Citation
Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the farming systems in Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982

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
Creator:
Due, Jean M.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Place of Publication:
Morogoro, Tanzania
Publisher:
Dept. of Rural Economy, Sokoine University of Agriculture
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
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

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
17784095 ( OCLC )

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, Department of Rural Economy, University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro and is now agricultural economist, Eastern and Southern African Management Institute, 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.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of study 1
Background of Arusha region . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sample Selection 5
Socio-economic data of sample families . . . . . . . 7
Differences between villages . . . . . . . ... . . 9
Farming Systems 10
Primary objectives in farming . . . . . . . . . . 12
Decisions as to which crops to plant . . . . . . . . 12
Cropping Calendar 14
Production of major crops . . . . . . . . . . . 13
(A) Maize 13
(B) Beans 15
Major factors affecting bean yields . . . . . . 15
Varieties of beans most desired . . . . . . . 16
(a) yield 16
(b) palatability 16
(c) storage 18
(d) varieties preferred to grow best over all . . . 18
(e) varieties preferred to plant in the short and
long rainy seasons . . . . . . . . . 18
How are beans stored? 18
Major causes of bean losses . . . . . . . . 20
Harvesting 22
Bean consumption 24
(a) bean leaves 24
(b) Green beans in-the pod . . . . . . 24
(c) Green beans (mature) . . . . . . . 24
(d) Dried beans 24
(e) Preparation 25
A special place for bean planting? . . . . . . 25




ins/b ii
Reaction to change in bean prices . . . . . . 26
(a) if the present price of beans doubled, what
would be your decisions . . . . . . 26
(b) If the present price of beans fell by one-half
what would be your decision? . . . . . 26 Reaction to a doubling of bean yield . . . . . 26
Who Chooses the bean seeds for planting? . . . . 27
(C) Sorghum 27
(D) Coffee 27
(E) other crops 27
Gross value of production (GVP) . . . . . . . . . 29
Labor utilization 29
Livestock, ownership, consumption and sales . . . . . . 31
Capital investment 31
Farm operating expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 34
off-farm income and gifts 35
Total cash income ... 36
Net cash income 37
Family living expenditures . . . . . . . . . . 38
Net cash income 39
Household items 40
How do these families assess their level of wellbeing . . . . 41 Marketing of crops 42
Visits by extension agents 43
The favored minority: or the wave of the future . . . . . 43
Factors accounting for variation in gross value of production (GVP).47 Summary and conclusions ... 52




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. 4
Table 2. Major Crop Production in Arusha Region, 1979/80 in
Tons 5
Table 3. Population of Selected Villages, Hanang, and
Arumeru District, Tanzania, 1978 6
Table 4. Socio-Economic Data on Farm Families Surveyed,
Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982 8
Table 5. Distribution of Size of Farm Per Sampled Family by
District, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982 9
Table 6. Areas Under Cultivation by Major Crops, Sampled
Families, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1983 13
Table 7. Major Factors Affecting Bean Yields, Arusha
Region,1982 16
Table 8. Preference of Varieties of Beans Most Desired by
Sampled Farm Households, Arusha Region, Tanzania,
1982 17
Table 9. Varieties of Beans Preferred in Short and Long
Rainy Seasons and Reasons for Preferences, Sampled
Farm Households, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982 20
Table 10. Manner in Which Beans are Stored, Sampled Families,
Arusha, 1982 22
Table 11. How are Dried Beans Prepared for Consumption,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982? 25
Table 12. Variation in Average Production, Consumption and
Sales of Major Crops per Family, Sampled Families,
Arusha, Tanzania, 1982 28
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 30
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 30




iv.
Table 15. Average Numbers of Livestock Owned, Consumed and Sold per Sampled Family, Hanang and Arumeru,
Tanzania, 1982 32
Table 16. Capital Equipment Owned per Sampled Family, Average Value, Life, and Annual Depreciation, Hanang and
Arumeru Districts, Tanzania, 1982 33
Table 17. Average Farm Operating Costs per Sampled Family by District, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982 35
Table 18. Average Off-Farm Income and Gifts per Sampled Family, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982 36
Table 19. Total Cash Income per Sampled Family, Arusha
Region, Tanzania, 1982 37
Table 20. Net Cash Income per Sampled Household, Arusha
Region, Tanzania, 1982 37
Table 21. Average Family Living Expenditures per Sampled
Family and Percent of Total Allocated to Each
Category, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982 38
Table 22. Average Family Living Expenditures per Sampled
Family Reporting and Numbers of Families Reporting
Each Expenditure, Arusha, Region, Tanzania, 1982 39
Table 23. Net Cash Income per Sampled Family, Arusha Region,
Tanzania, 1982 40
Table 24. Percentage of Sampled Families Owning Selected
Household Items, Arusha Region, Tanzania, 1982 40
Table 25. Assessment of Levels of Wellbeing by Arusha Region
Sampled Farm Families, Tanzania, 1982 (out of
possible 10) 41
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. 44
Table 27. Comparison of Socio-Economic and Farming Data of
Families With Less Than 10 Acres and 10 or More
Acres, Arumeru District, 1982 45
Table 28. Calculated Regression Coefficients and T Values (in
brackets) Gross Value of Crop Production Dependent
Variable 48
Table 29. Average Total Value of Crop Production, Sales, Offfarm Inocme, Family Living Expenditures, Farm Operating Expenses, and Potential Savings per Sampled Family by District, Arusha Region of
Tanzania, 1982 56




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, 1982k
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 Tanzania1. 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 supervision 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 Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Emmanuel Manday was lecturer, Department 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.1).
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 highlands, 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




-3
Figure 1. Map of Arusha Region
ARUSHA REGION
*%lost% IL
MOnULI
01duwai
1-00, % ---- ARUMERU
Ideani Monduli. t. Meru
rusha enge 1%0 -, PP
\ L
-A' rusha ini
Mbulu 7
Nar Babati HANANG KITETO
HANANG
JB, Mkomv
3cak 1:
K
REFEREMa
.. ........
Rq-7




-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 districts, 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 cooperative centers and warehouses (godowns) 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 SFor 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
I Arusha 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.




-9
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 slighly fewer years than their counterparts in Arumeru. The respondents in Hanang were better educated 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 included coffee and pumpkins and potatoes in the intercropped mixtures.




Figure 2. Beans intercropped with maize, Arusha region.
PILO A to M Cu Icj




-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 % No. % Acres Acres % No. % Acres
Maize 3.9 45.9 43 100.0 3.9 3.4 48.0 42 100.0 3.4
Beans 1.9 22.8 42 97.7 2.0 1.5 20.8 41 97.6 1.5
Pigeon
Peas 0.3 3.7 14 32.6 1.0 0.1 0.7 5 11.9 0.4
Sorghum 1.1 12.7 29 67.4 1.6 0.1 1.4 1 2.4 4.2
Millet/
Cassava 0.4 4.7 22 51.2 0.8 0.3 4.9 16 38.1 1.0
Bananas 0.4 4.8 24 55.8 0.7 0.7 9.2 27. 64.3 1.0
Coffee 0.2 1.4 4 9.3 1.2 0.7 10.2 18 42.9 1.7
Other 0.3 4.0 18 41.9 0.8 0.3 4.8 18 42.9 0.8
Total 8.5 100.0 43 7.1 100.0 42
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,
Hanang District: Tanzania, 1982
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 Arumero 30%; 4 and 3% were wasted in each district, with 57% consumed in Hanang and 67% in Arwmeru. Beans provided 18% of crop sales income in Hanang and 9% in Arumeru.
Figure 5. Beans ready for harvest, Arusha region.
Photo : OtueC
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 4n Arumeru but not in Hanang.




-16
Table 7. Major Factors Affecting Bean Yields, Arusha Region, 1982
Factors Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Priorities 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Drought re early rain 3 4 0 1 2 1 4 6 1
Drought re late rain 8 3 1 3 2 1 11 5 2
Too much rain 2 7 8 12 7 9 14 14 17
Insect 11 10 4 8 13 4 19 23 8
Disease 1 3 3 6 10 5 7 13 8
Poor seeds 1 1 3 7 2 2 8 3 5
Availability of inputs 1 2 4 0 0 3 1 2 7
Other 2 0 0 2 0 4 4 0 4
No. of families
responding 29 30 23 39 36 29 68 66 52
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 preferences.
b) Palatability
The red colored varieties were most preferred for consumption as
leaves, green beans and dry beans. Again Canadian Wonder was second and




-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
1Red 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.




-18
c) Storage
The red colored and Masai red varieties were much preferred for storage 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 varieties 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%).




Figure 6. Harvesting intercropped beans (above) and in monocu l ture (below). Pho to: Mcudcu




-20
Table 9. Varieties of Beans Preferred in Short and Long Rainy Seasons
and Reasons for Preferences, Sampled Farm Households, Arusha
Region, Tanzania, 1982
Varieties Hanang Arumeru Arusha
a) Short rain season:
Red varieties 16 16 32
-higher yield 5 0 5
-drought resistant 5 10 15
-early maturing 2 3 5
-other reasons 4 3 7
Canadian Wonder 17 9 26
-higher yield 1 0 1
-drought resistant 8 4 12
-early maturing 8 4 12
-other reasons 0 1 1
b) Long rainy season:
Red varieties 18 14 32
-higher yield 3 2 5
-moisture tolerant 7 6 13
-later maturity 5 1 6
-other reasons 3 5 8
Canadian Wonder 9 14 23
-higher yield 3 3 6
-moisture tolerant 3 7 10
-later maturity 2 0 2
-other reasons 1 4 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 diseases (27%), delay of harvest (13%),too little rain (9%) and pests,
overdrying, etc. Sixty-four percent of the families estimated that




-21
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).
Photo : 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 problems.
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). Photc>5: Duc




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 consume 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 consumed 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 inadequate. 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 families 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?
Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Method # % # % # %
Boiled (with salt) 13 30.2 22 52.4 35 41.2
Boiled, fried with
vegetables, bananas 8 18.6 1 2.4 9 10.5
Boiled with oil 6 14.0 7 16.6 13 15.3
Boiled with oil,
spice & salt 6 14.0 1 2.4 7 8.2
Boiled with oil
& milk 4 9.3 0 0 4 4.7
Boiled then fried 4 9.3 10 23.8 14 16.5
Boiled with
cassava & milk 1 2.3 0 0 1 1.2
No report 1 2.3 1 2.4 2 2.4
Total 43 100.0 42 100.0 85 100.00
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 respectively said they would grow the same amount. The large majority




-27
of families would grow additional acreages of beans if the yield doubled; 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 information 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 Productiop, Consumption and Sales of Major Crops per Family, Sampled Families, Arusha,
Tanzania, 1982
Hanang Arumeru Arusha
kg. Tsh. kg. Tsh. kg. Tsh.
Number of families 43 42 85
Maize Production 2,235 4,891 1,949 3,970 2,094 4,436
Consumption 1,250 2,680 1,055 2,188 1,154 2,437 Sales 898 2,047 842 1,678 870 1,865
Seed/waste 87 164 52 104 70 134
Dry beans
Production 399 1,943 398 1,726 399 1,836
Consumption 214 1,110 245 1,157 230 1,133
Sales 170 753 137 511 154 634
Seed/waste 15 80 16 58 15 69
Green beans
Production 43 226 67 355 55 289
Consumption 43 226 58 309 50 266
Sales 0 0 7 38 4 19
Seed/waste 0 0 2 8 1 4
Pigeon Peas
Production 55 244 14 69 35 157
Consumption 35 203 9 50 22 127
Sales 20 40 5 17 12 28
Seed/waste 0 1 0 2 1 2
Sorghum-Production 525 1,295 40 100 285 704
Consumption 247 637 40 100 145 372
Sales 246 581 0 0 124 293
Seed/waste 32 77 0 0 16 39
Cassava-Production 97 244 50 129 74 187
Consumption 96 241 43 109 70 176
Sales 0 0 7 20 3 9
Seed/waste 1 3 0 0 1 2
Bananas-Production 559 460 697 990 628 722
Consumption 206 189 575 746 389 464
Sales 350 268 119 240 236 254
Seed/waste 3 3 3 4 3 4
Coffee- Production 11 135 234 2,778 122 1,441
Consumption 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sales 11 132 234 2,778 121 1,440
Seed/waste 0 3 0 0 1 1




-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 (GYP)
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 preparation 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 19 4 59 5 110 63 6 36 33 41 40 64 70 54 520 --48
0
Table 14. -Total Days Allocated to Crop Production by Crop (T) and Percentage of the Days Contributed I
by Females (F) per Sampled Family, Arumeru District, Tanzania, 1982.
Enterprise Maize Beans Coffee Sorghum Banana M~illet Other Total %FT %F T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F T %F7
Land preparation 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 12 4 84 44 152 50 34 59 100 36 35 58 -58 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,respectively, 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 Arumeru Arusha
No. Value No. Value No. Value
Cattle
Total owned 14.0 34,526 6.0 13,433 10.0 24,104
Total consumed 0.4 821 0.5 737 0.4 779
Total sales 0.8 1,772 0.5 1,157 0.6 1,468
Sheep
Total owned 4.7 2,835 6.1 3,208 5.4 3,019
Total consumed 0.6 302 0.7 330 0.6 316
Total sales 0.2 69 0.8 296 0.5 181
Goats
Total owned 11.0 3,710 8.9 3,616 10.0 3,664
Total consumed 1.8 608 0.8 407 1.3 509
Total sales 1.5 448 0.5 220 1.0 335
Poultry
Total owned 11.5 403 17.0 765 14.2 582
Total consumed 5.5 197 7.0 308 6.2 252
Total sales 0.5 18 0.8 37 0.6 28
Total livestock
Total owned 41.2 41,474 38,0 21,022 39.6 31,369
Total consumed 8.3 1,928 9.0 1,782 8.5 1,856
Total sales 3.0 2,307 2.6 1,710 2.7 2,012




-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. 0 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 machinery 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 Arumeru 18 hired male and 6 hired female labor during the year. Twenty eight families in Hanang and 14 in Arumeru had expenditures for machinery 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
Table 17. Average Farm Operating Costs per Sampled Family by District, Arusha, Tanzania, 1982
Inputs Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
Hired male labor(days) 23 452 29 774 26 613
Hired female labor(days) 9 129 9 171 9 150
Seed (kg) 40 452 23 189 31 322
Fertilizer (kg) 0 0 1 9 1 4
Chemicals (kg) 8 151 14 371 11 260
Petroleum (gal) 20 240 0 0 10 126
Machinery hire n.a. 1,437 n.a. 317 n.a. 884
Transport hire n.a. 395 n.a. 48 n.a. 224
Land rental n.a. 113 n.a. 29 n.a. 72
Depreciation n.a. 814 n.a. 830 n.a. 794
Total n.a. 4,183 n.a. 2,738 n.a. 3,449
n.a. not available
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 earnings were primarily from male members of the household working off-farm;




-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 substantial amounts selling tobacco, vegetables, and beer; male members averaged 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 amounted 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 Arusha
Tsh. Tsh. Tsh.
Crop sales 4,214 6,189 5,190
less farm 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




-38
In Hanang average farm expenses were almost as high as crop sales
leaving only 31 Tsh when farm expenses (including depreciation) were subtracted 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 expenditures 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
I-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 Hanang Arumeru Arusha
Tsh. # Tsh. # Tsh.
Food & beverages 34 1,201 36 1,680 70 1,450
Maize grinding 43 634 39 368 82 508
Clothing & footwear 40 1,983 41 1,845 81 1,913
Kerosene, fuel, radios 43 742 42 504 85 625
Pots, pans, beeding 31 659 34 419 65 533
Education & medical 36 465 37 325 73 394
Fees, fines & licenses 27 337 28 226 55 280
Transport1 24 686 25 449 49 565
Other 3 433 5 306 8 354
Excluding 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 expenditures 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 I 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 indicaate 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
1--0 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 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 consitute 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




-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
Less than 10 or more
10 acres acres
Sample size 33 10
Mean per family
Family size 6.7 7.0
Male equivalents 1.5 1.7
Female equivalents 1.6 1.5
Education of farm operator(years) 3.7 5.2
Education of spouse 1.8 3.3
Years of farming 18.7 15.5
Total crop acreage 4.9 19.6
Acreage maize 2.0 9.8
beans 1.0 4.7
peas .3 .5
sorghum .7 2.1
millet, cassava .1 1.2
bananas .3 .6
coffee .1 .0
other .4 .7
Gross value crop production (Tsh) 6,758 21,164
Crop sales 1,899 11,854
Farm operating expenses 2,019 11,681
Net crop income (cash) -120 173
Livestock sales 1,215 1,830
Off-farm income 5,258 11,957
Total net income 6,353 13,960
Family living expenditures 4,652 7,508
Balance 1,701 6,452




-45
Table 27. Comparison of Socio-Economic and Farming Data of Families
with Less Than 10 Acres and 10 and More Acres, Arumeru
District, 1982
Less than 10 or more
10 acres acres
Sample size 32 10
Means of:
Family size 6.4 7.7
Male equivalents 2.0 2.1
Female equivalents 1.5 1.9
Education of farm operator (years) 4.0 2.3
Education of spouse 2.2 2.7
Years farming 17.7 20.8
Total crop acreage 4.8 12.7
Acreage maize 2.4 6.4
" beans 1.2 2.3
" peas .0 .1
millet, cassava .3 .6
bananas .6 .8
coffee .4 1.7
others .8
Gross value of
crop production (Tsh) 8,397 20,449
Crop sales 3,864 13,627
Farm operating costs 1,420 4,830
Net crop cash income 2,444 8,797
Livestock sales 1,689 1,795
Off farm income 1,736 2,026
Total net income 5,869 12,618
Family living expenditures 5,684 5,007
Balance 185 7,611




-46
that farm size will increase in the future, it may be important to compare these farm operations with the ones of smaller size. This comparison 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 CQ 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 counterparts. 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 accounted 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 (Vs); (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.
Average Family Size Farm Operating Education of Education of Years FarmEquation Constant V7 VI4 __ Costs 1 Respondent VII Spouse V19 ing VIT R2
1 3722 709.1041 -43.6023 .4725 155.6978 3.9963 .53
(.9789) (4.3708)** (-.1306) (3.5011)** (.4482) (.0392)
2 -5781 719.0375 1273.4148 .1620 1338.6769 -309.1973 39.0885 .67
(-1.1735) (4.1575)** (1.3216) (1.1368) (2.8958)** (-.7272) (.3405)
Y14
3 596 1087.2319 206.6193 1.1558 100.1093 -47.9782 .78
(.1414) (4.4509)** (.5798) (6.3689)** (.2587) (-.3915)
V2
4 708 844.5121 159.2714 .6980 252.908 105.002 11.3797 .32
(.2914) (3.1412)** (.3277) (2.6540)** (1.0548) (.4264) (.1745)
V4
5 302 459.7759 1446.4924 (.0589) 609.1920 8.436 .23
(.8163) (1.2069) (1.2623) (.0139) (2.0184)** (.1084)
6 2409 1645.4826 -1096.2899 1.1114 216.2668 -164.9357 17.5331 .66
(.8804) (4.3786)** (-1.5934) (3.7942)** (.7160) (-.4781) (.1573)
V5 V16
7 11667 348.7597 2464.0819 .5307 -572.8259 .9566 -261.6145 .41
(.7512) (.6086) (.7745) (1.8067) (-.3889) (.7533) (-.5296)
VZ0
8 -29656 754.7908 4298.4315 .0934 3667.7111 -221.9197 148.5732 .69
(-.6831) (.9581) (.7280) (.2332) (1.2838) (-.0915) (.1392)
V14 Viff
9 -9711 1202.5373 497.9317 1.3109 208.8752 2.1640 14.2852 .80
(-.1810) (.3620) (.3416) (2.035)** (.0857) (.9441) (.0255)




-49
years farming and farm operating costs with only acreage and farm operating costs were significant and family size had a negative coefficient (Equation 1). Acreage accounted for most of the variation (44%) in GyP, 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 GyP.
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 increased 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 constrant 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 relatively 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 operting 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 acreage, 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 coefficients.
In Hanang (with a sample of only 10 large farms) 69% of the variation 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 agricultural production, labor appears not to be a constraint to increased




-52
GVP; farm operating expenses and acreage planted are the most significant 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 interdisciplinary 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 families. These socio-economic studies assist in understanding the circumstances, 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 average 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 allocated 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 mixtures; 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 living 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 (GYP) 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 frequency 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 incomes 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, household 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 Fils.




-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.