TEE PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS 0E BEAN PRODUCTION _   '
IN NICARAGUA " I “-

Master' 5 Research Paper for the Degree of M S
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . .
YUKI ISHIKAWA  i -:':.‘-: '

.....

    

~55

MACH —
. 9 IN! A: UNIV.

 

MTCH. STATE UNIV-

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

C

MiCH. emu: UNIV:

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
Jr ‘12: Mgr mum A? 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

' T"*“ _" —_.'——_'-M

1

MAR 2 4 i999

MIGH STATE UNIV

THE PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS OF BEAN PRODUCTION m NICARAGUA
By

Yuki Ishikawa

iafihzaxc ES
MASTER’S RESEARCH PAPER

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1 999

ABSTRACT
THE PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS or BEAN PRODUCTION IN NICARAGUA
By

Yuki Ishikawa

In Nicaragua, government policies have historically favored agro-export
industries, such as coffee, cotton and sugar. In the early-1990, the government began to
implement policies favoring small-scale farmers cropping beans and maize. However,
bean yields are still low. Since 1990, few studies have focused on Nicaragua’s second
most important crop, beans.

This study analyzes record-keeping (RK) data collected from 15 small bean
farmers located in the Carazo and Masaya regions. The study assesses costs and patterns
of input and labor use and the profitability of bean production. Five farmers among the
sample grew traditional bean varieties and ten modern farmers cropped improved bean
varieties.

The study found that the modern farmers intensively applied agrochemical input,
while the traditional farmers applied only fertilizer and insecticide, and tended to
substitute herbicide for manual weed control. Budget analysis showed that the modern
farmers earned higher profits than the traditional farmers due to their higher yields. Bean
yield was the most influential factor affecting profitability, while input and labor costs
were not related to profitability. Regression analysis showed that the dummy variable
“modern varieties”, was the key variable affecting bean yield, and accounted for a
427kg/ha yield increase over traditional varieties. While promising, these results can not
be generalized to the whole country - given the relatively small sample size and because
farmers in only one region of the country were included in the sample. Thus, additional
RK studies are recommended, and these studies should be carried out in other regions of

the country and include more farmers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Richard Bernsten, my major
professor, with all respect, for his making this study available to me, and for patiently and
quickly revising all of my drafts, and also for his enormous effort and excellent
supervision. I am very thankfill to Dr. Stephen Harsh and Dr. Irvin Widders from the
Department of Horticulture, for their support as committee members. I greme appreciate
Dr. Harsh, especially for his valuable suggestions on the regression analysis. Dr.
Widders’ suggestions were extremely helpful and made this study shinier from the
agronomist’s point of view, which I wasn’t familiar to. I would like to extend a sincere
thank you to Dr. Scott Swinton for his valuable suggestions during the data processing
stage. His suggestions led to better results.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the USAID Bean/Cowpea CRSP
Project, for providing funding for this study. I am also extremely grateful to the INTA’s
technical staff of Region IV for their great efforts for collecting the data.

I also greatly thank my bean fellows, Abelardo Viana from PROFRIJOL, David
Mather, Denise Mainville, and Horacio Gonzalez. Abelardo supervised the data
collection and made the data available to me and valuable discussions with him provided
me much information about the data. David, Denise, and Horacio helped me to translate
the data into English. They also helped me regarding translation of Spanish documents. I
wouldn’t have completed my analysis of the data and review of literatures without their

assistance. I am also thankful to my friend, Gerald Nyambane, for his help and

suggestion regarding data analysis. Without his comments, the analysis would have been
misleading.
Finally, I extend sincere appreciation to my parents for their understanding and

for making it possible for me to study at Michigan State University.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Thesis Outline ........................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II THE NICARAGUAN ECONOMY ........................................................... 4
2.1 Historical Overview of Nicaragua .............................................................................. 4
2.2 Macroeconomic Overview ......................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Trends in the Gross Domestic Product ................................................................ 6
2.2.2 Currency ............................................................................................................. 7
2.2.3 Social Indicators ................................................................................................. 8
2.3 The Agriculture Sector .............................................................................................. 8
2.3.1 Land Tenure and Agrarian Structure ................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Major Crops ...................................................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Institutions ........................................................................................................ 14
Research and Extension ......................................................................................... 14
Credit Service ........................................................................................................ 15
Food Grain Marketing ........................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER III THE BEANS SUBSECTOR .................................................................. 17
3.1 Demand Analysis ..................................................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Beans inNicaraguan Diet .................................................................................. 17
3.1.2 Consumer Preferences ....................................................................................... 18
3.1.3 Domestic Utilization ......................................................................................... 19
3.1.4 Central American Export Demand .................................................................... 21
3.2 Production Analysis ................................................................................................. 24
3.2.1 Regional Perspectives ....................................................................................... 24
3.2.2 Bean Production System ................................................................................... 28
Farm Size .............................................................................................................. 28
Bean Production, Area, and Yield .......................................................................... 29

3.3 Input Use and Supply ............................................................................................... 33
3.3.1 Input Use .......................................................................................................... 33
3.3.2 Input Supply ..................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Bean Price Analysis ................................................................................................. 35
3.4.1 Trends in Real and Relative Bean Prices ........................................................... 35
3.4.2 Bean Price Seasonality ...................................................................................... 37
3.5 Bean Market ............................................................................................................ 38

CHAPTER IV PROFITABLITY ANALYSIS OF BEAN PRODUCTION .................... 40

4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 40
4.1.1 Data Source ...................................................................................................... 40
4.1.2 Analytical Model .............................................................................................. 40

4.2 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1 Bean Farming System ....................................................................................... 43
4.2.2 Patterns and Costs of Input Use ......................................................................... 44

Traction Contract ................................................................................................... 44
Seed ....................................................................................................................... 44
Fertilizer ................................................................................................................ 45
Herbicide ............................................................................................................... 47
Insecticide ............................................................................................................. 47
Fungicide ............................................................................................................... 48
Input Cost Shares ................................................................................................... 49
4.2.3 Patterns and Costs of Labor Use ........................................................................ 51
Labor Use by Type of Operations .......................................................................... 51
Type of Labor ........................................................................................................ 55
Labor Costs by Type of Operations ........................................................................ 57
4.2.4 Profitability of Two Typical Farmers ................................................................ 59

4.3 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 61
4.3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 61
4.3.2 Changes in Bean Yields and Prices ................................................................... 61
4.3.3 Changes in Input and Labor Prices .................................................................... 64

4.4 Regression Analysis ................................................................................................. 65

CHAPTER V SUMARRY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 67

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 82

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Structure of Land Ownership in Nicaragua, 1978 and 1986. ........................................ 9
Table 2.2 Area Harvested and Production; Export Crops and Campesino Crops, Nicaragua 1980-
97. ............................................................................................................................ 13
Table 3.1 Annual Per Capita Consumption of Beans in Nicaragua, 1985-1996. (kg/year) ........... 17
Table 3.2 Bean Production, Area, and Yield by Regions and Crop Cycles in 1996/97 Crop Year,
Nicaragua ................................................................................................................. 27
Table 3.3 Bean Areas by Size of Farmers in Primera of 1996. ................................................... 28
Table 4.1 Average Quantity and Cost of Input Use Per Hectare by Type of Farmer, Posh-era,
1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ......................................................... 45
Table 4.2 Average Fertilizer Use Per Hectare by Types of Farmers, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and
Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ...................................................................................... 46
Table 4.3 Traditional Farmers’ Labor Use (Man-days/ha), Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions, Nicaragua ................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.4 Modern Fanners’ Labor Use (Man-days/ha), Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions, Nicaragua ................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.5 Traditional Farmers’ Labor Costs (USS/ha) Posrrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions, Nicaragua ................................................................................................... 58
Table 4.6 Modern Farmers’ Labor Costs (USS/ha) Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions,
Nicaragua ................................................................................................................. 58
Table 4.7 Average Yields, Prices Received, and Gross Parcel Income by Type of Farmers,
Posrrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ........................................... 59
Table 4.8 Small Bean Farm Budgets during the Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions,
Nicaragua ................................................................................................................. 60
Table 4.9 Traditional Farmers: Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and Price,
postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ........................................... 62
Table 4.10 Modern Farmers: Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and Price, postrera,
1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua .......................................................... 62
Table 4.11 Regression Result from the model (Dependent variable = Bean yield) ...................... 65
Table A-1 Monthly average bean prices to the producer, wholesaler and consumer, Nicaragua,
1995 and 1996 (USS/kg) ........................................................................................... 71
Table B-1 Traditional Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices
(USS/ha), posrrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ........................... 73
Table B-2 Modern Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices (USS/ha),
postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ........................................... 73
Table 0-] Average Yields, Prices Received, and Gross Parcel Income, Postrera, 1997, Carazo
and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana) ................................................ 74
Table C-2 Small Bean Farm Budgets, Posh-era, 1997, Carazo and Masaya, Nicaragua
(Cordoba/manzana) ................................................................................................... 74
Table C-3 Average Quantity and Cost of Input Use Per Manzana by Type of Farmer, Posrrera,
1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua. (Cordoba/manzana) .......................... 75
Table C-4 Traditional Fanners' (N=5) Labor Use by Type of Operations, postrera, 1997, Carazo
and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manmna) ................................................ 76
Table C-5 Modern Fanners' (N=lO) Labor Use by Type of Operations, postrera, 1997, Carazo
and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/mamana) ................................................ 76
Table C-6 Traditional Fanners’ Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and Price,
Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana) ............. 77

vii

Table 07 Modern Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and Price, Posrrera,

1997, Carazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana) ............................ 77
Table C-8 Traditional Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices,
Posrrera, 1997, Caraao and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana) ............. 78
Table 09 Modern Fanners’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices Posrrera,
1997, Carazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana) ............................ 78
Table D1 Seed Quantity and Cost for Farmers in The Record-Keeping Data (US Dollar and
Hectare Base) ............................................................................................................ 79
Table D—2 Fertilizer Quantity and Cost for Farmers in The Record-Keeping Data (US Dollar and
Hectare Base) ............................................................................................................ 80
Table D3 Herbicide Quantity and Cost for Farmers in The Record-Keeping Data (US Dollar and
Hectare Base) ............................................................................................................ 81
Table D4 Insecticide Quantity and Cost for Farmers in The Record-Keeping Data (US Dollar
and Hectare Base) ..................................................................................................... 81
Table D-5 Fungicide Quantity and Cost for Farmers in The Record-Keeping Data (US Dollar and
Hectare Base) ............................................................................................................ 81
Table D-6 Traction Contract Quantity and Cost for Farmers in The Record-Keeping Data (US
Dollar and Hectare Base) .......................................................................................... 81

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Area Harvested; Export Crops and Campesino Crops, Nicaragua 1980-97 ................ 11
Figure 2.2 Production: Export Crops and Campesino Crops, Nicaragua 1980-97 ....................... 12
Figure 3.1 Dry Bean Utilimtion in Nicaragua, 1980-96. ............................................................ 20
Figure 3.2 Dry BeanTrade ofNicaragua, 1961-96 ..................................................................... 21
Figure 3.3 Country Shares of Bean Exports in Central America, 1991-96 .................................. 22
Figure 3.4 Nicaragua by Regions ............................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.5 Bean Production and Harvested Area, 1980-1997, Nicaragua .................................... 30
Figure 3.6 Bean Yield, 1980-97, Nicaragua ............................................................................... 31
Figure 3.7 Bean-Maize Relative Price (Bean Price divided by Maize Price) in Nicaragua 1980-
95. ........................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3.8 Seasonal Bean Prices (Nominal) in Nicaragua, 1996. ................................................ 38
Figure 4.1 Period of Farm Operations and Monthly Average Precipitation during the Postrera,
Carazo in Nicaragua. ............................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2 Traditional Farmers’ Input Cost Shares, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions,
Nicaragua ................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 4.3 Modern Fanners’ Input Cost Shares, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions,
Nicaragua ................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 4.4 Traditional Fanners’ Labor Use by Type of Operations, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and
Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.5 Modern Farmers’ Labor Use by Type of Operations, Posrrera, 1997, Carazo and
Masaya Regions, Nicaragua ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.6 Traditional Fanners’ Labor Use by Type of Labors Posrrera, 1997, Carazo and
Masaya Regions, Nicaragua . ................................................................................... 56
Figure A-l Bean Marketing Channels, Nicaragua. ..................................................................... 72

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

In most developing countries, increased production in agriculture, especially the
food crop sector has been a catalyst for economic growth. In Asia, farmer adoption of
new rice production technologies increased yields and farmer's profits and led to a Green
Revolution. In Afiica, farmer adoption of improved maize technologies has contributed
to reducing food insecurity, and malnutrition.

However, in Nicaragua government policies have historically favored export
crops. Thus, since the 19'” century, agro-export industries such as coffee, sugar, and
cotton have led to economic growth in Nicaragua. While the development of export crops
has benefited the Nicaraguan economy by generating foreign exchange, the recipients of
these benefits have been concentrated among a handful of interested parties.

In contrast, in Nicaragua staples (maize and beans) are produced mostly by small-
scale farmers with less than 10 hectares. While accounting for 70 percent1 of the total
farmers, the government has neglected these producers. During the 1960-79 period,
average maize yields increased by only 3 percent (Godoy and Hockenstein, 1992).
During the 1975-90 period, average bean yields in Nicaragua were 1.3 quintal/manzana
(88 kg/ha) below the average yields of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador (Godoy, er

al. 1992).

 

' This figure is for 1978. Current statistics are not available.

1

Since 1990, when President Chamorro took office, the government has committed
itself to promoting basic grain production, especially maize and bean, to meet the needs
of domestic consumption and for export to regional markets in Central America. While
new bean technologies have been promoted in Nicaragua since 1990, aggregate data
suggest that improvements in productivity are still relatively small. For example, over the
1990-97 period, average of annual increases for bean yields was only 1.2 percent (FAO).

While many economists have described the economic policies of the Sandinista
era, few studies have focused on documenting changes in Nicaraguan agriculture,
especially since the early-1990s. Furthermore, no study has examined the economics of
bean production and the constraints to bean production at the household level. Thus,
given the importance of beans to small holder farmers, a better understanding of the
profitability of bean production is needed to assess the status of bean production and

identify research required to increase bean production in Nicaragua.

1.2 Objectives
The general objective of this study is to assess the current status of bean subsector
in Nicaragua. More specifically, this study examines the profitability of small holder bean
production and constraints facing farmers, by;
0 Estimating the per hectare costs of production, profits, and returns to capital and
labor;
0 Carrying out sensitivity analysis to identify the most important factors affecting

profits;

0 Analyzing farmer's patterns of input use to assess the type and levels of technologies
used, and to identify the degree to which farmers utilize recommended technologies;

0 Analyzing farmer's patterns of labor use, focussing on identifying labor constraints
that could be relaxed with appropriate technologies; and

0 Identifying technical constraints that limit farmers' bean yields.

1.3 Thesis Outline

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 11 provides a historical overview
of the general economy and the agricultural sector, focusing on socio-economic
infi'astructures for small farmers versus large farmers. Chapter 111 describes the recent
performance of the bean subsector. Chapter IV characterizes the profitability of small
farmers' bean production. Chapter V summarizes the findings of this study, and draws

policy implications for increasing bean production.

CHAPTERII

THE NICARAGUAN ECONOMY

2.1 Historical Overview of Nicaragua

Nicaragua is a Central American country, bordered by two countries - Honduras,
Costa Rica - and two oceans - the North Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. The
country covers a total area of 129,494 square kilometers, making it the largest Central
American country. The physical geography may be divided into three major zones: the
Pacific lowland, the wetter, cooler central highland, and the Caribbean lowland.

Since its colonial era, Nicaragua has suffered from political instability, civil war,
poverty, foreign intervention, and natural disaster.

Afier Christopher Columbus, the first European, visited Nicaragua in 1502,
Spanish settlements were established in the 1520s. While resisted by indigenous groups,
the Spanish finally conquered the indigenous people in 1552. The fertile volcanic soil and
moderate climate in the Pacific lowlands attracted Spanish settlers, who set up a hacienda
system to produce export products such as indigo, cacao, and cattle. On the Atlantic
coast, the British settled in the 17"I century, forming an agroexport system based on
sugarcane production. However, the Spanish conquistadors ruled most of the country
until Nicaragua gained independence in 1838.

From the mid-19‘” to the mid-20"I century, the agricultural economy was
dominated by coffee production for export. Coffee production was concentrated in the
central highlands, while in the Pacific region farmers grew basic grains and developed a

cattle industry. In the 1950s, cotton was introduced on a massive scale. This forced

subsistence farmers from the highly-productive Pacific lowlands onto the slope of the
mountains, where coffee growers already occupied the best lands in the central highlands
(Vandermeer, 1993).

During most of the 20" century, Nicaragua was governed by several dictatorial
regimes. From the 1930s to 1979, the Somoza family controlled the government and
military and owned 10 to 20 percent of the nation's arable land. In addition, they were
heavily involved in the food-processing industry and controlled import-export licenses.
Armed opposition to the Somoza regime began with a small rural insurrection in the
early-1960s and grew into a full-scale civil war in 1977. While the Sandinista National
Liberation Front (F SLN) won the stnrggle in July 1979, the human and physical costs of
the revolution were so great that the GDP shrank an estimated 25 percent in 1979
(Library of Congress, 1993).

Upon gaining power, the Sandinisa administration pledged to maintain a mixed
(privately and publicly owned) economy. While all property and businesses owned by the
Somoza family were nationalized, private business not previously owned by the Somoza
family were allowed to continue to operate. However, the banking, insurance, mining,
transportation and agricultural sector were nationalized, which was resisted by the elite
and strengthen support among the elite for the opposition party.

In 1990 the opposition candidate - Chamorro - won the presidential election.
Once in power, the new government radically changed the country's economic policies.
In an effort to revitalize the economy, the Chamorro government focused on reactivating

the private sector and stimulating agricultural exports. Soon afier being elected, the

government adopted the structural adjustment policy prescription, as recommended by
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

In addition to political instability, a series of natural disasters have plagued
Nicaragua, including a catastrophic earthquake in 1972, Hurricane Joan in 1988, severe
droughts in 1989 and 1992, and a tidal wave in 1992. Thus, it is not surprise that in the
early-19903 Nicaragua competed with Haiti and Guyana as the poorest country in the

Western Hemisphere (Library of Congress, 1993).

2.2 Macroeconomic Overview
2.2.1 Trends in the Gross Domestic Product
Throughout the 1980s, Nicaragua experienced economic decline, as indicated by a
negative GDP growth rate of - 2.6 percent (World Bank 1998a). However, since 1990 the
performance of the economy has improved. From 1990 to 1997, GDP grth averaged
5.7 percent (World Bank 1998a). Despite this turnaround, GDP per capita averaged only
USS 410 in 1997, the lowest among Central American countries2 (World Bank, 1998b).
Since the 1970s, the agricultural sector (including forestry and fishery) has
become increasingly important. In terms of its share of GDP, its contribution increased
from 25 percent in 1970 to 34 percent in 1996 (World Bank, 1998b). In contrast,
agricultural employment has declined fi'om 25 percent of the economically active
population in 1990 (FAO, 1997) to 22 percent in 1997 (World Bank 1998b). Combining
food-related industries, in 1997 the agriculture sector accounted for 50 percent of GDP

and employed more than 40 percent of total labor force. In contrast, the manufacturing

 

2 Costa Rica (82,640), El Salvador ($1,810), Guatemala ($1,500), Honduras ($700) in the same year.

6

sector and service sector accounted for 16 percent and 44 percent of GDP, respectively in
1997 (World Bank, 1998b).

External debt has been one of Nicaragua's greatest problems. In 1990, foreign
debt stood at about US$10 billion. Among it creditors, Nicaragua owed USS 4 billion to
the former Soviet Union and USS 6 billion to Western countries and international
financial institutions, such as the World Bank, IMF, and IADB (Library of Congress,
1993). World Bank data indicated that in 1996 Nicaragua still owed approximately USS 6

billion to external creditors.

2.2.2 Currency

In the late-1980s, Nicaragua experienced hyperinflation, with an annual inflation
rate of 432 percent (World Bank, 1992). In the mid-1980s, the government devalued
Nicaraguan currency (Cordoba) fiom USSl = 7-10 Cordobas to USSl = 20,000 Cordobas
(official exchange rate). As part of its economic shock program, in February 1988 the
Sandinista government introduced the New Cordoba, setting the rate at to 1,000 old
Cordobas equal to 10 New Cordobas (SUS 1.00). However, within a year, the exchange
rate fell to USS] = 920 new Cordobas. In 1990, the newly-elected government introduced
a third currency, the Gold Cordoba, setting 5 million New Cordobas equal to 1 Gold
Cordoba, which became the sole legal currency after 1991. In 1998, the current exchange

rate was USSl = 10 Gold Cordobas.

2.2.3 Social Indicators

In 1997 Nicaragua had a population of 4.4 millions (IADB, 1998). During the
1988-97 period, annual population grth averaged 2.5 percent. However, the total
fertility rate has decreased rapidly from 6.2 in 1980 to 4.0 in 1996. Nicaragua's total
population is expected to reach 5 millions by the year 2000. Typical of many developing
countries, 40 percent of the population is under 15 years of age. Children aged 10-14
— provides 13 percent of labor force and female provides 37 percent of the labor force
(World Bank 1998a).

Poverty is widespread in Nicaragua. In 1993, a survey found that more than 50
percent of the population lived below the national poverty line, including 76 percent of
the rural and 32 percent of urban population (World Bank 1998a). However, the Gini
coefficient of income distribution was 50.3, which is somewhat lower than the average

for Latin America and Caribbean countries (World Bank 1998a).3

2.3 The Agriculture Sector
2.3.1 Land Tenure and Agrarian Structure
Land is the traditional base of wealth in Nicaragua. While current data on land
tenure are not available, Table 2.1 shows the land tenure structures in 1978 and 1986.
During the Sandinista era (1979-90), there were several co-operatives, such as the
Sandinista Agricultural Co-operative (CAS) and the Credit and Service Co-operative
(CCS), which both managed farming enterprises and received support from the

government, including agricultural services. In 1989, 23 percent of the total farm area

 

3 Guatemala (59.6), Honduras (53.7), Mexico (50.3), Dominican Republic (50.5), Brazil (60.1)

8

was under the management of CAS and CCS (Spoor, 1995b). Since 1978, individual land
holding have substantially decreased, while CAS, CCS, AP (large commercial farms) and
APP (state farms) expanded as a result of the government's nationalization policy. As
shown in Table 2.1, by 1986 30 percent of individual large farms (more than 141 ha)

have been absorbed into co-operatives or state farms.

Table 2.1: Structure of Land Ownership in Nicaragua, 1978 and 1986.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1978 1986
Families . . Families .
Area (‘000 ha) % 01000) /o Area (‘000 ha) /0 (1,000) A
Co-operatives NA NA NA NA 708 13 25 10
State Farms NA NA NA NA 761 13 23 10
submm NA NA NA NA 1,469 26 4s 20
Individual Holdings
> 141 ha 2,983 52 10 5 1,278 22 6 3
35-141 ha 1,714 30 24 11 1,704 30 25 10
< 35 ha not in co-ops. 935 17 108 50 690 12 55 23
<3.5 ha in credit and
. . 60 1 6 3 550 10 66 28
landless Worker NA NA 68 31 NA NA 36 16
Subtotall 5,692 100 216 100 4,222 74 188 ' 80
Total! 5,692 100 216 100 5,691 100 236 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Barraclough, 1987.
NA - this type of land tenure did not exist in 1978.

However, after 1990 the state farms and co-operatives were rapidly privatized. By
August 1991, 80 percent of the state-owned farmland had been redistributed, of which 26
percent went back to the former owners, 22 percent was assigned to the former contras
(counter-revolutionary forces), 17 percent was given to demobilized army personnel, and

35 percent to the workers of parcelized farms (Spoor, 1994).

According to the most recent data (1997), subsistence farmers with less than 3.5
ha occupy 48 percent of total farmland - 29 percent is now occupied by small farmers
(3.5-17.5 ha), 17 percent by medium-sized farmers (17.5-70), and 6 percent by large
farmers (70-500 ha or more)‘.

The small farmers, including subsistence farmers, are considered to be agrarian
reform beneficiaries with poorly capitalized operations who use mainly family labor and
occasionally hire labor from outside of the family (IADB, 1997). The medium-sized
farmers have a more diversified production structures, which enables them to sell on the
market in moderate volumes. In contrast, the large farmers are well-integrated into the

market economy (IADB, 1997).

2.3.2 Major Crops
Nicaragua's major crops may be categorized into two types: traditional export

crops and domestic food crops. The country's main export crops are coffee and cotton,
while the typical campesino’ crops are maize and beans. Figure 2.2 shows a comparison
of area harvested for these four crops. However, since many campesino inter-crop maize-
beans, maize-coffee, beans-coffee, etc. it is likely that these national statistics are
somewhat inaccurate. These time series data clearly show that the area in maize and
beans is substantially increasing, while the cotton area is decreasing, and the coffee area

remains relatively constant.

 

‘ IADB, “Proposal for A Loan for a Food and Agricultrrral Production Revitalization Program“ 1997. These
figures do not include the region of North and South Atlantic, Chinandega, and Leda, since the Bank's loan
program did not target on these regions

Snull-scale subsistence farmer

10

Decrease in cotton area can be partially explained a substantial decline in world
cotton prices. For example, the FOB price for cotton declined fi'om USS 76 per quintal
(US$1.65/kg) in 1980, to USS 41 per quintal (US$0.89) in 1985. Historically, cotton has
been grown mostly by large landlords farming on the central Pacific coast. However,
growing pest resistance to pesticides and later on, soil erosion and a lack of credit,
discouraged cotton production in the mid-1980s. Consequently, by 1993, cotton
production decreased below the level of 1980 (Figure 2.2) and average yield declined by

7.4 percent fi'om the 1980s to the 1990s (F AO).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rsaorsarrmraasrsurassrsasrssrraasrsurssorsarrssarsmrssrrmrsserasr

 

Y" -a—Coa'oo +Coao.
+8. +Maiu

Figure 2.1 Area Harvested; Export Crops and Campesino Crops, Nicaragua 1980-97
Source: FAO

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll

 

 

 

I,” at

 

 

I: /

50- i L —---‘. 2... - — W

 

o v *1 v v y 1 v f r ' fl ' ‘——-a.:__s
1m 1981 res: 19.3 1m 1m 1m 1987 i” raw 1990 1991 rm 1993 1904 19“ was 1997

 

 

Year +Bwll +Maiae
-O-Con‘ee +Cotton

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.2 Production: Export Crops and Campesino Crops, Nicaragua 1980-97
Source: FAO

Coffee, which has played an important role in the Nicaraguan economy since the
colonial era, is one of the country's main exports and sources of foreign exchange.
Throughout the 1980-903, the coffee area was relatively stable, compared to cotton. In the
19905, the coffee area has increased, although average coffee yield decreased by 4
percent from the 1980s to the 19905, keeping its total production level (F AO).

In contrast to these export crops, the country's major campesino crops have
become increasingly important to the economy. Since 1980, maize production has grown
by over 50 percent, fi'om about 180,000 Mt. in 1980 to over 320,000 Mt. in the late 1990s

(Table 2.2). However, maize production varies substantially from year-to-year. For

12

 

example, in 1990-91, there was greater drop in production, partly due to a reduction in
the area planted, as well as a drought in 1989. Maize area is roughly in expansion trend
since 1986, recording its highest level in 1995 (Figure 2.1 and Table 2.2). Bean
production has grown by over 50 percent, from the average of 5 1,000 Mt. in the 1980s, to
76,000 Mt. in the 1990s (Table 2.2). Similarly, Bean area has grown by 42 percent, fiom

the average of 84,000 ha in the 1980s to 120,000 ha in the 19903.

Table 2.2 Area Harvested and Production; Export Crops and Campesino Crops,
Nicaragua 1980-97.

Area Harvested (1,000 ha) Production (1,000 mt) Yield (Kg/ha)
Year Coffee Cotton Bean Maize Coffee Cotton Bean Maize Coffee Cotton Bean Maize
1980 99 45 54 162 59 62 28 182 599 1380 523 1123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1981 88 94 89 206 61 224 59 193 694 2381 665 939
1982 88 93 68 206 72 188 47 190 819 2021 692 926
1983 90 90 88 164 49 233 56 163 549 2580 638 995
1984 117 83 I86 51 262 58 205 583 2232 702 1100

 

 

88
1985 85 115 72 189 35 212 46 208 416 1843 641 1098
1986 77 87 100 132 43 154 59 192 562 1778 595 1460
1987 72 59 68 158 39 151 34 216 536 2549 503 1371
1988 71 59 108 183 43 101 56 283 608 1703 525 1550
1989 69 40 106 223 45 72 63 302 650 1781 592 1357
1990 70 35 1 13 228 28 66 71 293 400 1898 633 1283
1991 75 44 112 194 47 81 72 199 636 1841 639 1023
1992 75 36 101 192 45 67 64 252 591 1877 639 1313

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1993 73 3 1 15 218 42 4 77 284 569 1609 670 1304

1994 83 l 113 195 41 3 74 241 487 2012 651 1237

1995 84 8 138 279 55 16 88 331 651 1887 637 1187

1996 84 4 1 19 278 53 7 75 323 633 1936 627 1 162

1997 89 2 139 261 58 4 90 318 657 1936 648 1218
Source: FAO

I3

 

2.3.3 Institutions
Wear!!!

In the 1980s, extension services and technical assistance were provided mostly by
the Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Reform (MIDINRA). In the
early-1980, MIDINRA initiated technical assistance projects particularly for state farms
and cooperatives, which grew cotton and sorghum. In the mid-1980s, MIDINRA invested
in a small number of large strategic projects. For example, in 1983, it launched the
Contingency Plan for Basic Grains (PCGB), which was intended to increase maize
production in irrigated area of 15,000-20,000 manzana (22,059-29,412 ha) in the Pacific
region. However, throughout the 1980s, technical assistance mostly delivered to state
farms and cooperatives rather than individual small producers (Spoor, 1995b).

In 1993, with World Bank support, the government of Nicaragua established the
Nicaraguan Institute of Agricultural Technology (INT A). This institution was designed to
transfer technologies to small and medium-sized farmers in order to increase productivity
and farmers' income. INTA's mandate includes:

The development and promotion of new varieties of seed, renovation of coffee trees,
use of integrated pest management, assistance on processing, storage, and
preservation of feed grains, development of irrigation area, improvement of livestock
genetics and of cattle herd management, pasture improvement and applications on
technical management to preserve forage and fodder in silos during the dry season
(USDA, FAS 1997).

In addition, in the mid-1990s, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG)

created the National Council for the Agricultural Production (CONAGRO), which is

14

responsible for conducting research to improve agricultural productivity, and submitting
proposals on agricultural production policies and implements the policies upon approval
by MAG. Recently CONAGRO developed the Program for Rural Credit, which provides
a variety of services to farmers including technical assistance, entrepreneurial

management, credit, and commercialization assistance (USDA, FAS 1995).

i rvi

During the Sandinista era, the National Development Bank (BAN ADES)
provided credit primarily to large-scale farmers producing export crops. During 1979-88,
an estimated 69 to 88 percent of BAN ADES’ total credit outlays were made to these
large-scale farmers, while the rest 12-31 percent were provided to small and medium-
scale farmers producing domestic food crops.

After the Chamorro government took office, it initially provided subsidized credit
to campesino. However, beginning in the 1992/93 agricultural season, the government
reduced credit to the agricultural sector, as well as the commercial sector. As a part of the
dominant neo-liberal policies of the government, BANADES became a private
commercial bank, which provides credit almost exclusively to solvent producers with
high yields and who use advanced technologies (Spoor, 1995a).

In spite of the efforts undertaken in the early-19905 to restructure state banks,
their financial position, especially that of BAN ADES, has continued to deteriorate.
Recently, with supports of IADB and World Bank, an effort was made to establish

regional commercial banks and to set up branch offices in rural communities, in order to

15

facilitate financial services in rural areas. In the first half of 1997, loan disbursements to

the agricultural sector increased by 85 percent‘5 over the middle of 1996 (IADB, 1997).

F 0 rain M rketin

During the Sandinista era, there were a great number of service and trading
parastatals. One of the most important parastatals, National Enterprise of Basic Foods
(ENABAS), dominated grain markets, including maize, beans, rice, and sorghum.
Although ENABAS had been undergoing privatization since 1991, it was still in the
market in 1997. However, the government had made an effort to privatize its commercial
distribution, by limiting ENABAS's participation to a 10 percent share of the local market
for feed grains, privatizing its warehouses and silos, creating commercial private
enterprises, and establishing the Agricultural Stock Exchange (BAGSA), which is
designed to simplify agricultural commodity transactions between producers, traders,

brokers, and other interested parties (USDA, FAS 1995).

 

‘ Data are from IADB, "Proposal for A Loan for a Food and Agricultural Production Revitalization
Program” 1997. In monetary value, it increased from US$322 million to US$597 million

16

CHAPTER III

THE BEANS SUBSECT OR

3.1 Demand Analysis
3.1.1 Beans in Nicaraguan Diet

In general, the diet of the Nicaraguan population is relatively high in carbohydrate
and low in protein and vitamin (Liljestam, 1987).

Following maize, beans are the second most important staples in the Nicaraguan
diet. On average, Nicaraguans consumed 12 kg per capita in 1996 (Table 3.1). According
to FAO data, during 1980-96 beans provided a daily average of 159 calories and 10.4
grams of protein per capita, which was second to maize (15.7 grams)7. Due to their high
protein, iron, calcium and vitamin B-12 content, beans are especially important

complements to the diet of the Nicaraguan population.

Table 3.1 Annual Per Ca ita Consumption of Beans in Nicaragua, 1985-1996. (kg/year)“

 

Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

 

 

Kg 16.5 16.0 13.8 11.8 14.9 14.6 13.1 12.3 14.5 13.6 12.1 11.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: PAN-FAO, Adopted from INTA Perfil de la Produccion de Frijol en Nicaragua,
1998.

 

7 no Food Balance Sheet 1998.
' Natioml recommended consumption = 17.0 kg/year.

17

However, in Nicaragua as in most developing countries, access to food varies
greatly among income groups. The most recently available data show that in 1970, the
daily calorie intake for the richest 5 percent of income group averaged 3,931, which is
three times greater than that of the poorest 50 percent group’. Based on the same data, the
national average value was 2,379 calories in 1970. According a USAID study (1976), 57
percent of the rural population suffered from deficiency in daily calorie intake (Liljestam,
1987). Furthermore, the richer population (i. e. top 15 percent) obtained approximately
three times more calories and proteins from animal products than did the poorest, and
consumed twice as many vegetables as the poorest households. In 1996, national daily
nutritional intake averaged 2,328 calories (FAO Food Balance Sheet, 1998), which was
10 percent below the United Nations' recommended value of 2,600 calories and slightly
below average nutritional intake in 1970 (2,3 79 calories).

These data imply that for low-income people, especially subsistence families,

beans are an especially important source of proteins and calories.

3.1.2 Consumer Preferences
Consumer preferences for beans depend on both visual and qualitative
characteristics. The former includes color, size, shape and uniformity of color. The later
includes cooking time, flavor, and hardness after cooking.
The type of beans consumed in Nicaragua can be grouped into three market

classes: light-red bean, dark-red bean and black bean. Most Nicaraguan prefers light-red

 

’Barraclough, 1982.

18

bean. According to the survey conducted by PROFRIJOL10 among 100 housewives
located in 27 towns, and whose households also cultivated beans, 39 percent preferred
light-red beans, while only 2 and 3 percent preferred black beans, and dark-red beans,
respectively. However, 56 percent of the housewives reported no preference.

In terms of quality characteristics, the above study reported that consumers prefer
beans that can be kept longer after having been cooked. This is because most Nicaraguan
do not keep their cooked beans in the refrigerator. Also, softer beans are preferred. The
survey reported that 81 percent of housewives soak beans before cooking, in order to
reduce cooking time. Interestingly, the report noted that consumers prefer traditional
varieties (Criolla or Creole) over the improved varieties due to their superior visual and
texture qualities. Consequently, the study found that 70 percent of the interviewees (who
also planted beans) preferred traditional varieties because they sold more quickly and at a

higher price than improved varieties.

3.1.3 Domestic Utilization
Total national utilization is obtained by subtracting the amount of seed, waste
fi'om domestic production and net imports. While these values are somewhat different
fi'om the estimates presented in Table 3.1, the trends are roughly similar (Figure 3.1), and
indicate that annual consumption decreased from 1981 to 1987, and then rose through the

19903.

 

'° Regional Cooperative Program of Bean in Central America Source: Munguia er al. 1995.

19

This is partially because in the 1985-1988,'and 1993-95 (see Section 3.4)the
producer prices of beans was relatively high, compared to the maize price. Therefore,

bean consumers may have reduced their bean consumption during these periods.

 

mom ~

 

Z: A
.. A 7\ a
60.000 - l y \ &

E50000

 

 

 

 

“Mr

31(0)

 

20.000

 

10.11!)

 

 

 

 

1m “1 rsaz 1m 1m 1% 1” 187 rose 1m 1990 191 1992 was 104 1“ ms
Yur-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 Dry Bean Utilization in Nicaragua, 1980-96.
Source: FAO Food Balance Sheet.

20

3.1.4 Central American Export Demand
During the 1960s and 1980s, Nicaragua was a net importer of beans (Figure 3.2).
However, since 1988 imports have greatly declined and exports have begun to increase.
In 1994 Nicaragua became a net exporter of beans, and in 1995 bean exports exceeded

20,000 Mt., which is equal to 25 percent of 1995 production.

 

 

 

N "a ‘3 ’\ 91 N ”a ‘3 ’\ °l N ’5 ‘3 ’\ 9 N '5 ‘2
YEAR

 

 

Figure 3.2 Dry Bean Trade of Nicaragua, 1961-96.
Source: FAO

In 1995 the primary destinations for Nicaraguan beans were El Salvador, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Peru, Haiti and Guatemala (INT A, 1998). While data for each country's
export share are not available, the most attractive export market was likely to have been

El Salvador, because annual average bean prices of El Salvador were comparatively

21

 

higher than in Nicaragua". Secondly, in the future, Mexico will be an increasingly
attractive market, since Nicaragua has signed a tariff rate-quota agreement with Mexico,
as described below.

During the 1980s, Honduras was the dominant bean exporter in Central America
(Martel, 1995), followed by Guatemala (black beans) and Nicaragua. However, in the
19905, Nicaragua became the largest exporter in the region (Figure 3.3), largely due to
the government's export promotion policy.

In 1991 the Chamorro government signed an export promotion decree, which favored
non-traditional export crop growers. One of the benefits that the law provided was the

right to a tax benefit certificate, equivalent to 15 percent of the FOB values of

 

Panama
Honduras 5%
1 3%
Guatemala
2%
El Salvador
1 1%

Costa Rica
13%

  
  

Nicaragua
57%

 

 

 

Figure 3.3 Country Shares of Bean Exports in Central America, 1991-96
Source: FAO

 

" In 1996 the average prices/quintal were US$51.42 (El Salvador), US$43.00 (Nicaragua), (INTA. 1998).

22

exported non-traditional goods. The introduction of this policy in 1990 matches the bean
export trend shown in Figure 3.2.

More recently, the Nicaragua government signed a Free Trade Agreement with
Mexico (effective from July 1, 1998). As a result of this tariff rate-quota agreement,
Nicaragua gained access to the Mexican market, and can export up to 4,000 Mt of dry
beans per year, which is equal to approximately 34 percent‘2 of Nicaraguan total bean
exports in 1996. The quota is expected to increase by 3 percent per year over the next 10
years. Thus, beginning with the Chamorro era, beans have become one of the country’s

key non-traditional exports.

 

‘2 Nicaragua exported 11,794 ML of drybeans in 1996 (FAO).

23

3.2 Production Analysis
3.2.1 Regional Perspectives

In Nicaragua beans are gown throughout the country during all three crop cycles:
the primer-a (May-August), the postrera (September-December), and the aparte
(December-February). Nicaragua's bean production regions can be divided into six
regions and the apante regions of North and South Atlantic areas, as listed below (See
Figure 3.4).

Region 1: Esteli, Nueva Segovia and Madriz
Region 2: Chinandega and Leon
Region 3: Managua and Carazo
Region 4: Masaya, Granada and Rivas
Region 5: Boaco, Chontales
Region 6: Matagalpa and J inotega
North and South Atlantic Region”: Rama, La Esperanza, Muelle de los Bueyes, Nueva
Guiana, and San Carlos (INT A, 1998)

Region 1 and 6, located in northern interior of the country, are the most important
bean production regions. These two regions accounted for more than 60 percent of
national bean production (Table 3.2). Farmers in these areas use improved technology to
obtain high yields, and are in close proximity to urban markets. The third most important
bean area is region 4, which accounts for 15 percent of national bean production. The rest
of the country’s bean production comes from the other regions, which contribute 15-20

percent of national production.

 

'3 Apart: Region

24

 

 

I--
8

   

HONDURAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rogloneupllul . COSTA RICA
! 8 mm
Mammary
1 Hedda 4 Intel! 1 Istanalpa 10 Granada 13 Cum
8 «measure I Chinandega I Managua it loose 14 lives
a Jill-tags O Leda O lasers ra Chontales tl Ileana-n
Figure 3.4 Nicaragua by Regions

Source: Library of Congess, Country Study: Nicaragua, 1993

In the North and South Atlantic regions, where annual average temperatures and
humidity are high, beans are gown during the apante cycle, at the end of rainy season.
However, the soil in these areas is relatively poor and has a low pHdue to the leaching of

nutrients and toxicity from iron, aluminum, and magnesium. Besides, due to the hilly

25

topogaphy, it is impossible to use oxen or tractor. Farmers in these regions use
traditional technology and yields are generally low. However, Table 3.2 shows that
yields, especially during the apante, were quite high in 1997".

While most of the country’s beans are produced during the postrera (40 percent),
both the apante season (34 percent) and the premera (26 percent) account for a
substantial share of total production (Table 3.2).

 

" Since the (hta for only single year are available, level of yield varies year by year.

26

wag {HZ— H3.50m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m3. 8. 48.2 8_ 5.8 an _c.8_ 48.8 42: 23: 8c _8_ 812 8. 8...: Bee
:8 92 m8... 2 ~26 o o 5 a c o as o c o o:§_.<.m
.8 ee. 2% 2 Sea .3 I 4:. 2 a? 5 o e c 8 2.5.2.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . 828:
ct. 2m 84: 3n 5 em ”3. 3.. :82 NR 5: m8 at. 88: ”8 e8 : seamen:
. a . a . a . a . a . a saga—*0
SN «.2 82. 52 82: as 3.. 82 4e 8: a: 2 a: we 8: 623m
«.82
e e e o o mom I. a}. N2 93: New 8.: 82 3. 23 .856
.9332
. . . . . 8.28
e c e a o S. 2 m8 NM 83 me 2 Sn 3 m; sass:
c e c a a 8m 3. mm: mm 83 n8 3 82 3 82 88825
area:
as 3 8m 2 N8 N2 7.: 3.2 a? 8%: 8n ~12 48c 28 81: .9882
.__oem
as 88 as ca 888 as as 88 As:
22> .a 8885 .x. 82 22> .\. 88:8... .\. 82 22> .x. 8882.. .x. 82 8&3.
3534 8260A— Ens—ta

 

 

damage: 58> .35 383— E 8.96 no.0 van 2833— .3 20; can .35. £263.55 50m «5 use“.

27

3.2.2 Bean Production System

Frmi

Bean farmers are mostly small-scale farmers, who sell roughly one-half of their

harvests to generate cash incomes. The rest of their harvest is used for personal

consumption or seed for planting. Official data show that small farmers (<1.3 ha) account

for a significant majority of the bean producers in the primera (Table 3.3).

In the same year (1996), farmers with less than 1.3 ha accounted 38 percent

during the postrera, which decreased from 51 percent in the primera. In contrast, farmers

with between 1.3 to 2.7 ha of beans, increased fiom 28 percent during the primera to 35

percent during the postrera. Similarly, farmers with between 2.7 to 6.8 ha increased fiom

13 percent during the primera to 18 percent during the postrera, and farmers with more

than 6.8 ha slightly increased by 1 percent from the primera to the postrera.

Table 3.3 Bean Areas by Size of Farms in Primera of 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primera
R°8i°n Department <1.3ha 1.3-2.7m 2.7-6.8ha >6.8ha Total
1 m'ihlifiwh 12,9161 9,104 2,483 1,069' 25,572
"2
2 Chinandega, Leon 3,744 1,580 16 260l 5,600]
3 Managua,Carazo 775 804 351 857| 2,787I .
4 ”“35”“ 8,826 1,251 1,123 1,199I 12,3991
Rivas I
5 Boaco, Chontales 3,2391 1,477 865 396 5,977
6 Matagalpa, Jinotega 11,434 8,773 4,728 2,947 27,882
Apante ”flags?" 240 63 652 0| 955
Total 41,180 23,052 10,218 6,728| 81,172
Percent 5193 28% 13% 8%1 100%l

 

Source: MAG, 1997. Adopted from INTA, 1998.

28

ngn ngggtion, Area, and Yield
In Nicaragua, bean production has increased largely as a result of expanding its

harvested area (Figure 3.5). From the parallel trends between the area and production,
one can easily assume that capitals (seeds, fertilizer, other chemicals, machines, and so
on) and labors have contributed only minimally to improve bean yields, leaving land as
the most important factor in bean production.

In the 1970s, the annual rate of gowth in the bean area was negative in Nicaragua
(averaging - 0.2 percent), compared to Honduras and El Salvador which increased their
bean area by 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively (PROFRIJOL, 1998). However,
during the period 1991-97, the annual gowth rate reached 7.9 percent”, which was the
highest level in Central America.

The production trend in Figure 3.5 can be divided into two periods: 1980-89 and
1990-1997. In the former period, the trend was somewhat flat, and then turned upward
after 1989. This gowth in bean production is primarily explained by the large increase in
the area planted by campesino" following the demobilization of thousands of contras”
and government soldiers, who benefited {Tom a government led and UN-supported land

distribution progam (Spoor, 1995a).

 

'5 meanofannual changesforeachyearinthe 1990s
'6 Small-scale farmers who primarily grow maize and beans to supply their family’s food requirements.
'7 U.S.-backed counter revolutionary forces against the Sandinista government

29

 

 

 

140,000 .
Harvested Area (HA)
120,000

80,000 R N A
50 000 _ V y X Pr uction (MT)
8.... /'

20,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 W fir r 1 r

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

 

 

 

Figure 3.5 Bean Production and Harvested Area, 1980-1997, Nicaragua.
Source: FAO

3O

 

 

 

KGIHA

 

 

 

 

1m

 

 

0 Y Y Y 1 Y T V V V Y Y Y 1 V Y Y ’7 1
1980 10111 19s: 1” 1N4 1905 1“ 1m was 1” 1m 1991 19:12 1M 1N4 1m 1m 1”?

YEAR

Figure 3.6 Bean Yield, 1980-97, Nicaragua
Source: FAO

 

 

 

In the 1960s, annual bean yields averaged 827 kg/ha (FAO). However, in the
19708, the annual average yield decreased to 722 kg/ha (F A0), and by 1987 further
declined to 86 percent of the 1970s average yield”. In contrast, bean yields began to
increase in 1988. During the 1990-97 period, annual yields averaged 644 kg/ha, but still
did not attain the yield levels achieved during the 1960s and 70s. Thus, while national
average bean yields were relatively higher in the previous two decades (19608-708), and
in the 1990s, yields recovered to the level of the 1980s.

However, bean yields vary geatly among the regions in Nicaragua. For example,

highly productive region, such as Jinotega and Matagalpa, averaged 823 kg/ha in the

 

" The annrarl average yield in the 1980s was 619 kg/lu (FAO).

31

primera of 1996. In contrast, yields averaged only 462 kg/ha in Granada, Rivas, and
Masaya, in the same season (Table 3.2). Pachico (1984) noted that since small farm
technologies are frequently suitable only for a given region in a country, the impact of
even very successful new technology may not be easily apparent in national production
statistics. Given the regional dispersion of yields (Table 3.2) and aggegate yield trend
(Figure 3.6), Pachico’s observation likely characterizes the situation in Nicaragua.

Limited farmer adoption of improved bean technology is partially due to the fact
that beans (and maize) are a campesino crop. Beans are risky to gow because they are
subject to geat variations in both yield due to environmental factors and prices (Pachico,
1984). Also, since the state has historically been the principal agency responsible for
promoting new technologies in Nicaragua, farmers with whom the state agencies were
frequently in contact were the ones who most often adopted the improved varieties
(CIAT, 1989). However, the state farmers accounted for only 20 percent of total
agricultural production area in 1986 (Barraclough, 1987). Thus, it is not surprising that
the impact of adoption has been limited at the national level, given that the govemment
has focused on meeting the technology needs of state farmers and the co-operatives,

while neglecting the campesino who farm the rest (80 percent) of the agricultural area.

32

3.3 Input Use and Supply
3.3.1 Input Use

One of the constraints to increasing bean production is limited farmer adoption of
inputs, such as improved varieties of seeds, fertilizer, and pesticide. While aggegate
(national) data for input use are not available, data are available for the main bean region,
which accounts for more than 40 percent of national bean production.

In 1994, the Nicaraguan Institute of Agricultural Technology (INT A) conducted a
study in the regions of Jinotega and Matagalpa”. The study revealed that: a) 59 percent
of surveyed bean farmers used oxen for land preparation, while 41 percent manually
cultivated, and only 10 percent used a tractor”; b) 54 percent used herbicides for weed
control, ranging from 40 to 75 percent (rate varied by town); c) 86 percent used
insecticides; d) 68 percent used filngicides; e) 46 percent used inorganic fertilizers; and t)
30 percent planted improved bean seeds, ranging from 60 percent to 20 percent (rate
varied by town).

Since these figures represent average values and the rate of input uses varied
between the towns and regions, it is likely that'the national average rates of input use are
less than those of Jinotega and Matagalpa - the two most important bean production

regions in Nicaragua.

 

'9 INTA, Diagnostico de la Produccion dc Frijol de la Region B-5, 1996.
2° For a), and b) above, low use of tractors and herbicide may not be a constraint to high yields.

33

3.3.2 Input Supply

Nicaragua has a mixed history of varietal development for beans. In the 1960s,
several improved black bean varieties were released in Nicaragua, with experimental
yields reaching 39 quintal per manzana (2,638 kg/han.) - six times of national average
yields (Godoy, 1992). However, farmer adoption of these varieties was limited because
black beans were not well accepted in the domestic market (Winter, 1964). Since 1978
Nicaragua has released 11 improved red bean varieties (PROFRIJOL, 1998). Yet, in
1996, approximately 72 percent of bean area was still planted to traditional varieties
(Criollas), while only 28 percent was plantedto improved varieties. Furthermore, the
adoption rate is relatively low, compared to other Central American countries”, despite
evidence that the average yield of today’s improved varieties is significantly higher than
of traditional varieties (875 kg/ha vs. 676 kg/ha) (PROFRIJOL, 1998”).

During the 1980s, around 60 percent of agochemical inputs were imported by the
state enterprises and 40 percent by the private sector, while distribution shares were the
other way around (Spoor, 1995b). The major recipients (purchasers) of these inputs were
the state farms and agicultural co-operatives, which took advantage of subsidies fi'om the
government. Currently, private enterprises import and sell agrochemical inputs in shops

in local towns.

 

2‘1quintal=46ltg1manrrana=06811a

’9 Costa Rica (85 °/.), Honduras (46 %), Panama and Guatemala (40 %). (PROFRUOL, 1998)
23 The data are from PROFRIJOL report, F Iujo dc germoplasma e impacto del PROFRIJOL en
Cenn'oamefica, 1998.

34

Access to credit is crucial to enable farmers to purchase inputs that enhance yield.
During the Sandinista era, the National Development Bank (BAN ADES) provided credit
to mostly large-scale farmers producing export crops. As mentioned in Chapter II, it is
increasingly difficult for farmers to obtain credit from the National Development Bank.
For example, bean farmers received 1.8 million Cordobas of credit in 1995, but in the
following year (1996) they received only 0.2 million Cordobas (INT A, 1998). In
addition, Carter (1989) argues that Nicaraguan small farmers are the least likely goup to
effectively use credit, as they often use it for non-agricultural purchases. Supporting this
argument, Enriquez (1991) contends that credit functioned as a consumption subsidy and
has contributed to raising inflation in the countryside.

However, recently the government implemented a policy that exempts the
agicultural sector from tax payment for imported raw materials, capital goods, and spare
parts until the year 2000. Since most chemical inputs are imported from industrial
countries, input supplies are expected to increase. Thus, this policy may benefit bean

farmers by reducing input costs.

3.4 Bean Price Analysis
3.4.1 Trends in Real and Relative Bean Prices
Economists often analyze trends in real prices“ to assess the impact of changes in
crop productivity over time. However, in order to obtain real bean prices, it is necessary

to adjust prices to account for inflation.

 

2‘ Real prices refer to nominal (market) prices that have been deflated to take out the effect of inflation.

35

From the late-1980s to the eariy-l990s, Nicaragua experienced hyperinflation as
mentioned in Chapter H (900 percent in 1987, 1 million percent in 1988, 4,700 percent in
1989, 7,400 percent in 1990, and 2,900 percent in 1991). In addition, new currencies
were introduced in 1989 (New Cordoba) and in 1991 (Gold Cordoba). As these financial
changes make it extremely difficult to estimate real prices, this section examines the trend
in the relative price of beans (the bean-to-maize price ratio) (Figure 3.7).

During the early-19808, the bean-to-maize price ratio declined to a low of 1.2

(1986) — compared to maize, beans became increasingly less expensive. However, from

 

 

 

 

Bean-Maize Price Ratio
N a
/

 

 

 

 

 

o racism'mrm'm‘mfim'm'mvm'm'm'mrmfimjm
Yer

Figure 3.7 Bean-Maize Relative Price (Bean Price divided by Maize Price) in Nicaragua,

1980-95.

Source: FAO

 

 

 

36

1987 to 1990 the bean-to-maize price ratio fluctuated greatly”. In 1988, the relative bean
prices reached their highest level (4.9), which corresponds to the lowest level of per-
capita bean consumption (11.8 kg) during the 1980-96 period (Table 3.1).

After 1990, the ratio declined steadily, falling to 1.8 in 1995, which may partially

explain the high levels of per-capita beans consumption in 1993 (14.5 kg) and 1994 (13.6

kg) (INTA, 1998).

3.4.2 Bean Price Seasonality

Bean prices in Nicaragua follow a seasonal pattern that reflects the bean
production seasons, the primera and postrera (Figure 3.8). Bean prices begin to rise each
season before the harvest, as bean stocks decrease, and then fall as farmers harvest and
sell their beans.

In the primera, 1996, beans were harvested in June-July. Following the harvest,
bean prices fell slightly through August. As inventories fell, bean prices rose through
October. Following the October 1996 posrrera harvest (main bean season), which was
earlier than usual, bean prices fell in November and typically remained relatively low

through March of the following year.

 

25Thismaybedtletosubstantialirrcreaseirlmazeproductionduringthisperiod. Maizeproduction
increasedby morethan30 percent from 198610 1990, whilebeanproduction increasedonly 15 percent
duringthesameperiod (FAO).

37

 

 

1.”

 

an M
I /A \
m //\a// \\

 

 

 

usual-rm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W /
000 '—"\/
0.40
020
0.00 4 . . . A . . f , , ,
1 2 3 4 s s 7 a s 10 11 12

 

Month +ProchrcerPrise(1996)
+ConsurnerPrioe(l996)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.8 Seasonal Bean Prices (Nominal) in Nicaragua, 1996.
Source: INTA, 1998.

As observed in 1996, seasonal bean price fluctuation was relatively small for the
primera. This may be because the figure is based on a single year of data". Seasonal
bean price fluctuation varies somewhat from year-to-year, due to both variations in yield

and the level of imports.

3.5 Bean Market
In the 1980s, bean marketing was dominated by a government parastatal, the

National Enterprise for Basic Grains (ENABAS). Although basic gains, particularly

 

2‘ There is also monthly bean price data for 1995. However, the trend in 1995 shows quite difl’erent pattern
(See Appendix A, Table A-l).

38

maize and beans, are produced by the most marginal sector of Nicaragua, the primary
intent of ENABAS has been to aid consumers, not producers (Colburn, 1986). Spoor
(1995b) reported that in 1985, traditional bean farmers’ cost of production averaged
11,800 Cordoba per manzana, while ENABAS's purchasing price from farmers was
1,000 Cordoba per quintal (1 quintal = 46 kg). Assuming a yield of 7 quintal per manzana
(Corbum, 1986), traditional farmers would earn gross returns of only 7,000 Cordoba per
manzana, if they sold their whole crop to ENABAS. 0n the other hand, consumer had to
pay 3,600 Cordoba per quintal to purchase the basic food, bean. As a result, many
campesr'no faced low or negative rate of returns, and their terms of trade seriously
deteriorated, given the high percentage increase in the cost of other consumer goods and
services (Colburn, 1986).

Recent available data show that bean marketing margin are still large and vary
through the season, from 43 to 67 percent of producer price in 1995 (INTA, 1998), even
though ENABAS marketing share has significantly decreased since 1990. One possible
reason for this is that very few private or public investments have been made to improve
market infrastructure, including low cost storage facilities and technologies. Since traders
consider grain trade as a high-risk operation, they try to include sufficient profit in their
marketing margins (T ijerino, 1993; Spoor, 1995a). In addition, Spoor (1995a) argues that
increased rural insecurity (i.e. danger of theft) has made transporting grain a somewhat

risky business.

39

CHAPTER IV

PROFIT ABLITY ANALYSIS OF BEAN PRODUCTION

4.1 Methodology
4.1.1 Data Source

During the l997-poshera season (September-December), farm record keeping
data were collected by INTA stat}; supervised by PROFRIJOL economist, Abelardo
Viana. The data were collected on the primary bean field cultivated by 15 small rainfed
farmers (average field size = 0.58 ha, ranged fiom 0.17 to 0.68 ha.) located in Carazo
(N=10) and Masaya (N=5) Provinces. All farmers grew beans as a monoculture on
hillside fields. The data collected included yields per manzana, bean prices received at
time of sale, types of farming operations, cost and amount of labor used (family and

hired), and input used for each operations.

4.1.2 Analytical Model
As an analytical model, the methods recommended by Dillon and Hardaker
(1980)” are employed in this analysis. In the Dillon and Hardaker analytical model, the
unit of analysis is the farm. However, the data analyzed in this study were collected for a
single bean parcel. Thus, while the following definitions are based on those proposed by
Dillon and Hardaker, they have been modified to reflect the unit of analysis in this study

(1'. e. the bean parcel).

 

27 Dillon, .1 I. and J. B. Hardaker, Farm Mmagement Research jbr Small Farmer Development, FAO
Agricultural Serviws Bulletin 1980.

40

Gross parcel income (GPI) per hectare is defined as the value of the total output
of the parcel, whether the output is sold or not. Therefore, GPI includes the output, which
is sold, used for household consumption, used on the farm for seed, and used for
payments in kind (1'. e. sharecropper earnings paid as share of outputs).

Total parcel expenses (TPX) per hectare are defined as the value of all inputs used
in production, excluding the value of in-kind payments to labors (i. e. lunch provided for
hired labor). Family labor - which is valued at its opportunity cost (local wage rate) — is
also included as an expense. Total expenses are generally divided into variable expenses
and fixed expenses. However, in this analysis fixed expenses are excluded. Since fixed
expenses are minimal in small farming operations in Nicaragua, these data were not
collected. Thus, all expenses are considered to be variable expenses.

The difference between gross parcel income and total parcel expenses is defined
as net parcel income (NPI). NPI measures the reward to the family for both its production
management and all capital invested in the parcel. Therefore, in this analysis, NPI
represents the profitability of the parcel.

As an analytical method, comparative analysis is used in this study. Comparative
analysis is defined as a method of assessing the performance of individual parcels (Dillon
et al. 1980). In survey data analysis, the survey results are typically set out in tables and
figures, in order to facilitate comparisons between different groups of farms (parcel) in
the sample. In this process, comparisons of the farms' (parcels’) performance are
accompanied with some "standard” (Dillon et al. 1980). All values are estimated in US

dollar per hectare, converted from local currency (Cordoba) and local area unit

41

(manzana). However, Appendix C reports these same results in the local currency
(Cordoba) and local unit of land measure (manzana).

This study first estimates average performance for the total sample of farms
(parcels), and then compare the performance of farmers using traditional and improved
technologies (varieties). Hence, ”traditional farmers" refers to the farmers who planted
traditional bean varieties, and ”modem farmers' refers to the farmers who planted
improved bean varieties, applied more fertilizer, and used herbicide. Of the total number
of farms (parcels) included in this analysis, five are traditional farms and ten are modern

farms using improved technologies.

42

4.2 Data Analysis
4.2.1 Bean Farming System
The farmers who participated in the record-keeping study grow two bean crops
per year. In the primera (May-August), beans are typically intercropped with maize and
in the postrera (September-December) beans are typically grown as a monoculture.
Figure 4.1 shows the rainfall pattern during the postrera and the time period during
which farmers carried out each farming operation. The postrera crop is planted during the

mid-September to the late-October period, and harvested during the late-November to the

early-January period (Figure 4.1).

 

 

Activities Precipitation Precipitation
“fax / P 3000 m
r" \.
Landep 07—0 \
Planting gr" I

 

 

 

 

 

' ‘1
Insecticide‘ / b——o
\
Fungicide‘ .1___.\
'z '" 1000 mm
ManWeeding H OL———O
“an, - 'i
Threshing k“ ,5. ' . ‘
"°--.,
1 0
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 Period of Farm Operations and Monthly Average Precipitation during the
Posrrera, Carazo in Nicaragua.

Source: Precipitation data are from Salomon, 1987.

* Application of fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide, and fimgicide.

43

4.2.2 Patterns and Costs of Input Use
Trac i n n

None of farmers in the sample owned a tractor. For land preparation, which is
carried out in the late August to mid-September, farmers contracted these services from
their neighbors, mostly medium-to-large scale farmers who own oxen or a tractor”. For
the total sample, land preparation costs averaged US$19.30/ha. The cost of land
preparation was similar, regardless of whether the farmer used oxen or a tractor.

The traditional farmers tended to spend relatively more on land preparation than
the modern farmers. All traditional farmers plowed their parcels at least twice using
animal traction. In contrast, the modern farmers plowed their parcels an average of 1.3
times. While most used animal traction, two of the farmers hired a tractor. Interestingly,
on average the traditional farmers spent US$24.82/ha, while the modern farmers spent

only US$16.54/ha for land preparation.

M

Farmers in the record-keeping study most commonly planted seed that they had
saved from their previous harvest or obtained from other producers who were located
close to them.

Among the sample of 15 farmers, five used traditional varieties (TV 5), which they
planted at an average seeding rate of 66 kg/ha (Table 4.1), and 10 farmers used modern
varieties (MV s), which they planted at an average rate of 56 kg/ha (eight farmers planted

MVs, DOR-364, and two planted Compania”). All farmers planting TVs paid roughly

 

3‘ Informal Discussion with Abelardo vim.
'9 Experimental yield of DOR-364 is 1353-2368kg/ha, and of Compaflia is l353-2029kg/ha. INTA, 1998.

44

same unit price, US$1.03/kg. In contrast, for farmers planting MVs, the unit price varied

among the farmers. For example, three farmers located in J inotepe (the regional capital)

paid the same unit price as for TVs (US$1.03/kg), while the five farmers in Masatepe

paid US$1.61/kg, and the two farmers in Dolores, paid US$1.38/kg.

Table 4.1 Average Quantity and Cost of Input Use Per Hectare by Type of Farmer,
Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Sample (N815) Traditional (N=5) Modern (N-10)
Item
. Cost . Cost . Cost

Quantity (USS/ha) Quantity (USS/ha) Quantity (USS/ha)
Seed (kg/ha) 59.4 74.63 66.1 68.24 56.1 77.82
Fertilizer (kg/ha) 103.80 33.86 94.7 25.74 108.35 37.92
Herbicide (l/ha) 0.9 15.47 0 0 1.3 23.21
Insecticide (Vim) 1.3 6.23 2.0 9.10 0.9 4.79
Fungicide (tha) 189.0 2.89 0 0 283.5 4.34
Traction Contract37
(time s/ha) 1.5 19.30 2.0 24.82 1.3 16.54

Total Cost
(USS lha) 152.38 127.90 164.62

Fertilizer

Farmers in the study area used three types of fertilizers; 18-46-0, 12-30-10, and

Urea (46-0-0). For the total sample, farmers spent an average of US$33.86 for fertilizer

(Table 4.2).

All traditional farmers exclusively applied 12-30-10 (average rate of 94.7 kg/ha),

while modern farmers applied 18—46-0 (average rate of 114.9 kg/ha), although one

 

3°Costperhectareoftr‘actioncontract includesoxenorauactorusedandamanwhooperatesthem. Since
originaldataindicate traction oontractasaunique price for both hiring tractionandannn, it is impossible
toestimatethiscostseparately.

45

 

modern farmer did not apply any of fertilizer. In addition, two of the modern farmers

applied 2 kg of urea per hectare mixed with a gallon of water.

Table 4.2 Average Fertilizer Use Per Hectare by Types of Farmers, Postrera, 1997,
Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traditional (N=5) Modern (N=10)
Formulation 12-30-10 18-46-0"
Quantity (kg/ha) 94.71 107.94
Cost (USS/ha) 25.74 37.81
Unit Price (USS/kg) 0.27 0.35
Nutrient Equivalent
Nitrogen (kg/ha) 11.4 19.4
Phosphate (kg/ha) 28.4 49.7
Potassium (kg/ha) 9.5 0.0
"' Excluding urea (46-0-0).

On average, modern farmers applied more nitrogen (19.4 kg/ha) than traditional
farmers (11.4 kg/ha) (Table 4.2). Modern farmers also applied more phosphate of 49.7
kg/ha than traditional farmers (28.4 kg/ha). However, modem farmers did not apply any
of potassium, compared to traditional farmers (9.5 kg/ha).31

As was the case for the seed price, on average farmers in J inotepe paid a lower
price (U $30.28/kg) for fertilizer (18-46-0), compared to farmers in other areas
(U $30.36/kg for 18-46-0). In contrast, on average traditional farmers paid an identical
price ($0.27/kg) for fertilizer (12-30-10). Since the farmers in this record keeping study

obtained fertilizer as well as other agrochemical inputs from the market closest to their

 

3' Itissmprisingdntthemodemfannersusedaferfilizerwithwtpotassim sincemany soilsinthetropics
are phosphorus deficient, and potassium is also an important essential nutrient. One possible explanation is
that milike in the Atlantic region, in the Pacific region soil may nativcly contain potassium nutrient

46

farm, this price variation may be due to differences in marketing costs among the

locations studied.

Herbigidg

In contrast to fertilizer, which was used by most of the farmers (14 out of 15),
none of traditional farmers applied herbicide and only six of the 10 modern farmers
applied herbicide. Modern farmers spent an average of US$23.21/ha for herbicide.

Furthermore, the pattern of herbicide application varied among the modern
farmers. For example, four farmers applied only one type (brand) of herbicide and two
farmers applied more than two types of herbicides. The most popular type of herbicide
applied was Gramoxone (manufactured by Zeneca Agricultural Products), which was the
least expensive (U 836.25/1) among the products used by farmers in the record-keeping
study. The second inexpensive herbicide, Loundup (U SS9.38/l, manufactured by
Monsanto) was used by only one farmer. On the other hand, the most expensive types of

herbicide were Fusilade and Flex” (US$26.56/l), which were used by two farmers.

Insecticide

For whole sample, farmers spent an average of US$6.23 per hectare for herbicide.
All farmers who used insecticide in the study area primarily applied Monitor,

manufactured by Bayer Corporation”.

 

3’ Flex is the name noted in the Record-keeping data. Flex refers to Flexstar, produced by Zeneca
Agricultural Products. All of herbicides (Gramoxone. Fla, Fusilade) except one (Roundup) used by
farmers in the sample are manufactured by this company.

33 In the record-keeping data, the name of the insecticides was recorded on the datasheets was
Methamidophos, or MTD. The only insecticide product containing Methamidophos has been found to be
the Monitor, which is recommended for beans crop for pest control (MSU Extension Bulletin. 1999).

47

Among the sample, all (five) of the traditional farmers and six of the modern
farmers applied insecticide. Interestingly, traditional farmers applied insecticide at a
higher rate than modern farmers. Traditional farmers applied an average of 2.0 liter/ha of
the same chemical, while modern farmers applied an average of 0.9 liter/ha. On average,
traditional farmers spent US$9.10/ha, while modern farmers spent US$4.79/ha. As with
other inputs, the price of insecticide varied by location. The three modern farmers located
in Masatepe paid a higher unit price (US$6.30/l). while both the traditional and modern

farmers in other locations paid an identical unit price of 5460/] for the same insecticide.

Fungicide

Farmers in the study area applied two types of fungicide (an unidentified copper-
based fungicide recorded as Cobre, and Benlare, manufactured by DuPont). As was
observed for herbicide use, none of traditional farmers applied fungicide. In contrast, six
modern farmers spent an average of US$4.34/ha. All fungicide users, except two farmers
in Dolores, applied both the copper-based fungicide and Benlate. The farmers located in

Masatepe paid identical prices (the copper-based: $0.01/g, Benlate: $0.02/g) for these two

types.

48

In it h

For the typical traditional farmers, the main purchased input components
(excluding labor) are contract traction services, seeds, and fertilizer. Among the
recommended technology used, insecticide accounted for only seven percent of total
input costs, and fertilizer accounted for 20 percent (Figure 4.2)“. On average, seed costs
accounted for the largest share (54 percent) of traditional farmers’ material input costs,
followed by fertilizer (20 percent), animal traction services (19 percent), and insecticide
(7 percent).

For the typical modern farmers, the cost shares for seed (47 percent) and fertilizer
(23 percent) are roughly similar to those of traditional farmers (Figure 4.3). However,
while traditional farmers do not apply herbicide, this input accounts for 14 percent of

modern farmers’ input costs.

 

3‘ Excluding cost of spray applicators for ftmgicides and insecticides, as thae data were not available.

49

 

Traction Contract
1 9%

Insecticide

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2 Traditional Farmers’ Input Cost Shares, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions, Nicaragua

 

Traction Contract
10%

Fungicide
3%
Insecticide
3%
Herbicide
14%

   
 

Fertilizer
23%

 

 

 

Figure 4.3 Modern Farmers’ Input Cost Shares, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions, Nicaragua

50

4.2.3 Patterns and Costs of Labor Use
r O i n

Table 4.3 and 4.4 shows average man-days used for each farm operation for
traditional farmers and modern farmers, respectively. On average, traditional farmers
used 65.6 man-days during the season, while modern farmers used 57.7 man-days per
hectare.

Prior to using oxen or a tractor for primary tillage, the farmers in the sample most
typically used manual labor for preliminary land preparation. While traditional farmers
used 11.5 man-days per hectare, modern farmers used 9.1 man-days per hectare. As
described previously, most farmers contract with neighboring farmers for land
preparation services, using either oxen or a tractor. While traditional farmers used an
additional 1.8 man-days for land preparation by oxen (Table 4.3), modern farmers used
no additional land preparation labor (Table 4.4)”.

Modern farmers hired twice as much labors for planting (4.0 man-days/ha),
compared to traditional farmers (2.1 man-days/ha). This difference can not be rationally

explained, since modern farmers used less seed than traditional farmers".

 

3‘ A traction contract typically includes oxen plus one man, who drives the oxen Additional labor refers to
labor used in addition to the operator in order to assist in land preparation by oxen or a u'actor.

3‘ This difference may be due to difference in perception for planting between the two types of farmers For
example, modern farmers generally practice seedbcd preparation before planting, while traditional farmers
don’t. Thus, modern farmers may have reported scedbed preparation as part of their planting activity,
which may have resulted in higher labor used than for traditional farmers.

51

Table 4.3 Traditional Farmers’ Labor Use (Man-days/ha), Postrera, 1997, Carazo and
Masaya Re ions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family Hired Total
Type of Operation Male Female Male Man-Days
Land preparation37
Manual 6.5 2.4 2.6 11.5
Oxenr 1.2 0 0.6 1.8
Planting 1.8 0.3 0 2.1
Fertilizing 2.1 0 0 2. 1
App. Insecticide 4.1 0 0 4.1
Manual weeding 14.4 4.1 2.9 21.5
Harvesting 8.8 1.5 3.2 13.5
Threshing 4.7 0.6 3.8 9.1
Total 43.5 8.8 13.2 65.6

 

Table 4.4 Modern Farmers’ Labor Use (Man-days/ha), Postrera, 1997, Carazo and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Masaya Regions, Nicaragua
. Family Hired Total
Type Of Operation Male Female Male Man-days
Land preparation37
Manual 5.1 0 4.0 9.1
Planting 3.7 0 0.3 4.0
Fertilizing 1.2 0 0.6 1.8
App. Herbicide 1.9 0 2.4 4.3
App. Insecticide 1.0 0 0.4 1.5
App. Fungicide 0.9 0 1.0 1.9
Manual weeding 9.7 0.2 1.6 11.5
Harvesting 6.9 0.4 5.6 12.9
Threshing 5.1 0 5.6 10.7
Total 35.6 0.6 21.5 57.7

 

 

 

For the application of agrochemicals (fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide, and
fungicide), comparison is limited to only fertilizer and insecticide, which are applied by

both traditional and modern farmers. For fertilizer application, traditional farmers used

 

’7 Manual land preparations (using plow by hands) are carried out prior to plowing by oxen or a tractor.

52

slightly more labor (2.1 man—days/ha) than modern farmers (1.8 man-days/ha), even
though traditional farmers applied less fertilizer. For application of insecticide, traditional
farmers used much more labor (4.1 man-days/ha) than modern farmers (1.5 man-
days/ha)”.

- For harvesting and threshing, traditional farmers used slightly more labors
(roughly 1 man-day/ha more) than modern farmers, although traditional farmers obtained
lower yields. A possible explanation is that since modern farmers used more hired labor
for harvesting and threshing, work done by hired (male) labor is more efficient than
family (female) labor.

Among the two types of farmers, the greatest difference in labor use was for
manual weeding. For traditional farmers, manual weeding accounted for 33 percent of
total labor, compared to 20 percent for modern farmers. Total labor for weed control is
assumed to be total man-days for manual weeding and application of herbicide (and
possibly land preparation). For modern farmers, total labor for weed control accounted
for 28 percent of total man-days of labor, which is still less than 33 percent of traditional
farmers who only did manual weeding (Figure 4.4 and 4.5). However, in terms of man-
days, traditional farmers used more labor for weed control (21.5 man-days), compared to
modern farmers (15.8 man-days for manual weeding + application of herbicide). This
suggests that traditional farmers could potentially reduce their labor use for weed control

by using herbicide.

 

3' This is partly because all traditional farmers (5) used insecticide, while only six ofthe ten modern
farmers applied insecticide. These six modern farmers used an average of three man-days/ha for insecticide
application, which is still lower than uaditional farmers. Therefore, it may be also due to differences in
application (spray) technologies between these different systems.

53

 

Land Preparation:
Manual

Threshing 17% (11.5md')
14% (9.1md‘)

  
  
 
  
 
 
 

Land Preparation:
Oxen
3% (1.8md‘)

Planting

4% (2.1md‘)

Application of
Insecticide
6% (4.1md‘)

Manual weeding
33% (21.5md‘)

 

 

 

Figure 4.4 Traditional Farmers’ Labor Use by Type of Operations, Postrera, 1997,
Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua
*md represents man-days.

 

Land Preparation:
Manual
Threshing 10% (9.1md‘)
19% (10.7md’)

  
   
 
 
   

Planting
6% (3 .9md‘)

Fertilizing
' /4°/. (1.8md")

Application of
Herbicide
8% (4.3md‘)

:- \Application of
Insecticide

3% (1.5md')

Harvesting
22% (12.9md‘)

Application of
Fungicide
3% (1.9md‘)

Manual weeding
20% (11.5md‘)

 

 

 

Figure 4.5 Modern Farmers’ Labor Use by Type of Operations, Postrera, 1997, Carazo
and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua
* md represents man-days.

54

Typg 91' Lgbgr
The type of labor used (male vs. female and family vs. hired) differed between

traditional and modern farmers. In terms of labor use by gender, modern farmers mostly
used male labor (99 percent), while male labor accounted for 87 percent for traditional
farmers. For traditional farmers, female (family) labor was used mostly for manual
weeding, followed by manual land preparation. In contrast, although modern farmers
used a very small amount of female (family) labors (0.6 manoday/ha), female labor
primarily participated in harvesting. Modern farmers employed more hired labor (37
percent), compared to traditional farmers (20 percent). While family male labor
accounted for roughly the same percentage of total labor for both types of farmers,
traditional farmers tended to substitute family labor (both male and female) for hired
labor. In total, family labor accounted for 80 percent of total labor for traditional farmers,
but only 63 percent for modern farmers (Figure 4.6 and 4.7).

Modern farmers are likely to employ hired labor, because they either have cash
available and/or family members have greater access to off-farm activities, which
generate more cash income (1'. e. pay a wage rate that is higher than the cost of hiring farm
labor).

In terms of total man-days per ha, traditional farmers used 52.3 man-days of
family labor and 13.2 man-days of hired labor, while modern farmers used 36.2 man-days
of family labor and 21.5 man-days of hired labor (Figure 4.6 and 4.7). Thus, traditional
farmers used more family labor (l6 man-days), but less hired labor (8 manedays) than
modern farmers did. Overall, modern farmers used eight fewer man-days per hectare than

traditional farmers.

55

 

Hired Male
20% (13.2md‘)

  
   

Family Female
13% (salads)

Family Male
67% (43.5md‘)

 

 

 

Figure 4.6 Traditional Farmers’ Labor Use by Type of Labors Postrera, 1997, Carazo
and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua *represents man-days.

 

  
  

Hired Male .,
37% (21.5Md.) 35.1.1.1;

Family Male
62% (35.6md‘)

Family Female I '
l%(0.6md‘)

 

 

 

Figure 4.7 Modern Fanners’ Labor Use by Type of Labors Postrera, 1997, Carazo and
Masaya Regions, Nicaragua *represents man-days.

56

r I' e ion

On total average, traditional farmers paid39 US$104.01/ha for labor, which is
about 20 percent higher than for modern farmers (U S$86.24/ha) (Table 4.5 and 4.6).

The most costly operation was manual weeding for traditional (US$33.55/ha)
while it was harvesting for modern farmers (US$19.36/ha), followed by manual weeding
(US$16.28) (Table 4.5 and 4.6). For traditional farmers, the second most expensive
operation was harvesting (U 8321 . 14/ha). However, the third highest was land preparation
for traditional farmers (U S$20.69/ha), and threshing for modern farmers (U S$1 5.95/ha).

Wage rate differed by type of operation and between farms. For example, on
average modern farmers paid US$1.80 per man-day for hired male labor, who did manual
land preparation and manual weeding. In contrast, they paid US$1.60 per man-day for
hired male labor for the other operations. Generally, modern farmers paid a higher wage
for an activity, which required special skills (spraying herbicide, insecticide and
fiingicide). In contrast, for traditional farmers, wage rates (US$1.56 per maneday) for

hired labor are not significantly different between type of operations.

 

”Forbothtraditionalandmodemfanners,laborcostsincludeboththecostsofhiredlaborandfamily
labor. The wage rate for family labor isvalued atthe shadow price of family labor, which represents the
opportunitycostoffarnily labor.

57

Table 4.5 Traditional Farmers’ Labor Costs (U S$/ha) Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type Of Operation MaleleI-‘emale 1:41;: “91?ng
Land preparation“
Manual 10.11 3.68 4.14 17.92
Oxen 1.84 0 0.92 2.76
Planting 2.76 0.46 0 3.22
Fertilizing 3.22 0 0 3.22
App. Insecticide 6.59 0 0 6.59
Manual weeding 22.52 6.43 4.60 33.55
Harvesting 13.79 2.30 5.06 21.14
Threshing 8.73 0.92 5.97 15.63
Total 69.55 13.79 20.68 104.01

 

Table 4.6 Modern Farmers’ Labor Costs (U S$/ha) Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Regions Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type Of Operation MaleFanulyFemale 11:3: ”Firsts“
Land preparation“
Manual 7.34 0 7.17 14.54
Planting 4.95 0 0.46 5.41
Fertilizing 1.84 0 0.92 2.76
App. Herbicide 2.99 0 3.68 6.66
App. Insecticide 1.61 0 0.69 2.30
App. Fungicide 1.38 0 1.61 2.99
Manual weeding 13.45 0.23 2.60 16.28
Harvesting 9.94 0.69 8.73 19.36
Threshing 7.22 0 8.73 15.95
Total 50.74 0.92 34.59 86.24

 

 

58

”Additional costs, above the cost of the traction contract, which is presented in the section 4.2.1.

 

 

4.2.4 Profitability of Two Typical Farmers

On average, traditional farmers obtained yield of 534 kg/ha and modern farmers
obtained 936 kg/ha (Table 4.7). The yield that traditional farmers obtained (534 kg/ha) is
somewhat lower than the national average yield of TVs (676 kg/ha) (PROFRIJOL, 1998).
In contrast, modern farmers in this study area obtained higher yield (936 kyha) than the
national average yield (875 kg/ha) (PROFRIJOL, 1998). Interestingly, traditional farmers
received a higher average price of US$0.69/kg, compared to price that modern farmers
received (U S$0.67/kg). This price difference may be due to consumers’preference for
traditional varieties.

Table 4.7 Average Yields, Prices Received, and Gross Parcel Income by Type of
Farmers, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Reflns, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traditional (N=5) Modern (N=10)
Yield (kg/ha)“ 534 936
Price (USS/kg) 0.69 0.67
Gross Parcel Income
(USS/ha) 367.95 641.39

 

In this study, since the prices shown in Table 4.7 have been obtained by taking
average value of each farmer received, gross parcel incomes (GPI) are not simply
obtained by multiplying yields and prices in Table 4.7. Rather, GPI are obtained by
taking average values of prices times yields for each farmer. Because this study is
interested in average profits for two typical farmers, GPI obtained in Table 4.7 are

considered to most reflect the average values of returns to farmers.

 

" Some of the yield difference may be due to differences in cultural and mamgement practices used by
modern and traditional farmers.

59

Even though traditional farmers received a slightly higher average price,
traditional farmers earned a much lower GPI (US$368) than modern farmers (US$641),
as shown in Table 4.7.

Among the sample, modern farmers spend more on capital inputs than traditional
farmers, while traditional farmers spend more on labor than modern farmers. Thus, since
modern farmers took advantage of labor saving technologies, their returns to labor are
greater. In contrast, traditional farmers used more labor as a substitute for capital inputs,
so their returns to capital are greater.

As shown in Table 4.8, while total parcel expenses are greater for modern farmers
(US$251), compared to traditional farmers (US$232), net parcel income is US$255/ha
higher for modern farmers (Table 4.8)

Table 4.8 Small Bean Farm Budgets during the Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya
Re ions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whole Sample Traditional Modern
1“” ‘3’“) (N=15) (N=S) (N=10)
Gross Parcel Income‘ 550.25 367.95 641.39
Parcel Expenses
Variable Input 152.38 127.90 164.62
Family Labor 62.21 83.33 51.65
Hired Labor 29.95 20.68 34.59
Labor Subtotal 92.16 104.01 86.24
Total Parcel Expenses 244.55 231.91 250.87
Net Parcel Income 305.70 136.04 390.52

 

‘ Gross Parcel Incomes are obtained by taking average values of Gross Parcel Income for cash

farmer

6O

 

Traditional farmers earned only 35 percent of modern farmers' net parcel income.
This is simply because while traditional farmers obtained only 57 percent of modern
farmers' GPI, their costs averaged 92 percent of modern farmers' total farm expenses.

Accordingly, the profitability of small bean farming depends primarily on GPI,

which is largely a function of farmers’ yields, since prices are similar across farms.

4.3 Sensitivity Analysis
4.3.1 Introduction

In the previous section, the net parcel incomes are obtained for traditional and
modern farmers. In the followings, for each type of farmers, sensitivity analysis is carried
out by changing bean yields, bean prices, labor and input costs - using the net parcel
incomes as base runs - in order to identify the variables that most affect the level of net
parcel income (profit).

However, sensitivity analysis does not generally take into account the probability
of any of the changes actually occurring. Also, it does not show the correlation between

the variables that are changed (i.e. bean yield and price, input and labor prices).

4.3.2 Changes in Bean Yields and Prices
The results of sensitivity analyses are reported for traditional (Table 4.9) and
modern (Table 4.10) farmers with respect to :1: 50 percent changes of bean yield and :l: 25

percent changes of bean price.

61

Table 4.9 Traditional Farmers: Sensitivity Analysis” with Changing Bean Yield and
Price, postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bean Price($/kg)
0.51 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.68 0.72
Bing/12;” Choa/iTge -25 -10 -5 :0 +5
267kg -50
321kg -40
374kg -30
428kg -20
48lkg -10
534kg 3:0 44 62 81 99 118 136 154 173 191 210 228
588kg +10 72 92 112 132 153 173 193 213 234 254 274
641kg +20 99 121 143 165 188 210 232 254 276 298 320
695kg +30 127 151 175 199 223 246 270 294 318 342 366
748kg +40 154 180 206 232 257 283 309 335 360 386 412
802kg +50 182 210 237 265 292 320 348 375 403 430 458

 

Table 4.10 Modern Farmers: Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and Price,
postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bcan Price (Mtg)

|0.51 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.85
B? Y! "‘1'“ Chic -25 .20 -15 -10 -5 :t0 +5 +10 +15 +20 +25
468kg -50 is 6 22 38 54 70 86 102 118 234 150
563kg -40 38 57 76 95 115 134 153 172 192 211 230
655kg -30 86 108 131 153 176 198 221 243 265 288 310
749kg .20 134 160 185 211 237 262 288 314 339 365 391
843kg -10 182 211 240 269 298 326 355 384 413 442 471
936kg i0 230 262 294 326 358 391 423 455 487 519 551
1030kg +10 278 314 349 384 419 455 490 525 560 596 632
1124kg +20 326 365 403 442 480 519 557 596 634 673 711
1217kg +30 374 416 458 500 541 583 625 666 708 750 791
l3llkg +40 423 467 512 557 602 647 692 737 782 827 872
14ng +50 471 519 567 615 663 711 759 807 856 904 953

 

 

‘2 Input and labor costs (including harvesting and threshing labors) are held constant, assuming that yield

changes are due to weather-related risk.

62

 

 

 

For traditional farmers, when yield decreases by 30 percent (or more) and price
decreases by 10 percent (or more), NPI falls below zero. When yield declines by 40
percent (or more) and price increase by 5 percent (or more), NPI also falls below zero.
Thus, for traditional farmers, NPI is likely to be more sensitive to bean yield change than
bean price change, since NPI becomes negative, when the yields are reduced by 40 and
50 percent, while fixing the bean price at :1: 0. In contrast, fixing bean yield at :l: 0, NF]
does not become negative, regardless of the change in the bean price.

For modern farmers, the only scenario that results in a negative NPI is when yield
is reduced by 50 percent and price is lowered by 25 percent (Table 4.10). However, a 50
percent-lower yield is unlikely to happen, except when a natural disaster occurs. In
Nicaragua, this occasionally happens due to hurricane (i. e. Hurricane Mitch in October
1998)”. Furthermore, if national yields fell by 50 percent, the resulting reduction in the
bean supply would put upward pressure on bean prices. Therefore, the scenario observed
in the sensitivity analysis for modern farmers are unlikely to occur. Thus, for modern
farmers - over the range of yield declines considered in this analysis - the NPI is
unlikely to ever become negative, given the changes in yields and prices assumed in this

analysis.

 

‘3 According to the recent report (USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agriculture Infornmion
Network, Nicaragua: Preliminary Agricultural Damage Report fiom Hurricane Mitch 1998), dry bean
losses are estimated 50-80 percent during the postrera, 1998.

63

4.3.3 Changes in Input and Labor Prices

The results of sensitivity analyses with respect to changes in input, labor prices
showed no negative NPI for all levels of changes (reported in Appendix B). Therefore,
changes in the costs of production are less correlated with bean farmers’ profitability,
than for changes in bean yields and prices.

As expected from Table 4.7, the breakeven points (i. e. point where NPI become
zero) for both traditional and modern farmers are extremely high, resulting in all positive
net parcel incomes“ (Appendix B). Traditional farmers still earn US$78/ha at 25 percent-
higher input and labor costs. Modern farmers earn US$328/ha at the same increases in
input and labor costs. This implies that ever with a 25 percent increase in the cost of

production, farmers would still earn a positive NPI.

 

“ Breakeven points oflabor are 553 and 231 percent increases for modern and traditional farmers,
respectively. Breakeven points of mput are 337 and 206 percent increases for modern and traditional

farmers, respectively.

64

4.4 Regression Analysis

Sensitivity analysis results have shown that bean yield is a major influential factor
on profitability. Since sensitivity analysis does not indicate which inputs contributed to
explaining the yield differences among farmers, regression analysis is carried out in order
to confirm the budget result and identify the reason for higher yields among modern
farmers. The model used in this analysis is a linear filnction. That is, bean yield is

assumed as a linear finction of input and labor cost”. The specific model is;

Y1 = Blixll + 321le + D + 31

Where Y, = Bcan yield (kg/ha) for firmer t,
X" = Quantity of seed (kg/ha) for firmer 1',
X2, = Amount of Nitrogen“S applied (kg/ha) for firmer i,
D = Dummy variable, coding 1 = Modern varieties, 0 = Traditional varieties,
or = Random error term for firmer i.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.11 liegression Result fi'om the model (Dependent variable = Bean yield)

Variable Coefficient Std.Error t-statistics

Quantity of Seed
7.54 1.83 4.11"

(kslha)
Nitrogen (kg/ha) 4.45 7.42 0.60"

Dummy 426.91 118.31 3.61 *
Adjusted-R2 = 0.529, F = 889*, Durbin-Watson d = 2.18‘7

 

 

 

* 5 percent, ** 20 percent levels of significance

 

‘5 Because of high correlation between variables for input cost and labor cost, these two variables are
excluded. Therefore, finally obtained model is reported above.

‘6 Nitrogen and phosphate are correlated with each other, and potassium is correlated with the dummy
variable. Therefore, only nitrogen is included in the model.

’7 Durbin-Watson d-statisties shows that there is no autoconelation among the error terms

65

The regression results reported in Table 4.11 show that the quantity of seed and
the dummy variable are statistically significant at the 5 percent level. The Adjusted-R2
(0.53) is relatively high for primary data, especially given the small sample size. The
model estimates that if a farmer plants one kg/ha more of seed, yield would increase by
7.5 kg/ha. An additional kg of Nitrogen would contribute 4.5 kg/ha increase in yield. The
model also indicates that the MVs’ dummy variable accounted for a yield difference
between TVs and W3 of 427 kg/ha (Table 4.11).

Thus, the regression result shows that bean yields are strongly dependent on the
type of seed planted. As shown in the previous section, modern farmers have higher
profitability due to higher yield. The regression result supports the evidence that modern
farmers earned higher profits because they planted MVs of beans. However, since
traditional and modern farmers may utilize different cultural and management practices,

part of the yield differences may be due to these factors.

66

CHAPTERV

SUMARRY AND CONCLUSIONS

Historically, the Nicaraguan government has given priority to developing agro-
export industries (sugar, cotton, and coffee), which have been dominated by the country’s
elites. However, in the early-19903 the Nicaraguan government began to implement
policies favoring small-scale farmers, especially, farmers cropping staple food crops,
such as beans and maize. While maize is the country’s primary staple crop (261,000
hectares, 1997), beans are the second most important food crop (139,000 hectares).

This study analyzes record-keeping data collected from 15 small bean farmers in
Carazo and Masaya regions near the Pacific Coast of Nicaragua. Five of these farmers
grew traditional bean varieties and ten planted improved (modern) varieties (DOR-364 or

Compafiia).

Summag
Key findings of the study are:

c Per-hectare costs of production were higher for modern farmers than for traditional
farmers because modern farmers applied more agrochemical inputs (fertilizer,
herbicide).

0 Traditional farmers tended to employ more family labor (both male and female),
especially substituting manual weed control for herbicide, while modern firmers

employ more hired labor.

67

o Modern farmers obtained higher yield (936 kg/ha), compared to traditional farmers
(534 kg/ha). A

0 Modern farmers (US$391) obtained approximately three times higher net parcel
income (NPI) than traditional farmers (US$136).

- Budget analysis showed that modern farmers earned higher profits than traditional
farmers due to higher yield.

0 Sensitivity analysis showed that both traditional and modern farmers still earned a
positive net parcel income with 25 percent higher input and labor prices (costs).

0 Regression analysis showed that the major influential factor on bean yield was the
type of seed planted. However, some of the yield difference may have been due to
improved cultural practices used by modern farmers.

0 Regression analysis also showed that MVs has a 427 kg/ha more of yield potential,

compared to TVs.

Poligy Implications

These findings show that among the sample of farmers included in the study, bean
production is more profitable for modern farmers (compared to traditional farmers), even
though they purchased more input. Sensitivity analysis showed that modern farmers’
profits are relatively insensitive to yield and price changes (compared to traditional
farmers), due to their absolute advantage fiom higher yields. Furthermore, modern
farmers utilized more of the recommended technologies (MVs and a package of

agrochemical inputs). In contrast, while traditional farmers applied less fertilizer, they

68

applied more insecticide. Thus, use of agrochemical input is dependent on the type of
farmer in the sample of farms used for this analysis.

This study has also shown that bean yield is the most influential variable affecting
profitability. Based on the regression results, planting an improved bean variety was
associated with a yield increase of 427 kg/ha.

As presented in Chapter III, the bean area under MVs is still relatively low (28
percent). Data analyzed in this study indicate that MVs’ yields are 75 percent higher than
the yields of TVs and are substantially more profitable to grow. Thus, an increased effort
to promote greater farmer adoption of MVs has the potential to substantially increase
bean production in the study area.

However, farmers who grow modern varieties of bean generally applied
agrochemical more intensively than TVs growers. Thus, farmers’ success in achieving
higher profit may require farmers to adopt a technology package, which includes both an
improved variety and higher fertilizer rates. For firrners to adopt these technologies, they
must be readily available locally. In addition, farmers may require access to credit in

order to be able to afford purchasing these inputs.

Limitations

This study has five limitations as follows. First, this study does not provide
insights as to why traditional farmers plant TVs, which this study showed are less
profitable than MVs. Therefore, it is recommended that in association with firture record-
keeping studies, a short questionnaire should be administered to both traditional and

modern farmers to determine key factors that influence their choice of bean varieties.

69

Second, cultural and management factors may also explain some of the
differences in yield and profitability between traditional and modern farmers. In
addition, the study did not analyze risk associated with growing MVs versus TVs.

Third, this analysis is based on a relatively small sample size — five TVs growers
and ten MVs growers - and the data is for a single season. Thus, to confirm these results,
there is a need to both carry out similar analysis for at least two additional seasons and
increase the sample size to include at least 15 farmers growing TVs and 15 farmers
growing MVs.

Fourth, as this analysis is based on only two provinces (Carazo and Masaya) in
the Pacific area, the results can not be generalized to other area (i. e. Central and Atlantic
regions). Thus, similar analysis for these regions is needed as further research.

Fifth, yields are affected by both input use and the agroclimatic environment (e.g.
all five traditional farmers were located in the same town). Thus, future record-keeping
studies should collect sufficient agroclimatic data to assess the agroclimatic similarities

and differences among the traditional and modern farmers.

70

Appendix A

Table A-1 Monthly average bean prices to the producer, wholesaler and consumer,
Nicaragua, 1995 and 1996 (USS/kg)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1995 1996
Month Producer Wholesaler Consumer Producer Wholesaler Consumer
January 0.25 0.32 0.38 0.54 0.88 0.77
Febnm 0.26 0.35 0.42 0.53 0.60 0.75
M31131! 0.27 0.35 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.73
APT“ 0.27 0.35 0.42 0.62 0.71 0.84
May 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.90 0.96 1.09
June 0.28 0.35 0.43 0.90 1.05 1.24
July 0.27 0.35 0.44 1.01 1.29 1.42
5‘18““ 0.30 0.43 0.50 0.82 1.02 1.34
September 0.41 0.55 0.64 1.20 1.23 1.42
WONT 0.54 0.71 0.82 1.53 1.55 1.71
November 0.61 0.70 0.91 1.14 1.38 1.64
December 0.55 0.61 0.79 0.94 1.11 1.44
Average 0.36 0.45 0.55 0.88 1.03 1.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: INTA, 1998

Monthly average prices for 1995 are also available (prices in 1996 are reported in Chapter 111).
However, price fluctuations in 1995 showed a counter L-shaped (low in the beginning of year and
high in the end of year), which is an unusual pattern of price fluctuation. Farmers most typically
sell beans soon after harvest in order to obtain cash to meet household expenses.

71

Figure A-l Bean Marketing Channels, Nicaragua.

 

l PRODUCER ]

 

 

 

RURAL
COLLECTORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGIONAL
IMPORTS COLLECTORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHOLESALERS

 

 

 

 

 

RETAILER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSUMER EXPORTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: MAG-FAO, adopted fiom INTA, 1998

Bcans are collected first by rural collectors, who are typically located in rural towns. Then, beans
go to regional collectors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. The connections between these
channels are supported by transport middlemen, who are typically truck drivers or truck owners.

72

Appendix B

Table B-1 Traditional Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices
(U S$lha1,postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Input Price Changes
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% Base + 5% +10% +15% +20% +25%
-25% 194 188 181 175 168 162 156 149 143 136 130
-20% 189 182 176 170 163 157 150 144 138 131 125
-15% 184 177 171 164 158 152 145 139 132 126 120
8 -10% 178 172 166 159 153 146 140 134 127 121 114
g -5% 173 167 160 154 148 141 135 128 122 116 109
_8 Base 168 162 155 149 142 136 130 123 117 110 104
‘E + 5% 163 156 150 144 137 131 124 118 112 105 99
g + 10% 158 151 145 138 132 126 119 113 106 100 94
+ 15% 152 146 140 133 127 120 114 108 101 95 88
+ 20% 147 141 134 128 122 115 109 102 96 90 83
+ 25% 142 136 129 123 116 110 104 97 91 84 78

 

Table B-2 Modern Fanners’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices
(U SS/ha), poslrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicargaggua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Input Price Chalges
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% Base +5% +10% +15% +20% +25%
-25% 453 445 437 429 420 412 404 396 387 379 371
-20% 449 441 432 424 416 408 400 391 383 375 367
-15% 445 436 428 420 412 403 395 387 379 371 362
580 -10% 440 432 424 416 407 399 391 383 374 366 358
g -5% 436 428 420 41 1 403 395 387 378 370 362 354
_8 Base 432 423 415 407 399 391 382 .374 366 358 349
‘E +5% 427 419 411 403 394 386 378 370 362 353 345
I; + 10% 423 415 407 398 390 382 374 365 357 349 341
+ 15% 419 411 402 394 386 378 369 361 353 345 336
+ 20% 414 406 398 390 382 373 365 357 349 340 332
+ 25% 410 402 394 385 377 369 361 353 344 336 328

 

As discussed in the section 4.3.3, the net parcel incomes never fall below zero with regard to any
changes in input and labor prices for traditional and modern farmers.

73

 

 

Appendix C

Table C-l Average Yields, Prices Received, and Gross Parcel Income, Postrera, 1997,
Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana)

Traditional (N=5) Modern (N=10)

 

 

Yield (kg/manzana) 363 637

 

Price (Cordoba/kg) 6.61 6.41

 

Gross Parcel Income

(Cordoba/manzana) 2402 4187

 

 

 

 

 

Table C-2 Small Bean Farm Budgets, Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya, Nicaragua
(Cordoba/manzana)

 

 

 

 

 

Item Whole Sample Traditional Modern
(Cordoba/manzana) (N=15) (N=5) (N=10)
Gross Parcel Income"I 3592.00 2402.00 4187.00

Parcel Expenses
Variable Input 994.74 834.90 1074.66
Family Labor 406.13 544.00 337.20
Hired Labor 195.53 198.53 225.80
Labor Subtotal 601.67 742.53 563.00
Total Parcel Expenses 1596.41 1577.43 1637.66
Net Parcel Income 1995.59 824.57 2549.34

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Gross Parcel Incomes are obtained by taking average values of Gross Parcel Income for each
farmer

Table C-1 and C-2 in local currency and local unit of area is corresponding to Table 4.7
and 4.8. The analysis in this study used USS] = 9.6 Cordoba, and 1 manzana = 0.68 ha.

74

Table C-3 Average Quantity and Cost of Input Use Per Manzana by Type of Farmer,
Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya Regions, Nicaragua. (Cordoba/manzana)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Sample (N815) Traditional (N=5) Modern (N=10)
Item
. Cost Cost . Coat
Quantity (Cordoba/m2) Quantity (Cordoba/m2) Quantity (G’mb‘lm)
Seed (kg/manzana) 40.4 487.17 44.9 445.50 38.1 508.00
Fertilizer
73.7 221.04 64.4 168.00 78.4 247.56
(kglmanaana)
He'b'c'de 0.6 101.00 0 0 0.9 151.50
(l/manzana)
“3mm“ 0.9 40.67 1.4 59.40 0.6 31.30
(l/manzana)
Fungwldc 128.5 18.87 0 0 192.8 28.30
MW. ‘3)
TM” “mm“ 1.0 126.00 1.4 162.00 0.9 108.00
(trmes/manzana)
Total Cost
(Cordoba, ) 994.74 834.90 1074.66

 

Table C-3 in local currency and local unit of area is corresponding to Table 4.1.

75

 

due—o Or. #3233.— Hoqlofl. 9T3 F52. :8 3 5.... on 9.0% 3833. 53. 0.2.89 .2. g ”8.8.. 2.33m:- analogies-av

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.3.5333..- Zoaa no... AneEeVQB-anv
BEE raven :28; Face. do... v.55. F59. :52. FE... 088 on 086 on do...
So en Own—dae- Eo moan—o En 3.2—0b.. En moan? 39.0 :55. For... $3.— F-aon For... 688
FREE:
EE— 95 .8 F» a.» 8.8 598 5.98 8.8 3.8 2 5.8

98: 9m 98 ch .5 5.8 98 98 5.8 98 5.8
EBB .5 95 ab 9.. 5.8 98 98 2.8 8.8 2.8
END” 9.» ob P: I 2.8 8.8 8.8 2 .8 98 2.8
E8253 5.» Po 8.: Pa 3.8 98 98 3.8 8.8 3.8
Emacs. £85m. Pa 5.» 5.8 .98 3.98 5.8 8.8 50.8 8.8 298
Egan—K 9o .8 5.5 o.» 8.8 .98 9.98 898 8.8 598
“Housman u.» 95 Pa 95 8.8 98 8.8 3.8 8.8 85.8

He.»— 86 9: ob 99m 398 8.8 598 898 598 «8.8

 

 

.730 9.4. 32.0.... 1.303. 913 F32. c8 3. #38 on 033.83. 5333. 53. 6.33 o!— zauowi ”amour 2.9-in..- Angling-av

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sosa-«5:932.- Zoou no.3 AneqneoQB-Eauv
133—k F969. Iron raven fie... 55:? Fail. :58 FY... 086 on 088 on do...
Hume on Geo—i=2. 39.0 moan—o Kan 3.2—$.- zao mans—o En 2.1.55. For! Enou— F-ca. Face. 08:
E
gun—E Pu 98 5.9 95 .8. 3 8.8 998 .3. 3 3.8 998
98: ob Po ob 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
H822. Po :8 ob Po 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
E Pu 98 ch 5.9 5.8 P8 P8 5.8 98 ~98
ERR Pa 98 c.» _ .5 5.8 8.8 98 5.8 98 5.8
E3238 _.u 8.8 Fa No 5.8 8.8 598 3.8 598 3.8
Emooaofim on ob Pu .8 8.8 8.8 98 8.8 98 .98
E ob ob oh Fu P8 8.8 8.8 0.8 8.8 5.8
E 9.8 o.— _._ flu 3.8 _.8 3.8 8.2 5.8 898
manna—E 9g Pu Pu a.» 8.8 98 8.8 8.8 8.8 598
E Pu 8.8 Pa .5 3. 3 8.8 8.8 3. .o 8.8 59 8
dog 595 Pa .9o 8.» 892 98 598 8.92 598 898

 

 

flea—o 01¢ w 8:88.525 £9 Hue—o 9w E5 9.9 BE duo—o ob F 8:83:83 8 How—o 9.. Ex. 99

76

Table C-6 Traditional Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and

Price, Postrera, 1997 Carazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bean Price (Cordoba/kg)
4.90 5.28 5.57 5.86 6.24 6.53 6.91 7.20 7.58 7.87 8.26
BeanYield
‘ 051m)
182
218
254
291
327
363
400 +10 468 600 732 864 996 1128 1260 1392 1525 1657 1789
436 +20 648 792 936 1080 1224 1368 1513 1657 1801 1945 2089
473 +30 828 984 1140 1296 1453 1609 1765 1921 2077 2233 2389
509 +40 1008 1176 1344 1513 1681 1849 2017 2185 2353 2521 2690
545 +50 1188 1368 1549 1729 1909 2089 2269 2449 2629 2810 2990

 

 

Table C-7 Modern Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis with Changing Bean Yield and Price,
Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bean Price (Cordoba/kg)

4.90 5.18 5.57 5.86 6.24 6.53 6.82 7.20 7.49 7.68 8.16

3mg :5” (31131016 -25 .20 -15 -10 -5 Base +5 +10 +15 +20 +25
318 -50 :2::-‘-' 37 142 246 351 456 560 665 770 1527 979
383 -40 246 372 498 623 749 874 1000 1126 1251 1377 1503
445 -30 560 707 854 1000 1147 1293 1440 1586 1733 1879 2026
509 -20 874 1042 1209 1377 1544 1712 1879 2047 2214 2382 2549
573 -10 1188 1377 1565 1754 1942 2131 2319 2507 2696 2884 3073
636 Base 1503 1712 1921 2131 2340 2549 2759 2968 3177 3387 3596
700 +10 1817 2047 2277 2507 2738 2968 3198 3429 3659 3889 4126
764 +20 2131 2382 2633 2884 3135 3387 3638 3889 4140 4392 4643
828 +30 2445 2717 2989 3261 3533 3805 4078 4350 4622 4894 5166
891 +40 2759 3052 3345 3638 3931 4224 4517 4810 5103 5396 5690
955 +50 3073 3387 3701 4015 4329 4643 4957 5271 5585 5899 6219

 

 

 

Table C-6 and C-7 in local currency and local unit of area is corresponding to Table 4.9

and 4.10.

77

Table 08 Traditional Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor

Prices, Postrera, 199LCarazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Input Price Changes
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% Base +5% +10% +15% +20% +25%
-2596 1267 1225 1183 1141 1100 1058 1016 974 933 891 849
-2096 1233 1191 1149 1107 1066 1024 982 940 899 857 815
-1596 1199 1157 1115 1073 1032 990 948 906 865 823 781
g) -10% 1165 1 123 1081 1039 998 956 914 873 831 789 747
E -5% 1131 1089 1047 1006 964 922 880 839 797 755 713
0; Base 1097 1055 1013 972 930 888 846 805 763 721 679
E + 5% 1063 1021 979 938 896 854 812 771 729 687 645
§ + 10% 1029 987 945 904 862 820 778 737 695 653 611
4-1596 995 953 911 870 828 786 745 703 661 619 578
4-2096 961 919 878 836 794 752 711 669 627 585 544
4-2596 927 885 844 802 760 718 677 635 593 551 510

 

Table C-9 Modern Farmers’ Sensitivity Analysis With Respect To Input, Labor Prices

Postrera, 1997, Carazo and Masaya regions, Nicaragua (Cordoba/manzana)

 

Input Price Changes

 

-2596

-2096

~4596

-1096

-596

lkwe

+596

+10%

+15%

+20%

+2596

 

-25%

2959

2905

2851

2798

2744

2690

2636

2583

2529

2475

2421

 

-2096

2931

2877

2823

2769

2716

2662

2608

2554

2501

2447

2393

 

-1596

2902

2849

2795

2741

2688

2634

2580

2526

2473

2419

2365

 

-10%

2874

2821

2767

2713

2659

2606

2552

2498

2444

2391

2337

 

-596

2846

2792

2739

2685

2631

2577

2524

2470

2416

2363

2309

 

2818

2764

2711

2657

2603

2549

2496

2442

2388

2334

2281

 

-+596

2790

2736

2682

2629

2575

2521

2467

2414

2360

2306

2253

 

-+1096

IaborPfice(Humges

2762

2708

2654

2601

2547

2493

2439

2386

2332

2278

2224

 

+ 15%

2734

2680

2626

2572

2519

2465

2411

2357

2304

2250

2196

 

+ 20%

2705

2652

2598

2544

2490

2437

2383

2329

2276

2222

2168

 

 

 

+ 25%

 

2677

 

2624

 

2570

 

2516

 

2462

 

2409

 

2355

 

2301

 

2247

 

2194

 

2140

 

Table C-8 and C-9 in local currency and local unit of area is corresponding to Table B-1

and B2

78

 

 

Appendix D

TabieD-lSeedQuntityudCoatfor FarmerahTheRacoed-KoephgbatawSDolaraI-dflectau Base)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice of Seed
‘ Farmed! Tm of Seed W) Coda Unit Price
1 DOR364 67 ' 92 1.38
2 0011.364 67 92 1.38
3 Conn 53 55 1.03
4 0011364 53 55 1.03
10 Conn 53 55 1.03
1 1 0011364 53 86 1.61
12 13011364 53 86 1.61
13 0011364 53 86 1.61
14 DOR364 53 86 1.61
15 DOR364 53 86 1.61
Average Vahe 56.1 77.8 1.39
W
‘ Farmed! Tm of Seed M) Costa Unit Price
5 Oracle 63 65 1.03
6 Oracle 67 69 1.03
7 Oracle 67 69 1.03
8 Creole 67 69 1.03
9 Creole 67 69 1.03
Average Vfie 66.1 68.2 1.03
Over-I (N- Anouy. Aquuta ve. Price
59.42 74.63 1.26921

 

 

Tbcaveragcvaiuuobtainothabie4J. Foreachtypeofaampleafl‘otal aampie.traditoinal fammmndmodemfarmera)

79

TabieD-2 FcriIIerQundtyandCatforFar-enhmkcmrdokcephgbauwsmhrandflccun Bare)

 

 

  
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 24 0
2 1846-0 135 48 0.36 24 62 0
3 1846-0 66 18 0.28 12 30 0
10 1846-0 66 18 0.28 12 30 0
11 1846-0 135 49 0.36 24 62 0
12 1846-0 135 49 0.36 24 62 0
13 1846-0 135 49 0.36 24 62 0
14 1846-0 135 49 0.36 24 62 0
‘ 15 1846-0 135 49 0.36 24 6_2 0
‘ Total 1879.4 378.1 3.1 1943 496.3 8.8
Ave. Qtty. Ave. Ceata Ave. Unit Price Average N Average P Average K
N-18 187.94 37.81 8.33 19.43 49.63 8.88
N-9 119.93 42.81 8.33 21.39 33.17 8.88
15 46-0-0 2 1 0.27 o o
‘ 12 46-0-0 2 1 0._30 l 0 0
Total 4.1 1.3 8.6 1.9 8.8 8.8
Ave. Qtty. Ave. Certs Ave. UaitPrice AverageN AverageP Average K
N-18 8.41 8.12 8.28 8.19 8.88 8.88
M 2.86 8.38 8.28 8.93 8.88 8.88
bet-fig 1846-8 8 area
N-18 188.33 37.92 8.33 19.62 49.63 8.88
FM Cd- ill-WW
5 12-30-10. 101 28 0.27 12 30 10
6 12-30-10. 101 28 0.27 12 30 10
7 12-30-10 68 18 0.27 8 20 7
8 12-30-10. 68 18 0.27 8 20 7
9 12-30-10. 135 37 0.27 16 41 14
Total 473.3 128.7 1.4 36.8 142.1 47.4
Ave. Qtty. Ave. Casts Ave. Uait Price Average N Average P Average K
N-3 94.71 23.74 897 11.36 28.41 9.47
Overal (Bl-13) Ave. Qtty. Ave. Certs Ave. Ualt Price
N-13 183.88 33.86 8.33 16.87 42.37 3.16
N-14 111.22 36.28 8.33 18.87 43.61 3.38

 

 

vaalu-obtahemeabieM M4.21‘a1‘¢tiliarue.Foreadityped'mmevaluahthcmet'N-IO'JN-S'.

am-rs-nm-mwummummrwmm.

80

TabieD-JWeMaadCaati‘erFl-en
hTheRecard-KeephgbatawSDoliaraadHectue Bane)

 

Table D-S Faagicide Quantity and Cost for Farmers
h The Record—Keeping Data (US Dollar and Battle Due)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herbicide (lee (Delirium! Fen-era did not .) F=gicide Us: (Traditional Fer-ten did eat m.)
PM Type Quantityolter) Unit Price Farmed Type 011th Ceeta lUg Price
1 Fmilade 1.5 39.1 26.56 1 NA 167 2 0.011
2 M 1.5 13.8 9.38 2 NA 167 2 0.011
1 1 Grams 1.5 9.2 6.25 1 1 Balm 250 5 0.021
12 Flax 1.5 39.1 26.56 11 Cent 500 6 0.012
12 Fuilade 1.5 39.1 26.56 12 Baden 250 5 0.021
14 Gums 1.5 9.2 6.25 12 Coppu 500 6 0.012
15 arm 1.5 9.2 6.25 14 Bulata 250 5 0.021
15 P'iex 1.5 34.5 23.44 15 Bcaiate 250 5 0.021
15 Made 1.5 39.1 26. 56 15 500 6 0.012
Tetd 13.24 232.” 157.81 ‘ Totd 2834.98 43.35 8.14
Ave. Olly. Ave. Caeta AvaPrice Ave. Qtry. AvaCeeta AvePrice
N- 15 8.88 13.47 17.3 N- 15 188.99 2.89 8.82
18 1.32 23.21 17.53 10 283.49 4.34 8.82
6 2.21 38.68 17.9 6 472.48 7.23 8.82

 

 

 

 

 

TaHeNWMy-dCukF-ua

 

theRecerd-KeepthatawSDelarudiiecthue)

 

 

TafleMTraahaCeatraaQa-thy-dCe‘terPu-ua
hTheRecard-KeepiagbataNSDoilaraadi‘iectanB-e)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fidel- Carma
1 !
Farmer“ Type Qautfly Ceeta Uait Price
1 Animal 1 123 12.25
2 Animal 1 12.3 12.25
3 Animal 1 12.3 1225
4 Animal 1 10.7 10.72
10 Animal 1 12.3 1225
4 11 Animal 1 12.3 12.25
Total 8.82 47. 95 32_ 60 11 Machine 3 33.7 11.3
Ave. Qtty. Ave. Ceata Ave. Price 12 Aninnl 1 153 1532
14- 10 8.88 479 543 14 Animal 1 153 15.32
6 1.47 7.99 so 15 Machine 2 29.1 14.55
Total 13.00 163.44 120.42
Ave. Qtty. Ave. Ceeta Ave. Price
Par-are '1 Costa Uait Price N- 10 1.30 16.34 12.73
5 M'I'D 2.6 11.8 4.6 9 1.44 18.38 12.73
6 MTD 29 13.5 4.6
7 MTD 1-5 6-7 4-6 W
a MTD 1.5 6.7 4.6 Par-acre Type Qaanucy Cam. Uait Price
9 MTD _ 1.5 6.7 4.6 5 Animal 2 24. 5 1225
Total 9.93 4550 22.2- 6 Animal 2 24.5 12.25
Ave. Qtty. Ave. Costa Ave. Price 7 Animal 1 123 1225
14- 5 1.99 9.10 4.58 8 Animal 2 24.5 12.25
Overal (hr-15) Ave. Qtty. Ave. Ceeta Ave. Price 9 Animal 3 30.3 12.77
N-13 125 6.23 490 Total 10.00 124.00 61.79
N-ll 1.70 149 490 Ave. Qtty. Ave. Casts Ave. Price
14- s 2.00 24.82 1241
Overall (N-15) Ava. Qity. Ava. Ceeta Ava. Price
14-15 1.53 19.30 12.59
14-14 1.64 28.68 12.59

 

 

 

 

Avaragevalu-obta'med'm'l’abietlferothcr'qume. Foreachtypeefaalpiqthevalaee'mthemaof'N-IO', 'N-5",
and'N-15'areuedaaavcragcvalaeeformoduaaadtladiticaalfaluaeralmplercepectivcly.
Othu'N'ICN-6,N-9,N-11.udN-14)mmnbudmawhacmallyucdthacpalficuhrm

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baraclough, Solon, A Preliminary Analysis of the Nicaraguan Food System. United
Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1982.

Baraclough, Solon, A van Buren, A Gariazzo, A Sundaram, and Peter Utting,
Aid That Counts: 77le Western Contribution to Development and Survival in Nicaragua
Transnational Institute, 1988.

Belli, Pedro. Eds. “Handbook on Economic Analysis of Investment Operations”
Operations Policy Department, World Bank, 1996.

Carter, Michael R. The impact of credit on peasant productivity and difl'erentiation in
Nicaragua. Journal of Development Emngmigs, Vol. 31 (1989), pp. 13-36.

CIAT, Annual Report: Bean Program, 1989.

Colburn, Forrest D, Post-Revolutionary Nicaragua — State, Class, and 77m Dilemmas of
Agrarian policy. University of California Press. 1986.

Dillon, 1 I. and J. B. Hardaker, Farm Management Research for Small Farmer
Development. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin. 1980.

Enriquez, Laura J. Harvesting change: labor and agrarian reform in Nicaragua, 19 7 9-
1990. University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Food and Agriculture Organization (F AO), On-line Data Statistics, several data.

Gittinger, J.P. “Economic Analysis of Agricultural Project” Economic Development
Institute, World Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Godoy, R. Hockenstein. J. Agricultural research bias in Nicaragua: the case of beans.
World mvelgpment. Nov 1992. v. 20 (1 1) p. 1685-1696.

INTA, Diagnostico de la Produccion de Frijol de la Region B-5. INTA, 1996.

INTA, Perfil de la Produccion de Frijol en Nicaragua.INTA, 1998.

82

Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Basic Socio-Economic Data: Nicaragua,
March 1998.

IADB, Nicaragua: Food and Agricultural Revitalization Program, November 1997,
Unpublished.

International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Financial Statistics, Several Volumes
(1988-1998).

Library of Congress, Country Study: Nicaragua, 1993.

Liljestam, Agneta, Suazo,-Jorge., Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. U-landsavdelningen.
Ihe Nicaraguan food and agriculture sector. Rural development studies / Sveriges
lantbruksuniversitet. International Rural Development Division, 0346-7282 ; no. 20.
Uppsala : Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, International Rural Development
Centre, 1987.

Martel, Pedro. Ph.D. Dissertation, A Socio-economic Study of the Honduran Bean
Subsector: Production Characteristics, Adoption of Improved Varieties, And Policy
Implications. 1995, Michigan State University.

Michigan State University Extension Bulletin, Insect, Disease and Nematode Control for
Commercial Vegetables, Michigan State University, No. E-312, January, 1999.

Munguia, Roberto. Abelardo Viana, Marcos Sotelo, Validacion y aceptabilidad de dos
lineas promisorias defiijol, en el Pacifico Sur de Nicaragua. Instituto Nicaragfiense de

Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INT A), 1994.

Munguia, Roberto. Abelardo Viana, Marcos Sotelo. Estudio de Aceptabilidad en
Consumo de dos Lineas Promisorias de Frijol para Nicaragua. INTA, 1995.

Pachico, Douglas. Bean Technology for Small Farmers: biological, economic and policy
issues. WM. 1984. Vol.15, p.71-86.

PROFRIJOL, “Flujo de gerrnoplasma e impacto del PROFRIJOL en Centroamérica”.
PROFRIJOL, I998.

Salomon, Eva. Maize-bean intercrop system in Nicaragua: efl'ect of plant arrangements
and population densities on the land equivalent ratio (LER), relative yield total (RY?)
and weed abundance: a minor field study. Working paper / Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences 1100-8679; v 148. 1990.

Spoor, Max. Issues of state and market: from interventionism to deregulation of food
markets in Nicaragua. World-Development. 1994. Vol.22 (4) p. 517-533.

83

Spoor, Max. Liberalization of grain markets in Nicaragua: fiom market substitution to
state minimalim. My. Apr 19958. Vol.20 (2) p. 99—110.

Spoor, Max. ”The State and Domestic Agricultural Markets in Nicaragua”. Institute of
Social Studies, St. Martin’s Press. 1995b.

Utting, Peter, “The peasant question and development policy in Nicaragua,” Discussion
Paper #2, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1988.

US. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (F AS).
“Agricultural Situation Annual Report: Nicaragua.” NUSOOS, NU6010, NU7008. 1995,
96, 97, respectively.

USDA, FAS, Global Agriculture Information Network, Nicaragua: Preliminary
Agricultural Damage Report from Hurricane Mitch 1998

Vandermeer, John. Agriculture and 77m Environment in Nicaragua. 1993. Unpublished.

Winter, Donald H. The Agricultural economy of Nicaragua. Worker;
Studios, Vol. 6, No. 4 1964, pp. 501-519.

World Bank, World Dovolooment Roma 1998/1999, Washington DC. 1998
World Bank, W, Washington DC. 1998

84