• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Characteristics of the Central...
 General description of female-headed...
 Comparison of male and female headed...
 Implications for farming systems...
 Figures
 Tables
 Bibliography






Group Title: Conference on Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extenion, University of Florida, February 26 to March 1, 1986
Title: Diagnostic survey of female headed households in the central province of Zambia
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081717/00001
 Material Information
Title: Diagnostic survey of female headed households in the central province of Zambia
Series Title: Conference on Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extenion, University of Florida, February 26 to March 1, 1986
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Hodgens, Robert E.
Publisher: University of Florida
Publication Date: 1986
 Subjects
Subject: University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Africa -- Zambia -- Central
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00081717
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Methodology
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Characteristics of the Central Province of Zambia
        Page 4
    General description of female-headed households in the Province
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Comparison of male and female headed households
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Implications for farming systems research and extension
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Figures
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Tables
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Bibliography
        Page 29
        Page 30
Full Text












-W tA-Lz --_-_--
at the rnveriUf -or-da-
Conference on
GENDER ISSUES IN FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
















3fiLG~m


- H4H i -,L-&D.Sj
rC-E-NIr. AL7PlRsOIVIl3S-C J C&


RSBERT E. HBDGENS










A PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE ON 6ENOER ISSUES IN
FARMIN6 SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
(FEBRUARY 26 MARCH 1, 1986)


sgssYBY









R DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY OF FEMALE HERDED HOUSEHOLDS
IN THE CENTRAL PROVINCE OF ZRMBIAI

Robert E. Hudgens2




Introduction

An agricultural census conducted during the 1982/83 cropping season found that female
headed households represented 15.3% of the traditional and small scale commercial farms in
four districts of the Central Province of Zambia. Data from the as yet unpublished population
census of 1980, revealed that the percentage of female headed households in the Central
Province varies greatly among districts and wards, and often exceeds 30% of the total
households. While these figures are lower than those for other parts of the country, they
have significant implications for agricultural development in the region. The importance of
women in agriculture in Zambia is exemplified by the 1983 study in three provinces
(including the Central Province) which showed that women contribute 53% of the total hours
of labor in agriculture while men contribute 47% (Due and Mudenda, 1984). The agricultural
workload of women is substantially greater on low income farms and female headed
households where the resources for labor hiring are limited (Allen, 1984).

The initial diagnostic studies of the Farming Systems Research and Extension Team, which
will be referred to hereafter as the Central Province Adaptive Research Planning
Team (ARPT), did not give special attention to the role of women in agricultural production


IThis paper is based on the work of the Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT) in the
Central Province of Zambia, which is funded under USAID Contract 611-020 1. The author
wishes to acknowledge contributions to the questionnaire design from A. Sutherland, ARPT
Rural Sociologist, and S. Kean, ARPT National Coordinator. The enumerators for this study
were G. Simwanza, H. Simuziya, J. Nshindano, and M. Bwalya.
2 Former ARPT Agronomist and ARPT Provincial Coordinator. Now at the Department of Plant
and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
3 Central Statisitics Office. Early Warjing and Crop Forecast Survey:. 1982-198.IT GRZ






-2-


or more specifically to the situation on female headed households. Recommendation Domains
were derived on the basis of draft power source, starch staple, and the presence of cattle and
cash crops on predominantly male headed households. Research priorities were subsequently
established for each Recommendation Domain, on-farm experiments were conducted, and
. extension activities initiated within the context of the descriptions of the farming systems,
which evolved from informal and formal surveys. Special attention is now being given to the
fact that female headed households, which are isolated from the institutional infrastructure
for agricultural credit and extension services, have thus far been overlooked. At best, female
headed households represent a specific target group within a larger target group of
traditional and small scale commercial farmers. At least, they represent a substrata, such as
male hand hoe cultivators, subsistence farmers, etc., on which we have very limited
information.

Consequently, a formal survey was undertaken in three Recommendation Domains in the
Central Province (Figures 1 & 2) to generate information on the resource base, constraints,
cropping pattern, input usage, labor use pattern, income sources, and crop husbandry
practices on female headed households. The intention was to accumulate a sufficient
information base to allow comparisons between female headed households and male headed
households (as characterized in prior formal surveys) in each Recommendation Domain. This
would then permit ARPT to develop a regional policy and relevant strategies to improve the
agricultural productivity on female headed households.


Methodology

This study was based on a five page questionnaire, similar in many ways to that used in the
ARPT formal surveys of male headed households, with seven subheadings: General, Maize
Husbandry, Cropping Pattern, Input Usage, Labor, Cash Sources, and Decision Making. Within
the subheadings, questions focused on among other things family composition, marital status,
off-farm employment, kinship relations to the village headman, crop acreage, oxen






-3-


ownership, livestock, labor hiring, collecting water and firewood, food preparation, labor
calendar, use of fertilizer, yields, land clearing, and information sources. The questionnaire
was coded in advance, and revised after being pre-tested on 10 farms. Each interview
required on the average of one hour.

The sampling frame was patterned after that used in the Early Warning and Crop
Forecast Survey (1982-1983), the Early Warning and Agricultural Surveys for
1983-1964 and 1984-1985, and the Crop Forecasting Survey (1985-1986), all by
the Central Statistics Office. A list of female headed households was compiled from the
abovementioned surveys for "Standard Enumeration Areas" and "Census Supervisory Areas"
near agricultural camps where ARPT was working in the Central Province. The names of
individual female farmers and nearby villages, which had been sampled in the annual
agricultural surveys, was then given to the ARPT enumerators who lived in those areas.

In total, four enumerators were used, and 135 female headed households were sampled in
the vicinity of six "Agricultural Camps" (i.e. rural Extension Service Offices). An attempt was
made to recruit female enumerators through the Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Developments (MAWD) main office in Lusaka and through the University of Zambia's Rural
Development Studies Bureau, but the logistics of supplying transport and lodging in the field,
as well as the separation from family and jobs for extended periods, limited the feasibility of
that approach. Consequently, ARPT "Trials Assistants", who were originally seconded from
the Extension Branch of MAWD to supervise ARPT on-farm experiments and demonstrations,
were used as enumerators. This was not their first experience in that capacity. Two had
been involved in formal surveys of male headed households, and a third had conducted a
detailed labor use study, which involved data collection on the same farms twice a week.

Since the Trials Assistants had lived and worked in or near the Agricultural Camps for
between one and four years, they were known to local farmers and extension camp staff and
in turn were familiar with the immediate areas. Although the enumerators were male
government employees, there were no indications that this influenced the information






-4-


received. If anything, their association with ARPT, which has established credibility through
farmer field days and other local extension activities, worked to their advantage. The
enumerators were instructed to seek out the individuals on the lists and then to request
assistance from those interviewed in locating other female headed households in the icinit.
All interviews were conducted in the local dialects.

The data in the survey matrix was tabulated and analyzed on an Apple lie microcomputer
using MSTAT statistical analysis software. The data was sorted and analyzed separately in
five ways: 1) By oxen ownership; 2) By presence of adult males on the farm; 3) By
Recommendation Domain; 4) By the amount of cultivated acreage per farm; and 5) By the
number of maize fields planted. Although it was hoped that a minimum of 50 questionnaires
could be completed for each of three Recommendation Domains, delays were experienced
due to the distances involved, death in the family of one of the enumerators, and the onset of
the rainy season, which diverted the attention of the Trials Assistants to the ARPT on-farm
experiments and demonstrations. Therefore, this report is based on 88 questionnaires from
Traditional Recommendation Domain (TRD) #3, 23 questionnaires from TRD#2, and 24
questionnaires from TRD#5. As a result, the major focus for comparing female headed
households with male headed households will use data from TRD3, which has the largest
information base on female headed households. Information from the other two
Recommendation Domains will be used in a comparative evaluation of female headed
households over three farming systems.


Characteristics of the Central Province of Zambia

The location of the Central Province in relation to the urban markets in Lusaka and the
Copperbelt has given it a comparative advantage for commercial agricultural production, and
in the last decade commercialization in the small farm sector has accelerated. As a result,
the Central Province ranks among the most agriculturally productive regions in the country
in terms of total volume of maize produced and marketed (Central Statistics Office, 19 1).






-5-


Although maize is the dominant starch staple and cash crop in Zambia, the Central Province
also has the large acreages of sunflower, groundnuts, sorghum, and millets. The province,
which is at 13-150 S. Latitude, has a low rural population density of about three persons per
square kilometer, plateau characteristics with an elevation between 1,065 1,220 meters
above sea level, and a rainfall period from November to April, averaging 800 1000
millimeters. Most of the area under cultivation is flat or gently rolling with sandy
("Sandveldt") soils. The exception are two small pockets of heavier textured soils and low
lying drainage areas ("Dambos"), which are generally not cultivated because of their high
water table, but are used for dry season grazing. The Central Province is traversed by a
railway and a paved highway system leading from Lusaka to the Copperbelt and beyond to
Tanzania and Zaire. The input supply and crop marketing infrastructure has undergone an
institutional evolution of late from the parastatal National Agricultural Marketing Board
(NAMBOARD) to the Central Province Cooperative Marketing Union (CPCMU), and most
recently, back to NAMBOARD. The prices of agricultural inputs and produce are controlled
by the government.


General Description of Female Headed Households in the Province

The survey results indicated that the family size of female headed households averaged 4.4
members, and that family composition was skewed toward "adult" (i.e. more than 15 years of
age) males and females (Figure 3). Of the 135 farms sampled, 43.7% reported having family
members in off-farm wage employment, however much of it was seasonal or piecework.
Divorcees comprised the largest single group of farmers followed by widows (Figure 4).

Six marital status subgroups were identified. The definition of the subgroups "Legal" (i.e.
widowed, divorced, or single with children), "De Facto" (i.e. married with husband working
elsewhere), and "Autonomous Polygamous" (i.e. one of several wives with her own field
plots) follows that used by Safilios-Rothschild in her 1985 review of the role of women in
agriculture in Zambia.






-6-


Unlike in other parts of Africa, a "village" is defined by the Central Statistics Office in Zambia
as any group of houses. The question regarding kinship ties between the farmers surveyed
and the "head" of the village showed that the most (4 1) of the women were "village
headpersons" (my wording) themselves (Figure 5). The remainder lived with their brother
(16%), uncle (14%), mother (14%), grandfather (9%), or son (6%). Unlike with many other
tribes in Zambia, inheritance (i.e. women's access to land) among the dominant Bembas in the
Central Province is matrilineal (Safilios-Rothschild, 1985).

An average of 18% of the female headed households in the total sample owned oxen, and
17% owned ox drawn equipment, primarily a plow. The histogram from a frequency
distribution of responses showed that those who own oxen normally own two. Overall, 45% of
the sample reported hiring oxen, primarily from non-relatives, but a smaller percentage
(11%) hired ox drawn equipment. Nearly all the farmers owned other livestock, but chickens
predominated. Some ducks and pigeons were also mentioned.

Farm size averaged 91.7 acreas, of which an average of 4.3 acres was cultivated (i.e. 5% of
the total acreage available). Most of the farms had been in operation for the last 4-6 years.
Maize occupied the largest proportion (34%) of the cropped land followed by sorghum on
24% of the cultivated area (Figure 6). The average maize acreage was 3.06 acres per farm
with 65% of the maize growers planting hybrid maize varieties. However, some of this must
have been second generation seed (i.e. harvested from last year's production fields), because
only 52% reported buying seed from the Central Province Cooperative Marketing Union.

The planting period for maize was spread evenly over the two month period from early
November through late December. Hired oxen accounted for seedbed preparation in 43% of
the farms, while 26% of the farmers prepared maize fields using a hand hoe. Maize was
generally planted by hand with only 15% of the farmers reporting the practice of dribbling
maize seed behind the ox plow. Of the total, 78% of the farmers applied fertilizer on their
maize crop. Contrary to extension service recommendations, the basal fertilizer dressing was







-7-


not applied at planting, but rather when the maize plants were an average of 22 centimeters
in height.


The average height of maize at top dressing application (75 cms) also indicated that top
dressings were made somewhat later than is recommended. Rates of application averaged
162.7 kg/ha for basal and 193.0 kg/ha for top dressing. The average distance to the source
of fertilizer was 4.9 kilometers. Maize fields are weeded once in January using a hand hoe,
however a histogram showed that weeding often extended into February, which suggests
that some or all of their maize field is weeded late. Yields, calculated by dividing the
reported maize acreage by the number of bags produced, averaged 1,237 kg/ha, but in some
fields the maize was eaten at a green stage (i.e. as "corn on the cob").

Although the majority of the farmers interviewed had access to cleared land, 64% clear land
annually, usually in the period from March to May. Farmers reported the period of greatest
labor demand to be from October through January. Labor was needed during this period for
land preparation, planting, and weeding most of their staple food crops including both maize
and sorghum. A second period of labor constraint was reported in June and July for
harvesting all crops and for scaring birds in sorghum. Labor hiring was found to be a
common practice (47% hired labor) in December for land preparation, in January for maize
weeding, and in July for maize harvest Cash was used for paying hired labor in 60% of the
cases, but payment in munkoyo (non-alcoholic brew), mealie meal,.clothes, and crop produce
were also recorded. Of the respondents with husbands, 12% of the husbands returned to help
in land preparation and 19% returned to help with the harvest.

Maize was generally the first crop planted on newly cleared land, because it is an important
cash crop and would benefit from the higher fertility found on new land. Maize ashima
was also preferred over sorghum nashma for eating. Nevertheless, almost a third of the
total survey sample reported planting sorghum on new land, because it is less risky.
Children helped in food preparation in 63% of the households, but food preparation still







-8-


required an average of 3 hours per day. Also with the help of her children another 1.8 hours
per day were spent in collecting firewood and 0.5 hours in collecting water. On the average,
the water source was 1.4 kilometers from the farmstead.

The sale of livestock, primarily chickens, provided the greatest source of family income
followed closely by the sale of crops and munkoyo (Figure 7). Groundnuts and beans were
listed most frequently of the crops sold, but squashes, pumpkins, sweet potatoes, cassava,
and vegetables also were mentioned. Only 2% of the respondents reported income from the
sale of maize. Approximately, one quarter of the farmers received remittances from
relatives. Decisions as to what to sell and what area to allot to each crop were generally made
by the women themselves, but in approximately 15% of the cases men (i.e. sons, brothers,
uncles, husbands, etc.) helped decide. Of those surveyed, 37% knew of extension
demonstrations in their area and 30% listened to Government radio broadcasts.


Comparison of Male and Female Headed Households in TRD3.

Certain similarities are to be expected in male and female headed households existing
within the same agroecological zone and institutional infrastructure of input supply and
marketing. Maize was found to be the dominant starch staple food crop regardless of gender,
and labor scarcity, particularly during the critical period of land preparation and planting
was the single most limiting production constraint on all farms. Labor hiring for weeding and
harvesting maize was also widely practiced.

Given the small percentage of total farm area cultivated, both types of farmers utilized an
"extensive margin" production strategy to utilize their limited labor resources to plant the
largest possible acreage of maize in the narrow planting period at the beginning of the rainy
season. However, while the quantitiy of available land is not limiting, maize yields suffer in
both cases due to the late planting, late weeding, and late fertilizer application that result
from extensive management.







-9-


On both male and female headed farms maize acreage is a function of power source. Various
regression analyses on the tabulated data from the survey of female headed households
showed that a greater number of adult males, adult females, and oxen on the farms was
significantly correlated to larger acreages planted. Similar relationships were established in
the formal survey of male headed households. However, sorghum is also important, because
it is less risky than maize and because sorghum beer can be used as a payment in kind for
hiring labor. Unfortunately, maize and sorghum compete for labor at the same time during
the growing season.

In spite of the similarities between male and female headed households, there are certain
discrepancies. For example, female farmers reported being busier during the months of May
- July, which coincides with bird scaring in sorghum, maize harvest, and maize shelling
(Figure 8). The degree of commercialization and oxen ownership also differ significantly
between the two groups (Table 1). The fact that fewer female farmers owned oxen than
their male counterparts meant that a larger percentage of women were forced to hire oxen
and labor for land preparation. The cost of oxen hiring restricted the acreage cultivated on
female headed households. Cash constraints were also apparent on female headed
households in the lower percentages buying seed and fertilizer for their maize crops.

However, the most significant differences between the two groups are the sources of cash.
The fact that crop and beer sales figured predominantly in male headed households, whereas
the sale of chickens and mushrooms were the main cash source in female headed households
supports the argument that crop production on female headed households is primarily of a
subsistence nature. None of the female farmers interviewed mentioned making charcoal
during the land clearing operation, which is a secondary income source in many male headed
households.

To substantiate the hypothesis of labor scarcity the data from female headed households in
TPD3 was sorted and analyzed by presence or absence of adult males and oxen, as well as by
the total land area cultivated. Although total acreage was not found to be significantly





- 10 -


higher on farms where adult males were present, oxen ownership, labor hiring, and the
importance of crop sales increased (Table 2). Oxen owners also purchased more hybrid seed
and fertilizer for maize (Table 3) and cultivated larger acreages (Table 4).


Comparison of Female Headed Households in Three Farming Systems

The farming systems on male headed households identified in the three Recommendations
Domains in question vary in degree of agricultural commercialization. This same gradient of
commercialization is the dominant theme in the comparison of female headed households in
the same areas (Table 5). The polar extremes in this comparison would be TRD2 (Serenje
District) at the subsistence end of the spectrum and TRD5 (Kabwe Rural District) at the
commercial end. The latter has more oxen owners and hirers, larger areas cultivated, and
utilize more technical inputs (hybrid seed, fertilizer, knapsack sprayers, etc.), which in part
explains the higher yields obtained. However, the labor constraint is still evident in the
fewer respondents reporting annual land clearing and in the late Top Dressing application of
fertilizer on maize.

The proximity of the urban center (Kabwe) also has an influence on the composition of the
female headed households in that area (Figure 9) and the marital status of the farmers
(Figure 10). The lower percentages of both male and female working children on farms in
TRD5 is probably due to better educational and employment opportunities for adolescents in
town where they can live with relatives. The fact that many of these farmers were
unmarried with children may also reflect a relaxation of traditional mores nearer urban
areas. The conspicuous presence of commercial cash crops like cotton and soybeans in TRD5
also reflects the existence of nearby urban markets.


Implications for Farming Systems Research and Extension

Most of the assumptions held by ARPT regarding labor constraints and an emphasis on
subsistence crops in female headed households were supported by the findings of this study.






- 11 -


However, the isolation of women from conventional government services such as agricultural
education, credit, and extension compound the difficulty and designate female headed
households as a unique target group among agricultural producers. Furthermore, this study
provides evidence that agricultural production on female headed households is at a
subsistence level because of a lack of exposure to new ideas and limited access to the means
by which to obtain higher yields, rather than because of a lack of interest in
commercialization. How then should ARPT address this problem?

It is obvious that extension workers within the MAWD, particularly at the district and camp
levels, must be sensitized to the situation of female headed households in the agricultural
sector. This can be accomplished gradually through ARPT training activities. Female farmers
should be encouraged to attend field days, and if women are intimidated by male dominance
at the meetings, special tours of ARPT on-farm trials should be arranged for women. Some
ARPT on-farm experiments and demonstrations should purposely be located on female
headed households to involve them more directly in ARPT work. Future socioeconomic
studies should place special emphasis on female headed households.

Since it is infeasible for African governments to support and finance separate extension
services for each sex, it follows that attitudes and methodologies of existing extension
services must be modified to reach women as producers rather than simply as consumers.
More attention to the extension messages for subsistence crops and chickens, especially over
the radio, would be a humble beginning. General agricultural education themes such as land
rotation techniques for sustaining yields on cleared land would also be timely. At the same
time, ARPT should actively encourage women's groups and the training of female extension
workers in subjects beyond sewing and food conservation.

However, it is reassuring to note that the results of this study did verify that the research
priorities established by ARPT are applicable for all traditional and small scale farmers in
the province. Given the central theme of labor constraints, ARPT is justified in seeking
mechanisms by which to shift labor demand out of the critical planting period (i.e. winter





12 -

plowing, introducing late season cash crops like sunflowers and soybeans, etc.). Labor saving
technologies such as the use of herbicides for zero-tillage and the mechanization of maize
weeding with oxen cultivators are also appropriate strategies under the circumstances, as is
the emphasis on improving sorghum, millet, and bean production practices. Since much
greater advances are needed in directing extension services toward female headed
households, it is studies of this nature that insure FSR/E relevance while at the same time
increasing the visibility of the silent minority.








- 13 -






- 14 -


000
I~ -,P-


aw aJ
Ir-*
0=1

000
*1%

.4!4
MI.
all
L S0

C~r C







Family Composition


AVERAGE FAMILY COMPOSITION

25.00 23.53 21.68
20.00 1462 16.47
15.00 11.93 11.76
10.00
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 = ADULT MALES
2 = ADULT FEMALES
3 = MALE WORKING CHILDREN
4 = FEMALE WORKING CHILD.
5 = OTHER MALE CHILDREN
6 = OTHER FEMALE CHILDREN


Page 15


Figure 3.








Figure 4. Marital Status


MARITAL STATUS


AUTONOMOUS

UNMAR. W/CHILD.

HUS. ELSEWHERE

DIVORCED

WIDOW

SINGLE

0 5


-Mt


10 15 20
PERCENTAGE


25 30 35


Page 16











to Village Headman


RELATION TO VILLAGE HEADMAN

8.53%



41.09X
13.95% X




16.28%


13.95%


Page 17


* HERSELF

I UNCLE

M BROTHER

E MOTHER

O SON
E GRANDFATHER


Figure


5. Relationship








Figure 6. CROP ACREAGE


CROP ACREAGE AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL CULTIVATED AREA


I


3 2


1 1 2


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 a MAIZE
2 SORGHUM
3 SUNFLOWER
4- COWPEAS
5 PUMPKIN
6 SWEET POTATO
7 BEANS
8 GROUNDNUTS
9 CASSAVA
10 -SOYBEANS
11 FINGER MILLET
12 COTTON
13 = WATERMELON


9 10 11 12 13


Page 18


40
30
S20
10
0


1 0


_








7. SOURCES OF INCOME


SOURCES OF INCOME


2 3 4
- 1 = BREW AND SELL BEER
2 = BREW AND SELL MUNKOYO
3 = SELL CATEPILLARS
4 = SELL LIVESTOCK
5 = SELL MUSHROOMS
6 = SELL CROPS


Page 19


25
20
15
10
5
0


Figure







Figure 8. Labor Calendar


BUSIEST MONTHS FOR MALE
AND FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS


% OF SAMPLE


J F M A M


J J A S 0 N D


Page 20


MHH









Figure 9. Family


COMPARISON OF FAMILY COMPOSITION


% IN EACH
DOMAIN


1 2 3 4 5
1 = ADULT MALES
2 = ADULT FEMALES
3 = MALE WORKING CHILDREN
4 = FEMALE WORKING CHILD.
5 = OTHER MALE CHILDREN
6 = OTHER FEMALE CHILDREN


Page 21


50
40
30
20
10
0


1 TRD3
I TRD2

@ TRD5


Composition







of Marital Status


COMPARISON OF MARITAL STATUS


AUTONOMOUS

UNMAR. WICHILD.

HUS. ELSEWHERE

DIVORCED

WIDOW

SINGLE

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% IN EACH DOMAIN


I TRD3

5 TRD2

* TRD5


Page 22


Figure


10. Comparison







- 23 -


TABLE 1 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE AND FEMALE HEADED
HOUSEHOLDS IN TRD&3 (MKUSHI DISTRICT)


MALE H.H.


FEMALE H.H.


Family Size (#/household) 6.5
Area Cultivated (acres) 16.0
Maize Acreage (acres) 5.0
Percentage Cultivated (%) 16.8
Own Oxen (M) 43.9
Own Ox Implements (%) 43.9
Hire Oxen (W) 27.0
Hire Labor (%) 50.0
Use of Hired Labor for Plowing (%)* 5.0
Purchase Maize Seed (%) 81.0
Use Fertilizer on Maize (%) 88.0
Cash Source .Maize/Beer
Cash Crops Cotton/Sunflower


3.7
3.1
2.6
5.0
15.9
14.8
38.6
48.9
29.6
33.0
56.8
Chickens/Mushrooms
Squash/Pumpkins
/Beans


*Refers to subgroup of farmers who hire labor.


ITEM






- 24 -


TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN TRD*3
(MKUSHI DISTRICT) BY PRESENCE OF ADULT MALES IN HOUSEHOLD


ITEM


W/OUT MEN


W/MEN


Family Size (#/household) 2.0
Area Cultivated (acres) 3.0
Maize Acreage (acres) 2.8
Own Oxen (%) 11.9
Hire Oxen (%) 38.0
Borrow Oxen (%) 19.0
Hire Labor (s) 43.0
Purchase Maize Seed (M) 41.9
Use Fertilizer (M) 67.0
Marital Status: Divorced (0) 45.0'
Marital Status: Widowed (%) 33.0
Married w/ Husband Elsewhere (%) 10.0
Listen to Radio (%) 39.0
Cash Source Chickens/Caterpillars
Mushrooms/Munkoyo
Cash Crops Squash/Pumpkins
/Beans


5.5
3.2
2.3
22.0
35.0
13.0
51.0
41.0
68.0
29.0
22.0
27.0
46.0
Chickens/Crops
Mushrooms/Munkoyo
Squash/Pumpkins
/Beans






- 25 -


TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN TRD#3
(MKUSHI DISTRICT) BY OXEN OWNERSHIP


W/OUT OHEN


Family Size (W/household)
Area Cultivated (acres)
Hire Oxen (%)
Hire Labor (5)
Purchase Maize Seed (%)
Use Fertilizer (%)
Maize Acreage (acres)
Listen to Radio (%)
Cash Source
Cash Crops


OHEN OWNERS


3.5 3.5
2.8 4.1
39.2 8.0
41.9 57.0
29.7 36.4
62.2 71.0
2.5 2.7
51.4 50.0
Chickens/Caterpillars Chickens/Munkoyo
Squash/Pumpkins Squash/Pumpkins
/Beans /Beans






- 26 -


TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN TRD&3
(MKUSHI DISTRICT) BY SIZE OF ACREAGE CULTIVATED


<3.5 RCRES


>3.5 ACRES


Family Size (*/household)
Area Cultivated (acres)
Maize Acreage (acres)
Own Oxen (%)
Hire Oxen (S)
Hire Labor (%)
Borrow Oxen (%)
Purchase Maize Seed (%)
Use Fertilizer (%)
Listen to Radio (%)
Cash Source
Cash Crops


3.8
2.0
1.8
25.0
14.3
38.0
11.0
34.0
57.0
40.0
Chickens/Caterpillars
Squash/Pumpkins
/Beans


3.5
5.5
3.7
63.0
22.2
67.0
8.0
52.0
89.0
46.0
Chickens/Crops
Squash/Pumpkins
/Beans


ITEM







- 27 -


Table 5. Comparison of Statistics on Female Headed Households
in three Recommendation Domains in the Central Province


ITEM TR2D TRD3 TRO5

Average Family Size (W/household) 7.0 3.7 5.0
Total Farm Area (acres) 36.4 96.6 127.1
Acreage Cultivated (acres) 2.5 3.1 10.3
Male Working Children (%) 16.9 12.7 2.7
Female Working Children (S) 18.1 12.7 -
Farmers Unmarried w/ Children (%) 5.7 20.8
Oxen Owners (%)* 8.7 15.9 33.3
Oxen Hirers (%)* 43.5 39.5 66.7
Oxen Borrowers (%)* 8.7 10.5 4.2
Hire Oxen Equipment (i) 6.9 39.1
Borrow Oxen Equipment () 1.2 6.7
Firewood Collection (hrs/day) 2.0 2.4 1.4
Water Collection (hrs/day) 5.4 2.9 0.8
Use of Hybrid Maize Seed (M) 73.7 58.0 79.2
Land Preparation using a Hand Hoe (%) 44.4 29.9 -
Dribbling maize seed behind ox plow (S) 31.6 16.2 -
Maize PI. Ht. at Basal Fert. Dressing (cms) 8.1 7.8 30.0
Bags of Basal Fertilizer (W/acre of maize) 3.3 3.5 5.6
Maize PI. Ht. at Fert. Top Dressing (cms) 62.1 72.4 90.0
Bags of Top Dressing Fertilizer (#/acre) 6.3 3.7 6.2
Total Maize Production (# 90 kg. bags) 12.9 10.4 32.1
Maize Yield (kg/ha) 1365.6 1284.4 1427.2
Clear Land Annually (%) 95.7 71.2 4.6
Buy Seed for Crops(%) 82.6 38.0 100.0
Own Knapsack Sprayers 7.1 30.4
Hire Labor (%) 26.1 48.9 62.5
Receive Remittances (%) 13.0 34.5 8.3

The sum of these percentages exceeds 100% because some oxen owners
also hire and borrow oxen.






- 28 -


Table 6. Average crop acreage on Female Headed
Households in three Recommendation Domains (1984/85).


Crop TRD2 TRD3 TRD5
(acres) (acres) (acres)

Maize 1.83 2.57 5.63
Sorghum 0.94 1.96 -
Sunflower 0.67 1.00 3.79
Cowpea 2.62 3.50
Pumpkin 2.67 2.84 6.31
Sweet Potato 0.55 1.00 1.09
Beans 0.77 1.94 1.00
Groundnuts 0.67 0.50 1.20
Cassava 0.92 -
Soybean 2.33
Finger Millet 0.97 0.92 2.00
Cotton 2.00
Watermelon -0.10 2.00


TRD2 = Traditional Recommendation Domain *2 (Serenje District)
TRD3 = Traditional Recommendation Domain *3 (Mkushi District)
TRD5 = Traditional Recommendation Domain *5 (Kabwe Rural District)







- 29 -


REFERENCES


Allen, J.M.S.
1984 "Baseline Survey Report (1980-82), Chinsali." Integrated Rural
Development Programme Chief Mubanza's Area, Chinsali
District Council, mimeographed.

Central Statistics Office
1981 "National Commission for Development Planning: Economic
Report." Government of the Republic of Zambia.

Collinson, M.P.
1979 "CIMMYT Eastern Africa Economics Program: Report No. 4." CIMMYT,
Nairobi, Kenya

Due, J.M.
1980 "Allocations of Credit to Ujamaa Villages in Tanzania and Small
Farms in Zambia. African Studies Review XXIII:3

Due, J.M., T. Mudenda, and P. Miller
1983 "How do Rural Women Perceive Development? A Case Study in
Zambia." Illinois Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No.
83-E-265

Due, J.M. and M. White
1985 "Differences in Earnings, Labor Input, Decision Making, and
Perceptions of Development Between Farm and Market Women: A
Case Study of Zambia." Illinois Agricultural Economics Staff
Paper No. 83-E-319.

Selling, M.
1981 "Rapid Rural Appraisal as a Tool for Project Identification:
Experience with the Rapid Rural Appraisal Method in Mkushi
District, Central Province, Zambia" United Nations Development
Program, FAO.

Francis, P.A.
1984 "Factor Allocation and Technology Adoption in Small Scale
Agricuture: A Case Study from Northern Zambia" A paper
presented at the ARPT/CIMMYT Workshop on the Role of Rural
Sociologists in Farming Systems Research. Lusaka.







- 30 -


Keller, B.B.
1984 The Integration of Zambian Women in Development" University of
Zambia

Muntemba, M.S.
1981 "Women as Food Producers and Suppliers in the Twentieth
Century: Tile Case of Zambia." Development Dialogue 1:2:29-50.

Safilios-Rothschild, C.
1985 The Policy Implications of the Roles of Women in Agriculture in
Zambia." The Population Council, N.Y.

Spring, A. and A. Hansen
1985 "The Underside of Development: Agricultural Development and
Women in Zambia." Agriculture and Human Values 2:1:60-67.




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