Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems

Annals of Agricultural Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Agricultural Science journal homepage:

Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems Mohamed Taher Sraïri ⇑, Youssra Ghabiyel Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Hassan II Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine Institute, P.O. Box 6202, Rabat, Morocco

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 December 2015 Received in revised form 5 October 2016 Accepted 3 January 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Cash crops Farm follow-up Farm work Farming systems Gross income Livestock

a b s t r a c t This research aims to characterize the ways crop-livestock farms adapt themselves to work constraints. A follow-up of work activities was achieved in a sample of 14 family farms. Work times in each agricultural activity (livestock and crops) were quantified, distinguishing the contributions of family members and that of the off-farm workers. Results showed that the annual working time averaged 1030 days per year per farm. It increased with multiple activities within farms. Work devoted to livestock averaged 581 days a year, mainly achieved by family members, while crops necessitated 449 days of work, mostly assumed by off farm workers. Farms with limited arable land devoted significant time to livestock. The results also revealed that the gross incomes from one day of work in livestock were almost 50-times less than those from the same duration in cash crops. Altogether, the results confirm the necessity to consider work as a crucial variable determining farming systems’ performances and the use efficiency of this input. As a consequence, in many developing countries, the assumption of plenty of family workers availability may not be valid anymore to justify agricultural policies mainly based on intense on-farm work uses. Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/).

Introduction The global agricultural sector will have to face acute challenges to ensure the supply of food to a fast growing population. In order to avoid social unrest and troubles related to food crisis (Bellemare, 2015), urgent measures have to be taken to promote a sustainable agricultural production. In fact, numerous research results demonstrate the multiple advantages of mixed crop-livestock systems, particularly in developed countries, with regard to their sustainability in comparison to specialized farming activities (Ryschawy et al., 2013). However, such systems imply increasing numbers of activities and tasks, which necessitate a significant involvement of work. It has therefore been showed that family members are often participating in seasonal wage labour, to avoid the fees associated with a surge of activities in farming systems (Darpeix et al., 2014). In developing countries, even if these diversification strategies are widely adopted by family farming units, they have to confront several constraints: lack of land, limited level of education, few available means to get extra inputs (feed, fertilizers, etc.) to enhance crop and livestock productivity, etc. (Schiere et al., 2002). Moreover, to ensure farming systems’ resilience and to improve the livelihoods in African rural households, a necessary improve-

Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain-Shams University. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.T. Sraïri).

ment in work productivity has to occur (Tittonell, 2014). In fact, focusing on smallholder farms to increase feed and food output in Africa is a necessary measure, but it might not be sufficient unless the work productivity is significantly improved, particularly through a decrease of the population active in the agricultural sector (Collier and Dercon, 2014). In addition, smallholder farms are also widely advocated as both providing opportunities for food security and also as being more appropriate for the implementation of ecologically friendly practices (Woodhouse, 2010). Generally, work productivity though farming activities remains very limited, because too many workers are trying to get paid from agriculture (Sraïri, 2005). This has already generated in many situations of economic transition (the shift from cultivation to industry) a relative decrease in the numbers of workers which remain within the agricultural sector, as they prefer to move to other activities, generally with better and more steady wages (Tamura, 2002). These elements underline that there are growing tensions in the work market dedicated to farming activities, as questions related to work load and wages are emerging globally. Given these facts, work has become a growing concern for farming activities, particularly those with livestock (Dedieu and Servière, 2012), as it represents a heavy burden which has to be correctly remunerated and shared between farmers, the members of their families and the off farm manpower. The study of work organization and payment in mixed crop-livestock farming systems is hence emerging as a priority research topic in many areas worldwide,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001 0570-1783/Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

2

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

as it may help understanding the performances of farms and enhancing their sustainability (Lemaire et al., 2014). As a consequence, in the present paper a similar focus on work and its management throughout a whole agricultural campaign will be adopted in a sample mainly made of smallholder family farms facing constraints: reduced agricultural land, lack of capital and water scarcity. The study of work load and the gross incomes it allows from diverse crops and livestock activities will enable analyzing farms’ strategies and priorities. The hypothesis behind such an analysis of farms’ incomes in relation to their strategic choices is that work, in its numerous kinds (family members, off farm employees, seasonal activities, etc.), may represent an opportunity to cope with constraints, particularly limited land and capital, volatile prices, but also growing wages in agriculture. Material and methods Presentation of the study region The study was undertaken in the Gharb large scale irrigation scheme, located in the North Western part of Morocco (Fig. 1). This is a vast plain of almost 8805 km2, of which some 338,000 ha of agricultural land. The Gharb large scale irrigation scheme is certainly one of the most favourable agricultural area of Morocco, given its mild climate, its fertile soils and its wide water availability in a country which is mainly arid to semi-arid (Schilling et al., 2012). Given these natural resources, the Gharb plain is an important supply basin of staple food, like cereals and horticultural crops. The livestock sector is also well represented in the region, as it allows an annual production of 290,000 tons of milk from 114,300 cattle, of which 82% are of purebred Holstein or crossbred (Local strains  Holstein cattle) cows. The animal wealth also consists in a flock of 937,700 and 24,100 sheep and goats (ORMVAG, 2011) allowing an annual output of 13,600 tons of red meat. The study sample and its characteristics The study sample consists in 14 farms disseminated throughout the irrigation scheme, and chosen in order to reflect a wide diver-

sity of farming situations: mainly smallholding units but also larger ones. The main condition was the presence of a herd within the farm. The study sample represents situations illustrating the most important types of farming systems in the irrigation scheme, with a vast majority of farms with an arable area not exceeding 5 ha (ORMVAG, 2011) and considering the variability in crops (rain-fed and/or irrigated) and the work they needed. The work force available in the 14 studied farms was also variable, as some of them relied only on family members, whereas others had to recruit off farm workers. The average agricultural land per farm was 25.5 ha, as it fluctuated from 2.0 to 80.0 ha. Nine farms had an agricultural land not exceeding 20 ha. Irrigation is adopted in 8 farms, on an area representing 22% of the total agricultural land. Water sources may differ from a collective network managed by a State run office which sells water to farmers, to direct pumping from the Sebou river or private wells. At the exception of one farm which relies on fallow to feed its herd, all the farms have forage plots. In addition to fodder, farmers cultivate a vast array of crops, such as cereals (soft and hard wheat, rice), sugar cane and sugar beet, leguminous crops (Faba bean), proteaginous crops (mainly sunflower) and horticultural crops such as potato, water melon, and banana (Table 1). Livestock mainly consists of cattle, as only two farms have a flock of sheep. The herd is made of purebred Holstein cows and their crosses with local breeds (namely Brown Atlas and Oulmès Zaër strains). Cows represent 66.7% of total Livestock Units - LU (defined as a standard animal of 400 kg of live weight), and the average milk yield delivered to collection centres is 2700 L per cow per year. The herds’ feeding is mainly based on fodder, supplemented with concentrates. The quantities of feed concentrates are generally increased during summer, as throughout the Gharb region fodder availability dramatically drops (Sraïri et al., 2015) which induces a sharp decrease in animal performances. Nine of the farms adopt a ‘‘zero grazing” strategy during the whole year because of limited land, which therefore implies either regular fodder cuts or the use of conserved fodder (cereals’ straw, oat hay or maize silage). The remaining five farms adopt, in addition to the feed resources from their fodder plots, grazing for their herds,

The Mediterranean North West

Atlantic Ocean

The Gharb irrigation scheme

MOROCCO

Scale: 1/10,000,000 Fig. 1. Localization of the study region: the Gharb large scale irrigation scheme.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

3

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Table 1 Average structural characteristics and land uses in the sample farms. Mean ± standard deviation

Min.– Max.

Total (ha) (%)

Livestock Units Total arable land

12.8 ± 7.0 25.2 ± 27.9

2.2–28.6 2.0–80.0

Cereal crops

14.3 ± 17.9

2.0–56.0

Sugar crops (Cane and beet) Horticultural crops Proteaginous crops Leguminous crops Trees Fodder crops

1.9 ± 5.0

0.0–16.0

– 353.1 (100.0) 200.8 (56.9) 27.0 (7.6)

0.4 ± 1.3 1.2 ± 4.3 3.1 ± 8.2 0.2 ± 0.8 4.0 ± 3.5

0.0–5.0 0.0–16.0 0.0–30.0 0.0–3.0 0.0–14.0

5.5 (1.6) 17.0 (4.8) 43.7 (12.4) 3.0 (0.8) 56.1 (15.9)

either on cereals’ stubble or on alternative fodder sources, such as grass along the roads or border sides.

Methodology For each farm, a protocol of visits was adopted to achieve an annual follow-up, from September 2013 to August 2014. The first visit was dedicated to explain the objectives of the study and to get the structural parameters of farms (agricultural land area, equipments, the herd and its constitution, the agricultural plots and the crops they support, etc.). At this occasion, the nature of the workers in the farm was determined: family members effectively involved in the agricultural work and off farm work force (number, gender, etc.). Then, additional monthly visits were undertaken to each farm, and their main objective was to quantify the duration of each task necessitated by the various crops and animal systems. The research adopted the principles of the ‘Work Assessment’ method elaborated by Dedieu et al. (1999), which main goals aim to quantify time devoted to each on-farm activity, the annual profile of the work load, the people responsible of these activities and the gross incomes generated. The data gathered from the follow-up were then analyzed in a two-way process: (1) a preliminary establishment of a typology of farms with regard to their structural parameters, the nature of livestock and crops (whether irrigated horticulture or rain-fed cereals and leguminous crops), and the work which they mobilize, and (2) a detailed individual analysis of work organization and management within farms in order to cope with constraints. The first step of the results’ analysis which consists in the establishment of a typology of farms was specifically focused on work uses for specific crops and/or livestock and the gross incomes they generated. The main objective of such an analysis is to underline the way that work, in its diverse forms, may be managed as an asset to mitigate the agrarian constraints (land and capital mainly) faced by the farmers to ensure the sustainability of their activities. The second step of the results’ analysis allowed distinguishing between the routine work, which mainly consists in daily tasks devoted to the herd (milking, feeding, cleaning the barns, etc. quantified in hours -) and seasonal work, dedicated to crops or related to herds (crop installation and maintenance, straw piling, sales of cattle and milk, etc. - quantified in days -), in an application of the ‘‘Work Assessment” method. The data obtained from the interviews with farmers and the follow-up of their activities were analyzed to identify the strategies adopted with regard to the work constraint and its management during a whole agricultural campaign. Moreover, the gross incomes generated by work correspond to the overall sales of animal (milk, live animals) and crop products determined during a whole agricultural campaign. This gross income has been divided by the total work to calculate the eco-

nomic efficiency of work per activity (livestock - i.e. live animals and milk sales, as well as manure - and crop by crop) in each farm (Charroin et al., 2012). Then, the animal gross income was divided by the routine and the seasonal work specific to herds’ rearing. Similarly, the gross incomes of each crop were divided by the seasonal volume of work it requires to determine the economic efficiency of work dedicated to such crops. Results A typology of farms with regard to work as an adjustment variable to manage constraints A typology of farms with regard to their structural parameters, work management and the incomes it generates has been drawn. It has allowed distinguishing three types of farms, following a comparison of the mean values of each group, which led to the identification of significant differences between these types of farms characterized as follows (Table 2): (a) Six family farms with a marked livestock orientation, because of limited land (a mean value of 9 ha per farm) and capital means (no machinery and poor level of animal housing). Fodder crop represent almost 49% of the total cultivated land, illustrating a clear livestock priority on the farm. This is also found when assessing the work devoted to livestock which represent 83% of total work. In addition, work is mainly assumed by family members (73% of total work). The gross incomes are mainly generated by livestock (1005 Euros per LU per year), which represent 76% of total incomes, whereas the incomes of crops is limited to 558 Euros per ha per year (24% of total incomes). The two farms with sheep flocks belong to this group. (b) Three farms with a clear orientation towards irrigated horticultural crops, and with more agricultural land (a mean value of 28.3 ha per farm) and capitals than the previous ones, as they all own a tractor and a stubble plow. Fodder

Table 2 Characteristics of the three groups of farms with regard to work load and incomes.

Farms’ number Average total arable land (ha) Livestock Units (LU) Fodder land/Total arable land (%) Routine work for livestock (days/year) Routine work for livestock per LU (days/year) Work for cash crops (days per year) Work autonomya (%) Income per Livestock Unit (Euros) Income of cash crops (Euros/ha) Income from livestock/total income (%) Work devoted to livestock to total work (%)

Group 1 N=6

Group 2 N=3

Group 3 N=5

2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 9±7

5, 8, 10 28.3 ± 33.1

1, 3, 12, 13, 14 43.7 ± 40.6

11.4 ± 4.5 46.9* ± 38.5

8.9 ± 5.0 11.8 ± 4.6

16.9 ± 9.9 10.0 ± 13.9

673.2 ± 280.0

491.5 ± 78.1

524.7 ± 229.3

59.1 ± 27.4

55.2 ± 46.4

31.0* ± 17.4

136.1 ± 163.1

930.4* ± 627.5

271.9 ± 125.5

74.5 ± 33.6 1005.7* ± 362.1

62.1 ± 34.0 540.7 ± 120.9

44.5 ± 44.5 501.0 ± 336.1

558.6 ± 442.8

1061.5 ± 105.4

1067.3 ± 693.2

74* ± 16

22 ± 10

20 ± 8

83 ± 77

43 ± 77

69 ± 90

a Work autonomy: ratio of the work assumed by family members to total work volumes. * Significantly different to the ones on the same line (P < 0.05).

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

4

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

crops only occupy 11% of the total cultivated land. Work time devoted to livestock only represent 33.2% of total work duration (a mean value of 1469.6 days per farm). Therefore, seasonal work destined to crops represents 67.8% of total work volumes. The autonomy of family members’ vis-à-vis total work reaches 62.1%, which means that they have to rely partly on off farm workers to realize the necessary operations on cash crops, such as potato, sunflower, sugar beet and water melon. The annual income of livestock does not exceed 20% of the total incomes, as levels of intensification are quite reduced in comparison to the previous group (less than 541 Euros per LU per year). At the opposite, the incomes from cash crops are higher, reaching the double of those obtained in the first group (1061 Euros per ha per year). (c) Five farms which illustrate mixed rain-fed crop-livestock orientation, as both crops and livestock occupy balanced roles in incomes generation and work load. The mean arable land per farm is almost 43 ha of which 10% is cultivated with fodder. Routine work for livestock is however important as it represents 56.2% of total work. Family members’ autonomy vis-à-vis total work is rather limited, implying a significant involvement of off farm workers, particularly for cereals and leguminous crops, which are the most prominent ones, whereas horticultural crops, which are related to irrigation, are almost absent. The annual incomes from livestock are limited to 22% of total incomes. The evaluation of the on-farm work Work availability The average number of family members involved in cropping practices and livestock rearing was 3.2 per farm. Only one farm relied entirely on off farm workers, as its owner did not live within the farm. Another farm counted on a single family person, whose role consisted in supervising off farm workers. The other 12 farms were of typical family nature, with family members varying from 2, 3, 4 and up to 10 workers (Fig. 2). The majority of farms are managed by the husband who is assisted by his wife and sometimes his sons (once they have reached at least 18 years, as all the children attend high school). Generally, the wife is in charge of milking

the cows and rearing the newborn calves, whereas the other tasks are realized by the farmer, his sons and off farm workers. In cases of jointure, where a group of married brothers live in the same farm, as they all manage the tasks, there is a seldom use of off farm workers. However, in the vast majority of cases (13 of the 14 study farms), off farm workers are present, particularly for seasonal activities in relation to cash crops, which require peaks of work for specific cropping practices (sowing, weed treatments, irrigation, etc.). The constitution of the work collective induces that in frequent situations there are work availabilities higher than effective opportunities to use them. This is particularly in farms with a limited land and with plethoric numbers of family members as observed in the case of smallholder unit of less than 5 ha with 10 adult people. In such a case, there are almost 3100 equivalent days of family work available during a year (assuming six working days per person per week), which are higher than the effective needs of the crops and livestock systems present in that specific farm (only 1106 days of work), implying a severe unemployment. The opposite situation may also be met, as in farms with a single person not living there and forced to rely on off farm workers. The routine work Routine work is defined by the daily tasks related to livestock production (feeding, watering, milking the cows, cleaning the barns, and fodder cutting). The analysis of the routine work reveals that there is a period of peak of activities which is related to cattle grazing (from April to August, due to the availability of cereals’ stubble and the residues of the main fodder crop of the region, berseem clover - Trifolium alexandrinum -), whereas from September to March, the routine work drops significantly, as the animals do not graze (Table 3). Shepherding of animals remains however an activity mainly assumed by adults, given the limited areas of plots and the risks associated with cattle grazing in neighbours’ plots. The average routine work per farm is 4650 ± 1964 h per year. It varies considerably with regard to the size of the herd. The routine work per LU reaches 485 ± 272 h per year, which is the equivalent of 1 h and 20 min per day per LU. This work load corresponds to a mean value of 597 h of routine tasks per ton of milk sold. This average figure varies however from 25 h per ton of milk sold in a highly mechanized farm (milking parlour, fodder cutting machines, etc.) with a relatively important level of milk yield per cow (5200 L

6

Number of farms

5

4

3

2

1

0 0

1

2

3

4

5

10

Number of family working members Fig. 2. Distribution of farms with regard to the number of working family members.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

5

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

work per ha. This average value varied significantly from irrigated fodder crops, i.e. berseem clover, lucerne and maize (12.3 days of work per ha) to rain-fed crop, i.e. oat, barley and lupine (only 1.3 days of work per ha). Given the important number of crops practiced in the studied farms, the use of seasonal work varies significantly among farms, as the average value reaches 116.1 ± 172.5 days per ha per year. The seasonal work needs for horticultural crops and crops such as rice, sugar beet and sugar cane is much higher than cereals (Table 4). Beetroot has the largest work needs followed by potato and water melon, respectively 400.6, 249.4 and 207.3 days per ha. These crops are followed by maize, rice and beans (111.5, 90.5 and 81.5 days of seasonal work per ha). Then, sunflower, sugar beet and sugar cane show an average need of 47.3, 27.4 and 23.4 days of work per ha. Finally, Faba bean and cereals have the smallest needs in work: 12.1 and 4.2 days per ha. These different levels of work per crop show their variable agronomic needs, particularly summer horticultural crops (water melon, potato, beetroot, etc.) which require continuous treatments and irrigation. By contrast, cereals and leguminous crops (Faba bean) necessitate much lower work volumes, as they are all rain-fed and they are also almost entirely mechanized and do not need frequent cropping operations. For all the cash crops, the use of off farm workers is quite general and important, as it represents 82% of the total work volume. In fact, these crops necessitate peak of activities, which cannot be born only by farmers’ family members, as they have also to take care of their herds.

Table 3 Routine work quantification in the sample study farms (in hours).

Annual routine work Total Per Livestock Unit Per ton of milk sold

Mean ± standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

4650 ± 1964 485 ± 272 597 ± 558

1849 123 25

8683 909 1681

5.3 3.8

31.3 18.0

Routine work per day per season Season of peak of work 17.7 ± 8.3 Season of limited work 10.5 ± 4.5

annually) to 1681 h per ton of milk sold in a farm in which the milk yield per cow is limited to 1500 L per year, with a heavy load of family workers. The contribution of the family members to realize the routine work (3352 h per year) reaches a mean value of 74% of the total duration of these tasks, illustrating the significant involvement of the animals’ owners in their rearing. Only six of the 14 studied farms relied on off farm workers to help in the achievement of routine work related to livestock production (Fig. 3), and this is explained by the following: (i) farmers who do not live in their farms (one case), (ii) farmers who do not work but whose involvement consists in supervising off farm workers (2 cases), and (iii) old farmers who do not manage to cut fodder, and this task is entirely assumed by an off farm worker (3 cases).

Number of working days per year

Seasonal work Seasonal work is made of all the tasks related to crop cultivation, in addition to seasonal activities related to livestock rearing, such as animals and milk sales, straw storage and cattle insemination. The average seasonal work per farm was 449.2 ± 426.0 days per year. It also varied significantly among farms, with regard to the land cultivated and the nature of the crops. The contribution of the seasonal work devoted to livestock remains however marginal in comparison to the one used for crops: 17% vs. 83%. The volume of work necessitated by crops is relatively important (a mean value of 373.9 days per farm per year) and this is often done by off farm workers (in 13 of the 14 farms studied). The average seasonal work specific for livestock reached some 39.9 days per year of which 36.3 days specially reserved to straw piling, because of the strategic role of such a feed resource during harsh times. In addition, seasonal work is also necessitated by fodder production: sowing, irrigating, etc. The average seasonal work used for that purpose reached 35.5 equivalent days per farm, representing 12.8 days of

Total annual work, family members’ autonomy and work seasonal repartition With the evaluation of the routine daily and seasonal tasks, the annual work time reaches a mean value of 1030 days per farm. It increases in farms with multiple crops, varying from a minimal value of 477 days per year to a maximal one of 1887 days. The routine daily work represents in average 59% of total work (581 days), whereas seasonal work reaches a value of 449 days (41% of total work). These average figures are however highly variable, according to farms’ strategies and the weight of livestock and crops in their production options (Fig. 4). The ‘‘Work Assessment” method reveals that the contribution of family members reaches 612 days, which represents 59.4% of total work, but this figure varies according to the type of tasks: 74% of the routine work devoted to the herds is assumed by family members, whereas they only assume 29.5% of the total seasonal work linked to crops (Fig. 5).

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2

4

6

1

9

14

5

Livestock routine work time realized by family members

10

8

7

13

3

11

12

Livestock routine work time realized by off-farm workers

Fig. 3. Share of livestock routine work between family members and off farm workers.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

6

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 4 Seasonal work volumes used in the study farms with regard to the cash crops. Farms

Cultivated crops

Average land cultivated (ha)

Seasonal work (days/year)

Seasonal work/Total work (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Cereals/Rice Cereals/Faba bean Cereals/Faba bean Cereals Cereals/Rice Cereals Cereals/Maize/Beetroot Cereals/Sugar beet/Sunflower Cereals/Lupine Cereals/Potato/Water melon Cereals/Sugar crops Cereals/Faba bean Cereals/Peanuts Cereals/Beans/Banana

5.8 7.0 82.0 6.2 5.0 5.0 2.0 62.1 5.2 14.6 24.8 80.9 7.1 33.6

461.0 45.5 280.0 23.1 228.2 10.2 408.0 1,433.0 11.0 1,130.0 318.5 130.0 191.7 563.7

43.6 12.6 31.1 15.6 35.9 8.5 59.6 77.7 5.6 67.6 53.0 35.9 51.6 35.2

Number of working days per year

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2

4

6

3

14

1

10

9

Farms Livestock routine work

5

8

11

12

7

13

11

12

3

Seasonal work

Fig. 4. Share of the total work between livestock routine and seasonal tasks.

2000

Number of working days per year

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2

10

1

4

6

5

14

9

8

7

13

Farms Total work time realized by family members

Total work time realized by off farm persons

Fig. 5. Share of the total work between family members and off farm workers.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

7

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

minous and cereals which generate a gross income of 215.9 and 164.0 Euros per day of work. This is mainly related to their limited needs of work, as they are rain-fed crops with a high degree of mechanization. Banana occupies the following rank, with a gross income of 107.1 Euros per working day, as it allows several harvests throughout the year, but generating important levels of continuous work (irrigation, fertilization and pests’ treatments). The incomes generated by other horticultural crops with regard to their work needs appear to be limited, and this is explained by the volatility of their farm gate prices, at a time where they all show high volumes of work, given the cropping practices they require from sowing to harvest (Table 5).

The split of work activities throughout the whole agricultural campaign reveals the existence of two different kinds of profiles. The first one is found in five farms, which main strategy is based on cereals (whether soft and hard wheat with or without rice) and livestock rearing. In fact, two of these farms also have to sow rice, because of the flood prone nature of the area. In such farms, a peak of activities is determined by rice cultivation cycle, whereas the season of reduced work load corresponds to winter, where animals do not graze, and the essential of work is devoted to cereals cultivation, which do not necessitate important work volumes (Fig. 6). The second profile is retrieved in the remaining nine farms where livestock is associated to fodder plots, cereals and a diversified array of horticultural crops. In this second profile of work distribution throughout the year, there is a marked influence of horticultural crops on the overall work load. Periods of peak of work correspond to the practices devoted to horticultural crops, whereas the routine work necessitated by livestock is much stable (Fig. 7).

Discussion The present study confirms the massive volumes of routine work necessitated by livestock production, as pointed out in many previous investigations. In fact, the average value of 485 h of routine work per year per LU (around 60 days, assuming a work duration of 8 h per day) is quite near to the 419 h found in another region of Morocco (Sraïri et al., 2013) and to the 465 h reported by Hostiou et al. (2012) in a sample of family dairy farms in Vietnam. The second important finding emphasized by the current study is the significant involvement of the family members of the farmer in this routine work devoted to livestock, as they assume 74% of its total duration. Similar conclusions have also been reported by other investigations in Uruguay (Dieguez et al., 2010) and they all insist on the important amount of volumes of work assumed by the farmers’ family members to their livestock, as it may be considered in many parts of the world as the ‘‘wealth of the poor” (Duteurtre and Faye, 2009). In addition, to the routine work, livestock rearing also necessitates seasonal work (an average 3.1 days per LU), mainly consisting in fodder crops’ needs in maintenance and irrigation as well as storage of straw. The results also reveal that in many cases of farms with limited arable land and capital means, livestock remains a crucial asset for

Work economic efficiency The average annual gross income in the studied farms was 32,270 ± 33,180 Euros, which corresponds to a mean value of 1639 Euros per ha per year. This figure is highly variable, as the gross income per work day fluctuates a lot: 32.1 ± 33.1 Euros. The work efficiency in livestock seems rather limited as it does not exceed an average income of 2.2 Euros per day. At the opposite, the gross income of work in crops appears to be higher, as it jumps to a mean value of 101.2 Euros per day. In other words, working a same duration in cash crops generates gross incomes almost 50 times higher than the ones generated by livestock. However, the picture is rather complicated, as it depends on the kind of crop. In fact, incomes generated by sugar cane might reach 221.5 Euros per single day of work, as in some occasions this crop may be sold as cuttings to neighbouring farmers, allowing a net revenue of 15,500 Euros per ha per year. The second rank is occupied by legu-

160

Number of working days per month

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 July

August

Sept.

Livestock routine work

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Livestock seasonal work

Jan.

Feb.

Rice seasonal work

March

Apr.

May

June

Fodder and cereals' seasonal work

Fig. 6. Monthly repartition of work in a farm with livestock, cereals and rice.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

8

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Number of working days per month

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 July

August Sept.

Livestock routine work

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Livestock, cereals and fodder seasonal work

Feb.

March

April

Beet root seasonal work

May

June

Sunflower seasonal work

Fig. 7. Monthly repartition of work in a farm with livestock and horticultural crops.

Table 5 Gross income generated by a single working day for different cash crops. Crop

Number of farms

Average area (ha)

Gross income (Euros/day)

Sugar cane Faba bean Cereals Banana Sugar beet Beans Rice Sunflower Water melon Maize Peanuts Beetroot Potato

1 4 14 1 1 1 2 1 1

16.0 11.0 14.1 3.0 11.0 1.0 4.0 16.0 4.2

221.5 215.9 164.0 107.1 77.6 34.5 25.8 14.4 10.9

2 1 1 1

2.3 1.0 0.6 5.0

5.8 4.2 1.2 0.7

their livelihood, and accordingly, farmers choose to allocate important work time to this activity, as it allows them generating a significant share of their incomes. Such a strategy of production is clearly illustrated by the first group of the typology of work uses identified in this study. As pointed out by Aubron et al. (2009) in the Peruvian Andes, livestock constitutes for many farmers with limited means (capital and land) the unique opportunity of getting a regular income, particularly through daily milk sales, though it imposes a very heavy burden of routine work on the majority of the members of the family. In such conditions, the use of off farm workers may not be of relevance, because of the availability of onfarm work and the limited incomes which cannot be shared. The results of this study also confirm the wide diversity of farming strategies, as pointed out by the variations in seasonal work reserved to specific crops. In previous research works in the same region dedicated to analyze livestock performances, the same three groups of farms were identified, i.e. (1) small farms involved particularly in livestock, (2) farms which mainly specialize in horticultural crops with a limited contribution of livestock, and (3) mixed crop-livestock farms (Sraïri et al., 2003). The present study confirms such a diversity of farming strategies and outlines the contribution of work management to achieve them. In fact, 8 out of the 14 studied farms clearly diversify their sources of income by a

crop-livestock mix. These crops may be either horticultural ones (therefore mainly based on irrigation) or rain-fed cereals and leguminous. The first alternative type (horticultural crops and livestock) gathers 3 farms. The horticultural crops induce heavy investments in irrigation means as well as other equipments, such as greenhouses for banana. They also mean peaks of activities, which cannot be totally supported by the family members, implying the necessary use of off farm workers. Such a strategy, even if it allows increasing the incomes and their diversification, bears obvious risks. For example, it implies a higher dependence to fruits and vegetables’ markets, which prices are highly volatile (Obayelu, 2011), meaning that the whole profitability of the farm may be hampered. Moreover, such strategies mean less time and care for the livestock system, as its incomes are clearly inferior to those achieved by farms with priority allocated to livestock (540 vs. 1005 Euros per LU per year). However, the gross incomes generated by the cash crops allow balancing the relatively limited incomes per LU, even if they have to be shared with off farm workers. The second kind of crop-livestock strategy, which is witnessed in 5 of studied farms, relies principally on a traditional cereals/livestock association, often found Morocco, with an important value attributed to cereals’ by-products (stubble and straw) to feed herds (Magnan et al., 2012). Such a strategy allows farms benefiting from complementariness between livestock and rain-fed crops: manure allows increasing soils fertility and, in return, livestock may add value to crops’ residues, such as cereals’ stubble and straw. In addition, livestock secures the incomes of the farm, whenever the harvests of rain-fed crops is compromised by a climate hazard, such as drought or floods. Moreover, cereals and leguminous rain-fed crops, which are highly mechanized, may provide high levels of incomes for limited amounts of work, particularly during favourable rainy years, though it is often of off farm nature. The study also reveals that farmers’ use of on-farm work is adapted to the constraints faced by their production systems. In fact, in farms with plethoric work availability with regard to land and capitals, the most important share of the family members’ work will be devoted to livestock, allowing even the use of offfarm resources of fodder by grazing in nearby plots and adding value to weed from neighbouring farms. This kind of logics has already been indicated by Schiere et al. (2002), as they emphasize the role of additional family members’ work to try to ensure the

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

sustainability of farms with limited capital. At the opposite, in farms with less family members’ availability and/or with more land and capitals, on-farm work might be less mobilized, and the additional production factors allow a diversification of activities by the use of off-farm seasonal workers. Altogether, the study sheds light on the diversity of the farmers’ choices with regard to work management. It appears that work is used as a flexible adjustment variable to cope with the limitations of production factors, such as land and capital (Hostiou and Dedieu, 2011; Sraïri et al., 2013). In a context of numerous smallholding units which are the main suppliers of staple food, such flexibility in the use of on-farm work availability is a key factor to ensure the sustainability of farming activities: it ensures the achievement of routine tasks associated to livestock rearing and it allows the opportunistic use of extra capitals in high value cash crop by the use of off farm workers. However, to promote such sustainability of crop-livestock farms, further research might be needed to address the ongoing demands of a better payment of work, particularly because traditional peasant societies have been engulfed in the globalization trend. Conclusion This study of work uses and management within 14 farms in a large scale irrigation scheme in Morocco shows that the farmers try to cope with the constraints faced by production systems through different options. In fact, in many situations, work appears to be an adjustment variable to mitigate the effects of scarce land and/or capital. For smallholding farms with limited land and capital availability, the results of the study confirm that a massive use of family members’ work is the only alternative to overpass limited cropping opportunities. In that case, farmers allocate much more work time to care of their animals, as they are the main contributors to their incomes, securing their livelihoods. However, the economic efficiency of such a work time devoted to livestock remains very limited, inducing situations of poverty and harsh labour. Nevertheless, such types of farms are by far the most significant in the output of animal products, and they should therefore deserve more attention by public authorities in the near future, in order to ensure the supply. Otherwise, farmers may get the feeling that they are ignored, and given their limited incomes from livestock rearing, they might be attracted by alternative activities (i.e. rural exodus, industry, services, etc.). At the opposite, farms with more land and capital availability may choose to keep livestock and to associate it with cereals and leguminous crops, given the mild climate of the area where the study was conducted which generally guarantees profitable results for these rain-fed types of crops. These are also characterized by a high level of mechanization and limited needs in time of labour, allowing a significant increase in the economic efficiency of work, as they also benefit from the manure of livestock. In such a case, more balanced options between livestock and crops are found, and incomes are also quite equally generated from both activities. In fact, livestock appears to be securing the incomes in a case of climatic hazards (drought and floods); whereas cereals and leguminous crops may allow significant incomes whenever sufficient and regular rainfall occurs from autumn to spring. Finally, a third group of farms choose to keep cattle and to grow horticultural crops, which are more work and capitals consuming. In such a strategy, there are growing risks, due to ‘farm gate’ horticultural crops’ prices volatility and more needs of off-farm workers, implying that livestock, even with a limited economic efficiency may buffer market related risks with horticultural products. However, the incomes from horticultural products may grow steadily in cases of favourable market prices.

9

Altogether, the present study confirms the flexibility of work uses and management in farming systems with diverse constraints. It therefore emphasizes the need to consider work as a crucial variable in the proxy of farms’ performances, to enhance farming systems diversity and promote the ecosystems services of the agricultural sector. Given the ongoing tensions in the work market, due to growing demand of better wages in rural areas, work within farming systems will surely necessitate sound study approaches. It may require specific transdisciplinary research protocols in order to optimize work uses in a network of farms, diminish its hardness and improve its economic efficiency, to ensure better livelihoods in rural areas. Acknowledgements This research was carried out in the framework of the Crop Livestock Integration in the MEDiterranean project (CLIMED). The authors wish to thank the National Association of Cattle Breeders - Morocco - (ANEB) for its support during the field work. The authors would also like to thank the farmers for their collaboration during the interviews as well as the study of their practices. Special thanks to three anonymous reviewers for this journal for their valuable comments on previous versions of this text.

References Aubron, C., Cochet, H., Brunschwig, G., Moulin, C.-H., 2009. Labor and its productivity in Andean dairy farming systems: a comparative approach. Hum. Ecol. 37, 407–419. Bellemare, M.F., 2015. Rising food prices, food price volatility and social unrest. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 97, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau038. Charroin, T., Veysset, P., Devienne, S., Fromont, J.L., Palazon, R., Ferrand, M., 2012. Productivité du travail et économie en élevages d’herbivores: définition des concepts, analyse et enjeux. INRA Prod. Anim. 25, 193–210. Collier, P., Dercon, S., 2014. African agriculture in 50 years: smallholders in a rapidly changing world? World Dev. 63, 92–101. Darpeix, A., Bignebat, C., Perrier-Cornet, P., 2014. Demand for seasonal wage labour in agriculture: what does family farming hide? J. Agric. Econ. 65, 257–272. Dedieu, B., Servière, G., 2012. Vingt ans de recherche-développement sur le travail en élevage: acquis et perspectives. INRA Prod. Anim. 25, 85–100. Dedieu, B., Laurent, C., Mundler, P., 1999. Organisation du travail dans les systèmes d’activités complexes: intérêt et limites de la méthode Bilan Travail. Econ. Rurale 253, 28–35. Dieguez, F., Morales, H., Cournut, S., 2010. La méthode Bilan Travail pour l’approche du fonctionnement des élevages extensifs uruguayens. Cah. Agric. 19, 316–322. Duteurtre, G., Faye, B., 2009. L’élevage, richesse des pauvres. Quæ, Versailles, France. Hostiou, N., Dedieu, B., 2011. A method for assessing work productivity and flexibility in livestock farms. Animal 10, 1–11. Hostiou, N., Khanh, P.D., Duteurtre, G., Binh, V.T., Dedieu, B., 2012. Relationships between work organization and size of dairy farms: a case study based in Vietnam. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44, 1709–1716. Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., de Faccio Carvalho, P.C., Dedieu, B., 2014. Integrated crop-livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergies agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8. Magnan, N., Larson, D.M., Taylor, J.E., 2012. Stuck on stubble? The non-market value of agricultural by-products for diversified farmers in Morocco. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 1055–1069. Obayelu, A.E., 2011. Cross-countries analysis of rising food prices: policy responses and implications on emerging markets. Int. J. Emerg. Markets 6, 254–275. Office Régional de Mise en Valeur Agricole du Gharb (ORMVAG), 2011. (retrieved 01/06/2015). Ryschawy, J., Choisis, N., Choisis, J.P., Gibon, A., 2013. Paths to last in mixed croplivestock farming: lessons from an assessment of farm trajectories of change. Animal 7, 673–681. Schiere, J.B., Ibrahim, M.N.M., van Keulen, H., 2002. The role of livestock for sustainability in mixed farming: criteria and scenario studies under varying resource allocation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 90, 139–153. Schilling, J., Korbinian, P.F., Hertig, E., Scheffran, J., 2012. Climate change, vulnerability and adaptation in North Africa, with focus on Morocco. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 156, 12–26. Sraïri, M.T., 2005. Ingénierie agronomique et développement des exploitations familiales agricoles dans les pays du Sud: réflexions à partir du cas marocain. Cah. Agric. 14, 485–491. Sraïri, M.T., Sannito, Y., Tourrand, J.-F., 2015. Investigating the setbacks in conventional dairy farms by the follow-up of their potential and effective milk yields. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 5, 255–264.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001

10

M.T. Sraïri, Y. Ghabiyel / Ann. Agric. Sci. xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Sraïri, M.T., Bahri, S., Kuper, M., 2013. Le travail et sa contribution aux stratégies d’adaptation de petites exploitations agricoles familiales mixtes d’élevage bovin/polyculture au Maroc. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 17, 463–474. Sraïri, M.T., Leblond, J.M., Bourbouze, A., 2003. Production de lait et/ou de viande: stratégies des éleveurs de bovins dans le périmètre irrigué du Gharb au Maroc. Rev. Élev. Méd. vét. Pays trop. 56, 177–186 .

Tamura, R., 2002. Human capital and the switch from agriculture to industry. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 27, 207–242. Tittonell, P., 2014. Livelihood strategies resilience and transformability in African agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 126, 3–14. Woodhouse, P., 2010. Beyond industrial agriculture? Some questions about farm size, productivity and sustainability. J. Agrar. Change 10, 437–453.

Please cite this article in press as: Sraïri, M.T., Ghabiyel, Y. Coping with the work constraints in crop-livestock farming systems. Ann. Agric. Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2017.01.001