Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s11250-011-9881-6
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Introduction
Agriculture in developing countries is characterised by the
utilisation of local inputs, both in crops as in animal
production (Aganga and Tsopito 2004). In the central
highlands of Mxico, this means the maize crop and the
presence of criollo livestock or their crosses with improved
breeds that are adapted to local conditions of small-holder
campesino farming systems (Arriaga-Jordn et al. 2005a)
that represent over 80% of total farms (INEGI 2007), which
are characterised by the small size of farms usually under
rainfed conditions, with the integration of farm animals mostly
for self-consumption but with some level of commercialisation (Arriaga-Jordn et al. 2005a). Mexico has over two
million equines (horses, mules and donkeys) (INEGI 2007)
and the vast majority are used for agricultural and rural
activities.
In spite of recurrent crisis of the farming sector, campesinos
still undertake their agricultural activities explained in part by
the diversified use of their resource allotment as well as by offfarm work; developing strategies over time that enable them to
face adverse scenarios. Off-farm work has been shown as
crucial in supporting rural livelihoods and enabling agricultural
intensification and improved incomes from farm activities
(Savadogo et al. 1998).
The presence of farm animals is particularly relevant by
their multifunctionality, as they can be sold or consumed in
1624
1625
Equines
Number of members
Age
Women
Men
Species
Proportion of equines
Reason for keeping equines
Time equines have been in farm
Animal health (illness or lesions)
Welfare (existence of pen)
Predominant use
Workload distribution
Agricultural activities
Group 1
Most farms in this group (90%) are located in Santa Cruz
which is nearer to the main town. They are formed basically
by young farmers under 40 years old (53.84%), predominantly with off-farm non-agricultural work in 76.9% of
household heads. Activities include commerce, services
(taxi drivers) and waged employment in the nearby urban
centres and even in their own village (taxi drivers).
This is related to the schooling they have, where more
than 50% have concluded their primary education which in
the region means the feasibility of finding a job in nearby
urban centres, which also reduces the need for migration far
from their home village.
In a smaller proportion of farms (23.1%), only the
household head undertakes agricultural work in their farm.
1626
Table 3 Demographic characteristics of four groups of farmers
(total n=68 farms) using equine
animals for work in the
campesino villages of La Era and
Santa Cruz, San Felipe
de Progreso, Mexico
Number of farms
13
33
13
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
0
4
3
2
0
3
5
1
Frequency
0.00
44.4
33.3
22.2
0.0
33.3
55.5
11.1
6
4
1
2
0
6
3
3
46.1
30.8
7.7
15.4
0.0
46.1
23.1
23.1
0
5
3
1
0
0.01
55.5
33.3
11.1
0.0
6
6
0
1
0
46.1
46.1
0.0
7.7
0.0
0
7
1
1
0.0
77.8
11.1
11.1
0
12
1
0
0.0
92.3
7.7
0.0
1627
Table 4 Features on working equine presence in four groups of farmers (total n=68 farms) in the campesino villages of La Era and Santa Cruz, San
Felipe de Progreso, Mexico
Groups
Number of Farms
13
33
13
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
5
22
0
6
15.1
66.7
0.0
18.2
0
4
5
0
0.0
44.4
55.5
0.0
1
11
1
0
7.7
84.6
7.7
0.0
30
3
0
90.9
9.1
0.0
0
7
2
0.0
77.8
22.2
9
4
0
69.2
30.8
0.0
33
0
0
0
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
7
0
0
22.2
77.8
0.0
0.0
6
7
0
0
46.6
53.8
0.0
0.0
30
3
0
0
90.9
9.1
0.0
0.0
5
1
0
3
55.5
11.1
0.0
33.3
3
5
0
5
23.1
38.5
0.0
38.5
0
0
33
0
0.0
0.0
100
0.0
0
0
9
0
0.0
0.0
100
0.0
13
0
0
0
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
32
1
0
0
0.0
97.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0
5
3
0
1
0.0
55.5
33.3
0.0
11.1
0
10
2
1
0
0.0
76.9
15.4
7.7
0.0
11
15
7
0
33.3
45.4
21.2
0.0
1
3
2
3
11.1
33.3
22.2
33.3
2
6
3
3
15.4
46.1
23.1
23.1
13
17
2
1
39.4
51.5
6.1
3.0
0
5
0
4
0.0
55.5
0.0
44.4
5
5
0
3
38.5
38.7
0.0
23.1
0
33
0.0
100
0
9
0.0
100
0
13
0.0
100
1628
Table 5 Complementary demographic characteristics of the four groups of farmers (total n=68 farms) using equine animals for work in the
campesino villages of La Era and Santa Cruz, San Felipe de Progreso, Mexico
Feature
Number of farms
Groups
1
13
33
13
Frequency
Gender of household head
Male
Female
6
7
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
46.1
53.8
22
11
66.7
33.3
9
0
100.0
0.0
12
1
92.3
7.7
23.1
61.5
15.4
21
8
4
63.6
24.2
12.1
6
3
0
66.7
33.3
0.0
3
9
1
23.1
69.2
7.7
53.8
30.8
15.4
10
16
7
30.3
48.5
21.2
2
3
4
22.2
33.3
44.4
1
6
6
7.7
46.1
46.1
7.7
38.5
38.5
15.4
3
10
15
5
9.1
30.3
45.4
15.1
2
1
3
3
22.2
11.1
33.3
33.3
3
3
2
5
23.1
23.1
15.4
36.5
46.1
23.1
15.4
7.7
11
13
6
1
33.3
39.4
18.2
3.0
4
4
1
0
44.4
44.4
11.1
0.0
6
2
3
2
46.1
15.4
23.1
15.4
>3
1
7.7
2
Number of permanent migrants that contribute remittances to farm
1
3
13
2
2
6
3
1
1
4
2
5
6
1
6.1
0.0
0.0
4
1
2
3
2
1629
1630
Table 6 Activity diversification of family members of the four groups of farmers (total n=68 farms) using equine animals for work in the
campesino villages of La Era and Santa Cruz, San Felipe de Progreso, Mexico
Feature
Farms
Groups
1
13
33
13
Frequency
Activities of family members
Agriculture
Agriculture+Local non-agricultural work
Local non-agricultural work
Agriculture+External non-agricultural
External non-agricultural
Without activity
Type of local non-agricultural activity
Commerce
Craft
Service
Construction
Unskilled helper
Type of external work
Unskilled helper
Construction
Employee
Commerce
Technician
Professional
Location of external work
Municipal main town (<15 km)
Atlacomulco (30 km)
Mexico City (90 km)
Rest of country
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
22
5
0
6
1
19
41.5
9.4
0.0
11.3
1.9
35.8
69
9
0
14
4
57
45.1
5.9
0.0
9.1
2.6
37.2
20
5
0
4
0
6
57.1
14.3
0.0
11.4
0.0
17.1
23
6
0
3
7
17
41.1
10.7
0.0
5.3
12.5
30.3
2
2
1
0
40.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1
2
3
1
11.1
22.2
33.3
11.1
1
0
4
0
20.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
1
2
3
0
16.7
33.3
50.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
1
2
2
1
0
1
14.3
28.6
28.6
14.3
0.0
14.3
4
4
6
4
0
0
22.2
22.2
33.3
22.2
0.0
0.0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0.0
50.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0
1
1
5
1
2
0.0
10.0
10.0
50.0
10.0
20.0
4
2
1
0
57.1
28.6
14.3
0.0
6
1
10
1
33.3
5.5
55.5
5.5
1
1
2
0
25.0
25.0
50.0
0.0
3
1
4
2
30.0
10.0
40.0
20.0
Conclusions
The diversification strategies through undertaking nonagricultural activities that were identified in the two study
villages enable campesino families to continue their
agricultural activities which would otherwise be very
difficult to sustain. Even in farms where agricultural
production has been displaced to a secondary level of
importance, it is maintained not as a productive objective
that provides resources, but more out of tradition and
considering the possibility of having access to resources
1631
References
Aganga, A.A. and Tsopito, C.M., 2004. Donkey power technology in the
Gaborone Region. In: P. Starkey and D. Fielding (eds), Donkeys,
people and development: web version, (ATNESA Publications:
http://www.atnesa.org/donkeyspeopledevelopment.htm).
1632
Arriaga - Jordn, C.M., Pedraza - Fuentes, A.M., Nava - Bernal, E.G.,
Chvez - Meja, M.C. and Casteln - Ortega, O.A., 2005a. Livestock
agrodiversity of mazahua small-holder campesino systems in the
highlands of central Mexico, Human Ecology, 33, 821 845.
Arriaga-Jordn, C.M., Pedraza-Fuentes, A.M., Velazquez-Beltrn, L.G.,
Nava-Bernal, E.G. and Chavez-Mejia, M.C., 2005b. Economic
contribution of draught animals to Mazahua smallholder campesino
farming systems in the highlands of Central Mexico. Tropical
Animal Health and Production, 37, 589597.
Bawa, G.S. and Bolorunduro, P.I., 2008. Draught animal power
utilization in small holder farmsA case study of Ringim Local
Government Area of Jigawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Food,
Agriculture and Environment, 6, 299 302.
Bebbington, A. J., 1999. Capitals and Capabilities: a framework for
analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World
Development, 27, 20212044.
Bryceson, D.F., 1996. Deagrarianization and rural employment in subSaharan Africa: a sectoral perspective, World Development. 24,
97111.
Dorward, A., Anderson, S., Nava, Y., Pattison, J., Rushton, J. and
Snchez V.E., 2006. Gua de indicadores y mtodos para la
evaluacin de la aportacin de la crianza de ganado en los modos
de vida de los pobres, (Department of Agricultural Sciences,
Imperial College London and Livestock Production Programme,
Department for International Development, London, U.K).
Ellis, F. 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification.
Journal of Development Studies, 351, 138.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C., 2008.
Multivariate data analysis, Fifth Edition, International Edition.
(Prentice-Hall International Inc., New Jersey, USA).
Herani, G.M., 2008. Livelihood diversication and opinion polls'
analysis. Evidence from Tharpakar-Sindh (Pakistan). MPRA
Paper No. 8050, posted 18. Abril 2008/11:17. Online at http://
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8050/
Hussein, K. and Nelson J., 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods and Diversification, IDS working paper No 69, (Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton).