78 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY PUBLICATION NO. 6 



Otherwise be the rule. Hence, while lakeshore 

 milpas planted in maize alone will show a good 

 profit, beans are essential to make hillside farm- 

 ing worth while. Beans planted in hillside mil- 

 pas produce, on the average, about 50 percent 

 more harvest value than maize; in the lake- 

 shore plots their harvest value is a third or a 

 fourth that of maize. Beans, apparently, thrive 

 under more adverse circumstances than maize. 

 It will be noted that production costs on the hill- 

 sides equal from a third to a fourth of the total 

 investment, while on the lakeshore they represent 

 a mere 5 percent or 10 percent. 



In terms of our own economics wheat is ob- 

 viously a less successful crop than maize. A 

 profit of about $150 per hectare on the lake- 

 shores compares poorly with that for maize and 

 beans on the same land, while on the hillsides 

 one is lucky to break even in a good year and 

 will almost certainly suffer losses in a bad year. 

 Straw, it will be noted, is much less important 

 than beans in cash value, though not insignifi- 

 cant, averaging about 10 percent of the grain 

 value. 



To the Tzintzuntzeno this discussion would be 

 nearly meaningless. How would he interpret 

 the agricultural situation in his own pueblo? 

 First, good lakeshore land is the greatest treas- 

 ure which one may have. Well farmed it will 

 produce large crops of maize, beans, and wheat 

 year after year. The Tzintzuntzeiio probably 

 does not realize that wheat is relatively less 

 profitable than maize and beans. And even if 

 he did he would be satisfied with the situation: 

 wheat is grown at a time when maize could not 

 be grown, so any profit at all is welcome. On 

 the hillsides our farmer knows, and regrets, 

 that his maize harvest cannot compare, for 

 equal amounts of work, with that of the lake- 

 shores, but he knows too that his work is worth 

 while, and that he is much better off than the 

 landless. 



The theoretical futility of growing wheat on 

 the hillsides is not reflected in reality. Ap- 

 parently a man could earn more by hiring out 

 as a laborer than in working his own field. How- 

 ever, if this were done the greater labor supply 

 would cause a corresponding lowering of wage 

 rates; in fact, without wheat agriculture in the 

 late summer and early fall and again at harvest 

 and threshing time, there would be almost no 



demand for hired labor at these periods. And, 

 since the farmer is doing part of, and often all, 

 his own labor, and since he may own his own 

 oxen whicii could not otherwise profitably be 

 used, these costs as listed are more theoretical 

 than real. Finally, in terms of Tzintzuntzan 

 concepts interest on the land investment would 

 be an incomprehensible cost of production. 

 Thus, real costs out of pocket are reduced to 

 seed, possibly a little help, a slight investment 

 in a plow, and perhaps rent of animals. On 

 this basis, except for very bad drought years, 

 even the hillside milpas show a profit when 

 planted in wheat. 



Presumably farming maize and beans year 

 after year, which would appear to be more 

 profitable than the maize-wheat cycle, would 

 result in more rapid exhaustion of the soil, and 

 hence in the long run not be worth while. More- 

 over, if maize and beans were farmed to the 

 near-exclusion of wheat, and the same were 

 done in other neighboring villages, the greater 

 abundance of maize and beans might so reduce 

 the crop value that this would not be a profit- 

 able enterprise. Hence, the evidence indicates 

 that, in spite of the theoretical implications of 

 cost analysis, the Tzintzuntzeno is doing about 

 as well with his land and crops as might 

 be expected. Much more exhaustive studies, 

 including soil analysis, wider marketing pos- 

 sibilities, the use of new plows, and so forth 

 should be undertaken before changes in the 

 basic agricultural pattern are to be recom- 

 mended. 



In summary, in the local mind it is better to 

 farm even the poorest land than not to farm 

 at all. Relative standards of living bear out 

 this opinion. It is possible to make a good liv- 

 ing as a potter, and some few families do. Nev- 

 ertheless, the farmers, and particularly the 

 landowners, enjoy a higher standard of living 

 than most nonfarming potters. The more ener- 

 getic men try to farm each year, preferably on 

 their own lands, and, if these are lacking, as a 

 share cropper or on land taken as security. 

 Those that are successful in their efforts try, 

 little by little, to acquire more and more land, 

 as the only worth-while investment for surplus 

 money, and a small majority eventually come 

 to have enough land so that, either from farm- 

 ing alone or combined with other occupations. 



