• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Purpose of study
 Background of Arusha region
 Sample selection
 Socio-economic data of sample...
 Differences between villages
 Farming Systems
 Primary objectives in farming
 Decisions as to which crops to...
 Production of major crops
 Reference






Group Title: Technical report - Tanzania Department of Rural Economy - no. 3
Title: Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the farming systems in Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054778/00001
 Material Information
Title: Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the farming systems in Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982
Series Title: Technical report - Tanzania Department of Rural Economy - no. 3
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Due, Jean M.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ( Contributor )
Publisher: Dept. of Rural Economy, Sokoine University of Agriculture
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Africa   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Africa -- Tanzania
Africa
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054778
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 17784095

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    Purpose of study
        Page 1
    Background of Arusha region
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Sample selection
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Socio-economic data of sample families
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Differences between villages
        Page 9
    Farming Systems
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Primary objectives in farming
        Page 12
    Decisions as to which crops to plant
        Page 12
    Production of major crops
        Page 13
        Maize
            Page 13
            Page 14
        Beans
            Page 15
            Varieties of beans most desired
                Page 16
                Page 17
                Yield
                    Page 16
                Palatability
                    Page 16
            Storage
                Page 18
                Page 19
            Varieties preferred to grow best over all
                Page 18
            Major causes of bean losses
                Page 20
                Page 21
            Harvesting
                Page 22
                Page 23
            Bean consumption
                Page 24
                Bean leaves
                    Page 24
                Green bean in the pod
                    Page 24
                Green beans (nature)
                    Page 24
                Dried beans
                    Page 24
                Preparation
                    Page 25
            A special place for bean planting?
                Page 25
            Reaction to change in bean prices
                Page 26
                If the present price of beans doubled, what would be you decision?
                    Page 26
                If the present price of beens fell by one-half, what would be your decision?
                    Page 26
        Sorghum
            Page 27
            Page 28
        Coffee
            Page 27
        Other crops
            Page 27
        Gross value of production (GVP)
            Page 29
        Labor utilization
            Page 29
            Page 30
        Livestock, ownership, consumption and sales
            Page 31
        Capital investment
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
        Farm operating expenses
            Page 34
        Off-farm income and gifts
            Page 35
        Total cash income
            Page 36
        Net cash income
            Page 37
        Family living expenditures
            Page 38
        Net cash income
            Page 39
        Household items
            Page 40
        How do these families assess their level of wellbeing
            Page 41
        Marketing of crops
            Page 42
        Visits by extension agents
            Page 43
        The favored minority: or the wave of the future?
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
        Factors accounting for variation in gross value of production (GVP)
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
        Summary and conclusions
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
    Reference
        Page 58
Full Text







Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris) In The Farming Systems

In Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982







Jean M. Due, Emmanuel Manday, Marcia White and Timothy Rocke




















Technical Report No. 3, Tanzania
Department of Rural Economy, University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro
and the Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


August, 1984
aAE 4567












Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris) In The Farming Systems

In Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982






Jean M. Due and Emmanuel Manday with Marcia White and Timothy Rocke*









A Report
Submitted to
Dr. Matt Silbernagel
Principal Investigator
Bean/Cowpea CRSP, Tanzania
Technical Report No. 3, Tanzania







* Dr. Jean M. Due is Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Dr. Emmanuel Manday was Lecturer, Depart-
ment of Rural Economy, University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro and is now
agricultural economist, Eastern and Southern African Management Insti-
tute, Arusha, Tanzania; Marcia White and Timothy Rocke are graduate
students in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Illinois who gave valuable assistance. Funds for this research were
supplied by USAID through the Bean/Cowpea CRSP. The authors wish to
thank all the farm families, Tanzanian officials, and students at the
University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro who assisted with this study.







i



TABLE OF CONTENTS


Purpose of study .


. . . . . . . 1


Background of Arusha region. . .

Sample Selection . . .

Socio-economic data of sample families

Differences between villages . .

Farming Systems. . . .

Primary Objectives in farming. .

Decisions as to which crops to plant .

Cropping Calendar. . . .

Production of major crops. . .

(A) Maize. . . .

(B) Beans. . . .


Major factors affecting bean yields. . .

Varieties of beans most desired. . .

(a) yield . . . . .

(b) palatability. . . . .

(c) storage . . . . .

(d) varieties preferred to grow best over all

(e) varieties preferred to plant in the short

long rainy seasons. . . .

How are beans stored? . . .

Major causes of bean losses. . . .

Harvesting . . . . .

Bean consumption . . . .

(a) bean leaves. . . .

(b) Green beans in the pod . .

(c) Green beans (mature) . .

(d) Dried beans. . . .

(e) Preparation . . .

A special place for bean planting? . .


. 2

. 5

. 7

. 9

. .10

. .12

. .12

. .14

. .13

S.13

. .15

S.15

S.16

S.16

S.16

S.18

S.18


. . . .

. . . .








ii



Reaction to change in bean prices. . . .. .26

(a) If the present price of beans doubled, what


would be your d

(b) If the present

what would be y

Reaction to a doubling of

Who Chooses the bean seed

(C) Sorghum . . .

(D) Coffee. . . .

(E) Other crops . . .

Gross value of production (GVP). .

Labor utilization. . .

Livestock, ownership, consumption a

Capital investment . .

Farm operating expenses. . .

Off-farm income and gifts. .

Total cash income. . .

Net cash income. . . .

Family living expenditures .

Net cash income. . . .

Household items. . . .

How do these families assess their

Marketing of crops . .

Visits by extension agents .

The favored minority: or the wave o


decisions . .

price of beans fell


by one-half


'our decision? . ... .26

bean yield . ... 26

.s for planting? . ... .27

. . . . 27

. . . . .27

. . . . 27

. . . . 29

. . . . .29

ind sales. . . .. ... 31

. . . . 31

. . . . .34

. . . . 35

. . . . 36

. . . . 37

. . . . 38

. . . . .39

. . . . .40

level of wellbeing. . .41

. . .42

. . . . 43

.f the future. . . .43


Factors accounting for variation in gross value of production (GVP).47

Summary and conclusions. . . . . . ..52


ins/b







iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Districts in Arusha Region Showing Total Crop Land,
Average Size of Farm, Total Crop Production,
Spoilage, Demand, Surplus by District, 1979/80.

Table 2. Major Crop Production in Arusha Region, 1979/80 in
Tons

Table 3. Population of Selected Villages, Hanang, and
Arumeru District, Tanzania, 1978

Table 4. Socio-Economic Data on Farm Families Surveyed,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982

Table 5. Distribution of Size of Farm Per Sampled Family by
District, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982

Table 6. Areas Under Cultivation by Major Crops, Sampled
Families, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1983

Table 7. Major Factors Affecting Bean Yields, Arusha
Region,1982

Table 8. Preference of Varieties of Beans Most Desired by
Sampled Farm Households, Arusha Region, Tanzania,
1982

Table 9. Varieties of Beans Preferred in Short and Long
Rainy Seasons and Reasons for Preferences, Sampled
Farm Households, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982


Table 10.


Table 11.


Table 12.



Table 13.




Table 14.


Manner in Which Beans are Stored, Sampled Families,
Arusha, 1982

How are Dried Beans Prepared for Consumption,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982?

Variation in Average Production, Consumption and
Sales of Major Crops per Family, Sampled Families,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982

Total Days Allocated to Crop Enterprise by Crop (T)
and Percentage of the Days Contributed by Females
per Sample Family, Hanang District, Arusha,
Tanzania, 1982

Total Days Allocated to Crop Production by Crop (T)
and Percentage of the Days Contributed by Females
(F) per Sampled Family, Arumeru District, Tanzania,
1982










Table 15.



Table 16.



Table 17.


Table 18.


Table 19.


Table 20.


Table 21.



Table 22.



Table 23.


Table 24.


Table 25.



Table 26.



Table 27.



Table 28.



Table 29.


Average Numbers of Livestock Owned, Consumed and
Sold per Sampled Family, Hanang and Arumeru,
Tanzania, 1982

Capital Equipment Owned per Sampled Family, Average
Value, Life, and Annual Depreciation, Hanang and
Arumeru Districts, Tanzania, 1982

Average Farm Operating Costs per Sampled Family by
District, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982

Average Off-Farm Income and Gifts per Sampled
Family, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982

Total Cash Income per Sampled Family, Arusha
Region, Tanzania, 1982

Net Cash Income per Sampled Household, Arusha
Region, Tanzania, 1982

Average Family Living Expenditures per Sampled
Family and Percent of Total Allocated to Each
Category, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982

Average Family Living Expenditures per Sampled
Family Reporting and Numbers of Families Reporting
Each Expenditure, Arusha, Region, Tanzania, 1982

Net Cash Income per Sampled Family, Arusha Region,
Tanzania, 1982

Percentage of Sampled Families Owning Selected
Household Items, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982

Assessment of Levels of Wellbeing by Arusha Region
Sampled Farm Families, Tanzania, 1982 (out of
possible 10)

Comparison of Socio-economic and Farming Data of
Families With Less Than 10 and 10 or More Acres in
Crops, Hanang District, 1982.

Comparison of Socio-Economic and Farming Data of
Families With Less Than 10 Acres and 10 or More
Acres, Arumeru District, 1982

Calculated Regression Coefficients and T Values (in
brackets) Gross Value of Crop Production Dependent
Variable

Average Total Value of Crop Production, Sales, Off-
farm Inocme, Family Living Expenditures, Farm
Operating Expenses, and Potential Savings per
Sampled Family by District, Arusha Region of
Tanzania, 1982






ins/e
v

List of Figures

1. Map of Arusha region. . . . . 3

2. Beans intercropped with maize, Arusha Region. . ... 11

3. Cropping calendar for Major Crops, Sampled Families,
Hanang District, Tanzania, 1982 . . .... .14

4. Cropping calendar for Major Crops, Sampled Families,
Arumeru District, Tanzania, 1982. . . ... 14

5. Beans ready for harvest, Arusha Region. . ... .15

6. Harvesting intercropped beans (above) and in monoculture
(below) . . . . ... .. .. .19

7. Beans being harvested and threshed traditionally in Arusha
region. Beans are carried to the house to dry in the sun
(above), then are threshed by beating (below) . .. 21

8. Harvesting beans for export on the larger farms; beans are
loaded into wagons (above), then dumped on to tarpaulins
for threshing (below) . . . .... .23









BEANS IN THE FARMING SYSTEMS IN ARUSHA REGION, TANZANIA, 1982*



Jean M. Due and Emmanuel Manday

with Marcia White and Timothy Rocke*



Arusha is the number one bean producing

area of Tanzania; thus it is appropriate to undertake

research on beans in the farming systems in Arusha region

for the third report on the Bean/Cowpea CRSP in Tanzanial.

Two major types of beans are grown in the region; one

variety, a white bean, is grown for export to Holland

for use as seed in Europe. These beans are grown under contract for an

expatriate company which purchases, cleans, and grades the seeds for

export. Small farm families were involved in contract growing of these

beans for some years; few continue to produce these beans currently due

to the fact that the expatriate company finds the financing and super-

vision of a large number of small farms too costly and administratively

burdensome. The other variety commonly grown and consumed in Tanzania

* Jean M. Due is Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Il-
linois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Emmanuel Manday was lecturer, Depart-
ment of Rural Economy, University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro when the
study was undertaken; he is currently with the Eastern-Southern African
Management Institute in Arusha; Marcia White and Timothy Rocke are
graduate students at the University of Illinois who provided valuable
research assistance. Funding for this study came from USAID through the
Bean/Cowpea CRSP.

1 Former reports include, Due, Jean M. and P. Anandajayasekeram, "Two
Contrasting Farming Systems in Morogoro Region, Tanzania," College of
Agriculture, University of Illinois aAE-4535, 1982 and Due, Jean M., P.
Anandajayasekeram, N.S. Mdoe, and Marcia White, "Beans in the Farming
Systems in Langali and Kibaoni Villages, Mgeta Area, Morogoro Region,
Tanzania", University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, aAE-4560,
February, 1984, 52pp.







-2-

is Phaseolus vulgaris. The production of these beans in the farming

systems of Arusha region during the 1982 crop year is the subject of

this report.

Background re Arusha region

Arusha is a beautiful region of Tanzania with a variety of crops,

large range lands, snow-capped Mount Kilimanjaro rising to over 18,000

feet, Mount Meru and other less lofty mountains, and national parks

which attract many tourists.

"The region has a total area of 8.3 million hectares of which only 5%
is devoted to crop production -- primarily maize, seed beans, mixed
beans, wheat, sorghum, coffee, pigeon peas and finger millet. The
three most important cash crops, seed beans, wheat and coffee, occupy
roughly 33% of the cultivated land" (1, p.l).

The region has two rainfall patterns, one mono- and one bimodal.

The southern areas-Kiteto, Hanang, southern Mbulu and Monduli receive

one rainfall pattern starting in November and ending in April with dry

weeks from mid-January to mid-February; this area receives from 500 to

1,000 mm. per annum. Important crops in this area are cassava, sorghum,

millet, maize, beans, cotton and oil seed plants and vegetables. (1,

p.2).

In the bimodal rainfall areas- Mt. Meru highlands, Monduli high-

lands, Upper Karatu, Oldeani and Ngorongoro (see location in Figure 1)

the short rains fall between September and November and the long rains

from mid-February to May. The annual rainfall ranges from 1,000 to

1,600 mm. The important crops in these areas are maize, wheat, coffee,

bananas, vegetables, fruits, pyrethrum, beans, and peas. Good pastures

provide for dairy herds as well as beef animals. (1, pp. 2-3).

Table 1 shows total crop land and average size of farm in each of









Map of Arusha Region


ARUSHA


KITETO


Scales 1:.0


7 3 6I 4 U 16 lW 4


REFERENCE
Intern~tonal Boundr..es ******* Road
Rgs'onan l --- RIwi)y
Distrct ** -.--.


REGION


MONDULI

4 Olduwai


Figure 1.







-4-

Arusha region's 6 districts. Also shown are total food crop production,

demand, and surpluses by district. One notes that the average size of

farm varies considerably by district, the smallest size being in Arumeru

where soils and rainfall are best. Mbulu and Hanang districts produce

the highest quantities of food crops and have a surplus beyond local

demand. All other districts are not self-sufficient in food crops.


Table 1. Districts in Arusha Region Showing Total Crop Land,
Average Size of Farm, Total Food Crop Production,
Spoilage, Demand, Surplus by District, 1979/80

District Cropland Average Food Production Spoilage Local Surplus
farm (tons) demand
(ha) size (ha) (tons)

Arumeru 56,086 0.8 46,321 6,947 45,267 (5,894)
Hanang 171,090 2.9 137,852 20,678 42,550 74,624
Kiteto 8,330 1.7 4,062 609 10,976 (7,523)
Mbulu 142,990 3.5 166,527 24,979 36,467 105,081
Monduli 26,742 1.2 13,476 2,021 12,795 (1,340)
Ngorongoro 8,333 2.5 6,327 949 9,032 (3,654)
Total 413,571 374,565 56,183 157,087 161,294
Official market 70,000 (19%)
Unofficial market 91,294 (24%)

*Source: Sargent, Merritt, "Agricultural and Livestock Production in
Arusha Region: An Agricultural Economic Perspective", paper prepared for
AP/VDP, October 1980, Tables XII and XIX.
Surpluses in brackets are negative.


Sargent's estimate of production and distribution in Table 1, shows

15% of total food crop production is spoiled, 42% consumed in the dis-

tricts, and 43% surplus; Sargent also estimates that of the surplus, 19%

is marketed through official marketing channels and 24% through

unofficial channels.







-5-

The major food crops in the region are maize, wheat, mixed beans,

and sorghum as shown in Table 2. Sargent estimates food consumption of

180 kg per person. Given this level of consumption and the current rate

of population growth in Tanzania, Sargent estimates that the region will

need an increase of 170,000 tons of food crops by 1990, which will

either be met by increased local production or reduce surpluses sold to

the rest of the nation. Total crop production in Table 2 differs from

that in Table 1 in that Table 1 data refer to food crops only while

Table 2 includes coffee and seed beans, both of which are primarily

exported.
Table 2. Major Crop Production in Arusha Region,
1979/80 in Tons*
Crop Production
Maize 324,250
Wheat 95,014
Mixed beans 50,315
Sorghum 45,639
Seed beans 27,770
Coffee 17,956
Pigeon peas 9,276
Finger millet 8,810
Total 579,030

*Source: Sargent, ibid, Table XVIII.


Sample selection

The sample selected for Arusha region contained one district in the

monomodal rainfall pattern (Hanang) and one in the bimodal pattern

(Arumeru) (see Figure 1). Within those areas visits were made to

regional and village officials informing them of the proposed study and

seeking advice as to major bean growing areas. After Hanang and Arumeru







-6-

districts were selected, villages within each district close to and

further away from major roads and markets were chosen. Within the five

villages chosen, every ith family was selected at random from the

village lists of farm households; 43 FHs were chosen in Hanang and 42 in

Arumeru. The population of the villages chosen is shown in Table 3.


Table 3. Population of Selected Villages,
Hanang and Arumeru Districts, Tanzania, 1978*
Hanang Arumeru
Gallapo 14,310 King'ori 4,874
Mamire 7,598 Maji ya Chai
Bonga 6,672 /Kikatiti 5,040
Singe 10,404 Mateves/
Dareda 13,596 Oltrument 3,501
Total 52,580 Makiba 7,225
Total 20,640
* Source: 1978 Population Census, Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of
Finance and Planning, Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, p. 51.


In Arumeru soils are volcanic in origin and are fertile. Very few

soil tests have been taken. Arumeru district had a population of 238,020

in 1978 (26% of the regional total). Each village had a primary school

and a health clinic. There were no telephones or electricity; tapwater

was available in each village. There was bus service between Kikatiti

and Kingori. During the rainy season it is extremely difficult to reach

the villages except by four-wheel drive vehicles. Lorries reach the

village when roads are passable.

Hanang district has a total population of 231,292 (25% of the

regional total). The main soil types are greyish with some patches of







-7-

greyish brown from volcanic ash. All the villages chosen had coopera-

tive centers and warehouses godownss) which are used as buying centers

for government agencies such as the National Milling Company (NMC). The

villages had elementary schools with classes to grade 7; Dareda and

Gallapo had dispensaries; each village had a CCM office (CCM Chama Cha

Mapinduzi is the political party in Tanzania).

Socio-economic data of sampled families

A profile of the sampled farm families in the Arusha region shows

an average family comprising of 6.8 persons per household. The head of

the household was 40 years old and his spouse was 32 years old. The

husband had 3.9 years of formal education compared to an average of 2.3

for his spouse. On the whole farmers had been farming for an average of

18.2 years, cultivating 4.5 different crops in 2.6 shambas (farms).

There was an average of 3.4 total adult person equivalents per farm

household, consisting of 1.8 adult male and 1.6 adult female equivalents

engaged in farming on a yearly basisI.

The average acreages of major crops grown per farm family are

illustrated in Table 4. Acreages are used instead of hectares as the

respondents replied in acres. Of the total average acreage per FH of

7.8, the largest percentage (47%) was allocated to maize, with pigeon

peas occupying the smallest share (2%). Sampled farms ranged in size

from a maximum of 34 acres to a minimum of 0.8 acres with a modal class

of 5.6-8.0 acres (31%). As shown in Table 5, the modal size of farm of

the groups sampled was 5.6 to 8.0 acres in each district but Arumeru had

1 For conversion of children and females to adult male equivalents see
bottom of Table 4.







-8-
Table 4. Socio-Economic Data of Farm Families Surveyed,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982
Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Sample size 43 42 85
Means of:
Age of head 40.5 40.3 40.4
Age of spouse 33.4 31.6 32.5
Number of wives 1.4 1.2 1.3
Family size 6.8 6.7 6.8
Adult male equivalents2 1.6 2.1 1.8
Adult female equivalents2 1.6 1.6 1.6
Total adult equivalents
farming 3.2 3.7 3.4
Respondent's education 4.1 3.6 3.9
Spouse's education 2.2 2.4 2.3
No. years farming 18.0 18.5 18.2
No. of shambas operated 2.8 2.4 2.6
No. of crops grown 4.8 4.3 4.5
Food most preferred 3 3,1 3,10 3,10
Acreages4 in:
Maize 3.9 3.4 3.7
Beans 1.9 1.5 1.7
Pigeon Peas 0.3 0.1 0.2
Sorghum 1.1 0.1 0.6
Millet/Cassava 0.4 0.3 0.4
Bananas 0.4 0.7 0.5
Coffee 0.2 0.7 0.4
Other 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total 8.5 7.1 7.8
SArusha data are an average of Hanang and Arumeru.
2 Person equivalents in full time farming were calculated as follows:
adult male and female 18 years and over 1; males and females 12-17
years 0.5; males and females 8-11 years, 0.3. If persons were farming
less than 12 months of the year, the percentage of the year was used;
e.g. 9 months was .75 rounded to the nearest decimal of 0.8.
3 Code: Maize is 1, beans 3, and bananas 10.
4 If crops are interplanted and a plot of 2 acres is 1/2 beans and 1/2
maize, it has been counted here as 1 acre of beans and 1 acre of
maize.











Table 5. Distribution of Size of Farm Per Sampled Family by District,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982

Size of farm Hanang Arumeru Arusha

Acres Ha. No. % No. % No. %
0 3.5 0.0 1.4 8 18.6 12 28.6 20 23.5
3.6 5.5 1.5 2.2 9 20.9 5 11.9 14 16.5
5.6 8.0 2.3 3.2 14 32.6 12 28.6 26 30.6
8.1 10 3.3 4.0 4 9.3 4 9.5 8 9.4
10 & over 4.0 & over 8 18.6 9 21.4 17 20.0
Total 43 100.0 42 100.0 85 100.0


Maximum size (ac) 34.0 20.0 34.0
Mimimum size (ac) 2.0 0.8 0.8
Average size (ac) 8.5 7.1 7.8





the same number of farms with less than 3.5 acres as from 5.6 to 8.0

acres (28.6%).

It is noted that the average size of farm in the Hanang sample was

8.5 acres (3.4 hectares) and in Arumeru 7.1 acres (2.8 ha); this can be

compared to the average size of farm in all of Hanang district of 2.9 ha

and in Arumeru of 0.8 ha reported in Table 1. Averages in Table 1 are

for all farms in the districts; our sample covered the major bean

growing areas in each district; nevertheless it appears that our sampled

farms are larger than the average in each district, being particularly

so in Arumeru.

Differences between villages

The differences between the two villages surveyed are presented in

Table 4, which gives socio-economic and agricultural data. Family size

is remarkably similar in the two villages. Although total adult







-10-

equivalents in farming is substantially higher in Arumeru than in

Hanang, total acreage in crops and number of shambas operated is higher

in Hanang.

Farmers in Arumeru grew more bananas and coffee while those in Hanang

grew more of the other major crops. Families in Hanang also grew

a larger number of crops but had been farming for slightly fewer years than

their counterparts in Arumeru. The respondents in Hanang were better edu-

cated than those in Arumeru but their spouses had spent less time in school

than the spouses in Arumeru. Families in both villages chose beans as

their most preferred food.

Farming systems

All families surveyed grew maize, which is the major food staple. A

large percentage of the families also grew beans (98%) and bananas (60%).

Fewer farmers reported growing pigeon peas (22%) and coffee (26%) which is

reflected in the smaller average acreages allocated to these crops (Table

6).

Sixty-two percent of the acreage in crops in Hanang was intercropped;

27% of total acres had beans in the intercropped pattern. In other words

beans were in 44% of the intercropped acres in Hanang district. Beans were

intercropped with maize, maize and peas, maize and bananas, maize, sorghum

and peas, cassava, sorghum and peas and almost any combination one can

devise.

Arumeru district had 62% of total acres intercropped, with beans in

95% of the intercropped mixtures. Again the largest number of shambas had

maize and beans, other combinations were similar to Hanang but also includ-

ed coffee and pumpkins and potatoes in the intercropped mixtures.






-1 I-


Figure 2. Beans intercropped with maize, Arusha region.
Pho.to s: MzInday


t

S~EJ6~iii~ t







-12-


Fourteen percent of total cropped acreage was in beans in monoculture

in Hanang but only 6% in Arumeru.

In Hanang only 6 farm housebolds(FHs) had second crops after the first

crop was harvested; 4 of these families had maize and beans, or maize and

pigeon peas, or maize and sorghum as the second crop; one had beans alone

and one had coffee and bananas. Twelve acres out of a total of 49 acres

which these FHs had in crops (24%) were double cropped in Hanang. In

Arumeru only 4 FHs had double cropped land; 2 were in maize and beans, 1 in

wheat, and 1 in tobacco, tomatoes and onions. For these 4 FHs 9.5 out of a

total cropped acreage of 30 acres (32%) were double cropped; for the total

sampled FHs only 9.5 out of 298 or 3% of total acreage was double cropped.

(It appears that bananas, although harvested more than once a year, were

not included in land which was double cropped.) In Hanang also only 3% of

total acreage of the sampled families was double cropped.

Primary objective in farming

The primary objective in farming for the vast majority of farmers

was the provision of an adequate supply of food; 96.5% of the families

cited this as their major priority in farming. Only 2.3% were farming as a means

of providing an income source for the family with an additional 1.2% striving to

improve their level of living through farming. These percentages were almost

identical by district.

Decisions as to which crops to plant

Who in the FH makes the decisions as to which crops are planted?

In both Arumeru and Hanang the husband and wife made the decision







-12-


Fourteen percent of total cropped acreage was in beans in monoculture

in Hanang but only 6% in Arumeru.

In Hanang only 6 farm housebolds(FHs) had second crops after the first

crop was harvested; 4 of these families had maize and beans, or maize and

pigeon peas, or maize and sorghum as the second crop; one had beans alone

and one had coffee and bananas. Twelve acres out of a total of 49 acres

which these FHs had in crops (24%) were double cropped in Hanang. In

Arumeru only 4 FHs had double cropped land; 2 were in maize and beans, 1 in

wheat, and 1 in tobacco, tomatoes and onions. For these 4 FHs 9.5 out of a

total cropped acreage of 30 acres (32%) were double cropped; for the total

sampled FHs only 9.5 out of 298 or 3% of total acreage was double cropped.

(It appears that bananas, although harvested more than once a year, were

not included in land which was double cropped.) In Hanang also only 3% of

total acreage of the sampled families was double cropped.

Primary objective in farming

The primary objective in farming for the vast majority of farmers

was the provision of an adequate supply of food; 96.5% of the families

cited this as their major priority in farming. Only 2.3% were farming as a means

of providing an income source for the family with an additional 1.2% striving to

improve their level of living through farming. These percentages were almost

identical by district.

Decisions as to which crops to plant

Who in the FH makes the decisions as to which crops are planted?

In both Arumeru and Hanang the husband and wife made the decision








-13-


Table 6. Areas Under Cultivation by Major Crops, Sampled Families,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1983
Crops Average Number and Average Average Number of Average
acreage percent of acreage acreage families acreage
for all families for fami- per all growing and percent
families growing lies grow- families each crop of families
each crop ing each growing
crop each crop
Hanang Arumeru


Acres
Maize 3.9
Beans 1.9
Pigeon
Peas 0.3
Sorghum 1.1
Millet/
Cassava 0.4
Bananas 0.4
Coffee 0.2
Other 0.3
Total 8.5


%
45.9
22.8


3.7
12.7


4.7
4.8
1.4
4.0
100.0


No.
43
42


14
29


22
24
4
18
43


%
100.0
97.7


32.6
67.4


51.2
55.8
9.3
41.9


Acres
3.9
2.0


1.0
1.6


0.8
0.7
1.2
0.8


Acres
3.4
1.5


%
48.0
20.8


No.
42
41


0.1 0.7 5
0.1 1.4 1


0.3
0.7

0.7
0.3
7.1


4.9
9.2
10.2
4.8
100.0


16
27.
18
18
42


%
100.0
97.6


11.9
2.4


38.1
64.3
42.9
42.9


Acres
3.4
1.5


0.4
4.2


1.0
1.0
1.7
0.8


jointly in 77% of the cases, the husband alone in 16% of the families in Hanang

and 23% in Arumeru; the balance of choices was made by the household in Hanang

(7%).

Production of major crops:

(A) Maize

All families in both districts grew maize, with average acreage in

Table 6 and production in each district shown in Table 12. Families in

both Hanang and Arumeru consumed 55% and sold 42% of maize produced on

average while in each district an estimated 3% of maize was wasted.

Almost one-half the total acreage in crops was planted to maize in both

districts.








-13-


Table 6. Areas Under Cultivation by Major Crops, Sampled Families,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1983
Crops Average Number and Average Average Number of Average
acreage percent of acreage acreage families acreage
for all families for fami- per all growing and percent
families growing lies grow- families each crop of families
each crop ing each growing
crop each crop
Hanang Arumeru


Acres
Maize 3.9
Beans 1.9
Pigeon
Peas 0.3
Sorghum 1.1
Millet/
Cassava 0.4
Bananas 0.4
Coffee 0.2
Other 0.3
Total 8.5


%
45.9
22.8


3.7
12.7


4.7
4.8
1.4
4.0
100.0


No.
43
42


14
29


22
24
4
18
43


%
100.0
97.7


32.6
67.4


51.2
55.8
9.3
41.9


Acres
3.9
2.0


1.0
1.6


0.8
0.7
1.2
0.8


Acres
3.4
1.5


%
48.0
20.8


No.
42
41


0.1 0.7 5
0.1 1.4 1


0.3
0.7

0.7
0.3
7.1


4.9
9.2
10.2
4.8
100.0


16
27.
18
18
42


%
100.0
97.6


11.9
2.4


38.1
64.3
42.9
42.9


Acres
3.4
1.5


0.4
4.2


1.0
1.0
1.7
0.8


jointly in 77% of the cases, the husband alone in 16% of the families in Hanang

and 23% in Arumeru; the balance of choices was made by the household in Hanang

(7%).

Production of major crops:

(A) Maize

All families in both districts grew maize, with average acreage in

Table 6 and production in each district shown in Table 12. Families in

both Hanang and Arumeru consumed 55% and sold 42% of maize produced on

average while in each district an estimated 3% of maize was wasted.

Almost one-half the total acreage in crops was planted to maize in both

districts.








-14-


Cropping calendar

The cropping calendars for the major crops planted in each district

are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The busiest months in terms of labor inputs

are November to July in Hanang and February through September in

Arumeru.


Fig. 3 -


Crop Calendar for Major Crops, Sampled Families,
UH i Di Ti t Ton n. 10982


JAN FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC.

Maize ----- xxx xxx +++ +++ +++ --- --

Beans -- --xxx xxx +++ +++ -- -- xxx xxx +++ +++

Coffee -- +++ +++ xxx xxx

Bananas -- xxx xxx

F. Millet -- xxx xxx +++

Cassava xxx xxx +++ +++ --- xxx



KEY

--- Land preparation xxx Weeding

Planting +++ Harvesting


Fig. 4 Crop Calendar for Major Crops, Sampled Families,
Arumeru District, Tanzania, 1982

JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC.

Maize xxx xxx xxx x +++ +++

Beans xxx xxx +++ +++

Coffee xxx --- +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ xxx xxx

Sorghum -- -- xxx xxx +++ +++

Bananas -- -- xxx

F. Millet -- xxx xxx +++










(B) Beans

Ninety-eight percent of all the sampled families grew green and dry

beans in 1982. Beans provided 21% of gross value of production (GVP)

per farm in Hanang and 18% in Arumeru. Almost all the green beans were

consumed by the households in 1982. On average families in Hanang sold

39% of the dry bean crop and in Arumeru 30%; 4 and 3% were wasted in

each district, with 57% consumed in Hanang and 67% in Arumeru. Beans

provided 18% of crop sales income in Hanang and 9% in Arumeru.

























Figure 5. Beans ready for harvest, Arusha region.
Photo: Dte


Major factors affecting bean yields

When asked to rate the three major factors affecting bean yields in

order of priority, respondents replied as shown in Table 7. Of those

who responded, the major factor in 1982 was insect damage in Hanang with

too much rain in Arumeru. In Arumeru the second factor was insect

damage while in Hanang the second was too little late rain; poor seeds

and diseases were problems in Arumeru but not in Hanang.







-16-

Table 7. Major Factors Affecting B
Factors Hanang
Priorities 1 2 3
Drought re early rain 3 4 0
Drought re late rain 8 3 1
Too much rain 2 7 8
Insect 11 10 4
Disease 1 3 3
Poor seeds 1 1 3
Availability of inputs 1 2 4
Other 2 0 0
No. of families
responding 29 30 23


ean Yields,
Arumeru
1 2
1 2
3 2
12 7
8 13
6 10
7 2
0 0
2 0

39 36


Varieties of beans most desired

Respondents were asked to rank the varieties of beans most desired

for yield, palatability, storage, and marketability.

a) Yield

The most preferred variety in both districts in terms of yield were

called "Red colored and Masai red" (43% of respondents in Hanang, 48% in

Arumeru) followed by Canadian Wonder which was most preferred by 43% in

Hanang and 38% in Arumeru. Other varieties include Selian Wonder,

local, small, mixed colored and hybrids, all with small numbers of pre-

ferences.

b) Palatability

The red colored varieties were most preferred for consumption as

leaves, green beans and dry beans. Again Canadian Wonder was second and


Arusha Region, 1982
Arusha
3 1 2 3
1 4 6 1
1 11 5 2
9 14 14 17
4 19 23 8
5 7 13 8
2 8 3 5
3 1 2 7
4 4 0 4

29 68 66 52







-17-

Table 8. Preferences of Varieties of Beans Most Desired
by Sampled Farm Households, Arusha Region,
Tanzania, 1982.

Varieties Hanang Arumeru Arusha

Preferences 1 2 1 2 1 2
a) Yield
Red colored and
Masai red 17 13 19 9 36 22
Canadian Wonder 16 9 15 10 31 19
Other 4 10 5 10 9 20
Total responses 37 32 39 29 76 61

b) Palatability- leaves
Red coloredI 11 6 6 5 17 11
Canadian Wonder 7 11 6 1 13 12
other 3 5 3 5 6 10
Total responses 21 22 15 11 36 33

c) Palatability- green beans
Red colored1 15 8 12 7 27 15
Canadian Wonder 12 13 10 8 22 21
Other 3 6 2 2 5 8
Total responses 30 27 24 17 54 44

d) Palatability- dry beans
Red colored1 20 4 8 13 28 17
Canadian Wonder 11 13 13 8 23 21
Other 2 9 6 5 8 14
Total responses 33 26 27 26 60 52

e) Storage
Red colored1 23 4 16 8 39 12
Canadian Wonder 6 20 12 11 18 31
Other 3 5 7 3 10 8
Total responses 32 29 35 22 67 51

f) Varieties preferred to grow best overall
Red colored 22 12 34
Canadian Wonder 14 12 26
Red and Canadian 4 5 9
Other 2 3 5
Total responses 42 32 74
Red colored and Masai red varieties.

Selian Wonder and other varieties had almost 1 family each preferring

them. Only 14 FHs in Hanang and 2 in Arumeru reported consuming bean

leaves; of those consuming, the largest number consumed leaves once or

twice a week in season (Table 8). Additional consumption data appears

on pages 24 and 25.







-16-

Table 7. Major Factors Affecting B
Factors Hanang
Priorities 1 2 3
Drought re early rain 3 4 0
Drought re late rain 8 3 1
Too much rain 2 7 8
Insect 11 10 4
Disease 1 3 3
Poor seeds 1 1 3
Availability of inputs 1 2 4
Other 2 0 0
No. of families
responding 29 30 23


ean Yields,
Arumeru
1 2
1 2
3 2
12 7
8 13
6 10
7 2
0 0
2 0

39 36


Varieties of beans most desired

Respondents were asked to rank the varieties of beans most desired

for yield, palatability, storage, and marketability.

a) Yield

The most preferred variety in both districts in terms of yield were

called "Red colored and Masai red" (43% of respondents in Hanang, 48% in

Arumeru) followed by Canadian Wonder which was most preferred by 43% in

Hanang and 38% in Arumeru. Other varieties include Selian Wonder,

local, small, mixed colored and hybrids, all with small numbers of pre-

ferences.

b) Palatability

The red colored varieties were most preferred for consumption as

leaves, green beans and dry beans. Again Canadian Wonder was second and


Arusha Region, 1982
Arusha
3 1 2 3
1 4 6 1
1 11 5 2
9 14 14 17
4 19 23 8
5 7 13 8
2 8 3 5
3 1 2 7
4 4 0 4

29 68 66 52







-16-

Table 7. Major Factors Affecting B
Factors Hanang
Priorities 1 2 3
Drought re early rain 3 4 0
Drought re late rain 8 3 1
Too much rain 2 7 8
Insect 11 10 4
Disease 1 3 3
Poor seeds 1 1 3
Availability of inputs 1 2 4
Other 2 0 0
No. of families
responding 29 30 23


ean Yields,
Arumeru
1 2
1 2
3 2
12 7
8 13
6 10
7 2
0 0
2 0

39 36


Varieties of beans most desired

Respondents were asked to rank the varieties of beans most desired

for yield, palatability, storage, and marketability.

a) Yield

The most preferred variety in both districts in terms of yield were

called "Red colored and Masai red" (43% of respondents in Hanang, 48% in

Arumeru) followed by Canadian Wonder which was most preferred by 43% in

Hanang and 38% in Arumeru. Other varieties include Selian Wonder,

local, small, mixed colored and hybrids, all with small numbers of pre-

ferences.

b) Palatability

The red colored varieties were most preferred for consumption as

leaves, green beans and dry beans. Again Canadian Wonder was second and


Arusha Region, 1982
Arusha
3 1 2 3
1 4 6 1
1 11 5 2
9 14 14 17
4 19 23 8
5 7 13 8
2 8 3 5
3 1 2 7
4 4 0 4

29 68 66 52






-18-


c) Storage

The red colored and Masai red varieties were much preferred for stor-

age by these families with Canadian Wonder the preferred second choice

in each district. These responses are shown in Table 8.

d) Varieties preferred to grow best over all

When respondents were asked which varieties they liked to grow best

overall, the red varieties (red colored and Masai red) were first

choices in Hanang followed by Canadian Wonder; in Arumeru the red varie-

ties and Canadian Wonder were preferred equally (Table 8).

e) Varieties preferred to plant in the short and long rainy seasons

In Hanang Canadian Wonder was preferred over the red varieties in the

short rains because it was more drought resistant and earlier maturing

(Table 9); in Arumeru the red varieties were preferred for the same

reasons. In the long rainy season the red varieties were preferred over

Canadian Wonder in Hanang district and the two varieties were preferred

equally in Arumeru. The red varieties were preferred in both districts

because they were moisture tolerant and high yielding (Table 9).

How are the beans stored?

Beans are generally stored in bags in Arusha region (53% of the

respondents) or in bags with chemicals (34%). Only 1% of the families

reported storing beans in bags with ash but 2% stated that they "used

local storage methods"; unfortunately these methods were not specified

by the interviewers. These responses are shown in Table 10. Fourteen

percent of the families responded that they had no storage problems but

61% said that pests were a problem in storage and the unavailability of

pesticides and unavailability and cost of bags was a problem for 21%.

More families reported unavailability of pesticides and bags (30%) in

Hanang than in Arumeru (12%).








-19-


Figure 6. Harvesting intercropped beans (above) and in
monoculture (below). Photos: Mandati


i; ,






-18-


c) Storage

The red colored and Masai red varieties were much preferred for stor-

age by these families with Canadian Wonder the preferred second choice

in each district. These responses are shown in Table 8.

d) Varieties preferred to grow best over all

When respondents were asked which varieties they liked to grow best

overall, the red varieties (red colored and Masai red) were first

choices in Hanang followed by Canadian Wonder; in Arumeru the red varie-

ties and Canadian Wonder were preferred equally (Table 8).

e) Varieties preferred to plant in the short and long rainy seasons

In Hanang Canadian Wonder was preferred over the red varieties in the

short rains because it was more drought resistant and earlier maturing

(Table 9); in Arumeru the red varieties were preferred for the same

reasons. In the long rainy season the red varieties were preferred over

Canadian Wonder in Hanang district and the two varieties were preferred

equally in Arumeru. The red varieties were preferred in both districts

because they were moisture tolerant and high yielding (Table 9).

How are the beans stored?

Beans are generally stored in bags in Arusha region (53% of the

respondents) or in bags with chemicals (34%). Only 1% of the families

reported storing beans in bags with ash but 2% stated that they "used

local storage methods"; unfortunately these methods were not specified

by the interviewers. These responses are shown in Table 10. Fourteen

percent of the families responded that they had no storage problems but

61% said that pests were a problem in storage and the unavailability of

pesticides and unavailability and cost of bags was a problem for 21%.

More families reported unavailability of pesticides and bags (30%) in

Hanang than in Arumeru (12%).






-20-

Table 9. Varieties of Beans Preferred in Short and
and Reasons for Preferences, Sampled Farm
Region, Tanzania, 1982

Varieties Hanang Arumeru

a) Short rain season:

Red varieties 16 16
-higher yield 5 0
-drought resistant 5 10
-early maturing 2 3
-other reasons 4 3

Canadian Wonder 17 9
-higher yield 1 0
-drought resistant 8 4
-early maturing 8 4
-other reasons 0 1

b) Long rainy season:

Red varieties 18 14
-higher yield 3 2
-moisture tolerant 7 6
-later maturity 5 1
-other reasons 3 5

Canadian Wonder 9 14
-higher yield 3 3
-moisture tolerant 3 7
-later maturity 2 0
-other reasons 1 4


Long Rainy Seasons
Households, Arusha


Arusha



32
5
15
5
7

26
1
12
12
1



32
5
13
6
8

23
6
10
2
5


Major causes of bean losses

Respondents estimated that 4% of total bean production was lost or

wasted. Families were asked the major reasons for beans lost in the

field, in storage and in transport. The most common frequency of loss

in the field was 1 to 10% of the crop. Families responded that most

losses occurred in the field due to too much rain (28%), pests and dis-

eases (27%), delay of harvest (13%),too little rain (9%) and pests,

overdrying, etc. Sixty-four percent of the families estimated that








-21-


-a -


Figure 7. Beans being harvested and threshed traditionally
in Arusha region. Beans are carried to the house to dry in
the sun (above), then are threshed by beating (below).
Photos: Due








,22-
Table 10. Manner in Which Beans are Stored, Sampled Families,
Arusha, 1983


Manner of storage Hanang Arumeru Arusha
No. % No. % No. %
In bags 21 49 24 57 45 53
In bags with chemicals 13 30 16 38 29 34
Using chemicals 3 7 1 2 4 5
In bags with ash 1 2 0 0 1 1
In local manner 2 5 0 0 2 2
Other & no answer 3 7 1 3 4 5
Total Responses 43 100 42 100 85 100




losses in storage were one bag of beans or less (90kg) annually and the

principal reason was storage pests (rats, insects, etc); 25% of the

families believed that they had no storage losses. Seventy-six percent

of the families believed that they had no losses due to transport prob-

lems.

Harvesting

In harvesting the beans in Tanzania, the plants are pulled up by

the roots and bunched in the field (Figure 6). They are then carried by

headloads to the house (usually by the women) where they are left to dry

in the sun (see Figure 7). When the beans have dried family members

beat them with sticks to remove the beans from the dry pods; the beans

plants are piled 3 feet high on the bare ground; beating starts at the

center of the pile so that the beans will not fly outside the pile and

be lost (Figure 7). It is hard work. When most of the beans have been

beaten out of the pods they are winnowed to remove the chaff, and then

stored for consumption or market.







-23-


Figure 8. Harvesting beans for export on the larger farms;
beans are loaded into wagons (above), then dumped on to
tarpaulins for threshing (below). Photos: Due








-24-


Bean consumption (see also Table 12)

a) Bean leaves

Respondents were asked how often they consumed bean leaves per

week; 30 families in Arumeru (71%) and 12 in Hanang (28%) did not con-

sume bean leaves. The 12 other families reporting in Arumeru consumed

bean leaves once or twice a week for 2 weeks. In Hanang 15 families

consumed bean leaves 1-2 times per week for 4 weeks and 8 families con-

sumed them 3-5 times a week for 13 weeks. Estimated amounts consumed

were approximately 1 kg per serving per family. All of the bean leaves

consumed were home produced.

b) Green beans in the pod

Green beans in the pod were consumed by 34 FHs in Hanang and 14 in

Arumeru; modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times per week for those

families consuming green beans with consumption approximately 1 kg per

family. All these beans were home produced.

c) Green beans (mature)

Forty-one FHs (95%) in Hanang and 32 (76%) in Arumeru consumed

beans in this form. The modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times a

week consuming about 1 kg per family per serving for 13 to 20 weeks.

Only 3 families purchased mature green beans (all in Arumeru); the

balance were home produced.

d) Dried beans

All families reported eating dried beans. The modal frequency was

1/2 to 5 times per week. Data on amount consumed per serving were in-

adequate. Two families in Hanang and 7 in Arumeru had purchased dried

beans; all other beans were home produced.








-24-


Bean consumption (see also Table 12)

a) Bean leaves

Respondents were asked how often they consumed bean leaves per

week; 30 families in Arumeru (71%) and 12 in Hanang (28%) did not con-

sume bean leaves. The 12 other families reporting in Arumeru consumed

bean leaves once or twice a week for 2 weeks. In Hanang 15 families

consumed bean leaves 1-2 times per week for 4 weeks and 8 families con-

sumed them 3-5 times a week for 13 weeks. Estimated amounts consumed

were approximately 1 kg per serving per family. All of the bean leaves

consumed were home produced.

b) Green beans in the pod

Green beans in the pod were consumed by 34 FHs in Hanang and 14 in

Arumeru; modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times per week for those

families consuming green beans with consumption approximately 1 kg per

family. All these beans were home produced.

c) Green beans (mature)

Forty-one FHs (95%) in Hanang and 32 (76%) in Arumeru consumed

beans in this form. The modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times a

week consuming about 1 kg per family per serving for 13 to 20 weeks.

Only 3 families purchased mature green beans (all in Arumeru); the

balance were home produced.

d) Dried beans

All families reported eating dried beans. The modal frequency was

1/2 to 5 times per week. Data on amount consumed per serving were in-

adequate. Two families in Hanang and 7 in Arumeru had purchased dried

beans; all other beans were home produced.








-24-


Bean consumption (see also Table 12)

a) Bean leaves

Respondents were asked how often they consumed bean leaves per

week; 30 families in Arumeru (71%) and 12 in Hanang (28%) did not con-

sume bean leaves. The 12 other families reporting in Arumeru consumed

bean leaves once or twice a week for 2 weeks. In Hanang 15 families

consumed bean leaves 1-2 times per week for 4 weeks and 8 families con-

sumed them 3-5 times a week for 13 weeks. Estimated amounts consumed

were approximately 1 kg per serving per family. All of the bean leaves

consumed were home produced.

b) Green beans in the pod

Green beans in the pod were consumed by 34 FHs in Hanang and 14 in

Arumeru; modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times per week for those

families consuming green beans with consumption approximately 1 kg per

family. All these beans were home produced.

c) Green beans (mature)

Forty-one FHs (95%) in Hanang and 32 (76%) in Arumeru consumed

beans in this form. The modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times a

week consuming about 1 kg per family per serving for 13 to 20 weeks.

Only 3 families purchased mature green beans (all in Arumeru); the

balance were home produced.

d) Dried beans

All families reported eating dried beans. The modal frequency was

1/2 to 5 times per week. Data on amount consumed per serving were in-

adequate. Two families in Hanang and 7 in Arumeru had purchased dried

beans; all other beans were home produced.








-24-


Bean consumption (see also Table 12)

a) Bean leaves

Respondents were asked how often they consumed bean leaves per

week; 30 families in Arumeru (71%) and 12 in Hanang (28%) did not con-

sume bean leaves. The 12 other families reporting in Arumeru consumed

bean leaves once or twice a week for 2 weeks. In Hanang 15 families

consumed bean leaves 1-2 times per week for 4 weeks and 8 families con-

sumed them 3-5 times a week for 13 weeks. Estimated amounts consumed

were approximately 1 kg per serving per family. All of the bean leaves

consumed were home produced.

b) Green beans in the pod

Green beans in the pod were consumed by 34 FHs in Hanang and 14 in

Arumeru; modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times per week for those

families consuming green beans with consumption approximately 1 kg per

family. All these beans were home produced.

c) Green beans (mature)

Forty-one FHs (95%) in Hanang and 32 (76%) in Arumeru consumed

beans in this form. The modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times a

week consuming about 1 kg per family per serving for 13 to 20 weeks.

Only 3 families purchased mature green beans (all in Arumeru); the

balance were home produced.

d) Dried beans

All families reported eating dried beans. The modal frequency was

1/2 to 5 times per week. Data on amount consumed per serving were in-

adequate. Two families in Hanang and 7 in Arumeru had purchased dried

beans; all other beans were home produced.








-24-


Bean consumption (see also Table 12)

a) Bean leaves

Respondents were asked how often they consumed bean leaves per

week; 30 families in Arumeru (71%) and 12 in Hanang (28%) did not con-

sume bean leaves. The 12 other families reporting in Arumeru consumed

bean leaves once or twice a week for 2 weeks. In Hanang 15 families

consumed bean leaves 1-2 times per week for 4 weeks and 8 families con-

sumed them 3-5 times a week for 13 weeks. Estimated amounts consumed

were approximately 1 kg per serving per family. All of the bean leaves

consumed were home produced.

b) Green beans in the pod

Green beans in the pod were consumed by 34 FHs in Hanang and 14 in

Arumeru; modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times per week for those

families consuming green beans with consumption approximately 1 kg per

family. All these beans were home produced.

c) Green beans (mature)

Forty-one FHs (95%) in Hanang and 32 (76%) in Arumeru consumed

beans in this form. The modal frequency of consumption was 1-5 times a

week consuming about 1 kg per family per serving for 13 to 20 weeks.

Only 3 families purchased mature green beans (all in Arumeru); the

balance were home produced.

d) Dried beans

All families reported eating dried beans. The modal frequency was

1/2 to 5 times per week. Data on amount consumed per serving were in-

adequate. Two families in Hanang and 7 in Arumeru had purchased dried

beans; all other beans were home produced.







-25-


e) Preparation

How are the dried beans prepared? Most are boiled with salt, some

are boiled with oil, some are boiled and fried with vegetables and

bananas, or boiled with oil, spice and salt. Twenty-nine of the fami-

lies in each district said the beans were boiled 2 to 2 1/2 hours while 12

of the families in Hanang and 9 in Arumeru boiled the beans from 1 to 1

1/2 hours (See Table 11).

Table 11. How Are Dried Beans Prepared For Consumption,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982?


Method
Boiled (with salt)
Boiled, fried with
vegetables, bananas

Boiled with oil

Boiled with oil,
spice & salt

Boiled with oil
& milk

Boiled then fried

Boiled with
cassava & milk

No report

Total


Hanang
# %
.3 30.2


8 18.6

6 14.0



6 14.0


2.3

2.3

100.0


Arumeru
# %
:2 52.4


1 2.4

7 16.6



1 2.4


0

23.8



0

2.4

100.0


Arusha
# %
65 41.2


9 10.5

3 15.3



7 8.2


4.7

16.5



1.2

2.4

100.00


A special place for bean planting?

Do farmers look for a special


place to plant the beans? Fourteen


of the 43 families in Hanang and 21 of 42 in Arumeru said "No". Twenty

of the Hanang and 14 of the Arumeru families stated that they looked for

fertile, flat and well drained land; much smaller numbers reported sand
loam, or land away from pests, vermin and people.







-25-


e) Preparation

How are the dried beans prepared? Most are boiled with salt, some

are boiled with oil, some are boiled and fried with vegetables and

bananas, or boiled with oil, spice and salt. Twenty-nine of the fami-

lies in each district said the beans were boiled 2 to 2 1/2 hours while 12

of the families in Hanang and 9 in Arumeru boiled the beans from 1 to 1

1/2 hours (See Table 11).

Table 11. How Are Dried Beans Prepared For Consumption,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982?


Method
Boiled (with salt)
Boiled, fried with
vegetables, bananas

Boiled with oil

Boiled with oil,
spice & salt

Boiled with oil
& milk

Boiled then fried

Boiled with
cassava & milk

No report

Total


Hanang
# %
.3 30.2


8 18.6

6 14.0



6 14.0


2.3

2.3

100.0


Arumeru
# %
:2 52.4


1 2.4

7 16.6



1 2.4


0

23.8



0

2.4

100.0


Arusha
# %
65 41.2


9 10.5

3 15.3



7 8.2


4.7

16.5



1.2

2.4

100.00


A special place for bean planting?

Do farmers look for a special


place to plant the beans? Fourteen


of the 43 families in Hanang and 21 of 42 in Arumeru said "No". Twenty

of the Hanang and 14 of the Arumeru families stated that they looked for

fertile, flat and well drained land; much smaller numbers reported sand
loam, or land away from pests, vermin and people.







-26-

Reaction to change in bean prices

a) If the present price of beans doubled, what would be your decision?

If the present price of beans doubled all families in Hanang and

all but 4 in Arumeru reported that they would grow more beans. The

modal frequency was 1/2 to 3 acres more; in Arumeru where land is more

scarce, families reported they would grow 1/2 to 1.4 more acres; in

Hanang the majority would increase acreage 1.5 to 3.0 acres.

Eighteen families in Hanang and 10 in Arumeru said they would grow

less of other crops; 17 and 26 respectively said they would not grow

less or would grow the same amount of other crops. The reduction in

Hanang would be of sorghum and maize; in Arumeru it would be maize,

millet and pigeon peas.

b) If the present price of beans fell by one-half, what would be your

decision?

Twenty-five families (58%) in Hanang and 31 (74%) in Arumeru stated

that they would grow the same amount of beans because they needed them

for food consumption and income; 18 families in Hanang and 10 in Arumeru

said they would grow less because of the cost of production. If the

price of beans fell by one-half, more maize would be grown by families

reducing bean planting.

Reaction to a doubling of bean yield

Respondents were asked if the present yield of beans doubled, would

they change their acreage planted? Thirty-five families in Hanang (81%)

and 35 in Arumeru (83%) said they would grow more beans; 4 families in

Hanang and 4 in Arumeru would not grow any more beans and 2 and 1 re-

spectively said they would grow the same amount. The large majority







-26-

Reaction to change in bean prices

a) If the present price of beans doubled, what would be your decision?

If the present price of beans doubled all families in Hanang and

all but 4 in Arumeru reported that they would grow more beans. The

modal frequency was 1/2 to 3 acres more; in Arumeru where land is more

scarce, families reported they would grow 1/2 to 1.4 more acres; in

Hanang the majority would increase acreage 1.5 to 3.0 acres.

Eighteen families in Hanang and 10 in Arumeru said they would grow

less of other crops; 17 and 26 respectively said they would not grow

less or would grow the same amount of other crops. The reduction in

Hanang would be of sorghum and maize; in Arumeru it would be maize,

millet and pigeon peas.

b) If the present price of beans fell by one-half, what would be your

decision?

Twenty-five families (58%) in Hanang and 31 (74%) in Arumeru stated

that they would grow the same amount of beans because they needed them

for food consumption and income; 18 families in Hanang and 10 in Arumeru

said they would grow less because of the cost of production. If the

price of beans fell by one-half, more maize would be grown by families

reducing bean planting.

Reaction to a doubling of bean yield

Respondents were asked if the present yield of beans doubled, would

they change their acreage planted? Thirty-five families in Hanang (81%)

and 35 in Arumeru (83%) said they would grow more beans; 4 families in

Hanang and 4 in Arumeru would not grow any more beans and 2 and 1 re-

spectively said they would grow the same amount. The large majority







-26-

Reaction to change in bean prices

a) If the present price of beans doubled, what would be your decision?

If the present price of beans doubled all families in Hanang and

all but 4 in Arumeru reported that they would grow more beans. The

modal frequency was 1/2 to 3 acres more; in Arumeru where land is more

scarce, families reported they would grow 1/2 to 1.4 more acres; in

Hanang the majority would increase acreage 1.5 to 3.0 acres.

Eighteen families in Hanang and 10 in Arumeru said they would grow

less of other crops; 17 and 26 respectively said they would not grow

less or would grow the same amount of other crops. The reduction in

Hanang would be of sorghum and maize; in Arumeru it would be maize,

millet and pigeon peas.

b) If the present price of beans fell by one-half, what would be your

decision?

Twenty-five families (58%) in Hanang and 31 (74%) in Arumeru stated

that they would grow the same amount of beans because they needed them

for food consumption and income; 18 families in Hanang and 10 in Arumeru

said they would grow less because of the cost of production. If the

price of beans fell by one-half, more maize would be grown by families

reducing bean planting.

Reaction to a doubling of bean yield

Respondents were asked if the present yield of beans doubled, would

they change their acreage planted? Thirty-five families in Hanang (81%)

and 35 in Arumeru (83%) said they would grow more beans; 4 families in

Hanang and 4 in Arumeru would not grow any more beans and 2 and 1 re-

spectively said they would grow the same amount. The large majority







-27-

of families would grow additional acreages of beans if the yield doub-

led; the modal frequency of increased acreage was between 1/2 and 3

acres in each district.

Who chooses the bean seeds for planting?

If new varieties of beans are planned, it is important to know who

chooses the bean seeds for planting so that information on new materials

are given to the right persons. In 60% of the families in Hanang and

52% in Arumeru the wife or women choose the seeds for planting. The

husband or the men made the choices in 14% of the FHs in Hanang and 12%

in Arumeru and the husband and wife jointly in 23% in Hanang and 36% in

Arumeru. Thus the females are involved in 83% of the choices in Hanang

and 88% in Arumeru; this establishes the importance of directing infor-

mation on new varieties to females.

(C) Sorghum

Sorghum was grown by families in Hanang but was not an important

crop in Arumeru. In Hanang 49% of the sorghum was consumed and 45%

sold; in Arumeru all the sorghum grown was consumed by the FHs.

(D) Coffee

Coffee was a major crop in Arumeru producing 25% of total value of

production and 45% of all crop sales.

(E) Other crops

Cassava, millet, bananas, pigeon peas, sunflower, cabbage, onions,

potatoes, tomatoes and wheat are grown by these families ; amounts

produced and consumed are shown in Table 12.








-28-


Table 12.


Variation in Average Production, Consumption and Sales of


Major Crops per Family,
Tanzania, 1982


Number of families

Maize Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Dry beans
Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Green beans
Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Pigeon Peas
Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Sorghum-Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Cassava-Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Bananas-Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste

Coffee- Production
Consumption
Sales
Seed/waste


Hanang
kg. Tsh.
43


2,235
1,250
898
87


399
214
170
15


43
43
0
0


55
35
20
0

525
247
246
32

97
96
0
1

559
206
350
3

11
0
11
0


4,891
2,680
2,047
164


1,943
1,110
753
80


226
226
0
0


244
203
40
1

1,295
637
581
77

244
241
0
3

460
189
268
3

135
0
132
3


Sampled Families, Arusha,


Arumeru
kg. Tsh.
42


1,949
1,055
842
52


398
245
137
16


67
58
7
2


14
9
5
0

40
40
0
0

50
43
7
0

697
575
119
3

234
0
234
0


3,970
2,188
1,678
104


1,726
1,157
511
58


355
309
38
8


69
50
17
2

100
100
0
0

129
109
20
0

990
746
240
4

2,778
0
2,778
0


Arusha
kg. Tsh.
85


2,094
1,154
870
70


399
230
154
15


55
50
4
1


35
22
12
1

285
145
124
16

74
70
3
1

628
389
236
3

122
0
121
1


4,436
2,437
1,865
134


1,836
1,133
634
69


289
266
19
4


157
127
28
2

704
372
293
39

187
176
9
2

722
464
254
4

1,441
0
1,440
1







-27-

of families would grow additional acreages of beans if the yield doub-

led; the modal frequency of increased acreage was between 1/2 and 3

acres in each district.

Who chooses the bean seeds for planting?

If new varieties of beans are planned, it is important to know who

chooses the bean seeds for planting so that information on new materials

are given to the right persons. In 60% of the families in Hanang and

52% in Arumeru the wife or women choose the seeds for planting. The

husband or the men made the choices in 14% of the FHs in Hanang and 12%

in Arumeru and the husband and wife jointly in 23% in Hanang and 36% in

Arumeru. Thus the females are involved in 83% of the choices in Hanang

and 88% in Arumeru; this establishes the importance of directing infor-

mation on new varieties to females.

(C) Sorghum

Sorghum was grown by families in Hanang but was not an important

crop in Arumeru. In Hanang 49% of the sorghum was consumed and 45%

sold; in Arumeru all the sorghum grown was consumed by the FHs.

(D) Coffee

Coffee was a major crop in Arumeru producing 25% of total value of

production and 45% of all crop sales.

(E) Other crops

Cassava, millet, bananas, pigeon peas, sunflower, cabbage, onions,

potatoes, tomatoes and wheat are grown by these families ; amounts

produced and consumed are shown in Table 12.







-27-

of families would grow additional acreages of beans if the yield doub-

led; the modal frequency of increased acreage was between 1/2 and 3

acres in each district.

Who chooses the bean seeds for planting?

If new varieties of beans are planned, it is important to know who

chooses the bean seeds for planting so that information on new materials

are given to the right persons. In 60% of the families in Hanang and

52% in Arumeru the wife or women choose the seeds for planting. The

husband or the men made the choices in 14% of the FHs in Hanang and 12%

in Arumeru and the husband and wife jointly in 23% in Hanang and 36% in

Arumeru. Thus the females are involved in 83% of the choices in Hanang

and 88% in Arumeru; this establishes the importance of directing infor-

mation on new varieties to females.

(C) Sorghum

Sorghum was grown by families in Hanang but was not an important

crop in Arumeru. In Hanang 49% of the sorghum was consumed and 45%

sold; in Arumeru all the sorghum grown was consumed by the FHs.

(D) Coffee

Coffee was a major crop in Arumeru producing 25% of total value of

production and 45% of all crop sales.

(E) Other crops

Cassava, millet, bananas, pigeon peas, sunflower, cabbage, onions,

potatoes, tomatoes and wheat are grown by these families ; amounts

produced and consumed are shown in Table 12.







-29-
Hanang Arumeru Arusha
kg. Tsh. kg. Tsh. kg. Tsh.


Other Production 123 671 280 1,150 201 908
Consumption 44 248 65 237 55 243
Sales 73 394 214 907 143 647
Seed/waste 6 29 1 6 3 18

Total Production 4,047 10,108 3,732 11,266 3,891 10,681
Consumption 2,136 5,532 2,092 4,896 2,114 5,218
Sales 1,767 4,214 1,566 6,189 1,668 5,190
Seed/waste 144 362 74 181 109 273


Gross value of production (GVP)

Although FHs in Hanang had slightly more acres planted to crops in

1982, FHs in Arumeru had an average GVP of 11,266 Tanzanian shillings

(Tsh) compared with 10,108 in Hanang. Of this total 3% was wasted in

Hanang and 2% in Arumeru, 55% and 43% were consumed respectively and 42%

and 55% sold. Thus Arumeru FHs had sales of 6,189 Tsh per family

compared to 4,214 Tsh in Hanang (Table 12).

Labor utilization

Arusha region is the first of the areas in which farming systems

have been studied in which a significant amount of hired labor is

utilized. Tables 13 and 14 include hired and family labor utilization.

In Hanang 520 days of labor per FH were used in crop production in

1982; of this total 117 (22%) were utilized in land preparation, 51 in

planting (10%), 165 in weeding (32%), 20 (4%) in applying fertilizer,

sprays and other chemicals, 154 in harvesting (30%) and 13 in marketing

(2%). Of this total of 520 days allocated to crop production

enterprises, 252 days or 48% was contributed by females. As seen in

Table 13, females did more of the weeding and harvesting than other

sectors of the farming enterprise but they also are heavily involved in

land preparation, planting and other aspects.







-29-
Hanang Arumeru Arusha
kg. Tsh. kg. Tsh. kg. Tsh.


Other Production 123 671 280 1,150 201 908
Consumption 44 248 65 237 55 243
Sales 73 394 214 907 143 647
Seed/waste 6 29 1 6 3 18

Total Production 4,047 10,108 3,732 11,266 3,891 10,681
Consumption 2,136 5,532 2,092 4,896 2,114 5,218
Sales 1,767 4,214 1,566 6,189 1,668 5,190
Seed/waste 144 362 74 181 109 273


Gross value of production (GVP)

Although FHs in Hanang had slightly more acres planted to crops in

1982, FHs in Arumeru had an average GVP of 11,266 Tanzanian shillings

(Tsh) compared with 10,108 in Hanang. Of this total 3% was wasted in

Hanang and 2% in Arumeru, 55% and 43% were consumed respectively and 42%

and 55% sold. Thus Arumeru FHs had sales of 6,189 Tsh per family

compared to 4,214 Tsh in Hanang (Table 12).

Labor utilization

Arusha region is the first of the areas in which farming systems

have been studied in which a significant amount of hired labor is

utilized. Tables 13 and 14 include hired and family labor utilization.

In Hanang 520 days of labor per FH were used in crop production in

1982; of this total 117 (22%) were utilized in land preparation, 51 in

planting (10%), 165 in weeding (32%), 20 (4%) in applying fertilizer,

sprays and other chemicals, 154 in harvesting (30%) and 13 in marketing

(2%). Of this total of 520 days allocated to crop production

enterprises, 252 days or 48% was contributed by females. As seen in

Table 13, females did more of the weeding and harvesting than other

sectors of the farming enterprise but they also are heavily involved in

land preparation, planting and other aspects.








Table 13. Total Days Allocated to Crop Enterprise by Crop (T) and Percentage of the Days Contributed
by Females per Sample Family, Hanang District, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982


Enterprise Maize Beans Coffee Sorghum Banana Millet Other Total %F
T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F

Land prepar-
ation 28 42 11 46 34 51 13 40 7 29 6 54 18 48 117 45
Planting 13 34 9 43 3 67 9 28 5 38 4 62 8 68 51 44
Weeding 61 41 23 44 25 48 24 35 6 53 11 75 15 65 165 46
Spray, fert. 5 38 1 81 11 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 41
Harvesting 31 40 14 48 34 88 18 42 11 49 19 60 27 54 154 57
Marketing 1 12 1 29 3 83 2 42 4 22 0 0 2 13 13 39

Total 139 40 59 45 110 63 69 36 33 41 40 64 70 54 520 48


Table 14. Total Days Allocated to Crop Production by Crop (T) and Percentage of the Days Contributed
by Females (F) per Sampled Family, Arumeru District, Tanzania, 1982.


Enterprise Maize Beans Coffee Sorghum Banana Millet Other Total %F
T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F

Land prepar-
ation 32 42 12 35 2 50 -- 3 50 16 29 10 62 75 41
Planting 23 48 12 45 1 50 -- 1 50 3 35 6 54 46 47
Weeding 55 46 33 42 41 59 -- 10 50 45 38 6 50 190 46
Spray, fert. 1 3 1 0 11 14 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 12
Harvesting 40 48 25 51 90 50 -- 19 63 36 38 13 62 223 49
Marketing 1 24 1 20 7 61 -- 1 100 0 0 0 0 10 58


Total 152 46 84 44 152 50 -- 34 59 100 36 35 58


~ ~___ __ ~_~~ ___ ~ _


------------ ~ ~ ~ ~


558 46







-31-

It is the variation by crop rather than by cropping practice which is

most interesting; females contributed 40 and 45% of the labor,respective-

ly, for maize and beans in Hanang and 46 and 44% in Arumeru. In Hanang 63%

of the coffee production and 64% of millet was contributed by females. In

Arumeru much more of the marketing is done by females than in Hanang (58%

compared to 39%).

However, Arusha region FH sampled employed a total of 2,934 days of

hired labor in cropping operations; male labor supplied 2,188 days(75%) and

female labor 746 days (or 25%). When this labor is subtracted, females

supplied 46% in Hanang and 49% in Arumeru of total farm family labor.

Livestock ownership, consumption, and sales

Sampled FHs in Arusha region owned an average of 40 animals each,

made up of 10 cattle, 16 sheep and goats, and 14 poultry. Hanang and

Arumeru had almost equal average numbers of livestock per FH as shown in

Table 15. FHs in Hanang consumed livestock valued at 1,928 Tsh on average

in 1982 while Arumeru FHs consumed 1,782 Tsh; sales in Hanang were higher

than in Arumeru 2,307 Tsh compared with 1,710 Tsh per FH, respectively.

(Table 15).

Capital investment

Capital equipment used by these Tanzania families in farming is

documented in Table 16 which gives average number of capital items owned,

their value, estimated life and annual depreciation. Depreciation was

calculated by the straight line method; if a capital item cost 100 Tsh and

was estimated to last 5 years, the annual depreciation is 20 Tsh.







-31-

It is the variation by crop rather than by cropping practice which is

most interesting; females contributed 40 and 45% of the labor,respective-

ly, for maize and beans in Hanang and 46 and 44% in Arumeru. In Hanang 63%

of the coffee production and 64% of millet was contributed by females. In

Arumeru much more of the marketing is done by females than in Hanang (58%

compared to 39%).

However, Arusha region FH sampled employed a total of 2,934 days of

hired labor in cropping operations; male labor supplied 2,188 days(75%) and

female labor 746 days (or 25%). When this labor is subtracted, females

supplied 46% in Hanang and 49% in Arumeru of total farm family labor.

Livestock ownership, consumption, and sales

Sampled FHs in Arusha region owned an average of 40 animals each,

made up of 10 cattle, 16 sheep and goats, and 14 poultry. Hanang and

Arumeru had almost equal average numbers of livestock per FH as shown in

Table 15. FHs in Hanang consumed livestock valued at 1,928 Tsh on average

in 1982 while Arumeru FHs consumed 1,782 Tsh; sales in Hanang were higher

than in Arumeru 2,307 Tsh compared with 1,710 Tsh per FH, respectively.

(Table 15).

Capital investment

Capital equipment used by these Tanzania families in farming is

documented in Table 16 which gives average number of capital items owned,

their value, estimated life and annual depreciation. Depreciation was

calculated by the straight line method; if a capital item cost 100 Tsh and

was estimated to last 5 years, the annual depreciation is 20 Tsh.







-32-


Table 15. Average Numbers of Livestock Owned, Consumed and Sold per
Sampled Family, Hanang and Arumeru, Tanzania, 1982


Livestock Hanang
No. Value


Arumeru Arusha
No. Value No. Value


Cattle
Total owned
Total consumed
Total sales


Sheep
Total owned
Total consumed
Total sales


Goats
Total
Total


owned
consumed


Total sales


Poultry
Total owned
Total consumed
Total sales


Total livestock
Total owned
Total consumed
Total sales


14.0
0.4
0.8


11.0
1.8
1.5


34,526
821
1,772




2,835
302
69




3,710
608
448




403
197
18




41,474
1,928
2,307


6.0
0.5
0.5




6.1
0.7
0.8




8.9
0.8
0.5




17.0
7.0
0.8




38,0
9.0
2.6


13,433
737
1,157




3,208
330
296




3,616
407
220




765
308
37




21,022
1,782
1.710


10.0
0.4
0.6




5.4
0.6
0.5




10.0
1.3
1.0




14.2
6.2
0.6




39.6
8.5
2.7


24,104
779
1,468




3,019
316
181




3,664
509
335




582
252
28




31,369
1,856
2,012


11.5
5.5
0.5




41.2
8.3
3.0







-33-
Table 16. Capital Equipment Owned per Sampled Family, Average Value,
Life, and Annual Depreciation, Hanang and Arumeru Districts,
Tanzania, 1982

Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Hoes
number 4.6 4.2 4.4
value(Tsh.) 39.7 44.5 42.1
life (years) 2.9 4.4 3.6
annual depr.(Tsh.) 14.0 10.0 12.0

Pangas
number 1.6 2.2 1.9
value(Tsh.) 22.0 22.8 22.4
life (years) 5.4 5.3 5.4
annual depr.(Tsh.) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Axes
number 1.3 1.4 1.3
value(Tsh.) 35.4 26.7 31.2
life (years) 7.2 7.5 7.4
annual depr.(Tsh) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Shovels
number 0.4 0.4 0.4
value(Tsh.) 21.1 13.6 17.4
life(years) 2.9 3.7 3.3
annual depr.(Tsh.) 7.0 3.0 5.0

Hammers
number 0.5 0.7 0.6
value(Tsh). 22.2 19.9 21.1
life(years) 4.9 7.5 6.2
annual depr.(Tsh.) 4.5 3.0 3.0

Sickles
number 0.5 0.5 0.5
value (Tsh.) 9.8 5.5 7.7
life (years) 4.0 2.1 3.0
annual depr.(Tsh.) 2.0 2.0 2.0

Ox plows
number 0.4 0.8 0.6
value (Tsh.) 271.0 407.8 338.6
life (years) 3.3 6.6 5.0
annual depr.(Tsh.) 82.0 62.0 68.0

Oxen
number 2.3 1.4 1.8
value(Tsh.) 940.9 1,738.5 1,320.2
life (years) 1.8, 2.6 2.2
annual depr.(Tsh.) 522.0 668.0 600.0

Tractors
number 0.1 0 0
value(Tsh.) 6,767.4 0 3,423.5
annual depr.(Tsh.) n.a. O n.a.







-34-
Hanang Arumeru 'Arusha
Other
number 0.5 0.8 0.6
value (Tsh.) 262.7 368.9 315.2
life (years) 1.5 5.0 3.3
annual depr. (Tsh.) 175.0 74.0 96.0
Total value without
tractor (Tsh.) 1,625 2,648 2,116
Total depreciation
without tractors (Tsh.) 814 830 794





For the Arusha families, the average value of capital equipment

owned in 1982 was 2,116 Tsh ($212), excluding the four families who had

tractors). The major capital items in terms of numbers owning them were

hoes, axes and oxen. Tractors, oxen and ox plows incorporated the

largest costs of capital investment. No FHs in Arumeru had any

tractors; those in Hanang owned four. FHs in Arumeru had more

investment in ox plows and oxen than those in Hanang. Tractor rental

has become important in both areas; the rental cost appears under farm

operating costs (Table 17). Annual depreciation charges were 814 Tsh.

per family in Hanang and 830 Tsh. in Arumeru in 1982.

Farm operating expenses

The two largest farm operating expenses in Arusha region were ma-

chinery hire and hired labor; these were followed by seed and chemicals,

transport hire, petroleum and land rental. Average expenditures per

sampled family by district are shown in Table 17. In Hanang 27 of the

43 families hired male labor and 8 hired female labor in 1982; in Aru-

meru 18 hired male and 6 hired female labor during the year. Twenty

eight families in Hanang and 14 in Arumeru had expenditures for machin-

ery rental and 32 in Hanang and 26 in Arumeru for seed purchases; only

2 families (all in Arumeru) purchased fertilizer but 26 in Hanang and 13

in Arumeru purchased other chemicals.








-35-

Average Farm Operating Cost


s per Sampled Family by District,


Arusha, Tanzania, 1982

Inputs Hanang

Amount Value

Hired male labor(days) 23 452

Hired female labor(days) 9 129

Seed (kg) 40 452

Fertilizer (kg) 0 0

Chemicals (kg) 8 151

Petroleum (gal) 20 240

Machinery hire n.a. 1,437

Transport hire n.a. 395

Land rental n.a. 113

Depreciation n.a. 814


Arumeru


Arusha


Amount Value Amount Value


29

9

23

1

14

0

n. a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.


774

171

189

9

371

0

317

48

29

830


26

9

31

1

11

10

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.


613

150

322

4

260

126

884

224

72

794


Total

n.a. not available


n.a. 4,183


n.a. 2,738


n.a. 3,449


Average farm operating expenditures in Hanang for the 1982 crop

year were 50% higher than those in Arumeru; in Arumeru labor hiring was

the single largest expenditure per family; in Hanang machinery rental

was highest. Five families in Hanang and 2 in Arumeru rented extra land

for crops.

Off-farm income and gifts

Families averaged 6,815 Tsh ($681) from off-farm income and gifts

in Hanang in 1982 but only 1,806 Tsh or ($181) in Arumeru. These earn-

ings were primarily from male members of the household working off-farm;


Table 17.


_ _____~I~_~







-36-


4 men in each district were civil servants, 2 were in construction and 3

in business in that district; others worked in occupations part time.

Thirty-five of the 85 families had males earning income off farms. Only

4 females earned off-farm wage income; average male earnings were 3,446

Tsh per FH in 1982 while average female wage earnings were only 137 Tsh.

(Table 18).

Eight of the male and 29 of the female household members earned sub-

stantial amounts selling tobacco, vegetables, and beer; male members aver-

aged 141 Tsh. per FH and females 562 Tsh; in both cases FH earnings were

much higher in Hanang than in Arumeru. Eight of the families were given

gifts during the year; males received 31 Tsh per FH and females 23 Tsh.

Thus total off-farm earnings and gifts averaged 3,618 Tsh. for males

and 722 Tsh. for females per FH; on average these off-farm earnings amount-

ed to 41% of gross value of crop production and 84% of crop sales in 1982.

Table 18. Average Off Farm Income and Gifts per Sampled Family,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982 ______

Tsh.
Source Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Employment male 5,546 1,296 3,446
females 195 77 137

Vegetable & beer sales
males 248 31 141
females 734 385 562

Gifts males 48 15 31
females 44 2 23
TOTAL males 5,842 1,342 3,618
femlaes 973 464 722
6,815 1,806 4,340


Total cash income

Total cash income per sampled FH is shown in Table 19.







-37-

Table 19. Total Cash Income per Sampled Family,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982

Source Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Tsh. Tsh. Tsh.

Crop sales 4,214 6,189 5,190

Livestock sales 2,307 1,710 2,012

Off farm income & gifts 6,815 1,806 4,340

Total cash income 13,336 9,705 11,542


In Hanang FHs earned more cash income from off-farm income and gifts

than from farm operations, on average, 51% of total cash income was from

off-farm income and gifts there. In Arumeru crop sales provided most of

the total cash income per FH (Table 19).

Net cash income

When farm operating expenses are subtracted from farm sales, average

net cash income from farming and from off farm sources are shown in Table

20.


Table 20. Net Cash Income per Sampled Household,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982

Source Hanang Arumeru
Tsh. Tsh.
Crop sales 4,214 6,189

less farm expenses 4,183 2 738

Net crop cash income 31 3,451

Livestock sales 2,307 1,710

Off farm income & gifts 6,815 1,806

Net cash income 9,153 6,967


Arusha
Tsh.
5,190

3,449

1,741

2,102

4,340

8,183







-38-

In Hanang average farm expenses were almost as high as crop sales

leaving only 31 Tsh when farm expenses (including depreciation) were sub-

tracted from crop sales; in Arumeru FHs averaged 3,451 Tsh. net. However,

off-farm income and gifts raised Hanang FH average cash income to 9,153 Tsh

($925) in 1982 compared with 6,967 Tsh. ($697) in Arumeru.

Family living expenditures

Average family living expenditures were 5,419 Tsh. per family in 1982.

Expenditures for clothing and footwear were higher than any other category

and were allocated 34% of the family budgets in Arusha region; food expend-

itures followed with 22%, kerosene, fuel, radios and batteries with 11% and

maize grinding with 9%. Expenditures for maize grinding in Hanang were

one-half as high as food expenditures; in Arumeru they were only 22%.


Table 21. Average Family Living Expenditures Per Sampled Family and
Percent of Total Allocated to Each Category, Arusha, Tanzania,
1982

Category Hanang Arumeru Arusha

Tsh. % Tsh. % Tsh. %

Food 950 16.8 1,445 27.9 1,195 22.0

Maize grinding 634 11.2 342 6.6 490 9.0

Clothing and footwear 1,845 32.6 1,801 34.8 1,823 33.8

Kerosene, fuel, radios 742 13.1 505 9.9 625 11.5

Pots, pans & bedding 475 8.4 339 6.5 408 7.5

Education & medical 389 6.9 286 5.5 338 6.2

Fees, fines & licenses 212 3.7 150 2.9 181 3.4

Transport1 383 6.8 267 5.2 326 6.0

Other 30 0.5 36 0.7 33 0.6

TOTAL 5,660 100.0 5,171 100.0 5,419 100.0

1 This transport does not include the cost of transporting products
to market; those costs are under farm operating expenses.







-39-

In Arusha region sample all families except one had expenditures for

maize grinding and all had expenditures for fuel, radios and batteries (a

combined category). Only 70 of the 85 families reported purchasing food,

beverages and tobacco; 73 had expenditures for educational and medical

expenses. Average expenditures per family reporting each item are shown in

Table 22.

Table 22. Average Family Living Expenditures per Sampled Family
Reporting and Numbers of Families Reporting Each
Expenditure, Arusha, Region, Tanzania, 1982


Category


Food & beverages

Maize grinding

Clothing & footwear

Kerosene, fuel, radios

Pots, pans, beeding

Education & medical

Fees, fines & licenses

Transport1

Other


Hanang
# Tsh.

34 1,201

43 634

40 1,983

43 742

31 659

36 465

27 337

24 686

3 433


Arumeru
# Tsh.


1,680

368

1,845

504

419

325

226

449

306


Arusha
# Tsh.

70 1,450

82 508

81 1,913

85 625

65 533

73 394

55 280

49 565

8 354


SExcluding the transport of products to market.

Net cash income

When family living expenditures are subtracted from the sources of

cash income (less farm operating expenses) in Table 20, net cash income

available for savings or investment is obtained. These are shown for each

district in Table 23.








-40-
Table 23. Net Cash Income per Sampled Family, Arusha Region.
Tanzania, 1982

Sources Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Tsh.
Net farm and off-farm
income (Tale 20) 9,153 6,967 8,183

Less family living expend-
itures 5,660 5,171 5,419

Balance 3,493 1,796 2,764

Families in Hanang district had almost twice as large a balance of net

income after family living expenses had been subtracted as in Arumeru

(3,493 Tsh. compared with 1,796 Tsh.).

Household items

Farm families interviewed were asked a number of questions which related

to household items owned or utilized. It was found that among the households

sampled in Arusha region, 66% had a house with a metal roof, but only 15% had

a concrete floor. Seventy-six percent had one or more radios, 41% had

bicycles, 39% watches, 99% had 1 or more beds, and 72% had one or more

lanterns. These are shown by district in Table 24.

Table 24. Percentage of Sampled Families Owning Selected Household Items,

Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982



Item Hanang Arumeru Arusha
% % %

Roof of house metal 54 78 66
thatched 46 22 34
Concrete floor 21 9 15
Radio 1 or more 74 88 76
Bicycle 1 or more 46 36 41
Watches 1 or more 40 38 39
Beds 1 or more 100 98 99
Lanterns 1 or more 70 74 72







-41-

How do these families assess their level of wellbeing?

An additional set of questions was asked to enable the researchers to

determine whether or not the families believe their level of wellbeing has

improved or deteriorated over the last 5 years. The scale developed by

Cantril (2), is portrayed on a ladder (left); it allows each family to

Good indicate its current level of wellbeing on a scale of 0 to 10,

Life with 0 or the "bad life" at the bottom and 10 the "good life" at

-- 10 the top.

--- The 43 families in Hanang District currently themselves at an

-average of 5.2 currently; they were at 4.9 five years ago and

-- expect to be at an optimistic 7.0 five years hence (Table 25).

-Thus the average Hanang respondent was optimistic about the

---- 5 future; he expected the level of wellbeing to increase 18% in 5

-years. The 42 families in Arumeru assessed their present level

---- of well being at 5.5; five years ago they were at 4.9 and five

-years hence they expect to be at 7.3. It appears the families

had little increase on average in their level of wellbeing over

Bad 0 the last five years but were optimistic about the future. This

Life optimism is evident in spite of the very difficult economic

climate in the country currently.

Table 25. Assessment of Levels of Wellbeing by Arusha Region

Sampled Farm Families, Tanzania, 1982 (out of a possible 10)

Hanang Arumeru Arusha

Current level 5.2 5.5 5.3

Level 5 years ago 4.9 4.9 4.9

Level 5 years hence 7.0 7.3 7.2


___ __ _____ ~__







-42-


Heads of households also were asked which 3 items, in their view, were

most important in the "good life". In Hanang the four top rated items were:

(with numbers of families rating each in brackets) having enough food (30), a

good permanent house (19), good health (14) and cash (12). In Arumeru the

families rated enough food (30), cash (22), a good permanent house (19) and

health (9) as the most important factors. The two districts rated the same

four items as most important but changed the order slightly.

What items constitute the "bad life"? In Hanang they were: disease or

poor health (26),drought (20), scarce food (18), high price of farm inputs

(15) and little money (12). When drought and scarce food were combined,

88% of the families (38) reported that item as the major concern of the "bad

life". In Arumeru the families mentioned scarce food (26), disease/poor

health (18), little money (17), poor shelter (16) and high prices of farm

inputs (12) in the "bad life". In Arumeru scarce food was not as significant

a factor in the "bad life" as in Hanang.

Marketing of crops

Respondents were asked where they marketed their crops and what

problems, if any, they had in marketing. Sixty-one percent of the Hanang

households (26) marketed their crops through the National Milling Company,

the government grain marketing agency; 23% (10) utilized either NMC or Gapex

(the government marketing organization for cotton, oil seeds, and export

crops); only 2FHs marketed through the village cooperative. Thirty-five

families stated that they marketed through a specific government institution

as it was the only choice.

In Arumeru 16 families (38%) marketed through NMC, twelve (29%) through

village coops, and 8 (19%) with NMC or Gapex. Village cooperatives were more







-43-

significant in Arumeru than Hanang. In Hanang in response to a question

concerning marketing problems, FHs consistently mentioned delay of payment

(22), transportation (21), and crop prices which were too low (20) as

problems. Marketing problems in Arumeru were the same as in Hanang district.



Visits by extension agents

Twenty-two of the 43 families sampled in Hanang district were visited by

the extension agent during 1982; six families were visited once during the

year, 4 twice, and 7 visited more than twice (5 did not record the number of

visits). In general the FHs visited believed the information of the

extension agents helpful; the agents stressed planting/spacing methods (9

respondents), use of insecticides (4), and general information on

fertilization and weeding; 69% of the advice related to maize and its

intercropped companions in Hanang.

In Arumeru also 22 of 42 families were visited by an extension agent

(52%); 6 families were visited once, 9 twice, and 7 more than twice during

1982. In Arumeru the extension agent gave advice primarily on maize, coffee

and beans. Coffee was mentioned most frequently; maize and its companions

66% of the time. Extension agents' advice was on use of insecticides (46%)

and planting and spacing methods (20%) of the time. All farmers visited

agreed that the extension agents were helpful; over half believed that the

extension agents had assisted in increasing food production, had assisted

with information on pesticides, identified diseases and the best planting

methods.

The favored minority: or the wave of the future?

The sample of FHs selected contained 20 families, 10 each in Hanang and

Arumeru, with 10 or more acres in crop production. If it is anticipated







-43-

significant in Arumeru than Hanang. In Hanang in response to a question

concerning marketing problems, FHs consistently mentioned delay of payment

(22), transportation (21), and crop prices which were too low (20) as

problems. Marketing problems in Arumeru were the same as in Hanang district.



Visits by extension agents

Twenty-two of the 43 families sampled in Hanang district were visited by

the extension agent during 1982; six families were visited once during the

year, 4 twice, and 7 visited more than twice (5 did not record the number of

visits). In general the FHs visited believed the information of the

extension agents helpful; the agents stressed planting/spacing methods (9

respondents), use of insecticides (4), and general information on

fertilization and weeding; 69% of the advice related to maize and its

intercropped companions in Hanang.

In Arumeru also 22 of 42 families were visited by an extension agent

(52%); 6 families were visited once, 9 twice, and 7 more than twice during

1982. In Arumeru the extension agent gave advice primarily on maize, coffee

and beans. Coffee was mentioned most frequently; maize and its companions

66% of the time. Extension agents' advice was on use of insecticides (46%)

and planting and spacing methods (20%) of the time. All farmers visited

agreed that the extension agents were helpful; over half believed that the

extension agents had assisted in increasing food production, had assisted

with information on pesticides, identified diseases and the best planting

methods.

The favored minority: or the wave of the future?

The sample of FHs selected contained 20 families, 10 each in Hanang and

Arumeru, with 10 or more acres in crop production. If it is anticipated








-44-


Table 26. Comparison of Socio-economic and Farming Data of Families
With Less Than 10 and 10 or More Acres in Crops, Hanang
District, 1982


Sample size

Mean per family

Family size

Male equivalents
Female equivalents

Education of farm operator(years)
Education of spouse

Years of farming

Total crop acreage
Acreage maize
beans

peas
sorghum

millet, cassava
bananas

coffee
other

Gross value crop production (Tsh)

Crop sales

Farm operating expenses

Net crop income (cash)
Livestock sales
Off-farm income

Total net income
Family living expenditures
Balance


Less than
10 acres

33


6.7

1.5
1.6
3.7

1.8

18.7

4.9
2.0
1.0
.3
.7
.1

.3
.1
.4
6,758

1,899

2,019
-120

1,215
5,258
6,353
4,652

1,701


10 or more
acres
10


7.0

1.7
1.5
5.2

3.3

15.5

19.6
9.8

4.7
.5
2.1
1.2
.6
.0
.7
21,164
11,854

11,681

173
1,830
11,957

13,960
7,508

6,452








-45-
Comparison of Socio-Economic and Farming Data of Families
with Less Than 10 Acres and 10 and More Acres, Arumeru
District, 1982


Sample size
Means of:

Family size
Male equivalents
Female equivalents

Education of farm operator (years)

Education of spouse

Years farming
Total crop acreage
Acreage maize
beans

peas

millet, cassava
bananas
coffee
others

Gross value of

crop production (Tsh)

Crop sales
Farm operating costs
Net crop cash income
Livestock sales
Off farm income

Total net income

Family living expenditures
Balance


Less than

10 acres

32


10 or more

acres

10


6.4
2.0
1.5

4.0

2.2
17.7

4.8
2.4

1.2

.0

.3
.6
.4


7.7
2.1

1.9
2.3

2.7
20.8

12.7
6.4
2.3

.1

.6
.8
1.7
.8


8,397

3,864
1,420
2,444
1,689
1,736

5,869

5,684
185


20,449

13,627
4,830
8,797
1,795
2,026

12,618

5,007
7,611


Table 27.








-46-

that farm size will increase in the future, it may be important to com-

pare these farm operations with the ones of smaller size. This compari-

son for Hanang district is shown in Table 26 and for Arumeru district in

Table 27.

In Hanang the average farm size of 10 acres and over was four times

as large as the FHs farming 10 acres or less. These large farms had

more of the crop acreage in maize and beans, had much higher crop sales

but also much higher farm operating costs; their net farm income after

all farm expenses were paid for 1982 was 6,452 Tsh compared to 1,701 Tsh

for the smaller farms. However average GVP less farm operating expenses

per FH was higher for the small farms (967 Tsh) than the large farms

(484 Tsh); the latter had very high average farm operating costs. These

larger farm families were larger and better educated than their

counterparts on the smaller farms. Two families owned tractors in

Hanang, 6 had oxen and ploughs and others rented mechanical equipment.

Acreage in crops varied from 10 to 34 acres. The larger farmers hired

an average of 113 labor days in 1982 compared with 8 days for the small

farms.

One of the most striking contrasts between these two sets of FHs is

the contrast in income earned off the farm; the large farmers earned

double the off-farm income of the small farmers; what were they doing

besides farming larger acreages? Two of these Hanang farmers were CCM

secretaries (secretaries of the national polical party) and one was a

magistrate. Others obtained off-farm income from selling vegetables and

fruits.

In Arumeru the large farmers also have larger sized families but

lower average levels of education. They also planted more maize and







-47-

beans but had relatively more coffee than their smaller-farm counter-

parts. Their net crop cash income was four times higher than the small

farmers, off-farm income and livestock sales were not very different but

family living expenditures were lower and the net income remaining was

7,611 Tsh. compared with 185 Tsh for the FHs farming smaller farms.'

Again GVP minus farm operating costs per FH is higher for the small than

large farms.

In Arumeru the large farms varied from 10 to 16 acres, an average

of 126 days of hired labor was utilized and all but one FH had oxen and

ploughs. Small FHs hired only 9 days of labor on average.

As in Hanang one of these large farmers was a CCM secretary, others

obtained off-farm income from business enterprises, and vegetable sales.

Off-farm income in Arumeru did not differ significantly between the

large and small FHs.

Factors accounting for variation in gross value of production (GVP)

Regressions were calculated to ascertain those factors which ac-

counted for the greatest amount of the variation in GVP for the total

sample of families in Arusha region and for each district. Results are

shown in Table 28.

Note that in the third column of Table 28 family size (V14) is

sometimes changed to total labor equivalents (V20), male equivalents

(V4) and female equivalents (V5); (V4 + V5 = V20) to conserve space.

The second last column sometimes has livestock sales (V16) instead of

V12 (education of the spouse).

For the total sample in Arusha region 53% of the variation in GVP

is accounted for by acreage, education of the respondent, family size,








-48-


Table 28. Calculated Regression Coefficients and T Values (in brackets)
Gross Value of Crop Production, Dependent Variable.


Equation Constant


Average Family Size Farm Operating
V7 V14 _.__ Costs_ 1__


Education of
Respondent VII


Education of
Spouse V19


Years Farm-
ing V13


3722 709.1041 -43.6023
(.9789) (4.3708)** (-.1306)


-5781 719.0375
(-1.1735) (4.1575)**

596 1087.2319
( .1414) (4.4509)**

708 844.5121
(.2914) (3.1412)**


1273.4148
(1.3216)
YvA
206.6193
(.5798)
Y29
159.2714
(.3277)


V4
5 302 459.7759 1446.4924
(.8163) (1.2069) (1.2623)

6 2409 1645.4826 -1096.2899
(.8804) (4.3786)** (-1.5934)
Y5
7 11667 348.7597 2464.0819
(.7512) (.6086) (.7745)
VYQ
8 -29656 754.7908 4298.4315
(-.6831) (.9581) (.7280)


-9711 1202.5373
(-.1810) (.3620)


Vl4
497.9317
(.3416)


.4725
(3.5011)**

.1620
(1.1368)

1.1558
(6.3689)**

.6980
(2.6540)**

(.0589)
(.0139)

1.1114
(3.7942)**

.5307
(1.8067)

.0934
(.2332)

1.3109
(2.035)**


155.6978
(.4482)

1338.6769
(2.8958)**

100.1093
(.2587)

252.908
(1.0548)

609.1920
(2.0184)**

216.2668
(.7160)

-572.8259
(-.3889)

3667.7111
(1.2838)

208.8752
(.0857)


-309.1973
(-.7272)


105.002
(.4264)


-164.9357
(-.4781)

.9566
(.7533)

-221.9197
(-.0915)

2.1640
(.9441)


3.9963
(.0392)

39.0885
(.3405)

-47.9782
(-.3915)


11.3797
(.1745)

8.436
(.1084)


17.5331
(.1573)

-261.6145
(-.5296)

148.5732
(.1392)

14.2852
(.0255)


------`----


--


-----







-49-

years farming and farm operating costs with only acreage and farm opera-

ting costs were significant and family size had a negative coefficient

(Equation 1). Acreage accounted for most of the variation (44%) in

GVP, farm operating costs 8%, and family size less than 1%. The

negative coefficient on family size indicates that additional family

members would not increase GVP. The R2 increased to 54% when total

labor equivalents are substituted for family size (V14) but total labor

equivalents also accounted for less than 1% of the variation. Years

farming had a negative coefficient. Total labor equivalents above

accounted for 6% of the variation in GVP.

It was hypothesized that including livestock sales in equation 1 as

a proxy for cash income available for paying farm operating costs would

increase the R2. (It would be preferable to have the livestock sales

from a year earlier but these data were not available.) The R2 increas-

ed only to 54% when livestock sales were included in equation 1 and

livestock sales were not significant.

In Hanang district, the highest R2 was reached in equation 2 when

67% of the variation in GVP was accounted for by acreage, farm operating

costs, total labor equivalents, education of the respondent and of his

spouse, and years farming. Acreage and education of the respondent were

significant and positive. The coefficient of education of the spouse

was negative (equation 2).

Regressions run in Arumeru district with the highest R2 included

acreage, total labor equivalents, farm operating costs, education of the

respondent and his spouse, and years farming; 78% of the variation in

GVP was accounted for and acreage and farm operating expenses were








-50-

significant (equation 4). Again, adding livestock sales increased the

R2 only 1%.

One of the relationships which particularly interests the senior

author is whether or not GVP responds more to total family size or to

labor equivalents in the family available to assist in farming. When

family size is included in equation 1, this variable accounts for almost

none of the increase in R2 of GVP. When total labor equivalents is run

as the independent variable, it accounts for 6.5% of the variation in

GVP; if one adult male is added to the farming enterprise, total GVP

increases 24 Tsh.; if one adult female is added, GVP increases 806 Tsh.

Thus for all families sampled or for the district sample, neither

family size nor total labor equivalents were significant in accounting

for variation in total GVP per family; it appears that labor was not a

significant constant nor did livestock sales increase the R2 more than

1% in either case.

When the regressions were calculated on samples of farms of less

than 10 acres, the R2 for the 65 families in Arusha region were rela-

tively low -- 32%(equation 4); acreage, farm operating costs, total

labor equivalents, education of the respondent and his spouse, and years

farming were included. Only acreage and farm operating costs were

significant; acreage accounted for 18% of the variation, education of

the spouse 1% and total labor equivalents 3%. (A similar equation run

with family size rather than total labor equivalents had family size

accounting for less than 1% of the variation also).

In Hanang district only 23% of the variation in GVP was accounted







-51-

for in the less than 10 acre sample of 33 Fhs; in this equation, (5),

the number of male labor equivalents is entered instead of family size;

this variable accounted for 5% of the variability. Only the education

of the respondent was a significant variable; acraege accounted for 5%

and education of the respondent 11% of the variation in GVP.

In Arumeru district 66% of the variation in GVP of the small farm

was accounted for in equation 6, with total labor equivalents entered

instead of family size; total labor equivalents had a negative

coefficient; only acreage and farm operating costs were significant.

For those FHs farming 10 acres or more, the highest R2 for the

sample of 20 FHs in Arusha region was accounted for by including acre-

age, female labor equivalents (V5), farm operating costs, education of

the respondent, and years farming and livestock sales; these variables

accounted for 41% of the variation as shown in equation 7. Both

education of the respondent and years farming had negative coeffi-

cients.

In Hanang (with a sample of only 10 large farms) 69% of the varia-

tion was accounted for in equation 8; total labor equivalents were more

important than family size but were not significant; in this equation

education of both respondent and spouse were included.

In equation 9 the sample of 10 large farms' accounted for 80% of

the variation in GVP (equation 9) in Arumeru; only farm operating

expenses were significant, family size was not significant.

Thus in Arusha region where land is more of a constraint in agri-

cultural production, labor appears not to be a constraint to increased








-52-

GVP; farm operating expenses and acreage planted are the most signifi-

cant variables.

Summary and conclusions

This study of beans in the farming systems in Hanang and Arumeru

districts of Arusha region was the third undertaken to provide some of

the necessary background data for research being carried out jointly by

faculty at the University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro, USDA, Washington

State, and the University of Illinois. Funding for this research is

provided by the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program

(CRSP) through USAID. The major responsibilities of this interdiscipli-

nary group is to develop higher-yielding varieties of Phaselous vulgaris

beans resistant to drought, disease and insect conditions characteristic

of Tanzania. In addition the group must evaluate the economic impact of

these new bean varieties on small-scale farm households in Tanzania.

It is important to ensure that the technologies developed will fit

into the existing production systems and be adopted by smallholder fami-

lies. These socio-economic studies assist in understanding the circum-

stances, farming systems, decision behavior and consumer preferences of

the target group. This study provides information to the biological

scientists to assist in ensuring adoption of the new technologies

developed.

In order to provide socio-economic data on the traditional farming

systems and the importance of beans in those systems, studies have been

undertaken in three different areas of Tanzania (see footnote 1, page).

This third study was undertaken in Arusha region, the major bean growing








-53-

region of the country. A sample of 85 farm households (FHs) was chosen

in two different districts -- Hanang and Arumeru; Arumeru has a bimodal

rainfall pattern between 1,000 and 1,600 mm. per annum while Hanang has

a unimodal pattern, receiving between 500 and 1,000 mm. per annum.

A profile of the sampled FHs in each district showed that the aver-

age family was comprised of 6.8 persons per FH with the respondent 40

years old and his spouse 32; the respondent had 3.9 years of formal

education compared with 2.3 for his spouse, on average. Respondents had

been farming for an average of 18 years, cultivating 4.5 different crops

in 2.6 shambas (farms). The average FH had 7.8 acres in crops with the

largest percentage (47%) allocated to maize; 1.7 acres or 22% was allo-

cated to beans, and the balance to a variety of other crops including

sorghum, millet, wheat, bananas, coffee, cassava, pigeon peas, and other

vegetables. Sampled farms ranged in size from a maximum of 34 acres to

a minimum of 0.8 acres with 31% in a modal class of from 5.6 to 8.0

acres.

All families sampled grew maize, 98% grew beans and 60% bananas.

Sixty-two percent of the acreage in crops in Hanang was intercropped,

with beans in 44% of the intercropped acreage with maize, maize and

peas, maize and bananas, sorghum and peas, cassava, sorghum and peas and

other combinations. In Arumeru district the sampled FHs had 62% of

total acreage intercropped, with beans in 95% of the intercropped mix-

tures; again the largest number of mixtures were maize and beans; other

mixtures were similar to Hanang district but also included more coffee,

pumpkins and potatoes. Fourteen percent of the total cropped acreage








-54-

was in beans in monoculture in Hanang and only 6% in Arumeru.

Families reported that their major objective in farming was the

provision of an adequate food supply (96%); income and an adequate liv-

ing followed as priorities, with much lower percentages. Decisions

about which crops to plant were made by the husband and wife jointly in

77% of the sampled FHs, the husband alone in 19% and by other members of

the household in 4%.

Beans provided 21% of the gross value of crop production (GVP) in

1982; almost all the green beans were consumed by the FHs; on average

39% of the dry bean crop was sold in Hanang and 30% in Arumeru, leaving

57% consumed in Hanang and 67% in Arumeru; 4 and 3% were wasted in the

two districts. Beans provided 18% of the total crop sales in Hanang and

9% in Arumeru.

FHs believed the major factors affecting bean yields in 1982 to be

insect damage in Hanang and too much rain in Arumeru; the second most

important factor was too little rain in Hanang and insect damage in

Arumeru; poor seeds and diseases were the third factor in Arumeru but

not in Hanang.

The most preferred varieties in both districts in terms of yield

were "red colored and Masai red" (45%) and Canadian Wonder (40%); other

varieties planted included Selian Wonder, local small mixed colored and

hybrid varieties, all with small numbers of preferences. These red

colored varieties were also most preferred for consumption as leaves,

green beans and dry beans and for storage, with Canadian Wonder second.

FHs were asked how they would react if the current prices of beans

changed. If the present price doubled all FHs in Hanang and all but 4







-55-

in Arumeru would increase bean acreage and grow less of other crops. If

the present price fell by one-half, 58% of the families in Hanang and

74% in Arumeru said they would grow the same amount of beans because

they needed them for food consumption and income. If the price of beans

fell by one-half, FHs would grow more maize.

If the present yield of beans doubled, 81% of the FHs in Hanang and

83% in Arumeru stated that they would grow more beans; the modal frequ-

ency of increased acreage was 1/2 to 3 acres in each district.

If new varieties of beans are introduced, it is important to know

who in the FHs chooses the bean seeds for planting; in 60% of the FHs in

Hanang and 52% in Arumeru females chose the seeds for planting. Males

made the choice in 14% in Hanang and 12% in Arumeru and the wife and

husband jointly in 23% in Hanang and 36% in Arumeru. This establishes

the importance of directing information regarding new varieties to

females.

Forty-eight percent of the total farm labor on major crops was

contributed by females in Hanang and 46% in Arumeru; females allocated

additional time to household chores, child rearing, and to vegetable

crops (on which labor allocations were more difficult to obtain). Labor

allocations for the different cropping patterns for each of the sexes

were also determined and shown in Tables 13 and 14; women contributed

57% of the harvesting in Hanang compared with 49% in Arumeru; females in

Arumeru also did 58% of the marketing of dried beans.

Average total value of crop production, crop and livestock sales,

off-farm income, farm operating costs, family living expenditures and







-56-
Table 29. Average Total Value of Crop Production, Sales, Off-farm
Income, Family Living Expenditures, Farm Operating
Expenses, and Potential Savings per Sampled Family by
District, Arusha Region of Tanzania, 1982.

Hanang Arumeru Arusha

Tsh.
Total value of crop production 10,108 11,266 10,681
Crop Sales 4,214 6,189 5,190
Less farm operating expenses 4,183 2,738 3,449
Net crop cash income 31 3,451 1,741
Livestock sales 2,307 1,710 2,102
Off-farm income & gifts 6,815 1,806 4,340
Net cash income 9,153 6,967 8,183
Family living expenditures 5,660 5,171 5,419
Balance 3,493 1,796 2,764




net cash income are shown by district in Table 29.

It is noted in Table 29 that families in Hanang had a much lower

net crop income than families in Arumeru but the latter also had much

lower average farm operating expenses. Livestock sales were higher in

Hanang as were off-farm income and gifts. In Hanang males earned 5,842

Tsh. per family from work off the farm compared with 973 Tsh. for

females; in Arumeru the figures were 1,342 Tsh. for males and 464 Tsh.

for females.

After paying family living expenditures, sampled FHs in Hanang had

3,494 Tsh. ($349) for potential savings or investment, while the Arumeru

FHs had 1,796 ($180) per family remaining. These are much higher in-

comes than families sampled in Mgeta and Kilosa areas in earlier years.







-57-

These three studies have contributed significantly to knowledge of

the farming systems in three important areas of Tanzania and to the

place of beans in the farming systems. In each of the areas sampled,

females make substantial contributions to the agricultural labor, house-

hold income generation, choice of crops planted and choice of seeds.

Thus it is important to transmit information on new cultivars to females

as well as males in the FHs.







-58-


REFERENCES


1. Sargent, Merritt, "Agricultural and Livestock Production in Arusha
Region: An Agricultural Economic Perspective," paper prepared for
AP/VDP(USAID)/October 1980.


2. Centril, Hadley, "A Study of Aspirations," Scientific American,
Vol. 208, No. 2, February 1963, pp. 41-45.


3. Due, Jean M., and P. Anandajayasekeram, "Two Contrasting Farming
Systems in Morogoro Region, Tanzania," Department of Agricultural
Economics, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, July 1982, aAE-4535, Urbana, IL., 80 pp.


4. Due, Jean M., P. Anandajayasekeram, N.S. Mdoe, and Marcia White,
"Beans in the Farming Systems in Langali and Kibaoni Villages,
Mgeta Area, Morogoro Region, Tanzania, Department of Rural Economy,
University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro and Department of
Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 1984, aAE-4560, 52 pp.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs