““ ""'.--'I---'Jua"“oho.oo'oo'o-"“c :” OF I go. ...-coco... J /\437 119 Almost by definition, improved practices when introduced in a 29 The traditional farming system will involve increased labor inputs. use of fertilizer, disease and pest control measures, the substitution of in-line for broadcast sowing, the adoption of transplanting techniques in rice cultivation, the harvesting of a large crap that improved prac- tices make possible: all of these require more labor. For the Office du Niger the question to be asked is of the following nature: do farm families have the slack to supply the additional labor at the time needed if improved technologies are introduced? To assess the size of any unutilized pool of labor that households could draw on, the following procedure was adopted. First, mean labor requirements in all activities are added up. This step was performed in the computations which led to the drawing of the histograms in Figure 4-4. Second, total monthly requirements are subtracted from the poten- tially available pool of labor in each month. The latter was calculated by multiplying the average number of man-equivalents available per household in each size group by 25 work-days per month. The mean number of man-equivalents per selected households was internally calculated 29But some relationships are not always as expected. Clayton [1981] for instance reports that the introduction of rotary weeders into the rice fields of the Phillipines led to increased labor use whereas, on the experimental station, they substantially increased labor efficiency and hence required less labor. Spencer and Byerlee [1976] have shown that in a situation of high land-labor ratio mechanical technology can overcome peak season labor constraints and increase the acreage culti- vated, but the increased acreage resulting from mechanization also re- quires added labor for planting and harvesting. 120 by the FMDCAS program and amounted to 4, 7 and l5 for small, medium 30 When multiplied by 25 work-days and large households, respectively. per month, this translates into 100, l75 and 375 man-days as upper limits of potential labor available in the three size groups. The re- sults are shown in Table 4-l8 (a, b, and c). For small households Table 4.l8a illustrates the scarcity of labor available for accomplish- ing agricultural tasks particularly during the peak season of November through January. With an average of 4 man-equivalents this results into a labor deficit of l.9 and 7.3 man-days during December and January respectively.31 Intensification of rice cultivation in the Office is likely to re- quire a higher labor demand per hectare, and the mix of improved practices now available for adoption may also cause a change in the seasonal distribution of labor demand as well. Therefore any effort toward intensification in the Office must begin with a proper assessment of the expected increase in labor and its implications as to the size of the labor pool in small, medium and large families from which additional man-days of adult labor can be withdrawn. Summary The economics of farm production at the O.N. was presented taking the farm as a whole. The results of the farm analysis reveal a striking 30The number of man-equivalents shown in Table 4.9 refers to farm families aggregated by size of holdings and not family sizes. 311t is this deficit which makes hiring of outside labor a necessity for removing labor bottlenecks at peak season. This will be demonstrated in Chapter 5 when rice enterprise budgets are calculated. 6:55.. 532 323:9. 23o... 2.5... 032;: 333—.38 Igor. .55... .5; 033—23 3.530 £00-83: mm 3 332.33.. =qu .3: mucopuiacoéus o .3 can... 2.» 35:32:... 2 33.85 121 To: m.mn oé Néw «.5- 97 N6 —.o~ m6. m «.2 m.— O.NN sauce—am :63.— cc. 8— 8— 8. 8— 8— 02. 8— 8— 2: 8— 8. au—anga ap_o—ucmaoa pouch m.omo._ m.co ..Na n.as m.~c_ a._c_ m._m «.ms ~.ea c.ma ~.~m “.ma c.m~ e_ogom=og .ach mo.u_>.uua c.¢m_ ..N. a.~_ N.@. a... n.a. ..c. m.m. a... n.a. e.~_ ow ..N. ecu.-.co ..a_n N.N. ..me ..Nm a... ~.a~ m.en m.e~ m.o~ a.a_ o.o. ¢.~_ e.~. mo.u_>.uua :23 .233 Toe —.w m.~ N.Q c O o c 5.: C.@ G6 0.0 mi xu¢um0>= mgcm m.m~ mén N.©N 06m e.mm QKV m.mn 5N? age m.Nv N.Nm o.¢m flu:— naumb :22 5.5: do“. £3. .uuo .32 .uuc damn 3:03 at... 2.2. .3: 332,32 3.3—Tess . 3.2 33.5 .z.c of 5 mu—Eomzoz :98 .8... 533.323:— Egzfiautg .3» Ens—.02 3:9: ..33 355: we 3:328 .870 Sufi 122 .vgueoc coca. u.ogom:og .auo. m:=.s o.aa..~>a a..o..=m.on .aao. a .gucos con o.au..0>u toszmmo axouuxgoz m~ A; .mm...sm. 53.00: sou. ma:~.a>.=aoucus . .0 came 0:. ac.».a...:s xa vo>.cooa 9...? 93 New M... m... ~.m 0.9.. m6... 3 mac n.a. ..om «.2. 33:28 o.cc..~ m... ...... m... w... m: ...: mm. m2 m2 m... m. m: a. fiduwwmflano. 9.2.... ..m. o6... ...”.N. n.a.. ado. v.3. n.a.. mm. 0...”. ~.mm. 9:. ...mm 3.23:2. .33 ...mm n.a. «.8 n.a. ..m. o... ..NN To. 9.3 9.3 mm ..a. ...m. 53¢... ~...q e.- ...... ..mm 0.8 «.3 ..nc «.mn .6... m.m~ m...” ..cm m6. 33.5.3 5cm. .ococww m6. ..n o... .... a... c.~ N.N min a... ~.~. «.... n.a. ed 3839,... ...me ..wm ...: 93 «.3 0.8. «.8 0.3 ado m6. «...... ...... m... 3:. human ...a< coco: .ao. .=ua .ouo .>oz .auo .uaum umaaa< x.:a ocaa xmz mo...>..u< 2225.. 3.2 .823 ...... 05 ... 8.2.3... 53.5: 3.. 533.233... 2.3.57.2 .8. «So—...; 33:. 53.... 35.8.. .8 852.22. 5...... 3:5 123 .ucaeav Loan. .me.o:mm:og .ouca m::.a u.au..o>n a..o.a=wuoa .nuo. a .gucos so; u.aa..u>s eaesmmo mxavnxgor mu an .mu...5ow mega. go». muco.u>.=aa-=~§ m. we come we. a:.».a...:a ha uo>.gm=~ ¢.aco._ m.~o~ ...N. a.ce. ..o~ a.ce cc e.cm. me. n..m. ..mN. o.om. mm. ou=a_~m c.oom.e m.m m.m m.m m.m m.n m.m m.m m.m m.n m.n m.m m.n ¢_ao._a>~ x..a_u=maog .aac. o.o¢o.~ ..~m o..c~ ....N m.emm ...—m m.m e..- _ omN ...—N a.m¢~ e..- o.c- u.ogmm=og .auo. a.m~m o.c~ a..~ o.- ..o. e.m. m.am o.c~ ~.e~ ..em ~.o~ c.~m o.o. =2~.-..c «.moa e.oe o.um. m.¢o. ..eo. ~.o. «.m. ...o ..nm ..N. m..o .... n.a. mo.u.>.uuo Ego. .agocoo n.a.. m..~ m.m ..N_ o.. o.n m.a c.o. 9.. ..n. ..mN o... .... accumu>.d m.m.m.. ..Nm .... ..m. ...m. m..- ...m. c.m~. m.ee. m..~. ..N.. n.... ..mc. «9.; ”awn“ ..ga< gage: .aog .gua .uma .>cz .auo .uaom um=a=< ..aa mesa hm: mu_u.>_uu< aug< ao>g=m .z.c as» :— mu.osom:a: case. so. =o_u~u_..m=au=_ .agau.=u_ga< La. u.a~..~>< “gage. gage; a_ga=o: we ea.a~>_goa .ua.-. udmmn nemucmum .eouumm some :. m~.m w.aawm on. An uwucm.wz cams ..meo>ou a .vmeewmme awn. no.5: on mu.m.. .o m~.m mg. .3 cmusm.w3 mew: mange. Loam. amaze . w;\.:a:. .ueo. m .m .e. mo. Lone. game ..mem>o mm.o , mm.o om.o ... dengue; eon m... .o... ..o. .m.~v ..o. ...m. ..m. Sea.a>_=aa-=ae cams mo. m.mm mm. «o. e;\u:a=. Loam. came ... om.o cm.o e... ..o menace; emu o.m .N.mv ..o ...NV ¢.m Am..v m.m u:m.m>.:cmaccs came m.oo. ..mo m.om. m..a a;\u=a=. Lona. game .. ~N.. em.. e~.. wo.. weaved; can ..e .m.~v ..e .o.Nv N.m .m..v ..e u:m.m>.:amncme cams «.mm. mo. m..m. m.. m;\.=a:. ...one. sees . amen >m>e=m omeo.ox .mgmm =omcno.ox macaw m~.m mu.m.m mu.m co .muem.m>.=amucmzv ewzoe-:mz w.aw..m>< use m.mxmoucozv wage. Lona; .Num m4m<. 131 recognized as a disciplined ethnic group and hard working farmers.3 Lack of motivation and incentives in a sector with low productivity are also possible reasons for lower inputs per hectare in Kolongo. The average of lOS man-days per hectare in Kolodogou seems to better picture the overall O.N. labor input in rice production. There seems to be a direct relationship between the amount of labor input per hectare in each casier and the density of man-power (man-equivalents per ha) available. A common pattern of labor use in each casier is revealed by the fact that total labor per hectare is the lowest for the group of medium sized farms all across the settlement. This can be attributed more to the lower density of man-power per hectare than to relative efficiency in the use of labor.4 A first glance to the relationship between labor use and total out- put of rice is provided in Table 5-3 where average products of labor are calculated in terms of total gross yield. Higher inputs of labor 3Personal communication. 4This itself may reflect past O.N. land allocation policies by which families acquired land on the basis of 1 ha per working man avail- able. The average farm size in each stratum is respectively 4, 7.5 and 12 ha which implies that 2, 3 to 4 and 6 working-men are available on farms in each size group. This translates into an equal density of 0.5 working-man per hectare in each stratum. Densities of man-power when expressed in terms of man-equivalents per hectare will be higher; but to be relatively lower on medium sized farms one has to accept that family composition in terms of the additional number of youth, adult females and the elderly is relatively lower in this group than the others. The premise for discussion here is that there exists some direct relation- ship between the number of man-equivalents per hectare and total labor use. 132 .emmme xusu su.;z on some as. 3o.ma mumxumen :. mco.um.>mc venuemum "muoz n.a. o... . m.m. o.m. xmnucme\mx ¢.m. meow mmm. .e;\mxv mmmmem>< N... ¢.m. m.m. m... gone. .o muuzuoen mmmem>e .mmmv AmmNV .a.emmV m.m. men. .mmm cos. .m;\mxv u.m.a mmoem ... m.m. ..om ..e. m..~ gone. .o muuacoea mmmem>m ...Nmev ...emev .m.mcmv mum. cum. m.o~ ea.m .a;\mxv n.a.» macaw .. m.m. .... m... m... Loam. .o auauoea ommem>a .mmmv .o.~mev .m.mmmv mo.. cam. mm.. mmom .a;\axv a.a.a macaw . amen .m>e=m omco.ox .osmm =omouo.ox azoeo w~.m Ammuncms\mxv ome< za>ezm one =. mean. we.m co cone; mo muuzuoea mmmem>< .m-m m4m8 88» 888888888. 8888.. 88.8 ..88888 88. 88.888 .88.88 8;. 888.8 88.. 88.8.8588 88 8888» .8 8883.888 .8882888 888888.888 8888888 88.8 .8888 >8>e=m "88888m 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.8 .88 8. - 8. ... 8. ..8 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.. 8.. 8.8 .88 8. - 8 .. 8.8 8.8 ... 8.8 8.. .88 8 - 8. . 88888>< 888< A8>8=m 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. .88 8. - 8.. ... 8. 8.8 8.8 8.8 8. 8.. 8.8 ..8 ..8 8.. .88 8. - 8. 8. 8.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.. .8; m - 8 . 8 88.8x 8.. 8.. 8.8 8.8 8.. .88 8. - 8. ... 8. 8.8 m.8 8.8 ~.8 8.. 8.. 8.8 8.. 8.~ .8; 8. u m .. 8.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.8 .8; m l 8 . .888m 8.. ~.. o.~ 8.. 8.. .8: m. - 8. ... 8. 8.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.. ..8 8.. 8.. 8.. .88 8. - m 8. 8.8 8.8 ~.. m.8 8.. .8: m - 8 . 888888.82 .meu8wa «ma—82m ~w888>m awu.8=. ~8888MM1. .Am..:=v ~8888>M. A8883. ~8.88>M. .888zv 888888 8~.m 8.8: 5888 8.8: 2888 8.8: 2:88 .83.8< 5888 .85.8< 8888 2888 8:8 888 88.8 888 888 88.8 888 .88 8... e88 . 888 88.4 888 888 88.. 888 88.888 88.8 8>.8u=8888 88.8888 8>.88:88.8 >8.m=88 8>.8888888 88.8888 8>.8u=8888 38.8888 8>.»888888 >u.m=88 m88888>< m88888>< A.8828: 888888>< 888888>< 88888 838.88: 818.8 8.88888 88x8 888< x8>eam 8:8 8. 88858.888 8888 88 88.8 8>.88:8888 88888>< 8:8 88.8888 .8-m m.a<. 135 Animal power use shown in Table 5-5 is the total of oxen and donkey hours in rice production. More than 85 percent of the animal power is devoted to land preparation which is done solely with oxen. The variation in animal-hours per hectare seems to reflect the pattern of variation found in the total labor use per hectare. But lower inputs of animal power in Kolongo must also be attributed to the sector's low density of equipment per farm. Overall weighted means by casier were estimated at 144.0, 206 and 102 hours of animal power for Kolodogou, Sahel and Kolongo, respectively. The averages for the survey area indicate a general increase in the amount of animal-hours with the size of holdings. From examination of Tables 5-4 and 5-5 this suggests that large farms are associated with both larger stock of farm equipment and a higher rate of service extrac- tion from it. A complementary relationship between animal power and human labor may exist despite the varying proportion in man-power asso- ciated with animal use, particularly for oxen.5 3. Use of Hired Labor on Rice Farms Use of hired labor by settlers is also the least documented aspect of farm activities in the O.N. records. However, it is recognized that the majority of farmers resort to the practice most commonly at harvest time. Permanent laborers were employed by only 3 out of 96 families in the farm management sample. Both hired and permanent laborers should be 5In plowing for instance one man holds the plow handle and two children are employed with one guiding the animals and the other follow- ing them with a whip. With better trained oxen the third person was not needed. 136 .88.888 8888 8. 8~.8 8.8588 8;. 88 88.88.83 882 8885 ..8.8>8 88.8 888. No. now 8.88. 88.888 88 88888>8 .888 .8.888 .888 .8... .8... ...888 ..8.. .88.. .8.888 88.88.>88 88888888 8.88. 88. 8.88. mm .8. 88. 888 88. .N. .8. mm. 8.. 8: 888 88888>8 ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . 8888 88>.8m 88:8.8x .8888 888888.8x E88. 888< 88>888 .z.o 8:8 8. 888888: .88 88: .88.:88 888 88x8. 88388 .8s.8< .8 8.88: .m-m mam<. 137 distinguished from members of the "floating" population who increase the consumption unit (as contrasted to production unit) of some settlers' families at the start of the off-season.6 Hired workers were of two main types: (1) daily wage earners who were paid in cash and/or in kind; and (2) contract laborers who were paid by the task, with the latter case being more frequent during the harvesting season. Between members of settlers' families of long stand- ing acquaintance, payment for various contracted agricultural tasks under- taken during the crop season was only honored after the harvest has been sold.7 Table 5-6 depicts the proportion of hired labor and the average wage paid by survey zone. The data reveal that a higher proportion of hired labor was used on rice farms in Kolodogou and represents l0 per- cent of total labor with an average daily wage of 718 MF per man-day. Further analysis of Kolodogou data indicates that higher wages were paid by settlers with holdings below 5 ha at an average of l020 MF per man-day. The most probable explanation for this is the proximity of small sized farms to the Niono center, the largest urban agglomeration in the entire O.N. area. Though the supply of unskilled labor is higher in Niono com- pared to other O.N. centers, the availability of alternative employment 6The floating population is made up of nonsettlers who migrate into the Office area (some accompanied by their families) to look for food in exchange for farm or household works around and after the harvest season. Members of the "floating" population who performed agricultural work and were paid for it were legally treated as hired labor. 7In which case total payment was entered along with an estimate of man-days of labor contributed. 138 .88.88 8888 88.83 88 888588 888 38.88 88888888 8. 888 888.88.>88 88888888 "8.82 888 888 .8. 8.. 8.8 8.. 8 o. 888888>< .8...‘ .888. ..88. 8.8 8.8 888 .88.88. 8.88 8883 88888.8 .8 8.8 . 8 8 ..888. .8 a. 8888. 888.: .. .88 8.-8.. ... 88888 88.8 .888. .8.8. ...8. 88. 8.8 .88 .8E\8z. 8.88 8883 88888>< .8 8.8 8.. . 8. ..8888 .8 8. 8888. 888.: .. .88 o.-8. .. 88888 88.8 .88.. .8.8. .8... 888 8.8 888.. .8E\8z. 8.88 8883 88888>< .8 8.8 . . 8 ..8888 .8 a. 8888. 888.: .. .88 8-8. . 88888 88.8 8888 x8>888 8888.88 .8888 888888.88 s88. 8888 88>888 88 85888 88.8 88 8.88 888: 88888>< 888 8888. 888.: .8 88.8888888 .8u8 8888885. 88 88..888 888...888. 88 8..88 8 8. 888888888 .858...8 .88888888 8. 888 888.88.>88 888888888 .8888 88>888 588. 8888.888. "888888 8.... --- 8.8. ...8 8888 88>888 8885 .888. .8... .8... 8.88 --- 8... ..88 8888.88 .88. .88. .88.. .8: ..88. 8.8 ..88 ..88 .8888 .888. .88.. .88. .88.. ...: 8.8. 8.8. 8.88 88888.88 .88\88. 88.888..888 .8 .8>8. 8885 88. 88>8 888.888 88 88 88.88 8. .8>8. 88888558888 888888888 888888888 88888 8.858... 58.8855< 8888 588. 8888< 88>8=8 888 8. 88.888..88< 88888 888 888...8888 .8 .8>88 88888558888 88888> .8888< .8-8 8.8<. 145 of farmers who used "Foundation" seeds to plant their fields. These ratios were respectively 98, 8l and 40 percent for Sahel, Kolodogou and Kolongo. Further analysis of the Kolongo data indicated that 5 out of l6 settlers who planted their fields with selected seeds also used vary- ing proportions of ordinary seeds. Another point to raise for Kolongo is that 19 out of 40 settlers in the sample were provided ordinary seeds on credit (at 60 MF versus 70 MF per kilo for "Foundation" seeds) by the Office management; this is an indication of the proportion of Kolongo settlers with "empty" granaries at the beginning of the season, unable to supply themselves with seeds taken out of previous harvests. The correlations between gross yields of rice and varying rates of seeding and fertilization is shown in Table 5-l0 using the sample data. This cross-tabulation illustrates the increase in yields among the sample farms who used fertilizer and/or selected seeds at higher rates than others. The maximum cross section increase in gross yields associated with varying seeding rates, even with a level of fertilization below 50 kg per hectare is 22 percent. When the table is read vertically at the l20 kg rate of seeding there is a 52 percent maximum increase in gross yields across the sample at different levels of fertilization. A pro—‘ duction function fitted to the survey data would have possibly led to the same conclusions. A cross-tabulation of this sort, however, illustrates the expected results in a clearer way. 5. Other Major Costs of Rice Production in the O.N. As pointed out earlier, the single most important charge is a land fee of 400 kg of paddy per hectare levied on regular "casier" .88.8.. .888.>.88. 588. 88888588 8883 88.8.» 88888 88888>8 88.83 588. 888588. .8 888588 888 888888888 88888888 8. 8888582 88882 .8888888 888 888888888 58.88558 888 888: .8 88.88888 .888.8 .8888 88>888 888 588. 8888.88.88 8888888 146 88.. .88 8888. .8 8888:: 8.88 888. ---- ---- .888888 8.8.. 88888 88>8 888 88. ...V .8. 8588. .8 888582 .888 8888 ---- ---- .888888 8.8.. 88888 88. o. 8. .8.8 .88 .8. 8588. .8 888582 888. 888. 8.8. ---- .888888 8.8.. 88888 8. o. 88 .88 ... .88 ... 8588. .8 888582 888. 88.. 888. 8.8. .888888 8.8.. 88888 88 28.88 888888 88.8 88>8 8:8 88. 88.-88. 88.-88 88 38.88 .888888 -88....888 88888 88.mwww11111111 888< 88>888 888 8. 88.888...8888 888 88.8888 .8 88888 88 88.8.. 88888 88888>< .8 88.88.888.-88888 .8.-8 888<. 147 fields.” Originally the principle of a fixed fee of paddy weight per unit of area was supposed to encourage farmers to achieve high per hec- tare yields. As developed land varies greatly in its potential however, the land fee has apparently failed to be an incentive. Farmers tend to increase the size of their holdings in order to maximize returns to labor. In so doing they actually use little manpower and fewer inputs per hec- tare which results in lower yields than expected. The threshing charge is currently 120 kg of paddy for each metric ton threshed. It has been calculated in such a way as to cover actual cost to the Office du Niger. The issue of field losses as a direct cost of production needs to be treated at some length. The difference between the total achievable output of rice and the amount farmers actually dispose of can be con- 13 However, farmers recover about 8% of sidered as lost in global terms. the total potential output through family gleanage of fields after har- vest, including at the time of mechanical threshing. The disposable out- put of rice used in this study's budgets is net of field losses and was derived by adding 8 percent of the potential output to the amount set- tlers market through the O.N. channel. Other uses of resources for rice production refer to expenditures on repairs and maintenance of farm equipment, harnessing, feeds and 12A tax of 240 kg per hectare is also levied on hors casier field when discovered. 13Results from the post-harvest loss study led to an estimate of 2l% [Kamuanga and Spencer, l98l]. 148 veterinary care for draft animals. On some farms the cost of Tilemsi phosphate was entered at a third of its purchase price in the amortiza- tion charge because it has a multi-year effect on soil texture. 5.3 Rice Enterprise Budgets for Selected Farms in the O.N. Rice budgets by farm size group in each of the three casiers are pre- sented in Tables 5-lla through 5-llc. The format of budget tables was modified from the original format of crop tables generated by the FMDCAS package in order to sort out particular items in the structure of operat- ing costs which are of relevance to the O.N. farmer. The following is a detailed comparative analysis of costs and returns per hectare among different farm size groups in the survey area. l. Labor Use by Field Activity Inputs of labor in man-days by field activity are shown in Table 5-12 derived from the crop tables and aggregated by casier. The propor- tions of labor allocated to peak season activities are roughly the same for land preparation (20 to 21 percent of total labor), but substantially different for weeding and harvesting. Farmers devoted 12, 15 and 9 per- cent of total labor to weeding, and 36, 42 and 41 percent for harvesting for Kolodogou, Sahel and Kolongo, respectively. Little weeding is done in Kolongo perhaps because weed invasion there has reached a point where farmers have lost the incentive to weed. The composition of animal power use on fields is depicted in Table 5-13. Soil preparation absorbs 92 to 96 percent of the total animal power use on fields. The use of animal power in cultivation and at 149 TIBLE S-lia. Rice Enterprise Budgets :er Hectare :0, Kolodogou Casier (sector of Niono) 1. Enterprise characteristics g I 7. Size group E I i ll i 2!: 1 1 2. Average holding (NI) g 3.3 g 7.5 i 12.0 | I 3. Hunter of field observations 1 19 3 31 l 27 l 3. Income and expenditure; ’ } limo ) (HF 3A k ' Fl Amount k Value MP 1 ant {kg Value . 1 mount g)Va uefH 1. Value of production 1.723 . { 1.774 0 .o [ l.&64 37.322 2. Variaole inputs ’ é seeds . 39 5.709 1 111 7.245 g 120 3.575 fertilizer ' l mineral :7 6.133 ' 71 3.772 g 51 5.333 organic . 0 l 27 1.430 3 --- threshing charge g 207 22.942 3 209 l2.557 176 70.541 animal power (hours) . ‘ own use 3 114 3.102 [ 132 4.367 147 2.304 hired° : z 34 , 24 695 ! .-- ... hired labor (man-days) l 10 l0.l95 1 14 6.591 } 7 3,537 othersc : --- 250 l .-. 3“ § --- :40 Total ; --- 37.365 1 --- £2,501 5 --- 33.336 3. Gross margin _ 7 66.051 ’ 52,143 i 54.186 1. Fixed exoenses ' 3 i land fee I 300 24.300 V 400 24.3CO 406 24.330 depreciation ; --- l.396 l --- 7.790 , --- 1.975 family labor (man-days) ; 10$ .-- 1 33.9 .-- 1 9s --- stners‘ . .-- 386 ; .-. 386 . --- 336 Total 25.730 i 25.175 29.362 5. Returns to land. labor. 5 , . caoital and management 1 40.271 7 25.567 . 25.12; less opportunity cost of ‘ _ _‘ .._ . . ‘q onrgginq 3.91:1] .3 153;. i :.360 5.840 ' tube 6. Net returns to land. family ! "b°' in“ “'"‘9'“'"‘ ; 34.3; . 29.591 23.1:4 7. Returns per alu-dlylf ' . of family labor 357 35? ' 238 a b ‘otal suant‘ty of 1'0. and :ianrnnium onosonate. Organic fertilizer refers to cattle nanure. Hire of equioment inciudes both farm imolements and craft animals. c‘iiscellaneous exoenses 0n bags and smell tools. dinciuding the test 3f Tiiansi pnosohate entered a: a third of its value. eThis is the average cost of capital in tne informal rural credit market. 'Obtaireo by :ividing item 5 by the total number of nan-days 0f ‘amiia ’acor. 1 u 150 TABLE 5-llb. Rice Enterprise Budgets per Hectare for- Sahel (sector of Niono) )e Enterprise characteristics 1 1. Size group 1 E II 3 211 I I 2. Average holding (ha) 1 4.2 7.4 2 12.7 3. Huber of field observations ‘ l3 1 23 1 13 3. Income and gapenditures ‘ l i I 1 I l . . 1 . flaunt (it )Value (1" Mount k 1. Value of production 1 1.55! W F. 3 1 1 1 ! 2. Variable inputs 1 seeds r. 3 146 10.225 127 8.749 186 13.020 fertilizd ’ mineral E 80 9.709 1 67 3.366 93 12.090 organic 1 0 --- 0 --- . 0 --- threshing charge 1 187 11.218 207 12.405. ; 234 16.026 animal power (hours) ; ‘ ; .. on use - 102 5.157 169 1-97 I 247 4.360 hired" i 19 633 15 l .090 . --- .-. hired labor (nan-days) i 2 1.2313) 1.5 3 3;: 1 9 8.??? others 1 .- , Total 3 38.206 36.091 1 49.353 3. Gross margin 1 59.946 1 72,453 1 72.271 1 1 4. 51x06 expenses ' 1 1 l . land fee 3 400 24.000 400 29.000 f 400 24.000 depreciation I on l .291 --- ‘1 .786 . «- 3 .7 family labor (man-days) 1.496 --- . 135 .-- g 133 --. othersd ! .-- 120 , ... :2: 1 .-- :20 Total 1 25.411 1 25.906 5 27.913 5. Returns to land. labor, 5 1 ¢ capital and management 1 34.537 1 46.552 1 44.353 less opportunity cost E i 7 operating capital 9155‘ g 5.732 1 5.914 1 7.430 1 ' . 6. Net returns to land. family E . : labor and managuent 1 28.805 3 41 .138 1 37.173 7. Returns per nun-day! Q i 3 of family labor ; 23‘1 - 325 286 Source: Survey data. ‘Tota'l quantity of urea and diailnoniual phosphate. Organic fertilizer refers to cattle manure. :’Hire of eouipment includes both far-n impl-lents and draft animals. cMiscellaneous expenses on bags and small tools. “Including the cost of Tilemsi phosphate entered at a third of its value. .this is the average cost of capital in the informal rural credit market. I Obtained by dividing item 5 by the total number of man-days 0‘ family labor. 151 TABLE 5-llc. Rice Enterprise Budgets Per Hectare ‘or Kolongo ‘8 En 'se chara . rl tics Nullber of field observations 1 14 1 1. s12- group i l 5 :1 : 1:1 2. Average holding (ha) 3 3.5 I 7.1 11.3 3. 1 21 9 l Income and exgndi tures 1 1 l 1 1 (hunt (It Value ’liF unt ’1: Value ’MF‘ Mount It Value ‘I'iFl Value of production 717 13.555 71! 12.730 I :1 33.30 1 I ‘ l. 2. Variable inputs seeds 81 5.103 109 7.627 123 7.626 fertilizer‘ mineral 40 4.967 42 5.234 1 30 3.534 organic 0 ~-- 0 «o 1 0 «- threshing charge 90 5.376 86 5.134 1 62 3.715 anilllal power (hours) ; on use 146 4.006 96 1.519 1 84 1.852 hired° 3 86 11 212 1 Z hired labor (nan-days) l 761 l 34 l 215 othersc , l’otal ... 21.166 -- 21.108 1 .-- 17.386 3. Gross margin 27.409 21.672 ; 16.466 1 6. Filled expenses ; j land fee E 400 24.000 1 400 24.000 ' 400 24.3c0 depreciation ' 2.598 ' 1.607 799 family labor (8..-..y,) 1 108 --- 1 64.7 .-- ; 68.3 --- others 3 --- --- . --- --- 1 --- “- Total ; --- 26.598 1 --- 25.507 , --- 23.799 1 1 5. Returns to 1and. labor. 1 ; a capital and management 3 311 i -3.935 : «3.363 c 1 less opportunity cost of 1 9 operating capital 9 1529 1 3.172 ; 3.766 ; 2,3 3 6. het returns to land. famly 1 ? later and managemnt ; -2.36l : o7.’211 73.55 e E ‘; - 7. Returns per man-day' 1 ; of family labor ' 7.2 ; ~60.2 322.2 afoul ouantity of urea and dianihoniuih phosphate. Organic fertilizer refer: to :attla ranure. :‘sire of equipment includes both far-11 implanents and draft anira’ls. c‘i‘liscellaneous expenses on bags and small tools. d‘ibtalned oy dividing itch 5 by the total number of nan-days 3f ’ami'q 'apor. '7his is the average cost 3f 30in in the fomi rural :reoit harket. ‘ Obtained by dividing iteh 5 3y the total number of ran-days 0f ‘amll/ Tasor. 152 .mswu m:_umopca uzm mcwumop mouapo:_ ompm mgzmwm m_;h «scanned» umm>gmguumoa .ucwsmpuumm .z.o mgu c? mpmum umuwspp a co vmupuuwga mp m:_;mmc;u pagan: .mcpzoccvz ace mcpucaoa use; o» mcmcmg a .ppwz mm newccwgu mmc=~u=_m .mmpnmu nogu sogc cm>wgmo "mugzom cop C N P” I—Nl‘r—NF-Nm m N O P emom—xooovoo LOO NQ'F-Na—Nm Q’Q'F- ‘ m P” NNQFMNPQ NO P N F .mm \OQr—DMNBO 030‘ mm NO P PNmF-Nf-N" m N 0 PM P Pouch mzomcmppmumwz ucospmmcu umm>cmguamoa van a .mcpmmmn .mcpgmmcgu Pusan: mcpxumum use mcwumm>cmz .6=.6..z mcppwmwgcu cowumuwpaam LmNF—wugmm mcwzom mcmzoccm; mcwzopa :owumsmamsa new; coca xm>czm omcofiox somouopox »p_>.ou< >.H_.>_.HU< ha 9:qu— wuwm :0 956902.. LOA— mm: Lonmg ....o mhwtlcmz .Nplm m._m<._. 153 .mucuu em—.agu-xox=oe m:.m= ma_u-umo>cus as ucvaaag can ugoamcegu cu mcuuox a .mcvzccce; uca a:_zc_a wows—u=_a .uuav aw>2=m "mugaom “.mm_ we. ~.m~— c.mm no— mo. sew em— pm. O.Nc. c.cm— o.o__ .uuo» e.n m.¢ a.o e.m m.m c.m --- ~.m n.e n.m N.N m.~ mcmguo ~.m m.~ m.— --- m.o m.~ ~.¢ . c.m m.o 5.. c._ ..o am:_umm>gu: m.o m.c m.a m.c — --- 1.. o.— o.c 9.. m.c m.o :o.ga>.u—:u 3.9m. ~.cv_ a.a__ c._m mm ..un. v.~¢~ “.mup ~.m_— o.—ep so. v.~op u:o.umuanogn p—om ..~ __ _ ..~ __ _ ___ __ _ ~.. __ _ maaoca m~.m unaccm m~.m mazacu u~vm masccm w~_m xa_>_uu< moon xw>c=m cacopox .ozam :ooovo—ox moc< xm>2=m a=a c. au_>.uu< v.6.“ a; 62.666: can 26:6; ..a.=< cc 62:6: .m_-m u4m

wcmo "muczom m~._ oe.o m~.. qp._ ANV\APV ovum; O.N.NN amm.¢~ m_m.am Nom.¢~ ANV apnea taxpc Au_mv .oc.up Agony om~.__ Anomv oao.m~ Axeev ¢_e.m. .6266 use mama. m-.em «mo.up mmm.me omm.mm _v momoa a_naaaa> Am; m_-o.v HHH aaoam aNam m~._ ~m.o am._ Ne.F A~v\A_v o_ama 6mm.m~ Noo.m~ mom.m~ mNF.m~ Amy mpmou waxec Axeev m_a.¢_ A&_ov .mm.~_ Aauev m_P.~. Axmmv Npo.o_ .aaaa new mama. _me.Pm mop._~ .mo.om .om.~6 Pv nomad a_aa_aa> A6; o_-mv Ha aaoam a~wm m~.. cm.o om._ N¢._ ANV\AFv 6.662 hmo.c~ mam.o~ ._e.m~ om~.mm Amy mpmou aux.» Anoev om~.m_ figmev ono.o_ Axmmv mmm.m_ A&_mv New.Fp .uaac new mama. mmm.om map.,m com.mm www.mm _V momoo a_nawaa> Am; m-ov H aaoam aNmm amen >m>e=m coco—ox pmsmm somouopox m cw mumoo umxmm can m—nm_gm> weapon: Log we com_cmasou Am: cwv gmpmmu an =o_uu:coga muwm .vpnm m4mHcmo "mueaom mmHm eumm omen comm Hu;\uzv cmwmmu An mmmcmaxm cam: omHN mmom oeme emmH mmmH mace comm Nmmu omsm comm Noon omHm Hm;\uzv «usage» .sz5 new mchgmm “.mmH meH ~.wNH mm noH meH New ewH HNH HeH omH oHH Hm;\mezosv ucmsaHscm Ho mm: HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H amen zm>e=m omcoHox ngmm sonata—ox EmuH um: acmsaHzcm co mono: was mmmcmaxm oucmcmuchz ucm cwmamm .mpum m4m5 aaocm m~Hm sumo 2H macaw mo conga: «nu an umugmHmz mmamcm>g=m omcoHox ngmm :omouoHox EwuH Hazy nsogc mNHm seam new cmwmmu an =o_»u:cogg muHm :H memaum: can magnumm new mchgmz mmocw .mpum ~4mm uHumsguHcm Hngm>o a .azogm «NHm sumo :_ mace; Ho amass: on» an umuzmwoz mmmcm>gam ”muczom Hsaa\azv mac mam Hm“ mHh moat 6mm: omega: comm mom- neon mmmm cowmmu Log mmmcm>< mmH mmm mom mum- He- w NHm men HmN mom awe «mm amuucms\msou=_ umz HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H amen >U>cam omcoHox ngmm zomouoHox spr Amzv mmg< au>cam wsu :H mgmxgoz vaHmecs Lou mama mom: Hogan: use Loam; aHHsmm co amouzmz can mcczpmm .upum m4mmc cgmucwumm .aamv >m>eam "mucaom o.¢ -.mm mm mm.cmm mm Hench - 1- - om.mv~ mm omcoHox Ha~.ov o.m m a om.mmH ON a mm.o Hmsmm aHNm.ov o.m -.oN NH ma.mmu mm somoaopox -.H u : M~H\Aev amzw muHmHu,u;: Anny «Hasmm mocoN we mNHm m mucmucma o I we csz mace; mace; =H mace; >u>gsm mmmcm>< mwg< co conszz 6o mmc< co coasaz Hench Hooch Hey an HVH HmH HNH HHH magma umzu>cam on» soc mmc< «Hasmm Hmuoh mo mmmpcwucwa new .o.: cw umucmHa mmc< .mH1m mmm<~ 165 Reliability of the data depended on the type of information gather- ed. On HC fields where harvest was mechanically threshed by the O.N., a large proportion of nonlabor cost data was objectively secured. This referred to such cost components as threshing charge (which was the same as on legal fields). salaries paid to hired labor particularly at harvest time, estimates of field losses and quantities of seeds planted. Fixed costs were also objectively provided because the land fee levied on "recognized" HC fields amounted to 240 kg per hectare and was null on unreported fields.19 It was in the domain of labor use that risks of underreporting were higher because of the tendency of farmers to down- play their involvement in HC field cultivation. Estimates of the output of HC fields were generated in the same manner as those from casier fields. i.e., by adding to the amount mar- keted through the official channel an allowance for family consumption and total gleanage on fields. Though the output was valued at the official producer price of 60 MF per kilo. it is believed that part of it was sold at higher prices to private traders so that the gross value of output reported in the budget is understated. 2. Labor Use Reliability of the labor data depended on the degree of confidence the respondent had with respect to the enumerators. In general after a 19Some settlers reported the existence of HC fields to enumerators only on the provision that the information should not be used against them. 166 good rapport was established between enumerators and farmers. the amount of underreported data did decline. Still the data have to be treated with caution. Table 5-19 depicts the magnitude of labor use on HC fields by activ- ity for the two casiers. Standard deviations were computed for each ac- tivity in order to assess the amount of variation around the mean value. The total labor per hectare amounts to 53.6 man-days in Sahel and 81.2 man-days in Kolodogou. .flgw_significantmi§_themglffiggenggmjnwlaborminputs Wehetwesn,..!19.1:§.:§é§i§:-904.,19993mfifiléé?‘ To answer the 1111-1511611 statistical analysis of the difference between the two means was under- taken. The_procedure follows thatflgutlined in Snedecor and Cochran ” fi— run-ow“. ‘2‘. ‘fiwu‘mw-q. _ [1975wfieihensamplesizes .2333... different. .. Mm mmr,’.--- O- The ordinary method of finding confidence limits and making tests of significance for the difference between the means of two independent samples assumes that the two population variances are the same. This was the hypotheses used in section 5.2 to show that the pairwise dif- ferences between mean labor inputs pe[_hectare forwkglogggou, Sahelfland Kolongo,werewsi9ni_fi__c_qn£..,a..t,99§hl-and Seerssntmlsxsja... For the compari- son of hors-casier versus casier labor inputs per hectare, there is rea- son to believe that the samples came from two different populations. therefore one would expect their variances to be different as well. Though the sample size is very small in Sahel. the obvious wide differ- ence between the means supports the hypotheses. The results of the statistical analysis (shown in Appendix C) confirm that for Kolodogou the mean labor input of 81.2 man-days per hectare in hors-casier is not significantly different from that of 116.7 man-days on fields in casier (t' statistic was 1.16, which is less than 2.10, the critical 167 TABLE 5-19. Labor Utilization on Hors-Casier Rice Fields Field Activity (man-days) Kolodogou Sahel Land preparation 27.3 (19.6) 17.8 (11.5) Sowing 2 5 (1.8) 1.8 (1.9) Fertilization application 1.5 (1.8) --- Irrigating _ 0.6 (.8) --- Care/cultivation (weeding) 15.0 (14.9) 10.5 (8.4) Harvesting and stacking 27.6 (4.7) 21.6 (17.8) Manual threshing and treatment 2.5 (4.3) 1.5 (.8) Others 4.2 (9.4) .4 (.8) Total 81.2 53.6 Source: Survey data. 168 level of t' at the 5 percent level).20 For Sahel, however. the results show a significant difference between the mean labor in hors-casier (53.6 man-days) compared to in casier fields (139.6 man-days) (t' = 5.72 > 2.53 at the 5 percent level). Thus‘farmers' involvement in HC activitieinn Kolodogou is impor- . » _fl, r* tant and may create a real conflict as far as the use of family labor is concerned. This can be argued on the ground that the opportunity for additional income from HC fields in Kolodogou is a real one, particular- ly when the output is clandestinely sold to private traders given the proximity of the center of Niono. The significantly low involvement in H0 activities of Sahel settlers can be substantiated on two main grounds: first, Sahel is more distant with respect to the center of Niono making it relatively difficult for farmers to gain access to private traders. This would decrease the incentive to invest more labor in H0 activities. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Sahel zone has a high potential for yield improvement and farmers may find it logical to devote more labor to casier fields in order to reap a larger harvest. ..-- From a production theory point of view. it can be argued that farm- 1 1' {I ers prefer to invest additional labor in H0 cultivation only because it is profitable to them to do 50:! This is shown in Figure 5a and 5b which present two ways of looking atwthe problem. 20For this kind of analysis the ordinary t statistic is replaced by the quantity t' = (i1 - Yé)//(s$/n, + sé/nz) where ii and Yb are means of labor inputs for casier and HC fields, 51 and 52 are sample estimates of variance and 111 and n2 their respective sizes [Snedecor and Cochran. 1967, p. 115]. 169 One way is to visualize a production function of rice with labor as the unique variable input and other inputs being held constant. As- suming that land. fertilizer, seeds and oxen power are being held a cer- tain level, the function can be written as follows: Y = f(X1|X2=a. X3=b, X4=c) (1) in which X1151family labor and X2 is the amount of rice land for the le- gal holding. X3 and X4 representing the other inputs. Farmers are as- sumed to be rational and therefore producing in stage II of the produc- tion function drawn in Figure 5a.. Involvement in HC activities there- fore implies that additional land is brought under cultivation. This certainly increases the fixed input X2 to x2 = a + 6a. From the settler's point of view, the production function has shifted up a little bit and with the same amount of labor his marginal physical product (MPP) is higher than it was when he was only cultivating "casier" fields. This argument. however, assumes that the farmer faces only one production function. The second way of looking at the problem assumes that the farmer has two production functions of rice. one for the legal holding which is higher and the second for H0 fields where the yield potential is lower because production is undertaken on a nonimproved land. As shown in Figure 5b, in both cases the farmer is producing in stage II and attempt- ing to maximize his total value of output by equating marginal value products (MVP) of labor between the legal and illegal holding. This condition is satisfied when ”’le (Y1) "‘TT‘““' MVP x1012) P - (2) x1 x 1 170 93:25.30 Sim-Waco: 9.3.2.... 02: Ho c0325". 9.2.6269... a 2:2...- ... H . . .....x.nx.flx\—K .8 .561... 5.. an in (>91; .....on'“ calflxo. a..." .‘\.x:" > \ \ O'."|“ 171 in which Y1 and Y2 stand for rice produced at two levels of technology in casier and HC and PX] is the opportunity cost of family labor. There- fore farmers are maximizing their total value product when family labor yields the same marginal value product of Y1 and Y2. Equation (2) can be expanded in terms of marginal physical products to demonstrate that despite the lower marginal physical output on HC fields. farmers still find it profitable to cultivate illegal plots be- cause of the opportunity to sell at a higher price. Simplifying equation (2) to MVPXI(Y1) = MVPx](Y2) gives the following equality MPP = MPP X(Y]) - PY1 X](Y2) . PY2 (3) MPPX1(Y2) 15 usua]]y 1e55 than MPPX.(Y ) but the t0t31 value product 1 1 (TVP) is maximized because PY is greater than PY . the official pro- 1 2 ducer price of paddy. Even if the extra output is home-consumed farmers do value it at its opportunity cost which is equal to the market price PYZ. Therefore. when perceived from a production theory standpoint, the issue of farmers' involvement in HC can be tackled through a technologi- cal improvement which would shift up the production function of Y1 to.a level that makes it unnecessary for settlers to look for additional out- put outside their legal holdings. The same result could be obtained by raising the official producer price PY1 above PY2 or by lowering the cost of production on legal fields. The above discussion points to the possibility of competition be- .tween HC and casier fields, particularly in areas near the Niono center, where the difference in the mean value of labor input between HC and casier fields was not significant as shown earlier. By comparing Table 172 5.12 and 5.19 it becomes clear that land preparation activities consti- tute an area where competition between the two types of rice fields could be the most felt. Farmers seem to spend relatively little time in other pro-harvest activities on HC than on legal fields. 3. Cash Expenditures and Net Returns on HC Fields Except for hired labor and the Office threshing charge of 120 kg of paddy per metric ton, there was enough inconsistency in the data on cash expenditures for MC fields to warrant a formal analysis. But it is probable that the total cost picture in general is much lower on HC fields compared to legal fields. thus creating the incentive for farmers to cultivate HC fields in the first place. Fertilizer is not usually applied to H0 fields and seeding rates vary widely. Yields are usually 21 Assuming low and can be objectively estimated at 1000 kg per hectare. that a fee of 240 kg of paddy is levied. an average budget for a MC field can be worked out as in Table 5-20. With a low cost structure (half as much) compared to legal fields, and a yield achievement around 1000 kg per hectare. the incentive to go into HC cultivation seems to be substantiated. A net income of nearly 30,000 MF per hectare and per year on HC fields in Kolodogou is much higher than what the average settler makes in Kolongo. As the Office management provides threshing services and levies a land fee on HC fields. the practice is certainly bound to continue so long as the settlers find it profitable to do so. 21N0 yield plots were specially mounted for hors-casiers fields. The estimate is based on farmers' own reporting. 173 TABLE 5-20. Typical Rice Enterprise Budget for a Hors Casier Field in Kolodogou or Sahel Item Quantity Value (MF) Value of production 1,000 kg @ 60 MF per kg 60,000 Seedsa 100 kga 7.000 Threshing charge 120 kg/mt. 7,200 Animal power use 1,000 Hired labor 700 Total operating cost 15.900 Land fee 240 kg 14.400 Depreciation 500 Total charges 30,800 Net return to land, 29.200 family labor, capi- tal and management Source: Survey data. aAssumed at lower than the recommended level of 120 kg. 174 5.5 Financial and Economic Cost of Producing One Metric Ton of Rice in the O.N. 1. Introduction The purpose of this section is to adjust the private costs of re- sources used in rice production in order to determine the economic cost of producing one metric ton of paddy in the Office du Niger. The strati- fication of farm size group outlined earlier is important for analysis of the relationship between economic costs and size of holding and in the identification of farm characteristics associated with high returns to the economy. Cost-price schedules for rice produced under different techniques in Mali are prepared for the government agricultural commission which convenes in May of each year to set guidelines for agricultural price 22 Thus each year the Office du Niger's Bureau of Economic Af- policy. fairs prepares a budget based on a hypothetical (but "objective") aver- age farm from which the cost price of one metric ton of paddy is 22The commission comprises representatives from the Ministry of Economy and Finances, the Institut d'Economie Rurale of the Ministry of Rural Development, the Office du Niger and development agencies known as "Operations." ' 175 23 The effect of size of holding on the unit cost and more derived. importantly the variation in the level of resource utilization on farms is not taken into account for lack of data. Besides there is still some confusion at the Office as to how cost magnitudes are examined. i.e.. costs to the farmer, to the O.N. management. or to the economy. The cost estimates in this section are derived from data collected on the actual level of resource use through interviews with farmers and direct field observations. These financial costs were compiled in the series of rice budgets presented in section 5.3. Economic or social costs are then derived by correcting for subsidies and taxes. by imput- ing opportunity costs to nonvalued resources, and to capital resources engaged in rice production on the basis of its current opportunity cost in the Segou region. Specifically the shadow price Of labor (family and nonfamily) is set equal to the market wage paid to unskilled labor in the Segou region, 23Although the estimate arrived at provides a good basis for sug- gesting the appropriate producer price. there is room for overstatement of some cost items in order to justify the need for a producer price increase from which the Office management derives its sale price to OPAM. the national trading agency for agricultural products. For instance. in 1979 the report prepared for the 1980-81 government pricing commission estimated the total cost per hectare at 176,836 MF, including the oppor- tunity cost of farm family labor at 1.000 MF per man-day. Cost items where overestimation was obvious included the draft animal feed ratios (quantities assumed at research station level), the amounts of fertilizer which assumed that recommended levels are adopted by all. and the years of life of farm implement (set at 5 years which is lower than the actual average of 7 to 9 years reported by farmers). In addition. the average farm size is drastically reduced to 5.5 ha as contrasted to 8 ha. which results in higher per hectare costs. 176 where the demand for hired labor in irrigated rice and sugar cane pro- duction is strong. The year-around average was 700 MF per man-day how- ever locational differences existed and were retained in the evaluation of labor. Direct subsidies on farm equipment such as plows, carts and harrows existed in the past but were removed in the 1976-77 crop season [McIntire, 1979]. Fertilizer and fungicides are still subsidized. The shadow price of land in the O.N. area is the residual return to land in the production of sugar cane. As shown later this assumption is crucial in determining whether or not an economic return is generated in the O.N. Interest rate on capital in the private commercial banks in Mali is 13 percent but ranges from 15 to 20 percent in the informal rural credit market.24 .A shadow price of capital of 15 percent is retained for this analysis. After reviewing the distribution of financial costs of rice produc- tion in the settlement, transfer payments incorporated in prices of in- puts are identified and deducted from the financial cost to arrive at the economic cost of production. Finally the import substitution price of rice in the Office du Niger area is used to evaluate the net economic return by survey zone and by farm size group. 24The capital market in Mali is segmented. Capital is available for development agencies at a concessionary rate of 7.5 percent; it is 2.5 percent on public irrigation works. For a more detailed discussion of shadow prices in the Malian agricultural economy. see Scott R. Pearson, J. Dirck Stryker, Charles P. Humphreys and others, in Rice in West Afri- can Policy and Economics, Stanford Press University, 1981. 177 2. Financial Costs of Rice Production Table 5-21 depicts financial costs of production per metric ton by rice casier. These were derived by dividing the overall average cost in each farm size group by the average gross yield. The financial cost per metric ton of paddy is shown to be virtually the same throughout the survey area. This is due to the fact that in areas such as Kolongo where the gross yield is lower, financial costs per hectare are also lower as a result of a limited use of nonlabor resources. The overall average cost in the settlement is shown to be about 33,240 MF per metric ton. Thus the uniformity of the financial cost per unit of output conceals the wide variation in costs and returns per hectare mostly determined by yield differences across the scheme. 3. The Economic Cost of Production Economic analysis is concerned with flows of real resources. valued in terms of their opportunity costs, which may be different from their market prices. Taking into account all possible adjustments from finan- cial to economic values would lead us too far. Emphasis is given only to those adjustments to the financial accounts which are likely to make a perceptible difference in the evaluation of real costs to the national economy [Brown, 1979]. Seeds In addition to differences in the rates of seeding per hectare, farmers in the three casiers also used varying proportions of improved seeds in planting their fields. As shown earlier these proportions were 178 .aaocm sumo z. w~Hm achHog came oza xn cougaHmzo .m-m «Hash m. oucaomv .aaoca o~Hm sumo =H mags» Ho amasac oz» Ha vouzuHu: ago: mmuacm>< www.mm vwo.Hn «Ho.mn om~.Hm omn.~m con.~m Ham.~n eem.on H~—.He m~c.mn ~m¢.~n cam.om co» u-cuos\:cHHmyuoca Ho umcu Na.— ~m.— HH.— em.H ~m.. m~.H en.~ Hc.~ m~.H HH.H cH.~ oc.~ uuHuH» mmoem oaaco>< ~mm..o mmm.~m omc.om mam.H¢ m.~.oe oe~.~o HHH.mH sam.Ho HHo.m~ mao.~o Hum.wo mec.mm nacaauog can umou scam HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H HHH HH H awa— uooca xo>cam ooze—ox Hugom sewage—ox Hmucacm :mHHaz :HH aacHuHoz Ho o~Hm an .aocc xo>czm .z.o ugu c. :o» u—LHoz so; co—Huavoga 66.: mo umou HaHuca:.H Hauop .HN-m mHm :o..~.umcgoe as. a. notes not mzocsas can .mucau .mze.a .o m=.a> mmagucaa as. ..e: co acouuma .N .o xu.ma:m oaacu>e emana.o3 .u mo.ao. can. ecu cane xu>cam ace. coua.=u.nu "mucaom .Nm.. ma... me~.e mm..c ccm.m .mm.m mmo.. ~mo.n .om.m n.~.m ~m¢.m .c~.. a.;mcu:3o .0 «moo uHeocouu cwo.. n.a.. ¢.m «no.. «m. cm. u.m cm... no. one.. cm~.. oea mm. o .au.aau Hmou A..=:.coano m:.n .ea.o co..o a~v.m omo.. n.a.m moc.m . ac..o ~.m.. .o..m mm... mam.» .o~.o agenda; so. an..~m n¢c.ae c.m.c~ emo.mo wcm.mn mwm... .cm... mm~.om. nme..~ n.a.oc m.m..m co..m~ ac.mn:m usage—3 co.ua.uonua mmm.vc me..om no..m. co..mc occ.m~ acm.~. cca.mm oco.me coo... ooc.oo com.ov com.e. n.ae.=n Hwaeu :o Hem... ocm.m. .c... ¢m¢.v. ~oo.~. mwm.m .m.... mmm... nuv.o. n...o. n.a.v. om~.o c.ma=m Haogu.z 8...”. 8n... 8.; 8...... 8.... :86 8.... c8... c8.» 233.: 322.... E... .8 co.ua.uucmoo 1- oco.m ooc.e 1-1 -- -- oom.o. cam.n~ -- m.ae.:c apnea 1- com.v cc. -- -- -- 1-1 11- 11- mm.aec:v sea. mu:.a> m:.mu.:c -1- .1 .1 :86... -1- 1- -1- .1. -1- ...—2...; 32.. 1-- c8... --- 1.. -1 :- -1- 8...... 8m... .3228 E: mm:.o>1m=HscucH cm..moe ncv.mw~ cea.c.. coe.mvm ocm.mc~ cc..¢m. occ.~mv co..mo~ com.~.. oem.e~m cc..cmm co~.mc~ .auo. mma.mm~ ....me. cmm.mo coc.mm~ ace..~. oO¢..m cen.nmn ocm.oa oo~.mm co..oom oc..~a~ oc..~o. n.as.:a H.agu ..m..~. Nac.om eve..m cee.mm ecc.vm cc~.~o co..m~. oom.m.. co..mm oom.mn. ooo.mo. oom.ec. mo.amc:u sea. mo=.a> mmH=omo ... H. H HHH H. H ... H. H HHH H. H coca ho>cam om:o.cx .wgom :omoeo.ox .mucas. :u..az :.H aeg< ao>5=m .z.o as» :. acosa.:am ago. we a.:mgu:xo .0 Hmou n.aozcum no cc.uoa.umu .mm-m maa titive alternative to rice. 33The assumption is sustained on the ground that all the rice land could not be converted to sugar cane on a l to 1 basis. Estimating the net benefit foregone in sugar production required data on gross benefit and costs. The author was unable to obtain direct data on the cost of sugar production in the O.N. It is believed. however. that until after a second sugar plant came into production at Siribala in 1976. the O.N. ex-factory cost of production was still higher than the sugar import sub- stitution price estimated at 260 MF at 1979 prices (CIF Bamako). Adjust- ing for transport costs and marketing margins. the corresponding import substitution price of sugar would amount to 320-350 MF per kilo. This higher limit is taken as an estimate of the ex-factory cost of producing granulated sugar in the O.N. area. Recent improvements in sugar cane yields have resulted in yields of granulated sugar of about 4.2 mt per hectare (which is the average for the last 3 years). In 1979-80 the ex- factory sale price of sugar was 375 ME per kilo, leaving a net benefit of at least 25 MF per kilo. Thus the corresponding net benefit per hec- tare amounts to some 130,000 MF. Eight percent of this value i.e. 10.400 MF is taken to be the foregone value of sugar by cultivating one hectare of rice land. 184 Machine Threshing Costs and Other Shadow Prices The threshing charge of 120 kg of paddy per metric ton has been cal- culated so as to cover actual cost of the Office du Niger. It is be- lieved however that this cost is overstated by some 5 percent since the Office is exempt from fuel taxes and agricultural equipment is duty-free [World Bank, 1978]. Other taxes on wages and salaries. and additional duties included in the prices of vehicles. petroleum products, projects and construction services bought from local suppliers were not available. The opportunity cost of capital was maintained at 15 percent in the Office du Niger area. Private banks lend at 13 percent and the interest rate ranges anywhere from 15 to 20 percent in the informal rural credit market.34 Although the shadow price of unskilled labor was 700 MF on the average. locational differences were counted in the evaluation of labor. Table 5-23 presents the components and the total economic cost of producing one metric ton of paddy in the Office du Niger based on the current level of resource use and the assumptions discussed in the pre- ceeding paragraphs. 4. Net Economic Returns by Location and Size of Holding The import substitution price of paddy at the Office du Niger has been estimated at 90,326 MF per metric ton in constant 1977 prices for the 1980-85 horizon. The details of the calculations are shown in Table 34Many villagers in the survey area claimed the nonexistence of any interest on borrowed capital on religious ground. But it is known to exist among traders and was substantiated through personal interviews made by the author. 1E35 .NN-m n.aa. :. cream ma v.6.» mmoem a: ewv.>Hu Hmou u.eo:ouo .eaopu .....aae :6 “weee.e_ um. e ae.ee.ee. a.-. e.ae. e. a< ..xe. 6:. e. an eaeeaee. eem m ..xou on. g. :o..a:~.axo ammo .ocacaa o.uu~u mo o:.a> auxcae as. moc:.u:H t .nw-m m.na. oomu a .wHa. was: Hosea! aco~ mg» an uwa.a> cone. no..; can m..sou guano mom.mw .mm..m ~.m.mo. m.~.~m econ an wmaeo>< co. www.mm eeo.~m .mm.ma mmm.cm cmm.mm oc~..c. ~m¢.em mmo.mm mme.m.. ac..om v.o.m. c.~.ca u.cuoe so: .mou u.Eo:ouH .c. mam.~m. mmm.oc. cco.ccw .m~.m.. .m..c.. c-..m. .mc.c- mac..a. cmc.~.~ mo..mm. omm.om. www.me. a: con umou u.so:oum .auo. .a cco.o. ooe.o. oce.o. coo.o. occ.c. coo.c. coc.o. ccc.c. ooc.o. ocv.c. cce.c. cco.c. mesa. .:.o .6 ...:augoaao .m .Nm.nn .Nm.nm .Nm.nm .Nm.mm .Nm.mm .Nm.mm .Nm.nm .Nm.nn .Nm.mm .Nm.mm .mm.mn .Nm.nm meamsem>c .z.o wen am. new. .. oae.m mem.m mac.” amm.n ..m.e oc..m mum.m. mm.... .mo.o. v.c.c. amm... cum... a:.gmocgu o=ngat .o c.m.~ Nae.m .am.e m...~ mom.. we..e e...~ omm.~ .ceo.c omc.~ .Nm.m ocm.m cmucacmu:.os use mc.aau¢ .mx .mm.. am... new.@ mm..m cem.m .mm.m n.a.. ~mc.m .oa.m m.~.w ~ne.m .o... ua=65a.:cu ago. no 1.832333 E... 333:. ... x. e.e.o .ma.c m.m.. owm.e .m~.o n.a.m mam.e. com.a amm... .o..a cm.a... .cm.. ca....ucw. .m .ma.n. cm¢.o. .mm.m vmm.a ~om.¢ n.a.c mom.m. .-.m. .m..m. ovn.~. Nae... cmm.m mvoom .N m...cw ccm.mo mun.cc can..¢ o~v.an ccc.mo cem.o.. c.e.oc. c...c.. ace.m. mme.o. ccm.~m usage. mo u=.a> .muo. .. HHH H. H HHH H. H HHH H. H HHH H. H coca xe>2=m ouco.ox Hogam =oaoeo.ox .mucag. =a..a: :.H :0. u.cuu: so. :oHHusvcc. ouH¢ we umou n.aocouw as. no =o..u.:u.au .mm-m HHH<~ 186 5-24. based on data from the 1978 World Bank Identification Report for the Office du Niger Intensification program. Table 5-25 shows net economic returns across the settlement and by size group. Given the rates of subsidy on seeds, fertilizer. overhead and extension charge as calculated above, the economic costs of produc- tion were three times the financial costs when economic prices were used to value all factors of production. The results indicate that rice pro- duction in the O.N. area generated an economic return of nearly 2,000 MF per metric ton of pabdy considering the actual level of resource utiliza- tion during the 1979-80 crop season. This level of economic return how- ever is dependent upon a crucial assumption made earlier concerning the opportunity cost of improved land in the Office, estimated as a small fraction (8 percent) of the residual return per hectare of sugar cane. In addition if the uncovered portion of the total O.N. recurrent costs of rice production is counted for, no actual economic return will be generated. The sensitivity of these two assumptions raises serious questions about the comparative advantage position that Mali is reported 187 TABLE 5-24. Import Substitution Price of Paddy for the 1980-85 Horizon at the O.N. Item Value Thai rice 25-35% brokens. FOB in constant 1977.a $/mt 273 plus sea-freight, insurance $/mt 30 plus cost CIF Dakar $/mt 273 Cost CIF Dakar in MF/mt 148,470 plus port handling/stevedoring 3,740 plus transshipment to rail 2,000 plus rail transport Dakar-Bamako b 18,220 plus raod transport Bamako-O.N. zone 7,800 plus unloading O.N. zone 500 Wholesale price O.N. zone (MF/mt) 180.730 less milling cost 10.430 subtotal 170.300 Paddy equivalentc 110,696 less paddy and rice bags 4,250 less transport to mills 4.260 less collection of paddy 5,860 less losses (10%) 6,000 Economic price of paddy O farm level (MF/mt) 90,326 Source: Adapted from World Bank--"Office du Niger Identification Report" 1978. aDerived from World Bank forecasts. bThree-hundred km at 26 MF per km. cAt the average milling rate of 65%. d [Kamuanga and Spencer, 1981]. Based on recent estimates (harvesting and threshing losses 1138 .mN1m ecu ew-m oHao. "mugaom .N... mam..- mm..m.- mac.» eeea Lea eaeee>< .m. om~.m mo~.m1 om..m mam.o own.o.1 mm..m- no...- .m..wm- ..m ~.c.m. c...o. m=2:.oc «oz oun.¢m omm.cm omn.ca ewm.co awn.oa www.cm owm.cm omm.oo own.ca cum.cm cum.ca o~m.ea o:.a> u.so=oum mmm.mm ovo.~m .mm.nm amm.em omo.nm oo~..o. ch.vm auc.ma mmv.m.H mo..mm o.m.o. o.~.cm as con .mou u.Eo=oum HHH H. H HHH H. H HHH H. H HHH H. H omen xo>czm omco.cx .ogmm =oaovc.ox amH< x~>cam oz. c. azocu oNHm Ag magnum. uHsccouu Ho: voHaEHHmm .mN-m u.a<. 189 to have from rice production in the Office du Niger.35 Abstracting for the treatment of recurrent costs, locational distri- bution of net economic returns in Table 5-25 invites some comments. An economic loss per metric ton of nearly 13,200 and 1,600 MP is incurred in Sahel and Kolongo, respectively. In Sahel this is due in particular to the fact that total opportunity costs of labor were higher as a result of a larger family labor inputs and a higher wage rate found in the area. Sahel farmers, however, earned the highest net private return in the sur- vey area as indicated earlier in Table 5-16. In Kolongo low labor inputs and a low proportion of subsidized material inputs relative to other zones failed to result in a substantial decline in the estimated economic unit cost of production because of lower yields. 35Mali's comparative advantage in rice production is documented in a number of WARDA/FRI Stanford studies. The most recent by J. McIntire in "Rice in West Africa-Policy and Economics," (Scott R. Pearson. J. Dirck—5tryker. Charles P. Humphreys. 1981) uses the resource cost-ratio methodology toassess private and social profitability of various rice production techniques in Mali. Private profitability is defined only at the farm level and measures the incentives provided to farmers in rice production by government policies. Net social profitability is equal to the c.i.f. price of imported rice minus tradeable input and domestic factors costs. valued at their world prices. It is calculated to com- bine the cost of collection and milling of rice and represents the natural comparative advantage in rice production of a country. as de- fined by its resource endowments, geographic position and technical efficiency of production with respect to a given set of world prices. At 1976 prices Mali is shown to derive its comparative advantage in rice production from the current O.N. technique of gravity irrigation. animal power and some level of fertilizer use. Despite the lack of data on alternative use of the Office improved land. this study does not show explicitly how the Office recurrent cost of up to 64,000 MF per hectare is dealt with in the calculation of social profitability. 190 In all zones. however. economic returns are higher and economic losses are lower for the group of medium sized farms (5 to 10 hectares). This seems to indicate the size of holding where resources are used more efficiently and where comparative advantage is the greatest. Summary Three zones or "casiers" were distinguished in the analysis of re- source utilization in the production of rice. Net enterprise incomes per hectare are the highest in Sahel and the lowest in Kolongo. This is due to a higher yield potential in Sahel and a generally higher level of resource utilization relative to other casiers. However. the remunera- tion per man-day of labor both in terms of average products and net in- come are the highest in Kolodogou and significantly lower in Kolongo. The failure for Sahel to surface with the highest average and net incomes per man-day is due to the labor intensive nature of rice cultivation there. The issues of surrounding the settlers' cultivation of hors-casier rice fields were also presented and discussed in some detail. It was shown that unless yields are raised on legal holdings and the official producer; price adjusted to its free market level, the practice is bound to continue. One major finding of this chapter is that rice production is most efficiently undertaken in the medium sized group of farms, i.e., those with holdings between 5 and 10 hectares. This is confirmed in both the financial and economic analysis. The latter indicates also that economic costs of production are the highest in Sahel and the lowest in Kolodogou, where are generated the only positive economic returns in the survey 191 area, in accordance with the assumptions developed about the opportu- nity cost of land and the noninclusion of O.N. recurrent costs. CHAPTER 6 THE LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISE 6.1 Introduction Animal husbandry is a secondary farm activity and has developed over the years in view of the importance that animal traction has taken in the Office du Niger. Interactions between the processes of rice and animal production have not yet reached a stage where the system could be charac- terized as "mixed farming," but fertilization of rice fields with cattle manure and the use of rice by-products (straw. bran and rice flour) as animal feeds are already a step in that direction. In addition. some settlers derive a substantial monetary profit by fattening oxen when the animals' working career is over. Farmers with large herds may resort to supplementary feeding and train young steers as work animals to replace the stock of old and exhausted oxen. The importance of livestock produc- tion is also revealed by the Office's own large scale operation of a com- mercial feed lot in which about 2,000 head of cattle 4 to 9 years are fattened each year. The purpose of this chapter is to provide some information on resource utilization in animal production by O.N. settlers within the limitation of the available data which was collected during the farm management survey. Specifically, an attempt is made to assess the amount of cash and non-cash incomes accruing to farmers as a result of their involvement in livestock activities, the types of outputs produced and inputs used, the distribution of livestock ownership and its contribution to income disparities among settlers. 192 193 Labor use was the most difficult to quantify with precision be- cause some of the animal husbandry activities could hardly be separated from the category of general farm activities as defined in Chapter 4. In addition, for those settlers with relatively large herds, the prac- tice of entrusting cattle to Peul herdsmen for an extended period of time (six months to a year) was not itself amenable to quantification. This restricted the reported labor inputs and other resource use to what could actually be observed on farms during half the season. The data were also deficient with respect to values of home-consumption. In an environment where cattle are largely held for tradition and social prestige, output categories were also limited to what could be measured. In general, in addition to cow milk and home-made butter. farmers keep goats and sheeps for meat, reproduction and sale.1 They also keep poultry flocks consisting of chicken. ducks and Guinea-fowl. The flock is often self generating and farmers sell table eggs and live poultry when production is above family consumption needs. 6.2 Distribution of Livestock Ownership Among Selected Farmers The number of head of cattle and small ruminants can be used to stratify farmers in assessing the distribution of livestock among the sampled farmers. This is only possible, however. if one is dealing with one single species of livestock. In order to compare herds with varying proportions of cattle and sheeps/goats in the sample, it is customary in animal husbandry to evaluate the herd in terms of livestock units (LSU). The LSU denotes a standard live weight of animal usually 1Goat milk is practically unknown or non-valued. 194 within the limits of 300 to 500 kg. In this study the conversion factor is taken as one for a head of cattle and 0.13 for sheep or goat.2 Table 6-1 depicts the size distribution of livestock in the sample. with no reference to location in the Office area. Five strata were determined in terms of the total stock owned by settlers including those with only poultry. The data show that 31 percent of settlers in the sample did not keep either cattle or small ruminants. Forty per- cent had a stock of less that 5 LSU with an average of 1.80 per farm. Fifteen percent had between 5.01 and 10 LSU with an average of 7.2 LSU. There were 8 and 6 percent of settlers with stock between 10 and 20 and above 20 LSU. respectively. All settlers with either cattle or small ruminants also kept poultry of a varying importance on their farms. The value of poultry shown in Table 6-1 was the mean of opening and ending values recorded during the survey period. Its wide variation within strata is shown by the ratio of means to their respective standard deviations. Two interesting features are also revealed in Table 6-1. First. fifteen percent of settlers own 66 percent of the total number of cattle in the sample, and second, as the size of the herd increases its composi- tion changes toward a higher proportion of cattle relative to sheeps/goats. 2The FAO Production Yearbook (1974) recommends the following LSU conversion factors for different species: 1.0 for buffaloes, horses and mules; 1.1 for camel. 0.8 for cattle and asses; 0.2 for pigs and 0.1 for sheeps and goats. Because only two species are involved here. it was reasonable to set the conversion factor for cattle equal to 1.0 and adjust that for sheeps/goats accordingly. 195 .maoxuogn :. co.uo.>ae ecaecaum Hugo: .mu:n=.n=c ...Im ..o no. m..o we. u.uuau go. o.. m. segue. co.meu>:ou mg. xvsum mHgH :. .m. com a» can Ha£.:o .o asu.o: u>.. ueoccaum o meuocmo H.:: .uoumw>.Hu .auae au>czm "oucaom coca Nu. w.m co. co ao>cam Huge. 28.5 36.3. m~..a. e we. a m ...e cw m>on< 3%... 35.3 omc.v .~ mm a o o.¢. a. o. o. 32.3 .3... onm.m .. we m. e. N.. o. o. m .85: .8... cmo.a a. mm co an m.. m saga mam. 83.: c.m.m .m am 6:62 .ELa. can .zH mucacHsas «Hagan .uuo» neuHHHom n.amHH n.amHH age—zen .uamgv new: no mo o~.m museum oNHm be u:.a> can: .6 :oHH.mcaeou .oao. mauucoucom . guess: use: can: .z.c use He o.afiam 0:. c. n.2meoczc xuOumm>.H .0 co.a=nwgam.a mNHm ..1e m.=<. 196 Because cattle is held also as a store of wealth. such distribution of ownership across the sample is strongly indicative of the potential for income disparity among settlers. Figure 6 illustrates this skewness in livestock distribution among selected farmers. Data on the number of animals of each species were more accurate than that collected on the age structure. In fact there was some confusion on the part of farmers about the age of their animals; what is known represented only the best guess by the enumerators. In gen- eral, cattle ages ranged from 4 to 12 years with an average of 5.6 years. Small ruminants were relatively younger, ranging from 2 to 5 years with an average of 3 years. An attempt to correlate the size of the herd and the amount of land planted to rice in the sample showed a low positive coefficient (0.12) for the 40 percent group of settlers with l to 5 LSU, while the highest correlation (0.62) was found among the 6 percent group of settlers with over 20 LSU. Correlation coefficients were respectively -0.24 and -O.32 for the two remaining groups in the middle (Table 6-2). For the sample as a whole the overall correlation coefficient was found positive but low at 0.42. Thus, the association between the farm sizes and the stock of productive animals kept on farms is more than weak. Large farms are associated with large family sizes and a larges resource base for rice production, but not necessarily with increased livestock activities, though this seems to prevail for the group of farms with holdings above 10 ha. This finding confirms the wide variation in gross value of live- stock output within each size group farms as discussed in farm budget analysis of Chapter 4. In the following sections, analysis of resource 197 Livestock units 166 7’ Q Cattle Z [::] Small ruminants ggégéé / / é é / 78 85 g 69 g 5. Z / / ¢ / .1 Z 17 / é . 0-5 LSU 5.01-10 LSU 10.01-20 LSU over 20 LSU Distribution of Cattle and Small Ruminants Owned by Settlers in the O.N. Survey Area FIGURE 6 198 TABLE 6-2. Correlation Between Farm Sizes and Number of Animals Kept on Farms Size of Herd Average size of Correlation (LSU) rice farma ‘ coefficient 1 to 5 , 7.4 -0.12 (4.3) 5 to 10 7.3 -0.24 (4.4) 10 to 20 10.5 -O.32 (4.1) Above 20 19.1 +0.62 (7.1) Overall 11.08 0.42 Source: Survey data. aStandard deviation in parentheses. 199 use in livestock production is restricted to the group of settlers with stocks below 20 LSU. This group has 63 percent of settlers and represents those with less than 20 head of cattle and a large stock of sheeps/goats. It was purposively chosen to provide an objective assess- ment of resource use in animal husbandry within the O.N. grazing area, thus eliminating the bias introduced on larger farms by the practice of entrusting cattle to herders. 6.3 Costs and Revenues in Animal Husbandry Livestock revenues accrue to settlers both in the form of cash and subsistence production. Consumption and sale of cow milk3 and other dairy products (mostly home made butter), mutton. eggs and poultry were the most common modes of disposition of livestock output. Beef consumption and sale was rare on the settlement mostly because farmers keep cattle for social prestige and as a store of wealth. Sheep and goats, however, were transacted more frequently particularly during the Muslim feasts of Ramadan and Tabaski. This is because small ruminants are a faster maturing store of wealth and can easily be sold. The data collected on the value of livestock products has under- estimated the value of home consumption. For this reason the net live- stock income presented later in Table 6-4 refers only to cash returns obtained by deducting the total cash costs of production from the reported cash receipts during the 1979-80 season. 3Much of the fresh milk is home-consumed and additional production beyond family needs is usually sold in the form of a yogurt-like curdled milk which keeps well in the heat. 200 Fixed costs were negligible for the group of settlers studied be- cause settlers do not pay rents and the cost of repairs and maintenance of corrals was extremely low. This was not the case for farmers with larger herds where paddocking is a necessity. Variable expenses were of four main types: (1) feeds, roughage, provision of minerals and salt licks; (2) veterinary costs; (3) the cost of hiring labor; and (4) settlers' outlay for animal replacement. Rice straw was produced on the farm with a zero opportunity cost. Labor Utilization Table 6-3 summarizes the labor requirements among settlers with herds of different sizes. For the average household, the data indicate that eighty percent of the farm labor in animal husbandry was devoted to herding. The weighted average was 4.7 man days per LSU. The labor requirement per LSU declines with herd growth when less than 20 animals are kept. This should be expected as the overhead cost of corral main- tenance and supervisory labor and the total labor for herding is di- vided by a large number of LSU. Net Household Cash Income from Livestock Derivation of the average net cash return from livestock is shown in Table 6-4. The ratio of mean values of individual items included in the budget to their respective standard deviations strongly suggests that livestock as an enterprise is characterized by a wide variation in the use of non-labor resources. A weighted average for each item was computed in order to determine the value of cash incomes and expenses more likely to be applicable to a household with the sample mean of 7.0 LSU. The average gross cash income amounted to 30,658 MF. If expenses 201 TABLE 6-3. Labor Use by Stratum of Animal Stock Owned 1-5 Lsua 5-10 LSU 10-20 LSU Averageb Total (man-days) 24.2 42.3 45.2 42.7 (31.6) (43) (46.7) of which herding 20.2 33.4 36.6 34.4 Labor use per Lsuc 13.4 5.9 3.1 4.7 Source: Survey data. aStandard deviations in parentheses. bWeighted by the average number of livestock units in each group. The LSU conversion factors were 1.0 for cattle and 0.13 for all small ruminants. cTotal divided by the mean number of LSU in each group. TABLE 6-4. 2C”? Net Household Cash Income from Livestock (in Malian Francs) Item 1-5 LSU 6-10 LSU 11-20 LSU Averaged Gross cash income 30.967 16.990 37.360 30.658 (29.932) (23.306) (63.690) Cash operating costs feeds, roughage and 4.350 2,623 5.730 4.677 concentrates (4.610) (2.855) (4,839) mi neralsP 3.570 -C 1.550 1. 772 (2.179) (760) veterinary care 960 480 1.058 874 (486) (404) (699) _ animal replacement 41.911 33.100 106.300 79.057 (54,558) (29.551) (82.400) hired labor 6.843 4,340 700 2,279 (4.607) (2.110) (-)d otherse -° 2,115 2.669 2.486 (-) (-)d Total 57.634 40.543 115.338 88.118 Net cash flow -26.667 -23.553 -77.978 -57.460 without animal replacement 15.244 9,547 28,332 21,597 Net cash return per LSU 8.469 1.326 1.940 2.734 aAverage weighted by the mean number of LSU's in each size group. bIncludes salt licks. cData was insufficient to secure a meaningful average figure. dAverage figure indicative of the order of magnitude. standard deviation could not be computed for insufficient data. eIncludes such items as cords and yokes to attach animals. 203 on animal replacement are excluded, the average cash expenses amounted to 12.088 MF. This compares to an estimate of 17,772 FCFA (i.e. 35.544 MF) provided by Delgado [1979] for a group of semi-sedentary Fulani herdsmen in Southern Central Upper-Volta with an average herd size of 43 head of cattle. The animal replacement expenditure across the sample takes up 89 percent of total cash expenditures. Purchases of young calves, heifers, goats and sheeps is commonly a way of building up the stock of produc— tive animals, and as such should be considered an investment outlay whose stream of benefits can be expected for a number of years. The remaining cash expenses represent the actual value of resources used up in animal husbandry (assuming zero fixed costs) and with animal replacement costs excluded, the balance is a positive net cash return. The results also indicate that the unit cash return is higher on farms with relatively small herds. The highest return was approximately 8,470 MF per LSU. The lowest was estimated at 1,940 MF. The settle- ment weighted average was evaluated at 2,734 MF per LSU. In sum. cash flow statements are negative only if the financial outlay for animal replacement is counted for. This however, should not be interpreted as an indication of poor farm efficiency in live- stock operations because, as shown above, farmers keep large animals (cattle mostly) for tradition and social prestige and invest their savings in large animals to build up their stock. Negative cash flows for livestock across farms with varying herd sizes is partly responsible for the wide variation in the farm net cash flows discussed earlier in Chapter 4. Therefore the data on net cash returns cannot be adequately 204 interpreted without an assessment of the value of the stock of produc- tive animals. This is done in the next section. 6.4 The Herd Inventories: A Store of Wealth and its Variation Among Sample Farms Opening and ending values of productive animals kept on farms 'are shown in Table 6-5 by size of herd. Incoming values refer to births and livestock appreciation which occurred during the season of April, 1979 through March, 1980. The data represent the total present values of cattle, goats/sheep and poultry owned by farmers in the sample. The value of purchased animals used to build up the stock was also entered to arrive at total ending values. The data indicate that there was a net increase of 65 percent in the value of the produc- tive stock for the group with less than 5 LSU, 25 and 38 percent net increases for the two remaining groups, respectively. For the sample as a whole the values increased from 329,277 MF to 447,766 MF, or 36 percent. Its mean value during the survey year was 388,522 MF per farm. Thus the mean gross cash income generated in animal production repre- sents only 13 percent of the average value of the stock of productive animals in the O.N. area. In summary, livestock as an enterprise is characterized by (l) a skewed distribution of ownership of animals, (2) a wide variation in resource use among settlers and (3) overall minimal contribution to farm cash incomes. 205 .mmmwsucmcma :. mco.ua.>mu ucancaum "muoz .azogm zoom :. am. we 2652:: came mg. as um.gm.mze commmm mo new no m:.m> mm mm mm mm :. mucosa mmmgcwucm. ae...e¢ omm.emm mmm.me~ mm~.~m. me=.a> me.eeu . .ooe.~m. ..mm.m~H .mmm.emH .mo.m. oom.oo. oo..mm ..a... n.ae.ee .6 emaeeeea .m.m.oa_H .e_N.Nm. .mam.a~. Nm4.am cum... owe... .eo.o. me=.a> me.e66e. .m....a~. ..ee.mm.. .amm.e.H ..~.m~m omm.eme m...mm. mom.om me=.a> ae_eeao aeaeaa>< 3m. om-.. am. o.-e 2m. m-. .mocac. =a..az :.H m.a5am .z.o on» :. muse: mo m~.m ma m.aE.:< m>.uu=uoga mo mm.soa:o>cH .m1o uHmHH4:u 111111 H H nn.rn mcqun H e. H.~ o.~m H.~ 9.: t. o.m c.H v.99 .nwnn HHom actqu H H vamxHHzH H ---1--11111-1- H H «n.a. chHHcheaHo H Hm~=0vHHsczH «axed H H oo.an~ .ozc.;.;m .:.¢,.Hza~ H-1----111-1-11-1------11-----1---111-111--. ---11--1-1-1---111H .----1--1-1----11-1---111-1-11H H..H a.m. H.HH H.o 6.: ..HH ¢.H H.H e. m.n ¢.. H.m a.ee HaHeH H H mpmcu HHan o¢H:.u>m H H .--1----11-1-1-1--1----111-1---H H. ... ... H.H H.H H. H. a. H. N. a.. ... =.eH Hewz.o H H :o.H¢p Hare. H H. H. a. H. u. .vuaaxHrom H H «aux-o H H. H. a. H. e. e. H. H. H. ~. H. e. ntHzmmwzH H H zzc H «.4. ..c H. H. e. n. H.~ ... ... o..~ mzH..:o H H ome:.mu:na garage. H 2.4. ..o H. m. m. H. a. o. n. ..~ ~.a ... ..HH .coaaxwzHHuuyxcz H H ...a H.. c. 2:: H H. H. H. ozH22HzH H H o... m~.o H cccuv.zuxcu sctza H quox H H oa.m~ Hn.: c n:cHHH :uuHx.m¢um H H. a.» ... a.m a. a. H. a. N. a..H czHcmux H H nn..~H Huzczc HarvarxamZ¢¢H H a. r.H ~.o c.. oem e. N. H. H. H. w. ..- scHH¢sHHazuxHu¢u H H 0:. Ho.~ HHHL¢ H H .szccn H . a. H. H. a. e. quHzaHaxeszom H H .oHozzu H c. a. n. o.c N. m. m.o mszoaoHd H H .HuumzH mucHnHHmua H o. a. oszch H H cHHHH221 H H mHz¢4e2=HHMHaeac :2. H 2c. H H Ha... HH. m~H mHzHHe\eHum.acac Hm. H eeH: H H-----1----1111--111111-11-11111-1111H 4.4. H..~ m.o~ a..~ n.a. m..~ n.a. ..~n H.~H ..om o.a~ e.~ ,Hm: musHazwasz H H mHmco HuHea -zaezc mHmau HHHHHca’ H a H H~ HHH anu ~o~ ea H~ a H e a e~H r: HHaazHe: « H1-1-1---1-11-11-111111-11-11---1-1-111-H11111-1-11111-11-111111-1-1-11-11----1111-1-1-1111-11-111-11111-1-1-11---1-1-1- H ma.HoHH HquH H can so: Hno mum n24 Asa 2:5 >¢: wa< ua Nno"-IIla-------65-666-665-666---6-56-66-68-58!IDIOOIOIIIIIIIIDIIIOOIICI-lav-ell. IOIIOIIOIH H .eoao zH¢ H a sea cauHH vac. HHHc zxcx: H H .Ooua 2H~ n.a..swwmmc no z<.> a a 9 Ha». HHom H H 0.. huacocH->c H 9 cc. ¢¢H>H..o¢ Hez¢=:¢x «organ: H mazHHz a moan.» .HaonxH H H oo.~oHH so. cmvH .ooma 2H4: acme pmH H e .zrurepzaHa rath=< a Huquqm: H H1611111011110111616civil-iiililililoliiila11H a .Hc onad Hzacta Hzop2c oz: :HuHs H on.c w.Hm .H 1:0 .. 3 HHDHHHw>zzm quc :Hmmwuznu .:.c z .cucmzmxuoanH, H H a a ncwc hmH H anew-ozoc Hu>uaotmqb oHowa 2H4 acouw onumrxuozH>oxa H H we. mwua..oz H uuuzcm «pa; HHer me can >;.z:co H .1." :IHNHIIIIMINNMHQNNNNNWNNNHuNNMflMI""NINHM"N“hhflflflhiHuflflnvuflflfl"uN-I-uvflliflfl-Nflflufldfluhfluflufl ""Hflvflflflufluflh uflflhflflflflfluflflfl NHHNNNMNHNNNHNHMNIMH . . . o a e H H e . . . e H H a a . H’zumoo mw H>u>tzn aback zH-c oH Hquxq tun. mHm>H<2H utuc 211 because data collection in April l980 was incomplete.5 The average gross yield was estimated at 2.36 mt per hectare (SD = 0.5) for the l979- 80 season. Attempts to aggregate the results of two crop seasons were deemed unsatisfactory.6 All magnitudes calculated in the budget of Table 7-l (in 100 MP) refer to the net yield per hectare derived as in Chapter 5. Although only some elements of the improved package were implement- ed (higher fertilization rates, land levelling), the results indicate that the Foabougou settler on the average, was in a better financial position than his counterpart of other casiers in Niono. Net earnings of 45,830 MF per hectare are indeed as high as those reported earlier for the best farmer in Sahel with an average holding of 7 ha. 5Infrastructural works on Foabougou casier continued during the 1980 off-season from March to April. This gave farmers actually little to do on their rice fields. In a normal year April would be devoted to repairs and maintenance of field canals and drains and some land pre- paration operations. 6A first layout of yield plots (supervised by the research team) from November 22 to December 20, l979 led to yield estimates reported in Appendix D. A second implantation in December l980 after the re- search team had left Mali was supervised by the O.N. Bureau of Economic Affairs. However only less than half the sample was covered. The O.N. secured estimate for l98D-81 season is reported to be 1.7 mt per hec- tare (SD = l.0) (Official communication by letter from O.N. Direction Générale). This author's experience with O.N. yield plot approach prompted the decision to retain only the survey results for the 1979-80 season, also considering the fact that resource use by Foabougou farmers remained virtually the same for the two crop seasons. Besides, the December 1979 crop cut was made at the proper time of field maturity, thus avoiding bird damages which became quite a problem late in the harvesting season at Foabougou. The Office estimate of l.8 mt that year still did not accord with the research team results. 212 3. Productivity Differences Between Incoming and Old Settlers at Foabougou Eighteen of the sample farmers at Foabougou were colonists moved from other casiers in Niono while 7 were new settlers with no previous experience in rice cultivation. Statistical analysis of the two sub- groups could not be undertaken given the smallness of subsamples, but also because the selection of farmers was not the result of a random choice. However a simple comparison of mean values of selected farm variables shown in Table 7-2 suggests that actual differences in the population may exist. For instance, labor use and animal power per hectare are lower by respectively l3 and 49 percent for the new settlers. Yields, gross margins and net enterprise earnings are also less than those of old colonists (9, 6 and 7 percent lower). Lack of experience and problems of adjustment to the O.N. environment could be hypothesized as important factors explaining the low performance of new settlers at Foabougou. 4. Assessing the Results The above results have to be interpreted with caution for the fol- lowing reasons: first, data collection overlapped two crop-years, but' output estimates derived from yield plot measurements referred only to the first year. Second, the sample size was determined by the Office staff to conform with the area of newly developed land available. The research team had no information as to the criteria used by the Office to select the settlers to be installed. However, there is reason to believe that the potential output of the two crop seasons was similar as resource utilization and the 213 TABLE 7-2. Per Hectare Resource Use and Productivity Differences Between Old and New Colonists at Foabougou Item Oldanlogists NewnSSttlers Oxegagg Labor use (man-days) 93.8 81.4 89.6 Animal power use (hours) 84.0 43b 71.0 Yie1d (kg) 1979 1830 1928 Gross margin (00 MF) 787.0 741.2 771.2 , Net earnings (00 MF) 469.8 436.5 458.3 aMean values were weighted by the size of holding per household. Fertilizer and seeds applications were similar on all farms. bThe variation around the mean was also wide (SD = 81.4). 214 management practices of settlers remained virtually the same. The average gross yield of 2.36 mt was certainly the result of both the im- proved land potential, the effective application of fertilizer at recom- mended rates and the more or less intensive campaign by the Office staff in Niono who had certainly wanted the project to be a success. The technique implemented at Foabougou can be considered as a first step in a range of improved practices the adoption of which will measure the success or the failure of the intensification program at the O.N. A detailed inventory of these techniques is provided in the next section. 7.2 Prospects for Intensification: Improved Techniques and Their Im- plications for Resource Requirements and Outputs 1. Introduction Intensification of production at the Office is not novel. In Chap- ter 2 it was indicated that attempts to increase output per hectare and consolidate the infrastructure could be traced back to the late l940's. By l958 however the record of the O.N. was on balance very disappointing. Lack of manpower, persistence of irrigation and drainage difficulties, and farmers' doubts about the profitability of new practices are cited among major factors which limited the success of past intensification' campaigns [de Wilde, 1967]. Today's stepwise approach to intensification departs fundamentally from previous attempts. It is expected that resources will be mobilized in each stage to attain its targets and prepare the ground for success in the next stage. This chapter unfolds along the view that adoption of intensification techniques at the farm level will also be a step-by- step process. Therefore a primary task is to provide a detailed 215 inventory of the techniques now considered as part of the technological know-how at the Office. The exercise is essentially aimed at deriving input-output relationships to be used in a linear programming model that will help examine the feasibility, profitability and practicability of intensification at the farm level (Section 7.3). This approach is based on the understanding that if a proper choice of practices has to be re- commended for intensification, much more must be known about (1) the specific increases in yields that can be obtained under a particular combination of practices; (2) its labor and nonlabor resource require- ments; (3) the seasonal pattern of labor use as dictated by the above requirements; and (4) the availability of labor and nonlabor resources throughout the cropping season. Following Byerlee, Collinson et. al. [1980], we define technique as being the combination of all management practices for producing rice. A technique is determined by the timing, amount and types of various technological components such as seed-bed preparation, rates of ferti- lizer application, all of which constitute its attributes. The term technology is used to represent a set of techniques available or being used at any given time period, for producing a given crop or crop mix; ture. Some of the attributes of techniques described in this section have been tried in the past at the Office (for instance transplanting of rice seedlings), others are being implemented or contemplated (row seed- ing, animal power weeding). Techniques are considered individually, each with its main attri- butes and its implications for resource demand are summarized in the form of enterprise budget that includes the associated labor 216 requirements. Underlying assumptions are stressed where necessary and applicable. 2. Delineation of Techniques and Expected Resource Demand Enterprise and labor budgets for alternative techniques are sum- marized at the end of this section (Tables 7-6 to 7-8) after a discussion of technique's attributes and resource requirements is carried out. Current Technique (CT) This heading refers to cultivation practices now in use at the Of- fice and which constituted the subject of the report in Chapter 4 and 5. The main attributes of CT can be summarized as follows: (l) fertilizer use is below the recommended levels and averages 37 kg of urea and 20 kg of ammonium phosphate per hectare; (2) seed broadcasting; (3) hand and/or hoe weeding; and (4) average gross yield and land fee are respectively 1740 kg7 and 400 kg per hectare. Levels of resource requirements under CT are derived from the re- sults of the l979-80 farm survey. Therefore labor used per hectare and per task shown earlier in Table 5-l2 is taken as a requirement. Changes in the level of non-labor resources required for other alternative tech- niques will depend on the types of practices to be considered. In 7This estimate is an average arrived at from yield plot measurements effected on all sample farms. Incidentally the magnitude is close to the O.N. average of 1759 kg per hectare for all sectors as indicated in the annual report for the 1979-80 crop season (Rapport de Fin de Campagne, Service Agricole, pp. ll-l4). Although the 1979-80 yield was the lowest in 7 years, it still represents the actual average over the last 10 to l5 years. It is this generally low level of yields at the O.N. which is the main reason for the intensification program in the first place. 217 general the most affected budget item is the use of farm equipment (draft animals and implements) dictated by the introduction of new im- plements and/or increased demand for use on old ones. Table 7-3 de- picts the cost of utilization of farm eguipment under CT. Requirements and assumptions discussed for other techniques in regard to the cost of using farm equipment stem from the consideration of Table 7-3. Intensification Technique 1 (ITl) { ITl summarizes the findings of the technique discussed for Foabougou in Section 7-l. In particular the rate of fertilization (50 kg of urea and 50 kg of ammonium phosphate, 200 kg of Tilemsi phosphate) and the related yield assumption (2.4 mt/ha). Other attributes of ITl remain as in CT, in particular seed broadcasting, hand/or hoe weeding. For all intensification techniques, land levelling and consolida- tion of the irrigation/drainage networks are assumed to have been under- 8 taken and farmers would be charged 600 kg per hectare in land fee. Labor requirements are assumed to remain at their CT level, except for harvesting and a small increase in the requirement for fertilizer appli- cation. The cost of utilization of farm equipment also remains as in CT because no actual change in cultivation practices occur from CT to I11. 8This is the expectation of the Office management to account for the improved potential made possible by the infrastructural works. 218 TABLE 7-3. Estimation of Cost of Utilization of Farm Equipment (at 1980 Prices) Under CTa Cost to the Annual Equipment Number Farmer Years of Depreciation Amortization (HF) Li fe‘ (MF) per ha (MF) 1. Fixed costb Oxen 2 200.000 7.5 10,667 1,422 Yoke 1 7,500 7.5 1.000 133 Plow l 53.000 10 5.300 707 Harrow 1 48,000 10 4.800 640 Carte l l30.000 10 10.500 1.400 Total depreciation 438,500 32,267 4,302 2. Variable costs Repairs and maintenance 2,000f Feeds and veterinary costs 1.8009 3. Total fixed + variable costs 8,120 4. Cost of capital at 7.5%h 608 5. Total user cost per hectare 8,710 aCalculated on the basis of an average fann size of 7.5 hectare which reflects a more efficient level of resource use. The source of prices is HARDA, Mission Report, Dec. 1979. It is also assumed that the average farm owns the basic set of equipment. , bIn its most complete form, the fixed cost includes depreciation, opportunity cost. interest on investment, insurance and housing. However no interest or insurance is presently charged on farm equipment in the office and housing charge is unknown. cThe years of life were averages actually reported by farmers during the survey as shown in Table 5-4. For durable implements the average life was rounded to 10 years. dIt is assumed that one of the two oxen ends its life by natural death and the other has a salvage value at least equal to its purchase price; this value was set at l20.000 ME to account for animal appreciation. _ eIncluding the cost price of a donkey at 50,000 HF with a salvage value equal half its purchase price. fThe estimate represents an average of the actual repairs and maintenance cost of 3.200 HF per hectare obtained from the survey data where the equipment was in use for a number of years (see Table S-lS), and the cost of 1.000 HF per hectare from Foabougou farms where the set of equipment was new. gEstimate is from survey data and is taken to represent the current situation where farmers provide supplement feeds at less than the required number of fodder units. hThis is concessionary rate of interest on farm equipment for participating farmers in govern- ment projects. Given that the O.N. settlers receive the equipment credit free of interest charges, it was reasonable to maintain 7.5 percent as the opportunity cost of farm equipment in the survey area. The interest rate of 15 percent (used in the economic analysis of Chapter 5) is an average cost of capital in the rural credit market and would have overStated the financial cost of capital to the O.N. settlers. 219 Intensification Technique 2 (IT2) IT2 assumes the adoption of row-seeders by farmers.. Sowing in line has been introduced in the settlement since 1977. In the 1979-80 season, about 4 percent of the cultivated land was sown in line. Field trials using "Nodet Gougis" seeders have resulted in saving of 40 kg of seeds per hectare i.e. seeding rate of 80 kg as compared to 120 kg per hectare in broadcasting [O.N., Service Agricole, 1980]. Fertilization rates under IT2 are assumed at 75 kg of urea and 75 of ammonium phosphate per hectare.9 The yield assumption under IT2 is 20 percent higher than the ITl level, at 2.88 mt per hectare. In addition to the higher rate of fer- tilization, this assumption is sustained on the ground that weeding will be eased by sowing in line, a practice reported to result in abundant plant tillering and more effective bird scaring. The assumption also falls in line with the results of the cross-tabulation of seeds and fertilizer rates shown earlier in Table 5-10 (Chapter 5). Increases in labor requirements per hectare under IT2 are to re- flect the additional demand implied in the new practices. For instance, it is estimated that sowing labor will increase to 3.1 man-days per hec- 10 tare while requiring an additional 15 hours of oxen work. Application of the extra fertilizer requires a 10 percent increase in labor over the 91t is expected that fertilization rates will increase progressively as farmers adopt more intensive cultivation practices. 10According to experiments conducted in Casamance (Senegal), it re- quires 5 man-days and 1.5 oxen-days to row seed 1 ha of rice. The re- sults are based on a 5 hour day [Mayer, J. and R. Bonnefond, 1973 p. 65]. This translates into 3.1 man-days for an 8 hour day and 15 hours (1.5 x 2 x 5) of oxen work. 220 CT level. The extra 20 percent increase in yield will also require 27 11 percent more labor at harvest and post-harvest treatment. Needing labor is expected to remain at its CT level of 12.4 man-days, on aver- age.12 The fixed cost of utilization of farm equipment will increase by an amount equal to the depreciation charge for the row-seeder whose pur- chase price is around 70,000 MF.13 The cost of repairs and maintenance is assumed to increase in proportion to the extra animal power required as a result of the activities of row-seeding and the extra hauling at harvest time. Additional feed for draft animals is also a prerequisite for intensification. Hence for all intensification techniques requiring increases in animal power use over the CT level, it is assumed that the WARDA recommended daily ration shown in Table 7-4 will be supplemented. Feed costs are calculated on the basis of 100 working days per animal and an average farm size of 7.5 ha. The total cost of utilization of farm equipment is depicted in Table 7-5. 1]The sources of the estimates for the percentage increase in har- vesting labor are Spencer [1975] and WARDA [1977]. 12Usually weeding takes anywhere from 10 to 40 man-days per hectare for a maximum of 3 passages. [Mayer and Bonnefond, op. cit]. Although row seeding facilitates weeding, it does not necessarily cut it down. It is realistic to treat the 12.4 man-days average from the survey data as a minimum requirement. In this way farm level conditions are well represented. High level of fertilization may also stimulate weeds growth and increase labor requirement. However,there is no data to quantify the likely changes. 13This and other prices for agricultural equipment were fixed by SCAER (Sociéte’de Credit et d'Equipment Rural), a state agency. 221 TABLE 7-4. Feed Ration Composition and Cost for Draft Animals under Intensification Contenti Digestible Dry Energy Nitrogen Feeds Height Price Matter (fodder Nutrient (k9) (MP/kg) (kgl' units) (DNI) Rice straw 5 O 4.75 1.75 0 Rice bran 1 12 0.90 0.30 30 Rice flour 1 17 0.90 1.10 70 Cotton seeds 2 27 1.90 2.20 210 Salt .025 -- -- -- -- Total/animal/day 9.025 83 8.45 5.35 310 Cost per farm (MF) 16,600a Cost per hectare (MF) - 2,213b Source: WARDA [1977, pp. 64-65], and O.N. Bureau of Economic Afé fairs. a83 MF per ration times 100 days for two oxen. bCost per farm divided by the average farm size of 7.5 ha. 222 TABLE 7-5. Per Hectare Cost of Utilization of Farm Equipment Under IT2 . Item , Cost (MF) 1. Fixed costs depreciation (at CT or ITl level) 4,302 including row-seeder 933 subtotal depreciation 5,235 2. Variable costs repairs and maintenance (2,000 MF x %%%_a 2,257 feed and veterinary costs (at CT or ITl level) 1,800 supplement under intensification 2,213 subtotal feed and veterinary costs 4,013 3. Total 11,505 4. Cost of capital 0 7.5% 863 5. Total user cost per hectare 12,368 aCT level of expenditure is adjusted upward by the ratio of animal- hours required under IT2 and CT. 223 Intensification Technique 3 (IT3) IT3 assumes the adoption of animal drawn cultivators (multiculteur) for mechanical weeding. Row seeding and mechanical weeding constitute the main attributes of IT3. Other intensification prerequisites are assumed to apply and fertilization rates are expected to reach 100 kg of urea and 100 kg of ammonium phoshpate.14 The yield assumption under IT3 is 3.46 mt per hectare, also attri- butable to expected better organization of farm operations. For instance early sowing, timely operations and effective bird damage control. Ef- ficient use of animal drawn weeders is expected to result in a 70 percent reduction in weeding labor to 3.7 man-days per hectare compared to hand/ hoe weeding [Mayer and Bonnefond, 1973]. According to experiments under- taken in Casamance, however, mechanical weeding with oxen will require an additional 10 hours of animal power per hectare. As shown under IT2, the expected yield increase of 20 percent will also necessitate 27 per- cent more labor at harvest time. Manual threshing and post-harvest treatment are expected to reflect the increase in output per hectare. The total labor required per hectare under IT3 amounts to 130.2 man-days (Table 727). The cost of utilization of farm equipment is adjusted by (l) the depreciation charge for the use of a multiculteur (Official purchase price was 89,000 MF in 1979) and (2) the increase in repairs and mainten- ance proportionate to the additional demand in animal hours under IT3. The total user cost is summarized as follows: 14These rates are in line with research station results and farm level trials undertaken on certain locations in the O.N. area [O.N., 1978]. 224 Depreciation (MF) at IT2 level 5,235 including multiculteur 1,187 subtotal 6,422 Repairs and maintenance (2,257 MF x173 2,543 Feeds and vet. and supplement 4,013 Cost of capital 966 Total user cost per hectare 13,944 Intensification Technique 4 (IT4) IT4 considers the introduction and adoption of transplanting of rice seedlings to raise yields. Although this practice is not presently con- sidered at the Office, it has already been tried in the past and enjoyed a modest measure of success. Therefore IT4 is an alternative as valuable as other intensification techniques. In accordance with what was done in the past, nursery planting, care and fertilization is assumed to remain the responsibility of the Office management. Farmers would be provided with seedlings at a cost of 100 kg of paddy per hectare planted, and required to apply 80 kg of ammonium sulfate at the time of transplanting and 40 kg later when rice comes into ear. This would bring the total quantity of fertilizer per hectare to. 220 kg, assuming that 100 kg of ammonium phosphate is maintained as a source of soluble phosphate. IT4 is also expected to involve mechanical weeding. Hhen transplanting was introduced in Kolongo in the early 1960's, it is reported that yields increased from 1.2 to 2.2 mt per hectare at the farm level [de Wilde, 1967]. The implied percentage increase (about 80) 225 is retained for the level of yield under IT4 relative to ITl (4.3 mt), on the basis of past experience and comparable rates of fertilization. As to labor requirements under IT4, emphasis is on transplanting which is said to require 35 man-days on average [Mayer and Bonnefond, 1973]. Past experiences in Kolongo have also shown that although trans- planting reduces the need for weeding at full plant development, the re- quired pre-irrigation before seedlings are transplanted often stimulates an early growth of weeds. Therefore transplanting does not eliminate the need for weeding, rather it advances this need in time. Only the use of multiculteur in animal powered weeding (as recommended here under IT4) will help reduce the amount of weeding labor to 3.7 man-days as in IT3. On the other hand, 80 percent increase in yields over the ITl level will necessitate 108 percent increase in harvesting labor as shown earlier. The increase in harvesting labor shown in Table 7.7 amounts to 90.2 man- days per hectare under IT4. Manual threshing and post-harvest treatment will require additional labor in proportion to the expected higher level of output per hectare. As transplanting suppresses the need for a row seeder, the user cost of farm equipment is assumed to remain at CT level of 8,102 MF per hec- tare. There are however additional costs to be incurred to account for: (1) a depreciation charge for the weeder (1,187 MF); (2) a proportional increase in the expenses for repairs and maintenance (2,000 MF x 150/140) to reflect the extra 10 hours of use of oxen in weeding; (4) a feed sup- plement charge (2213 MF); and (4) cost of capital of 874 MF. This brings the user cost of farm equipment under IT4 to a total 12,519 MF per hectare. 226 Intensification Techniques 5 (1T5) Double cropping of rice is the main attribute envisaged under 1T5 which also includes row seeding, mechanical weeding and appropriate levels of fertilization. The guidelines for intensification drawn in the 1977 WARDA report call for double cropping to be introduced on a limited scale during the second intensification stage (see Preambule to Chapter 7). Hence IT5 is considered also an alternative technique and a part of the technological know-how available to the Office. Other pre- requisites of intensification such as land levelling and higher feed rations for draft animals are assumed to apply. For two crops of rice to be feasible, it is appropriate for the se- cond crop to be planted in January and harvested in May. This however subsumes that the Office will have a much bigger threshing capacity to allow for the main crop to be started in June. Yield assumptions are 4.0 and 2.4 mt per hectare for the first and second crop, respectively. These assumptions conform with results from research undertaken in the mid 1970's at the Kogoni research station.15 Labor requirements for the main crop are assumed to follow the pat- tern established under IT3, a technique which also involves line-seeding 15Researcn undertaken from 1974 to 1976 at Kogoni has shown the yield of the second crop to be 40 percent lower than the June crop, for both long and short stemmed varieties. Examples of such varieties are: KADING-THANG (long stemmed) with main crop yield of 4.9 mt, D52-37 (long stemmed) with off-season yield of 2.24 mt, IET 2911 (short stemmed) with 4.48 mt in main season, and IKP (short stemmed) with 2.21 mt in off-sea- son. [O.N., Service'Agricole, 1978]. The lower yield for the second crop is also attributable to the risk involved by planting in January when temperatures are low and can considerably delay or even stop germi- nation; high April and May temperatures are also known to cause sterili- zation of pollen particularly in a dry air atmosphere. 227 and mechanical weeding. Labor demand for the second crop was figured out as follows: (1) land preparation at 60 percent of the requirements under the main crop. This is based on the assumption of effective shal- low irrigation in January and the fact that much of the work in June and July for the main crop would make January tasks less difficult; (2) sowing, fertilizer application and weeding are likely to demand as much labor as for the main crop; and (3) harvesting and post-harvest labor demand however will be reduced in proportion to the size of the second crop. These assumptions conform with experiences from the Philippines and Southeast Asia in general, where the off-season crop is reported to require 30 percent less labor [Angladette, 1966]. Because IT5 involves the use of a row-seeder and a cultivator (multiculteur) for weeding, the fixed cost of equipment utilization is as in IT3 at 6,422 MF per hectare. Oxen feed supplements however are calculated for a total of 140 days (rather than 100) to account for the need for animal power in the second crop cultivation. The total cost of utilization of farm equipment under IT5 is composed as follows: (MF) Depreciation 6,422 Feeds, supplements and vet. costs 4,900 - Repairs and maintenance (2543 ME at IT3 level plus 60% for the second season or 1530 MF) 4,073 Cost of capital 1,155 Total (MF per hectare) 16,550 Synthesis On the basis of the discussion carried out in the preceding pages, Table 7-6 and 7-7 summarize the expected changes in resource utilization in the form of rice enterprise and labor budgets for all the techniques 228 .3........c.l 5.... 2. v... m. ....— ..o..........v...c.... .... we.........=o ..w. J- ................ ......z... «3.2.... ...: ...... .3... ... 95.5.5.8... 5.5.3.. ... 5.....02. ......e... .22.... 2.2.2.... -3... 9.1.3.. o: ......c. ......c~......c. ......o... ...... .u ....>.......... .... m. 2. ............u... .c....:.. ... C ...... ..c.............oc ... ... I... ...; ...... .31.... ... .... .5. .a 5.3.0.. 3 .5393... a. o... ....e. ...... 953.5... 93...... ...... ...... .2... ......2... .2533 ...:u N o... .... m. .e........... ...... ... cw ... .... ...... ......e. ... .... ...... ... 0...... 30.33.... a... .... 932.95.. .... ... .553. $5.33 3... ... .2... .. .3259... 3...: we 9...... one... a... .e 232.2... 0.. ... ...-.53.... .ou... ea. .c e..g.iezo .e va.o.:o a. .wo. m». ego. -95... .29..» m ......e. ... .... ..o. .... ...... 2:5... :3 ...... .... 3.3.... 3. .2223. .... .....5 ... n< ...... .2. 5.. co m. 3.3.39... .52.. ... :3 25.2.. ......o... ... 30...; .3 39.33.... 3...}... ....o to... ... .....m o... 0.. :32... 3.2.5.... ..-. oz: ... .. 32...... ... 232.3... v... 2.3.8.. .... .a 79. 3.25.9.2. .....3 . ...... 33...... . .32.. . £9... 2 098.2... .2223... 23.. ...... ..o. 9...... 5329......2... ....2 ......:....m ...... 3.83.3. m. Shim: 2.. .2 ...... .... ...... .... ...... ...... ...... ......o. 3...... 2...... 2...... 8...... 8...... 3...... we... .... 2...... 8...: ......8. :8... 98.8 3...... 89.....138. SN .... .... S. .... ...; .59. ew.wmou.....o. 5.2.... ......s. N .2 m . .... N ...: .. ...... 8. .... ...... ......mwuseo. use... 8...... 2...: 2...... 2...: Stew 3...... .25...“ 8.... n8... ...... 2.... .....o. . 8.... 3.8 ......o. _. ...oo. ea... -- -- 8...... ...: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .... o... ...... ...... ... ...... 8.... ....N 8.... ...: 8.... ...... ..8... 8... ........... SN -- -- ... ...... 8 a .... ......e... 8...... .... 8...: ...: 8...: ...: 8...... 2 c8. . .... 8...... E .... ... .... e ......s... 8...... ..m. -- 8...... 8. ..8... m. 8.... S ...... R .... ... ...... a 8.... ......i ... 8. ....a 8~ S. 8. .... .. at. . . ...... 8...: 8. .....cé -- 8.... .... 8.... 8 8a.. 8. Se... ...: ... iii; 3......wwm 3m... 53.5.3. ...... 2....8. can... 2...... .....S 8.. 8 ~85. .35.... 2.... 2.... 2...... ......N 8... ... 8...~ . 3................. a 2.2:... 8...... ......e 8...... a... 8......” c... 95.3 ...... 8... on ...... 8...: 8.. .... 8. ....e. 2...; .8 3...... ...... 5...... .... ~36. .... 3m. .... 3... 3n... ...: 2...... 8...... ........e.... 2.... ...... 8.... 986 80. .. 8a.. .73 .....c . ..e_.e..o...k. .33.. 33:5... 8...: Sew... 3...»... 8...... 8...... 9a.... . 532...... ... .5... 8.... ......n ...... NS.~ 8.... .... . ... ...o... ...: ...... .... .... ...... SN .... ... en... a 2.3... ...... 8.... ...... .. 8.... .......~ 8...... 3... a. 2...... $9.... cafe... C... o... 5. .25.... o: . c> 25...! .o... .3 .....95. w: . 3. .....2 a: . 2. 253 ...... a» 2.591 a . .... ......— ...... .... .... ... ... ... 3.625....» ......c............... 2.32:3; 3...... 9.39.... ...... .025: 3.3.8.5 3... 6-. 39¢. 229 .mu.. we m:..=o.amcm.. .o. m. mums..mm on» n .m=.aao.u w..=oc mo>.o>:. mp. .mu.. .o m:..:m.amcmgu mossmmm e». .mc.cmoz .c3a.v .ms.cm. .mu.=m;ums m:.a NP. mm m. «P. .m:.ummm-zo. .o co.. -ozcoguc. mmsammm NP. .mum. :o..u~.....o. .msm.; gu.3 bu um>ogas. cu m. ... .m:o.:;um. .cmggzu m. pom N..NN no ~.om. m.mm. ~.om. ..om. ..mo. .o. ...o. a... m. .... a... .... o... om om mzowcm..muw.z ..o. ... ... ... ..m ... ... ... .cms.mm.. cc. m=.;mm... ..zcmz mm. o... ..N. N.om ..N. a... m... m.mm m:..u..m . m:..mo>..: ... ..m ... ..m ..m ..N. ..N. ..N. a=.cwmz o.m m.. ... m.. m.. m.. m.. m.. ma........ o.m O.N o.m o.m o.m ... ... ... co..mu..... .QN.....m. N.. ..m ..m co... ..m ..m ... ... m:.zom ...m o... ...N ...N ...N ...N ...N ...N co..m...m.a acm. ...... .... ... ... m.. N.. ... .0 mm...>..u< n.a.. .mgmuumz\mxmoucmzv mo...o mg. an =o..m>...:u mu.m go. mmwzc.=;umh :o..ao.w.mcmuc. m>..m:.mu.< .muc: x..>..u< .w. m.:m5¢..=cmm .onm. ..-. m.m<. 230 considered. In Table 7-8 labor requirements per field activity are con- verted into corresponding monthly demands. These were estimated on the basis of the characteristics of the crop calendar as to the sequence of field activities and particularly the more or less intensive demand for labor per individual task. A major assumption used here has to be under- lined: the seasonal pattern of labor demand arrived at in Table 7-8 is built to reflect the variation from one month to another that prevails under the current technology for ITl, IT2 and IT3 because adjustments involved affect tasks and activities that occur in the same months as for CT. This is less evident for IT4 involving transplanting and even less so for ITS with double cropping. For the former, it was assumed that transplanting would take place around the same period as sowing for other techniques. For ITS, labor demand for the second season crop af- fects the pattern which would have prevailed had only the main crop been planted. Adjustments made took account of the sequence of activities likely to occur during the two crop seasons. An example of derivation of monthly labor requirements under IT2 is given in the footnote of Table 7-8.16 ‘6The initial seasonal pattern of labor demand under CT is depicted in Appendix B for a representative farm in the 5 to 10 ha group. A similar pattern is shown in Table 7-l for Foabougou farmers; it was not used here because the total labor is believed to be underestimated as indicated earlier. 231 .mcmuum; Lon mxmuucas cop ou Fazao gum» can Page» as» mxos op mu zm: a gozm cw mowuw>waum maomcmp -.mumvs Fmavwmoc mcvuznvgummuag an p.~_ use m.~p .~.w op ugmzaa ompmanum wen mmgzmwe mmmgh .mzmu-cme o._F can o.~_ .m.~ on ca o>mg upaoz up” smug: zpaa vac mcza .xmz com mucwsmngcmc on» .ho smug: :o_umwcm> we eaabbaa as» goons oh .e.Fm u x was» .m.o~\x n m.e~\N.m~ "covuaacm m=.zoPFoc ago m=.>Fom »a use umczmwc w? New cove: acmemgwaamg ngucoe use .mopu.>Puoo maomcmppmomws on «pamuanwcuum mp mocmgmwm_u as» .A¢.op + m.P_ + N.NV mamcncms ~.m~ ea .muou a mm>_m cmgouwmcou «specs m as» com ho smug: cowu=n_gum_c xpgucoe one .mxccucms m.¢~ o» mucsosa mmwaw>_uum mEom mzu coy page» mg» bu gone: .55-“ o—nmhv w»mu-cme m.o~ my Neg cove: mmpuw>wuum mmmzp go; pcmswgpzamc Page» .mcpummwggw new mcwzom .cowumgmamca new, on cowo>mu xpcwms one xpaa new mcac .xmz .NPH smug: umgpzaog gonmp mo cowam>vgmu ea mFamem cm mw mcwzoppom on» "muoz .mgoggm mcvvcaog Low N-N mpnmp a? umacoaog «as» can» gmzop mm mgmuom; cog can Lam» can pmuou ween .mcpaqosu mpnaou mm>Po>cw th “mow; we m=_u=mpam:msu mmszmmm «bu mmcpummz Aczmcu pmswcmv pmu_:m;oms mzpn.~hm mm m? th mmcpuwom to; yo cop“ noncogucp mmsammm «pH "mpg; :o_um~wpwpgme Loam“; gar: hu um>osasw cu m? ppm .msawcsomu pcmcczo m? Hum m.mm~ m.mp N.mp n N.P~ Ne m.o~ mp P.m ~.o o.o— m.mp mm mHH m.mm_ n m.u m.m mm ¢.NN ~.m~ n.o~ m.m m.¢ F.NN v.m~ m.m— «PH N.om— N.m m.m v.m “.mp m.pm ~.m~ m.a m.m w.¢ F.pp m.mp N.m mpm m.omp o.m m.m m.o m.mp ¢.m— ~.ep m.m m.m m.m ~.P— m.mp N.m NEH “.mo— F.m ¢.m ~.m m.op m.mp n.—~ m.n m.m ~.m ¢.- m.F— N.N FHH m.mo~ p.m ¢.m ~.m m.op ¢.NP m.o_ m.n m.w N.m ¢.op c.- N.N he apmuoh FPLQ< goes: no; :aa owe >oz poo anew mz< xpan mesa xmz mmmacmcsumh cowucupmpmcmucH m>vumccoup< Lone: Amxmaacmzv mucmsmo Loam; zpcucoz .m-n m4md>c=m "moczom «mm. mm. as mp? em mm ¢o_ Nm_ emp N_P mop _mp _N_ Am; mp-o_v HHH Fma mo. we Re FN Pm es mm am mm mm mm me. An; o_-mv HM mmm am am as me Be we em mm me mm mm mm Am; m-ov H gwm> < z a a a z o m < a a z aaocm aaam Papa» coco: .z.o as“ an meowumzppm scam m>wumucmmmcamm woes» cow momuw>wao< muwm com mpnmpwm>< Amx~a-:mzv scam; aPPEmu mo muwsmd swan: .mum “4m

_a m. m=o..c.>ocsae .o :o.aa:e_:xuc m... u 2. r... 2.8.... .... ...: u N. 2 NM 3 a .... 2.. 38.. N. 8. w on ..N on an ..N 8 2.. :8... .m 8.. w 3 2 S 8 2 2 e... :38. an 8. w .... ... 8 a a a 2.. >58. .3 o w ... c o a 9. 28m ... o w n N ~ N . . 9. .....m .~ .. .v. n ~ ~ ~ . . 9. ......m 8 a w 8 9. 3.53 m. c .v. S 9. 22.3. a o w 8. 9. =33... .... e w 8. 8. SN 8. 8~ 8... 9. 8.5:... N. o w 8. 8. 8. m. o... 8 9. .255 a e w 8. 8. m. .... ... 9. 29.3 8 o w 8. . a... .2... 393 a. a w 8 9. $3.3. ... c v 8 8 .... ..N. .... 9. .853 .. 88 n. . 9. 82.9.8 e. a .v. . 8..- 9. 5.5... m. c .v. . 82”- 89“- 8:- 89.- c N... 82- 9. .82.... z 8. w n... . Na 3 .... .... B. ......S. 2 z. w .6. n. m... a... ...... .3 .... 8.9:. 2 ... w . a... ... .... N... Na .... 3.9:. .. .. w N.N 8 ...: ...: ...... ...... .... .23.... o. ... w 2 ...... ...... a... ...: ...... .... 88¢: a z w ...... ..8 N... ...; .... 0.... .... 32...... a a w .... ...: ...... a... .... .... .... .89... . x. w .... ....” ....” a... ...... ...... .... .58.... o 3 w ..o .... .... a... .6 N... .... 2.9:. m «a w o. .... .... .... ...: ...: .... .35. c 8 w ...: .18. ...... ...N. a... ...... .... 2.9:. n 8. w an ...... 3. 3 ~.. ~.. .... 59... ~ a. U. . . . . . . s. as: . a .... .... 28...- 88.- 38..- .83- 8%...- N.N..- :5 8:25. 2:82.. ...... ......on £5: 5:: ...: .... 2. N: ... S -..-l 3.3... 2...... a a... .... a... 2 ...... s. 2 2 E .3. m... :3. .uo< mw.a.>.uu< u.:: mmo.:Owag .28 9.2.3 3:. $3.52 5.32.9... 3:. a... a... a. .83. ... .25. E: ...... .o ......E..28 8258.. 9.... 83.33.. ..-. 3...: 2113 .m x_v:o:q< :— :o>.a m. .mm_:u ccamaog. =_ a m:c.ucp>m.ano be =c_ua:u—axwm . -I'Ili'll'l 'IIIIII .‘Il 95.9: H ..t :zHEO cc a w .: .euac me o .v. ... 55.... 3 a w .x .....c n. c .w cc. cw. cm .: z—uu< mo.:>:U< mo_:>:u< oc—hzm ma ..5 mausacmm . . u:.a=m meow. m=._—om ou.¢ no...>..u< a:.a=a Lu~*_.u.o. ma=.—voom can mauom . cease..=co - ...-. ...<. 244 .u x.vcoaa< c. =c>.o m. m=o_.e_>m.aee .o =c..~=c—;x.e 8...... M ... 9.3.... .3 a TV. 8. .... :5... me .. w 8. ... 2...... z. c iv 8. ... 8...... 2. o w ..8— cm- “.2 <3... we .. w 8.: ... 88.... .e .. w- 8... ... 2.5.... ... .. w a... ... 58.... an .. ..- 8. ... 88.... an a .w 9.... cm- .... 93.... .m o .w :66. cm. .2 gauge cm .. w ..8. ....- .x :3... mm 8.8. .v. 8. ...- ... >5... 3 oo— w 8. .23.... n— ev w p- _n :3 uta<.. - u@ w _- at cummozm<.. o N. w .- .... 88¢: . cm W. _u a! mumm<.. c a w .- .... 3...... m Na Aw —. ti admczax hood: mww42 e=<.= .64: and: >84: (acm. utcu. aaau. :fiOu. >xc». o>.auonac 5.2.... ......m 8.. ...-... 8.. m2 3.. n2 ~2 .9. 8.. a2 ...... .9. 2.. -< 5. c~< ...... .111...- ...mu m... ...-......22 9...... .3... .........B..=.a..p...=u.«. ...-a. 3:... 8.33.. I'- II I- aca:=..:ou . .—_-~ m.c<_ 2115 O 3 m — OGOOQGOOOOGg ooc.cm— I..- it! I... i... 1...! 3.30.... mzz l0.l.l .Ilull- ‘O'I‘- I.-." l.l..- -il’. 'i--'i!l’--l| (it's-I- iii-III- -I- ll 00“. 9...! U .. x.==e..< e. =¢>.a m. m=c..u.>mcsac .c cc.uc:e.ax.e II.- !. vlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlVIAI .: a: a: .t a: b: .8 u: b: u a: .2 .8 sagas: a395: .l p .- p a c c¢¢~ gasp ~v< .v< ...... 832.... a...ooqga 1.. m~...>.uu< co.m=o.p _~a.aou 'i til'l ly.--.II. I'll I’lilil --I-. 3 ...: Hume-53.... ['9‘ III- II ‘I'Iul'iil‘ aea=:..==. - ...-. ..a<. 246 TABLE 7-12a. Base Plans for the Small Sized Farm Optimal Plan 1 Optimal Plan 2 Item Unit under CT (PLAN 1) (PLAN 2) 1. Production techniquesa - CT ha 3.35 0 ITS ha 0 3.3 2. Total labor usedb m-day 349.0 744.4 c Months with hiring of labor -- DC My.Jn,N,D.Ja.Hc.Ap Proportion of hired labor to total 2 0 32.6 3. Net income per ha HF 33.671.6 126,018 per man-day of family labor HF 323.2 829.4 4. Fertilizer. seeds and seedlings Main crop urea kg 124.1 329.8 mun. phosph. kg 67.1 329.8 Tilemsi phosph. kg 671.0 659.7 seeds kg 402.6 263.9 seedling 1000 twigs 2nd crop urea kg 164.9 anln. phosph. kg 164.9 seeds 1 kg 263.9 5. Hire of equipment (total) hrs 0 208.1 May hrs -— June hrs -- July hrs 18.7 Aug. hrs 30.5 Jan. (2nd crop) hrs 158.9 6. Oxen feeds rice bran kg/day 3.35 9.9 rice flour kg/day 3.35 9.9 cotton seeds kg/day 0.0 16.5 7. Operating capital usedd MF/ha 41,791 175,307 aTechniques listed are only those which came into solution at some level: CT is the current technique. ITS assumes double cropping. bObtained by subtracting the slack from total labor available, plus total of hired labor. c0 = December; My - May; Jn - June; N - November; Mc . March; Ap I April and Ja ' January. dCalculated as follows: initial capital supplied to the model plus revenues from selling activities minus the excess (slack) after so1ution. 247 TABLE 7-12b. Base Plans for the Medium Sized Farm Optimal Plan 1 Optimal Plan 2 Item Unit under CT (PLAN 1) (PLAN 2) 1. Production techniquesa CT ha 6.98 O ITS ha 0 7.15 2. Total labor usedb Ill-day 726.1 1,6l2.2 Months with hiring of labor -- D,Jac Hy,Jn,J1,0—Fe, Ap‘ Proportion of hired labor to total S 1.0 46.2 3. Net income per ha HF 32,208.5 98,371.7 per man-day of family labor HF 313.3 809.2 4. Fertilizer, seeds and seedlings Plain crop urea kg 258.3 714.3 mum. phosph. kg 139.6 714.3 Tilemsi phosph. kg 1,396.2 1,428.7 seeds kg 837.7 571.5 seedlings 1000 twigs 2nd crop urea kg 357.2 amm. phosph. kg 357.2 seeds kg 571.5 5. Hire of equipment (total) hrs 67.7 733.1 Nay hrs 17.5 57.2 June hrs .15 . 78.6 July hrs 45.5 107.2 Aug. hrs 4.6 93.6 Jan. (2nd crop) hrs -- 396.5 6. Oxen feeds rice bran kg/day 6.9 2l.4 rice flour kg/day 6.9 21.4 catton seeds kg/day 0.0 35.7 7. Operating capital usedd MF/ha 43,725 219,350 3CT is current technique; ITS is a technique involving doub1e cropping. bObtained by subtracting the slack from total labor available, plut total hired labor. cAbbreviations: My - May; 0 - December; Ja - January; Jn - June; J1 - July; O-Fe - October through February and Ja - January. dCalculated as follows: initial capital supplied to the model plus revenues from selling activities minus the slack after solution. 248 TABLE 7-12c. Base Plans for the Large Sized Farms Optimal Plan 1 Optimal Plan 2 Item Unit under CT (PLAN 1) (PLAN 2) 1. Production techniquesa CT ha 9.82 O ITS ha 0 11.7 2. Total labor used" iii-day 1,020.5 2,547.4 c Months with hiring of labor -- O,Jac Hy,Jn,J1,0-Ja,Mc,Ap Proportion of hired labor to total 1 . 54.2 3. Net income per ha MF 29,826.Z 53.650 per man-day of family labor HF 297.7 518 4. Fertilizer, seeds and seedlings Main crop urea kg 363.0 1,173.3 mun. phosph. kg 196.2 1,173.3 Tilemsi phosph. kg 1,962.2 2,346.5 seeds kg ,177.3 938.6 seedlings 1000 twigs 2nd crop urea kg 586.6 amm. phosph. kg 586.6 seeds kg 938.6 5. Hire of equipment (total) hrs 24.7 1,173.4 Nay hrs -- 90.2 June hrs -- 121.8 July hrs 24.7 172.4 Aug. hrs 150.4 Jan. (2nd crop) hrs 638.6 6. Oxen feeds rice bran kg/day 9.8 35.2 rice flour kg/day 9.8 35.2 cotton seeds kg/day 0.01 59.6 7. Operating capital usedd ' 55.157 243,353 aCT is current technique; ITS alludes to double cropping. bObtained by subtracting the slack from total labor available, plus total hired labor. cAbbreviations: O I December; Ja I January; My I May; Jn I June; J1 I July; O-Ja I October through January; Mc I March; Ap I April. dCalculated as follows: initial capital supplied to the model plus revenues from selling activities minus the slack after solution. 249 technology. It was derived by constraining the model to bring all in- tensification techniques at a zero level in the solution. Optimal Plan 2 (PLAN 2) was obtained after allowing the model to float over the en- tire range of techniques envisaged. This was made possible by providing the model with an initial operating capital high enough to bring culti- vated land in solution at a level close to the actual average area (taken as an upper bound) in each size group. Or alternatively, to ex- haust the land constraint by leaving a negligible shadow price. In each case (and subsequent sensitivity runs), the total amount of operating capital used up in the solutions was obtained by subtracting the "slacks" from the total amount initially made available.22 5. Evaluation of LP Results of the Base Plans PLAN 1 This plan is not expected to simulate the actual situation for one main reason: the LP model is normative and shows what farmers ought to do in order to maximize net incomes. Farmers may have other goals in actual practice.23 The results of PLAN 1 indicate generally a higher net income per hectare over the actual situation (50 percent higher on 22This is inclusive of the revenues from selling activities generated by multiplying the selling price by the level of production activity. The amount of labor used up in the solution was estimated in the same manner. 23For instance, the discrepancy between PLAN 1 and the actual situa- tion developed in Chapter 5 is wide with regard to hiring of labor. Farmers in the survey area hired labor all year around (as shown in Ap- pendix A). One probable reason for this difference could be that farmers find is socially satisfying to allocate their time to some nonrice acti- vgties and hire outside labor for rice even though family labor is avail- a e. 250 small and medium sized farms, and 20 percent higher on large farms). Farm labor is also shown to be used more efficiently (20 percent less on average). PLAN 1 will be the reference base for comparisons of alterna- tive solutions involving one or a mix of intensification techniques pro- posed. Other information from the optimal solution in PLAN 1 is dis- cussed below. a. Marginal Value Products (MVP) PLAN 1 brings land for all three size groups at a level slightly below the actual average which was taken as the model's upper limit. The existence of a slack on land means a zero MVP. The farmer would hence add nothing to his net income by acquiring an extra hectare of land, even though this is at no extra cost (according to the settlement con- tract). MVP of labor in November for both the medium and large farms were respectively 780 and 944 MF per man-day. This is less than the mar- ket wage rate of 1000 MP and suggests that farmers should not hire more labor during this period which is the beginning of harvest in practice. Shadow prices of labor in December and January are nearly equal to the market wage rate. Thus under the ceteris paribus condition, the program level of labor hiring (l and 3.6 percent for the medium and large farm) may be considered as optimal because no increase in net incomes would be forthcoming for an extra man-day of outside labor. The same interpreta- tion is valid for oxen feeds and hire of farm equipment services. Sha- dow prices for fertilizer and oxen feeds are higher than their respective marginal costs only for the small sized representative farm. For instance an extra kilo of urea bought at 120 MF would increase the objective func- tion by 313 MF. In general the magnitude of shadow prices should be 251 interpreted as only indicative of the proper direction of action in pro- duction decision. In practice the more or less intensive use of any in- put as suggested by the magnitude of its MVP in relation to its price will be finally restricted by the mix and the constraints of other re- sources . b. Cost of Forcing in Nonoptimal Activities LP provides information about excluded activities by indicating how much the returns will be reduced if such activities are forced into the solution. The higher cost the lower its competitive position in relation to other activities. Forcing PLAN 1 to hire labor at nonpeak period would reduce net income by 2,611 MP for the small representative farm. It would cost relatively less (lOOO MF) to do so in December. PLAN 2 In all three size groups PLAN 2 brings only IT5 into solution. This suggests that double cropping is the most profitable of all intensi- fication techniques now available. The same conclusion was suggested through budgeting (see Table 7-6). As was the case for PLAN 1, this plan was also derived by providing the model with an initial operating capital large enough to bring land in solution at its actual level in each size group. Because two crops are expected to be planted on the same land area in one year, the level of resource mobilization required is practi- cally difficult to achieve, unless credit is made available to farmers. For instance, although net income for the small farm is shown to reach nearly 830 MP per man-day (of family labor), the model would require an annual operating capital of 175,300 NF per hectare. This amount would be necessary to pay for 33 percent of the required annual labor (2 crops), 252 hire nearly 210 hours of farm equipment services, and maintain draft animals at a daily ration of 37 kg (twice as much would be required on medium sized farms). Resource constraints on large farms would make double cropping less profitable relative to the lower size groups. As shown in Table 7-12c, only 520 MF per man-day in net income would be generated, while the need for operating capital would be nearly quadrupled compared to PLAN 1 (243,853 MF per hectare). In sum, under the current situation and probably within the horizons of a near future, a technique involving, double cropping of rice is not feasible although it is shown to be the most profitable. This is because the level of resource demand required to plant an area of land equal or close to the current average can be met only if enough operating capital is made available through credit. It is possible however to restrict the practice on a very limited area. The practicability of other inten- sification techniques is discussed below. 6. Feasibility and Practicability of Alternative Intensification Tech- niques To examine the feasibility of other intensification techniques and bring some realism into the model, the activity (ITS) involving double cropping was forced to appear in the solution at zero level. This allows the model to float and choose among remaining alternatives. The results are shown in Table 7-13 which depicts optimal Plan 3 (PLAN 3). 2553 .x—za cw Loam. bug's up ‘54: up =omaom cm macaw couuopmm mm pmcuwm m:c_ac_>ocss< b .co_uecou_mcou cons: azac. mg“ “a wows; amou co sac; .a:.aguzc ._m>u— xu.—pao_,o>a Essa m>oac amc_z mouc:omoc as vmu_s_4= .copuzpom c? acaoEo —e3wuac ozu zo_ma auxuaca :_ Axum—m Lev c=e_ em~___u==:u .ma:.—euom mo mc_u:c_am=ccu a:_>—o>=w o=c_=;umu :o_uoupu_m:mu=_ m_ ch. n .ou_c be m=_aaocu o-azou a=.>_o>:_ u:c_czumu :o_uou_»_m:oa:_ m. mp_c '(£4( 6’ l‘ixgiii‘bi‘ I..-Il1- l.l-..--.l 4.1-I mm~+ c.~+ oo~+ a _ zz -- -- .. mu: A a>z ;._z mu=a=_ .q o o — n 392:3 29.533 5.2.; m._— N... mp R Lone. >__aa.-:oz cuo2_z bouzomua .m m.mmm e._mc o—c a: xacicas can mme.eo_ cam.mo_ omn.mm a: menace; can osoue_ so: .N oaeo.AV ufiaa.m. UANm._V om.e _~.m we.~ a; nap. :cwu:_om :_ m:c_::umu .wac; .— .a; m_-o_v Au; c_-m. an; m-c. ___ azocu u~_m __ cacao o~_m _ aaocc o~_m u_=: sou. _u>o4 ocmN an em: 5; 3:59:— 38: sea =o_saoo__< .--. II In"! I )0 t i Ills mucsomwm um cop; ~S=_u:o .m—im m4=<~ 254 The amount of operating capital used up in the solution in PLAN 3 is a maximum beyond which the second most constraining resource (family 24 labor) became operative. Although net income per man-day arrived at is three times as higher under PLAN 3 than PLAN 1, the model leaves a substantial slack of land, implying a reduced gross revenue per farm.25 The main technique in solution (IT4) involves transplanting of rice seedlings. It was indicated earlier that this technique was indeed in- troduced in the settlement in the past, but succeeded only to a limited extent.26 As transplanting was done entirely by hand, labor became a bottleneck. The same labor constraint is demonstrated in the model lead- ing to PLAN 3, in addition to the capital requirements (average 147,000 MF per hectare) already judged impractible with 40 percent of it used to hire outside labor. Examination of shadow prices indicates no single resource with an MVP greater than its marginal cost (MC). Seeds in June (SEEDSl) and hired labor in July (HLJL) have MVP less than their marginal MC. The next plan considers the feasibility of ITl, IT2 and IT3 by forcing the program to bring IT4 and ITS at zero level. The results are discussed under optimal plan 4 (PLAN 4 in Table 7-14). IT2 and IT3 are shown to be profitable techniques for the small and medium sized 24Successive optimal plans beyond this level failed to bring more land into the program. 25One reason why farmers prefer large holdings is the possibility to increase total production, i.e. increase their returns to labor. 26In 1962 at its widest degree of adoption transplanting covered on- ly 3 percent of the rice land. [de Wilde, 1967, pp. 264-66]. 2555 .ocae e. Loa-_ uoc.g m. zed: .cuaeo>oz e. Lona. uoc.g m. 2;: "Aoeaa. _ common :— macaw voaoopum m. .mcuum ”mama. be was». ... v:- mgaeoe ——u :. oc.g gemsa¢sao .Lo~._.acou uo moan“ —_e ou apo>.uooamoc Locus ab .cu .hzuan .npusu— xu._.ao—.e>o Ice. u>oao soc.: muocaomoc ou tuupa.4o .eo.u=—om e. veep be assess use be ago—c ozu cu awesome: :— Axuo—u Lav eca— vu~.—_u=::a .uc.vooz exact paa_=e mu>—o>:. om—o can Np. no u. np- no:_uwom-xoL ga.x uaovcguou covueo_b.m -ewaew m. Np. "ae_aaocu u—azou mo>po>:. m». mu:.a=o_am:ocu 3a.: use-cguuu co.ueu.~_m=oue. a. vh_ ace—am.>uuoax -- .mfiwweue 53%“... .... . ...... ...... ...... .. ow we pp a moo—>com acusa.:co Eco» e~ a. o. a cone. a__sau-eoc Qty-.... 005.2501.” m.mOm ~.~_m ~.a~. a: aau-=ae can o-.cm mm~.em mca.¢m a: a: an; aeoo=. 38: .~ aAmm.p. m_.c_ aAem.c. ao.o aAc_.o. oo.~ a; anc_ o.o am.c ca.o a; awe. co_d:.om :. moaa.cgoou .coca .— ... qzoca m~.m __ a=oca o~_m _ aaogu o~.m u.:: tou— Ii it .asss 620~ 3. .mc_ we“ ace. 23.x masco=_ so: can eo.uauo__< autscmnz u. =a_a .ae.sao ...-A usa

wuucgmupm meowuupcummc new; mecca? uaz com mm: camp we a who goes: new; we =o_ucom on» mcpmcmcumo "mczz copauwcummm ecu; .mmpin u4m_coc we: was co.aou.u_m=ou=. cove: Axu.p_aeu.eoca can Au__.awmamu be megou c—v :o—a w_ananmuua amen as» on o» czosm no: u— .mcpeouz .ou—cnguas we» a:.coom soc mo eo_uaove oga moaammo e zm_ oco~ an mono—cgomu eo.uau.~.m=ou:_ ppo m=_:.acum:ou so uo>_coe no: a. .u:c_=:uou uemccau ogu Love: mouczomuc 5o eo.uouo.—o pme_uao we» maemmocauc . zo oucmsu mmp+ mm_+ a — zo aucazu m-+ em.+ u — z<4g co>o oacugu Aao._ am~._ ~_m n.a.. was n_m e: sue-e Lna oscu=_ so: mn~+ mm—+ u e z<4a co>o oaeagu a_~+ om—+ a — z<4a co>o oacozu mso.om_ m-.ce— mm~.em oom.~c_ eme.cm mc~.~n a: A—V a; so; osooe_ am: a a u e z<4a Lo>o maeezu c.e+ c.c+ a . z<4a Lu>o omcagu uo.o me.m mm.w an.~ mn.~ mm.o a; eo.u:—om :. nose tea; a: app 9 n: ma @ m: oo o a: c—— a a: mo 0 a: ow o u—ea sou— u-aau.:_ upu.u.=_ as Log ou.cm have; as can ou—ca xvcua e zcaa p z<4a mu=n=_ guano—mm tea uaauac be moo—ca :— mooeugu cu ae z<4a ecu up z_a_meum .o—is u4=

.cov we: ecu co.uau.u.meuuc. Lose: xa._panuvuocn we. »u_._a -.meou mo mecca e.. =~_a o_aaunouuo “no: 9:» on o» esogm we: a. .m:.vooz —uu_:oguoe tea o:_voom you so eo.uaoee on» muasmmo e zo_ been an muse—:guuu no.“ -au.e.m=uae_ ..e a:.=.acumcou ma vo>—cov no: a. .o:e.=;uou aeoccau as. some: mo0530muc uo covaaoo_—a .ue—uao ecu macomocaoc . z mmop Etta.— moain; .363 85.5.. N858 gags 282: 8.. team mate; 35.2 89% ~35 8.1% 33.2 ...30. 58... ..2. 8952 £5.35 Sago 8.18. 82.8.” $~.8~ 2a.: 28:28: 88 82 85.8” :86: 85.8. 58.8.” 8min 58.8. :5. 58.3 839528 . a 55 a=_o> www— ma~.8~._ .355 amm.-2 SHE $33 2.3% 2.8.: 82 E: Emma wow. 3 218 as; 22......— §... 8...- 58... 2.2 8.82 ~85: 25.58 5.8 88.2: 5.:— 8~.2- 28:680.: 88 8: 8...—2. 58.8. 8562 58.53. 53.8. 5862 0.9. 8...: 859528 go oapa> amo— ~_~....8 23.8. 5.2. 88.5: 5.2.” 85.2. 8.8.; 8.. E: :siew. axe; imao $.85 52:; 5.3. 28. 23:: :35: a; can no.5; acts; a; can ou.ug xucaa ... .2: a. .2: C: 8:... a: . mean; Lee meo.age:mm< ou.sa o>.unecuu—< cove: mucou=_ snag «a: o_-~ m4a

.em Na u.em eme .. ome .. owe awe cme con me .. m.c .. mm: mNo mNo cme com .. coo .. coo com com gem e:.uo:e=.e eq.; .6 o=.e> 8.5.3.5.... a .. .. : .. . N m N . Law» a. N n N . ewe. a. .. N .. m N . a so“. 2:... o . .26. 3o; 1 .r 25.. m... "oeoNIeWohwilllll511-11.)... o.N ”28 2o; We...) 278 These zones are chosen to represent the actual situation as reported in Chapter 4 and S. For instance, the 2.0 mt per hectare zone is applicable to Sahel, while the low yield zone actually represents conditions prevailing in Kolongo sector. The budgets can be described as follows. In year 0 the farmer receives a credit for farm equipment. Because of delays in delivery, the land is usually plowed and sown for him by the Office. He also receives foodstuff valued at 180,000 ME, for the nourishment of his 4 Owing to problems of adjustment, it is reason- family during year 0. able to expect lower yields in year 0. These are assumed at 1.2 mt, 1.0 mt and 0.8 mt per hectare for the three different yields zones, respectively. It is also assumed for year 0 that no outside labor is hired and no fertilizer is applied. The variable and fixed costs shown in year 1 through year 10 represent the actual level of resource utilization as presented in Chapter 4 and 5. In year 7, one of the two oxen dies and the second is salvaged at its initial purchase price. These animals are replaced out of the settler's own funds or through acquisition of a second equip- ment credit. All farm implements (harrows, plows) have a 10 year life with zero salvage value.5 Net Present Values (NPV) calculated for the average farmer in these zones at 15 percent discount rate were 1,378,280 MF, 613,180 MF 4This assumes an average family size of 10 members and an allowance of 300 kg of paddy (valued at 60 MF per kilo) per member, in accordance with the current practice at the O.N. 5This accords with data from the survey reported in Chapter 5 (Table 5-4), the average lifetime was rounded to 10 years for ease of calculation. 279 and -320,880 MF, respectively. There is a 2 to 1 ratio in the NPV be- tween the first two yield zones, much higher than the ratio of their re- spective yields. Discounted future cash flows for the average farmer in the low yield zone results is a large negative value which indicates clearly that rice farming does not pay at all in these zones. Where the net yield is barely 1.0 mt per hectare, the three-year repayment schedule of the farm equipment credit imposes a real financial burden upon the settler. The 10 year budget exercise also shows that for investment in farm equipment to be profitable to the settler, a minimum yield of 1.5 mt per hectare needs to be achieved. Failure of settlers in low yield zones such as Kolongo to realize a net benefit after repaying the equipment loan, has several conse- quences. It increases their indebtedness to the Office. To meet financial obligations the settlers may sell the farm equipment before payments fall due. These settlers may also revert to capital borrow- ing in-kind or in-cash to meet consumption needs. The causes of under- equipment and the range of risk management strategies employed by settlers were the subject of a special survey in Kolongo. The survey approach and the findings are presented in the next section. 8.3 Settlers' Under Capitalization and Risk Management Strategies Concurrently with the farm management study a survey focusing on risks and undercapitalization was undertaken. A primary objective was to gain understanding on the problem of underequipment and to examine risk adjustment practices of settlers faced with underequipment. A secondary objective was to capitalize on the information gathered and 280 present in a meaningful way the origin, the facts, the process and the consequences of underequipment of some settlers. Data Collection A questionnaire approach and informal inverviews were combined to obtain the data on underequipment and its associated risks. First, informal discussions were held with a selected number of old settlers in different villages of the Kolongo sector. Respondents ranged in age from 50 to over 70 with an average of 30 years of seniority as settlers. The inverviews improved the researcher's understanding of the nature of undercapitalization and provided the background necessary for the design of open-ended questionnaires. The latter were pre-tested in October-November 1979 and administered between January and March 1980 to a purposive sample of 31 underequipped settlers. The selection was made through a two-stage sampling procedure described below. In the first stage, a list of all Kolongo villages each with its equipment count was secured. All villages in which the ratio of 6 Three villages number of oxen to plows was less than 2 were retained. (Lafiala, Louta and Kayo) fell in that category. Their farming popula- tion was respectively 47, 20 and 16 families. At the second stage, respondents were selected in each of the three villages if they had (1) no work oxen, (2) one work ox, (3) no plow and/or no harrow, and 6This approach was suggested by the Office authorities in Kolongo. Villages in which the number of oxen was less than twice the number of plows were likely to inhabit the majority of underequipped settlers. It takes two oxen to trail a plow or a harrow. Settlers with one or no oxen are in a much critical position than those with no plows or harrows. Also a plow is considered more important than a harrow. 281 (4) any combination of the above criteria. A cross-tabulation of frequency counts within the sample is shown in Table 8-2. Many respond- ents had to be visited twice or three times for a consistency check. Results and Interpretation Repayment of Equipment Credit, Salvage and/or Loss of Equipment Sixty-three percent of respondents acknowledged they were able to repay the initial equipment credit in the required 3 year period. Of those who receive subsequent equipment credits, more than half were able to repay the loan in a timely manner. Poverty (in the general sense of the word) and low yields were two main reasons given by those (39 percent) who failed to repay the first loan in exactly three in- stallments. Twenty-two percent of the respondents acknowledged selling draft animals and/or implements in the past at least once. The decision to sell equipment was prompted by the need (1) to meet consumption expend- itures, (2) to replace worn out or obsolete implements, (3) to rid the stock of diseased animals or animals at the end of career, (4) to generate cash necessary for repayment of loans (to the Office or to other colonists) falling due at that period. Oxen were the most fre- (nently sold, followed by donkeys and carts. P10WS and harrows were the least transacted. One out of S underequipped settlers who resorted to the sale of part of equipment was not able to replace it. Settlers commonly invoked poverty as the main reason for the failure to replace salvaged or sold equipment. Causes of loss of equipment are death or theft of draft animals, theft or abandonment of obsolete implements. Fifty-six percent of 282 TABLE 8-2. Distribution of Equipment Among Selected Underequipped Farmersa Harrows Total Oxen and Plows No Harrow l Harrow No oxen, no plow l - 1 No oxen, l plow - 3 3 lox, l plow S 4 9 l ox, 2 plows 4 3 7 2 oxen, l plow 9 - 9 2 oxen, 2 plows 2 - 2 Total 21 10 31 Source: Survey Data. aUnderequipped settlers are defined as those with one or no oxen, no plow, no harrow or any combination of these. 283 respondents acknowledged losing one or more equipment components some time in the past. Of these, 70 percent were able to replace the lost equipment partially or totally. Only two respondents had not been able to replace their animals after their first and second pairs of oxen 7 Eighteen percent of underequipped settlers died of natural causes. who had lost part of equipment reported they voluntarily abandoned aging implements (plows, harrows) for obsolesence. Underequipped settlers with one or no oxen acknowledged they experience delays of one to 3 weeks for land preparation operations. Owners of oxen with no plows or harrows experience few days to 2 weeks of such delays. Although all respondents were aware of the negative effect on yields caused by untimely execution of critical field operations, the majority (96 percent) attributed low yields to other causes. Most often mentioned were low soil fertility, weed infestation of fields, and lack of maintenance of the irrigation works. Risks associated with underequipment were also assessed in terms 8 of harvest conditions. Fifty-six percent of the respondents had 7The question of animals' health was consequently pursued. Settlers in the sample who currently own one or two draft animals were asked to provide an assessment of their animals' state of health. Forty-five percent acknowledged that one of their oxen was in poor health conditions. The majority of animal owners indicated that animals are often diseased after the rainy season is over. All re- spondents recognized the necessity of vacinations but cited cash problems among major reasons for less frequent veterinary care. 8Crop failure or bad harvest referred to whether or not the settler was able to pay the land fee for a particular crop season over the past 5 years. A good harvest was defined as one that permitted the farmer to pay the land fee and a large portion of the credit for seasonal inputs. 284 experienced a crop failure in one out of 5 recent years, which they mainly attributed to considerable delays in farm operations as a result of their being underequipped. Seventy percent acknowledged they had a bad harvest once over the last 5 crop seasons. This leaves 30 percent in the sample with a good harvest in each of the last 5 years. In sum, the majority of respondents (63 percent) acknowledged they were able to repay their first equipment loan in the required 3 year schedule. However with yield declining or at best remaining stable but at a lower level than elsewhere, farm net incomes for many decline. Nearly one-fifth of underequipped settlers found it difficult to replenish their stock of equipment. This increases production risks. The decision to sell part of their equipment is sometimes prompted by the need to meet urgent consumption requirements or to repay loans falling due at that period. Risk Management Strategies Some answers to questions raised above provided an opportunity to examine more thoroughly the principal management practices that under- equipped settlers use to accommodate risk and to insure survival and maintenance of their productive capacity. Risk aversion per se was accepted a priori.9 As Young et al. [1979] report: ". . . recognizing the proximity of many developing country farmers to the margin of subsistence, and the absence of institutional provisions to protect individuals from unfor- tunate economic outcomes, we think it is generally reasonable to assume risk aversion a priori in such settings." 9However a question was asked to all selected settlers in order to assess the percentage of farmers who could be considered as risk takers. Two mutually exclusive alternatives were presented in the question: a high risky choice with a higher pay-off and a less risky alternative with a lower but certain pay-off. All but 6 percent of respondents chose the second (certain) alternative. 285 Early informal discussions with the elderly led to the identifica- tion of 8 most commonly used strategies by underequipped settlers. Respondents in the sample were then asked to list those strategies they had once resorted to, are currently using or would wish to use to accommodate risks and/or to cope with the consequences of under- equipment. The results are compiled in Table 8-3 which depicts the proportion of respondents who acknowledged a particular management strategy. All respondents in the sample had resorted to or mentioned contract and/or community work involving the use of missing equipment. Contract work required the payment of a minimum of 10,000 MF for the use of oxen in land preparation. Community work (or informal cooperation) is a situation where an underequipped settler works for the equipment owner who in turn rents out his equipment at no or low service charge. In- formal cooperation is often interchanged among settlers with kinship ties. However 40 percent of respondents acknowledged interchanging work with friends or neighbors. Contract and community work were the most common practice. But they usually result in long delays and untimely execution of critical field operations. Low yields and subsequent income transfers increase the level of indebtedness of underequipped settlers. Search for part-time employment, stock raising of young steers and purchase of used farm implements were also commonly mentioned by respondents. Off-farm jobs however are rare in the area and replenish- ment of capital stock is constrained by cash shortages. Forty-three percent of the respondents expressed the willingness to obtain another credit for farm equipment from the Office. This 286 TABLE 8-3. Risk Management Strategies of Underequipped Settlers in Kolongo (O.N.) Percentage of Respondents Reported Strategies Yes No Undecided 1. Contract and/or community work with others 100 O - 2. Search for part-time off-farm job 74 26 - 3. Purchase and/or raising of young steers and 70 3O - used implements for stock replenishment 4. Application for new equipment credit from 43 57 - the O.N. 5. Engaging in profitable non-agricultural 35 64 - activities 6. Adjusting (reduction) of cropped area to 30 7D - conform with actual level of equipment endowment 7. Clandestine sale of part of harvest to 22 77 1 private traders to exact higher price 8. Decision to terminate settlement contract 1 98 l and leave the O.N. 9. Others - 26 74 Source: Survey Data. 287 suggests that past experiences and the difficulty to comply with the Office 3-year repayment schedule make this strategy another risky alter- native in the eyes of many underequipped settlers. A low proportion (35 percent) of respondents cited involvement in profitable non-agricultural activities such as trade, blacksmithing, tailoring as viable risk management strategies. However this low percentage can be attributed also to lack of such profitable opportu- nities in Kolongo in the first place. Seventy percent of underequipped settlers in the sample rejected reducing the cropped area to conform with their current level of equipment endowment as a management strategy. This outcome was expected in a zone where yields are low and settlers perceive large holdings as a guarantee for a large rice output i.e., a higher return to labor. Channeling a part of their harvest into parallel markets as a strategy was open to bias. However 22 percent of the respondents acknowledged they certainly would resort to this practice if given the opportunity. Settlers were nearly unanimous on the alternative to terminate the settlement contract on their own will as being an unwise move. In practice however, the most underequipped who usually are also the most indebted farmers flee from the settlement to avoid court action. In sum, perceived and real consequences of underequipment shape the underequipped settler's overall risk management strategy. 8.4 Settlers' Investment Decisions and Repletion of Farm Equipment: Application of the Decision Tree Model The multiperiod budget in Table 8-1 indicated that NPV is negative for farmers who receive equipment credit in areas where the average net yield is 1.0 mt or less. The survey data in the preceding section has 288 shown that farmers use preemptive and reactive measures to accommodate risk arising from underequipment. The two analyses however do not show the sequence of events and the time frame of individual choices by settlers which lead to and/or maintain the "vicious circle" of under- equipment and indebtedness. In this section a schematic representation of the settlers' decision to invest in, disinvest or replenish their equipment asset is discussed from looking at Figure 8. The diagram is based on a decision tree model [Hardaker, 1969; Singh, 1979; Gladwin, 1976 and 1979; Walker, 1980]. The model assumes that farmers do not make complex calculations of the overall utility of alternatives in this decision making process. Rather they choose among discrete features or aspects by ordering these alternatives. From this perspective a "good” decision is one that is consistent with the assembled evidence and the true beliefs and pre- ferences of the farmer at the time he must make the decision [Singh, 1979]. The model representing the sequence of decision criteria used by settlers to invest in or disinvest in farm equipment is shown in Figure 8. Although the diagram is an ex-post facto, it elicits objective circumstances and implies values and beliefs upon which settlers have based their decisions in the past. The tree is made up of gygnts (Eij) over which the settler exerts little or no control, and 2££§.(A1j) willingly undertaken as discrete decisions by farmers; (events and acts in Figure 8 are depicted by rectangular and triangular boxes, respec- tively). For instance, receiving the first credit for equipment upon installation in the O.N. is considered an event. Occurrence of a particular level of yield is also an event. This is because yields 289 .53 98.25...- c. I. a! 9... .2 “0.62 «cop—5.36m Eben :. 235302.35 ago 2252;... some! 09.... .3333 a 050.... “NH hmufl «HI. Wm. '33: u. .3: 9A.... sumo: teams: a! no: one: 2.3: 2 p ,3: to! 8.5.60 4 5‘80 é '. C‘ o e .258... 536533 \ a \\C\ \ .5... ...o no. I \\\ in... I \ é cos-.0308 / \\\ \ \\ .2525 82.50 82:60 5.3.52.3 Ni \ <<4\4\4\ ... i.eeu .33... «can - on - 290 cannot be determined with certainty once planting decisions have been made. Selling equipment is considered to be an act on the ground that the settler's decision is based on assembled evidences and his prefer- ences. In general events occur and acts are undertaken. In Figure 8 acts not related to production decisions are denoted as A; The J. model's pay-offs shown at the bottom of the diagram are given in terms of net benefit (NB) or net loss (NL) directly derived from Table 8-l. Where these magnitudes could not be determined, NB or NL is simply shown to be less or greater than zero. Event E occurs in year 0 as each settler received his first equip- ment credit. The credit is valued at 273,000 MF at current prices. If the average net yield remains at a minimum of 1.5 mt per hectare over some years (El.l) the settler can either undertake act Al.l or react to the occurrence of events El.2 or El.3. Act Al.l is assumed to take place in or about year 7. The settler would need to salvage the old set of equipment. In particular oxen ending their career have to be salvaged, often at a price equal to their initial purchase price, thus taking account of appreciation of animals. The revenue from salvage of old equipment can be used to purchase a new set of equipment (Al.3). Sometimes the proceeds are not large enough and the settler would rather jgvg§t_in young gtgg§§_to be raised and trained on farm (Al.4). Act Al.4 leads necessarily to contract work if the settler is to under- take production activities. The sequence El.l-Al.l-Al.3 has a pay—off of a minimum of 149,000 MP in NB as shown in Table 8-l for year 7. Contract work or renting of equipment is charged a minimum of l0,000 MF. Thus the pay-off under the alternative sequence El.l-Al.l-Al.4 would amount to a minimum N8 of 86,l00 MF (i.e., 96,100 minus 10,000). 291 Should the settler receive a second equipment credit (El.2) in or around year 7 he had the opportunity to sell his old set (Al.2) and use the revenues for saving_and/or repayment of debts falling due in that period (A'l.6). He can also use those revenues towards the pur- chase of new or used farm implements, young steers or trained animals. The pay-off of the second equipment credit would be increased to 240,000 MF or N8 in year 7 through year 10. Event El.3 or loss of farm equipment can also occur as indicated by the survey data. Three possible acts can be undertaken by the settler. He can borrow capital for the purchase of equipment in in- formal markets (Al.7) in which case the pay-off would be a net loss (ML) of at least l77,000 MF (derived from Table 8-l) in year 7. Con- tract work (Al.8) (or renting) would result in NL of l0,000 MF at min- imum and informal cooperation (Al.9) leads to untimely execution of critical field operations which may result in financial loss (NL > 0). If the yield stays below 1.0 mt over some years, this event (E2.l) leads to one action choice (A2.l) or two possible events (E2.2 or E2.3). As shown under event El.l above, the settler can choose to salvage his equipment in year 7 at the latest for the same reason referred to above. Because of low yields, most settlers would use the proceeds from sale of equipment (A2.l) to increase consumption or repay debts falling due in that period. To engage in production following acts A2.l and A'2.2 the settler would resort to informal cooperation with relatives or friends, or of necessity rent equipment (A2.3), using part of revenues from salvaging of equipment. The pay-off under the sequence E2.l-A2.l-A2.3 is a minimum ML of 112,000 MF (l02,000 MF as in Table 8-l plus a minimum of 10,000 MP for rental of equipment). 292 Should the settler lose his equipment (E2), capital borrowing (A2.5), contract work (A2.6) or informal cooperation (A2.7) are three possible acts he can undertake. The pay-offs are in terms of minimum ML of 375,000 and l12,000 MF, respectively for A2.5 and A2.6. However 10 should the settler NL can be reduced to a minimum of 50,100 MF receive a second credit for equipment. In all cases of contract work or informal cooperation, one has to take into account the negative impact on NB or increases in NL as a result of delays in the execution of critical field operations. In summary, application of the decision tree model for two dis- crete yield situations in the O.N. settlement indicates more opportu- nities for financial losses than benefits (there are more NL ; 0 than NB 2 0 in the pay-offs of Figure 8). Net losses can occur even in zones where rice yields are above l.5 mt per hectare if the settler loses his equipment and is not eligible for another credit. There is no single sequence of acts and events for farmers in low yield zones (of less than 1.0 mt per hectare) which would allow them to make a net benefit after they receive the first equipment credit. Financial losses however can be reduced through a second equipment credit and even more so if (l) the repayment schedule is extended beyond the existing three year deadline, and (2) the farmer uses the proceeds from salvaging old equipment to invest in young steers and buy additional implements. This approach would provide some continuity in the ownership of farm equipment and extraction of services from them. Farmers' indebtedness 10Net revenue of 40,900 MF in year 7 less annual loan repayment of 9l,000 MF (see Table 8-l). 293 develops over the years as a consequence of low yields, the shortness of the repayment time schedule for the medium term equipment credit and the failure to meet short-term financial obligations for other services rendered to them by the enterprise. 8.5 Development of Settlers' Indebtedness By providing new settlers with an initial medium term credit for farm equipment, the Office management wants to avoid cash flow problems which would prevent the settlers from utilizing the costly investment at their disposal. However.as developed areas vary greatly in their yield potential, the three year repayment schedule for equipment loan and the uniformity of the land fee across the settlement, make it dif- ficult for settlers in low yield zones (such as Kolongo) to meet their financial obligations and repay all loans falling due each year. Table 8-4 illustrates the beginning of farmers' financial obliga- tions to the O.N. in year 2 or year 3 after installation. Except for the farmer who can realize a net yield of 2.0 mt per hectare, the value of net output after deducting the value of consumption does not cover the sum of short-term loans and direct production charges. with most farmers in the l.0 to 2.0 mt yield range, it is possible to expect initial debts in the range of 30,000 ME to 230,000 MF per year as shown in Table 8-4. Development of settlers‘indebtedness at the Office is depicted in Table 8-5 for the last 9 years. Debts (D) are shown by sector; in each year the value denoted as D represents the sum of short-term debts for seasonal inputs and medium-term debts (on farm equipment, foodstuffs, 294 TABLE 8-4. Illustration of Financial Obligations for a Representative Farmer (7.5 HA) at Different Levels of Yields (MF) Yield (mt/ha) Item 2.0 l.5 l.O Short-Term Credit on Seasonal Inputs a fertilizer 57,000 57,000 57,000 seedsb 63,000 63,000 63,000 Production Charges land fee l80,000 l80,000 l80,000 threshing cost lOB,OOO 81,000 54,000 Loan Repayment on equipmentc d 91,000 91,000 91,000 on food allowances 60,000 60,000 60,000 Total Financial Charges 559,000 532,000 505,300 Net Value of Output After Consumptione 720,000 495,000 270,000 Financial Obligations - 37,000 235,000 Source: Derived from Table 8-l. aAssumed to be applied at the average level indicated by the survey date (i.e., 40 kg. of urea/ha and 20 kg. of phosphate/ha, at l40 and l20 MF/kg., respectively). b At the rate of l20 kg./ha at 70 MF per kilo. cAs in Table 8-l i.e., 273,000 MF for 2 oxen, 1 plow and l harrow paid in three installments of 9l,OOO MF each. d Assuming an average family of lO members and 300 kg. per member, totaling l80,000 MF paid in three installments of 60,000 MF each. eThe total allowance for consumption 3,000 kg. retained from each year's output and valued at the producer price of 60 MFYkg. 295 etc.) all falling due in that year. C stands for payments collected during the same year. A collection ratio is defined as the ratio of the volume of loan collected to the volume of amount due [Tapsoba, l98l]. Table 8-5 in- dicates that collection ratios have improved steadily over the last decade from 73 percent to a peak of 94 percent in l977-78. They de- clined to 86 and 88 percent for the last crop seasons. This pattern appears to be closely associated with the trend in gross yields over the last decade (Appendix F). Nhen Kolongo is excluded, collection ratios for the rest of sectors improved substantially while remarkably displaying the same pattern. Nearly 70 percent of the value of the debt outstanding over the entire decade originates from settlers in Kolongo. In l976-77 the average amount of debt outstanding per family was 2l6,300 MF in Kolongo compared to 53,800 MF for the overall O.N. settlement. The percentage of portofolio in arrears for the last 3 years was also examined. This measure involves a comparison of the size of the total portofolio with the portion of the portofolio which is in arrears at a given point in time. The data indicate ratios of l3, l4 and 20 ' percent from l977-78 to l977-80. As anticipated the percentage of portofolio in arrears was 48, 47 and 50 percent for the sector of Kolongo over the last 3 years. There is no reason to go into the details of how these two repay- ment performance criteria should be interpreted or their implications. It can only be claimed for the period under consideration that the credit institution at the Office du Niger is working quite well given the overall performance expressed in the above ratios. After all 296 .....e... 735...... o... lo... team—9.2.5. ma: mun...) 93.: ... 32.32 L... .595... 9.... $.23. 0.5 8:28. .6» .3... o... m. 3...... 2:0 .2-Em_ ... 8.8—8. .8... 39.2.9. .853. :2. a 3... .539... ......S... 6722. ... 3958. to... 38.2.3. .393 3...: a 3... .522... 3.032.. . 3.30..» 38.2.3 a 9:82 3 93:. .5... 3.330.. mm: 5...: 72.3 ..o. 2.... m. 8.3 2.... v.3» ...... ... 3:3 .303 a .55.... a. £303 9...... a... 5.3.... 3.33269... ... 2.5.. a was 252.52.... 2-....8. 3 .82.... . ’IP.-illn 6.532323 ....u 29.3%.. av 36...... ..z a "3.5.5 I |,. i O! I. ..lvl. ..‘1' a--. i v .llilill .I III! Y'll Viva-l.lull. 11 TI! ll. l.l. 01.-.! . 6 ill 0,: ..I- . a .I. 0 I'll! [lilioilnillvO'TIII-l DltlfiuviOlI ‘ I II II. III .... ‘olli. III . .. 'l.‘ "|.I,IIIII 0'3'lir ... TE 9.... N2. m. SEN mg»...— C... 8... 3 8:23,. .. .. -..—.2... ...... .5ch adv 9:. ...: mam Que Noe 9.2. adv ...—m C: coo... x. 2...... ...... 09.82 m=.ee..m.=c ..e: [i.llill l!!i.’ii:’i C'Uilllll . All .li lilillllllliillal.nrlillqétll alilt‘ul’Iliu'lllnlin, :Ili'il ill"-iltic.'i.|tllllilll.'liill i’fi‘snlnlll‘Iii iiiii mm. .m. a. a. «N e~ mm N. m. eee.eeee mee.uem tee.6 a. as. .. n.~ am. we. a.. em. ... oaee.ex ...:z .6 enw e.n~ mm N.N ..N No. m.. we. ... ae.eee...=o .eae ea. 6.. on N. we mm a. a. a. eaee.ex to. 6...: ea..ee_.e. .3 ca no .a .o .. «a .a .m .. 6.... =e..eo..eu e.m.. mm... cm~.. ..... .N... ac... moo new mom o~m New o~m ~.m me. .N. no. 0.. a.. ace—ex .aee..= _e..o. an em .a mm mm em a. o. a. ... e..e¢ e6..ue..e. ma... n.a.. me... an... oo~.. e.n.. ow... em... a.. ca... mm. ..... ace Nma on om. a~m .N. .z .o .e.e. me .N. m. e~. ...e. «a cw. .o ... we. .o~ .m. mom m.. can ma. .mn on. e.~ .o. nm~ ~.. New 6 ee_e. m.~ o.~ om. .NN ... ..N no. ... me. no. a.. ... ~.. «N. .a as. a. m. ee¢.e: omw oe~ em. N.N c.6aea ..N N.N as. n- ... awn ..N new ac. o- mam m.~ ... mN. .o. oo. No. ac. weeeeee. an. m.. ... ... .egem ... ... me. mm. ... NNQ con man cc~ mo. sea ea.z ..~ ..~ cam emw mm. New 9.. ... mm. mm. . e=e_z .N. on. mmw .oN aNN ..N ee~ mam eeeaeeeeo.z\e=e.z . a u a u a u a u a u a u a u a u a cw-a.m. a.-m.a_ m.-.... . ..-o... ..- m... ..- .... «.-.... n.-~.m. ~. .... 1.- 'Iii ’Ilii.lllbl will lo|ll.lll|..l:..llvli. i!!l..i l'iv'i -.I Illnvllli'r uI lealOI‘Illl I'tlnul'l! . -‘i'a‘--l.l‘il\1’.lll'-llailllll 'l,'-' i'l-.l|.li-.',".o -.i'ill.,ni.lv:'1llvi illll‘liio ill ..i n .0 c . 91'9": ill; I. io.u.c,'.tlI-III-.ii .. I. I!Il.l.pp.."llvo I . .......I.. I l.i.|- III ..I. .. ll.-- v '1'- n nullilll I..‘Onl. O'l.ln 0-! Isl n..--|’-,-|. unil- olIIlo a '01,) 'l,‘ll'l‘ ill I a ..z mee._._a e.V tea.z =6 ae...¢ es. .e ee.oem .e “maee63eeee. .mee...em .6 .eaeee.e>ee ...a ...e. 297 mechanical threshing was also dictated by the Office's desire tocontrol the harvest of the settlers and ensure its delivery. This gives the authorities an opportunity to retain part of the farmers' grain for payment of their debts. However a higher percentage of portofolio in arrears and the lower collection ratios for Kolongo are indicative of the difficulty the Office management encounters to recover short and medium-term loans advanced to settlers in that sector. Cumulative indebtedness adds its part to the incentive to terminate the settlement contract. Data obtained from the Division de Paysannat indicate l42 cases of contract terminations in Kolongo over the l975-77 period. Of these, 50 families resigned, 75 fled, l was evicted and the remaining l5 terminations were death related. For the Office as a whole during the same period resignations and flights accounted for 61 and 30 percent of causes of terminations. Eighty percent of flights originated from Kolongo. Summary Incoming settlers at the Office du Niger receive medium-term credit for a pair of oxen, a plow and a harrow. They also receive short-term credit for seasonal inputs. Since both credit programs are interest free, they permit settlers to obtain equity in capital stock and avoid cash flow shortages which would arise from the rental of equipment services. This chapter addressed two fundamental issues: underequip- ment of some settlers including its risk related problems, and farmers' indebtedness in general. To understand the problem of underequipment and settlers' under- capitalization in general, a conceptual framework was developed. First, 298 a multi-period budget with financing of farm equipment was prepared for an average farm in three different yield zones (2.0, l.5 and 1.5 mt per hectare). This provided an opportunity to assess the financial returns and costs of farming over a 10 year horizon. It also led to the conclusion that the net present value of investments in rice pro- duction is negative in areas where yields are lower (1.0 mt or below). Second, data from a survey of underequipped farmers in Kolongo were analyzed with particular reference to preemptive and reactive manage- ment strategies that these settlers use to accommodate risks associated with underequipment. Among these, contract work, informal cooperation with other settlers, search for part-time job and raising of young steers were the most frequently mentioned strategies. Third, a decision tree model using the above information was constructed in order to represent the logical sequence of objective circumstances which impact the settlers' decision to invest in farm equipment and/or replenish their capital stock after a hazard has occurred. For existing levels of yields across the settlement, the model indicates that net financial losses are more likely to occur to settlers than net financial benefits given the mix of events and farmers' own discrete decision acts. Settlers' increased indebtedness to the Office is a direct conse- quence of low yields in certain zones, a uniform land fee and loan repayment schedule for farm equipment in the face of wide differences in the yield potential of developed lands across the settlement. The O.N. data on debt collection ratios and the percentage of portofolio in arrears for Kolongo lend support to the conclusion arrived at in this chapter. CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 9.1 Summary and Conclusions The Office du Niger (O.N.) in the Middle Basin of the Niger River in Mali is the largest irrigated rice production scheme in West Africa. Created in 1932, the O.N. is a socio-economic organization with the primary objective of settling independent farmers. Settlers are given interest free loans and a contract to grow rice and utilize the land and have access to the infrastructure, equipment and services of the O.N. The O.N. is also a public enterprise with a comprehensive juris- diction over agricultural, administrative and commercial activities. Although the scheme was designed to bring nearly one million hectares (ha) under cultivation, only 40,000 ha of gravity irrigated land are currently cultivated. In recent years the annual production of rice (paddy) has fluctuated between 60,000 and 90,000 metric tons (mt). The farming population is approximately 5,000 families. Rice production in the O.N. is supervised by the Agricultural Service and the Bureau of Economic Affairs which organize input delivery (seeds and fertilizer) and provide extension services. Farmers pay a fee of 400 kilo (kg) of paddy per hectare for water and land utilization, and they are required to deliver the entire harvest to the O.N. management. The government of Mali has a monopoly on national and international rice trade. 299 300 Rice consumption in Mali averages only 20 kg per capita, but it is 90 kg per capita in Bamako and other urban centers. Rice consumption is the highest in the producing areas with more than l20 kg per capita in the O.N. and in the traditional rice zones of the Delta. Approximately 70 percent of official marketing of rice in Mali is derived from the output of some 5,000 farm families in the O.N. Hence, the study of rice production in the O.N. is central to the analysis of government rice policy in Mali. This study will provide guidance to policy makers, in- cluding the impact of official rice prices on producer incentives. A program of intensification of rice production was launched in l978 in order to rehabilitate the irrigation/drainage networks, reduce existing farm sizes from an average of 10 ha to 6 or 7 ha, and increase the adoption of improved practices. The intensification program is draw- ing on numerous technical studies--past and present--and the knowledge gained over nearly half a century of experience. Since no major eco- nomic study has ever been conducted at the farm level the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) recommended in l978 that socio- economic studies should be conducted in order to identify the constraints facing rice farmers. This study was undertaken to provide a detailed account of the economics of farm production in the O.N. with emphasis on rice and livestock enterprises. The objectives were to: 1. describe the socio-economic conditions of rice production in the O.N.; 2. estimate the income and expenditures of the settlers over the course of a year and compute the real cost of producing paddy in the O.N. on the basis of current level of resource utilization; 30l 3. estimate the total quantity of labor used on farms, its sea- sonal distribution and allocation of labor to farm and nonfarm activities; 4. develop models of rice farming that could increase farm income using improved technologies; 5. study the economics of under-capitalization of some O.N. set- tlers and the related issue or risk; and 6. discuss policy recommendations. An eighteen month survey of 152 settlers was carried out from November 1978 to April l980 to generate the data necessary to achieve the above objectives. The survey had three components. First, a one year farm management survey of 96 farmers provided farm level economic data. The 96 farmers were stratified by size of holdings as follows: small, less than 5 ha; medium, 5 to lo ha and large, 10 to 15 ha.1 Farmers were interviewed twice a week from April 1979 until March l980. Second, twenty-five settlers who participated in the pilot intensifica- tion project were investigated to provide information on their experi- ences with intensification. This information was used to evaluate poten- tial improved agronomic practices. Finally, a sample of 31 settlers, purposively selected, was used to collect information on why farmers were under-capitalized, i.e. why they lacked a full package of animal traction equipment. The farm level survey was carried out in three representative eco- logical zones (or casiers) of the O.N.: Kolodogou and Sahel zones in IFarms with more than l5 ha were excluded from the comparative analysis of the three sizes of farms, but were included in the analysis of labor allocation. 302 the Niono sector along the Sahel canal, and Kolongo zone along the Macina canal. Although rice is produced under a unique system of gravity irrigation throughout the scheme, the three zones were se- lected on the basis of expected rice yields as determined by the poten- tial of the irrigation/drainage networks on the scheme, but also accord- ing to their location, ethnic composition, degree of weed infestation etc. Actual estimates of yields were obtained from yield plots-on all fields for each of the 96 settlers in the farm management sample. The yield plots revealed that yields ranged from 0.7 to l.2 mt per hectare in Kolongo, 1.5 to 2.5 in Kolodogou and Sahel; the overall average was 1.7 mt. These yields are lower than the often officially reported yield of 2.0 to 2.6 mt per hectare. A conceptual framework was developed to analyze the economics of the farm as a whole. A farm was defined to include the two dominant i enterprises--rice_and livestock-~and a group of general farm activities. \ In addition the income earned by family members in off-farm employment \ was included in the calculation of earnings of the sample farms. Off- farm activities were defined to include social activities, small scale industries, trading, vegetable production, and the cultivation of small plots of dryland crops. Off-farm activities are not supervised by the‘ O.N. The data analysis was facilitated by using the FAO's Farm Management Data Collection and Analysis System (FMDCAS) to generate the farm budget estimates. Linear programming (LP) and decision tree models were used in subsequent analysis of the data. The results of the farm analysis 303 indicate that the farm gross income per man-equivalent was l00,780 MF2 in Kolodogou and Sahel zones and 42,300 MP in Kolongo. A series of expense§:to:income ratios was calculated to indicate the degree to which’the value of totalpproduction (i.e., farm gross income) exceeds production costs in percentage terms. The results indi- cate that production costs were 52 percent higher than the value of out- put in Kolongo, while Kolodogou and Sahel settlers earned an average net farm income of 16 MF per l00 MP of gross income. In general, thel ratio of total expenses to gross income (gross ratio) was shown to | increase from small to large farms. The value of farm equipment was i used as a proxy for farm capital in the calculation of capital turnover ratios. The results indicate that farm capital was more productive on medium sized farms (5 to 10 ha). The above differences in farm per- formance criteria between the two zones along the Sahel canal and the Kolongo zone are mainly attributed to lower yields in the latter zone as a result of drainage problems, low soil fertility and weed infesta- tion. The analysis of family earnings i.e. the sum of off-farm revenues and net farm income, revealed that off-farm revenues on small and large farms exceeded on-farm revenues in Kolodogou and Sahel zones. In Kolongo zone, off-farm revenues constitute the major source of family earnings because incomes from rice production in this zone are extremely low and often do not cover all production costs. Net cash flows during the survey year were found negative throughout the settlement, except for medium sized farms in Kolodogou and Sahel. 2In 1979-80 the exchange rate was $l/420-440 MF. 304 The analysis of labor use was carried out by stratifying farm fami- lies into three groups of up to 7 members (small families), 8 to l5 members (medium sized families) and over l5 members (large families). Within each family group, 3,13993~:9§EE.52212,"35 defined as the pro- portion of economically active male and female members to the total family size. The results indicate labor force ratios of 80, 64 and 58 percent in small, medium sized and large families. These ratios show that there are more consumption units than work units in large families relative to small families. IQE_EEEI¥§i§s9f tn? sexual division of4labor revealed that adult males contributed 55 percent, adult females 27 percent and children 18 percent of the total labor in all rice production activities. Moreover, adult males contributed 80 percent and women (adult and youth) less than l0 percent of labor in preharvest activities. However women provided 56 percent of the labor for harvesting. Adult males and youth males pro- . vided 60 percent and women 40 percent of the labor in general farm acti- vities and off-farm activities. Analysis of the total household labor .. ‘ use and its seasonal variation was combined with an attempt to assess the quantity of labor available by size of family. The results show that peak season demand for harvesting activities in December and January cannot be met from the labor supply of small families. More- over, there is little underutilized labor in both medium and large sized families from November through January. These findings show that hiring outside labor will be necessary as rice production is intensified unless capital is substituted for labor. Input;gutput coefficients were derived from the analysis of rice - "W1 M N... WMH--M.m_ ...—.- ...—.1 enterprises on the sample farms in order to compare performance criteria in three representative rice zones by size of farm. The data show that 305 all divisible inputs--fertilizer, seeds and animal feeds--are used at ML..-» less than ”ECPWTEFde.1QV915 in all three zones. The analysis indicates that 3;; incomes per hectare are 42,000 MF in Sahel, 35,000 MP in Kolodogou and -2,820 MP in the Kolongo zone. Net returns per man-day from rice production were almost 400 MP in Sahel, 300 ME in Kolodogou and -90 MF in Kolongo. The results show that actual returns from rice per man-day are substantially below what could be earned in off-farm employment. Calculation of returns to labor by size of farm indicated that medium sized farms earned an average of 350 MF per man-day, the highest of all three farm sizes. In all cases returns per man—day, in. rice production are below the opportunity cost of labor of 700 MF (year— round average). The survey revealed also that 24 percent of the sample farmers were cultivating illegal rice_fields_(hors-casier) within the O.N. in order to supplement their income. There is some evidence to Suggest that this practice is bound to continue because it is profitable to the settlers. Possible measures to reduce the cultivation of these fields include rais- ing of yields on legal holdings, imposing a higher land tax, or raising producer price for paddy in general. The financial and economic (or social) cost of producing one metric ton of paddy were computed separately. The financial cost per metric ton was found to be virtually the same in the three zones at 33,200 MF because farmers-~especially in Kolongo zone-~used less labor and other inputs. The economic cost per metric ton.of paddy, however, was 82,300 MF in Kolodogou, l03,l00 MF in Sahel and 78,500 MF in Kolongo. The average economic cost was about 83,400 MF per metric ton, two and one- half times the average financial cost. The 83,400 MF per metric ton is a conservative estimate given the assumption concerning the opportunity 306 cost of improved land and the fact that the O.N. recurrent costs were not included in the calculation. The net economic returns were positive only in Kolodogou zone. The distribution of livestock ownership was skewed among sample farmers. Thirty-one percent of settlers in the sample had no cattle or small ruminants. Forty percent kept less than 5 livestock units (LSU). Fifteen percent owned between 5 and l0 LSU and l4 percent had more than 10 LSU. Animal husbandry practices were extremely variable across the sample with respect to both farm and family size. No labor MM“ data were collected on herding or stall fed animals entrusted to Peuhl M . .herders outside the O.N. area. The data from farms with less than 20 LSU indicate that 80 percent of labor (34.4 man-days) was devoted to herding within the O.N. grazing perimeter. Farmers appeared to keep cattle for social prestige and as a store of wealth but they sold goats and sheep to generate cash for farm and household needs. They also consume dairy products, mutton, eggs and poultry. Home consumption of livestock products could not be estimated. The cash value of livestock products sold amounted to 6 percent (6,700 MF) of the gross value of farm output per hectare and averaged 30,660 MF per year for an average farm within the group of settlers with less than 20 LSU. Gross cash I income from livestock represented only l3 percent of the value of the stock of productive animals kept on farms. The intensification of rice production was analyzed by studying the costs and returnsuofwintroducing the following five improved production M1 ~ ‘-ml‘-"‘- practices (or intensification techniques) under the present price of 60 \_ W”_“ V, .- . MF per kilo of paddy. ITl: use of divisible inputs at O.N. recommended rates on the basis of results achieved under the pilot intensification project. 307 IT2: the adoption of row-seeding. IT3: the adoption of animal powered (mechanical) weeding. IT4: the transplanting of rite seedlihgs. 1T5: a system of production involving double cropping of rice, row seeding, mechanical weeding and optimum levels of fertilization. >A one period linear programming model was constructed to evaluate the prOfitability and feasibility of these five practices. The results of the model indicate that double cropping is the most profitable inten- sification technique. Double cropping, however, requires an expanded credit system to meet the operating capital requirements. For instance. the operating capital requirements for double cropping on small farms are 175,300 MF per hectare as compared with 42,000 MF for single crop- ping. Moreover, even if credit were available to farmers, double crop- ping still requires the availability of nonfamily labor and equipment services. It appears that double cropping is only feasible on a limited scale because of the competition with the O.N. sugar plantations for labor and the absence of a class of landless laborers. The second most profitable technique is transplanting of rice (IT4). However, adequate nonfamily labor is not available in the O.N. to implement this recommended practice. Row-seeding (IT2) and mechanical weeding (IT3) techniques also in- volve intensified use of fertilizer, seed, oxen feed, hired labor and farm equipment services. The results of the model indicate that techni- ques IT2 and IT3 are profitable, provided that the current credit pro- gram is expanded. The results also indicate that these techniques will increase both net returns per hectare of improved land and per man-day of family labor. 308 The model also reveals that the progressive introduction of rowb seeding and mechanical weeding techniques (i.e. substitution of inten- sified practices for the current technique) will yield higher return to land on both medium and small farms, while small farms will generate the highest net returns to land and to labor. In all cases, large farms above l0 ha have idle land and are less profitable than small and medium farms. Across all LP runs, there is a strong indication that the O.N. should concentrate the intensification program on small and medium sized farms. The survey revealed that under-capitalization (i.e. lack of adequate equipment) was a major problem. Although all incoming settlers receive interest free medium-term credit to secure a pair of oxen, a plow and a harrow, our survey showed that many farmers have lost equipment or sold pieces of equipment in order to overcome cash flow problems. Under- equipment of some settlers was found to be a direct consequence of low yields and the indebtedness of settlers. 9.2 Policy Implications and Recommendations The major policy issues which need to be addressed by the Government of Mali and the O.N. are discussed below. Government Price of Paddy, Cost of Production and Farm Incomes The results of the study indicate that the real cost of farmers producing one kilo of paddy is at least 83 MF, at current level of resource use and if an opportunity cost of some 10,000 MF per hectare is imputed to improved land. The present official farm level price of 60 MF per kilo is generally acknowledged to be below the cost of produc- tion of 83 MF. 309 The average net return per man-day in rice production was found to be in the range of 300 to 400 MF, which is about one-half the off-farm wage rate of 700 MP per day for unskilled workers in the O.N. zone. The low returns in rice production explain why many farmers are heavily engaged in these off-farm activities. Since farmers can sell their rice in black markets at 90 to 95 MF per kilo this also explains why O.N. collections of paddy are falling below government expectations, despite the existance of a system of compulsory delivery of the farmer's harvest to the O.N. management, after deducting an allowance for home consump- tion. Moreover, since the producer price is l28 MF per kilo in Senegal and l08 MF in Niger and Upper Volta, there is a large but unquantified amount of smuggling across the borders into these neighboring markets. In recent years many studies on grain marketing in Mali based on second- ary data have recommended an increase in the government farmgate price of paddy. The results of this study lend solid support to the above recommendation. The Land Fee Currently the O.N. charges a uniform land fee of 400 kg of paddy per hectare. This fee, which must be paid in kind at the time of har-. vest, represents a charge for water utilization, infrastructure main- tenance, supervision and extension service. Because of obvious dif- \\ ferences in yield potential of lands in different zones in the O.N. it\\ is recommended that a variable land fee policy should replace the fixed“ land fee. In order to implement this recommendation detailed soil studies will have to be undertaken to determine fertility indices for broadly defined categories of land in the O.N. Soil studies constitute an area of research that has so far received the least attention in the 3l0 O.N. Parenthetically it should be noted that the introduction of a variable land fee would not be an innovation because in the l930$ the quantity of rice requisitioned by the O.N. from settlers_was calculated on the basis of differences in rated potential of rice casiers in the settlement. In the l9305 three groups of land were distinguished on the basis of expected yields of 2.0 mt, 1.5 mt and 0.8 mt per hectare, respectively.3 Size of Holdings The survey revealed that the size of farms ranged from 1 ha to over 40 ha. Consolidation of the existing infrastructure and abandonment of approximately 5,000 ha of land in Kolongo have resulted in a decline in the average farm size from 10 ha in 1975-76 to about 6 ha in l979-80. _,A\ \ The results from_the linear programming model show that the highest ’ returns to labor will be obtained if intensified production is organized l on the basis of 3 to 7 ha holdings. This finding is consistent with the evidence in other African countries that small scale rice production ‘\ is more profitable than large scale farms [Chambers and Moris, l973; i Sparling, l9Bl; and Diallo, 198]]. The 0.N.'s proposed reduction of farm sizes to about 6 to 7 ha is- justified on efficiency grounds. However, existing farms of 3 to 5 ha must be intensified. New settlers in the O.N. should be allocated a minimum of 3 ha and a maximum of 7 ha of improved land. Rice Production Packages The results of the LP model suggest that seeding and mechanical weeding are profitable practices and should be encouraged provided 3Source of information is O.N. Bureau of Economic Affairs. 3ll there is an expanded credit program and on-farm trials are carried out to identify the constraints--social, economic, and technical--on their adoption. Trials on farmers' fields can ensure that technological pack- ages are formulated and refined (e.g. level of fertilization) under actual farmers' management practices. These trials should be jointly planned and carried out by an agronomist and an economist. This recom- mendation will require close cooperation between the Agricultural Department (Service Agricole) and the Bureau of Economic Affairs. Input Delivery System The intensification of rice farming in the O.N. through row seeding and mechanical weeding requires 200 to 250 kg of urea and phosphate per hectare and increased investment in farm equipment, increased demand for seasonal labor, oxen feed and equipment services. Steps must be taken to ensure the intensification program is pursued concurrently with expansion of the agricultural credit program for settlers. But the question of free credit has to be reassessed. Presently interest free credit is extended to incoming settlers for the purchase of oxen and animal traction equipment. Interest free credit is a farm subsidy which partially offsets the low official price of paddy. There is no reason, however, for the credit to remain interest free if the producer price of rice (paddy) is substantially raised--i.e. to the black market rate of 90 MF per kilo. The precise level of interest should be determined in relationship to the official price of paddy. The current interest rate was found to be nearly 20 percent in informal rural markets in the O.N. This suggests that farmers and traders will pay interest if there are profitable investment opportunities. Interest rates also should be charged for seasonal inputs such as fertilizer, because their usage will increase under intensification. 312 Credit for oxen in particular should be tied to an animal insurance program because the loss of animals was shown to be a real hazard. But farmers have to be informed about the additional costs involved in such a program. This point touches an issue often neglected by the O.N. management: many O.N. decisions intended to improve settlers' welfare : are often taken with little attempt to get them to understand the finan-. cial implications involved. It is not surprising that settlers' suspi- cions about the O.N. management often revolve around the question of money, prices and settler accounts. Special Policy Issues Related to Kolongo Farmers Improved land in the O.N. varies greatly in yield potential, par- tially because of the lack of maintenance of both the main irrigation infrastructure (the task of the O.N. management) and the terminal net- works (the farmers' task). The Kolongo zone in particular is infested with rhizomatous rice (Orjza longistaminata) and the irrigation instal- lation are known to be superficial. Therefore one could make a case on efficiency grounds to invest in high yielding zones along the Sahel canal and give low priority to the Kolongo zone. This should not be interpreted to mean that Kolongo farmers are inefficient farmers. Their current low level of resource use is certainly consistent with effi- ciency in resource allocation, given low returns due to inadequate infra- structure. The relocation of Kolongo settlers to more productive land on the O.N. scheme appears to one alternative. But this will entail a rupture of the ethnic homogeneity which is so crucial to the survival of settlement villages as social entities. So long as infrastructure improvement is confined to zones along the Sahel canal, as is currently done under the World Bank financed 3l3 program, the Kolongo farmers will remain impoverished. Special incen- tives are needed in order to assist the impoverished farmers in the Kolongo sector. These incentives include (a) a lower land fee, (b) a longer repayment schedule for the animal traction equipment loan, (c) waiving of debts contracted over a long period of time and (d) provision of other incentives which will help settlers participate in the life of the scheme and identify their interests with those of the whole undertaking. 9.3 Areas for Further Research This study has generated a data base on the economics of rice and livestock production in the O.N. There is now a need to initiate on- farm trials and farming systems research which we have mentioned above. In addition the following activities should be carried out: (a) repre- sentative households should be monitored during all phases of implemen- tation of the intensification program; (b) studies should be carried out on farmers' perceptions of their production environment and their atti- tudes toward proposed innovations; (c) studies are needed on the role of women in the household economy and the impact of technological change on the allocation of male and female labor. Since the O.N. management and the scheme members have strongly divergent assessments of settlers' well-being there is a need for a study of the socio-economic environment and its impact on the financial standing of settlers. In particular a study is needed on income distri- bution and income transfers among settlers with different capital endow- ments. The O.N. management keeps detailed and accurate records of many as- pects of the settlement scheme. A trained agricultural economist and a 314 statistician should be attached to O.N. Bureau of Economic Affairs in order to analyze these data. Since the O.N. headquarters at Segou is presently the only place in Mali with a 24 hour supply of electricity, the use of a micro computer for data management and analysis should be seriously contemplated. APPENDIX A FARM MANAGEMENT DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM AGGREGATE FARM TABLES FOR NIONO AND KOLONGO 315 --.II'I'I --. .Il.. .0-.. . . u..lIoI| DI! All In. no. i I all .I ODIUA‘V P . IIP- | Iv’.||lnl' an; e. coco .mz ea. c. mc=_c>. oco.z :. vegan vo~.m ..azm so» open» snag ouamwcao< .—< a n- l -s.-«-.: .i....:. ........ --- ...... --- ....... . ---- ---.--- . . . :r.~nc .zeee. Lacs—eees macaw _;.oo. ecsw oo—w .fio out :om on ;C:.;“ ...;;. _ _ :c._ ..d..... ;:,..et 3 «mono _ cam no. a: ._._._.. _ — who” avg. ...L. .:,.s.,.—.L.n.w. flaOZ$ _ J? u ~ .L.._...—._. _ — ”’03. .———oh :2 ...»..ef. “0.01% _ “F. V‘— ,- ..~—...»...— _ _ mc.ae_ .tszew. «..e ..32. .ps. u:o@.. _c.wm ooh~ a: «_mm mom 0.0. «cm our .:_es .;_..ec _ _ ma.auc .he; w. an., p_::82.9~¢t nnoxu ...... _..1. _ .---u--ua-nu--------nnuu--u--»--:----------,-l--------. ..: ;Lzac .«;_.~ ;:r_.a ...;ss. . ..2 .s.ee .u.e ----------.------ _ _ c.——_>_—g:.;:. u :_a;) . ; _n»c_ .g.C~ .::;; pun“. \ .t;. o..:_ .1».: :..e —r_e_h z...» _.; . ..---------------.---------.--.---..------.u-------------.----------..--------...--------------.-.---------.--------------------.-_ _ cm.nn.. man. pa- .e.¢.¢: _ at_e. S;_n.;_;z_ _ _ _ a _ Q:o—¢nm “on“ .u..._...x& 2......u....:.: » 1:93: _ _ .~.e¢_ co. :u-:e_;c: .;.q> _ m a s. as. man .e« no a. o cu o. emfi ,;.:.+e----------- _ _ -IoIIIIIIoviIIu . ......r... ...:— ...;. _ _ ma.me_« am_- cow“ sag—zeq. >._:ee .-----.-.----uaanu..---..--------:--u--.--------..-..-.-.-------.----------.;--..------_ _ _ n. o. m a. on on .m o. o. .N o. m. .oN xe_._>__.< ..e.-..r _ _ anoc:—— co. 0mm “cs—.sru aac.\ae; _ _ _ ------u------n-. _ . . a . .:_;_. _ _ :c.:.c «an- chm. cs.-.: ..Qs as he 00 no am n: m« on mm on No n~m .u. . . _ . n. .o a m n. u u . . o. o" m up. a. a, _ . _e.~eo_ amm. wenu .;¢.2_¢se: u can _ w» an m. m a. a. m n. «w o. m. or can :1..;.».. _ _ . _ n nw p. ... o a u a p a» :,_.<>__e.. _ _ ....aezv ..Jus _ . _ . A ....f.e._ . _ ------uaau-. _ . u _. 6. n4 cn o. e . . ~ ... .;.e:..;a_h.u:ee _ ~ «n.5c9— has- szc ;_¢;ga coca: _ --lauu-v---»----n-_ _ . .Pa. ;_;__. :;.e_ _ _ mcoctca tbs :—~_ c. :u ..L¢.;q> _nan---nucunoucou-in-noooaonauncunouonncnn----auuu--n-uuac-un------a--.------------us--. — _ ...... .2. 22:..— _ chantsn fl: _kofl Taps» _ 2. . _. _ aeow—n or. ac Lecpu.>_. _ :J_. _ :r.n~rn n asnn wgca. _ c.cn n.- n.an =.nu c.em John m.cn ~.mn _.Nr ~..n ;.:. e.r :c.. _::3 ...?.~ . ::.»u:;c«a aa_eq pbczc :.c vac»u«u~ .x: -.u;_;:w .L>» _e...u _ _ :hs. .>e.usc or age» fies. >44” z;::. . (e:¢.:.ex _.c.-rae ac .:_ pg 2:.»cze:.. _ c.. 2u¢:4_:c —.— ;_:\:.;c» =.= u::1¢_.su_e ..c u.d_ee u>a_x«. .u_z e: pe:u:. c_t; ,_uecc:;s .n.. 2 ...._;.\.:e.._> _ c.“ ve<;..:::.c.eonc .:c md$u«u zcu.uc=:< ..ae;urae. u.. ;_: .e... ...m.:\_.._.t.; _ bee; gemzrtex _L:::; c_. . _gaz ; h._ . _ :.. .pa: u p 1:. c n a x a a a c z 3 a a c a a .. m. ...... 4.. w.¢r.¢z< tdCb 316 . =..n.~ .:;¢.. utxz.;2~£ awouo .e.=;. m_oo. m.=c_ .m:_ s.p. mum com omnn ....e; .:_;e_ _ ma.“ ..a—pae. a:\:_ox¢1 wnoco _ awn eon om. ..u_.".;._ _ .c.u .uccae. :zxz.;u«z «mono _ no“ as. on we. ..7 ... _ .e._n u.._ea °z\a_eurl manta _ can new .;; :ie; _ ~:.en. .uu:;.. ‘.;e ..r:\ .c:. uaocaa _a.ma $0.o_ no~ :.06. non. an.“ mu_. ,aoN mama 2.:dep . ....2 _ :g.$nc .J.Cee. a.;e ..:;,z_u¢¢£ ann¢¢ ..ee.. c:.~> _on------.--i--n--uoo---n--uu-----u----ac--_a---------. ..14 :.e2r Jet—z. 4_—s:;uz; _ ;.u:. —.. .q—c. ..—._ cacao —.r"c \..::_ n.h.. .:..; .:,. —r_¢_: .p ..s _uuuoaoaninniaoasacouoinu-uucuouu--uui-nn--.--------u---nuo-u--..---ouncu--a-o.------u-ua--a------ouaiu-u-------.-u----.-----.---. _ c=.nau eee- poo. .czzee. . ...cs . _.,;_.L_ _ _ _ ¢¢.mncn anon :...;e :4::..::; u . .ce_;ea_ _ o~.u~n can ;w;ee.:c: .;.a> _ o a pm ~.m emu ssm co. an on «m N ~n~. .J¢:_e¢---.------- _ ou---------u..- . .uszcz. .:;e. a. ;e _ c~.~m=o own: race -;._2eeu >d.=c_ .----o-u------.ll----.---w------u---.--------------------------u.-----.--.-------.----- _ . o. ~m ow m~ ow .« :— a— n. p. __ o. ea. y..._>_».q . a.-..: _ .:.=u.— c:q nae. ce:_.;¢. ;.«.\e.e _ _ -----uuuuuo---u- . _ n N N N o. . s:_;_r . an.cm:m ndé- econ ...cec. sage ..e _ h . w a w o. n Q ~_ w m. ns ao— .;::c..u _ ~ . 773...; _ o¢.enc. emu. .e.:_ _ en mm no .9 an no :x no a» mu. n.. n._ «:8. ...:ac _ a-..». an. ma_:.u _ Q. nu - a. s. an we a. np .0 :u mu _em abate; "z...” ... _ .... ~ ._:_e:\;.aae: _ a._ mu. m.~ pm ow. an. .m. a” no .8_ an” no. ..z. :e.. 4.... _ no... —_ :_¢. _¢_e..;_ . _ sp.=r _. a.::a_.aa.e _ cm pm an s nu an r~ :« .u an r. we «_m w.__.>_.ve a.a... e _ mn.cr~_ v.5. ...:_ . . m a. m c . ~ n u on .__s__9e .....es_. _ .z.u _ _ :_¢cu :eu:4_>z _ an up «a .~ Nw cm on .m on no we an ass _e_,_ _ _ m em a p c. n. m n . .~ A. m. we. ...1.. _ mm.m::c noes gee: .ce.._:~.t; _ _ 0 ea no 0. m. a c m o m m 55. e:_~«p__d.. _ ca.c:u mm: ..guxezu u..4> _ N a m u...;«. _ . ---.--.----- ... . N h e: an a. .3 o a n -m .c.a;.:.._na.;ee _ nroow~c .2»... are... 4.332.. coca; _ --uuuu.u---i----: — — n.3w ./._:._.z_ ... ...;d _ aw.eccc n.: rn_m m_.ce u.:._aq> _---------u-unn----------nuauu----uausuiu--------------L----n------.-----------------u- _ . ewes >._;.s;; _ .o.aca= con 9.:7 .e_:. _ zed _ _~.:~,u c0. arm xe:.»g>—a _ :u_: _ _~.mnnc N mm.c vase. _ c.4u n.~n a.:m o.~n :.em 2.5m roam ~.n< ..nm 5.:a ...c c.n :ee: .::_c.._ .— _ ::_pu::o;; azau _ = . ~n su— srm «on c: an : a c = ::~ :g .ee.;.ea _o--.uni-unnu-no-s-nuooau.ouu-nuu:--nouniou.annuauunnounuuna-nuan-uuansinuououuuouuununusnuuno.----uuuuco-.-su.uon--u-------u---o. _ .<~c_ ;c_x :wgc m.—z:::g_ 2:4. _ up; >cz p;; a.» ea. g;: 2:: >a: age an: e;. :n: .e.._ ......e ~OIIIInIIOOl0010-IIIIIIUIIOIovIIIIOOIIIIIOIIIOIIIIIII.IIIIOOIIIolllllolllvlltlllllilllOII|noouutlnvItItOIIIuoIOIIIIvIIIIIInalllulo . s. ;_.:a\t—¢:e 0.m .;—.ee N.h gags—.4 —c;_..: L; ...r race >c.u 2:1? _ eczczzei <3..L...... ...». ......c. _ cc.—;< _ J¢.~ ._ s :...;_._.q _ «gag .c.e;xu «gem ...e:_o a a ...cczu 2;...ac.;dcza e : ..s...ea _ :n.» L_c<:c:.cc.= c~.:.a.;c.: _z. c.p..e v_.n 2.29: «has :zthxcu :; e... e. 2 ......x.4 _ ~.o ..ze.a>_:uuurax a; .z— _c ::_pe:;ccu _ _on 1.334.:4 «a. :a;\:_:e> :.c z;::¢_.;w_a m.“ u—..;: "pd—t _ A. muc.>_rc;ut.h.nc out z.:uuwn;o a. . ruoxzfl a z a = e u a u a e a L a g a u g . .x. _ .é .2 n.n>¢caq tut; .Ae; c. ease .ux cc. :. wzzpe>v c:c.z :- meLoe vm~¢m e:.uu: so» o_aop luau manomeam< .~< \ —_—_—‘~--—~——~—-——_———-~-~_-———~_—A~~—~_—~———p———~——————-- 317 c:.»nc .zy,c. mz‘2_¢u<: no so _a.oa_ moom. ocon— “one op.n «an. r.” e.;_a. L;__s. :...- ..4..¢;. a:\2.;- .....s ~c.cnm .CSCae. c..« ._¢:‘:_:,<: ¢HCeq ...4.; Dz. s . OIIIOIIIOIIIIIOIOOOIIIIIoOIIIUIIOO|IIIIIII.lccvlcololl 1.2.. ... ..NJT d¢£—...~ 441—..4 ..-...c; h..._..: ...; ..L. {...4 IIOIIIvII.uq|a-II v.___>.pu::;:. _ ;_._J ..g _<.v. agpgp .;:3; page: u._;;b -.m.. ... e ;c. _f_c.. 1__;: ..t IDOIOIUOOIIIIIIIIIllaiovolltllilaobllllcll_nIIIIIo-..-..IIIIII'I .lolltlltllllIllllctolalvlluilnnstillinilcalilctiOOuOOIIaonnluiilll ec.nuoa rec—z we: ...e.cz _ :._e: v:..:..:;. . — eaocvcc c.ee T;.... ca;:.;;a: . ;:.p;c;_ ~c.~mc :a; ;h.cue;;: ....» _ N fl .N ha. tun 500 00. m. an on efl «awn od‘:.:¢----a-----u -a;unun|ouu|un. _ ...:::. ..;.. 4.."; =...aec :==- n;ca ;¢L_¢.e. >a.;¢. .------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------. . a up w« an _n a. e. no a. an o~ n. no: ..___>__e. :ec.-L.c .Nouhf“ ...... D:r.: “..~J—,.,..__.e :,.L.s.: ::.;a:~ n::. uea.. _ . u . u a h. n. o «N a N a~ .._>__Cc ee.pn.>.4 .=.:a : »:.= . m. cu ccezae>c _ an. _o_ on. me. an. on. .m. eo— nu so no .3. are. ex. w _ an en a .. o o c. a _ n« o. n. new ce.:_. _a.am:c c.:- ~:;L .:<_L_o:qz «daze _ sh. so a. ow .— an .m «a co a: no m__ men cz.»uc>;u; _ ~ 0. co. cu .n a_ n c n u c u «on ::__q>__..s ....uza;r r.da> _ _ N a a tr....<.. ---------nu- _ _ n o. no em on ¢~ m o_ u we» .acz..;;.duh_.ee ...:nzm ezc- ~cg. L_:;<; mace; _ ------o----------- _ :7; .—;b.._:. :. .c.c;~a :—:_ =~.u u..cu ..;¢.;a> _------------ui---------ucueiauu-ac-suuula-------------------l------------------------- _ . ea»; »»_;_h;: xe.ora~_ flee ~;:n. JapCp _ are . .um~ n~¢ sea suc_q.>_a p :4.: .c.n~z—_ an en~__ mezzo _ o.¢m ¢.~m J.;m =.~m o.c~ :. a n.an ~.nn ..mn ~..~ ;.cm q.x :q.: .u;_c_....» r:_.u:;:ma 13¢. _ c r en ~.— era nzx c: :n v . a : e.~ .7 J_u. _u; IIIIIIIDIIIIOIOIOOIOOIIIIIIIOIOIDIIIIIIOOI—OIIIIOIIIOIIIIIIItlIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllldlIIlllllllllvlilnlilllllllllllivn nlll ae—r. er._x :mae ww_:c2:;g :gce _ .~.c >ce pee "... c.¢ ‘21 2:1 >u: .r_¢ g«: f.. ta: _e_c_ __c:__u v.» a._:u\;~_ cc.__c :~;_ .>;.,:: .2 ea.) sec. s:.. as:;, <::<:;_ "_.u 4...:e .c.n_ .— e .....;_~_e< n.as .w..¢:g «.2: .5..cau 2.;4 .Lveczg 2;.__<;.ea:zu ~ 3 ..;.~_.d mc.m. :.c_acbuz<1 cc 4:. —¢ z:_.u:.cee 1.: 9.xud_z. m.r :.:\:.;:> c.= e:.;<..;u.; a... v.4.;< "pa—«.>::. ...; ;_;o.ux:e .:.: z .e.;.:;\.ce._m> e. team.e:c;.....;. .c‘ aesace 2:u.-cecs eeaed-;gc. _c.e :_c .2..- r:_;,z\ a;_,_"; .22; w;::cmh; .uuacv c»:. ..n: .t : : »r~.;e. .>;.;;: «a . ..>~:. a a a c u e L a e x a e a . u an; :. once .u: oo— :. mw:—a>v c:o.z =_ meted vo~.m magma so» «poo» scab ouumocuo< .n< —-———_—-II__——o———~—‘-.————‘-~~———__-_—_——————~—~———n_————--_- 318 flfifluuhlflflfllufllflulnluflflflufllflflflulflfluflufluflhuflflflfluflfl Huflflbnuu lflhflnflufln “"NHIquulllflnuIW uflflflurunnU“M" “I“ .. Ifluuuuflfnfiufl an“ «9.. Influflflflwlluulufl . ~:.-. .xueu. wzxzmcuex mm.uc .c.ee. e=- asnw ~_~ 4m~ am he“ mmq.¢, Sz_cze ~ ~ :c.c ..s...ugnzucc n a ~n..¢~ .macuc. «cue puzzszuewez mv:ce H.cceu m=dgs n .-----ou--.uau--uu-un---u-u-ua-u-------nu--.--ili--uu-. case amaze 4¢y_,¢ -¢:~z¢ .,_:c-x mezn: menu" czas ........-u-----.- ~ ~ mu~pu>wpe=c.am a :.ec2 .w, .«rc. Saba“ .ao.a pec~o evaco» nunzc .z~.a :aae .r.._m z.ac: .e: _ nus:-uaiuononuouoan-auuaunccunouauunnncuonnnnnnuuuoionnnouounauuuucouououo-oonuuaunnuuonuunivoicuuuoil---cunoaouunuaan-.-----euc--n u we scan :adn nun uuzgdcc n uwpgv vaupauumwu n u n u u aw.ooo sec ozuuxe naczwvacz — mwc.q«n. u a ~a.em .m :mzccutn: ~:.¢> H e am an. mm. nu. an a « ecu _ce m4¢rhz..-----s---- — u un---au--a-.-ou n .meaoz. .qaz~ «use; ~ ~ em.nmm co- ~_a mcz—zaaw >4nzau qu-----u-----------u-u------aun---u---.------u---uiuuua--------u---------u---u---------u u a n n .eu a. m. - a. m n. e a“ m .~_ mm_.~s-n. xe¢5-eco a u n: ~u¢ :m a:m mazwza ~ ~ n. a. ez_.,¢4a a u --------u-ua u n o o~ an _~ 3 . Ne .auma.nzca.maomo n u o~.ano a... moo zheycx mm.au — ----u-----u-u--a--u u _ .cx. “_anzu zaoaau g .H we .5. oa~ ska «.mcu uaaauzgs n------ui---------iiuu-u----------u--------a--au-uu-a-u---u---nu---uuuu---------u----u-u n H uaua >pwofizzz _ a m-.o.~d 00 «am. ache» m 2:; u u as so. o~ cm. xoo_wc>~a a 2mm? u u cc u.mu as 3mg. “some H 4.4“ n.- m.c~ e.s~ e.o~ m..~ n.an ~.~n ..wn ~.o~ ¢.o~ ;.~ 2.x: ens—«euazub u “ zc~ucancaa ze¢e w a n - sud enN ~a~ an .~ 5 n e a ¢~h r. Jacuzuaa « a 4..o» cz—x .:..u mu—rczccu :tau _ one so: _on new ”a. 4:. was ..z ”a. «a: .me :4. .¢_c. m.¢r_4o n as---tic-coouuuunuuno-nunninuuuocnunnuuunuounoanosunnousouuuu---acn-uuoonousicsuan-cuunuunnuunnauaiiauu-nuunnouinu--uaunuuuuoucnasn ~ ~.— awwzmsm.¢:w m.. ua.»¢c a.“ md¢2~z¢ heawn e.e m~n_o.¢. ”Tamoaozb:=m ma.p uh¢ruso n n a H meo— .>uwmcc uc x¢up .¢o- ...u zzoam _ . cnzcztax «m:=4=: ma». 4.om ~ u «62...: u u «m.» m. e ..wo:-—J« n u .uua .m.anac aux. .m.aoac «baa .m.anau zcu._¢a.acq¢o e : uo=»~.¢4 u u uu.n oweaz¢x.=e.e cu»:uu.=e.° baa cue‘ua um." omvzo «mag 5:.4: cu an acne n. z “ca—uczoa _ a ~.s mpzu_es_anu-,¢: an u:. b. 7c_boaoox. . u o.¢ zuuoauzu ... oao\:_:a> e.e a:ca¢..:.ea e a m_4:=q ..4~z«u mung no >usuzn ouzc o.mmun9no .z.o z .cu~mam\wo¢44~> . u a. mauupsoozum.~.mm we. nu: «a zouuunam¢ 4e:e4-:¢«e c_uu~ 7.; :osum ’cume~cmo;~,oza u u one: eumaomwx .unscm e—zaou _ InfluflulflflUIMNNNfluulflun uuflflfluflflfluflulfluuflunlflfluflufluflflhfllflnflflfl"U“nufluflfl“HHIIMNNMINNIIIHMNINHnHHHHUuMHIMINHMHNHHMNNN"HHHHNNHMII'LH‘MNIII ..aemnc o. . pasazm . . . . a . . . a o . . . . o a . -~ ..w.can m.m»s¢:« zwaa Am: a. cage .u: co. :. mo:.e>v ouzc.cx c. mega; am~.m ——eem to» spank luau oueoocoa< .c< 319 “.II...'I.I..IUIHII.NI"II.I.II...II.H.”.....U.I“In...“ul”“fl“flfll.l..lu-IUIM...’III."II"."IIII““ “a."fluflfl u. a I. “I". I'IIHIII "H." MIIINCH. H HH.¢NN Ham‘s. HSHZchs. macro Hc.eeH ono~m cncN :Ho can ecu HuH Mms.¢> czchu H H Hn.oHo HHHHchH czezmcaqz mm H: H n4» onN HHH .H quZHao H H :H.o-N Hmaoao. «Hag HH::,:Hcaqz mm.Hu H.u:HH HaHH: H H---.a-------------.------u---uu-----.-.---H------.--.- cwxn adage HHzH.. -.zH,. c,H:H¢: we;Hc mama” =24. --.-------------- H “ HHHHHHHHc:c an M z».:: Hwy 4¢H:H HHHcH .ecHn Huey: HchaH unzs .sze :«HHHH :wuuouuo H H ou.am: HH can moszmgu zu¢excun H H H nuiiunusnuuuniun H H mmqun H H oa.m¢n- o: :oHu quzNHH tank H»: H H H H N «soqu.m H H H NaomaH.a H H -.HHHH ccHH Hcpo» H «c on ma cm on H: am cm :N HH NN (H e~¢ HHH3¢H H H Ha.HoH HoH mmquc H 2H s H NH m -H a NH H H N . a Ho Nutucu .zuH;x no. H H .H:H¢:\HHHHuH :«cu.zwu H H wN.oaoH cacH muxcH H H H N H . . m .HHsHan xooemHsHH H H Hzma H . H H mecc acut¢H>o H as N: mm H; H: am am on cH HH GH 9. Hca HHHoH H H H a c m H N H H H m HN mwmzHo H H as.aonH o; Nc:H HctHszuHx mance H ca an HH cH nH 1H 3H 9H HH mH HH mH omN .uvHHmeuaz H H H NH mm oH m H H H NH yoH—H»HHH:O H H .xuumHzm H:.<> H H n m c czHHHHHa H H :cuuc-nooauu H n H o~ mH :N m N moH .awaa.az¢H.maaao H H os.aonH a: NcHH 2Hu~¢r mm mu H ----u----n--------H H H Hex. mHasz .aom¢4 H H H: HHHH on» cue. mHmcu HHHHH «a H---------u----------------------------------u-----ui---------------------..-----------H H H owwa >HHaHzaz H H .H.H~HH HHH crew HHHOH H ::H H H mn.mHH mm Ho xuonH>HH H :mHz H H :: econ :om mmsN «acne H 4.:N n.- m.c~ 9.5N :.oN m.HN 2..» N.N» H.Nn H.0N coca :.~ tau: HmaH<;wa:uH H “ chHcsnoaa xngu m e n HN HHH nHN Ne~ an 9N m H a o JNH vv Haaqucx w “ H¢roH 92H: :ch Honozcou scan H a»: He: .no .aum eq. 4:. ’se .«t ~a¢ "c: HHH sz HHHcH m.¢:HHc “ H o.c auuzmme¢ c n.H wHurco 4.“ chszc Hucuo 9.: maoHoHNH Hszvaoszam mn.H n.azHHo H H H H oHaH .>Hmmac no 34H» 7:0- ch0 :xomm H H ¢u7¢zvqx «ozadz. Ha». HHam H H «czrzc H H me.» HH 9 ..w=;HH4¢ H H Hen. .m..an Huac HHHaonc HHHH .mHaH.n zauHHHn.amoau H : Hos—HHHH H H me.H cme¢z¢:.ee.= :HHzHa.ee.a Ha: cHHHHH mH.H m7:o Hum: czHszce no Home nH , HcapanoH H H H.m szHHH>Haauc.¢: un qu H¢ zaHHcsocca H H 9.“ zuaoHH:c m._ oHo.:H:C> c.e «zoa¢s.xuea : u HHH=cH .HHHch mnHa ea >wsczm oH2; ; mmmnzag .z.o z .cuemmeuaaaHH, H H :.H maqupHocxum.a.am HHH «Hxxne acuu-oan¢ Husuaaza¢u cHuH~ 1.4 :aeum vcHHc~.uo;H>ooa H H ngm Hu~acmwu .nuacm ¢H3Hz=co H U.“UI“I..IUIIII“I£NN$N"fluhfluflflflflflflflflfl.HflhIfluu"MNNHMHHIHNM""“hukflhuhhfllflullu"N"MRI“.."NUIINIIINH'HHHM""N"u"MMHNIMIU'Infl‘lhIII"HUIUuQIC 2.3:: ...HH HIE—>25. .2. :H 3.3 .Hz 8H 5 33o: 3:23. E «3.3.. 33m .52.»: ...... 03.; as: 3,3953 .3 «7:53 .1: 320 “Ilflfluuuuuflflflnflfln"HHH"H""I""“'.""NM""””N""M“"NWHNFNNVHN"”unhurflflflflflflflflhflluu“”NMHNNMHHNuuNMflHNHNV-"NnflfluflnHuNINUHMNUuuflflflHflflflhhfluuuufl H moi; HtacuH quzchcz mark. :72: ..HHHH 4H,: :2. no: SH .2... Mm..-¢> ..anzu H H eH.cH .H....o. 5:.2H8wez mm H. H HHH HHH HHH . ¢.oH.aHo H H .c. .Hanco. ezszHeHH; mance H H.. ez.HHH=c H H H..HH ...—«o aszHcHH: mm .e H a; :3 ez.yHqu H H oH.oo .macau. am". H.::. .=:. HzcuH. ....s HoH: .0. =m.: HHH HHHH are . ecu ¢H=J.> eszHHa H H Ho.o. .macuo. «Hoe HHz:.zHe.¢: mm_cu H.ua.. H:HHH . . H H-----.--------.---.--------a.---------.--..-.--..----. n.an amaze 4H,... -.:.z¢ ...:eaz mezHc uaHnH ;:.. -.----u---------- H H HHHHHHHHcacec; H chex Hm, .HHcH HHHcH .eo~a .H.~e .HHcoH -..:s .xxaa are. .x.¢.m :.e:: .m: H H-----------u---------------u-u-----uu----- -------------------u-----.--.--.--.-----..---c.--unls-.--.---------------..----.------H H c..ma:H- one- eHcHu Hez¢.«: H «u.¢e roHHce.«e. H H H H H ~...ommH cm... 2:5... 39.3.3: H 9.5.9... H _ He.um am :uzocwrc: H:.¢s H H H. HHH am: HHH H. HH H. HH H89. m....x...--------- H . . -c-------u----- H .Haaox. .HazH Huxoa H m Ha.oooHa HHH- c_~H. mcszaHH HHHzgu H-----------------l---u----------------------------------u-----u-----------------------. H H w H. c. H. H .H H. HH .. eH : ms. mHHH.sH.u¢ :a..-..c H H .H.moo no ocH mquzaHH zegHHHHa H H H ......u...»..... H H H H maquH H “ 2.»..ku 9.... ”He? 9.9.5:. 2.3.. H: H . H «:33; H . «anmc..n H H 23:2. 3...... :8» H Hm. .... mm H.. ... mm H.“ H... .... H: H: H. 21 3:2... H H .m.:p.. we maH:.c H n. H. e. H. a H H. o. a m H a HHH autuHH .zqux Ho. H H . .HzH.:.aHHHH¢ H em. HH Ho cH Hm an 4.. me «p am am He. ch y... ...:H H H on. =H¢a HmmamHzH H H H 3.: mm 5.33.13“. H H 9. H H. H o m. ..H ... ~. H o 2. 3.2.3.3 .....Eiua H H a....¢~ =4H~ VHHHH H . H H s ......H. xco.m.>H. H H . Hzmc H . H H ..moc cawzHH>o H ea. H. Ho a. am He on no 0H HH :4 HH .Ho ...e. H H H . s. H H H n . H N. o H; maazHo H H H....o ccc- H.H. .cH.zHeaa: «mace H me. an H. HH a. H. H. H. a HH H HH mm; ozHHHHHaaz H H H H H. H: H. c H H H HHH onHHH...:e H H .aouxawm m:.¢, H H a a. u...,¢.a . H ------u----- H a a. n» .H Hm H. o H=~ .aHHH.Hz¢..macuo H H a..:.o ace- HHH. zHenex Huang H ------------------H H H . .oz. m.anH .aoma. H H eH HHH» HHH eHmH «.mcc HHHHHHH> H----a-----------n-u-------u-------u------------------u--------------------------------H H H ”HHH HH.c.:=: H H Ha.eoan oH ace» HHHHH H 1:. H H Hn.mHn mH can xea.m.>.. H :H.H H H a: mom» n wean mac”: H 4.;H n.H~ m.c~ e.H~ :.o~ H.H~ H..H H.~H H.~H H.o~ ..oH ..H zcur m~=HaeeazuH H “ chHosno.H a... H e H HH HHH HHH HHH so e~ m H a 9 4H. v. ....zHHH M IllllIIIIIOICDIIIIIIIIIOIIOIOIIOIIIIOIIIIINIIIOIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIOIlllllllillOIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIOIIOIIIIOIIIIIIIOIIIO H ...o. osz :Hcc mquczccw z_¢H H um: so: .00 age as. .39 23H ..x «a. «<2 cm. 2.. ...oH u_¢:H.u H ..................................................................................................................................H H H.. auumem.¢_e p.. HHHHco H.m m..:.z¢ HHan 9.: mmoHoHuH qum-ao.He=m ma.H u.¢z..o H H H . HHa. .sxwmmc Ho ea.» gas. ...o zzocm . . .m7c:r.x Ho:=.:; .a». ..om H H «3:134 H . He... m. a ..ucaH...H H H Hen. .m.tc.e ..a. ...aoac HH.¢ .m.nHao zed..Ha.HaH¢o H x chHHH...H H Hc... oHu¢z¢:.ea.e :HH2H¢.H=.H Ha: oHHHHH HH... am,:o HHee 524.2.HH no Hun. H. z Ho:.HozH..H H ..eHmHzH.<>HsaH-.¢x HH Hz. .4 chHoaooHE H H H.o zecaHqu H.» =.aH:H:cH ... a:o~¢..:..e H.H m..:c. ...HzaH moHa Ho HHHuzm onc o.mmmnzou .z.o z .cewcHwHH:«44.. H . ... ma.up.ooxcm.n.nm Hm. "we... zonw-o.na 4H>H4-za o. o. no no: ..c— t.c— ”..— ¢._ th O. H.— r... a. W. m. “.5 «on ~.h m.m N. c.— ‘0 Co H. «.0 e. r. 5.0 e. To C. G. H. H. N. —. :- c. c. m. a. c. C.- m:.«. HuHr.:a.. em.enw .OP£~1 mch .H.CH =HHzHH>c mo.can HHH:— Hc.ca H HcHzH. _ ..LH_:_.HH>HC HZHHU¢EH _ Hcor pH. «H. :3 H:. .m. ..H;_;. .Hzca ..caHzc HH.H: HH.Q s ch.... :LzH:.uaHu c..L. .:.¢.rH HchatxzuHHzH HHHHHHH: ==quHH HHH:— oU—VHHbI — .Hz. c: H .HHcHz. H .HHHC:_ .Hc_uHHow: H .«H H as.“ — n.a." am.z. c..H mm HHEH2HH . H.2Huz. :HHHHHH ¢.H «HzHHLHHHHHHHagu uaH w—:<.;H;UH.HacxH or: mm... «H. .= .H...HHH...HE.;H Hy. .Hvu. ...;L stcaq .chH HHn n~.cH: .HHcH Hu:;;¢_->1 .chH .HHt gem. cc. HUDLS:LO>L .c:mg ..H: .2HcH .:;H p95. 2.9.0»; “n.a.: cw. met. ...—2a. 2.4: LO:. .9— HHHHH HHH=H HyaOHH H:.Hao oHa H...» H. 3 BA...» 9%. H. a 03.. a?” __ = a:.. pa. H . HH.HH..H H H a H r a)lH.LC ~Hn ~>H./H:H. Q. I. Hog H .eoga .Hz cc. :_ «czHe>. H:oH.c>Lomao n.a.. wqu Hm Ho :oHHHaogou< c_HH. .cHHHHH:._ L; ...». ::_HmuHHH: ..¢>_H.;H ------ .r. .a... 4:..." ..r.— H. .p .. n. c. n. H Q. n.n HJ .zH. :— v; H:.. m. H. .. a. ... --.--- ..«w ¢.aH :.:H c.:a m. m.~ o. =.oH. .EHHH ..cI .H:_:H .ca:::..:g.. 3.... _ ... r.m c... c.H u.. ;.H ..o _.H ..uo. ....H H. n. H.H e. c. =.n m.~ H.H n. o. ua.:_c H. ¢.H n. ... m. c. n .xHHHHHHr. c. H. n. a. N. c. H. . a. c cszmH..H .... cc— c. ..H n...— NEH—pHDH n. H.. ... ... 3.: m.. H H .r H.u. .uoxHHHHHHg.H:H; H. :. cszstH a. quH. .. c. c. H. H czHH... a. m. N. H. H. H. :.:_ chpH>HHHHHHHHHH a. a. H. H. H. H. c. a. H.H :=HHHcHHHH u.:HHHH .. >.;.< c. c. o. c. a. n. a. a. ..H aHxHHHHuHH HHHHH H. H. a. c. c. HHHH:HHHH;:Hr,w . w.H ~.c u.c ..H :. a. H.... ..:_H:?.QHH H a. .H. ...2—.H.:_L _ :2HHHHH. _ q.“ :.H H.H H.: a. m. H. H..H zc.HHuH;.;H H... a. a. c. c. e. n.. H4.u::rx._?:...w Harv rpzur. ¢D;:<4 quH HH_:_:.: :1. ..na— - c.cH H.Hu r.¢u ;.Hm e.¢H u.he m. an p.c .H ..nn H..H H.c. Hue HHH HH< Hz? 225 HH. cac aHH ... :«5 HHH:H HH<:... uzaxagrzp.:u Hz». H—cr—Hu = on. «HHH. :Hs. >m cth. >z.u a. H: :H.H c a . ...». .H;u : agc HHH»..Hc¢ Hu‘<;.LH «:xHHHH : 2.;HHa . Hszga .HHcHH._ a .:H.;.H2H.c a:..:. I ..a:.¢:: .. ....aHu.H.:Hu . a.H,:.H_H.H ....n H. Hm. H :.. H . H.:.H_ H. . z .....HzHHH H=.:aH_ :2 HHH. H. . H:.HHH:;. .. HzH. HH .9 HHHH H: .3» H. :_HH..HHcHH HHH: He >.>z=o .HHL :Hmm..zc. .2.: H .c.::;...cH.HH> zcuH-HauH HH>Han¢HH CH¢HH :H: .uuLu chc.zHH.zH>3HH HH:Hc¢ HHH. HHH: .c ..g ......H H .H .H a a .. . a a a I c t .. ..>. H. m_mH.¢z< not. Hchap nose Ha mo—asoxu .Hm 322 a¢u.mHH:cHOHH zaHH :qu ::< Hamxacczx: :HHH "NINNENHHNNNHKNHHNHHNNuuflfluflfllhuufluuuu“alufluuuuuuuflufl"an“uu"“HIMWHNHNNHHHHU"nflunuunuhflfluuuun0»«HHH-1.". thuuNhHWNHHLHn-unnfluuunu an .IPHHHH H -.------.--. H H Heo.cao mzszucH H“: H HaaHHH,:H H:H<> canaz u:H<> me;:v Hzazs ~.rr:H HzHeH :HH;:; HHHHH H H¢>nH H z. .---.ou----.uuuuuuns--nnonu-u----nn--------.----.u-.-------u---.-.---u-uuuuuH uoHr.a H Hazcxu HaazHcan .Hazgaz:u\mH¢n :.HH H zaHHcHuwzHJa Ha-.an.uu.---cuu.a.u.--oun-u-u-u-nu.-u-oc------.------a--------.uouuu--u--.-.-.-----nuuH n:o=44.tHda H H.HHrc H Hzmw u HzouceH H can-ucun-uuuon H u-u--------.---u-uo H menu aamersn 4 HHflzatH nH:.HH _H:;H H cannu-.uo.o. Huna.oc----ou-u.ou-nuu-unouuoo-unuuu-v.ucn-u-nu.--..u---uo-.----u---aac.-u-----a--n-a--H Hem.¢o¢ :Hoxcx na.~m H J.: H.H =.m n.H o.w H.w H.:~ HHH;— Hoa.¢=HH HaHoH «33.9.; n. 37.an HGHZHXU¢7 xzo¢¢4 onHv Q07d$h\— wxdn! 49.6.: en. New ...an 49;). ram—nod—H-d m- Now do” .Hom 7.2+:- Lmzn Hthn.HH :a.HyH H cyHn HHH:Hr:z n H HoaooaHon n VH4 H Ham.sHHH .H.o ~u~ HcacaxH zch H zqu H H ----.c---u-c--uu-.- H :.:~ H.Hm H.9u H.H~ c.o~ H.H~ H.en H.Hm H.Hw H.a~ ¢.¢u 4.. 2... .HszHHHz.H H H :oHHua;caa H: H:.¢s H n kw H~H onu ~H~ :9 .m o H am. :7 HH<.:H<; H O U-I—QHOII-dfldv-QHHH _HD-I—rdndi-HO‘HI-QH ~HHHHHNHc-ol" u'--------"---"'-----l-'-'--'--"'-"-"---------'.-"'-.------.'----"--'-"'-'------o’-.--"--""'---. "--'.--"-----' -- ‘--"H H mang HcHH: H;::xt maHxaznum H um: ’92 HHo Hum 93¢ Has :33 HHH HHH mqt :HH :qH HHH;H HHHHHHH H ~--'-..'--'.'-------.."-'.-------'..--.-..-'-'----.-.--l'--'--.-.--------.---.--.-----.'---.----"-l-----.I---|--'---"'--"-""- H 3H¢H .>an:: Ha new» u:;u-a;4HH:a HHHH HhszHHH H H¢HnH H «m:=:x¢x :msaHz; H H HezHaq .” r.H;;HHHH< H .raHHuzr: H . H : ”2;-H..H H mHHHrmH H :n MHHH H” 2 HHzHHcHHH — mH..x H H: er H4 zquusac.H H H H Hui-immunod— Hch’ :2 HQH<> :z Mada: a: H a mzHHHHr amazzaH maHz Ho Hgsxzn uHHa JHrv v;Hu .;.n z .;.31;H\H2 .-ocouuuo o.--..n-o n.a-:sno- ...-.0... H a moHchxa.:<:¢L zoom.:muH HHHHH.:Hau c~:.v HHH ;$_mH ’an..\.HH->HHH .H n 3...... m¢¢u> non .H H mm: Hrs-2H3; n .H sawv; H.553... 4:3 HHH... H; .HHH > HH.H..HHH m hflunhflfluuflnufldflflflfluuuflfldflfluflflu "unflunufllMHNNNHh-HNHHHNMWHHHNINHNflnfluflulfluflnuNHJNHWWHNHHNHHHNuunnuflduu...-.IUHHHHHHHNWHHMINHHHNNNHHHHHHVN H.>zup:: HHpmsaaa a. :mzH H HHHHau ... HHz cc. :. mosz>H mmeHm:< HuchoHHH Ho oHasaxH .Na APPENDIX C LABOR USE ON RICE FIELDS (CASIER AND HORS-CASIER) AT THE O.N. (IN MAN-DAYS PER HECTARE) Labor Use on Rice Fields (easier and Hers-easier) at the O.N. (in man-days per hectare) I323 Kolodogou Sahel Kolongo Farm Casier H. C. Total Farm Casier H. C. Total Farm Casier Total Code Fields Fields Farm Code Fields .Fields Farm Code Fields Fields Farm 1 125.3 175.3 143 20 121.8 30.5 163.6 30 ‘28 28 2 116.0 123.2 141 21 87.8 - 83.4 31 77.8 77.8 3 94.8 - 95.3 22 204.4 - 204.3 32 67.5 67.5 4 99.4 - 100.7 23 129.3 - ‘ 129.3 33 100.5 100.5 5 128.2 63.8 121.8 24 ‘155.8 - 155.8 34 130.7 130.7 6 108.6 - 89.4 70 219.8 - 203.5 35 55.7 ' 55.7 7 50.8 19.5 43.0 71 156.6 - 156.5 36 171.0 171.0 8 - - 72 .190.1 96.8 179.0 37 89.1 89.1 9 153.3 96.1. 130.8 73 196.5 .- ' 196.4 38 162.5 162.5 10 75.3 ' 75.4 74 73.2 - 73.2 39 271.0 271.0 11 99.4 120.3 75 106.4 - 95.9 40 - 80.8 80.8 12 170.9 251.3 76 197.4 44.8 162.6 41 118.8 118.8-' 13 131.6 132.5 77 75.3 - 76.5 42 168.3 168.3 14 155.7 160.0 78 - 50.1 50.2 43 79.3 79.3 50 91.8 , 60.0 104.8 110 154.1 - 154.1 45 62.2 62.2 51 106.3 106.3 111 157.8 64.8 143.3 80 43.5 43.5 52 80.3 83.6 112 120.0 34.4 ' 34.3 81 36.9 36.9 53 116.3 116.3 114 148 - 148.4 82 65.2 65.2 54 81.9 81.9 160 111.7 - 112.8 83 71.6 71.6 55 175.3 35.9 88.0 A 161 46.8 - 47.6 84 53.4 53.4 56 109.7 122.6 113.5 85 39.4 39.4 57 125.8 52.8 96.1 86 151.3 151.3 58 105.0 145.8 107.0 87 86.7 86.7 59 209.3 113.9 191.6 88 79.7 .99.7 60 141.9 - 135.0 89 62.0 62.0 61 38.4 -26.9 34.4 90 74.0 74.0 100 143.8 79.3 89.2 91 34.0 ~ 34.0 101 149.6 72.5 146.4 92 102.0 102.0 102 135.6 - 136.4 93 85.0 85.0 103 54.0 - 56.8 94 53.4 53.4 104 118 67.9 72.8 95 53.3 53.3 140 80.2 44.0 69.9 120 72.4 72.4 . 141 148 - 149.9 121 102.5 102.5 122 33.2 33.2 180 55.8 55.8 181 68.0 68.0 Average Aver. Aver. Aver. Aver. Aver. Aver Aver. 116.7 81.2 111.9 139.6 53.6 128.5 86.3 86.3 SD-37.9 SD=37.4 50-42.9 SD=49.1 SD-24.4 SD=53.5 50*49 4 SD-49.3 324 Pairwise Comparison of Means of Labor Inputs (man-days per hectare) Kolodogou §3flgl 5919299 n = 32 n = 20 n = 36 2x2 = 453,449 2x2 = 384,834.7 2x2 = 353,599.1 (2X)2 = 401,385.6 (2X)2/n = 330,450.6 (2X)2/n = 263,254.5 2x2 = 2x2 - (;§)2 = 57,063.5 2x2 = 54,384.1 2>2 = 90,344.6 n ‘d.f. = 31 d.f. = 19 d.f. = 35 Difference between Kolodogou and Sahel 2 = 57.063.5 + 54,384.1 pooled s 50 = 2,228.95 d.f. = 50 - - _ 2 n +n _v 52) = x1 " xzyS (H) - 2,228.95 (m 13.46 1 2 t = ngfifi' = 3.86 > 1.96 significant at l and 5 percent levels. Difference between Kolodogou and Kolongo pooled s2 = 57’053'56; 902344°5 = 2,729.73 d.f. = 66 - - _ 68 - 5x1 - x2 - 2,729.78 (1'152')' 12.69 _ 68 = . . . t — 17739" 5.36 > 1.96 s1gn1f1cant at 1 and 5 percent levels. Difference between Sahel and Kolongo pooled s2 = 54’384‘15Z 90’344°6 = 2,680.16 d.f. = 54 _ _ _ = 56 = 5x1 x2 \V2.680.16(7§5- 14.44 t = ng44' = 3.88 > 1.96 significant at l and 5 percent levels. 325 Difference between Labor Inputs on Casier and Hors-casier FTeIds (man-days per hectare) Kolodogou H. C. Fields Casier Fields X2 = 81 X1 = 116.7 112 = 16 111 = 32 2 _ 2 - S2 - 1,398.76 S - 1,436.41 1 2 _ - Sz/n ' 84'42 ’ w1 sfi/n = 44.89 = wz t’ = x1 ' x2 = 35.5 = 1.16 30.53 2 2 \/s7 + S/ 1 n1 2 n2 t; (15 d.f.) = 2.131 t1 (30 d.f.) = 2.042 significance level of t’ = (wzt2 + w1t])/(w1 + W2) [(87.42 x 2.131) + (44.89 x 2.042)]l132.31 = 2.1 1.16 < 2.10, not significant at 5 percent level. Sahel H. C. Fields Casier Fields X2 = 53.6 X1 = 139.6 112 = 6 r11 = 19 5% = 595.36 5% = 2,410.81 2 _ ' 2 - Sz/n - 96.23 S1/n - 126.88 t (5 d.f.) = 2.571 t2 (18 d.f.) = 2.101 2 significance level of t’ = [(96.23 x 2.571) + 126.88 x 2.101)]l205.11 = 2.53 5.72 > 2.53, significant at 5 percent level. APPENDIX D YIELDS MEASUREMENT ON THE PILOT PROJECT CASIER AT FOABOUGOU (NOVEMBER 23 - DECEMBER 22, 1979) <3m_am :ammcsoaman a: "so u..on vacuonn nmm.m1 an momcccoo= Azo