Document(s) 5 of 17

The multiple occupations of farming families 

The classification of livelihood strategies 

Comparisons among livelihood strategies Conclusions

The multiple occupations of farming families

The availability of land in northern Honduras drew families to the hillsides and initially allowed settlers to establish farms. The fact remains, however, that most households cannot devote all of their productive time to farming. About 69% of all hillside households surveyed were relying partly on the off-farm earnings of at least one family member. Almost half of those in the male labour force were working part or full time as day workers, petty traders, loggers, journeyworkers, or seasonal construction workers.

Day workers are employed by other farm households to assist in land preparation and in planting, weeding, and harvesting annual crops. Ranchers employ day workers to establish and manage pastures. Other forms of wage employment reported by hillside farm households include seasonal highway maintenance, work in small factories, and public-sector jobs (mainly as primary-school teachers).

Members of hillside farm households also engage in various forms of self-employment. Petty trading (fruit, bread) and craft work (mainly baskets) provide limited cash earnings to meet the household subsistence needs of some families. Others extract logs from the high forests of the Nombre de Dios and dress them by hand for sale as timber. Logging is profitable but has various problems, such as the insecurity of tree tenure and inconsistent regulations (PDBL 1991; Rodríguez Torres 1992; Humphries, in press). For these reasons and because of the sheer physical strain of the work, logging is usually a complementary activity of relatively young people engaged in agriculture.

Land ownership enables people to live independently of off-farm employment and to diversify their farm enterprises. Some households cultivate commercial crops, such as chilies, cacao, and coffee. Others specialize in livestock production, including cattle and pigs. Table 6 shows the size of the herds in the hillside zone and their distribution among households. About one-quarter of the farm families surveyed in the hillside zone owned cattle, with herds ranging from a few to 125 head. Most of these ranches produce milk for local cheese manufacturers or for sale to a regional milk-processing facility that has collection centres at various points in the department. About one-quarter of these ranches — typically the more isolated ones — raise beef cattle for sale in regional markets. Many hillside farmers hope to establish ranches, as cattle ranching is less risky and more profitable than other regional agricultural enterprises. Humphries (in press) calculated that a rancher with only three milk-producing cows can realize profits as high as those of the average producer of basic grains, but with considerably less effort and risk. The relative profitability of basic grains and cattle production is discussed briefly in Chapter 6.

Table 6. Ranches in the hillside zone, northern Honduras, 1992.
Size of herd (n)a	Households
	(%)	(n)
0	72	91
1–5	16	20
6–10	6	7
>10	6	8
Source: Authors' survey, 1992. aNumber of cattle.

Pigs are a poor household's form of livestock production. Although raising pigs is mainly a means to accumulating savings, pig production can be used to convert excess grain and the by-products of cheese-making (whey) into cash, thereby providing a stepping-stone into cattle ranching. Some 37% of the surveyed population owned pigs, although usually they owned no more than three or four. Slightly more than half the households surveyed owned one or two horses, which they use to transport grain from the field to the home. In a few cases, farmers rented out their horses or their own services as muleteers.

Land and livestock also provide the basis for investment in small businesses. Cattle brokers with trucks buy cattle in the hillside communities and resell them to slaughterhouses in the regional urban centres. These merchants may also use their vehicles to transport milk produced by other ranchers to regional collection centres. Among ranchers a popular way to invest is to establish small stores stocked with dry goods (machetes, rope) and food items (rice, salt, canned milk).

The classification of livelihood strategies

The diverse and multiple occupations of farm households are both conditioned and enabled by the distribution of land and other resources. To explore this complex relationship and identify the livelihood strategies that households adopt, we developed a hierarchical classification of households.

The methods for the analysis are described in Buckles and Sain (1995). We examined the relationships among the variables and cases (households) in the survey data, using multivariate analysis. A hierarchical classification of cases was used in successive iterations of a computer program (TWINSPAN) to obtain a hierarchical classification of variables according to their case preference. The two classifications were then used together to obtain an ordered two-way table (case by variable) to express the hierarchical relationships as succinctly as possible. This contrasts with most standard clustering techniques that classify only cases (or variables) and that depend on single measures of similarity or dissimilarity (van Groenewoud 1992).

A hierarchical classification offers a more comprehensive picture of strategic relationships between resources and households than analyses based on individual profiles only (head of household, for example) or key variables such as farm size (cf. CEPAL 1982; Galvez et al. 1990). The method simultaneously combines various criteria that researchers normally consider separately in the classification of farming populations, such as land ownership, occupational profiles, and land uses.

The classification applies to households rather than to individuals, in keeping with the domestic character of rural livelihood. Farm families pool their resources and combine activities in ways that differ from those of specialized enterprises or wage-based households. This is not to say, however, that farm households are a single unit of production or that the intrahousehold distribution of resources and gender division of labour have little impact on the power and well-being of individual members of households. The agricultural land farmed by Honduran households is typically owned by men, although women also work in the fields. Some 20% of the farm households surveyed indicated that female members of the household engaged in agricultural labour, typically during weeding operations and at harvest time. Women also accounted for a full 50% of the time spent in self-employment by households, typically as small-scale traders. However, the survey instrument failed to capture the level of detail needed to examine the gender roles and differences as an element in the classification. Furthermore, the data-collection process was not conducive to the documentation of gender-based differences in priorities and relative contributions to overall livelihood strategies. This bias against the study of the economic contribution of women to farm livelihoods remains an important weakness typical of farm surveys (Poats 1991; Thomas-Slayter et al. 1993).

Comparisons among livelihood strategies

The classification of livelihood strategies resulted in the identification of five relatively homogeneous household groups: ranchers, diversified farmers, medium-scale farmers, small-scale farmers, and subsistence workers (Table 7). These groups represent major divisions with respect to the distribution of land, labour and capital resources, land uses, and occupational profiles.

Differences in farm size and land use among the groups are presented in Table 8. Ranchers control more land, both in production and in fallow, than other groups. They have roughly half of their total farm area in pasture but also control substantial cropland, reflecting a strategy among ranchers of mixed farming, rather than specialization in cattle ranching. The dual strategy of diversified farmers engaged in some crop and livestock production is also brought to light by data showing the distribution of their land resources among crops, fallow, and pastures. By contrast, medium- and small-scale farmers dedicate as much land to crops as diversified farmers but manage no pastures. Their focus on crops, fallows, and permanent tree crops distinguishes them from the subsistence workers, who have highly specialized land uses and the smallest farms.

The close relationship between farm size and land rights is illustrated by Table 9, which shows the proportion of farmed area owned and rented by farmers in each household group. Farmers with larger farms (ranchers and diversified and medium-scale farmers) are much less dependent on land-rental markets for access to land. By contrast, subsistence workers depend almost entirely on rented land. Land-rental markets also play a significant role in the farming systems of small-scale farmers. These observations underline the importance of land-rental markets to large sectors of the hillside population and point to relations of interdependency and exchange between the landed and the landless farmers. Hillside ranchers, as well as urban-based landowners, play the role of land brokers to land-poor households. This system allows ranchers to invest their capital in fallow land to establish pastures at little or no direct cost while providing landless workers with access to farmland.

Although the land-rental market gives the land poor an opportunity to rent some farmland, it does not fundamentally alter their potential to increase or diversify their crops (Table 10). The survey indicated that subsistence workers tend to specialize in maize production, on average cultivating 1.3 ha of maize in either season. Only half of the households in this group cultivate beans, and less than one-third cultivate rice, typically on very small fields. In keeping with the limited land resources of this group, other annual crops and commercial-scale tree crops are rarely grown.

Small- and medium-scale farmers have more substantial farms. Households in both groups typically cultivate maize — on average, 1.5–2.0 ha each season — as well as small fields of beans. Rice is cultivated by fewer than one-third of the households in these groups. A sizable proportion of small-scale farmers tend tree crops, an uncommon strategy for diversification among medium-scale farmers (Table 10). Medium-scale farmers more typically diversify by renting out pastures or using them for grazing by their own animals.

The crop profiles of farmers who diversify reflects the tendency of households in this group to engage in a wide range of farm-based activities. Most of these farmers produce beans, and nearly half grow rice as well. The proportion of households in this group producing additional annual crops does not differ significantly from that of other groups. The average maize area for this group is somewhat greater, however, surpassing 2 ha for the second-season crop.

Ranchers constitute the group with the most diversified crop-production strategies. Their average maize area is quite large, 3.8 ha in both seasons, but the area they crop in beans is the same as that of farmers in other groups. Rice is a difficult crop for hillside environments, requiring relatively good land and careful weeding, but it is grown by almost 90% of ranchers; other annual crops (mainly chilies) and tree crops are also much more common among ranchers than among other farmers. This crop-production profile reflects the capacity of ranchers to muster the land, labour, and financial resources needed to cultivate a wide range of crops. It also underlines the mixed-farm nature of livelihood strategies among households of this group; these ranchers never abandon agriculture altogether but continue to rely on a range of activities and land uses for their livelihood. This finding does not conform to the narrowly defined logic of enterprise development that implies that larger farms specialize and smaller farms maintain diversified production strategies. One possible explanation for this is that the management and supervision costs of diversified strategies remain small for even larger farms in northern Honduras.

The ability of ranchers and diversified farmers to respond to production constraints is also greater than that of farmers in other household groups. Whereas two-thirds of the ranchers and almost three-quarters of the diversified farmers applied fertilizer to their maize, only one-quarter of the medium-scale farmers and one-third of the small-scale farmers did. Slightly more than half the subsistence workers used fertilizer on maize, possibly reflecting the fact that they have more access to cash than do farmers who depend on farming alone. Reliance on fertilizers as a source of nutrients may also be an appropriate strategy for farmers with less control or knowledge of the fertility status of the land they crop, a situation to be expected among renters.

Only 10% of the surveyed population — mostly ranchers — received credit for maize production in 1992. Widespread cash and credit constraints among poorer households have probably influenced their decisions to use the abonera system as a way to manage soil fertility — an issue discussed in subsequent chapters.

Data on the percentage of households within each group that sold half or more of the 1991–1992 harvest of various crops (Table 11) shed light on the relative importance of various market transactions to each group. Most hillside farmers (71%) sell little or none of their first-season maize, but diversified farmers are more likely than those in other groups to put their harvest on the market. This tendency reflects the greater dependence of diversified farmers on income from crop production, compared with ranchers.

Farmers and ranchers in all groups more commonly sold second-season maize on the market, in response to the much higher maize prices during this season. Sales of second-season maize are very common among ranchers, which is in keeping with the much larger maize area cropped by members of this group. Diversified and medium-scale farmers also tend more than small-scale farmers and subsistence workers to sell second-season maize. As noted above, the maize area for these households also tends to be greater during the second season, a seasonal strategy that is uncommon among small-scale farmers and subsistence workers.

The proportion of households selling half or more of their bean harvest is low for all groups. Although beans are a key subsistence crop, small amounts of beans sold by numerous farmers located throughout the region account for almost half of the beans consumed in La Ceiba, the country's third largest city (Matute Ortíz 1992).

Sales vary among groups much more for rice than for beans. Ranchers are clearly the most important rice producers, in terms both of average area cultivated and the tendency to market the harvest. These ranchers also market sizable proportions of other crops, such as chilies, fruit, coffee, and cacao. Overall, however, the level of home consumption of annual crops is high among all groups, including ranchers and diversified farmers, in keeping with the subsistence orientation of most agricultural activities in the region.

We found no significant differences in family size or age of the head of the household to point to the role of the family-development cycle in the rise of livelihood strategies (Table 12). Although the availability of family labour was undoubtedly important to individual households, it has no group profile. However, the capacity of households to employ nonfamily labourers does vary from group to group. Data on the use of nonfamily labour by household group highlight the advantaged position of ranchers and, to a lesser degree, diversified farmers. Ranchers hired workers for an average of 28 person—day to assist in clearing, planting, and weeding second-season maize. Data on wage-labour use for other crops and seasons were not collected.

The distribution of livestock ownership among groups is also extremely skewed (Table 13). All households in the rancher group owned cattle, with average herds of some 19 animals. Diversified farmers had many fewer head of cattle but a larger number of pigs, reflecting a strategy of using pig production to gradually accumulate capital in livestock. Complementarities between very small scale dairy and pig production may also account for the development of this strategy (Humphries, personal communication, 1996²). Ranchers earn their income through the direct sale of milk, but diversified farmers, with smaller herds, must transform milk into cheese for profit. Whey, a by-product of cheese-making, can be used to fatten pigs, thereby increasing the profitability of this activity as well.

Independent and small-scale farmers may own a pig or two as a way to accumulate savings. By contrast, subsistence workers cannot support livestock, which is evidence of the structural limitations on their livelihood strategy.

The classification of livelihood strategies can be extended to an analysis of multiple occupations among hillside families. As noted previously, about 69% of the households surveyed depend to some degree on the off-farm employment of a family member. Specific forms of off-farm employment are more common, however, among some groups than among others (Table 14). Day work on the farms and ranches of other households is primarily the domain of small-scale farmers and subsistence workers, who have little land of their own on which to employ family labour. These two groups, representing 46% of the households surveyed, account for 93% of the time dedicated to day work. Small-scale farmers and subsistence wage workers averaged 16 and 26 weeks year^-1 per household, respectively, as day workers. These averages highlight the greater commitment of subsistence workers to day work, compared with more independent small-scale farmers. Day work is physically demanding yet very poorly paid; most day workers earn about 1.25 USD d^-1 slashing brush to clear fields for cultivation or planting, weeding, and harvesting.

Table 14. Proportion of households engaged in various occupations by household group, northern Honduras, 1992.
Occupation	Proportion of households (%)					P
	Ranchers	Diversified farmers	Medium-scale farmers	Small-scale farmers	Subsistence workers
Day work	5.3	10.5	20.0	89.3	80.0	**
Off-farm wage work	0.0	31.6	3.3	0.0	20.0	**
Self-employment	0.0	10.5	13.3	17.9	10.0	NS
Logging	0.0	0.0	43.3	3.6	0.0	**
Small businesses	15.8	0.0	6.7	3.6	3.3	NS
Source: Authors' survey, 1992. ** Significant at P <= 0.01 (Chi-square test); NS, not significant.

Only 10% of the households surveyed engaged in nonfarm wage employment, divided into two types. Members of diversified farm households who were employed off the farm had relatively stable and better paying jobs as school teachers, workers in small factories, and skilled journeyworkers. These workers were all literate, which made it possible for them to find better jobs and, through employment, accumulate land and livestock. By contrast, subsistence workers employed in the nonfarm sector typically worked seasonally or temporarily in highway construction. They had a much lower level of literacy; only one-third of the wage workers in this group could read. Family labour cannot be productively employed on the limited farms managed by subsistence workers, nor can their labour skills fetch wages above the subsistence level.

Logging was important to only 11% of the households surveyed; virtually all of those who did this work were classified as independent farmers. All but one of these households belonged to a logging cooperative that provided them with access to community forests and assistance in marketing finished lumber. Although logging is physically demanding and constrained by uncertain access to suitable forest resources and the risk of having finished lumber confiscated by government officials (Humphries, in press), the financial rewards of logging can be considerable, as mahogany and Spanish cedar fetch a good price on regional markets. Logging families reported dedicating a combined household average of 30 weeks year^-1 to extracting precious woods, generating an estimated 1000–2000 USD per family, depending on the type and quality of wood cut. This estimate is based on the average number of weeks per year of logging activities reported by the entire household (30 weeks) and on Humphries' (in press) calculations of individual logging income (143–285 USD month^-1). Logging typically takes place during the dry winter season and may involve the concentrated effort of several family members.

Self-employment in the hillside zone is important to 11% of the households surveyed; family members are engaged in petty trading (fruit, bread), craft work (mainly baskets), or managing small food stands from their homes. Small-scale self-employment has no particular group orientation. A small proportion of households in all groups except the ranchers reported the employment of some family members (mainly women) in petty trade, crafts, or food preparation. By contrast, the small businesses were established mostly by ranchers reinvesting income in small stores or in trucks for brokering animals and milk — an opportunity closed to other household groups.

Conclusions

The analysis reveals a high degree of social differentiation in hillside areas of northern Honduras and the development of distinct strategies for maintaining households. These livelihood strategies reflect the structural limitations on the opportunities and land-management practices of land-poor households and reflect as well the opportunities available to the land rich. Strategies differ in ways that strongly influence land-use patterns, employment of family labour, and other features of hillside agricultural systems.

Ranchers represent 15% of the households surveyed. They own cattle and pigs, pastures, and fallow land. Their crop production is typically diversified, and they cultivate larger than average areas of maize, beans, and rice. Many of the ranchers are able to sell at least half of their harvest of annual crops on the market. Their financial resources allow them to establish small businesses, such as stores or livestock brokerages, and to avoid low-paying off-farm employment.

Diversified farmers — also representing some 15% of the surveyed households — have on average fewer cattle than ranchers but more pigs, a less land-intensive form of livestock production. Nevertheless, diversified farmers own enough land to grow a wide variety of annual crops. They also control some pasture and fallow land. Diversified farmers have no need to rely on day work for their livelihood, but they may engage in relatively stable and better paying forms of off-farm employment, such as factory work and teaching. The money earned by family labour in off-farm employment seems to provide these households with additional opportunities to accumulate land and livestock, an association that points to the role that improvements in wages and rural employment opportunities might play in local development.

Medium-scale farmers represent almost 24% of the households surveyed. They own land, including sizable fallow areas, on which they grow small quantities of maize, rice, and beans. They may have some land under permanent tree crops. Their land and other resources are too limited, however, for livestock production. Their farming activities allow them to avoid low-paying day work, but most opt to complement farming with logging. Their memberships in logging cooperatives facilitate this activity.

Small-scale farmers, representing some 22% of the surveyed households, own some cropland but have very little of it under pasture or in fallow. Access to land through rental markets is very important to members of this group. Crop production by small-scale farmers is usually limited to maize and beans, typically for subsistence, and livestock production is beyond their means. Small-scale farmers are forced by their limited capital in land to employ family labour in day work and some forms of self-employment (crafts and petty trade) to even make ends meet. This dependence on off-farm employment among small-scale farmers suggests that they have little labour within the household to invest in new land-management practices.

Subsistence workers constitute a large group, accounting for almost 24% of the households surveyed. Members of their households frequently engage in low-paying off-farm employment as day workers, which is their primary source of income. Crop production among subsistence workers is focused exclusively on maize, the main subsistence crop in the region. As with small-scale farmers, subsistence workers do not have enough land to permit crop diversification or livestock production. These households are highly dependent on rental markets for cropland.

The picture of household strategies that emerges from the analysis enables us to holistically appreciate the context in which farmers make decisions regarding technology. The remainder of this book examines in detail the experience of Honduran farmers with velvetbean and the factors influencing adoption of the abonera system.

Document(s) 5 of 17