<%BANNER%>

An Assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic benefits provided by homegardens

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110115_AAAAAD INGEST_TIME 2011-01-15T05:22:46Z PACKAGE UFE0007640_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6588 DFID F20110115_AAACVB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH mohan_s_Page_081thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e4c9c13bb9edba6f640c80acc25ac206
SHA-1
a1e1a4fa909216d5c51585861001ebc90a7529f2
5450 F20110115_AAACUN mohan_s_Page_074thm.jpg
6632ba4a3ffce2b0c47413fb45b9c1fd
16287f3cbd5f2159666ce7dd6e5a6ef09d71e2b0
5920 F20110115_AAACTZ mohan_s_Page_067thm.jpg
e2bb20c77ae9ad2eb62bfdf958d823a4
f2378e4c349917f8f50ea518d3266910dda374b7
69235 F20110115_AAABQX mohan_s_Page_035.jpg
c39ddf55ef14f3b4aaaaa16d3c699f76
b030b9d63dc45d8ce763ee94318cdf8b43bd1df6
69674 F20110115_AAABRL mohan_s_Page_049.jpg
1dcdadb2ff52c8f8091d35e48100c2b4
75c4d3f3b2d5936932ccf48ac0497c0baaff4f88
23773 F20110115_AAACVC mohan_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
97ec4f827fec85641a92d9d3dd6efbd2
fc1eb3870dae3d2badc9040c58f49d3c6324b304
17557 F20110115_AAACUO mohan_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
8a75719f897402bb2aa03dbafd363c14
7d809ab59cc1dd29972a6122bd68bb40b6c8c958
86635 F20110115_AAABQY mohan_s_Page_036.jpg
edc5f9652f29a97fc217e5bbff30d07c
955918763ef076a04a9d098dcf440f8905b7c285
73466 F20110115_AAABSA mohan_s_Page_064.jpg
f395bdc659fe407d4ea36ab0c5f22ef7
cc967258d18494defb057ddd9a9c4b28f53c5ef2
72409 F20110115_AAABRM mohan_s_Page_050.jpg
35be8f9836e5f62fb96ef393bfabe753
0d407b05c95322cd498ffc32c0dc3f674d6579cb
6608 F20110115_AAACVD mohan_s_Page_082thm.jpg
df0e2f1626b1c2034bf6dc1ce19d28c6
6dc3a454184571296cdd0c4084378fe0c9daf989
4574 F20110115_AAACUP mohan_s_Page_075thm.jpg
dee098761f411f687dde5142ba08f98c
e219095572f56a5e8000992571f535b4f5ffb7e8
70674 F20110115_AAABSB mohan_s_Page_065.jpg
6f11c9f57369e9c5481b429d7860968c
517c1b2ab9216f55fe8927920d8443164f533c94
61087 F20110115_AAABRN mohan_s_Page_051.jpg
649824289e8c8ecfcb3d12b8b96f5411
45f2d11cd4c98ac77d53b9b73a5aac8fb60a93de
23658 F20110115_AAACVE mohan_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
7b08cff6eb9cf71a3c68172b9510d62b
8994e187a871136d1ec6c85022cf127200ff9a20
17034 F20110115_AAACUQ mohan_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
139ed925a772c32a4e57273a581b492c
42de69fa4851d6992c555b884bec5379c9a9aedd
72494 F20110115_AAABQZ mohan_s_Page_037.jpg
e3644adc1fe65cf9df82d5c6023bd53b
85257d751ae669bf67cb4f21251cb7fa5c9effb7
59423 F20110115_AAABSC mohan_s_Page_066.jpg
b095e922575dca5a755cd33f98ab87be
33b6477b451c7a33bb4c70ebddac0efe08ee0a06
80822 F20110115_AAABRO mohan_s_Page_052.jpg
c442a06ee6872f9fd00167a514a4eb84
0e79253e0a9432f784ba4ac2c161352383fed02d
6529 F20110115_AAACVF mohan_s_Page_083thm.jpg
6b4356b4e52fef25ab2fed03cff0a9b8
47d1db09246bc03adcfd29cc62c965acab0d042d
4632 F20110115_AAACUR mohan_s_Page_076thm.jpg
fd20cc8ff6d00dddbb628fa17155963e
88fa519e8f16552919e26ea864fb982ceecec0cc
63020 F20110115_AAABSD mohan_s_Page_067.jpg
c753b6adbd0368178c785d5b63baddd9
d5b6d85a71ac8e0ab920f0d193b684ea8af9a972
75654 F20110115_AAABRP mohan_s_Page_053.jpg
01f54584bfcb445c63e818019be632be
dbc69df043ac0e4704b526a1e98e8009e000f655
23480 F20110115_AAACVG mohan_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
35587a983429407f484f772f3a38411c
29c9d70f44e43a1b62773e393184bf728e5d96a7
20352 F20110115_AAACUS mohan_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
d166889b7e66579881a6fcbc87f3a3e5
c796b7e4d8ab62feeb14f323cc9230a9cc66e25c
58861 F20110115_AAABSE mohan_s_Page_068.jpg
36b3d052410911c00e660c7b70af3d22
7c8cd1db488a931d79adb98c8d5f8cdecf65fe75
65433 F20110115_AAABRQ mohan_s_Page_054.jpg
3d923191d0612d329ae4349ac027fbc8
468262dca117587d66a1b77e3eece05f28efdd85
6594 F20110115_AAACVH mohan_s_Page_084thm.jpg
e7fff846dffacaadd2a574d7d5fbff8f
0311739376ab9f23640911aa13698f617fb0277b
5147 F20110115_AAACUT mohan_s_Page_077thm.jpg
699d6a11c5a2aeda9265df9da2d43f08
676ab9a48435b413d7a640fcde31c8b5b816847b
65689 F20110115_AAABSF mohan_s_Page_069.jpg
65bf578dd339d394feccde9973104a71
0cb7be27c929592e76e32b86b989b862c799171d
76798 F20110115_AAABRR mohan_s_Page_055.jpg
bacbcffa8ab086ad721c5c6143c4a637
e547dfd8eab72fd6db2117e17187554ad4c7df60
9488 F20110115_AAACVI mohan_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
3fead0d95fcc9c7137f47cea42e16122
c10eedec7af810f471eff18a998a33d9f7cbb7ff
22443 F20110115_AAACUU mohan_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
6ca813944cd53ae8cb90804875bfae86
b6a5d38fe14a18cd49b8ce511f26e63688f7b120
70700 F20110115_AAABSG mohan_s_Page_070.jpg
1941dbe8d096c354681eb0a763afd5b7
0d64a087a7215e22effab48a6f1ccf1ddc53915b
77975 F20110115_AAABRS mohan_s_Page_056.jpg
da309313b54e267425438abd1b4a8fac
9f190dba4024c911928c0bf059b88d1138269d9d
2926 F20110115_AAACVJ mohan_s_Page_085thm.jpg
24ec67e9bf7f789706eab63c1bdbbfed
b8cef858e801ac117b70b53c56d050e28430650e
5872 F20110115_AAACUV mohan_s_Page_078thm.jpg
8772c693d2b34335559e62a0d4f5efa4
abef0d5a9e76d7e5fe707c4eddf2b635e0862d1e
64537 F20110115_AAABSH mohan_s_Page_071.jpg
ad994a2f6d311b27d1ad9060dfc562da
7875784c3b0bf05678a0b0634be9adffbcbb7545
73823 F20110115_AAABRT mohan_s_Page_057.jpg
c965b5343887191b4b6758d15d39c96a
960e894f04e666d824e2f4c1d7c79232f816e2a6
20376 F20110115_AAACVK mohan_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
d06b04b763aea53116fff4e85d8cb6cc
8aac134d1cf9b366a8636e66f5aad2d22a0d5a3c
22415 F20110115_AAACUW mohan_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
f48fb7a34426335f9697264538b9ab0b
13c5822d260016faa35dc185676567b33e26b6f1
73465 F20110115_AAABSI mohan_s_Page_072.jpg
6abd5a725f993a960ea470195e1f7c32
16caa2bce3ffeea4b437f66d43c1796e9a2934bd
61451 F20110115_AAABRU mohan_s_Page_058.jpg
18fdbc10d3f8a6540413352e08c42259
836750a1222c0136a36f5548c954776a847bff0a
5705 F20110115_AAACVL mohan_s_Page_086thm.jpg
ebe668ac8721abe62bd4fa8add11300c
84a838f9b4e50774a9ef72f8d18f6ba7d7534249
6087 F20110115_AAACUX mohan_s_Page_079thm.jpg
3542021b0a98ec3db4a50a0527f56fe6
8c9622ac3267b153fda1e2faec11557acb3d11ba
69083 F20110115_AAABSJ mohan_s_Page_073.jpg
806ede9be8b7b570eb3a5d1e17a04c53
1a93ec844f16594950dd25d9cf5219502c120a6a
64217 F20110115_AAABRV mohan_s_Page_059.jpg
1a769d2eb1d6f5e80a58fdbc0b93d383
03478100d2c48f34ec50be7909943493d44a1ceb
17178 F20110115_AAACWA mohan_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
daf14526384a151c1e7e415e36a6c088
3dc3d973d499af246bafaed0bf42245cfe62425a
23070 F20110115_AAACVM mohan_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
899349a1244f7ac0abbc45193ff1768e
4ca07976428488b4b167f9445f1c40ff198c7ad2
20326 F20110115_AAACUY mohan_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
0bdd806b91aa497880d5b37b6ddae988
bb7265d324435e58130a8e6110a1936201560d8f
78162 F20110115_AAABSK mohan_s_Page_074.jpg
605f39f4a42f0a1812051e17f608947b
864d9e312ae6eac5fba959bb7cd6f8479eeb8f1f
70456 F20110115_AAABRW mohan_s_Page_060.jpg
0663143d0af22e67bad0067d1aff5a6b
811a36f1c90826b308d29c5d6288779c2f3cc83f
4912 F20110115_AAACWB mohan_s_Page_094thm.jpg
447f4d1e9c7cf71fa3cddf6929eef27d
bfe46c3493c5fdc792bb39d42c4229c6abbea6fb
6470 F20110115_AAACVN mohan_s_Page_087thm.jpg
b9eccc9f6006f365375dbe8afb90a5bb
6619ad7c4290cbd0d59a317e24f2c69b13ad4d33
5830 F20110115_AAACUZ mohan_s_Page_080thm.jpg
277d8dd4b45a4d94db9f762b298f3a3c
1404dc3ca3c174de80011da3885f33fa3d6e366d
63497 F20110115_AAABSL mohan_s_Page_075.jpg
47c11dd3b54db76560a1659f7aba98b1
9c44528041b3bbf2deb9318c7e150acfe9e7e9f3
71576 F20110115_AAABRX mohan_s_Page_061.jpg
72272e03ad4bfaa209f8bf2738ce9cdb
08b4f57b3875bbdb53e75300c3861743cdd2883e
18650 F20110115_AAACWC mohan_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
c2d6e7f90eace27c1c57f17e6973be5b
2b996f7c171f6c7603b84ce73d8321ed8af1d3a8
23838 F20110115_AAACVO mohan_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
c16271c8b3510ffcf1b36867aaf8a2fa
021c36d3cb514d1b068810fdeabfbe523af5dd4d
58123 F20110115_AAABSM mohan_s_Page_076.jpg
e50e4a6aa3d862b8eb832f3ab7cd59a2
fda6c125af9aaada0c4242bdc0d84573664bb46b
37264 F20110115_AAABRY mohan_s_Page_062.jpg
01b355cc08a0c5ffc56e7e3433d02a77
be39b5ee1c649a7a3e8ffc173228fad25c7447d1
72162 F20110115_AAABTA mohan_s_Page_090.jpg
fc5a57ae3c42b507a8b0ce8954eb2e51
698294221ee736a8cb5292b824eda3ee8dded260
5566 F20110115_AAACWD mohan_s_Page_095thm.jpg
05990a4c4447013d76fbf8f1a9a52ab6
8cc44d57a235caa341d66d998ccf5340acdad6e0
6563 F20110115_AAACVP mohan_s_Page_088thm.jpg
94e7160ce5496b4c24bad08590646381
883476a21fed64a5cb1b2f8884bd8c6baae85c25
75087 F20110115_AAABSN mohan_s_Page_077.jpg
00260963dc15f0b9a478ec68016cd478
fb086255e822bd403c56be8ba4bfcd9f58c5dd41
65998 F20110115_AAABRZ mohan_s_Page_063.jpg
c51a2c0f5c40391fa13df6ee0434a240
5412e9ae11c0b7adc95aca1497c018b0d927a638
73377 F20110115_AAABTB mohan_s_Page_091.jpg
064c38ad54a30cbe8aa42e97d4a633e4
3be46034a7e55d42539a6f292aa1017577479c96
19161 F20110115_AAACWE mohan_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
f78f4c0baf24cc02d66586e023e3a9be
4efc6e6d3d674a89f3ef870673165de3ae1260a0
22200 F20110115_AAACVQ mohan_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
df1c5aa9544519d816041cee8c54a4c6
2f532ee8de1cd62fa107efa4e4867041da587b49
79267 F20110115_AAABSO mohan_s_Page_078.jpg
9e541527a0f946f5879e5f96772cb577
4833888cd8f54ee831aca85750b717388a260ab2
69182 F20110115_AAABTC mohan_s_Page_092.jpg
69d97379b6ebcd62030390837a818b90
414e1d44fbd698a14120c905b7ba5e1f757f44e0
5611 F20110115_AAACWF mohan_s_Page_096thm.jpg
585490fd6af66e514c4e450a303fb656
1c579cd483abb353117d51f3efd3cc3d47281b81
6506 F20110115_AAACVR mohan_s_Page_089thm.jpg
08123c4e8c9cbc624de5f7a7b9f37e11
190fa36be5bb866a04f24eccf1429e5951978a5a
75251 F20110115_AAABSP mohan_s_Page_079.jpg
787794b87af27d3c34b842cc534925f0
7e0465067b732321018db3cea517a27fb676b02c
26418 F20110115_AAABTD mohan_s_Page_093.jpg
8d4c63e5e0a8bf4b17d07483a8fc1471
4a1c2298777c89c4ceb3aa5c414a18d4d3efa029
16629 F20110115_AAACWG mohan_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
26a52d891aa3fff28e2ad120ee6f8bc1
a3de445943e8150abd5b4be8ab8f63f0eb3ba280
23369 F20110115_AAACVS mohan_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
b1a8ed41f840f338e2a37efabcc39bcc
9bbc9d08d03c437d1ee3f7c6b53467c52523cf12
60525 F20110115_AAABSQ mohan_s_Page_080.jpg
4145c11794b4ce8686547c0070f93663
b4292dca5da498f32168d98d25f4de70326e3dba
55219 F20110115_AAABTE mohan_s_Page_094.jpg
d09924312af108049e16126355f6b8dd
c6c71bc301cfb6983273b301c6053bc19b35b9c2
5299 F20110115_AAACWH mohan_s_Page_097thm.jpg
44dcb4f6576d36e2dc95a902b6449094
fa9a4a3840599f0ab90678f44987b19a831defa9
6364 F20110115_AAACVT mohan_s_Page_090thm.jpg
fa5c95b236be44c5cee6f6b57612f93d
beb5f9be6adbafa8ae561f2abfab2e04283bee67
70508 F20110115_AAABSR mohan_s_Page_081.jpg
094bac21b2a7de229be814ee0bc077a4
fed1fc8357a493b0fced4c3c598e96bc2dbafe91
61245 F20110115_AAABTF mohan_s_Page_095.jpg
720989710f004b4e083234065a7b614f
00b37198e3c56648885967294ffa55f8bfce3065
20658 F20110115_AAACWI mohan_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
d6bf1ff0d78aca29c3c8c777a028241f
7a334f0013899f2a77689aad6e3c0973b935f452
24101 F20110115_AAACVU mohan_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
eaae517d8be9645297b04610e33a12a0
27ad552f49d8467884dd44edf1989444c791663c
73567 F20110115_AAABSS mohan_s_Page_082.jpg
5e9f9a699b0102e5a79569d191ba2469
aa68ec57dec5d91380ad0f771dda6070ac1056e6
62619 F20110115_AAABTG mohan_s_Page_096.jpg
cdb2323d1222f4e992e98e182a74135a
3b8c266ebd30e45b0c9b1fe287301a9774a31072
5777 F20110115_AAACWJ mohan_s_Page_098thm.jpg
dd3e57c85246de49beb9f8cfe4b67371
e1b47333c0281f34da9aec604211cb48605b7ba4
6428 F20110115_AAACVV mohan_s_Page_091thm.jpg
dbdb3be133253da1cf1aa2f66fa82db8
12d6c315c3caa36f1b9b6f64f08d009a9bdbf7be
72871 F20110115_AAABST mohan_s_Page_083.jpg
d04a80a074c4d198390b194ce5fb0fee
a93ba5cf0612fc02897deb290d2cc919a11221b9
56537 F20110115_AAABTH mohan_s_Page_097.jpg
ffb1232a9a3dfbb8a6366c1338d4d29d
99592f1938cbc860510fb791ec1f17a626acb71b
19454 F20110115_AAACWK mohan_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
1e5582dd2618d54106b9f27d96fb8183
e3d990c4c8f123a7118c3aba832822a066a97ef4
22303 F20110115_AAACVW mohan_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
00f0fde42584e4854029f3a51671bbb6
a698810ff8d1e6345ffed7aae13389414351fd7d
72220 F20110115_AAABSU mohan_s_Page_084.jpg
d266dd8edc7d6b2e43c858c1404a7725
d49eff6780bb7b50cc4600589c7d77bd594456ff
70040 F20110115_AAABTI mohan_s_Page_098.jpg
88019e1404b3fdc0f9e4299968a99470
779f2dde60e4b6645576a179939c3df2e69f66cc
5856 F20110115_AAACWL mohan_s_Page_099thm.jpg
516c1910eb7f958708c8bc1a86f42b3e
c2f80e2c5d396f73830a752dd1ba01f1bf2eb68b
6430 F20110115_AAACVX mohan_s_Page_092thm.jpg
c52053b9e5a9ca4b01acf63dff33fa51
e2ccb7445344be4a6aa9455f97fcf8345371790b
28448 F20110115_AAABSV mohan_s_Page_085.jpg
c7da2f505abfd01bc1fed4716f841036
bcecde981f3f2523b8dd194690e5ba7830faadd6
69105 F20110115_AAABTJ mohan_s_Page_099.jpg
15f5328d319053eb073955b831d4047a
f261c0ad0f79d69850f95dd1c705532ca827d5c9
10051 F20110115_AAACXA mohan_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
9705a5e46641fbdd0f581e0b14de8293
fea58139e792475b86ffd5e32647f178e073a0c7
17476 F20110115_AAACWM mohan_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
ca6ee5d1932e1de39401028c179c1a10
7f8db932120d6ff75310e5e0193359033c372046
8893 F20110115_AAACVY mohan_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
fe51987475c9af84672cb381310b678c
432437290378c5e92987534d767462cce02911fb
64415 F20110115_AAABSW mohan_s_Page_086.jpg
fd6f77520d79dedeb20da492134331a6
295087de18e17021809bd678daa0c9528c6b42b6
57584 F20110115_AAABTK mohan_s_Page_100.jpg
5d9591fc91680d41d91938ad099a980a
b573b5c46886d4d9b145416e8e28ab7b4a7d8dc5
3105 F20110115_AAACXB mohan_s_Page_107thm.jpg
754e506af8b5389cc17c90c1e8b1c84d
0aca33504d8840c4b74e2065a2e7ca962226cad5
5135 F20110115_AAACWN mohan_s_Page_100thm.jpg
d0f693d942e64955b698ac8628fd0501
daca44b8e1d5848d1c214e3fa0fe82be70fe6f62
2757 F20110115_AAACVZ mohan_s_Page_093thm.jpg
a51b8dc07f6b7e643583c3e5b91ee733
8b51da6a9feb30ad61562b00295d688c63945db5
71417 F20110115_AAABSX mohan_s_Page_087.jpg
8a783be9bc91dff4ccebae246302869d
7820a3bbf0498b5953806808f04108b779da06b8
62891 F20110115_AAABTL mohan_s_Page_101.jpg
1de8e0b185d4fc46e73213ac6fce264b
bf2aa6d8cd2e0d71c50aec113fbbdf30eaf28492
4840 F20110115_AAACXC mohan_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
da1db6a3c73eb07ea58b312ffad99050
0dfe06f6a780287e81f3a9a589a3f7d4bd197e0d
19227 F20110115_AAACWO mohan_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
d50e7a9de59e4a9aba705826f55f7e65
2a7eb80dec657dfa610b158cf5d0e442aea0a1a8
72677 F20110115_AAABSY mohan_s_Page_088.jpg
aed37058e429d42dfb11fc2ffbcc60c0
3feef43df590db91b617bcd7a96f832d58efcaa2
52360 F20110115_AAABUA mohan_s_Page_117.jpg
3a229ea1a54673cdadff165fa1be0346
c3eaa598473abd1352d2716807617d3e2899a9d0
53816 F20110115_AAABTM mohan_s_Page_102.jpg
20de89cd1bac8f9f5d5f0497ed781d9c
9bcdb864874c4a446139e342a6ac1c511d72c944
1838 F20110115_AAACXD mohan_s_Page_108thm.jpg
445ee551f155bd144806e628b3d2d25e
3651ca26ef57cfa236b95f78ad609ad872b3e698
5376 F20110115_AAACWP mohan_s_Page_101thm.jpg
c033a6d5ae54f0419c2da4633dcb3c9d
2e2ee9f33ce7b3fcdee126c67c0baaa213516d88
70094 F20110115_AAABSZ mohan_s_Page_089.jpg
dad45c5099fe442f155820b1a6b318b9
d28b436b10ade89ea18e552fe5a64742f2ae54c3
56498 F20110115_AAABUB mohan_s_Page_118.jpg
73fa127ddd222dfe47c585c1ce043ee7
1b8452d773278ffe0d3fcee88ddcfe6b21ed2224
52802 F20110115_AAABTN mohan_s_Page_103.jpg
f350c0d1bf5cc6ef79074f74e86732cc
2268b00450fffce91de986fe3514182ff5ea33db
22753 F20110115_AAACXE mohan_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
64ba5f86320b54294fd192b3e4b17641
0cdf616af557f6dd9ba14e13fbd80304b8958f0e
16404 F20110115_AAACWQ mohan_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
73821adee30373a31755a531dec9ed39
5d0cc9f96abdff94041e8da2d19c97aea5c6c969
42370 F20110115_AAABUC mohan_s_Page_119.jpg
0d06dfee4e3b29bc9fe9f057c435f6ae
f8ac42965ed2d60cd256e53b1105144542943746
55515 F20110115_AAABTO mohan_s_Page_104.jpg
799f9108e9589d151ed9e8708b358149
290f495b4598a2584b53799f1ede411f5a3dc3f2
6307 F20110115_AAACXF mohan_s_Page_109thm.jpg
5d4579bd5879f96b493bde981a97df39
626fa3d0367b168e3b9b640738345d233c815470
4802 F20110115_AAACWR mohan_s_Page_102thm.jpg
08973fdb8c115e15ee7a16e41cb7e358
b9b58dd71569b3ff97800979caf7b6525cc01bfb
81779 F20110115_AAABUD mohan_s_Page_120.jpg
750cbccc0ae403dbf64352a08e719f2d
6ea60a9a80700d09f62b49518daa8166721eea6e
40131 F20110115_AAABTP mohan_s_Page_105.jpg
06ecef45568202f80d3929e8ea5a6691
5d9ed21af17b6edbdb2591f79071eab55febe306
19759 F20110115_AAACXG mohan_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
362bc2dd1ad961c57130ef7e63039fd5
3525fedd5f52a6e49ade025f3c2a7ce759f8e5e4
15561 F20110115_AAACWS mohan_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
8339a314de1f5c01c0e05dca67cbddce
2925a84716c37d9875027efb48f81b54da23c453
41929 F20110115_AAABUE mohan_s_Page_121.jpg
aa34bcb3b7baaa6d300d5a4bef0fd9c5
8b7abd061b9cf7cd928c0523884b45d00bef83af
37185 F20110115_AAABTQ mohan_s_Page_106.jpg
64eb69037e7e71acb843c1597abe0f70
7a26aa90fbf65e015c3252193ccbe3aa1720cb72
5541 F20110115_AAACXH mohan_s_Page_110thm.jpg
24a8ceb0ee504a3c99233cfa54c78b95
b8efefd6eab47beba577e8aa0e9349a9b3803a6a
4540 F20110115_AAACWT mohan_s_Page_103thm.jpg
d4403c9da9d966118091d7133df4bdda
0ff6ef4bc4783a911d7d63c164d4f725abe6b0a5
68877 F20110115_AAABUF mohan_s_Page_122.jpg
efdeb73d6e16d02f934b298e5ce43c97
95d20d76a0a5462b520071bd50e11166aef8915d
32941 F20110115_AAABTR mohan_s_Page_107.jpg
dd1fd9107700a87f6a180ef9c2ac77b2
cd9bcc8f1806576b6946f152bc96950b270c3df6
25271604 F20110115_AAACAA mohan_s_Page_009.tif
5ba96109f76e88ded1943b24e343ca45
2b88ca7e17e0215da666b532a0be303fdeeb7cbc
12938 F20110115_AAACXI mohan_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
16530d1bb1d1ac31357100568219df64
5fd867dab471a5b419cee071ab4114ed60ed774e
16225 F20110115_AAACWU mohan_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
bd5b8d0bfbea3474f17fd1ae1df398c4
9139a421f0e43d6bbc6331d4bba44d4d92e429bd
83497 F20110115_AAABUG mohan_s_Page_123.jpg
d0d96c98eb9feeb067bedea9e2208b3e
91cbb010e6603d50a1de9c4316f05d681b4d2a9a
14587 F20110115_AAABTS mohan_s_Page_108.jpg
f84c177e186b80d024573ab6670ddd93
0d1be372e558a675442ec489690ae8694fcba926
F20110115_AAACAB mohan_s_Page_010.tif
a5c1fe732fb1b0bdb4ed77db9dee5f5b
63a1fb6a06e4bda332b2a05854cac803e42b656e
3896 F20110115_AAACXJ mohan_s_Page_111thm.jpg
7698a27cf12229a5fe648dd696e8d78f
4154047b665beac15a0300e16eef685a55efa3ba
4816 F20110115_AAACWV mohan_s_Page_104thm.jpg
12e1a79788c18e8ced780589521abbad
5ca6116eaaf55aca487db2d4685658707d05b4f0
72757 F20110115_AAABUH mohan_s_Page_124.jpg
e5903432711cea5ac92f34b10c28b8a7
84b7f2297c9b837446772b1cc204f76608236c5f
73904 F20110115_AAABTT mohan_s_Page_109.jpg
c6e2793415c411a79b24244929ae7223
ddb1c7da1e29cee11f02486f81d3384011c7af16
F20110115_AAACAC mohan_s_Page_011.tif
a2146d18f2d2adaeab934aad1b48982d
a8c4f69e559b33479b96d96dac0332bc79ddb9bc
11144 F20110115_AAACXK mohan_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
ee964db3dc69f30e2c85aeb2b588e858
b7da3945bd0c917d07f7d5dc4285153e530cab80
12034 F20110115_AAACWW mohan_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
e62349365f7469be377a389883ed65f0
0c22fc3bb7b9a4002306132e69a0305c76ee7f96
92345 F20110115_AAABUI mohan_s_Page_125.jpg
36de4b7d673e7ab99a2758ec4780dc02
dd29b4da18e79091bba4dea5b712d18715236afb
64857 F20110115_AAABTU mohan_s_Page_110.jpg
5512dfbb89295a7f797b4104210aa235
9d9cc0c05fd6ff206958725ab44ae5700525695d
1053954 F20110115_AAACAD mohan_s_Page_012.tif
1d3c792fbc045b8f01b1b0565a83afe5
e1175cf5e928422c6eb8c390e9d0560c60512dc2
3509 F20110115_AAACXL mohan_s_Page_112thm.jpg
d0c560b51b783f2fe3a7547ede0fe8f3
80eaa7f126b16f43587b6f883285861c95676a3f
3467 F20110115_AAACWX mohan_s_Page_105thm.jpg
d36cfac13ea761131c0859e90ca14a2f
a74879d4e2535cd9a14973998dd63bd4a3ab1887
78676 F20110115_AAABUJ mohan_s_Page_126.jpg
e9772e81eb7b0e63bd66abe995f83960
a8cbf55d3ca9a9c83af717e46a5d064b9afe6719
39006 F20110115_AAABTV mohan_s_Page_111.jpg
1337defcd71ffb3a2fb33b4f3fe6b0bb
30d4b0bca3dcf3719ccabf96f7258dad62101040
F20110115_AAACAE mohan_s_Page_013.tif
f63a6cb09d03ca433c53e305f748d9d7
51ca7afa9cb56fd7e254ab2c5b858188b256f917
22046 F20110115_AAACYA mohan_s_Page_120.QC.jpg
a220e415fde58c10c21be02197d4bee0
6ed3b8ebb5248c16b3e3b9fb7db33be053d119e8
9725 F20110115_AAACXM mohan_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
287a863a894e77309004fd2c2661efc8
5c182e7fba9f8328e9be216c2a2d38211d78e3b0
11237 F20110115_AAACWY mohan_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
24f2a1c7489eddb266c2a227a85a765a
4cebaa2dc5a655f8fbe9975e0868498524931287
92742 F20110115_AAABUK mohan_s_Page_127.jpg
15ff2d13a22ecc6de528fa51debc5513
8057addff41644f26bf397ad6bf75f777b6a227c
31526 F20110115_AAABTW mohan_s_Page_112.jpg
ca85ad065d2a91d188911af3a5da678d
cb342f5f74173cbefa49a452bb92761474893d07
F20110115_AAACAF mohan_s_Page_014.tif
5ddb579638fcfcb6395c62aa356fb606
76422a4ba106fbd28880dba4f7a4dceaaba51e05
5625 F20110115_AAACYB mohan_s_Page_120thm.jpg
f48dd68aef0e54a898c3792755b82918
e077a7d8a92f4b0c23e8c1eb3643e1d9f425120b
3166 F20110115_AAACXN mohan_s_Page_113thm.jpg
682d9a088001e982ea1da04f50fa39d3
845604b25d768c74c1ba7f7c4930c600c922f9e9
3323 F20110115_AAACWZ mohan_s_Page_106thm.jpg
43dbbfd65622e2ace94a3df2e9fbf017
6b0abf5ab0eb18aa4bd306ad9f139fef643d5572
87472 F20110115_AAABUL mohan_s_Page_128.jpg
a5f2f48cd72863714edaf98cc3539c59
5d541742d26169ead02da0a84af28b16e7e39e47
31203 F20110115_AAABTX mohan_s_Page_113.jpg
f219b9938639ead58cb5c30f00b80e0b
30fbdb56f986c3ebc1d50b2cd441ab575e930e86
F20110115_AAACAG mohan_s_Page_015.tif
3a308972337b394bf70468adbe669e02
3c752e33256967a8f4a08d738de4851e35a39754
11719 F20110115_AAACYC mohan_s_Page_121.QC.jpg
85e0b9a51413eca3b0c6e86985cd184f
1e2bfd5a595bbf292c75db2860735203c328ee99
15678 F20110115_AAACXO mohan_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
00208fc2b3ae9764b9251707d299bdfa
0302de5a6426c1296654d79cb5cb48ab8294bd10
1051942 F20110115_AAABVA mohan_s_Page_010.jp2
02e0c359c12afd5bc6d83889741fdb64
f989ab0e72e5f7552187fb204bd13ccfddcd9d59
83067 F20110115_AAABUM mohan_s_Page_129.jpg
a13043f4de99e732385c315917846c1d
80d1370ad637473b543154849d273c53b0fa5475
60233 F20110115_AAABTY mohan_s_Page_114.jpg
26b4c8b56820937c70f75ca6bef3b417
4cd49e25758d9ab99264ac6939c710b6ffc11c34
F20110115_AAACAH mohan_s_Page_016.tif
9dbfb59f22f0a6d534f18878dc4050d0
3354818d22e89455f8c73c12f0c7e1be33d2ab56
3121 F20110115_AAACYD mohan_s_Page_121thm.jpg
f97368f48520009e90337b296d5a01f9
b72224552ebf68072276de2392f283794a07ac14
4371 F20110115_AAACXP mohan_s_Page_114thm.jpg
8a900cd1ab7bc3b4ef3d3c27273df3e1
dfdb15e1cfa30b5841c7abbf925ea36b5f9ab8a5
1027623 F20110115_AAABVB mohan_s_Page_011.jp2
c221e4d52671649487ae04c67ccf9b68
0248809971829da786431e3b7be399515e297ddb
89218 F20110115_AAABUN mohan_s_Page_130.jpg
33bb182e8c8e6b7dceb201762f4dd332
648edf42a63d5f61f56a6468520d834567c9a070
26148 F20110115_AAABTZ mohan_s_Page_116.jpg
971c4e9f69f83547bdd281d6fd3188b8
17f4c9c56edfc33db035d3319f1e09e2ab176eb3
20532 F20110115_AAACYE mohan_s_Page_122.QC.jpg
a3b2570ab9f6c154cfc45a3db04dbc61
36d3611401578654e1c74e02971089247e1ddbc2
13162 F20110115_AAACXQ mohan_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
b3a42a2339fee5405e559d8c9eb81281
9701a4c4728d443854e96e05ca896177278c5222
87926 F20110115_AAABVC mohan_s_Page_012.jp2
a66e6580d6fcc5920eb50d039c9e218d
2cbca599dd22a6839c4f7cf85e48c21990be45c7
82570 F20110115_AAABUO mohan_s_Page_131.jpg
ebf8fe1a0aac8dffcc6bbadb44367285
9819f71b96a7ee8f5b46df00d6afd17097c708bd
F20110115_AAACAI mohan_s_Page_017.tif
52666cd5d3fc95cedf521f2ffa96a28a
1106126beb8bf873b380fd618709f311471a2459
5915 F20110115_AAACYF mohan_s_Page_122thm.jpg
4190f3b834971f44163d4707bc734ee2
7117b0a9b48c92f0bc78fb087d07fea32f60fe5a
3711 F20110115_AAACXR mohan_s_Page_115thm.jpg
dcb2957675337df3ec9423b620a84f61
506675ad0d69371cc900ae7d37aab4b7f4307d5e
91708 F20110115_AAABVD mohan_s_Page_013.jp2
ba3c2ef761389592307cc59f01ad0233
c32792b7c5d003a60c5c4a0b239107f1d0a73363
60422 F20110115_AAABUP mohan_s_Page_132.jpg
457389b3914ebb30ccd2241dc1db1960
5557744577abd7013a2c1276b133529f9bbc78a7
F20110115_AAACAJ mohan_s_Page_018.tif
a153cd0d6dc4817ec8e95e8a06a830ac
3e2935718eb4b2cbb1debfceb3db45a1428a77e7
24293 F20110115_AAACYG mohan_s_Page_123.QC.jpg
dd7db7a42b2ef3ff4cc03ca131fe34b3
411cc917eccd02d2e9baccf43a1484cd4c442c3f
8019 F20110115_AAACXS mohan_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
d90eda3c5eb15000b5af74653ebc4bb9
db6f16d210cf5f76360784430a807b035476f6f7
94236 F20110115_AAABVE mohan_s_Page_014.jp2
d53875598e3e152da1789701097bc04a
b965fa355abe014140a6a9feccc3eb5835d77130
38794 F20110115_AAABUQ mohan_s_Page_133.jpg
9ff2f62dca4230ad6ba07a08436261ec
95ee8e4b5673579951f5b26e065ebe2418a076a6
F20110115_AAACAK mohan_s_Page_019.tif
287dbaf84ff2120072cee1f1b984fc92
99d07373f6037e2ca005d37eadf55dacb7f8e33e
6647 F20110115_AAACYH mohan_s_Page_123thm.jpg
b663c5e620efd1c89321961300ca380f
c9bfac6f64b8a287ccb4ea2782629230b21068e0
2580 F20110115_AAACXT mohan_s_Page_116thm.jpg
b3067c5542094342b8761856d77fcaee
be81a2068541b5fe1c3aeb642f1d11d33bf3de0b
114209 F20110115_AAABVF mohan_s_Page_015.jp2
dd328c9147955c291d730cacbd3c43e2
37f01be72c3ece3a36ffaea0d506ff7af93859b0
26630 F20110115_AAABUR mohan_s_Page_001.jp2
bb03e3788014adbe14d89af74118e7ba
239b7e89b518a01e635f002540846ddd3053a060
F20110115_AAACBA mohan_s_Page_035.tif
9678b9ba1279893a03c4f151221a1e30
fedb26c4f5cca3e204350f79a964a7b39a78c2b7
F20110115_AAACAL mohan_s_Page_020.tif
87df9c71d6d22e6de3d91f178c52f29d
63f143e679d0221df9bd92ceafeab8600bb37165
21656 F20110115_AAACYI mohan_s_Page_124.QC.jpg
1843e57c8d1f61435da0066d1e3e927b
a76a6229a50d8864c94111e270cfda388da4cfd4
15190 F20110115_AAACXU mohan_s_Page_117.QC.jpg
1befb4b96ce227f43920f54019c5fc2f
ec19427e1a74852eb09e05513d0edc05cdbee072
93683 F20110115_AAABVG mohan_s_Page_016.jp2
52cf94b3599b812e5254482f5ea2e614
e25c7cab1ae1d54957c0d4eb750e87b9b784e1be
5581 F20110115_AAABUS mohan_s_Page_002.jp2
13bd9149a20cdfef4922ebbe5f59499b
2f1e475973698caddc641de1c231a86d0af72437
F20110115_AAACBB mohan_s_Page_036.tif
84080dea6d3be88d26f87daeb5a37014
23e5314bdd65199d53373e769c8ae01584d7dd86
8423998 F20110115_AAACAM mohan_s_Page_021.tif
5023469ac1c8fa36a238c9152f2ac24e
0d60da87fe7d2fc40990069dbc727f39ace6b8c2
6303 F20110115_AAACYJ mohan_s_Page_124thm.jpg
dac090362f7afdfbef19143c4ed9b72e
b1f131bd68f2d84a86f06fcc4370a0534d3938c2
4234 F20110115_AAACXV mohan_s_Page_117thm.jpg
397986e6d994bd2690feda4561ee5ffc
216dd16192d47990a92c1be258db04253fdae360
57154 F20110115_AAABVH mohan_s_Page_017.jp2
b3d265af4b1f0b1684b6599c623c9768
5c01d6839b4c222bf3bf23d0d235d4256c09f1b0
92977 F20110115_AAABUT mohan_s_Page_003.jp2
1fb580b352d637ee4becca4abc629483
b2962b539878f87bc5f9a38634c413d8af36a20e
F20110115_AAACBC mohan_s_Page_037.tif
417dd6c03d8c089432c4733cd4c4905a
011f684e2c01ed591a7e8c2da3ee03c01bf9e762
F20110115_AAACAN mohan_s_Page_022.tif
bab24a7de485a4e4d9614dc6db22cd22
ee275bba22dc75548541ccd1f87a9b9f765d6f15
25757 F20110115_AAACYK mohan_s_Page_125.QC.jpg
79103770f7ac87085432a30a8a02338c
03c4eedc797b7fcb1395367f9fec65ebc9e6b4ec
15311 F20110115_AAACXW mohan_s_Page_118.QC.jpg
da7acb0b5b3c7aa756537686b6487d05
2653699eca6a6d39e562ea086384b5a7cf14d1bd
94015 F20110115_AAABVI mohan_s_Page_018.jp2
0ba7c342a94388f124f55db160c7e303
798637ffa1c4ab6e4bbcce786d3a98a9f4b23997
59147 F20110115_AAABUU mohan_s_Page_004.jp2
6a8a118fcbeb8632e89baeff459811c2
2f4311ce03f03fd51898b754d7582c2709d19be8
F20110115_AAACBD mohan_s_Page_038.tif
37a44fbee464b5571946a437f78566f2
fa6eba8dd9818af1a968ded721e43a98e0c8d2ef
F20110115_AAACAO mohan_s_Page_023.tif
71dce5a4b3f603848ccf0f5a7860b30f
51ebe395cf46a3f4fc0a7903feb195bb9ae5317b
12819 F20110115_AAACZA mohan_s_Page_133.QC.jpg
d53100788b82adc0e31658dede0ae214
89971fc83035459da214bce6594c297419590418
6775 F20110115_AAACYL mohan_s_Page_125thm.jpg
6cab10900ae9035b36cf39e65bfc8807
b53aabd549ffb38edf65c08d22ce61804239806e
4111 F20110115_AAACXX mohan_s_Page_118thm.jpg
64139b528fea91484b1fcc9eb83618f8
7c79119228c3e5d3654b0c906023e9dd684f9535
113349 F20110115_AAABVJ mohan_s_Page_019.jp2
45f6c48e28b61e3b3639beb4e5498f72
99bfda6c2a9158d79318ed32cedc74dda45199f5
1051986 F20110115_AAABUV mohan_s_Page_005.jp2
990145edcbbc17532cc3c194c3f1fcad
8862aff4b438677e5868d208c6f7bf5c22af6f6f
F20110115_AAACBE mohan_s_Page_039.tif
a692acb3def82ab0504092d6ddc27621
5b7cd6b1867fbb5f740da74d69865406f53fcd5f
F20110115_AAACAP mohan_s_Page_024.tif
a6ae3a40018ba6fc4f3a9d0874eeb2b8
a014178f962b6dcf36d6caf154b444b40c0f37a0
22906 F20110115_AAACYM mohan_s_Page_126.QC.jpg
f7a84fad6b038e5198f27826d67b4676
eb08bcd4758894def3d10201f5153ca23dd88653
11504 F20110115_AAACXY mohan_s_Page_119.QC.jpg
a5e0226a71e224f6668a4c83bf655ba4
2ce920631885353c480962e2022acb4725dd57d5
107306 F20110115_AAABVK mohan_s_Page_020.jp2
2a78db4529005b11429a1734880e7ef6
19715bc092c1acc14966f4250f42de38b309eafe
1051982 F20110115_AAABUW mohan_s_Page_006.jp2
1a80834100d16797fdc4bd4dbffc456f
582dfff1e9f6614e8e8bf7435e5d62f3cfa22d52
F20110115_AAACBF mohan_s_Page_040.tif
98825e6b0b4130e2a130742b3a370b79
f17e01e5cc62d01897f18762a9496aacca49e8c2
F20110115_AAACAQ mohan_s_Page_025.tif
e6ae67e5a9bb9fa3cee72bdc85e7a468
7c0612064f4177d7151b1248f91267142acfadc9
4004 F20110115_AAACZB mohan_s_Page_133thm.jpg
6a094dc50f91062693e391b8dae6ea18
cf8a6787ad9342dfad12a2ea14915b2afb470824
6501 F20110115_AAACYN mohan_s_Page_126thm.jpg
305cbc639ab207c679b2ee85c63cee2d
09749b2b5d9282bf8bf879c9f143c8e14d3a1370
3065 F20110115_AAACXZ mohan_s_Page_119thm.jpg
385896f04ddd67cf6dde0576ba697e16
2b7ff4dda30eec2641f70e58b62b44b1eb11a13b
1051924 F20110115_AAABVL mohan_s_Page_021.jp2
e0f4a4512a1a87b905cb907c941ac70e
56ba35af8e799ccbaa14560d463d4ad46758ae08
1051965 F20110115_AAABUX mohan_s_Page_007.jp2
f4303dd8241cc61a95818ad0ce91938a
371e17a4703496d429e0a7b7e535fb4d650378b9
F20110115_AAACBG mohan_s_Page_041.tif
97937bc978f7cf54dc5be44025d3dc3e
119d04ca506ae0d8278d9c92af340ea1b7b328dc
F20110115_AAACAR mohan_s_Page_026.tif
f927a3a4b4b168b20b36e5249743ac24
ea0e4056f694add5e84566958f12fe0af4ad1abf
153111 F20110115_AAACZC UFE0007640_00001.mets FULL
35e77323f85a0f39bf21258f86666107
92ed86641daddb443ccc5a69fef37423c27c288d
25697 F20110115_AAACYO mohan_s_Page_127.QC.jpg
6aeb44deb695e6a391b03d802ba673c6
ff0052451c326f65d56b5aef5341d9e727298066
110106 F20110115_AAABVM mohan_s_Page_022.jp2
e75bd87762f3952ecef6e2b143f6fa7d
e3cb46990fea7543480cb12e2910046b658b2131
1051976 F20110115_AAABUY mohan_s_Page_008.jp2
ba93ac1dc8d8a24f963d5d93f09909fd
d8819d3a1f6bb76f45aeae22185c46033e822259
F20110115_AAACBH mohan_s_Page_042.tif
1f82e2649525ec064e7c0c15f440db82
5d2e172070e2e60ea4a4fb6fd2fb4c1b7a4551dd
1051940 F20110115_AAABWA mohan_s_Page_036.jp2
a8af11bd643fc8807ff2c6edc58d6db2
e7c9c782105950333dafeaf321ae3a5348a1b0f1
F20110115_AAACAS mohan_s_Page_027.tif
ad314cc4b79b9e04d758e4c236bfa768
f49d87382dc838581144b1bc9947fd45c6f7947a
6868 F20110115_AAACYP mohan_s_Page_127thm.jpg
d58192e3acfc1752cf5229ea3271e748
aa6ecde2c7a4a04fede1df8aed44cf313de2885e
107335 F20110115_AAABVN mohan_s_Page_023.jp2
6f6d59cd75efeea3a5074673e7a60290
2e0e0ff4e6401e30df68e9eea36411efea02f4dd
1051966 F20110115_AAABUZ mohan_s_Page_009.jp2
1b926032e2fd13cfd772ba01e2083387
8704815b2a67525b2b544c0d34358b6d3b8f5de1
F20110115_AAACBI mohan_s_Page_043.tif
6be53cf24520b4e76f176d2214ec68cf
6665d2e66c40ee0b64694e6762171f09d91d9d23
111854 F20110115_AAABWB mohan_s_Page_037.jp2
61cd798a35546705f37fce39ae8ac081
c00d68788c2c1556dea51ea3128c58af2aa386cf
F20110115_AAACAT mohan_s_Page_028.tif
474e08a966eadc3fc31cb3c2a46acd98
eaae20ec11ea40ff18db3130afd34d81d5bf9c1a
25408 F20110115_AAACYQ mohan_s_Page_128.QC.jpg
9d0396f8d14224c34a1068995d631c76
d73c59767e4993dc3f65560bb4d69fcb1f1b9340
113412 F20110115_AAABVO mohan_s_Page_024.jp2
1a66f95ac3b8119604a2c72143b9aa91
e09b02a2d457642711bc178b6e08da229505f2eb
108436 F20110115_AAABWC mohan_s_Page_038.jp2
7b12fb093e4e3ed2d00475910b74fdcb
4a253774de08afba2f958b3ae7206f5ae78cf219
F20110115_AAACAU mohan_s_Page_029.tif
04dd0e1f9d9489f8e293ee06f30b34d4
f2cae2e34cdfbc0c28d684b1cd6ccb1cfb301a95
6776 F20110115_AAACYR mohan_s_Page_128thm.jpg
0a6135e4c4180efc23533a4eac7db2e9
d24e7e671d0e1c152588e5665e7b1d03ed8b6e5a
111619 F20110115_AAABVP mohan_s_Page_025.jp2
90bbd98414e2b33ce017a05f0a02035b
5cd43b91021ab16278b710c254599c2634c57039
F20110115_AAACBJ mohan_s_Page_044.tif
6ab0e5055ee54a8028d3be9c11b56b0a
b7bb8a0154b5e10559bde749801f68901a673b60
113260 F20110115_AAABWD mohan_s_Page_039.jp2
a960e8bcf661baa44e98e851e9fd79af
3cdbe3bf67df05602354736248c2816662537a8d
F20110115_AAACAV mohan_s_Page_030.tif
9e14355e207634470cb82279b9fc26b9
8697ec51686356b60dcf90591d384eae4be42bff
24773 F20110115_AAACYS mohan_s_Page_129.QC.jpg
98c23e3200d787a5ab194a35b3cee205
29fbe6f2c2f49117c4443295df2c11aaa867f1de
92920 F20110115_AAABVQ mohan_s_Page_026.jp2
a4c55bce500f2bc6fe83072b2c3d5e28
289ac487d8082d2f3b46fc350dc13971f560cc82
F20110115_AAACBK mohan_s_Page_045.tif
f1e00097a0f9ae56a7b1c040e5839268
81cc92cabede4afe8edcd4d3e79705d2e346ec70
785076 F20110115_AAABWE mohan_s_Page_040.jp2
3b46373e7bf90523d842cf2de92f6476
3d6564eba22ce85a57153be0adbeee711d412555
F20110115_AAACAW mohan_s_Page_031.tif
c1cac70d93c45540245194f7dd9de6ab
2bc4b75830c667d48f57e4479f2a4c1a38331318
6573 F20110115_AAACYT mohan_s_Page_129thm.jpg
7631603f1d9a92c08fbb434134efbb27
d2ab616884c36fee7826986e1fde5d7d62e374e7
95284 F20110115_AAABVR mohan_s_Page_027.jp2
f02a14c961c489e297c493ccef4fe31d
17581f3758463c7b59c0c85aa8d63a8e92d30f0f
F20110115_AAACCA mohan_s_Page_061.tif
38f91a9299fc56c1432205e9cebf015e
404bbca5a7a9cdaa13ba905ad66791b4065e50db
F20110115_AAACBL mohan_s_Page_046.tif
b000de37181b594b62b29f440e691f5f
449a54a7b87262fdff0114625413a18e91291cca
96969 F20110115_AAABWF mohan_s_Page_041.jp2
aac9af4663657a1569e5fe6473c2104e
7c60cf46408b64f68e08d4318bd2294b86867501
F20110115_AAACAX mohan_s_Page_032.tif
bab64ceb19d3db5ea368746300de178b
230fb7c7ed614e0e128296f7648b0ae339d29366
25876 F20110115_AAACYU mohan_s_Page_130.QC.jpg
06ade4ce069bf3a6b69af09c0db68562
33e325173f8823f36235f4875aaf6d33c010944a
105232 F20110115_AAABVS mohan_s_Page_028.jp2
59bedc856dfa2a5756e9d6e9372aeb6a
5807194f0f1c4514e26bd6312734c5b0adbcab02
F20110115_AAACCB mohan_s_Page_062.tif
29bf331bffc258a50e2a1bfd18034ba1
9dfc511818b3879d306bb6fafa2d0bb2fbe85cb3
F20110115_AAACBM mohan_s_Page_047.tif
eebd780b2e09c431bcf88f46adf00dee
f50ee5effa14ed1193285a5d1d7d4f119908413d
112780 F20110115_AAABWG mohan_s_Page_042.jp2
6b74243803e3a15c582bb92dacdf7868
9c085b2bfdd6d588a9fa90a920dbe447a3311d8f
F20110115_AAACAY mohan_s_Page_033.tif
f5370ac444c9f89330e7f76b6ca4bd89
fe16da7b775d5cae940a10500f6d10572aa8db02
6670 F20110115_AAACYV mohan_s_Page_130thm.jpg
87bd2a5b531f3530bff25064c77730c5
d2c593209c0d0ac73fcdcf815ef2b97c4328cc0a
1051926 F20110115_AAABVT mohan_s_Page_029.jp2
2b90a8333b2458ecfec0d68edddb95e6
8e788bd2de88171abf0010e65450c81d44d4910e
F20110115_AAACCC mohan_s_Page_063.tif
509c531e71e359a1ffbc27027f2ac314
9983aad2464443367ada47569de504536d18657e
F20110115_AAACBN mohan_s_Page_048.tif
a5c822a26554991727f322e72bc60fc4
026dd7176ac93abe87e3653d78bae95fd4c55009
104323 F20110115_AAABWH mohan_s_Page_043.jp2
371a0503d05e068641da996adf004767
6cbbf8c9b9f7ba819d1b60cf89c221251ee7c58a
F20110115_AAACAZ mohan_s_Page_034.tif
32d884d8680b9a2a0630f2847f57441f
a0dd6fcf2a8c749edc9a374496d36f2d8776a3d8
25237 F20110115_AAACYW mohan_s_Page_131.QC.jpg
0ca3310d31182f4c0b57529a1b393204
7eff88ba4d51909da7570202f271a46bd7f2c454
111588 F20110115_AAABVU mohan_s_Page_030.jp2
d9a460803a65cde2c943087e4c189cf5
853204ed604345a20e34ccecf9859387bce41ed7
F20110115_AAACCD mohan_s_Page_064.tif
7f2a69dee12634dbe7cceed2db9a74b2
1b40759c8607210c7e750ea6e929700f731ed37c
F20110115_AAACBO mohan_s_Page_049.tif
bbb3bb0a5572bb78d7a073ac421d1e36
da772a903419355d358733c5d0b64d520ca83af8
101172 F20110115_AAABWI mohan_s_Page_044.jp2
a38f5f42894107184cbb3f8f0f97b570
5f57d9a6ec458dd179ebe44b6c26e1e0dd658f5f
6726 F20110115_AAACYX mohan_s_Page_131thm.jpg
7a09837dce725d1051654057275f72d1
b5d15b797c9ef81e5074dfdb8f300e7ac735dd57
1051953 F20110115_AAABVV mohan_s_Page_031.jp2
73fceca00ab58849ec585084093ab8d4
4f5afd6c4311871b59a4e7c564c44f69be32423a
F20110115_AAACCE mohan_s_Page_065.tif
40e322de7bd75fccb309d06c3074f3e8
4a3874df159423fa3dff71b4131161e11e3a7a25
F20110115_AAACBP mohan_s_Page_050.tif
4607bccb99931b94b4532fa6ab3e0b79
cad253026b8574954dab70e7003acbe2a0872617
1051955 F20110115_AAABWJ mohan_s_Page_045.jp2
c09c6056a459f960136acc4342bb070f
ad7eefb8e25a342d0597a5200bae318d01eca9f1
16827 F20110115_AAACYY mohan_s_Page_132.QC.jpg
e22ffe637c6f04946adf8bc02c9a399a
1f8a9088083d2a452ec0b80e371d5de835d020a0
1051943 F20110115_AAABVW mohan_s_Page_032.jp2
bd5471ca39ef42a9c7395ec6019016e4
0fc893e4d4df7d7c8521d7103681810c8be8d815
F20110115_AAACCF mohan_s_Page_066.tif
fa2bc95f5f52f1e3a9716eff72e83f8c
4ab01f388045d38bf79a7151f665a8370cdaa7db
F20110115_AAACBQ mohan_s_Page_051.tif
d2b2c86c92495e045b6e031664f0d0ee
255086ccfaaeb7cc0cfe65e05442af66146dc826
111638 F20110115_AAABWK mohan_s_Page_046.jp2
65c43c891e7a58b1083fc1a31c13d659
45af11ac31dfac2f84a4bd9dea4d1cd6a1d3900b
4793 F20110115_AAACYZ mohan_s_Page_132thm.jpg
eaedec0a36e537bf6ee10407031990a1
f4e7ee445c7322eb5f5c536a2633999bf38ac84b
60809 F20110115_AAABVX mohan_s_Page_033.jp2
673e1f48a13a05e7bca3b8a9bd27c28e
59d8737003f301f181dc69f13ae39633f5fc5b68
F20110115_AAACCG mohan_s_Page_067.tif
a6e7475c0c9505b744c20fc8a9fd9ff2
003d49e62eb315dd051d7def65cfd3745af20a1e
F20110115_AAACBR mohan_s_Page_052.tif
2931ef41b36a8c99beebaf60f7bdd937
825de2f1fc6b80bfb414fb07dde83e1a6a5f7d33
106262 F20110115_AAABWL mohan_s_Page_047.jp2
942e9b559281b14072e53ae2e44ffdc7
a1eef823cc52287640a9b910c4284dc1317a63b9
95210 F20110115_AAABVY mohan_s_Page_034.jp2
313bd11348c515189ef94d84dd3e0977
c2d93d98195241b5a1beb2da9b287db8ae819577
F20110115_AAACCH mohan_s_Page_068.tif
06695ec2b19f9c6669311ae67b1a6c53
682fedef4231b256e6b47977bef7b0d9e658c709
50572 F20110115_AAABXA mohan_s_Page_062.jp2
f39853d5c9b136292a1d1a81c128e085
305ee4e99a6ba1b4cffe0e6154ef59f29763a2b9
F20110115_AAACBS mohan_s_Page_053.tif
699a8ff1395ed76786bbf5300ab4cf28
d211ae1c25e1ddf07b5e866e74d41dcb20cdee7c
1048452 F20110115_AAABWM mohan_s_Page_048.jp2
1f987f9d6890231424d7b0f0029869db
1ecd76b9b3bf9b4702cfcf9e554ed2758cc82a5e
F20110115_AAACCI mohan_s_Page_069.tif
d89b8f05ee4efe9f4192e98015f150f8
df632ef71ec70683df4cf92cb8d925354d428af8
98236 F20110115_AAABXB mohan_s_Page_063.jp2
09a4f9415445a991ff8897927e9931d0
5813889677b2b8139f7b60109135bc28e06c467b
F20110115_AAACBT mohan_s_Page_054.tif
d88bda7d4bc12c066415e4e091fa8bf4
cb2d1b1a20202f973aa34e670f6f24faffc27244
1015211 F20110115_AAABWN mohan_s_Page_049.jp2
43963e5edb06d6eb479ae143e1efa1b8
3f31600ef407f59c6aaeee03cd7fa28a86b9de4a
102743 F20110115_AAABVZ mohan_s_Page_035.jp2
1a0a48e370a15987d938147f7dd46fdd
ecd192558a1c053662d26eaf6bef6de8e24b5aad
F20110115_AAACCJ mohan_s_Page_070.tif
d52f040210229971ac0cf0526b778d8a
0ee629890bc7aca7ea08a2c0a71ee143cab7b13b
112865 F20110115_AAABXC mohan_s_Page_064.jp2
d4e19b11bf193811faacfbb7515ea61a
781df595ac031748184f94e2a8291627de1433ae
F20110115_AAACBU mohan_s_Page_055.tif
55145c5b876662195181c6628ae45afe
e5da06ef5d801dfcbcca5c208cc9c352552e03aa
1043024 F20110115_AAABWO mohan_s_Page_050.jp2
741f1f294f74c61e7c05cc59bb742793
72a6c011192affa701d521998cb446660cad8384
108473 F20110115_AAABXD mohan_s_Page_065.jp2
cd4fc9709d46d8510ad1cb8695c4c57f
5a41fbced0c2b48175facf14ee954552dbb6288a
F20110115_AAACBV mohan_s_Page_056.tif
b177f8e7463c2bc61845c6d6f1eb0cb1
92c4e313c67afe09770fae1e1eaebc0637f121ac
745821 F20110115_AAABWP mohan_s_Page_051.jp2
fa495a5c66705f1939f1e73858a8a646
8fc5095e1d6e9d6fc37ae4f1f1dc8e6b131fd158
F20110115_AAACCK mohan_s_Page_071.tif
63fc15f99fb07c64818915384e71b772
7b7c90b6ec14b4024f680325a0b553a20156dae0
91252 F20110115_AAABXE mohan_s_Page_066.jp2
7cb484116c01c28752e67f4d529df9dc
1627e0c086e039c7ab432ec8542991e249ac702d
F20110115_AAACBW mohan_s_Page_057.tif
f11152d205d38e9f4ee85da9ac1e4749
3b47683bdbfa9219b2645615ce51170255ec0697
1051961 F20110115_AAABWQ mohan_s_Page_052.jp2
a5c0301d42ccba30b0ab5e324fa46ee9
c56b2a84a385e32d2121e371f3da85748b3f6013
F20110115_AAACCL mohan_s_Page_072.tif
00df8accc3cc7b13bb9f779d20044845
caa251d67f9e33a1bdb76cc3bb3a5cec0171b1ed
97565 F20110115_AAABXF mohan_s_Page_067.jp2
8a7604d98665d616785a6ae07f84c704
bb0fdd120d6c3ea21e6720fe544d44bf5328d368
F20110115_AAACBX mohan_s_Page_058.tif
60efa574879f5ffed400911091c0c669
2fcff6b60e65a6ce749758cfa67cb5d397351a5e
1051971 F20110115_AAABWR mohan_s_Page_053.jp2
33c0fc8bcc230f0ed3e5f2a5599657c4
4020ee735e9d51240f4ce69cd5c7e57846451023
F20110115_AAACDA mohan_s_Page_088.tif
a2360f20940ef11a2e99da5711de9535
448481c60025e68692f6b3cf5c78407c539fff74
F20110115_AAACCM mohan_s_Page_073.tif
c9458e7d6b2195c45701df74215ac9ec
bca6791c3a447126a115a45a12459e53b6377ac6
88011 F20110115_AAABXG mohan_s_Page_068.jp2
936e2bd1556ed86b278ed1c06aabcccd
5f1d48c5b237a4dfc8c8f24590d456a4f9b2f6cf
F20110115_AAACBY mohan_s_Page_059.tif
cf9a8f78ebfeb814245a20150c185687
dd9bb1f2a7299acbae74b93354bc9e5d6e4b8b22
957320 F20110115_AAABWS mohan_s_Page_054.jp2
68cb211e6206bc6611f0df2776b0c116
5b19a03038b559bd171922be33b78a78706777d5
F20110115_AAACDB mohan_s_Page_089.tif
86ed67a500268081e4d4ac1675ceced0
7cb4d90483402cd35e9fb31debe55a498e42ac0d
F20110115_AAACCN mohan_s_Page_074.tif
106e11c6ae90167d871307ee45d8d242
cf825d307bc5309f1750a9295a72b1e4d893f989
102043 F20110115_AAABXH mohan_s_Page_069.jp2
ce081b524ea718105e6e317498481db9
8e6959a302fc94ac9c28917bf9a61e9dc3623471
F20110115_AAACBZ mohan_s_Page_060.tif
36cbb0675196f22eb3e839e9368446f9
a7cd8dbf243878afb2bc804f193ad3d05c652eb3
1051973 F20110115_AAABWT mohan_s_Page_055.jp2
35fe89477343b8a9676920695c0dd629
1e3d8cbad99739a1aef7a042da1ba507688fd7e5
F20110115_AAACDC mohan_s_Page_090.tif
50858e6dc1d043f36307af07bd194dc9
8c38ca9dab672809db316eb85f9ef0ba83b3ee05
F20110115_AAACCO mohan_s_Page_075.tif
c358ecb16025ca1bd5c2c4a8e04c6b10
35899ff73bdc7c9e9b2e07695f8298c2b8223898
1035470 F20110115_AAABXI mohan_s_Page_070.jp2
879834f8acb32566b91781aa1ef83821
f2ca104846e7c88cfaa55d82acd42a1e08374bf7
1051967 F20110115_AAABWU mohan_s_Page_056.jp2
2b477d8ecbee266feff566c00b17632e
9124b1ed9a372b93a1028e72b7b9ab2d0793f70e
F20110115_AAACDD mohan_s_Page_091.tif
26d90eebf4323473122f49f7185886cc
8caaa9ec374e321e70197c62c730aebfda4f6189
F20110115_AAACCP mohan_s_Page_076.tif
3ea5e75311cd52a1b87a961e7986ff2e
fec75b64433df3526034b93d5c3607b94b955812
924052 F20110115_AAABXJ mohan_s_Page_071.jp2
46984ba134324fe5e43b38b08b993f4a
86ff3edae0cbddf03fc6a32eb39579fe838718ca
1038549 F20110115_AAABWV mohan_s_Page_057.jp2
b9833d47ea90a7754d2734a81d6cb38d
31faa73661e9fd66743dcb5b8bfb903e866ac102
F20110115_AAACDE mohan_s_Page_092.tif
b39c97bc567e41fa7b80188ebb83b5b9
0ea32d8a9280decf2d444f984b6ea3ff53a3aa08
F20110115_AAACCQ mohan_s_Page_077.tif
e67070ae2a70ddb13dc16d6ffcba08fb
2531dd6df58f7eedf7bbfc15f23187b277fe5928
1039863 F20110115_AAABXK mohan_s_Page_072.jp2
2b880bdc9695e89475821955b439a3f0
435a37edc1dd6dd73c0e4169454599980266cedc
868493 F20110115_AAABWW mohan_s_Page_058.jp2
96e43376a6b3f20fa536c055fd449363
3b4cbb4d3614d6c330132099863cbeade9304cea
F20110115_AAACDF mohan_s_Page_093.tif
0c84a57f40d9df85f476625475b2fde9
e2472f4abb92dcbd035c2cde56905b7e9c28e270
F20110115_AAACCR mohan_s_Page_078.tif
6eab864c73537f2bd07a00a00e9a7ec2
7e26350a0759ff52bb4b4f07737066569570c8c5
1017304 F20110115_AAABXL mohan_s_Page_073.jp2
24b25af88c2e5bbc11be3720fce6bbde
29068158cd653fa9d6e4aa5be17cbadf589aa823
911803 F20110115_AAABWX mohan_s_Page_059.jp2
981deab9eef967f0528b710494ca5367
71d1afdc3e62285f36fdbefe397f1adda4ee2051
F20110115_AAACDG mohan_s_Page_094.tif
ea18e4ec39eefb4e64ecbc749ebe3dfa
ec6e4566429934716f1032dc74fc2be004d8ea65
106840 F20110115_AAABYA mohan_s_Page_089.jp2
6d7ce0cd62270011b17338d248b01204
887813e47044727bc2ee3951db0d045d2ac229d5
F20110115_AAACCS mohan_s_Page_079.tif
0e23765551b00a08fb92630c4351a962
2ee1fd80dadc64d5d936ce9cdd1e66094c9a5054
1051970 F20110115_AAABXM mohan_s_Page_074.jp2
a5b48bec07eefb1ccdc9c3f5c2b40333
9c0d1890187831ce1ed590c37b712928be35a2e6
106230 F20110115_AAABWY mohan_s_Page_060.jp2
107e548e99ebdbee034184c464314793
b7b7865f84b48956aea715451740286726723369
F20110115_AAACDH mohan_s_Page_095.tif
01aff0f0a331f2c5c571ebc9ceb3ba8e
a9b6e153b1bc542dd5e092e7965ec5fb5af061bd
F20110115_AAACCT mohan_s_Page_080.tif
4772e033566cc8f7722b1d3746a006d2
186bd8cc0755c8f700e072d83000d77bce064c8f
921075 F20110115_AAABXN mohan_s_Page_075.jp2
f66f6e850ff1ebb4f48be11bd69d73f0
fc115cdf0ca66d9b4bec4f073a5a0cc8dff92810
109201 F20110115_AAABWZ mohan_s_Page_061.jp2
91406bfe11ad87cd4a4dbb2fa9f7b52e
463eb46dd75af2edca967a248117f689e0a9b025
F20110115_AAACDI mohan_s_Page_096.tif
f473a4b7787eb33d796bc8100d20dbb5
d68758b62d8592fcb9676c88fcb29ef0b4568a50
111283 F20110115_AAABYB mohan_s_Page_090.jp2
44afe6b8e930aa1a20744da6d75189d9
6c6596a301adea4649d67b839f3e8345440c0c49
F20110115_AAACCU mohan_s_Page_081.tif
6a62b8f5db7668926da21e2f22899bba
e046c669aca8564309a484d1dbd7c23b84a84960
846793 F20110115_AAABXO mohan_s_Page_076.jp2
24c3ffa44bbf92cfec3daff40d7e22cb
0dc59b49975ce6bb91653f8a3359d480aab2d0ef
F20110115_AAACDJ mohan_s_Page_097.tif
0e855317f5574905825e676becacadd6
0e5c362bcad111bffd27478ac7195860b12fdedb
112146 F20110115_AAABYC mohan_s_Page_091.jp2
03b66831294fe8ebf1a555e3638f5461
3586d222e1a25dbb3374e3410bb87e589b04e6b6
F20110115_AAACCV mohan_s_Page_083.tif
dab340ad19390ac8e734f2b831e9a841
fd8437038e84ce46549ea6a8dcf03fb32b9603b3
1017896 F20110115_AAABXP mohan_s_Page_077.jp2
1230625a4eb8e94a33854c47494ffcf7
1a7bb268d702f20589010e8542ae16f35d4f7c25
F20110115_AAACDK mohan_s_Page_098.tif
8f3737331da2d359d8178a9e9fc61f78
0592fca0d43de34da8437eaab2450a412d2f521c
105507 F20110115_AAABYD mohan_s_Page_092.jp2
85791d295d3885bd872dbbc8893cc1ee
eb2700e18a7d20d7032bed6d588545a3d19826fd
F20110115_AAABXQ mohan_s_Page_078.jp2
d2e81de5f144bf8ba2467f3aca8c2c85
51edb561ed5699081a8e16d29ec5b14df79c7d81
34699 F20110115_AAABYE mohan_s_Page_093.jp2
ada64dda761c6d40ea3a7a2807a87941
e4fd75c5b0852f19cc85406534a46e21ed972bd2
F20110115_AAACCW mohan_s_Page_084.tif
3610290d8d4b77a1550f1a83dd6c849c
2a17231c0f2d10463947fb292afdd5c5899d4dda
1051954 F20110115_AAABXR mohan_s_Page_079.jp2
7287f75cffabdc8d0c594d4df2043431
43b22db66e45b7aedd0b1734d83a7a5c1c62db7a
F20110115_AAACEA mohan_s_Page_114.tif
2bc8d00389d9f458064bf8f55779c927
3fc1fa275e1dde307957e386234c8ea00759c297
F20110115_AAACDL mohan_s_Page_099.tif
d8c04e6b484fbaf21a8bb6d105fcf2a7
b17b7a4ff80446beb483ff92b33e41a63ec3c098
80543 F20110115_AAABYF mohan_s_Page_094.jp2
1d93e12b8097598e636f66ed74b58748
a20049cd89490293cba3487cd336a3a34a5b8894
F20110115_AAACCX mohan_s_Page_085.tif
3d452cd34bf58dedf3a4a6431a1f781b
0313c8f63d430f2d8b36fe1edbdc694d51df3f49
106240 F20110115_AAABXS mohan_s_Page_081.jp2
27553a3787af8b11475eb50a2bee69ba
8b583cfdb87be9ff4c3ed6840f278bb5710c9a07
F20110115_AAACEB mohan_s_Page_115.tif
d5950d095937ff9094f3b9d3c3342dce
ccf52f5a456e4158edfe88ba698df3c20711aecd
F20110115_AAACDM mohan_s_Page_100.tif
f4468800f8ea96b5aa2077a72fd3fc36
23c1ffdb3f203ffdb406962a0104abf33ddc3fe4
87977 F20110115_AAABYG mohan_s_Page_095.jp2
ea3e468e5774f58ddb3a72d2621363ad
551913fcc0e4ceaa7852467a244475ae30243eb4
F20110115_AAACCY mohan_s_Page_086.tif
b70e103898cb1f165c03f82b42e94f63
94fb2b60be907a610589bd5b10df34a9123998d0
112369 F20110115_AAABXT mohan_s_Page_082.jp2
a13c371c1aa477afa4cb59382ba29932
fda0b1633771bfa2d8c27c9ecba82b55f8d0de74
F20110115_AAACEC mohan_s_Page_116.tif
c2294672dd36998fb76b528862def121
c50ab565921a18c7b14a2416d8ea309ae0b58e28
F20110115_AAACDN mohan_s_Page_101.tif
ab8853bb9b7c4618f35b25e70c68ff29
f86e7108a362d61ce8e9b62e9eead3c2da2cd45b
92103 F20110115_AAABYH mohan_s_Page_096.jp2
7594e179b987caf9b66d6dd9cc47cf41
70fa07cf9ea6b273e314a9b430d3dab1c2ec5d1e
F20110115_AAACCZ mohan_s_Page_087.tif
17729246e48a996508b291172c34cc13
6570a0a5282120b656a53145ff47959441db0767
110773 F20110115_AAABXU mohan_s_Page_083.jp2
ba7a7bb90d785351b769d14eb6ab64e3
56ffbcac26fcbd8afdb668b9bafbf4a6314d8232
F20110115_AAACED mohan_s_Page_118.tif
249c2fb6943dd56363b63c6bdaafe62f
3dc1b24caa79b114e778ce778f1269808488125a
F20110115_AAACDO mohan_s_Page_102.tif
07c3188f031ab563272a1bbcc510763b
b074231d12e07f9d852a428ee6e99259679fbcbe
81304 F20110115_AAABYI mohan_s_Page_097.jp2
a38b831d8ff98df9fa3489ae5d370005
09f1a9db12c0c065da4f32dff6c859b55830b24f
110073 F20110115_AAABXV mohan_s_Page_084.jp2
e3916ce947a4bb3689b70d43cf54866b
c888026e4ee59f937126e1133f15e65cd987b1b4
F20110115_AAACEE mohan_s_Page_119.tif
827c0a5cc2d66fef264ca9838c39aa08
c4db9895fce0be3724f32ba2c8e960dadd1f6fd3
F20110115_AAACDP mohan_s_Page_103.tif
67838d4c0c67a58fa948fb5f2ec0e0ca
45f7e3411672843c924fad168fbfa56c73a4179d
922055 F20110115_AAABYJ mohan_s_Page_098.jp2
1e0e847e37de315c0366977ec9db08aa
d34fd562d61c696a7282cfceb7e17f54d6dc747e
38422 F20110115_AAABXW mohan_s_Page_085.jp2
6c3e4c6ed448e44cf9c122c8eeb5f30d
a49c99f16430b2391dd808b0c1b037be837194a4
F20110115_AAACEF mohan_s_Page_120.tif
f1901d56413d5cac0b144413e2637c80
c2744d40075d8543a720f81a01046d0d967aa858
F20110115_AAACDQ mohan_s_Page_104.tif
7975642c2bd754bd91cb4def3b704f75
a4ec1250ece72945f45eee8860ce6014f0503703
908734 F20110115_AAABYK mohan_s_Page_099.jp2
8f49704c1bd1c1938610a1cee59f685c
afcc1a5f96b805f4fc18d6e77853550d1cd5a0f1
96275 F20110115_AAABXX mohan_s_Page_086.jp2
899d0bd1732210f30f75628ff1b4c05b
87a405b39c0f52af939592ae8c2bd2f1f1a01331
F20110115_AAACEG mohan_s_Page_121.tif
017edb41197c712f81a398fd169f21a1
8a887d32fddb03b733c5b305f2ac346b60eaf89d
648826 F20110115_AAABZA mohan_s_Page_115.jp2
977d65025766f9ade81e95ef4af18a5b
1667cb6d945ebd538cb50c75a0a0b84e09bba1f1
1054428 F20110115_AAACDR mohan_s_Page_105.tif
575ab65616bea32ab05c2e91a3778281
bd266a7965d27b03fa07b1e8808491e860493337
80411 F20110115_AAABYL mohan_s_Page_100.jp2
333bfd9ad308e154f97dcaa175b9aef9
59a55a192483b9ad3015c2fb079ffc40cf8d3aaf
109843 F20110115_AAABXY mohan_s_Page_087.jp2
2eb978c69aafe68378f9cff2c7f93c17
e84f5af063e2bbf9d19fdfa41e3bee28ee758262
F20110115_AAACEH mohan_s_Page_122.tif
f438db49efd462ba99dfd0a8d32e8556
218fe68e99f1e8300e9ce2270ca1c616b81ef406
33239 F20110115_AAABZB mohan_s_Page_116.jp2
0152724f4c0f6ee9859f289a76feab3d
e6cee1ba3b2fc4f5f1fc98f5dc2eb423de309017
F20110115_AAACDS mohan_s_Page_106.tif
66fcb1bb479d8a7b3ded4023c0f21513
14711f4cef728db85a93130883920902b41db4c5
822420 F20110115_AAABYM mohan_s_Page_101.jp2
e03d6199597edd9527abacb7bdf2d409
234f1d07cd04a46816135553b4843d0788ca6818
111206 F20110115_AAABXZ mohan_s_Page_088.jp2
419a2d8c99c4a6d8b1357b6fe57f7f55
d341a30f7b1917a8760859fd96a05035cd248bee
F20110115_AAACEI mohan_s_Page_123.tif
24d8f28655eb279d7b03de9e071dbc9b
d96b9a660c1af3f876e9aa256f7e1ad01d4811ec
F20110115_AAACDT mohan_s_Page_107.tif
d3eec3855f587d0ffdf782ea3188a44a
e1757ddb0c837b55a94ed71acf1c970b4bbc89d7
706423 F20110115_AAABYN mohan_s_Page_102.jp2
18ca63d95e982aa58962c4610a9a5745
eff616f836668472c24aae15a0dcca7e765c7855
F20110115_AAACEJ mohan_s_Page_125.tif
0763231d110af8f613a911369c5fa4f3
19308151d2652f479cfd9ce879d4d73482797e18
662956 F20110115_AAABZC mohan_s_Page_117.jp2
4c676e35a18ae6179d4def025dd88318
d5e1789476839e89167f34902658253d4867c282
F20110115_AAACDU mohan_s_Page_108.tif
789b0ac861b8d182465037d5ced304f8
3b4aceb9c43ca05a7d23d749efe3aa429227f243
82492 F20110115_AAABYO mohan_s_Page_103.jp2
e6d171752d20c5433d503cb1bafc20ea
3dd8f64b4b9e5ed4cc6002f3e866450102bd4915
F20110115_AAACEK mohan_s_Page_126.tif
415dfe8634880041b9f326ad2e074b93
3956605e2ef1eb5d85ea9fbc53e7f4b09e64fc16
767641 F20110115_AAABZD mohan_s_Page_118.jp2
5dd208c96fc31b740b339d0125bc5ed1
79cb8e44086949af53d4a63010554aef997528cc
F20110115_AAACDV mohan_s_Page_109.tif
52395068a91f30250fbe9c08ae43359a
14a9b46d3ed0abab92ab8ed81331c5ae4798d073
85868 F20110115_AAABYP mohan_s_Page_104.jp2
1140910a5e90f0c48ba9ab21e5eedc8d
3de60b9deb42f5df58e5259a331d36400da5657b
F20110115_AAACEL mohan_s_Page_127.tif
114be5a7c7a9a55413e8934cc835ec71
846118b2d512effe2dba897a2ad4808f34495788
550367 F20110115_AAABZE mohan_s_Page_119.jp2
9b7d0764333cbf71b33b09a895e7a126
9b9e9e06bee14dbe70a5ef08463ba088f56a0c89
F20110115_AAACDW mohan_s_Page_110.tif
8f04afb2bc92dacac8cc296367fd6d09
3f1330ecacda6c87cd125c7adc174187dc26345a
91525 F20110115_AAABYQ mohan_s_Page_105.jp2
90aa2f4acddcc517ee818131adc67a56
1395eb51155c388c736663c1475523afd48d8fc1
F20110115_AAABZF mohan_s_Page_120.jp2
615a5a8fdedc3ca397cf077bbb538b48
9953f4c489b5ad3dbffbab2d390c8f7e4eb04232
F20110115_AAACDX mohan_s_Page_111.tif
444e43e03c01b67e12b3512647f3b4f8
3339c0403ad93f2809ec07b31647c1039c0a9782
83540 F20110115_AAABYR mohan_s_Page_106.jp2
5afd7df11cdf9e25367ac515d926af8e
99a5ba2c273b3658d6e7b242c22d0d8ce98493d5
76503 F20110115_AAACFA mohan_s_Page_009.pro
7f7815ef0b3e34b808ce81103f8b2f0c
52806af299c389cdc96ea8468c86b5f2e1f2f7c3
F20110115_AAACEM mohan_s_Page_128.tif
a6b5dd1581cce84f468d8705aedcecf5
b910e2d8523bcc9f51d33cf1007a3a732adf8ab7
574209 F20110115_AAABZG mohan_s_Page_121.jp2
8441ec957329c211ae02ab61a2ac0fbd
c133929e95422141fabb8c2fef5738bc19048824
F20110115_AAACDY mohan_s_Page_112.tif
17d2afc4199ca7a2da3578a1adc53ce2
4f91d3d4b297bd1bb01738c5418e269b075d99cc
70851 F20110115_AAABYS mohan_s_Page_107.jp2
56adf415bdc899ead86874156faa4ebb
a219eff0cd93302d307962840abe3c46496e5c7f
37276 F20110115_AAACFB mohan_s_Page_010.pro
d6c04eb2586d5a8aeb36dccda126ae4f
a345fdb56b8b241559de732c53e1ba191a6ed521
F20110115_AAACEN mohan_s_Page_129.tif
9138184b4556a33d4b20472cecdc717a
3bef91045ee919ccffc866d95db8a9e81b8b3095
109678 F20110115_AAABZH mohan_s_Page_122.jp2
c31489c3aef26d48c3bf10ed2ae4c6ce
1ae3b3f982d5c4d4bcb7844aef8d9cfe49c59006
F20110115_AAACDZ mohan_s_Page_113.tif
85be1c849ebe4b514b04b089cdc07b13
5ff39f902c8c387f091a239a186b4ead0d17c1d8
23546 F20110115_AAABYT mohan_s_Page_108.jp2
7f615cf72724199829e965eb2647070f
451b3b6192242d08b34e3c0f8c0b45debdfa866a
30437 F20110115_AAACFC mohan_s_Page_011.pro
59c84be9b8590da6d063377dba5c30bb
db2dbe7e1d0470dd6d5421d126276cabc300bd0a
F20110115_AAACEO mohan_s_Page_130.tif
89727c7ba65dbf3381ee905f76518975
ae2653add49e2612e24e7d7865c0fc5f5fdef1a7
129833 F20110115_AAABZI mohan_s_Page_123.jp2
a3f8728216de777fa71336279da3d75c
431c604158c4d2c4a4d8c40093f5abddce704f0d
114969 F20110115_AAABYU mohan_s_Page_109.jp2
9dc0ea5da47caaf182691ca7f47cbd60
6ed0d0a48bec2af4b65b047a7712a89baa08614c
39488 F20110115_AAACFD mohan_s_Page_012.pro
566dcb2ea49d9044dd74f15d2bc1007a
c9ea688c6300d7e09a5beb1e3ed58fd3fc92145b
F20110115_AAACEP mohan_s_Page_131.tif
53766324bef6c3e2cb884f33b273a135
8cb14114bf67bb81144673125f9687f64efc19b8
115289 F20110115_AAABZJ mohan_s_Page_124.jp2
f3e0d277f1a39f8121c3dbd76fe0c396
ebd267834c586a8687ad35fc9e78a542d266a256
96894 F20110115_AAABYV mohan_s_Page_110.jp2
00abb5cccce56edcd8450ce40f3530c2
108a7cc90030589a5ee627935f8b0f39b320d927
41195 F20110115_AAACFE mohan_s_Page_013.pro
8b69980cd2ee36bf95880f9a7d5a2d69
5839f9c4bd182e45188eb9c3854b83a71cb6ee50
F20110115_AAACEQ mohan_s_Page_132.tif
bb852dab92d47e24e4604851efbd59e2
76d2eee006ffb3d857f3571245f36f73d16ffba7
130318 F20110115_AAABZK mohan_s_Page_125.jp2
2a05ed0b1e7c310eddbafca8025b7d5c
fdd9fe5e84116284355c00de61d6cbd89a463a53
472320 F20110115_AAABYW mohan_s_Page_111.jp2
543cf507a931ebfcd384f724d8d2742f
c88dae916a6030ffe89784134355f28d65c4b069
42626 F20110115_AAACFF mohan_s_Page_014.pro
03cb41a72a2ef636ae774ebdf2dec009
5781ef0123bf75e5db8a28ad0d4be264b4933b93
F20110115_AAACER mohan_s_Page_133.tif
92e87620982b474ba6159107503baa13
6de49023307daf458264915c81ff0cec6654ed72
115343 F20110115_AAABZL mohan_s_Page_126.jp2
2ba676f7c86a96748ff52891e4617d6d
e6e863622c5124e694ec3ac8d22a2f6898e2850a
336707 F20110115_AAABYX mohan_s_Page_112.jp2
981da11d2cdf0309780e85271152c322
599b8fadc33807d53a925e0a85352b7cc01a2c6c
52703 F20110115_AAACFG mohan_s_Page_015.pro
71306df1ba181afbdc931cbdd5a193bd
365b18f92c7abc467858c7d231e626f5c766b3da
8973 F20110115_AAACES mohan_s_Page_001.pro
110513dc933ea9ceada2e92d61c56a6d
4f0b9b33eae100dc6d231196d866cc725a9e434d
136116 F20110115_AAABZM mohan_s_Page_127.jp2
8db139c300b0e31bf828c0c687989ccd
b1528ca86ecbbdeb17df8e188f596fc3b948f00a
37996 F20110115_AAABYY mohan_s_Page_113.jp2
63b8bec4cd36688b01e289c7b5649b26
7c9163766fa605d672276e1dc75773afee15234f
43028 F20110115_AAACFH mohan_s_Page_016.pro
7a991ec16228c3b32c35b16e8eaf6018
9f5efe99bc338df5119ca871752ef97a93790fce
1096 F20110115_AAACET mohan_s_Page_002.pro
3c2a4d33503554d8fc944a4a2d69abc3
3e3d753e93c6bf4d8bc15db8c99c8f68a442017d
129998 F20110115_AAABZN mohan_s_Page_128.jp2
48ca5a134c8035ab83381d4080357d11
08068bc0394f796eacf4bcc816038779631f8b1d
783685 F20110115_AAABYZ mohan_s_Page_114.jp2
483a018b741fbcb0b6b8d78a8085911e
f8c9de1d650a30dba49a346380c010959c6e560f
25152 F20110115_AAACFI mohan_s_Page_017.pro
8bef5540d40a827920d5547fbcb37a1e
6e8044425fa5ea6e9e2b468be48c3ba9bae917d3
43200 F20110115_AAACEU mohan_s_Page_003.pro
94993c42eaf90f734dccf3bce741509c
c0466871428714b8f40a2da0ea2d68376988d767
131187 F20110115_AAABZO mohan_s_Page_129.jp2
ae4178b088d60ac51f24d82bc91cdce6
087cfa7c07102734ec09fdef8ed948ba2f30fef6
41614 F20110115_AAACFJ mohan_s_Page_018.pro
493d75b4e5f2b8f888f5bdc2b2fec624
c9223f536cabd5f43801c035cd2b2bd0ee9d414f
25713 F20110115_AAACEV mohan_s_Page_004.pro
5b511c61f5ec31999d2f6dbf25d90eb9
3f0399b272a180cac80db93fe968aa220bd246f1
137047 F20110115_AAABZP mohan_s_Page_130.jp2
793cace2164d908a9b201be6155cb526
fdfccdc6ce069395343566cff8ff7bc531ef3057
52166 F20110115_AAACFK mohan_s_Page_019.pro
c091d40ae6445843ff5a008379971873
5d5c5eae909d44c599785c26bb9c0cfb5b82fb23
69448 F20110115_AAACEW mohan_s_Page_005.pro
01825ddd949cd7f85defc6fde273bde8
0564d6cff17334a2b4389a4c31ea3e8273bf930f
126959 F20110115_AAABZQ mohan_s_Page_131.jp2
ad67ec7e1f12c3bf91166641d7918f53
684dc9f934658e1a1ffe8df877db3f5b43a58180
48730 F20110115_AAACFL mohan_s_Page_020.pro
1108cd234949f65d51bbc4744154b077
f5c585c3a9691b5f897d3aa57d3b0ee4693fbbef
106722 F20110115_AAACEX mohan_s_Page_006.pro
e1e86ee072553416c5ca14c5e1fd4c8a
eeac0ab8bfdea5cde99643ffc9df8e57b7e30d63
52925 F20110115_AAABZR mohan_s_Page_133.jp2
765e9e9fdd197ee8eecdfbb1104ecd2f
9502a82de7e838ce0d06e4ff99081472d8cd7e5b
48236 F20110115_AAACGA mohan_s_Page_035.pro
a9b690c883a2301b7cc5115c2c9ddd46
9f2c33bb4339d1f607d2dc5c7f22b32c40a8c05c
53888 F20110115_AAACFM mohan_s_Page_021.pro
b39f0ef1b9b824f599738f7d7c00b914
e53660083546871a5d630167c49a2ca9c2e3e8a3
34708 F20110115_AAACEY mohan_s_Page_007.pro
c914ceb9ed47be36541c73dc835a7b22
8a7c1a45ae5beba00007d05dc020f8a9f57987d2
F20110115_AAABZS mohan_s_Page_001.tif
b287e47a068d19e44650b562f0ee6cac
c961fd7e2f4156d21feb11d288bd549a8d7cc7ec
20150 F20110115_AAACGB mohan_s_Page_036.pro
600846a7358fa914cc0c07239ca7b414
5ee495e21c73b55f2cf436efc3fc9721076e56cc
61465 F20110115_AAACEZ mohan_s_Page_008.pro
82883106f13effd60ea9d1c5f9c9b96d
976dd4cb330e30e107a0deffdf59ac354ffe2062
F20110115_AAABZT mohan_s_Page_002.tif
8dac2e40409b072205ed386619b50f73
06f9566686d5c53632306000de94656fec7ae2de
50135 F20110115_AAACGC mohan_s_Page_037.pro
f71c02738ca1095af27758be18b5ce9b
d018d8fd284397d52e574ff8a5d0777859f151f1
49800 F20110115_AAACFN mohan_s_Page_022.pro
0f4c11f1941e239d1aaf2d6cade6b6f0
7c6b5484ff9b97a51c1c68d455fa19c3e98a44f7
F20110115_AAABZU mohan_s_Page_003.tif
e5fcfe9531e82df4c4560f609937a926
f4232ec0512ae3cdfab7ec053498abce94b97b02
47240 F20110115_AAACGD mohan_s_Page_038.pro
f07e4afdb7aa993cb34bcb7b41a62ebe
12b6d70541ab31c927eddb3f41b077663cd0192a
49075 F20110115_AAACFO mohan_s_Page_023.pro
13520292852674ae47cfe83ade96d1fb
c9b8242e958eee70c7c7674be821f3b82326543e
F20110115_AAABZV mohan_s_Page_004.tif
db7d9d39bf79e3f7c4a54dbd89a8bd48
ff228e2873d4722d7b68901a223eb6de59c2d9c3
52028 F20110115_AAACGE mohan_s_Page_039.pro
9b29061bf53d0321b555a06a9a71af2a
4d08b39fb6bb96a3a1b8cc99506d83ab5d33badf
52142 F20110115_AAACFP mohan_s_Page_024.pro
8000856faa09abd609cb263e59b08f9c
23346d4e6e1fe77f7c8e6a7ed30319bcc7c859a8
F20110115_AAABZW mohan_s_Page_005.tif
70a51539717cfd809075816e451788d8
f2283f146c95a5b0a465bec77f6061b20bcccaec
36944 F20110115_AAACGF mohan_s_Page_040.pro
5b138ddbca2d2d2ebbd90c47f2ef3801
45eea89a44a64e48b47f3af3a3c48db96d6f7f68
50223 F20110115_AAACFQ mohan_s_Page_025.pro
a9d849746377a855e4d599669ec64f26
67a4f82253f1cc5be7d8b5a6798d71851b258f07
F20110115_AAABZX mohan_s_Page_006.tif
7b7cdb27ae108d037ebbc03ec110cf26
b90a2051ff5658fbd5e75caa3bfced64577000bd
43821 F20110115_AAACGG mohan_s_Page_041.pro
443857a5531f226bd1777c613e5afc69
b274425fc039d40255a01b04978db6689a713649
42005 F20110115_AAACFR mohan_s_Page_026.pro
8c1ee51e4b38f019525c555e90641ec7
8259afb48df02bdf31567144b935b33480c2e225
F20110115_AAABZY mohan_s_Page_007.tif
21d5933ac888dcb1a6caadb9b5fedac1
627525e3849381d8598362c65c909eb095e5204f
52119 F20110115_AAACGH mohan_s_Page_042.pro
4760c925f231f66881af0605d5f5c2bb
788014053c0d06e1f4fee2a4459623443f06105a
45604 F20110115_AAACFS mohan_s_Page_027.pro
450379bab7639e60ed61e0776808602a
ef0afb8997d7914bcc70c5e7fca3dda4a1ebc754
F20110115_AAABZZ mohan_s_Page_008.tif
ac1d6105bce9dc459e29ce0e0c9d3ea7
0a242cce88ea07f5356f8eda20614f75059c2d40
48741 F20110115_AAACGI mohan_s_Page_043.pro
08cad5b88806d4b082bef720b3f5a075
2f933b05d8eb515e8d4b56885541f20cee9f7ac7
47946 F20110115_AAACFT mohan_s_Page_028.pro
0a6665c29049b79ccd7214f9d52fc7ca
95d94e6ad25d65a8d01d9e1fb8d9dda79bb81e75
47306 F20110115_AAACGJ mohan_s_Page_044.pro
071faf94ed7914118567655ec9211296
70ee69c6be2637dda9483a912e142bfa11638a01
49756 F20110115_AAACFU mohan_s_Page_029.pro
c58eea5c6ed50e7397972a8b2aa8e75e
0206590d1e0db56807fe69f9b542b99fcdbecefd
50000 F20110115_AAACGK mohan_s_Page_045.pro
a53e2825c96e9cd6d71c0291f95c7112
7c9c717028e7446f691b07bc82e2796efcb36cc8
51350 F20110115_AAACFV mohan_s_Page_030.pro
463d687bd9e88073026f4072393a56bf
28bde8c52b55fcde5d4a0f039e86f9238b38bf3b
52404 F20110115_AAACGL mohan_s_Page_046.pro
108ddd4294f53394589b36a717e80945
6948661e30c0a2f312bd6dc2bbbf5115f6989873
47079 F20110115_AAACFW mohan_s_Page_031.pro
53401d95b42c0fa6ee6f291937b31314
bdf551619efc6720f9386ea00aaf987a87325341
50356 F20110115_AAACHA mohan_s_Page_061.pro
08b1aa13229ec38b49cf2461ece24b23
0965728000cbfa442fd22ddce3a72ba2eaa3f0f4
48634 F20110115_AAACGM mohan_s_Page_047.pro
e9922203fcf355689549176f4d5455b5
ee7be8b75a0d31c83ab04213c3e7a7fed7c7d239
53166 F20110115_AAACFX mohan_s_Page_032.pro
275b074c6b1d7138fc029fa8e9ddb216
13a29ead20a72c1bfa843496de1e346cf27b8f59
22381 F20110115_AAACHB mohan_s_Page_062.pro
86d1645057f3fd7a2df1c52f2f1caced
445a362b1453e4e0910af6e6c566e872eb9c9443
47908 F20110115_AAACGN mohan_s_Page_048.pro
98e87cd7b8ab5eff1fc9d7814c03dbb6
402a5f6b06f3c0e41e9252f9b41cc37dc819e21b
26608 F20110115_AAACFY mohan_s_Page_033.pro
347132ebc84bf0308fd1b8e229f30b6f
f38b8f27374fda3f3a2c3293c514a778a24601ee
44161 F20110115_AAACHC mohan_s_Page_063.pro
05c97844ba0e68f65c6cfec0f395965e
30b4b0a585599de92fdbd12a2e3a1dd6a1fef7f6
43500 F20110115_AAACFZ mohan_s_Page_034.pro
51aceedc7ceeb685eabf9481ba3bb0ea
4b99c71e2c2d6675f3bfea5e15a3194cfd1de75b
52560 F20110115_AAACHD mohan_s_Page_064.pro
012518d871871620d4ca729e20cc20c3
6431e8593ad218d7ced1ccd1c5704abdac50f75c
46930 F20110115_AAACGO mohan_s_Page_049.pro
c9f55f0462a15c7de48d8d6b8e3d3ab3
d27c61f072b6be2a3467aab2986f164447c9e049
49894 F20110115_AAACHE mohan_s_Page_065.pro
5eccfd83471ac3423759a18fd7a32d61
d61be4412fc131bf0f18f15a33df04386378d76d
48303 F20110115_AAACGP mohan_s_Page_050.pro
e06f3ac01b95c4bf0361517458b4b8a7
a255af3697c129310e14cf6f18d4b9db401a6990
40760 F20110115_AAACHF mohan_s_Page_066.pro
06b661cf7525e7fe0ba1f2af188fbe59
2dcaf731734eb2b66ab89f232fddaa3871ac0124
32236 F20110115_AAACGQ mohan_s_Page_051.pro
dbd90eadbff2ca1d8a6e521da4e84e49
a1aea2fedb20396a7d10c32238058be511c5e2c2
43839 F20110115_AAACHG mohan_s_Page_067.pro
3c86fe25e205baea18d7235637741655
4e3bfcce5ee891bbb9de31cff714b88186517edb
53229 F20110115_AAACGR mohan_s_Page_052.pro
93e6a011be2fb6bad84f8a67dfd30275
77d7abf8a711c6f6834ba4a490a14ee053c2c545
43634 F20110115_AAACHH mohan_s_Page_068.pro
93930bfda6166a95bcc1473bf655eba4
05ded195d16fa5fcb17b08175d379b871fcd05ab
48818 F20110115_AAACGS mohan_s_Page_053.pro
5d6dcdc62822e8fc7c59f666692c2bff
120ddb861c5950a94ee80da36ffcc3ee3fa2dc76
46110 F20110115_AAACHI mohan_s_Page_069.pro
32e49add4994fbf34e0b9f0e3c168560
9c0ed59cffd82de73f1d172d327195bb16899a1d
45219 F20110115_AAACGT mohan_s_Page_054.pro
a85aa1e706054d2caabc3eaca0026588
02265495be229e24fc868cab5004c8116153f9ab
47510 F20110115_AAACHJ mohan_s_Page_070.pro
e7fa8acbc1e39a94a17be8af8ff772f0
7c1753a1989599ab5e730479bd63157075e27ef5
49718 F20110115_AAACGU mohan_s_Page_055.pro
95abce80d712fc49fc1793287d10d234
fb7b87054d69cd17c3bf51215f753e9c1f2d4f04
42519 F20110115_AAACHK mohan_s_Page_071.pro
29e51651f08663629c2ca3df3d8d41ac
7c0eefdee687abe997a43ee636a9bc5e5f5e66dc
51022 F20110115_AAACGV mohan_s_Page_056.pro
1804c2a52da84ede7253ff8ff60ec4d6
ecadf22a969e4ad51c887ec00de0c2d898085bf9
48049 F20110115_AAACHL mohan_s_Page_073.pro
1d73b8f03ec117728e6ed535563c1443
5898ff2788134a8617518263c56fff3d1db4d1f4
48001 F20110115_AAACGW mohan_s_Page_057.pro
9fdcb3327fda8c16ff01936a9828c601
1de43a40e78b1174b6339417fd601ac505bcf142
49310 F20110115_AAACHM mohan_s_Page_074.pro
43464d35b94d1dfd817d68d6076e7121
771ce2253f2f37cc6afed15920fef8e3199321ad
42044 F20110115_AAACGX mohan_s_Page_058.pro
e82f87b844816248aec26ae005dcaf8c
984b0f6205b66c6a063fec72cd3fcccb2b260bb3
51404 F20110115_AAACIA mohan_s_Page_088.pro
0c90d53c78542e6d5d49bb0e1359ed48
80633487da995e22e87b340def6db791ea7d6297
41101 F20110115_AAACHN mohan_s_Page_075.pro
a3aa549d4fe4f47e1a87fff72d82270e
c49e7f33d0ba82647526d2360174dddb883cd9f7
44261 F20110115_AAACGY mohan_s_Page_059.pro
796957e7fc25012917d9cc52180b5b2e
d10769317373d9e5083d4f03eb6c31a90b2e530c
48485 F20110115_AAACIB mohan_s_Page_089.pro
b1752f6945bf007d2b43751192e9ab48
4f185100b7782b839bf865d7b37ab47ca8dc1494
39229 F20110115_AAACHO mohan_s_Page_076.pro
700f2f3a586495687aaf886147003ec0
0f3bf7a41b197b83f9c986b268013d20d65009d3
48659 F20110115_AAACGZ mohan_s_Page_060.pro
50d0b0da70451a4f2972e8f90771e251
2f1982f243d3fb644499055e99b2a89f20fd5337
51125 F20110115_AAACIC mohan_s_Page_090.pro
f72e35505797ea3cb2077d49be190c48
220d71042d1f3f6e4a3313b83f92707a7812fd3c
51854 F20110115_AAACID mohan_s_Page_091.pro
acf342aa6d6bc13db0027f4d6b01f2b4
e5ade27bf2e9e51fe7c15d830605e54e4c15a602
57488 F20110115_AAACHP mohan_s_Page_077.pro
c84779b8a187690ca3316deccb2a16a2
1e8f92da4543674e305d5da8bf2b528d4cf24692
49070 F20110115_AAACIE mohan_s_Page_092.pro
65789865e5a4db1f8d8ee09e122d8527
25661af4b3206d94ec27283a48500c878e8f9198
61055 F20110115_AAACHQ mohan_s_Page_078.pro
98ce41a5c1c6cc0c156ccf98dd1b0bc7
6792958e0d1ead2a77c5b3bdc242cd2131c6078a
14866 F20110115_AAACIF mohan_s_Page_093.pro
9a4200d766e11a9dba6e908491685e70
57a2da847b9430e426dfae4f26a8fc8ad2f98fbb
49710 F20110115_AAACHR mohan_s_Page_079.pro
2d97a595ae281a54128d9f224a30e8cf
21d05567866db9111b9e2f73ab72e01310d5160c
37871 F20110115_AAACIG mohan_s_Page_094.pro
249fca5c247b7910e75b6dd2fa74e654
0d50b2183636a2510bfb35a70b2caf1854a23e4f
39977 F20110115_AAACHS mohan_s_Page_080.pro
5e02b14a46ac54dbe3813ce3ae851c09
e61718a11c67fa49d3495c9992ba7276772e00d1
45700 F20110115_AAACIH mohan_s_Page_095.pro
cd47f0691e774197cc63acb7db44449a
6c44ab62fac38b450b9fd3c2bdfa0444876fbfd2
44469 F20110115_AAACII mohan_s_Page_096.pro
38d1fc45beffd72cdb1d0580c515e637
b7defaa7412634a815faa84c7e585385d9c2eb80
49410 F20110115_AAACHT mohan_s_Page_081.pro
ef77324756f9fa8a851164ac53cb442f
1c29857fa7b67257ae6e95313dc713a07e9e590c
38600 F20110115_AAACIJ mohan_s_Page_097.pro
a427c0af04a4decb974b2523f4bff976
c05a7bf78bcfab2417854ef2351b299e6ded1220
51900 F20110115_AAACHU mohan_s_Page_082.pro
c0ee74324c1b11267252f144cfebd02c
ac61d1e793c3936e40eb050197eb125adf687b9c
44807 F20110115_AAACIK mohan_s_Page_098.pro
40aadbf88031e1cf1ca4d29c4c809b42
447b3da40f32c4c2c68f6ba76f2e0db2df7d30a8
51144 F20110115_AAACHV mohan_s_Page_083.pro
287a9e4087ffd3e3f606874fef45e9ab
2cf93ad7c513f8ec5d3e7ce992791a98ab50a045
42374 F20110115_AAACIL mohan_s_Page_099.pro
6167adaf5617a1938118b0fc0e0dc7e0
0560262e237f71c4aac51f2ee0a68e9c7ee049bf
50926 F20110115_AAACHW mohan_s_Page_084.pro
046f27d2fcbac89960d59f9e6b293c3f
b44b88983742d891f5d8aea5ad2153651e4d65f0
37855 F20110115_AAACJA mohan_s_Page_114.pro
5dba86212d776e42c1e7f8283656d0b8
ea3f8053d0e689eca54f4d3ea7570fef31d9f239
39402 F20110115_AAACIM mohan_s_Page_100.pro
e1093bae4f62fb35c55415b6741a1276
3cb6dc4b312611f8260291ad98e7c75a16dd5c3f
16504 F20110115_AAACHX mohan_s_Page_085.pro
26678a92b4479a05d3bb4bf7a858ca0a
51758df41a30255c9add75954b415db057115594
35740 F20110115_AAACJB mohan_s_Page_115.pro
c4a88836e976fd78d5e32b8cefc13996
e5f04500c94d8d7958da02b531d79b1f99c6a9b1
38847 F20110115_AAACIN mohan_s_Page_101.pro
4de838e698c6eb0b1e45833cdaa59f69
2530faf43562e9942d38f7fb9e9b0939d6eb27a4
43363 F20110115_AAACHY mohan_s_Page_086.pro
4dc67ae6c2377d482b5ec95bd6372234
2a754365a03ffdf0d61cb2bf14efedbe74832742
13869 F20110115_AAACJC mohan_s_Page_116.pro
612be3a5875425b5d567661d57ab31db
2706cec73867e2e865d8b0af0df7aa88208fe363
32146 F20110115_AAACIO mohan_s_Page_102.pro
96154d518015e2d686e3c81e61f4abfd
adbf99b039bedbbc2f65c8309da0c3928f207e0c
50755 F20110115_AAACHZ mohan_s_Page_087.pro
3c80ce00aea511f1add6f157f302712f
7214a04a335a0c57fb2fb25bf1017a5bf395afbc
41684 F20110115_AAACJD mohan_s_Page_118.pro
aa5f50ea4a66711210d02067b6066bb5
938b3b8c54498c84d02f8ed704faf2aa68aed1b7
32340 F20110115_AAACIP mohan_s_Page_103.pro
6cd1df89e64e74dc497fa5af925c5489
7d6ccc74d1502193f505bb4e41826b48074127dd
27607 F20110115_AAACJE mohan_s_Page_119.pro
3cbd2ef41f77269a77ed9af6804d427b
f5b99bc1b24b91e93b4edb1b9876e8c1fd73b564
51531 F20110115_AAACJF mohan_s_Page_120.pro
d2d3af1b36c0a5df220756432a885fa5
59db6c010ee7187b72963e82a9ac67c50c86f58c
41886 F20110115_AAACIQ mohan_s_Page_104.pro
dc332864399d884b9a2816c2b6b9b4cb
d00e038c8932d4b793ce26d6242d7839a0f779e6
23665 F20110115_AAACJG mohan_s_Page_121.pro
0861acc75d63d15b999cb3f9cffeb460
2334d09af6bd06c281997b76e82111427b347000
42126 F20110115_AAACIR mohan_s_Page_105.pro
e8d6e0500905bb2efd0cdc4b219cf4dc
29c6fe4859b155224d785a0dc437d16b7a1b9f29
50028 F20110115_AAACJH mohan_s_Page_122.pro
40ce232f41ba5e2dd34ebf4f70d13d1d
643aaf8b8604a321f5fc53ea305557627f52279b
38356 F20110115_AAACIS mohan_s_Page_106.pro
c834b74095cb5121a6b038937517a37b
77ab46e4e243e16e2bc406dc954e6b58044ee66a
59760 F20110115_AAACJI mohan_s_Page_123.pro
252909e8e7cfe68f167653d804476db2
f90404bad5f9719c2c8641fcbe21cdd3a12b6c91
38305 F20110115_AAACIT mohan_s_Page_107.pro
41a85e793752be38bfe8071e17378259
43202085ddf52714088141a6d5d9a8b30c7ee535
52884 F20110115_AAACJJ mohan_s_Page_124.pro
8411b808c611d429a79d25672886ebe3
5bf5c45867b82a5b9033919754480038d827948d
13693 F20110115_AAACIU mohan_s_Page_108.pro
c1623d579ff58b8823e93c6dec2db413
e384c1d61280a44d51279982f501cf94587df8f0
59742 F20110115_AAACJK mohan_s_Page_125.pro
010ebb6c0d4ff295b9f9e150dd137316
c648edbea9cbd369c7f7cbbd7a8b012609deb5fb
50559 F20110115_AAACIV mohan_s_Page_109.pro
ed28742ffee4cc5f5f3758c24ef05654
89f633b88124a44c05cadf9d3d9a8b923fa84751
52909 F20110115_AAACJL mohan_s_Page_126.pro
f8df6fcc7e693825e47fef56579a8c76
df9e16c49f99bcd0ef8bd6a1b9a4c472784fc724
41611 F20110115_AAACIW mohan_s_Page_110.pro
1c405048600f1e1e6c32c0f453dee2bd
e91ee3a4767475d89b5591eb82c9a84455890ee6
63683 F20110115_AAACJM mohan_s_Page_127.pro
ea0a9f2fd71862164578ebc2dc17f048
b27e1b6fe669a5c07d264cf770bcd736d4fe479b
19697 F20110115_AAACIX mohan_s_Page_111.pro
148af4c8c91503816ae18857acdd8aeb
53e9ffbb64472670bd97bb9dd1ef01f2846c3c98
2505 F20110115_AAACKA mohan_s_Page_008.txt
7762f8beb73e19bcc2dfb33d837fbfc9
b9f1209b409f586d81f363038baf2456320384b3
61011 F20110115_AAACJN mohan_s_Page_128.pro
ae60ca25173afd99c5be03460360b042
b3ff8aa534a05d22dd05933d5122914f3d45bc3a
13843 F20110115_AAACIY mohan_s_Page_112.pro
06a4a70433aebec9b947474f4a689f2a
361c633d005926aef3e56be36fba4c9e81428aec
3064 F20110115_AAACKB mohan_s_Page_009.txt
fef7fbe87c0b763f92ca262a763a0df4
cc00abae0cd1250cd22151f5d3d95ce489eb950f
60323 F20110115_AAACJO mohan_s_Page_129.pro
d57653afa34490936e949708aef90d7f
345bdd0c36e86fdca8b509e485dd32432083f70d
15939 F20110115_AAACIZ mohan_s_Page_113.pro
fc0198770daa5ec331e4d656eb0fd821
3e27ede5d700c552a85d60dd28a836c3a083ffc6
1511 F20110115_AAACKC mohan_s_Page_010.txt
528ca864f63f46101b8591d9abcce68a
63931ca1e45470a8fa81a1fe75eecdac6e0a88a4
63180 F20110115_AAACJP mohan_s_Page_130.pro
9d86c2a9abd47ee56ddc6f3d0c13462f
22360cc576a0be3e92c3ae0dd0b7566115c907cb
1288 F20110115_AAACKD mohan_s_Page_011.txt
1a0376702ddb853cad1ed639dd0b0ea2
8fc67b5734060596f0f9a7980f63cdb7e9df0022
58529 F20110115_AAACJQ mohan_s_Page_131.pro
1f7b22612541141590e6ec2940b0328d
f68c839b5b840bf1e108a64d8f7e4e04fec0bb42
1721 F20110115_AAACKE mohan_s_Page_012.txt
a9679b1c4d289a563304acd29302189b
ea65ecb1903b8de8e67a6dbdfc43cf0a36c42510
1646 F20110115_AAACKF mohan_s_Page_013.txt
b1390b41d25c708c9839120e48de0a5e
187d0701bf94383646bff89332d373630c2a9e65
40341 F20110115_AAACJR mohan_s_Page_132.pro
9c5829e882d720763be755555a34123d
3742c77fde1f8db3c01019826b3f439b0a9bacaf
1758 F20110115_AAACKG mohan_s_Page_014.txt
702567716f24d535ade85f9b3a597ea3
883f7092d38c755a58747892dd7694b6336fc5dd
22604 F20110115_AAACJS mohan_s_Page_133.pro
82834b03f585eb317c071e766935580c
60b4067ed3b27490eb1fdf335169bc68442a0d80
2103 F20110115_AAACKH mohan_s_Page_015.txt
9bb0781df6f2249970236e6800eba436
9ee02b79e7962f629bcca50d5ad044aa86d5aac2
468 F20110115_AAACJT mohan_s_Page_001.txt
d722b8fa2be01649acf76b9c36c99ec2
0bc56cf5616983e4f469426fd6770d84558bbf88
1793 F20110115_AAACKI mohan_s_Page_016.txt
6ca3ed2d651afa982edca3495c021a49
32ea2c597e1334c2ebed85c89b86e366d9133bac
108 F20110115_AAACJU mohan_s_Page_002.txt
52806854d22c682e7f9d36c6072e338c
839044ad9f1937efe44aef64583dac6cb6e30aa1
1058 F20110115_AAACKJ mohan_s_Page_017.txt
5c3898367cb506647849ab641144a43c
7c48b4d2e120dbf1b907588d2408c0a045933f26
1741 F20110115_AAACJV mohan_s_Page_003.txt
fcb57aa0d5f0a00bc661419000ab5391
77f1c713e20e0eecd28d9014f603ee589b41c3a1
1743 F20110115_AAACKK mohan_s_Page_018.txt
763d08b0ea147100e52be044a81570ca
f9827569797225f07ce51bb6043416b1f2e2cd39
1035 F20110115_AAACJW mohan_s_Page_004.txt
387574528fa0590b94fdda3bf8f3e7ca
f3716077a69f605f2faddb216efd7728a0e2f262
2084 F20110115_AAACKL mohan_s_Page_019.txt
3a7b1f8f04cc4a12ca7e193694ddef8f
e582d533cbbf7a48b6c928bb465c53aba3ed5258
2940 F20110115_AAACJX mohan_s_Page_005.txt
605beff06663baf7c1b5c9f174e21a88
5deffdfab212e1914ff9c27eb5de699a365623d3
1821 F20110115_AAACLA mohan_s_Page_034.txt
fceb3988ff041b8370df56fa4e7f4959
45eff902f454a3f936129da69cfe0505402315f2
1938 F20110115_AAACKM mohan_s_Page_020.txt
8a8686a1d0d9b22c925b20e9d6c35d41
ed4714a8f5c0fefaed822428ff9822b293a800b5
4328 F20110115_AAACJY mohan_s_Page_006.txt
d4698efad8fe863941318b98d5fcbc4c
a0b3cc94624a53c7ff89e13269c6ad7012051241
1915 F20110115_AAACLB mohan_s_Page_035.txt
f4bee6b69e1770c955cd992d9e2e8de0
26d94cf7caf5d05ead92b2c5265a524fa22a15a5
2560 F20110115_AAACKN mohan_s_Page_021.txt
e8df01675947f1691a09c7f2b75f77a4
285ddca0369ac236d6ea1bf6de7216609c15d78a
1394 F20110115_AAACJZ mohan_s_Page_007.txt
9ac72906a9dc01c9c277570952ea5ade
ca88a8067a058a29cc2fa19f5b151128d76a8047
931 F20110115_AAACLC mohan_s_Page_036.txt
8ad09b4fa52b0c6038fa7841b07ba3ff
e6e1d2be9f19aaa5bcf93262f1e944efaa412063
1959 F20110115_AAACKO mohan_s_Page_022.txt
dd82e8b12a4a2a7d9d801e5d688e3d27
e99a17c12409c1572bb3f9bff8892f2a76a76a7c
2012 F20110115_AAACLD mohan_s_Page_037.txt
a204e742ed1e7607b4250368061fdf1e
450d9d5ef39b79c6e9fffcffdf7b1ed62d12c9d3
1953 F20110115_AAACKP mohan_s_Page_023.txt
15b824349b3e7c137b061da187db5339
fbf42c47dc4757dd17e40703b80edf5f82703df6
1867 F20110115_AAACLE mohan_s_Page_038.txt
2c006d3522a999dcfc1a12e5789be3ae
c9278a5a165467595baaf5eb759dc9bb2db2be96
2053 F20110115_AAACKQ mohan_s_Page_024.txt
558f2ddef145bdee59d0911f895abc0f
76c4c589cad622ab1d34fc1f0cfac262c5150373
2048 F20110115_AAACLF mohan_s_Page_039.txt
ee58c76e5ad8fe455d3524bac074579a
c73da197d790a2048e9ebbc2ad3b28fa665220a2
1975 F20110115_AAACKR mohan_s_Page_025.txt
9e93ea69301293094c17faf2b5c09dab
9310992987ff0704c5061dcb736a669ad3e9d1b7
1619 F20110115_AAACLG mohan_s_Page_040.txt
37a8a8eb6023e276bdaf546c3cac2959
a6981b99594cb35a3e6f783d8bb488606f086c5f
1822 F20110115_AAACLH mohan_s_Page_041.txt
fc3cb93cb774d60a7c57702d7529304d
d46e15783ad11de460edc23a413feabea71de0dd
1672 F20110115_AAACKS mohan_s_Page_026.txt
24880668e5a3a71613752e764a895a00
62ed2d3eeca7c80c11db4360bb384d34217c419b
F20110115_AAACLI mohan_s_Page_042.txt
8131f2dc3fb887e8b5fbb547671d8314
60b2cc1edd3e9b106791e7f6dffe2c6cb76ea99c
1819 F20110115_AAACKT mohan_s_Page_027.txt
ae3042a3fdc230fdbc58f30a014ee207
4fba7988977d74b91540f754588b94e5b8bc3d83
1947 F20110115_AAACLJ mohan_s_Page_043.txt
6bd4baf456f9d214c0eb72e0d0e6649d
6a6ea2f0c2af6a2ad4ab375fff7a0b6d5810224a
1928 F20110115_AAACKU mohan_s_Page_028.txt
1f54b8ef8bcca38e108a5b2d72f1432e
c4b71411d603a71cf4f9e6628663838edc6f4e5f
1875 F20110115_AAACLK mohan_s_Page_044.txt
5214e89772f0776de2a81a6c5466cee9
b095b78524969010e0daf0332fbac00be8015a90
1962 F20110115_AAACKV mohan_s_Page_029.txt
1e9b3074c082937ffa553638bf1fe09d
a44665831b28259d69e357e238c50274ed0b53c6
2038 F20110115_AAACLL mohan_s_Page_045.txt
54bf8aaad21c6ec9f518c06c520200c0
8e08e27fc6d47da28e21ac0aa9cde7c079b6086c
2057 F20110115_AAACKW mohan_s_Page_030.txt
23b0e1aab66a7c3f4052603fbc0f807e
77914609637f4f3fc97e7eb4b372197b99d65832
F20110115_AAACMA mohan_s_Page_060.txt
b72feccad90eae202671c9a0d8cdff79
bc05e31a513962d3f44828d623fb5fe8930b3165
2061 F20110115_AAACLM mohan_s_Page_046.txt
07e414de77b74f477501b0c74106aaea
9f5547ae4cbffa20cc82d64065e4de743d157266
2042 F20110115_AAACKX mohan_s_Page_031.txt
2c0b8ee078190d6cdb052c62f85bc503
efe1f5b3af8fce5ba15016d5a64aacafb01fdc08
1983 F20110115_AAACMB mohan_s_Page_061.txt
defcd1256a1321a26b478fc37801db11
6e33300fa7fe1ff0c897740755a1206d15aa2ead
1961 F20110115_AAACLN mohan_s_Page_047.txt
e2c093566867d4fb842f51f33746c5aa
908977f25254dcac4815d51f1429562121f8bdb1
2181 F20110115_AAACKY mohan_s_Page_032.txt
a5a12ba1a22d331b9a211b98fc8e6b71
094811b1cec1a6443d5d200dadd82adc7ac90f6b
897 F20110115_AAACMC mohan_s_Page_062.txt
88a54c8c05fde7dfde10c7a985a53028
f2a663a589dc71feb853b6065d5c3cfc151ee3ff
2029 F20110115_AAACLO mohan_s_Page_048.txt
6444239a2d51dc878244fc9de37ed39e
a61dfbfdbb3c0b9b06afbe5481444f563350769c
1063 F20110115_AAACKZ mohan_s_Page_033.txt
d3616dfa8c6caf819fce4a22794d8680
d8bc72cd8483a34912c206c20cb0b965a66d94c6
1836 F20110115_AAACMD mohan_s_Page_063.txt
9f0064028d2326bf6938fd93e8b34214
2d108ec8445d893ba27ad3c73b0e5eb8647ebc5c
F20110115_AAACLP mohan_s_Page_049.txt
c9f1741be99b54756e6ce2e15322d057
813ea300549c976f150f4c1077762e74d7b0ff1e
2078 F20110115_AAACME mohan_s_Page_064.txt
e1242311a2d620f75e604fbf437e10e3
b325af3edab4a2741321578e8407bdbbbeae3f13
2026 F20110115_AAACLQ mohan_s_Page_050.txt
72d33d13ccf0576a1ebee3887f1e2a9e
9f78fbfda4e9bef4270c2a47611c4226eb1637d2
2021 F20110115_AAACMF mohan_s_Page_065.txt
30c9c6004a1965ff20a6f9e72b2366ed
e61b84cb06e696097bca6d26f73affe762abf9c8
1611 F20110115_AAACLR mohan_s_Page_051.txt
3797c4b8af1d3a2a7238ac734a6a6b61
e690a656ed2917213ab9f89272e67d2d6e6637c6
1687 F20110115_AAACMG mohan_s_Page_066.txt
0c89bbd684070e0074c72b3abc8a70aa
8d3998dd51ffaafa31692a31776761e69db8506e
2320 F20110115_AAACLS mohan_s_Page_052.txt
a9224747c76dbeca822e8af8f95dfacf
863113d432cb9c6d7767b4707c92397981bc77a3
1737 F20110115_AAACMH mohan_s_Page_067.txt
ee49e7ce1ea7b9a0e52744fa0636be77
c727e504d4aaf211f6f5e6b94cb4e8f7c31b783d
1826 F20110115_AAACMI mohan_s_Page_068.txt
4e55b0e1a76ae1293b8d490824aed074
640febe69e6c18f6c05ebece28b8275525097d07
1996 F20110115_AAACLT mohan_s_Page_053.txt
e86045f104ff03956557c5121d5db877
72bd934a4a7ebd3030477e1ca89593cb24ae8397
1930 F20110115_AAACMJ mohan_s_Page_069.txt
2962d6275d92dc407430e1d479c7b13a
dcb5403df2aaaf6691d64bff05b979efec76145a
1913 F20110115_AAACLU mohan_s_Page_054.txt
55392e4b674e5fe7691fefb0493d4063
a006e56d64424383dd7aa66e96975c84218f3c21
2035 F20110115_AAACMK mohan_s_Page_070.txt
52a695220c0b7860cb4a3edbc07ffb19
133508d53a6fe5a84822dec9cab11c10b8b7c53e
2036 F20110115_AAACLV mohan_s_Page_055.txt
f84ad1176f35f77cc9634e811c760dda
d0a6e196babf8310279c815422f7cd9938a91f75
1782 F20110115_AAACML mohan_s_Page_071.txt
852a741e45335b509f1d971c317416b9
09126d59a45df51475ed3546c40cdaa96bc248e4
2054 F20110115_AAACLW mohan_s_Page_056.txt
d54762d0c0dae7d969aee77bdb7943da
a3bd19c5d7ce2fb86262b2b385d85ab790f3049c
2638 F20110115_AAACMM mohan_s_Page_072.txt
704c6e8eb766cbf97e32ae4038a7b240
d7a5fdcbd30b850bfbd7041bbb02e5198fa7ccf6
1977 F20110115_AAACLX mohan_s_Page_057.txt
633835743ff19e43d496f4f9089d77d0
a98888fe41964f9e46757980c5c04a30f0224d64
F20110115_AAACNA mohan_s_Page_086.txt
7053adafca5a7f65ac7ae6a284a5780d
0892ef58f375693f41783316fc72a249f4b87d20
1988 F20110115_AAACMN mohan_s_Page_073.txt
181cbc23ca883135f0f8ef9308406304
54bc859e69122193436ea0075597a9790b4aa4f3
1916 F20110115_AAACLY mohan_s_Page_058.txt
79b21b6007a04586c13415200a905b2a
1cf7898ea174acd0853f629e85daeb9be72fb845
1998 F20110115_AAACNB mohan_s_Page_087.txt
25d749355ce78a9882ee82fbcff9c254
0678e725b31bfce270849af9c38d70e8c4b70f44
1956 F20110115_AAACMO mohan_s_Page_074.txt
069aeec00c58d2646707832bb9d4ea37
9b3b909ca9218095147819c4814b32fab32c0bf9
2031 F20110115_AAACLZ mohan_s_Page_059.txt
3d7e436b0904c3012b087c6975d6b3e2
2705e0323566269b35a720c329aac9163a2c38f4
2016 F20110115_AAACNC mohan_s_Page_088.txt
1b4e9e47a4d32a6e01b9d0449f663a1c
bf8b93c53addac2592e0f2875e723b579b324787
1773 F20110115_AAACMP mohan_s_Page_075.txt
61271616b0f8878a3436bfa7c34e341f
f759d7caf5eb5c8c5e11f40366faa940f4769310
1909 F20110115_AAACND mohan_s_Page_089.txt
8163c621b3180a7512b6c80cbcc152fe
4548c73606d07617f34af9cb87fa4f59962984b0
1642 F20110115_AAACMQ mohan_s_Page_076.txt
e52bbe7a4992825a0fcd7415773a637b
01388ebbb53ab2339caf1a5d3e4658e6f830c9f8
2018 F20110115_AAACNE mohan_s_Page_090.txt
20289cf3fe8b6208c59eee04845689a6
7cfd5fe7ccee3d8b8f9e1b3b3a16142e01b53fc9
2067 F20110115_AAACNF mohan_s_Page_091.txt
e9cc5330b299aa907f3e703c57186e51
708d4b077e516f28165ae248ad1fa58e29018961
2789 F20110115_AAACMR mohan_s_Page_077.txt
3a72c61120541eaefbce16af49b4cf64
9cfc66409aa722b73c3c604528948bdaa42d7f17
F20110115_AAACNG mohan_s_Page_092.txt
598d3c6a9e786179031ddbe7edc1b7e9
ae9cff38bba4aea3140b8b6c3ab2be7775899516
2854 F20110115_AAACMS mohan_s_Page_078.txt
6d6b56a42438a1a3da0eedc626bcdbfe
ef49dbd4a1cad090c4dc326da079581b1f473aeb
633 F20110115_AAACNH mohan_s_Page_093.txt
af065110968be7da57e1cffb8845fe6e
bc38d69637623341e32a3999e2551b49d8cb59ad
2070 F20110115_AAACMT mohan_s_Page_079.txt
5a4eb95fdb685b4fc16be15ba65769e2
068e917c8c743162083aebbb72063faa37794e8c
1627 F20110115_AAACNI mohan_s_Page_094.txt
76e5810d49a5ce71e95fab0a514d3475
d7a7e9762e6784910cdb2f9945500e31c441a98c
1879 F20110115_AAACNJ mohan_s_Page_095.txt
52ab8a963bc50ada33b63d2b9704dcfc
a96db4333fc6a0740aaa76a415814de5c7912b42
1662 F20110115_AAACMU mohan_s_Page_080.txt
e0ea5446d362cfd5e3b0d1ac80829b31
fdd163851372f6384377cf886da44437aeb7b80c
1806 F20110115_AAACNK mohan_s_Page_096.txt
2dd38cbd01df21b13c685fcb3ae57a34
177c1839ffb5438d874ad38c9e5ead20b22b3b8f
1944 F20110115_AAACMV mohan_s_Page_081.txt
3e9ca9988facdeab9f35ae5c9fc35213
e4fc9f3fb4c45b3a255f33efb2a4fe27e50b51ef
1650 F20110115_AAACNL mohan_s_Page_097.txt
4d8a26f94ec186b1fa8ce9f9a7652898
332a4759772a31f0f791e1682567da1e98e06388
2041 F20110115_AAACMW mohan_s_Page_082.txt
08b7986e5968ca8987dc7a66ad208347
9fc56f326a436df5c25515ecdf17b925f5a44825
658 F20110115_AAACOA mohan_s_Page_112.txt
fc2defbaa9b8341958f5a67ccd8b765d
b36f2cbd8b006efe85eb1150745535714c185822
1926 F20110115_AAACNM mohan_s_Page_098.txt
ba09153cf7edb7ffec6976e216d4c2d8
1cf39cad0a34e094214ef853a080e51d237501c9
F20110115_AAACMX mohan_s_Page_083.txt
c13e963cd5fb14689d96d6451c18b80a
c7c2ff0d5b62a0abdf48ef7057df9812a1da8fe5
731 F20110115_AAACOB mohan_s_Page_113.txt
e262fab4c9587fc8993adbf1b9f6d908
17c1dc5212ac262ab3f8b0286328153cddd871ee
1698 F20110115_AAACNN mohan_s_Page_099.txt
72ec4f79be8cd2a246b0f202b04ce79a
7481d84fe1955c108aab9277566f8391187db7ed
2044 F20110115_AAACMY mohan_s_Page_084.txt
485aedc095615769a48595d9d9a77b2a
27c65339772471138241b5b6229f2db7e7659fef
1701 F20110115_AAACOC mohan_s_Page_114.txt
26d29d7bf2e2cbb74145cf1d2afda3df
a93308542b1325de606de5c6a5251b0a36813c12
1596 F20110115_AAACNO mohan_s_Page_100.txt
e9059ffa977c12d21f1f74302e782b3e
9d06cf1c8668374858ab5b73ad6d95a53cf31e65
696 F20110115_AAACMZ mohan_s_Page_085.txt
2dce806a960605dfaf2a358245fc8fe6
7d20935f9b115fec9a5517f11c8b72f10d5bafd8
1931 F20110115_AAACOD mohan_s_Page_115.txt
de5b83d9173c9ca9712da00395b41192
afa8b83dc0efc258f389c7b2af347a576d0538b3
1543 F20110115_AAACNP mohan_s_Page_101.txt
a01b17ca64a532e526393905ff4afeb2
f7582d6a858f86b32b1cafdf0d3fae4088b404a6
666 F20110115_AAACOE mohan_s_Page_116.txt
9f326b07b640b774d862cbf3fbe29918
a6d174163a4f2124e1864475d9c7640c085167ad
1281 F20110115_AAACNQ mohan_s_Page_102.txt
84e0041e32f556d3b9eda0dc1c8fda67
0b2f40a6d64cda758abe8494c425a876d2a4a668
1197 F20110115_AAACOF mohan_s_Page_117.txt
057c7e51de5d1f3a305fb47855805a09
18973b2f0338734fc542ab880c0c75971b46f4e8
2159 F20110115_AAACNR mohan_s_Page_103.txt
745e09f75c2094f1b946b5332dd836db
e59e1e6065e1e42f87ad5ec3b7a9dd44406cdd26
2013 F20110115_AAACOG mohan_s_Page_118.txt
0fc2b3ed784303f51d77af9385d5bb9a
5fa0f22f779ec76fb835e29014cbd89fd714346f
2954 F20110115_AAACNS mohan_s_Page_104.txt
b88d389b59c94ab61d5ab4482d3b62fd
fc3e69a16937837501b27bb806e9f2ebdc44f126
1238 F20110115_AAACOH mohan_s_Page_119.txt
865ea5f4fd21c2d3d19afafbf1f13450
459127e36e715c34453ee73e8a12adf229d141a1
2147 F20110115_AAACNT mohan_s_Page_105.txt
a5916d1171eb48bab4f124cb299eea23
bedee8549085f2a4c803c3693756a4b52bd90ffb
2098 F20110115_AAACOI mohan_s_Page_120.txt
9de1ee52eb5be7544f6c420bd55b3275
92f2f55929d55e300bcca08536561303c3c94c62
1992 F20110115_AAACNU mohan_s_Page_106.txt
47268bdab34ae9b44f503d60db9f4c3c
9ab17e3d15f6a3d90f0c9d5b32540b445dbe2c4f
954 F20110115_AAACOJ mohan_s_Page_121.txt
50a271debe65cdecf4b97a8f464c7d4d
7313476b5b0f8f966eb4f9b8d422fb9ddcf2de6b
F20110115_AAACOK mohan_s_Page_122.txt
aeaff91b1ca54fe55843547be0c7219b
81261e7c2c257c33c72294ab8031ce2d7cf31e2a
2437 F20110115_AAACNV mohan_s_Page_107.txt
21de062e184c6e9e410b2b7845c5ad56
67f51e9cbec8c9217208d77792586c8f29396a20
2414 F20110115_AAACOL mohan_s_Page_123.txt
90717f4b39473ab39b4e58a5e3f0985d
2ddf470f18d7f6ac77c9995a3ced96da73929ab7
780 F20110115_AAACNW mohan_s_Page_108.txt
8c8726b39bacae063a1a6651e9d3788b
462bbb14aff9a2ecd51c7a370015d8854e205930
F20110115_AAACOM mohan_s_Page_124.txt
064b5fe7e8b9c19e799d2df2f18457d5
440e48647eab094d3962c1d7a9ed89cc5863d072
2746 F20110115_AAACNX mohan_s_Page_109.txt
326ad5f180bf56a58edf98aff397f450
c26056be69a3543e2f32037d0915fd83e350eeaa
1386 F20110115_AAACPA mohan_s_Page_002thm.jpg
f1999d29ef7afafca31d7b8cafdb1ffe
f4586a68773bb01d2948843e7531bd5c49eb3564
2421 F20110115_AAACON mohan_s_Page_125.txt
6100b51df4adda8c21ebc7652d46f00e
920ee8a1a48dd875d5833735471f7d25d3ab64fb
2115 F20110115_AAACNY mohan_s_Page_110.txt
714eecb458339c7214fe8028f4eda3bb
7ce481b57ae5348b84ecab7999e815bab107cd09
21236 F20110115_AAACPB mohan_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
588e6e21c583cb7e83d0d717436577cf
ad51dba1e072d3e2748ce4f323d18c85bfd52d91
2151 F20110115_AAACOO mohan_s_Page_126.txt
4cddf3166414cda22623c66b33a43f81
d70a328016459676e20a23ea9b972b2cc6f074f6
890 F20110115_AAACNZ mohan_s_Page_111.txt
4daaab8216aef4b589a40373fd0a610a
a319c81aa86152a32faefde889195f01415b4df7
5927 F20110115_AAACPC mohan_s_Page_003thm.jpg
841b21b693f9fdbf8762d69b6e354daa
8ec4cd9ca48275ee330fd2125c84f09cf421e055
2569 F20110115_AAACOP mohan_s_Page_127.txt
cd1645321f4aaa50f7153582579c12ed
7a74f3e8e05b13ba22b53661041cd38b5d8be949
13923 F20110115_AAACPD mohan_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
67558a652ad21457d8eaa6b674a409f4
774e4818161e9157c74519366cf7c0e56c154efa
2468 F20110115_AAACOQ mohan_s_Page_128.txt
1815ac177d66e1bf224dfd666dca3635
b921cfffbf6a63fb8c4c144312c9dcd187f9bded
3925 F20110115_AAACPE mohan_s_Page_004thm.jpg
a96a845ebe8edcb0f2c806dcd82a2238
eeca412c6064fa113eefea5a793d3c81413b331b
2440 F20110115_AAACOR mohan_s_Page_129.txt
9db39c39b8cf5617efc7977db1692907
5fd4356c9b952433980ea21b33f4d6dd1f319a0f
16964 F20110115_AAACPF mohan_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
5aaf127af5ddc8b993f00c5756671d9e
9a599cf7bf3764cbeab7c96313591206dbdac18e
2567 F20110115_AAACOS mohan_s_Page_130.txt
bb18d9b4078d5c2b23484daf40de6146
4752399b7ae150d2e3dcdedc8267157a7d36ec41
4244 F20110115_AAACPG mohan_s_Page_005thm.jpg
47c3af1ee11ee43823d634438f68f617
36cd2d497454b50885c2497557d02ad7e979a94c
2406 F20110115_AAACOT mohan_s_Page_131.txt
7de4ad8cb76fa86655a9768365693bc6
608c07a556a6d57cf3315acb8a148867a3f99de1
24311 F20110115_AAACPH mohan_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
409cadbc288fa383129788a1b45d5e93
e1ec6b2e68f2ad454d6e3a0685a547b45e24d146
1645 F20110115_AAACOU mohan_s_Page_132.txt
57fd8cb528969e46d3314f52eac6aabb
cc80a389322d914a0d31b484041f3996b607bad0
6098 F20110115_AAACPI mohan_s_Page_006thm.jpg
fa7f7f577777c1d57170ea8c893f5371
d14855bfedac7310607c80515b8d1c8612270b59
951 F20110115_AAACOV mohan_s_Page_133.txt
8798c4ca7cb89cb74305613ce4fc1618
5892e9f815dc6ecbdc5c2b9e1e864e667024c8c0
14231 F20110115_AAACPJ mohan_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
e917c8ba0ee5cc5dc886f95ae5a4348b
4542bf92f61a8c885ea4103279ecc1625b54e2c7
22738 F20110115_AAACPK mohan_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
24d67227623fc2c869a05fc12413d60a
32970129022143fde84f6ce30e94fb15867af5cc
548650 F20110115_AAACOW mohan_s.pdf
ab06c415bac08646eca78f147746e470
1e61a487edc5f6ece39e92eae0949c16c76d5336
5961 F20110115_AAACPL mohan_s_Page_008thm.jpg
92cf42e3ab895dd0b80d894915dfe192
222ee87cc851cdf8e89effe303b6cd7bbcd00705
7703 F20110115_AAACOX mohan_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
df79f95284e6299138688b72bf04e9a5
83e5ceec8010fd5aa7e1b1da94b4947ba0b8378d
19891 F20110115_AAACQA mohan_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
ea4a6789c179cf4269bf852cc96b623e
074c20858fe56bf0be0469bb1704f277a71906ad
27477 F20110115_AAACPM mohan_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
8d5bcf02020edea4353072fdf5de4f6d
d6e4a35e249704c16c2593d5bdc002dfcddb4e2a
2562 F20110115_AAACOY mohan_s_Page_001thm.jpg
1db2d8876ff2cf6caa7620f38ae79550
3862b446339b894bf7451285be9bd5d2d909fa19
5958 F20110115_AAACQB mohan_s_Page_016thm.jpg
155fdc5e4b0080c4aaeeb64cdf4c3561
4565da663cfaff1633f580d1cb4bdc972c1dd4cd
7286 F20110115_AAACPN mohan_s_Page_009thm.jpg
0b8dac1db89534f6f00279dfe807c85a
edb42685543dc5697f03338eeb958adad3cbde5b
3279 F20110115_AAACOZ mohan_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
f3d14db585b2c36aae27903546fc5379
a1ebf5f42670f73dccc7adeebc18495ec69bc1b0
13552 F20110115_AAACQC mohan_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
fd6a5b4db987223203ce370d38288177
58eac3b8e6fabfbc0fa3538b0b614f0b2e745e3e
14454 F20110115_AAACPO mohan_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
0b3c8bcbbfa11dea71ff4ab5657d06c1
45a2305c9c23e0f1aa2224ac534825df7ab4bed3
3903 F20110115_AAACQD mohan_s_Page_017thm.jpg
5299f2a310ea3e73eb8c77ec104a3b65
6285b7294a1e800b33962b9f7c4216c03ce56188
4110 F20110115_AAACPP mohan_s_Page_010thm.jpg
e93d1f61dc95641330b35f0ebaae8653
1310a8fe31850f3ec3096190306d093bb280e139
20347 F20110115_AAACQE mohan_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
f5c98b9642f679550046d96d5d18525b
8a7039d208b6ed46745a32fa8d409af0083ef673
11178 F20110115_AAACPQ mohan_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
7507555b5e62b61501d16eea0f947b1e
427ab792fd46dc5568c1cc82bae141330e5b34ba
5575 F20110115_AAACQF mohan_s_Page_018thm.jpg
636ab6925cfd43fbc73fdea57559049d
d93c4a652730d2cb7e410307d80a031eed81417b
3451 F20110115_AAACPR mohan_s_Page_011thm.jpg
ebb2e4f994bd2210c3b99a343c1e2553
9a7efb1a79813ce8da7e23ebec8b8e45edce46a5
24205 F20110115_AAACQG mohan_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
3784f338247365ba0d7261aa2f919c34
5a83fd6fe1a3ecea1b698efd0b714d04354e8d06
19147 F20110115_AAACPS mohan_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
1f7c1f042ea1d8fa96604a0ad86ba5f0
eff7b2917155f6be6e750fb18fac9702213a886b
6724 F20110115_AAACQH mohan_s_Page_019thm.jpg
9dc478246d06e862d06787b953df6f2f
1ee536fd5f7a7aabfcabf025eb120d1a9f06b0c3
5393 F20110115_AAACPT mohan_s_Page_012thm.jpg
c12278b5a6a6f7cd78a06b1c5cbfd95a
a3cbaf2facbc6ad44638afbd14be9af764a7eca8
23002 F20110115_AAACQI mohan_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
d352829400be9cf6fdab3cdefaea7218
ca255bba3a1bbf3ef77d3ecd1bb663b7f4d1462c
19822 F20110115_AAACPU mohan_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
77cf86e3997c696992ca0410851c5521
08d0f7e0861639dc7ec561341fd81570098edcf1
6269 F20110115_AAACQJ mohan_s_Page_020thm.jpg
d7dc5dd214c7868f1f223d2d75ebc95a
12dc0289b6c0943e23c9d613453d96eda4a8c1ff
5529 F20110115_AAACPV mohan_s_Page_013thm.jpg
5a0274601951de3dffbf21f341d7248b
31c90bdbff69d7e3da245a2dddcd01ddd021ba7b
23167 F20110115_AAACQK mohan_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
e4fde237237a6c0bc8197efe21a448e1
40ebf8b7cfceedc2a25b2a5dffa8c658b83b700e
20502 F20110115_AAACPW mohan_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
2a5d1f5f207a9f3cf7afcf9d77a07328
21fef5c741e4a9d9156536f33f82a7930ff32c59
6182 F20110115_AAACQL mohan_s_Page_021thm.jpg
42fb16e09bc6c647e05c6bd1619f1e90
1c4da992c24301713caf8952b06eb83a99ed8098
25296 F20110115_AAACRA mohan_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
193edcaf834e8f3c121161fd171a11a1
bedb9fc1542d3e4564ebdf5993ad208aa50d1499
22979 F20110115_AAACQM mohan_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
70010369daffe450dfe4eaf5d5d1b354
f9368b810a39691453b3de49f503cf045d2052bd
5667 F20110115_AAACPX mohan_s_Page_014thm.jpg
44b81354acc876f58813b76bc46e1460
5fc0e25362c7adb14bf57df0df2de3cb993e72c4
7039 F20110115_AAACRB mohan_s_Page_029thm.jpg
dfd6df3e27a43a09c9485650b52b6a0a
20fda8a3093b12ba60e65f1236a4b76002bf362f
6520 F20110115_AAACQN mohan_s_Page_022thm.jpg
0a2ba65e2348a309d8a43f1c2f3d29c5
7fe1a285fc817fba0f3ee755b785e67d2f8803e9
24083 F20110115_AAACPY mohan_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
6c1a3e5e144a4bea2ba1c99e0a459b5e
7e9f55d229e618cedd09af5a121dee0446d4b50a
23992 F20110115_AAACRC mohan_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
c580000a744bb1df71102686ef481990
295a7b13fe903eeba2eae332d41e9de66fa65f43
23428 F20110115_AAACQO mohan_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
06ea82c8738551d6167f19cfcfd05a42
b50c4fc4293c74372625abd654cb91901fd1463d
6580 F20110115_AAACPZ mohan_s_Page_015thm.jpg
1558ebd6f67206869e1cac600aacffc5
08f95e6bb0b2bc207e5319df3909cddeb1feea30
6710 F20110115_AAACRD mohan_s_Page_030thm.jpg
2b09d0a4a65924bc7a0c24e7e3a74c26
8e066aaee712e7dc15e6a4c23815bea50aef9883
6511 F20110115_AAACQP mohan_s_Page_023thm.jpg
c39b4444e849b2fd1a49f75b55921942
23fcb76c83d96ad8799f93e1ee586d82e52dafe4
F20110115_AAACRE mohan_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
5537e7320f85c403f98585958519512f
2f8ff6531cce40f87e5774bc878c126bcad945e0
24071 F20110115_AAACQQ mohan_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
05bb804927af120edf8444ee76ef4618
ebf7a8b8f506c54c9061f5525bd9998ffe2d1db5
5128 F20110115_AAACRF mohan_s_Page_031thm.jpg
eefefad3679353f0958cb9b0aeb5796d
a3cc9f0e35d78e4568a5e089161cb69d8e7759b2
F20110115_AAACQR mohan_s_Page_024thm.jpg
7f6626896bc23f1e517ed622296a0bb3
7d00d0911037e7e86a3059bf3890e6093cd5cb0f
22275 F20110115_AAACRG mohan_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
cc2faee03667c878fab1dd5884c7586f
96dee7e7b69185c8a5a8437b631e3079c162e34e
23896 F20110115_AAACQS mohan_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
e6e3e5043dba7bdd61f873364033838a
c625dd58c14c31974ed2e9626ac62a18f50fda4c
5784 F20110115_AAACRH mohan_s_Page_032thm.jpg
41a6baa8823312ae6a8f74fad32525e4
54ba498253369e5be44d6d3406c55aa030dfa1c6
6603 F20110115_AAACQT mohan_s_Page_025thm.jpg
0005e215e5f0422b2e0df9e6f5ebe11b
bef988ddd12417ecb5648e1a35e3429d008f6580
13937 F20110115_AAACRI mohan_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
dfbe00812356ba38ccd246e17bc09847
1bfd82a98e2f512de647fa1f36869e7daa682732
20077 F20110115_AAACQU mohan_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
dfd2f7f25d365c118c3cd9a2201c0a51
0158f916e4402091b02030915e054f9bf9011be0
3955 F20110115_AAACRJ mohan_s_Page_033thm.jpg
d3d8c5435e105bf37ac7320c17db74ee
6e0b17d10595187a59af1330e568226036b76430
5851 F20110115_AAACQV mohan_s_Page_026thm.jpg
325eaea2adf4b3e0dfb6c7c5a74a13b0
090b6fad671524cb04044df63045d71822f4417f
20226 F20110115_AAACRK mohan_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
06c1b2f49f791505f169d88cbc1cfa8e
3f25f27e62366472f0c060e21d9217653877f59e
20100 F20110115_AAACQW mohan_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
51bbf5c4d1bfd3c5e2f3ca23f0af9253
51aa2170f176199b5e688bbfe65af639cde18e9b
5754 F20110115_AAACRL mohan_s_Page_034thm.jpg
72419c3d9faae36309b654f1cec3a2b7
d83518526dfdfd641cb55352322573e86a408002
5732 F20110115_AAACQX mohan_s_Page_027thm.jpg
81c05b06782e98d3ba1c283a1e3f82db
1db3aec43c45980e588d73d96e481d3a4e53f46a
22446 F20110115_AAACRM mohan_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
57d814052e926c55a4e58547ef9ff16b
6462e2c1655237e4f39a1a21ec312585d646b53a
23482 F20110115_AAACSA mohan_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
509809ff19ea41eebfe84c2cec2551d4
4d89230ecd96b67422451aab9d3fc56f872aee12
6549 F20110115_AAACRN mohan_s_Page_035thm.jpg
ede4158da44e43bbf52ab2a5c2880077
af7036cb7bfae1bd0491d2870f96daa898cad029
22640 F20110115_AAACQY mohan_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
1843c7044115171867a87d8a66727f35
ad8a12b06932d0c1f152d9f3b94ef1e2758844db
6423 F20110115_AAACSB mohan_s_Page_042thm.jpg
c554e998a9a24fffbc6f0c5081ed165f
14615c3c19ecf11bc6bf214ceb549a45f1071080
6309 F20110115_AAACQZ mohan_s_Page_028thm.jpg
7b21ecb697a8d4b036d16ad79511f813
1598ac755fec2818dd283d0e80a0a0911cdfa176
22597 F20110115_AAACSC mohan_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
a9cd54b81d4d00a5f612b22627df9967
4412355bc7e85688aa8f6d306aaff7ccdb9dae61
25511 F20110115_AAACRO mohan_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
42c9fc3db8b52860b44ba74a5ddae21f
898634eb221d1e19a17c2aa3a23067d21b32ef5c
6382 F20110115_AAACSD mohan_s_Page_043thm.jpg
bf68f35bc203895be1a094f4adf1c0b9
624b3796798decd3cbb02b5b136048c361d27623
6982 F20110115_AAACRP mohan_s_Page_036thm.jpg
281d7f630aeb3a146d9347353d9e4e7e
61339931faadbd2616dcdbb9326ddc47c4292eae
22032 F20110115_AAACSE mohan_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
1b379b60148685826071093e49b68040
93eb3aaab3d9dcb72dcfb931843799021c1bb0d4
23530 F20110115_AAACRQ mohan_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
b2c45bdf1ea332f4678d655ffa672cf5
f6a55affd6f8cfd8444ebb86e1d0cefcbb715f43
89260 F20110115_AAABPD mohan_s_Page_080.jp2
d10a8a9005de252d5bdd56aa5f2fcfb4
fc48882a0dc79ea27e4f173991d38ceeff5c2383
6318 F20110115_AAACSF mohan_s_Page_044thm.jpg
69178f1c6e66053019734616aeceb60a
079e83f3a68bc6e1ad43dc4c7ac08973a0d849f5
6614 F20110115_AAACRR mohan_s_Page_037thm.jpg
03ac4055a2c64cd0e74c28d2b59deeae
8358e71fde3b7f8c39e4a589ba96244ae33b7916
28596 F20110115_AAABPE mohan_s_Page_117.pro
e5e1fc7498e814645169842516b2a16e
fd9d60010363443eeb5257deae0f95f98d63be9c
23558 F20110115_AAACSG mohan_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
f4996ff8bcc726421042c147dc445077
38df4d6d3e38931402c2f0ed5d2ac5ac7b664630
22377 F20110115_AAACRS mohan_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
2984a8737a50c6156b19087e7e088ad9
bbf1e3359410f34966a944f7f97e77602784f4a9
F20110115_AAABPF mohan_s_Page_082.tif
d51cff202e2d1d7510d139ad485e8f14
c507d36f5cf06977d4d0bc775cb411b7ac044b33
6130 F20110115_AAACSH mohan_s_Page_045thm.jpg
dc441bebb686e70a5936fd49965bf107
52789aa73b6015b8bad3876c2ff1300f72553512
6287 F20110115_AAACRT mohan_s_Page_038thm.jpg
bf7b1349895eaa7474947ab8adf627d9
c725109fc534ccd284f6e2552ad6a5f7f13c4d9a
49997 F20110115_AAABPG mohan_s_Page_007.jpg
582f9f2dc05c2b55412983694987b9e5
067e53f26f84e28e373308e4be837cbabd1f291f
24130 F20110115_AAACSI mohan_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
b7a91d4be1a7d03be684d16b5a294214
6dddc73754bffd9915fefd773e66229c14503858
24338 F20110115_AAACRU mohan_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
08c0e3c3bd9c3fb9312ff7a9f8f2bf3b
fc31f0937229907234dd89369539272726e0288f
51966 F20110115_AAABPH mohan_s_Page_072.pro
043c67ac752c6d5f560098939dc8decd
d5081ac618131aded75f3cc6ed6fc33d8c32ff10
F20110115_AAACSJ mohan_s_Page_046thm.jpg
ac3f3b397513480eb399b2a27afa0be5
29dad1a120089560b330597bdd4d79cb75aa5b34
F20110115_AAACRV mohan_s_Page_039thm.jpg
71f03fd998ec571f9448d125c4836b5c
699aebcaf8ab2f793b0e5f48059decd98dccf72d
3817 F20110115_AAABPI mohan_s_Page_007thm.jpg
fa7e7034ae1d5ec0aa817bc8d7d80cec
487330dd6fb7806199bc82a9eabb9457c4ecefe9
23069 F20110115_AAACSK mohan_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
13270c5d269a07f8d2c7d02c4d898e37
682cc3ba3473a307f29c8eb57b8e672569116440
17650 F20110115_AAACRW mohan_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
846631b88e00868856b57450200f66c4
9f983827c7ab4d1c1822939111e1dcaace229d52
F20110115_AAABPJ mohan_s_Page_124.tif
d93bb0e422a9aa9886e6c9a818441c45
cd31a6325c7e3f1ad235e933136a375c5742863c
6411 F20110115_AAACSL mohan_s_Page_047thm.jpg
88fd8c4445ae8c0229d24e2502699ca5
25ebf59ba5853ee8103b40649898f7bdfb2e1801
4933 F20110115_AAACRX mohan_s_Page_040thm.jpg
27841743c845035842bd56c5281c2932
fa70079665350ae0344238b402b00543a1cb9dcd
23989 F20110115_AAACTA mohan_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
042c95b9984c5f118c661b16a569c88c
08d932c92452b40ab20a59773bd5e2fab4ff84af
88992 F20110115_AAABPK mohan_s_Page_132.jp2
1aa80093f91e5657f9959003dc57b390
ab9dcf8608e16c128a69ff52e3d37df5d2b1d13b
20700 F20110115_AAACSM mohan_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
d8e4a98d4d18a45513cbf812c0ad7e0a
39f3676ba01ca3352bc6b491b2d127d9d8bcaefc
20771 F20110115_AAACRY mohan_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
916ffcf27b319b77969be092064d413d
478eba71dcf3936039d9ff59f7c9aee9f6d72500
6413 F20110115_AAACTB mohan_s_Page_055thm.jpg
31ca51bd068031e332ab9f9ca97cd94c
2ce1de6ff5ef40e987b2a3043c5367f8da8a9d69
50921 F20110115_AAABPL mohan_s_Page_115.jpg
33af6c0827ef7355523f3f1a7547f64d
0af5f64399c4c645073896b2de9dbe0e8cbb721d
5906 F20110115_AAACSN mohan_s_Page_048thm.jpg
e3da00005b2925d17dbd63ec6cf51153
7568689611ed4719e7fda56e9fa47039f7d8672b
60999 F20110115_AAABQA mohan_s_Page_012.jpg
123b08d2ac3d1d5b914de18c47acbbb8
60e817d91479ed900657c448ceb254e6d0023aa5
24389 F20110115_AAACTC mohan_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
1d2507d7aaf37179d77d45dbfb1c9b88
e97625f8927f51324f752b377fe7eae91f107676
F20110115_AAABPM mohan_s_Page_117.tif
0288dc46194ca74ded51125e7d957f76
2f722e8b7a268ba4eb1eb54568252cbbc2530957
21670 F20110115_AAACSO mohan_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
00d77a385693fc67e92fdf7792d26e9e
48c3213c991653c1040d811f4a375755d33582c7
5733 F20110115_AAACRZ mohan_s_Page_041thm.jpg
6df3d3e178518d75ddcd0af812db0149
1da96d796e36a46f219a973ccd4e87a4585aae4f
60649 F20110115_AAABQB mohan_s_Page_013.jpg
0b97b62a0159902ca46bdc983bb99d2f
fd9d4d2bc6e256812c3a42394e84d6d0340370c4
6392 F20110115_AAACTD mohan_s_Page_056thm.jpg
a439f62138a5b4681c64b35715ecb61e
1ddf01dc7614571489d94512e3baf727feed45f7
198360 F20110115_AAABPN UFE0007640_00001.xml
805e7a6f74f7abd1dde0ad5ffc521ec2
9e77818df4f7f02ceaec90e1b6dc4b745c3793ab
5832 F20110115_AAACSP mohan_s_Page_049thm.jpg
2b370bcc9b8acb1115c505fa3d9e5c97
dbdf685ba0a5d06a19bceb64a538c5dc18a64215
62622 F20110115_AAABQC mohan_s_Page_014.jpg
55e734cb9399932ade3dba319e46ff14
e1599ed4e00c49b90732c0608b0520fad67069fc
22124 F20110115_AAACTE mohan_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
ba4d04009042c803550614202cb9f037
dfb36fd4e76efed049f8a8627ac846edeca320c3
22149 F20110115_AAACSQ mohan_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
b9045a5698344b4c627ddd53c4902385
1fa3bb27fe44c3c34ca2fd504d21bc6a00e73892
75296 F20110115_AAABQD mohan_s_Page_015.jpg
779a3e04405e2a7d455c5a116c85d2db
cfdbbae00374b77196d61c8b2eac2128f7ba1f51
6169 F20110115_AAACTF mohan_s_Page_057thm.jpg
4a22be35c01ee9137b8cf020b0fbb2be
179ada70f119296a32c29c94de12bb0903eeac8b
6070 F20110115_AAACSR mohan_s_Page_050thm.jpg
187b1cdde38004f7ba840b70f425bfb5
a56e447353b794aa2192f40ee344124fe2121f85
61088 F20110115_AAABQE mohan_s_Page_016.jpg
8d6ff0cd98de001d571009d614bf1502
d5d11e8a7a5bcb65ab4703458eba3b8ba1aa3ea1
18323 F20110115_AAACTG mohan_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
225d05188fbe0a01481b94ad647f2716
4557be1dc6c5b70c1342460ca32647f13fcb42b2
26069 F20110115_AAABPQ mohan_s_Page_001.jpg
3fe079a837ba4e88a3b9e1f63225e14d
6894dacdc7aca3ddd144e6e96f8d2912e08b4ae8
19282 F20110115_AAACSS mohan_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
3539dd82af8bba144da21b015cf83de1
abc0088cf47db237f299eaa04cf1492a02940bf6
41055 F20110115_AAABQF mohan_s_Page_017.jpg
3935d2a9a3c9920d3addff2891a77036
80e56054af704d3b295067e0e5617bb0db9f3ec7
4845 F20110115_AAACTH mohan_s_Page_058thm.jpg
9f743ddfa80a52e08cdf0bd35bd681e7
cc0f452632a4234874765e7ae89631bdb6fd0677
10326 F20110115_AAABPR mohan_s_Page_002.jpg
4f375c334498b821be877a01d1fd5c16
031ab0ad20ac2d35a9d36ce749b712d9d104791e
5747 F20110115_AAACST mohan_s_Page_051thm.jpg
f7de3bf337a4e805a9a727f334e4c560
573a4b46be8a994db38fa5fa4626674a3efaac77
62761 F20110115_AAABQG mohan_s_Page_018.jpg
b1225dc9b04895063d8c5c13eacdd5c8
5ad99b61723aae0784303b4fc171ab7dd797b7c5
19309 F20110115_AAACTI mohan_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
545ad2cc8ea472a8b5582436280370f5
722ead904261b1c01cdf51e8c1798e82a4a4e3fc
64026 F20110115_AAABPS mohan_s_Page_003.jpg
8c3860b24b05db1329a90b4611545079
04ea3a808da3869efad81d5fde177dc947225947
24210 F20110115_AAACSU mohan_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
9b927f1466d35ac7ad1437f327b364e0
fb89d7965b3ab222d07b4ace0789b701cd26312c
5072 F20110115_AAACTJ mohan_s_Page_059thm.jpg
3619e49ab7f36f132594a19f0b1b7b32
43670020ffbaf0e0fc1cc54f24a8accc116c07f4
73451 F20110115_AAABQH mohan_s_Page_019.jpg
12041cacc5492b1e76d424a10cfebe86
4ca478e705cd2c97a43a4667495d76406cb6ae1b
41849 F20110115_AAABPT mohan_s_Page_004.jpg
288d4ab1cad13c9e0f8258b7c00e4eb2
77cf429e88e0a8878ea310414f1ac2928a3a5624
F20110115_AAACSV mohan_s_Page_052thm.jpg
2956976cb15706e8be00bcedec5e22ad
54630b3de2123d6b90eecb23d676743033ff4962
22417 F20110115_AAACTK mohan_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
0793dd5f20832d2f5d4d958b26aa77dc
c73fd2892ca0d9a3a0799e13393cd176873c0af9
69751 F20110115_AAABQI mohan_s_Page_020.jpg
5d880f53b1f6484e487321c47107e925
578870287de11ed337a36d92cacac0ce9e60523f
64303 F20110115_AAABPU mohan_s_Page_005.jpg
57870f0d18f67e9065fec69a58ce0eb3
bd1ce72bfb1b3392d2f63b9da2e3c0aecff7a857
22650 F20110115_AAACSW mohan_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
25a9d907670f76acd4f8708f0e834036
ab9228841cf87513fcf4468ba195303fb4ccf50b
6465 F20110115_AAACTL mohan_s_Page_060thm.jpg
1909ea13cc8c5a3dafd3c50568e2ccea
e326cb44cabd2bb8ec77e946447b3c70252dcc96
79827 F20110115_AAABQJ mohan_s_Page_021.jpg
a8cca32e43f4b03b1688e28f9aead13d
3d14ed85b16161a9ed8c97b2fc133c348c3409a0
97622 F20110115_AAABPV mohan_s_Page_006.jpg
44ae42b56690191e37717ff5a964a47c
4449f87c613239a7fd9d42cbeb816a7e0162e3fc
5955 F20110115_AAACSX mohan_s_Page_053thm.jpg
98dffabdbe4da714eedde25bbc4aa02d
7f17959ddda5941679de425f3c6d62803b862be1
19157 F20110115_AAACUA mohan_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
6cbeae3ae54d6367c773b2203c8d78ec
a40f75f08d4252957cc373449c38fc7f4e5ac91c
22980 F20110115_AAACTM mohan_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
2c44d2c536faa649cd49125a80d96564
ac4cb733eb8749f0441af0556f7a4595849b4d8c
71735 F20110115_AAABQK mohan_s_Page_022.jpg
98ec716ccebe2001da823e380af2f24a
74f4db3d4324958d9ddd17cfa78266db6594d839
76558 F20110115_AAABPW mohan_s_Page_008.jpg
3823e53fd3aab23ae4e8e9421dd827a8
708d785d1d2bfcf0b1730bf28537e87bc265c9c6
20668 F20110115_AAACSY mohan_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
2b851efb66a579ddcf86529378b82997
fadf3b69c928f7b67905c1a45b5778bee5ba9c33
5604 F20110115_AAACUB mohan_s_Page_068thm.jpg
2203fb8b34293d77a122a5d35c5ab5f6
9622136b91a8fcd7acf047e5be6344dc11242764
6500 F20110115_AAACTN mohan_s_Page_061thm.jpg
fb856b8723d0c23a2a1930440e4e25f2
48f4fcdb0976bc823ee2ab15752f11482232ee88
71038 F20110115_AAABQL mohan_s_Page_023.jpg
13d81a2e2e692c6eb0bd59437103d010
a6c31b736f30bfa93ac6e6294ac07d5e14d4d604
101887 F20110115_AAABPX mohan_s_Page_009.jpg
b592e655e132d929ae1a5a6d5e8622a6
56889f1037b47f3f305a22ed2bff26154af972b4
5612 F20110115_AAACSZ mohan_s_Page_054thm.jpg
f674542bad4604721fcbf529f74b67f7
a668e8913cf0e8f139062c521043685f956d68b2
22127 F20110115_AAACUC mohan_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
22dcfe25193e49105e5cce138fa74de5
fff6bb417509a5fd78e645e4c7841ac0276989f4
12121 F20110115_AAACTO mohan_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
e6bc4f24e4ee7c1f4ff3e437bafb1ac9
42ed71bacdee43a522c25fef01f427f6c64d9648
74649 F20110115_AAABQM mohan_s_Page_024.jpg
342e464ba5f90f7d24a558e1637974ec
55c3a8aa4ed56b54f0d2c0b5055ae151a3e12366
68909 F20110115_AAABRA mohan_s_Page_038.jpg
c2b6b5137d11650ad03b4052a079cead
54825a1998d3c2ffa841d5b6afac8eb8fb7fd047
F20110115_AAACUD mohan_s_Page_069thm.jpg
a1a94b1563e0bd252b957c77a03838ab
53ae648405907b706cc8c11ff3bf3d1b0e60a123
3707 F20110115_AAACTP mohan_s_Page_062thm.jpg
23b51b855b0e3a4546ab0b7a7802366b
fe75a1542b145362481f0bffcb1a1b25b0e3f896
72549 F20110115_AAABQN mohan_s_Page_025.jpg
52773781832a034df316072701b65626
b3cd7c412e1c2343725b28685c2e9b83865f7029
52364 F20110115_AAABPY mohan_s_Page_010.jpg
3a18f68bef41b8fe936f051f6b8af902
961f0f6446394a1a19767d07b09a3eb7fde37989
74734 F20110115_AAABRB mohan_s_Page_039.jpg
8eb888dc5a93a8ebd45a390a00967a2a
79a787075b327cda952794a6e65a16a89da66ff3
22992 F20110115_AAACUE mohan_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
24eeb84d2ad3ad06daeecad050fe9853
87970cec9ab2fddfb2ec1ae5657b2460a6dfff35
21096 F20110115_AAACTQ mohan_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
b96f3b90b1c6ec028934a38302651c9f
75f97e83856d950c2a1e9abbf6694cc5ada2fdff
61211 F20110115_AAABQO mohan_s_Page_026.jpg
3aa0d1b8039c732285627f41efd2ac5c
cc72d7f87170b74e3621c5acda3ede515540d7d7
37688 F20110115_AAABPZ mohan_s_Page_011.jpg
c20e9dbc25e63784f839e88f380a8ef4
9b0671467cb7e7818405505d32bac085a43dba16
57462 F20110115_AAABRC mohan_s_Page_040.jpg
800fe7b80f6de9fb22175e6fd393c453
049909919b98fad9a8e5f9e6cea5db5cd06a96b9
6108 F20110115_AAACUF mohan_s_Page_070thm.jpg
7069605104114d618ff8d0c94f031c4f
99e4bfdd225a2d586fa144d19e058e6ff847ef93
5794 F20110115_AAACTR mohan_s_Page_063thm.jpg
eb137308fcb6bb00e7402b7b7baaf535
05d9d34f73e2809b6ca7ba191df477ca7233ccb7
62409 F20110115_AAABQP mohan_s_Page_027.jpg
75affa58e019f292a5f553063ca3b404
05b62e0b850f3a59fe17e75af079afbd58274bf6
65316 F20110115_AAABRD mohan_s_Page_041.jpg
bbb7037bb2ff3011d1d4207f295977a7
f2d6db35fbf97b8cbbc3e06d6567d317d03e618a
19794 F20110115_AAACUG mohan_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
5518ec37639c9fc9c41ab02e3d87f972
dbcfd4a79e8d2f1479c01f6f44bb1aa08dad806b
23782 F20110115_AAACTS mohan_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
6abcce12a9f21a9830f94ec3f6777d7f
d64be94168ed16ff74c6bebd6383e58ac47255de
70414 F20110115_AAABQQ mohan_s_Page_028.jpg
aaa344cbe3f1114ec89358b253dbd08c
205cbdaabb6c83e380f9e68b1b7657426cddd24f
72399 F20110115_AAABRE mohan_s_Page_042.jpg
bc1cbd2f78b1b87d0c09c99d33391190
18f6078d93bc5c82d27f02b5b41d727aa36cc9ed
5338 F20110115_AAACUH mohan_s_Page_071thm.jpg
c7b4624461deef028a6ab72604d50cf9
0c85e0e3ab5c44b9bbaef9478bdab35be8f1e75b
6569 F20110115_AAACTT mohan_s_Page_064thm.jpg
0ef916be9b575f8bd138d7be3ee4fa1f
153d13277d3975ef42ac8cbbe0d5947d6b5b2b68
80515 F20110115_AAABQR mohan_s_Page_029.jpg
ce73d12864d65a66b10165d4d1850fbf
584bf06183fa0d4348e27a9f83bcda8f5a53b9c1
69412 F20110115_AAABRF mohan_s_Page_043.jpg
30583078e6271c420cd56b95d16a27de
92bf4c8c06077abe9e24b9f02aea4565fea190cb
21908 F20110115_AAACUI mohan_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
3b78bfd02aafad009374b345555856bb
320653330dd223aea9f0918b4547ad962e4cb610
23209 F20110115_AAACTU mohan_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
f25b607888f5bc0740ddd3d25fa46659
b7229078ab6116554ea0279d2d1408c6fa6e3487
73105 F20110115_AAABQS mohan_s_Page_030.jpg
bb45b3d74ded01056e3c2b987cb545c2
63864a955edf93d1a591be819a62f49b5f87d4bd
67248 F20110115_AAABRG mohan_s_Page_044.jpg
254d38515bf4ed667a7ce03f592dd98a
9d96fadbd33d38a48ebe7e4a26cc6d918eff215c
5842 F20110115_AAACUJ mohan_s_Page_072thm.jpg
52b678d361d2997ab46a6e3b76804fe1
e64dc6a08e5979e30bdc27bdbf162b1b60854de9
6421 F20110115_AAACTV mohan_s_Page_065thm.jpg
50602c22ec3717a90d736b94b559e60c
3c1fb2fbe8dab0e1b5f1cee82f1d43624c5bb473
74905 F20110115_AAABQT mohan_s_Page_031.jpg
b06817e597b673f1f215932d984eb8eb
21de5c22dc00696e182d9fcad89a1d55a44b43d7
75868 F20110115_AAABRH mohan_s_Page_045.jpg
7c4acf4e9442ff3a75349faf9ace0eb2
8d4d36dab91f741ad336f3875104def91edbfb22
20381 F20110115_AAACUK mohan_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
0cc87951e68395da83bbd057d5486770
d98762ddedaffdf1d8a5b9d4bde73459e6d1708d
19619 F20110115_AAACTW mohan_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
1324814353f807c16ef46e5f17ab6ec2
856549af468c8f005045d2d93ecbfbf35666b1a1
81679 F20110115_AAABQU mohan_s_Page_032.jpg
3ac4bc6b3b0200a02982c7bb827bbffe
b1cc5f50bdb44af8395601d738906a913457f9ea
73817 F20110115_AAABRI mohan_s_Page_046.jpg
2e48b87cb094f6abe75af4f7f488d0d8
5af8a0805455543eea41fa9e48d3bfc2edfc2659
5451 F20110115_AAACUL mohan_s_Page_073thm.jpg
44d5372b1faed8e9fd98c9e770102c84
0515bcfd4b8f7c6604e1bac3e371efa173483329
5520 F20110115_AAACTX mohan_s_Page_066thm.jpg
d31ed16afab18b7448eb49b2bdf3056d
21e18d32496bf24d5c8edf815e674991cbcedd42
42595 F20110115_AAABQV mohan_s_Page_033.jpg
3d38642e553e302fb9a93e0d5440e850
c4c31d06c299cef856fffd6ec2b1a443df4c4317
69312 F20110115_AAABRJ mohan_s_Page_047.jpg
82b4d62cf6f753a4092b2c17997716c0
3f8b6532b4ee4543090943cb54c444ace91a6491
22383 F20110115_AAACVA mohan_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
f43c66dd86bff81c6013f090b3cf7ef2
061a9b728a0d46305d6f3005ad5d299df8fb2fe4
21401 F20110115_AAACUM mohan_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
f6e41ae82c24902252daf28dd56880b2
36727d321e972e700d64ac0913fedf787d336b5c
20618 F20110115_AAACTY mohan_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
b8f7280737839a43f98c55b7495ad4fd
db52d4f20b12232e2c620e4ea3d3316c7adb33f3
63679 F20110115_AAABQW mohan_s_Page_034.jpg
8267bc022d06acc835530cfabdfd0782
1c3cd650711cf53d0b9d47a6dc34409560e13ef2
70301 F20110115_AAABRK mohan_s_Page_048.jpg
1140f855a496388ed884bc6839a628a1
967fe66da7a618ac1c8bd336dd9e1ae82384d1d8



PAGE 1

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOLOGICA L AND SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS PROVIDED BY HOMEGARDENS: A CASE STUDY OF KERALA, INDIA By SOUMYA MOHAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 By Soumya Mohan

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I thank my advisor Dr. P.K.R. Nair, for his invaluable help and guidance during my years at th e University of Florida. W ithout his motivation, the past four years would have been neither possibl e nor gratifying. Thanks go to my committee members, Dr. Janaki Alavalapati, Dr. Ken Buhr, Dr. Fred Davies, Dr. Heather Gibson, and Dr.Alan Long, who have made valuable c ontributions to this work. My colleagues and lab mates, Eddie Ellis, Brian Becker, So lomon Haile, John Bellow, Andrea Albertin, Robert Juanvestraut, Alyson Dagang, Robert Miller, Alain-Michel, Matthew Langholz, and of course, Shruti Agrawal, are acknow ledged for their support and help. I am extremely grateful to the Univ ersity of Florida and the Inst itute of Food and Agricultural Sciences for the Alumni Fellowship, which made this PhD dissertation possible. My fieldwork in India would not have been possible without the help of many wonderful people. My field assistant, P. Ra deesh, faithfully accompanied me to all my study sites, and provided his help and suppor t throughout the durati on of fieldwork. On an institutional level, Drs. B.M. Kumar, P. Indira, and Prasannakumari, of Kerala Agricultural University, provi ded their expertise in plant and tree identification. Also, thanks are due to P. Sankar, from Kerala Forest Research Institute, for his advice, and use of the KFRI libraries. I am indebted to Mari nela Capanu of IFAS st ats for her help with statistics, and to Drs. V. Uddameri and K. John, R. Stahel and R. Rodriguez, my colleagues at Texas A&M University Kingsville, for their encouragement.

PAGE 4

iv In Thrissur, I have to thank Jyothi Rajeevan and Mrs. L eela Nair for their continued support, as well as their assistance in tran slation, and sharing their knowledge about farming. Thanks also go to Manikandan Janardhanan who helped me with the day-to-day activities connected to living in Thrissur. And lastl y, I gratefully acknowledge the farmers who graciously welcomed me into their homes and gardens, and spent their valuable time assisting me w ith their knowledge and expertis e, as well as answering my questions. Finally, these last four years would not have been possible without the continued help and support from my parents and best friends, Usha and Sreeram Mohan, especially during my dissertation writing stage. Thanks also go to my little brother Sabareesh Vinod for his advice and company; and to my husband Michael Rasser, who never once doubted my abilities, and who has consistently supported me throughout the most difficult stages of graduate school.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 The Problem..................................................................................................................2 Objectives..................................................................................................................... 3 Objective 1: Financial Analysis for a Typical Homegarden Year........................3 Objective 2: Ecological Analysis..........................................................................3 Objective 3: Discussion of So cial and Cultural Components...............................4 Hypotheses....................................................................................................................4 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 General Description of Homegardens..........................................................................5 Livestock...................................................................................................................... .6 Biopesticide Use in Homegardens................................................................................7 Ecology of Homegardens......................................................................................8 Benefits Commonly Attributed to Homegardens.......................................................10 Production Benefits from Trees...........................................................................10 Nutrition and Food Availability..........................................................................11 Improving the Role of Women in Agriculture....................................................12 Aesthetics and Ornamentation.............................................................................13 Other Businesses.................................................................................................13 Medicinal Uses....................................................................................................14 Existing Studies..........................................................................................................15 Non-Market Benefits..................................................................................................17 Scope for Future Research..........................................................................................19

PAGE 6

vi 3 STUDY AREA...........................................................................................................21 Location of Study Area...............................................................................................21 Kerala Homegardens..................................................................................................24 Size Demographics of Homega rdens Used in this Study....................................26 History of Cultivation..........................................................................................27 4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOMEGARDENS....................................................28 Introduction.................................................................................................................28 Economic Methodology..............................................................................................29 Opportunity Costs of Land and Household Labor..............................................30 Components of the Annual Financial Cycle of a Kerala Homegarden...............31 Analysis......................................................................................................................3 4 Preliminary Field Results...........................................................................................35 Results........................................................................................................................ .36 Economic Values of Homegardens and Annual Economic Profit......................36 Intensity of Profit-Generation..............................................................................37 Economic Importance of Homegarden Species..................................................37 Sensitivity Analyses............................................................................................38 What Factors Affect the Financial Value of Homegardens?......................................39 Timber.................................................................................................................40 Household Labor.................................................................................................41 Gender Dynamics in Kerala Homegardens.........................................................42 Economic Alternatives to Homegardens....................................................................44 Discussion...................................................................................................................46 5 ECOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF HOMEGARDENS...............................................50 Introduction.................................................................................................................50 Methodology...............................................................................................................52 Similarity among Homegardens..........................................................................53 Diversity..............................................................................................................54 Species Richness.................................................................................................55 Species Density...................................................................................................55 Agroecological Importance Values.....................................................................55 Analysis and Results...................................................................................................56 Diversity, Species Richness and Density............................................................56 Similarity among Homegardens..........................................................................57 Agroecological Importance Values.....................................................................58 Species Inventory................................................................................................59 Importance Values and Plant Selection...............................................................63 Do Diversity and Species Richness Af fect Homegarden Financial Value?...............66 Discussion...................................................................................................................67 Constraints of Using Proposed Methods in Homegardens..................................70 Conclusions.................................................................................................................71

PAGE 7

vii 6 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................73 Synthesis.....................................................................................................................7 3 Homegarden Design...................................................................................................78 APPENDIX A SURVEY ADMINISTERED TO SELECTED HOMEGARDENS..........................81 B ECONOMIC VALUES OF HOME GARDEN OUTPUTS AND INPUTS...............90 C PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT PLANT AND LIVESTOCK CATEGORIES TO THE FINANCIAL PROFIT OF HOMEGARDENS......................................................................................................98 D MARGALEF INDICES OF SPECIES RICHNESS.................................................100 E SHANNON-WEINER INDEX OF DIVERSITY IN ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL SPECIES............................................................................................103 F MEDICINAL PLANTS FOUND IN KERALA HOMEGARDENS, AND THEIR USES AS DESC RIBED BY FARMERS....................................................107 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................109 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................120

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Biopesticides used in Kerala gardens, their uses and methods of preparation...........8 2-2 Selected homegarden literature acco rding to different geographic locations..........18 2-3 Potential non-market be nefits from homegardens...................................................19 3-1 Land size categories of 75 surveyed home gardens of Thrissur district, Kerala India.......................................................................................................................... 27 4-1 Components of the annual finances of a typical homegarden in steady state, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.................................................................................32 4-2 Frequency of occurrence of crops cons idered economically most important in 32 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India..................................................35 4-3 Mean financial value of homegard ens for 2002-2003 (in Rupees), based on the benefits and costs of 75 gardens surveyed in Thrissur Distri ct, Kerala, India.........36 4-4 Intensity of profit generation across diffe rent size categories of homegardens in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.................................................................................37 4-5 Sensitivity analyses to ascertain the economic resilience of 75 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India, to pr ice fluctuations in labor and three economically significant crops.................................................................................39 4-6 Land size (sq. m) and number of years in cultivation are predictors of homegarden economic worth in Thrissur dist rict in Kerala, Indi a, as indicated by multivariate regression analysis..........................................................................40 4-7 Average number of timber species in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.............................................................................................................41 4-8 Household labor characteristics in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................................................................................... 42 4-9 Intensity of profit genera tion in female and male operated homegardens, based on 75 homegardens from Thrissu r District, Kerala, India........................................43

PAGE 9

ix 4-10 Daily input of household labor by fema le and male family members into 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................44 4-11 Comparison of an average small homegarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissu r District, Kerala, India........................................45 4-12 Comparison of an average medium ho megarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissu r District, Kerala, India........................................45 4-13 Comparison of an average large home garden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissu r District, Kerala, India........................................46 4-14 Comparison of an average commercial homegarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissu r District, Kerala, India........................................46 5-1 Ecological characteristics of 75 homega rdens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India....57 5-2 Percentage of similarity of overall species richness and tree species richness using Sorensons index of similarity acro ss four size categories of homegardens in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.............................................................................58 5-3 Agroecological Importance Values of homegarden species, based on frequency, density and dominance patterns in 75 home gardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................................................................................... 59 5-4 Herbaceous species that are of econo mic importance to the household, as reported by respondents in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......60 5-5 Tree and shrub species encountered in sampled homegardens, assessed as economically important by respondents from 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India..................................................................................61 5-6 Trees and shrubs of secondary economic utility, mainly for household uses, as reported by respondents from 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................................................................................... 62 5-7 Herbaceous species reported to be of secondary economic importance by respondents from 75 homegardens in Thri ssur district, Kerala state, India.............63 5-8 Importance value index (IVI) of nine pl ant categories in 24 small homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.............................................................................64 5-9 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 14 medium homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................64 5-10 Importance value index (IVI) of nine pl ant categories in 10 large homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.............................................................................65

PAGE 10

x 5-11 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 27 commercial homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................65 5-12 Land size, number of years in cultiva tion, and species richne ss as predictors of homegarden economic worth in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, as indicated by multivariate regression analysis...........................................................66 B-1 Net financial value of 75 homegardens surveyed in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.......................................................................................................................... 90 B-2 Economic values representing the finances of homegardens...................................92 B-3 Economic values of annual inputs in to typical homegardens in steady state...........96 D-1 Margalef Indices of 75 surveyed home gardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India........................................................................................................................10 1 E-1 Shannon-Weiner Index Step Wis e calculation for Homegarden # X...................104 E-2 Shannon-Weiner Indices for 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India...........................................................................................................105 F-1 Medicinal plants observed in 75 homeg ardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India........................................................................................................................10 7

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Map of India highlightin g the state of Kerala..........................................................23 4-1 Contribution of three crop categories a nd extent of household use in total profit generated by different size classes of ho megardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......................................................................................................................... 38 C-1 Percentage of contributi on of categories to the total income earned from small homegardens.............................................................................................................98 C-2 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from medium homegardens.............................................................................................................98 C-3 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from large homegardens.............................................................................................................99 C-4 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from commercial homegardens.............................................................................................................99

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOLOGICA L AND SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS PROVIDED BY HOMEGARDENS: A CASE STUDY OF KERALA, INDIA By Soumya Mohan December 2004 Chair: P.K. Ramachandran Nair Major Department: School of Fo rest Resources and Conservation Homegardens are intensive land-use systems involving the management of woody species grown in deliberate association w ith herbaceous species, with or without livestock, managed within the compounds of individual homes. These systems, which are found mainly in the tropics and subtropi cs, are of immense importance in the socioeconomic settings of local communities. This dissertation examined the benefits provided by these systems, both to the indi vidual household and to the community, based on a case study in the state of Kerala, in southern India. The study of the economic benefits was a f our-step process that started with listing the inputs and outputs th at made up the annual financial cycle of these gardens. Then, a cost-benefit-analysis was c onducted to estimate the net fi nancial values for all the surveyed households. The next step was a sens itivity analysis of the risks posed by labor and market price fluctuations. The final step ascertained whether the homegardens were a better economic alternative for farmers than leasing or selling the land.

PAGE 13

xiii The ecological analysis focused mainly on estimating the ecol ogical diversity of these systems. The species compositions were found to be fairly similar across different size categories of homegardens. The homegard ens were similar to natural forests in the region, in terms of species richness and sp ecies diversity. Although land size seemed to be the biggest constraint for profit generati on, it did not affect species composition or species diversity. Species richness was found to cause a slightly ne gative effect on profit values. Medicinal plants were also very impor tant in these systems and were found in all the surveyed gardens. Members of the househol d, including females, spent considerable amount of their time in tending the homegardens. Intensity of both profit generation and household labor input was highest in the smallest gardens. The economic decisionmaking power was equally invested in male and female heads of household. This study indicated that these agroforest ry systems were economically profitable for the small-farm household, and were resilient to shifts in the prices of labor or commercial crops. Homegarden cultivation was estimated to be the better economic option for such landowners, even consideri ng the opportunity costs for land and labor. These gardens have proven to be highly dive rse systems, with a wide variety of plants designed to provide a wide range of benefits. These systems that have withstood the tests of both time and changing demands may provide models for sustainable agriculture for smallholder farmers.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Homegardens are unique agroforestry systems that are often described in detail, but whose biophysical and socioeconomic characteris tics have not been extensively studied. These intensive land-use systems involving the deliberate management of multipurpose trees and shrubs (the woody component) grow n in intimate associa tion with herbaceous species (mainly annual, perennial, and seasona l agricultural crops), and livestock, are all managed within the compounds of individua l homes (Fernandes and Nair, 1986). They are widespread throughout the tropics and are of im mense importance in the socioeconomic structure of the rural communities (Michon et al., 1983, Soemarwoto, 1987). They provide both economic and social be nefits that are essential to the nutritional welfare and security of the household. These ga rdens, with their diversified agricultural crops and trees, fulfill the basic needs of the local population. In addition, the multistoried arrangements of plants and re latively high species diversities prevent the environmental degradation that is commonly associated with monoc ultures (Nair, 1993). Thus these homegardens provide economical benefits while remaining ecologically sound and biologically sustainable. Homegardens are of vital importance to the mainly subsistence-level existence of farmers in the tropics (Nair and Sreedha ran, 1986; Swift and Anderson, 1993; High and Shackleton, 2000; Mendez et al., 2001). Many of the benefits provi ded to farmers by these gardens are unknown for lack of qua ntification of the products used by the household.

PAGE 15

2 The Problem Although homegardens have been extensiv ely described, there is a lack of quantitative data about their be nefits. The main reason that th ey have not been studied is that rigorous, widely applicab le methodologies are not availabl e, and those that have been developed for single-species systems are not ap plicable to such complex systems (Nair, 2001). There is a need to conduct both ec onomic and ecological analyses of these systems so as to understand the potential benef its and identify potenti al risks associated with homegarden cultivation. Furthermore, trad itional monoculture patterns degrade the soil fertility, necessitating the use of more and more fertilizers to maintain crop productivity (Swift and Anderson, 1993). Mono culture also increases pest and weed problems. Studies that focus on the biophysical aspects of these multi layered and multi functional systems might provide management help to households tempted to convert their homegardens into commercial enterp rises, which may yield immediate economic benefit but ultimately may result in re duced soil fertility and productivity. Many studies have documented homegard en species (Ninez, 1987; Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992; Drescher, 1996; and others), however, there needs to be an inventory of the products that are realized from and th e costs that are input into these systems. Socioeconomic and cultural factors that influe nce homegardens also need to be properly documented. Many of these homegardens follo w indigenous agricultu ral practices that are logical and rational, and have been follo wed for centuries. Loss of this traditional knowledge would be disastrous to the culture that defined the evolution of Kerala farmers and their knowledge of the land. The non-mark et benefits potentially provided by these systems, such as biodiversity, carbon se questration, aesthetics and ornamentation, wildlife habitat provision, are likely to be very valuable to the subsistence farmers of the

PAGE 16

3 tropics, but no quantified data are available to support this assumption. These benefits need to be considered when formulating any new government policy regarding agriculture in the tropics. Broad-based analyses of the socioecono mic, cultural, and ecological aspects involved in homegarden design and cultivation are necessary, so that these systems, and their contribution to life in the tropics, can be viewed in their entirety not just as a sum of its parts. Unless these multifaceted elements are considered together, the true role of these systems as contributors to sustai nable agriculture ca nnot be realized. Objectives Objective 1: Financial Analysis for a Typical Homegarden Year Determine all market costs and benefits associated with the homegardens, and evaluate the financial values of homegardens. Assess the effect of variables such as land size, labor, age of homegarden, or gender, on the profitability of homegardens. Conduct sensitivity analyses associated with the cultivation of these gardens in terms of price increases in market outputs, and labor. Compare economic utility of the land to other potential alternatives. Objective 2: Ecological Analysis Categorize observed species according to their various uses in the household. Calculate diversity indices for all samp led gardens, both in terms of species richness and evenness. Examine the planting patterns in gardens, and compare across different land size categories, and examine the role of medicinal plants. Estimate agroecological importance values of the primary species associated with the homegardens.

PAGE 17

4 Objective 3: Discussion of Social and Cultural Components Examine the role of women in homegarden design and decision-making Assess the level of use and knowledge of commonly used fertilizers Examine the role of religion, medicinal plants, and conserva tion of indigenous knowledge. Hypotheses This study is based on the overall hypothesis that home gardens provide economic benefits and help maintain cu ltural requirements, while at th e same time contributing to or maintaining the ecological diversity of th e region. Specifically, it is hypothesized that a typical homegarden is resilient to economic fluctuations, provides intangible benefits to the farmer in addition to the economic benefi ts, and enables the farmer to generate a satisfactory level of financ ial profit. Furthermore, ho megardens are ecologically sustainable, and the agroecology of the garden s and the economic and social needs of the household are inextricably linked.

PAGE 18

5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW General Description of Homegardens Homegardens are intensively cultivated ag roforestry systems managed within the compounds of individual homes. They i nvolve the deliberate management of multipurpose trees and shrubs (the woody comp onent), grown in intimate association with herbaceous species (mainly annual, perenni al, and seasonal agri cultural crops), and livestock (Fernandes and Nair 1986). Torquebiau (2000) further classifies them as agroforestry homegardens in order to avoi d possible confusion with domestic vegetable gardens. Nair (1993) mentions Pekarangan gardens of Indonesia, the Chagga gardens in Tanzania, and the Huertos Familiares as excellent examples of these systems. Many gardens are associated with outlying fields where shade-intolerant, staple food crops such as rice ( Oryza sativa ) and maize ( Zea mays ), are grown. Fernandes and Nair (1986) also defined two ot her types of tree gardens as plots immediately adjacent to the garden but with fewer trees and more staple food crops, and complex agroforests, which are plots further away in surrounding fo rests and consisting mainly of tree crops such as palms, rubber ( Hevea brasiliensis ), resin, and nut trees. These complex agroforests, also called village forest gardens, are structurally similar to homegardens but they are less diverse and usually oriented to ward timber or other forms of cash production such as non-timber forest products. Furtherm ore, these village gardens are usually on commonly owned land, while homegardens are on private property.

PAGE 19

6 Homegardens, with their diversified ag ricultural crops and trees, are of vital importance to the subsistence economy of many areas in the tropics (e.g. Nair, 1993; High and Shackleton, 2000). Human population dens ity is usually high in these areas, and the average size of landholding is less th an one hectare. The most conspicuous characteristics of all homegardens are th eir layered canopy arrangements and admixture of compatible species, with each component occupying a specific place and function (Nair, 1993). Most homestead systems consist of an herbaceous la yer near the ground and a tree layer at higher levels. The herbaceous layer can be partitioned into two, with the lower layer consisting of vegetable and medi cinal plants; and the upper layer composed of food plants such as cassava ( Manihot esculenta ), papaya ( Carica papaya ), banana ( Musa spp.), yam ( Dioscorea esculenta ), and other vegetables a nd tubers. The tree layer usually has two levels as well, with the lowe r tree level consisting of medium-sized trees (10 to 20 m high) and fully-grown timber a nd fruit trees occupying the uppermost layer (more than 25 m high). Fruit trees, some of which could continue vertical development, could occupy an intermediate layer (3 to 10 m high). Livestock Livestock contribute sign ificantly to the household income of small-scale homegardens in many developing countries, while fulfilling many social and cultural needs (Wilson, 1995). In some of the very smal l gardens, where land is a constraint to production, livestock are sometimes the main in come generators, serving as cash buffers and capital reserves (Devendra and Thomas, 2002) and also contribu ting to the nutrient cycling in the system (Thorne and Tanner, 2002). Livestock also offer opportunities for milk and meat-processing ventures, thus increa sing employment especially in rural areas. They can be used to control weeds in perenni al tree crop systems, and to control insect

PAGE 20

7 pests. Integration of animals with croppi ng systems provides means to sustainably intensify agricultural producti on and contribute to the nutrien t cycling in the system. For example, 80% of the N supplies to the so il are made via the manure-compost pathway (Pilbeam et al., 2000). A study of banana-based homegardens ( kibanja ) in Bukoba district in Tanzania showed that nutrient balances were negative for homegardens without cattle (Baijikya and Piters, 1998). The relatively good banana production in those gardens without cattle, and owned by resource-poor farm ers might be explained by the fact that some farmers find other nutrient-saving solu tions by keeping small ruminants like goats and sheep, while others make compost heaps and recycle crop residue s. Livestock also promote the adoption of adaptive management techniques. In Burkina Faso, farmers employ traditional practices such as live hedges to protect their homegardens from animals (Ayuk, 1997). These live hedges also pr ovide additional sources of income such as food and timber. Biopesticide Use in Homegardens Biopesticides are now commonly used in many parts of the developing world. These techniques involve using natural met hods such as biopesticides and natural predators to control pests a nd diseases. Some of the methods used in the surveyed gardens are shown in Table 2.1. The methods of preparation are from the Kerala Agricultural University, Technical Bulle tin-13 (1998). While a ssessing homegarden benefits, it is important to understand the various methods used by the farmers to reduce costs and improve production. The various processes that underline the farmers decisions to use a particular t ype of pesticide should also be understood. In Kerala, these information levels are very high among the farmers. Although the preparation methods

PAGE 21

8 can be obtained from the local agricultural offices, the farmers mainly utilize the information as passed through generations of farmers in the family. Table 2-1 Biopesticides used in Kerala gard ens, their uses and me thods of preparation. Biopesticide Method of preparation Uses Tobacco solution 100g tobacco wastes steeped in 1 liter of water for 24 hours. Filter tobacco solution, and add to 24g of bar soap dissolved in water (KAU, 1998) Controls aphids and other vegetable crop pests Neem cake (veppu pinakku) or neem kernel suspension Grind neem kernels into coarse powder. Dip cloth bag with 1g of powder in 1 liter of water, for 12 hours. Repellant against locusts, grasshoppers, and other chewing insects. Bar soap solution or fish oil soap Dissolve bar soap in hot water. Bar soap solution can be used against aphids, and fish oil soap is effective against plant lice Neem oil (veppu enna) Oil obtained from the leaves, and kernels. Serves as anti-feedant, when sprayed on vegetables Bordeaux mixture (Broad-spectrum fungicide) Dissolve 10g of powdered copper sulfate in 500 ml of water. Pour mixture in milk of lime solution Broad spectrum fungicide Methods of preparation are from Kerala Agri cultural University Technical Bulletin 13 Nutrition Garden and uses are from Bulle tin 13 and from farmer responses. Local names are in italics. Ecology of Homegardens Personal preferences, socioeconomic status and culture seem to be the main determinants of the appearance, function, and structure of homegardens (Christanty, 1990). The rural gardens usually have more layers of plant canopy and thus are more complex than the urban gardens. The cr ops and trees planted in a homegarden are carefully arranged to provide for specific functions and benefits which are primarily economic in nature. But the difference be tween typical agricu ltural systems and homegardens is that these gardens also enable continuance of various essential ecological

PAGE 22

9 processes that occur in natural tropical fo rest ecosystems, such as regeneration and conservation of soil, nutrient and wate r cycling (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986). Studies dealing with the biophysical aspects of home gardens are still limited although the urgency of this need is begi nning to come through. Although these systems are touted as sustainable and close to natu ral forest systems in function and processes (Torquebiau, 1992; Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993; Ewel, 1999), the quantitative evidence to substantiate these claims is st ill inadequate. There have been many studies that describe the homegardens with detailed plant inventories, desc riptions, and planting patterns (Table 2-2). Many recent studies ha ve attempted to measure the floristic composition of homegardens (e.g. Leusc hner and Khaleque, 1987; Karyono, 1990; Esquivel and Hammer, 1992; Moreno-Black, 1996; Mendez et al., 2001; Wezel and Bender, 2003). The main problem with these studies is that, alt hough they provide an excellent resource for researchers and scientis ts, they do not follow a uniform pattern of analysis. Furthermore, methodology and data co llection practices also vary widely across studies. Methods of estimating ecological dive rsity indices and basic statistical sampling methods as discussed in forest vegetati on studies (eg. Krebs, 1985; Margurran, 1988; Reed and Mroz, 1997) can also be utilized fo r homegarden studies and some researchers have used this ecological appr oach to estimating homegarden plant diversities (Kumar et al., 1994; Drescher, 1996; Vogl et al., 2002; Wezel and Bender, 2003). These studies do not follow a uniform pattern of study, and us e different indices, however, they are one step ahead in accurately classifying and st udying the diversity of these systems. For example, Kumar et al. (1994) used Simpsons diversity index in homegardens in Kerala

PAGE 23

10 state, India, and concluded that floristic diversity decreased with increasing garden sizes. Drescher (1996) used the Shannon-Weiner i ndex to reach similar conclusions. Benefits Commonly Attributed to Homegardens Production Benefits from Trees Homegardens tend to have some tree out put that can be used for long-term production and sale for profit. Palms are tradi tionally of significan t importance in small farm management as sources of edible frui ts, oil, green vegetables, fiber, thatch, construction wood, fuel wood and other usef ul products (Johnson, 1988), and are often found in Kerala homegardens. These plan ts, especially the coconut palm ( Cocos nucifera ), whose growth and planting patterns en able successful growing of other crops in between or under them (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986), the date palm ( Phoenix dactilifera ), and the areca palm ( Areca catechu ), can be grown with annual or perennial crops and thus can be effectively utilized in homegarden systems, and provide a source of market income. Kerala is known for many va rieties of palm trees (Renuka, 1999) and therefore, palms are of special importa nce in any homegarden study in Kerala. Trees incorporated into agricultural sy stems have been found to yield greater payoffs than continuous agricultural m onocropping (Leakey and Tomich, 1999), which might explain the results of a study conducted in the floodplains of the Peruvian Amazon (de Jong 2001), which found that farmers choos e to include trees in their plantain, cassava-corn homegarden systems because th e value of the tree products offsets the decreased yield of the annual or short cyclic crop. Similarly, tree crops retained for their timber value are often highly valued in many parts of South and Southeast Asia. Fruit cropping is an attractive option to some highland villagers. Fruit systems are able to

PAGE 24

11 provide valuable market benef its and services, of which so me have significant economic objectives (Withrow-Ro binson et al., 1999). Other high-value tree products are also capable of producing significant export earnings for farmers, for example, teak wood ( Tectona grandis ) in Asia is a very highly priced wood traditionally used for furniture and construction. Products from Cinderella species (trees whose products are traditionally non-timber) such as neem ( Azadirachta indica ) and other agroforestry tree species can also be used as a source of income for the household (Leakey, 1999). These trees are reta ined as standing stock of wood, along with the herbaceous crops, and are looked on as an asset by the farmer, to be utilized for a variety of reasons including medicinal re asons, gums, resins, and green manure. Nutrition and Food Availability Nutrition and food supply are major aspect s of homegardens. Food crops are not only widely prevalent (Caron, 1995; Mendez et al., 2001; Vogl et al., 2002), but they also provide a significant portion of the hous ehold nutritional re quirement in many homegardens around the world. Any failure to provide such sustenance probably arises from ineffective setup, design and implem entation of these sy stems (Immink, 1990). If the homegardens are large enough to plant a suffi cient number of tubers or cereals, they can also provide the households basic f ood supply. For example, Cuban homegardens are significant as food suppliers, especially because of low-paid alternate employment and minimal food provisions by the government (Wezel and Bender, 2003). Along with the nutritional benefits, homegard ens provide potentia l food security to the householder. Since the diverse mixture of crops is harvested at different times, a constant supply of food in some form or the other is available from these homegardens, at all times of the year. Rural farmers continue to rely on their homegardens to enhance

PAGE 25

12 household food security agains t the risks presented by monocropping systems (Jose and Shanmugaratnam, 1993). Improving the Role of Women in Agriculture These gardens contain possibilities of in creasing family participation in the production and contribution toward family well-being. Okigbo (1990) attributed the development of the homegarden as a regular f eature of the traditional farming system in parts of tropical Africa, in part to the division of labor betw een the sexes. Women traditionally cooked soups and sauces, and needed the continuous availability of the condiment plants, spices and vegetables grown in the homegardens. In another study conducted in Thailand, homegardens managed primarily by women were among a series of resource areas that were efficiently u tilized (Moreno-Black et al., 1996). These womens gardening practices created intens ive interaction between the physical and social environment and they were increasi ng their management and manipulation of nondomesticated resources. They were the prin cipal land-owners and were heavily involved in economic activity, especially in the marketing of fruits, vegetables and cooked foods. The women who developed and maintained th ese systems used gardening as a way to express their autonomy and worth within the village setting. Some studies on the role of family memb ers in homestead agriculture pointed to women being the main participants in homega rdens. An analysis of land use in Pananao, in the Dominican Republic showed that women were responsible for providing homegarden products to the household, for work ing in the gardens, and for controlling the resources and processes of the ga rdens (Rocheleau, 1987). Similarly, the Chitemene system in northeast Zambia showed that womens homegardens were increasingly important sources of both food and cash. In a study conducted in the homegardens of

PAGE 26

13 Lusaka, Zambia (Drescher, 1996), it was found that women tended to have higher species diversity in their homegardens than men, and utilized different strategies to improve soil fertility in semi urban, and rural areas. St udies examining the effect of gender in agriculture are increasin gly being conducted (Ramamurthy, 2000, Raynolds, 2002), but research documenting the effect of homegard en farming on gender relations in tropical agriculture remains limited. Aesthetics and Ornamentation The homegarden is often a haven for the family members of rural communities to relax and gather together af ter a hard days work. They are often focal community meeting points. The gardens sometimes have a variety of flowers and other ornamental decorations. Some villages use these homegard ens as a way to gain recognition for the village as a whole (Moreno-Black et al., 1996) The villagers are pr oud of the way their gardening contributes to the beauty of the village. In several tropical cultures, these ornamental flowers and some other selected plants are used for ritualistic and cultural reasons. Other Businesses Homegardens often allow for the setup of sm all cottage industries that provide an additional source of income to the household. For example, the traditional art of pickling mangos and other fruits is a lucrative cottage industry. Another pot ential cottage industry involves using non-food materials from the gard en, such as coconut fiber (coir), which has traditionally been used in the producti on of mats, ropes and other products, and can be sold to local markets.

PAGE 27

14 Medicinal Uses Homegardens can be used to grow certain traditional herbs and spices. Traditional medicine and medical properties of plants ar e fields that are currently generating much interest among researchers. Plant based medicinal systems, although in practice for thousands of years, are now coming to the forefront and attempts are being made to recognize their medicinal properties (for exam ple, see Scartezzini and Speroni, 2000; On et al., 2001). The traditional Indian system of medici ne, Ayurveda, utilizes no artificial chemicals, and instead relies on the medicina l properties of herbs and other plants. The first congress on Ayurveda was held in 2001, in Kochi, India, and was attended by scholars and doctors from India and around the world. The Congress, organized by the Union Ministry of Health and Family We lfare, along with the Swadesi Science Movement, was conceived as a platform on wh ich to establish Ayurveda in the global arena. Homegardens, especially in the more ru ral areas, are reservoirs of species that can be used for many medical purposes. Many region al and local publications are available, which expound the virtues of these plants (for example, Balakrishnan, 1994; Tajuddin et al. 1996; Abraham, 2001; Nedumancheri, 2002) and the farmers are also cognizant enough of these benefits that they retain sp ecific medicinal plants to realize certain desired benefits. 1 1 Personal communication: Abraham, C. 2001. Karshika naatarivukal (Malay alam). Avanti Publications. Kerala, India. Balakrishnan, V.V. 1994. Chedikalum Avayude Ousha dhagunangalum. (Malayalam )DC Books. Kerala, India Nedumancheri, S. 2002. Veettumuttathe Aushadhachedikal (Malayalam). Sincere P ublications. Kerala, India

PAGE 28

15 Existing Studies Many existing studies provide detailed de scriptions and specific analyses of homegardens. Brownrigg (1985), in her a nnotated bibliography, lists several hundred references. Each geographic re gion exhibits certain unique ch aracteristics that influence the structure and function of its gardens. Vari ations exist even within similar geographic areas, as a result of conditions that are both socio-economic and naturally created. More recently, Kumar and Nair (2004) have publishe d an excellent review of the state of homegarden literature and the sc ientific progress that has been made in the past decades of study. They conclude that homegardens fu lfil economic, social, and cultural needs and provide biological cons ervation and carbon sequestration be nefits, yet their virtues are not recognized in measured quantities. In an assessment of four types of homegardens represen ting four eras in the Chao Praya Basin in Thailand, Gajase ni and Gajaseni (1999) studied the ecological rationalities behind the harmony among humans, homegardens, and the environment. They found that a species utility was the main reason for its selection in the homegarden. The farmers had various practices chosen due to factors such as plant species, the system, and the environment. These gardens offered the possibi lity of highly efficient use of space, light, water and nutrients. The practice of never completely harvesting these gardens meant minimal nutrient export; and high amounts and biodiversity of litter biomass contributed to the high efficiency of nutrient cycling. Padoch and de Jong (1991) in their study of 21 gardens in the sparsely populated Peruvian Amazon, also describe great variability and species diversity in size and composition. Their research also indica ted several uses for

PAGE 29

16 homegarden species, including food, medicine and ornamentals. Mendez et al. (2001) also observed similar uses for homegarden sp ecies in Nicaragua. Homegardens have also been observed to provide important ave nues for the production of environmentally sustainable types of fruits and vegetables even in urban areas, and to enhance the nutrition of the urban poor in South America (Madaleno, 2000). Sri Lanka also offers wide possibilities for homegarden research, being home to the famous Kandy gardens. These gardens, lo cated in the Kandy district of Sri Lanka, combine intensely managed mixtures of ag riculture, forestry, and livestock, and are usually small, following the rule, smaller th e farm, the more intense the cultivation (Ranasinghe, 1995). In the hill agroecosystems of Nepal, the characteristic features of the gardens are their organic bases (Semwal and Maikhuri, 1996), with farmyard manure as the primary input. Much has been written a bout the Javanese home gardens, which are famous for their multilayer arrangements, se t in areas with extremely high population densities (Michon et al., 1983; Soemarwoto a nd Conway, 1992). These gardens, cared for primarily by women, are storehouses of ge netic diversity, with several species only partly domesticated (Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992). African homegardens have also been wi dely described. Okafor and Fernandes (1987) write that a large number of potentially valuable sp ecies are being lost in southern Nigeria because of the high rate of forest clea ring. This loss further enhances the value of compound farms as priceless germplasm banks of traditionally important multipurpose tree species. The famous Chagga homegardens of Tanzania (Fernandes et al., 1984) and the gardens of Lusaka in Gambia (Dresche r, 1996) provide subsis tence income to the householders, while also pr oviding some liquid income.

PAGE 30

17 Homegardens, although mainly tropical in nature, have also been found in the temperate zone. A brief review of the ag roforestry systems in present day United Kingdom presented a modern example of a fore st garden including fruit trees and bushes, medicinal herbs, and vegeta bles (Carruthers, 1996). Non-Market Benefits Homegarden owners attribute high values to homegardens for their social, aesthetic and habitat functions, rather than just as a place for growing s ubsistence and/or cash crops (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986). Many studies have attempted to value and provide methodologies of valuation for non-market be nefits, ranging from the seminal work by Peters et al. (1989) to a very recent pub lication (Alavalapati a nd Mercer, 2004) that provides coverage of applied economic and po licy analysis techniques for agroforestry professionals. Research that actually implemen ts the theories relati ng to valuation of noneconomic benefits of agroforestry is still li mited. Some studies have attempted to value environmental benefits such as soil conser vation (Ehui et al., 1990) and nitrogen fixing (Stone et al., 1993); to develop approach es to valuing carbon fluxes (Cline, 1992); to value wildlife conservation using analysis of travel costs (Benson, 1994); and most recently to use the contingent valuation method (CVM) to value non-tangible resources (Mitchell and Carson, 1989). Pri ce (1995) also attributes He donic pricing, which values environmental, social, locationa l and structural attributes of countryside activities, and Recreational agroforestry as potential methods that can be used. But these methods are all prone to problems with interpretation of re sults, and problems with realizing real and tangible values from study participants. Table 2-3 provides some of the available literature on the non-m arket benefits of homegardens. Some of these benefits such as soil conservation a nd nutritional security

PAGE 31

18 are extremely difficult to quantify, considering these are multi-use systems, and therefore the entire homegarden and its structure a nd function cannot be considered as uniform across the garden area. Table 2-2 Selected homegarden literature a ccording to different geographic locations Homegarden literature by geographic area References Africa Baijukya and Piters (1998), Fernandes et al. (1984), Okafor and Fernandes (1987), High and Shackleton (2000), Ayuk (1997), Fernandes et al., (1984), Rugalema et al. (1993&1995), Okigbo (1990), Abdoellah (1990), Drescher (1996) East and South east Asia Gajase ni and Gajaseni (1999), Jensen (1993), Soemarwoto and Conway (1992), Christanty (1990), Wiersum (1982), Lawrence (1996), Vasey (1985), Dove (1994), Salafsky (1995), Moreno-Black et al. (1996), Michon and Mary (1994), Withrow-Robinson et al. (1999), Jacob and Alles (1987), Michon (1983), Michon et al. (1983), Kaya et al. (2002) South Asia Ranasinghe (1995) Caron (1995), Nair and Sreedharan (1986), Dash and Misra (2001), Leuschner and Khaleque (1987), Millat-eMustafa et al. (1996), Nair and Sreedharan (1986), Jose and Shanmugaratnam (1993), Semwal and Maikhuri (1996), Chandrashekhara (1996), Mammen et al. (1993), Salam et al. (2000), Shanavas and Kumar (2002), Neupane and Thapa, 2001. Mexico, Central America, and South America Esquivel and Hammer (1992), Mendez et al. (2001), Padoch and de Jong (1991), Wezel and Bender (2003), Benjamin et al. (2001), De Jong (2001), McGrath (1998), Madaleno (2000), Brierly (1985), De Clerck and Negreros-Castillo (2000), Budowski (1990), Smith (1996), MunizMiret et al. (1996), Sc hulz et al. (1994), Rocheleau (1987), Pinton (1985), Posey (1985), Rico-Gray et al. (1991).

PAGE 32

19 Table 2-3 Potential non-market benefits from homegardens Benefits Description Key References Nutrition A significant portion of familys nutritional requirements met from homegardens. Immink (1990), Caron (1995); Mendez et al. (2001); Vogl et al. (2002), Wezel and Bender (2003). Ornamentation and Aesthetics Provision of some ornamental benefits. Oasis of beauty and relaxation in the midst of the travails of everyday life, therefore providing leisure. Improves quality of life Christanty (1990), MorenoBlack (1996) Soil Conservation/ Preservation The mixture of herbaceous species and woody species helps in the conservation of soil and provides essential nutrients. Fernandes and Nair (1986) Food Security and Nutrition Average of five annual crop species in each homegarden. These crops are staggered so that something is available for harvest throughout the year. The constant supply of food, harvested continuously throughout the year provides a sense of security to the family. Christanty et al. (1986), Karyono, (1990), Torquebiau (1992), Jose and Shanmugaratnam (1993), Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999). Self Sustenance Perception of achievement arising from the knowledge that the familys sustenance is and can be provided by the fruits of the ones own labor and grown in the backyard. Family Participation and Empowerment of women in agriculture Home gardens allow for all family members to be involved in some form or other. It allows for greater participation by the female members, thereby perhaps increasing their feelings of self worth Moreno-Black (1996) Scope for Future Research In a study conducted on the traditional ag roecosystems of Thrissur, India, to investigate the long-term effects on various soil properties using adjacent forests as a standard for comparisons, it was found that crop-species composition and richness had long-term positive impacts on soil carbon stocks, thus implying their importance in soil

PAGE 33

20 fertility management and carbon sequestrati on (Russell, 2002). Sin ce the importance of tree species and their ro le in biodiversity and carbon se questration is understood (Delaney and Roshetko, 1999; Nelson and de Jong, 2003; M ontagnini and Nair, 2004), the role of homegardens in carbon sequestration pr ovides scope for further research. Homegardens have long been considered a scientific mystery. These systems have prevailed with intensive cultivation for hundreds of years, yet the production remains consistent. These gardens, not only provide economic benefits to the householder, but also cultural and social benefits. Furtherm ore, the biophysical aspects of homegardens such as soil conservation effects and poten tial for carbon sequestr ation are ecological benefits to both the farmer and to the community. It is important to understand the rationale behind the synchronicity of all th ese three factors economic, ecological and social that allow for the consiste nt functioning of these systems.

PAGE 34

21 CHAPTER 3 STUDY AREA Location of Study Area This study was conducted in the state of Ke rala, in southern India (Fig. 3-1). Kerala state covers an area of 38, 863 sq. km which comprises a mere 1.18% of the area of the country as a whole. The state is densely populated (31,8 38,619 people as of March 1, 2001), with a population density of 819 people per sq. km (Government of India census, 2001). Forested land covers 10,292 s q. km, including 1887 sq. km of private forests (Forest Survey of India, 1993). The fore sts in Kerala are clas sified as southern tropical wet evergreen and semi evergreen, southern tropical moist deciduous, southern tropical dry deciduous, montane sub tropical, and forest plan tations. The coast runs 580 km, bounded by the Arabian Sea to the west. Th e soils of Kerala state can be broadly classified as Oxisols (50%), Inceptisols (25% ), Entisols (20%), and Alfisols (5%) (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986). Nearly 50% of the states population depe nds upon agriculture as their means of livelihood (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2000-2001) and agriculture contributes 21.38% to the state income. Accord ing to the Government of India census (2001), Kerala possesses a per capita land area of 0.13 ha, and the per capita cultivated land, including paddy fields and planta tion crops, is 0.10 ha. As of 1995-1996, 332,483 individual landholdings we re found to be less than 1.0 ha in size, and were classified as marginal landholdings. However, it is not clea r whether homegardens are included in this calculation because this land, especially those plots of land that are small in size, are

PAGE 35

22 considered more residential areas rather than agricultural land. The homegardens sampled in this study were all within the government of Kerala category of marginal landholdings, and were an average of 0.34 ha not including the actual re sidential building. Kerala is divided into four teen districts, of which the district of Thrissur was randomly selected as the study site. Thrissu r, commonly called the cultural capital of Kerala, is a major tourist attraction and is a dist rict with a fairly even distribution of rural and urban centers. Thrissur district is bounded by Malappuram district in the north, Palakkad district to the east, and Ernakulam di strict to the south. It lies between 10 0 and 10 47 north latitudes, and 75 55 and 76 54 east longitudes. Thrissur experiences a tropical climate, with plentiful summer monsoons. The dry season ranges from February to May, and th e Southwest monsoons follow, from June to September. The months of October and Novemb er experience the effects of the retreating monsoon, and this is an important time fo r rice-paddy farming. The rains cease by the end of December. The normal average annual rainfall of Kerala state is 3107.5 mm, and that of Thrissur district is 3262.0 mm (Government of Kera la, Statistics for Planning, 2002). Kerala is a unique land with a unique history. It is the onl y state in India with a sex ratio of 1.058 females to 1.0 male, as opposed to a national figure of 0.936 females to 1.0 male. Kerala also has the highest literacy ra te in the country, with over 94%, as opposed to the national average of 65 %. Kerala cult ure and history follow unique patterns, with several communities following a matrilineal society (Trautmann, 1995). Kerala also has relatively high (more than 20% of population) percentages of Christian and Moslem

PAGE 36

23 populations, along with the majority Hindu populace. The only existing Jewish population (under 100 people) in India and Asia belongs to Kerala. Figure 3-1 Map of India highlighting the state of Kerala. Reprinted with permission from the Perry Castaneda Li brary Map Collection University of Texas Online Map Library

PAGE 37

24 Kerala Homegardens Homegardens are a very common feature of Keralas landscape. They are not only a necessary feature to provide household subs istence, but also an ecological necessity. Kerala being a region experi encing heavy monsoon rains, it might be advantageous to have dense vegetation surrounding the cultivated areas in order to reduce soil erosion and better absorb excess rain water. Although th e rise of cash crop monocultures such as rubber plantations ( Hevea brasiliensis ) has threatened the conti nuity and persistence of the homegardens, the small and marginal farm ers of Kerala conti nue to rely on their gardens for household subsistence. All the homegardens in the study follow ed a multilayered canopy arrangement. In those gardens where the tree canopy has not al ready developed, the farmers deliberately followed a planting arrangement so as to eventually allow for such a multilayer arrangement. The canopy structure generally followed the descrip tions as set forth by Nair (1993) and Jose and Shanmugaratnam ( 1993). All gardens had at least three levels of canopy. The first layer consisted of plants under 2 m height, such as vegetables, tuber crops, grasses, medicinal plants, and ornament als, some of which were planted in pots. The second layer consisted of herbaceous crops such as bananas, shrubs such as papaya and trees such as short varie ties of arecanut palms, mango ( Mangifera indica ), and cacao ( Theobroma cacao ), between 2 and 10 m in height. Th e uppermost layer constituted trees over 10 m in height, such as coconut palms, jackfruit ( Artocarpus heterophyllus ), breadfruit ( Artocarpus altilis ), and rubber. Some of the food crops commonly produ ced are vegetables such as okra ( Abelmoschus esculentus ), chillies ( Capsicum spp.), spinach ( Amaranthus spp.), and beans, and tuber crops such as cassava, sweet potatoes ( Ipomoea batatas ), yams, and

PAGE 38

25 arrowroots ( Maranta arundinacea ). Along with the food crops produced by the annual and perennial species, the woody species provi de fruits, nuts or other forms of food. Some of these crop products can be used for cash purposes, for example, coconut, banana, cacao, cashew ( Anacardium occidentale ), and spices such as cardamom ( Elettaria cardamomum ), cloves ( Syzygium aromaticum ), vanilla ( Vanilla planifolia ) and nutmeg ( Myristica fragrans ). Mangrove species such as Acanthus illicifolius Carbera odollam and Rhizophora conjugata are common in the homegar dens of backwater areas of Kerala (Tejwani, 1987). When plantation crops such as cacao, coconut, coffee ( Coffea spp.), and black pepper ( Piper nigrum ) form dominant components of a homegarden system, they are often referred to as plantation-crop combin ations (Nair, 1993). But the differences between the subsistence homegarden and the plantation-crop system are unclear, and if any differences do exist, they are mainly so cioeconomic. Equally important are pulses such as cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ), black gram ( Vigna mungo ), and others, which provide a protein supplement to the hu man diet (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986). Livestock rearing is also undertaken in most of these gardens. The animals are maintained for milk, meat, eggs and other dairy products. Cattle and poultry were the most commonly found animals in these homegar dens. However, other lucrative livestock ventures included raising pigs ducks, fish, and goats. Some homegardens also practiced sericulture (raising silkworms for silk production), and apiculture (raising and maintaining bees for the production of honey). A few of the gardens raised ornamental fish, such as varieties of angelfish ( Pterophyllum scalare ) and goldfish ( Carassius auratus ).

PAGE 39

26 Family labor is utilized for management of these systems. All members of the house participate in the day to day working of the homegardens to varying degrees. Both male and female members of the household participate in both the labor and in the economic decision making processes. Hired la borers are employed according to need. Labor is an increasingly e xpensive commodity in Kerala, and daily wage for male laborers can be as high as Rs. 200/day (approxi mately $4) in urban areas. Labor is hired mainly for skilled tasks su ch as coconut harvesting. Organic waste material from the househol d, and animal manure, are often the only sources of nutrients added to the homegard ens. In the trend toward modernization, several gardens are now reporting increased use of chemical fe rtilizers especially for cash crops such as bananas and rubber. The total fe rtilizer consumption for the state of Kerala for 1999-2000 was 211,632 tons, of which N fer tilizer comprised 87,061 tons, P (in the form of P2O5) comprised 43,975 tons, and K (in the form of potash, K2O) comprised 80,326 tons (Kerala Department of Agriculture, 1999-2000). Fertilizer use varies greatly depending on a number of factors includi ng cropping systems, soil types, and socioeconomic conditions. The local government agricultural agencies provide subsidies (50% reduction) on fertilizer purchases fo r those farmers who own a minimum area of land (currently at approximately 0.2 hectares). Size Demographics of Homegar dens Used in this Study The homegardens selected for this study were all less than 1.0 ha in size, which is classified as marginal la ndholding by the government of Kera la. Most of the farmers surveyed reported that the land has been trad itionally in their families for generations. Eighty-five gardens were initially surveyed as part of the sample. It was later decided by the researchers that gardens that are more th an 1.0 hectare in area would not be included

PAGE 40

27 in the study because it was evident that these relatively large gardens functioned more as plantations than as homegardens. Ten garden s were eliminated for this reason, and the remaining 75 gardens were divided into four size categories (Table 3-1). Table 3-1 Land size categories of 75 surveyed homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India Category (hectares) Household encountered Nos. Percentage Total landholding size (ha) Mean landholding size (ha) Small (0.01-0.26) 24 32 1.68 0.07 Medium (0.261-0.52) 14 18 2.75 0.19 Large (0.521-0.78) 10 13 3.31 0.33 Commercial (0.781-1.0) 27 36 17.82 0.66 History of Cultivation Respondents were asked about the length of time their family has been cultivating the gardens. All homegardens that have been in cultivation by a particular family for over a hundred years were assigned th e standard value of 100 unle ss the farmer had pertinent documentation. Based on that, the surveyed homegardens have been in cultivation for an average of 52.7 years. But it has to be not ed that these ages are only indicative of farmers memories. Many respondents, who reported that thei r land had been in cultivation for several generations, could not furnish proof nor could they verify this information because the land had been passed down for generations.

PAGE 41

28 CHAPTER 4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOMEGARDENS Introduction Rigorous field studies that apply the well known economic theories and methodologies are quite few in the case of homegardens (Nair, 2001). One of the major constraints to undertaking such studies stem s from an observation made by Scherr (1992) regarding the lack of guidelines for data collection and analysis Preliminary economic analyses in Central America and the Caribb ean have indicated that many agroforestry systems are profitable at real discount rates of 20 percent or higher (Current et al., 1995), yet more substantial economic studies rela ting to homegardens are limited. The economic worth of homegardens is especially difficu lt to quantify due to three reasons: these systems have high, yet variable levels of biodiversity, making data collection timeintensive and error-prone; these systems provide some benefits that are designed to be of particular use to certain farmers only; and finally, most of these systems have existed many hundreds of years so that the benefits realized in the past cannot be accurately quantified because of lack of existing data. Homegardens, although primarily used fo r subsistence purposes of the household, are increasingly being used to generate cash income (Chr istanty, 1990; Torquebiau, 1992; Mendez et al., 2001). They are also used to generate non-market benefits such as aesthetics, ornamentation, improved food quality and nutritional security to the farmer (Karyono, 1990; Jose and Shanmugaratnam, 1993; Drescher, 1996). The aim of this chapter is to use a combination of differe nt economic methods to assess the current

PAGE 42

29 tangible financial status of ex isting homegardens and provide a set of guidelines for data collection and analysis, based on the case study in Kerala, India. Economic methods included cost-benefit analysis for one y ear, a sensitivity study to ascertain economic resilience to market fluctuations, and cl assification of econo mic contributions by different factors in homegardens. The net va lues of these gardens have also been compared to other available economic alterna tives. The role of household and hired labor, and the role, if any, of gender in profit generation is also briefly investigated. Economic Methodology Seventy-five homegardens in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, were randomly selected and systematically (based on location) i nventoried during Octobe r 2002 February 2003. These homegardens were located in both ru ral and semi-urban areas. A comprehensive survey was administered and productivities of all homegardens were estimated. The values of the products were determined accord ing to existing market prices and shadow prices of medicinal plants. Those farmers who were interviewed were the key decisionmakers in the selected homegardens. Land cl assifications for this study were done on the basis of economic production and function. For example, in a homegarden with a land area of 1.0 hectare, if the major crops were coconut and areca, the garden was classified as a coconut-areca system. These classifica tions were useful in understanding overall production schemes of the gardens. The steps used to conduct a financial analys is of typical Kerala homegardens in a steady state were the following: Account the costs and benefits for the farm er over a period of one year. Cost and benefit sources were determined based on th e farmers records, as well as inventory of the gardens. Plant pro ductivities were based both on yield estimates and farmer records. Market values were de termined based on existing prices.

PAGE 43

30 Assess the economic resilience of homegardens to market shifts in labor or crop price patterns by conducting sensitivity analyses. Generate an economic index to assess the primary contributors to the income generated by the homegarden. Compare homegardens with other economic a lternatives to evalua te the option that would provide optimal economic utility to the farmer Costs and benefits were valued at the actual existing prices that these farmers encountered at market-time. Many of the cost s had already been incurred, such as onetime costs for building wells and for the initia l preparation of land, but they were added to the total cost involved in maintaining the garden if incurred dur ing the lifetime of the farmer who owned and farmed the property during the time of the study. The benefits realized from these costs are usually continuous and stretch over seve ral years. Therefore, the yearly worth of these benefits has also b een added to the annual profit generated from these gardens. Opportunity Costs of Land and Household Labor Both household labor and land values mi ght present high levels of opportunity costs in many geographic locations. The land tenure and ownership system in Kerala makes land a very valuable commodity in an increasingly land-deprived social system. Furthermore, the land occupied by the homegar den almost always houses the residential building, and these homes are usually passed on to the next generation. Therefore, it is unlikely that a homegarden will be sold on its own, without the residential building. However, in order to refrain from inflating the financial worth of these systems while adhering to the observed social and cultural norms of the land, the opportunity costs of land have been assigned values equivalent to th e rate at which farmers were able to lease

PAGE 44

31 out all or parts of their lands. This rent ra te was calculated to be an average of Rs.12,350 per hectare of land per year. Input of household labor is a component that needs to be factored into any economic valuation. For the purpose of this st udy, opportunity cost of household labor is calculated as a function of time, where OCHL= (t*labor rate) where t is the time spent in the garden. If the daily rate for a hired male laborer in that particular area was Rs.70, and the farmer put in an average of four hour s work in his garden per day, the household labor costs were calculated to be Rs. 35(30) = 1050 per month. Components of the Annual Financia l Cycle of a Kerala Homegarden Based on farmer surveys and farm inventor ies, Table 4-1 presen ts the inputs and outputs that are the main components of th e annual finances of a typical Kerala homegarden in steady state. Inputs were de termined as any moneta ry contribution to the annual economic cycle of the garden and were generally found to be comprised of human labor, seeds, organic and chemical fertilizer hired labor, one-time costs such as barn maintenance and equipment (if incurred dur ing the year of stu dy), and associated transportation costs. Some of the associated maintenance costs included transportation of products to market, husking of coconuts, and the harvesti ng of coconuts, arecanuts, and other market products. Except for transportation, these tasks were usually allo tted to the hired labor, as a part of their daily duties. The farmers sometimes employed a system called karar , in which a part of the commercial system wa s leased as a whole to a buyer, who would undertake all associated tasks, such as harves ting, transporting and selling, in return for providing a fixed sum to the farmer.

PAGE 45

32 Table 4-1 Components of the annual finances of a typical homegarden in steady state, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Inputs Outputs Fertilizers Household products Seeds and seedlings Market products Animal feed Animal products (milk, meat, dairy) One-time expenses Long-term benefits (timber) Maintenance operations Medicinal plants Land cost Intangible benefits Household labor HL1=0, HL2= Daily wage rate Note: Intangible benefits have not been quantified in this study Such local barter systems might exist in other geographic locations around the world, and any financial analysis should take into account these i ndividual practices and the social and cultural factors th at influence these decisions. The tangible benefits derived from the ga rden included products used for market sale, milk and other livestock products, a nd goods used for household consumption such as food, firewood and medicinal plants. The economic productivities and values were calculated for the monetary value that could be obtained from the local market for all products from the past year, including those used for household consumption. For example, if a farmer used two coconuts per week for household use, the price of these nuts at the existing market rate was added to the total yearly income of that particular garden. All economically important species were inventoried and the production over the period of one year was estimated based on both farmer reports and yield data from Kerala Agricultural University (see KAU, 2002). Th e economic inventory included medicinal plants that might or might not have been used by the farmer over the course of the oneyear, but were occupying space in the garden because the farmer considered them essential. The values of these medicinal spec ies were included in those instances where

PAGE 46

33 the farmer had occasion to utilize a medi cinal plant, by using the shadow pricing mechanism of estimating the cost involved in obtaining a similar benefit elsewhere. Timber or value of wood products usua lly implies a sign ificant amount of economic value. Many of the homegardens ha d a significant amount of timber and any timber that was used or sold in the year of study has been included in the financial worth of the garden. Furthermore, and more pertin ent to the small landowner, the branches and small twigs from these trees were often us ed as firewood, and were often collected by family members on a daily basis. This served an important use for the household in terms of conserving electricity and saving on cooking gas expenses. Economic theory argues that the highest so cial utility is attained when producers adopt practices generating the hi ghest rates of return to all available resources, including all costs and benefits (Scherr, 1992), and pla nners prefer investment in those activities yielding the highest rates of re turn to total resources or total labor used. However, the adoption decision for farmers is more complicat ed, especially in the case of homegardens where they reside within the confines of the agricultural property. These decisions may be influenced by desire to maximize utility of family labor, returns to land, or even nutritional security. Two alternatives to homegarden cultiv ation have been considered in this study in order to understa nd the extent to which farmer needs and desires affect the pure cash flow into the homegarden system: Option 1 entails selli ng the entire property and the house (assuming that selling the prope rty without the house might prove to be improbable in the case of Kerala state); a nd Option II leases the agricultural land to another farmer while the owner resides in th e same house. Both options would allow for the decision-making farmer to seek employ ment (work as laborer) elsewhere, assuming

PAGE 47

34 there is a steady demand for labor, yet they woul d have to pay to attain all benefits from the homegarden. Option 1 would also require that the farmer seeks an alternate residence. Analysis The collected data were analyzed using basi c economic methods of benefits and costs comparison, where Net Financia l Worth of homegardens = Br-Cr Where, B = benefits, C = costs, and r = year of study Homegarden products were categorized as having one of three levels of economic utility; Primary utility : those that are essential to the household, such as cassava, coconuts, and banana; secondary utility: t hose that are not abso lutely essential but without which the household might suffer from nu tritional deficiencies or other loss, such as gourd vegetables, spinach ( Amaranthus spp.), and medicinal pl ants.; and tertiary utility: those that are grown primarily for person al pleasure, such as decorative plants and flowers, such as roses ( Rosa spp.). Some plants are grown for both decorative and medicinal purposes, such as hibiscus ( Hibiscus spp.). The value of primary utility plants can be quantified, the value of the seconda ry category including medicinals can be estimated using shadow prici ng, and the tertiary category pr ovides mainly intangible benefits. All plant species are liste d in Chapter 5, Tables 5-4 and 5-5. The sensitivity analyses were conducted by adding a 10% increment to the price of hired labor, and reduction of 10% in market prices of coconut, arecanut and banana, which are the main market crops in Kerala. Data were analyzed using Statistica, Minitab and Excel statistical software. Various statistica l procedures utilized in the analysis included Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare characteristics of different size categories of homegardens, comparison of means using t-tests assuming unequal

PAGE 48

35 variances and multivariate regression analyses to determine predictors of homegarden profit. Preliminary Field Results The 32 homegardens surveyed in the prel iminary study (conducted in 2001) were assessed for frequency of occurrence of sp ecies deemed economically useful by the respondent. No formal survey was administered. All results were assessed by personal interviews, and a garden inventory. Table 42 presents the frequency of occurrence of most important crops, as assessed by home garden farmers. Frequency of occurrence does not imply equal abundance, but it enhan ces understanding of sp ecies selection in randomly selected homegardens by calcula ting the number of gardens in which a particular species was observed in the prel iminary study, thus perhaps attesting to its importance to the farmer. The abundance was not considered for the preliminary study. Table 4-2 Frequency of occurrence of crops considered economically most important in 32 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Plant species Scientific Name Frequency of occurrence (%) Coconut Cocos nucifera 100 Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus 56.3 Mango Mangifera indica 78.1 Arecanut Areca catechu 81.3 Banana Musa spp. 100 Tuber crops Dioscorea spp.; Colocasia spp. 34.4 Cacao Theobroma cacao 12.5 Cassava Manihot esculenta 56.3 Papaya Carica papaya 87.5 Note: Frequency of occurrence does not imply abundance. It is used here as a potential indicator of importance to the farmer. Coconut was the most economically important crop according to farmers and occurred in all surveyed plots. Although cacao was considered as an economically important crop by over 50% of the farmers, it occurred in only four of the gardens.

PAGE 49

36 Results The 75 gardens included in this projec t had a mean landholding size (excluding the residential area) of 0.34 ha (SE=0.03 ha); median 0.26 ha. The smallest garden was only 0.01 ha in area, and the largest was 1.0 ha. Although homegardens greater than one hectare in size were initially included in the data collection as part of the random sample, they were not included in the analysis because they were deemed to be very large farms that showed more characteristics of sole-crop farming than those of a traditional homegarden. The gardens included in the study were divided into four groups according to median increments of 0.26 ha: Small 0.26 ha; 0.26 ha medium 0.52 ha; 0.52 ha large 0.78 ha; 0.78 ha commercial 1.0 ha. According to these classifications, there were 24 small gardens, 14 medium si zed gardens, 10 large gardens, and 27 commercial sized gardens. Economic Values of Homegardens and Annual Economic Profit The existing financial worth of all the surveyed gardens were estimated based on the quantitative values of th e costs and benefits experien ced in the year of study. Table 4-3. Mean financial value of homega rdens for 2002-2003 (in Rupees), based on the benefits and costs of 75 gardens surveyed in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Size of homegarden Mean financial value (Rupees) Mean financial value, including opportunity costs of land and household labor (Rupees) Small ( 0.26 ha, n=24) 62,261 46,284 Medium ( 0.26 ha, 0.52 ha, n=14) 157,524 132,759 Large ( 0.52 ha, 0.78 ha, n=10) 256,639 225,116 Commercial ( 0.78 ha, 1.0 ha, n=27) 275,967 214,899 Financial worth measured in Rupees (1.00 $US ~ Rs. 47, October, 2003).

PAGE 50

37 All 75 homegardens generated a positive economic value for the year 2001-2002 (Appendix B) and an average of these values in rupees is presented in.Table 4-3. Intensity of Profit-Generation The various levels of intensity of cultiva tion as indicated by th e generation of profit per unit area (mean profit / sq.m of homegarde n) were calculated for the four land-size categories (Table 4-4). The intensity of pr ofit generation was highest in the small gardens. Table 4-4. Intensity of profit generation acros s different size categories of homegardens in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Notes: The letters a,b,c following a value indicate significant changes in means at =0.05. Means were compared using t-tests assuming unequal variances. Intensity refers to the mean profit gene rated per sq. m of cultivated area in the homegarden. The commercial sized gardens yielded an average profit of Rs.40.61 per sq.m, and the smallest gardens yielded more than double that of commercial gardens average profit with more than Rs.84 per sq.m. This i ndicates that although th e net production was higher in the larger gardens (Table 4-3), the intensity of production was much greater in the small gardens. Economic Importance of Homegarden Species The most importance contributors to the economic profit generated by homegardens were coconut, arecanut and ba nana (including both cooking and dessert varieties). The distributions of profit varied across garden sizes. The other important categories of economic importance in the homegarden were milk production, cashew Homegarden Size Mean Profit / sq.m (Rupees/year) Standard Error Small (n=24) 84.28a 10.72 Medium (n=14) 68.80b 9.61 Large (n=10) 76.64a 11.48 Commercial (n=27) 40.61c 4.15

PAGE 51

38 trees and spice plants (Appendix C presents the percentage of homegarden profit contributed by 9 different categories). Household consumption formed a significant percentage of the profits (more than 50%) in the smaller gardens, while the larger and commercial gardens invested most of their homegarden to the commercial production of coconut and arecanut. Figure 4 1. Contrib ution of three crop categories and extent of household use in total profit generated by different size classes of homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Note: Seventy five homegardens were included in this study. Sensitivity Analyses Sensitivity analyses are important when evaluating the economic benefits of homegardens in order to ascertain the extent to which these systems are susceptible to shifts in the prices of labor and market products. A majority of the surveyed households (96%) reported t he prices of hired labor to be the most restrictive aspect of managing these systems, and coconut, arecanut and banana as the most economically important crops. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Coconut Arecanut Banana Consumption Small Medium Large Commercial

PAGE 52

39 Table 4-5 Sensitivity analyses to ascertain th e economic resilience of 75 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India, to pr ice fluctuations in labor and three economically significant crops. Note: P indicates existing market price. a indicates significant statistical difference at =0.05. The means were compared between small (n=24), medium (n=14), large (n=10), and commercial (n=27) using t-tests assuming unequal variances. Table 4-5 indicates the change s in net value of the gard ens when the labor prices are increased by 10%, and the ma rket prices of coconut, are canut, and banana are reduced by 10%. Some of the gardens were also very dependent on rubber, but rubber was mainly found in the large gardens, in the form of a sole crop. Furthermore, rubber has been providing fairly consistent pri ces during the past several year s. Therefore, it was excluded from the sensitivity analysis. Very low changes in annual profit value occurred across all classes of homegardens, ranging from 0.24% to 2.46%. The only statistically significant difference across means was the effect of raised arecanut prices in the commercial gardens, which ranged from 2.46% for commercial garden s to 0.81% for the small gardens. What Factors Affect the Fina ncial Value of Homegardens? Statistical analyses using multivariate regr ession methods were used to assess the effects, if any, of various factors on the fina ncial values of the surveyed homegardens. The values (Table 4-6) indicated that land size and age were both slight predictors of profit, while labor, both house hold and hired, and gender, did not display the ability to predict an increase or decrease in the net financial worth. Percent Response in Financial Worth (Based upon a 10% change in price) Sensitive Categories Small Medium Large Commercial P of hired labor 0.28 1.12 0.24 0.31 P of coconut 1.0 2.0 2.8 1.0 P of arecanut 0.81b 1.65b 2.21b 2.46a P of banana 0.42 0.35 0.74 0.92

PAGE 53

40 Table 4-6. Land size (sq. m) and number of years in cultivation are predictors of homegarden economic worth in Thrissur di strict in Kerala, In dia, as indicated by multivariate regression analysis B Standard error of B P values Intercept 4.61 0.073 0.000 Land Size 0.007 0.056 < 0.005 Age of garden 0.003 0.001 0.017 Note: r2 = 0.455, Adj. r2 = 0.447. Labor (both household and hired) and gender of main decision maker were not significant indicators of homegarden profit. From the above data, we can model our financial value predictor equation as follows Net financial value of homegarden = 4.61 + 0.007 (x1) + 0.003 (x2), Where x1 = land area in sq.m, x2 = number of years in cultivation This model indicates that the financial value of Kerala homegardens increases with increasing land size and with increase in numbers of years of cultivation. It is to be noted that number of hours of household or hired labor, a nd gender of the decision maker in the household are not correlated to net prof itability. This model, while relevant to Kerala state, can potentially be used to construct similar su ch models for homegardens in other geographic locations. Biophysi cal aspects such as soil qu ality might also contribute to the financial value of the garden, and thes e aspects need to be further investigated. Timber All timber and other wood products sold or consumed by the household were factored into the financial calculations. The Ke rala Protected Tree Act states that standing wood belonging to ten protected species cannot be transported across public Kerala roads with out a permit2. This act mandates that owners cannot cut trees for commercial sale 2 From personal communications with B. Moha n Kumar, Head of Agroforestry, Kerala Agricultural University, Thri ssur District, Kerala, India

PAGE 54

41 without a permit, and thus ensures the reten tion and conservation of old-growth timber. In spite of the bureaucracy associated with high value timber species the Kerala gardens had an average of 4.4 timber species (Table 47). Every surveyed farmer considered these trees as a long-term investment and even t hose farmers who perceived themselves to be under severe financial constraints did not cons ider selling or cutting these trees as an optimum option. Table 4-7 Average number of timber species in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India Homegarden size category Average total # of useful specie s Average # of timber species in homegardens Total (n=75) 20.1 4.4 Small (n=24) 18.5 3.5 Medium (n=14) 20.0 4.3 Large (n=10) 22.6 4.7 Commercial (n=27) 22.3 5.0 Household Labor Almost all the gardens hired labor, especi ally for the more arduous tasks such as felling coconuts and arecanuts, and preparing the land for app lication of fertilizers, and irrigation. However, the bulk of the labor input into these systems is from the members of the household. Table 4-8 presents a summary of the household la bor input in the 75 surveyed homegardens. A significant change in total household la bor input is observed between the small gardens (4.2 hours/day/garden) and commercial gardens (11.2 hours/day/per garden), at p 0.005. But there is also a significant increas e in intensity of labor input, with 43.9 person days per year being invested in 100 s q.m of land in the small gardens and only 9.1 person days per year invested into 100 sq.m of land in the commercial gardens. This

PAGE 55

42 implies that the higher intensit y of profit generation in the sm all gardens could be in part due to the higher intensity of labor invested in the garden. Table 4-8 Household labor characteristics in 75 homegardens in Thri ssur district, Kerala, India Small Medium Large Commercial Daily input of household labor (hours/day/garden) 4.2a 5.5a 3.1a 11.22b Intensity of household labor (persondays/100 sq.m/year) 43.9a 14.6b 15.9b 9.21ab Note: a,b indicate statistically significan t difference between means, using t-tests assuming unequal variances. Gender Dynamics in Kerala Homegardens Studies have shown that although rural wome n in Asia play an important role in agriculture (Chacko, 1975; Gleason, 1988; Kaur and Sharma, 1991), disparities in gender distribution of labor still exis t. In Kerala, however, there ar e high levels of participation by women, in agriculture. Th e average number of hours put in by women in small homegardens is greater than the hours put in by men. This implies that women manage the subsistence household, where the land is primarily used for feeding the family. However, the commercial sized homegardens also have a very high household labor input by women and high levels of pa rticipation, thus suggesting that women are also very much involved in the financial health and productivity of the garden. Kerala is the most literate state in Indi a. According to the 2002 Government of India census, nearly 94.5% of the state is literate. It is also the only state in India with a higher female to male ratio (1056-1000) Kerala has been much studied by anthropologists and historians for their ma triarchal system of family (Trautmann, 1995). In this system, the women tr aditionally have full owners hip of the family land, and property is usually passed down to women. Although current civil codes have negated

PAGE 56

43 this property code, to ensure equal opportunity for both the male and female children of the house, remnants of this system are evid ent by the fact that women in Kerala are generally powerful in terms of family dynamics. They are also very involved in all agricultural activ ities, including economic decision-making. Our hypothesis is that such hi gh levels of involvement in agriculture, which is the main income producing activity of the hous ehold, has contributed to the general empowerment and advancement of women in Kerala. Out of the 75 households surveyed, eight were female dominated homegardens, an d nine gardens were completely run by men; here the word dominated implies that the economic decision making power was concentrated in either the male or the fema le head of the household. However, as can be seen in Table 4-9, there were no statistically significant differences in the intensity of profit generation. This implies that women are actively involved in the homestead agroforestry in Thrissur district. Table 4-9. Intensity of profit generation in female and male operated homegardens, based on 75 homegardens from Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Category Number of homegardens Profit (rupees)/100 sq.m/year Female dominated 8/75 83.09 Male dominated 9/75 61.8 Equal Participation 58/75 63.64 Note: USD 1 ~ Rupees 47, October 2002 February 2003 Most landowners overwhelmingly claimed to have equal ownership, rights, and decision-making ability between male and fema le heads of households with regard to their garden. Using a 2x2 factorial experime ntal design, the male and female household labor inputs were analyzed for interactions within size categories and within gender (Table 4-10). Multi factor analysis of vari ance (ANOVA) indicated that there were no interactions between the size of garden, gender of decision-maker and number of daily

PAGE 57

44 hours of household labor input by the male and female members. It has to be noted that the labor hours as estimated did not include time spen t (mainly by the female) on livestock related activities, cottage indus tries, food harvesting, cooking, and tasks associated with processing food for home use. Besides these tasks, the women also spent significant amounts of time in actual labor, incl uding watering, collecting fruits and nuts for market, plowing, weeding, and planting. Women primarily tended to vegetables, while men tended to the trees and othe r plants requiring hard manual labor. Table 4-10 Daily input of house hold labor by female and male family members into 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Size of garden Male labor h ours/day Female labor hours/day Small 1.9 2.3 Medium 3.5 2.0 Large 6.1 3.0 Commercial 5.8 5.40 A majority of the homegardens surveyed also reported that the male and female heads of household participated equally in the economic decision-making processes of the garden. Economic Alternatives to Homegardens Two possible alternatives to homegarde n cultivation were considered when comparing the economic rationale behind hom egarden cultivation to other forms of investment. The first alternative for a farmer would be to sell the land, with the house and all associated crops and benefits, invest the capital in a bank at 6% compound interest rate and to live in a comparable neighborhood w ith a similar quality of life. The second alternative would be to lease th e land and all associated bene fits to other farmers. Both alternatives with their profit va lues at the end of the invest ment year are considered in Tables 4-11, 4-12, 4-13 and 4-14. The non-mone tary benefits were not quantified. The

PAGE 58

45 values listed are all estimate d from the homegarden of m ean size in the corresponding size category. Lease value is based on ex isting rent rate of Rs.12,350 per hectare. Living expenses were estimated based on a two-month survey of four urban and rural households with no atta ched homegardens. All household expenses, not including meat, staple food such as rice, potatoes, sa lt, and other goods not normally realized from the garden, were estimated to be an average minimum of Rs. 20000 per year per household. Homegarden costs were the average co sts from each size category of garden. Table 4-11 Comparison of an average sma ll homegarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Variables (a) Garden Lease Bank Land 0 1086 22012 Labor 0 7250 7250 Living expense 0 (20000) (20000) Rent 0 0 (15000) Transportation 0 (500) (500) Incidentals 0 (800) (800) HG Costs (7548) 0 0 Benefits 65519 0 0 57971 (12964) (7038) Note: n=24, small 0.26 ha Table 4-12 Comparison of an average medium homegarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Variables (b) Garden Lease Bank Land 0 2552 61329 Labor 0 14914 14914 Living expense 0 (22000) (20000) Rent 0 0 (15000) Transportation 0 (500) (500) Incidentals 0 (800) (800) HG Costs (12399) 0 0 Benefits 174912 0 0 162513 (5834) 39943 Note: n=14, 0.26 ha medium 0.52 ha

PAGE 59

46 Table 4-13 Comparison of an average large homegarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Variables ( c ) Garden Lease Bank Land 0 4240 101760 Labor 0 11880 11880 Living expense 0 (22000) (20000) Rent 0 0 (15000) Transportation 0 (500) (500) Incidentals 0 (800) (800) HG Costs (12307) 0 0 Benefits 237158 0 0 224851 (7180) 77340 Note: n=10, 0.52 ha large 0.78 ha Table 4-14 Comparison of an average commerci al homegarden to two alternate forms of economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Variables (d) Garden Lease Bank Land 0 8250 201370 Labor 0 17862 17862 Living expense 0 (24000) (20000) Rent 0 0 (15000) Transportation 0 (500) (500) Incidentals 0 (800) (800) HG Costs (17302) 0 0 Benefits 275524 0 0 258222 812 182932 Note: n=27, 0.78 ha commercial 1.0 ha. These tables indicate that homegardens are the most efficient economic rationale for farmers as opposed to leasing or sell ing the land. Selling the garden becomes a reasonable yet not comparable alternative, with the large and commercial gardens. Small farmers would be best served if they reta ined their homegardens. Leasing was not an economically viable option for the small, medium or large gardens, and just broke even in the commercial category. Discussion All surveyed homegardens generated profit at steady state, thus justifying their need to be considered on pa r with other mainstream agricultu re by policy makers. This study

PAGE 60

47 reported the existing financial value (Benefits -Costs during the year of study) of the surveyed gardens (Table 4-3). The profit generated per unit ar ea was highest in the small gardens (Table 4-4), and lowest in the comm ercial gardens thus perhaps implying that farmers are adept at adaptive management t echniques. Land being a constraint, farmers intensify cultivation on available land in orde r to attain desired goa ls and objectives. It could also follow that commercial farmer s are not devoting land to production of economically important crops but to intang ible benefits such as aesthetics and ornamentation. Future studies could assess wh ether this difference in profit generation equals the opportunity cost incurred by those commercial fa rmers who do not intensify production. Coconut, arecanut and bananas were the three most economically important crops (Appendix C). Although arecanut was responsible for a significant portion of the profits in many of the gardens, the farmers recognized that this transient crop could be utilized for only as many years as demand persisted, and that arecanut palms were not integral parts of the homegarden culture. It was noted that although economic demands were extremely important in determining garden us e, small gardens devoted more than 50% of their garden profit to househol d subsistence uses, such as vegetables, fruit and firewood. This implies that the larger and commercial gardens might possess more liquid cash than the small or medium farmers, with which to buy these household products from the local market, thus being able to devote homegarden space to commercially viable crops such as arecanuts and spice trees. A majority of th e farmers (more than 80% in all sizes of homegardens) reported that more than 75% of their household needs were met by their gardens.

PAGE 61

48 The sensitivity analyses (Table 4-5) r eaffirmed the hypothesis that these systems are economically stable, not dependent on any one crop or factor, and that the farmers followed an age-old adaptive approach to fa rming. Harvests were staggered so as to retain food crops such as cassava, for times of the year when staple food crops such as rice were not readily ava ilable. It was also evident that none of these crops formed a focal point of the garden. For example, arecanut crop had been sustaining high market values during the 1990s, but their market values have suffered a drastic re duction during the past few years (2001, 2002) and many farmers would have sustained heavy losses if their gardens consisted of sole stands of arecanut palms. In the complex and varied homegardens, a lag in the prices of arecan ut did not cause a significant reduction in overall profit. After considering two potential alterna tives to homegardening (Tables 4.11-4.14), it was estimated that retaining homegardens wa s more profitable than leasing or selling the land. The estimated values for the homegarden did not consider the additional benefits attained from intangible benefits such as aesthetics, nut ritional security, and improved quality of food. Plantation farmi ng was not considered as an alternative because many of the gardens surveyed were deemed to be too small in area to be fit for plantation agriculture. The household labor associated with homegardening was an important component of the alternatives because it was assumed that if the land were no longer available to farmers, they woul d earn money by providing hired labor to neighboring farms. This is another deba table point, however, because many of the farmers reported that they we re not equipped to perform a ny skilled work, nor did they desire to perform farm labor outside their properties. Furthermore, many of the farmers

PAGE 62

49 were older, and cherished the relative freedom they enjoyed in their fields, and in their ability to set their own times. It was, theref ore, obvious that farmers with no alternative employment options except hired field labor, preferred working in their own fields and this preference would account for some level of dissatisfac tion with the other economic alternatives. The combined results indicate that homega rden systems generate economic profit, while simultaneously providing certain non-ma rket benefits. These non-market benefits, while not necessarily economically viable, are nevertheless important to the farmer. This provides scope for future st udies that can evaluate th e opportunity costs of these intangible benefits. Until then, homegardens remain a better econom ic alternative than selling the land, or leas ing to another farmer

PAGE 63

50 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF HOMEGARDENS Introduction Much of the existing homegarden literatur e is highly descriptive with tables of species names, and descriptions of the syst ems as a whole. These descriptions, although highly informative, do not represent the true ecological rationale behind the functioning of these homegardens, nor do they provide th e reasons behind the farmers decisions to plant or retain certain species in their garden s. For example, homegardens are regarded as an ideal system for in situ conservation of genetic res ources (Esquivel and Hammer, 1992; Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999; Watson and Eyzaguirre, 2002). But the biophysical aspects behind this conservation effect and other ecological phenomena in homegardens have not been adequately understood. Fa rming and food production is a system. This system has several properties that cannot be fully understood as a sum of their parts, but rather how they interact together to form a complete whole. This chapter attempts to provide an understanding of the diversity of these system s, and how certain selected species interact to form a complete, functioning ecosystem. The underlying concept is that natural eco systems are sustainable barring major disturbances, and therefore provide a ba sis of comparison for assessing ecosystem attributes such as soil fertility (Ewel, 1999). Although managed systems differ in that they endure repeated harvests and biomass removals, the same bi ological processes of production, decomposition, and plant-organism in teractions are prevalent in natural and managed systems. The concepts of ag ricultural ecology and biodiversity in

PAGE 64

51 agroecosystems are prevalent in the resear ch done in many forms of agriculture. The premise behind this line of study is that ther e might be some way to preserve certain attributes of sustainability such as diversit y, while using it to pr oduce agricultural crops (Collins and Hawtin, 1999). Homegardens are somewhat similar to natural tropical ecosystems in structure, and agricultural ec osystems in function, and yet these systems prove to be the continuous and often primar y subsistence source for thousands of farmers and landowners. Although these systems might not attain diversity levels of natural forests, they can be considered the system s with the highest diversity and complexity among man-made agroecosystems (Swift and A nderson, 1993), and the species that make up the diversity of these system s are often not assembled as in natural forests, but are carefully chosen with their utility value as the main criterion. Init ially created out of natural forests, they are now restricted to a defined assemblage of crop plants, livestock, trees, and the associated pest s, diseases, and weeds, sti ll undergoing the basic renewable ecological processes such as competition be tween plants for sunlight and water, consumption of plants by livestock, and pest s, and predation of pests by their natural enemies (Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992). These processes are regulated by agricultural practices such as cultivation, control of water, pests and diseases, and harvesting. And these agricultural practices are in turn regulated by econom ic and social decisions. This chapter focuses on the following major questions: What are the patterns of similarity in species selection across homegardens? What are the patterns of biodiversity across homegardens? Do these patterns depend on certain factors such as size of garden or years in cultivation? What, if any, are patterns th at remain unchanged regardless of garden size and other socioeconomic characteristics?

PAGE 65

52 What are the various useful species found in the surveyed gardens? What are the importance values of the major crops? Wh at are the other uses, if any, of the medicinal varieties? Would homegardens be sust ainable alternatives to monocropping and loss of biodiversity? Agroecology is based on the premise that there are several fact ors interacting to form an agro-ecosystem. These factors work together to form a functioning and living system. One of the steps toward a sustainable agroecosystem seems to be increasing biodiversity. Homegardens are often divers e and complex with many plant and animal species interacting in the same land. In or der to understand the rationale behind the seeming (although man-made) sustainability of these systems, a variety of factors would have to be explored. One of these relevant factors would be the species diversity and similarities across gardens. Methodology All 75 gardens used in this study were i nventoried for their plants. All species, including seedlings and saplings that were deemed useful to the farmer were listed, and the number of individuals of each species pe r garden were noted. Some species, whose identification proved taxonomically difficult (s uch as medicinal plants) were identified with the help of an officer from the local farm office, and with help from a scientist at the Kerala Agricultural University. Seedlings and saplings were defined as non-herbaceous plants that were less that 1.0 m in height; they were not included in calculating the economic productivity of the system. All herbac eous plants were included in the study. Sorensons Index of Similarity (Sorenson, 1948) was used (details are given in the following sections) to assess the levels of similarity in species selection across different size categories of gardens. Diversity was estimated using two methods: Margalef Index

PAGE 66

53 (to assess species richness) (Margalef, 1958), and ShannonWiener Index (Krebs, 1985) to assess both richness and evenness. Over all species density ( number of species/unit area) and tree species density (number of tree species/unit area), and importance values of various species were also determined. The details of each procedure are given in the following sections. Similarity among Homegardens Sorensons Index of Similarity was used to compare the vegetative composition (not including abundance of sp ecies) of homegardens of di fferent sizes, taking into account both the herbaceous and woody componen ts of the garden. All similarity indices are expressed in percentages in order to make the comparisons easier to read. Sorensens index represents the number of common species between two sites (Say Garden A and Garden B). The equation for th is measure of similarity is as follows Sorensens Index is shown in Equation 5-1 Ss = 100 )/2 (S Species Common of Number a bS (5-1) Ss = Sorensons Index Sa = The number of species in community A Sb = The number of species in community B In this study, homegardens were categori zed into one of f our community sizes: small, medium, large and commercial. The ga rdens included in the study were divided into four groups, based on medi an increments of 0.26 ha: Small ( 0.26 ha); medium (0.27 0.52 ha); large (0.53 0.78 ha); and commercial (0.79 1.0 ha). The Sorenson index values were calculated for all combina tions of homegardens, then averaged for

PAGE 67

54 each category and these values were compared to the average value from each of the other size categories. Diversity Diversity Indices are used to assess the le vel of biodiversity in systems. Diversity can be expressed as a function of scale, where -diversity represents diversity within a single community or ecosyste m (such as homegarden) and -diversity represents the diversity among communities along an environm ental gradient such as ecosystems of Kerala. Diversity in any vegetated system is a product of its richness and evenness. Richness is simply the presence or absen ce of species, without regard to abundance. Evenness refers to the balance between the numbers of individual members of species. To measure evenness in a system, the index n eeds to be relatively insensitive to the occurrence of rare species. Many studies have attempted to assess the biological diversity of tropical forests, and to understand the ma ny factors that affect the existing genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity (e.g. Kr ebs, 1985; Gimaret-Carpenter et al., 1998; Margurran, 1988; Ricklefs and Schluter 1993; Huston, 1994). Standard ecological references use many different techniques to es timate the diversity of a given vegetated site. The Shannon-Weiner Index is the most commonly used diversity indicator in plant communities, and it takes a value of zero when there is only one species in a community, and a maximum value when all species are present in equal abundance. The following equation from Krebs (1985), which was used for this study, looks at th e diversity of those species in the garden that are grow n on an annual or perennial basis.

PAGE 68

55 s H = p i ln p i (5-2) i =1 Where H is the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index, the proportion of species i relative to the total number of species is calculated and multiplied by the natural logarithm of this proportion. The resulting product is summed across species and multiplied by 1. Example is provided in Appendix E Species Richness The Margalef richness index adjusts the number of species sampled in an area by the log of the total number of individuals sampled, summed over species. The higher the Margalef index, the richer would be the species dive rsity of the population. Margalef Index = (S-1) / ln(N), (5-3) Where s is the number of species, and N is the total number of individuals in the sample. Example is provided in Appendix D Species Density Density of species (number of species / un it area of homegarden ) was calculated in order to determine the effect, if any, of d ecreasing land size on dive rsity and number of species. Species density is also indicative of the planting and cultiv ation patterns of the farmer and would serve to assess whether land constraints inhib it species diversity. Agroecological Importance Values Importance values are utilized by ecologists to assess the ecological composition of a forest community based on three criteria: How commonly a species occurs across the entire site (frequency), the total number of i ndividuals of that species (density), and the area occupied by that species (dominance) (Burns and Honkala, 1990). These values are usually ascertained from values obtained fr om sampling sites that are equal in area.

PAGE 69

56 However, in the case of homegardens, where the communities differ in size, the importance values are calculated using relative rather than absolute values. Extrapolating the values on a basis of unit area might not be applicable to homegardens because these systems display marked changes in intensity of cultivation with increasing land size. Importance Value = Relative frequency + Re lative Density + Relative Dominance (5-4) Relative frequency is the number of occurr ences of a species, as a percentage of the total occurrences of all species; relative density is the number of indivi duals of a species as a percentage of the total numb er of individuals of all species in that area; and relative dominance is the total area occupied by one species as a percentage of the total area occupied by all the species in the sampled site. Dominance was calculated by estimating the space occupied by each species in each sampled garden based on information from Kerala Agricultural Universitys Crop publications (2002). For example, a coconut tree was estimated to occupy an area of 12m2, and fully-grown mango trees were estima ted to occupy an average area of 16m2. Analysis and Results Diversity, Species Richness and Density Species diversity and richness measures were estimated for all 75 gardens. Medicinal plants were include d in the diversity indices. W eeds and ornamental plants were merely noted in species count, and not in cluded in the species diversity calculations because the presence of weeds and ornamentals are highly transitory and hard to count. Shannon-Wiener indices were calculated for al l annual, perennial, and medicinal species in homegarden (Appendix E) and Margalef in dices were calculated for all species,

PAGE 70

57 including weeds, ornamentals, and medicina l plants (Appendix D). Means of diversity estimations and species densit ies are listed in Table 5-1 Table 5-1 Ecological characterist ics of 75 homegardens in Thri ssur district, Kerala, India. Small (n=24) Medium (n=14) Large (n=10) Commercial (n=27) 1 Total no. of observed species 128 109 121 118 2 Mean no. of species/garden 34 32 38 38 3 Mean species density (no. of species /100m2) 4.9a 1.66b 1.06c 0.5b 4 Mean tree species density (no. of trees /100m2) 0.7a 0.2b 0.14c 0.08d 5 Mean Margalef Index 6.42 5.61 6.01 5.43 6 Mean Shannon-Weiner Index 1.15 1.27 1.42 1.39 Note: a,b,or c following the mean value indicate s a statistically signi ficant difference (at = 0.05) between means using t tests assuming unequal variances There was a statistically significant diffe rence in mean species density per100m2 area, across garden size classes (with P 0.05). Farmers listed 94 useful species (excluding medicinals, weeds and pure ornament als); and a total of 153 species including medicinals were found, and taxonomically iden tified. All medicinals observed in the surveyed homegardens and a list of their us es as reported by farmers are listed in Appendix F. The average number of species in a garden was estimated to be 36. Similarity among Homegardens Sorensons Index was calculated for a ll species in the 75 homegardens. The homegardens were again divi ded into four communities: small, medium, large and commercial. Table 5-2 shows the percentage of similarities in overall species richness and tree species richness across the four homegarden sizes. The similarities among communities were fairly consistent. The per centages of similarity across homegardens

PAGE 71

58 sizes were all fairly high, with the highest overall species similar ity observed between the medium and large gardens (90.9%) These values indicate that land sizes did not restrict species composition in a homegarden. Farmers might instead reduce the nu mber of individuals of certain species, to accommodate all the species th ey required in their homestead. Table 5-2 Percentage of similarity of overa ll species richness and tree species richness using Sorensons index of similarity across four size categories of homegardens in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Note: The gardens included in the study were divided into four groups: Small 0.26 ha; 0.26 ha medium 0.52 ha; 0.52ha large 0.78 ha; 0.78 ha commercial 1.0 ha. Refer to Results section in Chapter 4. O = Overall Species Richness T= Tree Species Richness Agroecological Importance Values The agroecological importance values we re estimated (Table 5-3) using an aggregate of the relative fr equency, relative density, and relative dominance (Burns and Honkala, 1990; Curtis and McIntosh, 1951). Ni ne major categories were found to be ecologically prevalent in the gardens. The V (vegetable) M (medicinal) O (ornamental) category was found to be overwhe lmingly important in the small gardens, while the spice trees were relatively more important in the large and commercial area categories than in the small and medium gardens. Small (S) Medium (M) O T Large (L) O T Commercial (C) O T S --81.3 88.1 82.381.385.9 84.2 M ----90.981.478.7 76.0 L ------77.5 76.0

PAGE 72

59 Table 5-3 Agroecological Importance Values of homegarden species, based on frequency, density and dominance patte rns in 75 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India Importance of crop category Small (n=24) Medium (n=14) Large (n=10) Commercial (n=27) 1 V, M, O (100) Tree fruit (57.4) Coconut (51.4) Coconut (46.9) 2 Tree fruit (44.8) Coconut (52.8) Tree fruit (45.5) Banana (43.2) 3 Arecanut (35.3) V, M, O (43.9) V, M, O (45.4) Arecanut (37.9) 4 Banana (34.3) Banana (34.3) Arecanut (42.6) Tree fruit (32.1) 5 Coconut (33.7) Black pepper (29.9) Banana (35.1) Spice trees (26.8) 6 Black pepper (26.7) Arecanut (18.4) Cashew (30.5) V, M, O (24.3) 7 Rubber (6.3) Rubber (4.6) Spice trees (9.3) Black pepper (18.2) 8 Cashew (3.7) Cashew (2.2) Black pepper (2.8) Rubber (7.2) 9 Spice trees (1.7) Spice trees (1.2) -Cashew (3.5) Note: Importance Values are given in pa rentheses. V,M,O = Vegetables excluding cassava, medicinal plants and orname ntals. Rubber was not found to be a significant presence in the large homegardens. Species Inventory Tables 5-5 and 5-6 indicate the useful w oody species found in the gardens, some of which have been retained, not necessarily pl anted. Herbaceous species are listed in tables 5-4 and 5-7. The number of useful species (exc luding ornamentals, weeds, useful grasses, and medicinals) was fairly consistent th roughout homegardens, at an average of 20.9 species per homegarden. All homeg ardens deemed medicinals as useful and essential, but not economically important. This is an ar guable point, however, because if these medicinal species were not available, fa rmers would have had to spend money on homeopathic medicines, including cold and cough treatments.

PAGE 73

60 The farmers were asked to assign all thei r homegarden species a value of primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary implied a sp ecies that was essential to the household, secondary implied a species that was not ab solutely esse ntial but without which the household would suffer nutritional deficiencies and reduced quality of life, and tertiary implied a plant species that was merely de signed to improve quality of life of the householder, such as ornamental plants. Tabl es 5-4 and 5-6 were all considered to be primary species, while most farmers listed th e species in tables 56 and 5-7 as those of secondary importance. Medicina ls could be accurately cl assified in one of these categories because their presence is highl y arbitrary and rare, and dependant on the individual needs of the part icular respondent. However, th e medicinals, although not of economic value by themselves, (i.e. the me dicines would require time and energy to prepare and might not be useful in plant form), were generally considered to be vital parts of the homegarden. Table 5-4 Herbaceous species that are of economic importance to the household, as reported by respondents in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Local/Common Name Scientific Name Banana Musa spp. Black pepper Piper nigrum Ginger Zingiber officinale Turmeric Curcuma longa Arrowroot Maranta arundinacea Taro Colocasia esculenta Elephant foot yam Amorphophallus campanulatus Greater yam Dioscorea alata Bitter gourd Momordica charantia Ash gourd Benincasa hispida Spinach Amaranthus spp. Snake gourd Trichosanthes anguina Beans Vigna unguilicata Vanilla Vanilla planifolia Pineapple Ananas comosus Mango ginger Curcuma amada Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan

PAGE 74

61 Table 5-5 Tree and shrub species encounter ed in sampled homegardens, assessed as economically important by respondents from 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Local/Common Name Scientific Name Family Uses Coconut Cocos nucifera Arecaceae a, c, f Arecanut Areca catechu Arecaceae a, f Mango Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae d, b Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae d, b Cassava Manihot esculenta Euphorbiaceae e Rubber Hevea brasiliensis Euphorbiaceae c, f Coffee Coffea arabica Rubiaceae d Nutmeg/Mace Myristica fragrans Myristicaceae a Clove Syzygium aromaticum Myrtaceae a Tamarind Tamarindus indica Caesalpiniaceaed Matti Ailanthus triphysa1 Simaroubaceae b Teak Tectona grandis Verbenaceae b Maridu Terminalia termentosa Combretaceae b Veeti (Rosewood) Dalbergia latifolia Papilionaceae b Kodampuli Garcinia cambogia Clusiaceae d, c Kaini Briclilia rectusa Euphorbiaceae b Mahogany Swietennia macrophylla Meliaceae b Cashew Anacardium occidentale Anacardiaceae d,b,a Poomaram Delonix regia1 Leguminoseae b Irumullu X ylia xylocarpa Mimisoideae b,c Venga Tirocarpus marsupium Leguminoseae b chadchi (Grewia) Grewia tiliifolia Tiliaceae b Mulberry Morus alba Moraceae c,f Venga (IndianKino) Pterocarpus marsupium Leguminoseae b Sandalwood Santalum album Santalaceae f Asoka maram Saraca indica Caesalpiniaceaeb,c Poola Bombax ceiba Bombacaceae b,f Kaatu chembakam Michelia champaca Magnoliaceae b,c,g Aini Artocarpus hirsutus Moraceae b,c pana (palmyra palm) Borassus flabellifer Palmae f,e Talipot palm Corypha umbraculifera Palmae f Fish-tail palm Caryota urens Palmae f Thippili Alstonia venenata Apocynaceae g,b Pali Palaquium ellipticum Sapotaceae b,g Rubber tree Hevea braziliensis Euphorbiaceae f Note: Local names are in italics.

PAGE 75

62 Table 5-6 Trees and shrubs of secondary ec onomic utility, mainly for household uses, as reported by respondents from 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Local/Common Name Scientific name Family Uses Breadfruit Artocarpus altilis Moraceae d Guava Psidium guajava Myrtaceae b,c,d Louvi-Louvi Flacourtia inermis Flacourtiaceae b,c,d Papaya Carica papaya Caricaceae d, Cherunarakam Citrus limon Rutaceae d,c Irimbampuli Auroia bilimbi Oxalidaceae d,c Cacao Theobroma cacao Sterculiaceae f,a Cinnamon Cinnamomum zeylanicum Lauraceae e,c Rose apple Syzygium jambolanum Myrtaceae d,b Sapota (sapodilla) Achras zapota Sapotaceae d,b,c Indian almond Terminalia catappa Combretaceae e,c Neem Azadirachta indica Meliaceae g Indian gooseberry Emblica officinalis Euphorbiaceae d,g Kattaadi Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae f,h Custard apple Anona squamosa Annonaceae d,b,c Camphor Cinnamomum camphora Lauraceae f,g Ylang Ylang Cananga odorata Annonaceae f,g Curry leaf tree Murraya koenigii Rutaceae e,c Allspice Pimenta dioica Myrtaceae e,g Bablus Punica granatum Punicaceae d Eggfruit Pouteria campechiana Sapotaceae d a = nuts, b = timber, c = fuelwood, d = fruits, e = leaves, bark and other parts of plant used as food, f = leaves, bark and other pa rts of plant used for other purposes, g = ornamental or medicinal purpose, h=shade Local names are reported in vernacular Mala yalam wherever appropr iate, and are given in italics.

PAGE 76

63 Table 5-7. Herbaceous species reported to be of secondary economic importance by respondents from 75 homegardens in Thri ssur district, Kerala state, India Local/Common Name Scientific name Red pumpkin Cucurbita moschata Chillies Capsicum frutescens Eggplant Solanum melongena Ivy gourd Coccinia cordifolia Okra Abelmoschus esculentus Snow pea Dolichos limon kaavath (kaachal) Dioscorea alata Vellarikka Cucumis sativus Veliya chembu Xanthosoma sagitofolia Cheru kazhungu Dioscorea esculenta Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan Pichinga Luffa acutangula Indian Pennywort Centella asiatica Koorka Coleus parviflorus Tulsi Ocimum sanctum Jasmine Jasminum sambac Vettla Piper betle Importance Values and Plant Selection Tables 5-8, 5-9, 5-10 and 5-11 compare th e agroecological importance values of homegarden crops, to their economic importan ce based on the percentage of the garden profits devoted to that crop, and to their cu ltural importance based on farmer preferences in the four size categories used in this study. Farmer preferences were obtained by ranking the top nine crops, based on survey respondents in the 75 homegardens used in the study. The agroecological importance values are based on the relative frequency, relative density and relative dominance (Table 5-3). The economic importance values of the plant categories are based on the percen tage of contribution to homegarden profit (Appendix C).

PAGE 77

64 Table 5-8 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 24 small homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 100 51.5 1 Coconut 33.7 18.3 2 Banana 34.3 05.3 3 Tree fruit 44.8 03.5 4 Arecanut 35.3 11.2 5 Black pepper 26.7 6 Cashew 03.7 0.7 7 Spice trees 01.7 0.2 8 Rubber 06.3 9 Note: Rubber was found predominantly in 2 of the 24 sites inventoried, and was not found to provide a significant economic nor cultur al value to a major ity of the surveyed gardens. Agroecological importance values are based on relative density, relative frequency, and relative dominance. The cultural importa nce values are based on farmer rankings. The economic importance values are based on th e percentage of econo mic contribution to the homegarden profit. Table 5-9 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 14 medium homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural Coconut 43.9 37.9 1 Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 52.8 19.3 2 Arecanut 57.4 23.4 3 Banana 34.3 04.7 4 Black pepper 18.4 5 Tree fruit 29.9 04.1 6 Cashew 02.2 0.6 7 Rubber 01.8 8 Spice trees 04.6 1.2 9 Note: 1. Black pepper, although important both in terms of ecological presence and cultural value, did not provide significant economic value in th e surveyed year due to the prevalence of the quick wilt disease. 2. Agroecological importance va lues are based in relative density, relative frequency, and relative dominance. The cultu ral importance values are based on farmer rankings. The economic importance values are based on the percentage of economic contribution to the homegarden profit.

PAGE 78

65 Table 5-10 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 10 large homegardens in Thrissur di strict, Kerala, India. Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural Coconut 45.4 36.4 1 Arecanut 45.5 33.4 2 Banana 35.1 10.6 3 Black pepper 42.6 4 Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 51.4 14.4 5 Cashew 02.7 03.0 6 Tree fruit 30.5 0.3 7 Spice trees 09.3 01.9 8 Rubber Note: Agroecological importance values are base d in relative density, relative frequency, and relative dominance. The cultural importa nce values are based on farmer rankings. The economic importance values are based on th e percentage of econo mic contribution to the homegarden profit. Table 5-11 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 27 commercial homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural Coconut 24.2 18.8 1 Arecanut 46.9 37.7 2 Banana 32.1 13.9 3 Black pepper 37.9 4 Rubber 18.2 04.1 5 Spice trees 03.5 00.6 6 Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 43.2 14.2 7 Tree fruit 26.7 04.0 8 Cashew 07.2 04.9 9 Note: Agroecological importance values are ba sed in relative dens ity, relative frequency, and relative dominance. The cultural importa nce values are based on farmer rankings. The economic importance values are based on th e percentage of econo mic contribution to the homegarden profit The crop categories that were estimated to be most economically important were also been shown to be agroecologically predominant. This similarity is somewhat different from the social rankings. For exampl e, arecanut was a commercially viable crop occupying a significant portion of the ecology of these gardens; but th ey were, especially in the small gardens, not considered to be of high cultural value. One of the reasons for this was that the farmers recognized arecanut to be a transient crop, to be phased out

PAGE 79

66 when the demand for the nuts eventually disa ppeared. Furthermore, many of the farmers who planted the arecanut in place of the more traditional fruit and timber species such as jackfruit, had already started the process of replanting their gardens with timber species that had more long-term economic potential. All garden categories displayed a high ecological importance for herbaceous species including vegetables, ornamental plants, and medi cinal crops. While some of these vegetables in a few of the largest ga rdens were grown for commercial production, a majority of these species were grown prim arily for household consumption. These tables, or data such as these, coul d be used in the formulation of agricultural policies and in technical support. The nine categories that have been found to be important in all 75 homegardens and farmer preferences should be considered when decision-makers are attempting to provide farmers with agricultural support. Do Diversity and Species Richness A ffect Homegarden Financial Value? Multivariate regression analyses (using Statistica programs) were conducted to assess whether diversity and speci es richness interacted with land size and age of garden to affect the financial wo rth of these systems. Table 5-12 Land size, number of years in cult ivation, and species ri chness as predictors of homegarden economic worth in Thri ssur district in Kerala, India, as indicated by multivariate regression analysis B Standard error of B P values Intercept 5.17 0.265 0.000 Land Size (sq m) 0.57*10-4 0.001 0.002 Age of garden 0.003 0.001 0.017 Species Richness 0.09 0.043 0.030 Note: r2 = 0.50, Adj. r2 = 0.45, B is the intercept value The Shannon-Weiner Index was also incl uded in the analysis, but was found to have no predictive relationship to financial worth of garden

PAGE 80

67 Species richness, as estimated using Marg alef Index, causes a s light reduction in financial value. The equation is modeled as follows: Financial Value of Homegarden = 5.17 + 0.57.10-4 (x1) + 0.003 (x2 ) 0.09 ( x3) Where x1 = land size in sq.m x2 = number of years in cultivation x3 = species richness (as indi cated by Margalefs Index) Discussion Homegardeners cultivate a diverse variety of plants for many different reasons. The farmer motivations behind species selection wo uld have to be further evaluated in order to better understand species se lection criteria. For example, it has been found that some species such as Prosopis juliflora and Delonix elata are deliberately grown in the agricultural fields of Tamil Nadu, the state ne ighboring Kerala, in order to ameliorate saline soils and render them capable of growing annual crops (Jambulingam and Fernandes, 1986). Scientists are often aware of such practices only because there is a before and after effect. The land becomes degraded, the farmer uses an adaptive management technique, and the effect is documented. With homegardens, where farmers have been following traditional adaptive management technologies for centuries, such studies have been neglected because the land has not attained a leve l of degradation at which the farmers have suffered massive losses. As reported by respondents, the major c onstraint to increasing abundance of individuals of various species seemed to be land size, yet, species selection is not

PAGE 81

68 hindered by land limitations, as all gardens we re found to be fairly consistent in the number of useful species (i ncluding medicinals) that ar e retained or planted. The commercial and large gardens retain a higher number of ornamentals and wild plants. This implies that although these large gardens are utilized for commer cial purposes to a large extent, commercial production is not the primary goal. All farmers grew subsistence crops, and 95% of the respondents reported th at they used their garden for primary supplies of all household foods excluding rice, potatoes, onions, salt, and non-plant products such as fish and meat. Several farm ers also listed chilli pe ppers as a necessary food that they were forced to purchase, b ecause the chilli plants were not producing well the season this study was conducted. Although species diversities in terms of richness were fairly similar among homegardens, the differences among species de nsities were statistic ally significant. The smallest gardens showed a dens ity of nearly 5 (species)/100m2, while the medium (1.63 /100m2), large (1.14 /100m2) and commercial (0.5 /100m2) had lower species densities. These densities do not include abundance meas ures, and merely indicate presence or absence of species. This implies that the farmers who own and manage small gardens intensify their planting patterns to adapt to their land constraints. People might cultivate plants to fulfill household needs, rather than fo r market sale. Thus, in the smaller gardens, the planting has to be intensified, while in th e larger gardens, the planting is less dense but abundance remains similar. It also imp lies that the presence of certain selected species is important to the farmer, regardle ss of their minimal value in the economic market. There are only a few crops that woul d fetch significant pr ofits, and instead of

PAGE 82

69 concentrating the limited land space to gr ow those crops, the fa rmers are opting for diversified use of the available land space. The fact that there was no difference in Margalef indices of the homegardens across categories of homegardens implies that the species richness is not affected by homegarden size. In fact, the Margalef indi ces reported in this study (Appendix D) were fairly close to the 7.07 index reported from the wet evergreen forests of the southern Western Ghats mountains of Kerala (Varghese and Balasubramanyan, 1998). This further establishes our conjecture that homegardens are agricultural systems that might differ from natural forests in function, but are clos e to natural forests in species diversity. The seasonal vegetables were not included in the Shannon-Weiner diversity tests, because they would not present an accurate estimate of the diversity index for the entire year. The smallest homegardens had a m ean index with 1.15, but they were not significantly different from the indices re ported for the medium, large and commercial gardens (1.27, 1.42, and 1.39 respectively). In a research report on Kerala homegardens (Sankar and Chandrashekara, 2002), the author s found that the smallest gardens had the highest Shannon-Weiner index, with the medi um and large gardens at 0.97 and 0.81. This observation might be explained by the fact that the authors did not include medicinals in their estimations. If they had been included, it might have resulted in higher values for the large and commercial gardens because the larger gardens maintain higher numbers of medicinals than the small gardens. The larger gardens are also less likely to be concerned about loss of production due to the presence of weeds. Furthermore, their large gardens were significantly larger than the large gardens in this st udy, and included stands of commercial crops such as rubber. We presum e that any homegarden with land size more

PAGE 83

70 than 1.0 ha is more an agricultural field or plantation, and ther efore will have lower species richness and diversity. Another study conducted in Kerala yi elded Shannon-Weiner diversity indices comparable to this study, ranging from 1.12 to 3.0 (Mohan Kumar et al., 1994), which were close to the values yielded from a government owned forest in the same area. Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) also conducted Shannon tests in the homegardens of Thailand, and found ranges from 1.9 to 2.7, which are also fairly comparable to the results from this study. Their values were fairly close to the species diversity indices of a dipterocarp forest ecosystem in northeastern Thailand, again reaffirming that the diversity of managed homegardens are close to, a lthough not as high as, those of natural ecosystems, even though homegardens are not naturally occurring assemblies of plants. Constraints of Using Proposed Methods in Homegardens The major drawback in using the Shannon-Wi ener index to account for diversity in a homegarden is that, while it considers both the species richness a nd evenness, it cannot account for the consistent variability in the number and individual count of homegarden species. Some of the herbaceous components, such as orname ntals, weeds and grasses, and some seasonal vegetable crops observed in the homegardens, can only be expressed in terms of presence or absence of numbe r of species, not in terms of number of individuals because the farmers themselves are unsure as to the number of individual plants in their gardens. The usefulness of Ma rgalefs index is also limited to the extent that it cannot distingui sh between individuals of differe nt species (Gliessman, 2000), and merely looks at total number of individuals. The species density measure serves to understand whether species composition is affected by land-size, however, a species de nsity measure is not an indication of the

PAGE 84

71 species abundance or evenness, i.e. it would not be able to reveal whether the species contained 1 individual or 10. The research associated with agricultura l ecology ranges over a wide variety of subjects, including soil conservation with and without using chemical fertilizers, integrated pest management techniques, and maximum production with minimum environmental damage. If homegardens were considered individual landscapes, and their biophysical interactions further investigat ed, we would find that these sites have undergone more disturbances th an forests, and other natura lly undisturbed or conserved landscapes, yet have not undergone the drama tic transformation usually seen in an agricultural landscape such as a rice or maize field. For example, some of the main sources of land disturbances in traditional agriculture are tilling, weeding by tillage, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and harvesting. Ma ny of the homegardens surveyed in this study have never undergone any tillage, ther e was minimal disturbance due to manual weeding, organic fertilizers are used, and ha rvesting is never done on a mass scale. There is continuous use and renewal of both plant a nd soil resources. Homegardens seem to be close mimics of close mimics of naturall y biodiverse systems, which also provide economic benefits (see Chapter 4) and are th e great hope of sustainable agriculture.The sustainability of any agricultural system shoul d be assessed beyond the levels of quantity, economics and use. The definition must be expanded to include the consistent production with continuous cultivation and use, and biological diversity of these systems. Conclusions This chapter estimated the ecological diversity of the surveyed homegardens based on two indicators the Shannon-Wein er Index, and the Margalef Index. Both indices need to be used in conjunction with each other in order to establish a satisfactory

PAGE 85

72 estimate of the diversity of these systems. Th e homegardens were fairly similar to each other in terms of species composition, thus in dicating that all gardens retained certain species that the farmers considered to be important, regardless of the economic value. The number of individuals of sp ecies per unit area of land increases with increase in land area, but the density of species is highest in the smallest gardens. This implies that although increasing species richness leads to a decrease in financial value, farmers do not sacrifice species diversity in favor of in creasing production of a particular crop.

PAGE 86

73 CHAPTER 6 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS Synthesis This research uses existing scientif ic methodology to develop a method of quantification of some of the benefits pr ovided by tropical homegardens. Numerous studies have investigated the costs and bene fits derived from agroforestry ventures, especially in the Caribbean a nd the Central American countries (Current et al., 1995), but field studies pertaining to ho megardens are limited. The reasons for this lack are that homegardens are extremely diverse and traditio nal economic models might not accurately represent the worth of these systems. Furt hermore, field studies in homegardens are extremely time-intensive, and often not generalizable to other homegardens. Many studies point to biodiversity as an indicator of sustainability. But unlike natural forested systems, the man-made hom egardens often serve very specific purposes to the farmer, indicating that the biodiversity in homega rdens is planned and managed. Biodiversity, although difficult to estimate, can be quantifie d using species diversity calculations and other in dicators of vegetation presence or absence. Mercer and Miller (1998) called for more socioeconomic research in agroforestry, which can produce more generalizable result s. Their attempt to understand knowledge gaps in socioeconomic research revealed that several of the gaps listed by their respondents were crucial areas for improvi ng cost benefit analyses. These include valuation of non-market goods and service, ri sk, and market analysis. This research examines the economic benefits provided by homegardens in some detail, and provides

PAGE 87

74 guidelines for analysis. These guidelines call for estimating the financial values based on homegarden inventory and mark et prices of products us ed in the household, conducting sensitivity analyses to ascertain economic resilience of these systems, comparing the financial values to those obtained from alternative uses of the land, and finally, developing an economic index of the most im portant crop and plant categories to the farmer. These guidelines can be used in hom egardens in different geographic regions, with suitable modifications as necessary, and depending on the location. It has to be noted, however, that these steps would sti ll entail a considerable amount of data collection because the homegardens themselves are so diverse and are highly dissimilar in terms of species compositi on, species use, and are mainly based on the needs of the individual farmer and family. Based on the study findings, the inputs and outputs that comprise the financial management of a homegarden have been list ed (Table 4-1). If these inputs and outputs are quantified, according to the existing rate s and conditions of the geographic location being analyzed, it is possibl e to calculate the financial value of the homegarden. A complete evaluation would further require se nsitivity analyses in order to assess the response of these systems to factors such as labor or pric e fluctuations. Upon determination of the major constraints or ri sks to production, these sensitivity analyses would have to analyze the level and extent of risk presented by these constraints. Productivity of homegarden species can be estimated according to both farmer surveys and established information on producti vity and crop yields. The productivity of minor crops, such as vegetables and tuber cr ops that are grown by the farmer for purposes of household consumption would have to be estimated according to farmers responses

PAGE 88

75 based on intensity and frequency of use. Although market prices fluctuate based on supply and demand, it is possible to estimate an average price for most plant products available on the market. The word biodiversity is ubiquitous with conservation. Organizations devoted to conservation and increasing biodiversity are prevalent in both developing and industrialized countries. The ecology of agricult ural systems is consistently researched in the hope of finding the sustain able solution to managing na tural resources for economic profit while consistently attempting to conser ve and protect these very same resources. This study hypothesized that homegardens fu lfilled an economic need while satisfying the laws of conservation and preservation of bi odiversity. In order to conduct a complete ecological analysis of homegardens, it w ould be necessary to estimate levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestrati on, soil productivity and qualit y, and air and water quality in individual gardens, and then compare them to other agricultural fields and natural forests. Although some of these research need s were outside the scope of this study, this study has estimated the levels of biodivers ity using two different methods, and then compared them to established indices fr om existing natural vegetation. The ShannonWeiner indices were calculated to measure both the species diversity and abundance and evenness of these species. The results were only slightly lower than those yielded by other homegarden studies in the area and natura lly occurring Kerala forests. However, it has to be noted that these lower numbers mi ght partly be due to the fact that our Shannon-Weiner tests excluded the herbaceous speci es that are seasonal, and also the rare species such as medicinal plants. Although th is is an established method of analyzing vegetation diversity, it is diffi cult to understand the complexity of these systems without

PAGE 89

76 complementing this method with another met hod designed to identify species richness. For this purpose, Margalef I ndices were calculated and the results were similar to those of a tropical deciduous forest in the Western Ghats of southern India. These two indices, the Shannon-Weiner, and the Margalef, can be used in conjunction with each other to understand the diversity of these systems. Once these values are established and the importance of homegardens to biodiversi ty conservation understood, the biophysical aspects that are involved in maintaining these levels should be further studied. This study also attempted to compare the floristic si milarity across homegardens, and the results indicated that the homegardens were fairly similar in species composition, regardless of garden size. While homegardens are important in providing both economic and ecological benefits, they are also very important for the provision of social and cultural benefits to the individual farmer and to the community. Ma ny plants were cultivated and retained for ornamentation and aesthetics, medicinal uses and in some cases for religious reasons. The farmers also considered food grown in their ga rdens to be of higher quality, both in terms of taste and shelf life, th an produce obtained from the local commercial markets. Farmers employed methods of integrated pest management and other forms of organic management that have been passed down for generations. Conservation of indigenous knowledge is one of the benefits provided by homegardens, as proposed by this research, but only recognized by less than 50% of the surveyed farmers. Brodt (2001) looked at tree and crop cultivation in central India to examine the dynamics of knowledge system change. She suggested methods for the pres ervation of indigenous knowledge, and that

PAGE 90

77 technical innovation might allo w local indigenous knowledge to mesh more effectively with large-scale technologies. An important cultural benefit was the av ailability of medicinal species. Although it was difficult to quantify the actual economi c worth of the presence of these medicinal species in a garden, the farmers considered th em to be of essential importance in their daily lives, and therefore these or the shadow prices of these plants should be considered while evaluating the benefits provided by homegard ens. It is also essential to consider the importance of aesthetics, ornamentation and sh ade in the lives of these farmers. This research has indicated that farmers genera lly grow some species designed to enhance their aesthetic pleasure, regardless of their la nd constraints (data not reported). It was also evident to the researcher that women part icipate equally in the various processes associated with the garden, incl uding the economic decision-making. These benefits are exclusive to homegardens because no other single system has been found to provide all these benefits in conjunction with each ot her. For example, a rice field might provide many economic benefits, and some cultural benefits, but they would not provide an avenue to conserve gene tic diversity of a wide variety of species. Annual monoculture systems of cultivation are inviting habitats for pests that thrive by colonizing new, welcoming environments. In order to reduce pest numbers and insect damage, it is necessary to recognize the need s and abilities of th e pest, and design a system that works against these preferen ces (SARE, 2000). Homegardens, being mixed stands, already possess natural insurance agai nst pests and disease outbreaks (Michon et al., 1983). The main diseases and pests report ed in these gardens were those afflicting commercial plantation crops such as arecanut banana and black pepper, and farmers

PAGE 91

78 were already employing divers ified planting techniques and other forms of integrated pest management to combat these agricultural pests. These integrated pest management techniques might provide valuab le insight to those researcher s who are dealing with pest management issues in traditional agricultu ral systems. If these systems and their resilience against pests and diseases are carefu lly investigated, it might prove a beneficial component in the pest management effort s even in other geographic locations, and different agricultural systems. It is important that farmers receive ade quate information about planting procedures, and techniques to ensure an adequate s ubsistence garden, and supplement indigenous knowledge with state-of-the-art new technol ogy. In todays agriculture, where Kerala farmers are looking to their gardens not only to fulfill their subsistence requirements, but also as a source of income by growing commerc ial crops for market sale, it is important to educate them about how to ensure ad equate nutrition and food supply. The United State Department of Agricu lture has published a manual th at describes techniques and plants for a tropical subsistence farm, which is very useful for both farmers and for local agricultural officers (Martin and Ruberte, 1980). Such manuals, published in regional languages, would serve to educate the farm ers about their nutritional needs and other long-term benefits that they might attain from their gardens. Homegarden Design The literature suggests that the criteria for designing and implementing agroforestry systems are productivity, sustainability, a nd adoptability (Raintree,1984). Homegarden design and choice of species can follow the same criteria with a few modifications. First of all, these systems are mainly used for s ubsistence purposes; therefore, productivity and economic feasibility are usually the most im portant criteria. Howe ver, once these needs

PAGE 92

79 are met, the end result is usually a diverse mi xture of trees and crops that also lend to the diversity and sustainab ility of the system. Ease of adoptability is an important c onsideration while developing and designing a homegarden. For example, it would be fairly impossible to grow such a diverse mixture of vegetation, with varying grow th, planting, pruning, and fertili zing needs, if the labor is not easily and cheaply available. Most of the homegarden labor comes from family members, and this is a significant reduction in labor costs (in monetary terms, not in terms of time spent). Furthermore, distance between the system and the house is also a consideration. Since these ga rdens are around the household area, it makes it easier for the women of the house to work in the gardens without having to leave household premises. Finally, religious and other social consider ations also play a part in homegarden design. Plants such as Ocimum sanctum which are needed for dail y religious rituals, and for medicinal reasons, are almost always f ound immediately next to the residential area, for easy access. Also, potted plants, and other plants designed to enhance aesthetics are found around the house for easy viewing. In conclusion, a homegarden is designed to fulfill a wide array of functions, and provide a range of benefits. These benefits are economic, ecological, and cultural in nature. The economic benefits can be quantif ied using basic economic methods of costs and benefits comparison and the ecological di versity can be estimated using the ShannonWeiner and Margalef Indices in conjunction with each other. It is difficult to ascertain whether diversity, although of established valu e, would be of any specific value to the individual farmer and it would be necessary to consider all the benefits, both qualitative

PAGE 93

80 and quantitative, to truly unde rstand the benefits provided by these agroforestry systems. These benefits have to be considered together as a sum of all the individual parts, in order to understand the true va lue of a homegarden, and its wo rth to both the farmer and to society. Although different homegardens in different geographic locations might have different motivations and intere sts behind species sele ction and retention, they all provide a similar range of benefits, and encompass a similar range of inte ractions, albeit in varying quantities.

PAGE 94

81 APPENDIX A SURVEY ADMINISTERED TO SELECTED HOMEGARDENS 1. What is your total land size in acres/cents 2. How much area does your house occupy? Section 1: Agronomy 1. Survey of all economically useful pr oducts in the homegarden (conducted by researcher) 2. Please classify these products into three categories: Primary importance, secondary importance, tertiary importance. Primary : Products that are essential to your livelihood Secondary : Products that are very impor tant but not absolutely essential Tertiary : Products that serve a purpose but are not essential. 3. Estimate the individualized productivity of these crops and trees in terms of numbers. For example, how many kilogr ams of tomatoes do you estimate that you use and or sell every week? ----Crops used on a daily basis ----Plants used on a regu lar (non-daily) basis ----Plants used infrequently (as according to need, for eg Medicinals) 4. Estimate the percentage of these products that are used for home consumption. 5. Do you estimate that this % varies from season to season? If so go to 6 6. Estimate an average for each season 7. Why did you select these particular plants? (Individual preferences) 8. How much did you pay to obtain th ese seedlings or seeds (Table) 9. Who supplies your seedlings? 10. Where do you obtain your desired variety of seedling/seed? -----Gift -----Trade -----K rishi Bhavan ----Other (please specify)

PAGE 95

82 11. Do you select the variety of the particular species you want to use in your garden? If so..go to 12 12. Do you believe that certain varietie s are better than others? Why? 13. What are your preferred vari eties from the list of primar y species from the garden 14. What are the main factors that influence your decision to buy a particular type of seedling? Please rate the top three ----Availability ----M onetary reason .Location ----Nutritional value ----Ease of growing .Other ----Market value ----Ease of maintenance ----Aesthetic value -----Nutritional security 15. If you use livestock products for the hous ehold or for market production, what are they ----Cattle ----Goats ----Ch ickens -----Pigs Other 16. What are the products th at are used from these livestock? ---Milk ---Meat -----Eggs -----Draft labor -----Transportation .Other 17. How many years have you used this ho megarden, or how many years has this homegarden remained in your family? 18. Has it always been this size? If not please go to 19, If yes, go to 21 19. Is your homegarden now bigger or smaller than it used to be? 20. What are the reasons behind this change? 21. Do you use any type of fertilizer? If so, go to 22. If not, go to 29. 22. Is your fertilizer chemical ..animal .household wastes (compost) Other 23. Do you use more than one type of fertilizer? 24. Does the season affect the type of fertilizer you use? 25. Reasons for fertilizer use soil degradation .high requireme nts of selected plant species .commercial production Other 26. If you buy fertilizer, how mu ch do you buy at a time?

PAGE 96

83 27. Do you pay for it with cash trade credit 28. Is sack size important? I.e. would you buy more or less fe rtilizer if it came in small bags? 29 What part of the plants do you use? how or for what? 30. Do you plant annual crops in the same place in the garden y ear after year? Why or why not? 31. If you save your own seed, what do you do to protect it, to make sure it will germinate when you plant it next season? 32. How do you determine what will be seed and what will be eaten or sold? 33. Do you plant certain crops the same time as your neighbors? How do you know when to plant? 34. Are there any crops which you used to gr ow, or your parents us ed to grow, that you no longer grow? If so, which ones and why? 35. Are you growing any new crops, that your pa rents or grandparents never grew? If so, which ones and why? 36. If you could only grow five crops, what would they be? 37. Which crops require the most care? Why? 38. Which crops are most profitable, to sell or trade? Why? 39. Have you noticed any significant ecological degradation in your homegarden in terms of the following categories? .soil degradation ..quality of plant product .litter quality....quantity of plant product .availability of livestock fodder .intangible loss .Other 40. Pests and Diseases How do you decide on a particular species in order to keep common pests and diseases away from your homegarden ..Family wisdom Local krishi bh avan info extension materials Other 41. Planting systems What are the factors behind your placi ng these homegarden species in this particular order that you have chosen

PAGE 97

84 Light interception ..Plant requirements Commercial requirements Space constraints No particular reason .Soil characteristics Section 2: Input: Labor, money, time 1. How many hours of labor do you put into the garden on a daily basis? 2. How many hours of paid labor is put in to the garden on a monthly basis? 3. Out of the labor input, how much time (in terms of percentage of the total labor input) is spent on the following categories? ..Planting Weeding Maintenance Harvesting .Livestock Cottage industries Other 4. How much money do you spend on fertiliz ers for the homegarden on a monthly basis? 5. How many seedlings do you buy on a monthly basis for purposes of planting, and other garden needs? 6. How much money do you spend on transporta tion to and from market, and to and from the Krishi Bhavan (the local agri cultural office) in terms of Rs/week 7. How much time do you spend on transporta tion to and from market, and to and from the Krishi Bhavan in terms of hours/week? 8. Do you own livestock? If so, go to 9. If not, go to section 3 9. How many? 10. Do you buy feed? How much money do you spend on feed on a monthly basis? 11. Does your livestock live in the garden? 12. How much money did you spend on their f acilities: barn, hay storage facility One time cost Weekly (for things that n eed to be done once a week) Monthy (once a month) Yearly ( once a year)

PAGE 98

85 Section 3 Output from garden 1. What are the main benefits from your ho megarden. Please rate them in order of importance by numbering them from 1-15 ---------Household food supply ---------Biodiversity ---------Nutritional security ---------Wildlife habitat ---------Livestock hous ing, and shade ---------Timber production ---------Commercial production ---------Fuelwood production ---------Aesthetics and ornamenta tion ---------Fruit Production ---------Cottage industries ---------Gender equality ---------Site for aquacultu re, pisciculture, ---------Other (please specify) ---------Bee keeping 2. Estimate the total monetary worth of your garden in terms of Rs. 3. Estimate the total monetary worth of your garden -------10 years from now -------20 years from now 4. Do you plan on leaving this garden to your children? 5. Do you believe that this garden will be of economic worth to the inheritor? 6. Do you believe that this garden will be of social worth to the inheritor? Section 4: Homegarden and its impact on lifestyles 1. Do you think this homegarden is essential to your lifestyle? If so..please rate its importance -----Invaluable ------Very importa nt -----Somewhat important -----Neutral ------Not very im portant -------Waste of space CONTINGENT VALUATION 2. How much would you need to be paid to not have access to your homegarden? Please estimate in terms of percentage of your annual income? 0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+ 3. Do you think this homegarden contributes to your household economy? 4. If so, please estimate its value in terms of percentage of your income? 0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+

PAGE 99

86 5. How important is it to obtain aesthetic and ornamentation benefits from your garden? ----Invaluable ------Very importa nt -----Somewhat important -----Neutral ------Not very important 6. How much money would you need to lose th e aesthetic benefit? Please estimate in terms of percentage of total income 0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+ 7. Conversely, how much money would you be willing to pay to obtain such aesthetic benefit? Please estimate in term s of percentage of total income 0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+ 8. How important is it to obtai n shade for your livestock? ----Invaluable ------Very importa nt -----Somewhat important -----Neutral ------Not very important 9. How much money would you need to lose the opportunity to obtain shade for your livestock from this garden? Please esti mate in terms of % of total income? 0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+ 10. Conversely, how much money would you be willing to pay to obtain shade for your livestock? Please estim ate in terms of percentage of total income 0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+ Section 5 Demographics and gender 1. How many people live in your household? 2. What are their age demographics? 3. How many people work outside of the home? 4. What is your annual income -----Dont know -----Rs.1.0-Rs.4999 ------Rs. 5000-Rs.9999 -----Rs. 10000-14,999 ------Rs. 15,000-Rs. 20,000 5. Where does your income come from? Pleas e rate from 1-5, with 1 being the employment providing the highest income -----Outside employment ------Farming outside of homegarden

PAGE 100

87 -----Homegarden -------Oth er business -------Family 6. If you were not spending work hours in th e garden, what else could you be doing? ------Income generating em ployment --------Nothing ------Household chores. 7. Do you believe that you could be using this space occupied by the homegarden for other purposes that would generate more money? Yes No 8. If yes, what are the othe r income generating activities Industry setting Selling space to deve loper Setting up some other business Other 9. Who spends more time in the garden Father Mother .Child ..Other 10. Who does most of the cooking in the household ..Father ..Mother ..Other 11. Do you conduct any businesses from the gard en? If yes, go to 12. If not, go to 13 12. What are they? Cottage industries ..Apiculture Sericulture .Aquaculture Tourism Other 13. Who do you believe is chiefly respons ible for homegard en activities and maintenance? ..Mans enterprise ..Equally di vided .Womans enterprise 14. Do you believe that the homegarden contri butes to the whole idea of Kerala being a state where women have comparatively lit eracy rates, and are considered more empowered? 15. Do you believe that homegardens contribu te to the empowerment of women? If yes, go to 16. If not, go to 17. 16. How so? 17. Who is responsible for the economics of th e homegarden? I.e. who is responsible for the economics of the homegarden?

PAGE 101

88 Section 6: Nutrition and food availability 1. How much of your daily food intake comes from the garden? Estimate in terms of % of total household nutrition ------0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% 2. Do you buy food from the market? 3. If you did not have some of these products, for example, jackfruit, mango, tamarind, would you buy them from the market? 4. Would you buy the same quantities th at you obtain from the garden? 5. How much produce do you sell to the market ----daily ----monthly 6. Do you believe that your family nutr itional requirements are being met? 7. If so, what part does your garden play in meeting that requirement? % .75%..50% % % 8. Do you grow crops/trees specificall y to meet nutritional requirements? 9. Do you grow crops/trees specifically to obtain nutritional security for the household 10. If so, what are they? 11. Do you grow flowers in your garden? 12. If so, what function do th ese flowers/leaves play? ------Aesthetics, ------Personal ornamentation ------Ritualistic reasons. ------Income -------Other 13. If you did not have these flowers in your garden would you buy them from the market? 14. How much do you estimate these flowers contribute to the quality of your life? 15. If you were paid the monetary value for all these homegarden products and their sources, would you use some of the money generated to buy these products from the

PAGE 102

89 market? For example, if you were paid a significant amount of money for your mango tree, would you use some of this mo ney to buy mangoes, and fuelwood? 16. If so, how much ------All of it (100%) ------Most of it (~75%) ------Half of it (~50%) ------Some of it (~25%) ------None of it (0%) 17. What would you do with the money generated from selling your homegarden? 18. Would you consider selling the garden? 19. If yes, please estimate the total amount that you would sell it for 20. If you did not have a garden on your land, what else could you do with this property? 21. Are you satisfied with the size of your house? 22. Would you increase the size of your hous e, and reduce the size of your garden? 23. Do you think they will obtain the same benefits as you do? -yes --no 24. Do you think the value of your garden will increase as the year s go by?yes --no 25. In terms of pure economics, do you think th e garden is economically profitable. Section 7: 1. Do the source agencies offer subsidies toward these purchases? 2. Would you like to see more government help toward the development and advancement of your homegarden? 3.Do you see your homegarden as an investment for the future?

PAGE 103

90 APPENDIX B ECONOMIC VALUES OF HOME GARDEN OUTPUTS AND INPUTS Table B-1 Net financial value of 75 homegard ens surveyed in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Area of homegarden (ha) 1.0 0.99 0.99 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.54 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.33 Total income excluding opportunity costs 88000 511000 458000 209800 419740 528000 305150 509200 228400 340350 184000 320400 92400 307000 288400 102200 227500 214300 342100 108800 374200 204000 104000 410000 254000 132675 187500 223600 47500 257340 270600 306000 238000 Income incl. Opportunity costs 45700 452080 411460 163870 370440 7100 252580 455600 193050 283700 130355 259220 52148 268740 239040 68600 185750 200850 311550 75310 227400 168820 91620 382890 227400 121345 155650 194000 19170 224540 243090 277750 223580 Income excluding household labor 77250 478780 441710 203920 402040 520900 280430 494200 212400 322250 140005 295120 89448 297840 272890 95200 221900 208200 321200 89560 262900 192120 103820 407090 251600 130995 185700 205950 23920 248340 261740 282000 232480

PAGE 104

91 Table B-1. Continued Area of homegarden (ha) 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.028 0.02 0.02 0.01 Total income excluding opportunity costs 401600 165800 335200 274050 89500 233000 203310 273000 34200 160000 154700 145680 192080 212500 66300 75250 91775 25740 134520 96900 75600 136120 48450 64900 171500 108300 110420 87000 36600 62450 23400 12000 37800 18500 24000 13600 118200 12900 13600 24000 37780 Income incl. Opportunity costs 377680 126236 262200 199050 69775 219475 180262 256990 5450 121350 135310 125860 168660 184480 37790 64010 90175 13310 112295 63200 66650 120520 44600 62900 93050 67635 107405 69100 23550 50850 21770 2578 35930 14400 15805 4120 55050 12150 9750 21325 22870 Income excluding household labor 393280 158536 323200 206850 78700 224625 202212 269340 34200 133300 148460 132960 178160 210780 59240 73160 91775 25660 128195 82700 69800 129020 48300 64800 113500 87960 108530 87000 36600 55200 22420 7940 37680 18500 23505 13420 72200 12400 13600 23975 30070 Financial values measured in Rupees (1.00 $US ~ Rs. 47, October, 2003).

PAGE 105

92Table B-2 Economic values representi ng the finances of homegardens. Ha Coco Areca Musa Trees SpiceP epp RubbCassa Cashe Other Milk Other livesto Househ BEN COSTS 1 18000 0 30000 0 0 4000 12000 24000 88000 10750 0.9 90000 360000 0 5000 0 5000 27000 24000 511000 32220 0.9 112500 180000 12000 10000 9000 1500 85000 24000 24000 458000 16290 0.9 15000 0 24000 16000 0 0 120000 10800 24000 209800 5880 0.8 150000 150000 43200 0 8000 140 30000 14400 24000 419740 17700 0.8 100000 400000 0 0 0 4000 24000 528000 7100 0.7 90000 25000 52000 2000 0 1350 34000 12000 64800 24000 305150 24720 0.7 45000 360000 0 5000 0 2600 51000 21600 24000 509200 15000 0.7 60000 100000 16000 7500 0 1500 5000 14400 24000 228400 16000 0.7 12000 270000 0 3000 0 2700 11250 3000 14400 24000 340350 18100 0.7 35000 0 60000 0 0 0 5000 60000 24000 184000 43995 0.7 100000 0 16000 150500 0 1500 6000 5000 3000 14400 24000 320400 15280 0.6 44000 0 0 6000 0 0 36000 4800 21600 24000 136400 2952 0.6 90000 90000 18000 15000 0 2000 68000 24000 307000 9160 0.6 60000 100000 36000 36000 0 4000 6800 21600 24000 288400 15510 0.5 8000 6000 12000 12000 0 3000 1200 36000 24000 102200 7000 0.5 90000 100000 0 1000 6000 4000 2500 24000 227500 5600 0.5 67500 81000 15000 0 0 200 200 12000 14400 24000 214300 6100 0.5 100000 180000 0 6000 0 2000 2000 14400 13700 24000 342100 20900 0.5 10000 3000 60000 0 6000 1000 4800 24000 108800 19240 0.5 20000 200000 0 0 0 2500 51000 1700 3000 72000 24000 374200 111300 0.4 34500 0 2E+05 0 0 0 24000 238500 11880

PAGE 106

93Table B-2.. Continued Ha Coco Areca Musa Trees SpiceP epp RubbCassa Cashe Other Milk Other livesto Househ BEN COSTS 0.4 15000 50000 15000 0 0 0 24000 104000 180 0.4 9000 360000 6000 0 7000 4000 24000 410000 2910 0.4 60000 135000 25000 0 0 4000 6000 24000 254000 2400 0.3 10000 80000 18000 0 0 675 24000 132675 1680 0.3 30000 100000 0 0 1000 2500 30000 24000 187500 1800 0.3 150000 0 40000 0 9000 600 24000 223600 17650 0.3 16500 5000 0 0 1000 1000 24000 47500 23580 0.3 102000 36000 90000 0 0 300 5040 24000 257340 9000 0.3 67500 27000 7500 0 0 600 1E+05 24000 270600 8860 0.3 90000 160000 30000 0 0 2000 24000 306000 24000 0.3 3000 180000 28000 0 0 2000 1000 24000 238000 5520 0.3 90000 160000 30000 0 0 1350 1000 14400 24000 320750 6880 0.2 150000 120000 60000 0 450002000 600 24000 401600 8320 0.2 15000 90000 0 0 0 800 36000 24000 165800 7264 0.2 150000 54000 0 10000 0 1200 24000 72000 24000 335200 12000 0.2 95550 3000 22500 48000 0 0 81000 24000 274050 67200 0.2 45000 5000 9000 6000 0 500 24000 89500 10800 0.2 125000 80000 0 0 0 2000 2000 24000 233000 8375 0.2 75000 90000 0 0 0 1350 12960 24000 203310 1098 0.2 37500 180000 30000 0 0 1500 24000 273000 3660 0.2 8000 0 800 0 0 0 4800 13600 0 0.1 3000 0 3000 1000 0 0 0 3200 24000 34200 0 0.1 19500 90000 0 0 0 0 6800 14400 24000 154700 6240 0.1 86000 3000 0 9000 2000 2000 480 4800 14400 24000 145680 12720

PAGE 107

94Table B-2.. Continued Ha Coco Areca Musa Trees SpiceP epp RubbCassa Cashe Other Milk Other livesto Househ BEN COSTS 0.1 12000 45000 0 0 3000 80 1E+05 24000 192080 13920 0.1 73500 105000 9000 0 0 0 1000 24000 212500 1720 0.1 9000 3000 5000 10000 0 900 14400 24000 66300 7060 0.1 37500 9000 3750 0 0 1000 24000 75250 2090 0.1 33000 0 31250 0 0 200 3325 24000 91775 0.1 48000 0 0 0 0 540 1200 24000 73740 80 0.1 30000 60000 0 3000 0 2400 15120 24000 134520 6325 0.1 4500 45000 0 8000 0 1000 14400 24000 96900 14200 0.1 9000 0 5400 1000 0 0 17000 19200 24000 75600 5800 0.1 30000 60000 1400 1200 0 900 1340 17280 24000 136120 7100 0.1 19500 2700 0 0 0 2250 24000 48450 150 0.1 22500 18000 0 0 0 400 24000 64900 100 0.1 55000 7500 60000 0 0 0 25000 24000 171500 58000 0.09 4500 0 1000 0 0 400 0 0 0 1E+05 2400 108300 20340 0.09 14000 40000 1140 30000 1000 280 24000 110420 1890 0.08 22500 0 1000 35000 0 2000 2500 24000 87000 0 0.08 9000 0 0 0 0 0 3600 24000 36600 0 0.06 3000 15000 5400 0 0 650 14400 24000 62450 7250 0.05 Homeu 0 0 0 1000 0 20000 2400 23400 980 0.04 Homeus 0 0 0 0 0 12000 12000 4060 0.04 7500 6300 0 0 0 0 24000 37800 120 0.03 4500 0 0 0 0 12000 16500 0

PAGE 108

95Table B-2.. Continued Ha Coco Areca Musa Trees SpiceP epp RubbCassa Cashe Other Milk Other livesto Househ BEN COSTS 0.02 3000 0 180 0 0 0 0 7800 86400 2400 99780 46000 0.02 6000 0 0 500 0 0 0 6000 6000 18500 0 0.02 10500 0 0 0 0 0 2400 12900 500 0.02 Homeus 0 0 0 0 0 24000 24000 25 0.01 Homeus 0 2500 0 0 0 17280 18000 37780 7560

PAGE 109

96 Table B-3 Economic values of annual inputs in to typical homegardens in steady state Ha Chem. fert Ani fert Lit+ med Man lab Wom lab Man wage Fem wage Feed One time Rent Cost 1 360 7200 7200 150 7560 0.995 25 2400 250 25 0.991 500 250 500 0.910 144002400 3600010000 350 46000 0.809 180 4800 0 4500 180 0.809 360 135 4800 2400 500 495 0.797 0 3600 500 0 0.793 100 600 600 20 550 120 0.789 810 2500 750 4800 562.5 4060 0.789 180 500 300 650 980 0.781 450 2400 1200 4800 2000 750 7250 0.769 4800 7200 1050 0 0.688 120004800 1100 0 0.607 90 1800 1125 1890 0.603 360 0 172809600 9600 2700 1125 20340 0.599 1000 600 1000 3000 2400 19200 50000 1250 58000 0.595 100 600 1300 100 0.595 200 0 0 1500 600 4800 2400 4800 1300 7100 0.587 0 150 1200 1200 1300 150 0.570 1000 0 0 0 0 1200 600 4800 1350 5800 0.542 625 7200 7200 5700 1500 6325 0.429 100 4500 4800 120006000 4800 1500 14200 0.404 80 7200 3600 1550 80 0.404 7875 1600 0.404 540 1350 4800 2400 200 1950 2090 0.392 19200 7060 2250 7060 0.392 720 192004800 1000 2300 1720 0.384 900 4800 2400 7020 6000 2300 13920 0.384 0 0 0 0 0 4800 109201800 2300 12720 0.372 240 7200 3600 6000 2350 6240 0.344 0 192007200 2350 0 0.344 200 400 225003600 9600 2350 26700 0.331 1875 1500 2400 5000 2750 8375 0.303 9600 9600 78 1020 2750 1098 0.291 360 1400 1400 9600 500 2750 3660 0.283 360 5400 4800 1200 4800 240 2925 10800 0.275 6000 7200 4800 0 54000 3000 67200 0.246 12000 3840019200 3400 12000 0.236 1000 192009600 6264 3500 7264 0.222 1820 6000 12000 500 3600 8320 0.222 360 270 6250 4800 2400 3750 6880 0.222 3000 1120 4800 1400 4100 5520 0.190 360 1000 1500 144000 6000 4250 8860

PAGE 110

97 Table B-3. Continued Ha Chem. fert Ani fert Lit+ med Man lab Wom lab Man wage Fem wage Feed One time Rent Cost 0.190 7000 7000 10000x 4250 24000 0.190 3000 3000 19200 3000 4600 9000 0.186 2400 1550 9000 4000 4800 2400 700 4750 17650 0.186 1080 1250010000 4750 23580 0.186 1800 192006000 4850 1800 0.182 180 1500 4800 4850 1680 0.157 2400 19200 5000 2400 0.129 360 300 2250 19200 5000 2910 0.125 180 7200 5000 180 0.121 180 2430 4950 144003600 4320 5300 11880 0.121 3600 1500 1200 192009600 1E+05 6700 1E+05 0.109 800 100007500 0 7200 940 7050 19240 0.105 4000 120000 0 2400 4800 100 7250 20900 0.105 100 1200 4800 7350 6100 0.105 5000 600 192009600 7350 5600 0.101 192006000 1000 7400 7000 0.091 360 3750 3000 192007200 8400 7450 15510 0.091 1000 300 7500 360 192002400 7500 9160 0.089 360 0 0 192009600 2592 8500 2952 0.085 1000 0 500 3750 192007200 1003010000 9500 25280 0.060 0 0 0 14400115200 0 1800075 9650 43995 0.052 900 1440 1200 192009600 115603000 9750 18100 0.045 5000 8750 2250 9600 9750 16000 0.044 1080 600 360 192009600 12960chicke ns 9800 15000 0.040 720 120006000 24000 9850 24720 0.040 2200 500 4500 3000 144007200 7000 500 10000 17700 0.036 5000 2100 19200 ? x 10000 7100 0.028 1080 192009600 4800 11250 5880 0.020 3150 4500 120006000 8640 12250 16290 0.020 11700140409600 4800 6480 12300 32220 0.012 3000 1750 6000 19200 12350 10750

PAGE 111

98 APPENDIX C PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT PLANT AND LIVESTOCK CATEGORIES TO THE FINANCIAL PROFIT OF HOMEGARDENS 0102030405060 Coconut Areca Banana Tree Fruits Spice trees Milk Cashew Other Percentage of homegarden income Figure C-1 Percentage of cont ribution of categories to th e total income earned from small (less that 0.26 ha size) homegardens. Note: Other includes household food use, and firewood use 0510152025303540 Coconut Areca Banana Tree Fruits Spice trees Milk Cashew Other Percentage of homegarden income Figure C-2 Contribution of di fferent crops to the total income earned from medium homegardens.

PAGE 112

99 0510152025303540 Coconut Areca Banana Tree Fruits Spice trees Milk Cashew Other Percentage of homegarden income Figure C-3 Contribution of di fferent crops to the total income earned from large homegardens. 0510152025303540 Coconut Areca Banana Tree Fruits Spice trees Milk Cashew Other Percentage of homegarden income Figure C-4 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from commercial homegardens.

PAGE 113

100 APPENDIX D MARGALEF INDICES OF SPECIES RICHNESS Example Calculations of Margalef Index Example: Homegarden # X Land size: 850.08 sq. m Species Composition of garden: Coconut 9 Black pepper 3 Papaya 2 Cashew 5 Jackfruit 2 Teak 2 Ginger 3 Turmeric 4 Taro 5 Yam 4 Moringa 1 Rose 2 Holy basil 1 Hibiscus 2 Ornamental1 2 Ornamental2 2 Medicinal1 1 Medicinal2 1 Medicinal3 1 Medicinal4 1 Total number of species 20 Total number of individuals 53 Ln (53) 3.97 Margalef Index = (Total numbe r of species 1)/LN (Total # of individuals ) = 19/3.97 = 4.78

PAGE 114

101 Table D-1 Margalef Indices of 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India Area (sq.m)Total #speciesNo. of individualsMargalef Index 121.44 27 41 7.00134521 202.4 28 45 7.092827397 202.4 23 36 6.139216892 202.4 16 29 4.454613066 202.4 23 36 6.139216892 283.36 20 31 5.532926848 364.32 29 35 7.875459594 404.8 29 60 6.838701427 445.28 25 36 6.697327519 455.4 30 89 6.460759485 607.2 32 109 6.607909023 850.08 24 40 6.234955706 890.56 34 134 6.737664225 910.8 24 65 5.509790662 910.8 37 100 7.817300674 1012 34 372 5.575366076 1052.48 26 1511 3.415054699 1052.48 30 49 7.451525964 1052.48 32 93 6.839342423 1092.96 26 136 5.088898077 1214.4 30 222 5.367708999 1214.4 43 108 8.970273998 1254.88 33 59 7.847873978 1295.36 30 161 5.707083695 1578.72 33 229 5.889149275 1821.6 34 244 6.0030908 1862.08 35 3124 4.225245601 1862.08 35 369 5.752185712 1862.08 19 264 3.228149983 1902.56 30 90 6.444717027 1902.56 35 190 6.479863544 1902.56 32 208 5.807921093 2226.4 28 226 4.981058143 2226.4 38 191 7.044568511 2226.4 34 352 5.627911956 2368.08 33 149 6.394952712 2428.8 31 366 5.082477312 2752.64 39 243 6.917818122 2833.6 34 234 6.049139785 2914.56 34 172 6.410885946

PAGE 115

102 Table D-1. Continued Area (sq.m)Total #speciesNo. of individualsMargalef Index 3036 33 407 5.325510881 3319.36 33 361 5.43397235 3440.8 32 143 6.246417591 3440.8 37 233 6.604246201 3724.16 32 512 4.969282919 3845.6 34 365 5.59331765 3845.6 38 284 6.549861699 3926.56 35 339 5.835907891 3926.56 40 314 6.783324795 4048 37 235 6.593907158 4048 39 556 6.011927385 4048 41 639 6.192042047 4290.88 30 549 4.597264971 5424.32 34 708 5.028614268 5707.68 34 309 5.755805979 5869.6 34 559 5.216443295 5950.56 34 251 5.972361065 5950.56 33 265 5.735044706 5991.04 34 362 5.601152889 6031.52 32 720 4.71178239 6072 34 507 5.298216537 6881.6 27 107 5.564081399 7691.2 35 314 5.91366777 7812.64 31 1132 4.266368584 7893.6 40 475 6.327763751 7893.6 29 840 4.158373501 7934.08 35 690 5.201408005 7974.56 35 870 5.023274596 8096 40 665 6.000196584 8096 30 341 4.972665364 9108 33 638 4.954834912 9917.6 32 716 4.715775519 9958.08 36 557 5.535727774 9998.56 34 1017 4.7656097

PAGE 116

103 APPENDIX E SHANNON-WEINER INDEX OF DIVERS ITY IN ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL SPECIES Calculations of Shannon-Weiner Index Example: Homegarden # X Land size: 850.08 sq. m Species Composition of garden: Coconut 9 Black pepper 3 Papaya 2 Cashew 5 Jackfruit 2 Teak 2 Ginger 3 Turmeric 4 Taro 5 Yam 4 Moringa 1 Rose 2 Holy basil 1 Hibiscus 2 Ornamental1 2 Ornamental2 2 Medicinal1 1 Medicinal2 1 Medicinal3 1 Medicinal4 1 Total number of species 20 Total number of individuals 53

PAGE 117

104 Table E-1 Shannon-Weiner Index Step W ise calculation for Homegarden # X Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Plant Number of individuals Step 1 / Total number of individuals Ln (Step 2) Step 2 Step 3 coconut bl pepp papaya cashew jack teak ginger turneric taro yam moringa rose basil hibiscus ornam orname medicinal medicinal medicinal medicinal 9 3 2 5 2 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0.169811 0.056604 0.037736 0.09434 0.037736 0.037736 0.056604 0.075472 0.09434 0.075472 0.018868 0.037736 0.018868 0.037736 0.037736 0.037736 0.018868 0.018868 0.018868 0.018868 -1.77307 -2.87168 -3.27714 -2.36085 -3.27714 -3.27714 -2.87168 -2.584 -2.36085 -2.584 -3.97029 -3.27714 -3.97029 -3.27714 -3.27714 -3.27714 -3.97029 -3.97029 -3.97029 -3.97029 -0.30109 -0.16255 -0.12367 -0.22272 -0.12367 -0.12367 -0.16255 -0.19502 -0.22272 -0.19502 -0.07491 -0.12367 -0.07491 -0.12367 -0.12367 -0.12367 -0.07491 -0.07491 -0.07491 -0.07491 Shannon Weiner Index = (Sum of all values in Step 4) = 2.77

PAGE 118

105 Table E-2 Shannon-Weiner Indices for 75 surv eyed homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India Sq.m Shannon-Weiner Index Total #speciesIndividual # 121.44 0.736522723 7 41 202.4 1.408330212 10 45 202.4 0.952262446 10 36 202.4 0.549504348 7 29 202.4 0.668478843 10 36 283.36 1.150421681 13 31 364.32 1.035435995 13 37 404.8 1.319613351 13 60 445.28 1.104197076 10 36 455.4 1.121657171 13 89 607.2 0.845317532 13 109 850.08 1.414819856 13 40 890.56 2.209995097 13 134 910.8 0.503800404 13 65 910.8 2.005203108 13 100 1012 1.40001057 13 372 1052.5 0.477456642 7 1511 1052.5 1.228576493 13 49 1052.5 0.632742718 13 93 1093 1.449432871 13 136 1214.4 1.331258701 13 222 1214.4 1.863523923 13 108 1254.9 1.138297082 13 59 1295.4 0.993943848 13 161 1578.7 1.366883005 13 229 1821.6 1.085646637 13 244 1862.1 0.260869541 9 3124 1862.1 1.001949503 13 369 1862.1 1.290745583 14 264 1902.6 1.447424988 14 90 1902.6 1.48699607 14 190 1902.6 1.657143763 14 208 2226.4 1.079357833 14 226 2226.4 1.445497417 14 191 2226.4 1.330635843 14 352 2368.1 1.80873591 14 149 2428.8 1.64 14 366 2752.6 1.74484169 14 243 2833.6 1.45 14 234 2914.6 1.621969896 14 172 3036 1.075324265 14 407 3319.4 1.438683941 14 361 3440.8 0.027496366 14 143

PAGE 119

106 Table E-2. Continued Sq.m Shannon-Weiner Index Total #speciesIndividual # 3440.8 1.612772614 14 233 3724.2 1.82 14 512 3845.6 1.44635471 14 365 3845.6 1.987210158 14 284 3926.6 1.689444029 14 339 3926.6 0.865251024 14 314 4048 1.838484499 14 235 4048 0.712644383 14 556 4048 1.66071495 14 639 4290.9 0.217680089 14 549 5424.3 1.386927857 14 708 5707.7 1.665768859 14 309 5869.6 1.721871353 14 559 5950.6 1.88604945 14 251 5950.6 1.584543051 14 265 5991 1.444621995 14 362 6031.5 1.299374476 14 720 6072 1.620484426 14 507 6881.6 1.135220372 14 107 7691.2 1.635308411 14 314 7812.6 0.874634538 14 1132 7893.6 1.544236751 14 475 7893.6 1.706478509 14 840 7934.1 1.245432215 14 690 7974.6 1.69153576 14 870 8096 1.498928245 14 665 8096 0.489298763 14 341 9108 1.472423392 14 638 9917.6 1.942290967 14 716 9958.1 0.93767312 14 557 9998.6 1.955601331 14 1017

PAGE 120

107 APPENDIX F MEDICINAL PLANTS FOU ND IN KERALA HOMEGARD ENS, AND THEIR USES AS DESCRIBED BY FARMERS Table F-1 Medicinal plants observed in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. Common name Common Uses Scientific name Neem (aryaveppu) Entire tree is important, stem, leaves, root, fruit, seed Azadirachta indica Tulasi Krishna (holy) Rama thulasi (sweet) Leaves used to treat many diseases. Ocimum sanctum Ocimum basilicum Akki karya Tooth and gum pain relief Spilanthes acmella Neelamri Oil preparation Indigofera tinctoria Kanjunni Hair oil Eclipta alba Ginger Stimulant, digestive aid Zingiber officinale Karin Kurinji Arthritis and pain, itch relief Strobilanthes ciliatus Kuvalam Diabetes and cholesterol relief Aegle marmelos Kacholam Carminative, expectorant Kaempferia galanga Nellikka Psychiatric aid Emblica officinalis Brahmi Oil and to prevent worms Bacopa monniera Vicks ela Cold relief Mentha piperita Vayambu Infant food Acorus calamus Long Pepper Carminative, diuretic et al Piper longum Asoka tree bark Bark is highly astringent, and helpful in uterine problems Saraca asoka Oong General health Pongamia pinnata iruveli kashayam Coleus vettiveroides Lentina Alcohol benefits in ayurveda Lantana camera Shadavali General health Asparagus racemosus Nitya kalyani Oil preparation Vincarosea Poovan kurmana Eye relief, cools the body Vernonia cineria Keezharnalli Jaundice relief Phyllanthus niruri Muyal chaviyan Tonsilitis relief Emelia sonchifolia Changanam basandha Oil for hair, kashayam Cissus quandrangularis Nela panna Kidney stones Acrotrema arnottanum Chakkarakolli For diabetes Gymnema sylvestre Thechi Privision of vitamins, minerals Ixora cocine Vishnukranthi General health Evolvulus alsinoidea Cheroola General health Aerva lanata Nambiarvattam Eye problems Tabernaemontana divaricata Mukutti General health Biophytum sensitivum

PAGE 121

108 Table F-1. Continued Karuka Cynadon dactylon Common name Common Uses Scientific name Tirutali Ipomoea maxima Koduveri/koduveli Boil treat ment, skin diseases Plumbago zeylanica aadalodakam Cough Adhatoda beddomei ashvagandam Blood circulation, pressure, arthritis, general tonic Withania somnifera Sarpagandha Drug alkaloids in roots Rauvolfia serpentina chittamridu kashayam Tinospora cordifolia karinthotti kashayam Sida carpinifolia Pushkaramoolam Hyperventilation Iris germanica Veshakolli Snake bite antidote Andrographis paniculata Fever nut Leaves as astringent, and soothing toothaches Caesalpinia crista Turmeric Widely used. Curcuma longa Kasturi manjal Aesthetic and antiseptic antimicrobial properties Ourouma aromatica Indian almond Terminalia catappa Valliuzhinja Cardiospermum lelicacabum Allamanda Allamanda cathartica Asokachethi Ixora coccinea

PAGE 122

109 LIST OF REFERENCES Abdoellah, O.S. 1990. Homegardens in West Java and their future development. In: Landauer, K. and Brazil, M. (eds.), Tropical homegardens pp 69-79. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan. Alavalapati, J.R.R. and Mercer, D.E. (eds). 2004. Valuing Agroforestry Systems: Methods and Applications Advances in Agroforestry 2. Springer, Germany. Allen, T.F.H., Hoekstra, T.W., 1992. Toward a Unified Ecology Columbia University Press, New York. Ayuk, E.T. 1997. Adoption of Agroforestry tech nology: The Case of Live hedges in the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 54: 189-206 Baijukya, F.P. and Piters, P. 1998. Nutrient balances and their c onsequences in the banana-based land use systems of B ukoba district, northwest Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 71: 147-158. Benjamin, T.J., Montanez, P.I., Jimenez, J. J. and Gillespie, A.R. 2001. Carbon, water and nutrient flux in Maya homegardens in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 53: 103-111 Benson, J.F. 1994. Values for forest lands capes using travel costs and tokens. Landscape Research 19 : 23-25. Brierly, J.S.1985. West Indian kitchen gardens: a historical perspe ctive with current insights from Grenada. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7:52-60 Brodt, S.B. 2001. A systems perspective on th e conservation and er osion of indigenous agricultural knowledge in Central India. Human Ecology 29: 99-120 Brownrigg. L. 1985. Homegardening in International D evelopment: What the Literature Shows League for International F ood Education, Washington, DC. Budowski, G. 1990. Homegardens in tropical Am erica: a review. In: Landauer, K. and Brazil, M. (eds.), Tropical homegardens pp 3-8. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan. Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America (Vol.2). Hardwoods USDA, Forest Serv. Agric. Handbook 654.

PAGE 123

110 Caron, C.M. 1995. The role of non timber tree products in household food procurement strategies: profile of a Sri Lankan village. Agroforestry Systems 32: 99-117 Carruthers, S.P. 1996. Agroforestry in Britain. Tree News Spring 7-9. Chacko, V.I. 1975. Employment of women in plantations. Plant Chron 70: 159-160. Chandrashekhara, U.M. 1996. Studies on growth and architec ture of tree species of homegarden agroforestry systems of Kerala KFRI Research Report No. 101. Chandrashekhara, U.M. and Sankar, S. 1998. Ec ology and Management of sacred groves in Kerala, India. Forest Ecology and Management 112: 165-177. Christanty, L. 1990. Homegardens in tropical As ia, with special reference to Indonesia. Homegardens in tropical America: a re view. In: K. Landauer, K and Brazil,M (eds.), Tropical Homegardens pp 9-20. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan Cline, W.R. 1992. The Economics of Global Warming Institute for International Economics, Washington DC. Collins, W.W. and Hawtin, G.C. 1999. Conserving and using crop plant biodiversity in agroecosystems. In: Collins, W.W. and Qualset, C.O. (eds.) Biodiversity in Agroecosystems, pp 267-282. CRC Press, Fl, US. Current, D., Lutz, E, and Scherr, S (eds.) 1995. Costs, Benefits, and Farmer Adoption of Agroforestry. Project Experience in Central America and the Caribbean. The World Bank Environment Paper 14 : World Bank, Washington DC. Curtis, J. T. and R. P. McIntosh. 1951. An upl and forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476-496. Dash, S.S. and Misra, M.K. 2001. Studies on the hill agro-ecosystems of three tribal villages on the Eastern Ghats of Orissa, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 86: 287-302 De Clerck, F.A.J. and Negreros-Castillo, P. 2000. Plant species of traditional Mayan homegardens of Mexico as analogs for multistrata agroforests. Agroforestry Systems 48: 303-317. de Jong, W. 2001. Tree and forest management in the floodplains of the Peruvian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 150: 125-134. Delaney, M. and Roshetko, J.M. 1999. Field test of carbon monitoring methods for homegardens in Indonesia. Field Tests of Carbon Monito ring Methods in Forestry Projects, pp. 231-245. Winrock International, VA.

PAGE 124

111 Devendra, C. and Thomas, T. 2002. Crop-animal systems in Asia: Importance of livestock and characterization of agro-ecological zones. Agricultural Systems 71: 515 Dove, M.R. 1994. Transition from native forest rubbers to Hevea brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae) among tribal smallholders in Borneo. Economic Botany 48: 384396. Drescher, A.W. 1996. Management strategies in African homegardens and the need for new extension approaches. pp. 231-245. In: Heidhues, F. and Fadani, A. (eds), Food Security and Innovations Successes and Lessons Learned Peter Lang, Frankfurt. Ehui, S.K., Kang, B.T., and Spencer, D.S.C. 1990. Economic analysis of soil erosion effects in alley cropping, no-till and bush fa llow systems in South Western Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 34: 349-368. Esquivel, M. and Hammer, K. 1992. The C uban homegardensconuco: A prospective environment for evolution and in situ conservation of plan t genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 39: 9-22 Ewel, J.J. 1999. Natural systems as models for the design of suitable systems of land use. Agroforestry Systems 54: 7-21 Fernandes, E.C.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 1986. An Evaluation of the Structure and Function of Tropical Homegardens. Agricultural Systems 21:279-310. Fernandes, E.C.M., Oktingati, A., and Maghe mbe, J. 1984. The Chagga homegardens: a multi-story agroforestry cropping system on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Northern Tanzania. Agroforestry Systems 2: 73-86 Forest Survey of India, 1993. New Delhi. India. Gajaseni, N. and Gajaseni, J. 1999. Ecologica l rationalities of the traditional homegarden system in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 46:3-23. Gimaret-Carpentier, C., R. Pelissier, J. Pas cal, and F. Houllier. 1998. Sampling strategies for the assessment of tree species diversity. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 161172. Gliessman, S.R. 2000. Agroecology: Ecological Processe s in Sustainable Agriculture CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Government of India census, 2000. New Delhi, India.

PAGE 125

112 Herdt, R.W. and Steiner, R.A. 1995. Agri cultural Sustainabi lity: Concepts and Conundrums. In: Barnett V., R. Payne, and R.Steiner (eds.), Agricultural Sustainability: Economic, Environmen tal and Statistical Considerations pp.1-13. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. High, C. and Shackleton, C.M. 2000. The compara tive value of wild and domestic plants in homegardens of a South African rural village. Agroforestry Systems 48: 141-156. Huston, M.A. 1994. Biological diversity: The Coexi stence of Species in Changing Landscapes Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Immink, M.D. 1990 Measuring food producti on and consumption, and the nutritional effects of tropical homegardens. In: La ndauer, K. and Brazil, M. (eds.), Tropical Homegardens pp 126-137. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan Jacob, V.J. and Alles, W.S. 1987. The Kandyan gardens of Sri Lanka. Agroforestry Systems 5: 123-137. Jambulingam, R. and Fernandes, E.C.M. 1986. Multipurpose trees and shrubs on farmlands in Tamil Na du State, India. Agroforestry Systems 4: 17-32 Jensen, M.1993. Productivity and nutrien t cycling of a Javanese homegarden. Agroforestry Systems 24: 187-201. Johnson, D. 1988. Palms as multipurpose cash and subsistence tree crops. In: Withington, D, MacDicken, K.G, Sastry, C.B, and Adams, N.R (eds.), Multipurpose Tree Species for Small-Farm Use pp. 222-236. Winrock, USA and IDRC, Canada. Jose D. and Shanmugaratnam, N. 1993. Tradit ional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem. Agroforestry Systems 24:203-213. Karyono. 1990. Homegardens in Java: their stru cture and function. In: Landauer, K. and Brazil, M. (eds.), Tropical Homegardens pp 138-146. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan. Kaur, M. and Sharma, M. 1991. Role of women in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies 7: 11-16. Kaya, M., Kammesheidt, L., and Weidelt, H. J. 2002. The forest garden system of Saparua island, Central Maluku, Indonesia, a nd its role in main taining tree species diversity. Agroforestry Systems 54: 225-234. Kerala Agricultural University. (1993). Crops: Package of Practices Recommendations Directorate of Extension, Thrissur, Kerala. Kerala Agricultural University. (1998). Nutrition Garden Directorate of Extension. Thrissur, Kerala.

PAGE 126

113 Krebs, C.J. 1985. Ecology: The Experimental Anal ysis of Distribution and Abundance Harper and Row, New York. Kumar, B.M, George, S.J. and Chinnamani, S. 1994. Diversity, stru cture and standing stock of wood in the homegardens of Kerala in peninsular India. Agroforestry Systems 25: 243-262 Kumar, B.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 2004. Th e enigma of tropical homegardens. Agroforestry Systems 61: 135-152. Landis, J.N., Sanchez, J.E., Bird, G.W., Ed son, C.E. Isaacs, Lehnert, R.R.H, Schilder, A.M.C and Swinton, S.M. (eds.) 2002. Fruit Crop Ecology and Management Extension bulletin E-2759. Michigan St ate University, East Lansing, MI. Lawrence, D.C. 1996. Trade-offs between rubber production and maintenance of diversity: the structure of rubber gardens in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 34: 83-100. Leakey, R.R.B. 1999. Potential for novel food pr oducts from agroforest ry trees: a review. Food Chemistry 66: 1-14. Leakey, R.R.B. and Tomich, T.P. 1999. Domesti cation of tropical tr ees: From biology to economics and policy in agroforestry. In: Bu ck, L.E., Lassoie, J.P. and Fernandes, E.C.M (eds.), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems pp. 319-358. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL Leuschner, W.A. and Khaleque, K. 1987. Homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems 5: 139-151 Loomis, J.B and Walsh R. 1997. Recreation Economic Decisions Venture Publishing, Inc., Pennsylvania. Madaleno, I. 2000. Urban agricu lture in Belem, Brazil. Cities 17: 73-77. Mammen, C., Krishnankutty, C.N., and Rajan, A.R. 1993. Socio-economic Study of Farm Forestry: A Survey of Four Villages in Kerala KFRI research report No.90. KFRI. Kerala, India. Margalef, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. General Systematics 3: 36-71. Margurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Martin, F.W. and Ruberte, R.M. 1980. Techniques and Plants for the Tropical Subsistence Farm U.S Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.

PAGE 127

114 McGrath, D.A. 1998. Ecological Sustainability in Amaz on Agroforests: An On Farm Study of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Dynamic s Following Native Forest Conversion. Ph D Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Mendez, V.E., Lok, R. and Somarriba, E. 2001. Interdisciplin ary analysis of homegardens in Nicaragua: microzona tion, plant use and socioeconomic importance. Agroforestry Systems 51: 85-96. Mercer, E., Kramer, R., and Sharma, N. 1995. Rain Forest Tourism: Estimating the benefits of tourism development in a new national park in Madagascar. Journal of Forest Economics 1: 239-269. Mercer, D.E. and Miller, R.P. 1998. Socioecono mic research in agroforestry: progress, prospects, priorities. Agroforestry Systems 38: 177-193. Michon, G. 1983. Village forest-gardens in West Java. In: Huxley, P.A. (ed.), Plant Research and Agroforestry pp. 13-24. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Michon, G. and Mary, F. 1994. Conversion of traditional village gardens and new economic strategies of rural househol ds in the area of Bogor, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 25: 31-58. Michon, G., Bompard, J., Hecketseiler, P ., and Ducatillion, C. 1983. Tropical forest architectural analysis as applied to agrofo rests in the humid tr opics: the example of traditional village agroforests in West Java. Agroforestry Systems 1: 117-129. Millat-E-Mustafa, M.D., Hall, J.B., and Tekl ehaimanot, Z. 1996. Structure and floristics of Bangladesh homegardens. Agroforestry Systems 33: 263-280. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method Resources for the Future, Washington DC. Montagnini, F. and Nair, P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequest ration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 61: 281-295. Moreno-Black, G., Somnasang, P., and Thamathawan, S. 1996. Cultivating continuity and creating change: Womens home gard en practices in northeastern Thailand. Agriculture and Human Values 13: 3-11. Muniz-Miret, N., Vamos, R., Hiraoka, M ., Montagnini, F., and Mendelsohn, R.O. 1996. The economic value of managing the acai pa lm (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) in the floodplains of the Amazon estuary. Forest Ecology and Management 87: 163-173. Neupane, R.P and Thapa, G.B. 2001. Impact of agroforestry intervention on farm income under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills, Nepal. Agroforestry Systems 53: 31-37.

PAGE 128

115 Nair, M.A and Sreedharan, C. 1986. Agroforestry farming systems in the homesteads of Kerala, southern India. Agroforestry Systems 4:339-363. Nair, P.K.R. 2001. Do tropical homegardens elud e science, or is it the other way around? Agroforestry Systems 53: 239-245. Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Nair, P.K.R., Buresh, R.J., Mugendi, D.N., and Latt, C.R. 1999. Nutrient cycling in tropical agroforestry systems: Myths and sc ience.. In: Buck, L.E., Lassoie, J.P., and Fernandes, E.C.M. (eds.), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems, pp. 131. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Nair, P.K.R and Dagar, J.C. 1991. An appr oach to developing methodologies for evaluating Agroforestry systems in India. Agroforestry Systems 16: 55-81. Nelson, K.C. and de Jong, B.H.J. 2003. Making global initiatives local realities; carbon mitigation projects in Chiapas, Mexice Global Environmental Change 13: 19-30. Ninez, V.K. 1987. Household gardens: th eoretical and polic y considerations. Agricultural Systems 23: 167-186. Okafor J.C. and Fernandes, E.C.M. 1987. Co mpound farms of Southeastern Nigeria: A predominant homegarden system with crops and small livestock. Agroforestry Systems 5: 153-168. Okigbo, B.N. 1990. Homegardens in Tropical Af rica. In: Landauer, K. and Brazil, M (eds.), Tropical Homegardens pp. 21-40. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan Oladokun, M.A. 1990. Tree crop based agroforestry in Nigeria: a checklist of crops intercropped with cacao. Agroforestry Systems 11:227-241. On, T.V., Quyen, D., Bich, L.D., Jones, B., Wunder, J., and Russel-Smith, J. 2001. A survey of medicinal plants in Ba Vi National Park, Vietnam: methodology and implications for conserva tion and sustainable use. Biological Conservation 97: 295-304. Padoch, C. and de Jong, W. 1991. The house gardens of Santa Rosa: Diversity and variability in an Amazonian agricultural systems. Economic Botany 45: 166-175. Peters, C.M., Gentry, A.H., and Mendelsohn, R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339: 655-656 Pilbeam, C.J., Tripathi, B.P., Sherchan, D. P. Gregory, P.J. and Gaunt, J. 2000. Nitrogen balances for households in the mid-hills of Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 79: 61-72.

PAGE 129

116 Pinton, F. 1985. The tropical garden as a sustainable food system: A comparison of Indians and settlers in Northern Colombia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7: 25-28. Posey, D.A. 1985. Indigenous management of tropi cal forest ecosystems: The case of the Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems 3: 139-158. Price, C. 1995. Economic evaluation of financ ial and non-financial co sts and benefits in agroforestry development and the value of sustainability. Agroforestry Systems 30: 75-86. Raintree, J.B. 1984. Designing Agroforestry Systems for Rural Development: ICRAFs Diagnosis and Design Approach ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Ramamurthy, P. 2000. The cotton commodity chain, women, work and agency in India and Japan: The case for feminist agro-food systems research. World Development 28: 551-578. Ranasinghe, D. 1995. Agroforestry and co mmunity forestry in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Forester 20: 45-49. Raynolds, L.T. 2003. Wages for Wives: Renegotia ting gender and produ ction relations in contract farming in the Dominican Republic. World Development 30: 783-798. Reed, D.D. and Mroz, G.D. 1997. Resource Assessment in Forested Landscapes John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Renuka, C. 1999. Palms of Kerala Kerala Forest Research Institute, Kerala, India. Ricklefs, R.E. and Schluter, D. 1993. Species Diversity in Ecological Communities University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Rico-Gray, V., Chemas, A., and Mandujano, S. 1991. Use of tropical deciduous forest species by the Yucatan Maya. Agroforestry Systems 14: 149-161 Robert, G.L. 1988. Let them eat trees: Some obs ervations on nutrition and social forestry. In: Withington, D, MacDicken, K.G., Sast ry, C.B., and Adams, N.R. (eds.), Multipurpose Tree Species for Small-Farm Use pp. 175-181. Winrock, USA and IDRC, Canada Rocheleau, D.E. 1987. The user perspective an d the agroforestry research and action agenda. In: Gholz, H.G. (ed.), Agroforestry: Realities, Po ssibilities, and Potentials, pp. 59-88. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht Rugalema, G.H., Johnsen, F.H., Oktinati, A., and Minjas, A. 1995. The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, North-west ern Tanzania. (No.3) An economic appraisal of possible so lutions to falling productivity. Agroforestry Systems 28: 227-236.

PAGE 130

117 Rugalema, G.H., Oktinati, A., and Johns en, F.H. 1993. The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, North-west ern Tanzania. (No.1) Farming system analysis. Agroforestry Systems 26: 53-64. Rugalema, G.H., Johnsen, F.H., and Rugambisa, J. 1993. The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, North-wester n Tanzania. (No.2) C onstraints to farm productivity. Agroforestry Systems 26: 205-214 Russell, A.E. 2002. Relationships between cropspecies diversity and soil characteristics in southwest Indian agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92: 235-249. Salafsky, N. 1995. Forest gardens in the Gunung Palung region of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Defining a locally developed, market-oriented agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems 28: 237-268. Salam, M.A., Noguchi, T., and Koike, M. 2000. Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems 50:77-93. Sanchez, J.E., Willson, T.C., Zoppolo, R.J., St efanelli, D., and Bird, G.W. 2002 The soil. In: Landis, J.N., Sanchez, J.E., Bird, G. W., Edson, C.E., Isaacs, R., Lehnert, R.H., Schilder, A.M.C., and Swinton, S.M. (eds.), Fruit Crop Ecology and Management pp. 21-29. Extension bulletin E-2759. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Sankar, S. and Chandrashekara, U.M. 2000. Development and Testing of Sustainable Agroforestry Models in Different Agroc limatic Zones of Kerala with Emphasis on Socio-cultural, Economic, Technical and Inst itutional Factors Affecting the Sector KFRI Research Report No. 234. Kerala Fore st Research Institute, Kerala, India. SARE. 2000. http://www.sare.org/ htdocs/docs/SANandSARE.html. Sasidharan, N. 2000. Forest Trees of Kerala Kerala Forest Research Institute Handbook No.2, KFRI, Kerala, India. Scartezzini, P. and Speroni, E. 2000. Review on some plants of Indian traditional medicine with antioxidant activity. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 71: 23-43 Scherr S.J. 1992. Financial and economic analys es of agroforestry systems: An overview of the case studies. In: Sullivan, G.M., Huke, S.M., and Fox, J.M. (eds.), Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems, pp. 3-12. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Paia, HI. Schulz, B., Becker, B., and Eotsch, E. 1994. Indigenous knowledge in a modern sustainable agroforestry system a case study from eastern Brazil. Agroforestry Systems 25: 59-69

PAGE 131

118 Semwal, R.L. and Maikhuri, R.K. 1996. Structure and functioning of traditional hill agroecosystems of Garhwal Himalaya. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13: 267-289. Shanavas, A. and Mohan Kumar, B. 2003. Fuel wood characteristics of tree species in homegardens of Kerala, India. Agroforestry Systems 58: 11-24. Smith, N.J.H. 1996. Homegardens as a springboard for agroforestry development in Amazonia. International Tree Crops Journal 9: 11-30. Soemarwoto, O. 1987. Homegardens: A traditiona l agroforestry system with a promising future. In: Steppler, H. A. and Nair, P. K. R. (eds), Agroforestry: A Decade of Development pp. 157-170. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Soemarwoto, O. and Conway, G. R.1992. The Javanese homegarden. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 2: 95-118. Sorenson, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in a plant society based on similarity of species content. K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk 5 : 1-34. Sustainable Agricultur e Network Bulletin. 2000. A Whole-Farm Approach to Managing Pests USDA-CREES, Washington DC. Swift, M.J. and Anderson, J.M. 1993. Biodivers ity and ecosystem function in agricultural systems. In: Schulze, E.D. and Mooney, H.A. (eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function, pp. 15-42. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Tajuddin, E., Anilkumar, A.S., and Prasannakumari, K.T. 1996. Medicinal Plants Directorate of Extension, Kerala Agri cultural University, Kerala, India. Tejwani, K.G. 1987. Agroforestry practices and research in India. In: Gholz, H.G. (ed.), Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities, and Potentials pp. 109-136. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. Tejwani, K.G. 1994. Agroforestry in India Concept Publishing Company. New Delhi, India, pp 233 109-136 Thorne, P.J. and Tanner, J.C. 2002. Livest ock and nutrient cycling in crop-animal systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71: 11-126. Torquebiau, E.F. 2000. A renewed perspec tive on agroforestry concepts and classification. Life Sciences 323: 1009-1017. Torquebiau, E.F. 1992. Are tropical agro forestry homegardens sustainable? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 41: 189-207. Trautmann, T.R. 1995 [orig 1981]. Dravidian Kinship Walnut Creek, CA.: Altamira Press.

PAGE 132

119 Varghese A.O. and Balasubramanyam, K. 1998. Structure, composition and diversity of the tropical wet evergreen forest of the Agasthyamalai region of Kerala, Western Ghats. Journal of South Asian Natural History 4: 87-98. Vasey, D.E. 1985. Household gardens and th eir niche in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7: 37-43 Vogl, C.R., Vogl-Lukraser, B. and Caballero, J. 2002. Homegardens of Maya Migrants in the district of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexi co: Implications for sustainable rural development. pp. 1-12. In: Stepp J.R., Wyndham, F.S. and Zarger, R.K. (eds), Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. Watson J.W. and Eyzaguirre, PB (eds.). 2002. Ho megardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop 17-19 July 2001, Germany. International Plant Genetic Resources Inst itute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy Wezel A. and Bender, S. 2003. Plant species di versity of homegardens of Cuba and its significance for household food supply. Agroforestry Systems 57: 39-49. Wiersum, K.F. 1982. Tree garden ing and taungya in Java: examples of agroforestry techniques in the humid tropics. Agroforestry Systems 1:53-70 Wilson, R.T. 1995. Livestock Production Systems ICTA, Macmillan, UK. Withrow-Robinson, B., Hibbs, D.E., Gypmantasiri, P., and Thomas, D. 1999. A preliminary classification of fruit-based ag roforestry in a highland area of northern Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 42:195-205.

PAGE 133

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Soumya Mohan was born on July 13, 1976 in Kerala India. She spent her youth in Kuwait, where studied at the Carmel School Convent. Her university experience includes undergraduate degrees in Communication St udies, and Asian Studies, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She c ontinued her education at the University of Michigan and obtained two masters degrees, an MS in Natural Resources and Environment, and an MA in South Asian Studi es. Her thesis project was carried out in Kathmandu, Nepal, following which she retu rned to Michigan, and was employed by ShoreBank Enterprise, Inc., a non-profit organi zation, as part of a project to provide affordable housing to East Detroit residents. She then moved to Florida to begin her PhD studies in 2000. She is married to Michael Kevin Rasser, and currently resides in Texas.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0007640/00001

Material Information

Title: An Assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic benefits provided by homegardens : a case study of Kerala, India
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Mohan, Soumya ( Dissertant )
Nair, Ramachandr P. K. ( Thesis advisor )
Alavalapati, Janaki ( Reviewer )
Buhr, Kenneth L. ( Reviewer )
Davies, Fred ( Reviewer )
Gibson, Heather ( Reviewer )
Long, Alan ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Copyright Date: 2004

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Forest Resources and Conservation
Spatial Coverage: India--Kerala

Notes

Abstract: Homegardens are intensive land-use systems involving the management of woody species grown in deliberate association with herbaceous species, with or without livestock, managed within the compounds of individual homes. These systems, which are found mainly in the tropics and subtropics, are of immense importance in the socioeconomic settings of local communities. This dissertation examined the benefits provided by these systems, both to the individual household and to the community, based on a case study in the state of Kerala, in southern India. The study of the economic benefits was a four-step process that started with listing the inputs and outputs that made up the annual financial cycle of these gardens. Then, a cost-benefit-analysis was conducted to estimate the net financial values for all the surveyed households. The next step was a sensitivity analysis of the risks posed by labor and market price fluctuations. The final step ascertained whether the homegardens were a better economic alternative for farmers than leasing or selling the land. The ecological analysis focused mainly on estimating the ecological diversity of these systems. The species compositions were found to be fairly similar across different size categories of homegardens. The homegardens were similar to natural forests in the region, in terms of species richness and species diversity. Although land size seemed to be the biggest constraint for profit generation, it did not affect species composition or species diversity. Species richness was found to cause a slightly negative effect on profit values. Medicinal plants were also very important in these systems and were found in all the surveyed gardens. Members of the household, including females, spent considerable amount of their time in tending the homegardens. Intensity of both profit generation and household labor input was highest in the smallest gardens. The economic decision-making power was equally invested in male and female heads of household. This study indicated that these agroforestry systems were economically profitable for the small-farm household, and were resilient to shifts in the prices of labor or commercial crops. Homegarden cultivation was estimated to be the better economic option for such landowners, even considering the opportunity costs for land and labor. These gardens have proven to be highly diverse systems, with a wide variety of plants designed to provide a wide range of benefits. These systems that have withstood the tests of both time and changing demands may provide models for sustainable agriculture for smallholder farmers.
Subject: diversity, homegarden, socioeconomic
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 133 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0007640:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0007640/00001

Material Information

Title: An Assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic benefits provided by homegardens : a case study of Kerala, India
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Mohan, Soumya ( Dissertant )
Nair, Ramachandr P. K. ( Thesis advisor )
Alavalapati, Janaki ( Reviewer )
Buhr, Kenneth L. ( Reviewer )
Davies, Fred ( Reviewer )
Gibson, Heather ( Reviewer )
Long, Alan ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Copyright Date: 2004

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Forest Resources and Conservation
Spatial Coverage: India--Kerala

Notes

Abstract: Homegardens are intensive land-use systems involving the management of woody species grown in deliberate association with herbaceous species, with or without livestock, managed within the compounds of individual homes. These systems, which are found mainly in the tropics and subtropics, are of immense importance in the socioeconomic settings of local communities. This dissertation examined the benefits provided by these systems, both to the individual household and to the community, based on a case study in the state of Kerala, in southern India. The study of the economic benefits was a four-step process that started with listing the inputs and outputs that made up the annual financial cycle of these gardens. Then, a cost-benefit-analysis was conducted to estimate the net financial values for all the surveyed households. The next step was a sensitivity analysis of the risks posed by labor and market price fluctuations. The final step ascertained whether the homegardens were a better economic alternative for farmers than leasing or selling the land. The ecological analysis focused mainly on estimating the ecological diversity of these systems. The species compositions were found to be fairly similar across different size categories of homegardens. The homegardens were similar to natural forests in the region, in terms of species richness and species diversity. Although land size seemed to be the biggest constraint for profit generation, it did not affect species composition or species diversity. Species richness was found to cause a slightly negative effect on profit values. Medicinal plants were also very important in these systems and were found in all the surveyed gardens. Members of the household, including females, spent considerable amount of their time in tending the homegardens. Intensity of both profit generation and household labor input was highest in the smallest gardens. The economic decision-making power was equally invested in male and female heads of household. This study indicated that these agroforestry systems were economically profitable for the small-farm household, and were resilient to shifts in the prices of labor or commercial crops. Homegarden cultivation was estimated to be the better economic option for such landowners, even considering the opportunity costs for land and labor. These gardens have proven to be highly diverse systems, with a wide variety of plants designed to provide a wide range of benefits. These systems that have withstood the tests of both time and changing demands may provide models for sustainable agriculture for smallholder farmers.
Subject: diversity, homegarden, socioeconomic
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 133 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0007640:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS
PROVIDED BY HOMEGARDENS: A CASE STUDY OF KERALA, INDIA











By

SOUMYA MOHAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004


































Copyright 2004

By

Soumya Mohan















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I thank my advisor Dr. P.K.R. Nair, for his invaluable help and

guidance during my years at the University of Florida. Without his motivation, the past

four years would have been neither possible nor gratifying. Thanks go to my committee

members, Dr. Janaki Alavalapati, Dr. Ken Buhr, Dr. Fred Davies, Dr. Heather Gibson,

and Dr.Alan Long, who have made valuable contributions to this work. My colleagues

and lab mates, Eddie Ellis, Brian Becker, Solomon Haile, John Bellow, Andrea Albertin,

Robert Juanvestraut, Alyson Dagang, Robert Miller, Alain-Michel, Matthew Langholz,

and of course, Shruti Agrawal, are acknowledged for their support and help. I am

extremely grateful to the University of Florida and the Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences for the Alumni Fellowship, which made this PhD dissertation possible.

My fieldwork in India would not have been possible without the help of many

wonderful people. My field assistant, P. Radeesh, faithfully accompanied me to all my

study sites, and provided his help and support throughout the duration of fieldwork. On

an institutional level, Drs. B.M. Kumar, P. Indira, and Prasannakumari, of Kerala

Agricultural University, provided their expertise in plant and tree identification. Also,

thanks are due to P. Sankar, from Kerala Forest Research Institute, for his advice, and use

of the KFRI libraries. I am indebted to Marinela Capanu of IFAS stats for her help with

statistics, and to Drs. V. Uddameri and K. John, R. Stahel and R. Rodriguez, my

colleagues at Texas A&M University Kingsville, for their encouragement.









In Thrissur, I have to thank Jyothi Rajeevan and Mrs. Leela Nair for their continued

support, as well as their assistance in translation, and sharing their knowledge about

farming. Thanks also go to Manikandan Janardhanan who helped me with the day-to-day

activities connected to living in Thrissur. And lastly, I gratefully acknowledge the

farmers who graciously welcomed me into their homes and gardens, and spent their

valuable time assisting me with their knowledge and expertise, as well as answering my

questions.

Finally, these last four years would not have been possible without the continued

help and support from my parents and best friends, Usha and Sreeram Mohan, especially

during my dissertation writing stage. Thanks also go to my little brother Sabareesh Vinod

for his advice and company; and to my husband Michael Rasser, who never once doubted

my abilities, and who has consistently supported me throughout the most difficult stages

of graduate school.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................... ... ......... .... ... ..... .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ xi

ABSTRACT .............. ..................... .......... .............. xii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

T h e P rob lem ................................................ 2
O objectives ................. ...................................... .................3
Objective 1: Financial Analysis for a Typical Homegarden Year ........................3
O objective 2: Ecological A analysis ........................... ............ ................... 3
Objective 3: Discussion of Social and Cultural Components .............................4
H y p o th e se s .............................. ............................................................. ............... .. 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................5

General Description of Homegardens ............................ ......................
Livestock ................ .... .. ............................... ............ .. .6
Biopesticide Use in Hom gardens ....... ................... ................... ..... ................ 7
Ecology of Homegardens ............... ......... ................. ...... ............... 8
Benefits Commonly Attributed to Homegardens ....................................... .......... 10
Production Benefits from Trees...................................... ......................... 10
Nutrition and Food Availability ............... ... ........... ........................ ...............11
Improving the Role of Women in Agriculture ............................. ...............12
Aesthetics and Ornamentation...................... ..... ........................... 13
O th er B u sin e sse s ........................................................................................... 13
Medicinal Uses ............... ......... .......... ........ 14
Existing Studies ........... ........ .... ................... .. ........... .......... 15
N on-M market Benefits .................................. .. ... ........ ............ 17
Scope for Future R research ......... ................. ..................................... ............... 19





v









3 S T U D Y A R E A ................................................................................. ................ .. 2 1

L location of Stu dy A rea...................................................................... ...................2 1
K erala H om gardens ............................................................. .... ............. 24
Size Demographics of Homegardens Used in this Study ...............................26
History of Cultivation.............. .. ............. .............. ... ..... ..... 27

4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOMEGARDENS .................................... .........28

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 2 8
Economic M ethodology........................... ........................29
Opportunity Costs of Land and Household Labor ............................................30
Components of the Annual Financial Cycle of a Kerala Homegarden ..............31
A n a ly sis ........................................................................... 3 4
P relim in ary F ield R esu lts ........................................ .............................................3 5
Results.................. ... ............ ..... ... .... ... ......................... ........... 36
Economic Values of Homegardens and Annual Economic Profit ...................36
Intensity of Profit-Generation................................................. 37
Economic Importance of Homegarden Species ...............................................37
Sensitivity Analyses ................ ................................. .....38
What Factors Affect the Financial Value of Homegardens? ............. ..................39
T im b e r ......................................................................... 4 0
H household L abor ................. ........ .. .. .............. ............ ...............41
Gender Dynamics in Kerala Homegardens ............................... ................42
Economy ic A alternatives to H om gardens ........................................ .....................44
D iscu ssio n ....................................... ............................................... 4 6

5 ECOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF HOMEGARDENS............... ................ 50

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 5 0
M e th o d o lo g y ......................................................................................................... 5 2
Similarity am ong Homegardens .......................... ..................... ............... 53
D iv ersity ................................................................... 54
S p e cie s R ich n e ss ........................................................................................... 5 5
Species Density .......................................................55
Agroecological Im portance V values ........................................ ............... 55
Analysis and Results ................ .. .... ............................................ 56
Diversity, Species Richness and Density ..................................... ...... 56
Similarity among Homegardens ...................................... .......... 57
Agroecological Im portance Values .......................................... ............... 58
Species Inventory .................................................. ... ... .... ........ 59
Importance Values and Plant Selection............................................................ 63
Do Diversity and Species Richness Affect Homegarden Financial Value? ..............66
D discussion ................ ........................................ ...... ................. 67
Constraints of Using Proposed Methods in Homegardens..............................70
C o n clu sio n s ..................................................... .............. 7 1









6 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................. ............... 73

S y n th e sis ............................................................................................................... 7 3
H om garden D design ........................... ........ .. ...... ...............78

APPENDIX

A SURVEY ADMINISTERED TO SELECTED HOMEGARDENS ........................81

B ECONOMIC VALUES OF HOMEGARDEN OUTPUTS AND INPUTS ...............90

C PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT PLANT AND
LIVESTOCK CATEGORIES TO THE FINANCIAL PROFIT OF
H O M E G A R D E N S ........................................................................... .....................9 8

D MARGALEF INDICES OF SPECIES RICHNESS........................ ...............100

E SHANNON-WEINER INDEX OF DIVERSITY IN ANNUAL AND
PE R EN N IA L SPE C IE S................................................ ...................................... 103

F MEDICINAL PLANTS FOUND IN KERALA HOMEGARDENS, AND
THEIR USES AS DESCRIBED BY FARMERS .......................................... 107

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ........................................................................ ................... 109

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 120
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Biopesticides used in Kerala gardens, their uses and methods of preparation..........8

2-2 Selected homegarden literature according to different geographic locations ..........18

2-3 Potential non-market benefits from homegardens ............................................. 19

3-1 Land size categories of 75 surveyed homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala,
In d ia ............................................................................. 2 7

4-1 Components of the annual finances of a typical homegarden in steady state, in
Thrissur District, Kerala, India ............................................. ....... ........ 32

4-2 Frequency of occurrence of crops considered economically most important in
32 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India ............................................35

4-3 Mean financial value of homegardens for 2002-2003 (in Rupees), based on the
benefits and costs of 75 gardens surveyed in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.........36

4-4 Intensity of profit generation across different size categories of homegardens in
Thrissur District, Kerala, India ............................ ......... ....... ........ 37

4-5 Sensitivity analyses to ascertain the economic resilience of 75 homegardens of
Thrissur district, Kerala, India, to price fluctuations in labor and three
economically significant crops ............................ ........ ..................... 39

4-6 Land size (sq. m) and number of years in cultivation are predictors of
homegarden economic worth in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, as indicated
by m ultivariate regression analysis ............................................... ............... 40

4-7 Average number of timber species in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district,
K e ra la In d ia .................................................. ................ ................ 4 1

4-8 Household labor characteristics in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala,
In d ia ............................................................................. 4 2

4-9 Intensity of profit generation in female and male operated homegardens, based
on 75 homegardens from Thrissur District, Kerala, India.....................................43









4-10 Daily input of household labor by female and male family members into 75
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India. ................... ................... .......... 44

4-11 Comparison of an average small homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. .....................................45

4-12 Comparison of an average medium homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. .....................................45

4-13 Comparison of an average large homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. .....................................46

4-14 Comparison of an average commercial homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India. .....................................46

5-1 Ecological characteristics of 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India....57

5-2 Percentage of similarity of overall species richness and tree species richness
using Sorenson's index of similarity across four size categories of homegardens
in Thrissur District, Kerala, India ...................... ........... ............... 58

5-3 Agroecological Importance Values of homegarden species, based on frequency,
density and dominance patterns in 75 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala,
In d ia ............................................................................ .5 9

5-4 Herbaceous species that are of economic importance to the household, as
reported by respondents in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.......60

5-5 Tree and shrub species encountered in sampled homegardens, assessed as
economically important by respondents from 75 surveyed homegardens in
Thrissur district, K erala, India........................................... ........................... 61

5-6 Trees and shrubs of secondary economic utility, mainly for household uses, as
reported by respondents from 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala,
In d ia ...................................... ..................................... ................ 6 2

5-7 Herbaceous species reported to be of secondary economic importance by
respondents from 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala state, India ...........63

5-8 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 24 small homegardens
in Thrissur district, K erala, India ........................................ ......................... 64

5-9 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 14 medium
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India...................................................64

5-10 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 10 large homegardens
in Thrissur district, K erala, India. ........................................ ........................ 65









5-11 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 27 commercial
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.....................................................65

5-12 Land size, number of years in cultivation, and species richness as predictors of
homegarden economic worth in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, as
indicated by multivariate regression analysis................................ ............... 66

B-l Net financial value of 75 homegardens surveyed in Thrissur District, Kerala,
India. ................. ........ .... ................ ........................... 90

B-2 Economic values representing the finances of homegardens..............................92

B-3 Economic values of annual inputs into typical homegardens in steady state...........96

D-1 Margalef Indices of 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala,
In d ia ......................................................................... 1 0 1

E-l Shannon-Weiner Index Step -Wise calculation for Homegarden # X.................104

E-2 Shannon-Weiner Indices for 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur district,
K erala, India .......... .. ................................................................. 105

F-l Medicinal plants observed in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala,
India ... ............... ...... ... ................ ..........................................107
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

3-1 M ap of India highlighting the state of Kerala. .......................................................23

4-1 Contribution of three crop categories and extent of household use in total profit
generated by different size classes of homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala,
In d ia ............................................................................ .3 8

C-1 Percentage of contribution of categories to the total income earned from small
hom egardens..................... .... ......... ..... ...... ................ ..... .. ......... 98

C-2 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from medium
hom egardens..................... .... ......... ..... ...... ................ ..... .. ......... 98

C-3 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from large
hom egardens..................... .... ......... ..... ...... ................ ..... .. ......... 99

C-4 Contribution of different crops to the total income earned from commercial
hom egardens..................... .... ......... ..... ...... ................ ..... .. ......... 99















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS
PROVIDED BY HOMEGARDENS: A CASE STUDY OF KERALA, INDIA

By

Soumya Mohan

December 2004

Chair: P.K. Ramachandran Nair
Major Department: School of Forest Resources and Conservation

Homegardens are intensive land-use systems involving the management of woody

species grown in deliberate association with herbaceous species, with or without

livestock, managed within the compounds of individual homes. These systems, which are

found mainly in the tropics and subtropics, are of immense importance in the

socioeconomic settings of local communities. This dissertation examined the benefits

provided by these systems, both to the individual household and to the community, based

on a case study in the state of Kerala, in southern India.

The study of the economic benefits was a four-step process that started with listing

the inputs and outputs that made up the annual financial cycle of these gardens. Then, a

cost-benefit-analysis was conducted to estimate the net financial values for all the

surveyed households. The next step was a sensitivity analysis of the risks posed by labor

and market price fluctuations. The final step ascertained whether the homegardens were a

better economic alternative for farmers than leasing or selling the land.









The ecological analysis focused mainly on estimating the ecological diversity of

these systems. The species compositions were found to be fairly similar across different

size categories of homegardens. The homegardens were similar to natural forests in the

region, in terms of species richness and species diversity. Although land size seemed to

be the biggest constraint for profit generation, it did not affect species composition or

species diversity. Species richness was found to cause a slightly negative effect on profit

values. Medicinal plants were also very important in these systems and were found in all

the surveyed gardens. Members of the household, including females, spent considerable

amount of their time in tending the homegardens. Intensity of both profit generation and

household labor input was highest in the smallest gardens. The economic decision-

making power was equally invested in male and female heads of household.

This study indicated that these agroforestry systems were economically profitable

for the small-farm household, and were resilient to shifts in the prices of labor or

commercial crops. Homegarden cultivation was estimated to be the better economic

option for such landowners, even considering the opportunity costs for land and labor.

These gardens have proven to be highly diverse systems, with a wide variety of plants

designed to provide a wide range of benefits. These systems that have withstood the tests

of both time and changing demands may provide models for sustainable agriculture for

smallholder farmers.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Homegardens are unique agroforestry systems that are often described in detail, but

whose biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics have not been extensively studied.

These intensive land-use systems involving the deliberate management of multipurpose

trees and shrubs (the woody component) grown in intimate association with herbaceous

species (mainly annual, perennial, and seasonal agricultural crops), and livestock, are all

managed within the compounds of individual homes (Fernandes and Nair, 1986). They

are widespread throughout the tropics and are of immense importance in the

socioeconomic structure of the rural communities (Michon et al., 1983, Soemarwoto,

1987). They provide both economic and social benefits that are essential to the nutritional

welfare and security of the household. These gardens, with their diversified agricultural

crops and trees, fulfill the basic needs of the local population. In addition, the

multistoried arrangements of plants and relatively high species diversities prevent the

environmental degradation that is commonly associated with monocultures (Nair, 1993).

Thus these homegardens provide economical benefits while remaining ecologically

sound and biologically sustainable.

Homegardens are of vital importance to the mainly subsistence-level existence of

farmers in the tropics (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986; Swift and Anderson, 1993; High and

Shackleton, 2000; Mendez et al., 2001). Many of the benefits provided to farmers by

these gardens are unknown for lack of quantification of the products used by the

household.









The Problem

Although homegardens have been extensively described, there is a lack of

quantitative data about their benefits. The main reason that they have not been studied is

that rigorous, widely applicable methodologies are not available, and those that have been

developed for single-species systems are not applicable to such complex systems (Nair,

2001). There is a need to conduct both economic and ecological analyses of these

systems so as to understand the potential benefits and identify potential risks associated

with homegarden cultivation. Furthermore, traditional monoculture patterns degrade the

soil fertility, necessitating the use of more and more fertilizers to maintain crop

productivity (Swift and Anderson, 1993). Monoculture also increases pest and weed

problems. Studies that focus on the biophysical aspects of these multi layered and multi

functional systems might provide management help to households tempted to convert

their homegardens into commercial enterprises, which may yield immediate economic

benefit but ultimately may result in reduced soil fertility and productivity.

Many studies have documented homegarden species (Ninez, 1987; Soemarwoto

and Conway, 1992; Drescher, 1996; and others), however, there needs to be an inventory

of the products that are realized from and the costs that are input into these systems.

Socioeconomic and cultural factors that influence homegardens also need to be properly

documented. Many of these homegardens follow indigenous agricultural practices that

are logical and rational, and have been followed for centuries. Loss of this traditional

knowledge would be disastrous to the culture that defined the evolution of Kerala farmers

and their knowledge of the land. The non-market benefits potentially provided by these

systems, such as biodiversity, carbon sequestration, aesthetics and ornamentation,

wildlife habitat provision, are likely to be very valuable to the subsistence farmers of the









tropics, but no quantified data are available to support this assumption. These benefits

need to be considered when formulating any new government policy regarding

agriculture in the tropics.

Broad-based analyses of the socioeconomic, cultural, and ecological aspects

involved in homegarden design and cultivation are necessary, so that these systems, and

their contribution to life in the tropics, can be viewed in their entirety not just as a sum

of its parts. Unless these multifaceted elements are considered together, the true role of

these systems as contributors to sustainable agriculture cannot be realized.

Objectives

Objective 1: Financial Analysis for a Typical Homegarden Year

* Determine all market costs and benefits associated with the homegardens, and
evaluate the financial values of homegardens.

* Assess the effect of variables such as land size, labor, age of homegarden, or
gender, on the profitability of homegardens.

* Conduct sensitivity analyses associated with the cultivation of these gardens in
terms of price increases in market outputs, and labor.

* Compare economic utility of the land to other potential alternatives.

Objective 2: Ecological Analysis

* Categorize observed species according to their various uses in the household.

* Calculate diversity indices for all sampled gardens, both in terms of species
richness and evenness.

* Examine the planting patterns in gardens, and compare across different land size
categories, and examine the role of medicinal plants.

* Estimate agroecological importance values of the primary species associated with
the homegardens.









Objective 3: Discussion of Social and Cultural Components

* Examine the role of women in homegarden design and decision-making

* Assess the level of use and knowledge of commonly used fertilizers

* Examine the role of religion, medicinal plants, and conservation of indigenous
knowledge.

Hypotheses

This study is based on the overall hypothesis that homegardens provide economic

benefits and help maintain cultural requirements, while at the same time contributing to

or maintaining the ecological diversity of the region. Specifically, it is hypothesized that

a typical homegarden is resilient to economic fluctuations, provides intangible benefits to

the farmer in addition to the economic benefits, and enables the farmer to generate a

satisfactory level of financial profit. Furthermore, homegardens are ecologically

sustainable, and the agroecology of the gardens and the economic and social needs of the

household are inextricably linked.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

General Description of Homegardens

Homegardens are intensively cultivated agroforestry systems managed within the

compounds of individual homes. They involve the deliberate management of

multipurpose trees and shrubs (the woody component), grown in intimate association

with herbaceous species (mainly annual, perennial, and seasonal agricultural crops), and

livestock (Femandes and Nair, 1986). Torquebiau (2000) further classifies them as

agroforestry homegardens in order to avoid possible confusion with domestic vegetable

gardens. Nair (1993) mentions Pekarangan gardens of Indonesia, the Chigga gardens in

Tanzania, and the Huertos Familiares as excellent examples of these systems.

Many gardens are associated with outlying fields where shade-intolerant, staple

food crops such as rice (Oryza sativa) and maize (Zea mays), are grown. Fernandes and

Nair (1986) also defined two other types of tree gardens as plots immediately adjacent to

the garden but with fewer trees and more staple food crops, and complex agroforests,

which are plots further away in surrounding forests and consisting mainly of tree crops

such as palms, rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), resin, and nut trees. These complex

agroforests, also called village forest gardens, are structurally similar to homegardens but

they are less diverse and usually oriented toward timber or other forms of cash production

such as non-timber forest products. Furthermore, these village gardens are usually on

commonly owned land, while homegardens are on private property.









Homegardens, with their diversified agricultural crops and trees, are of vital

importance to the subsistence economy of many areas in the tropics (e.g. Nair, 1993;

High and Shackleton, 2000). Human population density is usually high in these areas, and

the average size of landholding is less than one hectare. The most conspicuous

characteristics of all homegardens are their layered canopy arrangements and admixture

of compatible species, with each component occupying a specific place and function

(Nair, 1993). Most homestead systems consist of an herbaceous layer near the ground and

a tree layer at higher levels. The herbaceous layer can be partitioned into two, with the

lower layer consisting of vegetable and medicinal plants; and the upper layer composed

of food plants such as cassava (Manihot esculenta), papaya (Caricapapaya), banana

(Musa spp.), yam (Dioscorea esculenta), and other vegetables and tubers. The tree layer

usually has two levels as well, with the lower tree level consisting of medium-sized trees

(10 to 20 m high) and fully-grown timber and fruit trees occupying the uppermost layer

(more than 25 m high). Fruit trees, some of which could continue vertical development,

could occupy an intermediate layer (3 to 10 m high).

Livestock

Livestock contribute significantly to the household income of small-scale

homegardens in many developing countries, while fulfilling many social and cultural

needs (Wilson, 1995). In some of the very small gardens, where land is a constraint to

production, livestock are sometimes the main income generators, serving as cash buffers

and capital reserves (Devendra and Thomas, 2002) and also contributing to the nutrient

cycling in the system (Thorne and Tanner, 2002). Livestock also offer opportunities for

milk and meat-processing ventures, thus increasing employment especially in rural areas.

They can be used to control weeds in perennial tree crop systems, and to control insect









pests. Integration of animals with cropping systems provides means to sustainably

intensify agricultural production and contribute to the nutrient cycling in the system. For

example, 80% of the N supplies to the soil are made via the manure-compost pathway

(Pilbeam et al., 2000). A study of banana-based homegardens (kibanja) in Bukoba district

in Tanzania showed that nutrient balances were negative for homegardens without cattle

(Baijikya and Piters, 1998). The relatively good banana production in those gardens

without cattle, and owned by resource-poor farmers might be explained by the fact that

some farmers find other nutrient-saving solutions by keeping small ruminants like goats

and sheep, while others make compost heaps and recycle crop residues. Livestock also

promote the adoption of adaptive management techniques. In Burkina Faso, farmers

employ traditional practices such as live hedges to protect their homegardens from

animals (Ayuk, 1997). These live hedges also provide additional sources of income such

as food and timber.

Biopesticide Use in Homegardens

Biopesticides are now commonly used in many parts of the developing world.

These techniques involve using natural methods such as biopesticides and natural

predators to control pests and diseases. Some of the methods used in the surveyed

gardens are shown in Table 2.1. The methods of preparation are from the Kerala

Agricultural University, Technical Bulletin-13 (1998). While assessing homegarden

benefits, it is important to understand the various methods used by the farmers to reduce

costs and improve production. The various processes that underline the farmer's

decisions to use a particular type of pesticide should also be understood. In Kerala, these

information levels are very high among the farmers. Although the preparation methods









can be obtained from the local agricultural offices, the farmers mainly utilize the

information as passed through generations of farmers in the family.

Table 2-1 Biopesticides used in Kerala gardens, their uses and methods of preparation.
Biopesticide Method of preparation Uses
Tobacco solution 100g tobacco wastes Controls aphids and other
steeped in 1 liter of water vegetable crop pests
for 24 hours. Filter tobacco
solution, and add to 24g of
bar soap dissolved in water
(KAU, 1998)
Neem cake (veppu pinakku) Grind neem kernels into Repellant against locusts,
or neem kernel suspension coarse powder. Dip cloth grasshoppers, and other
bag with Ig of powder in 1 chewing insects.
liter of water, for 12 hours.
Bar soap solution or fish oil Dissolve bar soap in hot Bar soap solution can be
soap water. used against aphids, and
fish oil soap is effective
against plant lice
Neem oil (veppu enna) Oil obtained from the Serves as anti-feedant,
leaves, and kernels, when sprayed on vegetables
Bordeaux mixture Dissolve 10g of powdered
(Broad-spectrum fungicide) copper sulfate in 500 ml of Broad spectrum fungicide
water. Pour mixture in milk
of lime solution
Methods of preparation are from Kerala Agricultural University Technical Bulletin 13
'Nutrition Garden' and uses are from Bulletin 13 and from farmer responses. Local
names are in italics.

Ecology of Homegardens

Personal preferences, socioeconomic status and culture seem to be the main

determinants of the appearance, function, and structure of homegardens (Christanty,

1990). The rural gardens usually have more layers of plant canopy and thus are more

complex than the urban gardens. The crops and trees planted in a homegarden are

carefully arranged to provide for specific functions and benefits, which are primarily

economic in nature. But the difference between typical agricultural systems and

homegardens is that these gardens also enable continuance of various essential ecological









processes that occur in natural tropical forest ecosystems, such as regeneration and

conservation of soil, nutrient and water cycling (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986).

Studies dealing with the biophysical aspects of homegardens are still limited

although the urgency of this need is beginning to come through. Although these systems

are touted as sustainable and close to natural forest systems in function and processes

(Torquebiau, 1992; Jose and Shanmugaratnam, 1993; Ewel, 1999), the quantitative

evidence to substantiate these claims is still inadequate. There have been many studies

that describe the homegardens with detailed plant inventories, descriptions, and planting

patterns (Table 2-2). Many recent studies have attempted to measure the floristic

composition of homegardens (e.g. Leuschner and Khaleque, 1987; Karyono, 1990;

Esquivel and Hammer, 1992; Moreno-Black, 1996; Mendez et al., 2001; Wezel and

Bender, 2003). The main problem with these studies is that, although they provide an

excellent resource for researchers and scientists, they do not follow a uniform pattern of

analysis. Furthermore, methodology and data collection practices also vary widely across

studies. Methods of estimating ecological diversity indices and basic statistical sampling

methods as discussed in forest vegetation studies (eg. Krebs, 1985; Margurran, 1988;

Reed and Mroz, 1997) can also be utilized for homegarden studies and some researchers

have used this ecological approach to estimating homegarden plant diversities (Kumar et

al., 1994; Drescher, 1996; Vogl et al., 2002; Wezel and Bender, 2003). These studies do

not follow a uniform pattern of study, and use different indices, however, they are one

step ahead in accurately classifying and studying the diversity of these systems. For

example, Kumar et al. (1994) used Simpson's diversity index in homegardens in Kerala









state, India, and concluded that floristic diversity decreased with increasing garden sizes.

Drescher (1996) used the Shannon-Weiner index to reach similar conclusions.

Benefits Commonly Attributed to Homegardens

Production Benefits from Trees

Homegardens tend to have some tree output that can be used for long-term

production and sale for profit. Palms are traditionally of significant importance in small

farm management as sources of edible fruits, oil, green vegetables, fiber, thatch,

construction wood, fuel wood and other useful products (Johnson, 1988), and are often

found in Kerala homegardens. These plants, especially the coconut palm (Cocos

nucifera), whose growth and planting patterns enable successful growing of other crops

in between or under them (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986), the date palm (Phoenix

dactilifera), and the areca palm (Areca catechu), can be grown with annual or perennial

crops and thus can be effectively utilized in homegarden systems, and provide a source of

market income. Kerala is known for many varieties of palm trees (Renuka, 1999) and

therefore, palms are of special importance in any homegarden study in Kerala.

Trees incorporated into agricultural systems have been found to yield greater

payoffs than continuous agricultural monocropping (Leakey and Tomich, 1999), which

might explain the results of a study conducted in the floodplains of the Peruvian Amazon

(de Jong 2001), which found that farmers choose to include trees in their plantain,

cassava-corn homegarden systems because the value of the tree products offsets the

decreased yield of the annual or short cyclic crop. Similarly, tree crops retained for their

timber value are often highly valued in many parts of South and Southeast Asia. Fruit

cropping is an attractive option to some highland villagers. Fruit systems are able to









provide valuable market benefits and services, of which some have significant economic

objectives (Withrow-Robinson et al., 1999).

Other high-value tree products are also capable of producing significant export

earnings for farmers, for example, teak wood (Tectona grandis) in Asia is a very highly

priced wood traditionally used for furniture and construction. Products from Cinderella

species (trees whose products are traditionally non-timber) such as neem (Azadirachta

indica) and other agroforestry tree species can also be used as a source of income for the

household (Leakey, 1999). These trees are retained as standing stock of wood, along with

the herbaceous crops, and are looked on as an asset by the farmer, to be utilized for a

variety of reasons including medicinal reasons, gums, resins, and green manure.

Nutrition and Food Availability

Nutrition and food supply are major aspects of homegardens. Food crops are not

only widely prevalent (Caron, 1995; Mendez et al., 2001; Vogl et al., 2002), but they also

provide a significant portion of the household nutritional requirement in many

homegardens around the world. Any failure to provide such sustenance probably arises

from ineffective setup, design and implementation of these systems (Immink, 1990). If

the homegardens are large enough to plant a sufficient number of tubers or cereals, they

can also provide the household's basic food supply. For example, Cuban homegardens

are significant as food suppliers, especially because of low-paid alternate employment

and minimal food provisions by the government (Wezel and Bender, 2003).

Along with the nutritional benefits, homegardens provide potential food security to

the householder. Since the diverse mixture of crops is harvested at different times, a

constant supply of food in some form or the other is available from these homegardens, at

all times of the year. Rural farmers continue to rely on their homegardens to enhance









household food security against the risks presented by monocropping systems (Jose and

Shanmugaratnam, 1993).

Improving the Role of Women in Agriculture

These gardens contain possibilities of increasing family participation in the

production and contribution toward family well-being. Okigbo (1990) attributed the

development of the homegarden as a regular feature of the traditional farming system in

parts of tropical Africa, in part to the division of labor between the sexes. Women

traditionally cooked soups and sauces, and needed the continuous availability of the

condiment plants, spices and vegetables grown in the homegardens. In another study

conducted in Thailand, homegardens managed primarily by women were among a series

of resource areas that were efficiently utilized (Moreno-Black et al., 1996). These

women' gardening practices created intensive interaction between the physical and

social environment and they were increasing their management and manipulation of non-

domesticated resources. They were the principal land-owners and were heavily involved

in economic activity, especially in the marketing of fruits, vegetables and cooked foods.

The women who developed and maintained these systems used gardening as a way to

express their autonomy and worth within the village setting.

Some studies on the role of family members in homestead agriculture pointed to

women being the main participants in homegardens. An analysis of land use in Pananao,

in the Dominican Republic showed that women were responsible for providing

homegarden products to the household, for working in the gardens, and for controlling

the resources and processes of the gardens (Rocheleau, 1987). Similarly, the Chitemene

system in northeast Zambia showed that women's homegardens were increasingly

important sources of both food and cash. In a study conducted in the homegardens of









Lusaka, Zambia (Drescher, 1996), it was found that women tended to have higher species

diversity in their homegardens than men, and utilized different strategies to improve soil

fertility in semi urban, and rural areas. Studies examining the effect of gender in

agriculture are increasingly being conducted (Ramamurthy, 2000, Raynolds, 2002), but

research documenting the effect of homegarden farming on gender relations in tropical

agriculture remains limited.

Aesthetics and Ornamentation

The homegarden is often a haven for the family members of rural communities to

relax and gather together after a hard day's work. They are often focal community

meeting points. The gardens sometimes have a variety of flowers and other ornamental

decorations. Some villages use these homegardens as a way to gain recognition for the

village as a whole (Moreno-Black et al., 1996). The villagers are proud of the way their

gardening contributes to the beauty of the village. In several tropical cultures, these

ornamental flowers and some other selected plants are used for ritualistic and cultural

reasons.

Other Businesses

Homegardens often allow for the setup of small cottage industries that provide an

additional source of income to the household. For example, the traditional art of pickling

mangos and other fruits is a lucrative cottage industry. Another potential cottage industry

involves using non-food materials from the garden, such as coconut fiber (coir), which

has traditionally been used in the production of mats, ropes and other products, and can

be sold to local markets.










Medicinal Uses

Homegardens can be used to grow certain traditional herbs and spices. Traditional

medicine and medical properties of plants are fields that are currently generating much

interest among researchers. Plant based medicinal systems, although in practice for

thousands of years, are now coming to the forefront and attempts are being made to

recognize their medicinal properties (for example, see Scartezzini and Speroni, 2000; On

et al., 2001).

The traditional Indian system of medicine, Ayurveda, utilizes no artificial

chemicals, and instead relies on the medicinal properties of herbs and other plants. The

first congress on Ayurveda was held in 2001, in Kochi, India, and was attended by

scholars and doctors from India and around the world. The Congress, organized by the

Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, along with the Swadesi Science

Movement, was conceived as a platform on which to establish Ayurveda in the global

arena. Homegardens, especially in the more rural areas, are reservoirs of species that can

be used for many medical purposes. Many regional and local publications are available,

which expound the virtues of these plants (for example, Balakrishnan, 1994; Tajuddin et

al. 1996; Abraham, 2001; Nedumancheri, 2002), and the farmers are also cognizant

enough of these benefits that they retain specific medicinal plants to realize certain

desired benefits. 1



1 Personal communication:

Abraham, C. 2001. Karshika naatarivukal (Malayalam). Avanti Publications. Kerala, India.

Balakrishnan, V.V. 1994. Chedikalum Avayude Oushadhagunangalum. (Malayalam)DC Books. Kerala, India

Nedumancheri, S. 2002. Veettumuttathe Aushadhachedikal (Malayalam). Sincere Publications. Kerala, India









Existing Studies

Many existing studies provide detailed descriptions and specific analyses of

homegardens. Brownrigg (1985), in her annotated bibliography, lists several hundred

references. Each geographic region exhibits certain unique characteristics that influence

the structure and function of its gardens. Variations exist even within similar geographic

areas, as a result of conditions that are both socio-economic and naturally created. More

recently, Kumar and Nair (2004) have published an excellent review of the state of

homegarden literature and the scientific progress that has been made in the past decades

of study. They conclude that homegardens fulfil economic, social, and cultural needs and

provide biological conservation and carbon sequestration benefits, yet their virtues are

not recognized in measured quantities.

In an assessment of four types of homegardens representing four eras in the Chao

Praya Basin in Thailand, Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) studied the ecological rationalities

behind the harmony among humans, homegardens, and the environment. They found that

a species' utility was the main reason for its selection in the homegarden. The farmers

had various practices chosen due to factors such as plant species, the system, and the

environment. These gardens offered the possibility of highly efficient use of space, light,

water and nutrients. The practice of never completely harvesting these gardens meant

minimal nutrient export; and high amounts and biodiversity of litter biomass contributed

to the high efficiency of nutrient cycling. Padoch and de Jong (1991), in their study of 21

gardens in the sparsely populated Peruvian Amazon, also describe great variability and

species diversity in size and composition. Their research also indicated several uses for









homegarden species, including food, medicine, and ornamentals. Mendez et al. (2001)

also observed similar uses for homegarden species in Nicaragua. Homegardens have also

been observed to provide important avenues for the production of environmentally

sustainable types of fruits and vegetables even in urban areas, and to enhance the

nutrition of the urban poor in South America (Madaleno, 2000).

Sri Lanka also offers wide possibilities for homegarden research, being home to the

famous Kandy gardens. These gardens, located in the Kandy district of Sri Lanka,

combine intensely managed mixtures of agriculture, forestry, and livestock, and are

usually small, following the rule, "smaller the farm, the more intense the cultivation"

(Ranasinghe, 1995). In the hill agroecosystems of Nepal, the characteristic features of the

gardens are their organic bases (Semwal and Maikhuri, 1996), with farmyard manure as

the primary input. Much has been written about the Javanese homegardens, which are

famous for their multilayer arrangements, set in areas with extremely high population

densities (Michon et al., 1983; Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992). These gardens, cared

for primarily by women, are storehouses of genetic diversity, with several species only

partly domesticated (Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992).

African homegardens have also been widely described. Okafor and Fernandes

(1987) write that a large number of potentially valuable species are being lost in southern

Nigeria because of the high rate of forest clearing. This loss further enhances the value of

compound farms as priceless germplasm banks of traditionally important multipurpose

tree species. The famous Chagga homegardens of Tanzania (Fernandes et al., 1984) and

the gardens of Lusaka in Gambia (Drescher, 1996) provide subsistence income to the

householders, while also providing some liquid income.









Homegardens, although mainly tropical in nature, have also been found in the

temperate zone. A brief review of the agroforestry systems in present day United

Kingdom presented a modern example of a forest garden including fruit trees and bushes,

medicinal herbs, and vegetables (Carruthers, 1996).

Non-Market Benefits

Homegarden owners attribute high values to homegardens for their social, aesthetic

and habitat functions, rather than just as a place for growing subsistence and/or cash

crops (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986). Many studies have attempted to value and provide

methodologies of valuation for non-market benefits, ranging from the seminal work by

Peters et al. (1989) to a very recent publication (Alavalapati and Mercer, 2004) that

provides coverage of applied economic and policy analysis techniques for agroforestry

professionals. Research that actually implements the theories relating to valuation of non-

economic benefits of agroforestry is still limited. Some studies have attempted to value

environmental benefits such as soil conservation (Ehui et al., 1990) and nitrogen fixing

(Stone et al., 1993); to develop approaches to valuing carbon fluxes (Cline, 1992); to

value wildlife conservation using analysis of travel costs (Benson, 1994); and most

recently to use the contingent valuation method (CVM) to value non-tangible resources

(Mitchell and Carson, 1989). Price (1995) also attributes Hedonic pricing, which values

environmental, social, locational and structural attributes of countryside activities, and

Recreational agroforestry as potential methods that can be used. But these methods are all

prone to problems with interpretation of results, and problems with realizing real and

tangible values from study participants.

Table 2-3 provides some of the available literature on the non-market benefits of

homegardens. Some of these benefits such as soil conservation and nutritional security









are extremely difficult to quantify, considering these are multi-use systems, and therefore

the entire homegarden and its structure and function cannot be considered as uniform

across the garden area.

Table 2-2 Selected homegarden literature according to different geographic locations
Homegarden literature by geographic area References
Africa Baijukya and Piters (1998), Fernandes et
al. (1984), Okafor and Fernandes (1987),
High and Shackleton (2000), Ayuk (1997),
Fernandes et al., (1984), Rugalema et al.
(1993&1995), Okigbo (1990), Abdoellah
(1990), Drescher (1996)


East and South east Asia


South Asia


Mexico, Central America, and South
America


Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999), Jensen
(1993), Soemarwoto and Conway (1992),
Christanty (1990), Wiersum (1982),
Lawrence (1996), Vasey (1985), Dove
(1994), Salafsky (1995), Moreno-Black et
al. (1996), Michon and Mary (1994),
Withrow-Robinson et al. (1999), Jacob and
Alles (1987), Michon (1983), Michon et al.
(1983), Kaya et al. (2002)

Ranasinghe (1995), Caron (1995), Nair and
Sreedharan (1986), Dash and Misra (2001),
Leuschner and Khaleque (1987), Millat-e-
Mustafa et al. (1996), Nair and Sreedharan
(1986), Jose and Shanmugaratnam (1993),
Semwal and Maikhuri (1996),
Chandrashekhara (1996), Mammen et al.
(1993), Salam et al. (2000), Shanavas and
Kumar (2002), Neupane and Thapa, 2001.

Esquivel and Hammer (1992), Mendez et
al. (2001), Padoch and de Jong (1991),
Wezel and Bender (2003), Benjamin et al.
(2001), De Jong (2001), McGrath (1998),
Madaleno (2000), Brierly (1985), De
Clerck and Negreros-Castillo (2000),
Budowski (1990), Smith (1996), Muniz-
Miret et al. (1996), Schulz et al. (1994),
Rocheleau (1987), Pinton (1985), Posey
(1985), Rico-Gray et al. (1991).









Table 2-3 Potential non-market benefits from homegardens
Benefits Description Key References


Nutrition


Ornamentation and
Aesthetics



Soil Conservation/
Preservation


Food Security and
Nutrition






Self Sustenance




Family
Participation and
Empowerment of
women in
agriculture


A significant portion of family's
nutritional requirements met from
homegardens.

Provision of some ornamental
benefits. Oasis of beauty and
relaxation in the midst of the travails
of everyday life, therefore providing
leisure. Improves quality of life
The mixture of herbaceous species
and woody species helps in the
conservation of soil and provides
essential nutrients.
Average of five annual crop species
in each homegarden. These crops are
staggered so that something is
available for harvest throughout the
year. The constant supply of food,
harvested continuously throughout
the year provides a sense of security
to the family.
Perception of achievement arising
from the knowledge that the family's
sustenance is and can be provided by
the fruits of the one's own labor and
grown in the backyard.
Home gardens allow for all family
members to be involved in some
form or other. It allows for greater
participation by the female members,
thereby perhaps increasing their
feelings of self worth


Immink (1990), Caron
(1995); Mendez et al.
(2001); Vogl et al. (2002),
Wezel and Bender (2003).
Christanty (1990), Moreno-
Black (1996)



Fernandes and Nair (1986)



Christanty et al. (1986),
Karyono, (1990),
Torquebiau (1992), Jose
and Shanmugaratnam
(1993), Gajaseni and
Gajaseni (1999).








Moreno-Black (1996)


Scope for Future Research

In a study conducted on the traditional agroecosystems of Thrissur, India, to

investigate the long-term effects on various soil properties using adjacent forests as a

standard for comparisons, it was found that crop-species composition and richness had

long-term positive impacts on soil carbon stocks, thus implying their importance in soil









fertility management and carbon sequestration (Russell, 2002). Since the importance of

tree species and their role in biodiversity and carbon sequestration is understood (Delaney

and Roshetko, 1999; Nelson and de Jong, 2003; Montagnini and Nair, 2004), the role of

homegardens in carbon sequestration provides scope for further research.

Homegardens have long been considered a scientific mystery. These systems have

prevailed with intensive cultivation for hundreds of years, yet the production remains

consistent. These gardens, not only provide economic benefits to the householder, but

also cultural and social benefits. Furthermore, the biophysical aspects of homegardens

such as soil conservation effects and potential for carbon sequestration are ecological

benefits to both the farmer and to the community. It is important to understand the

rationale behind the synchronicity of all these three factors economic, ecological and

social that allow for the consistent functioning of these systems.














CHAPTER 3
STUDY AREA

Location of Study Area

This study was conducted in the state of Kerala, in southern India (Fig. 3-1).

Kerala state covers an area of 38, 863 sq. km, which comprises a mere 1.18% of the area

of the country as a whole. The state is densely populated (31,838,619 people as of March

1, 2001), with a population density of 819 people per sq. km (Government of India

census, 2001). Forested land covers 10,292 sq. km, including 1887 sq. km of private

forests (Forest Survey of India, 1993). The forests in Kerala are classified as southern

tropical wet evergreen and semi evergreen, southern tropical moist deciduous, southern

tropical dry deciduous, montane sub tropical, and forest plantations. The coast runs 580

km, bounded by the Arabian Sea to the west. The soils of Kerala state can be broadly

classified as Oxisols (50%), Inceptisols (25%), Entisols (20%), and Alfisols (5%) (Nair

and Sreedharan, 1986).

Nearly 50% of the state's population depends upon agriculture as their means of

livelihood (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2000-2001), and agriculture

contributes 21.38% to the state income. According to the Government of India census

(2001), Kerala possesses a per capital land area of 0.13 ha, and the per capital cultivated

land, including paddy fields and plantation crops, is 0.10 ha. As of 1995-1996, 332,483

individual landholdings were found to be less than 1.0 ha in size, and were classified as

marginal landholdings. However, it is not clear whether homegardens are included in this

calculation because this land, especially those plots of land that are small in size, are









considered more residential areas rather than agricultural land. The homegardens sampled

in this study were all within the government of Kerala category of marginal landholdings,

and were an average of 0.34 ha not including the actual residential building.

Kerala is divided into fourteen districts, of which the district of Thrissur was

randomly selected as the study site. Thrissur, commonly called the cultural capital of

Kerala, is a major tourist attraction and is a district with a fairly even distribution of rural

and urban centers. Thrissur district is bounded by Malappuram district in the north,

Palakkad district to the east, and Ernakulam district to the south. It lies between 10 0'

and 100 47' north latitudes, and 750 55' and 76 54' east longitudes.

Thrissur experiences a tropical climate, with plentiful summer monsoons. The dry

season ranges from February to May, and the Southwest monsoons follow, from June to

September. The months of October and November experience the effects of the retreating

monsoon, and this is an important time for rice-paddy farming. The rains cease by the

end of December. The normal average annual rainfall of Kerala state is 3107.5 mm, and

that of Thrissur district is 3262.0 mm (Government of Kerala, Statistics for Planning,

2002).

Kerala is a unique land with a unique history. It is the only state in India with a sex

ratio of 1.058 females to 1.0 male, as opposed to a national figure of 0.936 females to 1.0

male. Kerala also has the highest literacy rate in the country, with over 94%, as opposed

to the national average of 65 %. Kerala culture and history follow unique patterns, with

several communities following a matrilineal society (Trautmann, 1995). Kerala also has

relatively high (more than 20% of population) percentages of Christian and Moslem











populations, along with the majority Hindu populace. The only existing Jewish


population (under 100 people) in India and Asia belongs to Kerala.


LA'


India
- IrfilTbE'ri KB T i ...' i CxPmu
-- Sk l eh ikrtwr ----
NUUr iuianum No- It"lnl
Sli caunimuaiingta ohi



f ttwdr in. _f mim w
.IF l.. *1".- I' W swap NWA
4~Q Nut2H


S rab r1
So.


peal


LA~hA3ALt~


LW La


Frcna~


- -I.-


6ay
G1" ?


Oonuga


rNOiANJ OCE4AU


-r."



WN 0
IysflCiI Ma
Wr~U*qWWP~


Figure 3-1 Map of India highlighting the state of Kerala. Reprinted with
permission from the Perry Castaneda Library Map Collection University of
Texas Online Map Library


nSal
r


n qs SE *
I~


fi* rIr i V.


Wb JP


7- '


1A.0









Kerala Homegardens

Homegardens are a very common feature of Kerala's landscape. They are not only

a necessary feature to provide household subsistence, but also an ecological necessity.

Kerala being a region experiencing heavy monsoon rains, it might be advantageous to

have dense vegetation surrounding the cultivated areas in order to reduce soil erosion and

better absorb excess rain water. Although the rise of cash crop monocultures such as

rubber plantations (Hevea brasiliensis) has threatened the continuity and persistence of

the homegardens, the small and marginal farmers of Kerala continue to rely on their

gardens for household subsistence.

All the homegardens in the study followed a multilayered canopy arrangement. In

those gardens where the tree canopy has not already developed, the farmers deliberately

followed a planting arrangement so as to eventually allow for such a multilayer

arrangement. The canopy structure generally followed the descriptions as set forth by

Nair (1993) and Jose and Shanmugaratnam (1993). All gardens had at least three levels

of canopy. The first layer consisted of plants under 2 m height, such as vegetables, tuber

crops, grasses, medicinal plants, and ornamentals, some of which were planted in pots.

The second layer consisted of herbaceous crops such as bananas, shrubs such as papaya

and trees such as short varieties of arecanut palms, mango (Mangifera indica), and cacao

(Theobroma cacao), between 2 and 10 m in height. The uppermost layer constituted trees

over 10 m in height, such as coconut palms, jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus),

breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis), and rubber.

Some of the food crops commonly produced are vegetables such as okra

(Abelmoschus esculentus ), chillies (Capsicum spp.), spinach (Amaranthus spp.), and

beans, and tuber crops such as cassava, sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), yams, and









arrowroots (Maranta arundinacea). Along with the food crops produced by the annual

and perennial species, the woody species provide fruits, nuts or other forms of food.

Some of these crop products can be used for cash purposes, for example, coconut,

banana, cacao, cashew (Anacardium occidentale), and spices such as cardamom

(Elettaria cardamomum), cloves (Syzygium aromaticum), vanilla (Vanilla planifolia) and

nutmeg (Myristicafragrans). Mangrove species such as Acanthus illicifolius, Carbera

odollam, and Rhizophora conjugata are common in the homegardens of backwater areas

ofKerala (Tejwani, 1987).

When plantation crops such as cacao, coconut, coffee (Coffea spp.), and black

pepper (Piper nigrum) form dominant components of a homegarden system, they are

often referred to as plantation-crop combinations (Nair, 1993). But the differences

between the subsistence homegarden and the plantation-crop system are unclear, and if

any differences do exist, they are mainly socioeconomic. Equally important are pulses

such as cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), black gram (Vigna mungo), and others, which

provide a protein supplement to the human diet (Nair and Sreedharan, 1986).

Livestock rearing is also undertaken in most of these gardens. The animals are

maintained for milk, meat, eggs and other dairy products. Cattle and poultry were the

most commonly found animals in these homegardens. However, other lucrative livestock

ventures included raising pigs, ducks, fish, and goats. Some homegardens also practiced

sericulture (raising silkworms for silk production), and apiculture (raising and

maintaining bees for the production of honey). A few of the gardens raised ornamental

fish, such as varieties of angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) and goldfish (Carassius

auratus).









Family labor is utilized for management of these systems. All members of the

house participate in the day to day working of the homegardens to varying degrees. Both

male and female members of the household participate in both the labor and in the

economic decision making processes. Hired laborers are employed according to need.

Labor is an increasingly expensive commodity in Kerala, and daily wage for male

laborers can be as high as Rs. 200/day (approximately $4) in urban areas. Labor is hired

mainly for skilled tasks such as coconut harvesting.

Organic waste material from the household, and animal manure, are often the only

sources of nutrients added to the homegardens. In the trend toward modernization,

several gardens are now reporting increased use of chemical fertilizers especially for cash

crops such as bananas and rubber. The total fertilizer consumption for the state of Kerala

for 1999-2000 was 211,632 tons, of which N fertilizer comprised 87,061 tons, P (in the

form of P205) comprised 43,975 tons, and K (in the form of potash, K20) comprised

80,326 tons (Kerala Department of Agriculture, 1999-2000). Fertilizer use varies greatly

depending on a number of factors including cropping systems, soil types, and

socioeconomic conditions. The local government agricultural agencies provide subsidies

(50% reduction) on fertilizer purchases for those farmers who own a minimum area of

land (currently at approximately 0.2 hectares).

Size Demographics of Homegardens Used in this Study

The homegardens selected for this study were all less than 1.0 ha in size, which is

classified as 'marginal' landholding by the government of Kerala. Most of the farmers

surveyed reported that the land has been traditionally in their families for generations.

Eighty-five gardens were initially surveyed as part of the sample. It was later decided by

the researchers that gardens that are more than 1.0 hectare in area would not be included









in the study because it was evident that these relatively large gardens functioned more as

plantations than as homegardens. Ten gardens were eliminated for this reason, and the

remaining 75 gardens were divided into four size categories (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1 Land size categories of 75 surveyed homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala,
India
Category Household encountered Total landholding Mean landholding size
(hectares) Nos. Percentage size (ha) (ha)
Small 24 32 1.68 0.07
(0.01-0.26)
Medium 14 18 2.75 0.19
(0.261-0.52)
Large 10 13 3.31 0.33
(0.521-0.78)
Commercial 27 36 17.82 0.66
(0.781-1.0)


History of Cultivation

Respondents were asked about the length of time their family has been cultivating

the gardens. All homegardens that have been in cultivation by a particular family for over

a hundred years were assigned the standard value of 100 unless the farmer had pertinent

documentation. Based on that, the surveyed homegardens have been in cultivation for an

average of 52.7 years. But it has to be noted that these ages are only indicative of

farmers' memories. Many respondents, who reported that their land had been in

cultivation for several generations, could not furnish proof nor could they verify this

information because the land had been passed down for generations.














CHAPTER 4
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF HOMEGARDENS

Introduction

Rigorous field studies that apply the well known economic theories and

methodologies are quite few in the case of homegardens (Nair, 2001). One of the major

constraints to undertaking such studies stems from an observation made by Scherr (1992)

regarding the lack of guidelines for data collection and analysis. Preliminary economic

analyses in Central America and the Caribbean have indicated that many agroforestry

systems are profitable at real discount rates of 20 percent or higher (Current et al., 1995),

yet more substantial economic studies relating to homegardens are limited. The economic

worth of homegardens is especially difficult to quantify due to three reasons: these

systems have high, yet variable levels of biodiversity, making data collection time-

intensive and error-prone; these systems provide some benefits that are designed to be of

particular use to certain farmers only; and finally, most of these systems have existed

many hundreds of years so that the benefits realized in the past cannot be accurately

quantified because of lack of existing data.

Homegardens, although primarily used for subsistence purposes of the household,

are increasingly being used to generate cash income (Christanty, 1990; Torquebiau, 1992;

Mendez et al., 2001). They are also used to generate non-market benefits such as

aesthetics, ornamentation, improved food quality and nutritional security to the farmer

(Karyono, 1990; Jose and Shanmugaratnam, 1993; Drescher, 1996). The aim of this

chapter is to use a combination of different economic methods to assess the current









tangible financial status of existing homegardens and provide a set of guidelines for data

collection and analysis, based on the case study in Kerala, India. Economic methods

included cost-benefit analysis for one year, a sensitivity study to ascertain economic

resilience to market fluctuations, and classification of economic contributions by

different factors in homegardens. The net values of these gardens have also been

compared to other available economic alternatives. The role of household and hired labor,

and the role, if any, of gender in profit generation is also briefly investigated.

Economic Methodology

Seventy-five homegardens in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, were randomly selected

and systematically (based on location) inventoried during October 2002 February 2003.

These homegardens were located in both rural and semi-urban areas. A comprehensive

survey was administered and productivities of all homegardens were estimated. The

values of the products were determined according to existing market prices and shadow

prices of medicinal plants. Those farmers who were interviewed were the key decision-

makers in the selected homegardens. Land classifications for this study were done on the

basis of economic production and function. For example, in a homegarden with a land

area of 1.0 hectare, if the major crops were coconut and areca, the garden was classified

as a coconut-areca system. These classifications were useful in understanding overall

production schemes of the gardens.

The steps used to conduct a financial analysis of typical Kerala homegardens in a

steady state were the following:

* Account the costs and benefits for the farmer over a period of one year. Cost and
benefit sources were determined based on the farmers' records, as well as inventory
of the gardens. Plant productivities were based both on yield estimates and farmer
records. Market values were determined based on existing prices.









* Assess the economic resilience of homegardens to market shifts in labor or crop
price patterns by conducting sensitivity analyses.

* Generate an economic index to assess the primary contributors to the income
generated by the homegarden.

* Compare homegardens with other economic alternatives to evaluate the option that
would provide optimal economic utility to the farmer

Costs and benefits were valued at the actual existing prices that these farmers

encountered at market-time. Many of the costs had already been incurred, such as one-

time costs for building wells and for the initial preparation of land, but they were added

to the total cost involved in maintaining the garden if incurred during the lifetime of the

farmer who owned and farmed the property during the time of the study. The benefits

realized from these costs are usually continuous and stretch over several years. Therefore,

the yearly worth of these benefits has also been added to the annual profit generated from

these gardens.

Opportunity Costs of Land and Household Labor

Both household labor and land values might present high levels of opportunity

costs in many geographic locations. The land tenure and ownership system in Kerala

makes land a very valuable commodity in an increasingly land-deprived social system.

Furthermore, the land occupied by the homegarden almost always houses the residential

building, and these homes are usually passed on to the next generation. Therefore, it is

unlikely that a homegarden will be sold on its own, without the residential building.

However, in order to refrain from inflating the financial worth of these systems while

adhering to the observed social and cultural norms of the land, the opportunity costs of

land have been assigned values equivalent to the rate at which farmers were able to lease









out all or parts of their lands. This rent rate was calculated to be an average of Rs. 12,350

per hectare of land per year.

Input of household labor is a component that needs to be factored into any

economic valuation. For the purpose of this study, opportunity cost of household labor is

calculated as a function of time, where OCHL= f (t*labor rate), where t is the time spent

in the garden. If the daily rate for a hired male laborer in that particular area was Rs.70,

and the farmer put in an average of four hours work in his garden per day, the household

labor costs were calculated to be Rs. 35(30) = 1050 per month.

Components of the Annual Financial Cycle of a Kerala Homegarden

Based on farmer surveys and farm inventories, Table 4-1 presents the inputs and

outputs that are the main components of the annual finances of a typical Kerala

homegarden in steady state. Inputs were determined as any monetary contribution to the

annual economic cycle of the garden and were generally found to be comprised of human

labor, seeds, organic and chemical fertilizer, hired labor, one-time costs such as barn

maintenance and equipment (if incurred during the year of study), and associated

transportation costs.

Some of the associated maintenance costs included transportation of products to

market, husking of coconuts, and the harvesting of coconuts, arecanuts, and other market

products. Except for transportation, these tasks were usually allotted to the hired labor, as

a part of their daily duties. The farmers sometimes employed a system called 'karar', in

which a part of the commercial system was leased as a whole to a buyer, who would

undertake all associated tasks, such as harvesting, transporting and selling, in return for

providing a fixed sum to the farmer.









Table 4-1 Components of the annual finances of a typical homegarden in steady state, in
Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Inputs Outputs
Fertilizers Household products
Seeds and seedlings Market products
Animal feed Animal products (milk, meat, dairy)
One-time expenses Long-term benefits (timber)
Maintenance operations Medicinal plants
Land cost Intangible benefits
Household labor
HLi=0, HL2= Daily wage rate
Note: Intangible benefits have not been quantified in this study

Such local barter systems might exist in other geographic locations around the

world, and any financial analysis should take into account these individual practices and

the social and cultural factors that influence these decisions.

The tangible benefits derived from the garden included products used for market

sale, milk and other livestock products, and goods used for household consumption such

as food, firewood and medicinal plants. The economic productivities and values were

calculated for the monetary value that could be obtained from the local market for all

products from the past year, including those used for household consumption. For

example, if a farmer used two coconuts per week for household use, the price of these

nuts at the existing market rate was added to the total yearly income of that particular

garden.

All economically important species were inventoried and the production over the

period of one year was estimated based on both farmer reports and yield data from Kerala

Agricultural University (see KAU, 2002). The economic inventory included medicinal

plants that might or might not have been used by the farmer over the course of the one-

year, but were occupying space in the garden because the farmer considered them

essential. The values of these medicinal species were included in those instances where









the farmer had occasion to utilize a medicinal plant, by using the shadow pricing

mechanism of estimating the cost involved in obtaining a similar benefit elsewhere.

Timber or value of wood products usually implies a significant amount of

economic value. Many of the homegardens had a significant amount of timber and any

timber that was used or sold in the year of study has been included in the financial worth

of the garden. Furthermore, and more pertinent to the small landowner, the branches and

small twigs from these trees were often used as firewood, and were often collected by

family members on a daily basis. This served an important use for the household in terms

of conserving electricity and saving on cooking gas expenses.

Economic theory argues that the highest social utility is attained when producers

adopt practices generating the highest rates of return to all available resources, including

all costs and benefits (Scherr, 1992), and planners prefer investment in those activities

yielding the highest rates of return to total resources or total labor used. However, the

adoption decision for farmers is more complicated, especially in the case of homegardens

where they reside within the confines of the agricultural property. These decisions may

be influenced by desire to maximize utility of family labor, returns to land, or even

nutritional security. Two alternatives to homegarden cultivation have been considered in

this study in order to understand the extent to which farmer needs and desires affect the

pure cash flow into the homegarden system: Option 1 entails selling the entire property

and the house (assuming that selling the property without the house might prove to be

improbable in the case of Kerala state); and Option II leases the agricultural land to

another farmer while the owner resides in the same house. Both options would allow for

the decision-making farmer to seek employment (work as laborer) elsewhere, assuming









there is a steady demand for labor, yet they would have to pay to attain all benefits from

the homegarden. Option 1 would also require that the farmer seeks an alternate residence.

Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using basic economic methods of benefits and costs

comparison, where Net Financial Worth of homegardens = Br-Cr

Where, B = benefits, C = costs, and r = year of study

Homegarden products were categorized as having one of three levels of economic

utility; Primary utility: those that are essential to the household, such as cassava,

coconuts, and banana; secondary utility: those that are not absolutely essential but

without which the household might suffer from nutritional deficiencies or other loss, such

as gourd vegetables, spinach (Amaranthus spp.), and medicinal plants.; and tertiary

utility: those that are grown primarily for personal pleasure, such as decorative plants and

flowers, such as roses (Rosa spp.). Some plants are grown for both decorative and

medicinal purposes, such as hibiscus (Hibiscus spp.). The value of primary utility plants

can be quantified, the value of the secondary category including medicinals can be

estimated using shadow pricing, and the tertiary category provides mainly intangible

benefits. All plant species are listed in Chapter 5, Tables 5-4 and 5-5.

The sensitivity analyses were conducted by adding a 10% increment to the price of

hired labor, and reduction of 10% in market prices of coconut, arecanut and banana,

which are the main market crops in Kerala. Data were analyzed using Statistica, Minitab

and Excel statistical software. Various statistical procedures utilized in the analysis

included Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare characteristics of different size

categories of homegardens, comparison of means using t-tests assuming unequal









variances and multivariate regression analyses to determine predictors of homegarden

profit.

Preliminary Field Results

The 32 homegardens surveyed in the preliminary study (conducted in 2001) were

assessed for frequency of occurrence of species deemed economically useful by the

respondent. No formal survey was administered. All results were assessed by personal

interviews, and a garden inventory. Table 4-2 presents the frequency of occurrence of

'most important' crops, as assessed by homegarden farmers. Frequency of occurrence

does not imply equal abundance, but it enhances understanding of species selection in

randomly selected homegardens by calculating the number of gardens in which a

particular species was observed in the preliminary study, thus perhaps attesting to its

importance to the farmer. The abundance was not considered for the preliminary study.

Table 4-2 Frequency of occurrence of crops considered economically most important in
32 homegardens of Thrissur district, Kerala, India.
Plant species Scientific Name Frequency of occurrence (%)
Coconut Cocos nucifera 100
Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus 56.3
Mango Mangifera indica 78.1
Arecanut Areca catechu 81.3
Banana Musa spp. 100
Tuber crops Dioscorea spp.; Colocasia spp. 34.4
Cacao Theobroma cacao 12.5
Cassava Manihot esculenta 56.3
Papaya Carica papaya 87.5
Note: Frequency of occurrence does not imply abundance. It is used here as a potential
indicator of importance to the farmer.

Coconut was the most economically important crop according to farmers and

occurred in all surveyed plots. Although cacao was considered as an economically

important crop by over 50% of the farmers, it occurred in only four of the gardens.









Results

The 75 gardens included in this project had a mean landholding size (excluding

the residential area) of 0.34 ha (SE=0.03 ha); median 0.26 ha. The smallest garden was

only 0.01 ha in area, and the largest was 1.0 ha. Although homegardens greater than one

hectare in size were initially included in the data collection as part of the random sample,

they were not included in the analysis because they were deemed to be very large farms

that showed more characteristics of sole-crop farming than those of a traditional

homegarden. The gardens included in the study were divided into four groups according

to median increments of 0.26 ha: Small < 0.26 ha; 0.26 ha < medium < 0.52 ha; 0.52 ha <

large < 0.78 ha; 0.78 ha < commercial < 1.0 ha. According to these classifications, there

were 24 'small' gardens, 14 'medium' sized gardens, 10 'large' gardens, and 27

'commercial' sized gardens.

Economic Values of Homegardens and Annual Economic Profit

The existing financial worth of all the surveyed gardens were estimated based on

the quantitative values of the costs and benefits experienced in the year of study.

Table 4-3. Mean financial value of homegardens for 2002-2003 (in Rupees), based on the
benefits and costs of 75 gardens surveyed in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Size of homegarden Mean financial value Mean financial value, including
(Rupees) opportunity costs of land and
household labor (Rupees)
Small 62,261 46,284
(< 0.26 ha, n=24)
Medium 157,524 132,759
(> 0.26 ha, < 0.52 ha, n=14)
Large 256,639 225,116
(> 0.52 ha, < 0.78 ha, n=10)
Commercial 275,967 214,899
(> 0.78 ha, < 1.0 ha, n=27)
Financial worth measured in Rupees (1.00 $US Rs. 47, October, 2003).









All 75 homegardens generated a positive economic value for the year 2001-2002

(Appendix B) and an average of these values in rupees is presented in.Table 4-3.

Intensity of Profit-Generation

The various levels of intensity of cultivation as indicated by the generation of profit

per unit area (mean profit / sq.m of homegarden) were calculated for the four land-size

categories (Table 4-4). The intensity of profit generation was highest in the small

gardens.

Table 4-4. Intensity of profit generation across different size categories of homegardens
in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Homegarden Size Mean Profit / sq.m (Rupees/year) Standard Error
Small (n=24) 84.28a 10.72
Medium (n=14) 68.80b 9.61
Large (n=10) 76.64a 11.48
Commercial (n=27) 40.61c 4.15
Notes: The letters a,b,c following a value indicate significant changes in means
at a =0.05. Means were compared using t-tests assuming unequal variances.
Intensity refers to the mean profit generated per sq. m of cultivated area in the
homegarden.

The commercial sized gardens yielded an average profit of Rs.40.61 per sq.m, and the

smallest gardens yielded more than double that of commercial gardens average profit

with more than Rs.84 per sq.m. This indicates that although the net production was

higher in the larger gardens (Table 4-3), the intensity of production was much greater in

the small gardens.

Economic Importance of Homegarden Species

The most importance contributors to the economic profit generated by

homegardens were coconut, arecanut and banana (including both cooking and dessert

varieties). The distributions of profit varied across garden sizes. The other important

categories of economic importance in the homegarden were milk production, cashew










trees and spice plants (Appendix C presents the percentage of homegarden profit

contributed by 9 different categories). Household consumption formed a significant

percentage of the profits (more than 50%) in the smaller gardens, while the larger and

commercial gardens invested most of their homegarden to the commercial production of

coconut and arecanut.


60

50

40
4 Small
30 0 Medium
E Large
20. E Commercial

10

0
Coconut Arecanut Banana Consumption

Figure 4-1. Contribution of three crop categories and extent of household use in
total profit generated by different size classes of homegardens in Thrissur
district, Kerala, India. Note: Seventy five homegardens were included in this
study.

Sensitivity Analyses

Sensitivity analyses are important when evaluating the economic benefits of

homegardens in order to ascertain the extent to which these systems are susceptible to

shifts in the prices of labor and market products. A majority of the surveyed households

(96%) reported the prices of hired labor to be the most restrictive aspect of managing

these systems, and coconut, arecanut and banana as the most economically important

crops.









Table 4-5 Sensitivity analyses to ascertain the economic resilience of 75 homegardens of
Thrissur district, Kerala, India, to price fluctuations in labor and three
economically significant crops.
Percent Response in Financial Worth
Sensitive Categories (Based upon a 10% change in price)
Small Medium Large Commercial
P of hired labor 0.28 1.12 0.24 0.31
P of coconut 1.0 2.0 2.8 1.0
P of arecanut 0.81b 1.65b 2.21b 2.46a
P of banana 0.42 0.35 0.74 0.92
Note: P indicates existing market price.
a indicates significant statistical difference at a =0.05. The means were
compared between small (n=24), medium (n=14), large (n=10), and
commercial (n=27) using t-tests assuming unequal variances.

Table 4-5 indicates the changes in net value of the gardens when the labor prices

are increased by 10%, and the market prices of coconut, arecanut, and banana are reduced

by 10%. Some of the gardens were also very dependent on rubber, but rubber was mainly

found in the large gardens, in the form of a sole crop. Furthermore, rubber has been

providing fairly consistent prices during the past several years. Therefore, it was excluded

from the sensitivity analysis.

Very low changes in annual profit value occurred across all classes of

homegardens, ranging from 0.24% to 2.46%. The only statistically significant difference

across means was the effect of raised arecanut prices in the commercial gardens, which

ranged from 2.46% for commercial gardens to 0.81% for the small gardens.

What Factors Affect the Financial Value of Homegardens?

Statistical analyses using multivariate regression methods were used to assess the

effects, if any, of various factors on the financial values of the surveyed homegardens.

The values (Table 4-6) indicated that land size and age were both slight predictors of

profit, while labor, both household and hired, and gender, did not display the ability to

predict an increase or decrease in the net financial worth.









Table 4-6. Land size (sq. m) and number of years in cultivation are predictors of
homegarden economic worth in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, as indicated
by multivariate regression analysis
B Standard error of B P values
Intercept 4.61 0.073 0.000
Land Size 0.007 0.056 < 0.005
Age of garden 0.003 0.001 0.017
Note: r2= 0.455, Adj. r2= 0.447.
Labor (both household and hired) and gender of main decision maker were not significant
indicators of homegarden profit.

From the above data, we can model our financial value predictor equation as follows

Net financial value of homegarden = 4.61 + 0.007 (xi) + 0.003 (x2),

Where xi = land area in sq.m, X2 = number of years in cultivation



This model indicates that the financial value of Kerala homegardens increases

with increasing land size and with increase in numbers of years of cultivation. It is to be

noted that number of hours of household or hired labor, and gender of the decision maker

in the household are not correlated to net profitability. This model, while relevant to

Kerala state, can potentially be used to construct similar such models for homegardens in

other geographic locations. Biophysical aspects such as soil quality might also contribute

to the financial value of the garden, and these aspects need to be further investigated.

Timber

All timber and other wood products sold or consumed by the household were

factored into the financial calculations. The Kerala Protected Tree Act states that standing

wood belonging to ten protected species cannot be transported across public Kerala roads

with out a permit2. This act mandates that owners cannot cut trees for commercial sale


2 From personal communications with B. Mohan Kumar, Head of Agroforestry, Kerala
Agricultural University, Thrissur District, Kerala, India









without a permit, and thus ensures the retention and conservation of old-growth timber.

In spite of the bureaucracy associated with high value timber species, the Kerala gardens

had an average of 4.4 timber species (Table 4-7). Every surveyed farmer considered these

trees as a long-term investment and even those farmers who perceived themselves to be

under severe financial constraints did not consider selling or cutting these trees as an

optimum option.

Table 4-7 Average number of timber species in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district,
Kerala, India
Homegarden size Average total # of useful species Average # of timber species in
category homegardens
Total (n=75) 20.1 4.4
Small (n=24) 18.5 3.5
Medium (n= 14) 20.0 4.3
Large (n=10) 22.6 4.7
Commercial (n=27) 22.3 5.0


Household Labor

Almost all the gardens hired labor, especially for the more arduous tasks such as

felling coconuts and arecanuts, and preparing the land for application of fertilizers, and

irrigation. However, the bulk of the labor input into these systems is from the members of

the household. Table 4-8 presents a summary of the household labor input in the 75

surveyed homegardens.

A significant change in total household labor input is observed between the small

gardens (4.2 hours/day/garden) and commercial gardens (11.2 hours/day/per garden), at

p< 0.005. But there is also a significant increase in intensity of labor input, with 43.9

person days per year being invested in 100 sq.m of land in the small gardens and only 9.1

person days per year invested into 100 sq.m of land in the commercial gardens. This









implies that the higher intensity of profit generation in the small gardens could be in part

due to the higher intensity of labor invested in the garden.

Table 4-8 Household labor characteristics in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala,
India
Small Medium Large Commercial
Daily input of household labor 4.2a 5.5a 3.1a 11.22b
(hours/day/garden)
Intensity of household labor 43.9a 14.6b 15.9b 9.21ab
(persondays/100 sq.m/year)
Note: a,b indicate statistically significant difference between means, using t-tests
assuming unequal variances.

Gender Dynamics in Kerala Homegardens

Studies have shown that although rural women in Asia play an important role in

agriculture (Chacko, 1975; Gleason, 1988; Kaur and Sharma, 1991), disparities in gender

distribution of labor still exist. In Kerala, however, there are high levels of participation

by women, in agriculture. The average number of hours put in by women in small

homegardens is greater than the hours put in by men. This implies that women manage

the subsistence household, where the land is primarily used for feeding the family.

However, the commercial sized homegardens also have a very high household labor input

by women and high levels of participation, thus suggesting that women are also very

much involved in the financial health and productivity of the garden.

Kerala is the most literate state in India. According to the 2002 Government of

India census, nearly 94.5% of the state is literate. It is also the only state in India with a

higher female to male ratio (1056-1000). Kerala has been much studied by

anthropologists and historians for their matriarchal system of family (Trautmann, 1995).

In this system, the women traditionally have full ownership of the family land, and

property is usually passed down to women. Although current civil codes have negated









this property code, to ensure equal opportunity for both the male and female children of

the house, remnants of this system are evident by the fact that women in Kerala are

generally powerful in terms of family dynamics. They are also very involved in all

agricultural activities, including economic decision-making.

Our hypothesis is that such high levels of involvement in agriculture, which is the

main income producing activity of the household, has contributed to the general

empowerment and advancement of women in Kerala. Out of the 75 households surveyed,

eight were female dominated homegardens, and nine gardens were completely run by

men; here the word 'dominated' implies that the economic decision making power was

concentrated in either the male or the female head of the household. However, as can be

seen in Table 4-9, there were no statistically significant differences in the intensity of

profit generation. This implies that women are actively involved in the homestead

agroforestry in Thrissur district.

Table 4-9. Intensity of profit generation in female and male operated homegardens, based
on 75 homegardens from Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Category Number of homegardens Profit (rupees)/100 sq.m/year

Female dominated 8/75 83.09
Male dominated 9/75 61.8
Equal Participation 58/75 63.64
Note: USD 1 Rupees 47, October 2002 February 2003

Most landowners overwhelmingly claimed to have equal ownership, rights, and

decision-making ability between male and female heads of households with regard to

their garden. Using a 2x2 factorial experimental design, the male and female household

labor inputs were analyzed for interactions within size categories and within gender

(Table 4-10). Multi factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that there were no

interactions between the size of garden, gender of decision-maker and number of daily









hours of household labor input by the male and female members. It has to be noted that

the labor hours as estimated did not include time spent (mainly by the female) on

livestock related activities, cottage industries, food harvesting, cooking, and tasks

associated with processing food for home use. Besides these tasks, the women also spent

significant amounts of time in actual labor, including watering, collecting fruits and nuts

for market, plowing, weeding, and planting. Women primarily tended to vegetables,

while men tended to the trees and other plants requiring hard manual labor.

Table 4-10 Daily input of household labor by female and male family members into 75
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.
Size of garden Male labor hours/day Female labor hours/day
Small 1.9 2.3
Medium 3.5 2.0
Large 6.1 3.0
Commercial 5.8 5.40

A majority of the homegardens surveyed also reported that the male and female heads of

household participated equally in the economic decision-making processes of the garden.

Economic Alternatives to Homegardens

Two possible alternatives to homegarden cultivation were considered when

comparing the economic rationale behind homegarden cultivation to other forms of

investment. The first alternative for a farmer would be to sell the land, with the house and

all associated crops and benefits, invest the capital in a bank at 6% compound interest

rate and to live in a comparable neighborhood with a similar quality of life. The second

alternative would be to lease the land and all associated benefits to other farmers. Both

alternatives with their profit values at the end of the investment year are considered in

Tables 4-11, 4-12, 4-13 and 4-14. The non-monetary benefits were not quantified. The









values listed are all estimated from the homegarden of mean size in the corresponding

size category. Lease value is based on existing rent rate of Rs. 12,350 per hectare.

Living expenses were estimated based on a two-month survey of four urban and

rural households with no attached homegardens. All household expenses, not including

meat, staple food such as rice, potatoes, salt, and other goods not normally realized from

the garden, were estimated to be an average minimum of Rs. 20000 per year per

household. Homegarden costs were the average costs from each size category of garden.

Table 4-11 Comparison of an average small homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Variables (a) Garden Lease Bank
Land 0 1086 22012
Labor 0 7250 7250
Living expense 0 (20000) (20000)
Rent 0 0 (15000)
Transportation 0 (500) (500)
Incidentals 0 (800) (800)
HG Costs (7548) 0 0
Benefits 65519 0 0
57971 (12964) (7038)
Note: n=24, small < 0.26 ha

Table 4-12 Comparison of an average medium homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Variables (b) Garden Lease Bank
Land 0 2552 61329
Labor 0 14914 14914
Living expense 0 (22000) (20000)
Rent 0 0 (15000)
Transportation 0 (500) (500)
Incidentals 0 (800) (800)
HG Costs (12399) 0 0
Benefits 174912 0 0
162513 (5834) 39943
Note: n=14, 0.26 ha < medium < 0.52 ha









Table 4-13 Comparison of an average large homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.


Variables ( c) Garden Lease Bank
Land 0 4240 101760


258222 812 182932
Note: n=27, 0.78 ha < commercial < 1.0 ha.

These tables indicate that homegardens are the most efficient economic rationale

for farmers as opposed to leasing or selling the land. Selling the garden becomes a

reasonable yet not comparable alternative, with the large and commercial gardens. Small

farmers would be best served if they retained their homegardens. Leasing was not an

economically viable option for the small, medium or large gardens, and just broke even in

the commercial category.

Discussion

All surveyed homegardens generated profit at steady state, thus justifying their need

to be considered on par with other mainstream agriculture by policy makers. This study


Labor 0 11880 11880
Living expense 0 (22000) (20000)
Rent 0 0 (15000)
Transportation 0 (500) (500)
Incidentals 0 (800) (800)
HG Costs (12307) 0 0
Benefits 237158 0 0
224851 (7180) 77340
Note: n=10, 0.52 ha < large < 0.78 ha

Table 4-14 Comparison of an average commercial homegarden to two alternate forms of
economic investment, in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Variables (d) Garden Lease Bank
Land 0 8250 201370
Labor 0 17862 17862
Living expense 0 (24000) (20000)
Rent 0 0 (15000)
Transportation 0 (500) (500)
Incidentals 0 (800) (800)
HG Costs (17302) 0 0
Benefits 275524 0 0









reported the existing financial value (Benefits-Costs during the year of study) of the

surveyed gardens (Table 4-3). The profit generated per unit area was highest in the small

gardens (Table 4-4), and lowest in the commercial gardens thus perhaps implying that

farmers are adept at adaptive management techniques. Land being a constraint, farmers

intensify cultivation on available land in order to attain desired goals and objectives. It

could also follow that commercial farmers are not devoting land to production of

economically important crops but to intangible benefits such as aesthetics and

ornamentation. Future studies could assess whether this difference in profit generation

equals the opportunity cost incurred by those commercial farmers who do not intensify

production.

Coconut, arecanut and bananas were the three most economically important crops

(Appendix C). Although arecanut was responsible for a significant portion of the profits

in many of the gardens, the farmers recognized that this transient crop could be utilized

for only as many years as demand persisted, and that arecanut palms were not integral

parts of the homegarden culture. It was noted that although economic demands were

extremely important in determining garden use, small gardens devoted more than 50% of

their garden profit to household subsistence uses, such as vegetables, fruit and firewood.

This implies that the larger and commercial gardens might possess more liquid cash than

the small or medium farmers, with which to buy these household products from the local

market, thus being able to devote homegarden space to commercially viable crops such as

arecanuts and spice trees. A majority of the farmers (more than 80% in all sizes of

homegardens) reported that more than 75% of their household needs were met by their

gardens.









The sensitivity analyses (Table 4-5) reaffirmed the hypothesis that these systems

are economically stable, not dependent on any one crop or factor, and that the farmers

followed an age-old adaptive approach to farming. Harvests were staggered so as to

retain food crops such as cassava, for times of the year when staple food crops such as

rice were not readily available. It was also evident that none of these crops formed a focal

point of the garden. For example, arecanut crop had been sustaining high market values

during the 1990s, but their market values have suffered a drastic reduction during the past

few years (2001, 2002) and many farmers would have sustained heavy losses if their

gardens consisted of sole stands of arecanut palms. In the complex and varied

homegardens, a lag in the prices of arecanut did not cause a significant reduction in

overall profit.

After considering two potential alternatives to homegardening (Tables 4.11-4.14),

it was estimated that retaining homegardens was more profitable than leasing or selling

the land. The estimated values for the homegarden did not consider the additional

benefits attained from intangible benefits such as aesthetics, nutritional security, and

improved quality of food. Plantation farming was not considered as an alternative

because many of the gardens surveyed were deemed to be too small in area to be fit for

plantation agriculture. The household labor associated with homegardening was an

important component of the alternatives because it was assumed that if the land were no

longer available to farmers, they would earn money by providing hired labor to

neighboring farms. This is another debatable point, however, because many of the

farmers reported that they were not equipped to perform any skilled work, nor did they

desire to perform farm labor outside their properties. Furthermore, many of the farmers









were older, and cherished the relative freedom they enjoyed in their fields, and in their

ability to set their own times. It was, therefore, obvious that farmers with no alternative

employment options except hired field labor, preferred working in their own fields and

this preference would account for some level of dissatisfaction with the other economic

alternatives.

The combined results indicate that homegarden systems generate economic profit,

while simultaneously providing certain non-market benefits. These non-market benefits,

while not necessarily economically viable, are nevertheless important to the farmer. This

provides scope for future studies that can evaluate the opportunity costs of these

intangible benefits. Until then, homegardens remain a better economic alternative than

selling the land, or leasing to another farmer














CHAPTER 5
ECOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF HOMEGARDENS

Introduction

Much of the existing homegarden literature is highly descriptive with tables of

species names, and descriptions of the systems as a whole. These descriptions, although

highly informative, do not represent the true ecological rationale behind the functioning

of these homegardens, nor do they provide the reasons behind the farmers' decisions to

plant or retain certain species in their gardens. For example, homegardens are regarded as

an ideal system for in situ conservation of genetic resources (Esquivel and Hammer,

1992; Gajaseni and Gajaseni, 1999; Watson and Eyzaguirre, 2002). But the biophysical

aspects behind this conservation effect and other ecological phenomena in homegardens

have not been adequately understood. Farming and food production is a system. This

system has several properties that cannot be fully understood as a sum of their parts, but

rather how they interact together to form a complete whole. This chapter attempts to

provide an understanding of the diversity of these systems, and how certain selected

species interact to form a complete, functioning ecosystem.

The underlying concept is that natural ecosystems are sustainable barring major

disturbances, and therefore provide a basis of comparison for assessing ecosystem

attributes such as soil fertility (Ewel, 1999). Although managed systems differ in that

they endure repeated harvests and biomass removals, the same biological processes of

production, decomposition, and plant-organism interactions are prevalent in natural and

managed systems. The concepts of agricultural ecology and biodiversity in









agroecosystems are prevalent in the research done in many forms of agriculture. The

premise behind this line of study is that there might be some way to preserve certain

attributes of sustainability such as diversity, while using it to produce agricultural crops

(Collins and Hawtin, 1999). Homegardens are somewhat similar to natural tropical

ecosystems in structure, and agricultural ecosystems in function, and yet these systems

prove to be the continuous and often primary subsistence source for thousands of farmers

and landowners. Although these systems might not attain diversity levels of natural

forests, they can be considered the systems with the highest diversity and complexity

among man-made agroecosystems (Swift and Anderson, 1993), and the species that make

up the diversity of these systems are often not assembled as in natural forests, but are

carefully chosen with their utility value as the main criterion. Initially created out of

natural forests, they are now restricted to a defined assemblage of crop plants, livestock,

trees, and the associated pests, diseases, and weeds, still undergoing the basic renewable

ecological processes such as competition between plants for sunlight and water,

consumption of plants by livestock, and pests, and predation of pests by their natural

enemies (Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992). These processes are regulated by agricultural

practices such as cultivation, control of water, pests and diseases, and harvesting. And

these agricultural practices are in turn regulated by economic and social decisions.

This chapter focuses on the following major questions:

* What are the patterns of similarity in species selection across homegardens?

* What are the patterns of biodiversity across homegardens? Do these patterns
depend on certain factors such as size of garden or years in cultivation?

* What, if any, are patterns that remain unchanged regardless of garden size and
other socioeconomic characteristics?









* What are the various useful species found in the surveyed gardens? What are the
importance values of the major crops? What are the other uses, if any, of the
medicinal varieties?

* Would homegardens be sustainable alternatives to monocropping and loss of
biodiversity?

Agroecology is based on the premise that there are several factors interacting to

form an agro-ecosystem. These factors work together to form a functioning and living

system. One of the steps toward a sustainable agroecosystem seems to be increasing

biodiversity. Homegardens are often diverse and complex with many plant and animal

species interacting in the same land. In order to understand the rationale behind the

seeming (although man-made) sustainability of these systems, a variety of factors would

have to be explored. One of these relevant factors would be the species diversity and

similarities across gardens.

Methodology

All 75 gardens used in this study were inventoried for their plants. All species,

including seedlings and saplings, that were deemed useful to the farmer were listed, and

the number of individuals of each species per garden were noted. Some species, whose

identification proved taxonomically difficult (such as medicinal plants) were identified

with the help of an officer from the local farm office, and with help from a scientist at the

Kerala Agricultural University. Seedlings and saplings were defined as non-herbaceous

plants that were less that 1.0 m in height; they were not included in calculating the

economic productivity of the system. All herbaceous plants were included in the study.

Sorenson's Index of Similarity (Sorenson, 1948) was used (details are given in the

following sections) to assess the levels of similarity in species selection across different

size categories of gardens. Diversity was estimated using two methods: Margalef Index









(to assess species richness) (Margalef, 1958), and Shannon-Wiener Index (Krebs, 1985)

to assess both richness and evenness. Overall species density (number of species/unit

area) and tree species density (number of tree species/unit area), and importance values of

various species were also determined. The details of each procedure are given in the

following sections.

Similarity among Homegardens

Sorenson's Index of Similarity was used to compare the vegetative composition

(not including abundance of species) of homegardens of different sizes, taking into

account both the herbaceous and woody components of the garden. All similarity indices

are expressed in percentages in order to make the comparisons easier to read.

Sorensen's index represents the number of common species between two sites (Say

Garden A and Garden B). The equation for this measure of similarity is as follows

Sorensen's Index is shown in Equation 5-1


Ss KNumberof CommonSpecies *100 (5-1)
(Sa + Sb )/2

Ss = Sorenson's Index

Sa = The number of species in community A

Sb = The number of species in community B

In this study, homegardens were categorized into one of four community sizes:

small, medium, large and commercial. The gardens included in the study were divided

into four groups, based on median increments of 0.26 ha: Small (< 0.26 ha); medium

(0.27 0.52 ha); large (0.53 0.78 ha); and commercial (0.79 1.0 ha). The Sorenson

index values were calculated for all combinations of homegardens, then averaged for









each category and these values were compared to the average value from each of the

other size categories.

Diversity

Diversity Indices are used to assess the level of biodiversity in systems. Diversity

can be expressed as a function of scale, where a-diversity represents diversity within a

single community or ecosystem (such as homegarden) and P-diversity represents the

diversity among communities along an environmental gradient such as ecosystems of

Kerala.

Diversity in any vegetated system is a product of its richness and evenness.

Richness is simply the presence or absence of species, without regard to abundance.

Evenness refers to the balance between the numbers of individual members of species. To

measure evenness in a system, the index needs to be relatively insensitive to the

occurrence of rare species. Many studies have attempted to assess the biological diversity

of tropical forests, and to understand the many factors that affect the existing genetic,

species, and ecosystem diversity (e.g. Krebs, 1985; Gimaret-Carpenter et al., 1998;

Margurran, 1988; Ricklefs and Schluter, 1993; Huston, 1994). Standard ecological

references use many different techniques to estimate the diversity of a given vegetated

site. The Shannon-Weiner Index is the most commonly used diversity indicator in plant

communities, and it takes a value of zero when there is only one species in a community,

and a maximum value when all species are present in equal abundance. The following

equation from Krebs (1985), which was used for this study, looks at the diversity of those

species in the garden that are grown on an annual or perennial basis.












S
H = 1 pi In pi (5-2)
i=1

Where H is the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index, the proportion of species i relative to the total
number of species is calculated and multiplied by the natural logarithm of this proportion. The resulting
product is summed across species and multiplied by -1.
Example is provided in Appendix E

Species Richness

The Margalef richness index adjusts the number of species sampled in an area by

the log of the total number of individuals sampled, summed over species. The higher the

Margalef index, the richer would be the species diversity of the population.

Margalef Index = (S-1) / ln(N), (5-3)

Where s is the number of species, and N is the total number of individuals in the sample.

Example is provided in Appendix D

Species Density

Density of species (number of species / unit area of homegarden) was calculated in

order to determine the effect, if any, of decreasing land size on diversity and number of

species. Species density is also indicative of the planting and cultivation patterns of the

farmer and would serve to assess whether land constraints inhibit species diversity.

Agroecological Importance Values

Importance values are utilized by ecologists to assess the ecological composition of

a forest community based on three criteria: How commonly a species occurs across the

entire site (frequency), the total number of individuals of that species (density), and the

area occupied by that species (dominance) (Burns and Honkala, 1990). These values are

usually ascertained from values obtained from sampling sites that are equal in area.









However, in the case of homegardens, where the communities differ in size, the

importance values are calculated using relative rather than absolute values. Extrapolating

the values on a basis of unit area might not be applicable to homegardens because these

systems display marked changes in intensity of cultivation with increasing land size.

Importance Value = Relative frequency + Relative Density + Relative Dominance
(5-4)

Relative frequency is the number of occurrences of a species, as a percentage of the total

occurrences of all species; relative density is the number of individuals of a species as a

percentage of the total number of individuals of all species in that area; and relative

dominance is the total area occupied by one species as a percentage of the total area

occupied by all the species in the sampled site.

Dominance was calculated by estimating the space occupied by each species in

each sampled garden based on information from Kerala Agricultural University's Crop

publications (2002). For example, a coconut tree was estimated to occupy an area of

12m2, and fully-grown mango trees were estimated to occupy an average area of 16m2.

Analysis and Results

Diversity, Species Richness and Density

Species diversity and richness measures were estimated for all 75 gardens.

Medicinal plants were included in the diversity indices. Weeds and ornamental plants

were merely noted in species count, and not included in the species diversity calculations

because the presence of weeds and ornamentals are highly transitory and hard to count.

Shannon-Wiener indices were calculated for all annual, perennial, and medicinal species

in homegarden (Appendix E) and Margalef indices were calculated for all species,









including weeds, ornamentals, and medicinal plants (Appendix D). Means of diversity

estimations and species densities are listed in Table 5-1

Table 5-1 Ecological characteristics of 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.
Small Medium Large Commercial
(n=24) (n=14) (n=10) (n=27)

1 Total no. of observed species 128 109 121 118

2 Mean no. of species/garden 34 32 38 38

3 Mean species density 4.9a 1.66b 1.06c 0.5b
(no. of species /100m2)
4 Mean tree species density 0.7a 0.2b 0.14c 0.08d
(no. of trees /100m2)
5 Mean Margalef Index 6.42 5.61 6.01 5.43

6 Mean Shannon-Weiner Index 1.15 1.27 1.42 1.39

Note: a,b,or c following the mean value indicates a statistically significant difference (at
a = 0.05) between means using t tests assuming unequal variances

There was a statistically significant difference in mean species density perl00m2

area, across garden size classes (with P < 0.05). Farmers listed 94 useful species

(excluding medicinals, weeds and pure ornamentals); and a total of 153 species including

medicinals were found, and taxonomically identified. All medicinals observed in the

surveyed homegardens and a list of their uses as reported by farmers are listed in

Appendix F. The average number of species in a garden was estimated to be 36.

Similarity among Homegardens

Sorenson's Index was calculated for all species in the 75 homegardens. The

homegardens were again divided into four communities: small, medium, large and

commercial. Table 5-2 shows the percentage of similarities in overall species richness

and tree species richness across the four homegarden sizes. The similarities among

communities were fairly consistent. The percentages of similarity across homegardens









sizes were all fairly high, with the highest overall species similarity observed between the

medium and large gardens (90.9%)

These values indicate that land sizes did not restrict species composition in a

homegarden. Farmers might instead reduce the number of individuals of certain species,

to accommodate all the species they required in their homestead.

Table 5-2 Percentage of similarity of overall species richness and tree species richness
using Sorenson's index of similarity across four size categories of
homegardens in Thrissur District, Kerala, India.
Small (S) Medium (M) Large (L) Commercial (C)
O T O TO T

S --- 81.3 88.1 82.3 81.3 85.9 84.2

M --- --- 90.9 81.4 78.7 76.0

L --- --- --- 77.5 76.0
Note: The gardens included in the study were divided into four groups: Small < 0.26 ha;
0.26 ha < medium < 0.52 ha; 0.52ha < large < 0.78 ha; 0.78 ha < commercial < 1.0 ha.
Refer to Results section in Chapter 4.

O = Overall Species Richness
T= Tree Species Richness

Agroecological Importance Values

The agroecological importance values were estimated (Table 5-3) using an

aggregate of the relative frequency, relative density, and relative dominance (Burns and

Honkala, 1990; Curtis and McIntosh, 1951). Nine major categories were found to be

ecologically prevalent in the gardens. The V (vegetable) M (medicinal) O

(ornamental) category was found to be overwhelmingly important in the small gardens,

while the spice trees were relatively more important in the large and commercial area

categories than in the small and medium gardens.









Table 5-3 Agroecological Importance Values of homegarden species, based on
frequency, density and dominance patterns in 75 homegardens of Thrissur
district, Kerala, India
Importance of Small Medium Large Commercial
crop category (n=24) (n=14) (n=10) (n=27)

1 V, M, O Tree fruit Coconut Coconut
(100) (57.4) (51.4) (46.9)
2 Tree fruit Coconut Tree fruit Banana
(44.8) (52.8) (45.5) (43.2)
3 Arecanut V, M, O V, M, O Arecanut
(35.3) (43.9) (45.4) (37.9)
4 Banana Banana Arecanut Tree fruit
(34.3) (34.3) (42.6) (32.1)
5 Coconut Black pepper Banana Spice trees
(33.7) (29.9) (35.1) (26.8)
6 Black pepper Arecanut Cashew V, M, O
(26.7) (18.4) (30.5) (24.3)
7 Rubber Rubber Spice trees Black pepper
(6.3) (4.6) (9.3) (18.2)
8 Cashew Cashew Black pepper Rubber
(3.7) (2.2) (2.8) (7.2)
9 Spice trees Spice trees -- Cashew
(1.7) (1.2) (3.5)
Note: Importance Values are given in parentheses. V,M,O = Vegetables excluding
cassava, medicinal plants and ornamentals. Rubber was not found to be a
significant presence in the large homegardens.

Species Inventory

Tables 5-5 and 5-6 indicate the useful woody species found in the gardens, some of

which have been retained, not necessarily planted. Herbaceous species are listed in tables

5-4 and 5-7. The number of useful species (excluding ornamentals, weeds, useful grasses,

and medicinals) was fairly consistent throughout homegardens, at an average of 20.9

species per homegarden. All homegardens deemed medicinals as useful and essential, but

not economically important. This is an arguable point, however, because if these

medicinal species were not available, farmers would have had to spend money on

homeopathic medicines, including cold and cough treatments.









The farmers were asked to assign all their homegarden species a value of primary,

secondary, or tertiary. Primary implied a species that was essential to the household,

secondary implied a species that was not absolutely essential but without which the

household would suffer nutritional deficiencies and reduced quality of life, and tertiary

implied a plant species that was merely designed to improve quality of life of the

householder, such as ornamental plants. Tables 5-4 and 5-6 were all considered to be

'primary species', while most farmers listed the species in tables 5-6 and 5-7 as those of

secondary importance. Medicinals could be accurately classified in one of these

categories because their presence is highly arbitrary and rare, and dependant on the

individual needs of the particular respondent. However, the medicinals, although not of

economic value by themselves, (i.e. the medicines would require time and energy to

prepare and might not be useful in plant form), were generally considered to be vital parts

of the homegarden.

Table 5-4 Herbaceous species that are of economic importance to the household, as
reported by respondents in 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.
Local/Common Name Scientific Name
Banana Musa spp.
Black pepper Piper nigrum
Ginger Zingiber officinale
Turmeric Curcuma longa
Arrowroot Maranta arundinacea
Taro Colocasia esculenta
Elephant foot yam Amorphophallus campanulatus
Greater yam Dioscorea alata
Bitter gourd Momordica charantia
Ash gourd Benincasa hispida
Spinach Amaranthus spp.
Snake gourd Trichosanthes anguina
Beans Vigna unguilicata
Vanilla Vanilla planifolia
Pineapple Ananas comosus
Mango ginger Curcuma amada
Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan









Table 5-5 Tree and shrub species encountered in sampled homegardens, assessed as
economically important by respondents from 75 surveyed homegardens in Thrissur
district, Kerala, India.


Local/Common Name
Coconut
Arecanut
Mango
Jackfruit
Cassava
Rubber
Coffee
Nutmeg/Mace
Clove
Tamarind
Matti
Teak
Maridu
Veeti (Rosewood)
Kodampuli
Kaini
Mahogany
Cashew
Poomaram
Irumullu
Venga
chadchi (Grewia)
Mulberry
Venga (IndianKino)
Sandalwood
Asoka maram
Poola
Kaatu chembakam
Aini
pana (palmyra palm)
Talipot palm
Fish-tail palm
Thippili
Pali
Rubber tree


Scientific Name
Cocos nucifera
Areca catechu
Mangifera indica L.
Artocarpus heterophyllus
Manihot esculenta
Hevea brasiliensis
Coffea arabica
Myristica fagrans
Syzygium aromaticum
Tamarindus indica
Ailanthus triphysal
Tectona grandis
Terminalia termentosa
Dalbergia latifolia
Garcinia cambogia
Briclilia rectusa
Swietennia macrophylla
Anacardium occidentale
Delonix regial
Xylia xylocarpa
Tirocarpus marsupium
Grewia tilifolia
Morus alba
Pterocarpus marsupium
Santalum album
Saraca indica
Bombax ceiba
Michelia champaca
Artocarpus hirsutus
Borassusflabellifer
Corypha umbraculifera
Caryota urens
Alstonia venenata
Palaquium ellipticum
Hevea braziliensis


Family
Arecaceae
Arecaceae
Anacardiaceae
Moraceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Rubiaceae
Myristicaceae
Myrtaceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Simaroubaceae
Verbenaceae
Combretaceae
Papilionaceae
Clusiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Meliaceae
Anacardiaceae
Leguminoseae
Mimisoideae
Leguminoseae
Tiliaceae
Moraceae
Leguminoseae
Santalaceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Bombacaceae
Magnoliaceae
Moraceae
Palmae
Palmae
Palmae
Apocynaceae
Sapotaceae
Euphorbiaceae


Note: Local names are in italics.


Uses
a, c, f
a, f
d, b
d, b
e
c, f
d
a
a
d
b
b
b
b
d, c
b
b
d,b,a
b
b,c
b
b
c,f
b
f
b,c
b,f
b,c,g
b,c
f,e
f
f
g,b
b,g
f









Table 5-6 Trees and shrubs of secondary economic utility, mainly for household uses, as
reported by respondents from 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.

Local/Common Name Scientific name Family Uses


Breadfruit
Guava
Louvi-Louvi
Papaya
Cherunarakam
Irimbampuli
Cacao
Cinnamon
Rose apple
Sapota sapodillaa)
Indian almond
Neem
Indian gooseberry
Kattaadi
Custard apple
Camphor
Ylang Ylang
Curry leaf tree
Allspice
Bablus
Eggfruit
a = nuts, b = timber,


Artocarpus altilis Moraceae d
Psidium guajava Myrtaceae b,c,d
Flacourtia inermis Flacourtiaceae b,c,d
Carica papaya Caricaceae d,
Citrus limon Rutaceae d,c
Auroia bilimbi Oxalidaceae d,c
Theobroma cacao Sterculiaceae f,a
Cinnamomum zeylanicum Lauraceae e,c
Syzygiumjambolanum Myrtaceae d,b
Achras zapota Sapotaceae d,b,c
Terminalia catappa Combretaceae e,c
Azadirachta indica Meliaceae g
Emblica officinalis Euphorbiaceae d,g
Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae f,h
Anona squamosa Annonaceae d,b,c
Cinnamomum camphora Lauraceae f,g
Cananga odorata Annonaceae f,g
Murraya koenigii Rutaceae e,c
Pimenta dioica Myrtaceae e,g
Punica granatum Punicaceae d
Pouteria campechiana Sapotaceae d
c = fuelwood, d = fruits, e = leaves, bark and other parts of plant


used as food, f = leaves, bark and other parts of plant used for other purposes, g =
ornamental or medicinal purpose, h=shade
Local names are reported in vernacular Malayalam wherever appropriate, and are given
in italics.










Table 5-7. Herbaceous species reported to be of secondary economic importance by
respondents from 75 homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala state, India
Local/Common Scientific name
Name
Red pumpkin Cucurbita moschata
Chillies Capsicum frutescens
Eggplant Solanum melongena
Ivy gourd Coccinia cordifolia
Okra Abelmoschus esculentus
Snow pea Dolichos limon
kaavath (kaachal) Dioscorea alata
Vellarikka Cucumis sativus
Veliya chembu Xanthosoma s,, .'ii ifili
( hI, kazhungu Dioscorea esculenta
Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan
Pichinga Luffa acutangula
Indian Pennywort Centella asiatica
Koorka Coleus parviflorus
Tulsi Ocimum sanctum
Jasmine Jasminum sambac
Vettla Piper betle

Importance Values and Plant Selection

Tables 5-8, 5-9, 5-10 and 5-11 compare the agroecological importance values of

homegarden crops, to their economic importance based on the percentage of the garden

profits devoted to that crop, and to their cultural importance based on farmer preferences

in the four size categories used in this study. Farmer preferences were obtained by

ranking the top nine crops, based on survey respondents in the 75 homegardens used in

the study. The agroecological importance values are based on the relative frequency,

relative density and relative dominance (Table 5-3). The economic importance values of

the plant categories are based on the percentage of contribution to homegarden profit

(Appendix C).









Table 5-8 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 24 small homegardens
in Thrissur district, Kerala, India
Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural
Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 100 51.5 1
Coconut 33.7 18.3 2
Banana 34.3 05.3 3
Tree fruit 44.8 03.5 4
Arecanut 35.3 11.2 5
Black pepper 26.7 6
Cashew 03.7 0.7 7
Spice trees 01.7 0.2 8
Rubber 06.3 9
Note: Rubber was found predominantly in 2 of the 24 sites inventoried, and was not
found to provide a significant economic nor cultural value to a majority of the surveyed
gardens.
Agroecological importance values are based on relative density, relative frequency,
and relative dominance. The cultural importance values are based on farmer rankings.
The economic importance values are based on the percentage of economic contribution to
the homegarden profit.


Table 5-9 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 14 medium
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India
Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural
Coconut 43.9 37.9 1
Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 52.8 19.3 2
Arecanut 57.4 23.4 3
Banana 34.3 04.7 4
Black pepper 18.4 5
Tree fruit 29.9 04.1 6
Cashew 02.2 0.6 7
Rubber 01.8 8
Spice trees 04.6 1.2 9
Note: 1. Black pepper, although important both in terms of ecological presence and
cultural value, did not provide significant economic value in the surveyed year due to the
prevalence of the quick wilt disease.
2. Agroecological importance values are based in relative density, relative
frequency, and relative dominance. The cultural importance values are based on farmer
rankings. The economic importance values are based on the percentage of economic
contribution to the homegarden profit.









Table 5-10 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 10 large
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India.
Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural
Coconut 45.4 36.4 1
Arecanut 45.5 33.4 2
Banana 35.1 10.6 3
Black pepper 42.6 4
Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 51.4 14.4 5
Cashew 02.7 03.0 6
Tree fruit 30.5 0.3 7
Spice trees 09.3 01.9 8
Rubber--
Note: Agroecological importance values are based in relative density, relative frequency,
and relative dominance. The cultural importance values are based on farmer rankings.
The economic importance values are based on the percentage of economic contribution to
the homegarden profit.


Table 5-11 Importance value index (IVI) of nine plant categories in 27 commercial
homegardens in Thrissur district, Kerala, India
Crop Agroecological Economic Cultural
Coconut 24.2 18.8 1
Arecanut 46.9 37.7 2
Banana 32.1 13.9 3
Black pepper 37.9 4
Rubber 18.2 04.1 5
Spice trees 03.5 00.6 6
Vegetables, ornamental plants, medicinals 43.2 14.2 7
Tree fruit 26.7 04.0 8
Cashew 07.2 04.9 9
Note: Agroecological importance values are based in relative density, relative frequency,
and relative dominance. The cultural importance values are based on farmer rankings.
The economic importance values are based on the percentage of economic contribution to
the homegarden profit

The crop categories that were estimated to be most economically important were

also been shown to be agroecologically predominant. This similarity is somewhat

different from the social rankings. For example, arecanut was a commercially viable crop

occupying a significant portion of the ecology of these gardens; but they were, especially

in the small gardens, not considered to be of high cultural value. One of the reasons for

this was that the farmers recognized arecanut to be a transient crop, to be phased out









when the demand for the nuts eventually disappeared. Furthermore, many of the farmers

who planted the arecanut in place of the more traditional fruit and timber species such as

jackfruit, had already started the process of replanting their gardens with timber species

that had more long-term economic potential.

All garden categories displayed a high ecological importance for herbaceous

species including vegetables, ornamental plants, and medicinal crops. While some of

these vegetables in a few of the largest gardens were grown for commercial production, a

majority of these species were grown primarily for household consumption. These tables,

or data such as these, could be used in the formulation of agricultural policies and in

technical support. The nine categories that have been found to be important in all 75

homegardens and farmer preferences should be considered when decision-makers are

attempting to provide farmers with agricultural support.

Do Diversity and Species Richness Affect Homegarden Financial Value?

Multivariate regression analyses (using Statistica programs) were conducted to

assess whether diversity and species richness interacted with land size and age of garden

to affect the financial worth of these systems.

Table 5-12 Land size, number of years in cultivation, and species richness as predictors
of homegarden economic worth in Thrissur district in Kerala, India, as
indicated by multivariate regression analysis
B Standard error of B P values
Intercept 5.17 0.265 0.000
Land Size (sq m) 0.57*10-4 0.001 0.002
Age of garden 0.003 0.001 0.017
Species Richness 0.09 0.043 0.030
Note: r2 = 0.50, Adj. r2 = 0.45,, B is the intercept value
The Shannon-Weiner Index was also included in the analysis, but was found to
have no predictive relationship to financial worth of garden










Species richness, as estimated using Margalef Index, causes a slight reduction in

financial value. The equation is modeled as follows:

Financial Value of Homegarden =

5.17 + 0.57.10-4 (x1) + 0.003 (x2 ) 0.09 (x3)

Where xi = land size in sq.m

X2 = number of years in cultivation

x3 = species richness (as indicated by Margalef's Index)



Discussion

Homegardeners cultivate a diverse variety of plants for many different reasons. The

farmer motivations behind species selection would have to be further evaluated in order

to better understand species selection criteria. For example, it has been found that some

species such as Prosopisjuliflora and Delonix elata are deliberately grown in the

agricultural fields of Tamil Nadu, the state neighboring Kerala, in order to ameliorate

saline soils and render them capable of growing annual crops (Jambulingam and

Fernandes, 1986). Scientists are often aware of such practices only because there is a

'before and after' effect. The land becomes degraded, the farmer uses an adaptive

management technique, and the effect is documented. With homegardens, where farmers

have been following traditional adaptive management technologies for centuries, such

studies have been neglected because the land has not attained a level of degradation at

which the farmers have suffered massive losses.

As reported by respondents, the major constraint to increasing abundance of

individuals of various species seemed to be land size, yet, species selection is not









hindered by land limitations, as all gardens were found to be fairly consistent in the

number of useful species (including medicinals) that are retained or planted. The

commercial and large gardens retain a higher number of ornamentals and wild plants.

This implies that although these large gardens are utilized for commercial purposes to a

large extent, commercial production is not the primary goal. All farmers grew subsistence

crops, and 95% of the respondents reported that they used their garden for primary

supplies of all household foods excluding rice, potatoes, onions, salt, and non-plant

products such as fish and meat. Several farmers also listed chilli peppers as a necessary

food that they were forced to purchase, because the chilli plants were not producing well

the season this study was conducted.

Although species diversities in terms of richness were fairly similar among

homegardens, the differences among species densities were statistically significant. The

smallest gardens showed a density of nearly 5 (species)/100m2, while the medium (1.63

/100m2), large (1.14 /100m2) and commercial (0.5 /100m2) had lower species densities.

These densities do not include abundance measures, and merely indicate presence or

absence of species. This implies that the farmers who own and manage small gardens

intensify their planting patterns to adapt to their land constraints. People might cultivate

plants to fulfill household needs, rather than for market sale. Thus, in the smaller gardens,

the planting has to be intensified, while in the larger gardens, the planting is less dense

but abundance remains similar. It also implies that the presence of certain selected

species is important to the farmer, regardless of their minimal value in the economic

market. There are only a few crops that would fetch significant profits, and instead of









concentrating the limited land space to grow those crops, the farmers are opting for

diversified use of the available land space.

The fact that there was no difference in Margalef indices of the homegardens across

categories of homegardens implies that the species richness is not affected by

homegarden size. In fact, the Margalef indices reported in this study (Appendix D) were

fairly close to the 7.07 index reported from the wet evergreen forests of the southern

Western Ghats mountains of Kerala (Varghese and Balasubramanyan, 1998). This further

establishes our conjecture that homegardens are agricultural systems that might differ

from natural forests in function, but are close to natural forests in species diversity.

The seasonal vegetables were not included in the Shannon-Weiner diversity tests,

because they would not present an accurate estimate of the diversity index for the entire

year. The smallest homegardens had a mean index with 1.15, but they were not

significantly different from the indices reported for the medium, large and commercial

gardens (1.27, 1.42, and 1.39 respectively). In a research report on Kerala homegardens

(Sankar and Chandrashekara, 2002), the authors found that the smallest gardens had the

highest Shannon-Weiner index, with the medium and large gardens at 0.97 and 0.81. This

observation might be explained by the fact that the authors did not include medicinals in

their estimations. If they had been included, it might have resulted in higher values for

the large and commercial gardens because the larger gardens maintain higher numbers of

medicinals than the small gardens. The larger gardens are also less likely to be concerned

about loss of production due to the presence of weeds. Furthermore, their 'large' gardens

were significantly larger than the 'large' gardens in this study, and included stands of

commercial crops such as rubber. We presume that any homegarden with land size more









than 1.0 ha is more an agricultural field or plantation, and therefore will have lower

species richness and diversity.

Another study conducted in Kerala yielded Shannon-Weiner diversity indices

comparable to this study, ranging from 1.12 to 3.0 (Mohan Kumar et al., 1994), which

were close to the values yielded from a government owned forest in the same area.

Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) also conducted Shannon tests in the homegardens of

Thailand, and found ranges from 1.9 to 2.7, which are also fairly comparable to the

results from this study. Their values were fairly close to the species diversity indices of a

dipterocarp forest ecosystem in northeastern Thailand, again reaffirming that the diversity

of managed homegardens are close to, although not as high as, those of natural

ecosystems, even though homegardens are not naturally occurring assemblies of plants.

Constraints of Using Proposed Methods in Homegardens

The major drawback in using the Shannon-Wiener index to account for diversity in

a homegarden is that, while it considers both the species richness and evenness, it cannot

account for the consistent variability in the number and individual count of homegarden

species. Some of the herbaceous components, such as ornamentals, weeds and grasses,

and some seasonal vegetable crops observed in the homegardens, can only be expressed

in terms of presence or absence of number of species, not in terms of number of

individuals because the farmers themselves are unsure as to the number of individual

plants in their gardens. The usefulness of Margalef s index is also limited to the extent

that it cannot distinguish between individuals of different species (Gliessman, 2000), and

merely looks at total number of individuals.

The species density measure serves to understand whether species composition is

affected by land-size, however, a species density measure is not an indication of the









species abundance or evenness, i.e. it would not be able to reveal whether the species

contained 1 individual or 10.

The research associated with agricultural ecology ranges over a wide variety of

subjects, including soil conservation with and without using chemical fertilizers,

integrated pest management techniques, and maximum production with minimum

environmental damage. If homegardens were considered individual landscapes, and their

biophysical interactions further investigated, we would find that these sites have

undergone more disturbances than forests, and other naturally undisturbed or conserved

landscapes, yet have not undergone the dramatic transformation usually seen in an

agricultural landscape such as a rice or maize field. For example, some of the main

sources of land disturbances in traditional agriculture are tilling, weeding by tillage, use

of fertilizers and pesticides, and harvesting. Many of the homegardens surveyed in this

study have never undergone any tillage, there was minimal disturbance due to manual

weeding, organic fertilizers are used, and harvesting is never done on a mass scale. There

is continuous use and renewal of both plant and soil resources. Homegardens seem to be

close mimics of close mimics of naturally biodiverse systems, which also provide

economic benefits (see Chapter 4) and are the great hope of sustainable agriculture.The

sustainability of any agricultural system should be assessed beyond the levels of quantity,

economics and use. The definition must be expanded to include the consistent production

with continuous cultivation and use, and biological diversity of these systems.

Conclusions

This chapter estimated the ecological diversity of the surveyed homegardens

based on two indicators the Shannon-Weiner Index, and the Margalef Index. Both

indices need to be used in conjunction with each other in order to establish a satisfactory






72


estimate of the diversity of these systems. The homegardens were fairly similar to each

other in terms of species composition, thus indicating that all gardens retained certain

species that the farmers considered to be important, regardless of the economic value.

The number of individuals of species per unit area of land increases with increase in land

area, but the density of species is highest in the smallest gardens. This implies that

although increasing species richness leads to a decrease in financial value, farmers do not

sacrifice species diversity in favor of increasing production of a particular crop.














CHAPTER 6
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Synthesis

This research uses existing scientific methodology to develop a method of

quantification of some of the benefits provided by tropical homegardens. Numerous

studies have investigated the costs and benefits derived from agroforestry ventures,

especially in the Caribbean and the Central American countries (Current et al., 1995), but

field studies pertaining to homegardens are limited. The reasons for this lack are that

homegardens are extremely diverse and traditional economic models might not accurately

represent the worth of these systems. Furthermore, field studies in homegardens are

extremely time-intensive, and often not generalizable to other homegardens.

Many studies point to biodiversity as an indicator of sustainability. But unlike

natural forested systems, the man-made homegardens often serve very specific purposes

to the farmer, indicating that the biodiversity in homegardens is planned and managed.

Biodiversity, although difficult to estimate, can be quantified using species diversity

calculations and other indicators of vegetation presence or absence.

Mercer and Miller (1998) called for more socioeconomic research in agroforestry,

which can produce more generalizable results. Their attempt to understand knowledge

gaps in socioeconomic research revealed that several of the gaps listed by their

respondents were crucial areas for improving cost benefit analyses. These include

valuation of non-market goods and service, risk, and market analysis. This research

examines the economic benefits provided by homegardens in some detail, and provides









guidelines for analysis. These guidelines call for estimating the financial values based on

homegarden inventory and market prices of products used in the household, conducting

sensitivity analyses to ascertain economic resilience of these systems, comparing the

financial values to those obtained from alternative uses of the land, and finally,

developing an economic index of the most important crop and plant categories to the

farmer. These guidelines can be used in homegardens in different geographic regions,

with suitable modifications as necessary, and depending on the location. It has to be

noted, however, that these steps would still entail a considerable amount of data

collection because the homegardens themselves are so diverse and are highly dissimilar

in terms of species composition, species use, and are mainly based on the needs of the

individual farmer and family.

Based on the study findings, the inputs and outputs that comprise the financial

management of a homegarden have been listed (Table 4-1). If these inputs and outputs

are quantified, according to the existing rates and conditions of the geographic location

being analyzed, it is possible to calculate the financial value of the homegarden. A

complete evaluation would further require sensitivity analyses in order to assess the

response of these systems to factors such as labor or price fluctuations. Upon

determination of the major constraints or risks to production, these sensitivity analyses

would have to analyze the level and extent of risk presented by these constraints.

Productivity of homegarden species can be estimated according to both farmer

surveys and established information on productivity and crop yields. The productivity of

minor crops, such as vegetables and tuber crops that are grown by the farmer for purposes

of household consumption would have to be estimated according to farmers responses









based on intensity and frequency of use. Although market prices fluctuate based on

supply and demand, it is possible to estimate an average price for most plant products

available on the market.

The word biodiversity is ubiquitous with conservation. Organizations devoted to

conservation and increasing biodiversity are prevalent in both developing and

industrialized countries. The ecology of agricultural systems is consistently researched in

the hope of finding the 'sustainable' solution to managing natural resources for economic

profit while consistently attempting to conserve and protect these very same resources.

This study hypothesized that homegardens fulfilled an economic need while satisfying

the laws of conservation and preservation of biodiversity. In order to conduct a complete

ecological analysis of homegardens, it would be necessary to estimate levels of

biodiversity, carbon sequestration, soil productivity and quality, and air and water quality

in individual gardens, and then compare them to other agricultural fields and natural

forests. Although some of these research needs were outside the scope of this study, this

study has estimated the levels of biodiversity using two different methods, and then

compared them to established indices from existing natural vegetation. The Shannon-

Weiner indices were calculated to measure both the species diversity and abundance and

evenness of these species. The results were only slightly lower than those yielded by

other homegarden studies in the area and naturally occurring Kerala forests. However, it

has to be noted that these lower numbers might partly be due to the fact that our

Shannon-Weiner tests excluded the herbaceous species that are seasonal, and also the rare

species such as medicinal plants. Although this is an established method of analyzing

vegetation diversity, it is difficult to understand the complexity of these systems without









complementing this method with another method designed to identify species richness.

For this purpose, Margalef Indices were calculated and the results were similar to those

of a tropical deciduous forest in the Western Ghats of southern India. These two indices,

the Shannon-Weiner, and the Margalef, can be used in conjunction with each other to

understand the diversity of these systems. Once these values are established and the

importance of homegardens to biodiversity conservation understood, the biophysical

aspects that are involved in maintaining these levels should be further studied. This study

also attempted to compare the floristic similarity across homegardens, and the results

indicated that the homegardens were fairly similar in species composition, regardless of

garden size.

While homegardens are important in providing both economic and ecological

benefits, they are also very important for the provision of social and cultural benefits to

the individual farmer and to the community. Many plants were cultivated and retained for

ornamentation and aesthetics, medicinal uses and in some cases for religious reasons. The

farmers also considered food grown in their gardens to be of higher quality, both in terms

of taste and shelf life, than produce obtained from the local commercial markets.

Farmers employed methods of integrated pest management and other forms of organic

management that have been passed down for generations. Conservation of indigenous

knowledge is one of the benefits provided by homegardens, as proposed by this research,

but only recognized by less than 50% of the surveyed farmers. Brodt (2001) looked at

tree and crop cultivation in central India to examine the dynamics of knowledge system

change. She suggested methods for the preservation of indigenous knowledge, and that









technical innovation might allow local indigenous knowledge to mesh more effectively

with large-scale technologies.

An important cultural benefit was the availability of medicinal species. Although it

was difficult to quantify the actual economic worth of the presence of these medicinal

species in a garden, the farmers considered them to be of essential importance in their

daily lives, and therefore these or the shadow prices of these plants should be considered

while evaluating the benefits provided by homegardens. It is also essential to consider the

importance of aesthetics, ornamentation and shade in the lives of these farmers. This

research has indicated that farmers generally grow some species designed to enhance

their aesthetic pleasure, regardless of their land constraints (data not reported). It was also

evident to the researcher that women participate equally in the various processes

associated with the garden, including the economic decision-making.

These benefits are exclusive to homegardens because no other single system has

been found to provide all these benefits in conjunction with each other. For example, a

rice field might provide many economic benefits, and some cultural benefits, but they

would not provide an avenue to conserve genetic diversity of a wide variety of species.

Annual monoculture systems of cultivation are inviting habitats for pests that thrive

by colonizing new, welcoming environments. In order to reduce pest numbers and insect

damage, it is necessary to recognize the needs and abilities of the pest, and design a

system that works against these preferences (SARE, 2000). Homegardens, being mixed

stands, already possess natural insurance against pests and disease outbreaks (Michon et

al., 1983). The main diseases and pests reported in these gardens were those afflicting

commercial plantation crops such as arecanut, banana and black pepper, and farmers









were already employing diversified planting techniques and other forms of integrated

pest management to combat these agricultural pests. These integrated pest management

techniques might provide valuable insight to those researchers who are dealing with pest

management issues in traditional agricultural systems. If these systems and their

resilience against pests and diseases are carefully investigated, it might prove a beneficial

component in the pest management efforts even in other geographic locations, and

different agricultural systems.

It is important that farmers receive adequate information about planting procedures,

and techniques to ensure an adequate subsistence garden, and supplement indigenous

knowledge with state-of-the-art new technology. In today's agriculture, where Kerala

farmers are looking to their gardens not only to fulfill their subsistence requirements, but

also as a source of income by growing commercial crops for market sale, it is important

to educate them about how to ensure adequate nutrition and food supply. The United

State Department of Agriculture has published a manual that describes techniques and

plants for a tropical subsistence farm, which is very useful for both farmers and for local

agricultural officers (Martin and Ruberte, 1980). Such manuals, published in regional

languages, would serve to educate the farmers about their nutritional needs and other

long-term benefits that they might attain from their gardens.

Homegarden Design

The literature suggests that the criteria for designing and implementing agroforestry

systems are productivity, sustainability, and adoptability (Raintree, 1984). Homegarden

design and choice of species can follow the same criteria with a few modifications. First

of all, these systems are mainly used for subsistence purposes; therefore, productivity and

economic feasibility are usually the most important criteria. However, once these needs









are met, the end result is usually a diverse mixture of trees and crops that also lend to the

diversity and sustainability of the system.

Ease of adoptability is an important consideration while developing and designing a

homegarden. For example, it would be fairly impossible to grow such a diverse mixture

of vegetation, with varying growth, planting, pruning, and fertilizing needs, if the labor is

not easily and cheaply available. Most of the homegarden labor comes from family

members, and this is a significant reduction in labor costs (in monetary terms, not in

terms of time spent). Furthermore, distance between the system and the house is also a

consideration. Since these gardens are around the household area, it makes it easier for

the women of the house to work in the gardens without having to leave household

premises.

Finally, religious and other social considerations also play a part in homegarden

design. Plants such as Ocimum sanctum, which are needed for daily religious rituals, and

for medicinal reasons, are almost always found immediately next to the residential area,

for easy access. Also, potted plants, and other plants designed to enhance aesthetics are

found around the house for easy viewing.

In conclusion, a homegarden is designed to fulfill a wide array of functions, and

provide a range of benefits. These benefits are economic, ecological, and cultural in

nature. The economic benefits can be quantified using basic economic methods of costs

and benefits comparison and the ecological diversity can be estimated using the Shannon-

Weiner and Margalef Indices in conjunction with each other. It is difficult to ascertain

whether diversity, although of established value, would be of any specific value to the

individual farmer and it would be necessary to consider all the benefits, both qualitative






80


and quantitative, to truly understand the benefits provided by these agroforestry systems.

These benefits have to be considered together, as a sum of all the individual parts, in

order to understand the true value of a homegarden, and its worth to both the farmer and

to society. Although different homegardens in different geographic locations might have

different motivations and interests behind species selection and retention, they all provide

a similar range of benefits, and encompass a similar range of interactions, albeit in

varying quantities.














APPENDIX A
SURVEY ADMINISTERED TO SELECTED HOMEGARDENS


1. What is your total land size in acres/cents
2. How much area does your house occupy?


Section 1: Agronomy

1. Survey of all economically useful products in the homegarden (conducted by
researcher)

2. Please classify these products into three categories: Primary importance,
secondary importance, tertiary importance.
Primary: Products that are essential to your livelihood
Secondary: Products that are very important but not absolutely essential
Tertiary : Products that serve a purpose but are not essential.

3. Estimate the individualized productivity of these crops and trees in terms of
numbers. For example, how many kilograms of tomatoes do you estimate that you
use and or sell every week?
----Crops used on a daily basis
----Plants used on a regular (non-daily) basis
----Plants used infrequently (as according to need, for eg Medicinals)

4. Estimate the percentage of these products that are used for home consumption.

5. Do you estimate that this % varies from season to season? If so go to 6

6. Estimate an average for each season

7. Why did you select these particular plants? (Individual preferences)

8. How much did you pay to obtain these seedlings or seeds (Table)

9. Who supplies your seedlings?

10. Where do you obtain your desired variety of seedling/seed?
-----Gift -----Trade -----Krishi Bhavan ----Other (please specify)









11. Do you select the variety of the particular species you want to use in your garden?
If so..go to 12

12. Do you believe that certain varieties are better than others? Why?

13. What are your preferred varieties from the list of primary species from the garden

14. What are the main factors that influence your decision to buy a particular type of
seedling? Please rate the top three
----- Availability ----- Monetary reason ... .Location
----- Nutritional value ----- Ease of growing .... Other
----- Market value ----- Ease of maintenance
----- Aesthetic value -----Nutritional security

15. If you use livestock products for the household or for market production, what are
they
----- Cattle ----- Goats ----- Chickens -----Pigs ...... Other

16. What are the products that are used from these livestock?
---- Milk ---- Meat -----Eggs -----Draft labor
-----Transportation .......Other

17. How many years have you used this homegarden, or how many years has this
homegarden remained in your family?

18. Has it always been this size? If not, please go to 19, If yes, go to 21

19. Is your homegarden now bigger or smaller than it used to be?

20. What are the reasons behind this change?

21. Do you use any type of fertilizer? If so, go to 22. If not, go to 29.

22. Is your fertilizer
... chemical .....animal ....household wastes (compost) ... Other

23. Do you use more than one type of fertilizer?

24. Does the season affect the type of fertilizer you use?

25. Reasons for fertilizer use
......soil degradation .......high requirements of selected plant species
......commercial production ...... Other

26. If you buy fertilizer, how much do you buy at a time?









27. Do you pay for it with
... cash ... trade ... credit

28. Is sack size important? I.e. would you buy more or less fertilizer if it came in
small bags?

29 What part of the plants do you use? how or for what?

30. Do you plant annual crops in the same place in the garden year after year? Why
or why not?

31. If you save your own seed, what do you do to protect it, to make sure it will
germinate when you plant it next season?

32. How do you determine what will be seed and what will be eaten or sold?

33. Do you plant certain crops the same time as your neighbors? How do you know
when to plant?

34. Are there any crops which you used to grow, or your parents used to grow, that
you no longer grow? If so, which ones and why?

35. Are you growing any new crops, that your parents or grandparents never grew? If
so, which ones and why?

36. If you could only grow five crops, what would they be?

37. Which crops require the most care? Why?

38. Which crops are most profitable, to sell or trade? Why?

39. Have you noticed any significant ecological degradation in your homegarden in
terms of the following categories?
.... soil degradation .....quality of plant product .... litter
quality......... quantity of plant product .......availability of livestock fodder
......intangible loss .......Other

40. Pests and Diseases
How do you decide on a particular species in order to keep common pests and
diseases away from your homegarden
.....Family wisdom ..... Local krishi bhavan info ......extension materials
......Other

41. Planting systems
What are the factors behind your placing these homegarden species in this
particular order that you have chosen









...Light interception .....Plant requirements ......Commercial
requirements ......Space constraints ......No particular reason .......Soil
characteristics


Section 2: Input: Labor, money, time

1. How many hours of labor do you put into the garden on a daily basis?

2. How many hours of paid labor is put into the garden on a monthly basis?

3. Out of the labor input, how much time (in terms of percentage of the total labor
input) is spent on the following categories?
........Planting ......W eeding ......Maintenance ...... Harvesting
... Livestock .....Cottage industries ......Other

4. How much money do you spend on fertilizers for the homegarden on a monthly
basis?

5. How many seedlings do you buy on a monthly basis for purposes of planting, and
other garden needs?

6. How much money do you spend on transportation to and from market, and to and
from the Krishi Bhavan (the local agricultural office) in terms of Rs/week

7. How much time do you spend on transportation to and from market, and to and
from the Krishi Bhavan in terms of hours/week?

8. Do you own livestock? If so, go to 9. If not, go to section 3

9. How many?

10. Do you buy feed? How much money do you spend on feed on a monthly basis?

11. Does your livestock live in the garden?

12. How much money did you spend on their facilities: barn, hay storage facility
One time cost
Weekly (for things that need to be done once a week)
Monthy (once a month)
Yearly ( once a year)










Section 3 Output from garden


1. What are the main benefits from your homegarden. Please rate them in order of
importance by numbering them from 1-15
----- Household food supply ---------- Biodiversity
----- Nutritional security ---------- Wildlife habitat
---- Livestock housing, and shade ---------- Timber production
---- Commercial production ---------- Fuelwood production
----- Aesthetics and ornamentation ---------- Fruit Production
----- Cottage industries ---------- Gender equality
---- Site for aquaculture, pisciculture, --------- Other (please specify)
---- Bee keeping

2. Estimate the total monetary worth of your garden in terms of Rs.

3. Estimate the total monetary worth of your garden
-------- 10 years from now
-------- 20 years from now

4. Do you plan on leaving this garden to your children?

5. Do you believe that this garden will be of economic worth to the inheritor?

6. Do you believe that this garden will be of social worth to the inheritor?



Section 4: Homegarden and its impact on lifestyles

1. Do you think this homegarden is essential to your lifestyle? If so.....please rate it's
importance
------ Invaluable ------Very important ------ Somewhat important
------ Neutral ------Not very important -------Waste of space

CONTINGENT VALUATION

2. How much would you need to be paid to not have access to your homegarden?
Please estimate in terms of percentage of your annual income?
0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+

3. Do you think this homegarden contributes to your household economy?

4. If so, please estimate its value in terms of percentage of your income?
0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+










5. How important is it to obtain aesthetic and ornamentation benefits from your
garden?
----- Invaluable ------Very important ------ Somewhat important
------ Neutral ------Not very important

6. How much money would you need to lose the aesthetic benefit? Please estimate in
terms of percentage of total income
0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+

7. Conversely, how much money would you be willing to pay to obtain such aesthetic
benefit? Please estimate in terms of percentage of total income
0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+


8. How important is it to obtain shade for your livestock?
----- Invaluable ------Very important ------ Somewhat important
------ Neutral ------Not very important

9. How much money would you need to lose the opportunity to obtain shade for your
livestock from this garden? Please estimate in terms of % of total income?
0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+

10. Conversely, how much money would you be willing to pay to obtain shade for
your livestock? Please estimate in terms of percentage of total income
0-2% 3-5% 6%-10% 11-20% 21%+




Section 5 Demographics and gender

1. How many people live in your household?

2. What are their age demographics?

3. How many people work outside of the home?

4. What is your annual income
------ Don't know ------- Rs.1.0-Rs.4999 ------- Rs. 5000-Rs.9999
------ Rs. 10000-14,999 ------- Rs. 15,000-Rs. 20,000

5. Where does your income come from? Please rate from 1-5, with 1 being the
employment providing the highest income

------ Outside employment ------- Farming outside of homegarden









------ Homegarden -------Other business -------Family

6. If you were not spending work hours in the garden, what else could you be doing?
------- Income generating employment --------- Nothing
------- Household chores.

7. Do you believe that you could be using this space occupied by the homegarden for
other purposes that would generate more money?
Yes No

8. If yes, what are the other income generating activities
Industry setting Selling space to developer Setting up some other business
Other

9. Who spends more time in the garden
......Father ......M other ....Child .....Other

10. Who does most of the cooking in the household
.....Father .....M other .....Other

11. Do you conduct any businesses from the garden? If yes, go to 12. If not, go to 13

12. What are they?
... Cottage industries .....Apiculture ......Sericulture .......Aquaculture
...... Tourism ...... Other


13. Who do you believe is chiefly responsible for homegarden activities and
maintenance?
.....Man's enterprise .....Equally divided .......Woman's enterprise

14. Do you believe that the homegarden contributes to the whole idea of Kerala being
a state where women have comparatively literacy rates, and are considered more
empowered?

15. Do you believe that homegardens contribute to the empowerment of women? If
yes, go to 16. If not, go to 17.

16. How so?

17. Who is responsible for the economics of the homegarden? I.e. who is responsible
for the economics of the homegarden?