|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help ||
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
|Table of Contents|
Front Cover 1
Front Cover 2
Centro Internacional cle Agricultural Tropical
REPORT ON A FIELD VISIT TO CACAOTAL
January 22-30, -1974
SMALL FARM SYSTEMS PROGRAM
C~ .s r 9
The purposes of the trip reported on here were:
1. To gain some initial impression of the agricultural system in Caca~otal;
2. To update some of the descriptive material found in A STUDY AND
PROGRAM FOR SWINE PRODUCTION ON SMALL FARMS ON THE
NORTH COAST OF COLOMBIA, By George D. Wesoloski (Ph. D.
Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1973);
3. To explore the present state of development of agriculture from the point
of view of The Campesino, including his perception of the factors limiting
4. To generate some ideas as to possible future activities of the Small Farm
Given the time limitations on this first visit, attention was focused on the
1. Adjusting the Wesoloski map of Cacaotal to date, including new houses
and changes in residence. Village leaders also cooperated in providing
land use data, occupational data, and estimates on ~ownership of cattle
for all households. .No attempt was made to census either the humnzt
population or that of smaller animals. These data are summarized in
the Appendix.. The household number corresponds to the number of the
map (Figure 1 below).
2. Discussion with leaders a~nd a few other villagers as to the agricultural.
problems faced by the village in recent years. Documents on these
were collected and the problems are discussed below in the text.
3. Systematic data was gathered from eight informants on costs of production.
for three interplanted crops, based on their recollections of the year.
4. Two instruments using paired comparison choices were .a~pplied to the
same eight individuals to gain some impression as to their perception of
their needs. These same instruments were applied to four senior staff
scientists of CIAT for a comparative perception of the problems and
pos sibilities of Cacaotal.
O Cacaoiagu (Alp/il, 1972)
~y George I), Wsoloaki.
C3 nRevitsed (January 1974)
O by village, leaders
0;? Houschold numbers co-rresp~ond
Og t~ o list in A~ppen~dix
OO; s55 t398 4
10 WATERa aO
,\ 4 ;&f
a~-tio ze 0j~ ao o
The data presented in the Appendix are approximate at best, but they do
yield some impressions of the ways of life of the families in the village. Over
half' of- the families in Cacaotal do not own any land other than their house lot.
However, most of these are either working on land belonging to their families,
or they rent some land, or have taken possession of land in Las Cruces.
Title -.the land in Las Cruces is still in dispute. Only twelve head of
households were reported to be exclusively employed as farm workers, and a
like number of heads of households were either retired, widows or too sick to
work. This latter group receives help from their children or neighbors.
Fully one third of the heads of households earned at least part of their
income from activities other than thre production of crops and animals, and
almost half of' this group worked full time outside of agriculture. The full
and part-time occupations outside agricultural production are:
Mason 3 Sawyer 1 Barber 1
Carpenter 2 Butcher 1 Well D~riller 1 ?
Tailor 2 Construction 1- Snake-bite curer 1
Raises fight- Baker 2 Vendors of local
ing coks 1 agricultural
Taxi driver 8 Laundry` 1
Taxi owner 9 Ba~r -cafe 3
Stores 7 Denti st 1
One of the major sources of statistical error for estimating wealth in
Cacaotal derives from the wide variation in estimates on the number of
cattle owned. According to informants, there is only one really large
cattle rancher there; and if we exclude his cattle, we get a total of
approximately 725 for all others in the village, or an average of about 6
head per household. The large owner was estimated to have 2, 000, 3, 000,
3, 500 or 4, 000 head. Generally speaking, the largest herds within the?
village belonged to the owners of the largest farms. Most of these families
fall outside the sphere of interest of the Small Farm Systems team.
Therefore, attention was focused mainly on the crop production activities-
of small farmers. It should be kept in mind, however, that most small
farmers kept a cowr or two, pi-gs, chickens and a few had ducks and goats.
The beast of burden in this system of agriculture is the burro, since
virtually all cultivation activities are carried out with the chuzo (pointed
stick) and the machete.
The Cropping Sequence. -
The agricultural system of Cacaotal is extremely complicated and
va riable. In addition to the variation from farm to farm which results
from the decision of different individuals, there is wide variation at any
given time of year as a result of weather, availability of credit, etc.
Interplanting crops, which require anywhere from sixty days to five years
to complete one cycle, makes it difficult to clearly identify any seasonal
round of activities. Men with sufficient land tend to cultivate a parcel for
about 26 months, leaving the bananas, and let that piece "rest" for three or
four years before cultivating again. Those who can maintain this rotation,
find that soil fertility is satisfactory without the addition of chemical
fertilizer. The Las Cruces land, however, has been under continuous
cultivation for about six years, and fertility has declined to the point where
farmers recognize the need for fertilizer to restore fertility.
The three principal cro-ps of the region are yams, yucca and .maize; and
another five of some importance. These are: bananas, rice, beans, sesame
and watermelon. A typical cropping sequence of these crops on a piece of
land divided into four fields is presented below in Figure 2.
The activities scheduled assume that the rains really do begin in April
when they should, and that credit is available in the right amounts and at
the right time. In fact, planting sometimes has to be postponed to May or
June due to the lack of rain, and parts of the sequence are frequently lost
for lack of cr~edit. Bananas are not normally planted throug~houtll a field,. but
rather in a corner, or in the house plot.
,ways:r L;n ~rt
tgir'tar CYft., DP F'ratco ~#;
X c~sAS, L~vtrrrott Cl#4 7* rd raw 9444
4/2 vL ;r
///8 e cra"c -
2 r-r--r-r-r-r-r------ -r -- T ,- ,**-;" .---;T-9 T ---y -r - -ra -a -r y a
,7/I FeJ mna artL ro~'j .Ya ~ as nu e onP Jc wd pic ,Pt /3 M.hl IWI 3L1Y ->^' est AM P crd? Mr ~ 0adC1
I, f u. 43 1
<...;**aPr- N SEL~LuadaC /h: C7/COLCoork~; Coce~CR ;%4 4//7 CRcE3S
194 74, -
e 8 ~ j a wiAJ REasn crc c*r
3 pcrI~ as rd rcl;jJs1----'I- r -I -- r--I I I--:11-
Yu ppeas 33" /s .2~ t re '
'f ~//i CRiodLL o ,aT ntcl-toiL ,% Ai
J1 fEAR s
/ AgLArsrf~dc +-544 Poo t
/AnUL)CIdJI ca o,2 Srrd
No attempt: was made to cover a full five-year cycle of activities. The
major round of activity is associated with the eighteen-month cycle of corn,
yams and yucca. Eight farmers were asked to estimate their costs of
production for one hectare plot of these three crops. The results are
summarized below in Table I.
PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATES PER H-ECTARE FOR MAIZE, YAM, AND
YUCCA ASSOCIATION OVER 18 MONTHS PERIOD
Average of 8
IT EM h
Preparation (in man-days)
Planting Mlaize (in man-days)
Planting Yams (in man-days)
Planting Yucca (in man-days)
First Weeding (in man-days)
Second WTeeding (in man-days)
Third Weeding (in man-days)
Fourth Wreeding (in man-days)
Fifth W~teeding (in man-days)
Harvest corn (in man-days)
Harvest Yamns (in man-days)
Harvest Yucca (in man-days)
Transportation (in Pesos)
1 6. 5
Total $ 2,598
1, 400 3, '600 2, 312
9, 000 -15, 000 12,188
1, 92 0 -15, 000 5, 96j
*The individuals responding in Tables I, II and III are 3, 10, 20, 56, 62, 78,
92, and 118 in the household list. They are located by the same number on
If we convert the average labor requirements to pesos @ 25 per man-day,
we can estimate costs as follows:
$ 2, 598 cost of seed and transportation
5, 975 value of labor
600 rent for 1 hectare 18 months
9, 173 costs of production
20, 465 average total value of production
-9, 173 costs of production
$ 11, 292 net income per hectare in 18 months
A number of cautions should be kept in mind. The data in the':table are
the estimates of eight individuals who keep no records whatsoever, Moreover,:
conditions vary from farm to farm. Siialsome farmers give more
importance to weeding than others. The variation in estimates is therefore
not surprising. The figures which are surprising are those for the rental and
sale of land. There was widespread agreement that the average sale .price
of ordinary land for cultivation was $3, 000 per hectare (as compared with
20-40, 000 per hectare for the Cauca Valley). The rental price for land for
cultivation was only $600 per hectare for 18 months, or $400 per hectare
per year. On the other hand,. land rents for pasture is $30 per head per
month. With two cows per hectare as a normal carrying capacity, this
comes to $720 per hectare per year, as opposed to $400 per hectare per
year for cultivation. The rental and sales prices seem absurdly low in
relation to production. Moreover, cultiv-ating without fertilizer takes more
out of the land than does pasture, yet it is cheaper to rent for cultivation than
for pasture. The situation is economically even more irrational when we.
recall that land under cultivation yields a great deal more in value of
production than does grazirngland. They estimate' that each cow will produce
$150 milk per month for~eight months, plus a calf. The value of the milk is
only $2, 400 per year. The only explanation for the relative rental prices
of land which comes to mind is that owners rent to cultivators for less in
order to get the land cleared.
Inasmuch as the figures consider only a one hectare plot with three crops,
they should understate average real farm income. Moreover, labor costs
may be exaggerated since no one really pays $25 per day for hired labor.
The maximum is $20, plus a meal served in the field. More and better
economic inform tion will clearly be a first order priority. for the Systems
Program. Although the simple interview guide used does not yield very
precise economic data, simnilarr approaches ca~n be used to measure values
and attitudes as they relate to farm family priorities.
Some Opinions of Peasants -and Agricultural Scientists
STo get some idea .of the place of production goals in the overall scheme of
t~he well-being of ~the farm family in Cacaotal, a paired comparison chart was
prepared and administered to the same eight informants who gave economic
data. Each item was paired with each of the remaining fourteen and the
person was forced to choose one objective as more important to himr than the
others. Four CIAT experts were asked to choose one alternative on the basis
of what was best for Cacaotal. The answers of both groups are presented
below in Table II.
In terms of improving your way of life, which of the following two factors do
you think are more important ?
CIAT CACAOTAL Ave. No. Ave. No.
Itank Rank CACAOTAL CI~AT
Order Order ITEM Vote s Votes
1 1 To Improve family health 10. T' 11. 8
2 2 Education for the children 10. 6 10. 2
6 3 Credit to bixy land .9. 5 8. 5
10 4 Secure title to more land 7. 6 7. 5
11 5 Credit on a longer term basis ', 75 6. 5
3 6 Better price for- products ~sold. 7. 49.
5 7 .Produce more yam, yucca and maize -7.1 9. O
12 8 Win the lottery i7. O~ 3. 8
8 - 9 Produce more pork, beef, milk and eggs 6.5 8. 0
4 10 Credit at lower interest rates 6.~4 -- 9. 2
9 11 Rent land for c20 pping 6. Z 7. 8
14 12 Remodel the house 6. O 2. O
7 13 Birth control family planning 5. 7 8. 2
15 14 Buy better equipment and furniture: for the 4. 5 1. 8
13 15 Find work outside agriculture 1. 4 3. O
The most striking results of the comparisons are that both groups agree
on the overriding importance of health and, education, and the relatively low
priority of the other "non-economic" variables. The only exception tottis
observation is that the CIAT experts gave greater importance to family
planning than the peasants. A number of the informants were either past
child bearing age, or were receiving birth control help from the Posta
Medica in Chindi--hence the lower interest in family planning than one might
While in the field, I was constantly reminded of the preoccupation with
land, Gettinga credit to buy land, or getting secure title to -land already in
use is of the utmost importance to them. Their interest in renting land i s
much less intense.
CIAT experts and Cacaotal farmers came down on opposite sides of the
fence on the credit question, with the farmers strongly favoring more long-
term credit over credit at lower interest rates. The reasons forthis choice
were apparent. Almost all of the farmers were receiving credit from the
Caja at one per cent per month when they us ed to have to pay five per cent
per month to the local money-lender. So they had already achieved, the
goal of lower interest rates. On the other hand, .the Caja system of credit
is not adapted to the intercroppinga system of agriculture on the north coast.
There is almost no money~ at all to buy land, and what there is goes into
crop loans with a six month limit for corn and twelve months for yucca and
yams. Since they all plant corn at the same time, their loans fall due at
the same time, with a depressing effect on corn prices as they all have to
-sell at the same time. The yam and yucca loan periods are too short for
the crops--particularly for yucca which is not normally harvested for
eighteen months after planting. A system of revolving credit, or a permanent
line of credit would be more compatible with the farmer's needs under his
system of cultivation.
Five of the eight men in Cacaotal gave winning the lottery from 9 to 14
of their votes. They were the regular ticket buyers who spent one or two
thousand pesos a year on this "investment"' Poor people, rural and urban
alike, spend more of their incomes on lotteries, number rackets, and the
like, than do people in the middle classes. The reason for this is that
lotteries for the poor are like the stock market for the better off. If a man
has 30 pesos in his pocket, he can buy~ six lottery tickets or a pair of sandals
for his child. If he spends it on sandals, it is gone; an expense with no
hope of return beyond a short period of use. With the lottery, he has put
himself in a luck-maximizing position with six chances to really hit it big,
buy a car, cattle or whatever, and in one jump, become "rich" overnight.
Most of the other needs on the list can be effectively dealt with if one wins
Getting work outside of agriculture is of particularly low value for this
group of informants since they were all full-time farmers who had no other
A second paired comparison test was devised to focus strictly on the
factors of production. The results are summarized in Table III below.
In order to improve the production of the farm, which of the following twco
factors would be more important?
CIAT CACAOTAL Ave. No.
RANK RANK CACAOTAL
ORDER ORDER ITEM -VOT.ES
1 1 W~ater for irrigation 9. 6
6 2 More land for rent 8 6
12 3 More land for sale 7. 8
3 4 Seeds which will produce.~more 7. 5
13 5 Small machinery 7 1
5 6 Seeds which will grow~ faster 7. O
Better pasture for the animals
Herbicides for weeds
Better feed supplements for animals
Medicines for the animals
New varieties of fruits and vegetables
More manual labor available
Chemical fertilizers '
As in the earlier table, there is strong agreement between farmers and
experts on the most desirable item--water for irrigation. Unfortunately,
gravity-feed tank systems of irrigation are no~t feasible in this area. However,
wells within range of the electric service of the village can employ an electric
pump plus hose to irrigate some of the area.
The land priority again stands out as one of the most desirable of the
various factors of production, as far as the local farmers are concerned.
There are several important areas of differences in opinion. The
farmers want machinery to eliminate some of the present labor requirements.
However, t~he CIAT staff viewc this environment as one in which minimum
tillage is appropriate, On the.other hand, farmers are not much interested
in fertilizers, insecticides or new varieties of fruits and vegetables, wh~ereas
CIAT experts see great potential benefits'fi'om th-ese three items.
The implications of these tables are discussed below when we consider
-some possibilities for future work.
Some Limitations oft the Present Study.
The visit to Cacaotal lasted only nine days, and although I was resident
in the village for the entire period and had a chance to visit with people in
the evenings, the time period did not permit a penetration in depth in any.
of the areas under investigation. The purpose was simply exploratory, and
the hope was to develop some ideas as to which areas of the small family
farm need future work. We should note, however, that I did enjoy a number
of advantages in th~is work which are not normally present in the work of an
anthropologist. The fact that the Swine team had worked there for a number
of years and had done much to help the villagers maide my work immensurably
easier. Association with thef CIAT effort allowed me to get started immediately
with the leaders of the village in gathering data. Present personnel of the
Swine team, Dale Fisher and Lus Elena Betancourt de Argel, were most
helpful in providing information, insights, and introductions to the village
The eight people selected for the various schedules were selected with
certain criteria in mind which make ~them a bit unrepresentative of the
village as a whole. Four of them ~were elected officials of the village, the
other four were simply small operators. Two of the latter four were
selected because of their known opposition to the present leadership. Only
one of the informants owned more than the average number iof cattle for the
area, so presumably the data reflect a bias against cattle raising as opposed
to crop production. None of the large land owners were included in th-e groupji,
and this too baises the results in favor of the small cultivator, rather than
The decision to work through the existing leadership was made for the
conventional reasons; but in addition, the leadership of this village is
unusually active in pressing elected officials of the government for solutions
to their problems. I collected letters from them to high government
officials all the way to the President of the Republic. Their concerns were
focused on three main issues--getting land titles to lands already occupied,
getting help in organizing a cooperative for purchasing supplies and marketing
their products, and getting the government to invest-igate and break a
monopsonistic group, composed of some of the people of Cacaotal and a yam
exporter in Cartagena. They charged that the exporter would only buy from
this organized group and that he was paying $888 per fanega for yams which
they were buying in the village for $450-500 per fanega. Transportation
costs were estimated at $70 per fanega, and village leaders considered the
resulting profit as excessive.
Although I have no systematic data on the subject, I suspect that the
prestige hierarchy of occupations runs from the cattle ranchers at the top,
to people with cattle and other businesses, down to the full-time cultivators,
with the day laborers at the bottom. I chose to concentrate my efforts on
the full-time cultivators, rather than to select a few from each of the above
categories, on the grounds that this group was more likely to be the focus
of future activity of the Systems team.
The instruments used are to be regarded as only protests of improved
instruments to be employed in the future. Not only are many of the
categories inappropriate, but the questions themselves are subject to change.
For example, we might choose to put together categories of equal value in
Pesos; such as, one cowv, x number of pigs, x number of sacks of fertilizer,
etc., and ask the question: "If you were in sudden need of cash, which of
the following pairs of commodities' would you prefer to sell first? Similarly,
we will need to study preferences on land usage, getting their preferences
for various crops and the trade-off of crop land for pasture.
Work in Progress.-
The Swine Program plans to remain actively in charge of the work in
Cacaotal through 19 74. They are continuing their programs and have
coordinated a series of new field tests with members of th~e Maize and Systems
teams. Two hectares of land in Las Cruces have been rented for the tests
CACAOTAL PROJECT (1974)
SWINE, MA~-IZE, SYSTEMS
1. Test of weed killers:
Control and two or three treatments
Area: 5, 000 M2
Objective: To eliminate the first two weedings. This will bring down the
costs of weeding by 50 per cent.
The weed killer must be compatible with maize, yucca and yam.
2. Tests with varieties of yam:
The seeds would be brought fromt Carmen de Bol1T~rr.
Objective: To watch the reaction of the maize and yucca association.
Area: 600 M2
3. Te at of population and fe rtili zation ~of yam, yuc ca and maiz e.
Two (2) populations (control) 9, 200 plants /Hectare distance: 1, 20 m x 0, 9
S15, 000 plants/Hectare distance: 0, 9 x 0, 75
Levels of fertilization: Two levels of fertilization would be tested; half in
nitrogen, low in phosphorous and high in potassium,
Manner of application:
1. At planting: 12 cms. below surface
2. 1/2 at planting 1/2 three months later
3. -1/3 at planting 1/3 three months later and 1/3 six months later
Total number of plots: two levels of fertilizer
three ways of application
Total: 48 plots of 50 M2 each
Area: 2, 500 M2
4. Maize test. Comparison on creole and braquitico in relation to maize,
yams and yucca.
Obj ec tive To watch reaction of braquitico in relation to yams. The re
will be four populations of maize.
1) 1. 20 x 0. 9 3) 0.9 x 0.75
2) 0. 9 x 0. 6 4) 0. 9 x 0. 375
Total plots: 2 varieties
4 populations ,
32 plots of 60 mtsi2 each
Total area: 2, 200 mts2!
5. Plot for observation of Xanthosomas: Distance 0, 9 x 1. 20 mts2
Lateral tubercles are harvested-between 9 to 10 months
Area: 50 mts2
6. Test of maize and caupi: Area 2, 000 mts2
7. Yucca test: Three creole varieties plus. the 11anera and tolimense would
be taken as control:
20 plots of 60 mts2 each
Area 1, 200 mts2
8. Grain legume: plot (Dr. Miguel Muffoz P. ICA)
Area: 3, 000 mts2
In addition to the trials listed above, there is some discussion going on
as to the advisability of beginning projects on dcicks and goats. Both of
these animals offer the potential advantages of being able to produce well on
rougher diets. The idea is that a reasonably well--cared-for goat will produce
about as much milk as the average cow in the areas, and will do it at much:
less costs. If there is a~ market for the milk, ~_cheese and cajeta which can
be produced, this seems a project worth ^ some thought. Some people have
expressed reservations on the duck project on the grounds that they do not
in fact produce as many eggs as chickens and the lower acceptability of the
Similarly, there is some interest in the possibility of doing a small
project on irrigation. Loyd Johnson says that this is perfectly feasible near
the village where electric current is available to run the pump. Hose is
quite cheap, so if the well is~located at the cornerof several properties, we
should be able to run trials on several properties from one well. The data
already in hand indicate that water for irrigation ~is the number one desire
of the villagers. On the other hand, they ranked fertilizers and new
varieties of fruit and vegetables very low on the list. Since the CIATI experts
rated these last two items of great potential benefit to the area, we could
combine the irrigation project: with intensive use~ of fertilizer and new
varieties of fruits and vegetables. No doubt this will 'produce a more dramatic
response to fertilizers than the unirrigated plots in Las Cruces. Making it
at least in part a fruit and vegetable garden near the houses would make these
projects more acceptable, as the theft problem would be reduced.
The economists of the Swine Team are currently carrying out a small
study aimed at getting some information on the total capital available to
farmers, labor availability, and data on land ownership and utilization.
Future Plans of the Small Fa rm Systems Team. -
We will need to plan our future activities in the Cacaotal region in the
light of what has already been done there, what is currently scheduled to be
done this year,~ and the collaboration with ~the ICA.people in ~the area.
Certainly, we will need much more complete and precise data on the
socio-economic realities of the people, as well as some more detailed assess-
ment of their perception of their needs and possibilities. However, I do not
think that we should accept their opinions and priorities at the present time as
necessarily limiting and guiding our activities. For example, assuming that a
successful irrigation trial with fertilizers and new varieties is carried out,
I would expect to see a sharp change of opinion on the relative importance
of these items. Similarly, our plans need not take into account their
interest in such things as machinery, if we are convinced that it: is not
The Systems Program has another potentially fascinating possibility for
study in the region. A large irrigation-drainage district is being formed
around Turipand. L~oyd Johnson informs me- that there is a group of small
rice farmers on the lands adjacent to the station who have already been
contacted by CIAT and ICA staff. Some data already exist on this group,
and further work is now being planned. They will have water for year-
around cultivation, and we felt that they would be interested in our
collaboration. I think we should follow-up on this during our visit to the
area later this month to see if we want to get involved in any way.
One of the major decisions that we will have to make is the degree to
which we engage in research on variables which we know are important, but
not subject to direct manipulation by CIA~T. Yet, we cannot realistically
deal with the small farm as a system without serious attention to factors
which are exogenous to the farm unit itself. Land reform, credit to buy
land, crop credit, the availability of all of the necessary inputs--seeds,
fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and the like; and the conditions under
which they are available are: of vital importance to any analysis of the
problems of small farmers, and will have t~o be dealt with by the team.
Study on these problems will necessarily involve us in a study of such
national institutions as the Caja Agraria, INCORA~, etc., not only to discover
what their policies are at the present time, but the limitations which they face
in terms of the resources available to them to carry out their charters.
Normally, institutions such as these have heroic charters and insufficient
resources to carry them out. We will need to estimate thle place that
development of agriculture on small farms has in the national system of
p rio riti es .
In addition to the economic survey presently, under way, we will have
to investigate the peaks and troughs of the cycle of labor demand, and the
whole question of the availability and prices of land. The figures cited
earlier indicate that there' is something abnormal in this area which we need
to understand. Economists will also, no doubt, be interested in investigating
the marketing system.
Given the high labor inputs of the present system, and the likelihood that
not much can be done in the way of mechanization, it seems likely that we-
will emerge from all of the various studies and experiments with systems
for small farmers which are scale-sp~ecific to them. In order for these
to remain viable alternatives for the long-run, they will have to be
sufficiently productive to enable the small farmer to survive along side
of the larger operators, each performing speciailized functions in that
environment. Otherwise, we could ex-pect the larger farmers with more
resources to be able to continue the normal processes of land consolidation
into larger units, leaving the small farmers without a livelihood, and more
migration to the already over-crowded cities.
It is my feeling that we should begin on several fronts at once. We
have already mentioned the field trials to be carried out, and the possibility
of the irrigation project. We need to establish realistic parameters with~
respect: to the national institutions which affect small. farmers -as soon as
possible. Meanwhile, *there is much to do at the village level. Here we
can investigate the trade-offs in the decision-making possibilities which
are presently within the power of the individual farmer. On such topic,
mentioned earlier, is a study of the possibilities of altering the land use
patterns on the finca, with a major component being the trade-off between
using land for grazing or cultivation.
In the long run, close ~collaboration with ICA and the Caja will pay off
when it is felt that we have the technological. package ready for testing.
ICA and the Caja already have developed the policies and the administrative
m1-achinery to use a system of supervised credit. At the present time, it
is restricted in application to farmers~with ten hectares or more, but no
doubt, this restriction can be removed. Moreover, this collaboration
includes other government agencies such as IDEMEA and INCORAl.
Government agencies in Colombia have already advanced well beyond
thre old extension techniques based on trying to reach all farmers with new
information and trying to convince them that they should change their
practices. This approach has proven costly and ineffective in dealing with
the vast numbers of small farmers, given the shortage of extension personnel
in all countries. The machinery already exists for applying the assumptions
of the behavioral psychology model of human behavior, rather than the
psychodynamic model, which is based on trying to alter the internal states
of the individual. With the behavioral model, change- is directed at the
structure of advantage facing all small farmers, rather than at trying to
convince the individual. With this approach, 'we simply as sume that the
farmer is responding to a perceived structure of rewards and punishments
in such a way as to maximize his net welfare. I: call this the Godfather
Approach to Development, since it is based on the principle that behavioral
change results when the combined institutional structure "makes an offer
they can't refuse'.' With this approach, we look at the behavior of the
individual farmer from the point of view of maximizing his own welfare,
and the effects of his decisions with respect to national goals of increasing
food production. If his behavior does not~ contribute. to both goals, then we
conclude that there is something wrong with the present structure of advantage.
Farmers in Cacaotal are heavily dependent on the Caja Agraria for
credit at one per cent per montLh. Their only alternatives are either no
credit at all or paying five per cent per month to the private money lender.
TChus, the Caja is in a key position vis a vis the structure of advantage facing
the small farmer. When; the ICA-CIAT technical personnel believe that they
have a good technological package to test in a given region, and that they are
confident of the availability of all of the inputs. at the right time, then a tie-in
wit~h the Caja could offer dramatic results. The farmer would then be
confronted with the choice of getting credit under reasonable conditions,
provided that he implements the entire technological package, or the present
alternatives of no credit or expensive- credit from. the money-lender.
This approach offers strong positive incentives to adopt new technology,
and, at the same time, selects the first group of adopters in the most
economical manner. Extension agents do not have to spend their time
trying to convince people to try new technology, but spend their time helping
the adopters to apply thre new technology. it seems to me that the final
objective of the Systems team should be the implementation of our findings
by the national agencies to raise national food production within the
institutional framework they have already established for the task. To
accomplish this end, we will need to wor;k closely with these agencies in
order to understand both their possibilities and their limitations.
LISTA DE JEFES DE CASA EN CACAOTALl
1 Jos4d Tom~s Salcedo ~No es propietario (trabaja en la finca de su mami)!
3 hectzlreas 15 reses.
2 Urban Sarmiento No es propietario (trabaja la finca de su suegra y
mamB) 1 1/2 hectbrea comercia con fiame.
3 Manuel- Reyes Barrios Propietario 30 hectdreas en total; cultivaz 15
y las otras 15 son past 25 reses (a medias con otro).
4 Elario Alvarez Padre de 4 y propietario 10 reses.
ManelA~l~vare Hijo (trabaja en la finca de su papd) 15 hectdreas.
Gallero (crf'a de gallos fins para pelea). Tambidn trabaja finca ~del
suegro menos de media heetirea.
5 Adalberto Torres Propietario -1 1/2 hectbrea (la alquila a cualquiera
que ne~cesita past) 3 reses. Chofer (comprd jeep).
6 .Ivi~n Sierra No es propietario (trabaja en la finca del suegro) -- no
cultiva, Vive del comercio de ganado. Yerno de Antonio' Rivero
7 Eduardo Alvarez Propietatio de 10 hect~reas en Pasto (herencia de
su mamd) En Cacaotal trabaja en la finca de un familiar 1 hect~rea
8 Faustino Coldn Propietario de una casa de 600 metros cuadrados
Aparcero de Las Cruces 1 1/2 hect'area Jornalero 5%/ del tiempo.
9 Juan Viv~iano Tiene 5 hectbreas en Pasto -2 vacas En Cacaotal
cultiva una hectdtrea de la finca de su papd.
10 Marco A. Visquez Propietario de un solar y de tienda-bar v. cultiva
11 hectbreas en Las Cruces la senora tiene 6 vacas y alquila past.
11 Antonio Rivero Padre de tres hijos: Alfredo, Jorge (101), y Arturo
(100) Tiene 90 heetireas cultiva 1 1/2 hectdrea. Sus hijos trabajan
en la finca 10 mismo que su yerno Ivin Sierra y Ezequiel Marti'nez
past 60 reses en total.
12 Jos4 Angel Alvarez 'Propietario de 10 hectireas Administra 20
hec~t~reas que son propiedad de la tra, Carmen Rivero, hermana de
(11) Cultiva 1/2 hectdrea past 25 reses.
13 Miguel Simdn Rivas Propietario de 50 hectdreas cultiva media
hectirea past 25 reses. (anciano)
14 Carlos Alvarez Vive ensla casa de Alberto Torres Profe sidn:
chofer Rafael Marugo Alvarez vive en su casa y es tambidn de
profesidn chofer ('carro propio).~
Vive en la finea de Rosa Zavala (tiene casa
- 1 hectbrea es de 1 y tambien tiene 1 hecti-
- 5 reses Gand $40, 000 en loteria.
15 Josk Domingo Salgado -
y 3 hectbreas) -
rea en Pasto (herencia)
16 Zoraida Pastorizo .Tiene una tienda, pero no terreno Convive con
Manuel Pedrozo de profesidn albaffil.
17 Gilma Df' No es propietaria Lava ropa, plancha, pone inyec-
ciones Edad 40 afios tiene 'hijas y no tiene esposo.
18 Ramda Gonz1ez No es propietario De profesidn jorfnalero
19 Vi'ctor Dr'az Propietario de casa, no de terreno Las Cruces 1 1/2
de un terreno en las Cruces 2 hecti-
20 Rafael. Noriega, -Parcelero '
reas 2 reses alquila past.
21 M~arai El'adl 3_ Hen'de ropietaria de una casa vive sola -~ su hijo vive
en Venezuela y le manda cheqlue.
22 Josefa Rivas Yia no vive en data casa Julia Eba e Hilda Di'az
(Sra. de Coldin) viven en la casa en la actualidad Migu~e~l Di'azi
da pensida (servicio social de Dlaz) Miguel Coldn no es propie-
'tario cnicamente es jornalero.
23 Carmen Natranio Ya no vive en data casa Luis Mhiguel Drazvive
en la'actualidad dentist, sastre, cantina cultiva 1 hectbrea (pro-
piedad de la mam8) 2 rese~s.
24 Rafael Alvarez Vendid1a casa a Januario Alvarlez de profesidn
chofer (carro propio) tiene 4 hectdreas de su propi.-edad en Pasto
arrienda el past a otras personas.
25 Arm~anldo Di'as -' Propietario de una casa profesidn: peluquero -
trabaja en cantina.
26 Luis Torres Propietario de una casa Compra. fiame y yuca la
mujer compra y vende ropa,
27 Luis Miguel Di'az Patra mayores detalles ver (23) la mam vive
en su casa y es mantenida por sus hijo's Juan Dram de profesidn
sastre vive con ella Su hija de nombre Simona es tambien sastre.
28 Reinaldo Ojeda -` No es propietario de terreno de profesibn chofer
y trabaja para~ Alfonso Bello amboss tienen carro).
29 _MarfaBethn Vendid su casa al Dr. Luis Pacheco, quien est constru-
yendo casa para su mami.
30 Fernando Alvarez Propietario de una casa., pero no de terreno
.Comercia con ganado trabaja 1/2 hectdrea (terreno cedido .por un
amigo) 6 reses.
31 Arturo Torres No es propietario de terveno trabaja en la finca de su
papb (33) 10 vacas.
32 Josk Miguel Alvarez No es propietario de profesidn chofer (no
tiene carro o vehrculo) 4 vacas,
33 Rafael Torres Propietario de 79 heet~ireas (31) trabaja con C1 lo
mismci que Ricardo y Felix 6 hee~tireas bajo cultivo past
30 vacas Felix negocia con fiame.
Un ava ila ble
6Eo Nomb re
43 Rafael Madera No es propietario Trabaja en el terreno d~el suegro
(Preciliano Bello) 1 hec~trarea 5 reses.
44 Ig~nacio Madera Propietario de 8 hectireas cultivadas past r 5
reses trabaja 1/2 hectirea arrendada cultiva DiBgenes Domi~nguez
yerno trabaja 1/2 hectdirea arrendada.
45 Marcos Dfaz Propietario de 2 hectgireas past ,- 3 vacas arrienda
una hect~lrea Cura tanto a la gente como a los animlales de la picada
46 Joaqidn Martelo No es-propietario Trabaja en la finca, del papg
Miguel Martelo ayihda con puercos de su propiedad.
47 Santiago Ramos Propietario de dos hect~ireas cultiva una hect~rea,
en 1as Cruces 2 1/2 hectdreas cerdos.
48 Aura Ramos No es propietaria y vive con Clentente Figueroa .
-Las Cruces 1/4 de hect~rea jornalero.
49 Manuel Pedroza No es propietario Vive con (16) Zoraida Pastorizo,
o' la Nena (49) tiene dos mujeres.
50 Gualberto Alvarez No es propietario Trabaja una hectdrea en Las
Cruces -fontanero revisidn de agua.
51 Miguel Monte-rosa No es propietario-tiene un capital de $2, 000
que le produce 5%/ in ensual (100 pesos) No trabaja Ayudado por
(53) 2 vacas.
52 Luiz Alvarez Fallecido-su yerno Remberto Salgado vive en data casa.
de profesidn chofer trabaja. con Pablo (hermano) tiene derecho de
trabajar 1/2 hectbrea en terreno de los Torres 30 reses.
53 Victoria Salgado Propietaria de 8 heetireas Viuda past un
-hijo Victor Ortega- negocia ganado tiene 6 vacas tiendecita
en la casa.
54 Mirruel Dfasz Pro~pietario de 1. hectirea en paja 11/2 en Las Cruces.
55 Rafael Alvarez Propietario de una tienda negocia con z~1ame y
56 ~_Victorino Salgado Propietario de 1 1/2 hectireas, 1 1/2 cultivadas -
jornalero 4 vacas 62 apos 14 hijos 10 de la esposa, 2 muertos,
57 Rufina Pupo No es propietaria hace empanadas y pelz4i arroz.
58 Manuel Avilkz Anciano No tiene propiedad .
Monteria y le manda dinero.
La hija vive en
59 Modest~o Torres Prop~ietario de 5 hect~reas cultiva 1 jornalero.
60 Mig~uel Simdn Rivas -~ No es propietario jornalero- arrienda tierra
61 Martlh Torres Propietario de I hectirea trabaja 1/2 jornal~ero.
62 Dagoberto Alvarez Propietario de 1 1/2 hectireas cultivadas 4
reses comercia con fiame,.
63 Francisco Tom~s Torres Propietario de 15 hect~reas cultivadas 2
past 20 reses comercia con flame.
64 Julio Dram Rene Pacheco -(propietario'de una hect~rea) trabaja en
Venezuela Julio es arrendatario jornalero construye casa.
65 Salvador Torres No es propietario jornalero,
66 Luis Castilla No propietario Jornalero.
67 Carlos Rivas No tiene propiedad arrienda 1 hec~tdrea jornalero.
68 Eudocia Salgado Propietaria de 1 hectbrea vindal'- la sostienen
69 Bolfvar Hernindez No tiene propiedad arrienda 1 hectbrea-
70 Juan Pablo Rivas Propietatio de 1 hectdrea cultivada y tambien
'culti~va 1 1/2 hectdrea en Las Cruces 4 reses.
71 Plutarco Rivas. No tiene propiedad 1 1/2 heet~ireas en Las Cruces
10 vacas paga past.
72 Fern~in Sapa 1/2 hectdrea de tierra prestada. Anciano.
73 (Templo y casa del temple) JosB Villalba ( Thstor) sueldo.
74 N~stor Dormthguez No es propietario 1/2 hectirea cuando es
prestada a arrendada jornalero.
75 Je~sds Sarmiento Propietar~io de dos hectireas de past 1 1/2` en
Las Cruces 10 vacas comercia con riame.
76 Casildo Salgado Propietario de 2.0 hectdreas de past 50
vacas propietario de un carro y le paga al chofer.
77 Tula Torres Pro pietaria de 4 hectbreas cultiva 1 -; Vive sola -
edad: 40 ai~xos 5 vacas los hijos trabajan.
78 Cristo Salgiado No tiene.prop~iedaid trabaja 1 1/2 en Las Cruces
3 1/2 fuera de aquf 4 vacas paga past.
79 Esteb~in Salgado Propietario de 10 hect~ireas en past 30 vacas
negociante en ganado y fiame.
80 Pedro Salgado Propietario de 8 helct~reas pasto-3nonte
10 vacas vive de la venta. de leche.
81 Marfa Naranio viuda de 81 alios vive en la casa de Ghiillermo Dfaz
quien fallecid~ Marfa tiene 60 hectdreas, pastes 40 vacas -
ayuda de dos hijos y 1 empleado.
82 Andrds P~rez Propietario de 5 hectt~reas -- pasto, 8 vazcas,
carnicero mata y vende reses.
83 Aurelio Salgado No es propietario de tierra 5 reses tienda
artf'culos de primera necesidad,
84 Santander Salgado Propietario de 30 hectireas cultiva dois 45
85 Emiro Daz- No tiene tierra -- de profesidn chofer (tiene carro
propio) 5 reses.
86 Felicita Torres No tiene propiedad. Auxilio de los hijos que viverl
en otra parte.
S87 Diegfo Bello Propietario de dos hectdreas en Pasto arrie~nda 2
Albattil la mayor parte del tiemrpo dos reses.
88 Julio -Torres Se fue a Rinc6n Grande Juvenal Martelo y el Nene'
Torres trabajan en la tierra de sus padres (42) (63).
89 Bibiana Riveros PHo pietaria de 1/2 hec~tgrea Pablo Salgado le ayuda.
90 Rafael Enrique Torres Su padre es propietario de dos hectireas
afurera negocia en fiame tiene carro y
camidn 15 reses.
91 `Juan Salgado -'Paopietario de 6 hectbreas cultival1/2 y arrienda
92 Pedro y Alfonso Bello Padre e hijo propietarios de 25 hectireas
cultivan una 8 reses propietarios de un carro.
93 Francisco Miguel Domi~lnguez de Profesidn carpintero.
Migauel Domthguez Arrienda 1/4 de hectirea Padre de Francisco
Miguel Domthgue z.
94 Rafael del Cristo Di'am -. No es propietario .- arrienda 1/2 hect~rea
j orale ro.
95 Oalterio Pallares profesidn: peluquero arrienda 1/2 hecthrea
cerrajero de madera propietario de una tienda.
96 Sixuto Guavas Se fue. La casa no estb ocupada,
97 Francisco. Javier Pacheco Propietario de 550 hectdreas 200 en
Cacaotal 350 fuera cultiva 10 hect~ireas 40 en rotacidn -
3, 500-4, 000 reses- compra ganado presta plata (otros dicen qu~e
1 tiene 2. 000 0 3. 000 reses) Presta plata al 5%J al mes.
para past para los animals.
98 Fernando Alvarez Propietario de 15 hec~tdreas~ cultiva 1 25 reses.
99 Miguel Martthez Propietario de dos hectireas cultiva 1/4 hect~Irea
100 Carlos Arturo Rivero Trabaja en la finca del pap4 Antonio Rivero
(11) negocia can fiame.
Jorge Rivero Trabaja en la finca del papt Antonio Rivero (11)
102 Manuel Antonio Avilez No tiene propiedad jciralero
103 Victoria Barragin No tiene propiedad Los hijos son jornaleros
104 Felicidad Praila Arrienda 1 hect~irea jornaleros Tiene un hijo
105 ~Abraham Ramnos Pro~pietar-io de 10 hectdreas cultiv~a una hectbrea
106 Luis Salcedo Propietario de 4 hectireas culiiva 1 hectirea 2
107 JenchSleo: No tiene propiedad Trabaja 1/2 hect~area que pertenecel
a Manuel Ignacio Salcedo.
111 Antonio Pacheco Propietario de 1 1/2 hect~irea cultiva 1 hectirea .
Jornalea de vez en cuando.
112 -Rend Pacheco Propietario de 1 1/2 hectdirea cultiva 1/2 hectakrea
113 Vi'ctor Di'az Propietario de 20 hect~reas pastos- 30 reses.
114 Merardo Figfueroa Propietario de 6 hectrlreas cultiva 1 hect~rea
Luis Francisco Chima: San Mateo cultiva 2 1/2 hect~reas en Las
Cruces no tiene reses.
108 Manuel Ignacio Salcedo Pro pietario de 4 hectbreas cultiva 1
109 Francisco Torres No tiene propiedad jornalero
Carmelo Villa Diego No tiene propiedad.
Lucina Dfaz Salgado Nadie vive en data casa.
E11a estb em~pleada
MvrarfaBt' No es propietaria Vive de limosma de los vecinos.
Andreds Sarmiento -
No tiene propiedad jornalero.