THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 



117 



sary to distinguish agricultural work done by the 

 two sexes and by people of various ages, for the 

 value of a woman's or a child's time is less than 

 that of a man. If it could be assumed that a 

 woman or child, as compared with a man, accom- 

 plished work in proportion to their wages, the 

 distinction from the point of view of costs would 

 not be important. But this is not always true. 

 A boy cannot work as fast as a man in the making 

 of a tablon or in the various processes of the 

 milpa; but a boy can probably replace a man in 

 other cases. For example, three men usuaUy 

 make a tablon together; the most skilled, cer- 

 tainly a grown man, guides the others, but if a 

 boy of 12 takes the role of one of the others, the 

 work is probably not slowed appreciably. Like- 

 wise, a woman can probably transplant as fast 

 and as well as a man, or do the weeding of an onion 

 bed with equal efficiency, or braid garlic as fast. 

 Yet, their time is considered worth less than that 

 of a man, and their wage is smaller. These dis- 

 tinctions have been made in table 19, from which 

 it may be concluded that adult males did a total 

 of about 83,000 man-days and women and chO- 

 dren about 38,000; men thus did some 70 percent 

 of the work in the fields. Since women and chil- 

 dren work more slowly (in some employment) 

 than do men, the 38,000 "man-days" probably 

 took them 45,000-odd fuU days of work, and the 

 total time spent by Indians in their fields was 

 actually 128,000 work days. From this total. 



Table 39. — Time devoted to agriculture 



' These figures were derived by estimating the number of acres of the crop 

 growing on the first of each month of the year (cf, chart 4) and, totaling these 

 acres tor the year, dividing by the number of months in the growing season. 

 In cases where there is one crop in the year, the highest monthly figure was 



' From tables 27, 29-36. 



s Inclmles hill milpa lands owner-controlled, and rented (hence used) in 

 1936, within and outside the area of study, by resident Indians. 



' .Assuming that "io of the cornfields were planted on old laml. 



' 28 of truckland milpa plus 4.5 of ['ornfield in nonirrigaled deita land. 



• The total Indian coffee acreage (39.4) less than pa-,Tned to outsiders (see 

 p. 81). 



however, must be subtracted 730 days that 

 Indians from outside the commimity are calcu- 

 lated to have worked on resident Indian lauds. 



ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 



In comparison with agriculture, animal hus- 

 bandry is extremely unimportant in Panajachel. 

 As will be shown, it is also uneconomical. Al- 

 though one or a few families once counted more 

 sheep and mules in its possession, pastured on 

 land outside of Panajachel, the numbers were 

 never large. A count (table 40) in 1940 shows 

 that the order of numbers is such that no family 

 depends for its living on the raising of animals. 

 Actually (table 41) 38 families kept no animals 

 whatsoever; another 36 had only dogs or cats; 

 and of the remaining 81, 4 had only nonproductive 

 horses or mules (in addition to dogs). In general, 

 the wealthier the family (table 80) the more 

 domestic animals it keeps. "Foreign" Indians, 

 for the most part artisan town-dwellers, kept 

 almost no animals but horses, dogs, and cats. Of 

 Panajachelenos, 24 families without any animals 

 fell into the groups owning least laud. Half of 

 the households had chickens or other fowl, a little 

 over a fifth, pigs. In both cases the land-rich 

 tended to have more than the land-poor. Cattle, 

 horses, goats, mules, and sheep were owned by 

 relatively few people, and in the higher wealth 

 brackets; none of the poorest quarter had such 

 animals. Three-fourths of Panajacheleno families 

 kept dogs or cats, or both; and again the number 

 owned varied with the amount of land. 



FOWL 



Almost any Indian will say that "Every house- 

 wife has her chickens. " Therefore, it is significant 

 that in fact 95 out of the 155 households do 7iot 

 keep them and only 24 have flocks of 15 or more 

 birds, one of them the maximum of 44. 



Chickens, kept in small coops fitted with poles 

 for roosting, often rim loose during the day, except 

 when everybody of the house is busy in the 

 gardens, or away at market. They are fed corn 

 at least once a day and frequently twice. Laying 

 hens require special care, and there is considerable 

 technology (as well as magical practice) involved 

 in the keeping of chickens. Ducks, and one kind 

 of pigeon, are also bred; a second pigeon is caught 

 wild or more frequently bought caged and its 



