Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Labor and its Productivity in Andean Dairy Farming Systems: A Comparative Approach

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Globalization induces changes in the combinations of productions and activities within farming systems in all parts of the world. These changes can only be apprehended through an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms and diversity of these farming systems. Labor, as a major technical determinant of differences in competitiveness, is central in these transformations. The technical and economic analysis of labor in Andean dairy production in this paper illustrates this issue. Combining various scales of analysis of labor and productivity highlights the technical obstacles faced by Andean dairy farmers, demonstrates the technical and economic principles of these production systems, and puts them in a competitive context. This analysis also discusses the benefits of a labor-centered approach of farming systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 2002, the average dairy product consumption levels of Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador were respectively 35, 50 and 100 kg of milk equivalent units per habitant per year, butter not included.

  2. The important role played by the larger community in the organization of agricultural production in the Andes, is emphasized by numerous authors (Mayer 1985; Gonzales de Olarte 1984; Orlove and Godoy 1986; Mayer 2002). The importance of the “collective” in the management of the dairy systems examined in this article (notably the management of rangelands and irrigation water teams) was studied in depth by one of the authors (Aubron 2005).

  3. The “productivity of land,” or the value added per surface unit, will not be addressed in this article. The measurement of the areas involved, since vast expanses of high altitude rangelands must be included, is particularly difficult. Here, only the gross value added (GVA), and thus the gross productivity of labor, was measured in so the fixed capital annual depreciation of the production units (remaining insignificant for the majority) could not be taken into account.

  4. Aggregate of the values of the products generated over the year estimated at their opportunity cost, be they sold or consumed by the household.

  5. Intermediate consumption consists of all the goods and services completely consumed as inputs in the year’s production.

  6. In Sinto, farmers do not use the chaquitaclla (a manual plow typical of cropping systems involving collective rotations; Morlon et al. 1996) or the ox-hauled swing plows used in other Andean regions. They are not considered effective in Sinto because of the very small size of the plots, the lack of humidity, and the very stony soil.

  7. These characteristics are representative of an average Sinto household despite the variations that exist between households in terms of access to means of production.

  8. Small ruminant (sheep and goats) husbandry often is combined with cattle farming in Sinto production systems for the same reasons. When they are bred in small numbers—five females at the most—they are incorporated into the dairy cattle herd. They provide supplementary income and improve the quality of the household diet (providing meat and milk) without requiring any extra labor. With more than five females, small ruminants are taken to the rangelands and an extra worker is required to watch over them.

References

  • Attonaty, J. M., Laporte, C., Papa, F., and Soler, L. G. (1987). La Simulation De l’organisation Du Travail Comme Outil De Gestion De l’exploitation Agricole. Application À La Grande Culture. Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement 10: 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubron, C. (2005). Individus Et Collectifs Dans l’appropriation Des Ressources: Le Cas D’une Communauté Andine Péruvienne. Autrepart 34: 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubron, C. (2006). Le lait des andes vaut-il de l’or ? Logiques paysannes et insertion marchande de la production fromagère andine. PhD thesis, INA P-G.

  • Aubron, C., and Brunschwig, G. (2008). Practices Consistency in Dairy Farms of the Dry Andes: Analysis in a Peruvian Peasants Community. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20(30).

  • Aubron, C., and Cochet, H. (2009). Produccíón lechera en los Andes peruanos: ¿Integración al mercado interno o marginación económica? Anuario Americanista Europeo 4 (in press).

  • Ayantunde, A. A., Willimas, T. O., Udo, H. M. J., Fernández-Rivera, S., Hiernaux, P., and van Keulen, H. (2000). Herders’ Perceptions, Practice, and Problems of Night Grazing in the Sahel: Case Sutides from Niger. Human Ecology 28: 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernet, T., and Tapia, M. (1999). Análisis De Los Sistemas De Producción En La Microcuenca De La Encañada—Cajamarca. Documento Base Para Investigaciones Futuras En La Sierra Norte del Perú. Documento de trabajo CIP, Lima.

  • Bernet, T., Staal, S., and Walker, T. S. (2001). Changing Milk Production Trends in Peru: Small-Scale Highland Farming Versus Coastal Agrobusiness. Mountain Research and Development 21: 268–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chayanov, A. V. (1986). The Theory of Peasant Economy. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (original edition 1926).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochet, H. (2001). Crises Et Révolutions Agricoles Au Burundi. Karthala, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochet, H. (2005). L’Agriculture Comparée. Genèse Et Formalisation D’une Discipline Scientifique. INA P-G, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochet, H., and Devienne, S. (2006). Comprendre L’agriculture D’une Région Agricole: Question De Méthode Sur L’analyse En Termes De Systèmes De Production. Cahiers Agricultures 15: 578–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortes, G. (2000). Partir Pour Rester. Survie Et Mutation De Sociétés Paysannes Andines (Bolivie). IRD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedieu, B., Laurent, C., and Mundler, P. (1999). Organisation Du Travail Dans Les Systèmes D’activités Complexes. Intérêt Et Limites De La Méthode Bilan Travail. Economie Rurale 253: 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedieu, B., Chauvat, S., Servière, G., and Tchakérian, E. (2000). Bilan Travail Pour L’étude Du Fonctionnement Des Exploitations D’élevage. INRA—Institut de l’Elevage Technipel, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere, C. D. (1982). The Division of Labor by Sex in Agriculture: A Peruvian Case Study. Economic Development and Cultural Change 30: 795–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollfus, O. (1982). Development of Land-Use Patterns in the Central Andes. Mountain Research and Development 2: 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales de Olarte, E. (1984). Economía De La Comunidad Campesina. IEP, Lima.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harff, Y., and Lamarche, H. (1998). Le Travail En Agriculture: Nouvelles Demandes, Nouveaux Enjeux. Economie Rurale 244: 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervé, D. (1992). Adaptación A Los Sistemas Agrarios Andinos De Un Modelo De Intensificación Lechera. SEPIA IV: 347–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervé, D., and Rojas, A. (1994). Vías De La Intensificación De La Ganadería Lechera En El Altiplano Boliviano. Orstom—Danchurchaid, La Paz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervé, D., Genin, D., and Migueis, J. (2002). A Modelling Approach for Analysis of Agro Pastoral Activity at the One-Farm Level. Agricultural Systems 71: 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. C. (2000). Labor Productivity and Agricultural Development: Boserup Revisited. Human Ecology 28: 251–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landais, E. (1987). Recherches Sur Les Systèmes D’élevage. Questions Et Perspectives. INRA URSAD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, C. (2005). Multifunctionality of Activities, Plurality of Identities and New Institutional Arrangements. Capitalisation of Research Results on the Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Rural Areas. Sixth Framework Research Programme, Global Change and Ecosystems—Multiagri Project, Paris.

  • Le Gal, P. -Y. (1997). From decision-making process analysis to modelling and simulation of farm management: Application to work organization in two rice-based farming systems. In Teng, P. S. (ed.), Systems Approaches for Agricultural Development Applications of Systems Approaches at the Farm and Regional Levels Volume 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madelrieux, S., Dedieu, B., and Dobremez, L. (2006). ATELAGE: Un Modèle Pour Qualifier L’organisation Du Travail Dans Les Exploitations D’élevage. INRA Productions Animales 19: 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malpartida, E., Pinares, C., and Bello, J. (1994). Sistemas de producción de la cuenca lechera de Cajamarca. In Hervé, D., and Rojas, A. (eds.), Vías De Intensificación De La Ganadería Lechera En El Altiplano Boliviano. Orstom—Danchurchaid, La Paz, pp. 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, E. (1985). Production zones. In Mazuda, S., Shimada, I., and Morris, S. (eds.), Andean Ecology and Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Andean Ecological Complementarity. Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp. 45–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, E. (2002). The Articulated Peasant: Household Economies in the Andes. Westwiew, Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, E., and Fonseca, C. (1988). Comunidad y producción. In Fonseca, C., and Mayer, E. (eds.), Comunidad y Producción En La Agricultura Andina. FOMCIENCIAS, Lima, pp. 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morlon, P., Bourliaud, J., Reau, R., and Hervé, D. (1996). Una herramienta, un simbolo, un debate: la agricultura andina. In Morlon, P. (ed.), Comprender La Agricultura Campesina En Los Andes Centrales Perú–Bolivia. IFEA–CBC, Lima, pp. 38–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, U., Mertz, P., and Tonga Noweg, G. (2006). The Rationality of Shifting Cultivation Systems: Labor Productivity Revisited. Human Ecology 34: 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlove, B. S., and Godoy, R. (1986). Sectoral Fallowing Systems in the Central Andes. Journal of Ethnobiology 6: 169–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelinas, P. (2004). L’emploi Complémentaire En Milieu Rural Péruvien: La Richesse Des Pauvres ? Economie Rurale 282: 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C. (1988). La Ganadería Lechera En La Cuenca Alta Del Cañete, Su Rol En El Desarrollo De Los Sistemas Agrarios y Su Articulación Al Mercado Nacional. In Eresue, M., and Brougere, A.-M. (eds.), Políticas Agrarias y Estrategias Campesinas En La Cuenca Del Cañete. UNALM–IFEA, Lima, pp. 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruben, R., Kruseman, G., and Kuyvenhoven, A. (2006). Strategies for Sustainable Intensification in East African Highlands: Labor Use and Input Efficiency. Agricultural Economics 34: 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sébillotte, M. (1978). Itinéraires Techniques Et Évolution De La Pensée Agronomique. Compte Rendu Académie de l’Agriculture France 11: 906–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegmund-Schultze, M., Rischkowsky, B., de Veiga, J. B., and King, J. M. (2007). Cattle are Cash Generating Assets for Mixed Smallholder Farms in the Eastern Amazon. Agricultural Systems 94: 738–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, D. F. (1997). Herding Strategies of the Datoga Pastoralists of Tanzania: Is Household Labor a Limiting Factor. Human Ecology 25: 519–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. D. (1999). Labor Process and the Environment: The Effects of Labor Availability and Compensation on the Quality of Herding in the Sahel. Human Ecology 27: 267–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia, C. (2001). Gender, Livestock Assets, Resource Management, and Food Security: Lessons from the SR-CRSP. Agriculture and Human Values 18: 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. D., Labarta, R. A., and Leguía, E. J. (2005). Technology Adoption by Resource-Poor Farmers: Considering the Implications of Peak-Season Labor Costs. Agricultural Systems 85: 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montpellier SupAgro UMR Elevage des Ruminants en Régions Chaudes, 2 place Pierre Viala, 34060, Montpellier cedex 01, France

    Claire Aubron & Charles -Henri Moulin

  2. AgroParisTech UFR Agriculture Comparée et Développement Agricole, 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231, Paris cedex 05, France

    Hubert Cochet

  3. ENITA Clermont-Ferrand, UR Elevage et Production des Ruminants, BP 35 63370, Lempdes, France

    Gilles Brunschwig

Authors
  1. Claire Aubron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hubert Cochet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gilles Brunschwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles -Henri Moulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Aubron.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aubron, C., Cochet, H., Brunschwig, G. et al. Labor and its Productivity in Andean Dairy Farming Systems: A Comparative Approach. Hum Ecol 37, 407–419 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9267-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9267-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation