Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of figures
 Smallholder farming systems in...
 History and institutional evaluation...
 Technical impact of animal...
 An economic analysis of hoe, donkey,...
 Summary and recommendations
 Back Cover

Group Title: MSU international development papers ; no. 4
Title: Animal traction in eastern Upper Volta
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00086781/00001
 Material Information
Title: Animal traction in eastern Upper Volta a technical, economic and institutional analysis
Series Title: MSU international development papers
Physical Description: xiii, 118 p. : ill., map ; 27 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Barrett, Vincent
Michigan State University -- Dept. of Agricultural Economics
United States -- Agency for International Development
Publisher: Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
Place of Publication: East lansing MI
Publication Date: 1982
Subject: Draft animals -- Burkina Faso   ( lcsh )
Agricultural implements -- Burkina Faso   ( lcsh )
Agricultural innovations -- Burkina Faso   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Burkina Faso   ( lcsh )
Rural development -- Burkina Faso   ( lcsh )
Technical assistance, American -- Burkina Faso   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Burkina Faso
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 116-118).
Statement of Responsibility: by Vincent Barrett ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Contract AID/afr-C-1314 between the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00086781
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 08948683
issn - 0731-3438 ;

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    List of figures
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Smallholder farming systems in Eastern Upper Volta using hoe, donkey, and oxen cultivation
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    History and institutional evaluation of animal traction programs
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Technical impact of animal traction
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
    An economic analysis of hoe, donkey, and oxen farming
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Summary and recommendations
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
    Back Cover
        Page 119
        Page 120
Full Text

A I d T Ia I e

A a 4i I S


p No. 4e U v
1982 EatgLaniAng, Micigan 4 82
^^^^^^^^^^^^I -^^u^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Eric W. Crawford, Carl K. Eicher and Carl Liedholm, Co-Editors

The MSU International Development Paper series is designed to further

the comparative analysis of international development activities in Africa,

Latin America, Asia and the Near East. The papers report research find-

ings on historical, as well as contemporary, international development

programs. The series includes papers on a wide range of topics, such as

alternative rural development strategies; non-farm employment and small-

scale industry; housing and construction; farming and marketing systems;

food and nutrition policy analysis; economics of rice production in West

Africa; technological change, employment, and income distribution; computer

techniques for farm and marketing surveys; and farming systems research.

While the papers mainly convey the research findings of MSU faculty and

visiting scholars, a few papers will be published by researchers and policy-

makers working together with MSU scholars on research and action programs in

the field.

The papers are aimed at teachers, researchers, policy-makers, donor

agencies, and international development practitioners. Selected papers

will be translated into French, Spanish, or Arabic. A list of available

papers and their prices may be obtained from:

MSU International Development Papers
Department of Agricultural Economics
Agriculture Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1039

Individuals and institutions in Third World countries may receive single

copies free of charge.





Vincent Barrett, Gregory Lassiter,- David Wilcock,4

Doyle Baker,/ and Eric Crawford6/


1/This paper was prepared under Contract AID/afr-C-1314 and published
under Grant AID/afr-0929-G-SS-2011-00 between the U.S. Agency for International
Development and the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.
'Consultant and former member of the MSU Research Team in the Eastern
Region of Upper Volta.

/Associate Professor, Department of Animal Science, Agricultural
Business, Education, and Mechanics, California State University, Chico,

/Extension Economist, Department of Food and Resource Economics,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Z'Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

/Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

ISSN 0731-3438

O All rights reserved by Michigan State University, 1982.

Michigan State University agrees to and does hereby grant to the United States
Government a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license throughout the
World to use, duplicate, disclose, or dispose of this publication in any manner
and for any purpose and to permit others to do so.

publishedd by the
University, East

Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
Lansing, Michigan 48824, U.S.A.



List of Tables
List of Figures
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives of the Report
1.3 Supporting Data Used in This Report

2.1 Overview of the Hoe Production System
2.2 The Farming System with Animal Traction
2.2.1 Managerial Requirements of Large Animals
2.2.2 Use of New Implements and Agronomic Techniques
2.2.3 Intensification of Land Use and
Maintenance of Soil Fertility
2.2.4 Changes in Crop Mixtures
2.2.5 Supporting Services Required for a
Successful ANTRAC Program
2.3 Summary Characteristics of Hoe and ANTRAC Households

3.1 Previous Programs
3.2 The 1974-80 Eastern ORD Program
3.2.1 The Eastern ORD's Approach to the
Extension of Animal Traction
3.2.2 The Credit System
3.2.3 Marketing
3.2.4 Animal Insurance
3.2.5 Types of Draft Animals
3.2.6 Animal Training
3.2.7 Livestock Extension Dry Season Feeding Fattening of Old Oxen for
Resale as Meat Animals


The Supply of Spare Parts

4.1 Overview of the Traction Sample
4.2 Purchase, Sale, and Training of Draft Animals
4.2.1 Animal Purchases
4.2.2 Castration and Placement of Nose Rings
4.2.3 Animal Training
4.2.4 Sale of Draft Animals
4.3 Animal Maintenance
4.3.1 Stabling and Feeding
4.3.2 Cost of Feeding Animals
4.3.3 Animal Health
4.3.4 Treatment of Diseases and Mortality Rates
4.3.5 Animal Insurance
4.4 Use of Animal Traction for Tillage
4.4.1 Ownership and Use of Tillage Equipment
4.4.2 Performance of Tillage Operations
4.4.3 Equipment Repairs
4.5 Use of Animal Traction for Transport
4.6 Estimated Production Effects of Animal Traction
4.6.1 Area Effects of Animal Traction
4.6.2 Changes in Cropping Emphasis
4.6.3 Yield Effects
4.7 Impact of Animal Traction on Household Labor Allocation
4.7.1 Allocation of Household Labor to Cropping Activities
4.7.2 Proportional Allocation of Household Labor
to Farm, Nonfarm, and Leisure Activities

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Farm Household Income
5.3 Cash Flow
5.3.1 Annual Cash Flow
5.3.2 Monthly Cash Flow
5.4 Medium-Term Income Analysis
5.4.1 Net Benefits Assuming No Production Increase
5.4.2 Area and Yield Effect from Plowing






Plowing and Weeding
Plowing, Weeding, and Phosphates

6.1 Overview of Findings
6.2 A General Strategy for Improving the Adoption and
Effectiveness of Animal Traction Technology
6.3 Recommendations for Improving Animal Traction Programs
6.3.1 Developing a Viable Locally Adapted Technical Package
6.3.2 Extension and Farmer Training
6.3.3 Financing
6.3.4 Marketing
6.3.5 ANTRAC Equipment Services
6.3.6 Livestock and Veterinary Services
6.4 Conclusions






Table Page

1.1 Distribution of the 480 Farm Households Surveyed
in 1978-79 by Zone, Village, and Sub-Sample 4

2.1 Summary Characteristics of Farm Households
in the Oxen and Donkey Zones, 1978-79 11

3.1 Number of Animal/Equivalent Units Distributed
by the EORD Up to March 31, 1980 17

3.2 Eastern ORD Medium-Term Credit Repayment Performance:
Collection Ratios and Percentage of Portfolio
in Arrears for 1976-1980 22

3.3 Forage Species Showing Potential in Eastern Upper Volta 27

4.1 Number of Traction Units Owned by Animal Traction
Farmers, 1978-79 Season 34

4.2 Percentage of Animals Trained by Different People 36

4.3 Average Cash Expenses for Maintaining Traction Animals,
by Quarter, 1978-79 Crop Season 38

4.4 Distribution of Annual Cash Expenses for Animal Feeding 38

4.5 Incidence of Health Problems and Accidents and
Percentage of Potential Draft Animal Work Time Lost 41

4.6 Animal Sickness: Amount of Lost Work Time and
Percent of Draft Animals Affected 42

4.7 Type of Tillage Equipment Owned by Oxen and Donkey
Farmers by Years of Experience with ANTRAC 44

4.8 Number and Percentage of Farmers
Who Owned and Used Equipment 46

4.9 Relationship Between Experience with Animal Traction
and the Percentage of Farmers Who Performed Different
Tillage Practices 47

4.10 Distribution of Annual Fieldwork Time for Donkeys
and Pairs of Oxen, 1978-79 49

4.11 Average Area and Proportion of Area Where
Tillage Operations Were Performed 50

4.12 Number of Carts Owned and Average Time Worked Per Cart 51

Table Page

4.13 Total Time Carts Were Used and
Percentage of Time Rented Out 52

4. 4 Effect of Carting on Utilization Rates of
Animal Units in 1978-79 53

4.15 Household Size and Area Cultivated
by Zone and Use of ANTRAC 55

4.16 Percentage of Area Planted to Different Crops
by Zone, 1978-79 58

4.17 Yields for Major Crops Under Hoe, Oxen, and
Donkey Cultivation in ANTRAC Study Zones, 1978-79 60

4. 8 Results of Natural Phosphate Fertilizer and
Plowing Trials Conducted in the Eastern Region in 1979 62

4. 9 Average Worker Equivalent Hours of Family Labor Used
Per Hectare for Major Field Activities on All Crops
in ANTRAC Zones 65

4. 0 Allocation of Potential Labor Time to Leisure,
Farm, and Nonfarm Activities 69

5. Total Value of Crop Production, 1978-79 73

5. Farm Household Annual Income Statement, 1978-79 75

5.3 Summary Farm Household Income Characteristics 79

5.4 Annual Cash Flow Statement, 1978-79 81

5.5 Monthly Cash Flow Statement for Hoe Households 84

5.6 Monthly Cash Flow Statement for ANTRAC Households 85

5.7 Assumed Increases in Area, Yield, and Total Value of
Production for Oxen and Donkey Cultivation Under
Three Levels of Technology Adoption 89

5.8 Donkey Plowing, No Area or Yield Effect 90

5.9 Oxen Plowing, No Area or Yield Effect 92

5 10 Donkey Plowing with Area and Yield Increase 94

5 11 Oxen Plowing with Area and Yield Increase 94

5 12 Donkey Plowing and Weeding 96


Table Page

5.13 Oxen Plowing and Weeding 97

5.14 Donkey Traction: Plowing, Weeding, and
Phosphate Fertilizer 100

5.15 Oxen Traction: Plowing, Weeding, and
Phosphate Fertilizer 100

5.16 Internal Rate of Return to Selected Oxen
and Donkey Traction Investment Cases 101


Figure Page

1.1 Map of Eastern ORD Survey Area 5

3.1 ARCOMA/COREMMA Tillage Equipment 30

4.1 Allocation of Man-Hours Worked on Cropping Activities
by Period and Major Activity 67

4.2 Seasonal Indices of Man-Hours Worked on
Household Fields, Non-Cropping Farm Activities,
and Non-Farm Activities 71


The authors would like to thank the following persons for providing editori-
al comments during various stages in the writing of this report: Chris Delgado,
Carl Eicher, Gordon Gemmill, Bill Morris, Gordon Potts, and Tom Whitney. The
authors take responsibility for errors or omissions herein.



1.1. Background
In the 1970s, there was a dramatic increase in development assistance to the
West African Sahel, a contiguous belt of countries including Mauritania,
Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, Chad, Cape Verde Islands, and The Gambia.
This increased assistance came largely in response to the severe 1969-1973
drought. Following the drought, Sahelian states, with the assistance of donors,
launched a number of projects to increase food production and achieve regional
In 1975, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and several
other donors helped the Government of Upper Volta launch a medium-term recovery
project in the Eastern Region of Upper Volta, an area covering about 50,000 km
with a 1979 population of about 440,000 (Mehretu and Wilcock, 1979). The Inte-
grated Rural Development Project had two major objectives.- One was to help
develop the institutional capacity of the regional rural development authority,
the "Organisme Regional de Developpement de 1'Est" (Eastern ORD or EORD). The
second was to increase agricultural production and rural incomes in the region
through the introduction of animal traction (ANTRAC) cultivation techniques,
supported by EORD technical, extension, credit, and marketing services. The use
of animal draft power was expected to improve farm productivity by alleviating
labor constraints and by integrating crop and animal production. The project's
strategy of developing the operational capacity of the Eastern ORD (EORD) and of
introducing donkey and oxen cultivation technology followed a pattern used in
other ORDs in Upper Volta.-2
The technical assistance component of the USAID project was provided
through a contract with the Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan
State University (MSU) beginning in May, 1977. The MSU team provided technical
assistance to the Eastern ORD, and also carried out farm production, marketing,
and regional planning surveys over a three-year period, 1978-1980. During the
project, the number of trained personnel employed by the EORD increased six-fold
to over 400 persons throughout the region. The number of farmers using animal
traction (ANTRAC) increased dramatically over the project period, from 180 in
1974 to approximately 1,740 in 1979/80.

/See USAID (1974) for a description of the IRD Project.

-See Eicher et al. (1976) for an early review of the IRD Project implemen-
tation strategy, and Mehretu and Wilcock (1979) for an introduction to the
Eastern Region.


1.2. Objectives of the Report
This report analyzes the technical, economic, and institutional impact of
the animal traction program, the major component of USAID assistance to the EORD
Integrated Rural Development Project. The use of animal traction has been
popular in West Africa since the 1930s, owing partly to apparently favorable
experiment station research results, and partly to cases of successful adoption,
e.g., in Senegal and Mali. However, as Sargent et al. (1981) found in a review
of 125 projects involving ANTRAC in francophone West Africa, there is very little
e idence on two questions: (1) the performance of ANTRAC under actual farmer
c editions; and (2) the effect of ANTRAC independent of other elements of the
t chnical package such as improved seeds, fertilizer, etc.
The specific objectives of this paper are to: (a) describe the 1975-81
EORD animal traction program with emphasis on its institutional features and
historical context; (b) evaluate the farm level technical and economic impact of
the ANTRAC program on the basis of empirical studies carried out in 1978 and
1779; and (c) recommend changes in content and approach which may improve future
ANTRAC programs in the Eastern Region of Upper Volta and elsewhere in West
A rica.

1.3. Supporting Data Used in This Report
Most empirical findings presented in this report are based on analysis of
data from the 1978-79 farm survey conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
and Planning of the Eastern ORD in cooperation with the MSU contract team.1/Dur-
ing the period of May 1, 1978 to April 30, 1979, the economic activities of 480
farm households selected from 27 villages were monitored.2/ The sample is strati-
fied across 12 zones that were purposively selected in order to represent the
road agro-climatic variation found in the EORD. Within each zone, a sample of
traditional" agricultural households (those using currently available agricul-
ural methods based almost entirely on hand hoe cultivation techniques) was
randomly selected. In addition, a purposive sample of the relatively most
successful animal traction farm households, as identified by local extension
personnel, was selected in five zones in order to represent the "performance

1/This survey was carried out with support from contract AID/afc-C-1314
between USAID and Michigan State University.

2/For additional details on the objectives, structure, and methodology of
he survey, see MSU Contract Team, "Six-Month Report: December 1977-May 1978,"
p. 31-54.

frontier" or potential of this new technology.-1 After attrition, the sample
consisted of 355 hoe farming households and 125 ANTRAC households. The distribu-
tion of these 480 households across the 27 villages and 12 agro-climatic zones of
the EORD is presented in Table 1.1. The analysis in this report focuses on the
five ANTRAC zones--Piela, Diabo, Logobou, Diapangou, and Ougarou--whose location
is indicated in Figure 1.1 by the circled capital letters "TA." Sample villages
with no animal traction are indicated by triangles.
Farm families were interviewed .on a wide range of farm, off-farm, and
household activities. The survey employed the "cost route" method of data
collection, based on recurrent weekly or monthly interviews to obtain informa-
tion on household resource allocation. Labor use in all farm field activities
was obtained through weekly interviews with one-third of both hoe and ANTRAC
Other information used in the report comes from forage, plowing, and fertil-
izer trials conducted by the livestock specialist. Observations and informal
interviews conducted by all team members provide additional background for the

IBecause of the recency and geographical dispersion of the program, the
majority of EORD ANTRAC users in 1978 were recent adopters who had hardly begun
to use their ANTRAC equipment or experience any benefits from it. For this
reason, a non-random sample was used to carry out a "most favorable case" evalua-
tion of ANTRAC in order to provide an indication of ANTRAC potential under EORD


Number of Sampled Households
by Sub-Sample
Traditional Traction
Agr climatic Zone Village (TRAD) (ANTRAC)

1. B gande 1. Balemba 18
2. Komboassi 18

2. Mani 3. Lanyabidi 18*
4. Bombonyenga 18

3. Piela 5. Dabesma 18 -
6. Piela (ANTRAC) 18

4. Diabo 7. Mocontore 18
8. Lantaogo (ANTRAC) 18
26. Diabo I (ANTRAC) -17
27. Diabo II (ANTRAC) 18

5. ogobou 9. Namponkore 18* -
10. Kindi Kombou 18* -
11. Logobou (ANTRAC) 18

6. Fartiaga 12. Bomondi 18* -
13. Dupcaali 18 -

7. onde 14. Ouobgo 17
15. Kondogo 18* -

8. Iiapangou 16. Tilonti 18
17. Diapangou (ANTRAC) 18

9. ;otou (N. de Fada) 18. Botou (N. de Fada) 18* -
19. Ougarou (N. de Fada) 19*

10. ,antchari 20. Mantchangou 17
21. Mohadagou 18

11. )ugarou 22. Poniokondi 18 -
23. Ougarou (ANTRAC) 18

12. pama 24. Tindangou 16
25. Kpcaali 16

TOTAL 355 125

*Indicates villages where the chief was p
assure village support for the survey.
process for these seven village chiefs,

urposively included in the sample in order to
Due to the non-random nature of the selection
they are excluded from the analyses in this

FARM SURVEY 1978-1979

0 30 Mies
0 0) Kolloretes



'K^ ~ S

v fo)

Main Road
Secondary Road
Sector H ldquart W
Sampled Village
Sampled Anmmat Tractro RAgo
Enumerator Residence


2.1. Overview of the Hoe Production System
Farming in the Eastern Region consists almost entirely of hoe agriculture
and livestock production by small farmers. Virtually everyone farms and most
pe ple raise goats, sheep, or less frequently, cattle. The principal crops are
sorghum and millet. Family labor is the key agricultural input. Even including
th government and service sectors, there are few opportunities for full-time
wage employment.- Because both input and product markets are poorly developed,
few economic transactions are monetized and most crop production is consumed by
rural households. Despite the low productivity of existing agricultural tech-
no ogy, moderately fertile soils enable small agricultural surpluses to be pro-
du ed in average years. Nonetheless, infrastructural and institutional con-
st aints make it difficult for farmers to participate in the market economy.
The low productivity of hand hoe production systems is largely a function of
th limited area that hoe farmers can cultivate within the relatively short span
of the rainy season (550 mm. of rainfall spread over 3.5 months in the extreme
no then part of the Eastern Region to 1,100 mm. of rainfall over 5.5 months in
the south). An adult can plant and weed only about 1.25 hectares (see Table 2.1
at the end of this section). Because of high variability of rainfall and high
evaporation rates at the beginning and end of the rainy season, effective rain-
fa 1 is low and the timing of planting can be extremely critical. High mid-
season rainfall stimulates the growth of weeds which can greatly reduce yields.

2.2. The Farming System with Animal Traction
In the literature on technical change, mechanization is considered to be
labor-saving with little, if any, impact on yields (Bieri, de Janvry, and
Schmitz, 1972; Binswanger and Ryan, 1977). Proponents of ANTRAC in West Africa
h ve attributed much broader benefits to ANTRAC. By replacing hoe cultivation,
A TRAC potentially allows farmers to expand acreage and improve yields. Acreage
e pension is possible through a reduction in labor time required per hectare.
Fqr example, animal weeding is three to four times faster than hand weeding for a
given area. Higher yields result in the short run from better and more timely
p rformance of tillage, and in the long run from improved soil fertility due to

/See Wilcock (1981) for a detailed description of rural small-scale enter-
prises in the Eastern Region.


incorporation of manure and crop residues.-/ Savings in labor time due to ANTRAC
may be devoted to other activities of value to the household. Use of animal-
drawn carts can facilitate crop removal .and marketing and provide a source of
income from custom transport where the demand for that service exists.
Full adoption of ANTRAC entails several major changes in the traditional
farming system: (1) learning to manage large animals; (2) using new implements
and agronomic techniques; (3) intensifying land use and maintaining soil fertil-
ity; (4) changing the crop mix; and often (5) substantial borrowing to finance
purchase of the ANTRAC package. ANTRAC adopters also become more dependent on
outside institutions for input supply, repair and maintenance, animal health
services, credit, and extension advice.

2.2.1. Managerial Requirements of Large Animals
Hoe farmers in the Eastern Region of Upper Volta and in most parts of the
Sahelian region of West Africa have had limited experience with livestock other
than goats, sheep, and poultry. A farmer adopting animal traction must be able
to select the appropriate species, breed, and age of animal. He must learn to
train and maintain these large animals on his farm. The necessary managerial
skills are complex and thus take time to acquire. Training animals, especially
oxen, is a new farm task which can be daunting for an inexperienced farmer.
Animal feeding requires knowing how to conserve forage and how to formulate
rations. The farmer must reallocate his labor force to provide forage and
pasture for his animals. Lastly, he must learn how to maintain the health of his
animals through good stabling techniques and the use of prophylactic and curative
veterinary practices.

2.2.2. Use of New Implements
and Agronomic Techniques
ANTRAC technology entails new tillage techniques, and hence a series of
unfamiliar economic and agronomic decisions. The farmer must decide whether the
returns from certain practices will be sufficient to justify investment in the
necessary equipment and labor. For example, seedbed preparation is critically
dependent upon the timing and the quantity of rain. If rains come late, the hoe
farmer does not have the time to prepare all his fields even though he knows this
is beneficial. A delay in planting will reduce yields. Plowing with a moldboard

"/Maintenance of soil fertility on continuously cultivated land permits a
transition from extensive bush fallow farming to intensive "sedentarized" farm-
ing, which is implicitly regarded as desirable by some ANTRAC advocates.


plow is quicker and easier but can still delay planting because a good, soaking
rain is necessary before the sunbaked, hardened soil can be worked. Whereas a
traditional farmer can plant immediately following the first rains with the daba
(hand hoe), the traction farmer plows first before planting. There is thus a
trace-off between the benefits of plowing and early planting. Irregularity of
early rains and the probability of drought periods in May and June exacerbate
this dilemma.
The farmer must also decide whether to carry out scarification, which does
not provide the same agronomic benefits as plowing, but is quicker.-/ In areas
with low rainfall (600 mm.) and sandy soils, scarification may be the best method
of eedbed preparation for large fields because the rigid scarifier tines can
enable the farmer to work the soil even before the first heavy rains. Other
dec sions involve whether to plow under green manure at the end of the rainy
season, or to prepare the seedbed using a ridger to avoid water-logging.
Sowing techniques.may also need changing. For example, weeding is a major
con traint which can be overcome by animal-drawn weeders, but this requires the
farmer to plant in lines by hand or with an animal-drawn seeder. If a farmer
pla ts by hand, he must use a line tracer or a rope. Animal-drawn seeders can
inc ease the speed at which fields are planted, providing the land has been
des umped and derooted and the soil is moist.
Ridging, or basin-listing, increases infiltration and helps prevent lodging
during the latter part of the season. Ridging can be performed with either a
ridger or a moldboard plow, although the latter is relatively inefficient since
it requires at least two passes down a row.
Other implements can be used such as a peanut lifter for harvesting ground-
nuts and weeding, a harrow for breaking up clods prior to use of a seeder, and a
large size ridger for making drainage ditches and erosion control bunds. Carts,
al hough very costly, have a multitude of uses and enable farmers to work their
an mals throughout the year, maintaining their state of training and amortizing
th ir cost. An animal-drawn water-lift system (the dalou) permits irrigation of
small garden parcels and increases animal use.
The maintenance of all this equipment poses a new set of problems for the
farmer who often has little experience with machines. In the Eastern Region, for
ex ple, there are presently only a few blacksmiths who know how to manufacture

1/Scarification refers to light tillage (1 to 5 cm. deep) using a spring-
tobthed cultivator, illustrated in Figure 3.1.

spare ANTRAC parts and repair equipment. By contrast, tools used in the manual
farming system are manufactured locally and are readily available.

2.2.3. Intensification of Land Use and
Maintenance of Soil Fertility
A move from shifting cultivation to animal traction and the permanent utili-
zation of fields accelerates the use of soil nutrients. Farmers must therefore
learn to maintain the fertility of their land through the use of green manure,
animal manure, compost, and chemical fertilizers. Farmers must also learn to
prevent erosion. If improperly done, plowing increases the amount of soil washed
away. This can be counteracted by contour plowing and the construction of

2.2.4. Changes in Crop Mixtures
Under the traditional system, farmers produce primarily to meet their own
consumption needs. The adoption of ANTRAC greatly increases the farmer's capital
needs and requires him to increase the area under cultivation or to alter the
cropping pattern in order to produce a larger marketable surplus.

2.2.5. Supporting Services Required for
a Successful ANTRAC Program
In order to assist farmers to make a successful transition from hoe cultiva-
tion to animal traction, a wide range of supporting services are required. These

1. a credit system to help farmers finance the purchase of equipment and
2. an extension service, particularly for farmer training in the use of
ANTRAC technology;
3. a livestock service to vaccinate draft animals and to give farmers
advice on selection and feeding of animals;
4. a system to supply equipment, spare parts, and repair facilities;
5. a system of on-farm, adaptive (farming systems) research to identify
problems and develop technological packages which are appropriate to
local market, agronomic, and family economic conditions; and
6. a marketing system which enables farmers to sell their surplus produc-

2.3. Summary Characteristics of Hoe and ANTRAC Households
Due to large agro-climatic differences across the 12 zones sampled in the
1978-79 farm survey, it is necessary to assess the impact of ANTRAC by comparing

ANTRAC households with a control group of hoe farmers within the same agro-
climatic zone. Thus, the hoe farmer control group analyzed in this report
consists of 106 households sampled within the five ANTRAC zones (see Table 1.1).
Further, the performance of oxen or donkey traction is compared to that of hoe
agriculture only within the relevant oxen zones (Diabo or Ougarou) or donkey
zon s (Piela, Diapangou, or Logobou).1/ Because the ANTRAC and hoe farming
samples vary in size within the individual zones, a weighting procedure was used
in calculating mean values for the two oxen and three donkey zones.2/
Table 2.1 presents summary characteristics of the oxen, donkey, and hoe
farmers surveyed. Both oxen and donkey farmers have larger families than their
hoe farmer counterparts, a scale factor which should be kept in mind whenever
com aring household means of ANTRAC and hoe farmers. ANTRAC farmers, particular-
ly hose with oxen, also have a larger work force, as indicated by the number of
"ac ifs" (or active workers, persons of age 15 to 54). The ratio of dependents
to total persons in oxen households (.53) is similar to that of their control
fan7ers (.54), while it is much higher for donkey farmers (.63) than control
farmers (.55).
The total area cultivated is higher for ANTRAC farmers than for hoe farmers,
but on a per person basis the difference is not statistically significant. The
mos relevant measure of land intensity, the area cultivated per active worker,

1/In oxen zones, 90 percent of ANTRAC farmers use oxen traction. Of the
ANTRAC farmers in donkey zones, 85 percent use donkeys. Fifteen (12 percent) of
ANTRAC households are excluded from the calculation of statistics for oxen zones
an donkey zones because they represent exceptions to the classification system.
Of these 15 households, 7 are donkey farmers residing in oxen zones (3 at Ougarou
an 4 at Diabo), and 8 are oxen farmers in donkey zones (3 at Piela, 1 at Logobou,
and 4 at Diapangou).

1A simple average calculated for all oxen (or donkey) households would not
be comparable to an average of all hoe households from the same zones because the
hoe and ANTRAC sample sizes can differ for each zone. Among oxen zones, for
example, the Diabo zone accounts for 54 ANTRAC users and 18 hoe households, while
the Ougarou zone provides 18 ANTRAC and 18 hoe households. If based on unweight-
ed household averages, a comparison between hoe and ANTRAC farming in the oxen
zo es would be biased because the hoe average would overrepresent Ougarou. To
resolve this problem, when the ANTRAC and hoe sample size differs within a zone,
th smallest of the two is weighted more heavily when calculating intra-zone
va ues. Computationally, this means that the hoe subsample in Diabo is given a
weight of 3 when statistics are calculated for oxen zones. For donkey zone
statistics, the ANTRAC subsample in Logobou is given a weight of 2. This
weighting system is not used when variances are calculated, however, because of
the bias it would create.


All ANTRAC Zones Oxen Zones Donkey Zones


Number of Households Evaluateda 106 110 36 65 70 45

Persons per Household 7.75 11.21 6.67 11.14 8.83 11.27
Adult Workers per Household 3.50 4.71 3.04 5.27 3.96 4.14

Total Area Cultivated (ha)b 4.30 6.59 3.96 7.13 4.64 6.04

Proportion of Area in:

Millet and Sorghum (%) 80.1 74.7 79.1 77.5 81.0 71.8
Groundnuts 9.6 9.6 10.3 6.8 8.8 12.4
Maize 3.0 3.4 3.3 3.8 2.7 2.9
Cotton 0.2 1.9 0.1 2.1 0.3 1.7
Rice 2.2 2.8 1.9 3.5 2.4 2.0
Soybeans 0.5 3.8 0.5 3.9 0.4 3.6
Other Crops 4.6 4.0 4.8 2.4 4.4 5.6
Total Area Cultivated per Person (ha) 0.560 0.588 0.593 0.640 0.526 0.536

Total Area Cultivated per Actif (ha) 1.26 1.39 1.29 1.33 1.22 1.45

Value of Livestock Owned (FCFA) 122,491 316,545 139,185 372,767 105,320 258,510

Percent of Non-Farm Income 18.7 12.5 32.0 7.5 0.6 21.5

Age of Household Head (years) 53 43 60 44 46 42

Education of Household Head (years) .42 1.06 .44 .64 .40 1.65

aBecause of time and resource constraints, complete area data was collected for only two-thirds
of these households. In a random one-third sub-sample only sorghum and millet fields were measured.
While harvest data was collected on all crops for all households, area data presented in this table
are based only on measurements from two-thirds sub-sample.
bEstimated for the entire sample by using household size in the one-third subsample to project
the non-sorghum/millet area.

is higher among the animal traction farmers. This will be explored in greater
det il in section 4.6 of this report.
Cropping emphasis does not differ greatly between ANTRAC and hoe farmers.
Note that the proportion of area devoted to sorghum/millet is very high, ranging
from 72 to 81 percent across the subsamples. There is a slight reduction in the
pro portion of total area in sorghum and millet, along with a minor increase in
rel tive areas of maize, cotton, rice, and soybeans in ANTRAC households. Oxen
and donkey farmers have similar cropping patterns, although the latter de-empha-
size sorghum and millet to a greater degree.
ANTRAC farmers tend to be more wealthy than hoe farmers. The value of
livestock owned by ANTRAC farmers is more than twice that of hoe farmers, a
dif erence only partly attributable to the ANTRAC animals alone. The proportion
of household income originating from nonfarm sources is similar for ANTRAC and
hoe farmers, although it is highly variable by zone. The heads of ANTRAC
households tend to be younger and better educated than their hoe farmer counter-
par s.
We will return to these comparisons in Chapter 4 and to their economic
implications in Chapter 5. First, however, in Chapter 3 we will examine past
attempts to introduce ANTRAC technology in the Eastern Region, and the institu-
tional structure and performance of the EORD ANTRAC program.


3.1. Previous Programs-1
There have been at least six different efforts to introduce animal traction
in the Eastern Region since the early 1940s when the colonial government decided
that animal traction should be used to increase the production of industrial
crops, particularly cotton and groundnuts. This first scheme failed because:
(a) the equipment, designed to be pulled by European oxen, was too heavy for the
local animals; and (b) farmers were forced to use the equipment and were punished
if they did not. A second scheme in the early 1950s used the same equipment but
tried renting out the package instead of forcing farmers to use it. Unfortunate-
ly, fear of the intentions of the colonial administration and poorly adapted
equipment limited acceptance of this program as well.
The third effort, based on "pilot farms", was begun in 1954. The idea was
to bring together in one package all of the ingredients necessary for a success-
ful animal traction farming system. The package consisted of a trained pair of
oxen, plus a plow (28 or 36 kg Kirpies), a weeder (Ebra), a harrow (Puzenat), a
cart, and gardening tools. The farmer was also given a stable for the oxen with a
cement floor for collecting urine, a compost pit, a pit silo, a rack for drying
hay, and a shed for equipment and grain storage. The package, financed by FIDES
and the local Provident Societies (Societes de Prevoyance), cost an average of
128,000 FCFA per farm in 1956 and was provided free to the farmer.-2 In return,
the farmer contracted to adopt the practices recommended by the extension service
for a duration of three years. These included composting litter and manure, hay
and silage conservation, and a crop rotation system to be implemented on a
2-hectare demonstration plot measured off for him. One-half hectare of this was
to be used for a garden and orchard. The rest was to be put into either rice (on
bottom lands) or a rotation of cereal crops, groundnuts or cotton, and a green
manure crop.

1/This chapter is based on interviews with extension agents who have worked
in the region for 20 years, various reports by the Agricultural Production Bureau
of the Eastern ORD, an analysis of some portions of the farm survey data, and
other footnoted sources of information.

2/One U.S. dollar was approximately equal to 220 FCFA during the 1978/79
survey period.

By 1958, this scheme had failed for the following reasons:
1. Farmers felt they were working for the extension service. There was no
real understanding of the benefits of the farming practices being ex-
tended. When they followed the agents' advice, it was because they felt
an obligation to do so. Farmers were flattered by the attention they
received, but if there was any relaxation in supervision, they general-
ly abandoned the new technology.
2. The extension service provided insufficient technical support to farm-
3. Although farmers were allowed to choose between cotton or groundnuts,
they had to plant one of them. These were the only crops with a
guaranteed market. There was no effort to improve the marketing of
cereals which farmers preferred to grow in order to feed their
4. A lack of spare parts and skilled blacksmiths to repair the equipment
caused worn equipment to lie idle.
From 1958 to 1961, the "Rural Communities" (Collectivites Rurales) provided
in erest-free loans for farmers to purchase animal traction packages, with the
proviso that the recipients would serve as model farmers in their areas. The
package consisted of oxen bought and trained by extension agents, and then resold
to the farmers with the necessary equipment. This appeared to work fairly well
fo a time. One extension agent remembers that in Yobri (Diapaga Sector), women
were a major force in introducing the package. They pushed their husbands to
accept animal traction in order to avoid the arduous labor of seedbed prepara-
ti n, particularly for rice. Although this system was a partial success, it was
pl gued by the same problems which the earlier "pilot farm" scheme faced--lack of
a profitable market for cereals, absence of spare parts and repair facilities,
and weak technical support for the farmers. The program ended in 1961 when a
shift in policy orientation at the national government level eroded support for
animal traction in favor of the introduction of tractor plowing.
The fifth program in the Eastern Region took place in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, when the extension service arranged for about 20 volunteer farmers
td be sent to the Center for Agricultural Training (Centre Polyvalent de Forma-
tion Agricole) at Matourkou, near Bobo-Dioulasso. The goal of this scheme was to
p ovide farmers with in-depth training in the use of animal traction technology.
Each trainee was provided with a pair of oxen, a cow, a plow, and a weeder. In
addition, every two families were given a harrow, a seeder, and a cart. If he
desired, the farmer could pay for his equipment over the three-year duration of

the training course. Each trainee was allotted a 7 hectare (ha) farm on which he
was required to plant 2 ha of cotton and groundnuts, 1.5 ha of cereal crops, and
0.5 ha of forage crops. Another 2.5 ha was to be kept in fallow pasture land.
The Center provided all chemical inputs (fertilizer and insecticides) and mar-
keted all surplus production. The cost of inputs was deducted from the farmer's
Within the artificial environment of the center at Matourkou, this scheme
worked fairly well. Farmers could expect to make a net income of 30,000 FCFA in
1965. But on their return home, they encountered some of the same problems which
defeated the four previous efforts: lack of reliable markets and inadequate
supply of spare parts and other supporting services. In spite of this, many of
these farmers have continued to use animal traction and their farms are quite
impressive. They do have a good technical background and it is from this group
that the EORD has recently recruited three of its oxen trainers.
A sixth effort to implement animal traction was the voluntary work of a
private French farmer, Maurice Colas, who spent almost 20 years in the Eastern
Region in the 1960s and 1970s. While he trained farmers and supplied them with
credit for oxen,1/ his main innovation was provision of repair facilities and
local manufacture of spare parts for existing plows. He also designed a locally
manufactured donkey cultivator called the Houe Fada. Many of the people that he
trained are now employed by the Eastern ORD as skilled workmen.
These projects shared several common features which led to partial or com-
plete failure:
1. Most of the schemes had a predetermined cropping plan and animal/equip-
ment package. Faced with an inflexible farm plan, the farmer tended to
feel that he was working for the extension service. Since the emphasis
on cotton and groundnuts was not backed up with an applied research
program at the farm level, these crops were not well adapted to farmer
objectives and resources.
2. The absence of stable, profitable markets for cereal crops made it
difficult for farmers to use cereal surpluses in good years to meet loan
3. With the exception of Maurice Colas' efforts, the absence of spare part
supplies and repair facilities rendered worn-out plows and weeders use-

1/In1974 when he left Diabo, Colas had loans outstanding to 174 farmers for
oxen. The recovery of these loans was taken over by the EORD.

4. Most efforts were based on the "model farmer" approach and thus reached
only a small number of people. These farmers were often isolated
(either as individuals or as groups) from the supply of spare parts,
veterinary services, the technical advice of extension agents, and
other vital supporting services. It was easy for them to become dis-
couraged and give up the package.
5. The projects all relied on pairs of oxen as draft animals, at least for
plowing. While these animals are stronger and appreciate in value over
time, they are much more expensive and difficult to feed than are
donkeys or even single oxen. Single oxen, which have proven very
effective for weeding and ridging, were never tried and it was only in
the late 1960s that donkey plowing was introduced on a wide scale.
6. All schemes concentrated on the use of the moldboard plow for seedbed
preparation. While this has undeniable benefits, it is slow and can
delay planting significantly. Under certain circumstances, scarifica-
tion can be more beneficial.
7. Each effort to introduce animal traction in the Eastern ORD attempted to
impose the technology and make it work within a short 3- to 5-year
period. Because the system involves the adoption of a complex technolo-
gy and revolutionary change in farming practices, there was no hope of
success in such a short time.

3.2. The 1974-80 Eastern ORD Program
During 1974-80, the EORD relied on extension of animal traction as the main
strategy to increase dryland agricultural production. Animal traction was also
the key to seedbed preparation in bottomland rice production systems, after an
initial plowing of virgin land by tractors. Although EORD personnel have been
involved in the extension of animal traction since the organization's inception
in 1968, large-scale effort began in 1974 with the introduction of 26 traction
un ts1/ in the Diabo Sector. The program expanded rapidly, with over 1,700 units
in use by April, 1980. Forty-two percent of these units were powered by oxen.
Ta le 3.1 shows the evolution of the program up to April, 1980 by EORD sector and
by type of traction unit. In spite of this considerable effort, less than 5

1/A "traction unit" typically refers to either a pair of oxen or a single
do key plus the corresponding ANTRAC equipment. Single ox or horse traction is
un ommon in the Eastern Region.

Table 3.1


EORD Sectors
Type of
Animal Agricultural Comin- ORD
Unit Campaign Bogande Yanga Diabo Diapaga Fada Kantchari Matiakoali Pama Total

Oxen 74-75 + 75-76 11 24 4 39
Units 1976 1977 71 1 27 1 100
1977 1978 64 10 122 26 29 47 35 30 363
1978 1979 7 19 8 5 3 14 5 29 90
1979 1980 40 10 21 16 28 10 10 135

TOTAL 111 39 233 48 111 76 40 69 727

Donkey 74-75 + 75-76 9 72 12 59 152
Units 1976 1977 42 9 35 86
1977 1978 47 6 52 68 70 12 8 3 266
1978 1979 13 4 84 52 49 41 19 7 269
1979 1980 34 3 19 61 58 38 23 3 239

TOTAL 103 13 269 202 271 91 50 13 1,012

Total 74-75 + 75-76 9 83 12 83 4 191
1976 1977 113 10 62 1 186
1977 1978 111 16 174 94 99 59 43 33 629
1978 1979 20 23 92 57 52 54 24 36 359
1979 1980 74 13 40 77 86 48 23 13 374

TOTAL 214 52 502 250 382 167 90 82 1,739


per ent of farms in the Eastern Region were equipped with a usable traction
pac age as of 1980, even when equipment placed before 1974 is included.1-

3.2 1. The Eastern ORD's Approach to the
Extension of Animal Traction
The EORD extension program for animal traction differs from most past pro-
gra s in that it focuses not on a few model farmers, but on reaching a large
num er of farmers throughout the Department. It is difficult to provide isolated
model farmers with essential support services. The EORD's approach assumes that
if enough farmers adopt the technology, the demand for these services and the
economic benefits derived from increased production will be sufficient to war-
rant the investment necessary to improve the services.
The EORD has begun to create the extension services necessary to support
mass adoption of ANTRAC technology. There were 155 ANTRAC extension agents in
19 0, or about 1 agent per 360 farm families, compared to less than 40 agents in
th early 1960s. Eight specialists in agricultural credit publicize loan precon-
ditions and ensure the smooth running of the credit program. Six livestock
ag nts have been trained to improve health care and feeding of traction animals.
Te oxen trainers have also received short training courses on advising farmers
how to choose and train their animals as well as helping extension agents give
demonstrations of plowing and weeding techniques.
To reach the maximum number of farmers, extension agents work mostly through
village groups (Groupements Villageois). This facilitates the dissemination of
technical information. Demonstration of new techniques on collective fields
reduces risk to individual farmers. A farmer must be a member of a village group
and have the approval of the group president before he can receive credit. In
a edition, the group guarantees his loan.
Too much is currently expected of the extension agents. The new ones are
ydung men, fresh from school. They often lack the experience and confidence
necessary to give farmers proper support. A partial listing of their responsi-
bilities includes:
1. The extension of ANTRAC technology and improved agronomic practices
(such as the use of new varieties, fertilizers, and insecticides) and
the conservation of forages;

/Based on: 1975 population figures of 402,720 and a 1.93 percent annual
growth rate; 7.27 members per household; 95 percent of households involved in
arming; and an estimate that 500 units distributed before 1974 are still func-

2. Determination of credit worthiness and repayment capacity;
3. The distribution and collection of short- and medium-term credit;
4. The organization of village groups and support of group activities such
as cereals banks, pharmacies, and shops;
5. Statistical reporting;
6. Sales of inputs;
7. Conducting adult literacy classes; and
8. Management of supplies.
It is doubtful that anyone could do all of these activities effectively even
in the small zone under each agent's control. Furthermore, agents are often
transferred in and out of a village so quickly that they do not have time to
establish working relationships with the population.

3.2.2. The Credit System
The EORD provides low-interest, medium-term credit for both animals and
equipment. Short-term credit is also available for seasonal inputs such as
fertilizer and insecticides. An indication of the importance of the credit
system is that 89.5 percent of oxen packages and 50.4 percent of donkey packages
were bought on credit. For donkey traction, there is a four-year repayment
schedule. For the higher investment in the oxen package, there is a five-year
timetable. Both schedules include a one-year grace period to allow farmers to
obtain a complete package and to begin to implement the new farming system. This
is an important element as farmers rarely receive all of the components of the
package during the first year.
A precondition of medium-term loans is that one-third of the area cultivated
must be planted in cash crops to enable the farmer to pay back his loans. There
is an important difference between the EORD system and previous ones, however, in
that the farmer can decide what constitutes a "cash" crop. Thus, farmers can
choose between industrial crops, whose markets are relatively well organized in
some areas, and sorghum or millet, which contribute to food needs but whose
markets are slightly less certain due to transport and organizational difficul-
It is well beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed evaluation
of the performance of the EORD medium-term credit program. However, due to the
vital importance of this supporting service, a few summary observations have been
drawn from Tapsoba (1981a), the key study of the EORD credit program.


To begin, it is useful to underline a few of the distinctive characteristics
of the EORD credit system. First, the EORD does not play a significant role in
mobilizing local financial resources for investment in agriculture. It primari-
ly employs funds from outside sources in its lending program. Of a total of
approximately 85 million CFA ($425,000) distributed in short- and medium-term
credit between 1975 and 1980,'only 9.5 percent came from the EORD's own funds.
Jus over 40 percent of the total came from the USAID Integrated Rural Develop-
ment (IRD) project alone. Second, loans are provided to farmers in kind (equip-
men~ and animals) rather than in cash. Third, the EORD engages in a wide range of
other agricultural and rural development activities in addition to the provision
of credit Most credit transactions with farmers have been carried out by
extension agents who have, as we have seen, a wide range of other functions to
In evaluating the institutional performance of the EORD credit system, we
can examine two key financial indicators: the real cost of lending and the rate
of loan repayment. First, the real cost of lending is defined here as the EORD's
cos of administering each 100 CFA of loans outstanding. This can be calculated
for a given year by dividing the value of the total loan portfolio outstanding by
an estimate of operational costs incurred in that year. Costs can be estimated
conservatively as 10 percent of the salary costs of EORD "credit staff" (sector
and subsector chiefs, extension agents, and those headquarters staff directly
involved in credit administration) and 10 percent of EORD operating costs includ-
ing vehicle operation. On this basis, annual EORD costs in the three most recent
cre it years are:
Cost of Administration
of Each 100 CFA of Total
Credit Year Loan Portfolio Outstanding

1977-78 27.6 CFA
1978-79 30.0 CFA
1979-80 19.2 CFA
These cost figures vary principally according to the total value of loans
outstanding at the end of the credit year. Other methods used to calculate the
real cost of EORD lending also show that the recurrent costs of the EORD acting
as an agricultural lending institution are extremely high (Tapsoba, 1981a).
These high costs led the GOUV to create a new nationwide agricultural lending
institution, the CNCA,1/ to administer agricultural credit in cooperation with
the regional ORD's.

1/CNCA, "Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole."

The second performance indicator is the rate of loan repayment. As the
literature on agricultural credit stresses, a wide range of methods of calculat-
ing this measure may be used. The two figures examined here are based on a total
portfolio of 71,528,000 CFA of animal traction credit extended between 1976 and
1980: the collection ratio (including payments on arrears) and the percentage
of the medium-term portfolio in arrears on an annual basis. These figures are
shown in Table 3.2. The annual collection ratio has varied between 38 and 57
percent. The percentage of portfolio in arrears has risen steadily from 2
percent in 1977 to 28 percent in 1980. These figures are quite disturbing since
these indicators would normally reflect EORD performance favorably./ However,
they indicate that the EORD system has not been performing adequately in terms of
loan collection. If the collection ratio is not substantially improved, the
amount of original working capital available for new loans will be severely
limited in future years, and there may be negative psychological effects on both
EORD personnel and farmer borrowers.
Two questions must be raised at this point. First, can this poor perfor-
mance be justified? Second, have measures been taken which can potentially
improve the performance of the system? The answer, in both cases, is a qualified
The following factors largely explain poor system performance to date:-
1. The extremely rapid growth of EORD personnel and number of loans over
the 1975-1978 period clearly outstripped EORD administrative capacity.
2. All field actions in the vast and sparsely populated Eastern Region are
complicated by the almost total lack of reliable road and communica-
tions infrastructure.
3. The EORD is not primarily a credit institution. EORD field staff did
not begin to receive detailed field training in credit administration
until 1978.-3 Specially trained credit workers (one per EORD sector)
were not available until 1979.

1/This is because the collection ratio includes payments on installments in
arrears in addition to current installments and because the percentage of port-
folio in arrears will tend to remain low in early years since the value of the
portfolio has been increasing rapidly.

/Other reasons for loan repayment delinquency are contained in Stickley
and Tapsoba (1979).

3/This resulted in a detailed credit training manual, ORD de l'Est, BDC


IN ARREARS FOR 1976-1980
(in thousands of CFA)

1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80

1. Total Portfolio at End
of Credit Year 10,729 52,774 59,177 71,528

2. Installments Due 206 2,336 14,027 24,584

3. Total Repayments Madea/ 78 1,332 6,092 11,300

4. Arrears at End of
Credit Years 170 1,331 9,639 19,736

5. Collection Ratio 38% 57% 43% 46%
(Row 3 Row 2)

6. % of Portfolio in Arrears 2% 3% 16% 28%
(Row 4 Row 1)

a/Includes payments on arrears.

Source: Tapsoba (1981a), based on EORD Credit Account computer printouts.

4. Temporary or permanent attrition in EORD field personnel, particularly
sector and subsector chiefs (due to reassignment, prolonged absences
for training programs, firing, and resignation), has meant that in very
few localities has there been stable, continuous contact between the
EORD and farmers taking loans.
5. Personnel movements and rapid growth in the volume of loans had a
disastrous impact on credit record keeping and accounting. This situa-
tion became so acute that it was necessary in 1978 to conduct a detailed
sector by sector inventory simply to establish reliable records on the
numbers and status of outstanding loans.-/ This was the first step taken
in a complete reorganization and computerization of credit record keep-
ing, accounting, and administration which was completed in 1979.-/
6. Poor record keeping had a strong negative impact on loan collections in
two ways. First, in many instances, farmers were simply not contacted
by EORD personnel when credit installments became due. All evidence
suggests that when farmers in the region fully understand their credit
obligations, they take them seriously. The vast majority make every
effort to make required payments even if they must liquidate household
assets to do so. Second, poor record keeping and extremely frequent
personnel movements led to loose program administration which permitted
substantial embezzlement of farmer credit payments by some extension
agents and subsector chiefs. In some individual cases, this embezzle-
ment amounted to over 200,000 CFA.
7. Finally, improvements in the EORD rural credit system instituted in
1978 and 1979 did not show a positive impact on system performance in
1979-80 since there was an agent boycott of credit collections through
most of the collection period.
The following factors should contribute to substantial improvement in
credit administration and repayment:
1. The rate of growth of EORD personnel has stabilized since 1978 and the
increase in the number of new loans has been fairly moderate.
2. Current field personnel have received substantial practical training in
credit administration.

1/The results of this inventory are reported in ORD de 1'Est, BDC (1979).

2/This program is discussed in Stickley (1980a, 1980b, and 1980c).

3. The new computerized system of credit administration has been in effect
for about one year. This system has streamlined required paperwork and
has made it more possible to assure program continuity even if there are
continued personnel movements. It has also substantially decreased the
potential for the embezzlement of credit payments. In fact, of the
payments received during 1979-80, a substantial proportion involved
voluntary reimbursement to the EORD of funds previously misused by
field personnel.
4. Computer reports can now indicate those sectors and subsectors where
repayment rates are low, calling for greater collection effort.

3.2. Marketing
ORD's have traditionally provided marketing services for cash and food
cropS. Marketing was a key component in the intensive zone strategy of the USAID
IRD project However, the decision by the GOUV to concentrate cereals marketing
acti ities in the hands of OFNACER (Office National des Cereales) has severely
handicapped the EORD. While OFNACER provides a base price for cereals, its
acti ns are fairly limited and unpredictable. Thus, farmers still complain that
marketing is their number one constraint. In addition, lack of readily available
capital and transportation facilities and poor national price policies have
discouraged EORD cash crop marketing.
The EORD has, however, intervened in the grain marketing system by supplying
short-term credit to village groups so they can buy grain at harvest time for
local "cereal banks", when farmers need money and when the price of grain is low.
The group then resells the grain at a later date when prices have risen. In some
areas, the profits, which in the past have gone to large grain merchants, now
sta) within the region. Unfortunately, this is being done only on a limited

3.2.4. Animal Insurance
For oxen traction users, the animals represent the most expensive part of
the package; losing one can spell disaster for a farmer, and may lead him to
abandon animal traction. A significant new addition to the ANTRAC package in the
Eas ern Region has been compulsory animal insurance for both donkeys and oxen.
For a total of 15,000 FCFA for a pair of oxen and 3,750 FCFA for a donkey, the
ani als are insured for a period of five years against death by sickness or
unavoidable accidents.

3.2.5. Types of Draft Animals
The EORD offers credit and assistance to farmers to purchase three different
types of animal power systems: two oxen, one ox, or one donkey.- Each system
has benefits and drawbacks:
1. A pair of oxen provides the most power. Their value appreciates during
the working years, but they are difficult to feed and initially very
expensive. The 1980 price of a good three year old pair was about
70,000 FCFA but the EORD offered a maximum loan of only 55,000 FCFA.
As a result, farmers often bought young or sickly animals when they
could not afford to pay extra for a good pair.
2. A single ox is cheaper, easier to feed, and easier to handle than a pair
of oxen. Crop maintenance operations can be performed more easily using
one strong ox than using a pair of weak oxen. By comparison with a
donkey, the single ox is stronger and it appreciates in value, although
it is more expensive and more difficult to maintain.
3. The donkey is the cheapest animal (about 15,000 FCFA in 1980), and the
easiest to train, handle, and maintain. However, the value of a donkey
does not appreciate and it is not as strong as oxen.
This choice of animal power system provides the flexibility that is needed
to adapt ANTRAC technology to a wide range of family sizes, family wealth posi-
tions, and local agro-climatic conditions. For example, a dryland farmer with
sandy soils in the northern part of the Eastern Region might choose donkey
traction because of the difficulty of feeding oxen and because he does not need
as much power to cultivate his sandy soils. Another farmer, next to an irrigated
perimeter, might prefer oxen because rice straw is available to feed them and
because oxen are needed to prepare heavy bottomland soils.

3.2.6. Animal Training
In past projects, pre-trained animals have been sold to farmers. The
teaching of training techniques was left to extension agents. This failed since
the agents often did not have the necessary knowledge, time, or inclination. The
EORD currently teaches farmers how to choose and train animals themselves. This

/There are only two farmers in the Eastern Region who currently use horse
traction. Horses are as expensive as an ox, difficult to maintain, and, since
they are considered prestige symbols, farmers are reluctant to use them for work.
They walk faster than oxen, but the sustained effort of the small horses found
locally is not as great.

is n important ingredient in a self-sustaining system. The EORD has now hired
10 oxen trainers (bouviers) to help farmers. This program seems to be working
very well. The results of a survey show that 92.3 percent of the farmers who had
received their oxen and equipment between January and June of 1979 had had
assistance in training their animals. The amount of time worked by the animals
during the first year was also significantly increased by the efforts of the
bouvi ers.1/

3.2.7. Livestock Extension
The EORD livestock bureau has a veterinary service as well as an animal
pro auction extension service. The veterinary service is generally understaffed
and poorly equipped. As a result, only 26 percent of oxen and 3 percent of
don eys purchased for the 1979-80 campaign were vaccinated.2/ The EORD hired six
new livestock extension agents in 1980 to help vaccinate animals. However, the
supply of equipment and delivery of veterinary medicines is still inadequate and
must be improved.
The animal production extension service is a new effort for the EORD, which
has traditionally concentrated on vaccination programs. Livestock extension
agents will be responsible for teaching farmers how to formulate rations for dry
season maintenance of draft animals and for fattening older oxen for resale as
meat animals. Dry Season Feeding
Forage production for dry season feeding is important in maintaining ani-
mals in good shape for the plowing season, the time when maximum effort is
demanded. Table 3.3 shows results from observation trials on numerous forage
species carried out by the EORD to determine those best suited to local farming
systems.3 Species with promising production potential are available for most
ecological zones in the Eastern Region. The best alternatives seem to be:
(a) planting pure stands of short-cycle mung beans in late July; or (b) inter-
cropping high yielding cowpea varieties with cereal crops. The disadvantage of
(b) is that serious insect problems occur if more than 25 percent of the field

1/For more details, see ORD de 1'Est, BPA (1980), pp. 12-13.

2/Based on a survey of 117 farmers made in December, 1979. See ORD de
l'Est, BPA (1980), p. 21.
3/See Barrett (1979b).


Minimum Dry Matter
Rainfall Production
Species Common Requirement Preferred at Fada
and Varieties Names (mm) Soil Type Kg./Ha.a Observations

Phaseolus Siratro 600 Well drained, 1,005 Produced well in pure stands as
Macroptilium sandy well as in grass-legume mix-
tures. Remains green into

Stylosanthes Brazil 900 Poorer soils 916 Takes two years to establish.
Gracilis lucerne clay or

Phaseolus Mung 600 1,004 Short-cycle (45 days to flower-
aureus bean ing produces best in a pure
"MG55" stand.
Vigna Cowpeas 600 Clay, well 2,750 There are many problems with
unguiculata (Niebe) drained insects in pure stands.
"Vita I"

Brachiaria Congo 1,000 Rich, well 3,718
ruziziensis grass drained

Sorghum Forage 500 Clay, well 4,050 Difficult to convince farmers
bicolor sorghum drained to grow sorghum for forage.

Sorghum Columbus 400 Clay, bottom 2,570 Although less productive,
almum grass lands easier to vulgarize.

yields of pure stands during the 1978-79 cropping season.


is pl nted in cowpeas. Also, most high yielding varieties of cowpeas are spread-
ing t pes which interfere with weeding.

3.2.7. 2. Fattening of Old Oxen for
Resale as Meat Animals
armers already know the value of raising oxen for meat. In three cases
during the early part of 1980, farmers in the Fada Sector were able to sell oxen
for 70,000 to 90,000 FCFA a piece. In each case, the farmers had worked their
animas four years, and in each case they bought a new pair for about 70,000
The marketing outlet provided by ONERA (Office National de 1'Exploitation
des Ressources Animales) should encourage fattening schemes, since they buy by
weight and by animal quality. ONERA is willing to buy animals where lots of at
leas 10 animals can be assembled in each village of a zone supplying at least 30
anim ls. However, the EORD program to encourage farmers to fatten old oxen-/ has
not worked very well owing to lack of available supplemental feeds during the dry
seas n.

3.2. Equipment
The EORD began its animal traction program by selling imported, Bourguignon
plow A six-inch plow (Tom 14) was sold for donkey traction and a nine-inch
plow (BM2M) for oxen. Three-tined weeders and ridgers that can be mounted on the
BM2M have been manufactured locally by COREMMA. The equipment is favored by
farm rs because of its light weight, but it has become difficult to find spare
part .
Plows produced in Upper Volta were introduced in the Eastern ORD in 1976.
The first to be distributed was the HV1B, a nine-inch ox plow made in Ouagadou-
gou. This is a solid plow, although farmers complain that it is too heavy and the
hand es are too high. Three- and five-tined weeders were also available. Unfor-
tunately, many of the parts (i.e., plowshares and wheels) are not interchangeable
with later models and again farmers have had difficulty finding spares.
In early 1977, an equipment assembly plant was opened by the EORD in Fada
N'G urma as part of the COREMMA (Cooperative Regional de Montage de Materiel
Agricole) system. Since then, it has produced 2,150 plows, 2,400 weeders, 1,250
riders, and 400 carts. The EORD manages this installation. Duty-free raw
materials are sold to the Fada plant by ARCOMA (Atelier Regional pour la Con-
str action de Materiel Agricole) which is the parent organization. ARCOMA does

1/See ORD de 1'Est (1977).

most of the heavy work requiring expensive machines such as bending the plow
beams. They are also responsible for making design changes in existing equipment
and for developing new tools for specialized tasks such as bund formation.
COREMMA produces two lines of equipment, illustrated in Figure 3.1. The
first is the HV2B multi-cultivator for oxen. It is based on a nine-inch plow
with a steel beam. Besides the normal trapezoidal plow shares, a new model with
a chisel point is now available to help break hardened soils before the rains
start. The cultivator, which accepts the plow handle and wheel, has five flexi-
ble tines. It comes with scarifying shares and weeding shares. Rigid tines can
also be mounted on the cultivator frame for scarification of hard soils. As of
1980, these were only available for demonstration purposes. An adjustable-wing
ridger can be fitted to the plow beam. A prototype peanut lifter has also been
The second line is the HV2A multi-cultivator designed for donkey traction.
It is based on a six-inch moldboard plow, and it has a three-tined cultivator as
an accessory. There is no ridger available so ridging must be done with the
An advantage of the COREMMA equipment is that certain parts are interchange-
able between the donkey and oxen multi-cultivators. This reduces the cost of
changing from one type of traction animal to the other. Furthermore, it reduces
the number of parts which must be stocked by the EORD. ARCOMA has already made
some improvements in the equipment. For 1981, the plows were given adjustable
handles, the cultivator frame and HV2A plow beam were made lighter, and the
cultivator tines were reinforced.
COREMMA manufactures three types of carts. These include two donkey carts
which are designed for a maximum load of 500 kgs. In the first, the chassis is
set up above the wheels, whereas in the second, the chassis sits directly on the
axle and it has a sheet metal bed and sides. Farmers generally prefer the latter
because it is more maneuverable and has metal sides which facilitate the trans-
port of sand and gravel. The ox cart has a one-ton capacity. Again, the chassis
is set above the wheels and the cart is delivered without sides. Farmers have
often stated that this cart is too bulky for use on bush trails. It has not had a
very wide acceptance, except in Bogande where there are many roads and little
competition with other types of transport.
The EORD has developed a prototype animal-drawn, water-lift system (the
dalou) which is now installed in Tiparka, near Fada. This will be of special


Flexible Tined Weeder
5 Tines

9 Inch

Flexible Tined Weeder
3 Tines

6 Inch Moldboard

Scarifying Shares


interest for irrigation of gardens in such areas as Logobou and Piela where the
water table is fairly high during the harmattan season.
COREMMA has been able to produce a large number of multi-cultivators but the
equipment often arrives on the farm too late to be used during the first year.
While the actual assembly operation is efficient and well-run, the supply of raw
materials is erratic and slow. This is partially due to ARCOMA not delivering
inputs on time. However, there is much room for improvement of the financial and
logistical management of COREMMA in order to avoid such pitfalls as ordering the
wrong size or type of part and setting inappropriate prices. If the EORD
continues to manage the operation, they should seek personnel with experience in
machinery manufacture and marketing.

3.2.9. The Supply of Spare Parts
The CNPAR (Centre National de Perfectionnement des Artisans Ruraux) in
Ouagadougou has trained about 10 blacksmiths from the region as a first step in
creating a network of skilled workers to repair and provide spare parts for the
ANTRAC equipment package. CNPAR planned to open a regional training center in
Fada in late 1981.
Since there have not been enough of these specialized blacksmiths in all
parts of the region, the EORD has taken an active role in assuring the supply of
spare parts. It has contracted with the existing blacksmiths to manufacture plow
shares, plow soles, and yokes. The contracts enable the EORD to control the
quality of the material and provide incentives to the blacksmiths for timely
delivery. The blacksmiths, armed with the EORD's order, are able to get quality
raw materials on credit from SACS (Service d'Assistance, de Conseil et de Sou-
tien), a branch of the CNPAR. The EORD gets certain stock parts such as nuts and
bolts from ARCOMA.
Although the EORD is now trying to standardize the equipment delivered to
farmers, there are 9 different types of plows, 5 weeders, 4 ridgers, and 3 carts
which are currently being used in the region. The supply of parts for all this
equipment is a logistical nightmare. There are 26 different parts on the HV2B
multi-cultivator alone which will eventually wear out. While many of these parts
are interchangeable with parts on other plows, there are probably over 100 parts
which must be kept in stock for all of the material currently being used.

3.2.10. Conclusion
The Eastern ORD is a relatively young organization which has enormous re-
sponsibilities. Because of rapid expansion in recent years, both in terms of


personnel and projects undertaken, there has been a lack of coordination and
plaFning of ANTRAC activities. The recent arrival of new upper-level management
personnel who have good technical backgrounds should help to overcome this prob-
The EORD's current program differs from earlier attempts to introduce ani-
mal traction in that it is based on the establishment of a "critical mass" of
par icipating farmers and on the widespread provision of institutionalized sup-
port services for all phases of farming with draft animals. It remains to be
seen whether the EORD can maintain and improve these support services over the
nex; five to ten years, as will be necessary if animal traction is to become a
viable, self-sustaining technology in Eastern Upper Volta.


This chapter uses farm survey and other data to provide an in-depth analysis
of the technical impact of the Eastern ORD animal traction program at the farm
level. The topics covered in this chapter include the husbandry of draft ani-
mals, farmer use of recommended tillage practices, the use of work animals for
transportation, and an assessment of the impact of ANTRAC technology on total
acreage, yields, income, cropping patterns, and allocation of household labor.
The technical analysis of animal traction at the farm level will set the stage
for an economic analysis of the program in Chapter 5.

4.1. Overview of the Traction Sample
As we have pointed out earlier, there are important demographic and socio-
economic characteristics which distinguish our purposive sample of 125 animal
traction farmers from the randomly selected sample of 355 traditional households
using hoe cultivation. The traction farmers in our sample were identified by
extension agents as the most successful ANTRAC users in the region. The objec-
tive was to select a sample of the "best" animal traction farmers in order to
assess the potential of animal traction in the region. As a result, the surveyed
ANTRAC farmers were slightly atypical in that they were wealthier-/ and more
educated than average hoe farmers. Due to the recovery of the EORD ANTRAC
program, the level of experience was not high among surveyed ANTRAC farmers,
despite the selection process. Fifty-eight percent of oxen farmers had less than
three years of experience with ANTRAC, compared to 23 percent of donkey farmers.
The breakdown of animal traction farmers surveyed in 1978-79 by type of
draft animal used for the majority of fieldwork operations is presented in Table
4.1. The relative proportion of oxen and donkey traction in the sample reflects
the incidence of these two draft animal types in early 1978, when the sample was
selected. At that time, only 42 percent of the draft animal units distributed by
the EORD were donkeys. By 1980, however, donkey traction had become more wide-
spread than ox cultivation by a margin of about 1.4 to 1.

4.2. Purchase, Sale, and Training of Draft Animals
4.2.1. Animal Purchases
Extension agents are supposed to participate in all ANTRAC animal purchases
for which EORD credit is provided. For farmers in our sample with less than

/When evaluated on the basis of key consumer durables that are not strictly
essential for survival, such as bicycles, mopeds, radios, and kerosene lamps, see
Lassiter (1980), Table 15, page 23.


Type of Animal Used Number Number of Traction Units
for the Majoribty of
o Field Work- Farmers Pairs Single

Oxer 72c/ 83 7

Don eys 52d/ 3.5 75

124- 86.5 82

/T action Unit = 2 oxen or 1 donkey.
b/Horse traction is not analyzed in this report because only one farmer in the
original sample of 125 traction farmers owned a horse.

C/For the 72 farmers who primarily used oxen, 63 owned one pair, 8 owned two
pairs, and 1 owned four pairs. No farmer used a single ox.
d/f the 52 farmers who used donkeys: 1 used a borrowed animal; 31 owned 1; 17
owned 2; 2 owned 3; and 1 owned 4 donkeys.
eleven of the 124 farmers owned both oxen and donkeys. Six of them used their
xen and five did not.

three years of experience, extension agents assisted in the purchase of 83
percent of their oxen but only 8 percent of their donkeys.
Crossbreeds (Zebu x Taurin) are generally recommended by extension agents
for draft purposes because of their tolerance to trypanosomiasis and their more
compact conformation. However, 66 percent of the oxen bought by our sample
farmers were Zebus.1/ This could be due to their larger size and their greater

4.2.2. Castration and Placement of Nose Rings
Both castration and the placement of nose rings are designed to facilitate
the handling of oxen. In our sample, 88 percent of the oxen were castrated and 92
percent had nose rings. Most of the animals which had not received these
operations came from Ougarou area where ANTRAC has only recently been intro-
duced.-3 In Diabo, these services are performed by farmers themselves in many
cases. This suggests a need for EORD assistance in performing these services in
areas such as Ougarou where ANTRAC has been recently introduced.
Farmers in our sample reported that 70 percent of their oxen were castrated
when they were 3 years or older. This is not a recommended practice because the
trauma associated with castration is greater for older animals. Since farmers
must buy what is available (generally bulls), they should either buy them at a
young age and castrate them or leave them intact. The latter is probably
preferable, since spirited animals are desirable for draft purposes.

4.2.3. Animal Training
Table 4.2 shows the percentage of animals trained by different categories
of people.4/ Eighty-seven percent of the donkeys and 80 percent of the oxen were
trained by the farmer or a friend. Only 15 farmers had their oxen trained by an
extension agent. Extension agents generally do not get involved in animal
training because they often lack training and confidence.-5

l/This figure is approximate because it was difficult for interviewers to
recognize the breed of oxen in all cases.

2/Approximately 60 to 70 percent of all cattle in the EORD are Zebu.

3/Twelve out of 18 uncastrated oxen and 7 out of 15 without nose rings were
located in Ougarou.

4/There were no "bouviers" (farmers hired by the EORD as animal trainers) at
the time of our survey.

5/Thirteen out of the fifteen farmers whose animals were trained by exten-
sion agents were from Ougarou.





Extension Agent 13.5 20

Fri nd 13.5 3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0

The average age of oxen surveyed was 3.4 years at purchase. Fifty-two
percent were bought at age 4 or 5 when it is more difficult to train the animals
and when they are more expensive. All working oxen surveyed were between the
ages of 3 and 8 years old. There was no evidence of farmers working their animals
bey nd their maximum age of approximately eight years.

4.2 4. Sale of Draft Animals
Farmers sold 19 oxen and 10 donkeys during the 1978/79 survey year.- Five
of he oxen were sick and farmers managed to salvage 52 percent of the purchase
pri e by selling them. Another seven oxen were healthy but they were sold after
only two years' work because they were either too lazy or too aggressive to be
trained.2/ Farmers had worked the remaining seven oxen for four or five years so
the animals were in prime condition when they were sold. Farmers, on the
ave age, sold these animals for over three times the original purchase price.
Eight of the ten farmers who sold donkeys owned two or more and can be
considered to be donkey traders. The average donkey sale price was 73 percent
ab ve the original purchase price. All of the donkeys sold were in good health
at the time of sale.

1/The number of draft animal sales is probably underestimated because we
fo nd it difficult to distinguish between draft oxen sales and the sale of
ordinary cattle. In addition, our sample represents an incomplete cross-section
of the different stages of draft animal growth. Because of the large number of
relatively new ANTRAC farmers sampled, animal sales would be low.

2/The average sale price was 55 percent above the original purchase price.
Fo r of the five farmers involved in these sales came from Ougarou, another
in ication of the poor performance of farmers where ANTRAC is being introduced
fo the first time.

4.3. Animal Maintenance
4.3.1. Stabling and Feeding
Extension agents recommend that animals be kept on the farm in order to
avoid contact with disease-bearing herds from outside the region and to avoid the
greater danger of accidents when they are kept in the bush with Fulani herders.
The EORD credit system requires that animals be kept at home throughout the year
but farmers are sometimes forced to entrust their animals to the nomadic herders
when they do not have adequate feed resources or when they do not have enough
labor to feed them during the dry season. During the 1978/79 survey year, two-
thirds of the oxen in our sample were kept in the "concession"'" at night and put
out to pasture during the day. Most farmers who kept their oxen in the bush had
less than two years of experience with ANTRAC.
Ninety percent of donkey farmers kept their animals at the "concession" at
night during three-fourths of the year because of the danger of leaving animals
unprotected in the bush. When donkeys are left in the bush, they must fend for
themselves because the Fulani are not willing to herd donkeys. Also, many more
donkeys than oxen were used for carting during the dry season so farmers had more
reason to keep them at home.-2
Seventeen farmers (24 percent) experienced difficulties in feeding their
oxen. A lack of feed and watering facilities was cited as a major problem. Most
farmers (53 percent) were inexperienced. As was the case with oxen, 25 percent
of donkey farmers complained of having problems with feeding their animals.

4.3.2. Cost of Feeding Animals
In general, the cash expense of maintaining a pair of oxen is about four
times that for a donkey. This is an important consideration for a farmer faced
with the choice between the two types of animals. The expenses for feeding
donkeys and oxen are presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Approximately 50 percent
of the cash costs of feeding oxen are incurred in the period of May through July
when animals are required to work the hardest.3/ Salt and grain accounted for
the largest amounts during this period for both types of animals. Farmers with

"Homestead or compound.

2/Thirteen farmers used their donkeys and only one farmer used his oxen for
carting in the dry season.

3/This is also the period when farmers purchased the largest amount of food
for their families.


FCFA By Quarter
T pe of May-July August- Nov.-Jan. Feb.-April
nimal 1978 Oct. 1978 1979 1979 Total

Oxen (2) 1,993 355 660 796 3,804

Dorkey (1) 466 130 244 98 938


Type of Expense Oxen Donkeys
(Percent) (Percent)

Mi let and Sorghum 13.0 22.4

Fo age 11.2 15.1

Mi let and Sorghum Bran 6.9 8.9

Salt 36.1 19.9

Me dicine 18.2 10.5

Ro e 4.8 18.9

Labor 7.0 4.3

Other 2.8 0.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0

oxen, however, spent an average of 337 FCFA on medicine during the survey year.
Expenses were lower during the August through October period when forage is
plentiful and animals are generally in their best shape. In November through
January, cash expenses increased and a major proportion was spent on purchasing
crop residues to store for the dry season.- The major expenses for oxen in the
fourth quarter were salt, medicine, and grain.

4.3.3. Animal Health
Eighty-eight percent of oxen and 37 percent of donkeys in our sample had
been "vaccinated" at least once in 1978.-2 In order for a prophylactic treatment
to be effective against trypanosomiasis, the animals should be treated at least
three times and preferably four times in heavily infested areas. An ideal
program would also vaccinate at least against rinderpest and contagious bovine
pleuropneumonia. According to the Chief of the Livestock Service, he has neither
the staff nor the equipment to carry out a vaccination program of this magni-
Morbidity rates are quite high among surveyed animals in 1978-79--24.7
percent for oxen and 20.2 percent for donkeys. "Trypanosomiasis" and "mange or
streptotrichosis" were cited by farmers as the most serious health problems for
oxen./ The most serious problem for donkeys in terms of the number of work days
lost was described by farmers as "Polio." This may be osteomalacia caused by a
phosphorus deficiency. Most of the cases occurred during the dry season when P
levels in crop residues and range grasses are extremely low. However, brucel-
losis is very common in the area and symptoms associated with that disease could
be ascribed to "polio."

lOxen farmers spent 44 percent of their total cash expenses on forages in
this third period and donkey farmers 52 percent. Most farmers do not produce
enough crop residues on their own farms to feed their animals for the entire
year. The average amounts spent annually per household on supplemental forages
was relatively low (490 FCFA for oxen and 205 FCFA for donkey farmers).

-/The figure for oxen is perhaps somewhat unrepresentative because a study
carried out by BDC in 1978 showed that only 54 percent of all oxen in the Eastern
ORD had been vaccinated.

!/Personal communication, Dr. Derra, March, 1980.

4This may be an overestimate. Trypanosomiasis is difficult to diagnose
even for experienced veterinary assistants. Moreover, the Gourmantche and More
words for trypanosomiasis are often used as catchalls for chronic diseases.


Table 4.5 shows that animal health problems were common and sometimes due to
farmer negligence (lacerations). The table also shows that the incidence of
illness falls more heavily on oxen than on donkeys.
During the survey year, the oxen of 31 farmers (43 percent) fell sick at
least once. Eleven farmers, or 21 percent of the households which owned donkeys,
had animals which fell sick during the year. Because of the importance of timely
seecbed preparation and weeding it is essential that animals are in good health
during this period. However, 22 percent of the ox teams had at least one animal
too sick to work during this crucial period whereas only 6 percent of the donkeys
wer sick.

4.3 4. Treatment of Diseases and Mortality Rates
During the survey year, there were 60 cases of illness of oxen and donkeys
ser ous enough to prevent them from working but farmers contacted a veterinary
assistant or an extension agent in only 43 percent of these cases. Farmers may
hav avoided the high cost of treatment by EORD personnel- or doubted the
uti ity of seeking help from the ill-equipped and understaffed Livestock Ser-
vic .
Farmers get most of their veterinary medicines from sources outside the
EOR Only a third of the purchases of commonly used medicines such as penicil-
lin, injections, and pills were purchased from the EORD. The balance was either
bought from a pharmacy or the black market. Home remedies, such as motor oil,
salt, sugar, and various herbal concoctions, were used in 46 percent of the cases
of disease.
Although the number of cases of sickness decreased during the harvest and
dr season periods, the severity of cases generally increased, as can be seen by
the average number of days lost per week in Table 4.6. This can be partially
explained by poorer nutrition and decreased resistance to disease; especially
du ing the dry season. Since many animals would not have worked even if they
were healthy during these two periods, farmers probably applied a different stan-
dard as to what constituted an "animal too sick to work," so even this high
morbidity rate may be underestimated.

1The costs may be high relative to treatment by indigenous methods. The
ac ual costs of the Livestock Service are heavily subsidized but farmers often
mu t pay for the gasoline required to bring the veterinary assistant to his farm.


Oxen Donkeys
Number Number
Number of Days Percentage Number of Days Percentage
of Lost Due to of Total of Lost Due to of Total
Type of Problem Cases Sickness Time Lost Cases Sickness Time Lost

1. "Trypanosomiasis"
(Trypanosomiasis, intestinal worms,
liverfluke disease, any other
chronic wasting diseases) 14 420 34.7 -

2. Mange or Streptotrichosis 7 357 29.5 -

3. "Boils on Mouth" (Foot and
Mouth Disease, BVD) 3 140 11.6 -

4. Broken Horn or Laceration on Head 8 136 11.2 5 28 5.3

5. "Polio" (Osteomalacia, due to a
P. Deficiency, or Arthritis,
Bursitis, due to Brucellosis) 3 79 6.5 2 168 31.5

6. Sunstroke or Heat Exhaustion 2 42 3.5 -

7. "Boil on Eyes" (Pink Eye, either
viral or bacterial, or due to
Thelasia Worms) 2 23 1.9 5 74 13.9

8. Digestive Disorders (Constipation
or Diarrhea) 2 10 0.8 1 56 10.5

9. Snake Bites 1 3 0.6

10. Unspecified 2 5 0.3 3 204 38.2

TOTAL 43 1,212 100.0 17 533 100.0

Table 4.6.


Plowing Time Weeding & Ridging Harvest Period-/ Dry Season-/
May 1-July 16 July 17-Oct. 1 Oct. 2-Jan. 28 Jan. 29-April 30
(11 weeks) (11 weeks) (17 weeks) (13 weeks)
Oxen Donkeys Oxen Donkeys Oxen Donkeys Oxen Donkeys

Number of Animals Sick 19 5 19 3 8 6 8 5

Percentage of Animal Units
Which Lost Work Time
Due to Sickness 21.8 6.0 21.8 3.6 9.2 7.2 9.2 6.0

Average Number of Days Lost
by Sick Animal Unit. 9.9 4.8 29.4 6.7 26.4 64.2 31.9 20.8

Average Number of Days
Lost Per Week 0.9 0.4 2.7 0.6 1.6 3.8 2.5 1.6

-/The harvest period is the time when crop residues and standing hay are plentiful and of relatively good
quality so nutrition should be fairly good.

b/The dry season is the period when range hay is of lowest value and crop residues are often missing.

The mortality rate among oxen was much higher than that for donkeys. Eight
oxen died during the 1978-79 survey year for a mortality rate of 4.5 percent.-
The single donkey death during the year represents a mortality rate of 1.2
percent. This rate is significantly lower than for oxen and is a reflection of
the endurance of donkeys.

4.3.5. Animal Insurance
During the 1978/79 survey year, only 20 percent of the oxen owned by the
surveyed farmers and 13 percent of the donkeys were insured. These figures are
probably much higher now because of the EORD's subsequent requirement that all
animals bought on credit must be insured. Since insurance is a new concept for
both farmers and extension agents, it will take some time for the concept to
become an accepted management strategy.
The insurance rates of 3,000 FCFA per year for oxen appear to be reasonable,
given the 4.5 percent mortality rates observed.-' For donkeys, however, the rate
of 750 FCFA per donkey per year seems high and we recommend lowering it to
600 FCFA per year. Even if the observed mortality rate of 1.2 percent increased
to 3 percent per year and a 10 percent administration fee is included, the rate
of 600 FCFA per donkey per year would cover the 18,000 CFA replacement cost of a

4.4. Use of Animal Traction for Tillage
4.4.1. Ownership and Use of Tillage Equipment
Table 4.7 shows the relationship between the length of experience with
ANTRAC and the amount of equipment owned. All of the sample farmers owned a
plow. Farmers with greater ANTRAC experience owned more equipment. Sixty
percent of the farmers with more than three years of experience owned weeders or
ridgers, while only 19 percent of farmers using oxen for less than three years
owned a weeder or ridger.

1Three died from unknown causes, two from snake bites, one from a broken
leg, one from a pulmonary disease, and one from an accident.

-/It is not known how the original rate of 3,000 FCFA/year/pair was calcu-
lated. It does seem reasonable if one assumes the following: (a) a 5 percent
annual mortality rate; (b) 10 percent of the farmer's premium is used to pay
administrative costs; (c) average salvage value of 8,000 to 10,000 FCFA; and
(d) only partial replacement cost reimbursement in order to discourage false
claims. This means that if an animal died and the farmer collected insurance he
would only have to pay between 8 and 12 percent of the cost of purchasing a new
pair of oxen.

Table 4.7.


Number of Years of Experience With ANTRAC
Ox Traction Farmers Donkey Traction Farmers
Equipment 0-2 Years 3-6 Years 7-28 Years 0-2 Years 3-6 Years 7-28 Years

Plow Only 34 6 6 9 20 7

Plow and Weeder 0 0 1 3 5 2

Plow, Weeder, Ridger 7 8 9 0 4 2

Plow and Ridger 1 0 0 0 0 0

Total Number 42 14 16 12 29 11

Percent Who Owned
a Weeder and/or
a Ridger 19 57 63 25 31 36

/This is based on equipment owned by May 1978
received during June and July of 1978.

and does not include weeders and ridgers which farmers

About two-thirds of the ANTRAC farmers in the sample did not own a weeder
because it was either too expensive (26 percent) or the EORD had not made them
available for purchase (34 percent). Only 7 percent of the farmers said they did
not want to purchase a weeder. Three-quarters of the farmers did not own a
ridger. Thirty percent said they wanted one but the EORD had not yet supplied
one, and 44 percent said they thought the ridger was too expensive. Only 4
percent said they did not want one.
In general, Table 4.8 shows that most farmers who owned the tillage equip-
ment used it. All of the sampled farmers owned a plow. The eight oxen farmers
who did not plow had only one or two years of experience with ANTRAC. Donkey
farmers tend to use this equipment less than oxen farmers. When asked why they
did not use the weeder or ridger, 42 percent of the farmers said their donkeys
were not strong enough to pull the equipment. Fifty percent gave the following
reasons for not using the equipment: they had not received the equipment until
the year of the survey, animals were not trained, or they had not planted in
rows. Of the oxen owners not using their weeding equipment, 60 percent said they
had not planted in lines while 40 percent reported that their animals were not
well enough trained to do the work.

4.4.2. Performance of Tillage Operations
Table 4.9 shows that the length of experience with ANTRAC is a major deter-
minant of whether farmers used oxen or donkeys in performing different tillage
operations. Since plowing is the easiest operation to master and the benefits of
plowing are the most readily apparent, it is understandable that 82 percent of
the farmers with less than two years experience plowed and all farmers with more
than two years of experience plowed.
Although fewer farmers weed and ridge,1- a greater proportion of experi-
enced farmers performed the operations. Twenty-seven percent of experienced
donkey farmers and 56 percent of experienced oxen farmers weeded with ANTRAC.
Oxen farmers who weeded had an average of 11 years of experience, whereas donkey
farmers had only 6 years of experience.2/ Farmers must have confidence to be able

/The number of farmers who weeded and ridged is different than the number
who used weeding and ridging equipment because some used their plows for these

-/Eleven out of 31 farmers who weeded had three years or less of experience
with ANTRAC. Ten of the 11 lived in Diabo where traction has been used for 30

Table 4.8.


Plowing Weeding Ridging
Number of Number of Percent Number of Percent Number of Percent
Type of Farmers Farmers Who Farmers Who Farmers Who
Draft in Who Owned Used Who Owned Used Who Owned Used
Animal Sample Plows Plows Weeders Weeders Ridgers Ridgers

Donkey 52 52 96.2 16 37.5 6 33.3

Oxen 72 72 88.9 25 68.0 25 68.0


No. of Years of Type of No. of Percentage of Farmers Who:
Experience With Draft Farmers
Animal Traction Animal in Sample Plowed Weeded Ridged

0-2 Years Donkey 12 83.3 16.7 16.7

3-6 Years Donkey 29 100.0 27.6 20.7

7-28 Years Donkey 11 100.0 27.3 9.1

Sub-Total Donkey 52 96.2 25.0/ 17.3b

0-2 Years Oxen 42 81.0 9.5 9.5

3-6 Years Oxen 14 100.0 35.7 42.9

7-28 Years Oxen 16 100.0 56.3 50.0

Sub-Total Oxen 72 88.9 25.0c/ 25.0d/

a/Including seven farmers who used their donkey plows to weed.

b/Five farmers used their donkey plows to ridge.

C/One farmer used his ox plow to weed.

d/One farmer used his ox plow to ridge.


to w ed. Furthermore, in order to weed and ridge with ANTRAC, farmers must learn
to p ant in rows. But farmers are reluctant to plant in rows because it involves
line, tracing, an additional time-consuming operation. More importantly, weeding
requ res well-trained animals to walk between the rows without damaging the
plants. Also, the weeding equipment is expensive. For oxen traction, for
example, the 24,460 FCFA price of a five-tined weeder and a ridger is 3,170 FCFA
greater than the price of a nine-inch plow./ The three-tined donkey weeder
costs 10,510 FCFA but many farmers prefer using their donkey plow to avoid the
exp nse 'and because they feel their donkeys are too weak to pull the weeder. The
use of a plow is not as efficient as the use of a 3- or 5-tined weeder.2-
Table 4.10 presents the percentage distribution of fieldwork time for don-
key and pairs of oxen. Assuming that animals are used an average of 4 hours per
working day, about half of the farmers used their donkeys and oxen less than 50
hours or 12 days during the entire 1978/79 survey year. This is an extremely low
rate of utilization and it has important cost recovery implications because the
ani als must be fed throughout the year whether they work or not.
Table 4.11 reveals that donkey farmers plowed a slightly larger area than
oxe farmers. Also, donkey farmers plowed 85 percent of their total area under
cul ivation while oxen farmers only plowed 59 percent. Not only were surveyed
oxe farmers less experienced with ANTRAC, but it also takes longer to learn how
to se the ox traction package.
Oxen farmers weeded and ridged a greater proportion of total area than
donkey farmers. Farmers in the two zones with the most experience with ANTRAC,
Diabo and Diapangou, weeded and ridged the largest proportion of their land.3
For farmers who performed the operations in these zones, oxen weeded 46 percent
of cultivated area and donkeys 39 percent; oxen ridged 52 percent of total area
while donkeys ridged 46 percent.
Farmers did very little custom field work. Donkey farmers spent less than 5
percent of their time on custom work whereas oxen farmers spent less than 14

1/1981 EORD prices for COREMMA equipment: 5-tined weeder, 18,410 FCFA; and
a ridger, 6,050 FCFA.
2Farmers using a six-inch plow should theoretically make at least five
pauses in a row to weed the 80 cm. width, but since the earth thrown up by the
pl covers weeds, normally only three passes are used.

3/Farmers from Diabo and Diapangou had an average of 5.5 years and 6 years
of experience with ANTRAC, respectively.


Number of Percentage of Draft Units Which Worked:
Draft Animal
Type of Units in 0.5 to 25 to 50 to 100 to Over 150
Draft Animal Sample 0 Hours 25 Hours 50 Hours 100 Hours 150 Hours Hours

Donkey 61 1.6 18.0 26.2 29.5 21.3 3.3

Oxen 80 11.3 8.8 25.0 33.8 15.0 6.3

-aThe Piela zone is excluded because of unreliable data during the rainy season.







Type of










of Total












of Total










of Total








percent. Plowing was the only type of custom work performed. Since seedbed
preparation must be completed in a relatively short time, most farmers do not
have time available for custom work. Income from custom work was likewise
minimal, averaging only 63 FCFA for donkey farmers and 530 FCFA for oxen farmers.

4.4.3. Equipment Repairs
During the survey year, 15 farmers had difficulty using their equipment
because of breakdowns. Oxen traction farmers spent an average of 1,380 FCFA for
repairs and donkey traction farmers spent 1,264 FCFA on repairs.

4.5. Use of Animal Traction for Transport
Sample farmers showed a strong preference for donkey carts. Thirty-five
farmers in the sample owned donkey carts and only seven owned oxen carts.1 The
preference for donkey carting is also reflected in Table 4.12 which shows that
donkey carts are used over four times as much as oxen carts: Most striking,
however, is the fact that of total time worked by the different animals, 49
percent of donkey time was spent carting whereas oxen spent only 4 percent of
their time carting.


Donkey Carts Ox Carts

Number Owned 35 7

Average Hours Worked Per Cart
During 1978 136 29

Some farmers specialize in carting wood for fuel and construction. Wood
transport accounted for 52 percent of total time spent carting. The transport of
agricultural produce accounts for another 21 percent.-/ Construction material,
water, and forages each accounted for between 5 and 7 percent of total time

-This includes five farmers who owned both a donkey cart and an oxen cart.
Two preferred to use their donkey cart and three preferred an oxen cart.

2/This includes transport of the farmer's own agricultural produce as well
as custom transport of the produce of other farmers.

carting. Most carting (45 percent) is done during the dry season when farmers
build houses, water is scarce, and farmers have slack time. Seventy-two percent
of the time spent carting in the dry season was spent carrying wood.
Donkey transport was concentrated in Logobou and Diapangou. Logobou is
isol ted and farmers rely on carts for much of their transport work. Diapangou
is in a relatively more monetized region on the main road and has been served by
extension activities for a long time. The 20 carts in these zones accounted for
80 p recent of the carting time and 84 percent of the revenue earned from carting
in our total sample.
Table 4.13 reveals that the rental of carts accounts for only 18 percent of
the otal carting time./ The average cash income from rental of donkey carts
was 1,981 FCFA; and 743 FCFA for ox carts. This seriously underestimates the
incoe generated by carting because it does not include revenue in-kind from
carting or income from the sale of the products transported. For example, the
major revenue from carting is from firewood which was either sold directly or
used by the farmer as fuel to produce other products, such as dolo or bean cakes.
Most of the recorded carting rental income (88 percent) came from the transport
of rops, baggage, and construction material.


Donkey Carts Ox Carts

Ave age Time Worked Per Cart Per Year (Hours) 136 29

Per entage of Time Used on Personal Work 72.4 80.8

Percentage of Time Loaned Out 9.4 8.4

Per entage of Time Rented Out 18.3 10.8

-/Only 16 of the 35 donkey carts were rented; these 16 carts earned an
ave age of 4,334 FCFA during the year. Only two of the seven oxen carts were
rented and they earned an average of 2,600 FCFA. Rental rates for donkey carts
were lower (87 FCFA/hour) than those for oxen carts (236 FCFA/hour), although
the latter is based on only two observations. Oxen carts have twice the capacity
of he 500 kg donkey carts.

Aside from hauling the farmer's own produce and firewood, the rationale for
carting is that it generates income, increases the utilization of draft animals
during the non-agricultural season, and helps keep the animals trained. Table
4.14 shows that the average total time worked by animal units during the year is
more than doubled by using a cart. Moreover, farmers with carts use their
animals throughout the year whereas farmers without carts only use animals during
the rainy season. This finding would seem to recommend a further promotion of
the use of carts. However, the market for carting services in an area can easily
become saturated. Farmers should carefully study the market for transportation
services before they invest in a cart.-


Average Total Hours Worked Per Animal Unit
May-July Aug.-Oct. Nov. 1978- Feb.-April
1978 1978 Jan. 1979 1979 Total

Farmers With Carts 55.9 26.4 25.1 47.2 154.6

Farmers Without Carts 53.4 10.6 64.0

/There are several important factors to take into consideration, including
the number of carts in the area, the demand for carting services, and the state
of the roads in the area. In Soudougui, farmers reported that they were no
longer using their oxen carts because of poor roads. In Bogande, there are more
good roads and farmers seem satisfied with their oxen carts.

4.6. Estimated Production Effects of Animal Traction
The purpose of this section is to estimate the effect of ANTRAC use on
cult vated area, crop mixture, and yields based primarily on the 1978-79 farm
survey data. In addition, data from the 1979 plowing and fertilizer field trials
are sed to provide better controlled estimates of the yield effect of ANTRAC.
Caution is necessary in interpreting the survey results. An "ideal evalua-
tion' of animal traction would follow particular farmers over a 5-10 year time
span In this study, however, we have had to rely on comparisons between hoe and
ANTR C farmers based on data from a single farm year, 1978-79. This has compli-
cate the analysis in two ways. First, the impact of ANTRAC can only be inferred
from cross-section comparisons between ANTRAC farmers and hoe farmers. Causali-
ty is difficult to establish because performance differences between the two
subsamples may not be attributable to ANTRAC alone. Due to the sampling proce-
dure, surveyed ANTRAC farmers tend to be more educated, innovative, and success-
ful than typical hoe farmers. Second, the large size of the Eastern Region and
its idely diverse agro-climatic, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics
all contribute to substantial variation in key performance indicators. Thus,
som performance indicators vary more between zones than they do between hoe and
traction farmers within each zone. Despite a large total sample size, the
relatively small zonal cell sizes (particularly for area and labor data) make it
difficult to separate the performance effects of ANTRAC from these exogenous
factors. For this reason, multiple regression and analysis of variance were used
whe e necessary to control for the effect of non-ANTRAC variables.

4.6 1. Area Effects of Animal Traction
As shown in Table 4.15, modest increases in cultivated area were found among
ANTRAC households. Total area cultivated (column 3) is substantially higher for
ANTRAC farms than for hoe farms, but this is primarily due to the larger overall
household size. Both total family size (column 1) and the number of active
wor ers/ per household (column 2) are appreciably higher for ANTRAC. Traction
households cultivate 5 percent more land per capital (column 4) than their hoe
counterparts, but this difference is not statistically significant.-

I/Defined as persons from 15 to 54 years old.

2Unless otherwise noted, all tests of statistical significance in this
report are based on a 95 percent confidence level.


Zone Animal
Diabo Oxen
Ougarou Oxen
Sub-totalc Oxen
Piela Donkey
Logobou Donkey
Diapangou Donkey
Sub-totalc Donkey

Number of
Rainy Season
6.83 11.34
7.92 12.10
i.09 11.52
6.33 10.67
9.48 11.73
7.75 12.00
8.26 11.53
7.68 11.53

Number of
Active Workers
15-54 Years
3.08 5.16
3.92 6.20
3.28 5.41
2.83 4.44
4.54 3.91
3.33 4.70
3.81 4.24
3.55 4.83

Total Area
3.98 7.44
3.61 5.15
3.89 6.89
3.56 5.18
4.68 4.91
4.12 6.35
4.26 5.34
4.08 6.10

per House-
hold Member
0.63 0.70
0.48 0.46
0.59 0.64
0.59 0.50
0.47 0.54
0.57 0.56
0.53 0.54
0.56 0.59

Active Worker
1.40 1.49
0.95 0.85
1.29 1.34
1.29 1.32
1.11 1.51
1.39 1.43
1.22 1.44
1.26 1.39

Change in Area
per Active
Worker Due

+ 6.4
+ 3.9
+ 2.3
+ 2.9

aThese figures are calculated only for the households for which there was area data, which includes only two thirds of the sample
in each zone. Thus, they differ slightly from those in Table 2.1 which provides estimates for the entire sample. Donkey or horse
farmers in areas where oxen traction predominates were excluded. Thus, 1 farmer from Ougarou and 4 from Diabo are eliminated. Like-
wise, oxen farmers in areas where donkey traction predominates were excluded so that 3 from Piela, 1 from Logobou, and 2 from Diapangou
are eliminated. Another farmer is missing from Ougarou because he had no area data.
bThe zonal averages for Column 4 and 5 are the averages of each household's value. In earlier reports we presented a figure
which represents the zone treated as one farm, i.e. we have divided the average farm size by the average number of household members
and active workers to arrive at the figure.
CFor the sub-totals, and totals, village averages were weighted differently because sub-sample sizes differed. See footnote 1,
page 13.










A better indication of the area effects of ANTRAC is area per active worker
(col mn 5), since adult labor is the major input in the region's agriculture and
is the primary constraint on farm production. As can be seen in column 6, ANTRAC
is associated with a 4 percent increase in area per active worker for the oxen
zones. Due to poor performance in the Ougarou oxen zone where there was actually
a de rease in area per active worker of about 10 percent, the overall increase
for oxen traction is not statistically significant.-1/ The increase in donkey
zone of 18 percent is statistically significant as is the increase of 10 percent
for reaction farmers overall.
In fact, differences in acreage per active worker vary more between geo-
grap ical zones than they do within each zone when comparing ANTRAC and hoe
farm rs. Farmers in the Diabo zone, for example, cultivate 60 percent more area
per worker than farmers in Ougarou. The possible effect of agro-climatic or
locational variables in determining area cultivated per worker explains our use
of ithin-zone paired comparisons between hoe and traction farmers.
It was expected that the impact of ANTRAC would be greater for more experi-
enced users. Surprisingly, analysis of the survey data did not demonstrate a
statistically significant relationship between cultivated area per active worker
and the number of years of ANTRAC experience. For practical reasons, our sample
was not specifically designed to facilitate analysis of the effect of ANTRAC
experience. Given the short history of ANTRAC and the geographical pattern of
its implementation in the EORD, most farmers tend to have the same level of
exp rience in a given zone.- Thus, it was not possible to select a subset of
suc essful ANTRAC farmers that was stratified by both zone and experience. In
addition, variation in performance was high even within a given experience cate-
gory and zone. Other indicators of experience were analyzed, but none indicated
a correlation between experience and superior performance.
Due to the limited use of weeders among sampled farmers, only a small amount
of data is available to estimate the area effect of the complete ANTRAC package.

1/The decrease in area per worker in Ougarou occurs for reasons mentioned
ear ier--lack of experience with the technology and lack of extension support.

2/For example, in Ougarou, 90 percent of ANTRAC farmers had only 2 years of
experience or less.

3/Within the one- to two-year experience category in the Lantaogo village of
the Diabo zone, the area per active worker ranges from 0.74 to 3.1 hectares.

Nonetheless, for the 12 oxen farmers with complete weeding data, the area culti-
vated per worker was 22 percent above that for oxen farmers who did not weed with
draft power. Such an area effect was not found for donkey traction. Based on
only 9 farms with donkey weeding data, the area per worker was 4 percent below
that of non-weeders. This result is probably not representative of donkey
weeding under optimal conditions, however, since most of the donkey weeding was
performed with a plow.- By contrast, most oxen weeding was conducted with a
weeder. In addition, farmers weeding with oxen had more experience than those
using donkeys (11 versus 6 years of experience, respectively).
In summary, the evidence of an acreage effect due to the use of ANTRAC
technology is mixed. While we have shown a 10 percent average increase in area
cultivated per active worker for animal traction users, this varies substantial-
ly among zones and between donkey and oxen farmers. The effect of ANTRAC on area
cultivated was negative or minimal in those zones where ANTRAC has been recently
introduced. For oxen farmers, the use of weeders was strongly related to
increased area per worker while this was not demonstrated for donkey farmers
practicing weeding.

4.6.2. Changes in Cropping Emphasis-2
Since sorghum and millet are the major staple foods in the region, the area
planted to these crops is determined primarily by the food consumption require-
ments of the household. The large area in these crops is the most significant
aspect of cropping mixtures in the Eastern Region. Area planted to these crops
accounts for almost 80 percent of area cultivated for hoe farmers and 75 percent
of area cultivated for traction farmers (see Table 4.16). In all zones except
Logobou, traction farmers have larger absolute areas of these two cereals in
order to feed their larger families. However, the proportion of total area
planted to cereals is slightly smaller in all zones except Diabo.-/

lAs discussed in Section 4.4, weeding with a plow is much slower than when
a weeder is used.

-2For further discussion of cropping patterns and the characteristics of
individual crop enterprises, see Lassiter (1981).

-The higher proportion of area planted to sorghum and millet in Diabo may
be due to the fact that fields in the Diabo traction sample are generally much
older and less productive than those for any other zone (see Table 9, p. 16 of
Baker and Lassiter, 1980).


Oxen Zones Donkey Zones Averages For
Oxen Donkey
Diabo Ougarou Piela loobou Diapangou Zones Zones All Zones
Crop Hoe Antrac Hoe Antrac Hoe An oe Antrac ~Hoe ntrac & Hoe Antrac H-oe Antrac Hoe Antrac
Sorghum/MilJet 77.8 79.4 81.8 71.3 78.9 70.9 77.2 67.3 90.8 78.4 79.1 77.5 81.0 71.8 80.1 74.7

Maize 1.0 2.5 11.2 9.6 3.5 3.8 2.2 2.3 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.8 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.4

Rice 2.1 2.2 1.5 7.4 2.2 0.8 3.5 2.9 0.3 1.4 1.9 3.5 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.8

Groundnuts 13.0 8.1 1.4 2.0 14.1 21.8 9.8 11.6 1.8 6.1 10.3 6.8 8.8 12.4 9.6 9.6
Bambara Nuts 1.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 '0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.5

Soybeans 0.5 3.2 0.5 3.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 4.7 0.8 4.5 0.5 3.9 0.4 3.6 0.5 3.8
Cotton -- 2.6 0.4 0.8 -- -- 0.6 2.7 -- 0.1 0.1 2.1 0.3 1.7 0.2 1.9

Tubers 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.7 -- -- 2.3 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9.
Gumbo -- 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.5 0.8 0.3

Other Crops 3.3 1.0 0.6 1.6 -- 1.1 1.1 5.1 1.8 4.5 2.7 1.0 1.0 3.4 1.8 2.0

Cash Cropsb 15.6 16.1 3.4 13.3 16.5 23.0 14.2 21.9 3.0 12.0 13.0 16.7 12.0 19.7 12.5 18.0
Legumesc 15.0 11.8 2.7 6.0 15.3 23.2 10.9 17.1 3.2 11.1 12.3 11.6 10.0 16.7 11.1 13.8

aThese figures were weighted in the same manner as Table 2.1.

b"Cash Crops" are rice, peanuts, soybeans and cotton.
CLegumes are peanuts, Bambara nuts and soybeans.

Overall, there is little major difference between the cropping mixtures of
ANTRAC and hoe households. The largest increases in cultivated area are in
soybeans, cotton, and rice. However, the shift into cash crops1/ is very slight,
representing an increase in the proportion of area from 13 percent for hoe
farmers to 18 percent for traction farmers. Further, the total area of cash
crops per household is small--1.2 ha for ANTRAC and 0.5 ha for hoe farms.

4.6.3. Yield Effects
The estimates of the yield effect of ANTRAC are based on data from both the
1978-79 farm survey and from 1979 plowing and fertilizer field trials. The yield
estimates presented here are weighted average yields.-' These yield estimates
are lower than yield plot estimates presented in an earlier report (Baker and
The crop yields presented in Table 4.17 are generally higher for ANTRAC
subsamples for most crops except soybeans. However, because of the small sample
size for minor crops, only maize yields in all zones and groundnuts in oxen zones
represent statistically significant yield increases. The most striking feature
concerning yields is that they are quite low in general and dramatically so in
the donkey zones, where half the sample (Piela and Diapangou) suffered severe
drought. This drought effect should be considered when evaluating the relative
performance of the donkey traction technology itself.
Average yield differences between hoe and traction farmers do not provide
conclusive evidence of the impact of ANTRAC because they do not control for many

1/Defined as rice, groundnuts, soybeans, and cotton.

2-Computationally, the weighted average yield represents the total harvest
of a given crop for all households in a specific zone divided by the total area in
that crop. An alternative estimate of yields is the average of the yields of
each household without regard to the area cultivated by each household. The
latter method gives high estimates because the high yields of small farms with
only small compound fields are weighted the same as the lower yields of large
farms using more extensive cultivation practices. The former method has some
intuitive appeal because it provides a yield estimate for an "average hectare."
Only unweighted yields are used to compute variances for tests of significance.

3/Subsequent analysis has led us to believe that yield plots overestimate
yields for a variety of reasons--the "border effect," placement bias favoring
better sections of a field or better fields, harvest error by the farmer, or
"lost" plots in abandoned fields which are excluded from the analysis.

ZONES, 1978-79 (kgs/hectare)

Zones Oxen Zones Donkey Zones


Millet and Sorghum 466 468 555 554 377 381

Groundnuts 213 238 59 179 366 296

Maize 425 686 500 746 349 585

Cotton 108b 171 118b 253 97b 88

ice 442 465 329 630 554 300

oybeans 283b 197 241b 294 324 99

aYields presented here are weighted averages per hectare based on
estimates of total household production in 1978-79. They are
alculated only for the two-thirds random subsample of farmers for
which complete cultivated acreage was measured.
bThese estimates are based on a small number of observations
presenting less than one hectare of cropland per zone.

factors that can obscure the results.I/ In addition, the yields for ANTRAC farms
presented in Table 4.17 are averaged across all cultivated fields, whether or not
they were plowed or weeded with animal power. Regression analysis of sor-
ghum/millet yields showed that yields were positively related to number of work-
ers and labor inputs per hectare, and negatively related to farm size; however,
the use of animal traction was not significantly related to yields.
The potential yield effects of animal traction were also evaluated based on
data from field trials conducted in 1979. The effects of plowing and the
application of natural phosphate fertilizer were tested in controlled experi-
ments under farm-level conditions on 19 peanut fields and 24 sorghum/millet
fields./ The farmers chosen were a subsample of the 1978-79 farm survey's
ANTRAC sample. Farmers from each of the five traction zones were represented.
Trial plots of 360 square meters were set out in each farmer's peanut and
sorghum fields, and then divided into four subplots measuring 6 meters by 15
meters. Before the harvest, a yield plot of 3 meters by 3 meters was delimited in
the center of each subplot. The four subplots consisted of: (a) a control plot
which was scarified manually with a hoe; (b) a second plot which received a
broadcast application of 150 kilograms per hectare of natural phosphate-/ which
was incorporated in the soil by manual scarification with a hoe; (c) a third plot
which received the same amount of phosphate incorporated by animal plowing; and
(d) a fourth plot which was plowed using animal traction, but received no phos-
As shown in Table 4.18, Treatment 4 (animal plowing only) produced an aver-
age increase in peanut yields of 18.2 percent. This amounts to an average 105.9

/In particular, the large agro-climatic variability makes yield compari-
sons difficult, despite the paired zonal comparison method used. Fields within
even one kilometer of each other can receive substantially different amounts and
patterns of rainfall.

?/Originally, 42 farmers participated in the trials. However, reliable
harvest data were obtained only for the 24 sorghum fields and 19 peanut fields.
3/The natural rock phosphate used comes from Kodjari in the Diapaga sector
of the EORD. It is composed of 64 percent Tricalcium phosphate and has 30
percent content in phosphorus pentoxide (P,0 ) and a 40 percent content in
quicklime or calcium oxide (CaO). It is crushed to a fineness such that 90
percent of the particles are smaller than 0.09 millimeters in diameter. The
solubility of the phosphate varies between 25 and 33 percent per year depending
on rainfall and other factors.

Table 4.18


Sorghum/Millet Groundnuts
Confidence Confidence
Interval Interval
at 95% at 95%
Treatment Certainty Treatment Certainty
treatment Results Level Results Level

yield of control plot
(land prep. by hand
no fertilizer) Kg/Ha 531.0 +117.5 582.1 +128.8

land prep by hand;
150 Kg. phosphate.
Percent increase over
control plot yield 30.2% + 20.5% 11.4% + 11.4%

ANTRAC plowing and 150
Kg. phosphate. Per-
cent increase over
control plot 65.0% + 26.2% 26.8% + 21.1%

ANTRAC plowing, no
fertilizer. Per-
cent increase over
control plot 16.7% + 14.6% 18.2% + 12.4%

Source: EORD BPA Plowing/Phosphate Trials, 1979.

kg/ha increment in yields which would give the farmer an increase in gross income
of 5,749 FCFA per hectare.-1/ For sorghum and millet, there was an average in-
crease of 16.7 percent in yields due to plowing. The yield increment was 88.7
kg/ha which would give a gross return to the farmer of 3,548 FCFA per hectare.2/
There is also a significant yield increase due to plowing under natural
phosphate fertilizer (Table 4.18, Treatment 3). This fertilizer is readily
available and inexpensive in the Eastern Region.-3 The recommended method of
application is incorporation by plowing. Plowing under 150 kg of the phosphate
resulted in an average 65 percent increase in yields of sorghum and millet, and a
26.8 percent increase for groundnuts. This represents a yield increment of 345.2
kg of sorghum and millet which would give the farmer a net benefit4/ of 10,808
FCFA per hectare. For groundnuts, the yield increment was 156 kgs/ha which
represents a potential 5,469 FCFA net profit per hectare. These results are
similar to those found elsewhere in Upper Volta (Bikienga et al., 1980; Stoop and
Pattanyak, 1980).
4.7. Impact of Animal Traction on Household Labor Allocation
In this section we evaluate differences between hoe farmers and traction
farmers in their use of labor in farming activities and in the relative amount of
time spent on farm and nonfarm enterprises.5/ First, we examine the impact of
animal traction on the hours spent on various field activities. Key issues here
include: (1) is there a savings in field labor time, as measured in worker

1/This calculation is based on the official price of 54.29 FCFA/kilogram of

2/Based on official (OFNACER) base price of 40 FCFA/kg.

3/The official EORD price for natural phosphate is 20 FCFA/kg.
4/These calculations of "net" benefit assume no cost for plowing with animal
traction. An economic analysis of fertilizer and plowing, including the costs of
ANTRAC use, is provided in Section 5.4.4.
5/This section is based on analysis of detailed labor data collected for
one-third of the farm households surveyed. Three different questionnaires were
administered weekly to collect data on labor spent on field activities, livestock
herding and care, and the overall allocation of family time. Section 4.7.1. is
based on the first two questionnaires, and Section 4.7.2. on the third, which is
less accurate since it recorded data only for the day previous to the interview
(i.e., a one day per week labor enumeration).


equivalent hours-/ per hectare; (2) does the seasonal pattern of labor use for
cropping activities shift as a result of using animal traction; and (3) in which
activities are labor requirements increased or decreased. Second, we examine the
distribution of total household labor. The question is whether traction farmers
allocate relatively more or less labor to non-cropping activities than do hoe

4.7.]. Allocation of Household Labor to Cropping Activities
Table 4.19 presents a summary of the weighted average worker equivalent
(WE) hours per hectare allocated to the three principal labor activities--seed-
ing, soil tillage,-2 and harvest--for hoe, oxen, and donkey households. On
aver ge, ANTRAC households devoted 174 WE hours less labor per hectare than hoe
house holds. This represents a reduction of 25 percent in average labor time per
hectare. Sixty-eight percent (or 119 WE hours per hectare) of this reduction
occurred in the category of soil tillage. As one might expect, the average labor
redu tion per household is substantially greater in oxen zones (31 percent) than
in donkey zones (20 percent). As shown by multiple regression analysis, the
labo reduction among ANTRAC households was statistically significant,
cont rolling for other variables.
The savings in field labor associated with ANTRAC are somewhat offset by the
additional labor required to feed and maintain draft animals. Delgado (1979)
conc uded that the absolute level, timing, and quality of the added labor for
oxen traction are prohibitively high. Analysis of the 1978-79 Eastern Region
surv y data (Lassiter, 1982)-3/ indicates, however, that the labor requirements

-/Worker equivalent man-hours are calculated by weighting hours worked by
different age and sex categories by a coefficient of work productivity. See
footnote b, Table 4.19, for the weighting coefficients used.
2/Soil tillage includes soil preparation (including plowing, weeding, and
ridging), whether done by hand or with ANTRAC.

3/Based on livestock maintenance data from 12 oxen traction households and
12 onkey traction households. Weekly labor was collected from only 41 of the
125 surveyed ANTRAC households. Of these 41, 21 owned only draft oxen, 14 owned
onl donkeys, and 6 owned both. Unfortunately, it was not possible to analyze
the labor data from 15 oxen households and 8 donkey households. This is mainly
bec use the questionnaire used to record animal care labor data did not usually
distinguish labor for draft animal care from labor for herding other animals,
particularly range cattle. In addition, many of these unanalyzed households kept
their draft animals on the range and made little or no use of them as work
ani als. The donkey data are estimated from 16 donkeys, averaged on a per donkey
basis over 12 households. Half the donkeys included were used for carting as
well as for field operations.




Left Column: Hoe Farmers
Right Column: Traction Farmers


Soil Tillages



5/1- 5/29- 6/26- 7/24- 8/21- 9/18- 10/16- 11/13- 12/11- 1/8-
5/28/78 6/25 7/23 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/12 12/10 1/7/79 2/4

4/1 5/3(

aOther includes land preparation, building graineries, etc. Also, if man-hours worked on a major activity
represented less than 10 percent of the hours worked in a month, that activity was included in other.

such as planting



sub samples are remarkably similar throughout the year. Over 50 percent of the
ann al hours per hectare are worked during the three peak months (May 29 through
Aug st 20) in both subsamples (54 and 53 percent for hoe and traction households,
respectively). The proportional savings in labor time per hectare for traction
households is slightly greater in the peak season than for all months during the
yea-. There is a slight shift toward periods 3 and 4 (late June to late August)
amoig traction households as compared to hoe households whose labor use peak
occurs during periods 2 and 3 (late May to late June). This suggests that
greater labor savings may be possible as more traction farmers adopt ANTRAC
weeding, which should save labor in periods 3 and 4.
The histograms in Figure 4.1 further show that the cropping season lasts
through early December. Planting is done primarily in periods 1 to 3 (through
lat July). Soil tillage is the dominant use of labor through mid-September.
Harvesting of early crops begins to be a major demand on labor time in mid-Sep-
tember, continuing through mid-December. During the remainder of the year nearly
all time is spent on other cropping-related activities, including land clearing,
drying and storing grain, constructing grain storage huts, etc.

4.7.2. Proportional Allocation of Household Labor
to Farm, Non-Farm, and Leisure Activities
The allocation of potential labor time to leisure, farm and non-farm activi-
ties is shown in Table 4.20. Part A presents a simple breakdown into total hours
worked and hours spent resting, walking, ill, or visiting a local market. Fig-
ur s are presented for both oxen and donkey zones since there are important zonal
variations in the way work time is allocated. Because of the small sample sizes
and the one day per week enumeration of data, the aggregated figures in the first
tw columns are the most reliable indicators of differences among the subsamples.
In terms of the proportional allocation of work time, there is very little
difference between the subsamples. As would be expected, members of traction
households spend a slightly greater proportion of their time on livestock raising
an agricultural trading. However, contrary to expectations, traction house-
holds allocated a greater proportion of their work time to household fields, but
less to household chores, agricultural transformation and other activities.
As can be seen in Table 4.20, women in animal traction households spend a
greater proportion of their working time on household fields as compared to women
in households using hoe tillage. They also spend proportionally less time on
ho sehold chores than do women in hoe households. In large part, this apparent
effect of ANTRAC can be attributed to the differing demographic structures of the



Zones Oxen Zones Donkey Zones


Number of Households 36 41 12 23 24 18

A. Hours

Hours Workedc
Hours Resting, Walking, Ill

B. Proportional Allocation of Hours Worked

Household Fields
Livestock Raising
Household Chores
Agricultural Transformation
Agricultural Trading

(Hours per Day)

5.5 5.4 5.5 5.8
7.4 5.8 7.3 5.8
6.5 5.6 6.5 5.8

6.5 6.4 6.5 6.2
4.6 6.2 4.7 6.2
5.5 6.4 5.5 6.2


57.4 56.2 59.1
26.7 35.6 27.6
40.5 44.1 41.0


12.5 14.4 .11.1 19.7
2.7 4.2 4.4 6.3
6.9 8.6 7.2 12.3

3.7 3.5 4.3
46.0 35.2 46.8
27.7 22.0 28.7


5.4 5.0
7.5 5.7
6.4 5.4

6.6 7.0
4.5 6.3
5.6 6.6



14.0 9.2
1.0 2.2
6.7 4.9



0.5 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.6
18.5 14.8 18.2 14.4 17.8 15.1
10.4 8.9 10.5 8.4 10.3 9.5

2.9 5.4 0.9 1.3 4.8 9.1
0.9 3.9 0.2 0.4 1.6 7.4
1.8 4.4 0.5 0.8 3.0 8.0

23.0 19.8 24.4 13.2 21.7 26.5
5.7 6.3 2.8 3.2 8.7 9.5
12.7 12.0 12.1 7.8 13.4 16.2

potential labor time is defined as a 12 hour day; the daylight hours in the Eastern-Region.
Leisure is derived as a residual of time not accounted for on work activities.
bFigures for sub-samples within zones are weighted averages for all people in the sub-sample
households. Figure for combined zones is a simple average since zonal effects are important but sub-
samples are unequally represented in each zone. Note that this only partially corrects for agro-
climatic effects within sub-samples since it does not eliminate variance due to different village
characteristics within zones.

CActual hours are used in this analysis rather than man-hours since work productivity indices
were not obtained for non-cropping activities.
dIncludes work on fields of others, livestock raising for others, wage labor, construction,
artisanal activities, small industry, and schooling.


sample households. Traction households, as noted above, are larger and have more
womer to share household chores. To the extent that the time needed for house-
hold chores increases less than proportionally to increases in household size,
each woman in the larger ANTRAC households can spend less working time on house-
hold chores. Despite the increased proportion of women's work time going to
field work, the total hours of fieldwork by women, as well as by men, is lower in
ANTR C households. The reduction in fieldwork labor is slightly greater for men,
30 p recent, as compared to a reduction of 21 percent for women.
A final labor allocation question often raised in relation to animal trac-
tion programs is whether animal traction enables a more even distribution of
labor over the year. In Figure 4.2, seasonal indices for labor inputs in house-
hold field activities, non-cropping farm activities, non-farm activities and
tot 1 labor time are shown for hoe versus traction households. It can be seen
thai the labor profiles for the two subsamples are very similar. Labor used on
hou ehold fields and non-farm activities is more evenly distributed over the year
in reaction households. The coefficient of variation for monthly labor inputs to
hou ehold fields is .68 for traction households and .79 for hoe farming house-
hol s. The coefficient of variation for non-farm activities is .59 and .69,
res actively. These figures tend to support the view that animal traction
reduces labor requirements for household fields during the peak season, enabling
a ore even distribution of labor for non-farm activities. On the other hand,
labor for non-cropping farm activities is less evenly distributed among traction
ho seholds.
Turning to the distribution of all household labor inputs over the year, it
ca be seen that total labor is more evenly distributed than any of the component
ca egories. This results from the fact that non-farm labor is primarily count-
er-seasonal to cropping labor. Thus, the coefficients of variation for total
labor inputs are .19 for hoe farmers and .21 for traction farmers. This suggests
th t animal traction only slightly reduces the seasonal variation of labor inputs
in o cropping and non-farm activities.
In summary, the main impact of animal traction on household labor allocation
is a significant reduction in total WE hours worked per hectare in crop produc-
tion, even when the labor for draft animal care is taken into account. While
t ere is a slight shift in the peak cropping season for traction households, the
p ofile of the agricultural calendar remains quite similar for both subsamples.
R garding total household labor allocation, there again appears to be little
d fference among subsamples. It appears that traction households spend slightly
m re of their work time on livestock and agricultural trading.

200 -



-------- Traction

150 -



0 -

A. Total

200 -

150 -

100 :

50 -



B. Non-Farm

150 -


50 -

- --

C. Non-Cropping Farm

250 -

200 -

150 -


50 -
0 -

D. Household Fields

7/24- 8/21- 9/18- 10/16-
8/20 9/17 10/15 12/12


12/11- I/8,
1/7/79 2/4

2/5- 3/5- 4/2-
3/4 4/1 .5/30/79


5/29- 6/26-
6/25 7/23


5.1. Introduction
n this section, financial and cash flow analyses are used to evaluate the
econo ics of oxen traction, donkey traction, and traditional hoe technology at
the f rm level. These analyses are based on EORD survey data from 110 ANTRAC and
106 hbe farming households from the 1978-79 crop season.-/ In addition, the
mediu -term financial impact of animal traction is assessed on the basis of 10-
year income projections under various assumptions of current and potential
ANTRA performance. The components of total farm and total household income2/
analy ed in this chapter include: (a) the actual value of cash transactions,
(b) tie imputed value of unsold farm and nonfarm production,3/ and (c) the imput-
ed values of in-kind costs.
creage and yield data, first discussed in the previous chapter, have been
used to derive the total value of crop production per household in 1978-79, as
pres nted in Table 5.1. The value of each of the major crops is presented
sepa ately in order to show its relative economic importance. The prices used
are weighted average sales prices for the 1978-79 season. The relative share of
the different crops in the value of production is similar to that demonstrated by
the allocation of cultivated acreage to each. Sorghum and millet are by far the
most important, contributing 63 to 85 percent of the total value of crop
production for each of the four subsamples. Their reduced importance in the
donkey zones tends to reflect the localized effect of drought on sorghum and
mill t yields. Among hoe farmers, cowpeas, groundnuts, maize, and rice are the
next most important crops economically. These crops are of similar importance to
ANTR C farmers, except that the order is slightly different: rice, cowpeas,
grou dnuts, and maize.

1/For more details on these technologies, see Chapter 2 for an overview of
regional farming systems and sections 4.6 and 4.7 for detailed descriptions of
field crop statistics and household labor allocation. Also see the bibliography
for a full listing of previous farm survey reports.

2/Total farm income refers to all income attributable to the following farm-
rel ted activities: crop production, livestock raising, crop and livestock
tra ing, and crop processing. Total household income refers to income generated
by all activities, farm and nonfarm.

-/The largest component of unsold production consists of crops directly
consumed by the household which represent 80 to 90 percent of the value of crop
pro auction.



Oxen Zones Donkey Zones

Crop Price/Kga FCFA % FCFA % FCFA % FCFA %
Sorghum 45.5 59,821 69.9 81,167 54.3 36,449 43.6 36,871 39.2
Millet 45.5 12,792 14.9 29,206 19.6 18,775 27.5 13,217 14.1
Niadib 45.5 0 0.0 14 0.0 7,319 8.8 10,476 11.1
Maize 39.6 2,663 3.1 6,767 4.5 2,827 3.4 4,129 4.4
Groundnuts 68.9 1,971 2.3 4,857 3.3 1,114 1.4 11,447 12.2
Bambara Nuts 59.0 1,103 1.3 1,242 0.8 1,109 1.3 1,105 1.2
Cowpeas 73.2 5,192 6.1 10,035 6.7 8,105 9.7 6,551 7.0
Soybeans 72.4 239 0.3 4,302 2.9 282 0.3 1,013 1.1
Sesame 57.6 6 0.0 39 0.0 421 0.5 561 0.6
Cotton 67.4 58 0.1 1,818 1.2 73 0.1 916 1.0
Rice 90.2 1,746 2.0 9,909 6.6 7,127 8.5 7,726 8.2

TOTAL 85,591 149,356 83,601 94,012
Sorghum & Millet & Niadi 72,613 84.8 110,387 73.9 62,543 74.8 60,564 64.4

aThis represents the
1978-79 survey period.

weighted average selling price realized by sample households during the

bA 60-day, short season millet variety grown in the Logobou area.


5.2. Farm Household Income
statement of annual income for sampled farm households is presented in
Tabl 5.2. Net household income is defined as the sum of five income components:
crop production, livestock raising, trade in agricultural products, agricultural
proc ssing and the sale of gathered crops, and "other" sources of income.
The overall picture which emerges is one of a subsistence economy with a
surp isingly low degree of monetization. Looking at the major source of total
farm household income, crop production, only 8 to 15 percent of the value of crop
prod action was sold by the four subsamples in 1978-79. Both ANTRAC and hoe
farm rs use only minimal amounts of purchased seed, fertilizer, or hired labor.
The eotal value of crop production is higher among ANTRAC farmers than among hoe
farm rs. However, since oxen households are 67 percent larger and donkey house-
holds are 28 percent larger than traditional households, this difference mainly
reflects the larger scale of ANTRAC farms. On a per capital basis, the value of
cro production, relative to hoe farmers, is only slightly higher (+4.5 percent)
for oxen traction and moderately lower (-11.9 percent) for donkey traction.
Table 5.2 shows that the introduction of animal traction imposes a variety
of production costs which are substantially higher than those encountered by hoe
farmers. For example, ANTRAC-related variable costs in 1978-79 (feed grain
pur hased or supplied by the household and ANTRAC animal maintenance costs)
amo nted to 5,544 FCFA for oxen farmers and 4,134 FCFA for donkey farmers,
increases of 59 percent and 44 percent, respectively, above hoe levels. Annual
fixed costs (excluding depreciation on animals) were 8,224 FCFA for oxen and
6,243 FCFA for donkey farmers, fully 154 and 127 percent higher, respectively,
than for hoe farming.
Due to its potential for increasing returns from crop production, ANTRAC can
generate direct revenues which may help cover some of these added costs through
either contract services (plowing or carting) or the sale of mature oxen which
ap reciate greatly in value during the time they work as draft animals. Among
ox n farmers, such contract revenues were not substantial, amounting to only 660
FC A, because of inexperience and a lack of popularity of oxen carts. However,
th value of appreciation on oxen, estimated at 10,000 FCFA per ox per year, more
th n covered all ANTRAC-related costs in 1978. Among donkey farmers, contract
re enues were more substantial than for oxen farmers, due almost exclusively to a


Number of Households
I. Crop Production Enterprise
Revenue d
Value of Crop Production
of Which, Value Sold
Contract Plowing Revenues
Contract Transport Revenues
Variable Costs
Purchased Seed
Value of Household Seed
Fertilizer and Insecticides
Wage Labor
Grain Purchased for "Invitation" Field Laborb
ANTRAC Feed Grain (Purchased)
ANTRAC Feed Grain (Value of Household Grain)a
Other ANTRAC Maintenance Costsc
Fixed Costs
Repairs to ANTRAC Equipment
Replacement Parts for ANTRAC Equipment
Interest Payments for ANTRAC Credit
Depreciation on ANTRAC Equipment
Depreciation on ANTRAC Animalse
Repairs of Other Tools and Equipment
Depreciation on Other Tools and Equipment
Net Revenue
Net Revenue from Crop Production
II. Livestock Enterprise
Sales of Animals
Sales of Animal Products
Animal Purchases
Feed and Maintenance Expenses
Net Revenue
III. Agricultural Trading
Value of Sales (Net of Transport Costs)
93Tue of Purchases (Net of Transport Costs)
Change in Value of Inventoriesa
Net Revenue
IV. Agricultural Transformation & Gathered Crops
les of Transformed Crops
Sales of Gathered Crops
Purchases of Variable Inputs
Depreciation on Equipment
Net Revenue
V. Other Sources of Income
Gross Returns to Non-Ag. Trading & Artisanal
Inheritance & Net Cash Gifts
Variable Costs of Non-Ag. Trading & Artisanal
Net Revenue


Oxen Zones

36 64


- 484
- 4,175
S 28
- 250
- 36
- 1,996



- 5,556
- 411

- 1,970


- 1,358
- 61



- 382

- 1,120
- 572

+ 524
* 136

- 583
- 7,930
- 402
- 490
S 31
- 640
- 1,672
- 3.232
S 68
- 1,012
- 1,915
- 5,229
- 3,170





+ 2,058






- 7,943
- 641


Donkey Zones

72 46


- 784
- 4,490
- 153
- 217

- 2.324



- 3,084


- 6,682
- 234





- 2,673

- 5,156
- 527



+ 70
+ 1,635

- 1,273
- 6,981
- 788
- 315
- 48
- 328

- 1,075
- 5,095
- 2,081
- 2,678





+ 3.626







- 1,535





Notes on Table 5.2

a. Crop values based on average sales prices listed in Table 5.2.

b. "Invitation" labor refers to festive work parties of a reciprocal nature in
w ich food and sorghum beer are the primary in-kind payment. These cash
p rchases of grain substantially understate the real costs of invitation
Ibor which primarily utilize household food stocks, rather than purchased

c. Chiefly non-grain feeding expenses, salt, and medicines for animal mainte-

d. Refers to cart rental services. This does not include the sale of carted
products, such as firewood, but only the rental of the cart for transport
u e.

e. Te following straight-line depreciation schedule was used for ANTRAC equip-
m nt and animals. (Note that the values in parentheses represent apprecia-

Estimated Annual
1978 Price Working Life Salvage Value Depreciation
A TRACK Item (FCFA) (Years) (FCFA) Rate (FCFA)

Oxen Traction:
P1( 18,250 10 2,000 1,625
We der (5 Teeth) 19,635 7 1,500 2,591
Ri ger 6,470 5 500 1,194
Accessories 7,225 5 250 1,395
Ca t 44,735 10 3,000 4,174
1 x 35,000 4 75,000 (10,000)

Donk y Traction:
Pl)w 11,320 10 1,000 1,032
We der 17,200 8 1,500 1,963
Ri ger 4,850 6 500 725
Ac essories 5,185 5 200 997
Cat 44,735 10 2,000 4,274
1 onkey 18,000 7 3,000 2,143

small number of high-income generating donkey carts.-1 However, these donkey
contract revenues were offset by the fact that donkeys depreciate in value.
The average net revenue from cropping activities was 86 percent greater for
oxen farmers than hoe farmers in the same study areas with the estimated appre-
ciation of oxen alone contributing a 16 percent increase. For donkey farmers,
average gross revenue from cropping is 12 percent higher but, when higher ANTRAC
costs are included, donkey farmers have net cropping revenues 6 percent lower
than hoe farmers in the same zones. The poor income performance of donkey
traction is influenced by the fact that a drought seriously reduced overall
yields in donkey zones. The timing of the drought (early June through July in
Piela and an early end of rains in Diapangou) may have disproportionately penal-
ized an ANTRAC cropping strategy by prohibiting plowing in Piela and severely
penalizing late planting in both villages. In addition, this drought was more
severe in some ANTRAC villages than the neighboring control villages due to
rainfall differences in Diapangou and soil differences in Piela. In general,
however, donkey traction has lower costs than oxen traction, which can make
donkeys appealing to small, poor, or inexperienced farmers.
While crop production is by far the largest source of total farm household
income, Table 5.2 presents four other important components. Although livestock
raising and crop trading do not contribute substantial net revenues on the
average, they have important cash flow benefits for many ANTRAC households.
Proportionately twice as many ANTRAC farmers engaged in crop trading and two to
three times as many in cattle trading (Ouedraogo and Wilcock, 1980, p. 36).
Although the net revenue from crop trading is higher for ANTRAC households, their
net revenue from livestock raising is higher than for hoe households only in oxen
zones. Unfortunately, a major component of the net revenue of the livestock
enterprise, the growth in value of herds, is not included in Table 5.2, which may
explain these ambiguous results.2/

1/It should be noted that donkey cart revenue in Table 5.2 may substantially
underestimate the potential revenue from carting in certain areas because this
figure reflects only direct cart rental fees and not the sale of hauled goods
such as firewood, water, or gravel. As shown in Chapter 4, over half of donkey
cart time was used to haul firewood. In heavily populated areas such as the
donkey zones--Diapangou, Piela, and Logobou--there is a flourishing market for
firewood. Firewood carting can be a substantial source of revenue; in some
areas, donkey wood haulers can easily net 10,000 FCFA per month.

2/The analysis of the change in the value of farm livestock inventories over
the 1978-79 season was considered beyond the scope of this report because of the
large amount of time and computer resources it would have entailed.


agricultural transformation and gathered crops contribute little to total
income. Certain transformation activities, for which much of the production may
be co sumed but little sold (such as weaving, food preparation, and dolo making),
can r sult in negative net revenues. A surprising proportion of total household
income is generated from other sources of income. The mean values of such income
for some zones is somewhat exaggerated by a few individuals who are either
skilled laborers (such as masons or carpenters) or retail traders.
able 5.3 indicates the absolute and relative importance of the five major
inco e components for sampled farmers. Four components are summed to make up net
farm income; all five components are included in total household income. The
table also includes several efficiency measures: net crop production revenue,
net farm income, and net household income on a per capital, per active worker, and
per ectare basis. On all efficiency measures (except net household income per
acti e worker), donkey farmers had lower incomes than the hoe farmer control
grou As stressed earlier, this is largely due to drought in donkey areas which
affected traction farmers more than hoe farmers.
For oxen farmers, the results are more encouraging. All standardized income
measures are higher for oxen households for both net crop production revenue and
tot 1 farm income. Total household income measures for oxen farming are lower
tha for hoe farming, however, due to unusually high levels of other income
att ibutable to 2 of the 36 hoe farmers in the oxen zones. For oxen farmers, net
farm income is 20 percent higher per capital, 16 percent higher per active worker,
and 12 percent higher per hectare, than for hoe farmers in the same zones.
By any measure, income is clearly very low for both hoe and animal traction
far ers. Hoe farmers had a net household income per capital of 13,255 FCFA
($60.25) a year. The ANTRAC households had a per capital average income of 1,586
FCFA lower than that for hoe farmers. It is clear that such low per capital
incomes represent a level of material poverty which severely limits the potential
for savings and investment among most farmers in the Eastern Region.
In summary, the survey data indicate that the income effects of ANTRAC were
no substantial during the 1978-79 season. Oxen farmers had a modestly higher
per capital farm income than hoe farmers, while that of donkey farmers fell below
hoe farming levels. Unfortunately, these survey data are limited in their
ability to provide a fair test of ANTRAC profitability. Although the ANTRAC
staple represents farmers considered by extension agents to be relatively more
s ccessful in using traction, the program is young and most of these farmers are


Oxen Zones Donkey Zones

Value of Major Sources of Income FCFA FCFA FCFA FCFA

I. Crop Production 78,622 146,220 75,572 71,099
II. Livestock Raising 1,970 5,135 5,810 1,396
III. Crop Trading 175 930 942 1,922
IV. Agricultural Processing 528 3,178 702 1,420
V. Other Sources 36,359 12,543 511 20,042

NET FARM INCOMEa 77,355 155,463 83,026 72,997

NET HOUSEHOLD INCOME 113,714 168,006 83,537 93,039

Relative Importance of Sources of Income Percent Percent Percent Percent

I. Crop Production (% of total) 69.1 87.0 90.5 76.4
II. Livestock Raising 1.7 3.1 7.0 1.5
III. Agricultural Trading 0.2 0.6 1.1 2.1
IV. Agricultural Processing 0.5 1.9 0.8 1.5
V. Other Sources 32.0 7.5 0.6 21.5

Efficiency Measures FCFA FCFA FCFA FCFA

Net Crop Production Revenue per Person 11,787 13,126 8,559 6,309
Net Crop Production Revenue per Active Worker 25,863 27,745 19,084 17,174
Net Crop Production Revenue per Hectare 19,854 20,508 16,287 11,771

Net Farm Income per Person 11,597 13,955 9,403 6,477
Net Farm Income per Active Worker 25,446 29,450 20,968 17,632
Net Farm Income Hectare 19,534 21,804 17,894 12,085

Net Household Income per Person 17,049 15,081 9,461 8,256
Net Household Income per Active Worker 37,406 31,879 21,095 22,473
Net Household Income per Hectare 28,716 23,563 18,003 15,404

aNet Farm Income in the sum of major income components I through IV.

still in the process of learning the different elements of the package. Traction
teams are typically underutilized, particularly for weeding and ridging. Many
farmers are inexperienced and many EORD ANTRAC services are not fully operation-
al. Traction animals tend to be fed and cared for at less than recommended
level;. As a result, most ANTRAC farmers surveyed were not yet achieving sub-
stantial productivity increases. Thus, the income effect of ANTRAC should rise
in future years as performance improves both at the farm and program level.

5.3. Cash Flow
5.3.1, Annual Cash Flow
although net income is a very useful measure of economic welfare, the farm
cash low position has important practical consequences in an area such as the
Eastern Region. Due to poorly articulated markets plus a low level of monetiza-
tion n the rural economy, where less than 10 percent of agricultural production
is sold, farmers are limited in their ability to generate cash. Cash flow
probl ms can inhibit the adoption of interventions such as ANTRAC which have
highly variable cash expenditures and revenues. The EORD credit program allevi-
ates this problem partly, but not entirely, as seen below.
he annual cash flow statement presented in Table 5.4 shows the extremely
low 1 vel of annual cash flow for both ANTRAC and hoe farmers. Of the already low
net cropping revenues and household net incomes, only a very minor proportion is
realized as cash revenue. While the absolute value of cash inputs into crop
production is small, the cash inputs in hoe farming are quite large relative to
the amount of cash revenue generated, varying from 26 to 30 percent of the value
of sales in the two subsamples. Oxen traction, moreover, causes a dramatic
increase in the current cash costs of crop production. Even when contract
revenues are included, net current cash costs amount to 6,524 FCFA or 67 percent
of cr p sales, leaving a net cash revenue of only 3,156 FCFA (item 5 in Table
5.4). Current cash expenses for donkey traction are less than those for oxen;
most the ret current cash costs of crop production amount to only 3,325 FCFA for
donkey farmers, or 24 percent of crop sales. In terms of net cash flows generat-
ed from crop production, donkey traction outperformed hoe agriculture, both on an
absol te and a per capital basis, while oxen traction did not.-

1While 66 percent of the ANTRAC sample farmers had an outstanding ANTRAC
loan rom the EORD, many did not make repayments in 1978-79 due to poor credit
(foot ote is continued on page 82)


Oxen Zones Donkey Zones


Crop Production FCFA
1. Value of Sales 6,661 9,680 9,569 13,798
2. Non-ANTRAC Inputs 1,752 2,682 2,879 2,621
3. ANTRAC Related Current Cash Expenses 0 4,502 9 2,409
4. ANTRAC Related Revenues 0 + 660 0 + 1,705
5. Net Cropping Cash Revenue 4,909 3,156 6,681 10,473
6. Major Food Purchases 4,966 -11,617 9,505 -20,782
7. Net Cropping Cash Surplus 57 8,461 2,824 -10,309
Livestock Production
8. Revenues 3,997 33,127 19,021 33,961
9. Expenditures 5,967 -27,992 -13,203 -32,565
Agricultural Trading
10. Revenues 1,594 2,877 7,867 17,913
11. Expenditures 1,358 --3,406 6,682 -19,402
Agricultural Processing and Gathering
12. Revenues 1,565 6,150 2,988 8,816
13. Expenditures 1,037 2,972 2,286 -10,236
Other Sources of Income
14. Revenues 38,051 21,127 6,194 46,034
15. Expenditures 1,120 7,943 5,156 -24,457
Capital Expenditures
16. Non-ANTRAC Equipment Purchased 183 126 504 276
17. ANTRAC Equipment Purchased 333 640 0 2,399
18. Borrowing and Reimbursements Received 1,155 6,853 2,854 9,169
19. Loans and Repayments 1,870 -19,237 3,138 7,724
20. Net Cash Flow 34,437 643 5,131 8,525


The problem of current cash expenditures for ANTRAC is even more acute when
one c insiders cash cropping revenue net of cash food expenditures. In Table 5.4,
net c sh surplus from cropping (defined as net cash revenue from cropping less
major cash purchases of food) can be considered as a rough measure of a house-
hold' ability to produce enough food to feed itself and generate a cash surplus
from he crop production enterprise alone. Neither traditional nor ANTRAC farm-
ers generated such a surplus in 1978, a result most marked in donkey zones due to
poor rainfall. Although 1978 was a year for rebuilding on-farm grain stocks
following several years of sporadic drought which may have caused low cash sales,
only the hoe farmers sold more crops than they purchased. This implies that
ANTRAC farmers, at least during the 1978-79 season, were less food self-
sufficient than hoe farmers and that they had to generate current cash revenues
from sectors other than crop production in order to meet the annual cash flow
requirements of both ANTRAC adoption and food needs. Thus, in Table 5.4, one
sees that the net cash deficit of the ANTRAC cropping enterprise (represented
under net cropping surplus) is offset by positive cash flows from the other
econ mic sectors, principally "other sources of income."
In summary, the current cash costs of ANTRAC create a serious annual cash
flow problem, caused primarily by capital expenditures on equipment and animals
plus the scheduling of financing.2/ The modest output increases attributable to

-(continued from page 80) collection efforts by the EORD. Repayment
behavior therefore has a substantial effect on the annual cash flow position
shown in Table 5.4, at least for oxen farmers. Of the 19,237 FCFA in cash loans
and repayments of oxen traction farmers, 12,697 FCFA represents repayments on
EORD medium-term ANTRAC loans. Since ANTRAC credit collection efforts were
delayed until after the survey period, donkey farmers reimbursed only 284 FCFA to
the EORD during the 1978-79 season. A more reasonable assessment of the cash
flow effects of ANTRAC financing would be to use the value of ANTRAC credit
repayment that the typical oxen or donkey farmers from our survey should have
paid in 1978-79. For the median ANTRAC farmer in each subsample, this implies a
cash repayment of 22,600 FCFA for oxen farmers and 14,175 FCFA for donkey
farmers. If these repayment values are taken into account (net of ANTRAC credit
repayments already included in Table 5.4), the annual net cash flow becomes
-10 546 FCFA for oxen farmers and -5,366 FCFA for donkey farmers.

2/This cannot be fully depicted in an annual cash flow statement because the
pro lem involves year-to-year changes in cash flow position. Further, our sample
of ANTRAC farmers does not accurately represent a cross-section of farmers at the
various stages of ANTRAC financing that are characteristic of the EORD medium-
term credit program.

oxen traction are not accompanied by increases in crop sales because some of the
additional output is consumed. This, plus high current cash costs, makes oxen a
less attractive investment than donkeys on a current cash basis. While oxen
traction is financially more rewarding than donkey traction (although this is
somewhat exaggerated by the effects of drought on our donkey sample), an oxen
traction farmer must have other sources of liquidity to carry him through cash
deficit years until capital gains are realized from the sale of his oxen team.
Donkey traction also requires alternative sources of liquidity but to a lesser
extent because of its lower cash costs. The lower and less variable cash costs
of donkey traction may account for its popularity in spite of its poor financial
performance in 1978-79. These factors are examined further in the next section.

5.3.2. Monthly Cash Flow
The annual cash flow statement obscures important changes in the cash flow
position during the cropping season. Tables 5.5 and 5.6 present the monthly cash
flow for hoe and ANTRAC households, respectively.- In the hoe sample, the
monthly cash balance in Table 5.5 is quite low, as one would expect, but also
surprisingly uniform throughout the year. Crop sales are heavier in the December
through March post-harvest period but relatively high levels of sales are main-
tained throughout the year, except for late August through mid-October. Cash
expenditures for crop production inputs are concentrated during the May through
August cultivation season; however, these are so low that net cropping cash
revenue remains positive on average. Major food purchases are also concentrated
in this period, the latter part of which represents the "hungry season," creating
an important cash deficit. This cash deficit appears to be covered by higher
levels of either livestock sales, crop sales, or other sources of income.
In contrast, the monthly cash balance of ANTRAC farmers, presented in Table
5.6, is far more variable throughout the year. The timing of crop sales is
slightly more seasonal for ANTRAC farmers than for hoe farmers. In addition,
cash expenditures for crop production inputs are greater, making net cash revenue
from cropping negative throughout most of the cultivation season. Although
ANTRAC-related cash expenses are less seasonal than other agricultural input
costs, they still represent the most important cause for this negative net

1Since monthly statements present cash flow values that are averaged over a
large sample, the average monthly stream of cash revenues and expenditures is
smoother than it would be for an individual household. The monthly cash flow
statement for a typical hoe farming household would show infrequent transactions
(particularly for non-crop related activities) and occasional large transactions
(particularly for livestock or agricultural trading).


Cash Flow Item

Crop Production
1. Value of Sales
2. Non-ANTRAC Inputs
3. ANTRAC Related Current Cash Expenses
4. ANTRAC Related Revenues
5. Net Cropping Cash_Revenue
6. Major rood Purchases
7. Not Cropping Cash Surplus
Livestock Raising
8. Revenues
9. Expenditures
Agricultural Trading
10. Revenues
11. Expenditures
Agricultural Transformation and Gathering
12. Revenues
13. Expenditures
Other Sources of Income
14. Revenues
15. Expenditures
Capital Expenditures
16. Non-ANTRAC Equipment Purchased!
17. ANTRAC Equipment Purchased
18. Borrowing and Reimbursements Received
19. Loans and Repayments
20. Net Cash Flow

May 1- May 29- June 26- July 24- Aug. 21- Sept. 18-
May 28, 1978 June 25 July 23 Aug. 20 Sept. 17 Oct. 15

- 826
- 924


- 66



- 630
- 219

- 800

- 311

- 141

- 85

- 19 0
1 91

108 133
- 356 187
710 48

- 479


- 16

- 113

- 425

- 29
- 12

- 221
- 414






- 6


Oct. 16-
Nov. 12







325 346
-214 244
-196 474

Nov. 13- Dec. 11-
Dec. 10 Jan. 7, 1979

952 1,224
5 9
0 0
f '





- 471

948 336
-164 904

- 29 125
0 0

62 382
-164 355
360 332

Jan. 8-
Feb. 4

- 4






Feb. 5- Mar. 5- Apr. 2-
Mar. 4 Apr. 1 May 30, 1979

- 63


- 19



- 12 3
0 0

206 20
-277 14
320 8,008









Cash Flow Item

Crop_ Prodilction
1. Value of Sales
2. Non-ANTRAC Inputs
3. ANTRAC Related Current Cash Expenses
4. ANTRAC Related Revenues
5. Net Cropping Cash Revenue
6. Major Food Purchases
7. Net Cropping Cash Surplus
Livestock Ra rising
8. Revenues
9. Expenditures
Agri cultural Trading
10. Revenues
11. Expenditures
Agricultural Transformation and Gathering
12. Revenues
13. Expenditures
Other Sources of Income
14. Revenues
15. Expenditures
Capital Expenditures
16. Non-ANTRAC Equipment Purchased
17. ANTRAC Equipment Purchased
18. Borrowing and Reimbursements Received
19. Loans and Repayments
20. Net Cash Flow

May 1- May 29-
May 28, 1978 June 25








- 620
- 394


- 178

- 452

- 742

- 596

- 826

June 26- July 24-
July 23 Aug. 20

- 829
- 378
- 434


- 471

- 397


- 475

- 416

- 676
- 119
- 302
- 743


- 489

- 177


- 98

- 573

Aug. 21- Sept.
Sept. 17 Oct.

- 166
- 121
- 452



- 665


- 18
- 464

- 432

- 168
- 58
- 517
- 299

- 5,676


- 449

- 1,061

- 57
- 59

- 654
- 7,426

16- Nov. 13- I Dec. 11- Jan. 8- Feb. 5-
12 Dec. 10 Jan. 7, 1979 Feb. 4 Mar. 4

- 178
- 109
- 707
- 280



- 300


- 33


- 65
- 310



- 399


- 29


- 37
- 170


- 528

- 377

- 129



- 53
- 105
- 807
- 171



- 468

- 693

- 20
- 1


- 25
- 239
- 585


- 741

- 489


- 11


Mar. 5- Apr. 2-
Apr. 1 May 30, 1979

- 54
- 223



- 630

- 754

- 15
- 65


- 190
- 215


-1,388 c

- 324

- 987

- 303


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