66 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 2 



In the case of the farmer who slaves at pro- 

 ducing a scanty crop on submarginal land, 

 similar considerations are important. The 

 farmer does not count interest and wages; the 

 measure of his effort is maize in the storehouse 

 to feed his wife and children. It is useless to 

 point out that he could earn enough wages for 

 the same amount of labor to buy two or three 

 times as much maize as he can produce, for he 

 will not be convinced. 



Even in the case of the average or somewhat 

 better than average case cited in detail, the 

 calculations made on the basis of our economic 

 viewpoints are relatively valueless. Profits, in- 

 terest, depreciation, and wages do not enter 

 into the farmer's calculation (with the excep- 

 tion of a few large farmers). Rather would 

 the typical farmer calculate that the maize 

 obtained in this case would, with a family of 

 not over five, feed the family for a year by 

 exercising due care. If he had two pieces, 

 each of a hectare or a little more in area, in two 

 locations to plant alternate years, he could 

 count with some security on feeding his family. 

 If, in addition, he had a bit of wheatland, he 

 Avould probably sell enough wheat to meet the 

 essential cash outlays for his family. Any in- 

 come from livestock, work in the forest, or as 

 a hired laborer would then go into essentially 

 luxury spending or savings to buy more land. 

 It is wheat that is a money crop, it should be 

 noted, and not maize. Only the wealthy sell 

 maize, and only the poor or improvident buy it. 



In case maize is raised for sale on any scale, 

 however, the farmer encounters new market- 

 ing problems. The local market prefers yellow 

 maize, as does Mestizo Pui'epero. Uruapan, 

 on the other hand, prefers white maize, while 

 the Lake Patzcuaro region desires pink, red, or 

 mixed color maize. As prices may vary in the 

 different major markets, the farmer's income 

 may be afl^eeted by the color of maize he has 

 grown. 



From the statements given above it .'^hould 

 not be concluded that the idea of a return for 

 land ownership, i.e., a return upon the capital 

 investment, is lacking in Cheran. It exists, 

 but it is colored by the local attitudes. Thus, 

 farmers with more land than they can con- 

 veniently cultivate, storekeepers owning land, 

 and v;',rious others may rent land on a share- 



cropping basis. The number of sharecroppers 

 in Cheran is unknown, but probably is con- 

 siderable. Small landowners often farm addi- 

 tional lands on this basis, and some fairly 

 prosperous families are sharecroppers. 



The rental paid by sharecroppers is usually 

 one-half the crop. In the case of our average 

 hectare this would mean the owner received 

 7i,-> to 10 fancgas of maize worth from $37.50 

 to $60.00. This might well be equal to more 

 than a 50 percent return on the investment in 

 land. As even the most exorbitant interest 

 rates on cash loans from banks would not ex- 

 ceed 15 percent, it would appear to be a very 

 good business to borrow money to buy land for 

 rental on a sharecropping basis. Yet such a 

 procedure, so far as could be discovered, is 

 seldom if ever followed. Moreover, persons 

 with money will lend on land as a security, 

 receiving only interest, instead of buying land 

 which would appear to offer a relatively larger 

 return. (But short-term loans are at a much 

 higher rate of interest. See p. 63.) 



A number of factors still have not been 

 treated in the foregoing discussion. It should 

 be observed that the hypothetical farmer could 

 still further decrease his cash outlay if he 

 owned his own ox team. Such a team would 

 be worth from $100 to $120, depending on size. 

 Ownership of a team would save about $30 a 

 year in rental in cultivating a hectare. In 

 addition, there might be opportunities to rent 

 the team at $1 a day for perhaps 30 days to 

 work on maize lands and perhaps for another 

 30 days during the wheat season. As there 

 is less demand in the latter time, the rental 

 probably would be only 75 centavos a day. 

 The returns from rentals, however, would 

 possibly be $52.50 a year. If the saving of $30 

 for rentals on the farmer's own land were in- 

 cluded the investment in an ox team obviously 

 would be a very good one. 



Ownership of livestock, however, involves the 

 problem of feed. Mostly the feed is secured 

 by cutting the rastrojo or corn fodder. Wheat 

 straw is also fed. Part of the year animals 

 may be grazed on the common pastures. 

 Rarely, however, is enough feed produced, and 

 in a bad year there is always danger of losing 

 animals during the latter part of the dry sea- 

 son. Ownership of oxen also increases the 



