789 



labor. If multiple-cropping becomes possible on this land, the demand 

 for labor could be doubled or even trebled. In addition, mechaniza- 

 tion should theoretically provide work in maintenance and spare parts 

 services — i.e., in the establishment of rural workshops making simple 

 parts, tools, and implements — leading eventually to the domestic manu- 

 facture of farm machinery. 



The upshot of selective mechanization, as seen by Lester Brown, is 

 that: 



The conventional wisdom that farm mechanization is labor-displacing and 

 therefore undesirable in countries with large numbers of unemployed no longer 

 holds. Selective mechanization can be employment-creating." 



This optimistic statement is tempered by the admonition that farm 

 mechanization can be an invitation to social chaos if the benefits and 

 costs of only the richer farmers are considered. Disaster can ensue if 

 mechanization is not selective, and does not encourage intensive use 

 of labor. If tractors, gang plows, cultivators, and cotnbines are im- 

 ported to bring American-style "factories in the field" to the LDCs, 

 many already unstable countries may find their internal stresses un- 

 manageable. Yet the situation varies from country to country, and 

 where an LDC is actually faced with a declining farm labor force, 

 mechanization may have to be faster and on a broader scale than in a 

 country whose farm labor force gives every indication of continuing 

 to grow. 



THE PROBLEM OF PESTB 



Agriculture in the LDCs is particulariy prone to infestation by 

 pests, both before and after the food has actually been harvested. 

 Insects, rodents, birds, and rot take a toll of food resources, even in 

 the developed countries. How large a loss is hard to estimate ; it varies 

 with the type of pest involved, the crop, the Beaeon, the time of in- 

 festation, aiid the particular agro-climatic zone in Adiich the damage 

 took place. 



In 1^65, for example, the U.S. ctop losses were estimated at $9..5 bil- 

 lion, $3.7 of which was attributed to insects and nematodes, $3.3 billion 

 td disease, and $2.5 billion to weeds. In 1968 the Indian F\>od and Agri- 

 culture Ministry' Estimated that dits devoured almost 10 percent of 

 India's grain production, and other estimates put the figure at 12 per- 

 cent. The FAO cit6s a figuiie of 15-20 percent pre-harVest loss of po- 

 tential cereal production in India due to insect pests, plant diseases, 

 and parasites. The figure for fruits, vegetables, pulses, and oilseeds is 

 set as high as 25 jiercent. Six different authorities have estimated that 

 total crop losses from pests during the decade of the 1960's was some- 

 where between $30 and $60 billion dollars, with a leaning toward the 

 higher fi^re. H. H. Cramer, a German fexpert in this field, set the total 

 at a minimum of $70 billion, in 1965 prices. Table 2 gives a graphic 

 presentation of the extent of crop losses because of insect pests, dis- 

 eases, and weeds, in both the developed and underdeveloped regions 

 of the world.^* 



3» Brown, "Seeds of Change," op. clt., page 105. 



»' Source : Food and Agricultural Organizations. "Provisional Indicative World Food 

 Plan." Vol. 1, op. clt.. page 207. 



