~.c~li\lT ~assava Micro- e~!Q~ I• n Part of Eastern Paf8tJuay .. An explanation of their form and comparative study df Cassava production within sorne of them Simon E. Carter Agroecological Studies Unit November 1986 (.; iA T I HU 9235 [entro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical - CIAT .(.;36 (.;36 Cali, Colombia .... , ") " "";'" , i ;. .: ~.'..\- Cassava Micro-Regions in Part of Eastern Paraguay An explanation of their form and comparative study of Cassava production within sorne of them ./-~ ,f"~ ::~ 'IT - :~.... ': -;~; / \ . '.: ,.; .. ~í I . -~~' L----:_ ~ _, "j \ L-J , : ! .. ~\-,-r-rA ' . : __ ¡ --1 1 C ... '-" .'1 ~. ~ f' 'ce'" " 1.11,." /:jOO (jI SC(; Simon E. Carter Agroecological Studies Unit November 1986 Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical - CIAT Cali, Colombia .. i Acknowledoement Many people have contributed to the completion of this work. In Paraguay Ing. Juan Molinas, Director, SEAG gave tremendous SL\pport wi thout whi ch the surveys coul d newer have been undertaken. 1ng. Cesar Caballero provided companionship, translation, and a great deal of help in the field. The directors of SEAS"s regional offices kindly permitted the participation of their field specialists in the formal survey, ",ha in turn collected da,ta of e",cellent quality. Spacial thanks to Juan Pablo Morel for assistance in the field and his hospitality. For their hospitality in Asunción l'm indebted to Lucy Pampliega and family, Zoraida de Rodriguez and Blanca de Ballotti. In CIAT l'm extremely grateful to Otoniel Madrid, Walter Hurtado and Yuviza Barona, for their pacience and labour in the codification, production of maps and diagrams, and typing respectively. Finally 1 must thank Peter Jones fer th., confidence he's had in me which made it a11 posslble, and Gloria and Danny for being here. 1 1 Líst of Tables Page 1.1 Cassava production by Department. 6 1" 2 ·Quantity of cassava entering AsunciÓn's 'Mercado Abasto'. 8 1.3 Consumption of cooked cassava in one week on 23 farms in Caagua=ú (colonia BIas Garay, Coronel Oviedo). 9 2.1 Urban and rural population by Department for the area studied (1982). 27 Relationship between age ofsettlement aMd existence of foresto 27 Relationship between number of c.= viii Page 19: Sal e of cassav'a by the f ar-mer- or- thr-ough an int.er-mediar-y. 20: Shor-tage of cassava. 21: Micr-o-r-egions for- cassava. MAPS 5-21 ARE IN THE POCKET AT THE BAU: OF THE REPORT. 22: Sur-vey ar-eas, Par-aguar-l sample. 72 23: Sur-vey ar-eas, Caaguazú sample. 74 LIST DF CDNTENTS F'age Acknowledgment i List of Tables i i List of Figu. .. es iii List of Maps iv L INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 F'urpese of the Study 1 1. 1.1 Micro-regien definition fo ... Cassava 1 1. 1. 2 CIAT-SEAG-IDRC Cassava F'roject 1 1.2 The Impo ... tance of Cassava in Paraguay 4 1.2 .. 1 Cassava production 4 1.2.2 Cassava consumption 7 1.3 The Role of Micro-region Definition in Cassava Research in Paraguay 12 1.3.1 P ... oblems and opportunities in Cassava prOdL\ction 12 1.3.2 How can micro-regions help'C' 12 2. DEFINITION DF THE MICRO-REGIONS 16 2.1 Method 16 2.1.1 Limits of the area studied 16 2.1.2 Survey design 17 2.1.3 The informal survey 19 ,2.1.4 The formal survey 20 2.2 Environment and Ag ... iculture in the Study Area 21 Page 2.2.1 Physical and human geography of the study area Climate 21 GeQlogy and Topography 22 80ils 24 Population 26 Agricultura! activities and types of farm 28 2.2.2 Informal and formal survey resLtlts 29 Soil, Soil Fertility and Erosion 29 Cash crops: Distribution ~1!'",,) ~.~ Cash crops: Related cash flow Cash crops: Marketing and access 38 Agricultural credit 41 Other sources of cash 43 Use of fertilizers and other inputs 43 F arm si z e and Land Tenure 44 Cassava production, Fallowing and rotations 50 Cassava production, Land preparation 51 Cassava production, F'lanting, varieties and croppinq systems 52 Cassava production, Weedinq, inputs and production problems 55 Cassava productionl Harvesting, starch prodl,lcti on and other uses 57 Sale of cassava 59 Supply of cassava an the farm 63 2.3 The Form and Description of the Micra-Regions 66 2.3.1 Form of the micro-regions 66 2.3.2 Variables used in the definition of the micro-regions 66 3. A CASE STUDY OF CASSAVA PRODUCING FARMS IN PARAGUARI AND CAAGUAZU 70 3.1 Why, Where and How? 70 3.1.1 Purpose of case studies 70 3.1.2 Selectíon of case-study locatíons and farms 73 3.2 The sample of farms 77 3*2.1 Farro size 77 3.2.2 Farm tenure 8::::· 3.2.3 Land use apportionment amongst cash crops and other uses 85 Cultivated area 85 Proportíon of the farm in cash crops 89 Relative importance of cash crops in the two samples 93 Page Reasons for preference for tMe-different cash crops 96 Underutil i sati on of .1and 104 3.2.4 Inhabitants and population of cassava­ consuming animals 108 3.3 Area in Cassava 109 3.3.1 Area by age of the crop 109 3.3.2 Analysis of the area of recently sown cassava 117 3.3.3 Analysis of the area of cassava used for consumptíon at tMe time of tMe survey 122 3.3.4 Reasons gíven for not planting more cassava 132 3.4 Soils Conditions in Cassava Fields of the Sample of Farms 138 3.4.1 Objectives 138 3.4.2 5ampling and analysis 139 3 .. 4.3 Soil fertility and texture 139 3.4 .. 4 50il textural differences between the soi1 classes identified by farmers 148 4. CONCLUSIONS 152 4.1 Method for Defining the Micro-Regions 152 4.1.1 Method used, costs of fieldwork and time required 152 4.1.2 Results of informal and formal surveys 153 4.1.3 Case-study resu1ts 154 4.2 Cassava Production within an Agro-Socio-' economic system 155 4.2.1 Commercial CaSsava production andmarket.ing 156 4.2.2 Cash flow 159 4.2.3 Cassava product.íon for subsistenc:e 160 4.2.4 Labour shortages 164 4.2.5 Soi 1 fertí 1 í ty 166 4.2.6 Land holding 167 4.3 Towards so me solutions 168 4.3.1 Whic:h farmers? 168 4.3.2 Subsístenc:e production 169 4.3.3 Production of cassava for the market 171 Page SUMMARY 176 REFERENCES 182 APPENDICES: APPENDIX 1, Semi-structured .framework for informal interview, cassava production, ParagLlay 186 APPENDIX.2, Questionnaire used in the formal survey 194 APPENDIX 3: Named cassava varieties recorded during the formal survey 211 APPENDIX 4, Questionnaire used in Case-Study samples in ParagLlari and Caaguazú 212 APPENDIX 5: Selected land-use data, inhabitants and animals which are fed cassava on the case-study sample of farms 221 AF'PENDIX 6: Farm size distribution by Department and District 225 1. INTRDDUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Study 1.1.1 Micro-region definítian fer Cassava ClAT's Agroecological Studíes Unit i5 currently defíning micro-regians far Cassava. These are geographical areas which are climatically and edaphically homogeneous for cassava, and within which other, diverse, factors which influence production of the crop are 5imilarly unifarm. These factars range from topagraphy to cropping system, and may not all be of importance in every micra-regían. Micro-regian definitian consists af different levels ar stages (Carter 1986). Once defined, micra-regions serve as a data-storage Llnit in the CIAT database. Data can be added ta ar referenced fram this database by ClAT sc:ientists, ta aid in researc:h orientatian, project planning, or site selec:tian far trials and surveys. 1. 1. 2 CIAT-SEAG-IDRC Cassava projec:t Micra-regian definition is c:urrently being carried out in areas of spec:ial interest ta ClAT's Cassava Pragram. 2 One of theee ie the 'central' area of eastern Paraguay (Map 1). The Paraguayan Agricultural Extensíon Servíce (Servicio de Extension Agricola y Ganadera - SEAG) began a Cassava Project in 1986, financed by IDRC of Canada and with technical assistanca from CIAT. The project's components consist of a descríption of the pIanned proJect areae and caeeava production within ~hem, the realization of on farm and on-etation research, investigation af post-harvest technologies suítable for ParagLlayan conditions, and economic analyses of current production and futura potential. Little was known previously in CIAT about cassava production, 01' its relationship with envi ,·onmental conditions in Paraguay. In addition, agr i CL!l tL\re in Paraguay has been undergoing dramatic ch",nges over the last 30 'years 01' ea, as previously unpopL\lated regions have been colonized and defarested. In its planning stages, the proJect was split between an area of aId established agriculture on small farms, anÓ a more recently estabIished colonization area of larger farms. Micro-region definitíon for this part of Paraguay will help scientists to understand the differences between these contrasting regions, and the way such differences affect cassava production. By defining the micro-regions at an early stage in the projects' e"olutíon it i5 hoped to prov}de useful information for rational decision making in the planning stages of the r ese".r ch . 3 ! ! CHACO ! 1 -'-'-._.- '- '.1 "-'-.-._~. I1 ".' ? .,/ \'f NUEVA ASUNClON , / ALTO PARAGUAY .--.-......... ~ " _._._.-,.. I \... :" _._-'--_._. )--'-'-'-'"\. r.... ___. ....... _-' ... \.. . (- ',! I ~ / ) \ .T'~_ BOQUERQN I ).;""J \ ~ j¡ ¿l CONCEPCION .) "'J- 1 I I ~ /~ i l..._ ........./ _.-..,. ~J """ /_. _.1 PRESIDENTE HAYES l." \ .,¡ ..".. 1t / t \' .I f" ." ! ... CANENDIYU ¡SAN PEDRO \... f""'-" ! \ J { ~. ; ( ,.. ,,') -" I \., .... . ('-', //",. ...... ~ L_I "j CAAGUAZU-\ =_7'E'-J.~ 1 .-.{'\ r \ i ./ .j ,,,' .l; I ~"1~<. ''''--'-'-'',.1 ( ALTO ~ \tG~~~":·./· ¡ PARANA '_ ,-r (>." ,Vt - !~'. .. ,,-~ --". '" l. .... Ii '"lI " \f ""1..'.'.' ..... "..U.. P A.,. 7, ._._~ . .#-,-"i , ~ ')na... J __ ,,--.... ~ \ "'-..J \.,_j \ \ MiSiONES). .... ~!:' l . .... _., Ii , ,\ __~ c. i ( MAP 1: Paraguay: Administrativa units (Departments) 4 1.2 The importance of Cassava in Paraguay 1.2.1 Cassava production Paraguay is the second largest producer of eassava in Latin America, after Brazil. Average annual produetion is estimated on average at 2,137,000 metrie tons, 7.5% of Latin American production (Lynam 1986; ~verage figures for 1982-4) • With a popL!lation of only 3,029,830 in 1982 (Dirección General de Estadística y Censos, 1985) per eapita production is approximately 700 kg per year, by far the highest in Latin America. The 1982 agricultural eensus r"ecorded 178,937.25 ha. of cassava, but did not distingui5h between newly sown ea5sava and old cassava (one year or more). Data in Lynam (1986) 5how cassava area to be highest in Brazil (1,987,300 ha) followed by Colombia (208,000 ha), and thirdly Paraguay (145,300 ha - lower than the census figure). If we di5count Mexico and Barbados, relatively 5mall producers, yield levels, at 14.7 kg/ha are the highest in Latin America (Lynam, 1986). Wi thi n Paraguay prOdL!eti on i s concentrated in the eastern, wetter, half of the country (Table 1.1). The area sown to cassava is greatest in the departments of Caaguazú, Itapúa and San Pedro. The5e are areas of relatively recent colonization. Areas of more reeent eolonization, with small populations, have the smallest areas of cassava (Amambay and Canendi yú) . Central department has less eassava than its 5 neighbours, despite its high population. The proportion af farmers growing cassava in the departments of eastern Paraguay is lowest in Central, and highest in Caazapá department. The average area of cassava sown per farm ie highest in the departments with the lawest total tarea. , Amambay and Canendiyú. Average area of cassava per farm (in eastern Paraguay) Is lowest in 'Misiones, Central, Par .. guarí, and ~eembucú departments. In the two departments se1ected for the S.E.A.6.-CIAT­ IDRC projects, Caaguazú and Paraguarí, a high proportion of farms (90 .. nd 88% respectively) grow cassava. Caaguazú has the largest number of farms (per department) in Paraguay, and Paraguari the second 1 .. r'gest 6 TABLE 1. 1 e.S5.Vi Production by De,.rtlent Deparhent Area Soon Nulber 01 1 (¡ssava Hectares (Ha) farls GroMers per la,. (with Iandl Easte,o Region Alto Paraná 11,94B 13,630 7B.0 1.12 Au.bay 5,120 4,On BU 1.41 Caaguazd 30,765 35,909 90.1 0.95 Cmap.! 12,716 15,4-49 93.2 0.B8 Canendirá 6,242 7,615 65.6 1.25 Central 5,211 13,675 52.4 Q.73 ConcepcUn 9,521 12,717 B4.9 O.BB Cordillera 13,488 20,281 80.9 0.82 6uairA 12,667 16,259 91.2 o.a5 Itaplla 24,736 30,264 86.5 0.94 "¡siones 3,727 8,930 72.0 o.sa lleelbucu 3,66/¡ 6,351 59.3 0.74 Par aguar; 16,979 26,379 87.1> o.n San Pedro 21,597 25,365 81.9 0.91 Meste,. Re,ion (Chacol Alto Paraguay B 654 1.4 0.93 Baquerln 354 2,219 27.0 Q.59 Chaco 9 60 51,.7 0.25 Nueva Asuncion O 7 0.0 0.00 Presidente Haye. 184 1,961 15.5 0.61 ----~-~-----~~---~-_.~~~-.----------------------------~-------.-.---- Seurce: Resalen.; de Datos Prelilinare;, Cense Nariona} Agropecuario 1981. "inisterie d. Agricultura y Sanaderia. 7 market, and Alto Paraná, a150 5erving Asunción and Ciudad Presidente StroeS5ner. Truckloads of fresh ca5sava enter Asuncion 's Mercado de Abasto ever-y day from Caaguazú. Monthly data showíng these amounts are given for 1982 a.nd 1983 in Table 1.2. 1.2.2 Cassava consumption Cassava is the staple food in the rural Paraguayan dieto Cassava consumption per capita in Paraguay is the highest in Latin America. Although some 611. of total production is Ltsed for animal feed, (Lynam and Pachico, 1982, Table 15), per capita consumption is estimated at 110.1 kg per year for the COLtntry as a whole; rural per capita consumption is estim¿l.ted ¿l.t 180 kg/ye¿l.r and urban at 35 kg/ye¿l.r (Lyn¿l.m and P¿l.chico, 1982, Table 3). Cassav¿l. i s eaten wi th eve.ry meal. begínning with breakfast, in rural arei3.S. In L!rban areas it 15 l¿l.rgely repl¿l.ced by bread and other wheat products sllch as pasta, although per capita consumption is still far higher than in any other Latin American cOLmtry (Lynam and Pachíco, 1982) . Sorne rBther selective data collected by the Agricultural E>:tensi on Serví ce in Coronel Ovi edo, Ca8.guazú, suggest even higher rural levels of cassava con5umption than those cited prevíously. In a survey of 23 farms, weekly c:assava c:onsumption (kilos of cooked c:assava) appears to be directly r-elated to the number ef adults and children en the farm nable 1.3). 8 TAlllE 1.2 Ouantity of cass!.a !.,trie tonnesl entering A.uncíon's '"arcado Abasto', IIontb ------- Vear ------- 1982 1983 January 3,203 2,m February 3,240 3,310 llarch 3,809 3,878 April 3,545 3,267 May 3,145 4,065 June 3,922 .,762 July 3,'14 4,981 AlllJust 3,667 5,J89 Septubl!l' 3,776 5,205 Dctobar 3,8'10 4,419 HovNller 3,291 3,168 Deteober 3,132 1,787 TOTAL u,m 47,022 Soure!: "onthly recDrds. Hercado Abasto, Asunción. TABLE 1.3 ConsulPtion 01 cooked c¡ssava (kgl in one Meek on 23 farls in Caaguaz~ (colonia BIas Saray, Coronel Dvíedo). Farl size Nullller of Nuber 01 Kilos 01 cooked adul h resident children resident cass.va conSUltd (Ha) (14-. yrs) 14-13 yrs) in oeek Df survey 40.0 4 O 17.0 25.0 7 73.0 10.0 !i 3 56.0 5.0 2 O 7.5 15.0 3 3 22.0 10.0 10.0 ,2 2 8.5 5 107.5 6.5 2 2 48.5 13.0 7 3 55.0 10.0 2 O 10.0 5.0 ¡, 4 70.0 5.0 2 16.0 10.0 2 2 37.5 4.0 2 O 16.5 10.0 4 2 46.0 3.0 2 27.5 7.0 3 2 4S.5 20.0 2 3 16.0 15.0 b 2 35.S 10.0 2 2 2ó.5 15.0 4 5 43.5' 6.5 2 O 20.0 5.0 3 5 46.0 Sourct: Unpublished .ur.ey data, 5.E.A.S., Coronel a.¡edo, P.raquay. • Estínted. Koh: For so •• far.s 1.ft-Ovets .ere ••j ghed and discounted Irol tb. total 01 ,oohó ca.san. Ihis infor.atioo .as not avajlablt for last. .' 10 A regression model fitted to this data takes the following form: y = 7.86X.+ 4.4X z where Y = Id los cooked cassava consumad per week X, = number of adults on the farm (14 + yrs) X,. = number of children on the farm (4-13 yrs) The model accounte for 74.7% of the variance in Y. The estímate of the coefficient of X. ie significant at the 0.025 level. That for X", 1S not significant at the 0.1 level. If we ignore the fact that so me cooked cassava is discarded (fed to animals) then the model predicts that weekly consUmption per adult is almost 8.0 kilos, and for children 4.5 kilos. Alternatively, if adults and children are assumed to consume equal qu,anti ti es, a new model predlcts weekly consumption per person to be 6.5 kilos, or almost one kilo per day. This accounts for 74.1% of the variance in Y. If farm size is added to the number of adults and number of children, the mode1 is as fo110ws: y = 9.54X. + 3.98X,. - O.547X3 where X~ i5 farm size. (Y, X., and X", as aboye) Note that this model predicts that cassava consumption declines as farm size increases, although the coefficient ls not signifieant at the 0.1 level. This modal accounts for 77.5% of the variance in the observad y values. If we use them to extrapolate consumption for a full year, the first and second models predict annual eonsumptíon of eooked cassava to be about 430 kg for adults, 230 kg for ehiIdren, or 340 kg per person; this latter figure is almost ¡ ! twice that estimated aboye by 'Lynam and F'achico. Wi tho~(t ,I ~ data on how much was discarded we muest assume that these i are overestimated, but 1 do not think that they are very far ¡, wrong. Most animals, sueh as pigs, are fed raw eassava and , i it is unlikely that a family wDuId eook mueh more cassava I then was necessary for human eonsumption. Whether these figures, from Caaguazú, are representative fer rural eastern Paraguayas a whole is diffieult te answer. The surveys ..e re conducted almost entirely in May 1984. Vari ati on in Cassava consumption from place to place is possible, and may depend on the available alternatives, especially bread and otheY' wheat products (panificados) . Variation in consumption over time is li~:ely, and may depend en the availability of eassava 011 the farm, and the availability ef cash te huy ether foodstuffs. In general terms, cash incoma is highest frem March te May (the cotton harvestl and lowest from October to February. It may be that if occupants of the farms surveyed' were, in May, buying more of other foodstu1fs, cassava consumption .. as lower than average!. Whichever way consumption levels are calculated, eassava is undoubtedly a very important subsistence crop. a staple, in rural Pe>,raguay. 12 It is estimilted thilt b1t. of cilssaVil is used as animal feed (Lynam ilnd Pilchico 1982). Most fa.r"ms hilve a few pi gs in Paraguay. Some, especiillly in ltapóa department, specialize in pig production and sow cassava for feed. Milk cows and sometimes oxen ilre fed cassava, depending on the availability of Cilssava on the filrm. Cattle and pigs papulations are given by farm-size graup in the 1981 Census preliminary results (M.A.G. 1983). 1.3 The role of micro-region definition in Cilssava research in Paraguay. 1.3.1 Problems and opportLmities in Cassava production. The proposal for the SEAG-CIAT-IDRC Cassava Project (Brun al. 1985) defines a nLtmber of problems of Cilssava prodL!cti on, and sorne al ternilt i Ves for research to seek solutions to these as part of the project. Primarily the systematic loss of soi1 fertility in old established cassava producing regions around Asunci6n (Departments of Central, Cordillera and Paraguarí) is identified. AlthOLtgh not stated, this is partly a result of increasing pressure on the land from a growing population, and the consequent reduction in size of farms and bush-fallaw periods. Cassava produc:tion far the Asunción market has therefore shi"fted to more recent1y colonized areas, particularly Caaguazó, where soil fertility i5 higher and higher yields a result of this. It is admitted, however, 13 that the same soll problems are likely to develop there, since no change in agricultural practices has occLlrred. In fact, most farmers in Caaguazú have moved from the central areas which surround AsunciÓn. Cassava from eaaguazó is of better qLlality and cheaper than that from areas nearer AsunciÓn. However, the greater dlstance to market means that deterioration of roots increases before they reach the consumer, and they cost more. The quality of roots varies greatly and a high proportion are rejected. Cassava is also used for starch prodc\ction in this part of Paraguay. Starch is produced on a small scale in many households, as well as in a semi-lndLlstriallzed from in ¡ some places. The quality is generally poor, which limits ! the possibilities for sale. 1 Brun et al ( 1985) identify opportunities for t, lmproving on-farm animal feeding using cassava, and for lmproving starch production and ~tarch quality. They underline the need to characterize and classify the diverse cassava germplasm whlch ParagL\a.y possesses. The project's broad objective is to make available suitabIe technologies to increase production, productivity and the processing of cassava in Paraguay. The project will test avaiIable post-harvest technology, and include studies of actual production processes) on-farm feeding and socio-economic conditions. The project also has an important agronomic research campanent. Methods of improving actual production 14 systems using technology already developed by CIAT (such as selection of seed, plantlng densities and seed storage) will be tested under F'arag~layan eondi ti ons. Experi ments Llsin:;! legumes as protectlve COVer" crops, and legume rotati~1ns wil1 attempt to address the soil fertility problem. SLlccessful eomponents will then be diffused over large areas. 1.3.2 How can micro-regions help? Defining micro-regions for cassava befare such a project gets underway can provide much useful i nformati on for those involved in the project, in ParagLlay and in CIAT. Brun et ~ (1985) identify a significant difference in soíl fertility affecting yields. By definíng micro-regions, we can distlnguish between those places where fertilíty 15 relatively high, and those where it is poor. As wi 11 be shown, not everywhere in Par¿'.gLlClr i department has poor infertile soils. Nar does everywher'e in CaagL''''zú have fertile solls. Defining micro-regions, or any sort of region, needs sorne point of reference, some variable which 1S unifarm within it. These paints of referen~e ean be relatively statie, far example topography or climate, ar dynamic, SLlch as soi 1 fertility. Whilst maps and secondary data may indieate static variables, ta identify dynamie variables (or processes) requí res f i rst hand kno",¡ edge of the area. 11iero-regions should be maps af the distribution of both statie B.nd dynamic factors which affect cassava produetian. 15 Hence, not only is it necessary to identify climatic or topographic -differences between regions, but also differences in farm size,. in access to markets, in use of inputs such as fertilizers. We wish to identify pr'oblems like that of so11 fertility, problems perceived by farme,-s, and not only problems but also opportuníties such as those mentiqned by Brun ~ al. Micro-regions can be used as simple distribution maps, for example to identify areas of steep topography, inferti le soils or small farms, to inform cassava researchers of the environmental and socio-economic conditions in that part of eastern F'arag~lay in question. They can be used to allow the areas immediately involved in the project to be compared with their surrounding areas. This can aid in the e,y work, any available sec:ondary data which i5 relevant 18 PRESIDENTE HAYES SAN PEDRO ~ •......•. ~ .••.......•••••..• "1 .................. " ............ .. .;...r. .... ! ,: I "-, !/ ' "o ~.( CORDILLERA ,I CAAGUAZU " "./ • 'v''\ ./ .¡C ENTRAL:.)\ // . / \. ,/ . .1 \.-. -',-.~. \ " <:; \ r-·".r-·~r····· .-/ ...... -.J.'\.:- f' -,./ -.,.,....- .... ... ,\ "'""\. /' .. \"...-' : .1 : (, ! . : I ~ \ \. GUAIRA :: ./i PARAGUARI ~ . ............... .. {~... .. .... ~ ..C...A...A...Z...A...P..A...; . MAP 2: Location of the study area 19 to the area is examined. Informal interviews are then eondueted throughout the region under study. These interviews answer initial researeh questions and provoke new ones. When the investigator ís satisfied that he has ídentified a11 the factors of interest 1:0 him, questions are formalized and a questionnaire designed. The entire study area is dívided up into a grid, and a questipnnaire is eompleted in eaeh grid eell at a loeation ehosen at random. 2.1.3 The informal survey The broad goal of this stage is to decide how cassava production is related to and dependent on other activities on the farm and external factors, sueh as market aeeess. Then, ta look at how these, and henee eassava produetion, vary from place to place. This is done by visiting as many different places in the study area as possíble. The study area was divided into a grid of nine squares. Within each, two sites were chosen at random as the 10cations for informal surveys. About 30 were completed over O. per i ad of ane week. The framewark for these is given in Appendi x 1. Farmers were appraached O.t ri'\ndom at eaeh place. The interview framework was not followed in its entirety with eaeh farmer. Rather, items were introduced far discussion and the final content of the interview depended on how much the farmer was prepared to tal k i'\bOLlt each topie:. In fact, the framework CAppendix 11 proved to be too ambitious and after the first few interviews 20 questions were limited to those aspects which were particularly interesting or significant. It wasn't possible to investigate fully all avenues of interest for lack 0+ time. 2.1.4 The formal survey To complete the gap. in available data and defin~ the distribution of those factors of lnterest identifled in the informal survey. a questionnaire ls conducted. TM. type of questionnaire used ls designed to elicit data relating to plaees and groups of farms, rather than individual respondents. Generalizations rather than precise facts are sought (See Carter 1986,,). The questionnaire appears in Appendix 2. A sample of settlements JcompaRias) is taken from the total population of named places on available, detalled maps (1:100,000 scale). The survey area is divided into a 10 km x 10 km grid. AIl grid squares eontaining only flood-prone land or uninhabited forest are e,,,:::luded, since nEither are These areas can be identified from the topegraphie maps. Random eoordinates are used te c:hoose one settlement (usually a compañia) within eaeh grid square. Dne questionnaire is elaborated at eaeh settlement wi th a group ef f armers or 1 abour-ers. The nature and purpose of the questionnaire is explained to them, and it is stressed that questions refer te the whole of the eqmpañia 21 or ~elony (theugh this is usually evident frem the way questions are phrased). Te~hnical specialists frem SEAG did this, translating the questionnaire from Spanish te Guaraní where necessary. Initial analysis of the questionnaire involves the mappi ng of all survey points, and the ~onstrLI~tion of qualitative maps to illustrate the different distributions of variables of interest. This simply involves using different symbols to illustrate different facets or levels of intensity in accordance with coded question responses (for example, different categories of farm síze). Many questions are precoded to speed up the mapping process. The results of both formal and informal surveys, and the qualitative distribution maps of data from the formal survey follow in the next section. 2.2 Environment and Agriculture in the Study Area 2.2.1 F'hysical and human geography of the study area. Available secondary data allows initial hypothese5 to be made about the study area prior to any survey work. Climate The climate of Paraguay i5 subtropical. Rainfall decreases from 18C10 mm in the Southeast to less than 400 mm in the northwestern Chaco. Because of the 1 ati tLlde ·of the country, a marked winter associated with lower daily minimum 22 and monthly mean temperatures is experlenced. Frosts are not uncommon. In eastern Paraguay the wlnter months (June, July, August) are dry and the summer months, from November te March, are het and humid. Mean Annual ralnfall varíes from 1400 to 1600 mm in the study area. t1 .... x i mum dai 1 y temperatures in ASLlnci 6n in January regularl y exceed 40=C. Whilst there is a slight rainfall gradient across the study area, it Is considered as cllmatically homogeneous in published studies using the Thornthwaite Hydrlc Indem (MAG, 1981) and Holdridge's Life Zones (FAD, 1969). For cassava." the climate of the StLldy area can be considered homogeneoLls and can be classlfled as Humid Subtropic:al (Carter 1986b); Average growing period (summer) temperatures are greateF than 22°C. (Ii) The dry season (number of months with less than 60 mm preclpitatlon) is less than three months. ( i i i ) Dai 1 Y temperature ranges in the growi ng ",e¿,son are greater than 10-C (favouring Cassava Bacterial Blight and other diseases). (i v) The annLI.al range of mean monthl y t.en¡pet-atures i s greater th.an 5-C, the Koppen definition of a non-isothermic (sub-tropic.al) climate. Geoloqy and Topoqraphy The study area consists of alternating .areas of raísed relief, on sandstone rocks, and low-lying fload-prone areas of alluvial sediments. In the southwestern part 23 8 } 6 r 9 b 8 I 7 6 3 1 o 3.0 kms ,. Red continental eolfan aandstone (Misiones fOfmationl. Upper juresllc 2. Undifferentiated qUBternary sedimems, Ouaternary 3. Continente' conglomerate aod 'sugary' aandstones. Mudstonas end kaolinme lutJte of marine origino Lower areurían 4. Alka:line extrusi ..l , JuralSic. cretaceous 6. Gro"ite. C8mbrían. upper Pre-cambrian 6. G'aciaf ami post-glacial sediment. fUllite. sandstone. nmonte, conglomera. .. varYite). Upper carbonifer'ous 7. Quaru sandstone with ínelusions 01 lutite, Permo~trj8ssic 8. Eolia" sandstone, Upper crstaceous 9. Basaftic extrusions with sorne auociated red sedimentary beds .00 Upper jurassic. diabasa íntrusions (Atto Parená formadon'. lower creteceous 10. Metamorphosed qu.rtzite, fUite. mica. gravell, Opper pre.(;ambrian 11. Oelta", depooilS. Quatarnary MAP 3: Geology of the study area (O.E.A, 1971 , 24 granite outcrops give rise to raised relief and small areas of hilly relief. Steep slopes are associated with discontinLdties in the nature of the sandstones, and where valcanie: intrLlsinions have formed upstanding blocks in some areas (Mal' 3); the5e are referred to as cordilleras. Elsewhere topography i5 flat to undulating. Available topographie: maps at scales of 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 show the areas of steep topography. Flood-prone areas and swampa, which are generally used for e",tensi ve grazing, can a1so be identified. The¡y are not used by campesinos for cultivation (Yates, 1981), except for rice in a few places. Soi1s of the area are generally derived from the underlying rocks, and sandy, red-yellow podzolie:s predorninate (Map 4). In areas of poor drainage or seasonal flooding, hydromorphic; soils are found. 80il texture varies according 'lo the natvre of 'lhe sandstones, or ..h ere derived from granite, and some clay soils are fovnd towards the E ••t in Caaguaz Ll .. There appears to be no information availabIe which describes the differences in fertility between the podzolics, however, ei ther natural or as '. result of cultiva'lion. Nor ar'e there any general compari son s between soils which have been recently deforestad and those which have been cultivated over many years. Textural differences may be expected to infIuence this, but no systematic study' ¡ 25 1 t í ¡ 1 r ¡ ¡! 1 f t 3,0 kms' 1. Red~yeUow podzofics in Bssociation with humic glep, Loams~sandy loams. 2, Humi<: gleys and ..,¡d 'pseudogleys', tAnuvial deposilSj, 3, Red-velI. and much of Paragu",ri ",ere generally settled over 100 years ago; in some of these areas settlement dates back to the Spanish conqLlest. Many parts of GLlairá and Caaguazú, and some parts of F'aragLlari and Caazapá h ... ve only rec:ently been colonized, and 30 there stUl axist uncolonized areas of forest, though these are diminishing rapidly. Many farms in tha naw colonies still have upta half their surface area covered by forest, bLlt every year one or twa ha. mí ght be fell ed. ¡"Iap 6 indicates thase plaees where forest is still present and rozados exist (land newly cleared far agriculture) • . Amangst the pi ii\ces surveyed there i s ii\n i nverse relationship between the e>:istence of forest which is still bein~ cleared for agriculture, ii\nd the age of settlement at each place, ii\S is shown in Table 2.2. The length of cultivation, or settlement, does not fully explain 50il fertilíty however. Not all farms wl11 still hii\ve forest to elear, and even íf it. does e:-:ist at a place fertility differenees can also be attributed to differences in the nature of the soil. Farmers distinguish different types of soil by colour, whieh depends on texture (especially ela)' contentl and on organic matter contento Red earth5 (loeally known as with a sandy 10am texture are distinguished froro sands or white .arths (ybycui and vJ::cx:. moroti), and from other red earths with a clayey-Ioam texture (yJ;¡y pytá ité). Stony soils, usually assoeiated with the steep slopes of the cordilleras are also distinguished separately are almost everywhere common. Geographic differences in the agriculture of the area are therefore concerned with the cash crops produced. Theoretically, the existence of areas specializing in certain cash crops should depend primarily on accass to markets and on the availabílity of credit or other sources of capi tal. This is not entirely the case in Paraguay, and faetona; such as farm size and soU fertility are shown te be impertant determinants of the agricultural activities of rural places. Map 8 shows the principal cash crops cultivated at each compañía visited during the formal sUI-vey. Cotton is , almost everywhere important, and in some areas is the only ¡ ". ,, cash crap or one of Ver y few. It's importance lies in its , ¡ imperishability (because many places have very poor access ~, which can be cut entirely when it rains)! and in the gLlarranteed market for it. Farmers are assured that by ¡ t, growing cotton they will raise at least sorne caah, and in a lump sum, to pay debts and make important purchases. This makes the CY'op especially favoured by very small farmer15 who only have a tiny fraction of land to sow cash cropa, and cannot afford to risk a crop with a les15 reliable market. Nevertheless, in recent years declining yields and fluctuating prices, often very low, h<1.ve 15haken this confidence somewhat, since many farmers h.ve m.de losses they can il1 afford. 34 From the Tebicuary Valley in Guairá a belt of sugarcane production extends into Caaguazú and northern Caazapá. There are also minor cane-producing areas arounó Quiíndy in Paraguari, and in the SOLtth of CE!n-tral department. Th!?se latter areas produce syrup for rum or for sale in Asunción, whereas production in Guairá is destinad for refineríes, for example at Iturbe, or for the new alcohol producer .t M.J. Troche. Sw;¡ar cane i s prabab 1 y the second most important cash crop in the area. In much of Paraguarí cocotero fruits (f,'om the palm, Acracomia totai) are an important cash cr-op alongsid", cot temo Cocotero palms are semi-wild rather than cultivated, and litter the fields in the minifundia areas of Central, Cordillera, and Paraguari. They are especially characterístíc of poar, degraded soils. That they should be one of the main source,;; of cash in ParagL,ari (there are fe", non-agricultural sources of income) le an indication of its poverty. Paradm ~ ;;¡ .lO'". 40 o • lO -C. .o. -'e.'"", 30 <.> ~, • c.. 20 • 10 • • • • • April October March Month FIGURE 2.1 Percentage of places surveyed where farmers experience an acute shortage of cash in a given month. 38 Map 9 depicts the modal months of cash scarcity at eaeh survey site. At most places farmers note difficult periads between September and December. In the suga,- producing area in Gualrá the periad fram Deeember until the end of February is that of eash shortage. The inC:üme derived fro", the sugar harvest in August and September helps farmers to pay far weeding and other activities. The. 1 ater shortage is assoeiated with the eash needs of the eotton harvest, by whíeh time income from sugar has run out. Cash erops; Marketing _nd Aceess Sorne eash crops sueh as cotton are sold to local intermediaries thraughout the area. Other craps, particularly foad crops, are often taken by tl1e farmer to the l_rge urban markets of Asunción, Coronel Ovieda or Villarrica, or to smaller local markets. 11ap 10 indieates places where farmers take produce to market, and the most frequent destinatians¡ a"d pi aees wl1ere f armen" depend entirely on intermediaries to sel1 their produce (mueh of CaaguazLI, parts of Guairá, and mueh of F'araguari). In parts of CaaguazLI, Cordillera and eastern Paraguar' farmers take hi gh val ue erops to sell in Asunc:i 6n 's t'l"'rC:"'.do de_.~.Bbasto~, generally in hired trucks (camion"'s dec:arga). Villarríc:a serves as a market centre for northern Caazapá and the new eolonies oi eastern Guairá, and far the minifundia areas around the city. Coronel Oviedo and CaaguazLI have a similar role in the department of Caaguazó, 39 and in Paraguari the town of Paraguarí has some inf1uence as a market centre. In Guairá many sugar farmers se11 direct to refineries (ingenios) • Central and western ParagL,ari, where farmers have little or no sLtrplLts prodw:tion to market, contrasts strongly with the new co10niesin Guairá and CaagLlaZÚ. It was noted aboye that those parts of Paraguari where cotton and cocoteros are the main cash crops have reasonable access to the ASLmci6n market (about an hOLlr and a ha1f's drive on asfalt roads). The absence of higher ya1Lle crops may be due to other factors SLtch as a lack of capital on commonly very small farms, and poor soils. Amongst the survey si tes as a whol e, however. those where ~.,., agriculture is most diversified (ie. where those CrOPS which are sold most are large in number, s.y 6 or more) do not necessarily have good access to asphalt roads, as the Table 2 .. 3 shows~ This suggests that factors other then dlí-ect access to markets affect production in the area under study. Communications in rural areas, once off the asfalt roads, are very much dependent on the weather. Dirt roads are c:lesed te motor vehicles when it rains, te protect them frem deterioration. There is only one railway, fram Asunción to Encarnación on the river Paraná, and although it passes through Paraguari, Guairá and Caazapé it do.s not appear ta be used fer the transportation of agricultural produce. 40 TABLE 2.3 Relationship between nu.ber of casb traps al a piare and distanee lo an asphall road. H'lber of Cash Craps Di ,boce to a.phal t road (k., Q-5 6-20 21-45 46+ LOH (5 or lessl 6 61 23 U Hígh (6 or .orel 5 4b 1, b Th. difleren,e betweeo lhe tMO groups is not si9nifit •• t at a' 0.1 (12'0.7, l d.!.l ,¡ ; 41 ~- ¡ Agrieultural eredit ! Credi ti$; eommodi ty orí entated and often obta.i ned I ¡ from the buyer of a c:rop. Cotton espeeially Is sold to Ir local merc:hants and intermediaries who provide c:redit at ! ¡ 50wing time. In turn they reeeive loans from the eotton ¡ 3 gins. Farmers maintain elient-patron relationships with , r these individuals and depend on them in times of need .. Rates of interest on c:redit are high (typieally 30 to 40% ealeulated on an annual basis) , and buying priees for c:otton , whieh are quoted when eredit 15 given aften change when í ¡ harvest time comes. Credit for sugar eane can be obtained fram ingenios, partieularly in Guairá. Map 11 shows the erops for which credit i 5 obtai ned. I, ¡ Cotton, not surprisingly, is the most common, and almo5t ,,¡ , everywhere credit is available for it. Apart from Guairá ,, and parts of Caaguazú, credit for sugar eane is only obtained at dispersed locations. Credit Is available for tomatoes in parts of Central neay' Asu.nc ión , and here and there in Cordillera. Credit for rice i5 also available in localized areas in these two department5. To the North 2nd West of Coronel Oviedo in CaagLtaZÜ tobac:c:o 15 quite important and credlt 15 avallable to producers. At only one location, near Coronel Oviedo in Caaguazü, is credit available for cassava. In the South of Paraguar;:, in the North of Central, in western Cordillera and around the c:ity of Villarriea in Guairá, credit 15 not available for any crops, and only in a 42 few locations is it given to farmers who collect and sell cocotero fruits. OHidal Credit Sources include the Nat i on".l Development Bank (Batnco Nací anal de Fomento; B.N.F.) iflnd Cr~dito Agrícola de Habilitación C.A.H. (Banco:-i; the litUe bank). The first has quite stringent conditions restricting lending which disfavour small farmers (especially since many lack the necessary title ta their 1 and). The CAH is spacifically orientated towards small farmers. There are a few producers' organizations which provi de credi t, such. as the Tomato Producen;' Cooperati ve in Asunciól1, and occasionally farmers comités are provided with credit by the C.A.H., though these are not comman. Sourc:es of credit which are available ta farmers a.t the places visitad in the formal survey are shown in Map 12. Farmers stress the importance of credit tD them. 1he demands far c:ash tD pay labourers during the periad fram Augllst to April are high, as large amounts of l".baur are needed espeeially far weeding. Once a coromen practice in rural cammunitiés, communal labour (ming.§t) is becoming less ímportant as land ownership bec:omes more unequal. Households with fewer land resources have e"eess labour to sell and require c:ash (bath wages and credit) ta make vital purchases .. (See Yates 1981, p219-221, far a díscussion af thís tendency). 43 Other sour~es of ~ash In the struggle to raise cash some minor crops provide additional sources of limited income in the perlod from August to De~ember. Bitter orange lS cultivated in sorne areas, notably Cordillera and Caaguazá, and pet.it- grain essen~e is.extracted from the leaves. In December co~otero fruits are collected and sold (oil extra~tion), and castor oil (tártago) seeds are dried and sOld, especially in Caaguazú. Charcoal making is important in areas where forest still remains. The sale of ~assava ls also important during this period in many pI aces, albeit in small i~ i quantities. t l, Use of fert.ilizers and other inputs Chemical ferti 1 izers are most commonly L\sed in a.reas of horticultural or sugar pr"oduct i on , in ! ¡: ¡ Cordillera, Guairá and part.s of Caaguazá (Map 13). In much ¡ of Paraguari, southern GLlairá and northsrn Caa.za.pá they atOe not used. In newly def orested regi ens na.tural soil fertility may still be hlgh enough to preclude their use, al though potatoes and oni ons are us'_,all y grown in rozados and fertilized. Cotton sometimes re~eives the benefit of chemi~.l inputs, usually foliar nitrogen and pesticides, but the amount and regularity of applications depend on the capital 01' credit available to the farmer. Often agrochemicals can be acquired on credit ft-om inter-mediaries, but at inflated prices. Chemical fertilizers are rarely if 44 ever used on subsistence crops, and even when grown principally as a cash crop, cassava is not fertilized. Organic fertilizers, mainly farmyard manLlre, are used on high value horticultural crops in some places, and on the vegetable patch if a farm has one. Otherwise they are not collected. At 74 (43%) places sClrveyed some farmers use fertilizers for one or more crops. Tomato is the mast common recipient, (23% of places) followed by sugar eane <131.;, peppers (10%) , melon (9%) and cot ton (71.) • The survey data also suggest that the use of fertilizers is more eommon in plaees where a higher number of cash crops are grawn (Tabla 2.4), Greater crop diversificatian nat onIy brings more stable cash income to farmers in sorne parts, but also favours the production of high valua crops, which in • turn require relativaly large quantitias of purchased inpLlts. Farffí siza and Lanci Teflure. Farm size and land tenLI,re exart an intIuenee both on the aetivities of the farm and on external factors SLlCh as credit, due to eligibility restrictions. Many farme,-s do not have titles to their land and are officially classed as occupants of state land. Others may be in the proeess of buying their land ar acquiring legal ownership by sorne ather means. Map 14 indicates the forrn of tenure most eommon at eaeh survey site. This refers ta the land th~t farmers 45 TABLE 2.4 Use of fertilizors aaongst platos with 10M and high nUlbers of tish traps. Ch.lical fertilizors Hu.ber of Cash traps Mot used Used lo. (5 or less) 32 High (6 or lore) 42 (12 = 13.49, 1 d.f., (l: 0.01). 46 consider as their own, generally where their house is located. At 20'l. of the sites, OCCL\pam:y of state 1 and (squattíng) is the m~in form of tenure, and is common in Paraguari, Caazapá and parts of Cordi llera. 1'1t 25'l. of the sites, provisional ownership is most common. There is a. strong concentration of places with this kind of tenure in Guairá. Elsewhere titled ownership is most common. These proportions may not be representative for the situi\tion as a whole; Yates (19B1) and Saleano (1974) indicate that the proportion of squatters líes between 30 and 40%, though they do not state whether or not farms with provisional ownership are ineiuded in this figure. To get officlal credit a farmer mL\st have titled ownership to his land as col lateral (Yates, 1981 p 7B). Other forms of land tenure, although recorded in the formal survey, are not aS coromon in Paraguayas th»y are in other parts of Latín Amariea. Map 15 indieates places where tMese forms of tenure are found. Renting of land is less eommon than share~ropping. 8a.leano <1974 p173-4) attributes this to the rigidity of the land tenure system which laeks a method by which farmers can increa. •e their farm size. On the other hand, subdivísion af farms continues to be sean everywhere. Farros can be subdivided according to size, even amangst.the 'minífundia' . The smallest farms, many with less than one hectare and sorne with no land at al1, generally rely on labouring as their chie~ source of income 47 CRivarola, 1982). Information collected during the informal survey suggests that those farms upto"about 3 ha in size have difficulty me~ting subsistence requirements, lncluding cassava, from production on their own farm. This Is because farmers prefer to sow cash crops and buy food, and because of very poor soils. Be~ause land tenure statistics were not available before the formal survey was executed, part of the questionnaire sought to identify regional differences in modal farm size. For the purposes of the survey, farm size waS divided into 3 strata, based on the observations from the informal surveyand on Rivarola's sL.\bdivision (1982) mentioned in Section 2.2.1. Respondent's were then asked which size of farm is most common in their compañia, less than 3 ha, from 3 to 7 ha, or greater than 7 ha. Map 16 shows the distribution of farm size, according to these criteria at the places surveyed. In simple regional terms Map 16 indicates areas where farms ",re generally very small, and where there is a strong e> some cId settled areas in Cordillera, are a150 typified by these larger farms. Farms of 3-7 ha are mcst common in the ¡;¡ugar producing area of Guairá, southern Caaguazú, in much of Cordillera and sorne parts of Central. Amongst the survey sites there is a strong relationship between the most commen farm size and the age of the settlement, with farms smaller than 7 ha being more common at places established over 50 years ago, and vice versa (Table 2.5). This suggests that the older a place is, the more likely is the majerity of farms to be small (less than 7 ha in this case), which evidences the gradu",l proceS5 of subdivision of farms over time. Farm size appears to be related to the propensity to use credit and pLlrchased inpLlts. Fertilizer use appears tó be more common in places where 3-7 ha farros are most common lTable 2.6). This reflects not so much the greater 1 i kel i hood of farms of this roiddle strata to use fertilizers, but rather the lower probability of the smallest farms using them, due to lower income, or of the larger farms using them since these are generally found in more rec:ently c:olonized zones with somewh>at more fertile soi 1 s. 49 TABlE 2.5 Far. size calPared Nith settle.ent ag •• Ag. nf settletent Iyrs; "ost CD"on far. size 10-20 20-50 50-100 >100 <7 ha 3 16 29 64 >7 ha 5 27 14 13 (1 2 • 29.68, 3 d.l. a· 0.0011 TABLE 2.6 Fertilizer use eDtpared .ith farl size ehsies. Fertilizer, "ost Callan far. sile Not "sed Used a. ( 3 ha 30 12 b. 3-7 ha 32 38 c. > 7 ha 35 24 X" 1.57,1 d.I., 0.3) a) 0.2 lor group a coopared .ith group e. F : 5.Bó, 1 d.!., a : 0.02 !or group b comparad with groups a and e toobined. TABtE 2.7 eredit availabílity co.pared .ith oost tOllon faro size. "ost COI.on faro ,ile eradit jaU sourtes) Ava¡lable Unavail.ble { 3 ha 26 lb } 3 ha 122 7 U' • 29.04, I d.f. a= O.OOll. 50 Credit is less likely to be available in areas of commonly very smal! farms, according to the survey data (Table 2.7). Why this should be is not immediately clear. In Map 11 there are four areas where credit is not available. Lack of credit may just reflect th", ",,,istence of very little surplus produce for sale, including cotton. If there are other sources of employment, the inhab1tants may we11 only be part-time farmers. In addition they may have other SOLlrces of capital to finance farming activities (in two sites near Asunci6n 01'1 Map 9 respondents did not recognize a cash scarcity period). In the North of Central department, agricultural production is of secondary importance compared with non-agricultural employment. Similarly, at those sites in western Cordillera where no credit is available, other forms of work <,re equall y as important as agricultural production. In southern Par-a.gt.\ar i, and in the minifundia area around Villarrica tbere are no other forms of alternative employment. Lack of credit in these areas may just be a further indicator of their depressed state. Cassava production: Fallowing and rotations Cassava 15 rotated with eotton almost everywhere in the study area, either every year or every other year. The e"act length of the rotatíon depends cm how long the cassava crop lasts, and 01'1 how much land the farmer has availa.ble. On the smallest farms one year old cassava may weI1 be ! \ 51 ! ! ¡ occupying space required to plant cotton in September or ~ October. Where enough land is available, upto three years of fallow may be included in the rotation, although c~ttle are ~\sually grazed on this. Bush fallowing is very rare, as land is in too 5hori SL\p·ply. Land is rested for a few months after the cotton i5 harvested, though a farmer may plant a wínter crop such aS peas. On newly cleared land, in Caaguazú for eHample, fallo"lng for a full year or more is not practiced until the farmer feels that soll fertility has declined to an eHtent which warrants a fallo" periodo This may be after five or ¡ SiH years, or after as many as 12 or 15, depending cm the !¡ soll. Cassava is often sown immediately or soon after land , is cleared in Caaguazú. It may precede or follow cotton depending on the farmer's priorities and the market situation. El sewhere , on oIcler land, the most fertile patches are eh osen for the cot ton-cassava r'otati on, to benef i t the chief cash and consumption crop respectively. Farmet-s wi th very small farms do not fallow land, and cassava and cotton are interchangecl continuously. Ca;Jssava product i on , Lancl preparation Weeds or vegetat ion associ ated wi th trIe f all ow, or which have grown over the winter period, are generally incorporated into the soil before planting. As cattle usually graze on land in fallow, and because of the winter 52 períod, there ia insufficíent vegetation to burn. Unlike many cassava growing areas in Tropical Latin America, Paraguayan farmers use ox-drawn implements for cultivation. Most f armera try to pI ough thei r" 1 and, ei ther wi th thei l' own team of oxen (yunta) and plough, or that of a n:ty differently named varieties of cassava have been recorded just by this survey in the study araa, although sorne varieties have more than one name (Appendi:< 3). Cassava varieties aregrouped by Brun at al (1985) into three types; pracocious, medium and long cycle, which refer to the length of time the variety takes to reaeh maturity. This coneept loses signifieanee for farmen5 who have a limited choica of· planting material and through nacessity must har-vest non-precocious var-ieties earlier than tha optímLtm time tor censumption. PrecocioL'S or short-cycle varieties tend te matLtre in 6 to 8 months. Onca they reaeh tha "'-ge of ayear or more their suitability for consumption declines. ¡oled i LUf' e yc 1 e varieties take from 12 to 18 months to mature, yield better and last longer than precoeious varieties, although there i5 a lot of variation within the broad group. Long cyc:le 54 va~ieties a~e acknowledged to take 2 o~ mo~e yea~s to mat~,~e; the mast common of these, Canó, is said to imp~ove in taste with age, and in e.aguazO 4 o~ 5 year aId plants of this va~iety can be found. Far each place visited in the formal slkvey, t.he mast. important varieties c:ultivated are classified according te thei~ cycle length, shewn an Map 17. In many plac!?s varieties of cassava af all thr!?!? tyP!?S are cultivated. In Paraguari, however, at very few places is cassaVa cultivated for harvesting at more than 18 months old, and most only have va~ieties fa~ harv!?st in less than 12 months. This reflects the need to harvest CaSsava at an early stage for consumptian amongst farmers in this department. In sorne parts of Pa~aguari ther!? Is no seed available fram later mat ..., ri ng va~i eti es. Su~p~isingly, in Caaguaz":t in the a~eas where cassava Is produced for sale in Asunción, long c:ycle va~ietle~; ¿>.~e also uncommon. This probably ~!?flects the greater c:envenienc:e of the medium cyc:l., varieties far sale, as it wOLtld be uneconomic:al to have cassava occupying land for ove~ 18 months. Most farms in thís a,-ea have some long cycle Canó, but only for consumption. eassava i s p 1 anted du~ i ng A ...' gust and September. 1 t is sown both in monoculture and as an inte~crop. 110st commonly it is intercropped with maize, but also with cowpea, squash, watermelon, peanuts and sweet potata. Cropping systems involving newly sown cassava are ve~y ¡ ~ 55 ¡ variable from one place to another; monoculture cassava is very common, especially in Paraguari and in Caaguazú. In contrasto maize is usually intercropped with one year old cassava, where the crop lasts this long. Crops such as maize which are intercropped with cassava may be planted between every row of cassava, between every other row, or only once for every 3, 4 or as many as 6 ro","s of cassava. depending very much on soi1 fertility. Cassava i s uS~lall y sown in rows about one metre wi de, with anything from 80 to 120 cm in between plants. , I ¡ Cassava production: Weeding, inputs and prOdLtct ion t problems. t ¡ An ox-drawn carpidora (3 toothed harrow) is used by i ,¡ some farmers for weeding at first, but once cassava roots start to fatten this has to be done by hand. t10st must weed entirely by hand. In many places competitian froro weeds is strong, as a result of low soi1 fertility. and this creates a high demand for labour far- weeding all cr-ops. Sorne farmers maintain that cassava has a higher' priority fcw ¡ weeding than other cr-ops, because of its dietary impcrtance. ¡ ¡ Where labour 1S in short supply (in Ca.aguazú particularly) cassava grown far- sale is often not weeded pr-eperly. Sorne far-rner-s get credit to hire labourers for- weeding, appar-ently for the c8.sh crops W1 th whi eh the credi t i s connected. In general labour is hired te weed cash Creps, and family laboLlr used te weed SLlbsistence cr-ops (Yates 1981). 56 Fertilizers and pesticides are not used for cassava. Stemborers (col eoptera , lepidoptera etc) and cassava hornworm (Erinnyis ello) are important pests notad by farmers (Map 18). Leaf cutting ants (~) are noted by Yates (1981) as a very damaging pest in Paraguay. bacterial blight causes some losses in the area, though it is largely unrecognized by farmers. After periods of intense and prolongad rainfall certain cassava varieties are susceptible to rotting, especially the more precacious anes. Because of the irregularity of rainfall, drought ls another problem which may hir1der germinatian, especially in the sandier soils. In Map 18 the areas where drought is mentioned as a problem coincide with the sandy soils af the Tebicuary valley. Undaubtedly low soi1 fertility is the greatest problem for many cassava producers, not only for their cassava, which is more tolerant of poor soils, but fclF' the other crops which form an important part in the diet, such as maize and cQwpea. Farmers in t.he aneas of poor soils acknowledge declining yields, though there are no data available which describe the rat.e of decline. Perhaps most importantly in the short term, organic matter 15 not being returned to the soil, which has a negat.ive effect on soi1 moisture retention. Crops become more susceptible to t.he inevitable droughts which result from the irregular rainfall pat.t.ern, and crop failure results. This happened in the 1985/86 season, shortly after the survey work for this study 57 was completed, in much of Paraguarí and Misiones departments. Cassava productlon: Harvesti n9, starch prodLlct ion ",nd other Low cassava yields are aggravated in those areas of longest settlement by the early date at which the crop ls harvested (see Map 17), Farmers with least land, or who have had unexpectedly poor yields, oftan rely on neighbours for cassava in the last months of the year, at least until they hava maize .to harvest. From February onwards. wt1en tha crop is as little as five and a half months old, they begln te harvest. Yet to' obtain optimum yialds farmers claim it is better to wait until the crop is ayear old, and begin consuming new cassava at the same time as they plant far the fol10wing year. Root quality is reported to be best when the crop is about 18 months old (medium cycle varieties). Starch content declines after winter, as naw shoot growth begins, but it incre",ses towards the end of the ye",r. For maximum yield, and highest starch content, farmera who sel1 cassava neVer sell it before it 15 a.t least a year- old, and preferablyat 18 months. On the'smaller farms ln F'araguari and other minifundia zones, farmers forego higher potential yield by harvesting early. Cassava i s harvested in FebrLlary and f1arch to meet another important demand, that far starch, during the Easter periad. Starch is Llsed in traditional foads, such as Chipá, :ss at this time. Stareh is made on many farms on a very small seale to meet the requirements of the family and perhaps to sell a little. There are also sorne areas where stareh is produeed on a larger seale, near the town of Caazapá, and at M.J. Troehe in Guairá, and produetion in these areas ereates quite a large demand fer eassava. Whilst local eassavQ is used in Caazapá, cassava 1S brought from quite far a ... ay to M.J. Troche, mainly from Caaguazú and eastern Guairá (See Map 19). Starch production eontinues on a small scale throughout the year on many farms, but uses only small quantities of eassava. The exceptions again are the areas 0-1 larger scale produetion, ... here demand for c:assava declines somewhat after Easter but is nevertheless signifieant throughout the year. Amongst smaller producers around Caazapá, stareh produetion increases towards the end of the year as they attempt to raise much-needec cash. Demand and prices for starc:h arl? lo", at this timl? Starch production requíres a certai n ¿,moLlnt of infrastructL\re, even for a small scale operation. A small milI or grinder, settling tanks and drying surfaces are the majar pieces of equipment required. Larger fa,bricas (factories) conslst of the same ba.lc components and processes on a larger scale, sometimes with a motorised milI or grinder and mechanical .... shing and peeling of the cassava roots. The other necessity is a source of ... ater for washing the cassava, and for the sieving and settllng processes. 59 Cassava is fed to animals on the farm relatively constantly throughout the year, unless there ís insufficient. Pigs are reared on the majority of farms as a source of cash for the difficult perlad at the end of the year. They consume large quantities of fresh roots, L\pto 15 kg per day for a large animal. O"er1 and milk cows "'.ni? also usually given sorne cassava every day, uSLlally smaller roqts, peelings and waste. The amount depends on the quantity of cassaVa available. No intensive animal feeding systems, such as those which are common in ItapL.a department and adjacent parts of Bra"il, have been identified in the study ar-ea~ Sale of Cassava Map 19 shows the markets and other destinations to which farmers sell their cassava. This confirms that Asunción is almost entirely supplied with ca.sava from Caaguazú. Farmers at about 20'%. of the sLírvey si tes sell c:assava for the Asunción market. Parte of GuairA, Caazapá and Caaguazú supply the local starch industries (lO'%. of the compañias surveyed) and ln part of Cordillera farmers sell cassava to a (cassava flour) factory at Piribebuy. Farmers in the rest of the area surveyed either sel1 cassava in the market of a local town (25'%. of the campaRías) or just to neighbours (20'%.1. At about 25'%. of the compañias surveyed cassava i s rl0t sol d at all. TMese latter thr-ee groups are evenly distributed throughout the departments, with the exception of Caaguazú. 60 Cassava far the Asunc:ión market ls sold in twa ways. Generally in eastern Caagua40 farmers sel1 eassava to an intermediary wha Llsually owns a trLtek. The intermediary takes the eassava direc:tly ta the Mercado .de Abasto. In western Caaguazú it is more c:omman far farmers totúre a truek and take the harvested crop to the market themselves. Of the 33 plaees surveyed froro whieh eassava is sold to Asunción, Farmers at 19 of them rely entirely on intermediaries to market the erop. BeeaLlse of the flexible harvest period, farmers who do ~ell signifieant quantities of the eassava tend te sel1 it when they need to raise sorne eash. Sinee intermediaries haye no information about this, they haye to go and look for one or more farmers who are willing te sell a quantity large enough to cover the eosts of hiring a truc:k. Sorne i ntermedi ar i es (cami oner.9s) pre-arrange sales through ao agent who tours the main producing zones organizing S¿.ilE:s a few days in adyanee, and who hires labaurers far the harvest. F'ost-harvest losses can thus be reduced since thE2 intermediary can c:olleet the eassava as soon as it is harvested and packed in sacs. ObvioLtsly, in areas \l-Jhere farmers have little surplus cassava, sueh as Paragua.ri, it would be too time-consLlming and expensive for sLteh a marketing system te functian. lt WQuld be a miseonceptien to imagine that the areas where productian far the Asunción market is c:oncentrated are constantly inundated with c:assava-trucks, or that sale of 61 cassava is constant throughout the year. Sales are better described as sporadic, and the marketing system semi-organised. One intermediary's agent explained how they work a rota of compañías or colonias throughout the year. From their point of view, then, there does exist a marketing system, which directs them to where they know they can get the quantity of cassava they require at different times of the year. The farmer will try to remain as flexible as possible, and sell when prices are highest. However, he may not be able to find a buyer. Sometimes, by necessity, he must sell at a low price. Formal survey respondents were asked to name the I• months in which most cassava is soldo Their answers are summarised in Figure 2.2. From February to August sales are at a low, despite the influence of the starch market. This is probably because the supply of cassava on the farm is everywhere high at this time. 20% or less of the places report these as important months of cassava sale. From September sales increase dramatically, and peak in October, when sales are reportedly high at 50% oi the places surveyed. They then decline slowly to the previous level in February. The limited datá presented in Table 1.2 suggest 1, that the quantity of cassava which enters AsunciÓn's Mercado de Abastos declines, however, durirlg the period from November until February. Why this should be so is explained below. 62 60 50 • --..... • 11 ...5.,,- 40 • ~ > ~ :> .lI,) .8. 30 .. -o. • .o.,. E'" 20 "~" • • CIl Q,. • • • • .. 10 0 1 I Apríl October March Month FIGURE 2.2 Percentage of places surveyed where CBssava sales are ímportant in a given month. 63 I ! ¡ Supply of Cassaya on the farm The supply af cassava on many of the smallest farms reaches a law point during the months from September to February and on some runs OL,t enti rel y. Farmers refer to a scarcity 0+ cassava. Map 20 depicts areas where caSS2va i5 in short supply during this period, eithar for some or for , the majority of the inhabitants of each compañia. ,Onl.y in ¡ ¡ t eaaguazó and the more recently calonized parts 0+ Guairá and ¡ ¡ F'araguari is this problem not experienced. If the farm size data fraro the survey are compared with this data, it is f ¡ clear that there is an inversa relationship between farm ¡ size and the likelihood of scarcity, even usíng such í generalizad data (Table 2.8). The reasans given for this ¡ shortage of cassava in the compañi~~ are given in Table 2.9. The three most commonly citad reasons are a11 related to the ! t lirnited land '-esources which, many farmers passess. ,r , The existence of a scarcity period explaíns why in many places farmers report sales of cassava to neigl1bcurs. lt may be that this decreased supply of cassava in rural areas affects the supply to Asunción refen-ed to aboye. The months of scarcity were identified by respondents at each compañ:i'.a in the formal survey. Figure shows the percentage of places experiencing scarcity far each month of the year. The proportion peaks during the manths from September to February, in the same m2l,nner as the sal es curve ... If we bear in mind that Figure 2.2 refers to f ¡ transactions rather than the quantity of cassava sold, it ¡ ¡ 1 b4 70 • • 60 • • -- 50 .... .1s1 i i 40 .~, :;¡ Ul .~, 15. 'O., 30 -."'"," c: .c.> ~, c.. 20 • • 10 • • O April October March Month FIGURE 2.3 Percenlage of places surveyed where there exists a shortage of cassava in a gil/en month. 65 TABLE 2.8 Scarcity Df cassava tOlpared .¡tb aast tOlaan far. size. tusava scard!r nos! co •• on farl síze (Ha) < l > 7 Experíenced 39 56 32 Mol experienced 3 14 27 !l' • 21.19; 2 di, Q,O.OOIl TABLE 2.9 Ro¡sons for shortage Df cassav •• Reaso" for 5'orcity I oi co;p"';as Lac, Df land 56 Karve5t~ too e¡rly 40 Cther erops preferred 22 CI¡ •• tíc ¡actor. etc. Ó AII tassav. sold pr.viously 4 INate that lar. th.n o.e ¡ns.er .as qiven in so •• places) • 66 appea~s therefo~e that during the periad from Octobe~ ta January when cassava sales are mast comman, most af these transactians take place between neighbau~s. It i. common dLtring this periad for labourers to be paid not in cash but in cassava. This is logical if one considers the subdivision af farms and remembers that the smallest farms are those which rely most on wage labou~, and which are also most likely to run out of cassava. They are usually paid a number of rows of cassaya per day or week's work. Theft of cassaya is alsa common during this period, but yir-tuall y tmknown for other crops. 2.3 The Form and Description of the Micro-Regions 2.3.1 Form of the micro-regians The caSsaya micro-regíans are .hown on Map 21. Each micro-regían i. described in the reference ti.ble in the map pocket at the back of this repart. The 1: 250,000 tapographic sheets for the arE2a (AsLlnción, Villarrica, Pilar­ and Caazapál, published by the Instituto Geográfico Militar in Asunción, have been used to draw the base mapa Far printing, all maps have had ta be reduced to 1:500,000. 2.3.2 Variables Ltsed in the definiticm of the miera-regions The variables used and the role they play in defining and describing the micro-regions are shown in Table 2.10. Note that 'eul ti vated are .. ' has been Llsed at an earl y stage. 67 TABLE 2.10 Variables used in the defínition and description of the micro-regions. Variables used to define Variables u~ed for Variables used only aíero-regions definition or for description description 1. Climate (Homogeneous) 2. Cultivated area 3. Topograpny 4¡¡. Soil tnture 'lb. Soil fertility 4c. Soil lIanagemeot (fallowingl S. Cash Crops (number anó nature) éa. lIarkets ób. Access (Sale) 7. Cassava .arkets (sale) 8. Farm sile 9. Land Tenur!! 10. Use of fertilizers 11. Availability of credit 12. Length of cycle of cass-ava crop 13. Cassava Cropping 5ystems 14. Shortage/scarcity of c:assava on f ar" s 15. Cassava processing 16. Pest aod other production problems 68 This is a necesslty in much of Latin Ameriea because of the Juxtaposition of minifundia and latifundia. Where possible, miero-regions should be delimitad primarily aceording to the distribution of cultivated land. Unfortunately it ls not always possible to identify this as many countries, unlike Paraguay, do not have detailed topographic (or land use) maps. 1 have tried to follow a logical progression in considering the different variables which determine the form of homogeneoLls area. of cassava produetion. There are no outstanding envlronmental factors speeifie to cassava whieh dictate a primary subdivision of the area, (sLlch as 15 the case in a similar eMercise undertaken for Colombia's North Coast region). Obvious factors sLleh as topography will effect cassava production, via soil type and the severlty of erosion, but they are not speciflc to it. Similarly soil texture and fertility must be eonsldered but 1 do not see at this stage why eassava micro-regions should be any different from, for example, maize micro-regions in the same area. What 15 critical tor cassava, and which does require the recognition of crop-specific areas, i s the market si tLtation. This is different for eaeh crop tound in the area, as Map 8 demonstrates. Homogeneity has been sought as far as possibie (atter considering climate, the location ot cultivated land, topography and solls) in the number and nature of cash crops cultivated, the markets for these prOdLtcts, the statLIs of cassava as a cash crop, and the markets for the crop. The pattern of cash crop production 69 seems to be explained well by consídering access to markets, typica1 farm size, and soi1 type (texture and fertilityl. In so me cases homogeneity of soils has been sacrificad to aehieve homogeneity of the market situation and farm siza within a micro-region. The other faetors described above (2.2.2) whieh might be considered in forming the micro-regions have been used generally 4S deseriptors. However, once the ínitial form of the miero-regions has been determined using climate, topagraphy, markets etc, these are fOL.nd on the whal e to be acceptably hamaganeous (whieh 1s what one might expect, given causal links between the dífferent eomponents of the agriCL'¡ tural system) . One or two mic:ro-regions are nevartheless heterogeneou5 in almost all soc:io-ec::onomic: factors ei:cess land resources? Wh<.lt are the limitations on the amount of cassava sown on farms of different sizes? How do the answers to these questions vary bet.. . een different areas such as Caaguazú and Paraguar{? 1 In what condition are the soils on which c<.Issava is grown, and how do these conditions vary between areas of long established cultivation and those recently deforested? To <.Inswer these questions we need to look at how land 1s apportioned to different uses on different sizad farms, and why this should be so. This information has been collected for a sample·of farms, selected r<.lndomly, using a simple questionnaire (Appendix 4). Crop-areas haya been estim¿¡,ted, and open-ended qLI9stions inc:luded whic:h tr"y to identify the rationale behind land-use decisions, and specifically the control s on the quantity of cassava on the farm (by quantity is meant the area pI<.Inted to the crop, in ha. oro square metres). SeIec:ted land-Llse data, and data on ¡ ¡ human and animal populations on eaeh farm are given in ¡ Appendix S. Soil samples fram C<.lSS¿¡S<.I fields have been t taken to get <.In indieation of the so11 's nutrient status <.Inó texture. Information on soi 1 m<.lna,gemént anó len9th of time !• 1, in eultivation Iwhere applicable) has aIso been collected. This may explain sorne of the v<.Iriation in fertility. 72 9 Uncultivated (Pasturas) 10 15a Uncultivatad (Pasturas) O*' .. • ._. " .-. ..- .. Survey area -10 Micro-Regian Astalt roads o 5 1,0 kms MAP 22: Survey areas, Paraguarl sample 73 3.1.2 Selection of case study locatíons and farms. Two contrasting areas of cassava production are presented by the two departments for which the SEAG-CIAT-IDRC Cassava Project is planned, ParagLtari and Caa,guazú. Within Paraguari, an area near Acahay had besn visited during the informal survey (Map 22). This area seems representative of, the department as a whole, as described by Brun et ~ (1985). Farms are small, 50115 peor, and there are few alternatives te agri cul tLlral praductian far employment. The district of Acahay is experiencing a decline in population; from 1972 to 1982 the annual rata of decline was 0.4/., compared with an annual rate of growth ef 2.5%. for the nation as a whole over the same periodo This decline can be attributed to F'ural-urban migration, and te a lesser a.xtent te relecation of sorne families in new colonies, 01'" te international mígration. In Caaguazú, the district of Repatriación """las similarly ehosen after being visited during the lnfarmal survey (Map 23). It consists of a number of lineas, reetilínear settlements into which the land was dividad far coloniza,tion. Farms are 1 ai d aL!t along access roads and thair land el MAP 23: Survey areas. Caaguazú sample 75 Asunci 6n mar!(et, and the< other nearer Coronel Ovi edo, on a notably clayier soíl. Whilst the choice of Repatriación was random, after the informal survey, it should be remembered that these latter two districts were purposefully chose". Farms at these sites were of< course selected randomIy. A sample of farms was selected in the fielcl. In Acahay this was done using two method~. Firstly, farms were eh osen by starting at some random point, choosing a compass bearing (fram random number tables), following this far a set distance (also chosen from a random-number table), and carrying out the questionnaire at the farm where one stopped. Soon it was realized that, as all farms were visible from the access tracks, it was easi.r to walk along these and select the n~M Farmhouse, according ta the random number tableo In Repatriación (Caaguaz~) the rectilinear settlement pattern also lent itself to this method. Questionnaires were completed as far as possible by the author in Spanísh, but often, especial1y in Acahay, th. accompanying extensionagent had to translate into Guarani. In Caaguazú this .. as only necEssary once or twice, or to clarify specific points. It .. ould have been extremely time consuming to have collected the informatian required about land-use by measuring the area under each crop. Nevertheless, it was possible to improve on the usual methad found in Census forms and other sources, of asking haw many ha. the farmer had sawn of crop 'X'. Respondents were first asked how 76 260,000 200,000 150,000 E ~ lO "- Ñ" .§. ~ '¡¡; '-O r"o ,5 1ií w 100,000 60,000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 Farm FIGURE 3,1 Estimated sizeof the sample offarms: fmm Paraguarl(1-30Iand Caaguazú (31-55), 77 ¡ ! f large their farm was, and whether they had any other land, sharecropped, rented or borrowed from another farmer or friendo They were then asked which crops they had sown, a"d whether these were i ntercropped oY" in monocul tLlre. For .. ach crop oY" combination of i ntey'crop •• the area SOWM W$S caleulated by a.king for the number of row. sown, the appro>:imate length of each row, and the distance between rows. Plant populations were not calculated. Where a crop was intercropped or assocíated with another, the number of lines per line of the other was recorded. The area of pastures (natural and sown), of forest (if any), of fallow land and the area around the house were also recorded although these were less e>tact. The total area was then calculated and compared to the farmers' original figure as a check. If the two were withín 10% the calculation was accepted. If not, omi.sions were sought, or recalculations of areas made, untíl the discrepancy was resolved. This only had to be done on a few oecasions; once or twice it appeared that the farmer's idea of the size of his farm did not accord with reality. 3 .. 2 The Sample of Far'ms 3.2~1 Farm size Questionnaires were completed for thirty farms in the compaí1ias Qf Laguna Pytá, Costa Bae;¡: anti JhLlgLlá Poi in Acahay (farms 1-30); fifteen questionnaires were completed 100 I Sample, Repatriación i Sample. Acahay ::::, Censu$ data, Repatriación 75 Censu$ dete, ACBhay I Sample Caaguazú (tolal) Census data, Pereguar; Census data. 'Caaguazú ., -.J E 00 .!-!: 50 'O '* 25. - -- - - _._._.- OL I 1 [1 1 Iilllil mm <1 1-<5 5- <10 >10 <1 1 <5 5-< 10 >10 Peraguar! Caaguazú Farm size class (ha.) FIGURE 3.2 Oistríbution of sample farm size compared with census data (1981). 79 in Repatriación's Primera linea and Cuarta Jinea, seven in Juan Manuel Frutos district in Calle Santo Domingo, Calle Quinta and Ybyrá pocá, and thr-ee questíonnaires in Coronel Oviedo district in Calle San Roque (questionnaires 31-45, 46-52 and 53-55 respectively). The minimum farm size in the sample i5 of 1.45 ha, and the maximllm of 22.7 ha. Both of these are in the Caaguazú sL\b-sample. The mean farm size for the sample as a whole is 9.25 ha. For the farms from Paraguari the mean size is 7.14 ha., and for the Caaguazú farms the mean size is 11.78 ha. The size of each farm is shown in Figure :!. • 1. The distribution of sample farm size is compared with the eensus data for- the main distriets from whict1 the samples come, and for the two departments of F'araguari and Caaguazú, in Figure 3.2. The sample data are grouped together using the same class limits used For the Paraguarí sample, the proportion of farms in the clas.e. '1 to less than 5 ha.', and 'gn?ater tha.n 10 ha.', ís similar to that of the censys data, both for Acahay district and for Paraguari department. The proportion of farms 'less than 1 ha.', and 'from 5 to less than 10 ha.' are under-and over-represented respectively, in comparison with tha cansus data. The absence Qf farros of less than one hectare may be a result of the location of the compañias sampled. The smallest f".rms may be peri-urban, located around Acahay or other settlements, whereas the sample was taken from fully rural areas. Another possible explanation lOO, ••• •• • • • • • •• • • •• • • • 801- c; o • • • • "¡ • • • • • > ';:¡ ] • • • ,5 •• • .e. 60 • • • • • o:> -.E. ~ • • o • • ~ • ~ 'O 1/i? II • • 40 • • • 20' L I I I I I I I I o 25.000 50.000 75,000 100.000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200.000 225.000 250.000 Total larm size 1m2) FIGURE 3.3 Proportion 01 farm area cultivated compared with farm size for the whole sample (55 farms). 81 1S that the sample farm sizes refer to the total area of land worked by the farmer during the period of the sL1rvey; sharecropped, rented or borrowed land was also included in this total, whereas cemsus data may exelude such other fo,-ms of tenure. Farms 3 and 12 (Figure 3.1) actually have less than 1 ha. which is considered the property of the owner, and either borrow or sharecrop the resto This may also explain the greater proportion of farms in the '5 to less than 10 ha.' class, effective farro size being augmented by sharecropping or borrowing in this case as well. Unfortunately the corresponding land tenure Census data to clarify this uncertainty are not available. The Caaguazú sample is considered in two ways in Fi gL\re 3.2; the farms from Repatri aei ón are eompared W1 th the census data for that district, and then the sample as a whole is compared with the Caaguazét census data. For Repatriación, the proportions of farms fr"om sample and census 0+ less than 5 ha. are about aven, whareas those in the class '5 to less than 10 ha.' are under-represented, and those in the class 'greater than 10 ha.' are over- represented. This may be related to the age 0+ the farms sampled, and the size of lot ",hich was demarcated for colar1Ízation. Obviously in older c:olanized areas within the district SOrne subdivision of farrns has taken place, and in sorne parts original 10t size is only 10 ha., whereas a third (5) of the farms sampled were sti 11 about 20 ha. The Repatriación census data show a greater proportion of farms 140,000 • 120,000 • 100,000 • • -l!'!" • ~ • E ., •• N '" -::J 80,000 • '.t,l "c : ~ CI) • -.~~, "::J ..-~. • • (..X..l, .. .::.J 60,000 l • C~I) .'."«~ • eL 40,0001- • • • • •• • • • • • • 20,000 1- •• • • O~' ________L -______- L_ _____~ ________~ ______~ ________~ ______~ ________~ _______ L_ _____~ O 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000 Farm size (m2) FIGURE 3.4 Area cultivated compared with farm size for the Paraguarf sample. over 5 ha. than is found in the Department of CaagLlazl1 as a whole. The rest of the sample data merely exaggerate further·the bias towards farm greater than 5 ha in the Repatriación sample. Figure 3.1 and the comments recorded from farmers in the CaaguazÓ sample are testimony to the process of farro sLtbdivision which is now happening in CaagLtazú. Farmer for eHample, had to subdivide his land and sell to farmer 34 when his wife became ill. Farmer 37 lives on his brother's 20 ha. farm, and borrows 1 ha. or so of land. Farmer 43 is buying his lot of 5 ha. from the Instituto de Bienestar Rural (IBR) , the government body responsible for colonization. The small sizes of farms 49, 52 and 53 also suggest that either the ISR i5 subdividing lot5 and creating a new minifundia outright, or that these farmers too have been forced to subdivide their land for financial reasons .. The significant proportion of farms of 1es& than 5 ha. ~ indicated by the Caaguazú census d .. "$ l.!. • •• • • ~It) ";:¡ N '5 :, ~.~[ • .. (Xl ..'"., lNO ..,.. ... "el> «'" ~ 60,000 - .... • • • .. .. • 40,000 f- .. • • .. .. 20,000 .. O O 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 176,000 200.000 225,000 260.000 Farm size (m2) FIGURE 3.5 Area cultivated comparad with farm size tor the Caaguazú sample. 85 land and is looking aftar a neighbour's land; in return for this loan half of his ~ash ~rops go to the ewner (in other wards, he is entir-ely share~ropping). Only ene farmar (3.3%) had a title, and only for part of his land. Altheugh the compalHaS! visited for this survey were not visited during the formal survey described in Chapter the predominan~e of title-less squatters around G!uiindy and Acahay is apparent from Map 14. The farros in the Caagua~ú sample show a greater variety of types of tenure. 14 farmers (56%) have a title to their land. In addition. 2 of these have more land which they have a~quired by share~ropping 01'" r"enting, and in one case part of the 1 and used by the f armer' was unt i tI ed. 8 farmers (32-%) are currently paying far their- land, one of whom also share~rops another piece of land, and one who borrows land to íncrease his farm size. 1 farmar borrowed all the land he used from a relation. Tenure was not recorded at two farms. Most farmers in this sample therefore have 01'" are in the procesE of acquiring title to their land. 3.2.3 Land use apportionment amongst cash crops and other uses. Figure shows the proportion of farm area cultivated and the sí~e of ea~h farm. This varíes from Paraguar! sample 150.000 135.000 I /' Callguazú tample I /' -' 120,000 105,000 1;;- É. 90,000 :g 00 k I /' ~ lO ¡ '" 75,000 '¡: "5 u 60,000 45.000 30,000 15.000 ov O 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000 Farm size (m2 ) FIGURE 3.6 Finad curvas for cultivated area compared with farm size for the Paraguarl and Caaguazú samples. 87 32.81. to 99. O/:. There i s a tendency f or the propor-t i en of CL\ltivated area to decrease as farm síze .. increases, but there ls a great deal of varíaklon within the data seto Withln the Paraguari sample, the proportion of farm are. cultivatad ranges from 54.7'%. to 99.<)1., with a mean of 81.11.; and from 32.81. to 86.11. in the Caaguazú sample, with a mean of 62.91.. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the area cultivated and farm siza for the Paraguari and CaagL,azú samples respectlvely. In the former, cul ti vated area i ncreases linearly with farm size, with a slight tendency to flatten out on farms larger than 12 ha. The mean are"- cultivated Is 5.6 ha, and the maximum 13.5 ha. In Figure 3.5 the relationship between cultivated area and farm síze (the Caaguazú sample) ís much more curvilínear, and there is far more variation in the data. The mean value of the cultivated are. is 6.8 ha and the maximum 14 ha, f igL!re5 which only narrowly e:-:ceed those of the Paraguarí sample. By fitting a log transform to the F'ara_guar-:í. and Caaguazú sample data the cultivated are. can be described by the following equatiens: y = x.(o.eeee,. 0.9792645 1 2 160,000 140,000 • 120,000 • -Ñ' E ~ 100,000 ~ o • k .aguazú. However, the proportion of the farm devoted to eash erops differs markedly between the two. Clusters 3, 4 and 5 eontain smaller farms of similar sizes, with marked differenees between eaeh group in terms of the proportion of the farm devoted to eash erops. Relative importanee of eash erops in the two samples Cotton is by far the most important eash erop on the farms of both samples, being present on all of those in the Paraguarí sample and 24 (96%) of the Caaguazú sample
CLUSTER 2 20r ~ f::, CLUSTER 3 ~~ ~~ o CLUSTER 4 OC LUSTER 6 °0 26,000 50,000 76,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 176,000 200,000 226,000 250,000 Farm size (m2) FIGURE 3.10 Cluster membership for individuel observations with reference to proportion of farm area in cash crops and farm siza. 95 TABLE l.l Crops grOMn prilarily for sale (cash crops). e R D P PARftSUARI 5A"PlE CAA6UAZU SAftPlE No. of 1 No. of X firls laras Cotton lO tOO 24 96 Sogar cane 15 50 4 16 Cassa.a I 3 16 6f Castor oil 2 1 8 32 TDlato 1 1 1 12 Onions 2 B Other horticultural traps 1 3 2 B ""izo 1 4 CDrpe. 2 7 fruits (Banana, oring., grapes! 2 B (Note that lany far •• hive .or. than one casR trop). 96 o.ther ho.rticultural cro.ps and fruits (peppers, squash, banana, oranges) and one grows maize. Maize is generally grown o.nly fo.r subsistence in both areas. Twelve farms (40X) in the Paraguari sample have only o.ne cash crop, cotton. 15 farms (50X) have 2 cash crops, and 3 farms (10X) have 3 cash crops. In addition, mention shquld be made o.f the abundance of coco.tero trees in the fields o.f the farmers of this sample. Many col1ect and sell coco.tero fruits when they ripen in December. Of the farms in the CaaguazO sample, o.nly 4 (16X) have one cash crop, ten (40X) have 2 eash erops, SiH (24X) have 3, and five (20X) have 4 or more. Reasons for preferense fo.r the different eash erops Farmers were asked to name their preferred eash crops, and give their reasons (Table 3.2). 19 farmers (63.3X) in the Paraguari sample prefer eotton to other erops, 5 prefer sugar cane (16.7XI, and the remaining 6 far-mers (20X) indieated that both ero.ps offered them advantages. Of the farmers in the CaaguazO sample, 9 (36X) prefer eotton to all else, 7 (28X) prefer eassava, and 3 farmers (12XI see advantages in both these erops. 2 farmers prefer cassava and maize or castor oil, and 2 prefer cotton with sugar cane, banana, or onions. The reasons for preferenee for these erops are given in Table 3.3. Within the Paraguari sample, the importanee of eotton to the farmers questioned hinges on the faet that 97 TABLE 3.2 Cash creps prelerred by farlers in the t"a saople .reas. Paraguarl. n = 30. Caaguazu n • 25. e R n p PARASUARl SAMPlE CAASUAIU SANPlE No. al No. al hrer. 1 /iroers 1 [otton onl y 19 63.3 9 36 Sugar-cane only ~ 16.7 eattan and s.gar-cane 6 20.0 Cotton, sugar cane and banana 4 Cotton and onion 4 CasSiYa ..I y 7 28 Cassava and cotton 3 12 [assava and .lize 1 4 Cassava and castor oí! 4 Horticultural trops 2 B 98 TABlE 3.3 Relsons qiven for preferenee lor ehosen ello eraps: 1 01 laraer. que5tíonod (Paraguari n = 30, Caaguazd • = 251. SUPLE A R E A PARASUARI CAASUAZU e R D P Reason 9ívon lor Sugar Sugar Preference I Cotton Cane Catto. Cane Ca.5ava ntbers 1 Credit ¡vailabl. I 43.3 ..7 I B.O 1 1 Suarantead lartet I 16.] 16.7 I 1b.8 4.0 I I Higber prices/ineOle I 20.0 I 12.0 4.0 I I Snort .arvest eyel. I 10.0 I B.O I I Sive. a large returA I I all at once, to par I I off debts I 1 24.0 I I Feoe, input C05t5 a.dl 1 lD~r labou, require-I I aents (tban eDtto.) I 13.3 1 4.0 36.0 12.0 1 I SDl15 too ponr lor I I other er.ps I I 4.0 Mote that •••• farae .. gro. aore than o• • easn crap, and 500' gl ve lore tha. DRe reaSDn lar prefer.nc •• 99 they can get credit for inputs and more importantly to meet cash expenses (and amongat the poorest, buy food) ¿.t. the eritical period in their agricultural calendar. Relatively high priees compared wit.h the few alternatives they have, '" guarranteed roarket, and the short hal'"vest cyele whieh allow5 them to replant the followlng spring or sow some ",inter vegetables, are otherpdvantages the erop offers. Credit availability appeara to be less important for sugar-growing farmers, although a guarranteed market (local sugar-syrup factories) is important. Significantly, some farmers (wi th farms of froro 5.6 to 10.8 ha) find the lower input and lower i I overall labour requirements of sugar to be an advantage over t eotton. Cotton, rather than sLlgar, tends to be favoured by ¡ the smallest farmers; only one of the 14 farmers with less than 5.0 ha grows sugar as a c.sh erop. although sorne have small quantities for animal feed. Returns per hectare are theoretically larger for cotton than sugar, but the pricss paid by local middlemen are usually set when credit i. taken, and aften are lower than the official priees at harvest (If higher, the buyer ma y 1 ower i t) • Credi~ rates offered by in1:ermediO\ries or other money lenders, quoted by farmers during interviews, lie around 30-401. annually, and seed prices, as well those of chemieO\l products via. intermediO\ries are well above offieial or retail levels.Few farmers expect to make money on their cotton crop, Llnless they have enough land to sow 2 01'" 3 ha. The real reason for the preponderance of cotton Is 100 the fact that credit can be acquired. whieh i5 neeessary for survival fol'· the smallest farmers (8 out of 13 that qL\oted eredi t avai 1 abí 1 i ty as the reason for- thei r prefElrenee have less than 5 ha of landl and to pay for the hire of labour for the larger farmers. On the smallest farms there is no alternative souree of eash. 80th eredit and fertilizer use within the Paraguari sample are assoeiated with cotton production; without some form of credit many farmers would not be abIe to c:ultivate the crop. 26 (86.71.) of the farmers in the sample had rec:ei ved sorne form of c:radi t at tha time of the SLtrvey. 8 from offleial sourees ("Credito Agricola de Habilitación), 14 from intermediaries and 4 frem other privat.e sourCeS or famil y. 24 of these used it to buy cotton seed for planting, as well as for other househol d nE·ed5. Only farmer. in the Paraguari sample usad any kind of chamieal fartilizers, al1 having bought foliar nitrogen for c:otton. One had bought this with cradit. Within the Caaguazú sample, of the reasons given for preferance far cotton as a c:ash c:rop, che n",ture af the cash flow assoc:iated with that c:rop i5 the most important re_son for the farmers wha grow it. 6 far-mers, a.l1 in t.he same area of Repatriac:ión distric:t had outstanding debts with the .Instituto_ de Bienestar Rur,,-I (IBR) far their land, and the l"-rge sums of dine.ro junto (money all at once) that they receive from c:otton allow them to pay off portions of their debts. As in Paraguari sorne farmers see the guarranteed 101 market as an advantage, but credit availability was only considered an advantage by two farmers. 19 farmers (761.) received credit, 3 from official sources (CAH, Ministry of Agriculture, and Farmers' Cooperativesl, 8 from intermediaries, and 8 from money lenders or family. All 19 used part of this money to buy cotton seed, but a higher proportion than in Paraguari, 16 far~ers (641.), also bought insecticides or foliar nitrogen for the cotton crop. The significance of this is that, whilst cotton is grown by almost all the Caaguazú farmers, they do not depend on it as a source of credit at a critical time as do many of the farmers in the F'araguari sample. Instead they perceive other advantages, as suggested in Table 3.3. I The main reasons favouring cassava (and some~f the other crops, such as onions) as a c·ash crop quoted by the Caaguazú farroers are the lower inputs required to cultivate it (chemical fertilizers and insecticides) and its lower labour reqL\i rements,. in compar-isan with cot ton. Nevertheless, on 16 of the farms (641.) of sample, there is more land planted to cotton than to cassava. This suggests that the higher incomes which can be derived from cotton make it the first choice as long as labour is not limiting. Cassava, hence, becomes important to a farmer when he does 'not have €inough labour at his disposal, or cannot purchase more, to plant more cotton. Obvi ol..sl y by growi ng cassava as well as cotton, farmers can spread their risks more. 102 An added advantage of cassava, though not one mentioned by any of the farmers, is the fact that it can be sold during periods of cash scarcity. The resuIts froro the survey described in Chapter 2 indicate that in Caaguazú, as elsewhere, cassava sales (events, rather than absoiute qL\anti ti es) are more numer-ous duri ng the months of September to FebrL\ary. In both the F'araguari and the, Caaguazú samples farmers were asked whether they had soid cassava within the last year, and if so, how m\..,ch, at what price and what the destination of the caSSava was. Only one farmer in the Paraguari sampIe had done so (800 kg). 12 farmers in the Caaguazú sampIe had sold Cassava within 12 months of the survey (October/November 1985). These sales are detailed in TabIe 3.4. Of 24 transactions, 50/:. took place between August and October. 3 other farmars indicated that they were about to sell cassava. It appears that the ability to se11 cassava at this time reduces farmers' dependence on the availabi1ity of eredit for eotton, and accounts in part for the lack of importance attested to it by the farmers trom Caaguaz~ in comparison with the farmers from Paraguari. The reasons given by farroers in the Caaguazú sample for praference for Cassava indicate that these farmers do not haya the eash or labour resources to cultivate a11 of their 1and in tha intensiva way required for eotton. Cassava requires less weeding once the canopy clases, and no purchased inputs. The other way of looking at this problem is that there is • ceiling to the the amount of land a 103 TABlE 3.4 Sales of ~assava alOn~st laraers nI the ~aa9uató saople faro Date Quantity Priee DesHoation ¡tgl Igsft~l 38 12-84 5,000 7.0 Starcb Proouce" ft.J.Trocne 51 02-BS 6,800 10.0 Kercido de Abasto, Asunción 3S OH5 2,000 12,0 "ercado oe Abasto, AsunciOn 5! 03-85(.21 16,'100 9.0 "ercado d. Abasto, Asunción 47 04-85 60,000 12.0 "ercado de Abasto, Asunci6n 35 Ob-85 2,000 5.0 "ercado de Añasto, Asunción 44 06-85 2,000 4.0 "ercado de Abasto, Asunción 50 06-85 ¡x21 20,000 10,0 ftercaoo de Abasto, Asunción 41 01-B5 8,000 B.5 Starch Producer, ".J.Troche 50 07-85 10,000 b.O "ereado d. Abasto, Asunción 33 08-851,31 30,000 6,0 "ercado de Abasto, Asunción 34 08-85 11,000 6.0 "ercado de Abasto, Asunción 34 08-85 10,000 7.0 ~ertado de Abasto, Asunción 48 08-85 28,000 5,0 "ercado de Abasto, Asunción 31 09-851.3) 24,000 5.0 "ercado de Abasto, Asuncí 6n J.7 09-85 2,000 5,0 "ercado de Abasto, Asunción 43 09-85 12,000 5.0 Starcn Producer, ".J.Troche 31 10-85 12,000 7.0 "ertado de Abasto, Asunción 104 far-mer- can cultivate using family labour, limitsd cash reSQurces • • • O .<: ID "t ,g E • ¡; ••• O , • < •.. • .. ~ •," '" el ~ ~ O C'l O w ~ 8 8 § a:: .., ;:¡ O O -O N CI ü: (.w) ell!!Sseo UMOS Á¡lua:>SJ U! ea;\! 111 shows the area of recentIy sown cassava (2-3 months old) for the sampIe as a whole. The amount varies from 0.0 ha to 3.35 ha wi th a mean of 0.,87 ha. For the Paraguari farms, the mínimum is 0.13 ha, and the ma>:imum 1.95 ha, with a mean of 0.69 ha. For the CaaguazLt farms the mean is 1.09 ha, whilst the maximum and minimum correspond to those of the entire sample given aboye. In the Paraguarí sa,mple. on 23 of the 30 farms (777.) recently sown cassava is left in monoculture. On the rest it is intercropped with maize or watermelon. In the CaaguazLt sample the reverse is true. On 20 out of 25 farms (807.) this cassava is intercropped (mainly with maize but on some farms also with peanuts, watermelon or phaseol us beans). At the t:~ of the survey, most farms were utilising one year 'old' caS$'ava for s'.Jbsistenc,~ or sale. The area in cassava of this age is shown with farm size in Figure 3.12, and varies from a minimum of 0.0 to 2.0 hC'" wilch a me¿~n of 0.35 ha. Of the Paraguari +arms, tour' have no cassav" of lchis age; the mean value ambngst this s"mple of farms is 0.26 ha, and the maximum 0.80 ha. There are two farms in the eaaguazó sample wilch no '1 year old' cassava; the mean value is 0.46 ha, and the maximum 2~O ha. Seven farms haya cassava which is 2 years old, and one farm has 3 and 4 year ald cassava~ No farm in the Paraguari sample has cass.Va more than 1 year old. The area occupil?d by cassava which Is 2 or more years old is compared with farm size in Figure 3.13. The maximum area is 0.50 ha, 20.000 • • 15.000 N .§. • ..~,, ~ ~ '" 10.000 • • ....... -~ N ,5 «''~"" • • • • • 5.000 •• • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • '" • • • • •• • • •• • o • O 25.000 60.000 76.000 100.000 126.000 150.000 176.000 200.000 225.000 250.000 Farm size (m'" FIGURE 3.12 Area occupied by one \lesr old casseva comparad with farm size for the whole sample (56 farms). 113 and the mean for the Caaguazú 5ample 15 0,07 ha. Of the farms in the Paraguar:í. sample only 3 (10%) have cassava af one year or older whleh is intereropped (with m<'1ize and ln one case eowpeal. In the Caaguazú sample 10 farms (40%) have í nterer'opped eassava of one year or 01 der, a11 with maize .. The total area oecupied by caSSaVa of all ages on eaeh farm varies from a minimum of 0.21 ha. to a maximum of 6.0 ha., with a mean of 1. 61 ha.
~ ~ • ~ • • ,..... al • ..... 'o. 30,000 ;:J '" II .~, • • .. • .,. ]i 20,000 .. • ,'? • • • .. t •• • .. '" 10,000 .. .. .. •• •• • • • •• • • • •• • ••• .. • •• .. • .. •• I • I I I I I 25,000 60,UUIJ 75,000 100,000 125.000 150,000 175 ~"_ .., 000 200.000 225,000 250,000 ~ Farm size (m2) FIGURE 3.14 Totalarea occupied bycassava 01 all ages compared with farm size forthe whole sample ( farmal. 117 evidence of exceptional circumstances such aS that of farm 2, seven belong to Cluster 4 described above (Farms 3, 4, 5, 9,20,21,37), six coming fram the Paragu"ri sample. Dne farm (24) belangs te Cluster 3 (prob"bly because of the impertance of non-cultivable p"sture-land it does nat belang to Cluster 4) and lS "Iso fram Paraguari. Two farms (10,52) belong to Cluster 5, one each from Paraguari ,and Caaguazú. 80th of these have larger than average numbers of milk cows on the farm, which require pasture and consume important quantities of cassava. The only farm with less than 3.5 ha. that appeared to have enough cassava to meet subsistence requirements also belongs to CILIster 5 íF-al'"m 12). Little emphasis is given to cash cróps on this farm,-but the owner has another source of ineome, probably more important to him thanagrlculture. 3.3.2 Analysis of the area of n?cently sown Célssava. 1f 'we wish to explain the area occupied by cassava, it is necessary to eonsider a set of factors whieh gavern the amount of cassava sown by a farmer and a set of factors whieh govern the amount of eassava actually being consumed whíeh remains at any ane period of time. It would not be possible here to attempt to model a11 the factors that determine e1ther of these quantities, SLICh as soil fertility, yie1d potential of different varieties, or variable consumption patterns. Nevertheless, using the information which .. as co11ected during the survey on fami1y 80 *36 .33 04 ., *48 .37 *34 601 as .46 .31 .. *49 16. .32 *26 • 53 27 • o. 2~~g * 43 ~ *54 (.) .50 .c 3a *23 rn .51 *44 '(".) .18 *47 ,s; 15.~ c 2 4 .55 ;:: .,9 .... .o, 40 17. *SO .6 .46 ~1<13 .7 ..... 00 ., .8 .40 '~" *11 'E" .14 .22 -~ *28 .2 *38 • farms wíth no -.ssLHning tt,at this will control the area of land left far subsistence crops, cassava amongst them. In addi tí on, the number of pecple and cassava-consuming animals (pigs and milk-cow~) on the farm should also eNert some influence on the amount of cassava sown. The equation eNplaining the amount of caSSáV¿> sown for these farms i5 as ~ollows: 20,oooIr • 16.000 --N .E. • • ii ::l ~ e .g. 12.000 '" .~ .,0 ',;.:. 1o1 '" .... c • N c: .. .... á"..l. l''""! • • • .c._ .: 1.1.. • ., 8,000 «... '" • •' " • '" 4.ooor '" •• . ''"" • '" '" '" • '" '" '" O' I I I I I I O 25,000 50.000 75,000 100.000 125,000 150,000 176,000 200 000 225.000 250.000 Farm size (m2) FIGURE 3.16 Area occupied by recently sown cassava compared with tarm size tor the Paraguarf sample . .... -...,.~"'" .,,-~,","~-, -~_.,-' ""'",~,~~" ~-""'" ""~ -"'0. "_'._~~'" •• ""."--w~,._~_.~~""'~ .. """" .... ......w_,_,,,,,,_. __ ___ ._"._~_ .. _.. _~ ____. _~, ___~ . __ ,,~~~.,.,. __ .~_. ___ .~~~". ___ ,. . __ ~ __ _ 122 y '" 7453 + 0.058x. - 112.7x", + 32.6x", - 906><", ... here: y = area of recently sown cassava (in square metres) farm size (in square metres) percent of i'arm area occupied by cash crops number of pigs on the farm (young animal = 0.25 htlly grown animal) number oi' milk cows on the farm The equation explains 52.2 percent of the val-lance in y; the coefficients fer X3 and x. are not statistically significant however. Adding extra variables to describe the number of people on the f~rm does not improve the explanation offered by the modelo The variance unaccounted for may be a result oi' other priorities of the farmer, p"r-ticü1arly his pastur-e requirements, or it may be ? r-esult of differ-ences in so11 fertility perceived by the farmer and which control the amount of cassava he sows. 3.3.3 Analysis of the area of cassava used for consLtmption at the time of the survey. It is assumed that the area of cassava which is being consumed depends firstly on i'arm size. It has been shown aboye that this exerts sorne influence on the area of recently sown cassava. It would have been difficult to 123 . . measure the area sown in cassava the prevlous year with the same accuracy. On examining the amount of eassava being consumed on the farms 5tudied, it i5 apparent that the sample has again to be s\..lbdi vided. The following equation describes the relationship between farm size and the area occupied by .c~ssa~a of one year of older, for the whole sample: y = 230 + O ~ 03929i{ where: y = area of 'oId' cassava (currently being consumed; in square metras) x '" farm si;:e (in sqLlare metres) The equation only explains 30.7 pereent of the varianee in y, and neither coeffieient is statistically significant. If the C<4 + 255 .. 7xc 1771 ... here: y = area of 1 year old eassava (in square metras) ><, '" farm size (ín square metres) )(2 = ~ f arm si z e) '" (i n square, ,metres) X", '" number of pígs (young animal'" 0.25 fully grown animal) x... = number of adults (14) 1 íving permanently on the farm. Xa '" number of children «14) living permanently 'on the farm. This eHplains 52.1 percent of the vari ance in y. The coeffieients for the intercept, x::!> and X.q. are not statistically 5ignificant. Note that the equation is a better fit 'with'a quadratie term inclLtded; from Figure 3.17 it is apparent that the relationshi'p betl. . een the area in cassava and farm size i5 not linear. This suggests an upper 1 imi t to the ,;>,mount of one year 01 d eassavól on the 1 argest farms of 0.5 0.6 ha. at the time of the survey. Further" varianee in y can be explained by e;:cluding those farms which indicated that they had given away significant amo'_,nts of eassava ta pay labourers, ar had suffered sorne catastrophe ar une> lO,, • • ..... 'O" N "C 4,000 • • • O- ".O .~,, -> • .S • • • ''" ~" • • • ~ 2.000 I • • • •• .. • • oL 16.000 30.000 46.000 60.000 76.000 90.000 105.000 120.000 135.000 160.000 165.000 Farm size (m') FIGURE 3.17 Area occupied by cassava for consumption compared with farm size for the Paraguarl sample (excluding farms with no cassava). 127 quantity of cassava di¡¡¡posedaf in these forms is possíble. Therefore, five farms must be excluded on these graunds. All of these fa .... ms a .... e larger than 7.0 ha. For the remaining 20 farms (Figure 3.18', th. ar.a occupi.d by ane year old caS5ava i5 described by the equatian: y =.O.0532x. - O.0000002091x2 - 21.81x~ + 156.1x. where: y = area occupied by ane year ald cassava (in square m.tres' x • = farm siz. (in squa. ... metres) "X2 "" (farm size)'" (in squa. .. e metr.s) x", '" pe. .. c:entage of f arm ar.a in c:ash .c::raps }~ ... = number af .~rsans (adL!lts and c:hildF.n) living permanently on th. farm. This eXl'll'ains 76.4 perc:ent af the variance in y. The coeffici.nts aFe all statistically significant (a = 0.05). (It is appar.nt from Figur.3.18 that th. r.lationship between the aFea occupied by cassava and farm siz. is alsa quadratic:'. Of the 20 f ar-ms in thi s I ast graup, 9 far-meFs reported havi ng di spased of small amOLlnts of c:assava, el ther thr-ough sale o... gifts to n.ighbours. Th.s. farms a.... all lar-ger than 5 ha. It appear-s that on the very smaIlest farms, 1 ess than approxl matel y 5 h..... cassava i" not used to pay labourers, nor can enough be spared to help neighbours 4.000 '" '" '" O M 11 -c: N 3,000 .§. I .. ~ 1''"lO"Il <.> '" • • ." O .. .~. .. '" 1-' lO N >- • (XI Si 2.000 • lO «'~" .. .. 1.000 ~ .. • '" .. • .. 01-'"- 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75.000 90,000 105,000 120,000 135,000 150,000 165,000 Farm size (m') FIGURE 3.18 Araa occupied by cassava for consumption comparad with farm siza for the Paraguarf sample (excluding farms where large quantities were disposed 01 off the fa rm). 129 who have nene. Th. area of one year oId cassaVa on the farm and farm size are shown for the 11 remaining farms from which no <:aSsava ha.s been disposed of off the farm in Figure 3.19. The data are desc:ribed by the f0110 .. in9 equation: y '" O.05ú21x, O.OOOOOúl035x:z - 31.77x"" - 13.4x .. + 472x", + 144.2H", where: y '" a.rea oc:c:upied by ene year cassava (in square metres) farm size (in square metres) (fa.rm si~e)2 (in square metres) percent of fa.rm area in cash crops number of pigs on the farm (small animal '" 0.25 large animal) numberef adults living on the farm number of chi ldren. «14) . 1 i vi ng on the farm. The equation accounts for 93.5 percent of the variance in y. All coefficients except that for ><2 are statistically significant¡ the equa.tion nevertheless is a better fit with the quadratic tarm includad than if it is discardad. Farro slze, by influencing the amount ef caSSO\va planted, i5 undoubtedly the strongest determinant of the area of ene year eld cassava .t a point in time on the farms sampled. The positive coefficients for the numbers of .. dults and children on the farm suggest a conscious decision 4,000 • * 3.ooo~ • ~ I1 c: • N .§. lO ". lO ''"" ' .... O" " 2,oooL ..., O 'O .~ lO, ->- • c: .. • ,, «~ • • 1.oool • "" • o' . O 15,000 30.000 45.000 60.000 75,000 90,000 105,000 120,QOO 135,000 150,000 Farm size 1m') FIGURE 3.19 Area occupied by Cassava for consumption compared with larm siza for the Paraguar[ sample (excluding farms on which any cassava was disposed 01 ofl the farm). 131 to plant more cassava as family size increases, rather than a decrease in the amount of cassava due to increased consumption, which is associated with the number of pigs on the farm. Often pigs are only bought on ayear to year basis for fattening, and sold towards the end of the year; they may not have much influence on the amount of cassava planted, only on the rate of consumption. As was hypothesized, the percentage of farm area on the Paraguari farms which is sown in cash crops exerts quite ,¡ a strong negative influence on the remaining area in cassava, probably also by limiting the area planted (assuming that the proportion of farm area planted in cash I crops remained relatively constant from,the year of planting to the year of c'Ol'I:!5umption).. Some farmers gave away or payed labourers with important quantities of cassava. It may well be that farmers with more than 5 or 6 ha. pIant significantly more eassava than they will consume, to pay labourers, and for seeurity in the event of poor yields or elimatic perturbanees (Figur-e 3.16 shows that 6 farmers in Pat-aguari pIanted more than one heetare of eassava). It is important to note that the regression models only represent the period of time over whieh the survey was condueted. Without including data on rates of eonsumption it is not possible to prediet how much longer the eassava will last on eaeh farm. For the same reason the farms without one year old eassava eould not be ineluded in the model, whieh makes it diffieult to prediet the eonditions 132 under whieh a farm would have just run out of eassava at the time the sLlrvey ",as eondueted. Those which had run out of cassava, or ",ere about to run out, have been indicated aboye (Figure 3.15). The assumption made at the time of planning • the formal s~lrvey, that farms of less than 3 ha. could not gro", enough eassava far subsistence requirements, seems to be borne out by these data, at least in minífundia areas like Paraguari. The regression models described aboye go some ",ay towards explaining why this should be so. Farm size and the proportion of farm area planted in cash erops e,{ert a strong influence on the amount of cassava sown on these farms. In Caaguazú, ",here cassava is a cash crop far many farmers, the relationships described do not function¡ their purpose was only to explain the small quantities of cassava on the smallest farms in the whole sample. 3.3.4 Reasans given for nat planting more Cas"ava Given the impartance of cassava in the diet, why do the farmers in the Paraguari sample ",ith least land not plant more cassava? Similarly, given the lower labour reqLlirements and fewer purchased inputs far cassava, why do farmers in the Caaguazú sample nat plant more cassava? By ncw, the answers farmers give to these questions should seem fairly abviol..\s nable 3.6). 18 farmers (60r.) fram the Paraguari sample simply gave the lack of a market as the principal reason for not 133 lABtE 3.6: Reasons given far nol pl.ntin~ .are cassavi. REASllN GIYEN FARM TOTAL Nat enough land to ¡GIl 3,4,5,9,20,21,24 Pa¡'águar¡ 1 IDre c.ssava; otber 35,37,49 Caaguazú 3 traps (coltoa) tate preferente. Prefer to sow otber 31,32,33,34,36,38, craps for sale, rath.r 39,40,41,42,43,44, than lare caSSiva Isel 45,47,48,50,51,52· Cuguaztl 18 so •• eassaval. ' Have enough far subsis- 46,53,54,55 Cuguazú 4 tenee needs le¡ssava not one uf their tash trapsl. Have enough for suhsis- 1,6,7,8,11,12,14, tence needs Ino ..r ket 17,18,19,22,23,25, for cassaval. 2.,21,28,29,30. Paraguarí lB Increased quantity soon 2,10,13,15 Paraguarí 4 tM. year. Lack 01 re.ourtes ¡cashl lb Paraguari 1 to he abl. to sow lote. 134 growing more eassava. Dne farmer summed up the situation thus; " 1 ean't sell cassava if 1 plant more oo. nobody around here has the money to buy it , and only occasionally can yau sell any in Acahay market." However, another farmar pointed out that if he wanted to sow more cotton he had to sow more eassava to feed and pay fo.- the e>:tra--wage labour he used; in actual faet, sinee the eassava whieh 1S used to feed and pay labourers is ayear old at the time the labour is Ltsed, then if the farmer has little or no eash, the amount of cassava he has left over from subsistence re.quirements may eHert an important influenee on the amount of extra labour he can hire, hence on the area he can sow in cash crops. Another farmsr said he would prefer to cultivate more cassava, rather than colton, if tbere were a market, because it involved less inputs and 1aboLlr; this echoes the sent i ments of sorne of the farmers in CaaguaZL\. 18 farmers (72%) froOl the CaagLlaZú. sample grow cassava as a cash crop, but prefer to grow other crops rather than increase the area sown to cassava. Cotton and otber high value crops bring higher r~turns per hectare; therefore a farmer wi11 not decrease the area in such crops to increase the amount of cassava he SORS. Secause of shortage of 1 abour, or of resources to l1i re 18.bour, none of these farmers could considar incre2.sing the total area they cultivated as a way of increasing the area in cassava. Two farOler,; staled this eHplicitly :plained, "You can always get cassava from somebody else who has more land and sows 136 more ••. you need the money from cotton." Another problem mentíoned by two farmers who cultivate land as sharecrappers is that the landawners feel that cassava occLlpies land for toa long, and there are few that wil1 let a sharecropper plant cassava. Land is usually sharecropped far cottan, which only oecL\pies the land far five or si" months; sinc:e the shareeropper usually sL\pplies the·labaur, the land awner Can 'lIso inerease the area he has in catton withaLlt inereasing his laboLlr reqL\irements greatly. At first it appears that cassava shartage ls not so critical to these farmers; e:< ..m ples have been given of farmers who as sume that they can meet their needs from neighbours or by working far cassava. Other comments and personal remarks lead one to believe otherwise. r"lany of those wha have enough cassava mentian the OCCL\rrence of theft of cassava, something which was recorded widely in the formal survey .. If the social enviranment is as benevalent as sorne farmers make out why is theft so comman':' Whilst the incidence of gift-giving ef cassava is qL\ita common betwaan neighbours, sOrne farmers haY€? te buy cassav«, which means that they hava less cash available for other purchasas which might broaden the diet or increase protein intaka. One f¿wmer racounted how ha had recentl y had te sell his mi 1 k cow to buy cassava, depriving his childran of an important part of their daily dieto Because of tha importance of cassava in the diet, L\nreliability of supply irlereases the vulnerability of the farmer and his family in .ituations in '137 which even the small amounts of cash used to buy cassava could be critical for short-term 'survival '. This situation only eases for the poorest farmers in Paraguari in December, when they can sel1 cocotero fruits, and harvest maize (choclo). The need for cassava continues however; 7 of the 9 farmers in the Paraguari sample with farms smaller than 4 ha. (those who lacked cassava or were going ta experience shartage later in the year) began to harvest their 1984 cassava. c,-op at the beginning of February 1985 (5 manths old). The ane farmer in the Caaguazá sample who was to run out af cassava later in the year (farm 37) began harvesting his 1984 crop at the beginning of January 1985, at less than 5 months old. For the other farroers in the Paraguari sample, the average date when they began to harvast in 1985 was about the roiddle of March, a month or so later than the smaIlest farmers. Those larger farmers in Paraguari, and more commonly in Caaguazá, who began to harvest in February did so because of preferenc:es for the better c:ulinary characteristics of naw c:assava, whereas the • smallest farmers were forced to harvest becaLlse they had none of their previous crop left. Part of the problem faced by the smallest farmers i5 that by having to harvest so early they forego higher yieIds which the crop could attain if it were left in the ground longer. Unfortunately they do not have a choice. 138 3.4 Soil Conditions in Cassava Fields of the Sample 0+ Farms 3.4.1 Objectives Regional differenees in soil eonditions h",ve been estimated for the purpose of defining micro-regions, using surrogate variables to subdivide the study area in terms of soil fertility and soil texture, Yield differences in cassava are attributed to these regional differenees in soil eharacteristics by Brun et al (1985). Neverthe1ess, the sarue authors suggest that the differences in soi1 fertility. and henee in yields wi11 decrease. 1his is because agricultural practices which might maintain soil fertility hi,l~e not been adopted in areas of reeent colonisation where fertility 15 currently higher. To the obs!i?rver who visits Caaguazú direetly after visiting ParaQuari, the differenees in so11 fertility are very obvious¡ they are manifest by the h!i?althier appearanee, 1arger size and better germination rate of crops in the former area, eompared with tt1e latt",r", However, it 'is not possible to say how ffie,ch more fertíle they are merely by observation. Haw do their nutrient contents differ? It would not be within the scope of the Cassava Project to attempt to answer this question systematically for the two departments of immediate coneern, 8011 samples have been taken on the farms of the respondents to the $eeond questionnaire, to give an initial guid. to soil fertility 139 differences (which are not obvious from e:'¡sting maps) , and to relate the data thereby obtained to the defined micro-regions. Soil textural analyses can also be compared to the farmers' classification to gain a better understanding of how they differentiate between soils, and to try and verify the assumptions used to define the micro-regions. 3.4.2 Sampling and analysis Samples were taken from fields of recently sown cassava on each farm visited in the second survey, using an auger or spade, to a depth of 30 cm. (auger) and 30-40 cm. (spade) . Samples were generally combined from 3 separate cores or pi ts. Analyses were carried out at the Instituto Agronómico Nacional in Caacupé, Pa.raguay, for pH, percentage of organic matter, calciuffi, magnesium, potassium, phosphorous, and sand, silt and clay fractions. Note that the location (general) of the last three farms of the Caaguazú sample was chosen to allow the collection of samples of a different soil type l.ldl.Y ~ ité, or Terra Roxa) to that which is most common in that part of Caaguazú (sandy soi 1 s) . 3.4.3 Soil fertllity and texture The maximum, mínimum and mean values of the variables analised are given far the two areas, Paraguari and Ca.aguazú, in Table 3.7. The last three individual samples • 6.3 • 6.0 .. ". 5.7 ". ". • • • • 5.41- • .. ". ". • • .. ". ,. • .. .. ". .. • • .. •• • ". •• ". ". • 5.1 r- ... • • l • • ". • • • • •• • I :r 4.8 • Q. 4.5 4.2 ... 3.9 .. 3.6 • 3.3 o 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 Paraguari sample Caaguazu sample Farm FIGURE 3.20 Soil pH in cassava fields of the whole sample. 141 from Caaguazú all have over 13'l. clay content, whilst none of the others in that sample have more than 6.5% .r aguar i soi 1 s, on the other hand, had mostly been in constant cultivation far as long as the farmers could remember .. Taking this into account, the differences in organic matter content are not very gr"eat. Onl y fOL\r 04 the fietds in the Paraguari sample <13.3%), and five in the Caaguazá sample (207.) had been fallowed ever, according to the respondents. Those in the latter sample had all been for periods of one year, whilst those in Paraguarí included one field that ¡",ad onJ.y ,-ecently been taken Ol.tt of use as r~ough pasture (r:astrojo); two had been fallowed foro one year each and another f"m- two yeans. Generally, fallowing is not a common part of the agriculture practised by farmers in Paraguari due to shortage of land. In C.aguazú some farmers spoke of +al10win9 as B necessity especially on the sandier soils. As has been shovm (Section 3.2.3), lack of labcur is another reason why land is left uncul ti vc>.ted in thi s area. No significant relationships were fOLlnd between the length of time sinee deforestation, the occurTEmce and dur"ation of f¿dlowing ".nd the organie matter content of the CaaguazO soils. Of the cassava fielels in the Paraguari sampIe only 5 had ever recelved sorne application of either chemieal or orgaqic fertilisers as fa .. as the farmers could remember. FIGURE 3.23 Soil silt content (%) in cassaV8 fields of the whole sample. 148 One farmer had applied organic matter when the cassava was planted 1n 1985. Onl y one farmer had applied any of chemi.cal fertiliser, three years prior to the sur-ve)'. Irl the Caaguazú sample only one farmer had applied any sort of fertiliser, foliar nitl'"ogen, to a cotton crop previous to the survey. The sandier nature of most of the Caaguazú soils must favour stronger leaching, which may account for the absence of differences in nutrient content between the two samples. Cation e}:change capacity, not anal i SE?d, is likely to be higher for the Paraguari soils because of their higher clay content. Organic matter content and pH are both likely to continue to decrease with further cultivation and leaching in the Caaguazú soils. 3.4.4 80il textural differences between the 5011 c]asses identified by farmers. Farmers were 2s~~ed to nam~ the type of soil which was s¿..mpl ed on their f arMm. "_"".-!7 wer-e of the :tll.Y P_r~tá type. 1 1 of the y-b):'ru:í. type, ~ L each of the :tll.Y r~~~~~ .Lt.~. a.nci LJ;,1_:Z ~k~Y :i'd • types. 13 farmers said that the soil type fell in between No name was given for this soil. farmers did nol know the soi1 lype sampled. BecaUS2 of tCle si:::e of each group, c:ompari sons can onl y be made between Jd.:Ly. i='.::Ltá • ybirLli, a.nd the soi1 which falls between the two. The mean values of sand, silt and elay contents for the sample data Bccording to the soil type named by the 149 TABLE 3.'1 "liD values of .and, silt and clay contents iDr soil types identified by farlers. SIllL TYFE SAND !1l SILT m CLAY III mU.ill 83.6'1 9.83 6.92 Median type BS.56 7.B4 3.75 Ybycui 'IU6 5.63 3.81 TABLE 3.10. Sairnov TI statistic cOlparing sand, silt and clay conteñts 01 thre. dífferen! .oil types identífied hy far.e ... SIlll TYPE Cn~PARISON Sanó Silt Clay Content tootent Content !hr RY!Á ~ Median type 0.5761 0.358 0.7101 "edian type - Ybicui 0.481 0.431 0.270 !hr RY!Á - Ybicui 0.6'11* 0.46B 0.60S* • Significant al (1. 0.01 Others not significan! .t (1: 0.1. 150 farmer is given in Tabla 3.9. The yJ:1y p-ytá sai 1 s woul d appear ta be different from the others in terms of ••" d, silt and clay cante.nts. The median type, has 1 ess sand and more si 1 t th~n Yl:~L~J3..i whereas clay contents are similar in both. To test for statisticsl differences between the different soi1 types for sand, si1t and clay contents, Smirnov's T1 Statistic ha. been calculated, and ls given in Table 3.10. The soil type :;d;¡y pytá has signific:antly dlf'ferent sand and elay contente to those af both of the other soils. No significant differenees exiet between the eilt contente 0+ any of the soile, nor between sand and elay contente of the ybielli and median typesc lt can be concluded that differenc:es recognised between the two soi15 named by farmers correspcnd te significant differences in clay and s¿¡,nd content s ~ However, eigniflcant differenees in these va~iables do not exist between the named sandy sail, ybiclJi~ and the lntermediate soil distinguistled sep~rately but not named by farmers. The differerlce between these tWQ types of soil which i5 distinguished by farmers may not therefore be based on te}~ture, but on so me other charac:t.eristícs. No!" i5 this li~ely tQ be chemical; student's T 1 was calculated for Lhe S2.me soí 1 types for- ea,eh of the nu'cr i ents ar,al i sed. ThE only signiflcant difference found was between the organic rr,¿;tte,· content of the :t1c>: P.:ili soi1s and the median type, WhlCh may Just be a reflection of the predominant Qccurrence ot U,E? foc'",e.- ", the Paragu",ri sample 2nd ttle latter in the 0.01 r f f ! I I! I JI! o 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 Paraguari sample Caaguazu sample Farm FIGURE 3.24 Soil clay content (%) in cassava fields of the whole sampla. 152 4. CONCLUSIONS 4.1. Method for Defining the Micro-Regions 4.1.1 Method used, costs of fieldwork and time requir.d. The micro-reglons (see Table ~.9 and Map 21) have be",n defined using a combinatian of s€.condary data and fielcl survey .. E>:isting methods of informal slIrvey have been used to 9ain a better understanding af the processss whieh affect eaSSava productian in different parts of c:ent.ral Pa'-agL,ay. To draw the micra-regions data have orEen collected throughout the stlldy area from a A deeper through a more d~tailed case-study af two cass~va-producing areas ... The field-work was all completed in B periad of ten weeks. The toi.:al cost for this stage was abOLtt $6,000 U':3 .. survey data were initially processed and the micro-rsgions defined In a period of about 3 months. A further 3 manths' work was required far _nalysis of the case-study data and production of this documento 153 4.1.2 Results of informal and formal surveys. The informal and formal survey work have allowed th., identificatian af broad characteristics of the Ci.1.SS2V2 producir,g areas and the differences between them. Maps of the distribution of qualitative variables far a sampIa of c:ompañí as have been combí ned wi th maps of envi ronOtE:ntal characteristics to delimit the micro-region •. Analysis of secondary and formal survey data has permitted the identification of regional differences in population change ratas and farm fragmentation over time. Differences in farm size are reflected by variability in things su'ch' as use of fertilizers, Bccess to credit and seasonal shortages 9f cassava. Regional differences in agricultural activities ar-e i denti f i ed based on the importance of tt1e crop to the farmers interviewed (that ís, haw much they rely on it as a source of eash) rather than simply on th~ area SQwn. Sea son al ca.sh shortage, cassava sal es and ca.ssava shor-tage have been identified far the survey area as a whole from this data. The descriptive informaticn for each micro-regian (Table 2.9) comprises the iníti.l input te elAT's data-base. The mapped micro-regions, topographic infarro.tlon, roads and place locations will be added to this as digitized geographic infarmation, and climatic data will be linked to each micro-region according to the meteorological sta.tí ons which fall within eaeh. Each micro-r~egion can be used as a data-stara.ge uni t f or other survey and tt- i ".1 s data .., h i eh 154 arise either fram the SEAG-CIAT-IDRC Cassava F'raject or independently. Data fraro the 1981 agricultural census cauld be incorporated inta thi. base if the geographic boundari2' af the districts to which the data pertain cculd be identified. This would probably also require the proouctiorí of a .erie. of dot-distributian maps in eollabaratian with SEAG to appcrtian the data carrectly to the micro-regions, sinee their boundaries wil1 not coincide with those of the administrative units of the eensus. 4.1.3 Case-Study Results. The more detalled ease-study survay has yiaIded important information cm land-use in mini.fyndL,,, and newly colonised areas, and on the way this affeets cassava produet.ion. A .ample 0+ farms has been elassified by a clustering technique based on size and ttle prbportion 0+ land devoted to eash erops. Amongst the smallest far~s~ generally strong orientation towards cash cr-ops reduces th0 a.rea. available for subsistence productíon to a VE':ry stf!¿<.ll cultivat&? e. proportion of thair farm than thoa. ln Caaguazú, and it i. hypathesized that tt,is is because 0+ differences in tr,e cost of hlred labour. signifieant amount. of unused land. This tends to favaur cas,se.va product ion in Caaguiilz 1) , since it requires less labour and purehased i nputs than the ",.1 ternati ve eash erop, cotton I ... lthough eotton 1S atlll the principal eash erop on 155 most farms). In Par_guari cotton is the preferred e_sh crop because credit is available to cultiyate it. Far the Paraguari sample of farms, the are8.S ir, recently SONn and one year oId cassaya haye been modelle¿. and explained in terms of (principally) farm size, t:lI_'.t ¡~he best model. include the proportion of farm area in "ash erops _nd the number of human s and animals eonsuming cassava on the farm. This model1ing can only be done on a simple basis for the smal1est farms. On larger farms cassava is disposed of in a number of Nays including payment of labourers¡ sorne farmers plant e:4tra eassaya specifl!:ally for this. In Caaguazú eassava is sOWn as a cash crop, and modelling of the area in eaSsaYa was not possible. Finally sorne information he,s been obtained ",bout soils in the two areas wt1ich suggests that there ani? differences in soil texture and fertility Ibased on pH &nd organic matter content) betw~en the two areas. not great, hON_ver, probably due to rapid fertllity dwclinB in the sandy soils of the CaBguBzG s.mple. 4 .. 2 .. CassaYa Production within an Agro-Socioeconomic System The survey information and other descriptive material which has beén used to define cassava micro-regions and the case-study material indie.te the oper~tion of interrelated sets Qf processes. These affect the cassava productiorl .' 156 sitLlation in a nL\mber of ",ays. AIl of these processes ought to be considered in research planning and in praject design, since the C25S¿~2 production situation in each micro-region i5 a result ~+ their interactions. Figure 4.1 attempts te illu.trate these interactions. 4.2.1 Commercial Cassava production and marketing 'Commerci al' ca5So\vO\ producti or1 i s concentratad ir1 certain areas, genarall y in those of more colonisation (Map 1.9). Farmars in micro-regions 4, 5, 6, 11, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33 sell cassava to Asunción's Mercade de Abasto. In addi·tion, farmers in micro-r~ons 26, 27, 29 and 30 sell cassava to starch producers in N.J.Trot:he (Guairá). Farmers in micro--region 23 sell cassava to local small-scale starch pr-oducers~ In al most al1 the other micro-regions cassava is sc,ld ln limitad quantities, to small urban markets ar wittlin thE rural community itaelf. In micro~re9icns lO, 14, 17 and 24 no cassava ia sold at all. Ttle concentration of commercial cassava production in recently colanised zonas is a result cf the rela.tive abundance of 1 and, and the low production costs in t~,ese .c;:reas. In Chapter .c> fa.rmers' reaSQns for preferring diff€rent e.ah erops are descr,bed, The most commonly citad reason fer growing cassava is the 10N l"ballr requirements of the crop comparad with eotton. Farmers are therefore able " 157 to cultivate mora of their land if thay sow cassava than if they sow more 1 abOL!r-i ntensi ve crops. Cassava yields are highar in these araas than in tha minifundia araas. (Br'u;"') >ll. al, 1985). F'roduction costs are therefore lower, "nd tila volume of production so great that cass.va pricas in ti'. entire region are affected. Cassava is therefc.we simply nat a viable cash crop in the minifundia areas, even for farmers wha ha.ve enoL!gh l and to make them 1 ess dé!pendent an cot ton as a cash crop. A further point in cassava"s favour manifest in Repatriación, Caaguazú ls its greater tolerance to drought in lhe very sandy soils of that area (micro-region 28), again compared to that'of catton. The marl,»ting si tuati on for cassava in Paraguay i s currantly quite limitad comparad with the magnitud. of production. Mast cassava is undoubtedly consumad in rural After Asunción, starch producers in M~J. Trocha, and in Caaz 2.pá, are thesecc:md largest mar'·:et (no dat2. a," E' available to the author to allow a compawison). Commercial starch production is therefore very centralised. limited markets for .tarch (mainly for traditicnal faods) restrict demand for cassava for starch. Other small-scale processing industries (mainly far-ina prodtJction) ha.'v'G:? limited demand for ca.sava. Access to the Asunción rnarket is rea50nably good for mQst of the newly colonised .?.re2.S in GU.air"á, Pa.raguari and CaagLlaZlJ. • The principal caasava producing micro-regions 158 (27, 28, 29 and 30) lie appro,dmately 150 kms from Asunci6n, but produc:i ng éilY"eas in that depar-tment range from 100 to over 200 f,ms di stant. Cassava producing areas to ttle Nortl, of Caaguazú, around YhLt and San JaaqLlin (micro-regíon 30) are particularly remote. Nearer- Asunción, where access is i mproved by a denser road network, herti cul tur'al .,,,d ot.her high ·value crops become mor,e import.ant. Only in one or two of the rompañias sLlrveyed in Cordillara, for e>:ample, are there farmers wha market CaSsava in Asunción. The poor quality of most rural roads and the practice of closing t.hem to traffic when it rains create problems in the precess of marketing cassava in many producing areas. Through delays, this must also add te pest-harvest losses. eassava's fle>:ible harvest period allows farmers who produce the crap for sale and who can find ti buyer te augment their income during periods of cash "ca,~city. In areas such as Caaguazó this can be a majcr source of inCOffie at thi" time. In tha fuinifundia areas farmers who have mor~ cassava than they require for subsistence sometirn2S 5e11 the ¡;:rop in small quantitie5 in local towns~ 5imila,~ly to incraase income when cash is scarce. This takes place in micro-regions 1-3, B, 9 , 15, 16, 18, 22, 31 and 32 .. SalE of e.ssava to neighbours who do not have sufficient far subsistence also occurs in sorne communities .. Neve,-thel ess, in the minifundia areas af Paraguari earnings from cassava are very limitad. 159 4.2.2 Cash flow Income and e>:penditures demonstrate marked peaks in' the year for most farmers. There aF'e few al ternB.ti ves te cattan as a cash crap in the area stLtdied, and the mai.n ones, cassaYa and SLtgar cane haye limited spatial distributians. Far many farmers the most crucial per'iod of the year is that of cultivation of cotton, and the least troubled period is that which follows the cotton haryest. In any case the en: i stenee of a winter season in which agricultural aetivities eease tends to ereate a peak demand far labaur far planting in the months immediately fo110wing it. Insafar as this demand must be met by hiring labour 1t becomes a period af peak cash demando Nere credit freely ayailable ta those farmers that needed it the shortage of cash would not be a problam. Official restrictions prevent farmers with no titla te their land from gettlng loans from the e.N.F. I whieh is by far the mDst widespread official souree of eredit (see Map121. Inatead most farmers rel y on Ltnoff i el al sQurcea of credl. t, and pay high interest rates. In praetice this prevents capital aceumwlation amongst the smallest farmsrs, sinee by the time cotton la harvested they owe the majority of their earnings to who.ver gave them credit. The limited land resources 0+ many farmers are perhaps the real cause behind thi s i nabi 1 i ty to rai se enoLtgh cash f rom one year' s harvest so that sorne remaln during the following year's lean periodo Low prices tor cotton, and agricultural cammodities in 160 general accentuate the problem (y .... tes 1981, p 1(7). Cash flow problems are most acute, then, in mi ni fungi d. ar-eas wi th little divarsity of cash crops. area.s such a.s central Guairá where there exists a marf.:et foro sug .... r cane with some credit availability, the situ.tion •• les. grave but only marginally so (since labour requirements for sugar c .... ne are greatest for the harvest, traditional1y In August and in September and Decembf?r). In CaagL\aZó. cassav. ... sales help to even out the cash-flow on the farro in sorne areas, especially where land is not in short supply. 4.2.3 Cassava prod~lction for subsistence Cassava, I s an eNtremel y i mportant part of the Paraguayan campesíno'so-daily diet, probabl y mor'e so on the smallest farms (Section 1.2.2)_ A nL,mber of processes ope'-ate to crea'ce ¿; $;c:an: i t Y of cassava for subsistence on these farms (Figure 4.1). Because of their scarce land resourees, chaose between cul ti vati ng enaugh C:.e"l\ssava to meet their need., and eultivating enough ef a eash crop te be abl. to marn sufficient cash te pay fer schooling of their children, services and foodstuffs su.ch as meat and oi 1_ Informal eredit is therefore a vital necessity for them; many farmers in the area studied cultivate cotton far this reason. Survey data suggest that in a;: 1 east 25 of the 33 mi cro-regions so me farmers E?}~peri ene€? 21. shortage of ca-ss¿ava 161 for subsistence for part of the year, and in 2 (micro-regions 15 and 16) that amajority of farmers are in this situation. Only in 5 micro-regions, 4·of which are in Caaguazét and one Guaira, is there little or no shortage (m,iero-regions 21, 26, '27, 29 and 30) and only in three of \1 these (21, 26 and 30) is there no hint of any s,,-,:>.rcity. Just how many farms are there that are likely to experience a shor'tage of ca~sava? In Chapter 3 (F i gLlre 3.15) the hypothesis tt.,¡¡t farms of less than 3 ha. ar'e not capable of mgeting sL(bsistence requirements seems to nave been sub"tantiated. Figure 3.15 suggests that farms of upto 4 ha. may in fact be included in this category. Preliminary data from the 1981 Agricultt;ral eeneus IAppendix 6) do not allow the number of farms of less than 3 or 4 hectares to be ealculated direetly. As a surrogate the nL,mber of far'ms of less than oro equal to 5 ha. can be calculated. This is given for each 'district' whieh falls within the area for which micro-regions have been defined, in Appendb: 6. The data can not. be accurately subdivided between the defined micro-regians since the limits af mic:ro-regions administrative units for which the data 15 recorded are unlikely to coincide (and in any case the administrat.ive units· boundaries are not marked on available maps and often are unknown). In the departments of Central, Cordillera, Caaguazü,. Guairá, Caazapá and Paraguarl there were 71,979 farms 154.6% of the total) smaller than 5 ha. in 1981. (This ineludes 162 farms elassed as 'landless', Xt is assumad hare that this term refers to agricultural exploitations which are eomposecJ entí rel y of rentad or sharecropped 1 and) • As a ven; eonservati ve esti mate, at 1 east 60% of these mLlst be small e'-- thanor equal to 3 ha., sinee almost all of the individual distriets have farm-size distribution curves which are skawed laft of the 5 ha. elass interval (Appendi>: 6). In other words, there are at 1 east 42.000 f arms of 3 ha. or- less in size in these six dapartments. Can Wi? aSSLlme that on all of these, farmers will not gr-ow enough t:assava ta maet subsistene. requirements? As was demonstratad ín Figura 3.15, sorne farmers may devote more of their land to producing subsistence erops rather than eash erops. The ease-study data suggest that these are a small minority. The extrapolation 0+ the case-study eonditions to other areas will nal be everywhere val id. In areas where more 1 Ltcrat í ve cash c:ropSt ar"e gr·Qwn., around Asunción for example, shortage of cessava (resultjng from deeisions to devote mfJst af the farm ta cash c:raps) can be offset by purehase of other foodstuffs, or indeed of eass"va. Or it may be, that farmers do not need to devote as mu.eh of their land to eash erops if rE?munerations are !oi gher, and therefore produce more cas-,sava. Th i s may b.? the case in parts af micro-regions 1, 2~ 4, 11, and 12 In the minifundia are"s, in which alternative eash crops to cattan are grown and where credit may be available for amall, title-less farmers ta grow them, In the newly eoloniaed 163 areas parts of miero-regíons 27, 31, 32 and 33 have similar condi ti ons al thOL\gh farms are generall y 1 arger here. Elsewhere the smallest farmers are almost antirely, dependent on eotton to raisa eash (sugar-growing areas are e,{eluded sinee the crop has special labour and transport requireroents which disfavour very small farroers). In general, then, this estimate, of the nurober of f",rmers likely to e}'perience shortage of eassava for subsi stence (from thei r own farm) , is acceptable. It suggests that approximately one third of all farms in the six departments studied could benefit from i ncreases in ca$sava production purel y for subsi stenee purposes. F'aragLtayan farmers are buying more food no,," than previously. Thís not only includes meat, .pil. and other essentíals, but also pasta, bread and other wheat produets, and rice, that is, SOLlrees of earbohydrates. Tr'aditional maize and cassava-based foods are now less important. This may be due to the greater convenience of pLU""cha.sed foodstuffs, or even to 1 DWE?F energy requirements fer preparation. But on the smallest farms, where c:ash i s almost constantly in short supply, it can only be because the farmers cannot produce enough food. Yates 0981, P 1(9) makes similar observations. At times of greatest cash scareity purchase of food on these smallest farms ffiLlst cease .. During the perlad frem September te December we have seen hOW cassava sales within rural areas, as well as theft, increase dramatically. Because of the timing of the crop's 164 growing cycle, the early harvest, and small aOlount5 planted, cassav:cess of 1 abour, so mue M so that natíonal and espec i ;;;,11 Y internati6nal migration from departments llke Paraguari and Cordillera has redLlead popLll at ion growth-"rates to standstill, or put tham in decline ITable 2.1). l.aek of cash on many farms pravents hiring of this l.bour during periods of peak need. Labourers are faced with the choice of migration or working for payment in kind (for e>:;;;,mole cassava, as has been explained)~ This situation M¿>.s developed as a result of differentiation in farm-size and the development of a sami-landless elass. Rec i proca.l 1 abour 166 (minga) is disappearing in many places as a result of thlS. 4.2.5 80il fertility • The interaetlon of a number of soil fertility decline. The natural conditions which f3VCU~ erosion and fertility declina are accentuBted by the abandonment of trad1t10nal fal10w1ng practice. (partly the rasult of the subdivision of l.nd) and by the lack of adequate technology to maintain soil fertilily. Sample data from a newly colonised area 0+ C¿'.aguazú between soil fertility of the two areas, though the dala cannot claim to be representative for the tWQ Departmerlts as a whol e. If we accept the ~entative conc]usjorl that Eoil fertility differenees are b.sed on the residual effeets 0+ natural fertility under foresl, then the recerlt.l':l colonised areas (Mlcro-regions 9, 10, tl,13, 14, 17, 2.0, can b~ consldered at present te have somewhat more fertilD soils~ Th.re i5 little evidenee from availab18 sel suggest that there are other significant djffer~r,c~~ in sOll fertility (basad for- example en mineral content). Soil management does not differ between the newly colonised and older settled areas. With the e};ceptian of sorne horticultural producing areas (parts of mi c.:.:ro-regi 0,15 1 ~ 2, 4, 11 .nd 27) eultivation is relatively extensive~ Farmers in Caaguaz0 and other recently colonised areas who than average yields are entlrely dependent un 167 the fertility of the soil for lheír success. How long v,i 11 they continue to have such SLAceess w,ithout a ehange in cultivation practices? It cannot go on mueh 10nger lhan th~ time it takes to fel1 the remaining foresl that they hold in reservew 4.2.6 Land holding Large numbers df farrners in the area studied do not have enough land to allow them to simu.ltaneously produce enough cash erops to meet eash requirements and enough cassava to meet subsist.nee requirements. lnsect.\re tenure aggravates the situatlon faeed by sorne of them. Despíte government efforts to reloeate farmers from lhs minifundia areas few choose to go to [lew eolonisation variety of reasons (Yates, 1981) • lation and the existence of very large latifur1diqs have prever1tcd younger c:ampesínCls acquiring their own land 1 r\ the !11t!lLfJd!1!~i.i~ ar-e2S (Ri var-ol a, 1982), ancí hence h¿<-.ve cOfJtr" i bU.ted tr:J t IV::.?" pt-Qcess of fragmentation. The small size of the n¡~Jorlty of fa.rms in these a.reas is the greatest hjndt-dTlc:e t.:J aehieving a reasonable standard of living. Yet in CaagLiaz t":\ and other of rec:ent colonisation the fragmentation pt-oc.€<:ss is ¿t.lready beginning Chapter 3, Sectíon 3.2.1) because some far~ers cannct pay off the debts they i ncurred on buyi r,g thei r 1 ""nd, and ",re selling land to elear these debts. Gíven the avail&ble technology, they eannot make a larga enough profit from 168 thelr 10 to 20 ha. farms. Obviously sorne haya either had bad luck or mismanaged thelr debts, nevetheless the tendency 'ls worrying. Ball antyne (985) goes as far as to argtJe th:ü 50 ha. i5 the minimum farm size required to achieve ~n annual income of US$1050 (p 150) in these areas, m.y partly axplain this tendency. One must also ask what the children of these farmers will do for land. Large areas in eaaguazú, Alto Paran. and other colonlsation zones hava been bought by spacL!liil.tors or sold te foreign companies (Rivarola, 1982). will coloni ••t ion still provide an option in attampting to salve the land distrlbution problem? Whiout a solution to the problem of low prices, or the development of more appropr-iate technology, a repetition o·F what has occLlrred in the mlnifundiª areas is to be expacted. Tha social condi t i ons ¡,oJhi eh brought abüut the e}~ i stenc&? Df a and the decline in ·soil fertility near the capItal haya merely been t.r'ansferrsd to ,,:- dífferent loc¿~tio;·; 4.3 Towards 50m~ Solutions 4.3,1 Which farmers 7 Any attempt to provide techrlical 2nd other assistance to cassava farmers in centr-al F'ar-¿';igu2.y must in by r8cognislng, at the Ver y slmplest level, the existenee of tWQ types of farmers. They have some common prcblems, such 6S decllnlng soi1 fertility, hence yields, and labour 169 shortages (albeit to different degrees). On the whole they use similar technelogies te produce ca55ava and other ce'ops. They have one fundamental difference: one group meet.s iis subsistence requirements fer cassava, and can commercialise the exce5s. The other does not meet its subsistence 'requirements trem the cassava prodLlced on its own farm, and must meet them from Dther sources. The principal cause of this difference is the difference in the amoLlnt of land to whieh each has aceess; both are equally integrated into the market economy. ThlS simple dichotomy ought tD be broadened, because not all farme!"s in minifundia areas have very small fay'ms, nor i s the Dpposi te true in the areas of mO!"e !"ecent colonlsation. Some farroer. whe do satisfy their cassava !"equi rements wi 11 not be i nterested in prDdcl,ci ng for the market, beeaL,se they can gro ... more prof i tabl E crops. The problems and processes going On in the region which .are out.lined in the previous section sugg€:st a nUff¡ber of directions ir. which r"ese.a.rch can praceed .. 4.3.2 Subsistence production At certain times Qf the yea.r, principalJy f!"om September until the new harvest begins in February, there is a shortage of cassava~ probably 2oso1ute at the cornmunity level (that i s, even assumil1g redistribution cf cassava between farmers wha t¡2ve and haver,'t got enough to satisfy their requirements). In few micro-regions i5 there no scarcity but it is particul?rJ.y 2CL¡te 1M micro-regions 15 170 .nd 16 (where work in the SEAG/CIAT/IDRC Cassava Project has already begLtn). Therefore, yie1d increasing technol oQY~. such as higher-yielding varieties, impraved praetiees or 5011 management should be readily accepted b, even the small est farmers ~ __ . long as thp~qg_._not _.J...DC "L higher eosts By inereasing yields a positive eontribution ean be made towards nutrition, and, by deereasing the labaur or eash a faFmer expends to get more ca$sava, towards lncome. Components 04 sueh a yield-increasing technology might include: - Changes in planting peFiods. If eontinuous planting of cassava ls possible lexeept during the winteF), far-mers could e:·,tJ',~d the average lengt.h of time ta héWV t cul ti va.te as mL\ch of hi s land. This latter option would have the additlonal advantage of helping maintain soil fertility, by permitting the rotation of land and fallow1ng or the production of green manLtreS on unused 1 andA Credit far cassava producers i s necessary requirement both in areas af current commerei21 pr-oduct i on and in areas where commercial production might be encouraged in the future. The need for c:redit h..:as be-en Qutllned in chapters 3 and 4. ISe. Figure 4.1). Where fa~n\ers h~ve titl.s to their land th.y can get cred.t from the S.N.F. Other-wise they must depend en unofficial credit frem intermediarias, usually only if the produce cotton, or, in some places from the C.A.H~ (micrü-regions 1, 2~ 4", 15~ 17, 18, 23., 27, 28, 31 and 33). is usual1y commodity orientated, and unofficial rates of repayment high. It is likely that the CAH wcuid be the best scurce of credit for cassava growers, despite the fact that it doe. not re.eh 174 farmer. everywhere. The problem of soil fertility mainten~nce :'Yi 11 increasingly affect in recently coloni~ed ;;::one;;~,,. Largar farmers, both here and more .'lbl e to adopt measures to combat f ert i 11 ty decll ¡-, !, such as rotations, green manuring and intercropping ~<-Jj th legumes than are those with least re50urces~ Hlgher-yielding cassava varieties which are adapted te> poor acid soi15 may provide a short term solution, but wi i:hout the adoption of improved management techniques yieids ",il1 decline eventually. Af,; ",i th the smallest farmers, the greatest problem is probably that of getting a solution to the farmer~ once a low cost labour-uninten5ive package is available .. In areas of commercial cassava production largar farmer., those ",ith at 1 ea.st 10 ha. of 1 and, should be willin9 and abl e to oear tú 9her costs to maintain soil fertility if market opportuGities are improved. SornE' L,qlikel'f to benefi ~ development of cassava markets at present, existence of good 6cces~ and markets for hiqh value croos irl Asunción, particularly horticultural prodLice. These consist of micro-regions 1, ~, Increasing" the mar~.et C.2s-.:;ava a.no by-products, if it proves possible i~ br i ng direct advantag~s to ma.ny If Drocessíng is developed, then the creation of incre~se~ dEffiand for 1 aboL.(; can he~p the poorest. 175 with sueh a programme, especially in the minifundia areas. Inereasing marketing oppartunities, that is, the pric.e el"{' cassava in these areas cauld have tWQ nega~ive effects fer the poorest +armers. Firstly, they rely on neighbours wha have more lanti ~G provide them with co>.ssava in time,,; af shartage. 'better-off' farmers eould sel1 that cassava at a high",r priee, then the availability of surplus caSsava would decline, with serious effects for the poorest sectors. Secandly, depending on the timing of dem".nd for cassava, the poor would be likely to sell cassava them.elve. when they needed to raise cash, far example in some emergeney. Without an increase in produetivity they would therefore see their cassava 'consumed' -"l.ven more rapidly, and would have even greater difficulty meeting their requirements at the end of the year. Only by concentrating on productian subsistence en these smallest farms befare tbe development of markets for- the cr-op cOLll d SLICh ¿l. ;;'·1 tL\.¿\t J Oí! bEe aV;;;'rted ~ Werg, a stabl e si tuat i on reached, the cr"ed't::i on of m2.r kets fa!"" cassava coul d benef i t both the poarest and those ",ha are better off, particularly during theca.h scarcity periad at the end af the yeár. 176 s U M M A R Y Casgava plays an extremely important part in urban and rural diets and as an animal feed in Paraguay. Available data suggest that per cap; ta \..lrban and rural c:onsumpt i on in Paraguay are the highest. in Latin America. is encouraging r.search 0r the crop in Paraguay vía a joi'lt proJect with the agricultural extension servic. (S.LA.G.l and IDRC of Canada. CIAT's Agroecological Studles Unit has undertaken to characterise the proJect area by defining cassava-specific micro-regions. As an introduction, census data are presentad w~1ich show that cassava production i5 concentrated in departments of (in or-der of San Pedro, Paraguari, COl~dillera, F'araná. Data fr"om u S.E.A~Gw survey s~lgQest that rural per capltal cass.;:\va highet- than prevíous estimates, and may be as high as 340 kilograms per annUffi. Despite the enormi"ty of productlon 1 ~3. E. A. G" identifies ? nu~ber of problems, including low soil fertility and larga distances to market from the principal oroducing areas, which constrain production and limit the use 0+ the cr"op somewhat outslde oi rural areas. 177 The micro-region definition work h.as been carried out in the departments of Central, Cordillera, Guairá, Panl.gu.",,-i and in part 0+ Caaguazú and Caazapá. The method ~sed draW5 on secondary data and on informal and formal field survey data • Field data are cDll~cted using a systematic-random •• mpIe of agricultural settlements. The whole study area i5 consid~red to be elimatically homogeneous. Topography is on the whole undulating, but there are some steep cordilleras far whieh separate miero-regions are derived. Soils Can be subdivided into n?d and yellow podzolics (acrisols) and hydromarphic soils (planoaols and gleyaols). The latter are not used for campesino agriculture. Within the podzolics sorne important textural differences are identified from e>:isting mapa and by conferring with farmers, and sorne of these provide the basis for defining separate micro-regions. Th,,· 1 imi ts ot the micro-regions correspono to those of the areas of cultivated 12nd., These are ídentified bv oM-lying pasture, fOl'"'est and large c:attl e t"ancne:s!i ;?11 ldentifiable from available maps. Agricultural production is dífferentiated cm the basis of the principal cash crops grown. Differences in modal farm Slze are found settlements are old or newly co]oniseo. Farm size., marketing opportunitíes and the principal cash craps .ffect factors sL,ch as ca.sh flow, credit availability and the use cf fertilizers, and are used in the process of micl'""o-region definition. 178 Cassava production in both old established sE'ttlE"m",nts and newer colonies relies on traditional methods of l ".nd preparation with plough and aH,- r'otatiori dnd, 1' .L, available, fallowing. Varieties are classlfied according to optimum age at hC\F"vest, büt in sorne areas this cl assi f i cati on becomes redundant and c¿¡.ssava i s har vest.ed as soon as possible when needed for s~,bsi stence. Cassava is produced fo,- sale to Asunción and to starch producers in Guairá department,' principally in Caagua"ú and eastern Guairá. In many areas cassava shortages occur amongst the smallest farms, .nd particularly in central Paraguari. The variables. and inform.tion used to define and describe the micro-regions are presented ¿as a series of qualitative maps. The micro-regions are derived and mapped by overlaying these and comparing them manually. They aTe then described .n a quick-reference tableo To gain a de.per insight iota sorne of ttl€ p~ocesses affecting cassava production, a small ~arm-level survey has oJeen carr-ied out on a random sample of ~~rms in and Caaguazó departments. Si:::e of farms in the sa(nple is described, and sample size distribution comparad with census dat.a. Fragmentation of farms in Caagua=~ is iloted. Land tE~ure, cultivated of the farm in cash crops, f armers ' preferences a.mongst. ca.sh crops ,;:\nd the reasons for their preferences are compared for the twa halves of the sample. The existence of unutilised ~and is 179 eHamined .. Bec.aLlse of short.ages of 1 .abour, many f ,,_rmera in CaaguazO do not cultivate all of their land, and farmers in Paraguar:í tend to ¡:ul ti vate a hi gr,er proport i on of thei ,- farm area .. In CaaguazO this f.avours the cultivatlon of c.assava as a c.ash crop, since it requlres less laboLlr ;;;.no other purchased inputs than the mal n <1.1 ternati ve, cotton. The area in re¡:ently sown, one year, and older cassava ls described far the whole sample. Farms are identified whi¡:h do not have suffic:ient ¡:assava to meet subsistenc:e needs. Shortages of cassava are related to the cultivation of a large proportion of their area in c:.ash erops. The area reeently sown in eaSSBva ls deseribed for the Paraguari sample by a model which takes into ac:c:ount farm size, propm-tion of farm area in eash crops and the number of .animals on the f.arm. This is not posslbl. for the Caaguazú sample because some farmer-s sow cassava "for- sale .. A fut-ther model is presented which accDunts 'for the area of one year 01 d Cd;.ssava (for censumpticfl) Off thf': Paraguari farms, utilising farm size. the pl-opo~tjon of farR¡ area devoted te cash cr"ops ~ and the number fJf people arld eassava eonsuming .animals. Thcse farms from whic~¡ somt..:¡: eassava was disposed of off the farm are excluded from the model. Farmers who sell caSSéi.va in C8.aguazú do not sow morE:' of the crop because other crops are more profitable. In Paraguari those wha can meet subsistence n2eds do not produce the crop commercially bec¿:¡use of low prlces \lack of 180 a marketl. Those who do not meat their subsistence requirements cannot sow more for lack of land, trust that they will be abls to get caSSBva from neighbcur3 or buy i t. On each farm, a sample of soils has been collected fra:,. cassava fields (recently sONn). Soils from Paraguari compared with those from Caaguazú. Significant diffarences in pH, organic matter- content and sand, silt and clay contents exist between tha two samplas. Con$idering the short period of cultivation of the Caaguazú soils, organic matter content i5 nevertheless low, anti it is concluded that the differences In fertility between the two are based on the residual effects of natural fertility from forest clearanc:e. Soi 1 m¿l.!l¿l.gement (fall owi ng and use of purc.:hased inputs) does nat diffar batween the two areas, and is most notable for its absence. Three soi I using the sama soil data. Significant di;f~r~nces in texture exist between some of them. In conclusion, the sL~rvey method~- -and principal flndings are reviewed, and the results from both the micro-region definition and the case-study are intEqrated. The inter-ac:tion of a set of proc::esses 15 stress.ed.. The JL:~.;taposition within the study area of areas of commercial cassava production and areas where the crop i5 in short supply for subsistence are caused by and dependent upon 181 varying market opportunities, problems 0+ cas¡h Si.¡PP 1 y, labour shortages, soil fertility differences and, most profoundly, variable access te land. Researchers need to recagnis. the distinction betwee~ farmers that produce the crop commercially and thoje that cannot meet subsistence requirements. Possible ways of increasing cassava production for subsistence, such as the introduction of new varí.ti.s and improved soíl management will be acceptable to most of the poorest farmers if they do not involve increased costs. The advantages of increased mar¡';et opportunities for sorne farmers are outlined. It i s stressed that in minífundia areas there may be negative effects on the poorest if market opportunities anl; improved before the problems of subsistence production are sol ved. 182 R"'ferences BALLANTYNE, A. O. 1985. Sub.i stence producti cm - What comes ne;{ t? Agricultural Administration, 20 (1985) 139-152. CARTER, S.E. 1986a. A method for collecting and organising data on the agro-sociaeconomic enviíonment for a crap commodity programme (cassava). Paper presented at the Workshop on Agr'oecologic,,,l Char-actE,risation, Classification and Mapping. 1986. CARTER, S. E. 1.986b. Climatic and Edaphic ClassiflLBtion at a Continental Scale (1:5,000,000) for Cassava in South America .. Internad document, StLtdi es Unit, Cent~o Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIATl . Cali, Colombia. CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRICULTURA TROPICAL (CIATJ. 1979. Yuca: Investigación, pr Od ..l CC iÓn y utilización. CIAT/UNDP. Cali, Colombia. 183 CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRICULTURA TROPICAL (CIATl. 1985. Annual Report 1984. Cassava Programo eIAT. Colombia .. CONOVER, W.J. 1980. F'ractical non-parametric statistic~,. Second edition. John Wiley and sons, New York. DIRECCION GENERAL DE ESTADISTICA Y CENSOS. 1985. Censo Nacional de Población y Viviendas, 1982(1). Dirección General de Estadística y Censos, Asunción, Paraguay. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) . 1969. Estudio ecológico de los bosques de la región oriental del Paraguay. DOCLtmento de Trabajo No.l, Proyecto de Desarrollo Forestal y de Industrias Forestales. FAO: SF/Paris. ASLtnción, Par¿':;luay 1969. GALEANO, L. . A. 1974.. Las explotaciones agricolas en el Par agué', y . Hacia una interpretación sociológlca de las caracteristjc~s regionales. Revista f'ara~uaya de Sociología, 31(1974). INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO MILITAR. Mapa N~cional 1=250,000. Asunci6n, Paraguay. (Various dates of publicationl. INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO 11ILITAR. Carta Nacional 1: 100,000. Asunción, Paraguay. (Various dates of publication). 184 JANSEN, W. and WHEATLEY, C. 1985. Urban Cassava Markets. The impact of fresh root storage. Food Policy, August 1985. LAWES AGRICULTURAL TRUST; 1983. GENSTA1 (General Statistical Package) Users' guide. Version 4.04. N.A.G. Ltd., Oxford. LYNAM, J.t<. 1986. Trends in Cassava. 1985. 1J:2': Trends in CIAT Commoditíes. Internal Document - Economics 1.11. April 1986. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. P 111-121. LYNAM, J.K. and PACHICO, D. 1982. Cassava in Latin America: Current status and fub. ., re prospects, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Trap.cal, Call, Colombia. MINISTERIO DE r"lGRICUl .. TURA Y GANADERrA (t-1AG). 197ó. Proyecto de diversificaciÓn agricola en el dep~rtamento de Pa.raguar í tel make dLu-ing the yeay"" How 15 thlS n¡oney a.cquired antj how do the solutions va~y amongst differ~r!t farms? 1.5 Which crops or products Cinciuding animalsl are most relidble for meeting cash needs? Which crops or pr"oduci:.s ha.V9 unreliable ma.rkets B.nd/or low pr.!.ces? 187 CUL TI VATI QN 2.1 How long do farmers eultivate a field with the same crop? Are crops rotated? Which and over what timE period? 2.2 Do any farmer. leave land in fallow? Which, how often and for how long? 2.3 Do any farmers use fertilizers or manLlI'" e on their ~rops? What, for which crops? Haw much i5 applied .nd when? Whieh farmers? 2.4 How is land prepared for cLtltivation and with what implements? 2.5 Do any farmers use insecticides or hsrbicJdes? "Ih í eh farmers? For which crops? l~hat pradue1.: they used, haw often and te combat what? 3. LAND 3.1 How much land do farmers sow in subsistence cr'clps? How mueh do they think is necessary to satisfy thejr requirements, aecording to the size of their family? 188 3.2 How much land is usad for pasture, and how many animals does it support? Haw much land is dadicated to farest/bush, to forest trees and to fallow land. Haw do these quantitias vary amongst different (sized) farms? 3.:::: What typas of land tenure e>,ist, and which are mas;t c:amman? What are the advantages? Di sa.dvantages assoeiatad with different types of tenure? 3.4 Which crops are more/lass likely to be cultivated by large/small farmers? Why? 3.5 l4hat size of far-m i5 common? Do farmers haya acc:ess to more land through other types of land tenure? 1 s 1 and in short supply? What are the effects of th15 on the status Qf subsistence production? 4. CASSAVA PRODUCTION 4.1 What varieties of cassava are sown, and at what age dre they harvested? F atO each: Is it sown in monoculture or in~ercropped? Intercrepped with what? Planting distances? How much (area or 'm.\mber of plantsl is sDwn? WhEn do farm8rs begin te harvest al far subsistence? b) for sale? 189 4.2 What roles do crops that are intercrapped with c¿;ssava play in subsistence ano ineome generation? 4.3 Which varietíes af cassava yield better? Which varieties does the farmer prefer. and why? 4.4 Haw long does cassava last once harvestíng begins? What factors control i ts ouration? 4.5 Haw mueh cassava is left over each year when the new harvest begins? Of which varieties? 4.6 Is this variable? How do f ar"mers dec i de haw m\..lch to sow the following year? 4.7 Are cassava yi elds sti 11 as hi gh as when {iówmers began to cultivate the crap on their present faro,? 4.8 How muc:h c:a.s'Sava i s ltsed f or~ human con-;::¡.umpi.: ion, for- how 4 ~ 9 Da e,ny f armers e! ,----.-,--'--, Yes I I 1--- ---+-~,-j No I If they do, what is it callad? (Indicate mCJ~e ií ttley SQW more than one) :.1.4 Do the farmers here sow a variety of cassava fer harvest 18 manths or more after planting? r---r---'~-----¡ yes . 1.4.1 If they do, what is it called . (Indieate more if they sow more than one) .................. . ~"'~ .... " ..... .................. ~.~ .. ~.~ ",."'" .~ ...... ~ ...... ... ~ .................... ~ ......... a ................... ~~ ..... ~ ..... •••• •• " ......... .. 199 2. 1" 5 Whíeh of the varieties of eassava named are used far the following: -¡ I USE VARIETlES 1 I ------j I 1 Subsistenee ~- ! - I 2 Sale 3 Others: What are the eropping systems in whieh eassava is sown ir< the cDmpañ~a ? I CROF'F'ING SYSTEM 1 AGE OF THE CROF' I I I YearOne I Year TWQ 1 ~--+------------------ 1 1 I I 1 Monoeulture 1 1 I 1 --------+-- ---il,.--- -----1 1 2 Intercropped with maíze 1 1 3 Inter.cropped wíth cowpea 4 Intercropped with melon/watermelonl 5 ¡r j. -,--- I 1 I On the farm, to neighboLlrs I---.-+-~._---- I 2 I On the farm to an íntermediary 3 In a nearby town to an intermediary 4 In a nearby town, to the inhabítants 5 In Asunci ón' s Mercado ti.? Aba",..!,."!. Other: In which mcnths is most cassava sold ~ .--..,..._. ... _--.--... ----,-_.. ...,- J F M A M J J A s o N D 2 .. 2 .. 4 In WhlCh manths is little cr no cassava sold ? J F M A 11 ..1 J S I O 1\1 I D 11-----;---!--··--1 I lf cassava is scld to an intermediary (on the farm) where is it t.¿l.ken to ? ... ~ ." ......... ~~ ... " .. " ~ .. " ........ ~ ....... ~~". ~ .. " .. ~ ............... ~. _ ....... ~" .................. ., ........ " ... " .......... ~ ... ~" ...... ~" .... ~ .... ~." .. . 201 2.2.5 .. 1 What i5 it sold for ? 1 Fresh consumption 2 Starch production I Other: 1--+----------------1---1 1 ,ECTION STARCHPRODUCTION :: .. 3. 1 Does anybody make 5tarch in this e~añia ? (If not , continue in Seetio" 2.41 I Ves 1 f----+I I,- No I In whieh months i5 most starch made? ., J F M A M J I J 1 A 1 S O N D I - I ---+------l----------+ i I I I I I L L I- - ----"-___- 1-___ ... _,_ __ .... ...;, ... ...:;. Which cassava varietiss are used for starch production? . ................ ".~.k~ ........ ~ ..... " .. ~ ....... ~ .. ~~~.~ .... ~ ..... ~.,. .. " ... . . 3.4 Is the starch produced here sold 7 r-···· " I (1 I No ¡ f----l- --i I 1 I A little I 2 A lot L (1+ non e is sold, continue in Sectiofl 2.4) .3.4.1 Where is it soId ? .. ~ ~ • ~ ............. " ... " .................... ,. ..... ~ ..." .. '" ......... ~ .. ~ .. " .. a ................... ~ ..... ~ ••• ~ .. ~." ................................. '"' .............................. ~ ............... ~ .. .. 202 In which manths 15 no starch sold, or least starch sold? -.----r----l~__, O N I D +--~-+-~_+,-"'__l I , I i "~ I ! _ ._~_---.J 2 .. 3. 6 Do any starch producers here buy cas.ava to make starch? No :.3 .. 6~1 Do they buy in a local market? , ., Ves , , .---1 No I , L .. .-1 Where? ~ .... ""~ .. " ...... "."~.~""" .. "." ... "" ....... " ... ""." ... "." .... ,..~. .3.6.3 Do they buy fram intermediarie~ that bring cassava fram other zanes? ,Yes I I f----+--~...¡ ¡ No I I L ____. ........l..-.. __. ---J .3.6.4 Where de the intermediaries bring the cassava f¡-om? ....... ~ ...... ~ •• ..................... = •• H, ~~" •••• _"~ •• ~.' •• ~"."" •••• "' •• ::CTION 2.4 ,4.1 Do any farmers experience a shortage/scarcity of cassava 411 765 Ñumi 3 21 159 150 150 6 1) O 183 489 Sao Salvador 42 56 157 74 88 14 4 _1 255 436 Yataitay 5 275 248 54 50 3 2 , 52B 639 Paso Yobai 2 61 lBB 220 311 54 b 2 251 844 Sao Agusti n 1) 15 59 38 254 11 2 O 74 379 Total 433 2456 5706 4007 3635 353 78 24 8836 16692 CAIIGUAZU eneJ. Oviedo 8 555 2072 1946 1645 64 ~. ~~ 10 2635 6325 Caaguazü 21 628 3591 3090 1545 131 3E 4 4240 9038 Car.yaó 33 150 486 596 384 35 21 4 669 1709 Cecíllo Baez 62 309 267 346 31 •~ 4 372 10::::5 J.R. Chávez 10 117 589 820 497 49 18 3 716 2103 I J • M. Frutos 4 90 55Q 484 379 «'-' ,~, 5 O 644 1545 Repatriación 7 56 553 1170 1146 39 4 1 616 2976 Hugo Stroessner () 1<4 380 303 329 67 11 1> 504 1220 Sao Joaquin 4 162 939 673 510 26 12 3 1105 2329 Sao José 26 246 690 499 :,08 36 16 8 9',,~~ 1829 Yhu 63 141 957 1847 1721 lb6 37 19 11 b 1 4951 , Total 180 2374 11311 11962 9243 755 200 64 13624 36089 CAAlAF'A Caazapi 61 342 1180 bSb 727 70 2B 5 1583 3099 Abaí 16 49 335 147 7bS ,~ o_ 1 O 400 1348 lh'ena Vista 9 53 235 192 162 lB 9 O 297 678 Moisés Berton'i 2 110 229 155 66 15 O 11 341 588 6ral. Mor¡ id 90 1 1 83 212 245 267 29 5 2 306 854 Macud 16 54 253 177 97 9 3 /; 323 b15 San JuaD Nepomucenú ? " 256 651 688 lOSO 126 1/) 1> 910 2820 Tabai 19 29 311 198 241 4B B 1 359 855 Yeºro!; 8 69 321 184 177 33 e 7 398 e07 Yuty 49 452 1718 736 887 92 25 20 2219 3979 Total 194 1497 5445 3408 4472 472 97 58 7136 15b4~\ ----------------------------------------------------------------------_._--------------- 225 'PENDIX 6: Farm size dístribution by Department and District, 1981. (50urc:e: Censo cional Agropecuario 1981. Datos Preliminares. M.A.G.I. FARM SIZE CATEGORIES (Ha.1 PARTMENT 5- 10- 50- 200- Total Tatal stritt (> 0-{1 1-(5 <10 <50 (200 (1000 1000+ (5 h •. NTRAL eguá 67 554 3S0 91 63 7 O « 971 1132 pi aU 153 789 sao 177 79 4 O 1521 1782 o. de la Mora 93 122 13 3 /:. O O O 228 237 arubaré lb 2b2 136 44 21 3 1 O 414 483 .1 3 667 1170 359 153 /:. 2 1 1840 2361 agua b3b 440 766 192 62 O O O 1842 2096 .baré 171 57 30 2 2 (> O O 258 262 .p i o 42 520 271 39 9 2 O 833 '106 que 133 591 332 63 43 b _' 2 1056 1 ¡ 73 ,iano R. Alonso SI 140 1.4 6 16 O O O 255 277 >va Italia 1 154 214 136 113 7 3 <) 369 628 .by 56 309 152 lb 5 1 (1 <) 517 549 1 Antonio 27 210 70 1 1 11 2 O (l 307 331 1 Lorenzo 279 498 147 21 23 4 O O 924 972 !la El isa 94 186 49 9 15 (¡ O O 329 353 leta 16 294 621 151 127 22 1 <) 10 921 1241 ~car¿¡i 76 127 168 47 55 1 1 3 <) 371 481 loé 44 78 175 42 23 1 O O 297 363 Total 1958 5987 5308 1419 840 83 25 13 13253 15633 tDILlERA !Cupé 137 370 614 283 197 16 ¡) 1121 1619 ,os 4 338 453 208 176 O 795 1202 0yo, y Esteros 34 470 705 225 225 11 1209 1719 rá 59 306 520 230 166 !) 885 1303 aguatay 6 275 1126 397 275 e, 14 31 175 84 48 /:. 1) 2 206 346 cayaty 17 52 231 148 150 14 3 3 300 61B va Colombia 9 57 170 225 121 B <) 1 236 59 ¡ ,hebuy 87 488 1024 604 429 24 ¡ o 1599 26'57 de MáfZO 20 136 318 325 97 1 o o 474 897 Bernardino O 157 135 81 61 5 o <) 292 439 ta Elena 1) 73 297 147 70 7 7 o 370 bOl ati 36 145 300 264 135 12 11 3 481 906 enzuela (i 5S 353 223 278 25 2 o 411 939 Tot al 561 3904 B577 4419 3021 258 73 29 13042 20842 224 -----, hr. Area in Area octupíed Area occupíed Area occupied NUlber DI Nuober 01 N040f inilalt f20 ca~sava fallo. by natural by .rtifical by forest adults children pastuTes pastures .m adult young OMm ho"es ¡ taliS. pigs pígs ~-- - 42 20000 30000 15000 . 80000 4 3 3 3 O 2 O ¡ 43 10000 O O O 3 3 O O 2 O Q 44 40000 O O 20000 S 3 1 2 O 2 ! O 45 20000 O O O b 3 1 3 O 2 O 46 O 40000 O SOOO 7 10 4 O 9 2 O 47 O O 15000 30000 2 4 2 5 O 2 O ,,t 48 O (1 10000 60000 4 O 4 O b 2 O 49 O O O 2500 3 2 3 2 O 3 O 50 20000 10000 O O 2 3 O 2 O O f SI O O 1S000 60000 4 3 2 1 4 O O 52 O 30000 O O 4 4 5 O 3 2 O 53 2500 O O lS000 5 2 3 1 O 3 O ¡ 54 Q 2500 O 20000 3 1 2 O O O O f 55 O 7500 1000 10000 5 Q 1 O O 3 O 223 r. Are. in Are. oecu¡¡íed Area ateupied Area oeeapied Nuab'f 01 Ma.ber 01 NO~Df anieals fea CQssav~ fallo. by natural by artitiea! by forest adults ehilór." pastures p.stures 1m .dult youo, oxen borsEs CDWS. piqs pigs ----- --- , 20000 Q o o 3 5 ¡ o 4 2 • 12000 o o o 2 a 2 2 o o o 3 o o o o 2 5 1 ;1 o o o 4 o Q o o 5 o o 2 o o o 5 o 200 100 o •• 5 o o 2 o b o o 20000 7500 •• o , o 2 o 7 () aoooo 10000 Q 2 1 1 2 o o o B o o o BOoo 4 5 1 o 2 2 (¡ 9 o o o o 2 5 1 o 1 o o o o 1>000 (¡ o 1 o 3 1 o o o 5000 o « 5000 7 3 3 3 ;1 o o 2 (¡ o o o 2 9 1 o 2 o o 3 15000 15000 2300 Ú 5 4 o 12 o o o 4 o o o o • o •• •• o o o ,5 50vO o 500 o "2 4 1 o 3 2 o o 5000 5000 Ú 5 5 3 o 2 2 o 7 o 10000 o o 2 4 o ,3 o o o B 5000 o 10000 o 3 2 o • 1) o o 9 o o 1400Q SOOO 2 4 ,- 2 o o o o o o 1000 o 3 i o- , ,- o o o 1 o Q o o 2 b , 10OQO o 5000 o 3 L , - o o o 2 • 3 Q 4 1 3 Q o Q \) 3 ry • 2 o 2 o 4 o 15300 o o 2, b 0 2 o o 5 Q Q 30000 o - 7 2 o 2 2 o b 1) o 7000 o 4 3 1 5 o 2 o 7 o 5000 o o 2 B o o o 4 o B o 15000 5000 o 3 3 4 o 2 1 9 1) 15000 o o 5 10 3 2 o o o 1) o 20000 1) o 1 o o o o o o 1 10000 o 15000 45000 5 o o o o 2 o 2 o 5000 o 5000 4 2 3 5 o 2 o ,3 o o o 10000 S 5 3 5 ~ 2 o o o o 7500 2 Ó I 1) 2 o ,5 1) o o 5000 3 7 1 1 4 o o v 40000 o 10000 4 2 2 1 3 1 Q 1 o Q Q o 7 1 o 2 3 o o S 25000 o 20000 15000 2 2 4 7, o 1 v 9 o o , 35000 aoooo 4 b 4 7 Í) • o 20000 Q o 20000 4 7 1 o 5 2 !") 130000 o Q 7500 b < " o j o o o 222 --~._----- far. Estiaated Area Arta octupied Área octupied hy Area occupied Area occupied by Area Cultivahd Percent· by ,uh trops retently SOln by I year olá 2 ye .. old aod cassav. canav. clder taS5.ava ----- ---- 42 227330 m:s¡, 34.0 60000 20000 20000 50(¡ü 43 mas ·32385 71 •• 25000 3000 3000 o 44 184'1011 11 '1'100 64.8 90000 10000 5000 Q 45 86200 61200 -'1M SOOOO 10000 5000 o 46 151600 91600 7M -~ --15000 7500 1200 47 ir6.-50 66650 57.1 55000 25000 5000 o 48 210000 ruo&\l 66.7 135000 20000 4000 o 49 52900 40400 76.4 -50500 U500 6500 o 50 87000 57000 65.S 45000 40000 5000 1000 51 Imoo 87700 52.3 BOOM 40000 5000 o 52 05400 35400 54.1 10000 2500 400 o 53 56100 36100 64.3 31500 7500 12500 300 54 B4500.. 60000 71.0 45000 2500 5000 5000 55 123700 90200 72.9 54250 IB500 o 5000 221 APPENDll 5. Selectad land-use data, inhabita.t. and anil.15 Mhleh are fe. ta •• av. frOl th. tase-.tudy ...p le Df laro •• ---~ farl E.tíaated Are. Are. Dccuplea Are. actupied by Atea actupie. Area ",cupíed by Area Cul ti Vited Pereent by c.,h craps recenU y 500. by I year Dld 2 year olé and us.sava. tassitva clder Ciissava. --- 0\ 157108 135109 B5.9 100000 10000 3000 Q Q2 nm 63976 Bl.6 22500 9500 O O 03 29920 29420 96.3 15000 4000 1200 O Q\ 31100 32400 97.3 21400 2500 1500 O 05 31140 30840 99.0 17500 5600 1000 O Ob 106400 16900 7U 41950 1500 3300 O 07 21tIOO 121100 57.4 80000 \5000 BOOO O OB 94150 B5950 91.0 35000 8700 2800 O 09 17450 16250 93.1 10000 2000 500 O 10 21200 14700 69.3 3aOO 4S00 700 O J1 107170 BmO 81.3 40000 9000 3QOO O li 2mb 22ó66 93.8 3600 5500 3000 Q 13 139100 103800 74,6 53750 19500 4000 o H b6316 62316 93.9 21QOO 13000 2700 • Q 15 41>112 38112 82.6 20750 6000 ISOO o lb 93825 83B25 69.3 55QOO 1>500 4000 o 17 41245 31245 75.7 16500 5600 lBü i) o lB B690Q 66900 7b.9 40000 11000 40f¡O o 19 .3436 41436 65.3 26000 3200 300(! (1 20 27450 2mo 90.5 15000 5400 (1 o 21 20170 1mo 95.0 10750 3000 o 1) 22 105400 82900 7B.1> 33000 8000 4:){){1 o 23 b1325 5B825 95.9 3MOO 4800 2~I)O Ü ¡) 2. 4B76~ 30760 63~(i 20000 9~OO o ?< ne70 39870 5~.7 15000 300(' 6000 o "" 108225 98225 9".7 02000 9500 70(t(1 o 2ó "" 79325 7:1325 92.4 44000 800(1 4500 o 2B 55S7{) 35570 1>4.0 l725(¡ MOl) 26(;(1 r; ¡q 59725 38725 b5.9 8000 11500 4400 o 30 56350 33850 60.0 22500 1300 800 o " 20055" 125550 62.6 120200 150(j(l 10000 o 3"2' 93420 7B420 83.9 54000 740Q 5000 o 33 lH530 91530 B2.1 80000 35000 4000 o 3\ 61600 4mO 71.6 38800 10000 1800 o 35 46325 40825 B4.5 31600 16000 1200 o 10 10S300 ~5300 43.0 29000 6000 mo 2500 37 1\450 12450 86.1 9000 9000 o o 3B 10.4% 3mb 34.3 33000 7000 6000 o 1000 39 218725 93125 42.8 61000 12500 5000 40 126050 Bb050 68.3 46úOO 10000 10000 o 41 204500 67000 32.8 55000 o 50(10 o 220 D4. When was the last time the fi.ld was 1eft in fallow and for haw long? D5. Have you ever applied fE".-·ti 1 izers or- animal manun2 to this field? When (appr-olümately) , what type of fer-tilizer did yau apply and how much? 219 C3. Hava you usad ehemieal fertilizar this year? r----r--I IYes I II~o On whieh cr'ops'? SECTIDN D. SOIL SAMPLE 5011 sample, te ba eoIlaetad from tha farmar's recantly sown cassava field. Depth of sampla (core/pitl: em Di. Desc:ríption of field: Topography: Type of sail according to farmer: Crops presert: D2~ Use last yeart D3~ Use the year befare last: 218 88. Why don't you plant more cassava? SECTION C. USE OF CREDIT AND FERTILIZERS Cl. Díd yOL\ get credit thís year? If Ves, from who? What for, anrl what form did the credit tal~e (money, seeds, etc .. )? C2. If you "have ci:\ttle or o;.;:en, do yOLt C:CJ11ect the manure'? what do you do with it? r---.---. \Yes 1- \No L-- · 217 85. Do yOL( still have cassava for consL!mption at the pr~sen1: time? (see A3) ,...----...,....--, IVes I I ~----f-.--.I INo I I If yOL! do still have cassava, how long do yOL! belíeve it will last? 86. If yOL! do not normally produce enough cassave>. fo,... SLtbsistence., or if you have run out dLtr-ing recent yea,...s, why do yOL! think this happens? B7.. Have you sold cassava this year ,.......--.-.-, ¡Ves ~----+­ INo '-___. 1....._J Jf you have, how mueh did you sel1, approximately, when, where/who to? .-r-----------------~ Qu.antity sold I Dastination/buyerl ~--------------~--------------------+. I I I I 1 --------4f----------------------+--------------~ I I I ~-_·----------+I--------------------~----------------- I I 216 SECTION B. CASSAVA PRODUCTION AND USE 81. Haw many people are there 1 i vi.ng' permanE!n'tl y on t:,,, farm? Adults (14 +) Children « 14) 8" Do yau have a milk cow, pigs, or other animals which are fed cassava regularly? How man)!? -----. I t1i 1 k c:ows I I 1------ I I IPigs I I I I I ! Others: I ! i I I I I I I I I I I I 1--- I I I I I B3. What date (for e}~ample ta the nearest 1/2 month) díd yOLt begin to harvE'st new c:aS5av.a j:his YE-ar? Why did you begin to harvest at that tima~ 84. When yOL\ began to harvest new caSS3.va, did you still have cC\ssava from 1 ast year, oro had it run out?· --,---_._--- --------------- 1 f i t had already run out, for how many rnonths approximately did you not have your own cassava? 215 ~ A6. Which creps do you prefer to grow fer sale and why~ - ¡ 1 CROF' REASONS i ~--------------+------------- ---------1 I 1 J J 1 f.-..----------- I -------------1 1 J i ~I- --------------4-----------------------------------41 1 I I ! 1 1 1 1 1 I ---------j 1 I I I ----------{ I I I--------------_+_ I I I I ! ---+ -------- --1 I I +---------------- I ! I ~---------------~- I L 214 Crop Intercropped 01' Area (m"') Sale or associated with (1~o. of lines, subsistepce (Do not repeat ¡ength and for intercrops) distance between) Tobacco Castor oi 1 Tomato Grapes Yerba Mate Squash Vegetable garden Others: A4. How much of the farm (apprm:imately) i5 occupied by the fol10wing: Use I Area (m"') 1 .j.-- --_._----j IFallow (CoCLwél ¡Natural passtures I f------- --1 IArtificial pastures I lForest ¡ I I IUnaccupied land including I (HoLlse): I IOther, I A5. If farmer does not use ",.11 the land on his farro (for example if he has forest al' fallow ¡2nd) why not7 213 A3. Whích 0+ the following crops are present on this farm, and how much ar-ea does each occupy, in monoculture and intercropped~ State whether each is grown principally for sale ar for subsistence. Intercropped or Area (m"') S~~l e Oí Crop associated with (No. of lines, subsistence (Do not repeat length and far intercrops) distance between) Gar-l i c: Alfalfa Cotton Rice Peas Banana Sweet pata.to Sugar cane Strawberr-ies -_.. _-- Beans (F'haseal us V.) Cassava: Recently sown One ye"r old ...... or more years old Maize I\chipa" vliuze "locro" ---<---- Maize "tupi pyta ll Peanuts Si tter orange -----_. . _~-----< Pot"to PinEapple Cowpea W3termelon/melon Soya 212 AF'PENDIX 4: Questiannédre used in case-study samples in Paraguar! ane! Caaguazú. LAND USE AND CASSAVA PRODUCTION S.E. Cartero Agr'o-ecolagical Studies Unit Cali, Colombia Version 2, October 1985. San Lorenzo, Paragc,ay Qc,estionnaire number Date: Compañia ;h stri to SECTION A. LAND USE: AL How many hectares has your farm iro total? Do yoc, own yo. .. r land or OCCUPY it witho'Jt a, title? --'._------- (If respondent owns the farm it should be ~istinguished whether he has his title, or is in the process of acquiring it (provisional ownership» A2. Da yoc, cultivate l"nd on somebody else's farm or rent l"nd? r-----r--, IYes 1 Area ______________ 1112 If yes, Linder what form of tenclre7 ------------------------ Total Are",_ (sum of Al and A2): 211 APPENDIX 3, Named cassava varíeties recorded duríng th Of the 50i15 indicated, which is most common around the . . ~ ~ - ~ . .. .. ~ .. .. ~ .. . .. . . .. .. ~ . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . ~ ,. . ~ .. .. . . ~ .. ~ .. " .. . . ~ ~ .. .. .. .. . . ~ . " .. . " .. . . ....... ~~ ......................... - ... * •• _ •• ~ .............. & ............. ~~.~~ ... . 206 ,ECTION 3.2 LAND USE AND SOIL FERTlLITY ~ .. 2. 1 Da farmers of th€! compañia leave land in fallow afte,' cultivation? .------~.~ ----, I Ves I 1- ---j I No I .J ! If not, why? 1 Not necessary l' 2 1 There i sn . t enough 1 and I ) I I • ¡ I Other: l' ~f- 1: ¡ I I Which of the following agricultural weeds are found in f.llow land in the ~ompañía? 1 Chi .... c::. 2 Aguararuguay 3 Malva Blanca L-_-L --L----1 Are there tree trunks fl"om deforestatían in the fi>:.?lds around th~" compañía'? ,..----- j -, ¡ Ves I I 1----+---1 I No I .2.4 Do any farmer-s in the compañic) use anim2,1 m2nLtre 001 their fields"'c Ves I I----t-----l No ¡ t __- -' .2.4.1 . Do they put it on all their crops? ,------,-----, I Ye,;; f-----~-"---i I No -'- -----,-----' 205 SECTI ON :O• • 1 SETTLEMENT AND VEGETATION 3. 1. 1 In what ye2